[00:00:02]
>> AT THE BA MEETING FOR DECEMBER I'LL CALL TO ORDER.
[1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL / DETERMINATION OF QUORUM]
I LIKE TO START WITH THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, PLEASE? PLEASE STAND WITH US.>> THANK YOU. MORGAN, CAN YOU CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE?
>> HERE. LET'S WELCOME OUR NEW BOARD MEMBERS THAT WE'VE GOT.
WE HAVE SOME OLD ONES AND SOME NEW ONES.
THAT'S A GOOD THING TO HAVE NEW PEOPLE.
WE DON'T HAVE ANY ALTERNATES TO SEAT THIS TIME, RIGHT? I'D LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE ALL THAT COVERED. CAN EVERYBODY HEAR ME? I HAVE A SORE THROAT, AND I'M GOING TO TRY TO PROJECT MY VOICE AS LOUD AS I CAN.
TAMMY, ARE YOU GOING TO PRESENT THE TYPICAL THINGS YOU NORMALLY DO OR AM I GOING TO ASK NIKKI?
>> MS. DAY, WILL YOU PRESENT THE STANDARDS OF THE JUDICIAL PROCEDURE TONIGHT, PLEASE?
>> ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU ALL FOR HAVING ME TONIGHT VIRTUALLY IN YOUR CONFERENCE CHAMBERS.
I'M A SHAREHOLDER WITH GRAYROBINSON.
I'M BOARD CERTIFIED IN CITY, COUNTY AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAW, AND I'M REPRESENTING YOU ALL THE BOARD THIS EVENING BECAUSE AS YOU SEE, TAMMY IS PROBABLY IN THE AUDIENCE SOMEWHERE AND SHE WILL BE REPRESENTING STAFF IN THE APPLICATION BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING.
SOME OF YOU MAY BE FAMILIAR WITH, THOUGH I KNOW WE HAVE SOME NEW MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, BUT TODAY'S PUBLIC HEARING MUST FOLLOW QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEDURES TO ENSURE THAT DUE PROCESS IS ACCORDED TO ALL THE PARTIES, THAT THE DECISION IS BASED ON THE CONFIDENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT YOU RECEIVE TONIGHT IN THIS ROOM, NOT ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF IT.
THAT'S WHY ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE ASKED TO DO IS DISCLOSE ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS THAT MAY HAVE OCCURRED OUTSIDE OF TONIGHT'S HEARING.
THAT COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CAN INCLUDE THE OPINION TESTIMONY OF EXPERTS RECOGNIZED IN THEIR FIELD OR FACT TESTIMONY OF LAY WITNESSES.
FINALLY, THESE PROCEDURES ARE DESIGNED TO ENSURE THAT THE ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS OF LAW ARE FOLLOWED.
TO THAT END, YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THAT ALL THE TESTIMONY YOU RECEIVE TONIGHT MUST BE MADE UNDER OATH.
ANYONE WHO INTENDS TO SPEAK AT TONIGHT'S HEARING WILL NEED TO BE SWORN IN BY THE CLERK.
EVEN IF YOU'RE NOT SURE IF YOU'RE GOING TO SPEAK, GO AHEAD AND GET SWORN IN, BECAUSE IF YOU CHOOSE TO, THEN WE'RE SURE THAT ALL THE INFORMATION THAT THE BOARD IS RECEIVING IS SWORN TESTIMONY UNDER OATH.
THE BOARD MUST ALSO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURES OUTLINED IN SECTION 11 OF THE CITY'S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH REQUIRES THE ORDER OF BUSINESS THAT THE CHAIR WILL BE FOLLOWING THIS EVENING, INCLUDING THAT THE STAFF WILL FIRST PRESENT ITS REPORT ON THE APPLICATION OR THE APPEAL.
THEN YOU'LL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT IN THE APPEAL, ANY AFFECTED PARTIES THAT WISH TO BE HEARD.
AT THAT POINT, THE CHAIR WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND IT WILL BE UP TO THE BOARD TO BE ABLE TO DELIBERATE AND DECIDE ON A VOTE.
A WRITTEN DECISION WILL BE RENDERED, AND ONCE THAT DECISION IS RENDERED, IT CAN BE APPEALED FURTHER TO THE CIRCUIT COURT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURES.
ONE MORE ITEM THAT'S A LITTLE BIT UNIQUE TO TONIGHT'S PROCEEDING, CHAIR, IF I MAY, I JUST WANTED TO BE SURE THAT IT WAS DISCLOSED ON THE RECORD THAT THE APPLICANT IS ACTUALLY TAINA CHRISTNER.
SHE IS A NEWLY APPOINTED MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE FOR HER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS MATTER FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE.
SHE HAS FILED THE APPROPRIATE FORM 8B, WHICH IS PRESCRIBED BY THE FLORIDA COMMISSION ON ETHICS THAT GOVERNS YOUR APPOINTMENT, AND THAT'S ON FILE WITH THE CITY CLERK.
IT DISCLOSES THAT THE NATURE OF HER INTEREST IN THE APPLICATION IS THAT SHE IS ACTUALLY THE ONE APPEALING THE DECISION OF THE CITY COMMISSION.
THEREFORE, SHE WILL NOT BE VOTING ON THE MATTER THIS EVENING, AND ALL OF HER COMMENTS AND PRESENTATION TO YOU IN THAT CAPACITY IS NOT AS A BOARD MEMBER.
WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO ALLOW YOU TO PROCEED, AND I'M HERE SHOULD THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS THIS EVENING.
>> THANK YOU, MS. DAY. APPRECIATE IT.
>> MS. DAY, DO WE NEED TO MAKE A MOTION
[00:05:02]
IN ORDER TO INCORPORATE THE ENTIRE AGENDA PACKET RELATING TO THIS CASE INTO THE RECORD?>> I AM NOT AWARE OF THAT AS PART OF YOUR PROCEDURES.
THE AGENDA PACKET WILL BE SUBMITTED AS PART OF THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE THAT YOU RECEIVE DURING THE HEARING PORTION OF TONIGHT'S MEETING.
>> SO WITHOUT US HAVING TO VOTE ON IT, THE ENTIRE AGENDA PACKET IS CONSIDERED EVIDENCE AND INCLUDED IN THE RECORD?
>> THANK YOU. CORRECT. ALSO INCLUDED IN THE RECORD AND IN THE MINUTES WILL BE A COPY OF THAT FORM 8B THAT I JUST REFERRED TO.
>> YES. I KNOW THIS IS PRELIMINARY.
GIVEN THAT THE RECORD, BECAUSE IT'S IN THE AGENDA PACKET, SHOWS THAT THE PROPERTIES AT ISSUE IN TONIGHT'S APPEAL ARE UNDER A COURT ORDER THAT WAS ISSUED ON DECEMBER 27, 2023, AN ORDER, WHICH ITSELF IS CURRENTLY BEING APPEALED.
IS IT EVEN APPROPRIATE FOR THIS BOARD TO BE TAKING ANY ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THOSE PARTICULAR PROPERTIES THAT ARE SUBJECT TO THAT COURT ORDER AND APPEAL? I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT PUTTING THIS BOARD OR ANYONE ELSE IN THE CITY AT RISK FOR LEGAL INTERFERENCE OR SOME OTHER TYPE OF LEGAL LIABILITY, LIKE WE'RE TRYING TO MEDDLE THE CASE HERE.
>> I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY COURT ORDER IMPOSING A STAY ON THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE CITY'S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH PROVIDES FOR AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PERSONS TO APPEAL AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION OF THE CITY STAFF.
>> I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT THE COURT ORDER THAT RELATES TO THESE PARTICULAR PROPERTIES.
>> I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY ORDER ENJOINING THE PROCEEDING THIS EVENING OR FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN COURTS ENTER ORDERS THAT STAY OTHER PROCEEDINGS THEY HAVE TO BE GIVEN NOTICE OF THAT.
WHEN I WAS ENGAGED TO REPRESENT THE BOARD IN THIS MATTER, I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY COURT ORDER INDICATING THAT YOU WERE UNDER A STAY OR THAT THE CITY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH PROVIDES FOR THESE PROCEDURES IS BEING HELD IN ABEYANCE PENDING ANY COURT RECONCILIATION OR WHATEVER THAT MATTER IS ABOUT.
>> WELL, I WILL RAISE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT THEN WHEN WE GET TO SCOTT.
>> IN TERMS OF A PROCEDURAL STANDPOINT, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING JUST FROM THE PRESENTATION FROM CITY STAFF AND THE MATTER BEING BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING, THAT IS UNDER THE CITY'S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE PROCEDURES THAT YOU ARE PROCEEDING.
THOSE PROCEDURES GIVE PERSONS AN OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL AND INTERPRETATION OF A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETENESS.
THAT IS WHAT THE MATTER THAT'S BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING.
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT THE FACT IS THAT THREE OF THE PROPERTIES AT ISSUE ARE ALSO UNDER A COURT ORDER THAT SAYS A CERTAIN PART OF THE LDC SHOULD APPLY TO THEM TO THOSE PARTICULAR PROPERTIES.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT THOSE [OVERLAPPING].
REMEMBER I SAID WE NEED TO FOLLOW THE PROCEDURES IN THE CORRECT ORDER THIS EVENING.
IF THAT DISCUSSION IS PART OF THE BOARD DELIBERATIONS AND THEN WANT TO DISCUSS IT AT THAT TIME AFTER YOU'VE RECEIVED ALL THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE, IF THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT IT DOESN'T HAVE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO RENDER ITS DECISION THIS EVENING, WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT AT THAT JUNCTURE.
BUT I THINK WE NEED TO BE SURE THAT WE FOLLOW THE PROCEDURES AS THEY'RE PRESCRIBED IN THE CODE, AND WE DON'T GET TOO MUCH INTO TALKING ABOUT THE SUBSTANCE OF THINGS, PARTICULARLY THINGS THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF THE HEARING ROOM THAT WE'RE IN TODAY.
THE JUDICIAL PROCEDURES ARE DESIGNED TO BE MADE BASED ON THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE THAT YOU'LL HEAR IN THIS ROOM. YOU'RE NOT A COURT.
YOU'RE NOT A JUDGE, BUT THE PROCEDURES THAT YOU FOLLOW ARE DESIGNED TO GIVE DUE PROCESS TO THE PARTIES INVOLVED IN THE CITY'S PROCESS.
THAT PROCESS EXISTS IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
AS I STATED, I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY COURT ENJOINING THE CITY'S PROCESS UNDER THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
>> THANK YOU, MS. DAY. BEFORE WE GO, AS SHE MENTIONED,
[00:10:03]
WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATION AMONGST THE BOARD, AND THEN TAINA CHRISTNER I'LL LET YOU RECUSE YOURSELF, PLEASE.ANYBODY HAD ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATION REGARDING THIS CASE?
>> I'D LIKE TO REVEAL OUT OF ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION BASED ON THAT SEMINAR BARRY I ATTENDED, I WAS COPIED AND THUS RECEIVED ALONG WITH ALL THE OTHER THEN MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, THE NOVEMBER 13 EMAIL CONTAINING MS. CHRISTNER'S ORIGINAL SUBMISSION OF HER APPEAL TO MR. GLISSON.
IN ADDITION, WHILE I WAS AT HOME IN RECOVERY FROM MY RECENT SURGERY, I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH MY NEIGHBOR WHO HAPPENS TO BE THE PAB CHAIR MS. VICTORIA ROBERTS ABOUT THE LDC PROVISIONS THAT ARE APPLICABLE TO SUBDIVISIONS AT ISSUE HERE. THAT'S IT.
>> I AS WELL I HAD SOME COMMUNICATION WITH MS. CHRISTNER, KELLY AND TAMMY REGARDING THE PROCEDURES OF THIS CASE, BUT NOTHING MORE THAN THAT.
JUST MAKING SURE THAT WE GET THAT ON THE RECORD.
MORGAN, WILL YOU PLEASE ISSUE THE ADMINISTRATIVE OATH TO ANYBODY WHO WISHES TO SPEAK? PLEASE STAND UP IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK.
ANYBODY CAN SPEAK AT THIS HEARING.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE ORAL AND OR WRITTEN TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH?
>> THANK YOU. WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH THE OLD BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES REAL
[3. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES]
QUICK AND ASK IF ANYBODY HAD ANY COMMENTS OR CHANCE TO REVIEW THESE NOTES.GIVE ME ANY FEEDBACK. LET ME KNOW WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS ARE.
>> I WAS A LITTLE CONFUSED AT THE END OF THAT WHERE YOU TALKED ABOUT A BUNCH OF CONVERSATIONS.
IS THAT PART OF THE NOTES AND PART OF THE AGENDA?
>> MORGAN, HE SPECIFICALLY ASKED THEM ABOUT THE THINGS THAT KELLY WAS ASKING DIRECT TO THE [INAUDIBLE]. WHO DID THE MINUTES?
>> I DID THE MINUTES. I CAN'T RECALL OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD WHICH PART THAT IS.
IS THAT SOMETHING YOU WANT TAKEN OUT?
>> I THINK MORE CLEARLY THAN ANYTHING ELSE, THERE ARE A LIST OF BACK TO BACK QUESTIONS WITHOUT ANY ANSWERS.
>> WOULD YOU RATHER JUST HAVE IT ALL SUMMARIZED OR WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE THE ANSWERS PUT INTO IT?
>> I THINK AFTER YOU START TO DRAFT AND YOU HAVE TWO PAGES OF DRAFT COMMENTS, YOU COULD TAKE THAT OUT AND JUST CONCLUDE THE MINUTES LIKE YOU DO AT THE END.
I DON'T THINK YOU NEED TWO PAGES OF DRAFT QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS.
>> IS IT IMPORTANT ENOUGH FOR THE RECORD FOR KELLY TO HAVE THOSE ON RECORD?
>> THEY CAN STAY PART OF THE RECORD, BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE IN THE MINUTES.
>> IS IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO TALK IN THE MICROPHONE? IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S [OVERLAPPING].
>> YOU'RE STILL HAVING TROUBLE HEARING?
>> YES, BECAUSE YOUR MICROPHONES ARE NOT ON AND IT'S A PUBLIC MEETING.
>> THAT'S HOW CLOSE YOU HAVE TO GET. [LAUGHTER].
>> DOESN'T STRETCH FAR ENOUGH. WHAT I WAS SUGGESTING WAS KEEP THE MINUTES AS YOU HAD THEM, BUT TAKE OUT THE TWO PAGES OF DRAFT QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS THAT WERE PUT IN HERE AND SAVE THAT AS AN ATTACHMENT OR WHATEVER.
>> YES. I HAVE TECHNICAL COMMENTS.
ON PAGE 2 OF THE MINUTES WHEN WE WERE ON THE DISCUSSION OF THE 2024-005, NOT THE APPEAL, BUT ON THE VARIANCE.
IN THE LAST REFERENCE TO MY VOICE AND CONCERNS, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO CHANGE THE LANGUAGE THAT SAYS BY THIS CHANGE TO READ BY AN EXPANSION WITHOUT THIS VARIANCE TO MAKE IT CLEAR WHAT THE ISSUE WITH THE TREES WAS.
THEN IN THE VERY LAST SUMMARY OF THAT PARTICULAR BEFORE WHERE IT SAYS ACTION TAKEN, IT SAYS SHOULD EXPLAIN WHY THERE ARE, AND THERE IS SPELLED T-H-E-R-E, AND THAT SHOULD BE THEY, T-H-E-Y.
JUST THOSE TWO MINOR CHANGES. THAT'S IT.
>> ANYTHING ELSE? CAN WE GET A VOTE TO AMEND THE NOTES AS COMMENTED?
[00:15:07]
I MOVE TO APPROVE AS AMENDED.>> MORGAN, CAN YOU CALL THE VOTE.
>> CHAIR PAPKE? YES. GO AHEAD AND BEGIN WITH THE CITY'S PRESENTATION PLEASE.
>> ONE MOMENT. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE SHARING CORRECTLY SO THAT [INAUDIBLE].
>> I'M SORRY, HANG ON ONE SECOND.
>> I DID NOT HAVE ANY EX PARTE WITH ANYBODY RELATIVE TO THIS CASE.
IS THE SUPER MAJORITY REQUIRED?
>> YOUR BOARD RULES REQUIRES FIVE TO PASS ANY MEASURES.
>> WAIT. I THOUGHT IT WAS ONLY FIVE IF WE'RE GOING TO REVERSE WHAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION WAS, BUT ONLY A MAJORITY IF WE APPROVE OR MODIFY.
>> A CONCURRING VOTE OF FIVE MEMBERS OF THE BOA IS NECESSARY TO REVERSE ANY ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION.
EVEN IF YOU'RE MODIFYING THAT DECISION, YOU'RE EFFECTIVELY CHANGING IT.
THAT WOULD REQUIRE FIVE VOTES.
>> I'M NOT SURE THAT'S WHAT THE ATTORNEY AT THE LAST MEETING ADVISED US.
BECAUSE IT SAYS EARLIER, YOU CAN APPROVE, MODIFY, OR REVERSE.
THEN IT DOES GO ON TO SAY THAT TO REVERSE TAKES UNANIMOUS.
>> WHY DON'T WE ADDRESS THIS WHEN YOU ARE IN BOARD DELIBERATIONS AFTER RECEIVING YOUR EVIDENCE, BUT I'M AWARE OF THE SECTION OF THE LDC THAT WE'RE APPLYING.
>> THANK YOU, MS. DAY. KELLY, ARE YOU READY?
>> I AM READY. CAN EVERYONE HEAR ME? NO. I'M GOING TO TRY TO STRETCH CLOSER. CAN EVERYONE HEAR ME NOW?
>> THIS WOULD BE VERY AWKWARD. ALSO, JUST IN THE EVENT THAT YOU HAVE LEFT YOUR PHONE IN THE LADY'S BATHROOM, IT IS UP HERE.
IT SAYS MOAB UTAH ON IT IF THIS IS YOURS.
>> I APOLOGIZE FOR INTERRUPTING.
NOTHING ABOUT THE PHONE [INAUDIBLE].
>> VERY DIFFICULT TO HEAR THE HEATER AT THE PODIUM.
>> WE'RE WORKING ON IT, NIKKI ONE SECOND.
>> IT'S BECAUSE IT'S NOT CLOSE TO THE MICROPHONE'S.
>> SHE'S ONLY GOING TO HEAR YOU RELOCATE.
>> GOT IT. NIKKI CAN YOU HEAR ME? MS. DAE, CAN YOU HEAR ME? NO.
>> I'M TRYING TO PUT THUMBS UP BUT YEAH I CAN HEAR YOU.
>> WE'RE MOVING IT A LITTLE CLOSER.
THERE WE GO. THAT SHOULD BE MUCH BETTER.
>> IT'S EVEN MORE FORWARD NOW.
>> IS THAT BETTER? WE PUT THE PHONE RIGHT NEXT TO WHERE I'M SITTING. CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY?
>> YES. I'M SORRY YOU CAN'T SEE ME [OVERLAPPING].
>> THANK YOU. OH, YES AND AND I'M LOOKING AT THE PHONE AS THOUGH I'M GOING TO BE ABLE TO TELL THAT. I'M SORRY.
>> I'M GOING TO TRY TO MAINTAIN THIS, LET ME KNOW THAT YOU'RE STRUGGLING TO HEAR ME IF IT LOWERS.
IT'S A LENGTHY PRESENTATION TONIGHT.
JUST LET ME KNOW AND I'M HAPPY TO PROJECT MORE.
GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS KELLY GIBSON.
[5.1 BOA 2024-0002 - TAINA CHRISTNER, Administrative Appeal for Staff Determination of Completeness under LDC 11.03.01 of TRC 2024- 0005 (site plan review for mixed-use structure with condos and two triplex structures). (Quasi-Judicial).]
I'M THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND CONSERVATION FOR THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH.I HAVE HAD THE UNIQUE PRIVILEGE OF WORKING FOR THE CITY FOR JUST OVER 17 YEARS IN THE CAPACITY OF INITIALLY, PLANNER 2, MOVING INTO A SENIOR PLANNER POSITION, A PLANNING MANAGER POSITION.
DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR POSITION AND DIRECTOR PLANNING POSITION WITHIN THAT TIME FRAME.
I AM AICP CERTIFIED, WHICH IS THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PLANNERS.
[00:20:01]
I HAVE A DEGREE FROM FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY IN URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING.I ALSO HOLD A LEADERSHIP CERTIFICATE IN PUBLIC PUBLIC LEADERSHIP FROM HARVARD, AND I CONTINUOUSLY KEEP UP WITH CREDITS THROUGH THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE FOR CERTIFIED PLANNERS AS IS REQUIRED AS PART OF MY CREDENTIALING.
THIS EVENING, I'M HERE TO REPRESENT STAFF ON AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL CASE THAT WE WILL GET INTO.
ATTEMPT TO MOVE THE NEXT SLIDE.
THE APPLICANT THIS EVENING IS MS. TAINA CHRISTNER.
SHE'S APPEALING AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION OF COMPLETENESS FOR A PROJECT THAT IS UNDER TRC SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 124 SOUTH THIRD STREET, AS WELL AS 119, 123 AND 125 SOUTH FOURTH STREET.
THIS SPECIFIC PROPERTY CONTAINS TWO LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS ALONG THE SOUTH THIRD STREET SIDE, IT IS MIXED USE AND MU1 ZONING.
ON THE FOURTH STREET SIDE, IT IS MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WITH R2 ZONING.
PREVIOUS USES ON THIS SITE INCLUDED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
THERE WERE PREVIOUSLY FOUR STRUCTURES THERE ALONG WITH ANCILLARY STRUCTURES TO SUPPORT THAT.
HISTORICALLY, THERE HAS BEEN A RANGE OF USES ON THE PARTICULAR SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THIS SITE IS CURRENTLY VACANT.
AS PART OF THE APPLICATION OR IN THE PROCEEDINGS TONIGHT, ALL APPLICATION MATERIALS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED, ALL FEES HAVE BEEN PAID, AND ALL OF OUR REQUIRED NOTICES HAVE BEEN COMPLETED.
ADDITIONALLY, THIS STAFF PRESENTATION TONIGHT, AS WELL AS ALL OF THE AGENDA PACKET MATERIAL IS MADE PART OF THE RECORD FOR THE PROCEEDINGS HERE THIS EVENING.
AS WE HAVE SEEN IN THE PAST, I WANTED TO PROVIDE A BIT OF A SUMMARY ON WHERE WE ARE AT IN THE OVERALL PROCESS.
THE SLIDE THAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU HIGHLIGHTS TWO AREAS.
WE HAVE THE CITY'S SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCEDURES BRIEFLY OUTLINED WITH THOSE STEPS.
I KNOW THIS IS DIFFICULT TO SEE.
BUT I'LL QUICKLY GO THROUGH WHEN AN APPLICATION COMES IN FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW, IT WILL INITIALLY HAVE A FIRST STEP MEETING.
THAT FIRST STEP MEETING IS THE PRE APPLICATION MEETING.
THAT IS ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR HAVING A COMPLETE APPLICATION IN SITE PLAN REVIEWS.
THAT MEETING WAS CONDUCTED ON JUNE 13TH OF 2024.
ABOUT ONE MONTH LATER ON JULY 12 OF 2024, AN APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW WAS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY, AND CITY STAFF HAD FIVE DAYS UPON RECEIPT OF THAT APPLICATION TO DETERMINE ITS COMPLETENESS.
THAT COMPLETENESS WAS DETERMINED ON JULY 16TH OF 2024, AFTER WHICH THE STAFF FORWARDED THAT APPLICATION WITH ALL OF THE MATERIALS TO THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE FOR ITS REVIEW IN CONSIDERATION OF A PRELIMINARY COMPLIANCE REPORT.
THE FIRST ROUND REVIEW IS 30 DAYS AS ESTABLISHED BY THE CITY'S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND A PRELIMINARY COMPLIANCE REPORT AND SUFFICIENCY DETERMINATION TO THE APPLICANT, WHICH IS REALLY JUST THE PRELIMINARY COMPLIANCE REPORT IS DUE 30 DAYS FOLLOWING THE COMPLETENESS DETERMINATION.
THAT WAS ISSUED ON JULY 30TH OF 2024.
THE APPLICANT HAS 30 DAYS TO RESPOND TO THAT PRELIMINARY COMPLIANCE REPORT.
WE RECEIVED AN UPDATED APPLICATION ON AUGUST 30TH OF 2024.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE NOTE THAT IN BETWEEN THAT TIME FRAME, WE HAD SEVERAL MEETINGS WITH THE APPLICANT WHERE THEY INDICATED THEIR CONTINUED REQUEST TO MAKE PROGRESS ON THIS.
THOSE MEETINGS OCCURRED ON AUGUST 7TH, AS WELL AS ON SEPTEMBER 16TH OF 2024.
I WANT TO BACK UP JUST A MOMENT BECAUSE TO MAKE CLEAR.
THE PRELIMINARY COMPLIANCE REPORT WAS PROVIDED ON JULY 30TH OF 2024.
THAT 30 DAY TIME FRAME WAS TO GO UNTIL AUGUST 30TH OF 2024.
HOWEVER, WE DID HAVE SEVERAL THINGS THAT INTERVENED, INCLUDING THOSE MEETINGS WHERE THEY WERE CONTINUING TO MAKE PROGRESS WITH US.
WE ALSO HAD LOCAL EMERGENCY ORDERS ISSUED ON SEPTEMBER 12TH OF 2024.
WE HAD EMERGENCY ORDERS UNDER HURRICANE HALEN ON SEPTEMBER 26TH,
[00:25:02]
AS WELL AS HURRICANE MILTON ON OCTOBER 5TH.THE REVISION WAS NOT PROVIDED TO THE CITY UNTIL OCTOBER 10TH OF 2024.
I DO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I NOTE THAT THE ACTUAL SECOND SUBMITTAL WAS NOT PROVIDED TO THE CITY UNTIL OCTOBER 10TH OF 2024.
AT WHICH POINT THE APPLICANT THE REQUEST THE REVISION FILED WAS DETERMINED FOR COMPLETENESS ON OCTOBER 14TH OF 2024, WITHIN THE STANDARD TIME FRAME, AND THEN FORWARDED TO THE TRC FOR REVIEW.
AT THAT POINT, YOU HAVE 15 DAYS TO PROVIDE A RESPONSE AND SCHEDULING FOR THE NEXT AVAILABLE MEETING.
OCTOBER 22ND OF 2022 IS WHEN STAFF ISSUED A SECOND PRELIMINARY COMPLIANCE REPORT TO THE APPLICANT.
THEN WE MOVED FORWARD WITH A HEARING, A PUBLIC HEARING, AS IS REQUIRED WITH CONSIDERATION OF THAT PRELIMINARY COMPLIANCE REPORT, INCLUDING ALL COMMENTS FROM TRC ON OCTOBER 24TH OF 2024.
THE APPEAL THAT WAS UNDER CONSIDERATION THIS EVENING WAS FILED ON NOVEMBER 13TH OF 2024 WITHIN THE TIME FRAME OF THAT DETERMINATION OF COMPLETENESS.
WHERE THE PROJECT STANDS ITSELF, JUST OVERALL RIGHT NOW, THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A CONTINUATION OF AN ADDITIONAL 30 DAYS.
THAT CONTINUATION WAS RECEIVED ON NOVEMBER 22ND OF 2022 TO DECEMBER 22ND OF 2022.
WE'RE COMING UP ON THAT DEADLINE.
THE EXPECTATION WOULD BE THAT ANOTHER REVISION WOULD BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY AT THAT POINT.
I'M GOING TO MOVE FORWARD. THE SUBJECT OF THE APPEAL, AND THIS IS PROVIDED DIRECTLY FROM THE MS. CRISTNER'S REQUEST THIS EVENING IS THE COMPLETENESS DETERMINATION FOR TRC CASE 2024-005.
SHE'S WISHING TO FILE THIS APPEAL UNDER TWO SECTIONS OF CODE, LDC SECTIONS 11.07.01(A), AND 11.07.01(B).
FOR PURPOSES OF THE BOARD'S VIEW TONIGHT, I'VE HIGHLIGHTED THAT SECTION OF CODE, 11.07.01(A) AND B, WHICH PROVIDES THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL DETERMINATION OF COMPLETENESS.
THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 11.03.01(A) GOES FURTHER AND ESTABLISHES THE DETERMINATION OF COMPLETENESS AND THE PROCESS FOR THAT DETERMINATION.
IT DOES FURTHER HIGHLIGHT THAT A DETERMINATION OF AND ONLY COMPLETENESS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION SUBJECT TO APPEAL AS SET FORTH IN 11.07.00.
BECAUSE MS. CHRISTNER ALSO CITED 11.03.01(B), I WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT THAT SUBSECTION B SPEAKS SPECIFICALLY TO A DETERMINATION OF SUFFICIENCY.
A DETERMINATION OF SUFFICIENCY IS HELD FOR APPLICATIONS THAT ARE CITIZEN INITIATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS AND AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
IT IS THOSE APPLICATIONS SPECIFICALLY THAT RECEIVE A SUFFICIENCY DETERMINATION.
THEREFORE, THAT IS NOT THE SUBJECT OF THE APPEAL THIS EVENING.
THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE, ITS ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ARE FOUND IN LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 9.05 0.03.
AS PART OF SUBSECTION A, IT DOES POINT OUT THAT THE TRC SHALL REVIEW APPLICATIONS AND PROVIDE COMPLIANCE REPORTS FOR SITE PLANS, WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THE APPEAL THIS EVENING.
THE COMPLETENESS OF IT, HOWEVER, A COMPLIANCE REPORT IS ULTIMATELY WHAT THE TRC ISSUES, NOT ANYTHING RELATED TO SUFFICIENCY.
AGAIN, FOUND IN SUBSECTION 11.03.02(B) TRC MEMBERS ARE TO PROVIDE WRITTEN COMMENTS TO THE TRC CHAIR, WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PREPARING A PRELIMINARY COMPLIANCE REPORT.
LET'S GET INTO WHAT IS REQUIRED FOR A COMPLETE APPLICATION.
THIS IS SPECIFICALLY FOUND IN LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 11.01.03, WHICH IS REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL BOARD APPLICATIONS.
[00:30:02]
SUBSECTION A_1 SPEAKS TO AT LEAST ONE PRE APPLICATION MEETING WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF PRIOR TO THE SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION.THAT MEETING WAS CONDUCTED AS A PRE APPLICATION MEETING AND FIRST STEP MEETING WITH CITY STAFF ON JUNE 13TH OF 2024.
THE COMPLETED APPLICATION FORM AVAILABLE FROM THE CITY, THE CITY PROVIDES ALL OF ITS APPLICATION FORMS IN A DIGITAL ENVIRONMENT HOSTED ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE, AND THAT WAS SUBMITTED DIGITALLY ON JULY 12, 2024.
WITHIN THAT APPLICATION, THE NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHONE NUMBER, FAX, IF APPLICABLE, EMAIL, AND SIGNATURE OF THE PROPERTY OWNER IS REQUIRED, THAT WAS PROVIDED AS PART OF THE APPLICATION ON JULY 12TH OF 2024.
WHEN THE APPLICANT HAS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PROPERTY OWNER ACTING AS THEIR AGENT, A AGENT AUTHORIZATION IS REQUIRED, THAT WAS PROVIDED ON JULY 12TH OF 2024.
A PROPERTY SURVEY, INCLUDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION, THE LAND AREA, AND EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS ON THE SITE, SIGNED BY A SURVEYOR LICENSED IN THE STATE SHALL HAVE BEEN PERFORMED NOT MORE THAN TWO YEARS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF APPLICATION, UNLESS YOU ARE THE CITY APPLYING FOR PARTICULAR APPLICATION.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE CITY DID HAVE ON FILE.
MOST RECENTLY, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS HEARD A CASE 2024-003 IN MAY, EITHER MAY OR JUNE OF THIS PAST YEAR.
THAT FILE AND SURVEY, THE MOST RECENT SURVEY WAS ALREADY AVAILABLE FOR US TO UTILIZE AS PART OF TRC REVIEW.
ON JULY 12TH OF 2024, PAYMENT WAS RECEIVED BY THE APPLICANT.
AN APPLICATION REGARDING DEVELOPMENT OR AFFECTING ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS SHALL HAVE A PROOF OF RECEIPT OF APPLICABLE PERMITS FOR EXEMPTIONS FROM AGENCIES.
THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT'S REQUIRED AS PART OF THE TRC REVIEW FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT.
ALL SITE PLANS UNDER AT SUBSECTION C NOW.
ALL SITE PLANS AND DRAWINGS FOR AN APPLICATION PREPARED AT THE SAME SCALE WITHIN SPECIFIC SIZES AND ELECTRONIC VERSIONS ARE CITED IN SUBSECTION C. A DIGITAL REQUIREMENT IS WHAT WE LOOK FOR IN ORDER TO MEET THIS SPECIFIC STANDARD.
CURRENTLY, WE DO NOT ASK FOR PRINTED COPIES.
THAT WAS PROVIDED AND RECEIVED ON JULY 12TH OF 2024.
THIS IS SUBSECTION D. THE NUMBER OF COPIES, AGAIN, WE ACCEPT A DIGITAL COPY ONLY. THAT WAS COMPLETE.
SUBSECTION D E IS NOT APPLICABLE AS IT IS NOT WITHIN THE AIRPORT OVERLAY.
I WANT TO GO THROUGH AND POINT OUT THE DATES FOR WHICH THE APPLICANT REQUESTED A PRE APPLICATION MEETING, FIRST STEP MEETING OCCURRED ON JUNE 6TH OF 2024 AND THAT APPLICATION FILING.
THE APPLICATION FORM SUBMITTAL DATE WAS PROVIDED ON JULY 12TH OF 2024, AS HIGHLIGHTED IN THE PRESENTATION HERE.
THE WARRANTY D PROVIDED, AS WELL AS THE AGENT AUTHORIZATION, HAS ALSO BEEN COMPLETED, AS IS HIGHLIGHTED HERE ON YOUR SCREEN, AS WELL AS PART OF THE PACKET OF MATERIALS PROVIDED FOR THIS HEARING.
A SURVEY, NO OLDER THAN TWO YEARS AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS HIGHLIGHTED ON THE SCREEN.
THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS PART OF THAT SURVEY DOCUMENT AND CIRCLED ON THE PRESENTATION.
IT IS DATED MAY 7TH OF 2024, MEETING THAT TIMING REQUIREMENT FOR THE PREPARATION OF THAT SURVEY.
PROOF OF FEES BEING PAID AND RECEIVED IS DOCUMENTED HERE.
>> BEYOND THOSE REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIC TO ALL BOARD APPLICATIONS.
WE DO HAVE REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIC TO SITE PLANS.
THESE ARE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS.
THE FIRST ONE THEY'RE FOUND IN SECTION 11.01.04.
SUB A1 SPEAKS TO THE NAME AND ADDRESS, CONTACT INFORMATION OF THE PEOPLE PREPARING THE PLAN.
THIS WAS PROVIDED AT TWO POINTS, GIVEN THAT THERE WAS AN INITIAL APPLICATION AND A RESUBMITTAL PROVIDED THAT OCCURRED ON JULY 12 OF 2024 AND OCTOBER 9 OF 2024.
THE SAME DATES FOR THE PREPARATION DATES AND ANY MODIFICATIONS,
[00:35:01]
INCLUDING A NORTH ARROW, WRITTEN SCALE, AND GEOGRAPHIC SCALE ARE ALSO DOCUMENTED ON THE PLANS RECEIVED, THOSE DATES HIGHLIGHTED.THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY CONSISTENT WITH THE SURVEY WAS ALSO PROVIDED AS PART OF THE DOCUMENTATION WE HAVE ON FILE.
A VICINITY MAP IS HIGHLIGHTED ON THE PLANS COVER PAGE.
THE LOCATIONS OF STREAMS, BODIES OF WATER, NATURAL FEATURES, ROADS, RIGHTS OF WAY, STREET INTERSECTIONS, AND PAVED AREAS WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPERTY ARE HIGHLIGHTED ON SHEET LABELED PRE-1.
THEN THE LOCATIONS OF STREAMS, WATER BODIES, DUNES, DUNE SYSTEMS, AND OTHER NATURAL FEATURES WITHIN 250 FEET OF THE BOUNDARY SURVEY ARE ALSO PROVIDED.
THE LOCATION OF THE MEAN HIGH-WATER MINE IS NOT REQUIRED FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT.
THIS ISN'T ANYWHERE NEAR THE OCEAN.
THAT'S WHERE WE HAD THE MEAN HIGH-WATER LINE.
EIGHT, TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY, SOILS REPORT GRADING PLAN, AND AN EROSION CONTROL PLAN WERE PROVIDED ON PAGES PRE-1, AS WELL AS A REPORT THAT IS CONTAINED WITHIN THE DOCUMENTATION.
A GENERAL FLOODPLAIN MAP OF THE AREAS SUBJECT TO INUNDATION AND HIGH GROUND WATER LEVELS UP TO A 100-YEAR FLOOD CLASSIFICATION IS PROVIDED ON SHEET PRE-1.
A STATEMENT OF DISTANCES AND PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES INTENDED TO SERVE THE DEVELOPMENT.
WE DO HAVE A SCHOOL IMPACT ANALYSIS FORM PROVIDED AS PART OF THE SITE AND INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION MATERIALS.
THE NAME, PLAT BOOK, PAGE NUMBER, AND ANY RECORDED SUBDIVISION COMPRISING ALL OR PART OF THE SITE IS FOUND WITHIN THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
THE LOCATION AND USE OF ANY EXISTING AND PROPOSED PRINCIPAL OR ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES, SHOWING SETBACKS, BUILDING HEIGHTS, AND OTHER DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED, IS FOUND ON PAGE GE-1 AND SPECIFICALLY WITHIN THE SUMMARY BLOCKS PROVIDED.
THE ELEVATIONS OF ALL PROPOSED STRUCTURES ARE FOUND ON POST-1 PAGE.
THE ACCESS POINTS, DRIVEWAY DESIGN, PARKING, REQUIRED PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING, INTERNAL CIRCULATION, SIDEWALKS, AND BICYCLE FACILITIES ARE CONTAINED ON GE-1, AS WELL AS LS-1, THE LANDSCAPE PLAN.
THE LOCATION OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED UTILITIES, SERVICES, AND EASEMENTS ARE FOUND ON GE-1.
THEY'RE ALSO FOUND ON SEVERAL OTHER PAGES AND HIGHLIGHTED WITHIN THOSE DIFFERENT PAGES AS WELL.
THE TREE SURVEY, SHOWING PROTECTED TREES AND REPLACEMENT TREES, AS WELL AS LANDSCAPING BUFFERING ARE FOUND ON THE TM-1 PAGE, AS WELL AS THE LS-1 PAGE.
A SOIL AND EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN COMPLIANT WITH LDC SECTION 3.01.04 ARE FOUND ON PRE-1 AND A COMPLETE SOILS REPORT PREPARED JULY OF 2022 WAS ALSO SUBMITTED.
REQUIREMENTS FOR PUD ARE NOT PART OF THIS APPLICATION AND NOT APPLICABLE.
NINETEEN FOR SITE PLANS, WHERE THE DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED IN PHASES.
THE PLANS SHALL INCLUDE PHASE LINES.
THERE IS NO PHASE LINES TO MY KNOWLEDGE, BUT WE DO SEE THE DOCUMENTATION OF THE SITE PLANS PROVIDED FOR ON PRE-1 AND DR-1, AS WELL AS THE SOILS REPORTS.
THE SUMMARY BLOCK IS FOUND ON PAGE GE-1.
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIO CALCULATIONS PROPOSED AND PERMISSIBLE ARE FOUND ON PAGE GE-1.
THE FLOOR AREA RATIO PROPOSED AND PERMISSIBLE IS ALSO FOUND ON GE-1.
THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED AND PROVIDED IS FOUND ON GE-1.
