Dec 18, 2025 Planning and Zoning Agency

[Call meeting to order]

[00:00:05]

>>> HI , GOOD AFTERNOON WE ARE GOING TO CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER IF YOU WOULD NOT STAND -- MIND STANDING WILL SAY THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. ALL RIGHT DR. HILSENBECK PLEASE READ THE

PUBLIC NOTICE STATEMENT. >> THIS IS A PROBABLY NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING HELD IN CONCURRENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FLORIDA LAW, PUBLIC WILL BE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON TOPICS RELEVANT TO THE AGENCY AREA JURISDICTION AND WILL BE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO OFFER COMMENT AT A DESIGNATED TIME DURING THE HEARING. TOPIC SHALL SPEAK AT A TIME DURING THE MEETING ON EACH ITEM AND FOR LENGTH OF TIME DESIGNATED BY THE CHAIRMAN WHICH SHALL BE 3 MINUTES, SPEAKERS SHOULD IDENTIFY THEMSELVES, WHO THEY REPRESENT AND STATE THEIR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, SPEAKERS MAY OFFER SWORN TESTIMONY. IF THEY DO NOT THE FACT THAT TESTIMONY IS NOT SWORN MAY BE CONSIDERED BY THE AGENCY DETERMINING THE WEIGHT OR TRUTHFULNESS OF THE TESTIMONY. IF A PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER SUCH PERSON WILL NEED A RECORDOF PROCEEDINGS AND MAY NEED TO ENSURE A VERBATIM RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IS MADE , WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.

PHYSICAL OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRESENTED DURING THE HEARING SUCH AS DIAGRAMS, CHARTS, PHOTOGRAPHS OR WRITTEN STATEMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE CLERK FOR INCLUSION INTO THE RECORD, THE RECORD WILL THEN BE AVAILABLE FOR OTHER BOARD AGENCY, COMMITTEE OR THE COUNTY IN REVIEW OF APPEAL RELATED.

AGENCY MEMBERS ARE REMINDED AT THE BEGINNING OF EACH ITEM THEY SHOULD STATE WHETHER THEY HAVE ANY COMMUNICATION WITH THE APPLICANT OR ANY OTHER PERSON REGARDING SUBSTANCE OF THE ITEM OUTSIDE THE HEARING OF THE AGENCY. IF SUCH COMMUNICATION HAS OCCURRED , THE AGENCY MEMBER SHOULD IDENTIFY THE PERSONS INVOLVED AND MATERIAL CONTENT OF THE COMMUNICATION. CIVILITY CLAUSE, WE WILL BE RESPECTFUL OF ONE ANOTHER EVEN WHEN WE DISAGREE. WE WILL DIRECT ALL COMMENTS TO THE ISSUES AND AVOID

[PZA Meeting Minutes for Agency Approval: 11/20/2025]

PERSONAL ATTACKS. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MEMBERS WE HAVE MINUTES FROM NOVEMBER 20, 25 UP PROMOTION FOR APPROVAL. IS THERE A 2ND? ANY DISCUSSION? WE WILL DO A VOICE

[Public Comments]

>> OKAY. THAT AFTERNOON CHARLIE HUNT, MILL CREEK ESTATES. I KNOW THE YEAR IS ENDING BUT I'M LOOKING AT POSSIBLE ISSUES COMING UP NEXT YEAR AND I'M PRETTY SURE THEY WILL. MAINLY DEPENDS ON THE DEVELOPMENT POSSIBLY COMING DISTRICT 2 AND HERE IS THE ENCLAVE THAT IS STILL IN LITIGATION WHERE THEY WANTED TO PUT UP OVER 60 SOME ODD UNITS FROM THE 21 APPROVED SO THAT IS IN LITIGATION. NEXT TO IT THERE WILL NOT BE K THROUGH 8 CHARTER SCHOOL TO GO THERE. AS YOU GO DOWN THAT AREA WHERE IT NARROWS DOWN TO ONE LANE LOOKING AT IT LIKE THAT.

ANOTHER POSSIBLE CHARTER SCHOOL IN ST. FRANCIS. WE KNOW THEY ARE DOUBLING OR WIDENING STATE ROAD 16, HERE IS THE VA CENTER SO THAT GIVES YOU PERSPECTIVE WHERE IT IS AT BUT THE ACCESS AND ENTRY POINT ISSUING ON THE PLAN ST. FRANCIS ROAD YES THE LIGHT GOT PUT UP BUT ST. FRANCIS IS HIGHLY WEARING DOWN BECAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC THAT USES IT TO CUT THROUGH ALL THE WAY AROUND TO GO TO COSCO OR GET AROUND THE TRAFFIC AT 16 AND I GP INTERSECTION. ALSO, THERE IS A POSSIBLE TRACTOR SUPPLY WHO I LOOKED UP ON THE PRE-APPLICATION THAT'S RIGHT THERE. HERE'S THE INTERSECTION ON 16 AND ST. FRANCIS ROAD THAT WILL BE WIDENED. THEY WANT TO PUT ONE THERE. POSSIBLE CHARTER SCHOOL RIGHT THERE SO IT IS IN A BIND NOW I DRIVE THROUGH THAT. I LIVE

[00:05:06]

HERE IS 16 AND I GP , THEY ARE REDOING THAT TO ALLEVIATE THE TRAFFIC ISSUES THAT THEY HAVE. WHEN TRAFFIC ISSUES ARE NOT BROUGHT IN AS SOME ASPECTS OF APPROVING OR DENYING THAT IS ONE REASON. HERE IT IS, HERE'S THE ENCLAVE WORLD GOLF THE SCHOOL POSSIBLE CHARTER HERE'S THE OTHER POSSIBLE CHARTER AND HERE IS THE OTHER POSSIBLE TRACTOR SUPPLY. SO I AM REALLY LOOKING IS THE AREA BEING DEVELOPED IN A MEANS THAT WILL HELP ALLEVIATE TRAFFIC IN THOSE AREAS AND IN THOSE ROADS, 2209 WE WILL SEE.

[1. SUPMIN 2025-04 Ford Mobile Home. Request for a Special Use Permit pursuant to Section 2.03.08 of the Land Development Code to allow for the placement of a Manufactured/Mobile Home in Residential, SingleFamily (RS-3) zoning, specifically located at 2917 Del Rio Drive.]

>> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE HERE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT?

>> MOVING ON ITEM NUMBER 1, ANY FROM AGENCY MEMBERS? MR.

LABANOWSKI. >> I VISITED THE SITE.

>> OKAY MISS SPIEGEL. >> I VISITED AS WELL. ANYONE ELSE? APPLICANT PLEASE COME FORWARD. ITEM NUMBER 1.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. >> GO-AHEAD STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND WE CAN GO AHEAD WITH THE

PRESENTATION. >> 1355 JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE, FL 32220. I DON'T REALLY HAVE QUESTIONS, WITH THIS SPECIAL USE WE GOT INTO PERMITTING AND THEY STOPPED AND SAID WE NEEDED TO DO THE SPECIAL USE APPLICATION. IT IS A REPLACEMENT MOBILE HOME ON THE PROPERTY.

>> OKAY IS YOUR MOBILE HOME STILL THERE NOW?

>> YES, HE HAS NOT TAKEN IT OFF. >> YOU ARE NOT CHANGING THE

LAYOUT JUST REPLACING? >> HOME THAT IS THERE IS APPROXIMATELY 20 YEARS OLD AND HE HAS TAKEN THAT OFF THE SAME SIZE MOBILE HOME THAT WAS ON THERE IN THE SAME PLACE SAME

POSITION. >> ANY QUESTIONS FROM AGENCY MEMBERS. IS THERE ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 1? BACK TO THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION. MR. GREEN.

>> YES I WILL MAKE MOTION TO APPROVE 2504 MOBILE HOME BASED

ON 8 FINDINGS OF FACT. >> 2ND.

>> MOTION FOR APPROVAL AND I BELIEVE 10 CONDITIONS.

>> I'M SORRY. I MISREAD . >> MOTION FOR APPROVAL AND 2ND.

ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE LET'S REGISTER THE VOTE. ALL RIGHT THE MOTION CARRIES 7-0. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. HAPPY

[2. SUPMIN 2025-07 405 Fortuna Avenue. Request for a Special Use Permit to allow for the placement of a Manufactured/Mobile Home as a residence in Residential, Single Family (RS-3) zoning, pursuant to Land Development Code, Section 2.03.08.]

>> I VISITED THE SITE. >> YES I DID A SITE VISIT AS

WELL. >> MR. OLSON?

>> SITE VISIT ON THE 17TH. >> ANYONE ELSE? WOULD THE

APPLICANT PLEASE COME FORWARD? >> HI , GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS I AM AN ATTORNEY AT 38 GRANT ST., SAINT AUGUSTINE 32084.

>> GO-AHEAD. >> AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE PRESENTATION IT SAYS WAS GOING TO BE THE PRESENTER, SHE WAS THE PLANNER WHO DID THE APPLICATION AND EVERYTHING BUT SHE WAS TOO SCARED TO GET UP TO TALK SO THEY ROPED ME IN. WHAT WE ARE ASKING TODAY IS FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW PLACEMENT OF A MOBILE HOME AS A RESIDENT IN A RS 3 ZONING AREA. THE ACTUAL ADDRESS IS 405 THE ACTUAL ADDRESS IS 405 SHUMAN AVE. AS

[00:10:07]

YOU KNOW BUILDING. WHAT MY CLIENT WOULD LIKE TO DO IS BRING IN A MOBILE HOME THAT MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAND-USE STATUTES AND SETBACKS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. WHAT MY CLIENT OFFERS HE IS PROPOSING TO REPLACE WITH A MANUFACTURED MOBILE HOME THAT WILL OFFER IMPROVED ENERGY EFFICIENCY MODERN-DAY SAFETY FEATURES RESULTING IN LOWER UTILITY COST. AS YOU KNOW THIS IS A MARKET WHERE PEOPLE ARE LOOKING TO RENT HOMES AND THIS IS A CHEAPER VERSION OF THAT , INSTEAD OF AN APARTMENT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THE PROPOSAL IS A 28 X 66 DOUBLE WIDE 4 BEDROOMS AND 3 BATHROOMS THAT MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATUTES AND EVERYTHING THAT YOU GUYS ARE LOOKING FOR.

THIS IS AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTY. IT SITS ON 2 LOTS, HE IS REQUESTING TO PUT IN ONE MOBILE HOME RIGHT THERE WHERE THE YELLOW SQUARE IS. YOU CAN SEE HERE , THE FUTURE LAND USE IS OUR RESIDENTIAL C WHICH I FEEL ALLOWING THIS WOULD FIT IN WITH THAT MODE. IF YOU LOOK AT THE ZONING RIGHT NOW, YOU CAN SEE THE CIRCLE THAT THE PROPERTY IS GOING INTO. THE RM H NEXT TO IT ON THE BLOCK IT'S ALREADY A MOBILE HOME PARK AND IT IS ZONED RIGHT THERE SO WE ARE NOT TRYING TO PUT SOMETHING IN THAT IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR ANYTHING LIKE THIS. THIS IS DIRECTLY BESIDE THE MOBILE HOME AND YOU CAN SEE COMMERCIAL, A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT USES AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT.

WE BELIEVE THAT WOULD BLEND INTO THE COMMUNITY THAT IS ALREADY THERE. AND IT IS JUST SOMETHING TO GIVE A FAMILY A CHANCE TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE IN AND HAVE A FRESH START. THIS IS THE PROPOSAL, THE SITE PLAN. AS YOU CAN SEE 28 X 66 MOBILE HOME MEETING ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COUNTY . IT WILL SIT ON THE LOT AND YOU CAN SEE STATE ROAD 16 AND EVERYTHING. WE JUST WANT TO PUT A FAMILY IN THERE FOR A CHEAPER COST THEN MAYBE RENTING A REGULAR HOME. THE PLANNERS FOUND FINDINGS OF FACT , I THINK 8 FINDINGS OF FACT IN 10 CONDITIONS TO APPROVE THIS MOTION. FINDINGS OF FACT NUMBER 1 I WILL MAKE QUICK THE SPECIAL USE CAN BE GRANTED WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENT TO THE PUBLIC GOOD AND AGAIN WE ARE GOING TO PROVIDE BY ALLOWING THIS IF YOU WERE TO GRANT AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN FIXING UP SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY DERELICT AND NEEDS TO BE REPLACED NUMBER 2 THE USE IS COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING AREAS , AS I SAID NEXT DOOR ALREADY A MOBILE HOME PARK AND I THINK COURTESY GAS A COMMERCIAL THING IS ON THE OTHER BLOCK SO IT IS NOT CHANGING THAT AREA IN ANY SIGNIFICANT WAY. FINDINGS OF FACT NUMBER 3, THE USE IF ALLOWED COMPLIES WITH REGULATIONS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, NUMBER 4 THE REQUEST IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AS WELL, NUMBER 5 THE REQUEST IS NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE FUTURE LAND MAP AS I ALREADY STATED. NUMBER 6 AND MOST IMPORTANTLY , THE REQUIRED USE THOUGH IT IS NOT TECHNICALLY APPROPRIATE WITHOUT RESTRICTION WHEN CONTROLLED TO THE NUMBER LOCATION RELATIONSHIP NEIGHBORHOOD DOES PROMOTE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY BY PUTTING IT IN PLACE AGAIN FOR A RESIDENT SIMILAR TO THE AREA ALREADY. REQUESTED USE IS NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS OF THE AREAS PREVIOUSLY STATED. AND

[00:15:02]

>> THANK YOU I THINK WE HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. MR. OLSON.

>> YES. FORTUNA REACHING FROM , IN FROM STATE ROUTE 16. PRETTY MUCH I GUESS IS EXCLUSIVELY SITE HOMES. I CAN SEE THIS IMPROVING THE OVERALL NEIGHBORHOOD BY REMOVING THE ABANDONED STRUCTURE AND THE MOBILE HOME OR WHATEVER IT IS ON THE SITE AND I ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT , IT'S PROXIMITY TO THE SR 16 WHICH IS A VERY BUSY ROAD PROBABLY MAKES IT NOT THE MOST DESIRABLE RESIDENTIAL SITE SO IT IS , IF THE LAND-USE IS RETAINED IT'S PROBABLY A GOOD WAY TO RETAIN AND RENEW AND PUT RESIDENCE ON. I CANNOT TELL FROM YOUR DIAGRAM MUCH ABOUT THE PLAN TO LANDSCAPE THE SITE. TO MAKE IT FIT IN MORE WITH THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THERE'S A NICE MATURE TREE ON THE SITE WONDER IF YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO RETAIN THAT. BECAUSE IT IS A VERY NICE STAND.

>> USUALLY WITH MY CLIENT YOU CAN MAKE THIS A CONDITION TO PROPOSE A FOLIAGE PLAN OR WHAT HAVE YOU PRIOR AS A CONDITION SO IF YOU DON'T MIND TO PLAN ON KEEPING THE TREE AND OTHER DEALS MY CLIENTS HAVE DONE THEY ALWAYS DO A GOOD JOB THE SHRUBBERY AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT. AS YOU HAVE BUT NOW THERE IT IS BARREN EXCEPT FOR THAT TREE EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE A LOT OF BUSHES AND STUFF WE DEFINITELY PLAN ON DOING THAT.

>> THE COUNTY THE COUNTY REQUIREMENTS OR ORDINANCES AS TO HOW TREAT THE DEVELOPMENT NEAR A TREE LIKE THAT. .

>> I HAVE ONE REALLY SERIOUS QUESTION. WHO'S ARE THE CHICKENS AND THE ROOSTERS? THEY ARE BEAUTIFUL. BEAUTIFUL BIRDS.

>> I KNOW, WHEN I DRIVE DOWN THE ROAD I AM ALWAYS OUT ON THE

SIDEWALK . >> THE HOUSE IS ABANDONED BOARDED UP NOTHING THERE BUT BEAUTIFUL ROOSTERS AND CHICKENS ROAMING AROUND SO THAT WAS GREAT THIS WILL BE AN IMPROVEMENT FOR THE AREA AND A NICE MORE AFFORDABLE OPTION FOR SOMEBODY TO LIVE IN. ON 16. I THINK IT IS GOOD.

>> MR. LABANOWSKI. >> THE HOUSE THERE NOW WILL BE TORN OUT? THERE ARE 2 BUILDINGS, THERE'S A SHED.

>> THAT WILL BE TAKEN OUT. >> I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE TREES KEPT. HELP TO KEEP THAT CORNER THE WAY THAT IT IS NOW. SO IT IS

NICE AND COVERED. >> THAT IS THE PLAN.

>> THAT'S ALL I HAVE. >> MR. GREEN.

>> READY AFTER PUBLIC COMMENT. >> ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 2? YES SIR YOU CAN COME FORWARD. YOU

CAN HAVE A SEAT IF YOU WANT. >> I KNOW YOU HAVE VISITED AND YOU HAVE SEEN IT AND PRIMARILY IT IS RESIDENTIAL AND I LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT STAY RS 3. MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS WHEN I LOOKED THIS PROPERTY UP IT WAS MOBILE

[00:20:04]

RS 3. >> YES SIR, THE APPLICANT CAN ADDRESS SOME OF YOUR CONCERNS. LET ME GET YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS

FOR THE RECORD. >> THEY HAVE ADDED TO THE BUILDING MAKING A BLIND SPOT ON THAT AND I KNOW ONE USED TO BE A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS IN THE BARBERSHOP YEARS AGO AND THEY STARTED FIXING IT UP IN THE COUNTY SHOULD STOP AND DID WHAT THEY WANTED AND THEY ARE RENTING IT. RESIDENTIAL, WHICH I GET , BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THEY HAVE DONE WHAT THEY WANTED ON THE CORNER.

GOING TO CONTINUE OVER THERE. >> HE IS NOT CHANGING THE ZONING. HE IS STRICTLY ASKING FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO PUT A MOBILE HOME ON THAT PARCEL. AS FAR AS IF THEY ARE RELATED I WILL HAVE THE APPLICANT TRY TO CLARIFY.

>> THE PAST 2 GET THEIR FOOT IN THE DOOR WANTING 185 HOMES AND THE NEXT THING YOU KNOW THERE ARE 325. NOT ALWAYS BLACK AND

WHITE UPFRONT. >> I DON'T DISAGREE. NAME AND

ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD? >> 361 TYRON AVE.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, ANYBODY ELSE ITEM NUMBER 2? JAMES WOULD LIKE TO COME UP AND MAYBE CLARIFY THE OWNERSHIPS? IF YOU

HAPPEN TO KNOW? >> I FOUND OUT TODAY MY CLIENT DOES OWN THE OTHER PARK JUST NORTH. HE HAS IT IN A DIFFERENT LLC RELIABILITY PURPOSES BUT I CAN ASSURE HIM MY CLIENT OWNS NO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THERE AND HE HAS NO PLANS TO ASK FOR REQUESTS LIKE THIS AT ANY TIME. WHAT IS DIFFERENT ABOUT THIS, THIS IS NOT AN EXPANSION OF THE MOBILE HOME PARK. THIS IS JUST THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY RIGHT HERE COMPLETELY SEPARATE FROM THE OTHER ONE THAT I THINK HE HAS OWNED FOR EVER.

>> TO CLARIFY THE REQUEST IS ONE MOBILE HOME AND IF THAT WERE GRANTED THAT IS THE ONLY THING WE ARE GRANTING.

>> THAT IS CORRECT, SPECIAL USE. I DID TALK AND IF YOU GUYS WERE INCLINED TO GRANT THE MOTION SHE WOULD ASK THAT IT BE TRANSFERABLE ONE-TIME WITHIN A YEAR BECAUSE NOW IT WAS ONLY DONE IN THE PLANNER NAME AND OF COURSE I WOULD LIKE TO PUT IT TO THE ACTUAL OWNER'S NAME. I THINK THAT'S WHAT SHE TOLD ME.

IF I AM CORRECT . >> OKAY.

>> USUALLY THEY ARE NOT TRANSFERABLE.

>> YOU CAN REQUEST A TRANSFER, IF NOT WHOEVER MAKES THE MOTION PUT THAT AS A CONDITION. I BELIEVE WE HAVE A FEW OTHER

QUESTIONS BEFORE YOU SIT DOWN. >> OKAY I'M SORRY. MISS

SPIEGEL? >> YES, I WAS WONDERING ABOUT

[00:25:03]

TO INCLUDE THAT AS WELL. >> MY ONLY HESITATION IS WITH PLACEMENT HE HAS TO ABIDE BY ALL THE SETBACKS AND THAT'S WHAT HE IS AGREEING TO. WE DON'T KNOW WHERE THE TREE IS IN RELATION TO THAT. IF WE PUT THAT AS A CONDITION IN THE MOTION WE MAY LIMIT WHERE HIS MOBILE HOME CAN GO.

>> I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION IT WAS GOING BUT MAYBE THAT WAS THE

LAST APPLICATION. >> SAME FOOTPRINT?

>> TO BE HONEST I DON'T KNOW. >> OKAY.

>> WE CAN MAKE IT TO TRY TO PRESERVE.

>> I HAVE SEEN IT AND I THINK WE WILL BE OKAY.

>> BIG PARCEL WITH 2 LOTS. >> YOU CAN MAKE THAT A CONDITION, TO USE EVERY MEANS NECESSARY WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF THE SETBACK AND EVERYTHING ON THAT , THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM.

>> MDM. CHAIR. REGARDING THE CONDITION FOR THE TRANSFER , IT SOUNDED LIKE THE APPLICANT HAD A INTEREST IN HAVING THE ITEM RESTRICTED TO THE PROPERTY OWNER YOU CAN MAKE THE CONDITION JUST CHANGE THE NAME INSTEAD OF IT HAVING A . IT'S UP TO THE DISCRETION OF THE BOARD BUT WE CAN USE THE PROPERTY OWNER NAME

IN PLACE. >> WOULD THAT BE FINE?

>> THAT'S FINE. >> WHOEVER MADE THE MOTION , MAKE CONDITION NUMBER 1 THE PERMIT IS GRANTED IN THE NAME OF THE PROPERTY OWNER. NOT TRANSFERABLE.

>> SO IT WILL NOT FOLLOW THE PROPERTY THEN? WE DON'T WANT IT TO FOLLOW THE PROPERTY ? NO MATTER IF THERE ARE CHANGES?

>> IT CAN BE TRANSFERABLE IF WANTED.

>> WHAT DO YOU NORMALLY DO ON THIS?

>> THE CUSTOM IS TO MAKE THESE NON-TRANSFERABLE SO EVERY TIME SOMEBODY CHANGES OWNERSHIP THERE IS EXAMINATION OF WHETHER OR NOT A MOBILE HOME IS APPROPRIATE IN THE LOCATION. YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE THEM TRANSFERABLE IF YOU WANT OR

ONE-TIME TRANSFERABLE. >> THAT'S WHAT WE ARE DOING.

THE PLANNER TO THE APPLICATION SO.

>> WE WILL TRANSFER ONE TIME. >> CONDITION SPECIAL USE PERMIT GRANTED TO THE PROPERTY OWNER IN THE NAME OF THE PROPERTY OWNER

NOT TRANSFERABLE. >> ALL RIGHT. READY FOR ME? OKAY. MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT 2025 07405 , FORTUNA AVENUE BASED ON 8 FINDINGS AND IS IT UNDER A CONDITION? 8 FINDINGS OR 10 CONDITIONS ONE OF THEM BEING

TRANSFERABLE . >> NONTRANSFERABLE BUT GRANTED

TO THE PROPERTY OWNER NAME. >> IS THAT GOOD?

