[2. ZVAR 2026-22 Claypool Residence. Request for a Zoning Variance to Table 6.01 of the Land Development Code to allow for a Front Yard setback of eighteen (18) feet in lieu of the required twenty-five (25) feet to accommodate the placement of a Single-Family home, specifically located at 360 Cape Avenue.]

SO WE'RE GOING TO GO TO ITEM NUMBER 2 WHICH IS A ZONING

[00:05:05]

VARIANCE. WE NEED EX PARTE.

THIS IS FOR THE CLAYPOOL RESIDENCE.

ANY EX PARTE. I SEE WE HAVE THREE PEOPLE.

>> I VISITED THE SITE AND DISCUSSED THE PROJECT WITH

CHARLIE CLAYPOOL AND HIS WIFE. >> I DID A SITE VISIT.

>> MR. OLSON. >> SITE VISIT ON THE 17TH.

>> SEEING NONE OTHER MR MR. CLAYPOOL -- HUNTER CLAYPOOL IS THE OWNER HERE COME ON UP. LET'S HEAR WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY.

>> HUNTER CLAYPOOL. I'M THE OWNER OF 360 CAPE AVENUE. I'M HERE TO GIVE A VARIANCE.

REQUEST FOR A ZONING VARIANCE TO TABLE 6.01 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ALLOW FOR THE FRONT YARD SETBACK 18-FOOT TO BE 25-FOOT. IN LIEU OF THE REQUIRED 25-FOOT TO ACCOMMODATE THE PLACEMENT OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME SPECIFICALLY LOCATED AT 360 CAPE AVENUE.

IT'S AN AREA MAP OF THE PROPERTY THAT I OWN.

THIS IS THE FLOOD ZONE MAP. THIS IS THE LOCATION.

THIS IS THE ZONING MAP. AND THAT'S IT.

>> OKAY. QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD.

MR. OLSON. >> I'M CURIOUS AS TO THE EXACT PLACEMENT OF YOUR STRUCTURE WHERE IT WILL BE SITTING REGARDING YOUR REQUEST FOR A FRONT YARD REDUCTION.

>> IT'S GOING TO GO ON -- LOOKING AT THE ZONING MAP YOU SEE HOW THE BOTTOM OF IT HAS THE TWO PIECES.

THE ONE JUST ABOVE IT. >> YOU CAN WRITE ON THE SCREEN.

>> RIGHT HERE THAT'S WHERE THE HOUSE IS GOING TO BE PLACED.

WHICH IS ON THAT LOT. IT'S THE ONLY THING THAT MAKES SENSE FOR THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY BECAUSE I DON'T OWN THE OTHER PIECE. ON THE OTHER SIDE OF IT.

THAT'S THE ONLY SPOT THAT CAN EVEN BE -- THAT'S THE ONLY SPOT YOU CAN PUT A HOUSE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE.

>> WHAT IS THE OPPOSING SIDE YARD.

I GUESS THAT WOULD BE THE SECOND SIDE YARD.

WHAT WILL THAT BE AFTER YOU PLACE THE STRUCTURE?

>> WHAT ARE YOU CONSIDERING THE SIDE YARD?

>> I'M ASSUMING YOUR SECOND FRONT YARD IS ON THE LEFT SIDE

OF THE IMAGE. >> THIS WILL BE THE SIDE AND

THIS WILL BE THE SIDE. >> OKAY.

THANK YOU. >> MR. MATOVINA.

>> WHY CAN'T YOU MOVE THE HOUSE TO THE NORTH INTO THE AREA WHERE

THE PROPERTY'S A LITTLE WIDER? >> THIS PIECE RIGHT HERE I DON'T

OWN THAT. >> NOT THAT PIECE.

>> I'VE GOT TO PUT THE HOUSE WHERE I ORIGINALLY DID JUST A MOMENT AGO BECAUSE I TALKED TO SOME COUNTY PEOPLE A WHILE BACK IN THE WORKS WHEN I WAS 18I GOT IT.

AND THE ORIGINAL PLAN WAS TO HAVE MY SISTER IN THERE.

IF SOMEBODY BUILDS ON THAT OTHER PIECE YOU HAVE TO HAVE A CUL DE SAC IS WHAT I WAS TOLD. 60-FOOT, 60-FOOT.

I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO THAT. THEN YOU'D BE -- HAVE TO BUILD THIS ROAD YOU HAVE DOWN HERE. UP TO BARCELONA.

SO THAT'S ANOTHER REASON WHY I HAD TO PUSH IT BACK.

AND I BOUGHT THE OTHER LADY'S LAND TO MAKE THIS EVEN POSSIBLE.

>> I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE TALKING THE SAME.

WHERE YOU HAVE THE HOUSE RIGHT NOW THERE'S SOME LAND CROSS-HATCHED IMMEDIATELY NORTH WHERE THE PROPERTY EAST TO WEST IS A LITTLE WIDER AND YOU PROBABLY WOULDN'T NEED A VARIANCE. YOU'RE SAYING BARCELONA IF YOU

PUT IT THERE -- >> THIS IS THE DRIVE THAT COMES OFF OF THE ROAD. THIS IS THE OTHER PIECE THAT MY

[00:10:02]

SISTERS GOT. SO SHE WAS TO BUILD THERE OR ANYBODY WAS TO BUY THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY, A FIRE TRUCK WOULD HAVE TO GET IN THERE. YOU HAVE TO HAVE 60-FOOT OF PROPERTY TO MAKE A TURN. THAT'S WHAT I WAS TOLD.

WHEN I WAS SPEAKING TO THE COUNTY PEOPLE.

SO THAT I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO PARK A VEHICLE.

ONLY MAKES SENSE TO PUT IT ON THAT OTHER PIECE.

IF YOU'VE ALL SEEN THE LAND -- THERE'S -- WOULDN'T BE NOWHERE TO PARK YOUR CAR. WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO ANYTHING.

>> OKAY. MR. LABANOWSKI.

>> EXACTLY WHAT DIRECTION IS THE HOUSE GOING TO FACE? IS IT GOING TO FACE I'M SO -- GOING TO SAY TO THE RIGHT.

>> THE FRONT DOOR YOU'RE SAYING? THAT'S GOING TO FACE THIS WAY.

>> NORTH. >> OKAY.

SO THE VARIANCE THAT'S NEEDED IS ACTUALLY A SIDE VARIANCE OR A

SECOND FRONT? >> IT'S THE FRONT.

>> SECOND? >> THROUGH THE CHAIR TO THE QUESTION -- THIS IS A FRONT YARD SETBACK.

THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BECAUSE THIS LOT IS DEFINITELY UNTRADITIONALLY SHAPED THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE DOES NOT START MEASURING THE FRONT YARD UNTIL THE LOT MEETS ITS MINIMUM LOT WIDTH WHICH IS PAST I WOULD GUESS -- I. WOULD CALL THE EASEMENT AREA BUT IT'S THE FRONT YARD, NOT A SECOND FRONT OR

ANYTHING LIKE THAT. >> OKAY.

THAT'S ALL I HAD. >> THANK YOU.

THAT'S HELPFUL. WILL YOU BE ON SEPTIC OUT THERE?

>> COUNTY SEPTIC? >> WILL YOU HAVE A SEPTIC MOUND ON THE PROPERTY? THAT'S OFF TO THE LEFT OR WHATEVER DIRECTION. THERE'S NO DIRECTION --

>> IT'LL BE ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.

>> IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'VE GOT IT MAPPED OUT IN A SQUARE.

TINY WRITING BUT OBVIOUSLY IT'S OFF TO THE LEFT WHERE THE HOME IS. THE REASON YOU NEED THE FRONT YARD SETBACK IS BECAUSE THEY START MEASURING AFTER THAT BOX.

YOU'VE GOT THE PART THAT STICKS DOWN AND THEN THE BIGGER BOX AND THE SMALLER PART SO THAT'S WHERE THEY START MEASURING FOR THE FRONT YARD AND WHY YOU NEED THAT SETBACK AND YOU NEED TO PUT THE HOUSE THERE BECAUSE IF YOU CRUNCH IT UP FURTHER, THERE'S NO ROOM FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES TO TURN AROUND.

>> THAT'S WHAT I WAS TOLD. >> IT'S AN UNUSUALLY CONFIGURED

LOT. >> WE WENT THROUGH TALKING ABOUT AND I FINALLY CAME UP -- MY GRANDPA BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY LONG BEFORE I WAS BORN. HAD PLANS WORKING ON IT AND ALL OF THAT AND I FINALLY GOT IT AND THIS HAPPENED.

IF YOU WENT OUT THERE IT'S LITERALLY THE ONLY SPOT.

>> I AGREE WITH YOU FROM WHAT I SAW.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM BOARD MEMBERS? SEEING NONE, ANYONE HERE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? YOU CAN SPEAK TO IT -- SEEING NOBODY TO SPEAK TO THIS, I GUESS MISS SPIEGEL WILL MAKE A MOTION. WE'RE BACK IN THE AGENCY FOR

MOTION. >> YES, SIR, I WILL IF NOBODY ELSE WANTS TO. I DON'T WANT TO STEP ON ANYONE'S TOES. I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ZONING VARIANT CLAYPOOL RESIDENT BASED ON SIX FINDINGS OF FACT

AND SIX CONDITIONS AS PROVIDED. >> MR. GREEN HAD HIS LIGHT ON.

MR. LABANOWSKI SECONDED. WE HAVE A MOTION.

FIGHTING OVER IT. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE COULD YOU PLEASE -- THERE'S THE VOTING BOX. IT PASSES 5-1.

SO YOU'RE APPROVED. I GUESS BARBARA MANNING IS STILL NOT HERE. OH, YOU ARE HERE.

DROVE ALL THE WAY FROM GEORGIA. OKAY.

[1. SUPMIN 2026-04 624 Cathedral Place. Request for a Special Use Permit, pursuant to Section 2.03.08 of the Land Development Code, to allow for a Manufactured/Mobile Home in Residential, Single-Family (RS-3) zoning, located specifically at 624 Cathedral Place.]

[00:15:03]

SO WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK TO NUMBER 1 WHICH IS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND IT'S ON CATHEDRAL PLACE BECAUSE WE NEED EX PARTE.

SO MISS SPIEGEL. >> I DID DO A SITE VISIT.

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

>> MR. OLSON. >> I WAS ON THE SITE ON AUGUST

17TH. >> THE FLOOR IS YOURS.

>> THANK YOU AND I APOLOGIZE FOR BEING LATE.

ON BEHALF OF MY FATHER IN LAW AND MY HUSBAND AND MYSELF WE ARE REQUESTING A SPECIAL PERMIT TO PLACE ON THE PROPERTY.

624 WEST CATHEDRAL PLACE. AND YOU CAN SEE THE PLAN BASICALLY THAT WE HAVE HERE. AND BASICALLY THAT'S WHAT WE'RE

REQUESTING. >> LET ME ASK THIS QUESTION OF OUR ATTORNEY. I JUMPED THE GUN A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO MENTIONING THIS IS NOW ALREADY ZONED RESIDENTIAL.

WITH THE NEW STATE LAW THAT'S COMING IN AT WHAT POINT DO WE NOT EVEN GET TO VOTE ON THESE ANY MORE? SINCE SHE WANTS TO PUT A MANUFACTURED MOBILE HOME ON THERE WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO VOTE ON THAT SHORTLY OR IS

THAT -- >> THAT DOESN'T COME INTO EFFECT

UNTIL JANUARY 1ST. >> JANUARY 1ST.

>> THAT'S RIGHT. OR DO I HAVE IT OFF?

>> YES, SIR. MR. CHAIR, THAT IS CORRECT.

JANUARY 1ST THE STATE LAW SIMPLY WILL ALLOW MANUFACTURED MOBILE HOMES ON ZONING THAT ALLOWS FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

WE'RE WORKING AS STAFF TO UPDATE OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH WILL PROBABLY BE DONE PRIOR TO THAT BUT IS STILL IN PROCESS AND WILL ONLY BE JUST PRIOR PROBABLY NOVEMBER OR DECEMBER.

>> THAT'S ANY RESIDENTIAL ZONING?

>> YES, SIR,. >> OKAY.

MR. OLSON YOU HAD A QUESTION OR COMMENT?

>> JUST A COUPLE QUICK QUESTIONS.

THERE ARE TWO OUTBUILDINGS ON THE NORTH SIDE.

THEY LOOK A BIT SHABBY NOW. WILL YOU BE RETAINING AND

RESTORING THOSE? >> WE PLAN TO REMOVE THEM.

>> YOU'RE GOING TO REMOVE THEM? MY OTHER QUICK QUESTION IS THERE'S AN EXTREMELY IMPRESSIVE TREE ON THIS SITE.

WILL YOU BE USING BEST PRACTICES TO TAKE CARE OF ANY GROUNDWORK

TO NOT INTERFERE WITH THAT TREE? >> YES.

WE PLAN -- WE CONSIDERED REMOVING THE TREE BECAUSE IT'S IN AN AWKWARD PLACE BUT IF NECESSARY WE WILL WORK AROUND

IT. >> THERE ARE ACTUALLY TWO IMPRESSIVE TREES. ONE LOOKS LIKE IT MAY BE ON THE RIGHT OF WAY OF CATHEDRAL PLACE. I'M NOT SURE.

BUT THEY PROVIDE WONDERFUL SHADE TO THAT PROPERTY.

WHOEVER'S LIVING THERE MAY REALLY MISS THOSE TREES IF THEY GO. THAT'S MY ONLY QUESTION OR

COMMENT. >> WERE YOU FINISHED MR. OLSON?

MISS SPIEGEL. >> YES.

I AGREE IF YOU CAN DO WHATEVER YOU CAN DO TO PRESERVE IT.

IT ADDS VALUE TO YOUR PROPERTY. DO YOU UNDERSTAND A SPECIAL USE PERMIT IS ONLY -- MUST BE STARTED WITHIN THE YEAR?

>> YES. >> THOSE ARE MY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. >> MR. LABANOWSKI.

>> I WAS GOING TO ASK ABOUT THE TREE ALSO.

MAINLY THE ONE THAT LOOKED LIKE THE FENCE HAD ACTUALLY GROWN INTO THE TREE. I DON'T KNOW IF IT HAD OR NOT.

THIS IS MORE SO -- ALREADY ANSWERED THE QUESTION ABOUT THE TWO OUTBUILDINGS CRAIG MR. SMITH, DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW IF THIS IS ST. AUGUSTINE CITY OR IS THIS -- IT'S HARD TO FIGURE

OUT THE BORDER. >> THIS IS MOST CERTAINLY LOCATED IN SAINT JOHNS COUNTY. IT IS RELATIVELY NEARBY THE CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE BUT AT SAINT JOHNS COUNTY.

>> THE REASON FOR THAT QUESTION IS I NOTICED THAT ON RAILROAD STREET WHEN I WAS OUT THERE VISITING WHAT CAN WE DO TO CLEAN UP THE MASSIVE DUMP ALONG THAT ROADWAY ON RAILROAD STREET? IS THAT SOMETHING THAT HAS TO GO BEFORE CODE ENFORCEMENT?

[00:20:03]

>> YES, SIR. I'M NOT AWARE OF THE SITE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT BUT IF THERE'S A PROPERTY MAINTENANCE ISSUE, CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE WOULD CERTAINLY --

>> ALONG RAILROAD THREE BETWEEN THE STREET AND TRAIN TRACKS.

I DON'T KNOW WHO OWNS THE PROPERTY.

THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM BOARD MEMBERS? ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE WERE BACK IN THE AGENCY FOR MOTION AND DISCUSSION.

MR. LABANOWSKI. >> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE -- SHOOT. THE VARIANCE FOR 2026-046 -- 624 WEST CATHEDRAL PLACE BASED UPON EIGHT FINDINGS OF FACT AND 11

CONDITIONS PROVIDED BY STAFF. >> MR. OLSON.

[INAUDIBLE] >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ANY DISCUSSION BY THE BOARD? SEEING NONE PLEASE PUT OUR VOTING SCREEN UP HERE THANK YOU. PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

[3. ZVAR 2026-25 Cypress Road Mobile Home Park . Request for a Zoning Variance to Table 6.01 of the Land Development Code to allow for the establishment of a Mobile Home Park on approximately 4.77 acres of land in lieu of the required ten (10) acres in Residential, Manufactured/Mobile Home (RMH) zoning, located specifically at 1045 Cypress Road.]

THANK YOU. PLEASE TRY TO KEEP THE TREE.

>> WE WILL. >> WE'RE NOW GOING TO ITEM NUMBER 3 WHICH IS A ZONING VARIANCE ON CYPRESS ROAD MOBILE HOME PARK. WE NEED EX PARTE FOR THAT BEFORE MR. WHITE HOUSE SPEAKS. MR. GREEN.

