[4.1 PRESENTATION - NASSAU HUMANE SOCIETY - Nassau Humane Society Executive Director Dionna Sowers will present the "City Commission Dog of the Month."]

[4.2 PRESENTATION - "FERNANDINA 200" - In commemoration of Fernandina Beach's 200th Anniversary, Lighthouse Keeper Thomas Patrick O'Hagan will provide a presentation at the first City Commission Regular Meeting of each month in the year 2024.]

[4.3 PRESENTATION - KEEP NASSAU BEAUTIFUL - "GARDENS OF AMELIA" - Keep Nassau Beautiful Executive Director Ms. Lynda Bell will provide a presentation on their "Gardens of Amelia" Arboretum program.]

[4.4 PRESENTATION - ANNUAL AUDIT REPORT - Mauldin & Jenkins CPA & Advisors representatives Mr. Wade Sansbury and Mr. Daniel Anderson will present the Annual Audit Report for the Fiscal Year ending September 30, 2023.]

[4.5 PROCLAMATION - "FLOOD AWARENESS WEEK" - Recognizes the week of March 4, 2024, as "Flood Awareness Week". Building Official Jimmy Parr and Building Department staff will be in attendance to accept the Proclamation.]

[5. CONSENT AGENDA]

[6.1 ATHLETIC FACILITIES USE AGREEMENT - TEAM FERNANDINA STINGRAYS, INC. - RESOLUTION 2024-38 APPROVING AN ATHLETIC FACILITIES USE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH AND TEAM FERNANDINA STINGRAYS, INC. FOR THE USE OF THE ATLANTIC RECREATION CENTER POOL; AUTHORIZING EXECUTION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Synopsis: Approving an Athletic Facilities Use Agreement between the City of Fernandina Beach and Team Fernandina Stingrays, Inc. for the use of the Atlantic Recreaton Center Pool for competition swimming from January 1, 2024, to July 31, 2024.]

[6.2 FEE WAIVER APPROVAL - FERNANDINA BEACH BABE RUTH LEAGUE - RESOLUTION 2024-39 APPROVING THE FERNANIDNA BEACH BABE RUTH LEAGUE CIVIC ORGANIZATION FEE WAIVER/COSPONSORSHIP APPLICATION FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS, BEGINNING IN 2024 AND ENDING IN 2028; AUTHORIZING EXECUTION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Synopsis: Approves waiving the $4.00 per player/per year fee for the Fernandina Beach Babe Ruth League beginning in 2024 and ending in 2028 due to their substantial monetary and in-kind donations to City recreation facilities and in accordance with the Civic Organization Fee Waiver/Cosponsorship Guidelines.]

[6.3 REJECTING ITB 23-23 AND PROPOSAL ACCEPTANCE - SWEATS CUSTOM FABRICATION - RESOLUTION 2024-40 REJECTING ALL BIDS RECEIVED FOR INVITATION TO BID (ITB) 23-23 SKATE PARK STRUCTURES NEW FRAMING; ACCEPTING A PROPOSAL FROM SWEATS CUSTOM FABRICATION FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF DETERIORATING STEEL SUPPORT FRAMING IN THE AMOUNT OF $42,000; AUTHORIZING A TOTAL PROJECT COST NOT TO EXCEED $50,000; AUTHORIZING EXECUTION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Synopsis: Rejects the bids received for ITB 2023-23 and accepts a proposal from Sweats Custom Fabrication for removal and replacement of the deteriorating skate park steel support framing for $42,000.00 and an $8,000.00 contingency fund for unforeseen circumstances, for a total amount of $50,000.00.]

[6.4 SOLE SOURCE PURCHASE APPROVAL - BARNEY'S PUMPS INC. - RESOLUTION 2024-41 APPROVING THE SOLE SOURCE PURCHASE OF HOMA SUBMERSIBLE PUMPS FROM BARNEY’S PUMPS INC. FOR THE UTILITIES DEPARTMENT IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $88,679; AUTHORIZING EXECUTION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Synopsis: Approves the sole source purchase of Homa pumps in an amount not to exceed $88,679 from Barney's Pumps Inc.]

[6.5 AUTHORIZATION TO DEFEND - MATT ROACH - RESOLUTION 2024-42 AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DEFEND THE CITY IN CERTAIN LITIGATION; AUTHORIZING EXECUTION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Synopsis: Authorizes the City Attorney to work with the City's claims administrator to defend the City in the matter of Matt Roach v. City of Fernandina Beach and Steven Cibor (Owner/Applicant), Case No. 24-CA-000049 .]

[6.6 BUDGET AMENDMENT - VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS - RESOLUTION 2023-43 APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023/2024; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Synopsis: Approves amendments to the Budget for the actual FY2022/2023 results to budgeted carried forward cash balances and carry forward budgeted appropriations for the current year.]

[6.7 CHANGE ORDER APPROVAL AND BUDGET AMENDMENT - BRANCE DIVERSIFIED INC. - RESOLUTION 2024-44 APPROVING BRANCE DIVERSIFIED INC. CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 FOR FERNANDINA HARBOR MARINA BASIN MAINTENANCE DREDGING IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $94,000; APPROVING A BUDGET TRANSFER IN FISCAL YEAR 2023/2024; AUTHORIZING EXECUTION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Synopsis: Approving Brance Diversified Change Order No. 1 and a budget amendment to supplement additional Fernandina Harbor Marina basin maintenance dredging costs due to increased sedimentation from the time of the bid opening to the time of sediment extraction, in an amount not to exceed $94,000 in Fiscal Year 2023/2024.]

[6.8 CHANGE ORDER APPROVAL AND BUDGET TRANSFER - INSITUFORM TECHNOLOGIES, LLC - RESOLUTION 2024-45 APPROVING INSITUFORM TECHNOLOGIES, LLC CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 FOR REHABILITATION OF PORTIONS OF THE CITY’S GRAVITY SEWER SYSTEM AND STORMWATER SYSTEM DUE TO INACCURATE EQUIPMENT MEASUREMENT; APPROVING A BUDGET TRANSFER; AUTHORIZING EXECUTION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Synopsis: Approves Insituform Technologies, LLC Change Order No. 1, in the amount of $13,279.00, and a Budget Transfer for the cost adjustment to account for the inaccurate line diameter measurement.]

[6.9 PROPOSAL APPROVAL - THOMAS AND HUTTON ENGINEERING CO. - AMELIA RIVER WATERFRONT PARK LOTS C AND D - RESOLUTION 2024-46 APPROVING A PROPOSAL FROM THOMAS & HUTTON ENGINEERING CO. FOR THE AMELIA RIVER WATERFRONT PARK LOTS C AND D DESIGN PHASE, PERMIT PHASE, AND CONSTRUCTION PHASE IN THE AMOUNT OF $95,500; AUTHORIZING A TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET OF $120,000; APPROVING A BUDGET TRANSFER; AUTHORIZING EXECUTION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Synopsis: Approves Thomas & Hutton Engineering Co. for the Design Phase, Permit Phase, and Engineering Phase of the Amelia River Waterfront Park Lots C and D Project in the amount of $95,500.00 with a total Project cost of $120,000 to provide for any unforeseen contingencies.]

[01:50:38]

[01:50:42]

CALLING THE MEETING BACK TO ORDER. RIGHT WHERE WE LEFT

[7.1 (Legislative) - FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT - 1310 ELM STREET - ORDINANCE 2024-04 ASSIGNING A FUTURE LAND USE MAP CATEGORY OF RECREATION (REC) FOR CITY OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1310 ELM STREET, TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 0.92 ACRES OF LAND; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Synopsis: Requests a change in Land Use Category from Medium Density Residential (MDR) to Recreation (REC) for City-owned property at 1310 Elm Street.]

[01:50:45]

OFF, THAT IS THE ORDERED ENDS. SO, MAKING THEIR WAY TO THEIR

[01:50:50]

SEATS, WE WILL GET STARTED ON 7.1. ITEM 7.1. WE ARE CALLING

[01:50:58]

IT TO ORDER. >> HERE WE GO, OKAY. AND 1310

[01:51:06]

ELM STREET. >> I'M GOING TO TRY TO BUNDLE

[01:51:13]

THESE. ALTHOUGH WE WILL HAVE FUNCTIONS ON EACH OF THEM

[01:51:16]

BECAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE WITH TWO ITEMS THAT ARE TRADITIONAL

[01:51:18]

HEARINGS. SO THE CITY IS THE APPLICANT, THE CITY HAS

[01:51:26]

PRESENTED A REPORT AND I WOULD LIKE TO ASK IF THERE ARE ANY

[01:51:29]

PARTIES OR TONIGHT, THAT WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE HEARING.

[01:51:31]

SEEING NONE, THE RULES ARE FOR PROCEDURES, ADOPTING THE 2017

[01:51:34]

HIGH RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION, THAT MEANS

[01:51:35]

EVERYBODY HERE GETS TO SPEAK, IF YOU IDENTIFY THAT YOU WOULD

[01:51:38]

LIKE TO SPEAK, BUT WE WOULD OFFER, WE HAVE TO TAKE AN

[01:51:43]

OATH, ON A COUPLE JUDICIAL ITEMS, YOU GET TO CALL

[01:51:49]

WITNESSES AND CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES AND CROSS-EXAMINE

[01:51:52]

STAFF AND WE WILL HAVE A HEARING, IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO

[01:51:57]

IDENTIFY YOURSELF IN A FEW MINUTES, WHEN THE CLERK

[01:51:59]

ADMINISTERS THE OATH, AND YOU DON'T GET TO SPEAK FOR MORE

[01:52:05]

THAN THREE MINUTES, AND YOU CAN MAKE A CHOICE AT THE END OF THE

[01:52:08]

HEARING. AND THESE ARE I THINK EASY, I THINK THEY ARE EASY,

[01:52:14]

THEY ARE CITY PROPERTIES OF THAT ARE ZONED AND RESIDENTIAL, THAT MEANS, YOU CAN ESSENTIALLY, THE CITY CAN BUILD HOUSES OR SOMEBODY ELSE CAN, AND THEY ARE RECOMMENDED FOR REZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE, TO RECREATION. NONE OF THE PARCELS ARE AT THE MLK RECREATION CENTER, JUST TALKED IN THE BACK PORTION OF THE FIELD THERE, AND THE RESIDENTIAL ZONE NEEDS TO BE CHANGED AND THE OTHER IS WHERE AMERICA'S YOUTH HAS THE BASKETBALL COURTS AND USED THAT FENCING AREA, THAT ZONED RESIDENTIAL, AND IT CAN'T BE REZONED AS RECREATION. SO, I AM GOING TO HAVE TO READ EACH OF THE ORDINANCE TITLES. AND, THE STAFF HAS ALREADY TOLD ME, THAT SHE WILL TAKE THE OATH IN CASE YOU NEED HER TO SPEAK BUT ALL OF THE ITEMS THAT ARE IN THE RECORD ALREADY. WE ARE ASKING THEM TO BE THE STAFF REPORT AND ANY BACKUP DOCUMENTATION. AND LIKE I SAID, IF THERE ARE ALL AFFECTED PARTIES, IDENTIFY YOURSELF AND YOU WILL GET TO SPEAK WITHOUT A TIME LIMITATION. ALL RIGHT, FIRST, WE HAVE FOUR 1310 ELM STREET, A FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT. ASSIGNING A FUTURE LAND USE MAP CATEGORY OF RECREATION, FOR CITY-OWNED PROPERTY, LOCATED AT 1310 ELM STREET, TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 0.92 ACRES OF LAND, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, THIS IS LEGISLATIVE, SO YOU CAN VOTE ON IT TONIGHT, AND AGAIN AT THE

SECOND HEARING, >> PERFECT, DO I HEAR ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS FROM THIS BODY? DO I HEAR A MOTION? SECOND, ANY COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION ON THIS? SEEING NONE -- WE WILL GO AHEAD AND CALL THE ROLE.

>> COMMISSIONER BOSS >> COMMISSIONER ANTON?

[7.2 (Quasi-judicial) - ZONING MAP AMENDMENT - 1310 ELM STREET - ORDINANCE 2024-05 ASSIGNING A ZONING MAP CATEGORY OF RECREATION (REC) FOR CITY OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1310 ELM STREET, TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 0.92 ACRES OF LAND; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Synopsis: Requests a change in Zoning from Medium Density Residential (R-2) to Recreation (REC) for City-owned property at 1310 Elm Street.]

>> YES. >> VICE MAYOR STURGEON.

>> YES. >> THIS ITEM PASSES BY -0.

