Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[00:00:02]

>> MAYOR MILLER: GOOD EVENING EVERYONE. IN IS THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD FOR DECEMBER 11TH. PLEASE TAKE ROLE.

>> CHAIRMAN: WE WANT TO WELCOME MR. STEVENSON AS OUR NEWEST MEMBER. ALSO, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND SEAT MS. SHAFER UNTIL MR. ROLAND COMES IN. UNLESS I HAVE AN OBJECTION? HEARING NONE,

[Item 2]

YOU ARE SEATED. WE HAVE THE MINUTES AND THE CHANGES, CORRECTIONS, ADDITIONS. SEEING

NONE -- >> BOARD MEMBER: I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE.

>> BOARD MEMBER: SECOND. >> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT. GOOD. FIRST ITEM IS LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENT PAB CASE 2019-07.

[Item 3]

TELL US WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT >> THIS EVENING THIS IS A BIT OF A FOLLOW-UP ITEM FROM EXTENDING BACK INTO THE SUMMER OF 2018 WHEN THE PLANNING BOARD WAS DIRECTED TO TAKE ON REVIEW OF CHANGES RELATIVE TO BUILDING HEIGHTS. SPECIFICALLY LOOKING AT DISALLOWING CERTAIN ENCROACHMENTS ABOVE THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT. WHERE WE'RE SEEING MECHANICAL SHOPS, ELEVATORS, WALLS AND DESIGN FEATURES WHICH EXTEND BEYOND THAT 35 FOOT BUILDING LIMITATION. SO THE BOARD AT THAT TIME WENT THROUGH A COUPLE OF ROUNDS OF CHANGES, SOLICITED INPUT FROM OUR BUILDING COMMUNITY AND DESIGN PROFESSIONAL COMMITTEE TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THE DESIGN IMPLICATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH MAKING AMENDMENTS. WE BROUGHT THIS BACK UP BEFORE THE BOARD IN MARCH AND APRIL OF THIS PAST YEAR. AT THAT POINT IN TIME IT WAS DECIDED THAT YOU WERE GOING THROUGH A PLANNING ORDINANCE REVISION WHICH MAY HAVE AN AFFECT ON BUILDING HEIGHTS. LET'S WAIT TO TAKE ACTION ON ANY OF THESE UNTIL WE BETTER UNDERSTAND WHAT MIGHT COME FROM THAT EFFORT. WE HAVE THAT INFORMATION BACK WITH US. AND IN THE AMENDMENTS THAT YOU ARE REQUESTED TO REVIEW THIS EVENING THERE'S LANGUAGE WHICH SPECIFICALLY DETAILS THE CALCULATION OF BUILDING HEIGHTS WITHIN SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS. SO, YOU HAVE A COMPILATION OF THINGS TOGETHER. THERE ARE DEFEND NATIONAL CHANGES WHICH CLARIFY AND PROVIDE REALLY SPECIFIC DIRECTION ABOUT WHICH TYPE OF ENCROACHMENTS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AND HOW WE ARE TO HANDLE THEM. THERE'S ALSO CHANGES IN HERE THAT TALK ABOUT THE CALCULATION OF BUILDING HEIGHTS RELATIVE TO THAT SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA. BUT THE PIECE THAT I THINK THE AREA THAT I ANTICIPATE WE'LL SPEND MORE TIME DISCUSSING THIS EVENING IS WHERE WE SORT OF LEFT THE DISCUSSION PREVIOUSLY. AND THAT'S IN TWO AREAS. THE FIRST WAS FOR ALL THOSE PROPERTIES THAT ARE NOT WITHIN A SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA, EVERYWHERE ELSE, DO WE WANT TO MEASURE FROM THE EXISTING HEIGHT AT THE APPROVED FINISHED GRADE OR ARE WE STILL MOVING FORWARD WITH THE DIRECTION TO MEASURE FROM THE AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE? THE SECOND AREA IS HOW ARE WE CONTEMPLATING ENCROACHMENTS.

AND THERE'S AN ALTERNATE VERSION. THAT'S WHERE WE LEFT THINGS AT PREVIOUSLY. ONE -- THE FIRST ONE WHICH STAFF PUT FORWARD WHICH AGGREGATES BOTH ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES AND THE MECHANICAL ELEMENTS AND THE ALTERNATE WHICH SEPARATES THOSE TWO ITEMS SO THEY WOULD BE VIEWED INDEPENDENTLY BUT NOT TO EXCEED CERTAIN PARAMETERS. THEN EVERYTHING ELSE SHOULD BE IN KEEPING WITH OUR PRIOR DISCUSSIONS. FOR THOSE NOT PRESENT AT THE MEETINGS THE CHANGES THE BOARD IS REVIEWING SEEKS TO SEPARATE OUT WHERE YOU MAY HAVE ENCROACHMENTS BEYOND THE BUILDING HEIGHT FOR RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES VERSUS NON-RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES AND PLACING LIMITATIONS SPECIFICALLY DEFINING WHERE THE ENCROACHMENTS WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE SO THAT SAFF, WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THESE THINGS AND PLANS COME BEFORE US, WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT TO LOOK FOR. THERE'S NO AMBIGUITY IN IT. THE CURRENT LANGUAGE READS IN A WAY THAT SAYS MINOR FEATURE. WELL MINOR IS NOT IDENTIFIED. AND MINOR RELATIVE TO WHAT? SO, THIS LANGUAGE THAT THE BOARD IS REVIEWING SERVES TO REALLY NARROW THE SCOPE UNDER WHICH WE WOULD BE ABLE TO PERMIT CERTAIN FEATURES TO ENCROACH BEYOND THAT BUILDING HEIGHT.

[00:05:07]

>> CHAIRMAN: OKAY. I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU ABOUT THE CITY COMMISSION PASSED A FLOOD PLAN ORDINANCE THIS LAST WEEK. IN THERE WAS STANDARDS FOR BUILDING HEIGHT AND FLOOD HAZARD AREAS.

I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU HOW THAT IMPACTS THIS ISSUE. >> SPEAKER: THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT UP. WHAT WE LIKE TO SEE HAPPEN HERE IS THAT WHEN THE FLOOD PLAIN ORDINANCE GOES A SECOND READING IN JANUARY WE WOULD HAVE FIRST READING OF THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE FOR THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. AND AT THAT TIME THAT SECTION WOULD BE ELIMINATED SO THAT IT REALLY DEFERS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THE LAST THING WE WANT TO DO IS HAVE COMPETING OR DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF CODE WHERE IT MIGHT CAUSE AN ISSUE WITH INTERPRETATION OF WHICH ONE

APPLIES. >> CHAIRMAN: SO YOU WOULD ASSERT OURS IF IT PASSES TONIGHT INTO

THE JANUARY MEETING? >> SPEAKER: IT WOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE FLOOD PLAN ORDINANCE

AND HANDLED EXCLUSIVELY THROUGH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. >> CHAIRMAN: OKAY. DOES ANYBODY

HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS THEY WANT TO ASK? >> BOARD MEMBER: WE TALKED ON THE PHONE EARLIER TODAY, KELLY, AND I WAS ASKING YOU IF THERE'S A VISUAL WAY THAT YOU COULD HELP US UNDERSTAND WHAT THESE NEW REQUIREMENTS FOR HEIGHT -- HOW THEY WOULD IMPACT A BUILDING.

SO WE HAVE WHAT THE CURRENT REQUIREMENTS ARE AND WITH THESE REQUIREMENTS THAT WE WOULD BE ADOPTING IF THE BOARD AND COMMISSION ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATIONS. IS THERE A WAY -- THE BACKGROUND IS IT'S -- IT'S ONE THING TO READ THE WORDS, IT IS ANOTHER THING TO SEE HOW THOSE WORDS APPLY. SO I WOULD BE CURIOUS IF YOU COULD HELP US UNDERSTAND THAT VISUALLY

A LITTLE BETTER. >> SPEAKER: YES. AS SOON AS THE EMAIL COMES THROUGH, I'LL PULL THAT UP AND SHOW YOU. I'M NOT SURE IF WE CAN PROCEED WITH ADDITIONAL --

>> BOARD MEMBER: I DID WANT TO ASK, I'M NOT SURE HOW YOU ARE GOING TO PROCEED, BUT I WOULD BE VERY INTERESTED IN COMMENTS FROM THE LOCAL COMMUNITY, ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS, BUILDERS, FOLKS OUT IN THE COMMUNITY BUILDING THINGS WHAT THEIR OPINIONS ARE ABOUT THE PROPOSAL.

>> BOARD MEMBER: BE AWARE THAT WE HAD A MEETING ON THIS PREVIOUSLY AND WE HAD SEVERAL

DEVELOPERS AND PEOPLE SHOW UP. >> BOARD MEMBER: RIGHT. I THOUGHT ONE OF THE THINGS WAS WE WERE GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW IT AND COMMENT BEFORE WE

TOOK FINAL ACTION. >> BOARD MEMBER: DID ANYONE PROVIDE ANY COMMENT?

>> SPEAKER: AT THIS TIME I THINK THE COMMENTS THAT WE HAD RECEIVED PREVIOUSLY RELATIVE TO MAKING SURE THERE WAS A DISTINCTION BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES AND REALLY CONTEMPLATING WHAT IS A MEANINGFUL STANDARD WHERE YOU WOULD HAVE AN ALLOWANCE FOR THOSE ENCROACHMENTS. THOSE HAVE BEEN CAPTURED IN THE REVISIONS YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY. AND WITH RESPECT TO JUST OUTREACH. WE HAVE CONDUCTED PRIOR OUTREACH AND ESPECIALLY THROUGH THE DIFFERENT MEETINGS WE'VE HELD AT THIS PAST FRIDAY WE HOSTED A COMMUNITY MEETING WITH THE BUILDING COMMUNITY AND AT THAT TIME I REINFORCED THIS ITEM WAS COMING BACK FORWARD AND TO

PLEASE PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCESS. >> CHAIRMAN: OKAY. DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ASK AT THIS TIME? IF NOT, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK ON THIS ISSUE, YOU NEED TO COME UP HERE TO THE PODIUM AND PLEASE TELL US WHO YOU ARE AND WHERE YOU LIVE FOR THE REPORTED AND TELL US WHAT YOU WANT TO TELL US ABOUT. AND IT'S ONLY ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE HAVING TO DO WITH BUILDING HEIGHT.

>> PUBLIC SPEAKER: I DIDN'T WANT TO BE THE FIRST BUT I'LL SAY MY -- I EMAILED KELLY WITH AN OPINION. YOU HAD A MEETING WITH THE BUILDERS BUT WE HAVEN'T HAD A MEETING WITH THE RESIDENTS. I SENT HER EXAMPLES OF ENCROACHMENT ON HEIGHTS THAT ARE TOTALLY UNNECESSARY. THE BEST EXAMPLE I HAVE IS A 35 FOOT HIGH DECK WITH A SIDE ACCESS BY STAIRS AND A 35 FOOT HIGH DECK WITH A 10 FOOT OUTHOUSE ON TOP. JUST TO ACCESS THAT 35 FOOT DECK. AND A LOT OF US IN THE COMMUNITY, IN THE NORTH SIDE COMMUNITY, HAVE MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF 35 FOOT HIGH HEIGHTS. AND A LOT OF THESE ADDITIONS ARE TOTALLY UNNECESSARY AND REALLY JUST AFFECT THE VIEW, THE SKYLINE VIEW THAT WE'RE FORCED TO LOOK AT EVERY DAY. THAT'S MY ONLY

[00:10:05]

COMMENT. >> BOARD MEMBER: DO YOU HAVE ANY OF THOSE?

>> SPEAKER: I DO. >> BOARD MEMBER: HE DIDN'T TELL US WHO HE WAS.

>> PUBLIC SPEAKER: I'M SORRY DOUG ROSELE 524 TARPON AVENUE. >> SPEAKER: WOULD YOU LIKE TO

SPEAK TO ANY OF -- >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: THE 400 BLOCK -- THIS IS ON THE 400 BLOCK OF TARPON AVENUE. TWO HOUSES BUILT BY THE SAME DEVELOPER, OWNED BY THE SAME PEOPLE. AND BACK TO THAT ONE. BECAUSE I THINK IT REALLY DOES SHOW A VERY GOOD EXAMPLE OF ENCROACHMENT. SO, THERE'S A 45 FOOT HIGH ADDITION FOR ACCESS TO -- I ESTIMATE A 96-SQUARE FOOT DECK. AND THERE'S AT LEAST A 96 SQUARE FOOT ATTACHMENT THERE. IT IS NOT REQUIRED TO PUT AN ELEVATOR IN THAT HOUSE. IT WAS JUST BUILT AND IT WAS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD BACK IN 2017 EARLY '18. BUT IT'S BEEN AROUND TWO YEARS.

>> CHAIRMAN: THAT'S ONE OF THE EXEMPTIONS? >> SPEAKER: THIS IS A STAIRWELL,

I BELIEVE, WITH AN ELEVATOR LEADING UP TO THE TOP DECK. >> CHAIRMAN: I THOUGHT HE SAID

THERE WASN'T NO ELEVATOR. >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: I BELIEVE THE ELEVATOR DOESN'T GO THAT HIGH INSIDE THERE. BUT, AGAIN, IT'S FOR ACCESS TO A 96 SQUARE FOOT DECK WHEN THAT HOUSE HAS TWO OTHER DECKS AT 35 FOOT. SO, THEY'VE GOT OCEAN VIEW AVAILABLE. THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO NEED FOR THAT TOP DECK OBSERVATION UP THERE THAT I CAN SEE. AND THESE ARE NICE PEOPLE, BUT IF THE BUILDERS CAN BUILD IT, THEY WILL BUILD IT. THE NEXT EXAMPLE I HAVE -- OKAY THIS IS CURRENTLY BEING BUILT ON THE 6 HUNDRED BLOCK OF NORTH FLETCHER. AND YOU CAN SEE WHAT I CALL AN OUTHOUSE. THIS IS GOING TO BE A FLAT 35 FOOT DECK. AND TO HAVE ACCESS TO THAT, THEY'RE BUILDING A 10 FOOT HIGH ENTRANCE TO THAT DECK. JUST LOOKING AT THE NEXT EXAMPLE, IS ON 900 FLETCHER -- NORTH FLETCHER. YOU CAN SEE THERE'S A VERY -- THIS IS THE SAME ARCHITECT. THERE'S A VERY EASY WAY TO DO EXTERIOR ACCESS TO THAT FLAT ROOF DECK. SO, SOME OF THESE VARIANCES THAT HAVE BEEN GRANTED OVER THE 35 FOOT HEIGHT ARE JUST NOT NECESSARY.

AND THIS IS THOSE LITTLE ADDITIONS OF WHAT A LOT OF US HAVE TO LOOK AT EVERY DAY IN OUR

SKYLINE. >> CHAIRMAN: ELEVATOR'S HOUSE WERE ALLOWABLE ADDITION ON THE ROOF. FOR AIR CONDITIONING UNIT AND SOMEONE CAN HAVE A DECK UP THERE SO THAT IS NOT REALLY

ADDING ANYTHING OTHER THAN MAYBE A WALL AROUND IT OR SOMETHING. >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: I BELIEVE IT SAYS IT SHOULD NOT BE HABITABLE. MY FIRST EXAMPLE THERE OBVIOUSLY HABITABLE.

>> CHAIRMAN: I DON'T KNOW. I WOULDN'T THINK -- BECAUSE THE AIR CONDITIONING IS A

PROHIBITED -- >> SPEAKER: THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS WE MAKE SURE IT'S A

NON-HABITABLE ROOF TOP ELEMENT. >> CHAIRMAN: RIGHT. SO I THINK THEY WOULD ALL BE LEGAL UNDER

THE NEW LEGAL RULES. OR THE OLD LEGAL RULE. >> SPEAKER: UNDER THE EXISTING

THEY ARE LEGAL, YES. >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: SO I'M SPEAKING OF SUPPORT OF THE WAY I READ THE AMENDMENTS TO THE TEXT NOW WOULD LIMIT THE UNNECESSARY HEIGHT APP KROECHLTS --

ENCROACHMENTS. >> CHAIRMAN: OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? I'LL RECOGNIZE YOU AND THEN YOU CAN -- LET'S SEE DO WE HAVE ANYONE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK

THOUGH? >> BOARD MEMBER: I WANTED TO ASK HIM IF HE WAS SUPPORTIVE OF THE

AMENDMENT BEING PROPOSED. >> CHAIRMAN: YOU WANT TO COME BACK UP HERE?

>> PUBLIC SPEAKER: YES I WAS SAYING I AM IN SUPPORT OF THE WAY THE AMENDMENT IS WRITTEN RIGHT NOW. I BELIEVE IT ELIMINATES BUT STILL ALLOWS THE BUILDERS THE ABILITY FOR

MECHANICALS AND THINGS THAT THEY HAVE. >> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU. DOES

THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? >> BOARD MEMBER: YES. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE HE AND I ARE ON THE SAME SECTION OF THIS ONE. UNDER

[00:15:11]

NO VARIANCE SHALLING GRANTED FOR THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT OF 35 ON ANY LOT WITHIN 800 FEET OF BEING ON WATER. THAT TECHNICALLY PUTS YOU WELL WITHIN THE 800 FEET. DOES THAT GIVE

YOU A COMFORT LEVEL THAT THAT'S ADEQUATE? >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: YES. AND I THINK I HAD 4.02.03 ON MY LETTER TO KELLY. BUT I BELIEVE IT IS THE ONE THAT YOU JUST MENTIONED.

>> BOARD MEMBER: OKAY. >> CHAIRMAN: THAT IS THE EXISTING ORDINANCE. CORRECT?

>> BOARD MEMBER: THE ONLY THING THAT WE'RE REALLY CHANGING IS THE ITEMS THAT'S HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW AND ALSO THE ALTERNATE NUMBER 2. IF YOU LOOK ON THERE -- I'M NOT SURE HOW FIRM

IT WAS BEFORE. >> SPEAKER: THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS UP. I PROBABLY FINISHED MY PRESENTATION TOO SOON IN THAT I LEFT OUT THERE IS ANOTHER SECTION OF CODE WHICH IS SEEKING TO BE MODIFIED THIS EVENING. AGAIN, IN KEEPING WITH THE DIRECTION PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED TO THIS BODY TO LIMIT THE GRANTING OF VARIANCES FOR HEIGHT, A VARIANCE FOR MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT AS CONTAINED WITHIN THAT SUBSECTION OF CODE 4.02.03. I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE CONFUSION'S COMING FROM RIGHT NOW. BUT A SECOND VARIANCE JUST ALLOW FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE TO EXCEED MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACKS WHERE THEY'RE REQUIRED FOR ANY BUILDINGS WITHIN 800 FEET OF THE MEAN HIGH WATER MARK OF THE ATLANTIC OCEAN. SO, THERE'S TWO ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS THAT WOULD BE PLACED ON THE GRANTING OF A VARIANCE THROUGH THE SERIES

OF CODE AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN PUT TOGETHER THIS EVENING. >> CHAIRMAN: OKAY.

>> BOARD MEMBER: SO I'VE HAD A QUESTION FOR KELLY. SO, BASED ON THESE PROPOSED CHANGES, WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE IMPACT ON THOSE BUILDINGS THAT HE JUST SHOWED US. WOULD THEY HAVE BEEN

ALLOWABLE? WOULD THEY STILL BE ALLOWABLE? >> SPEAKER: NO. SO THE WAY THAT THEY WOULD READ -- SO YOU WOULD HAVE THAT DEFINED ARCHITECTURAL ROOF TOP FEATURE. AND SEPARATED

OUT BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL, NON-RESIDENTIAL. THEY COULD -- >> BOARD MEMBER: IN THE CASE OF THE FIRST ONE, WHICH LOOKS LIKE IT HAS THOSE WIDOW'S WALK OR WHATEVER ON TOP, WHATEVER THEY WANT TO CALL IT, THAT WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED UNDER THE NEW ORDINANCES?

