Mar 13, 2024 Planning Advisory Board

[1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL / DETERMINATION OF QUORUM]

[00:00:03]

CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH PLANNING AND ADVISORY BOARD MEETING.

TODAY IS MARCH 13TH, 2024.

THE TIME IS 5 P.M..

WE ARE IN CITY HALL COMMISSION CHAMBERS IN FERNANDINA BEACH, FLORIDA.

MADAM SECRETARY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? MEMBER BENNETT. YOU JUST STEPPED OUT.

WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK. MEMBER GILLETTE.

HERE. MEMBER DOSTER.

HERE. MEMBER GINGHER.

HERE. VICE CHAIR STEVENSON.

HERE. CHAIR ROBAS.

HERE. MEMBER BENNETT.

HERE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WE HAVE A QUORUM.

BARB, WOULD YOU LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE? PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

ALL RIGHT. BEFORE WE GET STARTED I WOULD LIKE TO SHARE WITH THE BOARD AND STAFF AND THE PUBLIC THAT I HAVE BEEN ADVISED THAT WE'VE HAD THE PASSING OF ONE OF OUR BOARD MEMBERS, MR. JOHN BOYLAN, WHO PASSED LAST NIGHT.

AND WE JUST ARE SADDENED BY THIS.

JOHN FULLY PARTICIPATED IN THE ACTIVITIES OF THE BOARD AND ALWAYS GAVE GOOD THOUGHTFUL COMMENTS.

AND WE WILL MISS HIM GREATLY.

AND SO OUR SYMPATHIES ARE WITH THE FAMILY AS THEY, AS THEY DEAL WITH THIS AS THE DAYS, WEEKS AND MONTHS AND YEARS COME, COME AND GO. SO I JUST WANTED TO EXPRESS OUR CONDOLENCES TO THE BOYLAN FAMILY FOR THE PASSING OF JOHN.

ALL RIGHT. ON THE ITEM THREE, APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES.

[3. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES]

AND FEBRUARY 14TH, 2024.

EVERYBODY REMEMBERS THAT WE DID NOT MEET IN JANUARY.

THAT'S WHY WE DON'T HAVE JANUARY.

MINUTES. SO LET'S START WITH THE 28TH AND THE 28TH.

WORKSHOP. ARE WE GOING TO WORK ON THE WORKSHOP MINUTES WHERE THEY PULLED? THEY NEED TO BE PULLED.

A DRAFT THAT WAS NOT COMPLETED WAS ATTACHED BY ERROR.

AND THEY SHOULD THEY'RE NOT FINALIZED.

SO WE'RE WE'RE NOT GOING TO DISCUSS THAT WILL COME BACK TO US IF THAT'S OKAY.

JUST SCRATCHING JUST FOR REVIEW.

LET'S JUST. ALL RIGHT.

SO LET'S GO BACK TO THE MINUTES OF.

DECEMBER. DOES EVERYBODY HAVE THOSE IN THERE IN FRONT OF THEM? ALL RIGHT. NOW THIS WAS SORT OF INTERESTING TO ME BECAUSE I HAD TO PULL UP THE DECEMBER 13TH MINUTES BECAUSE WE TALKED ABOUT THEM ON THE FEBRUARY 14TH MINUTES MEETING. SO WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE THESE, THESE CORRECTIONS.

THE PROBABLY THE FIRST ONE THAT I WANTED TO MAKE NOTE OF.

AND NICK, YOU'RE PROBABLY ALREADY ON TOP OF THIS, BUT THIS IS UNDER PAGE.

LET'S SEE, IT'S THE WELL, I CALL IT THE BACK PAGE, BUT IT WOULD BE UNDER ITEM FOUR OF THE DECEMBER 13TH, 2023.

EVERYBODY ON THAT PAGE. YEAH.

OKAY. WE'RE DISCUSSING OLD BUSINESS, WHICH IS 4.1, THE PAB CASE 2023-0043 KENNETH COURT.

AND THERE'S A LOT OF CONVERSATION THERE.

AND THEN THE ACTION THAT WAS TAKEN I'M THERE WERE THERE WERE, AS EVERYONE REMEMBERS, THERE WERE TWO ACTIONS.

ONE WAS A DENIAL, AND THEN THERE WAS A VOTE.

AND WHAT I'D LIKE TO SEE UNDER ACTION TAKEN.

AND I'M ASKING FOR A CONSENSUS ON OUR BOARD, BUT I THINK IT'S IT'S FOR CLARIFICATION.

MOTION WAS MADE BY MEMBER STEVENSON AND SECOND, BY A MEMBER DOSTER TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF PAB CASE 2020 3-0043I WANTED TO ADD DATED 1213 2023 AS WRITTEN BECAUSE THAT'S

[00:05:07]

GOOD POINT. AND I THINK THAT SOMETIMES IS HELPFUL.

SO I'D LIKE TO INSERT THAT.

AND SYLVIA, I'LL GIVE YOU MY NOTES TO HELP YOU WITH THAT.

EVERYTHING ELSE WAS GOOD IN THAT.

WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT NEEDED TO BE ADDED TO THE ACTION TAKEN? I GOT A COUPLE OF THINGS. I JUST WANT TO COMMENT ON THAT SAME PAGE, THAT VERY, VERY BOTTOM OF THE ASTERISK ITEM DOWN THERE AT THE BOTTOM OF THAT PAGE.

ASTERISK ON THAT SAME PAGE, THE VERY BOTTOM, IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT ANYWAY, IT SAYS THERE WAS AN ASTERISK AT THE BOTTOM.

IT SAYS THE TIME THE BOARD FIRST VOTED ON A MOTION.

THAT WAS A LITTLE ADDED EXPLANATION.

AND I THINK IT ADDED SOME CLARITY TO TO THE MINUTES.

SO I DON'T KNOW WHO ADDED THAT.

BUT THAT WAS THAT WAS A GOOD ADDER.

I DON'T THINK IT SAYS AT THIS TIME THE BOARD FIRST VOTED ON A MOTION REGARDING THE, THE DEVELOPERS FLUME.

OKAY. THIS IS WHERE WE GOT INTO THE DEVELOPERS FLUME AND ZONING REQUEST, WHICH WAS DENIED BY THE BOARD 6 TO 1.

SUBSEQUENTLY, A SECOND MOTION WAS MADE BY THE BOARD TO APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF FLUME AND ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH WAS APPROVED BY THE BOARD SIX ONE. NO.

WELL, IT'S IT'S ASTERISK.

AND IT GOES BACK TO A NOTE.

TALKS ABOUT MEMBER GILLETTE UP IN.

OKAY. SO ANYWAY, THAT THAT HELPS FURTHER CLARIFY WHAT WAS GOING ON, BUT I THINK PUTTING THAT DATE OF WHAT THE BASELINE WAS, WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN THE DECEMBER MEETING.

THAT'S THAT'S A DARN GOOD SUGGESTION.

ALL RIGHT. IS THERE I THINK THAT THAT CLARIFIES THE THE VOTING OF THE BOARD, OKAY.

WHICH WAS SOMETHING WE ALL WANTED TO MAKE SURE GOT CORRECT.

I'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT ITEM SIX AND THAT SAME SET OF AGENDAS THAT'D BE DOWN THE LAST PAGE.

OKAY. PAGES.

I THINK IT STARTS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE NEXT LAST PAGE.

OKAY. THIS IS JUST SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT.

IF YOU LOOK FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE ABOUT THE FOURTH OR FIFTH PAGE THERE, IT'S SAYS MEMBERS SUGGESTED THAT STAFF PREPARE.

THAT'S THE FIRST PART OF THE SENTENCE WHEN THAT NEXT TO THE LAST AND THE LAST PAGE, THERE ARE ACTUALLY FOUR WHAT I WOULD CALL FUTURE ACTION ITEMS THAT WE NEED TO EITHER CONSIDER OR ADD, YOU KNOW, ADD TO SOME FUTURE AGENDA.

MY QUESTION IS BE BECAUSE WE'VE HAD A LOT OF CHANGES, THE STAFF AND SO FORTH, SHOULD WE AS A BOARD, START A LIST OF ITEMS THAT ARE GOING TO BE FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION? YOU'RE GETTING STARTING TO GET A FEW OF THEM.

WE'VE WE'VE WE TALKED ABOUT THE PUTT WE IT'S BEEN ON AGAIN OFF AGAIN.

SOMEHOW I THINK WE NEED TO COLLECTIVELY JUST SAY OKAY WHAT WHAT'S OUT THERE IN THE HORIZON.

SOME OF THOSE ITEMS MAY BE OF INTEREST TO ONE OR MORE OF THE COMMISSIONERS.

SO I'M JUST LOOKING AT TERMS OF VALUE ADD.

MY SUGGESTION RIGHT NOW IS JUST CAPTURE.

I'VE GOT A FEW ITEMS THAT I'VE FOUND THAT I THINK OUGHT TO BE ADDED.

I WANT TO DO IT TONIGHT. IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE HAVE TO DO TONIGHT, BUT IT'S SOMETHING.

IF YOU THINK OF SOMETHING THAT WE'VE COVERED SOMEWHERE IN THE PAST, LET'S SAY WITHIN THE LAST 12 MONTHS, I THINK WE OUGHT TO GO AHEAD AND GET OUR OWN ACTION LIST.

I THINK THAT MAKES SENSE.

IS THERE THERE'S NO PROBLEM WITH US COMING UP WITH OUR OWN TO DO LIST, RIGHT? ALL RIGHT. OKAY.

NOW AND I THINK THE OTHER THING, THOUGH, WAS ON 6.1 THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT STRIKING THAT LAST SENTENCE OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF 6.1.

DID THAT GET DONE? YES IT DID.

OKAY. SO THAT WAS STRUCK.

GOOD. YEAH.

I GOT I GOT ONE OTHER QUESTION ON THE LAST PAGE.

IT WILL BE THE LET'S SEE, IT'S STILL ON PRIOR TO ITEM NUMBER SEVEN.

SO IT'S GOING TO BE ONE TWO, THE THIRD PARAGRAPH ABOVE SEVEN.

I JUST WANT TO GET MY OWN CLARIFICATION.

IT SAYS MEMBERS CONTINUED SPEAKING ABOUT DENSITY AND SUGGESTED THAT THIS MAY BE THE TIME TO REALLY LOOK AT CONCURRENCY AND PROVIDE AN ANALYSIS OF THE IMPACT OF A DEVELOPMENT BY DEPARTMENT DOT, DOT, DOT MARK, I THINK YOU MADE THAT COMMENT.

I THINK THAT WAS YOUR COMMENT.

I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BIT EXACTLY WHAT WE MEANT BY THAT.

YEAH. WHAT YOU MEANT.

GOOD LUCK. WELL, I THINK WHAT IT WAS WAS WE NEED TO START LOOKING AT ALL THE PARAMETERS ON A PARALLEL BASIS.

AND I THINK IT DEALS WITH, YOU KNOW, IF STORMWATER DENSITY.

ET CETERA, ET CETERA. AND I BUT I WASN'T QUITE SURE WHAT IT WAS, BUT IT'S A WE PUT THAT OUT THERE AS A POSSIBLE.

AND WHAT GOT ME WAS THE CONCURRENCY THAT TERM.

YOU KNOW, YOU'RE NOT FAMILIAR WITH CONCURRENCY.

I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE THAT I AM.

OKAY. WELL, I WAS DETERMINED THAT THE STATE OF FLORIDA HAD FOR DEVELOPMENT AND IT WOULD TAKE TOO LONG.

AND NOBODY WANTS TO SIT THROUGH THE DISCUSSION OF THAT.

BUT GENERALLY IT'S MADE ANY DEVELOPMENT HAD TO BE CONCURRENT WITH

[00:10:10]

FIRE POLICE.

NICK PROBABLY KNOWS MORE ABOUT THIS THAN I DO, BUT ALL OF THOSE ITEMS, IT WAS REDUCED.

IT WAS A BIG THEY KEPT REDUCING IT OVER TIME.

BUT GENERALLY IF YOU WANTED TO DEVELOPMENT, THINGS HAD TO BE IN PLACE TO SUPPORT THAT DEVELOPMENT BEFORE IT WAS ALLOWED.

SO THEN THEY MADE SOME CHANGES AND THEY SAID, OH, WE CAN START THE DEVELOPMENT.

SO IT'S KIND OF GONE OUT THE WINDOW.

BUT BUT THE IDEA IS IF I MAKE SURE, OKAY, YOU'VE GOT WATER AND SEWAGE FIRE SERVICE, WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS TO THE AREA THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO HAVE ON THE IMMEDIATE AND IMMEDIATE OUTSIDE AREA THAT WE NEED TO CONSIDER IN ANY KIND OF APPROVAL OF THOSE DEVELOPMENTS? WELL, I PUT IT ON THE LIST, I UNDERSTAND.

OKAY, OKAY. NOW I UNDERSTAND THAT ONE.

THAT WAS THE ONLY OTHER QUESTION I HAD ON THAT ONE.

OKAY. NOBODY WANT TO CHANGE.

ALL RIGHT. WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE ON THE MINUTES FOR DECEMBER 13TH, ANY OTHER CHANGES? IF THERE'S NO OTHER CHANGES, DO I HEAR A MOTION FOR APPROVAL? SO MOVED. ALL RIGHT, I HAVE A MOTION.

I'LL SECOND. I HAVE A SECOND FROM PETE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED? LIKE SIGN. HEARING NONE, THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 13TH, 2023 ARE APPROVED.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ALL RIGHT. NEXT ONE.

LET'S SEE HERE FEBRUARY 14TH IS EVERYBODY HAVE FEBRUARY 14TH UP.

YES. OKAY.

LET ME TAKE A LOOK.

I'VE GOT A LITTLE BIT FURTHER HERE.

GO DOWN OR PULL THAT UP.

I'VE GOT SEVERAL QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE.

YEAH. I THOUGHT FOR CLARIFICATION.

IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO PUT UNDER THAT 3.1 APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM NOVEMBER 8TH, BECAUSE I WENT BACK AND I LISTENED TO IT, AND IT'S ABOUT APPROVAL THAT THE CITY DONATE THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.

I THINK THAT IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL.

SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE WHEN SOMEBODY IS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THIS IS, THAT WE IDENTIFY THE PAB CASE THAT DONATE THE PROPERTY OR, SAY, DONATE THE CASE.

CASE NUMBER, IT WAS 2020 3-0052.

AND IT WAS THE FLUME AND FLUME AND ZONING AMENDMENT.

AND IT'S GOT BLOCK 169 LOTS ONE, TWO, THREE ON INDIGO STREET.

THAT WAS REALLY THE THE HEADING FOR THAT CASE.

AND THAT WAS APPROVED LAST WEEK BY THE CITY COMMISSION.

I THINK I AGREE WE OUGHT TO TIE IT BACK TO THE CASE.

CASE NUMBER ORIGINATED FROM.

SO I JUST THINK THAT WOULD HELP.

SOMEBODY'S GOING TO HAVE TO DIG AROUND AND LOOK FOR IT IF IF WE DON'T HAVE IT WRITTEN IN THE IN THE MINUTES.

SO I THINK I'VE GOT THE CASE NUMBER FROM COMMISSION AGENDA FROM LAST.

WELL, AND THIS IS THE CASE NUMBER, THE 0052.

SO I THINK THAT'S GOOD.

SO THAT'S ONE.

AND LET'S SEE.

THAT WAS PRETTY MUCH.

BUT I SAW NOW THERE'S A LOT OF VERBIAGE IN HERE IS EVERYBODY HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK THROUGH THAT.

ANY OTHER CHANGES TO COME? WELL I GOT LET ME START OFF IF YOU IF NOBODY ANYBODY WANT TO GO AHEAD OF ME, I'M, I GOT A FEW THINGS THAT.

WHY DON'T YOU START ON PAGE TWO UNDER 5.1, PARAGRAPH TWO.

LAST WORD IN THAT IS UNDERLINED.

AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE RIGHT WORD THAT WE WANT THERE.

ALL RIGHT, WAIT A MINUTE. 5.1 UNDER 5.1, PARAGRAPH TWO, SHE EMPHASIZED OKAY.

AND THE IS TO RESTORE UNDERLINED LOTS OF RECORD.

SO IS THIS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT? YEAH THAT'S RIGHT. I DON'T HAVE MINE UNDERLINED.

NO, NO, IT'S THE WORD IS UNDERLINED AND IT SHOULD BE UNDERLINING.

OH, SORRY.

UNDER UNDER UNDER.

SHE NOTED THE ACTIONS TO RESTORE.

UNDERLYING. IS THAT THE WORD SECOND LINE.

SECOND LINE. THE CURRENT AND PROPOSED PROCESSES TO RESTORE UNDERLINED.

OH AND IT SHOULD BE UNDERLINING UNDERLINED UNDERLYING I N G.

THAT'S WHAT I'VE GOT. UNDERLYING.

NO IT'S IT'S NOT UNDERLINED UNDERLINED.

THIS ONE RIGHT HERE TO RESTORE.

[00:15:01]

OKAY. YOU SEE WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

SO TWO TWO PARAGRAPHS DOWN FROM THAT.

MEMBER STEVENSON SECOND LINE.

BY STAFF I WOULD DELETE THE WORDS.

AND A THIRD UNKNOWN ALTERNATIVE.

THERE ISN'T A THIRD UNDER.

THERE ISN'T A THIRD. UNKNOWN ALTERNATIVE.

I GOT A PROPOSED WORDING CHANGE ON THAT.

WELL, I THINK WE SHOULD JUST STRIKE THE STRIKE.

THE WORDS I IT GOT BROUGHT UP.

LET ME LET ME PROPOSE.

JUST WHEN WE TALK ABOUT I WOULD SAY UNKNOWN IS NOT CORRECT BECAUSE IT IS KNOWN IT WAS KNOWN TO THE PAB BEFORE AND TO THE AUDIENCE DURING THE MEETING.

I ALWAYS SAY THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE RECEIVED FROM COMMISSIONER ROSS.

WE DID NOT DISCUSS THAT ALTERNATIVE, BUT WE DID RECEIVE IT OFFICIALLY.

I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A PROBLEM WITH THE WORD ALTERNATIVE BECAUSE IT SOUNDS OFFICIAL.

IT SOUNDS YOU KNOW, WE GET A SUGGESTION FROM MARGARET ALL THE TIME.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHY I DON'T THINK IT NEEDS TO BE STATED AT ALL.

AND SOMEBODY SENT US AN EMAIL WITH SOME SUGGESTIONS.

WE GET THOSE ALL THE TIME.

YEAH. OKAY.

SO FOR US TO LEAVE THE CODE AS IT IS, THE SECOND ALTERNATIVE IS THE ONE SUGGESTED BY STAFF.

PERIOD. PERIOD IS WHAT YOU'RE RECOMMENDING YES.

AND THE THIRD UNKNOWN ALTERNATE.

I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, MR. DOSTER. WHAT DO YOU THINK? ARE YOU I IT'S AN INTERESTING POINT BECAUSE ONE, WE NEVER WE NEVER PUBLICLY ADDRESSED THE CHIP.

ROSS DID ADDRESS IT AS PART OF HIS DISCUSSION.

FOLLOW ON. BUT IT WAS NEVER IT WAS IT WAS NOT ON OUR AGENDA IN TERMS OF OFFICIAL.

IT WAS NOTHING MORE THAN AN EMAIL FROM SOMEONE WITH THEIR SUGGESTIONS.

WE GET THEM ALL THE TIME. WE GET THEM ALL THE TIME.

OKAY. SO ARE YOU OKAY WITH IT? YEAH. YEAH, I THINK THAT'S A GOOD SUGGESTION.

OKAY. SO GOOD THOUGHT I JUST HADN'T THOUGHT ABOUT THAT FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE.

SO, MR. DOSTER, YOU'RE SAYING SO WE PUT A PERIOD AFTER STAFF.

YES. CORRECT.

AND THEN STRIKE AND A THIRD UNKNOWN ALTERNATIVE.

YES. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. I'M PUTTING THAT IN THERE.

OKAY. AND THEN JUST TO SEE I SHOULDN'T PROVE THESE BECAUSE YOU'RE GOOD.

YOU'RE GOOD. SO THE NEXT PARAGRAPH OR A FEW LINES DOWN, ONE, 234 LINES FROM THE TOP.

WHAT HAPPENS TO COUNTY PROPERTIES.

SORRY ABOUT THIS. IT SHOULD BE A QUESTION MARK NOT A PERIOD.

WHAT HAPPENS TO COUNTY PROPERTY.

OH, IT SHOULD BE A QUESTION MARK.

WELL, IT'S A QUESTION I THINK WHAT HAPPENS TO BE IF MISS BACH CARRIES ON ANOTHER SENTENCE AND THEN FINALLY LAST PARAGRAPH, FIRST LINE AGAIN, SORRY.

IT SAYS WELL NEVER MIND.

IT SAYS SHOULD BE TOTALLY STRICKEN OUT.

WHERE IS IT? JUST TOTALLY STRICKEN.

THE FIRST MEMBER SAID HE DIDN'T THINK THE DON'T NEED THE WORD OUT.

YOU DON'T NEED THE WORD OUT.

SHOULD BE JUST TOTALLY STRICKEN.

OH. SO.

ALL RIGHT, SO, SYLVIE.

ALL RIGHT, THIS IS THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF THIS PAGE OR THE ONE THAT SAYS MR. MEMBER BENNETT SAID HE DOESN'T THINK THAT LDC SECTION 10305 SHOULD BE TOTALLY STRICKEN.

IT SAYS STRICKEN OUT AND MR. DOSTER IS RECOMMENDING THAT WE DELETE THE WORD OUT.

OKAY, OKAY.

SO WE'LL PUT A PERIOD THERE AND WE'LL WE'LL STRIKE THE WORD OUT.

OKAY. I'M ALMOST DONE.

SORRY. THAT'S OKAY. I SHOULD NOT HAVE STARTED READING.

NO NO, NO. IT'S GOOD. THIRD PAGE, FIRST PARAGRAPH.

LINE THREE.

STARTING IN LINE TWO. SUBDIVISION PLATS, COMMA SUBDIVISION, READ PLATS, COMMA, MINOR SUBDIVISIONS, COMMA AND LOT LAND ADJUSTMENTS.

IS THAT PROPER WORDING? LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS.

LINES. YEAH.

OKAY. DO WE ALL AGREE I CAN'T FIGURE OUT WHERE THAT IS.

ALL RIGHT. SO IT'S THE THIRD THIRD PAGE THE TOP HERE.

PAGE THREE PARAGRAPH ONE LAST LINE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS.

WHAT LAND? YOU SEE THAT? YEAH, I GOT IT, I GOT IT.

I'M SORRY, I DID. I HAD IT HIGHLIGHTED.

SO WHAT WHAT WAS WHAT WERE YOU SUGGESTING? JUST JUST LINE.

SAY LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS.

IT'S NOT LAND, OKAY? YEAH. OKAY.

EVERYBODY GOOD? SIT UP. GOOD. CATCH.

GOOD. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

YOU'RE DONE. YES.

THANK YOU FOR THOSE.

SURE. GOOD JOB.

ALL RIGHT.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? YOU ALWAYS HAVE SOME.

GOOD. YOU GO IF YOU GO DOWN THE SAME THAT SAME PAGE, GO DOWN TO ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVENTH PARAGRAPH DOWN.

IT STARTS.

MISS BACH PROVIDED.

OKAY. JUST THIS IS THE SECOND SENTENCE I SAID.

SHE SAID THERE HAD BEEN THREE INTERPRETATIONS THE LDC SECTION 10305 AND RECENTLY IN THERE AND MAY NEED FOR

[00:20:07]

THAT'S GOT TO BE PART OF OUR DISCUSSION ABOUT IF WE'RE GOING TO MAKE A CHANGE, IF THERE ARE THREE INTERPRETATIONS THAT MIGHT HELP CLARIFY WHATEVER WE DO WITH THE WORDING, THAT'S JUST FOR FUTURE, MAYBE TAMMY CAN HELP US UNDERSTAND THOSE THREE INTERPRETATIONS.

IS THAT STAFF'S INTERPRETATION.

AND. WELL, WE HAVE WE HAVE HOW STAFF HAS INTERPRETED IT AND APPLIED IT.

WE HAVE WHAT IS IN THE TRINGALI, YOU KNOW LITIGATION, APPEALING THE DECISION.

AND THEN WE HAVE ANOTHER INTERPRETATION THAT I'VE HEARD FROM SOME CITIZENS AND CITY COMMISSIONERS.

OKAY. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT ANY OF OF THOSE ARE NECESSARILY THEY'RE NOT THE OFFICIAL, YOU KNOW, INTERPRETATION.

I'M JUST SAYING THESE ARE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED.

SO IT'S JUST FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

OKAY. OKAY. YOU HAVEN'T HEARD FROM THE WELL EITHER SHE JUST SAID THAT ONE OF THOSE WAS THE COURT CASE, WHICH WE HAVEN'T HEARD THEIR DECISION YET.

IT DOESN'T MATTER. IT'S IN.

I WOULD JUST BE RESTATING WHAT'S IN THE DOCUMENTS THAT ARE PUBLIC.

OKAY? I'M NOT I'M NOT GIVING AN OPINION ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED OR THE JUDGE'S RULING OR WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN ON APPEAL.

JUST WHAT THE ARGUMENTS ARE IN THE DOCUMENTS.

ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT? YEAH, BECAUSE I GUESS, YEAH, I IT IS WHAT IT IS.

OKAY. OKAY.

LET'S SEE. THAT WAS IT.

OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? THE ONLY THING I WAS JUST GOING TO POINT OUT, JUST GENERALLY ON THIS ONE I'M LOOKING THROUGH THESE TYPE OF DOCUMENTS, LOOKING FOR THINGS WE NEED TO TERM, LIKE MARK ASKED THE QUESTION WHAT'S A VACANT LOT? SO I TRIED TO PICK SOME OF THOSE UP AS THINGS THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT WHEN WE GET OUR SUBCOMMITTEE TOGETHER.

SURE. SO ANYBODY ELSE THAT PICKS UP SOMETHING, LET'S JUST AT LEAST GET A SHOPPING LIST TOGETHER.

WHAT WE MIGHT NEED TO TALK ABOUT.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

VERY GOOD. ALL RIGHT. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING ELSE THAT WE NEED TO CORRECT OR UPDATE OR CHANGE ON THE FEBRUARY 14TH MINUTES.

DO I HEAR A MOTION FOR APPROVAL? I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.

AS AS MODIFIED.

AS MODIFIED.

I'LL SECOND.

OKAY. PETE AND MARK.

SECOND. ALL RIGHT, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED? LIKE SIGN. HEARING NONE.

THE MOTION IS THE THE MINUTES.

FEBRUARY 14TH, 2024 ARE APPROVED AS MODIFIED, I SUGGEST.

YES, SIR. SHOULD WE NOT MAKE TAKE A VOTE ON THE DEFERRING THE FEBRUARY 28TH MINUTES TO THE NEXT MEETING? DO WE NEED DO WE NEED THAT? YOU DON'T NEED IT.

BECAUSE WHAT WAS.

IT'S IT'S REALLY JUST A ROUGH DRAFT THERE, SO NO, TO MOVE THEM ON.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO TAKE ANY ACTION.

THEY WILL JUST COME BACK TO YOU WHEN THEY'RE BECAUSE WE'VE NEVER SEEN THEM BEFORE.

SO IT'S OKAY OKAY OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. SO THAT IS.

ALL RIGHT, NOW, THE NEXT THING THAT I'D LIKE TO ASK THE BOARD IS IF THERE'S ANY OBJECTION AND CHANGING THE ORDER OF OUR MEETING A LITTLE BIT.

I THINK THAT WE HAVE A LOT OF CONVERSATION COMING UP ABOUT THE PAB CASE.

2020 4-001.

I WOULD LIKE IF THE BOARD AGREES TO MOVE THE DISCUSSION ABOUT DENSITY 5.1 FORWARD. WE CAN ONLY DISCUSS IT.

WE CAN'T TAKE A VOTE.

IT WOULD BE PART OF THE AGENDA FOR A VOTE IN OUR APRIL MEETING, BUT IT WOULD BE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE CONVERSATION AMONGST THE BOARD.

IT WOULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO OPEN IT UP FOR THE PUBLIC, AND THEN WE CAN FINISH SORT OF DISPATCH THAT AND THEN GET BACK INTO OUR DISCUSSION ABOUT THE PAB CASE 001.

SO WHAT'S THE FEELING OF THE BOARD? SO WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS ON APRIL THE 10TH THEN? I THINK THAT'S RIGHT. I THINK WE SHOULD MOVE THE MOVE THE AGENDA.

NO, I ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT? YEAH. EVERYBODY'S GOOD WITH THAT.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

SO WE'RE WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ITEM THE BOARD BUSINESS ITEM 5.1 DENSITY DISCUSSION AS DIRECTED BY THE CITY COMMISSION

[5.1 Density Discussion as directed by City Commission - 18 dwelling units per acre for Central Business District Consideration of Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code Amendments on April 10, 2024 PAB Agenda.]

[00:25:06]

BUT TAMMY, COULD YOU SORT OF WALK US THROUGH JUST SORT OF START US OFF WITH THAT CONVERSATION? AND IT COMES FROM THE CITY COMMISSION HAVING A DISCUSSION ABOUT IT.

