[Call to Order]
[00:00:10]
>> I'D LIKE TO WELCOME EVERYONE TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING AGENCY MEETING APRIL 2, 2020. WE'RE DOING THIS MOSTLY REMOTELY. WE HAVE FULL COUNTY STAFF HERE IN THE AUDITORIUM. BESIDES ME, ALL THE OTHER MEMBERS ARE DIALING IN REMOTELY. AS A PRELIMINARY MATTER I CHAIR OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING AGENCY PERMIT KNOW CONFIRM HA ANY BOARD AND STAFF MEMBERS WHO ARE NOT PHYSICALLY PRESENT CAN HEAR ME. MEMBERS WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME PLEASE RESPOND IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
>> THIS MEETING IS IN ACCORDANCE SPENDING THE QUORUM AND VIRTUAL QUORUM GIVEN IF OUTBREAK OF THE COVET 1.
IN ORDER TO FURTHER MITIGATE THE TRANSMISSION OF THE CORONA VIRUS , THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HAS ADOPTED PROCEDURES TO CONDUCT MEETINGS USING REMOTE PARTICIPATION THROUGH THE EMERGENCY PROCLAMATION NUMBER 2020-3.
SO THAT THIS SO THAT THE PUBLIC HAS A MEANS TO COMMENT DURING THE MEETING WITHOUT PHYSICALLY ATTENDING.
ALONG WITH PRIOR COMMUNICATIONS INCLUDING EMAIL, THE PUBLIC WILL BE ABLE TO COMMENT BY TELEPHONE WHILE WATCHING THE MEETING POSTED ON THE COUNTY'S WEBSITE. THE WEBSITE ALSO PROVIDES -- DO NOT PROVIDE COMMENT. PARTICIPANTS ARE ADVISED PEOPLE MAY BE LISTENING WHO DO NOT PROVIDE COMMENT AND THOSE PERSONS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES.
PLEASE NOTE THIS MEETING IS BEING RECORDED.
FOR THOSE OF YOU CALLING IN TO COMMENT, IF YOU RECEIVE A BUSY SIGNAL, PLEASE CALL BACK N. ADDITION CONTINUE TO WATCH G TV WHILE YOU ARE COMMENTING BECAUSE THE THREE MINUTE TIMER WILL BE VISIBLE TO YOU. FINALLY PLEASE MUTE YOUR PHONE WHILE YOU ARE WAITING TO COMMENT.
PLEASE BE AWARE THERE WILL BE A FIVE TO NINE SECOND DELAY IN THE VISUAL PRESENTATIONS AND PERHAPS UP TO A 30 SECOND DELAY IN THE VERBAL RESPONSES. IF WE EXPERIENCE ANY TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES WE WILL RECESS WHILE THEY ARE RESOLVED AND RESUME THE MEETING. MEETINGMATERIALS, THERE ARE MATERIALS FOR THIS MEETING AVAILABLE ON THE COUNTY'S WEBSITE AND YOU GENERAL DAS AND MINUTES.
ONCE YOU FIND THE MEET AGENDA YOU CAN CLICK ON THE ITEM TO ACCESS ALL THE SUPPORTING MATERIALS.
FINALLY IF ANY MEMBER OF THE BOARD IS PARTICIPATING REMOTELY EACH VOTE TAKEN IN THIS MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED BY A ROLL CALL
VOTE BY MYSELF. >> ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS READING OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE OF STATEMENTS AND THAT WILL BE DONE
HERE IN HOUSE BY PETER. >> THIS IS A PROPERLY NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING HELD IN CONCURRENCE WITH REQUIREMENT OFFENSE FLORIDA LAW. THE PUBLIC WILL BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON TOPICS REALLY VENT TO THE AGENCY'S JURISDICTION AND GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO OFFER COMMENT AT A DESIGNATED TIME DURING THE HEARING.
ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC DESIRING TO SPEAK MUST INDICATE SO BY COMPLETING A SPEAKER CARD WHICH IS FACT WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE
[00:05:49]
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.ANY PHYSICAL OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRESENTED DURING THE HEARING SUCH AS DIAGRAMS, CHARTS, PHOTOGRAPHS OR WRITTEN STATEMENTS WILL BE RETAINED BY STAFF AS PART OF THE RECORD.
THE RECORD WILL THEN BE AVAILABLE FOR ANY OTHER AGENCY OR THE COUNTY AND ANY REVIEW OF APPEALING RELATED TO THE ITEM.
[Public Comment]
BOARD MEMBERS ARE REMINDED THAT AT THE BEGINNING OF EACH ITEM THEY SHOULD STATE WHETHER THEY HAD ANY COMMUNICATION WITH THE APPLICANT OR ANY OTHER PERSONS REGARDING THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ITEM OUTSIDE THE FORMAL MARING OF THE AGENCY.AS THE CHAIR INDICATED DURING HIS INTRODUCTORY REMARKS.
THE MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS TODAY ARE DIFFERENT THAT THEN VOWEL BEEN HELD TRADITIONALLY WITH EACH PERSON HERE IF PERSON.
THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY IS SENSITIVE TO THE PUBLIC PANDEMIC DUE TO COVID 19 GOING ON.
AND PUTS THE PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY AND WELFARE AS FOREFRONT.
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IS ALSO SENSITIVE TO THE ECONOMIC IMPACT AND IF REASONABLY POSSIBLE TO MITIGATE THE NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES TO THE LOCAL ECONOMY DUE TO COVID 19.
TODAY THE BOARD WILL CONSIDER THREE QUASI JUDICIAL ITEMS THAT ARE ON THE AGENDA FOR TODAY. IN THAT ONE TO OR MORE OF THE APPLICANTS MAY BE APPEARING REMOTELY AND ONE OR MORE OF THE PUBLIC MAY BE APPEARING REMOTELY TO DO THIS.
I WAS HAPPY TO SEE THAT AT LEAST WHEN THE CHAIR HAD INQUIRED AS TO THE AGENCY MEMBERS BEING PRESENT BY PHONE THAT SEEMED TO GO VERY SMOOTHLY. THE SORT OF OPEN PUBLIC COMMENT THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN A LITTLE BIT OF ISSUE ON THAT.
SO MR. CHAIR AND AGENCY MEMBERS, WHAT I WILL DO IS SORT OF FOLLOW ALONG THE PROGRESS OF EACH OF THE PUBLIC HEARINGS.
AND DETERMINE IF AT LEAST THE MINIMUM QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEDURE AND DUE PROCESS ARE BEING MET. IF THEY ARE NOT BEING MET, I WOULD ASK FOR A PAUSE AND IF IT IS POSSIBLE TO CURE, THEN PERHAPS IT POSSIBLE TO CURE. IF IT IS NOT REASONABLY POSSIBLE TO CURE, THEN IT WILL BE MY RECOMMENDATION TO POSTPONE I
[00:10:05]
GUESS ONE BY WINE THE AGENDA ITEMS DEPENDING ON HOW THEY GO.I WANTED TO MAKE THAT STATEMENT AT THE BEGINNING TO SET THE EXPECTATIONS. THE AGENCY , THE STAFF , THE PUBLIC AND KIND OF STEPPING OUT ON NEW GROUND HERE.
AND EACH OF US WILL HAVE TO SEE HOW THE PROGRESS GOES.
THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. >> IT WILL BE A LEARNING CURVE FOR ME AS WELL AND MAYBE EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM.
JUST A MATTER OF PROCEDURE HERE WITH MY MEMBERS AND THAT IS SINCE YOU ARE NOT HERE IN PERSON TO PRESS THE SPEAK BUTTON, WE WILL GO THROUGH EACH AGENDA ITEM.
I WILL ASK FIRST IF THERE IS EX PARTE AND GO DOWN THIS SAME LIST THAT WE DID FOR ROLL CALL. WE'LL HAVE THE STAFF PRESENT AND THEN WHEN THAT IS COMPLETE, I'LL GO DOWN THE LIST FOR QUESTIONS TO STAFF. AND THEN WHEN THE APPLICANT PRESENTS AGAIN AND FINISHES, WE WILL GO THROUGH LIST OF STAFF FOR QUESTIONS. WE'LL HAVE TO BE A LITTLE BRIEFER AND LITTLE MORE SUCCINCT.
THAT LEAD ME TO OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM WHICH IS APPROVAL OF
[Approval of Minutes]
MEETING MINUTES. I DON'T KNOW HOW WE'RE SUPPOSED TO FASHION THE MOTIONS AND SECONDS FOR THIS.THAT WILL JUST BE DONE REMOTELY AND SOMEONE WILL JUST PIPE IN
THEN. >> WE WILL DO THAT IN THE ROLL CALL FASHION AS WELL. RIGHT NOW I'M LOOKING FOR APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 20, 2020.
