Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[Call to Order]

[00:00:07]

>>> GOOD EVENING, EVERYBODY. THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS NOW IN SESSION. SAMANTHA, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

PREPONDERANCE HAS THERE BEEN ANY KIND OF EX PARTE COMMUNICATION ON ANYTHING ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT? RECORD THAT AS A NO, PLEASE. GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE.

WE'VE GOT A LIGHTHOUSE TONIGHT. MANY OF YOU HAVE ALREADY MET TWO OF OUR CITY STAFF WHO ARE HERE TONIGHT.

WE HAVE MR. PLATT. HE IS ASSIGNED TO OUR BOARD AND DOES AN EXCELLENT JOB. HE IS TRYING TO WEIGH BETWEEN THE RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN AND AT THE SAME TIME UP HOLD THE LAWS WITHIN THE CITY OF FERNANDINA.

SOMETIMES THAT'S A TOUGH JOB TO HAVE BUT HE DOES A GREAT JOB ON THAT. MANY OF YOU HAVE ALREADY MET HIM SAMANTHA IS OUR SECRETARY AND IS DOING A GREAT JOB.

WE'D LIKE TO GET EVERYBODY SWORN IN AT ONE TIME.

WE HAVE SUCH A LIGHT CROWD TONIGHT THAT SHOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE BUT IF YOU WOULD LET'S GET EVERYONE SWORN IN.

EVERYBODY THAT CAME TONIGHT IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU THINK THAT YOU WANT TO SPEAK AT SOME TIME, PLEADS GET SWORN IN NOW.

WE'VE GOT A LITTLE BIT OF A SHAKE UP TONIGHT IF YOU DON'T NORMALLY COME TO OUR MEETINGS, YOU WON'T NOTICE BUT OUR CITY ATTORNEY IS ON THAT SIDE TONIGHT AND WE HAVE A SUBSTITUTE TONIGHT THAT WILL BE ADVISING OUR BOARD. IF YOU'LL JUST RUN THROUGH OUR RULES AND RELATIONS ON THAT -- REGULATIONS ON THAT, THAT WOULD

BE GREAT. >> YES, SIR.

AND TONIGHT I THINK WE ARE -- EVERYTHING THAT WE'RE HEARING IS SUBJECT TO A QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEDURE AND THE BOARD MAKES DECISIONS BASED ON COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND THE APPLICANT OR APELL ATLANTA WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY -- APELL ATLANTA WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THEIR CASE. THE CITY WILL ALSO PRESENT THE INFORMATION THAT THEY HAVE IN REGARD TO THE APPEAL AND THE APPLICATION. AND ANY INTERESTED PARTIES WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TESTIFY AND IF YOU CAN PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF AT THE PODIUM AND SPEAK CLEARLY BECAUSE THIS MEETING IS BEING RECORDED. AND IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT TONIGHT WITH REGARD TO THE APPEAL, THAT IN ORDER FOR THE APPEAL TO BE SUCCESSFUL, THE ENTIRE BOARD WILL HAVE TO VOTE UNANIMOUSLY IN FAVOR OF OVERTURNING THE PRIOR DECISION.

AND WITH REGARD TO THE VARIANCE BEFORE THE BOARD I BELIEVE AND I NEED TO DOUBLE CHECK BUT I BELIEVE THAT IS JUST BY MAJORITY VOTE. FOR THAT DECISION.

>> FOUR OUT OF FIVE. >> OKAY. AND DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT THE MINUTES IN JUST A MINUTE BUT WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO TELL YOU TWO THINGS. ONE IS IN JUST A FEW MINUTES, JACOB HAS A POWER POINT PRESENTATION AND HE'LL GIVE THAT AND THEN WE'LL OPEN IT UP. THE APPLICANT CAN SPEAK AND ANY AFFECTED PARTIES CAN SPEAK. WE'RE HAPPY TO HEAR THAT.

BEFORE ALL THE BOARD MEMBERS WERE ALL VOLUNTEERS ALL APPOINTED AT SOME POINT BY THE CITY COMMISSION AND WE'VE ALL GOT THESE COMPUTERS IN FRONT OF US.

THE ONLY INFORMATION WE HAVE IS EXACTLY WHAT JAY SOB IS GOING TO PUT ON THE SCREEN TONIGHT. HE JUST HAS MANY, MANY PAGES AND WE'RE ABLE TO LOOK FORWARD AND LOOK BACKWARDS AND ZOOM IN AND OUT.

[Item 2]

[00:05:40]

>> CHAIR MILLER. >> YES.

>> I JUST HAVE A QUESTION IF I MAY.

>> YES. >> SIT OKAY IF I JUST DESCRIBE BRIEFLY WHY MY ROLE JUST FOR THE RECORD HERE REPRESENTING STAFF AND ALSO I'M SURE -- TECHNICALLY AND I'M NOT ADVISING THE BOARD, IS THAT AT LEAST IN A COURT AND MOST QUASI JUDICIAL HEARINGS, IF SOMEONE IS MAKING OR TAKING AN APPEAL, THEY GO FIRST AND THEN THE CITY WOULD RESPOND. THE REASON NORMALLY I AM SITTING THERE WHERE SHE IS SITTING ADVISING THE BOARD BUT IN THIS CASE, EVER SINCE THE ISSUE CAME UP IN FACT I BELIEVE I WAS IN A MEETING WITH MR. GILETTE WHO REPRESENTS PROPERTY OWNERS AS AN ENGINEER AND CITY STAFF AND I FEEL LIKE I GAVE SOME ADVICE TO CITY STAFF SO THAT I HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST NOW BECAUSE THE CITY IS TECHNICALLY A PARTY. DO YOU HAVE A THOUGHT ON THAT,

SIR? >> I WOULD -- JUST FOR THE RECORD -- EVEN THOUGH I KNOW THE NEXT ITEM IS SO COMPELLING THAT YOU'LL WANT TO STAY AROUND AND LISTEN.

[Item 4.3]

SO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, 2019-10 IS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1401 BEACH STREET. PROPERTY OWNERS ARE MR. AND MRS. BREWER. SPECIFICALLY THE VARIANCE REQUESTED IS FROM CODE SECTION -- STANDARDS FOR BUILDING HEIGHTS AND SET BACKS AND SPECIFICALLY THE CORNER LOT SET BACK WHICH IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE IS A 15 FOOT CORNER LOT SIDE YARD SET BACK. THE EXISTING RESIDENCE IS 17 FEET FROM THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE.

SO ESSENTIALLY THIS WOULD REDUCE THE SOUTH 14TH STREET SIDE YARD SET BACK FROM WHAT IT CURRENTLY IS AT 17 DOWN TO SEVEN FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS COMPOSITE WHICH IS TO SERVE AS A SCREENED PORCH ON THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. GETTING INTO THE SIXTH CONDITIONS FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE, SPECIAL CONDITIONS DO

[00:10:03]

EXIST WHICH ARE -- THEY'RE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE LAND STR STRUCTURES AND BUILDING FOR THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT.

THIS HOUSE WHEN LOOKING AT THE FLOOR PLAN THE WESTERN SIDE YARD FUNCTIONS AS A TYPICAL YARD SPACE GIVEN THE HOUSE FLOOR PLAN WITH NO NEAR ININGRESS OR EGRESS.

THE PROPOSED ROOF WILL COVER AN EXISTING PATIO WHICH ARE ROOFED ELEMENTS AND DOES SERVE AS REALLY AN ACTIVE USE YARD SPACE.

THE VARIANCE NEEDED TO MAKE REASONABLE USE OF LAND STRUCTURE. THE PORCH PROVIDE LING AFTERNOON SHADE. THE UNREASONABLE USE OF EXISTING PATIO AREA. GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL INTENT. WILL NOT CAUSE INJURY TO THE AREA INVOLVED OR BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, OR WELFARE. STAFF FEELS THAT FIVE OF SIX CRITERIA CAN BE MET HOWEVER CRITERIA TWO THAT SPECIAL PRIVILEGE REALLY HAS NOT BEEN MET.

IT'S A STRICT 15-FOOT SIDE YARD SET BACK CORNER LOT SET BACK THAT APPLIES TO ALL OF OUR RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS.

THEREFORE, STAFF HAS TO RECOMMEND DENIAL BUT WOULD ASK THE BOARD TO CONSIDER THE LOCATION ON 14TH STREET AND THE FLOOR PLAN THAT EXISTS THERE INTO THEIR CONSIDERATION.

IF THE BOARD HAS QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM.

I DON'T SEE WHY BUILDING SOMETHING THERE BASICALLY IF IT'S THERE ARE THERE IS GOING TO MAKE A LOT OF DIFFERENCE.

>> ALL RIGHT. >> I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY ABOUT IT.

ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS HAVE SOMETHING FOR JACOB? ALL RIGHT. WE'D LIKE TO HEAR IN THE APPLICANT IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO BUT IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING.

>> TELL ME WHAT MAGIC WORDS I HAVE TO SAY TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN.

I AM THE HOMEOWNER OF 1401 BEACH STREET.

WE'VE OWNED THE PROPERTY FOR APPROXIMATELY 20 YEARS.

IT WAS A RENTAL. OUR TENANT PASSED AWAY.

WE DECIDED TO DOWNSIZE. WE'VE DONE OUR BEST TO MAINTAIN THE PROPERTY, MAKE IT LOOK AESTHETICALLY PLEASING TO THAT ENTIRE CORNER FOR ANY OF YOU THAT DRIVE BY THAT CORNER IT'S NOT A LOT TO LOOK AT OUT THERE. AND THE TRAFFIC IS EXTREMELY LOUD. AND BASICALLY WE JUST WANT TO SIT OUTSIDE WITHOUT THE MOSQUITOS FOR THE GRAND KIDS TO COME OVER AND PLAY. OURS COME FROM THE REAR OF OUR HOUSE OFF THE REAR OF 14TH STREET CORNER COMES ACROSS THE BACK CORNER OF OUR HOUSE TO OUR OTHER NEIGHBORING SIDE YARD AND NOT THE PART WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SO PUTTING ANYTHING IN THE BACK IS IMPOSSIBLE. THE SUN IS INTENSE.

SEVEN PLUS HOURS WE PUT DARK CURTAINS UP BECAUSE IT'S JUST SO

[00:15:03]

HOT AND THEN OUR HOUSE IS DARK SO WE TURN LIGHTS ON SO WE DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE SAVING OR COSTING MONEY.

WE JUST ASK VERY NICELY THAT WE THOUGHT WE MET MOST OF THE REQUIREMENTS BUT IF YOU'LL -- THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH FOR YOUR

CONSIDERATION. >> YES, MA'AM.

STAY RIGHT THERE JUST A MOMENT, MA'AM.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> DID YOU ALREADY VOTE?

>> NO, MA'AM. NO, MA'AM.

WE JUST WANTED TO KNOW -- ALL THE PROPER NOTICES HAVE BEEN MADE AND THE MAILINGS WERE DONE IN COMPLIANCE.

>> WAS THERE ANY AFFECTED PARTY, NEIGHBORS, ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS FOR OR AGAINST THAT? WE'LL CLOSE THAT PART TO THE PUBLIC.

AND ANY DISCUSSION? >> I THINK THAT SHE'S RIGHT ABOUT THE WEST SUN. IT CAN BE DEVASTATING.

AND I THINK THAT IT WOULD -- >> THAT'S A BUSY STREET.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION FROM ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS?

>> I'M MORE CURIOUS ABOUT THE AESTHETIC OF IT.

>> I'VE SEEN SEVERAL THINGS HE'S BUT IN.

>> COME TO THE PODIUM, PLEASE. I'M SORRY FOR THAT.

>> THAT'S OKAY. I ACTUALLY BECAUSE I USED TO BUILD YEARS AGO WHEN I WAS YOUNGER, I LOOKED AT THE COMPANY WE HIRED.

IT'S BEEN ENGINEERED. IT'S BEEN PUT IN THROUGH THE CITY FOR PERMITTING UNTIL WE RAN INTO THIS LITTLE VARIANCE SNAG THAT WE DID NOT REALIZE. WE TRY TO MAKE EVERYTHING AESTHETICALLY PLEASING TO THE ROAD AS PEOPLE STOP ALL THE TIME AND LOOK AND COMMENT. MARK IS OUR CONTRACTOR.

IT'S ALL BEEN ENGINEERED. PUT THROUGH THE PROPER CHANNELS BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO BE -- IT'S A LEAN TO IN THE FAFKT THAT IT'S GOING -- FACT THAT IT'S GOING OUTS AND ATTACHING THERE.

THE BLUE PART. BUT THE COLOR WILL BE THE SAME AS ALL THE DRIP EDGE TO THE ROOF.

DOES THAT ANSWER THE QUESTION THE RIGHT WAY?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

>> THANK YOU.

I MOVE TO APPROVE.

IT MEETS THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE.

SPECIAL CONDITIONS. SPECIAL PRIVILEGE.

MINIMUM VARIANCE. GENERAL HARMONY.

AND PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE REASONS FOR MY FINDINGS ARE I THINK THAT IT WILL LOOK FINE. I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S GOING TO DETER FROM 14TH STREET. I THINK IT'S GOING TO HELP

[00:20:04]

BUFFER THE SAND. AND THE SUN.

BECAUSE THE SUN THAT WEST LINE HERE IS DEVASTATING.

CONTACTUALLY WHAT SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT.

>> THE RECORD HAS BEEN CORRECTED.

A SECOND ON THAT, PLEASE? >> I'LL SECOND.

>> ALL RIGHT. WE GOT A SECOND.

WILL YOU PLEASE CALL THE VOTE ON THAT? YOU ARE APPROVED. YOU HAVE YOUR VARIANCE.

JUST GIVE JACOB A FEW DAYS TO GET YOUR PAPERWORK READY FOR YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR COMING.

>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. I GREATLY APPRECIATE IT.

>> YES, MA'AM. THANK YOU TO THE OTHERS WHO WERE HERE THAT LET THEM GO FIRST ON THAT ITEM.

APPRECIATE THAT VERY MUCH.

[Items 4.1 & 4.2]

>> I WOULD LIKE THE APELL ATLANTA TO MAKE THEIR -- APPELLANT TO MAKE THEIR CASE. WHAT'S IN QUESTION TONIGHT IS THE EXPIRATION OF A LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER.

