[1. ZVAR 2026-14 Edgerton Exterior Stair Installation. Request for a Zoning Variance to Table 6.01 of the Land Development Code to allow for a reduced Side Yard setback of five (5) feet in lieu of the required eight (8) feet to allow for the installation of an exterior staircase in Residential, Single Family (RS-3) zoning.]

ON UP AND MISS SPIEGEL WILL ALLOCATE THE TIME.

SEEING NONE, IT LOOKS LIKE WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER 1, AND WE NEED EX PARTE ON ITEM NUMBER 1.

AND THAT IS THE EDGERTON EXTERIOR STAIR INSTALLATION.

MR. OLSON? >> VISITED THE SITE ON JULY 20TH, AS I WAS PHOTOGRAPHING THE SITE JUST FOR MY OWN MEMORY OF WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE, I WAS APPROACHED BY A RENTER THERE, I BELIEVE A VACATION RENTER, AND SHE ASKED ME QUESTIONS, AND I SAID, WHY I WAS THERE.

THAT WAS IT. >> BUT YOU DO LOOK SUSPICIOUS.

[LAUGHTER] OKAY.

MR. LABANOWSKI? >> YES, I VISITED THE SITE AS WELL, ALSO HAD TWO EMAILS PROVIDED BY STAFF, A PHONE CONVERSATION WITH TONY AND EMAILS.

>> MISS SPIEGEL? SORRY -- NEVER MIND.

>> YES, I DID A SITE VISIT AND I RECEIVED THE SAME SEVERAL

EMAILS. >> I RECEIVED SEVERAL EMAILS, BUT I DO WANT TO -- I DO WANT TO CONGRATULATE, I THINK I HAVE SAID THIS BEFORE, THE THREE COLLEAGUES TO MY RIGHT OR YOUR LEFT, BECAUSE THEY HAVE TIRELESSLY GONE OUT AND LOOKED AT ALL THE SITES THAT WE HAVE BEFORE US, AND THAT REALLY HELPS. MY FIRST TWO YEARS ON THIS BOARD, I DID THAT. AND I DID NOT FALL ON EVERY ITEM SINCE BUT THEY HAVE CONTINUED TO GO OUT AND LOOK AT THE ITEMS, AND THEY ARE OUR EYES ON THE GROUND AND I APPRECIATE THAT BECAUSE WE DEPEND ON YOUR SITE KNOWLEDGE OF THESE.

I WILL LOOK AT THE MAP, BUT IT'S NOT QUITE THE SAME AS LOOKING AT IT. I AM TRYING TO BE BETTER AGAIN IN MY REMAINING YEAR AND A HALF OR LESS ON THE BOARD.

ALL RIGHT WITH THAT SAID WE HAVE THE EX PARTE, SO WE HAVE FREDRICK MACK THE PRESENTER AND THE APPLICANT, FREDERICK WILL YOU PLEASE COME FORWARD TO ANY ONE OF THE MICROPHONES YOU SO

DESIRE AND LET US HEAR FROM YOU. >> I AM FREDRICK MACK, HERE REPRESENTING THE EDGERTON'S, THEIR TRUNK TO REDUCE THE SIZE SETBACK FROM EIGHT TO FIVE WHERE WE CAN BUILD A STAIRCASE THERE WHERE THEY CAN HAVE AN EXIT TO GO THROUGH THE HARDSHIP OF GETTING OUT OF THE HOUSE AND GETTING OFF OF THAT SECOND FLOOR TO GET TO THE GROUND FLOOR EASIER.

AND I HAVE SOME PICTURES, THE EDGERTON'S, THIS ADDRESS, 3115,

IT IS OWNED BY THE EDGERTON. >> ANY INFORMATION?

>> WILL YOU SHARE SOME PHOTOS? >> YES.

>> YOU CAN SEE THIS IS ON THE ACTUAL SOUTH SIDE, THERE WAS A LETTER FROM SOMEBODY ABOUT THE NORTH SIDE, THIS IS ON THE SOUTH SIDE. THIS DECK FOLLOWS THE FRONT END OF THE SIDE HERE, WE WANT TO ACTUALLY INSTALL A STAIRCASE TO THE RIGHT SIDE OF THAT, WHICH WE NEEDED ABOUT EIGHT, ANOTHER FOOT TO DO THAT THAT'S WHY WE ARE ASKING FOR THE SETBACK CHANGE.

AND YOU GOT THIS IS WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE, A QUICK DRAWING OF IT. YOU CAN SEE THE SAME THINGS OUTSOUTH SIDE HERE, THIS IS THE STAIRCASE WE ARE ASKING FOR.

I HAVE SOME PICTURES. >> GO RIGHT AHEAD.

>> HOPE EVERYBODY IS CLEAR WITH THAT.

THIS IS JUST ONE HERE THAT DETAILS THE ACTUAL SITE THAT WE ARE TRYING TO INSTALL THE STAIRCASE OF THE SIDE OF THIS UPPER DECK OR DECK. AND YOU CAN SEE WE WOULD INSTALL

[00:10:01]

IT RIGHT THERE. THIS IS JUST SOME OF THE PICTURES THAT YOU PROBABLY GOT ALSO.

THERE IS ONE FROM THE FRONT LOOKING BACK TO THE OCEAN, SAME THING, STAIRCASE WOULD BE HERE, ONE DOWN.

CAN I JUST HAVE -- A COUPLE MORE HERE, A LARGER SHOT OF IT, THE STAIRCASE WOULD BE RIGHT HERE COMING DOWN ONTO THESE AREAS.

IT WOULD BE ENGINEERED AND BUILT TO CODE.

>> OKAY THANK YOU AND I DO WANT TO THANK YOU FOR PUTTING YOUR GRAPHICS RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE ON THE X BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN REMINDED BY OUR AV GUY AT THE BACK, THAT IF YOU DON'T PUT THEM RIGHT ON THE X, HE CANNOT ZOOM IN ON THEM WELL.

IF ANYBODY ELSE WILL PUT ANYTHING UP ON THEIR, PUT IT ON THE X PLEASE. OKAY ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? MR. LABANOWSKI?

>> IF YOU COULD PUT THE PICTURE UP THERE -- THE LAST ONE YOU H HAD? WHERE THAT WHITE CHAIR IS UNDERNEATH THE DECK ITSELF, WHY CAN'T A STAIRWAY GO UP UNDERNEATH THAT DECK INTO THE CORNER?

>> BUILD IT UNDERNEATH? >> RIGHT INTO THAT CORNER.

>> THERE'S NOT ENOUGH HEIGHT, TO ACTUALLY GET UP UNDER THIS AREA, THAT IS ONE OF THE REASONS WE COULDN'T BUILD IT INSIDE THERE.

HERE, IF YOU TRY TO DO IT OUT THE BACK, YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A LANDING HERE AND OF COURSE THEY HAVE AN AREA, WHEN THEY COME FROM THE BEACH AND WASH THEMSELVES, THEY DIDN'T WANT TO CARRY THAT OUT. THAT COULD BE AN OPTION, BUT THEY WERE REALLY HOPING WE COULD DO IT OUTSIDE.

AND THE WHOLE KEY IS IT'S REALLY A FIRE ESCAPE TO BE ABLE TO GET OUT THAT SECOND FLOOR, THIS WOULD BE THE FASTEST WAY OUT OF HERE. YOU ARE STUCK STILL UNDERNEATH THE HOUSE IF YOU DID IT THAT WAY, IT MAY NOT BE THAT BIG OF A

DEAL BUT. >> IS THIS A RENTAL UNIT?

>> THEY USE IT FOR THEMSELVES AND THEY DO RENT.

THAT IS WHAT I UNDERSTAND. I THINK IT'S LIKE 50/50 BUT I'M

NOT SURE ABOUT THAT. >> OKAY THANK YOU.

>> MISS SPIEGEL? >> ACTUALLY LABANOWSKI KIND OF STOLE MY QUESTION, I WAS GOING TO ASK, 12-FOOT WIDE DECKING AT THE END, WHY COULDN'T IT JUST BE UP INTO THE DECK?

>> UNDERNEATH THE DECK? YEAH.

>> YEAH, UNDERNEATH THE DECK. SO, CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHERE THE IDEA CAME FROM ABOUT THE FIRE EXIT? AND IT'S BECAUSE YOU NEEDED A SEPARATE ONE FOR RENTERS, IT REALLY IS THE REASON YOU NEED THIS.

>> YES, MA'AM,. >> NOT 100% SURE --

>> THEY DO USE IT, THE -- >> THAT'S FINE, WE DON'T GET TO DECIDE WHAT YOU DO WITH YOUR PROPERTY.

BUT WE DO GET TO DECIDE IF THERE IS A HARDSHIP.

I DID SPEAK TO OUR FIRE SERVICE ENGINEER AND HE SAID THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT FOR A SECOND FLOOR STAIRWELL.

>> I'M SURE THERE ACTUALLY ISN'T --

>> FOR FIRE PURPOSES -- >> IT'S REALLY JUST FOR GETTING OUT EASIER FROM THE OUTSIDE OF THE HOUSE, THERE IS A DOOR BACK INTO THE SIDE THERE. THAT'S WHY WE STATIONED IT THERE YOU GO STRAIGHT OUT AND GET OUT. AND MRS. EDGERTON IS A LITTLE BIT OLDER THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS.

AN URGENT NEED. >> STILL, YOU HAVE TO GO DOWN A SET OF STAIRS, I DON'T KNOW IF IT REALLY MATTERS WHERE THE STAIRS ARE. ANYWAYS I JUST FEEL LIKE THERE'S PROBABLY A WAY YOU COULD DO IT WITHIN THE CODE.

WE WILL TALK AFTER WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT.

>> THERE IS SOME HEIGHT DIFFERENCE HERE, TO GET UP UNDER THAT. YOU MIGHT HAVE ENOUGH ROOM TO DO

IT BUT HERE YOU PROBABLY COULD. >> THERE IS NOT A HOT TUB BACK THERE? I WAS TRYING TO SEE.

>> IT'S A SHOWER, IT'S AN ENCLOSED SHOWER WHEN YOU COME

FROM THE BEACH. >> OKAY I WAS TRYING TO SEE.

OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>> YES, MA'AM,. >> MR. OLSON?

>> YEAH,, JUST TO FURTHER PROBE, YOU COULD WITHOUT CUTTING INTO THE DECK CREATE A STAIR, COULD YOU NOT? BUILD THE STAIR ON THE BEACH SIDE OF THE DECK AND AVOID THE

[00:15:07]

SETBACK ISSUE? >> THERE IS SOME ROOM BACK THERE, YOU SEE THERE IS A LINE HERE THAT SHOWS, I DON'T KNOW -- LET'S SEE IF I CAN SEE, IT IS A COASTAL CONSTRUCTION SETBACK THERE. IT DOES SHOW THAT.

I DON'T THINK WE CAN BUILD INTO THAT.

>> THAT COASTAL CONSTRUCTION LINE GOES --

>> IT'S RIGHT AT THE EDGE OF THE DECKING, THE NEIGHBORS.

>> OKAY. I AM AWARE THAT THERE ARE FIRES ON THESE BEACHFRONT HOMES, IT IS A WOOD STRUCTURE, SO IT IS AN IMPORTANT THING. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, SIR,. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM BOARD MEMBERS? SEEING NONE, ANYBODY HERE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS MATTER? SEEING NONE, WE WILL MOVE ON FOR A MOTION AND DISCUSSION.

DO WE HAVE A MOTION? MISS SPIEGEL?

>> YES, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO DENY ZONING VARIANCE 2026-14 EDGERTON EXTERIOR STAIR INSTALLATION, BEFORE FINDINGS OF FACT AS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MISS SPIEGEL, SECONDED BY MR. LABANOWSKI, ANY DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT.

LET'S VOTE, PUT UP OUR VOTE. YES VOTE IS TO DENY, NO VOTE IS TO APPROVE. SOMEBODY HASN'T VOTED YET.

THAT PASSES 4-3. >> YOU ARE GRANTING THE VAR

VARIANCE? >> 4-3.

>> THE ORIGINAL MOTION WAS TO DENY, MAKE SURE THERE'S NO OTHER MOTION OTHER THAN TO APPROVE IT. WE DO NEED ANOTHER ACTION --

>> SOMETIMES WE DO SOMETIMES WE DON'T, DOES IT REALLY MATTER?

>> I JUST HAVE TO CONFIRM EVERYBODY THAT VOTED NO WANTED TO VOTE FOR IT BECAUSE THERE WAS NO OBJECTION I'M OKAY TO MOVE

ON. >> ALL RIGHT LET'S HAVE ANOTHER MOTION THEN. WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THAT MOTION? MISS PERKINS?

>> [UNCLEAR] >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

SECONDED BY MR. GREEN. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, LET'S VOTE. YES IS TO APPROVE.

ALL RIGHT THE VOTE IS THE SAME, SO YOU ARE APPROVED FOR THE

VARIANCE. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

I WAS WONDERING I DIDN'T SEE THE CLOCK CHANGE, I HAD 3 MINUTES.

>> THAT'S WHEN THE ITEMS GET MORE --

[2. ZVAR 2026-16 5068 A1A South Pool. Request for a Zoning Variance to Table 6.01 of the Land Development Code to allow for a second Front Yard setback of ten (10) feet in lieu of the required twenty-five (25) feet for a Through Lot located next to an unopened right-of-way to accommodate the placement of a swimming pool in RS-3 zoning, specifically located at 5068 A1A South. ]

>> THANK YOU. [CHUCKLING] OKAY. SECOND ITEM IS ANOTHER ZONING VARIANCE, 5068 SOUTH, WE NEED AN EXPERT ON THIS PLEASE, MISS

SPIEGEL? >> YES, I DID DO A SITE VISIT.

>> MR. LABANOWSKI? >> I DID A SITE VISIT AS WELL.

>> MR. OLSON? >> I VISITED THE SITE JULY 28TH.

>> I'LL WRITE. SEEING NONE OTHER, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR, SIR,, AND YOU ARE NICK MCABE?

>> YES, SIR, I AM NICK MCABE, A CONTRACTOR FOR THE PROJECT REPRESENTING SOUTH HAVEN LLC, WE ARE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR A SWIMMING POOL IN THE REAR YARD. IT IS CONSIDERED THAT [UNCLEAR] THERE IS NO INTENTION TO OPEN THAT.

SO I WILL START WITH OUR PRESENTATION.

ALL RIGHT THIS IS OUR SITE PLAN, IT IS A BIT OF A BLOWN UP VIEW, LOOKING AT THE POOL HERE, THE NORMAL COUNTY SETBACKS WITH A 1E PROPERTY LINE SETBACKS, THERE'S PLENTY OF SPACE TO DO THIS.

AS LONG AS WE ARE GRANTED THE EASEMENT TO DO THAT.

WE DID DO A COUPLE MONTHS AGO TWO DOORS DOWN FROM THIS PROPERTY, THE SAME REQUEST. THIS IS OUR ADDRESS FOR THE LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS, LIKE A SET OF THE OWNER, SALT HAVEN, THIS IS OUR PROPERTY. AND THE AVENUE RIGHT AWAY, I DON'T THINK THE COUNTY NEEDS TO CHANGE THEIR MINDS SINCE THE LAST REQUEST, SO THERE IS NO INTENTION TO EVER OPEN THAT UP.

[00:20:06]

AND THIS IS A QUICK VIDEO OF THE PROPERTY COMING AROUND THE BACK SIDE AND SHOWING THE EASEMENTS. THERE WE GO.

SO THIS IS ACTUALLY THE FIRST PROPERTY THAT WE HAVE FOR THE VARIANCE, THE REASON WHY I WANTED TO SHOW THIS VIDEO IS YOU CAN SEE, AS I WALK BACK, WHERE THE EXISTING ONE STARTS AND CUTS THROUGH, AND WHERE THERE IS ONE PROPERTY OWNER ON THE REAR OF THIS PROPERTY THAT USES THAT RIGHT OF WAY AS AN ACCESS TO THE BACKSIDE OF HIS HOUSE. THAT'S WHERE THE RIGHT OF WAY KIND OF ENDS. SO RIGHT NOW THERE IS A POOL IN THE APPLICATION, BUT WITH THE FOLIAGE AS THICK AS IT IS KIND OF GOING OFF TO THE LEFT SIDE, THERE'S NO FURTHER ACCESS.

YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO WALK THROUGH THAT BUT, THE BUSH MAKES IT... AND THEN COMING THROUGH HERE, THIS IS WHERE THE LITTLE BIT OF ACCESS IS, AND THEN YOU WILL SEE WHERE THE DRIVE ACCESS STOPS. THAT'S ABOUT THE ONLY FOOT PATHWAY GOING BACK TO THE BACK SIDE BEHIND THE OTHER TWO HOUSES THERE. SO WE HAVE NO INTENTION TO REALLY DISTURB ANYTHING IN THERE, WE JUST NEED TO CLEAR OUT A LITTLE BIT TO GET THE PROPERTY LINE, AND THAT'S WHERE OUR LIMITS WILL END. AND THEN HERE'S A COUPLE OTHER SHOTS OF WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE GOING THROUGH THAT EASEMENT.

AND THAT'S IT. LIKE I SAID, WE WOULD HOLD TO ALL THE OTHER NORMAL COUNTY REQUESTS OR COUNTY GUIDELINES WITH A 10-FOOT REAR SETBACK, WE WILL STILL MAINTAIN THAT AND MAINTAIN THE 5-FOOT SIDE BUFFERS AND FENCE EVERYTHING AND MAKE SURE WE ADHERE TO ALL THE SAFETY GUIDELINES AS WELL.

OUR SITE PLAN NOTES AND THAT'S IT THAT IS OUR REQUEST.

>> OKAY THANK YOU ANY QUESTIONS FROM BOARD MEMBERS? I SEE MR. OLSON WOULD LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION?

>> THIS PROPERTY, I GUESS IT LOOKS LIKE BY THE RECORD, THE PROPERTY RECORDS, YOUR CLIENT'S, THE OWNER ACQUIRED THIS PROPERTY IN APRIL. JUST A FEW MONTHS AGO.

AND YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD BE TYPICALLY CONSIDERED A SELF ACQUIRED HARDSHIP, BECAUSE IT'S THE FUNDAMENTAL BASIS FOR GRANTING EASEMENTS. HOWEVER, I THINK, I GUESS THE MATTER IS THE UNOPENED STREET, PLUS THE ACTION THAT YOU REFERRED TO A COUPLE DOORS DOWN. SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT OBSERVATION RIGHT NOW. AWAIT ANYTHING ELSE CALCULUS AND

ANY TESTIMONY THERE IS. >> OKAY, THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS? SEEING NONE, IS THERE ANYBODY HERE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS MATTER? SEEING NONE, WE ARE BACK IN THE AGENCY FOR A DISCUSSION AND A MOTION.

AND I WOULD POINT OUT THAT THERE WAS A MAP IN THE APPLICATION PROVIDED BY STAFF THAT SHOWED LIKE FIVE OR SIX OTHER POOLS IN THE VICINITY AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD INCLUDING THAT ONE THAT WE APPROVED A COUPLE MONTHS AGO.

>> CORRECT, YES, SIR,. >> OKAY, MR. LABANOWSKI?

>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE ZONING VARIANCE 2026-16 FOR 506881A SOUTH POOL BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACTS AND THE CONDITIONS IN THE STAFF REPORT.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION, MR. GREEN WILL YOU SECOND?

>> SECOND. >> MOTION AND SECOND ANY DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT, MISS SPIEGEL?

>> I WOULD JUST LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT, THANK YOU FOR THE SITE VISIT THAT YOU PROVIDED US BY CAMERA, AND I HOPE YOU DID IT

[00:25:02]

>> IT WAS VERY DIFFERENT, ABOUT FIVE MORE STOMACH WEEKS INTO

THIS THING. >> YOU DID A VERY GOOD JOB,

THANK YOU. >> OUR VOTING SCREENS ARE UP,

[3. ZVAR 2026-17 Jackson Residence. Request for a Zoning Variance to Table 6.01 of the Land Development Code to allow for a Front Yard setback of twenty (20) feet in lieu of the required twenty-five (25) feet to accommodate the placement of a Single-Family residence in RMH(S) zoning, specifically located at 280 Ole Road.]

THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY, CONGRATULATIONS.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> OKAY NEXT IS ITEM NUMBER 3, ZONING VARIANCE FOR A SETBACK, THE JACKSON RESIDENTS.

SO WE NEED EX PARTE ON THAT? MR. LABANOWSKI?

>> I VISITED THE SITE, A UNIQUE SITE, IT IS UNIQUE.

>> IT LOOKS AT, MISS SPIEGEL? >> I ALSO VISITED THIS UNIQUE SITE, IT TOOK ME A WHILE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WAS WHAT.

[CHUCKLING] >> OKAY.

THE FLOOR IS FOR DALE AND MOLLY JACKSON.

SO IT LOOKS LIKE JUST DALE. >> HOW Y'ALL DOING? UNFORTUNATELY ME AND MY WIFE WERE WITH AN ASSISTANT PRINCIPAL AT SCHOOL THIS AFTERNOON SO SHE COULDN'T BE HERE TODAY AND I WILL TRY MY BEST TO REPRESENT BOTH OF US.

WE PURCHASED THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY A FEW YEARS AGO, LOOKING TO DO A RETIREMENT HOME FOR THE TWO OF US, AND IN THE PROCESS OF BUYING THE LOT, IT WAS ALREADY BASICALLY BARE, I THINK THERE WAS A MOBILE ON IT, AND IT WAS REMOVED AND THE PERSON WE PURCHASED IT FROM DID ALL THE PERMITTING FOR THE DOCKS AND STUFF LIKE THAT. IT KIND OF SEEMED LIKE OKAY THERE IS A LOT OF STUFF THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE.

SO WE DECIDED TO HIRE AN ARCHITECT AND AN ENGINEER TO START TAKING A LOOK AT THE LOT AND HOW WE CAN FIT THE HOME IN.

WE HAD A SURPRISE ABOUT 11 YEARS AGO WITH A SET OF TWIN BOYS, WE CAME BACK FROM VACATION, SAID WE CAN'T DO A ONE BEDROOM HOME.

WE NEED AT LEAST THREE BEDROOMS IN THE HOUSE, AND SO IN THE PROCESS OF TRYING TO FIT A HOUSE ONTO THIS LOT, IT BASICALLY, BECAUSE IT'S ONLY 32 IN THE REAR, AND THEN YOU HAVE ANOTHER 8 FEET ON BOTH SIDES, IT REALLY SHRINKS IT DOWN.

THE WAY THE LOT IS, THAT IS ACTUALLY NOT A SINGLE 90-DEGREE ANGLE ON IT. SO HE REALLY CAME UP WITH A COUPLE OF SCENARIOS TO TRY TO FIT IT, BUT HE JUST COULD NOT GET IT INSIDE OF THE SETBACK. AND SO WE WENT WITH THIS ONE, WHICH WAS INSTEAD OF THE 25, IT WENT TO THE 20-FOOT, AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT NOW.

AND I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN WE PLACED IT IN THERE, THAT THE EASE ALSO DIDN'T PROTRUDE INTO EITHER ONE OF THE SETBACKS.

BUT THIS IS THE HOUSE WE WOULD LIKE TO BUILD ON THE LOT.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME? >> ANY QUESTIONS FROM BOARD MEMBERS? MR. LABANOWSKI?

>> I ASSUME THERE IS A PUBLIC SEWER ALREADY BEING SERVICED

THROUGH THAT LOT? >> SO THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE ARE ACTUALLY TRYING TO BRING TO US NOW, THERE IS A SEWER LINE ON THE MAIN ROAD WHERE IT CONNECTS TO MINORCA, BUT THE COUNTY IS TELLING US AT THIS POINT IN TIME, THERE IS NO PLANS TO BRING IT DOWN TO US. AND I DID STATE THAT WE ARE JUST STARTING THE PHASE OF GETTING APPROVALS AND GETTING EVERYTHING READY, WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT DOING IT IMMEDIATELY BUT THEY LET US KNOW THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE A MINIMUM OF FIVE RESIDENTS IN ORDER TO PUSH IT TO THE SEWER MAIN.

BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THAT, THAT MANY PEOPLE HOOKED UP AT THIS POINT IN TIME, THEY ARE BASICALLY TELLING US THAT IT'S NOT AVAILABLE. WE DO HAVE WATER ON THE LOT NOW, SO WE ARE GETTING COUNTY WATER WHICH IS GREAT, BUT WE DO NEED TO LEAVE ROOM FOR A DRAIN FIELD, AND THEN WHEN YOU LOOK AT WHERE

[00:30:01]

THE KIND OF NORTH SYMBOL IS ON THAT PROPERTY, MY NEIGHBOR HAS A WELL RIGHT THERE, AND I JUST HAPPENED TO FIND IT.

BECAUSE I AM A PLUMBER, I KNEW I HAD TO BE A CERTAIN DISTANCE AWAY FROM THAT WELL. SO THERE IS A HUGE 50-FOOT RADIUS THAT WE HAVE TO STAY AWAY FROM THAT WELL.

SO TRYING TO GET THE DRAIN FIELD IN THERE AS WELL IS GOING TO BE DIFFICULT, BUT I THINK WITH THIS DESIGN IT WILL BE DOABLE.

>> MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS HAVING A SEPTIC SYSTEM IN THERE AND YOU ARE RIGHT THERE ON THE WATER. THAT IS A MAJOR CONCERN I HAVE, WITH THE SEWAGE GOING INTO THE WATER RIGHT THERE.

>> YEAH, AND I ALSO EXPRESSED THAT SAME CONCERN TO THE UTILITY DEPARTMENT AS WELL AS REALLY EXCITED TO SEE THIS LINE COMING DOWN, BUT THEY ARE PRETTY ADAMANT THEY WON'T BRING THAT.

BUT WHEN IT DOES -- WE WILL DEFINITELY BE TYING ON.

WE HAVE ALREADY SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION FOR IT, AND A

REQUEST. >> THANK YOU.

>> MR. MATOVINA? >> CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BEFORE THIS, THE HOUSE PLAN ON THE LOT? IS IT POSSIBLE TO PIVOT THAT HOUSE SO THAT --

>> I HAVE TRIED IT. I REALLY HAVE TRIED TO FIT -- THE ONE PORTION YOU ARE SEEING, THE GARAGE PORTION, THAT GARAGE IS ACTUALLY SMALLER THAN A NORMAL SIZED GARAGE.

JUST TO GET IT IN THERE. WE HAVE TRIED, LIKE I SAY WE HAVE GONE THROUGH A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT SETS OF THIS KIND OF TRYING TO ACTUALLY GET A HOUSE THAT WOULD ACTUALLY FIT IN THERE, WITH A LOT. THE PROBLEM WE ARE HAVING IS NO RIGHT ANGLES TO ACTUALLY BUILD OFF OF.