>> SPEAKER: POTENTIALLY. SO, IF THE WAY THE NEW ORDINANCE READS IS THAT YOU COULD STILL HAVE AN ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE AS LONG AS IT'S NO TALLER THAN TEN FEET ABOVE THE MAXIMUM ROOF ON HEIGHT AND DOES NOT EXCEED THE AGGREGATE OF FIVE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL ROOF AREA. IT GIVES YOU A DEFINED AREA. THEY STILL HAVE TO REMAIN NON-HABITABLE. THAT DOESN'T CHANGE. THEY HAVE TO QUALIFY AS ONE OF THOSE TYPES OF FEE DHURZ ARE NOW DEFINED. SO THEY MAY BE PERMISSIBLE. I HAVEN'T GONE IN WITH CALCULATIONS FORS EACH OF THOSE EXAMPLES.

>> BOARD MEMBER: ALL RIGHT THANK YOU. >> CHAIRMAN: WE ARE LOOKING AT TWO ITEMS. ONE OR THE OTHER JUST TO BE CLEAR ON THAT. RIGHT, KELLY?

>> SPEAKER: THAT'S CORRECT. THERE'S AN ALTERNATE. AS IT RELATES TO RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE STRUCTURES. THE FIRST, WHICH INCLUDES MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND ROOFTOP ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES TOGETHER AS A GROUPING AND PROVIDES FOR A LIMITATION OF 10 FEET ABOVE THE MAXIMUM ROOF HEIGHT AND NOT TO EXCEED FIVE FEET IN AGGREGATE. THE ALTERNATE READING THAT THE BOARD HAS DISCUSSED HERE PROVIDES FOR ANA OUTRIGHT PROHIBITION BEYOND THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT.

EXCEPT WHERE PROVIDED FOR MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT. AS I UNDERSTAND IT.

>> BOARD MEMBER: MY CONCERN IS I THINK THAT THE EQUIPMENT ROOFTOP MECHANICAL ROOM IS WAYS THAT HAVE BEEN GOTTEN AROUND THIS ACCESS TO THE ROOF. AND I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT IS BEING COMMENTED ON BY OUR CITIZEN. THAT IT STARTS OUT BEING SOMETHING AND THEN IT

[00:20:01]

TURNS INTO SOMETHING ELSE. AND THAT'S -- I MEAN, ONCE IT'S THERE, THEN WHAT'S TO SAY THAT IT CAN'T BE CHANGED TO SOMETHING ELSE SOMEWHERE DOWN THE LINE? I DON'T THINK THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE FOR AN ELEVATOR I KNOW MANY PEOPLE WHO HAVE ELEVATORS IN THIS TOWN WHO HAVE THE TWO STORY OR THREE STORY HOME. AND JUST BETWEEN THOSE LEVELS THEY DON'T HAVE A BIG CHIMNEY COMING OUT OF THEIR HOUSE IN ORDER TO SUPPORT THE ELEVATOR. THE ELEVATOR FITS WITHIN THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS THAT WE'VE ESTABLISHED. SO, I'M JUST NOT SURE WHERE THAT'S NECESSARY. WHY IS A MECHANICAL ROOM THAT GOES UP ABOVE THAT CAN BE USED FOR OTHER THINGS, WHY IS THAT NECESSARY AS AN EXEMPTION?

>> CHAIRMAN: IF YOU WANT TO GET TO THE ROOF IT IS. IF YOU WANT TO USE THE ROOF AS A ROOF DECK.

>> SPEAKER: HANDICAP ACCESSIBILITY TO THE ROOF. >> CHAIRMAN: OKAY. ARE YOU

DONE? >> BOARD MEMBER: YES. >> CHAIRMAN: ANYONE ELSE? THE PUBLIC HEARING IS STILL OPEN. WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS? ALL RIGHT. IF NOT, PUBLIC HEARING'S CLOSED. ALL RIGHT, BOARD. YOU GOT TWO ALTERNATES HERE OR ANY CHANGES

IN BETWEEN. WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO? >> BOARD MEMBER: I LIKE THE ALTERNATE TWO. I THINK THAT THE WORDING IS CLEARER TO ME. I THINK IT JUST READS, YOU KNOW, CLEARER. SO, I'D BE IN FAVOR OF THE ALTERNATE TWO PARAGRAPH AS OPPOSED TO THE PREVIOUS ONE.

>> CHAIRMAN: OKAY. >> BOARD MEMBER: GIVE ME ONE SECOND. I'LL TELL YOU.

>> CHAIRMAN: MISS MEN CHEW >> BOARD MEMBER: HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHY WE TALK ABOUT 50 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL ROOF AREA VERSUS 5 PERCENT IN NUMBER 2. AND THEN FARTHER DOWN IT AGAIN TALKS ABOUT FIVE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL ROOFED AREA. SO, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY WE TALK ABOUT BOTH 50% AND 5% IN THE SAME GROUP. DOES THE 50% WITH APPLY 20 DECKS AND LIVING AREA

VERSUS MECHANICALS? >> CHAIRMAN: IF YOU GOT A THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT ROOF YOU WOULD HAVE HALF OF THAT AMOUNT. THAT'S THE WAY IT WAS WRITTEN, RIGHT.

>> BOARD MEMBER: THAT'S THE WAY I INTERPRET IT. >> BOARD MEMBER: TO DO WHAT ON?

>> SPEAKER: FOR MECHANICAL ONLY. SO, IF YOU NEEDED AN ELEVATOR SHAFT TO EXCEED HALF OF YOUR

ROOF. THIS IS AS IT RELATES TO RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES. >> CHAIRMAN: IF YOU LIKE ALTERNATE TWO YOU COULD SIMPLY CHANGE THE NUMBER FROM WHAT'S UP TOP. IF YOU WANT TO MAKE THAT

MOTION. >> BOARD MEMBER: WELL BEFORE I WOULD OFFER ANY MOTIONS I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY THIS IS WRITTEN WITH 50% IN NUMBER 2. AND THEN DOWN IN THE LAST PARAGRAPH IT ALSO DOES NOT EXCEED 5%. SO IT JUST ISN'T CLEAR TO ME WHAT THOSE TWO

REPRESENT. WHAT THOSE TWO FIGURES REPRESENT. >> SPEAKER: I CAN SPEAK TO THIS IN TERMS OF HOW THIS BOARD REVIEWED THIS. ALTERNATE, ONE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS SUGGESTED THIS IN THERE AT THE SAME TIME WE WERE LOOKING AT THE ORIGINAL ALTERNATE ONE. IN THE READING OF NUMBER 1, OR THE FIRST VERSION OF IT, IT IS CLEAREST BECAUSE IT IS GROUPED TOGETHER.

IT DOES NOT MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN YOUR ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES AND MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT. IT TREATS THEM SIMILARLY IN THAT THE AGGREGATE OF ALL OF THEM CAN NEVER EXCEED MORE THAN 5%. SO, YOU HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF ROOM TO WORK WITH BUT YOU ARE NOT GOING TO ALLOW FOR A LARGE MECHANICAL FEATURE TO EXIST IN A DESIGN OF A STRUCTURE. I PREFER THE FIRST READING. THE SECOND ONE CONFUSES ME A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT IT IS SEPARATING IT OUT. STAFF I THINK I WOULD AND FOR PURPOSES OF CONSISTENCY I WOULD STICK TO THE FIRST ONE, THE FIRST VERSION OF IT. IT MAKES IT READ SIMILARLY TO NUMBER 3, THE ONE THAT TALKS

[00:25:10]

ABOUT ACTUAL STRUCTURES. >> BOARD MEMBER: SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 2 AND ALTERNATE 2? THEN NUMBER 1 IS YELLOW. SO, ARE WE ALSO TALKING ABOUT THAT ONE?

>> SPEAKER: YES. >> BOARD MEMBER: OKAY. SO, DO WE NEED TO MOVE THESE INDIVIDUALLY PARAGRAPH BY PARA PARAGRAPH?

>> BOARD MEMBER: I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH KELLY. I THINK NUMBER 2 AS WRITTEN NOT THE ALTERNATIVE IS BETTER. ALTERNATIVE 2, I JUST DON'T LIKE THE LANGUAGE. IT LOOKS A LITTLE WONKY TO ME. I THINK THE FIRST VERSION OF 2 IS BETTER. AND TO THAT QUESTION A MOMENT AGO, I THINK WE OUGHT TO MOVE THE PROPOSAL AS WRITTEN BUT NOT ALTERNATIVE 2. THE INITIAL ALTERNATIVE 1 I GUESS WE CALL IT, NUMBER 2. AND IF YOU ARE READY MR. CHAIRMAN I WOULD

MOVE -- >> SPEAKER: I JUST WANTED TO SAY AS I READ IT, I READ IT A COUPLE WEEKS AGO BUT, AGAIN, TODAY REMINDING MYSELF. WHEN I LOOK AT THESE, THAT AS AN ATTORNEY LOOKS AT IT, ALTERNATE 2 ALLOWS RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT CALCULATION FOR SOME MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AS LONG AS IT MEETS THE CONDITION. THE ORIGINAL 2 SAYS YOU CAN'T EXCEED IT AT ALL. IN ALL CATEGORIES, YOU CAN USE ROOFTOP ARCHITECTURAL. BUT BEHIND THAT PARAPET YOU CAN'T HAVE AN A.C. UNIT OR ELEVATOR SHAFT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. THAT'S THE ORIGINAL NUMBER 2. THE ALTERNATE IS GOING TO ALLOW SOME RESIDENTIAL WITH THESE CONDITIONS YOU CAN'T EXCEED THAT CALCULATION. SO, I MEAN, THAT'S HOW I SIMPLIFIED IT. DID I

OVERSIMPLIFY IT? THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS. >> CHAIRMAN: 50% PART OF THE

ROOF CREATES A PROBLEM. >> BOARD MEMBER: IT MAKES A PROBLEM FOR ME.

>> CHAIRMAN: BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS AT THE BEACH AND SOMETIMES MECHANICAL UNITS ON THE SIDE OF THE HOUSES GO BAD. AND I CAN HEAR THEM THREE AND FOUR HOUSES AWAY. WHERE IF THEY WOULD BE ON THE ROOF THEY WOULDN'T CAUSE AS MUCH NOISE. IT'S SOMETHING TO CONSIDER. I LIKE ALTERNATIVE 2. BUT I AGREE THAT IF I HAVE A THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT ROOF 500 SQUARE FEET IS A LOT OF ROOM FOR AN AIR CONDITIONING UNIT AND THEN A SMALL PERGOLA OR SOME ELEMENT THAT YOU WANT TO PUT UP THERE. I WOULD THINK THAT WOULD NEED TO -- WHAT ARE THE READINGS FOR

THE 50%? >> SPEAKER: I THINK WE WERE TRYING TO SIMPLIFY IT. I'M NOT SURE IT ACCOMPLISHES THAT IS MY CONCERN, MR. CHAIRMAN. AND I THINK THE OTHER THING I WOULD SAY THAT ONCE YOU APPROVE SOMETHING AND OPEN THE DOOR TO IT, IT'S PRETTY HARD TO GO BACK AND SAY, YOU KNOW, MAKE IT MORE RESTRICTIVE. SO I THINK -- MY SUGGESTION IS WE TAKE ORIGINAL NUMBER 2 AND IF IT CREATES A PROBLEM WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THAT AND MAYBE MODIFY THAT. BUT IF WE GO WITH ALTERNATIVE 2, I THINK IT'S PRETTY HARD TO BACK OFF OF THAT AND SAY WE'VE MADE A MISTAKE. AND THE 50% JUST SEEMS LIKE IT'S WAY TOO HIGH, IN MY MIND.

>> CHAIRMAN: I HAVE A LIGHT ON NOW. THAT'S MR. STEVENSON I THINK. GO AHEAD.

>> BOARD MEMBER: I THOUGHT OUR IDEA WAS TO PUT MORE RESTRICTIONS ON THE AREA. IF YOU DO THE 5 PERCENT SAY A TYPICAL ROOF IS A COUPLE THOUSAND SQUARE FEET I GOT 100 SQUARE FEET TO PUT MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT. THAT IS ADEQUATE. AND 50% IS -- YOU KNOW PEOPLE IN THE HOME SIX MONTHS, A YEAR, TWO YEARS, THINGS GROW. SO I WOULD RECOMMEND A FIVE PERCENT CONSTRAINT BE HIGHLY CONSIDERED AS A MORE APPROPRIATE WAY TO CONTROL THE HEIGHT ISSUE.

>> CHAIRMAN: SO ARE YOU SUGGESTING SOMETHING CHANGING SOMETHING IN ALTERNATE 2 OR ADDING SOMETHING TO ALTERNATE 1. I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHAT YOU WANT TO DO.

>> BOARD MEMBER: I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THIS PARAGRAPH THAT TALKS ABOUT THE FIVE PERCENT, IS THAT ATTACHED TO ALTERNATE 2 OR IS IT A STAND ALONE SEPARATE PARAGRAPH WHERE IT STARTS WITH ROOFTOP ARC TEAK TOUR FEATURES ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT CALCULATION PROVIDED

[00:30:02]

THEY'RE NOT MORE THAN TEN PERCENT ABOVE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT AND IN AGGREGATE DO NOT EXCEED FIVE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL ROOF PERIOD. IS THAT ATTACHED TO ALTERNATE 2?

>> SPEAKER: MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT DOES COME AS AN ATTACHMENT. WHICH TO ME

CONFUSES WHICH APPLIES. >> BOARD MEMBER: HERE'S WHY I'M CONCERNED. I HAVE A PROBLEM

WITH 5 PERCENT HERE AND 50 PERCENT HERE. >> BOARD MEMBER: THAT'S THE

POINT I MADE EARLIER. >> CHAIRMAN: MS. MIN CHEW. >> BOARD MEMBER: THEN IF YOU GO DOWN TO NUMBER 3 WHICH TALKS ABOUT NON-RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES, IT INCLUDES THE 50 PERCENTING A SGRE GAT TOTAL ROOF AREA. IS THAT BECAUSE YOU ASSUME THAT NON-RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES HAVE A LARGER INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENT AND SO, THEREFORE, YOU WOULD NEED

MORE SPACE ON THE ROOF FOR THEIR MECHANICALS? >> SPEAKER: THAT'S CORRECT.

>> BOARD MEMBER: BUT THERE'S NO REASON THAT THAT SHOULD APPLY TO -- BUT THEN THEY BOTH APPLY

TO MIXED USE STRUCTURES. >> SPEAKER: ONLY A MIXED USE STRUCTURE THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE RESIDENT RESIDENTIAL. SO A MIXED USE STRUCTURE WHICH MIGHT HAVE A

RESTAURANT AND RETAIL WITH IT BEING CONTEMPLATED AS MIXED USE. >> BOARD MEMBER: WHY DOES IT SAY

RESIDENTIAL AND MIXED USE AND NON-RESIDENTIAL AND MIXED USE? >> SPEAKER: MIXED USE WHICH DO

NOT INCLUDE RESIDENTIAL. >> BOARD MEMBER: OH. BUT -- OKAY. WELL, ALL RIGHT. SO I THINK WHAT WE'RE REALLY SAYING IS 50 PERCENT -- ABILITY TO USE UP TO 50 PERCENT OF THE ROOF SPACE FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL AND MIXED-USE STRUCTURES IS REQUIRED BECAUSE THE AMOUNT OF MEC MECHANICALS THEY MAY REQUIRE. BUT I SEE NO REASON THAT A RESIDENTIAL UNIT WOULD NEED MORE THAN 10 PERCENT OR 5 PERCENT RATHER TO MANAGE THEIR MECHANICALS. BECAUSE IT SHOULD

BE SIGNIFICANTLY LESS. >> SPEAKER: BUT THE WAY THAT NUMBER 1 READS IS IT EXCLUDES THE CALCULATION OF EVEN MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES.

>> BOARD MEMBER: WHEN YOU SAY NUMBER 1, WHICH-- >>

>> SPEAKER: APOLOGIZE. FOR RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES, ORIGINAL VERBIAGE, THE CALCULATION OF MAXIMUM HEIGHT MUST INCLUDE ANY AND ALL ATTACHMENTS SUCH AS CHIMNEYS, ELEVATOR SHAFTS, ANTENNAS, MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT, ROOF DECKS OR SIMILAR BUILDING FEATURES. ROOFTOP ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES DEFINED BELOW ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE HEIGHT. WHERE ROOFTOP ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES ARE PROVIDED. AND THEY'RE DEFINED AS ANY UBE INHABITABLE PART, PORTION, PROJECTION OR ANY CHARACTERISTIC WHICH CONTRIBUTES TO THE ELEGANCE OF A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE EXCLUSIVE OF SIGN AND NOT NECESSARY FOR STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF THE BUILDING SUCH AS A STEEPLE, A CUPOLA, A WIDOW'S WALK, A SPIRE. IT DOES SAY CHIMNEY WHICH NEEDS TO GET RESOLVED. OR OTHER ORNAMENT ELEMENTS. SO, CHIMNEY NEEDS TO BE REMOVED FROM THE FIRST SECTION, IF IT IS TO BE INCLUDED

AS A ROOFTOP ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE. >> BOARD MEMBER: CAN I ASK ANOTHER QUESTION? I'M JUST TRYING TO GET CLEAR. SO, IN NUMBER 1, WHICH IS MARKED -- SO IN NUMBER 2, THAT'S IN BLACK ON THE SCREEN, THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR THESE DECORATIVE FEATURES TO BE ABOVE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT. BUT NUMBER 2 ALTERNATE IN RED WOULD NOT ALLOW ANY OF THOSE FEATURES

TO BE ABOVE THE -- >> SPEAKER: ALTERNATE, YES, IN RED DOES ALLOW FOR THOSE

FEATURES. >> BOARD MEMBER: BUT NUMBER 2 IN BLACK DOES NOT?

>> SPEAKER: NO, NUMBER 2 IN BLACK DOES. IT DOESN'T ALLOW FOR ANY MECHANICAL PIECES. THE

ELEVATOR SHAFT CANNOT EXTEND BEYOND THAT 35 FOOT LIMIT. >> BOARD MEMBER: IN NUMBER 2?

>> SPEAKER: IN ORIGINAL NUMBER 2. >> BOARD MEMBER: GOT IT.

>> SPEAKER: ALTERNATE NUMBER 2 IT WOULD UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS.

>> BOARD MEMBER: AND THOSE CONDITIONS WOULD BE ONE, TWO AND THREE? THAT IT'S NOT HIGHER THAN -- IT DOES NOT EXCEED 50 PERCENT AND IT'S PLACED ON THE ROOF SO IT'S SCREENED FROM ALL

VIEW? >> SPEAKER: TO ME I'M NOT SURE HOW YOU WOULD ACCOMPLISH THAT.

[00:35:01]

>> BOARD MEMBER: I DON'T KNOW EITHER. >> SPEAKER: ESPECIALLY AT 50 PERCENT AS A THRESHOLD. I THINK IF THE GOAL IS TO ELIMINATE WHAT WE'RE SEEING OUT THERE AND WHAT HAS BEEN THE COMMON COMPLAINT AND CONCERN FROM THE COMMUNITY, WHICH IS ELEVATOR SHAFTS EXTENDING BEYOND ROOF LINE TO AN OPEN AIR DECK. THEN NUMBER 1, THE FIRST VERSION,

ACCOMPLISHES -- >> BOARD MEMBER: YOU HAVE TO SAY NUMBER 1. THERE'S NO NUMBER 1.

