May 16, 2023 Regular Meeting

CITY CLERK WILL YOU PLEASE CALL THE VOTE? COMMISSIONER ROSS YES, MR. ANTON. YES. COMMISSIONER ASKEW? YES. VICE MAYOR STURGIS.

YES. MAYOR. AND YES.

THE CONSENT AGENDA PASSES FIVE ZERO.

WE NOW GO TO ITEM 7.1 PROTECTED HERITAGE TREE DESIGNATIONS.

[7.1 PROTECTED HERITAGE TREE DESIGNATIONS – VARIOUS LOCATIONS]

AND THAT IS SOMETHING VERY EXCITING.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HIGHLIGHT IS IS MS..

FOREHAND HERE WITH THE PICTURES THAT WE WERE SHE IN THE AREA OR MS..

GIBSON IS HERE EXCELLENT WORK THERE WE GO.

COULD YOU PLEASE PRESENT THIS ITEM AND MAYBE SEE ANY PICTURES? I WOULD BE HAPPY TO. LET ME QUICKLY PULL UP YOUR AGENDA PACKET WHERE THOSE PHOTOS ARE LOCATED HERE.

MR. CASTILLO. I'M JUST PULLING UP THE AGENDA.

I'M PULLING IT UP. AND WHILE SHE'S DOING THAT, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THIS IS A GREAT GROUP AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ALL LOOK AT ITEM 7.1 THAT IS PROTECTED HERITAGE, TREES, DESIGNATIONS, AND THAT I BELIEVE THERE ARE HOW MANY FOUR NEW TREES THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE PROTECTING.

THE END OF PERPETUITY.

AND FOR THAT REASON, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ALL TAKE A QUICK LOOK AT IT.

AND THAT'S SOMETHING VERY EXCITING.

I DON'T SEE THEM HERE.

ALL RIGHT. DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, JUST.

JUST OUT OF 7.1, JUST IN SUMMARY, AND THEN I'M GOING TO HEAR A MOTION ON IT.

JUST I'LL SUMMARIZE IT MYSELF AND WHAT IT IS.

IT'S FOR TREES.

THEY ARE SOME. AND I WOULD URGE EVERYONE, WHEN YOU GET HOME TONIGHT, GO ON THE WEBSITE, TAKE A LOOK.

THERE ARE PICTURES IN THE AGENDA PACKET AND THEY LOOK GREAT.

THESE TREES ARE ON DIVISION STREET.

THEY ARE ALL OVER THE ISLAND. THEY ARE SOME OF OUR OLDEST TREES ON THE ISLAND.

AND WE HAVE CREATED THIS COMMISSION.

THIS FIVE HAVE CREATED A SPECIAL, A SPECIAL PROTECTION CALLED THE HERITAGE TREE PROGRAM.

WE VOTED ON THAT JUST A FEW MINUTES AGO.

AND THIS IS PART OF POPULATING THAT LIST OF TREES THAT THIS COMMISSION BELIEVES ARE INTEGRAL TO OUR WAY OF LIFE HERE.

AND BECAUSE OF THAT, THAT'S WHAT THIS IS DOING.

THIS IS ADDING FOUR MORE TREES TO THAT LIST.

THEY WILL HAVE LITTLE PLAQUES THAT DESIGNATE THEM, AND WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO IT.

SO WHEN YOU SEE THEM AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WE WERE LOOKING FOR IT.

AND IN THE BACK OF THE ROOM, WE DO HAVE ONE SUCH TREE OWNER.

SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.

I WILL HEAR A MOTION ON 7.10.

SHE HAS TWO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

BEFORE YOU DO THAT, I JUST WANTED TO JUST CLARIFY.

IT'S ACTUALLY TEN TREES.

IT'S TEN. TEN. IT SAYS FIVE RIGHT HERE, BUT IT'S TEN.

THAT'S JUST THE BEGINNING.

FIVE, FIVE MORE TRUSTEE AND FIVE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY AND FIVE ON PUBLIC PROPERTY.

THIS IS EVEN BETTER THAN I THOUGHT.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. ALL RIGHT.

I WILL HEAR A MOTION ON ITEM 7.1 MOVE TO APPROVE.

SECOND. ALL RIGHT.

MOTION IN A SECOND.

AND CITY CLERK, WILL YOU PLEASE CALL THE VOTE ON THIS HERITAGE TREE PROGRAM? COMMISSIONER ROSS? YES.

THESE TREES ARE PROTECTED. FIVE ZERO.

MR. ANTON. YES.

COMMISSIONER ASKEW. YES.

MAYOR. AND YES.

WITH THAT, WE WILL TAKE A TEN MINUTE BREAK AND WE WILL ADJOURN AT 735.

ALL RIGHT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I RECONVENE THIS MEETING OF THE FERNANDINA BEACH CITY COMMISSION.

A COUPLE OF QUICK ANNOUNCEMENTS.

I JUST HEARD ABOUT THE LIVE STREAM ONLINE, THE LIVE STREAM ONLINE THAT IS PUSHED OUT TO OUR CITY'S WEBSITE THAT IS MALFUNCTIONING TONIGHT.

SO THAT IS NOT WORKING.

IT IS STILL BEING RECORDED.

IT WILL BE ON THE CITY WEBSITE TOMORROW IS WHAT I HEAR.

HOWEVER, IF YOU IF YOU NEED TO WATCH IT, YOU CAN GO TO CHANNEL TWO SIX FOR OUR LOCAL ACCESS CHANNEL AND WATCH IT THERE.

AND IF YOU'RE TRYING TO WATCH ON THE LIVE STREAM, I DID NOT COMMUNICATE THAT TO YOU.

BUT IF YOU'RE WATCHING ON CHANNEL TWO, SIX FOUR, YOU JUST HEARD THAT.

SO ANYWAY, APPRECIATE YOU GUYS ALL WATCHING IT AT HOME.

[8.1 (QUASI-JUDICIAL) - PRELIMINARY PLAT/REPLAT APPROVAL "THIRD AND BEECH"]

UP NEXT, WE HAVE ITEM EIGHT, WHICH IS A QUASI JUDICIAL ITEM, AND THAT MEANS IT OPERATES A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY THAN THE WAY ALL THESE OTHER ITEMS GO.

SO WITH THAT IN MIND, WE ARE GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO TALK TO HARRISON POOL, WHICH IS GOING TO REFERENCE US, AND HE'S GOING TO BRING UP AND DESCRIBE HOW THIS WORKS.

BUT BEFORE THAT, DO WE NEED TO PRESENT THE ITEM? THAT'S THE FIRST BULLET ON MY LIST IS PRESENT THE ITEM PROPERLY, THEN WE WILL BEGIN.

SO RIGHT NOW WE'RE GOING TO BEGIN BY GOING TO MR. POOL TO DESCRIBE HOW THE QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS WILL WORK TONIGHT.

MR. POOL. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

YES. AND SO BY RESOLUTION PASSED IN 2017, THE CITY COMMISSION PASSED THEIR QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEDURES, WHICH WILL BE GOVERNING THIS HEARING.

SO A QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEEDING MEANS THERE WILL BE EVIDENCE PRESENTED THAT EVIDENCE CAN BE PRESENTED IN THE FORM OF WITNESS TESTIMONY, DOCUMENTS, PHOTOS AND THE LIKE. THE ORDER OF BUSINESS WITH THIS WILL BE FIRST, THE CITY WILL BE PRESENTING THE STAFF REPORT AND ANY WITNESSES THEY HAVE REGARDING THE

[01:25:05]

APPLICATION. SECOND WILL BE THE APPLICANT.

WE HAVE TWO PARTIES THAT HAVE FILED NOTICE TO BE TREATED AS INTERVENORS AND THEY ARE ESPECIALLY AFFECTED PARTIES.

AND OUR LAWS REQUIRE THAT THEY HAVE TO HAVE SOME SORT OF EFFECT OR INJURY THAT IS GREATER IN SIGNIFICANCE THAN THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE.

AND SO WE HAVE TWO OF THOSE.

AND SO THOSE WILL BE REFERRED TO AS THE INTERVENERS.

EACH OF THE PARTIES WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE WITNESSES OF ALL OF THE OTHER PARTIES.

THE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WILL EACH BE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY IF THEY TURNED IN THE FORM TO GIVE ANY INPUT THAT THEY HAVE FOR THE COMMISSION ON IT.

EACH OF THE PARTIES THAT IS THE CITY STAFF, THE APPLICANT OR THE TWO INTERVENORS WILL EACH HAVE 30 MINUTES TO PRESENT THEIR CASE AND THAT 30 MINUTES WILL BE ANY PRESENTATION FROM THEIR REPRESENTATIVES OR COUNSEL ANY TESTIMONY FROM THEIR WITNESSES.

ANY CROSS EXAMINATION OF THOSE WITNESSES EACH.

AND THAT WILL BE FOR THE STAFF, THE APPLICANT AND THE TWO INTERVENERS.

NOW, ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WILL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES EACH AND THE COMMISSION WILL BE INSTRUCTED THAT ALTHOUGH THEY MAY OFFER THEIR LAY OPINIONS UNLESS THEY HAVE A PARTICULAR EXPERTISE, THAT THEY WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED EXPERT WITNESSES TO PROVIDE THAT GUIDANCE AND THAT THE GENERAL SENTIMENT OF THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE IS NOT WHAT WOULD BE NEEDED TO SUPPORT ACTION IN THIS CASE.

ALL ACTION IN THIS CASE HAS TO BE SUPPORTED BY COMPETENT AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

AND THEN FOLLOWING AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE CASE, EACH OF THE MEMBERS OF THE PARTIES WILL BEGIN.

IN FIVE MINUTES FOR ANY CLOSING ARGUMENT OR SUMMATION, AT WHICH POINT THEN WE'LL CLOSE THAT HEARING PORTION OF IT.

AND FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE OF THE COMMISSION, THE CROSS EXAMINATION OR THE EXAMINATION OF THE PARTIES MAY BE DONE BY THE COMMISSIONERS OR THE CITY ATTORNEY, AS THE CASE MAY BE.

AND THEN AGAIN, THE CROSS EXAMINATION IS BY ANY OF THE PARTIES.

DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE EX PARTE PROCEDURES FOR THIS EVENING? DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY DISCLOSURES? NO. HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROCEDURE? THAT'S MY LINE. OH, YOU SAID EX PARTE.

I'M SORRY. I MEANT QUASI JUDICIAL.

OKAY. YOU SAID. EX PARTE.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION ABOUT COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND EXPERTS.

SO COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CAN COME FROM ANYONE AS LONG AS IT MEETS COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE STANDARDS.

IT CAN'T BE AN OPINION.

SO IF SOMEBODY IS A RESIDENT, FOR EXAMPLE, A LATE WITNESS MAY TESTIFY OF THE NATURAL BEAUTY OF AN AREA, BECAUSE IF IT'S NOT AN ISSUE REQUIRING EXPERTISE OR SOMEBODY CAN TESTIFY ABOUT THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IF THEY LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. AM I CORRECT? CORRECT. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. POOLE? SEEING NONE, WE'LL GO TO EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSIONER ROSS, DO YOU HAVE ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS TO DISCLOSE ON THIS CASE? I DO. WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO DISCLOSE THEM? YES, PLEASE. SO I MET WITH THE CITY STAFF ATTORNEY ON MULTIPLE MEETINGS OVER THE LAST 3 OR 4 MONTHS.

I DISCUSSED THE COMPASS GROUP'S LITIGATION AGAINST THE CITY IN ANOTHER MATTER.

I DISCUSSED THE PROCESS OF COMBINING AND COMBINING LOTS IN THE CITY.

I DISCUSSED THE PROCESS OF SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY.

WE DISCUSSED THE APPLICABILITY OF LDC, SECTION 1.0 305 TO THE SUBJECT CASE.

I RECEIVED AN EMAIL ON 10TH NOVEMBER 2022 WHICH SUMMARIZED THOSE DISCUSSIONS BASICALLY.

ALTHOUGH THE LDC DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY ALLOW SUBDIVISION ON PLATTED, LOTS OF RECORD WITH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS APPROVAL, THE CITY HAS DONE OTHERWISE IN OTHER CASES AND MUST FOLLOW THAT PRECEDENT.

I RECEIVED OTHER EMAILS CONCERNING CASE LAW CONCERNING THE POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES FOR NOT FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT PRECEDENT WHICH INCLUDED CITY OF NATIONAL BANK OF FLORIDA VERSUS CITY OF TAMPA AND BONDRE VERSUS THE TOWN OF JUPITER INLET COLONY.

AND I DISCUSSED THE MEANING OF SUBSTANTIAL AND COMPETENT EVIDENCE AND EXPERT TESTIMONY WITH THE DEVELOPER.

I MET WITH THEM ON THE 12TH OF JANUARY 2023 AT THE DEVELOPER'S REQUEST THAT THE CITY'S ATTORNEY'S OFFICE I MET WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY WAS PRESENT.

MEETING LASTED ABOUT AN HOUR.

THERE WAS NO OTHER CONTACT ON THIS MATTER.

I DID NOT DISCLOSE THE PURCHASE PRICE, BUT ADMITTED PAID APPROXIMATELY $3 MILLION TO THE LAND.

THEY HAD NOT AT THAT TIME CLOSED ON THE PROJECT AND THERE WERE SEVERAL CONTINGENCIES TO BE MET.

[01:30:03]

WE DISCUSSED THE POSSIBILITY OF LEAVING THE FIVE PLATTED, LOTS OF RECORDS AND DEVELOPING DUPLEXES AND TRIPLEXES SIMILAR TO THE HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOODS OF BALTIMORE AND RICHMOND.

WE DISCUSSED THE ECONOMICS OF THE PROJECT AND THE ONLY VIABLE WAY TO DEVELOP IT.

THE PRICE PAID FOR THE PROPERTY WAS TO MAXIMIZE THE NUMBER OF SINGLE UNITS THAT COULD BE SOLD FEE SIMPLE ON THEIR OWN LOT.

I'VE HAD NO INTERACTION WITH EITHER OF THE INTERVENORS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR STURGIS, DO YOU HAVE ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS TO DISCLOSE? I HAVE NONE. YES, SIR.

COMMISSIONER ANTON, DO YOU HAVE ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS TO DISCLOSE? YES, I DO.

I MET WITH THE INTENDED DEVELOPER ABOUT A WEEK BEFORE THE ORIGINAL MEETING, AS MY COMMISSION HAD BEGUN TO RECEIVE AN OVERVIEW OF WHAT THIS PROJECT WAS, I WAS SHOWN PICTURES OF SAMPLES OF POTENTIAL DESIGNS FOR THE HOMES.

I WAS SHOWN A FLOOR PLAN OR LOT PLAN OF HOW THESE TOWNHOMES WOULD BE DEVELOPED.

AND I WAS ALSO EXPLAINED SOME OF THE PROCESS AND HOW THIS HAS UNFORTUNATELY BEEN DRAGGED OUT AS LONG AS IT HAS.

AND I ALSO HAD EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS WITH ONE OF THE INTERVENING PARTIES ON THE FRIDAY LEADING BEFORE THAT MEETING, HEARING ALMOST VERBATIM SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT COMMISSIONER ROSS HAD MENTIONED. AS FAR AS REASONS WHY THIS IS NOT A PRECEDENTIAL CASE THAT HAS NOT BEEN CONSISTENT WITH OTHER INSTANCES BEFORE.

SO EFFECTIVELY, I'VE HEARD THE GENERAL INTENT OF BOTH SIDES FROM ONE OF THE INTERVENING PARTIES AND THE DEVELOPMENT PARTIES.

AND I'M GOING TO KICK IT BACK JUST FOR COMMISSIONER VICE MAYOR STURGIS TO GO WITH SOME MORE EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS.

YES, I APPRECIATE IT, MAYOR.

AFTER JAMES REFERRED ME FROM THE PREVIOUS TIME.

THAT IS CORRECT. I HAVE MET ONE TIME WITH THE DEVELOPER FOR 45 MINUTES.

I DID NOT MEET FOR A FULL HOUR AND HE DID GO OVER WHAT THE POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENT WOULD LOOK LIKE, THE SIZE OF THE LOTS, THE INFORMATION BASICALLY OF WHAT KIND OF DEVELOPMENT THEY WERE THINKING ABOUT PUTTING THERE.

AND THAT'S THE ONLY COMMUNICATION I'VE HAD WITH ANYBODY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR.

AND THANK YOU.

DO YOU HAVE ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS? YES, SIR. ON JANUARY THE 11TH, I MET WITH THE APPLICANT AND WE DISCUSSED THE PROJECT AT LENGTH.

ON JANUARY 30TH, I MET WITH STAFF'S ATTORNEY AND WE DISCUSSED THE PROJECT AS WELL.

ON FEBRUARY 6TH, I MET WITH ONE OF THE INTERVENORS, MS..

KUSHNER, AND WE DISCUSSED THE PROJECT AS WELL.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER AND I MYSELF HAVE EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS.

I HAVE MET WITH ALL FOUR PARTIES TONIGHT SPEAKING.

BOTH THE INTERVENORS ARE STAFF ATTORNEY.

THE APPLICANT AND I HAVE MET WITH A CONCERNED GROUP OF CITIZENS FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD OUTSIDE THE SITE.

SO WITH THAT BEING MIND, THAT IS ALL THE EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS TO DISCLOSE TONIGHT.

SO NOW WE'RE GOING TO ASK OUR CITY CLERK TO GO AHEAD AND SWEAR IN ALL WITNESSES.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, TONIGHT WE'LL BE ACTING MORE LIKE A COURTROOM.

SO THEREFORE, IF YOU ARE SPEAKING ON THIS ISSUE, YOU NEED TO BE SWORN IN.

SO IF YOU COULD PLEASE RISE AND RAISE YOUR HAND AND THE CITY CLERK WILL DIRECT YOU.

SO EACH RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, PLEASE.

DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE FACTUAL STATEMENTS AND REPRESENTATIONS WHICH YOU ARE ABOUT TO PRESENT TO THIS COMMISSION DURING THIS PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE TRUTHFUL AND ACCURATE? THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. AND I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND JUST ASK HARRISON FORD DID A GREAT JOB OF SUMMARIZING THIS UP.

BUT IF YOU HAVE NOT BEEN TO A QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING AND YOU'RE NOT FAMILIAR WITH THIS ORDER OF PROCEEDINGS, THE CITY IS FIRST GOING TO PRESENT THE ITEM.

THE CITY WILL PRESENT THIS ITEM THE APPLICANT WILL BE GIVING AND THE APPLICANT WILL THEN GO GIVE IT AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT AND THAT'S WHEN OUR INTERVENORS WILL GO.

AND THEN FINALLY WE WILL HEAR PUBLIC COMMENT IN A PUBLIC HEARING.

SO LET'S FIRST GO TO MS..

TAMMY BACH TO PRESENT THE CASE ON BEHALF OF THE CITY.

THANK YOU. THE FIRST THING I WANTED TO DO IS NORMALLY I'M HERE REPRESENTING THE CITY COMMISSION AND I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT I KNOW I EXPLAINED IT TO YOU, BUT THAT MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ALSO UNDERSTAND WHY I AM NOT REPRESENTING THE CITY COMMISSION TONIGHT.

IN FLORIDA LAW, WHEN WE HAVE LAND USE QUASI JUDICIAL HEARINGS, THE CITY COMMISSION IS ACTUALLY TECHNICALLY SEEN AS DIFFERENT PARTY OR NOT PARTY.

BUT THE PANEL OF JUDGES AND THE PARTIES ARE THE CITY STAFF, THEIR ATTORNEYS, WITNESSES AND THEN THE APPLICANT AND OF COURSE, INTERVENORS.

SO I CAN'T REPRESENT BOTH CITY STAFF AND THE PANEL OF JUDGES.

SO I HAVE A LEGAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST THAT PREVENTS ME FROM REPRESENTING OUR CITY COMMISSION, MY BOSSES.

SO THAT'S WHY MR. POOLE IS HERE. SO THE FIRST THING I WANTED TO DO IS FIRST TO QUALIFY OUR WE HAD SOME RESUMES THAT THE INTERVENORS WENT AHEAD AND PRESENTED.

BUT I'M GOING TO JUST DO IT VERBALLY.

[01:35:02]

AND FIRST I'LL INTRODUCE MYSELF AND THEN MY WITNESSES TONIGHT ARE KELLY GIBSON, OUR PLANNING AND CONSERVATION DEPUTY DIRECTOR, AND ANDRE DESJARLAIS, WHO IS THE UTILITIES DIRECTOR.

AND I WILL CALL THEM UP AND ASK THEM TO BASICALLY JUST GIVE A SHORT HISTORY OF THEIR EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE.

MYSELF, I'M CITY ATTORNEY TAMMY BOK.

I WENT TO UNDERGRADUATE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA.

I EARNED A DEGREE IN MILITARY HISTORY.

I GRADUATED WITH HIGH HONORS.

I WENT TO STETSON LAW SCHOOL IN 1996, AND I GRADUATED FROM HONORS FROM STETSON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL, AND WITH MY JURIS DOCTOR, I THEN PROCEEDED TO GO TO WORK ALMOST IMMEDIATELY AT A SHORT JOB IN BETWEEN GRADUATING AND MY FIRST LOCAL GOVERNMENT JOB, WHICH BEGAN IN 2000 AS AN ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY.

I WAS THERE FOR SIX YEARS AND I LEFT TO GO INTO PRIVATE PRACTICE FOR A YEAR AND MISSED MY GOVERNMENT WORK.

AND SO I APPLIED FOR THE JOB HERE AT AMELIA OR FERNANDINA BEACH ON AMELIA ISLAND IN 2007, AND I WAS APPOINTED AS THE CITY ATTORNEY THEN.

SO IN NOVEMBER IT WILL BE 16 YEARS.

I'VE BEEN THE CITY ATTORNEY.

IN 2006, I MISSED THIS RIGHT BEFORE I CAME TO THE CITY.

I DID EARN MY BOARD CERTIFICATION FROM THE FLORIDA BAR IN CITY AND COUNTY, CITY, COUNTY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAW, WHICH MAKES ME AN EXPERT AND A SPECIALIST IN CITY, COUNTY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAW, WHICH INCLUDES DEVELOPMENT, LAND USE, ZONING AND THOSE TYPES OF ISSUES.

SO NEXT, I WANTED TO CALL UP KELLY GIBSON AND ASK HER TO BRIEFLY DESCRIBE HER EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE AND THEN ANDRE BEASLEY AFTER HER.

THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING.

KELLY GIBSON I HAVE HAD THE INCREDIBLE HONOR OF SERVING THE COMMUNITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH SINCE 2007, OCTOBER OF 2007.

SO I'VE WORKED FOR THE CITY FOR JUST OVER 15 YEARS PRIOR TO THAT.

I HAVE WORK EXPERIENCE, BUT IT IS NOT RELATED OR PERTINENT TO THE CASE.

THIS EVENING I HAVE A BACHELOR'S DEGREE FROM FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY IN POLITICAL SCIENCE AND A MINOR IN COMMUNICATION, A MASTER'S DEGREE IN URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING WITH A SPECIALIZATION IN GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING.

I RECEIVED THAT SOME TIME AGO.

AND MOST RECENTLY I'VE RECEIVED A PUBLIC LEADERSHIP CREDENTIAL FROM THE HARVARD KENNEDY SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT TO HELP BOLSTER THE WORK THAT I DO HERE WITHIN THE CITY.

ADDITIONALLY, I EARNED MY AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PLANNING CREDENTIAL BACK IN 2014 AND HAVE BEEN ACTIVELY WORKING IN THE FIELD OF LAND USE, ZONING AND POLICY MAKING WITH THE CITY SINCE I STARTED WORKING HERE.

THANK YOU, MR. JEFFERSON. AND MR. DESTLER. GOOD EVENING, ANDRE.

I'M CURRENTLY UTILITIES DIRECTOR FOR THE CITY OF FERNANDINA.

I GRADUATED WITH A CIVIL ENGINEERING DEGREE FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA.

PRACTICING ENGINEERING FOR 23 YEARS.

I'M A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA.

I HAVE BEEN WITH THE CITY SINCE 2017, WHERE I FIRST SERVED AS THE STORMWATER DIRECTOR.

I WAS PROMOTED TO UTILITY UTILITIES DIRECTOR IN 2001.

I AM A CERTIFIED LEVEL TWO STORMWATER OPERATOR.

I'M A LICENSED FLOODPLAIN MANAGER.

PRIOR TO MY TENURE WITH THE CITY, I WORKED IN LAND DEVELOPMENT PRIMARILY IN NASSAU COUNTY AND FOR A COUPLE OF LOCAL FIRMS, INCLUDING GILLETTE ASSOCIATES, WHO IS HERE REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT, BUT NOT ON THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT IN ANY CAPACITY OTHER THAN MY SERVICE WITH THE CITY.

THANK YOU, MR. DESTLER. DOES THE CITY HAVE ANY EVIDENCE TO ENTER INTO THE RECORD? THANK YOU AGAIN, KELLY GIBSON WITH PLANNING CONSERVATION.

WE WOULD ENTER IN ALL OF THE APPLICATION MATERIALS, STAFF REPORT PRESENTATION AND BACKUP MATERIALS PROVIDED AS PART OF THE AGENDA PACKET FOR THIS CASE, AND WE'LL RELY ON THAT FOR THE EVIDENCE.

ADDITIONALLY, THERE WAS PROVIDED SOME EVIDENCE OF PRIOR CASES, SPECIFICALLY THE ISLAND VIEW SUBDIVISION THAT WAS ENTERED IN AS EVIDENCE AND MADE PART OF THE AGENDA PACKET LATE LAST WEEK.

THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS TO THIS EVIDENCE? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE.

WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO CROSS-EXAMINE THESE WITNESSES THAT HAVE ENTERED EVIDENCES THAT BY THAT BY ANYONE ELSE, I SPECIFICALLY MEAN EITHER INTERVENING PARTIES OR THE APPLICANT? THIS. MS.. GIBSON DOES HAVE A PRESENCE.

YES. WHAT I WAS GOING TO ASK.

OH, I'M AHEAD OF MYSELF.

YES, YOU ARE. GO AHEAD AND PLEASE SHOW THE PRESENTATION.

I WAS WONDERING, YOU THOUGHT THAT EVIDENCE WAS JUST NOT BEING LOOKED.

I WILL DO MY BEST TO SPEAK LOUDLY.

I KNOW THAT IT'S COOL TO HEAR THAT.

MAN, THIS IS GO QUICK. OKAY.

JUST AS A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE CASE, THIS IS AN APPLICATION SEEKING APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR 12 LOT TOWNHOME

[01:40:03]

SUBDIVISION, AND IT IS A SUBDIVISION THAT IS LOCATED WITHIN TWO DIFFERENT ZONING DISTRICTS OR MU ONE AND R2 ZONING DISTRICTS. BOTH OF THOSE DISTRICTS AND THE LAND USES ARE ALLOW FOR A RANGE OF HOUSING TYPES WHICH DO INCLUDE TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT.

THE PROJECT WILL HAVE SOME COMMON AMENITIES, INCLUDING A SHARED DRIVEWAY, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND LANDSCAPING.

I KNOW THIS IS ON THERE. THERE WILL BE VEHICULAR ACCESS PROVIDED THROUGH THE SITE AS WELL AS ACCESS AND EXITING AND ENTERING ONTO BEECH STREET.

THERE WILL BE PEDESTRIAN INGRESS AND EGRESS LOCATED ON THIRD AND FOURTH STREETS, AS WELL AS SOME ADDITIONAL ON STREET PARKING THAT WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE AS PART OF THE PROJECT.

HERE IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE MAP OF THE SUBJECT AREA WITHIN THE SUBJECT AREA.

YOU WILL SEE THAT THE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY FACING SOUTH THIRD STREET HAS THE MIXED USE ZONING THAT DOES ALLOW FOR A RANGE OF USES, INCLUDING RESIDENTIAL, BUT ALSO A RANGE OF COMMERCIAL USES THAT COULD BE MADE PERMISSIBLE ON THIS LAND USE.

ADDITIONALLY, ON THE NORTH EXCUSE ME, SOUTH FOURTH STREET SITE, A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY IS THE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND R2 ZONING DISTRICT.

AGAIN, IT ALLOWS FOR A VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES.

ONE THING THAT BOTH OF THE ZONING DISTRICTS AND LAND USE DISTRICTS SHARE IS THAT THERE IS A MAXIMUM OF NO GREATER THAN EIGHT DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE WHEN IT'S DEVELOPED IN A RESIDENTIAL CAPACITY OR IN A MIXED USE FORM.

THE SITE ITSELF INDICATED HERE DOES CONTAIN A 20 ORIGINALLY PLOTTED LOTS OF RECORD AS PART OF BLOCK EIGHT.

EIGHT OF THE EXISTING LOTS REMAIN OPEN AND AVAILABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT AND THERE ARE FOUR HOME SITES THAT HAVE STRUCTURES STRADDLING OVER THE ORIGINAL OTHER 12 LOTS OF RECORD UNDER THESE EXISTING CONDITIONS.

TODAY, A DEVELOPMENT COULD SUPPORT 12 HOME SITES.

IT WOULD BE ON VARIED LOT WIDTHS AND I WILL INDICATE THAT TO YOU IN THE NEXT SLIDE.

UNDER THESE EXISTING CONDITIONS, IN THE BLUE, YOU WILL SEE THE OPEN AND AVAILABLE HOUSING SITES INDICATED AS ONE THROUGH THREE, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN AND EIGHT, AS WELL AS 12, LEAVING FOUR, NINE, TEN AND 11 AS THOSE COMBINED SITES THAT ARE TODAY UNIFIED AS PART OF THE STRUCTURES THAT STRADDLE OVER THEM.

THESE PROPERTIES ARE NOT LOCATED WITHIN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, NOR ARE THEY LOCATED WITHIN THE CRA.

IT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE THERE IS LIMITATIONS IN OUR ABILITY TO PROVIDE FOR DESIGN GUIDANCE AS PART OF ANY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES THAT MIGHT OTHERWISE BE COVERED IF THEY HAD BEEN WITHIN ONE OF THOSE DISTRICTS.

THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 124 SOUTH THIRD STREET, COULD QUALIFY FOR DESIGNATION WITHIN THE CITY'S LOCAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES AND WITHIN OUR HISTORIC DISTRICT.

THE OTHER STRUCTURES, UNFORTUNATELY, DO NOT FALL WITHIN THE CITY'S PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT.

RECOGNIZING THE VALUE OF THE STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 124 SOUTH THIRD STREET, STAFF DID LIST THIS AS ON A LIST OF POTENTIAL CONCERN SITES IN 2020 AND INITIATED DISCUSSIONS WITH THE THEN PROPERTY OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE TO SEE IF WE COULD PURCHASE THE PROPERTY.

UNFORTUNATELY, THOSE DISCUSSIONS WERE DECLINED AND WE WEREN'T ABLE TO TAKE ANY FURTHER ACTION WITH THEM.

SO WE WEREN'T ABLE TO REALLY ACTIVELY PURSUE OBTAINING THAT STRUCTURE AND THAT PORTION OF THIS PROPERTY.

BUT WE DID MAKE SOME EFFORTS BACK IN 2020 WITH THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.

THIS IS A SLIDE THAT WE MAY WANT TO GO BACK TO A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT TIMES BECAUSE IT CLEARLY INDICATES THE HOUSING SITES, THE POSITIONING OF ON STREET PARKING, IT DEMONSTRATES WHERE LANDSCAPING WILL BE LOCATED, WHERE TREE REMOVAL NEEDS TO OCCUR, MAIL KIOSK AND THE SHARED ACCESS.

BUT YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE WHERE PARKING IS PROVIDED THAT ACCESS COMPONENT AND WHERE THOSE LOTS WILL THEN BE DEFINED.

I'LL GIVE A LITTLE BIT BETTER EXAMPLE TO HIGHLIGHT THAT IN A FUTURE SLIDE TO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE TALK ABOUT AT GREAT LENGTH IS, IS THIS INCREASING DENSITY? AS WE'VE INDICATED PREVIOUSLY, THERE'S 12 EXISTING SITES THAT ARE OPEN AND AVAILABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT TODAY IN VARIED LOT FORMS. THE THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR 12 HOME SITES AND AS WE CALCULATE NET DENSITY WITHIN THE CITY, UNDER THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WE BREAK THAT DOWN INTO THESE FIGURES THAT ARE PROVIDED BASED ON THE LAND AREA, THE ADJACENT RIGHTS OF WAY.

WE EXCLUDE THE PORTIONS THAT ARE WITHIN A SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA AS DEFINED BY OUR CODE.

AND WHAT THAT BOILS DOWN TO IS YOU GET 12 UNITS EXACTLY WHAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING.

[01:45:05]

STAFF HAS FULLY ANALYZED THE PROJECT SITE WITH CONSISTENCY OF ALL OF THE RELEVANT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES.

I WILL NOT GO LINE BY LINE THROUGH THEM, BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT WE HAVE BEEN THROUGH FROM THE DEFINITIONS ALL THE WAY THROUGH CHAPTER 11 TO ANALYZE WHICH POLICIES THIS TRULY IS CONSISTENT WITH, TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE WASN'T SOMETHING THAT WAS OVERLOOKED IN TRYING TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THIS WAS A PROJECT THAT SHOULD RECEIVE A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO MOVE FORWARD.

WITHIN THE SURROUNDING LAND AREA, THERE ARE A RANGE OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSING TYPES.

A STAFF I'VE ANALYZED THOSE RESIDENTIAL HOUSING TYPES PROVIDED FOR YOU IN THE VARIOUS COLORS.

THE WHITE SPACE THAT YOU SEE IS COMMERCIAL OR MIXED USE, AND SO THAT WAS NOT ANALYZED AS PART OF IT.

I REALLY FOCUSED IN ON JUST THE RESIDENTIAL PIECES OF IT.

IN BLUE, YOU'LL SEE WHAT WE HAVE DEFINED AS 25 FOOT BY 25, BY 100 FOOT, LOTS OF RECORD, AND THEN YELLOW HAS 75 FOOT LOTS OF RECORD, GREEN IS 50 FOOT, LOTS OF RECORD.

THERE IS ONE LOT OF RECORD RIGHT NOW THAT IS 125FT IN LENGTH AND 133 FOOT.

SO WHAT THIS IS TELLING US IS THAT THERE IS REALLY A RANGE OF LOTS WITHIN THIS GENERAL VICINITY, WITHIN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, IF YOU WILL, OF THE RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOME SITES AND AND SINGLE FAMILY HOME SITES THAT EXIST IN THAT IMMEDIATE VICINITY.

NO, LET ME GO BACK.

THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS REQUESTING TO DO JUST THAT, PROVIDE A RANGE OF DIFFERENT LOT WIDTHS.

ON THIRD STREET SIDE, WE HAVE 36 FOOT LOT WIDTHS WITH A CORNER LOT WIDTH OF 42.5FT.

AND ON THE FOURTH STREET SIDE, FACING THAT FOURTH STREET DIRECTION, WE HAVE A 43 FOOT LOT WIDTH, SEVERAL 40.5FT LOT WIDTHS AS WELL AS A 45 FOOT LOT WIDTH ON THE CORNER.

AND THESE REALLY WORK TO SUPPORT THE DESIGN PARAMETERS ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE ZONING DISTRICTS SO THAT THEY CAN BE COMPLIANT WITH THE SITE DESIGN COMPONENTS. AGAIN, JUST LIKE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STAFF HAS ANALYZED FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, RANGING FROM THE VERY BEGINNING WHERE OUR DEFINITIONS ARE AND GOING ALL THE WAY THROUGH CHAPTER 11 TO ENSURE THAT THIS SITE IS CAPABLE OF ACHIEVING CONSISTENCY WITH ALL OF THESE ASPECTS OF OUR CODE, INCLUDING THE SITE DESIGN PARAMETERS.

IN CONCLUSION, WE HAVE REVIEWED EVERYTHING AND FOUND THAT THIS PLOT REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE APPLICABLE STATUTES.

THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ITS LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

AT THIS POINT, THE PROJECT IS PENDING ISSUANCE OF A LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER FOLLOWING THE POTENTIAL APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAT.

STAFF DOES ISSUE A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AND I AM HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR DIVE DEEPER INTO ANYTHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET INTO.

THANK YOU. BEFORE YOU TAKE QUESTIONS, MR. MAYOR. JUST BRIEFLY, COULD YOU GO TO THE SLIDE FOR THE SITE PLAN, PLEASE? I WOULD LIKE TO CALL ANDRE DÉSOLÉ JUST JUST FOR A MOMENT, PLEASE.

WELL, MISS PARK, IF WE COULD TAKE IT ONE WITNESS AT A TIME, JUST AS AN ORDER APPROVED.

THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR MISS GIBSON, OUR CITY PLANNER? DO. POINT OF ORDER, SIR.

DO THEY DO CROSS EXAMINATION FIRST OR QUESTIONS FIRST? FIRST, WE'LL DO EXAMINATION FROM THE COMMISSIONERS.

SO ANY QUESTIONS COMMISSIONERS HAVE AND THEN WE'LL GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CROSS EXAMINATION.

MR. POOLE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN OUR 30 MINUTES.

IT IS OKAY. WELL, ACTUALLY, I'M SORRY.

THE QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS DO NOT COUNT TOWARDS THAT 30 MINUTES.

THE CROSS EXAMINATION DOES.

SO WE CAN'T STOP THE CLOCK.

YES, WE STOP THE CLOCK.

GREAT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.

IS YOUR ANALYSIS THAT YOU DID ON THE IN YOUR STAFF REPORT, IS THAT THE BASIS OF YOUR OPINION ON ALL THESE QUESTIONS THAT ALONG WITH THE SITE INFORMATION THAT WAS PROVIDED IN THE APPLICATION MATERIALS? SO THAT'S THE BASIS OF YOUR OPINION? YES, SIR. THANK YOU.

SO WAS THE UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD ON TWO SEPARATE OCCASIONS THAT THE SUBJECT CASE WAS NOT SUFFICIENTLY COMPLIANT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND APPLICABLE FLORIDA STATUTES TO BE APPROVED, AND THAT THE PAB RECOMMENDED REFERRAL TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.

THAT WAS NOT PROVIDED AS PART OF THE STAFF REPORT? NO, SIR. THERE WAS A UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION BY.

YES, SIR. THERE WAS A UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION OF THAT BOARD.

AND WITHIN THE RESOLUTION THAT IS WELL IDENTIFIED AND UNDERSTOOD AS PART OF CONSIDERATION OF THIS CASE.