>> ADDED CONDITION . >> THE ONE TIME TRANSFER IS ACTUALLY PREFERABLE TO THE APPLICANT. WHAT STAFF IS TELLING US. WHO OWNS IT NOW THEY MAY BE WANTING TO SELL IT TO SOMEONE ELSE TO MOVE IN AND LIVE IN IT. EITHER WAY IF THEY DON'T DO THAT YOU CAN GIVE THEM A ONE-YEAR TO DO THAT AND IT WILL BE STUCK ON WHOEVER IT IS, SOMETHING LIKE THAT WITH A LOT OF MECHANISMS BUT THAT'S WHAT WE ARE TOLD FROM STAFF. THEY DON'T KNOW WHO IT WILL ULTIMATELY SELL IT TO . THEY MAY BE SELLING TO A THIRD-PARTY AT SOME POINT TO LIVE IN IT.

>> WHAT WE WILL DO IS WE WILL MAKE THE MOTION AT THE CONDITION WILL BE IN THE OWNER THAT CURRENTLY OWNS THE PROPERTY THE ABILITY TO TRANSFER IT ONCE IN THE NEXT YEAR. TO THIRD-PARTY.

>> THAT IS PART OF MY MOTION. I KNOW WE WERE TALKING ABOUT TREES BUT THERE IS NO TREE SURVEY ON HERE SHOWING THE LOCATION AND TRYING TO GET A MOBILE HOME INDOOR PROPERTY SOMETIMES TREES HAVE TO BE TAKEN DOWN. LET'S TRY TO PRESERVE AS MANY.

>> MAKE THAT CONDITION FOR SURE.

>> THAT CONDITION TO PRESERVE AS MANY AS WE CAN. I HATE DOING IT WITHOUT A TREE SURVEY. I THINK I GOT THE MOTION.

[00:30:04]

>> MOTION FOR APPROVAL AND 2ND, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? LET'S

REGISTER THE VOTE. >> RELATIONS.

[3. SUPMAJ 2025-23 Ocean Sands Beach Boutique. Request for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Section 2.03.02 of the Land Development Code, to allow for the package sale of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with an existing hotel, specifically located at 3465 Coastal Highway.]

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ITEM NUMBER 3 ANY EXPARTE? MR.

LABANOWSKI? >> I WAS AT THE SITE AND HAD A PHONE CONVERSATION AND TALKED TO THE MANAGER ON DUTY 3 DAYS AGO.

AND RECEIVED 5 EMAILS. >> MR. OLSON?

>> AT THIS POINT I RECEIVED 2 EMAILS AND I PASSED BY THE SITE , AT LEAST ONCE A DAY MAY BE MULTIPLE TIMES, VERY FAMILIAR.

>> OKAY. ANYBODY ELSE? OKAY. GO AHEAD.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON MME. CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE AGENCY FOR THE RECORD KEITH LONG ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT , 1306 CAPE CORAL.

BEFORE YOU TO HAVE THE APPLICANT TO REQUEST SPECIAL USE PURSUANT SECTION 2.0302 LDC, TO ALLOW FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES.

BY THE PACKAGE. AT THE EXISTING HOTEL LOCATED 3465 HIGHWAY. THAT IS WITHIN CHT ZONING DISTRICTS. THE NATURE OF THE REQUEST IS SIMPLE IN ITS SCOPE ESSENTIALLY BUT THE APPLICANT WILL DO TO ENHANCE THE OFFERINGS TO GUEST BY PLACING A FRIDGE BEHIND THE CHECK-IN COUNTER AT THE LOBBY THAT'S AVAILABLE SHOULD THEY CHOOSE TO UTILIZE THAT OFFERING. THE LICENSE THEY'RE REQUESTING WHICH LIMITS THE ABILITY TO SPECIFICALLY BEER AND WINE. AS FAR AS THE CONDITIONS THE REQUIREMENTS AS FAR AS UPDATE IS CONCERNED NO ADVERSE IMPACTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONSTRUCTION OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT WITH NO ENVIRONMENT ISSUES NO PROBLEMS WITH D.O.T. AND WE WOULD REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL PURSUANT TO THE CONDITIONS AND EFFECTS SET FORTH BY STAFF AND A STANDBY FOR QUESTIONS.

>> WE MAY HAVE A FEW. DR. HILSENBECK.

>> ONE OF THE PEOPLE WROTE IN TO ME AND SUGGESTED SINCE YOU STATED, THIS IS TO ENHANCE THE VISITOR EXPERIENCE OF THE GUEST OF WINE I HAVE A MINI BAR OR FRIDGE IN THE ROOM? BEER AND WINE AVAILABLE FOR CONSUMPTION RATHER THAN SELLING AT THE COUNTER OR ANYONE WHO COMES IN OFF THE STREET. WHY WOULDN'T YOU CONSIDER A MINI FRIDGE AS ACCEPTABLE?

>> I CANNOT SPEAK TO THE APPLICANT BUT GENERALLY SPEAKING THE LOGISTICS OF THIS INDUSTRY , IT IS A COMPLETELY SEPARATE LICENSE INVOLVED WITH A SITUATION LIKE THAT FROM REGULATORY STANDPOINT. AND LOGISTICS PUTTING THE BEER IN THE FRIDGE AND THE COMPLEXITY OF WHEN IN CONJUNCTION HAVING IT BEHIND THE COUNTER IN THE LOBBY OF HAVING STAFF MONITOR HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE TOUCHING THOSE AND THEN ACCESS TO THE CHILDREN, ET CETERA IT BECOMES MORE COMPLEX. IN MY UNDERSTANDING.

>> COMPLICATED MORE TO DO THAT THAN TO GET A PERMIT?

>> BY NATURE THAT IS ABBREVIATION CONSUMPTION ON PREMISE TYPICALLY IT'S A MORE INTENSE YEARS ANYTHING ABOUT PROPERTIES AND SUCH NOW YOU HAVE PEOPLE CONSUMING ON-SITE SO THIS IS MORE OR LESS THE EQUIVALENT OF A HOTEL LOBBY YOU WOULD TRADITIONALLY SEE WAS SNACKS AND THINGS LIKE THAT AND YOU HAVE THE OFFERING , CERTAINLY NOT ANYTHING PUSHED ONTO THE GUEST OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. MY UNDERSTANDING BASED ON THE CODE AND DISCUSSION WITH STAFF WHO IS WONDERFUL BY THE WAY THIS WAS A WONDERFUL EXPERIENCE. TYPICALLY IN YOUR CODE IF I UNDERSTAND PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. IT IS ALMOST PERMITTED BY RIGHT IF IT IS A BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENT LIKE A CONVENIENCE STORE THAT WOULD BE ASKING FOR CONSUMPTION OR PACKAGE STORE LICENSE BUT IN THIS CASE WE ARE CAUGHT IN BETWEEN BECAUSE WE ARE

[00:35:01]

>> OKAY WHEN I 1ST READ THE ITEM I DID NOT HAVE ANY OBJECTION AND I GOT THE EMAIL SO IT MADE ME WONDER .

>> I APPRECIATE THE QUESTION AND FRANKLY I WISH I WOULD'VE SEEN THE EMAILS OR HAD ACCESS. THESE THINGS POP UP BUT THE ONLY THING I WAS NOTIFIED OF ON THE RECORD WAS THE EMAIL SENT INTO STAFF GENERALLY SUPPORTING THE PROJECT.

>> CAN ASK COUNTY ATTORNEY IS IT BY RIGHT THE BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENT AND CONVENIENCE STORE TO HAVE A PERMIT OR NOT? SINCE THEY ARE A BOUTIQUE HOTEL THEY WERE NOT HAVE IT BY RIGHT, BUT OTHER BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS WOULD?

>> I DO NOT KNOW. I WOULD HAVE ONE OF THOSE COME IN FRONT OF ME BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT SURPRISE ME. IF THERE'S A HOST OF GAS STATIONS AND THE LIKE THAT WERE ABLE TO DO THAT, JACOB MAY BE

ABLE TO ANSWER. >> TO THE CHAIR, YES SIR.

ALCOHOL RELATIONS VARY AND DEPENDING ON USE YOU MAY OR MAY NOT REQUIRE SPECIAL USE PERMIT. THERE ARE MANY CALL USES THAT ARE ALLOWED BY RIGHT, MOST TYPICALLY CONVENIENCE STORE OR

GAS STATION. >> IF I COULD I WOULD REFER TO THE STAFF REPORT ITSELF TOP OF PAGE 7 REFERENCES STAFF NOTES PURSUANT SECTION 2.0 3.02 , SUBSECTION C RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS BEVERAGES BEER AND WINE LICENSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATUTES ARE EXEMPT AND DO NOT REQUIRE SPECIAL USE PERMIT.

SINCE PROPOSED USE OF ALKALINE BEVERAGES WILL BE LOCATED WITHIN THE EXISTING HOTEL APPROVAL SPECIAL USE PERMIT IS REQUIRED SO THAT IS WHERE I GOT THE INFORMATION.

>> FAIR ENOUGH. >> MR. OLSON?

>> YES, I HAVE QUESTIONS IN THE SAME THEME OF DR. HILSENBECK.

THE REASON WANTING TO POSE QUESTIONS ARE THAT THERE IS A LONG-TERM DESIRE BY PREVAILING VIEW AMONG THE RESIDENTS OF VILLANO BEACH AND NORTH BEACH WHICH ARE PREDOMINANTLY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD THAT THE PRESENCE OF COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY UP AND DOWN A 1 A FOR THAT COMMUNITY NEEDS TO BE LIMITED. AND SO, I THINK THE IDEA OF HAVING ALL SALE LIQUOR OPERATION ADDING ONTO A 38 ROOM IS QUESTIONABLE BY MANY PEOPLE. SO, I AM THINKING , IF THE MINI BAR SUGGESTION IS SOMETHING THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY PRACTICAL FREE OF ALL I AM WONDERING IF WE COULD ADD A CONDITION TO NOT ALLOW EXTERIOR SIGNAGE OF ANY BEER OR WINE SALES ON THE BUILDING TO ANNOUNCE TO THE WORLD THAT IS A PLACE YOU CAN COME BUY THAT. IT IS MAINLY BECAUSE OF THE IN AND OUT TRAFFIC THAT MIGHT BE GENERATED, PLUS , THE ADDITION OF COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY ONTO A 1 A IN THE AREA THAT IS NOT THERE SO THAT'S ONE OF MY QUESTIONS AS TO WHETHER YOUR CLIENT WOULD BE RECEPTIVE TO THAT BEING ADDED. THE OTHER THING IS COUNTY BEACHES YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO BRING ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ONTO COUNTY BEACHES SO I'M WONDERING IF THE COOLER IN THE LOBBY COULD HAVE A REMINER TO YOUR GUESTS OF THAT COUNTY RESTRICTION. IT DOES LIMIT THEM YOU CANNOT BUY A SIXPACK OF BEER AND GO TO THE BEACH AND SIT AND ENJOY A SUNRISE . ANYWAY. COULD YOU RESPOND TO THOSE SPECIFIC POINTS? NUMBER 1, NO EXTERIOR

[00:40:02]

>> CERTAINLY TO FOLLOW THE QUESTIONING FOLLOWING CONCERNS ABOUT THE COMMERCIAL NATURE OF THE AREA OR LACK THEREOF AND DESIRE TO REMAIN THAT WAY IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THIS HAS BEEN INSULATED TO THE EXISTING BUSINESS ITSELF THAT WAS THE WILL OF THE BOARD THAT THEY WANTED TO MAKE THAT CONDITION CERTAINLY I WOULD NOT BE OPPOSED. MY JOB IS TO MAKE THINGS AS OPEN AS THEY CAN BE SO THAT THE WILL OF THE BODY THAT

IS A CONDITION. >> I AM ASKING FOR MYSELF.

>> JUST FLOATING IT OUT THERE. >> CERTAINLY UNDERSTOOD WITH MAYBE SOME CONCERNS THAT THIS TURNS INTO A CONVENIENCE STORE THING FOR THOSE THAT ARE NOT RESIDENTS OR GUESTS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT THERE IS NO DESIRED SIGNAGE ME ON SIGNAGE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT ALTHOUGH A GOOD POINT TO RAISE, SO YES IS THE SHORT ANSWER. AND THE 2ND ONE THE BEACH ORDINANCES ARE ORDINANCES, LAWS ARE LAWS SO TO SOME DEGREE WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE? SURE WE WOULD RATHER NOT HAVE A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT SIGNAGE ON THE WALL BECAUSE THEN WHERE DOES IT END NO DRIVING ET CETERA THAT'S THE WILL OF THE BOARD TO IMPOSE THAT ADDITIONAL CONDITION THAT WOULD BE CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT GETS IT

ACROSS LINE. >> MR. GREEN

>> THIS IS NOT THE PLACE TO DISCUSS, BUT CURIOSITY. IF YOU HAVE A MINI FRIDGE AND YOU CHARGE YOUR CLIENT FOR IT I ASSUME YOU HAVE TO HAVE A LICENSE TO DO THAT AND THE OTHER PROBLEM YOU HAVE GOT IS MINORS , WITH HAVING IT IN A ROOM SO I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF THAT. I ASSUME. YOU HAVE A WINE LICENSE.

CHARTING THE CUSTOMER . >> A LITTLE MORE INVOLVED THAN THAT, BUT THAT'S CORRECT. LICENSE YOU WOULD REQUIRE WOULD BE A QUOTA LICENSE A MORE EXPENSIVE LICENSE AND A LIQUOR

STORE LICENSE. >> MR. LABANOWSKI

>> THE COOLER BEHIND THE COUNTER.

>> THE ONLY WAY THEY WILL GET IT IS TO THE COUNTER ITSELF .

WHAT'S GOING TO PREVENT THIS HUGE CAMPGROUND GOING IN BESIDE IT FROM THEM COMING OVER AND GETTING BEER OR WINE FROM YOUR

FACILITY? >> I THINK MAYBE THAT'S WHERE HE WAS HEADED WITH A LINE OF QUESTIONING WITH REGARDS TO OUTSIDE ADVERTISEMENT OF THAT WHICH WOULD THEN INCITE THEM TO COME IN. I DON'T KNOW WHY OTHERWISE ANY TRANSITIONAL GUEST WOULD KNOW THERE IS BEER FOR SALE IN THE LOBBY OF THE NEARBY HOTEL WHICH HAS NO SIGNAGE INDICATING SUCH.

>> SOME PLACES I HAVE BEEN TO, THEY HAVE TO OPEN THE CONTAINER TO GIVE IT TO YOU. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S WITHIN OUR LAWS AND

REGULATIONS. >> THAT WOULD BE A CONSUMPTION LICENSE WHICH IS NOT BUT WE ARE REQUESTING IS JUST A PACKAGE SO

WE CANNOT OPEN IT BY LAW. >> ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 3? GO AHEAD.

>> YOU KNOW I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS.

>> IF WE HAVE ANY OF THE PUBLIC COMMENT WE WILL BRING YOU BACK UP, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> MY NAME IS JOE AND CONRAD, LIVE ON 3RD STREET IN VILLANO BEACH , NORTH BEACH AREA. CURRENTLY THERE IS A LIQUOR STORE FOR WINE AND BEER AVAILABLE OFF-SITE FOR CONSUMPTION AT PUBLIX WHICH IS 2 MINUTES DOWN THE ROAD. THERE IS INHERENT DANGER TO PUBLIC SAFETY PROVIDING WINE AND BEER FOR OFF-SITE CONSUMPTION GIVEN THE TRAFFIC AND INGRESS AND EGRESS

[00:45:01]

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. MAUREEN O'CONNOR MYRTLE STREET MYRTLE ST., VILLANO SECTION OF SAN AUGUSTINE. WHEN I 1ST READ THE APPLICATION, I DID MY RESEARCH ON WHAT IS A PACKAGE STORE SUMMIT PRESENTATION MIGHT BE A LITTLE OFF BUT I WANT TO GIVE IT. ACCORDING TO THE FLORIDA ADMINISTRATION CODE THE TERM PACKAGE STORE SHALL MEAN LICENSED PLACE OF BUSINESS WHERE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ARE SOLD IN SEALED CONTAINERS RECEIVED FROM THE DISTRIBUTOR FOR CONSUMPTION OFF THE PREMISE. FROM PREVIOUS APPLICATIONS I HAD READ THIS PARTICULAR HOTEL HAD APPLIED FOR A REGULAR LIQUOR LICENSE SUCH AS WHAT WOULD BE SOLD IN A RESTAURANT. ACCORDING TO THE A.I. IT IS NOT SUPER COME IN FOR A FLORIDA HOTEL TO HAVE ITS OWN PACKAGE STORE. ACCORDING TO FLORIDA STATUTE, IF A BUSINESS SELLS PACKAGED ALCOHOL AND SERVES ALCOHOL FOR ON-SITE CONSUMPTION LIKE A BAR OR RESTAURANT THESE ARE GENERALLY DIFFERENT AND MUST HAVE DIFFERENT LICENSES, PHYSICAL BARRIERS OFTEN REQUIRING CUSTOMERS TO EXIT THE PREMISES AND REENTER THE OTHER SECTION, EVEN IF THE SAME BUILDING WITH LOCKED DOORS PREVENTING FREE MOVEMENT BETWEEN THEM TO COMPLY WITH DIFFERENT LICENSE TYPES. A DESIGNATED AREA, THE LICENSE PREMISE MUCH MATCH THE DIAGRAM SUBMITTED WITH THE LICENSE AND ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE AND CAN ONLY BE STORED AND SOLD IN THE DESIGNATED SEPARATE AREAS.

PRODUCT SEGREGATION BEER WINE AND LIQUOR SULFUR OFF PREMISE CONSUMPTION MUST BE KEPT IN THE PACKAGE STORE SECTION NOT IN THE DINING AREA AND VICE VERSA. A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF SEPARATION CAN BE FOUND IN SUPERMARKETS, A STORE MAY SELL BEER AND WINE BUT NOT LIQUOR, PUBLIX WINN-DIXIE HAVE SEPARATE STORES NOT CONNECTED. THE QUESTION WE SHOULD BE ASKING IS WHY WOULD THIS HOTEL WANT OR NEED A PACKAGE LICENSE IF THEY HAVE A SALE OF LIQUOR LICENSE WHICH I UNDERSTAND MAYBE THEY DON'T. IS IT THEIR INTENTION TO SELL PACKAGED LIQUOR TO THE HOTEL GUESTS OR TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC? THE PACKAGE STORE WILL BE WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE HOTEL WILL THE HOTEL REQUIRE CUSTOMERS TO HAVE TO LEAVE THE HOTEL , ENTER THE PACKAGE STORE, MAKE PURCHASE AND REENTER THE HOTEL AS REQUIRED BY LAW? IN CONCLUSION, I URGE THE PCA TO DENY THE APPLICATION AS THIS HOTEL IS IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA AND SHOULD THERE BE A NEED FOR LIQUOR, PUBLIX IS A LITTLE OVER 1 MILE SOUTH OF THE HOTEL THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, MICHAEL COMPTON, 114, 3RD STREET . IN REGARD TO THE PROPOSED PACKAGE STORE , WE VIEW THIS AS A NECESSARY. BASICALLY A MILE AWAY THERE'S A FULL-FLEDGED LIQUOR STORE WHERE THE EMPLOYEES ARE TRAINED IN HOW TO SELL BEER, WINE AND LIQUOR AND THEY'RE VERY CAREFUL. IN TALKING WITH A PUBLIX EMPLOYEE THAT MANAGES FACILITIES, THE LICENSE ITSELF IS $100,000 EACH STORE SO MY QUESTION IS I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH THIS ONE IS AND WE HAVE LEARNED TODAY IS JUST BEER AND WINE HOWEVER IT SEEMS LIKE A BIG INVESTMENT. EVER THE MINI BARS WOULD BE FOR THE CUP LOCATED WHERE THE LICENSE WOULD COST MORE. I WOULD BE CURIOUS THE COMPARISON OF THE CURRENT LICENSE VERSUS A FULL SCALE LICENSE FOR THAT. AGAIN I'M NOT FAMILIAR. I HAVE STAYED AT MANY HILTON HOTELS CHILDREN THAT IT HAVE MANY BARS AND IT SEEMED TO WORK FINE AS A COMMENT. WE VIEW IT AS FURTHER COMMERCIALIZATION OF THE RESIDENTIAL AREA WHERE WE LIVE AND WE WOULD ASK YOU TO

[00:50:03]

SO OUR VIEW IS THIS IS NOT SOMETHING NEEDED. THERE'S PLENTY OF ALCOHOL AVAILABLE. LICENSED STATE FACILITY DOWN THE ROAD , A ROMAN CORPORATION THAT MONITORS THIS VERY WELL TO ENSURE CHILDREN AND OTHER PEOPLE DO NOT , ARE NOT SOLD ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES. FOR THOSE REASONS WE ASK YOU TO CONSIDER THOSE ITEMS AND CONSIDER REJECTION OF THE APPLICATION.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. ANYONE ELSE? MR. LONG WOULD LIKE TO COME UP AND MAYBE THE OWNER WOULD LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING AS WELL.

>> YES, THANK YOU. FOR THE RECORD, KEITH LONG ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. WITHOUT STRETCHING THIS OUT TOO LONG. A LOT OF THOSE ARE MISCONCEPTIONS IT'S NOT A PACKAGE STORE, IT IS NOT A PACKAGE STORE IT IS A BEER AND WINE STORE , THE A.I. IS ONLY AS GOOD AS THE DATA INPUT FOR THE QUESTION. PACKAGE STORE LICENSE FOR EXAMPLE I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE HIS CONTACT AT PUBLIX BECAUSE THOSE LICENSES ARE 750,000 A PIECE AND THAT'S NOT WHAT WE HAVE IT IS BEER AND WINE SINGLE FRIDGE BEHIND THE COUNTER. THE APPLICANT WOULD BE WILLING TO CONCEDE TO THOSE CONDITIONS AND FURTHER ONE MORE BASED ON DISCUSSION TO REITERATE THE GOAL IS THEY WOULD ONLY SELL IT TO GUESTS OF THE HOTEL.

UNDERSTAND IT'S ONLY AS GOOD AS YOU ENFORCE, BUT TO BRING THAT HOME SINCE THERE'S SOME INTIMATION WE'RE TRYING TO BE A SOUL SUPPLY FOR THE GUESTS OF THE RV PARK IT IS ONE SINGLE BEER FRIDGE A SINGULAR BEER FRIDGE IN THE COUNTER. THERE IS NOT VOLUME TO SELL TO THEORETICAL RV RESORT SO I WOULD URGE YOU TO PLEASE BE MINDFUL OF THE REQUEST BEFORE YOU, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE PRESENTED OR LACK THEREOF IN YOUR DESIRE AND RESPECTFULLY REQUEST APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP AND THE ONE WE WOULD CONCEDE LIMITING TO GUESTS

ONLY. >> OKAY A COUPLE MORE QUESTIONS.

MR. OLSON. >> BASED ON THE TESTIMONY , THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY THAT WE JUST HEARD, IT SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD FURTHER ASSURE THAT ONLY HOTEL GUESTS HAVE THIS , IF IT'S ONLY CHARGED TO THE ROOM WITH NO CASH SALES OR SALES AT THE COUNTER , CHARGED TO THE ROOM AND I THINK THAT PROBABLY WOULD BENEFIT THE HOTEL OPERATION ALSO BECAUSE THE NIGHT CLERK WOULD NOT HAVE TO BE DEALING WITH A TRANSACTION , CHARGING IT TO THE ROOM. WITH A BE AN ACCEPTABLE 3RD CONDITION?

>> I BELIEVE WE ARE ON NUMBER 4 NOW, BUT YES SIR. IF THAT'S THE

NATURE OF THE BOARD. >> WE'RE GETTING A LITTLE TOO INTO THE WEEDS. AT SOME POINT WE SHOULD STOP CONDITIONING AND DECIDE WHETHER THE USE IS APPROPRIATE OR NOT. BUT THAT IS MY OPINION. DID YOU HAVE ANY OTHER CONDITIONS? DR.

