[00:00:03]
>> I'D LIKE TO BRING TO ORDER THE MAY 8TH,
[1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL / DETERMINATION OF QUORUM]
2024 PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD WORKSHOP.THIS IS TAKING THE PLACE OF OUR REGULAR MONTHLY MEETING BECAUSE THERE WAS NO ITEMS FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER FOR THE REGULAR MEETING AND SO WE HAVE TAKEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE THIS AS A WORKSHOP SO THAT WE CAN HAVE A FREE FLOW OF CONVERSATION AND IDEAS WHERE WE LEFT OFF AT OUR PREVIOUS WORKSHOP CONCERNING DEFINITIONS.
YOU'LL SEE THAT IS IN OUR AGENDA PACKET.
WE ARE MEETING IN CITY HALL COMMISSION CHAMBERS IN FERNANDINA BEACH, FLORIDA.
MADAM SECRETARY, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL?
>> HERE. WE DETERMINED THAT WE HAVE A QUORUM.
IF EVERYONE WILL STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
BEFORE WE GET INTO OUR OLD BUSINESS, I WOULD LIKE TO WELCOME OUR NEWEST MEMBER, MS. DAPHNE FOREHAND.
WE ARE THRILLED TO HAVE YOU WITH US.
[3.1 Discuss Definitions]
THIS IS TO PICK UP WHERE WE LEFT OFF IN OUR LAST WORKSHOP.DOES EVERYONE HAVE THEIR NOTES FROM THAT MEETING AND KNOW WHERE WE LEFT OFF? DOES EVERYONE HAVE A COPY OF WHAT WAS SENT TO US THROUGH STAFF FROM MARK CONCERNING SOME SUGGESTIONS OF DEFINITIONS THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT? I JUST OPENED IT UP FOR EVERYONE.
I GUESS WE WENT THROUGH THE PLATTED LOT OF RECORD.
I GET THE IMPRESSION THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOME ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION THAT MR. BENNETT OR OTHERS MIGHT WANT TO HAVE.
JUST OPENING IT UP FOR US TO HAVE GOOD DIALOGUE TODAY.
>> WE PUT OFF TALKING ABOUT DEFINITION FOR A PARCEL.
I'VE COME AROUND TO MR. GILLETTE'S WAY OF THINKING AS TO DEFINING THAT WITHOUT THE PARCEL ID NUMBER FROM NASSAU COUNTY.
HOWEVER, I THINK THEN WE SHOULD ADD A DEFINITION FOR PARCEL ID NUMBER WITHIN THE DOCUMENTS BECAUSE THE NICE THING ABOUT PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER, IT DOES IDENTIFY THE OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY AND ALL OF THE ITEMS UNDERNEATH THAT OWNERSHIP.
I THINK THAT WE JUST TABLED THE FINAL DEFINITION OF PARCEL.
>> YES. WE ARE STILL IN A CONVERSATION.
I DON'T THINK WE'VE COME TO ACTUALLY LOCK EVERYTHING DOWN YET.
>> I WALK OUT OF MY HOUSE LEAVING THINGS UNLOCKED.
BUT UNDER THE DEFINITION THAT I'VE SEEN, IT JUST SAYS A PIECE OF LAND OF ANY SIZE IN ONE RECORD.
I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT FITS WITH EVERYBODY ELSE.
>> WELL, I DON'T KNOW HOW SIMPLE YOU CAN GET IT, BUT THAT SEEMS PRETTY SIMPLE TO ME.
HAS EVERYONE HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT MARK'S SUBMISSIONS?
>> THESE WERE MOSTLY FROM SOME OF OUR DISCUSSIONS BEFOREHAND.
THEN I HAD TO GO TO THE APPRAISAL OF REAL ESTATE, WHICH WE HAVE A BOOK, WHICH I DON'T HAVE THE NEWEST BOOK.
THIS IS THE SEVENTH EDITION, WHICH IS ALL FERNANDINA WILL PAY FOR.
>> KELLY, I KNOW YOU WERE TAKING SOME NOTES AT OUR LAST WORKSHOP.
DO YOU HAVE THAT AVAILABLE FOR US TO LOOK AT?
>> YES. I THINK WE WENT PLATTED LOT AND PLATTED LOT OF RECORD.
[00:05:04]
THEN THAT'S WHERE I DREW A LINE, WAS RIGHT THERE.>> WELL, I GUESS TO PICK UP, WE HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE LAST AGENDA FROM THE LAST MEETING, WHICH IS WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR, BUT THERE'S NO TEXT.
>> WE'RE WAITING FOR KELLY TO PULL UP THE SUMMARY, THE NOTES THAT SHE TOOK DURING THE LAST WORKSHOP BECAUSE AS WE WENT THROUGH EACH WORD, SHE WOULD PUT A DEFINITION AND SOME COMMENTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
>> MADAM CHAIR, DO WE WANT TO GO INTO ANOTHER ONE WHILE SHE LOOKS FOR THAT?
IF EVERYONE IS IN AGREEMENT THAT WE'VE COMPLETED PLATTED LOT AND PLATTED LOT OF RECORD, MINE SHOW THAT WE START WITH PRINCIPAL RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE.
DOES THAT SEEM ABOUT RIGHT FOR EVERYONE?
>> WE'RE GOING TO START WITH THAT ONE.
THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE DOES IDENTIFY A DEFINITION OR CONTAIN A DEFINITION FOR PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE.
JUST DOESN'T HAVE RESIDENTIAL IN IT.
>> IS THAT SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED? WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? IF THERE'S A PRINCIPAL, COULD YOU HAVE A PRINCIPAL COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE OR A PRINCIPAL INDUSTRIAL STRUCTURE THAT NEEDS TO BE DESCRIBED?
>> I'LL READ WHAT'S IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AS OF AUGUST 23RD OF LAST YEAR.
PRINCIPAL BUILDING OR STRUCTURE MEANS THE PRIMARY BUILDING ON A LOT OR A STRUCTURE THAT HOUSES A PRINCIPAL USE.
>> I THINK IT'S ALL INCLUSIVE OF THAT. I DON'T KNOW.
RICHARD, LET'S GET AN OPINION FROM A WRITER OR EDITOR HERE.
>> PRINCIPAL BUILDING OR STRUCTURE MEANS THE PRIMARY BUILDING ON A LOT OR A STRUCTURE THAT HOUSES A PRINCIPAL USE.
>> IN THIS CASE, THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING IS A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING.
>> IT COULD BE ANY OF THE ABOVE. COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL.
>> BUT THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.
THIS WOULD BE IF YOU LEFT RESIDENTIAL OUT.
>> THEN IT'S A PRETTY GOOD DEFINITION ALREADY IN THE CODE.
>> THAT'S RIGHT. I JUST WANTED TO GET SOME OTHER OPINIONS ON THE THING.
>> WE SHOULD BE CAREFUL IN THAT WHEN WE TALK, WE DON'T NEED TO KEEP ADDING OTHER DESCRIPTIVE WORDS INTO SOME OF THESE DEFINITIONS.
>> LET ME ASK, KELLY, DOES THAT GIVE YOU ANY HEARTBURN FOR ANY REASON, JUST TAKING PRINCIPAL RESIDENTIAL OUT TO SAY PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE?
>> IT CURRENTLY READS RESIDENTIAL?
>> RIGHT NOW, WHAT'S IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE JUST SAYS PRINCIPAL BUILDING OR STRUCTURE.
BUILDING OR STRUCTURE COULD MEAN RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL?
>> THE CURRENT DEFINITION DOESN'T RELY ON IT BEING DEFINED AS RESIDENTIAL OR NONRESIDENTIAL?
>> BUT WHERE WE'RE REFERRING TO THIS IS ON THE DEFINITIONS THAT STAFF PRESENTED AT THE TOP OF 10304 THAT WAS ORIGINALLY PRESENTED TO US.
IT HAS PRINCIPAL RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE SUPPOSED TO COMING BACK TO STAFF TO SAY, IF WE DON'T HAVE RESIDENTIAL IN THERE,
[00:10:02]
PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE IS ALREADY IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS ISN'T GOING TO GIVE YOU SOME [OVERLAPPING] IF THAT DEPOSITION WAS PROVIDED AT YOUR DIRECTION.
>> I THINK WHAT HAPPENED IS, WHEN WE WERE CONSIDERING AT ONE POINT TO AMEND 10304 AND 10305, THERE WAS SOME LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT DISCUSSED PRINCIPAL RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE, AND THAT'S WHERE THE NEED FOR THE DEFINITION CAME IN FROM THE PAB BECAUSE OF THAT LANGUAGE BEING AMENDED.
IT WASN'T DEFINED PREVIOUSLY, SO THERE NEEDED TO BE A DEFINITION.
BUT, IF THERE'S NO CHANGES TO THAT SECTION OF CODE, THEN I DON'T THINK THAT WE NEED TO ADD ADDITIONAL DEFINITION HERE WHEN IT'S ALREADY COVERED.
>> AS AN ALTERNATIVE, AND I MEAN YOU COULD PUT A PARENTHESES, COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL, JUST TO ADD INTO IT.
>> I THINK IT'S CLEAR, JUST AS IT IS.
>> BECAUSE WE'VE GOT IN EFFECT PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE EXISTS.
>> THERE CAN BE PRINCIPAL COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES LIKE A SHED OR SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE ACCESSORY TO A COMMERCIAL OPERATION.
THERE'S PROBABLY WHY THEY HAD TO GENERALIZE THEM.
>> PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE COULD BE, THERE'S NO REASON TO MAKE A RESIDENTIAL, THEN YOU'D HAVE TO MAKE PRINCIPAL COMMERCIAL, PRINCIPAL INDUSTRIAL, PRINCIPAL RECREATION.
I THINK PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE MAKES SENSE.
>> YOU'RE HAPPY WITH WHAT'S IN THAT LDC RIGHT NOW?
>> WELL THEN, LET'S JUST STRIKE THAT ONE.
>> YOU SAID IT WAS IN 103 OR FOUR?
>> BUILDING SITE REQUIREMENTS.
>> [BACKGROUND] THIS WAS IN THE AMENDED LANGUAGE THAT WAS BEING PROPOSED THAT WAS GOING BACK.
[OVERLAPPING] THAT'S WHERE THAT CAME FROM [NOISE] ORIGINALLY.
>> CORRECT. THAT'S WHERE THAT DEFINITION PRINCIPLE CAME FROM.
>> WE'RE ALL IN AGREEMENT? TELL ME IF YOU WE'RE ALL IN THIS.
RATHER THAN IT BEING PRINCIPAL RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE, IT'S PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE AS ALREADY DEFINED BY THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
>> HERE, IT SAYS PRINCIPAL BUILDING OR STRUCTURE.
I THINK THAT FURTHER GRABS A LITTLE BIT MORE.
IT COULD BE A BUILDING, BUT IT COULD BE SOMETHING ELSE.
>> SPECIFY EVERYTHING THAT IT COULD BE.
>> AS LONG AS WE AGREE THAT WE UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT IS.
>> ARE WE GOOD ON THAT, FOLKS?
>> YES. I THINK WE'RE GETTING CONSENSUS HERE.
>> WE EVER FIND OUR NOTES HERE? NO. [LAUGHTER] WE'RE WORKING ON IT.
>> I'M AFRAID THAT WE MAY NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THEM RIGHT NOW.
>> YOU DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THEM RIGHT NOW? THAT'S AN IT PHONE?
THEN WE'VE STARTED A RECORDING AND ON MICRO FILE LOCATED ON THAT DESKTOP.
UNLESS YOU WANT TO JUST STOP THIS RECORDING FOR THREE MINUTES SO WE CAN ACCESS THEM.
>> I JUST TO GO BACK TO WHERE MR. STEVENSON'S NOTES ARE AND PICK UP FROM THERE.
WE'RE JUST GOING TO KEEP GOING THROUGH IT.
THEN WE'LL JUST ADD TO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY TO THOSE NOTES.
>> AND THEN ONE COMPOSITE TOTAL.
>> WE'LL HAVE ONE COMPOSITE, AND THEN WE CAN LOOK AT IT, IN TOTAL, AT OUR NEXT MEETING.
DOES THAT SOUND ABOUT RIGHT FOR EVERYBODY? THAT'S WHAT WE'LL DO. HE FIRST THING THAT WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT WAS THE PRINCIPAL ITEM 14, BECAUSE WE ARE STILL USING MEMBER STEVENSON'S LIST OF DEFINITIONS AND TERMS DATED APRIL THE 17TH, 2024.
WE ARE SAYING WE SHOULD YIELD NOT CREATE OR NEED FOR TO CREATE A PRINCIPAL RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE, IT SHOULD JUST BE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE, AND THE EXISTING DEFINITION IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WE'RE GOOD WITH THAT.
>> I THINK THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IS A LITTLE BIT MORE GLOBAL.
>> WE'RE GOOD THERE. THE NEXT ONE WOULD BE ITEM NUMBER 15, WHICH IS SUBDIVIDE,
[00:15:03]
AND THE COROLLARY TO THAT WOULD BE ITEM 16, WHICH IS SUBDIVISION.MR. BENNETT, YOU HAD SOME ITEMS ON THAT WITH THE NOTES THAT YOU SENT US.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THAT?
>> WELL, THESE ARE ALL OFFICIAL DEFINITIONS THAT APPRAISERS USE IN DEALING WITH REAL ESTATE.
THEY'VE TRIED AND PROVEN IN COURT AND EVERYWHERE ELSE.
ITEM NUMBER 16 IS INCLUDED IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO READ THAT TO US, MR. STEVENS?
>> I'VE GOT IT RIGHT HERE, MR. STEVENS, IF YOU WANT.
>> SUBDIVISION MEANS A DIVISION OF A PARCEL OF LAND INTO THREE OR MORE LOTS OR PARCELS, EITHER BY PLAT INTO LOTS OR PLOTS OR BY M-E-T-E-S.
I DON'T KNOW HOW TO SAY THAT, AND BOUNCE DESCRIPTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OR DEVELOPMENT OR USE.
>> WHY DID WE PUT IN THERE THREE LOTS?
>> THAT'S BEEN IN THERE AS FAR AS I KNOW.
>> IT WAS IT'S BEEN IN THERE SINCE.
>> DID THAT BRING A BILL WITH YOU?
>> BECAUSE THERE WERE LOT SPLITS THAT USED TO HAPPEN WHERE SOMEBODY COULD SPLIT A LOT AND THAT WOULD MAKE TWO, AND THEY WOULDN'T FILE A PLAT FOR THAT.
BUT, SUBDIVISION OF THREE LOTS OR MORE WOULD REQUIRE A PLAT.
>> ALSO THE CITY MANAGER HAS AUTHORIZATION TO SOME MINOR SUBDIVISIONS.
MY RECOLLECTION? AND SO THAT IT NEEDED TO BE A NUMBER.
>> INSTEAD OF A MINOR SUBDIVISION, WHICH IS THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS.
>> READ THAT DEFINITION ONE MORE TIME.
>> IT MEANS THE DIVISION OF A PARCEL OF LAND INTO THREE OR MORE LOTS OR PARCELS, EITHER BY PLAT INTO LOTS AND BLOCKS OR BY METES AND BOUNDS, DESCRIPTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OR DEVELOPMENT OR USE.
WHAT'S THE FEELING OF THE BOARD? IS THERE A BETTER WAY TO SAY IT? IS WHAT MARK HAS PRESENTED TO US IS VERY SIMILAR TO THAT OTHER MAYBE NOT QUITE AS SPECIFIC.
>> BUT I THINK IT'S GOOD THE WAY IT IS.
I THINK MARK IS GOOD TOO BUT I THINK PUTTING THE NUMBER IN THERE CLARIFIES CORRECT.
>> THE SUBDIVISION DEFINITION THAT WE'RE SAYING IS?
>> I THINK THAT'S WHAT THE CONSENSUS IS.
THAT WOULD BE ITEM NUMBER 16 ON THE LIST.
NOW SUBDIVIDE, I KNOW THAT'S A TERM BUT IT'S MORE OF A VERB.
>> NOW THE QUESTION IS DO WE NEED A FORMAL DEFINITION OR IS THAT MORE OF A DICTIONARY? IT'S AN ACTION VERB.
>> IF WE HAVE SUBDIVISION, I DON'T SEE THE NEED FOR SUBDIVIDE.
>> WELL, UNLESS, ACCORDING TO THESE DEFINITION, WHAT SUBDIVISION IS.
>> SUBDIVIDE IS JUST A VERB. IT'S NOT.
>> IT'S THE ACTION OF CREATING A SUBDIVISION?
>> I TELL YOU THE TRUTH, I CANNOT REMEMBER WHERE I LIFTED THAT WAS UP.
THE OTHER ONE KNOWS IT WAS IN SOME OF THE DRAFTS.
I HAVE TO FIND IT AND I SAY, DO WE NEED IT OR NOT? IT WAS MORE OF A QUESTION MARK IN MY MIND.