A SITE PLAN REVIEW ISSUED AND ARE PROVED BY THE TECHNICAL RESCREW COMMITTEE. THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE HAS A SPECIFIED TIMEFRAME AND PROCESS FOR EXTENSIONS.

STAFF HAS RENDERED THE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDERS EXPIRED AT

THIS TIME. >> OKAY.

>> ARE WE DOING A OR B FIRST? WHICH ONE IS ON THE AGENDA FIRST?

>> B.

GOOD AFTERNOON.

ASA GILETTE WILL BE TESTIFYING. I DID NOT DISCUSS WITH YOUR ACTING BOARD COUNCIL. I SPOKE SEVERAL TIMES WITH TAMMY. THERE IS ONE MATERIAL DIFFERENCE ONLY REALLY BETWEEN THE TWO APPLICATIONS AND OTHER THAN THAT, EVERYTHING IS IDENTICAL.

IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE ALTERNATIVE IS ESTABLISHING THE SAME RECORD A SECOND TIME. WE WOULD BE HAPPY WITH PRESENTING ONE TIME HAVING STAFF RESPOND ONE TIME AND HAVE YOU MAKE ONE DECISION ON THE FIRST AND THEN ONE ON THE SECOND IF THAT IS THE WILL OF THE BOARD. BECAUSE THE ALTERNATIVE BECAUSE IT'S QUASI JUDICIAL AND I THINK BOTH BOARD COUNCIL AND STAFF COUNCIL WILL AGREE IS WE WOULD -- BOARD COUNSEL AND STAFF COUNSEL WOULD AGREE WE WOULD HAVE TO BASICALLY PRESENT A QUASI JUDICIAL RECORD THAT'S GOING TO BE IDENTICAL WITH ONE

MINOR DIFFERENCE. >> YES, SIR.

DO WE HAVE THE THOUGHT ON THAT? >> I DON'T HAVE ANY OBJECTION FOR THE CITY.

>> OKAY. >> I THINK THAT'S A REASONABLE PROCEDURE.

>> OKAY. >> ALL RIGHT.

>> SO WITH THAT IN MIND, I JUST WANT TO SAY A COUPLE OF HOUSEKEEPING THINGS. FIRST OF ALL, EVEN THOUGH I WAS INTERN IN, ANYTHING I GIVE IS LEGAL ARGUMENT.

IT'S NOT TO BE TAKEN AS EVIDENCE.

ASA GILETTE IS GOING TO PROVIDE THE SYSTEM.

THERE'S ONE ISSUE HERE AND THAT LITERALLY IS WHETHER OR NOT TWO SITE PLAN APPROVALS HAVE EXPIRED BATED UPON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ARE GOING TO BE DISCUSSED BEFORE YOU ALL TO WANT. SO THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE A DOG AND PONY SHOW THAT WE'RE GOING TO PRESENT.

WE'RE GOING TO RELY UPON MR. GILETTE'S TESTIMONY AS TO WHAT

[00:25:05]

HAPPENED BEFORE AND AFTER THE SITE PLAN WAS APPROVED IN TERMS OF DEMONSTRATING THE ONGOING COMMUNICATION REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH SUBSECTION D OF YOUR DEVELOPMENT ORDER EXPIRATION ORDINANCE WHICH BASICALLY PROVIDES THAT IF YOU HAVE ONGOING OTHER PERMITS REQUIRED AND IN THIS CASE I BELIEVE THERE ARE THREE DOT TERMS AND COASTAL CONSTRUCTION PERMITS WITH DET THAT TIME CAN BE EXTENDED.

WHAT YOU'LL HEAR FROM STAFF IS THAT THERE WAS NEVER A TECH ANY CARCINOMA CAL APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION BUT YOU'LL HEAR FROM ASA THAT THERE WERE CONTINUOUS DISCUSSIONS ON A VIRTUALLY WEEKLY BASIS THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE TIME.

AND THEREFORE THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE EXTENSION REQUIREMENTS WAS MET BY THE FACT THAT NOBODY AT ANY TIME HAD ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT WAS FURTHER REQUIRED FROM DOT AND DEP.

WHAT THE STATUS WAS AT ANY TIME UNTIL RECEIVED AND I WILL ABSOLUTELY SAY FOR THE RECORD WE ARE NOT SAYING STAFF HAS ACTED IN BAD FAITH. WE ARE NOT SAYING THAT STAFF HAS DONE ANYTHING THAT IS INAPPROPRIATE IN A GENERAL SENSE. WE SIMPLY HAVE A DISAGREEMENT OF HOW THESE FACTS APPLY TO THIS ORDINANCE.

ALSO JUST FOR THE RECORD, TAMMY APPROACHED ME THE DAY BEFORE THE FIRST DAY THAT THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE HEARD AND RAISED THE QUESTION OF WHETHER I WOULD OBJECT TO A CONTINUANCE BECAUSE SHE DETERMINED THAT SHE THOUGHT SHE HAD A CONFLICT BECAUSE SHE HAD ADVISED STAFF THROUGHOUT. AND MY RESPONSE WAS I THOUGHT THAT WAS ABSOLUTELY THE ETHICAL AND APPROPRIATE THING TO DO.

AND HERE WE ARE.

SO WITH THAT IN MIND, I JUST WANT TO JUST STATE A COUPLE OF THINGS FOR THE RECORD. AS THE RECORD THAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU REFLECTS, YOU HAVE A TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE, TRC APPROVAL OF THIS SITE PLAN, JANUARY 27TH OF 2017.

AND AT THAT TIME, AS I STATED BEFORE, MR. GILETTE IS GOING TO TESTIFY THAT THERE WERE PENDING DEP AND DOT PERMITS.

MR. GILETTE MET ALMOST WEEKLY THEREAFTER WITH STAFF TO DISCUSS THE PROGRESS OF THOSE PERMITS AND AFTER AN EXTENSIVE PERIOD OF TIME GOT ALL OF IT. ASA IS GOING TO TESTIFY THAT AS TO AAMELIA HOSPITALITY PROPERTY IN PARTICULAR 1962 SOUTH FLETCHER THE NORTHERN OF THE TWO THERE IS A PARTICULAR HARDSHIP AS A RESULT. WE HAVE A ROUGH ESTIMATE WE'LL LOSE SEVEN AH EIGHT UNITS ON THE NORTHERN PARCEL.

WE ALSO AS ASA WILL TESTIFY WILL LOSE AN INDETERMINED AMOUNT OF -- THE OTHER PROPERTY MAY ARE YOU SOME REDESIGN AS A RESULT OF THE SHIFTING AROUND BUT THAT'S THE 1974 SOUTH FLETCHER BUT THE HOSPITALITY HAS THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL APPEAL FOR IS THE ONE THAT IS PARTICULARLY HARMED IF WE HAVE TO START OVER AGAIN.

[00:30:35]

MORE AT THE DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS AND STATE CODE LEVEL, THERE'S A WHOLE BODY OF CASE LAW.

THERE'S A LITTLE BIT AT THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT LEVEL.

THAT BASICALLY STANDS FOR THE PROPOSITION IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED ADEQUATE INFORMATION TO MAKE A DETERMINATION AS AN AGENCY, THAT IS SUFFICIENT. THE FACT THAT IT MAY NOT BE ON THE RIGHT FORM OR IN THE MANNER THAT IS ORDINARILY WHAT I WOULD CALL THE COOK BOOK FORMAT IS NOT FATAL.

THE POINT IS WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE THE INFORMATION THAT YOU NEED TO MAKE THE DECISION.

I'LL PRESENT ASA GILETTE NOW. I UNDERSTAND I HAVE THE RIGHT TO COME BACK AND MAKE A REBUTTAL. I PROMISE YOU GIVEN THE FACT THAT THIS IS A VERY NARROW SET OF FACTS AND A VERY NARROW SET OF ARGUMENTS THAT I DO NOT EXPECT TO COME BACK AND SOUND LIKE I'M -- I JUST -- IF THERE ARE ANY POINTS THAT WE THINK WE HAVE TO RESPOND TO FROM STAFF WE WILL BUT WE HOPE TO BE QUICK ON IT. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS?

>> MR. GILETTE.

ASA GILETTE. GILETTE AND ASSOCIATES.

GOOD EVENING. I'M THE ENGINEER FOR SITE DESIGN NOR PLOW JEBLTH. OUR COMPANY PERMITTED THIS THROUGH THE CITY AND ALL THE OTHER AGENCIES.

WE FIRST SUBMITTED THIS TO TRC ROUGHLY SUMMER OF 2016.

THIS PROJECT WAS PERMITTED UNDER THE CITY'S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AS IT EXISTED AT THE TIME. AS WELL AS PERMITS REQUIRED FROM ST. JOHN'S RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT.

AFTER A TRC COMPLIANCE LETTER WAS ISSUED BY THE CITY IN ROUGHLY MARCH OF 2017 WE WERE INSTRUCTED TO OBTAIN ALL APPLICABLE PERMITS. THIS COMPLIANCE LETTER -- SUBMIT TO FDEP WITHOUT A COMPLIANCE LETTER FROM THE CITY SO THAT PROCESS WHICH GENERALLY TAKES ANYWHERE FROM FOUR TO EIGHT MONTHS DEPENDING ON WHAT IT IS YOU'RE DOING THAT PROCESS CAN'T EVEN START UNTIL THAT POINT. WE OBTAINED THESE PERMITS IN A TIMELY MANNER WHICH THE EXCEPTION OF THE FDOT PERMIT.

DURING THIS TIME, WE MADE EFFORTS IN PASSING AND GATHERING TO TRY TO KEEP STAFF ABREAST AS BEST WE COULD.

THIS IS A SMALL TOWN. WE WORK WITH STAFF REGULARLY AND SEE THEM ON A REGULAR BASIS BETWEEN OTHER PROJECTS IN TOWN THINGS LIKE THAT. WE DID OUR BEST TO TRY TO KEEP STAFF INFORMED OF THAT. WE ADMIT WE DID NOT NOTIFY STAFF

[00:35:01]

ON THE BUT WE FELT LIKE THE ONGOING INTERACTION WITH STAFF AND THE OTHER PROJECTS WE FELT THAT WE WERE KEEPING THEM INFORMED SO IT WAS PLEASING TO SEE THAT WE HAD AN APPROVAL EMAIL BUT IT WAS SHORT LIVED BECAUSE STAFF INTERPRETED WE HAD GONE PAST OUR TIME LIMITS. SO AS WAS SAID, WE WOULD LOSE PERCENTAGE. THE BIGGEST THING BEING THE REDESIGN ESPECIALLY ON THE ARCHITECTURAL STRUCTURAL END.

THEREFORE, THE END OF THE DAY WE JUST ASK THAT YOU CONSIDER THAT THE ACTIONS TAKEN IN PERMITTING FOR THIS SITE WERE MADE IN GOOD FAITH. THE CITY DID NOT GIVE US NOTICE OF PREVIOUS -- THAT WE WERE ABOUT TO LOSE OUR VESTED RIGHTS BECAUSE THIS WOULD EXPIRE SO THEREFORE WE WERE UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT WE WERE ALL ON THE SAME PAYABLE.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO ADD. IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, SIR.

JUST A MOMENT.

SAMANTHA, WILL YOU LET YOUR DUTIES TO THE BOARD EXPAND TO TURNING THE AIR CONDITIONING UP A NOTCH? I'M GETTING FEEDBACK THAT IT'S A LITTLE COLD DOWN THERE.

THANK YOU. IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE BOARD WOULD LIKE TO START OFF WITH?

>> YEAH. I HAVE A QUESTION.

>> YES, SIR. >> SINCE -- SOUNDS TO ME LIKE IT'S UNCOMMON THAT YOU HAVE TO REVISE YOUR PLAN ANYWAY.

WHY WOULD YOU OBJECT TO. >> WE'RE BASED ON THE FACT THAT WE WERE APPROVED PRIOR TO THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY LAND USE AND ZONING CHANGING. THAT WAS THE PREMISE WE'RE GOING UNDER. IF WE WERE TO BAH BACK IN FOR PERMITTING NOW AS A NEW SITE HAVING TO REPERMIT IT, WE WOULD BE UNDER THE CURRENT RESTRICTIONS THAT THE LAND

DEVELOPMENT COULD PROVIDE. >> OKAY. AT THE TIME THAT WE PERMIT IT, THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH WAS COMMERCIAL.

SO, THEREFORE, OUR SET BACKS WERE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM KELLY.

BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE YOU CAN GO BACK AND DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

IF YOU DON'T MIND GIVE ME THE TIMELINE AS YOU UNDERSTAND IT.

YOU GOT TRC APPROVAL IN JANUARY BUT YOU DID NOT GET THE LETTER

FROM THEM UNTIL MARCH? >> PER MY RECORDS, SIR, MARCH 2017 WE WERE ISSUED AT THE TIME A COMPLIANCE LETTER FROM THE CITY. SEPTEMBER OF 2017 WE RECEIVED APPROVAL FROM FDOT AND TALLAHASSEE FOR CONSTRUCTION EAST OF THE LINE. JANUARY OF 2018 WE RECEIVED APPROVAL FROM THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT WHICH WAS ALSO DIFFICULT. APRIL OF 2018 WE RECEIVED FDOT UTILITY PERMIT. JULY OF 2018 WE RECEIVED FDOT ACCESS PERMIT WHICH IS OUR DRIVEWAYS.

AND MARCH OF 2009 WE RECEIVED FDOT DRAINAGE.

ALL THREE ARE SEPARATE PERMITS WITH FDOT.

>> WHEN APPROXIMATELY WHEN DID EVERYBODY BECOME AWARE THAT THERE WAS A TIME ISSUE AND THAT PERHAPS THIS PERMIT IS EXPIRED? WHEN WAS THE FIRST TIME THAT WAS DISCUSSED?

>> THE FIRST TIME THAT I WAS AWARE OF IT WAS AFTER MS. GIBSON SENT US AN EMAIL SAYING WE ARE RECEIVED OUR LAST PERMITS AND WE HAD ANOTHER EMAIL STATING WE WERE PAST OUR TIMEFRAME.

>> ALL RIGHT. >> THAT WAS THIS YEAR.

>> END OF MARCH. >> END OF MARCH ROUGHLY I THINK.

SOMEWHERE AROUND THERE.

>> ARE THOSE EMAILS PART OF THE PACKAGE?

>> WE DO HAVE THOSE EMAILS. THEY'RE NOT PART OF THE PACKET.

