[00:00:02]
[1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL / DETERMINATION OF QUORUM]
THIS IS THE PLANNING ADVISORY REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 9TH, 2025.IT'S FIVE O'CLOCK, CITY HALL COMMISSION CHAMBERS.
>> THERE ARE NO MEMBERS ABSENT TONIGHT.
>> PETER, WOULD YOU LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE?
[3. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES]
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.I KNOW A FEW PEOPLE WHO HAVE GOTTEN BACK TO SYLVIE WITH SOME CHANGES.
ANY SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES TO THE MINUTES THAT WE HAVE.
>> I WANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE JUNE 4 OR 11TH.
>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE JUNE 4TH, 2025 MINUTES FROM THE PAB AS WRITTEN.
>> ANY POSED? PETER, YOU WANT TO KEEP GOING.
>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE JUNE 11TH, REGULAR PAB MEETING.
THAT'S JUNE 11TH, 2025 AS AMENDED.
>> IT WAS WEAK, BUT THAT'S ALL WE NEED. THAT'S DONE.
THEN WE WILL GO TO OLD BUSINESS.
KELLY, THERE'S NONE NEW BUSINESS.
[5.1 PAB 2025-0005 - PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST FOR SIX (6) SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES LOCATED AT 420 CITRONA DRIVE]
HERE WE ARE. HARRISON, YOU'RE GOING TO.>> YES. THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT, THIS HAS ACTUALLY BEEN PULLED FROM THE AGENDA AND IT'S IN RESPONSE TO A RECENT CHANGE IN STATE LAW.
>> EFFECTIVE JULY 1ST, THERE WAS AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 177 OF FLORIDA STATUTES THAT REQUIRES THAT ALL PLATS AND REPLATS BE ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED AND THAT THERE CANNOT BE ANY REQUIREMENT TO GO BEFORE ANY OTHER GOVERNING BODY, SO IT ALL HAS TO BE DONE AT A STAFF LEVEL.
THE PLAT THAT WAS REVIEWED BY YOU AT THE LAST MONTH'S MEETING IS GOING TO LIKELY BE THE LAST ONE THAT YOU'LL SEE.
THAT'S THE REASON FOR THE APPLICANT NOT BEING HERE TONIGHT.
IS THAT CHANGE IN THE LAW THAT THAT'S NOW GOING TO GO THROUGH THE STAFF LEVEL.
THERE WASN'T ANYTHING IN THE CHANGE THAT DISTINGUISHED BETWEEN PENDING APPLICATIONS OR ANY FUTURE APPLICATIONS, AND SO WE'RE GIVING ITS FULL EFFECT.
IN FACT, THE COMMISSION WILL BE CONSIDERING A RESOLUTION TUESDAY NIGHT THAT AFFORDS THAT ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL PROCESS AS A TEMPORARY BAND AID WHILE THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE GETS AMENDED TO REFLECT THOSE CHANGES.
I WOULD ANTICIPATE IN THE NEAR FUTURE, YOU WILL BE SEEING THOSE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CHANGES, CONSISTENT WITH THE MANDATE BY THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE.
>> HARRISON AND JUST FOR THE SAKE OF THE THREE PEOPLE WHO ARE HERE, WHO I BELIEVE CAME TO SPEAK TO THIS, WHEN AND WHERE AND HOW WILL THE PUBLIC HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO THESE THINGS?
>> WELL, SO THERE WON'T BE A HEARING HELD ON IT.
IT WILL BE SIMILAR TO SOME OF THE OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF APPROVALS, SUCH CONSISTENT WITH A CONTEXT-SENSITIVE SETBACK DETERMINATION OR SOME OF THOSE OTHER TYPES OF APPROVALS.
WE DID WRITE INTO THE RESOLUTION AND I EXPECT IT TO BE PASSED BY THE COMMISSION, SOME NOTICE REQUIREMENTS WHERE NOTICE WILL BE REQUIRED TO BE POSTED, AND THAT THE APPROVAL OF THE PLAT WOULD HAVE A 10-DAY WAITING PERIOD WHERE THE CITY MANAGER OR HER DESIGNEE WOULD HAVE TO BASICALLY POST A NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPROVE OF THE PLAT, AND THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE POSTED FOR AT LEAST 10 DAYS BEFORE IT COULD BECOME FINALIZED.
>> WILL THE BOARD HEAR THOSE PLATS FOR RECORDING PURPOSES ONLY, LIKE OTHER JURISDICTIONS OR WILL IT JUST BE AN ADMINISTRATIVE?
>> HARRISON, THIS CAME OUT OF THE FLORIDA SENATE, CORRECT?
[00:05:03]
>> WELL, IT HAS TO COME FROM BOTH AND SO THERE WAS SEVERAL SUBSTITUTES FOR SENATE BILL NUMBER 784 THAT IT WAS EVOLVED OVER TIME.
>> IF THERE'S NOT A PUBLIC HEARING ON A PARTICULAR CASE, THEN THE ONLY WAY SAY NEIGHBOR OR THE PUBLIC WOULD HAVE ANY IDEA THAT SOME CHANGES IN EFFECT WOULD BE THIS, I GUESS, A SIGN ON THE PROPERTY.
IS THAT THE WAY THE PUBLIC WILL BE NOTIFIED?
>> YES. THERE'LL BE A NOTICE CONSPICUOUSLY POSTED AT THE PROPERTY, AT LEAST FOR 10 DAYS PRIOR TO IT BEING FINAL.
>> THEN LET'S JUST SAY THAT THEN IT DOES NOT EVEN GO TO THE CITY COMMISSION.
IT IS THE STAFF APPROVAL OR NOT APPROVAL?