THANK YOU. IS THE OFFICIAL PLAT ISSUED BY THE FLORIDA RAILROAD COMPANY IN 19 1857 AND REVISED AND ENLARGED AND REISSUED IN THE

[01:50:08]

FLORIDA TOWN IMPROVEMENT COMPANY IN 1887 AND 1901.

THE INITIAL SUBDIVISION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

IT WOULD QUALIFY AS THE ORIGINAL PLAT OF THAT PORTION OF THE PROPERTY.

CAN YOU ON THAT IF YOU CAN GO TO THE LAST SLIDE THERE.

THERE WAS ANOTHER SLIDE, I THOUGHT WHERE WAS THE ONE THAT HAD ALL THE WHERE YOU TALKED ABOUT THE MINOR SUBDIVISION? THERE WAS ONE MORE. THAT SLIDE HAS BEEN TAKEN OUT? OH, NO. I DO HAVE ADDITIONAL SLIDES THAT I CAN GO THROUGH IF YOU'D LIKE TO.

I'D LIKE TO PUT YOU PUTTING THAT INTO EVIDENCE THAT.

YES, SIR. YEP. AND IT WAS PROVIDED AS PART OF THE BACKUP MATERIALS.

YOU COULD PUT THE LAST SLIDE IN YOUR PACKET.

THE ORIGINAL LAST SLIDE.

NOPE, THAT'S THE ONE.

THANK YOU. COULD YOU FOR US PLEASE CITE FOR ME THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT ALLOW MINOR SUBDIVISIONS UNDER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY 1.0 206 AND LAND DEVELOPMENT SECTION 4.040.

02F THAT NULLIFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 1.0305.

IN OTHER WORDS, DOES THAT HOW DID HOW DID THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 1.0305 NULLIFY WHAT WAS DONE THERE? OR HOW DOES IT. NO, SIR.

IN THESE CASES, THEY WERE NOT APPLIED.

SO SEE, SECTION 1.03.05 WAS NOT APPLIED IN THESE SCENARIOS.

SO THERE'S NOTHING THE LAND USE ZONING AND OTHER SECTIONS CITED WERE APPLIED IN ORDER TO PROVIDE FOR THOSE MINOR SUBDIVISION ACTIONS.

WHEN WHEN WHAT I'M ASKING IS WHAT PROVISIONS IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ALLOWED YOU TO DO THAT? WE RELIED ON THE LAND USE AND THE UNDERLYING LAND USE AND ZONING ITSELF TO SUPPORT AND JUSTIFY IT ALONGSIDE THESE OTHER POLICIES THAT ARE CITED.

SO THERE WAS NOTHING SPECIFIC IN THOSE IN THE LAND, SPECIFICALLY THE POLICIES THAT ARE REFERENCED HERE WITHIN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT ALLOW FOR MINOR SUBDIVISIONS TO BE CREATED. THAT'S WHAT WAS RELIED UPON.

OKAY. DO YOU AGREE THAT THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE DEFINES A LOT AS A PARCEL OF LAND WHOSE BOUNDARIES HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED BY SOME LEGAL INSTRUMENT, SUCH AS A RECORDED DEED OR RECORDED MAP WHICH IS RECOGNIZED AS A SEPARATE LEGAL ENTITY FOR PURPOSES OF TRANSFER TITLE USE OR IMPROVEMENT, WHICH IS THE DEFINITION IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? SURE. YES.

BASICALLY, THERE'S A DEFINITION IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT I JUST READ TO YOU.

YOU AGREE? THAT'S THE DEFINITION OF WHAT DEFINES A LOT AS A PARCEL.

WHAT DEFINES THAT? THE DEFINITION PROVIDED IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IS HOW IT READS.

OKAY. SO HAVE THE SUBJECT.

20 LOTS OF RECORD BEEN COMBINED INTO FIVE LOTS WITH PARCEL NUMBERS AND I CAN GIVE YOU THE PARCEL NUMBERS IF YOU WANT.

THERE ARE DEVELOPMENT SITES WHICH COMBINE PORTIONS OF THOSE PROPERTIES AND OTHER PORTIONS OF THOSE PROPERTIES THAT REMAIN OPEN AND AVAILABLE.

WE'LL GET TO THAT IN A MINUTE.

BUT HAVE UNDER THE LAND, UNDER YOUR DEFINITION OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, HAVE THIS SUBJECT, 20 LOTS THAT ARE THERE.

HAVE THEY BEEN COMBINED INTO FIVE PARCELS WHICH YOU CAN GO LOOK AT ON THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S WEBSITE? I WOULD AGREE THAT THERE ARE PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS FOR FIVE SEPARATE PARCELS THAT ARE NOT NECESSARILY THE SAME AS HOW WE WOULD TREAT THE LAND AREA FOR DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES. OKAY.

SO YOU STATE IN YOUR REPORT THERE'S ONLY EIGHT LOTS OF RECORD THAT REMAIN OPEN AND AVAILABLE FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION UNDER THE EXISTING CONDITIONS.

CORRECT? THERE ARE 12 TOTAL DEVELOPMENT SITES THAT ARE AVAILABLE AT PRESENT.

SO MY QUESTION IS, SINCE THE 20 LOTS OF RECORD HAVE BEEN COMBINED INTO FIVE LOTS UNDER THE DEFINITION THAT'S IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHAT'S THE BASIS FOR THE STAFF REPORT THAT THERE ARE EIGHT OR AVAILABLE LOTS, THAT THERE ARE 12 AVAILABLE LOTS AND THAT'S DESCRIBED IN ONE OF THE.

EXISTING CONDITIONS SLIDES.

I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THOSE HAVE BEEN COMBINED.

IF YOU GO TO THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S MAP INTO FIVE SEPARATE PARCELS.

CORRECT. THAT IS YOUR UNDERSTANDING? YES, SIR. AND THOSE ARE UNDER YOUR DEFINITION, UNDER THE LAND CODE DEFINITION.

IT SAYS THOSE ARE LOTS.

SO THERE'S FIVE, FIVE PLATTED, FIVE LOTS, NOT PLATTED LOTS.

THERE'S 20 PLATTED LOTS, BUT FIVE LOTS.

CORRECT. THERE ARE FIVE PARCELS.

[01:55:01]

OKAY. SO SO THERE ARE FIVE PARCELS.

THERE ARE FIVE PARCELS WITH FIVE UNIQUE PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS.

AND IN THOSE FIVE TOTALING 12 DEVELOPMENT SITES AT PRESENT.

SO HOW? THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR MS..

GIBSON? I DO HAVE.

I'M SORRY, MR. ROSS. SO IS THE SUBJECT NEIGHBORHOOD PART OF THE DOWNTOWN CORE? THAT'S. IT IS ADJACENT TO IT AND WITHIN AN AREA THAT IS, I WOULD SAY, DOWNTOWN AS A NEIGHBORHOOD.

COULD YOU EXPLAIN WHAT THE SANBORN MAPS ARE? THEY ARE MAPS THAT WERE CREATED FOR PURPOSES OF PROVIDING INSURANCE FOR FIRE AT DIFFERENT TIME FRAMES WHEN WE DIDN'T HAVE SOPHISTICATED MAPPING THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE STRUCTURES THAT EXIST WITHIN THE CITY.

THANK YOU. SO WERE THE SANBORN MAPS EXCERPTS USED IN YOUR STAFF REPORT? THEY WERE MADE PART OF THE PLANNING BOARD.

YES. STAFF REPORT.

THEY WERE IN THE STAFF REPORT? YES, SIR.

DO THE EXCERPTS OF THEM FOR THIS AREA? YES, SIR. THE SANBORN MAPS DOCUMENT THE HISTORIC PLACEMENT OF DRIVEWAYS, LOT SIZES, HOUSE SHAPES AND SIZES, HOUSE PLACEMENT AND TYPES OF HOUSING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD SURROUNDING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

I DON'T RECALL THE ACCESS COMPONENTS OF IT.

WE WERE ABLE TO IDENTIFY WHERE STREETS ARE PLACED OFTEN IN, DEPENDING ON THE TIMEFRAME.

YOU WOULDN'T HAVE HAD INFORMATION ABOUT DRIVEWAYS, BUT CERTAINLY THE TYPE OF STRUCTURE AND ITS GENERAL VICINITY WITHIN A PARTICULAR LOT WAS IDENTIFIED ON THOSE MAPS AND THEY DID HAVE A VARIETY OF USES OVER TIME WITHIN THESE PROPERTIES.

WHERE ARE THERE ANY SHARED RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAYS ON THE SANBORN MAPS OF THE SUBJECT NEIGHBORHOOD THAT YOU COULD IDENTIFY? NO, NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.

DID THE SANBORN MAPS DOCUMENT HOUSES OF DIFFERENT SIZES ON THE SUBJECT NEIGHBORHOOD? YES, SIR. DO THE SANBORN MAPS DOCUMENT BUILDINGS OF DIFFERENT SHAPES IN THE SUBJECT NEIGHBORHOOD? YES, SIR. DO THE SANBORN MAPS SHOW ANY RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOUSES IN THE SUBJECT NEIGHBORHOOD? NO. THAT WAS NOT A TYPICAL HOUSING FORM THAT WAS SEEN AT THE TIME.

FRAMES AT SANBORN MAPS WERE CREATED PRIOR TO 2015.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAVE SHARED RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAYS FOR MORE THAN TWO UNITS? I'M NOT SURE I HAVE AN I HAVE NOT ANSWERED THAT, SIR.

OKAY. THANK YOU. I'M ALMOST THERE. BRADLEY. MAN COMMISSIONER.

GO AHEAD. OKAY.

IS THE TERM DEVELOPMENT SITE DEFINED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE? I'M NOT SURE WITHOUT CONSULTING IT.

ON PAGE ONE OF THE STAFF REPORT, IT STATES THE REMAINING LOTS HAVE BEEN COMBINED INTO FOUR DEVELOPMENT SITES BECAUSE OF PREVIOUS DEVELOPMENT.

WHAT'S THE BASIS OF THAT OPINION? THE LOCATION OF WHERE THOSE STRUCTURES WERE LOCATED OVER THE ORIGINALLY PLATTED.

LOTS OF RECORD. OKAY.

BUT THERE'S NO DEFINITION FOR DEVELOPMENT SITE IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT YOU KNOW OF THAT YOU REMEMBER? NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.

THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR MS..

GIBSON? I SEE A LIGHT ON.

IS THAT A QUESTION? ALL RIGHT, I'M OFF.

I'M SORRY. THANK YOU, MS..

GIBSON. THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS WE HAVE.

WELL, ACTUALLY, NOW WE OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE.

NEVER MIND. MR. HARRISON POOLE HAS THE HANG OF IT BY THE END OF THE NIGHT.

THANK YOU. WOULD ANY INTERVENING PARTY LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ANY OR APPLICANT LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE THIS WITNESS? DOES THAT INCLUDE THE QUESTIONS? I BELIEVE THAT'S I BELIEVE THAT IS WHAT THIS IS THE ONE OPPORTUNITY YOU'LL HAVE TO ASK QUESTIONS OF.

MS.. GIBSON ANY IF YOU ARE AN INTERVENING PARTY, ARE YOU AN INTERVENING PARTY? AND COME ON DOWN, SIR.

BUT WE DO RESTART THE CLOCK.

YES. DID YOU FOLLOW UP? DID YOU FOLLOW UP? YOU HAVE TO DO IT FROM THE PODIUM SO EVERYONE CAN HEAR YOU AT HOME.

[02:00:06]

ALL RIGHT. SO WE DO GOT A WE DO GOT TO MOVE ON OR I REALLY NOT WANT TO CROSS-EXAMINE.

I HAVE A JUST A SIMPLE QUESTION THAT IS CROSS-EXAMINATION.

JUST ONE THING TO BE CLEAR, WITH CROSS-EXAMINATION, IT NEEDS TO BE GERMANE TO WHAT WAS BROUGHT UP IN THE DIRECT.

YOU CAN'T GO OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF WHAT SHE'S ALREADY DISCUSSED.

AND SO IF YOU'RE TRYING TO BRING UP SOMETHING NEW DISCUSSED, ANYTHING SHE'S ALREADY DISCUSSED EXACTLY.

WHAT I'M SAYING IS THE CROSS-EXAMINATION IS LIMITED TO MATTERS WHICH MS..

GIBSON HAS ALREADY TESTIFIED TO.

AND IT WAS JUST SOMETHING THAT WAS ON A SLIDE.

I KNOW THAT WAS JUST AN ADVISORY, JUST THAT THAT'S THE SCOPE OF IT.

MR. PAUL HAVE A POINT OF ORDER.

INTERVENING PARTY. IS THIS ALL RIGHT? WE'LL HAVE THEM IDENTIFY.

HE STEPS UP. BUT THIS IS MR. COLSON. YEAH.

OKAY. OKAY. I JUST.

IT WAS A VERY SIMPLE QUESTION.

IT RELATES TO ONE OF THE SLIDES AND THE WALL IN I LIVE AT 111 SOUTH FOURTH STREET.

IT'S THE SLIDE.

I'M SORRY. YOUR NAME? DAVID COLSON. JUST FOR THE RECORD.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR. THE SLIDE WHERE IT WAS ON THE SLIDES ABOUT HOW HE'S GOING TO BUILD A LOT.

IS THAT CORRECT? AND THAT THE BACK WALL I'VE NEVER HAD IT EXPLAINED TO ME AND I'VE WANTED TO KNOW RIGHT THERE ON THAT WALL.

HAS THERE BEEN ANY LOOKING AT HOW THE DRAINAGE IS GOING TO BE AFFECTED FROM THE WATER? BECAUSE THE WATER COMES FROM THE NORTH TOWARDS THAT WAY? IS THERE ANYTHING THERE THAT'S GOING TO THAT'S TO ADDRESS THE DRAINAGE? THAT IS A QUESTION THAT I THINK MAY BE BETTER ANSWERED ON CROSS-EXAMINATION WITH THE APPLICANT OR WITH MR. DESJARLAIS. OKAY.

RIGHT. STAY THERE BECAUSE MAY I CALL MY NEXT WITNESS? CALL YOUR NEXT WITNESS. JUST REAL QUICK.

THIS IS BEEN GOING ON FOR MONTHS ABOUT HOW THERE WILL BE FLOODING BECAUSE OF IF THIS PROJECT IS BUILT IN THIS WAY, THAT THERE WOULD BE FLOODING.

AND AS MS.. GIBSON SAID, THERE ARE ALREADY 12 UNITS THAT COULD BE BUILT THERE WITHOUT ANY SPECIAL PLANNING OR VARIANCE OR ANY TYPE OF APPROVAL.

BUT THOSE INDIVIDUAL HOME SITES WOULD REQUIRE THEIR OWN DRIVEWAYS AND THEIR OWN DRAINAGE PLAN.

THIS IS A UNIFIED DRAINAGE PLAN THAT'S BEING PROPOSED.

AND HOW DOES THAT DIFFER, IN YOUR OPINION, FROM WHAT IT WOULD BE LIKE FOR JUST 12 INDIVIDUAL HOMES? OKAY. THE WAY IT'S PROPOSED NOW QUALIFIES AS A AS A SUBDIVISION OR A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

IT REQUIRES PERMITTING THROUGH THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, WHICH REQUIRES A PRE VERSUS POST ANALYSIS.

THEY ANALYZE THE PROPERTY AS IT SITS TODAY WITH THE STRUCTURES THAT ARE THERE AND THE SURROUNDING DRAINAGE PATTERNS FOR THE ADJOINING PROPERTIES.

THEY ANALYZE THEN WHAT'S PROPOSED AND THEY THE REQUIREMENT IS TO NOT DISCHARGE ANY IN ANY GREATER QUANTITY OF WATER THAN IT DID IN THE PRE DEVELOPMENT.

SO YOU HAVE TO SHOW A NET IMPROVEMENT FOR THE DESIGN STORM, WHICH IS A TEN YEAR STORM EVENT.

IF THIS WERE DEVELOPED BASED BASICALLY LOT BY LOT WITH THE EXISTING BUILDABLE LOTS, THERE IS A LOWER STANDARD OF DRAINAGE REQUIREMENT THAT IS SIMPLY TO PROVIDE STORAGE FOR ONE INCH OF RAINFALL OVER THE IMPERVIOUS AREA.

SO THERE IS A HIGHER, HIGHER DRAINAGE STANDARD THAT IS REQUIRED.

THE WAY THIS DEVELOPMENT IS CURRENTLY PROPOSED AND IF IT WAS DONE LOT BY LOT IN A NON UNIFIED MANNER.

AND I IF I CAN ALSO ADDRESS THE QUESTION THAT WAS PROPOSED OR POSED ABOUT THE ADJACENT DRAINAGE FROM THE NORTH. ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS IS THAT IF ANY WATER IS DRAINING ONTO THE PROPERTY IN THE PRE DEVELOPMENT CONDITION, THAT IT IS MAINTAINED AND ACCOMMODATED THROUGHOUT THAT DEVELOPMENT. WE CAN'T BLOCK OFF ANY ESTABLISHED DRAINAGE PATTERNS.

I DON'T BELIEVE THAT ANY OFF SITE DRAINAGE FROM THE NORTH WAS IDENTIFIED THROUGHOUT THE ENGINEERING REVIEW FOR THE PROJECT.

BUT CERTAINLY IF THERE IS, THEN IT IS REQUIRED TO BE ACCOMMODATED AND WOULD NEED TO ADDRESS THAT IN THE IN THE PLANS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT.

THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER EVIDENCE TO PRESENT? I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS FOR OUR WITNESS FROM THE COMMISSION? WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PAUSE THAT CLOCK BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO COMMISSIONER ROSS.

SO HOW ARE THEY GOING TO MAINTAIN THE DRAINAGE, THE STORMWATER ON THIS PARCEL? THE PROPOSED PLAN IS FOR THE INTERIOR DRIVE.

THERE WILL BE AN INFILTRATION GALLERY, A DRY RETENTION SYSTEM THAT'S UNDER THAT DRIVEWAY INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WILL COLLECT THE

[02:05:06]

RAINWATER AND INFILTRATE.

THEN IT HAS AN OVERFLOW CONNECTED TO AN INLET ON SOUTH THIRD STREET WHERE ONCE THAT REACHES THAT CAPACITY AND THAT'S BEEN MODELED, THAT WATER WOULD OVERFLOW INTO THE CITY DRAINAGE SYSTEM.

ARE THEY ELEVATING THESE HOUSES TO PUT A GALLERY UNDERNEATH THEM? YES. THE GRADE IS PLANNED TO BE RAISED TO TO ALLOW FOR THE HEIGHT OF THAT DRAINAGE GALLERY.

AND HOW HOW MUCH ARE THESE HOUSES GOING TO BE RAISED FOR THAT DRAINAGE GALLERY? ANY DON'T KNOW.

I BELIEVE THE FINISHED FLOOR IS.

ESTABLISHED BASED ON FLOOD REQUIREMENTS.

SO THE ACTUAL FINISHED FLOOR OF THE HOME IS NOT AFFECTED BY THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM, BUT THE SITE ITSELF IS RAISED MAYBE ABOUT TWO FEET, I THINK.

SO THERE'S THE TWO FOOT ELEVATION OVER THE SURROUNDING HOMES.

CORRECT. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION FOR MR. DESOLATE? SEEING NONE, IS THERE ANY CROSS EXAM OR IS THERE ANY OBJECTIONS TO THIS EVIDENCE? FIRST OF ALL, ANY OBJECTIONS? AND RESTART THE CLOCK FOR ME, WILL YOU? SO. AND THEN IS THERE ANY CROSS EXAMINATION THAT WISHES TO OCCUR HERE? ANY CROSS EXAMINATION? SEEING NONE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MISS MOK, WOULD YOU LIKE TO PRESENT FURTHER EVIDENCE OR CLOSE? YES, JUST BRIEFLY AND SOME ARGUMENT.

SO THE AS MS..

GIBSON SAID, THE NET DENSITY IS REALLY THE SAME THING AS DENSITY, AT LEAST IN LAND USE LAW AND UNDER OUR CODE.

SO WE'VE BEEN HEARING ABOUT AND READING ABOUT.

AND OF COURSE, I'VE READ THE OTHER EVIDENCE THAT'S IN THE RECORD, WHICH INCLUDES THE INTERVENORS DOCUMENTS AND OUR DOCUMENTS.

AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE VERY CLEAR THAT DENSITY IS NOT WHAT DO WE SEE OUT THERE RIGHT NOW IN TERMS OF WHO LIVES THERE, WHAT STRUCTURES ARE THERE.

THAT IS NOT THE DEFINITION OF DENSITY.

SO THE ANY ARGUMENT THAT OR PERCEPTION EVEN THAT WE ARE INCREASING DENSITY, IF THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT IS APPROVED IS FALSE, IS LEGALLY FALSE, IT NET DENSITY AND DENSITY.

WHAT THAT MEANS IS WHAT ARE THE ALLOWABLE NUMBER OF UNITS ON THAT SITE? AND BY THE WAY, DENSITY ONLY APPLIES TO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OR MIXED USE WHEN YOU'RE BUILDING RESIDENTIAL UNITS.

THE DENSITY OUT THERE RIGHT NOW, AS WE SAID, YOU CAN BUILD 12 UNITS TODAY AND THIS PROPOSAL IS FOR 12 UNITS.

SO THERE IS NO INCREASE IN DENSITY WHATSOEVER.

THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO POINT OUT IS THAT HALF OF THE BLOCK WHERE IT WAS SHADED IN PINK IS MIXED USE AND MIXED USE ALLOWS OTHER TYPES OF USES BESIDES JUST RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

AND JUST REAL QUICK, I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT IT'S NOT IN THE PROPOSAL, BUT JUST SO EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS, MIXED USE IS THE OTHER HALF OF THE BLOCK IS ARE TWO.

BUT MIXED USE ALLOWS THINGS SUCH AS ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES, PHARMACIES WHICH COULD INCLUDE MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES, BANKS CREDIT UNIONS, GROUP HOMES, FUNERAL HOMES, INCLUDING CREMATORIA, GOVERNMENT AND CIVIC BUILDINGS, LAUNDRY AND DRY CLEANING, DANCE STUDIOS, TATTOO PARLORS, BARBER SHOPS, MASSAGE PERSONAL SERVICE RESTAURANTS AND BARS.

THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO POINT OUT, TOO, IS THAT AS AS YOU CONSIDER THIS, THAT THE STATE OF FLORIDA JUST PASSED A LAW CALLED THE LIVE LOCAL ACT THAT PROVIDES INCENTIVES, ROBUST INCENTIVES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS PRETTY SCARY.

I LIVE HERE, TOO, AS YOU ALL DO, IS THAT IF IF THIS MIXED USE WOULDN'T APPLY TO RESIDENTIAL, BUT IT WOULD APPLY TO THE MIXED USE BLOCK POTENTIALLY IF THERE WAS ANOTHER PROPOSAL, THERE WOULD ALLOW UP TO 34 UNITS PER ACRE.

THE NEW LAW SAYS THAT IF IT'S AFFORDABLE, WHICH MEANS EXTREMELY LOW, VERY LOW AND LOW INCOME PERSONS, AS THOSE ARE DEFINED BY CHAPTER 420 OF THE STATUTES.

34 UNITS PER ACRE COULD BE, AND THE HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS AND THE DENSITY RESTRICTIONS WILL NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE STATE HAS NOW EXEMPTED US WHEN IT COMES TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

SO THIS DEVELOPMENT FROM STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE, THIS LAW WAS COMING DOWN THE PIKE SEEMS TO ME TO BE A MUCH BETTER ALTERNATIVE THAN HAVING A HIGH RISE, WHICH COULD BE NO LIMIT, COULD BE 80FT TALL.

THAT'S WHAT THE STATE HAS SAID WE WOULD HAVE TO DO FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

THAT'S PRETTY SCARY ON THAT ON THAT BLOCK.

[02:10:02]

SO OTHER THAN THAT, I THINK ALL OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AS AS MS..

GIBSON STATED, THERE WERE MANY, MANY SECTIONS FROM CHAPTER ONE ALL THE WAY THROUGH 11 THAT THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE THE NOT APPLYING.

THE FACT THAT THE STAFF DID NOT APPLY SECTION 100 AND 305 IS THE REASON FOR THAT WAS AND I CAME INTO THIS AFTER THE APPLICATION CAME IN AND AFTER STAFF HAD THEIR ANALYSIS AND THEY HAD DECIDED TO APPLY THE SUBDIVISION STANDARDS AND NOT THE 100 AND 305.

THE REASON FOR THAT IS BECAUSE THE APPLICANT WAS NOT ASKING FOR THE UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD, THE UNDERLYING PLATTED, LOTS OF RECORD, THE ONES THAT APPEAR ON THE OLD SANBORN MAPS AND THE PLAT OF THE CITY.

THOSE WERE NOT ASKING TO BE RESTORED TO BE BUILDABLE SITES.

AND IN THOSE CASES, IN MY RESEARCH, WHEN I LOOKED BACK FOR AT LEAST THE LAST TEN YEARS, BUT MORE LIKE 20, BECAUSE WE KNOW WHO WAS HERE IN PLACE BEFORE MS..

GIBSON WAS MR. MCCRORY AND IT WAS APPLIED THAT WAY.

THEN IF A SUBDIVISION IS BEING ASKED FOR AND IT'S NOT INCLUDING THE UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD, THEN THE SUBDIVISION PLANNING REQUIREMENTS APPLY.

IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO RESTORE ALL OF THOSE UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD OR SOME OF.

ON THE SITE THAT HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY BUILT ON, THEN THAT IS WHEN 103,005 APPLIES.

AND I THINK THAT THAT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

WHEN I TALKED ABOUT EQUAL PROTECTION IN THE 14TH AMENDMENT, WHICH IF THERE WAS A CHALLENGE THAT WE HAD VIOLATED THIS APPLICANT'S EQUAL PROTECTION RIGHTS, I WOULD BE BECAUSE THERE WAS ANOTHER AT LEAST ONE SIMILARLY SITUATED PROPERTY, AND THERE IS ONE, AND THAT'S THE ISLAND VIEW SUBDIVISION.

WHEN I READ THE SOME OF THE MATERIALS FROM THE INTERVENORS, THEY CLAIMED THAT ALL OF THOSE EXAMPLES THAT I HAD GIVEN TO THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD WERE ALL ANNEXED INTO THE CITY.

AND AS IF THAT MADE A DIFFERENCE, ALL OF THOSE SITES, NUMBER ONE, WERE ANNEXED INTO THE CITY BUT DEVELOPED IN THE CITY, INCLUDING SITE PLAN PLATTING AND ALL OF THAT.

SO THEY WERE TREATED JUST LIKE A PROPERTY THAT'S IN THE CITY.

BUT I HAVE ONE BETTER FOR YOU.

I COULDN'T BE MORE THIS CASE COULDN'T BE MORE SIMILARLY SITUATED THAN THE ISLAND VIEW SUBDIVISION.

THIS COMMISSION JUST APPROVED THE FINAL PLAT ON APRIL THE 18TH.

THAT INCLUDES 12 HOME SITES AND FOUR EXISTING HOMES PRIOR TO THE PLANNING PROCESS WERE DEMOLISHED, JUST LIKE HERE, AND THE DEMOLITION PERMIT WAS PULLED FROM THE CITY AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ANNEXATION, PUTTING IT IN EXACTLY THE SAME POSITION AS AS THIS THIS PLOT, THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT PROPOSAL.

SO I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH MORE SIMILARLY SITUATED YOU GET THAN THAT.

SO THE CITY'S POSITION IS THAT IF WE TREAT THIS APPLICATION DIFFERENT AND HAD THEM GO FOR A VARIANCE TO RESTORE SOME OF THOSE UNDERLYING PLOTTED LOTS OF RECORD THAT WE WOULD HAVE BEEN VIOLATING THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

SO THAT IS, I SUPPORT HOW STAFF ANALYZE THIS AND THEY RECOMMEND APPROVAL.

AND THAT'S THAT'S IT FOR ME.

UNLESS YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR MISS BOK OR FOR THE CITY IN GENERAL, COMMISSIONER, ASK YOU, COULD YOU PROVIDE THE THE BILL THAT WAS PASSED.

IT'S SENATE BILL 102.

OKAY. DO YOU KNOW IF THE GOVERNOR HAS SIGNED THAT? YES. IT'S IT'S LAW.

YES. OKAY.

THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR MISS BOK OR FOR THE CITY IN GENERAL? NOW, AFTER ALL THAT, WE'RE GOING TO MR. POOLE. POINT OF ORDER. DO WE NEED TO DO CROSS REDIRECT AND RECROSS? IS THAT NOW OR WHAT DO WE DO NEXT? YES. FOR MISS BOK OR ANY EVIDENCE THAT SHE PRESENTED ON BEHALF OF CITY STAFF, WE WOULD HAVE TO GIVE THE OTHER PARTIES OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE.

IS THERE ANY PARTIES WHO WISH TO CROSS EXAMINE SEEING NONE.

WE WILL CONTINUE TO MOVE ON AND ASK WOULD THE CITY LIKE TO REDIRECT? IS THAT IS THAT SOMETHING THAT ONLY HAPPENS IF THEY CROSS? RIGHT. THAT'S A NOT ACTUALLY.

MY REDIRECT, I BELIEVE WOULD BE IF I HAD QUESTIONS FOR KELLY OR FOR ANDRE.

AND DO YOU KNOW. OKAY, WELL THERE YOU GO.

THAT'S THAT IS THE THAT IS THE CITY'S CASE.

SO UP NEXT, WE WILL NOW GO TO THE CASE FOR THE APPLICANT.

SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND CALL THE APPLICANT FORWARD AND WE'LL START THAT 30 MINUTE TIMER OVER.

[02:15:07]

RON FLICK 961687.

GATEWAY BOULEVARD.

HERE IS AGENT FOR JOSEPHINE TRINGALI.

ANTHONY J. TRINGALI REVOCABLE TRUST OWNERS AND DEVELOPMENT TEAM FOR PARCELS AS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

MAYOR BEEN VICE MAYOR STURGIS, COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF AND CITIZENS OF OUR CITY.

I'LL TRY TO MAKE THIS VERY BRIEF AND FOCUS ON SOME CLARIFICATIONS THAT I THINK WE HAVE ALREADY PROVIDED IN STAFF, HAVE BEEN REVIEWED AND REPORTED AS SUCH BY STAFF IN SOME CASES.

ONE IS TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF HOW THIS WHOLE PROCESS STARTED AND WHY WHY WE CHOSE THIS ROUTE.

KNOW IT'S BEEN ABOUT 16 MONTHS NOW WHAT WE THOUGHT WOULD TAKE ABOUT A FOUR MONTH PROCESS.

IT'S TAKEN A LITTLE BIT LONGER, FIVE MONTHS, I THINK, AND IT'S TAKEN A LITTLE BIT LONGER.

AND SOME OF THAT TIME WAS ON OUR OUR TIME BECAUSE WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE STUDIED WHAT HAS OCCURRED IN SIMILAR PROPERTIES NEARBY, FOR EXAMPLE, LIKE HARBORVIEW AS ONE EXAMPLE.

ON TOP OF THAT, WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE INVESTMENT TEAM OR THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM WHO HAD A PLAN, A VISION FOR THIS SITE NEEDED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT ITS MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM PARAMETERS ARE WITHIN THE LDC, NOT SEEKING TO SEEK VARIANCES AND DO THINGS OUT OF THE BUBBLE, SO TO SPEAK.

STAY COMPLIANT WITH OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND WHATNOT.

AND IN DOING THAT, FOR THE 1.6 ACRES OR 1.7 ACRES, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE LHC WERE AT THE FOREFRONT, LED OFF WITH MEETINGS WITH YOUR STAFF, WHO I WOULD HAVE TO SAY WERE VERY GOOD IN GIVING EXPLANATIONS, ANSWERS AND RESPONSES AND HELPING US MAKE A DECISION AND DETERMINE THAT IN MEETING WITH OUR LEADER AT THAT TIME AND STILL BE AS OUR COMMUNITY, WE WANTED SOMETHING THAT THE COMMUNITY WOULD BE PROUD OF, NOT ONLY IN DESIGN BUT IN IN SITE DESIGN, BUT IN BUILDING DESIGN.

NEIGHBORS WOULD BE GLAD TO LIVE NEAR IT, BE A PART OF IT, AND INCORPORATE AS MUCH OF THE FLORIDA VERNACULAR.

LOOK, NOT THE BLOCK HOUSE ROW HOUSING THAT I'VE HEARD COMPLIMENTS OR COMMENTS ABOUT ON OTHER PROPERTIES.

AND OF COURSE, STEVE'S FINAL COMMENT IS IT NEEDS TO HAVE A WOW FACTOR WHEN WE PRESENT IT TO OUR CUSTOMER AND ALSO IMPRESS OUR COMMUNITY.

THOSE ARE EXACTLY OUR GOALS AND THOSE ARE WHAT WE HAVE PROPOSED.

BUT IN FIRST WE MUST PROPOSE A SITE THAT ACCOMMODATES THAT.

TO DO THAT WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND INSIGHT.

AFTER ABOUT EIGHT WEEKS STUDY WE LAID OUT, THE LANDS DETERMINE FOR SURE THAT OUR SQUARE FOOTAGE IS FOR A STANDARD LOT SIZE THAT MET ALL THE CRITERIA BY THE LDC AND MOST OF ALL THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHICH DICTATED THE LIMITS OF OUR BOTH MIXED USE AND OR OUR TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OF EIGHT UNITS PER ACRE STAYING WITHIN THAT CATEGORY AND THE MINIMUM LOT SIZES AND ALL THE OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE LDC.

LDC IT LED US TO THE DECISION OF REPLANTING.

AND FRANKLY, THAT'S THE WE REALLY NEVER EVEN GOT INTO THE DISCUSSION TO SPEAK OF REGARDING GOING BACK AND TRYING TO REDEEM, TO GO TO PULLING BACK UP THE 25 FOOT LOTS FROM THE ORIGINAL PLAT BECAUSE WE CHOSE NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN IT AND HAVE PROPERTIES THAT SMALL THAT WOULD HAVE NONCONFORMING LOTS, HAVE LIMITATIONS ON WHAT YOU COULD DO AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO TO MEET WITH OUR SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENTS AND MORE OF THE RESIDENTIAL APPEAL OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND ITS SURROUNDING AREAS TO THE EAST OF US AND POTENTIALLY TO OUR SOUTH, AND OBVIOUSLY ANYTHING THAT WOULD BE A RESIDENCE TO THE NORTH.

THE IDEA WAS TO BE ABLE TO CHOOSE THE LARGER LOT SIZE WHICH HAPPENED TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE LDCS.

AND DOING THAT, IT LET US REDUCE OUR UNDERLYING LOT DENSITY FROM 20 TO 12 UNITS, WHICH ALSO TURNED INTO BECAUSE THEY'RE TOWNHOMES WITH A SHARED WALL.

[02:20:01]

IT'S ONLY SIX BUILDINGS, SO THREE ON EACH SIDE OF.

STREET, BASICALLY THREE ON THIRD AND THREE ON FOURTH.

THEY WILL BE FACING THIRD AND FOURTH STREET.

IS THERE A WAY TO BRING THIS BACK UP ON THE SCREEN? KELLY GOT FANTASTIC.

SO ONE OF THE THINGS I'D LIKE TO REITERATE AND JUST OUR WE DO UNDERSTAND THE CRITERIA OF OF 105 FOUR AND THAT WE DID NOT OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT YOU HAD TO IF YOU DID DECIDE TO USE A NONCONFORMING LOT SIZE, WE CHOSE NOT TO GO THAT ROUTE.

IT WOULD NOT MEET OUR EXPECTATIONS FOR THE VALUE BEST SERVED TO THIS COMMUNITY CITY AND TO OUR FUTURE RESIDENT THAT WOULD MOVE THERE.

WE HAVE INCREASED THE LOT SIZE BY APPROXIMATELY 60% OF WHAT IT IS IN OUR NEIGHBORS FROM THE 25%.

IT GOES FROM A 25 FOOT LOT SIZE, WHICH IS THE UNDERLYING LOT.

AND WE'RE AT 40 APPROXIMATELY AS AN AVERAGE 39.6 IS OUR AVERAGE.

ALSO, THE WHILE ONE OF THE GREATER BENEFITS IS BEING ABLE TO PRODUCE, AS WE NOTICED TO THE WEST OF US, THE PROPERTY ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FOURTH STREET, THEIR CHOICE, THEIR CALLS AND THAT WAS FINE.

HOWEVER, WE FELT THAT WE WERE TRYING TO CREATE MORE TRUE GREEN SPACE WITH GREEN GRASS AND THINGS LIKE THAT AND A LITTLE BIT LESS HAVE MORE VISIBILITY IN QUARTERS BETWEEN HOMES AND OUR LOT SIZE ALLOWS US TO HAVE ESSENTIALLY A 20 FOOT CLEAR GREEN SPACE BETWEEN BUILDINGS, AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE THIRD STREET OR THE FOURTH STREET SIDE.

AND IT'S A LITTLE BIT LESS THAN THAT ON THE MIXED USE SIDE BECAUSE IT'S A SMALLER LOT CONTAINMENT AREA.

SO YOU HAVE ABOUT 15 TO 16 FOOT BETWEEN BUILDINGS.

WHILE THE TOWNHOMES THAT PEOPLE WERE MORE CRITICAL OF WERE HAD FIVE FEET AND SOMETIMES LESS.

AND WITH SOME EXCEPTIONS TO THAT.

SO THE IDEA IS TAKE ADVANTAGE LESSON LEARNED.

WHY BEAT YOUR HEAD AGAINST THE WALL? DO WHAT WE THINK THE COMMUNITY WANTS AND ASK FOR IN POPULARITY, POPULARITY.

THE COMMENTS ABOUT THE WATER DISTRICT.

YOU CAN SEE OUR LAYOUT HERE ON THE SCREEN AND THAT'S AFTER ABOUT 4 OR 5 ITERATIONS, RIGHT? KELLY IT TOOK US A FEW TIMES TO GET IT RIGHT BECAUSE IT'S REALLY FINE TUNED TO GET IT SO THAT IT PROVIDES THE COMMONALITY OF SETBACKS BECAUSE ON THE WEST SIDE OR OVER ON THIS SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, YOU COULD HAVE ESSENTIALLY PUSHED IT UP NEXT TO THE SIDEWALK.

AND BECAUSE IT'S MIXED USE AND A LOT OF DIFFERENCES, IT LOSES THAT FRONT YARD APPEAL WITH A FRONT PORCH.

GABLES DORMERS RAFTER JUST A LOT OF ELEMENTS THAT WE THINK ARE IMPORTANT IN THE FLORIDA VERNACULAR ARCHITECTURE THAT WE WERE SEEKING. SO WE TOOK SEVERAL EFFORTS TO DO THAT.