>> THIS MORNING -- WOULD THAT BE MR. WHITE HOUSE.

>> MR. LABANOWSKI. >> I TWO EMAILS AND ALSO VISITED THE SITE AND A BRIEF DISCUSSION WITH MR. WHITE HOUSE AFTER THE

TUESDAY BCC MEETINGS. >> MR. OLSON.

>> I HAD THREE EMAILS. I THINK ONE OF THEM WAS TRANSMITTABLE ONE OF THE OTHER EMAILS WHICH HAD 52 SIGNATURES ON IT. BOTH -- ALL COMMUNICATION FOR -- OPPOSED TO THE ACTION BEING REQUESTED.

AND I VISITED THE SITE ON THE 17TH.

>> MISS. >> I THOUGHT I TURNED YOUR MIC

ON. >> THANK YOU.

I DID TWO SITE VISITS. I DID RECEIVE THE SAME EMAILS REFERENCING OPPOSITION FROM THE NEIGHBORS.

I HAD A COUPLE OF CONVERSATIONS WITH SUZANNE REGARDING THIS APPLICATION AND SPOKE WITH WHITE HOUSE EARLIER TODAY ON THE PHONE. I HAD A PHONE CONVERSATION FROM THE CHAMBER AND THIS WAS BROUGHT UP AT OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE YESTERDAY AS WELL.

>> MR. MATOVINA. >> I HAD A -- PHONE CONVERSATION THIS MORNING WITH JAMES WHITE HOUSE TO PRIMARILY DISCUSS THE HARDSHIP AND SOME OF THE OTHER ASPECTS OF THE APPLI

APPLICATION. >> I RECEIVED TWO EMAILS.

ONE WITH MANY SIGNATURES AND I ALSO SPOKE WITH MR. WHITE HOUSE THIS MORNING. MR. WHITE HOUSE, THE FLOOR IS YOURS WHEN YOU ARE READY. THIS IS SOME SERVICE YOU'RE GETTING HERE. [INAUDIBLE]

>> APPARENTLY SOME TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES SO I'M JUST GOING TO DO IT FROM HERE. FOR THE RECORD JAMES WHITE HOUSE SEA GROVE MAIN STREET. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT FOR THIS REQUEST FOR ZONING VARIANCE 2026-25 CYPRESS HOME MOBILE HOME PARK. FOR TECHNICAL CODE VARIANCE TO ALLOW AREA IMPROVEMENT WITH EXPERT STAFF -- MOBILE HOME USE.

THIS IS AT 1045 CYPRESS ROAD AS YOU SEE FROM YOUR STAFF BEFORE REQUEST FOR ZONING VARIANCE DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ALLOW FOR THE STAFF MOBILE HOME PARK ON APPROXIMATELY 4.7 ACRES OF LAND THAT MEETS AND EXCEEDS THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF OUR CODE IN LIEU OF THE TABLE REQUIREMENT OF 10 ACRES AND RESIDENTIAL MANUFACTURED MOBILE HOME ZONING LOCATED SPECIFICALLY AT 10.5.

[00:25:01]

CYPRESS ROAD. THIS IS LOCATED JUST TO THE WEST OF DOBBS ROAD ON CYPRESS ROAD AS YOU CAN SEE.

HERE'S A CLOSER VIEW. YOU CAN SEE HERE IN THE ORANGE US1. THE PURPLE RUNNING NORTH SOUTH.

YOU SEE KING'S ESTATE AND YOU ALSO SEE ON CYPRESS ROAD IN THE YELLOW 207 IN THE ORANGE ON THE LEFT? IT'S BACK IN THIS AREA WHERE THERE'S A NUMBER OF MOBILE HOME PARKS IN THE AREA, THE SURROUNDING AREA TO DEVELOP THE SCENE ABOVE. IN BOTH THE AERIAL AND THE ZONING. YOU CAN SEE WHAT SURROUNDS THE PARTICULAR PROPERTY. WE'RE IN THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION OF RESIDENTIAL C. WE'RE IN THE ZONING AS I STATED OF RESIDENTIAL MOBILE HOME SO THIS IS A LOUD USE.

WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR THE USE ITSELF, WE'RE ASKING FOR OUR TECHNICAL CODE REQUIREMENT WHICH IS IN ONE OF THE CHARTS WITHIN OUR CODE. IN FACT THIS APPLICATION WENT THROUGH BRC AND MET ALL THE CODE REQUIREMENTS FROM ALL DEPARTMENTS THAT HAVE ALL SIGNED OFF AND THEN WHEN THEY GOT TO THE END THERE WAS ONE REQUIREMENT THAT CAME UP WITH A MINIMUM OF 10 ACRES SO EVERY OTHER CODE REQUIREMENT IS BEING FOLLOWED ON THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT.

YOU SEE FROM YOUR PLANNING AND ZONING REVIEW IN YOUR STAFF PACK THE UNDERLYING ZONING ALLOWS FOR THE USE OF THIS MOBILE HOME BY RIGHT. THESE STANDARDS APPEAR TO BE MET WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE 10-ACRE MINIMUM IN THAT CHART.

HERE YOU SEE THE CHART ITSELF FROM OUR CODE WHICH IS IN YOUR STAFF REPORT AND PARTICULARLY SHOWS YOU IT MEETS ALL THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS SAVE THE ONE IN THE MINIMUM LOT AREA YOU SEE OUTLINED IN YELLOW WHICH IS 10 ACRES.

STAFF TELLS YOU IN THEIR EXPERT PLANNING REVIEW THE USE OF INDIVIDUAL MOBILE HOMES AND MOBILE HOME PARKS IS PREDOMINANT IN THE AREA. THERE'S MULTIPLE INSTANCES OF MOBILE HOME PARKS IN THE AREA UNDER OWNERSHIP FROM A SINGLE ENTITY WERE UNITS RENT OUT CYPRESS PARK LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 0.15 MILES TO THE LEFT OF THE PROPERTY AT 1150 CYPRESS ROAD HAS 16 MOBILE HOMES ON 2.46 ACRES WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 6.5 UNITS PER ACRE BARTLETT MANOR IN 1960 APPROXIMATELY TWO-POINT -- CONSISTS OF 54 LOTS RANGING IN SIZE FROM 100 SQUARE FEET TO -- AND THAT'S APPROXIMATELY 3.6 UNITS WHICH IS SIMILAR TO WHAT THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY IS ASKING FOR. THERE ARE MORE INSTANCES OF SIMILAR MOBILE HOME PARK USES THAT EXIST TO THE SOUTH ON CYPRESS ROAD AND THIS IS FROM YOUR STAFF REPORT.

WITHIN OUR CODE WE TALK ABOUT BY REASON OF USE DEVELOPMENT THE PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY JOINS A PIECE OF PROPERTY IN QUESTION HERE YOU CAN SEE THE IMMEDIATELY ADJOINING AREA TO THE EAST IS ALL MOBILE HOME USE IN SMALLER LOT SIZES.

WE KNOW WHAT VARIANCES ARE UNDER OUR CODE.

STAFF GIVES THEM TO YOU AND FOR CRITERIA ITSELF, I WILL GO THROUGH THEM REALLY QUICKLY. SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT BE CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. THIS REQUEST IS SPECIFICALLY BASED UPON THE PATTERN OF ADJOINING DEVELOPMENT WHICH THIS UPDATE WHICH FULLY MAPS THE SURROUNDING MOBILE HOME USES AND COMPLIES WITH THE DENSITY ALREADY APPROVED FOR THIS RESIDENTIAL FUTURE LAND USE AND ALL THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF TABLE 6.01 AND OUR CODE FROM MOBILE HOME USE INCLUDES COMBINING THE THREE AND DEVELOPING A UNIFIED PLAN FOR THE MOBILE HOME PARCELS ALL OF WHICH MIRROR THE SAME SIZE OR BIGGER AS THE SURROUNDING MOBILE HOME USES THAT HAVE BEEN HERE FOR YEARS ACCORDINGLY THIS REQUEST BASED UPON THE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AREA DOES NOT AFFECT ANY ADJACENT AND AREA RESIDENTS UNDULY. AGAIN BY REASON OF THE USE OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE PIECE OF PROPERTY IN QUESTION THE WAY THE AREA'S DEVELOPED OVER THE YEARS THE REQUEST IS REASONABLE AND APPROPRIATE TO ALLOW A SIMILAR DEVELOPMENT GRANT RELAXATION OF THE AREA REQUIRED PRIMARILY BECAUSE OF THE -- BECAUSE THE PROPOSAL CLEARLY MEETS AND EXCEEDS THE AREA SETBACK AND SIZE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE NOTABLY THE REQUEST FOR 7100 SQUARE FOOT WHICH EXCEEDS BOTH STATE REQUIREMENT AND CODE REQUI REQUIREMENT. AS I'VE SAID, THE LITTLE ENFORCEMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE CAUSING HARDSHIP -- SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CODE FOR THIS PARTICULAR SIZE OF THE CHART WHICH IS 10 ACRES THERE'S NO SPECIFIC REFERENCE WITHIN OUR CODE AT ALL AS TO WHY WE ASK FOR A MINIMUM OF 10 ACRES FOR THIS PARTICULAR TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT. IN FACT IN FLORIDA LAW AS ALL OF YOU KNOW THERE HAS TO BE A LEGITIMATE STATE INTEREST THAT'S FURTHERED BY THE AMOUNT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE WE TALK ABOUT THE 10 ACRES. THE 10 ACRES IS THE ONLY THING THAT EXPERT STAFF AND MYSELF COULD COME UP WITH IS SO YOU CAN MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE.

THIS PARTICULAR MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE SO IF

[00:30:03]

FOR INSTANCE YOU HAVE TWO LOTS ADJACENT THAT MADE THIS 10 ACRES YOU HAVE THE SAME DEVELOPMENT ON THIS PROPERTY, IT'S JUST THIS TECHNICAL REQUIREMENT OF THE CODE THAT REALLY DOESN'T HAVE A REASON AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE ASKING -- THAT'S WHY IT'S AN UNDUE HARDSHIP TO MOVE FORWARD UNDER THIS FINALLY THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE CODE.

THE REASON FOR THE REQUEST IS CLEARLY BASED ON USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTIES IMMEDIATELY ADJOINING THE PIECE OF PROPERTY IN QUESTION AND THE AREA AND THE DESIGN WHICH MATCHES THE ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT AND IS WHOLLY COMPATIBLE AS FOUND BY YOUR EXPERT STAFF PROVIDES INCREASED PARCEL SIZES THAT EXCEEDS ALL THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE IN THE PLAN CLEARLY MEETS THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CODE IN THIS REGULATORY SCHEME THUS A REASONABLE REQUEST JUSTIFIED UNDER THE CODE AND PLAN MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS AND IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE CODE.

AGAIN WE TALKED ABOUT THAT WHOLE AREA -- THE ZONING ITSELF ALLOWS FOR MOBILE HOME USE BY RIGHT AND WE TALKED ABOUT HOW IT MEETS EVERY REQUIREMENT. HEALTH, SAFETY, FIRE, ET CETERA AND IT'S BEEN GONE THROUGH AND DEVELOPED IN REVIEW AND FOUND TO MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS SAY THIS ONE -- THIS ONE REQUIREMENT A MINIMUM OF 10 CRES AS YOU SEE FROM YOUR STAFF REPORT TECHNICAL DIVISION REVIEWS SIGNED OFF ON IT.

AS I SAID FROM THE STAFF REPORT ITSELF YOU SEE THERE ARE THE USE OF MOBILE HOMES AND MOBILE HOMES PARKS IS PREDOMINANT IN THIS AREA IN ADDITION A MAJORITY OF THE INDIVIDUALLY OWNED RESIDENTIAL LOTS IN THE AREA ARE DEVELOPED WITH MOBILE HOMES.

STAFF PUTS THE -- ANOTHER PLOT IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THIS IN YOUR STAFF REPORT WHICH TALKS ABOUT THOSE LOTS BEING DEVELOPED HERE. YOU CAN SEE ON OUR FUTURE LAND USE MAP ON OUR MAP IT SHOWS HOW THESE ARE ALL DOTTED.

IMMEDIATELY TO THE EAST AS WELL AS THE NUMBER OF THEM TO THE WEST ITSELF YOU CAN SEE HERE I'VE HIGHLIGHTED THAT FOR YOU AND SEE HOW IT'S IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY. HERE AGAIN YOU CAN SEE HOW IT FITS INTO OUR REGULATORY ZONING SCHEME WHICH IS RESIDENTIAL MOBILE HOME IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT HERE YOU CAN SEE AGAIN ON OUR EYE MAP WE HAVE THE DOTTED ADDRESSES WHICH ARE ALL MOBILE HOME THAT ARE EITHER THE SAME SIZE OR SMALLER THAN THE ONES WE'RE ASKING FOR. HERE YOU CAN SEE THE SITE PLAN ITSELF OVERLAID IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTIES AS DEVELOPED NEXT DOOR TO THE EAST WHICH IS ALL MOBILE HOMES.

THIS PARTICULAR SITE PLAN WILL IN A MOBILE HOME ITSELF ACTUALLY CONTAIN ITS OWN WATER. THEY'RE REQUIRED TO DO SO AND YOU SEE THAT ON THE SITE PLAN AND AGAIN HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY TECHNICAL STAFF APPROVED. THEY ALSO PROVIDE THE ACCESS ABILITY FOR FIRE TO GET ON THIS PARTICULAR STREET AND ALSO ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE A BUFFER WHICH MOBILE HOME TO MOBILE HOMES NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE THAT BUT IF YOU NOTICE ON THE WEST AND SOUTH SIDE THEY HAVE A BUFFER WHICH INCLUDES TREES AND LANDSCAPING AS WELL AS A 6-FOOT FENCE. AS I SAID THE SITE IS WITHIN THE REPORTS HAVE BEEN REVIEWED BY TECHNICAL STAFF AND MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS AND YOU CAN SEE THEY PROVIDE FOR THE AREA OF RECREATION ON THIS PARTICULAR LOT.

I'M TRYING TO GO -- ON THIS PARTICULAR SITE IS LARGER THAN THE STATE REQUIRES 2400 PER SITE PLAN.

OUR CODE REQUIRES APPROXIMATELY 6000 PER SITE AND THESE ARE MAJORITY 6500 OR GREATER MOSTLY 7100.

I ALREADY TOLD YOU ABOUT ALL THAT.

FINALLY YOU SEE IN THE STAFF REPORT THEY TALK ABOUT THE OTHER ONES AND PROVIDE MAPS ET-CETERA APPROVED SHOWING THAT MOBILE HOME PARKS HAVE BEEN APPROVED IN THIS AREA.

IN THE PAST THAT PARTICULAR CODE REQUIREMENT HAS BEEN IN OUR ZONING CODE SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THAT CHART BUT OTHER APPROVED -- HAVE BEEN APPROVED IN THIS AREA LESS THAN 10 ACRES SO THERE'S NO REAL UNDERSTANDING AS TO WHY THEY WERE OR ANY RECORD OF VARIANCES FOR THIS BUT IT'S BEEN APPROVED IN THIS AREA BEFORE. IN CONCLUSION UNDER OUR CODE -- CODE THE APPLICANT'S REQUIRED -- THE APPLICANT TO SHOW THE REQUEST IS NOT INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED CLEARLY SHOWS THE REQUEST IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AND REQUESTED CHANGES ARE IN FACT NOT CONTRARY TO THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CODE.

ACCORDINGLY SHOWING THE REQUEST IS NOT -- AND WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENT TO THE AREA WAS NOT IMPAIRING THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE CODE. I SHOWED THE SECTION OF OUR CODE AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. IT FURTHERS AFFORDABLE HOUSING WHICH AGAIN THIS IS THE AREA WITH A NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE HOUSES WITH THIS TYPE OF USE AS YOU REFERRED TO EARLIER THE STATE'S PREEMPTIVE IN SOME AREAS BECAUSE THE STATE RECOGNIZED AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS GAINED BY HAVING MANUFACTURED AND MOBILE HOMES AND THIS IS AN AREA THAT IS PREDOMINANTLY THAT USE AND

[00:35:03]

THEREFORE THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY AS A MOBILE HOME PARK NOT ONLY APPROVED THAT AREA BUT WILL PROVIDE MORE OF THOSE HOUSES AND ALSO MEET THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS WITH CONTAINING STORMWATER, PROVIDING SAFETY AND SO ON PUBLIC UTILITIES.

MEETS ALL THE OTHER CODES SAVE THAT ONE.