>> BEFORE I READ THE TITLE, JUST NOTE THAT WE CAN ADMINISTER THE OATH, JUST IN CASE, SHE HAS TO COME UP AND

ANSWER QUESTIONS. >> DO YOU'S WHERE ON THE FACTUAL STATEMENTS AND REPRESENTATIONS, OF WHICH YOU ARE ABOUT TO PRESENT TO THIS COMMISSION, DURING THIS PUBLIC

HEARING WILL BE TRUTHFUL >> YES

>> THANK YOU. >> ZONING MAP AMENDMENT FOR 1310 ELM STREET, ORDINANCE 2024 E- 05 IS ASSIGNING ASSUMING A LOT RECREATION FOR CITY-OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1310 ELM STREET, TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 0.92 ACRES OF LAND, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE, THIS ONE WE HOLED UP ON VOTING, WHICH WE HAVE SCHEDULED FOR APRIL THE

[01:55:02]

SECOND. >> ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? ALL RIGHT SEEING NONE, THIS WILL SOUND ANTI-CLIMACTIC, THERE IS NO VOTE BEFORE WE MOVE ON -- GO

AHEAD. >> ANY STAFF REPORTS

>> YES PUT INTO THE RECORD, THE STAFF REPORT FOR ALL FOR THESE ITEMS ARE IN THE RECORD. AND AS THE BACKUP DOCUMENTATION AND SO

FORTH. >> I WILL REITERATE, THIS IS A REALLY GOOD THING WE ARE DOING FOR AMERICA'S YOUTH WHICH IS AN IMPORTANT PARTNER OF OURS AND I'M VERY HAPPY WE CAN MAKE SURE THE BASKETBALL COURTS STAY THERE, SO THANK YOU FOR EVERYONE SUPPORT ON THIS. ALL RIGHT HANG ON, ITEM 7.3. GO

AHEAD MR. ROSS. >> I ALSO LIKE THAT I THINK THEY SHOULD BE COMMENDED FOR DOING THAT. THEY DID.

[7.3 (Legislative) - FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT - LOTS 1, 2, 31, 32, BLOCK 169 INDIGO STREET - ORDINANCE 2024-06 ASSIGNING A FUTURE LAND USE MAP CATEGORY OF RECREATION (REC) FOR CITY OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED AT LOTS 1, 2, 31, 32, BLOCK 169 INDIGO STREET, TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 0.23 ACRES OF LAND; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Synopsis: Requests a change in Land Use Category from Medium Density Residential (MDR) to Recreation (REC) for City-owned property (America's Youth, Inc.).]

>> THANK YOU. >> LET'S GO TO ITEM 7.3, FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT . LOTS ONE, TWO, 31, 32. BLOCK 169 INDIGO STREET. ORDINANCE 2024 306 ASSIGNING A FUTURE LAND USE MAP CATEGORY OF RECREATION FOR CITY-OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED AT LOTS ONE, TWO, 31, 32, BLOCK 169 INDIGO STREET, TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 0.23 ACRES OF LAND, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE

DATE. >> ANY QUESTIONS, SEEING NONE, DO I HEAR A MOTION? WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, LET'S CALL THE VOTE.

>> YES. >> COMMISSIONER VASCULAR .

[7.4 (Quasi-Judicial) - ZONING MAP AMENDMENT - LOTS 1, 2, 31, 32, BLOCK 169 INDIGO STREET - ORDINANCE 2024-07 ASSIGNING A ZONING MAP CATEGORY OF RECREATION (REC) FOR CITY OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED AT LOTS 1, 2, 31, 32, BLOCK 169 INDIGO STREET, TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 0.23 ACRES OF LAND; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Synopsis: Requests a change in Zoning Map from Medium Density Residential (R-2) to Recreation (REC) for City-owned lots 1, 2, 31, 32, Block 169 Indigo Street.]

>> YES. >> AND YES, THAT PASSES. 7.4, A VOTE FOR THIS ITEM AS WELL, THIS IS QUALIFIED JUDICIAL, ZONING MAP AMENDMENT, FOR LOTS ONE, TWO, 31, 32. BLOCK 169 INDIGO STREET. ASSIGNING A ZONING MAP CATEGORY OF RECREATION FOR CITY-OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED AT LOTS ONE, TWO, 31 AND 32 OF LOT 160 NO -- 169 INDIGO STREET TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 0.23 ACRES OF LAND, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WE WON'T VOTE TONIGHT BUT THIS WILL BE ON APRIL THE SECOND.

>> WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS, IN THE QUASIJUDICIAL

[8.1 VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION - 766 KENNETH COURT - ORDINANCE 2024-01 ANNEXING APPROXIMATELY 0.92 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT 766 KENNETH COURT CONTIGUOUS TO THE CITY LIMITS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Synopsis: Requests voluntary annexation of properties located at 766 Kenneth Court totaling approximately 0.92 acres of land, contiguous to the City limits.]

HEARING? ALL RIGHT, SEEING NONE, WE WILL MOVE TO THE NEXT ITEM. THAT WILL BRING US ON DOWN, TO ITEM 8.1, THE VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION OF 766 KENNETH COURT.

>> ORDINANCE 2024, ANNEXING APPROXIMATELY 0.92 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT 766 KENNETH COURT PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE..

>> DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MISS TAMMI BACH? GO AHEAD

COMMISSIONER . >> I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR, I THINK I KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS, IF WE VOTE ON THIS TONIGHT, AND WE HAVE A POSITIVE VOTE IN OTHER WORDS, WE MOVED TO ANNEX THE PROPERTY INTO THE CITY. WHEN DOES THAT

BECOME BINDING? >> THERE IS A 30 DAY WINDOW TO APPEAL THE ANNEXATION ORDINANCE TO THE COURT, AND SO, I CALCULATED THAT AS APRIL THE FOURTH.

>> WHEN WE SAY APPEAL, MEANS THE, THEY CAN'T VOLUNTARY

WITHDRAWAL >> WHO IS THEY?

>> THE APPLICANT. >> YES.

>> THE APPLICANT IS THE ONLY ONE THAT CAN WITHDRAW THE

APPLICATION. >> AND THEY CAN WITHDRAW IT

DURING THEIR APPEAL DATE? >> NO, NOT IN MY ESTIMATION.

>> SO IF THIS PASSES TONIGHT, THEN THEY ARE ANNEXED UNLESS

SOMEBODY APPEALS IT? >> RIGHT, CORRECT .

>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE. >> IS THERE A MOTION? MOVED TO

APPROVE. >> SECOND.

>> DO I HEAR A MOTION AND A SECOND, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS? NO, THIS IS JUST LEGISLATIVE.

>> >> YOU HAVE TO OPEN A PUBLIC O O

HEARING. >> I CAN JUST ASK FOR A

COMMENT? >> YOU CAN. YOU CAN.

>> WE DO HAVE TO SPEAK ON THIS, BY THE TIME WE GO TO THE COMMENT SECTION. AND ALL RIGHT. SO JUMPING ON IT. BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER COMMENTS, THANK YOU FOR THE REMINDER ON THAT. WE WILL GO AHEAD AND BRING OUT WITH PEOPLE WHO WANT A CHANCE TO SPEAK ON THIS. WE WILL START WITH SANDY KERRY.

[02:00:03]

-- I AM SORRY, I HAVE THAT OUT OF ORDER. WE WILL FIRST START WITH EXCUSE ME, I AM SORRY -- THAT'S RIGHT, THAT'S RIGHT, AS YOU GUYS KNOW, I HAVE TO START WITH THE CITY RESIDENTS FIRST. WHILE I THANK YOU FOR THAT, I WAS GOING TO FOLLOW OUR RULES. MISS LORI HINCHEY. PLEASE COME ON DOWN.

>> THANK YOU. >> GOOD EVENING I LIVE AT 715 BARRINGTON DRIVE. SO, I AM REQUESTING THE ANNEXATION FOR 766 KENNETH COURT, DEFINITIVELY. ON ONE CONDITION, ON A FLORIDA STATUTE, STATUTE 171 REGARDING THE ANNEXATION, AS IT SAYS FOR CERTAIN CRITERIA FOR THE CITY TO CONSIDER FOR YOU TO CONSIDER. AND I THINK LEADS AS WELL AS A CONTRIBUTES TO EXCUSE ME, THE FINANCIAL STAFF NATURALLY SIGNED OFF ON THIS, AND SO THAT WE CAN PROVIDE THIS ORDINANCE, BUT I THINK IT IS TIME FOR US TO REALLY REFLECT ON THE IMPACT OF INCREASING DENSITY AND THE COST OF NOT ACCURATELY ANALYZING THE SERVICES, SO LET ME HIGHLIGHT SOME OF MY CONCERNS, FIRST IS THE STORM ORDER AND THE DRAINAGE ISSUE. AND IT IS A BIG WIDE AREA WITH SOIL THAT WE LIKE TO CALL MARK AND THE ISLAND HAS BECOME INCREASINGLY FILLED WITH CONCRETE, AND THERE IS LITTLE DOCUMENTED SOLUTION TO THE HYDRAULIC ISSUE FROM THE CITY IN THE COUNTY.

AND I DO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT BOTH THE CITY AND THE COUNTY STAFFS ARE GOOD AND RESPONSIVE TO ISSUES BUT THAT IS OFTEN SEEN TO THE PUBLIC AS A PIECEMEAL APPROACH, SO RATHER THAN HAVE THE SUSTAINABLE ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL APPROACH, THE BETTER WAY TO DO IT IS TO CONDUCT A STUDY INCLUDING WHAT IS THE SHORT AND LONG-TERM IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT THE IMPACT ON THE STREAMS AND OUR AQUA FORCE. WHAT IS THE SOIL SAMPLING IN TERMS OF SALTWATER INTRUSION. OUR ABSORPTION AND LASTLY, WHAT IS THE COST OF A PIECEMEAL APPROACH? SO IF YOU LOOK BACK ON YOUR LOSSES AND THE COST OF REPAIRS, WHAT IS THE COST OF THAT, VERSUS WHAT WE TOOK AS THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY AND TIME TO DO A FULL STUDY AND FULL PLAN. ALSO -- I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT A REPORT FROM THE BOARD OF ORDERS ASSOCIATION THAT RECOMMENDED BEADS FOR THE DEVELOPERS, IN TERMS OF PAYING FOR SOME OF THIS, AND IT WAS SOMETHING THE COMMISSION TURNED DOWN. AND ONE OF THE FEEDBACK ON THAT WAS WHEN THERE ARE ISSUES WITH PEOPLE PAYING FOR THAT ARE THE CITIZENS. AS THEY ARE A PART OF THE CITY. SO I THINK WE NEED TO TAKE A MORE AGGRESSIVE LOOK AT THE PLANS THAT WE WANT TO DO. WE ALSO KNOW THAT RECENTLY, WE HAVE HEARD FROM THE CHIEF OF POLICE REQUESTING MORE STAFF, SO THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT IF THEIR STAFF ARE TIRED OR SHORT-STAFFED, I SAW SOME DOCUMENTATION WITH CREATIVE MOVE . BUT WE STILL, ONCE AGAIN ARE LOOKING AT

SHORT-STAFFED. >> THANK YOU.

>> INVITE MR. RICHARD DIETZ TO THE PODIUM.

INN, 4104 DODDRIDGE PLACE, FERNANDINA BEACH. I ASKED THE COMMISSION TO DENY THIS ANNEXATION, FOR THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY, THE PREVIOUS COMMISSION HEARD EXTENSIVE TESTIMONY WHO WERE IMPACTED BY THIS PROPERTY, A VERY STRONG TESTIMONY. ABOUT THE EXISTING PROBLEMS THEY HAVE WITH WATER.

AND I CAN CONCUR WITH THE PREVIOUS COMMENTS ABOUT THE HYDROLOGY, THEY'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION HERE. THIS ATTITUDE OF THAT WE WILL JUST POUND HOMES INTO THIS ISLAND AND THINK WE WILL PRESERVE OUR ENVIRONMENT IS JUST CRAZY.

TAKE A FLIGHT OUT TO CRANE ISLAND AND LOOK AT THE WATER ISSUES, THAT THEY ARE HAVING OVER THERE THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE BEFORE. , WE HAVE A VERY FRAGILE PLACE HERE, WE'LL TALK ABOUT PRESERVING THE BEAUTY OF FERNANDINA BEACH AND CRANE

[02:05:05]

ISLAND BUT WE DO THE OPPOSITE. WE HAVE THESE KINDS OF ISSUES.

