[1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL / DETERMINATION OF QUORUM]
[00:00:04]
>> [NOISE] GOOD AFTERNOON EVERYONE.
WELCOME TO THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD MEETING.
LET ME GET MY AGENDA. FEBRUARY 28TH.
WE ARE IN THE CITY HALL COMMISSION CHAMBERS ON ASH STREET IN FERNANDINA BEACH, FLORIDA.
MADAM SECRETARY, COULD YOU CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE?
>> MEMBER BOYLAN, MEMBER GILLETTE, AND MEMBER DOSTER ARE ABSENT.
>> THANK YOU. WE STILL HAVE A QUORUM THOUGH.
>> WILL THEY BE SHOWING UP OR THEY'RE A BIT LATE?
>> MEMBER DOSTER MAY BE LATE? I'VE NOT HEARD FROM MEMBER BOYLAN AND MEMBER GILLETTE MAY OR MAY NOT ATTEND.
>> WE'LL HAVE A PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE PLEASE.
THIS IS A WORKSHOP AND AS SUCH A WORKSHOP, THERE WILL BE NO OFFICIAL VOTES.
THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR BOARD MEMBERS TO TALK AMONGST THEMSELVES ON A SUBJECT.
ALSO TO TAKE ANY COMMENTS THAT WE MIGHT HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC, AND TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE WHERE THE BOARD WANTS TO GO ON A VERY IMPORTANT SUBJECT.
>> MADAM CHAIR, CAN WE RELAX SOME OF OUR RULES AND ALLOW THE PUBLIC TO MAYBE INTERJECT WHEN WE'RE DISCUSSING THINGS RATHER THAN JUST HOLDING THEM TO [OVERLAPPING]
>> I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT.
I THINK A WORKSHOP IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR EVERYBODY TO JOIN IN, AND SO IF ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC, AS WE'RE DISCUSSING THIS, WOULD LIKE TO JOIN IN, JUST RAISE YOUR HAND, COME TO THE PODIUM, AND GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE. THANK YOU, MR. BENNETT.
>> YOU WANT TO LIMIT THE TIME?
>> YOU WANT TO LIMIT THE TIME?
>> I THINK WE'RE GOOD. IF IT WAS PACKED, WE MIGHT DO THAT.
>> YOU TOLD ME YOU'RE GONG TO LIMIT.
>> RIGHT NOW THERE'S NO LIMIT ON THE TIME UNLESS WE FIND THAT WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF TIME.
[3.1 PAB 2024-0001 - LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC) TEXT AMENDMENTS TO ADDRESS REDEVELOPMENT OF SUBSTANDARD LOTS OF RECORD CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH REQUESTS LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS TO ADD DEFINITIONS AND TO CLARIFY PROCESSES FOR DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES ON COMBINED LOTS AND CONSTRUCTION OF STRUCTURES ON COMBINED LOTS BY ALLOWING FOR PROPERTY SEPARATION WHEN SUCH RESULTING LOT IS 50 FEET OR GREATER. REQUESTED LDC TEXT AMENDMENTS SPECIFICALLY ADD DEFINITIONS IN SECTION 1.07.00 (ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS), AMENDS LANGUAGE IN SECTION 1.03.04 DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES ON SUBSTANDARD LOTS, AND AMENDS LANGUAGE SECTION 1.03.05 CONSTRUCTION OR DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES ON COMBINED LOTS.]
WE HAVE BEFORE US OLD BUSINESS, WHICH IS 3.1 PAB CASE 2024-0001 LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS TO ADDRESS REDEVELOPMENT OF SUBSTANDARD LOTS OF RECORD.WE HAD A LENGTHY DISCUSSION IN OUR EARLIER FEBRUARY MEETING AND BECAUSE WE STILL HAVE MANY QUESTIONS IN OUR MINDS, WE AGREED TO HAVE THIS WORKSHOP THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO HAVE MORE TIME TO DISCUSS IT, MAYBE THRASH OUT ANY CONCERNS OR ISSUES THAT WE MIGHT HAVE SO THAT DEPENDING ON THE DIRECTION THAT WE GET IN EITHER OUR WORKSHOP DIRECTION OR IN OUR MEETING WILL HELP US MAKE SOME DECISIONS IN OUR OFFICIAL MEETING IN MARCH.
>> KELLY, COULD YOU KICK SOME OF THE LIGHTS GLARE ON THAT SCREEN? I CAN'T READ IT.
>> YOU MIGHT HAVE A PROBLEM TO [INAUDIBLE]
>> MR. BENNETT, WOULD YOU LIKE TO START?
>> I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT [OVERLAPPING]
>> I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT 10305 WAS DEVELOPED WITH THE INTENT TO LIMIT DENSITY.
THAT WAS THE WHOLE INTENT OF THIS.
ANY CHANGING OR DELETING OF THAT IS GOING TO CHANGE THAT, EITHER INCREASE IT OR LIMIT IT EVEN MORE BECAUSE WE HAVE ALL KINDS OF THINGS HERE THAT WE CAN DO.
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SAY WE HAVE IN OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT OR IN OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT EVERY 25 FOOT LOT OR ANY LOT OF RECORD COULD BE DEVELOPED.
CORRECT? I NEED SOME BUBBLE HEADS.
[00:05:03]
[LAUGHTER] I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT WHEN THAT WAS PUT IN, THERE WAS A REASON FOR THAT.NOT THAT EVERY 25 FOOT LOT COULD BE DEVELOPED, BUT WHEN WE MADE THE CHANGES TO 10305, WE WERE LIMITING DENSITY OR THE AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT THAT COULD OCCUR ON A PARCEL, AND THERE'S A LOT OF DISCUSSION OF WHAT CONSTITUTES A PARCEL, AND I KEEP MAINTAINING THAT MUCH OF OUR DISCUSSION WE LOOKED AT PARCEL BASED ON THE NASSAU COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER, BECAUSE THAT SETS THE TONE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
BY LIMITING DEVELOPMENT THE WAY WE DID WITH 10305, WE HAD TO HAVE A MECHANISM BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE OUT THERE BOUGHT JUST ONE LOT AND WE DID NOT WANT TO TAKE AWAY THEIR RIGHT TO DEVELOP A HOUSE ON THAT LOT.
THAT WAS THE PRIMARY REASON FOR INCLUDING THE 25 FOOT BLOCKS BEING ABLE TO BE DEVELOPED.
NEVER IN OUR IN MY MIND DID WE EVER THINK THAT YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO TAKE A HOMESTEADED PARCEL AND START TEARING IT UP AND DEVELOPING MULTIPLE HOUSES ON THAT PARCEL.
THAT WAS WHERE I CAME FROM IN 2004, '5, '6.
ALL OF A SUDDEN, NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS AS BEING AN IMPEDIMENT TO DEVELOPMENT.
WELL, OF COURSE, THAT'S WHY WE DID IT.
WE DID NOT WANT TO SEE A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT ON THE ISLAND.
WE RECOGNIZE THE SIZE AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS.
WE SPENT MONTHS ON THIS STUFF, AND THIS IS WHAT CAME OUT OF THAT.
NOW, WE'RE BEING FACED WITH INCREASING DENSITY, LEAVE IT ALONE, OR DO SOMETHING MORE.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE CLEAR THAT, AND THIS PROPOSAL, I WOULD JUST HAVE TO SAY ONE THING, BECAUSE THE PROPOSAL STARTS OUT VERY NICE.
IT STARTS OUT BY, I CAN FIND MY PAPERWORK HERE AND I CAN'T FIND THAT.
IT SAYS THAT KEEPING [OVERLAPPING]
>> DIVISION, THE FIRST PARAGRAPH.
IF I CAN FIND THAT SOMEWHERE IN HERE.
>> IT SAYS, THESE REGULAR AIM TO PRESERVE OPEN SPACE, CORRIDOR, NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER, PROPERTY VALUES, AND VISUAL APPEAL OF RESIDENTIAL AREAS.
I WOULD TELL YOU THAT'S WHAT 10305 DID.
THIS PROPOSAL DOESN'T DO ANY OF THAT.
IN MY OPINION, THIS PROPOSAL WILL ONLY INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF HOMES BEING BUILT.
IT WILL DESTROY THE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE ALREADY HERE TO A BIG EXTENT.
WHEN YOU WALK DOWN THE STREET, IF YOU TAKE AWAY THOSE SWIMMING POOLS AND FENCES LOT, THAT CONTAIN THAT HOMESTEAD.
I WOULD SAY TO YOU, THE WAY DEVELOPMENT OCCURS MORE RECENTLY, WE'RE TALKING 200 YEARS LATER, 100 PLUS YEARS LATER, WHEN YOU BUY INTO YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD, WHEN THEY PLATTED THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, THEY WERE ALL 87 BY 150 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
THAT WAS THAT PLAT, WHEN YOU WALK DOWN THAT STREET, YOU SEE ALL OF THOSE PLOTS.
THAT IS WHAT'S HAPPENED OVER TIME, OVER THE LAST 150 YEARS.
YOU ALREADY DID A PLAT, BUT PEOPLE DIDN'T LIKE THAT PLAT.
THEY WANTED TO HAVE BIGGER LOTS.
THEY WANTED TO HAVE BIGGER HOMES.
THEY WANTED TO HAVE SWIMMING POOL.
THEY WANTED TO HAVE ALL OF THESE THINGS.
THIS TOWN DEVELOPS INTO WHAT WE SEE NOW, AND THE WAY I SEE THESE NEIGHBORHOODS IS ALMOST A PLAT BASED ON HISTORICAL TRENDS AND WHAT THE PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WANTED NOT SOME VISION OF LET'S BREAK IT ALL UP AND BUILD A [NOISE].
>> I HAVE A QUESTION. MARK YOU HAVE THE HISTORY?
>> BETWEEN NOW AND WHEN YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT 2004, 2003, WHAT WAS THE DISCUSSION? SOMETHING HAD TO CHANGE, DID SOMETHING HAVE TO CHANGE?
>> ALL THESE PEOPLE THAT YOU SEE HAVE COME IN HERE SINCE WE'VE BEEN HERE IN THE LAST SIX MONTHS.
>> ALMOST EVERY PERSON THAT GOT UP AND SPOKE SAID, NO MORE DENSITY.
[00:10:04]
GOD TO PROTECT THE OTHER.LIMITED RESOURCES, LIMITED WATER.
DON'T WANT MORE DEVELOPMENT, DON'T WANT BIGGER DEVELOPMENT.
>> WHAT'S CHANGED IS THERE'S BEEN A PRESSURE FROM DEVELOPMENT OR DEVELOPERS TO BUILD MORE, AND WE'RE ON A GREAT PLACE TO DO THAT.
WE'RE ON AN ISLAND IN A CITY THAT COMMANDS HIGH PRICES.
WHY DO I WANT TO BUILD A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE OR WHATEVER, SOMETHING, USE FIVE LOTS, BUT I CAN BUILD ONE LOT AND GET ALMOST THE PRICE.
IT COMES DOWN TO, THERE'S A TERM FOR IT, AN APPRAISAL, AND I CAN'T THINK OF IT RIGHT NOW.
BUT IT'S DEVELOPMENT PRESSURE.
WE'VE ALWAYS HAD DEVELOPMENT PRESSURE.
WE NOW HAVE JUST MORE OF IT BECAUSE INTEREST RATES ARE NOW STARTING TO INCREASE, THE ECONOMY IS DOING WELL.
I LOOKED AT A PLACE IN BRUNSWICK YESTERDAY THAT A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO WAS VIRTUALLY ALL VACANT, AND IT'S ALL BUILT UP NOW.
YOU DRIVE DOWN ANY STREET HERE AND YOU GO UP, AND YOU'RE LOOKING AT WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT, AND WHAT IS THAT? THAT'S OUR JOB IS TO CONTROL THAT GROWTH AND CONTROL THAT DENSITY, CONTROL THOSE RULE OF DOING THAT, AND NOTHING'S CHANGED.
WHAT'S CHANGED IS THAT YOU HAVE A NEW GROUP THAT WANTS TO DEVELOP MORE PROPERTY, I GUESS MAKE MORE MONEY.
MY FAMILY WAS JUST HERE, AND THEY USED TO ALWAYS COME FOR SHRIMP FESTIVAL, AND MY NEPHEW LOOKED AT ME AND SAID, WHAT THAT DID YOU DO TO THE SIDE LINES? I SAID, NOT MAKING YOU TO STOP ME, BECAUSE OUTSIDE PEOPLE DO NOTICE IT.
>> OF COURSE THEY DO. I'VE NOTICED IT AFTER 20 SOMETHING YEARS HERE.
>> WHEN I MOVED UP HERE, I WOULD TELL YOU I CAME OUT OF SOUTH FLORIDA.
I GREW UP IN FLORIDA, BORN AND RAISED, AND THERE WAS A MAYBE FIVE MILLION PEOPLE IN FLORIDA WHEN I WAS BORN.
I HAVE NO CLUE WHAT IT IS NOW, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY MILLIONS MORE THAN THAT.
EVERY CITY I'VE LIVED IN IN SOUTH FLORIDA, WHICH INCLUDED FORT LAUDERDALE, BOCA RATON, JUPITER, ALL THAT, WE HAD THE SAME ISSUES.
WHEN I MOVED THERE, THERE WAS LOTS OF VACANT LAND, THIS IS WHERE EVERYBODY WANTED TO GO, AND IF YOU PULL UP AN AERIAL NOW OF ANY OF THOSE PLACES WHERE YOU PUT ROOFTOPS, 12 LANE HIGHWAYS, AND ALL OF THE STUFF THAT COMES WITH GROWTH AND HIGH DENSITY.
I'VE SAID THAT AND ONE OF THE REASONS I CAME ON THE BOARD WAS BECAUSE IT WAS STARTED HAPPENING IN 2002-'03 WHEN WE STARTED WITH A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND IN THEN 2004, I DON'T REMEMBER SOMEWHERE IN THERE.
WE STARTED WITH A COMPREHENSIVE LAND, NEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, NEW LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND THE PEOPLE THEN SAW IT HAPPENING.
YOU ALL SEE IT HAPPENING NOW, AND IF YOU'RE HAPPY WITH THAT, THEN WE CAN HAVE MORE DEVELOPMENT.
IF YOU'RE UNHAPPY WITH IT, NOW IT'S TIME TO MAYBE STOP IT.
ONE OF THIS WAS PUT IN PLACE TO STOP THAT.
LENN WERE YOU ON THE BOARD BACK THEN?
>> SURE. COME ON. TAKE OVER PERMITS.
>> LENN CATTER 13, 13 HICKORY.
I WASN'T ON THE BOARD THEN, BUT MY POINT IS 1035 AS IT STANDS, IT'S PRETTY EASY TO UNDERSTAND AND IN FACT, HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED SINCE THE GALI CHALLENGE WHEN THEY DID THE GREENHOUSE ON TENTH STREET OR WHATEVER.
IT WORKS FINE. WHY BOTHER CHANGING SOMETHING THAT'S REALLY NOT BROKE.