AND THEY PROVIDED CONSENSUS TO MOVE THAT FORWARD FOR YOUR DISCUSSION, A REDUCTION OF DENSITY IN THE C3 CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT FROM 34 UNITS AN ACRE TO 18 UNITS AN ACRE.

I DON'T I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN REPRESENT THAT.

ALL FIVE OF THE CITY COMMISSIONERS WERE ON BOARD WITH THAT NUMBER OF 18, REDUCING IT FROM 34 TO 18.

BUT THEY SAID THAT THAT WAS A PLACE THAT THEY COULD SUPPORT AT LEAST SOME OF THEM, AND SOME DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING.

SO IT'S HARD TO SAY WHERE THEY WOULD LAND, BUT THEY WANT TO DO.

AND THEY TALKED ABOUT MIXED USE MUA ALREADY BEING 18 UNITS AN ACRE, AND THEY DID NOT WANT TO ADDRESS THAT AT ALL.

THAT WAS THEIR THOUGHT.

AND LIKE I'VE TOLD YOU BEFORE, IF THE CITY COMMISSION DOESN'T WANT TO ADDRESS SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T PREVENT THIS BOARD FROM ADDRESSING AND PROVIDING RECOMMENDATIONS.

ALL RIGHT. THAT'S GOOD.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ANY CONVERSATION FROM THE BOARD ON THIS ITEM? WELL, I WAS HAPPY THEY LEFT HIM ALONE, SO THAT WAS A LOT OF WORK PUT INTO THAT AND THAT WHOLE AREA.

SO AND AT THAT DURING THOSE DISCUSSIONS, WE TALKED EXTENSIVELY ABOUT DENSITY AND UP TO SOMETHING LIKE 36 UNITS TO THE ACRE.

AND SO ANY CASE, LEAVE IT ALONE.

WHAT ABOUT MU ONE? DOES THIS ALSO THIS 18 DOES THAT AFFECT IT DOESN'T KNOW ME.

ONE IS EIGHT IS EIGHT OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. GOOD. ANYWAY, IT WAS TOTALLY SEPARATE AND DISTINCT.

AND IT HAD ITS OWN PURPOSE, ITS OWN PURPOSE AND LIFE.

OKAY. SO WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS THIS ON APRIL 10TH.

WE WILL WE WILL DISCUSS IT AND WE'LL CERTAINLY TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT.

AND THEN WE WILL VOTE, OKAY.

BECAUSE IT WILL BE PUBLICLY NOTICED THAT THAT WILL BE SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON.

OKAY. BUT PART OF THE REASON FOR THIS DISCUSSION IS THAT IS DUE TO THE STATE RULES NOW.

OKAY. RIGHT. YOU GOT TO JUST GO THROUGH THAT KIND OF OPENNESS UP.

SO DOES EVERYONE UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE DOING THIS? YOU ALREADY DO. THAT'S THAT'S A GOOD POINT.

SO BUT THE THE LIVE LOCAL ACT THAT WAS ADOPTED LAST YEAR FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING WAS AMENDED THIS YEAR.

AND THE SESSION, THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION CLOSED ON FRIDAY, MARCH 8TH.

SO ALL THE BILLS ARE DONE AND WHAT'S BEEN ADOPTED IS BEEN ADOPTED.

THE LET ME START FIRST WITH THE SO THE LIVE LOCAL ACT GOT AMENDMENTS AND ONE OF THE AMENDMENTS IS THE THE LANGUAGE IS THE HIGHEST CURRENTLY ALLOWABLE DENSITY.

AND IT'S NOT EXPLAINED IN ANY OF THE STAFF ANALYZES.

NOBODY REALLY KNOWS WHAT THAT WHAT THEY MEANT BY CURRENTLY ALLOWABLE DENSITY.

AND SO WHETHER THE LEGISLATURE MEANT TO LOCK IT.

IN ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ACT, WHICH I WILL TELL YOU IS EITHER MAY 7TH OR EARLIER THAN THAT.

IF THE GOVERNOR SIGNS THE BILL EARLIER BECAUSE THE EFFECTIVE DATE SAYS UPON BECOMING A LAW.

AND SO IT'S USUALLY WITH WITH OUT A GOVERNOR'S SIGNATURE.

IT'S 60 DAYS AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE SESSION, WHICH IS MAY 7TH, OR WHEN THE GOVERNOR SIGNS, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER.

SO IT COULD BE EARLIER THAN MAY 7TH, BUT IT'S MAY 7TH.

SO IF THE LEGISLATURE MEANT THE CURRENT, THE THE CURRENT ALLOWABLE DENSITY, THE HIGHEST CURRENT ALLOWABLE DENSITY MEANT THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ACT, THEN IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT WE DO, WE DON'T KNOW YET.

IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT WE DO.

BUT AS I EXPLAINED TO CHAIR ROBAS AND PRIVATE MEETING, WE STILL NEED TO ADDRESS THIS BECAUSE YOU NEVER KNOW IF THESE IF THESE BILLS OR LAWS ARE CHALLENGED IN COURT AND THEY'RE UNDONE AND THEN WE HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

SO IF WE REALLY BELIEVE THAT LOWER DENSITY IN C3 IS BEST, THEN WE NEED TO DO IT.

WE NEED TO CONTINUE WORKING, BUT IT HAS TO BE ON PAPER IN THE MINUTES.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN IN THE MINUTES? WELL, I MEAN TO SAY WE PROCESS THE PROCESS.

YEAH. YEAH.

YES. OF HAVING DISCUSSION AND THEN GETTING READY TO VOTE IN OUR NEXT MEETING.

BUT IT'S THE IF, THE, IF THE LEGISLATURE MEANT THAT THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ACT IS THE IS THAT YOU LOCK IN THE DENSITY AT THAT POINT, THEN OUR ACTIONS AFTER THAT MAY NOT HAVE ANY EFFECT.

AND BUT OTHER OTHER GOVERNMENT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAWYERS THAT I'VE TALKED TO SAID, WELL, IT COULD MEAN BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T TOLD US OTHERWISE,

[00:30:04]

SO CURRENTLY ALLOWABLE COULD BE THE DATE OF THE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION.

SO I THINK THAT IF THAT ENDS UP BEING THE CLARIFICATION WE GET, WHETHER IT'S AN ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION, YOU KNOW, DOWN THE ROAD OR A COURT OR SOMETHING, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THE DENSITY IN PLACE THAT WE WANT TO HAVE AND THAT WE NEED TO HAVE.

SO NO OTHER COMMENT I HAD WAS KELLY GIBSON AT THE CITY COMMISSION MEETING.

SHE DID SAY THAT THEY BECAUSE SOMEBODY ASKED, WHERE IS DOES 34 UNITS AN ACRE COME FROM? WHERE DOES 18 UNITS AN ACRE? AND SHE EXPLAINED TO THE COMMISSION THAT THE 34 UNITS AN ACRE WAS ESSENTIALLY A DOUBLING OF WHAT IS THE CURRENT PATTERN OF THAT? THEY COULD DO, YOU KNOW, STAFF LOOKING SORT OF FROM A BIRD'S EYE VIEW, IS THAT DOWNTOWN IS ABOUT 17 TO 18 UNITS AN ACRE, DENSE IN ITS CURRENT BUILDING PATTERN.

AND SO DOUBLING THAT AND GOING TO 34 WOULD ALLOW FOR SOME OF THE ABOVE, THE SECOND FLOOR CONDOS ABOVE THE STOREFRONTS. THAT WAS THE THOUGHT.

AND THERE WAS NO WAY TO GET THOSE.

THERE WERE VERY BIG SPACES, FOR EXAMPLE, WHICH MEANT THAT THEY WERE GOING TO BE AND AT THE TIME, EXTREMELY HIGH END, $1 MILLION PLUS CONDOS THAT WASN'T GOING TO WORK.

BUT IF THEY COULD SPLIT THEM IN TWO, THEY HAD THE SQUARE FOOTAGE.

WE NEEDED TO INCREASE THE DENSITY.

AND THAT MIGHT SPUR SOME SOME REDEVELOPMENT OF THOSE SECOND STORY SPACES.

SO THAT WAS THE SIMPLE AS THAT.

I MEAN, MR. BENNETT, DO YOU REMEMBER WE AT THE TIME WE TALKED ABOUT THAT, THERE REALLY WASN'T A WHOLE LOT MORE TO THE FORMULA.

WHY WE GOT TO 34? SHE KIND OF INDICATED THAT BASED ON WHAT THE STUDIES THAT PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS DONE OVER TIME, THAT 18 WAS PROBABLY ABOUT THE MAXIMUM THAT YOU COULD ACTUALLY DO IN THE WORLD WE'RE IN TODAY IN TERMS OF WHAT WE HAVE FOR ORDINANCES AND SO FORTH.

SO RIGHT. BUT SURE, I CAN ADD SOMETHING TO THAT.

OKAY. SURE. IF YOU TAKE A 25 BY 100 FOOT LOT AND YOU LOOK AT THE DENSITY OF THAT, IT'S ROUGHLY 17 UNITS PER ACRE.

SO 2500FT² INTO AN ACRE, IT'S ROUGHLY 17 AND CHANGE.

OKAY. SO PEOPLE WHO WANTED TO STACK UNITS ON TOP OF UNITS ON YOUR THIRD STORY, THAT WOULD GIVE YOU 34.

SO 2500FT² IS ROUGHLY 17 UNITS AN ACRE.

THAT'S RIGHT. SO THAT'S SO WE'RE COMING BACK TO THAT'S WHY THAT 18 NUMBER SEEMS TO BE THE THE SWEET SPOT.

AND WHEN THE FRANKLY WHEN THE I FORGET WHICH COMMISSIONER MENTIONED IT FIRST BUT MENTIONED THAT IT HAD THE PLANNING BOARD LOOK AT GOING TO 18, I HAD NO IDEA THAT THAT WAS IN THERE BECAUSE I NEVER HAD THAT DISCUSSION WITH THEM.

SO THEY MAY HAVE DISCUSSED IT WITH KELLY AND PRIVATE MEETINGS, BUT SO THAT WAS A SURPRISE TO ME TOO, THAT THEY SAID 34 TO 18.

I WAS SAYING, WHERE DID THEY GET THAT FROM? BUT TO ME, 34 IS THE HIGHEST ALLOWED IN THE CITY.

YES. TODAY. YES.

THAT'S ONLY IN C3.

RIGHT. OKAY.

AND BASED ON WHAT YOU SAID, JUST BY GOING FROM 34 TO 18, ARE WE EFFECTIVELY CHANGING HEIGHT LIMITS.

NO. DOESN'T AFFECT IT.

I THINK EVERYBODY THOUGHT THAT YOU WOULD HAVE MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL UNITS STACKED.

AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S REALLY HAPPENED.

IT'S HAPPENED A COUPLE TIMES, BUT NOT NOT ON THAT NARROW OF A FOOTPRINT.

SO WE ALSO DIDN'T HAVE SINCE THAT WAS PASSED, WE HAVEN'T HAD REALLY ANY SECOND STORY CONDOS OR APARTMENTS.

RIGHT? I DON'T KNOW OF ANY.

RIGHT. SO THIS IS ESSENTIALLY A DEFENSIVE MOVE TO OH, YOU MEAN WHAT WE'RE WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT.

ABSOLUTELY. YEAH. YEAH.

BUT I THINK IT HAS SOME LOGIC WITH IN THE SENSE OF IF YOU USE MUA, WHICH THERE WAS WHAT, A YEAR AND A HALF OR TWO YEARS OF ENERGY THAT WENT INTO PUTTING THE MUA ZONING STRUCTURE IN PLACE.

RIGHT? IF YOU'RE CONSISTENT WITH IT, I THINK FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT, YOU SAY, OKAY, I'M BEING CONSISTENT WITH OUR LATEST ANALYSIS OF WHAT PROBABLY WOULD BE THE WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE DENSITY FOR THE CITY.

PLUS, IT DOESN'T SCREW UP MUA OR CAUSE IT TO BE A SCAPEGOAT FOR ANYTHING IN THE FUTURE.

BECAUSE NOW YOU'RE SAYING DOWNTOWN AND MUA WOULD BE THE SAME DENSITY.

I JUST LOOK AT IT FROM A CONSISTENCY, FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT.

YEAH. THEY'RE BEING CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THEY'VE DONE IN MUA WAS SUBSEQUENT TO THIS DECISION ON THE 34.

SOWHEN YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER BACK THEN COMMERCIAL DIDN'T ALLOW RESIDENTIAL .

SO THAT'S ONLY JUST COME UP WITH THE STATE.

OH GOOD POINT. SO IT WAS NEVER REALLY A DISCUSSION YOU HAD TO HAVE.

BUT WE ALWAYS TALKED ABOUT WHAT WAS THE DENSITY OF THE ULI PLAT.

WHAT DID THAT DO.

WHAT WE DIDN'T WANT.

WHAT COULD WE GO TO A MAXIMUM THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY, ITS RESIDENTS AND EVERYBODY?

[00:35:04]

AND THAT GOT THROWN OUT PRETTY QUICKLY BECAUSE NO ONE WANTED TO GO TO THOSE DENSITIES.

BUT AN EIGHT WAS GOING TO BE ITS OWN SPECIFIC AREA FOR DEVELOPMENT.

AND THAT'S WHERE WE GO.

THAT'S WHERE WE SETTLED ON THERE.

AND THAT WAS STILL HIGHER THAN ANYWHERE ELSE.

SO I DON'T IF WE NICK, I MEAN, DO YOU FOR ANYTHING IN TERMS OF FROM THE DEVELOPMENT STANDPOINT WHERE MUA HAS NOT BEEN OKAY IN TERMS OF THE SPECS? NO, I MEAN, TO MARK'S POINT, I THINK WE WERE AT 55FT, TWO AT ONE POINT IN MUA AND THEN YEAH, WE WERE 55 OR 65.

IT WAS UP THERE. SO WE KIND OF SCALED IT BACK.

YEAH. WE TALKED ABOUT EXTREMES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

WHAT WOULD FIT BECAUSE THE MUA, WE DON'T REALLY CONTROL WHAT CAN BE BUILT IN THAT AREA.

WE WE'VE ALLOWED A MIX OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF UNITS AND THAT WAS DONE ON PURPOSE.

WE DIDN'T WANT TO DO RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL WANTED THE DEVELOPMENT TO DECIDE THAT OR THE MARKET TO DECIDE THAT.

SO YOU CAN HAVE THE MIXED USES.

YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE ONE USE SO WELL, THE TOWNHOUSES THAT ARE GOING UP DOWN THERE NEXT TO THE BAGEL PLACE, THEY'RE JUST ON THE NORTH SIDE THAT I THINK MAXED OUT ON THE DENSITY, DIDN'T IT? IT DID. SO THAT WOULD I MEAN, THAT GIVES YOU KIND OF A PERSPECTIVE OF WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE REASONABLY ATTRACTIVE AND SO ON.

SO I KNOW A LOT OF PLACES, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE, IN ORDER TO GET THAT SECOND FLOOR AND GET THAT IN THERE, THEY WERE TRYING TO DO COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL IN THE SAME BUILDING, WHICH WASN'T WORKING, YOU KNOW, COMMERCIAL FIRST FLOOR, RESIDENTIAL SECOND FLOOR.

AND HISTORICALLY, THAT REALLY HASN'T WORKED WELL HERE.

SO THOSE ARE OTHER THINGS THAT WERE CONSIDERED AT THE TIME TO ALLOW THAT DEVELOPMENT TO IN THE MARKET TO DECIDE HOW THAT SHOULD BE DEVELOPED.

AND HERE'S THE PARAMETERS FOR THAT.

SO, MADAM CHAIR, THE THE ONE THING THE 34 UNITS AN ACRE PROBABLY DID, I MEAN, WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT, WAS IT ALLOWED FOR THE LOFTS ON FIFTH THAT THAT PROJECT WOULDN'T GET DONE IF, IF IT, IF IT WAS LOWER DENSITY.

SO THAT PROJECT GOT DONE.

THAT BUILDING WE KNOW SAT THERE BASICALLY UNUSED.

THE THE OLD BAPTIST CHURCH BUILDING AND A REUSE OF THAT BUILDING IS WAS ONE OF THE RESULT.

OKAY, BUT I CAN'T THINK OF ANOTHER BUILDING LIKE THAT THAT WOULD YOU KNOW, IN C3 THAT WOULD BENEFIT, RIGHT? THIS. IS THE BOARD AMENABLE TO HEARING ANY PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME? YEAH. WE'RE GOOD.

YEAH. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? PLEASE COME AHEAD AND GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE, SIR.

JACK EMBER, 1003 BROOME STREET, FERNANDINA BEACH.

IF ANYBODY'S EVER BEEN IN BATTLE, USE A SMOKE SCREEN.

ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU'RE WHEN YOU'RE LOSING TO RETREAT, TO GO FORWARD.

WHATEVER. USE A SMOKE SCREEN.

WHAT I'M SEEING WITH ALL OF THIS IS A BIG SMOKE SCREEN.

HERE'S HOW THE LIVE LOCAL ACT, WHICH, BY THE WAY, HAS NOT BEEN RATIFIED OR SIGNED BY THE GOVERNOR AS FAR AS I KNOW, BUT IT'S IN THERE AND USED AS A THREAT.

THIS THING ABOUT 834 TO 18 UNITS PER ACRE.

IT'S A SMOKESCREEN. IT'S ONLY FOR DOWNTOWN.

IT DOESN'T APPLY TO TRINGALI.

SO IT'S NOT HELPING YOU THERE.

AS AS I'VE SAID A FEW TIMES BEFORE, THE VERY REASON YOU'RE HERE TALKING ABOUT DEFINITIONS OF THE LDC IS THEY WANT TO CHANGE THE LDC.

THEY'VE BEEN TRYING FOR MONTHS NOW EVER SINCE THIS WENT TO COURT.

IT'S BEEN BACK HERE.

IT'S BEEN UNDER DISCUSSION THE WHOLE TIME.

AND THEY WANT TO MAKE IT HAPPEN AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

IF THE LIVE LOCAL WERE TO HAPPEN RIGHT NOW UNDER YOUR LDC, TRINGALI WOULD NEVER BE ALLOWED.

WHY? BECAUSE THE LAW IS CLEAR.

THEY WANT TO CHANGE THE LAW BEFORE LIVE LOCAL HAPPENS.

THAT'S PRETTY OBVIOUS.

THEY WANT TO CHANGE THE LAW BEFORE THE LAWSUIT IS FINISHED.

ACTUALLY, THE LAW LAWSUIT IS FINISHED.

THEY JUST APPEALED IT AND THEY'RE GOING TO LOSE AGAIN.

THEY'RE JUST STALLING FOR TIME.

THEY'D RATHER THAT YOU WERE JUST TO CHANGE IT.

PLEASE DON'T.

[00:40:03]

ARE YOU ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE WHOLE CONVERSATION THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ABOUT 103, ZERO FIVE AND SIX OR EXACTLY SPECIFICALLY THAT THAT.

OKAY. AND THIS TRYING TO CHANGE THE DEFINITIONS, IN EFFECT CHANGING THE CODE.

OKAY. IS IT NOT AM I AM I MISSING SOMETHING? NO. IT'S JUST THAT WE WANTED TO MOVE 5.1, WHICH IS TALKING ABOUT THE DENSITY CHANGING THE DENSITY FROM 34 UNITS PER ACRE TO 18, I REALIZED THAT I REALIZED THAT, BUT THAT'S PART OF THE SMOKESCREEN BECAUSE IT DOESN'T AFFECT TRINGALI.

THEY'RE BIG PRIZE RIGHT NOW.

THE CITY, MISS BOCC, THEY'RE BIG PRIZES.

TRINGALI THEY HAVE TO WIN THIS FOR SOME REASON.

I DON'T KNOW WHY, BUT THIS IS THE BIG RING ON THE MERRY GO ROUND.

THEY HAVE TO CATCH.

THEY HAVE TO.

FROM EVERYTHING THAT I.

EVERYTHING HINGES ON THIS TRINGALI.

WELL, IN MY MIND I HAVE I HAVE TWO DIFFERENT THOUGHTS.

I THINK I SORT OF HAVE PARSED THE TRINGALI CONVERSATION SEPARATE FROM THIS 34 TO 18 BECAUSE OF THE LIVE LOCAL ACT.

RIGHT? AND WANTING TO GO FORWARD JUST AS AS TAMMY HAS DESCRIBED THAT WHILE WE MAY NOT GET IT, YOU KNOW, WE MAY NOT GET IT IN BEFORE IT BECOMES LAW.

BUT SHOULD IT BE BROUGHT UP AT SOME OTHER TIME THROUGH A CASE, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR DENSITY NUMBER IS WHERE WE THINK IT SHOULD BE.

OKAY. BUT THIS IS ONLY FOR THE DOWNTOWN AREA.

IS THAT CORRECT? BUT THE WAY I UNDERSTAND.

HELP ME HERE. THE WAY THAT I UNDERSTAND LIVE LOCAL, IS THAT THEY WILL PICK.

THEY CAN BUILD AS MUCH AS THE HIGHEST DENSITY ALLOWED UNDER YOUR CHARTER.

YEAH. AND THEN THAT WOULD BE THE 34 UNITS PER ACRE.

WILL THAT CHANGE THE LDC? YES, IT WOULD CHANGE THE COMP PLAN AND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

ALL RIGHT. SO IF IT WERE TO GO INTO EFFECT RIGHT NOW, WOULD TRINGALI EVEN BE ALLOWED? THAT'S THE BIG QUESTION.

WOULDN'T HAVE ANY EFFECT I DON'T THINK.

NO, I DON'T THINK IT WOULD.

WHY NOT? BECAUSE THIS IS IT'S NOT IT'S NOT A MULTIFAMILY PROJECT OR A RENTAL UNIT PROJECT.

WELL, NO, IT'S A TOWNHOME.

TRINGALI IS NOT C3.

IT'S IT'S MU1 AND AND R2, R2.

THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT ZONES.

IT'S TWO DIFFERENT.

IT'S MIXED USE IN R2, BUT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW.

WELL, I THINK WHAT LET ME JUST KIND OF PARAPHRASE, PLEASE.

I THINK WHAT I THINK HE'S PUTTING MORE OF A GLOBAL LOOK ON THE WHOLE PROCESS OF MAKING CHANGES IN THE LDC, THAT IT'S NOT JUST A SINGLE DOT ON THE WALL.

CORRECT. IT'S MORE GLOBAL.

I, I KIND OF TOOK YOUR YOUR COMMENTS AS BEING JUST BE ON GUARD BECAUSE YOU MIGHT YOU MIGHT PUSH OUT HERE BUT THERE'S OTHERS OTHER POTENTIAL RAMIFICATIONS.

RIGHT OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. GOOD. BUT ALSO WHY WERE WE TALKING ABOUT CHANGING DEFINITIONS AND CHANGING THE LDC SO MANY TIMES WHEN THE LITIGATION HASN'T EVEN SETTLED YET? IT DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE AT ALL.

SO EXCUSE ME FOR BEING SUSPICIOUS, BUT EVER SINCE THIS PARTICULAR ADMINISTRATION TOOK OVER, IT IS NOT GONE WELL FOR THE PEOPLE OF FERNANDINA AND CONTINUES TO GO DOWNHILL.

AND JUST BEFORE, SO I DON'T HAVE TO GET UP HERE AGAIN.

I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT IT'S.

VERY DISHEARTENING.

DISCOURAGING. INSTEAD OF HAVING THE PROPOSAL OF THE BIOETHANOL PLANT COME BEFORE THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD.

SOMEHOW IT'S WHISK AWAY TO SOME OUTSIDE ATTORNEY.

RIGHT. IT SHOULD BE DISCUSSED HERE FIRST.

IT IT AFFECTS OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

FIRST, IT SHOULD BE UNDER YOUR DISCUSSION, PRIMARY AND FOREMOST TO HAVE IT LIKE FARMED OUT.

LIKE WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THIS OUTSIDE ATTORNEY'S WORD.

IT IT JUST SMELLS OF THE WHOLE PROCESS THAT'S BEEN GOING ON FOR OVER TWO YEARS NOW.

THANKS. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

LYNN.

VAN KRIEGER 1313 HICKORY.

I'LL. I'LL MAKE AN EFFORT IN MY MIND TO CLARIFY THE 18 UNIT ISSUE.

[00:45:02]

AND IT'S A PREEMPTIVE EFFORT BY THE CITY TO PRECLUDE THE 34 UNITS SHOULD SOMEBODY WANT TO IMPLEMENT THAT.

OKAY. AND INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, IT WOULD NOT APPLY TO TRINGALI R-3, BUT IT COULD APPLY TO TRINGALI MU1.

AND AS AN EXAMPLE, FORGETTING ABOUT THE 134.

AND IN THIS THE RECORD THE UNIT, THE SITE USING THE SB2 TRINGALI COULD BUILD 29 UNITS ON THAT JUST ON THE THIRD STREET BASED BASED ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE.

SO THIS IS AN EFFORT THE 18 IS TO REDUCE THAT.

AND YOU GOT TO BE IN A HURRY BECAUSE AS TIMMY SAID, AS AS CAM TAM SAID, THE NEW AMENDMENT TO TO THE LIVE LOCAL LAW DOES LOCK IN DENSITY AT THE CURRENT RATE.

YOU KNOW, AND I THINK I FORWARDED THAT, YOU KNOW, SO THAT BECOMES A PROBLEM.

THAT BEING SAID, THE GOAL AND THE REASON THAT THAT THAT'S AN IMPORTANT GOAL IS BECAUSE IF YOU IMPLEMENT LIVE LOCAL, THE CRITERIA IS SUCH THAT IT ALLOWS EVERYBODY TO COME IN AT MODERATE 120% OF INCOME.

SO IT DOESN'T SERVE THE PURPOSE, YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

OR IT COULD, BUT I DON'T SEE IT HAPPENING.

SO THAT'S WHAT THAT'S ABOUT.

EVEN IF THEY CHANGE IT I DON'T THINK IT'S A BAD THING TO TO TALK ABOUT 18.

IT WOULD AFFECT OTHER THAN LIVE LOCAL IN THE CITY AND A BUILDING THAT'S ALWAYS IN THE ATLANTIC AVENUE BUILDING NOW IS IN CC1I BELIEVE, ACROSS FROM THE PARK.

SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO DO IT.

I DON'T ASSOCIATE WITH TRINGALI AT ALL.

IT YOU KNOW, IT'S A IT WAS LIKE CONVINCE THE COMMISSIONERS THAT THAT'S WHAT CONVINCED THEM TO LOOK AT DENSITY BECAUSE OF THE DENSITY CONCERN.

AND I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT WE DO THAT JUST AS PREEMPTIVE FOR WHAT'S A BAD LAW.

AND, YOU KNOW, I DON'T SEE THE GOVERNOR, YOU KNOW, IF HE LETS IT RUN TO THE 7TH OF MAY, I THINK THAT MIGHT HAPPEN BECAUSE A LOT OF CITIES ARE AGAINST IT, AND IT'S KIND OF A NICE POLITICAL MOVE.

HE WOULDN'T HAVE TO VOTE ON IT.

IT WOULD JUST GO INTO EFFECT.

SO BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THAT YOU DEAL WITH THAT, YOU KNOW, AND MU8, YOU KNOW, 18 THAT'S A WHOLE NOTHER ISSUE.

WE TALKED ABOUT IT A LONG TIME AGO, ACTUALLY.

DENSITY FOR THAT WHEN WE ORIGINALLY TALKED ABOUT IT WAS WAY UP IN THE 30S TOO.

GOOD. THANK YOU SO MUCH, LEN, BEFORE YOU GO, GO AHEAD.

AS LIVE LOCAL STANDS RIGHT NOW, IT CAN ONLY BE APPLIED TO PROPERTY THAT'S ALREADY ZONED COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL MU ONE MU ONE CAN DO IT.

CORRECT. INDUSTRIAL IS IN THE AMENDED VERSION.

INDUSTRIALS OUT RIGHT TODAY.

INDUSTRIAL. COMMERCIAL.

MU ONE THIRD STREET MU ONE.

NOW IF THEY CHANGE IT AND THEY DELETE INDUSTRIAL YOU KNOW AND THERE ARE A LOT OF OTHER CHANGES.

BUT THEY WERE KIND OF TAX CHANGES, TAX ABATEMENTS CHANGES.

THEY DIDN'T CHANGE THE RATIOS EXCEPT FOR SOME TAX THINGS.

SO YOU KNOW, IT'S A BAD, BAD LAW IF YOU WANT TO HAVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

AND IT'S A BAD LAW FOR CITIES UNLESS YOU GET A GOOD DEVELOPER.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU LYNN SIR, IF YOU'LL COME UP PLEASE.

HAVE YOU DRAFTED ANY LANGUAGE FOR APPROVAL OR EVEN WHAT REGARDING THE DENSITY? YEAH. NO, WE HAVE WE HAVEN'T.

KELLY, I THINK HAS ALREADY GONE THROUGH THE COMP PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WHERE IT SAYS 34.

AND SO SHE'S IDENTIFIED THOSE BUT HASN'T SHARED THEM WITH ME YET.

SO WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO SAY PUT A EXCEPT IN THERE, IN OTHER WORDS.

I'M MAKING SOMETHING UP.

