[Portions of the meeting does not contain audio] [1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL / DETERMINATION OF QUORUM] [00:00:35] >> VICE CHAIR, BUT THAT NEEDS TO READ MEMBER ROBIS. [3.1. Approval of Minutes from the Regular Meeting of October 8, 2025.] WE COULD MAKE SURE THAT CHANGE GETS TAKEN CARE OF. THE OTHER QUESTION IS FOR OUR ATTORNEY. JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT ON THE FOURTH PARAGRAPH WHEN YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE LIVE LOCAL ACT, THAT IS SENATE BILL 1730, THAT IS CORRECT? >> YES, AND YOU'RE ALSO REMINDING ME OF SOMETHING WE NEED TO CORRECT, BUT YOU KEEP GOING. YES. THAT IS CORRECT. THAT IS ACCURATE. >> THAT WAS MY CORRECTION, MR. CHAIRMAN. >> IF I MAY, FOR THE RECORD, JUST LET THE BOARD KNOW THAT WE ASKED LAST TIME IF THE CITY HAD AMENDED ITS DENSITY BACK TO THE LOWER DENSITY WITHIN THE TIME FRAME ALLOWED UNDER LIVE LOCAL, AND WE WERE ALL JUST TRYING TO DETERMINE IF WE HAD. IN THE RECORD, I SAID, YES, THAT THE CITY HAD ADOPTED ITS AMENDMENT TO THE DENSITY. IN A TIMELY FASHION THAT LIVE LOCAL WOULD NOT HAVE IMPACTED IT. HOWEVER, MARGARET PEARSON AND OUR PLANNER, WHEN SHE WAS LOOKING OVER THE MINUTES BROUGHT THE ORDINANCE TO MY ATTENTION, AND IT WAS NOT ADOPTED. THE LIVE LOCAL ACT WOULD IMPACT AND ALLOW THE HIGHER DENSITY. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLARITY THE MINUTES. WE'RE GOING TO PUT A BRACKET IN THE MINUTES TO JUST MAKE A POINT OF CLARIFICATION. >> I'M SORRY. THE CITY COMMISSION DIDN'T APPROVE IT? >> THE COMMISSION DID NOT APPROVE IT AUGUST OF 2024. THERE WAS A RETRO AND MISS PRINCE CAN SPEAK TO THE LEGALITY OF IT, BUT THERE WAS A SENATE BILL THAT REQUIRED YOU TO HAVE DONE IT BEFORE JULY 1ST, 2023. >> CORRECT. [BACKGROUND] THAT LIVE LOCAL, THAT 1730. YES, WHEN YOU ASKED ME, I THINK WE WERE ALL TRYING TO DETERMINE AND I THOUGHT THAT WE HAD DONE IT TIMELY, BUT IT HAS NOT BEEN. IT'S THERE. IT'S ON THE BOOKS. IT IS LEGAL. IT HAS BEEN DONE IN A LEGAL FASHION. HOWEVER, THE LIVE LOCAL ACT, IT'S NOT WITHIN THAT LOOK BACK. IT WAS NOT ADOPTED BEFORE THAT DATE. >> POINT OF CLARIFICATION. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE 34 BUILDING 18. >> YES, WE ARE. IF YOU APPROVE THE MINUTES, I'M PROPOSING THAT WE PUT A BRACKET IN THERE, JUST CLARIFYING FOR THE RECORD, SO THERE'S NOT MINUTES OUT THERE SAYING THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY SAYS THAT WE HAVE ADOPTED IT TIMELY. >> OKAY. >> THAT WAS A QUESTION I HAD, SO I'M GOOD. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES. >> ANY OBJECTION? >> AS DIRECTED? >> AS AMENDED. >> SECOND. [OVERLAPPING] >> SECOND. >> ALL IN FAVOR. [OVERLAPPING]. >> AYE. >> ANYONE OPPOSED. THEY'RE APPROVED. MARGARET, WILL YOU BE INTRODUCING OUR SPEAKER TONIGHT OR GLENN? [4.1 PRESENTATION — FLORIDA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMPANY — COMMUNITY UPDATE FPUC representatives will provide a community update presentation.] >> ACTUALLY, UNFORTUNATELY [INAUDIBLE] UTILITY COMPANY [INAUDIBLE] TONIGHT. BUT GLENN AND I MESS UP HIS LAST NAME. [LAUGHTER] THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE IS GOING TO GIVE YOU AN UPDATE ON PROGRESS SINCE THEY DID MAKE A PRESENTATION AT THE CITY COMMISSION MEETING ON OCTOBER 21ST. >> GOOD EVENING. >> GOOD EVENING. >> [INAUDIBLE] FOR THE CITY. I'LL TEACH YOU. [LAUGHTER] YES, THEY DECLINED TO SHOW UP TONIGHT, BUT AS MANY KNOW, THEY DID COME SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION RECENTLY. AFTER THAT, THERE WERE SOME ACTIONS TAKEN. I WANTED TO UPDATE YOU ON THOSE. FIRST IS THE DAY AFTER THE COMMISSION MEETING. THEY PUT ALL THE TURTLE LIGHT SHIELDS AND INSTALL ALL OF THE NEW LIGHTING OUT THERE THAT WE REQUIRE THEM TO DO TO PROTECT THE TURTLES. THEY RESOLVED THE SOLAR CUSTOMER BILLING ISSUE THAT WAS BROUGHT UP. THEY COORDINATED WITH AT&T AND AT&T MADE A CONTACT WITH US, [00:05:05] AND THAT IS PERTAINING TO REMOVING THE OLD POLES THROUGHOUT THE CITY. THEN THEY SCHEDULED A CONFERENCE CALL WITH CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE FOR THAT THURSDAY. ON THURSDAY THAT CONFERENCE CALL WAS HELD WITH THE FPU LEADERSHIP TEAM. WE ESTABLISHED COMMUNICATION EXPECTATIONS WITH THEM, AND THEN WE FORWARDED ALL OF THE PENDING CUSTOMER SERVICE CONCERNS TO THEM. THEY HAVE SINCE MADE CONTACT WITH OUR UTILITIES TEAM WHO WAS ALSO COORDINATING AND HAVING SOME OF THOSE COMPLAINTS WE'RE GOING THROUGH THE THERE. THEY'VE CLARIFIED THAT. I TALKED TO THE CITY MANAGER TODAY AND THEY HAVE MADE A NUMBER OF CHANGES IN THEIR CUSTOMER SERVICE PROTOCOLS TO IMPROVE WAIT TIMES AND THE SUCH. COMMUNITY MEMBERS HAVE TESTED THAT BECAUSE THEY NEEDED TO, AND IT HAS IMPROVED. IT'S STILL NOT WHERE WE WANT IT, BUT IT IS IMPROVED. THEN AT THE END OF THAT WEEK, AT&T BEGAN REMOVING SERVICES FROM THE POLES ON 14TH STREET. THAT'S THE START OF THAT PROCESS. THERE ARE A COUPLE OF OTHER UTILITIES THAT ARE UP THERE ON THOSE POLES. WE NOW HAVE MOMENTUM TO BE ABLE TO REMOVE THOSE POLES SOON. AS WE KNOW, THERE ARE A LOT OF THEM. ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT I HAVE NOTICED THAT I REQUESTED FROM A STAFF PERSPECTIVE OF THEM IS THAT WHEN THEY INSTALL THE NEW POLES, THEY WERE NOT CLEANING UP THE SIDEWALKS AND ADJACENT TO THE POLES. IF YOU WALK AROUND ARE THEY GONE BACK THOSE UP. OBJECT TO ON 14TH ON EIGHT OR ON 14TH AND ON ATLANTIC AND THEY HAVE BEEN MAKING. WE HAVE SEEN CONSIDERABLE IMPROVEMENT. I KNOW THAT YOU SUBMITTED SOME QUESTIONS AND WE'LL SUBMIT THOSE TO THEM FOR ANSWERS, AND THEN WE'LL PROVIDE THEM BACK TO. [NOISE] >> I KNOW ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT CITY COMMISSION HAD WAS CONCERNING THE LACK OF AN OFFICE HERE IN THE CITY OF FERNANDINA. HAS ANY PROGRESS BEEN MADE ON THAT? >> I KNOW IT WAS DISCUSSED IN THEIR MEETING, BUT WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN ANY ON WE PROGRESS TOWARDS THAT. TO SAY THE COMMISSION WAS VERY TAP ON THAT. >> ANYTHING ELSE FOR GLENN? >> GLENN, ONE OF THE THINGS WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT HAVING A UTILITY LIKE FP COMING IN, SO WAS TO GET A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT PROCESS THEY'RE GOING THROUGH TO DO WITHOUT CALL THEIR STRATEGIC PLAN. WE'RE TRYING TO DO ONE TO PUSH LUBORE OVER THE HORIZON A LOT MORE LUBORE OVER THE HORIZON OVER TIME. BUT I GUESS IT WAS INTERESTING TO SEE IF THEY'VE GOT THE SAME DECK OF CARDS THAT WE DO IN TERMS OF THEIR ASSUMPTIONS, THE TIMING AND SO FORTH, WHEN THEY'RE GOING TO BE DOING THINGS. WE CAN SIT THERE AND DO A LOT OF PLANNING, BUT IF WE DON'T HAVE UTILITY SUPPORT, WHETHER IT BE WATER OR ELECTRICITY, THINGS AREN'T GOING TO HAPPEN, AND IT WAS JUST MORE OR LESS TO GET A LITTLE PERSPECTIVE, AND MAYBE LEARN FROM THEM FROM THE STANDPOINT, WHAT TOOLS ARE YOU USING? WHAT ARE YOUR FORECASTS IN TERMS OF YOUR LEVEL OF RESIDENCY GOING UP IN TERMS OF OVER TIME AND HOW ARE THEY DOING? THE OTHER THING IS, IF WE DO GET A SURGE IN ELECTRIC CARS, AT SOME POINT IN TIME, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PROBABLY DOUBLE OR WHAT 25% IN TERMS OF THEIR ELECTRICAL CAPACITY IN ORDER TO MEET THE DEMAND. WHAT ARE THEY ASSUMING? >> I KNOW THAT WAS PART OF THE DISCUSSION. [BACKGROUND] HAVING TO DO WITH THE COMMUNICATION, EXPECTATIONS. I KNOW THAT BETWEEN THEIR LEADERSHIP TEAM AND OURS, THAT THOSE DISCUSSIONS ARE GOING ON. I DO WANT TO MENTION THAT FROM MY EXPERIENCE, WE'RE WORKING ON SOME THE REDESIGN OF DOWNTOWN NOW. THEY HAVE BEEN VERY COOPERATIVE IN THAT PROCESS. ABOUT SHARING [NOISE] WHAT THEY CAN DO AND WHAT WHAT THEY'RE PLANNING. [NOISE] THEY'RE WORKING TO INTEGRATE ALL OF THAT, PLUS THE WATERFRONT HAS SOME CHALLENGES THERE TOO. THEY'VE MET WITH US NUMEROUS TIMES ON SITE. THEY'RE FRONTLINE FOLKS THAT ARE WORKING DIRECTLY WITH US. WE HAVE A GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH THEM, AND WE'RE SHARING IDEAS AND PROCESS [INAUDIBLE] BUT I WILL MAKE SURE WE GET. [OVERLAPPING] >> AN EXAMPLE WOULD BE THE LENGTH OF TIME IT TOOK TO GET BASICALLY THE WATERFRONT AREA AROUND LAGO STREET TO GET ALL THOSE. THAT WAS A YEARS PROJECT AS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SOMETHING LESS THAN A YEAR. >> I THINK WHEN YOU LOOK AT HOW THEY WORKED WITH US ON SECOND STREET. [00:10:03] THAT PROCESS TOOK ABOUT EIGHT WEEKS ONCE WE STARTED THE PROJECT. THEY WERE COMMUNICATING WITH US AT ALL TIMES. THAT DOESN'T GO PERFECT, BUT NO PROJECTS DO? BUT THEIR COMMUNICATION WAS HIGH WITH US. >> BUT IT WASN'T A CASE WHERE IT WAS A MAJOR HINDRANCE IN TERMS OF US MOVING FORWARD ON SOMETHING ELSE? >> NO. WE WERE ABLE TO COMMUNICATE WELL. PROGRESS IS BEING MADE ON ALL. >> ONE MORE THING. AS A PAB, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE LOOK AT IS THE OPPORTUNITY WHERE IT PRESENTS ITSELF TO PUT THESE UTILITIES UNDERGROUND. AT THE CITY COMMISSION MEETING, I DIDN'T HEAR ANYTHING ABOUT THEIR THOUGHTS ON PUTTING SOME OF THESE LINES UNDERGROUND. CERTAINLY FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF HURRICANE PREPAREDNESS, I KNOW THAT THEY'VE DONE A LOT OF UPGRADES TO THE LINES, BUT IT'S ALL ABOVE GROUND. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT OUR COMP PLAN AND OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SPEAKS TO IS TRYING TO FIND WAYS TO NOT ONLY JUST FOR THE VISUAL EFFECT, BUT FROM A HURRICANE PERSPECTIVE, AS MANY OF THESE UTILITY LINES THAT CAN GO UNDERGROUND IS THE PREFERRED WAY THAT THE CITY WOULD LIKE FOR IT TO GO. I'D JUST LIKE TO REITERATE THAT WHILE THEY'RE NOT HERE TO HEAR US SAY THAT, IT'S FROM A VISUAL PERSPECTIVE. I LIVE ON SOUTH FLETCHER, AND I CAN TELL YOU IT IS NOTHING BUT SPAGHETTI ON ALL THOSE LINES THAT ARE NOT ONLY JUST ON THE EAST SIDE GOING SOUTH, BUT IT IS CROSSING BOTH SIDES OF THE ROAD, AND ALL IT TAKES IS ONE POLE TO GO DOWN, AND IT TAKES ALL OF THE POWER OUT OF THAT WHOLE AREA. THAT'S A CONCERN THAT I THINK WE STILL NEED TO KEEP ASKING WHAT IS THEIR PLAN LONG TERM FOR PUTTING SOME OF THE UTILITIES UNDERGROUND. >> BECAUSE PART OF THE PROJECT DOWN HERE IN DOWNTOWN, HE IS ACTUALLY DOING THAT IS UNDERGROUND A LOT OF IT. THEY CALL IT THEIR STORM HARBORING PROCESS. A NUMBER OF THE REASONS THAT ARE IN TOWN, SO HEAVY RIGHT NOW IS THAT THEY'RE DOING THAT. BUT WE HAVE ASKED THEM FOR A DETAILED PLAN. THROUGHOUT THE CITY, NOT JUST WORKING. [INAUDIBLE] >> GOOD. THANK YOU. >> ANYTHING ELSE FOR GLENN? THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT. MOVING ON TO NEW BUSINESS, [6.1 (Quasi-Judicial) - PAB 2025-0010 - JON LASSERRE, AGENT FOR AMELIA HOLDING LLC + PARKWAY COMMONS NORTH PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC, 0 AMELIA ISLAND PARKWAY] FOLKS, I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO BE PATIENT WITH US. THIS IS A NEW PROCESS FOR US, WHICH IS WHY THE BOARD ATTORNEY IS SITTING NEXT TO ME TONIGHT. BUT WE HAVE TWO ITEMS THAT ARE QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS TONIGHT. ONE IS 6.1, WHICH YOU CAN SEE UP THERE. ALSO DO I NEED TO READ THE TITLE SINCE IT'S RIGHT UP THERE? >> IT'S JUST 6.1 AND 6.3. >> 6.3 ARE QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS, AND BOARD ATTORNEY PRINCE WILL DESCRIBE WHAT THAT MEANS TO US ALL. >> GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. THE QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING BY STATE STATUTE AND CASE LAW IS DIFFERENT THAN A REGULAR HEARING CONDUCTED BY THIS BOARD. THE QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING IS LESS FORMAL THAN A COURT HEARING, BUT SIMILAR IN PROCEDURES AND EVIDENCE MATTERS. APPLICANTS HAVE THE BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING THROUGH COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT HIS OR HER APPLICATION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT REGARDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THOSE OPPOSED MUST ALSO DEMONSTRATE THROUGH COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE APPLICATION DOES NOT MEET THESE REQUIREMENTS. WHILE THE BOARD WELCOMES COMMENTS FROM ALL WHO HAVE AN INTEREST IN THE PROCEEDINGS, FLORIDA LAW REQUIRES THAT THIS BOARD'S DECISION IN A QUASI JUDICIAL ACTION, WHICH WILL BE THE ANNEXATION 6.1 AND THE REZONING 6.3, BE SUPPORTED BY COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD DURING THE HEARING ON THE APPLICATION. COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS SUCH EVIDENCE AS A REASONABLE MIND WOULD ACCEPT AS ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT A CONCLUSION. THERE MUST BE A FACTUAL BASIS IN THE RECORD TO SUPPORT OPINION TESTIMONY FROM BOTH EXPERT AND NON-EXPERT WITNESSES. GENERAL OBJECTIONS WITHOUT SPECIFIC EVIDENCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE SUBSTANTIAL COMPETENT EVIDENCE. THE ONLY MATERIAL AND OR RELEVANT EVIDENCE IS THAT WHICH ADDRESSES THE STATUTE OR THE CODE REQUIREMENTS OR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REQUIREMENTS THAT MUST BE MET FOR THE ANNEXATION AND THE REZONING. [00:15:01] THE APPLICANT IS ENTITLED TO BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. IF ANY APPLICANT DESIRES A CONTINUANCE TO OBTAIN