ONCE YOU SHIFTED TO ONE SIDE, IT KIND OF KICKS OUT ON THE OTHER SIDE. OR IT THROWS IT OVER TOO FAR ON THE OTHER SIDE. WHEN YOU ARE LOOKING AT IT FROM THE ROAD, THE HOUSE WILL BE A LITTLE OFFSET BUT I THINK HE DID A PRETTY GOOD JOB OF TRYING TO GET SOMETHING IN THERE.

>> OKAY THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM BOARD MEMBERS? ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ISSUE? SEEING NONE, WE ARE BACK IN THE AGENCY FOR DISCUSSION AND MOTION.

MR. GREEN? >> YES, IF YOU LOOK AT THE ONE BATH, THERE'S LOTS IN THIS SUBDIVISION THAT ARE NOT PERFECTLY SQUARE. [CHUCKLING] YEAH,, I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF 2026-17 JACKSON RESIDENTS, BASED ON THE FINDING OF FACTS AND CONDITIONS

IN THE STAFF REPORT. >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE?

BY MR. GREEN, MR. OLSON? >> I WILL SECOND MR. GREEN'S MOTION YOU MAKE A MOTION AND SECOND ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, WE HAVE OUR VOTING SCREEN UP PLEASE.

ALL RIGHT. PASSES -- WE ARE MISSING A VOTE.

I'LL WRITE, PASSES 6-1. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, HAVE A

[4. ZVAR 2026-20 Velkovich AFU. A request for a Zoning Variance to Section 2.02.04.B.16.d of the Land Development Code to allow for the construction of an Accessory Family Unit (AFU) that will exceed thirty-five (35) percent of the square footage of the main use structure, specifically located at 1225 South Winterhawk Drive.]

GREAT WEEKEND. THANK YOU.

>> ALL RIGHT THE NEXT ITEM IS, SO MANY PAPERS UP HERE IT'S CRAZY. IT IS A ZONING VARIANCE AGAIN, FOR THE VELKOVICH ACCESSORY FAMILY UNIT.

WE NEED EX PARTE ON THIS. MR. LABANOWSKI?

>> I VISITED THE SITE FROM A DISTANCE, BECAUSE IT SITS WAY BACK, I COULD NOT GO DOWN THE DRIVEWAY.

>> MISS SPIEGEL? >> I DID A SITE VISIT AND I CONFESS I DID GO DOWN THE DRIVEWAY, BUT I HAD TO TURN AROUND SO FORGIVE ME FOR TRESPASSING.

[LAUGHTER] I WAS HOPING TO SEE SOMEBODY BACK THERE AND INVITED MYSELF TO LOOK AROUND, THANK YOU.

>> ANYBODY ELSE? AND I WILL NOTE WHEN I FIRST GOT ON THIS BOARD, I WAS ADVISED NOT TO TRESPASS BY ANY STRETCH OF

[00:35:08]

THE IMAGINATION. EVEN SETTING 1 FOOT.

HE DROVE ONTO THE PROPERTY YOU ARE ADMITTING THIS! I'M KIDDING. JUST KIDDING.

SHANE JOHNSTON? PRESENTER? COME ON DOWN! LET US HEAR FROM YOU.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYBODY, SASHANE JOHNSTON, GENERATION HOMES, I'M HERE TO REPRESENT THE VELKOVICH, 1225 SOUTH WINTERHAWK DRIVE. WE ARE REQUESTING A ZONING VARIANCE PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ACCESSORY FAMILY UNIT, LESSER OF THE 35% OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE MAIN STRUCTURE.

WE ARE ASKING FOR 131 SQUARE FEET EXTRA, CODE PROVIDES WE CAN DO 975 SQUARE FEET, WE ARE LOOKING TO DO 1107.

IT IS A 3-ACRE PARCEL, WE ARE A 60% BELOW THE COVERAGE, AND WE ARE 26% BELOW THE LOT COVERAGE. SO WELL BELOW ALL OF THOSE COVERAGES. WITH THE AFU AND THE HOUSE WHERE 4% LOT COVERAGE OVERALL. THERE WE GO, THANK YOU.

SO HERE YOU CAN SEE THE MAIN HOUSE AND THE DRIVEWAY COMING DOWN AND WHERE WE WANT TO PLACE THE AFU, ON THE BACKSIDE OF THE POND. IT IS A VERY MODEST STRUCTURE.

AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, THIS WILL ALLOW THEIR DAUGHTER TO LIVE ON THE PROPERTY WITH THEM AS THEIR PARENTS AGE IN PLACE.

IT DOES HOLD VERY TRUE TO THE CODE, THE SPIRIT OF THE CODE AND LAND DEVELOPMENT TO BE BELOW THAT DENSITY.

IT IS A VERY LARGE 3-ACRE PARCEL, IT'S NOT AFFECTING ANY OF OUR NEIGHBORS OR ANYBODY AROUND US.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> ALL RIGHTY, ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? I SEE MR. LABANOWSKI WILL HAVE ONE? IF YOU CAN TURN YOUR MIC ON.

>> ONE QUICK QUESTION, THE SEPTIC FIELD IS ALL THE WAY UP TOWARDS THE FRONT OF THAT PROPERTY, IS THAT GOING TO BE SERVICED FOR THAT LITTLE HOME ALSO?

>> YES, WE WILL PUSH THE HEAT THAT WENT OUT AND PUSH ALONG THE PROPERTY TO THE BACK AND UP TO THE FRONT.

WE WILL DO A FORCED MAIN UP THERE.

>> OKAY THANK YOU. >> ANYBODY ELSE ON THE BOARD? ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK TO THIS MATTER? SEEING NONE, WE ARE BACK IN THE AGENCY FOR DISCUSSION AND MO

MOTION. >> MOTION? MOTION TO APPROVE ZONING VARIANCE 2026-20 ALTA VISTA AVENUE BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND FINDINGS IN

THE STAFF REPORT. >> I WILL SECOND THAT.

>> ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, OUR VOTING SCREEN -- THERE IT IS. 6-1.

SO YOU ARE APPROVED, SIR. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, HAVE A

[5. ZVAR 2026-23 5025 Alta Vista Avenue. Request for a Zoning Variance to Sections 2.02.04.B.12.a(4) and 2.02.04.B.12.b(2) of the Land Development Code to allow for the cumulative height of a fence on top of a retaining wall to be ten (10) feet in lieu of the eight (8) foot requirement and to allow for a fence/wall to exceed the required six (6) foot height maximum if located within the second Front Yard setback of a Through Lot. Along with a request to Table 6.01 to allow for an attached staircase to encroach 7.5 feet into the required second Front Yard setback of 25 feet, in Residential, Single Family (RS-3) zoning; specifically located at 5025 Alta Vista Avenue.]

GREAT DAY. >> ITEM NUMBER 5, ANOTHER ZONING VARIANCE, THIS ONE ON ALTA VISTA AVENUE.

IT INVOLVES A FENCE AND SOME STAIRS.

EX PARTE ON THIS. MISS SPIEGEL?

>> YES, I DID A SITE VISIT, AROUND THE SITE, AERIAL.

AND I GOT SEVERAL EMAILS. THANK YOU.

>> MR. LABANOWSKI? >> I VISITED THE SITE AS WELL

AND RECEIVED SEVERAL EMAILS. >> MR. OLSON?

>> VISITED THE SITE JULY 20TH, ENDED UP BEING ASKED BY A NEIGHBOR WHY I WAS PHOTOGRAPHING THE SITE, ENDED UP IN A BRIEF DISCUSSION WITH HER. AND IT LOOKS LIKE WE RECEIVED TODAY IN THE MATERIALS ON OUR DESK A NUMBER OF LETTERS OF CONCERN OR OPPOSITION THAT WE REQUEST.

>> HAVE BEEN DOWN TO THE STREET MANY TIMES.

HAVE ALSO SEEN THESE LETTERS OF CONCERN.

WITH THAT, YOU MUST BE KATHERINE MAPULA.

>> YES, MY NAME IS KATHERINE MAPULA.

[00:40:02]

I AM THE PROPERTY OWNER. THIS IS MY FIRST PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE SO THANK YOU TO THE BOARD FOR HAVING ME.

I ALSO WANT TO THANK EVAN WHO IS RIGHT THERE, HE HAS BEEN SO HELPFUL IN THIS PROCESS. I AM A NURSE BY TRADE, MY DAD IS HERE WITH ME, HE WORKS AT THE UNIVERSITY.

SO THIS IS MY PROPERTY, 5025 ALTA VISTA AVENUE.

WHEN WE FIRST PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY IT WAS JULY OF LAST YEAR. IT WAS OVERRUN WITH RATS, VARIOUS RODENT SPECIES INSIDE, IT WAS IN VERY BAD SHAPE.

WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO GET IT BETTER EVER SINCE.

SO WHAT WE ARE REQUESTING IS A ZONING VARIANCE FOR THE SETBACK, FOR A RETAINING WALL AS WELL AS STAIRS, AND THE SPECIFIC DIVISIONS LISTED HERE AND ALSO IN YOUR PACKAGE.

SO THIS IS A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE PROPERTY, I BELIEVE ONE OF OUR PRIOR PRESENTERS ALSO PRESENTED ABOUT THIS AVENUE, WHICH IS A RIGHT OF WAY THAT IS NOT OPENED.

YOU SAW THE VIDEO, THE LARGE DENSE BRUSH, AND THEN OBVIOUSLY HIS PROPERTY KIND OF BACKS UP TO WHERE MY PROPERTY IS, THROUGH THE LOTS. THIS IS SOME MORE DETAIL ON T THAT. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN.

AS YOU CAN SEE, THE REAR PROPERTY LINE, THE STAIRS ARE ABOUT 17 AND A HALF FEET WHERE THEY START, AND THEN THE RETAINING WALL IS 22 AND A HALF FEET.

SO THEREFORE IN THE SETBACK REQUIRED FOR THE LOT, AND THAT BEING PRESCRIBED RIGHT OF WAY. SO INFORMATION ON THE HARDSHIPS, WHEN WE FIRST PURCHASED THE PROPERTY, I WILL SHOW YOU THIS ACTUALLY FIRST. MY PROPERTY HAS THIS STAR.

THERE IS A POOL IN THE BACK AND THERE WAS A FENCE, AND THEN THE PROPERTY LINE GOES ALL THE WAY BACK, KIND OF A HALF FENCE, IT WASN'T FULLY FENCED BACK THERE. THERE WAS A LARGE DENSE BRUSH KIND OF MEETING UP WITH THE DENSE BRUSH FROM THE AVENUE.

WE WANTED TO BE ABLE TO UTILIZE THAT ADDITIONAL LARGE SPACE, SO WE CLEARED THAT BRUSH, AND WHAT WE FOUND WAS A VERY DEEP STEEP SLOPE, AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THIS ELEVATION MAP, THERE IS ABOUT A 9-FOOT DROP FROM THE POOL AREA DOWN TO OSCEOLA AVENUE, AND WHEN THAT BRUSH WAS GONE, IT WAS AN EXPENSIVE EROSION.

SO WE DECIDED TO BUILD A RETAINING WALL TO KIND OF PROTECT THAT EROSION SO IT WOULDN'T CONTINUE RUNNING OFF INTO THE ACTUAL RIGHT OF WAY AND INTO NEIGHBORING AREAS.

SO THIS SPEAKS TO THAT A LITTLE BIT IN THIS SLIDE.

LIKE I MENTIONED EARLIER, OSCEOLA AVENUE THERE IS NO PLANS TO OPEN IT UP AT THIS POINT CAN AND IT IS BASICALLY IMPASSABLE BY CAR BUT EVEN WALKING THROUGH THERE IS VERY DIFFICULT.

PICTURE OF AFU AVENUE, I HAVE ALREADY SHOWN YOU THAT.

SO HERE IS THE WALL, AND THE STAIRS.

AS YOU CAN SEE THE WALL ALIGNS WITH MY NEIGHBOR'S WALL AND FENCE THAT IS IN PLACE. THERE WAS CONCERN ABOUT THE HEIGHT OF MINE. AS YOU CAN SEE WITH THE NEW WOOD THERE, MINE IS ACTUALLY LOWER THAN THE NEIGHBORS, AND EQUAL DISTANCE INTO THE SETBACK. SO MY PROPERTY HAS THE STAR, PROPERTY SIZE HERE, THAT'S THE ONE YOU ARE SEEING ALSO IN THAT PICTURE. 5043, THEY EVEN LOOK FURTHER INTO THE SETBACK, SO THERE IS SOME PRECEDENT THAT HAVING A WALL AT THIS LOCATION YOU KNOW, IS KIND OF WHAT HAS BEEN HAPPENING WITHIN THE AREA. HERE IS A LIST OF SOME OTHER SIMILAR VARIANCES REGARDING GOING INTO THE SETBACK.

[00:45:03]

THERE HAS BEEN SOME CONCERN FROM PEOPLE THAT EVAN HAS SHARED WITH ME IN TERMS OF COMMUNICATION. I ACTUALLY SPOKE WITH PATTY THE NEIGHBOR THAT YOU WERE ABLE TO SPEAK WITH, FROM DISCOVERING FROM THE COMMUNICATION IS THEY THINK I'M BUILDING MORE ONTO IT, THEY THOUGHT WE WERE BUILDING A LARGER STRUCTURE THAT IS NOT THE PLAN, THE PLAN IS TO KEEP IT IN PLACE AND KEEP IT BELOW THE ACTUAL NEIGHBORS SITE AND AT THE SAME LEVEL.

I DON'T THINK THAT IT WAS CLEARLY COMMUNICATED, THE LETTERS ARE DIFFICULT TO READ SOMETIMES F FOR THE PUBLIC NOT N THE SPACE, THAT IS A CONVERSATION I MEAN EVAN HAD, WHERE THERE IS CONCERN FROM PEOPLE ABOUT A BUILDING ON TOP OF THIS WALL, WHICH IS NOT THE PLAN.

AND SO WE KIND OF GONE OVER THESE ITEMS, SO MY SUGGESTION OF COURSE IS TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE AS STIPULATED IN THE PACKAGE, THANK YOU SO MUCH. I AM FREE FOR QUESTIONS.

>> THANK YOU, MR. OLSON? >> WELL FIRST OFF, YOU HAVE DONE FROM MY VISIT, REAL EXTENSIVE REWORK OF THE PROPERTY.

IT INVOLVES A HUGE AMOUNT OF WORK THAT I GUESS MAKES THE GROUND EASIER TO MAINTAIN, I GUESS -- MY FIRST QUESTION IS HOW DID THIS ALL THIS EXTENSIVE WORK -- HOW COULD THAT HAPPEN WITHOUT A BUILDING PERMIT? IS THAT A ASPECT SOMETHING MORE OF THE ISSUE BETWEEN YOU AND YOUR CONTRACTOR? WAS YOUR CONTRACTOR LICENSED? DID ANYBODY INVOLVED IN THIS BE UNAWARE THIS WAS A REQUIREMENT WITH THE COUNTY?

>> THAT IS A GREAT QUESTION. OBVIOUSLY THIS IS MY FIRST RENOVATION PROJECT. I RELY ON MY CONTRACTOR WHO IS LICENSED TO KIND OF HELP GUIDE WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE.

FROM MY CONVERSATIONS WITH THEM, THERE WAS NOT AN ORDINANCE THIS WAS A SEWER LOT. WHEN I HEARD THAT I WAS ON THE PHONE WITH ANGELA FROM THE COUNTY WHO HAD TOLD ME THAT, AND MY HEAD EXPLODED, I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW.

IN TALKING WITH THE CONTRACTOR, ESSENTIALLY BECAUSE WE WERE LINED UP WITH THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WHO WAS SHORTER, THERE WAS AN ASSUMPTION, ABOUT ONE, THAT WE WERE GOING TO BE IN LINE WITH THE REQUIRED RULES -- REGARDLESS OF ALL OF THAT, AS THE PROPERTY OWNER I TAKE ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THAT SITUATION. BUT WE HAVE LEARNED AND WE HAVE GARNERED THE REQUIRED PERMITS FOR ALL THE OTHER WORK, THE BATHROOM, THE SHOWER YOU SAW WHEN VISITING.

THE PROPERTY PREEXISTING. BUT WE WERE DOING SOME WORK ON THAT, WE CONVERTED THE SUBJECT CHANGE TO SEWER, WE DID WORK ON THE PAVERS THAT YOU SAW TO IMPROVE THE PROPERTY VALUE IN THE AREA AND THE LOOK AND APPEAL OF THE PLACE, ALL OF THAT WORK HAS BEEN PERMITTED. SO, YEAH, THAT'S KIND OF HOW WE

ENDED UP HERE TODAY. >> FIRST, A COUPLE FEET AWAY FROM WHAT THE CODE WOULD REQUIRE, WOULD HAVE BEEN KNOWN IF YOU ARE A LICENSED CONT CONTRACTOR.

GONE THROUGH THE PERMITTING PROCESS.

MY OTHER QUESTION IS ON -- IT'S NOT A SPECIFIC CENTRAL ISSUE I GUESS TO THE VARIANCE, MAYBE BUT, WITH ALL THE PAVING, ARE THERE -- IS THE PERMEABLE SITE AREA FOR ABSORBING RAINWATER? I KNOW THIS IS SANDY SOIL AT THAT POINT, IS THAT PERCENTAGE STILL WITHIN THE COUNTY REQUIREMENTS?

>> YES, IT IS. SO THE BACK AREA IS -- I CAN GO BACK TO THE FIRST ONE HERE, THAT IS CURRENTLY SAND, WE PLAN TO PUT A GRAVEL FIRE PIT AND SOME TURF.

[00:50:03]

WE MAY DO SOME THING IN THE FUTURE, OF COURSE THROUGH THE PROCESS. IN THE FRONT CAN KIND OF SEE THERE IS A LARGE CONCRETE SLAB DRIVEWAY, AND ESSENTIALLY WHEN WE INSTALL THE PAVERS WE WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS OF LOOKING AT IMPERVIOUS SURFACES. AND ALL WE HAVE DONE TO ADD ON TO THAT IS THE VERSION IN THE FRONT, WHERE BASICALLY THE CONCRETE, THE PAVERS, THE ESSENTIALLY ARE VERY CLOSE TO WHAT IT WAS FORMERLY. AND WE JUST ADDED IN A LITTLE WALKWAY TO THE BACK. BUT IN TERMS OF MAKING ANY OF THIS AREA SOLID OUTSIDE OF POTENTIALLY DOING A KITCHEN IN THE FUTURE WHERE WE WILL HAVE THAT CONVERSATION AGAIN AND REDO THOSE THINGS, IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS.

>> OKAY YOU CONFIRMED THAT WITH THE COUNTY?

>> YES THAT'S ON THE SURVEY. YOU CAN SEE --

>> AND IN ORDER TO ADD ANYTHING TO THAT CAN I GET THE LOWEST LEVEL CAN I THE OSCEOLA WAY -- WOULD THAT PERCENTAGE BE EXCEEDED IF YOU TAKE THAT TO CREATE SOMEWHERE WHERE I SAW A

PICKLEBALL COURT? >> WE DO NOT PLAN TO PUT A PICKLEBALL COURT IN, ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS KIND OF STARTED THAT DISCUSSION. WE WERE KIND OF THROWING AROUND IDEAS, SOME FUN IDEAS. THAT IS NOT IN THE PLAN, THAT WAS VERY EARLY ON DISCUSSED. THE PLAN IS TO PUT LIKE A COSTCO PLAY GEM OF SORTS ON THE BOTTOM -- J GYM -- NOTHING PAVED, NO CONCRETE, OTHER THAN MAYBE PUTTING THE KITCHEN IN THE FUTURE WHICH AGAIN WILL BE RELOOKED AT AS PART OF THE PERMITTING PROCESS FOR THAT SEPARATELY, AND ALL OF THAT WE

CALCULATED AGAIN. >> OKAY, THANK YOU.

>> MR. LABANOWSKI? >> AS FAR AS THE RETAINING WALL HOW FAR ABOVE GROUND IS THIS ON THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE?

ON THE UPPER SIDE? >> CAN YOU -- FROM THIS VIEW? IT'S ABOUT 16 AND THEN 4 FEET OF RAILING.

>> WHERE THE START IS RIGHT NOW, THE HANGING WALL --

>> IT'S JUST RAILING, YOU CAN'T SEE ANY WALL.

YOU JUST SEE THE RAILING PORTION.

IF YOU'RE STANDING AT THE POOL LOOKING WESTWARD, YOU JUST SEE THE RAILING AND IT'S ABOUT 4 FEET HIGH.

YOU DON'T SEE THE RETAINING WALL, IT'S ALL BELOW SAND.

>> ALL RIGHT THANKS. >> MISS SPIEGEL?

>> I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR SUCH A VERY THOROUGH GOOD APPLICATION. THIS WAS VERY GOOD.

I HAD SO MANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS, I WAS SO CONFUSED.

BUT I THINK YOU HAVE ADDRESSED THE ISSUES I HAD, THANK YOU THAT

WAS VERY WELL DONE. >> THANK YOU.

>> LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT THE BACK, LOOKING AT THE MAP IN THE APPLICATION, IT SHOWS THE 20-FOOT CONTOUR LINE COMING FROM THE FRONT OF YOUR PROPERTY? AND THEN GOING TOWARDS THE BACK AND ENTERING THIS PORTION IN THE RED DASH LINE, AND IT COMES BACK DOWN AND CUTS ACROSS ABOUT THE SOUTHWESTERN THIRD OF THAT DASH LINE AREA, AND EXITS ABOUT THE MIDDLE OF IT.

IS THAT NOT 20 FEET TALL THERE? ACCORDING TO THE TELEPHONE MAP IT SHOWS THAT'S A 20-FOOT CONTOUR?

>> SO THE DISTANCE IS -- WHAT THIS IS SHOWING IS THAT IT'S ROUGHLY 11 FEET AT THE EDGE OF THE PROPERTY, 20 FEET AT THE TOP, SO THE DISTANCE IS 10 FEET THAT I DESCRIBED.

>> ISN'T THERE SOME LAND WITHIN THAT AREA THAT IS 20 FEET?

>> NO THERE IS NOT. >> SO THIS MAP IS INACCURATE?

>> THIS TOPO MAP CAME FROM NOT MYSELF BUT THE COUNTY DOCUMENTS PUT TOGETHER, I TOOK IT FROM THE DOCUMENTATION, I DID NOT PROVIDE THIS TOPO MAP. BUT THERE IS -- MY APOLOGIES IF IT IS WRONG, BUT THERE IS ONLY 10-FOOT DIFFERENCE THERE.

>> I ASSUME IT WOULD BE IN THE SURVEY MAP AND THOSE ARE USUALLY PRETTY ACCURATE. IT LOOKS LIKE JACOB -- WILL SAY

[00:55:04]

SOMETHING. >> JACOB SMITH, I BELIEVE IT'S JUST A SEPARATE CONTOUR LINE THAT APPEARS TO BE LOOK CONNECTED ON THERE. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT AS A SEPARATE CONTOUR LINE WE ARE LOOKING AT IN THE VERY WEST EDGE

OF THAT PROPERTY. >> SO THE LARGE DROPS OFF CONSISTENTLY ALL THE WAY ACROSS YOUR PROPERTY?

>> YES, IT'S A VERY STEEP SLOPE. AND AFTER THE BACK BENCH IT EVEN GOES FURTHER DOWN, IT CONTINUES TO SLOPE DOWNWARDS.

>> OKAY, I NEED REMOVED THAT VEGETATION IN THE BACK? IT WAS JUST EAST OF OSCEOLA AVENUE?

>> YES, SIR, AND THAT'S WHERE WE SAW THE SLOPE THAT WAS PRESENT.

>> SO WHEN THAT VEGETATION WAS REMOVED THAT DIDN'T TAKE THE TOP OF THAT DUNE OFF, WAS IT ACTUALLY THERE BUT WHEN THEY REMOVED VEGETATION THE SAND WAS KNOCKED DOWN TO 11 FEET?

>> I DON'T KNOW IF THE SAND WAS KNOCKED DOWN, WE JUST SAW THE VISIBLE SLOPING THAT WAS PRESENT.

I DON'T KNOW IF THE SAND WAS KNOCKED DOWN LIKE DURING THAT

PROCESS. >> IT HAD INTEGRATED OFF OR

ANYTHING? >> NO THEY JUST CLEARED THE BRUSH, AND THAT'S WHERE WE SAW THE NATURAL SLOPE THAT WAS IN

PLACE. >> OKAY.

SO A 6-FOOT FENCE WOULD NOT HAVE WORKED TO HOLD THE SAND IN

PLACE? >> NO IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EVEN, THERE IS A 6-FOOT RETAINING FENCE THAT MAKES IT EQUAL, WHEN YOU GO OUT TO THE POOL IT'S COMPLETELY FLATTENED BUT THEN YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE RAILING TO KEEP PEOPLE FROM GOING OVER THAT, THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THE 4-FOOT RAILING, THAT TOTAL EQUALS 10 FEET. SO IT'S THE 6-FOOT HEIGHT OF THE ACTUAL WALL WITH WOOD PANELING, AND THEN THERE IS THE RAILING WHICH IS TO PREVENT PEOPLE FROM GOING OVER THAT 6-FOOT EDGE.

>> WOULD DEFINITELY NEED THAT. >> YES, I AGREE WE DON'T WANT THAT. [LAUGHTER]

>> LET ME ASK YOU ABOUT OSCEOLA AVENUE CAN I GET STATED IN THE APPLICATION THAT IS AN UNOPENED RIGHT OF WAY AND IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO GET DOWN THERE, BUT IN THE AERIAL PHOTO IN THE APPLICATION, YOU CAN SEE VEHICLES BEHIND YOUR HOUSE.

SO -- SOMEBODY HAS DRIVEN DOWN THERE.

>> YES THIS IS THE SOUTH VIEW, WHICH IS VERY SIMILAR TO WHERE THE OTHER APPLICANTS HAD PERFORMED HIS VIDEO SURVEY.

WHEN YOU LOOK NORTHWARD, THERE ARE -- THERE IS LIKE A SAND PATH THAT CARS DO DRIVE DOWN. MY HOUSE IS ESSENTIALLY THE LAST HOUSE WHERE A CAR COMING FROM THE NORTH WARD DIRECTION COULD POTENTIALLY GO. BEYOND THAT IT'S WHAT YOU SAW IN

THE VIDEO AND THEN THIS. >> THIS IS NOT THE AERIAL PHOTO

OF THE VEHICLE? >> IT IS IN THE PACKET, THERE WAS A LOT OF PICTURES IN THE PACKET I WANTED TO CONDENSE THE PICTURES FOR Y'ALL JUST FOR MY SPEAKING POINTS.