YEAH. DEFINITELY SHALL NOT EXCEED 12 UNITS TO THE ACRE.

EXCEPT FOR THE MU.

MU IS NOT ADDRESSED, SO.

NO, BUT I'M SAYING. AND AS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE COMPREHENSIVE OH I SEE PLAN.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT CITY CAN DO.

RIGHT. IT WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING.

WE WOULD THAT WOULD BE POSSIBLE.

I'D HAVE TO LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE AND SEE IF RIGHT NOW, I MEAN, OUR HIGH DENSITY IS 34 UNITS IN THE CITY, SO NO DENSITY SHALL EXCEED 34 UNITS TO THE ACRE, EXCEPT AS NOTED IN MUA.

IS THAT SOMETHING THAT COULD BE PUT IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN? I'M LOOKING FOR SAYING VERY CLEAR.

YEAH, POTENTIALLY.

THERE'S NOTHING JUST BASED ON THAT STATEMENT.

AND THEN ANY PLACE IN THE PLAN THAT REFERENCES A DIFFERENT NUMBER MAKES THE CHANGE.

[00:50:03]

IT'S NOT A LOT OF LANGUAGE, YOU KNOW, KEEP THINGS SIMPLE.

RIGHT, RIGHT. GO AHEAD SIR.

GRAB UP SOMETHING FOR NEXT.

OUR NEXT MEETING. THAT'S WHAT IT WOULD THAT'S COMING TO YOU.

THAT'S THE PLAN? YES, THAT'S THE PLAN.

SO WE HAVE A SPEAKER.

OKAY. YES, SIR. MY NAME IS DOUGLAS CLARK.

I LIVE AT 816 SOUTH SEVENTH STREET, RIGHT OFF OF HICKORY.

MY WIFE AND I HAVE LIVED HERE A LITTLE OVER THREE YEARS.

AND DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME, THERE HAVE BEEN 12 HOMES BUILT IN A TWO BLOCK AREA.

THE REGULAR CITY BLOCKS, 12 HOMES ARE ALL ON 25 FOOT LOTS.

SOME OF THEM HAVE TWO CARS, A BOAT AND A GOLF COURSE.

AND WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT IS THE CULTURE OF OUR STREET HAS CHANGED.

THE KIDS DON'T PLAY OUT IN THE STREET ANYMORE.

LAST WEEK IN PARTICULAR, AND I'VE NEVER HAD THIS HAPPEN BEFORE, THE POLICE COME UP TO THE DOOR, KNOCK ON THE DOOR AND THEY SAY, MR. CLARK, DID YOU HEAR ANY DISTURBANCE LAST NIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR HOUSE OUT THERE? AND OF COURSE THEY DIDN'T. MY WIFE AND I WERE SLEEPING, BUT JUST TO HAVE THE POLICE COME UP.

SO THERE'S CHANGES WHEN YOU START TO PUT PEOPLE TOGETHER CLOSER AND CLOSER.

AND OF COURSE, IF WE ALL LOOK AT WHAT COMES OVER THE BRIDGE AT 8:00 IN THE MORNING, I MEAN, IT'S JUST BUMPER TO BUMPER TO BUMPER.

I DON'T KNOW HOW WE'D EVER EVACUATE THIS ISLAND IF THERE WAS A HURRICANE ALL OF A SUDDEN OR TROPICAL STORM.

BUT I KNOW THAT THE DENSITY HAS CHANGED, THE CULTURE HAS CHANGED, AND PEOPLE ARE CHANGING.

AND IF WE KEEP DOING THAT TO THIS ISLAND, IT'S I.

I KNOW WE'RE GOING TO MOVE.

I MEAN, IT JUST IT'S SUCH A BEAUTIFUL, BEAUTIFUL, WONDERFUL PLACE.

AND IT'S BEEN CHANGED. YES.

THE HOUSES THAT ARE IN DOWN IN YOUR AREA OFF OF.

YES, THIRD STREET, WERE THOSE ALL EMPTY LOTS? THEY WERE ALL CALLED VIRGIN LAND.

NEVER BEEN BUILT ON BEFORE.

YES. OKAY.

SO THAT WOULD FALL UNDER THE OLD ULI RULES, RIGHT.

THE. WELL, BUT THERE WAS AN INTERPRETATION THERE THAT EVERY 25 FOOT LOT COULD BE BUILT ON.

THAT WAS NOT THE INTENT.

THE INTENT WAS IF YOU HAD A 25 FOOT LOT AND YOU WERE THE FIRST OWNER OF THAT YOU WOULD ALLOW TO BUILD, IT WAS NEVER INTENDED TO HAVE THREE 25 FOOT LOTS OR TWO 25 FOOT LOTS AND SPLIT THEM UP AND BUILD TWO DETACHED HOUSES. THAT WAS NOT THE PLAN.

OKAY, SOMEHOW THIS WHOLE INTERPRETATION, WE'RE JUMPING AHEAD.

THIS WHOLE INTERPRETATION STARTED A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, AND SOMEWHERE IN PLANNING DEPARTMENT DECIDED THAT THIS WAS THE WAY IT SHOULD BE INTERPRETED.

THAT WAS NOT THE INTENT.

SO BUT THESE WERE THE ORIGINAL VIRGIN 25 FOOT.

YOU HAD A IF HE HAD BOUGHT A 25 FOOT LOT AND THAT WAS IT.

HE SHOULD HAVE A RIGHT TO BUILD ON THAT LOT.

IT WAS NEVER THE INTENT THAT SOMEONE WHO HAS THREE, TWO, FOUR OF THEM AND ONE PERSON, ONE THAT'S THE DEFINITION OF PARTIAL, COULD BUILD FOUR HOUSES.

THAT WAS NOT IT.

AND THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENED.

THIS WHOLE THING GOT TURNED AROUND A LOOPHOLE, SOMETHING ELSE, SOMETHING ELSE.

BUT THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE BEING BUILT ON.

THERE'S THREE HOMES IN EACH SECTION 25 FOOT LOTS, THREE AND ACROSS THE STREET, THREE AND THREE AND THEN THREE.

SO THEY'RE ALL IN 75 FOOT LOTS TO DO.

WHAT HE'S SAYING IS YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS THAT WOULD ALLOW THE REMEDY.

BUT AGAIN, INTERPRETATION AND A CHANGE TO THAT WAS WHAT THE PROBLEM IS.

OKAY OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT.

THANK YOU THANK YOU. SO WHILE WE'RE ON THIS VERY QUICKLY I KNOW WE'RE DOING SOMETHING ELSE.

I WOULD SUGGEST WHEN WE GO TO OUR NEXT DISCUSSION THAT WHERE WE THAT SOME CHANGE HAS TO BE MADE IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

WHERE WE TALK ABOUT 25 FOOT PLOTS CAN BE DEVELOPED.

BUT I WOULD ADD THAT ONLY IF THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN COMBINED INTO A PARCEL BY THE PROPERTY APPRAISERS NASSAU COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER, WHICH THEN CREATED SOMETHING LARGER.

OKAY, SO WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY WHEN WE GET TO THAT SECTION.

OKAY, OKAY. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK? YES, MA'AM. PLEASE COME AHEAD.

GOOD EVENING EVERYONE, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO THE CITY.

WE APPRECIATE IT.

MY NAME IS KIM WOLFORD.

I LIVE AT 1315 BROOME, BEHIND THE FUNERAL HOME.

FIRST OF ALL, I SENT AN EMAIL TO OUR CITY MANAGER ASKING HIM FOR HELP WITH A SERIOUS SAFETY ISSUE WE HAVE UP THERE AND HE

[00:55:05]

I WANT TO THANK MISS GINGHER FOR TAKING THE INITIATIVE TO SOLVE THE ISSUE FOR US, BECAUSE WE HAVE EVEN HAVE A WOMAN BACK THERE WHO LIVES IN A WHEELCHAIR.

SHE HAS MS.. IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE SAFETY BACK THERE.

SO I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THAT.

I WANT TO ALSO THANK MR. GILLETTE FOR ACTUALLY GIVING US A REALLY ACCURATE VISUAL OF WHAT 18 HOMES LOOKS LIKE.

IF YOU DRIVE DOWN TO WHERE MR. CLARK LIVES.

AND I HAVE TO TELL YOU, IT'S I THINK IT'S.

I LOVE YOU, DOUG.

IT'S REALLY UGLY DOWN THERE NOW.

IT'S NOTHING BUT CARS.

IT'S NOTHING BUT PEOPLE WITH 16 FOOT SHOTGUN HOUSES WITH CARS IN THEIR FRONT YARD.

BOATS. THEY GOT EVERYTHING IN THEIR FRONT YARD BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ANY, I GUESS, VERY MUCH STORAGE THEM.

BUT IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT PEOPLE REALLY THINK ABOUT THE 16 FOOT LOTS HERE, I CALL THEM THE POPSICLE HOUSES ON 14TH STREET.

TWO OF THEM HAVE BEEN FOR SALE FOR TWO YEARS.

THERE'S SEVERAL OF THEM ALSO ON HICKORY.

IS THERE AN ISLAND OVER ON SOUTH 13TH STREET TERRACE? OKAY, MAYBE ISLAND RIDGE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

OKAY. ANYWAY, SO FAR FROM THE CENTER, 13TH STREET.

YEAH, DOWN SOUTH.

AND THEY HAVE SEVERAL OF THEM THERE THAT HAVE BEEN FOR SALE FOR IN EXCESS OF A YEAR.

THEY'RE NOT AN EASY SELL.

I KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST SOMETHING TO GO DOWN THERE AND LOOK AT WHAT 18 LOOKS IN REALITY, WHAT 18 PER ACRE LOOKS LIKE FOR PEOPLE TO LIVE IN.

SO IT'S JUST A THOUGHT FOR YOU ALL TO TAKE A DRIVE DOWN.

I KNOW 44TH STREET IS ALSO HAVING THE SAME ISSUE, SO IT'S JUST SOMETHING FOR YOU ALL TO LOOK AT AND PRACTICALITY WHAT 18 UNITS PER ACRE LOOKS LIKE.

SO THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK? THAT'S ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ALL RIGHT I THINK WE'VE HAD GOOD CONVERSATION.

IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE WE WANT TO ADD TO THIS CONVERSATION? THIS ITEM WILL COME UP IN OUR APRIL MEETING AS AN ITEM THAT WE WILL VOTE ON.

I THINK MAYBE THE ONLY THING WE WOULD WANT TO ADD IS IF THIS IS COME TO US FROM THE CITY COMMISSION TO DISCUSS, IS, I'M HEARING, CONSENSUS THAT WE ARE IN FAVOR OF THE LOWER DENSITY.

I THINK THAT THERE IS CONSENSUS, BUT WE WE CAN'T TAKE A, LIKE A, LIKE A FAKE VOTE OR ANYTHING.

WE, WE HAVE TO SORT OF JUST YOU CAN TALK ABOUT GENERALLY TALK ABOUT HOW WE FEEL ABOUT IT.

YEAH. YEAH. I THINK I THINK THAT'S SORT OF HOW WE'RE LEANING.

YEAH. YEAH I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF OVERLAP, A LOT OF OVERLAP.

YEAH. THERE ARE THESE TWO WITH THESE TWO ON IT AS WELL.

AND AGAIN WHEN YOU SAY 34 WHY DO I SAY 12 EXCEPT IN SOME AREAS.

I MEAN, YOU KNOW, 34 UNITS TO AN ACRE.

SO A LOT OF UNITS.

YOU KNOW, YOU JUST HURT SOMEBODY.

I MEAN, AND WHEN YOU START BUILDING ON THESE, ESPECIALLY THESE SMALL 25 FOOT LOTS, YOU DON'T HAVE ANY SETBACKS.

YOU'RE LOOKING AT STILT HOUSES, YOU KNOW.

SO YOU'RE SAYING GO EVEN LOWER.

WELL, I'M JUST SAYING THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE HERE TO DISCUSS IT.

I THINK THAT THE PEOPLE I TALK TO ME OR SAY, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T WANT HIGHER DENSITY ON THE ISLAND.

WE DON'T. WELL, THE ONLY WAY TO CONTROL DENSITY IS TO NOT ALLOW SMALL.

WELL, I CAN'T THERE'S A BIG DISCUSSION AROUND DENSITY, HOW TO CONTROL IT.

YOU DO CONTROL IT IN A NODE AREA WHERE YOU HAVE A LOT OF OPEN SPACE AROUND.

OR, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT THE DESIGNER HERE.

NICK WOULD KNOW MORE ABOUT THIS THAN I DO, BUT GENERALLY IF YOU ALLOW SMALL LOTS, YOU'RE GOING TO ALLOW GREATER DENSITY.

I MEAN, YOU SEE WHAT'S GOING ON.

LIKE THEY JUST SAID HERE, YOU KNOW, ALL OF A SUDDEN THESE 25 FOOT LOTS ARE BEING DEVELOPED UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD, WHICH IS OUR NEXT DISCUSSION.

THAT'S THAT'S THE FOCUS.

AND EVERY TIME YOU OPEN UP, LOOK AT THE NASSAU COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S DATABASE.

AND EVERY TIME YOU SEE A BLOCK THAT'S GOT 36 NUMBERS ON IT, THAT'S THE POTENTIAL YOU'RE LOOKING AT.

OKAY. THAT'S.

AND IF YOU WANT TO CONTROL THAT THEN WE HAVE TO HAVE SOMETHING THAT THE COMMISSION WILL APPROVE.

AND APPARENTLY RIGHT NOW THE COMMISSION SEEMS TO BE WANTING TO HAVE HIGHER DENSITY.

BUT YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW ANYBODY I'VE TALKED TO.

I MEAN, I WOULD THINK THAT WHAT'S COMING TO, LIKE, YOUR OFFICE, I MEAN, YOU'RE DEALING WITH THE DEVELOPERS.

I MEAN, DEVELOPERS WANT TO BUILD A, YOU KNOW, 50 STORY BUILDING OUT HERE WITH 3000 UNITS IN IT.

YOU GO TO MIAMI, THEY DO 1000 UNITS TO AN ACRE.

SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S WHAT WE WANT TO DO HERE.

AND I WOULD MUCH RATHER LIMIT SOMETHING TO 12, BUT ALLOW WHATEVER IS ALLOWABLE IN WHAT'S ALREADY ESTABLISHED, THOSE AREAS LIKE NEW HAVEN

[01:00:03]

BUT WE HAVE VERY FEW OF THOSE, EXCEPT IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA WHERE COMMERCIAL CAN GO TO THE HIGHER NUMBERS.

BUT WE NEED TO SPEND MORE TIME ON THAT TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S CORRECT AND WHAT'S THE RIGHT, RIGHT WAY TO PROCEED AND UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.

OKAY. LET ME MAKE LET ME MAKE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS.

KIND OF FOLLOW UP. OKAY. FIRST OF ALL, IF WE CHANGE FROM 34 TO 18 OR WHATEVER THE NUMBER IS, I GO WITH 18.

IN TERMS OF THERE'S SOME LOGIC BEHIND IT.

WE HAVE SOME SOME EXPERIENCE WITH IT.

THERE'S A BUNCH OF ANALYSIS.

OKAY. SO JUST ASSUME THAT 18 OR SOMEWHERE IN THAT RANGE.

NOW THAT'S ONLY APPLICABLE AS FAR AS OUR CODES TO SEE THREE.

IT ISN'T GOING TO AFFECT ANY OTHER ZONE PROPERTY IN THE CITY IN TERMS OF WHAT WHETHER IT'S 18 OR 34 OUTSIDE OF C THREE.

WELL INDUSTRIAL ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF THAT INDUSTRIAL IS NOT NOT THIS.

IT'S IT'S NOT APPLICABLE.

I'M LOOKING I'M LOOKING AT THE ORDINANCE RIGHT NOW.

NOW THE SECOND THING IS WHAT WE'RE REALLY DEALING WITH IS AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR, YOU KNOW, LIVE LOCAL OR LIVE LOCAL IS WHAT RESTRICTED TO ANYTHING.

THAT'S C C I GUESS IT BC1, 2 OR 3.

SO WHAT.

THIS CHANGE WOULDN'T HAVE ANY EFFECT ON ANYTHING.

SAY IT'S R RATED OR R ZONE.

HOW ABOUT MULTI. YEAH IT WAS LOCAL RIGHT.

IT ONLY DEALS WITH RESIDENTIAL CORRECT.

IN OTHER WORDS, CAN YOU DO A MIXED USE OR COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL.

FOR EXAMPLE IF I DO 34 UNITS TO THE ACRE AND THAT'S WHAT LIVE LOCAL SAYS WE CAN DO SUPPORTING RETAIL, ANYTHING LIKE THAT ALLOWABLE IN THAT IF IT'S IN COMMERCIAL WOULDN'T IT BE ALLOWED.

YES. THERE'S NOTHING THAT SAYS THAT YOU CAN'T HAVE RETAIL WITH IT.

OKAY. SO ANYTHING THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED IN C1C2 WHATEVER OR INDUSTRIAL OKAY OR INDUSTRIAL INDUSTRIAL ANYTHING, ANY OF THE USES CURRENTLY ALLOWED IN THERE WOULD BE ALLOWED PLUS 34 UNITS TO THE ACRE FOR RESIDENTIAL DENSITY RENTAL UNITS ONLY.

BUT THERE'S NO WE DON'T DO DENSITY FOR COMMERCIAL.

BUT WE DO. AND WHEN WHEN LIVE LOCAL IS THE IS THE APPLICATION.

SO WE DON'T DO RESIDENTIAL DENSITY FOR COMMERCIAL EITHER.

SO OTHER THAN C THREE.

SO IF YOU HAVE AC1C2 AND SOMEBODY COMES IN AND SAYS I WANT TO DO AN APARTMENT COMPLEX OR A BETTER EXAMPLE, I WANT TO DO CONDO COMPLEX, ALL THE CONDOS ARE SOLD.

CAN'T DO IT LIVE LOCAL IS NOT DOES NOT COVER.

SOLD CONDOS.

IT'S FOR RENTAL FOR RENTAL HOUSING ONLY.

OKAY. I MEAN IT, EVERY RENTAL PROJECT IS GOING TO BE A CONDO ONE DAY, RIGHT? IN MY WORLD ANYWAY.

SO. BUT MY QUESTION IS, AGAIN, IF SOMETHING IS ALLOWED IN ANY OF THE C CATEGORIES OR INDUSTRIAL CATEGORIES, THOSE WOULD BE ALLOWED IN CONJUNCTION WITH ANY OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, OKAY, OTHER THAN INDUSTRIAL, BECAUSE THAT'S NO LONGER PART OF LIVE LOCAL.

NO, BUT THERE'S NO INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES AFFECTED BY LIVE LOCAL AND NO RESIDENTIAL DENSITY.

I THOUGHT THAT INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES COULD BE DEVELOPED WITH LAST YEAR, THE NEW AMENDED LIVE LOCAL ACT THAT JUST PASSED TOOK OUT, TOOK OUT INDUSTRIAL.

OKAY. I MISSED THAT PART.

YEAH. SO ONLY COMMERCIALLY ZONED PROPERTIES, MIXED USE AND MIXED USE WOULD BE OKAY.

MADAM CHAIR, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THE C3 CHANGE IS GOING TO BE IN THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT WHERE THERE'S NOT THERE'S NOT 25 FOOT WIDE LOTS WHERE THERE'S SINGLE FAMILY.

THIS IS A COMMERCIAL USE.

IT'S A MIXED USE. IT'S AN L'M A WAY TO INTRODUCE RESIDENTIAL ON TOP OF COMMERCIAL.

SO YOU HAVE TO GIVE SOME MEANINGFUL DENSITY IN ORDER TO DO IT, WHICH I THINK 18 ACHIEVES.

I THINK 34 OBVIOUSLY SHOWED THAT WE DIDN'T NEED IT BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY PROJECTS THAT REALLY HAPPENED THAT WAY.

SO I DON'T THINK THIS IS YOUR 25 FOOT WIDE LOT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IN THE C3 DISTRICT.

NO, I'M JUST MIXING THEM ALL UP.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

ARE WE ARE WE READY TO MOVE ON? WE HAD GOOD CONVERSATION WITH THIS.

ALL RIGHT. NOW JUST TO CLARIFY, WE ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO GET A PAD CASE.

YES. AND WE WILL VOTE ON THE CHANGE.

WILL IT BE SPECIFIC OR DO WE MAKE A RECOMMENDATIONS AS PART OF OUR.

WILL IT COME IN AS AT 18.

IT'S GOING TO COME IN AT 18 OKAY.

BUT YOU CAN CHANGE THAT YOU KNOW MODIFY IT.

THAT'S ONE OF YOUR APPROVED WITH MODIFICATIONS OKAY.

YEAH. BUT THERE'S KIND OF A GENERAL CONSENSUS AT LEAST AMONGST THE LEADERSHIP WITHIN THE COMMUNITY RIGHT NOW, THAT THAT'S PROBABLY A DECENT, DECENT APPROACH

[01:05:02]

OKAY. AND OKAY, I, I'M, I DON'T KNOW OF ANY OTHER THINGS THAT I DON'T EITHER.

ALL RIGHT. ARE WE READY TO MOVE ON.

YES. YES OKAY.

SO WE'VE WE'VE CONCLUDED OUR CONVERSATION ABOUT THE DENSITY DISCUSSION AS DIRECTED BY THE CITY COMMISSION.

SO NOW WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK AND TAKE UP ITEM 4.1 PAB CASE 2020

[4.1 PAB 2024-0001 - LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC) TEXT AMENDMENTS TO ADDRESS REDEVELOPMENT OF SUBSTANDARD LOTS OF RECORD]

WE HAD THIS THIS IS A CARRYOVER FROM OUR LAST MEETING.

IS THERE ANYTHING, TAMMY, THAT YOU WANT TO GIVE US ANY DIRECTION ON, OR.

WE'LL JUST PICK IT UP IF YOU IF YOU DON'T MIND.

I'VE READ THE ROUGH DRAFT MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 28TH.

SO MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THERE WERE DEFINITIONS THAT YOU WANTED TO DISCUSS.

SO UNLESS YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, I DIDN'T HAVE ANY PRESENTATION.

BUT IF YOU WANT ME TO TELL YOU WHAT THE THREE INTERPRETATIONS THAT I'VE HEARD ARE FOR, WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO SAY SOMETIMES IT'S EASIER WITH THE LOTS, BUT.

AND IF ANYBODY WANTS, WE CAN TRY TO PULL UP A PICTURE.

BUT MAYBE WE SHOULD DO THAT.

CAN YOU PULL UP? BECAUSE I'VE VILLAS. LAS PALMAS IS A GOOD EXAMPLE.

YES.

AND THERE'S PROBABLY MORE INTERPRETATIONS, BUT THESE ARE JUST THE THREE THAT THAT I THAT I'VE HEARD.

WE'VE DEALT WITH.

THAT IS ON ALACHUA AND FIFTH, I THINK.

SO WHAT ARE WE DOING THERE? SHE'S TRYING TO GET SHE'S GOING TO PULL UP A MAP OR CHART.

YEAH. WAS IT IN THE HANDOUT PACKAGE? NO, NO. OKAY.

NO WE'VE JUST LOOKED AT IT A NUMBER OF TIMES.

WELL SHE'S LOOKING FOR THAT. I WOULD YOU KNOW, I WENT BACK AND READ THIS THING.

OKAY. JUST THIS IS THE APPLICATION BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY.

THAT'S FROM THE STAFF.

THAT'S FROM THE STAFF REPORT THAT STARTS WITH OUR REPORT.

AND WHAT WAS THE DATE ON THAT? JULY 4TH, 2024.

IT SAYS JULY 2024.

SAYS JANUARY 14TH, 2024.

OKAY. FEBRUARY 20TH FEBRUARY FEBRUARY 14TH.

ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT HAPPENED IN MY BRAIN.

THAT'S OKAY. JUST WHAT DID I SAY? JULY. JULY.

JULY. DON'T HAVE A STROKE.

I KNOW IT'S BEEN DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME, BUT LET'S NOT MOVE THAT.

BUT, YOU KNOW, IN READING THIS, IT TALKS ABOUT CLARIFICATIONS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

AND, YOU KNOW, JUST THE INTRODUCTION TO ME IS NOT THE PROBLEM.

THERE IS NOT A PROBLEM.

IT'S LIKE WE'RE MANUFACTURING A PROBLEM THAT WE DON'T HAVE.

AND I WOULD JUST SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT.

AND IF YOU AS YOU GO THROUGH HERE, YOU KNOW, I DON'T NOW WE'RE IN A PLACE WHERE NOW WE'RE GOING TO WANT TO DO AWAY WITH WHAT WE'VE HAD AND CREATE NEW DENSITY, NEW DEVELOPMENT, MORE OF EVERYTHING.

AND I HAVEN'T HAD ANYONE TALK TO ME, CALL ME TO TELL ME THEY WERE HAPPY WITH IT.

OKAY. EVERYONE I TALKED TO ANYWHERE ON THE STREET SAID, I CAN'T BELIEVE THE TRAFFIC.

I CAN'T BELIEVE THE PEOPLE.

I CAN'T BELIEVE, YOU KNOW, ALL THESE NEGATIVE THINGS.

THAT'S NOTHING ABOUT WE NEED MORE OF IT.

SO EVEN THE INTRODUCTION TO THIS, TO ME, I THINK NEEDS TO BE CHANGED.

THIS ISN'T A PROBLEM THAT THIS.

I'M GOING TO STATE IT ONE MORE TIME.

THIS WAS VERY CLEAR AND I THINK ANYONE READS IT.

IT'S VERY CLEAR THIS IS A DEVELOPER WHO IS UNHAPPY TO FOLLOW THE PROCESS.

OKAY. HISTORICALLY I'VE BEEN ON THIS BOARD.

THAT SAME DEVELOPER HAS CAUSED OTHER ISSUES IN THE PAST.

OKAY, FIND A LOOPHOLE, FIND SOMETHING, CONVINCE SOMEBODY.

WE NEED TO CHANGE IT, AND WE'LL RUN OUT LIKE CHICKEN WITH THE HEAD.

I'VE GOT TO CHANGE IT SO EVERYTHING'S WRONG.

IT'S NOT WRONG. I'M TELLING YOU THAT.

OKAY? AND I'M GOING TO WORK THROUGH THE PROCESS TO DISCUSS WHATEVER CHANGES THE COMMISSION WANTS US TO DO.

[01:10:06]

I AM TOTALLY OPPOSED TO MAKING A CHANGE FOR 100 AND 305 TOTALLY IN ZERO FOUR.

OKAY. AND I DON'T KNOW ANYONE WHO'S TOLD ME IT'S A GOOD THING BECAUSE YOU CAN HAVE IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR INCREASES IN PROPERTY VALUES, WHICH I THINK EVERYONE WHO OWNS PROPERTY WANTS TO HAVE THAT BE ABLE TO PASS IT ON OR STUFF.

YOU DON'T NEED 25 FOOT LOTS TO DO THAT.

THIS PLACE, BECAUSE OF WHAT IT IS.

OKAY. AND OTHER PLACES IN FLORIDA HAVE GONE THROUGH THIS PROCESS.

MARTIN COUNTY, FOR EXAMPLE, SAID NO MORE DEVELOPMENT AND STUCK WITH IT.

THEN YOU GO TO PALM BEACH, YOU GO TO BOCA, YOU GO TO SOME OF THESE PLACES.

THEY SAID, NO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THEM.

AND THOSE PLACES HAVE FARED VERY WELL WHEN IT COMES TO PRICING AND THINGS.

SO WE CAN LIVE A QUALITY OF LIFE WITHOUT HAVING ANOTHER MILLION PEOPLE AS NEIGHBORS NEXT DOOR.

AND, YOU KNOW, WE JUST HEARD PROBLEMS WITH DOING THIS LOT, YOU KNOW, TRUCKS PARKED ALL OVER CARS, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU HAVE A 25 FOOT LOT AND YOU HAVE A MINIMUM SETBACK OF WAS IT 2.5FT OR SOMETHING ON EACH SIDE? YOU CAN'T PUT IT. YOU CAN BARELY WALK IN THERE.

I MEAN, YOU KNOW, BEFORE I LOST SOME WEIGHT, I PROBABLY GET STUCK BETWEEN TWO HOUSES, YOU KNOW, SO BUT YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU KNOW, SO THAT'S MY THING. BUT I WORKED WITH THE PROCESS.

SOME CHANGES WE NEED DOING AWAY WITH 103.

THAT'S PROBABLY GOOD.

THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU MA'AM.

AND ONE MORE TIME ON 25 FOOT LOTS WERE ALLOWED TO BE DEVELOPED.

IF YOU WERE THE ORIGINAL OWNER OF THAT SINGLE LOT, NOT AS COMBINED IN PARCEL ID NUMBERS.

AND I'M GOING TO GO ONE MORE PLACE.

PARCEL ID NUMBERS.

THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT.

THE WHOLE WORLD DEALS WITH THEM, OKAY? THEY DON'T SAY, OH THAT'S PARCEL ID NUMBER.

SO AND SO, WHICH TOTALLY DESCRIBES EVERYTHING THAT'S ON THAT LOT.

NO ONE LOOKS AT THAT AND GOES, OH LET'S SEE.

THERE'S FOUR 25 FOOT LOTS THERE ONE 50 FOOT.