I UNDERSTAND THE COMMISSION EMPHASIS ON IT, BUT AS I LOOK AND I HAVE TO LOOK CLOSER, I SEE CONFLICTS WITH THE COMPLAIN.
WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT UNDERLYING LOTS AND THEN YOU'RE MOVING TO 50, I WOULD JUST REJECT THE WHOLE THING.
IF YOU WANT TO MAKE SOME STATEMENT ABOUT LOOKING A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE WHOLE ISSUE, I WOULD DO THAT.
I THINK ONE PROBLEM HERE IS THAT THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME PERCEPTION THAT WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE HOUSING FOR PEOPLE WHO MIGHT MOVE HERE.
WE DO NOT, IT IS NOT OUR OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE HOUSING FOR OTHER PEOPLE.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS IS THE DIRECTION TO THE CITY.
BUT I WOULD I WOULD RECOMMEND YOU JUST REJECT THIS THING.
LIKE I SAID, THAT IT WAS IMPLEMENTED AFTER AND IT WORKED FINE AND IT WILL WORK FINE.
I DON'T KNOW IF TRINGALI MAY WANT THE DEVELOPER I GUESS IS CHALLENGING AND SO,
[00:15:04]
I BELIEVE AGAIN IT'LL BE, IT'LL BE SUPPORTED AGAIN.>> BECAUSE I WASN'T ON THE BOARD GAMES.
>> I DID ACTUALLY, TWO PEOPLE WERE ON THE PETE WILKINS AND DAVE BILL, AND I HAVE TALKED TO BOTH OF THEM CONFIRMING EXACTLY WHAT MARK IS SAYING, WHAT THE PURPOSE AND THE INTENT OF THAT WAS.
>> MR. DOSTER, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? NO. NO. OKAY. THANK YOU. YEAH.
>> I CALLED DAVID TODAY JUST TO RUN SOME THINGS BY BECAUSE HE WAS THERE THEN, AND.
AM I INCORRECT IN SAYING THIS? AND THEY AGREE WITH EVERYTHING I'VE SAID TONIGHT ALREADY.
THAT WAS THE ATTITUDE OF THE BOARD AND THE WAY WE DID THINGS THEN, AND THAT'S NOT INCORRECT.
>> GOOD. I APPRECIATE THE HISTORY OF WHERE YOU ALL CAME FROM AND HOW THE 10345.6 CAME INTO OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
MR. DAWSON, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING?
>> I APOLOGIZE FOR BEING A FEW MINUTES LATE.
TELL ME YOU MAKE SURE THAT IT'S REFLECTED HE'S HERE.
>> I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU JUST SAID.
I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING LENN JUST ARE WE HERE TODAY TO DISCUSS ONE VERSUS THE OTHER?
>> I'M GOING TO HELP YOU WITH THAT.
>> PART OF WHAT WHERE I'M ASKING IS, KELLY HAS BEEN ASKED TO DO SOMETHING BY COMMISSIONERS I BELIEVE WHICH IS NOT KEEPING THIS LANGUAGE.
>> I'M GOING TO HELP YOU WITH THAT.
>> I'M GOING TO HELP YOU WITH THAT. MARK WANTED TO GIVE US START US OFF WITH A HISTORY LESSON.
YEAH. WE REALLY HAVEN'T STARTED ENGAGEMENT BECAUSE WE WERE HOPING THAT YOU WERE GOING TO AND YOU DID.
PETE, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU WANT TO ADD?
>> WELL. I HAVE MAYBE I'LL CALL IT OBSERVATION.
I'M NUBE ON THE PAP SO I DON'T HAVE ALL THAT SETTLE TIME.
HERE'S THE FIRST QUESTION THAT ARRIVED IN FRONT OF ME IS DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS A CLARIFICATION OR A CHANGE.
THERE'S A DIFFERENCE. NOW, I'M GOING TO TAKE THE TIME TO READ A LEGAL DEFINITION.
A MODIFICATION IS DEFINED AS A CHANGE IN ALTERATION OR AMENDMENT THAT INTRODUCES NEW ELEMENTS INTO THE DETAILS OR CANCELS SOME OF THEM.
WE MEET THAT CRITERIA THERE, BUT LEAVES THE GENERAL PURPOSE OF THE SUBJECT MATTER INTACT.
WHAT IS A CLARIFICATION? THE PURPOSE OF A CLARIFICATION IS TO TAKE A PRIOR STATEMENT, DECISION, OR ORDER AND MAKE IT EASIER TO UNDERSTAND.
I THINK THE STATEMENT THAT'S IN 1035 RIGHT NOW IS PRETTY CLEAR SO AND IN THE DOCUMENT THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW, CLARIFICATION AND CHANGE ARE USED INTERCHANGEABLY IN DIFFERENT PARAGRAPHS.
IT'S GOT TO BE ARB. SO I THINK THE FIRST THING THAT THE PAB HAS TO DO IS SAY, WE DON'T HAVE LEGAL COUNSEL HERE TODAY, SO I'M AND I'M NOT A LAWYER, BUT I THINK WE HAVE TO GO ENFORCE THAT ISSUE.
NOW, THERE ARE THINGS IN THIS PROPOSALS PUT UP, I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE 25 FOOT LOT THING DISAPPEAR FROM EVERYTHING.
BUT I'M NOT NECESSARILY AGAINST THE CONCEPT, BUT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT IT FROM THE STANDPOINT OF WHAT THE IMPACT IS IN TOTAL.
NOW, I THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO HEAR A CLEAR, LET ME CALL IT A CLEAR STATEMENT OR A RATIONALE AS TO WHY THIS CHANGE OR THESE CHANGES ARE REQUIRED.
IS IT A LEGAL ISSUE? IS IT A RESIDENT ISSUE? IS IT A DEVELOPER ISSUE? IS IT A CITY OPERATIONAL ISSUE? ALL OF THEM CAN CAUSE IT.
I HAVE NOT HEARD A SPECIFIC, SOME GENERALITIES BUT NOTHING SPECIFIC.
WHY DO WE NEED TO MAKE THE CHANGE.
LET'S SAY WE ASSUME, WELL, WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS? SHOW ME THE BENEFITS, WHAT THEY ARE.
NOW, THE OTHER THING THAT WE DANCED AROUND A LITTLE BIT IS WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THIS? I THINK WE HEARD IT FROM IN TERMS OF INTERPRETATION OF SOMEBODY THAT WAS AROUND.
WHEN THAT DOCUMENTATION PUT TOGETHER, IT'S NEGATIVE.
NOW THAT MAY BE POSITIVE, I JUST WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE SALES PITCH.
THE NEXT QUESTION WOULD BE, WHAT HAPPENS?
[00:20:01]
WE DO NOTHING. THAT WAS ANOTHER PROPOSAL WE'VE ALREADY HAD DENIED.IF WE JUST SAY ONE OH, 345 STATE AS IS A DISCUSSION AS FAR AS THE PAB IS CONCERNED, WE CAN VOTE ON THAT AT THE NEXT MEETING AND TAKE THAT FORWARD AS OUR POSITION.
THE THING THAT FRUSTRATES ME IS I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE IMPACT IS, BECAUSE THIS DEALS WITH THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS.
THIS WAS NOT THE NEW NEIGHBORHOOD.
I CAN'T CONTROL THOSE 25 FOOT LOTS IN THE SOUTH DOWN [INAUDIBLE] THEY'RE ALREADY 25 FOOT LOT IN OUR VIRGIN LAND.
THEY ARE GOING TO BE, THEY CAN BE BUILT OUT, WE CAN'T CONTROL THAT, AND THIS DOESN'T ADDRESS THAT.
BUT IF WE TAKE A LOT UP HERE, NORTH PART OF TOWN OR SOMETHING WHERE SOMEBODY WANTS TO SUDDENLY PARTITION OUT AND BREAK IT UP, WHAT DOES IT DO TO THAT NEIGHBORHOOD? BECAUSE THAT'S AN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD.
THAT AGAIN IS WHAT MARK WAS SPOKEN.
HOW AM I GOING TO NEGATIVELY OR POSITIVELY DISTURB THAT PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD? IT'S PERSONALITY AND SO I GUESS I GET THE POINT OF, I DON'T FEEL WE'VE GOTTEN DOWN TO THE ABSOLUTE DEFINITION OF WHAT THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE CHANGE IS BASED UPON OR WHAT ITS IMPLICATIONS ARE.
I THINK THAT'S GOT TO COME FIRST OF ALL.
WE GOT TO MAKE SURE WE UNDERSTAND WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO FIX BECAUSE IT'S A LITTLE UNCLEAR IN TERMS OF DOCUMENTATION WHAT THAT IS.
>> WHO DO YOU WANT THAT TO COME FROM? WHERE SHOULD IT COME FROM?
>> WELL, I'LL PUT IT THIS WAY.
I HAVE NOT HAD ONE CITIZEN, AND I'M SORRY, I HAVE NOT HAD A LOT OF INPUT FROM ANY CITIZEN.
I HAVEN'T HAD ANYBODY SAID, OH MAN, LET'S GET THIS DONE.
I'M JUST LOOKING FOR SOMEBODY, WHOEVER WANTS TO PUT THAT SALES PITCH TOGETHER, I'LL TAKE IT.
KELLY CAN DO IT. I DON'T CARE.
I JUST WANT TO HEAR WHAT IT IS AND GET ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE BECAUSE I HAVE A PERSPECTIVE AND IT'S NOT GOOD. TELL ME I'M WRONG.
>> CAN I ASK ONE QUESTION? THE REMEDY AND ONE OF THE REASONS WE'RE HERE IS BECAUSE OF [INAUDIBLE] WE ALL KNOW THAT.
BUT THE REMEDY IS SOMETHING THAT THE DEVELOPER REFUSED TO DO AND THAT WAS TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
THAT BOARD WAS WOULD THEN TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION A LOT OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
THEY DON'T WANT TO GO THERE, SO LET'S CHANGE THE RULE AND PUT IT IN FORMAL. I AGREE WITH.
I DON'T THINK ANYBODY HAS GIVEN US WRITTEN RATIONALE FOR THE CHANGES.
I THINK IN COMMISSION MEETING DISCUSSIONS, I HAVE HEARD THAT I'M RECALLING THIS, THAT IT IS A PROPERTY RIGHTS ISSUE AND THEN AND IT IS AN EASE OF USE ISSUE.
I THINK THE CHART THAT WE HAD FROM COMMISSIONER ASK YOU WAS WHEN THIS COMES UP, IT GOES TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
OFTEN 12, 14 OF THE APPEALS TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HAVE BEEN RULED FAVORABLY.
THE 14 HAS BEEN OVER SOME PERIOD OF TIME, NOT A SHORT ONE.
BY HIS NEW CHART, IT'S PROPERTY RIGHTS AND JUST EASE OF GETTING TO IT.
WHY FORCE CITIZENS TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WHEN IF WE CHANGE THE RULE, THEY CAN JUST HAVE THE RIGHT TO BUILD ON THAT PROPERTY.
>> THERE'S A PROPERTY RIGHT FOR THAT OWNER, BUT NOT THE PROPERTY RIGHT FOR THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD AND RESIDENT.
BECAUSE NOW THEY DON'T HAVE ANY RIGHT AND THEY DO HAVE A RIGHT TO MAINTAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO SAY PURCHASE, THAT'S WHAT I'M [OVERLAPPING]
>> THE PROPERTY RIGHT OF THE OWNER.
>> OF THE OWNER OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD, AND WE NEVER TALKED ABOUT IT.
>> THAT'S HOW I UNDERSTAND IT.
>> I THINK IT'S ALSO A CASE OF WHOEVER OWNS THE PROPERTY, WHETHER IT BE A ENTITY OF TRUST OR PERSON.
THEY SHOULD HAVE GONE IN WITH THEIR EYES OPEN SO THEY KNEW WHAT THE CRITERIA WAS WHEN THEY PROCURED THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY.
FOR THEM TO NOW SAY, OH, I WANT TO CHANGE IT, WELL, I'M SORRY, BUT THAT'S THE RULE.
JUST LIKE WE HAVE SOME OF THE PLANNING.
THAT'S THE WAY IT IS, THAT'S WHAT'S ON THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IF YOU WANT TO CALL IT.
>> I ALMOST BROUGHT THIS UP AT OUR LAST MEETING, BUT THEN VICTORY I THINK WE WANTED TO DO THIS AND THAT SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD IDEA.
BUT I THINK SOMETIME SOON KELLY IS GOING TO BRING ANOTHER PROPOSAL BECAUSE SHE DOESN'T HAVE A CHOICE THAT SHE'S GOING TO DO IT.
IF IT'S SIMILAR TO THE LAST ONE, WHAT I THINK WE SHOULD DO IS VOTE ON IT.
BASED ON WHAT I'M HEARING NOW, WE WILL PROBABLY VOTE IN THE NEGATIVE ON THAT.
I THINK EACH OF US SHOULD BECAUSE KELLY IS GOING TO GIVE IT TO US IN PLENTY OF TIME,
[00:25:01]
AND I'M GUESSING ALL OF THIS IS TO KNOW WHY WE WOULD VOTE THE WAY WE VOTE, AND THEN HAVE SYLVIA ENTER THAT INTO THE MINUTES THAT THOSE OBJECTIONS, IF THAT'S WHAT IT TURNS OUT BEING, WOULD BE WORD ADVISORY BOARD.THOSE OBJECTIONS WOULD BE OUR ADVICE TO THE COMMISSION AS TO WHAT WE SHOULD DO WITH THIS.
IF WE ADVISE THE LAST MEETING, MARK, I THINK I SAID WHAT YOU DID HERE.
THIS RULE EXISTS FOR PROPERTY LINES, FOR NEIGHBORHOOD.
WHAT THAT SENTENCE HE JUST READ IS, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW IT'S GOING TO DO THAT OR IF IT'S GOING TO DO IT.
IF WE WERE TO VOTE, ARTICULATE OUR REASONS FOR VOTING, MAKE SURE THOSE ARE IN THE MINUTES.
LET THAT BE OUR ADVICE TO THE COMMISSION ON IT'S A NEGATIVE WAY OF STATING THE ADVICE, BUT HERE IS WHAT WE'RE THINKING.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO THEM.
>> KELLY, CAN YOU HELP US HERE WITH WHATEVER DECISION WE MAKE IN MARCH ON THE DOCUMENT THAT IS BEFORE US NOW WHICH STAFF HAS PREPARED.
WHATEVER WAY WE VOTE, LET'S JUST SAY FOR INSTANCE, WE VOTE TO APPROVE.
NO MODIFICATIONS, WE VOTE TO APPROVE AND IT WOULD GO TO THE CITY COMMISSION AS A RESOLUTION.
HOW DOES THAT WORK? WHAT'S THE NEXT STEP THAT THEN?