COUNSEL, PLEASE COME FORWARD TO MAKE THAT REQUEST AT THIS TIME. >> THANK YOU. WE HAVE ONE APPLICANT FOR ALL THREE ITEMS 6.1, 6.2, AND 6.3. JUST FOR THE RECORD, THE APPLICANT HAS IN HIS CHAIR SHOOK HIS HEAD NO, THAT HE DOES NOT WISH TO GO SEEK COUNSEL. THE HEARING PROCEDURES WILL BE AS FOLLOWS. STAFF WILL BE SWORN IN AND DESCRIBE THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST. THE APPLICANT MAY WAIVE THEIR PRESENTATION AND RELY ON STAFF'S COMMENTS. IF THE APPLICANT WAIVES THEIR PRESENTATION, THEY DO RETAIN THE RIGHT TO REBUT ANY TESTIMONY THAT IS AGAINST THEIR APPLICATION. AT THIS TIME FOR 6.1 AND 6.3, MR. LASER, DO YOU WISH TO WAIVE? >> GOOD EVENING, JOHN LASIER 960185 GATEWAY BOULEVARD, THE APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF EMILY HOLDINGS AND PARKWAY COMMONS NORTH PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED, AND WE WAIVE OUR PRESENTATION AND RELY ON STAFF REPORT AS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. RETAIN RIGHT TO REBUT. >> YES, THANK YOU. IF YOU WISH TO GET UP BUT WHEN WE HAVE THEM AS WELL, YOU CAN DO THAT AS WELL. >> MR. LASER HAS WAIVED AND SAYS HE WILL RELY ON THE STAFF REPORT, WHICH IS IN THE PACKET AND WHICH MS. PEARSON WILL BE GIVING MOMENTARILY. AFTER THE STAFF REPORT, THE APPLICANT OR REPRESENTATIVE WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT EVIDENCE. IT HAS JUST BEEN WAIVED, BUT IT HAS RESERVED THE RIGHT TO REBUT. THEN PUBLIC PARTICIPATION FOR OR AGAINST THE APPLICATION WILL BE SWORN IN AND WE'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES EACH TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY AND PRESENT EVIDENCE TO THE BOARD. EXTENSIONS OF TIME MAY BE GRANTED BY THROUGH THE CHAIR. SHARING YOUR TIME OR TRANSFERRING TIME TO ANOTHER PARTICIPANT IS NOT ALLOWED, PUBLIC PARTICIPANTS PRESENTING EVIDENCE FOR OR AGAINST THE APPLICATION WILL ADDRESS THE BOARD AT THE PODIUM. ANY DOCUMENTATION OR PHOTOGRAPHS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD SECRETARY, AND MS. MIA SADLER HAS ALREADY RAISED HER HAND ONCE, BUT WOULD YOU RAISE YOUR HAND AGAIN? BOARD SECRETARY, IF YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT YOU'D LIKE TO PRESENT TO HER WHEN YOU COME UP TO SPEAK? WHEN THE INDIVIDUAL IS TESTIFYING. THE DOCUMENTS WILL NOT BE RETURNED TO YOU AS THEY BECOME PART OF THE OFFICIAL RECORD IN MINUTES. THE APPLICANT OR REPRESENTATIVES OF THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE 10 MINUTES FOR CROSS EXAMINATION OR REBUTTAL OF ANY OF THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY. STAFF CAN ALSO QUESTION ANY PUBLIC TESTIMONY. THEN WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AFTER ALL THE TESTIMONY HAS BEEN TAKEN, AND THE BOARD WILL DELIBERATE. THE MEETING IS BEING RECORDED. THEREFORE, THERE CAN BE NO APPLAUSE, OUTBURSTS, TALKING OR COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE AS IT COULD DISTORT THE RECORDING. THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY REPRESENTS THE BOARD AND PROVIDES COUNSEL, INCLUDING ADVICE AS TO HEARING PROCEDURES, AND RELEVANCY OF EVIDENCE. WHILE THE STRICT RULES OF EVIDENCE APPLICABLE TO A COURT PROCEEDING WILL NOT BE UTILIZED, THE BOARD WITH MY ASSISTANT, MAY EXCLUDE EVIDENCE THAT IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE CODE CRITERIA AS SET FORTH IN THE APPLICATION OR WHICH MAY BE REPETITIVE IN NATURE. IF ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THESE PROCEDURES, PLEASE ASK THEM AT THIS TIME. EVERYBODY IS SEATED. MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT CONCLUDES THAT IF YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> THIS WOULD BE FOR ITEM 6.1. >> BOARD MEMBERS WILL TELL US NOW IF THEY'VE HAD ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATION. >> YES, I HAVE. >> THANKS. >> IF YOU'VE HAD EX PARTE COMMUNICATION, YOU SHOULD STATE THE GENERAL NATURE AND WHO WITH? I SPOKE WITH SO AND SO, AND WE JUST DISCUSSED. >> I'VE HAD MULTIPLE CONVERSATIONS WITH TWO INVESTORS WHO POTENTIALLY WOULD LIKE TO BUY, SOME OR ALL OF THE PROPERTY THAT WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS FOR THE ANNEXATION TONIGHT, IN TERMS OF A PLAN FOR USE OF IT. I HAD SOME CONCERNS ABOUT WHAT MIGHT GO IN THERE. WE'VE HAD MULTIPLE CONVERSATIONS, NOT ANYTHING INVOLVED A MONETARY TYPE OF THING, BUT JUST JUST BASICALLY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS, AND ALSO A LITTLE BIT OF EXPLAINING HOW OUR PROCESS GOES AS IT GOES FORWARD FROM THE PAB TO THE CITY COMMISSION FOR FIRST AND SECOND VOTE, AND SO FORTH. >> THANK YOU. >> NOW, SHE'LL SWEAR IN ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO SPEAK. >> I TALKED TO JULIE FERRERA. I ALSO TALKED TO MARGARET PEARSON ABOUT ALL THE CASES TONIGHT. YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT OUR RESEARCH WE DID OR ANY OF THAT STUFF? AT ONE TIME WE USED TO REPORT OUR RESEARCH DRIVING THE PROPERTY, THOUGH? >> YOU GIVE A GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WHAT YOU DID. WERE YOU DISCUSSING FLIRTING? WERE YOU DISCUSSING WHERE IT WAS JUST THE GENERAL. >> ALL THE ZONING CODES THAT ARE ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT. MAPS AND THAT STUFF. I TALKED TO THEIR CONCERNS AND MOVED OFF? [00:20:02] >> ACTUALLY. >> I WOULD HAVE TO DISCLOSE THAT I SPOKE WITH MARGARET AND GLENN ABOUT THESE ISSUES. >> JUST FOR THE RECORD, SPEAKING WITH STAFF, IS THAT CONSIDERED EX PARTE AS WELL? >> WE ARE. >> I DID SPEAK WITH STAFF ABOUT THE APPLICATION, ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT STORMWATER. >> NO. >> JUST ONE MINUTE, JULIE. NOW, WHO IS GOING TO DO THE SWEARING THEN? MIA, IS GOING TO IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK TONIGHT, MIA, WILL NOW SWEAR IN WITNESSES. >> YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK TONIGHT, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. >> PLEASE STAND. >> YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE SWORN. >> DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE ORAL OR AND OR WRITTEN TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? >> COULD YOU SPEAK TO THE MIKE RIGHT HERE. >> THANK YOU. YES. SO NOW, JUST IF YOU HAVEN'T DONE THIS BEFORE THE CITY WILL PRESENT FIRST. SO, MARGARET? >> YES, SIR, CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, MARGARET PEARSON, WITH THE PLANNING AND CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT, I'M THE PLANNING MANAGER. THE CASE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS THE PAB 20250010. THERE ARE THREE CASES THAT ARE INVOLVED, THE SAME PARCEL. AND SO I'LL TALK IN GENERAL OF THE PARCEL. AND THEN AS ONCE YOU GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF HAVING THE SPEAKERS AND THEN VOTING, THEN I'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT PART OF THAT PROPERTY. SO BEAR WITH ME, I'D SET IT UP AS ONE STAFF REPORT, BUT DUE TO THE LEGAL ELEMENTS OF IT. I'VE BEEN ASKED TO SEPARATE THE STAFF REPORT. SO WITH THAT, THE FIRST PART OF THE APPLICATION IS THE ANNEXATION. AMELIA HOLLINS, LLC, AND PARKWAY COMMONS, NORTH PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION HAS APPLIED FOR A VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION. THEIR AGENT IS JOHN LASIER. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF BAILEY ROAD AND AMELIA ISLAND PARKWAY. AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE ARE TWO PARCELS INVOLVED. THERE'S A PARCEL A, AND THERE'S A PARCEL B THAT IS BOTH PARCELS ARE CONTIGUOUS WITH THE CITY LIMITS CURRENTLY. IN THE COUNTY, THE PROPERTY IS ZONE COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE, AND THEIR FUTURE LAND USE PLAN IS COMMERCIAL. AS YOU CAN SEE WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS TO THE NORTH, THERE IS RESIDENTIAL, AND THEN TO THE EAST IS COMMERCIAL. AND THEN TO THE WEST IS NASSAU COUNTY, SINGLE FAMILY AND VACANT, AND THEN TO THE EAST LAST WAS COMMERCIAL AND IS LAKESIDE SENIOR LIVING. TOGETHER, THE PROPERTIES TOTAL APPROXIMATELY 18.11 ACRES. THERE IS A LITTLE TYPO ON THE APP ON THE AGENDA. THE NUMBERS GOT TRANSPOSED. IT SAYS 11.81, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY 18.11 AS A TOTAL ACREAGE. SO THIS IS A VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION OF THE PROPERTY. IT COMPLIES WITH APPLICABLE FLORIDA STATE STATUTES AND THE CITY'S MUNICIPAL CODE. THE AREA IS COMPACT AND DOES NOT CREATE AN ENCLAVE OR A SATELLITE TYPE SITUATION, AND IT REPRESENTS A LOGICAL EXTENSION OF THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY. THE AREA AND ANY DEVELOPMENT OR REDEVELOPMENT CAN BE ACHIEVED THROUGH THE CITY'S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE CITY SERVICES CAN SERVICE THIS PROPERTY, AND IT MEETS OR IT SEES ANY LEVEL OF SERVICE REQUIRED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ANY REFERENCE HEREAFTER. AND SO WITH THAT, JUST BASICALLY, IT IS A VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION. IT IS CONTIGUOUS AND WE CAN MEET THE LEVEL OF SERVICES THAT'S REQUIRED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. >> AT THIS TIME, WE'RE JUST GOING TO ASK IF YOU'D LIKE TO ENTER YOUR STAFF REPORT INTO THE RECORD AS EVIDENCE? >> YES. >> ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS BY THE APPLICANT THAT THE STAFF REPORT COME IN? >> NO. >> AND NO QUESTIONS FROM THE APPLICANT TO THE CITY. >> MR. LASER, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? >> JOHN, NO. THANKS. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. >> WE'RE GETTING THERE. >> NOT YET. >> NOW DOES THE BOARD, THIS ISN'T DISCUSSION, BUT DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR MARGARET? ANYONE ON THE BOARD HAVE QUESTIONS FOR MARGARET? >> JUST A GENERAL, BUT JUST A WHAT. [00:25:01] >> YES. >> MARGARET AND I ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THIS, BUT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT ON RECORD SO THAT EVERYONE WORKS? THIS IS A CONCERN OF MINE LOOKING AT THE APPLICATION. ON PARCEL B WHERE THE STORMWATER POND IS LOCATED. IT STATES IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT IT IS RELIANT ON THE ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT. THEY'RE BOTH RELIANT ON EACH OTHER. MY CONCERN IS ONCE THIS PARCELS ANNEXED INTO THE CITY, IF THERE WAS A CASE, WHICH I'M NOT SAYING THAT THE APPLICANT IS DOING THIS, BUT IF THERE WAS A CASE WHERE THE APPLICANT DECIDED TO DO AWAY WITH THAT STORMWATER POND, HOW WILL THE STORMWATER BE MITIGATED FROM THOSE SURROUNDING PROPERTY? >> IS THAT A QUESTION YOU'RE PUTTING TO MARGARET? >> YES. AND JUST PUTTING IT OUT FOR THE PUBLIC AS WELL AS FOR THEIR AWARE. >> WHAT WE HAD DISCUSSED IS THAT THE FACT THAT THERE IS A ASSOCIATION THAT MAINTAINS THAT POND NIL AND THAT POND THE SENIOR LIVING FACILITY, THE VACANT PROPERTY IN FRONT OF THAT AND THIS PROPERTY ALL RELY ON THAT DETENTION BASIN. IN ORDER FOR THAT TENSION BASIN TO BE REVERSED, THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE ANOTHER DETENTION BASIN THAT COULD MEET ALL OF THE NEEDS THAT'S THERE EXISTING NOW. SO IT'S A REQUIREMENT. IT'S THERE FOR THOSE PROPERTIES. >> MR. CHAIRMAN. >> GO AHEAD. >> I HAVE A QUESTION THAT'S ALONG THE SAME LINES. MY CONCERN ABOUT PARCEL B IS SAYING THAT THE POND SERVICES, THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPED AND UNDEVELOPED COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES ARE PARCELS. I SUSPECT THIS IS A QUESTION FOR THE TRC EVENTUALLY, BUT I'M NOT SURE. AGAIN, WHAT THE EVENTUAL USE OF PARCEL A WILL BE. WE'VE UNDERSTOOD THAT IT IS FOR A FACILITY, SOME TYPE OF FACILITY. BUT IF ALL OF THESE AREAS ARE UTILIZING PARCEL B, THE RETENTION POND, HOW DO WE KNOW THAT IT WILL HANDLE THE CAPACITY THAT PARCEL A WILL GENERATE. HAVING SEE THIS AREA, AND WE'VE DEALT WITH OTHER PARCELS IN THIS AREA OVER TIME, WE KNOW THAT THERE'S FLOODING, THERE'S STORMWATER FLOODING AND MANAGING THIS STORMWATER RETENTION POND IS CRITICAL SO THAT THERE'S NO IMPACT ON SOME OF THE OTHER DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE NEARBY. THAT'S ONE OF MY CONCERNS. >> IS THAT A QUESTION? >> IS A QUESTION TO MARGARET, PLEASE. >> THE PARCEL B WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT IS REQUIRED BECAUSE IT'S IN PLACE NOW FOR THE EXISTING PROPERTY THAT'S IN THE CITY AND WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED. AS FAR AS ANY DEVELOPMENT ON THE UNDEVELOPED PIECES OF PROPERTY, EVEN THE ONE IN THE CITY, AND EVENTUALLY, IF THIS IS ANNEXED, THIS THE PARCEL A WOULD HAVE TO WHEN THEY COME TO TRC, THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE FOR THE PROJECT THAT THEY WANT TO BUILD, THEY WILL HAVE TO SHOW A DRAINAGE REPORT IS REQUIRED. THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO SHOW THAT THE CAPACITY IS THERE BECAUSE I'M SURE THAT WHEN THAT WAS DEVELOPED, THERE WAS A I GUESS, A MAXIMUM AREA THAT THEY FELT LIKE THEY WOULD DEVELOP OUT ON PARCEL A. AND SO THE POND WAS PROBABLY SIZE FOR THAT DEVELOPMENT. IF SOME REASON THE DEVELOPMENT IS LARGER, THEN THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE SOME PROVISIONS TO IMPROVE THE POND. IF THE DEVELOPMENT IS SMALLER, THEN THEY MAY WOULD HAVE EXTRA CAPACITY LEFT OVER EVEN AFTER THAT. IT WOULD HAVE TO ACCOMMODATE ALL OF THE VACANT PROPERTY, AND IT WOULD HAVE TO BE MAINTAINED. >> THANK YOU. >> THE TRC THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE APPROVAL PROCESS. IF THEY CANNOT INDICATE THAT, THEN THEY WOULD NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LDC. >> THANK YOU. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, JUST A COMMENT TO THAT. IT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN FIVE LOTS IN THE SUBDIVISION THAT ALL DRAIN TO THE SAME POND. WHEN THEY DEVELOP, THEY HAVE RIGHTS TO DRAIN THEIR WATER INTO THAT POND. IF IT CAN'T ACCOMMODATE IT, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE OTHER PROVISIONS BEFORE THEY COULD DEVELOP THE ADDITIONAL LAND. >> TWO QUESTIONS ONE. LAKESIDE NOW UTILIZES THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL B FOR THEIR STORMWATER. IS THAT CORRECT? [00:30:04] >> YES, SIR. THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING. YES, SIR. >> ON THAT PROPERTY, JUST TO THE EAST OF IT, WHICH SAYS IT'S OWNED BY THE CITY. WHAT'S ON THAT PROPERTY? >> EAST OF IT. >> WHEN YOU SAY OWNED BY THE CITY. JUST CLICKING AROUND, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT IT IS. THAT LITTLE PIECE. >> LET ME LOOK AT THE NASSAU COUNTY. >> IF I MAY THROUGH THE CHAIR, MR. STEVENSON, WHICH DIRECTION? >> THIS WOULD BE ON THE EAST SIDE. THAT'S THAT LARGE RED BLOCK. >> THAT'S LAKESIDE. >> THAT'S LAKESIDE. >> THAT'S THE LARGE RED BLOCK. >> THIS IS SAYING IT'S THE CITY HERE. >> IT'S IN THE JURISDICTION OF THE CITY. >> IT'S IN THE JURISDICTION OF THE CITY. >> THAT'S ALL. THAT'S FINE. I WAS LOOKING AT THE GIS AND IN THAT WAY, I WAS LIKE, OKAY. IF YOU LOOK AT THAT POND RIGHT NOW, IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT IT'S ANYWHERE NEAR CAPACITY. IN TERMS OF THE AMOUNT WHERE IT'S ACTUALLY IT'S NOT THAT WHOLE AREA IS NOT FILLED WITH WATER. THERE HAS TO BE SOME MAXIMUM CAPACITY THAT'S BEEN IDENTIFIED AS THE MAXIMUM CAPACITY FOR WHAT I GUESS I'LL JUST CALL IT PARCEL B IF IT WAS FULLY UTILIZED. IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT IT HAS BEEN FULLY UTILIZED AT THIS POINT IN TIME OR IS BEING FULLY UTILIZED. >> WELL, YOU WOULD HAVE TO REVIEW THE ENGINEERING REPORT. THERE'S ALSO WHAT YOU CALL, LIKE A SAFETY NET AREA, JUST BECAUSE IT'S NOT APPEAR TO BE TOTALLY UTILIZED NOW, THERE'S DIFFERENT STORMS THAT ARE INVOLVED IN THOSE CALCULATIONS. THERE IS SOME PROVISION FOR A SAFETY NET, IF YOU WANT TO SAY. WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT ALL OF THAT. EVEN THOUGH IT MAY HAVE CAPACITY, IT STILL HAS TO HAVE THAT SAFETY NET AREA. THEN WE WOULD USE THE CALCULATION. IT'S THE ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS BASED ON THE CAPACITY, THE EXTRA ROOM THEY NEED TO HAVE. IN CASE THERE'S A 100-YEAR STORM OR HURRICANE AND WHERE THAT WOULD GO? [BACKGROUND] >> WELL, AS THAT PARCEL B WHEN IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THAT WAS GOING TO BE BASICALLY A RETENTION POND FOR STORMWATER, DID THAT ASSUME THAT PARCEL A WOULD BE UTILIZED OR WOULD BE THERE, I'LL SAY THE FACILITY FOR PARCEL A TO UTILIZE FOR STORMWATER CONTAINMENT? WAS IT ALREADY CALCULATED INTO WHAT THEY DETERMINED TO BE THE CAPACITY OF PARCEL B? >> MY UNDERSTANDING IS, YES. THERE IS SOME ELEMENT THAT WENT INTO WHAT THEY THOUGHT THE AMOUNT OF PROPERTY WOULD BE DEVELOPED, THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO GO INTO THE POND. IF IT EXCEEDS THAT, IF THE PROPERTY IS DEVELOPED MORE THAN WHAT THAT CALCULATION ALLOWED FOR, THEN THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE SOME REVISIONS TO THE POND. BUT UNTIL WE ACTUALLY SEE WHAT IS THE ACTUAL AREA THAT'S BEING DEVELOPED, WE WON'T KNOW 100% IF THE POND IS CURRENTLY AT THIS CONDITION CAN TAKE THE WATER OR IF THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE SOME REVISIONS. >> WATER MANAGEMENT WOULD MAKE THOSE DECISIONS. >> IT WOULD BE THE TRC AND OUR STORMWATER DEPARTMENT. >> OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD TO MARGARET ABOUT HER PRESENTATION. SEEING NONE. WE'LL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS. I BELIEVE, MR. BOWMAN, YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK. STEP TO THE PODIUM, NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE. IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK ON THIS, PLEASE FILL OUT A FORM AND GIVE THAT TO MIA. >> THAT WOULD BE ON THE ANNEXATION. >> THAT'S ON THE ANNEXATION, 6.1. >> OH, OUTFLOW ON THE ANNEXATION. >> WELL, NOBODY'S REALLY IN THE CITY RIGHT NOW. I'M RON BOWMAN AT 6:40 SPANISH WAY EAST. >> THANK YOU. >> I LIVE JUST RIGHT IN THAT AREA, THERE IN SPANISH WAY EAST. I WAS THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF A LAND MANAGEMENT COMPANY FOR ABOUT 40 YEARS. I'M A LITTLE BIT FAMILIAR WITH DAMS AND PONDS AND STUFF. THAT LAKE IS ACTUALLY HIGHER THAN THESE PROPERTIES DOWN IN HERE. RIGHT THERE, THERE'S A DITCH IN THAT FAR QUARTER THAT'S NOT BEING MAINTAINED. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ALL ARE GOING TO ANNEX THAT IN, [00:35:02] SOMEONE NEEDS TO MONITOR THAT LAKE. BECAUSE IF IT BREAKS, IT'S GOING TO KILL THESE PEOPLE. IT'S GOING TO BE MILLIONS OF GALLONS OF WATER DOWN IN THAT AREA. THAT GENTLEMAN LIVES THERE. THAT'S ALL I NEED TO SAY. >> THANK YOU. THAT'S THE ONLY REQUEST I HAVE TO SPEAK ON 6.1. >> THERE'S A GENTLEMAN. HE'S FILLING OUT THE FORM. >> HE BRINGS UP AN INTERESTING QUESTION. TYPICALLY, IN A RETENTION POND, YOU DO HAVE AN OVERFLOW PLAN AND THE CHANNEL WHERE IT'S GOING TO GO. WHAT'S THE SECONDARY PICKUP IF THAT POND OVERFLOWS? I'M THINKING OF SOME THAT ARE DOWN, LIKE IN UP OFF 18TH STREET, SO UP IN NORTH FERNANDINA. THERE'S A SECONDARY POND OF WHICH THEY'LL DUMP INTO THE OVERFLOW. WE HAVE ANYTHING YET. THE TRC MAY END UP THAT MAYBE SOMETHING THEY HAVE TO COME BACK. >> THAT'LL BE PART OF THEIR TECHNICAL DESIGN AT THE TRC LEVEL AND THROUGH THE WATER MANAGEMENT HISTORY. >> THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT WOULD COME OUT OF PARCEL A IN TERMS OF HOW MANY SQUARE FEET DO YOU HAVE IN HARD BASE SURFACE, ETC. >> WE ALSO HAVE JAMES TIPPINS, IF YOU'LL STEP UP, NAME AND ADDRESS. >> JAMES TIPPINS, 508, SPANISH WAY WEST. I'M ONE OF THE OLD TIMERS IN THE SUBDIVISION THAT BACKS UP TO THIS PROPERTY. I HAVE FAVORITE BIRDS WHO LIVE OVER THERE, BUT I SAID GOODBYE. BUT I LIVE IF YOU SEE WHERE THE CUL-DE-SAC IS, IF YOU COME UP STRAIGHT THERE, I'M THE THIRD HOUSE, THE LARGE ANGLED HOUSE RIGHT THERE. EVERY TIME IT RAINS, I'M FLOODED. EVERY TIME. IT DOESN'T TAKE A HURRICANE. IF A HURRICANE COMES, IT COMES TO MY PATIO AND TO MY LANAI. BUT ALL IT TAKES IS A STRONG RAIN AND WATER, I HAVE LOST THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS' WORTH OF PLANTS TO THE RAIN. I KEPT HOPING WHEN THEY SHRANK THE SIZE OF THE POND, BECAUSE THAT USED TO BE A MUCH LARGER POND. WHEN THEY SHRUNK THE SIZE OF THAT, THAT'S WHEN THE FLOODING STARTED AFFECTING MY HOUSE. BECAUSE I'M THE OLDER HOUSE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE BUILDER BUILT THE OTHER ONES HIGHER. THEN THEY LOVELY PUT IN THE BIKE TRAIL THAT WE USE ALL THE TIME, WHICH IS HIGHER, WHICH GUESS WHO'S THE LOW MAN ON THE PROPERTY? I REALLY AM PAYING ATTENTION TO WHAT THEY DO AND THE CAPACITY OF THAT POND. THEY'VE HAD TO REPAVE OUR STREETS BECAUSE OF FLOODING. WELL, YOU KNOW THAT, RICHARD. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT THEY DO, THEY MAKE SURE THAT WATER EVEN HELPS. I WOULD LOVE TO SEE IT HELP THE SITUATION, BUT IT DOESN'T MAKE IT WORSE. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? >> YEAH. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON 6.1? THAT'S ALL I HAVE. I WILL NOW CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. NOW IT'S FOR BOARD DISCUSSION. MORE COMMENTS. [BACKGROUND] WE HAVE NO COMMENTS. IS THERE A MOTION 16? >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION. I MOVE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PAB CASE NUMBER 2025-0010 TO THE CITY COMMISSION, REQUESTING THAT A VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION OF PARCEL A AND B BE APPROVED AND THAT PAB CASE 2025-0010 AS PRESENTED IS SUFFICIENTLY COMPLIANT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO BE APPROVED AT THIS TIME. >> SECOND. >> STAFF SECOND. >> I THINK NICK SECONDED. [NOISE] >> MEMBER ROB? >> YES. [LAUGHTER] >> MEMBER BENNETT? >> YES. >> MEMBER STEVENSON? >> YES. >> MEMBER GILLETTE? >> YES. >> CHAIR FOREHAND. >> YES. CHAIR DOSTER. >> YES. >> MEMBER GANGER. IS SHE STILL WITH US? >> SHE'S ON. >> HEY, BARB. WAVE, IF YES. [LAUGHTER] >> SHE CAN'T HEAR. >> SWING DOWN IF NO. >> I'M TRYING TO TALK. >> THERE SHE GOES. >> YEAH. [LAUGHTER] >> DID SHE SAY YES? >> SHE DID, YES. >> THAT CARRIES 7,0. I'M SORRY. GO WHEN YOU LISTEN TO THE CITY COMMISSIONER. [00:40:02] [LAUGHTER] BEFORE WE MOVE ON. MR. BOWMAN AND MR. TIPPINS, HAVE RAISED QUESTIONS ABOUT FLOODING. WHERE DO THEY GO TO SPEAK TO SOMEONE ABOUT THAT ISSUE ON THEIR PROPERTY? WHO DO THEY TALK TO? >> YOU WANT TO ANSWER THAT GLENN. GLENN. [OVERLAPPING] YES. THEY COULD REACH OUT TO THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE GLENN AND IF THEY WANT TO US TO SCHEDULE A MEETING, WE CAN WORK WITH HIM TO SCHEDULE SOMETHING. >> IF I MAY THROUGH THE CHAIR ANDRE DECAL AS WELL, WHO MR. AKAMOV WORKS WITH IS OUR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PERSON, AND HE'S OFTEN INVOLVED WITH THAT AS WELL. IF PEOPLE HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THEIR PROPERTY FLOODING. >> MR. BOWMAN, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION. >> OH YES. >> IF YOU'RE GOING TO SPEAK, WE NEED TO HAVE YOU. >> NEED TO COME BACK. >> WHILE MR. BOWMAN WAS COMING FORWARD, WOULD YOU ALSO RECOMMEND THAT THESE INTERESTED PARTIES ATTEND THE TRC MEETING? >> YES. WELL, AND THAT'S LISTED ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE, THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING AND ANYONE WHO'S ON SPANISH OR HE WANTS TO SPEAK TO THAT SHOULD ATTEND THAT MEETING. GO AHEAD, MR. TUM. >> WELL, ONE OF THE CITY WATER GUYS, I FORGOT HIS NAME, BUT HE WAS OUT THERE BECAUSE I THINK ONE OF THE CITY FINANCIAL PEOPLE LIVES RIGHT THERE WHERE THE PATRIOTS WEIGHS UP, AND IT FLOODED HER AREA AND HE SAID, WELL, ONE OF THE PROBLEMS WAS THAT THAT IS THE COUNTY AND SO YOU COULDN'T MAINTAIN THAT COVERT, THE CITY COULDN'T. ALL I WANT TO DO IS RECOMMEND THAT THAT COVERT BE FIXED NOW BY THE CITY. >> JUST SO YOU KNOW YOU PROBABLY DO KNOW THAT THE CITY MANAGER LIVES ON THE OTHER END OF THE STREET. >> YEAH. YEAH. [INAUDIBLE]. >> NOW THAT RAISES A QUESTION. THAT'S NOT A CITY STREET. >> YES, IT IS? >> IS IT? >> YEAH, THAT THE SUBDIVISION WAS ANNEXED INTO THE CITY WHEN IT WAS BUILT. >> I DON'T THINK THE PARKWAY IS. >> NO, NOT THE PARKWAY THE SPANISH RED. >> WHO OWNS THAT DRAINAGE DITCH? IS THAT CITY PROPERTY, OR IS IT COUNTY PROPERTY? WHO HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO MAINTAIN? >> THE COUNTY PROPERTY. >> THAT'S NOT PROPERTY MIGHT BE. >> IS THAT I THOUGHT IT WAS LAKE SIDES. BUT I GUESS IF IT'S BEING ANNEXED, IT'S NOT. >> WELL, THE WHOLE GRAY AREAS OF THE COUNTY RIGHT NOW NOW THAT SHOW UP. THE COUNTY IS DOING A MAJOR CONSTRUCTION JOB ALL THE WAY ALONG THE ME ISLAND PARKWAY, AND THAT'S ALL COUNTY MONEY GOING INTO IT BECAUSE THEY'RE PUTTING IN THAT NEW TRAIL AND THEY'RE HANDLING DRAINAGE COMING EAST OR WEST. THE POINT IS, AND IT'S A GOOD POINT IS WHO GOES TO WHO, EVEN WHEN IT GOES TO TRC, HOW DOES IT GET RESOLVED HOW THAT THERE'S NOT A WATER ISSUE? IT DOESN'T HAVE AN OWNER. >> TYPICALLY, THE CITY WILL COORDINATE WITH THE COUNTY IF THEY'RE THE ULTIMATE RECEIVER OF THE STORMWATER AND THE TWO WORK TOGETHER? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> BEFORE WE MOVE ON ONE MORE THING, MR. LASER, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ABOUT THE POND THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL BECAUSE THIS IS OKAY? >> YEAH. SURE AGAIN, I HAVE TO SPEAK TO THE POND. THERE IS SOME EXCESS CAPACITY WITH THE POND TODAY. IT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN ABOUT 2018 WITH THE COINCIDED WITH CONSTRUCTION OF LAKESIDE, AND I BELIEVE IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING AT THE TIME THAT IT ACTUALLY ALLEVIATED THE PROBLEMS AT ALDAMA THAT THEY WERE SUFFERING [INAUDIBLE]. IT DID AN EFFORT TO DO THAT, AND IT WAS COORDINATED THROUGH THE ENGINEER WHO DESIGNED IT, WHICH IS ETM. ENGLAND THIMS AND MILLER OUT OF JACKSONVILLE. BUT TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, THERE IS EXCESS CAPACITY IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO HANDLE ALL OF PARCEL A OR THE PARCEL BETWEEN THE MILLION PARKWAY AND LAKESIDE. IT WILL NEED TO BE EXPANDED IN THE FUTURE. BUT WE DON'T HAVE PLANS FOR ANYTHING AT THIS TIME. WE DON'T KNOW THE IMPERVIOUS AREA. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO GO IN THERE. WELL, I DIDN'T BUILD IT, BUT IT WAS BUILT WITH SOME EXCESS CAPACITY TO PROVIDE FOR THAT. IT'S ACTUALLY SPECIFICALLY FOR THE PARCEL BETWEEN LAKESIDE AND IN MILLION PARKWAY, WHICH IS ABOUT 8.2 ACRES AND NOT THIS 12 ACRES. HOPEFULLY, AS FAR AS MAINTENANCE, THE ASSOCIATION IS RESPONSIBLE FOR IT, ULTIMATELY, BUT THE LAKESIDE FOLKS, SINCE THEY'RE THE SOLE USER OF IT THIS TIME, THEY MAINTAIN IT AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE. THAT'S HOW IT'S BEEN SINCE IT WAS CONSTRUCTED AS FAR AS THE COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY TO THE NORTH OF US, SIMMONS ROAD, THEY CONSTRUCTED THAT PATH WITH OUR COOPERATION TO ALLOW THEM TO HAVE TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS AND THAT TYPE OF THING IN ORDER TO ACCESS AND BUILD THAT PATHWAY, [00:45:02] WHICH IS A VERY VALUABLE PART OF OUR COMMUNITY, OF COURSE. I THINK IT WAS THE TWO MAJOR POINTS ABOUT MAINTENANCE CAPACITY, AND ANY EXPANSION OF THE POND WOULD NOT ONLY HAVE TO GO THROUGH TDC BUT CERTAINLY WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND HAVE ALL THEIR OVERSIGHT, MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT SENDING WATER ELSEWHERE. THE POP OFF, I BELIEVE, WHICH IS IF IT HITS CAPACITY GOES OUT TO PARKWAY AND DOWN AND OUT TO THE BARS. I THINK THAT'S WHAT THE DESIGN IS. BUT THE PATHWAY IS INCLUSIVE, ONLY THE PATHWAY, DOESN'T GO INTO THIS POND. THE COUNTY'S CULVERT IS THE COUNTY'S CULVERT. IT DOESN'T AFFECT THIS POND. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, FOR MR. LASER HERE, IN LOOKING AT THE MAP THAT WAS INCLUDED IN OUR PACKET, IT APPEARS THAT THERE IS A DOCK FOR AND I CAN ONLY IMAGINE THAT IT IS FOR THE LAKESIDE RECREATIONAL USE? IS THAT PART OF YOUR PROJECT, OR WILL THAT STAY OR I MEAN JUST? >> IT'S AN AMENITY FOR LAKESIDE, THEY ASK TO BUILD AND WE GRANTED CONSENT. THEY KEEP IT INSURED AND THEY MAKE SURE IT DOESN'T CATCH ON FIRE. THAT'S REALLY THE EXTENT OF THAT OUR INVOLVEMENT WITH THAT. AT HIS PROPERTY. IT'S WITHIN THE PARKWAY. YEAH. >> BUT THE DOCK, I MEAN, EXTENDS INTO THE POND? >> CORRECT. >> I DON'T KNOW IF THAT MAKES ANY DIFFERENCE, BUT I WAS JUST CURIOUS. IS THIS AN AMENITY FOR THE RESIDENTS OF LAKESIDE TO GO SIT ON THE WATER AND LOOK AT THE. AT THE [OVERLAPPING]. >> BUT IT'S THE PLAN RIGHT NOW IS THAT WILL STAY? >> YES, MA'AM. >> THANK YOU. [BACKGROUND] >> THAT'S THE PENALTY FOR TALKING [LAUGHTER]. >> I KNOW MAYBE THIS IS NOT [OVERLAPPING]. >> NAME AND ADDRESS. >> TELL US WHO YOU ARE. >> NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. >> I'M RON BOWMAN. I LIVE AT 6:40 SPANISH WAY EAST, AND I'M OUT THERE QUITE A BIT. I HELP MOW THE TRAIL BECAUSE THE CITY DOESN'T ALWAYS MOW IT, AND IT'S ALWAYS A PROBLEM. BUT RIGHT NOW, THE WATER LEVEL, AND I KNOW I'VE SAID THAT ONCE, IS HIGHER THAN THESE HOMES DOWN HERE. I'VE BEEN IN THE LIKE I SAID, LAND MANAGEMENT BUSINESS FOR YEARS. THERE'S SOME TREES ON THIS FAR SIDE. IF THAT BROKE, I PROBABLY WOULD BE A CLASS A, WHICH IS WHAT WE COUNTED IN GEORGIA, WHICH PEOPLE COULD BE KILLED IF THAT DAM BROKE. ACTUALLY, SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE REFERRED TO THE LAND DAM SAFETY APARTMENT OR WHATEVER TO CHECK THAT ON AN OCCASIONAL BASIS. THAT'S ALL. >> THANK YOU. WE ARE GOING TO MOVE [NOISE] - >> IS THAT A POND OR IS IT A DAM? >> IF WE COULD, MR. CHAIRMAN, COULD WE GET BACK TO THE AGENDA AND GET TO 6.2, AND IT'S STILL THE SAME PROPERTY, SO THESE ITEMS COULD BE ACTUALLY ASKED AND ANSWERED UNDER AN AGENDA ITEM, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW [OVERLAPPING]-. >> YES, WE CAN. >> WE'RE NOT IN ANY PLACE TO BE MAKING THESE DECISIONS. IF WE COULD MOVE TO 6.2. >> MARGARET, YOU WANT TO TAKE US THROUGH 6.2? [6.2 (Legislative) - PAB 2025-0012 - JON LASSERRE, AGENT FOR AMELIA HOLDING LLC + PARKWAY COMMONS NORTH PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC, 0 AMELIA ISLAND PARKWAY] I GUESS YOU ALREADY HAVE. >> WELL, I DIDN'T TOUCH AS MUCH ON THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. AGAIN, IT'S THE SAME PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE SAME PARCELS THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT EARLIER FOR THE ANNEXATION. PART OF THE PROCESS, PRIOR TO THERE BEING AN ASSIGNMENT OF ZONING, WE'RE REQUIRED TO ASSIGN A FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT TO THE PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY TO THE RIGHT IN THE CITY IS C2, AND THAT FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION IS COMMERCIAL. THE PROPERTY THAT IS REQUESTING TO BE ANNEXED, THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT WOULD BE IN THE COUNTY AT THIS POINT, AND CURRENTLY, IT IS COMMERCIAL. OUR RECOMMENDATION IS TO ASSIGN A FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF COMMERCIAL TO THE PROPERTIES, BOTH PROPERTIES, PROPERTY A AND B, AND PARTLY, AND TO TALK ABOUT A LITTLE BIT, BECAUSE I KNOW WE'LL GET TO THAT PROBABLY ON THE ZONING. BUT AS FAR AS PARCEL B, THERE HAVE BEEN SOME CONVERSATIONS ABOUT WHAT WOULD BE THE FUTURE LAND USE PANEL ON THAT. BUT DUE TO THE FACT THAT IF THE POND HAS TO BE MODIFIED AND IT IS USED AS PART OF THE C2, IT WOULD ALSO NEED TO HAVE A FUTURE LAND USE AS A COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION. THAT'S THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. >> DISCUSSION. >> THAT MAKES SENSE. >> THIS IS LEGISLATIVE. >> I'M SORRY. IS THERE A PUBLIC COMMENT ON 6.2? I DON'T HAVE ANY. [00:50:06] >> DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE ANY? >> I'M JOHN LARA, 960185 GATEWAY BOULEVARD. I JUST WANTED TO SPEAK TO THE REASONING WHY DOING C2 FOR THE POND, AND IT'S EXACTLY FOR THE REASON THAT MARK SUGGESTED THAT THE POND WILL LIKELY BE AMENDED. I LOOK AT IT JUST AS MEMBER GILLETTE MENTIONED, IT'S LIKE WE'LL HAVE TWO OR THREE BUILDINGS USING THE SAME POND, ALL MAINTAINED AND MANAGED BY THIS ONE ASSOCIATION. THE DIMENSIONS OF THE POND TODAY ARE FINITE, 6.3 ACRES. IT MAY CHANGE IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, OR IT MAY STAY THE SAME. WE DON'T KNOW. IT SEEMED HAVING THE SAME ZONING AS THE PROPERTY THAT IT PRIMARILY SERVES, WHICH IS LAKESIDE, AND THE PROPERTY IN FRONT OF IT MADE SENSE. I JUST THOUGHT, LET'S JUST GO AHEAD AND KNOCK THIS ALL OUT AT ONE TIME RATHER THAN PIECEMEAL IT. THEN IF WE DID SOMETHING LIKE A I DON'T KNOW, CONSERVATION OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO KEEP IT AS A POND, WE HAVE TO COME BACK LATER AND CHANGE IT IF WE HAD TO AMEND IT. IT JUST MADE SENSE TO ME TO DO IT THAT WAY. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION, MR. CHAIRMAN. >> ANY COMMENT BEFORE NICK MAKES A MOTION? >> I MOVE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PAB CASE NUMBER 2025-0012 TO THE CITY COMMISSION REQUESTING THAT ASSIGNMENT OF THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND USE CATEGORY FOR BOTH PROPERTIES, PARCEL A, FRONTING MILLY IND PARKWAY, AND BAILEY ROAD AND PARCEL B, WHICH IS LOCATED BEHIND PARCEL A. B APPROVED AND THE PAB CASE 2025-0012 AS PRESENTED, IS SUFFICIENTLY COMPLIANT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO BE APPROVED AT THIS TIME. >> SECOND? >> I'LL, SECOND. THAT'S ALL YOU NEED. >> THAT'S ALL I NEED, MAN. TAKE THE ROLL. >> MEMBER STEVENSON? >> YES. >> MEMBER BENNETT? >> YES. >> MEMBER ROB? >> YES. >> MEMBER GANGER. >> YES. >> MEMBER GILLETTE? >> YES. >> VICE CHAIR FOAND? >> YES. >> CHAIR DOSTER. >> YES. >> PASSES 70. NOW WE'RE BACK ON 6.3. [6.3 (Quasi-Judicial) - PAB 2025-0013 - JON LASSERRE, AGENT FOR AMELIA HOLDING LLC + PARKWAY COMMONS NORTH PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC, 0 AMELIA ISLAND PARKWAY] DID WE SWEAR EVERYONE IN? >> THIS IS AGAINST A QUASI-JUDICIAL. >> EVERYTHING THAT WAS READ AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING CONTINUES TO APPLY, AND IF YOU'RE GOING TO SPEAK AND HAVEN'T BEEN SWORN, THEN WE WOULD JUST ASK WHEN YOU COME TO THE PODIUM THAT YOU BE SWORN, BUT THE STAFF HAS ALREADY BEEN SWORN, SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO PROCEED WITH THE STAFF REPORT AT THIS TIME. >> YOU'RE GOING TO PRESENT AGAIN. >> YES, SIR. >> THANK YOU. >> AGAIN, THIS IS CASE 2025-0013. THIS IS THE LAST COMPONENT OF THE REQUEST, WHICH IS THE ACTUAL ASSIGNMENT, THE REQUEST FOR THE ASSIGNMENT FOR THE ZONING. LOOKING AT IT, OF COURSE, THERE'S C2 TO THE RIGHT. THEN THERE'S SOME HEAVY INDUSTRIAL MIXED USES. THEN THERE IS THE TO WEST IS VACANT. THERE IS SOME SINGLE-FAMILY WITHIN THERE NOW, BUT I THINK ACTUALLY ON THE CORNER IS WHERE THE VACANT PROPERTY IS. IN THE COUNTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE. IT SEEMED THAT IT WAS LOGICAL TO EXTEND C2 BASED ON THE OTHER ZONINGS THAT THE COUNTY HAS, AND THEN THE ZONING THAT WE HAVE ALREADY FOR LAKESIDE. BUT HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT HAS INDICATED THAT PERHAPS HE WOULD WANT TO BUILD AN ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY, AND THAT HAS BEEN THE CONVERSATION WE'VE HAD WITH THE APPLICANT AS WELL AS A DEVELOPER. BUT OF COURSE, YOU NEED TO CONSIDER ALL THE USES THAT ARE WITHIN A C2 DISTRICT BECAUSE IT WILL BE A STRAIGHT C2, BUT THAT WOULD BE CONSISTENT AND WOULD JUST BE AN EXTENSION OF THE EXISTING C2. ALSO, MOST OF ALL THE USES IN C2 ARE COMMERCIAL, EXCEPT FOR THERE IS THE LIVE LOCAL ELEMENT THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR RESIDENTIAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND NON-RESIDENTIAL USES. JUST TO BRING THAT TO YOUR ATTENTION, THAT IT WOULD BE ALLOWED UNDER C2, ALONG WITH THE OTHER COMMERCIAL USES. >> IS THAT ALSO ALLOWED UNDER THE COUNTY'S ZONING OF INTENSE COMMERCIAL? >> CORRECT. >> IT'S ALL ALLOWED. >> IT'S ALLOWED. I'M NOT QUITE SURE HOW THEY LOOK AT IT FROM THEIR PERSPECTIVE ON THE LIVE LOCAL ORDINANCE, BUT IT WOULD BE ALLOWED ACCORDING TO STATE STATUTE. >> THEY MIGHT HAVE A LITTLE DIFFERENT DENSITY IN THE COUNTY VERSUS THE CITY, BUT THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY THING I CAN THINK OF. I DON'T KNOW. NICK. [00:55:02] >> NO, THAT'S RIGHT. >> DENSITY. >> BUT I DO HAVE A COMMENT, MR. CHAIRMAN, FOR MR. LASER, IF HE WANTS TO INVITE HIM BACK UP. >> THANK YOU. >> JUST SO, AND YOU PROBABLY DO KNOW THIS, BUT IN SECTION 4 LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, IF YOU DO ADOPT C2 BEING ADJACENT TO R1, YOU WOULD NEED A TYPE C BUFFER, WHICH WOULD BE 15 FEET, YOU'RE PLANTING TREES. >> UNDERSTOOD. THE 30-FOOT SIMMONS ROAD RIGHT OF WAY, IN ADDITION. WHATEVER THE CODE REQUIRES IS WHAT [OVERLAPPING]. >> WE WOULD JUMP THAT RIGHT AWAY. YOU JUST HAVE 22 SHADE TREES, 400 STORY TREES EVERY HUNDRED FEET AND A HEDGE WALL. JUST EVERYBODY KNOWS. >> PART OF ANNEXING INTO THE CITY IS BEING SUBJECT TO THEIR CODE. WHATEVER IT IS, WE'LL COMPLY WITH IT AT THE TIME. >> MR TITMAN DIDN'T HEAR ME. IT WOULD BE A 15-FOOT-WIDE BUFFER THAT WOULD HAVE TWO SHADE TREES EVERY HUNDRED FEET AND 400 TREES EVERY 100 FEET, SO SIX TREES EVERY 100 FEET, ALONG WITH A CONTINUOUS UNBROKEN HEDGE. >> ALSO, THE DEVELOPMENT CODE STRONGLY ENCOURAGES RETAINING EXISTING VEGETATION AND TREES, AND SO WE WOULD STRONGLY RECOMMEND THAT, IN ADDITION TO THE REQUIREMENTS THAT THE EXISTING TREES THAT ARE THERE NOW REMAIN. >> THAT WOULD APPLY TO THE POND, THOUGH, TOO. IT MAY NEED TO BE RESHAPED IF IT DOESN'T HAVE THAT FUR. >> SOUNDS LIKE A LOT OF WORK. WE'LL SEE ABOUT THAT ONE, I WOULD ADD, AS WELL, WHILE WE'RE ON THE TOPIC OF BUFFERS, THAT IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, THERE'S A 25-FOOT VEGETATIVE BUFFER ALL ALONG AMELIA PARKWAY, BECAUSE IT'S IN A RESORT OVERLAY. THAT'S ALSO WRITTEN INTO YOUR CODE. ONE THING I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY, MS. PEARSON MENTIONED AN ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY. AMONG THESE TYPES OF FACILITIES, THERE'S A DISTINCTION BETWEEN ASSISTED LIVING, LIKE LAKESIDE AND A SKILLED NURSING FACILITY. THIS WOULD BE A SKILLED NURSING FACILITY, SO A NURSING HOME. THERE ARE ONLY TWO NURSING HOMES IN NASSAU COUNTY. ONE IS ON LIME STREET, AND THE OTHER ONES IN HILLIARD. THIS WILL BE THE THIRD. I KNOW YOU CAN'T MAKE YOUR DECISION BASED UPON OUR APPLICATION, AND THIS IS NOT TO BE RELIED ON OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, BUT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THAT IS THE INTENTION. IT'S NOT ANOTHER ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY; IT'S A SKILLED NURSING FACILITY DIFFERENCE. JUST WANT TO POINT THAT OUT. >> WHAT IS A SKILLED NURSING FACILITY? >> IT'S LICENSED BY THE STATE, NOT JUST THROUGH REGULAR ASSISTED LIVING LICENSING; IT GOES THROUGH THE AGENCY FOR HEALTHCARE ADMINISTRATION. THEY HAVE TO DETERMINE A CERTIFICATE OF NEED FOR FACILITIES. IT'S BASICALLY IT'S A HOSPITAL. >> THANK YOU. I WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON 6.3? >> HERE COMES ONE. >> MARGARET KIRKLAND, 13 77 PLANTATION POINT DRIVE. I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF CONSERVE NASSAU. I DO NOT THINK AT THIS TIME IT IS APPROPRIATE TO DESIGNATE ANY PARTICULAR ZONING FOR THIS PROPERTY. THERE IS A LOT. THERE ARE MAJOR ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED BEFORE THE APPROPRIATENESS OF ANY ZONING CAN BE DETERMINED. >> THERE YOU GO. >> YOU WANT TO GO DOWN TO. >> IF WE GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE. >> KEEP GOING. STOP RIGHT THERE. WE'VE HEARD ABOUT THE SPANISH WAY FLOODING. THAT'S ONLY A SMALL EXAMPLE OF THE FLOODING ON SPANISH WAY, WHICH HAS MORE RECENTLY MOVED TO PRINCESS AMELIA. THERE HAS SINCE DAY 1 OF ID MAY, THERE HAS BEEN FLOODING IN THE BACKYARDS OF SOME OF THE HOUSES ON AMELIA ROAD. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THIS BECAUSE OF THE EXTENT OF FLOODING IN THAT WHOLE AREA. WE HAVE A COMMITTEE THAT HAS THREE CIVIL ENGINEERS ON IT. AMONG OTHER PEOPLE, ROBERT PRAGER, [01:00:05] RICH POLK AND FRANK HOFF. EVERYBODY HAS AGREED ON CONCERNS ABOUT THIS AREA. WHEN LAKESIDE WAS FIRST DEVELOPED, IT RESULTED IN FLOODING IN BARRINGTON, AND THEN, WHICH IS RIGHT BELOW IT. THEN, BARRINGTON RESULTED IN FLOODING IN KENNETH COURT. IT'S A HUGE MESS. NO ONE HAS MENTIONED THE FACT THAT, IN ADDITION TO THE POND AND OTHER AREAS THAT THERE'S A LOT OF WETLAND INSIDE OF THESE PARCELS, IT'S A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF WETLAND. WE SHOULD NOT BE DEVELOPING THAT UNLESS WE'RE INVITING MORE FLOODING. THE OTHER THING IS, WE HAVE FORECAST BY ALL REPUTABLE ORGANIZATIONS, THE STATE, THE FED, EVERYBODY, THAT WE WILL BE HAVING MORE INTENSIVE RAINFALL IN THE FUTURE. THE ADEQUACY OF THE EXISTING POND, MAY BE VALID AND MAY NOT BE VALID, OR MAY BE VALID FOR 20 MINUTES. THERE ARE TWO ISSUES RELATED TO THE FLOODING. ONE IS WE KNOW THAT IF YOU EXCEED THE CAPACITY FOR IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AND YOU REMOVE ALL OF YOUR TREES, YOU HAVE REMOVED YOUR STORM-WATER PROCESSING SYSTEM IN TERMS OF WHAT WE HAVE IN MOST PLACES ON THIS ISLAND. THAT IS AN ISSUE IF WE CONTINUE THAT PROCESS IN THIS AREA. THE OTHER THING IS, WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE HYDROLOGY UNDERGROUND IN THIS PART OF THE ISLAND. >> WE HAVE MET WITH THE COUNTY AND CITY STORMWATER MANAGERS AND CITY MANAGERS CHARLIE GEORGE AND CITY ENGINEER AND COUNTY ENGINEER. ON THIS. ONE OF THE OUTCOMES OF OUR SERIES OF MEETINGS OVER THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF HAS BEEN THAT, YES, THERE IS AN INCREASE IN COLLABORATION BETWEEN STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IN THE COUNTY AND THE CITY, BUT WE STILL HAVE NO THOROUGH INVESTIGATION OF WHAT IS HAPPENING BELOW THE SURFACE HERE? WHAT IS IT THAT IS CAUSING ALL OF THIS FLOODING IN THIS AREA? WE NEED TO DO THAT, AND WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM BEFORE WE DECIDE HOW THE LAND CAN BE USED AND SHOULD BE USED AND HOW WE NEED TO ACCOMMODATE THAT. WE HAVE A COUNTY FULL [OVERLAPPING]. >> CAN ASK YOU TO WRAP UP IN ABOUT 30 SECONDS. >> WE HAVE A COUNTY FULL OF FLOODING, AND IT IS BECAUSE OF HOW WE HAVE HANDLED IT. THERE ALSO IN THE SLIDE THAT I SENT OUT, INFORMATION FROM THE VULNERABILITY STUDIES THAT WE HAD IN THE COUNTY AND THE CITY EXCELLENT STUDIES. YET WE ARE NOT FOLLOWING THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LAND CONSERVATION AND PROTECTION. THOSE ARE MY CONCERNS ABOUT THIS. IT IS FINE THAT IT IS INCORPORATED INTO THE CITY, BUT WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT IT CAN BE USED FOR AND WHAT THE SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEMS ARE. THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? YOU'VE BEEN SWORN IN, MA'AM? WOULD YOU NEED TO HAVE YOU. >> I UNDERSTAND. >> CAN I HAVE YOU RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND? >> DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE ORAL AND OR WRITTEN TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? >> I DO. I'M LEN KREGER. I LIVE AT 549 SPANISH WAY WEST. I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN SOME CONCERNS WITHIN OUR COMMUNITY OF DRAINAGE ISSUES AND HAVE WORKED WITH THE CITY AND ATTEMPTED TO WORK WITH THE COUNTY. I ACTUALLY DON'T HAVE TESTIMONY. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU, PLEASE. UNDER THE ZONING THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING TO PUT ONTO THAT LOT. [01:05:01] YOU CALLED IT C2. YOU HAVE SOMEONE WHO'S INTERESTED IN DOING A NURSING HOME OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. BUT ASIDE FROM THAT, WHAT ARE THE TYPES OF USES THAT COULD BE BUILT IN A C2 ZONING? >> IT'S A VARIETY OF COMMERCIAL USES. THOSE USES ARE OUTLINED IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, CHAPTER 2, UNDER THE TABLE OF USES. THEY ARE NUMEROUS. I CAN READ YOU THE DEFINITION OF REALLY WHAT C2 IS. >> LEN, THEY ARE OFFICES, COMMERCIAL, RETAIL, PERSONAL SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS, RESTAURANTS, TRANSIT ACCOMMODATIONS. >> SOME LITTLE SHOPPING CENTERS. THAT WAS MY BASIC CONCERN. >> LET ME ADD ONE OTHER THING FOR C2, IN PARTICULAR, ANY RESIDENTIAL IS EXCLUDED. >> THAT MAKES SENSE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU. >> DON'T YOU NEED TO GET THESE FROM THESE TWO PEOPLE WHO SPOKE? >> MARGARET, AND LEN, IF YOU WOULD FILL ONE OF THESE IN AND GIVE IT TO ME. I GET IT. THANKS. VERY GOOD OTHER COMMENTS? YOU HAVE TO COME UP HERE? >> JIM TIPPINS, 508 SPANISH WAY WEST. AS FAR AS LIGHTING AND THAT, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WATER MITIGATION. WHAT ABOUT LIGHT MITIGATION? WE WERE DISCUSSING THAT A LITTLE EARLIER. WHO MANAGES THAT? I WENT OUT YES LAST NIGHT TO TRY TO SEE THE AURORA BOREALIS, AND I COULDN'T FOR THE LIGHT IN MY MY NEIGHBORHOOD RIGHT THERE AND I'M REALLY SAD. AS SOON AS THIS IS OVER, I'M GOING. BUT WHO MANAGES THAT LIGHT POLLUTION. IS THAT ANOTHER THING THAT COMES LATER THE [OVERLAPPING]. >> THAT WILL BE PART OF THE TRC. >> WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE LIGHTING IS GOING TO BE BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO BE THERE. >> SOMEBODY DOES STUDY THAT. THAT'S WHAT I NEEDED. THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> THANK YOU, PETER. WE'LL BE THERE. >> IS IT A QUESTION? WE'RE HERE TO TAKE TESTIMONY. [OVERLAPPING]. >> THIS IS A TESTIMONY OF COURSE. [LAUGHTER] >> TELL US WHO YOUR ADDRESS. >> I'M ROSS BOWMAN AGAIN, 640 SPANISH WAY EAST. I KNOW YOU'RE GETTING TIRED OF HEARING ME. DOWN HERE WHERE BAILEY IS AT IN AMELIA PARKWAY. IS THAT GOING TO BE THE COUNTY STILL MAINTAINING THAT, OR IS THAT WOULD BE THE CITY BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THOSE DITCHES DON'T DRAIN. >> IT'S THE COUNTY. >> IF THE WATER IS FLOWING DOWN THROUGH THIS WAY, AND I KNOW YOU CAN'T FIX EVERYTHING. BUT IF THE WATER IS FLOWING THIS WAY, THOSE DITCHES JUST SIT THERE. THERE'S THE WATER SITS THERE. THE CITY OR THE COUNTY. >> COUNTY. >> IT'S GOING TO BE COUNTY, BUT RIGHT NOW WE'RE HAVING PROBLEMS BECAUSE THE COUNTY DON'T TAKE CARE OF THAT ONE COVERT. HOW ARE WE ALL GOING TO MONITOR THE WATER WHEN IT LEAVES BECAUSE I KNOW IF YOU DIG A DITCH, THE WATER'S GOT TO GO SOMEWHERE. THESE GENTLEMEN, THEY CAN'T CONTROL THE WATER ONCE IT LEAVES OFF TO YOU. BUT IT'S GOING TO BACK UP. >> YOU NEED TO ADDRESS BOARD. >> BUT IS THERE GOING TO BE AN AGREEMENT ABOUT THAT? ABOUT TRC. >> I APOLOGIZE, FRANKLY, I'M PUTTING YOU OFF, BUT THAT WE CAN'T DO THAT, AND THEY CAN DO THAT. >> CAN I BUY YOU A SHOVEL. [LAUGHTER] >> JOHN SARA AGAIN, APPLICANT, JUST LIKE TO RESPOND A LITTLE BIT TO SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT ARE MADE TO THE EXTENT THEY'RE COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, AND SOME ARE NOT, MOST ARE NOT. BUT THERE ARE NO WETLANDS ON THE SITE AT ALL. WE'VE ALREADY HAD A FORMAL WETLAND DELINEATION DONE AND IT'S BEEN APPROVED BY THE ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, AND THERE ARE NO WETLANDS ON THE 12 ACRES, OR THE POND WASN'T WETLANDS WHEN IT WAS DONE. THERE WAS A MENTION ABOUT THE POND BEING EXPANDED OR BEING SMALLER THAN IT USED TO BE. THAT'S INCORRECT, ALSO. THERE WAS A BORROW PIT DUG ON THE SITE IN THE EARLY 70S THAT WAS USED TO BUILD THE AMELIA HOTEL, THE MILAN PLANTATION. THAT WAS NOT PERMITTED OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT BACK THEN YOU DIDN'T NEED TO. THIS POND CLEANED THAT UP AND EXPANDED IT TO 6.3 ACRES. THE PRIOR POND WAS ABOUT 44.5, AND IT WAS JUST A BORROW PIT. I GUESS, I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT THE WATER ON THE PARKWAY IS FROM THE PARKWAY, [01:10:01] NOT FROM THIS PARCEL. ALSO, ALDAMA WAS DEVELOPED AROUND 2004, 2005, AND THIS PROPERTY WAS ALL VACANT AT THAT TIME WITH THAT POND. LAKESIDE WAS DEVELOPED AROUND 2016, 2017. IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WHEN THEY WERE DOING THE ENGINEERING FOR LAKESIDE, THEY KNEW THERE WAS A PROBLEM AT ALDAMA, THE ALLIGATORING OF OF SPANISH WAY, AND THEY COLLABORATED WITH THEM TO TRY TO RESOLVE IT. I'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH THIS PROPERTY FOR 25 YEARS, MY ENTIRE CAREER, BASICALLY, MY DAD BEFORE THEN FOR PROBABLY 20 OR SO, SO I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH AND SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON IT, AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE ABOUT IT, BUT, THOSE ARE ALL MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE FACTS. I'D ALSO LIKE TO SAY, A SKILLED NURSING FACILITY IS JUST UNDER HOSPITAL BUT ABOVE AN ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY. I THINK I GOT A LITTLE BIT. IT'S NOT BASICALLY HOSPITALS. [LAUGHTER] >> THANK YOU. >> I WILL ADD ONE COMMENT IF I CAN, MR. CHAIRMAN. JUST FOR THE RECORD, C2 HAS A MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS AREA ALLOWABILITY OR ALLOWANCE OF 60% OF THE SITE. THE COUNTY ALLOWS UP TO 67% IMPERVIOUS ACCORDING TO THEIR COMP PLAN. BY AN AND PUTTING IT INTO THE ZONING, YOU ACTUALLY HAVE A REDUCTION OF THE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS AREA THAT YOU CAN HAVE. FOR THE RECORD, MR. LASER, YOU CAN ACTUALLY USE YOUR POND BANKS FOR YOUR PLANTING, SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO MAYBE REGRADE EVERYTHING ON THAT, BUT JUST SO YOU KNOW THAT THAT'S ALLOWABLE, BUT THIS IS ACTUALLY AN IMPROVEMENT, I THINK, MAYBE TO MARGARET'S LIKING THAT IT'S LESS IMPERVIOUS THAN WOULD BE ALLOWED IN THE COUNTY. >> I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. IT'S CLOSED AND OPEN FOR BOARD DISCUSSION. NICK, THANKS FOR THAT. OTHER BOARD DISCUSSION COMMENTS? MOTION? >> I MOVE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PAB CASE 2025-0013 TO THE CITY COMMISSION REQUESTING ASSIGNMENT OF A C-2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT FOR BOTH PROPERTIES, THAT'S PARCEL A FRONTING ON AMELIA ISLAND PARKWAY AND BAILEY ROAD, AND C2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL FOR PARCEL B, WHICH IS LOCATED BEHIND PARCEL A. IN APPROVAL I'M SORRY, APPROVED, AND THAT THE PAB CASE 2025-0013 AS PRESENTED, IS SUFFICIENTLY COMPLIANT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO BE APPROVED AT THIS TIME. >> A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> MIA. >> MEMBER [INAUDIBLE]? >> YES. >> MEMBER GILLETTE? >> YES. >> MEMBER BENNETT? >> YES. >> MEMBER STEVENSON? >> YES. >> MEMBER GANGER? >> YES. >> VICE CHAIR FOREHAND. >> CHAIR DOSTER. >> YES. >> NO. THANK YOU. THAT TAKES US TO 64 MARGE. [6.4 (Legislative) - PAB 2025-0014 - CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH] DO YOU WANT TO RUN US THROUGH 6.4? >> YES, SIR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, THIS IS PAB CASE 2025-0014. THE CITY OF FERNANDINA IS REQUESTING A LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE LDC, SECTION 103, 105, STRUCTURE OR DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURE ZONE COMBINED LOTS TO CLARIFY THE RELATIVE ZONING DISTRICTS THAT APPLY. JUST TO START, I STATED, THAT WE'RE JUST TRYING TO CLARIFY THE ORDINANCE. IT'S IMPORTANT PART OF THE CODE AND HAS BEEN LEFT TO INTERPRETATION, WHICH IS ONE OF THE KEY ELEMENTS, QUESTIONS THAT WE POSE WHEN WE ADMINISTER THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. WE'RE TRYING TO JUST CLEAR IT UP, ELIMINATE ANY INTERPRETATIONS, AND APPLY A SIMILAR CODE TO THREE THAT IS IN 1.03, 104. IF YOU START LOOKING AT THE CURRENT CODE, YOU WILL SEE THAT SECTION 1.03.04, DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES ON SUBSTANDARD LOTS LIST THE APPLICABLE ZONING DISTRICTS, R-1, R-2, RLM AND R-3. IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THAT WHEN YOU'RE IN THOSE ZONING DISTRICTS, THIS SECTION OF THE CODE APPLIES. BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT SECTION 1.03.05, CONSTRUCTION OR DEMOLITION ON STRUCTURES ON COMBINED LOTS. [BACKGROUND] YOU SEE THAT UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES ON COMBINED LOT, [01:15:01] THERE IS NO ZONING DISTRICT LISTED. THE QUESTION IS, WHAT ZONING DISTRICTS APPLIED TO 1.03.05? ALL ZONING DISTRICTS WHERE THERE'S A SINGLE FAMILY HOME OR DUPLEX? WHY DOES 1.03.05 APPLY TO R-1, R-2, RLM, AND R-3? 