WHAT? AND SOMETHING ELSE.

THEY DON'T DO THAT PARCELLS OR PARCELLS, AND WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT IS A CHANGE THAT WE LOOK AT.

SO NOW I'LL TURN OVER MY SOAPBOX.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I'M GOING TO ASK TAMMY TO OKAY.

WE HAVE A MEMBER OF OUR COMMITTEE THAT WE SHOULD I THINK YOU SHOULD RECOGNIZE WE'RE GOING TO GET TO THAT.

OKAY? OKAY. BUT I WANT TO I WANT TAMMY TO SORT OF START US OFF.

AND THIS IS AN A LESSON.

AND I'M NOT ADVOCATING FOR THE THREE, THE THREE INTERPRETATIONS THAT I'VE HEARD SO FAR OF 135.

AND JUST TO ADDRESS YOUR COMMENT, MR. BENNETT FROM WHAT I COULD FIND IN IN WITH REGARD TO WHAT'S HOW STAFF HAS INTERPRETED 135 THAT AFFECTED THE TRINGALI PROPERTY THAT'S BEEN GOING ON SINCE 2006.

NOBODY WHAT WE WEREN'T AWASH IN DEVELOPMENT AT THE TIME.

NOBODY NOTICED. NOBODY.

IT STARTED WITH MARSHALL MCCRARY.

AND AND IT'S CONTINUED SINCE THEN.

I'M SORRY I POINTED AT YOU, BUT IN MY OPINION, THAT'S WHERE THE PROBLEM STARTED.

VERY LIKELY. OKAY. AND I HAVE HAD TALKS WITH KELLY.

WHERE DID THIS INTERPRETATION COME FROM? SHE TOLD YOU. AND THAT'S WHERE IT CAME FROM.

THAT'S WHERE I CAME FROM. RIGHT. BUT THAT WASN'T 2 OR 3 YEARS.

NO, NO, THAT WAS GOING WAY BACK BEFORE SHE CAME HERE.

BUT HE CREATED THE PROBLEM.

AND I WOULD SAY THAT THAT INTERPRETATION, THAT INTERPRETATION OF IT OPENED IT UP.

IT WASN'T WHAT THAT.

SO THAT'S ONE INTERPRETATION WE KNOW ALL ABOUT THE INTERPRETATION.

IF YOU SUBDIVIDE, YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

THAT'S ONE INTERPRETATION.

ANOTHER ONE IN THIS IS HOW STAFF APPLIES THIS FOR WHERE YOU LOOK AT ON THE SCREEN THERE THE VILLA LAS PALMAS HOUSE COVERS.

LET'S SEE FOUR LOTS IT TOUCHES FOR 25 LOTS.

ALL OF THOSE NUMBERS.

LOOK AT THE TOP.

THE NORTHERNMOST PART 2324, 25.

THOSE ARE CONSIDERED HISTORICAL UNDERLYING 25 BY 100 FOOT.

LOTS OF RECORD. AND THEN WHEN YOU GET DOWN AND THEY START FACING DIFFERENT WAYS.

SO THE ONES AT 23, 24, 25, THOSE ARE EAST WEST ORIENTED.

AND THEN SOME OF THE OTHERS, WHEN YOU GET TO THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY ALONG ALACHUA, THOSE ARE NORTH SOUTH ORIENTED.

ALL OF THOSE LOTS THAT ARE NOT TOUCHED BY THAT HOUSE RIGHT NOW.

OUR CODE ALLOWS YOU TO DEVELOP.

THAT'S BY THE COMP PLAN HONORING THE 25 BY 100 FOOT.

THAT WAS MR. BENNETT, IF YOU REMEMBER FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, READING THE THE DOCUMENTS FROM BACK IN THE EARLY 2000 IS WELL, THAT WAS NOT OUR INTERPRETATION.

THAT WAS THAT IT MAY NOT DROP THAT AND JUST SHOW THE PARCEL ID NUMBER.

YOU CAN I KNOW THAT THAT'S ONE PARCEL I KNOW, BUT I WANT WE HAVE AN AUDIENCE OKAY.

[01:15:04]

YEAH. JUST PULL UP THE.

NO. WHEN YOU PULL UP THE BOTTOM IT'LL PULL UP PARCEL ID NUMBER AND OWNERSHIP.

IS THAT IT UP THERE AT THE TOP.

YEAH. IT SHOULD BE RIGHT EVERYWHERE ELSE I LOOK AT.

SO THERE'S SO MANY THINGS IN PLACE.

NOT YOU. I KNOW THAT THERE'S THINGS IN PLACE DENSITY THAT WE ALLOW AND THINGS LIKE THAT THAT ARE BY RIGHT I MEAN UNDER OUR CODE, WHICH IS, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WHY THE PLANNING STAFF HAS INTERPRETED THAT WAY AND ALL OF OUR DISCUSSIONS.

YOU SEE THAT NICE NUMBER THERE.

OKAY. THAT'S A PROPERTY APPRAISER PUTS A NUMBER ON EVERY OWNERSHIP PARCEL.

SO IN ALL OF OUR DISCUSSIONS WE TALK.

WHEN WE SAID PARCEL THAT'S WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT OKAY.

AND THAT PARCEL TOTALLY DESCRIBES EVERYTHING ON THE PROPERTY.

WHAT'S THERE.

SO WHEN WE SAID YOU HAD TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, ANY CHANGES OUTSIDE OF IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH WHERE'S THE HOUSE ON THE LOT.

THAT WAS, TO ME, AN ERRONEOUS INTERPRETATION WHEN YOU STARTED PUTTING THE IMPROVEMENTS AND WHERE THEY ARE AND WHAT CAN BE DEVELOPED AROUND THEM.

THAT WAS NEVER THE INTENT.

THE INTENT WAS ALWAYS WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT PARCELS, THAT WAS ENTIRE PARCEL.

AND ANYTIME SOMEONE BECAUSE IT'S A SINGLE OWNERSHIP.

SO ANYONE WANTING TO DEVELOP THAT IS GOING TO HAVE THE IMPACT ON THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU KNOW, NOT LOT FOUR OF WHATEVER.

SO THAT WAS THE INTENT AND I IT'S NEVER BEEN INTERPRETED.

IT MAY WELL AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SOMEONE WHO LEFT HERE HOW MANY YEARS AGO.

SO ABOUT FIVE YEARS AGO.

BUT HE WAS HERE. THAT PERSON TRAINED TO ME PEOPLE IN THE WRONG WAY.

AND IT WAS INTERPRETED IN AN INCORRECT MANNER TO ADD MORE DEVELOPMENT TO PEOPLE WHO WANT TO DEVELOP.

OKAY, SO THAT'S THE SECOND INTERPRETATION THAT ALL OF THOSE THAT HAVE NOT BEEN TOUCHED WITH THE HOUSE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, POOLS, SHEDS, WHATEVER, ALL EACH OF THOSE COULD BE DEVELOPED TODAY.

BUT SEE, AND I WOULD ANSWER THAT BY.

THING. IF YOU READ 10305, IT'S VERY CLEAR ON THAT AND DOES NOT SAY THAT.

I MEAN, I WE CAN SIT HERE AND READ THE WHOLE THING.

YOU READ IT 100 TIMES AND.

THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING IS I'M NOT ADVOCATING.

I JUST I JUST WANTED TO BECAUSE WE TALKED ABOUT THE THREE INTERPRETATIONS COMING UP IN THE MINUTES.

WHAT IS THAT EXACTLY? AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THESE DEVELOPMENTS OF THESE 25 FOOT LOT THAT ARE OCCURRING NOW THAT'S GETTING PEOPLE UPSET BECAUSE IT WAS THEY SAID, OH, IT WAS ONLY WHERE THE HOUSE WAS.

SO ONLY WHERE THAT HOUSE WAS.

WE HAD TO WORRY ABOUT EVERYTHING ELSE AROUND IT.

IF IT HAD THE SETBACK, THEY COULD DEVELOP IT.

AND I'M TELLING YOU, THAT WAS NEVER SO LET'S SAY BECAUSE WE DIDN'T PUT ANY SIZE OF THE PARCELS OR ANYTHING.

SO AND I'M REALLY I'M NOT BEING ARGUMENTATIVE.

SO IF THIS WAS FIVE ACRES IT WOULD BE THE SAME APPLICATION, SAME ONE HOUSE.

THAT'S ALL YOU CAN DO.

EXACTLY. BUT THAT WE WILL GET SUED.

WE WILL REMEMBER PROPERTIES LEFT AND RIGHT, NO DOUBT.

BUT WE HAD YOU COULD GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND THEY COULD LOOK AT THE WHOLE PARCEL AND THEN GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF WHAT THE IMPACTS WOULD BE ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD. BUT THAT DOESN'T RELIEVE THE CITY OF AND THIS IS THIS IS WHAT THIS IS WHAT I HAVE TO DEAL WITH.

I HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE BALANCING ACT OF THE COMP PLAN.

THE LEGISLATURE MADE THE CITY AND CITIES AND COUNTIES ADOPT A PROPERTY RIGHTS ELEMENT.

THAT IS, NO ONE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UNDER FLORIDA LAW IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE OTHER.

SO WHEN WE'RE DEALING WITH MAKING THESE DECISIONS, UNFORTUNATELY THE LEGISLATURE SAYS YOU ALL THAT LIVE IN FERNANDINA NOW DON'T CARE.

LAND IS THERE, IT'S AVAILABLE, IT HAS A VALUE.

AND IF YOU BUY IT, YOU'RE ALLOWED TO DEVELOP IT.

AND I'M NOT SAYING TO ANY END, BUT THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE TELLING US.

AND I DON'T DISAGREE, BUT PERSONALLY REALLY THAT YOU COULD JUST SAY NO MORE DEVELOPMENT, STEWART SAY, I'M JUST SAYING THAT THE WHOLE INTENT OF 100, 305, IT DID ADDRESS PROPERTY RIGHTS.

THAT PERSON THAT OWNS THAT HAS PROPERTY RIGHTS, BUT THEY ALSO THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS PROPERTY RIGHTS.

OKAY. AND THAT'S MY POINT.

AND THAT WAS THE WHOLE REASON A MEANS BY PROPERTY RIGHTS, THEY DEVELOPERS RIGHTS, THEY MIGHT AS WELL ACCEPT THAT.

YEAH. BUT AGAIN WE HAD A RELIEF.

WE HAD THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

THEY COULD GO TO AND AND HAVE JUST, YOU KNOW, SHOW WHAT KIND OF A DEVELOPMENT THEY WANTED TO BUILD THERE.

RIGHT I GET IT.

SO THOSE ARE THE THREE INTERPRETATIONS.

THAT'S WHAT THAT'S WHAT I MEANT WHEN I SAID THERE'S THREE.

MADAM CHAIR, IF I COULD INJECT ONE THING JUST TO KIND OF TAKE THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THIS, CAN YOU GO TO THE WEST ROCK MILL, THE ROCK TOWN MILL AND THE PROPERTY APPRAISER,

[01:20:03]

OKAY. AND I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOUR PASSION ON A LOT OF IT, MARK, I THINK I THINK YOUR HEART'S IN THE RIGHT PLACE. IT'S JUST A MATTER OF WHERE DOES IT STOP? WHAT? AT WHAT POINT DO PEOPLE LOSE THE RIGHT TO USE AN UNDERLYING LOT? SO IF YOU GO TO WEST ROCK AND YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO ZOOM IN, NOT RIGHT NEAR THAT, BUT OKAY.

YEAH. RIGHT. OKAY.

YEAH. WHICH ONE DO YOU HAVE.

THEY GOT TONS OF. BUT LOOK JUST CLICK ON IT ANYWHERE.

ANYWHERE. THERE'S A 228 ACRE PARCEL THAT HAS ONE PARCEL ID, RIGHT.

AND IF YOU ZOOM IN AND YOU TURN THE AERIAL OFF, JUST KEEP ZOOMING IN.

YOU'RE GOING TO SEE.

YEAH, TURN OFF THE AERIAL.

BUT SNAPS BASEMAPS.

IT'S OKAY. THAT'LL TURN OFF THE IMAGERY.

THERE'S LOTS EVERYWHERE ON THAT.

RIGHT. BUT THAT'S ALSO SO TO SAY THAT YOU WERE WESTROCK, GET ONE PARCEL ID FOR 228 ACRES. IT'S NOT WHAT A PLOT WOULD BE ABOUT.

A PLOT WOULD GIVE YOU UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD.

THE PROPERTY APPRAISER JUST PICKED ALL OF THESE BECAUSE THEY BOUGHT ALL THE LOTS AT ONE TIME.

AND THEY GAVE 228 ACRES BECAUSE THAT WAS THE PARCEL, THE COLLECTION OF PARCELS THAT THEY BOUGHT.

SO JUST BECAUSE THEY CHOSE TO BUY A BUNCH OF PARCELS DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY DON'T OWN INDIVIDUAL PARCELS.

WELL AGAIN I SAID ON THIS YOUR 228 ACRES, WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD THINK YOU GET ONE LOT? WELL, SO I THINK THAT THERE'S GOT TO BE SOME SCALE TO THE WHOLE THING.

I AGREE WITH YOU. YOU SHOULDN'T TEAR DOWN THOSE PERMITS AND BUILD 17 UNITS.

I MEAN, THAT'S SILLY, BUT THE POINT OF IT, I THINK WHERE EVERYONE'S GOING IS JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE CHOSE TO COMBINE PARCELS INTO ONE PARCEL ID NUMBER DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE LOTS GO AWAY. WELL, IT TYPICALLY COMES UP WHEN YOU WHEN SOMEONE PURCHASE A PROPERTY.

FIRST OF ALL, THAT'S INDUSTRIAL.

SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOT RESIDENTIAL, BUT ANY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY HAS A PARCEL ID NUMBER.

AND YOU CAN GO TO ANYONE.

JUST GO OUTSIDE.

MY POINT IS MARK AND PICK.

IT COULD BE FIVE LOTS. IT COULD BE TEN, IT COULD BE 20.

IT COULD BE WHERE'S THE NUMBER THAT GETS CUT OFF? OKAY. BUT MY POINT IS LET ME FINISH ON THIS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS IS NOT QUALIFIED TO LOOK AT PLATS.

YES. THEIR JOB THEIR JOB IS SETBACKS.

IT'S HEIGHT. IT'S ALL THESE OTHER THINGS.

IT'S NOT OUR JOB AS PLATS NOT THEIRS.

SO TO TAKE AWAY A PLAT, YOU SHOULD BE QUALIFIED TO ANALYZE A PLAT.

AND THAT'S WHAT I THINK BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS IS WAY OUT OF THEIR ELEMENT.

IF YOU CLICK ON ANY OF THOSE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES IN THERE, AND THIS IS KIND OF THE POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE.

ALL RIGHT. NOW GO TO THE CITY OR THE STREET PICTURE OF THAT.

BECAUSE IN MOST AREAS, THEY'VE BEEN PLATTED AMELIA PARK.

IT'S ALL PLATTED. NO ONE'S GOING TO GOING TO BE ABLE TO COME INTO AMELIA PARK AND START TEARING UP LOTS AND DOING THINGS.

SO EVERYONE THAT'S IN AMELIA PARK KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE BUYING.

THEY WALK DOWN THE STREET NOW ZOOM IN ON THE STREET.

AND THIS IS PART OF WHAT WHEN YOU WALK DOWN THAT STREET.

AN AREA WITH A BUNCH OF TREES.

THIS ZOOM INTO THE STREET SCENE.

OKAY, SO THE POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE IS THAT STREET IS ALMOST THE SAME AS AMELIA PARK.

IT WAS DEVELOPED IN A CERTAIN WAY.

IT MAY HAVE TAKEN THEM 150 YEARS TO DO IT, BUT THAT STREET, IF WE EVER GET TO SEE IT.

YOU CAN GO TO ANY NEIGHBORHOOD.

I DON'T CARE WHICH ONE. I JUST WANT TO MAKE A POINT HERE.

YEAH, JUST DON'T HAVE IT.

COULD BE ANY NEIGHBORHOOD THERE.

YEAH. SOMEWHERE. JUST THERE IT IS ON THE YELLOW OVER THERE.

THAT'S THE. JUST ZOOM ON IN AND PUSH THAT YELLOW THING ON THE LEFT.

RIGHT. AND THEN NOW YOU HAVE TO NAME A NAME.

JUST. YEAH. JUST GO TO THE STREET ZOOMING ALL THE WAY IN, AND THERE'S NO ZOOMING BECAUSE THERE'S NO ON THAT PART OF THE CITY WAS NOT PART OF THE DID NOT HAVE 25 FOOT LOTS. WELL THERE ARE SEVERAL.

I'M NOT LOOKING FOR A I'VE.

I JUST WANT TO SHOW YOU A STREET SCENE WHICH EMULATES WHAT LIKE AMELIA PARK IS.

[01:25:06]

YEAH, OKAY.

AND COMING IN AND JUST BUILDING 25 FOOT HOUSES ON THAT DESTROYS THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.

YOU'VE ALREADY HEARD IT FROM SOMEBODY HERE TONIGHT.

AND IF YOU GET DOWN ON THE STREET, YOU CAN'T TAKE THAT STREET SCENE ON THE LEFT AND JUST PLACE IT ON THE STREET.

THERE YOU GO.

SO WAIT A MINUTE.

TIME OUT. TIME OUT.

BECAUSE THE POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE IS YOU TALK ABOUT PLATS.

THIS STREET HERE IS DEVELOPED JUST LIKE AMELIA PARK OR ANYTHING ELSE.

IT MAY IT MAY HAVE THREE UNDERLYING 25 FOOT LOTS ON THERE.

BUT IN A SENSE THOSE PEOPLE KNOW WHAT THEY BOUGHT.

THEY SEE THAT OUT.

OKAY. THEY DIDN'T BUY THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR TO HAVE SOMEBODY TEAR IT DOWN AND BUILD THREE MORE.

WHAT I'M SAYING YOU CAN TEAR THE HOUSE DOWN.

EVEN THESE MODIFICATIONS, YOU'RE STILL GETTING A VARIANCE FROM THE HOUSE WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE VARIANCE IS OKAY.

YEAH. ALL THE VARIANCE IS GOING TO PEOPLE OFF.

PEOPLE ARE GOING TO TALK AND I THINK WE'RE WEARING THEM DOWN.

NO DON'T DO THAT.

BUT PLEASE COME BACK.

MY POINT IS A PLAT IS A PLAT IS A PLAT.

IT'S ALL RECORDED.

AND THE ONE PERSON WHO DOESN'T SIGN OFF ON THE PLAT IS A PROPERTY APPRAISER, TAX COLLECTOR.

DOES THE CITY ATTORNEY, THE FIRE CHIEF.

THERE'S A MYRIAD OF PEOPLE THAT DO.

THE PROPERTY APPRAISER DOESN'T BECAUSE HE GETS HE RECORDS WHAT HE'S TOLD TO RECORD, WHETHER IT'S BY AN OWNER OR BY A GOVERNMENT ENTITY.

HE DOESN'T PICK AND CHOOSE PERSONAL ID NUMBERS.

SOMEBODY ELSE DOES.

SO TO USE HIM AS THE BIBLE IS JUST NOT RIGHT.

I DON'T DISAGREE WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ON THE 25 FOOT LOTS, BUT THE PROPERTY APPRAISER IS NOT THE VEHICLE.

ALL RIGHT, LET'S HAVE A PAUSE AND LET SOME OF OUR CITIZENS SPEAK.

I SEE SOME PEOPLE HAVE SORT OF HAD TO LEAVE.

SO WE WANT TO CATCH THESE THOUGHTS.

SO, GENTLEMEN, IN THE BACK WILL COME.

YOU YOU, SIR. YOU'RE NEXT.

NO, YOU COME IN. NOT IN THE BACK.

IN THE MIDDLE. DAVID COLSON, 111 SOUTH FOURTH STREET.

AND I JUST WANT TO ADDRESS THE THE ONE FACT.

AND NOW YOU'RE RIGHT.

HE'S. I DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY THE WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY, BUT IT HAS TO DO WITH.

YOU KNOW WHAT? I CANNOT EVEN REMEMBER.

WELL, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH.

WELL, UNLESS YOU THINK WE WILL LET YOU SIT DOWN AND GATHER THAT THOUGHT AND COME BACK.

HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH YOU. DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT I WANTED TO SAY ABOUT SOMETHING? I THINK SHE'S PRETTY SURE YOU WERE GOING TO AGREE WITH HER.

YEAH, JUST. JUST WHEN YOU GET THAT THOUGHT, HANG ON TO IT, BECAUSE YOU'LL BE COMING RIGHT BACK UP.

WRITE IT DOWN.

THANK YOU. MEDARDO MONZON, 1014 MAGNOLIA WOODS COURT.

AND I WANT TO ADDRESS THE CHANGES ABOUT THE LDC.

AND I WANT TO START BY SUMMARIZING THE REASONS THAT I'VE HEARD HAVE PROMPTED THIS ONE.

AND I THINK THEY'RE ALL DRIVEN ESSENTIALLY BY ONE, MAYBE TWO COMMISSIONERS AT MOST.

THE REASONS THAT I'VE HEARD THAT HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED ARE TWO CONSTITUENTS ARE ASKING THIS TO BE DONE AND SECONDLY, POTENTIAL LAWSUITS. SO I WANT TO ADDRESS BOTH THIS COMMUNITY.

ONE OF THE THINGS I LOVE ABOUT THIS COMMUNITY IS THIS COMMUNITY CARES.

THEY CARE ABOUT OUR LIFESTYLE.

I HAVE NOT SEEN TO THIS DATE LETTERS TO THE FERNANDINA OBSERVER OR THE OR THE NEWS LEADER OR SOCIAL MEDIA.

ANY POST FROM THE COMMUNITY SAYING WE WANT TO CHANGE THE LDC.

NONE. NONE.

SO THE QUESTION THEN IS WHERE IS THIS COMING FROM? WHERE IS THIS COMING FROM? OKAY, BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE THE COMMISSIONERS WHO ARE PURSUING THIS ARE BEING RESPONSIVE TO A HANDFUL OF CONSTITUENTS, NOT THE PUBLIC AT LARGE, WHICH PRESUMABLY THEY SERVE.

I THINK I GUESS LINCOLN SAID SOMETHING ABOUT GOVERNMENT FOR THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, ETC..

WELL, THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE APPLYING HERE WHAT THE COMMISSION IS ASKING.

SECONDLY, SOME PEOPLE HAVE COMMENTED, PARTICULARLY IN THE FERNANDINA OBSERVER, THAT THEY PURCHASE LOTS AND THEY WANT TO SUBDIVIDE WELL.

THEY KNEW WHAT THE RULES WERE WHEN THEY PURCHASED THOSE PROPERTIES, AND WE HAVE SEEN TOO MANY EXAMPLES OF THAT IN THIS CITY.

PEOPLE THAT OWN WETLANDS, AND THEN THEY GO TO THE CITY COMMISSION AND SAY, WELL, WETLANDS.

AND THEN THEY ASKED FOR A VARIANCE.

AND THEN WE MORE DENSITY AND MORE DENSITY AND MORE DENSITY.

BUT I HAVEN'T SEEN THIS SWARM OF PEOPLE THAT THEY CLAIM EXIST THAT WANT THESE CHANGES.

[01:30:07]

SO THEN THE QUESTION IS WHO'S BEHIND THIS? AND I SIDE WITH MISTER BENNETT.

OKAY. THE POTENTIAL LAWSUITS, YOU KNOW, WE'RE BEING SCARED.

PEOPLE CAN SUE US, POTENTIALLY.

WELL, LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING.

THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE ANY ANALYSIS, PERHAPS REITERATING WHAT MR. BENNETT SAID. YOU BOUGHT A PROPERTY AND YOU SAW WHAT YOU WERE BUYING, AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN, WE MAKE THESE CHANGES.

DO YOU THINK THOSE PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO BE HURT ARE GOING TO SEE? I'M ONE OF THEM? I BOUGHT A PROPERTY.

THERE WAS THERE WAS A LOT BEHIND ME TO STRUCTURES.

THERE WERE DEMOLISHED.

I CONTACTED THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND I ASKED THE QUESTION, CAN THIS BE SUBDIVIDED? THE ANSWER WAS NO.

OKAY, I'M PROCEEDING FORWARD WITH THE PURCHASE NOW.

I WROTE THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT UNDER THE NEW RULES.

YEAH, IT CAN BE SUBDIVIDED.

WELL, I HAVE A BEAUTIFUL OCEAN VIEW.

AND I'LL TELL YOU, I AM NOT GOING TO SIT IDLE.

AND THAT JUST MEANS THEIR NEIGHBORS WHO ARE FACING THE SAME THING.

THERE ARE PEOPLE ON THE STREET THAT BOUGHT PROPERTIES, RIGHT? AND THEIR VALUES ARE CHANGING.

THEIR LIFESTYLE IS CHANGING.

SO THIS IS LUDICROUS, LUDICROUS, LUDICROUS.

SO SO MY REQUEST TO YOU IS REJECT IT COMPLETELY REJECT THIS AND SAY, WHY ARE WE DOING THIS? ONE LAST POINT ON THE CHANGES.

ON THE FEBRUARY 14TH MEETING NOTES, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDED THAT THE PUBLIC NOTICE AND THE AND AND THE POSTING BE INCLUDED.

WELL, IN THE LATEST LATEST EXCHANGE WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, THEY SAY NO, IT WAS EXCLUDED AT THE REQUEST OF THE CITY COMMISSION.

WHY? WHY THEY TALK ABOUT TRANSPARENCY.

AND NOW.

SO FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU.

YOU'RE BEING PLACED AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, THE STAFF IS BEING PLACED ON AN UNTENABLE POSITION BECAUSE THE CITY COMMISSIONER ARE THEIR BOSSES.

SO THEY CAN'T SAY, WELL, WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO THIS.

BUT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, I'VE LIVED HERE 12 YEARS, IS THEY'RE VERY SENSITIVE TO THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY, AND SO DOES THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD.

AND NOW IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A BIG TWISTING OF ARMS TO GET THIS THROUGH, AND THERE'S NO CLARITY AS TO WHY IT'S REALLY THE COMMUNITY DOESN'T WANT THIS.

NOW, I UNDERSTAND, TAMI, THAT BY LAW WE CANNOT PUT THIS TO REFERENDUM, WHICH WOULD BE THE THING TO DO, BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ASKING WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT CHANGING AN ORDINANCE ABOUT BUYING, YOU KNOW, BASEBALL BATS OR PLAYGROUND, ETC.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A CHANGE THAT IMPACTS THE WHOLE CITY, THE WHOLE COMMUNITY.

AND THREE FOLKS WANT TO DO IT.

THIS IS WRONG, AND I THINK THE COMMUNITY NEEDS TO STAND UP VOCALLY, VISIBLY AND SAY, WE WILL NOT ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN.

WE CANNOT ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN.

AND YOU NEED TO EXPLAIN.

SOMEBODY NEEDS TO EXPLAIN TO US WHY THIS IS NEEDED.

IT WILL CHANGE THE FABRIC OF OUR COMMUNITY THAT WE HAVE BUILT.

I'VE ONLY LIVED HERE 12 YEARS.

MANY OF YOU HAVE BUILT HERE LONGER.

YOU'VE BUILT THIS BEAUTIFUL COMMUNITY THAT ENTICES US TO MOVE HERE.

AND NOW WE HAVE THREE, FOUR FOLKS INTERESTED IN CHANGING THIS AND RUINING THE LIFESTYLE OF THIS COMMUNITY.

SO I KIND OF BEG YOU, YOU KNOW, PLEASE REJECT THE PROPOSED CHANGES, REJECT THE PROPOSED CHANGES.

AND I HAVE ONE MORE RECOMMENDATION IF MAYBE WHEN IT GOES TO THE CITY COMMISSION, IF YOU VOTE FOR THIS, I WANT THE CITY COMMISSIONERS TO GO ON RECORD, EACH ONE OF THEM, AND PUBLICLY DECLARE THAT NOT NOW OR EVER WILL THEM OR THEIR RELATIVES BENEFIT ECONOMICALLY FROM THESE CHANGES.

BECAUSE, AS SOMEBODY SAYS HERE, THERE'S A LOT OF SUSPICION.

AND I SIDE WITH THAT, TOO.

THAT WOULD ELIMINATE THE SUSPICION, YOU KNOW.

SO ANYWAY, THANK YOU FOR WHAT YOU DO.

I HOPE THIS WORKS MATTER.

AND THANK YOU AGAIN.

THANKS FOR THE TIME. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING FORWARD.

DID YOU REMEMBER? COME ON.

STILL LIVE AT THE SAME PLACE? IT WAS ABOUT TEN REFERENCE.

YOU STILL HAVE TO HAVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE. I'M.

I JUST REMEMBER SOMETHING.

[01:35:01]

OKAY. DAVID COLSON, 111 SOUTH FOURTH STREET.

DID HE MAKE ME FREE? NO.

IT WAS ABOUT TAMMY SAYING THAT THIS IS HOW THAT THEY'VE INTERPRETED THE LAW FOR HOWEVER LONG IN THE LAWSUIT, THERE WERE CASES PROVIDED SHOWING THAT THAT IS NOT TRUE.

AND YET YOU STILL CONTINUE OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN TO SAY THAT WE SHOULDN'T BE ARGUING AND I'M WAITING.