I'M LOOKING FAIR MOTION AND A SECOND.
WE'RE GOING TO GO DOWN THE ROLL CALL LIST.
>> DR. MCCORMICK WOULD YOU LIKE TO INFLAMMATION A MOTION?
>> YES, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE. NEXT ON THE LIST, WOULD YOU LIKE
TO MAKE A SECOND? >> I MOVE SECOND YES.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AN A SECOND. >> APPROVE.
>> WE HAVE APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 20.
[Item 1]
ITEM NUMBER ONE BEFORE JACOB STEPS UP, DO WE HAVE ANY EX>> YES, I DROVE BY THE PROPERTY. >> NO.
>> NO. >> THEN MR. SMITH WE'LL LET YOU
TAKE IT. >> JACOB SMITH WITH GROWTH MANAGEMENT PRESENTING ITEM NUMBER ONE FOR THE WILSON PROPERTY FENCE. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF A1A APPROXIMATELY A MILE OR SO SOUTH OF THE CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE BEACH. IT IS A RESIDENTIAL LAND USE.
IT IS LOCATED IN RS3 ZONING. AND LASTLY AERIAL MAP OF THE PROPERTY PRIOR TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOME.
IT IS REQUEST FOR ZONING VARIANCE TO LAND CODE 2.02.04B12 TO ALLOW A FENCE HEIGHT OF 8 FEET IN LIEU OF THE SIX FOOT REQUIREMENT SAND SPECIFICALLY LOCATED AT 5243 ATLANTA VIEW.
FOR BRIEF INTRODUCTION THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED WITH A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. IT IS A RECTANGLE LOT AND ADJACENT TO THREE LOTS. THE FENCING EXIST ALONG THE SIDE AND REAR YARDS PROVIDED A SITE MAP OF THE PROPERTY INDIANS
[00:15:15]
INDICATING -- THE REQUEST IS TO ALLOW FOR EXISTING FENCING OF EIGHT FEET TO REMAIN ALONG THE PROPERTY.THE APPLICANT SITES UNIQUE TOPOGRAPHICAL CONDITIONS AND THE APPLICANT INDICATES THE OWNER HAS PRIVACY CONCERNS RELATED TO THEIR HOME AND THE FENCING IS NECESSARY TO OFFER ADEQUATE PRIVACY AND SAFETY. THE APPLICANT DID PROVIDE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SITE AND I VISITED THE SITE AS WELL.
COULDN'T TAKE ANY BETTER PHOTOS THAN THESE.
TWO OF THE PHOTONS RIGHT-HAND SIDE ARE FROM THE BACKYARD LOOKING AT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND THE PHOTO ON THE LEFT IS FRONT FACING FROM THE STREET VIEW.
STAFF FIND THERE ARE MINOR TOPOGRAPHICAL CONDITIONS THAT APPEAR WITHIN THE LOT AND STAFF OBSERVED THE 8-FOOT SECTION OF THE SIDE YARD FENCING OTHER THAN THE PORTION CONNECTED TO THE HOME IS NOT READILY VISIBLE FROM THE ROADWAY.
STAFF DID NOT OBSERVE PROPERTIES WITH SIMILAR FRONT FENCING.
SHOULD THE AGENCY FIND SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO APPROVE STAFF FOUND CONDITIONS TO SUPPORT.
THERE WERE SEVERAL LETTERS AND CORRESPONDENCE IF RESIDENT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. FIVE LETTERS WERE IN SUPPORT OF THE VARIANCE AND FOUR WERE OPPOSED TO THE VARIANCE.
STAFF DOES NOT OBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF WILSON PROPERTY FENCE AND FINDS REQUEST SUBSTANTIALLY MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLAN. PROVIDED FIVE CONDITIONS AND FOUR FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL AND FOUR FOR DENIAL.
I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. AND TABLE APPLICANT IS PRESENT
REMOTELY. >> LET'S GO THROUGH ROLL CALL FOR QUESTIONS HERE FOR JACOB. ANY QUESTIONS?
>> DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. SMITH?
>> MOVING ON? >> I HAVE ONE QUESTION.
IT STATED IN ONE OF THE LETTERS OF OBJECTION THAT FENCE IS IN FACT -- YOU JUST TOOK PHOTOGRAPHS?
>> TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. I DID NOT MEASURE THE FENCE.
I DID BRIEFLY LOOK AT THE REPORT.
I DID NOT SEE ANY INDICATION OF THE ACTUAL HEIGHT OTHER THAN THE
FACT IT WAS OVER SIX FEET. >> MR. WAINWRIGHT?
>> NO QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME. >> I HAVE ONE.
THE SITE PLAN YOU HAD UP ON THE SCREEN WITH THE BLUE FENCE LINE, IT SHOWED A GREAT DEAL OF TOPOGRAPHY IN THE YEAR YARD.
26 AT THE HIGH POINT AND SLOPING DOWN TO SOMEWHERE IN THE HIGH TEENS AROUND THE EDGES. YOU HAD NO PICTURES OF THAT
SIDE. >> I DID NOT ENTER THE PROPERTY.
IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THERE IS A TWO FOOT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SOME OF THE GRADE POINTS IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES LIKE THAT.
AN 8-FOOT FENCE WOULD BE ALLOWED.
I WAS NOT PRESENTED ANY EVIDENCE BY THE APPLICANT THAT THAT WAS
THE CASE. >> IN THOSE PICTURES, IT LOOKED LIKE IT WAS PRETTY MUCH FLAT TO A LEVEL PLANE.
>> MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE HOUSE ELEVATED A LITTLE BIT FROM THE ROADWAY BUT OTHERWISE DOES SIT ON A RELATIVELY GRADED
PORTION OF THE LOT. >> MRS. PERKINS?
>> NO QUESTIONS. >> NO QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.
>> MR. CHAIR, I HAVE THE SAME QUESTION AS YOU BUT I THINK THE SITE PLAN SOMEWHAT ANSWERS THE QUESTION BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS THE SITE PLAN THAT USED AN OLDER BUILDING PERMIT AND CALLS OUT AN ELEVATION OF 17.61 SO YOU WOULDN'T NEED A TALL FENCE IN THE BACKYARD IN YOU HAD A 26 ELEVATION BACK THERE SLOPING DOWN TO WHATEVER THAT OTHER ELEVATION IS.
IT APPEARS TO BE THAT THE YARD WAS PROBABLY FLATTENED WHEN THEY
BUILT THE HOUSE. >> QUESTIONS FROM MEMBERS HERE?
[00:20:04]
IF WE CAN HAVE THE APPLICANT STEP FORWARD THEN.>> ALSO ON THE LINE WITH ME TODAY IS MATT WILSON , THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. THANK YOU ALL FOR CONDUCTING YOUR MEETING THIS WAY AND ALLOWING US TO APPEAR THROUGH TELEPHONE. SEEMS TO BE WORKING PRETTY WELL WATCHING ON TV AS WE'RE DOING THIS.
IT'S A LITTLE ODD THE INTERJECT HUMOR TO BE SITTING IN FRONT OF PGA TO HAVE A HEARING AND BE IN MY GYM CLOTHES.
HAVING APPEARED THERE SO MANY TIMES IN THE PAST.
Y'ALL TOUCHED RIGHT ON IT. THAT SITE PLAN IS ONE THAT ALSO HELPS TO MAKE THE ARGUMENT IN SUPPORT OF WHAT THE WILSON'S WANT TO MAINTAIN HERE WHICH IS THEIR LOT THE 1 FOOT NUMBER AND THE LOT DID SLOPE INTO THE 16-FOOT RANGE BEFORE IT WAS LEVEL. AND WHEN THEY DID , THE NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH WAS LEVEL THEIR LOT SO THEIR HOME WOULD SIT IN LINE FROM A GRADING STANDPOINT OF THE LOT TO BE CONSISTENT. BECAUSE OF THAT THEY WANT THAT FENCE BECAUSE THEY LOWERED THEIR LOT WHICH LOWERS YOUR VIEW INTO THEIR HOME. GIVES MORE OPPORTUNITY TO SEE IN THEIR BACKYARD BECAUSE THEY LOWERED THEIR YEAR YARD.
IF YOU LOOK TO AN INTERESTING THING THAT WE SUBMITTED AND PUT THIS IN OUR JUSTIFICATION, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS FRONT ELEVATION IT'S A THREE STORY HOME.
[INAUDIBLE] THE WILSON HOME WAS BUILT AND THE NEIGHBOR TO THE SOUTH YOU CAN SEE IN THE PHOTO ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE SCREEN THE FRONT SIDE OF THE HOME BUT ALSO LOOKING AT THE BOTTOM RIGHT CORNER YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE WILSON'S POOL IS AND IN THE BACKGROUND YOU CAN SEE THE BROWN HOUSE. THEY ARE NOT OPPOSED EITHER.