BUT EVAN DID INCLUDE THAT PHOTO IN THE PACKAGE.

>> OKAY GREAT. THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? SEEING NONE, ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE HERE TO SPEAK TO THIS MATTER? SEEING NONE, WE ARE BACK INTO THE AGENCY FOR DISCUSSION AND MOTION.

MISS SPIEGEL? >> I WILL MOVE --

>> MR. GREEN ALSO. >> ALL RIGHT I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ZONING VARIANCE 2026-23, 5025 ALTA VISTA AVENUE BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

>> WE HAVE THE MOTION, MR. GREEN WILL YOU SECOND?

>> I WILL BE HAPPY TO MAKE THE SECOND.

>> OKAY, ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, PLEASE PUT OUR VOTING SCREEN UP. THAT PASSES, WE HAVE ONE OTHER PRESENT TO VOTE I BELIEVE? IT IS GOING TO PASS ANYWAYS -- IT'S ME! [LAUGHTER] OKAY! YOU THINK I COULD READ THOSE NAMES? OKAY.

THAT PASSES 5-2. >> THANK YOU GUYS.

>> CONGRATULATIONS. DOES ANYBODY NEED TO TAKE A

BREAK? >> YEAH.

>> YOU DO? >> YEAH!

>> YOU NEED A BREAK? [CHUCKLING] WE WILL RECONVENE AT 2:37, 7 MINUTES, MORE OR LESS.

[6. REZ 2026-12 St. Augustine Airport East. A request to rezone approximately 23 acres of land from Open Rural (OR) to Airport Development (AD), specifically located south of Gun Club Road and north of Hawkeye View Lane, approximately 0.30 miles east of US 1 North.]

[01:07:16]

>> THE MEETING IS NOW GOING TO COME BACK TO ORDER.

[01:07:19]

WE ARE ON ITEM NUMBER 6, WHICH IS A REZONING FOR THE ST. AUGUSTINE AIRPORT. AND WE ARE GOING TO NEED EX PARTE BEFORE MATT SINGLETARY COMES FORWARD, MR. OLSEN?

>> EX PARTE, I HAVE BEEN VERY INVOLVED WITH THIS PROJECT IN A PAST VOLUNTEER ROLE, I SERVED FOUR YEARS ON THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY, WAS A SUPPORTER OF THIS PROJECT THROUGHOUT THOSE YEARS. IT IS AN AMBITIOUS PROJECT, VERY IMPORTANT TO THE AIRPORT, WHICH I AM SURE YOU WILL HEAR.

SO I JUST WANTED TO DECLARE THAT INTEREST.

>> MR. LABANOWSKI? >> I DEFINITELY VISITED THE

SITE. >> MISS SPIEGEL?

>> I DID NOT VISIT THE SITE, I'M SORRY TO SAY, BUT I TEXTED THOSE ON THE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE, HE IS AN EMPLOYEE, AND HE IS ALSO ON THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SO HE HAS HAD A LOT OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT DEVELOPMENT STUFF GOING ON, AND I TRIED TO REACH OUT TO CORBYN PITTMAN, AND LEFT A MESSAGE WITH ETHAN WHO WAS SUPPOSEDLY HER LIAISON PERSON FOR THEM TO GET BACK TO ME BUT I DID NOT HEAR BACK FROM THEM.

>> MR. GREEN? I TURNED YOUR MICROPHONE ON BUT

I THINK IT WENT OFF. >> THERE WE GO.

YEAH, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE ATTORNEY.

I AM A STOCKHOLDER OF THE GUN CLUB, WE SOLD THE PROPERTY TO THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY, THE DEAL IS CLOSED BUT I'M ALSO TENDED FOR THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY, DO I HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST?

>> AS A TENANT DO YOU HAVE A BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE APPLICANT, IT WOULD BE MY ADVICE TO RECUSE YOURSELF FROM VOTING ON THIS ITEM AND WE GENERATED PROPER AFFIDAVITS FOR YOU TO

SIGN. >> OKAY, I WILL RECUSE MYSELF

FROM THIS ITEM. >> OKAY I DROVE BY THE SITE TODAY, LEFT A LITTLE EARLY FOR MY HOUSE TO DRIVE BY AT, HAVE BEEN FIRED MANY TIMES, HAD SOME PHONE PARTIES AT THE GUN CLUB INCLUDING MY WIFE'S HIGH SCHOOL REUNION.

BUT ANYWAYS, IT IS A VERY NICE WOODED SITE, AND I SAW THE SIGNS OUT THERE FROM THE COUNTY, AND I WILL HAVE ONE MORE COMMENT ON THAT LATER. THE FLOOR IS YOURS, SIR.

[01:10:01]

>> THANK YOU, I AM MATT SINGLETARY, ASSOCIATE FOR THE ENGINEERING CONSULTANT FOR THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY, THIS IS ABOUT THE PROPERTY OF THE AIRPORT AND OWNS, PURCHASED FROM THE GUN CLUB IN 2020 FOR. SO I'VE GOT SEVERAL GRAPHICS, PARCEL, TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF THE PROJECT BEING PROPOSED ASSOCIATED WITH THE PARCEL FOR ZONING, FUTURE LAND USE.

I WILL SHOW YOU THE WHERE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS AND THE APPLICATION, HOW IT RELATES TO THE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN, INFORMATION ABOUT FUNDING AND SUPPORT FROM THE COUNTY AND STATE, AND SHOW YOU THE SITE PLAN, WHERE WE ARE ON THIS PROJECT. RIGHT HERE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SITE, THAT IS OUR 23-ACRE PA PARCEL.

TO THE SOUTH AND THE LEFT, ALL THE ORANGE IS THE CURRENT AIRPORT DISTRICT ZONING, AND THEN THE LIGHT YELLOW COLOR, THAT'S WHERE WE ARE PROPOSING REZONING FOR THE AIRPORT DISTRICT, TO THE WEST, AS FAR AS ORIENTATION AND THE GUN CLUB, RUNS RIGHT HERE ALONG THE PROPERTY.

SO THAT IS THE ZONING, THE FUTURE LAND USE, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE IS ALREADY PLANNED THAT THIS PARCEL WOULD BE AIRPORT DISTRICT.

ALONG WITH SOME OF THE OTHER PARCELS IN THE AREA, AIRPORT DISTRICT IN THE FUTURE. SO THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING. THIS IS AN EXHIBIT THAT WE SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATION, YOU CAN SEE IN THE PURPLE COLOR THAT IS THE PARCEL AGAIN, AND BEHIND THAT YOU SEE KIND OF A CONCEPT OF THE PROJECT THAT WILL ULTIMATELY BE DEVELOPED.

IT IS PROPOSED IN TWO PHASES THE FIRST PHASE IS AN INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT, SO YOU HAVE ALONG THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY, THIS ROAD KIND OF FOLLOWS THAT BOUNDARY, IT'LL BE A NEW ROADWAY, ACCESS TO THIS FUTURE HANGAR DEVELOPMENT, EXISTING HAWKEYE LANE, REGISTERED TO THE SOUTHWEST.

PART OF THAT WOULD GET CUT OFF AND RECONNECTED WITH A ROAD TO OUR NEW ROADWAY. THAT IS THE OVERALL FIRST PHASE, INFRASTRUCTURE INCLUDING THE ROAD, STORMWATER, UTILITY, FLOOD WATER MITIGATION, WHAT IS TO COME FROM THE COAST DOWN TO THE SITE, AND THEN HANGAR SPACE TOO, MULTIPLE PHASES.

BUT THE IDEA IS PRIVATE DEVELOPERS WOULD COME IN AND BUILD THE HANGARS. THE AIRPORT, INFRASTRUCTURE LIKE TAXIWAYS. THAT WOULD ALL BE FUTURE.

NEXT, THE PLAN IS 2027, WHEN THE FIRST PHASE WOULD GO INTO CONSTRUCTION. SO THIS SLIDE HERE, IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE AIRPORT MASTER PLAN.

YOU CAN SEE RIGHT UP HERE, THE RED POLYGON, THAT IS THE PARCEL.

THIS IS FROM 2018-2020 WAS THE LAST MASTER PLAN UPDATE, PERFORMED BY THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY.

THEY PLAN TO PURCHASE THIS PROPERTY, AND THEN TO BUILD THIS FUTURE HANGAR FACILITY, FOR WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING NOW VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU SEE IN THE BACKGROUND THERE WHICH IS PART OF THE DRAWING FROM THE MASTER PLAN.

AS I MENTIONED, THERE HAS ALREADY BEEN SUPPORT FROM THE COUNTY FOR THIS PROJECT, IN 2024 THERE ARE A COUPLE OF GRANT APPLICATIONS THAT THE COUNTY AND AIRPORT AUTHORITY APPLIED FOR JOINTLY. THEY DID GET A JOB GROWTH GRANT FUND GRANT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, WHICH IS FUNDING UTILITY AND STORMWATER WORK. AND THE MORE TYPICAL SITE OF FUNDS FOR PROJECTS ALSO THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION FUNDING. SO REALLY QUICK ABOUT WHERE WE ARE ON THE PROJECT NOW, AND MORE INFORMATION WE ARE GOING THROUGH A LARGE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL WHICH IS REQUIRED FROM THE FAA. AND WE ARE ALSO IN THE PROCESS OF PERMITTING AND MITIGATION, INCLUDING WITH THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. WE ARE CLOSE TO GETTING TO 60% PHASE ONE INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN, COMING UP HERE AT THE BEGINNING OF AUGUST AT WHICH TIME WE WILL HAVE PERMITS TO SITE DEVELOPMENT IN SAINT JOHNS COUNTY AND THE WATER MAIN DISTRICT TO HAVE THE BIDDING PHASE COMPLETED BY THE END OF THE YEAR.

SO THAT COMES BEGINNING OF NEXT YEAR, WE WILL BE WORKING ON GETTING A CONTRACTOR SIGNED UP TO DO THE WORK.

AND AS I MENTIONED THE HANGAR FACILITY IS NOT A PART OF THAT FIRST PHASE, THAT WILL COME LATER.

[01:15:02]

AND THAT IS ALL I GOT. >> GREAT, THANK YOU.

ANY QUESTIONS FROM BOARD MEM MEMBERS? YOU HAVE A QUESTION? I'LL WRITE, MR. LABANOWSKI?

>> WHEN I VISITED OUT THERE, IT LOOKED LIKE THERE WAS A MAIN DRAINAGE SYSTEM THERE IT GOES FROM REDFISH ALL THE WAY BACK OVER TOWARDS THE COASTAL? IS THAT GOING TO BE TOTALLY

CLOSED DOWN? >> SO THE MAIN CONNECTION UP HERE FROM SOUTHWEST, THERE IS A SALTWATER MARSH THAT COMES DOWN.

YES THAT COMES ALL THE WAY ACROSS THE SITE.

THERE IS A HAWKEYE RUNNING LIKE THAT, THE EXISTING ROAD GOING UNDER THE ROAD HAVING A CONNECTION WITH ALL THAT WATER RIGHT NOW, THE WETLANDS, THAT WILL ALL GO AWAY UP TO THIS POINT RIGHT HERE, WE WILL MITIGATE FOR ALL THE WETLANDS THAT YOU SEE EAST OF -- TO THE EAST OF THAT LINE.

>> MY CONCERN IS WHAT KIND OF EFFECT WILL THAT HAVE TO THE RED

FISH CREEK DRIVE AREA? >> I'M NOT SURE I KNOW WHERE

REDFISH CREEK -- >> IT WOULD BE NORTH OF THE

PROPOSED -- >> THE ONLY AREA THAT SHOULD AFFECT, WHERE YOU SEE ALL THESE HANGERS, IT WOULD BE CONTAINED -- THE ONLY EFFECT IT WOULD HAVE IS ON THAT AREA.

IT'S NOT CONNECTED TO I DON'T THINK WHAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO.

WHERE THE GUN CLUB IS ON THE NORTH OF THE PROPERTY, OFF OF THE PAGE HERE UP HERE TO THE NORTHEAST, THERE IS MORE MARSH THERE. I'M NOT SURE IF THAT'S A RED

FISH CREEK IS. >> IT IS, AND IT IS ALSO CANOPY HAUL DRIVE BACKS UP TO THAT CREEK.

>> RIGHT SO THIS CANOPY HAUL IS RIGHT HERE WITH THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, WE SHOULDN'T HAVE ANY EFFECT ON ANYTHING DOWNSTREAM THERE WITH WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING FOR THIS HANGER DEVELOPMENT. THE IMPACT WOULD REALLY JUST BE WHERE I WAS SAYING FIRST HERE WHERE THE HANGERS ARE.

>> CURRENTLY THERE IS -- THERE IS FOUR OR 5 FEET WIDE AREAS

THAT GO THROUGH THAT AREA SO -- >> YEA I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE

TALKING ABOUT -- >> WE HAVE THE RETENTION POND RIGHT HERE, JUST WEST OF THAT RETENTION POND YOU HAVE -- WOULD

HAVE COME THROUGH THERE? >> WE SHOULD NOT BE -- SO THE FIRST PHASE OF DEVELOPMENT IS ALL IN THIS AREA HERE, THERE IS A FUTURE PHASE WHICH IS FURTHER TO THE SOUTH WHICH DOES COME CLOSER TO THE AREA YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, WE ARE GOING THROUGH ALL THE ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITTING PROCESS THAT IS REQUIRED TO MITIGATE AND MAKE SURE --

>> BECAUSE THE GUN CLUB ROAD GOES RIGHT OVER THAT MARSH

DRAINAGE AREA. >> THIS GUN CLUB ROAD HERE --

YEAH, THERE IS THE CREEK. >> THAT'S IT.

>> THE CREEK IS TO THE WEST OF WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT

BEFORE. >> YES THAT'S WHERE I WOULD KIND OF START -- WE SHOULD HAVE NO IMPACT ON THE DOWNSTREAM WHERE THE CREEK GOES UNDER GUN CLUB, THAT PART IS GOING TO BE

PRESERVED AS IS. >> OKAY, WHAT ABOUT PAST THAT

POINT? >> FURTHER TO THE NORTHWEST?

>> WHATEVER IT IS. >> UP HERE? SO THIS KIND OF SHOWS -- SO THE GREEN THAT YOU SEE HERE THOSE ARE ALL EXISTING WETLANDS. WE WILL NOT IMPACT --

>> RIGHT ALONGSIDE THE WETLANDS THE AREA --

>> IN THIS DIRECTION WE ARE IMPACTING AND MITIGATING FOR ALL

THOSE. >> NOT WORRIED ABOUT DRAINAGE GOING OFF AND AFFECTING THOSE HOMES THAT ARE JUST NORTH? THAT'S MY CONCERN. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE DRAINAGE. AND NOT BEING ABLE TO DRAIN BECAUSE YOU WILL BE SHUTTING THAT DOWN TOTALLY.

THE MARSH CONNECTION YOU ARE SHUTTING DOWN TOTALLY.

>> OKAY SO THERE IS DRAINAGE ON THE AIRFIELD SIDE THAT IS SORT OF BEING REROUTED CALCULATE THOSE WETLANDS THAT KIND OF COME THROUGH HERE AND BUILD OUT INTO THE COASTAL.

[01:20:03]

WE ARE SORT OF MODIFYING THE DRAINAGE ON THE AIRPORT, I DON'T THINK THAT'S A CONCERN. BUT THAT IS BEING MODIFIED, AND THEN WE ARE COLLECTING ALL THE WATER, THE RUNOFF THAT IS FROM THIS DEVELOPMENT, AND THAT WILL BE ROUTED TO ONE OF THESE TWO PONDS, INTERCONNECTED PONDS, OTHER DRAINAGE FROM THE SITE WILL GO INTO THOSE, AND WE ARE FOLLOWING ALL WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND ARMY CORPS REQUIREMENTS FOR WETLANDS AND HOLDING WATER ON THE SITE. SO THAT WE DON'T FLOOD OR HAVE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. AND THEN THE GREEN, THE LIGHT GREEN WETLAND AREA, WE ARE NOT MITIGATING FOR, WE WILL HAVE BUFFER SPACE HERE BETWEEN OUR DEVELOPMENT AND OUR WETLAND.

THAT IS ALL GOING TO STAY AS IS. >> ALL RIGHT THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM BOARD MEMBERS, SPIEGEL?

>> COULD YOU GO BACK A COUPLE SLIDES TO WHERE YOU HAD THE REZONING IN YOUR DISCUSSION? GO BACK ONE MORE? TO WHERE YOU JUST WERE? YEAH.

YEAH, SO THIS AREA IS STILL THE GUN CLUB? THAT AREA JUST TO THE EAST OF THIS PARCEL YOU WERE DISCUSSING

TODAY? >> YES SO THE LINEATION IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT, THIS IS THE MASTER PLAN, THIS IS CONCEPTUAL.

>> OKAY I'M JUST GETTING A GENERAL --

>> THIS IS STILL ALL THE GUN CLUB.

>> THAT'S NOT INCLUDED IN THE DEVELOPMENT, THESE LINES LOOK DIFFERENT, WITH THE ZONING, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE AIRPORT DISTRICT THAT GUN CLUB IS INCLUDED IN FUTURE LAND USE

AIRPORT, RIGHT? >> IT IS ON THE FUTURE LAND USE, THIS IS AIRPORT DISTRICT, I'M NOT AWARE OF FUTURE PLANS FOR AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT I HAVE NOT HEARD ABOUT THAT.

>> THAT WAS MY QUESTION, FOR PEOPLE RESIDENTIAL RIGHT NEXT DOOR, UNDERSTANDING OF COURSE WHEN YOU MOVE IN NEXT TO THE AIRPORT DISTRICT THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT COULD EXPAND TO. BUT IT LOOKS LIKE THE IMPACT YOU WILL HAVE WITH THAT ONE GUN CLUB ROAD, THAT ONE PHRASE, THE RETENTION POND, AND THE BUFFER, RIGHT?

>> YES SO THIS IS THE RESIDENTIAL OVER HERE, THAT IS THE ROAD YOU SEE RIGHT THERE. HARVEY ROAD IS LINING UP WITH THAT. BUT REALLY THE ONLY THING CLOSE TO THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD BE THE ROADWAY CONNECTION, OTHER THAN THAT -- WE DO HAVE SOME OF THE YELLOW IS TREE PRESERVATION SO WE HAVE SOME BUFFER THERE.

NOTHING ON THIS SLIDE, WE HAVE A GOOD AMOUNT OF BUFFER TREE PRESERVATION BETWEEN THE GUN CLUB PROPERTY AND THE ROADWAY, WHICH WAS ADDED. TO YOUR QUESTION, THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, IT WILL JUST BE THE ROAD, THE POND, THE TREES. IT SHOULD NOT BE A HARDSHIP FOR

WHAT IS DIRECTLY ADJACENT. >> OKAY.

>> THERE WON'T BE A BIG HANGAR THERE.

>> I WAS JUST WONDERING ABOUT THAT OKAY THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM BOARD MEMBERS? SEEING NONE, ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK TO THIS ISSUE? SEEING NONE, WE ARE BACK IN THE AGENCY FOR DISCUSSION AND MOTION?

MR. OLSEN? >> REZONING, 2026-12, ST. AUGUSTINE AIRPORT EAST, BASED ON THE FULL FINDINGS OF FACT AS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

>> OKAY WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. OLSEN AND A SECOND BY MISS PERKINS, ANY DISCUSSION? I JUST WANT TO ADD ONE THING, I THINK THE ITEM SAID THAT THERE WAS POTENTIALLY A SCRUM OF VEGETATION ON THE PROPERTY? WE CERTAINLY DID NOT SEE ANY BUT I BELIEVE SOME OF IT IS MARITIME HAMMOCK, WHICH IS ALSO ONE OF THE SIX NATURAL COMMUNITY TYPES IN SAINT JOHNS COUNTY THAT IS UNDER PROTECTION. I DO NOT KNOW IF YOUR ADDITIONAL TREE PROTECTION IN YELLOW WAS BECAUSE OF MARITIME HAMMOCK OR IF THEY ALL GOT THAT FAR ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEY OR WHAT?

>> WE DID DO A PRE-APPLICATION WITH THE COUNTY AND THEY BROUGHT UP THAT TOPIC AND WE ARE GOING TO ADDRESS IT ONCE WE GET THE FULL APPLICATION FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT, THE TREE PRESERVATION DIDN'T REALLY COME FROM THAT SPECIFICALLY, IT WAS MORE OUT OF AN EFFORT TO TRY TO SAVE -- IT IS HEAVILY WEIGHTED, IT'S AN OLD FOREST, AN OLD PARCEL.

>> YEAH,, GOOD. THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, TIME TO VOTE.

[01:25:04]

IT IS PASSING 6-1. THERE IS ONE MORE.

RIGHT, MR. GREEN HAS RECUSED HIMSELF, SODA PASSES 5-1, EXCUSE ME. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT NEXT WE ARE SKIPPING OF COURSE ITEM SEVEN AND EIGHT, THEY HAVE BEEN DISCONTINUED AS PER THE EXPLANATION EARLIER TO

[9. SUPMAJ 2025-29 St. Thomas Island Parkway Cell Tower. SUPMAJ 2025-29 St. Thomas Island Parkway Cell Tower, request for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Section 2.03.26 of the Land Development Code, to allow for the construction of a 180-foot monopole communication tower and support facilities within Open Rural (OR) zoning, specifically located approximately 0.23 miles east of the intersection between St Thomas Island Parkway and Saint Croix Island Drive. ]

US. SO NOW IF I COULD FIND ALL OF MY PAPERS HERE, WE ARE ON ITEM NUMBER 9, THIS IS MR. WESTER, SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A CELL TOWER, WE NEED EX PARTE ON THIS.

MR. LABANOWSKI? >> YES, I VISITED THE SITE, RECEIVED MAIL FROM THE STAFF, LETTERS OF OPPOSITION.

>> MR. OLSEN? >> I VISITED THE SITE, JULY 20TH, RECEIVED AN EMAIL FROM A NEARBY HOMEOWNER IN OPPOSITION. I USED THAT OPPORTUNITY TO GET BACK AND ASK THE HOMEOWNER A COUPLE QUESTIONS, AND HE RESPONDED ON THOSE. LOOKS LIKE IT WAS TWO EMAILS THAT CAME IN, I'M SORRY, I FOLLOWED UP WITH ONE.

AND ALSO WE RECEIVED LETTERS OF OPPOSITION TODAY ON OUR DESK.

>> MISS SPIEGEL? >> YES, I GOT THE SAME STACK OF EMAILS FROM THE STAFF TODAY, I GOT AN EMAIL CONVERSATION WITH JEFF COLLINS, THE PROPERTY OWNER IN AN AREA.

>> I SAW SEVERAL ITEMS, LETTERS OF OPPOSITION, AND EMAILS,

MR. GREEN? >> [UNCLEAR]

>> WITH THAT SAID, MR. WESTER THE FLOOR IS YOURS.

>> THANK YOU, BRAD WESTER, DRIVER MIKE HAWTHORN AND DIEBENOW, 32202, APPLICANT REPRESENTING THE MATTER.

I WILL GO THROUGH THESE CALCULATORS SLIDES BUT I WILL BE VERY TIMELY I PROMISE YOU. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT MAJOR REVIEW, IT IS AN OPEN RURAL ZONE LAND FOR A NEW TOWER. IT IS ON THE PROPOSED 80 BY 80 SQUARE, IN A PARCEL THAT IS 153.7 ACRES, PREDOMINANTLY INCLUDES PINE, WETLANDS AND TRAIL ROUTES.

IT IS NEXT TOWER IN CONJUNCTION WITH VERIZON PROPOSES 175-FOOT TOWER WITH A 5-FOOT UPPER TENANT FOR 180-FOOT TOWER.

AND OF COURSE THIS ALSO WOULD BE DEPICTED IN THE MAP, THE TOWER IS LOCATED AT 1.4 MILES FROM THE NEAREST TOWER IN THE SOUTHEAST, 1.5 MILES TO THE NORTHEAST AND 1.6 TO THE NEAREST TOWER SOUTHWEST. AND I WILL GO THROUGH THAT IN THE GRAPH DEPICTION IN A MINUTE. SLIDE SHOW IS CATCHING UP.

THERE WE GO. PROPOSED TOWER IS NOT WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE RESIDENTIAL LOTS, SPECIFICALLY 740 FEET TO THE NEAREST EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, AND 460 TO THE NEAREST PROPOSED FIVE BUILDING FOUR STORY MULTIFAMILY APARTMENT COMPLEX. AND AGAIN I WILL GO TO THAT ROUTE AS THE GRAPHICS DEPICT IN A MINUTE.

THE TOWER WAS ENGINEERED AND CERTIFIED OF 40 FEET IN ACCORDANCE TO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, ENGINEERING TO SUPPORT FOR WIRELESS CARRIERS, AND WE HAVE A REPORT TO SUPPORT THAT.

THERE ARE NO WETLANDS, NO ARCHEOLOGICAL IMPACTS FOR THE PROPOSED TOWER USE ON THE PROPERTY AND THAT IS PER OUR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT, AND THAT IS A NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL

POLICY >> THERE IS SUFFICIENT SPACE PROVIDED FOR THE 75-FOOT SCENIC EDGE AND BUFFERS AND I WILL SHOW THAT. HERE'S THE PROPOSED TOWER SITE.

HERE'S THE SURROUNDING TOWERS WE JUST SPOKE ABOUT IN THE PROXIMITY. THIS IS A REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE A TOWER MAP RING WITH THE DIFFERENT RADIUS ONE AND TWO MILE MARKERS. THIS IS THE ZONING MAPS.

I WILL GO BACK TO THAT. THERE IS A SLIGHT DELAY WITH THIS CLICKER. THERE WE GO.

THE LEFT MAP IS THE LAND USE MAP.

SO YOU SEE IN THERE THE NON-COLORED AREA IS THE RURAL

[01:30:12]

SIVACCULTURE AND THE YELLOW IS AN OUT PARCEL.

IN AND AMONGST MANY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PROPERTIES.

GROWTH PROGRESS MAPS. I SHOWED THESE SAME MAPS IN THE NORTHWEST SECTOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MEETING WE HAD, AND JUST WANTED TO PUT IN CONTEXT OF THE GROWTH IN THE AREA. GOING BACK TO 1988, OBVIOUSLY, YOU SEE HIGHLIGHTED IN RED IS OUR TOWER LEASE HOLD AREA PROPOSED. 1988 AND 1989.