>> A FINAL PLAT OR REPLAT MUST BE APPROVED BY A SENIOR OR HIGH RANKING OFFICER OF IT, SO IT WOULD NEED TO BE THE CITY MANAGER OR A DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR, SO MOST LIKELY IT'S GOING TO BE MS. GIBSON AS OUR PLANNING AND CONSERVATION DIRECTOR.
>> THEN IF LET'S JUST SAY, FOR WHATEVER REASON, A GROUP OF NEIGHBORS SAY, THIS IS SO HORRENDOUS WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED, AND APPARENTLY, IT HAS BEEN APPROVED AND IT HAS GONE THROUGH THIS NEW PROCESS.
WHAT IS THEIR REMEDY? WHAT WOULD THAT NEXT STEP BE?
>> IF DURING THAT NOTICE PERIOD, THEN THAT WOULD ACTUALLY GO BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AS AN APPEAL OR A REVIEW OF THAT STAFF TERMINATION.
>> THEN IF IT GOES TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND LET'S JUST SAY THEY CAN EITHER FIND IN FAVOR OF OR FAVOR OF NOT.
MAYBE IT'S NOT FAVOR. [OVERLAPPING]
>> WELL, IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE BROAD THAN THAT.
AS IT'S CURRENTLY WRITTEN, THAT APPELLATE PROCESS IS THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CAN APPROVE, THEY CAN REJECT, OR THEY CAN APPROVE BASICALLY WITH CHANGES, AND SO IT'S NOT CLEARLY A YES OR NO.
>> THEN IS THE NEXT STEP, IF THAT DOESN'T SATISFY THEM, THEN YOU GO TO CIRCUIT COURT?
>> THERE'S A BIG ANCHOR ON THE PROP [OVERLAPPING]
>> GENERALLY, THERE'S NO PUBLIC HEARING ON ANY PLATS OR REPLATS.
>> IT'S ALL DONE ADMINISTRATIVELY, PERIOD.
>> THE PUBLIC HAS LESS OPPORTUNITY TO NOTICE THAT UNLESS THEY SEE THE SIGN OUT THERE.
IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE PAPER?
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IF THE COMMISSION WERE TO WANT TO REQUIRE, I THINK THEY COULD REQUIRE EITHER A PUBLICATION OR A MAILING TO WITHIN A CERTAIN DISTANCE FOR OWNERS.
>> BECAUSE, OBVIOUSLY, THIS WOULD BE THE PLACE WHERE A CITIZEN COULD COME AND ASK QUESTIONS OR TRY TO GET SOME INFORMATION ABOUT WHATEVER THIS CASE WOULD ENTAIL, BUT NOW THEY WOULD HAVE NO WAY TO COME BEFORE AND ASK THOSE QUESTIONS, OTHER THAN GOING TO STAFF IF THEY HAVE HEARD ABOUT IT?
>> I'LL INTERJECT. IT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN ANY APPLICATION THAT GOES BEFORE STAFF TODAY.
IF IT'S A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT NEXT TO SOMEBODY ELSE, IT GETS APPROVED BY STAFF, AND AS LONG AS IT MEETS THE CODE THAT EVERYONE KNOWS OR SHOULD KNOW ABOUT OR COULD KNOW ABOUT, THEN THERE'S NO REASONING, BUT ONE MORE REASON FOR PUDS IS THEY WOULD GET NOTICED, SO THAT WOULD BE OUT THERE FOR THEM TO ACTUALLY SEE IT AND HAVE A VOICE EARLY ON.
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A VOICE, I THINK YOU WOULD HAVE A VOICE AT TRC BECAUSE YOU'RE AFTER THE FACT, BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO THAT, WHICH HAS ITS OWN REASONS AS WELL BECAUSE THE CODE IS THE CODE, AND IF WE SIT THERE AND SUBJECT THE CODE TO BE TO SCRUTINY OF WITH PEOPLE THAT MAYBE DON'T DEAL WITH IT EVERY DAY, THEN WE ALL HAVE AN INTERPRETATION OF WHICH CAN BE DIFFICULT TO ENFORCE.
>> MEMBER, GILLETTE, JUST AS WE ALL OBSERVED WAS LAST MONTH WITH YET SEVERAL NEIGHBORS THAT WERE UPSET ABOUT A PLAT BECAUSE THEY PERCEIVED AND THERE WERE ISSUES WITH DRAINAGE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND OTHER ISSUES, BUT NONE OF THAT WAS REALLY A CONSIDERATION
[00:10:02]
FOR THE APPROVAL OF A PLAT AND SO A LOT OF THOSE REASONS.I THINK THAT'S TO YOUR POINT THAT, THERE IS A STRICT CRITERIA THAT MUST BE MET FOR A PLAT, SO IT REALLY IS MORE OF A MINISTERIAL PROCESS OF GOING THROUGH AND REVIEWING AND MAKING SURE IT CHECKS ALL THOSE BOXES.
>> IS THE PUD DECISION PROCESS UNCHANGED BY THIS LAW?
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? YOU ALL UNDERSTAND? VERY WELL. THANKS, HARRISON.
>> HAVE WE STARTED THE PROCESS SINCE WE'RE NOT DOING THIS? ARE WE IN THE 10-DAY CYCLE NOW IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO CHALLENGE?
>> NOT YET BECAUSE WE DON'T YET HAVE AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS, AND THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CHANGE IN THE STATUTE ACTUALLY REQUIRES THE CITY TO ADOPT A PROCESS EITHER BY ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO PRESENT TO THE COMMISSION TUESDAY NIGHT.
BECAUSE IT'S SO NEW, WE HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO DO IT.
I HAVEN'T TALKED TO NASAL COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND THEY'VE HAD SOME INTERNAL DISCUSSIONS FOR IT, BUT EVEN THEY HAVEN'T TAKEN ANY ACTION ON IT YET.