THE NUMBER OF TREES REQUIRED TO BE PROTECTED, NUMBER OF TREES REMAINING ON THE SITE, AND THE NUMBER OF TREES TO BE PLANTED ARE FOUND ON PAGES TM-1 AND LS-1.
ADDITIONAL PLANS OR DOCUMENTS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPORT THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE SUBMITTED.
ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT PERMITTING SHOULD BE FILED, AS WELL AS SCHOOL IMPACT ANALYSIS AND CONCURRENCY FILED, BOTH OF WHICH HAVE BEEN PROVIDED.
TO GO THROUGH THIS A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL,
[00:40:03]
WE HAVE THE COMPLETE CONTACT INFORMATION, AS IS REQUESTED, A VICINITY MAP WITH NORTH ARROW AS WELL AS PUBLICATION DATES FOR THE FIRST SUBMITTAL AND AS HIGHLIGHTED, AND THE SECOND SUBMITTAL WITH THE REVISION DATE HIGHLIGHTED.A SURVEY NOT OLDER THAN TWO YEARS AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION. I'VE HIGHLIGHTED.
I KNOW IT'S DIFFICULT TO SEE, BUT THAT'S WHERE THAT MAY 7, 2024 DATE IS HIGHLIGHTED.
PAGE PRE-1 INCLUDES THE SITE FEATURES WITH TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURS, RIGHTS OF WAYS, TREES, PROPERTY BOUNDARIES, AND UTILITY CONNECTIONS.
I HAVE SOME ZOOMED IN HIGHLIGHTS OF THIS THAT WE CAN GET INTO THE DETAILS OF IT AND REALLY SEE THOSE CONTOUR LINES, THOSE ELEVATION POINTS, AS WELL AS THE PRE AND POST COMPONENTS OF IT, AS I CONTINUE THROUGH THIS PRESENTATION.
ADDITIONALLY, ON THE INDEX PAGE AS PART OF THE APPLICATION MATERIALS, THE APPLICANT DOES PROVIDE WHAT THE POINTS LOOK LIKE SO THAT THE SYMBOLOGY TIED TO EACH OF THESE IS CORRECTLY REFERENCED AND CARRIED THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRETY OF THEIR PREPARED MATERIALS.
TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF A HIGHLIGHT ON THAT, I DID USE A HIGHLIGHTER TO ACTUALLY SHOW THE TREES, THE TOPOGRAPHIC DETAILS.
YOU ACTUALLY HAVE THE FEMA FLOODPLAIN HIGHLIGHTED HERE.
THAT CURVED LINE THAT I AM ARTICULATING THERE DOES SHOW A PORTION OF THAT.
IT'S ALSO INDICATED IN OTHER AREAS OF THAT SAME PLAN.
THIS IS ON THE SITE PLAN PAGE AND THEN AGAIN, THE ELEVATION POINTS AS THEY CURRENTLY EXIST.
THEY'VE CALLED THAT OUT ON THE INDEX PAGE, BUT THEY ALSO PROVIDE CALL OUTS ON THE PAGE ITSELF SO THAT IT'S EASIER TO REFERENCE AS YOU'RE LOOKING AT THOSE DOCUMENTS.
THEN YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE RIGHTS OF WAY, AS WELL AS THE UTILITY CONNECTIONS ON HERE, THEY HIGHLIGHT THE DIFFERENT POINTS WHERE THERE ARE WATERWAYS, WATER SERVICES, AND INLETS THAT ARE WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY.
ON PAGE GE-1, WE DO HAVE ALL OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT GEOMETRY.
THIS DOES PROVIDE INFORMATION ABOUT SETBACKS.
IT PROVIDES INFORMATION ABOUT DRIVEWAYS, ACCESS, PARKING.
IT STARTS TO GET INTO WHERE CABS WILL BE INCLUDED OFF SITE WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
THERE ARE CALL OUTS SPECIFIC TO THE DIFFERENT REFERENCED AREAS HERE.
ON THE LEFT SIDE OF PAGE GE-1 IS WHERE THAT SUMMARY BLOCK IS, AND IT NOTES A NUMBER OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPLETENESS, INCLUDING THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIOS, THE SIZE OF THE CONDOS BEING PROPOSED, ZONING DISTRICTS, PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
IT SPEAKS TO THE ESTABLISHED SETBACKS REQUIRED.
AGAIN, I KNOW IT'S DIFFICULT TO SEE, AND THIS ONE, I DO HAVE A ZOOMED IN VERSION OF IT AS I CONTINUE THE PRESENTATION SO THAT YOU CAN SEE THAT MORE CLEARLY.
PAGE DR-1 CONTAINS THE DRAINAGE INFORMATION WITH THE ELEVATION POINTS HIGHLIGHTED.
THAT SHOULD BE TM-1 IS THE TREE MITIGATION PAGE, WHERE IT DENOTES ALL OF THE TREES THAT ARE REQUIRED FOR REMOVAL, THOSE THAT ARE BEING SAVED AS PART OF THE PROJECT, AND ADDITIONAL TREES THAT WILL BE PLANTED.
THEY ARE PROVIDED IN THE LAYOUT AND GEOMETRY OF THE OVERALL SITE ITSELF, AS WELL AS WITHIN A TABLE ON THE SAME PAGE.
THE LANDSCAPE PLAN DOES GO FURTHER.
IT SPEAKS TO SOME OF THE TREE PROTECTION MEASURES, AND HIGHLIGHTS THE NEW TREES BEING PLANTED, AS WELL AS OTHER LANDSCAPE MATERIALS.
THEY'RE ALSO REFERENCED WITHIN AN INDEX FOUND ON THE SAME PAGE.
YOU'LL FIND THAT THERE ARE SOME NOTES ABOUT THE LANDSCAPING MATERIALS ON THAT SAME PAGE.
ON PAGE PRE-1 IS WHERE YOU'LL FIND A SOIL CONTROL, SILT FENCING DETAIL, AND SILT FENCING APPLICATIONS.
THEN ALSO WITHIN THE DOCUMENT, WE DO HAVE THE SOILS REPORT THAT GOES INTO GREAT DETAIL ABOUT THE SOIL CONDITIONS AND SITE SUITABILITY FOR THE PROJECT.
ZOOMING IN, AS I HAD PROMISED, PAGE GE-1 SPEAKS TO LAND USE AND IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIO NOTES.
PAGE GE-1 ALSO SPEAKS TO DENSITY AND PARKING.
AS WE GET BACK INTO THE APPEAL THIS EVENING, THERE ARE SEVERAL POINTS OF ARGUMENT THAT MISS CHRISTNER MAKES.
[00:45:03]
SHE CITES THE LACK OF LEGAL LOT COMBINATION DOCUMENTATION.THE WARRANTY DEED IS PROVIDED AS EVIDENCE THAT WHERE THE INVESTMENTS OWNS ALL OF THESE SUBJECT PARCELS.
THE TRC APPLICATION IS A REQUEST TO BUILD A UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT UTILIZING ALL OF THE PARCELS.
PLANNING STAFF DETERMINES THE COMPLETENESS UPON RECEIPT OF THE TRC APPLICATIONS IN CHECKING TO MAKE SURE THAT MINIMUM REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION IS AVAILABLE FROM THE APPLICANTS.
THE TRC MAKES A DETERMINATION AS TO THE SUBJECT APPLICATION'S LEGALITY AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS PART OF ITS COMPLIANCE REVIEW.
PLANNING STAFF DOES NOT CONDUCT COMPLIANCE REVIEW UNTIL IT IS FORWARDED TO THE ENTIRE TRC.
MISS CHRISTNER CITES INCOMPLETE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIOS.
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIOS ARE PROVIDED FOR ON ALL PARCELS.
THE TRC APPLICATION HAS DOCUMENTED THIS THAT NOT ONLY IS THERE, IT IS COMPLETE.
STAFF DETERMINES COMPLIANCE OF THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIO WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL STORMWATER REGULATIONS ONCE THE APPLICATION IS REVIEWED FOR TECHNICAL COMPLIANCE.
THEIR CORRECTNESS IS REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE.
BUT THE FACT THAT THEY ARE THERE MEETS IT A COMPLETE APPLICATION.
AGAIN, THAT'S HIGHLIGHTED IN THE SUMMARY BLOCK CONTAINED ON GE-1.
MISS CHRISTNER CITES INCONSISTENT AND COMPLETE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN, AS PREVIOUSLY DOCUMENTED A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN WAS PROVIDED FOR THAT DID INCLUDE THIS.
THE APPLICATION CONTAINS THAT AND IS CONSIDERED COMPLETE.
TRC STAFF DETERMINES COMPLIANCE OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL STORMWATER REGULATIONS ONCE THE APPLICATION IS REVIEWED FOR TECHNICAL COMPLIANCE.
THE POINTS RAISED BY MISS CHRISTNER HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN COMMENTS WITHIN THE PRELIMINARY COMPLIANCE REPORTS ISSUED ON JULY 30, AS WELL AS OCTOBER 22.
BUT A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN WAS PROVIDED AS COMPLETED.
THIS IS CONTAINED WITHIN PAGE DR-1 OF THE APPLICATION IN BOTH ITS ORIGINAL FORM AND ON THE RESUBMITTAL.
THE PROPERTY SURVEY IS REQUIRED TO AND THE CITY DOES HAVE A PROPERTY SURVEY ON FILE, WHICH IS PROVIDED TO TRC MEMBERS AS PART OF THE APPLICATION.
IF THE APPLICANT DID NOT FIND A SURVEY WHEN RESEARCHING THIS APPLICATION ONLINE, SHE WOULD HAVE FOUND THE SURVEY HAD SHE CONTACTED CITY STAFF TO REQUEST IT DIRECTLY.
HERE IS THAT OVERALL SURVEY, AND I HAD SHOWN IT IN PIECES BEFORE.
AGAIN, THAT SURVEY DOES CONTAIN THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES.
IT ALSO HIGHLIGHTS THE EXISTING FLOODPLAIN.
IT HAS SOME POINTS OF ELEVATION PROVIDED WITHIN THE RIGHTS OF WAY THERE.
BUT IT IS REALLY JUST A BOUNDARY SURVEY CONTAINING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION, AND IT WAS PREPARED ON MAY 7 OF 2024.
MISS CHRISTNER CITES THE MISSING LIVE LOCAL AFFIDAVIT AND ITS IMPACT ON THE COMPLIANCE EVALUATION.
HERE, SHE'S CITING A REFERENCE BACK TO LDC SECTION 11.03.01(B).
THIS IS THAT SUBJECT SECTION OF SUFFICIENCY AND NOT THAT OF COMPLETENESS.
THE CITY DOES NOT REQUIRE A LIVE LOCAL AFFIDAVIT FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER UNTIL THE COMPLIANCE REVIEW BY TRC MEMBERS NEARS A COMPLETION, AND A DEVELOPMENT ORDER IS LIKELY.
THIS ARGUMENT SPEAKS TO SUFFICIENCY AND IS NOT AN APPEALABLE ACTION.
AS A POINT OF PROCESS, WE WOULD CONTINUE TO SEE A PARTICULAR PROJECT, ESPECIALLY ONE OF THIS MAGNITUDE FOR OUR JURISDICTION EVOLVE, AND BINDING SOMETHING WITH AN AFFIDAVIT BEFORE KNOWING THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS AND THE EXACTNESS OF WHAT IS ACTUALLY GOING TO MOVE FORWARD WOULD NOT BE REASONABLE UNTIL IT IS CLOSER TO THE TIMING FOR ISSUANCE OF A LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER.
PROCEDURAL OVERSIGHT IN THE TRC REVIEW IS ARGUED, AND THIS GOES A LOT BACK INTO ARGUMENTS THAT ARE BEYOND THE COMPLETENESS OF THE TRC AND START TO GET INTO THE LEGAL BASIS AND SUFFICIENCY ARGUMENTS.
AGAIN, NOT PART OF THE HEARING TONIGHT.
WE ARE ONLY SPEAKING TO THE COMPLETENESS OF THE APPLICATION RECEIVED.
[00:50:01]
MISSING TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY AND ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION.CITY STAFF DOES HAVE THIS INFORMATION WITH THE TRC APPLICATION, AND SO THE APPLICATION IS DETERMINED TO BE COMPLETE.
IT IS HIGHLIGHTED ON PAGE PRE-1 WITH THE SITE FEATURES, INCLUDING TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURS, RIGHTS OF WAY, TREES, PROPERTY BOUNDARIES, AND UTILITY CONNECTIONS.
I'VE HIGHLIGHTED SEVERAL OF THOSE POINTS, NOT ALL OF THEM ON THE GRAPHIC YOU SEE HERE.
PAGE PRE-1, AGAIN, WE HAVE A SOIL CONTROL PLAN AS WELL AS THE LARGER SOILS REPORT AND DOCUMENTATION FOR THAT PROPERTY.
THEN TO GET INTO A BIT MORE DETAIL ON THE GRADING PLAN WHERE SOME OF THESE HIGHLIGHTED INFORMATION, THE REQUEST DOCUMENTATION IS PROVIDED ON DR-1 THE GRADING PLAN.
THE YELLOW HIGHLIGHTS THERE SPEAK TO PROPOSED GRADES AND ELEVATIONS FOR THE SITE ITSELF.
I HAVE NOT HIGHLIGHTED ALL OF THEM, JUST A FEW OF THEM JUST SO THAT YOU CAN SEE THAT OVERALL, THEY HAVE BEEN DOCUMENTED.
THERE ARE SOME CALL OUTS TIED TO THEM.
THE BLUE POINTS HIGHLIGHTED ARE THE EXISTING ELEVATIONS OF THAT SUBJECT PROPERTY.
YOU CAN SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE EXISTING ELEVATION AND THE PROPOSED ELEVATION CLEARLY ARTICULATED WITHIN THE GRADING PLAN ON PAGE DR-1.
THE ONLY APPEALABLE ACTION UNDER CONSIDERATION THIS EVENING IS THE DETERMINATION OF COMPLETENESS.
THIS IS THE SOLE FOCUS OF THE BOARD'S REVIEW AT TONIGHT'S HEARING, AND THAT IS WHETHER OR NOT TRC 2024-005 WAS COMPLETE FOR STAFF TO INITIATE A REVIEW PROCESS.
A SUFFICIENCY DETERMINATION IS NOT REQUIRED AS PART OF THE TRC REVIEW PROCESS.
TRC REVIEWS ARE FOR COMPLIANCE, AND THEY ISSUE COMPLIANCE REPORTS.
ALL MINIMUM APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPLETENESS PROVIDED FOR IN THE LDC, SPECIFICALLY, SECTIONS 11.01.03 AND 11.01.04 ARE ACHIEVED AS HAS BEEN DOCUMENTED IN EACH SUBMITTAL PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.
STAFF CONDUCTED A COMPLETENESS REVIEW AND APPROPRIATELY MOVED THE APPLICATION FORWARD FOR TECHNICAL COMPLIANCE CONSIDERATIONS AT THE DATES PREVIOUSLY HIGHLIGHTED IN THIS PRESENTATION THIS EVENING.
WITH THAT, I WILL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.
>> JUST A QUICK QUESTION REGARDING ELEVATIONS OF PROPOSED STRUCTURES.
IN MY REALM, ELEVATIONS ARE VISIBLE VIEWING ELEVATIONS.
IS THIS SPECIFICALLY TALKING ABOUT HEIGHT?
>> THIS IS NOT SPECIFICALLY TALKING ABOUT THE ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS.
>> IT'S THE CIVIL ELEVATIONS, THE GROUND PREPARATION.
>> CAN I ASK ONE QUESTION? KELLY, YOU MAY HAVE JUST MISSPOKE, BUT I THINK WHEN YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE TIMELINE WHEN THE APPLICANT REACHED THE MIDDLE DEADLINE, YOU MENTIONED 2022, SHOULD THAT HAVE BEEN 2024?
>> [INAUDIBLE] WAS CORRECT. BUT I THINK YOU SAID THAT THEY HAD UNTIL DECEMBER 2022 TO RESUBMIT.
>> IT'S DECEMBER 22ND OF 2024.
THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
>> THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S CORRECT AND CLEAR FOR THE RECORD AND FOR THE BOARD.
I APOLOGIZE IF ANOTHER BOARD MEMBER WAS GETTING A QUESTION IN.
I JUST WANTED TO BE SURE THAT WAS CLEAR.
ON GE1, WHICH A LOT OF THINGS SUPPOSEDLY WERE ANSWERED, CAN YOU JUST HELP ME, BECAUSE IT'S THE FIRST TIME I'M LOOKING AT THIS, WHERE IS THE FAR ON GE1?
>> THE FLOOR AREA RATIO? I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S ON THERE.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S AN ARCHITECTURAL THING, NOT A CIVIL THING.
>> WELL, IT IS REQUIRED TO BE SUPPLIED, AND SHE INDICATED IT WAS PART OF GE1 IN HER SLIDE.
>> ARE YOU SURE SHE WASN'T REFERENCING IMPERVIOUS AREA?
>> WELL, THAT'S A SEPARATE ONE.
THEY'RE BOTH REQUIRED IN THE SUMMARY BLOCK UNDER 11.01.04 20.
>> I WILL LOOK FOR THAT INFORMATION TO HIGHLIGHT FOR YOU.
I REALLY SPOKE SPECIFICALLY TO THE APPLICANTS' DEFINED TERMS FOR THE APPEAL.
>> ONE OF THE REASONS I'M INTERESTED IN THAT IS, AGAIN,
[00:55:01]
THERE ARE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS UNDER THE LIVE LOCAL ACT RELATING TO WHAT THE FAR CAN BE.>> DENSITY IS PART OF IT, BUT ALSO FAR.
>> I THINK THAT BECAUSE A PORTION OF THIS IS BEING PROPOSED UNDER THE LIVE LOCAL ACT, IS ONE REASON I WAS LOOKING FOR IT.
MAYBE IT'S SOMEWHERE ELSE, BUT I WAS JUST LOOKING IN THIS REALIZING THINKING THIS WAS THE SUMMARY BLOCK.
>> I GOT IT. SHE'S RIGHT, IT'S IN 20.G UNDER 11.04.
>> THAT'S IN OUR REQUIREMENTS HERE, BUT THEN THE LIVE LOCAL ACT DOESN'T HAVE A RESTRICTION.
ACTUALLY, I'M NOT QUESTIONING WHETHER THIS PROJECT VIOLATES THE LIVE LOCAL ACT ON THAT, BUT I'M JUST THINKING THAT WE NEED BOTH.
I MEAN, THAT'S WHY I WAS LOOKING FOR THE FAR.
>> I WILL TELL YOU, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE REALLY LOOKED FOR AND FOCUSED IN ON IS THE DENSITY PROVISIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS.
>> CERTAINLY. THAT'S VERY KEY.
I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE ELSE IS GOING TO TALK, BUT AGAIN, GOING TO THE LIVE LOCAL ACT REQUIREMENTS, DO WE HAVE THE RESIDENTIAL VERSUS TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATION FOR THE LIVE LOCAL FOR THE ME1 BUILDING? BECAUSE AGAIN, THAT'S UNDER THE LIVE LOCAL ACT, IT HAS TO BE AT LEAST, I THINK, 65% RESIDENTIAL, AND I DIDN'T KNOW WHERE THAT CALCULATION WAS DEMONSTRATING THAT.
>> IS IT ON GE1 AT THE MIDDLE OF THE PORTION OF THE SLIDE THAT SAYS DENSITY, MU1 ZONING DENSITY?
>> THAT'S JUST ON THE RESIDENTIAL.
I DON'T THINK THAT SAYS ANYTHING OF THAT RESIDENTIAL AREA.
>> IT GIVES YOU THE TOTAL AREA OF THE BUILDING, 38-400.
>> THAT'S THE WHOLE BUILDING, AND WHAT IS THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION? I THOUGHT THAT THAT WAS.
>> TWELVE UNITS ON THE SECOND FLOOR AT 1,250 SQUARE FEET, EIGHT UNITS ON THE THIRD FLOOR AT 1250 AND 2,200.