>> FOLLOWING THE BOARD CONSIDERATION THAT IS IDENTIFIED WITHIN A WHEREAS CLAUSE OF AN ORDINANCE THAT WOULD MODIFY THAT, IN THIS CASE, LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, THE COMMISSION WILL DECIDE TO PUBLIC HEARINGS.
YOUR RECOMMENDATION, ALONG WITH MY RECOMMENDATION, WILL SIMPLY SIT IN A WHERE ASK CLAUSE.
IF THAT WHEREAS CLAUSE MIGHT REFERENCE AN ALTERNATE DOCUMENT, IT WOULD BE REFERENCED AS AN EXHIBIT THAT WOULD THEN BE CONTAINED WITHIN THAT ORDINANCE BUT NOT IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
THE DOCUMENT, THE APPLICATION WILL STAND AS WAS PRESENTED MOVE FORWARD.
THE BOARD RECOMMENDATION WILL BE IN THE FORM OF WHEREAS CLAUSE IT WILL REFERENCE WHATEVER THAT IS.
IF THERE'S A SUPPLEMENT DOCUMENT, IT WILL ALSO BE REFERENCED AND MAINTAINED AS PART OF THE MATERIAL.
>> THEN IT'S REVIEWED AND HEARD BY THE CITY COMMISSION AND IT GOES TWICE.
THEN AFTER THE SECOND TIME, SO LET'S JUST SAY THEY SAY THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH AS WRITTEN.
THEN THE SECOND READING COMES UP.
YES, WE LIKE IT JUST EXACTLY THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN.
THAT'S WHAT WE WANT. AT THAT SECOND READING, THEN IT'S DONE?
>> IT DOESN'T COME BACK TO US?
>> I HAVE A QUESTION. HAS THE CITY ATTORNEY REVIEWED THIS PROPOSAL?
>> SHE HAS REVIEWED THE PROPOSAL BEFORE IT WAS PRESENTED TO THE BOARD.
>> SHE HAD NO COMMENTS AT ALL ABOUT THE LANGUAGE AND EVERYTHING IN THE LANGUAGE IS CORRECT.
>> [INAUDIBLE] LANGUAGE CONTENT THAT WAS UPDATED AS PART OF THE PROPOSAL YOU SEE IN FRONT OF YOU.
>> I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THAT.
>> [INAUDIBLE] WAS PROVIDED AND INCORPORATED.
>> IS THERE OTHER ALTERNATIVE ON THE TABLE? WE'VE GOT ONE. LEAVE IT ALONE.
>> THERE'S ACTUALLY MAYBE I'D LIKE I HEARD FOUR.
>> WELL, AGAIN THOUGH, IF YOU LOOK AT THE SECTION, I HAVE MY NOTES HERE, I KNOW, IN LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE UNDER, I HAVE IT RIGHT HERE SOMEWHERE.
IT'S IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 11 SOMETHING OR OTHER. KELLY, WHERE IS IT?
IT'S PROCEDURES FOR ACTION BY THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD.
CONSIDERATION OF APPLICATIONS BY THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD SHALL BE FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COMMISSION.
ITEM C SAYS, THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD SHALL RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COMMISSION THAT THE APPLICATION BE ONE, EITHER APPROVED, AS IT IS APPROVED, APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS, OR THREE, DENIED.
[00:30:02]
AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE STAFF'S PROPOSAL IS WHAT WE WILL HAVE TO VOTE ON IN MARCH.I THINK IT WOULD BE MARCH DEPENDING ON HOW WE GO WITH THIS, BUT LET'S JUST SAY MARCH.
IT WILL EITHER BE TO APPROVE THIS LANGUAGE AND SEND IT ON TO THE CITY COMMISSION TO MODIFY IT, WHICH MEANS WE NEED TO GO IN AND WE LOOK AT DEFINITIONS, WE LOOK AT THE WHOLE THING, AND WE COME UP WITH WHAT WE THINK.
BECAUSE THERE MAY BE SOME THINGS IN HERE THAT WE REALLY LIKE, BUT MAYBE THERE'S SOME LANGUAGE THAT JUST NEEDS TO BE TWEAKED OR SOMETHING.
WHATEVER THOSE MODIFICATIONS, THEN WE CAN SUBMIT IT.
BUT AS KELLY HAS DESCRIBED IT WOULD BE A WHEREAS CLAUSE THAT SAYS WHEREAS THEY'VE APPROVED IT WITH CONDITIONS, THAT CONDITIONS IS GOING TO BE ATTACHED TO THE BACK, OR WE JUST DENY IT.
>> WOULDN'T THAT BE JUST A PART OF THE CHANGE? WELL, IF WE HAVE CONDITIONS IN THERE, THEN I WOULD THINK THAT WOULD BE PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION AND THEN THEY COULD INCORPORATE THEM IN EITHER THEIR APPROVAL OR NON APPROVAL.
>> THAT'S CORRECT. [OVERLAPPING]. WELL, BECAUSE WE'RE THE ADVISORY BOARD, THEY COULD SAY, THANK YOU FOR YOUR ADVICE ADVISORY BOARD, BUT WE REALLY LIKE STAFF'S PROPOSAL, EVERY SINGLE WORD OF IT, EVERY SINGLE SENTENCE, EVERY DOT, EXACTLY THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO GO WITH.
THE TIME AND EFFORT AND GOING THROUGH ALL OF THIS FOR THOSE MODIFICATIONS, WE DON'T KNOW HOW THEY WOULD BE RECEIVED.
>> I THINK WHEN WE SEND IT WE HAVE TO VOTE WHAT WE WANT, AND NOT GO BACK AND FORTH AND BACK AND FORTH, BECAUSE ULTIMATELY IT'S GOING TO BE THEIR DECISION.
>> BUT WE HAVE TO GIVE THEM SOME CHOICES TOO.
I THINK WE HAVE TO DO OUR DUE DILIGENCE HERE.
WE CERTAINLY CAN SAY NO OR YES, BUT THERE'S A LOT IN BETWEEN THERE.
THERE MAY BE, AS YOU SAID, SOME PARTS THAT WE MIGHT LIKE.
THERE'S SOME THINGS IN THE PROPOSAL THAT ALREADY [NOISE] BUT I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH A LOT OF THE DEFINITION.
THE OTHER PART, WE HAVEN'T DEFINED A LOT OF THINGS YET THAT NEED TO BE DEFINED BEFORE WE EVEN MOVE ON TO STEP 2, AND WE'RE NOT DOING THAT.
TO ME, THERE'S A LOT OF WORK THAT HAS TO BE DONE BEFORE WE COME UP WITH A VOTE.
WE HAVE TO, AGAIN, DO OUR DUE DILIGENCE AND THE LETTER [INAUDIBLE] YES WE READ IT, JUST NO, WE DON'T LIKE IT.
JUST LIKE TALKING TO YOUR CHILD.
I WON'T NEED IT. WHY? I DON'T LIKE THAT.
[LAUGHTER] NO, THAT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH.
I THINK YOU SAID SOMETHING [INAUDIBLE] TO THAT.
>> WELL, I THINK THE FACTORS, THIS IS MAYBE THE FRONT END OF, I'LL SAY IT IS MAYBE LIKE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT ANSWERING THE FIRE.
THEY DON'T SEND FIVE FIREMEN INTO THE FIRE WITHOUT FIRST TAKING A VERY DETAILED ASSESSMENT TO ENSURE THAT THOSE FIRE MEN OR WOMEN ARE NOT AT AN UNNATURAL LEVEL OF RISK OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
I THINK WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO IS UNDERSTAND WHAT THE RISKS ARE OR THE BENEFITS ARE OF GOING A PARTICULAR WAY.
ALL WE'RE ASKING FOR IS THAT ASSESSMENT UPFRONT.
I HAVE NO IDEA IF THIS IS 50 PROPERTIES, WHATEVER WE WANT TO CALL IT, ELEMENTS, OR 5,000 IN THE CITY.
AS THE CHARACTER OF THE CITY CHANGES FURTHER IN TERMS OF BEFORE WE ANNEX IN ADDITIONAL PROPERTIES, AND SO FORTH.
>> SIR, ARE YOU SAYING YOU NEED MORE INFORMATION?
>> WE NEED MORE INFORMATION BEFORE WE CAN VOTE, BECAUSE WE CAN'T MAKE THE INFORMATION OFF HEAD.
>> NO, YOU HAVE OTHER CHOICES.
YOU COULD GO THE ROUTE OF, WE COULD PROPOSE, I THINK, A COMPLETELY UNIQUE APPROACH.
>> BUT WE NEED TO KNOW WHY WE'RE DOING IT.
>> THAT WOULD BE THE FIRST STEP ISSUE ALWAYS.
WHY ARE YOU DOING SOMETHING IF YOU CAN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION WHY?
>> I THINK ONE STEP WOULD BE, LET'S LOOK AT 103-05 AND WHAT'S THE PROBLEM THAT EVERYONE'S HAVING WITH THAT AND ADDRESS THAT.
WELL, YOU'RE NOT ALLOWING ANY DEVELOPMENT AND NOW WE HAVE SOMEBODY WANT TO ALLOW DEVELOPER 50 FOOT LOTS.
[00:35:02]
WELL, IS THAT POSSIBLE IN THERE? YES, I THINK THERE'S A LOT MORE DISCUSSION.THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT WE COULD PROPOSE THAT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO THE CIT, AND MORE UNDERSTANDING.
LIKE I SAID, I HAVE SOME PROBLEM WITH A LOT OF THE DEFINITIONS, SOME OF THE PROPOSALS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE, I HAVE PROBLEMS WITH THEM JUST KNOWING WHAT IT TAKES WHEN WE APPRAISE THE HOUSE.
WHEN YOU APPRAISE THE HOUSE, YOU WALK AROUND THE HOUSE AND YOU MEASURE IT.
IF THERE'S A BALCONY IN THERE, THE BALCONY GOES TO THE HOUSE AND THE BALCONY STICKS OUT.
NOW YOU HAVE THINGS THAT HAVE TO DO WITH SETBACKS AND ALL THESE OTHER THINGS THAT GO UP.
IN HERE, YOU WANT TO DO AWAY WITH BALCONY THAT HAS AN UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE.
THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT BEFORE WE JUST RUN OFF AND SAY, YES, WE HAVE THE SAME THING WITH POTENTIAL WITH STORM WATER CONTROL, BECAUSE THAT'S ANOTHER ONE THAT'S EXCLUDED.
>> A PROPERTY COULD HAVE A STORM WATER COLLECTION NOW AND THAT'S NOT ONE OF THE CRITERIA TO DEFINE WHAT THAT PROPERTY IS.
DO WE HAVE A LEGAL ISSUE RIGHT NOW? I MEAN, WITH OUR COURT ACTIONS OR AN ACTION GOING ON RELATIVE TO THOSE TWO CLAUSES.
[OVERLAPPING] SO FAR I HAVEN'T HEARD THAT THE ORDINANCES AS WRITTEN ARE FLAWED.
APPARENTLY THE COURT SO FAR IS SAYING, NO, THEY'RE NOT FLAWED.
>> WE PROBABLY WON'T KNOW WHAT THAT FINAL DECISION IS FOR AT LEAST SIX MONTHS TO A YEAR OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
THIS IS IN FRONT OF US RIGHT NOW.
>> WE CAN WORK ON IT FOR THE NEXT YEAR IF WE HAVE TO.
I MEAN, I KNOW THAT EVERYBODY CRINGED AT THE SET, BUT COMPARED TO THE 103-05 THAT'S THERE NOW, I WILL TELL YOU, IT TOOK ALMOST A YEAR TO DO THAT AS MY RECOLLECTION.
WE SPENT ALL KINDS OF TIME ON THAT, AND WE HAD THIS ROOM FILLED UP WITH PEOPLE.
WHEN YOU GO BACK AND LOOK TO SEE ALL OF THE PEOPLE, IF YOU LOOK AT THE DOCUMENT FROM 2006, THE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE THAT ARE QUOTED AS TALKING IN THERE.
WE HAD TO TURN IT. THOMAS SAID HE MISSED [INAUDIBLE] TO SHOW UP AT EVERY MEETING AND GIVE US HIS LEGAL KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT HE THOUGHT WE WERE DOING, THAT WAS IMPORTANT.
WE HAD ALL THESE PEOPLE HERE THAT CONTRIBUTED TO THAT.
>> WHAT ARE WE ACTING ON TONIGHT?
>> WE'RE NOT ACTING ON ANYTHING.
>> I DON'T MEAN VOTING. WHAT ARE WE DISCUSSING TODAY? WELL, SO THAT WE HAVE IN OUR MINDS WHAT DIRECTION WE WANT TO GO TO IN OUR MARCH MEETING.
>> DO WE NEED MORE INFORMATION?
>> WE DON'T WANT TO SIT AROUND.
FIRST OF ALL, WHAT'S WRONG WITH 103-05 THAT WE HAVE THERE? WHAT'S THE PROBLEM THAT CREATED THIS WHOLE ISSUE? [OVERLAPPING] SPECIFICALLY, LET'S LIST THEM THEN ADDRESS.
I WILL TELL YOU, COME ON UP AND TELL ME DR. ROSS OR CITY COMMISSIONER ROSS OR HOWEVER YOU WANT IT TO BE, AND THEN GO TO THIS PROPOSAL.
I'M TELLING YOU DEFINITIONS ALONE, AND HISTORICALLY THE CITY HAS NOT LIKED TO ADDRESS DEFINITION, WHICH IS PART OF THE PROBLEM WE'RE HAVING NOW.
>> MR. ROSS, YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS US?
>> YOU WOULD GIVE US YOUR FULL NAME, AND YOUR ADDRESSES.
>> MY FULL NAME, RONALD JOSEPH ROSS JUNIOR.
[LAUGHTER] G.I BRASS AT 210 NORTH THIRD STREET.
I'M JUST GOING TO ADDRESS THE ONE ISSUE WHICH IS WHY ARE YOU HERE?
>> I SENT YOU A TRANSCRIPT OR A TRANSCRIPT WAS MADE AVAILABLE OF THE ITEM 5.2 OF THE CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF 5TH SEPTEMBER 2023.
>> WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME IS TALK LOUDER.
>> I'M GOING TO DO THAT. MY WIFE SAYS I TALKED TOO LOUD.
THE QUESTION IS WHY ARE YOU HERE? YOU'RE HERE FOR A VERY SIMPLE REASON.
YOU'RE HERE BECAUSE ONE CITY COMMISSIONER GOT UP AT A MEETING, THIS MEETING YOU HAVE A TRANSCRIPT OF IT AND SAID THAT HE WANTED TO HAVE THE PLANNING BOARD AND STAFF TO BE ABLE TO MAKE IT EASIER TO SUBDIVIDE LOTS.
IT'S A LONG STORY SHORT AND THAT'S WHY YOU'RE HERE.
IT TALKS A LOT ABOUT CLARIFICATION IN THIS AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.