>> WILL THIS HAVE TO FLOW ALL THE WAY BACK INTO THE COMP PLAN AND THE LDC?
>> BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE IT'S GOT THE PROCEDURAL MECHANISMS FOR APPROVAL OF A PLAT.
EVERYTHING LIKE THE TABLE OF DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY, WHERE THINGS GO WHERE, AND WHAT IS REQUIRED, AND THOSE TYPES OF THINGS.
THAT'S ALL LAID OUT IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
>> THANK YOU. APPRECIATE HARRISON.
[6. BOARD BUSINESS]
>> KELLY, WITH THAT, WE GO TO BOARD BUSINESS NOW.
I JUST I HAVE TWO THINGS I WANTED TO BRING UP FOR BOARD BUSINESS.
ONE WAS ON THE SAVER STREET OVERLAY.
AS WE DISCUSSED LAST TIME, KELLY WROTE A MEMO, SENT IT TO ME, I'VE APPROVED THAT MEMO, SARAH CAMPBELL NOW HAS THAT MEMO.
IF SHE HAS ASKED KELLY FOR SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT PROPERTY AND BUILDING VALUES, SO STAFF IS GETTING THAT, RETURNING THAT TO HER AND THAT I'M TOLD BY KELLY IT WON'T TAKE VERY LONG.
SHE WILL HAVE THAT AND THEN SARAH PLANS TO DISTRIBUTE THAT TO THE COMMISSIONERS INDIVIDUALLY AS THEY MEET WITH HER, AND SO IT IS INFORMATION TO THEM AND IF I UNDERSTAND, I'M LOOKING AT KELLY TO MAKE SURE SHE'LL STOP ME IF I'M WRONG.
IT IS INFORMATION TO THEM, AND SO WE CAN PROCEED WITH THIS.
THEY GET BACK TO US, WE TWEAK, BUT THERE'S NO REASON FOR US TO NOT CONTINUE.
>> WE'RE NOT WAITING ON THEM FOR A NOD.
>> CORRECT. WE'LL CERTAINLY REACT TO.
BUT WE'RE NOT WAITING ON THEM FOR A NOD.
THEY HAVE BEEN INFORMED PROPERLY.
>> MISS CAMPBELL IS HAVING INDIVIDUAL DISCUSSIONS WITH THE COMMISSIONERS AND PRESENTING THAT MEMO TO THEM FOR THEIR AWARENESS AS ALSO AN OPPORTUNITY JUST TO HAVE SOME DIALOGUE ABOUT IT.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IN TALKING WITH HER, ONE ON ONE, DISCUSSED IS SOME ADDITIONAL DATA THAT SHE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IS TALKING POINTS AND BEING PREPARED TO DISCUSS THE CORRIDOR MORE GENERALLY.
WE'RE WORKING ON PROVIDING THAT INFORMATION TO HER SO THAT YOU CAN HAVE A MORE INFORMED CONVERSATION ABOUT THE TOPIC.
THEN LEARN MORE IF WE LEARN ANYTHING AT ALL, THAT IT'S DIFFERENT FROM THE DIRECTION OF THE BOARD WE WILL LET ME KNOW.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, HAS THERE BEEN ANY FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMISSIONERS INDIVIDUALLY? NO BY NAME.
>> NOT AS OF YET. THAT MEMO WAS ONLY PROVIDED IN LATE JUNE 25, OUT.
>> WE WANT TO SET UP A TENTATIVE MEETING? IS IT PREMATURE TO DO THAT.
>> I'D LIKE TO GET SOME ADDITIONAL DATA PULL TOGETHER.
I THINK THAT WOULD ACTUALLY HELP WITH THE BOARD AND MOVING FORWARD, HAVING THAT INFORMATION.
>> THEN YOU'RE GOING TO DO THAT, KELLY, AND WOULD THAT MEAN THAT WE WOULD WAIT A MONTH BEFORE WE OR THE SUBCOMMITTEE.
>> NECESSARILY. I THINK AS SOON AS WE CAN LEARN MORE INFORMATION, WE CAN SEND OUT, LIKE, A POLL TO DETERMINE A DATE THAT WORKS WELL FOR EVERYONE AND WORKS WELL FOR COMMISSION CHAMBERS, AND THEN WE CAN ESTABLISH A WORKSHOP AT THAT TIME.
I'M NOT SAYING WE NEED TO WAIT UNTIL AUGUST TO THAT, BUT I DON'T WANT TO IRON SOMETHING DOWN RIGHT NOW.
>> BUT I WOULD, AND I THINK THE OTHERS WHO'VE BEEN DOING THIS JUST LIKE TO KEEP
[00:15:02]
THE MOMENTUM AND KEEP IN MOTION ON THAT.>> WE WILL THEN I WILL WAIT FOR YOU.
YOU'RE GOING TO SEND OUT A PAUL.
>>VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. IF WE WANT TO SEND THE MEMO TO EVERYONE, I THINK I'M THE ONLY ONE WHO'S SEEN IT, RIGHT? SO IF WE WANT TO SEND THAT MEMO TO EVERYONE, WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT.
>> BOARD ALONG THE DATE AT THIS POINT.
>> WE'VE GOT THE ROOM ON THE 23RD OF JULY.
THAT'S TWO WEEKS FROM TONIGHT.
>> WELL, LET'S WAIT TO HEAR BACK FROM KELLY.
>> I MEAN, YOU COULD ALWAYS PIN THAT IN AS A POSSIBILITY.
>> YOU STILL GOT TO DO A SEVEN-DAY?
>> SHE'S GOT SOME CONS THERE, TOO, J.
>> ONE WEEK TO MAKE THAT DECISION.