AND I'M GOING TO LET WE ARE GOING TO CALL UP AN EXPERT TO HELP HELP US ANSWER A QUESTION THAT THE CITY BROUGHT UP TO TALK ABOUT HOW OUR DRAIN FIELD WORKS AND WHERE IT'S LOCATED.

HOWEVER, OUR DRAIN FIELD BASICALLY STARTS ABOUT RIGHT HERE, GOES TO THE BACK OF THE SITE.

IT'S NOT UNDER THE BUILDING AS MR. ROSS THOUGHT IT WAS.

YOU CAN'T DO THAT.

SO IT HAS TO BE IN A DRIVE ACCESSIBLE AREA SO THAT IT COULD BE MAINTAINED IF WE HAD TO GET TO IT TO DO ANY REPAIR, RESTORATION OR THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

AND I THINK THERE WAS A DRAINAGE QUESTION WHICH CAME UP AND I JUST GO AHEAD AND TACKLE THAT, IF THAT'S PERMISSIBLE.

GO AHEAD, SIR. I'D LIKE TO BRING OUR SCIENCE EXPERT TO THE PODIUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, ASA GILLETTE.

ESSER. GILLETTE.

GILLETTE AND ASSOCIATES. 20 SOUTH FOURTH STREET.

FERNANDINA BEACH.

AND I THINK THERE WAS A QUESTION THAT WAS BROUGHT UP OR TWO OF THEM.

ONE WAS THE DRAINAGE FOR THE SITE IS GOING TO BE WE'RE GOING TO UTILIZE AN UNDERDRAIN GALLERY.

IT WILL SIT UNDER THE ALLEYWAY THAT'S IN THE BACK.

WE HAVE STRUCTURES TO COLLECT THE WATER.

WE ALSO PLAN ON ROUTING THE WATER FROM THE BUILDINGS INTO THAT PARTICULAR GALLERY.

AS ANDRE SAID, WE HAVE OVERFLOW ON THE SOUTH THIRD STREET, WHICH WILL THEN AT THAT POINT GO INTO THE CITY'S DRAINAGE SYSTEM, THE RESIDENCES TO THE NORTH.

BASED ON THE SURVEY THAT WE HAD, WE DIDN'T SEE ANY OFF SITE DRAINAGE COMING ON TO US.

IF FOR SOME REASON THAT IS THE CASE AND WE DON'T MIND GOING OUT THERE AND ANALYZING THAT MEETING WITH THE NEIGHBORS, IF THAT'S THE CASE, WE DO HAVE ROOM WHERE WE CAN PROVIDE SOME

[02:25:04]

REROUTING OF DRAINAGE, SOME DRAINAGE SWELLS IN AND REROUTE THE WATER SO THAT WE DON'T FLOOD THEM OUT.

WE HAVE TO DO THAT ANYWAY IN ORDER TO GET PAST THE PERMITTING STAGE WITH WITH THE CITY.

SO WE'LL BE HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN THAT IF THAT'S THE CASE.

WE'RE NOT ALL THE WAY THROUGH YET SINCE WE'VE BEEN STOPPED ON THE WHOLE PLANNING THING.

SO BUT OTHER THAN THAT, WE WE'RE PRETTY MUCH HERE AND I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE.

THANK YOU, MR. GILLETTE. ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. GILLETTE FROM THE COMMISSION? SEEING NONE ARE THERE ANY? WE HAVE TO DO CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE WITNESS.

THAT'S OKAY. MR.. IS THERE ANY, ANY INTERVENING PARTY OR OR THE CITY ITSELF? I'VE QUESTIONS FOR MR. FLICK DURING HIS DURING HIS TIME.

WE'LL DO THAT. BUT FOR MR. GILLETTE, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE IS NO CROSS EXAMINATION FOR THAT.

SO, MR. GILLETTE, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TONIGHT.

I HAVE I HAVE A QUESTION.

OKAY. WE DO HAVE ONE CROSS EXAMINATION FROM THE CITY ITSELF.

JUST BECAUSE I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE PRESERVE WE PRESERVE THE RECORD.

SO I JUST CAN YOU DESCRIBE BRIEFLY YOUR EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE? A GRADUATE OF UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA WITH A 1991 AND 1994, I HAVE A BACHELOR'S DEGREE IN NUCLEAR ENGINEERING, BACHELOR'S DEGREE IN MECHANICAL ENGINEERING.

I'VE BEEN A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER FOR 23 YEARS.

MY BROTHER AND I STARTED OUR COMPANY 2021 YEARS AGO.

I DON'T KNOW, TIME FLIES AND MY BROTHER IS A CIVIL ENGINEER AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER, SO WE WORK TOGETHER ON THESE PROJECTS.

SO OKAY, GOOD.

THANK YOU, MR. GILLETTE. ALL RIGHT.

BACK TO YOU, MR. FLICK. YES, I WILL CONTINUE ON.

IF THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS FOR ACE AT THE TIME.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE WANTED TO BE ABLE TO RESPOND TO, AND I KNOW THE STAFF BROUGHT IT UP AND THE EFFORTS FROM THEIR VERY FIRST MEETING, WHICH I THINK WAS IN LIKE APRIL WHEN WE WERE IN DRAFT WITH THE CITY, WE APPEARED BEFORE THE CRC TO GET OUR FIRST VERSIONS OF THE PLAT FOR REPLANTING.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CAME UP AND IT WAS OBVIOUSLY A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE BECAUSE WE HAD LIKE 6 OR 7 PEOPLE TESTIFY AT THE CRC REGARDING THE SPECIFICALLY THE TRINGALI HOME WHICH WAS THERE AND WAS NOT IS NOT OCCUPIED.

AND ACTUALLY THE CHAIR I BELIEVE OF YOUR HCC WAS THERE AT ONE OF THE SESSIONS.

I MET WITH HIM BRIEFLY AND OFFERED A MULTITUDE OF TIMES FOR ANYONE OR IF HE WAS INTERESTED, INTERESTED BECAUSE I HAD UNDERSTOOD THAT HE HAD BEEN INTERESTED OR SOMEONE HAD BEEN INTERESTED IN ACQUIRING THE HOME AT SOME POINT IN TIME ON BEHALF OF THE CITY MADE THAT OFFER TO HIM, BECAUSE I THINK THAT WE COULD HAVE EASILY NEGOTIATED THAT FOR A PRETTY SWEET DEAL, ALMOST NOTHING.

IF HE'S HAS THE ABILITY TO GET IT, CAPTURE IT, MOVE IT, TAKE IT WHERE HE WANTS.

HOWEVER, I THINK AFTER EXAMINATION AND OTHER THIRD PARTY EXAMINATIONS OF THE PROPERTY, IT WOULD HAVE REQUIRED SO MUCH STRUCTURAL REPAIR AND ENHANCEMENT OF THE CURRENT BUILDING BEING TWO STORY THAT IT BECAME A NOT A NOT A SUCCESSFUL VENTURE TO SEEK.

YOU'D HAD TO TAKE THE HOUSE AND TO TO MOVE IT.

YOU COULDN'T GET IT UP THE STREETS BECAUSE YOU'D HAVE TO TAKE DOWN HALF THE POWER LINES IN THE CITY TO GET IT ANYWHERE.

PLUS, THE STRUCTURE HAD BEEN ROTTED IN CERTAIN STRUCTURAL MEMBERS ON THE HOME REQUIRING SIGNIFICANT REPAIR.

ON TOP OF THAT WE DID.

AND WE STILL HAVE PEOPLE WHO ARE ARE ENCOURAGED NOT ABOUT THAT HOME BUT ABOUT OF THE THREE HOMES ON THE EAST SIDE, WE'VE HAD I THINK I'VE HAD LIKE FOUR INQUIRIES SO FAR.

AND WE HAVE TO WHAT I PERCEIVE TO BE SERIOUSLY INTERESTED PEOPLE WHO ARE STILL INTERESTED, BUT NOT UNTIL WE GET TO A POINT WHERE WE HAVE THIS UNDER OUR CONTROL SO WE CAN MAKE THAT DECISION AND MOVE ON WITH IT TO ALLOW THEM TO DO A RELOCATE OF THE HOME.

NEXT, THE REPLAT FOR US.

WHEN LAST SUBMITTED, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE TRIED TO DO IN SPACING OUT LOT SIZE AND IT'S GREAT THAT THE STAFF PRESENTED THAT BECAUSE LOT SIZE IS IMPORTANT IN A COUPLE OF MATTERS, NOT ONLY BECAUSE IT MEETS THE CRITERIA BY THE LDC, BUT IT HELPS YOU IN PLANNING FOR MASSING AND THINGS LIKE THAT FOR SIZE OF HOMES ADJACENT IN THE AREA AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO WHEN YOU HAVE 75 FOOT LOTS NEARBY AND YOU HAVE 25 FOOT LOTS NEARBY, BUT THE IDEA HERE IS WE STILL WANTED TO BE ABLE TO PRODUCE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME THAT'S APPROXIMATELY 30FT WIDE IS THE WIDTH OF OUR HOME.

[02:30:06]

AND SO THAT MAKES THE BUILDING AND THE MASS UP TO 60, WHICH WOULD BE LIKE A LARGE RESIDENTIAL HOME, A SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER RESIDENTIAL HOME.

UM, NEXT IS THE HALFWAY THROUGH THIS PROCESS.

I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAS COME UP THAT THAT CONCERNED US IS.

OUT THE 103.4 AND 103.5, WHICH WERE ADDRESSED IN EACH OF THE PLANNED ZONING MEETINGS.

AND FRANKLY, I'VE ALWAYS WAITED TO HEAR WHAT COMPREHENSION, WHAT VIOLATION THERE WAS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH I NEVER HEARD IN A PLANNED ZONING MEETING. HOWEVER, OUR DENSITY, WHICH IS WHICH I BELIEVE IS TRUMPED BY WHAT I CALL THE BIBLE OF THE CITY, IS THAT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

SO WE'VE ALWAYS THOUGHT THAT WE'VE ALWAYS UNDERSTOOD THAT YOUR CITY ENFORCES THAT THEY NEVER VIOLATE THOSE KIND OF THINGS.

AND THAT ENTITLEMENT WE SOUGHT, WE'VE ASKED FOR AND WE HAVE ACCOMMODATED EVERYTHING THAT YOU'VE ASKED FOR, NOT YOU PERSONALLY, BUT AS A CITY STAFF WHO ARE GOOD STEWARDS OF YOUR BUSINESS FOR OUR DEVELOPMENT.

ONE OF THE LAST THINGS, AND I THINK I'LL RESERVE IT TO COMMENT, BUT I THINK ONE OF THE INTERVENERS MAY HAVE SOME COMMENTS THAT WE WILL RESPOND TO. BUT OTHER THAN THAT, SUBJECT TO YOUR QUESTIONS.

UNDERSTOOD. ANY QUESTIONS FOR MISTER FLICK FROM THE COMMISSION? AND FOR THIS WE PAUSE THE CLOCK.

THANK YOU, MISS NEWTON. ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONER ROSS, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY.

DOES A PROPOSED PLAN HAVE ANY SHARE? HAVE A SHARED RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY.

SAY AGAIN? DOES THE PROPOSED PLAT HAVE A SHARED RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY? YES. FOR ACCESS.

DO ANY OF THE PROPOSED UNITS HAVE THEIR OWN DRIVEWAY? THEY ALL HAVE REAR ACCESS DRIVES TO THE COMMON DRIVEWAY.

YES, SIR. SO THEY DON'T HAVE THEIR OWN DRIVEWAY? IT'S ALL ONE BIG DRIVEWAY, ESSENTIALLY.

AND YOU POP ME BACK UP ON THE SCREEN.

THIS IS THE DRIVE ACCESS.

ONE OF THE GREAT ONE OF THE BETTER THINGS THAT WE TRY TO DO IS TO GET TRAFFIC FROM ACCESSING 20 OR WHATEVER IT IS, 12, 12 VEHICLE DRIVE, ACCESSES OFF THE DRIVE AND TAKE IT TO A SINGLE DRIVE ACCESS SO THAT IT FACILITATES BETTER TRAFFIC ABILITY AND LIFE SAFETY.

SO WE HAVE A SINGLE ACCESS DRIVEWAYS.

EACH PERSON, EACH HOME HAS THEIR OWN DRIVEWAY TO THEIR OWN GARAGE SETS AND AND PARKING LIKEWISE TO SUPPORT IT.

THANK YOU. ARE ALL THE HOUSES A UNIFORM SIZE ON THE PROPOSED PLAT? THERE'S ONE HOME TYPE THAT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT BECAUSE OF MEETING SOME SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.

SO FIVE OF THE FIVE OF THEM ARE IDENTICAL SIZE.

YES, SIR. THANK YOU.

DO THE PROPOSED PLAT IT SERVES ONLY RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOUSES, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT.

DOES THE PROPOSED SITE REQUIRE THE TEARDOWN OF THE EXISTING HISTORIC STRUCTURE? I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S A LISTED HISTORIC STRUCTURE ON THE SITE.

DOES IT REQUIRE UNDER YOUR CITY GUIDELINES? THANK YOU. DOES THE PROPOSED PLAT REQUIRE THE TEARDOWN OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURES ON THE PROPERTY? YES. DOES THE PROPOSED PLAT SHOW SIX IDENTICAL TOWNHOUSES.

PRETTY MUCH, YES.

I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY, THEY'RE WINGED LEFT AND RIGHT.

SO THERE'S DIFFERENCES WITH THERE'S STILL TWO PORCHES, THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

BUT BUT THEY'RE PRETTY MUCH THEY FACE THEY ORIENT DIFFERENTLY, OBVIOUSLY, BUT THEY'RE PRETTY MUCH IDENTICAL.

YEAH. THERE'S ESSENTIALLY CURRENTLY PLANNED NOT OBLIGATED YET BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE PERMISSION WITH A REPLAY.

ONCE I GET A REPLAY, I'LL FIGURE THAT OUT.

BUT RIGHT NOW, PROGRAMING WISE, WE WOULD HAVE TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF HOME FLOORPLAN LAYOUTS AND YOU WILL HAVE A COMMON WALL SHARED BY SIX UNITS OR FOR A TOTAL OF 12.

BUT THE EXTERIOR IS PRETTY MUCH THE SAME.

NO, BECAUSE THEY FACE OPPOSITE ACCESSES.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER ROSS, WE NOW GO TO IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER COMMENT? SEEING NONE. LET'S GO AHEAD AND RESTART THAT CLOCK.

WE'LL GO AHEAD AND ASK IS THERE ANY ANYONE WHO WISHES TO CROSS-EXAMINE THIS WITNESS FROM THE INTERVENING PARTIES, THE INTERVENING

[02:35:08]

PARTIES OR THE CITY OR THE CITY ITSELF OR ANY OTHER ANY OTHER PARTY? AND I'M SEEING NONE.

SO THEREFORE, MISTER FLICK, YOU ARE WELCOME TO CLOSE JUST UNDER THE RULES.

IT'S LATER, RIGHT? ADDITIONAL FIVE MINUTES AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE FOR ANY CLOSING COMMENTS.

WE CERTAINLY HAVE A LOT OF RULES HERE, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

SO MY FIVE MINUTES LATER, RIGHT? YES. YEAH, YOU CAN TAKE YOUR FIVE MINUTES THEN.

THAT SOUNDS EXCELLENT. I CAN TAKE IT NOW.

OR IS IT'S LATER THE FIVE.

YOU'LL HAVE FIVE MINUTES RESERVED AT THE END.

OKAY. AT THE END.

THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. THANK YOU, MR. FLICK. LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO OUR OUR FIRST INTERVENING PARTY.

AND THAT WILL BE MISS MR. COULSON. MR. COULSON WILL BE THE INTERVENING PARTY AND HIS AGENT.

GOOD EVENING, MY NAME IS RALPH BROOKS, ATTORNEY, AND I REPRESENT MARY COULSON AND DAVID COULSON OF 111 SOUTH FOURTH STREET, WHICH HAS POINTED OUT EARLIER, IS THE PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY TO THE NORTH THAT HAS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

IT'S A PLEASURE TO BE HERE AND A PRIVILEGE TO BE HERE IN FRONT OF THIS CITY COUNCIL.

I'M ALSO BOARD CERTIFIED IN CITY, COUNTY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAW AND SINCE 2004.

SO GOING ON ALMOST 20 YEARS AND I TOO GRADUATED FROM LAW SCHOOL AT UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, GO GATORS AND UNDERGRADUATE AT UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI. I KNOW BOTH OF YOUR ATTORNEYS FROM GOING TO CONFERENCES AND FLORIDA BAR CLASSES AND THINGS.

I SERVE AS CITY ATTORNEY CURRENTLY FOR THE CITY OF NAPLES DOWN IN COLLIER COUNTY, SIX HOURS FROM HERE, AND KENNETH CITY, WHICH IS IN PINELLAS COUNTY, ONLY THREE HOURS FROM HERE. AND I'M OF COUNSEL WITH THE VOSE FIRM AND WE REPRESENT OTHER CITIES.

IN THE PAST, I HAVE REPRESENTED MONROE COUNTY, WHICH IS THE FLORIDA KEYS, AS THEIR LAND USE LITIGATION ATTORNEY AND ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY FOR SARASOTA COUNTY.

AND I'VE BEEN CITY ATTORNEY FOR BARRIER ISLAND CITIES, MUCH LIKE THIS ONE, BRADENTON BEACH, SAINT PETE BEACH AND MADEIRA BEACH. AND I WANT TO THANK YOU AGAIN FOR ALLOWING MY PRESENTATION AS A ADVERSELY AFFECTED INTERVENOR BECAUSE THAT GIVES US A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME. AND I DON'T HAVE TO FEEL RUSHED.

AND THERE ARE SOME PLACES IN THE STATE WHERE THEY ONLY GIVE YOU TWO MINUTES.

AND I'M GLAD THAT FERNANDINA BEACH ALLOWS MORE TIME TO CONSIDER ALL THESE ISSUES.

COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE WAS A QUESTION THAT CAME UP EARLIER THAT CAN INCLUDE LAYPERSON TESTIMONY, NOT JUST EXPERT TESTIMONY, BUT THE LAYPERSON.

THE TESTIMONY THAT YOU'LL HEAR LATER TODAY HAS TO BE FACT BASED OBSERVATIONS, THINGS THAT THEY HAVE SEEN, WITNESSED EXHIBITS LIKE PHOTOGRAPHS, AERIALS, ZONING MAPS, ALL OF THAT HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, INCLUDING COMPATIBILITY, WHETHER A PROJECT IS COMPATIBILITY COMPATIBLE WITH THEIR EXISTING USES AND COMPATIBILITY IS DEFINED IN FLORIDA STATUTES TO MEAN THAT TWO USES CAN COEXIST NEXT TO EACH OTHER IN PERPETUITY WITHOUT ONE USE HAVING AN UNDUE NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE OTHER USE IN PERPETUITY.

SO OUR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WOULDN'T HAVE AN UNDUE USE ON THE TOWNHOMES, BUT THE TOWNHOMES WOULD HAVE AN UNDUE NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE CITIZENS.

AND YOU HEAR FROM THEM LATER ABOUT WHAT THOSE IMPACTS ARE GOING TO BE.

SO IT'S IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT THAT A SUBDIVISION PLAT IS DEFINED AS A DEVELOPMENT ORDER AND DEVELOPMENT PERMIT UNDER ONE 60 THREE FLORIDA STATUTES.

ALL DEVELOPMENT ORDERS MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

SO EVERY TIME YOU DO A DEVELOPMENT ORDER THAT INCLUDES REZONINGS ALL THE WAY DOWN TO PLATS AND EVEN BUILDING PERMITS, THEY HAVE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMP PLAN.

WE'VE RAISED A COUPLE OF COMP PLAN POLICIES THAT THIS PROPOSAL WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS.

POLICY 1.020.06.

AND YOU'LL HEAR TESTIMONY FROM NEIGHBORS ABOUT THIS THAT THE CITY SHALL ASSURE THAT NEW DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT IS COMPATIBLE AND CONSISTENT WITH THE ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS.

SO YOU HAVE AN ESTABLISHED DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THIS IS SOMETHING BRAND NEW THAT YOU'RE INTRODUCING INTO THIS TOWNHOMES, NOT ONLY BECAUSE OF HOW THEY'RE ARRANGED, BUT ALSO BECAUSE THEY'RE RAISED UP WITH.

YOU HEARD EARLIER TWO FEET OF GROUND FILL BEFORE THEY EVEN BEGIN TO THEN MEET THE BASE FLOOD DESIGN, FLOOD ELEVATIONS.

THAT SAME POLICY, 1.02.06, SAYS THAT THE CITY SHALL ASSURE PROTECTING THE INTEGRITY AND STABILITY OF ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL AREAS,

[02:40:06]

RECOGNIZING AND BEING SENSITIVE TO THE CHARACTER AND FORM OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS.

THERE'S ANOTHER OBJECTIVE IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND THAT'S 1106.

I DON'T BELIEVE IT WAS IN THE SLIDE THAT WAS SHOWN BY PLANNING STAFF, BUT IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN I'M NOT SURE IF 1 OR 206 WAS OBJECTIVE.

1106 COMMUNITY CHARACTER.

COMMUNITY CHARACTER IS REFLECTED IN LOT SIZES.

SO YOUR COMMUNITY CHARACTER HAS TO DO WITH YOUR LOT SIZES, YOUR LOT SIZES, MAKE UP YOUR COMMUNITY CHARACTER SITE PLACEMENT, HEIGHT.

WHAT IS THE COMMUNITY CHARACTER? IF THE HEIGHT OF THE GROUND IS GOING TO BE RAISED UP TO TWO FEET, THAT THAT WILL AFFECT THE COMMUNITY CHARACTER.

IF IT'S GOING TO BE RAISED UP TWO FEET AND THE RETAINING WALL IS PLACED ACROSS THE STREET FROM HISTORIC HOMES THAT MAY AFFECT.

THE COMMUNITY CHARACTER.

AND I THINK YOU'LL HEAR FROM THE RESIDENTS THAT THEY BELIEVE IT WILL OBJECTIVE.

1106 THE CITY SHALL STRIVE TO STABILIZE AND PRESERVE NEIGHBORHOODS AND ESTABLISH URBAN DESIGN STANDARDS WHICH PROTECT AND PROMOTE QUALITY OF LIFE IN ORDER TO PREVENT TEAR DOWNS AND ENCOURAGE REUSE SO THAT THAT OBJECTIVE.

11 06I THINK THAT'S IMPLEMENTED A LITTLE BIT LATER WHEN WE GET TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS WHICH IMPLEMENT YOUR COMP PLAN UNDER 1.030.04 AND 1.0305 POLICY 11.060 .02.

YOU'LL REMEMBER IN THE SLIDES THAT WERE PRESENTED, IT WAS SHOWN THAT THIS WAS NOT AN HISTORIC DISTRICT.

BUT WHAT THEY FAIL TO MENTION IS WHERE IT SAID HISTORIC DISTRICT.

IT WAS ADJACENT TO THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.

SO RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET IS THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.

THE CITY SHALL EVALUATE THE NEIGHBORHOODS CONTIGUOUS TO HISTORIC DISTRICTS.

THAT'S WHAT THIS IS AND EVALUATE STRATEGIES FOR REVITALIZATION OF EXISTING STRUCTURES IN THESE NEIGHBORHOODS IN A MANNER THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THEIR ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT AND ALSO COMPATIBLE WITH THE ADJACENT HISTORIC DISTRICT.

AGAIN, WILL THESE TOWNHOMES HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE ADJOINING CONTIGUOUS HISTORIC DISTRICT WHEN THEY'RE RAISED UP, WHEN THERE IS A RETAINING WALL, WHEN THEY DON'T MATCH THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE OF THE ADJOINING HISTORIC DISTRICT? THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CONTAINS FOUR SIGNIFICANT HOMES.

WE'RE GOING FROM FOUR HOMES TO 12 TOWNHOMES.

THE FOUR HOMES ARE HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT WHETHER OR NOT THEY'VE BEEN DESIGNATED.

YOU'VE HEARD THAT ONE IN THE OPINION OF STAFF.

THEY BELIEVE IT WOULD QUALIFY.

THERE ARE MANY HISTORIC HOMES THAT YOU CAN REBUILD AND MODERNIZE ON THE INSIDE AND YOU CAN HAVE THE OUTSIDES STILL NOT DETRACT FROM HISTORIC DISTRICTS THAT COULD BE DONE HERE, BUT THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT THAT WAS DONE.

THE PROPERTIES WERE OWNED BY MABEL STEVENS, VIVIAN RICE, SKIPPER ANTONIO AND CARMELO POLI AND APPARENTLY USED AS A HOMESTEAD OF AN ORIGINAL SHRIMPING FAMILY THAT HAS BEEN HERE FOR MANY YEARS.

SINCE 1900. 1940, 1945 AND 1953.

ALL OF THESE ARE OLDER THAN THE 50 YEAR CRITERIA THAT NORMALLY APPLIES TO HISTORIC STRUCTURES AND HISTORIC DISTRICTS.

ONE OF THE RULES OF HISTORIC DISTRICTS IS THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO BUILD THINGS THAT THAT WOULD DETRACT FROM CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES.

THINGS THAT ARE OUT OF PLACE THAT DETRACT FROM YOUR HISTORIC DISTRICT.

IN ADDITION TO DEMOLISHING THESE FOUR HOMES THAT ARE OLD AND COULD POSSIBLY QUALIFY FOR HISTORIC AND REPLACE THEM WITH TOWNHOMES THAT HAVEN'T BEEN SHOWN IN ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE HISTORIC DISTRICT THAT'S ACROSS THE STREET.

THEY'D BE RAISING THE ELEVATION OF THE ENTIRE AREA BY AT LEAST TWO FEET.

THEY'D ALSO BE DESTROYING TREES, INCLUDING MANY CANOPY TREES.

I HEARD EARLIER ABOUT YOUR HERITAGE TREE DESIGNATION, BUT THERE ARE SOME LARGE TREES IN THIS AREA.

ANOTHER CONCERN.

IS THAT BY RAISING THE HOME AND PUTTING RETAINING WALLS ADJACENT TO THE HISTORIC SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, YOU'RE OUT OF LINE WITH THE HISTORIC USAGE.

THIS IS ONE AREA WHERE THE FRONT OF THESE HISTORIC HOMES WOULD FACE THE RETAINING WALL IN THIS ELEVATED TOWNHOMES.

I BELIEVE THERE'S SOME OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY THAT I'VE HEARD ABOUT THAT I'M NOT DON'T HAVE THE EXACT ADDRESSES, BUT YOU'RE PROBABLY HEAR ABOUT THEM WHERE THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE IS A JOINT ADJOINING OR NEAR TOWNHOMES, BUT THAT'S AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY.

AND IT'S NOT RIGHT WHEN THEY SIT ON THE FRONT PORCH.

A FACET THAT YOU'LL HEAR FROM THE NEIGHBORS IS THAT THEY DO LIKE TO SIT ON THE FRONT PORCHES OF THEIR HISTORIC HOMES IN NON HISTORIC HOMES.

[02:45:05]

I THINK PEOPLE TEND TO USE THEIR REAR YARDS OR THEIR BACKYARDS MORE FOR BARBECUES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

BUT IN HISTORIC HOMES AND PARTICULARLY IN FERNANDINA, AS YOU ALL KNOW, PEOPLE LIKE TO SIT ON THE FRONT PORCH AND MEET AND GREET THEIR NEIGHBORS, AND THEY'D LIKE TO LOOK ACROSS THE STREET AND NOT HAVE TO LOOK ACROSS THE STREET AND THEN LOOK UP AT TOWNHOMES THAT ARE INCONGRUOUS WITH THEIR OWN HISTORIC HOMES.

THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD, IT WAS POINTED OUT BY ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS, ROSS, EARLIER, THAT THEY UNANIMOUSLY REJECTED THIS PROPOSAL ON DECEMBER 14TH, 2022, AND THEY REQUESTED THAT IT BE SENT TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 103.05.

IF WE LOOK AT 1.0300 APPLICABILITY OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND YOU LOOK AT 1.0301, IT SAYS GENERALLY A EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED THE PROVISIONS OF THIS LDC SHALL APPLY TO ALL DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY.

AND THEY'LL BEGIN WITH FIRST WITH 103.05, BECAUSE THAT APPLIES TO ALL.

AND THEN I'LL GO TO 103.04, WHICH APPLIES TO A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY HERE, THE R2.

BUT THE 100 AND 305, WHICH APPLIES TO THE WHOLE THING, CONSTRUCTION OR DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES ON COMBINED LOTS IN A IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN OPEN SPACE.

AND I'M GOING TO READ THE RELEVANT PARTS OF THIS IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN OPEN SPACE, DOT, DOT, DOT, NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER, PROPERTY VALUES AND VISUAL ATTRACTIVENESS OF RESIDENTIAL AREAS WHEREVER THERE MAY EXIST A SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL UNIT, DOT, DOT, DOT OR ANY AUXILIARY BUILDING OR STRUCTURE.

I'M GOING DOT BECAUSE THOSE ARE DUPLEXES INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO SWIMMING POOLS OR OTHER IMPROVEMENTS OR LIKE A GARAGE WHICH WAS HERETOFORE CONSTRUCTED ON PROPERTY CONTAINING ONE OR MORE PLATTED LOTS.

SO IF THERE WAS A STRUCTURE, A HOME, A GARAGE THAT'S ON A PARCEL THAT HAS MORE THAN ONE PLATTED, LOT ONE OR MORE ON A PROPERTY CONTAINING ONE OR MORE PLATTED, LOTS OR PORTIONS THEREOF, SUCH LOTS THEREAFTER CONSTITUTE ONE BUILDING SITE AND MUST BE CONSIDERED THE LOT OF RECORD.

SO I THINK THERE WAS A QUESTION EARLIER DOES THE CODE DEFINE WHAT A BUILDING SITE IS? AND IT DOES NOT, BUT IN THE DEFINITION SECTION, BUT IT DOES DEFINE IT HERE IN 103 05A SO IF YOU HAVE A HOME, FOR EXAMPLE, OR A GARAGE ON A PARCEL THAT HAS MORE THAN ONE LOT, THAT'S A LOT OF RECORD AND THAT BECOMES COMBINED PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE, THEY GIVE IT A PARCEL ID, WHICH IS THEIR OWN SEPARATE PROCESS.

BUT IN YOUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT, IF YOU HAVE A HOME AND IT STRADDLES MORE THAN ONE OR IS ON A PARCEL OF ID, EVEN IF THERE'S NOTHING ON THAT PARTICULAR ONE, THOSE ONES THAT WERE EMPTY, IF THEY'RE ALL COMBINED IN ONE PARCEL OF RECORD, THAT IS ONE LOT OF RECORD AND ONE BUILDABLE SITE.

AND IT SAYS AFTER AND NO PERMIT WILL BE ISSUED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT ON THE SITE SO THAT EACH PARCEL ID THOSE FIVE WOULD EACH GET ONE HOME AND THAT EQUALS SIX, NOT 12.

AND THE BE THE DEMOLITION OR REMOVAL OF ANY RESIDENTS, WHETHER VOLUNTARY LIKE IN THIS CASE OR INVOLUNTARY IF THERE WAS A HURRICANE, DOES NOT HAVE THE EFFECT OF CHANGING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE BUILDING SITE.

SO IF YOU TAKE THE HOME OFF, IT'S STILL ONE BUILDING SITE WHERE YOU GET ONE ONE HOME AND THEN SEE A CHANGE FROM THE FOREGOING PROVISIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING BUILDING SITES.

THE CURRENT CODE SAYS, REQUIRES SUPERMAJORITY APPROVAL BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE VARIANCE APPROVAL PROCESS CONTAINED IN SECTION 10.02 .00. IN A QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING AT WHICH ALL INTERESTED PERSONS WILL BE AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD.

SO BECAUSE WE'RE DEPARTING FROM A AND DEPARTING FROM B, C SAYS THAT YOU HAVE TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

THERE WAS A CASE CITED IN THE STAFF REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS THAT I WANT TO TAKE A MINUTE.

IT WAS CALLED THE 1921 OR THE 2021 CIRCUIT COURT CASE.

THAT'S MANGANARO MANGANARO MANGANARO VERSUS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH 2021 CA 151 IN THE CIRCUIT IN AND FOR NASSAU COUNTY HERE IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, THE FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT.

AND THERE IN THAT CASE, THE CIRCUIT COURT HELD YES, IT GOES TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT UNDER THIS CODE, SECTION 10305.

[02:50:05]

AND IN THAT CASE, THE LANGUAGE WAS A LITTLE DIFFERENT AT THAT TIME.

AND IT SAID ANY CHANGE FROM THE FOREGOING PROVISIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING BUILDING SITES SHALL REQUIRE APPROVAL BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AT WHICH ALL INTERESTED PERSONS SHALL BE AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD.

IT DIDN'T SAY SUPERMAJORITY AT THAT TIME, IT DIDN'T SAY VARIANCE AT THAT TIME.

SO MANGANARO, WHEN THEY WENT TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IN SEPTEMBER 27TH, 2021, THEY GOT THREE VOTES, BUT THEY DIDN'T GET THE FOUR VOTES SUPERMAJORITY. SO MANGANARO WENT TO CIRCUIT COURT AND IT SAYS IT DOESN'T SAY SUPERMAJORITY, IT DOESN'T SAY VARIANCE.

THE CIRCUIT COURT SAYS, YEAH, NO, YOU DON'T APPLY THE VARIANCE.

YOU APPLY SPECIAL EXCEPTION CRITERIA, STANDARDS AND CRITERIA THAT A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN A VARIANCE EASIER TO MEET.

YOU ONLY HAVE TO HAVE A SIMPLE MAJORITY.

SO THE COURT SAID YES, THEY WENT TO THE RIGHT PLACE, THEY GOT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO REVIEW IT AND THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPROVED IT BY THREE VOTES.

AND THE WAY THE CODE WAS WRITTEN AT THAT TIME, THAT'S ALL THEY NEEDED, JUST A SIMPLE MAJORITY.

THE CODE STILL SAYS YOU HAVE TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE TIME THAT THAT CASE HAPPENED AND NOW THE CODE SAYS SUPERMAJORITY BY VARIANCE.

BUT IT'S REALLY IMMATERIAL.

WE'RE NOT THERE RIGHT NOW.

IT'S NOT RELEVANT WHETHER THEY GET A SUPERMAJORITY OR A SIMPLE MAJORITY, JUST THE FACT THAT THEY GO THERE RIGHT NOW, THEY HAVE NOT GONE THERE.

THE CIRCUIT COURT SAID, YOU KNOW, YOU GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT UNDER THIS CODE, UNDER 1030 FOR DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES ON SUBSTANDARD LOTS. AND THIS IS LIMITED TO, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, R1, R2, R2, R3, ZONING DISTRICTS.

OKAY. SO ONLY PART OF THIS IS R2, BUT AT LEAST ON THE PART, THAT'S R2, IT SAYS THE SAME THING.

WHEREVER THERE MAY EXIST A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WHICH WAS HERETOFORE CONSTRUCTED ON PROPERTY CONTAINING ONE OR MORE SUBSTANDARD PLATTED, LOTS, THERE SHALL THEREAFTER CONSTITUTE ONLY ONE BUILDING SITE.

NO PERMIT SHALL BE ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF MORE THAN ONE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON THAT BUILDING SITE.

SO THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PLATTED LOT AND THEN A BUILDABLE LOT.

IN THIS CASE, YOU CALL IT A BUILDING SITE AND THE OTHER 103 ZERO FIVE, THEY CALL IT A BUILDING SITE AND MUST BE CONSIDERED THE LOT OF RECORD.

SO A LOT OF RECORD IS DIFFERENT THAN A PLATTED LOT.

I KNOW IT'S VERY CONFUSING.

THIS EVEN HAPPENS IN NAPLES WHERE EVERYONE GETS CONFUSED BECAUSE LOTS OF RECORD AND BUILDABLE LOT IS NOT THE SAME THING AS A PLATTED.

LOT. WHEN THEY PLATTED BACK IN HISTORY THEY HAD VERY NARROW LOTS AND YOU REALLY CAN'T MEET SETBACKS AND THE OTHER THINGS THAT YOU NEED TO DO IN A LOT.

SO. SO.

THE MAIN POINT HERE IS THAT THIS APPLICATION, BECAUSE IT DEPARTS FROM 100 AND 305, HAS TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO BE HEARD.

SO, ONE, YOU SHOULDN'T APPROVE IT BECAUSE IT HASN'T GONE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

SECONDLY, YOU SHOULDN'T APPROVE IT AND SHOULD DENY IT BECAUSE IT'S INCONSISTENT WITH THE COMP PLAN.

IT'S NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE COMMUNITY CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD.

THE EXISTING LOT SIZES, THE ADJOINING HISTORIC DISTRICT.

IT'S PUTTING A SQUARE PEG IN A ROUND HOLE.

YOU'LL HEAR OTHER METAPHORS TONIGHT, I'M SURE, WHEN LANGUAGE IN A CODE IS CLEAR AND EXPRESS, YOU DON'T GO TO THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY. IT'S A STATUTORY INTERPRETATION IS ONLY USED WHEN SOMETHING IS AMBIGUOUS.

BUT WHEN THE LANGUAGE IS CLEAR AND EXPRESS, THE COURTS APPLY WHAT THE CODE SAYS, AND NEITHER THE COUNCIL OR THE COURT IS ALLOWED TO INSERT WORDS OR DELETE WORDS. IN OTHER WORDS, THE CODE SAYS WHAT IT MEANS AND IT MEANS WHAT IT SAYS.

IF WE WERE TO GO TO THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, HOWEVER, AND WE PROVIDED THIS IN ALL THE BACKUP WHICH WE MOVE INTO THE RECORD, ALL THE THINGS THAT I SUBMITTED IN TIME, IT'S ALL PART OF YOUR AGENDA THAT YOU'VE ALREADY SEEN IN WRITING.

THERE'S MINUTES FROM THE JANUARY 26TH, 2006 PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD WHEN THEY WERE ADOPTING LDC 100 AND 305 AND MISS HARTLEY AT THE TIME, CITY PLANNER READ PROPOSED 103 ZERO FIVE THAT WAS DRAFTED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY AT THAT TIME, I BELIEVE A DIFFERENT CITY ATTORNEY.

SHE CLARIFIED THAT THIS ZONING AND LAND USE RESTRICTION APPLIED TO PROPERTY ON WHICH SOMEONE BUILT A HOUSE AND IMPLEMENTS THE CITY'S GOAL OF PREVENTING THAT PROPERTY OWNER FROM TEARING DOWN THEIR HOUSE AND TO PUT UP TWO HOUSES IN ITS PLACE.