AND THEY WOULD BE THE ONES MOST IMPACTED BY IT CLEARLY.
IT GIVES ALL THOSE THREE PROPERTY OWNERS REALLY GREAT PRIVACY IN THEIR YARDS WHICH IS SOMETHING THEY ARE ALL LOOKING FOR. A COUPLE OF OTHER NOTES.
THIS IS THE WILSON'S HOMESTEAD. THEY BUILT THIS HOME.
IF YOU LOOK ON THE PROPERTY APPRAISER DATA BASE THEY HAVE THE HOMESTEAD EXCEPTION FOR THIS.
THIS IS WHERE THEY LIVE. THE WILSON'S WERE ON THE PHONE WITH ME RIGHT NOW. THEY ARE SITTING IN THAT HOME RIGHT NOW WHILE THIS HEARING IS BEING CONDUCTED.
[00:25:01]
THAT IS THEIR HOME. IT'S SOMETHING VENEER AND DEAR TO THEM. THERE ARE OTHER TALL FENCES IN THIS AREA WHICH WE POINTED OUT. IN OUR JUSTIFICATION.THAT THERE ARE OTHER TALL FENCES.
WE'RE NOT TRYING TO POINT FINGERS AT OTHER PEOPLE.
BUT THIS IS NOT A SITUATION WHERE ALL THE FENCES IN THIS AREA OF THE COUNTY DON'T EXIST. THEY IN FACT DO EXIST.
CHALLENGE TO THIS SITE. IF THEY HAD LEFT IT THE WAY IT WAS THEY COULD HAVE HAD A TALLER FENCE BY RIGHT IN THE COUNTY CODE. MR. WILSON IDENTIFIED SEX OFFENDERS ON THE SITE THAT GIVES HIM CONCERN.
HE HAS YOUNG DAUGHTERS HE HAS CONCERN FOR AND THE FENCE IS IMPORTANT TO THEM. THEY BELIEVE AGAIN THAT IT VERY CONSISTENT. I WOULD SUBMIT TO YOU AS I'M LOOKING ON TV THAT THE MASS AND SCALE OF THAT FENCE DOES NOT LOOK LIKE THE TYPICAL 8-FOOT FENCE SITTING ON A TEN FOOT SET BACK FROM THE STREET. IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE AREA.
IT'S TIED INTO THE FENCE. IF YOU LOOK CLOSELY AT THE PHOTO ON THE LEFT THAT IS UP ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW, THE WILSON FENCE EXTEND OVER THE THAT POST ON THE RIGHT, THEN YOU CAN SEE THE DARKER AREA OF FENCE, THAT'S THE NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH, THAT'S THEIR FENCE, THAT'S NOT ON THE WILSON PROPERTY.
YOU SEE HOW THEY TIE MANY AT THE SAME ELEVATION.
THIS IS A FENCE THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT EXISTED THERE. THE ONLY THING THAT I'D TELL YOU IN THAT SATURDAY IF YOU COULD IN YOUR INDIVIDUAL PACKET, I DON'T KNOW IF SERVE LOOKING AT AN ELECTRONIC VERSION, BUT IF YOU FLIP TO PAGE 36 OF 44 WHICH IS THE PHOTOS JACOB TOOK TOWARDS THE END OF THAT PACKET THAT WAS IN THE PACKAGE, YOU CAN SEE A CLOSER VIEW OF THE FRONT DOOR OF THE WILSON HOUSE AND YOU CAN SEE THE HOUSE TO THE IMMEDIATE NORTH.
AND YOU CAN SEE JUST HOW MUCH THAT FENCE DOES NOT LOOK THAT TALL IN COMPARISON TO THE HEIGHT OF THESE STRUCK CHOO USER ARE THREE STORIES RIGHT HERE IN THIS AREA.
YOU CAN ALSO SEE IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT PAGE WHICH IS 37 OF 44 YOU CAN SEE THAT AREA OF FENCE WHERE IT STEPS BACK WHERE IT'S ON THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY AND THERE ARE PALM TREES IN FRONT OF IT. AGAIN ON PAGE 38 OF 44, YOU CAN SEE A CLOSE PICTURE WITH THE BURGUNDY CAR IN THE DRIVEWAY AND 8-FOOT FENCE. YOU CAN SEE THE TREES AND PLANTINGS IN FRONT OF THE FENCE. FROM A VISUAL IMPACT OF THIS FENCE FROM THE STREET, IT'S -- IT DOES NOT LOOK AS TALL AS IT MAY SEEM AND YOUR NEIGHBORS ON BOTH SIDES ARE NOT OBJECTING.
SO WITH THAT I GUESS WE'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU. WE'LL GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT THEN.
AND WAIT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT TO SEES AN THEN GO BACK TO OUR BOARD MEMBERS. ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WANT TO SPEAK ON THIS? A.
[00:30:27]
>> THE EMAIL ADDRESS IS POSTED ON THE AGENDA WHICH IS ALSO
POSTED ON OUR COUNTY WEB PAGE. >> PUBLIC SPEAKER, SPEAK.
>> OK. MY NAME IS RICHARD, I LIVE AT 5255 ATLANTIC VIEW. I AM DIRECTLY SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION AND EVERYTHING THAT THEY SAID EARLIER IS [INAUDIBLE] QUESTIONS OR NONE TO THE APPLICANT.
ONCE AGAIN FOR QUESTIONS OR NONE TO THE APPLICANT.
>> I JUST HAVE A COMMENT ON THIS IS LOOKING AT TIME HERE.
>> WHAT IS THE HARDSHIP S THAT YOUR QUESTION?
>> YES. >> SHOULD WE HAVE THE APPLICANT
ADDRESS THAT? >> WHAT IS THE HARDSHIP?
>> QUESTIONS FROM ME. I DON'T OBJECT TO IT BEING ALONG THE SIDE THERE. I DO THINK IT'S HIGH.
I THINK EIGHT FEET IS TOO HIGH. THE OBJECTION THERE FROM ME IS JUST FROM THE FRONT ELEVATION. IT'S HIGH IF MY OPINION.
MS. PERKINS, QUESTION OR COMMENT?
>> YES, I HAVE A QUESTION. I READ SOMEWHERE THAT THERE WAS A PREVIOUS FENCE BETWEEN THIS PROPERTY AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD TOWNED BY THE NEIGHBOR AND THAT WAS TAKEN DOWN.
[00:35:02]
>> I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? >>
>> I THINK IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HELPFUL TO PROVE A HARDSHIP IF WE KNEW THE FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION OF THE HOUSES ON EITHER SIDE. I CAN SURMISE FROM THIS INFORMATION THAT THE HOUSE ON THE RIGHT IS HIGHER AS THE NEIGHBOR TO THE SOUTH TESTIFIED. AND THAT HIS HOUSE IS LOWER.
BUT THAT WOULD SUGGEST TO META THE FENCE NEED ONLY BE SIX FEET TALL ADJACENT TO THE NORTH. AND THEN PRESUMABLY WOULD GET TALLER AS YOU HEAD SOUTH WITH THE ELEVATION STEPPING DOWN.
IT SURE LOOKS LIKE IN THE PICTURE I'M LOOKING AT THAT THE FENCE ON THE NORTH BOUNDARY IS HIGHER THAN SIX FEET WHICH PROBABLY MAKES THE FENCE ON THE SOUTH BOUNDARY GET EVEN HIGHER.
I GUESS THAT'S KIND OF A QUESTION.
>> DOUG, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS THOSE QUESTIONS?
>> SURE I'LL LET MR. WILSON WEIGH IN AS WELL.
THE PRIOR FENCE JUMPING TO MRS. PERKINS 'QUESTION IT'S ACTUALLY VISUAL OR VISIBLE IF YOU GO 7 PAGES IN FROM THE BACK OF YOUR STAFF REPORT. IF YOU LOOK AT A DIGITAL COPY, IT'S PAGE 37 OF 44. IF YOU LOOK ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THAT PHOTO, AND THIS WAS A PHOTO THAT JACOB TOOK.
IT'S A PHOTO WITH THREE CARS IN THE DRIVEWAY, YOU CAN SEE THE MAROON TOYOTA AND TWO JEEP VEHICLES, IF YOU LOOK OVER TO THE RIGHT AND YOU SEE THE HOUSE SIGH WHERE THE TWO PALM TREES THERE R, THERE IS A FENCE THERE, THAT FENCE IS INTEGRAL CONSTRUCTIVE TYPE OF INANES YOU'RE LOOKING AT AND REVIEWING TODAY THAT'S IN YOUR APPLICATION.