NOW, THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY, PURCHASED THIS MASSIVE COUNTY PROPERTY. AND THEY COULDN'T GET THE MONEY THEY WANTED OUT OF THE COUNTY FOR THESE, AND TO ALSO BUY IT I THINK. AND BEFORE THEY APPLIED FOR THIS. ANNEXATION.

SO, WE HAVE QUESTIONABLE PERFORMANCE HERE. WHO FINALLY PASSED ON COUNTY STUFF, AND AND AS THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER STATED, THIS ATTITUDE OF EVERY ANNEXATION IS GREAT, IS ALSO NUTS. BECAUSE THE COSTS ARE MUCH MORE THAN THE IMPACT FEES THAT WE COLLECT. TO MAINTAIN HIS SERVICES. AND, THE BEST POINT I MAKE. AND TO RECUSE THEMSELVES FOR THIS MATTER.

BASED ON THE ARTICLES PERCEIVED THAT COVERED SOME ISSUES, NO, THIS IS MAYBE UNDER THE STATUTE, BUT WHERE I COME FROM, WHEN THINGS INVOLVE PERSONAL CONNECTIONS YOU SEPARATED YOURSELF AND I THINK THAT IS THE PROPER THING TO DO. IN THIS SITUATION. I WAS VERY TROUBLED. WHERE THESE TERMS AT ONE POINT WERE PREVENTED FROM A TESTIFYING, FROM THE CITY ATTORNEYS. AND I REALLY THINK THAT SINGLED .

FROM THE COMMITTEE HERE, THANK YOU.

>> TAMMI BACH CAN I CALL YOU TO THE PODIUM, I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE LEGALITY WHAT IS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, AND AS HIS VICE MAYOR STURGES GOOD TO GO?

>> AS FAR AS I KNOW, SO, LET ME KNOW AND EXPLAIN THE CAR CLAUSE. I DON'T KNOW IF WE WILL GO BACK TO THAT. I DON'T KNOW IF VICE MAYOR STURGES HAVING A FAMILY RELATIONSHIP OR A BUSINESS ASSOCIATE THAT HE WORKS FOR A COMPANY THAT HAS ANY INTEREST IN THE SHIN. SO, THE LAW IS, IT IS ESSENTIALLY SAID, IT MIGHT NOT BE A VIOLATION. BUT FROM WHAT I KNOW, VICE-MAYOR STURGES DOES NOT HAVE ANY OF THOSE RELATIONSHIPS. SO IT IS NOT A VIOLATION OF LAW VOTE ON THE MATTER. AND SO, WE HAVE GOT VOTING CONFLICTS ARE WHEN A MATTER MADE TO YOUR SPECIAL, THAT IS A VERY IMPORTANT WORD , AND ANOTHER GOOD AND SPECIAL WORD, GAIN OR LOSS, GAIN OR DETRIMENT. AND, THE TERM RELATIVE IS USED, AND IT COULD BE TO THE DETRIMENT OF YOU AND YOURSELF, AND YOUR RELATIVE.

WHICH WAS A LIMITED DEFINITION ON THE STATUTE, AND WAS AN IMMEDIATE FAMILY ONLY. IT DOES NOT INCLUDE FRIENDS, IT DOES NOT INCLUDE PEOPLE WE KNOW IT IS NOT INCLUDE THE PRESIDENT OF THE GARDEN CLUB THAT MY MOMS BELONG TO, IT IS SOLELY RESTRICTED TO THE DEFINITION OF YOURSELF AND YOUR RELATIVE IN YOUR BUSINESS ASSOCIATE, SO, EACH INDIVIDUAL CITY COMMISSIONER, THAT IS ELECTED OR APPOINTED FOR. I ADVISED THEM, IT IS REALLY UP TO THEM TO KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAVE THOSE TYPES OF RELATIONSHIPS AND, ASK THEMSELVES, WHETHER YOU HAVE A CONFLICT, AND MR. STURGES AND I, AS FAR AS I KNOW HE DOESN'T HAVE ANY RELATIONSHIPS WITH ANYBODY ON THIS APPLICATION, SO THERE IS NO CONFLICT UNDER THE

ETHICS CODE. >> THANK YOU, MS. BACH. AND THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING, CAN YOU CLARIFY THIS FOR ME, I KNOW THERE'S ANOTHER PART OF THE LAW, THAT'S AS IF YOU DON'T HAVE A CONFLICT, WE NEED YOU TO VOTE.

>> YES, WE NEED TO DEVOTE. YES. SO, YES, IF YOU CAN ABSTAIN FROM VOTING IF YOU FEEL LIKE YOU CANNOT BE IMPARTIAL. AND YOU ARE BIASED . SO THAT IS AN INDIVIDUAL QUESTION THAT YOU

CAN ASK YOURSELF. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT

[02:10:01]

CLARIFICATION. >> AND I ADDRESS WHAT THEY SAID

ABOUT THE SUB SESSION. >> THAT WAS BEFORE OUR VERY FIRST HEARING SHE HAD ASKED ME IF SHE SHOULD SPEAK AND WHEN I ANSWER THE QUESTION , AT OUR QUASIJUDICIAL HEARINGS, IF YOU ARE AN AFFECTED PARTY, YOU GET TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE THAT IS GENERALLY SOMEBODY THAT IS A RESIDENT OF THE CITY, THAT IS HOW IT HAS BEEN BUT LOOKING AT IT AND IT ONLY TOOK ME A FEW HOURS TO LOOK AT IT AND I SAID OF COURSE YOU CAN SPEAK, I THINK SHE MAY HAVE RESPONDED. BUT SHE WAS ABLE TO SPEAK AT THE PLANNING BOARD MEETING, SHE WAS ABLE TO SPEAK AT ALL OF THE HERRINGS HEARINGS AT THE CITY COMMISSION. I DIDN'T INTEND TO EXCLUDE ANYBODY FROM SPEAKING.

>> PERFECT, THANK YOU, MS. BACH, WE ARE CERTAINLY HAPPY THAT MR. STUBBS IS WITH US TONIGHT. ONE LAST THING, WE HAVE MISSES TERESA FRITZ. WELCOME TO THE PODIUM.

>> GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. 303 CENTER STREET, SUITE 203, FORGET MY ATTIRE. I AM NURSING AN INJURY, I KNOW EVERYBODY TAKES THIS SERIOUSLY. I WAS GOING TO LEAD AND WHAT THIS IS A TOUGH CROWD. -- EVERYBODY'S OPINIONS AND I DIDN'T WANT TO GET A PERSON IT LOOKED LIKE I DO REPRESENT THE APPLICANT, MR. BLOOMY, AND , THEY HAD ANOTHER ATTORNEY OF THE OTHER MEETING. WE HAVE MET, AND I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO TELL YOU ALL THIS, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE ANNEXATION RIGHT NOW, BUT WHEN WE GET TO THE FLUME , AND THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP ORDINANCE AND THE ZONING ORDINANCE, WE WILL BE ASKING THE COMMISSION TO ALLOW US TO AMEND OUR APPLICATION, WE WOULD BE AMENDING THE APPLICATION BUT WE'LL BE ACCEPTING CITY STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, AND CITY STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WHICH WAS ALSO THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION. AND I KNOW THAT AT THE LAST MEETING I WAS NOT AT, THE COMMISSION HAD SOME CONCERN ABOUT THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND DECIDED TO NOT VOTE THAT NIGHT, AND I KNOW THAT WE ARE NOT ON THE TOPIC BUT IF IT AFFECTS AND CONCERNS ABOUT THE ANNEXATION, I WANTED TO GET UP AND SPEAK OBVIOUSLY WE ARE IN FAVOR OF THE ANNEXATION, AS FAR AS CITY SERVICES YOU ALL KNOW THAT OUR CITY POLICE AND FIRE DUE SERVICE THAT AREA. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF WE CAN COME IN. YES, WE HAVE AGREEMENTS WITH THEM, AND THE SHERIFF SHOWS UP AT MY DOOR, NOT ME PERSONALLY, DON'T GET THE IDEA, BUT WE HAVE SHORT-TERM RENTALS I'M SORRY, LET ME CLARIFY AND THE SHERIFF CAN END UP OR A DEPUTY KEN END UP IN OUR DEVELOPMENT WHEN THE SHORT-TERM RENTALS ARE OUT OF HAND AND WE HAVE TO CALL FOR SERVICES SO, YOU KNOW THE CITY IN THE COUNTY, CROSSOVER WHEN THERE IS NEED AND WHOEVER CAN GET THERE FIRST AS WE ALL KNOW SO AS FAR AS ANNEXING IN, WE DO ASK YOU TO SUPPORTED TO GET CITY SERVICES WITH THE CHANGE AND THE REQUEST THAT WE ARE GOING TO MAKE IN THE NEXT TWO, WE WOULD BE DOING THE DENSITY OF FOUR UNITS PER ACRE, THAT IS WITH A LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL IS, THAT IS WHAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING, SO THAT DOES CHANGE THE GAME, AND IT WILL CHANGE IT FROM BEING ABLE TO HAVE SIX LOTS AND DO A MINOR SUBDIVISION THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE A LOT OF THINGS THAT WERE DISCUSSED AT THE PLANNING BOARD LIKE SIDEWALKS AND IF WE ARE APPROVED, AND IN THE NEXT TWO ORDINANCES, THEN, WE WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS. AND DO SIDEWALKS IF REQUIRED, WE TALKED TO PLANNING STAFF ABOUT WHAT WE CAN DO, AND IT WOULD PUT US ON WATER AND SEWER AND IT COULD HELP THE AREA. SO I WANTED TO ADDRESS THAT FOR THE ANNEXATION. AS FAR AS TONIGHT, I WOULD ASK YOU, AND I KNOW UNDER A CONTINUANCE ROLES NOT SEVEN DAYS PRIOR, AND WITH YOUR APPROVAL, I CAN ASK YOU TO POSTPONE THIS PHOTO TO YOUR HEARING IS OVER. BECAUSE IF YOU ARE GOING TO GRANT OUR REQUEST OF THE NEXT TWO ORDINANCES, WE WILL HAVE TO BE HEARD ON A SECOND BECAUSE I BELIEVE THE CITY ATTORNEY IS GOING TO TELL YOU THAT WE HAVE TO RE-ADVERTISE FOR THE FLUME, AS OF THE REZONING. SO, WE WOULD REQUEST TONIGHT THAT YOU POSTPONE AS TO A DATE CERTAIN, SO WE DON'T HAVE TO RE-ADVERTISE THE ANNEXATION, AND THEN WE CAN VOTE ON ALL THREE IF IT'S GOING TO BE YOUR PLEASURE, KNOW THIS IS A LITTLE COMPLICATED BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T VOTED ON THE OTHERS BUT WITH THAT INFORMATION WE DO WANT TO DISAPPOINT THE ANNEXATION AND, IF JUST FOR CONTINUITY SAKE, IF WE CAN POSTPONE THIS ONE, UNTIL THE APRIL 2ND AGENDA, THEN WE CAN DO THEM ALL THREE AT THE SAME

TIME. >> THANK YOU.

>> ANY QUESTIONS? >> AND ON MY THREE MINUTES AROUND BUT I WANTED TO GET THAT ON THE RECORD.

>> I APPRECIATE THAT, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?

>> I SEE IT. I SEE A DOUBTING EYE OVER THERE.

[02:15:05]

>> I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING WHY YOU WANT TO POKE POSTPONE THE ANNEXATION. TO THE NEXT MEETING. THAT JUST DOESN'T.

>> I'M A SIMPLEMINDED LAWYER. AND I WOULD JUST LIKE TO HAVE ALL THREE AT THE SAME MEETING. YOU KNOW TO HAVE THE ZONING AND THE ANNEXATION APPROVED TONIGHT, WE DO HAVE 60 DAYS , YOU DO NOT HAVE TO APPROVE THE MALL TONIGHT, BUT IF YOU MOVE FORWARD WITH OUR APPLICANT'S REQUEST, THAT WE ARE GOING TO MAKE TO GO TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND GO TO OUR ONE, IT HAS TO BE RE-ADVERTISED, AND IN AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION. AND THERE WILL BE ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING ON APRIL 2ND, SO IN MY SIMPLE MIND, IT MAKES SENSE TO MOVE AT ALL TO APRIL 2ND, AND WE WILL DO IT ALTOGETHER. WE DON'T, YOU MAY NOT HAVE TO AS MY UNDERSTANDING IS, BUT YOU WERE NOT GOING TO BE ADOPTING THE FLUME OR THE REZONING IF YOU GRANT US WHAT WE ARE REQUESTING TONIGHT. AND, THE APPLICANT MOVED IN THIS DIRECTION TO THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY AND AFTER HEARING AND TALKING TO THE MAYOR ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MATTER, TALKING TO SOME OF THE COMMISSIONERS ABOUT THE FUTURE LAND USE MATTER. AND SO, WITH THOSE CONCERNS, HEARING THE PLANNING BOARD. AND HEARING THE RESIDENCE. AND HE THOUGHT IT WAS HIS BEST ENTRANCE TO GO IN THAT DIRECTION.