SO CHAIRMAN BENNETT SAID, HE COMMENTED.

THAT THE INTENT OF THE BOARD WAS TO ALLOW SINGLE BUILDINGS, BUT WHERE LOTS HAVE BEEN COMBINED IN SINGLE IMPROVEMENTS, PUT ON THEM TO KEEP IT THAT WAY.

[02:55:03]

AND THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION, WELL, WHAT IF THAT DOESN'T WORK IN EVERY CASE? THEN CITY ATTORNEY BRAGA BRAGA REPLIED THAT IT COULD GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BECAUSE THAT IS STILL A QUASI-JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING.

SO THEY EXPRESSLY WROTE IT THIS WAY SO THAT IT WOULD GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND THEY WOULD LOOK AT UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THEY WOULD DEPART FROM FROM A AND B, THEN YOU WOULD GO TO SEE IF YOU'RE NOT IF YOU'RE GOING TO PUT UP MORE THAN ONE HOUSE ON THAT COMBINED BUILDING SITE, THAT LOT OF RECORD, THEN YOU HAVE TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

SO I HEARD AN ARGUMENT AND I'VE READ THE ARGUMENTS OF THE CITY AND THEY SAY, WELL, WE CAN'T DO ONE, TWO, 3 OR 5 BECAUSE WE'VE NEVER ENFORCED IT.

AND WE CAN'T JUST START ENFORCING IT NOW BECAUSE IT'S NOT GOING TO BE IT'S GOING TO VIOLATE EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.

IT'LL BE A FEDERAL COURT CASE AGAINST US.

AND THERE WERE YOU'RE GOING TO LOSE.

SO I'VE DONE SECTION 1983 CASES, 1988 CASES, ALL YOU'RE HERE FROM ANOTHER ATTORNEY THAT'S GOING TO SPEAK LATER.

I'M CONFIDENT YOU WOULD WIN THAT CASE.

MONROE COUNTY VERSUS HEMISPHERE EQUITY REALTY 634 SOUTHERN SECOND 745 APPELLATE DISTRICT COURT CASE FROM 1994 MONROE COUNTY HAD A PROVISION IN ITS LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT IT HAD NOT ENFORCED FOR 15 YEARS.

IT LET EVERYONE GO THROUGH AND THEN THEY SAID, OH, WE NEED TO ENFORCE THIS SO THEY ENFORCE IT.

THE COURT SAID NO.

EVEN THOUGH MONROE COUNTY HAD A 15 YEAR HISTORY OF NOT ENFORCING ITS BUILD OUT RULE.

MONROE COUNTY HAD NOT REMINDED THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPER.

IT DIDN'T MATTER.

THEY HAD TO COMPLY WITH IT.

IF YOU DON'T ENFORCE THE SPEEDING LIMIT ON A1A AND YOU LET EVERYONE GO 75 AND THEN ONE DAY YOU'RE OUT THERE AND YOU DECIDE TO GIVE A TICKET FOR THAT, THAT TICKET IS STILL VALID.

IN FACT, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO ENFORCE THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

IT'S AN ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS OF LAW.

YOU HAVE TO ONCE YOU HAVE A CODE, YOU'VE GOT TO ENFORCE IT.

THE CODE SAYS WHAT IT MEANS AND MEANS WHAT IT SAYS.

IF YOU INTEND TO CHANGE IT, THEN YOU NEED TO GO AMEND THE CODE.

AND THERE'S A PROCESS THAT YOU GO THROUGH FOR THAT AND IT INVOLVES PLANNING, ADVISORY BOARD, PUBLIC HEARING, AND THEN TWO READINGS OF AN ORDINANCE.

AND YOU HAVE TO DO THAT.

YOU CAN'T JUST IGNORE A CODE AND SAY, WELL, IT'S ON THE BOOKS, BUT YOU KNOW, WE MIGHT GET HIT WITH A CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM.

IT'S YOUR DUTY TO DEFEND THAT CODE UNTIL YOU DO GET HIT WITH A CONSTITUTIONAL CLAIM OR IF YOU THINK IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO AMEND IT.

BUT WHILE IT'S ON THE BOOKS, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO APPLY IT.

AND I THINK IT IS CONSTITUTIONAL.

IT WAS THERE AND IT WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL IF YOU WERE TELLING THEM THAT THEY COULDN'T HAVE A BUILDING PERMIT BECAUSE THEY WERE GREEK AND ALL NON GREEKS CAN GET IT OR ONLY GREEKS CAN GET IT.

SO YOU WERE IN TARPON SPRINGS.

IF YOU WERE DISCRIMINATING, DISCRIMINATING BASED ON NATIONAL ORIGIN OR ETHNICITY, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

BUT IF YOU'RE SIMPLY ENFORCING YOUR CODE, YOU'RE LEGALLY OBLIGATED TO ENFORCE ONE OF 305.

ANOTHER CASE CALUSA GOLF VERSUS DADE COUNTY FOR 26 SOUTHERN SECOND, 1165 FLORIDA THIRD DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, 1983 SAID EVEN IF DADE COUNTY IN THAT CASE HAD BEEN LAX IN ITS ENFORCEMENT OF ITS REGULATION AGAINST OTHER DEVELOPERS, THIS DEVELOPER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO RELY ON THE COUNTY'S FAILURE TO ENFORCE ITS REGULATIONS FOR MANY YEARS.

THE LAW IS THE LAW AND YOU STILL HAVE TO APPLY IT.

PERHAPS PEOPLE WEREN'T LOOKING WHEN THESE OTHER PROJECTS WENT THROUGH.

PERHAPS STAFF DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT 103 AND FIVE.

BUT IT'S COME UP NOW.

YOU KNOW, WE'RE PUTTING IT ON THE RECORD.

IT'S HERE. IT'S PART OF PART OF THIS CASE AND IT NEEDS TO BE ENFORCED.

WE HEARD ABOUT ANOTHER CASE THAT SOMEHOW APPARENTLY WAS MENTIONED IN THE EX PARTE BY ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS ABOUT APPARENTLY THIS SOMEONE RELATED TO THIS GROUP. IT SOMEHOW MAY HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS MAINE BEACH SOJOURN COMPASS GROUP VERSUS FERNANDINA BEACH.

THAT CASE IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

THAT'S FILED BY SID ANSBACHER, WHO I KNOW IN SAINT AUGUSTINE AND HAS TO DO WITH IMPACT FEES AND WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO TO ADOPT AN IMPACT FEE.

YOU HAVE TO HAVE A RATIONAL NEXUS.

THE AMOUNT YOU COLLECT HAS TO BE REASONABLY RELATED TO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE CAUSED BY THAT DEVELOPMENT.

YOU HAVE TO SPEND THE MONEY IN THE SAME PLACE THAT YOU COLLECT IT, AND YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE A SEPARATE ENTERPRISE FUND TO PUT THE MONEY.

[03:00:05]

AND THEN THE OTHER ONE WAS ABOUT ADMINISTRATIVE FEES LIKE BUILDING PERMIT FEES, PLAN REVIEW FEES AND FIRE INSPECTION FEES.

AND THE REASON THEY SUED ON THAT ONE IS BECAUSE THIS WAS A MEETING LAST NIGHT WHERE I WAS ON A MEETING WEDNESDAY NIGHT LAST WEEK WHERE SOMEONE GOT UP AND COMPLAINED ABOUT A $600 BUILDING PERMIT FEE FOR THEIR NEW DOOR THAT THEY HAD TO PUT ON THE CITY CHARGED FOR A BUILDING PLAN REVIEW FEE, $114,000, AND THEY CHARGED AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW FEE OF $228,000.

AND THEY CHARGED A FIRE MARSHAL REVIEW FEE OF $103,000.

SO THOSE ARE PRETTY, PRETTY OUTRAGEOUS NUMBERS.

AND THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT YOU'RE DOING HERE TODAY.

SO JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE'S EXERCISING THEIR RIGHTS AND SAYING THOSE FEES ARE TOO HIGH, PROVE UP THAT YOU SPENT THAT MONEY, PROVE UP THAT YOU DID IT THE RIGHT WAY DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY CAN SUE YOU OVER EQUAL PROTECTION.

IN THIS CASE. THIS IS NOTHING TO DO WITH BUILDING PERMIT FEES, IMPACT FEES.

AND SO THAT MEANS NOT JUST STATUTES, BUT BYE BYE CODE.

SO FLORIDA STATUTES TELLS YOU THAT YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO DENY DEVELOPMENT IF YOU THINK IT'S INCONSISTENT WITH THE COMP PLAN.

FLORIDA STATUTES CHANGE AND CITIZENS CAN'T CHALLENGE BEYOND YOU.

THEY CAN'T GO TO COURT BECAUSE IF THEY GO TO COURT AND LOSE, THEY'VE GOT TO PAY ATTORNEY'S FEES.

SO NO ONE REALLY BRINGS THOSE BECAUSE THERE'S A CHILLING EFFECT.

BUT YOU STILL HAVE TO APPLY.

YOUR CODE CODES ARE REVIEWED BY WHAT THEY CALL PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI.

IF YOU HAVE A PLAT AND YOU COMPARE IT TO THE CODE, DID IT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE? YOU PUT THE CODE ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE OF THE TABLE 1.305 AND THEN YOU PUT THIS APPLICATION ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THE TABLE.

AND IN A QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING, YOU'RE SAYING, DOES THIS APPLICATION MEET THIS CODE SECTION? AND SO CLEARLY THIS APPLICATION DOES NOT MEET CODE SECTION 1.030.05.

AND I THINK WHAT I HEAR IS CITY ATTORNEY HERE, YOUR CITY ATTORNEY SAYING, DANNY BOK SAYING IS THAT IT DOESN'T MEET IT, BUT WE CAN'T ENFORCE IT BECAUSE WE WOULD GET HIT WITH AN EQUAL PROTECTION LAWSUIT.

AND SHE DOESN'T WANT TO DEFEND IT, SHE SAID, LETTING YOU KNOW SHE THINKS YOU MIGHT LOSE IT.

I'M OFFERING A DIFFERENT OPINION.

I THINK YOU MIGHT WIN IT.

BUT REGARDLESS, YOU KNOW, IT'S YOUR OBLIGATION AND DUTY.

AND YOU TOOK AN OATH TO ENFORCE YOUR CODE.

IF IT'S IN YOUR CODE AND YOU'RE SITTING AS A QUASI JUDICIAL BODY, YOU CAN'T JUST ADD WORDS.

YOU CAN'T PRETEND 1.305 DOESN'T EXIST.

AND UNDER HEMISPHERE EQUITY AND THE CALUSA GOLF COURSE CASE, YOU'RE NOT IN MY DAY.

YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO SAY, WELL, WE'VE NEVER ENFORCED THE CODE.

SO EVEN THOUGH YOU POINTED IT OUT TO US NOW, WE'RE NOT GOING TO ENFORCE IT THIS TIME.

YOU CAN'T LET 15 YEARS OF HISTORY WIPE SOMETHING OFF THE BOOKS.

YOU HAVE TO TAKE IT OFF THE BOOKS WEARING YOUR LEGISLATIVE HAT.

SO NOW YOU'RE SITTING AS JUDGES, QUASI JUDICIAL.

DOES THE APPLICATION MEET THE CODE? AND ANOTHER HEARING AFTER NOTICE AND TWO PUBLIC READINGS? YOU CAN WEAR YOUR LEGISLATORS HAT AND YOU CAN SAY, HEY, LET'S AMEND THE CODE, LET'S DELETE IT, LET'S AMEND IT IN FACT, YOU AMENDED IT ONCE, APPARENTLY SINCE MANGANESE JANEIRO, WHERE THEY WERE ARGUING ABOUT WHETHER IT WAS A SUPERMAJORITY OR A MAJORITY, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU WENT BACK IN AND AMENDED IT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IT WAS A SUPERMAJORITY.

SO YOU DID KNOW ABOUT IT FROM JANEIRO, AND THEN CHANGES WERE MADE TO IT TO ADDRESS THE GENERAL ORDER.

BUT THEY STILL SAY YOU HAVE TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

MY CLIENTS ARE GOING TO GET UP.

MARY IS GOING TO SAY A FEW THINGS BECAUSE SHE HAS TO PUT SOME OF HER OWN EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD.

I THINK WE HAVE JUST A COUPLE MINUTES, MARY, AND SHE'LL SPEAK FOR HER HUSBAND, DAVE.

SO, MR. CROSS-EXAMINATION, WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF TIME FOR THE 30 MINUTES FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION AND WITNESSES. I CAN HAVE MARY SPEAK DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT, SO THAT'S FINE.

OKAY. OKAY.

PUBLIC COMMENT. I THINK BEFORE WE MOVE ON, THOUGH, I THINK THE PROCEDURALLY B QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION, WHICH.

COUNT TOWARDS YOUR TIME LIMIT, AND THEN WE'LL MOVE INTO CROSS EXAMINATION BY ANY OTHER PARTIES.

OKAY. I THINK I HAD TWO MINUTES, BUT THIS IS NOT NBA FINALS, SO I'LL GO WITH 153 ON THE CLOCK.

DOES ANY COMMISSIONER HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESS? THANK YOU AGAIN FOR BEING HERE.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL ME UP LATER.

MR. POOLE? YES.

AND UNDER THE PROCEDURAL RULES FOR QUASI JUDICIAL, IT DOES AUTHORIZE THE ATTORNEY TO ASK QUESTIONS DURING THIS PORTION.

GO AHEAD. SO JUST IT IS A LITTLE BIT IRREGULAR THAN WHAT WE'RE USED TO.

MR. BROOKS, A FEW QUESTIONS IN MANGANARO.

DO YOU KNOW WHERE THEY SEEKING A PRELIMINARY PLAT OR PLAT APPROVAL? I WILL LET THE ORDER SPEAK FOR ITSELF AND I'LL TURN IT INTO.

I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE ORDER.

[03:05:02]

I THINK YOU'RE GIVE IT TO THE CLERK.

TO YOU. I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH IT.

SO. ARE YOU DO YOU ARE YOU AWARE OF WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE SEEKING A PRELIMINARY PLAT OR SEEKING TO RESTORE AN UNDERLYING LOT OF RECORD? YES, I CAN ADDRESS THAT.

THANK YOU. HENRY MATTER.

THEIR PROPERTY CONSISTS OF 425 BY 100 FOOT LOTS THAT WERE PLATTED IN THE ORIGINAL PLAT OF FERNANDINA BEACH ON LOTS ONE AND TWO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE EXISTED AND LOT THREE A GARAGE.

YOU HEARD ABOUT THE GARAGE IN THIS ONE.

OH NO, A LOT LESS. 0.7FT OR 84.

FOUR INCHES. PETITIONERS SEEK TO DEMOLISH THE GARAGE AND BUILD TWO SEPARATE RESIDENCES ON LOTS, THREE AND FOUR.

SO IT SOUNDS THAT'S WHAT THEY SAY IT SOUNDS AND I WOULD POSSIBLY BE CONJECTURING HERE, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE IT WOULD BE A LOT SPLIT OR RECONFIGURATION, LOT RECOMBINATION OR A MINOR SUBDIVISION OR.

MY QUESTION WAS IT'S DIFFERENT THAN A PRELIMINARY PLAT OR THE RE PLAT APPROVAL BEING SOUGHT IN THIS CASE.

WELL, 1.0305 STATES, IT APPLIES TO CONSTRUCTION OR DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES ON COMBINED LOTS.

AND SO MANZANERO HAD LOT STRUCTURES ON COMBINED LOTS AND THEY WERE GOING TO RECONFIGURE THEM.

SO IT'S THE SAME THING.

IT'S HOUSES TO THE UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD THAT WERE PLATTED.

THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE SEEKING TO RESTORE THEM TO.

I CAN'T SPEAK BEYOND THIS PARAGRAPH THREE.

I'M SORRY, I DON'T HAVE THE OTHER PLEADINGS.

I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU, MR. POOLE. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESS? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE, YOU DO HAVE YOUR 153 ON THE CLOCK AT THE NBA FINALS.

SO IF YOU WANT TO CALL UP SOMEONE TO SPEAK IN THAT TIME, I THINK SHE COULD DO BETTER IN THEIR REGULAR PUBLIC COMMENT.

SO THEN IN THAT CASE, WE DO HAVE TIME TO CROSS-EXAMINE AND THAT IS PART OF THIS TIME.

DOES ANY THE CITY OR DOES ANY OTHER APPLICANT WISH TO CROSS-EXAMINE? AND WE DO. SO, MISS BOK, WHEN YOU COME UP, YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND WE'LL START THE CROSS-EXAMINATION PROCESS.

AND NORMALLY WE DON'T SEE HIM RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER, BUT WE WILL.

THAT'S OKAY. SO WHY NOT SINCE.

WELL, IT'S AS WE DO, RIGHT? I MEAN, YES, IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT, WE DO.

SO JUST JUST A FEW THINGS.

I WAS GOING TO THANK YOU, MR. POOLE, FOR THE MANGANARO CASE.

I CAN TELL YOU THE MANGANARO CASE WAS SPECIFICALLY TO RESTORE UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD SO THAT THEY COULD HAVE 25 BY 100 FOOT LOTS.

THAT'S TOTALLY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE.

BUT IT WAS STILL 10.030.05.

SO THAT SECTION OF THE CODE STILL APPLIED.

I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU'RE APPLYING THAT.

THAT IS IN THE MANGANARO CASE, THAT IS.

AND SO MY OTHER QUESTION IS THAT YOU HAVE YOU'VE SAID HERE THAT AND I APPRECIATE THE CASE LAW REFERENCES THAT.

THIS AS IF THE CITY IF I UNDERSTAND YOU RIGHT, THAT THE CITY STAFF JUST IGNORED 103.5, DIDN'T ENFORCE IT, DIDN'T APPLY IT, JUST LIKE A POLICE OFFICER MIGHT NOT ISSUE A TRAFFIC TICKET.

DID I UNDERSTAND? I DIDN'T HEAR YOU SAY THERE WAS A REASON WHY 100 305 DIDN'T APPLY.

I HEARD YOU SAY THAT IF WE APPLIED IT, WE HAVEN'T APPLIED IT BEFORE AND WE'LL GET SUED FOR EQUAL PROTECTION.

WE'VE APPLIED IT DOZENS AND DOZENS OF TIMES IN THE CITY.

AND THE SAME THING SHOULD HAPPEN HERE.

OKAY, SO THAT'S WHY THERE'S NO EQUAL PROTECTION CLAIMS. OKAY. SO I MENTIONED THE ISLAND VIEW SUBDIVISION CASE.

DID YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO.

WELL, IF I MAY JUST TELL YOU WHAT, THE ISLAND VIEW SUBDIVISION CASE CROSS EXAMINATION.

OKAY. SO IN MY TESTIMONY, IT IS THERE.

AND SO IF YOU DIDN'T REVIEW, I THINK THE RESIDENTS HAVE ONE LAST QUESTION.

I HAVE ONE LAST QUESTION.

DO YOU AGREE THAT IN LAND USE CASES THAT THERE ARE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAIMS THAT CAN BE BROUGHT? I REQUEST A LITTLE MORE TIME BECAUSE I LEFT TEN MINUTES FOR CROSS EXAMINATION AND I HAD NO.

I CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION. EXCUSE ME, DO I NOT? HEY, EVERYBODY. ONE SECOND.

HEY, NO, NO SHOUTING FROM THE AUDIENCE.

WE WILL ALLOW THE FINAL QUESTION.

YOU START THE QUESTION. YOU CAN FINISH THE QUESTION.

OKAY. MY QUESTION IS, DO YOU AGREE THAT THERE CAN BE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAIMS BROUGHT IN LAND USE CASES WHERE A DEVELOPMENT ORDER IS SOUGHT, AND IF THERE ARE SIMILARLY SITUATED PROPERTIES THAT THEY IF IF THE SAME CODES AND PROCESS IS NOT APPLIED TO THEM BY THE CITY, THAT THERE CAN

[03:10:04]

BE A WHETHER OR NOT WE WIN, THAT'S UP TO THE JUDGE OR THE JUDGE AND THE JURY.

I CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION, PLEASE.

SO EQUAL PROTECTION CLAIM UNDER THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION IS BROUGHT UNDER WHAT THEY CALL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, SECTION 1983. AND THERE, IF YOU ARE GOING TO DISCRIMINATE BASED ON A SUSPECT, CLASS, RACE, ETHNICITY, SEX, THOSE TYPE OF THINGS, THOSE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAIMS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT SUCCESSFULLY.

THERE IS 1 OR 2 VERY, VERY OUTLIER CASES CALLED CLASS OF ONE EQUAL PROTECTION CASES.

THERE'S ONE THAT I KNOW ABOUT IN WHICH THE FACTS OF THE CASE WERE THAT THAT APPLICANT STOOD BEFORE A CITY AND THE CITY COUNCIL TOLD HIM.

MR.. I DON'T KNOW THE MAN'S NAME, MR. JONES, YOU WILL NEVER GET A PERMIT IN THIS CITY AS LONG AS I'M ON CITY COUNCIL.

AND THEY MADE IT PERSONAL ABOUT HIM AND NOT ABOUT ZONING, NOT ABOUT THE LAND.

IT WAS ABOUT THE PERSON.

AND THAT IS A CASE THAT WAS SUCCESSFUL THAT I KNOW ABOUT.

OTHER THAN THAT, IT'S IT'S USUALLY SUSPECT CLASSES.

THANK YOU. THANKS.

ALL RIGHT. THAT IS THE END OF THAT TESTIMONY THERE.

WE WILL NOW GOING TO TAKE A QUICK ONE MORE SIX MINUTE BREATHER, BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S GOING TO USE THE BATHROOM.

IT'S BEEN TWO HOURS. WE WILL RECONVENE.

ALL RIGHT. I RECONVENED ONCE AGAIN THIS MEETING OF THE FERNANDINA BEACH CITY COMMISSION.

IT IS GREAT TO BE BACK WITH YOU.

AND WHERE WE LAST LEFT OFF, THE FIRST THREE PARTIES HAVE MADE THEIR CASE AND WE ARE NOW IN THE FOURTH PARTY.

SO THIS IS REPRESENTING MS..

CHRISTNER YES.

SO I'M I'M A NEIGHBOR OF MS..

CHRISTNER AND I'M ALSO AN ATTORNEY.

AND I IN HER MOTION TO INTERVENE, SHE INCLUDED A MEMORANDUM I SUPPLIED ON THE EQUAL PROTECTION QUESTION, WHICH I'LL BE ADDRESSING TODAY.

SHE ALSO INCLUDED A COPY OF MY CV, WHICH I'LL JUST BRIEFLY STATE LAW PROFESSOR AT GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY.

I TEACH THERE IN THE FALL.

STILL. I'VE BEEN THERE FOR APPROXIMATELY 30 YEARS.

I ALSO PROFESSOR CLARK, CAN YOU PLEASE JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD? CERTAINLY. BRADFORD CLARK 312, ASH STREET, FERNANDINA BEACH AND INTERRUPT.

NO PROBLEM.

I WENT TO FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY.

I WENT TO COLUMBIA LAW SCHOOL, AND THEN I CLERKED ON THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT FOR JUDGE ROBERT BORK.

AND THEN I CLERKED FOR JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA ON THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES.

I WORKED IN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT IN THE OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL, WHICH PROVIDES CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL ADVICE TO THE PRESIDENT, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND HEADS OF FEDERAL DEPARTMENTS.

AND I WORKED AS AN APPELLATE ATTORNEY AT THE LAW FIRM OF GIBSON, DUNN AND CRUTCHER BEFORE GOING INTO TEACHING.

I TEACH CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, FEDERAL COURT JURISDICTION AND CIVIL PROCEDURE.

SO I HAVE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS ABOUT THE LEGAL ISSUES THAT THIS APPLICATION RAISES.

FIRST, I JUST WANT TO SPEAK BRIEFLY TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND IN PARTICULAR 1.03, SECTION ZERO FIVE.

THE CITY AND THE STAFF HAVE TAKEN THE POSITION THAT THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY IN THIS CASE AND THAT IT ONLY APPLIES WHEN AN APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO RETURN TO THE ORIGINAL.

LOTS OF RECORD.

NOWHERE IN THE CODE DOES IT SAY THAT.

IN FACT, IT SAYS SOMETHING TOTALLY CONTRADICTORY.

THERE IS A SECTION 1.030.00 ENTITLED APPLICABILITY.

SO THAT SUGGESTS IT EXPLAINS WHERE IT APPLIES.

RIGHT? AND IT SAYS, EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED THE PROVISIONS OF THIS LDC SHALL APPLY TO ALL DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY.

OKAY, THAT'S 1.030.01 AND THEN 1.030.05, AS MR. BROOKS EXPLAINED, WAS ADDED TO THE CODE SPECIFICALLY AND EXPLICITLY TO PREVENT PROPERTY OWNERS WITH SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND OTHER STRUCTURES.

BUT IN THIS CASE, SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT WERE BUILT ON COMBINED LOTS FROM THEN TEARING THEM DOWN OR SUBDIVIDING AND BUILDING MULTIPLE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES OR STRUCTURES WHERE ONE HOME HAD BEEN TO MAINTAIN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

NOW, IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN NEVER DO IT.

SECTION 1.0 305C PROVIDES THAT YOU CAN GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

[03:15:01]

OKAY. AND SO THAT RIGHT THERE, THAT SHOULD BE ENOUGH FOR YOU TO DECIDE THIS CASE, WHICH IS TO SAY, OUR CODE REQUIRES US TO SEND THIS CASE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

AND I WOULD SIMPLY NOTE ON THIS QUESTION IN THE STAFF'S PRESENTATION TONIGHT ON PAGE 17 OF THEIR SLIDES, THEY HAVE A SLIDE, BOTH CASES FOR LDC, SECTION 1.030.05, WHICH WAS DISPLAYED EARLIER ON THE SCREEN. AND IT GIVES A LIST OF 16 CASES SINCE 2011 THAT WENT TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

AND I WOULD SIMPLY SAY, AND MANY OF THEM WERE DENIED.

SO I WOULD SAY TWO THINGS.

ONE, WHY DID THEY GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IF IT DOESN'T APPLY IN ALL THESE CASES? AND NUMBER TWO, IF IT WOULD CREATE AN EQUAL PROTECTION PROBLEM TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OR TO HAVE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DENY THE CLAIM, THEN ALL OF THESE CASES WHERE THE APPLICATION WAS DENIED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WOULD HAVE AN EQUAL PROTECTION CLAIM.

BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE CASE.

SO THAT'S WHAT I'LL TURN TO YOU NOW, WHICH IS THE EQUAL PROTECTION ISSUE.

NOW, IT IS TRUE.

MISS BACH ASKED MR. BROOKS, DO YOU THINK IT'S POSSIBLE FOR AN EQUAL PROTECTION CLAIM TO ARISE? AND IT CERTAINLY IS IN LAND USE.

THE SUPREME COURT CASE IS VILLAGE OF WILLOWBROOK VERSUS OLEK.

528 US FIVE 60 TWO 2000 THE YEAR 2000.

AND IT'S A VERY STRICT CASE, STRICT STANDARD.

BUT THE COURT HAS RECOGNIZED THAT A PROPERTY OWNER MAY ASSERT AN EQUAL PROTECTION CLAIM BROUGHT BY A CLASS OF ONE WHERE THE PLAINTIFF ALLEGES.

IS THAT SHE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY TREATED DIFFERENTLY FROM OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, AND THAT THERE IS NO RATIONAL BASIS FOR THE DIFFERENCE IN TREATMENT.

OKAY. AND THAT'S A KEY COMPONENT OF THIS.

AND I WOULD JUST GIVE YOU THE EXAMPLE OF THIS CASE AND THEN THE EXAMPLE, THE TAMPA CASE.

CITY NATIONAL BANK OF FLORIDA VERSUS CITY OF TAMPA, WHICH THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS REFERRED TO AS WELL, WHICH IS A FLORIDA CASE, 60 SEVEN, SOUTHERN THIRD TO 93, 2011.

LET ME GIVE YOU JUST THE FACTS OF THOSE CASES THAT STATED EQUAL PROTECTION CLAIMS. AND THEN LET ME POINT OUT A CASE THAT DENIED AN EQUAL PROTECTION CLAIM.

SO IN VILLAGE OF WILLOWBROOK, THE PLAINTIFF ASKED TO CONNECT HER PROPERTY TO THE MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY.

AND IN ALL PAST CASES, THE PROPERTY OWNER, THE VILLAGE, HAD ONLY REQUIRED PROPERTY OWNERS TO GRANT A 15 FOOT EASEMENT ON THE PROPERTY TO CONNECT TO THE MUNICIPAL MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY.

IN THIS CASE, THE CITY CHANGED THE THE PROCESS OR THE REQUIREMENT AND REQUIRED A 33 FOOT EASEMENT FOR THE FIRST TIME.

SO THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY OWNER WAS TREATED DIFFERENTLY FROM ALL OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED PROPERTY OWNERS.

AND THE SUPREME COURT SAID IN THAT CASE, CLASS OF ONE SINGLING YOU OUT FOR MORE HARSH TREATMENT, YOU DO HAVE A POTENTIAL EQUAL PROTECTION CLAIM.

YOU STILL HAVE TO PROVE IT, BUT YOUR CLAIM CAN GO FORWARD.

SAME THING IN THE CITY, NATIONAL BANK OF FLORIDA VERSUS CITY OF TAMPA.

OKAY. THEY'RE CONDO OWNERS WERE REQUIRED IF THE ZONING ORDINANCE HAD BEEN INTERPRETED TO REQUIRE SETBACK OF 25FT IN THE FRONT YARD AND OVER 10,000 APPLICATIONS REQUIRED A 25 FOOT SETBACK.

NOW THE CITY CHANGED IT AND REQUIRED TWO 25 FOOT SETBACKS.

AND THIS PROPERTY OWNER SUED, SAID IT'S AN EQUAL PROTECTION CLAIM.

UNDER THE SUPREME COURT WILLOWBROOK CASE, THE FLORIDA APPELLATE COURT SAID, YES, THAT'S A PROBLEM.

YOU CAN'T JUST DOUBLE THE REQUIREMENT FOR THIS NEW PERSON.

BUT IN OTHER CASES, COURTS HAVE READILY DISTINGUISHED EQUAL PROTECTION CLAIMS AND DENIED THEM WHEN THEY'RE NOT IDENTICALLY OR SUFFICIENTLY SIMILARLY SITUATED.

SO THE CASE, I WOULD POINT OUT, IS FROM THE 11TH CIRCUIT, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, CAMPBELL VERSUS RAINBOW CITY.

434 F THIRD 1306 11TH CIRCUIT, 2006.

AND IN THAT CASE, THE DEVELOPERS WANTED TO BUILD, GET A VARIANCE TO BUILD A HIGH DENSITY APARTMENT BUILDING ON PROPERTY LOAN ZONED FOR LOWER DENSITY.

AND THEY POINTED TO OTHER PROJECTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD BANKS, OTHER APARTMENT BUILDINGS WHERE THEY HAD GOTTEN A PARTIAL VARIANCE, BUT NONE OF THEM WERE AS DENSE AS THIS PROJECT.

AND THE COURT OF APPEALS SAID, QUOTE, IN ORDER FOR ANY DEVELOPMENT TO BE SIMILARLY SITUATED TO THE PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED PROJECT, IT MUST BE PRIMA FACIE IDENTICAL IN ALL RELEVANT RESPECTS.

[03:20:01]

AND THE COURT THEN DISTINGUISHED ALL THE OTHER COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS THAT HAD GOTTEN VARIANCES, SAYING YOURS IS NOT IDENTICAL TO THOSE PROJECTS.

AND I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT IN THIS CASE BECAUSE AS FAR AS I KNOW, THE PROJECTS THAT THE CITY HAS POINTED TO, LIKE THE ISLAND VIEW AND MANY OTHERS ALL INVOLVED, ANNEXATIONS AND ALL ARE NOT ACROSS THE STREET FROM A HISTORIC DISTRICT.

OKAY? THAT ALONE MEANS THEY ARE NOT SUFFICIENTLY IDENTICAL OR SIMILARLY SITUATED TO TRIGGER AN EQUAL PROTECTION PROBLEM.

YOU CAN DISTINGUISH ALL OF THOSE EXAMPLES NOW.

I WOULD JUST END BY SAYING THE CITY HAS A LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR A REASON.

IT IS TO GUIDE IN A RATIONAL AND PREDICTABLE WAY AND THE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CITY AND TO PROTECT THE COMMUNITY, TO PROTECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER, AND TO PROTECT THE RESIDENTS FROM DEVELOPMENT THAT IS OUT OF CHARACTER.

IF THE CITY COMMISSION NOT SITTING AS A QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING TODAY, BUT IF SITTING AS A CITY COMMISSION, IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE THAT LAW 1.030.05, YOU SHOULD DO SO AND HAVE HEARINGS ABOUT IT AND HAVE CITIZEN INPUT.

MAYBE IT'S TOO STRICT, BUT TO JUST HAVE THE CITY STAFF SAY AND THE CITY ATTORNEY SAY, WELL, WE CAN IGNORE THAT BECAUSE WE ONLY APPLY THAT IN ONE SITUATION.

WHEN YOU'RE GOING TO THE ORIGINAL PLAT, THAT'S NOWHERE IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

IT'S NOWHERE IN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY THAT MR. BROOKS POINTED OUT.

THE INTENT WAS TO PREVENT PEOPLE FROM TEARING DOWN HOUSES OR REPLANTING LARGE LOTS WITH ONE HOUSE AND HAVING MULTIPLE HOUSES TO PREVENT EXCESS DENSITY TO PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS.

YOU MAY THINK THAT'S TOO RESTRICTIVE, BUT THAT'S THE LAW AND IT'S NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO ENFORCE IT.

AND IT DOESN'T VIOLATE THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN NO CASE CITED WHERE TOWNHOUSES HAVE BEEN BUILT ACROSS FROM THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.

NONE. THE THIRD STREET TOWNHOUSES THAT WERE BUILT ARE IN A MIXED USE ZONING ACROSS FROM MIXED USE, NOT ACROSS FROM THE HISTORIC DISTRICT ON FOURTH STREET. AS THE CITY'S PRESENTATION SHOWED, ONE SIDE OF THE STREET WHERE THE PROPOSED TOWNHOUSES WILL BE BUILT IS NOT IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, BUT THE EXACT OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET IT'S FACING.

THE HISTORIC DISTRICT STARTS ON THE WEST, ON THE EAST SIDE OF FOURTH SOUTH FOURTH STREET.

SO I WOULD URGE THE COMMISSION TO FOLLOW THE LAW AS WRITTEN AND NOT BE AFRAID OF A LAWSUIT THAT CANNOT BE WON ON EQUAL PROTECTION GROUNDS.

YOU WILL EASILY, IN MY OPINION, AND I FEEL LIKE I DO HAVE SUBSTANTIAL EXPERIENCE IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

IN MY OPINION, YOU WILL WIN THAT LAWSUIT IF IT'S BROUGHT, BUT I DON'T EVEN THINK IT WILL BE BROUGHT BECAUSE THE CASE LAW IS SO CLEAR AND SO THE SUCCESSFUL CASES ARE SO DISTINGUISHABLE. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER WITNESSES TO CALL? MS.. CHRISTNER IS GOING TO BE SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF HERSELF.

SHE'S BEHIND YOU. AND WE WILL HAVE.

BEFORE WE GET TO THAT POINT, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? THANK YOU. SEEING NONE.

WE'LL HAVE CROSS-EXAMINATION WITH YOU AFTER MS..

CHRISTNER GOES.

TINA CHRISTNER, 406 BEACH STREET.

AND BOY, WHAT A HARD ACT TO FOLLOW.

IS THAT ALL I'LL SAY TONIGHT? I LIVE IN 406 BEACH STREET.

IT IS A ONE STORY 25 FOOT HOME.

IT WAS BUILT IN 1891.

IT IS ONE OF THE ONLY ONES THAT I'M AWARE OF THAT IS STILL STANDING.

THAT WAS AN ORIGINAL 25 FOOT HOUSE BUILT FOR THE RAILROAD WORKERS.

IT'S ABOUT 790FT² OF LIVING SPACE.

AND THAT'S WITH AN ADDITION THAT WAS PUT ON IN 1999.

PRIOR TO THAT, IT WAS PROBABLY 500FT².

AND THE FAMILY MEMBER I SPOKE TO SAID SIX PEOPLE LIVE THERE.

IT'S QUITE A PIECE OF HISTORY.

IT SITS ABOUT A FOOT AND A HALF OFF THE GROUND.

IT DOESN'T HAVE A DRIVEWAY.

I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT PARKING WITH HIGHER DENSITY.

IT'S ONE OF TWO SISTER HOMES.

IT'S ONE OF A KIND.

ONCE IT'S GONE, IT WILL NOT BE REPLACED.

IT CAN BE REMODELED.

YOU CAN TRY TO BUILD AN EXACT MODEL OF IT.

I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT FLOODING WITH WITH THIS NEW BLOCK BEING FULL OF CONCRETE, BEING RAISED TWO FEET.

I'M VERY, VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.

I WANT TO WARN YOU THAT THE HISTORIC DISTRICT IS MUCH SMALLER THAN YOU THINK.

WALK AROUND, YOU'LL SEE THAT A LOT OF PLACES THAT YOU THINK MIGHT BE HISTORIC DISTRICT DOWN FOURTH STREET, DOWN THIRD STREET, DOWN FIFTH STREET, DOWN SIXTH STREET.

THEY ARE NOT HISTORIC DISTRICTS.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S NOT BEEN BROUGHT UP IS IF YOU APPROVE THIS CASE TONIGHT, YOU ARE SETTING PRECEDENT.

[03:25:02]

ANYBODY ELSE WHO WANTS TO PUT IN A TOWNHOME COMMUNITY AND GET A REPLAT, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO APPROVE OR ELSE THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A CASE AGAINST THE CITY AND YOU'LL SET PRECEDENT.

SO IF YOU WANT TO SEE FERNANDINA BEACH BECOME A HISTORIC DISTRICT SURROUNDED BY TOWNHOME COMMUNITIES, PLEASE GO AHEAD AND APPROVE THIS CASE. I DON'T THINK THAT IS IN LINE WITH FERNANDINA.

AND SO THAT'S ALL I'LL SAY ABOUT THAT.

AS WE SAID, EVERY EXAMPLE HAS BEEN AN ANNEXATION.

AND I THINK ATTORNEY CLARK DID A WONDERFUL JOB OF SAYING WHY THAT IS NOT LIKE AND IS NOT EQUAL PROTECTION.