AND YOU DID NOT PROVIDE YOU DID NOT PROVIDE THE INFORMATION FOR THE JUDGE TO DECIDE HOW IT WAS INTERPRETED.

AND SO I WISH THAT YOU WOULD JUST STOP SAYING THAT.

WE'VE INTERPRETED IT THIS WAY FOR A LONG, LONG TIME BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT THEY HAVE NOT.

NOT EXACTLY.

THAT'S ALL I'M GOING TO SAY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, TINA.

HI EVERYONE. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR SERVICE TO THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD.

AND MY NAME IS TINA CHRISTNER.

I LIVE AT 406 BEACH STREET.

TO ME THIS IS A VERY DANGEROUS TIME FOR THE CITY.

WE'VE SEEN A LOT OF OUTSIDE MONEY POUR IN INTO OUR CITY ELECTIONS, AND WE'RE SEEING THINGS CHANGE THAT HAVE NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE.

SO IT'S SO LUCKY THAT WE HAVE SUCH A GOOD COMMUNITY AND HAVE SUCH GREAT MEMBERS ON BOARDS TO KIND OF PROTECT OUR CITY FROM THESE OUTSIDE INFLUENCES.

MISS FOXX, YOU HAD THE VILLA LIPOMAS BEFORE ON THE SCREEN? YEAH. COULD I HAVE THAT BACK UP, PLEASE? SO ONE OF THE MOST DANGEROUS THINGS I SEE IN THE CHANGE TO THIS, THE PROPOSED CHANGE TO THIS RULE, IS THAT IT WILL TAKE AWAY 100 AND 305 FOR ANYTHING MORE THAN THREE.

SO IF YOU READ IT, IT SAYS ANY TIME IT'S THREE OR MORE, IT WILL GO TO THE REPLAT PROCESS.

SO IF WE LOOK AT VILLA LIPOMAS, THE PERSON, LET'S SAY IT WASN'T IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT AND SOMEBODY BOUGHT IT AND THEY BULLDOZED VILLA SIPUM.

BOY, WOULDN'T THAT BE AWFUL.

THEY WOULD BE CRAZY TO GO THROUGH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PROCESS BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE TO ASK FOR A VARIANCE.

SO WHAT THEY WOULD MOST LIKELY DO IS LIKE TO TRINGALI BECAUSE IT'S MORE THAN TWO LOTS.

OKAY. THIS LAW SAYS THAT IT WILL NOW GO THROUGH THE REPLAT PROCESS.

AM I CORRECT IN THAT MISS BOCK? I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME.

I THINK GENERALLY SUBDIVISION IS YES IS CONSIDERED.

I'VE READ IT A LOT. SO RIGHT NOW IF SOMEONE GOES HAS THREE LOTS ON A PIECE OF LAND, THEY'LL GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR A VARIANCE.

BUT THIS IS SAYING ANYTIME IT'S OVER TWO YOU CAN CHOOSE TO DO A REPLAT INSTEAD.

SO WITH VILLAS LIPOMAS, IF I WAS A DEVELOPER AND I BOUGHT THIS PIECE OF LAND, I WOULD NEVER GO THROUGH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS BECAUSE THIS RULE WOULD SAY THAT I COULD ONLY DO 50 FOOT WIDE LOTS.

OKAY, WHAT I WOULD DO IS TEAR DOWN THIS HOUSE, GO THROUGH A REPLAT, PUT UP TOWNHOUSES WHERE THERE'S NO 50 FOOT MINIMUM.

OKAY, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? BECAUSE WITH TOWNHOUSES, AS LONG AS YOU MEET THE DENSITY, LIKE IN TRINGALI, I THINK THERE'S SOME THAT ARE 36FT.

SO THIS RULE REALLY DOESN'T DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN IF SOMEBODY HAS ONE LOT AND THEY'RE TRYING TO SPLIT IT INTO TWO.

THAT'S THE ONLY THING IT COVERS.

SO IT'S A VERY DANGEROUS RULE.

THE OTHER THING IS, I KNOW THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IS EXTREMELY UNDERSTAFFED RIGHT NOW, AND I THINK OUR CITY COMMISSION SHOULD NOT BE ASKING THEM AT THIS POINT TO CHANGE LARGE PARTS OF OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

THESE PEOPLE ARE UNDER STRESS, AND THEN THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HIRE PEOPLE AND TRAIN THEM.

SO I DON'T THINK ANYTHING SHOULD BE DONE WITH LDC FOR AT LEAST ANOTHER YEAR.

AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR TINA? NO THANK YOU TINA.

YES, SIR. YOU'LL COME AHEAD.

MY NAME IS BRIAN SULLIVAN.

1012 OCEAN VIEW COURT.

AND I WANT TO JUST MENTION ONE THING I DON'T UNDERSTAND ABOUT THIS PROCESS.

THAT AND IT SHOWS UP IN THIS MEETING.

NO ONE REALLY QUITE UNDERSTANDS WHAT THE TOTAL IMPACT OF THIS CHANGE IS GOING TO BE.

I MEAN, NO ONE CAN REALLY DEFINITIVELY SAY THAT THIS IS GOING TO, YOU KNOW, BE 2000 LOTS, 1000 LOTS, 5000 LOTS, 10,000 LOTS.

SO EVERYONE'S WALKING AROUND THE BLIND.

YOU HAVE NOTICES GOING OUT IN NEWSPAPERS TO PEOPLE WHO ARE ASKING THEMSELVES, WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? THIS IS A HIGHLY COMPLEX ISSUE, CLEARLY.

AND I WOULD SAY THAT THERE'S REALLY NO REASON OTHER THAN TO REJECT THIS.

THERE'S NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION TO MAKE A REASONABLE DECISION.

[01:40:05]

THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

YES, SIR. COME AHEAD.

BY THE WAY, IT IS SO NICE TO SEE DIFFERENT MEMBERS OF OUR COMMUNITY COMING IN TO SPEAK.

I WOULD SAY ALL OF US ARE STARTING TO MEET SOME OF OUR NEW MEMBERS OF OUR COMMUNITY THAT WE HAVEN'T SEEN BEFORE.

SO THANK YOU ALL FOR COMING.

AND I AM TO MARGARET.

IF YOU CAN GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

SO LAWRENCE TRIANO, 1511 COASTAL OAKS, REAL CLOSE TO AMELIA PARK COMING UP ON TWO YEARS HERE ON THE ISLAND AND WE LOVED IT.

WE MOVED SEVERAL TIMES OF MY CAREER FROM CALIFORNIA TO FLORIDA, AND WE KIND OF CAME HERE PARTIALLY FORCED A LITTLE BIT BY HOA'S AND SOME CRAZY DEVELOPERS, AND HE SAID IT REALLY WELL.

AND WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE? WELL, EVERY TIME I'VE COME UP AND I'VE SEEN THIS HAPPEN OVER YEARS AND PLACES ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA, PALM BEACH LIVED THERE.

AND THEN I JUST MOVED UP FROM THE KEYS.

SO IT WAS ALWAYS ATTORNEYS AND DEVELOPERS, AND I WATCHED A LOT OF SONG AND DANCE AND SHOWS AND ALL THAT.

IT REMINDED ME OF SOMETHING ON TV, AND WHEN I WAS YOUNG, I LIVED IN A DEVELOPMENT WHERE THE LOTS WERE 25 FOOT AND 50 FOOT.

THERE WERE ARE ONES OR TWOS AND OUR THREES AND ZONING SORT OF RULED.

AND THE PARCEL NUMBER WAS THE MATCHUP.

AND IT RELATED TO WHAT THE CITY DETERMINED AND THE BOARD AS TO WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO BUILD THERE.

SO I'M IN AN R3 WITH A NICE PROPERTY JUST LIKE THAT GUY.

AND A DEVELOPER COMES INTO THE CITY AND SAYS, HEY, I WANT TO BUILD SOME BEAUTIFUL CONDOS.

I BOUGHT FOUR LOTS.

THERE ARE THREE, AND I'M GOING TO PUT 30 UNITS UP, TURNED AROUND, WENT INTO THE CITY, CITY CHANGED IT, GAVE THEM SOME VARIANCES, AND GUESS WHAT I HAD ACROSS THE STREET FROM ME? 60 CONDOS ON A ONE WAY STREET.

TWO WAY STREET WITH ONE LIGHT ON THE CORNER AND NO LIGHT TEN THAT WAY, AND A MALL ON THE OTHER SIDE.

AND IF YOU DON'T THINK I MOVED OUT OF THERE, I WAS GONE WITHIN THE YEAR, AND WHEN I WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT IT, I WENT, GOD HELP! I HOPE THIS NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN.

SECOND TO LAST STORY IS, AND I'LL TRY NOT TO TAKE TOO MUCH TIME.

I'M IN THE KEYS.

I LIVE IN A BEAUTIFUL HOME ON A NICE LITTLE ISLAND CALLED KEY COLONY.

SORT OF LIKE AMELIA AND DEVELOPERS.

COME IN. ATTORNEY COMES, PUTS UP THE BEAUTIFUL CHARTS, HAS THIS PALM BEACH ARCHITECT AND SAYS, OH YEAH, THIS WAS WIPED OUT IN HURRICANE IRMA.

YOU HAD 28 CONDOS.

WE'RE GOING TO PUT UP 30 CONDOS.

BUT WE WANT TO GO UP THIS HIGH AND WE WANT INSTEAD OF 20 FOOT SETBACKS, TEN FOOT SETBACKS ON THE OCEAN CAME IN THE CITY.

WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED.

WE SMELLED SOME FISH VERY CLOSE TO ME ON THE PLANNING ZONING BOARD.

PEOPLE WERE APPROACHING THEM, OFFERING THEM DEALS ON GETTING ONE OF THE OCEANFRONT THINGS, AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THE CITY STARTED BENDING AND BENDING AND BENDING, AND THEY APPROVED INSTEAD OF 30FT, 45FT.

THEN THE TEN FOOT SETBACKS.

AND TO YOUR POINT ABOUT TRYING TO GO DOWN THE ALLEY, AND MY COMMENT TO THEM WAS, WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU HAVE A FIRE OR SOMETHING HAPPENS ON THE BEACH? HOW DOES THAT EMERGENCY VEHICLE GET THERE? AND NOW INSTEAD OF THIS, YOU HAVE ALL THIS TRAFFIC.

AND IT WAS ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE POST OFFICE AND DURING TOURIST SEASON.

SHEESH. AND I SAID TO MY WIFE, IT'S TIME.

I THINK WE START THINKING ABOUT PULLING OUT OF HERE.

FUNNY PART TO THE END OF THE STORY WAS ANOTHER ATTORNEY CAME UP AND TRIED TO GIVE A CASE, AND RIGHT NEXT TO THAT PROPERTY WAS A $5 MILLION HOUSE.

WHAT WHAT THEY FORGOT TO CHECK WAS WHEN THEY GAVE HIM THE HEIGHT EXTENSION HE COULD SEE INTO THE BACKYARD AND THE POOL OF THIS GUY AND HIS ATTORNEY WENT TO THE STATE, WENT TO THE CITY AND TIED HIM UP IN COURT.

AND THAT PROPERTY IS STILL A VACANT LOT TO THIS DAY.

SO I'M JUST TELLING YOU, THAT GUY SAID IT.

YOU'RE WALKING A TIGHTROPE.

YOU GOT TO DO THE RIGHT THING.

YOU GOT TO CHECK YOUR FACTS.

YOU GOT TO GO BY THE ORDINANCES.

AND MY LAST QUESTION IS, WHO DOES THE AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC STUDY WHO DOES THAT IN THE CITY ADDS NOT REQUIRED.

RIGHT. WELL, THEY RELY ON THE STATE.

IT'S NOT REQUIRED, BUT THE STATE DOES IT.

AND MY BACKGROUND WAS TRANSPORTATION.

AND I'VE WORKED WITH FDOT A COUPLE TIMES ON SOME TRAFFIC ISSUES.

AND I'M THINKING, WHY DOESN'T THE CITY HAVE SOMEBODY PUTTING THOSE THINGS OUT ON EIGHTH AND 14TH STREET? AS THE YEAR GOES BY AND AS DEVELOPMENT GOES BY, AND INSTEAD OF THE 200,000 CARS THAT WENT OVER THE SEVEN MILE BRIDGE, NOW THERE'S 500,000 CARS THAT GO THERE.

[01:45:05]

BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS YOU NEED TO LOOK AT THE AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC BECAUSE IT DETERIORATES YOUR INFRASTRUCTURE, CUTS YOUR ROADS DOWN, AND IT ALLOWS PEOPLE TO START PARKING THEIR BIG TRUCKS.

AND I GUARANTEE YOU WHEN YOU'RE ON A STREET AND IT'S JULY, MORE POWER TO YOU.

ME, I CAN TAKE MY GOLF CART TO WALMART.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK? I'M GOING TO HOLD YOU FOR LAST.

MARGARET. HANG ON. THANK YOU AGAIN.

AND I STILL LIVE BEHIND THE FUNERAL HOME.

MISS BOK, CAN YOU CLARIFY THIS FOR ME? I JUST TO MAKE SURE I'M NOT SAYING THE WRONG THING.

WHERE ARE WE? ON THE OKAY, I'M HAVING A SENIOR MOMENT.

WETLANDS. OKAY.

WETLANDS AND FLOODPLAINS.

ARE THEY STILL BEING CONSIDERED TO BE REMOVED, OR CAN YOU ENLIGHTEN ME ON THAT? SO I. OH, THAT WAS THERE'S NOTHING IN THE WORKS RIGHT NOW.

THAT'S THE SHORT ANSWER THAT WAS BROUGHT UP BY I THINK VICE MAYOR STURGIS.

AND WE'RE NOT WORKING ON ANYTHING.

IT'S A NET DENSITY CALCULATION AND DEFINITION.

AND SO THAT'S NOT NOTHING IS IN THE WORKS.

SO THANK YOU.

SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS MY INTERPRETATION OF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT WE THAT THERE'S NO MORE LANGUAGE ABOUT WETLANDS OR FLOODPLAINS IN THERE BEING REMOVED OR CHANGED.

NO CHANGES IN THE COMP PLAN OR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE RIGHT NOW ARE IN THE WORKS OR BEING DISCUSSED BY STAFF.

RIGHT. OKAY.

WELL, I'LL JUST TELL YOU MY FUNNY STORY ANYWAY.

BUT THIS JUST KIND OF LENDS YOU TO MAKES YOU THINK ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS AS WE MOVE FORWARD, DEVELOP.

WE MUST HAVE DEVELOPMENT.

WE'RE NOT AGAINST DEVELOPMENT.

WE WANT STRONG DEVELOPMENT THAT WORKS FOR OUR COMMUNITY.

SO I WON'T TELL YOU WHERE THIS HAPPENED, BUT A DEVELOPER CAME IN, BOUGHT A PROPERTY OR THOUGHT HE WAS BUYING A PROPERTY.

GOES TO CLEAR THE PROPERTY AND PEOPLE WALK OUT ON THE STREET AND SAY, WHAT ARE YOU DOING? IT SAYS, I'M GOING TO, YOU KNOW, I'VE JUST BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY.

AND I KNOW SOME OF YOU KNOW THE STORY.

I JUST BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY, AND WE'RE HERE TO CLEAR THE LAND.

AND THE PEOPLE, THE WHO LIVE IN THE STREET SAID, WELL, WHAT'S THE ADDRESS? AND THE DEVELOPER SAYS, XYZ.

AND THEY SAID, OH, NO, NO, NO, THAT'S NOT YOUR PROPERTIES AT THE END OF THE STREET.

AND YOU JUST BOUGHT WETLANDS.

THAT WETLAND CONTAINS FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES OF.

IN CASE YOU DON'T KNOW THIS, THERE'S A WHOLE NEST OF ALLIGATOR SNAPPING TURTLES LIVING DOWN THERE THAT NOBODY WANTS TO REMOVE.

SO I'M JUST SAYING THINK ABOUT WHEN WE GO FORWARD AS WE DO OUR DEVELOPMENT, WHAT HAPPENS TO OUR WILDLIFE? I LIVE WITH ALL THE LITTLE DEER WHO HAVE NOW HAVE FAWNS AND ARE RUNNING ALL AROUND IN THE CONSERVATION AREA, BUT JUST SOMETHING FOR EVERYBODY TO THINK ABOUT AS WE MOVE FORWARD, ABOUT THE FLORA OF THE FAUNA AND WHAT WE'RE TAKING AWAY FROM US.

OKAY. JUST THOUGHT I'D GIVE YOU, I DON'T KNOW, I'M BETTING THAT DEVELOPER BOUGHT THAT PROPERTY THOUGH.

WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT CHANGE IN WETLANDS.

ANYWAY, IT'S A FUNNY STORY, BUT ANYWAY, JUST SOMETHING FOR EVERYBODY TO THINK ABOUT.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU.

ENJOY YOUR WEEK. THANK YOU SO MUCH, MARGARET.

FINALLY, I COULDN'T RAISE IT UP.

WE KNEW THAT. MARGARET KIRKLAND, 1377 PLANTATION POINT DRIVE.

I AGREE WITH ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING THAT CAME OUT OF MARK BENNETT'S MOUTH TONIGHT.

AND ALSO, I APPRECIATE MONARDA FOR REALLY ILLUSTRATING HOW IMPORTANT THESE CHANGES ARE FOR COMMUNITIES AND WHAT IT DOES TO THE COMMUNITY IN MANY WAYS.

WHEN I HAVE BEEN TO THE PLANNING OFFICE AND I'VE TALKED ABOUT HOW MANY PEOPLE I KNOW WHO ARE LEAVING AMELIA ISLAND OR HAVE LEFT AMELIA ISLAND, I AM TOLD, AND I QUOTE, IT DOESN'T MATTER.

SOMEONE ELSE WILL COME, BUT IT DOES MATTER.

IT MATTERS A LOT.

IT MATTERS WHEN THE COMMUNITY CHANGES.

IT CHANGES THE SOCIAL DYNAMICS.

IT CHANGES THE FUTURE OF OF THE COMMUNITY IN MANY WAYS.

WE ALSO HAVE TO THINK ABOUT OUR DEPENDANCE ON THE SENSE OF PLACE THAT FERNANDINA BEACH HAS.

IT'S CRITICALLY IMPORTANT.

IT IS THE FUNDAMENTAL FACTOR IN OUR ECONOMY IN FERNANDINA BEACH AND FOR THE ENTIRE COUNTY, AND WE REALLY NEED TO SUPPORT THAT.

[01:50:05]

WE CAN IMPROVE OUR SENSE OF PLACE, BUT WE DON'T WANT TO DESTROY IT.

AND THAT IS WHAT WE'RE DOING AS FAST AS WE CAN.

AND THAT IS VERY DISTRESSING.

SO THERE IS THE SOCIAL CHANGE.

THAT IS NOT GOOD.

THERE IS THE ECONOMIC CHANGE.

AND I WOULD ALSO SAY THERE IS THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE.

TO FOLLOW UP ON THE LAST LADY WHO WAS UP HERE.

AND WE ARE DEPENDENT ON THE TREES.

WE ARE DEPENDENT ON THE STRUCTURE AND UNDERSTORY OF THIS ISLAND TO PROTECT US FROM STORMS. OKAY. WE KNOW THIS IS COMING.

WE SEE IT ALL OVER THE PLANET.

WE SEE IT ALL OVER OUR STATE.

WE MUST BE MORE CAREFUL.

WE CANNOT DEVELOP EVERY 25 FOOT WIDE PARCEL THAT WE HAVE.

WE NEED TO BE SAVING EVERY SINGLE PARCEL WE HAVE.

AND YES, IF WE HAVE TO BUY THEM, WE NEED TO DO THAT BECAUSE THAT IS SAVING US A LOT OF MONEY IN THE LONG TERM, OKAY? AND WE REALLY HAVE TO BE AWARE OF THAT.

AND I CANNOT RESIST.

I ALWAYS HAVE TO SAY THAT IF THERE ARE PROPERTY RIGHTS AT ALL, EVERYONE HAS TO HAVE.

EVERYONE WHO IS A PROPERTY OWNER HAS TO HAVE PROPERTY RIGHTS, NOT JUST SOMEONE WHO IS DEVELOPING, NOT JUST SOMEONE WHO HAS A LOT OF MONEY, BUT EVERYONE.

OKAY, THAT MEANS THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE ON THE STREET WHERE THE CHANGES ARE PROPOSED.

IT MEANS EVERYONE.

AND I THINK THAT IS A HUGE MORAL DISGRACE.

THAT AND I NEVER TALK ABOUT SUCH THINGS.

RIGHT. BUT ANYWAY, IT IS A MORAL DISGRACE THAT WE WOULD ASSUME THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE DEVELOPING PEOPLE HAVE MONEY, ARE THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO HAVE PROPERTY RIGHTS.

AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I SEE EVERY DAY OF MY LIFE.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. MARGARET. SIR, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE YOU WANTED TO? I JUST WANT TO MAKE ONE POINT ABOUT RIGHTS.

AGAIN, BRIAN SULLIVAN, 1012 OCEAN VIEW COURT.

YOU KNOW ONE, RIGHT? THIS STRIPS FROM RESIDENTS OF THESE COMMUNITIES IS THE RIGHT OF A HEARING.

THIS IS EFFECTIVELY A REZONING, AND PEOPLE WILL ONLY KNOW WHETHER IT'S GOING TO BE IMPACTING THEIR IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD OR THEIR THEIR OWN, THEIR OWN NEIGHBOR NEXT DOOR IS IF THEY'RE GIVEN A RIGHT OF A HEARING, THE POSTING, YOU KNOW, A RIGHT OF A HEARING BEFORE YOU KNOW, A BODY LIKE THIS OR THE COMMISSIONERS OR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, WHATEVER THE SOURCE IS.

BUT RIGHT NOW, THIS STRIPS US OF ALL THAT.

IN FACT, FROM THE LAST TIME THE PLANNING STAFF HAD A RECOMMENDATION FOR IF THEY WANTED AN EXCEPTION TO, YOU KNOW, TO GO TO THE BOARD OF VARIANCE, THEN, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE POSTED AND IT HAD TO BE SOME FORM OF HEARING IT DOESN'T EXIST ANYMORE.

SO JUST KEEP THAT IN MIND.

THOSE ARE RIGHTS THAT THIS DOESN'T COVER.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

VANESSA. DID YOU WANT TO COME SPEAK? HANG ON JUST A SECOND. VANESSA STUBBS, 744 KENNETH COURT.

THERE WAS A LOT SAID TONIGHT.

AND I THINK MR. BENNETT REALLY HAS SOME GREAT POINTS THERE, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT ANYONE HERE, UNLESS I MISUNDERSTOOD, IS IN SUPPORT OF THIS OR PUSHING THIS.

SO WHERE ARE WHERE ARE THOSE SUPPORTERS AT? LIKE, WHAT IS THE DRIVING FORCE? IS IT JUST AGAIN, THE THREE COMMISSIONERS I DON'T WANT TO SEE THIS BROUGHT TO THEM YET BECAUSE THERE'S STILL SO MANY UNKNOWN QUESTIONS.

YOU KNOW, WHEN THESE WERE PLATTED AT 25 FOOT LOTS, WE DIDN'T KNOW SCIENCE LIKE WE DO NOW.

AND, YOU KNOW, WE KNOW REMOVING TREES AND COMPACTION THAT CAUSES OUR SOIL TO CHANGE AND TO SINK.

WE KNOW THAT OUR SOILS ARE TRANSLOCATED, SO THEY'RE CONSTANTLY MOVING.

SO IT'S NOT THE SAME SOIL THAT IT WAS BACK THEN.

AND WE NEED TO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.

I HAVE A QUESTION.

WELL, I HAVE SOME SERIOUS CONCERNS, ACTUALLY, ABOUT THE ANNEXATION PROCESS AND HOW THIS AFFECTS THAT BECAUSE SEVEN SIX, SIX, TEN RECORD IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF HOW

[01:55:01]

AND I KNOW THAT THE PLANNING STAFF AND THE CITY IS PROBABLY UNDER STRESS AND UNDERSTAFFED.

AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE HOW THIS WAS HANDLED IN THE PAST.

ARE WE IS IT THE SAME? IS IT BEING CONSISTENT? DO WE NEED AN OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE? YOU KNOW, THIS APPLICANT FOR SEVEN, SIX, SIX KENNETH COURT APPLIED THREE TIMES AND THEY ONLY PAID ONE TIME.

AND THIS WAS OVER ALMOST A TWO YEAR PERIOD.

AND SO IMAGINE ALL THE TIME WASTED AND THERE ARE CODES THAT ADDRESS THAT.

AND THEY WERE NOT FOLLOWED.

THERE WAS NO WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CITY FOR A CONTINUANCE FOR AN EXTENSION.

YOU KNOW, IT WAS GIVEN TWO DIFFERENT CASE NUMBERS.

VANESSA, CAN WE MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE STICKING TO THE, YOU KNOW, OUR ISSUE HERE? YES. AND I'M GETTING WELL.

AND THIS IS PART OF THE ISSUE THOUGH, BECAUSE AGAIN, BECAUSE OF THE COMPLEXITY OF THIS ONE, I THINK WE NEED TO ASSIGN AN OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE ON THESE ANNEXATIONS TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE BEING FOLLOWED.

BECAUSE WITH SEVEN, SIX, SIX KENNETH COURT, IT IT IS ABOUT DEMOLISHING A HOUSE WHICH IS DIRECTLY, YOU KNOW, DESCRIBED IN ONE OR 3 OR 5.

AND SO I KNOW THAT QUESTION WAS ASKED BEFORE, TAMMY, CAN YOU BECAUSE YOU HAD ANSWERED IT.

AND I THINK KELLY WAS LIKE WHAT HAPPENS WITH THOSE UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD ON THAT AND LET'S USE KENNETH COURT.

IT'S GOT THREE UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD.

ONE PARCEL.

THERE ARE IMPROVEMENTS THAT CROSS THAT BOUNDARY LINE.

SO HOW MANY HOMES CAN BE BUILT THERE? DID I'VE ANSWERED IT BEFORE I DON'T I DON'T RECALL ANSWERING THE WHAT WAS MY ANSWER.

I THINK YOU SAID IT GOES BACK TO THE IT'S STILL IT WOULD BE TREATED AS IT'S ALWAYS BEEN LIKE IN THE CITY.

SO IF THE CODE SAYS IT HAS TO GO BY THE UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD IN THE COUNTY, THEN THAT'S WHAT IT IS, RIGHT? AND I KNOW YOU'RE NO PLANNING STAFF WITH REGARD TO 766 AND OTHERS LIKE IT.

IF THEY'RE IN THE CITY AND THEY DEMO THE PROPERTY.

KENNETH COURT IS NOT IN THE CITY YET.

RIGHT. SO IF THEY IF THEY IF WE FIND WE TAKE IT IN AS WE FIND IT.

AND IF THERE WERE, IF IT WAS IN THE COUNTY, THIS IS WHAT KELLY GIBSON AND STAFF HAS SAID.

IF IT'S IN THE COUNTY AND IT COMES INTO THE CITY AND THERE ARE NO STRUCTURES THERE, IT'S TREATED AS IF IT'S VACANT.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU EITHER OF YOU GUYS SAID.

AND I WANT TO SAY THAT WAS AT THE FEBRUARY 14TH MEETING, MAYBE.

OR WAS IT DECEMBER? DECEMBER 13TH WAS THE PAB MEETING.

RIGHT. BUT YOU KNOW, THE WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT 766.

WE DON'T HAVE A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION.

AND I'M JUST SAYING IN CONVERSATION THAT WE'RE CALLING THE CONVERSATION I HAD WITH KELLY I DON'T KNOW, ABOUT THREE WEEKS AGO OR SO AND, AND WE TALKED ABOUT THAT AND WE THERE HAVE BEEN OTHER PROPERTIES THAT HAVE BEEN ANNEXED IN HAD YOU KNOW BUILDINGS BEFORE THAT WERE KNOCKED DOWN AND 10305 WAS NOT APPLIED.

BUT BUT BUT I MEAN, THAT'S NOT WHAT IT SAYS THOUGH.

IT, IT SAYS WHATEVER THE COUNTY UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD ARE AND THEY WERE THREE.

SO THAT'S A PROBLEM.

THE INTERPRETATION THAT YOU GUYS ARE SUGGESTING I'M THE ATTORNEY RIGHT.

I SUPPORT AND REPRESENT CITY STAFF AND THE CITY COMMISSION.

RIGHT. AND I'M DOING MY BEST TO KEEP US OUT OF LAWSUITS.

RIGHT. AND THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING WE YOU STAFF NEEDS TO INTERPRET IT.

WE DON'T HAVE A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION.

AND FOR 766 KENNETH COURT, WE HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL WE GET A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION.

AND THEN WHETHER OR NOT ONE OF 305.

WELL, I UNDERSTAND IT, BUT THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

ISN'T THAT A PROBLEM THAT WE DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER TONIGHT, THAT HOW IS THIS GOING TO AFFECT ANNEXATIONS FOR 1 OR 305? WE DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER FOR THAT, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DISCUSS.

ONE OF OUR PROJECTS IS TO SET UP A SUBCOMMITTEE, WHICH WE'LL TALK ABOUT AFTER WE'VE HEARD FROM THE PUBLIC.