BUT WE HAVE THOSE EMAILS FOR THE RECORD.

>> I'VE GOT THE TIMELINE. THAT COMPLIANCE LETTER ISSUED

[00:40:21]

JANUARY 27TH, 2017. AND THEN THEIR RESPONSE BACK THAT THERE ARE CHANGES WE NOTICED IN SOME OF THE APPROVED DEP PLANS CAUSING US SOME CONCERN BUT ALSO THAT THE EXPIRATION OCCURRED PER LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

>> SO I THINK MY QUESTION MIGHT BE THAT IN MARCH OF 2017 AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG THAT'S WHEN YOU RECEIVED YOUR LETTER

FROM THE TRC. >> THAT'S WHAT I HAVE IN MY RECORDS. I'M NOT GOING TO DISGRUNTLE THIS

ON THAT. >> THE DATE OF THE LETTER MAY VERY WELL HAVE BEEN THAT. AND I COULD BE OFF ON THAT DATE.

>> SO THAT WOULD ADMIT AS YOU SAY WE COULD BE OFF A DAY OR TWO

ON THAT. >> YES.

>> THAT WOULD HAVE MEANT THAT THE 12 MONTHS WOULD HAVE BEEN MARCH OF 2018. BUT --

>> THEREABOUTS. >> YES, SIR.

>> BUT YOU WERE -- IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU'RE SAYING THAT COMMUNICATION AND CONVERSATION WENT ON WITH THE

CITY WELL AFTER THAT. >> YES, SIR.

WE DID OUR BEST TO TRACK. IF YOU'RE ASKING DID I PUT IT IN WRITING, NO, SIR, I DID NOT BUT I DID MY BEST TO TRY TO COMMUNICATE THAT TO STAFF. YES, SIR.

OKAY. SO PAST THAT INITIAL 12 MONTHS, THERE WAS COMMUNICATION ON AH A REGULAR BASIS THAT WAS --

>> AS BEST WE COULD, YES, SIR. >> THAT WAS GOING BACK UNTIL.

>> YES, SIR. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ADD HE REPRESENTED WEEKLY. IT WASN'T THAT OFTEN.

>> NO, SIR, I WILL AGREE WITH YOU.

IT WAS NOT THAT OFTEN. WE SEE EACH OTHER IN PASSING A LOT. WE SEE EACH OTHER AT TRC MEETINGS AND BOARD MEETINGS LIKE THIS.

ON THE STREET. W JUST YOU DO THE BEST YOU CAN TO TRY TO COMMUNICATE AT THAT POINT.

WE SOMEWHERE A LOT OF STUFF GOING ON.

IF THERE'S OTHER PROJECTS, WE DO THE SAME THIJ.

>> SURE. IT'S A SMALL TOWN.

>> IT'S A SMALL TOWN. >> SO WERE YOU AWARE OF

SUBSECTION D? >> NO, SIR.

>> SO THAT WOULD MEAN YOU'VE NEVER USED THAT IN THE PAST WHERE YOU RAN INTO THIS WHERE YOU WOULD HAVE USED THAT.

>> NO, SIR, I HAVE NOT. >> OKAY.

>> CAN I FOLLOW UP ON THAT? >> WAS THERE ANYTHING SO THERE WAS NO FORMAL REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION.

WERE THERE ANY EMAILS? >> WE HAVE -- WE'RE ASKING FOR

MORE TIME HERE? >> NO, SIR.

>> I DO NOT RECALL US HAVING ANY EMAILS STATING THAT WE NEEDED MORE TIME. LIKE I SAID, WHEN WE RECEIVED THE PERMITS, WE TRIED TO FORWARD THEM TO THE CITY AT THAT TIME TO LET THEM KNOW WE OBTAINED THEM BUT NO, SIR I DID NOT ASK FOR A FORMAL EXTENSION.

>> JACOB, IF IT HAD BEEN IN WRITING, WOULD IT HAVE MADE A BIG DIFFERENCE HERE?

>> YES, MA'AM. THAT'S ULTIMATELY WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO IN STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES FOR ALL LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDERS.

SO LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER INCLUDES A VARIANCE GRANTED TO THE BREWERS HERE THIS EVENING. THEY HAVE A 12-MONTH TIME PERIOD IN WHICH THEY HAVE TO ACT ON THAT PERMIT.

ACTING ON A PERMIT IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE APPLYING FOR A BUILDING PERMIT ESSENTIALLY ACTS ON THAT VARIANCE AND THEY CAN MOVE FORWARD AND CONSTRUCT THAT. IT'S SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES FOR A TWO SIX MONTHS TWO SIX MONTH EX-TENSES PROVIDED THAT -- EXTENSIONS PROVIDED THAT THE APPLICANT SPECIFICALLY STATES THE APPLICANT MUST PROVIDE A REQUEST IN WRITING AND ANY EXTENSION SHALL BE GRANTED IN SIX MONTH INCREMENTS IF ISSUED.

THAT'S THE SECTION OF CODE THERE.

I UNDERSTAND, I KNOW WHAT WENT ON AT THIS TIME JUST WONDERED IF MAYBE SOMEBODY COULD HAVE MENTIONED IT TO HIM.

>> CERTAINLY. HINDSIGHT IS 2020.

>> THIS IS A TWO-WAY STREET. >> I KNOW.

>> WE SHARE IN IT AS WELL.

>> BUT I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ADD THAT I CAN'T KEEP TIMEFRAMES AND TRACK OF ALL OF ASA'S PROJECT AND I CERTAINLY CAN'T EXPECT --

>> SO CERTAINLY. >> IS THERE ANYTHING YOU DO IF

[00:45:02]

YOU DO GET A WRITTEN REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION, DO YOU PUBLISH THAT? IS THERE PUBLIC NOTICE SO PEOPLE CAN WEIGH IN ON IT AGAIN THAT IT'S BEING EXTENDED? SIT JUST, YOU KNOW, STAYING THE FILE?

IS THERE ANYTHING THAT HAPPENS? >> SO WE WOULD -- WE SHOULD AND WE DO LIKE ON OUR BOA I HAVEN'T REALLY DEALT WITH THE TRC TIMEFRAME EXTENSION PERSONALLY ON BOA REQUEST I WOULD MODIFY THE COA NOTED IN THE FILE PUT THE EMAIL IN AS THIS IS THE RECORD WHEN THE REQUEST CAME IN. THIS IS WHEN WE'RE MODIFYING THE COA THAT GIVE THEM SIX MONTHS FROM THIS DATE TO THIS DATE.

YES, TECHNICALLY WE WOULD HAVE. THIS PROJECT PROCEEDED THROUGH THE TRC PROCESS AND THERE'S NO -- THERE WAS NO REZONING OR ANY KIND OF FORMAL PROCEEDING OTHER THAN THE SITE PLAN REVIEW.

SO A REQUEST MADE TO EXTEND THAT WE WOULD ACKNOWLEDGE IT IN SOME FORM BUT IT WOULD NOT HAVE REQUIRED ANY FURTHER PUBLIC

NOTICE OR ANYTHING. >> I KNOW YOU HAD SOMETHING.

>> SO NO PUBLIC NOTICE ON WHAT WE'RE DOING TONIGHT.

>> OH, YES, MA'AM, THERE WAS PUBLIC NOTICE THAT THE APPEAL HAD BEEN FILED BUT THE ACTUAL SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS TOOK TRACK ON ITS NORMAL COURSE.

>> THE RESIDENTIAL, THE NEW ZONING NEXT DOOR.

THE RESIDENTIAL. IS WHAT THEY WANT TO DO CAUSING THEM -- I MEAN, I DON'T SEE ANYBODY HERE.

>> I HAVEN'T HEARD OR SPOKE TO MY PARTICULAR TO THAT PROPERTY OR REALLY ANYBODY ABOUT ANY PROJECTS THERE.

IT WAS REZONED FROM COMMERCIAL ORDINANCE 2016-30 I THINK IT SAYS. AT WHICH TIME THERE WAS PUBLIC NOTICE AND HEARINGS INVOLVING REZONING AND LAND USE CHAIN.

[00:50:18]

THEY WENT THROUGH ALL OF THE STATE PERMITTING STILL HAVING THE SAME SITE PLAN. THE ZONING ENDED UP CAGEINGS VERY CLOSE TO IT SOUNDS LIKE 2016.

IF THEY -- >> 2018.

>> MAKE SURE BECAUSE HE'S -- HE READ 2016-30.

>> THAT'S THE APPLICATION DATE. THE ACTUAL DECISION --

>> SO I'M ASSUMING THE ORDINANCE APPROVING THE OR ORDINANCES APPROVING THE ZONING CHANGE AND LAND USE CHANGE FROM COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENCE HAPPENED AFTER THIS APPROVAL.

OTHERWISE THAT'S NOT EVEN -- YES.

>> THAT'S WHERE MY QUESTION IS. WHAT IS THE CITY'S -- WHEN DOES THE CITY'S TIMEFRAME START? AS A DESIGN PROFESSIONAL I'M GOING THROUGH EVERY EFFORT TO MEET ALL THEIR REQUIREMENTS AND IT TAKES A LONG TIME TO GET THROUGH MANY OF THE THINGS

THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT. >> AND I'M TRYING TO ANSWER -- SO THAT'S A SHORT ANSWER. A LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER IN THERE ARE UNDER CHAPTER 1 OF OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THERE ARE DEFINITIONS. A LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER IS THE COMPLIANCE LETTER THAT IS ISSUED SIGNED BY MR. MCRARERY, THE FORMER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR THAT CAME OUT OF TRC.

SOON -- THAT'S WHY IN JANUARY WHEN THE TRC HAD THEIR MEETING TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE HAD THEIR MEETING, THE LETTER BY THE TIME STAFF GETS AROUND TO DOING THE LETTER, THE DATE OF THE LETTER IS THE DATE THAT THE TIME STARTS CLICKING AWAY.

SO MARCH, 2017, WHATEVER THAT DATE WE AGREED ON.

DO WE HAVE THAT IN THE RECORD BY THE WAY?

>> YES. THAT'S THE JANUARY DATE.

>> IT'S THE LETTER WAS RECEIVED IN JANUARY BECAUSE THEN I'M

HEARING MARCH SO WE NEED -- >> I MAY BE WRONG.

>> THAT'S OKAY. >> I'LL STIPULATE FOR THE RECORD

THE DATE IS JANUARY 27, 2017. >> VERY GOOD THEN.

SO THAT'S WHEN THE TIME STARTED TO TICK.

LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER BECAUSE YOU'VE HEARD A BUNCH OF TERMS HERE TONIGHT, A LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER UNDER FLORIDA LAW PROVIDES THE PROPERTY OWNER WITH WHAT WE CALL VESTED RIGHTS.

AS A CITY AND AGENCY, WE CANNOT TAKE THOSE AWAY.

THE CODE ITSELF PROVIDES AND THE INTENT OF THESE THINGS AND THEY'LL HAVE THEIR OWN ARGUMENTS, I BELIEVE, IS YOU CAN'T -- IF YOU HAVE SOME DATE, YOU SAY THESE ORDERS EXPIRE IF YOU DON'T PROCEED WITH YOUR PROJECT.

IS BECAUSE YOU CAN'T HAVE THESE VESTED RIGHTS AND LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDERS JUST HANGING OUT THERE FOR ALL TIME AND THEN TEN YEARS DOWN THE ROAD LOTS OF THINGS CHANGE AND YOU SAY I HAVE VESTED RIGHTS. THAT'S ACTUALLY HAPPENED IN FLORIDA AND THAT'S WHY THESE THINGS ARE IN PLACE NOW.

I HAVE THESE VESTED RIGHTS. I CAN DO ALL THESE THINGS.

BUT NEXT DOOR YOU HAVE A BIRD SANCTUARY.

YOU CAN'T PUT A MANUFACTURING PLANT THERE.

THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF US HAVING THE DEADLINES.

OUR CODE REQUIRES THAT THE REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION BE MADE IN WRITING. AND I CAN GUESS AND I'M SURE YOU ALL CAN THE REASONS WHY YOU WOULD HAVE SOMETHING IN WRITING.

HOWEVER, WHAT I'VE HEARD UP UNTIL NOW IS THAT MR. GILETTE IS TESTIFYING THAT THERE WERE EMAILS NOT JUST PASSING BY IN THE STREET HEY I'M STILL WORK ONNING THE HOTEL BUT IN ADDITION TO THAT SOME EMAILS AND I'M GOING TO GET INTO THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE WHEN JACOB MAKES HIS PRESENTATION BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF WHAT DO WE HAVE IN WRITING.

NOPE. WE HAVE NO REQUEST THAT SAYS WE REQUEST AN EXTENSION OR NOTHING FROM STAFF SAYING IT'S ABOUT TO EXPIRE. YOU BETTER REQUEST AN EXTENSION IN WRITING BUT THERE ARE SOME EMAILS AND I'LL ASK MS. GIBSON HAS COMPILED THEM TOGETHER AND THEY'RE IN HER OFFICE IF SHE WOULD BRING THOSE HERE. DO YOU HAVE THEM TOGETHER OR NO?

>> OKAY. OKAY. IT MIGHT BE THAT THERE'S EMAILS BACK AND FORTH AND NOT NECESSARILY ALL THAT THEY SAY.

THE CONCERN AS I UNDERSTAND IS THAT BECAUSE THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH IS NOW RESIDENTIALLY ZONED, THE CURRENT SITE PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED RECEIVE BITS AND PIECES THAT THE SPREADSHEET

[00:56:19]

THAT I SAW INDICATES AT THE VERY LEAST JACOB INDICATES HE RECEIVED VARIOUS OF THOSE APP -- OR THOSE STATE PERMITS OVER TIME. AND I THINK THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION HERE IS IF THERE IS EQUITABLE TOLLING BASED UPON THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS PARTICULAR AND UNIQUE MATTER, THEN THE SITE PLAN REMAINS IN PLACE. .

THE FACT IS THIS IS A PUBLICLY NOTICED MATTER.

NO NEIGHBOR IS HERE. WE ARE SIMPLY POINTING OUT THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT PARTICULARLY AS I SAID ON THE NORTHERN PARCEL ON THE AMELIA PARCEL MORE THAN THE PATEL PARCEL. AND IF YOU FIND THAT THERE IS EQUITABLE TOLLING BECAUSE THERE'S NO DEBATE THAT WE HAD PROOF OF DUE DILIGENCE TO RECEIVE THE APPROVALS AND THAT THERE WERE ONGOING COMMUNICATIONS ABOUT THAT WHETHER IT WAS WEEKLY OR NOT, I APOLOGIZE.