>> SPEAKER: VERSION NUMBER 1 IN BLACK ACCOMPLISHES THAT. >> BOARD MEMBER: ALL RIGHT.

>> SPEAKER: IF THE COMMUNITY IS WILLING TO ACCEPT SOME LEVEL OF ALLOWANCE FOR THOSE TYPES OF FEATURES, THEN SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THE ALTERNATE VERSION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED. BUT MY UNDERSTANDING, FROM THE DIRECTION OF THE COMMISSION PREVIOUSLY, WAS TO ELIMINATE THAT ALTOGETHER. SO THAT IS WHY YOU HAVE THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU IN THE ORIGINAL

VERSION. >> CHAIRMAN: MS. SHAFER? >> BOARD MEMBER: NOT ONLY WOULD

IT BE ELEVATORS BUT EVERYTHING OVER THAT HEIGHT? >> SPEAKER: EXCEPT FOR MINOR

ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES THAT I JUST DEFINED. >> BOARD MEMBER: I WISH EACH

LINE WAS NUMBERED. WHAT NUMBER THAT IS THAT YOU JUST DEFINED? >> SPEAKER: IT IS NUMBER 4.

>> BOARD MEMBER: OKAY. BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, AND I'VE TALKED WITH MY ARCHITECT AT LENGTHS WITH THIS, ABOUT CHIMNEYS AND THINGS. PEOPLE WANT THESE THINGS AND THEY LOOK BEAUTIFUL. I PERSONALLY DON'T WANT TO SEE JUST A LOT OF FLAT ROOFS OUT THERE. YOU KNOW, I PERSONALLY OWN A FLAT ROOF BUT I WANT TO SEE, YOU KNOW, ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN AND I DON'T WANT THAT TO ALL GO AWAY. YOU KNOW, FROM THE GROUND YOU CAN'T SEE THE WATER ANYWAY. AND I DO WANT TO SEE SOME KIND OF ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS. SO, MAKE SURE WE DON'T ELIMINATE THAT. BECAUSE FOR PEOPLE TO GET THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE IN THERE THEY HAVE TO HAVE FLAT ROOFS. SO I REALLY WANT PEOPLE TO BE CAREFUL OTHERWISE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE -- THAT IS REALLY ALL WE'RE GOING TO SEE IS A LOT OF BOXES ALL ACROSS THE WATERFRONT. SO, WHICH ONE OF THESE THEN WOULD STILL ALLOW SOME OF THAT DESIGN DO YOU THINK? OR IS THERE JUST -- THAT IS REALLY

ELIMINATING EVERYTHING. >> SPEAKER: I THINK THAT IT FORCES A DESIGN CONSTRAINT.

THERE'S NO DOUBT. I THINK WHERE YOU ARE SEEKING TO MAXIMIZE THE AVAILABLE FOOTPRINT THAT YOU ARE BUILDING WITHIN AND GET THE MOST OUT OF THAT GIVEN PIECE OF PROPERTY, YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE VIEWS AND THE OTHER FEATURES OF THAT PROPERTY. IT IS A DESIGN CHALLENGE, UNDOUBTEDLY. AND IN ORDER TO GET ROOF PITCHES THAT ARE SIGNIFICANT ROOF PITCHES, ESPECIALLY IN TO YOUR DESIGN, THAT EATS INTO YOUR AVAILABLE AREA THAT YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE IN THE HOME ITSELF. SO IT BECOMES A PRIORITY ISSUE FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER. BUT THEN ON THIS SIDE OF THINGS IT IS A COMMUNITY VALUE. ARE YOU WILLING TO ACCEPT THERE WILL BE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO JUST BUILD THOSE BOXES AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE VIEWS IN THE WAY THEY CAN AND ACCESS TO IT IN THE WAY THEY CAN. BUT THERE WILL BE OTHERS THAT SAY, NO, DESIGN OVER THAT.

I'D RATHER HAVE MY PITCHED ROOF AND VARIED ROOF LINES AND I'M WILLING TO ACCEPT A SMALLER INTERNAL FOOTPRINT. IT'S REALLY DIFFICULT BECAUSE EVERY PROPERTY IS UNIQUE. AND SO -- AND THE FEATURES UNDER WHICH SOMEBODY MAY WANT TO CONSTRUCT THEIR HOME ARE GOING TO VARY FROM PERSON TO PERSON. BUT THE PURPOSE OF THIS BOARD IS TO UNDERSTAND THE DIRECTION AND VALUE OF THE COMMUNITY WHICH HAS VERY CLEARLY SAID -- AND WE HEAR COMPLAINTS. IT'S BEEN WRITTEN IN THE PAPER MANY TIMES. IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S ANOTHER LOOPHOLE THAT'S BEEN GIVEN FOR THIS ENCROACHMENT BEYOND THE BUILDING HEIGHT. IT'S NOT A LOOPHOLE. IT'S THERE RIGHT NOW. IT'S PERFECTLY ALLOWABLE. AS STAFF IT'S FRUSTRATING BECAUSE WE CAN'T DEFINE THE EXTENT TO WHICH WE CAN MAKE THAT ALLOWABLE. IT SAYS MINOR ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE AND THAT MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT

[00:40:01]

CAN EXTEND. WELL MINOR ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE ISN'T DEFINED. SO, WE'RE PUSHING BACK TO A DESIGN PROFESSIONAL SAYING NO NOT THIS, MAYBE THAT. AND THEN WE GET IT BACK, NO THIS STILL LOOKS TOO BIG, MAYBE THAT. THEN YOU GET THE OUTHOUSE LOOKING STRUCTURE BECAUSE WE'RE SAYING NO NO YOU ARE GOING TO DEFINE TO JUST THAT BOX UNDER WHICH YOU ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO ENC ENCROACH BEYOND THAT HEIGHT. SO IT LOOKS SMALL AND LITTLE FOR THAT VERY REASON. BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE BALANCING THAT YOU ARE LIMITED TO NON-HABITABLE. YOU ARE LIMITED TO MECHANICAL ONLY. AND IT HAS TO BE MINOR IN NATURE.

SO THAT -- THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS TWOFOLD. ONE, ATE DRESSES THE CONSTANT BARRAGE OF COMPLAINTS WE'RE HEARING. BUT, TWO, SOME DIRECTION IT SAYS UNDER WHICH WE WOULD ALLOW FOR

THOSE ENCROACHMENTS TO OCCUR IF AT ALL. >> CHAIRMAN: MR. STEVENSON?

>> BOARD MEMBER: MR. CHAIRMAN, KELLY, I GUESS I HAVE WALKED AWAY FROM SEVERAL MEETINGS WITH THE CITY COUNCIL WHICH I THOUGHT IT WAS PRETTY CLEAR, BASED ON THE PEOPLE FROM THE COMMUNITY WHO SPOKE AND COMMENTED AND SO FORTH THAT THEY WANTED A 35 FOOT FOOT LIMITATION. THE 800 FEET IS BUILT INTO THAT EQUATION. SO THAT'S GOING TO PUSH IT BEYOND EGANS CREEK GOING WEST. I GUESS IT WOULDN'T GO THAT FAR. NO, THAT'S RIGHT. SO, I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, IF WE'RE GOING DO THIS -- I UNDERSTAND 35 FEET WITH SOME ROOM FOR MECHANICAL. SO I THINK THAT'S THE 35 FEET IS AN ABSOLUTE LIMIT AND THEN YOU CAN EXCEED THAT BY 5 OR IF SOMEBODY SAYS STATISTICALLY YOU NEED 10 PERCENT, WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE THE RIGHT ENGINEERING NUMBER FOR THE AVERAGE HOME OR RESIDENTIAL. SO I THOUGHT THAT WAS KIND OF WHAT THE COMMUNITY WANTED AND THERE HAD BEEN A LOT OF CONCERN AND THEY HEARD SOME DISCUSSIONS AND EVERYTHING FROM THE FLOOD PLAIN DISCUSSIONS AND SO ON THAT WERE TALKING ABOUT THE 35 FOOT LIMIT. SO THAT'S WHERE I AM COMING FROM.

>> CHAIRMAN: MR. CLARK. >> BOARD MEMBER: I'M CONFUSED. TO JENNIFER'S POINT WHICH I THOUGHT WAS FAIR ABOUT ALLOWING FOR A BIT OF ARCHITECTURE. IN THE ORIGINAL NUMBER 2 IT SAYS THAT FIVE PERCENT OF THE FEATURES ABOVE CAN BE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES AS DEFINED BELOW. WHEN YOU LOOK BELOW, IT DOES DEFINE THOSE TO INCLUDE PROJECTIONS WHICH CONTRIBUTE TO THE ELEGANCE OF THE BUILDING AND SO FORTH. SO MY READING OF THE ORIGINAL NUMBER 2, NOT THE RED, IS FIVE PERCENT CAN BE AN ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE. THAT'S NOT ALTERNATIVE NUMBER 2 THAT IS IN THE STAFF PROPOSED RECOMMENDATION. IS THAT CORRECT? AM I READING THAT

RIGHT? >> SPEAKER: THAT IS CORRECT. AND THAT MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT, PARAPET WALLS AND RAILINGS ARE NOT INCLUDED AS A MINOR ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE. SO THAT THAT WHAT YOU SEE HERE IS THE EXAMPLES PROVIDED THIS EVENING WOULD NOT BE PERMISSIBLE. IF THEY EXTEND BEYOND THE 35 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT. NOW YOU COULD DESIGN A STRUCTURE THAT IS BELOW 35 FEET AND STILL HAVE ALL OF KNOWS FEATURES INCLUDED BUT THAT'S BECAUSE IT'S WITHIN YOUR

ENVELOPE. YOUR GIVEN ENVELOPE ALREADY. >> CHAIRMAN: I THINK AT THE LAST MEETING WE HAD THERE WAS SOME CONCERN WE'D END UP WITH A BUNCH OF RECTANGULAR BOXES EVERYWHERE ALONG THE BEACH. AM I CORRECT THAT PART OF THE PROBLEM CAME UP BECAUSE OF THE ELEVATOR SHAFTS AND PEOPLE WERE ADDING TO THOSE STRUCTURES TO MAKE CONDITIONAL ROOFS AND THINGS?

>> SPEAKER: I DON'T THINK WE'VE SEEN PEOPLE ADD TO THOSE BUT I THINK IT'S WHERE YOU SEE THE ADDITIONAL PROJECTION BEYOND THE HEIGHT THAT PEOPLE AS THEY'RE DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD ARE

GLYPHED BY. >> CHAIRMAN: SO YOU CAN TAKE OUT ELEVATOR SHAFTS ARE NOT PERMITTED ON THE ROOF. AND ALLOW THE OTHER ITEMS AS

SO THAT WOULD ALLOW YOU SOME -- >> BOARD MEMBER: DOESN'T THIS LANGUAGE ALLOW THAT NOW?

>> SPEAKER: NO. THE LANGUAGE AS PROPOSED BY STAFF ORIGINALLY WOULD EXCLUDE ELEVATOR SHAFTS FROM ANY EXTENSION BEYOND THE BUILDING HEIGHT. BECAUSE THEY WOULD NOT QUALIFY AS A ROOFTOP

ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE. >> BOARD MEMBER: OKAY. WELL THAT'S ALL RIGHT.

>> CHAIRMAN: ORIGINALLY IT WAS MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT. >> SPEAKER: RIGHT.

>> CHAIRMAN: GOING BACK YEARS AGO WHEN THIS ISSUE CAME UP BECAUSE WE SAW THERE WAS A NEED

[00:45:06]

FOR MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT ON THE ROOF. SO THAT'S WHY IT WAS ADD ADDED. AND ELEVATOR SHAFT WAS ONE OF THOSE ITEMS. BUT NOW IT'S GOTTEN KIND OF BEYOND THAT I THINK. THE ELEVATOR SHAFTS HAVE BECOME OTHER THINGS. THAT GETS YOU TO THE ROOF AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN NOW THE ROOF BECOMES ANOTHER LIVING AREA RATHER THAN JUST A ROOF; IS THAT

CORRECT? DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT? >> SPEAKER: YES. IT IS AN OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE.

>> CHAIRMAN: YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN. ALL OF A SUDDEN -- >> SPEAKER: IT'S ALL UNINLABITABLE IS NOT CONDITIONED. THEY'RE TRULY OUTSIDE OPEN AIR KIND OF AMENITIES ON TOP OF A ROOF THAT YOU ARE ACCESSING THROUGH YOUR ELEVATOR SHAFT.

>> BOARD MEMBER: WE GOT IT. THANK YOU. >> CHAIRMAN: WE COULD JUST TAKE OFF THE ELEVATOR SHAFT. THAT SEEMS TO BE THE BIGGEST PROBLEM HERE. WOULD EVERYONE AGREE TO

THAT? >> BOARD MEMBER: WELL, I THINK THAT -- I THINK KELLY OR SOMEBODY SAID THAT YOU HAVE AN ENVELOPE THAT IS APPROVED. AND YOU CAN EITHER MAKE IT A BOX, A RECTANGLE BOX, OR YOU CAN -- IF YOU WANT ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES, THEN YOU KNOW YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO ADJUST TO STAY WITHIN THE ENVELOPE. WHICH MAY MEAN THAT YOU, YOU KNOW, CUT OUT PART OF A ROOM IN ORDER TO GIVE YOU SOME SIDE STAIRS IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A FLAT ROOF TO GET UP TO THE ROOF STAYING WITHIN THE ENVELOPE. SO I THINK IT'S A DECISION THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS TO MAKE WHEN THEY'RE DESIGNING A HOUSE. IF THEY STAY WITHIN THE ENVELOPE THEN THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT. AND I THINK THAT'S THE DECISION THAT THEY NEED TO MAKE. IS WHAT KIND OF ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES DO THEY WANT TO HAVE? AND IF THEY WANT TO HAVE A BOX, WHICH WE SEE

A LOT OF BOXES, THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD. >> CHAIRMAN: MS. SHAFER?

>> BOARD MEMBER: JUST THE FOOTPRINT OF THESE LOTS ARE SO SMALL ALREADY. MOST OF THEM ARE 50 FOOT LOTS. YOU CAN'T BUILD ON THE GROUND LEVEL. ALL OF YOUR SQUARE FOOTAGE ON THE NEXT LEVEL. AND TO GET ANYTHING ELSE OTHER THAN 1,500 SQUARE FEET YOU'VE GOT TO GO UP. SO, YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING -- UNLESS YOU WANT 8 FOOT CEILINGS, WHICH NOBODY WANTS RIGHT NOW, YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE SOMETHING ORNAMENTAL TO HAVE ANYTHING OVER, YOU KNOW, 1,500/2 THOUSAND SQUARE FEET.

YOU ARE LEFT WITH A BOX. SO, I DON'T WANT TO DISCOURAGE, YOU KNOW, BEAUTIFUL ARCHITECTURAL.

I AM CONFUSED WITH THE VERBIAGE BUT HOWEVER WE NEED TO DO THAT, IF I WANT TO ENCOURAGE ALLOWING

SOMETHING TO MAKE THAT NOT EVERYTHING LOOK HORRIBLE. >> CHAIRMAN: MS. ROLAND HAS JOINED THE BOARD. I'LL GIVE YOU -- I THINK YOU MAY WANT TO SPEAK ON THIS BECAUSE MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT THE 35 FEET AND THAT WAS IT WAS ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT YOU WERE CONCERNED

ABOUT. >> BOARD MEMBER: YES I AM. >> BOARD MEMBER: WE SHOULD HAVE VOTED QUICK DISCUSSION MY MIND STILL HAS NOT CHANGED ABOUT A SOLID 35 FOOT REQUIREMENT. PERIOD. BECAUSE WE GOT INTO ISSUES IN PREVIOUS YEARS ABOUT ALLOWING CERTAIN OTHER ELEMENTS TO GO BEYOND 35 FEET. AND I THINK NOW IS THE TIME JUST TO SET HERE IS 35 THAT'S WHAT THE PREVIOUS COMMISSION SAID, LET'S JUST STICK TO IT. LET'S AVOID CREEP INTO OUR HEIGHT REQUIREMENT WHICH I THINK WE CAN. SOME OF THE VERBIAGE MAY BE CONFUSING TO SOME. I THINK WE CAN CLEAN IT UP TO MAKE IT A SOLID 35. I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE SHOULD DO. IN MY -- MY OPINION HASN'T

CHANGED. >> CHAIRMAN: I AGREE. SOMEBODY SAY SOMETHING OR DO SOMETHING.

>> BOARD MEMBER: BASED ON THAT, I'M NOT SURE EITHER ONE OF THESE OPTIONS ADDRESSES THAT. SO WE

[00:50:07]

NEED TO WRITE SOMETHING DIFFERENT. RIGHT? >> CHAIRMAN: MR. CLARK, YOU WANT

TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION? >> BOARD MEMBER: MY OPINION IS THAT NUMBER 2, THE ORIGINAL NUMBER 2 IS A GOOD APPROACH. BUT I THINK THE DISCUSSION HERE ABOUT ELEVATOR SHAFTS LEADS ME TO SAY THAT WE SHOULD AMEND THAT TO DELETE THE REFERENCE TO ELEVATOR SHAFTS AND ALLOW THE OTHER THINGS BUT ONLY WITHIN THE FIVE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL ROOF AREA. THAT'S WHAT I THINK. SO

I WOULDN'T DO THE ALTERNATIVE NUMBER 2. >> CHAIRMAN: ARE YOU GOING TO

MAKE A MOTION? >> BOARD MEMBER: THE WHOLE RED SECTION. I CAN MAKE THAT MOTION. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION WHICH IS -- DOES NOT INCLUDE THE RED ALTERNATIVE 2 AND AMENDS THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION SLIGHTLY BY DELETING THE REFERENCE TO

ELEVATOR SHAFTS. >> CHAIRMAN: MS. MIN CHEW YOUR LIGHT IS ON.

>> BOARD MEMBER: DO WE NEED A SECOND. I'LL SECOND IT. BUT I ALSO HAVE A QUESTION.

>> DELETING ELEVATOR SHAFTS MEANS THAT ELEVATOR SHAFTS WON'T BE ALLOWED. THE WAY NUMBER 2

READS RIGHT NOW. >> BOARD MEMBER: I DON'T WANT TO ALLOW ELEVATOR SHAFTS.

>> SPEAKER: I THINK THE WAY YOU WOULD WORD THAT IS SUCH IN THE SECOND SENTENCE WHERE IT SAYS THE CALCULATION OF MAXIMUM HEIGHT MUST INCLUDE ANY AND ALL ATTACHMENTS. THEN IT GOES THROUGH A LIST WHICH INCLUDES ELEVATOR SHAFTS. I THINK YOU LEAVE IT SIMPLE. THE CALCULATION OF MAXIMUM HEIGHT MUST INCLUDE ELEVATOR SHAFTS AND THEN I KNOW MR. ROLAND WOULD

LIKE TO SEE PARAPETS AND WALLS INCLUDED. >> BOARD MEMBER: I WOULD.

>> SPEAKER: BUT IF YOU WERE TO INCLUDE THAT, THE REMAINDER OF THAT LANGUAGE AS PERMISSIBLE UNDER A ROOFTOP ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE UNDER WHICH YOU COULD BE NO TALLER THAN TEN FEET AND NO GREATER THAN FIVE PERCENT IN AGGREGATE, THEN I THINK IT ADDRESSES SHAFER'S CONCERN TOO ABOUT SOME OF THOSE FEATURES BUT YOU HAVE ELIMINATED ELEVATOR SHAFTS FROM EXTENDING. IS

EVERYONE FOLLOWING ME? >> CHAIRMAN: YOU WOULD ADD THAT TO THE SECOND SENTENCE IN NUMBER

2? ELEVATOR SHAFTS IN THERE? >> SPEAKER: I WOULD HAVE THE CUMULATION MAXIMUM BUILDING

HEIGHT MUST INCLUDE ELEVATOR SHAFTS. >> AND THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE NOW.