[00:40:02]
BUT WHAT THIS IS REALLY ABOUT, AND IT'S NOT EITHER GOOD OR BAD, IT'S JUST WHAT IT'S ABOUT IS MAKING IT EASIER FOR PEOPLE, WHOEVER THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS TO SUBDIVIDE LOTS AND THAT'S SIMPLY IT.THAT'S THE REALLY LONG STORY SHORT AND YOU CAN CUT AROUND EVERYTHING ELSE BUT THAT'S WHY YOU'RE HERE.
BECAUSE OF IT HAPPENED AT THIS MEETING.
YOU HAVE THE TRANSCRIPT OF IT AND IT CLEARLY STATES THAT IN THIS TRANSCRIPT. THAT'S WHY YOU'RE HERE.
DOES THAT HELP? NOW, AS I DO BELIEVE THAT PROCESS SHOULD NOT BE MADE EASIER OR YOU MAY BE OF THE ELK THAT IT SHOULD BE, YOU CAN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT OR YOU MAY BE SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN.
BUT CLEARLY IT KEEPS SAYING IN HERE CLARIFY.
BUT IF YOU REALLY CUT TO THE CHASE AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT'S TO MAKE IT EASIER TO SUBDIVIDE PARCELS.
ONE OF THE PROBLEMS IS, AND I'VE DEALT WITH THIS, I WAS ON THE PLANNING BOARD BEFORE I DID WHAT I DO NOW, IS ANY ROAD WILL GET YOU THERE IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU'RE GOING.
WHERE THIS WANTS TO GET YOU IS TO MAKE IT EASIER TO SUBDIVIDE LOTS AND WHEN WE TALK LOTS, WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT PARCELS.
FOR ME AND I THINK MOST PEOPLE IN GENERAL, A PARCEL IS WHAT'S IDENTIFIED BY THE NASSAU COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER WHICH IS A COLLECTION OF EITHER IT'S A SINGLE TRACT OF LAND, OR IT'S A COLLECTION OF LOTS FROM PREVIOUS PLATS OR PARTS OF PLATES OR PARTS OF LOTS.
IF YOU GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE DEEDS, AND MARK BENNETT [NOISE] HAS LOOKED AT LOTS OF DEEDS, YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE WILL BE A PARCEL NUMBER ON THE DEEDS, [NOISE] AND THAT IS A COLLECTION AND THEN IT GOES THROUGH EITHER IN A MEETS AND BOUNDS, OR IT HAS LOT 1, 2 AND 3 OF BLOCK 6 OF THIS PLAT OR SO ON AND SO FORTH.
WHAT I BELIEVE MY FELLOW COMMISSIONER WANTED, I DON'T BELIEVE IT IS WHAT HE SAID HERE IS THAT HE WANTS TO BE ABLE TO TAKE THOSE PARCELS.
SOME OF THEM ARE WITH UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORDS, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO DO, AND SUBDIVIDE THEM MORE EASILY.
IT'S BASICALLY SUBDIVIDING OF A PARCEL AS DEFINED BY THE NASSAU COUNTY DEPARTMENT, AND THAT'S WHAT THE INTENT OF AT LEAST MORE THAN ONE CITY COMMISSIONER WAS TO DO THAT THOUGHT MAYBE WHAT THEY SAID, BUT THAT WAS THE INTENT.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. ROBSON?
>> RIGHT NOW. BUT THAT'S SOMETHING.
>> YOU WOULD AGREE THEN THAT WE NEED MORE, OUR DEFINITIONS NEED TO BE ADDRESSED?
>> OH, ABSOLUTELY. IF YOU DID NOTHING ELSE FIXING THOSE DEFINITIONS AND THEN USING THE SAME WORD, IF YOU GO THROUGH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE RIGHT NOW, IT'LL BE A PLOTTED A LOT OF RECORD AND ALL THESE WORDS, WHAT DO THEY REALLY MEAN? WHEN YOU START PARSING THIS AND TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IT AND THE SAME WORD APPEARS IN DIFFERENT WAYS, IT'S HARD TO UNDERSTAND.
THERE NEEDS TO BE A UNIFORMITY OF LANGUAGE, NUMBER ONE.
NUMBER TWO, I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO THE PROBLEM AND SOME DANGEROUS INFORMATION THERE THAT YOU WERE GIVEN BY YOURS TRULY.
[NOISE] I HAD HEARD THAT WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF THIS PROBLEM AND THAT WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF HOW MANY PARCELS WITH THIS EFFECT? WHAT I DID WAS CALL UP THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE AND THEY'RE VERY HELPFUL, AND ASKED THEM TO GIVE ME A LIST OF ALL THE PARCELS IN THE CITY THAT WERE COMBINED OF LOTS THAT HAD UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORDS, SO IT WASN'T A SINGLE TRACK.
IN OTHER WORDS, IT WAS A COMBINATION OF LOT NUMBER 2, 3 AND 4 OF BLOCK NUMBER 6, AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.
WHAT CAME BACK IN THAT WAS I THINK IT WAS OVER 1,000.
SOME OF THOSE WERE CONDOMINIUMS, WHICH PROBABLY WON'T BE PULLED APART, BUT THEY COULD BE IF THE BUILDING BURNS DOWN OR
[00:45:02]
A HURRICANE COMES THROUGH HERE AND LEVELS ALL THESE.YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT THAT IS A POSSIBILITY.
THE TOTAL SCOPE IS WELL OVER 1,000 LOTS PARCELS.
IT'S NOT A MINOR. THAT WAS THE SOLE INTENT OF THAT WAS JUST TO GIVE YOU A SCOPE OR MYSELF ACTUALLY, A SCOPE OF WHAT'S THE SCOPE OF HOW MUCH THIS IS GOING TO AFFECT.
IT'S GOING TO AFFECT A LOT OF PROPERTIES.
>> WELL, ONE OF MY OTHER CONCERNS IS HOW EASY UNDER THE PROPOSAL HERE IT WILL BE TO POP OFF THOSE LOTS AND THAT THERE'S NO PUBLIC NOTICE.
I THINK THAT THIS HAS BEEN A COMMUNITY THAT RESPECTS AT LEAST BEING AWARE OF WHAT'S HAPPENING IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND BEING ABLE TO SPEAK ABOUT IT, WHETHER IT CHANGES ANYTHING OR NOT.
AS A RESIDENT, YOU'VE HAD YOUR SAY.
IT SAYS PROPOSED LOT SEPARATION, NOT PROPOSED PLAT.
>> WELL, THAT NUMBER YOU HAVE COULD HAVE ONE FOR 10 LOTS.
I THINK IT WAS LIKE 1,500 PROPERTIES.
EACH ONE OF THOSE PROPERTIES COULD HAVE 2, 3, 4 OR 5 LOTS IN THERE.
YOU COULD BE FOUR TIMES THAT AMOUNT, THAT 1,500.
>> [OVERLAPPING] OR YOU CAN BE FIVE TIMES IT OR YOU CAN TWICE IT.
THE BARE MINIMUM IS OVER 1,000 THAT IT AFFECTS IN SOME WAY.
THERE'S NOTHING MAGIC ABOUT THAT.
TO REALLY FIGURE OUT HOW IT AFFECTS IT, YOU HAVE TO GO TO THE PROPERTY, WAIVES ITS WEBSITE, YOU HAVE TO PULL UP THE MAP THAT SHOWS ALL THE IMPROVEMENTS ON THAT PROPERTY.
[NOISE] YOU NEED A SURVEY TO SHOW EXACTLY WHERE THAT HOUSE IS AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.
IT'S COMPLICATED AND THAT'S TRUE.
YOU CAN'T GET WITHOUT DOING A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF INVESTIGATION, YOU REALLY CAN'T GET A PRECISE ANSWER TO THE PROBLEM.
BUT YOU CAN GET A BALLPARK THAT IT'S MORE THAN 100 AND LESS THAN 1,500.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON YOUR CONDOMINIUM COMMENT.
IT ONLY TAKES 80% OWNERSHIP, I BELIEVE TO DO AWAY WITH THE CONDOMINIUM AND REBUILD.
CONDOMINIUM DON'T NECESSARILY THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE BUILDING.
>> REMEMBER A BUILDING CAN ALWAYS BURN DOWN AND A HURRICANE CAN ALWAYS KNOCK IT DOWN.
>> OR THE OWNERS SELL AND SOMEBODY BUYS IT AND REDEVELOPS IT.
>> OR YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A SUICIDE OR.
>> ANYHOW, THAT'S THE REASON WHY YOU'RE HERE.
YOU'RE HERE TO MAKE IT EASIER TO DIVIDE PARCELS.
>> THE ONE THING I WOULD HOPE YOU WOULD DO, NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS, IS THOSE DEFINITIONS AND SO THAT EVERYBODY'S USING THE SAME WORDS TO MEAN THE SAME THINGS.
>> NOT ONLY JUST THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BUT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
>> CORRECT. THERE ARE VERY FEW DEFINITION CONCERN THIS OR IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT.
[NOISE] THE FUNDAMENTAL, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, MR. BENNETT, IT ALL COMES FROM ONE OF THE I THINK IT'S A POLICY, IT'S AN OBJECTIVE IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT BASICALLY SAYS THAT YOU CAN DEVELOP A SUBSTANDARD LOT PLOTTED.
I KNOW EXACTLY. IT'S A SUBSTANDARD PLATE OF RECORD I THINK IS THE WAY THE EXACT WORDING I THINK.
BASICALLY THERE'S TWO SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT ON THIS.
WHAT THAT MEANT WAS ON MY STREET ACROSS THERE'S A PARCEL THAT'S COMPOSED OF ONE LOT, AND IT WAS LESS THAN 50 FEET, AND THEY WERE ALLOWED TO BUILD ON THAT.
MY INTERPRETATION OF WHAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS, IS THAT THAT'S WHAT IT WAS FOR.
IT WASN'T FOR IF YOU HAD A PARCEL AND THEN YOU COULD POP OFF LOTS FOR IT.
BUT THAT'S WHAT'S COME BY, I WANT TO USE THE WORD TRADITION, BUT BY PRACTICE, THE NASSAU COUNTY PROPERTIES APPRAISER'S OFFICE AND THE CITY HAS ALLOWED PEOPLE TO TAKE THOSE PARCELS AND TAKE OFF THAT 25-FOOT LOT, WHICH IS A LOT OUT OF THE PARCEL.
I THINK THAT WHAT ORIGINALLY WAS AND WHAT I THINK YOU'VE SAID TODAY WAS THE THINKING WAS WHAT WERE THEY REALLY WERE SAYING IS THAT IF A LOT IS A PARCEL AND IT'S IT,
[00:50:04]
THEY'RE THE SAME SUBSET THEN THAT YOU COULD BUILD ON IT.BUT I DON'T THINK WHAT IT WAS SAYING, WHICH HAS COME TO ME TO SAY IS THAT YOU COULD TAKE A PARCEL MADE UP OF A NUMBER OF LOTS AND POP THEM OFF THAT WERE LESS THAN 50 FEET.
>> [OVERLAPPING] OR THE CURE WOULD BE TO ADD SENTENCES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN COMBINED INTO A LARGER PARCEL.
>> MAKES THEM MORE UNDERSTANDABLE.
YOU GOT TO REMEMBER THAT THE DEVELOPERS WEREN'T DEVELOP AT ANY COST.
IF THEY FIND THE LOOPHOLE AND I MENTIONED TO SOMEBODY EARLIER ABOUT WERE YOU AROUND [INAUDIBLE] THREE HOUSES ON SOUTH FLETCHER THAT GOT BUILT? THERE'S ANOTHER LOOPHOLE.
WE HAVE A 35-FOOT WITHIN THE ATLANTIC OCEAN OF THE BEACH.
IT WAS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN THAT YOU TAKE THE PEAK OF THE REEF ROUTE TO THE LOWEST, AND THEN THE DIFFERENCE IN THAT BECAME THE HEIGHT.
WELL, ONE OF THE DEVELOPERS CAME OUT HERE AND WHAT HE DID WAS AT THE FIRST LEVEL, BETWEEN THE FIRST, SECOND LEVEL HE PUT A ROOFING.
THEN THAT WHOLE MEASUREMENT BECAME DIFFERENT AND CREATED A THREE LOTS OF ELECTRIC THAT WERE VERY MINIMAL SETBACKS. WORDS MATTER.
>> YEAH. THIS IS 13, 13 HICKORY.
YOU GUYS ARE MAKING IN MY OPINION, MAKING THIS WAY TOO HARD.
THE APPLICANT PUT IN AN APPLICATION, SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S TOTAL CONFUSION REJECTED.
I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO TRINGALI WHICH YOU REJECTED TWICE AND THEY OVERRODE IT.
BUT AT SOME POINT AS A LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY BY LAW, THEY'RE GOING TO BE BIG ISSUES WITH THAT.
I DON'T THINK IT'S YOUR JOB TO DECIDE WHAT THEY WANT CHANGE, IT'S THEIR JOB.
THIS ACTUALLY WAS DRAFTED BY THE COMMISSION PRETTY MUCH WITH THE ASSISTANCE.
IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND IT, JUST SAY IT.
AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH 103-05.
IT DOES WORK. IT'S WORKED ON MANY TIMES.
I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE TO GO OUT AND DECIDE WHAT TO DO.
I THINK IN MANY CASES IT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE COMP PLAN.
LET THEM COME BACK, REJECT IT, SAY IT'S NOT SUFFICIENT, AND SEE WHAT THEY DO.
>> THANK YOU, LYFF. THANK YOU.
THE OTHER THING I'D LIKE FOR US TO THINK ABOUT BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU ALL ARE LEANING OR ANYTHING, THAT'S SOMETHING FOR EVERYONE TO DISCUSS THEMSELVES.
BUT IF WE DO REJECT OR DENY THIS LANGUAGE, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WOULD LIKE FOR US TO THINK ABOUT THEN IMMEDIATELY AT OUR MEETING, WHEN WE CAN TAKE A VOTE, IS IF YOU LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE THAT IS PART OF THE ORIGINAL 103-04, THE DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES ON SUBSTANDARD LOTS.
ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT WE HAD [NOISE] WAS THAT THE TRINGALI SHOULD HAVE GONE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.
THAT REALLY IS THE KEY, THAT'S THE MAIN THING THAT WE HAD A PROBLEM WITH.
>> IF YOU READ THAT FIRST SENTENCE BECAUSE YOU TALKED ABOUT WAYS THAT WE MIGHT MAKE THIS LANGUAGE A LITTLE BIT BETTER.
YOU GOT TO REMEMBER IF WE REJECT THIS, STAFF HAS ALREADY DELETED THE ORIGINAL 103-04 AND103-05 AND THEN THEY COME UP WITH A SUBSTITUTE 103-04 AND103-05.
BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW HOW LONG THIS IS GOING TO BE IN PLAY.
BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO TAKE TWO READINGS TO GO BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION.
[00:55:03]
WOULD THAT BE TWO MONTHS? WOULD THAT BE, LET'S JUST SAY IN APRIL AND MAY.>> WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO THINK ABOUT IS THAT WE THINK ABOUT STRIKING THAT FIRST SENTENCE OF THE ORIGINAL 103-04.