HILSENBECK. >> I WONDERED IF THE OWNER WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING OR NOT, GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY SINCE HE

APPROACHED THE MIC EARLIER. >> AS KEITH SAID THE INTENTION IS TO SELL TO HOTEL GUESTS STAYING AT THE HOTEL. THERE IS A FRONT DESK CLERK THAT WOULD VERIFY IF A GUEST IS STAYING OR NOT OR COMING FROM OUTSIDE. THERE'S ONLY A SINGLE COOLER WITH BEER AND WINE BECAUSE GUEST ARE ASKING ANYWAY SO IT IS AN ADDITIONAL AMENITY, THEY CAN DRIVE TO PUBLIX A MILE AND A HALF AWAY BUT IT IS INCONVENIENT FOR THEM WE'RE TRYING TO FIND A MORE CONVENIENT WAY FOR THEM TO ENJOY THEIR VACATION.

[00:55:12]

>> I FEEL THE RV PARK TRY TO GET A LICENSE ANYWAY SO THAT'S NOT A CONCERN OF MINE. YOUR ISOLATED OUTSIDE THE RV PARK. THERE ARE MANY HOTELS DOWNTOWN THAT DO EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE DOING. SOME OF THEM HAVE FULL LIQUOR BARS, I WILL MENTION THEIR NAMES BECAUSE THEY DO NOT WANT THE PUBLIC IN THERE. IT IS FOR THEIR GUESTS.

UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO GO WITH WHY YOU ARE HERE WITH THIS PARTICULAR THING. I WILL MAKE THE MOTION AS IT WAS GIVEN TO US. IF THERE ARE SOME CONDITIONS , I MAY NOT GET A 2ND WITHOUT CONDITIONS BUT I WILL GIVE IT A SHOT. SO THIS IS A MOTION TO APPROVE SPECIAL USE PERMIT 2025 OCEAN SANDS BEACH BOUTIQUE. BASED ON 8 FINDINGS OF FACT AND LIVING CONDITIONS.

>> ANY ADDITIONAL? >> I SUGGEST , I THINK IT IS A GOOD IDEA TO ADD THE CONDITION YOU ONLY SERVE TO HOTEL GUESTS

ONLY. >> ONLY SERVED TO HOTEL GUESTS.

>> THE 2ND ADDITIONAL CONDITION WOULD BE NO SIGNAGE ADVERTISING

THE SALE. >> YES. AND I THINK YOU PROBABLY LET THEM KNOW THEY CANNOT DRINK ON THE BEACH ANYWAY.

>> IF WE NEED A SIGN, SURE. THERE MAY BE SIGNS ON THE BEACH.

>> THEY HAVE A CONDITION TO COMPLY WITH ALL COUNTY REGULATIONS AND THAT IS ONE OF THE REGULATIONS.

>> THERE YOU GO AND COMPLY WITH COUNTY REGULATIONS.

>> ARE YOU FINE WITH THAT? >> YES MA'AM.

>> MOTION FOR APPROVAL WITH 13 CONDITIONS. 2ND BY MR. LABANOWSKI, OF THE QUESTIONS? LET'S REGISTER THE VOTE. ALL RIGHT THAT MOTION PASSES 7-0. THANK YOU. ITEM NUMBER 4. ANY

[4. NZVAR 2025-22 Cherry Elm Dental Care Signs. Request for a Non-Zoning Variance to Section 7.02.04.B.6 of the Land Development Code to allow for an Advertising Display Area (ADA) of 200 square feet for four (4) proposed illuminated walls signs in lieu of the maximum of 109 square feet per the Silverleaf Unified Sign Plan (USP).]

EXPARTE? MISS SPIEGEL ? >> YES I DID A SITE VISIT.

>> MR. LABANOWSKI. >> I DID A SITE VISIT ALSO

>> MR. OLSON. >> LET'S SEE. SITE VISIT ON THE 17TH I'M SORRY. YEAH. ON THE 17TH, YESTERDAY.

>> ANYONE ELSE? WOULD THE APPLICANT PLEASE COME FORWARD ON ITEM NUMBER 4?

>> HELLO. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS JILL RILEY WITH PRIME SIGNS AND THIS IS CLAUDIA OUR ADDRESS 524, WILD ROSE LANE WILD ROSE LN., JACKSONVILLE, FL WILD ROSE LN., JACKSONVILLE, FL 32218. HERE REPRESENTING CHERRY ELM DENTAL CARE. WE ARE REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A NON-ZONING VARIANCE TO ALLOW TOTAL ADVERTISING DISPLAY AREA OF 200 FT.÷, CURRENTLY 109 FT.÷ IS PERMITTED UNDER SILVERLEAF UNIFIED. THE REQUEST INCLUDES 4 WALL SIGNS, ONE ON EACH BUILDING ELEVATION EACH INDIVIDUAL SIGN IS UNDER 50 FT.÷ AND THE TOTAL COMBINED AREA IS 198.8 IS 198.84 FT.÷ THIS REQUEST IS DRIVEN BY SITE CONDITIONS AND FUNCTIONALITY, THE BUILDING IS APPROACHED MULTIPLE PUBLIC DIRECTIONS INCLUDING STATE ROAD 16 , SILVERLAKE PARKWAY AND INTERNAL CIRCULATION DRIVES . BECAUSE OF THE ORIENTATION SIGNAGE ON MULTIPLE ELEVATIONS IS NECESSARY FOR CLEAR WAYFINDING AND PATIENT SAFETY. SIGNAGE IS PROPORTIONATE TO THE BUILDING, ARCHITECTURE, UTILIZING INDIVIDUAL CHANNEL LETTERS AND INTERNALLY IS ELIMINATED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH SURROUNDING COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. HEIGHT AND ELIMINATION STANDARDS ARE OTHERWISE MET. THE VARIANCE REQUEST SPECIFIC TO THE SITE CONFIGURATION AND BUILDING ORIENTATION DOES NOT SEEK TO ESTABLISH PRECEDENT. APPROVAL ALLOWS SIGNAGE TO FUNCTION AS INTENDED WITHOUT NEGATIVELY IMPACTING AESTHETICS, TRAFFIC SAFETY OR SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. BASED ON UNIQUE SET CONDITIONS AND CONSISTENCY WITH

[01:00:06]

QUESTIONS. >> OKAY. QUESTIONS?

>> YEAH, SO YOU ARE REQUESTING TWICE THE SIGNAGE AREA THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED UNDER THE ORDINANCE OR I'M SORRY THE DEVELOPMENT WITH SILVERLEAF CODE . WONDERING IF LESS SIGNAGE WOULD SERVE YOU EFFECTIVELY AND, FOR THESE REASONS. I AM WONDERING WHETHER, AND IT IS HARD TO DESCRIBE WHICH IS SOUTH ELEVATION AND WHICH IS THE EAST ELEVATION, BUT THE ELEVATION FACING SR 16 , THAT IS A LOGICAL PLACE FOR A EXTERIOR SIGN AND THERE IS MORE SIGNAGE I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST OR ASK YOU ABOUT. BUT, APPROACHING THE BUILDING AND IDENTIFYING WHERE THE BUILDING IS , WHERE THE ACTUAL PLACE TO ACCESS THE BUILDING IS. IF YOU'RE COMING OUTBOUND FROM 16, YOU HAVE A RIGHT TURN INTO THE BUILDING INTO THE DEVELOPMENT AND WHAT YOU COULD SEE WOULD EITHER BE A SIGN ON THE SOUTH, THE SOUTH ELEVATION OR A MONUMENT SIGN WHICH MIGHT BE MORE EFFECTIVE AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE PARKING LOT FROM SR 16. COMING THE OTHER DIRECTION FROM COUNTY ROAD ON 16 THERE IS A DIVIDED MEDIAN OBSTRUCTION. SO IT IS NOT MARKED OR POSSIBLE TO DO LEFT TURN INTO THE BUILDING. YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO DOWN AND DO THE U-TURN AND APPROACHED THE BUILDING THE WAY I REMEMBER SEEING IT YESTERDAY, FROM THE OTHER DIRECTION ON 16. AND THE BUILDING IS SET BACK SUFFICIENTLY TO VIEW A SIGN ON THAT ELEVATION, FACING AND TO SEE IT FROM A GOOD LENGTH OF DRIVING. SO I AM NOT SURE WE NEED TO HAVE A SIGN ON THE NORTH ELEVATION . AS FAR AS VISIBILITY FROM SILVERLEAF THERE'S ANOTHER SITE DEVELOPMENT UNDERWAY BETWEEN THIS BUILDING AND SILVERLEAF SO I'M NOT SURE YOU'RE GOING TO SEE A SIGN ANYWAY ON THE BUILDING. SO I GUESS THE BOTTOM LINE AGAIN MY QUESTION IS WOULDN'T IT BE, ACHIEVE YOUR NEED FOR IDENTIFICATION AND LAST-MINUTE WAYFINDING TO THE BUILDING , TO HAVE A SIGN ON THE SR 16 FACING ELEVATION AND ONE ON THE SOUTH ELEVATION OR POSSIBLY EVEN BETTER , A MONUMENT SIGN AT THE PLACE YOU ENTER BECAUSE THAT COULD FURTHER REDUCE CONFUSION AS TO HOW YOU GET TO YOUR

BUILDING. THAT IS MY QUESTION. >> OKAY. AS FAR AS THE MONUMENT SIGN I CAN TELL YOU THAT IS NOT IN OUR SCOPE OF WORK. BECAUSE I KNOW THE PROJECT NEXT DOOR I KNOW THE OWNER'S NEXT-DOOR ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR BUILDING A MONUMENT, HOWEVER IT IS NOT INVOLVED IN THE PROJECT OR IS THERE ANY SIGNAGE FOR CHERRY ELM ON IT AT THIS POINT AS FAR AS WE HAVE BEEN HIRED TO DO WE ARE ONLY TO DISCUSS THE WALL SIGNS SO I CANNOT STATE WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE MONUMENT OTHER THAN THAT. THE 4 WALL SIGNS WE THINK FOR THE WAYFINDING OF THE DIRECTION BECAUSE OF THE LOOP OF THE ROAD THAT GOES BEHIND IT WE FELT IT WOULD BE CLEAR AND SAFE FOR THE PATIENTS TO LOCATE WHEN THEY'RE COMING N FROM ONE WAY OR THE OTHER THEY LOVE TO DRIVE IN THE PROPERTY TO PULL INTO IT WHICH IS WHY WE FELT IT WAS NECESSARY ON ALL 4 SIDES. WHEN THEY GET TO THE DEVELOPMENT TO LOCATE THE BUILDING.

>> FOR THOSE REASONS YOU CANNOT DO SIGNAGE WITHIN THE GUIDELINES

[01:05:06]

OF SILVERLEAF CORRECT? >> WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR THE INDIVIDUAL. OVERALL BUT EACH IS UNDER 50 BUT EACH IS UNDER 50 FT.÷. SO, PROPORTIONATE TO THE ELEVATION THEY SHOULD LOOK IN LINE. THAT'S WHAT THEY WOULD DRAW IT OUT AS.

>> I DON'T HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS. THOSE WERE THE FINDINGS. SEEMS LOGICAL YOU COULD ACHIEVE WHAT YOU WANT TO ACHIEVE WITHOUT STEPPING OUT BEYOND THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED. NEAR THE SILVER GUIDES.

>> DR. HILSENBECK. >> I DON'T HAVE A MAJOR ISSUE WITH THIS BUT I DO AGREE THE SIGN ON THE NORTH NORTHEASTERN BASE OF THE BUILDING ELEVATION WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT, THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING IS PROBABLY NOT NECESSARY. BECAUSE BASICALLY IT'S FACING WHERE THE HOUSE IS. AND YOU GET CHERRY ELM DRIVE . SO, IT WOULD KEEP YOU PRETTY MUCH IN COMPLIANCE. I DON'T MIND GOING OVER CERTAINLY WITH THE STATED SIGNAGE AS I HAVE VOTED FOR MANY IN THE PAST. SO I WILL VOTE FOR THIS ONE. I JUST WONDER ABOUT THE SIGN ON THE NORTH NORTHEAST SIDE.

>> WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT PEOPLE PULLING IN BECAUSE YOU WILL SEE THE ENTRANCE IS FROM THE BACK OF THE BUILDING WHERE THE NORTH ELEVATION WOULD BE FACING. ONE OF THE ENTRANCES TO THE PARKING

LOT. >> CAN YOU SHOW THE AERIAL PHOTO

AGAIN? IS THAT POSSIBLE? >> YES I HAVE IT PULLED UP HERE.

>> OKAY NOW THERE IS A ROAD BACK THERE. EDGE WAY, ROAD.

>> THAT'S A ROAD CORRECT. >> OKAY THAT MAKES A DIFFERENCE.

I WAS LOOKING AT CHERRY ELM AND POTENTIAL HOUSES.

>> LOOKS LIKE A LAND BUFFER AND EDGE WAY AND THE NEW

DEVELOPMENT. >> OKAY THANK YOU.

>> MR. LABANOWSKI. >> CONCERNS ABOUT SIGN 4 ALREADY. YOU HAVE HOUSES BACK THERE OR APARTMENTS WHENEVER THEY ARE AND LIVING QUARTERS. A GAS STATION WILL BE LIT UP BIG TIME AND WE'RE PUTTING ANOTHER ILLUMINATION OUT THERE WITH NICE RED SIGNS THAT WILL ILLUMINATE THE BACKSIDE SO THE SIGNED 4 THE EDGE WAY IS ACCESSING AROUND THE GAS STATION , THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IT FOR RIGHT NOW. WHAT IS ON THE EAST SIDE OF THAT WE DON'T KNOW BETWEEN THE DENTIST AND THE POND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING YET. YOU HAVE A GAS STATION AND THE CARWASH 'S WE REALLY DON'T NEED SIGN 3, EITHER. 2 , YOU COULD DO AWAY WITH. YOU ARE CATCHING THE TRAFFIC REAL QUICK ON SIGN 2 YOU WILL CATCH THE TRAFFIC FROM 16 AND SIGN ONE FROM 16. SO PERSONALLY I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SIGN 4 AND 3 DONE AWAY WITH BASICALLY THE NORTH AND WEST SIGN. THANK YOU.

>> MISS SPIEGEL? >> WELL USUALLY A PERSON IN FAVOR OF LESS SIGNS. I DO THINK THE THINKING ABOUT ILLUMINATED SIGN FACING RIGHT INTO RESIDENTIAL , I AGREE I KIND OF THINK THAT IS A NECESSARY. I CAN SEE THE OTHER THING I DID DRIVING AND WHAT DO I SEE AND WHAT DON'T I SEE? SIGNS WERE TASTEFULLY DONE. IN PROPORTION TO THE BUILDING THEY LOOK NICE IN THE RENDITION THE BUILDING IS A BEAUTIFUL BUILDING AND IT IS TASTEFUL, BUT IS THERE ANY WAY YOU WOULD CONSIDER NOT DOING THE BACK SIGN AND STILL HAVING THE INCREASE IN YOUR SIGNAGE, BUT DECREASING BY SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR THE ONE BACK SIGN BECAUSE PEOPLE COMING IN HAVE TO PULL IN THERE THEY WILL NOT FORGET THE DENTIST IS TO THE LEFT WHEN THEY GO AROUND THE CORNER AND IT WILL SEE ANOTHER SIGN ON THE OTHER SIDE IN CASE THEY DO FORGET. SO THAT IS MY THINKING. WOULD YOU BE AMENABLE TO THAT, TO GET?

>> WOULD YOU BE OPEN TO THE BACK BEING NON-ILLUMINATED?

>> THAT IS A POSSIBILITY. REALLY, THIS IS TASTEFUL AND

[01:10:01]

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 4? SEEING NONE SORRY MR. HUNT.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON CHARLIE HUNT MILL CREEK ESTATES. I DRIVE BY THE AREA ALL THE TIME RIGHT DOWN THE ROAD FROM WHERE I AM AT.

GROWING UP AS A KID I WAS WITH MY MOM WOULD FORGET WHERE THE DENTIST WAS AT. LET'S GET BACK INTO THAT BUILDING, THAT BUILDING IS UNDER THE AFFILIATION WITH THE HEARTLAND DENTAL SUPPORT ORGANIZATION. MAJOR ORGANIZATION LOOKING TO PUT AN ORGANIZED DENTISTRY ALL OVER THE UNITED STATES, THEY HAVE 3000 ODD UNITS THEY ARE HOPING TO PUT IN SO I'M PRETTY SURE THIS IS PART OF THE SUPPOSED OR THE OPPOSING HAVING IT DISPLAYED. STAYED ROAD 16 THERE'S ONLY 2 WAYS TO THIS.

WITH THIS RIGHT HERE IT SHOWS IN THE SILVERLEAF UNIFIED SIGN PLAN IT SAYS A MAXIMUM SIGN CAN BE 150 FT.÷ WITH NO MORE THAN 200 FT.÷. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WENT AND HAD A MEETIN WITH THEM AND SAID WE WILL PASS IT OR WE WILL DENY YOU AND BRING IT TO THE COUNTY AND HAVE THEM APPROVE IT SO THEY CAN COVER THEMSELVES.

THAT'S WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. ONCE AGAIN THE BUILDING IS BEING BUILT, THE PLANS WERE PUT IN OVER A YEAR AGO. HERE WE GO AGAIN. OH, WE JUST NEED A VARIATION SORRY ABOUT THAT LET'S MAKE ANOTHER VARIATION. THIS IS CONSTANT A CONSTANT THINK EVERYTHING NO MATTER WHAT I IS WE NEED TO MAKE A SLIGHT SIGN CHANGE WITH THIS IT IS A CORPORATION BASED BRINGING THIS IN. THEY WANTED THEIR WAY . THE POSSIBILITY OF IT GOING WITH 3 SIGNS , THAT IS A BAD THING CALLED LOGIC THEY DON'T WANT.

IT CAN GO THAT WAY, BUT LIKE I SAID, THIS VARIATION AT THE END , TO GET THE SIGNS PUT IN AN EXPANDED IS WHAT THEY WANT AND IT IS CONSTANT, THEY SEE THEIR BUDDIES DOING IT ALL OVER. SO THEY WANT THE SIGN CHANGED PEOPLE WON'T BE ABLE TO FIND IT. THERE IS A THING IN TECHNOLOGY EVERYBODY CAN FIND EVERYTHING NO MATTER WHERE YOU ARE OR WHO YOU ARE OR WHAT YOU ARE OR WHERE YOU WANT TO GO YOU CAN PLAN WITH ALL OF THAT. IF YOU HAVE ONE SIGN OUT FRONT BY THE ROAD AND THEY GO LOOK ON THE WEB TO GET AFFILIATED WITH THAT AND THAT IS WHERE IT IS PUT IN BECAUSE THE ANALOG STARTS HITTING YOUR PHONE ABOUT THAT LOCATION. THE SIGNS IN THE SELLING ASPECT IT'S THE DENTIST BUT THEY WANT BIGGER SIGNS TO MAKE IT LOOK BIGGER AND MORE HOMELY AND MORE WELCOMING. DON'T DO IT. 200 IS TOO MUCH.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, SIR. ANYBODY ELSE? BACK TO THE AGENCY FOR MOTION OR YES MA'AM, MISS SPIEGEL.

>> TAKE A STAB AT THIS, MOTION TO APPROVE NON-ZONING VARIANCE 2025-22 CHERRY ELM DENTAL CARE BASED ON 8 FINDINGS OF FACT AND 5 CONDITIONS PLUS ONE CONDITION THAT THE NORTH FACING SIGN IS NOT ILLUMINATED. THE SIGN FACING RESIDENTIAL IS NOT ILLUMINATED

AS PROVIDED . >> MISS RILEY YOU ARE FINE WITH THAT? OKAY MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE ADDED CONDITION. ANY 2ND? I WILL 2ND. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. MR. GREEN.

>> I'M SORRY WE ARE ELIMINATING MAKE SURE I HEARD CORRECTLY.

>> ALL 4 SIGNS WOULD BE THERE FOR THE 4TH IN THE BACK FACING THE RESIDENTIAL WILL NOT BE ELIMINATED.

>> I THOUGHT I HEARD THAT RIGHT.

>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION. SEEING NONE LET'S REGISTER THE VOTE.

[5. CPA(SS) 2025-09 845 County Road 13A South. Request for a Small-Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the Future Land Use Map designation of approximately 7.91 acres of land from Agricultural-Intensive (A-I) to Residential-A (RES-A) with a text amendment limiting the property to a maximum of one (1) single family dwelling unit; located at 845 County Road 13A South.]

[01:15:17]

>> HELLO I AM ROBERT COOPER. OWNER OF A 45 COUNTY RD. A 45

COUNTY RD. >> CAN YOU SPEAK A LITTLE

LOUDER? >> SONY 525 SONY 525 BEACH RD.

SONY 525 BEACH RD. GO AHEAD. >> TODAY I AM HERE TO ASK TO SEE IF I CAN BUILD MY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT I OWN AT 13-A . 7.92 ACRES TO BE EXACT. SURROUNDED BY OTHER PROPERTIES OF SIMILAR SIZE I GUESS IT IS A FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENT, AS WELL. LOOKING FOR A FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENT THAT'S WHAT I'M HERE TO DO TODAY.

>> ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD? >> AS YOU CAN SEE I HAVE THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES CLOSEST TO ME AND EVERYTHING TOUCHING IS LESS ACRES FROM WHAT I HAVE HERE. 4 ACRES , 7 ACRES AND THE

8 ACRE TRACT. RIGHT BESIDE ME. >> INTENT IS TO PUT ONE?

>> YES, FOR MYSELF. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN IF APPROVED. THERE IS AN EXISTING BAR IN THE BACK AND A PRETTY GOOD SIZE POND ON THE

PROPERTY, AS WELL. >> OKAY.

>> WE MIGHT HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS.

>> CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE AERIAL? WHAT IS THE AREA IN THE

BACK? A POND? >> YES OR A POND.

>> IT HAS A LOT OF DISCOLORATION.

>> A LOT OF GROWTH. >> THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MR. LABANOWSKI.

>> REAL QUICK ON THE POND, THAT ORIGINATED THE WHOLE AREA WAS A

GRAVEL PIT AT ONE TIME? >> YES SIR, I BELIEVE SO LONG

BEFORE I OWNED IT. >> THE HOUSE IS GOING IN FRONT

OF THE EXISTING BUILDING. >> YES THIS IS THE BARN, THE

HOUSE WOULD BE HERE. >> OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 5? BACK TO THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION. WOULD YOU LIKE TO GET ONE? THANK YOU.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF CPA SS 2025 -09 -09845 -09845 COUNTRY RD. 13 A SOUTH BASED ON 4 FINDINGS OF FACT TEXT AMENDMENT PROVIDED BY THE STAFF REPORT.

MOTION FOR APPROVAL AND 2ND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE LET'S REGISTER THE VOTE. THAT MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU, APPRECIATE IT. DOES ANYONE NEED TO TAKE A BREAK? OKAY. IF IT TOOK A 5 MINUTE BREAK

>>> WE ARE GOING TO CALL THE MEETING BACK TO ORDER. IF YOU

[6. TOWER 2024-04 Shores Telecommunication Tower (SE US-1). Request for a Special Use Permit pursuant to Section 2.03.26 of the Land Development Code to allow for the construction of a 170-foot monopole wireless communication tower and support facilities within the St. Augustine Shores Planned Unit Development (PUD) (Ordinance 1974-16, as amended), located specifically on Shores Boulevard just south of its intersection with Bianca Circle.]

EXPARTE FROM AGENCY MEMBERS. >> YES ITEM CHAIR I DID A SITE VISIT AND I WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT THAT I WORE RED FOR CHRISTMAS, NOT TAKING SIDES, I WANT TO HEAR THE WHOLE APPLICATION. JUST WANTED THAT ON THE RECORD BUT I APPRECIATE YOU

ALL COMING OUT. THANK YOU. >> MR. LABANOWSKI.

>> VISITED THE SITE AND I HAVE 9 EMAILS.

>> OKAY DR. MATOVINA. >> I HAD 8 EMAILS AS OF YESTERDAY AT 12:30 AND I DID CHECK THIS MORNING.