>> SPEAKER: PERIOD. THE REST OF THAT, THE CHIMNEYS, ANTENNAS, MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT, SCREEN ENCLOSURES, ROOF, DECKS, PARAPETS, RAILINGS OR SIMILAR BUILDING FEATURES WOULD BECOME PART OF THE DEFINITION PROVIDED IN NUMBER 4 AS A ROOFTOP ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE.

>> CHAIRMAN: DO WE NEED TO SEE THIS REWRITTEN? >> SPEAKER: I THINK IT WOULD BE

WISE. >> CHAIRMAN: COULD WE POTENTIALLY TABLE THIS TO THE

NEXT MEETING? >> SPEAKER: WE COULD. WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE ON MOVE FORWARD ON THE OTHER BUILDING HEIGHT CHANGES CONTAINED IN ACTUALLY NUMBER 1? FOR PURPOSES OF THE

FLOOD PLAIN. >> BOARD MEMBER: THAT'S IMPORTANT.

>> CHAIRMAN: ALL RIGHT. SO, CAN I GET A MOTION FROM SOMEONE TO TABLE THIS TO A TIME CERTAIN

NEXT MEETING. >> BOARD MEMBER: I'LL MOVE. >> BOARD MEMBER: SECOND.

>> CHAIRMAN: I'LL JUST DO A VOICE VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED? OKAY. THAT

TAKES CARE OF THAT. >> DID YOU GET THAT SAM? >> CHAIRMAN: BECAUSE WE REALLY

>> SPEAKER: YES THE DIRECTION PROVIDED. I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S FULLY ADDRESSING MR. ROLAND'S CONCERNS THOUGH. THE ONLY OTHER PIECE I'D LIKE TO SEE THE BOARD TAKE ACTION THIS

EVENING ON THE FLOOD PLAIN PIECE AND THE VARIANCE PIECE. >> CHAIRMAN: OKAY. LET'S DO IT.

ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON TO NUMBER 4. NEW BUSINESS 4.1-- >> NO, NO.

>> CHAIRMAN: WHAT DO YOU WANT US TO DO? >> SPEAKER: WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE FOR THE BOARD TO TAKE ACTION ON THE CALCULATION OF BUILDING HEIGHT FOR PROPERTIES WITHIN

FLOOD PLAINS? >> THAT'S THE YELLOW HIGHLIGHTED LANGUAGE ONLY.

>> SPEAKER: AND ADDITIONALLY I'D LIKE TO YOU TAKE ACTION ON THE VARIANCE PIECE.

>> WHICH IS DOWN TOWARDS THE BOTTOM. >> CHAIRMAN: 11 AND 12?

>> YES. >> CHAIRMAN: OKAY. MS. CLARK YOUR LIGHT IS STILL ON.

[00:55:01]

>> BOARD MEMBER: I'LL MOVE THAT. >> BOARD MEMBER: SECOND. >> CH

>> BOARD MEMBER: WHAT ARE WE MOVING? >> A MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WITH REGARD TO THE YELLOW HIGHLIGHTED LANGUAGE UNDER PARAGRAPH 3.1. THEN TOWARDS THE BOTTOM UNDER 10.02.01 SUB-11 AND 12 ARE ADDITIONS.

>> CHAIRMAN: IS THAT ALL RIGHT? OKAY. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? CAN WE DO A VOICE VOTE ON THIS?

>> YOU MAY. >> CHAIRMAN: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT.

MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. NOW MOVING ON TO 4.1 PAB CASE 2019-16. OUR AGENDA THIS IS

[Item 4.1]

SPLIT BETWEEN THE CITY PARCELS AND THE OTHER PARCELS NOT OWNED BY THE CITY. I WOULD ASK THE BOARD FOR ANY OF THE CITY PARCELS. BECAUSE OUR DESIRE IS NOT TO GO THROUGH THESE ONE BY ONE BY ONE. DO YOU HAVE -- IS THERE A PARCEL THAT YOU ARE CONCERNED WITH? IF SO, NOW IS

THE TIME TO LET ME KNOW THAT. >> BOARD MEMBER: THERE IS SOMEONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO HAD

A QUESTION THAT WAS BROUGHT UP ABOUT ONE OF THE CITY PARCELS. >> CHAIRMAN: WE'LL HEAR FROM

THEM BUT I WANT TO SEE IF YOU ALL HAVE ANYTHING FIRST. >> BOARD MEMBER: NO.

>> CHAIRMAN: ALL RIGHT. SO, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ONLY THE CITY-OWNED PARCELS. SO, IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK ON THAT, COME UP HERE AND GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND TELL US WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY. SEEING NO ONE WANTS TO SPEAK ON THE CITY PARCELS, PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED FOR THAT. AND LOOK TO THE BOARD. WHAT IS YOUR

THOUGHTS, DESIRES? >> BOARD MEMBER: I MOVE WE APPROVE CASE NUMBER 2019-16.

>> CHAIRMAN: DO I HAVE A SECOND ON THAT? >> BOARD MEMBER: I'LL SECOND.

>> CHAIRMAN: MR. CLARK SECONDED. MR. ROLAND MADE THE MOTION. DO WE HAVE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

HEARING NONE -- >> BOARD MEMBER: CAN YOU JUST EXPLAIN IT?

>> SPEAKER: I'LL BE HAPPY TO. >> BOAR >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: DID YOU CLOSE

THE PUBLIC? >> CHAIRMAN: YOU DIDN'T HEAR ME? ALL RIGHT. THIS IS ONLY FOR THE

CITY OWNED PARCELS. >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: RIGHT. >> CHAIRMAN: NOT THE OTHER. YOU

WANT TO SPEAK ON THE CITY OWNED PARCELS? YOU DO? >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: YES.

>> CHAIRMAN: I WILL REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THAT. COME UP HERE. TELL US WHO YOU ARE.

>> PUBLIC SPEAKER: I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S CITY -- >> CHAIRMAN: YOU GOT TO COME UP HERE. YOU CAN'T TELL ME FROM OUT THERE. WE GOT TO MAKE YOU EXERCISE.

>> PUBLIC SPEAKER: DEB HARPER 835 ALLEN STREET. I AM JUST CONCERNED ABOUT THIS LETTER THAT WE GOT. I'M NOT SURE WHERE THIS FALLS. THIS IS CITY. I LIVE IN THE CITY ON THE NORTH END. AND THIS IS A FORK LYNCH PROPERTY 5 WEST. SO I WANT TO KNOW IF YOU ARE CONVERTING IT TO CITY OWNED AND YOU ARE GOING TO MAKE IT CONSERVATION PROPERTY. THAT'S ALL I WANT TO KNOW.

>> CHAIRMAN: YES THAT'S -- WHATEVER THAT LETTER SAYS. SOME OF THESE PARCELS ARE NOW ZONED FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. PLUCK AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE WON'T BE ANY RESIDENTIAL

DEVELOPMENT THERE. >> CHAIRMAN: UNDER CONSERVATION NONE WOULD BE ALLOWED.

>> PUBLIC SPEAKER: THAT'S ALL. JUST WANTED CLARITY AND YOU GUYS SAY THAT. THANK YOU. BECAUSE SO MANY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN BUILDING ON THIS LITTLE LOTS AND TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THAT OUT BY

US. >> CHAIRMAN: UNDER THE CONSERVATION PLAN LAND USE ZONING THEIR BUILDING IS NOT ALLOWED. YOU CAN LOOK AT THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THAT

WILL TELL YOU WHAT THEY CAN AND CAN'T DO. >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: THANK YOU.

>> CHAIRMAN: WE HAVE SOMEBODY ELSE? ONE SECOND. YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE A TRAFFIC JAM.

>> PUBLIC SPEAKER: GOOD EVENING. JEFF MCDONALD. 2820B MAN TAN DISCUSS. WE RECEIVED THE SIGNS IN OUR DRIVEWAY. WHAT I AM NOT CLEAR ON IS THERE A PARCEL OF LAND THAT IS GOING TO BE CONVERTED TO CONSERVATION BUT I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S THE PARCEL TO THE WEST OF MY PROPERTY OR TO THE SOUTH OF MY PROPERTY. IT'S NOT CLEAR. IT JUST SAYS THERE'S, YOU KNOW, AN ACREAGE AND I'M NOT CLEAR -- I HAVE TREES THERE. I'VE GOT TREES THERE AND OVER HERE. I'M NOT

[01:00:02]

SURE WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. >> CHAIRMAN: CAN YOU PULL THAT

UP? JUST TO BE CLEAR. >> SPEAKER: THAT'S YOUR ADDRESS? >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: 2820 B

MANTANSIS. >> SPEAKER: SO WEST. >> CHAIRMAN: IS THAT LOT 2?

OKAY. >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: ALL RIGHT. SO THE ONES IN STRIPES ARE GOING

TO BE CONSERVATION GOING FORWARD IS THAT CORRECT? >> UH-HUH. SORRY, YES. AND

THOSE ARE CITY OWNED PARCELS. A PORTION OF MANTANSIS HERE. >> CHAIRMAN: CAN YOU PUT IT ON

THE AERIAL? IT MIGHT BE EASIER FOR EVERYBODY TO SEE. >> NOT REALLY.

>> SPEAKER: I THINK IT'S JUST WEST OF YOU. >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: I BELIEVE IT

IS TOO. >> SPEAKER: THERE'S SEVERAL UNDEVELOPED LOTS THAT LEAD UP TO

THIS PROPERTY. >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: RIGHT. THERE WE GO. WE CAN WORK WITH THAT.

NOW WE'RE COOKING. ALL RIGHT. THIS I BELIEVE IS -- DAVID, IS THIS OUR HOUSE RIGHT HERE?

>> PUBLIC SPEAKER: YES JUST TO THE EAST OF THE DRIVEWAY. >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: THIS IS OUR HOUSE RIGHT HERE. THAT WASN'T CLEAR BECAUSE WE HAVE A SURROUNDING -- WE'RE SURROUNDED BY WOODS. SO, WHEN YOU SAY, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER ACREAGE IT IS IS GOING TO BE RC, I HAVE TO KIND OF VISUALIZE IT. SO, MANTANSIS EFFECTIVELY ENDS WHERE MY PROPERTY -- BECAUSE IT IS A DIRT ROAD COMING OFF OF FIRST AVENUE. OVER A DUNE LINE WE HAVE A PROPERTY THERE. MYSELF AND THIS GENTLEMAN HERE. SO THAT'S IT FOR BUILDING TO THE WEST. CLEAR? OKAY. THAT'S ALL I CAME

FOR. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >> CHAIRMAN: YOU ARE WELCOME. >> SPEAKER: CAN I JUST SPEAK TO THE LADY WHO CAME BEFORE JUST FOR HER PURPOSES. I KNOW SHE IS HERE FOR CLARIFICATION AS WELL.

THAT PROPERTY'S ADJOINING FORT CLENCH AND THAT PROPERTY IS HELD UNDER THE STATE OF FLORIDA. SO IT'S A NON-CITY PARCEL BUT IT'S JOINING FORT CLENCH. SO IT WOULD BE UP AGAINST THE SAME CONSERVATION LAND USE AND ZONING. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS CLEAR. I DIDN'T

FEEL WE ADEQUATELY COVERED YOUR CONCERN. >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: YEAH BECAUSE IT WAS LISTED ON THERE. I JUST WANTED CLARIFICATION. YOU DON'T ALWAYS GRAB IT WHEN YOU GET THAT

NOTIFICATION. THANK YOU. >> SPEAKER: YOU ARE WELCOME. >> CHAIRMAN: OKAY. DID YOU WANT

TO SPEAK? >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: I DO. MARGARET KIRKLAND, 1377 PLANTATION POINT DRIVE. I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF AMELIA TREE CONSERVANCY, AS USUAL.

THANK YOU FOR DOING THIS, KELLY. THIS IS AN ORDEAL, I KNOW. I JUST HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS WITH CLARIFICATION. ON THE TWO PARCELS THAT ARE ON BUCCANEER TRAIL OR THE AMELIA ISLAND PARKWAY. AND THOSE ARE RECOMMENDED FOR RECREATION. IS THERE --

[01:06:10]

>> SPEAKER: I HAVE THEM INDICATED FOR CONSERVATION. >> CHAIRMAN: IT'S ALMOST A

WETLAND AREA DOWN AT THAT ONE PART. IT'S OFF STANLEY. >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: SO WHY WOULD

THE RECOMMENDATION BE FOR RECREATION? >> SPEAKER: THEY WERE

RECOMMENDED FOR CONSERVATION. >> CHAIRMAN: IT'S CONSERVATION? >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: IT IS?

>> CHAIRMAN: THAT'S THE WAY THE LETTER WENT OUT. >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: OKAY BUT

I'M -- >> CHAIRMAN: ARE WE ALL STRAIGHT NOW?

>> BOARD MEMBER: I JUST HAVE A QUESTION. THIS IS JUST -- THERE'S A PIECE OF PROPERTY ON HERE, IT HAPPENS TO BE ON ROBERT OLIVER. AND MY UNDERSTANDING WAS IT WAS DONATED TO THE CITY

AS PERMANENT CONSERVATION. >> SPEAKER: YES. >> BOARD MEMBER: THE QUESTION I HAVE, SINCE THAT'S IN A PROPERTY AREA THAT HAS A HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION DOES THE STATE STILL

HAVE TO COMPLY WITH ALL THE HOA REQUIREMENTS? >> YES.

>> BOARD MEMBER: SO YOU STILL PAY FEES? >> I GUESS. WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN A BILL. I MEAN, IT SHOULD BE. BECAUSE WHENEVER YOU TAKE THAT -- THE CITY ACCEPTED THAT

PROPERTY AND I BELIEVE IT WAS A QUIT CLAIM DEED. >> SPEAKER: EARLIER THIS YEAR.

>> WE'RE SUBJECT TO ALL THE RECORDED COVENANTS AND ALL THAT. SO I WOULD ASSUME WE WOULD

PAY -- >> SPEAKER: AND WE'RE ALSO PAYING FOR THE MAINTENANCE

OBLIGATIONS FOR THE LOT. >> BOARD MEMBER: THAT WAS MY OTHER PIECE. IS PROBABLY

SOMETHING THAT'S AT LEAST ALONG THE-- >> ARE YOU ON THE OHOA?

>> BOARD MEMBER: NO. >> SPEAKER: IN TERMS OF MAINTENANCE THAT WAS ARTICULATED

IN THE DEED. >> CHAIRMAN: THERE'S A WALKWAY ON THERE.

>> SPEAKER: A SEPARATE PARCEL. >> BOARD MEMBER: THIS IS THE ONE AS YOU GO IN THE SECOND LOT ON

THE LEFT. >> THE CITY HAS TO MAINTAIN IT. WELL KEEP EVERYTHING IN ITS NATURAL STATE EXCEPT FOR INVASIVES AND THEN MAKE SURE TO TRIM THE FOLIAGE AWAY FROM THE

RIGHT-OF-WAY. KEEP IT OUT OF THE STREET. >> BOARD MEMBER: OKAY. SO, THERE'S NO NEGATIVES THEN FOR DONATION FROM AN HOA STANDPOINT. THERE'S NO HOLE AS FAR AS

FINANCIAL. THAT WAS MY QUESTION. THANK YOU. >> CHAIRMAN: KELLY DID YOU WANT

TO ADD SOMETHING. >> SPEAKER: NO. >> CHAIRMAN: DOES ANYONE WANT TO SPEAK TO ONLY THE CITY OWNED PROPERTIES? IF YOU DO, COME UP HERE AND TELL US WHO YOU ARE.

>> PUBLIC SPEAKER: GOOD EVENING. NAME IS BARBARA SMITH. AND I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE

PROPERTIES -- >> CHAIRMAN: THAT'S YOUR ADDRESS?

>> PUBLIC SPEAKER: 923 NINTH STREET. THE PROPERTY FROM NINTH AND JASMINE STREET. AND THE 300 FEET. WILL THIS BE FOR A SIDEWALK OR WILL WE HAVE TO SELL OUR PROPERTY ENTIRETY?

>> CHAIRMAN: THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT. THIS IS TO TAKE THAT PROPERTY THAT'S NOW I THINK IS RESIDENTIAL 2 OR SOMETHING AND MAKE IT CONSERVATION SO THAT IT STAYS THE WAY IT IS.

>> PUBLIC SPEAKER: THAT'S ALL THIS IS? >> CHAIRMAN: THAT'S ALL WE'RE DOING. CHANGING THE LAND USE AND ZONING SO IT WILL NOT BE DEVELOPED.

>> PUBLIC SPEAKER: OH OKAY. THANK YOU. >> CHAIRMAN: YOU ARE WELCOME.

ALL RIGHT. ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE, WE'LL CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS PORTION OF THIS AND THE BOARD WE NOW HAVE ALL CITY PROPERTIES. I NEED SOMEONE TO MAKE A MOTION

>> YOU HAVE A MOTION. >> CHAIRMAN: OH THAT'S RIGHT. >> BOARD MEMBER: I'LL SECOND IT.

>> THERE IS A MOTION AND A SECOND. >> CHAIRMAN: ALL RIGHT. I CAN

[01:10:03]

DO THIS-- >> YOU CAN DO ALL OF IT BY VOICE VOTING.

>> CHAIRMAN: LET'S DO IT BY VOICE VOTE TO MOVE THINGS ALONG. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ALL OPPOSED. ALL RIGHT MOTION PASSES. MOVING ON TO 4.3 PAB 2016-17 FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND

[Item 4.2]

ZONING AMENDMENTS FOR NON-CITY OWNED LANDS TO CONSERVATION AND RECREATION. AND I'LL ASK THE BOARD IF YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. I KNOW THAT WE HAVE -- KELLY MENTIONED THAT THE COUNTY HAS AN ISSUE AND ALSO WITH ONE OF THE PARCELS AND ALSO THE PARCEL IN OLD TOWN. SO, I'LL SPEAK TO THE BOARD FIRST. DO YOU ALL HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO ANY OF THESE NOT CITY OWNED

PARCELS? MR. STEVENSON? >> BOARD MEMBER: I JUST ASK A QUESTION. IF I LOOK AT THOSE TWO PIECES OF PROPERTY THAT CSX HAS, IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE PROBABLY 70% SUBMERGED.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> BOARD MEMBER: IS THERE -- DO WE HAVE TO MAKE THAT CHANGE? I MEAN, THEY'RE VERY OPPOSED TO MAKING THE CHANGE. IS THERE SOME -- OR IS THIS ONE THAT

COULD BE PUT ON HOLD FOR A WHILE? >> SPEAKER: THERE'S A COUPLE THINGS THAT I THINK NEED TO BE FURTHER UNDERSTOOD ABOUT THESE PROPERTIES. THIS WAS A SPECIFIC DIRECTION PROVIDED TO ME THROUGH THE CITY MANAGER TO CONTEMPLATE CSX LOTS AS PART OF THE OVERALL CONSERVATION CHANGES THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS EVENING. AND AS IT COMES ABOUT THROUG THIS IN PROCESS AND ITS INTENT IS THAT YOU LEARN A LOT MORE ABOUT PROPERTIES AND SPECIFIC PROPERTIES WHEN YOU DO ADVERTISING. ONE OF THE THINGS I'VE LEARNED THIS WEEK BEYOND THE OBJECTION WHICH WE HAVE FORMALLY RECEIVED AN OBJECTION FROM CSX RELATING TO THIS AND THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE US RETAIN THE IW ZONING DISTRICT ON IT IS THAT CSX HAS ENTERED INTO LEASE AGREEMENTS WITH PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS FOR THESE PARCELS OF LAND. AND THESE ARE VERY LONG-TERM LEASE AGREEMENTS WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF DOCKS OVER THOSE PROPERTIES.