>> I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU ARE.
>> LOOK UNDER 103-04, DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES.
>> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE PROVIDED [OVERLAPPING]
>> KEEP GOING. IT'S ANOTHER THREE OR FOUR PAGE FOUR. [OVERLAPPING]
WHAT IT SAYS IS EXCEPT AS MAY BE PROVIDED HERE AND AFTER TO THE CONTRARY IN CONNECTION WITH RE-PLAT SUBDIVISION SPECIFIC REGULATIONS AND SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED LOTS OR PARCELS OF LAND, PUT A PERIOD THERE AND THEN START WITH A CAPITAL A FOR ALL.
WHAT I BELIEVE WHAT HAPPENED [OVERLAPPING] IS THE ON THESE TYPES OF SITUATIONS, IT WOULD HAVE TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO YOU? [OVERLAPPING]
>> FIRST SETS ALL THE WAY TO THE PARCELS OF LAND IN THE SAME PERIOD, JUST THAT FIRST SECTION FIRST UNDER APPLICABILITY.
WHAT THAT DOES IS FOR ANY CASE THAT COMES BEFORE THE PLANNING STAFF IN THE INTERIM, WHILE THIS IS COMING BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION AND THOSE TWO HEARINGS, THEN IT HAS TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.
>> SO DID YOU STRIKE THAT FIRST SENTENCE OUT ALTOGETHER?
>> UP UNTIL YOU GET TO PARCELS OF LAND, RIGHT?
>> NO. UNTIL YOU GET TO 'ALL'.
WHAT WOULD HAVE TO HAPPEN, I THINK IS THAT AGAIN, IF OUR DECISION IS A REJECTION OF THIS, WE TAKE A VOTE, AND THEN RIGHT AFTER THAT VOTE, SOMEBODY'S GOT TO MAKE ANOTHER MOTION TO DELETE THAT LANGUAGE AS EXISTING LANGUAGE. [NOISE]
>> ARE YOU THINKING ALONG THE SAME?
>> I THINK IT'D BE CLEAR IF IT WAS SEPARATE LANGUAGE.
>> MIGHT HAVE TWO MOTIONS AND TWO VOTES?
>> IT'S JUST FOR CONSIDERATION.
WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS THAT OUR ISSUE WITH TRINGALI WAS IN OUR OPINION, IT DIDN'T FOLLOW THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BECAUSE IT SHOULD HAVE GONE TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.
[BACKGROUND] WHAT I UNDERSTAND IS THAT WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT IN CONNECTION WITH RE-FLAT SUBDIVISIONS, THE TRINGALI PROPERTY WENT DIRECTLY TO BE A SUBDIVISION.
>> IF YOU STRIKE THAT, THEN THAT MEANS THEY HAVE TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.
>> IT NEVER BECOMES A SUBDIVISION UNTIL AFTER IT'S BEEN APPROVED, [OVERLAPPING] SO IT'S NOT THAT.
BUT STILL WHAT IT IS, IN MY OPINION, STILL THAT PARCEL FROM THE PROPERTY, THE PRESENT DATABASE.
>> BUT THE PROCESS OF GETTING THERE HAPPENS.
>> IT'S JUST CLARIFIED IN THE REPORT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THAT'S WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, IS IT A CLARIFICATION OR IS IT A CORRECTION? [OVERLAPPING]
>> THIS STARTS TO GET INTO MORE OF A CO-CLARIFICATION.
IT JUST SAYS IF YOU WANT TO USE THOSE LOTS, THEN IT HAS TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.
[01:00:02]
>> THAT'S WHAT WE WERE SAYING ALL ALONG WITH THE TRINGALI, IS THAT IN OUR OPINION, THE STEP WAS MISSED.
>> KEEP IN MIND, I'VE ALWAYS THOUGHT IN TERMS OF THAT PARCEL, ID'ING THEM, THAT IS ONE PART OF WHICH, AGAIN, IT'S NOT IN THE DEFINITION WHEN WE NEED TO FIX THAT PARCEL.
BECAUSE WHEN WE TALK ABOUT PARCELS, WE TALK ABOUT THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY AND THE NUMBER OF LOTS THAT ARE UNDER IT OR ONE LOT OR FOUR.
>> [INAUDIBLE]. ANY CLARIFICATION, I'M GOOD FOR IT.
>> KELLY, DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY PARCELS MADE UP THE TRINGALI PROPERTY PRIOR TO THE TIME THAT THEY STARTED THE DEVELOPMENT? [LAUGHTER]
>> FIVE. I SEE THE HAND IN THE BACK.
>> TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, YOU HAVE FIVE HOMES, THEY WANT TO GO TO WHAT, 12 HOMES?
>> OH, 16 HOMES. [OVERLAPPING]
>> [OVERLAPPING] THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE DEALING WITH, IS MY WHOLE POINT HERE.
THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE DEALING WITH.
WELL, A NEIGHBORHOOD OF FIVE HOMES NOW BECOMING 16 HOMES.
WHAT'S THE [INAUDIBLE] OF 32 CARS GOING UP AND DOWN, THE KIDS, THE TRAFFIC, BLAH BLAH BLAH.
>> JACK AMBER, 1003 BROOME STREET, FERNANDINA BEACH.
THIS WORDING, THE MOVE TO GET AWAY FROM, OR COMPLETELY CHANGE THE LDC AND ANY COMP PLAN AMENDMENTS IS TO GET RID OF ANY VARIANCES SO THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, CLEARLY, THAT'S IT.
THE ONLY OTHER THING I REALLY HAVE TO SAY IS WE'RE FIGHTING THE CITY COMMISSION, WHO IS REPRESENTING THE DEVELOPERS INSTEAD OF THE PEOPLE OF FERNANDINA BEACH AND WHAT WE WANT, AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO RETAIN, OUR CULTURE.
WE'RE FIGHTING THE CITY ATTORNEY WHO, I JUST HAVE TO SAY IT AS MY OPINION, IT APPEARS AS THOUGH SHE BELIEVES HER JOB IS TO MAKE THINGS HAPPEN THAT PEOPLE WANT, THAT SHE'S WORKING WITH, FOR? I DON'T KNOW. MS. GIBSON, SHE'S A SOLDIER TOO, I SEE HER BOUNCING BACK AND FORTH WITH MS. BACH AND IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THEM AND THE CITY COMMISSION ARE FIGHTING EVERYBODY ELSE.
THAT'S HOW WE GOT INTO TRINGALI, BUT I'M JUST SO APPRECIATIVE OF THE PEOPLE OF THIS COMMUNITY.
I'VE NEVER ENCOUNTERED PEOPLE THAT I WAS MORE PROUD OF BECAUSE THEY'RE STANDING UP AND THIS IS THE RENAISSANCE, THIS IS WHERE IT STOPS.
HEARING YOU ALL TALK AND YOUR POSITIVE FEEDBACK, YOU'RE NOT TAKING ANY OF THIS LIGHTLY, I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT.
YOU ARE PART OF THE COMMUNITY, AND THAT AS A VERY BIG COMPLIMENT.
THE CITY COMMISSION, I'M NOT TOO SURE.
A LOT OF THEM HAVE BEEN BORN AND RAISED HERE, BUT WHAT IS THE MOTIVATION? I DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT TOO MANY STICKING POINTS, BUT THEY'RE PUSHING THE SAME WAGON, DIFFERENT HORSE.
THAT'S ALL IT IS. THAT'S ALL I CAN SEE. THANK YOU.
>> OBVIOUSLY, HE REPRESENTS AT LEAST A PORTION OF THE CITIZENS AROUND HERE.
BUT HERE'S MY FRUSTRATION, WE ARE A BOARD, WE'RE A LIAISON, IF YOU WANT TO CALL IT, BETWEEN THE GENERAL PUBLIC, THE RESIDENTS, THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY AND THE CITY COMMISSIONERS TO GIVE US SOME ADDED INSIGHT INTO WHAT'S GOING ON.
I DON'T WANT TO SEE US WALK AWAY FROM PROVIDING THAT INSIGHT.
THERE ARE ALWAYS GOING TO BE TIMES WHERE WE HAVE CONFRONTATIONS AND DISAGREEMENTS.
MY CONCERN IS, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, WE NEED TO TRY AND FINALIZE THIS THING.
NOW MARK MAY VERY WELL BE RIGHT, IT MIGHT TAKE A YEAR TO DEVELOP THAT, BUT I DON'T WANT TO GET TO THE POINT WHERE WE SUDDENLY SHUT OFF THAT FAUCET AND THE COMMISSION JUST SAYS, THE PAB, IT NEVER LISTENS TO ME OR WHATEVER.
I THINK SOMEHOW WE GOT TO COME UP WITH A SOLUTION THAT REPRESENTS WHAT WE FEEL IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO FOR EVERYBODY IN THE CITY.
IT TRIES TO MEET THE GENERAL CONCEPT OF WHAT THE COMMISSIONERS FEEL OR A MAJORITY, I'LL SAY, A MAJORITY OF THE COMMISSIONERS WANT TO DO.
I JUST DON'T WANT US TO WALK AWAY AND SAY,
[01:05:02]
WELL, WE'LL JUST WASH OUR HANDS.THAT'S WHAT CONCERNS ME A LITTLE BIT ABOUT JUST DOING A THUMBS DOWN ON THE VOTE VERSUS COMING UP. [OVERLAPPING]
>> WELL, MY OBSERVATION IS THAT OVER TIME, AT LEAST THE FIVE YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN ON THE BOARD, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT GENERALLY WHAT STAFF BRINGS TO US, CERTAINLY AS IT RELATES TO ANNEXATIONS, WE HAVE BEEN VERY POSITIVE AND RECEPTIVE TO THE ANNEXATIONS.
IN FACT, I CAN HARDLY EVEN THINK OF ONE THAT WE'VE REJECTED, OF AN ANNEXATION, WHICH IS ONE OF THE CURRENT COMMISSION THAT THEY REALLY ARE IN FAVOR OF ANNEXATION, SO WE'VE BEEN VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THAT.
I THINK THAT YOU CAN PROBABLY GO ON AND ON ABOUT DIFFERENT THINGS, BUT I THINK THIS BOARD HAS BEEN VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THE CITY COMMISSION.
BUT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS THE HEART OF THIS COMMUNITY. [BACKGROUND]
>> I THINK THAT'S WHY WE ARE ALL STOPPING IN OUR TRACKS TO SAY WE CAN'T LET THIS GO.
WE HAVE GOT TO DO IT THE RIGHT WAY.
I JUST CAN'T GIVE [NOISE] THAT APPROVED STAMP THAT MAYBE SOME PEOPLE WOULD LIKE FOR US TO DO TO SAY ANYTHING THAT COMES BEFORE US, WE APPROVE, BOOM [NOISE].
>> WELL, KEEP IN MIND, ONE OF THE THINGS WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DO IS THAT PUBLIC COMMENT ON WHAT WE'RE DOING, AND THAT CAN TAKE A MONTH, A WEEK, OR A YEAR TO HEAR PUBLIC COMMENT.
THEN AFTER DOING THAT DUE DILIGENCE, THEN WE HAVE A VOTE AND THEN IT GOES TO THE COMMISSION.
>> YOU'RE RIGHT. YOU'VE HAD A LOT OF EXPERIENCE.
WHEN HE SAYS A YEAR, THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY BAD.
IT'S LIKE MY 4,000 DAYS SINCE WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THAT WATERFRONT.
NOW ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE MIGHT BE JUST SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT.
IS THERE ANY REASON WE CAN'T FOCUS ON DEFINITIONS AS A COMPARTMENTAL SUBSET? I'M JUST TRYING TO TAKE IT DOWN TO SMALLER BIKES.
WE'VE GOT A BASIC ISSUE OF WHERE SOMEBODY, WE'LL HAVE TO SAY, MAYBE THE DEVELOPERS WANT TO HAVE MORE FLEXIBILITY.
THEY WANT TO FOCUS MORE ON WHAT I'LL DEFINE AS A DENSITY INCREASE.
THAT'S MY OBSERVATION OF WHAT THIS WOULD DO BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF WHAT IT'S AFFECTING ITS EXISTING PROPERTIES.
THIS HAS A SET OF TWO HOUSES OR FOUR HOUSES.
I'M GOING TO HAVE EIGHT HERE. I'M GOING TO HAVE ONE OR TWO VERSUS ONE.
MAYBE WE SUBDIVIDE IT OUT AND DO SOME THINGS AND SAY WE CAN'T PROCEED WITH WHAT THE DEFINITIONS ARE AND HAVE THOSE CORRECT.
THEN WHEN WE BUILD THE FINAL LANGUAGE, THE DEFINITIONS ARE NO LONGER AN ISSUE.
YOU INSERT THE RIGHT DEFINITION.
IT'S DEFINITION 201 OR 608 OR WHATEVER IT HAS TO BE.
>> I THINK THAT'S A VERY GOOD WAY TO LOOK AT THE PROCESS WHEN WE START TO TAKE THAT ON BECAUSE I ABSOLUTELY AGREE THAT THE DEFINITIONS HAVE TO BE LOOKED AT AND EITHER UPGRADED AND AGREED UPON.
WE'LL GET RIGHT WITH YOU, MA'AM.
>> THE DEFINITION IS ACCORDING TO WHO?
>> THAT'S THE PROBLEM. [OVERLAPPING].
>> WELL, THE DEFINITION IS ACCORDING TO US BECAUSE THAT GETS APPROVED AND WE PUT IN [OVERLAPPING].
>> WE CAN'T JUST MAKE UP OUR OWN DEFINITION.
>> YOU'VE GOT RESEARCH. YOU HAVE A BOOK THAT ALL THE DEFINITIONS [OVERLAPPING] FOR APPROVAL.
>> WE JUST HAVE TO MAKE SURE OUR DEFINITION ISN'T SKEWED BECAUSE WE REPRESENT THE COMMUNITY AS WELL AS THE COMMISSION [OVERLAPPING].
>> IT'S NOT LIKE THIS HAS NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE.
HOW MANY MUNICIPALITIES ARE THERE IN FLORIDA? FOR THE MOST PART, YOU CAN PROBABLY GO TO ANY NUMBER OF CITIES AND FIND LANGUAGE THAT'S ALREADY BEEN [OVERLAPPING].
>> A GOOD EXAMPLE MIGHT BE I JUST PULL UP FLORIDA SENATE.
THERE IS A 100 YEARS WORTH OF ARCHIVE DEFINITIONS IN THERE.
SO LIKE THE TERM PARCEL, THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEFINES IT,.
WHY NOT USE IT? WHAT'S WRONG WITH IT? NOW, IF WE HAVE TO TAILOR MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE TO OUR COUNTY, OUR CITY, OUR WHATEVER, BUT THE POINT IS THERE'S SOMETHING THERE.
THERE'S ALREADY A PORT SLAB, SO TO SPEAK.