>> MR. OLSON. >> I ALSO HAD 8 EMAILS AND

VISITED THE SITE. >> OKAY THANK YOU. BRAD WESTER 1

[01:20:03]

ANTENNA TOWERS ARE PERMISSIBLE USE IN THE PUD BY EXCEPTION, THAT IS SOMETHING DATED FROM THE 1970S ALBEIT THE COUNTY WOULD PROCESS THAT FOR THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT PROCESS , THAT WAS THE SAME. ON A FIVE-ACRE PARENTS TRACT DESIGNATED CHURCH PARCEL AND THE TOWER LEASE SITE IS 80 X 80 AND WILL OVER THAT IN THE SITE PLAN IN A MINUTE. PROPOSE TOWER NOT WITHIN 250 FEET RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IS 2063 FROM THE RESIDENTIAL LOT LINE CERTIFIED COLLAPSE RADIUS OF 40 FEET ACCORDANCE WITH LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SUPPORTING 4 WIRELESS CARRIERS ACCORDING TO GROUP TERROR CON THERE'S NO ADVERSE ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS FOR THE PROPOSED TOWER USE. THIS IS A EXCERPT FROM THE PUD ITSELF DISTRICTS OTHER THAN RESIDENTIAL ON SUBSET AGE TELEVISION BROADCASTING OFFICE STUDIO TRANSMITTER ANTENNA AND LINE OF SIGHT RELAY. HERE IS THE PROPOSED A PRETTY SIGHT ON SHORES DRIVE. HERE IS A AERIAL IMAGE FOR THE SAME PROPERTY.

THESE ARE LAND-USE ZONING MAPS, RESIDENTIAL C IS LAND-USE OVER THE AREA FOR ST. AUGUSTINE SHORES AND AS I MENTIONED IT HAS ITS OWN PUD. HERE IS THE SITE PLAN WITH PROXIMITY DISTANCES, YOU CAN SEE IT IS BROKEN OUT WITH PROXIMITY TO THE NEIGHBORING WETLANDS, PROPERTY LINE AND NEAREST RESIDENTIAL LOT LINE AND FRONTAGE ALONG SHORES BOULEVARD AND WE WILL COME BACK TO THAT AS NEEDED.'S HERE IS ANOTHER IMAGE PULLED BACK SHOWING PROXIMITY TO VARIOUS OTHER COMMUNITIES IN THE AREA BOTH RESIDENTIAL SIDE STREETS , THE MAIN ROAD AND THE CONSERVATION AREA. HERE IS OUR LANDSCAPE PLAN THAT GOES WITH THE PROPERTY AND OF COURSE THE TOWER ELEVATION, 165 FEET WITH A 5 FOOT ANTENNA TOWER. THIS IS THE TOWER SEPARATION MAP YOU CAN SEE THERE THE DIFFERENT PROXIMITY TO OTHER TOWERS IN THE AREA. THERE IS AN EXISTING 184 MONO POLE TOWER TO THE SOUTHWEST WITH ANOTHER TO THE NORTHWEST ANOTHER 150 FOOT MONO POLE TOWER. HERE IS THE PERSPECTIVE IMAGERY REQUIRED IN THE PHOTO SIMULATIONS PREPARED AS PART OF THE PACKAGE. WE WILL GO THROUGH THESE SLIDES AND THE SHOW AND YOU CAN SEE IN CONTEXT TO THE ORIENTATION OF WHERE THE PICTURE WAS TAKEN ON ALL OF THESE IMAGES. AGAIN THESE PHOTO SIMULATIONS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED AS PART OF THE OVERALL PACKAGE FROM THE TIME OF ORIGINAL SUBMITTAL . AGAIN GOING THROUGH THE PERSPECTIVE IMAGERY. THE APPLICANT AFFIRMS THE PROPOSED HEIGHT OF COMMUNICATIONS TOWER IS ESSENTIAL AND MINIMUM REQUIRED TO SUPPORT DESIGN COVERAGE OBJECTIVES OF T-MOBILE ENGINEERING SPECIFICALLY THE TOWER IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE ENHANCED WIRELESS SERVICE TO T-MOBILE CUSTOMERS AT ST. AUGUSTINE SHORES, CANOPY PARK WITH EXPANSION AROUND THE CONSERVATION AREA AS WELL AS IN VEHICLE COVERAGE SUBMITTED AND REVIEWED STUDY DEMONSTRATES THE REQUESTED ELEVATION IS NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE OPTIMAL SIGNAL COVERAGE AND PERFORMANCE IN THE TARGET SERVICE AREA WITH THE CLOSEST HOWARD TO THE PROPOSED PROPERTY APPROXIMATELY 2 MILES WEST NORTHWEST WHICH T-MOBILE CURRENTLY IS UTILIZING. THE COUNTY'S THIRD-PARTY CONSULTANT HAS CONFIRMED THE APPLICANT COVERAGE PREDICTION MODELS TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY ACCURATE FOR THE COVERAGE PREDICTION SOFTWARE. IN THE REPORT OCG TAKES NO EXCEPTION TO THE APPLICANT FINDINGS BASED ON TECHNICL PARAMETERS SUBMITTED AND ADDITIONALLY THE TOWER IS POSITIONED WITHIN THE CHURCH PROPERTY TO REDUCE VISUAL IMPACT ON THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY, IS ADJACENT TO OPEN SPACE AND

[01:25:01]

WITH THAT I WILL TAKE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS.

>> MISS SPIEGEL. >> THANK YOU. ON THE IMAGES , THE PHOTOGRAPHIC IMAGES DOES THAT SHOW ONE ROW OF RENTAL AND THERE IS POSSIBLY 4? OR IS THAT THE FINAL AMOUNT ?

>> THE TOWER SEPARATION? >> YES AT THE TOP.

>> GOING TOO FAST. IN YOUR PHOTO SIMULATIONS. GO ONE MORE I CAN SEE A LITTLE BETTER. OKAY IS THAT THE FINAL PRODUCT OR MIGHT

THERE BE 3 MORE LAYERS. >> IF IT IS CO-LOCATED YOU WOULD SEE OTHER LAYERS SO THIS IS A TOWER UP TO 4.

>> THAT IS ONE THAT WAS MY ONLY QUESTION. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>> MR. OLSON. >> SEVERAL LETTERS OF CONCERN , RECEIVED FOR THIS HEARING POINT OUT THE DEED RESTRICTIONS IN PLACE FOR THE SHORES HOA WOULD REQUIRE APPROVAL BY , I BELIEVE THE BOARD I AM NOT SURE OF THE DETAILS. IN ESSENCE, IF THIS BOARD WERE TO PROVE IT, IT STILL WOULD REQUIRE AN ADDITIONAL APPROVAL BY THE HOA. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> IS AN EXAM PARCEL AND WE HAVE EMAIL FROM THE ATTORNEY AND

ASSOCIATION. >> OKAY. I AM NOT AWARE.

>> I CAN PROVIDE THAT FOR THE RECORD WE HAVE EMAILS FROM THE ASSOCIATION AND ATTORNEY REPRESENTING, WE ARE EXEMPT AND THERE'S NO NEED TO GO THROUGH THE ACC THE ARCHITECTURAL

CONTROL COMMITTEE. >> OKAY I DON'T KNOW. I GUESS

THAT IS A PRIVATE MATTER. >> YES SIR IT IS.

>> EXCUSE ME I'M SORRY IT'S REALLY HARD TO HEAR THE APPLICANT AND EACH OTHER SO IF YOU WOULD NOT MIND BEING QUIET UNTIL IT'S YOUR TURN TO COME UP HERE DURING PUBLIC COMMENT.

THANK YOU, GO AHEAD MR. OLSON. >> THAT WAS MY MAIN QUESTION.

>> DR. HILSENBECK. >> RATHER THAN A SERIES OF QUESTIONS I HAVE MORE COMMENTARY ON THIS THAT I WILL GIVE AFTER PUBLIC COMMENT . I DO WISH YOU WOULD PROVIDE THAT LETTER TO OUR COUNTY ATTORNEY AND LET HIM REVIEW, LOOK AT THAT BECAUSE I ALSO HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT. THE ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE NEEDED TO PROVE THIS. SO IF YOU CAN PROVIDE THAT AND I MIGHT HAVE QUESTIONS FOR JACOB AND/OR LEX AT THE END. THANK

YOU. >> YOU'RE WELCOME.

>> MR. LABANOWSKI >> HAVE A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS ABOUT HOLD OFF AND LET THE AUDIENCE GO 1ST.

>> ANY QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW? WE'RE GOING TO GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT. WE HAVE 4 DESIGNATED SPEAKERS. GOING IN ORDER OF DESIGNATED SPEAKERS TO GET A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME TO TALK.

THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE SIGNED YOUR NAME STATING YOU ARE ALLOTTING TIME TO THAT SPECIFIC PERSON THEN YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO SPEAK AGAIN. YOU HAVE GIVEN AWAY YOUR TIME JUST TO LET YOU KNOW. THE 1ST DESIGNATED SPEAKER IS IF YOU WOULD NOT MIND COMING UP AND YOU HAVE 10 MINUTES.

WHEREVER YOU ARE COMFORTABLE. >> OKAY THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON NUMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING AGENCY BOARD AND THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO YOU TODAY. I LIVE AT 600 CHRISTINA DR. AND I HAVE LIVED IN MY HOME SINCE OCTOBER 2002. HERE REPRESENTING MYSELF AND OTHER CONCERNED RESIDENTS OF THE ST. AUGUSTINE SHORES NEIGHBORHOOD , IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED CELL TOWER 2024-04. ST.

AUGUSTINE SHORES IS A WELL-ESTABLISHED FAMILY-ORIENTED COMMUNITY WHICH THEY RICH HISTORY DATING BACK TO ITS DEVELOPMENT IN THE 1970S. A COMMUNITY OF OUR SIZE WAS UNCOMMON ESPECIALLY OUTSIDE OF MAJOR METRO AREA, THE BROTHERS WERE FORWARD THINKING THEY WERE LOCATING ALL UTILITIES UNDERGROUND HAVING UTILITIES UNDERGROUND AT THE TIME WAS CONSIDERED MODERN AND UPSCALE I CAN ONLY IMAGINE THE SHOCK AND

[01:30:05]

DESIGNED AS A PEACEFUL RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD IT HAS GROWN INTO ONE OF THE MOST DESIRABLE PLACES TO LIVE IN ST.

AUGUSTINE. KNOWN FOR ITS NATURAL BEAUTY ABUNDANT WILDLIFE AND STRONG SENSE OF COMMUNITY THE PROPOSED TOWER THREATENS TO UNDERMINE THESE VERY QUALITIES. TODAY I WILL OUTLINE KEY CONCERNS REGARDING THE TOWER IMPACT ON ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY VALUE AND OVERALL WELL-BEING OF THE COMMUNITY. NUMBER 1 ENVIRONMENTAL AND WILDLIFE CONCERNS ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT OBJECTIONS TO THIS TOWER IS ITS LOCATION. SITTING NEXT TO A ROOKERY, A NESTING AREA FOR VARIOUS BIRD SPECIES INCLUDING EGRETS, HERONS AND OTHER PROTECTED WILDLIFE HABITAT DISRUPTION THIS PROPOSED SITE OF A ECOSYSTEM THAT SUPPORTS YEARS -- FORCING SPECIES TO ABANDON THIS LONG-ESTABLISHED HABITAT. ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION IMPACT ON WILDLIFE STUDIES HAVE SUGGESTED PROLONGED EXPOSURE TO ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION FROM CELL TOWERS CAN DISRUPT BIRD MIGRATION PATTERNS, NAVIGATION ABILITIES AND REPRODUCTION, THE RISK OF LOCAL WILDLIFE ISRAEL AND MUST BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY.

TREE REMOVAL AND LANDSCAPE ALTERATION CONSTRUCTING THE TOWER WILL REQUIRE CLEARING TREES AND VEGETATION FURTHER DEGRADING THE ENVIRONMENT AND CONTRIBUTE IN TO HABITAT LOSS. A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT PRIDES ITSELF ON NATURAL SURROUNDINGS , THE INSTALLATION OF THIS TOWER IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL STEP BACKWARD.

NUMBER 2 IMPACT AND HOME VALUES AND ASCETICS, ST. AUGUSTINE SHORES IS KNOWN FOR ITS ATTRACTIVE RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER. 170 FOOT TOWER WOULD BE A TOWERING EYESORE VISIBLE FROM HUNDREDS OF HOMES , ROADS AND GREEN SPACES. NEGATIVE IMPACT ON PROPERTY VALUES, NUMEROUS REAL ESTATE STUDIES INDICATE CELL TOWERS PLACED IN OR NEAR RESIDENTIAL AREAS CAN DECREASE PROPERTY VALUES BY 10 TO 20% PROSPECTIVE BUYERS ARE ALSO OFTEN DETERMINED BY AESTHETIC CONCERNS AND PERCEIVED HEALTH RISKS. DISRUPTION OF COMMUNITY AESTHETICS THE TOWER WILL ALTER THE VISUAL LANDSCAPE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, DIMINISHING THE CHARM AND THE APPEAL THAT RESIDENTS CHERISH, MYSELF INCLUDED. INSTEAD OF A PEACEFUL NATURAL SKYLINE WE WILL BE CONFRONTED WITH AN INDUSTRIAL STRUCTURE THAT DOES NOT BELONG IN A RESIDENTIAL SETTING. A DECLINE IN HOME VALUE MEANS A DIRECT FINANCIAL IMPACT ON THE HARD-WORKING FAMILIES WHO HAVE AN INVESTMENT IN THIS COMMUNITY. IT IS A UNFAIR TO IMPOSE THIS BURDEN ON HOMEOWNERS FOR THE BENEFIT OF A TELECOM COMPANY.

HEALTH CONCERNS , HEALTH AND SAFETY CONCERNS. WHILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY DOWNPLAYS HEALTH RISKS, MANY RESIDENTS ARE DEEPLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE POTENTIAL LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF RADIOFREQUENCY OTHERWISE KNOWN AS RF, RADIATION EXPOSURE. ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE CLOSE PROXIMITY OF THIS TOWER TO HOMES, SCHOOLS AND RECREATIONAL AREAS. UNCERTAINTY AND LONG-TERM HEALTH EFFECTS, SCIENTIFIC STUDIES ON OUR EXPOSURE REMAIN INCONCLUSIVE, WITH SOME RESEARCH SUGGESTING POTENTIAL LINKS TO INCREASED RISK OF CANCER, NEUROLOGICAL EFFECTS AND SLEEP DISTURBANCES, THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION HAS CLASSIFIED RF RADIATION AS A POSSIBLE CARCINOGEN. CLOSE PROXIMITY TO HOMES AND FAMILIES, UNLIKE COMMERCIAL ZONES RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS ARE PLACES WHERE FAMILIES LIVE, CHILDREN PLAY AND SENIORS RETIRE. PLACING A CELL PHONE TOWER IN THE MIDDLE OF A WELL POPULATED RESIDENTIAL AREA EXPOSES PEOPLE TO CONTINUOUS RF EMISSIONS WITH NO ABILITY TO OPT OUT. UNTIL CONCLUSIVE INDEPENDENT RESEARCH CONFIRMS THAT PROLONGED RF EXPOSURE IS ENTIRELY SAFE IT IS RECKLESS TO PLACE A CELL PHONE TOWER IN THE HEART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THIS TOWER WILL BE PLACED IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR COMMUNITY. MY CONCLUSION A CALL TO PROTECT THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS OF THE PGA BOARD , WE, I URGE YOU TO DENY APPROVAL OF THIS CELL TOWER LOCATION AND PRIORITIZE THE WELL-BEING OF ST. AUGUSTINE SHORES RESIDENCE. THIS TOWER IS

[01:35:01]

QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE WILL NOT HAVE ANY QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW.

>> THE NEXT SPEAKER IS CINDY I MAY HAVE BUTCHERED YOUR LAST

NAME, I APOLOGIZE. >> GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYBODY AND HAPPY HOLIDAYS. THANK YOU FOR WEARING RED. I WILL ASK SUE TO COME UP AND SHOW SOME PICTURES THAT I PUT ON.

>> YOU ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF WHERE THE CAMERA IS.

>> I AM GOOD? >> AS LONG AS YOU PUT THE

PICTURES THERE. >> SHE WILL GO THROUGH AS I GO THROUGH. I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY OR PRESENTER.

>> NAME AND ADDRESS. >> CINDY IAO . TO COME BEFORE YOU TODAY TO DENY THE SHORES CELL PHONE TOWER CONSTRUCTION. I PURCHASED MY FOREVER HOME 21 YEARS AGO , IT SITS AT THE END OF THE CUL-DE-SAC ON FELIX COURT WHEN I 1ST SAW THE LOT I WALKED TO THE EAST PART OF THE PROPERTY WHERE IT OPENED UP TO WHAT I THOUGHT WAS THE GARDEN OF EDEN, THE MOST BEAUTIFUL SITE. THERE HAD TO BE OVER 1000 EGRETS AND BIRDS SITTING AMONGST THE TREES, SITTING, NESTING, FLYING AROUND AND FISHING IN THE LAKE FOR FOOD. IT WAS MAGNIFICENT AND I HAVE NO DOUBT I WANTED TO BUILD MY FOREVER HOME THERE. SO BEGAN MY HOMEWORK. I FOUND OUT THE LAKE THE PROPERTY WAS CALLED BIRDLIKE PRIOR TO PURCHASING MY PREMIUM LOT I REVIEWED ALL THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS AS DID MY REAL ESTATE ATTORNEY TO ENSURE ALL THE ZONING AND PROPERTIES SURROUNDING MY PROPERTY AND ACROSS THE LAKE WERE ZONED NONCOMMERCIAL AND FOR SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES. THE SELLER AND REALTOR ASSURED ME THE SAME. THERE WOULD BE NO BUILDING OBSTRUCTIONS OR ANY CONSTRUCTION THAT COULD INTERFERE OR BE THE DETRIMENT OF ANY OF THE WILDLIFE WITHIN THE ROOKERY AND AGAINST THE BYLAWS OF ST. AUGUSTINE SHORES THAT WAS THE 1ST TIME I HEARD THE WORD ROOKERY. AND IT WAS A CONSISTENT PATTERN OF DESIGNATION THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF MY INVESTIGATION. I WAS ALSO TOLD BIRDLIKE IS CONSIDERED PROTECTED AND THIS WAS FROM THE REALTOR AND OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. IN ADDITION I READ THE RESTRICTIONS AND GUIDELINES POSED BY THE SHORES AND ENTERED AND ENTERED RESIDENCE THAT THEY HAVE AESTHETICALLY PLEASANT HARMONIOUS LIVING ENVIRONMENT THIS PROTECTS THE COMMUNITY CONDUCT PROPERTY VALUES AND FOSTER NEIGHBORLY RESPECT. THE UNSIGHTLY AND DANGEROUS CELL TOWER WILL BE ERECTED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHICH IS TOTALLY OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE REST OF THE SURROUNDING HOMES. ST. AUGUSTINE SHORES WAS THE 1ST NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAS ALL THE STREET UTILITIES AND POLLS UNDERGROUND. ALSO PHONE AND CABLE WIRES SERVICE ARE ALSO UNDERGROUND , THE SHORE BUILDERS AND GOVERNING DOCUMENTS INTENT WAS TO KEEP ALL UTILITY POWER POLES PHONE AND CABLE WIRES UNDERGROUND , THEREFORE THIS UTILITY CELL TOWER PLANNING IS NOT THE VISION THAT THE SHORES BUILDERS HAD IN MIND, THE GOVERNING DOCUMENTS REFLECT ALL UTILITY SERVICES ARE UNDERGROUND AND THE CELL PHONE TOWER FOR WHICH IT IS A SERVICE UTILITY IS CONTRARY TO THE COMMUNITY STANDARDS AND AESTHETICS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I FEEL THAT MY HOME IS GOING TO BE IMPACTED THE MOST. I KNOW THAT IS A RIDICULOUS PICTURE, BUT THIS IS WHAT THE ROOKERY LOOKS LIKE WHEN YOU GO IN THE BACKYARD. IT IS BEAUTIFUL. MY HOME WILL BE IMPACTED THE MOST AND THE OBSTRUCTION WILL DESECRATE MY VIEW, THE CELL PHONE TOWR WILL BE SMACK IN THE MIDDLE OF MY BACKYARD WHERE I WATCH THE SUNRISE AND ENJOYED THE ONCE

[01:40:02]

HAVEN'T WE LEARNED ANYTHING FROM THESE EXPOSURES? THESE ARE HOMES AND WE WILL BE FORCED TO MAKE TOUGH DECISIONS TO PROTECT OUR FAMILIES. THE BUILDING OF THE CELL PHONE TOWER WILL SIGNIFICANTLY JEOPARDIZE COMMUNITY HEALTH AND WELFARE, IT IMPACTS THE VALUE OF OUR HOMES PROPERTIES COULD BE IMPACTED AS HIGH AS 20%. I WOULD SAY I'M LOSING $112,000 OF MY HARD-EARNED MONEY . ALL THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS, AS WELL .

BYLAWS ARE SUPPOSED TO PROTECT US WHILE WE LOSE INVESTMENTS AND HARD-EARNED MONEY, NEVERMIND OUR HEALTH RISKS . TRYING TO GET THE NAME OF THE CHURCH. LIVING STONE CHURCH WILL PROSPER BY HAVING THIS TOWER ON THEIR PROPERTY. WHAT KIND OF CHURCH WANTS TO TAKE THEIR FINANCIAL GAIN OVER THE WELFARE OF THE PARISHIONERS OR COMMUNITY? WHATEVER HAPPENED TO LOVE THY NEIGHBOR? WILL IT TAKE ANOTHER AARON BROCKOVICH STORY BEFORE THE TOWERS STOP COMING UP IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS? TODAY I SPEAK ON BEHALF OF MY NEIGHBORS AND FRIENDS AND EVER-PRESENT THE VOICE THAT CANNOT SPEAK TO DEFEND THEMSELVES , NOR DEFEND THEIR HOMES WHICH IS WILDLIFE THAT LIVE ON THE ROOKERY AT BIRDLIKE, YES THERE ARE NO ORDINANCE GUIDELINES RULES THAT REQUIRE SETBACKS ON THEIR PROPERTIES FOR PROTECTION FROM FALLING DEBRIS OR RUINING THEIR ECOSYSTEM. I AM PRAYING TO GOD I AM PROVIDING YOU THE MOST COMPELLING STORY OR LEGITIMATE FAX THAT HELP YOU TO MAKE THE BEST DECISION. THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF THE PAST 21 YEARS I WATCHED A VARIETY OF WILDLIFE . PLEASE LOOK AT THE PICTURES BEING SHARED. I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO SEE YOURSELF, THE BEAUTY OF THE SHORES ROOKERY. CELL TOWERS ARE KNOWN TO BE DEADLY TO BIRDS, THEY SHARE THE SAME HEALTH RISKS AND EXPOSURES AS HUMANS DO. FURTHER, THE RADIOFREQUENCY CAUSES CONFUSION FOR THE BIRDS WHEN FLYING AND THEY END UP CRASHING INTO THE TOWER OR NEARBY TREES , FALLING TO THEIR DEATH. BIRDS ARE PRETTY INTELLIGENT, WHEN THIS BEGINS TO OCCUR, THEY ARE KNOWN TO VACATE THEIR HABITATS AND FIND MORE SUITABLE LIVING SPACES. EVENTUALLY ABANDONING THE BEAUTY THAT ONCE EXISTED , CHANGING THE ENTIRE DYNAMICS OF THE WHOLE ECOSYSTEM. THIS CAN HAPPEN TO OUR VERY OWN SHORES ROOKERY WITH SEVERAL OF OUR COMMUNITY NEIGHBORS AND MYSELF HAVE IDENTIFIED SEVERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES LIVING AMONGST THE ROOKERY. I LISTED IN THE PICTURE SHOWING TODAY THE PROPER ENDANGERMENT CATEGORIES AS OUTLINED WITH THE MIGRATORY TREATY ACT.