I'D UNDERSTOOD FROM MR. GILETTE THAT IT WAS MORE OR LESS WEEKLY DISCUSSIONS ABOUT VARIOUS PROJECTS THIS AMONG THEM.

IF IT'S WEEKLY, TWICE A MONTH, IT WAS ONGOING THROUGH THAT PERIOD. REALLY THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION IS IF IT'S EXTENDED, WE HAVE NO NEED TO REDESIGN THAT NORTHERN PARCEL IN PARTICULAR. IF IT'S NOT, WE HAVE TO START OVER AGAIN FROM SCRATCH AND THAT IS ALL I'M TRYING TO CLOSE OUT AND I THINK THAT ASA WAS TRYING TO SAY IT BUT -- AND BOTTOM LINE THAT'S IT.

>> THANK YOU, SIR.

WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU WANTED TO SAY?

>> NOT UNLESS Y'ALL HAVE ANYMORE QUESTIONS.

>> THERE YOU GO.

>> WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT THE BOARD WANTED TO ASK FOR

BEFORE GILETTE SITS DOWN? >> JUST ONE MORE TIME.

WHEN WAS THE DATE THAT THE RED FLAG WENT UP THAT WE HAD THIS ISSUE?

>> MARCH OF THIS YEAR. I BELIEVE.

>> OKAY. IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY.

>> AND I UNDERSTAND THAT'S NOT AN EXACT DATE.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, SIR.

CAN YOU ZOOM IN ON THAT? >> YEAH.

>> VISUAL.

>> SO THAT LOT BETWEEN IS THE ONE THAT WENT RESIDENTIAL FROM

COMMERCIAL? >> NORTH.

>> THIS LOT RIGHT HERE WAS -- >> YEAH.

>> REZONED RESIDENTIAL.

OKAY. SOMETHING ONGOING REGARDLESS OF IF IT'S SPECIFIC DLOI GET THE BUILDING PERMIT, THE DIFFERENT

[01:00:03]

AMOUNT OF JURISDICTIONS THAT WHERE TO GO AND SOLICIT TO GET THESE OTHER PERMITS, BY VIRTUE OF THAT ALONE THAT DEMONSTRATES THAT THERE'S A CONTINUANCE. I DON'T KNOW THAT IT REFERENCES ANY KIND OF EXTENSION TIMEFRAME BECAUSE I WOULD -- AS AN ARCHITECT, I WOULD BE THE EXACT SAME AS YOU GUYS.

I WOULD PERCEIVE THAT I'M IN COMPLIANCE BECAUSE I'M STILL CHASING THE SAME GOAL. AND IF I'M IN COMMUNICATION WITH YOU, I'M ASSUMING THAT YOU KNOW THAT WE ARE STILL WORKING ON IT AND IF IT GOES PAST THE 12 MONTHS, IT DOES.

I RECOGNIZE THAT FACT BUT THINGS DON'T HAPPEN FAST WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH AUTHORITIES AT THE STATE LEVEL.

I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S AN UNREASONABLE REQUEST ON THEIR PART. THERE'S NO BAD FAITH HERE.

ONLY GOOD FAITH. AND THE CITY STAFF IS IN COMMUNICATION WITH ASA GOALTENDER ALL THE TIME BECAUSE SO MANY THINGS GO ON. WE DON'T DISPUTE THAT AT ALL.

JACOB IS GOING TO SHOW YOU A POWERPOINT THAT WITH THE TIMELINE AND GO THROUGH IT BRIEFLY.

BECAUSE YOU'VE HEARD A LOT OF EVIDENCE HERE.

OUR CODE SAYS THE REQUEST I THINK IT SAYS SHALL BE IN WRITING MUST BE IN WRITING IT'S CLEAR IT NEEDS TO BE IN WRITING SO WE'RE STRICTLY CONSTRUING THIS AND JUST ASKING THAT THE APPLICANT IF THEY WISH TO APPEAL IT TO YOU ALL AND WE HAVE A HEARING THEN IT'S UP TO YOU. I THINK THAT YOU HAVE A LOT OF DISCRETION HERE. OBVIOUSLY BASING YOUR DECISION ON COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE BUT YOU HAVE DISCRETION IN WHAT YOU DO. WHAT WE DID WAS AS A CITY IS --

>> OKAY. >> I GUESS WITH THAT INC. GO THROUGH THIS QUICKLY. I KIND OF WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT KIND OF LAST POINT THERE TO THOUGH BEING THAT OUR I'LL DO IT WHEN WE GET THERE. BEYOND THE TWO YEARS THAT ARE PLAN -- ANY LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER EVEN WHEN A REQUEST IS MADE. BUT KIND OF REITERATING THE LOCATION IS 18962 AND 74 SOUTH FLETCHER.

THESE PROPERTIES ARE C1 ZONE. THE APPEAL IS AGAIN THAT LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION WHICH SPEAKS TO EXPIRATION OF LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER. LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER ARE TWO 30-ROOM HOTELS AND SUBSEQUENT PARKING AND OTHER AMENITIES.

[01:05:39]

WEREN'T APPARENT IN THE SITE PLAN.

THESE ARE TWO INDEPENDENT SITE PLANS.

TWO 30 ROOM BOUTIQUE HOTELS WHICH MUST REMAIN FULLY INDEPENDENT. THERE WERE WHAT LOOKED LIKE SOME CHANGES IN INTERNAL PLANS THAT WERE NOTNA NECESSARILY REFLECTED IN THE TRC SITE PLAN BECAUSE WE'RE LOOKING AT A SITE PLAN SO THAT'S WHERE COMING BACK THROUGH BUILDING PERMIT THE CITY DOES HAVE TO GO BACK AND RECEIVE WHAT WAS SUBMITTED FOR BUILDING PERMIT MATCHES THE APPROVED SITE PLAN.

WE INDICATED TO THE APPLICANT THAT WE NOTICED SOME DEVIATIONS.

ONE OF THEM BEING A ROOM ON EITHER SIDE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOTEL THAT APPEARED TO EXTEND INTO THE TEN FOOT SIDE YARD SET BACK WHICH WAS NOT INDICATED ON THE SITE PLAN WHICH WOULD NOT BE IN COMPLIANCE OF THE PLAN.

AN EMAIL WAS SENT TO THE OWNER REQUESTING DOCUMENTATION CONSISTENT WITH LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 11.04 ON THE FOURTH OF APRIL. AN EFFORT TO CLOSE ANY LOOPING QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE PROJECT.

WE'VE MET WITH THE APPLICANT APRIL AND MAY TO KIND OF WORK THROUGH THIS. AND STAFF DIRECTED THAT THE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER IS EXPIRED.

THE ARE APPROPRIATE WAY TO CONTINUE THIS PROJECT IS TO MOVE BACK THROUGH THE SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS.

THAT IS SECTION D THAT TALKED ABOUT FOR THE RECORD I'LL I'LL READ IT WORD FOR WORD. LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDERS FOR SUBSEQUENT -- WELL, STARTS OUT EXPIRATION OF LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDERS AND DEVELOPMENT PERMITS. A LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER SHALL EXPIRE 12 MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF ISSUANCE UNLESS A LONGER PERIOD IS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED. DEVELOPMENT PERMITS SHALL EXPIRE SIX MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF ISSUANCE.

THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IS LIKE A BUILDING PERSONALITY.

SO SECTION C. THE APPLICANT HAS SINCE REAPPLIED THAT SAME. THERE ARE APPARENTLY EX-TEN WAITING CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH REQUIRE CHANGES BUT THAT PLAN IS COMING BACK THROUGH SITE PLAN REVIEW BECAUSE THE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER EXPIRED.

WE FEEL THIS REQUEST ACTUALLY WENT BEYOND THE TWO YEARS SO IN OUR CODE, WE DO NOT HAVE A PROCEDURE FOR EXTENDING BEYOND THAT TWO SIX MONTH EXTENSIONS AND THIS LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER IS EVEN BEYOND THAT. SO WE WOULD SUGGEST THAT THIS PLAN BE RETURNED THROUGH SITE PLAN REVIEW SO THAT A NEW SITE

[01:10:04]

PLAN CAN BE REVIEWED AND ISSUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY'S LAND DEVELOPMENT DOED.

-- CODE.

>> ANOTHER WORD THE -- IN OTHER WORDS THE CITY IS ASKING THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO DENY THE APPEAL.

ANYBODY GOT SOME CONVERSATION FOR JACOB?

>> THE ONLY QUESTION I HAD. SO INITIALLY WHICH WAS ZONED RESIDENTIAL. HOW DID THEY GET APPROVED TO

BEGIN WITH I GUESS? >> IT WAS NOT RESIDENTIAL WHEN THE APPLICATION WAS MADE AND WHEN IT WAS APPROVED.

THAT CHANGE OCCURRED AFTER THE APPROVAL.

>> WEREN'T YOU AWARE THAT THIS WAS IN THE BOOKS? BECAUSE IT WAS ALREADY ON FILE.

>> I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK BACK SPECIFICALLY AT WHEN THAT APPLICATION WAS MADE. BUT CERTAINLY THE CITY IF THAT APPLICATION WAS MADE WE WERE AWARE OF IT.

>> AND THE PEOPLE THAT CHANGED IT TO RESIDENTIAL HAD TO BE AWARE OF OF IT BECAUSE IT WAS -- I MEAN, WE HEARD IT ON THE STREET A LONG TIME AGO. NOW I KNOW WHY IT'S NOT THERE.

>> SO ONE THING AND JUST FOR ALL OF US TO BE AWARE OF, SITE PLAN REVIEW IS A FORMAL PROCESS WHERE PROPERTIES HAVE LAPPED USE AND SHONING -- LAND USE AND ZONING CONSISTENT WITH PROPOSED USES.

THOSE GET POSED NOTICE -- POSTED NOTICES AND MAILED NOTICES AND IT'S A MATTER OF WHAT OUR CODE STIPULATES AS FAR AS NOTICE REQUIREMENTS GO BUT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE THE APPROVAL OF THE PLAN MOVED FOR ACCORDINGLY THERE'S JUST NOT A NOTICE REQUIREMENT FOR TYPICAL DEVELOPMENT THAT CONFORMS TO IF EXISTING HAND USE AND ZONING.

CAN YOU DEFINE LAND USE DEVELOPMENT ORDER?

>> SURE. >> AND JUST A LITTLE BIT FURTHER HOPEFULLY ANSWER THE QUESTION, ANYBODY -- ANY PROPERTY ONNERS TO NORTH WOULD -- YOU WOULD HOPE BECAUSE IT'S PART OF THE RECORD KNOW THAT THE PROPERTY JUST TO THE SOUTH IS ZONED GENERAL

COMMERCIAL. >> ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS OF OBTAINING PERMITS AGAIN?

>> THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE PROCEDURALLY BEFORE WE RESPOND IS WHETHER THE GENERAL PUBLIC NEEDS TO SPEAK BECAUSE I'M READY TO REBUT. BUT NOT TO STEP ON TOES.

>> SO SO YOU'RE FINE. JUST FOR THE RECORD WHEN YOU COME BACK TO THE PODIUM AND WE SWITCH SPEAKERS.

JUST GIVE YOUR NAME AGAIN, PLEASE.

WHY NOT JUST REQUIRE IT IN THE BUILDING PERMIT AND LET THEM PROCEED WITH WHAT THEY HAVE AS A SITE PLAN?

[01:15:16]

IF IS HE THAT'S A LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER WHERE THE BUILDING PERMIT IS A GOMENT PERMIT AND LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDERS REQUIRE THEIR OWN AMENDMENTS AND CHANGES TO THAT PARTICULAR PROCESS.

>> I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THIS.

IS THE RESIDENTIAL BETWEEN SLIDERS IN THAT?

>> TO THE NORTH OF IT. OKAY.

SO SLIDERS. THEIR SITE.

AND THEN THE CHANGE -- >> IS ZONING.

>> SLIDERS. THIS IS THE --

>> PINK IS GENERAL COMMERCIAL. THE ORANGISH DARK YELLOW IS HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ALLOWING FOR RESORT RENTALS OR SHORT TERM RENTALS AND THE GREEN DOWN THERE IS RECREATION.

IT'S THESE TWO SEPARATE PARCELS. THEY WENT TO R 3.

>> YES FROM GENERAL TO COMMERCIAL.

>> WHEN DID THE RED FLAG FIRST GO UP FOR THE CITY THAT THIS WAS

OVER THE 12 MONTHS? >> DO WE HAVE SOME WAY ON THE COMPUTER THAT'S MONITORING THAT? IDEALLY THE ANSWER IS NO.

IDEALLY THAT WOULD BE NICE. WE DO HAVE A NEW SYSTEM THAT TRACKS BUILDING PERMITS AND FLAGS WHEN BUILDING PERMITS GET EXPIRED. WE'RE STILL ATTEMPTING TO ROLL OUT IMPLEMENTING ALL THE GOOD STUFF THAT COULD COME WITH IT BUT THIS TYPE THING IS NOT TRACKED IN THAT MANNER BUT IF YOU WERE TO APPLY FOR A BUILDING PERMIT, YOU GET SIX MONTHS FROM THE WHEN IT'S ISSUED TO CALL FOR AN INSPECTION.

IF YOU DON'T GET IT WITHIN SIX MONTHS THAT'S EXPIRED AND THERE IS A MECHANISM THAT WOULD TRACK AND FLAG THAT.

BUT ON THIS TYPE OF WHERE WE'RE AT WITH THESE APPROVALS, NO, SIR.

>> WERE THEY FURNISHED ANYTHING IN WRITING IN ANY OF THE INFORMATION PACKAGES OR ANYTHING THAT THEY'RE GIVEN OR IS IT THEIR RESPONSIBILITY AS PROFESSIONALS TO HAVE THAT AND TOE LOOK ON OUR WEBSITE TO MEET ALL OF THE CRITERIA? SUBSECTION D.

OF THE 12 MONTHS. >> IT'S NOT PART OF THE PACKAGE.

>> >> PART OF THE APPROVAL LETTER.

OR EVEN THE APPLICATION MATERIALS.

>> YEAH.

>> AND THAT MAY BE SOMETHING THAT TAKES YOU A SECOND.