WE'RE GOING TO ANCHOR TO THAT SLAB AND THEN WE'LL MAKE IT FIT WHAT WE NEED IN FERNANDINA BEACH.
>> MA'AM, IF YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE?
>> DEBBIE WIFFIN, 227 NORTH 11TH STREET, FERNANDINA.
>> I'VE BEEN A RESIDENT HERE FOR 27 YEARS AND WHERE I LIVE NOW IS WHERE I HOPE TO DIE.
[01:10:04]
I ALWAYS WANT TO LIVE THERE.>> THE REASON BEING, IT'S A SMALL, LITTLE.
YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT HOW IF CERTAIN LANDS ARE SOLD AND SOMEBODY GETS IT AND PUTS IN A CONDO OR PUTS IN A MULTIPLEX SOMETHING, THAT CHANGES THE WHOLE TONE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I MOVED INTO AN OLD MILL WORKERS' NEIGHBORHOOD ON NORTH 11TH STREET.
WE LOVE IT, OUR NEIGHBORS LOVE IT, BUT WE DON'T LOVE WHAT HAPPENED AT THE END OF THE STREET ON ATLANTIC.
NOW HERE YOU HAVE AN EXAMPLE OF YOU HAVE ALL THESE LITTLE HOMES, AND THE PEOPLE WHO ARE BUILDING HOMES IN THOSE AREAS ARE KEEPING THEM UNDER CONTROL.
THEY'RE NOT GOING INTO FOUR LEVELS.
BUT THERE'S AN APARTMENT BUILDING OR A CONDO COMPLEX, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT, THAT THE OWNER OF THE BOAT HOUSE HAS BOUGHT AND IS PUTTING UP, AND LOOKS LIKE SOMETHING IS RIGHT OUT OF MIAMI.
IT'S GOT PARKING UNDERNEATH IT.
IT'S GOT THREE LEVELS WITH A ROOFTOP THAT ADVERTISES A MILLION-DOLLAR VIEW AND YOU'RE RIGHT NEXT TO THE SEWAGE PLANT OR THE WATER PLANT, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO SAY. [LAUGHTER]
>> THAT'S WHERE THAT OLD SHOP AND GO [OVERLAPPING].
>> YES, IT'S WHERE THE OLD, LITTLE SHOP IS RIGHT BY THE WATER TOWER.
>> JUST A LITTLE BIT EAST OF ST. PETER'S CHURCH.
>> I'M SURE THE GUY WHO PUT TONS AND TONS OF MONEY INTO THE SCHOOLHOUSE, WHICH IS ALSO AN APARTMENT, BUT HE PUT TONS AND TONS OF MONEY TO RETAIN THE FEEL OF WHAT OUR COMMUNITY IS AND NOT TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE SOMETHING STRAIGHT OUT OF MIAMI WITH THINGS THAT PARKING UNDERNEATH.
I'M GOING TO HAVE TO DRIVE BY THAT THING EVERY TIME I WANT TO GO BACK INTO MY LITTLE NEIGHBORHOOD THREE BLOCKS BACK.
IT'S RIGHT ACROSS FROM CENTRAL PARK.
CENTRAL PARK HAS A GOOD THING GOING RIGHT NOW WITH A LOT OF ACTIVITIES.
THE KIDS PLAY ON THE EQUIPMENT.
YOU GOT BALL GAMES GOING AT NIGHT, AND THEY'VE GOT THESE PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO BE PART-TIMERS NOT SPENDING ALL THEIR DOLLARS IN OUR COMMUNITY ALL THE TIME.
THEY'RE ALL GOING TO BE PART-TIMERS.
HOW ON EARTH DID THAT GET THROUGH? I CANNOT FIGURE OUT BECAUSE I, LIKE ONE OF YOU SAID, WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE SAME KIND OF PEOPLE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD AS MY NEIGHBORS ARE NOW.
I DON'T WANT PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO BE RUDE, DON'T UNDERSTAND SAYING HI TO EVERYBODY WHEN YOU GO INTO PUBLIX AND YOU'RE OUT IN THE PARKING LOT AND YOU SAY HI TO EVERYBODY.
I CAME FROM HAWAII AND THAT WAS THE FIRST THING THAT TOOK ME WAS I WAS WALKING THROUGH THE PARKING LOT IN PUBLIX AND THREE PEOPLE SAID HELLO TO ME THAT I HAD NO CLUE WHO THEY WERE.
I SAID THIS IS IT. THIS IS WHERE I'M STAYING.
[LAUGHTER] I DON'T BELIEVE IN ALL OF THESE HIGH RISES GOING IN.
I DON'T BELIEVE IN ALL OF THESE MULTIPLEX THINGS GOING IN BECAUSE, YES, THEY DO CHANGE A NEIGHBORHOOD.
AREN'T WE ABOUT NEIGHBORS AND NEIGHBORHOODS?
>> LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION. THOSE HOUSES THAT WERE BUILT BEHIND WHERE THAT OLD SHOP AND GO, [NOISE] THOSE ARE HABITAT FOR HUMANITY HOUSES, WEREN'T THEY?
>> THEY WEREN'T. THOSE ARE JUST INDIVIDUAL.
YOU'RE BACK THERE JUST LITERALLY ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPERTY.
>> WE ARE AND THE LAND ACROSS THE STREET FROM US.
THE CITY COMMISSION FOUGHT LONG AND HARD AND GOT THAT IN CONSERVATION IN PERPETUITY WITH THE LAND TRUST.
THE SCHOOL BOARD IS THERE AS WELL.
THE HOMES THAT ARE BEING BUILT THERE ARE MAYBE TWO-STORY, BUT THEY'RE NOT THE GARGANTUAN TWO-STORY.
THEY'RE COMMUNITY. IT'S A COMMUNITY.
LIKE I SAID, WE HAVE BLOCK PARTIES.
WE KNOW ALL OUR NEIGHBORS FOR THREE OR FOUR BLOCKS AROUND.
THAT'S THE WAY IT WAS WHEN I FIRST MOVED HERE.
IT SADDENS ME TO SEE HOW THE DEVELOPERS IN THE TOWN AND ON THE COMMISSION ARE FIGHTING TO GET AS MANY PEOPLE IN THIS TOWN AS WE CAN HOLD BEFORE WE BUST.
WE'LL GO FROM BEING A CUTE, LITTLE TOWN TO BEING BAD FOR THE RESIDENTS AND BAD FOR THE VISITORS THAT COME HERE.
WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO COME HERE? BECAUSE IT'S WALL-TO-WALL PEOPLE AND YOU HAVE TO WAIT THREE HOURS TO GET A RESERVATION IN A RESTAURANT.
IS THAT WHAT WE WANT? I DON'T THINK SO, BUT I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW WHAT I THOUGHT.
>> I'M 100% IN FAVOR OF THE DEFINITIONS, AND A LITTLE SUBCOMMITTEE TO WORK ON THAT I THINK WOULDN'T MAKE LIFE EASIER FOR THE REST OF OUR TIME A LOT.
BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, NO MATTER WHAT THE DEFINITIONS ARE,
[01:15:03]
WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON, IS IT GOING TO BE EASIER TO SUBDIVIDE THE LOTS OR NOT.NO MATTER WHAT THEY'RE CALLED, THERE'S GOING TO BE A PROPOSAL IN FRONT OF US THAT MAKES IT EASIER TO SUBDIVIDE THOSE LOTS.
>> THE LANGUAGE IS EXACTLY WHAT IS IN FRONT OF US.
>> THAT LANGUAGE IS EXACTLY WHICH JUST TO TACK ON TO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS POPPING OFF THOSE LOTS AND NO PUBLIC NOTICE.
>> [OVERLAPPING] WHAT IF THE DEFINITION IS RIGHT?
>> THEN THEY GET TO DECIDE IF THEY WANT TO DO THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL OR CHANGES OR WHATEVER.
[OVERLAPPING] BUT WE'VE DONE WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DO.
>> MY END OBJECTION WOULD BE TO CONVINCE THE CITY COMMISSIONERS, AT LEAST THREE OF THEM, THAT WHAT WE RECOMMEND IS THE RIGHT COURSE OF ACTION.
WE'VE GOT TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO THAT. THAT WOULD BE [OVERLAPPING]
>> THAT THERE IS WHAT I HAD IN MIND WHAT I WAS SAYING WHEN IT COMES BEFORE US TO KNOW VERY SPECIFICALLY WHY WE'RE VOTING THE WAY WE'RE VOTING.
THEY HAVE IT IN THE MINUTES [NOISE] SO THAT IT IS SPECIFIED IS VOTING IN THE NEGATIVE OR HOWEVER I'M VOTING OR THE POSITIVE, AND HERE ARE MY THREE REASONS WHY WE'RE DOING THAT.
THAT WOULD BE A WAY OF TELLING THE COMMISSION WHY WE VOTED THE WAY WE DID, WHAT ARE OUR OBJECTIONS, OR WHY WE VOTED IN FAVOR OR AGAINST, THESE ARE THE REASONS.
>> BUT IF SAYS YOU WENT BACK AND DEVELOPED A RATIONALE OF YOUR THOUGHT PROCESSES, WHAT CAUSED YOU TO MAKE THAT [OVERLAPPING]?
>> OR TAKE THAT POSITION? I DON'T WANT TO SAY BEYOND THAT FOR OUR SUBJECT.
>> WELL, WE'RE GIVEN THE REASON WHY WE'RE HERE, RIGHT?
>> TO CHANGE THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
>> COMMISSIONER ROSS OVER THERE.
>> THE COMMISSION WANTS THE CHANGE.
>> THEY WANT TO SUBDIVIDE THE LOTS.
>> THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE A VOTE ON.
>> IS IT A YES, IS IT A YES WITH MODIFICATIONS, OR IS IT A DENIAL OF THE LANGUAGE THAT HAS BEEN PUT BEFORE US?
>> OR IT'S A NO WITH MODIFICATION.
>> WELL, IT DOESN'T SAY NO WITH A DENIAL WITH MODIFICATIONS IMPLEMENTED [LAUGHTER] SO I'M SORRY.
>> OR YOU CAN REWRITE IT ANYWAY IF YOU WANT TO.
>> WELL, I WOULD LIKE THEM TO GET TO THE POINT WHERE THEY FEEL OKAY.
THEY'VE HEARD FROM THE PAB, THEY'VE HEARD FROM THE CITIZENS, AND THE PAB AND THE CITIZENS ARE IN UNISON IN TERMS OF WHAT THE RIGHT DIRECTION IS.
>> WE WOULD HOPE THAT THEY WOULD.
>> YOU HAVE TO HAVE AN OBJECTIVE ON WHAT WE'RE DOING, AND THAT WOULD BE MY OBJECTIVE.
I DON'T WANT TO TELL THE COMMISSIONERS WE CAN'T FIX THAT PROBLEM.
I WANT TO COME UP WITH A WAY THAT THEY WILL.
>> BUT I THINK WE HAVE TO CLEAR THIS OFF THE TABLE IN ORDER TO GO FORWARD, IN ORDER FOR US TO REALLY SAY WE'VE GIVEN OUR DECISION AND THAT IS NOT GOING TO GO TO THE CITY COMMISSION.
AND THEN WHATEVER THEY DO WITH IT, THEY DO WITH IT.
AND THEN WE AS A BOARD CAN DECIDE THAT, OKAY, NOW WE WANT TO START LOOKING AT THE DEFINITIONS AND GETTING THEM COORDINATED, AND WE WANT TO START MODIFYING THE LANGUAGE HERE OR THERE, AND WHEREVER.
>> I WOULD ADD TO THAT, I THINK THAT'S RIGHT AND GOOD SO I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF US ARTICULATING OUR REASONS INDIVIDUALLY FOR WHY WE VOTED THE WAY WE DID, AND THEN AT THE CITY COMMISSION MEETING WHERE THIS IS RAISED TO HAVE VICTORIA SPEAK TO IT AND SAY WE VOTED THIS WAY, AND WE DID IT FOR THESE REASONS.
AND SO WE'RE ON THE RECORD AT LEAST TWICE.
>> HOW MANY CITIZENS HAVE COME FORWARD AND SAID THEY'RE PRO DEVELOPMENT AND THEY'RE PRO SEPARATING LOTS?
>> [OVERLAPPING] IT IS GOING TO SOUND ZERO.
>> WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE PUBLIC WANTS AND WHAT THE CITY COMMISSION WANTS, AND IT'S LIKE THIS RIGHT NOW.
>> WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THOSE CONFLICTS.
BUT WHAT I WANT IS WHAT IS BEST FOR THE CITY OF FERNANDINA.
THAT HAS TO BE THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE WANT TO DO IT.
YOU CAN ALWAYS HAVE A MINORITY ONE DIRECTION OR THE OTHER ON THE SUBJECT.
SO WHAT IS BEST FOR THE CITY OR SOMETHING.
WHEN I'M LONE AND GONE, THE CITY IS STILL HELPING. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THAT HAS TO COME FROM THE CITIZENS.
[01:20:04]
>> YOU ALL ARE HAVING SUCH A GOOD CONVERSATION.
YOU HAVE SOMETHING IN FRONT OF YOU.
AND I THINK I MENTIONED THE LAST TIME I HAD SOMEONE LEGAL LOOK AT THIS, AND THIS IS IN NO WAY AT ALL CRITICIZING ANYBODY WHO WORKED ON THIS BECAUSE POOR MS. GIBSON, I FEEL FOR YOU.
I'VE BEEN IN A SITUATION BEFORE WHERE I'VE BEEN A SUPERVISOR AND YOU LACK STAFF AND YOU'RE DOING EVERYTHING.
AND I THINK THAT MS. GIBSON AND MS. BACH HAD TO COME UP WITH THIS ON THEIR OWN.
MEMBER BENNETT CAN PROBABLY TELL US WHEN 10305 WAS ORIGINALLY DRAFTED, IT PROBABLY TOOK AT LEAST A YEAR OR TWO BECAUSE IF YOU DRAFT LANGUAGE QUICKLY AND BECAUSE THERE'S A COMMISSIONER WHO PROBABLY WANTS TO GET THIS DONE BEFORE THE END OF THIS TERM.
BUT IF YOU DRAFT LANGUAGE VERY QUICKLY AND YOU DON'T HAVE IT REVIEWED BY ENOUGH PEOPLE, YOU'RE GOING TO GET ALL SORTS OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.
THE PERSON I HAD TO LOOK AT THIS SAID THEY COULD BLOW MANY HOLES IN THIS.
SO IF THIS GETS APPROVED, AND I LOVE WHAT MEMBER STEVENSON SAID, REGARDLESS OF HOW THIS BOARD VOTES TO MAYBE SUPPLY THE COMMISSIONERS WITH REASONS WHY, BECAUSE THERE'S GOING TO BE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES AND LAWSUITS OVER THIS PROPOSED LANGUAGE FOR YEARS, AND NONE OF US KNOW THEM NOW.