TO LET YOU KNOW, TOO, I'VE ALSO HEARD OF THREE OTHER LOTS THAT ARE LOOKING AT THIS CASE TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS AND THEY HAVEN'T MOVED ON IT YET.

SO I KNOW OF THREE OTHER LOTS THAT ARE GOING TO HAPPEN.

ALSO, I JUST WANT TO LIST THAT IN THE IN THE CITY COMMISSION OR THE CITY REPORT, THE STAFF REPORT THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO YOU ABOUT HOW THIS IS ALL COMPLIANT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THERE IS SOMETHING SHOWING EVERY CONCEPT, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEM AND CHECKED BOX SAYING THIS.

THIS ALL MEETS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

HOW CAN THIS POSSIBLY ON THE FOURTH STREET SIDE, THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, BE IN LINE WITH THE COMMUNITY CHARACTER? THERE'S NO WAY YOU CAN SAY THAT.

IF YOU LOOK AT MARSHA'S HOUSE RIGHT THERE, HER HER LOT IS 100FT LONG AND I THINK IT'S ONLY LIKE 50FT DEEP.

AND THEN YOU GO UP, YOU HAVE A 25 FOOT LOT, THEN YOU HAVE A 50 FOOT LOT THAT'S QUITE DEEP.

THEN YOU HAVE A 75 FOOT LOT AND THEN YOU HAVE ANOTHER, I THINK, ANOTHER 100 FOOT LOT.

ONE OF THE THINGS I LOVE ABOUT THE HISTORIC DISTRICT IS WHEN YOU WALK THROUGH IT, IT'S ALMOST LIKE OPENING DIFFERENT PRESENTS.

YOU SEE A DIFFERENT HOUSE HERE AND A DIFFERENT HOUSE HERE, AND IT'S ALL A BIG SURPRISE AND IT'S JUST SO WONDERFUL.

WE'RE UNLIKE ANY PLACE ELSE.

IF YOU START PUTTING IN AND I'M SURE THE PROPOSED PLACE WOULD BE BEAUTIFUL, BUT IT'S NOT IN CHARACTER.

AND HOW CAN THE CITY STAFF REPORT POSSIBLY SAY, WE'VE CHECKED THE BOX? THIS IS COMPREHENSIVE TO THE COMMUNITY AND THE COMMUNITY CHARACTER? I THINK THAT REPORT WAS VERY ONE SIDED, I WILL ADMIT.

I THINK THE THIRD STREET SIDE OF THIS PROJECT IS VERY DIFFERENT.

AND I WILL SAY THAT I THINK I'M GIVING A VERY FAIR AND BALANCED ANALYSIS OF IT.

BUT IN THE FOURTH STREET SIDE, NO WAY.

ALSO PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS THAT SAYS THAT GOAL NINE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HAS BEEN ACHIEVED THROUGH THIS PROPOSAL AND THAT STATES THAT YOU CAN USE PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR OWNER USE AND USE OF ANY PERSON SUBJECT TO STATE AND LOCAL ORDINANCES.

THIS VIOLATES, IN MY OPINION, SECTION 100 AND 305.

THE LAST THING I'LL SAY IS JUST THIS I'VE GOTTEN SOME REALLY NASTY COMMENTS FROM THE COMMUNITY.

I CAN IMAGINE WHAT YOU ALL GO THROUGH ALL THE TIME JUST BECAUSE I OPPOSE THIS PROJECT AND I'VE BEEN TOLD WE WERE CALLED A BUNCH OF FINGER WAGGING GRANNIES BY A LOCAL BLOGGER. AND I GUESS I'M NOT A GRANNY, BUT I GUESS THEY'RE SAYING WE'RE OLDER WOMEN AND WE'RE FINGER WAGGING.

AND I WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT THIS I'M WAGGING MY FINGER.

THIS COMMUNITY HAS A GREAT HISTORY OF FINGER WAGGING GRANNIES.

YOU KNOW, WE HAD KATE BAILEY, WHO SAVED THE TREE ON ASH STREET.

WE HAD MAYBE.

WHO SAVED NANA AT AMERICAN BEACH.

THE FIRST TIME I CAME TO AMELIA ISLAND.

THEY HAD THE SIGN UP TOWNHOUSES COMING SOON RIGHT NEXT TO NANA.

YOU HAD MARY AGNES WHITE AND SUSAN DAVIS, WHO WANTS THE KEYSTONE HOTEL, WAS DEMOLISHED.

THEY STEPPED UP TO THE PLATE WITH A LOT OF OTHER COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND HELPED SAVE FERNANDINA TO WHAT IT IS TODAY.

AND THEN WE HAVE OUR OWN JOAN COREY RIGHT HERE, WHO WAS PART OF THE FIGHT TO KEEP THE DRY DOCK OUT OF FERNANDINA.

I'M SURE YOU ALL WOULDN'T WANT TO LOOK OUT TO THE RIVER AND SEE A BUNCH OF SHIP REPAIR GOING ON THERE RIGHT NOW.

IT PROBABLY WOULDN'T HELP WITH OUR VIEW.

SO I THINK WE AND YOU AND EVERYBODY IN THIS ROOM, WE STAND ON THE SHOULDERS OF THESE WOMEN WHO WERE FINGER WAGGING GRANNIES.

LAST I'LL SAY IS I WANT THE BEST FOR THE HEIRS OF THIS PROPERTY, THE ABSOLUTE BEST.

I WANT THEM TO BE ABLE TO MAXIMIZE THEIR PROFIT WITHIN THE CODE.

SO I WROTE AN EDITORIAL I WOULD LIKE TO SHORT TERM RENTAL MY PLACE.

I WOULD LOVE TO DO THAT.

WHY CAN'T I DO THAT? BECAUSE IT'S AGAINST THE CODE.

YOU IF YOU LET ME DO THAT, YOU WOULD LET IT BE LET LET ME MAXIMIZE MY PROFIT.

BUT YOU WOULD ALSO BE BREAKING THE LAW AND BREAKING YOUR OATH OF OFFICE TO MAINTAIN THE CODE.

I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO OPEN A SPEAKEASY.

YOU ALL COULD COME OVER ON SATURDAY EVENINGS AND ENJOY A DRINK AT MY HOUSE, BUT OUR LAWS DON'T ALLOW THAT.

SO I WANT THE BEST FOR THE FAMILY.

I WANT TO SEE THEM MAXIMIZE THEIR PROFIT, BUT NOT TO THE POINT WHERE IT BREAKS THE CODE.

[03:30:03]

THIS OBVIOUSLY BREAKS THE CODE.

IT HAS TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

I APPRECIATE ALL YOU, COMMISSIONERS.

I APPRECIATE EVERYONE HERE BEING HERE SO LATE.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

THANK YOU. BEFORE YOU GO, MISS CHRISTNER, WE DO HAVE SOME COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS.

AND KEEP IN MIND FOR THIS, WE PAUSE THE CLOCK.

COMMISSIONER ROSS, GO AHEAD.

SO I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY A FEW THINGS.

YOU LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IS THAT CORRECT? YES. I LIVE ABOUT 100FT AWAY FROM THE.

WHICH ANSWERS MY SECOND QUESTION.

AND HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD? I BOUGHT MY HOUSE ON JANUARY 2ND, 20 OR 2002, AND SO I'VE LIVED THERE FULL TIME SINCE ABOUT 2013, I BELIEVE.

AND IS YOUR HOUSE THE SAME SIZE AS THE OTHER HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD? NO, MY HOUSE IS IS VERY SMALL, SO WE HAVE A VARIETY OF HOUSES.

THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR IS TWO STORIES.

MINE IS ONE STORY. JONI'S NEXT TO ME.

SHE'S SHE'S GOT A HOUSE THAT'S SIMILAR IN SIZE, BUT DIFFERENT SITUATIONS.

EVEN THOUGH HER AND MY HOUSE ARE VERY SIMILAR, THEY'RE SISTER HOUSES.

ONE IS SET BACK MORE THAN THE OTHER.

SO IT'S PART OF THE BIG DIFFERENCES OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND DO THE HOUSES IN THE.

NEIGHBORHOOD HAVE DIFFERENT ARCHITECTURE? YES, ABSOLUTELY.

THEY ARE ALL BUILT IN DIFFERENT TIMES.

WE HAVE A FUNERAL PARLOR ON OUR STREET, TOO.

SO, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT ALL SORTS OF STRUCTURES.

DO YOU HAVE YOUR OWN DRIVEWAY? NO, I DON'T HAVE A DRIVEWAY AT ALL.

DO ALL THE HOUSES OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND IS YOUR HOUSE ELEVATED TO ACCOMMODATE STORMWATER? I'VE IT'S AN ELEVATED AS MUCH AS 1891 DID.

IT'S IT'S ABOUT A FOOT AND A HALF.

AND I'M VERY, VERY CONCERNED THAT MY HOUSE WILL BE FLOODED WHEN THERE'S INCREASED CONCRETE STRUCTURES PUT ACROSS THE STREET FROM.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS? GO AHEAD AND RESTART THAT CLOCK.

WE OUR TIME FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION.

IS THERE ANY OTHER PARTY, THE CITY, THE APPLICANT OR THE OTHER INTERVENOR THAT WISHES TO CROSS-EXAMINE? MS.. CHRISTNER WE RAISED A FOOT.

IS IT WITH DIRT FILL OR.

SIR, COULD YOU PLEASE COME TO THE MICROPHONE JUST SO WE HAVE THAT ON THE RECORD, PEOPLE AT HOME COULD HEAR.

I'M SORRY. OH, NO WORRIES.

WHEN YOU SAY IT'S RAISED A FOOT AND A HALF OR SOMETHING, IS THAT WITH DIRT FILL OR IS THAT ON THOSE OLD FASHIONED CONCRETE TRIANGLE BLOCKS? OLD FASHIONED CONCRETE TRIANGLE BLOCKS WITH WOOD SHIMMIES IN IT.

IT'S VERY HISTORICALLY ACCURATE.

ALL RIGHT. ANY FURTHER, MR. RON FLICK? PLEASE, GO AHEAD.

YES, SIR. ALSO COME TO THE MICROPHONE.

DO YOU KNOW THE ACTUAL ELEVATION OF YOUR BENCH FLOOR ELEVATION? NO, I DON'T. DO YOU KNOW WHAT? IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE IN THE CITY? NO. ALL RIGHT.

ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE.

FOR MS.. CHRISTNER? CROSS EXAMINATION.

SEEING NONE.

WE WILL GO BACK TO MY FRIEND.

SO YOU'RE GOOD TO GO. THANK YOU, MISS CHRISTNER.

WE APPRECIATE YOU. DO YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER WITNESSES TO CALL, SIR? NO, I WOULD JUST I WOULD JUST EMPHASIZE SOMETHING THAT MISS CHRISTNER SAID, WHICH IS THAT AND THIS WAS IN MY MEMO THAT WAS SUBMITTED WITH HER APPLICATION.

AND YOU HAVE IT, WHICH IS THE POINT SHE MADE THAT WHILE I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S AN EQUAL PROTECTION PROBLEM IN DENYING THIS AND SENDING IT TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND LET THEM APPLY THE LAW CORRECTLY OR FAIRLY AS THEY SEE FIT.

IF YOU APPROVE THIS WITHOUT GOING TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, IT COULD CREATE A BAD PRECEDENT.

NOW, MR. BROOKS SAID, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE CASES SAYING THAT, YOU KNOW, MISS APPLYING THE LAW DOESN'T NECESSARILY CREATE A PROBLEM.

AND I HOPE THAT'S THE CASE.

I HOPE THAT'S THE CASE.

BUT IF I WERE A DEVELOPER AND YOU APPROVED THIS DEVELOPMENT, I WOULD BUY UP AS MUCH LAND NEAR THE HISTORIC DISTRICT AS POSSIBLE. THERE'S MANY LOTS WITH NO HOUSES ON THEM OR GIANT LOTS WITH ONE HOUSE.

AND I WOULD BUY THEM UP AND I WOULD PROPOSE THE EXACT SAME DEVELOPMENT.

AND IF YOU DENIED IT AFTER APPROVING THIS ONE, YOU MIGHT HAVE A PROBLEM.

I HOPE YOU WOULDN'T. BUT YOU YOU COULD BE CREATING THAT PROBLEM.

SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT POINT.

THANK YOU, SIR. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESS? AND NOW WE'RE GOING TO GO TO CROSS-EXAMINATION.

SO, MR. FLICK, PERFECT.

GO AHEAD TO YOU ALL FIRST.

IT'S TO US FIRST. I THINK WE HAVE NONE.

SO IT'S TO YOU, MY FRIEND.

OKAY. ONCE AGAIN, MR. FLICK, YOU HAVE TO GO TO THE MICROPHONE JUST REAL QUICK AND MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE CAN HEAR YOU AT HOME.

IF THERE'S CONFLICT IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO MAKE A CHOICE BETWEEN POTENTIALLY CONFLICTING DEMANDS OR OPPORTUNITIES IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

[03:35:04]

HOW WOULD YOU HOW WOULD YOU RECOMMEND THAT THAT BE MITIGATED IF YOU BELIEVE THERE'S SUCH A TWO DIFFERENT STANDARDS IN THE LAND? RIGHT. SO THE FIRST THING YOU WOULD DO IS YOU WOULD SEE IF THE CODE ITSELF PROVIDES A MECHANISM FOR RESOLVING CONFLICTS, AND I BELIEVE 1.03.01 UNDER APPLICABILITY GENERALLY SECTION A PROVIDES EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED THE PROVISION.

THE PROVISIONS OF THIS LDC SHALL APPLY TO ALL DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY, AND THAT'S ONLY FOUR SECTIONS AWAY PRIOR TO SECTION 1.0305.

SO, SO YEAH, I WOULD START THERE, BUT IF YOU HAD A TOTALLY IRRECONCILABLE CONFLICT, THAT WOULD BE AS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED.

SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT SECTION YOU'RE REFERRING TO, BUT I HAVEN'T SEEN IT.

SO IF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, FOR EXAMPLE, HAS A STANDARD OF WHICH IS PUBLISHED IN AN ENTITLEMENT, RIGHT, EIGHT UNITS PER ACRE, WHICH HAS PRECEDENT OVER THE OTHER.

SO IN THE DEVELOPMENT CODE, IF IT'S CONFUSING, OR DO YOU DEFER TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS A LAND USE? SO IN STATUTORY INTERPRETATION, WE USUALLY SAY THE SPECIFIC CONTROLS THE GENERAL, THAT'S A LONG STANDING METHOD OF OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION. AND IF YOU HAVE A GENERAL STANDARD THAT THIS IS THE MAXIMUM DENSITY AND THEN YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC STANDARD THAT'S MORE RESTRICTIVE, YOU APPLY THE SPECIFIC STANDARD. SO YOU'RE YOU'RE SAYING THAT AN LDC CAN REMOVE AN ENTITLEMENT FROM A PARTY THAT'S GRANTED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA? WELL, THE I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT, BUT THE LDC IS DESIGNED TO IMPLEMENT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT I ASKED.

WHAT I ASKED WAS IF ONE HAS A PREVAILING STANDARD OR ENTITLEMENT OVER THE OTHER, WHICH ONE DO YOU HAVE? WELL, SINCE THIS ONE SAYS IT APPLIES UNLESS IT'S SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED OTHERWISE, I DON'T THINK THAT'S SPECIFIC ENOUGH, SIR.

OKAY. SO YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT EIGHT UNITS PER ACRE DOES NOT APPLY? IT'S THE OUTER LIMIT.

IT COULD THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

IF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTS YOUR APPLICATION, YOU WILL HAVE THAT DENSITY AND THEY CAN BE RECONCILED.

THERE'S NOTHING INCONSISTENT WITH GOING TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

AND THEN IF THEY APPROVE YOUR PROJECT, YOU WILL HAVE THAT DENSITY.

SO THE SPECIFIC CASE OF REPLANTING IN THE IN THE PART OF THE LDC WHICH TELLS YOU HOW TO REPLANT IF SOMEONE COMES TO THE CITY AND YOU'RE THE CITY AND YOU TELL ME THAT THESE ARE.

THESE ARE YOUR TWO OPTIONS, THIS IS THE OPTION WE RECOMMEND UNLESS YOU'RE TRYING TO STUDY THE UNDERLYING PLATTED LOTS.

WELL, LET ME PUT IT THIS WAY.

THE 20 LOTS. NO, I'M NOT TRYING TO DO THAT.

I'M JUST TRYING TO MATCH THE COMPREHENSIVE.

LAND AND BE A GOOD GUY AND COOPERATE.

HELP CITY PRODUCE WHAT THE CITY'S VISION IS, WHICH IS TO MAKE MEDIUM DENSITY BY THE COMP PLAN, WHICH IS EIGHT UNITS PER ACRE OR MIXED UNIT ONE MIXED USE, ONE WHICH IS ALSO EIGHT UNITS PER ACRE.

IS THAT. YEAH, I WOULD I WILL ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, BUT I WILL START BY ASKING YOU A QUESTION AS WELL, WHICH IS A RHETORICAL QUESTION.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER IT, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW WHY SECTION 1.03.05 WAS ADDED TO PREVENT TEARING DOWN HOUSES ON LARGE LOTS AND BUILDING MORE DENSE STRUCTURES, MORE, MORE RESIDENCES.

THAT'S THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF IT.

AND MY BROADER ANSWER TO YOU IS THIS NO CODE OR STATUTORY CODE IS ADOPTED ALL AT THE SAME TIME.

OKAY. THERE.

RIGHT. THEY'RE ALL ADOPTED OVER TIME.

AND SO YOU ALWAYS HAVE THIS QUESTION OF POTENTIAL INCONSISTENCY OR TENSION BETWEEN PROVISIONS.

BUT AS I SAID, THE SPECIFIC GENERALLY GOVERNS THE GENERAL.

SO IF YOU HAVE A GENERAL STANDARD, BUT YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT, IF YOU WANT TO DO THIS, YOU GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

THAT'S SPECIFIC PROCEDURE GOVERNS THE LAND USE.

WE JUST DISAGREE ON WHAT WHICH ROUTE YOU GO.

I JUST CHOSE A DIFFERENT ROUTE BECAUSE THAT'S THE ROUTE I'M GIVEN BY THE CITY.

I UNDERSTAND. AND THE PLANNING, THE PLANNING COMMITTEE COMMISSION.

I LOSE AN ENTITLEMENT, RIGHT, BECAUSE I GO TO THE CITY.

THE CITY'S ADVICE TO ME IS TO DO A I FOLLOW A FOR ONE YEAR AND TWO MONTHS.

AND NOW NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN THERE'S A NEW RULE BOX OF MARBLES THROWN IN.

WELL, YOU CAN READ.

SO IGNORANCE OF THE LAW IS NO EXCUSE.

THAT IS A THIS IS IN THE CODE.

YOU WENT TO THE CITY AND ASKED THEM TO READ IT FOR YOU.

[03:40:02]

BUT YOU'RE AS A CITIZEN, ALL CITIZENS ARE PRESUMED TO KNOW, HEY, THIS IS NO LONGER CROSS EXAMINATION.

I APPRECIATE THAT'S AN ARGUMENT.

WE CAN HAVE THAT. THANK YOU FOR POINTING THAT OUT, COMMISSIONERS.

ALL RIGHT. WE THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE TO LEAVE IT HERE.

IS THERE ANY FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE WITNESS? WE HAVE THREE MINUTES AND 23 SECONDS.

ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE.

I THINK THAT IS IT. IS THERE ANY FURTHER WITNESS YOU WISH TO CALL? NO, WE'RE DONE.

UNLESS. MS.. KUSHNER, DO YOU HAVE ANY FINAL.

NO. ALL RIGHT.

SO WITH THAT, WE ARE NOW AT THE POINT WHERE MR..

MR. POOLE DO WE START WITH WE START WITH PUBLIC COMMENT AND THEN WE GO TO CLOSING ARGUMENTS.

IS THAT CORRECT OR DO WE DO CLOSING ARGUMENTS? SO AT THIS POINT, THERE WOULD BE A PUBLIC HEARING.

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THREE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES EACH.

UNDERSTOOD. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WHAT I'M GOING TO DO TONIGHT IS QUESTION.

COMMISSIONERS CAN QUESTION THE WITNESSES.

YES. OKAY.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS MAY QUESTION WITNESSES.

EXCELLENT. SO, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WHAT I'M GOING TO DO TONIGHT IS I'M GOING TO BRING UP SOMETHING THAT IS IT'S ALWAYS AN OPTION.

BUT TONIGHT, I WANT TO REMIND YOU OF THIS OPTION.

YOU ARE ALLOWED TO WAIVE YOUR TIME IF YOU SO CHOOSE.

IF YOU SO CHOOSE. YOU ARE ALLOWED TO DO IT.

AND AND SO I HAVE A I HAVE A STACK OF 2020, BUT 20 REQUESTS TO SPEAK.

WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, YOU ARE ALLOWED TO SAY I WAIVE IN SUPPORT OR I WAIVE AGAINST.

AND IF YOU SAY THAT WE WILL ALL KNOW AND THE RECORD WILL STATE THAT YOU WERE HERE TONIGHT AND THAT YOU ARE OPPOSED OR YOU ARE IN FAVOR, YOU ARE ALLOWED TO DO THAT.

YOU ARE, OF COURSE, WELCOME TO COME.

AND WE WOULD LOVE TO HEAR YOUR THREE MINUTES OF COMMENTS.

BUT IF YOU WISH TO SIMPLY WAIVE AN OPPOSITION, YOU CAN SAY I AM OPPOSED TO THIS AND IT WILL BE IN OUR RECORDS.

SO EITHER WAY, WE LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING YOUR COMMENTS TONIGHT.

SO I WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE WILL START WITH MISS JULIE FERRERO.

GOOD EVENING, JULIE. 0501 DATE STREET.

I LIVE THREE BLOCKS FROM THIS PROJECT.

FROM THIS PROJECT. AND OUR NEIGHBORHOOD HAS CHARACTER.

IT'S ECLECTIC.

WE'RE ON THE EDGE OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, WHICH ADDS SO MUCH TO OUR COMMUNITY AND TOWNHOMES.

AND A SMALL SUBDIVISION CERTAINLY CHANGES THE CHARACTER OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.

AS KELLY SAID BEFORE TONIGHT OR TONIGHT, THAT TOWNHOMES ARE NOT PART OF THE HISTORIC AREA.

AND THIS PROJECT CAN BE.

I DON'T SEE HOW THIS PROJECT CAN BE CONSIDERED STABILIZING THE CHARACTER OF THIS AREA.

I ALSO WANT TO MENTION THAT WE DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT WHAT THE DESIGN PARAMETERS ARE OF THIS PROJECT.

I'VE SEEN THIS HAPPEN BEFORE IN FERNANDINA, THAT IT GETS PASSED OFF TO ANOTHER DEVELOPER A WEEK AFTER THEY GET THE PERMIT THAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR.

SO WHAT YOU'VE SEEN, THE PUBLIC HASN'T SEEN THEM, BUT WHAT YOU'VE SEEN ARE PRETTY PICTURES.

IT'S HAPPENED BEFORE AND IT COULD HAPPEN AGAIN.

AND IN YOUR PACKET, THERE'S IF YOU LOOK IF YOU'VE DUG DEEPLY THROUGH YOUR PACKET, THERE'S THE MINUTES FROM THE DECEMBER 2006 PAB MEETING.

I WAS THERE THAT NIGHT IN 2006.

I SAT IN THE AUDIENCE.

I RESPONDED TO WHAT WAS GOING ON, AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE LANGUAGE OF 100 AND 305 WAS CAREFULLY CRAFTED TO PROTECT NEIGHBORHOODS FROM EXCESSIVE SPECULATION.

REGARDLESS OF HOW THE CITY PLANNERS AND THE DEVELOPERS NOW CHOOSE TO SPIN AND TWIST THE CONCEPT.

103 ZERO 517 YEARS AGO, THERE WAS A FEAR THAT ENTREPRENEURS WOULD PURCHASE EXISTING BUILDINGS AND HOUSES ON LARGER LOTS AND THEY WOULD TRY TO SPLIT THEM IN ORDER TO BUILD TWO OR MORE HOUSES.

THAT'S CLEARLY STATED IN A 2006 PAB MEETING IN DECEMBER.

IF YOU GO THROUGH IT AND LOOK, CATHERINE HARTLEY WAS THE SENIOR PLANNING PLANNING DIRECTOR AT THAT TIME AND SHE CLARIFIED THAT THAT NIGHT, THAT THIS ZONING AND LAND USE RESTRICTION WAS BECAUSE THE CITY DIDN'T WANT PEOPLE TRYING TO MAXIMIZE THEIR PROFITS.

A QUESTION WAS ASKED THAT NIGHT IF 103 EFFECTIVELY PUT UP A BARRIER TO ACTIVITIES LIKE PURCHASING OR OWNING LARGER LOTS WITH EXISTING BUILDINGS OR HOME AND THEN DEMOING THEM AND PUTTING UP SEVERAL STRUCTURES? AND THE ANSWER WAS YES.

AND ALSO ONE OF OUR CURRENT PAB MEMBERS, MARK BENNETT, HE SAT HE CONTINUES TO SIT ON THE PAB, BUT HE WAS THERE THAT NIGHT AND HE CLARIFIED THAT THE INTENT OF THE PAB AT THAT POINT IN TIME WAS TO ENCOURAGE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

[03:45:07]

MS. HARTLEY STATED THAT THE PROPERTIES OWNERS RIGHT TO BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS TODAY.

CAN I ASK A QUESTION? COMMISSIONER ROSS YOU'RE ALWAYS WELCOME TO ASK A QUESTION.

THANK YOU. HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD? MS.. BURKE SINCE 2003.

AND IS YOUR HOUSE THE SAME SIZE AS THE OTHER HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD? NO. AND DO YOU HAVE YOUR DOES YOUR DRIVEWAY ACCESS UNDER THE STREET? YES, SIR. I HAVE TWO DRIVEWAYS.

AND DO THE HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAVE DIFFERENT ARCHITECTURE? YES, SIR. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. WE WELCOME VICE MAYOR LEN KREGER TO THE PODIUM ON 1313 HICKORY.

THIS IS THE FOURTH TIME THAT I PUBLICLY SPOKE IN SUPPORT OF THE RULE OF LAW, WHICH THIS SHOULD GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.

AND IT'S REALLY THAT SIMPLE.

I MEAN, THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD IS A LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY ALSO RECOMMENDED THAT TWICE.

SO THAT WAS ALL I WAS GOING TO SAY.

I SELDOM USE MY THREE MINUTES, BUT SOMETHING DISTURBED ME THAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED TONIGHT.

AND I HAVE A FEELING FOR SOME REASON THE CITY STAFF FEELS IT IMPERATIVE THAT THEY SUPPORT THIS AND PUSH IT THROUGH.

SO AS REFERENCE WAS MADE TO SENATE BILL 102, WHICH IS THE NEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING LAW IN IN COMMENTS WERE MADE, THEY CAN BUILD 80FT THERE.

THAT'S NOT TRUE.

THEY CAN BUILD TO A HEIGHT THAT'S WITHIN A MILE.

THERE ARE NO 80FT AROUND HER.

SO WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? YOU KNOW, IT'S IT'S JUST A SCARE TACTIC TO TO CONVINCE YOU ALL, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT THAT THAT'S A BAD THIS IS THE BEST OPTION.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S GOOD OR BAD OPTION.

ALL I'VE ALWAYS SAID IS THE LAWSUIT SAID TWO ATTORNEYS.

THE LAW SAYS TO DO IT.

IT'S WHAT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO AND THEN GOES TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND THEY WILL MAKE AN APPROPRIATE DECISION AND GO FROM THERE.

IT'S SUCH A SIMPLE THING TO DO, AND I'M NOT EVEN A LAWYER.

THANK YOU FOR ASKING. OUR NEXT WE INVITE MISS BRYNN BYRON TO THE PODIUM.

ON DECK IS MISTER FRANK SANTRY.

SO GET READY, MISTER FRANK SANTRY.

BYRON 1438 SOUTH FLETCHER COMMISSIONERS.

SIR, I'M GOING TO READ THIS BECAUSE I TIMED IT FOR THREE MINUTES.

COMMISSIONERS, I'LL NOT WASTE YOUR TIME REPEATING WHAT'S ALREADY BEEN SAID TONIGHT ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF FOLLOWING OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

1.03.05. I WILL, HOWEVER, EMPHASIZE THAT THE NUMEROUS ERRORS AND MISTAKES THAT HAVE ACCOMPANIED THIS APPLICATION BRING TO MIND A SIMILAR SCENARIO NOT LONG AGO REGARDING AMELIA BLUFF, WHICH WAS BLAMED ON A SCRIVENER'S ERROR.

MISTAKES THEN, AS NOW, HAVE BEEN MADE AT ALL LEVELS IN THIS COMMUNITY AND IS QUITE FRANKLY, WE'RE GETTING TIRED OF IT. WE'RE TIRED OF THE LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY WHEN THESE TYPES OF ERRORS AND OVERSIGHT ARE JUST IGNORED AND SWEPT UNDER THE CARPET. WE ARE TIRED OF HAVING TO HIRE AND PAY ATTORNEYS OUT OF OUR POCKETS JUST TO GET THE CITY TO FOLLOW THE LAWS AND ORDINANCES ON OUR BOOKS, WHICH THEY WERE SWORN TO UPHOLD.

SOMETHING'S VERY WRONG AND BROKEN WHEN THIS PATTERN OF INEPTNESS CONTINUES YEAR AFTER YEAR WITHOUT CORRECTION.

IT CANNOT BE BLAMED UPON THE CHANGE OF ADMINISTRATION WHEN THE SAME PROBLEMS CONTINUE YEAR AFTER YEAR, EVEN WHEN A NEW ADMINISTRATION COMES INTO OFFICE LIKE YOURSELVES.

COMMISSIONERS, IT'S TIME TO TAKE A HARD LOOK AT THE SYSTEM ITSELF AND THE PERSONNEL ENTRENCHED IN THIS SYSTEM FOR ANSWERS. THE TAXPAYERS ARE TIRED OF SOME STAFF AND OTHER UNELECTED OFFICIALS SETTING POLICY.

WE DID NOT ELECT THEM.

WE ELECTED YOU.

THIS APPLICATION IS NOT ABOUT PROPERTY RIGHTS.

EXCUSE ME? WE ALL HAVE PROPERTY RIGHTS.

TO THE EXTENT THAT IT DOES NOT BURDEN OR ENCROACH ENCROACH ON THE PROPERTY RIGHTS OF OTHERS.

[03:50:08]

YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TONIGHT TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

FOLLOW OUR CODE.

THAT'S ALL WE ASK.

DO NOT LET YOURSELVES BECOME KNOWN AS THE FIVE COMMISSIONERS WHO PUT THE NAIL IN THE COFFIN.

DESTROYING THE HISTORY, THE LIFESTYLE, AND THE SUSTAINABILITY OF FERNADINA.

THERE IS A PLACE FOR EVERYTHING.

BUT THIS IS NOT THE PLACE FOR HIGH DENSITY HOUSING AND MORE CONGESTION.

THIS WILL NOT ENHANCE THE AREA IN AND AROUND OUR BEAUTIFUL CENTER STREET AND OUR MARINA.

THANK YOU, MISS BROWN. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. UP NEXT, WE HAVE MISTER FRANK SANTRY.

JUST A REMINDER, YOU YOU OBVIOUSLY YOU CAN TAKE UP YOUR FULL THREE MINUTES IF YOU SO CHOOSE, BUT YOU ARE WELCOME.

IT'S A THREE MINUTES IS THE LIMIT.

MISTER MAYOR, I MAY TAKE THIS PERSONALLY.

HAVEN'T YOU BROUGHT IT UP? JUST GO AHEAD.

THREE MINUTES. MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.

I HAD SEVERAL PAGES OF REMARKS TO ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, SIR FRANK SANTRY, 414 DATE STREET IN THE CITY LIMITS.

AND I'VE DRAMATICALLY REDUCED THEM IN LIGHT OF EARLIER COMMENTS.

SO JUST FOUR QUICK POINTS.

NUMBER ONE, YOU'RE DECIDING A CONTENTIOUS ISSUE.

I GET THAT. I'VE BEEN IN THIS POSITION AS A MEMBER OF THE PAB.

I KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE AND IT'S NOT TERRIBLY PLEASANT.

BUT I SUGGEST TO YOU ONE OF THE THINGS YOU NEED TO KEEP IN MIND IN FRAMING THIS DISCUSSION TONIGHT IS MOST OF THE PEOPLE YOU HAVE HEARD FROM TONIGHT HAVE ARGUED IN FAVOR OF THE STATUS QUO, THE WAY SOMETHING IS NOW AND HAS BEEN FOR A CONSIDERABLE PERIOD OF TIME.

ONLY THE APPLICANTS ARE ASKING FOR A CHANGE TO DO SOMETHING WHICH THEY'VE ACKNOWLEDGED BY THEIR VERY APPLICATION THEY DON'T CURRENTLY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO. KEEP THAT IN MIND.

NUMBER TWO.

THE CITY WITH RESPECT TO THIS EQUAL PROTECTION ARGUMENT THAT'S BEEN RAISED A NUMBER OF TIMES.

THE CITY IS NOT PART OF ARTICLE THE ARTICLE FIVE BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA.

I'M A MEMBER OF THE FLORIDA BAR.

FOR 48 YEARS I'VE ENGAGED IN CONSTITUTIONAL LITIGATION AND 20 YEARS OR MORE OF OF ADMINISTRATIVE LITIGATION.

YOU DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DECIDE WHETHER THE APPLICABILITY OF THIS LAW IS CONSTITUTIONAL OR UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

ARTICLE FIVE OF THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION AND THE SEPARATION OF POWERS PROVISION IN THE FLORIDA CONSTITUTION SAYS THAT DECISION GETS MADE BY COURTS, NOT BY YOU.

NUMBER THREE, A QUESTION CAME UP ON CROSS EXAMINATION ABOUT THE RULES GOVERNING HOW CONFLICT WOULD BE RESOLVED, AND SEVERAL GOOD ANSWERS WERE GIVEN WITH RESPECT TO THAT.

BUT ONE ITEM WAS OMITTED THAT I WANT TO CALL TO YOUR ATTENTION.

SECTION 1.05.01 OF THE VERY SAME CHAPTER OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SAYS EXPRESSLY NOT JUST THE GENERAL RULE OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION PROVISIONS SHALL BE LIBERALLY CONSTRUED IN FAVOR OF OBJECTIVES AND PURPOSES OF THE CITY.

THAT'S NUMBER ONE. AND THEY'RE STATED SPECIFICALLY IN 1.05.03.

BY THE WAY, THEY'RE EXPRESSLY STATED THERE.

WHAT THEY ARE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS SHALL BE FOLLOWED IN LIEU OF GENERAL PROVISIONS IN CONFLICT WITH THEM.

THAT'S THE WAY IT'S DECIDED IN THE VERY DOCUMENT THAT YOU'RE ADDRESSED WITH.

AND THIRD, AND THIS ONE IS IMPORTANT WHERE PROVISIONS CONFLICT WITH MORE STRINGENT RESTRICTIONS, THE MORE STRINGENT ONES APPLY.

SO EVEN IF THERE WAS A CONFLICT IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, THE ONE THAT IS THE MOST RESTRICTIVE, WHICH I REPRESENT TO YOU IN THIS CASE, IS CLEARLY THE ONE THAT PREVENTS THE RECONSTITUTION OF LOTS OF RECORD THAT HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED BY REASON OF OF COMMON BUILDING.

AND THE LAST ITEM.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

CAN I HAVE A QUESTION? WE HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR COMMISSIONER ROSS.

YES, MR. SANTRY.

DO YOU LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD? YES. HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ABOUT? I'VE OWNED THE PROPERTY THERE FOR ABOUT 11 YEARS, AND I'VE LIVED THERE FOR ABOUT SIX AND A HALF.

IS YOUR HOUSE THE SAME SIZE AS THE OTHER HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD? NO. WIDE VARIETY OF SIZES OF THE HOUSES.

THE HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAVE DIFFERENT ARCHITECTURE.

YES. AND DOES YOUR DRIVEWAY GO DIRECTLY ONTO THE STREET? YES. THANK YOU.

YOU'RE WELCOME. ALL RIGHT.

MISS JOYCE TUTON.

AND THEN ON DECK WILL BE MR.

[03:55:02]

JOHN CASCONE. PLEASE TELL ME THE NAME.

ADDRESS. HI, MY NAME IS JOYCE TUTON.

I LIVE AT 2120 BEECH STREET, AND LIKE I SAID BEFORE, I'M SIT ON THE BOARD FOR CONSERVE NASSAU AND WE STRONGLY OPPOSE, UM, THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

UM, I AM ALSO A NOAA CLIMATE STEWARD EDUCATOR, RETIRED SCIENCE HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE TEACHER.

I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE POSSIBLE FLOODING.

THE CITY STORM STORMWATER MASTER PLAN CURRENTLY CONTAINS DATA FROM OUR NOAA TIDE GAUGE RIGHT OUT HERE THAT IS SEVERELY OUT OF DATE.

IT'S FROM 2015, WHERE THE RATE OF SEA LEVEL RISE WAS TWO MILLIMETERS PER YEAR.

THE RATE OF SEA LEVEL RISE IS ACCELERATING.

WE ARE NOW 61%.

WE ARE RISING. THE SEA LEVEL IS RISING 61% FASTER THAN THAT EVERY YEAR AT 3.4MM PER YEAR.

THE TRINGALI PROPERTY SITS ON FOURTH.

ON THIRD STREET, IT SITS AT NINE FEET OF ELEVATION.

ON FOURTH STREET, IT'S TEN FEET FROM FOURTH TO FIFTH.

IT RISES FIVE MORE FEET.

IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE THAT THE APPLICANT WANTS TO DRAIN THEIR EXCESS WATER TO THIRD BECAUSE THAT'S DOWNHILL TOWARD THE WATER.

I SENT YOU ALL AN EMAIL OF A PHOTO OF THE TOWN TOWNHOMES RIGHT DOWN THE STREET RIGHT HERE ON DECEMBER OF A PHOTO TAKEN ON DECEMBER 15TH, 2022, JUST A FEW DAYS AFTER WE WERE ALL HERE.

AND I WAS WAITING, WAITING, WAITING FOR IT TO RAIN BECAUSE I WAS GOING TO RUN DOWN HERE AND TAKE SOME PICTURES BECAUSE I LIVE AT THE OTHER END OF THE STREET ON BEACH STREET.

THIS AFFECTS ME, LIKE IT AFFECTS EVERYBODY.

AND WE SUDDENLY GOT A SHOWER.