1.03.04 MENTIONS RESIDENTIAL AREAS. WHAT IS A RESIDENTIAL AREA? IS THAT MORE THAN ONE HOME? DOES THAT MAKE THAT A RESIDENTIAL AREA? DOES RESIDENTIAL AREA MEAN RESIDENTIALLY ZONE DISTRICTS? FROM A PLANNING STAFFS PERSPECTIVE, PLANNING PROFESSIONALS, WE COMMONLY USE RESIDENTIAL AREAS TO MEAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. THAT'S BEEN A COMMON USE OF THE WORDS. BUT THESE ARE QUESTIONS THAT WE ASK WHEN WE TRY TO APPLY THE ORDINANCE. THE FIRST THING WE ASK IS WHAT'S YOUR ADDRESS, AND THEN WE LOOK AND SEE WHAT YOUR ZONED. THAT WAY WE KNOW WHAT ZONING DISTRICTS AND SECTIONS OF THE ORDINANCE APPLY. WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS ADD, SO ADDING NON RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS TO 1.03.4 OR 1.03.5, CAUSE KEEP IN MIND 1.03.05 ONLY LISTS RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, LIKE MU-1, MU-8, OR C-3 FOR SINGLE FAMILY USES, KIND OF CONFLICTS WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH PRIORITIZES TRANSITION. MU-1 IS YOUR TRANSITIONAL ZONING. MU-8 IS YOUR REDEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT. THESE ARE ZONING DISTRICTS, NOT OVERLAYS. MU-8, YOU WANT TO REDEVELOP. WHAT'S THERE. THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, WHICH IS C-3, IS A BUSINESS GROWTH AREA, RATHER THAN TRY TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO. THAT'S WHAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OUTLAYS FOR THESE ZONING DISTRICTS. WE'VE LOOKED AT THAT. ALSO, INCLUDING THESE OTHER DISTRICTS COULD BE PROHIBITED, AND I WILL DEFER TO LEGAL TO TALK ABOUT THIS IS THAT NOW INTERPRETING THAT THE MU-1 OR MU-8 APPLIES TO THE 1.03.04, IN ADDITION TO THE 1.03.5, COULD BE INTERPRETED AS BEING MORE RESTRICTIVE. >> WHAT STAFF HAS TRIED TO DO TO BALANCE ALL OF THIS IS THAT WE HAVE SAID THAT THE ZONING DISTRICTS REFERENCE IN 1.03.04 HAVE SERVED AS THE GUIDING PRINCIPLE FOR THE APPLICATION OF 1.03.05. WHAT TRADITIONALLY HAPPENS SINCE THERE IS NO ZONING DISTRICTS. THE STAFF HAS LOOKED BACK AT C AT 1.03.04, AND WHICH LISTS THOSE ZONING DISTRICTS. IN 1.03.05, IT TALKS ABOUT RESIDENTIAL AREAS. THEREFORE, R-1, R-2, RLM, AND R-3 HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO PROJECTS THAT HAVE CAME INTO THE CITY. STAFF RECOMMENDS ADDING THOSE ZONING DISTRICTS FOR CLARIFICATION BECAUSE THERE IS NO SPECIFIC ZONING DISTRICTS MENTIONED IN 1.03.05. THE ZONING DISTRICTS REFERENCED IN 1.03 HAVE SERVED AS THE GUIDING PRINCIPLE FOR THAT SECTION OF THE ORDINANCE. THEREFORE, WE HAVE ADDED THOSE TO ENSURE COMPLETE CLARITY, UNDERSTANDING, AND ADMINISTERING OF 1.03.05 BY ELIMINATING THE NEED FOR INTERPRETATION. BECAUSE IT IS VERY DIFFICULT WHEN YOU HAVE A SECTION OF THE ORDINANCE THAT IS LEFT UP TO AN INTERPRETATION BY A STAFF MEMBER, AND IT'S NOT CLEAR. THERE ARE NO OTHER CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE TO 1.04. THERE'S NO OTHER CHANGES MADE TO 1.05. THE IMPACT ON THE OTHER ZONING AS IT RELATES TO THE APPLICATION OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR MOU-1 OR MOU-8 THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION FOR YOUR CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, YOUR ZONING MAP, AND THE CORRESPONDING REVISIONS TO THE LDC. THOSE ARE BIGGER QUESTIONS IS THAT, SHOULD THE MU-1 HAVE ELEMENTS THAT REQUIRE IT NOT TO CHANGE, WHEN IN FACT, MU-1 IS A TRANSITIONAL ZONING DISTRICT. MU-8 IS A REDEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT. BY THAT NATURE, THEY'RE ENCOURAGED TO CHANGE AND NOT STAY THE STATUS QUO. THOSE ARE ZONING THAT WERE PUT ON THOSE PARTICULAR PROPERTIES. WHEN SOMEONE COMES IN, THEY ASSUME THEY HAVE THAT ABILITY TO CHANGE WHAT THE CURRENT USE IS ON THE PROPERTY? THIS IS THE PROPOSED CHANGE. WE'VE SIMPLY ADDED THE ZONING DISTRICTS THAT WERE IN 1.03.04, R-1, R-2, [01:20:01] RLM, AND R-3. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE AMENDMENT IN ITSELF IS A MINOR CHANGE, BUT IT IS A VERY COMPLEX ISSUE. THERE IS NO DIRECTION FOR STAFF BECAUSE THERE IS NO ZONING DISTRICTS LISTED. EVEN THE FACT THAT IT SAYS RESIDENTIAL AREA IN ITSELF CAN BE LEFT UP TO INTERPRETATION. STAFF IS JUST LOOKING FOR CLARIFICATION FOR HOW TO ADMINISTER THE SECTION 1.03.05. THEN TO START THINKING ABOUT IF THERE ARE SOME OTHER ZONING DISTRICTS THAT PERHAPS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADDED TO 1.03.04, WHY WEREN'T THEY? THEY'RE NOT. IT STRICTLY TALKS ABOUT THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. THEREFORE, THAT IS WHY STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT WE FOLLOW WHAT WAS IN 1.03.04. IT TALKS ABOUT RESIDENTIAL AREAS IN 1.03.05. THAT HAS BEEN HOW IT HAS BEEN APPLIED. THAT'S WHERE WE ARE HERE. THAT WE DO FEEL LIKE THAT IF THERE IS A DESIRE TO ADD OTHER ZONING DISTRICTS TO THOSE, THEN THERE NEEDS TO BE A CHANGE TO THE ZONING THAT HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR ANY OF THOSE OTHER ZONING DISTRICTS. WE'RE IN THE SITUATION WHERE IT'S NOT CLEAR DIRECTION. IT'S STRICTLY AN INTERPRETATION AT THIS POINT AS TO HOW YOU WOULD APPLY IT. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, COULD WE SEE THE ZONING MAP OF THIS? >> YES. I HAVE IT. LET ME GET BACK OUT. >> WHILE WE DO THAT, I WANT TO ADD A POINT OF CLARIFICATION THAT I THINK IT'S RELEVANT, BUT I MEAN, EVERYBODY HAS THEIR OWN OPINION ON THIS. I DON'T KNOW THAT ANYBODY'S RIGHT OR WRONG, BUT 1.03.04 REALLY SEEMS TO APPLY TO SUBSTANDARD LOTS. 1.03.05 SEEMS TO APPLY TO EVERY LOT. MY CONCERN IS, LET'S LOOK AT THE ANNEXATION THAT TOOK PLACE TODAY. IF THERE WERE A COUPLE STRUCTURES ON THAT PROPERTY, WHICH THERE COULD HAVE EASILY BEEN, AND IF THEY WENT TO R-1, WHICH IS PROBABLY THE ZONING THEY WOULD HAVE GOTTEN HAD THEY WANTED TO DO RESIDENTIAL, WOULD 1.03.05 APPLY TO THEM? I THINK A STRICT INTERPRETATION WOULD SAY, YES. MY CONCERN IS, YOU'RE GOING TO HANDICAP ANNEXATIONS BECAUSE THE UNCERTAINTY OF A VARIANCE IS ABOUT AS UNCERTAIN AS YOU GET. I THINK 1.03.05, IF WE'RE GOING TO DO IT, WE OUGHT TO EXCLUDE, AND I'M SURE THIS IS MY OPINION AND NOT EVERYBODY'S. BUT A PLATE TO ME IS DIFFERENT THAN SOME OF THE OTHER ELEMENTS. FOR EXAMPLE, IF MR. LASER WAS BRINGING IN 11 ACRES TO PLATE, THEN HE MAY BE EXCLUDED FROM 1.03.05 IF THAT LANGUAGE WERE INCLUDED. I'M SAYING THAT BECAUSE I THINK IF WE ADD IN R-1AND RLM, I MEAN, RLM IS A BRAND NEW ZONING. BRAND NEW IT'S ONLY BEEN APPLIED TO A COUPLE OF PLACES. I CAN'T SEE THERE BEING ANY ISSUES WITH THAT. AS A CASE IN POINT, I LOOK AT THE DUNES OF AMELIA, WHICH IS NEAR WHERE YOU GUYS ARE. THAT HAD A COUPLE OF HOUSES ON IT. IT WAS 20 ACRES. WE DID THAT ONE. WE HAD TO ANXIT INTO THE CITY, AND WE HAD TO COME IN, I THINK FOR MAYBE RLM. I'M NOT SURE. BUT TODAY, TO SUBJECT THAT TO 1.03.05 WOULD BE BORDERLINE INSANITY BECAUSE YOU HAVE TWO HOUSES THAT WAS AN OLD FARM. I THINK IF WE'RE GOING TO ADD IN AND ADD CLARITY, THEN WE OUGHT TO ADD MORE CLARITY, AT LEAST IT MAYBE EXCLUDE ANNEXATIONS. >> IF I MAY, FOR THE RECORD. WE ALLOWED THIS TO MOVE FORWARD, MR. CHAIRMAN, AS A SIMPLE CLARIFICATION THAT MAY NOT SEEM SO SIMPLE. WE'RE NOT RECOMMENDING ANY OTHER CHANGES AT THIS TIME. IF A CLARIFICATION OF JUST THE ZONING DISTRICTS IS NOT THE PLEASURE OF THIS BOARD. THERE ARE SEVERAL REASONS WHY I WOULD HAVE TO ADVISE YOU NOT TO TAKE ACTION. ONE IS THERE IS CURRENTLY LITIGATION RELATED TO THIS, WHICH IS WHY WE HAVEN'T TOUCHED ON IT IN THE PAST. 1.03.05 UNDER THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION IS BEING INTERPRETED TO APPLY TO ANY ZONING DISTRICT THAT HAS A RESIDENTIAL AREA BECAUSE OF THE WAY IT'S WORDED. THAT WOULD MEAN MU-1, MU-8, AND C-3 HAS BEEN THE INTERPRETATION OF THE NEW ADMINISTRATION. THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION WAS APPLYING IT, APPARENTLY, AS I'VE BEEN TOLD, [01:25:02] THAT IT IS ONLY APPLICABLE TO R-1, R-2, RLM, AND R-3. IT WAS SIMPLY TO TRY AND CLARIFY THAT. IF YOU WANT TO TAKE ANY FURTHER ACTION, WE MAY JUST WANT TO WAIT AND LEAVE IT IN LIMBO. THE OTHER CONCERN ABOUT TAKING ANY OTHER ACTION THAT NOW MAYBE WHAT MR. GILLETTE IS PROPOSING WOULDN'T BE MORE STRINGENT. BUT SB-180 IS GOING TO BE AN ISSUE HERE. BECAUSE IF WE START INTERPRETING IT DIFFERENTLY, EVEN WHAT I JUST SAID, THAT THE PREVIOUS STAFF HAD SAID IT ONLY APPLIED TO R-1, R-2, R-3 AND RLM. THAT'S HOW THEY WERE APPLYING 1.03.05. EVEN THOUGH THOSE ZONING DISTRICTS ARE NOT IN 1.03.05, JUST SAYS RESIDENTIAL AREAS. IN THE NOTICE THAT WE'VE BEEN SERVED FOR THE 7051 HEARING, THAT PARTICULAR LAND OWNER IS ARGUING THAT ANY CHANGE IN INTERPRETATION. FORGET AMENDING THE CODE, BUT A CHANGE IN THE CITY'S INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE COULD TRIGGER SB-180 AND BE MORE RESTRICTIVE ON THE LAND, AND TRIGGER A LAWSUIT BASED ON THE SB-180 BILL. THIS WAS TRICKY. WHEN WE'RE SITTING IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND MY OFFICE, AND WE'RE HAVING ZOOM MEETINGS ABOUT WHAT WOULD MAKE IT EASIER FOR STAFF AND FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO INTERPRET. WE'RE THINKING, LET'S JUST BE CLEAR ABOUT THE ZONING. WE THOUGHT WE COULD GET THAT THROUGH. IT WOULDN'T BE ANY MORE STRINGENT THAN WHAT PREVIOUSLY WE'RE DOING, RATHER. THAT WAS THE GOAL TONIGHT. I THINK THE DISCUSSION IS GREAT, BUT I CANNOT ADVISE THAT WE MOVE ANY FURTHER WITH A LOT OF COMPLEX CHANGES TO 1.03.05. BECAUSE OF THE EXISTING LAWSUIT THAT'S AT THE 7051 HEARING THAT IS STAYING ALL OTHER LAWSUITS, BUT COULD TRIGGER A SUIT. [OVERLAPPING] SB-180 IS GOING TO KEEP US FROM DOING ANYTHING UNLESS WE'RE LESS STRINGENT. >> ALSO THE AD. THE AD WAS CRAFTED IN SUCH A WAY THAT IS VERY LIMITED TO ANY OTHER CHANGES OTHER THAN WHAT'S BEFORE YOU TONIGHT. >> THAT'S A VERY, VERY GOOD POINT. >> IF YOU'RE SAYING YOU DON'T WANT US TO DO ANYTHING, MY QUESTION IS, WHY DID YOU BRING IT FORWARD TO US? WHY WAS THAT THEN? >> WE WANTED YOU TO CLARIFY. WE HAVE BEEN ADVISED THAT STAFF WAS PREVIOUSLY INTERPRETING THIS R-1, R-2, RLM, AND R-3. THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING WHEN I JOINED THE CITY, AND MS. PEARSON, YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT'S HOW IT'S BEEN INTERPRETED? >> CORRECT. >> WE WERE INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN SOMEONE CAME IN AND WAS IN MU-1 DISTRICT, IT WASN'T EVEN LOOKED AT. THEY DIDN'T EVEN THINK TO APPLY 1.03.05. WE WERE SIMPLY TRYING TO MAKE THAT SIMPLE CHANGE BECAUSE I FELT THAT IT WOULD SURVIVE SB-180 CHALLENGE. IT WOULD PUT INTO THE CODE, THE WAY THE STAFF HAS PREVIOUSLY APPLIED 1.03.05, AND WOULD OFFER SOME CLARITY WHILE WE WAIT FOR THE OPPORTUNITY FOR SB-180 TO GET CORRECTED. THAT WE MAYBE COULD MAKE SOME MORE CHANGES TO IT. THAT WAS THE INTENT WAS TO BRING IT FORWARD JUST FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. THEN CERTAINLY WE COULD BRING IT BACK AFTER THE SB-180 IS CORRECTED IN THE NEXT LEGISLATIVE SESSION, WE ALL HOPE OR CLARIFIED. WHEN WE'RE IN A POSITION THAT WE'RE NOT LITIGATING OVER THIS PARTICULAR SECTION. >> IF THAT'S YOUR POSITION, WHY NOT JUST WITHDRAW THE CASE NOW AND BRING IT UP AT A LATER DATE? >> THAT'S WHAT I WOULD PREFER TO DO. >> WELL, AND IT WAS BROUGHT FORWARD. THE CITY WANTED TO BRING IT FORWARD TO THE PLANNING BOARD TO DISCUSS THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADD THE ZONING DISTRICTS FOR CLARITY TO ASSIST STAFF IN INTERPRETATION GOING FORWARD. BUT IF IT'S NOT THIS BOARD'S PLEASURE TO DO THAT, AND MR. GILLETTE HAS RAISED SOME THINGS. THEN WE'LL JUST TABLE IT. THAT'S CERTAINLY MY PLEASURE. >> GO AHEAD. >> I THINK I HAVE THE FLOOR HERE, BECAUSE I'LL RAISE SOME MORE QUESTIONS. BECAUSE I HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE BEGINNING HERE, WHICH IS A LONG TIME AGO. BUT IT SAYS HERE, IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN OPEN SPACE, VISUAL QUARTERS, NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER, PROPERTY VALUES, AND VISUAL ATTRACTIVENESS. THOSE WERE ALL THE REASONS THAT 1.03.04 AND 1.03.05 WERE BROUGHT FORTH. TO DEAL WITH ALL OF THESE SUBSTANDARD LOTS THAT OUR FOUNDER, MR. YUWE, IN HIS GREAT MIND DECIDED, WE NEED [INAUDIBLE] AND I MADE UP THAT NUMBER, PEOPLE. [01:30:01] TWENTY-FIVE-FOOT LOTS. FOR EXAMPLE, THERE ARE NEIGHBORHOODS NOW, OUTSIDE OF THESE THREE ZONING DISTRICT THAT YOU COULD PUT OVER 300 HOUSES IN WITHIN THE CURRENT QUARTER MILE. BECAUSE THERE'S ROUGHLY 32, I THINK IT'S 32 LOTS TO A BLOCK. YOU CAN ADD UP THE BLOCKS, SO THAT'S THE POTENTIAL. THAT'S WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO WAY BACK WHEN. NO, PERFECTLY, OBVIOUSLY. I WOULD TELL YOU THAT RIGHT NOW, MY UNDERSTANDING AFTER TALKING TO MARGARET WAS THAT 1.03.05 DEALS WITH ALL ZONING CATEGORIES. THAT'S THE PROBLEM, AND I WOULD AGREE THAT COULD BE A PROBLEM. BUT SINCE THIS WAS DEVELOPED, WE HAVE BROUGHT IN MU-8. IF YOU JUST SIMPLY LOOK AT MU-8, THERE ARE A TON OF 25-FOOT LOTS IN THERE. NOT A GREAT PLACE TO BUILD ANOTHER 300 HOMES IN MY OPINION. SOME DEVELOPERS PERFECT, JUST GO UP. BUT IF YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS TO PULL IT, AND YOU ALL HAVE THAT RIGHT TO DO THAT THIS VERY MINUTE. LET'S DO THIS LATER ON BECAUSE AT THIS POINT, I'M PREPARED TO STAY HERE UNTIL MIDNIGHT, IF YOU WANT TO TELL YOU THAT I'M NOT HAPPY WITH JUST THESE ZONING CATEGORIES THAT YOU'VE ADDED HERE, JUST BY LOOKING AT THE CURRENT ZONING MAPS. I WOULD ASK YOU PULL