THAT I BELIEVE THAT FENCE IS THE TOP OF THAT FENCE MATCHES THE TOP OF THE FENCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ASKING TO YOU GIVE US THE VARIANCE. THE ACTUAL ELEVATION AT THE TOP IS THE SAME. AND SO THAT'S NOT ON THE WILSON PROPERTY. THIS VARIANCE APPLICATION IS NOS OUR FENCE ALIGNS WITH THAT. THE FENCE THAT WAS EXISTING IS THAT FENCE ON THE NORTH SIDE THAT WAS PUT IN BEFORE END OF TR STRUCTURES ARE THREE STORIES WITH TOWERS ON THEM , THE MASS AND SCALE OF IT IS PRETTY GOOD WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT.
THE ADDED THING -- I HEAR WHAT YOU ARE SAYING ON THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE LOOKING AT THE STREET. BUT THIS HOUSE IS SET BACK AN ADDITIONAL TEN FEET THAN WHAT THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN WITH THE 25 MINIMUM SETBACK.
IT'S 35-FOOT RANGE AND THE FENCE SET BACK EVEN FURTHER FROM THAT FRONT PART OF THE HOUSE, TEN FEET FROM THAT STOOP AREA OF THE FRONT ENTRYWAY. AND SO YOU DO AVOID SOME OF THE MASS AND SCALE ON THE SOUTH SIDE.
THERE IS A NUMBER OF TREES THAT ARE VISIBLE AND JACOB'S LAST PHOTO IN THE STAFF REPORT THERE IS A NUMBER OF TREES ON THAT SIDE OF THE FENCE WHERE YOU DON'T SEE IT MUCH UNLESS YOU ARE OFF ANGLE. THERE IS SOME PALM TREES ON THE RIGHT SIDE OR NORTH SIDE. GIVE ME ONE MOMENT.
[00:40:22]
LET ME LET MR. WILSON COMMENT. GO AHEAD AND WEIGH IN WITH YOURCOMMENTS. >> HI, MY NAME IS MATT WILSON.
MY FIRST COMMENT IS THANK YOU TO THIS BOARD FOR TAKING YOUR VALUABLE TIME TO HEAR MY FAMILY'S CASE ON THIS.
MY FIRST COMMENT IS JUST THAT WE ARE CALLING THIS OUR FOREVER HOME. WE MOVED TO ST. AUGUSTINE ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO. IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE MAINTAIN REALLY GOOD RELATIONSHIPS WITH ALL OF OUR NEIGHBORS. WE LOOK AT EVERYTHING WE DO.
MY OTHER COMMENTS WOULD BE THERE WAS A QUESTION BY ONE OF THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS I BELIEVE ABOUT THE FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATIONS OF THE HOMES TO THE NORTH AND THE HOME TO THE SOUTH.
AND I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT LAURA CURRY'S HOME WHICH IS TO MY NORTH AND WE SHARE A FENCE, HER FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION IS 29.80 FEET. MY FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION 17.61 FEET. AND RICK, MY NEIGHBOR TO THE SOUTH WHO ALSO APPROVED THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS FENCE BEFORE IT WAS BUILT, HIS FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION IS 24 FEET. SO IT'S BOTH THE HOME TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH HAVE HIGHER FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATIONS THAN MY HOME. BECAUSE OF THAT THEY HAVE A VERY GOOD VANTAGE POINT TO SEE INTO MY BACKYARD.
AND WITH MY TWO TEENAGE GIRLS, NOT THAT I HAVE ANY CONCERNS ANY NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH, THEY ARE GREAT PEOPLE.
THEY CAN BE SOLD. THEY CAN BE TURNED INTO VRBO LIKE THE HOME TO THE SOUTH WHICH IS A VRBO AND THAT ONE TO THE SOUTH IS FREQUENTED BY LARGE GROUPS OF TEENAGE BOYS THAT SIT ON THEIR BALCONIES OFTEN TIMES WHILE MY KIDS ARE LAYING OUT IN THEIR BUCS BESIDE MY POOL. IT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR TO US MAINTAIN THAT PRIVACY. MY THIRD AND FINAL COMMENT IS THAT THE COMPLAINANT OF THIS CASE MY NEIGHBOR ACROSS THE STREET SLIGHTLY TO THE EAST, HE OWNS THE LOT BEHIND ME.
I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT WE DID PROVIDE PHOTOS THAT DODOM STRAIT LOT ELEVATION BEHIND ME INCREASES IN HEIGHT FROM THE BASTE BASE OF MY FENCE THREE FEET BEHIND MY FENCE LAND ELEVATION RISES MORE THAN FOUR OR EVEN FIVE FEET AND THAT IS ON THE NORTHERN EDGE OF MY PROPERTY.
IT'S VERY MUCH BEHIND ME FENCE. WE HAVE DONE OUR DUE DILIGENCE TO TRY AND MAKE SURE THAT OUR NEIGHBORS WERE THOUGHT OF BEFORE WE CONSTRUCTED THIS FENCE BY SEEK AGO APPROVAL OF THE NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH , THE NEIGHBORS TO THE SOUTH BY DOING OUR RESEARCH THAT THE GRADE BEHIND OUR FENCE WOULD MEAN THIS AN EIGHT FOOTSTEPS IN COMPLIANCE AND WE GOT THE APPROVAL FROM THE NEIGHBOR BEHIND U THAT IS CADDY CORNER ON THE NORTHERN EDGE OF US THAT SHE APPROVED. SHE SAID ABSOLUTELY YOU CAN BUILD THAT FENCE. JUST PLEASE DON'T PLANT PALM TREES BETWEEN YOU AND THE HOME TO THE NORTH BECAUSE I COVET THAT VIEW. OUT OF RESPECT FOR HER, WHEN WE PUT THIS OUR FULL LANDSCAPING PACKAGE WE DIDN'T PUT ANY PALM TREES ALONG THAT EDGE WHICH WOULD HAVE HELPED US FOR OUR PRIVACY ON THAT SIDE BUT WE CHOSE NOT TO DO THAT TO MAINTAIN HARMONY WITH OUR NEIGHBORS. THAT IS MY COMMENT AND THANK YOU
FOR YOUR VALUED TIME. >> THANK YOU.
>> IS THERE I QUESTION ABOUT WHAT IS A HARDSHIP.
AND THEN ONE ABOUT WAS A FENCE THERE AT SOME POINT, MAYBE YOU TOUCHED THAN WITH THE HOUSE TO THE NORTH.
[00:45:05]
>> IF YOU LOOK AT THE JUSTIFICATION WE PROVIDED WHICH ON THE ELECTRONIC COMPANY IS 36 OF 44.
IT'S ON THE PAGES IN YOUR PACKAGE THAT HAVE THE LOGO ON THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGES, PAGE NINE OF 11.
YOU CAN SEE WHERE IN FACT I REFERENCED THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE AREA AND YOU CAN SEE THE 29.8 OF THE HOME LOCATED AT 5239 WHICH IS THE NORTH. AND THEN THE HOME AT 5255 WHICH IS THE HOME TO THE SOUTH OF 24 VERSUS OUR 17.6.
IT ALSO MEANS THEN THAT THEIR WINDOWS OBVIOUSLY ARE TALLER A TYPICAL IF YOU HAVE THREE HOUSES IN A ROW , THE FIRST FLOOR OF THE HOMES AND THEY ARE ON A LEVEL FLAT SURFACE, A SIX FOOT FENCE GIVES YOU MORE PRIVACY THAN WHERE THE FIRST FLOORS ARE ELEVATED BY SIX OR SEVEN FEET ABOVE THIS HOUSE.
AT THE END OF THE DAY, THIS HOUSE REMOVED DIRT FROM ITS SITE SO IT'S ACTUAL DRAINAGE PATTERN OF THE LOT WOULD BE MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE HOUSE TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH.
AND THEN ADDITIONAL GOING ON YOU CAN SEE THE SAFETY HARDSHIP WHERE WE THINK THAT WARRANT A HARDSHIP THE VACATION RENTAL OF THE HOME BEHIND US, WE DON'T BELIEVE THE ORDINANCES THAT HAVE GONE PAST THE CITY REGULATES THAT IS NOT IN A COVENANT OR RESTRICTED COMMUNITY THAT PROHIBITS OR PREVENTS OR LIMITS SHORT TERM RENTALS. THE SAFETY HARDSHIP AND MATT CAN TELL YOU MORE ABOUT THIS. BUT THERE ARE REGISTERED SEX OFFENDERS IN THE AREA. THE FENCE TO THE NORTH IS ACTUALLY OFF OF OUR PROPERTY AGAIN.