SOME OF THEM HAVE HISTORICALLY HAD DOCKS ON THEM AND THEY AREN'T THERE TODAY AS A RESULT OF STORM EVENTS THAT HAVE OCCURRED. OTHERS HAVE NEVER CONSTRUCTED THE DOCKS BUT THEY STILL HOLD THAT LEASE. AND WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO CONSTRUCT A DOCK AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE. MOVING THESE PROPERTIES INTO A CONSERVATION DESIGNATION WOULD NOT ALLOW FOR A PRINCIPAL USE OF A GIVEN PIECE OF PROPERTY TO OPERATE AS A DOCK. SO, IN ORDER TO RETAIN THE RIGHTS ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE LEASES AND NOT REMOVE THEM, WE WOULD HAVE TO MODIFY OUR CODE TO MAKE THAT AN ALLOWABLE USE IN CONSERVATION OR CONTEMPLATE ANOTHER ZONING DISTRICT ALTOGETHER THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR THAT. AND WE SPOKE AT RECREATION AT THE ZONING DISTRICT THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR DOCKS TO BE A PRINCIPAL USE. ON THOSE PROT PROPERTIES. SO, I DON'T KNOW THAT FULLY ADDRESSES THE CONCERNS RAISED BY CSX BUT IT WOULD CERTAINLY ADDRESS THE CONCERNS RAISED BY THE LESSEES OF THAT PROPERTY. AND I KNOW THAT SEVERAL OF THEM ARE HERE IN THE AUDIENCE THIS EVENING AND WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS TOPIC.

>> CHAIRMAN: MR. ROLAND, YOUR LIGHT IS ON. >> BOARD MEMBER: NOT ME.

>> BOARD MEMBER: ME. >> CHAIRMAN: MS. CLARK I GUESS YOUR LIGHT'S ON.

>> BOARD MEMBER: FOR THESE DOCKS IS THIS LIKE A FISHING DOCK OR IS THIS A MARITIME COMMERCIAL

DOCK? >> SPEAKER: I COULD NOT ANSWER THAT.

>> BOARD MEMBER: BECAUSE BIG DIFFERENCE IN ALLOWING A COMMERCIAL DOCK VERSUS A FISHING

DOCK. >> CHAIRMAN: I THINK WE HAVE SOMEONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT

WANTS TO SPEAK TO THIS. MR. CLARK? >> BOARD MEMBER: I JUST WANTED TO ASK KELLY, BASED ON WHAT YOU JUST STARTED ABOUT THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, DO YOU HAVE MORE DISCUSSION TO DO WITH CSX? I TAKE IT FROM THEIR LETTER THEY ASKED FOR A MEETING. I'M

JUST CURIOUS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU THINK THAT'S HAPPENED? >> SPEAKER: I KNOW WE'VE NOT HAD A MEETING AS OF YET. WE RECEIVED THE LETTER YESTERDAY AROUND 4:15. SO, I'VE NOT HAD ANY CORRESPONDENCE OTHER THAN TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WE RECEIVED THE LETTER AND IT WOULD BE DISCUSSED

TONIGHT. >> BOARD MEMBER: I GUESS WE HAVE SPEAKERS BUT IT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE THAT WE DEFER ACTION ON THIS AND GIVE STAFF A CHANCE TO VISIT WITH CSX BEFORE WE TAKE

FINAL ACTION. >> CHAIRMAN: I READ THEIR LETTER AND THEY DON'T HAVE ANY

OPERATIONS THERE. >> AND KELLY AND I, I ASSUME WE'RE STAFF YOU ARE REFERRING TO, WE'D LOVE TO HEAR FROM YOU WHERE YOU STAND WITH REGARD TO WHERE YOU THINK THIS SHOULD

[01:15:05]

BE -- >> CHAIRMAN: IF IT MOVES FORWARD TONIGHT IT GOES THE COMMISSION AND CERTAINLY WE'LL GET BEFORE THE COMMISSION IF THERE'S A REAL ISSUE. I WANT TO OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING, IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT. DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THIS?

>> PUBLIC SPEAKER: YES. GOOD EVENING BOARD. I'M SHANNON O'CONNOR 703 GARDEN STREET. THE PARCEL PROPERTY THAT WE OWN AS A FAMILY PART OF THE O'CONNOR PROPERTIES. 2446 LINDAL ROAD AMELIA ISLAND INDUSTRIAL PARK. WE HAVE OWNED OUR PROPERTY AT 703 GARDEN STREET SINCE 1999, AROUND FEBRUARY. OF WHICH WE HAVE HAD A LEASE THERE AS WELL WITH CSX. NOW IS IT COMMERCIAL OR PRIVATE? WE'VE USED IT PRIVATELY BUT IT DOES NOT STOP US FROM DOING IT IF WE WANT TO DO IT COMMERCIALLY. WOULD WE DO THAT? MAYBE NOT FROM WHAT THE INTENT OF THE PROPERTY IS THAT WE HAVE NOW. BUT I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE OTHERS THAT HAVE OTHER NEIGHBORING LEASES THAT ARE ACTIVE ALSO. SOME OF WHICH -- WELL OUR DOCK IS THE ONLY -- THE REMNANTS ARE THERE SINCE IRMA AND WE INTEND ON BUILDING IT BACK. BUT IT IS PERPETUAL IN NATURE UNTIL I GUESS WHENEVER THEY DECIDE THEY WANT TO USE THE PROPERTY FOR SOMETHING ELSE. THE PROPERTY IS SUBMERGED BUT THEY DO HAVE TITLE DO IT. I CAN'T SPEAK ON BEHALF OF CSX EVEN THOUGH I HAVE SPOKEN TO THEM ABOUT THIS MATTER BEING WE ARE THE LESSEES. ON OUR PARCEL MARINE STREET IS CLOSED. I DON'T KNOW HOW FAR IT IS FROM GARDEN STREET TO THE SOUTH OR TO THE NORTH, BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT WE -- HALF OF THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY WENT TO OUR SIDE AND THE OTHER HALF WENT TO CSX.

AND TECHNICALLY IT IS PRIVATE. THERE SHOULD BE NO CROSSING THAT PROPERTY WHATSOEVER. ONE OF WHICH IS FOR LIABILITY ISSUES AND SO FORTH AND WE HAVE A DOCK THERE. NOW IT'S USED BACK AND FORTH BY OTHERS THAT COME DOWN THERE. AND IN REALITY GARDEN STREET SHOULD BE STOPPED RIGHT THERE AT THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND NOT GOING DOWN ON TO THE PRIVATE PROPERTY. BECAUSE ALL THAT PROPERTY IS PRIVATE. BUT CSX INDEPENDENTLY THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ON MARINE STREET. OURS IS PRIVATE. AND WE INTEND PROBABLY TO SECURE THAT AT SOME POINT AND TIME. WE PUT A NEW DOCK THERE.

BECAUSE EVERYBODY IS OUT THERE ON IT DOING ALL KIND OF THINGS. JUMPING OFF AT HIGH TIDE AND SO FORTH AND WE'RE CERTAINLY LIABLE TO A CERTAIN DEGREE BUT WE'LL STOP THAT. HOWEVER, WE HAVE TWO LOTS THERE, LOT 2 AND 17 OF WATERFRONT LOTS. THEN THERE'S ONE TO THE NORTH OF US THAT HAS A LEASE AS WELL AND HE CAN DISCLOSE OR THAT GROUP CAN DISCLOSE WHAT THEY MAY OR MAY NOT WANT TO DO WITH THEIRS. THEN THERE'S TWO OTHER LEASES. I'M NOT SURE THE STATUS, IF THEY'RE STILL GOING. I KNOW THAT MS. BARN HARD HAD IT FIRST THEN JIM ATE THAT. THEN ANOTHER ONE TO THE SOUTH OF THAT. AS FAR AS WE'RE CONCERNED THE TWO LOTS THAT WE HAVE EXTEND OUT INTO THE NAVIGATIONAL WATERS 500 FEET. US AS LESSEES, WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, LAND RIGHTS AND SO FORTH BEING IT'S COMING FROM THE LANDOWNERS. EVEN THOUGH IT'S SUBMERGED AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE STATE OR LIT AGATE IT HOWEVER THEY WANT TO DO BUT THEY STAY TAX AND THEY HAVE DEEDS UPON THAT PROPERTY SO IT'S PRIVATELY HELD. AND WITH THEM HAVING IT -- THEM BEING CSX -- WE HAVE IT PRIVATELY HELD AS WELL WITH A BINDING AGREEMENT. SO, ONE OTHER PART. AND I WAS THINKING ABOUT THIS. I WAS SPEAKING WITH MR. BENNETT BEFORE THE MEETING. IF IT GOES TO RECREATIONAL, THAT MIGHT POSE A PROBLEM ALSO. PEOPLE TRAVERSING THE PROPERTY THERE AS IF IT'S RECREATIONAL. BUT IT'S STILL PRIVATE PROPERTY. BUT THE DESIGNATION -- EVERYBODY THINKS IT'S OPEN TO THE PUBLIC TO COME AND GO AND DO BECAUSE OF WATER AND SO FORTH THAT NOBODY OWNS THAT. WELL SOMEBODY DOES OWN IT. SO, OUR POSITION UPON IT IS THAT IT IS A HARDSHIP UPON US AND WE HAVE INVESTED MONEY AND WE'VE DONE THIS OVER A LENGTHY PERIOD OF TIME AND WE CONTINUE

TO DO SO WITH OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH CSX. >> CHAIRMAN: THIS WOULD ALLOW YOU TO CONTINUE ON BUILDING A DOCK AND DOING WHATEVER. KEEPING PEOPLE OFF WOULD BE YOUR

RESPONSIBILITY. >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: CORRECT. BUT IT ALSO BRINGS -- 12U8LY, I THINK IT'S MORE IGNORANCE OF THE PUBLIC THINKING THAT IT'S OPEN PROPERTY FOR WHOMEVER. I CAN'T SPEAK FOR CSX. WE'RE LARGE LANDOWNERS ON THE ISLAND, IN THE COUNTY AND IN THE CITY. IF I WERE IN THEIR POSITION I WOULDN'T CHANGE THE ZONING AT ALL. BECAUSE IT DE-VALUES THEIR PROPERTY. EVEN THOUGH IT'S UNDER WATER IT'S STILL TANGIBLE LAND AND STILL HAS A USE. WATER

[01:20:04]

RIGHTS AND SO FORTH THAT GOES ALONG WITH THAT. BUT YOU ARE CORRECT. WE ARE GOING TO RECEIVE FLACK IF WE GO TO PETITION THAT ALL THROUGH THERE WITH A FENCE OR WHATEVER WE HAVE TO DO TO KEEP IT PRIVATE FROM THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. IT'S GOING BE HARD FOR US TO PATROL

THAT. >> CHAIRMAN: WHERE IS YOUR ACCESS TO LAND? MR. CLARK'S

LIGHT WAS ON. >> BOARD MEMBER: WHO QUESTIONS. I -- TWO QUESTIONS. WHAT'S YOUR LONG TERM INTENT WITH THE PROPERTY? YOU OWN IT. THE IT BUILDING DOCKS.

>> PUBLIC SPEAKER: THERE'S A HOME THERE. YES, SIR. >> BOARD MEMBER: AND WOULD YOU

ANTICIPATE BUILDING DOCKS OR DOING SOMETHING FURTHER? >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: THERE WAS A

DOCK THAT WAS DESTROYED BY IRMA. >> BOARD MEMBER: THE SECOND QUESTION IS, DO YOU HAVE

CONFLICTS OR DEALINGS WITH CSX ON THIS THAT ARE PROBLEMATIC? >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: WHAT DO YOU

MEAN CONFLICTS? >> BOARD MEMBER: I DON'T KNOW WHAT I MEAN

PROPERTY? >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: THEY GOVERN A DEGREE OF IT. WHATEVER WE PUT THERE THEY'RE TACHED BY BEING A LANDOWNER. AND WE'RE LEASING THAT FROM THEM. SO THEY GIVE US PERMISSION TO DO WHAT WE'RE DOING AND IT'S IN OUR CONTRACTS, OUR LEASES. WE'RE CONGRUENT.

WE'RE TOGETHER. WE'RE IN HARMONY. WE'VE ALWAYS BEEN THAT WAY AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE THAT

WAY. >> BOARD MEMBER: SO THEY ASSERT THEIR RIGHTS A AS LANDOWNER

BASICALLY? >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: YES. EVEN WHEN I SEND THEM A CHECK. THAT MEANS THEY HAVE LANDOWNER RIGHTS. AND THEY DO HAVE THE DEED AND THEY DO PAY TAX. SO, WITH THAT BEING SAID, THEY'RE ESTABLISHED AS -- JUST BECAUSE IT'S UNDERWATER. THE STATE OF FLORIDA LOOKS AT IT A DIFFERENT WAY AND PROBABLY THE U.S. CORPS OF ENGINEERS AS WELL.

>> BOARD MEMBER: OKAY. THANKS. >> CHAIRMAN: MR. STEVENSON DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING?

>> BOARD MEMBER: SO YOUR ACCESS IS THROUGH THEIR PROPERTY? TO YOUR --

>> PUBLIC SPEAKER: GARDEN STREET WHERE IT GOES RIGHT TO THE REQUIRE, THAT'S OUR PROPERTY.

IT IS A BLUE HOUSE. IT'S THREE STORIES TALL. >> BOARD MEMBER: THE ONE ON THE

RIGHT? >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: YES. MY FATHER WAS THERE. HE JUST PASSED AWAY A YEAR AGO. HE LIVED THERE 15, 16 YEARS. OUR PROPERTY IS THERE. CLOSE MARINE STREET WHICH WE HAVE HALF OF THAT ACCESS. THEN HE OTHER HALF OF CLOSED MARINE STREET GOES THE NEXT PRIVATE. DIVIDING IT DOWN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY WHICH WENT TO CSZ. SO, WE'RE ADJACENT AND CONTIGUOUS TO THEIR PROPERTY. WE'RE LANDOWNERS TOGETHER BY LOT LINE.

>> BOARD MEMBER: OKAY. >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: I HAVE A MAP IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT.

>> CHAIRMAN: SHE IS GOING TO PULL IT UP. >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: OKAY.

>> CHAIRMAN: BOTTOM LINE YOU JUST HAVE A LEASE HOLD INTEREST IN THAT PROPERTY?

>> PUBLIC SPEAKER: THAT'S CORRECT. YES. THIS IS THE DOCK HERE. THEN WE EXTEND ON THAT

WHITE LINE. AND I HAVE A DEP PERMIT ALSO. >> CHAIRMAN: OKAY. ANYONE ELSE

HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. O'CONNOR? IS THAT A YES, NO? >> BOARD MEMBER: I WOULD SHARE THIS WITH KELLY AS WELL. SO, YOUR INTENTION IS TO BASICALLY CONTINUE THE USE THAT YOU HAVE?

>> PUBLIC SPEAKER: MOST DEFINITELY. MOST DEFINITELY. >> BOARD MEMBER: AND TO AT SOME

POINT REBUILD THAT DOCK? >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: THAT'S CORRECT. IT'S JUST NOT A PRIORITY AT THE MOMENT BUT IT IS. ACTUALLY WITH THE OTHER LEASES THAT ARE OUT THERE I'M NOT REALLY SPEAKING FOR THEM EITHER. JUST BECAUSE THEY DON'T BUILD A DOCK THEY STILL HAVE LAND RIGHTS. BECAUSE THEY ARE LEASEING THAT LAND UNDER THE PRESUMPTION OF WHAT THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SAYS AND UP UNDER THE ZONING THAT IT ALSO HAS. BECAUSE THAT HAS VALUE AS WELL. IF IT CHANGES THAT, IT ELIMINATES THE DOCK, THEN IT DOWN -- THE PROPERTY VALUE GOES

DOWN AS WELL. >> BOARD MEMBER: SO THE CURRENT ZONING IS INDUSTRIAL WATERFRONT?

>> PUBLIC SPEAKER: THAT'S CORRECT. ON THAT PIECE. >> BOARD MEMBER: AND DO YOU NEED

THAT ZONING? >> CHAIRMAN: HE DOESN'T. >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: I DON'T

[01:25:01]

REALLY HAVE A SAY TO THE ZONING. CSX HAS A SAY TO THE ZONING. BUT AS FAR AS THE DOCK GOES WE HAVE TO HAVE SOMETHING ALONG THAT ORDER. AND YOU HAVE TO SPEAK WITH CSX ABOUT THE OTHER

PART. WE JUST HAVE LANDOWNER RIGHTS BY LEASE. >> CHAIRMAN: DO YOU HAVE A

QUESTION >> BOARD MEMBER: I HAVE A QUESTION FOR KELLY. SO, THIS

CSX PROPERTY IS ON HERE AT THE DIRECTION OF THE CITY MANAGER? >> SPEAKER: THAT'S CORRECT.

>> BOARD MEMBER: SO, OTHERWISE -- I MEAN, DID HE GIVE A REASON WHY HE WANTED YOU TO

ADD THE CSX PROPERTY ON HERE? >> SPEAKER: MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT APPEARS THAT IT LOOKS LIKE YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO ADD CONSERVATION WITHIN THIS AREA. BUT THERE IS AT LEAST ONE COMMISSIONER WHO HAS MADE THIS REQUEST MULTIPLE TIMES TO SEE THESE PARCELS ZONED

CONSERVATION. >> BOARD MEMBER: OKAY. >> AND I DON'T THINK ANYBODY KNEW THAT -- INCLUDING STAFF WHEN THIS WAS PREPARED -- THAT THERE WERE LEASES. THAT CSX WAS LEASING IT. WE KNEW THEY WEREN'T USING IT FOR RAILROAD AND THAT IT WAS UNDERWATER.

>> BOARD MEMBER: CORRECT. BUT NOT ALL THE TIME >> THAT'S TRUE.

>> BOARD MEMBER: THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO KNOW. PLUCK

>> PUBLIC SPEAKER: THIS IS ONE OF MY PARTNERS. >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: THE FAMILY PROPERTY IS JAMESTOWN ROAD. THE SAME THING. BUT I LIVE OFF THE ISLAND. BUT WE ALSO -- THE FAMILY OWNS THIS HOME. THE OTHER THING IS THAT I WOULD NOT PREFER IT TO BE RECREATIONAL BECAUSE THAT IMPLIES A PUBLIC USE. IT IS A PRIVATE LOT THAT WE HOLD THE LEASE HOLDER STAKE TO. MY UNDERSTANDING IN OUR LEASE WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO LEASE THAT PROPERTY TO BARGE TRAFFIC BECAUSE THEY OR DOCK TO BARGE TRAFFIC BECAUSE CSX IS IN DIRECT COMPETITION TO BARGES. BUT THEY CAN EXPRESS THAT TO YOU BUT THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU MAY WANT TO ASK THEM IS WHY THEY DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. BECAUSE THEY CAN RESTRICT IN THOSE KINDS OF THINGS. THE OTHER THING IS THAT THERE ARE -- LIKE YOU JUST SAID, THERE ARE UPLANDS THERE. GOOD PORTIONS OF THAT IS DRY. AS YOU UNDERSTAND THOSE LOTS ARE WET. I BELIEVE THOSE LOTS MAY EXIST PRIOR TO STATEHOOD. BECAUSE THOSE LOTS WERE LAID OUT WHEN THE TOWN WAS LAID OUT BEFORE THEY MOVED THE TOWN TO WHERE IT IS. THAT WAS THE OLD RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT WENT TO THE POAGY PLANT.