IT ENDED. I JUMPED IN THE CAR AND I RAN DOWN.

THERE WAS STANDING WATER ON THE ENTIRE PERIMETER OF THE PROPERTY.

I'M SURE EVERY PERSON WHO WORKS IN THIS BUILDING KNOWS THERE'S ALWAYS STANDING WATER DOWN THERE BECAUSE YOU PROBABLY TRY TO PARK AROUND HERE.

THERE WAS NOT A DROP OF STANDING WATER ANYWHERE ELSE THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF BEACH STREET.

AND I FOUND OUT LATER THAT THE 48 HOUR RAINFALL TOTAL AT THAT TIME WAS ONLY 0.13IN.

IT WAS ONLY A 10TH OF AN INCH OF RAIN IN THOSE IN A 48 HOUR PERIOD.

PRIOR TO THE PHOTO I TOOK WHERE EVERY CAR PARKED ALONG WAS STANDING IN WATER.

SO FOR CERTAIN, THIS WILL CAUSE MORE FLOODING ISSUES FOR CERTAIN, WITHOUT QUESTION.

AND WHO'S GOING TO PAY FOR THAT? WHO'S GOING TO DEAL WITH THAT? I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE CITY CONSIDER THEIR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 3.05 REQUIREMENTS REGARDING DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT.

QUOTE, PROVIDE FOR MITIGATION OF STORMWATER IMPACTS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT.

WE NEED TO FOLLOW OUR OWN LAWS, PLEASE.

THANK YOU. APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.

IT'S SUPER LATE. I HAVE TURTLE PATROL AT 6 A.M.

ON LITTLE TALBOT TOMORROW.

THANK YOU, MISS JOYCE. ALL RIGHT, MR. CASCONE. GOOD EVENING.

MY NAME IS JOHN CASCONE.

JENNIFER, MY WIFE AND I, WE LIVE AT 116 SOUTH FOURTH STREET AND HAVE LIVED THERE FOR 32 YEARS AND EIGHT MONTHS.

NEVER IN THAT 32 YEARS AND EIGHT MONTHS HAS THERE BEEN STANDING WATER ON THE EAST SIDE OF FOURTH STREET ACROSS FROM THIS PROPERTY.

SECONDLY, I'M ONE OF THOSE PORCH PEOPLE THAT MR. BROOKS REFERRED TO AND OUR PORCH AS CONSTRUCTED IN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE HEIGHT OF OUR HOME, WOULD BE UNDER THE TWO FOOT THAT THEY'RE GOING TO RAISE THAT PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET.

SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THEIR PROPERTY BEING HIGHER THAN MY PORCH, WHICH IS HIGHER THAN MY FLOOR LEVEL IN MY HOUSE.

WATER'S GOT TO GO SOMEWHERE.

A LITTLE BIT OF SCIENCE.

I KNOW. SAYS WATER RUNS DOWNHILL.

OKAY. I DON'T KNOW WHERE EVERYBODY WAS AT, MATTHEW, BUT I KNOW THE COLSONS WERE HERE AND I KNOW I WAS HERE.

AND I KNOW THAT WATER CAME UP INTO THE MIDDLE OF THE TRINGALI PROPERTY ALMOST IN PARTS OF IT, ALMOST UP TO FOURTH STREET.

THAT WATER COMES.

IF ASA GILLETTE DIDN'T KNOW THAT WATER WAS THERE, HE DIDN'T GO TO HIS OFFICE DURING THAT TIME BECAUSE HE WOULD HAVE SEEN IT.

OKAY. THERE'S YOUR ANSWER.

IT WAS THERE AND WE SAW IT.

AND SEVERAL OF THE POLICE OFFICERS AT THE TIME SAW IT BECAUSE THEY SAW ME WHEN I RETURNED TO THE ISLAND AND WAS AND WAS CLEANING MY DRIVEWAY FROM WHERE THE WATER AND STUFF RAN.

IT'S A MY HOUSE WAS BUILT IN 1879 AND IT WAS ORIGINALLY A 50 FOOT HOUSE.

MOST OF THOSE RAILROAD HOUSES WERE EITHER BUILT 50 FOOT LOTS, 25 FOOT LOTS, TWO STORIES OR 25 FOOT LOTS.

[04:00:03]

ONE STORY. MINE WAS ONE OF THE TWO WIDE OR 50 FOOT LOT BEFORE WE BOUGHT IT.

THE PEOPLE WE BOUGHT IT FROM HAD EXPANDED ONTO THE THIRD LOT BECAUSE THAT HOUSE HAD FALLEN DOWN.

SO WE ACTUALLY TOOK A 25 FOOT LOT THAT WAS ADDED TO OUR HOUSE.

THE HOUSE NEXT TO ME IS A TWO STORY, ONE LOT WIDE HOUSE.

GEORGE DAVIS, WHO SOME OF YOU ALL MAY KNOW, I KNOW HARRISON POOLE DOES.

I WOULD ASSUME BRADLEY AND DAVID DO.

FAMOUS HISTORIAN HERE IN NASSAU COUNTY.

HE TOLD ME THAT WAS ONE OF THE OLDEST HOUSES IN DOWNTOWN, IF NOT THE OLDEST HOUSE IN DOWNTOWN.

MY NEIGHBOR IS THE FOURTH GENERATION OF HER FAMILY TO LIVE IN THAT HOME.

HER PORCH IS UNDER THAT TWO FOOT LEVEL THAT MR. FLICK WANTS TO BUILD.

HE WANTS TO BUILD SOMETHING THAT EVERYBODY WANTS TO BE NEAR.

THEN LOOK AT SEASIDE IN THE GULF COAST, ON THE GULF COAST.

THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE WANT TO BE NEAR.

THEY DON'T WANT TO BE NEAR TOWNHOMES.

WHEN YOU LIVE IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT, WHEN YOU LIVE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD WITH NOTHING BUT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

THANK YOU ALL. QUESTION.

WE HAVE A QUESTION FROM MR. ROSS. SO, MR. CASTON, I TAKE IT YOU LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET.

THANK YOU. SO ACROSS THE STREET.

AND YOU'VE LIVED THERE 32 YEARS.

YOU SAID 32 YEARS AND EIGHT MONTHS.

IS YOUR HOUSE THE SAME SIZE AS THE HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD? NO, SIR. AS I SAID, IT HAD BEEN EXPANDED.

AND SO IT'S TRULY IT'S LARGER THAN ANY OF THE HOMES IN OUR BLOCK.

AND YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO OVER TO PROBABLY THE EAST SIDE OF FIFTH STREET OR SIXTH STREET TO FIND ANY OF THE HOMES THAT HAVE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE WE HAVE AND DO THE HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAVE DIFFERENT ARCHITECTURE.

OH, YES, SIR. AND ONE LAST QUESTION.

DOES YOUR DRIVEWAY GO DIRECTLY ONTO THE STREET? YES, SIR, IT DOES. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. MR. CASCONE, WE INVITE MISS SANDY CAREY TO THE PODIUM.

FOLLOWING SANDY CAREY WILL BE MR. PETE WILKING.

SANDY CAREY. 1255 FOREST DRIVE.

FERNANDINA BEACH.

EVERYTHING THAT I WAS GOING TO SAY HAS ALREADY BEEN SAID, SO I'M NOT GOING TO WASTE YOUR TIME.

I'M JUST GOING TO IMPLORE YOU TO DO WHAT EVERYONE HERE HAS ASKED YOU TO DO AND TO FOLLOW THE CODE.

FOLLOW THE CODE.

I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO MENTION THE PROPERTIES THAT WERE SPOKEN OF WHERE THEY SAID THE 1.0305 DIDN'T APPLY BECAUSE IT WAS ANNEXATIONS. YOU ALL HAVE A SYSTEM RIGHT NOW WHERE YOU HAVE THESE VOLUNTARY PETITIONS FOR ANNEXATIONS, SO THEY'RE NOT UNDER THE ZONING CODE OF THE CITY UNTIL THEY COME INTO THE CITY AND YOU HAVE AN AGREEMENT SYSTEM FOR THOSE PROPERTIES THAT WANT WATER.

AND I LIKE WHAT THE GENTLEMAN SAID EARLIER.

I WISH YOU'D JUST DO IT AN EASEMENT INSTEAD OF A WHOLE ANNEXATION PROCESS, BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE THE REST OF THE CITIZENS ARE SUBSIDIZING WATER FOR THOSE ANNEXED PROPERTIES.

BUT ANYWAY, THE POINT BEING THE 100 AND 305 DOESN'T APPLY TO THOSE PROPERTIES THAT WERE ASKING TO BE ANNEXED INTO THE CITY BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT IN THE CITY.

THEY MAY BE CONTIGUOUS OR THEY'RE NOT CONTIGUOUS.

AND UNTIL THEY ARE, THEY'RE NOT UNDER YOUR ZONING CODE.

SO THERE'S NO THERE'S NOTHING THERE.

ANYWAY, YOU ALL TOOK AN OATH OF OFFICE.

IT'S BEEN SAID OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

CODE 1.0 305 APPLIES.

IF IT WENT TO A HIGHER LEVEL COURT, MORE THAN LIKELY YOU WOULD WIN.

SO YOU SHOULDN'T BE AFRAID OF WHAT RISK MANAGE RISK THINGS THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY IS TELLING YOU.

THERE'S BEEN MORE THAN ENOUGH CASES CITED SHOWING YOU THAT.

SO I JUST WOULD IMPLORE YOU TO UPHOLD YOUR YOUR OFFICE.

I KNOW I'M NOT IN THE CITY, BUT WHAT HAPPENS IN THE CITY AFFECTS THIS ENTIRE ISLAND.

WE ARE AN ISLAND OF CITY AND COUNTY RESIDENTS THAT LIVE TOGETHER.

WE ALL FACE THE SAME TRAFFIC, THE SAME FLOODING ISSUES.

EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENS ON ONE AREA OF THE ISLAND HAPPENS IN THE OTHER.

SO PLEASE, JUST DO THE RIGHT THING.

THANK YOU, MISS CAREY. AND I DO APOLOGIZE TO THE CITY RESIDENTS COMING AFTER I WAS SUPPOSED TO PUT CITY RESIDENTS FIRST ON THIS.

SO WE INVITE MISTER PETE WILSON TO THE PODIUM NOW.

I THINK HE LEFT. ALL RIGHT.

WE INVITE COMMISSIONER MARSHA PHOTOPOULOS.

IS SHE STILL WITH US? SHE WAS RIGHT UP FRONT A SECOND AGO.

SHE WAS. SHE LEFT.

WELL, WE'LL MISS HER.

WE HAVE ONCE AGAIN MISS TERESA.

AND I SAID YOUR NAME WRONG LAST TIME, BUT DOMA.

DOMA, SHE LEFT.

EXCELLENT. NOT EXCELLENT.

IT'S. WE DON'T HIDE YOUR FEELINGS, BRADLEY.

WE WILL MISS.

WE MISS MISS TERESA.

ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A REQUEST FROM MISS JOE.

JOAN COREY.

[04:05:02]

MY NAME IS JOHN.

OH, NO. JOAN COREY AND I LIVE AT 408 BEECH STREET.

THE LOT IS 25 WIDE, 100 DEEP, AND MY HOUSE IS 18 WIDE AND 60 DEEP WITH ABOUT 1000FT² INSIDE.

IT'S GOT CLAPBOARD WOOD SIDING AND A TIN ROOF AND A POINTY ROOF IN FRONT AND AN ENCLOSED PORCH IN THE FRONT.

AND IF YOU DRIVE AROUND MY NEIGHBORHOOD ALL AROUND, THAT'S BASICALLY THE KIND OF ARCHITECTURE YOU SEE IN THAT RESIDENTIAL AREA.

NOW, I AGREE WITH THIS BUSINESS OF THE PROBLEMS THAT WE'RE HAVING COMPLYING WITH THE WITH THE FDA, THE THE THE DEVELOPMENT CODE.

AND I AGREE WE OUGHT NOT TO BE IGNORING IT.

BUT I HAVE TWO THINGS TO SAY.

IN THE EVENINGS, I LIKE TO SIT OUT IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE AND I WATCH THE CARS GO BY AND I WAVE TO PEOPLE AND I SEE ALL THE DOGS, WHATEVER THEY DO.

AND IT'S IT'S VERY INTERESTING AND IT'S FUN AND IT'S IT'S LIKE ENTERTAINMENT FOR ME.

BUT WHAT I NOTICE IS I COULD ALMOST COUNT THE CARS GOING BY.

WE HAVE GOT ON COMING UP AND DOWN ON BAY STREET FROM EAST TO WEST AND VICE VERSA.

WE'VE GOT SOME SEMI TRUCKS, WE'VE GOT BIKES AND MOTOR BIKES, WE'VE GOT MOTOR SKATEBOARDS AND OF COURSE, THE DOG WALKERS.

IT'S A BUSY STREET ALL DAY LONG AND WE DIDN'T HAVE A TRAFFIC STUDY FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT, WHICH COULD IF EVERY ONE OF THE UNITS HAD TWO CARS EACH, WE COULD, YOU KNOW, INCREASE IT BY 24 THERE AND WITH ANOTHER PROBLEM WITH THAT IS THERE'S ONLY ONE EXIT AND ENTRANCE TO THIS GARAGE PARKING FOR THESE PEOPLE. AND IF YOU HAD BEEN DOWN HERE ON SHRIMP FESTIVAL DAY, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ABLE TO GET INTO THAT GARAGE BECAUSE THAT STREET UP THERE IS PRACTICALLY PARKED CAR, PARKED, PARKED CAR.

SO I THINK THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE A SECOND EXIT, NOT ONLY FOR THAT REASON, BUT FOR FOR SAFETY, BECAUSE THERE'S ONLY TWO FIRE HYDRANTS CLOSE TO THIS DEVELOPMENT.

ONE IS ON THE CORNER OF THIRD STREET AND ONE IS ON THE CORNER OF FOURTH STREET.

AND THEN YOU HAVE TO GO ALL THE WAY UP TO ASH STREET BEFORE YOU SEE ANOTHER FIRE HYDRANT.

AND YOU'VE GOT, YOU KNOW, WHAT PEOPLE PUT IN GARAGES.

THEY THEY HAVE WOOD SHOPS.

THEY'VE GOT PAINTING STUDIO.

THANK YOU SO MUCH, MISS JOAN.

WE APPRECIATE YOU. OKEY DOKE.

I DO HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS. WE HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. ROSS. SO, MISS COREY, I'M GOING TO ASK YOU THE SAME OLD QUESTIONS.

DO YOU LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD? OH, OF COURSE. YES, YOU DO.

AND HOW FAR ARE YOU FROM THE SUBJECT? PROPERTY? 200FT.

200FT. AND IS YOUR HOUSE THE SAME AS THE OTHER HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD? OH, NO. OKAY.

IT'S. IT'S ONE OF THE SMALLER ONES.

ALL RIGHT. SO IT'S THERE ARE DIFFERENT SIZES, RIGHT.

BUT THE FACT THAT I ONLY HAVE 18FT INSIDE MEANS I DO HAVE A LITTLE DRIVEWAY THAT GOES TO THE STREET, AND THAT DRIVEWAY GOES RIGHT TO THE STREET, RIGHT? YES, IT DOES. GREAT. ONE LAST QUESTION.

ALL THE HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, DO THEY ALL HAVE DIFFERENT ARCHITECTURE? OH, YEAH. THEY'RE DIFFERENT, BUT THEY SAME HAVE THE SAME KIND OF OF DETAILS.

YOU KNOW, A PORCH.

THIS PORCH IS DIFFERENT FROM THIS PORCH.

ET CETERA.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MISS JOAN, WE DO HAVE ANOTHER REQUEST TO SPEAK FROM MISS MARY COLSON, SO PLEASE COME ON DOWN.

MISS MARY COLSON. I'M GOING TO DO THE FIVE MINUTES.

OH, WAIT, YOU'RE DOING THE. IF YOU'RE DOING THE REBUTTAL, IT'S NOT NOW.

SHE'S JUST DOING YOU'RE JUST DOING PUBLIC COMMENT, MISS MARY COLSON.

ALL RIGHT. YES.

HI, MARY COLSON.

EVERYBODY'S BEEN NAMING ALL THEIR QUALIFICATIONS.

I'M A RESIDENT.

I LIVE AT 111 SOUTH FOURTH STREET.

I BELIEVE. I GAVE A PICTURE OF MY HOME TO ALL OF YOU EARLIER.

YOU SEE IT? WE BOUGHT THIS HOME IN 2014.

IT WAS BUILT IN 1946.

IT WAS A CRACK HOUSE WHEN WE BUILT IT IN TERRIBLE DISREPAIR, JUST LIKE THE TRINGALI HOMES.

WE WERE TOLD WE LIVED IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT, BUT WHEN WE WENT CLOSE.

THING WE FOUND OUT WE WEREN'T, BUT WE STILL WANTED TO REMODEL THAT HOME TO MAKE IT FIT IN WITH THE THE HISTORIC HOMES ACROSS THE STREET FROM US AND ON THE

[04:10:10]

STREET, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT KIND OF DREW US TO DOWNTOWN.

AND I THINK IT'S WHAT DRAWS A LOT OF TOURISTS TO DOWNTOWN.

OTHERWISE, WE HAVE NO UNIQUENESS.

TAKING DOWN THESE FOUR TOWNHOMES TO CONSTRUCT OR TAKING DOWN THESE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES TO CONSTRUCT TOWNHOMES WILL TOTALLY CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF OUR QUIET STREET.

THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CALLS FOR PROTECTING THE INTEGRITY AND STABILITY OF ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND BEING SENSITIVE TO THE CHARACTER AND FORM OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS.

TOWNHOMES DO NOT FIT INTO THAT.

THE LDC ADDRESSES NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY ASSURANCE OF CONSISTENCY WITH RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS AND TREE CONSERVANCY.

MANY OF THE CANOPY TREES WILL BE REMOVED, INCLUDING LILY, THE ONE LIVE OAK TREE THAT SHELTERS AND PROTECTS MY HOME SIMPLY TO MEET DENSITY REQUIREMENTS.

THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL DID NOT INCLUDE REMOVAL OF THAT TREE JUST TO MEET DENSITY REQUIREMENTS.

THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE DOWN THIS HUGE TREE.

THIS PROJECT GOES TOTALLY AGAINST THE LCD GUIDELINES BY REMOVING THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER OF DIFFERENT, DIFFERENT LOT SIZES, SITE PLACEMENT, HEIGHT, ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES, EXISTING VEGETATION AND STREETSCAPE.

FOURTH STREET IS A QUINTESSENTIAL, ECLECTIC NEIGHBORHOOD.

FERNANDINA IS KNOWN FOR THE FEELING AND CHARACTER IS WHAT DRAWS TOURISTS TO OUR TOWN.

NOTHING IS COOKIE CUTTER AND ALL ARE DIFFERENT FROM ONE ANOTHER.

HOUSES ON THIS STREET ARE PLACED DIFFERENTLY ON LOTS, WHICH ADDS, AGAIN, UNIQUENESS.

YOU HEAR THAT WORD A LOT LATELY.

I'M CONCERNED ABOUT MY PROPERTY VALUE DROPPING.

IF THIS UNIQUENESS IS DESTROYED BY BUILDING THESE TOWNHOMES, LIVING ADJACENT TO MULTIFAMILY IS VERY DIFFERENT THAN LIVING NEXT DOOR TO SINGLE FAMILY AND WILL HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON ALL OF OUR HOUSES ON THIS STREET.

AND MY HOME VALUE, THE DESIRABILITY, THE INCREASED TRAFFIC, ALL THAT'S GOING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

OUR HOME IS NOT IN A PLATTED SUBDIVISION.

I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THE MASS OF CONSTRUCTION THAT'S GOING TO BE BROUGHT AND DROPPED OFF.

THE ELEVATION RAISED UP.

WE ARE RIGHT NEXT DOOR.

WE HAVE HAD NO PROBLEM.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I DIDN'T GET TO FINISH.

ALL RIGHT. AND FINALLY, I HAVE ONE QUESTION.

YEAH, WE DO HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR COMMISSIONER ROSS FOR YOU.

THIS YOU HAVE SEVERAL.

NO, ACTUALLY, YOU DID PRETTY GOOD COVERING THEM.

ONE QUESTION IS, DO YOU HAVE A DRIVEWAY? WE DO NOT.

NO DRIVEWAY AT ALL.

NONE. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MISS GOLSON. ALL RIGHT.

SO WITH THAT, WE DO HAVE ONE FINAL REQUEST TO SPEAK FROM RON FLICK.

MR. FLICK, WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO YOUR CLOSING COMMENTS INSTEAD, OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO ALSO TAKE THE CHAIRPERSON? I PROBABLY HAVE JUST A FEW THINGS, BUT WE HAVE EVERY PARTY GETS FIVE MINUTES FOR CLOSING, SO IF IT'S OKAY WITH YOU, I'LL YOU DON'T GO, DON'T GO NOW.

BUT I'M JUST SAYING IN A SECOND.

I'M JUST SAYING I'LL WAIVE YOUR FORM.

ALL GOOD. ALL RIGHT.

SO WITH THAT IN MIND, IS THERE ANY OTHER REQUESTS TO SPEAK ON THIS FROM THE PUBLIC? SEEING NONE. WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

AND WE ARE NOW MOVING ON TO OUR FINAL CLOSING STATEMENTS FROM ALL FOUR PARTIES.

MR. POOLE, WHAT ORDER DO THEY GO? THE SAME ORDER AS THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL THEY FINISH THEIR STATEMENT? NO, NO. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS FOR WHEN THE PUBLIC REQUEST TO SPEAK FOR THEM.

SO I BELIEVE WE KEEP IT OPEN FOR STILL A HEARING.

THE HEARING IS STILL BEING CONDUCTED.

GOTCHA. WE CLOSED THAT PART OF.

OKAY. ALL I DID WAS I CLOSED THAT SECTION OF IT.

HEY, WE'RE STILL HERE.

WE'RE STILL HEARING. DON'T YOU WORRY.

THAT'S NOT GOING TO END SOON.

OKAY, SO THE QUESTION IS THE ORDER.

IT'S GOING TO BE THE APPLICANT, THE ADVERSELY AFFECTED PARTIES OR THE INTERVENORS.

AND THEN CITY STAFF HAVE FIVE MINUTES EACH.

AND THEN AT THE DISCRETION OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, YOU, MR. MAYOR, THE APPLICANT MAY BE PERMITTED TO RESPOND TO THOSE OTHER COMMENTS FOR A MAXIMUM OF THREE MINUTES.

THANK YOU, MR. POOLE. WE WILL THEN START WITH MR. RON FLECK.

MR. MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS, THANK YOU.

AND TO ALL THE PEOPLE AND THEIR PATIENCE.

IT'S A LONG PROCESS, BUT AN IMPORTANT PROCESS.

I'LL BE QUICK AND BRIEF.

WE'VE GOT A FEW MINUTES.

THERE IS I FIND IT TROUBLING THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF COMMENTS CONCLUDED BY ATTORNEYS WHO STOOD HERE TO PROVIDE INPUT ON BEHALF OF INTERVENORS TO SAY THAT IT'S TO PREVENT EXCESS DENSITY.

[04:15:05]

I DON'T THINK I ASK FOR EXCESS DENSITY EVER.

MATTER OF FACT, I DID TRY TO DO QUITE THE OPPOSITE.

OUT OF ONE ITEM TOO CONCERNED ABOUT PARKING, JUST AS COMMISSIONER ROSS HAS ASKED SEVERAL QUESTIONS THROUGHOUT TRYING TO DETERMINE WHO PARKS ON THE STREET, I PRESUME, AND WHO HAS A FRONT ACCESS DRIVEWAY INTO THEIR GARAGE OR PARKING AREA.

THAT'S GREAT.

OUR INTENT WAS WAS TO PRESERVE AND MINIMIZE THAT, TO HAVE THE LEAST AMOUNT OF PERVIOUS SPACE MAKING US CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH SHOWS THAT WE ARE ONLY CONSUMING 41% IMPERVIOUS SPACE AND YOUR REQUIREMENT 60.

SO WE'VE TAKEN EVERY MEASURE TO DO THAT.

PRESENTED BY THE EX, ALSO THE.

FLOODING. THERE ARE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS MADE THAT I WOULD LIKE TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION BACK TO.

WE'RE NOT PUTTING AND THERE IS NO RETAINING WALL 360 DEGREES AROUND THIS PROPERTY.

AND LOOK A LITTLE STRANGE.

AND AND IT WOULD LOOK IT WOULD LOOK OFFENSIVE IF I LOOKED ACROSS THE STREET AND EVERYTHING'S UP ON A PEDESTAL.

HOWEVER, IT EVERYTHING THERE, THE IDEA IS TO CREATE A FRONT GREEN SLOPE GRASS AND A HOWEVER ALL OF THE IMPERVIOUS, THE IMPERVIOUS AREA THAT WE COLLECT OFF OF OUR ROOF SYSTEM GOES INTO COLLECTION SYSTEMS, ROOF RAIN LEADERS AND GOES INTO OUR WATER SYSTEM BACK ON THE BACK TO BE RETAINED AND PERCOLATE INTO THE SOIL.

SO IT DOESN'T ADD TO ANY WATER CONDITIONS.

AND THAT'S THE SCIENCE.

THAT'S WHAT WE PAY ENGINEERS TO DO AND THAT'S THE SCIENCE THAT'S BEEN PROVIDED.

IN FACT, THAT'S WHAT OUR WE HAVE A CURRENT PERMIT IN PLACE FROM THE WATER DISTRICT APPROVING THE SITE.

LIKE I SAID, WE HAVE NO RETAINING WALL.

OUR VIEW WAS TO RELY ON THE EXPERTS.

THAT'S WHAT I DO WHEN I COME TO THE CITY.

YOU CAN'T COME HERE LIKE YOU KNOW IT ALL.

THERE'S A LOT OF MOVING PARTS.

SO WHEN I ASK AND I GO TO THE CITY, I LOOK FOR THEM TO BE EXPERTS.

AND I RELY ON THE CITY STAFF WHO I THINK DID A VERY THOROUGH JOB AND EXPLAINED IT VERY CLEARLY TO ME.

AND THEREFORE WE TOOK THAT ROUTE AND FOLLOWED THAT FOR THE PAST YEAR.

BUILD SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

I'VE HEARD SEVERAL TIMES YOUR YOUR DEFINITION IN YOUR CITY ORDINANCE.

WE ARE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS WE ARE ATTACHED, WHICH MAKES US A TWO HOME TOWNHOME.

NOT NOT A ROW OF TOWNHOMES WITH NO WALL, NO AIR SPACE BETWEEN.

WE DID REPLANT.

THAT WAS WHAT WE CHOSE TO DO.

THAT WAS OUR OPTION OVER GOING TO SEEK UNDERLYING PLAT DENSITY.

WE DID NOT CHOOSE TO TAKE THAT ROUTE AND IT WAS NOT RECOMMENDED THAT WE TAKE THAT ROUTE.

THIS IS, AS WAS SAID, PROBABLY OUT OF PROBABLY 50 OR 60% OF THE MOST RECENT STATEMENTS MADE.

A LOT OF TIMES IT'S ALWAYS STATED THAT WE'RE NOT A HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT.

NO, WE'RE NOT A HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT.

WE ARE A MEDIUM DENSITY DEVELOPMENT.

EXACTLY. BY THE LAW, EXACTLY BY YOUR ORDINANCE AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 105.01 WHEN AND I APPRECIATE GEORGE WASHINGTON, UNIVERSITY EXPERT HERE.

MY DAUGHTER WENT TO SCHOOL THERE.

I PAID A LOT OF MONEY. I SHOULD HAVE CHECKED IN WITH HER, SEE WHAT SHE LEARNED FROM YOU, BUT I'LL DO THAT LATER.

POINT OF IT WAS, AND THE OTHER ATTORNEY THAT JUST SPOKE, WHO'S A RETIRED ATTORNEY FROM THE STATE, YOU REFERRED US TO 105.1 105.01 WHERE PROVISIONS OF THE LDC CONFLICT WITH OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE LDC, THE MORE STRINGENT RESTRICTION APPLIES.

I DON'T HAVE A DEBATE WITH THAT AND MR. FLICK, BUT I'M TALKING ABOUT BETWEEN AN LDC AND A COMP PLAN.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS, MR. FLICK.

OKAY, I'LL.

I'LL WAIT TILL REBUTTAL.

THANK YOU. OKAY. WE WILL INVITE THE NEXT ATTORNEY TO COME FORWARD FROM MR. COULSON'S CASE OR MOTION TO INTERVENE.

GOOD EVENING. THANKS FOR YOUR PATIENCE AND LISTENING TO EVERYTHING.

I'LL KEEP THIS REALLY SHORT.

JUST HIT A COUPLE POINTS.

SO THE QUESTION WAS RAISED BY THE APPLICANT WHAT CONTROLS THE COMP PLAN OR THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE?

[04:20:05]

THAT VERY QUESTION WAS ANSWERED BY THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT IN A CASE.

SNYDER VERSUS BREVARD COUNTY, SNYDER VERSUS BREVARD AT 627 SOUTHERN SECOND FOR 69 1993, FLORIDA SUPREME COURT CASE.

AND IT REALLY CHANGED THE RULES IN FLORIDA.

IT WAS IMPLEMENTING THE COMP PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND THE SUPREME COURT, AFTER EXPLAINING THE HISTORY OF THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT, SAYS THAT THE COMP PLAN ONLY ESTABLISHES A LONG TERM MAXIMUM DENSITY AND INTENSITY FOR THE USE OF LAND IS NOT DOES NOT A LONG TERM MAXIMUM.

IT DOES NOT CREATE AN IMMEDIATE ENTITLEMENT TO THAT MAXIMUM DENSITY AND INTENSITY, WHICH CAN CONTINUE TO BE MORE LIMITED BY THE ZONING AND IMPLEMENTING LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.

SO THE COMP PLAN, IF IT SAYS EIGHT, YOU CAN STILL BE MORE LIMITED THAN EIGHT BY THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

YOU DON'T GET THE WHOLE EIGHT.

I HAVE SEVEN COPIES OF ONE OF 3.0 5TH MAY BE HELPFUL TO HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU WHEN YOU DEBATE. REMEMBER ALL DEVELOPMENT ORDERS, INCLUDING PLATS, MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMP PLAN.

COMP PLAN POLICY IS 1 OR 2.06 TALK ABOUT COMPATIBLE AND CONSISTENT WITH ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS.

YOU KNOW THIS AREA I THINK IN YOUR HEAD WHAT IS THE ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IN THE AREA? IT TALKS ABOUT PROTECTING THE INTEGRITY AND STABILITY OF THE ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL AREA, RECOGNIZING AND BEING SENSITIVE TO THE CHARACTER AND THE FORM OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD THAT GETS THOSE QUESTIONS THAT COMMISSIONER ROSS ROSS ROSS IS ASKING.

GET EXCUSE MY STATEMENT, GET TO THAT.

YOU KNOW, WHAT IS THE ESTABLISHED RESIDENTIAL AREA? WHAT'S ITS CHARACTER, WHAT'S THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD LIKE? AND THEN OBJECTIVE 11.06 COMMUNITY CHARACTER.

IT SAYS COMMUNITY CHARACTER IS REFLECTED IN LOT SIZES, SITE PLACEMENT, HEIGHT, ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES AND EXISTING VEGETATION THE CITY SHALL STRIVE TO.

TO STABILIZE AND PRESERVE NEIGHBORHOODS AND ESTABLISH URBAN DESIGN STANDARDS WHICH PROTECT AND PROMOTE QUALITY OF LIFE IN ORDER TO PREVENT TEAR DOWNS, ENCOURAGE, REUSE AND THE POLICY. 11 0602 THE CITY SHALL EVALUATE NEIGHBORHOODS CONTIGUOUS TO THE HISTORIC DISTRICT AND EVALUATE STRATEGIES FOR REVITALIZING EXISTING STRUCTURES IN THESE NEIGHBORHOODS IN A MANNER THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THEIR ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT AND ALSO COMPATIBLE WITH ADJACENT HISTORIC RESOURCES.

AND THAT THAT LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTION 1.03.05 WAS ADOPTED AS AN IMPLEMENTING RESTRICTION LAND DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTION TO FURTHER THESE POLICIES.

SO I ASK YOU TO FOLLOW THAT LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND ALSO TO FIND THIS TO BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE COMP PLAN.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR.

BRING UP THE OUR NEXT ATTORNEY.

YEAH, I'LL BE VERY BRIEF.

I THINK YOU'VE HEARD ABOUT THE CASE LAW, THE SNYDER CASE IS VERY SIGNIFICANT.

THAT WAS JUST MENTIONED BY MR. BROOKS. IF THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT MADE THAT RULING, I HOPE YOU'LL LOOK AT IT AND ADHERE TO IT.

I JUST WANTED TO SAY ONE THING IN RESPONSE TO WHAT MR. FLICK SAID. I ACTUALLY FEEL LIKE YOU'VE OPERATED IN VERY GOOD FAITH.

YOU'VE WORKED VERY CLOSELY WITH THE CITY STAFF AND THE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENTS, BUT I THINK THE STAFF HAS LET YOU DOWN BECAUSE THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IS CLEAR AND IT REALLY SHOULDN'T BE UP TO THE STAFF.

THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE. BEFORE THIS QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEEDING, IT'S NOT UP TO THE STAFF TO CHANGE THE LAW.

AND 1.03.05 IS CLEAR.

AND FOR FOR THE STAFF TO SAY IT ONLY APPLIES WHEN YOU SEEK TO GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL PLAT, WELL, IT DOESN'T SAY THAT ON ITS FACE.

IT SAYS THE OPPOSITE.

AND THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, AS WAS MENTIONED BY MR. BROOKS SAYS THE OPPOSITE.

YOU KNOW, SO THERE'S REALLY NO BASIS FOR THE STAFF TO HAVE GIVEN YOU THAT ADVICE.

AND I'M SORRY THEY DID BECAUSE THEY MAY HAVE WASTED YOUR TIME.

BUT WHAT I WOULD ADVISE YOU TO DO IS TAKE THIS TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND I WOULD BIFURCATE YOUR PROPOSAL.

THIS IS JUST MY OPINION, BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH WOULD BE TO PROVIDE TOWNHOUSES OF THE TYPE YOU PROPOSE ON SOUTH THIRD STREET, BECAUSE THAT IS MU TWO AND IT IS FACING TOWNHOMES IN MU TWO.

SO IT WILL BE MUCH MORE CONSISTENT WITH THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.

BUT ON FOURTH STREET I WOULD PROPOSE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND THEY MAY ALLOW YOU TO BUILD 3 OR 4 OR WHATEVER THEY DECIDE,

[04:25:01]

BUT THEY COULD YOU COULD BUILD THEM AND YOU COULD MAKE THEM DISTINCT.

AS MR. ROSS SAYS, YOU COULD HAVE DRIVEWAYS FOR THOSE HOUSES, YOU COULD MAKE THEM IN KEEPING WITH THE CHARACTER.

AND I THINK YOU'RE MUCH MORE LIKELY TO HAVE THAT APPROVED.

WHEN I LOOK AT THE STANDARDS FOR VARIANCE UNDER THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

SO I HOPE THIS PROCEEDING WILL FOLLOW THE LAW AS WRITTEN, AND I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR.

WE INVITE CITY ATTORNEY TAMMY BACH FOR CLOSING COMMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY.

SACHSE CAME SECOND. SO ONE OF THE THINGS THERE WERE QUESTIONS ABOUT LIVING THAT SOME OF THE SPEAKERS ABOUT LIVING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE DEFINING AS NEIGHBORHOOD.

THEY SOME OF THEM ARE 3 OR 4 BLOCKS AWAY.

SOME ARE FIVE BLOCKS AWAY.

SOME ARE ACROSS THE STREET.

SO WE'RE TONIGHT.

I DON'T THINK ANYBODY REALLY GAVE A PICTURE OF WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS.

WE KNOW WHAT THE WELL, THE THE CITY STAFF PUT UP PICTURES OF SEVERAL BLOCKS AROUND.

AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY THAT LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WERE DESCRIBING WHAT THEIR HOMES WERE LIKE IN RESPONSE TO COMMISSIONER ROSS'S QUESTIONS.

THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS MADE UP OF DIFFERENT STYLES OF HOMES, DIFFERENT LOT SIZES, AND THAT IS CARRIED ALL THE WAY THROUGH.

TOWNHOMES ARE CONSIDERED UNDER THE CITY'S CODE AND REALLY DEFINITION IN FLORIDA.

THEY'RE SAYING THAT THEY ARE CONSIDERED SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

SO THESE ARE NOT CONDOS OF ANY KIND.

THEY ARE CONSIDERED SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

CITY STAFF IS NOT DRIVING ANY TYPE OF POLICY CHANGE.

THE CITY STAFF, THE PLANNING STAFF TOOK AN APPLICATION.

AND YES, THEY HAVE.

WHETHER OR NOT IT HAS BEEN WHAT OTHERS THINK SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE.

I AGREE THAT WE NEED TO CHANGE THE CODE AND CLARIFY HOW WE APPLY 1.03.05 AND HOW WE APPLY THE SUBDIVISION STANDARDS.

BUT WHEN 103.05 HAS BEEN APPLIED TO REQUIRE A VARIANCE, IT HAS BEEN WHEN THE UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD HAVE TO BE RESTORED AND ALL OF THEM WHERE THE BUILDING COVERS TWO OR 4 OR 6, ALL OF THOSE AND THIS APPLICATION IS NOT DOING THAT.

AND THE APPLICATIONS WHERE THE SUBDIVISION STANDARDS AND NOT A VARIANCE WAS APPLIED WERE THE EXACT SAME THING.

THOSE MOSTLY IN WHAT I CAN REMEMBER, THERE MAY HAVE BEEN OTHERS, BUT THEY'RE MOSTLY 25 BY 100 FOOT LOTS WHEN 103 ZERO FIVE IS APPLIED.

AND SO STAFF HAS APPLIED.

I'M HERE TO DEFEND WHAT STAFF HAS DONE AND SAY THAT I THINK WHAT THEY HAVE DONE IS WHAT THEY HAVE DONE IN THE PAST AND ALSO WHAT THEY SHOULD HAVE DONE IN THIS CASE, CONSIDERING THE ISLAND VIEW SUBDIVISION ANNEXATION.

ONCE THEY'RE ANNEXED INTO THE CITY, THEY'RE IN THE EXACT SAME POSITION AS HAS A NEAR HISTORIC DISTRICT HOMES THAT HAVE BEEN THERE.

THE ANNEXATION HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS.