>> BUT IT'S THE FEELING OF THE BOARD THAT WE DON'T NEED TO PURSUE A DEFINITION OF SUBDIVIDE. IT'S A VERB.
>> I THINK IT'S ALREADY DEFINED IN THE DICTIONARY.
>> WHAT'S THE FEELING OF THE BOARD?
>> I DON'T THINK THAT WE NEED TO DEFINE IT. IT'S CLEAR.
>> WE'RE GOING TO STRIKE ITEM 15 WHICH IS THE SUBDIVIDE ONE.
>> BECAUSE IF YOU GET A SUBDIVISION, YOU NEED TO SUBDIVIDE.
>> IT'S ALSO A SUBSTANDARD PLANTED LOT.
>> NOT NECESSARILY BECAUSE THIS WAS PART OF THE SOME OF THE REP
[00:20:04]
THAT TERM SUBSTANDARD LOT IS IN 10304B.GENERALLY, THE THIRD LINE DOWN.
THE ONE OR MORE SUBSTANDARD PLATTED LOTS.
NOW, STAFF HAS COME UP AGAIN, ON THEIR SUBMISSION WITH SUBSTANDARD LOT.
THEY GAVE A DEFINITION OF SUBSTANDARD LOT.
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SUBSTANDARD LOT AND A SUBSTANDARD PLANT LOT? THOUGHTS, ANYONE?
>> WELL, YOU DESCRIBE A LOT UNDER MEETS AND BOUNDS, THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN ONE THAT WAS DESCRIBED UNDER A PLATE?
>> I THINK THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME.
A SUBSTANDARD PLATTED LOT WOULD INDICATE THAT IT IS PLATTED VERSUS JUST MEETS AND BOUNDS?
>> WHAT ABOUT A SUBSTANDARD LOT OF RECORD? BECAUSE THEN IT WOULD BE OF RECORD AND YOU'RE NOT GOING TO CREATE ANY MORE SUBSTANDARD LOTS, SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO ALREADY EXIST.
WHETHER IT'S ROUGH PLAT OR MEETS AND BOUNDS, IT WOULD BE RECORDED.
>> ARE YOU SAYING [OVERLAPPING]
>> I SAY SUBSTANDARD LOT OF RECORD MIGHT BE CLEAR.
>> BUT WE DON'T HAVE A WRITTEN DEFINITION OF WHAT A SUBSTANDARD LOT IS.
>> IT'S A QUESTION. I KNOW. WE DON'T.
>> THE QUESTION IS IF YOU HAVE IF YOU DEFINE WHAT A SUBSTANDARD LOT IS, DOES THAT THEN BY DEFINITION, SAY, WELL, IT'S PLATTED OR I DON'T KNOW.
IT'S BUT THERE'S NO LANGUAGE THAT I CAN FIND OUTSIDE OF WHAT'S IN THE LDC WHERE THAT TERM SUBSTANDARD LOT IS?
>> WE HAVE A DEFINITION OF THAT.
PROPOSED TO THE ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL.
YEAH. STANDARD LOT MEANS A LOT OF RECORD WHICH HAS LESS THAN THE REQUIRED MINIMUM AREA OR WIDTH AS ESTABLISHED BY THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH IT IS LOCATED AND PROVIDED THAT SUCH LOT WAS OF RECORD AS A LEGALLY CREATED LOT OF RECORD BEFORE 1 APRIL 2024.
>> WHERE IS THAT DEFINITION FROM?
>> THAT IS FROM THE ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL THAT WE RECEIVED.
>> THAT WAS GOING BACK. THAT'S ABOUT FOUR OR FIVE MONTHS AGO WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT DIFFERENT LANGUAGE.
>> FROM AN E MAIL FROM CHIP ROSS.
>> ARE YOU SAYING WE DON'T HAVE ANY MORE OR WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY MORE SUBSTANDARD LOTS?
>> TODAY, WE CAN STILL HAVE A SUBSTANDARD LOT.
>> ARE YOU WOULD PLOT ONE THOUGH OR YOU WOULD INCREASE.
>> NO. BUT WE'RE NOT WORRIED ABOUT IT BEING PLOTTED.
WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT DEVELOPMENT IT IS.
IT WOULD BE ANYTHING ACCORDING TO THIS SECOND DEFINITION, ANYTHING THAT DOESN'T MEET REALLY THE CURRENT REQUIREMENTS.
>> WHAT WAS THE OLD DATE THAT USED TO BE USED? WASN'T THERE A DATE?
>> IT IS CURRENTLY THE CURRENT DEFINITIONS.
IT HAS THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. OCTOBER 1.
>> REALLY, EVERY TIME WE UPDATE OUR CODE, THAT DATE CHANGES?
>> NO. THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS CODE IS OCTOBER 1, 2006 IS ESTABLISHED.
THIS IS NOT ADDRESSING SUBSTANDARD LOTS OF RECORD, BUT THEY CONNECT TO EACH OTHER IN THAT THIS FROM A DEFINITIONAL PERSPECTIVE, HONORS THOSE LOTS AS BEING ACCEPTABLE LOTS FOR DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES AS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS CODE.
>> SUBSTANDARD LOT OF RECORD IS JUST A LOT OF RECORD THAT DOESN'T MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING CODE?
>> BUT WE HAVE THAT LANGUAGE IN OUR CODE, SUBSTANDARD LOT BUT WE'VE NEVER DEFINED IT.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT SUBSTANDARD AS IT IS WRITTEN BOTH IN POLICY 10303, 10304, AND 10305, IT CONNECTS WORDS TOGETHER.
>> WHAT WOULD BE WRONG WITH THAT ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL? OTHER THAN THE DATE, AND I WOULD SAY THE DATE COULD CHANGE, BUT I PRETTY MUCH SAYS THAT IT DOESN'T MEET CURRENT REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE ZONING.
>> YOU COULD HAVE A DEFINITION THAT SAYS A SUBSTANDARD LOT IS A LOT OF RECORD WHICH DOES NOT MEET CURRENT REQUIREMENTS?
>> IT WAS PLOTTED BEFORE AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
>> THE PLANNER'S DICTIONARY DEFINES IT EVEN FURTHER TO SAY THAT IT'S A LOT THAT IS
[00:25:03]
NOT IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE DIMENSIONAL AND/OR THE AREA PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING CODE.>> IT'S PRETTY MUCH A REPEAT OF WHAT THIS.
>> WE'RE GETTING TO IT. WHO'S NOT A LOT OF LOTS OF RECORD.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A SUBSTANDARD LOT OF RECORD?
>> BUT SHE'S SAYING AND I THINK KELLY IS RIGHT, THAT IT IS USED THE DEFINITION OF A LOT OF RECORD.
YOU'RE JUST DEFINING THAT THIS SUBSTANDARD LOT OF RECORD DOESN'T MEET THE CURRENT ZONING REQUIREMENTS AND WAS REPORTED BEFORE A CERTAIN DATE.
>> YOU CAN HAVE A CUR LOT OF RECORD, AND IF IT HAD BEEN SOMETHING BEEN SPLIT UP PRIOR TO 2006 WHEN THIS WAS ALL WRITTEN, YOU COULD GO BACK AND SAY, OKAY, THIS WAS PLANTED PRIOR NERVOUS TO THE OLD PLANT.
NOW YOU'RE INTO THE SUBSTANDARD BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MEET THE 50 FOOT WIDTH.
>> COMMITTEE HAS A TOO MUCH TO VOTE ON THAT.
WE MAYBE SUBSTANDARD SOMETHING THAT'S NOT CURRENTLY LEGALLY ALLOWED, AND THAT'S THIS DEFINITION HERE.
THAT'S JUST A SUBSTANDARD LOT.
WE DON'T EVEN INCLUDING THE TERM RECORD IN THERE.
>> A SUBSTANDARD LOT OF RECORD IS A PLANTED LOT.
> SUBSTANDARD LOT IS A LOT OF RECORD.
>> A LOT OF RECORD IS A LOT OF RECORD?
>> WE'RE SEEING MANY TYPING ERRORS.
>> WHICH DOES NOT MEET THE CURRENT STANDARDS FOR DENIAL AND LAND WELL, WHY CAN'T WE MAKE IT SIMPLER THAN THAT? IS LESS THAN THE REQUIRED MINIMUM AREA OR WIDTH AS ESTABLISHED BY THE ZONING DISTRICT?
>> DISTRICT IN WHICH IT WAS CREATED AND PROVIDED.
>> OR WOULD YOU WANT TO TIED TO BE SECTION 4 OF THE LDC?
>> HANG ON. IS LESS THAN THE MINIMUM LAND AREA OR WIDTH AS ESTABLISHED BY THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH IT IS LOCATED.
PERIOD. LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.
>> THERE WERE SOME MANY ABOUT WHEN IT WAS CREATED.
>> I'VE READ TAKEN THAT PART OUT OF IT.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S IMPORTANT OR NOT.
>> I DON'T KNOW. I THINK A LOT OF RECORD DEFINITION.
WE'VE ALREADY BEEN THROUGH THAT.
>> ONCE IT BECOMES A LOT OF RECORD.
>> A LOT OF RECORD RETAINS THAT SAME ALLOWANCE.
WE'RE HONORING THAT, WHICH WAS APPRECIATED AS THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE CODE.
>> I HAVE A LOT. IT'S A PHYSICAL THING, SO IT'S EITHER STANDARD OR IT'S SUBSTANDARD.
>> HERE YOU'VE SAID HERE'S TIE EXCEPTION?
>> IT'S NOT AN EXCEPTION. IT'S A ALTERNATIVE.
IT'S NOT EITHER AN EXCEPTION OR AN ALTERNATIVE.
JUST DOESN'T MEET BUT IT'S HONORED.
>> WE DON'T NEED TO PUT IN THERE THE DATE?
>> WE ARE DEFINING LOT OF RECORD INDEPENDENTLY.
>> HERE YOU GO. THANK YOU. I'LL ALSO INCREASE IT.
>> INCREASE IT, YEAH, SO I CAN READ IT. THANK YOU.
>> WHICH WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE WHICH WAS CREATED.
>> HOW ABOUT THIS, MEANS A LOT OF RECORD THAT IS LESS THAN THE MINIMUM LAND AREA OR WIDTH AS ESTABLISHED BY THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH IT IS LOCATED.
>> YOU NEED TO RETURN THE REQUIRED MINIMUM?
>> WE'RE REFERRING BACK TO THE LOT OF RECORDS.
>> THE QUESTION WAS, FOLKS, WHY ARE WE PUTTING LOT OF RECORD IN QUOTATIONS? ISN'T THAT TO REFER US BACK TO LOOK AT THE DEFINITION OF LOT OF RECORD?
>> SO IF WE LOOK BACK ON A LOT OF RECORD, WHERE IS OUR [OVERLAPPING].
>> I WOULD JUST CAPITALIZE A LOT OF RECORD AND LEAVE IT WITHOUT PUTTING IT IN THE CENSUS.
>> THAT'S WHAT I WOULD DO, TOO.
[00:30:04]
>> SO WITHOUT PUTTING IT IN CENSUS.
>> THERE YOU GO. THERE YOU GO.
>> DO WE NEED ANYTHING IN THERE THAT NOT LEGALLY CREATED?
>> BUT IF IT'S A LOT OF RECORD, IT WAS LEGALLY CREATED.
>> THAT'S A GOOD POINT, BILL, BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S NOT LEGAL.
>> AND KEEP IN MIND, IF I COULD SHOW YOU THIS, YOU'LL SEE THAT ONCE THIS GOES BACK INTO THE CODE DEFINITIONS, IT WILL FALL WITHIN A SUBSECTION THAT WILL HAVE A LOT OF RECORD AND IT'LL BE SEQUENCED IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER TO THEN SAY SUBSTANDARD LOT OF RECORD.
>> THAT A LOT OF RECORDS, WHAT 10303?
>> REALLY LOTS OF RECORDS WERE LEGALLY CREATED? I BELIEVE THAT HAPPENED.
>> SO UNDER LOT, THEN YOU HAVE CORNER LOT, DOUBLE FRONTAGE LOT, INTERIOR LOT, LOT DEPTH, LOT OF RECORD, AND LOT WIDTH.
AND NOW YOU'LL HAVE ANOTHER DEFINITION, THAT'S A SUB-DEFINITION OF LOT, WHICH READS SUBSTANDARD LOT OF RECORD.
>> BECAUSE WE'RE ADDING THE LOT OF RECORD WORDING AND IT'S TALKING ABOUT BEING RECORDED IN THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COUNTY.
>> BUT YOU'RE NOT ADDING IT BECAUSE THAT ALREADY EXISTS.
>> SUBSTANDARD'S WHAT'S BEING ADDED.
>> SUBSTANDARD'S BEING ADDED. YES, MARK.
>> WELL, I ASKED THAT QUESTION ABOUT LEGALLY AND YOUR ANSWER WAS, YES, WE HAVE SOME LOTS THAT WERE CREATED ILLEGALLY.
>> SO DO WE NEED TO INCLUDE THE TERM IN HERE THAT THESE WERE LEGALLY CREATED?
>> NO. BECAUSE THEY WERE PLATTED, IF THEY WERE DONE PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CODE, LEGAL OR OTHERWISE, YOU'VE ACCEPTED THEM ALL.
>> SO THIS JUST ADDS A SEVENTH ITEM UNDER LOT?
>> RIGHT THERE, THAT'S WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.
>> A SUBSTANDARD LOT OR WHATEVER.
>> THEN THERE'S LOT WIDTHS WHERE IT NEEDS.
>> CAN WE SEE THAT DEFINITION AGAIN?
>> I'D LIKE TO FOR US JUST TO LOOK AT THAT.
>> MEANS A LOT OF RECORD SEPARATELY DEFINED THAT IS LESS THAN THE REQUIRED MINIMUM LAND AREA OR WIDTH AS ESTABLISHED BY THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH IT'S LOCATED.
DOESN'T THAT INDICATE THAT IT'S BEEN LEGALLY DEFINED?
>> WELL, HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH LOTS THAT ARE ILLEGAL?
>> IT WAS ILLEGALLY DEFINED, BUT IT'S NOT.
>> THEN IT'S REALLY NOT A LEGAL LOT.
>> WELL, I MEAN, DO WE ONLY WANT TO DEAL WITH LEGAL LOT OR IS THIS DEFINITION OKAY?
>> REMINDER, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT LOT OF RECORD.
THE LOT OF RECORD WHICH IS DEFINED IN HERE HAS BEEN RECORDED IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE OF THE COUNTY AND IS AS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
SO WE REFER BACK TO THAT ORIGINAL DEFINITION OF LOT OF RECORD. SO I THINK YOU'RE COVERED.
>> NICK, DO YOU SEE, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU THINK OF TRIPLE?
>> AND PLUS IT ALLOWS US TO ELIMINATE 18?
BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THIS IS IS NOW.
SO ARE WE READY TO MOVE ON? EVERYBODY, WE HAVE SOME CONSENSUS HERE? MR. BENNETT?
>> SO THAT'S GOING TO GO UNDER LOT, WHICH IS THE GENERAL, AND THAT SAYS IT'S A PARCEL OF LAND AND THERE'S DEFINITION THERE.
AND THEN WE SUBDIVIDE THAT INTO SIX DIFFERENT LOTS.
>> AND WHAT ABOUT ITEM 18, WHICH IS THE SUBSTANDARD PLATTED LOT? HAVE WE ALL PRETTY MUCH AGREED THAT WE'RE GOING TO DELETE THAT AS A DEFINITION?
>> THAT BY FACT OF CREATING THIS DEFINITION OF THE SUBSTANDARD LOT OF RECORD, AND WE ALREADY HAVE A DEFINITION OF A LOT OF RECORD, WE DON'T THAT PLATTED.
>> I THINK THAT MAKES IT MORE CONFUSING.
>> DOES THIS COVER BOTH ITEMS?
[00:35:01]
>> A LOT OF RECORD, IT'S BEEN RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE COUNTY AS AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WORK.
AND THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN SEPTEMBER 5TH, 2006.
>> SO KELLY, IF WE HAVE AN ILLEGAL LAW, HOW DO WE DEAL WITH THAT WHEN THEY JUST GO THROUGH THE NORMAL, I'M NOT SURE IF IT WOULD BE EVEN ZONED CORRECTLY.
I'M ASSUMING THAT WE WOULD HAVE A LET'S SAY A RESIDENTIAL, ILLEGALLY ILLEGAL LOT, THEN THEY WOULD COME TO REGULAR DEVELOPMENT AND STUFF, ZONING AND WHATEVER ELSE.
SO THERE'S NOTHING ADDITIONAL IN IT.
>> IT WAS CREATED PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS CODE.
IF IT WAS CREATED AFTERWARDS, ILLEGALLY, THEN WE WILL NOT LET THEM DEVELOP ON IT.
>> WELL, I KNOW AT ONE TIME, A LOT OF PEOPLE WERE JUST SUBDIVIDING LOTS AROUND.
HEATHER AND NEATHER. WHAT DO WE DO WITH THOSE?