YOU CAN PROBABLY GET ANY LAWYER TO LOOK AT AND SAY, "YEAH, I COULD BLOW HOLES IN IT THIS WAY, THIS WAY, AND THIS WAY." BUT THESE DEVELOPERS HAVE A LOT OF MONEY AND THEY HAVE A BIG LEGAL STAFF.
SO I THINK THAT THIS HAS BEEN PROPOSED VERY REACTIONARY.
I DIDN'T REALIZE WHEN I FIRST STARTED LOOKING INTO TRINGALI WHAT EXPLOSION THIS WOULD BE IN THE CITY.
I THINK THIS IS VERY REACTIONARY TO THAT SO THAT THEY CAN STILL GET THIS PROJECT DONE.
IT'S CUTTING OFF YOUR NOSE DESPITE YOUR FACE.
SO REGARDLESS OF HOW YOU VOTE, I THINK IT WOULD BE BEST TO TELL THE COMMISSIONERS EXACTLY WHY AND SAY, "HERE'S FIVE LEGAL EXAMPLES OF HOW DEVELOPERS COULD BLOW HOLES IN THIS." I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A DISASTER.
IF YOU-ALL VOTE TO DENY IT VERY QUICKLY AND PASS IT ON TO THE COMMISSION, IT'S MY OPINION THAT THEY'RE GOING TO PASS IT AND IT'S GOING TO CAUSE TROUBLES FOR FERNANDINA BEACH FOR YEARS.
SO IF THERE'S ANY WAY THAT YOU CAN GET A LAWYER INVOLVED TO LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE, TO REALLY REVIEW IT BEFORE IT GETS PASSED ON TO THE COMMISSION, YOU'LL SAVE FERNANDINA, AND I THINK THAT IS YOUR BIGGEST OBJECTIVE.
SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR LISTENING.
WE'VE STILL GOT TO DO A BETTER TAILOR RIGHT HERE.
>> WELL, I'M UPSET THAT SHE'S NOT.
>> WELL, SHE WILL BE AT OUR MARCH MEETING.
UNFORTUNATELY, WE WILL MISS KELLY.
KELLY WILL NOT BE AT OUR MARCH MEETING, BUT SYLVIA WILL BE THERE.
>> AND THAT'S WHAT THE WORKSHOP IS FOR.
>> IT'S FOR US TO TALK ABOUT THIS, AND THEN TO BE ABLE TO THINK ABOUT WHAT DIRECTION DO WE WANT TO GO IN.
IT'S GOING TO TAKE AS LONG AS IT TAKES FOR US TO LOOK AT IT, GO THROUGH IT, AND NOT JUST SAY NO AND NOT SAY YES.
IF IT'S NO, THESE ARE THE REASONS NO AND THIS IS A BETTER PROPOSAL, AND THEN IT'S UP TO THEM.
>> DO WHATEVER THEY'RE GOING TO DO.
>> I CERTAINLY WOULDN'T WANT TO SEE IT APPROVED AS IT IS.
SO SHE SAID I WOULD BE AFRAID THAT WE JUST SAY, NO, WE'RE OUT OF HERE.
IF THEY'RE GOING TO APPROVE IT. [OVERLAPPING]
>> I DON'T WANT TO SEE THAT. I'M NOT OPPOSED TO TAKING WHATEVER TIME IT TAKES TO GO THROUGH IT.
WE HAVE SEVERAL PROPOSALS HERE.
WE CAN TAKE EACH ONE OF THOSE AND PICK AND CHOOSE AND PUT TOGETHER THE BEST CARD IN THE ROOM.
>> YEAH, [OVERLAPPING] AND MEMBER.
>> DO WE NEED ANOTHER WORKSHOP?
WHAT'S THE PROCESS, KELLY IF WE SAID WE'RE NOT READY TO GO EITHER DIRECTION, WE'RE NOT READY TO APPROVE.
[01:25:02]
WE'RE NOT READY TO DENY, AND WE WOULD LIKE TO OFFER A DOCUMENT THAT WE WOULD APPROVE WITH MODIFICATIONS, OUR DOCUMENT.DO WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING WITH THIS IN OUR MARCH MEETING?
>> YOU COULD POSTPONE IT IN YOUR MARCH MEETING TO ANOTHER TIME CERTAIN DATE OTHERWISE I'D HAVE TO RE-ADVERTISE IT AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE.
IT ISN'T NECESSARILY A PROBLEM UNDER A COUPLE OF HUNDRED DOLLARS.
>> WELL, I'M JUST SAYING WHATEVER TIME IT TAKES TO GET IT DONE WELL, SO WHERE WE FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH SAYING [OVERLAPPING] SOMETHING FORWARD.
>> THAT'LL TAKE TILL NEXT YEAR.
>> THAT'LL TAKE US TILL NEXT YEAR.
>> BUT WE'VE GOT. WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?
YOU'VE BEEN APPOINTED TO WHAT YEAR? >> 2050.
>> OUR INTERIM CITY MANAGER WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO US.
>> YEAH. THERE IS NO DEFINITE TIME FRAME.
Y'ALL NEED TO TAKE WHATEVER TIME YOU NEED TO TAKE.
IF WE HAVE TO KEEP POSTPONING IT, YOU'RE GOOD TO MAKING A RECOMMENDATION. THAT'S WHERE WE ARE.
>> THINK THAT'S GOOD. BECAUSE I WANT TO HEAR FROM TAMMY, ALL LEGALLY SURROUNDING THOSE TWO PARAGRAPHS.
>> THOSE TWO ARE IN CONCRETE RIGHT NOW.
>> THAT'S WHAT I LIKE TO TELL US. THAT WANTED 2000.
>> I THINK WE'RE HERE FOR THE RESIDENCE.
YOU ALREADY LIKE, WE HAVE NOT HAD ANY VOTES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OR THE CHANGE.
GRANTED, THAT'S NOT WE GOT WHAT, 14,300 AND SOME PEOPLE HERE.
BUT WE HAVE SOME PEOPLE IN THE ROOM THAT HAVE GOT SIGNIFICANT SALE, A LOT MORE THAN I HAVE DEALING WITH THIS PARTICULAR SUBJECT.
WE HAVE THEIR THOUGHTS, WE HAVE THE DEVELOPERS.
WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY DEVELOPERS HERE.
I DON'T THINK WE'VE HAD ANY ARCHITECTS OR ANYBODY ELSE HERE THAT, THAT MIGHT BE INVOLVED WITH DEVELOPMENT LAND.
I THINK WE NEED TO AIR FROM WHY, WHY IS IT GOOD FOR FERNANDINA BEACH AND THEN THE CITY OPERATIONAL.
KELLY, ARE YOU HAVING A MAJOR PROBLEM WITH THESE TWO PARAGRAPHS AND ANYTHING DEALING WITH THE DAY-TO-DAY OPERATIONS OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT? THAT WE DON'T HAVE THAT WAS NOT BOARD.
WE HAVE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD WHO ARE NOT HERE EITHER THAT SHOULD WEIGH IN ON PUTTING HER INTO A CORN.
>> BUT THERE IS, THERE'S ALWAYS OPPORTUNITIES FOR A BETTER PROCESS. YEAH.
>> WHY YOU JUST SET, SIT DOWN, THINK OF SOME PIECES WE CAN TAKE OUT.
I THINK DEFINITIONS WOULD BE CERTAINLY A GREAT PLACE TO START, AND THAT WE COULD, WE CAN SPEND A MEETING ON DEFINITIONS AND GOING.
THEN WE CAN TAKE ANOTHER PIECE OF IT AND WE THEN TAKE ANOTHER PIECE OF IT.
WHEN WE FEEL COMFORTABLE THAT WE HAVE ALL THE INGREDIENTS AVAILABLE, MAKE THE CAKE, THEN WE CAN SIT DOWN AND GO THROUGH THE WHOLE THING.
>> WELL, THEY CAN'T THEY CAN'T DO ANYTHING, THEY CAN'T DEVELOP, THEY CAN'T SPLIT THE LAWS.
>> THEY'RE WAITING FOR US TO MAKE.
>> WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT I THINK WE NEED TAMMY TO SPELL OUT WHAT IS AND WHAT IS IT LEGAL?
>> THAT'S THAT WAS WHERE THAT SENTENCE THAT I TALKED ABOUT.
[OVERLAPPING] WE NEED TO GET SOME MORE DISCUSSION WITH HER ABOUT THAT, BECAUSE IF THAT'S ONE THING THAT WE COULD DO, THEN WE SHOULD PROBABLY THINK ABOUT THAT.
>> [OVERLAPPING] THAT WOULD BE, IN EFFECT, A CLARIFICATION.
IF YOU ALL ARE QUIBBLING OVER WORDS, WHICH IS REALLY IS OKAY BECAUSE WORDS ARE IMPORTANT.
BUT AT THIS POINT IN TIME, , WHY DON'T WE JUST NEXT MEANING, LET'S SET UP THE DEFINITIONS WE WANT TO GO THROUGH, LET'S GET THOSE PRESENTED TO US SO WE CAN AT LEAST MOVE ON THAT PIECE OF IT.
BECAUSE WE CAN'T EVEN AGREE WITH A PARCEL.
IS, I MEAN, YOU'VE GOT ALL THESE DEFINITIONS IN HERE, WHAT'S A PARCEL AND THEN THERE'S SOME ALTERNATIVE LANGUAGE. WHAT'S A LOT?
>> YOU WANT TO PUT THAT ON OUR AGENDA FOR MARCH MEETING?
DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE THAT ANYTHING ELSE COME MARCH? TAMMY HAS TO BE THERE. TAMMY WILL BE THERE.
>> KELLY, IS IT NECESSARY THAT THAT BE DONE AS A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE? CAN A SUBCOMMITTEE WORK ON DEFINITIONS?
>> I WOULD STRONGLY RECOMMEND A SMALL NUMBER OF PEOPLE DO THAT RATHER THAN A LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE.
>> KEEP IN MIND, WE CAN ALWAYS HAVE A SUBCOMMITTEE GO OUT AND DO THIS AND SET UP OTHER TYPES.
[01:30:01]
[OVERLAPPING].>> 1,2,3,4,5,7 PEOPLE WILL NEVER GROW.
>> EXACTLY RIGHT, SO I WOULD LIKE TO GET A LIST OF ALL THE DEFINITIONS HERE SO THAT WE CAN ALL HAVE THAT DO YOUR RESEARCH, LOOK AT IT, AND THEN BOOKS GET TOGETHER AS THE SUBCOMMITTEE WE HAVE TO.
>> YOU KNOW RICHARD, THE DEFINITIONS MAY BE SPELLED OUT FOR US BECAUSE AS I SAID, TAMMY MAY SAY, THIS IS THE DEFINITION, AND IT'S NOT UP TO A SMALL GROUP TO.
>> WELL, SHE'S ALREADY LOOKED AT THIS DOCUMENT.
>> PEOPLE WILL, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT I THINK IT'S IT WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE TO GET HER OPINION.
>> BETWEEN THE DOCUMENTS YOU'VE BEEN GIVEN, BETWEEN THE PROPOSAL THE ALTERED, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF DEFINITIONS IN THERE THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED.
IT'S A SEASON, I'M NOT GOING TO GO OUT RIGHT IN THE [INAUDIBLE].
>> YOU CAN ALSO SET UP A SUBCOMMITTEE IF YOU WANTED TO.
PRIOR TO THAT, COULD, WE HAVE TO NOTICE THAT WE GET TOGETHER.
WE CAN GO THROUGH SOME OF THIS IF YOU WANTED TO IN A SMALLER GROUP, AND YOU GET TO A POINT WHEREVER YOU WANT TO ON THAT COMMITTEE.
>> WHAT YOU WERE THINKING IS THAT PRIOR TO OUR MARCH MEETING OR AFTER THE MARCH MEETING?
>> PRIOR TO THE MARCH WOULD BE FINE. THAT'S UP TO YOU.
BUT I THINK THAT THERE'S A LOT OF TIME INVOLVED.
WE SPEND A LOT OF TIME GOING OVER THINGS THAT A SMALLER GROUP MIGHT BE ABLE TO RECONCILE AND CAN CONCLUDE BEFORE IT'S THE BIGGER AND LETHAL.
>> I THINK TOO IN THAT SMALLER GROUP, IF YOU AND NICK WERE BOTH ON THAT SMALLER GROUP, YOU BOTH HAVE A EXPERIENCE. YEAH.
>> YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE HERE, WE GET THERE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> BUT I THINK IT'S A WORKSHOP, DOES IT?
>> IT'S ONLY YOU'D HAVE TO DO THE WORKSHOP NEXT WEEK.
>> MARCH SIXTH, AND YOU COULDN'T EVEN NOTICE THAT ONE, COULD YOU? NOW, IT'S ALREADY WEDNESDAY.
>> YOU HAVE TO NOTICE IT FOR WEDNESDAY OR LATER.
>> TODAY IS WEDNESDAY, SO BE YOU'D HAVE TO GET IT OUT TONIGHT TO NOTICE THAT MEETING FOR THE SIXTH.
>> HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU NEED TO KNOW?
>> IS THIS A SMALL GROUP WORKSHOP?
>> YEAH, IT'S LIKE TWO FOR SMALL GROUP, THREE PEOPLE.
>> 12 DAYS. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS.
>> BUT THE GROUND RULE IS THE REST OF THE GROUP HAS TO AGREE THAT WHATEVER THAT GROUP COMES UP WITH IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO OR ARE WE GOING TO PICK.
>> EVEN THEN WHY HAVE A SMALL GROUP?
>> SMALL GROUP CAN PUT SOMETHING TOGETHER.
>> THEN EVERYBODY GETS THE VOTE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> WE DON'T HAVE ANY IN FIGHTING.
>> I WOULD I WOULD TELL YOU FROM HISTORY, I THINK EVERY YOU'RE GOING TO APPOINT SOME MEMBERS OF THAT GROUP, BUT I WOULD ALSO ASK THAT ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD CAN ATTEND THOSE MEETINGS.
THAT'S CORRECT. YEAH. YES. WE'VE HAD SOME ISSUES IN THE PAST.
>> YOU'RE NOT INVITED BUT WE'RE IN A WORKSHOP.
CAN I ESTABLISH A SUBCOMMITTEE DURING A WORKSHOP?
>> CAN I ASK THAT IF YOU ESTABLISH THAT, THAT YOU ALSO HAVE A SECRETARY AS PART OF THAT? I WOULD NEED SOMEBODY TO BE APPOINTED TO TAKE MEETING MINUTES.
>> IS THIS WORKSHOP FOR ALL OF US? IT WOULD BE A SUBCOMMITTEES.
>> CAN YOU ESTABLISH A WORKSHOP DURING A WORKSHOP?
>> YOU SAID TODAY YOU'RE GOING TO DO THAT.
IF WE WERE IN A WORKSHOP TODAY, YEAH.
DO I HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL WE ARE IN AN OFFICIAL MEETING IN ORDER TO SET UP A SUBCOMMITTEE? THAT'S WHAT I WAS SAYING, CHAIRMAN.