SO ISLAND VIEW IS SIMILARLY SITUATED, IN MY OPINION, AND MY ADVICE TO CITY STAFF AND HOW THEY'VE CARRIED THEMSELVES IS THAT THERE IS A RISK THAT THERE'S AN EQUAL PROTECTION CLAIM.

AND I RESPECT MR. CLARKE AND MR. BROOKS, BUT I DON'T THINK ANY OF US COULD TELL WHAT A COURT IS GOING TO DO.

AND NEITHER ONE OF THEM HAS BEEN IN FRONT OF THE JUDGE THAT WILL SEE OUR CASES.

AND THE PROPERTY RIGHTS ELEMENT OF OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS GOING TO BE IMPORTANT ALSO IN WHETHER OR NOT THIS APPLICATION AND THE APPLICATION OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IS IS CONSISTENT.

SO WE HAVE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

YOU CAN BE STRICTER IN THE CODES, BUT THIS APPLICATION IS CONSISTENT AND THERE WERE MANY OF THE SECTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT CITY STAFF BROUGHT UP IN THEIR REPORT.

HOWEVER, THERE WAS NO COMMENT ON THAT FROM ANYBODY AND THE LIST FROM THE CITY IN TERMS OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMP PLAN WAS A WHOLE PAGE.

AND OTHER THAN THAT, WE'VE HEARD ABOUT 3 OR 4 OTHER SECTIONS AND THE SPEAKERS AND FROM THE INTERVENING PARTIES THAT ONLY A COUPLE OF SECTIONS YOU HAVE TO TAKE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS A WHOLE AND APPLY IT.

AND IT'S CONSISTENCY.

THIS APPLICATION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMP PLAN.

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT CITY AND STAFF AND I WANT TO HAPPEN HERE.

[04:30:02]

WE'RE DOING WHAT WE WERE HIRED TO DO.

AND SOME IN THE AUDIENCE HERE JUST DISAGREE WITH HOW WE'VE DONE OUR JOBS AND I HOPE RESPECTFULLY, BUT THAT'S OUR POSITION. THANK YOU, MISS BOK.

WE NOW INVITE THE APPLICANT, MR. RON FLICK, FOR HIS THREE MINUTES OF FINAL CLOSURE.

I APOLOGIZE FOR GETTING A LITTLE LONG WINDED LAST TIME.

I'LL TRY TO TRY TO KEEP IT IN THE BOX HERE.

I THINK THE PRIMARY THING TO REMEMBER HERE.

I'M GOING TO FINISH UP WITH RELEVANT TO THE FLOODPLAIN AND THE DENSITY COMMENTS WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT'S TRUE SCIENCE AND WHAT'S SOMEONE'S PERCEPTION OF WHAT MAY HAPPEN.

PLEASE UNDERSTAND THIS.

I AM FOLLOWING THE LAW WHEN I HAVE TO RAISE THE FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION OF MY HOME BY 2.4FT ABOVE THE FLOODPLAIN.

I THINK I'M SAYING THAT RIGHT? CORRECT. THAT'S WHY I'M AT 13FT.

ANY BECAUSE I DREAMED IT UP AND I WANTED TO OUTDO THE NEIGHBORS.

THERE'S NOTHING LIKE THAT.

WE'RE NOT INTO THAT.

IN FACT, I WOULD LOVE FOR IT ALL TO BE DOWN THERE.

BUT UNFORTUNATELY, WE GET A LITTLE WATER INSURANCE AND YOUR FLOODPLAIN MANAGER HERE.

AND YOUR POLICY AND YOUR RULES REQUIRE ME TO DO THAT, AND THAT'S WHY I'M ELEVATED TO THAT LEVEL.

THERE IS NO TRAFFIC STUDY BECAUSE WE DIDN'T TRIP THE WIRE.

WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH COUNTS IN PEAK HOUR TO TRIP ACCOUNT FOR A TRAFFIC STUDY.

SO SO TO SAY THAT WE SHOULD HAVE DONE THAT IS NOT NOT APPROPRIATE, NOT BY THE LAW AS SO MUCH QUOTED.

OTHER THAN THAT, I DO RELY ON THE FACT THAT WE BELIEVE THERE WAS ENTITLEMENT HERE.

WE PURSUED IT THAT WAY.

AND I THANK THE STAFF.

AND I THINK THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE GREAT COMPLAINTS.

I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO BE SURPRISED BECAUSE WHEN WE PRODUCE THIS THIS REPLATTED SUBDIVISION AREA BETWEEN THIRD AND FOURTH AND BEACH, YOU WILL SEE THE CHARACTER OF THE DORMERS, THE THE OUTDOOR PORCHES, THE FRONT PORCH.

WE ACTUALLY HAVE A COUPLE OF BALCONIES ON EACH UNIT, THINGS LIKE THAT, AND FRONT PORCHES WITH PICKETS, BRACKETS, RELIEFS, SHUTTERS, ALL THE THINGS THAT WE CAN DO TO GIVE IT CHARACTER THAT YOU WILL BE PROUD TO HAVE THIS IN YOUR CITY.

AND THAT'D BE YOU. I TRUST YOU AND YOUR CONFIDENCE IN MY ABILITY TO MAKE A SOUND DECISION SUBJECT TO ANY QUESTIONS.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

THANK YOU, MR. FLICK.

ALL RIGHT, SO NOW ON MY LIST OF PROCEDURES FOR THIS CASE WE DISCUSS, THEN THERE'S A MOTION TO CLOSE THE HEARING.

THANK YOU, MR. ROSS. NOW, AS I DID EARLIER, I WILL NOW OFFICIALLY CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

SO THERE WE GO. NOW IT IS TIME.

YES, COMMISSIONER ROSS. AND GOOD THING YOUR LIGHT IS ON BECAUSE IT IS TIME NOW FOR COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION.

SO LET'S KICK THINGS OFF WITH COMMISSIONER ROSS.

SO I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS OF OUR ATTORNEY.

FIRST OF ALL, THE HEARING IS CLOSED AND THERE'S NO MORE TESTIMONY, CORRECT? THAT IS, UNLESS IT IS REOPENED UNDER THESE RULES, QUASI JUDICIAL.

I'M ACTUALLY THINKING ABOUT REOPENING THE HEARING.

SO. OKAY.

JUST JUST THE PRESIDING OFFICER SHALL HAVE THE DISCRETION TO REOPEN THE PROCEEDING FOR ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY OR ARGUMENTS. SO, I MEAN, THERE IS POSSIBILITY.

POSSIBILITY. OKAY.

SO I ALSO WANT TO UNDERSTAND, THIS IS A QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING.

SO IF THE APPLICANT DEMONSTRATES THAT THE PLAT MEETS ALL THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS, IT MUST BE APPROVED.

IS THAT CORRECT? IF IF THAT IS SHOWN BY COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE? CORRECT. AND IF THE APPLICANT DOES NOT MEET THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS BY COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, IT MUST BE DENIED.

CORRECT? RIGHT.

AND BY AND THE ONLY COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE WAS WHAT WAS PRESENTED TONIGHT.

WHAT'S IN THE RECORD AS IT WAS PRESENTED TONIGHT.

SO YOU HAVE TO TAKE WHAT WAS GIVEN TONIGHT.

AND ANY DECISION WE MAKE HAS TO BE BASED ON THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE THAT'S IN THE RECORD.

IS THAT CORRECT? GREAT.

AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE APPLICANT, CORRECT? CORRECT. AND THE FINAL DECISION, AS WE JUST SAID, MUST BE BASED ON COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

AND COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CAN COME FROM ANYONE AS LONG AS IT'S FACT BASED STATEMENTS OR STUDIES PRESENTED BY EXPERTS OR FACT BASED STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY CITIZENS.

CORRECT? YES.

[04:35:06]

THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS OF YOU.

ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONER. ITS FLOOR IS OPEN.

COMMISSIONER. DISCUSSION. SO, COMMISSIONER ROSS, DO YOU WISH TO DISCUSS OR IT LOOKS LIKE COMMISSIONER ANTON.

GO AHEAD. YEAH.

ATTORNEY MR. POOL, I THINK REALLY WHAT I'M HEARING IS THE ULTIMATE CLASH OF OUR INTERVENERS ATTORNEY'S OPINION AND INTERPRETATION OF 100 305, AND THEN OUR CITY ATTORNEY'S INTERPRETATION OF HOW WE'VE HANDLED IT.

AND BECAUSE I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY, I'D LOVE TO HAVE YOUR OPINION ON ULTIMATELY, DOES THAT CREATE A STALEMATE? IS ONE PREVAILING OVER THE OTHER? WHAT'S WHAT'S YOUR OPINION ON THIS MATTER? OKAY, COMMISSIONER ANTON, I HAVE A VERY, VERY BRIEF SLIDESHOW THAT I'VE PREPARED TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION BASED ON WHAT MY OPINION IS AND MY I SEE BRIEF.

IT'S FIVE SLIDES.

SO BEFORE I GET THE GROANS FROM THE AUDIENCE, IT WILL BE VERY BRIEF IF I CAN FIGURE THIS OUT.

OKAY.

THE BEST WAY IS TO GET ONE OF THEM TO HELP YOU.

I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY.

AND THIS IS THIS IS WARMING UP THE SPEAKER.

THE SPEAKER. THE PROJECTOR TAKES A SECOND.

A GOOD QUESTION.

YOU HAD YOU HAD A SLIDE SHOW FOR THIS.

ARE WE WAITING ON SOMETHING? IT'S OLD.

I'M SORRY. I UNDERSTAND THAT CONCEPT, WHICH IS 59 MORE MINUTES.

WE MIGHT HIT IT. I'M ACTUALLY.

OKAY, SO. OKAY, SO WHILE WE'RE.

WHILE WE'RE WAITING ON THIS PROJECTOR TO WARM UP.

NEVER MIND. LET'S GO.

LET'S GO. ALL RIGHT, SO WE'RE JUST GOING TO GO THROUGH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND WHERE THERE ARE SOME APPLICABLE PORTIONS AND THIS PERCEIVED CONFLICT BETWEEN THE TWO OF THEM, AND ONE IS STARTING ONE OF 303.

AND THIS IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT ADDS A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT.

IT SAYS, AS A MATTER OF RIGHT, A PERSON HAS THE ABILITY TO BUILD A RESIDENCE ON A SUBSTANDARD PLAT LOT OF RECORD.

AND THAT'S BECAUSE A LOT OF OUR ORIGINAL PLATTED LOTS DON'T MEET THE CURRENT REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE FOR IT.

AND SO WHEN 103 05110305 WAS ADOPTED, IT WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE DIFFERENT SITUATIONS WERE ACCOUNTED FOR.

BUT IF THERE WAS ALREADY CONSTRUCTION, THEN YOU AREN'T GETTING MORE OF THAT ON THOSE SUBSTANDARD LOTS WHEN YOU LOOK IN SECTION FOUR.

THIS IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT SAYS SECTION 404 ZERO ZERO REGULATES THE SUBDIVISION OR RE SUBDIVISION OF LAND.

AND THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE IN THIS CASE.

THIS IS NOT RESTORING AN UNDERLYING PLAT OF A PLATTED LOT.

THIS IS A NEW SUBDIVISION.

SO IT IS EFFECTIVELY DESTROYING WHAT THE ORIGINAL LOTS WERE AND REPLACING THEM.

AND SO OUR CODE SAYS SECTION 4004 REGULATES RE SUBDIVISION OF LAND.

AND THERE ARE A LOT OF REQUIREMENTS THAT GO ALONG WITH IT IN ADDITION TO OR DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

THERE WAS ONE SECTION AND I BELIEVE IT WAS I FORGET WHO BROUGHT THAT UP, BUT THEY SKIPPED OVER THIS ONE PROVISION IN CHAPTER ONE WHERE IT SAYS SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF THIS LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SHALL BE FOLLOWED IN LIEU OF GENERAL PROVISIONS THAT MAY BE IN CONFLICT WITH THE SPECIFIC PROVISION.

SO IT'S MY MY OPINION, LEGAL OPINION THAT WHERE YOU HAVE A SECTION THAT SAYS THIS CONTROLS REGULATES SUBDIVISION OR RE SUBDIVISION, IF THERE'S A CONFLICT, THE SPECIFIC PORTION CONTROLS AND WHY THAT BECOMES SIGNIFICANT IS WHEN YOU LOOK IN CHAPTER 11, WHO HAS THE AUTHORITY, THE JURISDICTION TO HEAR A PRELIMINARY OR FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT? WE HAVE A PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT HERE AND THAT IS ONLY VESTED IN THE CITY COMMISSION.

SO MY OPINION IS THIS CAN'T GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

IT HAS TO BE YOUR DECISION.

NOW WHETHER YOU FIND THAT IT CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN MET AND THAT IS SUPPORTED BY A SUBSTANTIAL AND COMPETENT EVIDENCE.

THAT'S ENTIRELY YOUR PURVIEW.

BUT MY OPINION IS WE'RE IN THE PROPER PLACE FOR THIS.

THANK YOU, MR. PAUL. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER ANTHONY.

I THINK YOU PRETTY MUCH ANSWERED THAT QUESTION, BUT MY FOLLOW UP WAS JUST GOING TO BE THAT, ACCORDING TO COMMISSIONER ROSS'S QUESTION, DO YOU BELIEVE IN YOUR LEGAL OPINION THAT THIS APPLICANT SATISFIES ALL NECESSARY PROCESSES, OR DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE IMPARTIAL SATISFACTION?

[04:40:06]

THAT'S TOTALLY THAT'S NOT REALLY MY ROLE IN THIS.

I DON'T GET A VOTE.

MY OPINION, FRANKLY, DOESN'T MATTER.

IT'S YOU GOT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN YOU MAKE A DECISION AND YOU MAKE A MOTION, THAT THAT DECISION IS SUPPORTED BY COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, WHETHER THE APPLICANT HAS MET THAT BURDEN OR NOT, WHETHER I FOUND I BELIEVE THEM, IT REALLY IS NOT RELEVANT.

THANK YOU, MR. PAUL. ALL RIGHT.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, COMMISSIONER ROSS? SO I'D LIKE TO GO THROUGH A LOT OF THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS IN THE THIS HAS TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

IS THAT CORRECT? MR. POOLE WELL, IT DEPENDS BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME INCONSISTENCIES WITH THE COMP PLAN FOR IT.

AND MY OPINION IS THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IS THE CARRYING OUT THOSE PROVISIONS OF THE COMP PLAN.

SO IF YOU FIND COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH IS IMPLEMENTING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THEN YOU CAN FIND THAT WAS SUPPORTED BY COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. SO IT CAN BE YOU CAN HAVE SOMETHING IN THE IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT SAYS IT'S OKAY, BUT THERE'S A WHOLE BUNCH OF THINGS IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT IT DOESN'T COMPORT WITH.

HOW DOES THAT WORK? WELL, IT'S MORE OF A FACTUAL DETERMINATION.

IT'S A KIND OF A TOPIC BY TOPIC BECAUSE A LOT OF THINGS IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ARE GOALS.

IT USES LANGUAGE LIKE, YOU SHALL STRIVE TO THIS, YOU SHALL EVALUATE, YOU SHALL DO THINGS LIKE THAT.

THEY AREN'T HARD AND FAST RULES.

AND SO IT'S HARD TO TO SAY A BLANKET STATEMENT THAT, YES, YOU HAVE TO COMPLY WITH ALL OF THOSE BECAUSE IT REALLY ISN'T PRACTICAL OR POSSIBLE.

OKAY. SO, FOR INSTANCE, THERE WAS NO COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ON THE RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THE PROPOSED PLANT PRESERVES OR ENHANCE THE IDENTITY DESIGN AND VALIDITY OF THE SURROUNDING DOWNTOWN CORE AS REQUIRED BY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY.

1.02.12. THERE WAS NO COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD TO SUBSTANTIALLY SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE PROPOSED PLAT REFLECTED THE CHARACTER OF THE COMMUNITY BASED ON THE LOT SIZES, HOUSE SIZES, SITE PLACEMENT AND ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES AS REQUIRED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE OBJECTIVE COMMUNITY CHARACTER. I DON'T BELIEVE THERE WAS ANY COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT.

THE PROPOSED PLAT COMPATIBLE DESIGN WITH THE EXISTING SURROUNDING HISTORIC DISTRICT IS REQUIRED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY.

11.06. I DON'T BELIEVE ON THE RECORD THERE WAS ANY COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE.

THE PROPOSED PLAT RECOGNIZES THE IMPORTANCE OF STRUCTURES CONSTRUCTED IN THE LAST 50 YEARS AND ENCOURAGES EFFORTS TO PROTECT SIGNIFICANT EXAMPLES OF THESE STRUCTURES AS REQUIRED BY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY.

11.030 .11.

I DON'T BELIEVE THERE WAS ANY COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT.

THE PROPOSED PLAT ACHIEVES A REDUCTION IN VEHICULAR TRIPS WITH VEHICULAR TRIPS ON ARTERIAL ROADS AS REQUIRED BY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY. 1.0203.

I DON'T BELIEVE THERE IS ANY COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD THAT THE PROPOSED PLAT PREVENTS THE PROLIFERATION OF URBAN SPRAWL AS REQUIRED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY. 1.0203.

I DON'T THINK THERE WAS ANY COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD THAT THE PROPOSED PLAT PROTECTS THE PRIVACY AND ACCESS TO LIGHT AND AIR AND OPEN SPACE AS REQUIRED BY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY.

1.02.10. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS ANY COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THE REDEVELOP AND INFILL DEVELOPMENT IN THE RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THE EXISTING PROPERTIES OR BLIGHTED STRUCTURES AND USES.

THERE WAS NO COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO RECORD THAN ANY OF THE CURRENT PLATTED.

LOTS OR RECORD OR NON-CONFORMING LOT SIZE THEREFORE POLICY 1.0504, WHICH WAS PUT ON BY THE CITY, DOES NOT APPLY TO THE PROPOSED PLAT.

THERE WAS NO COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD THAT THE PROPOSED PLAT ENCOURAGED A RANGE OF HOUSING PATTERNS AS REQUIRED BY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY.

1.604. THERE WAS NO COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD THAT THE PROPOSED PLAT MAINTAINS AND ENHANCES THE EXISTING CONVENTIONAL SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD AS REQUIRED BY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY.

1.0606. THERE WAS NO COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO RECORD THAT THE PROPOSED PLAT MEETS EIGHT OF THE 14 TRADITIONAL URBAN DESIGN STANDARDS REQUIRED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY.

1.0609. THERE WAS NO COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD THAT THE PROPOSED PLAT DISCOURAGES DEMOLITIONS AND ENCOURAGES REHABILITATION AND REUSE AND MAINTENANCE OF EXISTING HOMES, AS IS REQUIRED BY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 3.0205.

[04:45:03]

THERE WAS NO COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE.

THE PROPOSED PLAN EXPLORES STRATEGIES FOR PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC RESOURCES AND PROPERTIES AS REQUIRED BY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY.

11.0301. AND THERE WAS NO COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD THAT THE PROPOSED PLAT ENSURES DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO HISTORIC DISTRICT COMPLEMENTS THE PATTERNS, CHARACTER AND SCALE OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT AS REQUIRED BY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 11.0601.

IN FACT, IS THERE.

WE HAD MANY OF OUR CITIZENS TESTIFY THAT IT DID NOT MEET THAT STANDARD.

THERE WAS NO COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD THAT THE PROPOSED PLOT EVALUATED STRATEGIES FOR REVITALIZING OF EXISTING STRUCTURES IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THEIR ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE CONTIGUOUS HISTORIC DISTRICT AS REQUIRED BY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY.

1.0203. FINALLY, THERE WAS NO COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD THAT THE PROPOSED PLAT ENCOURAGES PROTECTION, PRESERVATION AND REVITALIZATION OF HISTORIC NON DESIGNATED STRUCTURES AS REQUIRED BY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY.

11.0801. SO I FEEL THAT MANY PARTS OF THIS ARE NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND IT SHOULD BE DENIED.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER ROSS.

ANY ANY. FURTHER COMMISSIONER COMMENTS.

ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR ATTORNEY POOLE.

SO WE NEED TO SHOW COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE FOR IT TO BE APPROVED OR OR LACK OF IT WOULD BE, BUT COMPETENT, JUST COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF WHAT? THAT IT JUST BACKS UP THE LDC IN GENERAL OR BACKS UP OR ANY SPECIFIC PART OF IT, JUST THAT IT IS COMPLIANT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

UNDERSTOOD. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT.

HISTORICALLY, I WOULD TALK LAST.

DO ANY COMMISSIONERS WANT TO GO AHEAD OR SHOULD I CLOSE OUT THE DEBATE? ALL RIGHT. WELL, THEN I'LL LOOK AT WHAT I'M SEEING HERE.

AND I'LL TELL YOU THAT WHEN I READ 1.030.05, I SEE THE PICTURE THAT WAS PUT UP BY CITY STAFF AT THE BEGINNING.

AND WHEN I SEE IT APPLIED, WHAT THAT WOULD MEAN TO ME IS THAT WHEN A BUILDING TOUCHES MULTIPLE OF THOSE HISTORIC LOTS, IT LOCKS THEM ALL OUT. THAT'S WHAT THAT MEANS WHEN IT SAYS HERE, IT HOLDS THEM TOGETHER.

AND FOR THAT REASON, THAT IS WHY WHEN THAT PICTURE IS IS UP THERE, IT SHOWS THAT THERE ARE 12 EXISTING LOTS.

THAT'S WHAT'S CURRENTLY THERE RIGHT NOW.

WITHOUT COMING TO TALK TO US AT ALL, THE APPLICANT COULD GO AND BUILD 12 UNITS TODAY.

THAT'S WHAT THEY COULD GO DO RIGHT NOW.

THAT'S WHAT I'M SEEING. THAT'S WHAT THEY COULD GO DO.

RIGHT NOW. WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR IS A REPLAT AND THIS REPLAT WILL PROMPT THEM TO EQUAL OUT THE SIZE OF THE LOTS AND MAKE WHAT AND MAKE SOMETHING THAT I THINK FITS THE CHARACTER MORE THAN HAVING A JUMBLED MESS OF MULTIPLE, MULTIPLE THINGS ON TOP OF THAT DON'T ADD ANY VALUE TO THE PUBLIC SPACES LIKE SIDEWALKS, STREET PARKING AND AND SEWAGE IMPROVEMENTS, WHICH IS GOING TO BE PART OF THIS PROJECT, THE SEWER.

FOR THOSE REASONS, I THINK THERE IS COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THIS DOES IMPROVE OUR DOWNTOWN AND FITS WITH OUR LDC AND OUR COMP PLAN.

FOR THAT REASON, I AM I AM RIGHT NOW.

THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. I'M I'M ESSENTIALLY TELLING YOU HOW I'M GOING TO VOTE.

SO WITH THAT, IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE WE HEAR A MOTION, I GUESS THE LIGHTS ON COMMISSIONER ASK YOU.

THANK YOU. ARE YOU OKAY? I AGREE WITH YOU, MAYOR.

I WILL SAY THAT I BELIEVE THAT THIS IS A SUBDIVISION, AS IT WAS DESCRIBED BY MR. POOLE. THAT'S GOING TO FALL COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAN A10305.

I BELIEVE THAT THERE'S COMPETENT AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THIS FALLS UNDER AND COMPLIES WITH THE THE COMP PLAN AND THE LDC.

ALL RIGHT. SO MORE DISCUSSION.

DO I HEAR A MOTION? WHAT I'D LIKE TO HEAR WHAT THE COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE WAS THAT THIS IS SIMILAR TO THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

ANYONE WANT TO RESPOND, COMMISSIONER ANTON? ONE THING I CAN SAY THAT DOES QUALIFY IS THAT WE'VE NOT INCREASED DENSITY, EVEN THOUGH THERE'S BEEN COMMENTS ABOUT INCREASED DENSITY.

THESE ARE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

THE PICTURES THAT I WAS SHOWING, WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S THE EXACT DESIGN THAT COMES OUT, I DO BELIEVE HAS BEEN MADE AS BEST AS POSSIBLE TO MATCH CHARACTER.

WHAT WE'RE SHOWN IS NOT IN THE RECORD, SO YOU CAN'T USE THAT.

FAIR ENOUGH. WELL, AT LEAST WHAT WE SEE AS FAR AS A FLOOR PLAN.

[04:50:01]

THERE'S NO FLOOR PLAN IN THE RECORD.

THERE WAS ONE WHAT WE LOOKED AT AS FAR AS THE SITE PLAN.

THOSE WERE JUST BOXES.

CORRECT. RIGHT. SO AS FAR AS NOT MAXING OUT, PERVIOUS SURFACE, OFFERING GREEN SPACES, OFFERING SETBACKS, I THINK THEY'VE DONE A FAR BETTER JOB THAN THE ADJACENT TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT.

THAT'S MY PERSONAL OPINION.

ALL RIGHT. I'LL HEAR A MOTION.

I MOVE TO DENY, BASED ON THE COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD.

AND AS I QUOTED IN WHAT I PREVIOUSLY SAID, THAT I DO NOT BELIEVE IT NEEDS THE COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND IT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. 1.0305.

THAT MOTION FAILS DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND.

VICE MAYOR STURGIS, I'VE HEARD A LOT OF DISCUSSION, AND I'LL BE VERY BRIEF DUE TO THE HOUR.

I BELIEVE THAT MR. FLICK HAS MADE AN ATTEMPT TO DO THE RIGHT THING, AND HE HAS MADE AN ATTEMPT TO FOLLOW OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND OUR COMP PLAN.

BASED ON THAT, I'M RECOMMENDING APPROVAL.

I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAT AS PRESENTED WITH COMPETENT EVIDENCE.

DO I HEAR A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.

I HEAR A MOTION AND A SECOND CITY CLERK.

WILL YOU PLEASE CALL THE VOTE? VICE MAYOR STURGIS.

YES, COMMISSIONER.

NO. COMMISSIONER ANTON.

AND I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE ATTORNEY.

MOTION CARRIES 4 TO 1.

FOR OUR ATTORNEY OR FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY? NO, FOR OUR ATTORNEY.

MR.. SO THEY JUST MADE A MOTION, BUT THEY DIDN'T.

AND I'VE BEEN TO MANY, MANY HEARINGS AND THEY DID NOT LIST THE COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

THEY DID NOT SAY THEY JUST SAID IT MET IT DID NOT LIST OUT WHAT THE COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE WAS.

IS THAT APPROPRIATE? AS A GENERAL RULE, I WOULD RECOMMEND TO LIST OUT THAT COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

IS IT NECESSARILY A REQUIREMENT? IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT GOES TO REVIEW, THE ENTIRE RECORD BECOMES AVAILABLE ON CERTIORARI REVIEW TO THE CLERK, TO THE CIRCUIT JUDGE THAT WOULD BE ASSIGNED TO IT, AND THEY'D BE ABLE TO DETERMINE, BASED ON THAT REVIEW, WHETHER OR NOT THE DECISION WAS SUPPORTED BY COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

BUT DOES THE DECIDER NEED TO LIST WHAT THEIR COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE? BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE PROBLEM THAT WE HAD ON THE BRETT'S CASE THAT DID NOT PUT IN THE COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE INTO THE MOTION. RIGHT.

AND I DON'T RECALL THE EXACT LANGUAGE OF THE MOTION.

I KNOW TYPICALLY WHEN WE FOLLOW THE MOTION IN THE STAFF REPORT, IT DOES HAVE SOME LANGUAGE BASED ON CRITERIA. WE CALL OUR CITY ATTORNEY.

IF SHE KNOWS, SINCE YOU ALL HAVE ALREADY VOTED, I'M HAPPY TO HELP.

MS.. BOND, PLEASE HELP THE JUDGE.

JUDGE IN THE CASE FOUND THAT THE FINDINGS OF FACT WERE NOT ARTICULATED DURING THE MOTION.

NOT COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

WE HAD OVER FOUR HOURS OF COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, ARGUABLY BY WHOEVER WAS GIVING IT.

SO FINDINGS OF FACT NEED TO BE LISTED.

AND SO THAT REALLY IS UP TO THE JUDGE WHETHER OR NOT THE THE COMMISSIONERS TONIGHT INCLUDING YOU FINDINGS OF FACT HAVE HAVE DONE THAT SO AND JUST TO THAT WAS UNDER A 1985 STANDARDS FOR UNSAFE BUILDINGS WHICH HAVE SOME DIFFERENT PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS THAT ACTUALLY REQUIRE THOSE SPECIFIC FINDINGS OF FACT MADE DURING THE MOTION.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ANSWER.

SO WE'RE GOING TO GET RID OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THEN.

I'M SORRY, I CAN'T SHOUT OUT IN THE MEETING, BUT THERE'S STILL THE CODE IS STILL HERE.

THANK YOU. CODE IS THERE.

BUT. ALL RIGHT.

MOVING RIGHT ALONG.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I HOPE YOU'LL STICK AROUND WITH US.

MAYOR, IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE NEEDED FROM ME, WOULD YOU EXCUSE MYSELF? YES, SIR. GET SOME SLEEP.

SOUNDS GOOD. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS.

WITH YOUR PLEASURE.

I AM GOING TO ON THE SECOND READING.

SO IF YOU'RE HERE FOR SECOND READINGS, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO STAY.

BUT THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO SAT WITH US FOR THIS WHOLE TIME TO TALK ABOUT WASTE MANAGEMENT SPECIFICALLY AND TO TALK ABOUT CHANGES TO OUR SHOPPING MALLS. SO WE PROBABLY SHOULD STAY FOR THOSE, IF THAT'S OKAY WITH YOU GUYS.

WE'LL JUST DO THE SHOPPING MALL THING.

IT'S GOING TO TAKE A WHILE.

MR. MILES WILL MAKE SURE IT TAKES A WHILE, SO I'M NOT GOING TO MAKE SURE, BUT I HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS.

GOT IT. EXCELLENT. SEE YOU, MISS JOAN.

WELL, WE SHOULD AT LEAST DO THE WASTE MANAGEMENT THING AND THE INSURANCE THING.

[04:55:02]

THAT'S FINE. I AM.

AND SO IS THE SHOPPING MALL.

WELL, SHOPPING MALL.

THINGS HERE, TOO. YEAH. YEAH, THEY'RE HERE.

OKAY. OKAY.

ANYBODY WHO CAME FOR SOMETHING, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THEY HERE.

AFTER WAITING THROUGH THAT.

WHAT DO YOU GUYS THINK? GET.

GET WHATEVER MAKES YOU HAPPY.

KEEP MOVING. OKAY.

GET MOVING. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE'RE GOING TO KEEP ON ROCKING AND ROLLING.

IF YOU WERE HERE FOR AN ITEM, WE WILL HEAR YOUR ITEM BEFORE WE HEAD HOME BECAUSE WE APPRECIATE YOU WAITING THROUGH IT.

WE'RE GOING TO GET ROCKING AND ROLLING TOGETHER.

SO MOVING RIGHT ALONG. WE HAVE 8.2.

[8.2 AWARD OF RFP 23-03 - EMPLOYEE BENEFITS CONSULTING SERVICES]

THAT IS AWARD OF RFP 20 3-03 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS CONSULTING SERVICES.

AND I BELIEVE THIS WILL BE AND THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR WAITING WITH US, OUR WONDERFUL HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR.

PLEASE GO AHEAD AND PRESENT THIS ITEM.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS.

DENISE MATTSON, HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR.

THIS ITEM IS TO AWARD A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL 2303 TO CONSIDER THE SELECTION OF AN EMPLOYEE BENEFITS CONSULTANT BROKER TO ASSIST HUMAN RESOURCES AND REPRESENT THE CITY IN MARKETING OF EMPLOYEE HEALTH INSURANCE, WHICH INCLUDES HEALTH, DENTAL, VISION, LIFE AND LONG TERM DISABILITY INSURANCE.

WE DID RECEIVE FIVE PROPOSALS FOR THIS ITEM.

THEY WERE CONSIDERED BY AN EVALUATION COMMITTEE, RISK MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES, INC., WHICH IS A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF BROWN AND BROWN, WAS RANKED NUMBER ONE ON THE EVALUATION FORM AND UNANIMOUSLY SELECTED BY THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE.

CONTRACT WOULD BE FOR A THREE YEAR PERIOD BEGINNING OCTOBER 1ST, 2023 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2026, WITH THE OPTION OF TWO ADDITIONAL ONE YEAR RENEWALS AND AN ANNUAL FEE OF 65,000.

DO I HEAR A MOTION MOTION TO APPROVE? SECOND HEAR A MOTION? A SECOND? ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. CITY CLERK WILL YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL COMMISSIONER ASKEW? YES. VICE MAYOR STURGIS.

YES. THAT PASSES FIVE ZERO AWARD OF.

YES. YES.

YES. MAYOR VINIS.

[8.3 AWARD OF RFP 23-04 - PROPERTY, CASUALTY, AND WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE CONSULTING SERVICES]

20 304 PROPERTY CASUALTY AND WORKERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE CONSULTING SERVICES.

THIS IS THE THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL WE HAVE THE PROPOSALS COME IN, THE BID PROTEST, AND THE CITY COMMISSION ASKED FOR THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT BROWN AND BROWN AND GALLAGHER.

BASED ON INFORMATION THAT YOU HEARD AT YOUR LAST MEETING AND THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE DID THAT AND VOTED 3 TO 2 TO AWARD TO GALLAGHER IN THE AMOUNT OF $75,000.

THE RESOLUTION IN FRONT OF YOU HAS BLANKS GIVING YOU THE FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

AND LIKE I SAID, JUST THE INFORMATION.

IT'S REALLY AT YOUR PLEASURE WHETHER YOU AWARD IT TO BROWN AND BROWN AND GALLAGHER.

BROWN AND BROWN'S PRICE ANNUAL FEE IS 65,000.

GALLAGHER IS 75,000.

AND AS I SAID, THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE VOTED 3 TO 2 TO AWARD TO GALLAGHER.

DO I HEAR A MOTION? MOTION TO APPROVE.

SECOND, AT 75,000.

THERE A MOTION AND A SECOND? IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE CITY CLERK. WILL YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? COMMISSIONER. YES.

COMMISSIONER ROSS. YES.

COMMISSIONER ANTON. YES.

MAYOR. AND YES.

THANK YOU FOR WAITING WITH US ALL NIGHT.

ALL RIGHT. ITEM 8.4, PROPOSAL APPROVAL.

[8.4 PROPOSAL APPROVAL - HALFF ASSOCIATES, INC]

HALF HALF ASSOCIATES, INC., MS..

GIBSON. GOOD EVENING.

THIS IS A REQUEST TO AWARD A CONTRACT TO HEALTH AND ASSOCIATES FOR US TO COMPLETE OUR CITYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT AND SEA LEVEL RISE IMPACT PROJECTION STUDY.

THIS IS FUNDING HAS BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FOR US TO COMPLETE THIS WORK.

IT IS AVAILABLE WITHIN THIS FISCAL YEAR FOR US TO DO THAT WORK AND WE OBTAIN THOSE SERVICES AS A RESULT OF THE CONTINUING SERVICES CONTRACT THAT WAS APPROVED IN 2021.

HELP IS ON THERE AND THEY ARE WELL QUALIFIED TO PERFORM THE WORK ON OUR BEHALF.

THANK YOU. DO I HEAR A MOTION? MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.

SECOND. I HEAR A MOTION.

AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. CITY CLERK.

WILL YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? VICE MAYOR STURGIS? YES. COMMISSIONER ASKEW? YES. COMMISSIONER ROSS.

YES. COMMISSIONER ANTON.

YES. MAYOR. AND YES.

THAT PASSES FIVE ZERO SOLE SOURCE VENDOR APPROVAL.

[8.6 SOLE SOURCE VENDOR APPROVAL - ARMRLITE OVERHEAD DOORS]

AAM LIGHT OVERHEAD DOORS MR. GEORGE. YEAH.

THIS IS THE SOLE SOURCE VENDOR APPROVAL FOR GOING OUT TO A CONTRACTOR THAT DOES THE OVERHEAD DOORS FOR THE FIRE STATION NUMBER TWO APPARATUS BAYS. WE ORIGINALLY WENT OUT FOR AN RFP OR AN INVITATION TO BID.

WE GOT ZERO RESPONSES.

THIS IS THE FIRM WE THEN REACHED OUT TO BECAUSE WE KNEW THEY HAD DONE SEVERAL OF THESE TYPE DOORS AT FIRE STATIONS THROUGHOUT FLORIDA.

SO WE TALKED TO THEM AND WANT TO GO THROUGH A SOLE SOURCE PROCESS SINCE WE DIDN'T GET ANY BIDS WHEN WE DID IT THROUGH THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS.

[05:00:08]

SO WE'RE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE SOLE SOURCE FOR THIS ARMOR LIGHT DOOR COMPANY.

THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE? SECOND. MOTION SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? I JUST WANTED TO GIVE A SHOUT OUT TO INTERIM CITY MANAGER CHARLIE GEORGE.

FOR OUR CITY RESIDENTS THAT AREN'T AWARE, IF WE HAD STUCK WITH THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL, WE WOULD HAVE ONLY HAD A FIVE YEAR WARRANTY ON THESE DOORS.

AND NOW WE'LL BE GETTING A 20 YEAR WARRANTY AT A BETTER COST.

SO THANK YOU FOR DOING YOUR JOB.

SURE. THAT'S A GREAT DEAL.

ALL RIGHT, CITY CLERK, WILL YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL COMMISSIONER ASKEW? YES. VICE MAYOR STURGIS? YES. COMMISSIONER ANTON? YES. COMMISSIONER ROSS.

FIRST READING. KEEP IN MIND WE ARE GOING TO SKIP THE SECOND READING ORDINANCES.

NOW WE'RE IN ORDINANCES.

SO WE'RE GOING TO STOP AFTER FIRST READING.

BUT FIRST READING ITEM NINE.

I JUST WANT TO SAY I'M SO SORRY TO INTERRUPT JUST FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

YES, MA'AM. THE IF YOU'RE GOING TO SKIP ANYTHING, IT WOULD BE FIRST READING.

SECOND READING ORDINANCES HAVE ALL BEEN ADVERTISED IN THE NEWSPAPER, INCLUDING WITH ADVERTISEMENTS.

YOU WOULD HAVE TO RE ADVERTISE IT IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

AND WE WOULD HAVE TO SPEND ALL THAT MONEY.

I MEAN, AND IT'S SIGNIFICANT.

I DON'T WANT TO SPEND THE EXTRA MONEY.

THE ISSUE IS I DON'T WANT TO WE CAN'T DELAY.

WE HAVE TO FINISH THEM.