>> SO IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING, THAT CAN YOU HELP ME?

>> YOU CAN CONTINUE IF YOU WANT.

>> THAT PART I UNDERSTAND, THANK YOU. BUT WHAT YOU ARE PREDICATED IS ON THE FACT THAT WE WOULD TAKE A VOTE , WHICH WE DIDN'T DO LAST TIME ON EITHER ONE OF THE ISSUES.

>> RIGHT. >> SO, IF WE VOTE TONIGHT, BUT IF WE DON'T VOTE -- I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING HOW THIS WORKS.

>> 8.1 IS NOT CHANGING. SO IT ONLY NEEDS TO BE VOTED ON ONE MORE TIME BUT 8.2 IF WE CHANGE IT AND 8.3 IF WE CHANGE IT HAS TO GO TO A THIRD READING SO WHAT THEY ARE ASKING IS OF THE FINAL VOTE ON ALL THREE HAPPENS ON THE SAME MEETING.

>> THAT IS WHAT I GET. BUT WHAT I DON'T GET IS HOW ON THE NEXT TWO, ONE IS IT LEGISLATIVE AND THE OTHER ONE IS QUASIJUDICIAL.

REASON I SPOKE THIS AFTERNOON, SO SO I KNEW THAT THIS WOULD BE HER REQUEST, AND I THOUGHT ABOUT IT AND I LOOKED AT IT. IT IS JUST LIKE IT IS ON THE FIRST READING, YOU HAVE AN ANNEXATION PLUME AND REZONING , AND YOUR ANNEXATION IN YOUR REZONING ARE QUASIJUDICIAL, THEY DON'T GET VOTED ON. AND THEY SIT THERE, USUALLY THE ANNEXATION IT GOES UNTIL THE SECOND READING, THE FLUME AMENDMENT, UNDER FLORIDA STATUTE, HE ONLY HAS TO VOTE ONCE. YOU HAVE TO REALLY ORDINANCE AND YOU ONLY NEED TO VOTE ONCE, AND ADOPTED, SO THE LAST MEETING I OFFERED THE COMMISSION THE OPPORTUNITY IF THEY DIDN'T WANT TO VOTE, THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO. AND THEY CHOSE NOT TO. RIGHT, SO THIS IS NO DIFFERENT, SO YOU CAN ASSUME THAT AFTER THE NEXT TWO IF YOU DO NOT VOTE ON THE ANNEXATION, AND THE APPROVED. THE ONLY VOTE YOU HAVE TO TAKE IS TO CONTINUE WENT FOR A REQUEST.

AND YOU ARE IN THE SAME SITUATION AS YOU HAD THE FIRST READING. AND A QUASIJUDICIAL HEARING ON THE ANNEXATION, AND THE FINAL READING IS BEING CONTINUED TO VOTE ON THE NEXT

MEETING. >> THE SECOND ONE, WHAT WE HAVE TO DO IS THE WAY THAT IT'S WRITTEN. SOMEBODY TO MAKE AN

AMENDMENT >> TO THE ORDINANCE?

>> YES, TO THE ORDINANCE, WHICH WOULD CHANGE DURING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAPS. AND THEN WHEN WE VOTED THIS MEETING.

>> YOU ALWAYS HAD YOUR QUASI-JUDICIAL AGAIN.

>> I'M TALKING ABOUT THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.

>> IT IS LEGISLATIVE BUT YOU WILL VOTE AT THIS MEETING LIKE YOU COULD'VE AT THE LAST MEETING.

>> WHY IS THERE ANOTHER VOTE AT THE MEETING?

>> IT WHAT IF YOU APPROVE THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, IF TONIGHT THE ORDINANCE IS APPROVED AS WRITTEN, IT IS FOR MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. AND THEN WE WOULD HAVE A PROBLEM

WITH THE ANNEXATION. SO -- >> THAT IS KIND OF WHERE I WAS

GOING. >> THEN TONIGHT, WE CAN BRING THE ANNEXATION BACKUP IF THAT HAPPENS. IF THE HIGHER DENSITY

IS PROVED. >> WE WILL PICK YOU BACK UP IN THE NEXT -- THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

>> YOU CANNOT TABLE IT. >> CAN WE BRING IT BACK UP ?

[02:20:08]

>> YOU CAN POSTPONE IT UNTIL AFTER WE TAKE CARE OF THE ZONING AND LAND USE WHICH AGAIN UNLESS IT IS THE HIGHER DENSITY, THAT GETS APPROVED, IT ALL HAPPENS TONIGHT.

>> WAS NOT SATISFY YOUR COMMISSIONER ROSS, IF WE DEAL WITH THE NEXT TWO ITEMS? AND PUT IT AT THE END?

>> HE DOESN'T LIKE IT BECAUSE HE HAS SOMETHING PREPARED FOR IT. I ALREADY KNOW. --

LIKE THAT. >>

>> I HAD NO TIME TO CALL YOU, EITHER.

>> IT IS FINE, AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE DOING THE RIGHT THING. ALL RIGHT, BUT, HOW CAN YOU VOTE ON THE ANNEXATION, HOW CAN YOU DO A FUTURE LAND USE MAP PROPERTY

>> YOU CAN'T AND WE ARE NOT. I AM QUITE CERTAIN THAT THE HIGHER DENSITY IS NOT GETTING APPROVED. AND , SO WHY MAKE IT DIFFICULT, IF IT IS NOT GOING TO GET APPROVED. WE ARE GOOD.

I DIDN'T GO BACK TO MY SEAT BECAUSE IT HURTS TO WALK. I HAD SOME MENTAL GYMNASTICS OVER IT MYSELF, BUT IF WE CONTINUE WENT AND THEN WE DEAL WITH THE OTHER TWO, OR AS YOU GUYS HAVE DISCUSSED, WE WOULD BE FINE WITH TABLING AT TONIGHT, UNTIL THE OTHER TWO, BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE GOING OUT ON A LIMB AS WELL, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP IT IS NOT LIKELY TO GET APPROVED. AS IT STANDS. AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO TELL YOU ON THE RECORD THAT WHAT WE ARE ASKING FOR IS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, THAT WILL REFER YOU TO RE-ADVERTISE IT AND YOU

WILL NOT VOTE ON IT AGAIN. >> SO WHY DON'T WE JUST WE ADVERTISE IT WITH THAT IN MIND INSTEAD OF DISCUSSING IT TONIGHT ? IN THE NEXT ONE? YOUTH INDUSTRY ADVERTISE IT WITH THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

>> BECAUSE I LOVE THE GOOD PEOPLE CAME OUT. THAT WAS MY

CONCERN. >> THAT IS TRUE BUT ALSO I HAVE TO ADD IN THEIR YOU ARE AMENDING THE ORDINANCE TONIGHT.

THE ORDINANCE, TO GO TO THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND A MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL CONTINUES PROCEEDING.

>> PERFECT, I THINK THAT CLEARS THAT ALL UP. -- COMMISSIONER AYSCUE, GO AHEAD.

>> FOR THE APPLICANT, WE POSTPONED IT TO APRIL 2ND. AND WE HAVE TO VOTE ON TWO AND THREE, AND GOING OUT ON THE LIMB, THAT THE AMOUNT OF ATTORNEY IS OUT ON, YOU WOULD HAVE TO AMEND THAT, AND THAT WOULD HAVE TO GO TO APRIL 2ND ANYWAYS, THAT WAY AT LEAST ALL THREE ARE NOW ONLINE, AND I THINK THAT IS WHAT THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR.

>> YES, SO ON THIS ITEM, 8.1, WE DON'T IGNORE IT, IF YOU AGREE WITH THE REQUEST FOR CONTINUATION AND PER CHAPTER 11 OF OUR CODE, IT OFFERS AN AUTOMATIC IF THE APPLICANT HAD APPLIED TO THE CITY MANAGER A WEEK AGO. THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

SO, YOU ARE ABLE TO APPROVE THAT HERE, IF YOU WISH, YOU WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE OR CONTINUE TO ON APRIL 2ND FOR

THE ANNEXATION. >> ONE LAST QUESTION. THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP WAS A SLATED ISSUE THAT WE VOTED ON,

CORRECT? >> YOU WILL VOTE ON THE REZONING AND THE FLU MAP TONIGHT JUST ONE AT A TIME.

>> THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, THAT IS LEGISLATIVE I GET THAT.

BUT BEFORE WHAT WE HAVE DONE, IS WHEN WE WOULD HAVE VOTED ON THE ZONING PART OR THE JUDICIAL, SO YOU WOULDN'T HAVE

VOTED ON THAT TONIGHT. >> YOU ARE NOT HAVING ANOTHER QUASIJUDICIAL AIRING, ALL OF THE EVIDENCE CAME IN AT THE LAST MEETING REGARDING ALL OF THE RESIDENCE THAT SPOKE FROM THE TOWN THAT TALKED ABOUT FOR THE REASON THAT WE SHOULD HAVE LOWER DENSITY OR NOT HAVE IT AT ALL. BUT THAT IS NOBODY THAT I RECALL SAID THEY NEEDED THE HIGHER DENSITY. OTHER THAN THE

APPLICANT. AT THE TIME. >> THE FOG IS LIFTING A LITTLE

BIT. >> OKAY.

>> ALL RIGHT I WILL HEAR SUCH A MOTION BUT WE WILL GIVE EVERYONE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. WE HAVE ONE MORE REQUEST TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM AND THAT IS MISS SANDY KERRY. SANDY KERRY BEFORE WE HEAR A MOTION FROM THE COMMISSION. COME ON DOWN. YES, YOU WILL BE UP RIGHT AFTER.

[02:25:01]

>> I WOULDN'T MIND IF SHE GOES FIRST.

>> YES, THANK YOU FOR YOUR QUESTION, WE DO HAVE THE NEXT ITEM, WE CAN DOING THIS ITEM. OKAY, WE COULD -- IF THAT -- YES MA'AM, WE WILL DO THAT. AND MISSES STUBS, YOU CAN GO

AHEAD AND SPEAK FIRST. >>> ALL RIGHT, VANESSA STUBBS, 744 KENNETH COURT, I WANT TO START WITH THANK YOU MY HUSBAND FOR PUTTING THE KIDS TO BED TONIGHT I KNOW THAT HE WANTED TO BE HERE. TO SPEAK ON THE WATERFRONT, BUT WE CAN DO IT ALL, SO THANK YOU. I WANT TO URGE YOU GUYS, TO PAUSE AND CAREFULLY CONSIDER THE RAMIFICATIONS OF EACH VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION PROPOSAL BEFORE SWIFTLY ACCEPTING THE MALL. THE CITY IS CURRENTLY GRAPPLING WITH THE CHALLENGES OF UNDERSTAFFED AND UNDERFUNDED DEPARTMENTS. BLINDLY TAKING ON MORE RESPONSIBILITY COULD EXACERBATE THESE ISSUES. WHILE STAFF REPORTS MAY ASSURE US THAT EXISTING SERVICES CAN BE MAINTAINED, THE RECENT TESTIMONY OF OUR CHIEF OF BELIEF STATES OTHERWISE, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT IS OCCASIONALLY RELIED ON BY THE SHERIFF DEPARTMENT AND IS STRUGGLING TO FILL TWO VACANT POSITIONS THAT ARE POSTED ON THE WEBSITE TODAY. DESPITE REQUESTS FOR GRANTS TO FUND THREE ADDITIONAL POSITIONS, A PHONE CONVERSATION FIRE CHIEF MADE ME AWARE THAT THE NEW SUBDIVISION WOULD REQUIRE A TURNAROUND, IN A DEAD-END ROAD LIKE KENNETH COURT, BUT THAT HE CANNOT RETROACTIVELY REQUIRE A TURNAROUND ON AN EXISTING STREET. THIS LET ME KNOW THAT HE TOO HAS CONCERNS ON THE INCREASE OF LOTS ON THE STREET, PERHAPS IT'S TIME TO UPDATE AND REVISE THE STANDARDS OF SERVICES IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, FOR EACH DEPARTMENT SO WE CAN CREATE DENSITY TO EXISTING ROADS, THIS IS AT ABOUT ONE ANNEXATION CASE, IT'S A PIVOTAL MOMENT, DEVELOPERS ARE EAGERLY WATCHING TO SEE HOW WE HANDLE THE SITUATION. KNOWING THAT APPROVAL COULD OPEN THE FLOODGATES FOR DOZENS MORE OR SIMILAR REQUESTS. INCREASED DENSITY BRINGS WITH IT A HOST OF OTHER ISSUES, WE MUST ADDRESS HEAD ON. PREPARED TO TACKLE FLOODING CONCERNS. THE INCREASE OF PERMEABLE SERVICES, TO POSE A THREAT TO OUR ENVIRONMENT, LIKE SEPTIC TANK FLOODING, LET'S NOT FORGET THAT SEPTIC TANKS REPRESENT A NATURAL AND ORGANIC SEWAGE SOLUTION, IT IS THE FLOODING OF THE DRAIN FIELDS THROUGH OVERDEVELOPMENT THAT COULD POSSIBLY CONTAMINATE OUR WELL WATER. TO MITIGATE THESE RISKS, WE MUST PRIORITIZE SOLUTIONS LIKE OFFERING TAX INCENTIVES OF PERMEABLE DRIVEWAYS AND SMALLER FOOTPRINTS. SAYING NO TO INCREASED DENSITY ISN'T ABOUT CYCLING GROWTH, IT IS ABOUT ENSURING RESPONSIBLE AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT THAT PRESERVES THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ALL RESIDENTS. LET'S NOT RUSH INTO DECISIONS I COULD HAVE LASTING AND IRREVERSIBLE CONSEQUENCES. IT IS TIME TO PRIORITIZE THE WELL-BEING OF OUR COMMUNITY, OVER SHORT-TERM

GAMES -- GAINS. >> WE WELCOME MISS CARING OUT TO THE PODIUM. WELCOME, MS. KERRY.