>> THEY HAVEN'T CALCULATED IT, SO WE NEED TO CALCULATE THAT.
>> [INAUDIBLE] IS A CALCULATION THAT CAN BE DETERMINED FOR COMPLIANCE REVIEW AS A SPECIFIC NOTE.
AGAIN, WE FOCUS IN ON THE DENSITY PIECE OF IT.
THEIR OFFICE RETAIL COMPONENT OF IT IS REALLY MINOR AS IT RELATES, AND CERTAINLY WITHIN THE THRESHOLD OF LIVE LOCAL AND IT'S MANDATES.
>> I UNDERSTAND YOU FOCUS ON DENSITY, BUT SINCE THERE IS ALSO LIVE LOCAL ACT REQUIREMENT REGARDING THE MINIMUM RESIDENTIAL, I JUST THINK THAT YOU SHOULD ALSO FOCUS ON THAT TOO.
YES. I'M PART OF CALCULATION IN THE DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED THAT HAS BEEN SATISFIED.
>> KELLY, YOU SAID THERE WAS A CERTIFIED PROPERTY SURVEY, BUT WAS THAT INCLUDED AS PART OF THE APPLICATION OR BECAUSE THAT WAS A COMPLAINT? ALL THEY HAD WAS A DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
THEY DIDN'T HAVE A CERTIFIED SURVEY.
>> THEY HAVE ONE ON FILE WITH THE CITY.
>> IT'S THERE BUT IT WASN'T PART OF PART OF THE APPLICATION LIKE THEY WERE SAYING.
>> RIGHT. THEY DID NOT INCLUDE IT BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T NEED TO.
WE ALREADY HAD ONE AVAILABLE ON A FILE FROM SEVERAL MONTHS BEFORE.
>> IT WAS A CASE WE HEARD, BUT I DO WORRY ABOUT THE PLAIN READING OF THE STATUTE SAYS ALL OF THESE ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED, NOT IT'S ALREADY ON FILE WITH THE CITY.
>> WE HAD ONE, WHICH IS WHY STAFF DIDN'T GO BACK AND REQUEST TO OBTAIN IT INDEPENDENTLY.
IT WAS ALREADY READILY AVAILABLE.
>> QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS THE RIGHT PLACE OR HOW IT FITS IN, BUT LIVE LOCAL ONLY, THE 3RD STREET IS LIVE LOCAL.
THE 4RTH STREET IS NOT LIVE LOCAL.
>> BUT THERE ARE ELEMENTS FOR THE 3RD STREET PORTION THAT ARE IN 4RTH STREET; THE RETENTION POND.
>> AGAIN, THAT GETS INTO THE COMPLIANCE ASSOCIATED WITH THE APPLICATION, AND NOT THE COMPLETENESS OF THE APPLICATION.
>> WHEN DOES THIS COMPLIANCE HAPPEN?
[01:00:02]
>> THE COMPLIANCE REVIEW WAS ISSUED AT TWO SEPARATE POINTS ALREADY, ON JULY 30TH AND OCTOBER 22ND, CITING COMMENTS AND CONCERNS ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE VERY THINGS.
>> THE COMPLIANCE COMPLIED WITH [OVERLAPPING].
>> THE COMPLIANCE REPORT ISSUED REQUESTED UPDATES TO ADDRESS COMMENTS.
>> BECAUSE IT'S PASSED, WE CAN'T ADDRESS IT?
>> THE HEARING TONIGHT IS SPECIFIC TO COMPLETENESS, BUT THOSE COMMENTS ADDRESS WHETHER OR NOT.
FOR EXAMPLE, IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIO.
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIO IS NOTED ON THIS PLAN.
CHECK, COMPLETE, THE CORRECTNESS OF IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE ADDRESS IN THE COMMENTS.
>> I UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE DOING. MY QUESTION IS, CAN WE ADDRESS THAT ISSUE? WAS THAT ISSUE ADDRESSED LEGALLY WITH WHAT THE LAW SAYS?
>> IT WOULD BE ADDRESSED AS PART OF COMPLIANCE.
>> IT HAS BEEN RAISED AS A POINT OF CONCERN WITH A COMPLIANCE REVIEW.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO SEE HOW THAT WAS. CAN WE GET THAT?
>> YES. THAT'S PROVIDED AS A PART OF THE APPLICATION MATERIALS.
ALL OF THE COMPLIANCE REPORTS WERE SUBMITTED FOR THE BOARD'S REVIEW.
BUT I'M WHO SAID IT COMPLIED? IT THE COMPLIANCE REPORT ISSUED COMMENTS AND OBJECTIONS.
YOU CAN SEE WHAT HIS RESPONSES ARE TO THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE.
>> AS WELL AS THE UPDATED COMPLIANCE.
THEY'RE BOTH PRELIMINARY COMPLIANCE.
>> AN ARCHITECT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW?
>> NO. THEY STILL NEED TO ADDRESS THOSE OUTSTANDING COMMENTS.
>> THEY WILL ADDRESS THAT IN THE FUTURE?
>> THEY CAN'T MOVE FORWARD TO HAVE A FINAL APPROVED LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER UNTIL THAT IS ADDRESSED.
THEY HAVE TO HAVE ACHIEVED ALL MINIMUM COMPLIANCE.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, STAFF? THE BOARD?
>> I'M SORRY. DID SHE FIND THE FLOOR AREA RATIO CALCULATIONS?
BUT I WILL LOOK FOR THAT FOR YOU.
>> I DON'T THINK IT'S ON THERE.
>> I COULDN'T FIND IT, BUT THEN AGAIN, LIKE I SAID, I DON'T HAVE AS MUCH EXPERIENCE AS OTHERS.
>> WE'D LIKE TO LET THE APPLICANT SPEAK.
>> I JUST NEED CONTROL OF THIS, MS. GIBSON.
>> I MAY NEED TO ASK THAT FOR PURPOSES OF THIS MEETING THAT YOU MAY NEED TO COME SIT HERE.
>> BECAUSE WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO SCREEN SHARE THIS THROUGH THE ZOOM.
>> LET ME MOVE THIS BACK HERE.
>> DO YOU HAVE THE THUMB DRIVE THAT YOU WERE USING?
>> I WAS GOING TO ADDRESS THAT. KELLY, CAN I GET THE AIR TURNED UP A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE EVERYBODY IN THE ROOM'S COLD.
YOU HAVE THREE VENTS, JUST WENT RIGHT QUICK.
CAN EVERYONE HEAR ME? I HAVE NO PROBLEM BELTING IT OUT SO IF ANYBODY HERE CAN'T HEAR, JUST LET ME KNOW, BECAUSE MY NATURAL VOICE LEVEL IS VERY HIGH.
TINA [INAUDIBLE] 406 BEACH STREET.
ALSO, I JUST WANT TO SAY GOOD EVENING BOARD MEMBERS, AND EVERYBODY HERE.
I KNOW THIS IS A VERY DRY SUBJECT.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR DOING THIS RIGHT BEFORE THE HOLIDAYS.
THIS APPEAL IS ON THE COMPLETENESS DETERMINATION OF TRC CASE 2024-0005, AND I FEEL IT FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
MY ARGUMENTS ARE GOING TO BE BASED ON CLEAR DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT THE APPLICATION IS INCOMPLETE, NON COMPLIANT, AND THAT THE REVIEW VIOLATED FLORIDA'S SUNSHINE LAWS.
[01:05:01]
LET'S SEE. NEXT SLIDE, INCOMPLETE DOCUMENTATION.PROPERTY SURVEY CONTAINING LEGAL DESCRIPTION, LAND AREA, AND EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS.
THAT'S REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 11.01.03, AND I THINK MS. GIBSON WENT OVER THAT.
THERE WAS NO CERTIFIED PROPERTY SURVEY PROVIDED.
WHEN I SAY IT WASN'T PROVIDED, WHAT I'M REFERRING TO IS ON OCTOBER 24TH, 2024, THERE WAS A TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING.
THERE WAS A PACKET PROVIDED AT THAT MEETING THAT I'M ASSUMING ALL STAFF WAS USING, THAT WAS THE ONLY PACKET AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC.
THAT SURVEY WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THERE.
I BELIEVE MS. GIBSON SAID THAT IF I WANTED IT, I SHOULD HAVE CALLED THE PLANNING BOARD OR OFFICE AND ASKED FOR IT.
I DIDN'T KNOW IT EXISTED, SO I DON'T KNOW HOW TO ASK FOR SOMETHING THAT I DON'T KNOW EXISTS.
I THINK HAVING SOMETHING ON FILE VIOLATES THE COMPLETENESS.
THE NEXT THING IS LEGAL LOT COMBINATION DOCUMENTATION.
AS YOU KNOW, OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH, AND IT'S BEEN TO THE COURT AND A JUDGE RULED IN OUR FAVOR, THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HAD TO VOTE ON A VARIANCE IN ORDER TO COMBINE OR TO SEPARATE LOTS ON THAT PROPERTY.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAS CHANGED BECAUSE THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS OWNED THAT PROPERTY, DIFFERENT FOLKS HAVE OWNED IT, NOTHING'S CHANGED.
SOMEBODY HAS OWNED IT ALL, SO THE EXPLANATION THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER OWNS IT ALL, AND THEREFORE, IT CAN BE SPLIT IN ANY WAY THEY WANT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, AND THE COURT RULED VERY DIFFERENTLY.
SCHOOL CONCURRENCY RESERVATION LETTER IS NOT IN THERE.
A LIVE LOCAL AFFIDAVIT CONFIRMING 40% AFFORDABILITY COMPLIANCE IS NOT IN THERE.
THEN PERVIOUS SURFACE RATIO, IT IS TRUE THAT THERE IS AN ISR CALCULATION FOR THE ENTIRE PROPERTY, BUT THE STANDARD FOR THE LDC IS THAT IT HAS TO BE PARCEL SPECIFIC.
THE APPLICANT, WHEN THEY PUT IN THE APPLICATION, EVEN SHOWS THERE'S FIVE PARCELS ON THAT PROPERTY, AND THERE IS NO ISR CALCULATION FOR EACH PARCEL.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT WITH ON SITE RETENTION IS NOT THERE.
IT SHOWS A PLAN PLACING STORMWATER ON ADJACENT PROPERTY.
THE TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY AND SOIL SAMPLES ARE INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION.
HOWEVER, THEY ARE OVER 2-YEARS-OLD, 2.5-YEARS-OLD, AND THEY WERE TAKEN DURING A TIME WHEN THE FIVE HOUSES WERE THERE.
THE TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY THAT MS. GIBSON SHOWED THIS EVENING ON THE SCREEN WAS ONE I HAVE NEVER SEEN BEFORE.
UNLESS I MISSED SOMETHING, IT WAS NOT PART OF THE PACKET ON THE TRC REVIEW ON 10/24/2024.
I WANT TO GO OVER THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AND WHAT THEIR ROLE IS.
THEY'RE ESTABLISHED BY THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND THEY ARE THERE TO RECEIVE, REVIEW, RENDER DECISIONS ON APPLICATIONS SUBJECT TO ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AS SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 11 OF THE LDC.
THEIR MEMBERSHIP IS ALL STAFF, IT'S HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS, AND IT'S A GROUP THAT ALMOST EVERY APPLICATION GOES THROUGH BEFORE IT GOES TO A BOARD.
I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE PROCESS AND HOW LIVE LOCAL CHANGES THE PROCESS.
THIS IS WHAT I GOT FROM THE LDC, AND MS. GIBSON CAN PROBABLY CORRECT ME ON A FEW OF THESE THINGS, BUT THIS IS WHAT I GATHER FROM THE LDC.
IF SOMEONE WANTS TO GET A BUILDING PERMIT OR ON SOMETHING, THEY WILL APPLY FOR A PRE APPLICATION CONFERENCE, AND THAT'S NOW CALLED A FIRST STEP CONFERENCE, WHERE THE APPLICANT MEETS WITH THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE IN A CLOSED DOOR MEETING, IT'S USUALLY AT THE AIRPORT CONFERENCE ROOM, TO DISCUSS THE PROJECT.
THEN THE APPLICANT WILL SUBMIT AN APPLICATION.
IT WILL BE DETERMINED TO BE COMPLETE.
THEN THE TRC WILL GET TOGETHER FOR A SECOND TIME TO REVIEW THE APPLICATION AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS.
>> THEN THERE'LL BE A PUBLIC NOTICE IF THERE'S GOING TO BE A MEETING LIKE WITH THE BOA OR THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD.
THE BOARD OR THE STAFF AFTER THAT WILL APPROVE OR DENY THE APPLICATION, AND THEN IT WILL GO FOR FINAL APPROVAL AND PERMITS.
HOW IS LIVE LOCAL GOING TO CHANGE THIS PROCESS? THE LIVE LOCAL LAW SAYS THAT ALL AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS UNDER LIVE LOCAL ONLY RECEIVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW.
THAT'S WONDERFUL. IT CREATES A SHORTCUT FOR DEVELOPERS IF THEY AGREE TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND IT STREAMLINES THE PROCESS FOR THEM.
WHAT IT DOES IS THERE WON'T BE A PUBLIC NOTICE IF IT DOESN'T GO TO A BOARD.
[01:10:03]
THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE A BOARD REVIEW.SOME OF THE GREAT POINTS THAT MARGARET DAVIS BROUGHT UP TONIGHT AND [INAUDIBLE] KRIEGER, THERE'S GOING TO BE NONE OF THAT WHERE ANOTHER BOARD IS LOOKING AT THINGS AND SAYING, DID WE MISS THIS OR DID WE MISS THAT? I AM NOT SAYING THAT THE TRC DOESN'T CATCH EVERYTHING, IT'S JUST IT'S ALWAYS NICE TO HAVE A COUPLE OF BOARDS LOOK AT THINGS, AND SO WE AREN'T GOING TO HAVE THAT ANYMORE.
THEN THE CITY COMMISSION WILL NOT BE THE FINAL APPROVAL.
IT'S GOING TO BE A STAFF REVIEW, SO WILL PROBABLY BE THE CITY MANAGER.
UNDER LIVE LOCAL, THERE'S GOING TO BE NO SECOND BOARD REVIEW TO CATCH ERRORS OR TO TAKE A SECOND LOOK.
BECAUSE OF THIS, IT'S MY FEELING THAT THE TRC MUST HOLD APPLICATIONS UNDER LIVE LOCAL TO THE HIGHEST STANDARD, BECAUSE THERE'S REALLY ONLY A COUPLE OF CHANCES TO CATCH EVERYTHING.
JUST THE IMPLICATIONS, THERE'S GOING TO BE REDUCED OVERSIGHT.
IT WILL REPLACE ELECTED AND APPOINTED BOARD REVIEWS WITH ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS.
THAT ONE TRC OR THE SECOND TRC MEETING IS REALLY THE ONLY TIME YOU HAVE A GROUP SITTING DOWN, LOOKING AT THESE APPLICATIONS.
IT'S CRITICAL THAT THESE APPLICATIONS BE COMPLETE FOR THEM.
CLOSED DOOR MEETINGS VIOLATE FLORIDA SUNSHINE LAWS.
FOR CONSEQUENCES FOR INCOMPLETENESS, THAT'S GOING TO COMPROMISE TRANSPARENCY, WASTE RESOURCES, AND SETS A LOW BAR FOR FUTURE REVIEWS.
IT'S MY OPINION THAT THE TRC IS SUBJECT TO FLORIDA SUNSHINE LAWS, AND HERE'S WHY: FIRST, IT'S CREATED BY ORDINANCE.
THE LDC SECTION 9.05.01, ESTABLISHED AS THE TRC TO RENDER DECISIONS ON APPLICATIONS.
UNDER FLORIDA LAW, ANY GROUP WITH DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY, MUST COMPLY WITH THE SUNSHINE LAW, AND THAT'S CAPE PUBLICATIONS VERSUS PALM BAY.
I DON'T ASK YOU TO BELIEVE LITTLE OLD ME ON THIS.
I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO BELIEVE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA.
I'M USED TO STANDING AT THE PODIUM WHERE I CAN HAND OUT HANDOUTS, BUT I WILL [INAUDIBLE].
>> FOR THE RECORD, MR. CHAIR, I'M JUST GOING TO OBJECT TO ALL OF THIS INFORMATION NOT BEING WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THIS BOARD AND DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THE APPLICATION IS COMPLETE.
I UNDERSTAND WHY SOME OF THIS READING AND ANALYSIS MS. [INAUDIBLE] WOULD DO IT, BUT IT IS NOT AT ALL RELEVANT TO YOUR DECISION.
I'M, JUST FOR THE RECORD, GOING TO PROVIDE THOSE OBJECTIONS TO THAT.
>> I THINK I'LL SHOW HOW VERY RELEVANT IT IS.
I JUST HAVE TO EXPLAIN IT FIRST, SO IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND, CHAIR, BEARING WITH ME, AND THEN I'LL EXPLAIN WHY IT IS RELEVANT TO THIS CASE.
AS I MENTIONED, THE TRC IS SUBJECT TO FLORIDA SUNSHINE LAWS, AND I'M REALLY EMBARRASSED.
I HAVE TO GO GET THEM, I'M SORRY.
IN THIS OPINION, THE CITY MANAGER OF THE CITY OF NORTHPORT WROTE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND ASKED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
THEY SAID, THE CITY MANAGER SAID, THE COMMITTEE ESTABLISHED TO APPROVE DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS, AND THEN WHICH ARE SENT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD, WHICH MAKES RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY COMMISSION ON SUNSHINE LAW.
THEY ACTUALLY CALL IT THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE.
SOME CITIES AND COUNTIES CALL IT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, SOME CITIES CALL TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE.
WHAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DETERMINED, AND I'M GOING TO READ THE SECOND YELLOW HIGHLIGHTED PART OF THIS.
HE SAID, "MOREOVER, YOU WERE AWARE THAT COMMITTEES COMPOSED OF CITY STAFF MAY BE SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 286.011 FLORIDA STATUTES.
WHILE MEETINGS OF STAFF ARE NOT ORDINARILY COVERED BY SUNSHINE LAW, WHEN A STAFF MEMBER CEASES TO FUNCTION IN A STAFF CAPACITY AND IS APPOINTED TO A COMMITTEE THAT HAS DELEGATED THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO A BOARD OR OFFICIAL, THE STAFF MEMBER LOSES HIS OR HER IDENTITY AS STAFF WHILE WORKING ON THE COMMITTEE, AND THE SUNSHINE LAW APPLIES TO THE COMMITTEE." THE NEXT QUOTE IS, FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, "YOU REFER TO THE OPINION OF THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN LYON V LAKE COUNTY, WHICH HELD THAT A TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE CREATED TO ADVISE THE COUNTY MANAGER ON LAND USE WAS SUBJECT TO SUNSHINE LAW,
[01:15:02]
AND TO ME, THAT IS EXACTLY THE TYPE OF COMMITTEE WE HAVE HERE.A TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE CREATED TO ADVISE A CITY MANAGER ON LAND USE." THE THIRD THING I'LL HIGHLIGHT, HE SAYS, AND THIS IS THE FIRST HIGHLIGHTED AREA, "AS A STATUTE ENACTED IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC FROM CLOSED DOOR POLITICS, THE SUNSHINE LAW MUST BE BROADLY CONSTRUED TO AFFECT ITS REMEDIAL AND PROTECTIVE PURPOSE.
THE COURTS OF THIS STATE HAVE REPEATEDLY STATED THAT IT IS THE ENTIRE DECISION MAKING PROCESS TO WHICH THE SUNSHINE LAW APPLIES AND NOT MERELY A FORMAL ASSEMBLAGE OF A PUBLIC BODY AT WHICH VOTING TO RATIFY AN OFFICIAL DECISION IS CARRIED OUT.
IN OTHER WORDS, LIKE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, YOU NEVER MEET WITH AN APPLICANT WITH CLOSED DOORS PRIOR TO MEETING WITH THEM TO VOTE ON SOMETHING.
I BELIEVE, AND I THINK THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION WOULD BACK ME UP, THAT THIS TRC IS SUBJECT TO SUNSHINE LAWS.