>> SURE. SURE.

FOR THE CITY, THE ANSWER IS NO. THERE IS NOTHING INDICATING THERE'S A 12-MONTH LIMITATION ON LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDERS IN ANY OF THE MATERIALS PROVIDED TO APPLICANT.

IT IS IN OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH IS EASILY ACCESSIBLE ON THE WEBSITE.

>> WELL, IT WOULD BE I THINK I KIND OF THOUGHT MY WAY THROUGH THAT. IT WOULD BE TEN ATLANTA PHONE BOOKS TO FURNISH EVERYBODY EVERY TIME THEY WALKED IN THERE WITH

ALL THE LAWS THAT APPLY. >> YES.

>> I MEAN, NOBODY COULD CARRY IT.

>> NOT QUITE TEN ATLANTA PHONE BOOKS.

>> BY THE TIME YOU -- >> ONE OF THESE.

>> THERE YOU GO. YEAH.

>> I'VE SEEN THOSE ATLANTA PHONE BOOKS.

IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME. >> I KNOW.

YEAH. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY USES A PHONE BOOK ANYMORE.

ALL RIGHT. DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING THAT YOU

WANTED TO SAY? >> I JUST WAS WONDERING IF MR. PLATT COULD BRING UP THE SLIDE THAT SHOWS THE SUBSECTION OF CHAPTER 252 THE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT.

I WAS TRYING TO LOOK SOMETHING UP.

IT'S 252 POINT -- 363.

AND TO ADD TO THE POINT ABOUT LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDERS, THE COMPLIANCE LETTER STATING AN EXPIRATION FOR THE RECORD THESE

[01:20:04]

DO NOT WE DO INCLUDE THAT ON OUR COMPLIANCE LETTERS TODAY.

IT'S SOMETHING STANDARD ON OUR HAD VARIANCE APPROVALS.

BUT THIS PARTICULAR APPROVAL FOR THESE SITE PLANS DON'T HAVE THAT SPECIFICALLY NOTED ON THE LETTER.

>> NOTHING FURTHER. I DON'T HAVE --

>> IS THERE SOME MORE QUESTIONS FOR JACOB? JACOB, DID YOU WANT MS. GIBSON TO SAY ANYTHING? JACOB, OBVIOUSLY THIS HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST.

WHERE THE TIMELINE EXPIRES BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY MOVING PARTS IN ALL OF THIS AND I'M TRYING TO GET EVERYBODY TO TALK TOGETHER. ARE IS EVERYBODY ELSE ISSUING US THE 12 -- THE WRITTEN LETTER AFTER THE 12 MONTHS?

>> OUR PEOPLE -- >> I DON'T MEAN THAT IN AN ABSOLUTE SENSE OF A DAY OR TWO BUT I MEAN SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN ONGOING LIKE THIS IN OTHER SITUATIONS BECAUSE CERTAINLY THIS IS NOT UNIQUE IN THE FACT THAT THEY'VE GOT TO GET ALL THESE OTHER APPROVALS TOGETHER. SO IT MUST BE COMMON PLACE.

>> SURE. THIS PARTICULAR SITE PLAN WITH THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE AN EXTRA PERMITTING THROUGH DEP THAT IS REQUIRED THROWS IN KIND OF AN EXTRA STEP THAT TYPICALLY I THINK ASA MENTIONED IT BEFORE YOU CAN EVEN SUBMIT THAT APPLICATION YOU HAVE TO HAVE A LETTER FROM THE CITY STATING YOU'RE APPLY, OUR LOCAL DEVELOPMENT CODES AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHERE I THINK MORE TRADITIONALLY WHEN SITE PLANS ARE MOVING THROUGH THE CITY'S PROCESS AND THE SITE PLAN REVIEW THEY'RE ALSO MOVING THROUGH WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND OTHER PERMITTING AGENCIES MORE IN A STREAM LINE MANNER. SO THAT'S UNIQUE IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE. DO WE HAVE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDERS THAT HAVE -- WE'VE RECEIVED WRITTEN REQUESTS FOR EXTENSIONS? ? CERTAINLY. WHERE WE'VE HAD TO EXTEND VARIANCE REQUESTS AND OTHER THINGS.

I'VE NOT BEEN INVOLVED WITH ANOTHER SITE PLAN OTHER THAN THE ONE I MENTIONED AT THE JAMESTOWN ROAD WHERE THEY'VE COME UP TO AN EXPIRATION. WE'VE RENDERED IT EXPIRED AND HAD TO PUT IT BACK THROUGH THE PROCESS.

BUT, YES. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT AFFECTS OTHER PROJECTS AS WELL. THE DEP ASPECT OF IT THROWS IN AN EXTRA LAYER.

>> AND IS THAT SOMETHING THAT IF A PERSON SEPT YOU A LETTER -- SENT YOU A LETTER, WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD AUTOMATICALLY BE APPROVED OR WOULD THERE BE AN APPROVAL PROCESS WHERE THAT MAY BE DENIED OR JUST THE FACT THAT THEY SUBMIT THE LETTER WOULD THEY QUALIFY FOR IT?

>> THEY WOULD QUALIFY FOR IT BASED ON SUBMITTING THE REQUEST.

THE SODIUM SPECIFICALLY SAYS -- >> I KNOW THERE WAS SOME VERBIAGE IN THERE ABOUT DUE DILIGENCE OR THEY WERE CONTINUING TO PURSUE THEIR OTHER PERMITS.

>> THE LAST SENTENCE SPEAKS TO THE APPLICANT MUST PROVIDE A REQUEST IN WRITING. REQUEST IN WRITING AND ANY

[01:25:04]

EXTENSION IF ISSUED IMPLYING THAT THERE'S REASON TO DENY IT.

BUT IF THE REQUEST IS MADE, THERE WOULD BE NO REASON FOR US TO DENY A REQUEST ESPECIALLY GIVEN KNOWING THAT THEY WERE MOVING THROUGH OTHER AGENCY APPROVALS.

>> OKAY. I THINK THEY SHOULD HAVE FILED A WRITTEN APPLICATION. THE OTHER THING I WOULD ASK IS I KEEP HEARING ABOUT THE ZONING. WHAT THE DOES THE FEW WHICH OUR LAND USE MAP -- FUTURE LAND USE MAP SAY ABOUT THAT PARCEL?

>> I'M GOING TO DEFER THAT TO MR. MRAT.

>> THE TWO PARCELS IN QUESTION HAVE A C1 ZONING IN GENERAL

COMMERCIAL LAND USE. >> CAN YOU BRING THE MAP UP? I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT, MR. CHAIR.

I ASSUME MS. DICKENS THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT TO SEE, THE MAP.

>> WELL, I JUST WASN'T SURE WHETHER -- BECAUSE I KEPT HEARING YOU TALK ABOUT THE SHONING BUT I WASN'T SURE WHETHER THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL WAS THE ZONING OF THE --

>> IT'S BOTH. IT MATTER OF FACTS.

TLTS THE LAND USE MAP. >> SO THE QUESTION ABOUT WHY WAS THE PARCEL NORTH OF THAT RECENTLY REDONE.

DOES ANYBODY KNOW WHY THAT WAS -- WAS THAT TO BRING IT INTO

COMPLIANCE WITH SOMETHING? >> IT WAS NOT -- DO YOU REMEMBER? THE APPLICATION MADE IN 2016 WAS PRIVATELY ISSUED AN APPLICATION.

THE PROPERTY HAD BEEN HISTORICALLY USED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES AND NOT FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT WANT TO CONTEMPLATE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON IT AT ANY POINT IN THE FUTURE. AND SO THEY MADE THE REQUEST TO CHANGE IT TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL IN KEEP, THE

REMAINDER OF THAT BLOCK FACE. >> OKAY.

>> THANK YOU.

>> BUT THAT WOULD JUST BE MY COMMENT.

I DO THINK THAT WE NEED A STRICTER -- WE NEED LESS HANDSHAKING AND DEALS MADE AND AGREEMENTS THAT DON'T LIVE UP TO OUR CITY CODE WHAT WE SAY WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING.

THANK YOU. >> MA'AM, BEFORE YOU SIT DOWN, I

DIDN'T CATCH YOUR ADDRESS. >> 132 SOUTH 15TH STREET.

>> OKAY. >> IN THE CITY.

>> ALL RIGHT. SO I WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING TONIGHT AND TO SPEAK OUT.

ALL THESE BOARDS WERE ESTABLISHED BY OUR CITY COMMISSION SO THAT WE CAN HAVE A FORUM SO THAT EVERYBODY CAN SPEAK AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE MIND OF PEOPLE AND WE ONLY KNOW IF YOU GET IN FRONT OF THE TABLE AND SPEAK.

WE VALUE THAT INPUT VERY MUCH. THANK YOU FOR COMING.

IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE HERE TONIGHT FOR THE RECORD THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS BEFORE WE CLOSE OUT PUBLIC PORTION OF THIS? AND HEARING NONE WE'VE CLOSED THAT OUT.

AND YES, SIR THAT'S BACK TO YOU, SIR.

>> SORRY ABOUT BEING AN MARIONETTE.

[01:30:16]

JUST BY WAY OF CLOSING ONE LOOP, THE FAMILY WHO SOLD AMELIA 1962 IS THE FAMILY THAT HELD ON TO 1940.

SO THEY KNEW WHAT THE INTENDED PURPOSE WAS WHEN THEY SOLD AND SO I THINK THERE'S NOT BEEN A SECRET THAT BETWEEN THEM THAT IT'S -- THAT THEY INTENDED TO KEEP THEIRS RESIDENTIAL AND THAT THEY KNEW THEY WERE SELLING IT FOR THIS PARCEL, THE NORTHERN PARCEL FOR A COMMERCIAL PURPOSE. ALSO, GOD HELP ME.

I'M SLIGHTLY LAWYER LIKE HERE. AND TAMMY AND I TALKED ABOUT THIS. WE'VE ACTUALLY HAD A VERY GOOD BACK AND FORTH THROUGHOUT MY REPRESENTATION AS SHE HAD WITH THERESA PRINCE BEFOREHAND. THE EXPIRATION ORDINANCE HAS TWO SUBSECTIONS FOR EXTENSION AND I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THEY HAVE TO BE READ ALTERNATIVELY. THEY CAN'T BE READ TOGETHER.

THE ONE THAT LIMITS YOU TO TWO SIX-MONTH EXTENSIONS IS SUBSECTION C. SUBSECTION C BASICALLY SAYS YOU DO THESE TASKS AND YOU CAN GET UP TO TWO SIX MONTH EXTENSIONS.

AND THAT IS WRITTEN REQUEST FOR EXTENSION SUBMITTED SO REALLY THE BOTTOM LINE IS HOWEVER YOU READ TONIGHT, I DON'T THINK THAT WE'RE LIMITED TO TWO SIX MONTH EXTENSIONS BECAUSE D APPLIES TAT DOES D APPLY? WE HAVE NOT SAID THAT THERE WAS ANY MINISTERIAL TASK. NEITHER HAS STAFF.

THERE'S NO DEBATE. SUBSECTION D SAYS YOU CAN GO BEYOND 12 MONTHS PROVIDED THE APPLICANT CAN DEMONSTRATE PROOF OF DUE DILIGENCE TO OBTAIN SUCH APPROVALS DURING THE INITIAL APPROVAL PERIOD. TAKING THAT LITERALLY MEANS ALL WE HAVE TO DO IS SHOW THAT WE'RE ACTING IN GOOD FAITH FOR THE FIRST 12 MONTHS. I THINK THAT IS SORT OF UNDOABLE HERE BECAUSE -- WE COULD NOT GET WITHIN THE INITIAL 12 MONTHS.

WE COULD ONLY GET AFTER THE INITIAL APPROVAL.

THE BOTTOM LINE IS WE HAVE TO SHOW DUE DILIGENCE.

I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY DEBATE THAT THERE WAS DUE DILIGENCE IN SEEKING THE ADDITIONAL APPROVALS.

IT IS DEMONSTRATE PROOF OF DUE DILIGENCE TO OBTAIN SUCH APPROVALS, THE ADDITIONAL APP APPROVALS. THE ONLY QUESTION BEYOND THAT IS IS THERE AN ARGUMENT FOR EQUITABLE TOLLING GIVEN THAT AS HAS BEEN STATED THERE IS NO 12 MONTH NOTICE IN THE COMPLIANCE LETTER AT THE TIME. THERE WASN'T.

IT'S IN YOUR RECORD. IT'S NOT IN THE JANUARY 27, 2017, LETTER. PLEASE ALLOW ME TO MAKE THE CON CLUES SORRY STATEMENT IF STAFF DIDN'T KNOW UNTIL AFTER THE FACT AND IF WE DIDN'T KNOW UNTIL AFTER THE FACT, MAYBE THERE'S A BASIS FOR EQUITABLE TOLLING HERE PARTICULARLY GIVEN THAT WE'RE GOING TO LOSE SEVEN TO EIGHT UNITS AND TEN TO 20% OF COMMON

AND PARKING SPACE >> WHAT DOES EQUITABLE TOLLING

[01:35:04]

MEAN? >> IT'S A PROCESS IN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW WHERE YOU WAIVE STRICT COMPLIANCE BECAUSE EVERYBODY KNOWS WHAT'S GOING ON. EVERYBODY KNOWS WHAT THE APPLICATION IS. EXAMPLES ARE FORMS AREN'T WHERE THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE. YOU DON'T HAVE IT -- AN EXAMPLE IS LIKE YOU FILE A TANK APPLICATION FOR CLEAN UP ELIGIBILITY. YOU DO IT BY EMAIL SAY HERE'S THE CLEAN UP. YOU DON'T DO IT ON THE FORM.

AS A GENERAL RULE, EQUITABLE TOLLING IS A CONCEPT IN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW WHERE THE POINT IS EVERYBODY KNOWS WHAT WAS GOING ON. NOTHING IS HIDDEN.

THERE'S NO BAD FAITH. AND YOU SIMPLY TRY TO GIVE RELIEF AND AS YOUR LEARNED STAFF HAVE POINTED OUT, THEY NOW GIVE THE 12 MONTH NOTICE. THIS IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN AGAIN. THIS IS A VESTIGE OF A PRIOR FORM AND PRIOR TIME AND IF YOU DO NOT GRANT THE EQUITABLE TOLLING, IF YOU DO GO WITH THE ABSOLUTE STRICT INSTRUCTION THAT STAFF IS SAYING, IT'S IN THE FACE OF EVEN STAFF NOT REALIZING AT THE TIME THAT WE WERE GOING PAST THAT TIME WHILE EVERYBODY IS GOING BACK AND FORTH AND TALKING ABOUT WHAT DO YOU HAVE, WHAT ELSE IS THERE, HOW MUCH LONGER IS IT GOING TO TAKE.