THAT ONE? OKAY. THE ENDANGERED SPECIES RULE FLORIDA STATE A PERSON MAY NOT DISRUPT , INTENTIONALLY KILL OR WOUND ANY FISH OR WILDLIFE SPECIES DESIGNATED BY THE COMMISSION AS A DANGER, THREATENED OR SPECIAL CONCERN, THIS ACT AIMS TO MINIMIZE DEATHS CAUSED BY THE INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES SUCH AS OIL, WASTE, POWER LINES AND COMMUNICATION TOWERS. THERE ARE

[01:45:01]

THE MAJORITY HAVE BEEN TAKING IN, THEY'RE NOT AS CLEAR AND NICE, BUT THEY ARE TAKEN FROM CELL PHONES. FROM THE COURSE OF THE PAST 21 YEARS. LET'S SEE . WE HAVE YEAH, I WANTED TO SKIP OVER THAT. OKAY. PLEASE TAKE A LOOK AT THE MAPS BEING SHOWN.

THESE ARE PICTURES OF THE TOP 3 CARRIERS. VERIZON, AT&T AND T-MOBILE, T-MOBILE IS THE ONE PUTTING UP THE CELL TOWER, THESE MAPS SHOW ALL COVERAGE MAPS, THESE ARE FOUND ON THE INTERNET, ANYBODY CAN PULL THEM UP THEY ARE TO ENTICE PEOPLE TO GO AND TO BE A CUSTOMER, BUT IT SHOWS ADEQUATE COVERAGE FOR 5G COVERAGE AS ADVERTISED BY THE T-MOBILE EXCUSE ME ADVERTISED BY THE CARRIERS , T-MOBILE IS THE CARRIER BUILDING THE CELL PHONE TOWER. I WANT TO REMIND EVERYBODY THAT DURING THE LAST HURRICANE OR BEFORE I GO INTO THAT THESE COVERAGES IN THESE CELL TOWERS , THEY SHOW ADEQUATE 5G COVERAGE SO TECHNICALLY THE COVERAGE FOR T-MOBILE IS SATISFYING OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND SURROUNDING AREAS IT'S REALLY TO PROSPER. I AM EXPIRED.

>> YOU ARE OUT OF TIME I WOULD NOT SAY YOU ARE EXPIRED. OUT OF

TIME. >> ANYWAY YOU GET THE GIST OF IT. TODAY'S MY BIRTHDAY. PLEASE VOTE THE PROPER WAY FOR ME.

>> HAPPY BIRTHDAY. >> THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY

MUCH. >> THE NEXT SPEAKER IS AND YOU HAVE 5 MINUTES. SORRY IF I MISS PRONOUNCE YOUR NAME.

>> MY NAME IS LYNN PAGANO . I LIVE AT 619 WEST BIOKO . I LIVE AT 619 WEST BIOKO CIR. MARKED WITH A X ON THIS MAP. I AM APPROXIMATELY 375 FEET FROM THE TOWER SITE. MY NEXT-DOOR NEIGHBOR IS THE ONE WHO IS 263 FEET FROM THE TOWER SITE AND THAT IS SLIGHTLY OVER YOUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BOUNDARY.

SHORTLY AFTER THE PUBLIC MEETING IN JANUARY, REGARDING THIS TOWER PROPOSAL A GROUP OF NEIGHBORS CIRCULATED A PETITION OPPOSING THE TOWER. THE WORDING OF THE PETITION WAS DERIVED FROM THE ST. JOHN'S COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND READS WE UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF CELL SERVICE AND ITS NEED BUT WE BELIEVE THERE NEEDS TO BE BETTER WAYS TO ACHIEVE THIS WITHOUT JEOPARDIZING OUR HEALTH, SAFETY, COMMUNITY AESTHETICS AND PROPERTY VALUES. WE THE RESIDENTS OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IMPLORE LOCAL GOVERNING BODIES TO OPPOSE THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A TOWER AT THIS LOCATION. WE SENT 170 SIGNATURES TO PLANNING AND ZONING MEMBERS AND AN EMAIL DATED FEBRUARY 17 DATED FEBRUARY 17, 2025. I DON'T KNOW IF THE INFORMATION WAS PASSED ON TO THE NEW PCA MEMBERS, BUT WE HAVE SUBMITTED , DIGITALLY INTO EVIDENCE PETITIONS WITH A TOTAL OF 393 SIGNATURES. THESE SIGNATURES REPRESENT MOSTLY SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS WITHIN VISUAL DISTANCE OF THE PROPOSED TOWER AND WERE COLLECTED DOOR-TO-DOOR. THERE ARE 2 MORE BRIEF POINTS I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS. I DON'T BELIEVE THIS PROPOSAL IS ABOUT COVERAGE, BUT ABOUT MONEY. BY THE WAY WE HAVE EXCELLENT COVERAGE ON OUR STREET I HAVE NOT HEARD ONE WORD IN OPPOSITION TO THE CHURCH BEING BUILT ON THE PROPERTY. THAT CHANGED WITH THE TOWER PROPOSAL AND POSSIBLE DISRUPTION OF PEACEFUL ENJOYMENT OF OUR HOMES.

THE CHURCH USED TO POST ONLINE THE BUILDING FUND STATUS BUT THE TRANSPARENCY STOP WHEN THE TOWER PROPOSAL GOT UNDERWAY. WE ARE NOT PRIVY TO THE LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN NEXT TOWER AND LIVING STONE BUT I BELIEVE IT IS A SAFE ASSUMPTION THAT LEASE MONEY WILL

[01:50:03]

>> HAPPY HOLIDAYS, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OUR LAST DESIGNATED

SPEAKER , YOU HAVE 5 MINUTES. >> SORRY IS IT BETTER NOW?

>> START WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

>> MY NAME IS JAMES I LIVE AT 639 EAST

>> MY NAME IS JAMES I LIVE AT 639 EAST YUNKER CIR. WITH MY WIFE AND 1ST I WANT TO THANK ALL THE BOARD MEMBERS FOR SERVING OUR COMMUNITY. MY HOME IS CLOSE ENOUGH TO THE TOWER SITE TO WHERE WE RECEIVED OFFICIAL NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC MEETING BACK IN JANUARY. I SPEAK TODAY ON BEHALF OF NOT ONLY MYSELF, BUT MY WIFE AND MY NEIGHBOR ACROSS THE STREET AT 630 EAST YUNKER. WE PURCHASED A LOT LAST YEAR AND I WATCH SEVERAL RECENT TOWER HEARINGS AND IT SEEMS DEVELOPERS OR SPOKESPERSONS BEAT THE SAME DRUM, THE CITIZEN OF THE COMMUNITY OF THE AFFECTED AREAS HAVE NOT PROVIDED COMPETENT AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT DENIAL BUT THE VARIANCE REQUEST. I WOULD RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT THE BURDEN REST WITH THE PARTY SEEKING THE VARIANCE TO SHOW THE 10 FINDINGS OF FACT LISTED IN THE SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR THE MOTION TO APPROVE ARE THERE.

THESE SIMPLY ARE NOT. WHY? BECAUSE THE APPLICANT HAS NOT SHOWN THAT SPECIAL USE CAN BE GRANTED WITHOUT A SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENT TO THE PUBLIC GOOD AND WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY IMPAIR THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE ST. JOHN'S COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DEVELOPMENT CODE THEY HAVE NOT SHOWN THAT BECAUSE THE APPLICANT HAS NOT SHOWN THE 170 FOOT TOWER THEY PROPOSED IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE CONTAGIOUS AND SURROUNDING AREA. AND WILL NOT IMPOSE EXCESSIVE BURDEN OR HAVE SUBSTANTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THIS RUNNING ADJACENT USE FOR THE COMMUNITY FACILITIES FOR SERVICES . THERE ARE 3 SEPARATE ELEMENTS FOR THAT FACTUAL FINDING. BECAUSE THE APPLICANT HAS NOT SHOWN THAT THE REQUESTED USE WHEN CONTROLLED IS TO THE NUMBER LOCATION RELATIONSHIP TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD PROMOTE THE PUBLIC HEALTH , SAFETY , WELFARE , THE MORALS, ORDER, COMFORT, CONVENIENCE , APPEARANCE , PROSPERITY OR THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE AREA. BECAUSE THE APPLICANT HAS NOT SHOWN THAT THE REQUESTED USE IS NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS OF THE AREA. THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY. BECAUSE THE APPLICANT HAS NOT SHOWN THE REQUESTED USE MINIMIZES THE ADVERSE VISUAL EFFECTS SWEAR BUILDING A 8 FOOT FENCE AROUND THIS THING? WHAT

[01:55:05]

AUGUSTINE. I ALSO HAVE A CONDOMINIUM ON THE BEACH. I LISTENED TO THE CITIZENS OF WILDWOOD COME IN FRONT OF YOU ALL AND TELL YOU THAT EVEN THOUGH SOME OF THEM HAD TO UTILIZE THE WI-FI FEATURES ON THEIR PHONE HAD TO TAKE A 2ND TO FLIP IT ON HERE THAT LITTLE INCONVENIENCE DID NOT BOTHER THEM ENOUGH FOR A CELL PHONE TOWER IN THEIR COMMUNITY, I LISTENED TO MULTIPLE PEOPLE STEP UP AND MAKE THE POINT TO YOU SO WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? WE ALREADY HEARD WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT MONEY. THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO BENEFIT FROM THE CELL PHONE TOWER IS GOING TO BE THE DEVELOPER, THE PEOPLE WHO OWN THE TOWER , THE PRIMARY ONES AT THE TOP OF THE FOOD CHAIN AND THE CHURCH. THAT IS IT. WHERE DOES IT COME OUT OF? ALL OF OUR POCKETS. I AM NOT A SCIENTIST, I AM NOT AN ENGINEER, I AM NOT A DOCTOR OR ENVIRONMENTALIST. I AM JUST A CITIZEN IN THIS COMMUNITY IN NEED OF YOUR PROTECTION. YOU ARE THE GUARDIANS OF OUR GALAXY THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

>> DESIGNATED SPEAKERS. FOR ANYBODY THAT DID NOT A LOT OF TIME TO A DESIGNATED SPEAKER IT IS NOW YOUR TIME TO COME FORWARD. YOU HAVE 3 MINUTES, GO AHEAD. WE CAN HAVE EACH PERSON LINEUP AT ALL 3 PODIUMS AND WE WILL TAKE TURNS. OKAY?

>> IS NOT AWARE OF THE ABILITY TO DESIGNATE TO SOMEONE ELSE A LOT OF TIME.

THIS POINT. EACH PERSON CAN SPEAK 3 MINUTES BUT SOMEONE ELSE

CANNOT GIVE THEIR TIME TO YOUR. >> FOR FUTURE REFERENCE WHEN I COME TO THE MEETINGS THAT IS AN OPTION?

>> THAT IS WITH A CERTAIN LIMIT OF SIGNATURES YOU GET A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME AND THE LEGAL TEAM GOES OVER IT BEFORE HAND.

>> OKAY I WAS NEVER MADE AWARE OF THAT.

>> SURE, YES MA'AM. YOU CAN LINE UP ON THIS ONE YOU WOULD LIKE TO GO IN THE MIDDLE? YOU WILL BE 2ND. AND YOU WILL BE THE

3RD ONE GO AHEAD. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND SERVICE. MY NAME IS ROBIN CARUSO, I LIVE AT 432 I LIVE AT 432 ESCALANTE COURT IN THE SHORES. OF COURSE OKAY. WAS THIS WHOLE PLAN OF USING A CHURCH TRACKED AS HOME FOR A CELL TOWER POLE A COINCIDENCE OR WELL-PLANNED AND COORDINATED EFFORT BETWEEN A NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS TO BYPASS THE HOA BY MAKING SURE DELTONA DID NOT FILE THE SAME PREVIOUSLY USED CHURCH

[02:00:03]

PROTECTING THIS ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY AND RESIDENTS OF THE ESSAY SHORES IS PERTINENT. I ASK YOU TO CONSIDER ALL TESTIMONY AND ALL COINCIDENCES HEARD TODAY AND SAY NO TO THIS CELL TOWER PROPOSAL TO BE BUILT IN A TRACT OF LAND ZONED A CHURCH SITE SINCE THE EARLY 1970S WHEN THE COUNTY 1ST APPROVED THE SHORE PUD.

EVERY ELECTION OUR NO SHORE TOWER GROUP WAS ABLE TO PROCURE OVER 800 PETITIONERS OF PEOPLE AGAINST THE CELL PHONE TOWER IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND I KNOW THAT BECAUSE I WENT FROM HOUSE TO HOUSE TO HOUSE, THEIR REGISTERED VOTERS, INTERNET SOCIAL MEDIA INFLUENCERS AND HARD-WORKING CITIZENS OF OUR COMMUNITY.

PLEASE RECOGNIZE THIS THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> BERNADETTE FERGUSON 992 992 SAN ANTONIO DR. I DON'T HAVE MUCH TO SAY THAT HAS NOT BEEN SAID. BUT I DO WANT TO JUST REITERATE WHAT HAS BEEN SAID BECAUSE THIS IS AN ENVIRONMENT OF ISSUE. IT IS A AESTHETIC ISSUE AND IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE UNDERNEATH AND I WOULD LIKE TO BRING UP STARLINK.

TECHNOLOGY IS MOVING FAST. YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE A HORRIBLE CELL TOWER THERE WERE TODAY YOU CAN HAVE STARLINK AT THE LAB POOR CELL PHONE SERVICE THEY CAN GO BUY IT BUT ALSO ELON MUSK, IT'S GOING PAST AND T-MOBILE HAS PARTNERED WITH THEM SO SOON ENOUGH RISING AND EVERYBODY ELSE WILL BE ON BOARD AND WE WILL BE STUCK WITH THE TOWER THAT REALLY IS NOT GOING TO BE OF USE BECAUSE WE ARE GOING TO BE USING THE SATELLITE. SO IT IS SOMETHING TO CONSIDER BECAUSE THAT IS A SHORT MATTER OF TIME AND THE ONLY ONE THIS IS GOING TO BENEFIT IS THE CHURCH WHICH I SAY TO THEM, SHAME ON THEM. REALLY.

>> CAN YOU ALL HOLD YOUR APPLAUSE TO MINIMUM PLEASE. GO

AHEAD. >> HI I LIVE AT 1006 I LIVE AT 1006 SAN ANTONIO DR. IN SABLE ESTATES IN THE SHORES. A YOUNG FAMILY THAT MOVED TO THE AREA BECAUSE THE MAIN DRAW WAS ALL THE POWER LINES AND EVERYTHING WERE UNDERGROUND AND WE FELT IT WAS SAFE FOR SMALL CHILDREN AND THIS CELL TOWER IS GOING TO BE VISIBLE FROM THE BACKYARD AND WE LOVE TO BE OUTSIDE AND I LOVE OUR COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORS AND I DON'T WANT TO SEE THIS AESTHETICALLY UNPLEASING THING IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR BACKYARDS AND EVERYTHING ELSE. IF YOU COULD FIND IT IN YOUR HEARTS TO THING ABOUT THE YOUNG CHILDREN AND OLDER PEOPLE AND HOW MUCH WE LOVE OUR COMMUNITY AND THE WILDLIFE AND EVERYTHING ELSE. I

APPRECIATE THAT, THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> TO MY RIGHT GO AHEAD. >> RACHEL GOOD KIND. I LIVE AT 7 CATALONIA COURT IN ST. AUGUSTINE. I LIVE IN A CONDO COMMUNITY WITH 454 UNITS. WE ARE LESS THAN A 1/4 MILE FROM THE PROPOSED TOWER . THE PROBLEM WITH THESE ISSUES IS EVERYBODY WHO IS HERE TO SPEAK UP FOR OUR RIGHTS IS NOT PROFITING FROM THIS, THE PROFITEERS ARE THE CELL TOWER COMPANIES AND THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY'S. UNFORTUNATELY, OUR FCC IS NOT SUPPORTING OUR FIRST AMENDMENT DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS TO SPEAK. IN FACT, THE 1996 TELECOMMUNICATION S ACT ISSUED BY THE FCC DENIES THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF CITIZENS TO COME TO ZONING HEARINGS AND TALK ABOUT HEALTH ISSUES OR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES.

[02:05:03]

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH MA'AM. >> YES GOOD AFTERNOON PANEL MY NAME IS ELIZABETH MICHAELS 635 635 SHORES BLVD. A COUPLE POINTS THAT MAYBE HAVE NOT BEEN TOUCHED ON TO MAKE IT SHORT. PROPERTY VALUE IMPACTS ARE NOT ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED , IN MY OPINION. STAFF REPORT CONCLUDES THERE WILL BE NO SIGNIFICANT PROPERTY VALUE IMPACT. WITH NO INDEPENDENT APPRAISAL OR MARKET ANALYSIS PROVIDED. PEER REVIEW STUDIES SUMMARIZED BY THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS CONSISTENTLY SHOW MEASURABLE VALUE DECLINES FOR HOMES NEAR VISIBLE CELL TOWERS. THAT IS PARTICULARLY IN SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SETTINGS . WITHOUT OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS THAT THIS USE WILL NOT DECLARE MENTALLY IMPACT ADJACENT PROPERTY VALUES HAS NOT BEEN SUFFICIENTLY SUPPORTED. REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES HAVE NOT BEEN EXHAUSTED. THE COURT PLACES THE BURDEN ON THE APPLICANT TO DEMONSTRATE THAT NO SUITABLE ALTERNATIVE OR CO-LOCATION OPTIONS EXIST. THE STAFF REPORT ITSELF NOTES OTHER NEARBY TOWERS INCLUDING , THAT MAY HAVE ADDED TO THE CAPACITY. RESIDENCE RAISED ADDITIONAL ALTERNATIVES DURING WORKSHOP. A RESIDENTIAL INTERIOR LOCATION SHOULD BE A LAST RESORT . NOT THE DEFAULT.

IN CLOSING, THIS IS NOT A POSITION TO WIRELESS SERVICE, IT IS A REQUEST FOR APPROPRIATE SITING. FOR THESE REASONS SPECIAL USE CRITERIA HAVE NOT BEEN MET AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK YOU TO DENY THIS APPLICATION. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE AND

HAPPY HOLIDAYS. >> GOOD AFTERNOON MY NAME IS,

INAUDIBLE ] >> CAN YOU PULL THE MICROPHONE

FURTHER DOWN? >> OKAY. HERE TODAY BECAUSE THIS AFFECTS MY HOME AND COMMUNITY. I CHOSE CAREFULLY COME I DO NOT HAVE ISSUES WITH MY CURRENT SERVICE AND THERE HAVE BEEN NONE , NO DEMONSTRATED NEED TO JUSTIFY PLACING THIS TOWER IN THE MIDDLE OF THE RESIDENTIAL AREA. TO BE VERY HONEST IF THE TOWER HAD CONSISTENT OR EVEN PROPOSED WHEN I BOUGHT MY HOME I WOULDN'T HAVE PURCHASED IT. AND I WAS A REALTOR AT THE TIME I

[02:10:04]

MEMBER WAS TREASURER SORRY. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH I

APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME I RESIDE AT 56 SANTOS LN., SAINT AUGUSTINE SHORES SABLE ESTATES COMMUNITY THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TODAY. I HAVE LIVED IN THE SHORES OVER 5 YEARS. ONE AREA THAT CONCERNS ME IS WE HAVE A HOA AND BYLAWS AND GOVERNING DOCUMENTS. THERE SEEMS TO BE A CONFLICT. I SUPPOSE NOT 100% SURE THE PRESIDENT OF THE HOA , SHE'S NOT HERE TODAY. I WONDER WHY. IT IS MY BELIEF NOT 100% SURE THAT THE PROPERTY SOLD TO THE CHURCH WAS SOLD BY DARK SCHROEDER BUT I'M NOT SURE SO WE MIGHT WANT TO INVESTIGATE THAT AND PERHAPS THAT'S WHY THE CHURCH WAS LEFT OUT OF THE DEED RESTRICTIONS WE ALSO HAVE 3 OTHER CHURCHES IN THE SHORES THAT ARE RESTRICTED TO THE DEED RESTRICTIONS SO WHY IS THIS PROPERTY THAT WAS JUST PURCHASED A FEW YEARS AGO EXEMPT FROM THE SAME DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT THE OTHER 3 CHURCHES ARE REQUIRED TO ABIDE BY? SO, YOU WOULD ASK YOURSELVES AS THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE COMMUNITY WHY IS THE HOA NOT HERE AND WHY DO WE HAVE A LARGE GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT ARE HERE FROM THE SHORES? I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER TO THAT BUT I'M HOPING SOMEONE HERE WOULD THINK. IN CLOSING I WANT TO SAY THAT THE REQUIRED , THE USE FOR THIS SPACE AND DEVELOPMENT, THE REQUESTED USE IS IN DIRECT CONFLICT WITH DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS OF THE AREA SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND I HOPE

EVERYONE HAS A GREAT HOLIDAY. >> THANK YOU.

>> ON A CRAFT SAN ANTONIO DR., I LIVE IN SABLE ESTATES AND I WANTED TO ADD MY VOICE, EVERYONE SPOKE SO BEAUTIFULLY AND I AGREE WITH WHAT EVERYONE SAID. JUST WANTED TO SAY I JUST BOUGHT LAST YEAR, THE THINGS I LOOK FOR BIG POWERLINES, CELL PHONE TOWERS, BIG HIGHWAYS AND IF I WAS BUYING NO WAY SAW THE TOWER I WOULD NEVER BUY AND WE ARE ALL HOPING OUR VALUES AND NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD GROW AND BE DUTIFUL, NOW TO HAVE THE TOWER THERE IT

[02:15:08]

DENYING. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> MY NAME IS JANE TAGER 401 401 ESCALANTE COURT AND I WAS UNAWARE THIS TRACT OF LAND WAS EXEMPT FROM THE DEED RESTRICTIONS BECAUSE THAT'S CONTRARY TO WHAT I WAS TOLD BY THE ST. AUGUSTINE SHORES SERVICE CORPORATION THAT THEY SAID THIS TRACT OF LAND WAS TRACKED G UNIT 7 BUT I WILL SAY THE ORDINANCE 7973 FOR OUR PUD DOES SAY ACCESSORY YEARS AND STRUCTURES MUST KEEP WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT WHERE THEY ARE LOCATED AND A CELL PHONE TOWERS NOT IN CHARACTER WITH SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. THE DEED RESTRICTIONS FOR THIS TRACT DOES SAY THAT ANYTHING ON THE PROPERTY , THE DEED RESTRICTION PROHIBITS ANYTHING ON THE PROPERTY WHICH MAY BE AN ANNOYANCE OR NUISANCE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. CLEARLY A CELL PHONE TOWER IS AN ANNOYANCE AND NUISANCE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND ADDITIONALLY THE DEED RESTRICTION STATES THAT NO TREES WITH A TRUNK DIAMETER MEASURED AT 5 FEET FROM THE GROUND SURFACE 4 OR MORE INCHES SHALL BE CUT OR REMOVED FROM ANY PORTION OF THE PROPERTY. SO I DO HOPE THAT IS ADDRESSED AS WELL AND I URGE YOU ALL TO DENY THIS APPLICATION FOR A CELL PHONE TOWER. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> STEPHANIE LEWIS HOFFMAN , 683 I DID NOT GET THE RED MEMO. I'M HERE I WANT TO SAY MY PEACE.

EVERYBODY STATED PROPERTY VALUE, THE WILDLIFE , HEALTH CONCERNS.

ALL OF THESE THINGS AND WITH THE CHURCH TAKING MONEY I THINK THAT IS INAPPROPRIATE AND US STANDING HERE TOGETHER AS RESIDENTS I HOPE YOU REALLY HEAR US AND WE STAND FOR THIS AND LET US HAVE OUR COMMUNITY HOW WE WANT AND HOPE YOU CAN HELP US , MAKE SURE WE KEEP THE COMMUNITY FOR WHAT WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE WHEN WE MOVED THERE. THIS IS MY FOREVER HOME WE ARE GOING TO BE IN ROCKING CHAIRS ON THE PORCH AND I DON'T WANT TO SEE A CELL PHONE TOWER IMPENDING ON US AND WHATEVER GOES ALONG WITH THAT.

THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO ME. >> THANK YOU.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON MY NAME IS MARIE KIMBALL, 131 SANGRIA LN.

IN SABLE ESTATES WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 1 MILE FROM THE PROPOSED TOWER SITE AND I AM IN OPPOSITION OF THE TOWER BEING ERECTED AT THIS SITE. 4 CONCERNS ARE THAT ONE IT IS GOING TO BE 170 FEET TALL AS FAR AS THE TOWER, HOWEVER IF YOU CAN READ ON THE OVERALL SITE PLAN DATED MARCH MARCH 20 25 THERE IS ONLY A .5 MILE BUFFER FALL ZONE RADIANCE. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THERE'S A HURRICANE OR FIRE? AGAIN HURRICANES LIKE MILTON AND HELENE WE HAD LAST YEAR. IS IT GOING TO BLOW .5 MILES FROM THE FALL ZONE? I PROBABLY DOUBT IT BUT MAYBE. WHAT ABOUT FALLING TO THE PROTECTED WETLANDS AND DESTROYING THEM AS YOU CAN SEE THE WETLANDS COME FLUSH BORDER WITH A CELL PHONE TOWER SITES. I THOUGHT THOSE WERE PROTECTED BY LAW, I COULD BE WRONG BUT THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING. MY NEXT CONCERN IS LIGHTING AND PAINTING ACCORDING TO THE SITE PLAN IT DIRECTLY STATES NO LIGHTING ILLUMINATION WILL BE PUT ON THE TOWER. TO MY UNDERSTANDING ACCORDING TO THE FCC AND FAA FEDERAL AGENCIES THEY HAVE THE SAY ON THAT NOT ANYBODY LOCAL, STATE, NOBODY ELSE SO HOW THEY CAN OVERRIDE IT I DON'T UNDERSTAND. BUT A CONCERN OF MINE. MY 3RD CONCERN IS IT STATES THAT ON THE OVERALL SITE PLAN SURVEY NOTES NEXT TOWER STAFF SHALL COORDINATE WITH PROPERTY OWNERS TO OBTAIN PROPER ASSESSMENT AGREEMENTS TO CONSTRUCT AND MAINTAIN EQUIPMENT IN AND AROUND THE TOWER COMPOUND. HAS ANYBODY BEEN CONTACTED , NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE

[02:20:03]

YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. >> MR. WESTER WOULD YOU LIKE TO REBUT? I'M SORRY. WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT? GO AHEAD. MY NAME IS BRADLEY SMITH, 102 HONDA IN THE SHORES.

I REALLY DON'T HAVE MUCH TO SAY ABOUT THE CELL PHONE TOWER AS TODAY UNDERSTAND THESE PEOPLE THAT IT DOES IMPACT AND HAVE THEIR RIGHT TO TALK ABOUT IT. BUT I DO WANT TO TALK ABOUT IS THE FACT THE CELL PHONE TOWER THAT SERVICES MOST OF THE SHORES IS 2 1/2 MILES AWAY BEHIND BASICALLY A FAST FOOD RESTAURANT. EVERYTHING IN THE SHORES IN THE AREA ALL THE WAY TO THE RIVER GOES DOWNHILL. MY CONCERN IS THE CHILDREN THAT PLAY DOWN THERE. I HAD A HEART ATTACK DOWN THERE , BACK IN OCTOBER , BACK IN OCTOBER 2023. WE COULD NOT GET CELL PHONE SERVICE TO GET OUT TO 911. THANK GOODNESS FOR KATHY SCHROEDER , THE WIFE OF THE HIDEOUS SCHROEDER WENT TO THE OFFICES AND CALLED 911 TO GET ME AN AMBULANCE. BUT, THERE PLENTY OF KIDS THAT PLAY DOWN THERE AND WE HAVE SPOTTY CELL PHONE SERVICE NOW, WE DON'T? I JUST TOLD YOU AN EXAMPLE.

>> KEEP YOUR COMMENTARY TO US. JUST SPEAK TO US.

>> GOT. WITH ALL THOSE CHILDREN PLAYING SUPPOSED ONE OF THEM GETS INJURED WITH SPOTTY CELL PHONE SERVICE. I'M NOT SAYING THIS IS THE WAY TO GO, I AM SAYING TO FIGURE IT OUT BECAUSE THERE NEEDS TO BE BETTER SERVICE ESPECIALLY IN THAT AREA WHERE

ALL THE KIDS PLAY. >> THANK YOU, SIR. ANY MORE PUBLIC COMMENT? GO AHEAD. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT COME UP AND LINEUP SO I KNOW WHEN WE ARE DONE. MR. WESTER I AM SORRY. YES MA'AM THAT IS FINE.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON SORRY I AM LATE. HELENE CONROY SMITH, I LIVE IN THE SHORES AND I AM COMING TO TALK ABOUT THE CELL TOWER AS A HOMEOWNER I PURCHASED MY HOME IN 2024. I WAS NOT AWARE THIS WAS GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT WAS GOING TO BE ERECTED IN THE CHURCH PROPERTY WAS SOLD IN 2023. WHEN I PURCHASED MY HOME IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THE ORIGINAL GOVERNING DOCUMENT TOOK 10 YEARS TO PURCHASE A HOME IN ST. AUGUSTINE BECAUSE MY HUSBAND AND I DID RESEARCH TO MAKE SURE THIS WOULD BE OUR FOREVER HOME.

THE PUD SAID THAT NO BUILDING WOULD BE ERECTED MORE THAN 33 FEET TALL. SO I'M NOT SURE WHY ALL OF A SUDDEN NOW WE ARE MAKING SOME TYPE OF CHANGES ASKING FOR VARIANCE, 170 FOOT POLE IS PRETTY BIG. SAY SOMETHING WERE TO HAPPEN AND THE POLE FELL, IT WOULD BE NEAR MY HOME AND I CAME HERE TO ST.

[02:25:04]

>> LAST CALL FOR SPEAKERS. OKAY MR. WESTER , THE FLOOR IS YOURS.

>> BRAD WESTER, APPLICANT AGENT FOR THE MATTER. I WILL START OUT BY GOING THROUGH SOME OF THE HIGHER-LEVEL MATTERS DISCUSSED SPECIFICALLY TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS AND WE TALKED A LOT ABOUT DISCUSSION ABOUT BIRDS AND ROOKERY AND WHATNOT. AS THE BOARD KNOWS AND STAFF AND COUNTY ATTORNEY KNOW THAT TOWERS AND TOWER APPLICATIONS ARE SOME OF THE MOST DETAILED AND SCRUTINIZED IN TERMS OF REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBMITTAL, DOCUMENTS EXHIBITS, PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING CERTIFIED EXPERT TESTIMONY OF ANY APPLICATION IN THE COUNTY.

SO WE PROVIDED THAT SINCE DAY ONE, LAST NOVEMBER 2024 SO IT HAS BEEN ON FILE OVER ONE YEAR NOW. WE HAVE HAD OUR COMMUNITY MEETING AND TIME TO TIME NOT ONLY TO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RESPONSE PERIOD FOR THIS MATTER SPECIFICALLY THIS IS SPECIAL USE PERMIT NOT VARIANCE OR REZONING. WE WOULD ADDRESS CERTAIN TOPICS WITH EXPERTS AND SOME OF THE MOST RECENT CAME UP WITH THE BIRD ROOKERY EMAILS FLOATING AROUND FROM OPPOSITION AND CONCERNS FROM RESIDENTS. WE DID PROVIDE A STUDY NATIONAL AND MENTAL POLICY ACT STUDY FROM THE FEDERAL LEVEL ALL THE WAY TO THE STATE LEVEL. THAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED AS PART OF THE EXPERT TESTIMONY SUBSTANTIAL COMPANY EVIDENCE MORE IMPORTANT WE DID FOLLOW-UP WITH AMBER LITTLE SCIENTIST WHO MADE SUBMITTALS TO NOT ONLY STATE-LEVEL FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION BUT THE FEDERAL. AND THEY REVIEWED THE DATABASES , THE FLORIDA WATER BIRD COLONY LOCATOR WEB MAP. IT DOES NOT SHOW ANY MAPPED BIRD COLONY WITHIN THE POND ADJACENT TO THE POWER SITE, CLOSEST IS IN THE STATE FOREST. NOW OUR ENVIRONMENTALIST DOES SAY I DON'T DOUBT WAITING BIRDS MIGHT UTILIZE THE AREA. THIS PROJECT IS NOT IMPACTING THE POND OR ADJACENT WETLANDS FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTIST WHO SUBMITTED THIS AND WE HAVE AND I CAN SUBMIT AGAIN FOR THE RECORD. FROM THE FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE COMMISSION CONSERVATION COMMISSION. IT DOES STATE SPECIFIC TO THIS TOWER REQUEST THAT THE SITE IS REVIEWED FOR THE PRESENCE OF FEDERAL AND STATE LISTED SPECIES THE PRESENCE OF SUITABLE HABITAT FOR SPECIES CRITICAL HABITAT FOR FEDERAL SPECIES EITHER ON-SITE OR NEARBY WITHIN 1 MILE, WILDLIFE REFUGE WITHIN 5 MILES AND FISH HATCHERIES. THEY GO ON TO COMMENT IN THE LETTER THAT THE NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SCREENINGS THE AFTER BC AGAIN THE FLORIDA FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION COMMISSION HAS NO OBJECTIONS RELATED TO STATE LISTED SPECIES AND HABITAT OR OTHER STATE FISH OR WILDLIFE RESOURCES THAT OFFER IN THIS SPECIFIC MATTER SO THERE ARE NO FINDINGS THAT TALK ABOUT IMPACTS DIRECT OR PERIPHERAL TO WILDLIFE BUT ENVIRONMENTAL OR WILDLIFE ITSELF SO THE FLORA AND FAUNA HABITAT. THAT IS ALL PART OF THE RECORD. OTHER ITEMS THAT HAVE COME UP WITH A LOT OF FOLKS TALK ABOUT FALL RADIUS OF THE TOWER ITSELF AND THIS TOWER CERTIFIED AND ENGINEERED TO FALL WITHIN A 40 FOOT COLLAPSE RADIUS IT DOES NOT FALL LIKE YOU'RE GETTING THE BASE OF A TREE AND TIMBER OVER. SO NOT ONLY DO THE DOCUMENTS PROVIDED BY THE ENGINEERING PLANS PROVIDED AS THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TOWER THERE ENGINEERING CERTIFIED BY STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS TO FALL WITHIN A 40 FOOT COLLAPSE RADIUS. THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THE CHARACTER AND AESTHETICS OF THE AREA. THE TOWER IS A PASSIVE USE WITH NO

[02:30:05]

>> PLEASE, NO COMMENTS. >> AGAIN THERE WERE DESCRIPTIONS THIS MAY BE A VARIANCE TALKING ABOUT THE ZONING. IT IS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND THE PERMIT LISTS TOWERS PERMISSIBLE BY WAY OF EXCEPTION. TALKING ABOUT VALUATION OF PROPERTY THERE IS NO REAL ESTATE PROPERTY ASSESSED HERE TO TESTIFY ON VALUATION. SINCE SUBMITTAL NOVEMBER 2024 THERE HAS BEEN NO REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM A LICENSED APPRAISER TO ASSESS PROPERTY VALUE IN THE AREA. THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT CRITERIA HAS BEEN MET AND IT INCLUDED NUMEROUS STUDIES, ALL CRITERIA DOCUMENTS AND EXHIBITS ON FILE SINCE NOVEMBER DOCUMENTS AND EXHIBITS ON FILE SINCE NOVEMBER 2024 AND WE STAND BEHIND THEM. WITH THAT I STAND BY FOR QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS YOU MAY HAVE AND I WILL FINALIZE I THINK LEX TAYLOR THE COUNTY ATTORNEY WILL DESCRIBE THIS IS AN EXEMPT PARCEL AND WE HAVE DONE THE TITLE SEARCH. WE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH THE ASSOCIATION ITSELF AND THE ATTORNEY AND HAVE OPINED TO US THIS IS A EXEMPT PARCEL NOT UNDER THE SCRUTINY OF THE ACC WHERE THE DEED RESTRICTIONS OF THE SHORT COMMUNITY. I'VE DONE OTHER ZONING'S IN THE SHORT COMMUNITY AND WENT BEFORE THE ACC AND THEY HAVE SAID COME TO US AFTER ZONING GETS SQUARED AWAY SO THAT'S THE TYPICAL LOGICAL PROGRESSION THAT DOES NOT APPLY IN THIS CASE. IT IS EXEMPT PARCEL.

>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADD ANYTHING? SMOKE SOME REMINDERS OF FACTS. THIS IS A JUDICIAL HEARING SO UNDER THE SNYDER VERSUS BREVARD COUNTY TEST YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO LISTEN TO THE CLAMOR OF THE CROWD OR HOW MANY PEOPLE SHOW UP, THE PUBLIC CAN COME AND PRESENT COMPETENT AND SUBSTANTIAL RESIDENCE EACH ONE OF YOU IS TO JUDGE WHETHER THE EVIDENCE IS PRESENTED IN THIS CASE ON THE DEED RESTRICTIONS I LOOKED AT EMAILS FROM THE ATTORNEY REPRESENTING HOA CONCEDES THE PROPERTY IS NOT DEED RESTRICTED, STAFF HAS INDEPENDENTLY COOPERATED WITH THAT SO THERE ARE NO DEED RESTRICTIONS THAT THIS BODY NEEDS TO CONSIDER AS FAR AS MAKING IT FINAL DECISIONS. DEED RESTRICTIONS ARE NOT ENFORCED BY THE BODY THIS BODY IS HERE TO AFFECT ZONING AND IF THERE IS A POTENTIAL DEED RESTRICTION ISSUE, THAT WOULD BE FOR 3RD PARTIES TO TAKE TO COURT.

FEDERAL LAW PREEMPTS WHAT WE CAN CONSIDER WHEN LOOKING AT TOWER APPLICATIONS SO THAT MEANS FEDERAL LAW SAYS YOU MUST GUARANTEE THAT THERE IS WIRELESS SERVICE AVAILABLE IN THIS AREA

[02:35:02]

YOU CAN ENFORCE THE OTHER COUNTY CODES HERE UNDER THE LAND-USE AND IF YOU HAVE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS PLEASE REFER THEM BACK

TO ME. >> THANK YOU MR. TAYLOR. WE HAVE

QUESTIONS LINED UP FOR YOU. >> DO YOU KNOW WHETHER THIS TOWER IS BEING LOCATED IN RESPONSE TO COMPLAINTS ABOUT

SERVICE? >> I DO NOT KNOW THAT. I TRUST THE DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED IN THE FREQUENCY STUDIES THAT THERE IS A VOID OF THAT TYPE OF SELF COVERAGE FOR T-MOBILE SPECIFICALLY AS SUBMITTED BUT I HAVE HAD NO OTHER DIALOGUE.

>> AT THE SOUTHERN END, IT LOOKS LIKE THE ACTUAL SHORES COMMUNITY GETS DEEPER AS YOU GO TO THE SOUTH. CAN YOU OR STAFF TELL ME THE DISTANCE FROM U.S. 1, TO THE FURTHEST POINT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AWAY FROM YOU? WHAT IS THE DIAMETER IN THE GREEN OR THE BLUE CIRCLE OR THE GREEN I'M A LITTLE COLORBLIND.

>> THAT IS A 1 MILE RADIUS. >> THE RADIUS SO 2 MILES. SO IT IS A LITTLE MORE THAN 1 MILE OVER SO AN ANTENNA LOCATED ALONG U.S. 1 WOULD ONLY BE A MILE AND A QUARTER FROM THE FURTHEST HOUSE WITH MULTIPLE ANTENNAS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF U.S.

1. >> THOSE THAT YOU ARE REFERENCING ADJACENT TO U.S. 1 ARE IN THESE LOCATIONS BETWEEN THE ONE-MILE RADIUS AND THE TWO-MILE RADIUS.

>> OKAY THANK YOU. >> YOU'RE WELCOME.

>> MISS SPIEGEL? >> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR CHRISTOPHER IF HE IS HERE AND AVAILABLE.

>> YES MA'AM? >> YOU ARE THE ST. JOHN'S

COUNTY? >> RESIDENT PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER STATE OF FLORIDA. FOR ST. JOHN'S COUNTY TOWER

APPLICATIONS. >> WE HAVE HEARD A LOT OF PEOPLE COMMENT ABOUT ALL OF THE UTILITIES IN THIS PLANNED COMMUNITY TO BE UNDERGROUND YOU HAVE A WAY TO ADDRESS CELL TOWERS AS UNDERGROUND ON POSSIBILITY

>> NOT FOR MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS. TRULY , YOU CARRY IT EVERYWHERE YOU GO YOU CANNOT HAVE THEM DRAGGING.

>> SO UNDERGROUND WOULD HAVE TO BE WIRE-TO-WIRE? FIXED COMMUNICATION OKAY. THAT'S INTERESTING, THANK YOU. I THINK THAT WAS ALL I WANTED TO CLARIFY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR

COMING UP. AND MR. WESTER . >> YOU DID TALK ABOUT THE FALL RADIUS TOWERS ARE DESIGNED TO NOT FALL?

>> YES. AND THERE IS A 40 FOOT, SHE COULD SEE THE PARCEL HERE, THE SQUARE THERE IS A 40 FOOT FALL RADIUS IN THAT, THAT IS REQUIRED AND THAT IS KIND OF A STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING AND COLLAPSED STANDARD THAT IT DOES NOT TIP OVER LIKE YOU ARE SIGNED ON THE BASE OF A TREE IS MEANT TO, AND COLLAPSED INTO THAT

RADIUS. >> IT IS DESIGNED THAT WAY EVEN

IN HIGH WIND. >> THAT'S CORRECT IT WILL NOT TOPPLE OVER IN THE WETLANDS AS DESCRIBED BY SOME OF THE RESIDENCE OR INTO SOMEONE'S HOUSE.

>> THAT IS ALL I WANTED TO ASK YOU FOR NOW, THANK YOU, SIR.

>> DR. HILSENBECK. >> WELL THIS WAS A VERY THOROUGH AND WELL DONE APPLICATION. NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT AS USUAL. I WANT TO PREFACE THE COMMENT I'M NOT AGAINST CELL PHONE TOWERS PER SE BECAUSE 2 WEEKS AGO AT THE LAST MEETING I VOTED CELL TOWER STATE ROAD 60 BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS APPROPRIATE AND

[02:40:05]

GOING ON. >> MEMBERS OF THE CROWD, WE NEED TO HAVE A JUDICIAL HEARING , WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO HEAR EACH OTHER. WE NEED TO CREATE A RESPECTFUL ENVIRONMENT, THE OTHER THING IS WE DON'T WANT TO UNDERMINE THE OUTCOME OF WHATEVER THE HEARING IS SO IT IS NOT IN YOUR BEST INTEREST TO BE CLAPPING WHEN THESE THINGS ARE DONE SO PLEASE ALLOW THE HEARING

TO PROCEED. >> THANK YOU.

>> I WILL 2ND WHAT LEX HAS SAID SO PLEASE BE QUIET. IN , ANYWAY WE DON'T WANT THE OUTCOME OF THE HEARING QUESTIONED. SO IT IS IMPORTANT AND I'M NOT HERE DOING THIS FOR APPLAUSE BELIEVE ME THIS IS NOT A PLEASANT TASK FOR ME TO DO THIS , THIS IS NO FUN FOR ME OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. UNDER DEPARTMENT REVIEW UNDER OFFICE OF COUNTY ATTORNEY REQUIRED BY SECTION 2.0 3.01 D SPECIAL USE MUST BE COMPATIBLE WITH ADJACENT AND SURROUNDING LAND USE. AND IT GOES ON COMPATIBILITY WE HAVE READ MANY TIMES ON OTHER ISSUES COMPATIBILITY MEANS CONDITIONAL LAND-USE AND CONDITIONS CAN COEXIST IN PROXIMITY TO EACH OTHER IN A STABLE FASHION OVERTIME SUCH THAT NO USE OR CONDITION IS UNDULY NEGATIVELY IMPACTED DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY BY ANOTHER USE OR CONDITION. AND THEN COMPATIBILITY LAND-USE DEPENDS ON NUMEROUS CHARACTERISTICS WHICH MAY IMPACT ADJACENT OR SURROUNDING USE, THESE INCLUDE TYPE OF USE, DENSITY INTENSITY HEIGHT , GENERAL APPEARANCE AND AESTHETICS. IT GOES ON FROM THERE. SO IN MY OPINION AND I DID LOOK UP BECAUSE WE HAD TESTIMONY A COUPLE WEEKS AGO ABOUT IMPACTS ON LAND VALUES BY CELL PHONE TOWERS AND APPRAISER STOOD UP AND SAID IN HIS 130 APPRAISALS LOOKING AT CELL PHONE TOWER YEARS HE DID NOT EVER SEE ANY IMPACT ON VALUE. I DID LOOK UP IMPACT OF CELL PHONE TOWERS ON PROPERTY VALUES AND THERE WERE NUMEROUS SCORES OF ARTICLES STATING THAT THERE IS A 7 TO 20% NEGATIVE IMPACT ON PROPERTY VALUES SOME OF THOSE ARE IN THE APPRAISAL INSTITUTE JOURNAL SO THEY ARE CREDIBLE COMPETENT AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE WITH IMPACTS ON LAND VALUES TO ME IT

[02:45:06]

AGAIN THE APPLICATION WAS VERY THOROUGH AND WELL TAKEN.

>> IF I MAY, THIS PARCEL IS NOT, THIS TOWER LOCATION IS NOT ON A RESIDENTIAL PARCEL SO TO CLAIM THE ENTIRE AREA IS ALL RESIDENTIAL IS A MISCHARACTERIZATION WE HAVE MET CRITERIA FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND THEN SOME INCLUDING WITH THE COMPANY IS A PLANT THAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSION WE ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE PLAN WE WOULD NOT BE HERE TODAY IF WE WERE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPANY AND SUPPLANT WE WOULD BE ASKING FOR A TEXT AMENDMENT OR CUMBRIAN SUPPLANT LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT TO SITE A CELL TOWER AND THAT IS NOT THE CASE. THE NUMEROUS POLICIES GOALS AND OBJECTIVES IN THE CUMBRIAN SUPPLANT AND THIS IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH ANY OF THEM WE HAVE LOOKED AT THIS AND I APPRECIATE YOU SIDING THAT THE PROVISION THAT TALKS ABOUT COMPATIBILITY AND LIKENESS AND SIMILARITIES COEXISTING IN HARMONY OVER TIME THAT SEEMS ADDITION DESCRIBES IT DOES NOT MEAN IT HAS TO BE THE SAME ASK. SO JUST BY THAT NATURE AND THE FACT THAT THE ST. AUGUSTINE SHORES ALREADY ACCOUNTED FOR TOWERS AND ANTENNAS IN THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTATION. AND WE'RE DOING THIS THROUGH SPECIAL USE PERMIT IT IS PERMISSIBLE BY EXCEPTION RUNS COUNTER TO THAT BECAUSE I FIRMLY BELIEVE THIS IS COMPATIBLE WITH MY PROFESSIONAL OPINION. SO AND I STAND BEHIND THE DOCUMENTS WE SUBMITTED INCLUDING MY EXPERT TESTIMONY AND SUBSTANTIAL COMPETENT EVIDENCE AND I WILL STATE ONE MORE THING. I BELIEVE I HAVE FINDING TO STATE THIS. I HAVE A CELL PHONE TOWER BEHIND MY HOUSE AND YOU CAN LOOK IT UP YOU CAN LOOK AT MY NAME AND ADDRESS IT IS PUBLIC RECORD. OF A CELL PHONE TOWER BY MY HOUSE AND HE DID NOT ALLOW THE GUY TO SELL IT AT A PREMIUM BECAUSE IT SURE AS DID. I BOUGHT IT AS PREMIUM KNOWING THERE WAS A CELL TOWER BACK THERE. SO I REVIEW THE POINT THERE IS APPRAISAL THAT SAYS IT IS DIMINISHING IN VALUATION THAT IS A OVERARCHING STATEMENT BUT AGAIN I STAND BEHIND EXPERT TESTIMONY AND COMPETENT EVIDENCE AND I ASK FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL TODAY THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> I WOULD STATE I AM WELL AWARE THIS EXACT SITE THAT THE TOWER IS GOING TO BE LOCATEDON IS NOT RESIDENTIAL IT IS A CHURCH

OPPORTUNITY. >> TOWER THE SITE ON IT IS THE LEAST ENVIRONMENTALLY BURDENSOME AREA OF THE ENTIRE PARCEL. WE COULD MOVE THIS THE COUNTY PITCHED EARLY ON CAN YOU MOVE THE PARCEL TO THE SOUTH? IT WOULD IMPACT MORE TREES. SO THERE'S A LOT OF CONSIDERATION DONE ON THIS THE HOLD AREA SUBJECT TO THE PARENT PARCEL SO IT'S NOT WITHOUT CREDIBLE INFORMATION ON FILE AT HAND AS FAR AS THE LEAST IMPACTFUL LOCATION. I WANTED TO PUT THAT OUT FOR THE RECORD.