BUT OUR THE FENCE CONSTRUCTION METHOD, CONSTRUCTION METHOD ANTED MATERIALS OF THE FENCE THAT WE ARE EVALUATING ON THE WILSON PROPERTY IS IDENTICAL TO THE FENCE THAT WAS STILL PRIOR ON THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH AND OUR ELEVATION OF OUR FENCE ACTUALLY MATCHES UP TO THAT FENCE.
SO IT'S CLEARLY WITHIN THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE CODE WE THINK UNDERSTAND HARMONY WITH THE AREA TO ALLOW THIS.
ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU HAVE NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH THAT DON'T OBJECT AND THE ONE TO THE REAR IS NOT OBJECTING.
IN FACT THEY HAVE WRITTEN SUPPORT FOR THIS.
AS I RESITE ON THE PAGE 10 OF 11 ON OUR JUSTIFICATION WHERE WE HAVE THAT IN THERE AS SUPPORT. AND THEN IF YOU LOOK AT AND WE DON'T WANT TO POINT FINGERS AT THE NEIGHBORS THAT WOULD BE CLOSEST TO US, BUT THERE ARE A NUMBER.
YOU CAN DO STREET LEVEL GOOGLE VIEW WHICH I DID BEFORE THE HEARING TODAY ON THOSE ADDRESES THAT I'VE LISTED ON PAGE 10 OF 11 OF OUR JUSTIFICATION. YOU CAN SEE PRETTY CLEARLY WHEN A FENCE IS HIGH THIRD BASEMAN FRONT DOOR OF THE HOME THAT IT'S GOT TO BE AT LEAST 8 FEET AND TALLER THAN THAT.
AND ON THESE ADDRESSES YOU CAN SEE IT JUST BY DOING GOOGLE STREET LEVEL VIEW, YOU CAN SEE THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCES.
INTERESTINGLY -- THE WILSONS HAVE WANTED TO GO ABOUT THIS IN A WAY THIS DID NOT CAUSE PROBLEMS WITH THEIR NEIGHBORS.
I CAN TELL YOU THAT ONE OF THE PEOPLE THAT SUBMITTED OPPOSITION, WE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE OTHER OPPOSITION.
BUT THE ONE IN THE PACKAGE, THEY ACTUALLY HAVE A FIVE FOOT TALL FENCE IN THEIR FRONT YARD ALREADY AND PROBABLY DON'T KNOW THAT THE CODE PROHIBITS A FENCE TALLER THAN FOUR FEET IN THE FRONT YARD. AND SO THOSE KINDS OF THINGS HAVE GONE ON IN THIS AREA AND EXIST AND HAVE BEEN THERE FOR YEARS. THEY ARE NOT CODE COMPLIANT.
BUT NO ONE KNOWS THAT. AND IT'S NOT UNTIL SOMEONE RAISES THE ISSUE THAT WAIT THAT'S NOT ALLOWED.
AND SO IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THIS FENCE IS VERY MUCH IN KEEPING WITH THE AREA. IT'S VERY MUCH A DESIRED BY THE WILSONS AND BY THEIR NEIGHBORS. AS YOU HEARD FROM THE NEIGHBOR TO THE SOUTH WHO TOOK THE TIME TO CALL IN IN SUPPORT.
WE ASK YOU TO PERMIT THIS APPLICATION AND GRANT THE
[00:50:02]
VARIANCE. IT'S ALREADY IN PLACE.IT EXIST, YOU CAN SEE IT IN THESE PHOTOS TO BE ABLE TO TELL.
THIS IS NOT ONE WHERE YOUR STAFF IS OBJECTING AND SAYING THERE IS NO WAY THIS IS SUPPORTED. STAFF GAVE YOU MORE THAN ENOUGH LEEWAY TO VOTE TO APPROVE THIS TODAY.
WITH THAT MR. WILSON, DO YOU HAVE ANY ADDITION COMMENTS IS
THE. >> SEVERAL QUICK COMMENTS.
I WOULD JUST SAY AGAIN IN SPIRIT OF ME WANTING TO MAINTAIN GOOD RELATIONSHIPS WITH MY NEIGHBORS, A KNEE JERK REACTION FOR SOMEBODY WHO COMES INTO A NEW NEIGHBORHOOD AND GREETS THEIR NEIGHBORS AND WHO IS GIFTED AT THE CHRISTMAS HOLIDAYS WITH A ZONING VIOLATION, THE KNEE JERK REACTION THAT MANY PEOPLE WOULD TAKE WOULD BE TO FILE ZONING VIOLATION CASES AGAINST MY NEIGHBORS. WE HAVEN'T DONE THAT.
INTERESTINGLY MIKE REED WHO FILED VIOLATION, HE HIMSELF HAS A DRIVEWAY IS IN WELL EXCESS OF THE COUNTY VIOLATIONS.
I HAVEN'T POINTED THAT OUT TO THE COUNTY AND I'M NOT INTENDED TO FILE A PRIDE CASE ON THAT. I'LL HAVE TO RECONSIDER THAT IF WE LOSE THIS CASE AND I WILL RESPECT YOUR OPINIONS.
AND DECISIONS. BUT HIS DRIVEWAY IS REQUIREMENT OF THE COUNTY IS DRIVEWAY CAN'T BE WIDER THAN 1 FEET AND HIS IS IN EXCESS OF 30 FEET. ONE OTHER COMMENT, WE TALKED ABOUT THE HARDSHIP. THE FINISHED FLOOR LEVELS OF THE HOMES TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH ARE MUCH HIGHER THAN MINE WHICH OFFERS THEM A GOOD VIEW INTO MY BACKYARD.
AS DOUGLAS DESCRIBED, WE DO HAVE A SEXUAL OFFENDER WITHIN HALF A MILE OF OUR HOME AND A SEXUAL PREDATOR WHICH IS EXTREMELY CONCERNING WITHIN LESS THAN A HALF A MILE OF OUR HOME AND WITH A VACANT LOT BEHIND US THERE IS EASY ACCESS FOR THAT INDIVIDUAL TO TAKE A FIVE MINUTE STROLL, WALK THROUGH THIS EMPTY LOT BEHIND MY HOUSE AND GAIN ACCESS TO MY HOME.
I HAVE TWO DAUGHTERS I'M TRYING HARD TO PROTECT AND THEIR SAFETY IS VERY IMPORTANT TO ME. THANK YOU.
>> AT THIS POINT WE'RE BACK IN THE AGENCY.
I'LL READ THE ROLL CALL AGAIN FOR A POSSIBLE MOTION.
>> I'M HERE. >> I'M HERE AND I'M BACK TO MY ORIGINAL THOUGHTS ON THIS WHOLE ISSUE.
I GOT SAY I DO APPRECIATE THE QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS THAT THE OTHER AGENCY MEMBERS HAVE MADE DURING THIS DISCUSSION.
I ALSO REALLY APPRECIATE THE JUSTIFICATIONS THAT HAVE PROVIDED BOTH IN THE PROPOSAL ITSELF AS WELL AS THE COMMENTS BY BOTH MR. BURNETT AND MR. WILSON.
I GUESS ONLY THING THAT SET ME BACK A LITTLE BIT IS WHEN WE GET INTO DISCUSSIONS OF WELL IF WE HAVE THIS COMPLAINT THEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A COMPLAINT GOING THE OTHER WAY, THAT SORT OF THING. NEVERTHELESS I'M MAKING A MOTION TO APPROVE ZONING VARIANCE 20-02 REQUEST FOR ZONING VARIANCE TO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 2.02.04. B.12 TO ALLOW A FENCE HEIGHT OF 8 FEET IN LIEU OF THE SIX FOOT REQUIREMENTS IN RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY RS-3 ZONING SUBJECT TO FIVE CONDITIONS. AND BASED ON FOUR FINDINGS OF FACT AS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION. >> I WILL SECOND THAT.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. ANY FURTHER.
WE HAVE MOTION AND SECOND. WE WILL RENDER A VOTE.
[Item 2]
>> NO. >> MOTION CARRIES IF MY SMOOTH
[00:55:01]
CORRECT 5-2. APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S TIME ON THAT. WE'RE GOING OVER TO ITEM NUMBER 2. I'M GOING TO ASK YOU ONCE AGAIN TO DECLARE THE EX PARTE IF THERE IS SOME.>> YES. I DID WALK BY THE PROPERTY.
IT'S A SHORT WALK FROM MY HOUSE AND I SPOKE WITH THE CHAIRMAN OF THE MARSH CREEK ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD ABOUT THE ITEMS.