>> SO AS OF OCTOBER 1, 2006, YOU ACCEPTED THEM ALL?
>> SO THEY'RE NOT ILLEGAL ANYMORE.
>> AND WE DON'T HAVE ANY MORE ILLEGAL LOTS.
>> WHEN THAT HAPPENS AND SOMEBODY DECIDES THAT THEY'RE JUST GOING TO REPORT A NEW LOT ON THEIR OWN AND IT'S HAPPENED AFTER OCTOBER 1, 2006, WE SAY, I'M SORRY, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE SUFFICIENT LAND AREA OR A LOT TO SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT ON THAT SITE.
>> SO IN THE APPLICATION? GOING THROUGH THE ANNEXATION PROCESS, IF THERE WERE ANY THERE AT THAT POINT IN THE ANNEXED PROPER PARCEL, WE WOULD DEAL WITH THAT AT THAT TIME.
>> IN THE ANNEXATION OF PROPERTIES, WE WOULD EVALUATE THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE ZONING DISTRICT TO ASSIGN TO THAT PROPERTY BASED ON ITS CHARACTERISTICS SO THAT WE DON'T CREATE A NON-CONFORMITY THROUGH THE ANNEXATION LAND USE AND ZONING ASSIGNMENTS.
>> THERE'S NO REACH BACK, IN THAT CASE, IT'S GOING TO BE UNDERCURRENT TODAY.
>> NOW, LET ME ASK YOU IF YOU HAD THIS QUOTE ILLEGAL FOR SOME TIME, WOULD THE TITLE SEARCH PROCESS FLAG THAT?
>> SOMETIMES IT WILL CATCH IT.
USUALLY, THE POTENTIAL FIRE WILL PICK UP ON IT BEING SUBSTANDARD.
>> THAT'S WHAT I WAS WONDERING.
>> ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS DOESN'T SEEM TO FIT.
>> BUT WHEN IT GOT TO YOU IF SOMEBODY WHO WAS TRYING TO DO SOMETHING, THERE'S A PRETTY GOOD CHANCE IF WE GET CAUGHT AS WHOOPS.
>> UP THROUGH THE 2006 BASELINE, THEY'RE OKAY?
>> POST TO THE SEPTEMBER THE 5TH, THEN OKAY.
NOW, THERE'S A DIFFERENT SET OF RULES.
>> WE'RE SAYING THAT NUMBER 18, THE SUBSTANDARD PLATTED LOT IS REDUNDANT.
>> BECAUSE WE HAVE ALREADY ADDRESSED IT, AND WE'RE GOING TO ELIMINATE IT OFF OUR LIST OF DEFINITIONS.
VERY GOOD. MOVING ON TO ITEM 19, VACANT LOT.
AGAIN, MR. BENNETT HAS GOT SOME DEFINITIONS THERE, VACANT LOT.
>> THESE WOULD BE AGAIN, HOW THOSE LOTS WOULD BE VALUED FOR FINANCING OR ANY OTHER REASON.
>> OH, OKAY. TAX ROLES ARE A DIFFERENT WORLD.
AS AN APPRAISER, IF I WAS TO PUT INTO A RECORD VACANT LOT, THIS WOULD BE THE DEFINITION THAT I WOULD HAVE TO ADHERE TO.
>> ANYTIME YOU SEE THAT IN A BOOK OR INTO AN APPRAISAL, THIS WOULD BE THAT DEFINITION.
>> MR. STEVENSON, WOULD YOU READ WHAT THE CURRENT DEFINITION OF THE VACANT LOT IS IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, OR IS THERE A DEFINITION?
>> THERE'S NO DEFINITION IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
DO WE FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO PUT A DEFINITION TO THE TERM VACANT LOT?
>> THE TERM HAS BEEN USED IN SOME GRAPHS OF SOME FUTURE ORDINANCES.
>> IF WE'RE GOING TO DEFINE OTHER LOTS, I THINK WE SHOULD DEFINE IT. [OVERLAPPING].
>> THAT MIGHT GET ADDED IN UNDER "LOT" WITHIN THE LDC DEFINITIONS.
THAT'S GOING TO BE NUMBER 8 IN THERE.
>> BUT VACANT LOT IS A LOT DIFFERENT THAN RAW LAND.
[00:40:01]
>> WELL, BECAUSE A LOT, IF YOU SAY LOT TO AN APPRAISER, THEY AUTOMATICALLY GO TO SOMETHING THAT WAS PLATTED.
RAW LAND, WE THINK OF [OVERLAPPING] NATIONAL FOREST [LAUGHTER] OR SOMETHING.
I THINK IF WE'RE GOING TO USE VACANT LAND AND RAW LAND AND THINGS LIKE THAT IN THE DEVELOPMENT CODE, THEN THEY SHOULD BE DEFINED.
WE USE A LOT OF TERMS AND PEOPLE MAKE UP TERMS. WHAT THEY SEE SOMETHING THE OTHER DAY, NEVER MIND.
IT'S JUST THIS STUFF COMES OUT OF THE WOODWORK BUT THE TERMS THAT PEOPLE MAKE UP.
>> WE DON'T THINK THE WORD VACANT DESCRIBES A LOT.
>> I THINK IT'S PRETTY SELF EXPLANATORY AS WELL.
>> YOU WANT TO LOOK AT AND READ THE DEFINITION OF WHAT LOT IS AGAIN TO REFLECT?
>> HERE'S THE DEFINITION OF LOT.
A PARCEL OF LAND WHOSE BOUNDARIES HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED BY SOME LEGAL INSTRUMENT, SUCH AS A RECORDED DEED OR A RECORDED MAP AND WHICH IS RECOGNIZED AS A SEPARATE LEGAL ENTITY FOR PURPOSES OF TRANSFER OF TITLE, USE, OR IMPROVEMENT.
>> WHAT MIGHT WE CALL THAT IF IT HAS NOTHING ON IT?
>> BUT YOU COULD PUT THAT RIGHT UNDER.
IF YOU WANT IT, I'M NOT SO SURE WE DON'T WANT TO DEFINE IT, BUT YOU WOULD MAKE IT AS PART OF LOT AS THE GLOBAL. BUT I DON'T KNOW.
>> UNDER THE SECTION, UNDER WHAT PART OF THE?
>> THIS IS UNDER DEFINITIONS IN THE LDC.
>> JUST THE LDCS. [OVERLAPPING] IS IT JUST THE LDC?
>> IF WE ADDED LOT, VACANT, WE WOULD COME UP WITH A DEFINITION?
>> I THINK IF WE CAME UP HARD IF WE DEFINE VACANT, THEN WE NEED TO DEFINE BUILDING AND WE NEED TO DEFINE OCCUPIED.
[OVERLAPPING] IT'S ALL SELF EXPLANATORY.
>> THAT'S WHICH WE HAVE. IF IT'S VACANT, I THINK PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT MEANS.
>> YEAH, VACANT LOT. THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT RAW LAND MEANS.
>> BUT WE DON'T HAVE MUCH RAW LAND IN THE COUNTY UNIT.
>> YEAH. WE DON'T NEED TO HAVE [OVERLAPPING] VACANT LOT.
>> BASICALLY THE DEFINITION TO SEND THE LDC FOR LOT?
>> WE'RE GOOD? WE'RE GOING TO STRIKE LINE 19.
ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL DEFINITIONS THAT WE WANT TO LOOK AT WHILE WE'RE ALL TOGETHER? IS BUILDING A BUILDING SITE, ARE WE PRETTY GOOD ON THE BUILDING SITE? I KNOW THAT WAS FROM LAST TIME.
WE HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATION ABOUT THAT.
LAND UPON WHICH ACTIVE PERMIT EXISTS, THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATION ABOUT.
>> I THOUGHT WE CAME TO A CONCLUSION.
>> I DON'T SAY. I THINK WHAT WE TAKE IS, WHAT KELLY ALREADY HAD FROM THE PREVIOUS PD, BOIL IN ON WHAT WE'VE GOT HERE.
THEN WE JUST NEED TO TAKE ONE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> KELLY, CAN WE DO THAT BY THE NEXT, I DON'T KNOW, DO YOU WANT TO [OVERLAPPING] HAVE A SPECIAL MEETING IN TWO WEEKS? WE HADN'T IDENTIFIED THIS HEAD ONE, BUT JUST ON POTENTIAL.
>> FOR JUST A WORKSHOP [OVERLAPPING] TO GO WITH A FINAL DEFINITION, BUT WE SAID WE WOULDN'T USE THAT IF WE GOT DONE TONIGHT.
>> I THINK WE JUST ADOPTED AT A FORMAL MEETING.
>> JUST DO THAT ON THE JUNE PAB MEETING?
>> IT STILL GIVES US AN OPPORTUNITY AT THAT JUNE MEETING TO TALK ABOUT IT.
THERE'S A WORD THAT WE NEED TO TWEAK OR ADD A COUPLE OF THINGS OR TAKE SOMETHING AWAY.
>> IF WE'RE DONE WITH THIS, THEN KELLY, YOU WOULD BRING US A DRAFT.
LET ME CALL IT, NOT A DRAFT, A PRESENTATION WITH THESE DEFINITIONS IDENTIFIED,
[00:45:04]
AND WE WOULD DO THAT ON THE JUNE 12TH PAB REGULAR MEETING.>> THIS IS ON WHAT WE'VE COME UP WITH SO FAR?
>> THIS IS FOR EVERYTHING THAT'S ON THAT LIST, RIGHT THERE.
>> CAN WE ADD PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER? I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT NASSAU COUNTY PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS ARE INCLUDED IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
>> THEY ACT SO IMPORTANTLY FOR IDENTIFICATION AND OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY.
WHENEVER IT COMES UP, EVERYTHING GOES BACK TO THAT.
>> [INAUDIBLE] ANYWHERE IN THE CODE OR CONFLICT.
>> THOSE TERMS ARE NOT USED IN THE CODE OR PARKING AS A PLAN.
>> BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE CAN'T ADD IT IN THERE.
>> BUT IT ALSO DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE CAN'T REFER TO IT ANYTIME WE WANT.
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE DEFINED TO USE.
MARK CAN REFER TO IT, WE CAN LOOK AT IT.
WE CAN LOOK AT ANYTHING. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE PART OF THE EXACT DEFINITION.
THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE CAN'T USE IT OR REFER TO IT.
>> IN ANSWER TO THAT, I THINK THAT IN SOME CASES, IT WOULD BE PRUDENT FOR THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO HAVE A PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER INCLUDED FOR SOME PLANNING AND STUFF.
LIKE I SAID, IT'S A ONE-STOP SHOP.
GO TO THAT NUMBER, IT TELLS YOU WHO THE OWNERSHIP IS, TELLS YOU WHAT'S INCLUDED IN THAT PARCEL.
FOR ME, WHAT I'VE DONE FOR 50 YEARS, THAT WAS THE ONE PLACE FOR VALUATION, KNOWING WHAT IS A PARCEL OF LAND, AND WHAT IS THERE.
THAT'S WHERE YOU START THE RACE, SIR.
>> I'M JUST DOUBLE CHECKING THE LEC TO MAKE SURE THERE IS NO DEFINITION IN HERE.
>> THERE'S NO REFERENCE OR USE OF THIS TERM TOGETHER AT ALL AT ANY POINT.
>> I THINK THE REASON WHY WE'RE ADDING DEFINITIONS AND CLARIFYING THINGS IS TO CLARIFY THINGS THAT ARE ALREADY EXISTING IN THE CODE.
THAT'S NOT ALREADY IN THE CODE.
I DON'T REALLY SEE IT I NEED TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL DEFINITION THAT'S NOT REFERRED TO ANYWHERE IN THE CODE AT ALL.
WE COULD ALWAYS REFER TO IT FROM THE DEFINITION THAT THEY HAVE ONLINE.
I JUST THINK THE PRIORITY IS IDENTIFYING AND CLARIFYING THINGS THAT NEED CLARIFICATION THAT EXISTS CURRENTLY IN THE CODE.
>> WHEN I GAVE UP THE SHIP ON THE NEXT DEFINITION OF PARCEL, I STILL THINK THE DEFINITION OF PARCEL SHOULD INCLUDE THE PARCEL DEDICATION NUMBER.
I CONCEDE THAT THE DEFINITION IS OKAY.
BUT AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY'RE STUCK TO A RELUCTANCE NOT TO INCLUDE SOMETHING THAT THE WHOLE I KNOW STATE OF FLORIDA USES, AND A LOT OF DIFFERENT ITEMS FOR PLANNING AND NOTICING AND YOU NAME IT, THE PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER IS ALMOST ON EVERY APPLICATION FOR ANYTHING THAT YOU DO FOR CHANGING ZONING, INTERCHANGING ANYTHING.
THAT'S THE FIRST THING THEY WANT TO KNOW BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE PEOPLE GO TO.
>> YOU BRING UP INTERESTING NOW.
LET'S JUST ADD THAT DEFINITION. WE PUT IT ON HERE.
WHERE IN THE PROCESS OF GOING THROUGH ANY CITY PROCESS FILE AND THE CUSTOMER COMING IN, THEY'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE PRIMARILY.
>> WHERE WILL THAT COME UP IN THEIR PROCESS OF FILLING OUT PAPERWORK AND SO FORTH?
>> 10305 RIGHT STRAIGHT ON YOUR FACE.
THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY OF THOSE LOTS THAT ARE THERE, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SUBDIVIDING.
THAT'S TALKING ABOUT WHERE THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY IS.
>> 10305 RIGHT NOW IT DOESN'T.
>> I KEEP GOING AHEAD, I HATE TO KEEP GOING BACK INTO ANCIENT HISTORY.
BUT ORIGINALLY, WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT PARCELS, WE TALKED ABOUT DEVELOPING PARCELS, DEVELOPING SUBSTANDARD LOTS OF RECORD.
WE ALWAYS WENT TO THE PARCEL ID AND WHAT THAT WAS.
WHAT DOES THAT INCLUDE? WAS IT ONE LOT OR WAS IT 10 LOTS?
>> SO THAT WAS THE TOOL THAT WAS USED.
>> AND THEN SOMEHOW AND I DON'T KNOW HOW IT GOT INTERPRETED, THAT A PARCEL AND I'M TALKING ABOUT 10305 WAS ONLY HAD TO DO WITH THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT OR THE EXISTING BUILDINGS ON THE SITE.
THAT WAS NOT THE ORIGINAL INTENT.
IN MY MUDDLED MIND THAT DOESN'T DRINK ALCOHOL ANYMORE, BUT USED TO.
[00:50:04]
SO I'VE HAD TWO STROKES, SO IN ANY CASE, I THINK IT'S SO IMPORTANT BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE WE STARTED.THAT THAT WAS SO SIMPLIFIED IN THE PROCESS THAT MADE THE WHOLE PROCESS AND THEN IT GOT CONVOLUTED WITH WHERE WAS THE PRIMARY IMPROVEMENT? WHAT IS AN ALTERNATIVE OR ACCESSORY, ALL OF THESE OTHER THINGS OUT THERE WHICH CREATED A VEHICLE FOR CHANGING THE DENSITY OF AN AREA IN MY MIND.
THAT PARCEL ID, WHEN YOU BUY YOU GO TO ANY ONE OF THE PROPERTIES YOU ALL OWN, YOU CAN FIND YOUR PARCEL AND IT WILL EXPLAIN WHAT'S THERE.
IF IT WAS ESTABLISHED, IF YOU BOUGHT IT 50 YEARS AGO, IT WILL TELL YOU WHAT LOTS ARE IN THERE, WHAT IMPROVEMENTS ARE THERE.
SO THAT'S WHY I KEEP INSISTING ON IT BECAUSE I THINK IT'S THE NUMBER 1 PLACE WE STOP.
YOU LOOK AT THE PARCEL ID AND WHAT'S ON THE PROPERTY AND THAT TELLS YOU THE OWNERSHIP, NOT ONLY TELLS YOU THE OWNERSHIP TELLS YOU WHERE TO GO TO PARCEL NUMBER.
>> WHERE I START IS THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
>> BECAUSE THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION TELLS YOU WHAT THEY ACTUALLY OWN, WHETHER IT'S A COMBINATION OF LOTS OR ONE LOT AND SO THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS WHAT EVERYTHING IS TIED TO.
PARCEL ID NUMBER, KELLY, I GUESS, DO YOU MIND SHOWING WHAT I SENT YOU?
>> BECAUSE THERE'S A LEGAL OPINION THAT I FOUND WHEN I GOT THIS.
I THOUGHT, WELL, LET ME SEE WHAT THEY ACTUALLY SAY.
IF YOU GO DOWN TO THE END OF IT, IT TALKS ABOUT PARTIAL ID NUMBERS, AND IT TALKS ABOUT WHY THEY'RE CREATED.
AND IN JACKSONVILLE THEY'RE CALLED RE NUMBERS AND IN OTHER PLACES THEY'RE FOLIO NUMBERS OR WHATEVER THEY WOULD BE.