>> THAT IS GREAT AND I'M NOT BASING MY OPINION OR STATEMENTS HUNTED BY MENTAL ISSUES. SUCH AS THE ROOKERY OR TREES BEING CUT DOWN I'M NOT GOING THERE I'M TALKING ABOUT WHAT I SEE AS INCOMPATIBILITY YES I STIPULATE THIS IS A CHURCH PARCEL IT IS NOT RESIDENTIAL ITSELF BUT THE SHORES IS , THAT COMMUNITY IS PREDOMINANTLY RESIDENTIAL IN CHARACTER. WOULD YOU DISAGREE?

>> PREDOMINANTLY IT HAS A LOT OF DWELLING UNITS THOUSANDS IN IT.

BUT THERE IS ALSO A LOT OF COMMERCIAL AND HONESTLY 3 MATTERS I HAVE DONE HAVE BEEN COMMERCIAL NATURE NOT RESIDENTIAL BECAUSE THERE'S A TIME TO PROVIDE COMMERCIAL TO OFFSET THE NUMBER OF ROOFTOPS AND THIS IS ANOTHER ONE. ANOTHER TO KEEP UP WITH DEMAND, TELE-COMMISSION SERVICES WITH SITES AND METHODOLOGY AND ENGINEERING BEHIND IT AND WE

STAND BEHIND THAT. >> THAT IS ALL I HAVE FOR THIS

POINT AND TIME. >> MR. LABANOWSKI.

[02:50:04]

>> I WANT TO GET SOMETHING CLEAR. RIGHT NOW USUALLY PICTURE OF A SINGLE HEAD ON THE TOWER. THERE'S MAXIMUM YOU CAN PUT 4

ON THAT? >> POSSIBILITY TO CO-LOCATE UP

TO 3 MORE. >> TOTAL OF 4 ON THE UNIT BY PUT SOMETHING LIKE THAT INTO THE MIDDLE OF A COMMUNITY? BASICALLY

IN THE MIDDLE OF A RESIDENTIAL. >> ON A SITE LOCATION BACKED UP BY SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING. A LOT OF METRICS. ALREADY PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD FOR OVER ONE YEAR NOW. TO SAY WE PICKED A DARTBOARD AND HAD THROWN IN THE MIDDLE OF IT THAT IS NOT ACCURATE SO I DON'T APPRECIATE THE FACT THERE IS CONTEXT OF MIDDLE OF A COMMUNITY BEING THROWN AROUND. IS A LOT OF SCIENCE BEHIND WHY A TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER COMPANY CITED THIS LOCATION SPECIFICALLY MOVING THE DELTA ONE WAY OR THE OTHER NORTH SOUTH EAST WEST THIS WAS SELECTED WITH SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING AND DATA BEHIND IT. TO SAY THE MIDDLE OF A COMMUNITY ST. AUGUSTINE SHORES HAS RESIDENTIAL BUT IT ALSO HAS OTHER ELEMENTS INCLUDING THIS CHURCH PARCEL AND ABILITY TO HAVE TOWER AND MEDICATION EQUIPMENT BY WAY OF EXCEPTION.

>> UNDERSTAND. OTHER THINGS ARE OUT THERE NOW OTHER THAN 170 FOOT TOWERS. WHY CAN'T THEY BE USED IN A COMMUNITY? AND THAT IS LIKE HOLE TOWERS , YOU HAVE A STREET LIGHT THAT IS A TOWER. IT IS SHORTER, NOT OBTRUSIVE. THIS IS BEING USED ACROSS THE UNITED STATES. THAT'S THE REASON WHY I ASKED THE QUESTION WHY PUT A TOWER IN THE MIDDLE OF A COMMUNITY? WHY CAN'T SOMETHING LIKE THIS BE USED IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA?

>> I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER I'VE NEVER SEEN A LIGHT POLE 170 FEET HIGH THIS IS THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT FOR THIS FREQUENCY FOR THIS USER. AND AGAIN IT IS A MONO POLE TOWER NOT A LATTICE TOWER NOT A TOWER THAT NEEDS GUIDE WIRES. SO IT IS THE LEAST INTRUSIVE AND INVASIVE IN TERMS OF THE LOOK . WE CAN TALK ABOUT AESTHETICS ALL DAY LONG ON ANY USES WHETHER SOMEONE BUILDING A NEW HOUSE THEY DON'T LIKE OR A DAYCARE DOWN THE STREET OR ORGANIC RETAIL PLANT NURSERY DOWN THE STREET. FOLKS DO NOT WANT CHANGE NO MATTER WHAT IT IS SO WEIRD TO STAND BY EXPERT TESTIMONY ALL SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE I DON'T HAVE ANY ANSWER ON WHY THIS COULD BE A STREETLIGHT.

>> WHY GO TO SOMETHING THAT I WHEN SOMETHING SMALLER AND SHORTER COULD DO THE SAME THING ?

>> IT IS A HANDOFF , THERE'S A LOT OF HANDOFF ELEMENTS IN TERMS OF HOW THE TOWERS TALK TO EACH OTHER. AS HE SAW BY THE RADIUS RINGS , THIS WILL HAVE A CERTAIN REACH THAT IS ALREADY KIND OF PROGRAMMED FOR THE AREA. BASED ON THE NEED AND THE VOID OF THAT SERVICE COVERAGE. SO BEYOND THAT YOU MAY WANT TO ASK THE THIRD-PARTY CONSULTANT TO DESCRIBE A LITTLE BIT MORE BUT THIS IS THE MINIMUM SIZE TOWER FOR THAT REGION AND HANDOFF AND COMMUNICATION TO GET THAT SPREAD BASED ON THE FREQUENCY ENGINEERING AND THE DATA WE HAVE SUBMITTED. I HOPE THAT ANSWERS

YOUR QUESTION. >> NOT REALLY BUT THAT IS FINE.

>> OKAY I DO NOT SEE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS SO BACK TO THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION. DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? SURE.

>> I DON'T KNOW, THIS MIGHT BE OUT OF YOUR WHEELHOUSE. HOW DID THEY COME UP WITH THE NEED? LIKE A MAGIC WAND WE NEED ONE HERE, BUT WHAT MAKES THAT HAPPEN WHEN YOU HEAR PEOPLE SAY YES I HAVE CELL PHONE SERVICE AND SOME SAY THEY DON'T? WHAT MAKES A COMPANY DECIDE THAT WE NEED TO EXPAND HERE IN A PLACE THAT HAS BEEN THERE SINCE THE 70S I GUESS?

>> YES SIR. CERTAINLY THERE'S A LOT OF DATA BEHIND TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND ANY OTHER INDUSTRY, EVEN A RETAILER COMING INTO A COMMUNITY THE RETAILER KNOWS BASED ON THE NUMBER OF ROOFTOPS THE NUMBER OF SALES METRICS ON WHERE THEY SHOULD BE CITING A STORE AND IN THIS CASE A TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER THERE'S A LOT OF SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING AND DATA BEHIND IT ALL BASED ON THE DEMAND AND GROWTH FOR THAT AND NUMBER OF USERS IN THE AREA. SO THERE'S A LOT OF ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE

[02:55:04]

TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY. >> I'VE NEVER QUITE UNDERSTOOD.

I KNOW WE HAVE GROWTH IN THE SOUTH. THERE ARE NEW ROOFTOPS COMING IN, COMMERCIAL COMING IN. WHAT TRIGGERS IT TO SAY YOU KNOW

WE HAVE A PROBLEM? >> ALL THE TIME --

>> A LOT OF DATA PRONE PEOPLE SMARTER THAN I. THEY PROVIDE INFORMATION AND AGAIN WE HAVE HAD IT ON FILE SINCE NOVEMBER THEY SHOW THOSE FREQUENCIES IN THE VOID IN THE COVERED AREA WITH THEIR NEEDS AND WE STAND BEHIND THAT.

>> THIS IS A HUGE HUGE REPORT. >> YES IT IS.

>> ALL RIGHT. ANYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE A MOTION? NOW IS

THE TIME. >> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE MOTION TO DENY TOWER 202-04 SHORES TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER SOUTHEAST YOU WIN BASED ON 10 FINDINGS OF FACT PROVIDED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT AND I HAVE A COMMENT BEFORE WE VOTE.

>> SURE. >> MOTION TO DENY IS THERE A

2ND? OKAY DISCUSSION. >> I WANT TO SAY THAT YOU DID A MICHAEL JOB AND I UNDERSTAND THIS IS A HEAVY LIFT I REALLY DO UNDERSTAND THAT. I AM LEARNING SO MUCH MORE ABOUT CELL PHONE TOWERS AND I GET THE TECHNOLOGY IS ADVANCING AND IT IS IMPORTANT AND WE WILL HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS GOING FORWARD, BUT I JUST HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS LOCATION, I JUST DO . I KNOW THERE IS SCIENCE BEHIND IT AND I'M NOT A SCIENTIST BUT WE ARE HERE TO DECIDE HOW TO MEASURE COMPATIBILITY THAT IS ONE FUNCTION AND FOR ME I FEEL THIS IS INCOMPATIBLE JUST IN THAT LOCATION NOT BECAUSE IT IS ON A NONRESIDENTIAL PARCEL, BUT BECAUSE IT HAS SUCH A IMPACT ON THE SURROUNDING AREA. SO, FOR ME THAT TILTS IT TO INCOMPATIBLE AND I DID LISTEN CAREFUL AND I WANTED TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THIS, BUT THAT IS WHERE I AM LEANING AND I DO WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT.

>> SO FOR A LOT OF THE FOLKS IN THE AUDIENCE I AM A DEVELOPER, I DEVELOP SUBDIVISIONS . AND WHEN I DO WITH INFRASTRUCTURE AND SUBDIVISIONS, NECESSARY INFRASTRUCTURE AND I WOULD SAY CELL PHONE SERVICE IS NECESSARY INFRASTRUCTURE. JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING WE DO WITH WE CAN HIDE. SO YOU KNOW YOU HAVE BIG GREEN UGLY BOXES THAT FPL WANTS TO PUT UP CALLED SWITCHING CABINETS NOT JUST TRANSFORMERS, SWITCHING CABINETS 5 FEET TALL 6 X 6 NOT VERY ATTRACTIVE. THEY ARE AT GROUND LEVEL AND YOU CAN BLOCK THOSE WITH PLANTS SO WHEN YOU'RE STANDING GROUND LEVEL YOU CAN PRETTY MUCH , YOU CAN SEE THE BEHIND THEIR BACK BEHIND THE PLANTS. YOU CANNOT DO THAT WITH A CELL TOWER, YOU JUST CANNOT DO IT. IT IS 170 FEET TALL AS ONE OF THE FOLKS WHO CAME UP GAVE TESTIMONY AND SET WHAT IS A 8 FOOT FENCE DO? I LAUGH ABOUT HERE'S THE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR A CELL PHONE TOWER BECAUSE IT'S SORT OF MEANINGLESS. IN MY OPINION. THEY ARE THROWING MONEY AWAY. SO I HAVE TO TELL YOU I AM DEVELOPING A BIG COMMUNITY IN NASSAU COUNTY. IT HAS A LOT OF CHARACTERISTICS SIMILAR TO THE SHORES IN TERMS OF SIZE AND SHAPE AND DISTANCE FROM THE MAIN ROAD AND THAT SORT OF THING AND I CAN PROMISE YOU RIGHT NOW IF I AGREED TO PUT A CELL PHONE TOWER IN THE MIDDLE OF THE COMMUNITY WHICH THERE IS A SITE THAT I COULD A SCHOOL SITE. MY BUILDERS WOULD JUST RAISE CAIN WITH ME.

SO FOR THAT REASON SORRY BRAD BUT I DON'T SEE THIS AS BEING COMPATIBLE FOR THAT VERY REASON WITH MY PAST EXPERIENCE AS A DEVELOPER. I WOULD LOSE MY BUILDERS IF I WERE TO ALLOW A CELL PHONE TOWER SURROUNDED BY THE RESIDENTS. EVEN GIVEN THE DISTANCE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THAT THEY ARE AWAY FROM HERE.

>> OKAY ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY VOTE YES IS A VOTE TO DENY VOTE NO LET'S GO AHEAD AND REGISTER THE VOTE. ALL RIGHT.

[03:00:10]

THANK YOU. MERRY CHRISTMAS. ALL RIGHT. ITEM NUMBER 7. ANY

[7. REZ 2025-13 James-Cogo Commercial. Request to rezone approximately 0.68 acres of land from Commercial General (CG) with conditions to Commercial Intensive (CI), specifically located south of Watson Road on U.S. Highway 1 South.]

EXPARTE? >> MISS SPIEGEL.

>> YES MEDICARE I DID SAY THIS IS MY NEIGHBORHOOD LESS THAN 1 MILE OR 2 FROM MY HOUSE SO YES I AM BY THE AREA ALL THE TIME SO I

KNOW IT WELL. >> THANK YOU, MR. LABANOWSKI.

>> I ALSO VISITED THE SITE. >> ANYONE ELSE ANYONE ELSE, GO AHEAD SIR. GOOD AFTERNOON ROB MATTHEWS, MATTHEWS IN ST.

AUGUSTINE. HOPEFULLY IT WILL GO LITTLE QUICKER THAN THE

PREVIOUS. >> I HOPE SO. THIS IS A REZONING FROM CG WITH CONDITIONS, TO THE CI, .68 ACRE TRACT CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED WITH 125 FEET FRONTAGE U.S. WINS LOCATEDU.S.

WINS SOUTH IRONICALLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE SHORES. AS YOU CAN TELL FUTURE LAND USE MIXED-USE AND CURRENT ZONING LIKE I SAID IS CG WITH CONDITIONS. SO IT WAS ZONED CG WITH CONDITIONS IN 1986. ORIGINAL REZONING REQUIRED IT TO BE DEVELOPED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE EXISTING PIECE TO THE NORTH TO HAVE A 10 FOOT BUFFER ALONG THE WEST BOUNDARY AND THEN ALSO ACCESS SHARED WITH COVERING SITE TO THE NORTH. IF NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 5 YEARS IT WOULD REVERT BACK TO OR. THAT IS HOW THE PROPERTY EXISTS TODAY BACKING UP TO THE PUD . AND YOU KNOW RIGHT NOW WE WOULD LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE ZONING DIRECT ACCESS COULD YOU 1. LOCATION SUITABLE FOR USE ORIENTED VEHICULAR TRAVEL AND THEN STRUCTURES WITH CI USE AND IT ABUTS BOTH COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH AND TO THE SOUTH, CI IS CONSIDERED WITH MIXED LAND USE FOR A MIX OF COMMERCIAL, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, OFFICE AND LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SERVICES NOT URBAN SPRAWL, RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DEVELOPMENT SO AND WE ARE HOPING FOR THE FINDINGS OF FACT, THERE IS NOT GOING FROM THE ORIGINAL ZONING - SWEAR BACK TO THE OR, CI ZONING ALIGNED WITH WHAT IS TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY GOING FURTHER IN THE SHOPPING CENTER TO THE SOUTH. SO THE BUFFER WOULD BE EXCEEDED WITH A 20 B BUFFER. IF YOU HAVE ANY

QUESTIONS . >> I MIGHT HAVE ONE. MISS

SPIEGEL? >> YES, THE INTENDED USE WAS POSSIBLY FOR BOAT AND RV STORAGE?

>> ACTUALLY SUBMITTED WITH THE INTENDED USE THERE IS NOT DECIDED TO USE AT THIS TIME BUT IT HAS OR ZONING SO THEY CANNOT DO ANYTHING WITH IT SO THEY WANT TO CHANGE SO IT WOULD MATCH TO THE SOUTH SO GAVE POSSIBILITIES, THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO DO ANYTHING UNTIL THEY GET CONSTRUCTION PLAN APPROVAL BUT YOU KNOW THEIR 1ST STEP BEFORE THEY DO ANYTHING IS GET

REZONING. >> OKAY YOU SAID NOT USE WITHIN

5 YEARS IT REVERTS BACK? >> THAT WAS DURING CONDITIONING ZONING OF 1986. WE WANT TO DO STRAIGHT REZONING GIVE THEM TIME TO DESIGN DEPENDING ON MARKET CONDITIONS AND FIGURE OUT WHAT

THEY WANT TO DO MOVING FORWARD. >> THERE WAS A COMMENT MADE ABOUT COULD YOU WIN THAT WAS THE CONDITION THEY HAD TO SHARE.

>> AT THE TIME , THE , THE SAME OWNER, DIFFERENT OWNERS NOW .

>> THAT CHANGES THINGS. >> YES SO THEY WOULD LIKE TO KEEP SEPARATE DRIVEWAYS BECAUSE THE SITE TO THE NORTH WAS NOT

[03:05:05]

ALLOWING IT TO DEVELOP . >> IT IS AWKWARD AND TO TRY TO PICTURE THAT AND HOW THAT WOULD WORK. WHAT DOES D.O.T. HAVE TO SAY BECAUSE THEY SAID THEY WANTED THE DRIVEWAY. U.S. WINS

IS BUSIER NOW. >> DEFINITELY BUT UNDER SEPARATE OWNERSHIP D.O.T. WILL ALWAYS ASK TO SHARE DRIVEWAYS WHEN POSSIBLE. SO YOU KNOW WE HAD TO GET D.O.T. APPROVAL BEFORE WE CAN CONSTRUCT ANYTHING. SO WE ARE LIMITED. WENT TO GO GET PERMITTING BUT I DON'T WANT TO MAKE IT A REQUIREMENT THAT IT HAS TO HAVE A SHARED DRIVEWAY WHEN YOU LOOK AND SEE HOW

DIFFICULT MAKING IT WOULD BE. >> I GET IT I'M KIND OF RELIEVED BOAT AND RV IS NOT INTENDED BECAUSE 6.68 MILES AWAY BOAT AND RV STORAGE OPENED UP BEHIND MY HOUSE.

>> TO BE HONEST WITH YOU A BUNCH OF STORAGE FACILITIES, .68 ACRES IS NOT VERY LARGE. IT IS A LOT OF EFFORT FOR NOT MUCH BANG FOR THE BUCK SO A GOOD ONE PROXIMITY SHOULD BE 2 ACRES OR LARGER.

>> INGRESS AND EGRESS WOULD BE A BIG DEAL THAT SMALL OF A PARCEL.

THAT WAS A CONCERN FOR ME I DID NOT KNOW YOU HAD TO ZONE. OKAY.

SO IT'S KIND OF UP TO US TO MOVE YOU TO D.O.T. AND THEN IF YOU CAN MOVE FORWARD. THANK YOU, SIR .

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 7? YES MA'AM. MR. MATTHEWS YOU CAN SIT DOWN.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. >> IF YOU WANT TO GET CLOSE TO

THAT MICROPHONE. >> I WILL, THANK YOU. TRYING TO FIND A PICTURE SO I CAN SHOW YOU WHAT I FEEL . MY NAME IS YVONNE MARCH, I LIVE IN 455 IN ST. AUGUSTINE BUT IT IS VALENCIA OVER U.S. 1 NOW I'M SORRY. YES. I AM OUT OF TURN.

>> OKAY. >> GLAD YOU CAUGHT THAT. OKAY MR. MATTHEWS NOBODY ELSE SO YOU CAN SIT THERE WE ARE BACK TO THE AGENCY PROMOTION AND THUS WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. OKAY

WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO A MOTION? >> I SURE WILL. MOTION TO APPROVE REZONING LET ME MAKE SURE I AM ON THE RIGHT ONE.

2025-13, COMMERCIAL BASED ON THE 4 FINDINGS OF FACT PROVIDED IN

THE STAFF REPORT. >> MOTION FOR APPROVAL AND 2ND .

ANY QUESTIONS ? LET'S REGISTER THE VOTE. ALL RIGHT THE MOTION

[Items 8 & 9]

TOGETHER ANY EXPARTE? >> I DID DO A SITE VISIT AND HAD A CONVERSATION AT ST. JOHN'S RIVER WATER RICHMOND DISTRICT.

HAD A CONVERSATION WITH SOMEONE ELSE AT THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. I WAS SUPPOSED TO GET A CALL BACK FROM SOMEONE, BUT I DID SPEAK WITH RYAN MCDONALD. THANK YOU.

>> I WAS AT THE SITE, AS WELL. >> ANYONE ELSE? OKAY MS. EVANS

ALL YOURS. >> CHRISTINE EVANS GULFSTREAM DESIGN GROUP . I AM HERE TODAY WITH REZONING AND A SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION. THE PROPERTY IS 2 PARCELS LOCATED ON THE EASTERN SIDE OF U.S. 1 HALF A MILE SOUTH OF I GP WITH 650 FEET OF FRONTAGE ON U.S. WINS ALMOST 4 ACRES AND RIGHT NOW THERE ARE 2 VACANT SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES IN THE PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY IS A FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION MIXED-USE DISTRICT WHICH YOU CAN SEE COVERS A LARGE AREA ON THE EAST SIDE OF U.S. 1 AND INDUSTRIAL LAND USE OTHER SIDE OF U.S. 1 CURRENTLY ZONING FOR

[03:10:02]

SO, A USE PERMITTED IN ZONING ARE CONSISTENT WITH EXISTING DEVELOPMENTS. YOU CAN SEE THE IRISH PUB DRIVE-THROUGH RESTAURANT IS A LARGE PUBLIX AS I SAID READY MIX CONCRETE PLANTS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF U.S. 1. SO ALTHOUGH ALL PERMITTED USE CHD ZONING WOULD BE PERMITTED AS YOU CAN TELL BY THE NAME THE SPECIFIC PROPERTY OWNER IS PROPOSING INDOOR OUTDOOR ENTERTAINMENT FACILITY WITH MINI GOLF, ARCADE, RESTAURANT AND FOOD TRUCKS. ACCESS FROM U.S. WINS SO WE HAVE TO GET A PERMIT WITH D.O.T. WE HAVE DONE A TRAFFIC STUDY PRELIMINARY SAYS THERE WILL NOT BE A LOT OF IMPROVEMENT BASED ON ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC . SO, FINDING OF FACTS FOR THE REZONING , CHT PERMITS HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL USE APPROPRIATE GIVEN ITS LOCATION ON U.S. 1 LESS INTENSE THAN THE COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE ZONING THAT IS DIRECTLY TO THE SOUTH WHICH ALSO PERMITS HIGH INTENSITY COMMERCIAL USE AS WELL AS REGIONAL BUSINESS, REGIONAL COMMERCIAL, REGIONAL CULTURE AND REGIONAL ENTERTAINMENT USE. THE INTENSITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT IS DETERMINED BY THE LAND-USE NOT ZONING SO REGARDLESS OF ZONING THE FIR AND ISR, THEY ARE EXACTLY THE SAME. ALSO, THE SETBACKS AND SUCH ARE SIMILAR ACROSS ALL ZONING'S. GIVE A LARGER SETBACK CHT ZONING FROM THE SIDES IN THE REAR A SMALLER ONE AGAINST U.S. WINS THE SIDES AND THE REAR WOULD HAVE A LARGER SETBACK WITH CHT ZONING AS WELL AS MORE BUFFERING. THE USES THAT ARE PERMITTED CHT ARE EITHER ALSO PERMITTED IN THE CURRENT ZONING OR THEY ARE PERMITTED IN THE CI ZONING DIRECTLY TO THE SOUTH. THIS DOES NOT QUALIFY AS URBAN SPRAWL IT IS WITHIN COUNTY DEVELOPMENT AREA WITH THE INFILL DEVELOPMENT CONNECTED TO CENTRAL UTILITIES. A MAJOR ROADWAY NETWORK. YOU ARE NOT HAVING TO EXTEND UTILITIES SIGNIFICANTLY FOR LEAPFROG DEVELOPMENT AND THEN ANY ENVIRONMENT IMPACT WOULD BE PERMITTED BY THE RELEVANT STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES AND ALL OF THOSE SAME IMPACTS ARE POSSIBLE UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING . SO, NOTHING IN THE REZONING APPLICATION WILL CHANGE THOSE. THE 2ND REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE ON-SITE SALE AND CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES. OBVIOUSLY WITH THE ENTERTAINMENT FACILITY AND THE RESTAURANT THEY WANT TO HAVE A FULL BAR SERVICE. THE REQUIREMENT IS 2.3.0 2 , THE DISTANCE FROM CHURCH AND SCHOOLS, AS YOU CAN SEE WITHIN THE 100 FOOT RADIUS THERE ARE NO CHURCHES AND SCHOOLS SO WE ARE MEETING THE REQUIREMENT. AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE EXISTING USES DONOVAN IRISH PUB , PUBLIX, SEVERAL OTHER RESTAURANTS, STAFF DID ANOTHER ONE SHOWING ALL OF THE BUSINESSES WITHIN THE AREA THAT ALSO SERVE ALCOHOL SO IT IS NOT OUT OF CHARACTER FOR THIS LOCATION. SO AGAIN, THE 2 APPLICATIONS ARE REZONING THE PROPERTY FROM CNN, TO CHT AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE ON-SITE SALES AND CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL AND I AM HERE IF YOU

HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU. MR. OLSON.