>> THE OTHER THING ON MY LIST WAS THAT MARK GAVE US SOME THOUGHTS LAST MONTH, AND GAVE IT TO US, AND WE'VE HAD IT FOR A MONTH, AND I JUST DID ANYONE HAVE COMMENTS OR FEEDBACK TO MARK.
>> I THOUGHT IT WAS VERY WELL THOUGHT OUT.
>> I WANT TO GET WITH KELLY ON THAT.
I CAN DO THAT MAYBE AFTER THIS MEETING.
TALK ABOUT IT, MAYBE OUR NEXT STEP, AND YOUR SCHEDULE THAT THING.
BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE THE BOARD TO GO AHEAD AND PROCEED WITH IT, BUT I'D LIKE TO TALK TO HER ABOUT HOW TO SET THAT UP, AND MAYBE SCHEDULE.
>> AS YOU DO THAT, IS HARRISON INVOLVED IN THAT AS WELL LOOKING OVER THAT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE.
IT REALLY JUST DEPENDS ON WHAT STEP IT IS IN THE THE PROCESS ON WHERE WE GOT IT IF THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A LEGAL INSIGHT TO IT.
>> WELL, I READ, HAVE YOU READ IT? HAVE YOU READ MARKS THE MEMO FROM LAST MONTH?
>> YES. WE DISCUSSED IT A LITTLE BIT THEN.
AS I RECALL, IT WAS THE IDEA OF IMPOSING SOME DEADLINE FOR PEOPLE TO HAVE PARCELS AT LEAST THROUGH THE PROPERTY APPRAISER SEPARATED.
>> I MEAN, MY ONLY THOUGHT WAS THAT IN SOME OF THAT, IS IT OKAY TO IMPOSE THAT DEADLINE? I MEAN, I WHEN I READ IT, I THOUGHT, GOSH, IF IT WAS ME, I WOULDN'T WANT THE CITY TO DO THAT TO ME.
>> I DON'T THINK ANY OF THESE OWNERS ARE GOING TO WANT THE CITY TO DO THAT.
>> I THINK INFLUENCES THE WAY WE THINK ABOUT THAT.
>> BUT ANYWAY, THE REASON THAT WAS IN THERE WAS THAT I WOULD RATHER SAY, THIS IS THE RULE. SUCK IT UP.
BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, CONSIDERING ALL THE HEARINGS WE'VE HAD IN THE PAST, I WANT TO TRY TO ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES, AND THAT GAVE THE OPPORTUNITY.
TO DECIDE WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO, BECAUSE OVERALL, TO ME, THIS IS UNFAIRNESS FOR THE CITY TO HAVE TO SIT AND WAIT FOR WE CAN'T PLAN BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.
THIS WILL ALLOW US TO HAVE A PLAN TO KNOW EXACTLY HOW MANY ADDITIONAL LOTS THERE WILL BE OR WON'T BE.
>> IT DOES. IF WE'RE GOING DOWN THIS PATH, AT WHAT POINT WILL WE SEE SOMETHING TO SAY YES OR NO.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO GET WITH KELLY.
THAT'S THE WHOLE REASON AFTERWARD, BECAUSE BUT THIS PIECE INVOLVES A LOT OF LARGER ISSUE.
THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO TALK TO HER ABOUT.
THEN SCHEDULING AND WHAT'S ON THEIR PLATE? I DON'T KNOW HOW BUSY THEY ARE NOW AND SET UP A SCHEDULE BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE I THINK SEVERAL HEARINGS. PRIOR TO IT.
THEN IT HAS TO BE WRITTEN, WHICH WE'RE GOING TO ASK THEM TO WRITE IT WITH THE ATTORNEYS AND THINGS LIKE THAT AND MAKE SURE IT COMPLIES, CUT OUT ANY LOOPHOLES, SO TO SPEAK, AND THEN IT COMES TO THIS GROUP.
WE WOULD TALK ABOUT IT AND HAVE A HEARING, AND THEN FROM THERE IT WOULD GO ON TO THE COMMISSION FOR EITHER APPROVAL OR WE WON'T DO ANYTHING, AND IT DIES HERE.
JUST BECAUSE WE STARTED SOME PLACE, DIDN'T MEAN WE HAVE TO FINISH THERE.
IF THERE'S A BETTER IDEA, IF WE PUT MORE THOUGHT INTO IT AND WE GO IN ANOTHER DIRECTION, THAT'S GREAT.
BUT I THINK THE GENESIS OF THIS WAS IN THE PAST, OUR BOARD AND PREVIOUS PADS HAVE INTERPRETED THOSE PARTS OF THE LDC DIFFERENTLY THAN THE STAFF HAD.
I THINK WHAT WE WANT AND WE WOULD BE AT ODDS WITH ONE ANOTHER.
[00:20:03]
THE ORIGINAL GOAL WAS, AND THE REASON YOU AND KELLY ARE WORKING ON IT IS YOU WERE THERE AT THE TIME, YOU HAD A PIECE OF WRITING THAT IS IF YOU AND SHE AGREE ON WHAT THIS LANGUAGE MEANS, THE REST OF US ARE PROBABLY GOING TO GO ALONG WITH THAT.THAT'S WHAT WHY WE'RE DOING THIS IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PAB, THE CITY COMMISSION, AND THE PLANNING STAFF ARE AGREED ON WHAT THOSE WORDS MEAN.
>> IT'S IMPORTANT ISSUE FOR THE CITY.
IT'S AN IMPORTANT ISSUE FOR PLANNING.
I MEAN, WE'RE THAT'S WHERE WE ARE IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD.
AGAIN, WE DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW MANY LOTS ARE OUT THERE.
>> THIS IS JUST SOMETHING THAT CAME UP.
ACTUALLY, I WAS TALKING ABOUT MY NEIGHBOR.