IT'S A REVIEW -- WE'VE PROVIDED THE REVIEW AND ACCEPTABLE SITE PLAN AND PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS OF STAFF AND THE ABOVE ANALYSIS IN SUPPORTING THE REQUEST FOR THE SLIGHT RELAXATION OF THE ONE TERM IN OUR CODE INDEED MEETING ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF OUR CODE SAVE THE ONE TOTAL SIZE AREA AND MAKE UP FOR THIS IN THE INCREASED SIZE OF THE LOTS AND CONTAINMENT OF ALL STORM WATER AND PROVISION OF BUFFERS AS NOTED IN THE EXPERT STAFF REPORT IN THE SITE PLAN WHEREVER THEY CLEARLY MEET THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF OUR CODE. AS I SAID IT WAS REFERRED TO ALL THE -- DEPARTMENTS. TECHNICAL HAS REVIEWED THE SITE PLAN, SIGNED OFF SAVE THE ONE SIZE REQUIREMENT.

STAFF PROVIDES SUGGESTED MOTION TO APPROVE WITH SIX FINDINGS AND SIX CONDITIONS. WERE THE APPLICATION EXPERT REVIEW MAKES IT CLEAR THIS REQUEST TO ALLOW THE COMPATIBLE MOBILE HOME USE INCREASE LOT SIZES TO ACCOUNT FOR RELAXATION OF TOTAL AREA WHICH REQUIRES VARIANCES BOTH REASONABLE AND COMPATIBLE TO THE AREA. THEREFORE SINCE ALL THE EVIDENCE AND EXPERT REVIEW MADE AS CLEAR THE REQUEST IS BOTH REASONABLE AND COMPATIBLE FOR APPROVAL UPON REVIEW AND RESPECT FOR REQUEST -- REASONABLE REVIEW AND GRANT THIS VARIANCE AND I'M HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS THANK YOU MR. CHAIR.

>> THANK YOU MR. WHITE HOUSE. MR. MADDALENA.

>> I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS OF STAFF.

ONE IS IF WE DON'T GRANT THIS VARIANCE, WHAT'S THE APPLICANT

ALLOWED TO DO ON THIS PROPERTY? >> WHAT CAN THE PROPERTY OWNER

DO? >> PARDON ME?

>> WHEN YOU ASK THAT QUESTION DO YOU MEAN WHAT ARE THEY ABLE TO

DO RIGHT NOW OR HYPOTHETICALLY? >> WHAT ARE THEIR DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS IF THEY HAVE 4.77 ACRES AND THEY HAVE THIS ZONING WHAT

ARE THEY ALLOWED TO DO. >> SO UNDER RMH IT IS INTERESTING AS THE APPLICANT MR. WHITE HOUSE BRINGS UP BOTH FOR SUBDIVISION AND FOR MOBILE HOME PARK THE 10-ACRE REQUIREMENT SITS THERE FOR BOTH OF THEM UNDER ARTICLE SIX.

STAFF DID TRY TO DO RESEARCH AND FIGURE OUT WHERE THAT COMES FROM. WOULD OTHERWISE SAY THEY COULD SIMPLY COME IN AND PLAT AND MAKE A BUNCH OF INDIVIDUAL LOTS, BUT THEY ARE TECHNICALLY BURDENED BY THAT SAME RESTRICTION EVEN TO SUBDIVIDE ON THAT PROPERTY. HOWEVER THEY HAVE A VERY HIGH LAND USE AND RESIDENTIAL SEATS AND A LOT OF DENSITY AVAILABLE TO THEM BUT ULTIMATELY TO BUILD INDIVIDUAL LOTS IT WOULD MORE LIKELY REQUIRE A REZONING TO GET AROUND THIS 10-ACRE STAND.

>> LET ME ASK MY QUESTION PEER CAN THEY PUT ONE MOBILE HOME ON

IT RIGHT NOW? >> THEY CAN AND THERE ARE AT LEAST THREE EXISTING MOBILE HOMES I BELIEVE.

I BELIEVE THERE'S THREE CURRENTLY ON THERE.

THEY COULD REPLACE ONE MOST CERTAINLY IF THAT'S THE QUE

QUESTION. >> SO THIS WAS PLATTED IN 1958 BEFORE THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WAS ADOPTED.

DOES THAT INTERPLAY AT ALL WITH THE APPLICABILITY OF THIS

PROVISION? >> I BELIEVE IT'S THREE SEPARATE LOTS OF RECORD AND SO UNDER THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ULTIMATELY AGAIN THERE'S THREE UNITS THERE SO THAT CHECKS OUT.

UNDER THIS PROPOSAL THERE'S NO RECONFIGURATION OF THE LOT OF RECORD OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. IT REALLY JUST BECOMES A BIG PARCEL ID AND INHERENTLY ALLOWS FOR THREE BY RIGHT AS IT SITS WITHOUT ANY SORT OF SUBDIVISION CONSTRUCTION PLANS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. BUT WITH AN APPROPRIATE ZONING OR VARIANCE, AGAIN THERE ARE ALLOWANCES TO -- SUBSTANTIALLY HIGHER OCCUPANCY IN THE SURROUNDING I GUESS EASTERN ADJACENT RMH NEIGHBORHOOD SEEMINGLY SOMETHING LIKE THAT WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE WITH THE ZONING BUT DIDN'T HAVE THAT

10-ACRE LIMITATION. >> I'M GOING TO ASK MY QUESTION AGAIN. YOU'VE ANSWERED IT WELL BUT I WANT TO BE SURE AND CLARIFY SOMETHING FOR YOU.

THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION SEEMS TO CLEARLY INDICATE THIS IS A PART OF LOT 17. IT DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING ELSE

[00:40:02]

ABOUT ANY OTHER LOT. THAT BEING SAID IT'S A PLATTED LOT OF RECORD PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SAYS IF YOU HAVE A PLATTED LOT OF RECORD, YOU ARE EXEMPT FROM CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS. IS THERE ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM EXEMPT FROM THE 10-ACRE REQUIREMENT AS A RESULT OF BEING

PLATTED BOTTOM RECORD -- >> I'M NOT AWARE OF ANYTHING THAT WOULD MAKE IT THAT WAY BUT I WOULD DEFER TO THE APPLICANT OR COUNSEL IF THEY HAVE ANYTHING IN THAT MATTER.

I THINK PERSONALLY THE APPLICANT IS PURSUING THE RIGHT PATH.

>> THEY HAVEN'T MADE ANY LEGAL ARGUMENT THAT THEY WOULD BE EXEMPT FROM THE REQUIREMENT UNDER SOME UNDER -- SOME OTHER MECHANISM AND THIS LOOKS LIKE IT IS PLOTTED FOR RESIDENTIAL

CURRENTLY. >> MR. LABANOWSKI.

>> DID I HEAR YOU CORRECTLY IT'S GOING TO BE ON SEWER.

>> YES, SIR,. >> AND CITY WATER.

I DID SEE THE ONE DRAINAGE UNIT OUT THERE, THE SEPTIC TANK.

RIGHT NOW CURRENTLY. >> THAT MAY BE TRUE BUT THE PART

OUT WILL BE ON CENTRAL. >> FROM LOOKING AT THE LAYOUT IT LOOKS LIKE YOU CAN CLEAR CUT THAT WHOLE SECTION.

TREES, EVERYTHING'S GOING TO BE GONE?

>> THEY'RE GOING TO MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE OBVIOUSLY. THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.

MY PARTICULAR REQUEST HERE IS THE VARIANCE ON THE ACREAGE.

THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE SITE AS YOU SEE WITHIN YOUR CODE. JUST MEETING ALL OF THOSE I'M NOT 100% SURE OF WHAT IT MEANS AS FAR AS HOW THEY'RE GOING TO DEVELOP EACH OF THE SITES BUT THE STAFF HAS SIGNED OFF ON THIS. AND THEY WILL COME BACK OBVIOUSLY FOR FINAL -- APPROVAL AFTER.

>> AND THEY'RE CHANGING THE ENTRYWAY AS WELL SO IT'S GOING TO BE IN THE MIDDLE. RIGHT NOW IT'S ON THE END.

>> YES. THANK YOU.

>> MISS SPIEGEL. >> I KNOW WE'RE NOT HERE TO DECIDE THIS BUT I THINK IT MIGHT BE A POINT HELPFUL TO THE OPPOSITION HERE CAN YOU SHOW THE LAYOUT AGAIN.

YOU TALKED ABOUT THE SOUTH AND EAST WITH A BUFFER AND FENCING AND RETENTION POND TO THE NORTH PIER CAN YOU TELL ME IF THERE WOULD BE A FENCE ON THAT EDGE OF THE PROPERTY? WHATEVER DIRECTION. I DON'T SEE.

IT'S THE ONE THAT'S BETWEEN THE MOBILE HOMES.

>> FOR THE BUFFERS. THAT WAS THE SPACE.

LET ME GET BACK WHERE I HAVE THE BUFFERS.

HERE. THIS IS ON THE SOUTH SIDE -- I'M SORRY THIS IS ON THE WEST SIDE HERE BETWEEN OR AND THE RESIDENTIAL MOBILE HOME YOU HAVE A BUFFER, LANDSCAPING WITH 6-FOOT PRIVACY FENCE AND TREES. ON THE WEST --

>> I WAS LOOKING AT THE OTHER SIDE.

THE SIDE WITH THE RETENTION P POND.

>> COULD YOU TURN THAT 180 DEGREES FOR US?

>> OKAY. >> THANK YOU.

>> IS THAT BETTER? THIS IS THE EAST SIDE OVER HERE WHERE THE RETENTION POND IS. THIS IS THE SOUTH SIDE AND THIS IS NORTH, CYPRESS UP HERE. AND THEN YOU SEE HERE OR ZONING TO THE SOUTH, THAT'S ANOTHER 20B BUFFER WHICH IS TREES AND LANDSCAPING. AS WELL AS THE FENCE.

ON THE EAST SIDE IT'S MOBILE HOME TO MOBILE HOME SO TECHNICALLY THERE'S ZERO BUFFER ON THAT UNDER OUR CODE ITSELF THEY PLAN TO HAVE THIS 8-FOOT SETBACK OBVIOUSLY ALONG HERE AND THEY WILL RETAIN VEGETATION AND WHATEVER'S IN THERE AT THIS POINT. AS FAR AS -- I. DON'T KNOW WHAT

YOUR QUESTION WAS. >> WILL THERE BE A FENCE?

>> I'M NOT SURE IF THAT'S SOMETHING YOU GUYS WOULD LIKE

I'M SURE WE COULD HAVE THAT. >> JUST A QUESTION.

>> I'D GUESS THERE PROBABLY IS. >> IT'S KIND OF HARD TO SEE THE

WRITING. >> I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A FENCE LISTED ON HERE BUT IF THERE'S NOT, IF THAT'S ONE THING

[00:45:03]

YOU WOULD LIKE WE COULD -- >> WE WILL SEE WHAT THE NEIGHBORS HAVE TO SAY. SO YOU ON THE ORDER IT LOOKS LIKE YOU ARE CONSTRAINED TO 19 UNITS BASED ON ITEM THREE THAT THIS IS YOUR SETUP PLAN? OKAY.

SO QUESTION FOR STAFF. JUST GOING BACK TO DENSITY AND WHAT IS ALLOWED NOW THERE WERE THREE SEPARATE LOTS ON THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S SITE. MAYBE AT ONE POINT IT WAS ONE PLATTED LOT BUT AT SOME POINT IT HAD TO BE DIVIDED TO BE ON PROPERTY APPRAISER'S AS THREE SEPARATE LOTS WHENEVER THAT HAPPENED, I DON'T KNOW WHEN THAT HAPPENED.

HOW MANY MOBILE HOMES COULD EACH OF THOSE LOTS HAVE BECAUSE IT DEPENDENT ON THE SIZE OR ARE THEY ALLOWED TO HAVE MORE THAN

ONE PER LOT NOW? >> THANK YOU.

NO THEY ARE INDIVIDUAL LOTS AND THEY ARE ENTITLED TO ONE UNIT

APIECE. >> THAT'S INTERESTING.

OKAY THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS. THANK YOU.

>> MR. LABANOWSKI. >> ARE THESE RENTAL LOTS OR WILL

THEY BE RENTED UNITS? >> I THINK THEY HAVE THE OPTION TO RENT OR SELL THE INDIVIDUAL UNITS.

I'M NOT SURE WHAT THEIR PARTICULAR BUSINESS PLAN IS AT THIS TIME BUT IT COULD BE EITHER.

I THINK A NUMBER OF THE LOTS -- THE MOBILE HOMES IN THE AREA ARE RENTALS. IT DEPENDS ON THE MARKET I

SUPPOSE. >> MY CONCERN AND THE REASON I'M ASKING IS RETENTION POND THAT'S THEIR, CAN IT BE FENCED IN?

>> I'M SURE IT CAN BE. >> WOULD YOU HAVE IT FENCED IN?

>> /-- LET ME ASK THE ENGINEER REAL QUICK.

THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. THROUGH THE CHAIR THIS IS A DRY POND, A DRY RETENTION POND. IT'S NOT REQUIRED TO BE FENCED.

>> MR. GREEN. >> I WAS JUST GOING TO FOLLOW UP ON THE RETENTION POND. THE COUNTY MAKES THAT CALL.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S UP TO US. >> THROUGH THE CHAIR THIS IS JUST AN INTERESTING SITUATION WHERE THE WHOLE SITE PLAN WENT THROUGH REVIEW AND THEN REALIZED THERE WAS A 10-ACRE REQUIREMENT.

THAT'S WHY WE'RE BACK TO THAT. EVERYTHING ELSE IS MEETING CODE.

>> SO YOU KNOW FOR SURE YOU DON'T NEED A FENCE BECAUSE EVERYTHING'S BEEN APPROVED? GOOD QUESTION.

>> MR. OLSON DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? I HAVE A COUPLE QUICK ONES. THIS IS TO FOLLOW UP ON WHAT MR. LABANOWSKI SAID. IT OCCURRED TO ME I WONDERED IF THESE WERE ALL GOING TO BE UNIFORM AND PROVIDED BY THE TENANT -- THE OWNER, THE APPLICANT IF THEY WERE GOING TO HAVE UNIFORM MOBILE HOME MANUFACTURED HOMES IN THERE OR IF PEOPLE WERE GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO BRING THEIR OWN INTO

THAT SITE. >> I THINK AS I SAID THEY'RE RETAINING THE ABILITY TO BE THERE WHICH IS ALLOWED UNDER OUR CODE DEPENDING ON WHAT THE MARKET IS IT MAY BE THAT THEY PROVIDE ALL OF THEM WHEN THEY RENT THEM OUT IF THAT'S WHAT THE MARKET CALLS FOR IT MAY BE THAT THEY ALLOW PEOPLE TO BRING THEM.

I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO MEET THE CODE EITHER WAY SO THEY DON'T REALLY HAVE A SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THAT YET.

>> AND WOULD YOU PLEASE REITERATE FOR US EXACTLY WHAT

THE HARDSHIP IS HERE? >> THE HARDSHIP IS THE FACT THAT WE HAVE AN AREA DEVELOPED IN MOBILE HOMES.

WE HAVE A REQUIREMENT AND CHART IN OUR CODE THAT TALKS ABOUT THE SIZE REQUIREMENT. I THINK THE REAL THING TO FOCUS ON AND I CAN DO THIS AFTER PUBLIC COMMENT AS WELL BUT TO TALK ABOUT THE REAL BASIS WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS AND THE CODE ITSELF ABOUT WHAT IS THE 10 ACRES NECESSARY FOR. -- LEGITIMATE INTEREST TO WHERE THAT SIZE IS. THERE IS NOTHING IN OUR CODE THAT SAYS WHY THAT 10 ACRES WAS CHOSEN WHETHER IT WAS RANDOM OR ARBITRARY AND REALLY THE REASON THAT THE EXPERT STAFF AND I

[00:50:01]

COULD COME UP WITH ON YOUR ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WAS THAT IT WAS TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THESE OTHER REQUIREMENTS INCLUDED IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE AS I SAID THEY ALREADY WENT THROUGH THAT PRIOR TO THIS AND MEET ALL THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS AND CAN FIT ALL THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS IN THERE.

THE GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE TO ENUNCIATE A LEGITIMATE REASON AS ENFORCE SOME KIND OF SCHEME WHEN THERE IS NOTHING IN OUR CODE THAT RELATES TO THAT AND THAT'S WHY THE HARDSHIP IS THE FACT THAT THIS RANDOM SORT OF ARBITRARY AMOUNT OF SPACE THAT'S PROVIDED IN OUR CODE DOES NOT GRANT ANY KIND OF REASONING AS TO WHY IN THE AREA IN OUR PARTICULAR CODE OF VARIANCE IT TALKS ABOUT HOW SOMETHING ADJACENT TO THIS CAN BE A REASON TO GRANT VARIANCE ON THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY.