THOSE ARE MY TWO. >> MR. WAINWRIGHT, DO YOU HAVE ANY EXPAR TO DECLARE? I'LL TAKE HAD AS A QUESTION
>> NONE. >> JAKE SOB YOU GOT THE FLOOR
MINOR MODIFICATION 202002. IT IS REQUEST FOR A MINOR MODIFICATION TO THE PLAN INTERDEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW FOR REDUCTION OF REAR SETBACK TO 8 FEET IN LIEU OF THE 20-FOOT REQUIREMENT TO ACCOMMODATE PLACEMENT OF A SWIMMING POOL.
IT IS LOCATED AT 809 KHALI CREEK LANE.
LOCATION MAP INDICATES THE PAR SAL THAT IS WEST OF A1A SOUTH APPROXIMATELY CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE BEACH.
IT IS LOCATED IN PUD ADJACENT TO RS3 ZONE.
LASTLY -- THIS IS A REQUEST TO REDUCE REAR YARD SET BACKS OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PUD TO E CONSTRUCTION OF A BACKYARD SWIMMING POOL. IT OFFERS THE SHAPE OF THE LOT CREATES A NARROW REAR YARD. A SITE PLAN HAS BEEN PROVIDE BID APPLICANT INDICATING THE PROPOSED POOL AND SET BACKS.
HERE IS THAT SITE PLAN. AS YOU CAN SEE, THE WHAT WOULD BE THE PERSON SIDE OF THE PROPERTY ANGLES INWARD SIGNIFICANTLY TO THE HERE YARD AND MAKING A POOL QUITE DIFFICULT TO SQUEEZE IN AS PROPOSED.
SO THE APPLICANT PROPOSED AN 8-FOOT SETBACK IN LIEU OF THE 2.
THE SUBJECT LOT DOES DEMONSTRATE UNIQUE REAR LOT LINE.
SWIMMING POOLS ARE COMMON IN THE PUD AND EIGHT OF THE 11 HOMES THERE HAVE BACKYARD POOLS. STAFF WAS NOT ABLE TO LOCATE SIMILAR MODIFICATION REQUEST IN THE ADJACENT AREA.
THE PLAT FOR THE LOCAL SEAR ALSO PROVIDED.
WHICH IS UP ON THE SCREEN NOW. I HAVE HIGHLIGHTED WITH THE GREEN HIGHLIGHTER SHOWING SUBJECT HOT AND AS YOU CAN SEE THE LOT AGAIN JUTS IN QUITE SEVERELY COMPARED TO MOST OF THE NEIGHBORING LOTS WHICH HAVE A TYPICAL SHAPE REAR LOT LINE.
FOR STAFF ANALYSIS , THE REAR YARD ADEQUATELY DEMONSTRATE AN UNUSUAL SHAPE. THE PROPOSED POOL DOES NOT ENCROACH ON NEARBY WETLAND AND MAINTAINS ALL BUFFERING REQUIRED. FOR PUBLIC INPUT STAFF RECEIVED ONE INOUT OF SUPPORT AND NO OBJECTIONS.
STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF MINOR MODIFICATION FOR POOL.
SUBJECT OF SIX CONDITIONS AND BASED ON FIVE FINDINGS OF FACT.
STAFF FIND THE REQUEST MEETS THE REQUIREMENT O. COMP PLAN, LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND PUD REGULATIONS.
THE REQUEST DOES NOT APPEAR CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST S COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING USES AND STAFF RECEIVED NO OPPOSITION. I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
THE APPLICANT HAS A REPRESENTATIVE HERE FROM THE POOL COMPANY AS WELL HE MAY WITH REMOTELY AVAILABLE.
>> THANK YOU. WE'RE GOING THROUGH OUR LIST.
DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? STARTING WITH DR. MCCORMICK. DR. MCCORMICK, DO YOU HAVE A
QUESTION FOR JAKE SOB? >> I'M SORRY.
[01:00:02]
>> YES, I HAVE A QUESTION. TO THE WEST WHICH IS WHERE THE SETBACK VARIATION IS REQUESTED, WE TALK ABOUT THAT AREA?
>> IT IS SORT OF A WETLAND RUNNING OFF OF THE INTERCOASTAL.
IT IS PRESERVED WITHIN THE PUD PAST THE PROPERTY LINE.
BUT I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO OFFER TOO MUCH INFORMATION OTHER THAN THE PROPOSAL FROM THE APPLICANT DOES NOT LEAVE THEIR PROPERTY LINE AND THEREFORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL BUFFER IS IN
>> THAT'S FINE. THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO KNOW.
THANK YOU. >> I DO NOT HAVE A QUESTION.
>> NO QUESTIONS. >> NO QUESTIONS.
>> NO. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
IF WE COULD HAVE THE APPLICANTS REPRESENTATIVE APPROACH.
STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD PLEASE.
>> MY ADDRESS IS 1090 -- WOULD YOU LIKE THE ADD ANYTHING TO JACOB'S PRESENTATION SPARTANBURG.
>> NO, SIR I JUST TRIED TO WORK AS BEST I COULD TO GET SOMETHING IN THERE. IT'S DIFFICULT TO DO.
BUT I'M HERE IF YOU NEED ANY QUESTIONS ANSWERED.
>> WE'RE GOING TO PUT YOU ON HOLD.
WE HAVE A ROUTINE WE HAVE TO DO HERE.
DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM?
>> COULD BY PERMITTED TO OFFER PUBLIC COMMENT?
>> THANK YOU. FOR THE RECORD DOUG BURNETT.
I STAYED ON THE LINE FOR THIS ONE HAVING A LOT OF INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE RELATED TO MARSH CREEK.
IT'S A NEIGHBORHOOD I LIVED IN FOR TEN YEARS.
I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
VERY FAMILIAR STILL WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I LIVE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY. I LIVED ON MARSH POINT CIRCLE FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS NEAR WHERE THEY WANT TO DO THIS POOL.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF POOLS THAT ARE LESS THAN 20 FEET FROM THEIR REAR YARD. THIS HAS A BEAUTIFUL MARSH AREA BEHIND IT. IT'S CRITICAL ON WHETHER OR NOT SOMEONE IS GOING TO BUY THE HOME OR WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAVE A POOL IN IT. IT DOES IMPACT THE VALUE OF THE HOME NOT BEING ABLE TO HAVE A POOL THERE.
THIS IS VERY REASONABLE. IT'S CONSISTENT WITH WHAT IS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I'D ASK YOU ALL TO SUPPORT AND APPROVE IT. IT'S WARRANTED.
AGAIN, THERE IS REDUCTIONS BECAUSE OF WHERE THIS IS LOCATED WITH THE MARSH BEHIND IT. IF YOU LOOK AT THE REAR PROPERTY BOUNDARY, HOW IT CUTS IN, IT LIMITS PUTTING A POOL ON THE SITE. I KNOW THIS PROPERTY WELL.
THAT'S WHY I'M SPEAKING TO IT. AND I CAN EVEN SITE TO YOU EXAMPLES OF OTHER PROPERTIES IN MARSH CREEK LIKE THIS WHERE THEY'VE HAD THESE ISSUES AND IN FACT ONE OF THEM IS 401 LOOKOUT POINT DRIVE. THE POOL HAS BEEN PUT IN IN AN AREA WHERE THERE IS IN THE BACK OF THE LOT.
WITHOUT THIS KIND OF APPROVAL, THEY CAN'T PUT A POOL IN.
WITH THAT. THAT'S ALL THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC SPEAK SENATORS WE'LL TAKE A MINUTE AND SEE IF WE DO.
>> I SEE NO PUBLIC SPEAKERS. THEN WE ARE READY FOR QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. GOING DOWN THE LIST.
>> I HAVE NO QUESTION. >> I DO NOT HAVE A QUESTION BUT I DO HAVE A COMMENT. THE MARSH CREEK ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD DID APPROVE THIS I'M.
I USED TO BE A MEMBER OF THAT BODY BEFORE JOINING THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD OF THE COUNTY. I DO KNOW THE MEMBERS WELL.
[01:05:03]
I CHECKED WITH THEM AND THAT ITEM THE CONDITIONAL APPROVAL IS IN THE AGENDA ITEM. THE REASON IT CONDITIONAL APPROVAL IS THEY WANTED TO ENSURE THAT THERE WAS ALSO SCREENING OF THE POOL EQUIPMENT THAT IS COMPLIANT WITH THE MARSH CREEK REQUIREMENTS. AND TO THEY HAVE APPROVED THIS.AND I LIKE THE LOCAL CONTROL. IT'S VERY ACTIVE OUR REVIEW BOARD. I WOULD SUPPORT THIS ITEM.
>> WE'LL LEAVE IT OPEN FOR A SECOND.
ANYONE CARE TO SECOND. >> SECOND.
>> I HAVE A SECOND. IF I COULD ASK.