>> THIS IS A SURPRISE, THIS IS THE FOURTH SUBMISSION OF THIS APPLICATION. AND IT WAS NEVER FORMALLY WITHDRAWN, AND HEARD THE ATTORNEY SAY THAT ONLY THE APPLICANT CAN DO IT BUT ACTUALLY, IF ACTION ISN'T TAKEN, WHICH IS WHAT HAPPENED IN NOVEMBER OF 22 IT JUST LAPSES . AND THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED BECAUSE THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THE SIX PARCEL DIVISIONS IN THE COUNTY, THAT WAS NONCOMPLIANT. SO I THINK REALLY THE PROBLEM IS THAT, THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AT THE ADVISING BOARD IN DECEMBER, AND, IT WAS NOT WHAT THE APPLICANT REQUESTED. AND MY BIG PROBLEM IS THAT THE RECORD WHAT I SAID EARLIER TODAY, THE MINUTES ON THE MOTIONS MADE BY THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD, WHICH I TALKED TO THE CHAIR TONIGHT ABOUT, THEY ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE SUBMITTED IN THE PACKAGE TONIGHT, THAT IS A SERIOUS CRIME. IT IS A CRIME, TO CHANGE THE MINUTES ON THE MOTIONS. AND THOSE MINUTES ON THOSE MOTIONS AS I MENTIONED IN FEBRUARY WERE NOT AVAILABLE BECAUSE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD WAS NOT ABL TO MEET. BUT WHETHER THEN TAKE UP MY PRECIOUS THREE MINUTES I AM GOING TO SAY, AND I'M GOING TO READ OF THE TWO MOTIONS THAT ARE IN YOUR PACKET TONIGHT WHICH SAY, THEY ARE THE EMOTIONS THAT THEY DID, IS A MOTION MADE BY THE SECOND DAY, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL. AS

[02:30:01]

PRESENTED AS IT IS NOT SUFFICIENTLY COMPLIANT. IN THE SECOND MOTION WAS EXACTLY THE SAME MOTION EXCEPT TO APPROVE IT AS PRESENTED BECAUSE WE DIDN'T MEET THE LDC, THAT IS COMPLETELY CONTRADICTORY. AND THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT IT, BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T SURE, BUT THAT IS WHAT IS IN YOUR PACKAGE, THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, SOMEONE CHANGE THE MINUTES IN THE MOTIONS, BECAUSE THE ACTUAL MINUTES AND MOTIONS AT THE MEETING ARE AS FOLLOWS. -- AS SOON AS I FIND THEM -- A MOTION WAS MADE BY MEMBER STEPHENSON, SECONDED BY ROSS, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL WHICH IS THE SAME AS WHAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR PACKET, BUT, THE SECOND MOTION WAS BY MEMBER BENNETT, SECONDED BY STEPHENSON TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL. TO THE CITY COMMISSION REGARDING A VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION. AND FROM LOW DENSITY AND R1 ZONING, AND THAT PEB CASE, AS PRESENTED AS SUFFICIENTLY COMPLIANT IN LDC, THAT IS NOT WHAT IS ON YOUR ORDINANCE TONIGHT TO LOOK AT THAT IS THE WHOLE REASON FOR THIS APPLICANT'S NEW ATTORNEY COMING FORWARD TO YOU, TO TRY TO GET AROUND THE WRONG THING THAT WAS DONE, THAT WAS THE CHANGING OF THE MINUTES AND MEETINGS, AND AMENDED APPLICATION YOU CAN SHAKE YOUR HEAD HOWEVER YOU WANT, BUT IT IS A AMENDED APPLICATION BUT THIS IS THE FOURTH TIME AROUND AND THERE WAS NO NOTICE OF THIS, YOU BETTER DO A HEARING INTO THE CELL AGAIN. YOU HAVE TO DO IT AND YOU HAVE TO DO THE

ZONING. >> MAKE YOU SO MUCH.

>> AS WE MOVE ON, I KNOW THAT THEY ARE WONDERING ABOUT THIS AND AS WELL AS MISCARRY, WHAT IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW, WHAT I'M GOING TO ASK FOR IS A MOTION TO CONTINUE OR A MOTION TO CONTINUE, SO THAT WOULD PUSH THIS FORWARD, AND HERE'S WHY YOU WOULD DO IT, THERE ARE THREE ITEMS, THREE ITEMS, WHAT WE ARE GETTING, IT IS HIGHLY LIKELY, I CAN'T SAY ANYTHING FOR CERTAIN BUT IT'S HIGHLY LIKELY THAT THE NEXT ITEM MAY BE AN AMENDMENT TO FOLLOW OUR STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS AND AS MISCARRY POINTED OUT, WHAT THE PAB RECOMMENDATION WAS, SO BECAUSE THERE MAY BE THIS AMENDMENT THAT MEANS THAT ITEM 7.2, OR THANK YOU SO MUCH, ITEM 8.2, AND 8.3 WILL HAVE TO GO TO A THIRD READING, WE WILL HAVE TO DO THOSE TWO AGAIN, AND SO BECAUSE OF THAT, THOSE TWO ARE GOING FORWARD , AND WE WILL HAVE TO DO THAT, THEY WON'T BE APPROVED ON THAT NEW LOWER DENSITY OF THAT AMENDMENT HAPPENS UNTIL APRIL, AND WITH THAT SAID, WHAT THEY ARE ASKING FOR IS ALL THREE OF THEM TO BE APPROVED AT ONCE, AT THE FIRST ONE IS THE ONLY ONE THAT'S NOT CHANGING, SO IT ONLY NEEDS A SECOND READING, WHAT A CONTINUANCE NEEDS, IS THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO VOTE ON THE SECOND TIME OF THE FIRST ONE, UNTIL APRIL AND THEN WE WILL VOTE TWICE MORE ON THE NEXT TWO, IF THAT GOES THROUGH, BUT THAT IS BASICALLY IT. THAT CLEARS IT UP FOR EVERYBODY, RIGHT? WE WILL ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ON THE NEXT ONE, WE

ARE HEARING MOTIONS. >> A MOTION TO POSTPONE AND

CONTINUE THE VOTE. >> YOU CAN HEAR A MOTION AND A SECOND, AT NOW WE WILL DISCUSS THIS.

>> I JUST WANT TO ADDRESS WHAT WE HAVE SEEN A COUPLE OF TIMES, AND PEOPLE ASKING ABOUT THE SERVICES. IT IS KIND OF IN MY WHEELHOUSE. BUT WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND WITH IT COMES TO THAT, THEY ARE COMING THERE ANYWAYS. THEY ARE ALREADY COMING TO THOSE STREETS, IT HAS BEEN BROKEN DOWN IN DISTRICTS, AND THE CITY GOES INTO THE COUNTY ALL OF THE TIME, AND THIS IS NOTHING NEW. NOTHING IS CHANGING HERE, THEY ALREADY GOING TO THESE HOUSES ANYWAYS. WHEN THERE'S A HOUSE THERE, WHEN THERE'S A BRUSH FIRE THERE. AND DOESN'T MATTER, THAT IS NOT AFFECTING THE LEVEL OF SERVICE AT ALL WHILE SOME CALLS MAY BE HELD, SUCH AS ANY TO FILE A REPORT, BECAUSE SOMEBODY STOLE MY JEWELRY. THAT CALL MAY BE HELD WHILE ANOTHER MORE IMPORTANT CALL IS GOING ON BUT I CAN PROMISE YOU WHETHER IT IS THE COUNTY OR THE CITY, THEY'RE COMING TO YOU, AND THERE IS NO DEFICIT WHATSOEVER WHEN IT COMES TO STAFFING AND THAT I DO AGREE, THAT WE WILL NEED TO LOOK AT BEEFING IT UP, AND NONE OF THAT IS HAPPENING, AND THERE'S NO ISSUE HERE, I WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT THEY ARE COMING ANYWAYS

AND WE ARE GOOD THERE. >> PERFECT, DO WE HAVE A MOTION

[02:35:06]

AND A SECOND ANNUAL FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS, SEE NONE, CALL THE ROLE. AND THE MOTION IS A MOTION TO CONTINUE, THAT MEANS THE VOTE WILL BE TAKING PLACE ON APRIL 2ND.

>> COMMISSIONER AYSCUE? >> YES.

>> COMMISSIONER ROSS? >> YES.

[8.2 FUTURE LAND USE MAP ASSIGNMENT - 766 KENNETH COURT - ORDINANCE 2024-02 ASSIGNING A FUTURE LAND USE MAP CATEGORY OF MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR) FOR 0.92 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT 766 KENNETH COURT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Synopsis: Requests for Future Land Use Map category of Medium Density Residential (MDR), totaling 0.92 acres of land, located at 766 Kenneth Court.]

>> VICE-MAYOR STURGES? >> YES.

>> MAYOR BRADLEY BEAN? >> YES.

>> NOW WE GO TO THE LAND USE MAP ASSIGNMENT FOR 766 KENNETH

COURT >> ASSIGNING A FUTURE LAND USE MAP CATEGORY OF MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, FOR 0.92 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT 766 KENNETH COURT, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

>> THANK YOU, FIRST ANY QUESTIONS?

>> YES. >> I JUST WANT TO ASK THEM TO CLARIFY, WHEN AN APPLICATION COMES IN AND LET'S USE THE EXAMPLE, THEY RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE APPLICATION, AND THEN, THEY HAVE THEIR OWN MOTION, WHAT COMES BEFORE THE

COMMISSION? >> WELL, WE SEND EVERYTHING,

ALL OF THE ACTIONS BACK. >> WHAT WHAT COMES BEFORE US TO VOTE? IS AT THE APPLICATION, OR IS IT WHAT THE

PAB RECOMMENDS? >> IT IS STILL THE APPLICATION FROM THE APPLICANT, THAT IS WHAT ALWAYS GETS FORWARDED. AS THE APPLICATION WITH THE ORDINANCE TITLE, THAT IS WHY THE ORDINANCE TITLE IS MEDIUM DENSITY.

>> SO IF THEY RECOMMEND DENIAL, THAT RECOMMENDATION OF THE APPLICATION IS WHAT WE WILL SEE. ALTHOUGH WE DO GET IN THE MINUTES WHAT THEY RECOMMEND, THEY MAY RECOMMEND SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT, BUT WHAT WE GET IS THE APPLICATION, AND, THAT IS WHAT WE VOTE ON, REGARDLESS OF WHAT PAB HAS, WHETHER IT IS APPROVAL OR DENIAL. OKAY, I JUST WANTED TO

CLARIFY THAT. >> THANK YOU FOR THE

VERIFICATION. >>

>> COMMISSIONER ROSS? HE IS LOOKING PERPLEXED ABOUT WHAT WE WERE SAYING. AS I UNDERSTOOD WHAT WE WERE SAYING, IS THAT THE APPLICATION THAT WAS ADMITTED BY AN APPLICANT, WHETHER THE APPLICANT IS IN THE CITY, A PRIVATE CITIZEN, THAT APPLICATION IN ITS ORIGINAL FORMAT AND THE ORDINANCE THAT IS DRAFTED FROM IT, GOES FORWARD WITH ALL OF THE ILLEGAL NO MATTER WHAT THE PLANNING BOARD DID.

>> THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THAT WHICH PERPLEXES ME.

>> THE MOTION TO >> NO, WHAT ALSO COMES FORWARD AS THEY RECOMMENDATION, IT IS NOT IN THE MINUTES BUT EVERY TIME I HAVE HEARD THE STAFF SAY, HERE IS WHAT THE STAFF RECOMMENDED AND HERE IS WHAT THE PAB RECOMMENDED.

>> ISN'T THAT WHAT YOU HAVE NOW?

>> THAT IS WHAT I THOUGHT I HEARD YOU SAY. AND, THE PAB THING ONLY COMES FORWARD IN THE MINUTES, IT DOESN'T, IT COMES

FORWARD -- >> YES, THEY ARE TOLD OF WHAT THE RECOMMENDATION IS OF THE PLANNING BOARD.

>> WE GET THE RECOMMENDATION.

>> I THINK, I THINK BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T HAD THIS DISCUSSION BEFORE, WHAT COMMISSIONER AYSCUE IS SAYING, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, HE WAS TRYING TO ADDRESS WHAT MISCARRY WAS SAYING ABOUT THE MOTIONS, THAT SEEMINGLY THE SECOND MOTION, ACCORDING TO MISSIS KERRY WAS NOT ALLOWABLE, THAT IS NOT

TRUE. >> I THINK FROM WHAT I UNDERSTOOD FROM MISCARRY WAS THE SECOND MOTION WAS THE ONLY THING THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO VOTE ON, MEANING, IN OTHER WORDS, THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD SAYS, THAT DENIAL THIS IS WHAT WE APPROVED AND THAT IS ALL YOU CAN TALK ABOUT. THAT IS NOT THE CASE, THE CASES NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO,

>> WE CAN SEE THE ORIGINALS. THE PAB IS IRRELEVANT, AND THAT OTHER THAN THE RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL OR

SOMETHING ELSE. >> THE REASON FOR THAT, THE

PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD >> EXCUSE ME, WE CAN'T BE HAVING YOUR COMMENTS FROM THE BACK OF THE ROOM. WE APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE TONIGHT, BUT YOU CAN'T BE MAKING COMMENTS FROM

THE BACK. CONTINUE, RICHARD. >> THAT WAS IT. AS LONG AS WE

GOT THAT CLEAR. >> ARE YOU CLEAR COMMISSIONER

ROSS? >> PRETTY MUCH.

>> ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MS. BACH? SEE NOT, WE WILL GO TO CITIZEN COMMENT AND WE WILL START A COURSE WITH MISSIS HINCHEY. AT A GREAT TIME TO CLARIFY ANY POINTS THAT YOU MAY HAVE. YES MA'AM, THIS IS YOUR TIME. YES

MA'AM. >> MY QUESTION IS --

>> FOR EACH SPEAKER'S NAME AND ADDRESS +3 MINUTES. THAT

[02:40:04]

IS DIFFERENT. >> YOU ARE AT THE PODIUM NOW,

PROCEED. >> I WANT TO USE MY THREE

MINUTES. >> RESET THE TIMER.

>> MY QUESTION IS, YOU HAVE AN ORDINANCE, I THINK YOU WERE TRYING TO ANSWER THIS FOR ME, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER ASK YOU.

YOU HAD AN ORDINANCE FOR YOU AND AT THE BOTTOM OF IT, IT SAYS ACCEPT OR DENY, SO THE QUESTION THAT I'M GOING TO HAVE WAS, WHY NOT DENY IT AND THEN MAKE ANOTHER MOTION TO AMEND IT. SO, IT IS A PROCEDURAL QUESTION. DOES THAT

MAKE SENSE? >> I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION, THAT IS A RULES OF ORDER THING, SO IF WE DENY IT, IT WOULD GO THROUGH TWO NEW READINGS, SO THE GOAL OF CONTINUING IT IS TO HAVE ALL OF THE FINAL READINGS BE ON THE SAME DATE, SO THAT IS THE WHOLE CONTINUANCE. DOES THAT MAKE

SENSE? >> IT DOES, YES, I THINK, WE HAVE ALL BEEN HERE A LOT . AND YOU HAVE, TOO. BUT THAT IS WHAT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTOOD.

>> IT IS AN EXCELLENT QUESTION.

>> SO, FOR 8.2, THE FUTURE LAND MAP, I AM SPEAKING OF THE STAFF AND THE RECOMMENDATION OF LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL FOR THREE PARCELS ON KENNETH CORD AND THE DENIAL OF THE CITIES MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. AND AGAIN I WANT TO THANK THE STAFF FOR A WELL RESEARCHED REPORT, AND ALSO WITH A VERY THOROUGH DISCUSSION AT THE COMMUNITY AND THOUGH ALL OF THE POINTS THAT ARE CRITICAL FOR A CONSIDERATION I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT PROTECTING THE INTEGRITY AND STABILITY OF THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS AROUND THE AREA. AND I THINK WE HAVE TO LOOK AT OUR PLAN AND OUR VISION PLAN, BUT SPEAK TO THE PLACE WHICH INCLUDES OUR ENVIRONMENT AND HEALTH AND SAFETY. OUR PARTICULAR AREA IS ALSO KNOWN FOR BEING A WILDLIFE CORRIDOR. IF THE AREAS DEVELOP AS WE HAVE SEEN RECENTLY WE HAVE SEEN A LOSS OF TREES AND CANOPY AND AS YOU KNOW, THAT IS ONE OF THE NATURAL WAYS THAT WE CAN PROTECT THE AREA. THE AREA CONSISTS OF 23 LOTS AS YOU KNOW, IT IS A VERY CHARMING WITH INDIVIDUAL CHARACTER, THERE IS MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE INDIVIDUALITY FOR IT. AND AS YOU TRAVEL DOWN TO KNOW YOUR ROAD . SO THERE HAS BEEN SOME RECENT STUDIES AND TRAFFIC STUDIES OUT. AND TALKING ABOUT THE HORRIBLE TRAFFIC AND CONSTRAINED ROADS ON THE PARKWAY AND ALSO ALREADY TALKING ABOUT MAKING THE TURNS ON TO EMILY AROUND AND ALSO ALREADY ON 14TH STREET. SO WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE GRAPHIC AS EVERYBODY ELSE KNOWS ON FACEBOOK BUT ALSO, WE WOULD LIKE THE IDEA OF XENA REALLY GORGEOUS ROAD AS YOU TRAVEL INTO THE CITY. LASTLY, ALLOWING AN INCREASE IN DENSITY AND OVERDEVELOPMENT , OVERDEVELOPMENT, EXCUSE ME, NEGATIVELY, TO BE A SUSTAINABLE AND RESILIENT CITY AND AN ISLAND. AND IN THIS AREA, WE ARE ALREADY SETTING A NEGATIVE PRECEDENT, AS YOU KNOW EVERY DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATION WAS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE INCREASE IN DENSITY INCREASES OUR SERVICES, AND AN INCREASE IN BRIGHT LIGHTS AND WILDLIFE.

SO FOR THAT, I WILL CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THE RECOMMENDATION OF

THE RESIDENTIAL. >> THANK YOU, PLEASE WELCOME MR. RICHARD DIETZ TO THE PODIUM.

>> RICHARD DEAN, 4104 , THIS PROCESS TONIGHT IS SO THAT WE HAVE GONE CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN ATTORNEYS AND CITY ATTORNEYS AND THE DAY OF THE HEARING, THAT THEY ARE GOING TO CHANGE IT BECAUSE THEY ARE WORRIED ABOUT WHAT'S GOING TO GO THROUGH, WHICH MEANS, YOU ARE MAKING A JOKE OUT OF THE PUBLIC PROCESS THAT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE, AND THE COMMUNITY CAN WAIT. AND SO YOUR PROCESS TONIGHT , IT MEANS A LOT TO BE DESIRED. IT LEAVES A LOT TO BE DESIRED.

>> THANK YOU. WE WILL COME BACK TO THE PODIUM, THIS IS

VANESSA STUBBS. >> WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO STAY

MY NAME AND ADDRESS >> VANESSA STUBBS 744 KENNETH CORD, FERNANDINA BEACH, FLORIDA. I WANT TO REMIND

[02:45:05]

EVERYBODY THAT THIS PARCEL IS PLOTTED AS THREE LOTS, NOT FOUR, NOT SIX. THIS APPLICANT WAS ALLOWED TO APPLY THREE TIMES IN A 15 MONTH PERIOD DESPITE LDC 11.01 DETERMINATION OF COMPLETENESS INSUFFICIENCY. CLEARLY STATING THE SAME FOR THE SAME PROPERTY MAY NOT BE REAPPLIED WITHIN 12 MONTHS AND THAT IF AN APPLICANT FAILS TO CORRECT ANY DEFICIENCIES WITHIN 30 DAYS THE APPLICATION IS DEEMED WITHDRAWN. THE APPLICANT AND THE CITY WERE AWARE OF THE ILLEGAL AND SPLIT PRIOR TO APPLYING THE SECOND TIME IN JUNE OF 2023, PROVEN BY THE LETTER FROM THE COUNTY DATED NOVEMBER 1ST 2022. YET THE APPLICANT MADE NO EFFORTS TO CORRECT THE DIVISION UNTIL NEARLY 11 MONTHS LATER. ANDY HAD TO WITHDRAW HIS APPLICATION FOR SECOND TIME FROM THE AGENDA ON AUGUST 9TH 2023, ONCE AGAIN WITHDRAWAL WOULD INDICATE WE MUST WAIT 12 MONTHS TO REAPPLY, YET HE REAPPLIED AGAIN IN DECEMBER OF 2023, FOR A THIRD TIME, AMONG THESE PARDONS GIVEN TO THE APPLICANT, ONE CAN ONLY PONDER IF YOU PAID THE CITY THREE TIMES TO COMPENSATE FOR THE TIME IN ADVERTISING FEES, DESPITE THE VIOLATIONS, WE ARE HERE TODAY FOR TO MAKE A DECISION THAT SHOULD'VE NEVER MADE IT TO THE HEARING TODAY, DO NOT AWARD THIS DEFIANT BEHAVIOR BY IGNORING THE LDC THAT PROTECTS THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD FROM OVERDEVELOPMENT THE UNDERLYING A LOT OF RECORDS SHOW A STRUCTURE GOING THROUGH TWO OF THE THREE LOTS AND FOR LDC , ONLY ONE HOME CAN BE BUILT THERE, THAT'S A TOTAL OF TWO HOMES WOULD BE ALLOWED IF ANNEXED INTO THE CITY THE STAFF REPORT RECOMMENDED, LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND THERE WAS 13 POLITIES AND FROM THE LDC AND PLAN THAT SUPPORT THE RECOMMENDATION. MOREOVER, A VARIANCE IS GRANTED FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS WHEN THERE IS NO OTHER POSSIBLE WAY TO BRING THE LOT INTO COMPLIANCE AND IS NOT GIVEN OUT TO INCREASED DENSITY AND PROFITS FOR DEVELOPER, FOR THESE REASONS YOU MUST DENY ORDINANCE 2024 DASH 02 FOR