AND THAT'S WHERE THE ORIGINAL DOCKS WERE ALONG OLD TOWN BEFORE THEY MOVED THE TOWN DOWN TO WHERE CENTER STREET IS NOW. SO THOSE LOTS ARE ANCIENT. I KNOW THERE'S SOME OTHER PROBLEMS ALONG FRONT STREET ALONG THE SAME KIND OF ISSUES THAT CSX HAS THAT THOSE LOTS THERE ALONG THE RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. I KNOW THERE ARE STATUTES IN PLACE THA CHANGED THAT. I BELIEVE CSX

WILL SAY THAT'S THEIR PROPERTY AND THEY'RE LOT HOLDERS. >> CHAIRMAN: MOST DEFINITELY

THEIR PROPERTY. >> BOARD MEMBER: I JUST HAD A QUICK QUESTION FOR THIS GENTLEMAN. SO THE DOCK THAT GOT TAKEN DOWN WITH THE HURRICANE, THAT WAS A PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL

BASICALLY FISHING PIER OR DOCK? IT WAS NOT USED COMMERCIALLY? >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: THAT'S

CORRECT. THE ONE TO THE SOUTH OF US WAS. >> BOARD MEMBER: I ONLY WANT TO

TALK ABOUT THE ONE YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: BUT THAT'S

ALSO PART OF THIS PARCEL. >> BOARD MEMBER: SO IF YOU SAID YOU WERE GOING TO PUT A DOCK BACK ARE YOU PLANNING ON PUTTING BACK THE SAME KIND OF DOCK THAT WAS THERE?

>> PUBLIC SPEAKER: IT WILL BE WITHIN THE DEP OF SIMILAR WHAT'S THERE. BECAUSE FIVE FOOT WIDE TYPICALLY SO IT DOESN'T KILL THE MARSH GRASS. WHATEVER THAT IS AT THIS DAY. WHEN I BUILT THIS

BACK -- IT WAS I BELIEVE IN '01. >> BOARD MEMBER: SO THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED A PRIVATE USE DOCK -- WOULD CONTINUE TO BE CONSIDERED A PRIVATE USE NOT COMMERCIAL DOCK?

>> PUBLIC SPEAKER: IT DEPENDS ON DEFINING COMMERCIAL. I AM AN ATTORNEY. IF I WANTED TO LEASE

A SLIP THAT'S COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY. >> BOARD MEMBER: I UNDERSTAND THAT. SO, WHEN THERE'S COMMERCE YOU USUALLY MONEY OR SOMETHING CHANGES HANDS. SO, THERE'S

SOMETHING FOR SOMETHING. RIGHT? >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: YES. BUT I CAN'T TELL YOU IF IT'S GOING TO

[01:30:04]

STAY RESIDENTIAL IT'S NOT GOING TO BE FULL-FLEDGED LIKE THE MARINA. I MEAN, WE'RE -- WE ONLY HAVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF SPACE THERE TO DO. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE WIDTH OF THOSE LOTS ARE. SEVENTEEN AND TWO. THEY'RE ON PUBLIC RECORD. SO IT CAN'T TAKE A WHOLE LOT. I WOULD

SAY AT THE MOST FIVE BOATS MAYBE. >> BOARD MEMBER: BUT YOUR PLAN WOULD BE TO PUT BACK A DOCK SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU HAD PRIOR TO THE HURRICANE?

>> PUBLIC SPEAKER: CORRECT. >> BOARD MEMBER: THANK YOU. >> CHAIRMAN: BUT UNDER

CONSERVATION THEY CAN'T DO THAT. >> BOARD MEMBER: RIGHT. I UNDERSTAND. YOUR LIGHT IS STILL

ON. >> CHAIRMAN: ANYONE ELSE? UNDER COMMERCIAL THEY CAN'T REBUILD A

DOCK. >> BOARD MEMBER: UNDER CONSERVATION. RIGHT.

>> CHAIRMAN: DID I SAY COMMERCIAL? I CAN'T GET AWAY FROM IT. BUT UNDER A RESIDENTIAL RULING THEY COULD. QUITE FRANKLY, RIGHT NOW THIS IS INDUSTRIAL WATERFRONT. WHICH I THINK WOULD BE EVERY DEVELOPER THAT WOULD HAVE AN NEGATIVE IMPACT ON OLD TOWN. NO ONE HAS SPOKEN TO THAT. BUT MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO KEEP IT LAND USE CONSERVATION, ZONING RECREATION. AND THAT WOULD BE CORRECT, RIGHT, KELLY? LAND USE CONSERVATION ZONING RECREATION.

>> YOU WOULD WANT TO MAKE THEM MATCH. >> CHAIRMAN: OKAY BOTH

RECREATION THEN. >> SPEAKER: IF YOU ARE ISSUING A RECOMMENDATION I WOULD SAY THAT YOU NEED TO -- WHATEVER YOU MAKE THE TWO DOCUMENTS MATCH AT LEAST.

>> CHAIRMAN: QUITE FRANKLY NOBODY IS GOING TO KNOW THAT UNLESS THEY LOOK IN THE LAND USE AND ZONING MAP AT THE CITY BEFORE THEY GO SWIMMING. WHICH I WOULDN'T THINK SO. SO WHAT

DOES THE BOARD SAY? MS. SHAFER? >> BOARD MEMBER: I THINK WITH THE HISTORIC NATURE OF THIS LOT AND THIS AREA, AND I'VE WORKED A LOT IN OLD TOWN, I FEEL THAT WE SHOULD LEAVE THIS ONE ALONE. IT REALLY DOESN'T BOTHER ME IF THERE'S A SHRIMP BOAT PARKED AT THE END OF THAT. I MEAN, THAT'S WHY WE'RE ALL HERE. OR IF SOMEBODY RENTED OUT THE DOCK. I MEAN, THAT'S THEIR RIGHT.

BUT I THINK WE SHOULD LEAVE IT EXACTLY HOW IT IS AND NOT MEDDLE WITH THIS ONE. I THINK IT'S

PERFECT HOW IT IS. >> CHAIRMAN: MS. ROJAS? >> BOARD MEMBER: DO I SEE BEHIND

THE WATERFRONT ZONING IT'S ALSO ZONED HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL? >> SPEAKER: THE LAND USE ASSOCIATED WITH OLD TOWN IS HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. AND THAT SPEAKS TO THAT YOU NEED TO HAVE NET DENSITY WHICH MATCHES WHAT YOU CAN BUILD ZONING WISE. HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL IS THEIR RESIDENTIAL LAND USE APPLIED TO ALL OF OLD TOWN. THEIR ZONING IS OLD TOWN 1 OR 2 WHICH PROVIDES GREATER SPECIFICITY ABOUT HOW YOU DESIGN STRUCTURES WITHIN THAT AREA CONSISTENT WITH THE ORIGINAL PROPERTY LAWS THERE. BECAUSE THE LOTS ARE TINY YOU HAVE TO HAVE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. I KNOW THAT BEGS THE QUESTION, CAN YOU HAVE RESORT RENTAL, ABSOLUTELY

NOT. MAKE THAT VERY CLEAR. >> BOARD MEMBER: GOOD. THANK YOU.

>> CHAIRMAN: ANYONE ELSE? >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: CAN I SPEAK? >> CHAIRMAN: SURE. GO AHEAD.

TELL US WHO YOU ARE AND WHERE YOU LIVE. >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: ERIC OLIVER.

7 706 SEAMA RELL AS. I HAVE A SUBMERGED LAND LEASE WITH CSX AND I DON'T HAVE A DOCK CURRENTLY BUT MY INTENT SOONER OR LATER TO PUT SOMETHING UP THERE AND, YOU KNOW, I BOUGHT MY HOME FOR THAT REASON. I ALSO OWN THE MARINA AT 1619 NORTH 14TH STREET WHICH IS RIGHT AT THE 14TH STREET BRIDGE. THIS IS WHAT MY FAMILY IS ALL ABOUT. TO HAVE SOMETHING GET A LITTLE OUT OF WHACK WHERE WE LIVE AND NOT BE ABLE TO ACCESS THE WATER WOULD BE DEVASTATING TO US. AND I AGREE WITH HER AND EVERYTHING THAT, YOU KNOW, SHANNON HAS SAID AS WELL. AND IT WOULD ONLY BE PRIVATE USE. JUST LIKE, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT GOING TO RENT ANY SPACES OR ANYTHING WEIRD LIKE THAT. BUT I WANT TO ENJOY WHAT I PAY FOR.

>> CHAIRMAN: OKAY. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? I AM GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. WAIT. OH.

SLOW DOWN. MOVING TOO FAST. >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: THANK YOU. JENNIFER HARRISON 820 SOMER ELLA STREET. MY HOUSE IS HERE. RIGHT THERE. I JUST NEED TO -- I'M ON THE BOARD AT THE MUSEUM.

WE BOUGHT SOME LAND OUT IN OLD TOWN BACK IN THE MID-'90S. BOTH OF US HAVE WORKED VERY HARD TO

[01:35:06]

DO THE VERY BEST WE CAN FOR OLD TOWN. AND WE JUST LOVE IT OUT THERE. CURRENTLY, WE HAVE SOME NEW SIGNS THAT HAVE GONE UP ON THE PLAZA THAT WE WORKED WITH THE STATE PARK ON. GIVING INFORMATION ABOUT MARINE STREET. THE LATEST THING THAT I'VE BEEN WORKING ON -- TWO THINGS, ACTUALLY. ONE IS HAVING A MIDDLE PASSAGE MARKER PUT ON MARINE STREET. NOW, IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS, THIS COMING YEAR IS THE 400TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE INITIATION OF THE SLAVE TRADE ACROSS THE ATLANTIC. AND IN WHICH I THINK NEARLY TWO MILLION PEOPLE DIED ON THE CROSSING. AND ALL THE SLAVE PORTS ON THE EAST COAST, MARKERS HAVE BEEN PUT UP IN PLACES. AND THIS WILL BE PLACED HERE TO JOIN THAT. ALL THE SLAVE PORTS DOWN THE EAST COAST WITH THE EXCEPTION OF US HAVE GOT THEIR MIDDLE PASSAGE MARKER UP. OURS IS GOING TO GO UP ON MARCH THE 25TH, I BELIEVE IT WAS. AND THEN WE'RE ALSO WORKING WITH THE MILL. AND THE MILL HAS BEEN VERY GOOD AND VERY GENEROUS IN PAYING FOR TWO SIGNS TO GO UP IN SOUTH POINT. NOW SOUTH POINT IS RIGHT AT THE END OF ESTRADA STREET. IT'S DOWN HERE WHERE THE MILL KINDLY HAS GIVEN US SOME EXTRA LAND TO CREATE THIS LITTLE AREA DOWN THERE WHICH IS CALLED SOUTH POINT. AND THAT IS TO COMMEMORATE IN LARGE MEASURE WHERE THE OLD BOARDWALK CAME FROM OLD TOWN TO SECOND STREET DOWNTOWN. THE LADIES IN OLD TOWN HAVE COLLECTED $600 AND IN 1870 THAT BOARDWALK WAS PUT IN.

SO, THERE'S AN AWFUL LOT OF HISTORY THERE AND I'M VERY PASSIONATE ABOUT IT AND WE LOVE IT DEARLY. OF COURSE, WE HAVE THE BLUFF. AND ERIC AND THE CONNERS ARE VERY LUCKY TO HAVE HOUSES THAT GO STRAIGHT ON TO THE WATERFRONT. MARINE STREET IS ONE OF THOSE AREAS WHERE THE PART OF MARINE STREET HAS SORT OF FALLEN DOWN THE CLIFF. SO, IN FRONT OF ERIC'S HOME AND THE CONNERS' HOME MARINE STREET IS PARTLY DOWN THE CLIFF. BUT AT THE OTHER END FURTHER NORTH OF MARINE STREET THE CITY HAS BEGUN TO MAKE THE FIRST MOVES TOWARDS MAKING MARINE STREET GO FROM WHITE STREET DOWN TO SAN FERNANDO STREET. AND THIS IS WHERE THE MARKER IS GOING TO BE.

AND IT'S GOING TO CREATE A VERY INTERESTING PLACE WHERE PEOPLE CAN COME TO OLD TOWN AND LEARN ABOUT THE HISTORY, READ THE MARKER, WALK ALONG MARINE STREET, GO DOWN TO THE SHORELINE TO THE BEACH, AND REALLY THINK ABOUT THOSE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WHO DIED IN THE CROSSING AND LANDED AROUND FERNANDINA BECAUSE WE HAVE SO MANY SLAVE PORTS THERE. SO I JUST ASK THESE GENTLEMEN JUST TO BE VERY CONSIDERATE OF THE PEOPLE IN OLD TOWN WHO LIKE TO WALK ALONG THAT BEACH. YOU KNOW, TAKE THE DOG DOWN ON THE BEACH. IT IS A GREAT -- IT IS A LOVELY THING TO BE ABLE TO DO. SO, YES I AGREE, IT'S YOUR PROPERTY, BUT I WOULD -- I THINK THE PEOPLE OF OLD TOWN WOULD BE VERY, VERY GRATEFUL IF YOU WOULD STILL PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE RESIDENTS OF OLD TOWN TO WALK ALONG THAT BEACH FROM MARINE STREET RIGHT DOWN TO GARDEN STREET. THE END OF GARDEN STREET IS OF COURSE STILL CITY PROPERTY. SO, YOU CAN GO RIGHT DOWN TO THE BOTTOM THERE. AND I CAN REMEMBER TALKING WITH MR. CHAPMAN SOME TIME AGO ABOUT THE END OF GARDEN STREET IT WOULD BE VERY, VERY NICE TO HAVE A ADA ACCESSIBLE VIEWING SPOT FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE HANDICAPPED TO COME DOWN GARDEN STREET AND SIT THERE AND THEY WOULD BE AS CLOSE TO THE RIVER AT HIGH TIDE AS I AM TO YOU LADIES HERE. AND I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE VERY, VERY SPECIAL. AND I GIVE YOU ALL THAT HISTORY LESSON JUST TO TELL YOU THAT WE REALLY LOVE OLD TOWN. I KNOW OTHER PEOPLE DO TOO. BUT LET'S BE CONSIDERATE FOR EVERYBODY AND MAKE SURE EVERYBODY CAN ENJOY THE BEAUTY OF OLD TOWN. ITS BEACH. I LOVE TO SEE THE OYSTER BEDS GOING BACK OUT THERE. THE OTHER MORNING WHEN I WAS WALKING THE DOG LOOKING OVER THE BLUFF I SAW THEM -- MEN IN THEIR WADERS GOING IN AND INSPECTING THOSE TRAPS. IT WAS GREAT FUN TO SEE IT. OLD TOWN IS A VERY, VERY SPECIAL PLACE. AND WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO ENJOY ALL OF ITS

FACILITIES. THANK YOU. >> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU. NOW I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

[01:40:05]

BOARD? MR. CLARK, I GUESS YOUR LIGHT'S ON. >> BOARD MEMBER: MR. CHAIRMAN, I THINK THE -- I DON'T HAVE ANY REAL INTEREST IN CHANGING THE USE OF THAT PROPERTY FROM WHAT IT IS NOW. I'M NOT SURE THE INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE ZONING THAT'S THERE IS APPROPRIATE.

>> SPEAKER: WATERFRONT. IT'S INDUSTRIAL WATERFRONT. >> BOARD MEMBER: INDUSTRIAL WATERFRONT. I'M NOT SURE THAT'S APPROPRIATE. I'M NOT SURE RECREATION GETS IT.

CONSERVATION MIGHT BE NOT THE RIGHT THING EITHER. SO I GUESS WHAT I'D LIKE -- FOR MY PART I'D RATHER SEE SOME MORE OPTIONS BEFORE I VOTE ON A PARTICULAR THING. BUT I DON'T HAVE ANY

DESIRE TO SEE THAT EXISTING LAND USE CHANGED. >> CHAIRMAN: MR. ROLAND?

>> BOARD MEMBER: I'D RATHER SEE IT CHANGED FROM IW TO SOME OTHER ZONING THAT WOULD ALLOW A DOCK

TO BE BUILT AND NOT COMMERCIAL RELATED ACTIVITIES. >> CHAIRMAN: DOES RECREATION DO THAT? CAN YOU HAVE A COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY IN A RECREATION DISTRICT?

>> NO. >> CHAIRMAN: THE CITY ATTORNEY IS SAYING NO.

>> BOARD MEMBER: OKAY. >> CHAIRMAN: AND MY RECOMMENDATION FOR DOING THAT WAS SIMPLY AS A COMPROMISE TO ALLOW THEM TO CONTINUE DOING WHAT THEY WANT TO DO BUT STILL CHANGE THAT. REMEMBER ORIGINALLY THEY WANTED IT CON SKEER INVESTIGATION. -- CONSERVATION. IT ESSENTIALLIED AS THAT OVERLAY TO THAT PROPERTY.

>> BOARD MEMBER: AND IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS ACCESS TO ANYBODY.

>> MR. CHAIR? MAY I? >> CHAIRMAN: YES GO AHEAD. >> IF THE ZONING AND LAND USE IS CHANGED TO CONSERVATION THEN MR. CO HONOR COMES TO THE CITY AND TO THE DEP FOR A PERMIT TO

REBUILD THE DOCK, THE ANSWER IS NO. >> BOARD MEMBER:

IT >> IT DEPENDS ON THE DOCK. IF THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE SHRIMP BOATS TIED UP TO IT. PROBABLY NOT. IF THOSE ARE BUSINESS VENTURES. I'M NOT SAYING THEY'LL HAVE SHRIMP BOATS NECESSARILY BUT IT WOULD BE NICE IF WE SAW MORE SHRIMP BOATS. HE

CAN HAVE A PRIVATE DOCK. >> BOARD MEMBER: BUT NOT RENT OUT SPACE OR SLIPS AND WHATNOT.

>> BOARD MEMBER: I THINK I WOULD BE A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT HOW COMMERCIAL YOU GOT IN OLD TOWN

IN TERMS OF PARKING, IN TERMS OF JUST TRAFFIC. >> RIGHT. AND THE IW, AND I KNOW MANY OF YOU KNOW THIS FROM YOUR HISTORY HERE. IW, INDUSTRIAL WATERFRONT, THE WHOLE IDEA WITH HAVING THAT ZONING COATED GOER ALONG THE WATERFRONT IS BECAUSE IT IS A WORKING WATERFRONT. THAT'S WHAT THE TOWN ALWAYS SAW IT AS. IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT CAN'T CHANGE, BUT THAT'S THE HISTORY AND THAT'S WHY IT'S INDUSTRIAL WATERFRONT. AND KELLY CAN -- IF YOU WANT HER TO -- TELL YOU WHAT IS ALLOWABLE IN INDUSTRIAL WATERFRONT. SHE CAN. IT'S NOT

THE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES THAT YOU WOULD IMAGINE. RIGHT? >> SPEAKER: NO THEY'RE CLEARLY WATERFRONT BASE USES THAT YOU WOULD TYPICALLY SEE INCLUDING BOAT REPAIR, FISHING, COMMERCIAL PARKING FACILITIES. BUT THEN, OF COURSE, RENTAL. COMMERCIAL USE OF DOCK SPACES, MARINAS, THAT TYPE OF THING. THINGS THAT WE HAVE HISTORICALLY SEEN ALL THROUGH FRONT STREET AND EXTENDING DOWN ALONG THE WATERFRONT BEYOND THE PORT UP TO THE TIFFANY ISLAND WHERE FORT

CLENCH. THOSE ARE TRADITIONAL HISTORIC USES FOR THIS AREA. >> CHAIRMAN: NOW WHERE ARE WE?

MR. STEVENS? >> BOARD MEMBER: I WANT TO MAKE A MOTION.

>> CHAIRMAN: YOU CAN. >> BOARD MEMBER: I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR THESE TWO PARCELS AS IDENTIFIED IN THE PROPERTY RECORDS, NO ACTION BE TAKEN AT THIS TIME.