UP THE MU-8, FOR EXAMPLE. I JUST WANT TO SHOW YOU EVERYONE SOMETHING, YOU ALL HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THIS AT HOME. IF YOU PULL UP THE MU-8 AROUND HICKORY STREET AND ZERO ON IN. YOU'VE GOT TO REMEMBER THAT MU-8 COVERS A LARGE PORTION OF WHAT WAS KNOWN AS THE SOUTHSIDE NEIGHBORHOOD. YOU JUST LISTENED TO THEM THE OTHER NIGHT WHEN YOU WANTED TO CHANGE THE BALL FIELDS. THE POTENTIAL FOR CHANGE IN JUST THE MU-8 IN THAT AREA. ZERO IN ON THE MU-8, SAY INDIGO STREET. >> YEAH, THAT'S IT RATHER. >> AROUND INDIGO. >> YES. >> WALK 159. >> IF YOU LOOK AT. >> THAT'S THE MU1 IS IT. >> YOU GOT A 01 IN THERE. >> I THINK THEY'RE NOT ON THE PROPERTY APPRAISERS MAP I THINK [OVERLAPPING] MAP. >> FOR EXAMPLE, AND I'LL JUST DO THIS BY VOICE. THERE ARE 3225 FOOT LOTS IN EACH OF THE BLOCKS THAT I'M GOING TO MENTION,2325 FOOT LOTS, AND 153, 154, HALF OF 155, 160, 159, HALF OF 158, ALL OF BLOCK 166 AND MOST OF BLOCK 167, ON AND ON AND ON. JUST OF THOSE LOTS, IT'S A SIMPLE MATH. I NAME 5*32, YOU CAN DO THE MATH. FOR THAT AREA, THAT'S THE POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AS THE CODE STILL READS. I'M OPPOSED AT THIS POINT TO JUST LIMIT THOSE ZONING DISTRICTS. IF WE WERE GOING TO MAKE A CHANGE, I WOULD INCLUDE MU1 AND MU8, THAT INCLUDE ANY SUBSTANDARD LOTS OF RECORD. THAT'S A SIMPLE ADDITION. THEN YOU COULD MOVE FORWARD FROM THERE. BUT I WOULD NOT IF MU1 AND MU8 IS NOT ADDED, I WOULD NOT VOTE FOR ANY CHANGE AT ALL BECAUSE I'D RATHER HAVE IT OVER THE ENTIRE CITY AND DEAL WITH IT ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS THAN OPEN UP THAT KIND OF WORK. >> CAN ASK YOU A QUESTION HERE AND THEN TAKE YOUR COVER. >> THANK YOU. >> JUST TO CLARIFY, BECAUSE OF WHAT HAS BEEN ADVERTISED, WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO AMEND A MOTION [OVERLAPPING] TO AMEND THE MOTION TO INCLUDE THOSE, CAN HE DO THAT? >> THERE IS NO MOTION RIGHT NOW. >> THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. >> RECOMMENDATION. >> I RECOMMEND THIS. >> I THINK THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE THAT APPROACH, IT'LL VIOLATE SB180. YOU'LL SET YOURSELF UP FOR A LAWSUIT TOMORROW. >> I THINK WE SHOULD JUST WITHDRAW IT IF THAT IS YOU CAN TABLE IT. [01:35:04] YOU CAN STAFF. >> I CAN'T. >> I WANT TO WITHDRAW IT. >> IF I'M GOING TO MAKE MOTION AND TABLE IT THAT'D BE CORRECT TO SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE WHENEVER THAT IS [OVERLAPPING] LET ME FINISH. DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA WHEN SOME OF THESE ISSUES WOULD BE CLARIFIED SO STAFF COULD MOVE FORWARD? >> PROBABLY APRIL OR MAY OF NEXT YEAR. >> NEXT YEAR. >> WE HAVE DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED ON COMBINED LOTS IN MU1. >> I THINK WHAT THEY WERE ASKING IS WHEN I BELIEVE, I'M SORRY IF I'M WRONG, BUT YOU WERE ASKING WHEN THE LEGISLATURE MIGHT? >> I'M JUST YOU SAYING THAT YOUR RECOMMENDATION YOU STARTED OUT BY SAYING [OVERLAPPING] RECOMMENDATION NOT DO ANYTHING. THAT TO ME IS WITHDRAW THIS AND LOOK AT IT AT SOME POINT. >> MY RECOMMENDATION WAS THAT YOU CLARIFY IF IT WAS JUST GOING TO BE THOSE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS AS IT'S BEEN APPLIED IN THE PAST. I THINK THAT'S WHAT THE CITY WAS ASKING FOR. I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE WAS A RECOMMENDATION. THAT WAS THE PURPOSE WAS TO BRING IT FORWARD. PUT THE ZONING DISTRICTS AS IT HAS BEEN APPLIED IN THE PAST BY THE CITY IN 10305, WHICH DEALS WITH ONE OR MORE PLATTED LOTS. WHAT I WAS SAYING FOR THE RECORD THAT IS THAT THIS BOARD DOES NOT AGREE WITH THAT, AND I KNOW OTHERS HAVE RAISED CONCERNS ABOUT MU8, THEN I WOULD SAY STAFF CAN CONSIDER WITHDRAWING IT OR OR THE BOARD CAN TABLE IT. >> [OVERLAPPING] DAPHNE. >> THANK YOU. I HAVE LOTS OF NOTES ON THIS, SO PLEASE BEAR WITH ME AS I GO THROUGH THEM. I DO WANT TO START BY SAYING I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THE INTENT BEHIND WANTING TO ADD CLARITY. AND I THINK THAT CLARITY IS VERY IMPORTANT WHEN IT COMES TO THESE SECTIONS. WE ALL KNOW HOW MUCH TURMOIL THESE SECTIONS HAVE CAUSED IN THE CITY. BUT I WANT TO LOOK AT HOW THESE JUST BOIL DOWN BOTH OF THE SECTIONS VERY SIMPLY, AND WHAT THEIR INTENTS WERE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. SO 10304 SETS THE RULE FOR WHEN A STRUCTURE IS ON MULTIPLE LOTS AND THEN 10305 TELLS US HOW TO APPLY THAT RULE. I'M JUST LAYING DOWN THE BASIS HERE. I'M 10304 LISTS ALL THE ZONING DISTRICTS, AS WE'VE SEEN, R1, R2, RM AND R3, THOSE ARE THE RESIDENTIAL ONES. ALTHOUGH 10305 DOES NOT, I THINK THAT MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN A MISTAKE, AND I'LL EXPLAIN WHY I THINK THAT. IT DOES SAY RESIDENTIAL AREAS THERE, AND I THINK THAT MAY BE BECAUSE IT WOULD LEAVE IT UP TO INTERPRETATION FOR STAFF TO APPLY IT IN AREAS AND WE HAVE FLEXIBILITY IN WHERE THEY CAN APPLY THAT RULE, NOT NECESSARILY BASE IT ON ZONING, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE CORE OF WHAT BOTH OF THESE SECTIONS ARE DOING, YOU'RE LOOKING AT PROTECTING NEIGHBORHOOD PATTERN. THAT'S WHAT IT ESSENTIALLY ALL BOILS DOWN TO IS NEIGHBORHOOD PATTERN AND HOW THINGS HAVE EXISTED FOR YEARS. THAT BEING SAID, IF WE WERE TO ADD SOMETHING TO THAT SECTION 10305, WOULD THAT REALLY WOULD THAT MAKE US LOSE THE ABILITY TO PROTECT NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER IN THOSE MIXED USE AREAS OR THE OLDER, HISTORIC DISTRICT AREAS, THOSE KIND OF THINGS, ARE WE NOW RESTRICTING OURSELVES SO MUCH AND LEAVING OUT SECTIONS THAT MAY HAVE BEEN INTENTIONALLY MEANT TO BE UP FOR INTERPRETATION FOR STAFF? BECAUSE AGAIN, THE BROADER CONTEXT OF THIS IS NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER AND THE BUILT PATTERN OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? >> YES. THE PROBLEM IS, THOUGH, IS THAT IS SUBJECTIVE. MY INTERPRETATION OF WHAT NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER COULD BE DIFFERENT THAN THE CITIZENS INTERPRETATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER. IT CAN CHANGE AS STAFF CHANGES, WHICH LEADS TO CONFUSION ON THE PUBLIC SIDE, THE DEVELOPERS SIDE, AND THEN THE NEXT INTERPRETATION CAN BE SOMETHING DIFFERENT. THAT'S UNLESS WE HAVE SOME CRITERIA FOR THE INTERPRETATION. WE JUST DON'T LIKE INTERPRETATIONS BECAUSE WE WANT TO DO WHAT THE ORDINANCE SAYS. TO SAY THAT IT'S UP TO INTERPRETATION, THEN IT COULD BE ALLOWED IN MU1 THEN. YOU'RE SAYING, MAYBE WE DECIDE THAT THE MU THAT WHAT THEY'RE DOING DOES FIT THE CHARACTER. THAT'S LIKE A DEPARTMENT MAKING THAT DECISION. WE CAN DO THAT BUT AS LONG AS EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THAT THAT IS THE INTERPRETATION AND THAT THE POWER HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE CITY TO MAKE THAT INTERPRETATION. IT CAN CHANGE, AND THAT CAN GET US IN TROUBLE WHEN AN INTERPRETATION CHANGES. >> MARK. >> I'D REMIND EVERYONE, TOO, [01:40:01] THAT MU8 CAME IN WELL AFTER THIS WAS WRITTEN. I DON'T KNOW I DON'T HAVE A OLD ZONING MAP, THOUGH, BUT I'M ASSUMING THAT MOST OF THE PROPERTIES IN MU8 ARE SIMILAR TO WHAT'S THERE ON BOTH SIDES OF IT TODAY. >> COMMERCIAL. >> MOSTLY RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL. >> ESPECIALLY RESIDENTIAL. IT'S A TRANSITIONAL ZONING NEXT TO THE RAILROAD, AND THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF INQUIRIES ON THOSE PROPERTIES TRANSITIONING TO A TRANSITION ZONING AND WHICH IT ALLOWS FOR MORE HOUSING OPTIONS LIKE TOWN HOMES. THAT HAS BEEN THE INTENT. THAT IS WHAT THE INTENT OF THE MU1 IS. THAT HAS WHAT'S BEEN CONVEYED BECAUSE IT'S NOT LISTED IN EITHER SECTION. I HEAR WHAT VIE CHAIR DAPHNE IS SAYING, BUT TO LEAVE IT UP INTERPRETATION, IT COULD BE AN INTERPRETATION THEN THAT MU1 IF WE'RE JUST LOOKING AT THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THAT PERHAPS THAT WOULD BE OKAY NEXT TO THE RAILROAD TRACK. THAT'S AN INTERPRETATION. YOU GET IN TROUBLE WHEN YOU STARTED IN THE ORDER. >> COMING THROUGH THE CHAIR TO ADD TO MS. PEARSON'S COMMENT. IT'S AN INTERPRETATION THAT EITHER REQUIRES YOU TO GET A VARIANCE OR NOT. THAT INTERPRETATION BY STAFF IN MU1 AREA, WOULD IF STAFF SAID, OH, I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT OPEN SPACE, VISUAL CORRIDORS, NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER IN THE RESIDENTIAL AREA OF AN MU1 SO THEREFORE, BOOM, YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO GET A VARIANCE. BUT IF THE STAFF DOES INTERPRET THAT IT'S REQUIRED, THEN NOW YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE VARIANCE PROCESS, PAY THE APPLICATION FEE, AND MEET THE CRITERIA, THE VARIANCE. IT'S INTERESTING STAFF AND PLANNING, OFTEN, AND LAWYERS AND ENGINEERS, INTERPRET. WE ALL INTERPRET. BUT THIS WOULD BE AN INTERPRETATION THAT WOULD REQUIRE THEN YET ANOTHER ACT OF GOING TO A VARIANCE BOARD WHEREAS, THE STAFF COULD SAY AT 1.0, THIS PROJECT, 10305 SHOULD NOT APPLY, NO VARIANCE NEEDED WHICH ONE COULD ARGUE IS WHAT HAS HAPPENED TWICE [LAUGHTER] IT'S THE CLARITY FOR THAT REASON I DO UNDERSTAND INTERPRETATION, BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND THE DISCOMFORT AND SOME OF THE CONCERNS ABOUT MUA WHICH HAVE BEEN RAISED EVEN SINCE THIS AGENDA WAS POSTED. >> LET ME MAKE A COMMENT. >> GO AHEAD. >> A YEAR AGO, WE SAID THE RIGHT ROAD IS TO REDEFINE, RESTRUCTURE, WHATEVER 10304 AND 10305. WHY DON'T WE SIT OUT AND DO WHAT WE REALLY WANT AND WHAT THE CITY NEEDS, THEN WE'LL FIGURE OUT ABOUT THE LEGAL SIDES OF IT. WE HAVEN'T EVEN FIGURED OUT EXACTLY WHAT THE RIGHT ANSWERS. HOW DO YOU KNOW THERE AREN'T UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES FOR MAKING THIS CHANGE SIX MONTHS OR NINE MONTHS DOWN THE ROAD. WE DON'T KNOW SO WE'RE BITING INTO WHATEVER, AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE BITING INTO. I THINK RIGHT NOW WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS DEFINE WHAT THE HECK IS IT THAT WE REALLY WANT 04 AND 05 TO BE FOR THE CITY, DO IT THE RIGHT WAY, AND THEN WE'LL FIGURE OUT WHAT WE HAVE TO DO FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT. >> I'LL ANSWER YOUR QUESTION TWO WAYS. ONE, THERE WAS A COMMITTEE DEVELOPED. >> YES. >> THEN I WAS THE CHAIRMAN OF THAT COMMITTEE AND MET WITH THE FORMER PLANNING DIRECTOR ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS AND OTHER MEMBERS AND THEN THINGS HAPPENED AND WE HAVEN'T MET SINCE. IN ONE SENSE, YES, WE DID THAT, AND I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT INSTEAD OF JUST THE TWO MEMBERS AND SOME ANOTHER PLANNING PERSON, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN OPEN TO MORE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD. THAT'S ONE. TWO, THE REMEDY HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE BOA, IN CASE YOU DON'T LIKE IT, YOU HAD A REMEDY TO GO AND CHANGE IT. IT GAVE EVERYONE THE OPPORTUNITY FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO COME AND SPEAK THEIR PIECE ON ANY OF THESE CHANGES. I KNOW AS A DEVELOPER, YOU DON'T WANT TO SPEND EXTRA MONEY OR EXTRA TIME OR HAVE THAT EXTRA RISK, BUT THAT'S THE REMEDY FOR MAKING A CHANGE HERE. EVERYONE HAS THE ABILITY TO DO THAT, EVEN UNDER THE MOST ONEROUS WHATEVER WORD. GIVE ME A WORD OVER THE DOCTRINES. BUT AGAIN, I WOULD HOPE WE WOULD NOT PROCEED WITHOUT ADDING MU1 AND MU8 TO THIS BECAUSE I THINK IT'S EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. [01:45:05] THERE'S A LOT OF ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOODS IN THOSE AREAS, OR DO NOTHING AND WAIT UNTIL WE CAN SETTLE THIS WITH THE STATE AND COME BACK AND REVISIT AT ANOTHER TIME. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I WILL MAKE A MOTION WE WITHDRAW THE DISCUSSION [OVERLAPPING] >> TO A TIME CERTAIN? >> NO. >> NO. >> I DON'T CONTROL IT. >> THERE'S A MOTION. THERE'S BEEN SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT SPECIFIC MOTION? >> I WOULD VOTE FOR THAT. I'LL BE QUITE CLEAR ABOUT IT. >> I'LL CALL YOUR NAME [LAUGHTER] >> WE ARE WITHDRAWING BEFORE ANY FURTHER DATE [OVERLAPPING] IT'S BEEN MADE AND SECONDED. >> GO AHEAD. >> I WANT TO JUST CLARIFY SOMETHING AFTER YOU TAKE YOUR VOTE. YOU ARE SAYING THEN IT IS ALLOWABLE THEN FOR THERE TO BE INTERPRETATION WITHIN THAT SECTION. >> IT IS WHAT IT IS RIGHT NOW. >> IT IS WHAT IT IS. >> YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WILL BE INTERPRETATION OF THAT SECTION OF THE ORDINANCE. >> SURE. I DON'T HAVE ANY COMMENTS [OVERLAPPING] I'M SO SORRY IF YOU DID BECAUSE I I DON'T HAVE THEM. >> WERE THEY UP HERE IN THIS COLLECTION BIN? >> YOU'LL HAVE TO FORGIVE US. WE HAVE A DEPUTY OR A POLICE OFFICER THAT HANDLES THIS IN OUR COMMISSION MEETINGS [LAUGHTER] >> YOU WANT TO WITHDRAW [OVERLAPPING]. >> ATTORNEY GO AHEAD AND SPEAK AND THEN FILL IT IN I HAVE TO GO BACK. >> JUST TO INTERPRET IT, WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS EVEN THOUGH WE'VE HAD A MOTION AND A SECOND BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING IS ONCE YOU MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE, THAT KILLS ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION. >> THERE WASN'T A MOTION TO TABLE IT, THERE WAS A MOTION TO WITHDRAW IT. >> THANK YOU. >> BUT NORMALLY, WE WOULD HAVE HAD PUBLIC [OVERLAPPING] >> THEY SHOULD HAVE, THEY NEED TO TALK. >> I'M ASKING YOU. >> WE'LL FLOG YOU LATER, BUT HE SHOULD WITHDRAW HIS MOTION NOW. >> I WILL WITHDRAW MY MOTION UNTIL AFTER [INAUDIBLE] >> A SECOND SHOULD BE WITHDRAW THE SECOND [OVERLAPPING] >> YOU WANT TO MAKE THIS CLEAN [LAUGHTER] >> GREAT. THANK YOU. TINA KRISTENER 406 BEACH STREET. I KNOW A LITTLE BIT ABOUT 103-05. I'VE HEARD A LOT IN THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS THAT WE NEED TO CLARIFY 103-05, AND I THINK IT'S ONE OF THE BEST LAWS. THANK YOU, MR. BENNETT FOR DOING THIS RULING IN OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, BECAUSE IT'S REALLY WHAT SAVED OUR CITY AND MADE OUR CITY DIFFERENT FROM MOST OF OTHER PLACES IN FLORIDA THAT YOU SEE. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'D REALLY LIKE TO STRESS IS, I THINK THAT IF THIS COMES BEFORE THE BOARD AGAIN, WE NEED TO HAVE DATA BECAUSE EVERY TIME THIS CHANGE COMES BEFORE THE BOARD, IT'S JUST, WELL, LET'S MAKE THIS CHANGE, BUT NOBODY SITS DOWN AND ANALYZES, WELL, MAKING THIS CHANGE WILL ACTUALLY CAUSE A POSSIBLE 500 LOTS TO OPEN UP. I THINK IT WOULD BE REALLY NICE TO HAVE THE DATA FOR THE COMMUNITY AS TO WHAT THE EXACT IMPACT WOULD BE. THAT'S WHAT I'M GOING TO ASK FOR AS A CITIZEN. I ALSO WANT TO SAY THAT THERE HAS BEEN AN INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW, AND THE INTERPRETATION WAS BY A JUDGE. THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH HAD A COURT CASE. THE CITY'S LAWYERS NEVER ONCE RAISED THAT THEY ONLY INTERPRETED IT FOR RESIDENTIAL AREAS. THAT WAS NEVER PART OF IT. IT SEEMS LIKE IF THAT WAS THE INTERPRETATION IN 2023, THE CITY WOULD HAVE RAISED THAT. JUDGE ROBERSON OF NASSAU COUNTY, HE DID NOT SAY ZONING HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT. YOU HAVE A JUDGE BEHIND YOU WHO DID NOT NOTICE ANY DIFFERENCE IN THE LAW BETWEEN ZONES. IF STAFF IS LOOKING FOR SUPPORT ON INTERPRETATION, I WOULD GO WITH WHAT A JUDGE HAS RULED PERSONALLY. I THINK ALSO THAT IF THERE IS GOING TO BE AN AMENDMENT AND YOU INCLUDE MU1 AND MU8, YOU ALSO NEED TO CONSIDER OT1 AND OT2, AND MAYBE EVEN PORTIONS OF C3 BECAUSE OLD TOWN IS NOT UNDER THE HISTORIC DISTRICT FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, AND THERE'S CRAZY LOTS UP IN OLD TOWN. IT'S REALLY WILD. I ALSO JUST WANT TO SAY, TOO, THAT I FIND IT STRANGE WHEN EVERYONE KEEPS ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION OF 103-05 FOR STAFF TO HELP STAFF, THE CLARIFICATION NEVER COMES UP IN A WAY THAT SUPPORTS WHAT MR. BENNETT AND HIS TEAM DID BACK IN 2006. IT ALWAYS COMES UP AS A CHANGE THAT IS GOING TO HELP DEVELOPERS BUILD MORE BUILDINGS. SAY IF IT'S A CLARIFICATION, [01:50:02] BUT IF IT'S REALLY SOMETHING TO ADD MORE DENSITY TO THE CITY, JUST SAY IT. WE AREN'T IGNORANT IN THE CITY. WE KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON. BUT WHAT I'D REALLY LIKE TO SAY IS, PLEASE, PROVIDE DATA NEXT TIME, THERE IS GOING TO BE A CHANGE THAT IS RECOMMENDED TO THIS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. >> THANK YOU, MR. KRIEGER. >> KRIEGER 131-3 HICKORY. TINA SAID IT. I'M CONFUSED WHEN THE COURT WAS VERY SPECIFIC. THERE SHOULD BE NO REASON THAT PLANNING CAN INTERPRET WHAT THE COURT SAID. IT MAKES NO SENSE. IT APPLIES TO EVERYTHING RIGHT NOW AND THEY SAID IT TWICE, SO WHY DO WE NEED CHANGE THAT? I PERSONALLY AGREE THAT IF YOU WERE GOING TO CHANGE IT YOU'D ADD MU1 AND MU8. I RECOGNIZE THERE CAN BE PROBLEMS, LIKE MR. GILLETTE INDICATED, FOR A C3 SOMEWHERE, BUT THOSE ARE FEW AND FAR BETWEEN. THIS IS PRETTY SIMPLE. THE COURT DECIDED IT, AND THERE SHOULD BE NO REASON TO INTERPRET IT. JUST INTERPRET WHAT THE COURT SAID TWICE. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I MAY. THE STAFF HAS NO PROBLEM WITH INTERPRETING THAT IT APPLIES TO ALL ZONING DISTRICTS. WE HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. >> THANK YOU. >> WE HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH APPLYING IT THE WAY THAT IT HAS BEEN INTERPRETED IN THE PAST, BUT IN ORDER TO DO SO, WE WOULD NEED CLARIFICATION. THIS IS NOT ABOUT WHAT WE THINK IT SAYS OR DOESN'T SAY. WE KNOW IT DOESN'T LIST THE ZONING DISTRICTS. IN ABSENCE OF THAT, IT APPLIES TO ALL ZONING DISTRICTS AND THERE IS CONSEQUENCES TO THAT. BUT IF WHAT I HEARD WAS THAT IT STILL IS OPEN FOR INTERPRETATION, SINCE IT APPLIES TO ALL ZONING DISTRICTS, BUT IF THOSE ZONING DISTRICTS DO NOT AFFECT THAT RESIDENTIAL ELEMENT, THEN IT CAN BE INTERPRETATION IS IF THEY HAVE TO GET A VARIANCE OR NOT. IF THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SAYING, THEN STAFF IS PERFECTLY FINE WITH THAT. WE JUST NEED DIRECTION, AND YOU UNDERSTAND FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, IT'S NOT CLEAR, OTHER THAN EVERY ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH WE KNOW THERE IS GOING TO BE SOME CONSEQUENCES BECAUSE IT GOES BEYOND MU1 AND MU8. >> IF I MAY, MR. CHAIR, THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL THAT HAVE BEEN IMPROVED IN THE PAST THAT WERE MU1 THAT 103-05 DID NOT APPLY TO, AND 103-05 IS ONE OR MORE PLATTED LOTS. IT DOESN'T HAVE THE SUBSTANDARD LANGUAGE IN IT. 103-05 IS ONE OR MORE PLATTED LOTS OR PORTIONS THEREOF. IT DOES SAY OF RESIDENTIAL AREAS UP IN THE TOP, THE ATTRACTIVENESS OF RESIDENTIAL AREAS. WHEN STAFF HAS DISCUSSED IT, SO THE NEWS LEADER, I DON'T KNOW WHAT WAS UNDER IT, BUT IT WASN'T A RESIDENTIAL USE. IS IT IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA? SHOULD THE NEWS LEADER, BUT IT ONLY BECAME ONE HOUSE, SO THAT WASN'T A PROBLEM, BUT THE LUMBER YARD, YOU START LOOKING AT TRYING TO INTERPRET IT. THAT'S WHAT STAFF IS TRYING TO DO AND DECIDE HOW GOING FORWARD TO INTERPRET IT. IT'S NOT ABOUT DENSITY, IT'S NOT ABOUT ANYTHING. THE WAY IT WAS EXPLAINED TO ME, THE WAY I BELIEVE MS. PEARSON UNDERSTOOD IT IS THAT STAFF HAS HISTORICALLY USED THE ZONING DISTRICTS IN 103-04, READ THEM TOGETHER, BASICALLY, AND APPLIED THAT IN ONE 103-05. THAT'S HOW APPROVALS HAVE GONE THROUGH IN THE PAST. THE ATTEMPT WAS JUST SIMPLY TO CODIFY WHAT THE PAST STAFF WAS DOING IN PRACTICE, BUT THE WITHDRAWAL IS PERFECTLY FINE ACTION FOR THIS EVENING. >> IF THAT'S THE WISH OF THE BOARD, THEN STAFF, AS LONG AS THERE'S AN UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE WILL BE INTERPRETATION. >> LET'S HEAR FROM JULIE. WE HAVE ONE MORE SPEAKER. >> TWO, AND MARGARET. >> YOUR TIME'S UP, MARGARET. >> I DON'T HAVE YOUR PAPER. >> THEN I HAVE TO CLOSE, PUBLIC HEARING. >> IT'S NOT A PUBLIC HEARING BECAUSE THIS IS A LEGISLATIVE ACT. [01:55:02] >> JULIE FERRERO, 501 DISTRICT. MY CONCERN IS THAT THE PROBLEM IS THAT STAFF NEVER APPLIED 103-05. BACK IN WHENEVER ALL THIS STARTED WITH PREVIOUS STAFF, THE LEADERSHIP OF THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT REFUSED TO UTILIZE 103-05. THEY HAD STAFF MEMBERS IN THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT THAT SAID, WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH TREN GALLEY, WE SHOULD BE APPLYING 103-04 AND 103-05, AND THEY REFUSED TO DO THAT. TO ME, THIS HAS BEEN INTERPRETED. IT'S BEEN ESTABLISHED BY COURTS. RESIDENTIAL IS RESIDENTIAL AREA AND EVERY LOT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CONFUSION IS, BUT I DO KNOW THAT PAST STAFF DIDN'T REALLY APPLY IT, AND THEY WANTED TO IGNORE IT, AND I THINK THAT'S WHY WE GOT TO WHERE WE ARE. I'M WORRIED ABOUT REDEVELOPMENT. I'M WORRIED ABOUT WHEN A HURRICANE COMES THROUGH AND WE START REDEVELOPING LOTS WITH 25 FOOT LOTS OF RECORD. I THINK THAT IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE NOT ALLOW THE CHANGING CHARACTER OF NEIGHBORHOODS WHEN REDEVELOPMENT COMES ALONG, AND I DON'T KNOW. THAT'S ALL I GOT TO SAY. >> JULIE. CAN I ASK A QUESTION, JULIE? WHEN YOU REFERRED TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT IN YOUR COMMENTS, WERE YOU ACTUALLY REFERRING TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, NOT THE BUILDING? >> YES. SORRY, PLANNING DEPARTMENT. I MISSPOKE THERE. THANK YOU. >> MARGARET KIRKLAND, 1377 PLANTATION POINT DRIVE. WE'VE SAID A NUMBER OF TIMES THAT WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE CHARACTER OF A NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT YET WE ARE USING THIS OF 103-05 TO PUT IN TOWNHOUSES ALL OVER THE ISLAND. THAT'S NON-HISTORICAL, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, I DON'T THINK WE HAD TOWNHOUSES IN THIS PART OF THE COUNTRY AND COASTAL AREAS, AND SO WHAT DOES THAT DO TO THE CHARACTER OF THE ENTIRE CITY, AS WELL AS THE CHARACTER OF SPECIFIC NEIGHBORHOODS? I THINK THAT'S A MATTER OF CONCERN. IF YOU LOOK AT IT FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE AND SO ON, WE HAVE DESTROYED A LOT OF THE HISTORY OF OUR ARCHITECTURE IN THIS CITY, AND WE DO IT EVERY DAY. ARE WE GOING TO CONTROL THAT, OR ARE WE GOING TO JUST CONTINUE TO GO FORWARD WITH THAT? WE NEED TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS. THE OTHER THING IS, AND THIS IS A PERSONAL THING, I THINK IT'S TIME TO FLUSH MR. YUWE. WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT WHAT HE WAS DOING AND WHY HE WAS DOING IT WHEN HE WAS MAKING THESE MAPS. HE WAS MOVING A TOWN. HE WAS BUILDING A RAILROAD. HE WAS TRYING TO CREATE A CITY IN A SPECIFIC LOCATION THAT WHERE IT DID NOT EXIST BEFORE SO TRYING TO REV IT UP, AND MAYBE YOU WAS JUST DRAWING LINES ON A MAP. WHO KNOWS WHEN PEOPLE DO THESE THINGS? I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS SHOULD BE THE GOSPEL OF HOW WE MONITOR OUR CITY PLANNING. MAYBE NOBODY ELSE AGREES WITH THAT, BUT THAT'S MY PERSONAL OPINION. THANK YOU. >> CHAIRMAN. >> I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER FORMS FROM PEOPLE, OR ARE THERE ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS? >> THE YOU NEED TO CLOSE. >> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENTS LEGISLATOR, AND THAT IS A CATASTROPHIC STORM IN THIS AREA. IMAGINE EVERYTHING GONE AND NOW LET'S REDEVELOP, AND ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU HAVE 100 LOTS IN THAT BLOCK, AND THEY WANT TO START BUILDING HOUSES, LIKE NEW YORK CITY, WHICH WAS HIS DREAM BACK THEN. >> EXACTLY WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT EARLIER WITH THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE LOTS OF THEM. [02:00:04] >> I'M READY TO MAKE THAT MOTION AGAIN. >> I JUST WANT TO ONE COMMENT AND THEN I'LL GET THAT. ALL OF THIS STARTED, AND I'M TALKING TO PETE'S POINT EARLIER TOO, IS THIS STARTED WAY BACK WHEN COMMISSIONERS WANTED THESE CLARIFIED. I THINK TWO COMMISSIONERS WANTED THIS CLARIFIED, AND THEY WERE REALLY USING SOFTER LANGUAGE THAN THEY MEANT. THEY MEANT CHANGE, BUT THEY KEPT SAYING CLARIFIED, AND SO PEOPLE KEPT TRYING TO CLARIFY, MARK AND OTHERS, AND THEY NEVER MEANT CLARIFY. THEY ALWAYS MEANT CHANGE. WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT CLARIFYING EVER SINCE, BUT AS SOME OF OUR PUBLIC SPEAKERS, NO ONE'S CONFUSED. IF THERE'S SOME INTERPRETATION, PERSONALLY, I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. I THINK THAT WE TALK ABOUT THE CHARACTER OF NEIGHBORHOODS TO MARGARET'S POINT AND TIMES POINT. I'VE THOUGHT A LOT. I THOUGHT, I'VE READ, I'VE RESEARCHED A LOT ON THE CHARACTER OF NEIGHBORHOODS, AND FINALLY SOMEBODY SAID IT'S THIS SIMPLE. IT DOES IT FIT THERE. YOU LOOK AT IT, AND YOU KNOW IF IT FITS. >> IF THAT'S OKAY WITH THE BOARD AND THAT'S THE DIRECTION, BUT IT IS AN INTERPRETATION. >> GOT YOU. UNDERSTOOD. << CLOSE THE PUBLIC. >> WE DON'T HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING OPEN. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION TO WITHDRAW PAB 2025-0014. >> I'LL SECOND THAT. >> MORE COMMENT ON THAT MOTION? >> NO DISCUSSION AFTER. >> STEVENSON? >> YES. I AGREE. >> ROBERT GENGA. >> SEE HERE. >> HE HAS A MUTE BUTTON UP STILL. >> I THINK HER MICROPHONE [OVERLAPPING] >> RAISE YOUR HAND IF YES. >> I THINK SHE'S MUTED. THE MICROPHONES RIGHT THERE. >> MEMBER GANGER. >> SWITCH THE MICROPHONE'S RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK INTO IT [OVERLAPPING]. >> THE PHONE. >> CAN SHE HEAR YOU? >> CAN YOU HEAR US? >> YES. >> ARE YOU VOTING IN FAVOR? >> I SAID YES. >> THANK YOU. >> MEMBER ROBAS? >> YES. >> YOU GUYS ARE ALL BLABBING AWAY AND I YES TO THE HEARING. >> MEMBER GILLETTE? >> YES. >> VICE CHAIR FOREHAND? >> YES. >> CHAIR DOSTER? >> YES. >> OH, MEMBER BENNETT. >> I DO. >> THANK YOU. I'M STAFF DOSTA. THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. >> ANY OTHER REPORT OR YOU [INAUDIBLE]? >> I THINK THAT'S IT. >> PUBLIC COMMENT. >> COULD I HAVE QUESTION BEFORE CLOSE. >> YOU MAY. >> COULD WE RESURRECT A DISCUSSION CONCERNING 0405, OR DO WE WANT TO JUST DEFER IT ALTOGETHER. >> ALTOGETHER. >> I THINK SENATE BILL WILL DEFER IT. >> JUST LEAVE IT. >> DID YOU HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? >> THAT'S AT THE END OF YOUR AGENDA, THOUGH. >> OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT? >> WE'RE ADJOURNED. THANK YOU THIS. THANK YOU FOR [INAUDIBLE]. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.