THE MAJORITY OF THE AREA AROUND THIS, ESPECIALLY OTHER AREAS THAT YOU SEE THE STAFF REFER TO AND I TALK ABOUT THE DIFFERENT SUBDIVISIONS IN THIS AREA HAVE BEEN APPROVED PREVIOUSLY SINCE THE PASSAGE OF OUR CODE THAT ARE LESS THAN 10 ACRES AND THE DENSITY IS ACTUALLY FAR GREATER THAN THIS ONE WE'RE ASKING FOR ABOUT HALF THE DENSITY OF WHAT'S ALLOWED WHICH IS SIX OR SO AND WE'RE ASKING FOR THREE. SO THAT'S THE HARDSHIP IS THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS BUY IT'S 3.98.

>> YES, SIR. >> OKAY.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD NOW? SEEING NONE WE ARE OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

PLEASE COME UP AND STATE YOUR NAME, ADDRESS AND YOU WILL HAVE 3 MINUTES AND MISS SPIEGEL WILL BE KEEPING TRACK OF YOU.

>> JASMINE ROMAN. EARLIER THIS WEEK I SUBMITTED A LETTER TO EACH MEMBER OF THIS BOARD ON BEHALF OF 52 PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE AREA INCLUDING MYSELF IF YOU HAVE NOT READ IT I ENCOURAGE YOU TO DO SO AS IT -- PROVIDES A MORE THOROUGH ARGUMENT OF WHY -- I'D LIKE TO START BY REFERRING YOU TO PAGE 6 OF THE STAFF REPORT PEER REVIEW FROM THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE STATES CLEARLY THE APPLICANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING BY COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THERE EXISTS A SPECIAL CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY SUCH THAT THE LITERAL APPLICATION OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CONSTITUTES A HARDSHIP. THEY GO ON TO SAY THE AGENCY MAY GRANT SUCH RELIEF TO THE EXTENT ONLY NECESSARY TO ALLEVIATE THAT HARDSHIP. NO HARDSHIP EXISTS THAT PREVENTS THE APPLICANT FROM DEVELOPING ON THE PROPERTY WITHIN THE CURRENT LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THIS IS FURTHER EVIDENCED BY PREVIOUS APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED TO DEVELOP ON THE SAME PARCEL WITH FAMILY HOMES. THAT WAS WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT AND WOULD NOT HAVE REQUIRED THE EXPERIENCE.

MOVING FORWARD TO PAGE 7 OF THE STAFF REPORT THE PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION POINTS OUT THERE ARE MULTIPLE INSTANCES OF MOBILE HOME PARKS UNDER SINGLE OWNERSHIP WHERE THE LOTS ARE RENTED. THAT IS TRUE BUT ONLY ONE OF THE TRUE PROPERTIES VIOLATES THE 10-ACRE MINIMUM.

IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE BOTH PARKS WERE ESTABLISHED BEFORE THE COUNTY ADOPTED THE CURRENT LAND DEVELOPMENT IN 1999.

THE CURRENT LAND CODE STATES EXPLICITLY THAT NEIGHBORING VIOLATIONS DO NOT CONSTITUTE A HARDSHIP.

I'D LIKE TO ENCOURAGE THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD TO TAKE A DRIVE THROUGH BOTH OF THE PARKS. THE BUILDINGS ARE IN DISREPAIR, MANY SHOULD PROBABLY NOT EVEN BE ALLOWED OCCUPANCY.

THERE'S MAGNETS FOR DOMESTIC DISTURBANCE, DRUGS AND OTHER CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. I WILL ASK YOU TO PUT EYES ON THEM AND SEE THAT NEITHER SHOULD BE USED AS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT FUTURE SIMILAR DEVELOPMENT. LASTLY I'D LIKE TO FOCUS ON THE APPLICANT'S OWN ARGUMENTS. THE NARRATIVE THEY THEMSELVES SUBMITTED APPEARING TO ADDRESS THE FOUR CRITERIA REQUIRED BY THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. IF YOU READ IT THE APPLICANT SIMPLY PARAPHRASES THE SAME ARGUMENT FOUR SEPARATE TIMES AND REPEAT BY REASON OF THE USE OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY ADJOINING THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION AS THE ONLY REC -- CRITERIA THEY ARE MEE MEETING.

WHICH IS CLEARLY CRITERIA TWO. THEY MAKE THE BLATANT FALSE STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO CRITERIA TWO THAT THE LOT IS TRIPLE THE SIZE REQUIRED BY THE CODE.

SHOWING THE PLOTS WOULD BE AT OR ABOVE THE BARE MINIMUM AND REPEAT THIS AGAIN WHEN RESPONDING TO CRITERIA THREE AND IN THE INTEREST OF TIME I AGAIN REFER TO -- OUR COMMUNITY LETTER FOR MORE COMPLETE COUNTY -- ARGUMENT TO THE NARRATIVE.

THIS VARIANT FAILS TO MEET CRITERIA ONE AS SUPPORTED BY MY ARGUMENT TODAY AS WELL AS THE OPINION OF 52 PROPERTY OWNERS.

IT FAILS CRITERIA THREE AS NO EXISTS -- AND FOR CRITERIA FOR THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE CODE SPECIFICALLY REFERENCED ZONING VARIANCE TO ALLOW RELIEF FOR PROPERTY OWNERS FORCED WITH EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCE TO PREVENT THEM FROM BEING ABLE TO DEVELOP THEIR PROPERTY. THE APPLICANT'S FREE TO DEVELOP WITHIN THE EXISTING CODE. I WILL LEAVE YOU WITH THIS THAT THE FINAL THOUGHT IF THE BOARD WERE TO GRANT THIS VARIANT CONSIDER THE PRECEDENT YOU ARE SETTING.

IF I WERE TO BUY MY NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY I'D HAVE 1.54 ACRES.

WOULD I THEN BE ALLOWED TO BUILD MY OWN MOBILE HOME PARK?

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >> THANK YOU.

[00:55:06]

ANY OTHER PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM?

PLEASE COME FORWARD. >> THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO ME, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS BRIAN OLIVER

I LIVE AT 2614. >> WE NEED YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS

FOR THE RECORD PLEASE. >> BRIAN WELBER 2614 SAN JUAN

DRIVE. >> THANK YOU.

>> WEST OF THE PROPERTY OPPOSED TO.

I'VE BEEN THERE SINCE 1980 AND MR. WHITE HOUSE IS RIGHT THERE ARE THREE DIFFERENT PARKS THERE. THEY HAVE NOT BEEN KEPT UP.

WE HAVE AN ISSUE WITH TRAFFIC DOWN THERE NOW.

THERE'S SO MANY RENTALS, NOBODY'S SOLID.

THE RENT FOR A FEW WEEKS OR YEARS AND THEN THEY'RE GONE.

NOW THAT THE COUNTY'S SHUT ST. AUGUSTINE BOULEVARD DOWN, WE'VE GOT THAT MUCH MORE TRAFFIC COMING UP CYPRESS AND DOWN ST. JUAN AND WHERE THE KIDS PLAY.

SO YOU'RE TALKING MORE PEOPLE COMING IN.

THE TRAILER PARKS ARE FAILING. IF YOU GO BY THERE AND LOOK AT THEM, JASMINE WAS RIGHT. THEY'RE ALL RUN DOWN AND PEOPLE DON'T STAY. MY POINT IS THAT THE SEPTICS -- I. KNOW THE COUNTY HAS BEEN WANTING TO GET RID OF SEPTIC SYSTEMS BY 2030 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT OR ARE TRYING TO.

THIS MOBILE HOME PARK I DON'T BELIEVE THE COUNTY HAS SEWER DOWN CYPRESS YET. I KNOW THEY'VE GOT WATER BUT I DON'T THINK THEY HAVE SEWER. THIS TRAILER PARK IS COMING IN FROM 19 UNITS YOU'RE TALKING 19 MORE SEPTIC TANKS AND DRAIN FIELDS IN THERE. IF THEY HAVE THEIR OWN LIFT STATION THEN YOU'VE GOT AN OBER -- ODOR PROBLEM.

THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PUT SOME KIND OF CHEMICAL IN THERE BECAUSE I'VE WORKED AT THE WASTEWATER PLANT TWO YEARS OUT IN THE COUNTY AND THEY'RE -- COMES IN FROM THIS WASTE IS VERY STRONG. YOU'LL HAVE A LOT OF COMPLAINTS.

AND LIKE I SAID ALSO THE -- AS CLOSE AS THEY ARE IT'S ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE -- THERE ARE HOUSES IN THERE.

THERE'S HOUSES ON ESPANOLA. THERE'S ONE OR TWO ON CYPRESS.

PEOPLE WANT TO DEVELOP THE AREA FOR THE COUNTY, THE COUNTY WOULD HAVE A BIGGER TAX. THE TRAILERS ON JUAREZ EAST WERE BROKEN UP EARLY I GUESS IN THE 70S, MAYBE 80S AND THEY WERE ONE AND A THIRD ACRE PLOT ZONED MULTIFAMILY.

THESE GUYS BOUGHT UP THIS PROPERTY AND SPLIT THE PROPERTIES INTO FOUR SECTIONS AND THAT'S WHERE THESE TRAILERS COME FROM. EACH ONE OF THE TRAILERS ON SAN JUAN ALL THE WAY DOWN ARE RENTALS.

THERE'S VERY FEW THAT OWN AND WHAT WE DEAL WITH IS PEOPLE COMING IN ARE LOW INCOME AND -- I UNDERSTAND PEOPLE WITH NO PLACE TO GO BUT THERE'S NOTHING TO BE KEPT UP HERE ALL THE TRAILER PARKS HAVE FAILED AND LIKE I'VE SAID, THE ONE IN CYPRESS HAS SEPTIC TANKS -- MY REAL ISSUE I GUESS IS ABOUT THE SEWER FOR THE COUNTY. THE COUNTY I KNOW HAS A WATER MAIN COMING DOWN CYPRESS DOWN TO SAN JUAN AND STOPS RIGHT AT MY ADDRESS. JUST FOR A SIMPLE FACT ORIGINALLY THAT WAS A DEAD END. WENT AHEAD AND PUSHED IT ALL THE WAY THROUGH. BUT BASICALLY IT'S THE TRAFFIC AND THE PEOPLE THAT COME IN. I APPRECIATE YOU LISTENING TO ME. I KNOW MY TIME IS UP BUT LIKE I SAID, HAD THEY NOT CLOSED ST. AUGUSTINE BOULEVARD THE TRAFFIC WOULD HAVE BEEN A LITTLE BETTER.

NOW WE HAVE TOO MUCH TRAFFIC AND TOO MANY PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT PART OF IT. THANK YOU.

>> APPRECIATE IT. WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS? HAVEN'T SEEN YOU HERE IN A WHILE. GOOD TO SEE YOU.

>> IT TAKES A LOT TO GET ME UP HERE.

ANY MORE. THIS ONE BROUGHT ME.

AS A MATTER OF FACT I WAS GOING TO TAKE MY TIME AND MY ENERGY TO

COME TODAY. >> YOU NEED TO STATE YOUR NAME.

>> I'M SORRY. SUZANNE CLULOW 620 SHORES BOULEVARD. I WAS COMING HERE TODAY TO GIVE SOME SUPPORT FOR THE PERSON TRYING TO DEVELOP THIS BECAUSE I WAS AT THE MEETING YESTERDAY AND WE TALKED ABOUT WHERE WE'RE AT WITH ATTAINABLE HOUSING IN THIS COUNTY.

LAST TIME I WAS HERE WE HAD A REPORT.

IT'S WORSE. PRICES OF THINGS HAVE GONE UP.

[01:00:03]

WAGES HAVE NOT. THAT AREA OUT THERE IS AN AREA I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH. 30 YEARS I'VE LIVED HERE, I'VE WORKED WITH MANY ORGANIZATIONS IN SAINT JOHNS COUNTY AND I WOULD VISIT RESIDENTS OUT THERE. I KNOW WHAT IT IS.

I SEE THIS AS A REALLY WONDERFUL OPPORTUNITY FOR SOMEONE TO COME IN AND CREATE SOMETHING THAT NO ONE ELSE WANTS TO DO.

EVERYBODY ELSE IS SELLING OFF THEIR LAND, GENTRIFYING ALL OVER THE PLACE. MOBILE HOMES USED TO BE A VIABLE PLACE FOR THOSE THAT CAN'T AFFORD TO RENT IN FANCY APARTMENT HOMES LIKE WE'RE ALLOWING TO BE BUILT EVERYWHERE.

THEY DON'T WANT TO RENT IN A TOWNHOUSE WHICH YOU SEE HOW MANY THEY SLAM INTO THERE AS A MATTER OF FACT THERE'S ONE UP AROUND THE CORNER FROM HERE FROM WHERE THIS IS WHERE THEY'VE BEEN TRYING TO HAVE -- THEY BUILT A RENTAL TOWNHOUSE COMMUNITY THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO NOW SELL RENTALS -- THEY'RE TRYING TO SELL PEOPLE INTO RENTING. THREE YEARS LATER THEY'RE NOT GETTING TENANTS IN THERE. THE RENT IS TOO MUCH AND THEY DON'T WANT TO SQUEEZE IN THAT LITTLE PLACE AND TRY TO LIVE WITH A COUPLE OF CHILDREN AND MAYBE A PET.

THIS LOOKS LOVELY TO ME. THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS GOING TO GET A SAMPLE OF WHAT CAN HAPPEN. YES, IT'S BEEN THERE SINCE THE 50S. THEY'RE NOT PRETTY BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS MAN IS GOING TO CREATE HERE.

WE'RE GETTING A RETENTION POND -- NOBODY OUT THERE HAS ONE OF THOSE. PLEASE.

I SEE THIS AS A GOOD THING AND I HOPE YOU WILL TOO.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? IF SO PLEASE COME FORWARD. JUST A REMINDER TO STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD PLEASE.

THANK YOU. >> I'M MARTHA PORTER AND I LIVE AT 76 LIGHTHOUSE AVENUE. MY HUSBAND AND I HAVE OWNED THAT PROPERTY SINCE -- THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND WE'VE OWNED IT SINCE 1980.

RIGHT NOW IT'S NOT OCCUPIED. AND I JUST HAVE GREAT CONCERNS ABOUT ADDING MORE DENSITY TO IT. BASED ON WHAT I'VE HEARD TODAY, I WOULD THINK I HAVE EVEN MORE CONCERN ABOUT MOBILE HOME PARK BECAUSE THEY ARE RUNDOWN. I WOULD BE CONCERNED ALSO ABOUT ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC. IF YOU HAVE 19 UNITS ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE 19 CARS, 38 CARS? THIS IS MY DAUGHTER, CINDY AND SHE'S HELPED ME PICK I'VE SENT A LETTER TO YOU AND SHE FAXED IT

FOR ME. >> CAN I TAKE HER TIME OR HAVE .

>> YOU CAN HAVE A MINUTE AND 40S.

>> MY NAME IS CINDY STRICKLAND PYGMY ADDRESS -- ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA. I TOO LIVED IN THE AREA ON JUAREZ DRIVE BACK IN 1979 WHEN THOSE LOTS WERE FIRST BEING DEVELOPED. THE CONCERN THAT MY MOTHER AND WE ALL HAVE IS THE DENSITY OF THIS PROPERTY.

HER PROPERTY ABUTS THE WESTERN BOUNDARY LINE OF THIS PROPOSED SITE. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT -- HOW THE DEVELOPMENT ITSELF WILL IMPACT HER PROPERTY, WILL THERE BE DRAINAGE ISSUES. UNDERSTAND THE COUNTY HAS REQUIREMENTS THEY HAVE TO MEET TO PREVENT THAT FROM HAPPENING BUT IT DOESN'T ALWAYS KEEP IT FROM HAPPENING.

[01:05:04]

THE MOBILE HOME PARKS AND THE AREA THAT MR. WHITE HOUSE REFERENCED SUCH AS BARTLETT PARK WHILE IT'S PLATTED FOR 54 LOTS, THERE ARE NOT 54 HOMES ON THAT SITE.

SO IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THEY'RE TRYING TO CRAM AS MANY UNITS ON THAT PROPERTY AS THEY CAN GET. THEY INITIALLY FILED A PREUP FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON THAT PROPERTY WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE ACCEPTABLE TO THAT AREA. THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE SOUTH INTO THE WEST OF THIS SITE WERE INITIALLY PLATTED AS 5-ACRE L LOTS. AND THOSE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THAT AREA HAVE LARGER LOTS AND WOULD LIKE TO KEEP IT THAT WAY.