>> BOARD MEMBER: SECOND. >> CHAIRMAN: I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR. SOME OF THESE CHANGES ARE ITEMS THEY'VE BEEN WORKING FOR. IF YOU SAY THAT IT COULD GO AWAY AND NEVER COME BACK. IF YOU ARE GOING TO DO SOMETHING AND OBVIOUSLY THE CITY WANTS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS, WE NEED

A TIME CERTAIN SO THAT -- KELLY WHAT IS YOUR THOUGHTS? >> SPEAKER: YOU MAY CONSIDER RATHER THAN A TABLED MOTION BUT TO RECOMMEND THIS PROPERTY BE RETAINED AS INDUSTRIAL WATERFRONT LAND USE AND ZONING. AND THEN THAT RECOMMENDATION CARRIES FORWARD TO THE COMMISSION AS THE BUNDLE PACKAGE, THE WHOLE BUNDLE OF CHANGES MOVES FORWARD SO THAT YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS KEEP IT

[01:45:04]

AS IS. >> CHAIRMAN: YOU HAVE A MOTION. I HAD A SECOND.

>> IS THAT YOUR INTENTION? TO KEEP IT AS INDUSTRIAL WATERFRONT?

>> BOARD MEMBER: YES. >> CHAIRMAN: THAT'S HIS INTENTION. I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. MS. CLARK DID YOU WANT TO SPEAK ON THIS BEFORE WE VOTE?

>> BOARD MEMBER: YEAH I DON'T PARTICULARLY LIKE THAT IDEA. I JUST WANT TO ASK KELLY. ARE THERE ANY OTHER OPTIONS THAT YOU CAN THINK OF THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO KEEP THE USE THAT'S THERE? I DON'T HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO A PRIVATE DOCK THAT'S BEEN PROPOSED. ANYTHING ELSE WE CAN

BE LOOKING AT BESIDES WHAT'S THERE RIGHT NOW. >> CHAIRMAN: WHY WOULD YOU BE

OPPOSED TO RECREATION? >> BOARD MEMBER: I JUST THINK WE OUGHT TO TRY TO PRESERVE IT THE

WAY IT IS. >> CHAIRMAN: WELL THAT PRESERVES IT MORE THAN ANYTHING -- ANY

OTHER ZONING. >> BOARD MEMBER: MAYBE. BUT THAT'S WHY I AM ASKING KELLY IF

THERE ON OTHER OPTIONS. >> SPEAKER: BEYOND RECREATION I DON'T KNOW THERE IS GOING TO BE ANYTHING THAT WOULD INTRODUCE ANY OTHER UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES AS A RESULT OF THAT LAND USE AND ZONING. CERTAIN LE DON'T WANT TO ADD MORE INTENSIVE COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES OR COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION TO IT. AND YOU DON'T WANT TO INTRODUCE RESIDENTIAL. FOR THE MOST PART THOSE ARE THE REMAINDER OF THE CATEGORIES THAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE TO US. SO, INDUSTRIAL WATERFRONT SPEAKS TO THE NATURE OF THE PROPERTY ITSELF IN WHAT IT IS, HOW IT HAS BEEN HISTORICALLY. IT REMAINS ALL OF THE RIGHTS THAT IT CURRENTLY HAS TODAY. SO, NO CHANGE THERE.

WHERE CONSERVATION IT BECOMES MUCH MORE RESTRICTIVE. AND AS WOULD RECREATION. THE MAIN THING BEING THAT YOU COULD HAVE DOCKS IN RECREATION. WHERE IN CONSERVATION YOU CANNOT

>> CHAIRMAN: MS. MINCHEW. >> BOARD MEMBER: I HAVE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS. FIRST OF ALL, WE HAVE A LETTER FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER ASKING US NOT TO TAKE ANY ACTION RIGHT NOW. WE HAVE THREE SPEAKERS WHO ARE LEASE HOLDERS ON TOP OF THE PROPERTY WHO HAVE ASKED US NOT TO TAKE ANY ACTION RIGHT NOW. I THINK THAT THERE'S NO URGENCY TO TAKE ACTION ON THIS. SIMPLY BECAUSE THE COMMISSIONER WANTS TO DO IT OR THE CITY MANAGER THOUGHT WE SHOULD PUT THESE PROPERTIES ON HERE, TO ME IS NOT A GOOD ENOUGH REASON TO SUMMARILY CHANGE THE ZONING AND LAND USE AT THIS POINT AND TIME. I DO THINK THESE PROPERTIES NEED MORE CONVERSATION. AND I THINK IT SHOWS LACK OF RESPECT TO THE RAILROAD -- I MEAN, WE HAVE ENOUGH INTERACTION WITH THE RAILROAD ALREADY, TO JUST SUMMARILY IGNORE THEIR REQUEST FOR A MEETING AND MAKE CHANGES, I THINK THAT'S INAPPROPRIATE. THERE'S NO URGENCY FOR THIS. IT CAN STAY LIKE IT IS RIGHT NOW.

AND AT ANY POINT IN THE FUTURE WE ARE CERTAINLY CAN BRING THIS BACK UP. THERE'S NO REASON THAT WE CAN'T. SO I JUST DON'T SEE THE URGENCY IN IT. I THINK EVERYONE WHO IS INVOLVED WITH THIS PROPERTY HAS ASKED US TO HOLD OFF. AND I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE THAT WE DO THAT.

>> BOARD MEMBER: SO IS THAT A VOTE FOR THE MOTION? >> BOARD MEMBER: YES. THAT'S A

VOTE FOR THE MOTION TO LEAVE IT LIKE IT IS. >> CHAIRMAN: BUT ISN'T IT NOT THE COMMISSION ASKING FOR THIS THROUGH THE CITY MANAGER? THE IDEA -- MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THEY WANTED TO CONSERVE AS MUCH PROPERTY THAT THEY COULD AND THOSE PROPERTIES THAT WERE, SAY, IN DANGER OF SOMETHING ELSE, BEING SOMETHING ELSE OR, IN THIS CASE, IT'S GENERALLY A WATER PARCEL, TO CONSERVE IT WHAT IT IS RATHER THAN HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO BE DEVELOPED IN THE

FUTURE. IS THAT CORRECT? >> SPEAKER: THE INTENT OF THE COMMISSION, THE GOAL OF THE COMMISSION IS TO LOOK FOR LANDS WHICH CAN BE BROUGHT INTO CONSERVATION. SO THAT IS THE DIRECTION THAT WE HAVE MOVED FORWARD WITH THESE PROPERTIES SPECIFICALLY WERE DIRECTED FOR

INCLUSION AS PART OF THOSE APPLICATIONS. >> CHAIRMAN: OKAY. MR. CLARK?

>> BOARD MEMBER: IN YOUR COMMENTS YOU TALKED ABOUT THE NEED TO TALK TO THE RAILROAD AND MAYBE EXPLORE OTHER OPTIONS. I THOUGHT MAYBE YOU WERE GOING IN A DIRECTION TO SAY TABLE IT

TONIGHT. THEN COME BACK AT SOME FUTURE DATE. >> BOARD MEMBER: WELL I THINK WE CAN DO THAT AT ANY TIME WE WANT. I MEAN, WE CAN JUST BECAUSE WE'RE SAYING THAT WE WANT TO LEAVE IT LIKE IT IS DOESN'T MEAN WE WOULD NOT CONTINUE TO PURSUE A CONVERSATION WITH -- I MEAN, WE COULD INSTRUCT THE STAFF TO DO THAT. THAT WE WOULD CONTINUE TO PURSUE A CONVERSATION WITH

THE RAILROAD. >> BOARD MEMBER: IF THAT WERE PART OF THE MOTION I CAN VOTE

FOR THAT >> CH >> BOARD MEMBER: I CAN MODIFY MY

MOTION. HOW WOULD YOU WANT TO? >> BOARD MEMBER: I THINK YOU SAID IT PRETTY WELL JUST THERE.

TABLE THE ACTION ON IT. DIRECT STAFF TO VISIT WITH THE RAILROAD AND EXPLORE OTHER OPTIONS TO

[01:50:08]

ADDRESS IT AND COME BACK AT A FUTURE DATE. I DON'T EVEN HAVE TO SPECIFY THE DATE AS LONG

AS -- >> CHAIRMAN: YOU JUST ADDED SOMETHING. HE SAID LEAVE IT ALONE AS INDUSTRIAL WATERFRONT AND THEN YOU JUST ADDED TAKING IT. AND TAKING IT IS A WHOLE

DIFFERENT MOTION. >> RIGHT. IT IS. >> BOARD MEMBER: WELL THE IMPORTANT THING I'M ASKING FOR IS THAT IT COME BACK AT SOME FUTURE DATE, NUMBER 1. NUMBER TWO THAT YOU TALK TO THE RAILROAD BECAUSE THEY'VE ASKED FOR IT. I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHAT

THEIR POSITION IS. >> BOARD MEMBER: COULD WE SAY LEAVE IT AS INDUSTRIAL

WATERFRONT FOR THE NEXT 90 DAYS? >> I THINK WHAT MR. CLARK'S ASKING THOUGH IS SOME DIRECTION THROUGH YOUR MOTION TO CITY STAFF THAT IT COME BACK. AND THAT IT NOT JUST HANG OUT THERE UNTIL ONE OF YOU SAYS BRING IT BACK OR THE CITY COMMISSIONER SAYS BRING IT BACK.

>> BOARD MEMBER: THANK YOU. >> BOARD MEMBER: SO HE WENT AND GOT HIS DOG PERMIT AND SPENT HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS ON HIS DOCK. THEN WE CAME BACK EVENTUALLY AND MOVED IT TO

CONSERVATION. WOULD HE EVEN BE ABLE TO USE HIS DOCK? AT ALL? >> NOT IF IT HASN'T BEEN

PERMITTED >> IF IT'S ALREADY BUILT YOU GET GRANDFATHERED.

>> BOARD MEMBER: BUT IF IT GETS MESSED UP BY A HURRICANE >> HE MAY HAVE A PROBLEM

>> YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO REBUILD IT. AS LONG AS IT WAS IN PLACE TO NO GREATER NON-CONFORMITY

THAN PREVIOUSLY EXISTED. TAKE LOTS OF PICTURES. >> CHAIRMAN: ISN'T THERE A

PERCENTAGE THAT'S BEEN DESTROYED? >> SPEAKER: UNDER OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE YOU WOULD STILL BE ABLE TO REBUILD IT TO NO GREATER NON-CONFORMITY THAT

EXISTED >> BUT THERE IS A TIME LIMIT. SIX MONTHS.

>> CHAIRMAN: I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THIS. I INITIALLY WANTED TO CONSERVE THIS UNTIL THIS ISSUE CAME UP. I THINK NOW IS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CITY TO CREATE AS MUCH CONSERVATION LAND AS WE CAN BECAUSE HISTORICALLY A LOT OF THIS STUFF KIND OF GETS LOST IN THE WEEDS AND NEVER COMES BACK. SO I THOUGHT AS A GOOD COMPROMISE THAT MAKING IT RECREATION THAT WOULD ALLOW THOSE LEASE HOLDERS TO REBUILD THE DOCK AND THEN WE CAN MOVE FORWARD. THAT'S ESSENTIALLY CONSERVING THE PROPERTY WITHOUT USING THAT TERM. LEAVING IT INDUSTRIAL WATERFRONT I THINK IS

A MISTAKE. >> BOARD I WOULD NOT VOTE FOR THE MOTION.

>> BOARD MEMBER: WHAT IS YOUR CONCERN THOUGH? I MEAN, WE'RE NOT TEARING DOWN TREES ON THE

WATER. BUT WHAT IS YOUR CONCERN? LIKE TRULY. >> CHAIRMAN: I WOULD JUST SIMPLY SAY THAT I'VE SEEN QUITE A FEW RIVERS, BAYS AND WHATEVER HAVING A NUMBER OF DOCKS PUT OVER THEM AND ANY AMOUNT OF INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTY PUT ON IT IN VARIOUS OTHER AREAS OF FLORIDA.

THERE'S ALWAYS THAT POTENTIAL. I MEAN, I KNOW THAT THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEP IS VERY DIFFICULT TO DO SOME OF THESE THINGS. WE HAVE A HISTORICAL ISSUE HERE IN TOWN THAT PEOPLE WANT TO DEAL WITH. SO, TO ME IT IS A WAY OF PROTECTING OLD TOWN ON ONE PART AND SECOND PRESERVING THIS PROPERTY AND STILL ALLOWING THOSE PEOPLE WITH LEASES TO MOVE ON. AND IF CSX HAS AN ISSUE THEY CAN COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND STATE THEIR ISSUE AND OUR CITY ATTORNEY WOULD BE HAPPY TO DEAL WITH THEM. BUT TO PUT IT OFF, I WOULD TELL YOU, IT WILL NEVER COME BACK. WE'LL PROBABLY NEVER SEE IT AGAIN. JUST THINK ABOUT THE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN ON THIS

BOARD IN THE LAST YEAR. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, IF WE PUT A TAG ON TO IT THAT IT DOES COME BACK,

BECAUSE I HAPPEN TO AGREE WITH WHAT YOU JUST SAID. >> CHAIRMAN: THEN WHY DON'T YOU

JUST VOTE FOR IT THAT WAY. >> BOARD MEMBER: I WILL BUT THERE'S ALREADY A MOTION.

>> IT STANDS THE WAY IT WAS ORIGINALLY MADE. THAT'S THE TAKE NO ACTION ON THIS. BUT

HE'S WILLING TO, IF HE UNDERSTANDS I THINK -- >> CHAIRMAN: HE SAID LEAVE IT AS INDUSTRIAL WATERFRONT. THEN HE SAID SOMETHING-SOMETHING SAID SOMETHING ABOUT TAKING. SO,

TAKING WE WOULD HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT FIRST >> BUT I THINK THE IDEA IS IT'S

GOT TO COME BACK. IF MR. STEVENSON'S MOTION IS -- >> CHAIRMAN: I DON'T THINK IT HAS TO COME BACK. TO ME THIS IS A PACKAGE OF ITEMS THAT CAN GET TO THE COMMISSION NOW WHILE THESE ISSUES ARE THE ISSUES THAT THE COMMISSION WANTS TO DEAL W

WITH. IF YOU DON'T AGREE, YOU CAN VOTE FOR IT. >> BOARD MEMBER: I WOULD JUST

[01:55:04]

SAY THAT THE COMMISSION'S GOING TO END UP -- I MEAN, WE'RE GOING TO SEND THEM A PACKAGE BUT

THEY'RE NOT GOING TO VOTE ON IT AS A PACKAGE. >> CHAIRMAN: THEY VOTE ON ALL

THIS. >> BOARD MEMBER: BUT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO VOTE ON IT AS ONE PACKAGE. BECAUSE SOMEBODY IS GOING TO STAND UP AT THIS MEETING AND START TALKING ABOUT THIS ISSUE AND ASK THAT IT BE -- I MEAN, I JUST THINK WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT WHAT IT IS YOU THINK THE COMMISSION'S GOING TO DO WITH THIS. I DON'T NECESSARILY THINK THEY'RE GOING TO JUST LOOK

AT THIS AS A PACKAGE AND VOTE IT UP OR DOWN. >> CHAIRMAN: THEY CERTAINLY CAN DEAL WITH EACH INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY. BUT, AGAIN, OUR RECOMMENDATION HOPEFULLY MEANS SOMETHING TO THEM. SO I WOULD HOPE THAT IN LIEU OF CONSERVATION WHICH IS WHAT APPARENTLY THE INTENT WAS THROUGH THE CITY MANAGER IS TO COMPROMISE WITH THAT AND MOVE

FORWARD. NOW WE DO HAVE A MOTION. >> AND IT'S ONLY WITH REGARD -- THIS ISN'T THE PACKAGE. THIS IS ONLY WITH REGARD TO THIS PROPERTY.

>> BOARD MEMBER: I UNDERSTAND. >> BOARD MEMBER: WE'RE JUST TRYING TO PULL THESE TWO OUT OF

THE OTHER -- THERE'S 14 OF THEM ON THERE. >> CHAIRMAN: MR. CLARK?

>> BOARD MEMBER: I CAN'T VOTE FOR THE MOTION FOR THE REASONS I'VE SAID WHICH IS I THINK THERE'S -- I THINK WE HAVE TO TALK TO THE RAILROAD. THEY ASKED FOR IT. IT'S NOT

UNREASONABLE. APPARENTLY THEY COULDN'T BE HERE. >> CHAIRMAN: BUT YOU SECONDED

THE MOTION. >> BOARD MEMBER: I DID NOT. AND I THINK WE OUGHT TO STUDY OTHER

OPTIONS. I DON'T LIKE THE WATERFRONT INDUSTRIAL. >> BOARD MEMBER: I'M WILLING TO

WITHDRAW MY MOTION. >> BOARD MEMBER: AND I THINK IT SHOULD COME BACK.

>> CHAIRMAN: YOU CAN DO THAT. >> BOARD MEMBER: I'LL WILLING TO WITHDRAW. I TEND TO AGREE THAT -- WHAT YOU ARE COMING UP WITH MAY BE A VERY GOOD COMPROMISE. IF WE CAN GET ALL

THE PARTIES TOGETHER, THAT'S GOOD. SO, YOU ARE ON. >> BOARD MEMBER: I'D LIKE TO MAKE THE MOTION WE POSTPONE THIS ITEM TO THE MARCH MEETING TO GIVE STAFF TIME TO CONTACT CSX AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES TO STUDY THE FUTURE DESIGNATION OF THIS PROPERTY.

>> BOARD MEMBER: SECOND. >> IS IT ONLY THESE TWO PARCELS? >> BOARD MEMBER: JUST THE ONES WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. THERE MAY BE MORE COMING UP BUT JUST THIS ONE.

>> CHAIRMAN: SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE-- >> POSTPONE.

>> BOARD MEMBER: POST TONE. >> CHAIRMAN: THAT'S A TABLE TO A TIME CERTAIN

>> IT IS A POSTPONEMENT. IT IS A DIFFERENT MOTION. YOU CAN HAVE DISCUSSION ON IT.

>> CHAIRMAN: I WOULD RATHER DO THAT THAN DO WHAT THE PREVIOUS MOTION WAS DISCUSSING.

>> BOARD MEMBER: IT GETS US TO THE SAME PLACE. SO, IT IS A GOOD MOTION.

>> CHAIRMAN: MR. CLARK? >> BOARD MEMBER: I SECONDED IT. >> CHAIRMAN: OKAY. DO WE HAVE

ANYTHING ELSE? ANYONE ELSE? CAN WE DO A VOICE VOTE ON THIS >> WHY DON'T YOU A DO A ROLE

CALL. >> CHAIRMAN: SO COULD YOU READ THE MOTION. THIS IS A MOTION TO POSTPONE THIS ONE ITEM TO OUR MARCH PAB MEETING WHERE WE'LL TAKE IT UP AGAIN WHICH WILL ALLOW STAFF TO DO WHATEVER RESEARCH THEY NEED TO BRING IT BEFORE US. IS THAT CORRECT?

THANK YOU. OKAY. WE'LL DO A ROLL CALL. >> MEMBER ROLAND

>> YES >> MEMBER MIN CHEW >> YES

>> MEMBER CLARK >> YES >> MEMBER BENNETT

>> YES >> MEMBER STEVENSON >> YES.

>> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU ALL. MOVING ON. THERE'S A COUPLE OTHER PARCELS WITH THE COUNTY

THAT WERE OF CONCERN WITH SOME OF THE PEOPLE. >> MR. CHAIRMAN.