IT'S A CONSIDERATION, BUT IT WOULD BE TO MAYBE I GUESS I'LL SAY PARSE IT OUT AND MAYBE NOT HAVE A UNIVERSAL DEFINITION FOR 04 AND 05, BUT HAVE IT BY EITHER ZONE OR AREA WITHIN THE CITY.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT COULD BE MANAGED.
IT WAS JUST SOMETHING HE SAID, YOU KNOW, IS IT EVEN POSSIBLE TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT THAT WAY? MAYBE YOU WOULD HAVE THREE OR FOUR SUBSETS.
I'LL ANSWER THAT, 104, 105 ONLY DEALS WITH 25-FOOT LOTS.
THAT'S THE ONLY THING WE'RE DEALING WITH.
THE 25-FOOT LOTS ONLY EXISTED IN THE ORIGINAL U PLATE.
THE REST OF THE CITY, AM YOU'RE SHAKING YOUR HEAD, NO.
THAT'S NOT TRUE? THERE'S 25-FOOT LOTS OUTSIDE THE UI LAT.
>> 504 AND 135 ALSO CREATE RESTRICTIONS FOR LOTS THAT ARE STANDARD.
>> BECAUSE ON FIRST AVENUE, THERE ARE 25 FOOT LOTS.
BUT KEEP IN MIND, THIS BOARD IN THE CITY HAS MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR LOTS IN THE CITY.
ALL I'M TRYING TO DO IS TO GET TO A POINT WHERE WE KNOW HOW MANY LOTS HAVE POTENTIAL FOR DEVELOPMENT AT 25 FEET.
WE CAN THEN PLAN ACCORDINGLY FOR WHATEVER HAS TO BE DONE, WIDENING ROADS OR WHATEVER.
SO WE HAVE TO SIT HERE AND WAIT UNTIL SOME OWNER DECIDES THAT THEY WANT TO SUBDIVIDE IT.
UNDER THE CURRENT RULES, THEY CAN POTENTIALLY DO THAT.
>> WE'RE GOING TO PEG WHERE THEY ARE.
>> WE'RE GOING TO PEG WHERE THEY ARE, TOO.
>> WE IDENTIFY SUBSTANDARD LOT.
RIGHT. WHICH IS SUBSTANDARD LOT.
WOULD I BE CORRECT IN SAYING ANYTHING UNDER 50 FOOT? WE HAVE A MINIMUM OF 50-FOOT LOTS NOW.
BUT WE DO HAVE SOME 30 THREES. THERE'S ALSO.
>> ANYWAY, WE HAVE SOME RULES ON SUBDIVISIONS AND LOTS AND CREATING LOTS, AND IN THIS CASE, THESE ARE NOT PART OF THOSE RULES.
>> ARE YOU GOING TO GET TOGETHER WITH KELLY? YEAH, I JUST WANT TO GET. MOVE IT A LITTLE BIT AND MOVE ON.
>> I DO HAVE A COMMENT, MR. CHO.
THAT PLAT THAT CREATED 25 FOOT LOTS WAS DONE ROUGHLY WHAT YEAR?
>> WELL, 1855, I THINK, DATED IN 1873.
WE'RE GOING TO GIVE PEOPLE FOUR MONTHS TO UNWIND 150 YEARS OF PLOTTED LOTS.
I MEAN, I DON'T THINK THAT TIMING IS APPROPRIATE FOR PEOPLE WHO MAY HAVE OWNED THESE LOTS AND BEEN DEEDED THESE LOTS FROM FAMILY MEMBERS FOR DECADES AND GENERATIONS.
I THINK THEY NEED MORE THAN THAT.
>> I THINK EVEN IN MY MEMO, I SAID SOMETHING.
>> THE POINT IS IS WE WANT THE PUBLIC TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM FOR US.
YOUR PROBLEM IS, ARE WE PLANNING? WE DON'T KNOW HOW MANY LOTS THERE ARE.
WE CAN FIGURE OUT HOW MANY 25-FOOT LOTS THERE ARE, AND WE CAN FIGURE OUT WHAT THE MAXIMUM BUILDOUT WOULD BE, AND WE CAN FIGURE OUT WHAT THE INFRASTRUCTURE DOE.
>> WELL, NOBODY CAN TELL ME EVEN HOW MANY 25-FOOT LOTS ARE OUT THERE PLANTED.
>> WELL, WE SHOULDN'T RELY ON THE PUBLIC TO DO OUR JOB FOR US.
I THINK THAT THAT TAKING AWAY DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS OR INHERENT RIGHTS THAT THEY MAY HAVE HAD VESTED THROUGH THEM THROUGH THEIR GRANDMOTHER OR SOMEBODY ELSE, JUST SO WE CAN SOLVE A PROBLEM WE'RE CREATING, REALLY.
WE REALLY WE DON'T HAVE MAJOR TRAFFIC PROBLEMS ALONG 25-FOOT LOCK CORRIDORS.
WE MAY HAVE SOME DRAINAGE ISSUES, BUT THIS PROBABLY EXISTED BEFORE THAT.
[00:25:02]
SO I THINK WHILE IT'S A GOOD EXERCISE TO QUANTIFY WHAT WE HAVE, I DON'T THINK TAKING SOMETHING AWAY FROM THE PUBLIC TO SOLVE THAT ISSUE IS THE RIGHT WAY TO DO IT.>> I DIDN'T LOOK AT IT AS TAKING IT AWAY JUST HAVING THEM IDENTIFY AND MOST OF THE HEARINGS WE'VE HAD SO FAR ON THIS, THE MAJOR CONCERN WAS WHAT YOU JUST SAID, I BOUGHT THIS LAW AND I WANT TO BREAK IT UP.
ALL MY KIDS ARE GOING TO LIVE HERE.
THIS GIVES THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO PLAT THAT.