AND THAT'S BASICALLY WITHOUT BELABORING IT ANYMORE.

I WANT TO CONCLUDE BY SAYING, A, YOUR STAFF HAS BEEN PROFESSIONAL AND WONDERFUL TO DEAL WITH, I FIRST DEALT WITH YOUR STAFF WHEN WESLEY POOLE WAS YOUR CITY ATTORNEY AND WE WERE DOING EVERYTHING UP IN HIS CONVERSATION ROOM.

YOUR STAFF IS -- CONFERENCE ROOM AND YOUR STAFF HAS BEEN AMAZING EVER SINCE BUT WE HAPPEN TO RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE AND WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THE IMPACT OF NOT GRANTING WHAT WE BELIEVE IS THE FAIR RESULT HERE, A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AND STARLITING OVER AGAIN IS A SNACKED IMPACT AND BECAUSE WE HAVE THE SAME OWNER NEXT DOOR WHO IS NOT HERE I THINK IT SPEAKS VOLUMES AS FAR AS THE IMPACT.

THANK YOU.

>> BEFORE YOU SIT DOWN, SIR. >> AND PERHAPS THIS MAY BE

BETTER AIMED AT ASA. >> IF IT IS, I'LL BRING HIM UP.

>> SO WHEN WOULD PERMITS SUBMITTED IF THEY WERE DONE LINEARLY.

I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT DATES. >> OOPL TRYING TO ESTABLISH IF THERE WAS A LINEAR TIMEFRAME TO THAT, USUALLY WHEN PERMITS ARE SUBMITTED, THEY'RE SUBMITTED ALL AT ONCE AND THEN YOU DEVELOP SOMETHING AND THERE'S A FEE ASSOCIATED WITH IT THAT HAS TO GET APPROVED BY THE OWNER AND IT'S SENT OUT.

>> CORRECT. >> MY QUESTION IS, AND THIS IS TRYING TO ESTABLISH A YEAR TIMEFRAME OR TWO YEAR TIMEFRAME.

WERE THEY ALL SENT OUT AT THE SAME TIME?

>> NO, THEY WERE NOT.

>> AND WHAT CAUSED THE DELAY? >> WHAT HAPPENS IS WE CAN'T GO TO DEP UNTIL WE GET THE COMPLIANCE LETTER FROM THE CITY SO BASICALLY WE HAD TO GO THROUGH THE FULL TRC PROCESS TO GET THAT COMPLIANCE LETTER BECAUSE IT'S SUCH A COMPLEX PROJECT THE CITY PREFERRED NOT TO ISSUE THAT.

SO AT THAT POINT WE SUBMITTED TO DEP AND SHORTLY FOLLOWING THAT WE SUBMITTED TO WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT.

WE HAD QUITE A FEW AS YOU PROBABLY KNOW FROM DEALING WITH DEP AND/OR THE DISTRICT WE HAD QUESTIONS WE HAD TO ANSWER AND THAT KIND OF STUFF. DOT WAS OUR LAST GUY TO GO IN.

MAINLY BECAUSE WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF OUR SPOT ELEVATIONS AND DRAINAGE AND EVERYTHING WITH WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND DEP WERE COMPLIANT BEFORE GOING INTO DOT.

SO THERE'S A STAGGERING OF THOSE SUBMITTAL TIMES.

[01:41:03]

SGLING IT'S SUBSECTION D THERE. THAT'S THE PROVISION IN OUR CODE. AND THE WAY THAT WE READ THAT AS STAFF IS THIS PROVIDES FOR THE STATE LEVEL PERMITTING AND IN LOOKING AT IT NOW FOR PURPOSES OF THIS HEARING, I CAN SAY I DON'T DISAGREE FOR PURPOSES OF THIS HEARING THAT THERE IS NO CAP HERE. YOU CAN DEFINITELY READ IT THAT WAY. THOUGH MUST REQUEST IN WRITING ANY EXTENSION IF ISSUES WHICH ALSO THE CITY DOESN'T HAVE TOO GRANT THE EXTENSION. WE CANNOT BE ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS BUT I THINK IT ALLOWS US FOR SOME DISCRETION ON THE PART OF CITY STAFF BUT THAT I'M FINE STIPULATING THAT THERE'S NOT A CAP BECAUSE I CAN READ THIS SUBSECTION D THAT WAY AND FOR THESE LARGER PROJECTS THAT REQUIRE STATE PERMITTING BUT I DON'T THINK THAT CHANGES THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NEVER A REQUEST MADE TO THE CITY. MAYBE HE DIDN'T KNOW THAT THIS EXISTED SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION BEFORE HE SITS DOWN.

>> I'VE GOT ONE. ARE WE ALLOWED TO THINK ABOUT THAT R 3 ZONING BECAUSE I AM VERY FAMILIAR WITH THAT.

THE CITY -- I MEAN, YOU'RE LIABLE TO HAVE MORE PROBLEMS WITH THAT THAN THE WHOLE HOTEL. IT CAN BE A NIGHTMARE.

THAT'S PROBABLY WHY HE'S NOT HERE.

HE WANTS TO PARK NEXT DOOR. ALL THOSE PEOPLE.

I'M JUST THROWING THAT OUT. I JUST WONDERED ABOUT THAT.

BECAUSE WHEN YOU'RE RENTING, HIGH TRAFFIC RENTALS, FIVE AND SIX BEDROOMS, IT'S VERY LUCRATIVE.

I JUST GOT PROJECTIONS ON THE ONE BETWEEN THE TWO BIG CONDOS AND HE'S FIRST YEAR $250,000. THAT'S A LOT.

ARE WE READY TO JUST DELIBERATE ON THE BOARD?

>> IF I COULD JUST ADD ONE IT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THIS LETTER ISSUED IN 2017 BUT IT'S NOT THAT WE WERE NOT AWARE OF THE SECTION OF CODE. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR.

>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

[01:45:04]

>> DID I SAY YOUR NAME RIGHT? >> YES.

>> WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU WANTED TO SAY? I COULD SEE THAT THE WHEELS WERE TURNING BACK THERE ON THE BACK ROW AND I JUST DIDN'T WANT TO CUT YOU OFF IF YOU HAD SOMETHING ELSE, SIR.

>> JUST ONE MORE THING. ONE SMALL THING.

I JUST WANT TO EMPHASIZE AS ASA TESTIFIED ORIGINALLY REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE 12 MONTH WAS, THERE'S NO DEBATE THAT ORIGINALLY STAFF SAID CONGRATULATIONS MOVE ON TO THE BUILDING PERMIT. AND THEN ON FURTHER REVIEW SAID WE BELIEVE THE TIME EXPIRED. SO JUST AS A CLARIFICATION OF THE RECORD, THE FIRST TIME THAT THAT EXPIRATION WAS BROUGHT UP WAS AFTER EVERYBODY WRAPPED UP AND SAID YOU'VE WON.

>> AND YOU BELIEVE THAT WAS IN THE EMAIL THAT YOU RECEIVED.

>> AND ASA ACTUALLY HAD FURTHER COMMUNICATIONS.

>> IF YOU'RE ASKING ME DID -- WAS I AWARE OF IT, NO.

WAS IT PART OF MY RESPONSIBILITY, YES.

SAME THING STAFF COULD PROBABLY SAY TOO.

I'M NOT TRYING TO SAY STAFF WAS NOT AWARE.

>> OKAY. >> LIKE I SAID, IT WAS WE FELT WE HAD GOOD COMMUNICATION AND EVERYBODY WAS ON THE SAME PAGE.

>> TO HAVING TO GO ALL THE WAY BACK AND REPEAT THIS PROCESS.

CITY STAFF PROBABLY CAN'T NOT SAY AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. I DO THINK WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO TAKE THINGS LIKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.

MAYBE.

MAYBE NOT. EVEN NOT.

>> CAN I BE CLEAR ARE WE APPROVING TWO DIFFERENT CONDITIONS? ONE APPROVING THIS AS IS OR ARE WE APPROVING THIS TO GIVE THEM THE AUTHORIZATION TO GO BACK

[01:50:06]

THROUGH AND HAVE TO GO THROUGH TRC AGAIN.

ONE CHANGES BASED ON THE DEVELOPMENT -- IT WILL FORCE THE

SITE PLAN CHANGE. >> I'M GOING TO ASK MRS. GIBSON TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. THAT OKAY? THAT'S ABOUT THE PROCESS.

>> NO OBJECTION.

>> OKAY. >> I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN PICK ME UP BACK HERE.

>> HE SAID NO OBJECTION. MS. GIBSON, CAN YOU EXPLAIN?

>> SO MY UNDERSTANDING WITH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS THAT YOU DO HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF LATITUDE WITH RESPECT TO RENDERING A DECISION ASSOCIATED WITH THIS CASE.

YOU HAVE A CHANGE THAT OCCURRED TO THE NORTHERN PARCEL OF PROPERTY SUBSEQUENT TO THE PROPERTY MOVING THROUGH TRC AND RECEIVING SITE PLAN APPROVAL PERHAPS YOU WOULD CONSIDER A VARIANCE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT FIVE FOOT CHANGE BETWEEN THE TWO WITH RESPECT TO THE SET BACKS THAT WOULD BE APPLIED ON THAT NORTHERN PROPERTY. BUT, AGAIN, SEND IT THROUGH.

THE TRC REVIEW PROCESS. IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH IT AS A

NEW SITE PLAN. >> THE QUESTION WAS I THINK IF THE APPEAL IS APPROVED. AM I RIGHT? IF THE APPEAL IS APPROVED.

WHAT IS THE NEXT STEP? MY UNDERSTANDING IS BUILDING PERMITTING.

HOWEVER, THERE ARE SOME -- >> CONDITIONALIZE.

>> THAT'S THE QUESTION. IF THE APPEAL IS APPROVED.

WHAT'S THE NEXT STEP. >> CAN YOU APPROVE THE APPEAL AND HAVE THEM STILL GO THROUGH THE TRC? OR CAN YOU APPEAL IT -- CAN YOU APPROVE IT WITHOUT HAVING TO DO

THE TRC AGAIN? >> I THINK THAT'S UP TO THE BOARD SINNED THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PROCESS TO WORK YOU HAVE LATITUDE THERE TO ISSUE DECISIONS.

>> YOU CAN DEFINITELY PUT SOME CONDITIONS ON IF YOU DECIDE TO APPROVE IT. YOU CAN PUT SOME CONDITIONS BASED ON EVIDENCE.

>> I SEE THIS AS A BLACK AND WHITE ISSUE WHERE EVERYONE STIPULATES THAT THEY DID NOT MEET THAT OBLIGATION BUT THEN I ALSO SEE THAT JACOB DID STATE OR CITY STAFF DID STATE THAT IF THEY DID APPLY IN THIS LETTER TO EXTEND IT THAT THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN EXTENDED. THERE WOULD BE NO REASON FOR THEM NOT TO ACTS TEND IT. -- EXTEND IT.

AND LOOKING AT MY DATES FROM THE TIME THAT THEY GOT THEIR TRC LETTER AND THE 12 MONTHS LATER WOULD HAVE BEEN THE TRC WOULD HAVE BEEN 2017, THE SPRING OF 2017 SO 12 MONTHS LATER WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SPRING OF 2018 AND THEN BASED ON WHAT MR. GILETTE SAID THE RED FLAG WENT UP ALMOST 14 MOS LATER.

SO OBVIOUSLY WE WERE IN CONTINUING DISCUSSIONS DURING THAT 14 MONTH PERIOD. I COULD BE OFF A MONTH OR TWO BASED ON THAT BUT IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT?

>> IT'S A FAIR STATEMENT. CERTAINLY WE TALKED ABOUT IT.

>> SURE.

THERE JUST DOESN'T SEEM TO STRICTLY -- ANY REASON TO STRICTLY ENFORCE THIS REQUIREMENT FOR A WRITTEN REQUEST. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN APPROVED.

THERE'S NOBODY HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST IT.

SAYING, HEY, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT GO BACK THROUGH FOR WHATEVER REASON.

>> PERHAPS THERE WAS ONE PERSON THAT DID SPEAK THAT SAID AGAINST IT. SO, YES.

I THINK HE WAS MORE OR LESS REFERRING TO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS OR THAT. YEAH.

SO WE DIDN'T MEAN TO DISREGARD YOUR STATEMENTS, MA'AM.

>> AND STAFF IS DOING WHAT THE PUBLIC COMMENTS REQUESTED.

THE STAFF IS DOING THAT. STAFF DID DO I GUESS WHAT PUBLIC COMMENTS WERE ABOUT. THEY'RE ENFORCING IT STRICTLY BUT AS A BOARD, I DON'T SEE I JUST DON'T SEE ANY REASON WE NEED TO.

[01:55:43]

WOULD WE HAVE A LEGAL OR PERHAPSES A BROADER QUESTION AND WHEN I SAY WE I MEAN THE CITY, WOULD WE HAVE A LEGAL OR MORAL OBLIGATION THAT DURING THOSE 14 MONTHS TO SAY YOU KNOW THAT THERE'S A PROBLEM HERE. WE CAN CONTINUE TO TALK ABOUT THIS BUT YOU KNOW THAT YOU'VE GOT A REAL PROBLEM.

DO WE HAVE SOME EXPOSURE THERE FOR NOT NOTIFYING THEM?

>> I MEAN I THINK THAT THE APPLICANT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR BEING FAMILIAR WITH THESE RULES AND I THINK AS BEST PRACTICE FOR THE CITY PROBABLY TO DO WHAT THEY'RE DOING NOW WHICH IS WHEN THEY APPROVE SOMETHING, WRITE HOW LONG THE APPROVAL IS FOR WHEN IT EXPIRES AND PROBABLY ADVISE THEM VERBALLY AT THE HEARING ON THE RECORD. YOU KNOW.

GIVING AWE APPROVAL AND IT'S VALID OR ET EXPIRES IN SIX OR 12 MONTHS OR WHATEVER THE PARTICULAR I ATTEMPT IS.