THE TRC'S ROLE GOES WAY BEYOND FACT FINDING, WHICH IS, IF YOU ARE JUST FACT FINDING, YOU AREN'T SUBJECT TO SUNSHINE LAWS.
BUT WHEN YOU ARE DOING DECISION MAKING, YOU ARE UNDER SUNSHINE LAWS.
AT THE OCTOBER 24TH TRC MEETING, THEY DO NOT VIDEO THOSE LIKE THEY DO WITH THESE MEETINGS, BUT THEY DO TAPE RECORD THEM, AND YOU CAN REQUEST A COPY OF THE AUDIOTAPE AND YOU HAVE TO DOWNLOAD SPECIAL SOFTWARE TO GET IT, SO I DID THAT, AND I WAS ABLE TO CREATE A TRANSCRIPT.
IN PART OF THAT, MS. GIBSON SAYS TO THE APPLICANT, "NOW THAT WE'VE SEEN THE SECOND ROUND REVIEW, IT'S CLEAR THAT THIS IS EFFECTIVELY THREE PARCELS.
THEY ARE GOING TO BE UTILIZED AS PART OF THE PROJECT ITSELF WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IT MAKES SENSE TO SEPARATE INTO THREE SEPARATE PROJECTS." THEN THE APPLICANT SAYS, YOU WANT ME TO GENERATE THREE SEPARATE SETS OF, AND I THINK HE SAYS, COMPS? SHE SAYS, YOU CAN DEMONSTRATE IT AS A SINGLE, BUT IT DOES NEED TO HAVE AN IDENTITY, SO WE DO HAVE THREE SEPARATE ACTIONS, ONE FOR THE BUILDING, ONE FOR EACH TRIPLEX MULTI FAMILY.
AS YOU CAN SEE, THE TRC IS NOT JUST FACT FINDING.
THEY'RE MAKING DECISIONS. IN THAT MEETING, SHE TELLS THE APPLICANT, "YOU HAVE TO SPLIT THIS INTO THREE PARCELS." I BELIEVE THE TRC VIOLATED SUNSHINE LAWS.
FIRST, IT HAD CLOSED DOOR MEETINGS.
THESE MEETINGS SHOULD BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.
THEY PROVIDED A LACK OF PROPER NOTICE.
SUNSHINE LAW APPLIES TO ALL PHASES, AS I READ TO YOU FROM THE QUOTE FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
THERE'S AN INCOMPLETE PUBLIC RECORD.
THE TRC VIOLATES SUNSHINE LAW BY FAILING TO PROVIDE THE ENTIRE RECORD TO THE PUBLIC PRIOR TO THE MEETING, PREVENTING MEANINGFUL REVIEW AND PARTICIPATION.
THERE'S LEGAL ISSUES THAT SUPPORT THIS LYON V LAKE COUNTY TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEES INFLUENCING APPLICATIONS CANNOT OPERATE PRIVATELY.
LET ME GIVE YOU A REAL WORLD EXAMPLE OF HOW THIS AFFECTS PEOPLE.
I BELIEVE MY RIGHTS HAVE BEEN VIOLATED WITH THIS APPLICATION BECAUSE I WAS NOT PROVIDED WITH INFORMATION.
YOU CAN'T READ THIS, BUT I'LL FOLLOW UP WITH YOU.
I PLACED TWO FOIA REQUESTS THIS SUMMER, ASKING FOR INFORMATION ON THIS PROJECT.
AS YOU KNOW, A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST IS THE HIGHEST STANDARD OF HOW TO GATHER INFORMATION FROM THE CITY BECAUSE IT'S GOVERNED BY FLORIDA STATE LAWS.
THE TEXT OF MY FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUESTS WERE VERY CLEAR.
PLEASE PROVIDE ANY APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED OR ANY PERMITS ISSUED FOR THE FOLLOWING PROPERTIES FROM JANUARY 1ST, 2023 TO THE PRESENT.
PLEASE INCLUDE TREE, BUILDING, DEMOLITION, ZONING, OR ANY OTHER APPLICATION OR PERMIT FOR THESE PROPERTIES, AND THEN I PROVIDED ALL THE PARCEL NUMBERS.
WHAT HAPPENED? I WAS RETURNED WITH NOTHING OTHER THAN THE DEMOLITION PERMITS.
I'M GOING TO PUT TOGETHER A TIMELINE OF WHAT I'VE BEEN ABLE TO GATHER THROUGH MY PRIVATE INVESTIGATIVE WORK.
I FOUND OUT RECENTLY, THAT ON 6/13/2024, THE APPLICANT HAD A PRE APPLICATION CONFERENCE WITH THE TRC IN A CLOSED DOOR MEETING.
ON JULY 12TH, 2024, THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION.
ON JULY 15TH, 2024, I SUBMITTED A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST WITH THAT EXACT TEXT TO THE CITY.
[01:20:03]
NO DOCUMENTS RETURNED TO ME.THEY HAD ALREADY RECEIVED THE APPLICATION, THEY HAD ALREADY HAD A CLOSED DOOR MEETING, AND I WAS TOLD THAT THERE WAS NOTHING THAT HAD BEEN SUBMITTED.
YOU CAN GO LOOK AT THESE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUESTS YOURSELF.
ON JULY 16TH, THE CITY GAVE THE APPLICATION A COMPLETE DETERMINATION.
ON JULY 30TH, THE TRC ISSUED THE FIRST REVIEW COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT.
I DIDN'T KNOW ANY OF THIS WAS GOING ON.
I SUBMITTED ANOTHER FOIA REQUEST TO THE CITY ON AUGUST 8TH, 2024.
NO APPLICATION DOCUMENTS WERE RETURNED TO ME.
I BELIEVE MY RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED BECAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW ANY OF THIS WAS GOING ON, AND I REQUESTED IT VERY PROPERLY FROM THE CITY.
I'LL PROVIDE YOU WITH THE UPDATED INFORMATION ABOUT THAT.
BUT HOW DOES THIS AFFECT AN INCOMPLETE APPLICATION? THIS IS A COMPARISON BETWEEN WHAT I'VE BEEN ABLE TO SEE AS A CITIZEN WHO SHOULD BE ABLE TO SEE EVERYTHING UNDER FLORIDA SUNSHINE LAWS AND WHAT THE PLAN THE HEAD OF PLANNING HAS BEEN ABLE TO SEE.
ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE IS EVERYTHING I HAD AVAILABLE TO ME.
I FINALLY FOUND OUT ABOUT THIS PRIOR TO THE OCTOBER 24TH 2024 TRC MEETING.
YOU CAN SEE THAT ON THE LEFT, AND ALL THE APPLICATION PACKETS AND THE WHOLE PACKET WAS SUPPLIED, AND THAT'S EVERYTHING I'VE GONE OFF OF.
YOU LOOK ON THAT LEFT HAND SIDE, THERE IS NO SURVEY.
THE SURVEY WAS NOT PART OF THAT PACKET TO THE TRC.
BUT ON TONIGHT'S APPLICATION AND TONIGHT'S PACKET, YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE WAS A SURVEY THERE.
HOW WAS I SUPPOSED TO KNOW ON 10/24 AND GOING INTO THAT MEETING THAT THERE WAS A SURVEY? I'M GOING TO START GOING THROUGH WHAT WAS MISSING ON THE APPLICATION.
FIRST OF ALL, WAS THE PROPERTY SURVEY, AND I THINK I I'VE PUT THAT IN THERE.
THE SECOND THING IS LOT COMBINATION OR REPLAT DOCUMENTATION.
I'M GOING TO GO INTO A LITTLE BIT OF THE HISTORY OF THE TRINGALI PROPERTY.
FROM ABOUT 1940 TO NOVEMBER OF 2023, THIS IS WHAT THE PROPERTY LOOKED LIKE.
THIS PROPERTY HAS A LOT OF UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD, AND THERE WAS FOUR HOUSES ON IT, THREE ON THE 4TH STREET SIDE, WHICH IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY, AND ONE ON THE 3RD STREET SIDE, WHICH IS ZONED MU1.
ALSO ON THE 3RD STREET SIDE, WAS A CONCRETE PAD.
IT USED TO BE A GARAGE TILL ABOUT 2011, AND IT WAS USED AS PERSONAL STORAGE FOR THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY.
THEN IN 2022, THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED 12 TOWN HOMES AND WANTED TO COMBINE THE PROPERTY AND SPLIT IT OUT INTO 12 PARCELS.
BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT STOPPED THEM FROM DOING THIS WAS SECTION 10305 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
THIS WAS CREATED SO THAT PEOPLE COULDN'T JUST TEAR DOWN HOUSES THAT HAD BEEN BUILT ON MULTIPLE LOTS AND PUT UP THINGS ON THOSE EXISTING LOTS.
IT SAYS IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN OPEN SPACE, VISUAL CORRIDORS, NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER, PROPERTY VALUES, AND VISUAL ATTRACTIVENESS OF RESIDENTIAL AREAS, WHEREVER THERE MAY EXIST A SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL UNIT OR A DUPLEX STRUCTURE, I'LL JUST GO ON BECAUSE THE NEXT PART POOLS, SUCH LOTS THEREAFTER CONSTITUTE ONE BUILDING SITE AND MUST BE CONSIDERED THE LOT OF RECORD, AND NO PERMIT WILL BE ISSUED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT.
THAT'S IMPORTANT. ON RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT ON THE SITE.
ALL CONSTRUCTION ON THE BUILDING SITE MUST COMPLY WITH THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS.
B, THE DEMOLITION OR REMOVAL OF ANY RESIDENTS LIKE THOSE FOUR HOUSES WERE DESTROYED IN 2023, DOES NOT HAVE THE EFFECT OF CHANGING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE BUILDING SITE.
ACCORDING TO THE EYES OF OUR LDCS LAWS, THAT IS CURRENTLY FIVE BUILDING SITES.
WE TOOK THIS TO A COURT AND THE JUDGE AGREED.
THIS IS THE COURT ORDER THAT WAS SIGNED BY JUDGE ROBERSON JUST ABOUT A LITTLE UNDER A YEAR AGO.
JUDGE ROBERSON SAID THAT THE CITY IN TRYING TO BYPASS GOING TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR A VARIANCE IN ORDER TO CHANGE THOSE FIVE LOTS,
[01:25:04]
THAT HE COULD NOT FIND A PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION FOR THE CITY'S ERRONEOUS INTERPRETATION OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.I ALSO HAVE COPIES OF THIS COURT ORDER, IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE THEM ON THE BOARD.
WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO PASS THEM OUT?
>> YOU GAVE A COUPLE OF THEM OUT.
>> IT'S PART OF THE AGENDA PACKET.
>> OKAY. GOOD. THAT COURT ORDER IS THE LAST JUDGMENT FROM A JUDGE THAT THIS PROPERTY HAS RECEIVED.
NOW, MS. BACH MAY CLAIM THAT THAT WRIT WAS ONLY SPECIFIC TO THAT ONE APPLICATION WITH 12 TOWN HOMES, BUT I JUST WANT TO USE SOME COMMON SENSE HERE.
MOST CITIES THAT RECEIVE A JUDGMENT ON A WRIT LIKE THIS WILL SAY, BUT WE'LL USE WHATEVER LOGIC WAS THERE TO SET PRECEDENT.
JUST THINK ABOUT IT. IF YOU COULD JUST SAY THAT WRIT ONLY APPLIED TO ONE APPLICATION, THEN THE PROPERTY OWNER COULD HAVE SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION FOR 13 TOWN HOMES THE NEXT DAY, AND WE WOULD HAVE HAD TO GO BACK TO COURT AND THEN 11 TOWN HOMES THE NEXT DAY.
>> TINA, JUST AS A RECORD, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS DOES NOT SET PRECEDENT BASED ON ANY PREVIOUS DECISION.
>> CONTINUOUS FROM EVERY COURT CASE IS HEARD INDEPENDENTLY.
EVERY CASE IS HEARD INDEPENDENTLY.
>> I JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU THE BACKGROUND. BUT THANK YOU.
>> ALL I'M SAYING IS THAT THERE'S NO LEGAL LOT DOCUMENTATION OR COMBINATION THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION.
THE LAST TIME WE HEARD A JUDGE SAID THAT SOMETHING NEEDED TO BE DONE.
I ALSO WANT TO JUST LET YOU KNOW THAT LIVE LOCAL ACT HAS SOME LIMITATIONS.
ON THIS PROPERTY, THE RED LINE INDICATES MU-1 ZONE PROPERTY, AND THE GREEN LINES INDICATE R-2 ZONE PROPERTY.
THE GREEN HALF OF THIS PROJECT IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR LIVE LOCAL BENEFITS.
LIVE LOCAL DOESN'T OVERRIDE EXISTING LDC RULES, WHICH REQUIRE BOA APPROVAL FOR SECTION 1.03.05.
WITHOUT LEGAL LOT COMBINATION, KEY PARTS OF THIS APPLICATION AND COOLING STORMWATER PLANS ARE INVALID.
THE NEXT THING I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT WHAT'S MISSING IS THE IMPERVIOUS.
I'M SORRY. IS THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN.
IT IS ASKING FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT TO BE PLACED ON ANOTHER PROPERTY.
THE STORMWATER IS BEING PLACED FOR THE LIVE LOCAL BUILDING ON AN R-2 LOT.
THAT VIOLATES SECTION 7.03.00 OF THE LDC, AND THERE'S GOOD REASON BECAUSE IT CAN FLOOD NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, ETC.
THE IMPERVIOUS SERVICE RATIO CALCULATION THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION WAS INCLUDED, BUT IT'S FOR THE ENTIRE PROPERTY.
PER THE LDC, IT REQUIRES PARCEL SPECIFIC ISR CALCULATIONS UNTIL SOMETHING CHANGES THAT PROPERTY EXISTS AND IT'S FIVE PARCELS.
YOU CAN SEE THAT UP IN THE UPPER LEFT HAND CORNER OF THE DRAWING THAT THERE ARE FIVE PARCELS LISTED IN THE ISR CALCULATIONS ARE NOT FOR EACH PARCEL.
THAT DIDN'T MEET THAT REQUIREMENT.
THE NEXT IS MISSING LIVE LOCAL ACT AFFIDAVIT.
THIS MAY NOT BE IN OUR LDC NOW, BUT I WOULD STRONGLY SUGGEST THAT THIS BE CHANGED TO MAKE IT, SO THIS IS REQUIRED AT THE BEGINNING OF LIVE LOCAL APPLICATIONS, BECAUSE WHY SPEND TIME AND WASTE RESOURCES HAVING AN APPLICATION GO THROUGH THE SYSTEM IF WE AREN'T SURE IF IT'S GOING TO BE LIVE LOCAL? TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY.
THE ONE THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE PACKET FOR THE 102-42-0204, TRC WAS THIS TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY.
IF YOU LOOK AT IT, YOU'LL NOTICE THAT THERE'S FIVE HOUSES ON THE TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY, AND IT WAS DONE IN JUNE OF 2022.
IT'S OVER TWO-AND-A-HALF YEARS OLD.
THE LDC REQUIRES THAT THE TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYS HAVE SHOWED THAT EXISTING CONDITIONS.
WHEN THEY REMOVE THESE HOUSES,
[01:30:02]
THEY PROBABLY CHANGE SOME OF THE SOIL COMPOSITION.THERE'S ALSO NO SOIL BORING SAMPLES UNDER THE HOUSES.
WITHOUT THE SOIL BORING SAMPLES WHERE THEY'RE ASKING FOR THE RETENTION POND, IT WILL BE REALLY HARD TO CALCULATE IF THAT RETENTION POND CAN HANDLE STORMWATER.
>> TAYANA, SORRY. I WANT TO INTERRUPT FOR ONE MOMENT.
FOR THE RECORD, WHAT IS YOUR DAILY WORK PROFESSION?
>> I RECENTLY RETIRED, BUT I WAS A FINANCIAL ADVISOR.
>> FOR RECORD, YOU ARE NOT AN ENGINEER?
>> HAVE THE ABILITY TO ASSESS ENGINEERED PLANS AND DECISIONS THAT ARE MADE BY A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, THAT'S CORRECT?
>> THAT RECORD RIGHT THERE, I THINK IS A GIS PLAN, NOT A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY, AND THAT GIS REFERS TO ALL THE UTILITIES THAT ARE COMING ON THE SITE.
I AGREE WITH YOU, WOULDN'T SHOW WHERE THE BORINGS ARE, WOULDN'T SHOW TOPOGRAPHIC REQUIREMENTS.
BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE ASKING.
>> WELL, THE SOIL SAMPLES, IF YOU LOOK IN THE PACKET, AND I DIDN'T INCLUDE THAT WERE THE EXACT SAME DATE.
>> JUST IN SUMMARY, HERE'S MY FINDINGS THAT THESE WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE PACKET THAT THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE LOOKED AT AND THAT THE PUBLIC HAD AVAILABLE TO THEM AT THE 102-42-0204 DATE.
I BELIEVE ALL THESE THINGS WERE MISSING.
THE PROCEDURAL FAILURES AND THE TRC REVIEW IS SUPPOSED TO ENSURE FAIRNESS AND COMPLIANCE, AND MY PRIMARY REQUEST IS INVALIDATE THE COMPLETENESS DETERMINATION AND REQUIRE A FULL RESUBMISSION AND RESTARTED TRC PROCESS.
ADDITIONALLY, IF ANYONE'S DETERMINED THAT THE PROCESS VIOLATED SUNSHINE LAWS, THAT'S ALSO THE FIX FOR IT.
THE ALTERNATIVE REQUESTS SHOULD BE TO REQUIRE RESUBMISSION OF THE DOCUMENTS THAT WE'RE MISSING AND A NEW TRC REVIEW, AND THE OUTCOME IS TO RESTORE TRANSPARENCY, EFFICIENCY, AND COMPLIANCE IN THE PROCESS.
I'M JUST SAYING THE COMMUNITY DESERVES THIS APPLICATION TO BE HELD TO THE HIGHEST STANDARD REQUIRED UNDER THE LDC.
ANYTHING LESS UNDERMINES PUBLIC TRUST AND SETS A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE PROJECTS.
THE APPEAL HAS NOT BEEN ISSUED, CORRECT?
>> THEN LAST NIGHT, THE CITY VOTED TO WITHDRAW ITS JOINER.
>> CORRECT. THAT HAS BEEN DONE AND RECORDED WITH THE COURT?
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? I'M A BIT CONFUSED.
SO NOW WE'RE PUTTING IN TRY BUILDING, THREE BUILDINGS.
HOW DID 1.03.05 APPLY WHEN IT SAYS SINGLE RESIDENTIAL SITE? TOWN HOUSES. OVER A GARAGE.
I KNOW WHAT THAT IS, BUT WHAT IS A SINGLE SITE? HOW WAS THAT DEFINED? I LOOKED IT UP AND SOMETIME, THERE WAS AN APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE FOR FOUR STREET, AND IT WAS REJECTED.
THERE WAS NEVER AN APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE FOR THIRD STREET.
OUTSIDE OF THE LIVE LOCAL ISSUE ON THAT PROPERTY.
THE RETENTION POND, THEIR BUILDING THREE BUILDINGS, TRIBUILDINGS.
HOW DO YOU DEFINE WHAT 1.03.05 SAID IN TERMS OF A SINGLE RESIDENT? IS IT ONE? IS IT THREE? IS IT FIVE? IT'S ZONING WOULD COME INTO EFFECT. OF COURSE.
BUT SO WE'RE SAYING THAT SINGLE SITE CAN BE A TRIPLE.
THE INTERPRETATION OF THAT RESIDENTIAL UNIT, ONE RESIDENTIAL UNIT.
TALKS IN TERMS OF A RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT.
THE DEFINITIONS IN THE LDC DEFINES A TRIPLEX AS THREE DWELLING UNITS.
>> WHAT IS A RESIDENTIAL UNIT? ONE OR THREE, OR TWO?
>> FOR A TRIPLEX, THAT'S A ONE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE, BUT IT'S THREE DWELLING UNITS.