BECAUSE KEEP IN MIND, IF THEY HAVE ON BIG LOT IF THEY HAVE ONE PARCEL WITH FOUR LOTS IN IT NOW.
BY MAKING THEM DO THIS, IT ALSO WILL HELP THE TAX BASE BECAUSE THEN EACH ONE OF THOSE VULNERABLE LOTS WILL BE ASSESSED AND TAXED APPROPRIATELY.
RIGHT NOW, THEY'RE ENJOYING A TAX BREAK OR WHATEVER.
>> AN INTENTIONALLY THEN PARC EVERY 25 FOOT LOCK GETS A PARCEL D NUMBER, YOU TAX IT ACCORDINGLY.
IF THEY HAVE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS, THEN THEY SHOULD GET TAXED.
>> WELL, THEN THAT ONCE AGAIN, THAT'S A GOVERNMENT ISSUE.
>> WELL, AGAIN, I'M JUST TRYING TO SOLVE ONE PROBLEM.
IF YOU WANT TO MAKE IT SIX MONTHS, THAT'S UP TO THIS BOARD.
I JUST PICKED A NUMBER BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT AT SOME POINT A TIME PERIOD WOULD BE HELPFUL TO END IT.
I'VE SEEN OTHER PLACES IMPOSE CHANGES IN ZONING OR CHANGES IN CERTAIN RULE, AND AFTER A CERTAIN DATE, THEN THAT'S THE WAY IT IS.
I THINK THIS WOULD ALLOW THEM PLENTY OF TIME TO GO AHEAD AND CREATE THOSE SEPARATE LAWS.
WHATEVER IT IS. YOU WANT TO MAKE IT A YEAR?
>> WELL, I KNOW WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS IT LATER.
>> AT SOME POINT, IF THE CITY OUGHT TO KNOW EXACTLY HOW MANY LOTS ARE AVAILABLE AND ARE GOING TO BE DEVELOPED. THAT'S ALL.
I HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT WHAT I'LL CALL THE UNKNOWING ANNOYANCE, AND I'LL USE FIRST AVENUE.
IS AN AREA. THOSE ARE 25-FOOT LOTS.
MY WIFE'S FAMILY OWNED A HOUSE DOWN THERE, AND THEY BUILT ON FOUR OF THE LOTS.
ONE OF THOSE LOTS IS VIRGIN; THEY COULD STILL GO AND PUT A 25-FOOT STRUCTURE UP ON FIRST AVENUE.
THE CHARACTER OF FIRST AVENUE REALLY DOESN'T CALL FOR THAT TYPE OF HOUSING ON THERE NOW.
IT'S GOT THOSE ARE ORIGINAL, A LOT OF THEM WERE NOT BEACH CABINS, BUT THEY WERE A LITTLE MORE RUSTIC.
THEY WEREN'T AS OPPOSED TO A FULL 12-MONTH OF YEAR LIVING STRUCTURE. THAT'S CHANGING.
>> THE CLOSER YOU GET TO THE GOLF COURSE, YOU'VE GOT HOUSES DOWN THERE THAT ARE PROBABLY GETTING CLOSE TO A MILLION BUCKS EASILY WHERE THEY ARE NOW, BUT YOU STILL HAVE, LIKE I SAID, MY FATHER-IN-LAW BUILT A HOUSE.
HE BUILT IT ON FOUR LOTS. HE LEFT THE FIFTH ONE JUST THERE.
IT'S STILL SITTING THERE ON FIRST AVENUE.
THERE'S NO REASON IT COULDN'T BE BUILT ON INDIVIDUALLY; HE COULD SPIN IT OFF.
THAT CONCERNS ME BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S BEYOND THE BOUNDS OF WHAT I WANT TO CONSIDER AS BEING APPROPRIATE HOUSING FOR THAT PARTICULAR AREA OF THE CITY.
>> UNDER THE CURRENT RULES, THEY CAN BUILD THERE.
>> NICK'S GOT A GOOD POINT, YOU ALSO DO HAVE PEOPLE WHO MAYBE PASSED IT DOWN FOR A COUPLE OF GENERATIONS.
THEY CAME DOWN HERE IN THE EARLY 1900S AND BOUGHT SOME LAND.
I'M NOT SURE WHAT'S THE OVERALL EQUITABLENESS OF IT, BUT I THINK WHAT WE'VE GOT TO DO AT SOME POINT IN TIME, SAY, WE'RE GOING TO POUR CONCRETE, AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BE DONE.
WE'RE EITHER GOING TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT AND SAY, YOU'VE GOT MAYBE 36 MONTHS.
BUT AT SOME POINT, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO JUST SAY FISH OR CUT BAIT AND BE DONE BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN STRUGGLING, NOT ME PERSONALLY, BUT THE CITY HAS BEEN STRUGGLING WITH IT FOR YEARS AND IT'S GETTING WORSE.
>> THE ONLY OTHER POINT I'D LIKE TO MAKE, THIS WILL CREATE A FAIRNESS WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I ALWAYS WANTED TO DO THIS FOR MY KID.
THE OTHER PART OF IT IS, PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD SAID, WELL, WE DIDN'T KNOW THAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN.
WE HAD NO IDEA THEY WERE GOING TO BUILD THESE LOTS THERE.
THIS WILL PUT THEM ON THE PLAT, AND THEY'LL SEE THEM AS BUILDABLE LOTS, SO THAT'LL SOLVE THAT ISSUE.
>> YOU'RE GOING TO CONTINUE, YOU'RE GOING TO GET WITH KELLY.
>> I'M GOING TO GET WITH KELLY.
>> IF ANY OF YOU HAVE MORE IDEAS OR MORE INPUT TO PROVIDE AND GIVE IT TO KELLY OR MARGARET, THEY'LL PASS IT ON.