BUT THIS OPINION TELLS YOU THAT YOUR LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS WHAT EVERY ENCUMBRANCE REFERS TO, WHETHER IT'S A TITLE EASEMENT, ZONING, EVERYTHING IS TIED TO THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
THAT'S WHY THE PROPERTY APPRAISER GIVES YOU A SHORT LEGAL UNDER THE PARCEL ID NUMBER.
IF YOU CLICK ON IT, YOU CAN GET A LEGAL AND SO THAT IS WHAT ENCUMBERS THE PROPERTY.
>> THE PARCEL ID NUMBER WAS SIMPLY MADE AND THIS LITTLE THING WILL TELL US FOR TAXING PURPOSES.
>> IT'S IN AN ADMINISTRATIVE CONTROL.
104S STREET MAY HAVE 15 LOTS AND SO THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION WILL DEFINE EXACTLY WHAT THE LOTS ARE.
THE ADDRESS DOES NOT AND THIS PARCEL ID NUMBER.
>> AND IN THE SCHEME OF THINGS, THESE ISSUES COME UP IN LOCATIONS LIKE FERNANDINA THAT HAVE BEEN AROUND 200 YEARS.
YOU GO DOWN TO THE PLACES IN SOUTH FLORIDA.
EVERYTHING HAS BEEN PLANTED, REPLANTED AND ON AND ON AND A LOT OF THESE ISSUES DON'T COME UP.
>> [INAUDIBLE] THE BOTTOM BLOCK.
>> DO THEY HAVE ANY SUBSTANDARD LOTS IN ST. AUGUSTINE?
>> I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT.
>> I DON'T KNOW. CAN YOU SCROLL DOWN?
>> YEAH. JUST TELL ME WHEN IT'S UP.
IT'S A LEGAL OPINION FROM THE LAWYER.
TALKS ABOUT MEATS AND BOUNDS AND THEN KEEP GOING DOWN PLEASE.
SUPPLEMENTAL PROPERTY INFORMATION.
FOR PURPOSES OF KEEPING PROPERTY TAX RECORDS, THE LOCAL TAX ASSESSOR'S OFFICE USUALLY ATTACHES AN ID NUMBER TO EACH PARCEL.
THIS MAY BE CALLED BY VARIOUS NAMES SUCH AS TAX ID NUMBER PERSON NUMBER, OR THE FOLIO NUMBER.
IF YOU KEEP GOING DOWN, IT SAYS, NEITHER THE STREET ADDRESS NOR THE TAX NUMBER IS A SUFFICIENT DESCRIPTION TO TRANSFER OR ENCUMBER PROPERTY.
SO THERE'S NO BIGGER ENCUMBRANCE THAN ZONING AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
YOUR LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS WHAT ACTUALLY GETS ENCUMBERED.
IT'S NOT AN ADDRESS OR A PARCEL.
>> I DON'T CARE IF WE PUT A PARTIAL ID NUMBER DESCRIPTION IN THERE, BUT I DON'T THINK IT REFERENCES A LOT OF RECORD OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
BUT IF YOU PUT IT IN THERE, I DON'T CARE.
>> I WOULD JUST LIKE TO HAVE SOME REFERENCE TO THE NATIONAL COUNTY PROPERTY TREASURE AND PARCEL ID NUMBER IN DESCRIBING PROPERTY.
>> I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT, WE'RE JUST DEFINING IT.
>> SO WHERE WOULD WE PUT THAT UNDER IN OUR DEFINITIONS? [OVERLAPPING] JUST AS A SEPARATE PARCEL.
>> YOU COULD MAKE A SEPARATE ITEM [OVERLAPPING] JUST PUT IT ALPHABETICALLY IN THE LIST.
[00:55:06]
>> THE LIST WAS COMPILED BY YOU, RIGHT?
>> YEAH. SO JUST UNDER PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER, IT'S A NUMERIC OR ALPHANUMERIC LABEL THAT UNIQUELY IDENTIFIES A PARCEL?
>> PLEASE, ADD SOME OTHER TERMS ALSO, LIKE THE FOLIO NUMBER OR SOME OTHER STUFF.
IN SOUTH FLORIDA WE'VE GOT A FOLIO NUMBER UP HERE, AS PARCEL ID NUMBER.
THEY'RE INTERCHANGEABLE, BUT WHEN YOU SAY IT, EVERYONE KNOWS WHAT IT IS.
[LAUGHTER] EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW WHAT IT IS.
>> DOES ANYBODY HAVE TO APPROVE THESE?
THEY ALL GET THROWN OUT, IF THAT'S YOUR QUESTION.
>> [OVERLAPPING] WE'RE NOT MOVING THESE FORWARD UNTIL YOU ARE READY TO HANDLE 10304, 10305 AGAIN.
THEY'RE NOT MOVING ANYWHERE UNTIL WE PICK UP THAT SECTION OF CODE AGAIN.
>> BUT HOW WILL THIS NOT GET LOST IN THE WORLD OF TIME?
>> IT'LL GET BUNDLED BACK WHEN YOU PICK UP THOSE SECTIONS OF CODE AGAIN?
>> BUT WE COULD ADD THESE TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE JUST AS THE NORMAL CODES OF BUSINESS, RIGHT?
>> YOU COULD MAKE THAT REQUEST. [OVERLAPPING].
>> BUT I WOULD VENTURE TO SAY THAT ANYTHING THAT RELATES TO THOSE SECTIONS OF CODE SHOULD BE DEFERRED UNTIL THAT POINT IN TIME WHEN THAT LANGUAGE GETS PICKED UP AGAIN.
>> WELL, IS 10305 COMING BACK? I DON'T KNOW WHAT POLICY IT WAS, AND I'M NOT SURE OTHER THAN NOT WHAT THAT MEANS.
>> WELL, THERE'S EVEN A COUPLE OF SUGGESTIONS THAT WAS MADE BY THE PAB ABOUT ONE OR TWO CHANGES.
ON THAT LANGUAGE, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE COMMISSION.
>> BUT WE HAVEN'T EVEN TELL THEM THAT THAT'S POSSIBLE.
>> [NOISE] KELLY, HERE'S MY INTERPRETATION.
IT'S STILL AN ACTIVE ITEM FOR POSSIBLE FUTURE PAB CONSIDERATION.
PROBABLY SOMETIME NEXT YEAR, 2025.
YOU COULD HOLD YOUR MARK IN TERMS OF THAT NEXT [OVERLAPPING]
>> WE PUT A LOT OF WORK IN DEFINITION.
THEY COULD BE ADDED TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
WE HAD THINGS PERIODICALLY IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
>> I CAN ASK IF THEY ARE READY TO TAKE THIS ISSUE.
>> I AGREE. I'M GOING TO LOSE A MINIMUM.
>> NEXT YEAR, IF THERE'S A WHOLE NEW BOARD HERE, THIS WILL GET LOST AND NOBODY WILL EVEN KNOW WHO WE ARE.
>> WELL, AT OUR NEXT MEETING THEN, THOSE DEFINITIONS THAT WE'RE WORKING ON, THAT WE WILL HAVE A FINAL OFFICIAL VOTE ON IT, AND THEN WE WILL ASK TO HAVE IT UPDATED IN OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND THEN THAT'S THE NEXT STEP THAT KELLY CAN TAKE IT FORWARD.
>> I'M JUST GOING TO INTERRUPT A LITTLE.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ONE MORE MEETING THAT WE'D GO THROUGH ALL OUR DEFINITION, WHAT WE'VE AGREED TO, AND THEN THAT COULD COME FORWARD AT THE FORMAL MEETING IN JUNE, CORRECT? FROM THAT FORMAL MEETING, THEN, WE COULD HAVE A VOTE ON IT, AND AT THAT TIME, IT COULD GO TO THE CITY COMMISSION. [OVERLAPPING].
>> SO LONG AS THE CITY MANAGER IS AGREEABLE TO THE APPLICATION BEING MADE AT THIS TIME.
>> BECAUSE I THINK WE COULD EXPLAIN TO THE COMMISSIONERS THAT THESE ARE JUST MORE OF ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS, AND EVEN IF THE 0405 GETS CONSIDERED IN THE FUTURE, IN NO WAY WOULD DO ANYTHING TO DETRACT FROM THAT PROCESS GOING FORWARD.
IF ANYTHING, WE MIGHT CHANGE A COUPLE OF WORDS ON ANY KIND OF REVISION OF 0405 BASED ON THESE DEFINITIONS.
>> THAT'S A LOT OF WORDS. ALL I WOULD TELL YOU, THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THE DICTIONARY.
[LAUGHTER] I DON'T WANT TO BAN THEM.
THAT'S WHAT OUR LANGUAGE IS BASED ON DEFINITION.
HAVING A DEFINITION, EVEN ONE THAT WE DON'T EVEN LIKE, SOMETIMES THEY BECOME USEFUL IN THE FUTURE.
>> WELL, LET'S DECIDE. WE'VE GOT AN OPEN ITEM.
YOU'VE GOT AN ITEM ON THE TABLE.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO CERTAINLY ADD THAT AS A DEFINITION.
>> DEFINITIONS AT THE VERY BOTTOM HERE.
PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER MEANS A UNIQUE NUMBER ASSIGNED BY THE NASSAU COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE.
DO WE NEED TO ELABORATE THAT THAT'S FOR PROPERTY THAT IDENTIFIES A PARCEL? I THINK THAT IDENTIFIES A PARCEL NEEDS TO BE PUT IN THERE? [OVERLAPPING]
>> THAT ALL IT DOES IS DEFINE AN OWNERSHIP.
[01:00:01]
BUT IT IS A PARCEL THAT'S BEING IDENTIFIED BY DEFINITION.>> NOW, MR. STEVENSON, BECAUSE WE HAVE RESERVED ON OUR CALENDARS THE 22ND AS A WORKSHOP, WERE YOU SUGGESTING THAT WE MEET THEN TO GO OVER THIS OR WE WAIT [OVERLAPPING]?
>> I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE DEFINITIONS AND EXACTLY WHAT WE PROPOSE, AND AFTER STARS AND EVERYTHING LINES UP.
>> WHY CAN'T WE DO THAT AT A REGULAR MEETING?
>> OR BY E MAIL. WE KNOW WHAT THEY ARE THEN WE TALK ABOUT THEM AT A REGULAR MEETING.
>> WELL, I HAD ONE OTHER ITEM I WOULD LIKE TO.
>> AGAIN, I APOLOGIZE, EVERYONE.
I LEFT EVERYTHING AT HOME TRYING TO STRAIGHTEN OUT ALL MY RECORDS.
I STRAIGHTENED A LOT OF THEM OUT, SOME OF THEM WERE IN THE GARBAGE.
WE HAVE SOMETHING IN OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE UNDER [INAUDIBLE].
ANY SUBSTANDARD LOT OF RECORD CAN BE DEVELOPED. SOMETHING ABOUT THAT?
>> THERE IS SOMETHING I THINK WE COULD CONSIDER WHEN WE TALK ABOUT.
IS THAT, IN OUR CODE IT SAYS SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES THAT, ANY SUBSTANDARD LOT CREATED AS FAR AS A PARCEL CAN BE BUILT ON.
>> IT SAYS, PLANT FIRES ONE BUILDING SITE.
WHERE I'M GOING WITH THIS IS THAT, THERE SHOULD BE SOME DISTINCTION BETWEEN A LOT OR I'LL JUST USE THE TERM PARCEL INCORRECTLY OR NOT.
A PARCEL THAT MAY CONTAIN FIVE SUBSTANDARD LOTS, BECAUSE AS IT NOW STANDS, ANY 25 FOOT LOT CAN BE DEVELOPED AS A HOUSE.
THAT CREATES A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF INCREASED DENSITY IN ANY NEIGHBORHOOD.
WHEN I VOTED TO PUT THAT IN, MY MIND AT THAT TIME WAS THINKING THAT, IF YOU BOUGHT A LOT THAT WAS 25 FOOT,30 YEARS AGO, TO BUILD A HOUSE AND YOU WERE ONLY ONE OWNERSHIP ON THAT LOT, YOU SHOULD HAVE A RIGHT TO BUILD ON THAT PLOT.
I NEVER CONSIDERED IT IN TERMS OF BREAKING 4, 5, 3, 6, AND DEVELOPING EACH ONE OF THEM.
IN THAT DEFINITION WE HAVE IN OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ABOUT BEING ABLE TO DEVELOP ANY SUBSTANDARD LOT OF RECORD, I WOULD LIKE TO ADD, THAT'S ONLY HAD A SINGLE OWNERSHIP.
THAT'S NOT THE TERM I WANT TO USE, THAT HAD A SINGLE OWNERSHIP ON A SINGLE LOT.
YOU BOUGHT ONE LOT, YOU CAN BUILD ON IT.
YOU BOUGHT 10 LOTS, YOU CAN ONLY BUILD ON ONE LOT.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE, EVERYBODY? I KNOW WHAT THAT DOES TO POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY BECAUSE WE HAVE A TREMENDOUS NUMBER OF SUBSTANDARD LOTS OF 25 FOOT LOTS.
NOW, AS PART OF OUR LAST DEFINITION, THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT MAKING 50 FOOT MINIMAL LOTS.
BUT WHERE I HAVE CONCERN IS WHEN YOU HAVE A 75 FOOT LOT AND THEN YOU BUILD ON A 50 FOOT LOT AND THEN YOU HAVE A 25 FOOT LOT LEFT OVER.
I DON'T LIKE THAT PIECE OF IT.
WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS, IF YOU BOUGHT A SINGLE LOT AND THAT'S A LOT ON THE RECORD, THAT'S WHAT YOU'VE OWNED FOREVER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO BUILD ON IT.
ONCE IT BECOMES PUT TOGETHER INTO A LARGER PARCEL OWNERSHIP, SEVERAL LOTS, THAT CREATES A DIFFERENT THING, AND THAT SHOULD THEN GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BECAUSE NOW YOU'RE DISRUPTING THAT WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH A WHOLE NEW POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THAT PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD DID NOT THINK ABOUT WHEN THEY BOUGHT THAT HOUSE. IS THAT CLEAR?
>> WHAT IF I OWN A PIECE OF LAND THAT'S A 200 FOOT LOT
[01:05:02]
AND I HAVE THE ABILITY TO SPLIT IT INTO MULTIPLE THINGS UNDER MY OWN OWNERSHIP? I'M NOT TRANSFERRING OWNERSHIP OR ANYTHING, BUT I DECIDE I WANT TO GO AHEAD AND SPLIT IT UP INTO 25 FOOT LOTS.WHAT WOULD BE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT AND CHANGING IT TO WHERE IT'S TIED TO THE OWNERSHIP? I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE DIFFERENCE WOULD BE.
>> I'M NOT SURE I'M FOLLOWING YOUR WHOLE QUESTION.
>> I GUESS I'M NOT FOLLOWING WHAT THE PROPOSAL IS.
THE PROPOSAL IS TO CHANGE IT TO WHERE, IF YOU HAVE A PARCEL UNDER SINGLE OWNERSHIP, THEN YOU CAN DEVELOP ON YOUR PROPERTY, CORRECT?
>> WHERE'S THAT DEFINITION? LET'S FIND WHERE IT SAYS. YOU HAVE IT UP?
>> YES. THIS IS THE WHOLE SECTION.
>> SECTION THAT SAYS ANY SUBSTANDARD LOT OF RECORD CAN BE BUILT ON, WHERE IS THAT EXACTLY?
>> RIGHT HERE. KELLY'S GOT IT PULLED UP TOO.
ONE DWELLING UNIT MAY BE CONSTRUCTED ON A SUBSTANDARD, PLATTED LOT OF RECORD IN A RESIDENTIAL OR MIXED-USE ZONING DISTRICT IF IT HAD NEVER BEEN COMBINED WITH A LARGER PARCEL.
>> THAT'S HOW THE WHOLE SECTION 05 WAS CONCEIVED.
>> I MAY BE RIGHT OR WRONG, BUT I'VE TALKED TO PEOPLE THAT ARE STILL ALIVE THAT WERE ON THE PLANNING BOARD BACK THEN, AND THEY'VE AGREED WITH THAT.
>> WELL, LET ME JUST THROW SOMETHING OUT THERE.
>> I CAN'T HEAR YOU. I'M SORRY. WHAT ARE YOU SAYING?
>> THERE IS ALSO A CORRESPONDING COMPLAIN POLICY THAT GOES WITH THIS.
>> BUT BY TYING IT THAT WAY, THAT THEN MAKES THOSE GOING OFF SOMEWHERE ELSE AND REDEVELOPING, RE-PLATTING, OR WHATEVER, YOU GOT TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION, COULD STILL BE DEVELOPED.
BUT THE WHOLE IDEA OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WAS TO ADD A LAYER OF PROTECTION TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THAT THEN HAD ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT OR NEIGHBORHOOD AVAILABILITY FOR COMMENT.
I KEEP TELLING YOU, YOU NEED TO GET ONLINE AND LOOK AT SOME OF THESE AREAS WHERE THEY HAVE THESE SMALL LOTS.