>> WHAT I'M SAYING BASICALLY IS,
[01:35:04]
THIS PLAN INTERPRETS THAT THEY'RE COMPLYING WITH THAT SITE, THE OLD SITE BECAUSE OF TWO BUILDINGS.>> THEY'RE NOT COMPLYING WITH 1.03.05.
I DO NOT BELIEVE [OVERLAPPING].
>> [INAUDIBLE]. THIS IS THE TIME FOR THE BOARD TO ASK QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT.
IF THERE ARE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANTS AS PART OF THEIR PRESENTATION, THIS IS THE TIME TO DO THAT.
THE BOARD WILL HAVE TIME TO DISCUSS QUESTIONS AMONGST ITSELF DURING DELIBERATIONS PERIOD.
>> THANK YOU, [INAUDIBLE]. YEAH. I THINK WE WERE JUST TRYING TO GET CLARITY ON THE QUESTION.
>> I APPRECIATE THAT. I JUST WANT TO BEFORE WE GET INTO TOO MUCH DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW WE VIEW THE EVIDENCE BECAUSE WE'RE STILL RECEIVING IT, AND WE STILL HAVE THE PUBLIC COMMENT TO RECEIVE A EVIDENCE AS WELL.
THAT THIS IS THE TIME FOR THE BOARD IF IT HAS QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT.
DURING DELIBERATIONS, TOO, IF THE BOARD HAS ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT OR STAFF OR NEEDS THAT YOU CAN ALWAYS ASK QUESTIONS OUT AT THAT POINT.
THIS IS STILL THE TIME WHEN THE BOARD IS RECEIVING EVIDENCE.
>> MR. CHAIR, IS THERE TIME FOR REBUTTAL AND SOME QUESTIONS FOR MISS KRISTEN?
>> ABSOLUTELY. TAMI, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.
>> MY NAME IS TAMI BACH, AND I'M THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH SINCE NOVEMBER 13TH, 2007.
I JUST WANTED TO, JUST BRIEFLY, MISS KRISTEN, YOU SAID THAT YOU'RE A RETIRED FINANCIAL PLANNER, DO YOU HAVE ANY LEGAL TRAINING, PARALEGAL ATTORNEY, ANYTHING LIKE THAT YOURSELF?
>> NO, I DON'T. ALL THE EVIDENCE I PRESENTED WAS FACT BASED.
I WOULD DISAGREE THAT IT WAS FACT BASED, AND I WOULD SAY IT WAS VERY MUCH OPINION.
FOR THE CITY, YOUR BOARD ATTORNEY CAN EXPLAIN THIS TO YOU ALSO.
BUT MISS KRISTEN, FOR PURPOSES OF THIS HEARING AND THE MATTERS THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING IS A LAY WITNESS OR A LAY PERSON, DOES NOT HAVE EXPERTISE IN ENGINEERING OR LAW.
SHE HAS AND I COMMEND HER FOR ALL THE WORK THAT SHE'S DONE.
BUT THE WITNESS THAT THE CITY PUT ON IS A CERTIFIED PLANNER.
I WOULD ARGUE THAT THE BOARD HAS TO WEIGH THE TESTIMONY OF THESE TWO PEOPLE SO FAR THAT HAVE TESTIFIED.
I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE GOING TO HEAR FROM ANY OTHER EXPERTS IN THE WAY THAT THE LAWS OF FLORIDA REQUIRE YOU TO DO THAT.
COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE PROVIDED BY AN EXPERT PLANNER, AN ATTORNEY LIKE MYSELF VERSUS A LAY PERSON IS TO BE WEIGHED TOTALLY DIFFERENT.
I ALSO WOULD SAY THAT A LOT OF THE TESTIMONY FROM MISS KRISTEN WAS CONSIDERED ARGUMENT, AND OPINION THAT SHE'S NOT QUALIFIED TO GIVE ON THESE THINGS.
REALLY GOT US WAY OUTSIDE OF, AND I'LL EXPLAIN TO SOME OF THE OTHER APPEAL RIGHTS THAT CITIZENS HAVE.
I FEEL LIKE MISS KRISTEN IS TRYING TO STOP THE PROJECT.
I UNDERSTAND IT, BUT THIS COMPLETENESS ARGUMENT IS NOT APPROPRIATE.
THERE IS AN ABILITY FOR ANY AFFECTED PARTY AT ANY TIME IF THE TRC INAPPROPRIATELY CONSIDERS INVALID EVIDENCE OR FIND SOMETHING COMPLIANT WITH THE CODE OR THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOES.
THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL THE ISSUANCE OF A LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER.
THIS COMPLETENESS OF THE APPLICATION.
THE CITY ARGUES THAT EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE BOXES IS CHECKED.
PART OF COMPLETENESS, NOT ONE THING THAT WAS CITED BY EITHER MS. GIBSON OR MISS KRISTEN, SAYS THAT ANY PART OF THE INFORMATION HAS TO BE ANALYZED.
IT IS TAKEN IN BY PLANNING STAFF AND DEEMED TO BE COMPLETE BY A CHECKLIST.
THE COMPLIANCE, THE VALIDITY, THE LEGALITY OF THOSE DOCUMENTS ARE DECIDED BY THE TRC, AND MS. GIBSON TESTIFIED TO THAT EARLIER.
THAT IS ALL YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO BE LOOKING AT.
I UNDERSTAND THOSE ARE ARGUMENTS THAT SHE'S MAKING, BUT IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THIS BOARD OR FOR YOUR DECISION TONIGHT.
THE SUNSHINE LAW VIOLATIONS, THERE IS ALSO LEGAL RECOURSE.
IF THE TRC HAS OR IS VIOLATING THE SUNSHINE LAW, THIS BOARD IS NOT HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO DECIDE THOSE QUESTIONS.
[01:40:01]
YOU'RE SIMPLY SUPPOSED TO BE DECIDING TONIGHT.WAS THE APPLICATION COMPLETE OR WAS IT NOT COMPLETE? NO WHETHER IT WAS CORRECT.
NO WHETHER THERE IS A COURT ORDER OUT THERE THAT SAYS WHETHER OR NOT NOTHING SAYS THAT WE CANNOT ACCEPT AN APPLICATION.
IN FACT, WE'RE VIOLATING THE APPLICANT'S RIGHTS BY NOT ACCEPTING AN APPLICATION AND PUTTING IT THROUGH THE PROCESS.
EARLIER, WE TALKED ABOUT THERE NOT BEING A STAY IN THESE PROCEEDINGS, THERE IS NO STAY.
YOU CAN FILE IN THE COURT, MISS KRISTEN, FOR A STAY OF ANY PROCEEDINGS.
SEE IF THE JUDGE WILL GRANT IT, BUT WE DON'T HAVE THAT.
THE STAFF HAS AN ABSOLUTE OBLIGATION TO THE APPLICANT, ANY APPLICANT, NO MATTER WHETHER WE LIKE THEIR PROJECT OR NOT, TO ACCEPT THE APPLICATION AND TO PUT IT THROUGH OUR PROCESS.
I SUBMIT TO YOU THAT IT WAS COMPLETE, AND IT'S GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS.
IT'S CURRENTLY GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS. I REST.
>> TAMI, CAN I ASK ONE QUESTION? ISN'T THE TRC PUBLIC MEETINGS THAT'S TEN O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING?
>> IT IS. THEY ARE PUBLIC MEETINGS.
BUT THE FIRST STEP MEETING IS A MEETING THAT HAPPENS AT THE AIRPORT CONFERENCE ROOM CURRENTLY WITH TRC BOARD MEMBERS.
IT MAY NOT BE ALL OF THEM, BUT THERE ARE SOME MEMBERS AT LEAST PRESENT.
THE PLANNING STAFF IS PRESENT, AND THEY SPEAK TO THE APPLICANT ABOUT WHAT THEY HAVE.
IT'S NOT A FORMAL APPLICATION YET.
THEY HAVEN'T PAID ANY FEES, SO THEY'RE DISCUSSING WITH IT.
>> YOU'RE GETTING IDEAS, FEEDBACK FOR IDEAS, YOU'RE BOUNCING OFF OF THEM FOR CRITERIA.
>> IT'S ESSENTIALLY AN EX PARTE COMMUNICATION, IF YOU WILL.
EARLIER, ALSO, THE THING THAT THE NOTICES.
THIS IDEA ABOUT AND I GET IT, AND WE DO OUR VERY BEST TO PROVIDE THE CITIZENS WITH EVERYTHING WE CAN IN THE PACKETS.
THOSE OF YOU THAT HAVE BEEN AROUND HERE FOR A LONG TIME, WE DIDN'T PROVIDE ANYTHING NEAR THIS DETAIL AND DOCUMENTATION TO CITIZENS.
SUNSHINE LAW REQUIREMENT IS A NOTICE.
THE AGENDA THAT'S PUBLISHED IS THE ONLY REQUIREMENT OF SUNSHINE TO PROVIDE TO CITIZENS.
NOW, IF THERE'S A DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT BECAUSE YOU'RE AN AFFECTED PARTY AND YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE PARTICIPATING, THAT'S A WHOLE OTHER SITUATION.
BUT THAT'S NOT THE CASE WITH TRC.
SUNSHINE LAW REQUIRES MINUTES BE TAKEN, WHICH HAPPENS.
THE MEETINGS RECORDED, WHICH HAPPENS.
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE VIDEO RECORDED, AUDIO IS FINE.
WE DO THAT WHEN THE TRC MEETS AFTER THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED AND THE FEES PAID.
THIRDLY, THAT THERE BE NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC AND THERE BE REASONABLE ACCESS.
WE PROVIDE ALL OF THAT FOR THE TRC MEETINGS, AND AS YOU KNOW, WE SOMETIMES HAVE SEVERAL OF THEM.
BUT YES, THERE'S A FIRST STEP MEETING WITH TRC STAFF AND THE APPLICANT.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR TAMI? [INAUDIBLE]. THANK YOU.
>> THE MEMBERS OF PUBLIC CAN SPEAK RIGHT HERE. THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR?
>> SOMEBODY SPECIFICALLY WROTE.
WE'LL GO AHEAD. WELL, LET ME ASK FIRST. SAY YOUR NAME AGAIN.
>> TINA. DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER FURTHER COMMENTS OR REBUTTAL TO MS. BACH? DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS YOU WANT TO MAKE BEFORE I OPEN IT UP FOR THE PUBLIC?
>> I WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON WHAT MS. BACH SAID ABOUT THE PROCESS AND THE PRE-APPLICATION MEETING.
I'D LIKE TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION BACK TO THIS SLIDE.
THEN THAT'S GREAT THAT ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS PROVIDE A AGENDA.
THERE'S LIMITATIONS TO SUNSHINE LAWS.
BUT I WOULD LIKE TO THAT DESPITE MY BEST ATTEMPTS TO FIND OUT EVEN IF AN APPLICATION HAD BEEN SUBMITTED, I DIDN'T FIND OUT THAT ONE HAD BEEN SUBMITTED TILL, I THINK IT WAS LIKE OCTOBER.
ONE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED IN JUNE.
I THINK THAT THERE'S VIOLATIONS OF FLORIDA STATUTES, AS WELL AS SUNSHINE LAWS.
THE PRE-APPLICATION MEETINGS ARE NOT I THINK IT JUST SAYS THEY HAPPEN EVERY NOW AND THEN, BUT THEY ARE CLOSED DOOR MEETINGS.
I FEEL LIKE I WAS NOT PROVIDED ENOUGH INFORMATION ON THIS PROJECT, EVEN THOUGH I REQUESTED.
>> THANK YOU. ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK.
IF YOU DON'T MIND, I SAW SEVERAL OF YOU STAND UP FOR THE OATH, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND, AND I'LL CALL YOU OUT INDEPENDENTLY.
SIR, GO AHEAD. PLEASE COME UP AND STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.
>> JACK EMBER,1003 BROOM STREET, FERNANDINA BEACH.
I'D LIKE TO GO ON RECORD TO COMPLETELY SUPPORT TINA KRISHNER'S TESTIMONY IN THAT
[01:45:02]
THESE VIOLATIONS OF FLORIDA SUNSHINE LAW POINT OUT THE WHOLE DUE PROCESS OF THIS ENTIRE PROJECT.I WAS ONLY AWARE OF THIS PROJECT WHEN MISS KELLY GIBSON ANNOUNCED IT AT A CITY COMMISSION MEETING SCARCELY A MONTH AGO.
THE WAY KELLY GIBSON PRESENTED IT, IT WAS AS IF THIS IS JUST A DONE DEAL, AND WE'RE JUST GOING AHEAD WITH THIS, AND EVERYBODY JUST GOES, WHAT JUST HAPPENED? WE DIDN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE PROJECT WAS.
I THINK IT'S EXTREMELY SLEAZY.
>> YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO TALK TO ME, SIR.
WELL, SHE WANTS TO KNOW EVERYBODY'S CREDIBILITY.
I AM AN AFFECTED PARTY IN TERMS OF A TAXPAYER, AND I'M CONSTANTLY PAYING FOR THESE THINGS THAT IT'S LIKE WE'RE ALWAYS AGAINST THE CITY.
MS. BACH WOULD LIKE TO SAY THE RIGHTS OF THE APPLICANT.
WHAT ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF THE CITIZEN? WHAT ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF MARSHA, WHO LIVES NEAR THIS PROJECT? WHAT ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF MISS TINA KRISHNER, WHO LIVES NEAR THIS PROJECT?
>> ISN'T THAT THE REASON WHY YOU GUYS ARE SPEAKING?
>> THAT WAS PROVIDED FOR YOU TO BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO THIS.
>> THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.
>> THANK YOU, SIR. ANYBODY ELSE? MA'AM? WHAT IS IT, MA'AM?
>> YOU CAN KEEP IT. JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS, PLEASE.
>> SANDY CARY, 12 55 FOREST DRIVE, FERNANDINA.
THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF ISSUES AND I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY, EITHER, BUT NEITHER IS ANY MEMBER OF THE TRC THAT I KNOW OF.
ALL OF THE ITEMS THAT MISS KRISHNER BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION THAT WERE INCOMPLETE OR NOT PROVIDED AS MAINLY THE TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY BECAUSE THE APPLICANTS ALREADY HAD ONE ON FILE WITH THE CITY.
I DON'T THINK THAT IS A REASONABLE ANSWER BY CITY STAFF FOR NOT MAKING THEM SUPPLY IT.
THE FACT THAT THE TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY WAS OVER TWO-YEARS-OLD THAT'S AN ISSUE TOO.
THAT'S THE REASON WHY YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE ALL OF THE INFORMATION AS OF THE DATE COMPLETE AND FILED WITH THE APPLICATION BECAUSE YOU COULD GO ON DOCUMENTS THAT WERE ON THE CITY RECORD OR WHEREVER, BUT THEY MAY NOT BE COMPLETE OR UP TO DATE.
THERE'S A REASON FOR THE APPLICANT TO HAVE SUBMITTED THAT.
I BELIEVE THEY HAVE NOT A COMPLETE APPLICATION.
THE FIRST STEP CONFERENCE, JUST LIKE THEY HAD RECENTLY WITH THE RYM ON BIOETHANOL WAS A CLOSED DOOR MEETING.
IT WAS CALLED THE STAFF MEETING.
I CALLED THE CITY CLERK AND ASKED FOR INFORMATION ABOUT IT AND WAS NOT ABLE TO GET IT UNTIL AFTER THE MEETING.
AS MISS KRISHNER POINTED OUT, THAT IS A RULE BY ATTORNEY GENERAL THAT IF THERE'S A MORE THAN FACT FINDING AND A DECISION RENDERING, IT IS HELD LIABLE UNDER THE SUNSHINE LAW.
SO THERE ARE A LOT OF ISSUES ABOUT THING AND THE WAY THAT SHE WAS NOT ABLE TO GET ANSWERS TO FOIA REQUESTS, FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT, THAT'S A STATE STATUTE.
THAT'S A PRETTY SERIOUS ISSUE TO HAVE THIS APPLICATION GO ON FROM JUNE, JULY, ALL THE WAY TO NOW A WEEK BEFORE CHRISTMAS, AND A LARGE PART OF IT WAS HELD UP BECAUSE SHE COULDN'T GET THE ADEQUATE INFORMATION NEEDED FOR THIS WHOLE SITUATION TO BE RECTIFIED.
LASTLY, I'D LIKE TO SAY, AS FAR AS HER NOT HAVING LEGAL REPRESENTATION, SHE WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE LEGAL REPRESENTATION.
BUT BECAUSE OF MISINFORMATION SUPPLIED BY MS. GIBSON, ORIGINALLY, ACCORDING TO THE TABLE IN THE LDC PLAN, HER MEETING WAS SUPPOSED HAVE BEEN HELD IN JANUARY.
BUT ACCORDING TO MS. GIBSON, SHE HAD THE AUTHORITY TO MOVE THAT, AND THAT MEETING WAS MOVED TO TONIGHT.
HER ATTORNEY THAT SHE HAD ALREADY ARRANGED TO HAVE TO BE HERE IN DECEMBER, WAS UNABLE TO BE HERE BECAUSE OF THAT CHANGE.
I'D LIKE TO KNOW, ACCORDING TO YOUR LDC AND YOUR TABLE THAT CLEARLY SETS OUT WHEN HEARINGS AND MEETINGS HAVE TO BE HELD BASED ON THE DATE OF SUBMISSION OF THE APPLICATION, WHY THAT WAS CHANGED, AND PLEASE PUT IT UP ON THE BOARD SO THE WHOLE PUBLIC CAN SEE IT.
WHAT WAS THE DATE? WHY WAS IT CHANGED?
MA'AM, YOU HAVE YOUR HAND UP? ONE SECOND, SORRY, I'LL GET TO YOU NEXT.
[01:50:01]
>> MY NAME IS JULIE FOREA, FATHER WOOD DATE STREET.
I'VE SAT THROUGH THIS MEETING, AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW WE CAN SAY THERE'S COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE WHEN THIS PLAN THAT WE'VE LOOKED AT IS NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE CODE.
OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 10305, THE DEED REVEALS THAT THE PROJECT SPANS MULTIPLE DISTINCT BOUNDARIES.
10305 SAYS, NOW, I UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAVEN'T HAD A PERMIT YET, BUT I STILL THINK THAT 10305 APPLIES TO WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING HERE TONIGHT ABOUT AN INCOMPLETE APPLICATION.
10305 SAYS NO PERMIT WILL BE ISSUED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT ON THE SITE.
A TRIPLEX IS ONE BUILDING WITH THREE DWELLING UNITS IN IT.
I JUST DON'T SEE HOW ANY OF THESE PIECES FIT TOGETHER.
ORIGINALLY, THAT WHOLE AREA CONTAINED FOUR STRUCTURES.
I UNDERSTAND THAT LIVE LOCAL CHANGES THINGS, BUT ON FOURTH STREET, IT STILL SEEMS THAT 10305 APPLIES AND THAT IT'S NOT BEEN APPLIED WITH THE APPLICATION.
THEREFORE, IN MY MIND, THIS IS AN INCOMPLETE APPLICATION.
THE OTHER THING I JUST WANT TO SAY ABOUT THE FEMA FLOOD PLAIN, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS PROJECT IS GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO BRING IN PHIL OR NOT, BUT THAT WILL AFFECT THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD.
ONCE THE TUNGALLI HOUSE WAS DEMOLISHED, AND THEY CAME IN AND THEY REGRADED THE AREA.
YOU CAN'T SEE IT BY STANDING THERE.
BUT ALL THE EXCESS STORM WATER NOW DRAINS TOWARDS THE DAYCARE CENTER.
THIS SUMMER, BECAUSE OF THAT WATER FLOW, THE DAYCARE CENTER HAD TO CLOSE DOWN FOR A WEEK.
WE ARE NOW CONSIDERING THIS APPLICATION, WHICH I WOULD SAY IS INCOMPLETE, WHEN IT HASN'T EVEN BEEN DETERMINED HOW THERE CAN BE A RETENTION POND IN BETWEEN THE TWO SIDES OF THE PROJECT BECAUSE IT'S NOT CONJOINTLY OWNED.