>> BECAUSE KELLY, THAT'S WHAT WE DID WHEN WE DID THE COMP PLAN REWRITE ON THE PORT, RIGHT.
>> WE GOT THROUGH THE EARLY WE'VE HAD A HUNDREDS OF SUBCOMMITTEES.
>> IF WE HAD A SUBCOMMITTEE, WOULD WE I MEAN, IF WE'RE GOING TO IF THAT SUBCOMMITTEE IS GOING TO MEET BEFORE THE 13TH, THAT'S GOT TO BE THE SIXTH OR SEVENTH.
>> WAIT TILL AFTER THE 13TH? YEAH, WAIT AFTER THE 13TH, BUT THE SIX WOULD BE THE TIME BEFORE THE MEETING.
>> WELL, THE ACTING CITY MANAGER SAID THERE WAS NO, YOU DON'T HAVE TO CRUNCH.
IT'S NOT CRUNCH, THAT THAT'S IT'S WHATEVER THE BOARD WOULD LIKE TO DO.
>> LET'S SEE IF YOU DID IF YOU DIDN'T DO ANY THING TILL THE 13TH, SO THAT'S TWO WEEKS.
I'M ALSO THINKING BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE LOOKING TO KELLY TO START PUTTING POURING THE CONCRETE SO TO SPEAK,
[01:35:03]
ON THE FRONT END OF WE GET THAT INITIAL LIST TOGETHER, RIGHT? WE'VE GOTTEN SOME CITIZEN INPUT ON WHAT THEY FELT, MAYBE SOME THINGS TO ADD, THINGS TO CLARIFY, AND WE'VE GOT TO START THINKING A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT ARE THE SOURCES WE'RE GOING TO USE.IN OTHER WORDS, THERE CAN BE COURT DECISIONS THAT PRETTY RIGIDLY DEFINE EXACTLY WHAT A PARTICULAR WORD OR GROUP OF WORDS MEANS, AND IF WE'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING, LET'S DO SOMETHING THAT ISN'T GOING TO BE CHALLENGED IN COURT.
>> BUT KEEP IN MIND ONCE WE PRODUCE THE DOCUMENT, THE CITY ATTORNEY SHOULD BE LOOKING OVER THAT SIGN OFF ON IT AT THAT POINT.
WE DON'T NEED TO. WE DON'T NEED
>> I'M JUST SO IF WE DIDN'T DO IT THE 13TH, WE COULD DO IT IN THE 27 OUR ELECTORS.
>> DR. ROSS WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO US.
>> NOW I'M DR. ALL KINDS OF TITLES.
TIP ROSS. YOU GUYS ARE MAKING THIS A LOT HARDER THAN IT HAS TO BE DEFINITIONS.
THERE'S A LIST ALREADY IN THERE, SOMEBODY GAVE THEM TO ME.
YOU COULD ADD TO THEM, SUBTRACT TO THEM, BUT THOSE ARE ALL THE WORDS.
WHAT I DID IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID.
I WENT TO THE FLORIDA STATUTES AND LOOKED FOR ALL THAT STUFF.
ONE'S WHAT'S THERE, ONE'S WHAT WAS PROPOSED BY STAFF, AND ONE'S THOSE.
ALL THOSE DEFINITIONS CAME FROM FLORIDA STATUTES.
THERE'S A BOOK, DEFINITIONS FOR PLANNING BOARDS.
IF YOU WANT, I'LL GIVE IT TO YOU.
THIS ISN'T ROCKET SCIENCE, AND YOU CAN TAKE WHAT MAKES WORKS FOR US, FOR THE CITY.
BUT IT'S NOT THAT DIFFICULT AND THERE AREN'T THAT MANY WORDS THAT NEED TO BE DONE.
I THINK THE LIST IS ALREADY THERE FOR YOU, AND THEN YOU JUST HAVE TO MAKE THEM UNIFORM.
WE WANT TO SET UP A SUBCOMMITTEE TO LOOK AT THE DEFINITIONS, AND WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT MEETING BEFORE OR AFTER OUR REGULAR SCHEDULED PAP MEETING.
>> I THINK IT HAS TO BE AFTER. [OVERLAPPING].
>> I WILL NOT BE HERE ON THE 27TH, WHICH WOULD BE OUR NORMAL TIME TOO.
>> [OVERLAPPING] I WOULD NOT BE HERE.
NO, I'VE READ THAT WHOLE WEEK OF AT TEST.
>> RIGHT NOW WE'LL JUST DO IT AT OUR NEXT MEETING.
IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S TOO MUCH OF A PROBLEM BETWEEN NOW.
>> THEN LET'S PLAN TO MAYBE BREAK SOME THINGS DOWN IN OUR NEXT MEETING, SET UP SOME TIME PERIODS TO MEET, AND YOU CAN APPOINT A BOARD AT THAT TIME, A SUBCOMMITTEE.
THEN YOU'LL HAVE AT LEAST THE OTHER TWO PEOPLE HERE SEE WHAT THEY HAVE.
IS THE NEXT MEETING GOING TO BE THE SUBCOMMITTEE?
>> WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO AT OUR REGULAR, WE'RE GOING TO HEAR REGULAR BUSINESS.
>> YOUR REGULAR BUSINESS IS THIS.
>> BUT KELLY, IN THAT MEETING I COULD MAKE A MOTION TO [OVERLAPPING] POSTPONE, AND WE WOULD PUT A TIME SPECIFIC DATE WHEN IT WOULD BE OKAY.
>> THAT COULD BE MONTHS IN THE FUTURE.
THIS DOESN'T HELP GET THE ASSIGNMENTS DONE.
>> JUST GIVE A COMMISSIONER SOMETHING THAT SAYS OKAY, I HAVE SOMETHING TO HOLD THEM TO, AND THAT THAT GIVES US A TIME.
>> NO, THAT'S WHY I WANT TO BE PART OF IT.
>> LET'S GET THESE DATES [OVERLAPPING].
>> THE 13TH, WE'RE GOING TO MAKE A DECISION ON WHETHER OR NOT WE DO SOMETHING WITH WHAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US TONIGHT, OR WE EXTEND THAT OUT FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION AT A FUTURE MEETING TO BE IDENTIFIED AT THAT MEETING.
>> I WOULD TELL YOU, LOOK AT DEFINITIONS NOW THAT YOU THINK IT COULD BE INCLUDED IN OUR DISCUSSION.
THINK OF SOME FUTURE TIME PERIOD.
THINK OF SOME WAYS WE CAN BREAK THIS UP TO MAKE IT INTO PIECES THAT WE CAN DIGEST IT, HAVE OTHER PEOPLE ADD TO IT, IMPLICATION.
>> I'D LIKE TO GET AN EMAIL OF THE LIST OF DEFINITIONS.
>> WELL, WE GOT TO START AS A [OVERLAPPING].
GOOD IDEA, YOU PUT TOGETHER [OVERLAPPING]
>> NO, BUT I MEAN, YOU DIDN'T SPELL OUT THE DEFINITIONS YOU WANTED.
>> I'M SAYING THAT YOU NEED TO.
>> IT'S NOT UP TO ME TO SAY THAT.
>> YOU HAVE A WHOLE BUNCH OF DEFINITIONS IN HERE.
I WOULD SAY, LET'S GO THROUGH, LIST THEM OUT.
READ WHERE THEY ARE, AND WHAT PROBLEMS YOU HAVE.
I HAVE SOME PROBLEMS WITH SOME OF THEM.
THEY'RE IN CONFLICT ALREADY WITH WHAT'S ALREADY IN THE CITY, SOME OF THEM.
>> WE COULD DO THAT IN OUR REGULAR MEETING.
>> I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO TAKE THAT MUCH TIME.
>> NO, THAT'S ONE PART AND THEN WE CAN SPEND TIME, WHAT'S THE NEXT PART WE WANT TO PUT IN.
[01:40:01]
>> THE IDEA HERE IS GET TO I WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO PROPOSE SOMETHING TO THE CITY COMMISSION.
WE'VE LOOKED AT THAT, WE DON'T AGREE WITH, OR WE AGREE WHATEVER ARE POINTED, AND THESE ARE THE CHANGES OR THINGS THAT WE THINK NEED TO BE INCLUDED IN IT, AND THEN THAT GOES AS A WHOLE PACKAGE, AND THAT MAY TAKE A LOT OF TIME.
>> OUR NEXT MEETING IS OUR REGULAR MEETING.
>> IN READING THIS AND IF YOU UNDERSTOOD IT EXACTLY THE WAY IT IS GOOD FOR YOU, BECAUSE I DON'T, [OVERLAPPING] AND I SEE A NUMBER OF ISSUES IN IT.
I'M NOT SAYING IT'S ALL BAD, BUT I THINK THAT ONE OR THREE OR FIVE WAS GOOD WORK.
A LOT OF TIME IT'S BEEN HERE FOR 15 YEARS PLUS OR WHATEVER, DID ITS JOB.
IF WE HAVE TO, LET'S TWEAK IT A LITTLE BIT, MAKE IT EASIER.
>> IF THE CITY COMMISSION IS SAYING, AND EVERYBODY SAYS, WELL, I WANT MORE 50 FOOT LOTS IN HERE, I WANT MORE DEVELOPMENT.
WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS ARE IF ALL THESE 25 FOOT LOTS GOT DEVELOPED.
WE DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW MANY WE JUST HAD COMMISSIONER ROSS PUT ON WITH [NOISE] THAT EXACT NUMBER.
EACH ONE OF THOSE PARCELS COULD HAVE TWO TO ANY NUMBER OF [OVERLAPPING].
>> LIKE ONE HOUSE UP THERE ON B STREET THAT HAD NINE LOTS.
>> WELL MY NAME IS ON THAT LIST FOR A PROPERTY, AND I COULD PUT TWO HOUSES, ALTHOUGH I'M IN MU-8, WHICH THEN CREATES OTHER THINGS.
I'M JUST TELLING YOU THAT YOU'RE TALKING LOTS OF PROPERTY.
>> WELCOME TO THE LONG ISLAND.
>> I'VE LIVED IN SOME OF THESE PLACES AND WHEN I WAS TALKING WITH DAVID BILL, HE SAID I ALWAYS HAD THIS GUIDING STAR WHEN I WAS ON THE BOARD.
NOW WHAT IS IT? DOES THIS NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE CITY? DOES IT NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE ADJACENT RESIDENTS? DOES IT NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE ENTIRE ISLAND? THOSE ARE THINGS THAT WE SHOULD GO THROUGH EACH AND EVERY TIME WE VOTE, YOU KNOW?
>> WHAT WE DO IS IMPORTANT AND IF THEY DON'T LISTEN TO IT, YOU'VE DONE YOUR BEST.
>> EXACTLY. I THINK THAT'S REALLY WHERE WE ARE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> WELL I GUESS MAYBE THINK OF SOME ALTERNATIVE FUTURE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS.
I DON'T KNOW WHO'S GOING TO BE ON THE SUBCOMMITTEE, BUT I THINK WE ALL THINK OF THAT.
>> WE WOULD LIKE TO BE ON THE SUBCOMMITTEE. ALL RIGHT, MARK?
>> I THINK WE SHOULD ASK NICK TO BE ON IT?
>> YEAH, I'D LIKE TO BE NEXT ON IT.
>> THEN THE REST OF US CAN CAN ATTEND.
>> THAT WILL GIVE US FOUR ON THE SUBCOMMITTEE.
>> NICK, PETE, MARK ,THAT'S THREE, AND THEN THE REST OF US COULD JUST SHOW UP.
>> WE'VE HAD SUBCOMMITTEES WITH TWO PEOPLE.
BOB HOWARD AND I MET IN THIS ROOM YEARS AGO.
THREE DIFFERENT MEETINGS JUST ON HEIGHT. WHAT IS HEIGHT?.
BELIEVE ME [NOISE] THAT TOOK MONTHS.
HOW DO YOU MEASURE HEIGHT? THAT'S A BIG THING.
>> YOU KNOW HAPPENED, ALL OF OUR WORK, THEY CHANGED A BUNCH OF WORDS AND HOW IT WAS DONE.
WHERE DID THAT COME FROM? I DON'T KNOW.
>> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A DATE.
>> CAN YOU MAKE ME A SIX PACK?
>> WE DON'T HAVE ANY PAB REQUESTS ON THE MARCH MENU. DO WE?
>> THAT'S WHEN WE'LL SET UP THE SUBCOMMITTEE, AND WE'LL START LOOKING AT OUR CALENDARS AND WHAT WE WANT TO ACCOMPLISH IN SOME FUTURE WORKSHOPS [BACKGROUND].
>> WE WILL TAKE ACTION ON THE CASE THAT'S BEFORE US.
>> WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME ALTERNATE MEETINGS TO THINK ABOUT.
>> THAT SOUNDS GOOD. [OVERLAPPING]
>> WHAT TIME IS THE NEXT MEETING?
>> OUR NEXT MEETING IS THE 13TH.
>> WE'RE GOING TO MEET AT REGULAR TIME.
>> YOU SAID THERE'S NO OTHER BUSINESS BUT THIS FOR THE NEXT MEETING?
>> COMMISSIONER ROSS, YOU MENTIONED SEVERAL PLACES TO GET DEFINITION.
>> IS THERE SOME PLACE THAT WOULD YOU MIND PUTTING AN EMAIL TOGETHER AND SENDING THAT TO ME SO I CAN JUST GO TO THE SITE RATHER THAN.
>> TELL YOU WHAT? I'M GOING TO FINALLY DROP IT OFF OF HERE.
[01:45:02]
>> IS THERE ANY MORE PUBLIC COMMENT? ANYONE ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS US? WE'VE HAD VERY GOOD COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE.
>> DO WE KNOW OF ANY PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE ON THE COMMITTEE OR BE PART OF THE COMMITTEE.
>> YOU KNOW THAT IS A GOOD IDEA.
>> YOU KNOW, WE COULD ADD OTHER PEOPLE.
[OVERLAPPING] WE HAVE A LOT OF TALENT IN THE CITY.
>> WE'RE VERY FORTUNATE. IT'S GINGHER, NICK, PETE AND MARK? THERE'S FOUR OF THEM. VERY GOOD.
>> IF YOU NEED HELP, CALL I'LL BE HOME.
>> THE PAY IS REALLY GOOD TOO.
>> OUR NEXT MEETING IS MARCH THE 13TH, WEDNESDAY, MARCH THE 13TH, AND YOU'RE GOING TO LET NICK KNOW.
>> HE'LL BE AT THE NEXT MEETING.
>> HE WILL BE AT THE NEXT MEETING.
>> KELLY, IF YOU WANT TO SEND HIM A NOTE TO JUST SAY, BY THE WAY, YOU'RE GOING TO BE ON A SUBCOMMITTEE.
>> THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU DON'T SHOW UP.
>> THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU DON'T SHOW UP.
THERE'S NO PUBLIC COMMENT AND ANYTHING ELSE FROM THE BOARD BEFORE WE ADJOURN? NOTHING ELSE? OUR MEETING IS ADJOURNED. THANK YOU ALL.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.