SOMEONE SEEMS TO BE SCRATCHING OR SCRAPING SOMETHING IN THE BACKGROUND ON THEIR TELEPHONE. I APPRECIATE THAT.
IT SHOWS UP HERE IN AN AMPLIFIED SETTING.
WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND VOTE.
WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE AND A SECOND.
GOING DOWN THE LIST. >> APPROVE.
>> MOTION CARRIES 7-0. THAT WAS EASY MATH.
WE ARE ON TO THE THIRD AGENDA ITEM.
[Item 3]
AGAIN LET'S DECLARE EX PARTE. DR. MCCORMICK, DO YOU HAVE EX PARTE SPARTANBURG. EXPARTE?>> NO. WE'RE GOING TO TURN THIS BACK
OVER TO JACOB ONE LAST TIME. >> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.
JAKE SOB SMITH PRESENTING AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE.
SPECIAL USE TEMPTER FOR SIMS BAR PIT.
IT IS REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT PURSUANT TO 2.03.1 TO ALLOW FOR A PIT WITHIN OPEN RURAL ZONING SUBJECT TO THE CRITERIA OF LDC2.03.1 AND 6.04.0.
THE PROPERTY LOCATION IS OFF OF BIRD CAMP ROAD JUST SOUTH OF COUNTY ROAD 204 SEVERAL MILES WEST OF I1.
IT IS A RURAL CIVIL CULTURE LAND USE.
AND IS LOCATED WITHIN OPEN RURAL ZONING.
LASTLY AN AERIAL MAP DEPICTING THE UNDEVELOPED SITE.
FOR A BRIEF INTRODUCTION THIS APPLICATION WAS PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED ON FEBRUARY 20, 2020. AFTER STAFF AND THE APPLICANT PRESENTATION SEVERAL QUESTIONS WERE ASKED RELATED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMPATIBILITY. SUBSTANTIAL DISCUSSION ON THE ISSUE OCCUR AND THE APPLICANT OFFERED TO PROVIDE DIVISIONAL INFORMATION. THE PSA VOTED 4-2 TO RECOMMEND A CONTINUATION OF THIS REQUEST. AND TO REITERATE WHAT MANY OF YOU HEARD, I THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR LAND EXCAVATION. THE PERMIT IS SUBJECT TO THE CRITERIA OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE UNDER SECTION 2.03.1.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A BAR PIT OF 40 ACRES ON A 40-ACRE PARCEL. UTILIZING EXISTING UP LIDS FOR THE SALE OF FILL MATERIAL. THE PIT IS PROJECTED TO HAVE AN OPERATION 23458 TIME LINE OF APPROXIMATELY TEN YEARS.
HAVE A CAPACITY OF 75 TRUCK TRIPS PER DAY AND OPERATING HOURS OF 7:00 A.M. TO 6:00 P.M. MONDAY THROUGH SATURDAY.
UPON A LITTLE BIT OF REVIEW OF THIS SPECIAL USE PERSONALS MAYBE GRANTED APPROXIMATE THE APPLICATION SUBSTANTIALLY MEETS THE INTENT OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. MUST NOT IMPOSE BURDEN ON NEGATIVE IMPACT ON SUCH AREA. AND SPECIAL USES MUST IMPLY WITH THE RESPECTIVE REGULATIONS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
[01:10:04]
THE PROPOSED PIT MEETS ALL SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.IT'S NOT LOCKED IN A PROHIBITED AREA AND THE APPLICANT WILL PROVIDE ALL REQUIRED FENCING. THERE ARE NO SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE GENERAL AREA OF THE PROPOSED BORROW PIT.
ACCESS TO THE PIT WILL BE PROVIDED THROUGH A PRIVATE RODEWAY WHICH CONNECTS TO COUNTY ROAD 204.
UP ON THE SCREEN IS A SITE PLAN OF THE BORROW PIT.
WORTH NOTING THERE IS A CONSERVATION AREA IN THE SOUTHWEST AS WELL AS PROTECTED WETLAND -- [INAUDIBLE] AS OF THE LAST MEETING THE ENVIRONMENTAL STAFF REQUESTED FURTHER INFORMATION RELATING TO POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED BORROW PIT AS IT MAY RELATE TO GROUND WATER DRAW DOWN AND SURROUNDING CONSERVATION LANDS.
THE APPLICANT PROVIDE AN ENGINEERING STUDY WHICH CLARIFIES THE ISSUE AND PROJECTS THE PROPOSED PIT WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE SURROUNDING LANDS.
THIS WAS JUST A QUICK OVERVIEW OF THE SURROUNDING WETLANDS , THE UPLAND WHERE THE PROPOSED PIT IS SHOWN IF WHITE.
AND THE MAP GENERALLY SHOWS THAT THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL WETLAND AREAS. ENVIRONMENTAL STAFF HAS COMMENTED ON THE APPLICANT'S REVISED SUBMITLE AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL STAFF OFFERS THAT BASED ON THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT, IT IS RECOMMENDED IF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION IS APPROVED IT SHOULD INCLUDE A COMMITMENT BY THE APPLICANT TO USE THE DITCHES AND SETTLING BASES THROUGHOUT THE DER RELATION OF THE PROJECT TO MAINTAIN THE HIGH ROLLING OF THE SURROUNDING WETLAND AS PROVIDED IN THE REPORT.
FOR PLANNING ANALYSIS, THE APPLICANT HAS DEMONSTRATED TO MEET THE SPECIAL USE REQUIREMENTS FOR A BORROW PIT.
POTENTIAL COMPATIBILITY RELATED TO GROUND WATER PUMPING AND NOISE HAS BEEN ADDRESSED AND DEMONSTRATES COMPATIBILITY WITH THE SURROUNDING AREAS. THE PROPOSED BORROW PIT IS ANYMORE SIZE AND STYLE PREVIOUS PITTS APPROVED WITHIN THE COUNTY AND THE AREA IS NOT LOCATED ANY NEAR ANY CURRENT OR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. STAFF DID RECEIVE ONE LETTER OF CORRESPONDENCE OBJECTING TO THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
I DON'T BELIEVE IT IN THE STAFF REPORT BUT YOU SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED THAT AS IT WAS RECEIVED RECENTLY.
STAFF SUPPORTS THE APPROVAL OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPEARS TO MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF THE PLAN AND CONSISTENT THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND PROVIDE EIGHT FINDINGS OF FACT AND TEN CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL AS WELL AS FIVE FINDINGS OF FACT TO DENY THE REQUEST. I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.
AS WELL AS THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT AS WELL.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> FOR QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
DR. MCCORMICK QUESTION FOR STAFF?
>> I HAVE NO QUESTION. IF WE COULD HAVE THE APPLICANT STEP FORWARD. APPLY CAPTAIN'S REPRESENTATIVE.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. THANKS JACOB, AS STAFF MENTIONED WE'RE PROVIDING THROUGH APPLICATION PROCESS FOR.
THIS WE WERE HERE ON THE TOGETHER.
WE COMPLETED THE GROUND WATER MODEL WHICH WAS UNDER WAY DURING THE LAST HEARING AND AS MR. SMITH PRESENTED THERE ARE NO OBJECTIONS OR NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS TO THE GROUND WATER FOR THIS. JUST TO COMPLEMENT HIS REPORT ON THE BUFFERING FOR BORROW PIT. THE 50-FOOT BUFF AREA PLIES.
ON THE EAST SIDE WE'RE PROVIDE MANGE MUM '2" FOOT BUFFER.
NORTH SIDE 97. SOUTH SIDE 98 AND WEST SIDE 98.
WE'RE ALMOST DOUBLING THAT REQUIRED BUFFER FROM THE PROPERTY LINE WHICH COMPLEMENTS HIS COMMENTS IN THE STAFF REPORT
[01:15:03]
ABOUT OUR BUFFERING TO REDUCE POTENTIAL IMPACT TONS SURROUNDING PARCELS. WE ARE PROCEEDING THROUGH ERP PROCESS AND THE COUNTY TECHNICAL BORROW PIT PROCESS.WE HAVE PLANS COMPLETED THAT RESPOND TO THOSE COMMENTS READY TO SUBMIT BACK TO THE AGENCIES TOMORROW.
WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT DID INDICATE THE REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL SEASONAL HIGH TO BE SET IN THE EASTERN MOST WETLAND.
THAT DATA WAS ESSENTIALLY CONSISTENT THE FIRST SEASONAL HIGH ABOUT 6 INCHES HIGHER. BUT WELL BELOW THE ELEVATION OF ANY BOTTOMS OF RIM DITCHES. POSITIVELY INCREASING THE FLOW OF WATER AND CONTINUING TO HYDRATE THAT THROUGH RIM DITCH PROCESS. WITH THAT IF THERE ARE ANY
I'M GOING SUPERSEDE THE GROUP HERE.