>> WILL GIVE YOU ANOTHER MINUTE. >> OKAY.

AS I SAID ST. AUGUSTINE HEIGHTS PLAT WHERE 5-ACRE LOTS.

SOME OF THOSE HAVE BEEN DIVIDED INTO SMALLER PARCELS, BUT THEY ARE AT LEAST AN ACRE FOR EACH UNIT THERE BECAUSE IT'S REQUIRED IN ORDER FOR THEM TO HAVE WATER AND CYCLE AT.

THE PROPERTIES TO THE EAST OF THEIR PROPOSED SITE ARE A DIFFERENT PLAT THAT WAS KING'S ESTATE PLAT AND THOSE WERE SPECIFICALLY PLATTED AS SMALLER LOTS.

AND AGAIN SOME OF THOSE LOTS HAVE BEEN COMBINED AND THERE ARE A SINGLE UNIT ON WHAT USED TO BE TWO LOTS.

BECAUSE PEOPLE JUST DON'T HAVE ROOM -- I'M SORRY, I'M VERY NERVOUS. I'M NOT USED TO DOING THIS.

>> CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION. YOU SAID THE APPLICANT ORIGINALLY FILED AN APPLICATION FOR HOW MANY --

>> I BELIEVE IT WAS SIX SINGLE FAMILY UNITS.

THIS WAS IN 2023. >> OKAY.

>> I'M SORRY. I'M SORRY IT WAS EIGHT SINGLE FAMILY UNITS. SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

SO THEY'RE NOT -- BY NOT APPROVING THIS VARIANCE, IT'S NOT GOING TO PREVENT THEM FROM -- DEVELOPING THE PROPERTY.

THEY MORE THAN LIKELY CAN REZONE AND DO OTHER THINGS TO GET MORE DENSITY THAN WHAT THEY HAVE NOW WHEN THEY INITIALLY SUBMITTED THIS APPLICATION TO DO A MOBILE HOME PARK THEY WERE ASKING FOR 24 UNITS ON THAT SIDE. THE ONLY REASON THEY'VE LIMITED IT IS BECAUSE THEY CAN'T MEET THE REQUIREMENTS TO GET THAT MANY UNITS. THE FACT THAT THEY WANT TO JUST PUT AS MANY ON THERE AS THEY CAN GET IS NOT A HARDSHIP.

THEY DON'T HAVE A HARDSHIP TO NOT BE ABLE TO DEVELOP THE SITE.

THE SITE'S ALREADY DEVELOPED WITH THREE HOMES AND AS I SAID THEY CAN LIKELY PUT MORE THAN THAT.

BUT YOU'RE CREATING A SITUATION AS THESE OTHER MOBILE HOME PARKS IN THE AREA WHERE YOU HAVE MANY UNITS COMING IN.

AS MY MOM SAID, YOU'VE GOT 19 UNITS.

ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE 19 CARS OR 38 CARS THERE? PER PROPERTY -- HER PROPERTY IS RIGHT NEXT TO THAT AND IS VACANT RIGHT NOW. ARE PEOPLE GOING TO BE COMING AND PARKING ON HER LAND BECAUSE THEY CAN'T FIT ONTO THE MOBILE

HOME PARK? >> YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO -- GOOD PRESENTATION. YOU DIDN'T NEED TO BE NERVOUS.

>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

PLEASE COME FORWARD. STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD PLEASE AND LET'S HEAR WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON MY NAME IS CLINT PORTER WITH 76 LIGHTHOUSE AVENUE AND THIS IS MY WIFE -- AS MY WIFE MARTHA SAID WE OWN PROPERTY AT 1065. ATTORNEY WHITE HOUSE MADE IT CLEAR THAT THERE'S MANY MOBILE HOMES IN THAT AREA.

WHAT HE DIDN'T MAKE CLEAR WAS THE FACT THAT THERE'S A GREAT MANY THAT SHOULDN'T BE THERE. THE OTHER YOUNG LADY MENTIONED THAT THEY ARE DILAPIDATED AND WORN OUT AND HAVE NOT BEEN MAINTAINED. THERE HAS BEEN NO CONSULTATION THAT THE APPLICANT'S GOING TO PUT HIS OWN HOMES IN THERE WHICH WOULD PROBABLY ALLOW FOR A BIT MORE MAINTENANCE, BUT IF HE ALLOWS ANYBODY TO BRING THEM IN, THEN WE COULD BE RIGHT BACK TO

[01:10:04]

THE SAME THING. SO I JUST DON'T SEE THE FUTURE OF THAT PARK BEING REALLY AN ASSET.

SO THAT'S MY TWO CENTS. >> THANK YOU.

APPRECIATE IT. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS ISSUE? WE HAVE ONE MORE SPEAKER IT APPEARS. NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD PLEASE. YOU HAVE 3 MINUTES.

>> I'M BOB MYERS. I LIVE AT 1050 CYPRESS ROAD.

I JUST WANT TO SAY MY PROPERTY RIGHT NOW A LITTLE OVER 300,000.

I LIVE DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS.

IT'S DEFINITELY GOING TO TAKE A HIT.

WITH A BUNCH OF RENTAL PROPERTIES.

AND HISTORICALLY FROM THAT TRAILER PARK DOWN THE STREET TO THE WEST, GETS IN TERRIBLE SHAPE.

THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, PARAMEDICS ARE DOWN THERE ALL THE TIME. JUST ALL THE TIME.

SO IT'S NOT A GOOD POSITIVE EFFECT.

DOING WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO. I'M VERY MUCH AGAINST IT.

THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT TO SAY. >> THANK YOU.

APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS. >> THANK YOU.

>> ANYONE ELSE TO SPEAK BEFORE -- MR. WHITE HOUSE GIVES A REBUTTAL? SEEING NONE.

MR. WHITE HOUSE. >> THANK YOU MR. CHAIR.

TO ADDRESS A FEW OF THE THINGS NUMBER 1 I SPOKE WITH THE OWNER AND THE PLAN IS TO HAVE HIS OWN UNITS PLACE ON ALL 19 OF THESE LOTS. HE'S GOING TO HAVE ON SITE MANAGEMENT, A MANAGEMENT COMPANY ON SITE MANAGING THIS PARTICULAR SITE ITSELF TO CLEAN UP -- TO CLEAN UP THE AREA AND TO DEVELOP IT ACCORDING TO THE SITE PLAN THAT'S BEEN PROVIDED ITSELF.

TO ADDRESS A FEW OF THE THINGS NUMBER 11 OF THE SPEAKERS SPOKE ABOUT THE SEPTIC AND WELLS. THIS IS NOT WELL AND SEPTIC, THIS WILL BE ON CENTRAL COUNTY UTILITIES.

NUMBER 1. NUMBER 2 THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT ITSELF AND HOW IT WAS GOING TO BE MANAGED.

AS I'VE SAID, HE INTENDS TO HAVE ON SITE MANAGEMENT.

I WILL TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THOSE IN REFERENCE TO THE LOT SIZE ITSELF. I REFERENCED INITIALLY IN THE PACKET AS YOU SAW AND UPDATED IT WHEN I PUT IT UP ON THE SCREEN BUT THE REFERENCE WAS TO THE STATE REQUIREMENT WHICH IS 2400 SQUARE FEET AND THAT'S WHY I SAID IT TRIPLED THE STATE REQUIREMENT. THE COUNTY REQUIREMENT THE SAME CHART AS 6000. THESE WERE ALL EXCEEDING THAT 6000. IN FACT THEY ARE ALL LARGER THAN THAT PLAT IMMEDIATELY TO THE EAST.

>> I'M GLAD YOU CLARIFIED THAT BECAUSE THAT WAS NOT CLEAR.

>> I APOLOGIZE BUT THAT MISTAKE WAS IN MY NOT REFERENCING IT WAS A STATE REQUIREMENT IN THE JUSTIFICATION WHEN I INITIALLY PUT IT FORWARD BUT LIKE I SAID -- THAT'S THE REAL FACT.

THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO BRING UP IS I HAVE -- I'VE KNOWN CLINT AND CINDY FOR A LONG TIME AND I HAVE MUCH RESPECT FOR THEM ON THAT PARTICULAR SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, THE PROPERTY OWNER WHICH IS A RENTAL IS AN OR. IT'S GOING TO BE A 20B BUFFER WHICH IS MORE BUFFER THAN THE MAJORITY OF RESIDENTIAL.

IT'S BETWEEN OR AND MH. SINCE THE INSTITUTION OF THE ZONING CODE ITSELF. IN THE MOBILE HOMES IN THE AREA THE FACT THAT THE COUNTY HAS APPROVED THEM PREVIOUSLY, NOT THE PARTICULAR STATE OF THOSE MOBILE HOME PARKS.

AS I'VE SAID TO YOU AND I THINK YOU'VE HEARD THE INTENT IS TO TRY TO CLEAN UP THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY, TO COME IN HERE ON THE ENGINEER THIS SITE PLAN -- WE DON'T SEE THAT USUALLY WHEN SOMEBODY COMES IN HERE. WE'RE JUST MERELY TALKING ABOUT THE 10-ACRE REQUIREMENT AND I WANT TO GO THROUGH THAT REAL QUICK. I THINK THE MAIN QUESTION IS WHY 10 ACRES. THERE'S NOTHING IN OUR CURRENT CODE THAT SAYS IN SUBSTANCE 10 ACRES IS NECESSARY BECAUSE BLANK. THE COUNTY HAS PLENTY OF LEGITIMATE LAND USE REASONS FOR REGULATING MOBILE HOME PARKS.

INTERNAL ROADWAYS, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, WATER AND SEWER PARKING SETBACKS, PERIMETER BUFFERING, OPEN SPACE, UTILITY CORRIDORS, AVOIDING OVERLY INTENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN PERIODS THOSE ARE LEGITIMATE PLANNING CONCERNS BUT THE CONSIDERATIONS DO NOT EXPLAIN WHY THE NUMBER HAS TO BE 10 ACRES RATHER THAN 5 ACRES OR 3 ACRES OR 2 ACRES AND THAT'S WHERE THE QUESTION BECOMES LEGALLY INTERESTING BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE IS PRETTY REVEALING THE 10-ACRE REQUIREMENT APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN IN OUR ZONING CODE FROM THE BEGINNING WHEN IT TALKS ABOUT IN THE CHART MINIMUM 10 ACRES AND A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF SPACE FOR EACH PARTICULAR LOT. THAT SAME REQUIREMENT EXISTS

[01:15:05]

TODAY SO I THINK THE QUESTION IS WHAT'S THE EVIDENTIARY BASIS FOR CHOOSING 10 ACRES. WAS THERE A STUDY BECAUSE OF SEPTIC REQUIREMENTS OR FIRE OR STORMWATER, CONSTRUCTION, DENSITY, HEALTH REQUIREMENTS OR IS IT SIMPLY AN ARBITRARY NUMBER THAT THEY CHOSE. THE DISTINCTION MATTERS BECAUSE IN THIS PARTICULAR INCIDENCE THEY MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS.

THE ONLY REQUIREMENT THAT THEY DON'T MEET IS THE 10 ACRES SPECIFICALLY NOTABLE IS THE FACT THAT ST. JOHN'S COUNTY AS YOU'VE HEARD IN THE APPLICATION THAT CAME RIGHT BEFORE THIS ALLOWS MANUFACTURED SINGLE MOBILE HOMES ON INDIVIDUAL LOTS UNDER OUR SPECIAL USE CRITERIA IN FACT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR THEY WILL BE ALLOWED BY RIGHT. THE COUNTY'S REGULATORY SCHEME EFFECTIVELY SAYS ONE MANUFACTURED HOME POTENTIALLY PERMISSIBLE UNDER ORDINARY RESIDENTIAL PARCELS ALLOWED YET MULTIPLE MANUFACTURED HOMES OPERATED SUDDENLY REQUIRE 10 ACRES FOR SOME REASON AND REALLY THE REASON FOR THAT IS TO MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS FOR EXAMPLE IF WE HAVE FOUR AND A HALF ACRES FOR 19 UNITS AND THE SITE CAN INDEPENDENTLY SATISFY FIRE ACCESS, STORM WATER POTABLE WATER, SEWER, PARKIN, LANDSCAPING, BUFFERS UTILITY REQUIREMENTS THE COUNTY WOULD HAVE TO EXPLAIN WHAT LEGITIMATE PLANNING OBJECTIVES ACCOMPLISHED BY REJECTING IT SOLELY BECAUSE THE TRACT IS 5.5 ACRES SHORT OF THE ARBITRARY 10-ACRE THRESHOLD. IF WE CAN MEET -- WE CAN MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS AND HAVE AND THE STAFF REVIEWED IT.

THE COUNTY CAN REGULATE MOBILE HOME PARKS HOWEVER ST. JOHN'S COUNTY'S ACTUALLY DEALT WITH SMALLER PARKS IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA AS YOU'VE NOTED BY STAFF. THIS IS PARTICULARLY INTERESTING THOSE EXAMPLES DO NOT INVALIDATE A 10-ACRE RULE BUT THEY ARE PARTICULARLY INTERESTING BECAUSE THE PURPOSE OF THE SIZE REQUIREMENT IS TO BE ABLE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS AS I'VE STATED AND THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT MEETS EVERY ONE OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS THAT'S BEEN SIGNED OFF BY TECHNICAL STAFF.

SO THE FINAL ASSESSMENT DOES THE COUNTY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH A 10-ACRE MINIMUM? THEY HAVE BROAD LOCAL GOVERNMENT HAVE BROAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BECAUSE THE 10 ACRES AUTOMATICALLY VALID MERELY BECAUSE IT'S IN OUR LAND CODE? THE ANSWER IS NO. UNDER FLORIDA LAW A ZONING REGULATION REMAINS SUBJECT TO CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY LIMITATION INCLUDING A REQUIREMENT THAT LAND USE REGULATION MUST HAVE LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT PURPOSE AND NOT OPERATE AS AN IMPERMISSIBLE RESTRICTION ON PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THIS CASE MEETING ALL THOSE REQUIREMENTS AND THERE ARE OTHER APPROVALS AND SIMILAR USES IN THE AREA IN FACT ONE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT. ENFORCING THE 10-ACRE REQUIREMENT IS ENFORCING HERE ARBITRARY.

I'D SAY YES, BECAUSE THE 10 ACRES ARE TO PROVIDE ROOM TO BE ABLE TO DO THESE THINGS. THEY ARE IN RESIDENTIAL C AND ALLOWED UP TO 6 ACRES -- SIX UNITS PER ACRE AND ARE DOING AS THE CHAIRMAN POINTED OUT APPROXIMATELY 3.8, 3.9 UNITS PER ACRE. THE REASON IS SO THEY CAN PUT ALL THESE OTHER REQUIREMENTS UNDER OUR CODE WITHIN THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT AND THEY'VE DONE SO.

IN SOME SENSE THEY CAN AND DO MEET ALL THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS, HOW IS THIS TECHNICAL REQUIREMENT CONSISTENT WITH OUR HOUSING PRIORITIES? IS ANY ACTION TO DENY IT MERELY BASED ON THE RANDOM SIZE REGULATION? OR IS IT JUST A GUISE TO OPPOSE MOBILE HOME DEVELOPMENT? UNDER OUR COMP PLAN AND CODE IN FLORIDA LAW THERE HAS TO BE LEGITIMATE VIABLE LEGAL REASON SERVING A LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT INTEREST TO SUPPORT THE DENIAL OF VARIANCE FOR THAT MINIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENT AND THE APPLICANT CLEARLY MEETS ALL THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR SERVICES, SAFETY, HEALTH, ET CETERA.

IN SUMMARY, THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY ITSELF MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF OUR CODE SAVE ONE WHICH IS A SIZE REQUIREMENT.

UNDER FLORIDA LAW PARTICULARLY UNDER OUR NEW HOUSE BILL 399 THE GOVERNMENT HAS TO SAY WHAT LEGITIMATE INTEREST IS FOR THAT REGULATORY SCHEME AND IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE OF VARIANCE IS REASONABLE BASED ON THE COMPATIBILITY OF THIS REQUEST BASED ON THE FACT THAT THEY MEET ALL THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE BASED ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THEM WHICH IS ONE OF THE REASONS IN OUR VARIANCE DEFINITION. I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

MR. LABANOWSKI HAS A QUESTION. >> THE FIRST QUESTION IS MAINLY FOR STAFF. 1150 CYPRESS ROAD THERE'S A PARK THERE NOW, AM I CORRECT? HOW MANY UNITS WERE APPROVED FOR

THAT? >> IF YOU GIVE ME A MOMENT, I

[01:20:02]

WILL LOOK INTO IT. >> NO PROBLEM.