YOU'RE GOING FROM POTENTIALLY, WE'VE SEEN ONE PROPERTY TO 36 PROPERTIES, OR 34.
THAT'S JUST UNBELIEVABLE IF WE'RE GOING TO BE IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT OR PLANNING STAGE OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.
WE HAVE TO PLAN FOR SOME OF THESE THINGS.
BELIEVE ME, NICK HAD A JOB, I HAD A JOB DOING NOTHING BUT CREATING MORE REAL ESTATE, MORE BUILDING, MORE STUFF.
THIS IS FLORIDA. WHEN THE SPANISH LEFT, THE ENGLISH CAME IN.
THEN THE ENGLISH LEFT, THEN THE AMERICANS CAME IN TO BUILD AND DO AND RAPE AND PILLAGE.
>> LET ME ASK A GLOBAL QUESTION.
I WANT TO TAKE AN EXAMPLE THAT DAPHNE PUT UP.
THIS IS OVER ON FIRST AVENUE, ON THE BACK SIDE OF THE DUNE, BEHIND FLETCHER.
THE HOUSE IS ONE FOOT AWAY FROM THAT BORDER ON THAT LAST 25 FOOT LOT THAT'S NOT CONSTRUCTED, VIRGIN LAND.
NOW I HAVE A VERY NON-CONFORMING HOUSE THAT'S ONE FOOT.
THE OFFSET SHOULD BE A MINIMUM OF SEVEN FEET FROM THE EDGE OF THE LOT.
ARE YOU ALLOWED TO SELL THAT 25 FOOT LOT?
>> WELL, YOU CAN SELL ANYTHING YOU WANT TO IF SOME FOOL WANTS TO BUY IT.
>> BUT NOW MY HOUSE NO LONGER CONFORMS. IT'S TOO CLOSE TO THE EDGE OF THE PROPERTY.
>> WELL, I GUESS THE QUESTION, MR. BENNETT, IS, HOW DOES TYING OWNERSHIP TO IT CHANGE ANYTHING AT ALL? WHAT'S THE BENEFIT OF TYING OWNERSHIP IN ANY LAND?
>> WELL, IN HIS EXAMPLE, YOU GOT FOUR LOTS.
IN MY EXAMPLE HERE, YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO SPLIT ANY OF THOSE OTHER LOTS OFF.
YOU COULDN'T TAKE THAT ONE LOT BECAUSE IT WAS A SUBSTANDARD LOT OF RECORD THAT HAD BEEN COMBINED INTO A LARGER PARCEL AT ONE TIME.
>> BUT WE DON'T HAVE A UNIVERSAL ACCEPTANCE OF THAT DEFINITION.
>> NO, WE DON'T BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I SAY WE NEED IN HERE.
>> IN YOUR EXAMPLE SPECIFICALLY, THAT LAST PARCEL, THE HOUSE ITSELF RELIES ON THAT PARCEL TO EXIST AND BE CONFORMING.
BY SELLING OFF INDEPENDENTLY, YOU'VE NOW CREATED A NON-CONFORMITY,
[01:10:01]
WHICH YOU NEED A VARIANCE TO CONTINUE TO EXIST AND TO SELL THAT LAND INDEPENDENTLY.>> THEY'RE BOUND AT THAT POINT.
>> EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO PHYSICAL STRUCTURE ON IT, THERE ARE OTHER ELEMENTS.
>> IT'S RELYING ON IT FOR COMPLIANCE.
>> I CANNOT CREATE A NEW NON-CONFORMITY.
>> OUR EXISTING CONTROL PROCESS WOULD CATCH THAT.
>> WE HAVE A LOT OF THOSE. I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE.
WE'VE TALKED ABOUT DENSITY IN ALL VARIOUS AREAS, 16, 18, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO BUILD.
WHAT THEY TELL YOU IS THAT, AND NICK WILL TELL YOU THAT IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU SAY YOU CAN BUILD 100 LOTS OVER THERE OR 100 HOUSES BECAUSE SETBACKS, HEIGHT.
YOU'VE GOT ALL OF THESE OTHER THINGS THAT THAT PACKAGE HAS TO FIT IN SO IT GETS DOWN INTO A FUNNEL.
THOSE ARE THE PROTECTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN BUILT IN.
WHAT'S HAPPENED OVER TIME, THERE ARE LOOPHOLES IN THERE BECAUSE WHO WOULD'VE THOUGHT THAT.
WHEN THEY WERE DOING SCHLEP OUT HERE, WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THEY WANTED TO BUILD A BIG SHOPPING CENTER IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ISLAND SOMEWHERE? IT WAS LIKE, WHO WAS GOING TO GO THERE?
>> WELL, WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD.
WHAT DO WE WANT TO DO ABOUT MARK'S OPEN AGENDA ITEM?
>> WHAT IS THE PROPOSAL EXACTLY?
>> WHEN YOU SAY, WHAT IS THAT?
>> ONE DWELLING UNIT MAY BE CONSTRUCTED ON A SUBSTANDARD, PLATTED LOT OF RECORD IN A RESIDENTIAL OR MIXED-USE ZONING DISTRICT AS LONG AS IT HAS NOT BEEN COMBINED WITH A LARGER PARCEL OR OWNERSHIP PARCEL.
>> I WOULD RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE.
>> I WOULD DISAGREE BECAUSE THAT DOESN'T REFLECT WHAT THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS, AND THAT'S WHAT DEFINES PROPERTY.
>> I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION HERE.
>> BECAUSE IT STOPS ALL THE OPEN DEVELOPMENT.
>> BUT IT ALSO VIOLATES THAT COMP PLAN OBJECTIVE WHERE YOU HAVE UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD THAT IT SAYS A SINGLE FAMILY PERMIT MUST BE ISSUED.
I THINK 1.05.04, I THINK IT VIOLATES THAT BECAUSE IT'S ONE RESIDENTIAL UNIT.
IT'S NOT SAYING YOU CAN DO A DUPLEX OR TRIPLEX.
IT SAYS ONE SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT.
THAT'S THE EXEMPTION IN THE STATE.
IF YOU WERE SAYING DUPLEX OR TRIPLEX, THEN THAT'D BE DIFFERENT.
BUT THE SINGLE FAMILY UNIT IS VESTED ON THE PLATTED LOT OF RECORD.
THAT DOESN'T GO AWAY JUST BECAUSE WE WANT IT TO.
>> HOW DO WE PROTECT THE OVER DEVELOPMENT, OVER DENSITY OF THE CITY?
>> BECAUSE IT'S ON THE RECORD.
>> BECAUSE YOU ALREADY HAVE ALL THESE UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD.
>> WOULDN'T THIS REQUIRE A CHANGE TO THE COMP PLAN?
>> BECAUSE YOU HAVE THESE UNDERLYING LOT AND BECAUSE OF THAT RIGHT THERE, EVERY 25 FOOT LOT CAN HAVE A HOUSE ON IT.
THAT WAS TAKEN OUT OF STATE LAW THAT ALLOWS A SINGLE FAMILY.
HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MULTI OR ANYTHING ELSE.
IT'S A SINGLE FAMILY. I REMEMBER TAMMY TALKING ABOUT THIS.
>> IT'S A RELATIVELY NEW SECTION.
THIS POLICY HAS EXISTED IN AS FAR AS I KNOW, SINCE 2004, FIVE TIME FRAME WHEN THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW TO NAVIGATE THOSE SUBSTANDARD LOTS.
BECAUSE WHEN PEOPLE WOULD COME IN, THEY WOULD SAY, I'M SORRY, YOUR 25 FOOT LOT IS NOT BUILDABLE.
YOU DON'T HAVE SUFFICIENTLY INTERIOR DENSITY TO SUPPORT A DWELLING UNIT THERE.
IT WAS BECOMING SUCH AN ISSUE AT THAT POINT IN TIME.
I KNOW IT TOOK THE PLANNING BOARD AND COMMISSION MORE THAN TWO YEARS TO GET THROUGH IT, BUT THESE POLICIES WERE PUT IN PLACE FOLLOWING IT TO HONOR THOSE LOTS OF RECORD.
>> I REMEMBER HAVING DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE SIZE OF LOTS AND WHAT THEY HAD TO BE AND HOW MANY.
>> I REMEMBER TOO. I REMEMBER 50 FOOT CAME OUT.
PRIOR TO THIS, WE SAID A 50 FOOT LOT WAS THE MINIMUM LOT.
>> DO YOU REMEMBER THE DUPLEX PROBLEM THEY HAVE?
>> THAT WAS TALKED ABOUT IN THIS WORKSHOP A LONG TIME AGO.
BUT THAT WAS CREATED BASED ON ALL THE PEOPLE THAT WERE LOSING PROPERTY RIGHTS AND NOT BEING ABLE TO BUILD.
>> WELL, WE HAVE REPORTS OVER THERE ON FIRST AVENUE FOR A LOT OF DUPLEXES THAT WERE CREATED.
I DON'T REMEMBER ALL THE ISSUES INVOLVED, BUT THERE WAS A PROBLEM WITH BEING ABLE TO BUILD A DUPLEX.
[01:15:03]
I THINK SOME OF THIS WOULD RESOLVE SOME OF THAT.BUT MY INTENT, AGAIN, IS ONLY TO CONTROL THESE.
MULTIPLE LOTS, SUBSTANDARD LOTS BEING BROKEN UP FROM THE EXISTING PARCELS AND GOING FROM ONE HOUSE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO 32 IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR WHATEVER NUMBER IS.
AND I THINK SOME PROTECTIONS HAVE TO BE IMPOSED BY US OR SUGGESTED BY SO THAT WE CONTROL SOME OF THE DENSITY BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AROUND, LIKE I SAID, IF YOU JUST SPEND SOME TIME, YOU CAN SEE THE NUMBER IF YOU BRING UP THE UL PLATE AND JUST LOOK AT ALL THE 25 FOOT LOTS, THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE DEALING WITH.
>> ISN'T THE THING THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE TAKING UP LATER?
>> NO, BECAUSE DIDN'T THEY PUT A HALL TO IT AND SAY THEY'LL REVISIT THIS.
>> WELL, THEY'RE PAUSING THAT PART, BUT THAT DOESN'T STOP US FROM.
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT THEY DON'T WANT IT.
WE'RE NOT PRESENTING IT TO THEM TO THEM NOW.
>> IS IT POSSIBLE? I THINK I MEAN, IF YOU HEAR WHAT MARK IS WANTING TO DO.
I'M HEARING NICK AND YOU SAY THIS PRECLUDES WHAT HE'S DESCRIBING.
>> AND THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL FLORIDA STATUTE THAT PROTECTS THOSE LAND OWNERS IN ADDITION TO MORE POLICIES IN YOUR COMP PLAN THAT HONOR PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS THAT WE NEED TO REALLY THINK THROUGH AS WE CONTEMPLATE CHANGES TO THIS LANGUAGE OR ANY OTHER LANGUAGE.
>> SO IS THERE AND WHEN I SAY ANYONE, I MEAN WHO HAS THE EXPERTISE YOU HEAR WHAT MARK IS SAYING AND SAY, HERE ARE WAYS TO ACCOMPLISH THAT THAT DON'T VIOLATE THIS?
>> CAN I ANSWER PART OF THIS QUESTION BECAUSE OR NOT.
I WOULD SAY THEY'RE NOT. IF THE CONCERN IS PROPERTY RIGHTS.
THE PROPERTY RIGHT IS THE ABILITY TO DO SOMETHING WITH THAT PROPERTY.
I'M TRYING TO RESTRICT OR IMPOSE SOME RIGHTS TO THE NEIGHBOR NEXT DOOR.
>> BUT WE LIMIT PROPERTY RIGHTS ALL THE TIME BY ZONING.
SOMEBODY GOES OUT AND BUYS A PIECE OF PROPERTY AND I MEAN, RIGHT NOW, IF SOMEONE WANT TO TEAR THAT BUILDING DOWN AND BUILD A HIGH RISE CONDO, THEY CAN'T DO IT.
OR THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO DO IT MAYBE THOSE ARE LIMITING THEIR RIGHTS.
THERE'S NO PROBLEM WITH LIMITING RIGHTS.
THIS AREA SEEMS TO THINK THAT ANY RESTRICTIONS ON WHAT I CAN DO, IS PUTTING SOME UNDUE HARDSHIP ON ME AS THE OWNER, AND WE HAVE ALL AREAS THAT THEY CAN GO TO FOR RELIEF.
ALL I'M SUGGESTING IS I DON'T WANT TO SEE THE MASSIVE AMOUNT OF NEW HOMES IN DENSITY THAT IS POSSIBLE, AND I THINK THAT THERE ARE SOME WAYS THAT WE CAN LIMIT SOME OF THAT BY NOT TAKING ANYBODY'S RIGHT AWAY BECAUSE IF YOU OWN ONE LOT, YOU CAN BUILD.
>> I'M ON YOUR SIDE. I'M ASKING KELLY ARE YOU FIND A WAY TO DO IT.
>> WELL, LET'S PUT PRESSURE ON HER TO FIND A WAY TO DO IT.
>> LET ME ASK A QUESTION JUST A LITTLE BIT OF KELLY ON THAT LAND UP JUST SOUTH OF WEST ROCK, WHICH IS OWNED BY WEST ROCK, BUT IT'S GOT THE OLD I GUESS I'LL CALL IT THE ELI PLANTING ON THOSE LOTS.
IF I WENT IN AND BOUGHT 12 OF THOSE LOTS FROM THE MILL.
>> IF THAT'S HOW THEY WERE ORIGINALLY PLOTTED.
YES. AND ASSUMING THERE'S NO OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS FOR THE LAND. PREVENT?
>> I'M ASSUMING THAT THIS IS VIRGIN BILLABLE LAND.
THERE'S NOTHING ON IT EXCEPT TREES RIGHT NOW.
THEY MIGHT NOT LIKE ANY OF IT.
>> MEANT AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS TO PROVIDE INFRASTRUCTURE TO THE SITE.
>> AND SOMETIMES WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT WEST ROCK, WHEN YOU LOOK AT INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY, LOOK AT THE THINGS THAT CAN BE DONE WITH INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY AND THEN ALSO THINK IN TERMS OF SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT HAVE OCCURRED IN THE STATE.
>> WELL, I DON'T KNOW HOW THESE ARE ZONE I MEAN, THEY MAY BE ZONED COMMERCIAL. I'M NOT SURE.
>> SO, THINGS LIKE WEST ROCK, RAINER.
[01:20:01]
IF THOSE PLANTS GO AWAY, WHICH THEY'RE BOTH DEVELOPMENT COMPANIES OF SORT, THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE THEY PUT A NEW CITY THERE.SO THAT'S WHAT YOUR FACE WITH BECAUSE A LOT OF WE DON'T HAVE THAT MANY CONSTRAINTS AND SOME OF THAT BECAUSE IT GOES TO PLANNING AND THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS.
BUT, IT'S NOT THAT THIS CITY DOESN'T HAVE ANY DEVELOPMENT.
>> BUT THE THING IS THAT IT STANDS WITH THE COMMISSIONERS?
>> WELL, WE SEND SOME [OVERLAPPING] WE HAVE PUBLIC HEARING.
WE WRITE THEM UP, WE TALK ABOUT THEM, WE GET PUBLIC INPUT.
AND HOPEFULLY, IF EVERYONE AGREES, WE SEND IT TO THE COMMISSION THAT THE PUBLIC WILL PUT PRESSURE ON THEM TO OKAY THEM.
YES, YOU'RE RIGHT. THEY'RE THE ULTIMATE PERSON, BUT IF WE DON'T DO ANYTHING, THEY WON'T DO ANYTHING.
>> DIDN'T WE ORIGINALLY AGREED TO SAY NO.
>> NO. WE NEVER BACKED OFF. NO.
>> ALL YOU WANTED TO DO WAS DO THE DEFINITIONS.
>> THIS IS ALL THIS IS THE OBJECTIVE WE HAD.
GO AHEAD AND DO SOME CLEAN UP.
AND THESE WERE, IN SOME CASES, I THINK IN EVERY CASE, RIGHT NOW, THEY WOULD BE INDEPENDENT ACTIONS SEPARATE FROM ONE OR THREE OR FOUR OR FIVE ALL OF MODIFICATIONS IN THE FUTURE.
IT MIGHT HELP THAT IN TERMS OF MAKING SURE WE HAD A SET OF DEFINITIONS THAT COULD BE USED IF WE NEEDED TO REWRITE IT.
>> BUT I MEAN, THE REASON THAT WE DID WAS THE MAIN THING WAS BECAUSE WE DECIDED WE NEED TO TONE IN ON THE DEFINITIONS.
>> WE HAVE TIME, THERE'S NOT A LOT OF THINGS COMING IN FROM OUTSIDE WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
IT IS A GOOD TIME FOR US TO MAYBE DO SOME CLEANUP, LOOK AT SOME THINGS THAT ARE THERE.