2005, YOU SEE THE DISTURBANCE ACTIVITIES FOR PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS. 2010, YOU SEE THAT STARTING TO COME ONLINE HAS IT PUSHES THROUGH THE RECESSION TIME FRAMES. 2015 AND 2019, THAT'S WHEN THOSE PLANTATION PUD STARTED TO REALLY BECOME BUILT OUT IF YOU WILL, ALONG ST. THOMAS ISLAND PARKWAY AND YOU START TO SEE THE LAND FOR THE MULTIFAMILY PARCEL BEING DEVELOPED.

NEXT TWO SLIDES FROM 2021 AND 2023, YOU START TO SEE ON THE FAR LEFT OF THE IMAGE, MORE OF THE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES BUILDING OUT IN THE AREA. AND THEN MORE IMPORTANTLY, ZOOMED OUT, YOU SEE THE NEW FIRST COAST BELTWAY THAT IS PROPOSED IN THE AREA. KIND OF GOING THROUGH OR TRANSECTING THE SITES AND THE STAR IS HIGHLIGHTED FOR OUR SUBJECT PROPOSAL. AND THIS IS THE ZONING MAP.

SO, ALL OF THE PURPLE IT REPRESENTS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS. YOU SEE IN THE OTHER SHADED AREA FOR OUR SUBJECT PROPERTY IS THE OPEN RURAL ZONED LAND.

THIS IS A DEPICTION OF THE PARENT PARCEL IN BLACK AND THEN THE YELLOW HIGHLIGHTED IS OUR LEASE HOLD.

AGAIN, THE LEASE HOLD AREA AND THE ACCESS TO ST. THOMAS ISLAND PARKWAY DEPICTED IN THIS IMAGE. HERE'S OUR SITE PLAN.

YOU SEE THE VARIOUS GEOMETRY ELEMENTS LAID BY TOWER SOURCE.

YOU CAN SEE THE ACCESS ROAD COMING OFF ST. THOMAS ISLAND PARKWAY. THE GREEN SHADED YEARS DEPICT THE SETBACK FROM THE NEAREST WETLAND.

IF YOU LOOK CLOSER, LET ME SEE IF I CAN DRAW THIS HERE.

THIS AREA WHERE I MARKED IS THE, IF YOU CAN SEE ON YOUR SCREEN.

DO YOU SEE THAT ON YOUR SCREENS? THAT RED AREA IS THE JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION LINE FOR THE WETLANDS.

THE TWO SHADED GREEN AREAS ARE SETBACK AREAS.

WE DON'T HAVE WETLAND IMPACT AREAS ON THIS PROPERTY.

THE TOWER ELEVATION ITSELF AND THEN I WILL GO THROUGH THIS FAIRLY QUICKLY. BUT THESE ARE SOME OF THE CODIFIED ELEMENTS THAT WE ARE BOUND TO IN TERMS OF OUR REVIEW.

A LOT OF THIS IS PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 20326 FOR ANTENNA TOWERS. THE TYPE AND SIZE AND COLORATION AND CHARACTER. IT'S ALL GENERALLY DESCRIBED IN THE LAND CODE ON A TOWER AND HOW IT SHOULD BE BUILT AND DESIGNED.

AGAIN, I APOLOGIZE FOR THE DELAY.

IT'S TAKING A SECOND FOR THE CLICKER TO CHANGE THE SLIDE

HERE. >> WE EXPECTED WE WOULD BE HERE A WHILE. SO.

NO RUSH. I AM HITTING THE FORWARD BUTTON.

SO. OKAY.

COMMUNICATION TOWERS, AGAIN GOING THROUGH THE DIFFERENT LISTS OF REQUIREMENTS. SECTION 60812 SPECIFIC TO COMMUNICATION TOWERS. GOING THROUGH THIS , YOU CAN SEE THE DIFFERENT ELEMENTS WE COMPLY WITH AS SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATION AND THAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED.

AGAIN, COLLAPSE ZONE DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS.

WILL COMPLY. I'M NOT HOLDING THIS FOR YOU TO READ THAT LONG PARAGRAPH. I'M WAITING FOR IT TO CHANGE

SLIDES. >> BELIEVE WE, WE READ THAT.

WE READ IT. >> YEP.

MANY TIMES. >> I UNDERSTAND THAT.

THAT'S WHY I'M GOING THROUGH THIS TRYING TO BE TIMELY.

AGAIN, CRITERIA FOR REVIEW, 60812 X AS IN X-RAY.

THIS IS THE SPECIFIC CRITERIA FOR REVIEW FOR THE APPLICATION ITSELF. THE ONE NA ODDLY ENOUGH, THERE WAS AN AIRPORT MATTER BEFORE US, COMPLIANCE WITH 304006 IS

[01:35:03]

COMPLIANT WITH AIRPORT. THE FIRST ANCHOR TENANT IS VERIZON. HERE'S DEFINITIONS FOR COVERAGE AND CAPACITY. SPECIFICALLY CAPACITY IS THE AMOUNT OF RESOURCES A CELL TOWER HAS TO HANDLE WITH CUSTOMER DEMANDS. IT TAKES AN AVERAGE OF ONE TO THREE YEARS AND THIS IS TRACKING TO START A CELL TOWER SITE.

ALL TRUE AND THEN MAKE SURE THE TOWER IS IN PLACE FOR THE CAPACITY LIMITS. LOCATION OBVIOUSLY, A GOOD CAPACITY CELL TOWER NEEDS TO BE IN THE CENTER OF USER POPULATION THAT ENSURING EVEN TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION AROUND A CELL AND TYPICALLY CELL TOWER CONFIGURED IN A PIE SHAPE, YOU PROBABLY HAVE SEEN THE MAP WITH EACH SECTOR HOLDING 30% AND HEAVY TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTED AMONG THE THREE.

THIS IS THE MINIMUM HEIGHT REQUIRED FOR THE ANCHOR TENANT VERIZON AND OTHERS WITH ALL DATA SUBMITTED.

THESE ARE THE COVERAGE MAPS. AND WHAT I WILL DO IS GO THROUGH TE HIGHLIGHTED IN BOLD BLACK THERE IS THE TOWER.

SO THAT'S THE SUBJECT SITE FOR OUR MATTER TODAY.

THE OTHER TWO TOWERS TO THE SOUTH HAVE RECENTLY COME ONLINE.

THEY ARE NEWER AND RECENTLY STARTED TO COME ONLINE.

THE GREEN IS SHOWING THE PROPOSED TOWER AND THEN OF COURSE, THE OTHER TWO TOWERS AS THEY HAND OFF TO EACH OTHER IF YOU WILL FOR THAT AREA. YOU HAVE COMPLETE COVERAGE IN THE ENTIRE AREA. SO THE TWO TOWERS IN RED CIRCLES OF SILVER LEAF AND THOSE IN THE BLACK, THE MATTER BEFORE YOU TODAY IS THE ONE SHOWN THERE SHOWING THE ADEQUATE COVERAGE.

AND OF COURSE, MYSELF AND MY TEAM AFFIRM THE PROPOSED HEIGHT OF THE COMMUNICATION TOWER IS ESSENTIAL TO SUPPORT THE DESIGN COVERAGE OBJECTIVES FOR VERIZON, SPECIFICALLY INTENDED TO PROVIDE ENHANCED WIRELESS COVERAGE IN THE SERVICE AREA, SUPPORT PLANNED GROWTH AS WELL AS ENHANCE IN-VEHICLE COVERAGE.

THE RF FREQUENCY STUDY DEMONSTRATES THE REQUESTED TOWER LOCATION AND THE ELEVATION IS NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE OPTIMAL SIGNAL STRENGTH IN THE TARGET SERVICE AREA.

MR. CHRIS MONZINGO. THE OMNICOM THIRD PARTY REP HAS CONFIRMED THE STUDIES COVERAGE PREDICTION MODELS TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY ACCURATE. AND THAT REPORT THEY TAKE NO EXCEPTION TO OUR DOCUMENTS PLANS AND EXHIBITS SUBMITTED TO THE COUNTY AND MORE SPECIFIC, A PROPAGATION STUDY IS A COMPUTER GENERATED EVALUATION OF HOW WIRES TRAVEL ACROSS A GEOGRAPHIC AREA. HELPS ELIMINATE DEAD ZONES AND HELPS TO BEST PLACE ANTENNAS. HERE'S MR. MONZINGO'S COVERAGE MAPS. YOU SEE ON THE LEFT THERE, ESSENTIALLY IN THE RED SHADE WHERE THE DEFICIENT COVERAGE AND IN THE GREEN WITH ESSENTIALLY ALL THREE TOWERS INCLUDING SUBJECT TOWER WHICH IS HIGHLIGHTED RIGHT THERE.

IS THE MATTER BEFORE YOU TODAY SHOWING THE ADEQUATE COVERAGE.

THAT COVERAGE IS NOT ONLY FOR THE CURRENT BUT PLANNED GROWTH AND RESIDENTIAL AND THE ROADWAY NETWORKS FOR IN-VEHICLE COVERAGE. THIS IS A SABRE INDUSTRIES IS THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING AND THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT COLLAPSED RADIUS AND IF TOWER, IF IT WERE TO FOIL FAIL, HOW IT REACTS TO THAT. THERE'S A CERTIFIED LETTER FROM THE ENGINEER THAT TALKS ABOUT THE COVERAGE IN THE FAR RADIUS OF 40 FEET. THAT'S DEPICTED IN THE ENGINEERING PLAN BUT THE LETTER ITSELF FROM SABRE INDUSTRIES.

THIS IS THE SEPARATION DISTANCES WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER IN THE PRESENTATION. SILVER LEAF, PLANTATION.

740 FEET TO THE NEAREST EXISTING FAMILY LOT LINE AND 742 TO THE EAST, TO THE OTHER SINGLE FAMILY EXISTING LOT LINE.

AND 460 TO THE PROPOSED MULTIFAMILY BUT NOT BUILT YET COMMUNITY ACROSS THE STREET. AGAIN, DEPICTED NOW IN THE ENGINEERING PLANS SET UP SHOWING THE ACTUAL LOTS, SHOWING THE BOUNDARIES, THE MAPS AND SO FORTH.

AND OF COURSE, THE 250 FOOT RING AROUND THE SUBJECT PARTY.

THIS IS THE SCREENING AND PERIMETER FENCE AND LANDSCAPING OF THIS IS 100 FOOT OPAQUE FENCE THAT WILL GO AROUND THE TOWER

[01:40:05]

AND THE LANDSCAPING PACKAGE THAT GOES WITH IT.

IT WILL NOT ONLY HAVE AN EIGHT-FOOT FENCE, 100% OPAQUE AND 24, 10-FOOT AS INSTALLED RED CEDARS INCLUDING A LOT OF SHRUBBERY. HAS A HEIGHT UP TO 36 INCHES AND RED CEDARS ALL AROUND IT. GOING TO THE NEXT SLIDE.

PHOTO SIMULATION EXHIBITS. THESE ARE THE EXHIBITS THE BOARD IS FAMILIAR WITH. AND YOU GO AROUND AND ESSENTIALLY HAVE THIS CERTIFIED. TO BE A RENDERING OF WHAT THE TOWER WOULD LOOK LIKE IN THE ENVIRONMENT.

I DIDN'T MEAN TO GO FORWARD THAT MANY SLIDES.

HERE THE FIRST IMAGE NUMBER TWO. YOU SEE THE HALF MILE RADIUS RING IN REFERENCE TO WHERE THE DIFFERENT IMAGES ARE TAKEN.

THERE'S IMAGES THREE AND FOUR. AGAIN YOU CAN SEE THE TOWER OVER THE TOP OF TREE LINE AND WHERE IT'S BEING TAKEN FROM IN THE SETTING IN THE VARIOUS RESIDENCES AROUND THERE.

SLIDES FIVE AND SIX. AGAIN FROM VARIOUS ROADWAYS IN THE AREA, YOU CAN SEE THAT FROM THE DIFFERENT ROADS.

HERE ARE SOME AGAIN FROM THE ROADS AND OTHERS FROM THE RESIDENTIAL CUL-DECUL-DE-SACS, FEET LOOKING TO THE NORTHWEST.

YOU CAN SEE THE DIFFERENT DIMENSIONS AS DESCRIBED IN THE ILLUSTRATIONS. AGAIN FROM THE ROADWAY, ST.

THOMAS ISLAND PARKWAY, THE DIFFERENT DIMENSIONAL SET UPS.

THE PROSPECTIVES WHERE YOU STAND OR DRIVE TO BE ABLE TO SEE THEM IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE TREE LINE.

LET ME GO BACK. OKAY.

WELL, THE SLIDE SHOW OBVIOUSLY IS NOT COOPERATING WITH AS I PUSH THESE FORWARD. SO, SLIDES 13 AND 14, 15 AND 16 YOU SEE THERE FROM THE VARIOUS VIEWS, 894 FEET FROM THE NEAREST CUL-DE-SAC PROPERTY. YOU CAN SEE THE ARROWS IN THE IM IMAGES, THEY ARE TRYING TO SHOW WHERE THE TOWER MAYBE. IN AND AMONGST THE TREES, WHETHER BETWEEN THE TREES OR OVER THE TREE LINE AND THIS IS THE NEAREST TRAIL ROAD JUST OFF OF ST. THOMAS ISLAND PARKWAY.

THIS IS OUR TERRACON ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY SHOWING THE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NEPA ELEMENTS.

FLOOD PLAINS, FLORA, FAUNA, NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACTS.

SHOWING THE PINES, INDICATIVE OF THE SIVIL CULTURE BECAUSE THESE ARE ALL RED PINES. THIS SHOW HIS THE NEAREST PUD TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SHOWN HERE IN THE PROPOSED TOWER SITE.

IMPORTANT TO NOTE, THE ROADWAY THAT GOES, THAT ESSENTIALLY SERVES THESE VARIOUS COMMUNITIES GOES OUTSIDE OF THE PUD, WHICH IS ST. THOMAS ISLAND PARKWAY AND MEANDERS BACK INTO THE NEIGHBORHOODS. THESE ARE SOME OF THE COMPATIBILITY ELEMENTS AND THIS IS FROM THE PLANTATION PUD ITSELF, AND I WILL TIE THIS INTO OUR PROPOSAL.

BUT IT TALKS ABOUT THE PLANTATION PUD ITSELF WILL HAVE A MINIMUM IMPACT ON THE FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE OF ST. JOHNS COUNTY. IT INCORPORATES A LOT OF GREEN AREAS. THIS IS EXPERIENCING STRONG DEMAND FOR HOUSING IN NORTHERN ST. JOHNS COUNTY.

THE PROJECT WILL THEREFORE MEET THE DEMAND FOR HOUSING BY RESIDENTS. THE EXISTING ZONING WOULD NOT PERMIT THAT TYPE OF USE. I E, THE REASON WHY IT HAD TO GET REZONED TO PUD AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, WILL MEET THE COUNTY'S OBJECTIVES OF POLICY TO PROVIDE A NEED AND ALLOWS THE BALANCE OF PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS IN NATURE AND OBVIOUSLY THE COMPATIBILITY OF THE PROJECT AND THE ADJACENT AT THE TIME, ST.

JOHNS GOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB PUD. MORE SPECIFICALLY, PLANTATION PUD IMPACT AND VISION. MINIMAL IMPACT ON THE SCHOOLS.

WETLAND IMPACTS THAT PUD HAD 8.84 ACRES OF IMPACTS.

THAT PUD NEEDED 11 WAIVERS TO GET THROUGH.

ADEQUATE GREEN SPACE. OPEN SPACE.

NOT DEBATABLE. STRONG DEMAND FOR HOUSING.

NEEDED A CHANGE IN THE OPEN RURAL PUD FOR THAT USE AND MEETS THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FROM STAFF AND APPROVAL.

IT'S A BALANCE OF NATURE AND COMPATIBLE USES.

[01:45:03]

PROPOSED TOWER SITE, NO IMPACT ON PARKS OR SCHOOL.

MINIMAL IMPACT ON ROADS. NO WAIVERS DEVIATIONS TO ACCOMMODATE THE PLAN. ADEQUATE GREEN SPACE INCLUDED IN THE PARENT PARCEL. LIKE THE PUD FOR A NEED FOR HOUSING, LOCATION WAS STRONG DEMAND FOR NEW NETWORK CAPABILITIES. WE GET TO KEEP THE OR ZONING AND VIA A SPECIAL USE PERMIT SPECIFICALLY.

MEETS ST. JOHNS COUNTY OBJECTIVES FOR VITAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY WERE IT'S A BELL BETWEEN ENVIRONMENT AND NEEDS WITH MINIMAL TO NO IMPACTS AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, COMMISERATE WITH OTHER TOWERS IN HEIGHT AND LOCATION IN PUDS OR OUTPARCELS. SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO THESE DIFFERENT THINGS. COMPATIBILITY, THIS IS IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. POLICY A 1411 TALKS ABOUT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS. SHALL INSURE COMPATIBILITY OF SUROUNDING USES. IT DOES NOT MEAN SAME AS.

THAT'S IMPORTANT DISTINCTION. UNDER 60812.

IT WILL BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE CONTIGUOUS USES WILL NOT HAVE IMPACT ON ADJACENT PROPERTY VALUES.

WAITING FOR THE SLIDE TO CHANGE. I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS LOW ON BATTERIES. PER POLICY, A 1411.

COMPATIBILITY MEANS CERTAIN CHARACTERS FROM TYPE OF USE.

THIS IS A CELL TOWER AND PROVES A NEED FOR INFRASTRUCTURE.

DENSITY OR INTENSITY, IT'S NOT APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE.

THE HEIGHT, IT'S LESS THAN THE MAX CODE STANDARD FOR MULTITENANT. THE GENERAL APPEARANCE AND AESTHETICS. AS PRESCRIBED IN THE LAND CODE, SPECIFICALLY 60812 D 3 H AND I. NOISE 65 DECIBELS.

THE SAME AS WASHING MACHINE, AC OR FRIDGE.

THE SAME AS 80 WHICH IS THE START OF THE HAZARD THRESHOLD.

TRAFFIC, NO IMPACT AND 1 MAINTENANCE VEHICLE.

FIRE RISK EXTREMELY RARE DUE TO CODES.

INCLUDES LIGHTNING ROD. AIR QUALITY NOT APPLICABLE.

PRESSING THE BUTTON. SOILS AND TOPOGRAPHY, NO IMPACTS. DRAINAGE AQUIFER RECHARGE, NO IMPACTS. NO IMPACT.BITAT AS WE DESCRIBED- WATER, SEWER, NO CONNECTIONS TO SERVE OUR SITE.

THERE ARE CONNECTIONS BUT WE DON'T NEED WATER OR SURE.

LIGHTING, THIS TOWER WILL NOT BE LIT.

IT IS NOT ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL LOTS.

ABOUT THREE TIMES THE REQUIRED DISTANCE TO LOTS PER THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. COMPATIBILITY AND SURROUNDINGS.

LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, 60812 P STATES SHALL NOT HAVE IMPACTS TO SURROUNDING PARCELS. PROPERTIES MAY SHARE A COMMON BOUNDARY BUT ALWAYS IMPLIES ABSENCE OF THE SAME KIND BETWEEN. THERE ARE NO RESIDENTIAL LOTS WITHIN A CERTAIN PROXIMITY TO THE TOWER SITE BUT NOT ADJACENT TO THE TOWER SITE. COURTLAND IRIC WHO WILL STATE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AT CBRE CONCLUDES THE PRESENCE OF A CELL TOWER WITHIN 740 FEET OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE HAS NO AFFECT ON VALUE AND AS SUBMITTED IN JULY 2026 CBRE REPORT AND YOU HAVE THAT. COMPATIBILITY AND CERTS.

THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ON HAVE YOU LOOKED AT OTHER SITES? THE OTHER TO THAT IS YES. WE BRIEFLY TOUCHED ON THAT THE NORTHWEST SECTOR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION MEETING.

THIS SHOWS THE LARGER LAND HOLDERS IN THE AREA AND ALL OF OUR REVIEW. THIS IS ACTUALLY SITE H OF NUMEROUS SITES REVIEWED IN THE ENTIRE AREA THAT MEET THE

[01:50:03]

COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS. THE MAP TO THE RIGHT, THE MAP TO THE LEFT SHOWING THE MASTER PLAN FOR THE SILVER LEAF PUD COMMUNITY. AND THEN YOU SEE ALL OF THE AREAS IN THERE, IT'S HARD TO SEE BUT THEY'RE WHILE.

IT'S REPURPOSED ON THE RIGHT MAP.

H WAS THE FINAL MAP SITE SELECTION.

THAT'S ARE THE TOWER SITES INVESTIGATED OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS. MAY NEED TO CHANGE BATTERIES IN THE REMOTE. EVENTUAL PRESENCE ALONE SHOULD NOT OUT WEIGH THE THREATS. VISUAL IMPACTS MATTER.

OUR GOAL IS TO PROVIDE THE LEAST INTRUSIVE PROJECT.

THE MONOPOLE HAS MINIMAL IMPACT TO HEIGHT OPTIMIZATION.

LEAST HIGHEST HEIGHT THAT WE NEED FOR THESE USES.

NEUTRAL FINISHES, LANDSCAPE BUFFERS.

IN LAND USE PLANNING TERMS, THIS REPRESENTS DESIGN MITIGATION NOT INCOMPATIBILITY. WHILE AESTHETIC CONSIDERATIONS ARE VALID. THEY MUST BE EVALUATED IN THE CONTEXT OF DEMONSTRATED NEED FOR PUBLIC SERVICE.

THIS COMPLIES WITH ALL STANDARDS INCLUDING HEIGHT, SETBACKS AND SITE PLACEMENT. THE TOWER WILL PROVIDE SERVICE FOR VERIZON AS THE ANCHOR TENANT AND SUPPORTS EMERGENCY RESPONSE, BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND EVERYDAY COMMUNITY FOR RESIDENTS.

PROVIDERS HAVE SPACED PRIORITIZED FOR COMMON SAFETY.

T MOBILE HAS PRIORITY. AT&T HAS FIRSTNET AND VERIZON.

THIS IS ALL OVER NONPUBLIC SAFETY USE AND SPECIFIC CELL SITE. CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE USING AT&T FIRSTNET AND VERIZON FRONT LINE. THEIR OWN RADIO TRUNKED COMMUNICATION SYSTEM OWNED BY ST. JOHNS.

IN ST. JONS COUNTY IF A PUBLIC SAFETY RADIO DOES NOT HAVE COVERAGE, WILL REVERT TO THE NEAREST VERIZON TOWER AND PROVIDE SUCH. UNDER THE FRAMEWORK ESTABLISHED BY THE FCC AND THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996, THE DECISIONS REGARDING WIRELESS INFRASTRUCTURE MUST BE GROUNDED IN SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. THEY MUST EVALUATED IN THE CONTEXT OF MEASURABLE STANDARDS AND THE NEED FOR PUBLIC SERVICE.

WITHOUT THIS FACILITY, IT WOULD LEAVE A SIGNIFICANT SERVICE DEFICIENCY UNRESOLVED AFFECTING PUBLIC SAFETY AND THE CONTINUED GROWTH OF THE RESIDENTIAL BASE AND ROADWAY INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE AREA. FOR THESE REASONS AND AS PROVIDED SUBMITTED IN THE APPLICATION AND THIS PRESENTATION TODAY, WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST PZA'S

ANY QUESTIONS FROM BOARD MEMBERS?

>> MR. LABANOWSKI. >> I DID WANT TO COMMUNICATE BY EX PARTE, I DID GO TO THE COMMUNITY MEETING ON

FEBRUARY 18TH. >> MR. OLSON.

>> THANK YOU. THAT RESOLVES IT.

>> THANK YOU, YOU WENT THROUGH A LOT OF MATERIAL VERY QUICKLY AND EFFICIENTLY, AND I'M GOING TO ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT INDUSTRY THAT I HAVE A LOT OF UNFAMILIARITY WITH.

BUT I JUST WANT TO HEAR CLEARLY YOU SAID THAT THE NEAREST TOWER I THINK WAS EXISTING TOWER WAS 1.3 MILES FROM THIS SITE.

I AM TOLD BY SOMEONE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT I SPOKE WITH AND ASKED THE QUESTION THAT VERIZON DOES HAVE A COVERAGE PROBLEM IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT NEAREST EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD. BUT, T-MOBILE DOESN'T APPARENTLY. APPARENTLY, T-MOBILE HAS GOOD SERVICE INTO THAT AREA. IS IT, DID VERIZON REALLY LOOK AT THE POSSIBILITY, THE TECHNOLOGY AND ENGINEERING OF UTILIZING EXISTING TOWERS THAT APPARENTLY ARE SERVING THAT AREA FOR LOCATION TO AVOID THE NEED FOR THIS TOWER AT THIS

>> YES. >> OKAY.

SO, VERIZON DID >> YES.

[01:55:01]

>> YES. AND THAT'S PART OF THE STUDY THAT WAS PERFORMED, YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY GIVING A SEARCH AREA BECAUSE OF NETWORK DEFICIENCIES. IN THAT SEARCH AREA YOU SEARCH FOR PARCELS. SO YOU HAVE TO STAY WITHIN THE SPECIFIC SEARCH RING OR AREA BECAUSE THAT IS THE ESSENTIALLY BUILT AROUND THE PROPAGATION STUDY.

YOUR COVERAGE STUDY. YOUR MODELLING.

WHERE IS IT DEFICIENT AND HOW DO WE MAKE CAPACITY AND COVERAGE ADEQUATE AGAIN? YES.

PART OF THE EXERCISE FOR MANY PROVIDERS IS TO SEARCH COLOCATION OPPORTUNITIES. AND THAT WAS DONE.

>> SO THE REASON THAT T-MOBILE THE AREA NOW ADEQUATE AND E INT- VERIZON DOESN'T IS THAT BECAUSE OF THIS, THESE DIFFERENT SYSTEMS UNDER WHICH YOU JUST REFERRED TOWARD THE END OF YOUR

PRESENTATION? >> YES, SIR.

WELL, NO, THOSE ARE FOR EMERGENCY RESPONSE AT THE END OF THE PRESENTATION. THAT IS SOMETHING WHEREAS IF THERE'S CONGESTION AND CAPACITY ISSUES, THE FIRST RESPONDERS ESSENTIALLY WILL HAVE PRIORITIZED SIGNAL STRENGTH.

AND THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT NECESSARILY WE CONTROL.

IT COMES WITH THE PROVIDER THAT IS PART OF THAT PACKAGE.

>> WHAT WOULD BE THE REASON THEN IN PLAIN LANGUAGE THAT A T-MOBILE CAN BROADCAST OR BE, CAN REACH INTO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND VERIZON CAN'T FROM A TOWER THAT EXISTS?