IT JUST SEEMS TO ME THAT WHEN WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, THAT IT'S NOT THERE, AND I HOPE THAT YOUR DISCUSSION THAT YOU'RE GETTING READY TO HAVE IS TAKE SOME OF THESE THINGS INTO CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU.
SIR, WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK? GO AHEAD, MA'AM.
>> I'M MARY COLSON. I LIVE AT 111 SOUTH FOURTH STREET JUST ADJACENT TO THAT PROPERTY, I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR COMMENT THAT THE BOARD DOESN'T FOLLOW ANY PREVIOUS OBJECTIONS TO THESE TYPES OF THINGS.
I GET THAT STATEMENT WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A POSSIBLE OTHER PIECE OF PROPERTY.
BUT WHEN YOU HAVE SOMETHING IN CURRENT LITIGATION THAT A JUDGE HAS SPECIFICALLY SAID YOU CANNOT DO THAT SHOULD APPLY.
IT SHOULD APPLY TO ANYTHING ON THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY, AND WE SHOULD BE PAYING ATTENTION TO THAT. THANK YOU.
>> ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK? HEARING NONE, I'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE OUT THE PUBLIC SPEAKING.
ANYBODY? GOING ONCE. THANK YOU.
YOU GO TO BOARD DELIBERATION. WHERE DO YOU GUYS WANT TO START?
>> I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS AN EXPERT HERE THAT CAN SPEAK ON IT. MAYBE MS. GIBSON.
I AM A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT THE SOILS, THE GEOTECH REPORT THAT WAS SUBMITTED.
[01:55:01]
SINCE IT IS OVER TWO-YEARS-OLD, AND IT WAS BASED ON ONLY SIX I THINK IT SAYS SIX TOWN HOUSES BUILT, AND THAT WAS DONE WHILE THE FORMER HOMES WERE STILL ON THE PROPERTY.I AM A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR REPORT FROM 2022.
THERE WAS A REPORT SUBMITTED, BUT I'M CONCERNED THAT IT MIGHT NOT REALLY BE RELEVANT FOR THIS PARTICULAR SITE PLAN BECAUSE OF THE CONDITIONS BOTH OF THE PROPERTY AND OF THE DEVELOPMENT ARE SO DIFFERENT AND WHAT WAS AT ISSUE? SOME OF THE SOILS MAY BE THE SAME.
I THINK THAT'S CALLED THE AGES REPORT, WHERE THEY DID THEIR BORING FOR RETENTION POND IS NOT WHERE THE RETENTION POND FOR THIS SITE IS.
>> FOR ARGUMENT'S SAKE, YOU DO A BORING TO TEST BEARING CAPACITY.
>> THEY JUST HAPPENED TO MENTION THAT THAT WAS THERE.
>> NOW WE'RE BACK TO BOARD DELIBERATIONS TOO.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE COME UP PARTICULARLY AT THE BEGINNING OF THE HEARING THAT I WANT TO ALLOW YOU ALL TO DELIBERATE IF YOU'RE COMFORTABLE ON THE DECISION THAT YOU HAVE TO MAKE TONIGHT BECAUSE YOU HAVE BEEN PRESENTED WITH MORE INFORMATION THAN IS RELEVANT TO YOUR DECISION.
ON APPEAL IS A STAFF DETERMINATION OF COMPLETENESS OF THE APPLICATION.
THE DETERMINATION SPECIFICALLY STATES AS NOT A DETERMINATION OF COMPLIANCE.
I THINK THAT THE BOARD HAS DRAWN THAT DISTINCTION, BUT I JUST WANT TO BE SURE THAT YOU ALL DIDN'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT, BUT I'M HAPPY TO ALSO ANSWER SOME OF THE BOARD'S INITIAL QUESTIONS AT THE OUTSET OF OUR HEARING ABOUT THE IMPACT OF A PRIOR RESOLVED PETITION FOR WRIT OF SOCIAL CERTI AND SOME OF THE ADDITIONAL ALLEGATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE IN TONIGHT'S MEETING REGARDING THE TRC.
>> WOULD YOU ALL LIKE ME TO DO THAT OR I SEE HEADS NODDING, BUT I'M NOT SURE.
>> WELL, ME PERSONALLY, I THINK THE BOARD IS AWARE THAT WE CANNOT ADDRESS THE TRC AND WHETHER OR NOT SUNSHINE ACT VIOLATED OR SHOULD BE.
I THINK THE BOARD KNOWS THAT'S NOT IN FRONT OF US.
>> ABSOLUTELY. IT WOULD JUST SUGGESTED TO YOU AS ONE AVENUE TO MAKE YOUR DETERMINATION, AND I AGREE YOU DO NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER THOSE TYPES OF MATTERS.
AS LONG AS YOU ALL ARE CLEAR ON THAT.
FOR PURPOSES OF THE PRIOR PETITION FOR CERT, I DO APPRECIATE YOU ASKING THE QUESTION AT THE OUTSET OF THE HEARING, BUT IT IS PART OF THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS PRESENTED TO YOU, AND SO I WANTED TO BE ABLE TO BE RECEIVED AND DISCUSSED BY THE BOARD.
HOWEVER, THIS IS AS WE MENTIONED AN APPEAL OF A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETENESS AT THAT STAGE OF THE APPLICATION.
IT DOESN'T REALLY HAVE ANY BEARING ON WHERE THE APPROVALS GO FROM HERE.
TO ME, THEY ARE I WILL SAY LEGALLY UNRELATED.
I'M NOT DIMINISHING THAT PEOPLE FEEL VERY PASSIONATE ABOUT THAT PROJECT THAT WAS GOING AND WHAT HAPPENED WITH THAT.
BUT IN TERMS OF WHETHER OR NOT THAT COURT ORDER HAS A BEARING ON YOUR DECISION TODAY AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN CONSIDER AN APPEAL FOR COMPLETENESS UNDER 11.07 00B 11, IT DOES NOT.
I JUST WANT TO REAL QUICK ON THE NUMBER OF FIVE VOTES AS WELL, BECAUSE THIS IS AN APPLICATION TO APPEAL A COMPLETENESS.
IF YOU FIND THAT SOMETHING'S NOT COMPLETE, IT'S A REVERSAL.
THAT'S WHY I SAID IN MY MIND, IT WAS FIVE.
WE'RE SAYING THE SAME THING AS YOUR ATTORNEY AT YOUR PRIOR MEETING.
AT YOUR PRIOR MEETING, YOU SAW A VARIANCE, AND YOU SAW A SETBACK REDUCTION.
THE SETBACK REDUCTION CAN BE MODIFIED IN SOME WAY.
YOU COULD SAY, WELL, STAFF SAID THAT YOU SHOULD GET SEVEN FEET, BUT WE'RE ONLY GOING TO GIVE YOU FIVE OR 12 AND THAT WE'RE ONLY GOING TO GIVE YOU SIX.
WE FIND THAT'S THE MINIMUM NECESSARY TO AFFORD RELIEF OR AN INTERPRETATION IN THAT INSTANCE, BUT AN INTERPRETATION WHERE A APPLICATION IS EITHER COMPLETE OR INCOMPLETE, IS IN EFFECT A REVERSAL.
THE PROCESS FROM THERE IS THAT THE APPLICANT FOR THE SITE PLAN THAT HAS 30 DAYS TO RESUBMIT.
I SAY THAT BECAUSE THAT'S EFFECTIVE OF A REVERSAL,
[02:00:03]
AND THAT'S WHY I MADE THE STATEMENT AT THE BEGINNING TO THE BOARD MEMBERS QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER SUPERMAJORITY WOULD BE REQUIRED.IT'S ACTUALLY THAT IT WOULD BE FIVE THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED.
>> WITH RESPECT TO THAT, IF WE DID REVERSE, I HAVE NO IDEA HOW WE WILL AVERT.
BUT WHAT THAT MEANS IS SIMPLY THAT THEN THE PARTY THAT SUBMITTED THIS SITE PLAN HAS 30 DAYS TO CORRECT IT.
>> SO THAT'S ALL THAT WOULD HAPPEN IS THEY GET 30 DAYS TO JUST SUPPLY WHATEVER PIECES WE FEEL WERE INCOMPLETE.
>> YOU CORRECT THE DEFICIENCY.
YES. THAT'S IN SECTION 11.0301, SUBSECTION FOUR OF THE LDC.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN BE OF ANY HELP TO YOU IN YOUR DELIBERATION, BUT I DID WANT TO ADDRESS THOSE QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU, MISS DAY. ANY ADDITIONAL CONVERSATION HERE?
>> I HAVE. CAN I ASK MS. GIBSON A QUESTION?
>> SURE. SHE IS GOING TO ANSWER IT.
>> WITH RESPECT TO THE TRIPLEX PART OF THE SUBMISSION HERE, WHERE YOU YOU WAS THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT OR WHOEVER IN ANALYZING IT BELIEVE THAT THIS IS BEING DEVELOPED AS A MINOR SUBDIVISION?
>> THEY WOULD NEED A COMPLETE SUBSEQUENT ACTION THROUGH A MINOR SUBDIVISION IN ORDER TO MODIFY THE EXISTING LOT LINES.
THEN IT WAS ALSO DIRECTED AS PART OF THE PRELIMINARY COMPLIANCE REVIEW, THE CONSIDERATION OF THREE INDEPENDENT PROJECTS.
>> THE REASON I ASKED IF THIS IS A MINOR SUBDIVISION, THEN UNDER 110105 F, AREN'T THERE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF WHAT HAS TO BE PROVIDED?
>> IF THEY WERE TO MAKE AN APPLICATION FOR THAT, THEN YES, BUT THIS IS NOT THE TRC REVIEW IS NOT THE ACTION FOR WHICH A MINOR SUBDIVISION COULD OCCUR.
THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE A SUBSEQUENT ACTION BEFORE ANY LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER COULD BE ISSUED WITH THE RELIANCE ON THAT IN PLACE.
>> THEY HAVE NOT APPLIED FOR A MINOR SUB-DIVISION?
>> THIS IS BEING ANALYZED UNDER 404?
>> IT IS A SITE SITE PLAN REVIEW.
>> MY CONCERN SOUNDS LIKE MAYBE A COMPLIANCE THING, BUT IF THESE ARE THREE INDEPENDENT PROJECTS AND LIVE LOCAL IS INFRINGING UPON AN R2 ZONE.
WITH THE STORMWATER. NOW, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT MAKES IT INCOMPLETE, BUT THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE DOING.
THAT THAT BOTHERS ME IN TERMS OF, ARE WE COMPLYING? THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME.
>> THOSE COMMENTS ARE ISSUED AS PART OF A COMP THE PRELIMINARY COMPLIANCE REPORT CONSIDERATION.
MY OTHER CONCERN DEALS WITH 10305 IS A TRIPLEX ONE RESIDENTIAL UNIT?
YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO READ 10303 ALONG WITH 10304 AND 10305, TO HAVE A COMPLETE PICTURE OF HOW THIS TOGETHER
>> WE'RE SAYING NOW, FOR 10305, THAT ONE SITE CAN BE UP TO WHAT?
>> UP TO WHAT IS PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE DENSITY ZONING? THE ZONING ITSELF AND THE REGULATIONS TIED TO THAT PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT FORM AND HOUSING TYPE ALLOWED UNDER THE DENSITY,10304 OR 10305 AND I DON'T HAVE THAT SECTION OF CODE IN FRONT OF ME.
DOES STIPULATE THE RECONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE STRUCTURE.
>> I THINK SINGLE DWELLING UNIT RESIDENTIAL,.
>> IT ALSO CONFLICTS WITH ITSELF, REINSTATING A SINGLE STRUCTURE.
>> BUT IT SAYS RESIDENTIAL BUILDING. THAT'S CONFUSING.
[02:05:04]
>> WHICH COULD BE BECAUSE DWELLING UNITS INTERNAL TO.
>> WHEN YOU LOOK IT UP, SOME PEOPLE WILL SAY IT'S ONE UNIT, SOME PEOPLE SAY IT'S A CONDO AND WHATEVER.
>> I WANTED TO RETURN TO A POINT MISS DAVIS HAD RAISED BEFORE ABOUT FOUR AREA ASS.
>> PROVIDE SOME INSIGHT ON THAT.
JUST TO THE BOARD HAD BENEFIT OF THAT.
THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION SUBMITTED IN JULY WAS EXCLUSIVELY MULTI-FAMILY AND THE TWO TRIPLEXES.
THE SUBMITTAL RECEIVED IN OCTOBER CONTEMPLATED A PORTION OF THE MULTI FAMILY STRUCTURE HAVING RETAIL OR OFFICE SPACE TO SUPPORT MULTI FAMILY.
THAT AREA FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO CONSIDERATION WOULD BE 50% OF THAT OVERALL SUBJECT PARCEL OF WHICH THAT AREA, EVEN JUST IN ITS GENERAL CALCULATION IS WELL UNDER THAT AMOUNT.
IF WE WERE TO CALCULATE THAT OUT, WE WOULD DETERMINE THAT WE COULD SEE THAT IT IS COMPLETE.
>> WHAT IS 50%? THE FLOOR AREA RATIO ASSOCIATED WITH COMMERCIAL INTENSITY.
>> FIFTY PERCENT OR 0.5 OF THE AREA?
>> OF THE AREA OF THE TOTAL SITE.
>> THAT IS ACTUALLY SO THE CALCULATION ISN'T THERE, BUT IT IS ABLE TO BE CALCULATED BASED ON THE JUST THE GEOMETRY ITSELF PROVIDED WITHIN THE SITE PLAN.
THAT WAS IN THAT SECOND SUBMITTAL PIECE OF IT, AND THAT'S WHERE THERE WAS A BIT OF A CHANGE.
I DO THINK THAT WE SHOULD CERTAINLY REQUEST THAT THEY NOTE THAT ON ANY FUTURE SUBMISSIONS, GIVEN THAT THEY WILL HAVE FUTURE SUBMISSIONS, IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WILL LOOK FOR AT THAT POINT IN TIME.
>> WELL, IT REALLY NEEDS TO BE CALCULATED SO FIRST, BECAUSE THE STATUTE SAYS YOU NEED TO.
>> THE LDC SAYS, BUT ALSO, SINCE LIBCAL REQUIRES THAT THE LIBCAL PROJECT, AND IT'S 65% RESIDENTIAL.
>> I DO THINK THOSE WOULD BE REALLY HELPFUL NOTES FOR BOTH ASPECTS OF IT, BUT THE GEOMETRY ITSELF TELLS YOU THAT IT IS COMPLIANT AND COMPLETE TO DETERMINE THAT.
>> KELLY, IN THE 714 SUBMISSION BY ACES GROUP, THEY CARRY A PRE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, WHICH IS ACTUALLY THE SURVEY.
IT DOESN'T HAVE THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION, AND IT DOESN'T CARRY MANSI DRAKE'S STAMP.
>> THEY'RE USING IT, I BELIEVE, AS A BASE DOCUMENT FOR WHICH THEY'RE DOING ALL OF THEIR GEOMETRY.
YOU GET THE CAT PLAN FROM THE SURVEY AND DEVELOP IT FROM THERE.
I DON'T THINK IT HAD THE FULL LEGAL DESCRIPTION, BUT I'M ALSO SEEING THE LOW DENSITY INCOME PERCENTAGE THAT'S ON THE ACTUAL 714 SUBMITTAL AS WELL AT 41% LOW INCOME UNITS 12 TOTAL 29 UNITS.
BOTH THINGS ARE IDENTIFIED RIGHT THERE.
BOTH ITEMS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP BY THE APPLICANT OR THE APPELLANT WAS ONE THE SURVEY WASN'T INCLUDED.
IT'S IN THE 711 SUBMISSION BY ASA GILLETTE'S COMPANY.
IT DOES NOT HAVE THE MANSI DRAKE STAMP ON IT OR THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION.
BUT THAT DOCUMENT IS STILL IN THERE FROM A PRE DEVELOPMENT STAGE.
THEN LIVE LOCAL REQUIREMENTS FOR LOW INCOME HOUSING PERCENTAGES IS ALSO IDENTIFIED IN THAT SUMMARY ON THAT GE 1 SHEET THAT KELLY POINTED OUT EARLIER.
BOTH ITEMS ARE IDENTIFIED ON THAT SHEET.
FOR THE RECORD, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE RECORD THAT.
>> WELL, MY CONCERN IS, WE LOOK LIKE TO DO PLAIN READING OF THE LANGUAGE AND, LEAD IN SAYS, YOU'RE GOING TO 1104 SAYS IT'S GOING TO, SHALL CONTAIN THE FOLLOWING, AND AND THEN WHEN YOU LOOK AT WHAT'S WHERE ABOUT WHAT
[02:10:05]
110301 A2 SAYS A DETERMINATION OF COMPLETENESS IS A DETERMINATION THAT ALL REQUIRED DOCUMENTS ALL A.IT'S PLAIN LANGUAGE, AND 110103 DOES SAY THE PROPERTY SURVEY THAT HAS TO BE PROVIDED HAS TO HAVE THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION LAND AREA, EXISTING IMPROVEMENT, HAS TO BE SIGNED BY A SURVEY LICENSE.
THE SIGNATURE, DONE WITHIN TWO YEARS, THE SIGNATURE IS NOT THERE.
YES, THE COMPONENTS ARE THERE, AND MAYBE YOU CAN STILL GET THE INFORMATION, BUT THAT ALSO CONFLICTS WITH THE PLAIN READING OF THE LDC, WHICH SAYS ALL.
IT ALSO SAYS IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATION, NOT WELL, SOME THINGS ARE ON.
WE ALREADY HAVE THAT. I AGREE.
I EVEN IN THE AGENDA PACKET WE GOT, THE SURVEY WE WERE GIVEN LISTED UNDER SURVEY, AT LEAST WHAT WAS ON ME SAYING SURVEY ON FILE.
I PULLED IT UP, AND IT HAS THE HOUSING STRUCTURES.
THE ONE THAT'S RIGHT HERE, YOU KNOW, FOR US TONIGHT.
>> I'M SAYING THAT THEREFORE, THE REALLY APPLICANT PACKET SHOULD, I BELIEVE, HAVE HAD THAT SURVEY, WOULDN'T HAVE EASY.
THEY HAVE IT, AND IT'S EASY TO RESUBMIT THE APPLICATION WITH IT.
THAT IS A SMALL THING, BUT STILL THE PLAIN READING, DOES SAY THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE DONE.
SAME WITH THE FLOOR AREA RATIO CALCULATIONS.
THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE THERE AND NOT OKAY, TRY AND FIGURE IT OUT.
CAN I ASK A QUESTION OF MS. GIBSON?
THAT IS A KEY COMPONENT TO THIS PROJECT IN ORDER TO ANALYZE IT, CORRECT? IT'S A CRITICAL COMPONENT.
>> IT'S CRITICAL IN TERMS OF UNDERSTANDING WHETHER OR NOT THAT PROJECT COMPLIES WITH LIV LOCAL OR WITH THE STATUTE.
>> I MEAN, THEY COULD NOT BUILD A FOUR WHAT THEY HAVE PROPOSED THE FOUR STORY.
>> COMPONENT THE WITHOUT LOCAL.
IT ACTUALLY IS NOT A COMPONENT OF THE APPLICATIONS DETERMINATION FOR COMPLETENESS.
>> IT IS NOT A PART OF THE DETERMINATION FOR COMPLETENESS.
THE AFFIDAVIT THAT IS REQUIRED AS PART OF THE PROCESS TIED TO LIT LOCAL IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED UNTIL IT HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE APPLICANT SO THAT THEY HAVE THAT TO VIEW, BUT THEY WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO SIGN THAT UNTIL RIGHT BEFORE WE'RE READY TO ISSUE A LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER BECAUSE THIS PROJECT MAY BE DETERMINED TO BE NOT FEASIBLE AT ALL FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS.
YOU CAN YOU LOOK AT THE COMPLIANCE PRELIMINARY COMPLIANCE REPORTS ISSUED PREVIOUSLY THAT IDENTIFY SOME SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCIES IN THE PROPOSED PROJECT FROM A COMPLIANCE STANDPOINT THAT THEY NEED TO OVERCOME BEFORE THIS MOVES FORWARD.