AND SO THAT CAN BE SOMETHING THAT WE'LL TALK ABOUT AT THAT TIME.

AND SO WHAT IS IS SUBDIVIDING, REPLANTING AND THE PUD PROCESS.

THOSE PROCESSES. ARE THOSE ALL THE SAME.

ARE THOSE THREE DIFFERENT THINGS PUD THEY'RE NOT THREE DIFFERENT RECLADDING AND SUBDIVIDING.

WELL REPLANTING IS CHANGING WHAT'S ALREADY BEEN SUBDIVIDED.

BUT IT'S ESSENTIALLY SUBDIVIDING AGAIN OKAY.

SO YOU'RE USING THOSE TWO TERMS INTERCHANGEABLY OKAY.

AND PUD IS IS DIFFERENT OKAY.

SO THEN WHAT IS WHAT IS THE STEPS.

THEN IF SOMEBODY AGAIN YOU KNOW OR NOT EVEN IF IT WAS ANNEXED IN THE CITY, BUT AT ONE POINT, AT WHAT POINT DOES IT GO TO THE BOA TO GET THOSE ADDITIONAL HOMES BUILT IF IT'S NOT THE SAME UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORDS, IF THERE'S A HOUSE THAT IS COVERING UNDERLYING LOTS, AND THEY WISH TO TAKE THAT HOUSE DOWN AND RESTORE THOSE LOTS, THAT'S NOT THE THE WE DON'T USE RESTORE THE LOTS IN THE IN THE CODE.

[02:00:05]

THEY HAVE TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IF THEY WANT TO BUILD ON SOMETHING THAT THE, THE HOUSE AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES HAVE ALREADY.

AND THAT'S SO THAT'S WHEN THEY START GOING THROUGH THE PERMITTING PROCESS.

SO IF 100 AND 305 APPLIES, YOU MEAN WHEN HOW DO WE EVEN KNOW THEY GO TO THE PERMIT WINDOW? AND ALL OF THE BUILDING PERMITS ARE REVIEWED BY PLANNING, EVEN IF IT'S JUST A CURSORY REVIEW? SO IF SOMEBODY'S SAYING, HEY, I WANT TO BUILD THREE HOUSES AND THERE WAS ONE HOUSE BEFORE THE BUILDING PERMIT DEPARTMENT WILL SEND IT TO PLANNING.

OKAY. SO THAT'S HOW THAT'S HOW THEY GET ALERTED, GETS IT, AND THAT'S HOW THEY EVALUATED.

OKAY. SO BUT YOU KNOW, IT DOES SAY THAT IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THE HOUSE WAS DEMOLISHED, IT STILL STANDS.

AND SO YOU WOULD HAVE TO GET A VARIANCE FOR THAT.

SO MY POINT IS JUST THAT IT'S IT HAS BEEN.

VERY COMPLEX AND MESSY, REALLY.

AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WHEN YOU GUYS ARE TALKING ABOUT CHANGING THE LANGUAGE, MAYBE EVEN SPECIFYING ANNEXATIONS IN THERE, ADDING THAT I DON'T THINK ANYTHING SHOULD BE TAKEN AWAY FROM IT.

I THINK FOR THE MOST PART IT'S PRETTY GOOD, BUT ADDING THAT SO THAT IT'S CRYSTAL CLEAR.

VERY GOOD. MIGHT BE A GOOD SUGGESTION.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU VANESSA.

APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.

THERE WAS A LADY. DID YOU WANT TO SPEAK? I'M MARY COLSON. I LIVE AT 111 SOUTH FOURTH STREET.

I'M VERY APPRECIATIVE OF YOURS ATTITUDES AND EVERYTHING THAT YOU WANT TO HELP US WITH.

I WANT TO ADDRESS THE PUBLIC HEARING THAT THIS GENTLEMAN TALKED ABOUT HOW WE'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING.

WE DID HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING.

AND GUESS WHAT? 95% OF THE PEOPLE SPOKE AGAINST A DEVELOPMENT.

HOWEVER, ALL THE CITY COMMISSION EXCEPT FOR ONE THANK GOD FOR CHICK LOFTS CHOSE TO TOTALLY IGNORE WHAT THE CITIZENS WHO ELECTED THEM INTO THAT POSITION WANTED THEM TO DO.

SHAME ON THEM AND SHAME ON US.

IF WE AREN'T AT THE VOTING BOOTHS THIS TIME TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ELECT THE RIGHT PEOPLE, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT.

WE ALWAYS HAVE A GREAT BOARD UP HERE.

OTHERWISE THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.

OKAY, LET'S LET'S BRING OUR CONVERSATION BACK TO US.

YEAH. OKAY. WE TALKED LAST TIME ABOUT SETTING UP A SUBCOMMITTEE.

MR. GILLETTE.

HUM. YOU WEREN'T HERE.

AND YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU'RE NOT HERE? ELECTED. YEAH, SHE CALLED IN.

YOU GOT THE. YOU GOT THE POINT.

HAVE YOU. AND YOU SHOULD BE ON IT, I THINK.

DO WE HAVE SOMEONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK? ALL RIGHT. CAN WE PAUSE FOR A MOMENT? SURE. ONE. YEAH. DO THAT BEFORE WE GET STARTED ON THIS, BECAUSE I.

I GOT ONE THING I'D LIKE TO DO BASED ON SOMETHING MARK SAID 30 MINUTES AGO BEFORE WE GET BEYOND IT.

AND THAT YOU REMEMBER THAT.

THAT'S PRETTY GOOD. WE GOT IT FOR ME.

GO AHEAD. YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE.

SANDY CAREY, 1255 FOREST DRIVE, FERNANDINA.

SORRY I WASN'T HERE WHEN YOU DID THE AMENDED MINUTES AND MOTIONS AND ALL THAT, BUT JUST TO DITTO WHAT VANESSA SAID.

THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF PROBLEMS WITH THAT, AND THAT DOES DIRECTLY AFFECT YOUR COMP PLAN, YOUR LDC, AND I REALLY THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A CITIZENS OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE BECAUSE THERE'S I BET THERE'S BEEN THESE KINDS OF PROBLEMS ALL ALONG.

I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT GOT CHANGED, BUT I WOULD LIKE AN ANSWER TONIGHT PUBLICLY, BECAUSE WHETHER THE MINUTES WERE CORRECTED AND THE MOTIONS IS NOT WHAT'S RELEVANT.

THAT'S KIND OF LIKE SAYING, SORRY, I GOT CAUGHT AFTER THE FACT, NOT YOU, BUT SOMEBODY IN THE CITY BETWEEN DECEMBER 13TH AND AND THE COMMISSION MEETING IN FEBRUARY, WHICH WAS THE QUASI-JUDICIAL MEETING.

AND THOSE MINUTES AND MOTIONS WEREN'T EVEN AVAILABLE, AS YOU RECALL, CHANGED IT.

IT'S ONE THING TO CORRECT SOMETHING WHEN THE RECORDED PROPER IMPROPERLY, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED.

WHAT I WANT TO KNOW IS WHO IN THE CITY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PREPARING THE AGENDA PACKET THAT HAD THE MOTIONS AND THE MINUTES INCORRECTLY, AS AS FAR AS REFLECTING WHAT THEY DID.

THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WHO WHO I DON'T THEY ALL WORK.

THEIR PLANNING DEPARTMENT IS TWO PEOPLE RIGHT NOW I THINK TAYLOR AND KELLY.

I WOULD THINK KELLY HAS AND I THINK KELLY HAS THE FINAL SAY CORRECT.

YEAH. SHE'S OKAY. YEAH.

SHE'S SO AGAIN MY MY MY PROBLEM IS IS NOT THAT THEY WERE CORRECTED TONIGHT.

I'M GLAD THEY WERE.

BUT IT WAS AFTER THE FACT.

IT WASN'T DONE IN TIME FOR THE CITY COMMISSION WHO HAD TO LOOK AT THAT UNDER A QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING.

AND THAT'S WHEN THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE THERE.

THERE NEEDS TO BE A SERIOUS ANSWER TO WHY THAT WAS CHANGED, AND I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO GET THAT.

[02:05:02]

THERE WAS NO PAB MEETING IN JANUARY.

NO, I KNOW IT WAS CANCELED.

THAT'S WHERE THOSE MINUTES WOULD HAVE BEEN REVIEWED BY THE PAB HAD WE HAD ONE.

THE PROBLEM WAS THE PROCESS HAD TO KEEP MOVING.

SO THE THE EARLY DRAFT HAD NOT BEEN REVIEWED BY ANYBODY ON THE PAB.

SO IT WAS MORE OR LESS THAT THAT DOESN'T STOP THE WHEELS OF PROGRESS FROM GOING FORWARD.

I UNDERSTAND, SO I WOULD HAVE TO AGREE WITH YOU.

WE SOME MAYBE WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT A WAY IF WE DON'T HAVE A PAB MEETING, I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE DO.

THAT'S SOMETHING WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT LEGALLY.

BUT I THINK THAT WAS WHAT IT WAS.

IT JUST HAPPENED TO BE IN THIS CASE, THOSE MEETINGS MINUTES WERE VERY CRITICAL BECAUSE THE DRAFT OF THEM JUST DID NOT CLARIFY THE FACT.

IT APPEARED THAT WE WERE VOTING ON THE SAME THING TWICE.

WE WE VOTED AGAINST IT THE FIRST TIME WE TURNED RIGHT AROUND, BROUGHT THAT UP AT THE VERY MEETING, AND DIDN'T GET AN ANSWER.

THE DIFFERENCE WAS IN BETWEEN THERE WAS A MOTION TO NOT APPROVE THEM AS SUBMITTED BY THE DEVELOPER.

THERE WAS A SECOND MOTION MADE TO ACCEPT THIS IS A PAB NOW COMING UP WITH AN ALTERNATIVE TO GO AHEAD AND ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION, WHICH WE WERE IN AGREEMENT WITH, TO FOLLOW WHAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUGGESTED.

THAT WAS BASICALLY GETTING TO THE R ONE.

SO THAT'S WHERE THAT THE THE MINUTES WERE.

IT WAS THE WORDING, THE WORD WORDING OR THE LACK OF THEREOF IN IT THAT CAUSED THE ISSUE.

WELL, I THINK I SENT VICTORIA THE IN A I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE SEEN IT.

I HAD A CHANCE TO SEE IT YET, BUT I SENT THE ACTUAL MINUTES TO HER, AND IT WAS VERY CLEARLY THAT ONE WAS FOUR AND ONE WAS AGAINST, AS YOU SAID.

AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY WEREN'T AVAILABLE BECAUSE THE JANUARY CANCELLATION.

BUT THEN IN THAT CASE, I MEAN, IF YOU'RE VOTING ON AN ANNEXATION AND A POSSIBLE SLUM CHANGE IN A IN A MEETING AND YOU DON'T HAVE THE MOTIONS RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU OF THIS BODY, THEN YOU SHOULD POSTPONE THE ANNEXATION MEETING TO THE NEXT MEETING, NOT JUST GO AHEAD WITH IT, BECAUSE THAT'S THE ONLY OPPORTUNITY ON THE RECORD THAT PEOPLE HAD TO TALK.

BUT THE MINUTES THAT THAT WERE ACTUALLY VOTED ON, YOU MENTIONED THE THE DENSITY AND THE USE, AND THAT WAS NOT MENTIONED AT ALL IN THE MINUTES PROVIDED TO THE CITY COMMISSION.

IT JUST SAID IT EITHER COMPLIES WITH THE COMP LDC OR IT DOESN'T.

IT DID NOT MENTION LOW DENSITY OR REALM OR ANY OF THAT.

SO I MEAN, YOU KNOW, SO SOMETHING WAS VERY DEFINITELY CHANGED.

I MEAN, BASICALLY WHAT HAPPENED WAS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION THAT WAS MADE TO YOU IS WHAT WAS PUT IN THE CITY AGENDAS PACKET, WHICH WAS HEARD IN FEBRUARY. AND I UNDERSTAND TONIGHT YOU WENT BACK AND CHANGED IT TO REFLECT WHAT IT IS.

BUT AGAIN, IT'S A SERIOUS OFFENSE TO MESS WITH THE HISTORY, MINUTES AND MOTIONS OF A OF A PLANNING AGENCY OF A BODY BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION.

AND SO WHOEVER'S RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT, IT NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED.

AND AGAIN, I WOULD JUST WOULD LIKE TO ASK ALSO WHY THE AS MISS VANESSA MENTIONED, THIS APPLICATION HAS GONE ON FOR OVER 16 MONTHS. THEY'RE GETTING A THIRD ROUND WITHOUT SUBMITTING ANOTHER APPLICATION.

AND I DID A PRR AND I GOT THE RECEIPTS.

THEY PAID FOR ONE APPLICATION, BUT THEY'VE HAD THREE ROUNDS OF THIS, THREE ROUNDS TAKING UP THE TIME AND RESOURCES AND ASSETS OF THE CITY PERSONNEL.

AND THEY'VE ONLY HAD TO PAY ONE ONE FEE OF $7,000.

SO THAT'S WRONG BECAUSE THEY'RE GIVING UNDUE FAVOR COMPARED TO OTHER APPLICANTS.

I'D ALSO LIKE TO KNOW WHY.

ON THEIR SECOND APPLICATION IN JULY OF 2023, IT STATES THEY'RE SEEKING A SUBDIVISION PLAT WHERE IT DIDN'T SAY THAT ON THE FIRST ONE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAT.

I'M NOT SURE WHAT CASES.

YEAH, THIS IS NOT GERMANE TO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

WELL, IT IS IT TALKS ABOUT PLATS AND SUBDIVIDING.

AND I'M JUST WONDERING, SINCE WE'RE HERE TALKING ABOUT SUCH THINGS, WHY? YOU DON'T HAVE ANY IDEA.

I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT APPLICATIONS THE SECOND APPLICATION, NOT THE FIRST ONE THAT JUST WAS VOIDED OR LIKE IN JULY, IN JULY OF 2023.

I DON'T HAVE AN EXPLANATION ABOUT.

I DON'T DEAL WITH MINUTES OR STAFF REPORTS OR ANYTHING, SO I REALLY DON'T KNOW THE ANSWERS.

OKAY, WELL, WE CAN WE TAKE THAT? I MEAN, LIKE I SAID, WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PUTTING TOGETHER THIS SUBCOMMITTEE WHERE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TIME TO REALLY GET INTO THESE DEFINITIONS, WORDING THINGS THAT WE REALLY WANT TO HAVE SOME IN-DEPTH CONVERSATION ABOUT.

AND IF THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS.

I MEAN, YOU'VE ALREADY BROUGHT UP A COUPLE OF AREAS THAT YOU THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT.

THEN MAYBE THAT'S THE AREA.

AND I DON'T WANT TO DIMINISH YOU KNOW, THE DIRECTION THAT YOU'RE GOING, BUT I'M TRYING TO ENCAPSULATE IT SO THAT WE DON'T LOSE TRACK OF

[02:10:07]

WELL, I'M JUST BRINGING UP THINGS THAT I BROUGHT UP OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS AND JUST NEVER GOT ADDRESSED UNTIL AFTER THE FACT.

AND, YOU KNOW, IT JUST SEEMED LIKE AN UNDUE PROCESS WAS GIVEN TO THE APPLICANT OVER OTHER PEOPLE.

AND IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT SUBCOMMITTEES, YOU OUGHT TO LOOK AT AN OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE, BECAUSE THERE NEEDS TO BE OVERSIGHT.

WHEN YOU HAVE BIG ERRORS LIKE THIS, BETWEEN THE APPLICATIONS AND WHAT'S RECORDED AND WHAT GOES TO THE CITY COMMISSION, THERE NEEDS TO BE A CITIZEN LIAISON COMMITTEE HERE SOMEWHERE INVOLVED, WHERE THEY CAN BE LOOKING AT THESE THINGS AND MAKING SURE THEY'RE DONE RIGHT.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

DID YOU WANT TO YOU WANT TO.

YEAH, I WANTED TO THAT I WANTED TO ADDRESS A COUPLE THINGS.

MINUTES. FOR EXAMPLE, I AND I MAY BE WRONG ARE THE OFFICIAL MINUTES THE RECORDING OR.

IT'S NOT THIS PIECE OF PAPER, RIGHT.

IT'S THAT PIECE OF PAPER AFTER IT'S APPROVED BY THE BOARD.

THOSE ARE THE OFFICIAL MINUTES.

A PIECE OF PAPER IS THEN THE THE DRAFT MINUTES THAT YOU GET THAT BECOME FINAL AFTER YOU ALL MAKE YOUR CHANGES AND THEN VOTE TO APPROVE THEM.

IF THEY'RE APPROVED BY YOUR VOTE, THEY THEY ARE THE OFFICIAL MINUTES.

AND WHAT HAPPENS IF THERE'S AN ERROR? THAT'S NOT. RECOGNIZED IN THE CORRECTED MINUTES, BUT YOU CAN AMEND IT AT ANY TIME IN THE FUTURE, ANY TIME, AND YOU JUST VOTE TO AMEND IT. I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION, PROBABLY WRONGLY, THAT THE RECORDED MINUTES WERE THE THE MINUTES THAT APPARENTLY CAN BE AMENDED.

AUDIO AND VIDEO RECORDING.

YEAH. NO. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. AND AND TALKING ABOUT MINUTES, I HAD A QUESTION.

AND THE KENNETH COURT CASE, I NOTICED THAT WHEN THE CITY COMMISSION HAD THEIR PACKET TOGETHER, OUR MINUTES THAT WERE APPROVED, THE MINUTES THAT WERE IN ONLINE, I'LL SAY ONLINE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT WHAT WE DID.

IT WAS STILL THE INCOMPLETE MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS MONTH.

AND THEN WE CAME BACK AND MADE CORRECTIONS ON THOSE.

SO I THOUGHT THAT THE CORRECTED MINUTES WOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE COMMISSION'S MINUTES OR CASE, AND THEY HEARD IT, AND NOTHING HAD BEEN CHANGED FROM THE FIRST TIME.

I DON'T HAVE ANY EXPLANATION FOR THAT BECAUSE WE MADE SOME SIGNIFICANT, I WOULD SAY, CHANGES OR SUGGESTIONS, AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN THEY'RE NOT THERE.

RIGHT. AND SO AND SO LET ME JUST CLARIFY ONE THING TOO.

SO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT MY ROLE IS, PARTICULARLY IN QUASI JUDICIAL HEARINGS.

I DO NOT TALK ABOUT THE CASES.

I DO NOT REVIEW ANY OF THE STAFF'S WORK BECAUSE I AM REPRESENTING AT THAT POINT THE CITY COMMISSION AND NOT CITY STAFF FOR THOSE QUASI JUDICIAL HEARINGS.

SO I DON'T PAY ANY ATTENTION TO WHAT THE CITY STAFF AND YOU'LL FIND THERE ARE TIMES WHEN USUALLY IT'S MR. HARRISON POOLE OR SOMETHING REPRESENTING THE CITY, BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN ASKED BY STAFF TO REPRESENT THEM AND HAVE BEEN INVOLVED AT THAT LEVEL, WORKING THROUGH THE CASES.

SO FOR, FOR KENNETH COURT, I HAVEN'T HAD ANY INVOLVEMENT WITH STAFF AS FAR AS WHAT THEY PREPARED.

I REVIEW WHAT'S IN THE IF YOU GO ONLINE AND YOU SEE WHAT WAS ONLINE AND ON BOTH TIMES IT NEVER INCLUDED.

WE JUST WE JUST THE THE DECEMBER MINUTES WERE JUST APPROVED.

IS THAT THE MEETING. WHERE IS THAT THE MEETING WHERE KENNETH COURT CAME UP? WELL, I GUESS MY POINT IS IF THE CITY COMMISSION IS GOING TO RULE ON IT, SHOULD THEY NOT HAVE THE COMPLETE PACKET? NOT. DO YOU MEAN THE APPROVED MINUTES? THE APPROVED MINUTES? WELL, IDEALLY, YES, ABSOLUTELY.

BUT SO YOU'RE SAYING COMMISSION OFTENTIMES.

WE WOULD DO A RULING WITHOUT HAVING THE COMPLETE MINUTES.

YEAH. REALLY? I WOULD THINK THAT THE MINUTES SHOULD BE I MEAN THEY, THEY HAVE UP TO DATE, THEY HAVE I MEAN, THEY HAVE AND I'M NOT IN CHARGE.

RIGHT? I MEAN, IT LOOKS LIKE THAT, BUT I'M NOT ALL OF THE THING, ALL OF THE THINGS THAT ARE SUBMITTED WITH A PACKET, IF THEY, AS MISS KERRY TESTIFIED DURING THE HEARING AND SPOKE DURING THE HEARING IF AND SO DID MISS STUBBS.

IF SOMETHING'S NOT RIGHT IN THE PACKET, THAT'S EXACTLY THE TIME WHEN YOU NOTICE IT AND YOU COME UP, IT'S ON THE RECORD.

SOMETHING IS NOT. THAT'S THE BASIS OF AN APPEAL.

I MEAN, IF SOMETHING'S NOT DONE RIGHT AND IT'S IT'S PUT INTO THE PACKET THAT GOES TO WHAT IS YOUR COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

AND IF YOU DON'T HAVE COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, YOU CANNOT APPROVE AN APPLICATION.

WELL, IN THE CASE OF THE MINUTES THAT BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE THE APPROVAL, THEY WERE VERY CLEARLY MARKED AS DRAFT IN THE PACKETS IN THE PACKET.

[02:15:02]

RIGHT. SO THEY WERE NOT FINAL.

SO I DON'T THINK THERE WAS ANY LACK OF CLARITY.

THE OTHER THING IS, IF SOMEONE WERE TO LISTEN TO THE RECORDED MINUTES WHICH I DID OR RECORDED SESSION IT WAS PRETTY CLEAR WHAT WAS GOING ON.

AND THE LACK OF OF WHAT WAS IN THE MINUTES WAS DOCUMENTED IN TERMS OF THE AUDIO VISUAL.

SHE HAS HER HAND. WELL, I WAS JUST THINKING THAT AS A COMMISSIONER, YOU WOULD WANT TO BE ABLE TO READ THAT.

NO, NO, DISAGREE.

AND THAT WAS NOT AVAILABLE.

THAT'S ALL. THAT WAS ALL YOU HAD, MR. BENNETT, DID YOU ASK ME ABOUT? NO, I WAS GOING TO.

I HAVE A PETE.

I JUST I WANT TO GO BACK TO SOMETHING THAT MARK AND NICK WERE TALKING ABOUT A LITTLE BIT EARLIER.

I DON'T HAVE THE ABSOLUTE YESTERDAY'S COPY OF THE OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, BUT MY VERSION OF IT, WHICH IS A LITTLE DATED, DOES NOT EVEN DEFINE PERSON.

I'M SORRY, PARCEL IN THE DOCUMENT.

IT'S NOT EVEN LISTED IN THE DEFINITIONS IN THE SECTION ONE OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

NOW, IT MAY BE IN SOMETHING THAT'S ONLINE, BUT IT'S NOT THERE.

AND THAT'S WHY ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE TALKING.

ABSOLUTELY. NOW, THE OTHER THING TO THINK ABOUT IS THE FACT THAT ANY OF THIS DEALING WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WITH THE MODIFICATIONS ARE ONLY WITH MU IN THE R'S.

I THINK THE PARCEL IS APPLICABLE BECAUSE NOW WE'RE ONLY DEALING WITH.

BASICALLY RESIDENTIAL, NOT EXCLUSIVELY, BUT ALMOST INVARIABLY.

WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT DOING A PLAN, RIGHT.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RESIDENTIAL TYPE OF PROPERTIES, MU BEING WHAT I'LL CALL THE EXCEPTION.

SO I WOULD TEND TO PROPOSE WHAT I THINK WE HAVE A FLOOR IF YOU HAVE IT, DON'T HAVE IT DEFINED.

SHAME ON US.

ALL RIGHT. BUT THAT'S THE REASON FOR THE FOR THE REASON WE SAY LET'S MAKE SURE WE GOT THE DEFINITIONS RIGHT, EVEN WITH WHAT WE HAVE IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TODAY.

COMMITTEE DO THAT I THINK SO I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING.

SO THAT'S THAT WOULD BE PART OF IT.

BUT BUT AGAIN WE'RE NOT WE'RE NOT AGAIN, IT ISN'T A CASE WHERE WESTROCK IS SELLING THEIR PLANT.

WE'RE GOING TO SUBDIVIDE IT ALL BACK UP AGAIN.

IT WHAT THIS APPLIES TO IS ONLY THE R12 THREES AND AND YOU.

WELL, THE ONE THING THE PROPERTY APPRAISER DATABASE DOES IS THAT IT SHOWS THE UNITY OF OWNERSHIP.

AND WHEN WE TALK NORMALLY ABOUT PARCELS THAT WE FACE OR HE DIDN'T LIKE THAT UNITY OF OWNERSHIP, I THINK WE BEAT IT PRETTY GOOD. YEAH.

BUT BECAUSE I WANT TO HEAR MORE ABOUT THE PARCEL FROM YOU, I WANT I WOULD LIKE TO TALK TO DISCUSS THAT FEE AND I WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT TONIGHT.

OR DO YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT? I THINK I THINK I'D LIKE TO HEAR 1 OR 2 DEFINITIONS.

I WANT TO WALK OUT OF HERE KNOWING WE DID SOMETHING.

I THINK THAT'S GOOD FOR THE SUBCOMMITTEE.

I YEAH, I THINK YEAH, I THINK THAT WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE THERE.

MADAM CHAIR, I WANT TO GET BACK TO NICK.

IS THIS PART OF THE IS OUR SUBCOMMITTEE JUST BECAUSE OF 1.0305, OR IS THIS.

NO, ALL THESE PROPOSALS, WE STARTED OUT WITH A 103 0405 DISCUSSION AND SAID, OKAY, WE'VE GOT SOME QUESTIONS, INTERPRETATIONS OR LACK OF COMPLETE DEFINITION RELATED TO SOME OF THE DEFINITIONS.

AND WE GOT SOME OUTSIDE.

WELL, IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE THERE'S A PRETTY GOOD CONSENSUS ON THE BOARD OF WHAT WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT 1.0304 AND OH FIVE.

I MEAN, IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE JUST KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD TRYING TO DEFINE TERMS BECAUSE I NEED TO FIND BUT I'M NOT SURE IT AFFECTS YOUR OPINION ON 0305 AND OH FOUR.

I MEAN, WHY DON'T WE VOTE? IT'S JUST DO THIS.

YEAH, WELL, BECAUSE SOMEONE SAID PREVIOUSLY THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO REJECT THE PROPOSAL FROM THE CITY COMMISSION THAT WE HAD TO, YOU KNOW, HAVE SOME REASONING BEHIND THAT AND ADDRESS THOSE, OKAY.

THAT'S WHAT THE SUBCOMMITTEE WHOSE FIRST OF ALL, WHO'S ON THE SUBCOMMITTEE? WELL, IT WAS GOING TO BE PETE AND MARK AND NICK AND TYNAN ONLY LET ME SPEAK TO THAT.

BECAUSE AS A CITIZEN UNDER 2-1 22 OF THE CITY CODE, I LOOKED IT UP TODAY BECAUSE I WAS READING THE MINUTES AND SO AND I WATCHED A LITTLE BIT OF THE MEETING.

SO THE, THE PLANNING BOARD OR ANY OTHER BOARD OF THE CITY CANNOT FORM SUBCOMMITTEES.

YOU CAN PUT YOUR OWN MEMBERS, BUT YOU CAN'T ADD ANYBODY ELSE THAT'S NOT A MEMBER OF YOUR BOARD.

OH, BUT THEY COULD THEY CAN STILL COME TO THE MEETING AND THEY CAN PARTICIPATE.

AND YEAH, BE FOR SURE ALWAYS.

JUST LIKE ALWAYS. THEY'RE PUBLIC.

THEY'RE SUBJECT TO THE SUNSHINE LAW.

THE AND REGARDING CITIZEN OVERSIGHT COMMITTEES AND THE THE CITY COMMISSION HAS TO APPOINT THE BOARD OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. SO TINHA SORRY ABOUT THAT.

THAT'S PERFECTLY FINE, BUT I'LL BE AT ALL THE MEETING.

YEAH, I KNOW YOU WILL. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

OKAY. SO THAT'S THAT'S THE I.

YEAH, I JUST, I JUST FEEL LIKE WE'RE WE'RE MAKING A REASON NOT TO VOTE ON IT.

[02:20:05]

BECAUSE WE HAVE BEAT IT TO DEATH, AND WE'VE PARCELED IT, AND WE'VE DONE EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO IT.

I DON'T MIND SERVING ON A COMMITTEE TO TO PROVIDE DEFINITIONS OR ANYTHING ELSE, BUT OKAY.

GO AHEAD. RICHARD, I JUST I JUST FEEL LIKE WE'RE THERE.

WELL, I, I YEAH, I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT TOO, BUT I SPOKE TO KELLY YESTERDAY IN ABOUT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT AND ABOUT WHERE THIS STOOD AND HOW MANY PIECES.

AND I GOT THE IMPRESSION FROM HER THAT THERE WAS LANGUAGE IN THIS THAT NEEDED TO CHANGE BEFORE IT BECOMES TO US TO VOTE ON AND THAT CHANGE WAS HAD TO DO WITH THE CREATION OF SUBSTANDARD LOTS.