>> YEAH, I'M SORRY, I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT.

WE HAVE A STUDY THAT WAS DONE ON THIS.

REGARDLESS OF IT BEING VERIZON PER SE.

BY THE THIRD PARTY CONSULTANT WHO IS AN ENGINEER AND IS THE TOWER CONSULTANT FOR THE COUNTY ITSELF.

THERE IS A DEMONSTRATED AND IRREFUTABLE LACK OF COVERAGE.

THE OTHER TWO TOWERS THAT RECENTLY CAME ONLINE PROVIDE

THAT COVERAGE. >> ARE YOU REFERRING TO GENERALLY CELLULAR COVERAGE OR VERIZON?

>> CELLULAR COVERAGE. A LOT OF TOWERS DO -- ONCE A TOWER SITE IS APPROVED FOR INSTANCE, VERIZON IS THE ANCHOR TENANT. OTHER PROVIDES WANT TO COME ON TO THIS PROPERTY ONCE IT IS AVAILABLE.

ONCE THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS BUILT AND SOMEONE HAS TAKEN THE TIME TO ESSENTIALLY PERMIT THAT AND DESIGN IT AND DO ALL THE STUDIES, IT'S A LOT EASIER PER SE FOR A PROVIDER TO COME THERE AND COLLOCATE. WE ANTICIPATE THAT BEING THE CASE WITH THIS. JUST LIKE MANY OTHER TOWERS.

AND IN FACT, WHEN WE SUBMITTED THIS, WE INITIALLY JUST SHOWED THE ANCHOR TENANT PROVIDER AND THE COUNTY ASKED US TO COME PUT ALL LEGACY PROVIDERS ON THERE. NOTING THE VISUAL PRESENCE IN THE AREA. SO IT WOULD BE SET UP FOR COLOCATIONS AND INCLUDING THE DIAGRAM SHOWN ON HERE SHOWS THE 80 BY 80 SQUARE AND SHOWS ALL OF THE, THAT YARD AREA THAT IT WILL BE FENCED AND LANDSCAPED IN FOR EACH PERSON'S GENERATOR UNIT AND THE UNITS ACCOMMODATED BY ANY COLOCATION.

>> WELL, THANK YOU. I'M TAKING UP A LOT OF TIME.

I HAVE TO CONFESS, I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND.

I GUESS I WILL LIVE WITH IT. WHY MY FIRST QUESTION.

THANK YOU. >> YOU'RE WELCOME.

>> MR. CHAIR, MAYBE I CAN HELP A LITTLE BIT.

THIS IS CELL TOWERS ARE ONE OF THE AREAS WHERE WE ARE VERY PREEMPTED BY STATE AND FEDERAL LAW.

SO, I'M JUST GOING TO KIND OF GO THROUGH SOME OF THE THINGS TO REMIND YOU WHAT YOU CAN AND CAN'T CONSIDER DURING THIS PERIOD. IT WILL HELP THE PUBLIC TO DIRECT WHAT YOU CAN CONSIDER. WE NEED TO BASE OUR DECISION IN COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. I GUYS KNOW THAT.

IN REFERENCE TO THE SNYDER DECISION.

YOU HAVE TO NOT BASE IT ON THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT COME UP AND COMPLAIN. IT NEEDS TO BE ON COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, THINGS PEOPLE CAN SAY.

FLORIDA LAW LIMITS ONLY TO LAND DEVELOPMENT AND ZONING ISSUES.

I CANNOT REQUIRE INFORMATION ON BUSINESS DECISIONS WHETHER THERE'S EXPERT THAT THERE'S ISSUE WITH THOSE.

YOU CAN'T BASE ON SERVICE QUALITY, OR DEMAND.

ANY FEDERAL COMPLIANCE OTHER THAN FAA AND FCC LICENSURE AND

[02:00:03]

CANNOT CREATE A TOTAL EFFECTIVE PROHIBITION ON WIRELESS SERVICE IN THE AREA. FEDERAL LAW SAYS YOU CANNOT DISCRIMINATE BETWEEN CARRIERS. YOU CANNOT DO ANYTHING SAYING ONE CARRIER IS BETTER THAN THE OTHER.

YOU CAN'T COMPLETELY PROHIBIT CELLULAR SERVICE IN AN AREA.

YOU MUST ACT WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME AND THIS IS THE BIG ONE, YOU CAN'T REGULATE BASED UPON ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF RF EMISSIONS AS LONG AS THE INDUSTRY IS COMPLYING WITH ALL FEDERAL REGULATIONS AND WE REQUIRE THEM TO DO THAT.

SO, YOU NEED TO BE FOCUSING BACK ON DEVELOPMENT, ZONING ISSUES ASK COMPATIBILITY. YOU NEED TO LOOK AT DESIGN STANDARDS AND AESTHETICS AND COMPLY WITH ALL SETBACKS AND ENFORCE COUNTY CODES AND LAND USE.

IN THAT YOU CAN LOOK AT COMPATIBILITY.

THAT'S WHAT WE NORMALLY DO WITH ZONING ISSUES AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES. IF YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE A DECISION, YOU SHOULD BE GROUNDING YOUR DEBATE AND

CONVERSATIONS. >> COULD I FOLLOW UP AND JUST ASK COUNCIL, WE DO HAVE A POLICY I BELIEVE LOCALLY MAYBE ELSEWHERE, ENCOURAGING COLOCATION OF SERVICES

COMPANIES. >> AND WE DO AND OUR STAFF LOOKS TO THAT AND THEY HAVE EXPERTS THAT HELP REVIEW THAT.

IF THERE'S ISSUES WITH THAT, STAFF WOULD PROVIDE YOU EVIDENCE

OF THAT IN THE STAFF REPORT >> SO IF THERE ARE EXISTING TOWERS, THAT WOULD BE AN PROMOTE LINE OF QUESTIONING.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> MS. SPIEGEL. >> YES, THANK YOU.

I APPRECIATE MR. MONZINGO'S REPORT AND COVERAGE.

YOUR COVERAGE MAP WAS BEFORE THE TWO CELL TOWERS T 169 AND T 164 CAME ON. CAN YOU BRING THOSE TWO BACK UP

AGAIN? >> IF MY REMOTE WILL COOPERATE.

>> A NEW BATTERIES. SLICK.

LOOK AT HOW WE AIM TO SERVE. >> I'M GLAD I WAS THE GUINEA PIG ON THAT. EVERYBODY ELSE WILL HAVE A GREAT PRESENTATION AFTER THIS. SORRY.

>> SORRY TO MAKE YOU. GO BACK THROUGH.

JUST WHILE I'M SCROLLING UP TO THESE.

THE COVERAGES ARE SHOWN THEY DON'T DISCRIMINATE.

IT'S NOT JUST CELL TOWER COVERAGES.

I'M SORRY. IT'S NOT JUST VERIZON.

THIS IS CELL COVERAGE IN THE WHOLE AREA AND THE TOWER MAPS OF NOT JUST RELATED TO VERIZON-ONLY TOWERS.

THAT'S ALL THE TOWERS IN THE AREA.

THAT'S A CODIFIED REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE THAT.

WE HAVE TO SHOW ALL TOWER NECESSARY THE AREA.

WHAT IS THE NEAREST ONE. OLD AND GRANDFATHERED OR BRAND-NEW. WHETHER LATTICE OR MONOPOLE.

THESE COVERAGE AREAS ARE FREQUENCY DATA IN THESE EXHIBITS AREN'T JUST SHOWING VERIZON. THEY ARE SHOWING THE TOWERS AND THE FREQUENCIES THEY PUT OFF AND CLEARLY YOU CAN SEE BY MR. MONZINGO'S MAPS, THIS IS HIS OWN STUDY SHOWING THE DEFICIENCY AREA. THAT DEFICIENCY AREA -- AND THAT RING IS EXACTLY WHERE THE VERY, I WOULD CALLED IT THE NORTHERN AREA OF SILVER LEAF AND THE SOUTHERN AREAS OF PLANTATION ALONG THAT KIND OF SPINE ROAD WHICH IS ST. THOMAS ISLAND PARKWAY. SO IN COMBINATION WITH THOSE TWO TOWERS TO THE SOUTH OF US AND THEN THE MATTER BEFORE YOU TODAY, YOU SEE THE MAP ON THE RIGHT AND IT SHOWS HOW THE COVERAGE IS VALIDATED AND FULFILLS THAT NEED.

>> SO THIS ISN'T JUST SO VERIZON --

>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> I APPRECIATE THAT.

I THINK THE ORIGINAL PURPOSE IS SO PEOPLE WOULD HAVE CELLULAR PHONE SERVICE. AND WE ARE IN AN AREA, SILVER LEAF HAS 10,000 ENTITLEMENTS. THE FACT THERE ARE SO MANY CELL TOWERS CLOSE TOGETHER SPEAKS TO THE COMPATIBILITY ISSUE TO ME.

THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS ARE FULL OF CELL TOWERS SO PEOPLE CAN HAVE CELL SERVICE. OKAY.

>> JUST SO YOU KNOW, THE 5G COVERAGE AND I HAVE EXPERTS HERE WAY SMARTER. THE 5G COVERAGE DOESN'T BROADCAST EXTREMELY FAR. IT'S A 5G AND IT'S GOT A SMALLER FOOTPRINT IF YOU WILL IN TERMS OF ITS CAPACITY AND COVERAGE OUTPUT. THAT'S WHY YOU SEE TODAY THERE ARE GENERALLY MORE TOWERS TO PROVIDE THAT KIND OF CAPACITY AND COVERAGE FOR THE AMOUNT OF DATA THAT IS BEING TRANSACTED

THROUGH THE AIR WAVES. >> DIFFERENT BETWEEN HAVING A CELL PHONE AND PHONE CALLS AND TEXT AND NOW WE WANT TO STREAM

ALL THE TIME. >> CORRECT.

>> 6 G IS COMING. IT'S REALLY A MIXED --

>> THAT'S RIGHT. IN HOUSE AND IN-CAR COVERAGE IS

[02:05:06]

IMPORTANT. YOU SEE THE BELTWAY.

INSTEAD OF HAVING DEAD SPACES THROUGH THAT, IT'S IMPORTANT TO PROVIDE THAT. OF COURSE THIS TOWER IS WILL BE, IS PLANNED AND THIS MATTER BEFORE YOU IS A COLOCATION TOWER. VERIZON HAS TO BE THE ANCHOR

>> CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE ONE WITH STARS THAT SAID YOU LOOKED AT OTHER SITES. I KIND OF GOT LOST IN THAT.

>> JUDY, YOU'RE TESTING MY BATTERIES HERE.

>> I'M SORRY. BUT IT'S IMPORTANT.

>> I KNOW, I LOVE IT. I DO A LOT ON THESE GRAPHICS.

>> I SHOULD HAVE ASKED IT FIRST. >> IT'S OKAY.

>> YOU MIGHT AS WELL START OVER. >> BE CAREFUL THERE.

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, COMPATIBILITY SURROUNDING SITE SEARCH. THERE WAS DISCUSSIONS AT THE NORTHWEST SECTOR PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE COUNTY. AS THIS WAS THE ONLY SITE NO RECORD OF THOSE?OME THERE'S - THOSE ARE PRIVATE MATTERS.

THOSE ARE PRIVATE REAL ESTATE MATTERS IN TERMS OF REVIEW AND THOSE REVIEW SPANS WHAT IS THE ACCESS LIKE.

WHAT IS THE TREE COVERAGE? ARE THERE WETLANDS IN THE WAY AND DIVE INTO DEED RESTRICTIONS OR LEGAL MATTERS.

ALL OF THOSE FACTORS PLAY INTO WHERE ARE THE TOWER ITSELF, THE MONOPOLE, WHERE IS IT GOING TO GO IN THE COVERAGE RING REQUIRED? SO WHAT WE NARROWED DOWN AND I WILL HIGHLIGHT THIS. SO THAT RED RING THAT IS SHOWN ON THE IMAGE THERE IS ALL OF THE ESSENTIALLY A-H SITES IF YOU WILL. SO IT FILLS THAT RING AND IT'S NOT VERY BIG. IT FILLS THE RING FOR THE SEARCH AREA AND CLEARLY WE FINALIZED. THERE WAS ONE, THIS AREA RIGHT HERE, SITE E, SITE E, THAT IS NOT WHERE THE ARROW IS POINTING ON THE SCREEN. UP THERE LOOKS LIKE IT'S ON THE ROADWAY. SITE E, THERE IS A SITE AND IT'S CALLED E AS IN ECHO. THAT WAS EVALUATED AND A LITTLE

CLOSER TO THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS >> YEAH.

>> THEN WE CAME BACK AFTER THE FULL TIME EVALUATION AND DECIDED THIS IS THE MOST OPTIMAL SITE, INCLUDING THE FACT THERE'S NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.

VERY GOOD ACCESS IN AND AMONGST THE CANOPY OF TREES THERE.

AGAIN, IT IS RIGHT ALONG ST. THOMAS PARKWAY.

NOT IN THE PLANTATION PUD. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> THAT IS WHAT I WANTED TO SEE. WHERE ELSE DID YOU DO?

>> THIS PROCESS SPANNED ABOUT TWO YEARS AND UNDER TESTIMONY, EVEN VERIZON SAYS THESE ENTIRE THINGS TAKE ABOUT ONE TO THREE YEARS. WHEN THEY SAY THERE'S A COVERAGE DEFICIENCIES, WE KNOW THERE'S ROOF TOPS COMING ONLINE AND YOU SEE THE DEMONSTRATED SERVICE DEFICIENCY IN THE MAPS WE HAVE DONE AND PROVIDED BUT THE THIRD PARTY CONSULTANT HAS VALIDATED.

>> SO THE MORE INCREASE IN DENSITY THAT YOU HAVE WITH NEW HOMES BEING BUILT, THE MORE DEMAND IS PLACED ON THE TOWERS

AND THEREFORE MORE. >> SO THIS IS A GROWING AREA.

>> COVERAGE AND CAPACITY. COVERAGE WHERE IT GOES OUT AND CAPACITY, HOW MUCH BANDWIDTH TO FEED BACK AND FORTH, THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE PHONE AND THE TOWER.

WHEN IT'S OVER CAPACITY, THEN OBVIOUSLY THERE'S ISSUES WITH EVERYBODY'S CONNECTIVITY. THAT'S AGAIN I THINK THE EVIDENCE STANDED FOR ITSELF, TLFSZ A VOID IN THE AREA -- IT WAS A VOID IN THE AREA. NOT EVERYBODY HAS AN ISSUE WITH COVERAGE. OKAY.

BUT, OVER ARCHINGLY. DATA IS SUPPORTED NOT ONLY BY OUR INFORMATION BUT THE PROPAGATION MAPS THE THIRD-PARTY

ENGINEER PROVIDED. >> THANK YOU.

I WANT TO HEAR PUBLIC COMMENT. I JUST WANTED TO ASK BEFORE

PUBLIC COMMENT. >> MR. GREEN.

>> YEAH, REAL QUICK QUESTION. YOU KEPT MENTIONING HEIGHTS.

WE GOT ANOTHER ONE RIGHT BEHIND YOU THAT'S 200 FEET.

WHY THE 180. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE OF THE HEIGHT? WHERE DO YOU COME UP WITH THAT

DETERMINATION? >> THOSE ARE GREAT QUESTIONS, OBVIOUSLY, IF THERE'S THINGS IN THE WAY, I E TREE CANOPY, THE HEIGHT WON'T WORK. SIMILAR TO A LIGHT POLE, YOU HAVE A PHOTO METRIC POLE WHAT IS THE LIGHT PLAN GOING INTO THE SIDEWALK. SIMILARLY, IN A TOWER

[02:10:02]

CONFIGURATION, THAT SIGNAL NEEDS TO BE SPREAD OUT AMONGST A CERTAIN SPECIFIC RING THAT HAS BEEN DECIDED AND DEFINED AS THE LACK OF CAPACITY AND COVERAGE AREA.

SO, THIS, IT'S ACTUALLY 175 FEET AND THEN YOU GOT A 5-FOOT LIGHTNING ROD AT THE TOP. SO THAT TOWER FROM 175 DOWN IS THE HEIGHT, THE OPTIMAL HEIGHT AND I BELIEVE IN THE COUNTY CODE IT SAYS YOU CAN TECHNICALLY GO HIGHER.

AND THAT MAKES IT A MORE EXPENSIVE MONOPOLE AND MORE VISUALLY PRESENT IN THE AREA. SO THIS IS THE MINIMUM SIZE THAT IS REQUIRED FOR THE FOUR COLLOCATES AS REQUIRED IN THE

CODE. >> SO WHEN THEY DESIGN THIS TOWER, THAT'S MAXIMUM HEIGHT. WE WON'T SEE IN 10 YEARS

>> CORRECT. >> NO, SIR.

>> ANOTHER 40 FEET OR >> NO, SIR.

I'M GOOD >> MR. LABANOWSKI.

>> CAN YOU BRING UP THE SLIDES WHERE THE PHOTOS YOU TOOK.

SPECIFICALLY THE ONE THAT'S LOOKING FROM THE PROPOSED FOUR

STORY >> YES, SIR.

>> OKAY. IF YOU WILL JUST LET ME GO BACK.

THAT IS GOING TO BE, I THINK M. I'M CLICKING.

THAT'S LAST SLIDE THERE. I THINK THE NEXT PREVIOUS PAGE IS THE ONE. THE ROADWAY.

THERE WE GO. SO THAT IS GETTING INTO THE AREA. LET ME SEE ONE MORE SLIDE MIGHT BE IT. I THINK 12 IS THE --

>> YEAH, 12. >> 12 IS CLOSE.

THAT'S KIND OF START OF AN OPEN AREA.

NINE IS PROBABLY ANOTHER IMAGE MORE INDICATIVE OF THAT.

I WOULD SAY FOR RIGHT NOW, 12. >> OKAY.

AND YOU CAN SEE THE TOWER THERE. THROUGH THE TREES FROM THAT ANGLE. NOW, THIS IS A FIVE-BUILDING FOUR STORY, I THINK IT'S 58 PLUS OR MINUS FEET.

>> IT'S A FOUR STORY THAT'S GOING TO PUT A LOT OF -- HIGHER

THAN THIS PICTURE WAS >> OF COURSE.

>> 'VE >> THANKS.

>> BRAD, YOUR SEARCH RING IS ONE MILE.

IS WHAT YOU PUT UP? >> YES, SIR.

>> AND YOU HAD A TWO MILE RADIUS.

>> IT'S PART OF THE APPLICATION. LOOKING AT THAT AND READING THIS OVER AND OVER. THIS IS A 300 PLUS PAGE APPLICATION. ARE WE DESTINED FOR A FUTURE WHERE WE'RE GOING TO NEED A CELL TOWER EVERY MILE?

>> I'M SERIOUS ABOUT THAT. IS THAT WHERE WE'RE HEADED HERE?

>> I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION.

I THINK THAT'S A VERY BROAD BRUSH STROKE QUESTION.

I THINK IT DEPENDS ON THE ROADWAY AND/OR THE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY OR BUSINESS DENSITY IN THE AREA.

OR INTENSITY IN THE AREA SPECIFICALLY.

SO, EVERY MILE I WOULD SAY, NO. I WOULD HAVE YOU BACKED UP BY CERTAIN RF FREQUENCY MAPS AND PROPAGATION STUDIES ON WHERE THERE ARE DEFICIENCIES. I KNOW YOU BROUGHT IT UP BEFORE AND MR. LABANOWSKI, THE VARIATION OF THE CELL NETWORKS.

CAN YOU PUT THEM ON LIGHT POLES OR STRING THEM UP AND DOWN THE STREET? THOSE DO EXIST UP AND DOWN THE ROADWAY NETWORKS. SO THOSE KIND OF OFF SET MAYBE A TOWER IN A CERTAIN LOCATION BUT STILL HAVE TO HAVE THE APPROPRIATE LINE OF SIGHT AND HANDOFF CAPABILITY.

I DON'T BELIEVE THAT DEPICTION OR SCENARIO IS QUITE ACCURATE.

EVERY SINGLE MILE THERE IS A TOWER.

THERE ARE A LOT OF TOWERS OUT THERE.

I DON'T BELIEVE HAVING EVERY MILE IS AN ACCURATE STATEMENT.

>> IT'S A HIGH DENSITY OF TOWERS IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA WITH YOUR YOU NEW TOWER. AND YOUR SEARCH AREAS IS ONLY ONE MILE. YOU CAN'T GO OUT TWO MILES AND SAY THERE ARE TWO OTHERS WITHIN A TWO-MILE RADIUS AND THOSE

WOULD WORK? >> NO.

THAT WOULDN'T WORK. THE 5G CAPACITY WOULDN'T WORK.

THERE'S A SPECIFIC RANGE FOR THAT COVERAGE AND BUILT INTO THE

PROPAGATION MAP. >> WHEN 5G WAS FIRST COMING OUT. THERE WAS ALL THIS HYPE AND PEOPLE ARE NERVOUS AND SAYING THERE'S GOING TO BE TRANSMITTERS

[02:15:06]

AS HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP ON LIGHT POLES AND BUILDINGS.

IS THAT NO LONGER A FEASIBLE SCENARIO TO HAVE TRANSMITTERS ON

LIGHT POLES AND BUILDINGS AND -- >> AGAIN, WELL, BASED ON MY KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE, AGAIN I HAVE AN EXPERT HERE THAT COULD PROFESSIONALLY OPINE MORE TO FRONT.

I WILL TAKE A STAB. THESE PROVIDE THE MOST OPTIMAL COVERAGE AND CAPACITY FOR THE AMOUNT OF DENSITY AND INTENSITY OF ROADWAYS NETWORKS. THE SMALLER UNITS YOU ALLUDE TO DON'T HAVE ENOUGH LET'S CALL IT HORSE POWER BEHIND IT TO PUSH OUT THAT SIGNAL STRENGTH. THEY HAVE TO BE LINKED TOGETHER SO INSTEAD OF ONE TOWER, YOU HAVE 15 TO 20 SPREAD OUT ON LIGHT POLES AND NOT IN LINE OF SIGHT.

I WILL GO BACK TO THE LIGHT POLE STUDY.

SOME PEOPLE ARE AGAINST HIGHER LIGHT POLES THAT PROVIDE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF PHOTO METRIC, OF LIGHT COVERAGE.

BUT WHEN YOU HAVE LOWER LIGHT POLES, YOU HAVE MORE LIGHT POLES. BECAUSE IT TAKES THAT MUCH MORE IN A PARKING LOT LET'S CALL IT LARGE BIG BOX USER TO GET THAT LIGHT COVERAGE. WHEN YOU HAVE A HIGHER ONE, THEY CAN SPREAD IT OUT AND NOT BLEED OR BY CODE.

YOU ARE GOING TO DIG UP THE ROAD AND PROVIDE THE CORRECT YOU KNOW ELECTRICAL LINES TO FEED THAT AMOUNT OF POWER.

BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, THIS ONE SPECIFICALLY, AGAIN, THERE'S A LETTER HERE FROM THE THIRD PARTY EXPERT, THE TOWER ENGINEER FROM THE COUNTY, NOT FROM US, THAT VALIDATES ALL OF THE DATA PROVIDED AND THE COVERAGE NETWORK.

THEY COULD HAVE SAID, PROVIDE AN ALTERNATE TYPE OF TOWER SPREAD OUT ACROSS THE ENTIRE AREA. YOU'RE STILL GOING TO SEE THEM.

THIS IS THE MOST OPTIMAL HEIGHT AND CONFIGURATION FOR THIS TOWER. A LOT IS PRESCRIBED IN TERMS OF LAND CODE. THE MONOPOLE, HEIGHT AND COLOCATION FACTORS. THE COUNTY COULD AT A LATER DATE THAT SAYS, PROVIDE A STUDY THAT SAYS STRING THEM ON 50 LIGHT POLES. I RESPECT MR. LABANOWSKI DOING HOMEWORK ON A PREVIOUS MATTER. THIS IS THE MOST OPTIMAL HEIGHT AND MEETS EVERY CRITERIA IN THE CODE.

INCLUDING THE 250 FOOT RING SEPARATION.

BUT, I THINK IT'S THE SAME THING WHEN SOME OF FOLKS ASK, IS THIS THE ONLY SITE YOU EVER LOOKED AT? NO. WE'RE ALWAYS EVALUATING THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE AND MORE IMPORTANTLY DOES NOT DEGRADE THE ABILITY FOR THIS TYPE OF TOWER TO PROVIDE COVERAGE AND CAPACITY

FOR ITS CUSTOMERS. >> OKAY.

COULD YOU GO BACK TO THAT COVERAGE MAP THAT SHOWS AND YOU'RE MOSTLY THERE TO IT. YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO BACK THROUGH SO MUCH STUFF WHERE IT'S GREEN.

>> THIS IS NOT MY COVERAGE MAP. THIS IS THE THIRD PARTY

COVERAGE. >> CAN YOU, OR CAN SOMEONE SEPARATE OUT THE EFFECT OF THOSE TWO TOWERS THAT ARE TO THE SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST OF YOUR PROPOSED TOWER IF YOUR TOWER WASN'T THERE AND THOSE TWO TOWERS WERE ACTIVE?

>> SO HERE IS WHAT WE PROVIDED. AGAIN, MS. SPIEGEL SAID THIS.

THESE TOWERS HAVE NOT COME ONLINE.

WHEN WE SUBMITTED THIS ENTIRE PACKAGE.

THOSE TOWERS WEREN'T ONLINE. THAT'S WHERE THE MAPS ARE ORIENTED THE WAY THEY ARE. TECHNICALLY THIS SHOT SHOULD SHOW THE TOWERS TO THE SOUTH. RIGHT IN THAT AREA.

SO, THIS IS THE PREVIOUSLY WHEN ALL THREE TOWERS WERE NOT ACTIVATED. OURS IS THE MATTER BEFORE YOU.

>> THAT IS IN OUR PACKET. >> SO HERE'S WITH THE COVERAGE AND THEN HERE'S THE OTHERS THAT JUST CAME ONLINE.

YOU CAN SEE, I WILL FLIP BETWEEN THE TWO, MR. HILSENBECK, THE COVERAGE LAYER RIGHT THERE FOR THOSE TWO TOWERS YOU WERE JUST

ASKING ABOUT. >> I WAS JUST ASKING WITHOUT YOUR TOWER BEING ACTIVE, BUT THOSE TWO BEING ACTIVE, I WAS TRYING TO GET TO HOW FAR THE COVERAGE OF THOSE EXTEND TO THE NORTH FOR EXAMPLE. TO THE NORTH AND NORTHWEST,

NORTHEAST. >> YOU CAN SEE HERE WITH JUST THIS TOWER ON, YOU CAN SEE, YOU CAN SEE THE PROPAGATION MAP AND

[02:20:04]

COVERAGE AND CAPACITY. >> BUT THAT'S WITH YOURS TURNED

ON. >> AND ALL WORKING TOGETHER WITH

THE TWO. >> WHAT IF YOU TOOK THAT MAP AND

TURNED OFF YOUR TOWER. >> I DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO

DO THAT RIGHT NOW. >> OKAY.

THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO SEE. >> SO, HAD THAT BEEN A SCENARIO, WE WOULD HAVE BEEN ASKED TO PROVIDE THAT AND WE WEREN'T.

THIS IS ALL IN CONCURRENCE WITH THE COUNTY'S THIRD PARTY ENGINEER THAT ONLY REVIEWS TOWER MATTERS.

IF THERE WAS AN ISSUE WITH YOUR NOTION OF WHETHER THIS SHOULD OR SHOULDN'T PROVIDE COVERAGE ADEQUATELY COMPARED TO THE OTHER

TO. >> IT'S NOT MY NOTION.

I WAS JUST ASKING TO SEE IT. >> YEAH, WE GOT A RISE FROM THE CROWD BEHIND ME. HAD WE BEEN ASKED TO PROVIDE

THAT, WE WOULD HAVE. >> WHEN YOU FIRST READ ALL THROUGH THIS COUPLE TIMES, I KEPT GOING, WHAT IF THOSE TOWERS ARE TURNED ON AND YOURS WAS NOT ACTIVE OR BUILT.

WHAT WOULD THE COVERAGE BE LIGHT?

I NEVER COULD FIND IT. >> OKAY.

I THOUGHT, WELL, I'M GOING TO ASK TODAY.

SO IF I'M ALLOWED TO ASK THIS THROUGH OUR ATTORNEY, I WILL ASK HIM, SO THOSE TWO TOWERS THERE THAT YOU HAVE IN THE RED CIRCLE, YOUR NEW DRAWING IN THE RED CIRCLES FROM BEFORE, AM I ALLOWED TO ASK WHO THE PRIMARY TENANT IS OF THOSE? WHO OWNS THOSE TOWERS? AM I ALLOWED TO ASK THAT AND DO

YOU KNOW THE ANSWER? >> YOU CAN ASK IT, BUT IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE AND SO I WOULD ADVISE THAT --

>> WHAT I'M GETTING TO. >> LET'S SAY, THEY'RE NOT OWNED BY YOU. AND MOST OF THESE TOWERS OUT THERE IN THE COUNTY HAVE THE FOUR TENANTS ON THEM.

I DON'T KNOW IF THEY ALL DO. MANY DO.

SOME DON'T YET. BUT, I WAS JUST WONDERING THREE OR FOUR. THERE WAS NO ROOM TO COLLOCATE ON ANY OF THOSE TOWERS? THEY ARE ALREADY MAXED OUT TO

THE SOUTHWEST AND SOUTHEAST? >> I WILL HAVE MY TOWER EXPERT IN NEX TOWER AND HE CAN RESPOND TO THAT.

HE ACTUALLY DID THOSE TWO TOWERS.

SO AGAIN, I WOULD HEED THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S RECOMMENDATION THAT THERE IS A COLOCATION STANDARD IN PLAY.

SO, WHETHER THERE'S AN ANCHOR TENANT, THEY ARE ALL COMMINGLING TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE COVERAGE IN SPECIFIC AREAS.

IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

>> JOEL RUSSO. 905 NORTHWEST TERRACE WITH NEX TOWER. THE TWO TOWERS TO THE SOUTH ARE SILVER LEAF ONE AND 2. VERIZON IS ON BOTH TOWERS.

T MOBILE IS ON BOTH. AT&T IS ON THOSE TOWERS.

THEY ARE COMPLETELY MAXED OUT AS FAR AS.

>> THEY ARE MAXED OUT. >> THEY CAN HOLD MORE DESIGN WISE. PUTTING TWO SETS OF ANTENNAS ON A TOWER IS NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU MORE DEPTH ON THE CAPACITY

>> IS IT BECAUSE ANY NEW TENANT THAT MIGHT BE ON THERE IS LOWER DOWN ON THE TOWER SO YOU DON'T HAVE --

>> WELL, THERE ARE NO MORE TENANTS ON THERE.

>> THEY ARE MAXED OUT WITH TENANTS.

>> THE TENANTS AVAILABLE ARE ON THERE.

WE COULD HAVE A SMALL WI-FI COMPANY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

THE THREE NATIONAL CARRIERS ARE ALREADY ON THE TOWERS.

>> AT MAXIMUM CAPACITY. >> YES.

>> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. REAL QUICK, JOEL, THE ORIGINAL ANCHOR PROVIDER ON THE TOWER WHO WAS?

>> T-MOBILE. SO YOU SEE HOW QUICKLY THE COLLOCATES ARE. THE PROVIDER WANTS TO BE PART OF THIS TO PROVIDE THE COLOCATION STANDARD.

DOING THE FRONT END LEG WORK WITH THE ANCHOR TENANT AND THE

OTHERS COLLOCATE. >> NOT TO FORECAST, THIS IS JOEL RUSSO AGAIN. NOT TO FORECAST A DEFINITE BUT WE DO BROADCAST OUR TOWERS TO ALL THE CARRIERS.

WE HAVE REGULAR CALLS AND GIVE THEM TRACKERS WITH THE COORDINATES. THEY ARE WELL AWARE OF THIS TOWER AT TODAY'S HEARING AND EXPECT TO HAVE THEIR INTENT TO COLLOCATE AS SOON AS WE RECEIVE APPROVAL.

>> TO BE ON YOUR TOWER? >> ABSOLUTELY EXPECT IT.

>> SINCE THERE WAS HEARSAY STATEMENTS MADE THAT T-MOBILE HAS GOOD COVERAGE IN THE AREA, YOU KNOW WE DON'T KNOW THAT'S

TRUE. >> I CAN'T VALIDATE GOOD COVERAGE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS.

>> I DON'T EITHER. >> ARE THEY STREAMING.

[02:25:01]

DOWNLOADING. HAVE A WI-FI BOX IN THEIR HOUSE.

THERE'S A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT CAN BE WRAPPED AROUND COVERAGE.

IS THAT JUST CELL PHONE OR TEXT. HIGH BAND ACTIVITIES ARE MORE

STREAMING. >> BUT THAT'S ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE PERHAPS THOSE TWO TOWERS T-MOBILE TOWERS MAY BE, WHAT I WAS ASKING, WITHOUT YOUR TOWERS, SWITCHED ON, BUILT AND SWITCHED ON, THAT MAYBE PROVIDING A LOT OF COVERAGE TO THE NORTH. FROM T-MOBILE ALREADY UP ON

THERE. >> I ASSUME THEY'RE AT THE TOP.

SINCE IT'S THEIR TOWER. >> T MOBILE IS ON THE TOP.

THERE MAYBE TRUTH TO THAT AS FAR AS MORE DEPTH IN THE COVERAGE DUE TO HEIGHT. I CAN'T SUBSTANTIATE THAT

WITHOUT TALKING TO >> DO YOU HAVE HOW TALL THEY

WERE? >> THEY WERE APPROVED 180.

AND CONSTRUCTED 170 WITH 5-FOOT LIGHTNING RODS.

>> GOOD INFORMATION. APPRECIATE IT.

>> OKAY. IF THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD RIGHT NOW, I THINK WE NEED TO GET TO PUBLIC COMMENT. LOOKS LIKE A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE

WAITING. >> I WILL TURN OVER TO JUDY TO

HANDLE THE PUBLIC COMMENT. >> SO, ALL RIGHT.

>> THANK YOU. WE WILL HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEM NUMBER 9. YOU MAY COME UP TO THE PODIUM IF THERE ARE MANY OF YOU IN THE AUDIENCE.

I RECOMMEND YOU TAKE A PLACE AT THE MICROPHONE TO MOVE ON THROUGH THIS. WE ARE VERY HAPPY YOU ARE HERE AND REALLY LOVE TO HEAR PUBLIC COMMENT AND WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO HEAR. PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS DOWN IN THE AUDIENCE SO WE'RE ABLE TO HEAR EVERYONE.

YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.

PLEASE GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

>> HELLO, MY NAME IS MABEL PEREZ.

300 TRELLIS AVENUE. I AM A LOCAL REALTOR AND ALSO A MEMBER OF THE CDD BOARD. I'M HERE TODAY TO OPPOSE THE PROPOSAL TO CONSTRUCT THE 180 FOOT TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER AT THE HEART OF OUR ESTABLISHED COMMUNITY.

A PROJECT THAT WOULD REQUIRE CLEARING MATURE TREES AND DISRUPTING ONE OF FEW NATURAL AREAS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

I AM NOT HERE ALONE. IF EVERYONE CAN STAND UP FROM GLEN ST. JOHNS, WE HAVE COLLECTED 303 SIGNED WET SIGNATURES FOR OPPOSITION OF THE BUILDING OF THIS TOWER.

I OPPOSE THIS PROPOSAL BECAUSE IT IS FUNDAMENTALLY INCOMPATIBILITY WITH THE FUTURE OF ST. JOHNS.

I STAND HERE ON BEHALF OF A HUNDRED OF OTHER FAMILY THAT IS CHOSE THIS COMMUNITY BECAUSE ITS LOCATION, TREE CANOPY.

LET ME BE VERY CLEAR. THIS IS NOT OPPOSITION TO IMPROVED CELLULAR SERVICE. WE RECOGNIZE RELIABLE COMMUNICATION SIZE IMPORTANT. WHAT WE OPPOSE IS A DECISION TO PLACE A PERMANENT INDUSTRIAL FACILITY IN THE MIDDLE OF AN ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE MORE APPROPRIATE LOCATIONS MAY EXIST. THIS IS MUCH MORE THAN THE TOWER. IT INCLUDES SITE TOWER, CLEARING. UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE.

AND THE POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE COLOCATION.

THIS IS A PERMIT CHANGE TO THE CHARACTER OF OUR COMMUNITY.

MOST IMPORTANTLY, I DO NOT BELIEVE THE APPLICANT HAS MET THE BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING THIS SITE IS APPROPRIATE.

WE DON'T HAVE COVERAGE MAPS SHOWING TOWER ONE, TWO AND THEN THREE ON. WHAT IS EVIDENCE THAT COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS OR OTHER LESS INTRUSIVE LOCATIONS WERE FULLY EVALUATED AND WHERE ARE THOSE REPORTS? WHERE THE INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION THIS LOCATION IS NECESSARY? WHERE ARE THOSE REPORTS? WHERE IS THE SITES DEMONSTRATING COMPATIBILITY WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD? IN TERMS OF PRACTICAL CONCERN THE GLEN ST. JOHNS AND MEADOW RIDGE IN HIS REPORT HE NOTED ROADS. WE HAVE ONLY ONE ROAD.

ONE LANE INGRESS AND ONE LANE EGRESS.

THAT ROAD ST. THOMAS PARKWAY SERVES OUR RESIDENTS 660 CITIZENS AND THIS DESERVES A COMPREHENSIVE EMERGENCY AND ACCESS PLAN BEFORE AND APPROVAL.

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

I WILL BE SUBMITTED THE SIGNED --

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> AND THEN A STUDY THAT WE HAVE FOUND ON TOWERS NEAR RESIDENTIAL AREAS.

>> PLEASE KEEP YOUR COMMENTS TO THREE MINUTES PLEASE.

[02:30:03]

THANK YOU. >> HI, I AM DARA MARSH.

1.3 MILES FROM THE PROPOSED TOWER.

WE ARE NOT AGAINST CELL SERVICE AND WE ARE NOT RAISING HEALTH OR RADIO WAVE CONCERNS. THAT IS A FEDERAL MATTER.

OUR CASE IS ABOUT WHAT YOU THE BOARD CAN DECIDE.

FIRST THIS TOWER SIMPLY DOES NOT FIT.

THE COUNTY'S OWN FUTURE LAND MAP SHOWS THIS AGAINST RESIDENTIAL B AND C LAND WHICH ARE OUR HOMES AND 180 FOOT STEEL INDUSTRIAL MONOPOLE MANY TIMES TALLER THAN ANY HOUSE IS OUT OF CHARACTER WITH AN ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAS BEEN IN BUSINESS FOR 18 YEARS. THIS IS NOT ONLY OUR OPINION, THE APPLICANT'S OWN PHOTO SIMULATION SHOWS THE TOWER RISING ABOVE THE TREE LINE. THE ONLY REASON IT DISAPPEARS IS THE PINE TREES BUT THE LAND IS ZONED FOR SIVA CULTURE.

VERY RECENTLY, THIS PAST APRIL, YOU UPHELD THE DENIAL OF 180 FOOT TOWER BY A UNANIMOUS 5-0 VOTE BECAUSE IT DID NOT FIT ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY.

THAT APPLICATION WAS PRESENTED BY THE SAME ATTORNEY STANDING HERE FOR THIS APPLICANT. AND THAT TOWER WAS SET MORE THAN 250 FEET FROM THE NEAREST HOME. WAY FARTHER THAN OURS.

IF THAT TOWER DOES NOT BELONG THERE.

THIS ONE DOES NOT BELONG HERE. YOU ALSO DENIED ON WILD WOOD DRIVE SIMILAR TO THIS. STUDIES INCLUDING A FLORIDA STUDY HAVE FOUND THE PROXIMITY FROM A CELL PHONE TOWER TO HOME REDUCES VALUE. THIS IS FROM A 32 YEAR GENERAL APPRAISAL FROM THE NATIONAL APPRAISAL BOARD AND FINALLY, THE TOWER IS NOT SILENT. THE EQUIPMENT RUNS CONSTANT FUELLING AND THE SITES RUN BACK UPS.

WE HAVE BEEN TOLD THERE WILL BE MORE CAREERS UP TO FOUR AND AS THEY HAVE BEEN ON THEIR OWN APPLICANT'S OTHER TOWERS, THE NOISE NEXT TO OUR HOME INCREASES AND WETLANDS BESIDE US ONLY GET NOISIER. THE APPLICATIONS STUDY NONE OF THIS. FOR THE RECORD, IN ADDITION, MY PUBLIC COMMENT I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT 110 SIGNED LETTERS FROM MEADOW RIDGE AND GLEN ST. JOHNS COMMUNE.

MY NEIGHBOR WILL SPEAK ABOUT WHY THIS TOWER DOES NOT HAVE TO BE

IN THIS SPECIFIC >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS TERESA FOLEY.

37 SAINT CROI DRIVE. SAINT AUGUSTINE.

KNOWN AS LOT ONE IN ST. JOHNS DEVELOPMENT.

EXCUSE ME, THIS TOWER DOES NOT HAVE TO BE BUILT HERE AND THE APPLICANT NEVER SERIOUSLY LOOKED ANYWHERE ELSE.

THE COUNTY'S OWN TOWER RULES. LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS 2.03.26, AND 6.08.12 REQUIRES A COLOCATION ANALYSIS.

THAT MEANS THE APPLICANT MUST SHOW WHETHER THESE ANTENNAS CAN GO ON EXISTING STRUCTURE INSTEAD OF BUILDING A BRAND-NEW 180 FOOT TOWER. THE MATERIALS IN THE FILE ARE A COVERAGE JUSTIFICATION. THEY EXPLAIN WHY VERIZON WANTS THIS HEIGHT. VERIZON'S OWN PAPERWORK LISTS TWO EXISTING TOWERS. 250 CROWN TOWER, 180 FOOT TOWERS AND OTHERS. NOWHERE DOES THE APPLICATION SHOW PUTTING THIS EQUIPMENT ON ANY ONE OF THESE OR OUTSIDE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WAS STUDIED AND RULED OUT.

SECOND, THIS IS THE PART THAT SHOULD TROUBLE THE BOARD.

THE OWNER IS WHITE FORD'S TIMBER LLC AND PUBLIC CORPORATE RECORDS SHOW WHITE FORD IS THE SAME ENTITY THAT OWNS AND IS BUILDING THE ENTIRE SILVER LEAF COMMUNITY.

THE DEVELOPMENT PLANNED FOR 16300 MORE HOMES.

WHITES FORD TIMBER EVEN HOLDS THE REGISTERED SILVER LEAF TRADE MARK. THE DEVELOPER THAT PLOTTED AND SOLD OUR NEIGHBORHOODS CONTROLS THOUSANDS OF ACRES ACROSS THIS AREA. YET THE TOWER IS PROPOSED RIGHT AT THE EDGE OF THE EXISTING HOMES.

THERE'S NO REASON THE TOWER HAS TO BE HERE AND THE APPLICATION NEVER EXPLAINS WHY IT IS. YOU CAN VERIFY THAT IN THE

[02:35:04]

COUNTY'S OWN RECORDS. OUR COMMUNITY AS PREVIOUSLY STATED ONLY HAS ONE ROAD IN AND OUT.

THERE IS NO SECOND EXIT. BUILDING THIS TOWER IS A HEAVY EQUIPMENT OPERATION. FOUR STEEL POLE SECTIONS, THE BASE ALONE 50 FEET AND TWO THOUSAND POUNDS.

DRILLING RIGS AND CONCRETE BY TRUCK ALL FUNNELING INTO OUR SINGLE ROAD. ON AN ORDINARY DAY THAT'S A DISRUPTION. DURING A HURRICANE EVACUATION WITH NO ALTERNATIVE ROUTE IS A SAFETY RISK.

THERE'S NO PLAN TO KEEP THE ROAD OPEN.

EXCUSE ME, BEFORE THE BOARD APPROVES ANYTHING.

IT SHOULD BE INCLUDING THE VAST LANDS IN THE OWNER CONTROL CAN SERVE THIS NEED. MY NEIGHBOR JOSE OCHOA WILL GIVE

HIS STATEMENT. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>> THANK YOU. YES, SIR, HELLO, MY NAME IS JOSE OCHO AI LIVE AT 77 LITTLE HARBOR WAY, ST. AUGUSTINE FLORIDA, I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT THE APPLICATION.

NOT A LITTLE. ACTUALLY QUITE CONCERNED THAT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THE APPLICATION ENSURES THE SAFETY OF OUR COMMUNITY. AND THAT IT'S COMPLETE.

SO I BET YOU HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION YOU NEED TO MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION. SO FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN THE APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED <,>THE ENGINEERING DRAWINGS, THE STRUCTURAL DRAWNINGS REMEMBER STAMPED PRELIMINARY.

THE FOUNDATION THAT HOLDS THIS 180 FOOT TOWER WAS DESIGNED ON A "PRESUMPTIVE ASSUMED SOIL". IT'S NOTE CLEAR WHAT KIND OF SOIL WE'RE DEALING WITH. I WANT TO MAKE SURE ALL OF THE ENGINEERING IS DONE ACCORDINGLY TO MAKE SURE IT'S A SAFE TOWER.

SO, IN ORDER TO DO THAT, YOU REPORT THAT IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S NOT IN THE APPLICATION INITIALLY.

SO I HOPE THAT IT'S THERE AND CLEAR THAT SOIL CAN WITH STAND THAT FOUNDATION AND 180 FOOT TOWER.

NOW, AS YOU ALL KNOW, WE LIVE IN A HURRICANE COUNTY.

AND SO, THIS 180 FOOT TOWER HAS TO WITHSTAND THESE HURRICANE WINDS. AS YOU KNOW THE SOIL IN FLORIDA PRIMARILY IS SAND. AS YOU SAW IN SOME OF THESE DRAWINGS OR DIAGRAMS, THEY'RE BORDERED BY WETLANDS.

SO WITHOUT THIS GEOTECHNICAL REPORT AND KNOWING THERE ARE WETLANDS AROUND, THERE IS A CONCERN THIS TOWER WILL FALL.

AND YEAH, WE SAW DIAGRAMS THAT THE RADIUS WAS 40 FEET.

THAT THE TOWER COULD FALL BUT IT'S RIGHT NEXT TO THE ONLY ROAD THAT SERVICES OUR COMMUNITY OF FAMILIES, WITH THEIR CHILDREN, SCHOOL BUSES, MOTHERS IN MINIVANS GOING TO THE GAMES.

SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS TOWER DOES NOT CAUSE A DISRUPTION TO THE TRAFFIC. AND SO, ALSO, IN THIS APPLICATION INITIALLY, THEY WERE NO JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION AND NO STATE OR FEDERAL WETLANDS PERMITS ANYWHERE IN THE FILE.

SO THAT I THINK WOULD BE OF CONCERN.

AND THE OTHER THING, THE APPLICATION WAS INCOMPLETE IN OTHER AREAS. NO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS, THE COUNTY MUST FIND THIS CONSISTENT WITH THE PLAN. AND SO HERE WE ARE A TOWER THAT IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

IT HARMS OUR PROPERTY VALUES. IT NEVER HAD TO BE SITED

>> THANK YOU. SIR.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

SO FINALLY, JUST WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO RESPECTFULLY DENY THE

APPLICATION. >> THAT WAS DEFINITELY THE TONE OF YOUR COMMENT. I APPRECIATE THAT.

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

>> HI. MIEP MY NAME IS LESLIE MOSIER.

RIGHT WITHIN THE PROPOSED LINE SIGHT OF THE PROPOSAL.

I DO NOT HAVE PREPARED STATEMENTS.

THEY WERE SUBMITTED TO ALL, BUT THE ONES I'M ESPECIALLY CERTAINED ABOUT. I DIDN'T FIND OUT ABOUT THIS UNTIL TWO WEEKS AGO. THAT MEANS THERE ARE PLENTY OF OUR NEIGHBORS THAT DO NOT KNOW ABOUT THIS.

THIS TO ME IS SHOCKING. SO MY QUESTIONS ARE.

[02:40:03]

WHEN WAS THE APPLICATION DEEMED COMPLETE AND IF SO, WERE ALL TECHNICAL REPORTS POSTED FOR PUBLIC REVIEW AND THEN WERE ANY REPORTS REVISED AFTER THIS NOTICE AND WHEN AND WHY.

OUR LATE FILING APPLICANT MATERIALS GOING TO BE ACCEPTED AND IF YES, WILL THE RESIDENTS RECEIVE AND ADEQUATE TIME TO REVIEW THEM AND REBUT THEM? AND THEN ALSO, HAS THE APPLICANT HELD A NEIGHBORHOOD WORKSHOP? NONE THAT I'M AWARE OF.

AND I LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND IS THIS COMPLETE RECORDING SIGN IN SHEET PRESENTATION AND QUESTION LOG IN THE RECORD? THEN ALSO, TO ADDITIONALLY GO OVER THIS YET AGAIN.

ONE ROAD IN AND OUT OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

EVEN ONE FALLEN TREE AND WE'RE STUCK.

SO, YOU KNOW HURRICANE SEASON IS COMING.

AND THAT'S JUST ONE FALLEN TREE. WE'RE TALKING CRANES AND FLAT BED TRUCKS AND ALL SORTS OF EQUIPMENT THAT WILL BE GOING IN AND OUT TO PUT UP THIS CELL TOWER.

AND THEN I DO HAVE ONE MORE THING.

I DO AGREE THAT WE NEED DEFINITELY SOME SORT OF PICTURE OF WHAT THIS LOOKS LIKE WITH THOSE TWO TOWERS THAT ARE ALREADY BUILT ACTIVE AND THEN THIS PROPOSED ONE NOT ACTIVE BECAUSE OTHERWISE WE DON'T KNOW THAT THE CELL SERVICE IS NOT GOING TO BE PERFECTLY FINE WITH THE TWO ALREADY BUILT.

AGAIN, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY VERIZON CAN'T COLLOCATE TO ANOTHER TOWER WHEN THEY ARE GOING TO BUILD AND THEN THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE OTHER PEOPLE COLLOCATE TO THIS TOWER.

SO. THAT IS -- AND THEN ALL THE SOUND. I KNOW HE MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT THE SOUND NOT BEING YOU KNOW LIKE WASHING MACHINE.

BUT HAS AN ACTUAL STUDY BEEN DONE LIKE AN AMBIENT BASELINE STUDY OF WHAT THAT SOUND WOULD BE TO THE NEAREST HOUSES? AND NOT JUST THE HOUSES BUT THAT'S A ROADWAY THAT PEOPLE WALK UP AND DOWN MYSELF INCLUDED ALL THE TIME.

AND SO, THAT'S NOT THE KIND OF NOISE I WANT TO HEAR ON MY MORNING WALK. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> HELLO, MY NAME IS COREY KEEN.

409 TORTUGA BAY. I LIVE IN THE COMMUNITY AND OPPOSED TO THIS TOWER BEING BUILT.

I HAVE SEVERAL QUESTIONS. ONE ASSOCIATED WITH THE NEPA STUDY THEY DID. WAS IT APPROPRIATE, LIKE SEASONALLY APPROPRIATE AND WHAT DATES AND METHODS WERE USED TO CONDUCT THIS STUDY? DID IT INVOLVE, DID THEY, WERE THERE GOPHER TORTOISE BURROWS? EAGLE NESTS.

BAT USE OR OTHER PROTECTED SPECIES OR RESOURCES EVALUATED IN THAT STUDY? WHAT CURRENT FIELD STUDIES WERE COMPLETED FOR LISTED SPECIES IN MIGRATORY BIRDS? AND HAS IT BEEN VERIFIED BY THE APPROPRIATE AGENCIES? WHAT AGENCIES WERE CONSULTEDD AND WHERE ARE THEIR CONCURRENT LETTERS FOR THESE STUDIES? WHAT PREVENTION PLANS APPLIES TO FUEL, HYDRAULIC FLUIDS AND CONCRETE WASH OUT? IN REGARDS TO DRAINAGE AND FLOODING, WHAT IS THE POINT OF DISCHARGE AND WHAT DOWN STREAM NEIGHBORHOODS RECEIVE THE RUN OFF FROM THE PROPOSED MONOPOLE TOWER? WHEN THE NOISE AND REDUCTION, DOES THE ACOUSTIC MODEL CONTAIN SIMULTANEOUS EQUIPMENT OPERATION OR ONLY IN REGARDS TO THE FIRST

ONLINE CELL PHONE PROVIDER? >> WILL POSTCONSTRUCTION SOUND TESTING BEING CONTACTED BY A PROFESSIONAL? WHAT HAPPENS IF CORRECTIVE ACTION NEEDS TO HAPPEN AFTERWARDS, WHAT ENFORCEABLE ACTION WILL TAKE PLACE WITH THE SOUND EXCEEDS THE PREDICTIONS? WILL FUTURE CARRIERS BE PREVENTED FROM LIGHTING ON THIS FACILITY AND HOW WOULD ADDITIONAL CARRIERS BE NOTIFIED TO US? THESE ARE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN UNANSWERED SO FAR DURING THIS MEETING. WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THEM.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

[02:45:02]

>> I AM RUSSELL GUIN 144 PETER DRIVE.