I RED A LITTLE BIT ON THE MEETING MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS SESSION WHEN THIS CAME UP.
CAN YOU IF YOU HAVEN'T DONE IT FOR THE PREVIOUS SESSION TALK ABOUT THE FUNCTIONALITY OF A RIM DITCH AND HOW THAT IS SUPPOSED TO WORK. THAT'S BEEN HELPFUL ON OTHER BAR
BORROW PITTS IN THE PAST. >> ULTIMATELY AS THE PIT IS EXCAVATED DOWN, THE WATER WILL BE SUMPED IN THE PIT AND PUMPED INTO THE STILLING BASE SIN WHICH IS IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SITE. THEN THAT WATER ONCE THE SEDIMENT FILTERS DOWN, IT WILL FLOW INTO THE RIM DITCH WHICH WILL THEN PERCOLATE BOTH HORIZONTALLY AND VERTICALLY AND FILL TRAIT BACK INTO THE GROUND WATER TABLE TO KEEP THE WETLAND HYDRATED. THERE IS OVERFLOW INCLUDED IN THAT DITCH AT PEAK ELEVATIONS TO DISCHARGE FLOW OTHER INTO THE WETLAND FOR ADDITIONAL HYDRATION.
MAIN GOAL OF THAT IS TO ENCOURAGE FILTRATION BACK INTO THE SOILS AND GROUND WATER. OUR RIM DITCH ABOUT A FOOT HIGHER THAN THE SEASONAL HIGHS IN MANY WETLAND ALLOWING FOR THAT POSITIVE HEAD PRESSURE FOR THE WATER TO PERCOLATE BACK INTO
THANK YOU. I'M SURE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE QUESTIONS FROM OUR MEMBERS HERE. LET'S OPEN THIS UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC SPEAKERS? I SEE NO PUBLIC SPEAK FREERS OUR I.T. STAFF.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOING THROUGH LIST OF MEMBERS.
QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. DR. MCCORMICK DO YOU HAVE
QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? >> NONE.
>> I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS BUT I HAVE COMMENTS.
WE DID ASK FOR MORE INFORMATION BECAUSE I DIDN'T THINK WE HAD SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION.
AND THAT INFORMATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY LEGACY ENGINEERING.
I THINK THAT SATISFIES MOST OF THE CONCERNS I HAD.
ALSO THE COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL STAFF APPEAR TO BE OK WITH THIS PROCEEDING. I STILL PERSONALLY THINK THAT IT'S IN A POOR LOCATION FOR THIS RIGHT IN BETWEEN THE CREEK CONSERVATION AREA AND THE SWAMP MITIGATION AREA BUT I THINK I AM
OK WITH THIS PROCEEDING. >> I HAVE A QUESTION.
>> THE PACKAGE LOOKS GOOD TO ME. MY QUESTION IS WHO MONITORS THE GROUND WATER LEVEL AT THE ADJACENT PROPERTY.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO MAINTAIN.
WHO MONITORS THAT INTEREST. >> WE'RE GOING TO BREAK THE
PROTOCOL SO MATT IS ANSWER THAT. >> ST. JOHNS WATER MANAGEMENT
[01:20:01]
DISTRICT WOULD BE THE ULTIMATE BODY TO HAVE THE AUTHORITY DURING PERMIT LENGTH OF LIFE. MONITORING OF GROUND WATER THROUGH PERMITS THEY MAINTAIN THAT DATA BASE OF WHO IS DOING GROUND WATER WITH Y'ALLS FROM WHERE.MY OPINION IS J. JOHNS RIVER BASIN.
>> DO THEY DO INSPECTIONS? >> YES, SIR.
INSPECTORS WOULD BE DOING INSPECS THROUGH THE COURSE OF
THE BORROW PIT PERMIT. >> THAT'S A TEN YEAR PERMIT.
>> WELL THE BORROW PIT PERMIT PLANS I BELIEVE ONCE THE SPIT CONSTRUCTED, AS FAR AS ONGOING MAINTENANCE OF IT, NO, SIR I DON'T BELIEVE THE COUNTY WOULD HAVE ANY I DON'T THINK THE COUNTY WOULD BE THERE FOR TEN YEARS INSPECTING.
THEY WOULD BE INSPECTING IN THE BEGINNING.
>> FROM POTENTIALLY TIME TO START TO TIME BUTTON IT UP.
>> CORRECT FOR THE LIFE OF THE PIT.
>> QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS IS THE. >> NONE.
>> I HAVE HEARD FROM THE STAFF , THE APPLICANT AND DONE OUR QUESTIONS AND PUBLIC COMMENT. WE ARE BACK IN THE AGENCY THEN.
ANY COMMENTS, OR MOTIONS? >> I'D OFFER A MOTION UNLESS
SOMEBODY ELSE WISHES TO COMMENT. >> I HEAR NO OTHER COMMENTS SO
GO AHEAD. >> I'D OFFER A MOTION TO APPROVE 201-11 REQUEST FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A BORROW PIT ON PARCEL OF LAND IN OPEN RURAL ZONING SUBJECT TO THE CRITERIA OF SECTION 2.03.10 SECTION 6.0409 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BASED UPON TEN CONDITIONS AND EIGHT FINDINGS OF FACT AS WRITTEN IN THE STAFF REPORT.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION FROM MR. WAINWRIGHT.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> I'LL SECOND THE MOTION.
>> OK WE GOT A SECOND. AT THIS POINT WE WILL VOTE WITH
OUR MOTION AND SECOND. >> DR. MCCORMICK, DO AWE PROVE
>> MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUS 7-0. STAFF REPORTS.
[ Reports]
>> YOU DID A GREAT JOB RUNNING THIS DIFFICULT MEETING AS WELL AS THE MEMBERS AND APPLICANTS. THE MIS STAFF WILY AND THEM GETTING THIS ALL TOGETHER AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT STAFF DID AN EXCELLENT JOB. THANK YOU.
SECOND OF ALL, AS WE MOVE FORWARD MR. CHAIR, WE KNOW NOT WHAT IS COMING WITH IF WE'RE GOING TO PROVIDE RIGHT NOW.
THE ORDERER IS WE ARE CONTINUING TO DO BUSINESS BEST WE CAN BY HOLDING BOARDS. WE HAVE ADJUSTED OUR ADVERTISEMENTS, OUR PUBLIC NOTICE ACCORDINGLY FOR THESE REMOTE MEETS. AS IT CHANGES, WE WILL DO OUR BEST TO KEEP THE BOARD MEMBERS, ALL THE STAFF AND ALL THE PUBLIC AWARE THROUGH AS MANY MEANS AS POSSIBLE AS WE GO THROUGH.
LIKE WISE IF THEY ARE CANCELED WE'LL DO OUR BEST TO GET WORD OUT. THE WORDS OF THE DAY ARE PATIENCE AND FLEXIBILITY WITH THIS SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> YOU'RE WELCOME. >> ANYTHING ELSE FROM STAFF?
>> I'D LIKE TO COMMENT AS WELL. FIRST OF ALL, I ECHO THOSE COMMENTS. MR. CHAIR YOU DID A WONDERFUL JOB CHAIRING THIS MEETING. THE AGENCY MEMBERS DID VERY WELL. I THINK THE STAFF AND APPLICANT DID WELL. I WILL SAY I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED, I THINK WE HAD ONE MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC CALL IN AND I WILL SAY FOR THE RECORD TO TEST SYSTEM EVEN DURING THE
[01:25:07]
MEETING AND THE LION'S WORK. AS MR. ROBERSON INDICATED AS WE GO ON , THE COUNTY IS GOING TO BE LOOKING AT WHICH FUNCTIONS K MEETINGS, WHICH BOARDS AND THAT TYPE OF THING AND I WOULD ASK IF I MAY JUST FOR THE AGENCY'S CONSIDERATION AND PATIENCE FOR THOSE TYPES OF DECISIONS. THANK YOU.>> AGENCY REPORTS. >> I DON'T HAVE TO GO DOWN LIST FORMALLY. ANYBODY WANT TO SAY ANYTHING.
>> I THINK YOU ARE DOING A GREAT JOB.
I'M WITH YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING ON A SERIOUS NOTE?
>> THIS IS RICHARD. I WANTED TO THANK YOU MIKE FOR BEING THERE AND RUNNING THE MEETING VERY WELL.
>> IF THERE ARE NO OTHER AGENCY REPORT OR COMMENT, I'D BE SO MOVED TO ADJOURN. ANYONE MAKE A RECOMMENDATION?
>> SO MOVED. >> THANK YOU ALL.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.