I WOULD ASSUME FINISH. I THINK FOR SECOND READING THE ORDINANCES ARE GOING TO BE AND I WILL READ REALLY FAST.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, CITY ATTORNEY.

AND WE CERTAINLY ARE DOING A FIRST READING BECAUSE WE DO HAVE SOME TROOPERS THAT HAVE STAYED WITH US ALL NIGHT TO HEAR SOME OF THESE.

SO WE APPRECIATE YOU.

LET'S GO TO ITEM 9.1 WASTE MANAGEMENT FRANCHISE AGREEMENT.

[9.1 WASTE MANAGEMENT FRANCHISE AGREEMENT]

AND IT AND IF YOU COULD, I'M GOING TO READ IT.

BUT WHILE I DO, ARE YOU DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU HAVE TO SAY? THERE'S A QUESTION ABOUT THE FEES, SO I JUST HAVE IT ON DISPLAY.

IT'S 387 SLIDE PRESENTATION AND WE'LL GET RIGHT TO IT.

LOOKING FORWARD TO IT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

TWO SLIDES. I WOULD JUST PUT IT UP, SO I DON'T KNOW.

DO YOU WANT ME TO READ FIRST? I JUST FIGURED IT COULD BE IN THE BACKGROUND WHILE I'M READ.

THAT SOUNDS GREAT. YEAH, I DO IT ALL.

READING, WHATEVER.

WHATEVER. YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE IT AS QUICK AS POSSIBLE.

ORDINANCE 2023 DASH TEN REPEALING ORDINANCE 2018 DASH TEN EFFECTIVE JANUARY 14TH, 2024.

PROVIDING A NEW EXCLUSIVE FIVE YEAR FRANCHISE AGREEMENT TO WASTE MANAGEMENT INC OF FLORIDA EFFECTIVE JANUARY 15TH, 2024, FOR THE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF ALL RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL TRASH, GARBAGE AND OTHER REFUSE.

AND PROVIDING FOR THE COLLECTION OF RESIDENTIAL RECYCLABLE MATERIALS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS.

FURTHER PROVIDING FOR DEFINITIONS GRANT OF FRANCHISE LIMITS OF FRANCHISE TERM OF FRANCHISE FRANCHISE CONSIDERATION, ASSIGNMENT BANKRUPTCY OR INSOLVENCY DEFAULT RATE CHANGES AND RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL.

PUBLIC NOTICES AND EDUCATION SERVICES RESTORATION COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS LIABILITY INSURANCE HOLD HARMLESS WORKER'S COMP COMPENSATION PERFORMANCE BOND RIGHT TO REQUIRE PERFORMANCE DISPUTE RESOLUTION OPERATIONS DURING DISPUTE STANDARD OF PERFORMANCE, CURBSIDE RECYCLABLE MATERIALS COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL RECYCLING PROGRAM COLLECTION SERVICES AND OPERATIONS.

OFFICE HOURS COLLECTION EQUIPMENT DISPOSAL RATE ROUTES AND SCHEDULES.

GRANTEE PERSONNEL.

SPILLAGE AND LITTER STORMS AND FORCE MAJEURE EVENTS.

NONDISCRIMINATION PROVISION RATES.

CHANGES. BILLING AND AUDITS.

MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.

PUBLIC RECORDS. LAW AND OBLIGATIONS.

REPEAL OF SECTIONS IN CONFLICT, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

EVEN THE COMPUTER WENT ASLEEP.

SO WE WE.

DECEMBER 20TH, THE COMMISSION AWARDED BY A50 VOTE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS WITH WASTE MANAGEMENT.

THAT'S BEEN DONE OCCURRED FEBRUARY THROUGH APRIL.

THE CONTRACTS SUM FOR YOU FOR FIRST ORDNANCE READING.

THIS IS GOING FROM A NEW CONTRACT WITH WASTE MANAGEMENT GOING FROM ONCE A WEEK, TWICE A WEEK TO PICK UP TO ONCE A WEEK COLLECTION FOR THE GARBAGE PORTION.

ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS? DO I HEAR A MOTION? NO. YOU HOPE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING? OH, THIS IS FIRST READING.

SO WE ALWAYS ALLOW THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK.

BUT THE FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING IS SECOND.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

SO JUST IN GENERAL, IF THE PUBLIC WISHES TO SPEAK, I HAVE NO REQUEST TO SPEAK ON THIS.

BUT IS THERE A MOTION ON THIS ITEM? MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.

I HEAR A MOTION AND A SECOND.

NOW, IS THERE ANY COMMISSION DISCUSSION? AND I'LL JUST SAY THANK GREAT JOB NEGOTIATING THIS.

THIS IS A BIG WIN FOR THE CITY.

CITY CLERK, WILL YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? JUST HAVE ONE MOTION. I DIDN'T HEAR THE SECOND.

I HAVE A MOTION FROM THE VICE MAYOR.

AND A SECOND. WE TECHNICALLY BOTH MOTIONS, SO I WILL SECOND HIS MOTION.

THERE WE GO. ALL RIGHT.

THE MOTION IN A SECOND. THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR.

STURGIS? YES, COMMISSIONER ANTON? YES. COMMISSIONER ROSS? YES. COMMISSIONER ASKEW.

AND YES, THAT PASSES FIVE ZERO.

9.2 RIGHT AWAY.

[9.2 RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION - PORTION OF THE UNIMPROVED POMPANO STREET]

VACATION PORTION OF THE UNIMPROVED POMPANO STREET.

ORDINANCE 20 2323.

APPROVING THE VACATION OF PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY FOR A PORTION OF THE UNIMPROVED POMPANO STREET.

RIGHT OF WAY BETWEEN TROUT STREET AND AND DOLPHIN STREET.

PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

[05:05:04]

THIS THIS ABANDONS A REMNANT OF POMPANO STREET THAT IS WITHIN MAIN BEACH PARK, JUST NORTH OF THE SKATE PARK.

THE INTENTION IS TO ALLOW THE SKATE PARK TO EXPAND.

THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.

EXCELLENT. DO I HEAR A MOTION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.

SECOND. MOTION IN A SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? I JUST LIKE TO ADD ONE THING, IF WE COULD.

THERE'S A CONSENSUS ASKED THE PLANNING BOARD.

THERE'S ALSO ANOTHER RIGHT OF WAY ON THAT SAME PROPERTY JUST SOUTH OF JUST NORTH OF THERE.

AND THAT WE MAY BRING THAT FORWARD LATER DATE TO ABANDON THAT RIGHT OF WAY TO THAT GOES RIGHT THROUGH THERE.

COMMISSIONER, WHY WOULD WE ABANDON THAT OTHER RIGHT OF WAY? THIS ONE WE'RE ABANDONING BECAUSE OF THE SKATE PARK? WHY NOT? I MEAN, YOU MAKE IT ALL PARKS AND RECREATION LAND.

IT'S A ROAD THAT GOES RIGHT THROUGH THE PARK.

I MEAN, IT'S A DEDICATED RIGHT OF WAY.

THE CITY OWNS ON BOTH SIDES.

THE CITY GETS THE THE LAND ON BOTH SIDES.

AND IT'S NOW THEN PARKS AND REC LAND FOREVER.

YOU CAN'T PUT A ROAD THROUGH THERE.

YOU CAN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT TO FIX A PARK, BUT THERE'S A DEDICATED RIGHT OF WAY THERE NOW THAT THE CITY DOESN'T OWN.

IF WE IF WE ABANDON THE RIGHT OF WAY, THE PROPERTY ON EITHER SIDE GOES TO THE OWNERS ON EITHER SIDE.

THE CITY OWNS THE PROPERTY ON EITHER SIDE.

SO WE NOW HAVE THAT ONE BIG PLACE THERE THAT'S NOW A BIG FIELD THAT'S A CONTIGUOUS OWNED BY THE CITY PROPERTY.

IF WE COULD JUST REFER THAT TO THE BOARD OF AWARD OF PLANNING BOARD TO LOOK AT.

AND THE END GOAL WOULD BE JUST TO JUST TO CREATE A LARGE SPACE, WHICH IS FINE WITH ME.

THAT'S ALL. I MEAN, SO THAT YOU CAN'T PUT A ROAD THROUGH THERE LATER ON.

THAT'S ALL. ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONER, WHAT DO YOU GUYS THINK? I MEAN, YOU'RE JUST ESSENTIALLY SAYING GO AHEAD AND KICK THIS TO THE PLANNING, NOT THIS.

APPROVE THIS, BUT THIS.

BUT THE OTHER.

RIGHT OF WAY STAFF AND THE PLANNING BOARD.

THAT'S IT. I UNDERSTAND.

YES, SIR. ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT? ALL RIGHT. WITH CONSENSUS. LET'S SEND THAT TO THE TAKE A LOOK AT IT.

SOUNDS GOOD. GREAT. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. DO I HEAR A MOTION FOR THIS? DID WE ALREADY GET THAT MOTION FOR THIS? EXCELLENT. LET'S GO AHEAD AND CALL THE ROLL.

VICE MAYOR STURGIS. YES, MR. ANTON? YES. COMMISSIONER ASKEW? YES. COMMISSIONER ROSS.

ITEM 9.3 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE 2023 DASH 24 AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ALLOW REASONABLE

[9.3 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT - COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT]

REINVESTMENT IN EXISTING COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES BY MODIFYING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT POLICY.

1.080.05 STANDARDS FOR DESTINATION ACTIVITY CENTERS OR CONVERSION OF EXISTING CONVENTIONAL SUBURBAN SHOPPING CENTERS.

AND BY STRIKING THE MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT POLICIES, 2.130.06 REQUIRED PLACEMENT OF PARKING.

2.13.08. VISUAL SCREENING OF PARKING 2.130.11.

REQUIREMENTS FOR PERVIOUS PARKING MATERIALS PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

DO I HEAR A MOTION? MOTION TO APPROVE.

SECOND. A MOTION.

A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? YEAH. MR. ROSS. BASICALLY WHAT? THIS IS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

AMENDMENTS? YES.

BASICALLY WHAT WHAT THIS DOES AND RIGHT NOW YOU CAN HAVE A COMPONENT BUILDING THAT'S 30,000FT², I THINK, AND YOU CAN HAVE MAXIMUM BUILDING OF 60,000FT².

AND THIS WAS DONE TO PREVENT THE BIG BOXES BACK IN WALMART.

AND WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE SAYING THAT YOU CAN NOW HAVE A INDIVIDUAL BUILDING OF 55,000FT², WHICH I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH, BUT THERE'S NO UPPER LIMIT ON THE SIZE OF A BUILDING. SO ON A PARCEL, YOU CAN TAKE ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE OF THESE AND PUT THEM TOGETHER.

AND THERE'S NO UPPER SIDE OF THE BUILDING SIZE.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE WANT HUGE BUILDINGS IN THE CITY OF.

THE BEACH. AND THAT'S WHAT THIS WAS ABOUT, THE SUPER BOWL.

THIS WAS PASSED YEARS AGO TO PREVENT A HUGE BUILDING AND PICK A NUMBER, WHETHER IT'S 200,000FT² OR 300,000 OR 150,000.

I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.

BUT THIS TOTALLY ELIMINATES THE UPPER SIZE OF THE SIZE OF A COMMERCIAL BUILDING IN THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH.

AND WE'VE HEARD A LOT ABOUT THE CHARACTER OF THE CITY.

PEOPLE DON'T WANT BIG BUILDINGS HERE.

THEY DON'T WANT ALL THESE THINGS.

AND SO I JUST HAVE A PROBLEM GETTING RID OF THE UPPER LIMIT.

AND I'M FINE WITH INCREASING THE SIZE OF THE INDIVIDUAL COMPONENTS.

COMMISSIONER, YOU. GIBSON COULD YOU EXPLAIN THAT? GOOD EVENING ONCE AGAIN.

KELLY GIBSON I AGREE WITH WHAT COMMISSIONER ROSS IS SAYING, THAT EFFECTIVELY THIS IS REMOVING AN UPPER LIMITATION ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF A LARGER COMMERCIAL ENTITY, WHETHER THAT'S BY RIGHT WITH THEIR ZONING THAT ALLOWS FOR COMMERCIAL, IT DOES PLACE A LIMIT ON SINGLE USE TENANT OR OWNER SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE THE SUPER

[05:10:03]

WALMART SCENARIO WHERE YOU HAVE ONE LARGE BIG BOX RETAILER.

IT WOULD NOT, HOWEVER, PREVENT MULTIPLE RETAILERS FROM LOCATING WITHIN A UNIFIED COMPLEX THAT IS OTHERWISE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.

BUT IT DOES IT DOES RESTRICT SINGLE TENANTS.

THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY.

TWO 55,000FT², CORRECT? YES, SIR. I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT.

THE PROBLEM I HAVE IS YOU CAN NOW TAKE TEN OF THOSE AND PUT THEM TOGETHER UNDER THIS SCENARIO.

IS THAT LIKELY? NO, BUT YOU CAN TAKE A BUNCH OF PARCELS AND PUT THEM TOGETHER AND MAKE ONE BIG HUGE BUILDING.

THAT'S MY PROBLEM.

I MEAN, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SEE AN UPPER LIMIT ON THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING.

PICK YOUR NUMBER. ALL RIGHT.

COMMISSIONER ANTON, IS THERE A REASONABLE NUMBER THAT STILL SATISFIES ALL OTHER TERMS OF WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THIS AMENDMENT IS? THAT COULD BE AN UPPER LIMIT FOR WHAT COMMISSIONER ROSS IS ASKING IN ANALYZING YOUR EXISTING SHOPPING CENTERS.

JUST SORT OF QUICKLY HERE, ONES AT 238, THAT'S THE BIGGEST 238 IS YOUR LARGEST AT PRESENT.

IT WOULD YOU WOULD PROBABLY WANT TO LOOK AT SOMEWHERE IN THE BALLPARK OF 250,000FT² AS A LIMITATION THAT VICE MAYOR, WHAT ARE YOU THINKING? YOU SAID YOU SAID SOMETHING. WHAT I WOULD THINK HERE, I'LL PUT MY LIGHT ON FOR AREA.

I WOULD THINK THAT WE NEED TO BE SOMEWHERE AROUND 275, 250 TO 275, AND THAT GIVES YOU A LIMIT.

I DON'T REALLY SEE US HAVING ANYTHING THAT BIG ANYWAY, SO WE DON'T WE DON'T HAVE THE DIRT FOR IT.

LIKE, I DON'T REALLY SEE IT.

SO IF YOU WANT TO MAKE IT, 250 IS A TOP NUMBER, FINE.

BUT I MEAN, WE REALLY DON'T HAVE THAT MANY BIG AREAS TO PUT SHOPPING CENTERS.

JUST BE CAREFUL BECAUSE OF THE NON NONCONFORMING, THE FLEXIBILITY THAT'S BEING GIVEN FOR 15%.

AND KELLY, KELLY WOULD KNOW THAT I WOULDN'T GET TOO CLOSE TO THE 238 BECAUSE IF SOMEBODY IN THE 238 WANTED TO EXPAND, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S AFFECTED.

GOT IT RIGHT. I WOULD I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU WOULD PLACE THAT UPPER THRESHOLD THRESHOLD LIMITATION WITHIN YOUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND NOT WITHIN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SO THAT YOU DO HAVE FLEXIBILITY IN YOUR NONCONFORMITY TO EXPAND IN THE FUTURE OR TO BE ABLE TO SEEK A VARIANCE THAT SEEMS REASONABLE.

THAT'S MY PROBLEM WITH THE NON AND NON, A NON COMPLIANT EXCUSE ME, IT'S BEEN NONCONFORMING.

THANK YOU. NON CONFORMING USE.

WE'RE NOW PUTTING IN 15% OVER 15%.

SO YOU CAN HAVE A 200,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING AND NOW GO 15% MORE AND THEN THEY CAN DO SOMETHING AND COME BACK A YEAR LATER AND 15% MORE.

THAT'S WHY I'M OPPOSED TO ANY ANY INCREASE IN THE SIZE OF NON CONFORMING USES.

I SAY MAKE ALL THESE BUILDINGS CONFORMING RIGHT NOW AND THEN THEY CAN DO MAKE THEM SO THEY CAN BECOME CONFORMING.

IF YOU PUT THIS UPPER LIMIT ON THERE AND THEN ELIMINATE THE 15% INCREASE BECAUSE YOU CAN COME BACK YEAR AFTER YEAR AFTER YEAR AND INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING, INCREASE THE SIZE OF A BUILDING.

AND IS THAT LIKELY TO HAPPEN? NO, BUT IT IS POSSIBLE.

SO AT SOME POINT YOU WANT TO SAY THAT THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE, A LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

PEOPLE DON'T WANT BIG, HUGE BUILDINGS HERE, SO YOU JUST PUT AN UPPER LIMIT OF NORMAL AND NO INCREASE IN THE NON CONFORMING USE BECAUSE A NON CONFORMING USE IS SUPPOSED TO BE BROUGHT INTO CONFORMITY, NOT INCREASED.

THAT'S MY OPINION.

MR. ROSS THERE IS A THERE IS AN UPPER LIMIT IN GENERAL BECAUSE THE BLOCKS ARE ONLY SO BIG.

I MEAN THEY CAN'T OBVIOUSLY IT'S NOT INFINITE.

AND ON TOP OF THAT THEY HAVE TO THEY HAVE TO HAVE PARKING AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO I MEAN, THEREFORE IT'S NOT IT'S NOT LIKE AN WE'RE NOT ENABLING INFINITE EXPANSION.

WHAT WE'RE SAYING THAT IF THEY CAN SQUEEZE AND THEY CAN HOPEFULLY REDEVELOP AND AND IMPROVE.

OF THEIR BUILDINGS TO ELIMINATE BLIGHT.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT.

BUT YOU JUST PUT AN UPPER LIMIT ON THE SIZE.

I MEAN, YOU CAN PUT PARCELS TOGETHER.

AND IS IT LIKELY? NO, YOU'RE RIGHT. BUT IS IT DIFFICULT? YES, BUT IT CAN HAPPEN.

EVERYBODY SAID THE WORLD TRADE CENTER WOULD NEVER BE KNOCKED DOWN BY AN AIRPLANE.

IT WAS. SO I'M JUST PUTTING AN UPPER LIMIT ON IT.

THAT'S IT. COMMISSIONER ASKEW, CAN YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OF A 200,000 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL SPACE PRESENT? YOU HAVE PUBLIC SHOPPING CENTER.

PUBLIC SHOP? NO, I'M TALKING ABOUT ONE SINGLE TENANT, 200,000FT².

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT.

WELL, THAT IS STILL ELIMINATED, THAT POTENTIAL TO HAVE THAT KIND OF SCENARIO.

AND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PUTTING THEM TOGETHER AND THAT BEING ONE, YOU PUT 50, 50, 55, 55, 55, 55, YOU KEEP STRINGING THEM TOGETHER AND YOU CAN MAKE A HUGE BUILDING.

SO A 200,000 SQUARE FOOT FOOTPRINT IS EQUIVALENT AND IT'S STILL UNDER THE SIZE OF A TYPICAL SUPER WALMART THAT INCLUDES THE AUTO COMPONENT AND THE

[05:15:01]

LIQUOR STORE AND ALL OF THE NORMAL SUPER WALMART.

BUT THEY'RE AT 187,000FT² ON AVERAGE.

OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I WAS ASKING OF MORE OR LESS LIKE WHERE WHERE WOULD ONE SINGLE AND THEN WHERE IS THE WHERE IS THERE ANYWHERE THAT THAT IS 115,000FT².

BUT EVEN THAT THAT'S THEIR SMALL FOOTPRINT.

THEY GET VERY LARGE AND MULTI STORIED SINGLE TENANTS.

WHEN WE'RE THINKING ABOUT A STORE, A HARRIS TEETER, THE WHOLE FOODS, ALL OF THOSE, THAT'S NOTHING LIKE WHAT COMMISSIONER ROSS IS TALKING ABOUT IS PUBLIX TIMES TWO.

THERE'S NOT EVEN A LAND FOR THAT BECAUSE IT'S RESIDENTIAL IS SURROUNDING IT.

WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU ALL DO IS IT IS LATE IS TO ADOPT THIS TONIGHT.

AND WE HAVE SECOND READING AND STAFF WILL BRING BACK FOR YOU PICTURES.

THE OTHER THING I WANT YOU TO CONSIDER AND WE'LL SHOW YOU AT SECOND READING IS YOU CAN SEE WHERE WE HAVE CURRENT COMMERCIAL ZONING.

THESE THINGS CAN ONLY GET SO BIG BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO BUMP INTO ZONING CATEGORIES WHERE YOU CAN'T HAVE THEM.

SO LET'S SEE HOW BIG THEY CAN GET.

I JUST THINK WE'RE COMMERCIAL.

I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM. I JUST LIKE WE WOULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL TONIGHT AND THEN WE WILL ADDRESS THE I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT NOBODY CAN PUT TOGETHER A HUGE BUILDING THAT WE'RE GOING TO REGRET.

THAT'S ALL. AND COMPILING COMMERCIAL LOTS HAS TO DO WITH WHERE AND WE ONLY HAVE POCKETS OF COMMERCIAL AROUND THE CITY, AS I'M SURE YOU DO.

IT IS LATE, BUT.

ALL RIGHT. SO I HEAR A MOTION A SECOND AND MS..

BOK BRINGS UP AN EXCELLENT POINT.

I DO HAVE ONE REQUEST TO SPEAK.

MR. GILLETTE, WILL YOU WAVE? NO, I'M FINE.

I WAS JUST GOING TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT ANYBODY MIGHT HAVE FROM AN ENGINEERING STANDPOINT, I AM FOR THIS, SO I THINK IT WOULD HELP OUR HELP THESE OLDER BUILDINGS AND THESE OLDER SPACES BE STILL BE USED.

THEY WON'T THEY WON'T END UP HAVING TO BE TORN DOWN AND THOSE TENANTS BE DISTRIBUTED ALL OVER.

SO THANK YOU, MR. GILLETTE.

SO WITH THAT, I WILL CALL THE VOTE COMMISSIONER HASKEW.

YES. VICE MAYOR STURGIS? YES. COMMISSIONER ROSS? YES. COMMISSIONER ANTON.

YES. AND YES.

THAT PASSES FIVE ZERO AND WE'LL GO TO SECOND READING.

ALL RIGHT. THAT'S ITEM 9.4 LAND DEVELOPMENT.

[9.4 LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS - LARGE SCALE COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT]

THAT WAS THE ONE WE JUST DID.

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO.

THERE'S ANOTHER ONE THAT'S SIMILAR, BUT NOT QUITE THE SAME.

LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, TEXT AMENDMENTS, LARGE SCALE COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE 2023 DASH 25 AMEND AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO SUPPORT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES AND TO ALLOW REASONABLE REINVESTMENT IN EXISTING COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES BY ADDING DEFINITIONS AND SECTION 1.070.00 ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS FOR ADAPTIVE REUSE DEVELOPMENT AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY, INFILL DEVELOPMENT, REDEVELOPMENT AND GREENFIELD DEVELOPMENT AND AMENDING SECTION 6.04.01 STANDARDS FOR LARGE SCALE, LARGE SCALE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.

SPECIFICALLY CHANGING POLICIES FOR MAXIMUM GROSS FLOOR AREA, CREATING ALLOWANCE FOR EXPANSION OF CONFORMING STRUCTURES, PARKING MATERIALS, LOADING DOCKS AND AMENDING SECTION 7.010.04 SUB C SUB TWO PARKING LOT DESIGN REQUIREMENTS, PARKING MATERIALS AND AMENDING SECTION 7.010.06 LOADING SPACE STANDARDS AND DESIGN AND ADDING CRITERIA FOR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AND MODIFYING SECTION 10.010 .02 TO ALLOW REASONABLE EXPANSION OF NON CONFORMING COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

DO I HEAR A MOTION? MOTION TO APPROVE.

SECOND. MOTION SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? I'VE.

COMMISSIONER ROSS. GO AHEAD. YEAH.

WELL, MY MAIN PROBLEM WITH THIS IS WHAT WE'RE ALLOWING THAT IMPROVING, INCREASING, NON CONFORMING USE.

WE'VE NOW MADE IT SO YOU CAN MAKE.

MR. WHEELER'S PROPERTY.

YOU CAN NOW DO THAT.

SO I DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO KEEP INCREASING A NON-CONFORMING USE.

I MEAN, IF YOU MAKE THE NUMBER BIG ENOUGH OR APPROPRIATE, THEN THAT'S IT.

THE SECOND THING IS THERE'S THREE THINGS THAT I OBJECT TO IN HERE.

AND THE SECOND IS THAT THEY WANT A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE TO BE PERVIOUS PARKING, PERVIOUS, PAVEMENT, PERVIOUS PAVEMENT.

HE'S LEFT, BUT STORMWATER PEOPLE PERVIOUS PAVEMENT DOESN'T WORK BECAUSE WE DON'T REQUIRE REAL PERVIOUS PAVEMENT WITH THE SUBSTRUCTURE AND EVERYTHING ELSE. SO I DON'T THINK THERE SHOULD BE ANY REQUIREMENT FOR PERVIOUS PAVEMENT.

I THINK THE REQUIREMENT SHOULD BE THAT YOU HAVE TO MEET THE STORMWATER STANDARDS AND THAT'S WHAT I WOULD WANT TO CONCERN ABOUT.

SO THE ENGINEER, THEY WILL STILL HAVE TO MEET THE STORMWATER REQUIREMENTS WHEN THEY GO THROUGH THE CRC AND EVERYTHING ELSE WITH OUR UTILITIES DEPARTMENT AND SAINT JOHN'S AS FAR AS STORMWATER QUALITY AND STORMWATER QUANTITY.

BUT THAT'S I MEAN, I TALKED TO MR. DESJARLAIS TODAY AND HE SAID THAT'S NOT TRUE.

I MEAN, HE SAID THAT, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE I'M REDOING A PARKING LOT, YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE

[05:20:07]

SAINT JOHN'S BORDER.

YOU DO HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE SAINT JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT.

IF YOU TRIP THE THRESHOLDS FOR 9000 SQUARE FOOT TOTAL IMPERVIOUS OR 5000 SQUARE FOOT OF BUILDING SPACE OF WHICH WE WILL, WE WILL TRIP.

SO AT THAT POINT, WE DO HAVE TO GO TO THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT.

WE ALSO HAVE TO TREAT ANYTHING THAT WE CHANGE.

SO ANY ASPHALT WE TAKE UP, ANY BUILDING WE PUT DOWN IN ITS PLACE, WE HAVE TO TREAT THAT WATER ANY ANY ASPHALT.

WE TAKE UP MAKE LANDSCAPE ISLANDS OUT OF.

WE GET CREDIT FOR THAT AS FAR AS IT GOES.

DO I KNOW THE EXACT NUMBERS? NO, SIR, I DO NOT.

THE OTHER THING I OBJECT TO ON THIS IS THAT.

MRS STORMWATER. OH 20% OF THIS HAS TO BE PAVERS OR OTHER THINGS AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THAT'S IN THERE.

THAT'S JUST ESTHETICS.

THAT WAS AN ESTHETICS THING.

I'D RATHER TAKE THAT OUT OF THERE, LET THEM DO WHAT THEY WANT WITH THE PARKING LOT, BUT CONCENTRATE ON STORMWATER TREATMENT SO WE DON'T FLOOD THINGS.

WE'D BE FINE WITH THAT.

SO THAT WOULD BE MY CHANGES ON THIS.

BUT IF YOU WANT TO APPROVE IT TONIGHT AND THEN SIT AND TALK LATER FOR THE SECOND READING, THE AMENDMENT SHOULD BE, YEAH, I CAN DO THAT LATER.

I THINK THAT'S AN EXCELLENT POINT.

COMMISSIONER ROSS LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT FOR A SECOND.

READING. SURE. I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT.

ALL RIGHT. SO WITH THAT, WE HAVE THAT MOTION.

SECOND, LET'S GO AHEAD AND CALL THE VOTE CITY CLERK.

AND I'M GOING TO VOTE NO JUST BECAUSE I OPPOSED A LOT OF THE STUFF IN HERE.

BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S FOUR VOTES, SO WE'RE FINE.

WE HOPE TO WIN YOU BACK BY SECOND READING.

RIGHT? THERE YOU GO.

COMMISSIONER ASKEW. YES.

VICE MAYOR STURGIS? YES.

COMMISSIONER ROSS. NO.

COMMISSIONER ANTON. YES.

MAYOR. AND YES.

THAT ONE PASSES 4 TO 1 HEADING ON DOWN THE LINE.

WE NOW ARE IN ORDINANCE FOR SECOND READING AND WE HAVE QUITE A LOT OF FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENTS.

[10.1 (LEGISLATIVE) FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT - BEACH ACCESS PROPERTY, KETCH COURT AND ROBERT OLIVER AVENUE]

SO ITEM 10.1 FUTURE LAND USE, MAP AMENDMENT, BEACH ACCESS PROPERTY CASH COURT AND ROBERT OLIVER AVENUE.

AND THE GOOD NEWS IS ALL OF THESE IS GOING TO GO NO PROBLEMS, NO COMMENTS.

LEGISLATIVE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT ORDINANCE 2023 DASH 11 ASSIGNING A FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF RECREATION MAP CATEGORY OF RECREATION FOR BEACH ACCESS PROPERTY LOCATED ON SOUTH FLETCHER AVENUE AND ASSIGNING A FUTURE LAND USE MAP CATEGORY OF CONSERVATION FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED ON KETCH COURT AND AT THE END OF ROBERT OLIVER AVENUE, TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 0.44 ACRES OF LAND.

PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE, PLEASE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN.

PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.

OH. DID ANYONE WANT TO SPEAK? NO. I'LL GET THAT DOWN FOR THE NEXT TIME.

ALL RIGHT. DO I HEAR A MOTION MOTION FOR APPROVAL? SECOND. MOTION IN THE SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION? AND BLESS YOU, MISS GIBSON.

SEEING NONE. CITY CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

10.2 ZONING MAP CHANGE BEACH ACCESS PROPERTY KETCH COURT AND ROBERT OLIVER AVENUE ORDINANCE 2023 DASH 12 ASSIGNING THE ZONING MAP CATEGORY OF RECREATION FOR BEACH ACCESS

COMMISSIONER ASKEW? YES.

MR. ANTON? YES.

COMMISSIONER ROSS. YES.

MAYOR BIERI. AND YES.

THAT PASSES. FIVE ZERO.

[10.2 ZONING MAP CHANGE - BEACH ACCESS PROPERTY, KETCH COURT AND ROBERT OLIVER AVENUE]

PROPERTY LOCATED ON SOUTH FLETCHER AVENUE AND ASSIGNING A ZONING CATEGORY OF CONSERVATION FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED ON KETCH COURT AND AT THE END OF ROBERT OLIVER AVENUE, TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 0.44 ACRES OF LAND, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE, PLEASE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK? SEEING NONE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.

DO I HEAR A MOTION? MOTION FOR APPROVAL.

SECOND, YOUR MOTION. SECOND.

VICE MAYOR STURGIS. YES, COMMISSIONER ANTON.

YES. COMMISSIONER ROSS? YES. COMMISSIONER ASKEW.

YES. MAYOR. AND YES.

ITEM 9.3 FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT 565 SOUTH FLETCHER AVENUE, KENTUCKY AVENUE AND FIRST AVE.

[10.3 FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT - 565 S. FLETCHER AVE, KENTUCKY AVE AND 1ST AVE]

ORDINANCE 20 2313 ASSIGNING A FUTURE LAND USE MAP CATEGORY OF CONSERVATION FOR 0.06 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT 5065 SOUTH FLETCHER AND 0.52 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT KENTUCKY AVENUE AND FIRST AVENUE.

PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE, PLEASE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK? SEEING NONE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.

DO I HEAR A MOTION? MOTION FOR APPROVAL.

SECOND, I HEAR A MOTION. AND A SECOND.

STURGIS? YES, MISTER ASKEW? YES. COMMISSIONER ANTON? YES. COMMISSIONER ROSS? YES. MAYOR BIERI. YES.

THAT PASSES FIVE ZERO. ITEM 10.5.

[10.5 FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT - 613 CALHOUN STREET]

FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT 613 CALHOUN STREET ORDINANCE 2023 DASH 15 ASSIGNING A FUTURE LAND USE MAP CATEGORY OF PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL FOR 0.11 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT 613 CALHOUN STREET.

PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE, PLEASE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN TO ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK.

SEEING NONE. HEARING IS CLOSED.

DO I HEAR A MOTION? MOVE TO APPROVE. SECOND, ANY DISCUSSION?

[05:25:03]

SEEING NONE. CITY CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

MR. ANTON? YES.

COMMISSIONER ASKEW.

THAT PASSES. FIVE ZERO ZONING MAP CHANGE.

[10.6 ZONING MAP CHANGE - 613 CALHOUN STREET]

615 CALHOUN STREET ORDINANCE 20 2316 ASSIGNING A ZONING CATEGORY OF PUBLIC.

THAT'S YOU. ORDINANCE 20 2316.

ASSIGNING A ZONING CATEGORY OF PUBLIC AND INSTITUTIONAL FOR 0.11 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT 613 CALHOUN STREET, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. I'M OPENING THE PUBLIC HEARINGS WHERE ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK.

SEEING NONE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.

DO I HEAR A MOTION TO APPROVE? SECOND. MOTION SECOND.

COMMISSIONER ANTON? YES, VICE MAYOR STURGIS.

YES, I KNOW. YES, COMMISSIONER ROSS? YES. MAYOR BIERI? YES. AND I MISSED ONE AT ONE POINT.

YES. AND I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK THAT.

WHICH ONE WAS IT? SO CHARLIE AND I, WE WERE.

I SAW YOU GUYS TALKING. 10.4.

[10.4 ZONING MAP CHANGE - 565 S. FLETCHER AVE, KENTUCKY AVE AND 1ST AVE]

10.4. SO 10.4 IS ZONING MAP CHANGE.

FIVE, SIX, FIVE. SOUTH FLETCHER AVENUE, KENTUCKY AVENUE AND FIRST AVENUE.

ORDINANCE 20 2314 ASSIGNING A ZONING CATEGORY OF CONSERVATION 40.06 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT 565 SOUTH FLETCHER AVENUE AND 0.52 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT KENTUCKY AVE AND FIRST AVE, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE, PLEASE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

OH, HEARING IS OPEN. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK? SEEING NONE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.

WE'RE HEARING MOTION APPROVAL.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.

SECOND MOTION.

SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. CITY CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

VICE MAYOR STURGIS? YES, COMMISSIONER ANTON? YES. COMMISSIONER ROSS? YES. COMMISSIONER ASKEW.

YES. MAYOR AND YES.

BACK ON TRACK. 10.7 FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT PROPERTIES LOCATED ON NORTH 14TH STREET.

[10.7 FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT - PROPERTIES LOCATED ON N. 14TH STREET]

ORDINANCE 20 2317 ASSIGNING A FUTURE LAND USE MAP CATEGORY OF CONSERVATION FOR 0.16 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON NORTH 14TH STREET, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. PLEASE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN. ANYONE WANT TO TALK? SEEING NONE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.

DO I HEAR A MOTION TO APPROVE? SECOND. MOTION SECOND.

COMMISSIONER ANTON? YES, VICE MAYOR STURGIS? YES. COMMISSIONER ROSS? YES. COMMISSIONER ASKEW.

YES. MAYOR BIERI.

AND YES. THAT PASSES FIVE ZERO.

ZONING MAP CHANGE PROPERTIES LOCATED ON NORTH 14TH STREET.

[10.8 ZONING MAP CHANGE - PROPERTIES LOCATED ON N. 14TH STREET]

ORDINANCE 2023 DASH 18 ASSIGNING A ZONING CATEGORY OF CONSERVATION FOR 0.16 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON NORTH 14TH STREET, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE, PLEASE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN. ANYONE WANT TO TALK IT OUT? SEEING NONE. PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.

DO I HEAR A MOTION? MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.

SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. CITY CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

VICE MAYOR STURGIS? YES. COMMISSIONER ASKEW? YES. COMMISSIONER ROSS? YES. COMMISSIONER ANTON.

THAT PASSES FIVE ZERO. 10.9 VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION.

[10.9 VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION - 2852 BAILEY ROAD]

2852 BAILEY ROAD.

ORDINANCE 2023 DASH 19 ANNEXING APPROXIMATELY 0.39 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT 2852 BAILEY ROAD, CONTIGUOUS TO THE CITY LIMITS, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE, PLEASE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK? SEEING NONE. PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.

DO I HEAR A MOTION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.

SECOND. I HEAR A MOTION.

SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? HE'S IN. I HAVE GOTTEN TO THIS MAYOR.

EVEN AT THE LATE HOUR.

THERE IS AN ANNEXATION, AND WE'RE ON BAILEY ROAD AND THEY'RE GOING TO JOIN THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH.

WE'RE GETTING VERY CLOSE. POSITIVE.

THAT'S IT. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.

IT'S A GREAT THING. ANNEXATION.

KEEP JOINING. THAT'S IT.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR.

EXCELLENT DISCUSSION.

COMMISSIONER ROSS. YES, MAYOR.

VICE MAYOR STURGIS.

YES. YES.

COMMISSIONER ANTON? YES.

AND YES. THAT PASSES FIVE ZERO.

MOVING RIGHT ALONG TO ITEM 10.10 FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT.

[10.10 FUTURE LAND USE MAP ASSIGNMENT - 2852 BAILEY ROAD]

SPEAKING OF 2852 BAILEY ROAD ORDINANCE 2023 DASH 20 ASSIGNING A FUTURE LAND USE MAP CATEGORY OF LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 40.39 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT 2852 BAILEY ROAD.

PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE, PLEASE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

PUBLIC HEARING OPEN. ANYONE WANT TO SPEAK? HEARING CLOSED. CITY CLERK OH, EXCUSE ME.

DO WE HAVE A MOTION MOTION SECOND HERE? A MOTION IN A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. CITY CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL COMMISSIONER ASKEW.

YES. VICE MAYOR STURGIS? YES. COMMISSIONER ROSS? YES. COMMISSIONER ANTON.

YES. MAYOR BEEN AND YES.

THAT PASSES FIVE ZERO ZONING MAP ASSIGNMENT ITEM 10.11.

[10.11 ZONING MAP ASSIGNMENT - 2852 BAILEY ROAD]

SAME PROPERTY ORDINANCE 2023 DASH 21 ASSIGNING A ZONING CATEGORY OF LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL R1 FOR 0.39 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT 2852 BAILEY ROAD.

PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE, PLEASE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK? SEEING NONE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.

DO I HEAR A MOTION TO APPROVE?

[05:30:02]

SECOND. I HEAR A MOTION.

SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE. CITY CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

COMMISSIONER ANTON. YES.