WHO PAYS FOR THE DAMAGE TO PAVEMENT SHOULDER SWELL, SIGNS, LANDSCAPING GATES AND UTILITIES OR WILL IT BE LEFT A MESS FOR US TO LOOK AT? AND WHAT -- NOT THAT KNOW WO -- ONE, IS THE ASSERTED NEED A TOWER OWNER MARKET OPPORTUNITY

AND I THINK THAT'S ALL I GOT FOR >> THANK YOU.

SIR. >> THANK YOU.

GOOD AFTERNOON, THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TODAY.

MY NAME IS DAN MCGRAF. 223 PETER ISLAND DRIVE IN GLEN ST. JOHNS. JUST A COUPLE QUESTIONS.

WERE ANY REPORTS REVISED AFTER THE PUBLIC NOTICE WAS GIVEN AND IF SO, WHEN AND WHY. AS ANY COUNTY OFFICIAL OTHER THAN MR. LABANOWSKI AND THE EXPERT FROM CELL TOWERS ON THE COUNTY HAD ANY EXPART A COMMUNICATION AND HAS IT BEEN DISCLOSED? AND FINALLY, EXCUSE ME, IF THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS MISTAKENLY APPROVED, WHERE WILL THE TRUCKS QUEUE AND TURN AROUND WITHOUT BLOCKING THE RESIDENTS COMING TO

AND FRO AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE >> THANK YOU.

SIR. >> HI, MY NAME IS ERIC SER ANNO, 300 BAY DRIVE. I AM, IT'S VERY INTERESTING NUMBER ONE TO SEE THAT THE SAME ARE OMITTED ARE THE QUESTIONS WE HAVE. FOR EXAMPLE, DOES THE CELL TOWERS ALL EXAMPLE SHOW HOW THIS BROAD BAND, HOW THE COVERAGE IS GOING TO BE WITH THE TWO CELL TOWERS WITHOUT THE NEW ONE? OBVIOUSLY, IT WAS OMITTED AND ALSO, SOMETHING THAT WAS OMITTED I SAW A LOT, THERE WAS A LOT OF MENTION ABOUT ZERO TRAFFIC IMPACT. BUT THAT'S POST CONSTRUCTION.

NOWHERE IN THE PRESENTATION WAS THE TRAFFIC IMPACT DURING CONSTRUCTION. INTERESTINGLY.

AND THAT'S THE PART THAT WORRIES ME THE MOST BECAUSE IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT THE PZA BOARD ASK THE COUNTY AGENCIES TO DO THE EMERGENCY ACCESS. IF YOU COME WITH THE FIRE RESCUE PUBLIC WORKS AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT.

RESIDENTS WILL BE ABLE TO REVIEW THAT PLAN BEFORE APPROVAL.

NOT AFTER PERMITS ARE ISSUED. A COMMUNICATION FACILITY SHOULD NOT BE PLACED WHERE CONSTRUCTION CAN COMPROMISE THE ONLY DEPENDABLE ACCESS SERVING THE PEOPLE SUPPORTING TO BENEFIT.

YOU KNOW, THIS IS, YOU HAVE HERE A LOT TODAY ABOUT THE ACCESS.

BECAUSE THIS IS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OVER 600 RESIDENTS IN ONE WAY IN AND ONE WAY OUT. NOTHING ELSE.

NOTHING ELSE. THEY BLOCK THAT ACCESS FOR TWO HOURS NOTHING CAN COME IN. NOTHING CAN COME OUT.

SO WE WILL HAVE EMERGENCY THE PERSON DIE IN THEIR HOME.

IT'S SERIOUS. YOU KNOW AND THAT NEEDS TO TAKE ACCOUNT. THAT NEEDS TO BE PRIORITY ONE IN ANY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO, I PLEASE ASK THE BOARD TO REJECT YOU TODAY, TO SAFETY CONCERNS ON THE PEOPLE'S. THANKS.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. >> IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO HAS PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM PLEASE COME FORWARD NOW. AND SEEING NONE, WE WILL CLOSE

PUBLIC COMMENT. >> FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS, BRAD WESTER, DRIVER MCAFEE ON REBUTTAL.

THE FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THAT THE MATTER ON THE SHORES DISCUSSION, THERE WAS ONE RESIDENT TALKING ABOUT THE SIMILARITIES OF THE TWO MATTERS.

AND I URGE YOU THIS SITE NEEDS TO BE REVIEWED ON ITS OWN SPECIFICITY AND DOCUMENTS PROVIDED AS PART OF THIS

[02:50:03]

APPLICATION BECAUSE ONE WAS DENIED DOESN'T SERVE PRECEDENCE FOR ANY CRITERIA ON YOUR DECISIONMAKING ON THIS MATTER.

INSOFAR AS THERE WAS ERRONEOUS INFORMATION DESCRIBING THE PROXIMITY OF THE TOWER. THE SHORES TOWER WAS 276 FEET FROM THE NEAREST RESIDENTIAL LOT LINE.

FROM THE CENTER OF THE TOWER. SO ERRONEOUS IN TERMS OF THE INFORMATION AND AS WELL AS THE APPRAISAL REPORT.

I OBJECT TO THE APPRAISAL REPORT BEING A DIFFERENT MATTER IN TERMS OF MEETING YOUR CRITERIA AND ALSO ASK THAT THE COUNTY ATTORNEY ALLOW THAT OCCASION TO CARRY FORWARD BECAUSE THIS NEEDS TO BE REVIEWED ON ITS OWN MERIT AND SPECIFICITY.

WE HAVE AN APPRAISER. THAT GOES ON THE MERITS OF ALL THE DATA PROVIDED INCLUDING THE SEPARATION DISTANCES OF THE TWO MATTERS SPECIFICALLY. AND THE PREVIOUS MATTER ALSO DID NOT PROVIDE COMPS AS FAR AS THEIR APPRAISAL ANALYSIS.

IT WAS MORE OVERARCHING SERVICES ON THE MATTER.

I ASK THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO OPINE ON THAT.

>> SO AS FAR AS THE APPRAISAL FOR ANY OTHER TOWER IS IRRELEVANT TO THIS MATTER. YOU NEED TO INDIVIDUALLY LOOK AT THIS MATTER IF YOU CAN FIND SIMILAR LOGIC IN ANOTHER APPRAISAL THAT IS ALSO A PROBLEM IN THIS APPRAISAL, THAT'S RELEVANT. THE APPRAISAL ITSELF IS IRRELEVANT. YOU CAN ONLY USE SIMILAR LOGIC.

EACH DIFFERENT PARCEL NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT INDIVIDUALLY.

I CANNOT THINK OF A REASON TO ADMIT THE APPRAISAL OF THE OTHER TOWN TOWER'S PROPERTY INTO EVIDENCE AND I THINK YOU SHOULD

DISREGARD IT. >> THANK YOU, WITH THAT SAID, I HAVE A RESPONSE THAT IS SPECIFICALLY TO THE ALL OF THE OPPOSITION LETTERS YOU RECEIVED. A LOT ARE FORM BASED AND SIGNED BY THE RESIDENTS. FIT, I USE THAT IN QUOTATION IS A SUBJECTIVE TERM NOT BASED ON ANY FACTUAL SUBSTANTIAL COMPETENT EVIDENCE. AT A DISTANCE OF 740 FEET FROM THE NEAREST SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN THE PLANTATION PUD.

THE PROPOSED TOWER WOULD NOT LOOM OVER THE ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL HOME. "LOOM" IS A SUBJECTIVE DESCRIPTION. THE DISTANCE OF 750 IS ALMOST THREE TIMES OF THE COUNTY'S 250 FEET.

IT HAS A COLLAPSE RATE OF 240 FEET.

THE NORTHWEST SECTOR LEGAL NOTICE RADIUS OF 500 FEET WHICH IS MORE THAN THE SPECIAL USE NOTIFICATION AREA.

WE HAD A PUBLIC PARTICIPATION WORKSHOP AND THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS ARE 500 FEET FOR THAT.

AS OPPOSED TO A LESSER RADIUS FOR THIS NOTICE MATTER FOR THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT. WHITES FORD TIMBER DDST. JOHNS PARKWAY AND GLEN JOHNS HOPKINS DDC HAVE NO DIRECT PART OF THIS LIST. THE FINAL LIST DESCRIBE NO LOSS OF VALUE FOR PROPERTIES DUE TO THE DISTANCE OF THE TOWER AND INCLUDED REAL ESTATE COMPS AND SITING A FLORIDA-BASED STUDY BACKING UP THE DATA: OTHER SITES AS DESCRIBED IN THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION STUDY ON FEBRUARY 19TH THAT WAS HELD, THE APPLICANT ME, VETTED OTHER SITES, DESCRIBED THE VETTING OF SITES, WHICH IS A STANDARD PROCESS MORE SPECIFICALLY AT LEAST EIGHT OTHER SITES DATING BACK AT LEAST TWO YEARS WERE REVIEWED AS DEPICTED TODAY. NUMEROUS SITE SELECTIONS SUCH AS SITE CONDITIONS, ENVIRONMENTAL, FLOOD PLAIN, ASSESS, TOPOGRAPHY, COVERAGE, FUTURE USE, ZONING, COUNTY CODES AND INCLUDING PRIVATE LEGAL AND CONTRACTUAL MATTERS STANDARD IN THE REAL ESTATE BUSINESS. AS DESCRIBED IN DOCUMENTED NUMEROUS SITES WERE STUDIED FOR NEEDED COVERAGE AND CAPACITY.

THE THIRD PARTY COUNTY ENGINEER DID REVIEW.

THE THIRD PARTY DOES NOT REVIEW EACH SITE BUT THE PROPAGATION MODEL TO VALIDATE THE NEED OVER. THE LIST AS PRESENTED ARE THE SITE OPTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS TOWER.

INCLUDING THE APPLICATION AND DETAILS BEFORE YOU TODAY.

IF THEY WERE OTHER OPTIONS NEARBY, WITHIN THIS SAME SEARCH RING THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN CANDIDATE SITES AND WE WOULD HAVE INCLUDED THEM IN OUR EXHIBITS.

I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE FUTURE PLANS ARE HOLDINGS INCLUDING THE VIABILITY OF THE SITE CONDITIONS IN THE AREA AT THIS TIME.

REGARDLESS OF OWNER AND WHETHER IT BE ON A SPECIFIC PARCEL IN A

[02:55:04]

PUD OR OTHER TRAFFIC. ROADWAYS AND TRAFFIC.

THE TOWER DOES NOT GENERATE TRAFFIC EXCEPT FOR A MAINTENANCE VEHICLE. DURING A CONSTRUCTION LIKE ALL PROJECTS WHETHER RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL OR UTILITY, THE COUNTY WILL ONLY AUTHORIZE PERMITS ONCE A MAINTENANCE OR TRAFFIC PLAN IS REVIEWED AND APPROVED PER THE COUNTY AND FDOT TYPE STANDARDS. THIS PROJECT WILL NOT BE BLOCKING ACCESS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ESPECIALLY FOR FIRST RESPONDERS. SOUND, THE TOWER WILL UTILIZE BACK UPGENERATORS IN CASE OF POWER OUTAGE.

THEY HAVE A DECIBEL RATING OF 65 WHICH IS SIMILAR TO THE FULL PROVIDER CAPACITY. THE TOWER BASE WILL HAVE AN 800 OPAQUE FENCE AND INCLUDE A TREE PACKAGE AROUND THE BASE.

WHICH INCLUDES BUT NOT LIMITED TO 24, 10-FOOT HIGH CEDAR TREES AT INSTALLATION. DISCUSSION OF UNTESTED SOIL IN HURRICANE COUNTRY. THIS IS NOT PRESUMPTIVE, IT'S FACT BASED. GEOTECHNICAL BORING TIP REALLY RANGES FROM 60 TO 70 FEET DEEP. FOR EXAMPLE, THE NEAREST TWO TOWERS TO THE SOUTH AS SHOWN ON YOUR SCREEN AS A 60 FOOT DEEP FOUNDATION AND 29 FEET DEEP FOUNDATION.

AS RESEARCHED LIKE THIS SITE ARE SIMILAR TO OTHER LOCATIONS IN THE AREA AND THE ENGINEERING AND OWNERS DO NOT ANTICIPATE ANOMALIES. FURTHERMORE, THE TOWER AND NOT FALL LIKE A TREE. THE PLANS ARE REQUIRED TO GO THROUGH PERMITTING REVIEW AT THE CURRENT PROCESS IF APPROVED.

THE TERM IS A STANDARD PRACTICE UNTIL READY FOR COMMENCEMENT OF ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION. IT DOESN'T MEAN THE PLANS LACK DETAILS PER NORMAL PROCEDURES. THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS TOWER BEING IN THE HEART OF THE COMMUNITY AND BEING AN INDUSTRIAL FACILITY. I CLEARLY THINK THOSE ARE TERMS THAT AREN'T BASED ON ANY FACTUAL EVIDENCE.

IT'S NOT IN THE HEART OF THE COMMUNITY.

AS DOCUMENTED BY THE DISTANCE RADIUS AND THE SEPARATION.

WE DID PROVIDE REPORTS TO PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL AND COMPETENT. THERE IS A DISTINCTION OF DOES NOT FIT AND COMPRESSED AGAINST RESIDENTIAL.

THE SHORES MATTERS ARE DIFFERENT AS STATED.

I APPRECIATE THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S CONFIDENCE IN THAT.

NEIGHBORS IN WORKSHOP. WE DID PROVIDE ONE.

WE LEGALLY NOTICED IT AND ATTENDED IT.

THEY WERE MINUTES TAKEN AND NOTES TAKEN AND ENTERED IN PART OF THE DATA IN THE RECORDS FOR THE COUNTY.

REGARDING ONE ROAD IN AND OUT. THAT IS NOT WITHIN THE PUD OR PUDS. AND ALSO, THE COUNTY WON'T ALLOW ANY PERMITS TO TAKE PLACE THAT BOCK TRAFFIC.

THERE WILL BE A MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC PLAN ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION TIME PERIOD WHICH IS ROUGHLY 10 TO 12 WEEKS AND NOT ALL AT ONE TIME. THERE'S A BASE DONE, THEN THE POWER AND OTHER ELEMENTS THAT PLAY INTO THE 10 WEEK TIME PERIOD THAT IS A GENERAL ESTIMATE.

THE SOUND ENCLOSURES AT THE BASE.

THERE ARE SOUND ENCLOSURES THAT EACH TOWER PROVIDER PROVIDE AS PART OF THEIR CONSTRUCTION PERMITS IF THIS WERE TO BE APPROVED. SO, THE SOUND ATTENDUATION.

THE CARS PASSING BY WOULD HAVE MORE NOISE THAN THE TOWER.

IN TERMS OF IMPACT AND NUISANCE, THE COUNTY WOULD REQUIRE A NOISE STUDY. THERE'S NO DOCUMENTED NOISE ISSUES WITH ANY TOWER WHATSOEVER.

AND I'M HERE TO TESTIFY I HAVE DONE IN TERMS OF MY PRESENTATION, 65 IS THE NORMAL RATING WHEN IN FULL CAPACITY.

ESPECIALLY WHEN GENERATORS COME ON.

A LOT OF HOMES ALSO HAVE GENERATORS.

WHEN THE POWER GOES OFF, THE GENERATOR COMES ON TO SUPPLEMENT THE COVERAGE AND CAPACITY. WITH ALL THAT.

THAT IS IRREFUTABLE SUBSTANTIAL COMPETENT EVIDENCE.

I DO HAVE MY LICENSED REAL ESTATE APPRAISER AND ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE ON THE APPRAISAL REPORT THAT WAS SUBMITTED. HE'S HERE AS WELL AS JOEL RUSSO IS HERE AS WELL FROM NEX TOWER. WITH THAT, I ASK FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE THIS MATTER BEFORE YOU TODAY.

[03:00:05]

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU.

MR. MATOVINA. THESE MAPS ARE INCONCLUSIVE.

WHY IS THIS WHITE FORD PROPERTY NOT INCLUDED IN THE SILVER LEAF

PUD? >> THAT IS AN ANSWER I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER TO THAT. I'M NOT SURE WHY.

IT WAS A SLIVER THAT CLEARLY HAS BEEN AN OUT PARCEL.

I DON'T KNOW THE HISTORY BEHIND IT.

WHY THAT SLIVER REMAINS OR. >> AND I ASSUME THAT THE PARCEL NORTH OF THE PARKWAY IS THE OR PORTION IS WHAT, IS THAT --

>> YES, >> THEY OWN.

>> YES. SO IT HAS A NICE STRAIGHT LINE.

>> THAT'S CORRECT AND REFLECTED IN THE PUD MAP AS WELL.

I CAN GO TO THAT IF WE NEED TO. LET ME SEE HERE.

>> YOU SEE THE OR ZONED LAND IN THE IMAGE.

THE PUDS RUN THAT LINE AND SHARE THE COMMON BOUNDARY WITH THE OR PIECE. AND THE SOUTH PORTION OF THAT OR PIECE IS REALLY THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY.

IS THE ST. THOMAS ISLAND PARKWAY.

NORTH OF THAT IS A MEET AND BOUND CONFIGURATION NOT INCLUDED IN THE PUD. FROM THIS STANDPOINT, IT LOOKS LIKE THE LOTS COME RIGHT UP TO THAT LINE AND IN FACT THEY DO.

BUT THEY AREN'T PART OF THE PLANTATION PUD.

>> SO, YOU WERE FLIPPING THROUGH MAPS THERE PRETTY QUICKLY.

THOSE WERE MAPS I WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE SEEN.

STOP RIGHT THERE. DO YOU HAVE A MAP THAT SHOWS WHERE THE WETLANDS ARE ON THIS PARCEL?

>> YES WE DO. GIVE ME ONE SECOND PLEASE.

>> RIGHT THERE IS THE YOU CAN SEE THAT LINE.

THIS IS THE JURISDICTIONAL DECLARATION WETLAND LINE.

>> EVERYTHING WEST IS DEVELOPABLE?

>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> SO COULD BE QUITE DISRUPTIVE IF YOU PUT A BUNCH OF 40 FOOT LOTS IN THERE.

A LOT OF TRAFFIC. >> LET ME ERASE ALL.

SO THE LINE, IF IT SHOULDN'T HOPEFULLY MARRY UP --

>> YEAH, I SEE WHERE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

THE TWO GREEN SHADED AREAS ARE THE SETBACKS.

ONE IS A TYPICAL 25 FOOT SETBACK FOR THE DEP AND THE CORPS AND ALL THE WETLAND AGENCIES. THE OTHER IS THE SETBACK AS DESCRIBED IN THE CODE. WE ARE MORE THAN 25 FEET AND THE HORIZONTAL ACCESS ROAD IS ALLOWED TO BE IN THE OTHER SETBACK AGAIN THAT'S NOT EVEN WITHIN 25 FEET OF THE JD LINE.

>> YOU'RE ANSWERING QUESTIONS I'M NOT ASKING.

GO BACK TO THE OTHER MAP >>

>> THIS MAP. >> YES.

SO SHOW ME THE DEVELOPABLE AREA HERE.

>> YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT SIR, WHAT IS SHADED IN BLACK.

>> HOW MANY ACRES, 6400 SQUARE FEET.

>> THE AREA AROUND IT. >> 153 OR 157 LOTS.

>> SOUTH OF THE ROAD, GOT ANY IDEA WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE PUD

SOUTH OF THE ROAD? >> NO.

I DON'T. WE KNOW THERE IS, LET'S SEE, IS

THAT WET? >> THERE ARE SOME AREAS IN THERE THAT ARE DEEMED PRESERVE AND CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE IN THAT PUD. BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PLANS ARE FOR THE OWNERS. THE SILVER LEAF PUDS.

>> STAFF DO YOU KNOW IF THERE'S --

>> PLEASE IN THE AUDIENCE, KEEP YOUR COMMENTS DOWN.

>> DO YOU KNOW THE PLAN AT THIS POINT?

>> FOR THE RECORD, JACOB SMITH. I'M LOOKING INTO THAT RIGHT NOW.

I WILL SEE WHAT I CAN FIND OUT. SO I HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION THEN FOR YOU. OBVIOUSLY, THE PINE TREES I THINK ARE PROBABLY AN IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION HERE.

HOW DOES IF WE'RE GOING TO VOTE FOR THIS.

HOW DO WE ENSURE THOSE PINE TREES STAY IN PLACE?

>> WELL, I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT.

THE PINE TREES, IT'S IN OPEN RURAL LAND USE AND OPEN RULE ZONING. CLEARLY YOU CAN SEE THE STANDA

[03:05:03]

PINES THERE THAT I THINK IN THE PAST WAS USED FOR HARVESTING AND SILVA CULTURE. I DON'T KNOW OF ANY PLANS OF THE OWNER ON HARVESTING THAT TIMBER FOR MONETARY PURPOSES OR DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES. I CAN ONLY SPEAK TO THE PARENT PARCEL AND THE 6400 SQUARE FEET LEASE HOLD AREA.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PLANS ARE FOR THE TREES.

>> YOU CAN ONLY SPEAK TO THE PARENT PARCEL.

>> I CAN ONLY SPEAK TO THE LEASE HOLD PARCEL.

THE 80 BY 80 SQUARE AND THE ACCESS ROAD INTO THAT.

>> AND WE HAVE AN AERIAL IN OUR PACKAGE.

I ASSUME THAT'S WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE CURR

>> YES. >> THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. MS. SPIEGEL.

>> YES, I HAD, I WANTED TO ASK YOU A QUESTION, SIR.

THERE WAS A COMMENT IN PUBLIC COMMENT.

YOU HAVE DONE A GOOD JOB OF ADDRESSING ALMOST EVERYTHING THAT THE NEIGHBORS BROUGHT UP WITH COMPETENCE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. MY QUESTION IS, WHO FIXES THE ROAD AFTER CONSTRUCTION. SOMEBODY SAID IN THE ROAD AND SIDEWALK GETS RIPPED UP, WHO FIXES THE ROAD? IS IT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE BUILDER?

>> IT'S THE PERSON THAT HOLDS THE PERMIT TO DO THE WORK.

IF THERE'S A MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC PLAN THAT REQUIRES A ROADWAY CLOSURE WITH CONSTRUCTION GOING ON WITH TYPICAL FLAG MEN AND CONES. IF THERE'S DAMAGE, ABSOLUTELY, IT WILL BE REPAIRED BY THE PERSON THAT DAMAGED THAT.

THE COUNTY HAS INSPECTORS AND WILL BE INSPECTING THE PROGRESS THAT TAKES PLACE HERE AND ONLY ONE ISSUE A FINAL APPROVAL UNTIL THE MAINTENANCE PER TRAFFIC PLAN AND PUTTING THE SIDEWALK AND CURB BACK INTO THE ORIGINAL OPERATING CONDITION.

THAT'S A VERY STANDARD PRACTICE. I ALSO WANT TO COMMEND I HEARD I AM THE CONSULTANT FOR WHITES FORD TIMBER.

I ONLY REPRESENT THE LANDOWNER IN THIS MATTER, BUT MY CLIENT IS NEXTOWER. I WANT TO BE CLEAR ON THE

RECORD. >> I WANT TO COMMENT ON THAT.

>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON WITH TO THE PUD TO THE SOUTH.

>> AND THE OWNER OF THE PARCEL DOESN'T BEAR CONSIDERATION TO US ON THAT BOARD. I DON'T THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE ARE CONSIDERING. THIS IS SILVA CULTURE AREA POTENTIALLY. OKAY.

MR. SMITH, I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR YOU IF I MAY.

HOW DO CELL TOWERS BENEFIT OUR COUNTY FINANCIALLY AND TANGIBLY.

>> I CAN'T COMMENT HOW IT BENEFITS BUT HOW PEOPLE DO COMMERCE WITH EACH OTHER. THEY HAVE A STRONG AND TANGIBLE

BENEFIT. >> IT'S MORE OF UTILITY IN

INDUSTRY. >> CERTAINLY THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY IS AN INDUSTRY.

A CELL PHONE TOWER IS A TYPE OF INFRASTRUCTURE FOR SOCIETY.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU.

I HAVE A COUPLE MORE. DO WE REQUIRE GEOTECH RESIDENTS FOR SPECIAL USE PERMITS OR IS THAT PART OF THE CONSTRUCTION

PLANNING PURPOSE? >> YES, MA'AM, SO THIS IS AGAIN, IT IS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND THE APPLICANT HAS TO SUBMIT A WHOLE HOST OF TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS WITH IT.

BUT THEY ARE NOT THE FINAL DOCUMENTS, IT DOES HAVE TO GO THROUGH CONSTRUCTION REVIEW PRIOR TO APPROVAL.

>> SO THEY WILL MAKE CHANGES NECESSARY BASED ON WHATEVER THE FINDINGS ARE AT THAT TIME. OKAY.

LET'S SEE. MR. MONZINGO.

ARE YOU HERE? >> OKAY.

COULD YOU ANSWER A QUESTION OR TWO, SIR.

THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. >> YEAH, I'M TIM OMNICOM

CONSULTING GROUP. >> WE HAVE A LOT ABOUT THE COVERAGE MAP. CAN THE EXPLAIN THE PURPOSE OF THE THIRD-PARTY REVIEW AND IF IT COVERS THAT.

IF THIS IS COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY BECAUSE OF NEW TOWERS THAT CAME ON. IS THAT CONSIDERED IN THE

OPINION MADE BY YOUR COMPANY? >> SO FOR THE THIRD PARTY REVIEW WE DO, WE LOOK AT SEARCH RADIUS FOR THE TOWER TO SEE IF THERE ARE OTHER TOWERS WITHIN A ONE MILE RADIUS THAT MIGHT BE USED IN LIEU OF THE TOWER BEING PROPOSED.

IN THIS CASE, THE CLOSEST TOWER IS 1.4 MILES AND VERIZON IS ALREADY ON THAT. WITH RESPECT TO THE COVERAGE ANALYSIS, VERIZON PROVIDES TECHNICAL DATA TO US.

WE VERIFY THAT IN OUR OWN COVERAGE ANALYSIS PROGRAM TO VERIFY THAT IN FACT, THE COVERAGE IS NEEDED THERE AND

[03:10:01]

THAT THE PROPOSED SITE WOULD HAVE HELP FILL AND YOU SAW OUR MAPS AS OPPOSED TO A VERIZON MAP AND HELP FILL IN THE AREA OF

INTEREST FOR THIS TOWER. >> SO THAT'S BASED ON ALL

PROVIDERS FOR THAT AREA. >> YEAH.