AND WHO COMES UP WITH THAT LANGUAGE? SHE DOES. AND THEN WE VOTE ON IT.

THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING.

BUT WE HAVE BEEN GIVEN.

BUT TAMMY IS LOOKING AT ME LIKE I'M FROM MARS.

WE WERE GIVEN A PROPOSAL THAT WE IT WAS RELATED TO.

I BROUGHT UP A DISCUSSION THAT THAT CHIP BROUGHT UP TO ME THAT HE MET WITH YOU AND KELLY, AND THERE WAS A CREATION IN SOME OF THIS LANGUAGE OF.

STANDARD LOTS, AND I WAS TRYING TO GET FROM HER CLARIFICATION OF WHAT THAT MEANT.

AND I GOT THE IMPRESSION FROM HER THAT THERE WAS LANGUAGE IN HERE THAT NEEDED TO BE CHANGED.

I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT. THANK YOU FOR FOR.

OKAY, SO THIS PARTICULAR LANGUAGE TALKS ABOUT THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.

IT'S LOOSENING THE RESTRICTIONS FOR SEPARATING THESE LOTS WITHOUT VARIANCE.

THAT'S THAT'S WHAT IT IS.

IT'S NOT CLARIFYING.

IT'S LOOSENING THE RESTRICTIONS.

I'M NOT AFRAID TO SAY THAT.

AND THAT'S WHAT THE COMMISSIONERS INTEND FOR IT TO DO.

THE CLARIFYING LANGUAGE IS CLARIFYING AND PUTTING MORE PRECISE LANGUAGE SO THAT STAFF NOW AND ALL THE WAY INTO THE FUTURE, KNOWS EXACTLY HOW THIS IS TO BE APPLIED WITH REGARD TO SUBDIVIDING AND SUBSTANDARD LOTS, ALL THAT STUFF.

SO LOOSENING THE RESTRICTIONS AND ALLOWING FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.

LET'S SAY YOU HAD A SWIMMING POOL.

THAT WAS THE ACCESSORIES, THE ACCESSORY THING ON THE PROPERTY OF THE MAIN HOUSE CERTAINLY ENCUMBERS THE UNDERLYING LOTS.

IF THIS NEW LANGUAGE WERE PASSED AND ADOPTED A SWIMMING POOL ON THE 25 FOOT LOT NEXT TO YOUR HOUSE, LET'S SAY THE SWIMMING POOL IS JUST ON THAT 25 BY 100 FOOT LOT.

IF YOU'RE ALLOWED TO BREAK THAT OFF THAT LOT 25 BY 100 WITH THE POOL OFF AND YOU DON'T HAVE OTHER LANGUAGE, YOU COULD BE LEFT WITH A SWIMMING POOL, WHICH IS NOT ALLOWED WITHOUT A PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE ON A LOT THAT THAT COULD THEN BE SOLD.

SO IF THAT SWIMMING POOL IS NOT NOT TAKEN OUT, THEN WE HAVE A NON-CONFORMING A BAD SITUATION.

WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE THOSE SITUATIONS WHERE YOU HAVE JUST A SHED ON A LOT LIKE THAT OR JUST POOL.

SO THAT'S REALLY WHAT I THINK SHE'S TALKING ABOUT.

DOES THAT SOUND FAMILIAR? YES.

OKAY. YES. THAT'S WHICH WOULD MEAN THIS LANGUAGE IS WE DON'T WANT TO VOTE ON THIS TODAY.

NO, NO. THERE'S A THERE'S ANOTHER ISSUE, I THINK.

I MEAN, WHAT WHAT NICK IS SAYING IS THAT HE'S HERE.

THIS IS HOW I'M INTERPRETING IT, NICK.

AND JUST TELL ME IF I'M WRONG IS THAT HE FEELS LIKE FOR MOST OF YOU OR ALL OF YOU, YOU ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS LANGUAGE AND THIS CHANGE WHOLEHEARTEDLY.

PHILOSOPHICALLY. NOT SO.

WHY? AND I'M NOT ADVOCATING I'M JUST INTERPRETING IS WHY GO THROUGH A SUBCOMMITTEE PROCESS OF OF TRYING TO DO DEFINITIONS OR TRYING TO WORK THROUGH LANGUAGE THAT YOU JUST DON'T AGREE WITH WHAT THE EFFECT SHOULD BE WITH THE CITY COMMISSION.

AND THAT QUESTION WAS ANSWERED AT OUR LAST MEETING, WHERE I THOUGHT THE CONSENSUS OF THE BOARD WAS NOT TO JUST SAY NO AND LEAVE IT AT THAT ON THE NEW LANGUAGE, BUT WAS LOOKING AT ME LIKE YOU WEREN'T THERE.

MAYBE YOU WEREN'T, BUT THAT TO EXPLAIN TO THEM, YOU KNOW, AREAS WHERE WE DISAGREE AND SUGGEST THE CHANGES THAT WE WANTED TO MAKE AND THAT REQUIRED US TO GO THROUGH SOME OF THESE DEFINITIONS, BECAUSE IN THIS NEW LANGUAGE HAS A LOT OF NEW AND THERE'S STILL CONFUSION, I THINK, IN DEFINITIONS.

YEAH, THEY NEED TO BE DEFINED.

QUESTION WHAT WHAT DO THE COMMISSIONERS WANT VERSUS I MEAN, WE NEED TO HAVE A PURPOSE FOR WHY WE HAVE A SUBCOMMITTEE.

AND WHAT WHAT'S GOING TO COME OUT OF THAT PURPOSE WAS DEFINED AS TO CLARIFY, ADD, TO MODIFY THE DEFINITIONS AS RELATED TO BASICALLY 100 AND 304 AND 105, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WAS BEING RESTRUCTURED.

BUT IT DIDN'T SAY EXCLUSIVELY BECAUSE THERE ARE I MENTIONED PARCEL.

HE TALKS ABOUT PARCEL LONG BEFORE WE TALKED ABOUT 103.

[02:25:03]

SO WE NEED TO GO MODIFY AND UPDATE THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

NOW THE SECOND THING IS LET ME CHANGE.

LET'S JUST ASSUME THAT WE GO AHEAD WITH THE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE, WHICH WE'VE ALREADY SEEN.

I'VE GOT A POOL HERE, A HOUSE HERE.

THE HOUSE IS ONE FOOT AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.

I SELL OFF THE PROPERTY NEXT TO IT.

NOW, CAN I GO BUILD A 25 FOOT HOUSE NEXT DOOR? NOW I HAVE A ONE FOOT SETBACK ON THAT SIDE.

HOW DO I NOW? I HAVE A HOUSE HERE AND A HOUSE WITH A 21FT SETBACK.

I'M NOT TEARING THAT HOUSE DOWN.

I DON'T THINK YOU CAN DEAL WITH IT.

I DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD DEAL WITH THAT.

OKAY, BUT WHAT MY QUESTION IS, WHAT ARE THE CITY? WHAT DO THE CITY COMMISSIONERS DETERMINE OUR DEFINITIONS? BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO MAKE UP DEFINITIONS AND HAVE THEM SAY, NO, THAT'S NOT RIGHT.

NO DEFINITIONS ARE IN A BOOK.

THEY DID NOT DO THAT.

NO, I DON'T THINK SO.

WE I BROUGHT A FEW DEFINITIONS LAST WEEK FROM STATE STATUTES.

WELL, THAT'S AN EASY PLACE TO GO.

WE MAY NOT ACCEPT THAT.

WE SAY WE WANT MORE CLARIFICATION, BUT YOU START WITH SOMETHING THAT'S GONE THROUGH THE LEGAL SYSTEM OR THROUGH THE STATE STATUTE SYSTEM.

WHATEVER IT IS, GET AS MUCH KNOWLEDGE BASE, LEGAL BASE AS YOU CAN HAVE TO GET IT.

IN THE CASE OF PARCEL, IT MAY BE JUST ADDING IT.

AND THAT'S ALL THAT WAS.

THE WHOLE IDEA WAS IF WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT.

THE DEFINITIONS THERE ARE.

THERE ARE 14 PAGES OF DEFINITIONS IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

MAYBE SOME OF THE OTHER ONES NEED TO BE LOOKED AT.

WELL, THE CITY THE CITY MANAGER SAID THE LAST TIME WE MET THERE IS NO RUSH, RIGHT? SO WE DON'T HAVE TO RUSH, BUT WE SHOULD AT LEAST SOLVE A FEW THINGS.

SO TO THAT POINT, I MEAN, WE BRING PEOPLE INTO THIS MEETING THREE, 4 OR 5 TIMES.

THEY'RE WASTING ALL THEIR TIME TO COME HERE.

WE'RE ALL OVER THE CLERK FOR NOT RECORDING THE MINUTES.

RIGHT. BUT THE ONLY THING WORSE THAN LISTENING TO THE MEETING IS WRITING ABOUT THE MEETING.

I MEAN, BECAUSE IT'S THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

SO, I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND, BUT A LOT OF PEOPLE LISTENING AT HOME, AND THEY AND THEY, THEY WANT A CONCLUSION.

YEAH. AND SO WE I THINK THE DEFINITIONS ARE IMPORTANT.

BUT WHY IS IT TIED TO THIS? IT DOES NOT HAVE A LOT OF OTHER THINGS TO TALK ABOUT TOO.

WE WANT TO SEPARATE THAT.

I CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO WASTE A LOT OF TIME.

ALL RIGHT. SO MAKE SURE WE MOVE FORWARD SO YOU DON'T MISS THE POINT.

THEY HAVE MADE A PROPOSAL OF A COUPLE OF PAGES HERE THAT THINGS IN THERE HAVE NOT BEEN DEFINED.

RIGHT. AND WE'RE JUST GOING TO SAY DON'T WORRY ABOUT THAT.

THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE. LET'S NOT LET'S NOT LET'S GET TO THE SUBJECT.

THE SUBJECT IS WHAT STAFF HAS PROPOSED OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. EVERYBODY HAS GOT A COPY OF THIS.

THIS IS WHAT KELLY SENT OVER TO US.

THIS IS PAB, KS 2020 4-0001, WHERE SHE STRUCK OUT 103 0410305 AND BASICALLY SUBSTITUTED THE LANGUAGE THAT SHE TOOK FROM THE CITY COMMISSION. YES, THAT THEY WON.

AND THAT'S WHAT IS IN THIS PROPOSAL.

THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT. AND PROPOSED THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE THAT THEY WANTED TO SEE IN THE CHANGES IN THIS, THIS SECTION OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. SO THAT'S REALLY WHAT IS ON THE FOR CONSIDERATION WITH THE PUBLIC. WELL, YES, THAT'S OUR JOB.

BUT AGAIN, WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT GO BACK TO SECTION OF OUR UNDER THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTION 11.0303 PROCEDURES FOR ACTION BY THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD UNDER C, THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD SHALL RECOMMEND TO THE CITY COMMISSION THAT THE APPLICATION BE APPROVED, APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS OR DENY.

THOSE ARE THE THREE THINGS THAT WE CAN DO RIGHT.

SO WE NEED TO KEEP THAT IN MIND.

AND IF WE WANT TO SET UP A SUBCOMMITTEE TO LOOK AT DEFINITIONS THAT CAN BE SEPARATE FROM THE LANGUAGE THAT HAS BEEN SENT TO US BY STAFF, AND IF WE FEEL THAT WE'RE READY TO, I GUESS WE CAN TAKE A VOTE.

IT'S BEEN POSTED, RIGHT? IT'S BEEN ADVERTISED ALL IT'S BEEN POSTED.

YEAH. SO I MEAN, IF WE WANT TO TAKE A VOTE TODAY IT'S UP TO YOU GUYS.

YEAH, BUT I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE DEFINITIONS.

BUT STRICTLY, THAT'S WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE ABOUT.

THE DEFINITIONS.

THE WORKSHOP FOR THE FOR THE SUBCOMMITTEE.

SUBCOMMITTEE. YEAH I MEAN THE SUBCOMMITTEE, EXCUSE ME.

SUBCOMMITTEE. WE VOTED TONIGHT.

WHEN DOES THE COMMISSION GET IT? WHEN WOULD THEY ACT? GENERALLY, IT'S THE NEXT MONTH AT ONE OF THEIR MEETINGS.

SO PROBABLY NOT THE FIRST MEETING IN APRIL, BUT THE SECOND MEETING IN APRIL.

OKAY. YOU KNOW, I DON'T.

[02:30:04]

YEAH, WHICH WE HAVEN'T DISCUSSED IN DETAIL YET, WHICH CONTAINS A LOT OF WORDS WHICH WE HAVEN'T DEFINED.

SO IF YOU WANT TO START AT THE BEGINNING AND READ THIS AND THEN DEFINE THE LANGUAGE, THAT'S WHAT OUR JOB IS.

AND WHENEVER THAT TIME THAT TAKES, THAT'S WHAT IT TAKES I UNDERSTAND THAT.

BUT WE HAVE THREE.

WE'RE GOING TO REACT TO 331 OF THREE WAYS.

RIGHT. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ASKED TO DO.

SO EITHER WE WE AND THAT'S WHAT MARK WAS SAYING, IS THAT IF WE EITHER APPROVE IT AS IT IS, WE APPROVE IT WITH MODIFICATIONS, WHICH IS WHAT YOU JUST SAID OR WE DENY IT.

SO THOSE ARE THE THREE THINGS THAT WE DO.

AND OUR LAST MEETING, I THOUGHT WE HAD DETERMINED AND DECIDED THAT WE WOULD NOT JUST SAY NO, THAT WE WOULD OUTLINE THE REASONS WHY WE THINK IT'S NOT A GOOD.

OKAY. SO YOU TWO ARE IN.

NICK ARE ON THE SUBCOMMITTEE, CORRECT? I HOPE YOU THREE.

YEAH, WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO GET RICHARD AS A PROXY.

WE'RE DRAFTING NICK AND YOU, WE'RE GOING KIDNAPING IF WE HAVE TO.

IT'S IMPORTANT THAT YOU BE ON IT.

VERY IMPORTANT, BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE WORKING KNOWLEDGE OF DEALING WITH IT ON A DAY TO DAY BASIS.

BUT JUST TO MAKE THINGS MORE COMPLICATED.

AND SO WE COULD TALK LONGER TONIGHT.

THANK YOU. BECAUSE WHO WANTS TO GO HOME AND HAVE A GLASS OF WINE WITH MY GOLDEN RETRIEVER? SO YOU KNOW, SO QUICKLY, I'M.

I'M ALL FOR THE DEFINITIONS.

I'M KIND OF WITH NICK ON THAT.

WE KNOW HOW WE'RE GOING TO VOTE.

WE KNOW THE BAR OR THE BOTTOM LINE IS, DO YOU WANT TO DIVIDE THOSE LOTS AND BUILD ON PERIOD? I UNDERSTAND THAT'S IT.

AND MOST OF US WOULD SAY NO, I'M FOR THE DEFINITIONS.

BUT YOU KNOW, TO GET THE REASONS SINCE SINCE THE CITY MANAGER SAYS WE HAVE ALL THE TIME WE WANT, I WANT TO INVITE SOME EXPERTS AT A WORKSHOP IN OUR MEETING TO COME IN.

ONE OF THE MEN WHO SPOKE, WHO I DIDN'T KNOW, WAS TALKING ABOUT SOME OF THE LONG TERM THINGS.

IF WE'RE GOING TO BUILD BUILDINGS, LET'S TALK ABOUT TRAFFIC.

LET'S TALK ABOUT PARKING PLACES.

LET'S TALK ABOUT EVACUATION, GETTING OFF OF HERE.

LET'S GET WITH MARGARET'S GROUP AND TALK ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT AND CUT THE SUBDIVISIONS UP.

AND IF THERE ARE A THOUSAND OF THESE PROPERTIES OR IF THERE ARE 500, WHAT IS THE IMPACT GOING TO BE IF WE'RE IF THEY'RE GOING TO BE 1000 CARS, NEW CARS, IF WE PUT CONCRETE ON THE ON THE PERVIOUS AND IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, WHAT ARE WE DOING HERE AND WHY ARE WE DOING IT? IF THE IF THE IF THE ISLAND IS NOT OVERBUILT, IF TRAFFIC IS EASY, IF WE GOT ENOUGH PARKING, IF THERE'S NO HARM BEING DONE TO THE ENVIRONMENT, THEN LET'S SAY YES. WELL.

BUT WHAT WHAT DO YOU THINK? GOVERNMENT. AND NOW COME ON.

BUT IF THOSE THINGS ARE GOING TO BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE QUALITY OF LIFE HERE, IF THEY'RE GOING TO RUIN THE ENVIRONMENT HERE, IF THE TRAFFIC AND UGLY BUILDINGS ARE GOING TO DESTROY THE CHARACTER OF LIFE HERE, THEN LET'S SAY, NO, THAT'S ENOUGH.

AND THEN LET'S THINK ABOUT TO, YOU KNOW, WE'RE HUMAN BEINGS.

WE ARE CREATIVE CREATURES.

YOU KNOW, YOU ASK JEFF ROSS, YOU ASK KELLY, YOU KNOW, THEY'LL SAY WHAT THE PEOPLE OF FERNANDINA BEACH WANT IS FOR US TO DO NOTHING.

BUT THAT'S NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.

AND WHAT WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT IS WE'RE NOT GOING TO BUILD BUILDINGS.

HOW DO WE MAKE THE PLACE BETTER, KINDER, MORE NEIGHBORLY? HOW DO WE MAKE THIS A BETTER PLACE TO LIVE AND BE NEIGHBORS WHEN WE CAN'T BUILD SOMETHING BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING? SO LET'S DO SOMETHING GOOD AND BETTER AND NOT TEAR THE PLACE UP.

SO THE REASONS WOULD BE LET'S LOOK AT THESE CHARACTERISTICS.

WHAT 500 NEW HOUSES OR 1000 NEW HOUSES WOULD DO TO THEM DUE TO US AS PEOPLE AND TO THE PROPERTY, AND THEN MAKE A DECISION BASED ON THAT. THAT WOULD TAKE SOME TIME.

BUT THE CITY MANAGER SAYS WE HAVE IT, AND I WOULD LOVE TO BRING IN SOME EXPERTS, MAYBE EVEN BRING SOME PEOPLE IN ON ZOOM FROM OTHER PLACES TO LIVE IN SMALL TOWNS WHO HAVE FLUCTUATING POPULATIONS, WHO'VE SOLVED PARKING, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE WHO HAVE THOUGHT OUT OF THE BOX ON THIS STUFF AND DONE CREATIVE THINGS THAT WE WE DON'T THINK ABOUT THAT AREN'T IN OUR FRAME OF REFERENCE TO DO AND LEARN SOME STUFF.

AND AS MARGARET SAYS, YOU KNOW, CREATING THE CREATION OF PLACE HERE IS ALL IMPORTANT.

AND WRECKING IT AND MAKING IT MORE LIKE EVERY OTHER PLACE, MAKING IT MORE LIKE THE PLACES THAT GET CROWDED WOULD JUST BE A CRIME.

[02:35:06]

GO AHEAD. MARK. I'M SORRY. THOSE ARE THOSE ARE VERY GOOD COMMENTS I WAS TRYING TO ASK.

I AGREE ALL OF THOSE THINGS ARE IMPORTANT.

OKAY. AND AT ONE TIME MOST OF THEM WERE IN PLACE.

BUT OVER TIME, ON THE STATE LEVEL, THEY WERE ELIMINATED.

OKAY. AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE CAN REJECT SOMETHING A PROPOSAL OR A DEVELOPMENT FOR TRAFFIC.

CAN WE DO THAT? NO. OKAY.

SO THEY'RE ALL GREAT THINGS AND I'M AGREEING WITH THAT.

BUT WE HAVE NO BASIS WE TO SAY NO OVER THOSE REASONS.

WE CAN SIT HERE AND SAY, WELL, IF WE DO THAT, THAT'S GOING TO CREATE FOUR MORE HOUSES, WHICH IN OUR MINDS WE KNOW THAT'S EIGHT CARS.

AND CAN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD HANDLE IT AND VOTE NO BECAUSE OF THE IMPACTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD WE DON'T AGREE WITH.

BUT YEAH, SO WE CAN'T CHANGE THE TRAFFIC.

WE CAN'T DO THAT. BUT IF WE KNOW WHAT THE NUMBER IS AND WE DON'T WANT EIGHT MORE CARS OR A THOUSAND MORE CARS, WE VOTE NO.

OKAY. BUT I'M TRYING TO BE A REALIST HERE A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE NO ONE'S GOING TO PAY FOR THE TRAFFIC STUDY, OKAY? AT ONE TIME IN FLORIDA, WHEN A DEVELOPMENT WAS PROPOSED, IT WAS A REQUIREMENT FOR THAT DEVELOPER TO SHOW HOW MANY CARS WERE GOING TO BE AT THE ROAD AT VARIOUS TIME PERIOD AT CERTAIN LOCATIONS.

ALL OF THOSE THINGS, YOU HAD THAT INFORMATION.

THE STATE ON A STATE LEVEL SAID, WE DON'T NEED THAT ANYMORE.

OKAY. SO FOR US TO TRY TO DO IT, IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN BECAUSE THE CITY WON'T SPEND THE MONEY FOR IT.

AND THOSE ARE VERY COSTLY THINGS.

SO INTUITIVELY, YOU HAVE TO DO THE MATH IN YOUR HEAD AND JUDGE WHAT WE CAN, OKAY.

DO AND LET'S DO IT.

THAT'S ALL. THAT'S ALL. SO WE GETTING BACK TO OUR SUBCOMMITTEE AND YOUR YOUR POINT WHICH IS WHAT IS THE PURPOSE. RIGHT.

OKAY. SO WE'VE WE SAID DEFINITIONS IS SOMETHING THAT WE REALLY FEEL IS IMPORTANT TO GO FORWARD.

CAN I JUST INTERJECT ONE I THINK WE NEED TO READ WHAT WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED OKAY.

AND THEN LOOK AT THE WORD AND LOOK AT THE DEFINITION.

AND IF THERE'S PROBLEMS IN THAT WE CAN DO TWO THINGS AT ONCE.

NO WE DON'T LIKE THIS FOR VARIOUS REASONS.

AND YES, WHAT WE DO NEED SOME DEFINITIONS THAT SHOULD BE INCORPORATED IN OUR FINAL WORK.

AND SO YOU'RE THINKING THAT AS WE READ THROUGH THIS, THAT THE DEFINITIONS THAT WE'VE ALREADY IDENTIFIED WILL PROBABLY POP OUT.

I MEAN, WE'LL SEE A LOT OF THINGS ARE ALREADY IN HERE THAT IS LEFT OUT OF THAT DOCUMENT.

YOU KNOW, THESE THINGS ARE HERE ALREADY, BUT THEY'RE NOT DEFINED ANYWHERE AND HISTORIC.

I'LL HAVE TO LOOK AT THEM. HISTORICALLY, THERE HAS BEEN A DESIRE NOT TO DEFINE THINGS, WHICH AGAIN CAUSES TROUBLE.

AND I THINK WE'VE ALWAYS NEED WE'RE GOING TO USE WORDS.

WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT THEY MEAN.

RIGHT I AGREE OKAY.

SO ALL RIGHT.

SO SO WHO WANTS TO BE CHAIR OF THIS THIS SUBCOMMITTEE.

WELL, I THINK YOU SHOULD BE, BUT I, YOU KNOW, SINCE WE'RE ALL VOTING FOR OTHER PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, BUT I, YOU KNOW, I'LL BE CHAIR IF YOU WANT ME TO. AND I WOULDN'T MIND BEING VICE CHAIR OF THAT COMMITTEE AND WORK TOGETHER.

I'D LIKE TO SEE A COMMITTEE WE ALL WORK TOGETHER ON AND BRING OUTSIDE PEOPLE IN WITH MR. DOSTER. I MEAN, THAT'S FROM THE COMMUNITY.

SO WE DOCUMENT THOSE THINGS.

AND USUALLY WHAT ENDS UP IS THAT ALL THE MEMBERS OF EVERYBODY SHOWS UP ANYWAY.

SO, SO, SO WHEN ARE WE DOING THAT FIRST MEETING? I WOULD SET SOME AT LEAST AT LEAST THREE FUTURE MEETINGS BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE GOING TO IT SHOULD BE AT LEAST THAT.

AND THEN WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT ADVERTISING, YOU KNOW, IN THE FUTURE AND BEING TOO LATE AND THINGS.

BUT DO SUBCOMMITTEES HAVE TO BE THEY HAVE TO BE NOTICED? YES. YEAH. WE DO A WORKSHOP.

WELL, SAME THING, SAME THING, SAME THING.

RIGHT. WE'RE JUST SO WE'RE SELF SUBCOMMITTEE.

ALL RIGHT. SO WE'VE GOT MARK BEAT NICK AND I'LL BE CHAIR AND MARK IS GOING TO BE VICE CHAIR. OKAY.

I'LL DO WHATEVER I CAN TO HELP.

THANK YOU. AND SO THEN THE QUESTION THEN IS WHEN DO WE WANT TO HAVE OUR SUBCOMMITTEES FIRST MEETING.

SO TODAY'S THE 13TH.

AND I THINK WE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT HOW THE 27TH WHAT THEY NEED WHAT ONE WEEK OR 14 DAYS TO KNOW AT LEAST A WEEK FOR A WEEK KNOWS.

OKAY. SO WHAT?

[02:40:01]

WELL, I KNOW, I'M JUST TRYING TO FIND OUT WHAT HOW MUCH TIME 7TH OF MARCH WOULD BE YOUR.

I WON'T BE HERE.

I WON'T BE THERE. ARE WE GOING TO REPLACE JOHN SOON? WELL, THAT'S UP TO THE CITY COMMISSION.

THAT'S UP TO THE CITY. THE CITY COMMISSION HAS TO DO THE COMMISSION APPLICANTS.

WE NEED ANOTHER MEMBER.

ALL RIGHT, SO WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? YOU'RE NOT HERE. IN TWO WEEKS, I WON'T HEAR.

I WON'T BE HERE ON THE 27TH.

WHATEVER. I'LL BE HERE WHATEVER DAY YOU SET UP.

BUT I'LL BE BACK, OKAY? THAT'S THE ONLY TIME I WON'T BE HERE.

OKAY? OKAY.

SO THEN WE'VE GOT ANOTHER REGULAR PAB ON THE 10TH OF APRIL, AND I PENNED IN ON THE 24TH AS A POTENTIAL WORKSHOP.

WE'VE ALREADY GOT THE 24TH OF APRIL.

UHHUH. DO YOU KNOW IF WE HAVE ANY THING ON OUR AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING? I DON'T KNOW, OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. SO. SO THE 24TH OF APRIL IS A WEDNESDAY.

YEAH, WE'RE OFF THE HOOK.

AND NOW YOU CAN YOU CAN HAVE A MEETING HERE IF IT'S AVAILABLE.

OR YOU CAN HAVE IT UPSTAIRS IF YOU WANT TO.

HOW MANY PEOPLE YOU CAN DESIGNATE ANY PLACE YOU WANT TO HAVE OUR WORKSHOP.

IT'S GOT TO BE ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC.

RIGHT. IT'S GOT TO BE ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC.

RIGHT? ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC.

WELL, WE'VE GOT ON THE 24TH, WE HAVE THE PARK CENTER, STUFF LIKE THAT.

YEAH, YEAH, YEAH. ALL RIGHT.

I THINK WE SHOULD GO AHEAD AND JUST BOOK IT.

AND THEN IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT COMES UP YOU TELL ME WHAT DAYS.

ALL RIGHT. OKAY. THE 24TH OF APRIL.

AND THIS IS YOUR SUBCOMMITTEE, CORRECT? THIS IS SUBCOMMITTEE. OKAY.

NOTHING IN MARCH? NO, I DON'T THINK WE CAN MEET.

I DON'T KNOW, YOU'RE OUT.

I'M OUT. WHAT ABOUT OUR.

MARCH, RIGHT. YEAH. THIS IS MARCH.

YEAH. WE ONLY GOT THE WEEK.

APRIL. OKAY. IT'S GONNA BE APRIL.

AND SO APRIL THE 10TH IS OUR REGULAR MEETING.

AND APRIL, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE HERE FOR THEIR REGULAR MEETING.

IT'LL BE ON THE 24TH.

OKAY, BUT THERE'S NOTHING BEFORE THE 24TH.

I MEAN, WE'VE GOT A REGULAR MEETING ON THE 10TH.

WE SCHEDULE ONE ON THE 10TH, TOO.

I MEAN, DON'T LET A MEETING GO BY.

CAN'T THE SUBCOMMITTEE MEET? ABSOLUTELY. WE JUST OPEN UP THE PAB MEETING AND DO OUR BUSINESS AND THEN FINISH.

YES. OKAY, SO THE TEN DO THE 10TH AND THE 24TH.

OKAY. AND LET'S DO ONE MORE.

JUST ONCE RICHARD AND I BE HERE.

YOU COULD BE HERE BOTH DAYS.

BOTH THE 10TH FOR A REGULAR MEETING.

OKAY. AND THE 24TH.

WHAT TIME DO WE WANT TO MEET ON THE 24TH? THREE, 3:00 O'CLOCK.