>> IF EVERYBODY COMES UP, EVEN IF IT'S A WAY-OUT BRAINSTORM, OR JUST THROW IT OUT, BECAUSE IT MIGHT GENERATE SOME ALTERNATIVES THAT WE HADN'T EVEN CONSIDERED.
>> THAT'S GOING HAVE COME TO THIS MEETING AT SOME POINT, WHEN WE GET TO THE WRITING AND THE OTHER PART OF IT IN THE PUBLIC HEARINGS.
[00:30:03]
>> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE, AS A BOARD, WRESTLED WITH, IS EXACTLY HOW MANY LOTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT, LIKE WHAT YOU JUST SAID, MR. BENNETT.
I HEARD NICK TALK ABOUT THIS INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE, AND THERE IS A WAY TO QUANTIFY WHAT THAT IS.
I WISH HE COULD SHARE THAT WITH STAFF BECAUSE WE'VE NOT BEEN ABLE TO GET OUR HANDS AROUND WHAT THAT NUMBER IS.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL AS WE GO FORWARD AND LOOKING AT THIS IN A HOLISTIC WAY.
>> I THINK YOU COULD CALL THE PROPERTY APPRAISER AND I THINK THEY CAN DO A FENCE SEARCH AROUND THE AREAS THAT HAVE 25-FOOT LOTS, AND THEY COULD FIGURE IT OUT.
THEY CAN DO SEARCHES. THEY CAN DO REALLY IN-DEPTH AND DETAILED SEARCHES.
THEY CAN TELL YOU THE TOTAL NUMBER OF 25-FOOT LOTS IN THE ENTIRE CITY TODAY.
I LOVE PETER'S POINT OF DIFFERENT AREAS HAVE DIFFERENT THINGS.
MAYBE ONE AREA, THEY SAY, CAN YOU DO A FENCE AROUND FIRST AVENUE AND FIND OUT HOW MANY VACANT 25-FOOT LOTS ARE THERE.
THEY CAN DO THAT. KELLY'S GOT IT.
>> I'D LOVE TO SEE IF STAFF CAN HELP US WITH THIS.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN HANGING OUT FOR YEARS.
>> TIME TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM, NICK.
THE PROBLEM IS WE WANT TO KNOW HOW MANY LOTS ARE THERE THAT ARE GOING TO BE DEVELOPED.
>> KELLY IS GOING TO TELL US RIGHT NOW. [LAUGHTER]
>> I DO NOT HAVE THAT ANSWER SO LOWER THE EXPECTATION.
THE PROPERTY APPRAISER CAN PROVIDE TO US DATA ABOUT PARCELS.
THEY CAN PROVIDE TO US DATA ABOUT VACANT LOTS.
THEY CAN PROVIDE TO US DATA ABOUT UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORDS.
THEY CANNOT CLEARLY TELL YOU EXACTLY HOW THEY'VE BEEN COMBINED FOR DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES UNDER OUR CURRENT REGULATIONS.
WE COULD HAVE A SENSE OF HOW MANY UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORDS THERE ARE ON A GIVEN PARCEL OF LAND OR THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
BUT HOW THEY'RE NOW COMBINED COULD BE SEPARATED IN THE FUTURE, IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN GET AT THE LEVEL [INAUDIBLE].
>> JUST TO ADD TO THAT, DO YOU ALSO HAVE ENVIRONMENTAL OR PHYSICAL CONDITIONS ON SOME OF THOSE LOTS THAT RENDER THEM ENTIRELY UNBUILDABLE? YOU MAY HAVE 25-FOOT LOTS, BUT THEY ARE WETLANDS.
THAT'S NEVER GOING TO BE BUILT ON.
>> I THINK WE NEED TO IDENTIFY THEM FIRST.
THEN WE NEED TO IDENTIFY ARE THEY OWNED OR ARE THEY NOT OWNED, AND THEN GO FROM THERE.
>> THIS WOULD IDENTIFY THEM BY EACH PARCEL OWNER AND ACTUALLY FULFILL THEIR DESIRE TO GO AHEAD AND HAVE THEIR CHILD MOVE NEXT DOOR AND BUILD A HOUSE OR WHATEVER IT IS THEY HAD IN MIND.
IN THAT WAY, WE'RE NOT TAKING ANY RIGHTS AWAY FROM ANYONE.
WE'RE JUST ASKING THEM TO IDENTIFY WHAT THEIR PLAN IS.
>> IF THEY'RE PASSED FROM FAMILY TO FAMILY, THEY MAY JUST BE VACANT.
>> I'M ASSUMING THAT EVEN IN THE FUTURE, IF THIS PASSES, THAT THEY COULD STILL GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO SEPARATE THOSE LOTS, COULD THEY NOT?
>> THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS.
[LAUGHTER] BEYOND THAT, AS I UNDERSTAND, MEMBER BENNETT'S PROPOSAL FROM LAST MONTH WAS THIS WOULD ONLY ADDRESS THE 25-FOOT SUBSTANDARD LOTS BEING BUILDABLE AS A MATTER OF RIGHT.
IF YOU DID HAVE PROPERTIES THAT HAVE THEM COMBINED UNDER ONE PARCEL ID NUMBER, THIS WOULDN'T PREVENT THEM FROM LATER SEPARATING THEM OUT INTO 50-FOOT LOTS THAT ARE COMPLIANT.
THAT DATA DOESN'T NECESSARILY INDICATE TO US WHAT IS GOING TO BE BUILT OR WHAT PEOPLE'S INTENTIONS ARE.
I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT, AS I UNDERSTAND, THE PROPOSAL WOULD BE JUST FOR THOSE SUBSTANDARD LOTS OF RECORD.
>> LET ME JUST MAKE ONE ENDING COMMENT.