I MEAN, WE HAVE TIME TO DO THAT.
AND THIS IS JUST ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE ITEMS, WHICH ANYBODY, WHICH DOESN'T HURT.
I DON'T I THINK WHAT WE DO IS WE'RE GOING TO MAKE A PROPOSAL AND SEND IT OFF.
I'M GOING TO NOTE THAT THE COMMISSION GAVE US A LIST OF ITEMS THAT WE WERE SUPPOSED TO WORK ON AT THE VERY OUTSET OF THE YEAR LAST YEAR.
THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS. THIS WASN'T.
WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE LOOKING AT NEW WAYS, WHICH I THINK THE PUD DISCUSSION THAT WE BROUGHT UP IS A WAY TO ADDRESS.
>> I THINK MOST OF IT'S ON THERE.
THERE MAY BE ONE OR TWO THAN ARE, BUT I MEAN, AND SOMETHING WE WANT TO WORK ON.
>> THOSE ARE THE THINGS WE HAVE TO WORK ON.
>> SO TO MY VIEW IS, RIGHT NOW, I BELIEVE WE'VE ACCOMPLISHED THE OBJECTIVE OF.
>> WHAT WE NEED TO DO NOW IS REVIEW THOSE DEFINITIONS AS MODIFIED AND YOURS IS YOU'VE ADDED NUMBER 20 INTO THAT LIST AND GET US THROUGH ON THAT, JESS, THAT WAS PERMISSION THAT WE WERE HAVING.
NOW, WE'VE ALSO GOT A WHOLE LAUNDRY LIST OF STUFF TO THINK ABOUT AND I'M GOING TO SUGGEST A COUPLE OTHER THINGS TONIGHT THAT MAYBE WE ADD ON THAT OF LIST OF THINGS TO DO.
BUT THESE ARE GOING TO BE MORE STRATEGIC.
>> WE CAN DO THINGS OUTSIDE OF WHAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO DO FROM THE COMMISSION.
I MEAN, THAT'S UP TO THE CHAIR, VICE CHAIR, OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
IF YOU SEE OTHER CONCERNS THAT CAN BE ADDRESSED, I MEAN, TO ME, THESE ARE THE PERFECT TIMES TO DO THAT.
BECAUSE WHAT THEY SAID, THIS IS GOING TO BE PAUSED.
[OVERLAPPING] WELL WE CAN STILL WORK ON IT.
THE DISCUSSION OF THE 103, 04 THAT WAS PRESENTED BY STAFF IS ON PAUSE.
>> COMMISSION HAS SAID WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO ANY FURTHER WITH THAT.
WHAT WE SAID IS, WE NEED TO TAKE A BREATH AND WORK ON THESE DEFINITIONS BECAUSE THERE WAS A LOT OF CONFUSION ON THOSE DEFINITION AS WE WENT THROUGH SECTIONS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
>> THAT'S CERTAINLY NOT THE ONLY THING THAT WE CAN DISCUSS.
>> [OVERLAPPING] AS LONG AS WE'RE NOT GOING INTO THAT PARTICULAR.
>> WE'RE NOT GOING INTO 103, 04, 05 PERIOD.
>> BUT THERE'S OTHER THINGS THEY WANT US TO DO.
>> THERE'S OTHER THINGS THAT I'M SURE THAT [OVERLAPPING] WE WOULD WANT TO COME UP WITH A SOLUTION FOR 04 AND 05 AND FROM THE PAV TO TAKE TO THE COMMISSION, SAY, HERE'S THE CORRECT SOLUTION.
THIS PROTECTS THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY.
[01:25:01]
THIS MOVES US FORWARD.THERE'S A COUPLE OF AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS MAYBE SOME SORE SPOTS.
IT WOULD ALSO, IF DONE RIGHT, I THINK WOULD ACCOMPLISH WHAT MARK'S ORIGINAL GOAL ON HIS TEAM, THAT GO THAT WAS 06, WHATEVER IT WAS.
>> BUT CAN'T WE JUST ADD THAT TO THIS LIST?
>> LET'S KEEP FOCUSED HERE ON WHAT WE'RE DOING TODAY, RIGHT NOW.
>> WHICH IS THE DEFINITIONS AND IF WE'VE GOTTEN TO THE POINT WHERE WE'RE DONE WITH THE DEFINITIONS
>> WELL, I DON'T THINK WE'LL EVER BE DONE WITH DEFINITION.
>> I MEAN, WITH THESE DEFINITIONS BUT.
>> YEAH WITH THESE DEFINITIONS [OVERLAPPING].
>> YOU'RE COMING IN HERE DOING ALL KINDS OF THINGS TRYING TO DEVELOP US.
WHAT ISSUES ARE YOU SEEING THAT COULD BE ADDRESSED?
>> PUD. ALL RIGHT. THERE WE GO SOMETHING.
>> WELL, THERE'S NO REASON NOT TO START [OVERLAPPING].
>> [INAUDIBLE] DEAL WITH THAT STUFF.
>> BUT AGAIN, WE'RE GOING OFF IN SOME DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS HERE.
I WANT US TO HAVE A PLAN TO TAKE WHAT WE'VE DISCUSSED AT OUR PREVIOUS WORKSHOP AND WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY AND STAFF TAKING THAT AND PRESENTING US WITH A LIST OF WHAT WE HAVE SUGGESTED.
THEN WE DO SOMETHING WITH THAT, WHATEVER IT IS TO TAKE THAT AND SEND IT TO THE STATE TO CHANGE THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE DEFINITIONS.
IF THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO.
GREAT. BUT THEN WE FINISH WITH THIS FOR RIGHT NOW.
THEN I THINK THAT WE GO THROUGH THE REST OF OUR AGENDA AND THEN UNDER THE SECTION OF BOARD BUSINESS THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BRING UP THAT LIST.
THAT'S WHERE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE TALKING, AND YOU WERE TALKING, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ALL TALKING ABOUT.
LET'S NOT CONFUSE THE EFFORTS THAT WE'VE HAD TODAY IN THESE DEFINITIONS WITH OTHER STUFF.
KELLY, ARE YOU WITH ME ON THAT?
>> JUST TO REITERATE THAT ON THAT OTHER LIST OF STUFF, 103, 04, AND 05 ARE ON THAT LIST OF THINGS TO TALK ABOUT SO IT'S THERE.
>> BUT WE GOT TO CLOSE THIS LOOP.
>> THEY'RE JUST ON ALPHABETICAL. I DIDN'T PRIORITIZE.
I LEFT THEM ALPHABETICAL JUST TO KEEP IT STERILE AS POSSIBLE.
THE QUESTION IS, DO WE WANT TO MEET TWO WEEKS OR FOUR WEEKS?
>> LET ME JUST SAY ONE OF THEM. YOUR PLANNING STAGE HERE WE CAN'T VOTE UNLESS WE HAVE AN ANNOUNCEMENT ON THE AGENDA, RIGHT?
>> THEY HAVE TO DO NOTICE, OKAY.
>> ADVERTISING IN THE NEWSPAPER TO AMEND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH MEANS THAT YOU HAVE AN AUTHORIZED APPLICATION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
>> BUT WHAT ABOUT SAY OUR DEFINITIONS HERE? I MEAN, FOR US TO VOTE
>> WE HAVE TO BE IN A REGULAR MEETING.
>> THAT HAS BEEN A REGULAR MEETING SUBJECT [INAUDIBLE].
>> PROBABLY NEED AN APPLICATION BY THE CITY.
>>. IF YOU GET OUR DEFINITION OF ALL OF THAT TOGETHER, WE CAN WE COULD HAVE A VOTE ON THAT IN NEXT MONTH.
>> OKAY AND THAT'S PART OF THE PLAN.
>> I'M JUST SUGGESTING THAT WE CONTINUE TO HAVE WORKSHOPS AND MEET WHILE WE'RE BUSY TAKE CARE OF THE PUD, TAKE CARE OF SOME OF THESE OTHER ITEMS.
>> BUT I'M TRYING TO GET THE [OVERLAPPING] [INAUDIBLE] ON TONIGHT.
>> YEAH, I AM TOO. I'M TRYING TO GET WHAT WE'VE DONE, THESE LAST TWO WORKSHOPS ALL BUTTONED UP SO THAT STAFF KNOWS WHAT WE NEED AT OUR NEXT REGULAR MEETING SO THAT WE CAN MAKE A DECISION ON THOSE DEFINITIONS THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED.
THEN WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH CHANGES TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
>> ARE WE AGREED THAT THE PARCEL ID IS GOING TO BE PART OF THAT? [OVERLAPPING] BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE.
YOU'RE KIND OF TAKING THIS LIST AND HIS LIST AND IS THAT IT? NO.
>> I THOUGHT WE ADDED THE PARCEL ID.
>> WE DID. WE PUT IT RIGHT UP THERE.
>> ALL RIGHT. I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT.
I'VE BEEN HERE LONG ENOUGH AND THINGS JUST GO AWAY AND NEVER COME BACK.
>> OFFICIALLY [OVERLAPPING] THAT WE WANT TO DO JUNE 12TH, WE WANT TO HAVE AT A REGULAR PAB MEETING AND EFFECT A VOTE.
IF WE HAVE TO DO MINOR EDITING I DON'T THINK THAT'S A PROBLEM, NOT MUCH EDITING TO DO.
THAT PUTS THAT PRODUCT TO BED.
>> WILL YOU BE ABLE TO SEND THAT TO US BEFORE THE MEETING SO WE HAVE THAT?
>> THAT'S OUR WORKSHOP OR MEETING?
>> THIS WILL BE A REGULAR MEETING. JUNE 12TH.
KELLY, THE ONLY THING I WOULD DO IS IF WE COULD PUT A LITTLE MERCHANDISING ON THIS TO THE COMMISSION TO SAY,
[01:30:02]
LOOK, THIS IS JUST ADMINISTRATIVE CLEANUP.>> DOES THAT HAVE TO GO TO THE CITY COMMISSION? NO.
>> NO. THIS IS THE PLANNING BOARD FOR THE CITY OF FERNANDINA.
WE CAN WE HAVE A LOT OF FREEDOM AND FLEXIBILITY.
WE CAN PUT THIS TOGETHER AND SEND IT TO THEM.
>> OUR VALUE HERE SHOULD BE HOW TO MAKE THINGS [OVERLAPPING].
I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW MANY SUBCOMMITTEE, WITH THREE OR FOUR PEOPLE SITTING OUT HERE AND MAYBE TWO PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE ARE 50.
THAT'S JUST DISCUSSING THINGS.
SO YOU HAVE A LOT OF FLEXIBILITY.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO TRY TO TIE THIS STUFF UP.
>> SO AGAIN, TRACK IS THE DEFINITIONS THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT.
KELLY'S GOING TO SEND THOSE BACK OUT TO US IN ONE SHEET OF PAPER WITH THOSE DEFINITIONS PRIOR TO OUR JUNE MEETING, WHERE WE WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TWEAK IT IF WE FEEL NECESSARY, AND THEN WE WILL VOTE ON IT.
WHAT WE WOULD WANT IS TO SEND IT TO CHANGING OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
WE MAKE APPLICATION TO SEND THAT TO THE STATE. WHAT'S THE NEXT STEP.
[OVERLAPPING] OUR WORK IS DONE ON THAT, AND IT GOES TO YOU, AND YOU'LL TAKE CARE OF IT?
>> DOES THE STATE HAVE TO APPROVE OUR DEFINITION?
>> BECAUSE IF IT'S A DEFINITION IN THE COMP PLAN, THEY DO, BUT NOT IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
>> THAT IS OUR OLD BUSINESS ON OUR AGENDA.
WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO BOARD BUSINESS. ITEM NUMBER 4.
[4. BOARD BUSINESS]
AGAIN, MR. STEVENSON HAS GIVEN US AN UPDATED PAB ITEMS FOR FUTURE DISCUSSION.THAT WAS REFERRED TO US BY NOT ONLY JUST A CITY COMMISSION, BUT THINGS THAT I THINK STAFF HAS ASKED FOR, THINGS THAT WE'VE ALL ASKED FOR.
SO IT'S A COMPOSITE LIST THAT I WOULD LIKE FOR US TO REVIEW.
>> WHERE AM I GOING TO FIND THIS AT?
>> I WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO THIS, AND I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S ON HERE ON THIS LIST, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S ON THIS LIST TO REVIEW THE PUD REQUIREMENTS.
>> IT WAS IN YOUR PACKET FROM NOT THIS TONIGHT'S.
KELLY, IT IS ON THE LAST, LOOK AT THE LAST TWO PAGES ON THE DATA PACKET. IT'S IN HERE.
>> REVISE PUD MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS, FOURTH ITEM FROM THE BOTTOM.
>> NOW, I WOULD ASK THAT YOU COLLECTIVELY PRIORITIZE WHAT YOU THINK THEY OUGHT TO BE THE SEQUENCE FOR THESE ITEMS.
>> OR DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER ADDITIONS TO IT?
>> YEAH, I THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE ONE OR TWO THAT MAY COME.
NO, BY GOLLY IT'S ALREADY ON HERE. I SEE IT.
>> NICK, DO YOU HAVE ADDITIONS?
>> I HAVEN'T SEEN THIS BEFORE.
>> I GUESS ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THEN IS, DO WE WANT TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS AT A WORKSHOP THAT WE'VE RESERVED ON OUR CALENDARS FOR THE 22ND OR DO WE JUST WAIT AND DO THIS IN OUR REGULAR MEETING? I THINK THAT IT MIGHT BE MORE HELPFUL TO DO THIS IN A WORKSHOP, BUT I'M ASKING THE BOARD. WHAT'S THE PLEASURE?
WHAT IF WE COULD ALL GET A COPY OF THIS BY EMAIL, AND THEN WHILE AT HOME WORK ON PRIORITIZATION AND THEN BRING IT TO A WORKSHOP.
>> I THINK THAT'S A REASONABLE WAY OF GOING BECAUSE IT'S NOT ONLY LOOKING AT THAT, BUT ALSO PRIORITIZING IT.
SOME OF THOSE MAY NOT EVEN BE WITHIN WHAT I WOULD CALL THE RANGE OF RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PAB.
>> WHO CAME UP WITH THIS LIST?
>> WE'RE NOT SURE WHAT A LOT THE MEAN.
>> WHY DIDN'T YOU MAKE THE LIST?
>> THESE ARE JUST THINGS THAT HAVE COME UP IN THE DISCUSSION.
>> SOMEBODY ASKED ME, WELL, WHAT'S ALL THE STUFF THAT'S BEEN KICKING AROUND?
[01:35:01]
THIS IS STUFF, SOME OF IT GOES BACK TWO OR THREE YEARS.I JUST PUT IT DOWN WITH THE IDEA OF FUTURE DISCUSSION, ACTION, WHATEVER WE THOUGHT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE.
>> BUT IS THERE ANYTHING ON THAT LIST THAT WE DON'T HAVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR?
>> NO, YOU COULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL OF IT.
>> NO. WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT SHOULD WE CONCENTRATE ON THE THINGS THAT WE CAN ASSIST WITH?
>> I THINK WE SHOULD FOCUS ON WHAT THE CITY COMMISSION ASKED US TO DO AND NOT MAKE UP OUR OWN LIST.
>> WE SHOULD HAVE OUR OWN LIST.
>> WELL, I'LL PUT IT THIS WAY.
SURE, THERE'S ONE ITEM ON THERE, THE FIFTH ITEM DOWN, FUTURE REVISIONS TO LDC 04, 05.
WE KNOW SOMEWHERE THAT'S SITTING OUT THERE IS A POSSIBILITY.
LIKE AN ITEM, THE FOURTH ITEM UP FROM THE BOTTOM, PUD SIZES, THAT CAME FROM THE PAB.
>> WELL, BUT THEY ADDRESS THE ELEMENTS THAT THE COMMISSION GAVE US AT THE BEGINNING.
>> WELL, WHY DON'T YOU ADD IT TO THIS LIST?
>> WELL, I THINK WE OUGHT TO JUST ORGANIZE THIS LIST TO SEE IF THEY MATCH WHAT THE COMMISSION ASKED US TO DO.
>> BUT NICK, THE THING THAT WE HAVE TO REMEMBER, THOUGH, IS THAT WE DON'T JUST LOOK AT THINGS THAT ARE GIVEN TO US BY THE CITY COMMISSION.
WE HAVE A BROAD SCOPE TO LOOK AT ALL KINDS OF AREAS THAT INVOLVE THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AS WELL AS THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND.
>> WELL, I THINK WE OUGHT TO START WITH WHAT THE COMMISSION DOES [OVERLAPPING].
>> WE CAN CERTAINLY PUT THAT ON OUR LIST.
>> THE PROBLEM IS THAT IT'S EVOLVED A LITTLE BIT.
IF ANYBODY WATCHED LAST NIGHT, I WOULD HIGHLY SUGGEST THAT EVERYBODY ON THE PAB REVIEW THE WORKSHOP AT 5:00 FOR TUESDAY NIGHT BECAUSE THE COMMISSIONERS HAD A VERY, I THOUGHT, HEALTHY DISCUSSION [OVERLAPPING].