>> IN THIS CASE, THEY GAVE US A FREQUENCY RANGE OF 2100 MEGAHERTZ AND THAT IS WHAT WE USED AND THE HEIGHT AND THE TYPE OF ANTENNAS TO PROVIDE PROPAGATION MAPS FOR YOU TO LOOK

AT. >> OKAY.

WELL, THANK YOU. I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY ELSE HAS ANY QUESTIONS FOR YOU. BUT THAT TAKES CARE OF ME.

THANK >> ALL

THANK YOU. >> MR. CHAIR.

>> I JUST WANTED TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER MR. MATOVINA'S QUESTION ABOUT THE ADJACENT PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH.

AGAIN IS THE SILVER LEAF PUD, BROADLY SPEAKING, THAT ADJACENT PROPERTY HAS CONSERVATION LISTED ON ITS MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN MAP. IT DOES LOOK LIKE THERE MIGHT BE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. I DON'T HAVE ANY MORE DETAILS ON CONSTRUCTION PLAN. BROADLY SPEAKING, THAT LENGTH OF THAT ROAD IS, THE VAST MAJORITY OF IT IS LABELED CONSERVATION ON

THEIR MASTER DEVELOPMENT MAP. >> MR. WESTER, COULD YOU PLEASE ADDRESS THE CONCEPT OF AESTHETICS WITH REGARD TO THIS CELL TOWER AND YOU HAD A GRAPHIC UP A COUPLE PARAGRAPHS AND OUR DUTY WITH REGARD TO EVALUATING AESTHETICS AND THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS I BELIEVE IT WAS OF CELL COVERAGE.

SOMETHING ALONG THAT LINE. YOU SKIPPED BY IT.

AND I WANTED TO ASK YOU TO GO BACK TO THAT.

>> I WILL GO BACK TO THAT RIGHT NOW.

>> THERE IS JUST FOR MR. MATOVINA, THE RED BOUNDARY FOR PUD AND YOU SEE IN CONTEXT TO THE OR LAND WE WERE JUST

DISCUSSING A MINUTES AGO. >> THE COMPATIBILITY OF THIS, IT DOESN'T MEAN THE SAME AS. THAT'S AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION.

IT NEEDS TO LIVE IN HARMONY WITH CONTIGUOUS USES AND PER THE COMPATIBILITY EVIDENCE, I WENT THROUGH THIS ENTIRE SYSTEM HERE.

TALKS ABOUT WHAT IMPACTS AND THESE ARE LITERALLY FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IN TERMS OF THE STUDY OF COMPATIBILITY ELEMENTS TO THIS AND IT DOES TALK ABOUT GENERAL APPEARANCE AND AESTHETICS, WE ARE PITCHING THIS AS THIS MATTER AS PRESCRIBED IN LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 60812 D 3, G, H AND I. THE AESTHETICS ARE ALREADY PRESCRIBED AND WE ARE ADHERING TO THOSE AND NOT ASKING FOR ANY WAIVERS FROM THAT. VISUAL PRESENCE ALONE SHOULD NOT OUT WEIGH DEMONSTRATED SERVICE GAPS AFFECTING PUBLIC SAFETY.

OUR GOAL IS TO BALANCE THE CONCERN WITH THE DEMONSTRATED SERVICE NEED AND IMPLEMENT THE LEAST OBINSTRUCTIVE.

THE MONOPOLE TOWER HAS ENGINEERED FOR THE HEIGHT BEING THE MINIMAL AMOUNT NEEDED FOR THOSE FOUR PROVIDERS IF YOU WILL. HEIGHT OPTIMIZATION AND NEUTRAL FINISHES AND BUFFERS. THIS IS DESIGN MITIGATION PER THE DESIGN CODE. THE DEMONSTRATED PUBLIC NEED FOR SERVICE, WE HAVE SUBSTANTIAL COMPETENT EVIDENCE.

THAT COMPLIES WITH ALL OBJECTIVE STANDARDS INCLUDING HEIGHT, SET BACK AND SITE PLACEMENT. SO THAT IN -- THE STATEMENT I WANT. THE VISUAL ASPECT OF IT.

JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN SEE IT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S IMCOMPATIBLE.

WE ALSO LEVERAGED THAT WITH OUR SUBSTANTIAL COMPETENT EVIDENCE ON THE LACK OF COVERAGE AND THE CAPACITY AND THE WHOLE NEED OF WHY WE'RE IN THIS SEARCH RING AND LOCATION BASED ON CONTEXT WITH OTHER SITES WE EVALUATED AS WELL.

>> OKAY. THAT ONE STATEMENT THERE AT THE BOTTOM IS WHAT YOU REALLY WANTED YOU TO GET TO.

WHAT CONCERNS ME IS THAT IT TALKS ABOUT THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA AND THE AESTHETIC VALUES IN THE LDC.

[03:15:04]

THOSE ARE SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS WHEN DATA THAT I ASKED FOR ABOUT IF YOU'RE TOWER WERE NOT BUILT AND THOSE OTHER TWO TOWERS, THE ONE TO THE SOUTHWEST AND SOUTHEAST WERE ACTIVE AND THEY ARE NOW, WHAT WOULD THE COVERAGE BE LIKE AND WE DON'T HAVE A MAP THAT SHOWS THAT. SO THAT TO ME IS A DATA GAP IN

THIS PRESENTATION. >> I WISH YOU HAD THAT.

>> YEAH, DATA WE PROVIDED, SO THE OTHER TOWERS BY RIGHT, OBVIOUSLY HAD DATA SETS WITH THEM.

TO THE SOUTH. IN TERMS OF THE RF FREQUENCY AND CAPACITY. I WOULD VENTURE TO ASK THE THIRD PARTY CONSULTANT HIS OPINION ON THE MATTER.

AND THEN I CAN ALSO BRING UP MY EXPERT FROM NEX TOWER IN TERMS OF THE TOWERS ITSELF AND HOW THEY WORK TOGETHER.

I THINK THAT IMAGE IS DEMONSTRATING THE VOID IN CAPACITY AND COVERAGE IN THE AREA AND HOW BY SUBSTANTIAL COMPETENT EVIDENCE AND BACKED UP BY THE TOWER, THE THIRD PARTY TOWER CONSULTANT. THEY DIDN'T ASK FOR ADDITIONAL STUDIES. WHEN WE SUBMITTED THE MAPS, THE OTHER TWO TOWERS WEREN'T ONLINE YET.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN THERE'S NOT CAPACITY ISSUES IN THAT SPECIFIC

AREA. >> I AGREE, I JUST DON'T HAVE THOSE DATA. I MEAN, THEY WEREN'T PRESENTED.

>> THE DATA IS PROVIDED JUST BECAUSE IT WASN'T IN THE CURRENT CONTEXT AND LAYERING. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR. JUST BECAUSE TWO THE -- THE TWO TOWERS ARE OPERATIONAL DOESN'T MEAN THERE'S NOT A NEED.

>> I WISH I COULD EMBRACE THAT. I WISH YOU COULD SEPARATE THOSE

OUT. >> WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, YOU CAN ASK ME AND MY EXPERT OR THE THIRD PARTY EXPERT.

IF YOU NEED MORE INFORMATION ON THE VISIBILITY ELEMENT BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE OPPOSITION IS DISCUSSING, BECAUSE THEY CAN SEE IT, THERE'S DEMUNITION OF VALUE. THAT LENDS INTO THE VISIBILITY OF THE STUDY. WE HAVE PROVIDED DATA REQUIRED AND THE COUNTY DID NOT ASK US OR THE THIRD PARTY CONSULTANT DOES NOT ASK US TO PROVIDE ANY OTHER ELEMENT TO THE DATA IN TERMS OF PUT THOSE TWO TOWERS ON AND WHAT DOES IT DO TO THIS SITE.

THE TOWERS WORK TOGETHER. THAT'S WHY THEY'RE CALLED HAND OFF SITES. THEY WORK TOGETHER.

>> JUST WISH WE HAD THOSE, YOU COULD SEPARATE THEM OUT.

I THOUGHT THAT WAS A REASONABLE QUESTION TO ASK.

AND DATA TO HAVE. I HAVE GOT A COUPLE OTHER POINTS BUT I'M GOING TO WAIT FOR A MINUTE.

HERE'S ONE. AND MAY BE YOUR TOWER EXPERT, I AGREE HE'S AN EXPERT. HE'S BEEN INVOLVED IN THE TWO OTHER TOWERS. DO YOU HAVE A VISUAL OR VIDEO.

I ALWAYSMENTED TO -- WANTED TO SEE THIS.

DO YOU HAVE A VIDEO THAT SHOWS A TOWER FAILING AND THE FALL RADIUS OF 40 FEET? I WOULD LIKE TO ACTUALLY SEE THAT. WE HEARD IT OVER AND OVER.

YOU KNOW IT'S GOT A FALL RADIUS OF 40 FEET.

IT'S JUST FOR ME IT'S HARD TO BELIEVE.

BUT, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A VIDEO DEMONSTRATING THAT.

DOES THAT EXIST OUT THERE IN THE WORLD? SOMEBODY OBVIOUSLY HAS DONE THAT.

>> WELL, TO SAY DOESN'T EXIST, I DON'T KNOW.

IT'S NOT PART OF THE CRITERIA TO PROVIDE A VIDEO OF THE TOWER

COLLAPSE. >> I UNDERSTAND THAT'S NOT GOING

TO AFFECT MY VOTE. >> THAT WAS A REASON FOR THAT COLLAPSE. IF YOU NEED SPECIFIC COVERAGE ON THE MAPS, I WOULD DEFER TO THE NEXT TOWER EXPERT AND MY CLIENT AND OF COURSE THE THIRD PARTY TOWER CONSULTANT.

THEY MAYBE ABLE TO ADDRESS THAT BETTER.

>> WE HAVE A COUPLE -- >> IT WOULDN'T GO HERE UNLESS THERE WAS A CAPACITY NEED. ALL THE TOWERS, THE VERIZON AND ALL THE COLLOCATED PROVIDERS ON THOSE OTHER TOWERS KNOW HOW MUCH COVERAGE THEY'RE PROVIDING. THEY WOULDN'T HAVE AUTHORIZED US TO COMMENCE INTO THAT SEARCH RING TO GO FIND ANOTHER SITE.

THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE. THERE'S A CLEARLY SUBSTANTIAL COMPETENT EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING THE NEED FOR LACK OF CAPACITY AND THAT'S THE ENTIRE PREMISE OF THIS PROPOSAL TODAY AND HERE

BEFORE YOU. >> OKAY.

THANK YOU. YOU ALWAYS PROVIDE GOOD ANSWERS.

[03:20:02]

>> THANK YOU. MR. MATOVINA.

>> LEX, THIS QUESTION IS FOR YOU.

SO I HAVE A VERY BIG CONCERN. WE ARE RELYING ON EVIDENCE PRESENTED TODAY WHICH IS MAINLY THOSE PICTURES OF WHAT IS IT GOING TO LOOK LIKE FROM THE ROAD AND FROM THESE VARIOUS ANGLES AND BASED ON THE EXISTING TREE COVER THERE.

THAT TREE COVER OBVIOUSLY SITS OUTSIDE OF THE 80 BY 80 AREA.

CAN WE PLACE A CONDITION ON THIS ZONING THAT IN SOME SHAPE OR FORM REQUIRES THAT TREE COVERAGE TO REMAIN? THIS PROPERTY AS OR ZONING. IT'S GOT UPLANDS KIND OF NOT SURROUNDING IT BUT WEST OF IT. I COULD VERY EASILY SEE YOU KNOW SOMEBODY COMING IN AND IMMEDIATELY DEVELOPING IT AND PUTTING IN A NICE 100 FOOT WIDE LOTS OFF THAT ROAD.

I DRIVE BY CELL TOWERS ON BUSY ROADS LIKE SAN JOSE ROAD AND I DON'T CONSIDER THAT A DIMINUTION OF VALUE.

I CAN GO OTHER ROUTES. THESE PEOPLE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE. THEY LIVE ON A CUL-DE-SAC WITH 300 HOUSES ON IT. I BELIEVE THIS CELL TOWER IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE PINE TREES IN PLACE.

>> SO, WHICH PROPERTY ARE YOU WANTING TO PUT CONDITIONS ON? POTENTIALLY YOU CAN BUT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS SMALL.

BECAUSE IT'S JUST THE CELL TOWER LEASE POSITION THAT'S UNDER, THAT'S BEEN ADVERTISED FOR TODAY.

THE GENERAL LARGER PARCEL HASN'T BEEN ADVERTISED.

POTENTIALLY THERE IS A MECHANISM TO DO THAT.

IT REQUIRES HAVING THEM BE HERE AND HAVING THEM ACQUIESCE TO IT OR NOT. SECONDARILY AND IT WAS HINTED AT, THERE'S A STRONG PROTECTIVE RIGHT IN FLORIDA TO BE ABLE TO TIMBER PROPERTY. SO, EVEN IF THEY WERE REQUIRED, THERE MAYBE TIMES WHEN THEY TIMBER THE PROPERTY AND LOOK MORE BARREN THAN AVERAGE AND IT'S DIFFICULT TO TELL A PROPERTY OWNER THAT IF THEY HAVE IN OR AND THEY ARE USING AS AGRICULTURE, THEY CAN'T TIMBER THE PROPERTY.

THAT ALSO MIGHT CAUSE A LEGAL CONCERN THAT I WOULD WANT TO RESEARCH IF THEY WERE SOMETHING WE WERE GOING TO DO.

>> THANK YOU. >> MR. LABANOWSKI.

>> BRAD, YOU GET AWAY -- >> YES, SIR.

>> THE SLIDE UP WITH ALL THE WORDS IN THERE TOWARDS THE END.

>> I WAS TRYING TO GO TO AN AERIAL.

THE LAST ONE BEFORE YOU STARTED CHANGING IT.

>> OKAY. >> IF YOU COULD.

>> I THINK WE'RE GOING TO NEED NEW BATTERIES IN THIS REMOTE.

YOU WANT THE TEXT THAT I DESCRIBED.

MR. LABANOWSKI. >> YES.

>> WHILE YOU'RE DOING THAT, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE HEIGHT OF THE TOWER. YOU COULD TAKE A SINGLE HEAD AND BE 125 FEET IN THE AREA WITH A SINGLE HEAD.

EACH HEADS WERE ROUGHLY 15 FEET TALL WITH A LITTLE BIT OF SPACE BETWEEN THEM. YOU COULD HAVE A SINGLE HEADED TOWER THAT WOULD BE NOT AS VISUAL AS IS WHAT THE BUS ON TOP WOULD BE. IS THAT POSSIBLE?

TO HAVE A SINGLE HEAD? >> FOR THE COVERAGE AND CAPACITY THAT WAS SUBMITTED AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION, NO.

>> BUT YET YOU HAVE FOUR HEADS UP THERE YOU'RE SHOWING, THAT MEANS THE LOWER HEAD IS NOT GOING TO WORK?

SO YOU GOT THE TOP HEAD. >> RIGHT.

>> WHICH IS THE MAX ON THE TOWER.

THEN BELOW THAT, YOU HAVE THREE MORE.

SO THAT VERY BOTTOM TRANSMISSION HEAD IS NOT GOING TO BE ANY

GOOD? >> WELL --

>> SO YOU COULD HAVE A SINGLE HEAD ON THAT TOWER AND IT WOULD STILL WORK. IT WOULD STILL TAKE CARE OF --

>> WE PROVIDED THE INFORMATION BASED ON VERIZON BEING THE

ANCHOR TENANT >> THEY STILL WOULD BE THE

ANCHOR TENANT. >> AND THE COUNTY REQUIRES COLOCATION STANDARDS. ON MANY OTHER SITES, THEY ARE ALL COLLOCATES. THAT'S PROVIDED.

[03:25:01]

THIS IS THE HEIGHT >> THE MOST OPTIMAL HEIGHT.

WE'RE STANDING BEHIND THIS SUBSTANTIAL COMPETENT EVIDENCE WE PROVIDED FOR THAT. FOR THAT SPREAD OF SIGNAL TO PROVIDE THAT AMOUNT OF COVERAGE AND CAPACITY NEEDS.

>> YOU COULD DO THAT WITH A SINGLE HEAD.

YOU DON'T NEED TO HAVE ALL FOUR OF THOSE HEADS OR THREE OF THOSE HEADS UP THERE. YOU COULD GO WITH 125 FOOT HEAD WITH THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT AND STILL DO THE SAME COVERAGE.

>> WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I MEAN, I BELIEVE THE COUNTY'S TOWER CONSULTANT AND/OR THE COUNTY ITSELF WOULD HAVE ASKED FOR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. IN TERMS OF WHAT WE PROVIDED OR ADDITIONAL STUDY, THAT'S NOT THE CASE.

IT'S LITERALLY IN THE SUBSTANTIAL COMPETENT EVIDENCE IS THE OPTIMAL HEIGHT IS WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR.

THAT'S THE AMOUNT NEEDED FOR COVERAGE AND CAPACITY IN THAT AREA IN THAT SPECIFIC RING IF YOU WILL.

AND SO WHEN WE'RE SEARCHING FOR ALL SITES, YOU HAVE TO BE IN THE

CERTAINLY RING. >> SO THE 125 FOOT WILL NOT

MEET THAT STANDARD? >> I KNOW, THIS IS AT THE 11TH HOUR THAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR SOME DESIGN CHANGES THAT WEREN'T PART OF THE CRITERIA TO PROVIDE A LOWER TOWER AND WILL IT STILL WORK? SO, I AM NOT REALLY SURE EXACTLY HOW TO ANSWER THAT BESIDES WE PROVIDED ALL OF THE DATA AND IT HAS BEEN, WE HAVE CONCURRENCE FROM THE THIRD PARTY ENGINEER THAT THIS IS THE OPTIMAL HEIGHT FOR THIS TYPE OF COVERAGE AND CAPACITY. FOR THESE COLLOCATES.

THREE LEGACY PROVIDERS AND THE COUNTY REQUIRES FOUR.

>> TO ELIMINATE THE LEAST INTRUSIVE DESIGN HAS PRESCRIBED THAT STILL FUNCTIONS AND PROVIDES SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY. AND I WILL GO BACK, TO MY LIGHT POLE TRANSMISSION HEADS, AND IT'S BEING DONE RIGHT NOW, IT'S BEEN DONE FOR YEARS DOWN A 1 A FROM 206 ALL THE WAY DOWN TO MARINE LAND. THEY'RE ON TOP OF THE TELEPHONE POLES. DIFFERENT DESIGNS NOW.

THOSE ARE ANCIENT ONES. IF YOU LOOK OUTSIDE IN ST., IN DOWNTOWN SAINT AUGUSTINE, THEY PUT ONE IN THERE.

YOU LOOK AT BUCCEES. THEY PUT IN ONE.

JACKSONVILLE IS FULL OF THEM. THERE'S NO REASON WHY THESE CAN'T BE PUT IN. THE BEST THING YOU HAVE THE EXPRESSWAY GOING THROUGH THERE. THOSE TALL LIGHT POLES WILL BE DOWN THE EXPRESSWAY. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN GREAT TO SIT DOWN WITH F DOT TO HAVE THEM DONE THEN ON THE POLES.

THE COVERAGE CAN BE DONE WITH LESS INTRUSIVE.

>> WITH ALL DO RESPECT, THAT'S AN OPINION.

I DON'T BELIEVE YOU'RE A CELL TOWER ENGINEER.

>> THIS IS RESEARCH I DID. >> ARE YOU AN ENGINEER?

>> OKAY. >> BUT IT'S ENGINEERS THAT ARE PROVIDING THIS. SO, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO SAY. THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAD.

THANKS. >> I HAVE ONE QUICK COMMENT.

IT'S NOT GOING TO EFFECT MY VOTE.

I WONDER WHAT YOUR TOWER ENGINEER AND YOU ANYONE, NOT ANYONE IN THE ROOM. YOUR TEAM WOULD WANT TO ANSWER THIS. THE AND THIS IS NOT GOING TO AS I SAID AFFECT MY VOTE. IT'S SOMEWHAT IRRELEVANT TO THIS DISCUSSION. BUT I JUST WANT AN OPINION ABOUT THIS. I READ AN ARTICLE THIS MORNING THAT MARK CUBAN I ASSUME Y'ALL KNOW WHO HE IS.

A VISIONARY ENTREPRENEUR AND I GUESS HE OWNS THE DALLAS MAVERICKS STILL AND SAID TODAY, AT SOME POINT SOON, DATA CENTERS WHICH ARE REALLY A HOT TOPIC AND PEOPLE ARE ALL UP AND ARMS ABOUT DATA CENTERS, HE GOES DATA CENTERS SOON MANY OF THOSE ARE GOING TO BE PICKLEBALL COURTS BECAUSE THE TECHNOLOGY IS ADVANCING SO RAPIDLY IN TERMS OF MICROPROCESSORS AND SPEEDS AND OTHER ASPECTS OF TECHNOLOGY THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE, OVER BUILDING DATA CENTERS OR PLANNING FOR THAT.

I JUST WONDER IF THAT SAME LOGIC IS GOING TO ULTIMATELY APPLY TO CELL TOWERS. AND THAT WE ARE MAYBE OVER BUILDING CELL TOWERS. I DON'T KNOW.

I HAVE NO IDEA. AND THAT THE TECHNOLOGY IS GOING TO CATCH UP AND SURPASS THE NEED FOR THESE TALL TOWERS.

PLAYING ON THIS 5G NETWORK THAT CHUCK LABANOWSKI IS TALKING

[03:30:01]

ABOUT. >> IT'S HARD FOR ME TO COMMENT ON THAT. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HIGHLY URBANIZED AREAS VERSUS MORE RURAL AREAS LIKE ST. JOHNS COUNTY GENERALLY IS.

OKAY. THAT'S A VERY BIG DIFFERENTIATING FACTOR. COMPLETELY URBANIZED AREAS VERSUS MORE RURAL MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITIES LIKE ST. JOHNS COUNTY, AND AROUND THIS MATTER THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW. THOSE ARE TWO MAJORLY DISTINCTIVE FACTORS WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE SPECULATIVE PITCH THAT MR. LABANOWSKI IS MAKING ON A DIFFERENT TOWER COMMUNICATION INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVICE COULD GO HERE, COULD GO THERE.

IT'S SPECULATIVE AND OPINIONATED.

THE DATA CENTER I CAN'T COMMENT ON.

TECHNOLOGY IS MOVING FAST. BUT, RIGHT NOW, THE MATTER BEFORE YOU IS THE 5G AND ALL THE SUBSTANTIAL COMPETENT EVIDENCE WE SUBMITTED WITH ALL THE EXPERTS AND DOCUMENTS.

I ASK FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL TODAY, THANK YOU.

>> WELL YOU ALWAYS GIVE A GOOD PRESENTATION AND YOU'RE WELL PREPARED. YOU HAVE A LOT OF FACTS.

>> THANK YOU. I WILL SAY THOUGH, THAT AS FAR AS THAT AREA OF ST. JOHNS COUNTY THAT MR. LABANOWSKI IS TALKING ABOUT. NOT NOT HIGHLY URBANIZED FROM 206 TO A1 A. THERE'S HOUSES AND IT'S NOT

URBANIZED. >> THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE LINE OF SITE. IN AN URBANIZED SITE.

THANK YOU. SIR.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR, I GUESS WE ARE READY FOR A MOTION.

>> MR. MATOVINA. >> QUESTION AND THEN I WILL BE

MADE TO MAKE A MOTION. >> SURE.

I'M GOING BACK TO THESE TREES LEX.

PART OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED WAS THE PICTURES.

THE TREES ARE IN THE PICTURES. BUT WHEN I READ OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WHEN YOU GO TO THE LANDSCAPING SECTION AND STUDY IN DETAIL SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE TREES BEING REQUIRED.

SO, IF WE'RE GOING TO FOLLOW THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, IT SEEMS TO ME THERE'S ACTUALLY NO WAY FOR THOSE TREES TO EVEN BE RELEVANT EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE IN OUR EVIDENCE.

AM I THINKING CORRECTLY OR INCORRECTLY?

>> I THINK YOU'RE THINKING CORRECTLY IN THAT THERE'S NO WAY FOR EITHER PARTY OR ANY PARTY TO GUARANTEE THE

>> THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT.

SO, BASED ON THAT, AND BASED ON MY READING THE CODE HERE, I AM GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE 2025-29 THOMAS ISLAND PARKWAY TOWER BASED ON 11 FINDINGS OF FACT AND THE 10 CONDITIONS AS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. MATOVINA.

>> SECOND BY MISS PERKINS. ANY DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. PLEASE PUT OUR VOTING SCREEN UP.

THAT PASSES 4-3. CONGRATULATIONS MR. WESTER.

>> ALL RIGHT. I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO TAKE ANOTHER BREAK BEFORE OUR LAST ITEM.

I WOULD LIKE ONE. OKAY.

SO WE'RE GOING TO >> WE WILL RESUME OUR AGENDA FOR

[10. SUPMAJ 2026-09 Colee Cove Tower. Request for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Section 2.03.26 of the Land Development Code, to allow for the construction of a 199-foot monopole tower and support facility within the Open Rural (OR) zoning, located on an unaddressed par]

ITEM 10. ANOTHER SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR CELL TOWER. WE NEED EX PARTE.

MS. SPIEGEL. >> YES, SIR, I DID A SITE VISIT AND MET WITH TWO LOCAL RESIDENTS MR. COLOGNE AND MR. DUNLAP.

>> WELL LABANOWSKI. >> AND SEVERAL E-MAILS.

>> YES, I DID A SITE VISIT. I ALSO WENT TO THE COMMUNITY MEETING ON JUNE 22ND. RECEIVED TWO E-MAILS FROM STAFF, AND I RECEIVED ONE DIRECTLY TO ME.

ALSO HAD A MEETING WITH DORIS AND ROBERT DURHAM AND BLAND

COLOGNE. >> MR. OLSON.

>> ALL I HAD IS AN E-MAIL FROM ROBERT DURHAM.

HE'S IS AN ADJACENT NEIGHBOR AND I E-MAILED HIM AND GOT AN ANSWER

[03:35:03]

FROM HIM. >> MS. SPIEGEL WANTS TO MAKE A

CORRECTION. >> I MET WITH MR. DURHAM ALSO.

I APOLOGIZE FOR THE WRONG NAME. >> I HAVE DRIVEN BY THIS SITE MANY TIMES AND NOT WITHIN MIND THERE WAS GOING TO BE A CELL TOWER PROPOSED THERE AND ALSO RECEIVED COUPLE E-MAILS.