MR. WHITE HOUSE, REAL QUICK, THERE'S A SECURE GATE THERE NOW.

WITH AN ACCESS CODE. IS THAT GOING TO REMAIN? I KNOW IT'S GOING TO BE MOVED. WILL IT BE A CODED GATE WHEN THE

NEW PLANS PUT IN? >> WE WILL HAVE IT GATED.

>> MR. OLSON. >> YES, I AM STRUCK BY THE NEW INFORMATION THAT THIS IS ALL GOING TO BE A COMPLEX OF MANUFACTURED UNITS ON THE SITE ALL CENTRALLY OWNED BY THE LANDOWNER AND NOT WHAT IS DEFINED I THINK AS A MOBILE HOME PARK, WHICH IS AVAILABLE SITES FOR CONVENTIONALLY FOR INDIVIDUAL -- INDIVIDUAL OWNERS OF MOBILE HOMES WHERE THEY COME AND LEASE THE LAND. I'M WONDERING BASED ON THE WAY THE LAW IS CHANGING RELATIVE TO MOBILE HOMES IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS WHETHER THIS WOULD ACTUALLY BE A SIMPLE RENTAL COMPLEX WITH INDIVIDUAL RENTAL UNITS INSTEAD OF A MOBILE HOME PARK. I'M WONDERING WHETHER IT WOULD ACTUALLY MEET THAT DEFINITION WITH THE NEW TWIST THAT WE NOW WILL HAVE ON JANUARY 1ST. I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF BENEFIT TO THAT PUBLIC POLICY BENEFIT BECAUSE MOBILE HOMES ON RENTAL LAND DON'T PAY TAXES BUT IF YOU OWN THE LAND THE UNITS ON YOU'RE PAYING TAXES. WE'VE HEARD THAT THERE'S A LOT OF PUBLIC SERVICE VISITS THAT LEADS T MANY OF THESE PROJECTS.

IF THEY'RE PAYING TAXES TO THE COUNTY FOR THOSE SERVICES, THAT WOULD BE A BENEFIT FOR THEM SO I GUESS I'D LIKE TO REALLY KNOW IS IT ABSOLUTE THAT THIS IS REALLY GOING TO BE A PROPERTY OF THE OWNER ACTUALLY OWNING ALL THE UNITS AND RENTING THEM OR ARE WE GOING TO BE APPROVING SOMETHING THAT IS SORT OF MORE VAGUE ABOUT THAT? AND WOULD ACTUALLY BECOME A MOBILE HOME PARK? I GUESS THAT'S A QUESTION I'D LIKE TO HEAR ANYONE RESPOND TO. THE OTHER POINT THAT'S BEEN DRIVEN IS THERE'S NO REASON, MAY BE NO REASON STATED FOR WHY THERE IS A MINIMUM SIZE, BUT I DID A LOT OF RESEARCH THAT MOST COMMUNITIES ESTABLISHED MINIMUM SIZE BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO HAVE ECONOMIES OF SCALE FOR PROPERTY MANAGED MOBILE HOME PARKS.

IF YOU HAVE TWO SMALL OF A SITE, YOU REALLY CONSTRAIN THE ECONOMIC CONDITIONS AND ABILITY TO PROVIDE THE KIND OF MANAGEMENT MODERN PARKS NEED TO HAVE.

AND I'M NOT SURE THE OTHER PARKS IN THE AREA WERE APPROVED BEFORE THE LATEST ZONING STANDARDS WERE ESTABLISHED OR NOT OR WHETHER THEY WERE GRANTED VARIANCES OR NOT.

I'D LIKE TO HEAR ANY RESPONSE FOR ANY OF THE POINTS I'VE BROUGHT UP, ESPECIALLY THE PLANS WE'VE NOW HEARD THAT WOULD BE A TOTALLY OWNER -- OWNERSHIP OF THE UNITS WOULD BE THE SAME AS

OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND. >> IF I MAY MR. CHAIR.

AS I STATED THE INTENT NOW AS I UNDERSTAND IT FROM THE OWNER HERE IS TO OWN THE LAND AND PUT COMPARABLE UNITS ON EACH PARTICULAR SITE ITSELF AND RENT THEM OUT.

UNDER BOTH OUR CODE AND STATE LAW, THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO EITHER. THAT'S WHAT A MOBILE HOME PARK AND -- AND STAFF CAN CORRECT ME. IT DOES NOT STATE THEY HAVE TO BE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. IT'S JUST THE USE ITSELF ON A PARTICULAR PROPERTY IN RMH THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE ALL THESE OTHER REQUIREMENTS. THEY MEET EVERY ONE OF THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS WHICH IS THE SIZE -- MYSELF AS WELL PEER COMMUNITIES AND JURISDICTIONS HAVE A WIDE RANGE OF DIFFERENT SIZES. IN FACT PLACES HAVE 5 ACRES AND

[01:25:02]

OTHER JURISDICTIONS IN SOUTH FLORIDA, CENTRAL FLORIDA HAVE 10 ACRES LIKE WE DO IN SAINT JOHNS COUNTY.

THERE'S NO PARTICULAR REGULATORY EXPLANATION AS TO WHY THE MAJORITY OF THE RESEARCH I DID SO THAT YOU CAN MEET ALL THESE OTHER REGULATIONS BECAUSE DEPENDING ON THE LAND USE YOU CAN HAVE CERTAIN DENSITIES AND DENSITIES IN SOUTH FLORIDA ARE MUCH GREATER THAN THEY ARE HERE AS YOU WELL KNOW.

THE REASON WHY IS YOU NEED TO HAVE INTERNAL ROADWAYS AND NEED TO HAVE FIRE ACCESS YOU NEED TO HAVE UTILITIES.

YOU HAVE TO HAVE STORM WATER RETENTION.

THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY HAS BEEN ENGINEERED AND MEETS EVERY ONE OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS AND THAT'S WHY IT APPEARS APPROPRIATE TO BE ALLOWED BECAUSE IF WE HAD DOUBLE THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY IN THE SAME SPOT, GUESS WHAT WOULD GO IN THE PROPERTY. EXACTLY WHAT YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN. IS THAT A LEGITIMATE REASON WHY YOU SHOULDN'T ALLOW THEM TO DO THIS WHEN THEY MEET EVERY OTHER ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS. I WOULD ASSERT TO YOU IT'S A LEGITIMATE REASON AND THE PROPERTY AROUND IT HAS MAJORITY OF THEM AS THEY SEE FROM YOUR EXPERT STAFF REVIEW HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED LIKE THIS EITHER SMALL -- SMALLER UNITS AND LARGER DENSITY. THIS SEEMS TO BE AN APPROPRIATE

USE. >> MISS SPIEGEL.

>> I BELIEVE YOU HAD AN AERIAL VIEW OF YOUR LAYOUT AND THE LOTS

CLOSE BY IN PROXIMITY. >> I HAVE IT RIGHT HERE.

>> THERE YOU GO. SO FOR ME I WAS LOOKING AT THIS AND THE GOOGLE EARTH MAPS AND TRYING TO OVERLAY IN MY MIND.

IT ALMOST LOOKS LIKE THE ONES AT LEAST ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE -- SORRY. ARE ABOUT THE SAME SIZE.

THAT CORRECT. >> JUST TO BE CLEAR FOR THE RECORD, I DID THIS. IT'S NOT EXACT JUST LIKE A PROPERTY APPRAISER SITE IS NOT EXACT BUT IT'S PRETTY CLOSE TO

FITTING IN THERE. >> IT LOOKS LIKE YOU MADE IT OVERLAP TO MAKE THESE LINE UP FOR COMPATIBILITY.

>> YES, MA'AM,. >> I HAVE SOME COMMENTS.

I DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

AT THIS POINT BUT I DID WANT TO SAY YOU DID A VERY GOOD JOB.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ALL OF THAT AND TAKING THE TIME TO TALK TO YOUR NEIGHBORS BECAUSE WE DO LOVE TO HEAR FROM THE NEIGHBORS.

SOMETIMES THINGS APPEAR DIFFERENTLY FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE THAN THEY DO FROM RIGHT WHERE YOU LIVE AND I KNOW IT'S DIFFICULT WHEN SOMETHING LOOKS LIKE IT'S GOING TO COME IN SO WE WILL HAVE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS TO THAT BUT WE DO WANT TO KNOW WE'RE VERY THANKFUL YOU CAME AND WE DO APPRECIATE ALL YOUR INPUT.

THANK YOU. >> JAMES, YOUR CLIENTS ARE GOING TO BE PAYING TO EXTEND THE WATER AND SEWER.

>> YES, SIR. >> OKAY.

LET ME ASK THIS QUESTION OUR ATTORNEY.

TALKING ABOUT HARDSHIPS AT THE END OF THAT DEFINITION OF HARDSHIP BY REGION OF THE USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY ADJOINING THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE AERIAL PHOTO THAT WAS PUT UP THERE UNDER AERIAL PHOTOS THEY WILL SHOW THE SAME THING.

THIS IS -- I'M GOING TO USE THE WORD MISS SPIEGEL USED PURE COMPATIBLE OFF IN THE EAST THERE.

AND THROUGHOUT THE AREA. THIS ACTUALLY FITS IN -- OR DOES IT IN YOUR OPINION THE DEFINITION OF THAT'S A HARDSHIP?

>> I'M NOT GOING TO MAKE THE DETERMINATION OF WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S A HARDSHIP HERE EASY FOR YOU.

WHAT I WILL SAY IS THIS IS A PORTION OF THE CODE THAT YOU CAN DETERMINE. I THINK IT IS POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO DETERMINE THERE'S A HARDSHIP HERE IN THE 10-ACRE REQUIREMENT.

THAT'S THE PROPER REQUEST AND IN MANY WAYS THE ANALYSIS WILL LOOK LIKE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT ANALYSIS OF SINCE THE ZONING WOULD POTENTIALLY BE APPROPRIATE FOR THIS AREA IF WE GIVE THEM A VARIANCE FOR THE 10 ACRES IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WOULD NEED TO DO TO ACCOMMODATE IT OR CAN THEY ACCOMMODATE IT AT ALL? AND SO THEY ARE WITHIN THEIR RIGHTS TO ASK FOR A VARIANCE ON THIS. YOU CAN FIND THEIRS A HARDSHIP HERE BUT YOU HAVE TO DETERMINE -- AND HIS BURDEN IS TO PROVE TO

[01:30:05]

YOU THERE IS A HARDSHIP. AND I'M NOT GOING TO WEIGH IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER WHETHER HE'S MET THAT BURDEN.

I WILL SAY LEGISLATIVELY WE CAN PICK -- AND I THINK HE'S ADMITTED WE CAN PICK TO PUT THINGS IN -- AND HAVE REQUIREMENTS LIKE A 10-ACRE REQUIREMENT.

I THINK THERE'S -- IT'LL HOLD UP BUT ALSO WITH -- THEY ARE WITHIN THEIR RIGHTS TO COME TO US AND ARGUE THAT THE 10-ACRE REQUIREMENT ISN'T A REQUIREMENT FOR THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL AND YOU'VE GOT TO DETERMINE THAT HERE.

IF HE'S MET HIS BURDEN THEN YOU CAN MOVE FORWARD AND IT WILL LEGALLY -- IT'S LEGALLY PROTECTABLE.

TO DETERMINE THERE'S A PARTNERSHIP -- HARDSHIP.

IF AT THAT POINT THE RELIEF FOR THE APPLICANT WOULD BE TO COME BACK AND ASK FOR THAT REQUIREMENT TO BE CHANGED --

>> MR. WHITE HOUSE WOULD YOU LIKE TO COMMENT?

>> YES, SIR. I THINK IMPORTANTLY IF THERE IS ANY OTHER THING IN YOUR DETERMINATION THAT WOULD MAKE THIS MEET OR STAND IN FOR THAT SIZE REQUIREMENT, THEN YOU CAN ASK AN APPLICANT TO DO THAT TO MAKE IT MORE.

ESPECIALLY UNDER YOUR HOUSE BILL 399 YOU CAN ASK THE APPLICANT TO DO THAT BECAUSE THERE'S NO LEGITIMATE ENUNCIATED REASON AS TO WHY WE WANT TO ENFORCE THE FLETT -- 10-ACRE SIZE LIMIT MERELY BECAUSE IT'S A CHART IN OUR CODE IT'S APPROPRIATE TO GRANT VARIANCE FROM THAT. I DON'T KNOW OF ANY OTHER THING THEY COULD DO BECAUSE AS I SAID, THIS IS A VERY INTERESTING CASE WHERE IT'S ALREADY GONE THROUGH TECHNICAL REVIEW AND MEETS ALL THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS. IF THERE'S ANYTHING HERE MAJORITY WANTS US TO DO TO TRY TO MAKE IT MORE COMPATIBLE BECAUSE THEY FEEL LIKE IT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED DUE TO THE SIZE LIMIT BEING SMALLER, WE'D BE ABLE TO DO IT BUT JUST LET US

KNOW. >> WHAT I WAS SPECIFICALLY REFERRING TO WAS THE IDEA OF A HARDSHIP BEING -- INCLUDING THE IDEA OF THE USE OR DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY THE

PROPERTY IN QUESTION. >> I THINK THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT BECAUSE THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY ITSELF WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THAT AND VARIANCES FROM TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE CODE YOU ALSO TALK ABOUT COMPATIBILITY, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FIT HAND-IN-HAND.

AND A 111 TALKS ABOUT COMPATIBILITY AND WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT VARIANCE AND SETBACK VARIANCES OR ABOUT OTHER TYPES OF VARIANCES LIKE THAT, YOU ALSO WANT TO UNDERSTAND HOW DOES THAT AFFECT THE COMPATIBILITY OF THESE PARTICULAR AND THAT'S WHY THE DEFINITION TALKS ABOUT PROPERTY THAT'S IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO AND IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE AS YOU SEE FROM AN OVERLAY, WHICH ISN'T FULLY TECHNICAL OR EXACT, IT'S VERY COMPATIBLE. THAT'S WHY I ALSO TALKED ABOUT THE DIFFERENT THINGS IN THE AREA EVEN THOUGH IT SAYS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT IT'S ALSO SAYING WHEN WE ESTABLISHED OUR ZONING CODE WE SAID THIS WAS OUR MH. IT'S ALL GREEN.

THE WHOLE AREA, THERE'S OPEN AREAS TOO BECAUSE SOME OF THOSE WERE FARMS OR LARGER LOTS ALREADY ESTABLISHED WHICH IS WHAT HAPPENED WHEN WE ESTABLISHED OUR ZONING CODE.

IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE BEING R MH, IT'S RIPE FOR THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT. THIS SITE IS APPROPRIATE, THEY MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS AND THAT'S WHY I THINK IT'S

APPROPRIATE. >> ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS?

>> MR. CHAIR I NEEDED TO ADDRESS MR. LEBOWSKI'S QUESTION ASKING ABOUT 1150 CYPRESS ROAD. IT'S ACTUALLY IN YOUR STAFF HOME PARK HAS 16 MOBILE HOMES ON IT.

IT'S ABOUT TWO AND A HALF ACRES, JUST UNDER TWO AND A HALF.

SO IT IS ULTIMATELY A NON-CONFORMING MOBILE HOME PARK BUT IT IS DOCUMENTED WITH A COUNTY THAT 16 IS THE MAXIMUM

UNITS. >> LOOKING AT THAT, WE ARE LOOKING AT SIX UNITS PER ACRE FOR THE PARK THE 1150 CYPRESS AND MR. WHITE HOUSE YOU'RE LOOKING AT WHAT, FIVE UNITS PER

ACRE? >> 3.98.

>> MISS SPIEGEL. >> OKAY.

IF ANYBODY ELSE HAS ANYTHING TO ASK OR DISCUSS I'D LIKE TO MAKE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS AND A MOTION IF THAT'S OKAY.

FIRST OF ALL WE HAD THE MEMBER FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR THE STATE IN THE MEETING YESTERDAY AND WE SPOKE ABOUT THE DIFFICULTY OF PUTTING IN LARGE THINGS RIGHT NOW. THE COUNTY HAS HIRED A BUILDING, WE CAN SEE THAT FROM THE CONSTITUENCY.

[01:35:03]

WE SPOKE ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF ALLOWING INFILL DEVELOPMENTS AND THE IMPORTANCE OF NOT TURNING OUR NOSE UP AT SMALLER THINGS.

19 HOMES PROBABLY TO YOU ALL SEEMS HUGE AND MASSIVE BUT FOR US IT'S A SMALL THING THAT'S MORE AFFORDABLE THAN WHAT'S OUT THERE. I WANTED TO BRING THAT UP.