>> THEY DID IT. THERE WAS NOT A LOT OF EMOTION.
AND I THINK BRADLEY AND CHIP CAME UP WITH PROBLEMS, WHAT MAY BE THE ONLY WORKABLE SOLUTION.
BUT THE POINT WAS THEY WERE LISTENING AND THERE WERE A COUPLE OF SUGGESTIONS.
GOSH, THAT'S, NEVER EVEN THOUGHT OF IT.
SO PEOPLE GENERATE SOME IDEAS.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO AGREE WITH IT.
YOU MAY SAY, WELL, THAT'S NOT MECHANICALLY OR PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE, BUT WE JUST NEED TO CAPTURE ALL THE DATA WE CAN.
SO PARKING WAS ON THE AGENDA, AND THEY DID NOT WALK AWAY WITH PROBABLY WHAT I CALL A STRATEGIC SOLUTION.
I THINK THEY'VE GOT WHAT I'LL CALL SOMETHING WITH THE ACUTE PROBLEM ON PARKING, WHICH GETS US TO THE NEXT TWO OR THREE YEARS.
TRANSPORTATION WAS BROUGHT UP BY SOME OF THE CITIZENS LAST NIGHT.
I SAD, WAIT A MINUTE, WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT A BETTER WAY TO GET PEOPLE DOWNTOWN, NOT WORRYING ABOUT PUTTING ANOTHER 200 PARKING SPACES IN. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S POSSIBLE.
I'LL TELL YOU ONE OF THE SOLUTION IS, YOU DON'T PARK DOWNTOWN. NOBODY PARKS.
YOU GO ON PERIPHERY. I CAN DO THAT.
THAT'S PROBABLY NOT A PRACTICAL SOLUTION HERE.
YOU DON'T HAVE A PLACE FOR A LARGE PARKING LOT SOMEWHERE, WHERE EVERYBODY WALKS.
THERE WAS A PROPOSAL AT ONE TIME TO CLOSE TWO BLOCKS OF CENTER STREET A FEW YEARS AGO.
>> I GUESS. JUST RIGHT NOW IT'S JUST TO LOOK AT IT.
I WOULD SAY BASED ON WHAT WE KNOW RIGHT NOW, WE'VE GOT SOMEBODY INVOLVED WITH THE DAY TO DAY THINGS.
THE PUD THING SEEMS TO BE ON THE SURFACE.
I STILL THINK ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT REQUIRES.
>> WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? WHAT I DON'T KNOW WHAT SOME OF THESE THINGS.
>> WELL, THAT FIRST ONE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, THAT'S WHAT PUBLIX IS DOING RIGHT NOW.
WHERE THEY'RE EXPANDING, ENHANCING, AND GROWING THE EXISTING SITE.
IT'S NOT A NEW SITE. THEY DIDN'T CREATE A NEW BUILDING SITE.
THAT'S THE THINGS THAT GO ALONG AND SAY, MAYBE YOU GOT TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT IN TERMS OF THE PARTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE, PARKING, THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
>> WE DID JUST DO AN ENTIRE REWRITE OF OUR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS LAST YEAR.
>> BUT THERE MAY BE A COUPLE OF OTHERS THAT ARE GOING TO COME UP.
>> CAN WE GO THROUGH THIS LIST AND THEN WE'LL JUST CHECK?
>> I THINK, HOW ARE WE PRIORITIZING? BECAUSE MY PRIORITY MAY BE DIFFERENT THAN THE REST OF THE BOARD.
WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THIS LIST? OBVIOUSLY, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE DONE IN ONE MEETING.
THERE'S NO WAY THAT WE COULD TACKLE ALL OF THESE THINGS IN ONE MEETING FOR ONE YEAR.
EXACTLY. [LAUGHTER] HOW DO WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS?
>> WELL, IF THEY HAD A LARGE DISCUSSION LAST NIGHT ABOUT PARKING, IT SEEMS LIKE THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE OUGHT TO ADDRESS.
ALREADY IT HASN'T FORMALLY COME UP AND WHATEVER.
[01:40:01]
IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE A GOOD PRIORITY FOR US, KELLY?>> IT HAS BEEN RAISED SEVERAL TIMES OVER THE PAST MEETINGS.
>> ONE THING, MR. BENNETT, I WANTED TO SAY IS YOUR DISCUSSION EARLIER ABOUT THE LOT SIZES AND THE SPLITTING OF THE LOTS, I THINK, COULD BE ADDRESSED THROUGH THE PUD REVISIONS BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE PUD HAS TO COME BACK TO THE PAB.
THE PAB HAS TO APPROVE OF THE PUD.
IF WE WANT TO START THERE, THAT COULD BE A GOOD POINT BECAUSE IT WOULD ULTIMATELY GIVE THE PAB MORE CONTROL OVER THE DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS WHAT I HEARD YOU SAYING EARLIER.
IS THAT YOU WANT TO HAVE MORE.
>> THAT'S AN INTERESTING POINT.
THE PUD WOULD COME TO THE PAB FOR APPROVAL.
>> WELL, NO, FOR SUBSTANDARD LOTS OF RECORDS.
>> WELL, IN CREATING A PUD, IF WE REDUCE OUR MINIMUM ACREAGE SIZE FOR PUDS THEN WE WOULD HAVE MORE CONTROL.
IT WOULD GIVE A DEVELOPER MORE FLEXIBILITY TO DO AND IT WOULD GIVE THE PAB MORE CONTROL [OVERLAPPING].
>> I HAVE NO PROBLEM THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PUDS AND REVISITING THAT.
I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD NECESSARILY SOLVE MY ISSUE WITH [OVERLAPPING].
>> WELL, UNLESS YOU WANTED TO CREATE A PUD IN THAT AREA, AND THAT WAS A REQUIREMENT, WAS THE ONLY PLACE.
>> CURRENTLY, YOU CAN'T DO THAT THOUGH BECAUSE OF THE RESTRICTION ON ACREAGE.
>> WHAT I'M SAYING THOUGH IS IT WOULD GIVE YOU MORE CONTROL, WHICH IS WHAT I THINK I HEARD YOU GETTING TO EARLIER IN THE DISCUSSION.
>> I'M TRYING TO CONTROL THAT [OVERLAPPING].
>> LET ME ASK YOU THIS. THAT IF THERE'S SOME, I'LL SAY, CONFUSION ABOUT THIS LIST, THEN WE NEED TO EITHER ADD OUR OWN THINGS, AND IF, NICK, THERE'S THINGS THAT YOU FEEL THAT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE ARE ON THAT LIST THEN LET'S PUT THEM ON THE LIST.
EVERYBODY NEEDS TO CONTRIBUTE THEIR LIST TO KELLY AND LET KELLY INCORPORATE IT INTO THIS LIST AND THAT WE LOOK AT THIS LIST AT OUR WORKSHOP ON THE 22ND.
>> IS THERE A REASON WHY WE NEED TO LOOK AT IT AT THE WORKSHOP AND WE CAN'T USE THE EXISTING LIST AND COME BACK AT A FORMAL MEETING AND DISCUSS IT? IS THERE A REASON FOR THAT?
>> IS THERE A REASON WHY WE CAN'T USE THIS EXISTING LIST AND TAKE IT HOME, HIGHLIGHT IT, PRIORITIZE IT, AND BRING IT TO A FORMAL MEETING AND DISCUSS IT AT THE FORMAL MEETING? WHY DOES THERE NEED TO BE AN ADDITIONAL WORKSHOP TO DISCUSS IT? IF WE ALREADY HAVE A LIST AND WE'VE HAD IT FOR TWO MONTHS NOW?
>> I'VE HAD THIS FOR TWO MINUTES.
>> I THINK THE ONLY REASON RECENTLY FOR THAT IS THAT THERE'S NO BUSINESS FOR US TO DO A FORMAL MEETING, AND WE'D ALL RATHER MEET AT 3:00 THAN 5:00.
>> I WOULD HOPE THAT KELLY WOULD GO THROUGH THE LIST AND PRIORITIZE SOME OF THESE AND PUT IT IN SOME CHANNEL AND ORDER MAKES SENSE.
>> SHE COULD DO BEFORE [OVERLAPPING].
>> SOME OF THESE THINGS, AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY MEAN.
SOME OF THESE ITEMS, ONE ITEM COULD TAKE US TO [OVERLAPPING].
>> I THINK THAT'S THE POINT. IT'S TACTICAL AND THERE'S STRATEGIC ITEMS. THE FIRST THING YOU DO IS YOU BOIL IT DOWN. WHAT ARE THE TAX.
NOW, THAT GETS YOU INTO MAYBE THE SHORT LIST OF FIVE ITEMS. YOU PRIORITIZE THOSE FOUR OR FIVE AND THEN YOU SAY, HERE'S THE STRATEGIC.
WELL, THERE, YOU GOT A LITTLE MORE FLEXIBILITY OF HOW YOU'RE GOING TO DO IT BECAUSE IT CAN CHANGE AGAIN.
YOU COULD HAVE A CHANGE IN COMMISSIONERS.
IT WOULD REPRIORITIZE A LOT OF THINGS.
I DON'T THINK THE COMMISSIONERS ARE GOING TO FOCUS TOO MUCH ON PUDS.
I DON'T THINK THEY'RE GOING TO ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL DEVELOP.
I THINK THAT'S UP TO US TO THINK ABOUT.
IS THERE SOMETHING ELSE OUT THERE? YOU'VE GOT SOMEBODY HERE, YOU'VE GOT WITHIN THE TEAM, YOU'VE GOT SOMEBODY THAT'S, THEY'RE TOUCHING AND FEELING THAT EVERY DAY.
>> I THINK I LIKE YOUR SUGGESTION THAT WE ASK KELLY TO TAKE THIS LIST AND WORK HER MAGIC ON PRIORITIZING THEM, LOOKING AT THOSE ISSUES, LOOKING AT WHAT THE CITY COMMISSION ISSUES HAVE BEEN BROUGHT DOWN TO US, INCORPORATING THOSE.
THEN IF THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD IS THAT WE DO NOT HAVE A WORKSHOP AND THAT WE DISCUSSED THIS IN OUR REGULAR MEETING, THAT'S OKAY WITH ME.
LET'S JUST HAVE SOME CONSENSUS HERE.
>> WELL, IT ALSO DEPENDS ON WHAT BUSINESS IS GOING TO COME TODAY.
>> YOU GOT ANY BUSINESS FOR US?
[01:45:02]
>> MY MEMORY IS, I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT IT LATELY, THAT WE DO CERTAIN DEFINED THINGS.
I DON'T REMEMBER TRANSPORTATION.
I DON'T REMEMBER PARKING AT IT.
ARE THERE LIMITS TO WHAT WE DO OR CAN WE DO ANYTHING WE WANT?
>> YOU CAN DO ANYTHING THAT YOU WANT.
BUT PARKING AS A MATTER OF SUPPORTING DEVELOPMENT, DEFINING DEVELOPMENT.
>> TRANSPORTATION, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THAT MUCH CONTROL.
>> BUT UNDERSTANDING TRANSPORTATION AND THE EFFECTS OF TRANSPORTATION THAT MIGHT BE ON THE HORIZON IS A PRETTY CRITICAL FUNCTION OF THIS BOARD, THINKING ABOUT THE BIGGER PICTURE.
THE DYNAMIC OF THOSE DECISIONS THAT YOU MAKE?
>> I WAS SAYING AS PART OF PARKING QUEST, YOU HAVE TO PARK AND THEN TRANSPORT.
>> I THINK THEY'RE WORKING ON TRANSFER TOO.
>> WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO, BECAUSE WE HAVE AT LEAST ONE OF OUR MEMBERS WHO NEEDS TO LEAVE A LITTLE BIT IN A FEW MINUTES, I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE GOOD DIRECTION ON WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A WORKSHOP ON THE-
IS THERE AGREEMENT THAT WE THINK THAT WHATEVER THIS HIERARCHY OF LISTS OF MOVING FORWARD THROUGH THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS THAT STAFF IS GOING TO SEND US OUT SOMETHING AND WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS THIS IN A REGULAR MEETING-
>> IN JUNE AND NOT HAVE AN ADDITIONAL WORKSHOP.
BECAUSE STAFF HAS TO TAKE THAT OFF THE CALENDAR SO THERE HAS TO BE AN ACTION.
>> CAN YOU DO THE LIST BY 22ND OR ONE OF OUR MEETING? OUR WORKSHOP?
>> WE'LL HAVE IT IN ADVANCE LIKE WE DO WITH ALL [OVERLAPPING].
>> IT WAS JUST GOING TO BE MY NEXT WEDNESDAY, THE LATEST FOR THAT MEETING.
>> WE CANCELED THE MAY 22ND WORKSHOP, AND MOVE ON BUSINESS TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 12.
>> I'LL GO EITHER WAY, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO DO.
>> KELLY, THE DIRECTION IS THAT WE WILL CANCEL THE WORKSHOP RESERVATION THAT WE HAD FOR 22ND OF MAY AND WE WILL MOVE ALL OF THIS DISCUSSION TO OUR REGULAR MEETING IN JUNE.
DO YOU NEED ANYTHING ELSE FROM US AS FAR AS DIRECTION OR DECISIONS?
>> ARE THERE ANYTHING IN THE WORKS THAT YOU'RE WORKING ON OR PLANS OR THINGS IN THE CITY?
>> YES, AND I PROVIDED AN UPDATE OF THE LAST TWO MORE MEETINGS ABOUT THE [OVERLAPPING]. THEY'RE STILL ONGOING.
>> COULD YOU GIVE A BRIEF OVERVIEW AGAIN FOR THOSE THAT MISSED IT?
>> I WANT TO MOVE US FROM WORD BUSINESS.
>> LET ME MENTION JUST ONE THING ON THIS LIST WE JUST TALKED ABOUT.
THERE IS A WHOLE SECTION IN THE COMP PLAN ON TRANSPORTATION.
IT WAS A BIG ITEM ON THE VISION 2045.
TRANSPORTATION DOES NEED TO BE ADDRESSED.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT. BOARD BUSINESS, WE HAVE A GOOD DISCUSSION OF THE BOARD BUSINESS.
I THINK WE'RE FINISHING ON THAT AND MOVING INTO STAFF REPORT.
[5. STAFF REPORT]
KELLY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO GIVE US A STAFF REPORT?>> I'LL JUST PROVIDE THIS PRIOR UPDATE THAT WAS GIVEN TO THE BOARD IN APRIL.
>> THE ACTIVITIES THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT CURRENTLY HAS ONGOING. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
I WOULD SAY IN ADDITION TO THIS, I DON'T THINK IT'S CAPTURED, IS THAT WE HAVE A DOWNTOWN TRAFFIC STUDY THAT IS GOING ON, TRAFFIC CIRCULATION AND PARKING ANALYSIS THAT WE HOPE TO HAVE WRAPPED UP BY AUGUST OF THIS YEAR.
>> IS THAT THE ONE THAT'S GOING TO INCLUDE DAY TRIPPERS OR?
>> I THINK YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT THE SEASONAL POPULATION PROJECTION?
>> NOW, IS THAT GOING TO BE PART OF THE BEBR.
>> THE SEASONAL POPULATION PROJECTION, WELL.
>> BUT YOU'RE REFERRING TO A PARKING STUDY THAT'S OCCURRING DOWNTOWN, WHICH IS SEPARATE FROM THE SMALL AREA.
>> IN TERMS OF AN UPDATE TO THIS PRIOR LIST WOULD INCORPORATE THAT.
>> KEEP IN MIND SOME OF THE CELEBRATIONS WE HAVE COMING UP, INCLUDING THE OPENING OF THE BEACHES, WHICH ALSO COVERS OUR WILD EMILIA FESTIVAL, AND THAT IS NEXT WEEKEND, SATURDAY, MAY 18. JOIN US.
>> EXCELLENT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> WE HAVE A CONTRACT WITH THEM THAT HAS BEEN SIGNED.
[01:50:01]
>> ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO ADD TO THE VALUE BECAUSE IN JANUARY 1, 2025, WE GOT A BIG EVENT?
>> WHAT IS IT? THE ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION DAY.
>> I HAVE THAT INCLUDED IN THE EVENTS AS THE VERY FIRST ONE.
YOU'LL BE SURPRISED OF ALL THE BICENTENNIAL EVENTS THAT'S GOING ON EVERY MONTH.
>> IF WE DO SOME OF THE THINGS I WANT TO DO, IT'S GOING TO BE AN INTERESTING DOWNTOWN.
>> WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO PUBLIC COMMENT.
[6. PUBLIC COMMENT]
OF THE TWO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT ARE HERE, WERE WOULD YOU ALL CARE TO COMMENT? IF YOU WOULD COME TO THE PODIUM AND PLEASE GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.>> A SUGGESTIONS WE SHOULD WORK FROM.
>> MARGARET THE FLOOR IS YOURS.