INCOMPATIBILITY. >> WE WILL INVITE MRS. TERESA

FRAMES TO THE PODIUM. >> THANK YOU MR. MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSIONERS, I AM TERESA PRINCE. 303 CENTER STREET, SUITE 203, HERE FOR THE APPLICANT THIS EVENING, AS I STATED PREVIOUSLY IN THE ANNEXATION ORDINANCE, WE WOULD LIKE THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER RE-ADVERTISING THIS APPLICATION FOR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, WE WOULD BE REDUCING AND NOT INCREASING, WHAT WE ARE ASKING FOR, SO YOU ADVERTISE THIS EVENING FOR A HIGHER DENSITY AND YOU ADVERTISE FOR MORE DENSITY AND HIGHER INTENSITY AND, YOU ARE GOING TO IF YOU APPROVE OUR REQUEST, AND WEEKEND RE-ADVERTISE AND HAVE A THIRD READING OF THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WHICH WAS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING BOARD AND BY THE STAFF . I LISTENED TO THE PLANNING BOARD MEETING BECAUSE THERE WAS A LOT OF CONFUSION AND I KNOW THE CHAIR IS HERE, AND I HAVE SEEN SOME OTHER PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS HERE AND IN THIS DEFENSE, NOT THAT SHE NEEDS DEFENDING, SHE HAD TO LEAVE EARLY AND I LISTENED TO IT FRESHLY AT 4:00 TODAY AND I WANTED TO KNOW WHAT TO DO, AND THEY SAID THEY WANT TO APPROVE IT FOR LOW DENSITY WE DO NOT WANT TO GIVE THE APPLICANT THE DENSITY, WHAT DO WE DO, THEY SAID PUT IT IN ONE MOTION THEY THOUGHT IT WOULD B CLEANER, TO DENY THE APPLICANT'S DENSITY AND THEN APPROVE THE LOW DENSITY, SO WHEN I LISTEN TO IT AND I HEARD IT, SO WHAT THEY DID FORWARD TO YOU WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN FORWARDED WAS THE PLANNING BOARD APPROVED LOW DENSITY, THAT IS THE MINUTES THAT WERE A LITTLE UNCLEAR, THEY WERE DRAFT MINUTES WHEN I LOOKED AT YOUR PACKET AND BROUGHT ON BOARD, WE DID CLARIFY THIS REQUEST LAST WEEK AND THE ANNEXATION WAS SOMETHING THAT WE TALKED ABOUT TODAY, BUT LAST WEEK I THINK WEDNESDAY WE STARTED TO DISCUSS IT WITH THE CITY, I THINK BY FRIDAY WE MADE THE DECISION. WE NOTIFIED THE CITY, IT IS STILL NOT OUT FOR SEVEN DAYS , AND WE NEED TO RE-ADVERTISE JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS CLEAN, AND JUST THE NEXT ORDINANCE READING IS LOWER DENSITY. AND, TRYING TO THINK, I ALSO LISTEN TO THE AUGUST MEETING BECAUSE THERE WAS SOME CONCERN. WHEN I GO FROM THAT MEETING, IS THE CITY DIDN'T ALLOW IT TO GO FORWARD AT THAT TIME, BECAUSE THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION. SO, IT WAS ADVISED, THAT THEY COULDN'T HEAR IT. SO THAT IS HOW THEY SEEMED TO UNFOLD, BASED ON ME LISTENING TO THE MEETING. AND I LOOKED THROUGH THE VARIOUS RECORDS OF SOME EMAIL REQUEST .

SO WE ARE REQUESTING LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. AND AGAIN, IT IS LOWER DENSITY AND IT IS LOWER INTENSITY. AND SO WE WOULD RE-ADVERTISE HAVEN'T TALKED TO LECLERC ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE WOULD PAY THE ADVERTISING IS BUT I ASSUME

[02:50:01]

THAT IT IS THE CASE. WE WOULD RE-ADVERTISE AND COME BACK FOR A THIRD READING. IF YOU GRANT OUR REQUEST OF LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

>> YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS, SEEING NONE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE INVITE TO THE PODIUM.

>> SORRY, I BLEW MY BACK OUT LAST WEEK. I NEED A

CHIROPRACTOR. ANYWAY -- >> JUST GET TO THE TABLE.

>> MARBURY KIRKLAND, 1377 PLANTATION POINTE DRIVE, I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF OF CONSERVED NASSAU. AND I APPRECIATE MS. PRINCE AND HER CLIENT CHANGING THE REQUEST HERE, I THINK THAT IS REALLY IMPORTANT FOR COMPATIBILITY WITH THE REST OF KENNETH COURT, WITH BARRINGTON, WHICH IS JUST NORTH OF IT AND WITH THE COUNTY DEVELOPMENT ON THE EAST SIDE OF AMELIA ROAD. SO I THINK IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT FOR THAT. ALSO, IT WILL HELP TO CREATE A GREATER UNITY FOR THAT AREA, A MORE PLEASANT THE ESCAPE AND THAT WILL RESPECT THE HISTORICAL NATURE OF THAT ASPECT OF THE ISLAND. HOWEVER -- OKAY, THERE IS SOMETHING THAT IS GOING ON, THAT I THINK EVERYBODY HAS HEARD A LITTLE BIT ABOUT INCREASED FLOODING BUT IT IS A MAJOR ISSUE IN THE CENTRAL PART OF THE ISLAND.

AND OUR GROUP AND ENGINEERS HAVE MET WITH CHARLIE GEORGE AND WE HAVE A MEETING SET UP TO MEET WITH A BUNCH OF STAFF AS WELL. AND, WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE COME OUT OF THIS IS A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT BECAUSE THAT IS ONE OF THE PARTS OF THE ISLAND WHERE THE CITY AND THE COUNTY ARE ALL MIXED UP TOGETHER. SO WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES. AND THIS ENTAILS UNDERSTANDING, THE HYDROLOGY OF THAT PART OF THE ISLAND, WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THE GROUND ORDER. AND WHAT IS GOING ON THERE. AND, I THINK THAT IS REALLY CRITICAL. WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT, AND WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND, WHAT WE CAN BUILD, AND HOW WE CAN BUILD IN THAT PART OF THE ISLAND, AND WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT ARE THE LONG-TERM COSTS FOR THE CITY IN THE COUNTY. AND IF WE DO AND WE DON'T DEAL WITH IS, IF WE DON'T DEAL WITH THIS, INSTEAD OF BEING PROACTIVE, WE ARE BEING REACTIVE AND THE COST WILL GO UP. ASTRONOMICALLY. SO, THAT IS SOMETHING OUT THERE THAT EVERYBODY NEEDS TO BE AWARE OF. PERSONALLY, I DON'T THINK THAT A DEVELOPMENT SHOULD HAPPEN IN THE CENTRAL PART OF THE ISLAND, UNTIL WE KNOW MORE. BUT, I DON'T REALLY WANT TO MENTION THE WORD MORATORIUM. BECAUSE I KNOW THAT SENDS EVERYBODY INTO A PANIC MODE.

>> THANK YOU, MISS KIRKLAND. WE INVITE MISS SANDY KERRY TO THE PODIUM. ONE LAST SPEAKER ON THIS ITEM.

>> SO WHAT I AM HEARING IS THAT THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS.

>> WE START WITH YOUR NAME. >> SANDY KERRY, 754 FOREST DRIVE, SO WE WILL REWARD THIS APPLICANT AND GIVE THEM A FOURTH TIME AROUND BY GIVING THEM A CONTINUANCE THEY DID NOT MEET THE CODE REQUIREMENT OF NOTIFYING THE CITY MANAGER SEVEN DAYS IN ADVANCE. I DON'T SEE ANYTHING IN THE CODE ABOUT AMENDING OR CONTINUING. IT DOES SAY HOWEVER WITHDRAWAL OF PENDING APPLICATIONS AND APPLICANT MAY WITHDRAW AN APPLICATION AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO A LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER, THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE WITH DRAWL TO THE CITY MANAGER. OF THE CITY MANAGER RECEIVES AN APPLICANT'S WRITTEN NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL LESS THAN SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING THE PUBLIC HEARING TONIGHT , AT WHICH THE APPLICATION IS SCHEDULED WE HEARD THE

[02:55:01]

APPLICANT SHALL BE CONCLUDED FROM SUMMONING THE SAME APPLICATION FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR 12 MONTHS , THAT IS THE PROCEDURE, THAT IS NOT THE PROCEDURE YOU ARE FOLLOWING AND THE REASON ALL OF THIS IS CHANGED IS BECAUSE THE ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN AS I STATED BEFORE AND IT AGREES WITH WHAT THE APPLICANT FIRST REQUESTED, NOW THEY'RE HAPPY TO GO WITH THE LOWER END DENSITY. BUT IT STILL SHOULD FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE. AND YOU ARE GIVING THEM ANOTHER TIME AROUND ON THIS, IT ALSO SAYS IN YOUR CODE, ON YOUR CHAPTER 11, IT WILL CHANGE TO THE APPLICATION, WHICH I THINK THE DETERMINATION BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT OR THE CITY ATTORNEY THAT THE APPLICANT HAS MADE MATERIAL CHANGES, I WOULD CALL THIS A MATERIAL CHANGE, NOT PROPOSED BY OR APPROVED BY THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD THAT WOULD REQUIRE A NEW DETERMINATION OF COMPLETENESS AND DETERMINATIONS INCLUDING THE ASSIGNMENT OF A NEW NUMBER FOR REVIEW IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCEDURES AT WORK, THAT IS THE WHOLE PROCEDURE. AND TAKING IT BACK TO THE CITY MANAGER, LOOKING AT THE APPLICATION, YOU CAN'T JUST LET THEM AMEND IT. BECAUSE THEY DECIDED, THAT THEY WANTED TO GO AHEAD WITH WHAT THE STAFF WANTED TO DO. YOU HAVE TO SUBMIT A NEW APPLICATION. AND IT IS IN YOUR CODE. AND YOU ARE REAL REWARDING THEM WITH THE FOURTH SUBMISSION. AND YOU ARE GOING TO ADVERTISE AGAIN, BUT THE CODE HAS TO GIVE WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CITY MANAGER TO WITHDRAW, AND THEY DID NOT DO THAT. SO IF YOU DO THIS YOU ARE VIOLATING YOUR CODE I DON'T THINK IT IS A GOOD PRESIDENT TO SET, TO LET AN APPLICATION GO FOR 16 MONTHS WITHIN FOUR SUBMISSIONS WHEN THEY GOT IT WRONG THE FIRST TIME, AND YOUR CITY STAFF GOT WRONG BY PUTTING THE WRONG THING ON YOUR ORDINANCE TONIGHT. I STATED THAT, AND IT STATED LOW DENSITY AS RECOMMENDED WHICH IS WHAT THEY ARE ASKING FOR NOW. AND IT IS JUST TO COVER UP THAT SOMEBODY DIDN'T PUT THE WRITING ON THE ORDINANCE, YOUR ORDINANCE, YOUR CODE SAYS APPROVE, DENY OR APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS, IT IS ONE OF THE THREE, IT IS NOT TWO OF THE THREE. SO WHEN THE CITY SAYS APPROVE AND DENY, AND THE PAB SAYS APPROVE AND DENY, REGARDLESS OF THE REASONS BEHIND IT, IT IS NOT ALLOWED.

IS ONE OF THE THREE. >> THANK YOU, MISS CARRIE. AND JUST TO CLARIFY, JUST TO CLARIFY WHAT IS HAPPENING IS THAT THEY ARE NOT AMENDING ANYTHING, MISS CARRIE, IT WOULD BE THE SAME COMMISSIONING AMENDING. THAT IS WHAT IS HAPPENING TONIGHT. AND THAT EVERYTHING IS HAPPENED IS IN ORDER AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE. AND THAT IS WHAT WE ARE GOVERNED BY, SO WITH THAT, THAT IS ALL OF THE PUBLIC COMMENT, DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON ITEM 8.2? AND MS. BACH, CAN YOU CLARIFY AND WE HAVE TO AMEND, CAN YOU MAKE THE EMOTION , OR CAN WE MAKE THE MOTION.

>> WE HAVE DONE IT BOTH WAYS. >>

>> DO WITH THE WAY THAT YOU ARE COMFORTABLE WITH. THE PURE ROBERTS RULES, WHICH REQUIRES THE MAIN MOTION, TO BE VOTED ON

AND THEN YOU DEMANDED. >> DO I HEAR A MAIN MOTION?

>> WHICH IS AS THE ORDINANCE WRITTEN.

>> THAT WOULD MEAN MOVED TO APPROVE.

>> IF YOU WANT TO DO WITH THE PLANNING BOARD STAFF AND THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO, AND SOME RESIDENTS HAVE AGREED TO, THAT YOU WOULD REJECT THIS ORDINANCE AS WRITTEN?

>> NO, >> WITH MAKING THE AMENDMENT

FIRST. >> WE CAN MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION, IS THAT CORRECT, DOING HER ANY MOTION AT THIS

TIME? >> I'M STILL SLIGHTLY CONFUSED

. >> JUST AN AMENDMENT, AND AMEND MOTION TO APPROVE, ONCE THAT MOTION IS MADE, THEN SECONDED.

THEN SOMEBODY CAN MAKE IT AGAIN. EVEN THE PERSON MAKING

IT. >> THAT'S NOT GOING TO MAKE IT

EASIER. >> I DON'T THINK IT IS.

>> ARE YOU GOING TO MAKE A MOTION?

>> I MOVED TO APPROVE BUT I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE IT AS WRITTEN, WITH THE MEDIUM DENSITY, AND THEN AMENDED TO

CHANGE THE MEDIUM DENSITY. >> DO I HEAR A SECOND TO BOTH OF MR. ROSS THE SIMULTANEOUS MOTIONS? I NEED SOMEONE TO SECONDED OR WE DON'T DO ANYTHING.