EDGE THAT'S -- ITEM IS. IT DOES SEEM IN THESE SITUATIONS DUE TO NO BAD INTENTIONS ON ANYBODY'S PART THAT IT DID FALL THROUGH THE CRACKS. I CAN SEE THE POINT OF HAVING STRICT INTERPRETATION AND I WOULD ALSO JUST POINT OUT AND I DON'T MAYBE I'M SPEAKING OUT OF TURN BUT IT'S A STRAINED READING TO SAY THAT THEY COULD FILE THE EXTENSION AFTER THE 12 MONTHS HAS EXPIRED PERHAPS BUT IT WOULD BE MORE CLEAR WHEN YOU'RE LIMITING SOMEONE'S PROPERTY RIGHTS TO FOR OUR GOVERNMENT TO BE MORE CLEAR ABOUT WHAT IS REQUIRED.

BOTH WHEN THEY EXTEND THE INITIAL GRANT THE REQUEST, THE LAND DEVELOPMENT -- THE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER AND WHEN THEY'RE WRITING THESE STATUTES. AND I CAN UNDERSTAND THE EQUITABLE TOLLING. THERE ARE -- THERE IS CASE LAW THAT TALKS ABOUT DIFFERENT SITUATIONS WHERE EQUITABLE TOLLING IS APPLICABLE AND I THINK THAT THIS BOARD DOES HAVE THE DISCRETION TO APPLY THAT PRINCIPLE IN THE SITUATION OR HAVE A STRICT INTERPRETATION AND DENY IT.

IT'S UNFORTUNATE THOUGH AS WELL THAT THE CITY SENT A LETTER SAYING THAT IT WAS APPROVED AND THEN THEY'RE TRYING TO REEL THAT BACK. I MEAN, IT DOES -- THERE IS AN EQUITABLE I THINK CONSIDERATION IN REGARD TO THAT AS WELL.

>> YES, MA'AM. >> FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH.

>> YES, MA'AM. WELL, THAT'S -- THAT'S WHY WE'RE >> SO WAS THERE ANYMORE DISCUSSION FROM THIS END? SO I GUESS BEFORE WE ENTERTAIN A MOTION, WE SHOULD DISCUSS POSSIBLY WHAT THAT MOTION MAY OR MAY NOT BE. AND THEN IF WE WANTED TO MAKE CONDITIONS AS YOU HAD TALKED ABOUT EARLIER, TO BE SURE THAT EVERYBODY IS ON THE SAME PAGE.

JACOB, WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY THAT THIS IS THEIR LAST HURDLE? THAT IF THIS WAS APPROVED TONIGHT, THAT EVERYTHING ELSE IS IN ORDER FOR THEM TO GET THEIR PERMITS AND GET ON WITH THEIR

PROJECT? >> THEY STILL NEED ASSOCIATE BUILDING PERMITS AND WE'D HAVE TO REVIEW PERMITS WITH COMPLIANCE WITH THAT SITE PLAN AND ANY OTHER APPLICABLE CODE SECTIONS.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS MOTION IS GOING TO TAKE PLACE ANYWAY. IT'S NOT LIKE WHEN WE GRANT

[02:00:01]

OTHER VARIANCES. IT'S SOMETHING THAT COMES FROM THE CHAIRMAN THAT SAYS ONE

THING. >> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION BECAUSE WE'VE ONLY EVER DONE ONE OTHER APPEAL. I'M NOT THAT FAMILIAR WITH THEM. ARE WE GOING TO MAKE A MOTION AND THEN VOTE ON IT? AND THEN IT WILL GO THROUGH LIKE THAT?

>> THAT'S NORMALLY WHAT WE DO. >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

>> I THINK THE DIFFERENCE HERE IS THAT YOU DON'T GET A PROPOSED MOTION LIKE YOU DO IN REPORTS.

I LOOKED THROUGH ELECTRONICALLY FOR IT. >> JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, IS

THE VOTING GOING TO HAVE TO BE UNANIMOUS? >> YES.

>> MISS VALERIE? >> YES. >> AND SEPARATE OR DO WE VOTE ON

BOTH AT THE SAME TIME? >> I THINK YOU SHOULD VOTE ON THEM SEPARATELY.

IT WOULD BE BETTER PRACTICE. >> OKAY. SO THEN BACK TO OUR ISSUE OF A MOTION TO DO WHATEVER IT WOULD PLEASE THE BOARD. WHAT'S YOUR INCLINATION TOWARDS THAT AND WOULD WE WANT TO PUT SOME SORT OF STIPULATION? ON THAT.

>> THAT'S A HARD QUESTION TO ANSWER BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE SITE IN FRONT OF US TO GRAPHICALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT THE IMPACT ACTUALLY IS. WHEREAS FIVE FEET MAY MEAN NOTHING AS THIS FAR. IT MAY MEAN SOMETHING IN THE PARKING OR SLOPE OR ET CETERA.

>> WHY CAN'T THEY CONSIDER THIS WHEN THEY APPLY FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT? WHY CAN'T THEY MAKE CHANGES A NEW REQUIREMENT AS PART OF A BUILDING PROCESS.

>> I WOULD SAY APPROVING OR DENYING, UPHOLDING THE -- >> THE SITE PLAN.

>> IT'S LATE. GRANTING THEIR APPEAL AND APPROVING THE FACT THAT THEIR SITE PLAN IS NOT EXPIRED RENDERS THAT SITE PLAN APPROVAL GOOD AND STILL VALID FOR THEIR BUILDING PERMIT. SO WE DON'T HAVE ANY RECOURSE IN SAYING, YOUR SITE PLAN IS APPROVED BUT NOW YOU GOT TO TAKE OFF ANOTHER FIVE FEET. THIS IS BASED ON -- THEIR

BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION IS BASED ON THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL. >> BUT WHAT HAPPENS, JACOB, WHEN YOU HAVE A SITE PLAN APPROVAL WITH A PICTURE AND A SITE PLAN. AND FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND FROM TESTIMONY TONIGHT, THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOME CHANGES MADE BASED UPON THE STATE'S REVIEWS AND APPROVAL. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN IT GOES IN TO PERMITTING BECAUSE THIS DOES HAPPEN. GOES -- A PLAN GOES IN TO PERMITTING AND SOMETHING SEEMS OFF, OR YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW IF THIS GOES IN TO PERMITTING, YOU KNOW SOMETHING IS OFF.

HOW DOES THAT PLAY OUT? >> THERE ARE SITE PLANS HAVE MINOR AND MAJOR AMENDMENTS.

SOME MINOR AMENDMENTS KICK IT BACK FOR FULL ONE SITE PLAN REVIEW.

IF WE COME BACK AND SAY THERE'S A PLAN THAT SHOWS IT COMES IN FOR BUILDING PERMIT AND SHOWS ONE HOTEL, FOR EXAMPLE, THIS SITE PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED ARE TWO COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT HOTELS. SO WE DO REVIEW THE WHOLE BUILDING PERMIT TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE THAT THAT ORIGINAL APPROVAL STILL HOLDS TRUE. AND ANY CHANGES THAT AFFECT THAT ORIGINAL SITE PLAN HAVE DIFFERENT RECOURSES THAT WOULD REQUIRE AMENDING THE SITE PLAN.

>> SO IT SOUNDS TO ME THAT PLANNING GETS -- WHEN SOMETHING IS SUBMITTED FOR BUILDING PERMITS AND THEY START SITE IMPROVEMENTS, YOU KNOW, BEFORE THE VERTICAL ELEMENTS GO UP, THAT THE PLANNING AND CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT GETS AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THAT AGAIN. AND WHEN THEY NOTICE, BEFORE THERE'S ANY PERMITS ISSUED.

AND IF THEY NOTICE THERE ARE DEVIATIONS, MINOR OR MAJOR DEVIATIONS.

IF THEY'RE MAJOR, I ASSUME THEY HAVE TO GO TO SITE PLAN REVIEW. >> DID THE SITE PLAN INCLUDE

DRAINAGE. >> YES, CERTAINLY. >> WAS THAT ANYTHING THAT WAS

CHANGED UPON THE STATE'S REVIEW? >> HOLD OFF ONE SECOND. HOLD ON.

MISS VALERIE, WE'VE CLOSED IT OUT. CAN HE COME BACK AND SAY

SOMETHING? >> I THINK YOU HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REOPEN THE HEARING IF YOU WANT TO HEAR MORE EVIDENCE. IT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD,

I BELIEVE. >> SURE. >> YES, SIR.

IF SOMEBODY ELSE HAS GOT SOMETHING THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SAY ON THIS, YES, I'D LIKE

[02:05:04]

TO. >> TO CLARIFY YOUR QUESTION. FROM WHAT JACOB WAS SAYING, WE HAVE AN APPROVED SITE PLAN. THE BUILDING PERMIT GETS SUBMITTED BASED ON THAT SITE PLAN. IF THERE'S DEVIATIONS IN THAT BUILDING RELATIVE TO WHAT THE SITE PLAN SHOWS, YOU HAVE BASICALLY ONE OR TWO ALTERNATIVES.

YOU EITHER REDESIGN THE BUILDING SO IT COMPLIES WITH WHAT THE SITE PLAN SAYS.

OR GO BACK TO ACCOMMODATE WHAT THE BUILDING DRAWING SHOWED, OR BOTH DEPENDING ON WHAT IT IS

YOU'RE DOING. >> WERE DRAINAGE PLANS SHOWN? >> YES.

WE HAD DRAINAGE PLANS APPROVED BY DOT AS WELL AS CITY STAFF. >> AND NONE OF THAT NEEDS TO BE

CHANGED? >> NO, SIR. >> OKAY.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. >> CAN I JUST POINT OUT ONE THING?

>> SURE. >> THE SECTION THAT DEALS WITH HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT USES TERMINOLOGY THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO YOU IN MAKING YOUR DECISION OR MOTION.

IT SAYS THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SHALL HEAR THE APPEAL AND SHALL DETERMINE WHETHER TO, NUMBER ONE, REVERSE, WHOLLY OR PARTLY THE DECISION THAT IS SUBJECT TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL.

NUMBER TWO, AFFIRM WHOLLY OR PARTLY THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION THAT IS SUBJECT TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL. OR MODIFY THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL. SO I THINK WHEN YOU DO MAKE A MOTION, WHAT YOU'RE STATING IS WHETHER YOU WANT TO REVERSE, AFFIRM OR MODIFY THE PRIOR DECISION.

>> THANK YOU. >> UH-HUH.

>> THAT WAS HELPFUL.

>> I WOULD BE OF THE OPINION TO THROW IT OUT THERE FOR DISCUSSION.

IS THAT WE, MEANING THE CITY, HAS CHANGED OUR PROCEDURES. IS THAT A GOOD WORD, JACOB.

THAT NOW WE'RE LETTING EVERYONE KNOW THIS 12 MONTHS IS GOING TO BE ENFORCED.

WE'VE PUT THAT ON SOME OF OUR LITERATURE NOW? >> IT'S ALWAYS BEEN ON OUR VARIANCE REQUEST SINCE IT'S BEEN IN THE CODE. THERE WAS A TIME WHEN IT WASN'T THERE. OUR LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDERS FOR TRC DO INCLUDE THAT NOW.

SO YES. THAT PARTICULAR LETTER HAS CHANGED.

BUT IT'S BEEN IN PLACE FOR MANY, MANY YEARS ON VARIANCE REQUESTS AND OTHER ITEMS. SO IT'S I GUESS A PARTIAL CHANGE IN THE TRC LETTER THAT WAS ISSUED IN 2017 DIDN'T HAVE IT.

BUT YES, WE HAVE MADE THAT CHANGE. >> AND IMPROVEMENT.

>> YES, SIR. >> CAN WE SAY THAT? EVERYBODY AGREE THAT WE'VE MADE IT? IMPROVEMENT. WE DID LET THIS ADMITTEDLY THE 14 MONTHS, THAT COULD BE AN ESTIMATE GO BY IN CONTINUING CONVERSATIONS.

AND THAT WE DO HAVE SOME EMAILS FROM DIFFERENT PARTIES. SO I WOULD TELL YOU THAT WE'RE CULPABLE ON THIS. IS THAT THE RIGHT WORD? WE'RE CULPABLE ON THAT BECAUSE

WE HAVE DONE THAT. >> CAN I CLARIFY IF WE ARE SAYING WE ARE REVERSING THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL, THAT MEANS WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL FOR WHERE THEY ARE CURRENTLY? IS THAT CORRECT?

>> REVERSING. >> REVERSING IS THE CORRECT WAY. >> REVERSING THE ADMINISTRATIVE

DECISION. >> IN JULY. >> THEY MEAN THE CITY HAS DECIDED THAT THIS IS -- THEY HAVE TO GO BACK TO TRC. SO WE WOULD --

>> THAT'S UP TO YOU ALL. >> OKAY. >> IF YOU DO A -- IF I MIGHT SAY SO, IF THE MOTION IS JUST TO REVERSE THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION, THEN IT MEANS THAT THE PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE, WELL DEPENDING IF YOU MAKE TWO MOTIONS THAT WAY.

THE PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE AN APPROVED SITE PLAN AND A VALID LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER.

PERIOD. >> AND IF THE VOTING IS NOT UNANIMOUS THEN THAT IS GOING TO

MEAN THAT NO. >> THERE'S AN EXPIRED LOCAL DEVELOPMENT.

[02:10:02]

>> YES. >> WE ARE DOING THIS AS TWO SEPARATE VOTES.

>> YES. >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO REVERSE 17 -- OR 1974.

TO 1903. ON THE BASIS OF THE DEMONSTRATION OF DILIGENCE.

AND CONTINUITY. WE'D START WITH THE FIRST ONE. THAT'S THE EASY PROPERTY.

THE SOUTH PROPERTY. >> SO I'VE GOT A MOTION ON FLOOR.

IS THERE A SECOND? ON THAT? >> I'LL SECOND.

>> SO I'VE GOT A FIRST AND A SECOND. >> AND THIS IS GOING TO BE ON

2019-03. >> SOUTHERN PROPERTY. THE ONE THAT'S NOT AFFECTED.

>> OKAY. >> I THINK THAT'S A GOOD PLACE TO START.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO SAMANTHA, WILL YOU PLEASE

CALL A VOTE ON THAT? >> MEMBER MAUK. >> YES.

>> MEMBER GLEESON. >> YES. >> CHAIRMAN MILLER.