I'M NOT SURE THAT IT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY TO COMPLETELY ELIMINATE 25-FOOT LOTS.
THERE MAY VERY WELL BE SOME CONCEPTS THAT MIGHT SAY THERE ARE PLACES WHERE THEY FIT THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT SO I THINK WE'VE GOT TO BITE VERY SOFTLY ON IT.
>> WELL, IT'S ONLY IF THEY'VE BEEN PLANTED AT A 25-FOOT LOT.
THAT'S THE SUBSTANDARD LOT RIGHT NOW.
IF NICK WANTS TO CREATE A SUBDIVISION WITH 25-FOOT LOTS, THAT HAS TO GO THROUGH THE REGULAR PROCESS, AND WE DON'T ALLOW 25-FOOT LOTS, DO WE, KELLY? FOR NEW BUILDINGS, WE ALLOW 25-FOOT LOTS?
>> BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT 25-FOOT LOTS ON MU8 ON THE UNITS THAT WERE BUILT DOWN THERE.
[00:35:10]
>> IDENTIFICATION. THAT'S KEY.
>> IF YOU HAVE MORE INPUT, MORE IDEAS, PASS THEM ON TO STAFF, AND THEN WE'LL PICK THIS UP WHEN MARK AND KELLY ARE READY FOR US TO PICK IT UP AGAIN.
YOU HAD AN ITEM THAT YOU WANTED TO?
>> YES, I HAD TWO ITEMS. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
FIRST, I KNOW THIS HAS SET UP OLD NEWS, BUT I'VE BEEN TRAVELING, AND I'VE JUST BEEN MADE AWARE OF THIS.
SHE PASSED AWAY, I THINK IT'S THE 27 OF JUNE.
I THINK ALL OF US AT ONE TIME OR ANOTHER HAVE MET HER AND WORKED WITH HER.
THE FERNANDINA OBSERVER DID A REALLY NICE WRITE-UP ON HER PAST ACHIEVEMENTS, AND I THINK WE WERE VERY FORTUNATE TO HAVE SUANNE INVOLVED.
SHE WAS DEVOTED TO OUR HISTORY AND THE HISTORY OF PRESERVATION IN THIS COMMUNITY.
SHE WAS INVOLVED IN SO MANY ORGANIZATIONS, NORTHEAST, FLORIDA PRESERVATION, THE AMELIA ISLAND MUSEUM OF HISTORY.
HER CIVIC ACTIVITIES INCLUDED SERVING ON THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH, TWO CITY CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEES, AND THE STEERING COMMITTEES FOR BOTH VISION 2000 AND FORWARD FERNANDINA.
WE WERE VERY FORTUNATE TO HAVE SOMEONE AS TALENTED AND AS COMMITTED TO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OF THIS COMMUNITY AS WE ARE TO HAVE SUANNE THAMM AND HER HUSBAND IN OUR COMMUNITY.
BOTH SUANNE AND GERHART, HER HUSBAND, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A JOINT SERVICE.
THOUGH THEY DIDN'T DIE AT THE SAME TIME, BUT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A JOINT SERVICE ON JULY 22ND, 2025, AT 11:00 AM, AT THE JACKSONVILLE NATIONAL CEMETERY.
THAT CAN BE LOOKED UP IF YOU NEED ANY FURTHER INFORMATION.
AGAIN, A SAD LOSS FOR OUR COMMUNITY.
THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO BRING TO THE BOARD WAS A RECENT LETTER TO THE EDITOR IN THE JUNE 25TH, 2025 NEWS-LEADER THAT I THOUGHT WAS NOT ONLY JUST INTERESTING, BUT TIMELY.
THIS IS AN ARTICLE REGARDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION THAT HE MADE A VERY GOOD PRESENTATION AND ARGUMENT FOR.
I'M SURE WE ALL KNOW JAMES SHROADS, JIM SHROADS, WHO WAS A FORMER PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD MEMBER FOR MANY YEARS.
HE'S RETIRED AND CONTINUES TO PROVIDE US WITH HIS OPINION AND GUIDANCE IN DIFFERENT AREAS.
I THOUGHT THIS WAS VERY TIMELY.
THIS DOESN'T HAVE TO DO WITH PAID PARKING, BUT IT IS SOMETHING AS WE GO INTO MORE DISCUSSION ABOUT PARKING AND THE DOWNTOWN AREA, THAT I THINK WE ALL JUST NEED TO BE AWARE OF HIS COMMENTS.
I'LL SHARE THAT WITH THE BOARD AND THEN ALSO GIVE A COPY TO STAFF FOR INCLUDING INTO THE MINUTES OF OUR MEETING.
WHAT YOU GOT? FOUR DOWN THERE, MAYBE? BUT I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE NOT ONLY JIM, BUT ANY FORMER PAB MEMBERS WHO ARE ALWAYS INTERESTED IN WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE CITY, THEIR COMMENTS ARE ALWAYS APPRECIATED.
>> THAT'S ALL I HAD, MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER BOARD BUSINESS?
>> BRIEFLY TO PIGGYBACK ON THAT TUESDAY.
AT THE CITY COMMISSION MEETING, THERE'LL BE A PROCLAMATION HONORING SUANNE THAMM.
SERVICES TO THE COMMUNITY AND HONORING HER LIFE.
THAT WILL BE TUESDAY'S MEETING.
BEYOND THAT, JUST ONE COMMENT I WANTED TO MAKE IS THIS IS THE LAST SCHEDULED REGULAR PAB MEETING DURING MY TENURE AS THE PRO TEM CITY ATTORNEY, AND I JUST WANT TO SAY IT'S BEEN A PLEASURE WORKING WITH ALL OF YOU.
>> [OVERLAPPING] THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE APPRECIATE IT.
>> ADJOURNED. THANK YOU, ALL.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.