HEAVY WORK. SO 3:00 ON ALL OF THEM.

JUST WHAT WERE YOU WALKING THROUGH TO THAT? BUT THE IDEA FOR A SUBCOMMITTEE IS TO HAVE FEWER PEOPLE SO THEY CAN CONCENTRATE.

DO WE JUST LISTEN? YOU CAN PARTICIPATE.

ABSOLUTELY. SO TO BE CLEAR, 3:00 ON 410, 3:00 ON 424.

410 I CANNOT DO 5:00 ON 410.

CAN YOU BE HERE? FIVE 5:00 O'CLOCK OKAY, I'LL DO FIVE.

I'LL. SO, YOU KNOW, UNLESS SOMETHING COMES IN BETWEEN NOW AND THEN FOR US TO.

I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING I MEAN, I THINK IS, I MEAN, I THINK IT'S A GOOD TIME FRAME BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF STUFF THAT WE CAN'T EVEN SLOW DOWN NOT GOING TO BE HEARING BECAUSE OF THE ELECTION COMING UP.

RIGHT. THERE'S NO ANNEXATION.

THERE'S NO ANNEXATION.

SO THAT'S UNTIL 2025.

OKAY. BETWEEN NOW AND THEN, THE WORKSHOP, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WE WANT TO ASK OF THE CITY COMMISSIONERS? NO CLARIFICATION.

NO, NO, WE'VE GOT ALL THE CLARIFICATION.

WE NEED EVERYTHING THAT.

OKAY. SO 5:00.

ALL RIGHT. ONE MORE DAY AFTER THE 24TH.

I WANT TO GET THE THING MOVING ALONG THE 24TH OF 3:00.

ALL RIGHT, SO OUR OUR MAY MEETING, IF HE CAN'T BE HERE AT THREE.

SO HE'S NOT ON THE.

WAIT A MINUTE. YOU GOT TO BE AT 5:00.

WELL, THE APRIL 5TH, APRIL 24TH.

I CAN DO THREE. OKAY.

I CAN'T ON THE 10TH.

RIGHT. WELL, THE 10TH IS 5:00, RIGHT? THAT'S THE REGULAR MEETING. IT'S A REGULAR MEETING, BUT THE 24TH I CAN DO THREE.

AND THE ONLY THING THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THE ROOMS ARE AVAILABLE, WE ALREADY HAVE THAT AS A STANDARD.

IT'S OUR ROOM. SO DID YOU SAY YOU WERE AVAILABLE TO START AT THREE? PROBABLY. ALSO, YES, THE 24TH.

OKAY. GOOD. OKAY. EVERYBODY'S GOOD ON THE 24TH.

WE'RE GOING TO BE HERE. YEAH.

HERE. OKAY. THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING IN MAY OR THE REGULAR PAB MEETING IS ON THE EIGHTH RIGHT NOW.

KEEP IN MIND THAT SOMEWHERE IN THAT IT'S RIGHT AFTER THE WEEK.

THAT'S THE WEDNESDAY AFTER THE SHRIMP FEST.

THE MAY 8TH IS THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING.

MAY THE 8TH AT 5:00.

YEAH. SO WE. COULD DO THE SAME THING.

WHERE? WHERE WE HAVE THE SUBCOMMITTEE.

[02:45:03]

WHAT DATE? THE EIGHTH.

MAY 8TH. YEAH. OKAY.

NOW, WHO KNOWS WHAT COULD COME BEFORE US AT THAT TIME.

BUT YEAH, WE DON'T. WE CAN DISPATCH THAT AND THEN FINISH THAT MEETING AND GO RIGHT INTO THE SUBCOMMITTEE.

I'VE GOT ANOTHER WORKSHOP YOU COULD DO IN MAY 22ND.

WE'RE GOING TO START AT FIVE REGULAR MEETING, 5:00, SETTING UP A FEW OF THEM.

AND IF IT TAKES US 30 MINUTES TO FINISH THAT OFF, WE'LL FINISH THAT BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

NO, WE DON'T KNOW.

WELL, LET'S PIN IN ALSO THE 22ND OF MAY THERE'S A PLACEHOLDER IS A PLACEHOLDER.

YEAH. AT 5:00 I WOULD I WOULD RECOMMEND DOING IT FIVE.

JUST FOR THREE. 3:00.

YEAH I CAN DO THREE. I DON'T WANT TO BE THERE.

WELL, KEEP IN MIND, YOU KNOW, SOME PEOPLE WORK LIKE NICK AND NICK, SO SOMETIMES THREE THREE'S GOOD.

THREE'S OKAY. WORK THAT OUT.

HE SAID THREE. OKAY.

SO THAT. SO THAT WOULD GET YOU THROUGH MAY 22ND.

IF WE CAN'T FIGURE IT OUT BY THEN.

I THINK THAT'S A GOOD PLACE FOR NOW.

THAT AT LEAST SETS UP.

WELL, THE OTHER THING IS, I THINK WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO FEED.

IF YOU'VE GOT ITEMS THAT WE WANT TO CONSIDER FOR THE DEFINITION LIST, THEY NEED TO BE FUNNELED INTO KELLY SO SHE CAN PUT SOME PRELIMINARY.

WE DON'T WANT TO BE STARTING OUT FROM GROUND ZERO.

I MEAN I'VE GOT I'VE GOT 19 ITEMS THAT I'VE IDENTIFIED.

SO DEFINITION.

SO WE HAVE SOME RULES AHEAD OF TIME.

YEAH. AND LET'S AGREE THAT THOSE ARE THE DEFINITIONS.

AND THEN LET'S AGREE ON WHAT WE THINK THE MOST ACCURATE PROCESS IS TO GET THE DEFINITION FOR.

WE MAY BE ABLE TO SAY RIGHT IN THE IN ON THE COMPUTER SCREEN AND LOOK THEM UP AS WE GO.

BUT WE NEED TO GET THE RIGHT LIST TOGETHER FIRST, RIGHT.

SO THAT'S GOING TO BE THROUGH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

WE'LL, WE'LL WE'LL FUNNEL THOSE TO KELLY AND SHE'LL SEND US BY EMAIL.

AND SHE WILL SHE DOESN'T KNOW SHE'S GOT TO DO ANYTHING YET.

THAT'S WHY I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE GOT SOME KIND OF KNOW.

BUT I MEAN SHE BUT WE CAN ASK HER TO DO WE CAN SEND THE STUFF TO HER, LET HER CONSOLIDATE AND THEN SEND IT BACK OUT TO US.

AS. CAN I SUGGEST SOMETHING? YEAH. I WOULD SUGGEST FOR OUR FIRST MEETING AS A PART OF OUR AGENDA IS A TOTAL REVIEW OF 103.04 AS PROPOSED.

LET'S LOOK AT THAT, BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO SIT DOWN AND I WOULD LIKE TO READ AND GO OVER IT AT OUR MEETING AND FIGURE OUT WHAT IT SAYS AND WHAT IT MEANS.

OKAY. WELL, I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED.

THERE'S NO SENSE JUMPING SOMEWHERE ELSE UNTIL YOU GET THROUGH HERE.

AND THEN THAT'LL IDENTIFY SOME OF OUR ISSUES, WHICH THEN GOES INTO OUR DEFINITION.

THAT'D BE BECAUSE WE CAN'T EVEN MEET FOR AN AGENDA WITHOUT NOTICING A MEETING.

SO KEEP THAT IN MIND.

MEMBERS HERE SUNSHINE PREVAILS.

SO WHAT WE DO HAS TO BE DONE AT OUR MEETING.

SO WE'RE ALL TOGETHER. IS THAT GOING TO BE A REGULAR PAB OR A WORKSHOP? IT DOESN'T MATTER. IT DOESN'T CHAIR.

DON'T GET THAT STUFF OUT OF YOUR MIND.

WE HAVE REGULAR MEETINGS THAT MADAM CHAIR, WE.

YES, MA'AM. JUST SO I, WE DON'T GO OFF THE RAILS AND COSTS.

NO, I WELL, I WAS GOING TO SAY TOO MUCH ANYWAY.

IF YOU ARE NOT GOING TO VOTE WITH YOUR THREE OPTIONS ON THE CASE TONIGHT, PLEASE VOTE TO POSTPONE CONSIDERATION BY THE FULL BOARD. IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO THAT FOR APRIL THE 8TH OR 10TH, THEN THEN SOMEBODY MAY NOT AT THIS MOMENT, BUT JUST BEFORE I FOR FORGET WE NEED TO MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE TO A DATE CERTAIN OR THIS HAS TO BE RE-ADVERTISED AT A COST OF $500 EACH TIME.

ALL RIGHT. WELL SO SET A DEADLINE FOR THE 22ND OF MAY.

THAT WOULD BE. THAT WOULD BE.

IT WOULD BE FOR THIS MEETING TO OUR.

WE'RE POSTPONING IT TO OUR JUNE MEETING.

NO, I UNDERSTAND, BUT OUR JUNE MEETING.

OKAY. I'M GOING TO MAY.

WELL UNLESS WE'RE READY.

OKAY. YOU THINK. WELL I MEAN THAT MIGHT BE.

WELL, YOU CAN ALWAYS POSTPONE IT AGAIN.

AND WE CAN ALWAYS POSTPONE IT AGAIN.

YEAH, YEAH. SO MAY 20TH, SHE JUST SUGGESTING THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO KEEP NOTICING AND DOING.

YOU CAN DO IT ONE TIME I WOULD SAY THAT, YOU KNOW IF YOU FINISH YOUR WORK EARLY, THEN, YOU KNOW, IN OTHER WORDS, IF IT DOESN'T TAKE ALL OF THESE MEETINGS AND YOU GET TO A POINT YOU COULD DO, YOU COULD DO WHAT YOU SAID IS POSTPONE IT OUT IN TIME WHERE YOU THINK YOU WOULD TAKE IT UP AS THE BOARD TO VOTE ON THE THE CASE NUMBER, OR YOU COULD JUST POSTPONE IT AT EACH MEETING.

BOTH WORK. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. SO THIS IS IT'LL BE APRIL 12TH.

WE I THINK WE'RE AT LEAST TO THE END OF APRIL.

THAT LAST MEETING IN APRIL THAT WE SAID FOR A WORKSHOP WHERE WE TALK ABOUT MAY.

SO I'M NOT SURE, BUT WE CAN ALWAYS POSTPONE IT IF WE'RE IF WE'RE NOT FINISHED.

WELL, I SAY JUST WELL DUE MAY 22ND IF THAT'S THE DATE THAT YOU WANT TO DO.

QUESTION WE HAVE. WE HAD TO POSTPONE IT TO THE NEXT MEETING AND THEN WE CAN POSTPONE IT AGAIN.

[02:50:04]

JUST TAKE A SMALL BITE AND GO AND I AGREE WITH IT.

BUT NICK BRINGS UP AN INTERESTING POINT ABOUT VOTING.

NOW, I KNOW I'M RETRAINING A LITTLE BIT HERE, BUT RICHARD BROUGHT UP SOME POINTS AND IT KIND OF GETS INTO, I GUESS WHAT I'LL CALL IS THIS CONCURRENCE ANALYSIS, WHICH YOU'RE SAYING GOING BACK, MAKE SURE WE UNDERSTAND MY FRUSTRATION RIGHT NOW IS I HAVE NO IDEA WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS FIVE PROPERTIES OR 5000 PROPERTIES.

WE DON'T HAVE CORE FUNDAMENTAL STRUCTURAL INFORMATION TO MAKE A VALID DECISION.

IF WE DON'T HAVE A ROAD MAP TO GET TO IT, THEN WE VOTE IT, GET RID OF IT.

NOW TAKE IT OFF THE LIST.

WE DON'T, AND I THINK WE SHOULD, BUT WHETHER IT'S 5 OR 500, IF YOU SPLIT THESE LOTS AND YOU CAN BUILD ON THEM AND WE HAVE THE VISIBILITY ISSUES AND WHATNOT, IF WHETHER THERE ARE 5 OR 5000, IF THIS MAN LOSES HIS VIEW OF THE OCEAN BECAUSE SOMEBODY SPLIT THAT LOT AND IT'S JUST ONE GUY THAT'S WRONG.

AND SO THERE IS THE THERE'S A QUANTITATIVE NUMBER, BUT JUST PRINCIPALLY IT'S WRONG TO DO THAT TO THAT MAN.

JUST ONE TIME.

SO ANY NEGATIVE GREATER THAN ZERO IS IT'S BAD.

YEAH. AND WE HAVE CODE IN PLACE NOW THAT PROHIBITS THAT.

AND SO YEAH. SO IF THIS GUY LOSES HIS VIEW AND JUST ONE IT'S BAD.

ALTHOUGH I WOULD SAY THE CODE THAT'S IN PLACE NOW IS THE INCORRECT INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE ORIGINALLY WHICH IS CREATED SOME OF THESE ADDITIONAL ONES.

BUT OKAY, LET'S JUST LET'S GET BACK TO WE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION OR I LIKE TO HEAR A MOTION THAT WE POSTPONE THIS TO OUR APRIL 10TH.

APRIL 10TH, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE THE DISCUSSION AT 1.0305 TO THE APRIL 10TH REGULAR MEETING.

SECOND. OKAY, THAT'S A SECOND.

AND THAT'S A CASE.

2020 4-0001.

FEELS LIKE 2019.

YEAH. YES.

ALL RIGHT I WOULD SECOND THAT ONE.

ALL RIGHT. WELL RICHARD IS ALREADY SECOND THE MOTION.

YEAH. ALL RIGHT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. THE MOTION.

OH WE WANT. THE ONLY PROBLEM I HAVE IS I AGREE THERE ARE CERTAIN REASONS YOU CAN JUST KEEP POSTPONING AND POSTPONING.

OKAY. MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE TO SET A LONGER DATE BECAUSE THEN WE CAN OPERATE ANY TIME WITHIN THAT DATE.

SO IF WE SAY FOR EXAMPLE, MAY 22ND IS OUR FINAL TIMINGS, WE HAVE ALL THE TIME IN THE WORLD IN BETWEEN WITHOUT GOING THROUGH A FORMAL MOTION EVERY MEETING.

BUT WE CAN ALWAYS COME.

IF WE DO FINALIZE IT, WE CAN AT A MEETING SAY, ALL RIGHT, WE WILL DO OUR FINAL VOTE ON THIS, WHATEVER.

THEN THAT CAN GO IN AND BE POSTED THAT DAY AS A FINAL.

OKAY, THAT WAS GOOD DISCUSSION.

MY PURPOSES MUCH FURTHER.

SO I WOULD NOT VOTE FOR AN APRIL.

THAT'S TOO CLOSE.

OKAY. AND THAT WILL I MEAN WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE IT DONE AND THEN SO WHY LET'S TRY TO TELL EVERYBODY WE'RE GOING TO.

SO OKAY OKAY.

SO BUT OUR NEXT MEETING IS APRIL 10TH.

YES OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

ANY ANY.

ALL RIGHT. SO WE'VE HAD A MOTION TO THE NEXT TIME WE'RE GOING TO HEAR DISCUSSION OR CONSIDER ONE OF 305 IS GOING TO. WELL ACTUALLY IT'S THIS CASE NUMBER PAB CASE 2020 4-0001.

THERE'S BEEN A MOTION FROM MR. GILLETTE THAT WE WOULD HEAR THAT ON THE 10TH OF APRIL, THERE WAS A SECOND FROM MR. DOSTER. THERE HAS BEEN DISCUSSION.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? WOULD YOU AMEND THAT TO THE 22ND? BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT IT.

WELL, IF WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT IT ON THAT MEETING DATE, AND PEOPLE OUGHT TO KNOW THAT IT'S GOING TO BE ON THE AGENDA.

MY VIEW RIGHT NOW IS I WOULD LEAVE IT JUST IN THE TWO WEEKS FROM THE STANDPOINT IF WE DON'T START TO SEE THE INFLOW OF ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT WOULD CAUSE US TO MAKE A MORE INTELLIGENT OR MORE, I'D SAY A MORE EDUCATED DECISION IN THAT NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS, THEN VOTE IT DOWN.

NEXT MEETING IF WE SO WE DON'T SEE SOME PROGRESS.

AND I'M NOT QUITE SURE I CAN TELL YOU WHAT THE PROGRESS IS, BUT I THINK THE BASIC THING IS WE NEED THE FUNDAMENTAL INFORMATION TO AFFECT WHAT WE MAKE THE DECISION.

OKAY. PROGRESS FROM FROM WHO IT COULD BE THROUGH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WHO HAS GOT TO BE OKAY.

THEY HAVE TO GIVE IT TO US.

OH, WAIT A MINUTE, WAIT A MINUTE. HOLD ON.

REMEMBER WHAT IS BEFORE US.

WHAT IS BEFORE US? WHAT? WHAT IS CASE NUMBER? PAB CASE 2020 4-0001 IS WHAT STAFF HAS PRESENTED TO US.

AND THAT IS THE ONLY THING.

[02:55:01]

WE'RE WE'RE GOING TO THAT.

BUT THEY CAN MODIFY THAT BETWEEN NOW AND THE NEXT MEETING.

NO. NO.

YES THEY CAN IS THE ORIGINATOR.

THE CITY IS. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DO THAT.

BUT WHY? THEY'RE JUST THEY'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE ANY CHANGES TO THIS.

NOW, I CAN TELL YOU THAT YOU HAVE WHAT THEY THEY'RE GOING TO DO.

THEY'RE NOT GOING TO CHANGE ANYTHING.

AND THERE'S NO REASON WHY WOULD THEY MODIFY IT.

RIGHT. MY POINT.

YEAH. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DO THAT.

YES. YOU CALL IT CALL THE QUESTION OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WE'VE HAD WE'VE HAD A MOTION.

WE'VE HAD A SECOND. WE'VE HAD VERY GOOD DISCUSSION.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED LIKE SIGN NO.

ALL RIGHT. HAVING HEARD A LOT, A LOT.

NO. SIGN FROM MR. BENNETT. THE MOTION IS APPROVED THAT WE WILL DISCUSS THIS AT OUR APRIL 10TH MEETING.

WE GOT THAT. GOT IT.

ALL RIGHT, NOW, ONE THING I WANTED TO JUST DOUBLE CHECK ON SYLVIA.

I AM NOT POSITIVE THAT WHEN WE APPROVED THE.

WAS IT THE DECEMBER? I KNOW THAT FOR THE FEBRUARY, I'M TAKING US BACK HERE FOR A SECOND DIFFERENT SUBJECT.

THE FEBRUARY 14TH.

I REMEMBER THAT WE VOTED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES.

THANK YOU ALL FOR SHOWING UP.

APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MORE TO COME.

I KNOW THAT WE APPROVED THE 14TH FEBRUARY 14TH, 2024 MEETING.

APPROVED IT WITH AS AMENDED.

DID WE DO THAT FOR THE DECEMBER 13TH? DID WE SAY AMENDED? I DON'T THINK SO.

THAT'S MY CONCERN.

I THINK WE DID HAVE AMENDMENTS.

WE HAD A FEW CHANGES IN THE WORDING.

SO CAN I ASK TO HAVE THAT? REHEARD. YEAH.

I MEAN, TECHNICALLY, LET'S JUST DO IT TECHNICALLY.

SOMEBODY PLEASE MAKE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 2023 MEETING.

SO, DO I HEAR IT? SURE. I'LL MAKE A MOTION.

WELL, YEAH, WHAT TAMMY SAID, AND THERE NEEDS TO BE A SECOND.

OKAY. DO I HEAR A SECOND? SECOND? OKAY. A SECOND FROM BARB.

A VOICE VOTE OF ALL IN FAVOR OF RECONSIDERING IT? I OPPOSED, LIKE, SIGN.

OKAY, NONE. IT'S RECONSIDERED.

IT'S BACK ON THE TABLE. NOW GO BACK TO THE MINUTES AND YOU CAN.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE DISCUSSION.

YOU CAN APPROVE THEM. SO WE HAD WE HAD A FEW MODIFICATIONS THAT SYLVIA HAS.

DO I HEAR A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF DECEMBER 13TH, 2023, WITH MODIFICATIONS OR AS AMENDED BY OUR DISCUSSION TONIGHT? TONIGHT I'LL MAKE THAT.

I JUST MADE THAT MOTION.

DO I HEAR A SECOND, SECOND, SECOND.

ALL RIGHT, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED LIKE SIGN.

OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ABOUT A MINUTE. YEAH. I STILL HAVE A QUESTION.

YES. BECAUSE YOU MADE A MOTION WHICH WAS VOTED ON FOR A APRIL 10TH MEETING.

YES. OKAY.

IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THE MOTION MADE WAS THAT YOU WOULD VOTE ON THIS ON APRIL 10TH.

WAS THAT YOUR INTENT? NO, IT WAS TO FURTHER, BECAUSE WE'VE ALSO SET UP SEVERAL WORKSHOP DATES TO MEET TO DISCUSS IT.

SO IF YOU'RE GOING SO CAN YOU RESTATE WHAT YOU'RE DOING ON THAT MOTION.

WE JUST BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND.

IT SOUNDED LIKE YOU WANT TO TELL EVERYBODY THAT WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON AB 20240001 ON APRIL 10TH. IT WAS A CONTINUATION OF OUR DISCUSSION OF THIS CASE.

OKAY. CONTINUATION, CONTINUATION CONTINUATION ONLY.

OKAY. BUT TO A DATE SPECIFIC TO A DATE SPECIFIC TO APRIL THE 10TH.

AND THEN IF WE DON'T COME UP WITH WHATEVER DECISION WE'RE GOING TO MAKE, WE'RE GOING TO DELAY IT TO ANOTHER DATE.

BUT YOU'RE KIND OF TAKING AWAY THE REASON FOR SETTING UP DATES AND ALLOWING THEM TO GO AHEAD AND PUBLISH THOSE DATES, BECAUSE BY PUBLISHING, THEY'RE GOING TO SAY, THE PAB IS GOING TO MEET ON THE 10TH, THE 24TH, THE EIGHTH AND THE 22ND.

NOW WITH YOUR MOTION, YOU'RE INDICATING, WELL, WE MAY NOT MEET ON THOSE DATES.

SO THAT'S MY POINT I WANT TO MAKE.

WHY CAN'T WE JUST GET PUBLISHED THAT WE'RE GOING TO MEET ON THE.

THAT WAS MY POINT FOR DOING A DATE FURTHER IN THE FUTURE, BECAUSE THEN AT EACH ONE OF OUR MEETINGS, WE COULD THEN POSTPONE IT TO A FUTURE DATE. BUT IF WE SAID THAT WE WANTED TO CONTINUE TO DISCUSS THIS CASE NUMBER.

AND LET'S JUST SAY ON OUR APRIL THE 10TH DATE, WE ALL MIRACULOUSLY CAME TO A CONCLUSION AND EVERYTHING JUST FELL INTO PLACE, AND WE

[03:00:08]

AND HERE IT IS. WELL, SEE, I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE TO DO THAT.

I WOULD SAY ONE MORE TIME.

YOU'RE CONTINUING IT TO THE 10TH TO 24TH TO 22ND.

THAT'S ALL I'M ASKING YOU TO DO.

THAT LETS THEM KNOW WHEN THEY HAVE TO PUBLISH AND LET'S I DON'T I MEAN, I'M, I'VE NOT EVER LOOKED AT THAT ISSUE ABOUT CONTINUING IT AND THEN PUTTING IT ON AN AGENDA FOR MULTIPLE MEETINGS.

I'M LIKE, THIS IS AVOIDING ANY TIME A CASE NUMBER COMES TO THE PLANNING BOARD, WE HAVE TO ADVERTISE IT.

AND IT'S NEWSPAPER, IT'S POSTING.

IT'S NOT JUST A SIMPLE NOTICE OF THE MEETING.

AND SO WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID THAT COST, WHICH IS ABOUT $500.

SO IN ORDER TO DO THAT WE HAVE A CASE NUMBER TONIGHT.

AND WE DON'T ALWAYS VOTE ON THAT JUST BECAUSE A CASE APPEARS.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO VOTE, BUT YOU HAVE TO TAKE ACTION TO AT LEAST POSTPONE IT, OR IT'S LIKE IT NEVER OCCURRED.

AND THEN THE NOTICE HAS TO START AGAIN.

I INTERPRET WHAT WE DID TONIGHT IS SET UP A PLANNING DOCUMENT DOING A LITTLE BIT OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT.

IT ISN'T GOING TO GET ADVERTISED BEYOND THE NEXT MEETING, RIGHT.

IT WILL COME UP TO THE WORKSHOP.

OKAY. OR THE REGULAR MEETING.

I'M ON BOARD AND WE ONLY HAVE TO DO THAT SEVENTH.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

IT'S SEVEN DAYS AHEAD OF TIME.

ALL RIGHT. SO ARE WE GOOD? YEAH. ALL RIGHT, SYLVIA, SEND THAT TO ME.

SYLVIA. I'LL PASS THAT OVER TO SYLVIA AND ASK HER IF SHE COULD FIND THAT FOR.

WHAT DO I DO WITH THAT DOCUMENT? GIVE THAT TO, YOU KNOW, GIVE IT AWAY.

ALL RIGHT. PUT IT THERE.

JUST. OKAY. I'LL PICK IT UP.

YEAH. MARTHA SAID OKAY.

IS THERE ANYTHING FROM STAFF TO REPORT TO US, MADAM CHAIR? NO. DO YOU MIND REPEATING THE DATES OF THE WORKSHOPS? SURE. OKAY, SURE.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. THE NEXT WORKSHOP, THE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING WILL BE WELL, APRIL 10TH, APRIL 10TH, 5:00 AT 5:00.

OH, IT'S NOT THREE ANYMORE.

NO, NOT ON THE 10TH.

OKAY. LIKE THE NEXT ONE, BUT IT WILL BE.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE OUR REGULAR PAB MEETING AT 5:00.

WE WILL DISPATCH WHATEVER BUSINESS HAS TO BE DONE WITH THAT, WHICH MAYBE WON'T TAKE BUT A FEW MINUTES, SAY 30 MINUTES.

WE WILL FINISH THAT MEETING AND THEN WE WILL START THE SUBCOMMITTEE IMMEDIATELY AFTER OUR REGULAR PAB MEETING.

SO I DON'T HAVE A TIME BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT TIME THAT WOULD BE, BUT THAT'S HOW THAT WOULD WORK.

AND ON THE APRIL 22ND SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING THAT STARTS AT 3:00 THE 24TH, THE 24TH, 24TH AT 3:00.

THAT'S APRIL 24TH.

SYLVIE. YEAH. AND THEN WE HAVE OUR REGULAR MEETING ON MAY 8TH.

MAY 8TH. JUST RIGHT NOW, TENTATIVELY, WE START AT FIVE.

THE SAME THING AT FIVE.

OKAY. YEAH. AND THEN SUBCOMMITTEE COMES AFTER THAT IF NEEDED.

YEP. AND THEN ON MAY 22ND, 22ND, WE START AT 3:00, 3:00 SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING.

YES. GOT IT.

SO APRIL 24TH, WE START AT THREE ALSO, RIGHT? YEAH, YEAH. OKAY.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

SO THERE'S NOTHING FOR STAFF TO REPORT.

NO. ANY FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT? YES, MA'AM. JUST A QUICK QUESTION.

[7. PUBLIC COMMENT]

AND THANK YOU ALL FOR STAYING.

I'M. THANK YOU.

AND YOU ALL DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY.

JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I HEARD CORRECTLY.

SO THE AMENDED APPROVED MINUTES FROM DECEMBER 13TH, 2023 WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE APRIL 10TH AGENDA PACKET AS CORRECTED AND APPROVED.

TONIGHT SHOULD BE.

WELL, THAT'S NOT WE DON'T CONTROL THE PLANNING BOARD PACKET.

NO I'M TALKING ABOUT YOUR APPROVED AMENDED MINUTES AND MOTIONS OF DECEMBER 13TH THAT WERE APPROVED TONIGHT.

WITH THOSE AMENDMENTS, THEY WILL BE IN THE APRIL 10TH CITY COMMISSION AGENDA PACKET BECAUSE THE KENNETH PORT ANNEXATION IS COMING BACK ON THAT DAY.

AND THEY DIDN'T HAVE IT THE FIRST TIME AROUND.

APRIL 2ND, APRIL 2ND, APRIL 2ND, WHATEVER THE COMMISSION DATE IS.

OKAY. IS THAT RIGHT? THAT'S WHAT I'M. LET ME MAKE SURE WE DON'T PUT THE MINUTES IN THAT GOES, NO, I KNOW PLANNING DOES.

BUT SHE'S SAYING AGAIN, THEY'RE VOTING ON THE CITY COMMISSION.

THEY'RE VOTING. THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE MINUTES OR THE MOTIONS.

CORRECT. THEY DIDN'T HAVE THEM THE FIRST TIME.

NOW THEY'RE GOING TO VOTE ON THEM THIS TIME IN APRIL.

I WILL DO IT PERSONALLY. IT SHOULD BE PROCEDURE.

IT SHOULDN'T BE A EFFET.

WHO COULD MAYBE.

OKAY, GOOD.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THAT.

ALL RIGHT. SO WE'VE GONE THROUGH STAFF REPORT, PUBLIC COMMENT, AND IF THERE'S NO FURTHER OBJECTIONS, I'LL SAY WE'RE ADJOURNED.

OKAY.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.