>> YES. >> SO THAT ONE IS DONE.

>> I SEE IF WE TRY TO PUT SOME CONDITIONS ON THAT OF IT JUST GETTING OUT OF HAND.

I MEAN, I COULD BE -- >> I ABSOLUTELY AGREE. >> I COULD BE WRONG.

BUT I SEE THAT -- >> WHAT WOULD YOU -- >> WE DON'T KNOW.

WE CERTAINLY DON'T KNOW WHAT THE TRC LOOKS AT AND WHAT THEY DO. THEY WOULD BE BETTER EQUIPPED WITH THAT. UNLESS THERE'S SOMETHING THAT'S GLARING THAT WE WOULD WANT TO

DO. >> WE HAVE NO JUSTIFICATION FOR IT.

>> UH-UH. >> THERE'S NO SITE PLAN TO JUSTIFY THAT.

>> JUST LOOKING AT THE ZONING SETBACKS JUST TO SEE WHAT THE DIFFERENCE WAS.

>> AND THE REASON THE SITE PLAN WASN'T INCLUDED IS BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY WHAT WE'RE CONSIDERING IS THAT THE EXPIRATION. I THINK EVEN FIVE FEET ON THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT MAKES A HUGE DIFFERENCE. IT'S NOT LIKE SHAVE A LITTLE OFF HERE.

IT'S A BIG, BIG DIFFERENCE.

>> THAT'S WHAT I WAS LOOKING AT. WAS D. SO IF WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION THEN TO PUT ANY KIND OF CONDITIONS ON IT AND I DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT WE WOULD IF WE COULD. THAT MEANS WE HAVE ONE OF TWO CHOICES.

IT WOULD BE LIKE THE FIRST ONE. >> YEAH. AGREE.

>> WE'D HAVE TO REVERSE IT OR UPHOLD IT. >> UPHOLDING IT MEANS THAT THEY ARE FORCED TO GO BACK TO TRC AND MEET THE CURRENT ZONING REQUIREMENTS, WHICH FORCES REDESIGN SIGNIFICANT EFFORTS. AND ADDITIONAL COSTS. NOT NECESSARILY TO THE OWNER BUT

TO EVERY VESTED PARTY. >> CITY INCLUDED. >> CITY INCLUDED.

>> CITY INCLUDED, ABSOLUTELY. THERE'S TIME AND TREASURY INVOLVED IN THAT AS WELL.

>> BASED ON THE STIPULATION THAT THE OWNER SOLD THAT PROPERTY TO THE CURRENT HOMEOWNER, IF I

UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY. >> OTHER WAY. >> OH, OKAY.

SO THEY KNEW KIND OF WHAT THEY WERE GETTING IN TO. >> IT'S NOT LIKE A HOUSE.

[02:15:04]

>> CORRECT. CORRECT. >> WHY DON'T YOU MAKE ANOTHER

MOTION TO REVERSE. >> YEAH, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO REVERSE 2019-02 ON THE BASIS OF AGAIN, DILIGENCE AND CONTINUOUS ON THE EFFORTS OF THE ENGINEERING FOR MAINTAINING

PERMITS. >> SO I'VE GOT A MOTION, REVERSE MOTION.

DOES ANYONE WANT TO SECOND THAT? >> I WILL. >> OKAY.

DO I GOT A DIFFERENT SECOND? SAMANTHA, WILL YOU CALL PLEASE >> MEMBER GLEESON.

>> YES. >> MEMBER MAUK. >> YES.

>> CHAIRMAN. >> YES.

>> THERE YOU HAVE IT, SIR.

>> ALL I CAN SAY IS A, WE'RE REALLY SORRY. >> YES.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR COMING AND FOR YOUR PATIENCE.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >>> I JUST WANT YOU ALL TO KNOW THAT BECAUSE WE SIT UP THERE, JACOB AND I DO EVERY SINGLE MONTH AND I DON'T THINK I'VE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO SAY THAT THIS IS NOT PERSONAL AT ALL. I'M SPEAKING FOR JACOB.

HE CAN SPEAK FOR HIMSELF. BUT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE.

HE AND I. AND KELLY AND I. THESE PROVISIONS IN OUR CODE ARE LIKE THIS. AND VALERIE WILL AGREE AS AN ATTORNEY.

IF YOU DON'T HAVE THESE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS, THEN SOME PROJECTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS GET SO FAR IN TO A PROJECT THAT THEY FEEL COMPELLED AND FORCED BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE

AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE TO GO TO COURT. >> YEAH.

>> SO AS CITIZENS OF THE CITY, THAT IS NOT A GOOD USE OF TAXPAYER MONEY TO DEFEND THESE IN COURT. WE ALL SPEND OUR TIME HERE FOR A FEW HOURS.

AND THEY'VE BEEN DENIED. WE HAVE THE APPEAL ON SCHOOL STREET, REMEMBER, DENIED.

AND IT WAS OVER. BUT IT WAS DENIED AND THE PROJECT IS MOVING FORWARD.

ANYWAY, I JUST WANT YOU ALL TO KNOW WE DON'T THINK ABOUT THIS GOING AWAY LIKE, THAT DOGGONE BOARD. WE JUST DON'T THINK ABOUT IT AGAIN.

>> I CAN IMAGINE WHAT Y'ALL WERE GOING THROUGH WITH IT. >> YEAH.

THEY'RE HARD CASES. >> PAPERWORK. THINGS HAPPEN.

>> RIGHT. AND YOU'RE PROBABLY, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT WHAT WE MAY CONSIDER DOING, IT'S NOT ON OUR PRIORITY LIST. BUT IT'S A LITTLE BIT CONFUSING IN CHAPTER 11. I DON'T KNOW IF VALERIE GOT A CHANCE TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT.

BUT ON ONE HAND THERE'S A LIST OF ITEMS THAT CAN BE APPEALED. TYPES OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS. BUT RIGHT BEFORE THAT IT SAYS ANY ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION CAN BE APPEALED. SO WHAT, PARDON ME, I HAVE ARGUED OR MY OPINION HAS BEEN FOR THE CITY IS BECAUSE IT SAYS ANY APPEAL, LET'S ERR ON THE SIDE OF ALLOWING THEM TO APPEAL DECISIONS. I HAD A DISPUTE ONE TIME WITH LOCAL ATTORNEY JOHN LESIER ABOUT THAT. HE DIDN'T WANT IT TO HAPPEN AND IT WAS ON THE LIST.

I SAID RIGHT BEFORE THAT, IT'S A DECISION THAT CAN BE APPEALED. >> IS EVERYBODY CLEAR RIGHT NOW OF WHAT THE NEXT STEP NEEDS TO BE AND WHAT THE TIME LIMIT IS FOR THE NEXT STEP?

>> OH YEAH. >> I DON'T THINK WE'LL HAVE THAT ISSUE IN THE FUTURE.

>> WELL THIS IS A UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY HAVE TO

DO NEXT. >> I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO BE BACK BEFORE THE TECHNICAL REVIEW

COMMITTEE. WITH THEIR PLAN. >> IN THAT D, WASN'T THERE A

[02:20:05]

SENTENCE IN THERE THAT COULD BE MISCONSTRUED? ONE WORD

>> ALWAYS. ALWAYS. I MEAN, I DON'T EVEN KNOW THE WORD. BUT I CAN SAY THAT YOU HAVE THREE ATTORNEYS AND THREE DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS. I THINK, AND I SAY THIS ALL THE TIME, I'M SERIOUS ABOUT.

I THINK THAT IS REALLY BESIDES SNEAKY, DIRTY ATTORNEYS, WHICH NONE OF THEM WORK OVER HERE IN FERNANDINA OR NORTHEAST FLORIDA. BUT I KNOW WHERE THEY DO WORK. IS THAT WE ON ONE DAY, RIGHT, OR WE COULD HAVE DIFFERENT CLIENTS NOT ON DIFFERENT SIDES OF THE SAME ISSUE BUT MAYBE SIMILAR ISSUE BUT ON DIFFERENT SIDES. AND WE ARGUE, AND MR. GLEESON KNOWS THIS WELL, TOO.

WE CAN ARGUE STRAIGHT FACED FOR ONE. AND ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE STRAIGHT FACED. AND PEOPLE ARE LIKE, DO THEY EVEN HAVE A SOUL? YOU KNOW, RIGHT. I THINK THERE IS. I'VE THOUGHT ABOUT THAT A LOT.

IS WHY ARE ATTORNEYS NOT TRUSTED SOMETIMES. BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE DO.

WE'RE WORD DOCTORS. WE INTERPRET WORDS TO BENEFIT OUR CLIENTS, HOPEFULLY

>> TO CHANGE TO MAKE IT SO IT WOULDN'T BE THAT WAY. >> IT CAN GET BETTER.

IT CAN DEFINITELY GET BETTER. I'VE GOT SOME THOUGHTS TONIGHT FOR THOSE SECTIONS.

YOU WON'T BE SEEING IT ANYTIME SOON. BUT WE'LL GET TO IT.

IN THE MEANTIME, WE'VE HAD MORE APPEALS IN THE LAST TWO YEARS THAN IN THE 12 YEARS I'VE BEEN HERE. I DON'T THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE A TREND NECESSARILY WHERE YOU WOULD START HAVING ONE EVERY MONTH. BUT I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE ONE EVERY FEW YEARS.

YOU'RE GETTING REALLY GOOD AT IT. >> WELL JACOB AND HIS INFINITE WISDOM. REMEMBER WITH THE CATHOLIC SCHOOL.

AND I ASKED YOU, WE'RE GOING TO LET THEM HAVE THE TIME TO DO IT. AND I ASKED YOU HOW LONG.

AND YOU IMMEDIATELY SAID TWO YEARS. AND THEY HAD TWO YEARS.

>> STILL NOT THERE. >> I KNOW. >> MMM.

>> GETTING CLOSE. >> NOTHING IS FAST. IT HAS GOTTEN TO BE A NIGHTMARE

IN EVERY BUSINESS. >> I GUESS I WOULD ADD IT WAS VERY GOOD THAT YOU DENIED IT BECAUSE SOMEBODY COULD HAVE COME IN AT ANYTIME ONCE THEY STARTED CONSTRUCTION.

AND PEOPLE ARE NOT HAPPY WITH IT. THEY COULD HAVE COME IN, FOUND

OUT THAT IT EXPIRED. >> THAT'S A GOOD CALL. >> YOU KNOW, GOOD JOB REFERRING

IT TO THE BOARD HERE. >> IT'S TRUE. >> YOU WOULDN'T GIVE THEM A

BUILDING PERMIT, RIGHT? >> I THINK MR. GLEESON IS SAYING IS IF WE DIDN'T PUSH BACK AND SAY THE STRICT INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE SAYS YOU ARE EXPIRED AND SOMEBODY WANTS TO PUSH BACK AND MAKE THAT ARGUMENT, THEN WE'RE MAKING LIKE STAFF MADE HANDSHAKE DEALS AND SAID, YOU MOVE FORWARD EVEN THOUGH THIS SECTION OF CODE SAYS YOU'RE TECHNICALLY EXPIRED.

>> AND I THINK THAT'S KIND OF MY POINT. THAT WAS MR. GLEESON READING BETWEEN THE LINES A LITTLE BIT. IS YOU'RE GOING TO SEE MORE APPEALS FOR THAT REASON.

>> AND PEOPLE DO THINK THAT. >> THEY DO. WE'LL LET YOU ALL THAT ARE

APPOINTED AND NOT US THAT ARE PAID -- >> LET US TAKE THE HEAT.

>> THAT'S HOW I LOOK AT ALL VARIANCE THAT COMES BEFORE THE BOARD.

MAJORITY OF THEM COME WITH RECOMMENDATIONS. AS STAFF, I HAVE TO LOOK AT IT AS BLACK AND WHITE. THERE'S A VACANT LOT ACROSS THE STREET TO THE WEST SIDE OF WHERE MISS BREWER'S PLACE IS THAT'S A CORNER LOT. IT'S A SMALL LOT.

THEY HAVE THE SAME 15-FOOT SETBACK. IT APPLIES THE SAME TO THEM AS IT DOES TO MISS MARJORIE'S. BUT THE BOARD TAKES THAT IN. IT HAS A NOTICE.

IT HAS THE DISCRETION THAT I AS CITY STAFF SHOULD HAVE AND DON'T HAVE BECAUSE I CAN'T BE LIKE MRS. BREWER, AFRAID SHE'S GOING TO COME THROUGH THE DOOR AT ME WHEN I TELL HER NO.

SO YOU GUYS DO A GOOD JOB. APPRECIATE IT. >> THE THING IS THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY NEED FOR US IF WE WERE GOING TO DO EVERYTHING YOU SAID. WE WOULD NEVER HAVE --

>> YEAH. SO. >> ANYBODY ELSE?

>> OKAY. >> OR BUSINESS. >> I THINK I GOT A THUMBS DOWN

ON BOARD BUSINESS. >> I THINK EVERYBODY MIGHT WANT TO GO HOME.

[Items 5 & 9]

>> IS THERE ANYTHING THAT ANY BOARD MEMBERS WOULD LIKE TO SAY? ANY BUSINESS?

>> I'D LIKE TO SUGGEST WHEN WE START OUR MEETINGS, WE HAVE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE

[02:25:02]

FLAG. >> THAT'S SOMETHING I BROUGHT UP A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO.

THE CITY COMMISSION DOES IT. AND I DON'T REALLY HAVE A DOG IN THAT FIGHT.

OTHER THAN TO SAY THAT WHEN WE'RE ON POLAR OPPOSITES OF SOME OF THESE ISSUES, I DON'T KNOW THAT EVERYBODY WHO SAYS SOMETHING TOGETHER MIGHT BE A FORM OF UNITY.

>> THEY DON'T HAVE TO STAND. THEY CAN PROTEST. >> THEY CAN KNEEL, YES, WE'LL

OPEN UP THAT CAN OF WORMS. >> THAT'S NOT AN ISSUE. WE JUST PUT IT AS A LINE ON YOUR AGENDA AND GET IT DONE. AND YOU WOULD LEAD US, CHAIRMAN MILLER.

>> IF THAT PLEASES THE BOARD. >> PLEASE DO SO. >> I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT.

>> EVERYBODY AGREES. >> TISHA WOULD AGREE. >> OKAY.

SO WE'LL DO THAT NEXT TIME THEN. OKAY. AND THERE BEING NO FURTHER

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.