>> YES. THE OUTDOOR ACTIVITY BEING PROPOSED. IS THAT MAINLY

[03:15:04]

CONFINED TO THE PUTT PUTT GOLF? >> YES AND THE FOOD TRUCK AREA.

>> THERE WILL NOT BE CONGREGATING IN THE AREA? HOW MANY FOOD TRUCKS AND WILL THERE BE TABLES AND BAR SERVICE TO THE OUTDOOR TABLES? I AM ASKING FOR CONCERNS ABOUT ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL , I RECOGNIZE THIS IS U.S. 1 ALSO.

>> I KNOW THE REQUEST WAS TO HAVE ALCOHOL SALES ALSO COVER THE FOOD TRUCK AREA. I DO NOT KNOW HOW MANY FOOD TRUCKS OR ANYTHING IN PARTICULAR, BUT YEAH, THE SITE PLAN ITEM INCLUDED IN HERE BECAUSE YOU KNOW IT IS NOT SPECIFIC TO A PROJECT LIKE A PUD SO IT IS REALLY ANY COMMERCIAL HIGHWAY TOURISTY USE PERMITTED. SO LIKE I SAID, ANY USE FROM COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD WHICH IS ZONED NOW WOULD BE PERMITTED CHT AND THOSE THAT ARE PERMITTED WITHIN THE CI TO THE SOUTH, CI PERMITS MORE INTENSE USE ALSO ABUTTING THOSE PARCELS , THE AREA ABOVE THEM IS SMALLER THAN THE OTHER CI PARCEL . SO I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO THE SPECIFICS OF THIS, THE NOTHING BUT FUND BECAUSE IT

COULD BE ANY OTHER CHT USE. >> OH, SO WE REALLY AREN'T LOOKING AT SPECIFIC SITE PLANS? IT IS SIMPLY THE ZONING. OKAY.

>> MISS SPIEGEL. >> YES I NEED TO AMEND MY EXPARTE THAT RYAN MCDONALD THAT I SPOKE WITH IS FROM YOU NOT ST.

JOHN'S RIVER WATERWAY DISTRICT. SOMETHING IS NOT RIGHT I KNOW I TALKED TO SOMEBODY ELSE FORGIVE ME THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE TO TALK TO. A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR YOUR. THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO SERVE ALCOHOL IF THERE IS A RESTAURANT AND HOWEVER MANY FOOD TRUCKS IS FOR THE WHOLE PARCEL AND WHY GO FROM CNN TO CHT? WHAT IS IT THAT'S REQUIRING YOU TO GO WITH THE

INCREASE IN THE INTENSITY? >> I BELIEVE THE FOOD TRUCKS WE HAVE HAD OTHER FOOD TRUCK PARKS CLASSIFIED AS HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL

USE . >> I WOULD LIKE STAFF TO CONFIRM

, THAT WOULD BE GOOD. >> JACOB SMITH FOR THE RECORD.

WHEN WE TALK ABOUT COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD BROADLY SPEAKING SMALL-SCALE USE IS INTENDED TO SERVE A NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL HIGHWAY TOWARDS GOES BEYOND AND WE THINK ABOUT THINGS DRAWING PEOPLE IN FROM LONG DISTANCES. IT IS LISTED IN THE CODE AS HOSPITALITY AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE YOU HAVE THINGS LIKE INDOOR RECREATION, COMMERCIAL RECREATION LIKE PUTT PUTT GOLF AGAIN TOURIST IS IN THE CONCEPT OF THE ZONING DISTRICT SO IT IS HIGH INTENSITY USE YOU WOULD NOT EXPECT TO FIND IN A NEIGHBORHOOD STILL NOT SO HIGH AGAIN IT REACHES HIGH INTENSITY COMMERCIAL NOT BIG-BOX STORES OR THINGS LIKE THAT BUT IT IS SOMETHING YOU FIND ALONG HIGHWAYS AND IN TOURIST AREAS DRAWING MORE INTENSE CROWDS THAN YOU MIGHT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

>> THAT MAKES SENSE NOT JUST A PLACE TO GO BUT A PLACE YOU MIGHT BE DRAWN TO GO TO. ALL RIGHT. SO, MY QUESTION, THE BIGGEST PROBLEM THAT I HAVE WITH THIS APPLICATION IS THE IMPACT ON THE WETLANDS ALMOST 68% OF THE PROPERTY IS WETLANDS AND YOU LOOK LIKE YOUR IMPACTING ALL OF THEM. EVERY SQUARE INCH IS GOING TO BE PACKED IN HERE. AND I DO UNDERSTAND YOU HAVE FILED APPLICATION WITH ST. JOHN'S RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND THE PROCESS HAS BEGUN I DID NOT TALK TO ANYBODY WITH THE

ENGINEERS BUT SO >> CAN I GIVE YOU A STATEMENT.

ORIGINALLY THERE WAS PROPOSAL BY THE PROPERTY OWNER AND HE STILL HAD THE WETLAND IMPACT AND EVERYTHING SO THAT'S WHEN I SAY THERE'S NOTHING ABOUT THE PROPOSAL, THIS REZONING THAT WOULD CHANGE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. WE STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PERMITTING PROCESS AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT.

>> I WOULD JUST LIKE IT IF YOU WOULD PRESERVE SOME OF THE

[03:20:01]

WETLANDS. >> WE DID REDUCE BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE BUT HAVE NOT SEEN THE NEW SITE PLAN. SO I CANNOT SAY

ABOUT THE WETLAND IMPACTS. >> AS YOU SAID YOU DON'T HAVE TO YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED A SQUARE FOOTAGE SITE PLAN, WITH THE USE OF FOOD TRUCKS YOU REQUIRE A LOT OF PARKING AND THAT IS A BIG PART OF IT, A GOOD PART OF THE WETLAND IMPACT IS THE PARKING LOT A LARGE PARKING LOT AND THAT IS SOMETHING MR. MCDONALD ALLUDED TO, AS WELL. I DON'T KNOW, I THINK IT IS TOO MUCH WETLAND AND I UNDERSTAND THIS WAS APPROVED PREVIOUSLY FOR COMMERCIAL USE. BUT, I THINK WE ARE BECOMING MAYBE A LITTLE MORE AWARE OF THE WETLANDS AND HOW IMPORTANT THEY ARE BUT THAT'S NOT OUR JOB HERE SO I AM A LITTLE CONFLICTED I HAVE TO SAY.

>> WE DEVELOP THEN YOU CAN HAVE THE SAME AMOUNT OF WETLAND IMPACT WITH THE SAME PERMITTING AND SAME MITIGATION. SO FOCUS IS THE USE, THIS PARCEL ON U.S. 1 COMMERCIAL HIGHWAY TOURISTY USE LESS INTENSIVE THAN COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE RIGHT BELOW. SO IT IS REALLY FOCUSING ON THE USE THERE WILL BE STANDARD OFFERING WITH STANDARD LDC PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

>> YOU STILL COULD DEVELOP THIS WE ARE NOT ADDING ABILITY TO DEVELOP THIS IS APPROVED FOR DEVELOPMENT. OKAY I HAD A GOOD QUESTION NOW I CAN'T REMEMBER. ANYWAY ALL RIGHT THANK YOU.

>> DR. HILSENBECK. >> WELL I WAS GOING TO SAVE THESE FOR COMMENTS, BUT I WILL HAVE A SHORT STATEMENT NOW. WHEN I 1ST LOOKED AT THIS AND THE TITLE, I THOUGHT THAT'S GREAT.

WONDERFUL. EVERYONE LIKES PUTT PUTT GOLF. IF YOU COULD HAVE A FEW DRINKS, WONDERFUL. BUT, AGAIN I WILL ECHO WHAT MISS SPIEGEL JUST SAID BASICALLY 68% OF THE SITE WHICH IS WETLANDS WOULD ALL BE IMPACTED, 68% OF THE SITE IS WETLANDS AND IT WOULD ALL BE IMPACTED THAT IS WHERE YOU TOO MUCH TO PROVE.

BASED ON SEVERAL THINGS. SUCH AS CONFERENCE A PLAN POLICY 8.1.3.1 1. GOING DOWN TO NUMBER 5 IT STATES HERE 5 , REZONING SHALL NOT BE APPROVED IF IT UNREASONABLY OR UNDULY IMPACTS THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT. 68% OF THE SITE BEING WETLANDS INCLUDING PART OF THE HEAD WATERS OF STOKES CREEK I AM ECOLOGIST BY TRAINING AND HAVE BEEN FOR YEARS AS A PROFESSIONAL ECOLOGIST. YOU DON'T IMPACT HEADWATER WETLANDS, THAT IS SOMETHING NOT DONE FROM A ENVIRONMENTAL STANDPOINT IF YOU WANT TO MAINTAIN OVERALL FLOW AND WETLAND CONNECTIVITY AND SO FORTH. SO THAT IS TOO MUCH FOR ME. ON PAGE 5 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN THIS GETS TO WHAT MR. OLSON WAS MENTIONING AND I KNOW YOU HAVE NOT APPLIED FOR THE PERMIT YET AND I UNDERSTAND WHY, THEY ARE EXPENSIVE WITH THE CORE AND ST. JOHN'S RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PERMITTING PROCESS , WITHOUT KNOWING WHETHER YOU HAD THIS. PROVIDED CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN DEPICTS PROPOSED LAYOUT OF THE SITE NOTED SITE PLANS ARE NOT REQUIRED AS PART OF REZONING APPLICATION AND ANY SITE PLAN AND CULMINATION OF ALLOWED USE PERMITTED UNDER PROPOSED COMMERCIAL HIGHWAY TOURIST ZONING DISTRICT WOULD BE ALLOWED IF THIS REQUEST WERE APPROVED. SO WE ARE WRITING A BLANK CHECK FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF THE WETLANDS AND WILL PROBABLY NOT SAY ANYTHING MORE. I HAVE OTHER STATEMENTS IN HERE BUT I CAN DISCUSS WHAT I'M NOT GOING TO. I JUST CANNOT SUPPORT IT WITH THIS LEVEL OF ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION.

>> SO THERE'S NOTHING IN THE REZONING PERMITTING THE IMPACT OF WETLANDS. THAT IS WHY I DON'T THINK THE SITE PLAN SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED OR USED IN THE REZONINGS, YOU CAN HAVE THE SAME SITE PLAN WITH COMMERCIAL NEIGHBORHOOD USE AND PERMIT, GET CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND NOT COME FOR REZONING APPROVAL SO THERE'S NOTHING IN THIS THAT IS UNDULY OR CHANGING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS THAT CAN HAPPEN TO THE PROPERTY UNDER

CURRENT ZONING. >> THAT MAY BE TRUE AND A FACTUAL STATEMENT, BUT WHETHER OR NOT YOU INCLUDED THE SITE PLAN WHETHER THAT WAS A WISE DECISION OR NOT I CANNOT SPEAK

[03:25:03]

WETLANDS. I VEHEMENTLY OPPOSE. >> IF YOU LOOK AT THE DOCUMENTS FROM PALENCIA ON THE MARSHALL CREEK TO THE NORTH, THEY ALSO HAVE WETLAND IMPACT. THERE'S A LOT OF APPLICATIONS IN THE PORTAL UNDER THOSE PUD'S. SO THAT HAPPENS AND OTHER AS WELL.

>> I WAS NOT HERE WHEN MARSHALL CREEK WAS APPROVED IT WOULD'VE STILL PASSED I AM SURE. NONETHELESS. THANK YOU.

>> MISS SPIEGEL. >> I MEMBER I QUESTION. DO YOU HAVE WETLAND MITIGATION YOUR BUILDING CREDITS FOR? DO YOU KNOW? NOT TRYING TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT.

>> I DON'T KNOW, WE HAVE STARTED THE ERP PERMITTED BUT I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE MITIGATION.

>> OKAY I JUST WONDERED WHERE IT WOULD BE I KNEW THERE WERE ISSUES WITH THAT. THIS IS LARGELY FLOOD ZONE. HOW DOES

THAT GET NEGATED? >> THAT IS PART OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPARTMENT FOR FEMA.

>> WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT WILL DETERMINE THAT. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ALL RIGHT THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? PUBLIC COMMENT. IT IS YOUR TURN.

>> LAST TIME I LIVE IN VALENCIA IN THAT , YOUR MAP IS VERY GOOD. I ONLY HAVE 3 WEEKS TO PREPARE FOR THIS BECAUSE WE ONLY GOT VOTED AND APPROVED . THIS IS MY PROPERTY I PAID EXTRA THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS FOR. I AM LOOKING FOR MY BACKYARD AND YOU CAN SEE THOSE BEAUTIFUL TREES AND I SEE WHAT HAPPENS IN FLORIDA WITH THE NATIVE TREES IN ORDER TO BUILD, THEY DESTROY THE TREES AND THEN COME AND BRING THE TREES FROM THE WRONG ZONES IN AND PLANT AND TRY TO FILL UP THE SPACE WE HAVE LEFT AND I AM ONE PROPERTY OWNER THAT IS VERY AFRAID THAT THE PRICE OF MY PROPERTY IS GOING TO GO DOWN JUST SIMPLY BECAUSE OF WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. I LOVE PUTT PUTT, GREAT IDEA. HOWEVER IT IS GOING TO BE IN MY BACKYARD. I IMAGINE WE ARE LOOKING ACROSS THE PROPERTY , THE LAGOONS THEY HAVE IN PALENCIA, THEY PUT SPECIAL FISH IN THERE THAT THEY DON'T WANT TO BE FINISHED THEY PUT SPECIAL FISH TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT SO THEY CAN KEEP DOWN ALL THE PLAGUES THAT ATTACK OUR WATER. AND EAT THE VEGETATION AT THE BOTTOM SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT DISTURBING THE BOTTOM OF THESE LAGOONS. LET'S NOT TALK ABOUT THE POTENTIAL CROCODILES OR ALLIGATORS ONCE A YEAR THAT'S COMING INTO THE PROPERTY . I'M AFRAID I WILL BE LOOKING AT SOME PLAYGROUND THAT IS GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF NOISE THAT IS GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF TRAFFIC OFF OF COULD YOU 1 IN THE LAST 4 YEARS I HAD THE PROPERTY HAS TRIPLED IN THE AMOUNT IN TRAFFIC AND I'M AFRAID WE WILL HAVE SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BE LOUD BECAUSE THEY WILL HAVE MUSIC TO MAKE IT MORE ENTERTAINING OF COURSE.

THAT IS NOT GOING TO BE OF MY LIKING. I BOUGHT THE PROPERTY BECAUSE TO ME I FELT I WAS IN THE CHURCH DIRECTLY MADE BY GOD, TO ME IT WAS VERY RELIGIOUS WHERE I WAS AND MY NEIGHBORS WOULD COME AND SAVE ME I SEE OR SIT SO WE CAN SEE WHAT YOU LOOK AT? EVERYBODY WALKS AWAY SAYING IT'S BEAUTIFUL, IT'S BEAUTIFUL AND I'M AFRAID IT'S GOING TO BE DAMAGED. VIEW IS GOING TO BE DAMAGED BY WHATEVER IS GOING ON AND I'M NOT AGAINST ENTERTAINMENT BUT I THINK ALSO , LATER ON ALCOHOL AND CHILDREN

[03:30:05]

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYBODY

ELSE? >> I JUST MEASURED IT'S ABOUT 300 FEET FROM HER PROPERTY LINE , THE MULTIFAMILY OVER TO OUR PROPERTY LINE AND WE WILL HAVE TYPICAL SCREENING WE ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE FOR THESE USES ALSO YOU LOOK ACROSS U.S. 1 AND YOU CAN SEE IW AND THE CEMENT , THE CEMENT MIXING PLACE AND ALL THE USES, VERY SIMILAR WITH THE SAME AMOUNT OF VISUAL AND NOISE IMPACTS THAT ANY OF THOSE USES WOULD BE AS WELL AS THE CI TO THE SOUTH AND ALSO YOU KNOW THE COMMERCIAL USE THAT ARE EVEN CLOSER WITHIN PALENCIA COULD ALSO HAVE THE SAME IMPACTS.

>> OKAY. >> I ASSUME THAT MAYBE YOU DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION SINCE YOU ARE NOT INVOLVED IN THE ENGINEERING BUT I PULLED OUT THE SITE PLAN AND THE SITE PLAN DOES NOT MATCH THE SHAPE OF THE PARCEL . VERY ODD .

WESTBOUND ON NORTHBOUND IT APPEARS TO . THEN IT FALLS APART EASTBOUND , DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHY THAT IS? SOUTHBOUND LOOKS

RIGHT. >> LOOKS LIKE A PORTION IS

SHAVED OFF THE NORTHEAST . >> I AM NOT SURE.

>> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? TO THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION.

>> NUMBER 8 1ST. >> I AM GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND DENIAL REZONING 2025 -11 NOTHING PART FUND BASED ON FINDINGS OF FACT IN THE STAFF REPORT.

>> RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL. IS THERE A 2ND? ANY DISCUSSION? CAN

YOU PRESS A BUTTON? >> THANK YOU. I DO UNDERSTAND THERE IS A RIGHT TO DEVELOP BUT I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF INCREASING THE INTENSITY ESPECIALLY BEST USE I UNDERSTAND THAT IS WHAT THE LAND OWNER WANTS TO MAKE BIGGEST BANG FOR THE BUCK BUT I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE WETLAND IMPACT AND I'M REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE FOOD TRUCKS AND THE AMOUNT OF PARKING INVOLVED AND IF THAT'S THE REASON TO GO THEN FOR ME THAT IS NOT IN THE COUNTY'S BEST INTEREST. WE HAVE TO LOOK AT IT FROM THE COUNTIES PERSPECTIVE AS WELL SO THAT'S WHY I AM VOTING IN FAVOR OF DENYING OR RECOMMENDING DENIAL. THANK YOU.

>> FOR THE DISCUSSION? VOTE YES IS A VOTE TO DENY. REGISTER THE VOTE . ALL RIGHT A MOTION PASSES SO IT IS DENIED. MOTION ITEM

NUMBER 9? >> MOTION TO DENY NOTHING PART FUND ALCOHOL SALES 7 FINDINGS OF FACT PROVIDED IN THE STAFF

REPORT. >> 2ND.

>> MR. OLSON ? >> THANK YOU. REQUEST , I GUESS IT RELATES TO OUR ACTION , THE PRIOR ACTION . IS THIS UNUSUAL TO REQUEST A LIQUOR LICENSE WITHOUT ANY IDEA WHAT THE USE IS

ON THE PROPERTY? >> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

>> SITE PLAN AND USE WAS NECESSARY AND NORMAL , FOR THE

[03:35:04]

GIVING PERMISSION TO THE ONE ENTITY THAT GETS THAT. THEY WOULD HAVE TO USE IT IN THE WAY DESCRIBED ON THE SITE PLAN.

>> SO TO FULLY UNDERSTAND , IF THIS REQUEST IS GRANTED IT WOULD HAVE TO BE FOR THE PUTT PUTT RESTAURANT OPERATION AS PROPOSED

IN THE SITE PLAN? >> CORRECT. TO CLARIFY FURTHER THIS IS JUST SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR ALCOHOL. SO, THE REZONING IS A SEPARATE ACTION. SO, IF YOU DENY THIS, THE BOARD THEN ALLOWS THE COMMERCE OR CONVERSION TO THE REZONING , THEN THE OTHER USES BECOME AVAILABLE TO THE PROPERTY AND THEY ARE NOT BOUND TO THE SITE PLAN SUBMITTD TODAY. THE ONLY THING BOUND TO THE SITE PLAN IS THE ALCOHOL PERMIT.

>> SO AGAIN IF ITEM 9 IS , APPROVAL OR RECOMMENDATION? IF IT IS APPROVED SO THE BOTTOM LINE DOES THAT MEAN ANY USE THAT MIGHT BE EVEN UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING WOULD NOT NEED TO SEEK A SEPARATE HEARING REVIEW FOR ALCOHOL?

>> ANY NEW USE PROPOSED USE WOULD NEED A HEARING IF YOU DENY TODAY SO ANY NEW USE FOR ALCOHOL USE WOULD COME BACK.

>> THE APPROVAL OF SPECIAL USE PERMIT IS PENDING APPROVAL OF

THE CHT. >> SO THERE'S NO REASON FOR US

TO ACT ON THIS? >> THERE IS GOOD REASON. THE BOARD CAN STILL APPROVE REZONING. AND THEN IT MAY ACTUALLY BE THE REZONING IS GRANTED YOU MIGHT LIKE THIS OVER OTHER POTENTIAL USES THAT COULD BE THERE. OR YOU COULD DECIDE THE ALCOHOL PERMIT IS NOT THE PROBLEM FOR THE BOARD IT IS A NUMBER OF OTHER ISSUES WITH REZONING TO THE HIGHWAY TOURISM.

>> OKAY THANK YOU APPRECIATE. >> OKAY LET'S REGISTER THE

VOTE. >> MOTION IS TO DENY CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S A YES VOTE. OKAY THAT MOTION

[Staff Reports]

>> THANK YOU, MDM. CHAIR. NO PARTICULAR STAFF REPORT JUST WANT TO WISH EVERYONE A MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY NEW YEAR.

CHRISTMAS PRESENT ALL OF YOU IS WE DON'T HAVE A MEETING JANUARY 1. JANUARY 15 WILL BE OUR NEXT MEETING.

>> PERFECT. AGENCY REPORTS. >> YOU WILL NOT SEE ME ON JANUARY 15. I WILL BE IN VEGAS. DR. HILSENBECK. VEGAS FOR MY 40TH. IF YOU DON'T MIND TAKING OVER YOU WILL BE HERE.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.