>> ADD TO OUR LIPS. [LAUGHTER]
>> I THINK WE SHOULD GO TO THE ONE-MINUTE CLOCK, MAGGY.
>> MARGARET KIRKLAND [NOISE] 1377 PLANTATION POINT DRIVE, SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF CONSERVE NASSAU.
DEFINITIONS ARE MAYBE NOT THE SEXIEST THING TO DISCUSS, BUT THEY'RE CRITICALLY IMPORTANT.
ONE OF THOSE THINGS HAS REALLY BEEN CLEAR TO ME AND LOOKING AT THE PAST MEETING VIRTUALLY AND BEING HERE TODAY, WE ALL SPEAK SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT LANGUAGES.
EVEN PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN ON THE SAME COMMITTEE FOR A LONG TIME, WE'RE USING TERMINOLOGY IN A SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT TERM.
THEN WE HAVE THE PUBLIC AND PROFESSIONALS IN MANY AREAS AND EVERYBODY'S USING THE TERMS DIFFERENTLY.
I LIKE THE FACT THAT WE'RE TRYING TO CLEAN THOSE THINGS UP, AND MAKE THEM CLEARER, BECAUSE A LOT OF THINGS HAVE BEEN QUITE HAZY.
I LIKE THE IDEA OF LOOKING AT TERMS THAT MAYBE THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE ON THERE, LIKE PARCEL, [NOISE] BUT IT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE THERE ARE TERMS THAT EVERYBODY INTERACTS WITH ALL THE TIME.
I THINK THOSE ARE REALLY IMPORTANT.
I STILL HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT VACANT LOT, BUT MAYBE THAT'S SOMETHING I CAN ASK KELLY ABOUT AT SOME POINT.
IT'S A QUESTION I'VE HAD FOR A WHILE.
BUT I THINK THAT IS IMPORTANT.
ALL OF THESE THINGS IN THE LONG LIST DO NEED TO BE DEALT WITH AT SOME POINT IN SOME WAY.
I DO CONTINUE TO URGE THE SAME THING.
I ALWAYS URGE, AND THAT IS, THAT WE NEED TO BE LOOKING AT WAYS OF CONTROLLING OUR DENSITY, WAYS OF CONTROLLING OUR OVER DEVELOPMENT.
THE FLOODING, MID-ISLAND SHOULD CLARIFY TO US QUITE CLEARLY, WHAT'S COMING DOWN THE ROAD IF WE DON'T DO THIS.
IN THE CITY, IF WE DEVELOP ALL OF THE 25 FOOT LOTS, WE WILL HAVE NO VEGETATION OR VERY LIMITED VEGETATION, AND CERTAINLY NOT ENOUGH TO PLAN TO DEAL WITH THE STORM WATER.
ARE WE GOING TO SPEND MILLIONS, MAYBE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON HARDSCAPE INFRASTRUCTURE? I DON'T THINK EITHER THE CITY OR THE COUNTY PLANS TO OR WANTS TO DO THAT.
RIGHT NOW, ANDREA DESOLE SAYS, "I SPEND ALL MY TIME GOING BACK AND CORRECTING OLD PROBLEMS, OLD MISTAKES, AND I CAN'T GET TO THE FORWARD THINKING STUFF." WE NEED TO SAVE THE STORM WATER PROCESSING SYSTEMS WE HAVE IN PLACE.
WHAT I THOUGHT UNTIL RECENTLY WAS A PASSE TERM, ONE I HADN'T HEARD IN A LONG TIME, AND THAT MOSQUITO DITCHES.
THOSE ARE ALSO AN IMPORTANT PART OF OUR STORM WATER PROCESSING.
WE NEED TO BE UTILIZING WHAT WE HAVE AND PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE.
THE OTHER THING I WANT TO EMPHASIZE, WHICH I ALSO THINK SEVERAL OF YOU WERE LOOKING AT, AND THAT IS, AND WE KEEP COMING BACK TO THE ISSUE OF PROTECTING PROPERTY RIGHTS.
WHOSE PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE WE PROTECTING? WE ARE ONLY PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF PEOPLE WHO WANT TO DO SOMETHING
[01:55:01]
WITH A PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY AND DEVELOPERS.WE ARE NOT PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF COMMUNITY MEMBERS, THE NEIGHBORS, AND SO ON.
THOSE PEOPLE ARE IMPACTED IN A SERIOUS WAY IN TERMS OF QUALITY OF LIFE, AND IN TERMS OF PROPERTY VALUES, AND SO THEIR RIGHTS HAVE TO BE PROTECTED TOO. THANK YOU.
>> SINCE WE'RE CASUAL HERE, THE WHOLE PROPERTY RIGHTS THING IS PART OF WHAT I'M SEEING CULTURE WIDE EVERYWHERE IS BOILING EVERYTHING DOWN TO ECONOMICS.
THE VALUE OF EVERYTHING IS NOT ECONOMIC, AND ESPECIALLY IN A CITY LIKE THIS WHERE, PROPERTY RIGHTS IS A EUPHEMISM FOR MY ABILITY TO MAKE MONEY ON THIS PIECE OF LAND, AND I'M ALL FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY.
>> CASH IN MY POCKET NOW, OTHERWISE KNOWN IN YOUR FIELD AS GREED.
>> BUT [LAUGHTER] WE TALK ALL THE TIME ABOUT CHARACTER OF NEIGHBORHOODS AND LIFESTYLE AND COMMITMENT.
THERE WAS A GREAT LINE BY BOBBY KENNEDY, 110 YEARS AGO, HE WAS TALKING ABOUT GDP.
HE SAYS, MEASURES EVERYTHING EXCEPT WHAT MATTERS.
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT PROPERTY RIGHTS, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THINGS.
BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO SHE WAS.
>> WE DON'T TALK ABOUT OUR MORAL RESPONSIBILITY.
>> BUT I THINK YOU BRING UP AN EXTREMELY GOOD POINT.
WE HAVE AN ISSUE RIGHT NOW DOWNTOWN ON FRONT STREET.
WE HAVE SALT WATER INTRUSION GOING UP WELL OVER THE RAILROAD TRACKS UNDER CERTAIN SETS OF CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASTRONOMICAL STORM OR WHATEVER.
WE'RE PUTTING PART OF THE WHOLE HISTORICAL DISTRICT, MAYBE UP TO SECOND AVENUE AT RISK, BECAUSE THOSE BUILDINGS DOWN THERE, THE FOUNDATIONS ARE GOING TO, WHERE? IN THE HANDBASKET RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE OF THE CONTINUOUS SATURATION WITH THE SALT INTO THOSE OLD STRUCTURES.
THEY WEREN'T BUILT OUT OF REINFORCED CONCRETE.
WHEN PEOPLE START SAYING, WELL, I WANT MY RIGHT ON MY PROPERTY, BUT I THINK WE HAVE TO START WORRYING ABOUT THE MAYBE 150 BUSINESSES THAT ARE GOING TO BE IMPACTED, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY RESIDENTIAL AREAS WOULD BE INVOLVED IN, AND WE KNOW THERE'S SOME RIGHT DOWNTOWN TOWNS THAT; THIRD AND FOURTH STREET.
>> THEN WHAT HAPPENS TO THE CHARACTER IN THE CITY?
>> BUT WE TRIED TO MOVE TOWARD CONDEMNATION OF THAT PROPERTY, AND WE'RE MOVING ON IT UNTIL ONE OF THE COMMISSIONS DECIDED NOT TO MOVE FORWARD.
SO BUYING THE ONE LOT THAT'S HOLDING EVERYTHING UP.
>> WELL, WHATEVER IT IS, IS WHERE WE ARE TODAY.
AND WHERE WE ARE TODAY, I GOT PICTURES AND ALL OF FRONT STREET WAS UNDERWATER.
>> I WENT ALL THE WAY UP TO THE SHRIMP BOAT IN THE MIDDLE OF FRONT STREET.
>> WE DO HAVE ANOTHER MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK.
>> YOU NEVER SEE THE PICTURE OF THE SHRIMP BOAT UP THERE IN FRONT OF THE CHURCH?
>> ONE OF THE HURRICANES, THEY TOWED A SHRIMP BOAT RIGHT UP HERE IN FRONT OF THE METHODIST CHURCH.
>> I HATE TO INTERRUPT THIS ENTHUSIASM BECAUSE WE KNOW IT'S JUST REINFORCING SO MUCH OF MY DAILY THINKING, CORRECT? LAURIE HEMPKE, 751 BARRINGTON DRIVE, FERNADINA.
I WOULD ECHO WHAT MARGARET SAYS AND REALLY APPLAUD ALL THE WORK THAT YOU'VE DONE.
I'VE DONE THE DEFINITIONS WITH YOU FOR TWO TIMES NOW.
IT WAS QUITE ENLIGHTENING AND I LEARNED A LOT AND WAS SO MUCH NEEDED.
SO MY TWO, GOING DOWN WHAT I CALL MINUTIA THINGS IS ONE TOPIC THAT'S UP THERE THAT'S NEAR AND DEAR TO ME IS ANNEXATION.
BECAUSE WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT DENSITY, I LOVE WHAT YOU'RE ALL SAYING ABOUT THAT, I BEING THE ONE LIVING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE COUNTY IS VERY MUCH AWARE OF WHAT ANNEXING PROPERTIES INTO THE AREA, HOW THAT IMPACTS, AND HOW I HEAR A LOT.
WELL, THE COUNTY TOLD ME I COULD DO THIS, MY MOST RECENT WAS THE AIRPORT TOLD ME I COULD DO THIS OR NOT DO THIS.
SO HOW DO WE MAKE THOSE SYSTEMS MELT OR GET ALONG OR WORK WITHIN WHAT WE WANT FOR THE AREA.
THE OTHER THING THAT'S IMPORTANT,
[02:00:02]
WHICH MARGARET ALLUDED TO WAS THE STORMWATER.MANY OF THE PLANS THAT I HAVE READ, NOT ONLY STATEWIDE, BUT NATIONWIDE, TALK ABOUT LOOKING AT THINGS SUCH AS STORM WATER AS PART OF A BIG SYSTEM.
SO IT'S NOT JUST WRITING YOUR LDC AS A SEPARATE, I GOT TO FIX SOMETHING, BUT WHAT DOES THE WHOLE SYSTEM LOOK LIKE? HOW DOES THE HYDROLOGY, I'M LIKE MARGARET, I JUST LEARNED ABOUT MOSQUITO SWELLS, HOW DOES THAT IMPACT THE WHOLE SYSTEM? THE OTHER PIECE THAT IS PART OF THE PLAN IS, MR. STEVENSON, IS TRANSPORTATION.
IT IS A BIG PIECE AND AGAIN IT'S A SYSTEM.
WE CAN'T IGNORE THAT WE ARE PART OF NASSAU COUNTY, PART OF FDOT, WHAT GOES ON IN OFF OF 95, AND HOW DO WE CONNECT WITH THAT? BUT HOW DO WE RELATE TO THAT? HOW DO WE WRITE OUR CODES, YOU KNOW, TO MAKE IT WORK FOR US? HOW DO WE LOOK FUTURISTICALLY? WE TALK ABOUT BUILDING PARKING LOTS.
WELL, AS WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT LAST YEAR, PEOPLE MAY BE USING UBERS, THEY MAY BE USING LYFTS, THEY MAY BE DOING DRIVERLESS CARS AND TRUCKS.
THERE ARE SYSTEMS WHERE WE CAN ALERT PEOPLE THAT WE'RE FULL.
SO IF YOU WANT TO COME WITH YOUR FOUR KIDS AND ALL THEIR TOYS, JUST KNOW THERE MAY BE SOME SCREAMING GOING ON BECAUSE WE'RE FULL.
THAT'S MAYBE A KINDER WAY TO TREAT PEOPLE THAN TO HAVE THEM HERE, MATT.
SO THAT'S, I THINK, THAT BIG PICTURE THAT I SEE THIS GROUP GOING FOR, AND SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE THAT.
OUR GROUP HAS DONE SOME WRITING ON TRANSPORTATION.
IF ANYBODY IS INTERESTED IN IT, HAVE TROUBLE SLEEPING, I'LL BE HAPPY TO SEND IT ON. THANK YOU.
>> I HEAR EVERY DAY WHY WE CAN'T.
WE GOT TO START COMING UP WITH HOW CAN WE? WHAT KIND OF SOLUTION CAN WE IMPLEMENT THAT ISN'T GOING TO BREAK THE BANK IN TERMS OF FINANCIALLY? BECAUSE WE CAN'T AFFORD $50 MILLION TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM HERE.
>> LET ME JUST SAY THAT JEA IS WORKING ON A PLAN THAT INCLUDES THE CITY.
>> IN TWO YEARS, I MAY SEE THAT PLAN.
>> NO. BECAUSE THEY AGREED WHEN THE COUNCIL ON AGING GAVE IT UP, THE DATE THAT THEY GAVE IT UP WILL BE OCTOBER OF THIS YEAR.
IT WAS AGREED UPON THAT THERE WOULD BE SOMETHING IN PLACE FOR THAT.
>> HOPEFULLY, THAT'LL FIX THAT.
THAT'S A BIG PROBLEM RIGHT THERE.
YOU'VE GOT A PART OF OUR POPULATION THAT THEY DON'T HAVE LOGISTICAL PROCESS TO GET DOWN TO JACKSONVILLE OR WHEREVER.
I'M TALKING TRANSPORTATION, THAT IF YOU LIVE OVER TWO BLOCKS FROM THE BEACH AND YOU WANT TO COME DOWNTOWN, YOU CAN'T GO TO GET A TROLLEY, A BUS OR WHATEVER TO DO THAT.
>> I'M TALKING ABOUT THAT, TOO.
>> SO THEY HAVE A PLAN FOR THAT?
>> THEY HAVE SOMETHING THEY'RE GOING TO IMPLEMENT.
>> NO, THEY'RE NOT BECAUSE A FEW MONTHS FROM NOW, IT'S DEAD. IT'S DONE.
>> WELL, COUNSEL ON AGING GOES OUT OF BUSINESS ON OCTOBER 1ST.
>> OF THE TRANSPORT. THIS HAS BEEN KNOWN FOR A YEAR AND A HALF.
>> NO, THERE'S A PLAN. THEY'RE WORKING ON A PLAN RIGHT NOW.
>> WELL, MAYBE WE ASKED THEM TO COME AND SHARE WITH US WHERE THEY ARE.
>> WELL, WE'RE READY TO DO THAT. I WILL TALK TO JIM.
>> WELL, THEY HAD A PRESENTATION.
>> KELLY, HOW MANY DID WE HAVE? TWO PAB MEMBERS SHOW UP?
>> ONE MEMBER. THERE WERE FIVE OTHERS.
>> WHAT'S YOUR PLAN? GIVE ME A QUICK.
>> KELLY SAID TO YOU MORE THAN I DID.
>> THE PRESENTATION THAT WAS COMPLETED WAS REALLY GETTING FEEDBACK, AND SO THE FINAL PRESENTATION TO THE STEERING COMMITTEE THAT IS LOOKING AT THIS ISN'T ACTUALLY UNTIL THE END OF THIS MONTH.
SO I'LL BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH AN UPDATE IN JUNE ON NEXT STEP.
>> SO IMPLEMENTING ANYTHING WOULD BE THREE TO FIVE YEARS?
>> IT'S ALL BROKEN OUT INTO IMMEDIATE, SHORT, MEDIUM, AND LONG RANGE GOALS.
>> I THINK IN TERMS OF MONEY AND WHATEVER WE'RE TALKING [OVERLAPPING].
>> MAYBE 10 YEARS THEY'LL HAVE A BUS THAT GO AWAY ONE ONCE [OVERLAPPING].
[02:05:03]
>> YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE BUS SOONER THAN THAT.
I'M SUPPORTING WHAT THEY'RE SAYING, WHATEVER, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THE BUS REALLY SOON BECAUSE WE HAVE TO SERVE OUR SENIOR CITIZENS, EXCUSE ME, AND OUR RESIDENTS WITH DISABILITIES.
>> I THINK THEY SHOULD HAVE ONE. I'M NOT AGAINST IT.
>> IT'S THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE COA GOES FALSE IN THE LAP OF THE COUNTY, IT'S THEIR LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY TO PICK?
>> TIME OUT, FOLKS. IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION, WE NEED TO HAVE IT AT THE PODIUM SO IT'S RECORDED, IT PICK OUT ALL OF THESE CONVERSATIONS.
I THINK WE'RE ALMOST READY TO GO.
>> IT'S NOT A QUESTION, IT'S A STATEMENT.
>> SO IT'S NOT JUST THE SENIOR CITIZENS BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO INCLUDE THE ENTIRE NASSAU COUNTY POPULATION.
>> BUT THAT GAVE IT A LOT OF IMPETUS.
>> KELLY WILL GIVE US AN UPDATE AT OUR JUNE MEETING WITH.
NOTHING ELSE TO COME BEFORE THE WORKSHOP. WE ARE DONE. [NOISE] THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.