>> IT IS APPROVE >> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, TO FILL EVERYONE IN, THE MOTION ON THE TABLE, SO WHAT IS CURRENTLY HERE, SAYS MEDIUM DENSITY, THAT IS WHAT IT SAYS. THAT IS NOT -- OH, YES, IT SEEMS MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

>> THEY HAVE AMENDED IT TO LOW DENSITY, THAT IS WHY COMMISSIONER ROSS MADE INTO MOTIONS.

>> I MADE ONE MOTION. >> ESTIMATE THE WAY THAT WE

HAVE DONE IT BEFORE. >> HE MADE A TWO-PART MOTION.

[03:00:01]

SO THERE WE GO, THAT IS WHAT THIS IS, THIS IS A MOTION IN A SECOND MOTION WITHIN THE SAME MOTION.

>> TO CLARIFY, YOU ARE VOTING FOR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

>> CORRECT. >> YES, AS I UNDERSTAND IT THAT

IS YOUR MOTION. >> SO WE ALL AGREE, SO NOW, LET'S GO TO THE CITY ATTORNEY. THE CITY ATTORNEY, JUST TO CLARIFY, WHAT COMMISSIONER ROSS JUST DID. AND A MOTION THAT WE ARE NOW VOTING ON, SO AMENDING THE MOTION FOR WHAT'S IN THE PAPER. THAT AMENDED MOTION SAYS, THAT IT WILL BE A LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, AS IS COMPARABLE TO WHAT STAFF

APPROVED. >> AND WHAT THE PAB RECOMMENDED. AND I WILL ACTUALLY READ A NEW TITLE, WITH THIS MOTION, AND THIS AMENDMENT BUT GETS APPROVED.

>> PERFECT. >> AND YOU CAN TITLE IT.

>> AFTER THE VOTE. >> FINISHER DISCUSSION. LET'S

GO AHEAD. >> I JUST WANT A QUESTION JUST TO COMMENT ON SOME OF THE FEEDBACK REGARDING THE TIMELINES IN THE APPLICATION AND THE REAPPLICATION.

>> I HAVE ALREADY REVIEWED THOSE ARGUMENTS, I DON'T THINK THAT IS WHAT I WOULD CALL FATAL FLAWS IN THE APPLICATION OF THE PROCESS. WE AFFORD A DUE PROCESS, TO EVERY SINGLE PERSON THAT WE KNOW OF, IF THERE'S SOMEBODY THAT'S A DON'T GET DUE PROCESS OR DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO SPEAK THAT IS ONE THING. THAT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT WAS PROVIDED IN THE FIRST HEARING FOR THE ANNEXATION, AND THE REZONING, AND I THINK IT IS FINE. BUT, WE WENT THROUGH THE CERTAIN THINGS, THAT THEY WERE NOT WITHDRAWN OR CONTINUED, BUT I HAVE GONE THROUGH ARGUMENTS AND I DON'T FIND THAT THEY ARE A FATAL FLAW FOR THIS ORDINANCE OR THE PROCESS FOR THIS

ANNEXATION. >> COMMISSIONER AYSCUE?

>> I SECONDED THE MOTION. BUT -- I WANT TO KIND OF BRING UP A COUPLE OF POINTS. THE FIRST TIME I EMAILED YOU BACK ABOUT THE ISSUE AND I WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT, I EMAILED YOU AS WELL, I DID SPEAK TO SOME PEOPLE THAT I TRUST WOULD KNOW THAT AREA IS A LITTLE BIT MORE DAMP THAN IT HAD BEEN EVEN ON THE LAKESIDE. NOT LAKESIDE BUT EVEN THERE. AND I DID SPEAK WITH MR. GEORGE I KNOW THAT HE GOT WITH ANDRE I KNOW THE COUNTY IS WORKING WITH THE CITY TO COME UP WITH MORE THAN JUST , TALK AND THEY ARE TRYING TO DO WHAT THEY CAN TO ALLEVIATE IT. I THINK THAT THE DERMATOLOGY IS FINISHED, SOME OF THAT WILL DRAIN A LITTLE BIT TOWARDS THAT AND I WENT BY IT THE OTHER DAY AND THE COMMERCIAL PIECE OF PROPERTY, JUST SOUTH HAS A BIG POND, AND, THERE ARE SOME ISSUES THAT COULD BE GOING ON THERE, BUT AS IT PERTAINS TO THE FLOW, AND, GOING WITH MEDIUM DENSITY, AND LOW DENSITY, I CANNOT SUPPORT EITHER ONE. WHEN I LOOK AT THIS MAP AND I LOOK AT KENNETH COURT AND ASSUMING THAT WE ARE ASSIGNING A DENSITY AND YOU GO FURTHER DOWN KENNETH COURT AND MAYBE ANOTHER HOUSES LOT, MAYBE THEY WANT TO ANNEX ANOTHER HOUSE, AND I'M LOOKING AT THIS WHOLE PICTURE, AND, WE WOULD LOOK AT THE COMMERCIAL THAT IS SOUTH OF IT. AND THAT COMMERCIAL, WHILE THEY ARE A GOOD NEIGHBOR, THEY ARE A GOOD NEIGHBOR TODAY, THEY MAY NOT BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR TOMORROW AND WE WOULD LOOK AT THIS FROM A PLANNING STANDPOINT, THAT WE WOULD WANT A BUFFER BETWEEN BANNED COMMERCIAL, AND AT LEAST THE NORTH, AT LEAST THE NORTH SIDE, BUT NOT EVEN THE NORTH, THE BUFFER BETWEEN THAT COMMERCIAL AND BARRINGTON, AND THAT, NOT NECESSARILY DENSITY, BUT THAT A CATEGORY FOR ME, WOULD BE MIXED-USE, SO I CANNOT VOTE FOR EITHER ONE OF THESE,

>> VICKI COMMISSIONER. >> THE OTHER, JUST, I WILL GO AND I HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY LAST WEEK TO SPEAK WITH THE APPLICANT'S AGENT ON THIS, AND I AM THANKFUL THAT THEY WERE WILLING TO TALK ABOUT THIS AND COME TO THE TABLE. AND GO WITH WHAT STAFF RECOMMENDED. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK WITH WHAT IS RIGHT TO GO HERE, AND THAT IS WHAT I WILL BE SUPPORTING ON THIS. AND THAT IS WHERE I'M AT, AND I AM THINK TO THE APPLICANT FOR COMING TO THE TABLE AND BRINGING DOWN THE DENSITY, I THINK THAT IS GOOD. AND MR.

VICE MAYOR ? >> THANK YOU MR. MAYOR, I HAVE NOT SPOKEN TO THE STAFF'S NEW AGENT, AND I HAVE NOT SPOKEN TO

[03:05:03]

THE APPLICANT SINCE THE LAST MEETING, SO I HAVE SPOKEN TO NEITHER ANYBODY ABOUT THIS, AND I AM GLAD TO SEE, THE APPLICANT IN LOWER DENSITY. SO I WILL SUPPORT IT, THANK

YOU. >> THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR. ANY

OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS? >> I SEE THAT WE HAVE ONE FOR MIXED-USE. AND 24 LOW DENSITY. HOW ABOUT YOU?

>> I SUPPORT LOW DENSITY. WITH HOW THIS WHOLE PROCESS CARRIED

OUT. >> OKAY. WE GOT IT.

>> ALL RIGHT, LET'S CALL A VOTE.

>> COMMISSIONER ROSS? >> SO WE ARE VOTING, JUST SO EVERYBODY IS CLEAR, WE ARE VOTING THAT THIS IS LOW DENSITY

RESIDENTIAL? >> YES. THAT IS THE MOTION ON

THE FLOOR. >> THAT IS THE MOST PALATABLE.

>> IS THAT A YES, COMMISSIONER?

>> COMMISSIONER AYSCUE? >> NO.

>> VICE-MAYOR STURGES? >> YES.

>> THAT PASSES 4-1, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN WHAT WE WILL DO NOW IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN KEEP UP WITH THE TIMELINE ON THIS WITH THE TITLE OF THE AMENDED AMENDMENT. AND A MOTION TONIGHT, SO MS. BACH PLEASE READ THE AMENDED ORDINANCE.

>> ORDINANCE 2024 E- 02 ASSIGNING A FUTURE OF LAND USE MAP CATEGORIES OF LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, 4.92 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED AT 766 KENNETH COURT, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE, THE SECOND AND FINAL READING OF THAT NEW TITLE, AND ORDINANCE IS

[8.3 ZONING MAP ASSIGNMENT - 766 KENNETH COURT - ORDINANCE 2024-03 ASSIGNING A ZONING MAP CATEGORY OF RESIDENTIAL LOW MEDIUM (RLM) FOR 0.92 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT 766 KENNETH COURT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Synopsis: Requests assignment of Residential Low Medium (RLM) zoning category for approximately 0.92 acres of land located at 766 Kenneth Court.]

SCHEDULED FOR APRIL THE SECOND. >> PERFECTLY WILL GO TO ITEM

8.3. >> THE FOURTH READING, YOU CAN

MAKE OTHER CHANGES. >> PERFECT, NOW WE CAN GO TO A GYM ITEM 8.3. ITEM 8.3 IS AS EVERYONE KNOWS, THE ZONING MAP ASSIGNMENT, 4766 KENNETH COURT. AND I BELIEVE THIS MIGHT HAVE A SIMILAR OUTCOME, SO IT'S GOING TO LOOK VERY

DELIBERATE. >> PERFECT.

>> A TITLE THAT IS GOING TO BE AFFECTED. THAT IS PART OF WHAT I THINK CONFUSES COMMISSIONERS AND THE PUBLIC IS THAT IN MY HEAD, AS FLORIDA STATUTES AND 25 YEARS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT EXPERIENCE, THAT IS NOT WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE UNDERSTANDS AND I GET IT, I'M NOT TRYING TO BE CONFUSING, PART OF WHAT WE HAVE DONE HERE TONIGHT, PART OF HOW IT SUPPOSED TO WORK IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT, CITIZENS CAME OUT TO THE HEARINGS AND THEY SAID, WE DON'T LIKE IT, GIVE US LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED AND WHEN WE GO THROUGH AND WE JUST MOVED TO APPROVE, EVERYBODY IS POSTOP, NOW THEY ARE POSTOP BECAUSE WE ARE DOING IT THIS WAY, SO, WE ARE GOING TO AT THE NEXT HEARING, IT SHOULD BE SMOOTHER UNLESS THERE IS ANOTHER CHANGE.

BUT, THERE ARE THINGS, THAT IF WE DID IT LIKE THIS YOU COULD ADD AS MANY READINGS AS YOU WANT TO AND ORDINANCE. AND IF WE DO IT THIS WAY NOW, YOU COULD HAVE TWO MORE READINGS WHERE IT IS A SIMPLE TITLE WITH NO CHANGES. BUT WE HAVE

MADE CHANGES BEFORE. >> WE ARE NOT EVEN AT THAT. SO WE ARE NOT GOING TO BREAK THAT RECORD.

>> E-BIKES REMEMBER E-BIKES ON THE GREENWAY, COMMISSIONER ROSS AND THE SPEED LIMIT AND WHETHER WE SHOULD HAVE THEM OR NOT.

>> LET'S NOT REMIND ANYBODY. >> GOING TO ITEM 8.3, 8.3, WE ARE NOW IN THE PART WHERE WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON 8.3, BECAUSE WE NEED TO TAKE THAT FIRST AND WE WILL GO ONCE AGAIN. IT IS LORI HICKEY.

HELMKE, 715 HARRINGTON DRIVE, FERNANDINA BEACH FIRST OF ALL I DO WANT TO THANK YOU FOR TRYING TO ANSWER MY QUESTIONS.

AS WE HAVE GOT ALONG. I KNOW THAT WE DIDN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO, BUT IT DOES MEAN A LOT WHEN THE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDS THE PROCESS. AND I HAVE BEEN DOING KENNETH COURT SINCE AUGUST, INVOLVED WITH THE MEETINGS. I DO APPRECIATE THAT. AND I REALLY DO APPRECIATE THE CHANGING AND MAKING ADJUSTMENTS. I THINK THAT IS THE WAY, AS A MISS BOCK SAID, IT IS THE WAY TO WORK AND IT IS SOMETHING THAT I HAVE ACTUALLY PROMOTED HERE BEFORE, WHERE IT WOULD BE GREAT IF DEVELOPERS OR BUILDERS COULD TALK TO THE RESIDENTS AND

[03:10:01]