I THINK AFFORDABLE VERSUS ATTAINABLE SOMETIMES GETS A LITTLE MUDDY AND CONFUSING IN THE DEFINITION OF IT.

I THINK ATTAINABLE REFERS MAYBE MORE TO OWNERSHIP PERHAPS AND AFFORDABLE MAY BE TO RENTING. BUT SOMETIMES PEOPLE NEED TO STEP IN TO BEING ABLE TO OWN A HOME AND RENTING IS OFTEN THE FIRST PLACE. THIS IS THE EXACT TYPE OF THING AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE IS LIKELY TO WANT TO SUPPORT, THE SMALL INFILL DEVELOPMENT THAT WILL BE IMPROVING A PROPERTY AND AN AREA ESPECIALLY IF IT'S GOING TO BE MANAGED AND RUN. THE OWNER WILL HAVE MORE AT STAKE THAN IF THEY'RE JUST RENTING OUT THE LOTS.

I DO UNDERSTAND THERE ARE DECREPIT HOMES IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD. WE DRIVE DOWN VERY SLOWLY AND THROUGH THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD TODAY SO I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN REGARDING THAT. I BELIEVE THAT WHEN WE WERE TRYING TO REDO OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THE TWO ITEMS THAT CAME TO THE TOP OF THE LIST, THE FIRST ONE WAS NATURE.

PRESERVING NATURE. THE SECOND WAS AFFORDABLE HOUSING. AND IT GOT KICKED BACK, SEVERAL OF THE CHANGES WE WANTED TO MAKE GOT KICKED BACK AS WELL.

THESE ARE STILL POSSIBLE AND INCREMENTAL CHANGES WE CAN MAKE.

AS I SAID, THE AERIAL VIEW SHOWS THIS IS COMPATIBLE AND I BELIEVE MOBILE HOMES ARE MADE DIFFERENTLY THAN THEY WERE IN THE PAST, MORE STURDY AND MORE RESILIENT.

I BELIEVE IT'S LESS OF A MAINTENANCE ISSUE THAN IT WAS.

IT'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE A MAINTENANCE ISSUE AND ESPECIALLY ON SITE I BELIEVE IT BENEFITS THE COUNTY BECAUSE IT GIVES PLACES FOR PEOPLE WHO MAYBE COULDN'T AFFORD OR DESIRE TO LIVE IN A TOWNHOME OR APARTMENT. FOR THOSE REASONS I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ZONING VARIANCE CYPRESS ROAD MOBILE HOME PARK BASED UPON SIX FINDINGS OF FACT AND SIX CONDITIONS AS PROVIDED.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION. I THINK MR. GREEN WILL SECOND

IT. >> THAT'S FINE, I WILL PUT IN A COMMENT. I WILL SUPPORT THIS AND HOPEFULLY IT'S THE BEGINNING OF THE REVITALIZATION OF THE WHOLE AREA. THERE WERE SOME REALLY, REALLY BAD LOOKING PLACES THERE AND SOME -- MAY BE RESPONSIBLE PROPERTY OWNERS OR LANDLORDS OR TENANTS OR ALL OF THE ABOVE BUT DOING YOUR OWN RETENTION, THIS AREA HAS A LOT OF FLOODING ISSUES. I SUPPORT IT, IT'S NEW CONSTRUCTION, NEW -- NEW MOBILE HOMES, NEW EVERYTHING.

THIS AREA COULD USE -- SOMEBODY TAKING THE RISK OF GOING TO DO THAT. AND HOPEFULLY IN TWO YEARS WE'RE SEEING MORE OF THIS. NOT EVERYBODY WANTS TO LIVE IN A TOWNHOUSE OR APARTMENT YOU'RE GOING TO BE REALLY AFFORDABLE BUT THERE WILL BE BELOW PROPERLY WHAT -- PROBABLY WHAT A LOT OF PLACES ARE ASKING FOR BECAUSE EVERYTHING'S EXPENSIVE TO BUILD NOW. SO YES I'M GOING TO SUPPORT T

THIS. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? SEEING NONE ARE VOTING SCREEN UP PLEASE.

IT SAYS DISCONNECTED FROM DE DEVICE.

>> DISCONNECTED US. >> IF WE CAN'T DO THAT WE WILL

HAVE TO DO A VERBAL VOTE. >> HERE IT IS.

THAT PASSES 42. >> THANKS, SIR.

>> COMMENT. IS OVER.

I APOLOGIZE. WE CAN'T ENTERTAIN ANY MORE COMMENTS ON THIS. SORRY.

[4. MINMOD 2026-08 200 Cedar Ridge Circle Enclosure. Request for a Minor Modification to the Cedar Ridge PSD (Ordinance 1995-23, as amended) to allow for a Rear Yard setback of zero (0') feet in lieu of the ten (10') foot requirement to allow for construction of a screen enclosure.]

THE MOTION PASSED 4-2. MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER 4 UNLESS PEOPLE WANT TO TAKE A BREAK? SEEING NO ONE WANTS TO DO THAT. NUMBER 4 IS A MINOR MODIFICATION 200 CEDAR RIDGE CIRCLE. WE NEED EX PARTE.

[01:40:07]

MR. LABANOWSKI. >> YES, I VISITED THE SITE.

>> MR. OLSON. >> I VISITED THE SITE ON AUGUST

17TH. >> I VISITED THE SITE ON THE WAY UP HERE TODAY. SO I JUST LIVED DOWN THE STREET

FROM IT. >> ALL RIGHT, SIR.

YOU ARE -- I'M SORRY. I CAN'T EVEN SEE HERE.

RODNEY MCDOUGALL. >> YES.

>> FLOOR IS YOURS. >> RODNEY MCDOUGALL 5521 CHRONICLE COURT -- THIS IS FOR MISS JUDGE STEVENS TO JUST DO IN

ADDITION -- >> COULD YOU SPEAK INTO THE

MICROPHONE. >> TO DO AN ADDITION TO THEIR HOME WHICH WE ARE NOT POURING CONCRETE, IT'S ALREADY THERE.

>> IS ADDED? >> YES, SIR, UNLESS YOU HAVE A

QUESTION. >> I KNOW THE HOMES ARE TIED IN THERE -- TIGHT IN THERE. I DID WANT TO POINT OUT THIS BACKS UP NOT ONLY TO THE BUFFER THAT THE COMMUNITY HAS BUT IT SAYS THERE'S A PIECE OF LAND OWNED BY CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE BEACH IN THERE. I THINK I READ THAT CORRECTLY, WHICH SEEMS ODD SINCE IT'S ALL ON THE OTHER SIDE, THE EAST SIDE OF A ONE A THERE. THERE'S ALSO A CANAL BACK THERE FOR THE ADJOINING PROPERTY BEHIND THAT THERE'S A CANAL THAT STARTS ON THE EAST SIDE OF A ONE A AND RUNS BEHIND THE ENTIRE CEDAR RIDGE COMPLEX. BEHIND COMMODORE CLUB.

THERE'S ANOTHER BIG HOLDING THAT RUNS OUT INTO.

THE RIVER -- THE RIVER. THERE'S AN EXTRA BUFFER THERE OF THE CANAL THAT LOOKS TO BE ABOUT 30 FEET WIDE.

ANYWAY, I WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? >> REAL QUICK AND BACK ALONG THAT CANAL AS WELL AND IT JUST WAS A NUMBER OF UNITS THERE IN THAT COMMUNITY THAT WERE BACKED UP AND HAD THE WALL AND HAD ALREADY BUILT UP TO THE ZERO LOT LINE.

SO THERE'S STUFF THAT'S BEEN BUILT SEVERAL HOUSES DOWN FROM

THIS LOT. >> THAT'S TRUE, IT'S VERY TIGHT IN THERE. AND THERE IS THAT WALL.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ANYONE HERE WISH TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE, WE'RE BACK IN THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION AND DISCUSSION.

MR. LABANOWSKI. >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE 2026-08. 200 CEDAR RIDGE CIRCLE ENCLOSURE BASED ON SIX FINDINGS OF FACT AND SUBJECT TO SIX CONDITIONS AS

PROVIDED BY STAFF. >> WE HAVE A MOTION.

WE'LL HAVE A SECOND. >> I WILL SECOND.

>> MR. GREEN SECONDS. I WAS GOING TO IF YOU DIDN'T.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE WE VOTE? SEEING NONE. 5-1 BUT IT PASSES.

[5. MAJMOD 2026-03 IGP Commerce Center PUD. Request for a Major Modification to the IGP Commerce Center PUD (ORD. 2019-69, as amended) to remove 0.26 acres from the PUD, create an additional lot, revise wetland totals and wetland impacts, and permit a second monument sign.]

>> THANK YOU. >> OKAY.

ITEM NUMBER 5. MAJOR MODIFICATION.

MATTHEW'S GOING TO PRESENT FOR COMMERCE PUD THE IGP BUT WE NEED EX PARTE. MISS SPIEGEL.

>> I DID A SITE VISIT BUT IT WAS A LITTLE COMPLICATED TO UNDERSTAND THE CONSTRUCTION GOING ON OUT THERE AND EVERYTHING LAID OUT AS IT WAS. HOPEFULLY IT WILL MAKE MORE SENSE AS YOU MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION.

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

>> MR. OLSON. >> I VISITED THE SITE TODAY ON

MY WAY HERE. >> I'VE BEEN BY THE SITE SEVERAL TIMES. WE HAVE OTHER ITEMS IN THAT A

AREA. >> THE FLOOR IS YOURS.

>> THANK YOU PIER GOOD AFTERNOON.

A ONE A SOUTH ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA, -- DESIGN GROUP.

HERE REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT AND LANDOWNER FOR THIS MAJOR TO

[01:45:02]

THE IGP COMMERCE CENTER. SO THIS IS THE MASTER SITE OUTLINED IN BLUE HERE. I FORGOT MY LASER POINTER.

BUT THE VERY BOTTOM RIGHT HAND CORNER OF THIS BLUE TRIANGLE IS THE SITE IN QUESTION AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION.

I WOULD SAY THAT THIS PARCEL AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL PUD FOR A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND WAS NOT ACCESSIBLE.

THERE WAS NO ROAD THERE. IF YOU WERE OUT THERE FOR THE RECENT CONSTRUCTION VERMEER HAS NOW ADDED THEIR HEADQUARTERS TO THE SOUTH. THEY RECEIVED SOME BONDS I BELIEVE AND GRANT MONEY. THE THOMAS INDUSTRY CENTER WAY NOW YOU SEE IT EXTENDED ALL THE WAY DOWN WAS NOT THERE WHEN THIS ORIGINAL PUD WAS CONTEMPLATED. AS YOU CAN SEE THIS LAND OWNER OF THE BLUE PARCEL DID NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THIS PIECE OF HIS PROPERTY AT THAT TIME. SO WITHIN THE INDUSTRIAL FUTURE LAND USE AND ALREADY ZONED PUD WE ARE SEEKING BASICALLY THIS MINOR MODIFICATION -- OR MAJOR MODIFICATION TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL LOT HERE. SO MOVING ABOUT 0.26 ACRES TO THE SOUTH OF -- THE INTENT IS TO REVISE THE IMPACTS, CREATE AN ADDITIONAL DEVELOPABLE -- DEVELOPABLE LOT AND ADD A MONUMENT TIME AT THE INTERSECTION OF INTERNATIONAL PARKWAY AND CENTER WAY -- THE AREA DOWN HERE IN THE BOTTOM RIGHT AS YOU CAN SEE AS PART OF THE ORIGINAL PUD THAT CUL DE SAC SAW -- STOPS AT THE NORTH OF WHERE THE WHITE STOPS -- STOPS HERE. THERE'S A DEVELOPABLE LOT APPROVED AS PART OF THE PREVIOUS REZONING TO I W.

ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE HERE THE VERMEER THAT'S CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION IS HERE AND AS PART OF THAT ORIGINAL PD, THIS WAS THE END OF THE ROAD, SO TO SPEAK, IN THAT GREEN CUL DE SAC.

A BLOW UP OF THAT AREA. THIS THING DOESN'T LIKE ME TO TODAY. AGAIN HERE TO ASK FOR ADDITIONAL TOTAL AREAS AND WETLAND IMPACT TO THIS ADDITIONAL LOT AND PERMIT. ORIGINAL ORDINANCE HAD 33.2 TOTAL ACRES WITH ABOUT 3.33 ACRES OF WETLAND IMPACTS.

WE ARE SEEKING NOW TO IMPACT ABOUT 2.2 ACRES TO DEVELOP THIS LOT 18. HERE'S A BLOW UP OF THE AREA SHOWING YOU IN THAT PINK CROSSHATCH THE DEVELOPABLE PORTION THAT WE ARE SEEKING FOR THIS LOT 18.

AGAIN MONUMENT TIME LOCATION HERE UP FRONT, AN EXISTING ONE ON THE EAST SIDE. WE'RE ASKING FOR ONE TO BE INSTALLED ON THE WEST SIDE. WITH THAT WE ARE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THE STAFF MAY HAVE.

OR THE BOARD MAY HAVE. >> THANK YOU, MR. OLSON.

>> YES THE -- THERE'S A FENCE GOING ACROSS THE SITE NOW DIAGONALLY. WHEN AND WHY WAS THAT FENCE PUT IN. WAS IT PUT IN BEFORE THE WORK ON THE WETLAND WAS FORMALY DETERMINED TO BE A WETLAND WAS

CLEARED? >> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

NOT GOING TO LIE, YOU MAY REMEMBER THIS SITE AS PART OF AN INJUNCTION PREVIOUSLY WHEN THERE WAS A QUAIL FARM PROPOSED IN PART OF THIS AND LANDOWNER BATTLES AND HONESTLY COULD HAVE BEEN PUT IN AT THAT TIME. I'M NOT SURE.

>> IT LOOKS LIKE A FAIRLY NEW FENCE.

>> COULD HAVE BEEN PART OF THE RED WHITE CONSTRUCTION FOR

[01:50:01]

THOMAS INDUSTRY CENTER WAY. >> IT APPEARS FROM MY VISIT THERE THAT IT'S DEMARKING THE PORTION OF THE WETLANDS THAT HAVE BEEN RECENTLY CLEARED OF TREES FROM I BELIEVE PART OF THE WETLANDS I BELIEVE IT APPEARS IT'S POSSIBLE.

THOSE WETLANDS WERE DEMARKED AND NOT DISTURBED VERSUS THE ONES THAT ARE INSIDE WHERE THE DEMOLITION OF TREES -- IS THAT

CORRECT? >> I DON'T KNOW SPECIFICALLY WHERE THAT FENCE IS BUT THAT COULD BE THE CASE.

>> YOUR CLIENT OWNS THE ENTIRE WETLAND AREA PLUS THE FORMER

WETLAND AREA. >> SO NOT IN THIS AREA BUT I WILL CIRCLE IN RED. IN THIS TRACT I DO BELIEVE THERE'S CLEARING THERE AND I BELIEVE THERE IS --

>> CAN YOU POINT ON THE MAP. >> I CIRCLED IT IN RED.

>> OKAY. >> ON THE OVERHEAD HERE.

IT COULD BE AND I DO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A PORTION OF THIS PARCEL IN RED JUST CIRCLED RIGHT THERE.

>> WHAT I'M ASKING ABOUT IS PARCEL -- IS IT 18.

>> ASKING TO CREATE LOT 18 HERE BUT OPENLY JUST NOT CERTAIN WHERE THAT FENCE IS THAT YOU'RE SPEAKING ABOUT PHYSICALLY ON THE

PLAN. >> THE FENCE IS THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN -- ON LOT 18 BETWEEN THE PURPLE AREA AND THE WHITE AREA

ON THAT MAP. >> WHERE I'VE DRAWN IN GREEN

HERE? >> NO IT'S THE DIAGONAL ONE THAT CROSSES DIAGONALLY. IT'S THAT ONE.

THAT'S THE FENCE I'M ASKING ABOUT.

>> I'D ASSUME THAT'S THERE TO CLEARLY DEMARCATE THE REMAINING WETLAND BOUNDARY LINE. I KNOW THERE'S BEEN AN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT WORKING WITH THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT ON THIS AND WE DO HAVE A SET OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS PREPARED TO GO THROUGH THE PERMITTING PROCESS AS REQUESTED.

>> WHAT I'M ASKING -- I. GUESS WHAT I WILL END UP ASKING IS ARE THERE PLANS TO DEVELOP PART OF THE SITE BEYOND THE PURPLE AREA? IN THE AREA WHERE THE FENCE BLOCKS OFF NOW.