TO BIND SOMEONE WITH AN AFFIDAVIT THAT'S NOW RECORDED UNDER LV LOCAL AND FILE THAT WHEN THE PROJECT MAY NEVER COME TO FRUITION, DOESN'T REALLY MAKE SENSE.
>> MISS KRISTENER, REFERENCED THAT YOU MADE THE COMMENT THAT THIS AT THE TRC, THAT THIS NEEDS TO BE SEPARATED INTO THREE SEPARATE SUBMISSIONS.
THAT IS SO THAT IN SOME WAYS, YOU'RE EXPECTING TO BE THE NEXT STEP.
THEN THE MIXED USE WOULD BE ANALYZED SEPARATE FROM THE TRIPLEXES?
>> BECAUSE I THINK THAT THAT IS WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE AS WELL.
BECAUSE I THINK THAT ESPECIALLY IN READING THE LIP LOCAL ACT STATUTE, IT DOES SEEM REALLY OUGHT TO BE WORKING AND LOOKING AT THE MIXED USE.
>> SOLELY STAND ALONE BECAUSE WHILE THE DENSITY, THEY'RE GIVEN A RELIEF AND ENCOURAGEMENT ON THE DENSITY AND THE HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS AS WELL AS I TALKED ABOUT THE FLORA RATIO AND HOW MUCH HAS TO BE RESIDENTIAL, ALL THE OTHER COMPONENTS OF LDC STILL APPLY.
I THINK THAT I THINK IT'S PRETTY HARD FROM WHAT'S BEEN PRESENTED HERE TO DETERMINE THAT.
>> I KNOW WE'RE DEALING WITH IT.
I JUST WANT TO A COMMENT THAT I THINK THAT IS, AND I DO ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU KNOW, JUST FOR THE RECORD THAT IF WE AFFIRM AND IF WE DENY THE APPEAL AND WE AFFIRM THE CITY'S ACTIONS,
[02:15:01]
THAT WE'RE IN NO WAY, JUST BECAUSE GRANTING ANY TYPE OF VARIANCE OR ANYTHING WITH RESPECT TO COMPLIANCE OF 3.05, BECAUSE CLEARLY THIS DOES NOT SATISFY 0.3.>> IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT.
>> JUST THINK WE OUGHT TO JUST STATE FOR THE RECORD.
ESPECIALLY GIVEN THAT THE COURT ORDER SAYS THAT THE DEVELOPMENT NEEDS TO BE UNDER 305 NOT ANYTHING UNDER 404.
>> DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER BOARD DISCUSSION?
>> JUST BRIEFLY, IS IT COMPLETE WHEN YOU'RE USING A LIV LOCAL PREEMPTION FOR PART OF A PROJECT IN AN R2 WHICH ISN'T QUALIFIED.
>> DOES THAT MAKE IT INCOMPLETE?
>> THE REQUESTED ACTION DOES NOT RELY ON R2 ZONING FOR LIV LOCAL.
THE ONLY RELYING ON THE ME 1 PORTION OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE LIV LOCAL PROJECT.
>> IS THAT THE STORMWATER RETENTION PART OF THAT IS PART OF A COMPLIANCE REVIEW.
>> I THINK THAT'S WHAT GETS TRICKY IS WE WANT TO THINK ABOUT WELL, THESE THINK LITTLE CORK LIKE THE RETENTION POND SHAPE SEEMS TO NOT SATISFY.
BUT OUR JOB IS JUST TONIGHT UNDERSTAND.
>> I'M JUST SAYING WHEN THE TRC IS IT COMPLETE WHEN THEY MISSED THAT?
>> NOT THAT THEY MISSED IT. IT'S THAT THEY MADE A COMMENT THAT SAID, THIS IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE, AND YOU HAVE TO RESUBMIT.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S CLEAR.
>> I UNDERSTAND. I'M MAKING MY POINT.
I AGREE, BUT I THINK THAT IT'S ON THE DEVELOPER THAT WANTS TO DEVELOP THAT PROPERTY IN ORDER TO RESUBMIT FOR COMPLIANCE.
FIRST. THEN THE REST OF THE STUFF WILL SHAKE ITSELF.
>> BUT THAT'S SEPARATE. YOU'RE FINE.
ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO SAY? MISS DAY?
>> NO. JUST THAT. THAT WAS THAT WAS A GOOD EXPLANATION.
THAT I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THE CHAIR JUST SAID ABOUT THE TIMING OF WHERE WE ARE.
I THINK THAT'S WHY IT CAN BE CONFUSING BECAUSE YOU ALL ARE USED TO SITTING IN THE SEAT WHEN YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT GRANTING A VARIANCE OR OTHER TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL.
THIS ISN'T ACTUALLY GRANTING ANY DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL OR APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT.
YOU'RE NOT SAYING IT'S IN COMPLIANT OR IT MEETS THE CODE, OR IT COULD EVEN PROCEED UNDER LIVE LOCAL ACT, WOULD YOU HAVE TO MEET ALL CODES TO DO THAT.
YOU'RE NOT SAYING ANY OF THAT TONIGHT.
WHAT'S ON APPEAL IS IS THE APPLICATION COMPLETE?
>> THANK YOU. WHAT ARE WE THINKING?
>> WHAT ARE THE FIVE VOTES GOING TO DO? WHAT'S THAT NEEDED FOR?
>> THAT WOULD BE NEEDED TO REVERSE JACK'S DECISION THAT THE APPLICATION IS COMPLETE.
>> YOU NEED ALL FIVE OF US TO AGREE, RIGHT?
>> THAT'S WHAT THE CODE SAID AND WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING.
THAT'S WHY IT'S HARD TO TALK ABOUT THE TYPES OF CODE PROVISION AS A HYPOTHETICAL BECAUSE THE CODE SAYS YOU NEED FIVE VOTES TO REVERSE AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION OF CITY STAFF.
BUT IT ALSO SAYS ONE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS POINTED OUT, BUT IT SAYS YOU CAN ALSO MAKE MODIFICATIONS OR TWEAK TO WHAT CITY STAFF DETERMINED.
WELL, THERE'S A DIFFERENCE IN THE NATURE OF THIS APPEAL, WHICH IS IS IT COMPLETE OR IS IT NOT? DETERMINING IT'S NOT COMPLETE, EVEN IF YOU STATE THE REASONS WHY IS AN EFFECTIVE REVERSAL OF STAFF DECISION.
THAT'S WHY YOU NEED FIVE OF YOU TO AGREE ON THAT FOR A MOTION TO REVERSE STAFF DETERMINATION OF COMPLETENESS.
>> I ALSO WANT TO GO BACK TO WHAT KELLY HAD POINTED OUT.
SHE LITERALLY WROTE DOWN WHAT SHEETS WERE WHEN, HOW THEY WERE IDENTIFIED, AND THEN THE DATES ASSOCIATED WITH THEM, JUSTIFYING HER POSITION AND THE STAFF'S POSITION AS TO HOW THEY APPROVED THIS.
IT'S HARD TO MAKE THE ARGUMENT DESPITE MS. CHRISTNER'S APPROACH, SOME OF THAT WAS INTERPRETATION, SOME OF THAT WAS FACT.
SOME OF IT WAS OPINION FOR LACK OF BETTER THINGS.
I THINK THAT THAT NEEDS TO BE WEIGHED AGAINST WHAT STAFF HAS CLEARLY IDENTIFIED AS TO WHETHER WE PROCEED WITH REVERSAL OR IF WE UPHOLD THIS.
[02:20:13]
>> I HAVE A QUESTION. THE SURVEY ON FILE, THAT IS FROM 3/23/2022? THAT ONE.
>> WE HAVE MULTIPLE ITERATIONS OF SURVEYS AT THIS POINT, BUT THE MOST RECENT SURVEY PROVIDED IS DATED MAY 7 OF 2024.
AND THAT WAS WHAT WAS PRESENTED AS PART OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARING IN MAY OR JUNE. I CAN'T REMEMBER.
>> AND THAT'S THE ONE WITHOUT THE BUILDINGS ON IT?
>> IT SHOWS IT'S VACANT. IT'S EFFECTIVELY JUST A BOUNDARY SURVEY, DOES HAVE SOME LIMITED ELEVATIONS WITHIN THE RIGHTS OF WAY.
>> I'M SORRY. I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION, KELLY.
YOUR CHART WAY BACK WHEN THAT SHOWED DIFFERENT THINGS COMPLYING DIFFERENT THINGS.
THE AGES REPORT THAT'S 2.5-YEARS-OLD.
IT'S NOT TIME BOUND IN THE SAME MANNER THAT THE SURVEY IS AS PART OF THE REVIEW FOR COMPLETENESS.
BUT IT IS PART OF THE CONCERN RAISED BY MS. CHRISTNER ABOUT HAVING SOIL CONTROL AND SOIL SAMPLING HAVING IDENTIFIED WHAT THE SOILS WERE CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING.
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT UNLIKE THE SURVEY, THERE IS NO SPECIFIC TIME ON THAT BECAUSE THE GROUND REALLY DOESN'T MOVE UNDERNEATH THEIR FEET THAT MUCH.
[LAUGHTER] BUT I GUESS DOES IT NOT CHANGE WHEN YOU HAD A HOUSE ON IT LIKE HOW IT ABSORBS THE RAIN AND THINGS VERSUS WHEN IT DOESN'T?
>> THAT'S A PERVIOUS AREA, YES.
THAT IS THE PERVIOUS CALCULATION FOR THE ENTIRE SITE.
>> BUT I'M SAYING, DID THAT AFFECT THE SOILS AND THAT END UP BEING 2.5 YEARS?
>> I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS CORRECT, I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE DATES, BUT THE TRC APPLICATION WAS FROM JUNE 13 OF 2024, AND THEN THE FIELD, I DON'T KNOW WHAT WAS CALLED FIELD EVALUATION PLAN, THAT WAS FROM JUNE 13 OF 2022.
NOT THAT THIS IS EVEN RELEVANT, BUT IT'S WITHIN TWO YEARS OF THOSE DATES, I GUESS.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S, DOES IT?
>> AGAIN, THAT REPORT IS NOT TIME BOUND.
>> IS THERE AN INKLING OF A MOTION? WHAT ARE YOU GUYS THINKING? WE NEED A CONSENSUS ABOUT WHAT WE WILL CONSIDER.
>> WELL, AS I SAID, I READ THE STATUTE, THE LDC, AND IT SAYS ALL IS SUPPOSED TO BE IN THE APPLICATION AT THE TIME IT'S SUBMITTED AND I SEE TWO THINGS THAT ARE NOT.
SO I COULD MAKE A MOTION TO REVERSE BASED ON THOSE TWO ITEMS. HOWEVER, THEY'RE VERY EASY ITEMS TO CORRECT.
THEY COULD EASILY BE BACK IN A FEW DAYS, BECAUSE THE ONLY THING I SEE MISSING FROM THIS DISCUSSION WOULD BE THE SURVEY FROM THE ACTUAL APPLICATION, ALL MEANS ALL, AND IT WASN'T AND THE FLOOR AREA RATIO CALCULATIONS, WHICH ARE BOTH SPECIFIED.
HOWEVER, THOSE TWO THINGS COULD EASILY BE CORRECTED WELL WITHIN THE 30 DAYS.
BECAUSE THOSE ARE SUCH MINOR ITEMS AND STAFF IS TELLING US THAT THEY CAN CALCULATE, WE KNOW THEY HAVE THE SURVEY, BUT THEY CAN CALCULATE THE FLOOR AREA RATIO.
BUT THE PLAIN READING OF THE LANGUAGE TO ME, IT'S NOT THE COMPLETENESS DETERMINATION WAS WRONG.
HOWEVER, I'M NOT SURE THAT SINCE THE OTHER COMPONENTS ARE THERE THAT IT IS SOMETHING THAT IS A FATAL FORM.
>> I'LL SPEAK FROM THIS PERSPECTIVE.
AS A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ARCHITECT, I WORK WITH CIVIL ENGINEERS AND ENGINEERS EVERY SINGLE DAY.
WE DO OUR BEST TO SUBMIT EVERYTHING THAT EVERY CITY JURISDICTION REQUIRES.
THERE ARE TIMES WHEN WE MISS STUFF, WHICH IS WHY THERE ARE REVIEW BOARDS,
[02:25:02]
REVIEW PLANNERS, ET CETERA.THEY GIVE US COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS THAT WE HAVE MISSED.
TO THIS END, IF THERE'S SOMETHING ON THAT LIST THAT WAS MISSING, THEN IT'S ON THE PLANNER TO REQUEST THAT THE ENGINEER OF RECORD SUBMITS IT FOR DOCUMENTATION PURPOSES.
YOU CAN TELL BETWEEN THE 7/14 SUBMISSION AND THE 10/13, I THINK, WHAT WAS THE OTHER DAY? 10/09 SUBMISSION ON THE DRAWINGS, THAT THERE WAS A SIGNIFICANT EFFORT TO ADD, TO SUPPLEMENT THE THINGS THAT THE TRC REQUESTED AS WELL AS MEET THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO THE BEST OF THE ABILITY AT A DRAWING STAGE.
THERE'S NO FORMAL DOCUMENTATION OF BUILDING PLANS.
THEY HAVE NOT INVESTED FULLY INTO THE DOCUMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF DESIGN.
THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ELEVATIONS LOOK LIKE.
THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE FLOOR PLANS LOOK LIKE.
THIS IS A BOX, AND THEY'RE DEFINING ALL THE PARAMETERS THAT THEY CAN KNOW AT THAT TIME OF DEVELOPMENT FOR THAT BOX.
AND SOMETIMES WE GET ALL OF IT, SOMETIMES WE DON'T GET ALL OF IT, SOMETIMES WE HAVE TO GO BACK TO SQUARE ONE.
BUT TO THE POINT OF A SURVEY IS ACTUALLY IN THE GILLETTE'S DRAWINGS, IT'S NOT A LICENSED SURVEY.
THAT IS A ARGUMENTABLE POINT, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT COULD BE EMAILED.
ON A COMPLIANCE NOTE THAT SAYS, YOU DID NOT SUBMIT A LICENSED SURVEY. OKAY, NO PROBLEM.
WE SENT AN EMAIL, IT GOES OUT, IT GETS PUT IN THE RECORD.
HOLDING THIS UP FOR THAT KIND OF THING FOR A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETENESS BY JUST A SIMPLE EMAIL SEEMS A WASTE OF TAXPAYERS' DOLLARS, WASTE OF CITY TIME, WASTE OF THE ENGINEER AND THE PROFESSIONALS' TIMES, AND Y'ALL'S TIME.
Y'ALL ARE HERE LISTENING TO THIS AND WE'RE ARGUING ABOUT THE SAME THING, REALLY.
>> SO CAN WE MAKE A MOTION THAT IT'S COMPLETE, BUT WE ALSO WANT AN EMAIL.
>> MS. DAY, YOU DON'T PUT STIPULATIONS ON THIS.
>> YOU CAN MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THE APPEAL.
YOU CAN MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE APPEAL AND REVERSE THE DECISION AND INDICATE WHAT IS DEFICIENT TO BE RESUBMITTED WITHIN 30 DAYS.
IF YOU DO THE SECOND, IT REQUIRES UNANIMOUS VOTE.
IF YOU DO THE FIRST, IT REQUIRES A MAJORITY VOTE.
>> AND FOR CLARITY, EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS WHAT THEY'RE VOTING ON.
>> WE HAVEN'T MADE A MOTION YET.
>> I'LL MAKE ONE TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT JUST TO GET THIS OVER AND MOVE IT ON.
AGAIN, TO BE SATISFIED BY AN EMAIL.
I MOVE THAT THIS BOARD FINDS THAT BASED ON THE PLAIN READING OF FERNANDINA BEACH LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTION 11.03.01, THE DETERMINATION OF COMPLETENESS IN TRC CASE 2024-005 WAS ERRONEOUS.
FINDING OF FACT ARE THAT THE DOCUMENTS NOT SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATION, INCLUDE A PROPERTY SURVEY PERFORMED LESS THAN TWO YEARS AGO AS REQUIRED BY LDC SECTION 11.01.03 A5 AND A FLOOR AREA RATIO CALCULATION AS REQUIRED BY LDC SECTION 11.01.04 A20 (G).
THEREFORE, THE BOARD REVERSES THE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS BOA CASE 2024-0002.
>> CAN YOU JUST CLARIFY AGAIN?
>> AGAIN, THE SURVEY THAT'S MISSING AND THE FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS ARE TWO ITEMS THAT ARE VERY SPECIFIC TO BE BE STATED AND THE FLOOR AREA CALCULATIONS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE IN THE SUMMARY BLOCK.
>> FOR THE RECORD, A REVERSAL IS SAYING THAT THE STAFF'S POSITION OF CERTIFICATION OF COMPLETENESS IS NOT COMPLETE. YOU'RE REVERSING IT?
[02:30:04]
>> GOT YOU. THEN IF WE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THIS MOTION I JUST MADE, THEN THEY HAVE 30 DAYS TO SUBMIT THOSE TWO ITEMS, A SURVEY AND A FLOOR AREA CALCULATION, WHICH I COULD PROBABLY DO TOMORROW.
>> THEN IT WILL BE COMPLETE, IS THAT?
>> RIGHT, BECAUSE THAT'S THE ONLY FINDINGS WE WERE FINDING.
>> THAT IS THE SURVEY THE ONE THAT IS ALSO ALREADY ON FILE WITH THE CITY, BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THAT'S BEEN PRESENTED TONIGHT?
>> BUT THEY DECIDE TO REDO THEIR APPLICATION AND STICK IT IN.
>> SIMILAR TO HOW THAT CAME TO BE IN THE APPLICATION FILE, IT'S GOING TO BE IN THE APPLICATION FILE THE SAME WAY, TO SAY SEND US BACK THE SAME SURVEY THAT WE ALREADY HAVE.
>> THE SURVEY, I THINK THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS NOT THE ONE THAT'S ON FILE, BUT THE ONE THAT DOESN'T SHOW THE BUILDINGS.
>> IT'S ON FILE. IT'S JUST NOT IN OUR PACKET.
>> ARE WE SAYING WE WANT A NEW ONE RESUBMITTED?
>> NO. THIS ONE HERE IS THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION. IT'S UPDATED.
THERE'S ONE ON FILE FROM [INAUDIBLE].
THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS HEARD THE CASE IN JUNE OR JULY.
>> THAT SURVEY IS APPLIED TO THIS CASE BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY ON FILE.
THERE'S REALLY NO REASON TO GO OUT AND SEEK IT AGAIN. THEY HAVE IT.
THE CITY HAS IT. SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND WE HAVE A SECOND. MORGAN, YOU WANT TO CALL THE VOTE?
>> THEN I'LL MAKE ANOTHER MOTION.
I MOVE THAT THIS BOARD FINDS THAT BASED ON THE PLAIN READING OF FERNANDINA BEACH LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 11.03.01 A2, THAT THE APPLICATION OF THE CODE WAS CORRECT, AND THE BOARD WHOLLY AFFIRMS THE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS BOA CASE 2024-0002.
>> WE HAVE A SECOND. CAN YOU CALL VOTE?
>> YES. SO WE DO NOT HAVE ANOTHER UNANIMOUS VOTE.
>> NO, YOU DON'T NEED UNANIMOUS TO UPHOLD.
>> NO, WE DON'T NEED A UNANIMOUS TO UPHELD.
>> TO UPHOLD THE CITY'S DECISION OF COMPLETENESS DOES NOT REQUIRE FIVE. CORRECT.
WHAT ELSE IS ON THE AGENDA HERE? THANK YOU ALL FOR WAITING THROUGH THIS.
BUT I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S ABILITY TO SPEAK AND GIVE US THEIR FEEDBACK.
BOARD BUSINESS, STAFF REPORT, ANYTHING ELSE LEFT OVER?
>> HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO EVERYBODY.
>> I THINK WE CAN CALL THIS ONE.
>> IT WAS NICE TO MEET YOU ALL.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.