>> I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE FENCE IS LOCATED BUT THERE'S NO INTENT TO DEVELOP BEYOND WHAT YOU SEE IN THIS MAGENTA COLOR.

>> HERE'S WHY I'M ASKING ABOUT THAT.

WHEN I WAS OUT THERE TODAY I HEARD A LOT OF NOISE AND THERE'S ACTUAL EQUIPMENT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE DOING SOMETHING REALLY NOISY. I WASN'T THERE LONG ENOUGH TO SEE WHETHER IT WAS TREES BEING DEMOLISHED IN THAT AREA.

SO I GUESS I'M WONDERING IS THERE GOING TO BE MORE CAPTURED THAN WHAT WE SEE HERE BY YOUR CLIENT OF THE CURRENT AREA THAT'S FORMERLY WETLANDS THAT'S PROPOSED?

>> NO, SIR,. >> OKAY SO I GUESS NO ONE IN THIS ROOM KNOWS WHY THE EQUIPMENT WAS IN -- BEYOND THE

FENCE. >> WITHOUT KNOWING I WILL DRAW IN BLUE THE WETLAND ON THOSE KIND OF CONTINUE THROUGH HERE TO THAT PARCEL TO THE NORTH AND GIVING YOU IN YELLOW I DO KNOW THAT -- THAT'S HARD TO SEE. IN GREEN DOWN HERE IS THE STORMWATER POND FOR THE THOMAS INDUSTRY CENTER WAY EXTENSION.

COULD BE STAGING EQUIPMENT OUT THERE.

>> SO MY NEXT QUESTION HAVE THE CREDITS BEEN PURCHASED AND SECURED WETLAND CREDITS TO ALLOW A RETROACTIVELY I GUESS DEMO OR LOSS OF THE CURRENT WETLAND AREA?

>> I BELIEVE THOSE HAVE BEEN NEGOTIATED.

MR. STEVEN FLOREY WITH ECS HAS BEEN DOING THAT.

I DO KNOW HE'S HAD EXTENSIVE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. THEY MET ON SITE AND DO HAVE A REMEDIATION PLAN THAT WILL BE PART OF AN ERP APPLICATION, NOT PART OF THE COMPLIANCE APPLICATION.

>> BECAUSE THEY ARE EXPENSIVE. I WAS WONDERING -- AND SOMETIMES HARD TO GET BECAUSE OF THE DEMAND VERSUS THE SUPPLY AND THE

WATER CENTER. >> I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WILL BE

AN ISSUE HERE. >> OKAY.

I GUESS COULD YOU GO INTO MORE DETAIL AS TO WHY YOU NEED AN

[01:55:05]

ADDITIONAL -- WHY YOUR CLIENT NEEDS AN ADDITIONAL SIGN OF IGP?

>> I THINK THAT OPENLY SPEAKING THAT WAS PROBABLY JUST POOR PLANNING WHEN THEY DID THE ORIGINAL, NOT UNDERSTANDING THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS COMING DOWN THIS ROAD.

I DON'T KNOW THE PARTICULARS. >> SO THERE'S NOT ENOUGH ROOM ON

THIS SIDE -- >> I BELIEVE THE EXISTING SIDE

THERE IS FULLY -- >> OKAY.

THANK YOU. THOSE ARE MY QUESTIONS.

>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? MR. LABANOWSKI.

>> IN REFERENCE TO THE SIGN OUT THERE, DOES IT NEED TO BE THE SAME SIZE? BECAUSE IT WOULD BE A LOT BETTER IF IT WAS A SMALLER SIZE. IF NOT I WOULD RECOMMEND JUST CHANGING THE SIZE OF THE PANELS BECAUSE THERE'S ENOUGH ROOM IN THOSE PANELS IF YOU MAKE THEM SMALLER PANELS TO ADD ADDITIONAL COMPANIES IN THERE. I COULD BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS IF THAT WAS DONE TO REDUCE USING THE SIGN OR MAKE IT A SMALLER

SIGN. >> YOU'RE THINKING A SHORTER

SIGN? >> DEFINITELY A SHORTER SIGN.

I'D PREFER TO HAVE SMALLER PANELS.

SHORTER SIGNS. >> UNDERSTOOD.

>> MATT, CAN YOU PLEASE GO BACK TO YOUR ORIGINAL AERIAL OF THE SITE? AT THE VERY START OF YOUR PRESENTATION. MAY BE THE SECOND SLIDE THERE WAS AN AERIAL. THAT ONE'S GOOD ENOUGH.

THIS SITE LOOKS LIKE IT'S RIGHT IN THE HEADWATERS OF THAT WETLAND THAT APPEARS TO FLOW SOUTH.

THAT CYPRESS STRAND THAT RUNS RIGHT DOWN THROUGH THE SITE AND STARTS UP BEHIND THAT POND THERE TO THE EAST OF THOMAS INDUSTRY WAY. IT RUNS APPARENTLY GOING SOUTH.

ALL THAT GREY AREA THERE LOOKS LIKE A CYPRESS STRAND TO ME.

IN MY EXPERIENCE IT'S A BAD IDEA TO CUT OFF THE HEADWATER WETLAND OF AN AREA THAT'S FEEDING IT. SO I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT'S GOING TO BE MITIGATED. TWO MORE ACRES AND IT SAID 1.9 IN OUR MATERIALS BUT NOW YOU'RE SAYING IT'S 2.2 ACRES MORE OF

WETLAND IMPACTS? >> I DO BELIEVE THAT NUMBER WAS

2.2, YES. >> IT WAS.

OKAY THAT IS BOTHERING ME AND I WAS GOING TO ASK MR. OLSEN ABOUT THE MITIGATION CREDITS, WHAT'S BEING DONE TO SECURE THOSE.

ARE THEY GOING TO BE IN THAT SAINT MARK'S MITIGATION AREA?

>> I BELIEVE SO, YES. >> CERTAINLY IN THE SAME BASIN.

AND THEY'RE CUTTING OFF THAT HEADWATER WETLAND.

IT'S BAD ECOLOGICAL POLICY. >> FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH IT'S BEEN CUT OFF FOR A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF TIME BY THE ACCESS ROAD

THAT'S THE TESTING SITE. >> IT SURE LOOKS LIKE IT.

I ASSUME THERE'S CULVERTS UNDER THERE BUT I DON'T KNOW.

>> I DON'T BELIEVE SO. I BELIEVE IT'S A TRAIL ROAD.

>> OKAY SO NO CULVERTS ARE REQUIRED UNDER THERE FOR THAT

WETLAND FLOOD. >> I DON'T THINK IT WAS BUILT AS A -- LIKELY NOT BUILT WITH A PERMIT.

>> OKAY DID YOUR CLIENT BUILD THAT?

>> I BELIEVE IT WAS BUILT WHEN THEY ACCESSED THAT LAND PROBABLY WHEN THIS WHOLE PIECE OF PROPERTY WAS OWNED BY

MR. FLETCHER. >> THAT'S INTERESTING.

THAT GIVES ME CONCERN BUT I WAS OVERALL IN FAVOR OF IT.

BUT I'M STILL COGITATING. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM BOARD MEMBERS? ANYONE HERE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE, WE'RE BACK INTO THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION AND DISCUSSION.

MR. GREEN -- NOW HE'S UP. OKAY.

>> I WILL PUT THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR.

MAKE A MOTION FOR RECOMMEND OR APPROVE MAJOR 2026-03 ITP COMMERCIAL CENTER PUD BASED ON SIX FINDINGS OF FACT.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. GREEN.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> SECONDED BY MISS SPIEGEL.

[02:00:11]

DO YOU WANT TO AMEND THAT MR. LABANOWSKI, TALKING ABOUT THE SIGN AND ALL THAT? DO YOU WANT TO AMEND?

>> WE HAVE THE FRONTAGE FOR THOSE TWO SIGNS BASED ON THE TOTAL FRONTAGE ALONG IGP FOR THOSE PARCELS.

NOT ASKING FOR ANY VARIANCES BY ALL MEANS THAT MEETS THE CODE

FOR THE PROPERTY. >> WE HAVE THE LOADING SCREEN UP SO LET'S VOTE. THAT PASSES 4-2.

[6. COMPAMD26-01 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Wellhead Protection Transmittal Hearing . A proposed update to the Comprehensive Plan to bring wellhead protection standards into compliance with State law and alignment with current best practices.]

>> THANK YOU. >> WE FINALLY -- APPARENTLY ARE GETTING TO COMP PLAN AMENDMENT FOR WELLHEAD PROTECTION TRANSMITTAL HEARING. THIS IS IT. %-Ú.

>> YOU WOULD LIKE TO THINK THIS WAS IT THIS IS THREE STEPS BACKWARDS. WE'RE IN COMMUNICATION WITH THE COMMERCE DEPARTMENT. WE HAD TRANSMITTED AN AMENDMENT TO THE DEPARTMENT. EVERYBODY SIGN OFF ON THE LAST DEPARTMENT EXCEPT FOR ALL THE OTHER AGENCIES WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE DEPARTMENT AND WE'VE HAD SOME CONVERSATIONS WITH THEM. THEY WOULDN'T TELL US EXACTLY WHAT WAS WRONG OTHER THAN THEY VIOLATED 180 AND I WOULDN'T CALL IT NEGOTIATIONS THROUGH ONE SIDED NEGOTIATIONS WE DETERMINED THE BEST WAY TO GET THEM TO ACTUALLY TELL US WHAT'S WRONG AND TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT IS TO RESUBMIT.

WHAT WE'RE DOING IS RESUBMITTING THE COMPLEMENT AMENDMENT AGAIN.

THIS IS ALL THE SAME THINGS WE DID IN THE SUBMITTAL.

WHAT WE DID CHANGE IS, WE'RE REMOVING A LITTLE MORE OUT OF D4 FOR. IT WILL BE FOR THE CONCERNS MR. MATOVINA HAD BECAUSE IT'S REMOVING SOME OF THE GENERAL REQUIREMENTS NOT TO HAVE STORM MANAGEMENT PONDS, GENERAL REQUIREMENTS, NOT TO HAVE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.

IT WILL MOVE ANY OF THAT THEY'RE STILL REQUIRED TO MEET STATE LAW WE'LL MOVE THAT INTO THE LDC. SO WE WILL HAVE A SMALLER COMP PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THAT GOAL FOR THAT D4 FOR.

IT'S THE CHANGE AND WE'RE GOING TO SUBMIT THAT AND WE BELIEVE THAT WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH COMMERCE.

WE HAVE SOME CRYPTIC -- SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION EMAIL FROM THEM LAST WEEK BUT -- THEY WOULDN'T CONFIRM ANYTHING AND WOULDN'T LET US MOVE FORWARD AND USE THIS AMENDED VERSION. AT THIS POINT THIS IS THE QUICKEST WE CAN MOVE THIS FORWARD.

THE UTILITY DEPARTMENT IS TRYING TO PURCHASE TO SUPPLEMENT PLACES WHERE WE DON'T HAVE POOR WATER PRESSURE.

SO THIS DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE AND PROPERTY OWNERS THAT NEIGHBOR THESE PROPERTIES NEED TO KNOW WHAT THEY CAN AND CAN'T DO ON THESE PROPERTIES. THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE FOR YOU TODAY. IF YOU HAVE SUGGESTIONS OR ISSUES WITH EVERYTHING WE'RE COMING OUT WE'RE STILL HAVING OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT BUT WE DO INTEND TO BRING THIS TO THE BOARD FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE ON SEPTEMBER FIRST.

>> YOU WENT THROUGH THAT PRETTY QUICKLY.

THINK WE MAY ACTUALLY REMEMBERED --

>> WE CAN GO BACK TO ANYTHING YOU WANT OR ANYTHING YOU'RE

CONCERNED ABOUT. >> INSTEAD OF YOU GOING THROUGH IT AGAIN AT THIS TIME, SINCE WE HAVE THE MATERIALS -- THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE OF GROUNDWATER EXPERTS ON STAFF

WERE WISE THAT THE DEPARTMENT -- >> THE BEAUTIFUL THING IS THE DP SIGNED OFF ON IT SO I THINK THERE WAS MAYBE AN INITIAL LETTER FROM DP THAT HAD SOME CONCERNS AND THEN THEY LATER ON SIGNED OFF ON IT KIND OF THAT INITIAL LETTER SEEMED TO MAKE IT TO COMMERCE AND THEN IT'S BEEN IMPOSSIBLE TO GET DP COMMERCE TO ALL TALK AND TELL US WHAT THEY NEED.

ALSO IS POSSIBLE THAT -- MY UNDERSTANDING IS I'M HEARING

[02:05:03]

THEY'RE SENDING A LOT OF THINGS BACK THAT ARE COMMON AMENDMENTS TO EVERY COUNTY SO WE ARE NOT UNIQUE AND THIS IS JUST OVER ENFORCEMENT OF 180 BECAUSE THAT SEEMS TO BE A CURRENT GOAL IN

TALLAHASSEE. >> OKAY.

ANY QUESTIONS FROM BOARD MEMBERS ABOUT THIS OR COMMENTS?

MR. MATOVINA. >> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF TRANSMITTAL OF CAPAMD2601 PROTECTION AMENDMENT TO THE SAINT JOHNS COUNTY BORDER COUNTY

COMMISSIONERS. >> WE HAVE A MOTION BY

MR. MATOVINA. >> I'LL SECOND IT.

>> SECONDED BY MR. GREEN. OKAY.

ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, VOTING SCREEN PLEASE, THANK YOU. THAT APPEARS TO HAVE PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU FOR BEING SO PATIENT

[7. Workshop: Alcohol Special Uses and Distance Requirements. A workshop to discuss alcohol special uses and separation requirements between churches and schools.]

HERE WE ARE TO ITEM NUMBER 7 WHICH IS OUR WORKSHOP WITH MR. JACOB SMITH, THE PLANNING MANAGER IS GOING TO -- DO WE NEED TO TAKE EXPERT ON THIS FOR A WORKSHOP?

>> NOT EXPERT BUT I WOULD RECOMMEND TAKING PUBLIC COMMENT BECAUSE I THINK THERE MAY BE ONE OR TWO IN THE ROOM.

>> ON THIS OR -- WE SHOULD HAVE TAKEN PUBLIC COMMENT ON

NUMBER 6. >> I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WAS ANYBODY BUT WE CAN CONFIRM AND IF ANYBODY WANTS TO TALK --

>> MY MISTAKE THAT I DID NOT SEE PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEM NUMBER 6

ON THE COMP PLAN. >> FOR THE RECORD NOBODY LEFT THE ROOM SO ANYBODY THAT WANTED TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT?

>> APPARENTLY NOT HERE. [LAUGHING] OKAY. [LAUGHING] WE ARE READY FOR MR. SMITH TO PRESENT SOME MATERIAL TO US ON THE ALCOHOL SPECIAL USES AND DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE WE GET A LOT OF THESE OVER THE YEARS OVER THE MONTHS THAT PEOPLE WANT TO LESSEN THAT DISTANCE HERE KIDS NEVER TO INCREASE IT CERTAINLY, IT'S TO LESSEN IT ALL THE TIME HERE WE

ARE READY FOR YOU, SIR. >> THANK YOU MR. CHAIR I'LL SIT DOWN HERE SO I HAVE ACCESS TO MY COMPUTER.

AGAIN, THIS IS TO DISCUSS THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, BOTH IN THE CONCEPT OF A SPECIAL USE, BUT MAYBE MORE NARROWLY AT LEAST INITIALLY AS A SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCHES AND SCHOOLS. UP HERE I HAVE ON THE SCREEN A LOT OF TEXT, BUT THIS IS DIRECTLY FROM THE CODE SO IT'S A THOUSAND FOOT REQUIREMENT FOR SEPARATION BETWEEN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENT AND CHURCHES AND SCHOOLS.

I DON'T HAVE ANY DATA RIGHT NOW ON HOW MANY THIS AGENCY VARIANCES TO THIS REQUIREMENT THAT HAVE COME BEFORE THIS AGENCY, BUT WE WILL AS WE GO ALONG THROUGH THIS WE'LL BE ABLE TO DIAL DOWN TO THAT A BIT MORE. MOST OF WHAT THIS AGENCY TYPICALLY SEES IS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR ALCOHOL SALES, THE DISTANCE VARIANCE REQUIREMENT IS PROBABLY 10% OF THAT OR PROBABLY LESS. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

I REALLY WANT TO BE ABLE TO ENGAGE THE BOARD TO SEE HOW THIS AGENCY FEELS ABOUT THE DISTANCE REQUIREMENT.

I'LL SAY IT'S A VERY OLD STANDARD AND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. I DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT YEAR BUT IT'S APPROXIMATELY 40 YEARS OLD, MAY BE A BIT MORE.