>> CHAIRMAN: WE CAN BRING THEM UP NOW OR IF YOU ALL HAVE OTHER PARCELS --

>> BOARD MEMBER: I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COUNTY ONES. >> CHAIRMAN: MR. CLARK WANTS TO MOVE FORWARD TO THE COUNTY PARCELS. CAN YOU BRING THAT UP HERE?

>> I HAVE A GRAPHIC HERE THAT SPEAKS TO IT. >> CHAIRMAN: AND THIS WOULD BE

THE EIGHTH STREET PROPERTY >> YES WITH RESPECT TO THE PARCELS UNDER CONSIDERATION OWNED BY NASSAU COUNTY, NASSAU COUNTY HAS ISSUED A STATEMENT INDICATING THEY WOULD ACCEPT STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO PROCEED WITH THOSE CHANGES WITH EXCEPTION OF ONE PARCEL. AND THAT PARCEL BEING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT NORTH EIGHTH STREET AND DADE STREETS. THAT PROPERTY DOES CURRENTLY CONTAIN A MEDIUM R2 LAND USE. THE UPLANDS ACREAGE ASSOCIATED WITH IT AND I HAVE NO PRESENCE OF WETLANDS ON THAT SITE. THE TOPOGRAPHY IS PRETTY HIGH IN ELEVATION AS YOU CAN SEE INDICATED THROUGH THE STREET VIEW PROVIDED ON THE IMAGE HERE. IT DOES HAVE

[02:00:02]

POTENTIAL TO HOST UP TO THREE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS AS A 100 BY 100 FOOT PARCEL. YOU COULD NOT SUB-DIVIDE THAT PROPERTY UNDER THE LAND USE AND ZONING REGULATIONS TO ANYTHING LESS THAN 50 BY 100. ALTHOUGH YOU COULD HAVE THREE VOLUMES ON IT. SO THAT WOULD CONTEMPLATE THE POTENTIAL OF A TRI-PLEX. OR THE SUBDIVISION OF THE PROPERTY INTO DWELLING UNITS PLACED

THERE. >> CHAIRMAN: SO LIKE AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR SOMETHING

OF THAT NATURE? >> POTENTIALLY. I THINK THAT IS THE REASON WHY THE COUNTY WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS PROPERTY MAINTAINED FOR MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SO THEY COULD LOOK AT ENTERING INTO PARTNERSHIP WITH AN OUTSIDE ENTITY TO PROVIDE FOR SOME AFFORDABLE

HOUSING. >> CHAIRMAN: OR THEY COULD JUST SELL IT AND SOMEBODY DEVELOP TWO

PROPERTIES ON THERE. WOULD THAT BE CORRECT? >> YES.

>> CHAIRMAN: OKAY. SO WE CAN LOOK AT THE TWO PROPERTIES SEPARATELY CAN WE NOT?

>> IT IS A SINGLE PROPERTY THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT. THE PROPERTY LOCATED TO THE WEST WHICH ADJOINS US AND IS ALSO OWNED BY NASSAU COUNTY THE BOARD HAS INDICATED THEY'RE COMFORTABLE WITH MOVING FORWARD HAVING CONSERVATION DESIGNATION APPLIED TO IT.

>> CHAIRMAN: SO WOULD IT BE PROPOSITION FOR US TO VOTE FOR THAT AND GET IT OUT OF THE WAY

AND THEN WE CAN DEAL WITH THE OTHER ONE? >> YOU COULD.

>> CHAIRMAN: OKAY. I MEAN, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER CONCERNS WITH THE PARCEL TO THE WEST? ALL

RIGHT SO CONSERVATION ON THAT WE'RE ALL FINE WITH? >> BOARD MEMBER: YES.

>> CHAIRMAN: SO THE PARCEL ON THE CORNER -- HOW SHOULD WE HANDLE THAT. IF THEY OBJECT TO

IT. YOU SAID THERE'S NO PARCELS THERE TO BUILD >> THERE'S NO INDICATION THERE IS WETLANDS ON THAT PROPERTY. IT'S NOT WITHIN A SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA AT ALL. IT'S

DEVELOPABLE LAND. >> CHAIRMAN: I WAS CONFUSED WHEN I WAS LOOKING THROUGH THE PACKET. ARE BOTH PARTICLESLES -- PARCELS IN THE PACKET?

>> YES, SIR. BUT JUST THE ONE PARCEL. THAT PARCEL RIGHT AT THE CORNER IS THE ONE THAT THE

COUNTY HAS ISSUED AN OBJECTION ON. >> CHAIRMAN: OKAY. SO WHAT'S THE BOARD WANT TO DO? WE REMOVE THE PARCEL ON THE CORNER OUT OF THE PACKET AND LEAVE IT AS IT

IS. IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> CHAIRMAN: OKAY. I AM TRYING

TO MOVE THINGS ALONG A LITTLE BIT HERE. >> BOARD MEMBER: I GOT THE COUNTY'S LETTER HERE AND KELLY SUMMARIZED IT QUITE WELL BUT THERE ARE FOUR DIFFERENT PROPERTIES OR PROPOSALS HERE. AND THE COUNTY'S AGREEING WITH OUR RECOMMENDATION FOR CONSERVATION ON THREE OF THEM. AND THE ONE THEY'RE NOT IS THE ONE THAT WE'VE JUST DISCUSSED.

SO I THINK WE OUGHT TO APPROVE THE THREE THAT THE COUNTY AGREES WITH US ON AND THEN THE LAST

ONE, WHICH IS A THE CORNER OF DADE AND EIGHTH, THAT PARCEL -- >> CHAIRMAN: JUST REMOVE THAT FROM THE PARCEL. WE'D LIKE TO TREAT ALL THE OTHERS IN ONE MOTION.

>> BOARD MEMBER: THAT'S WHAT I AM SAYING. >> CHAIRMAN: WOULD YOU MAKE THAT

MOTION? >> THERE'S A TOTAL OF FOUR PARCELS AND THE COUNTY'S AGREED

TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR THREE OUT OF THE FOUR. >> BOARD MEMBER: SO I'LL MAKE

THE MOTION THAT THERE ARE -- >> CHAIRMAN: JUST REMOVE THAT PARCEL.

>> THEN HE WANTS TO VOTE THE WHOLE PACKAGE UP OR DOWN. >> CHAIRMAN: IF WE DON'T HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS TO ALL OF THE NON-CITY OWNED PROPERTIES WE CAN PASS THAT IN ONE MOTION. THEN WE JUST TAKE THIS ONE OUT AS WE DID WITH THE LAST ONE AND WE CAN MOVE FORWARD.

>> BOARD MEMBER: FAIR ENOUGH. MR. CHAIRMAN I MOVE THAT ALL OF THE NON-CITY OWNED PROPERTY WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE CSX PROPERTY WE JUST DEALT WITH AND THE PROPERTY AT THE CORNER OF DADE AND EIGHTH WHICH IS PARCEL NUMBER 0003118000670050 CORNER OF DADE AND EIGHTH. WE'RE GOING PULL THAT ONE OUT AND DISCUSS THAT SEPARATELY. BUT MOVE FOR APPROVAL ON THE STAFF

RECOMMENDATION TO CON VARIATION ON ALL THE OTHER PROPERTIES. >> BOARD MEMBER: I'LL SECOND

THAT. >> CHAIRMAN: MR. STEVENS SECONDED THE MOTION MADE BY

MR. CLARK. NOW THE VOTE IS FOR ALL THE NON-CITY OWNED PARCELS. >> DO WE KNOW IF WE HAVE ANYMORE PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ANY OF THE NON-CITY? THAT WOULD BE MY ONLY QUESTION.

>> CHAIRMAN: WE HAVE A MOTION AND YOU ALL KNOW WHAT IT IS. I'M GOING TO OPEN UP THE PUBLIC

[02:05:05]

HEARING. DOES ANYONE WANT TO SPEAK TO THIS? NON-CITY OWNED PARCELS THAT ARE PROPOSED TO BE EITHER CONSERVATION OR RECREATION. I BELIEVE WE HAVE SOME RECREATION

>> YES THERE'S STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO PLACE RECREATION ON ONE OF THE COUNTY

OWNED PARCELS OF LANDS LOCATED ON SOUTH FLETCHER. >> CHAIRMAN: SO IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK, NOW IS YOUR TIME. YOU LOOK LIKE YOU ARE CONFUSED. COME YOU HERE AND TELL US WHO YOU ARMED WHAT YOU ARE -- WHO YOU ARE AND WHAT YOU ARE CONFUSED ABOUT.

>> PUBLIC SPEAKER: WANDA CLEVELAND. I LIVE AT 2203 BELVEDERE AVENUE. THERE'S A PARCEL ON HERE. I'M THINKING IT'S RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO ME. THE LOT-AND-A-HALF WAS FLOODED A DECADE-AND-A-HALF AGO FOR THE GREENWAY. I DON'T KNOW WHO OWNS WHAT'S NEXT TO ME. DOES THE STATE OWN THAT? DID THEY BUY ALL THREE OF THOSE PARCELS BACK FOR $6 MILLION.

>> YES, MA'AM. >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: NO ONE HAS PURCHASED THIS? IT IS STILL

OWNED BY THE STATE >> YES, MA'AM. IT IS A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE STATE PROPERTIES WITHIN THAT LIST. AND THE LOCATION THAT YOU HAVE IDENTIFIED ALONG THE GREENWAY OF BELVEDERE THOSE ARE STATE OWNED PARCELS OF LAND THAT HAVE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ASSIGNED TO THEM AND WOULD LIKE TO MODIFY THEM AND PUT THEM IN CONSERVATION LAND.

>> PUBLIC SPEAKER: I WOULD LOVE FOR THEM NEVER TO BE BUILT ON. >> THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HOPING TO

HELP YOU WITH. >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: OKAY. I WOULD LIKE REX TO COME OUT AND FINISH DIGGING THE DIRT UP TO MY PROPERTY LINE HE SAYS HE ONLY TOOK HALF OF IT. I'M THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT. I BROUGHT A PHOTOGRAPH OF IT. I DIDN'T KNOW. I THOUGHT THE STATE ONLY BOUGHT A LOT-AND-A-HALF OUT OF THOSE THREE BACK THEN. SO THE STATE BOUGHT ALL THREE OF THOSE PROPERTIES OWNED BY THAT

GENTLEMAN? >> I CAN SHOW YOU SPECIFICALLY THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE UNDER

CONSIDERATION THIS EVENING. >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: I'M NOT TEN OR 11

>> BEHIND YOU MA'AM, SHE IS BRINGING UP ON THE SCREEN. >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: THANK YOU.

>> SO IT'S THESE PROPERTIES. THESE LITTLE SLIVERS WHICH ARE -- THERE'S THREE OF THEM AS YOU HAVE IDENTIFIED SO IT'S HARD TO TELL BUT THERE'S A SEPARATE PARCEL RIGHT HERE. AND THEN RIGHT HERE. AND THEN HERE. THESE LARGER PIECES ALREADY HAVE CONSERVATION APPLIES TO THEM.

>> PUBLIC SPEAKER: AS THEY SHOULD. THAT'S WHAT THEY DID WHEN THEY PULLED UP ALL THOSE

TREES OVER A DECADE-AND-A-HALF AGO >> SO IT'S REALLY JUST SMALL SLIVERS WHICH AJOIN THE LARGER PIECES THAT STILL -- THAT HAS RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT TO IT.

>> PUBLIC SPEAKER: I DIDN'T RESEARCH IT AND I WAS GOING BY GOSSIP THAT SOMEBODY HAD ABOUT

BOUGHT THE PROPERTY NEXT TO ME. SO THE STATE DOES OWN IT. >> I CAN CONFIRM OWNERSHIP USING

THE PROPERTY APPRAISER. 2120 BELVEDERE. >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: THAT'S ME.

ACROSS THE STREET FROM ME. >> CHAIRMAN: RIGHT AT THE END OF BELVEDERE. JUST ABOVE THAT.

>> PUBLIC SPEAKER: THIS IS ME. THIS IS THE LOT. THIS IS THE LOT. THIS IS THE LOT. THIS IS

ME. >> THOSE ARE ALL PRIVATELY HELD. THOSE ARE NOT OWNED BY THE

STATE. >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: WHO OWNS THEM?

>> MR. STEPHEN

>> I DON'T KNOW. >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: IS THAT THE PREACHER WHO GAVE THEM TO HIS

GRANDSON? >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: THOSE? >> CHAIRMAN: MA'AM YOU HAVE TO COME UP HERE BECAUSE WE HAVE TO RECORD EVERYTHING. TELL US WHO YOU ARE AND WHERE YOU LIVE.

>> PUBLIC SPEAKER: JILL MCCARTHY. I LIVE AT 2120 BELVEDERE AVENUE. I BELIEVE

THOSE ARE OLD SMILEY LEE LOTS. >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: MY HUSBAND PASSED 13 YEARS AGO. THE PREACHER THAT OWNED THIS PROPERTY MET WITH MY HUSBAND AND BROUGHT HIS GRANDSON OUT WHEN THEY WERE PULLING UP THE 14 ACRES OF HARDWOOD THAT WE PROTESTED STANDING HERE YEARS

AGO. I DON'T KNOW THE NAME. MY HUSBAND KNEW THEIR NAME. >> CHAIRMAN: THE PARCELS TO THE

[02:10:05]

WEST OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA ARE BOTH PRIVATELY OWNED. >> RIGHT.

>> YES. >> ALL THREE OF THE LOTS. 8, 9 AND 10.

>> CHAIRMAN: SO THOSE HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT WE'RE DOING TONIGHT.

>> PUBLIC SPEAKER: THESE ARE THE LOTS >> THEY DO BECAUSE WE'RE--

>> NO IT IS THIS LITTLE SLIVER. >> CHAIRMAN: THAT'S THE LOT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

>> PUBLIC SPEAKER: THAT'S ACROSS THE STREET FROM YOU. WHY DIDN'T YOU GET THIS LETTER?

>> PUBLIC SPEAKER: I DID GET THE LETTER. BUT IT'S NOT. THIS IS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. WHICH

LOTS? >> THE HIGHLIGHTED PORTION RIGHT NOW. WHICH THAT IS THE STATE OF

FLORIDA LOT. >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: I'M OVER HERE MONICA. THAT'S YOU.

>> PUBLIC SPEAKER: SOLID MUD. I BROUGHT A PICTURE WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE.

>> NEXT DOOR TO YOU, MA'AM, THERE'S THREE LOTS THAT ARE PRIVATELY OWNED. AND THEY'RE

ZONED RESIDENTIAL. >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: OKAY. >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: SOMEBODY CONFRONTED HER TO BUY THAT PROPERTY 57B9D WAS WANTING TO BUY DUPLEXES IS THE BIG RAUCOUS.

THAT'S THE WHOLE PROBLEM HERE. >> YOU CAN DO THAT IN A LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

>> PUBLIC SPEAKER: I'VE BEEN DENIED A VARIANCE ON MY TWO LOTS. 10 AND 11. I'VE BEEN DENIED A VARIANCE. I HAD TO PULL 12 FEET OFF MY FENCE TO PUT A HOUSE UP AT SIX FEET. BLESS YOU. I DO WANT -- I AM ALL FOR THAT BEING --

>> CHAIRMAN: THE ONLY THING WE'RE DEALING WITH IS THAT ONE OUTLINED IN RED. OKAY?

>> PUBLIC SPEAKER: HOW CAN I ASK FOR 8 AND 9?

>> CHAIRMAN: NEVER. >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: THEY COME THROUGH MY FRONT YARD.

>> I UNDERSTAND. >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: THEY WOULD WASTE THEIR MONEY. I WOULDN'T

WORRY ABOUT THAT. >> CHAIRMAN: THIS ISN'T THE PLACE FOR THAT. THERE'S NOTHING

WE CAN DO ABOUT THAT. >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: CAN REX COME AND GET THE DIRT OUT FROM IN

FRONT OF MY HOUSE? >> CHAIRMAN: NOT UNLESS YOU GIVE ME A BROOM AND DUMP TRUCK

>> YOU NEED TO CALL REX. >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: I'VE CALLED HIM FOR THE LAST TEN YEARS. HE WON'T MOVE IT. HE SAYS THE STREET ISN'T THERE. I BOUGHT THE PROPERTY AND THE STREET IS

THERE TO MY PROPERTY LINE. >> CHAIRMAN: YOU COULD POTENTIALLY CALL CODE ENFORCEMENT AND SEE IF THAT'S AN ISSUE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY. SO DOES ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK TO ALL OF THE NON-CITY OW OWNED PARCELS WE'RE LOOKING TO CHANGE TO CONSERVATION OR RECREATION? AND SEEING NONE WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

DOES THE BOARD -- ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK TO THIS? SEEING NONE, GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE ROLL

CALL PLEASE. >> MEMBER MIN CHEW, >> YES

>> MEMBER CLARK >> YES >> MEMBER ROLAND

>> YES >> MEMBER STEVENSON >> YES

>> MEMBER BENNETT >> YES. >> CHAIRMAN: NOW WE'RE ON REVIEW

[Items 5 & 8]

DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO PAB BYLAWS. >> I UNDERSTAND I MAY NOT HAVE UPLOADED THE CORRECT DOCUMENT

ONLINE WITH THE AMENDMENTS. >> CHAIRMAN: IS EVERYBODY OKAY? DOES ANYONE WANT TO TAKE A

BREAK? SEEING NONE, WE'RE MOVING ON. >> I CAN UPLOAD THE VERSION THAT IS CLEAN WITHOUT MR. CLARK'S EDITS OR PUT THE ONE ONLINE THAT HAS BOTH INCLUDED.

>> CHAIRMAN: WELL MR. CLARK'S EDITS WOULD HAVE BEEN THE ONE CHANGED AFTER OUR THURSDAY

MEETING? >> BOARD MEMBER: IT WAS ON SCTION 8 RIGHT? IT WAS THE

CHANGES IN SECTION 8 >> ARTICLE 2 SECTION 8 >> ARTICLE 4? SECTION A?

>> I HAVE KNIT FRONT OF ME THAT SHOWS -- >> CHAIRMAN: I'VE GOT ONE. THE BYLAWS THAT ARE HERE NOW REFLECT THE CHANGES THAT WE DISCUSSED AT OUR--

>> IT IS A CLEAN VERSION WITH CHANGES. >> CHAIRMAN: OF THE CITY MEETING

[02:15:02]

THAT WE HAD >> YES. >> CHAIRMAN: GOOD.

>> WAIT, NO. THE QUESTION YOU JUST ASKED, I DON'T THINK IS CORRECT. WHAT'S ONLINE IS THE ORIGINAL PAB BYLAWS. BECAUSE IT DID NOT -- IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THE AMENDMENTS ARE ONLINE.

HOWEVER THE BOARD RECEIVED THE AMENDMENTS BY EMAIL AS WELL AS MR. CLARK'S COMMENTS ASSOCIATED

WITH THOSE AMENDMENTS. >> CHAIRMAN: THE CHANGES THAT WE MADE PLUS ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> CHAIRMAN: SO WE SHOULD BE WORKING OFF OF THE HANDOUT. ALL

RIGHT. HOW THAT IS THAT? >> AND I HAVE IT AVAILABLE ONLINE OR ON THE SCREEN HERE FOR

US. >> CHAIRMAN: WELL THEN I ONLY FOCUSED ON THE CHANGES FROM MR. CLARK NUS. MR. CLARK NMR. CLARK NOT THE WH DOCUMENT.

>> BOARD MEMBER: THIS WILL BE UNDER ARTICLE 2, SECTION C. SENTENCE STARTS WITH MINUTES SUMMARY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND ACTIONS TAKEN AT EACH MEETING. MINUTES ARE AVAILABLE.

I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST MAYBE WE SAY VIA REQUEST AS OPPOSED TO THROUGH. I'M JUST WORDSMITHING.

THAT'S ALL IT IS. THE FOURTH LINE FROM BOTTOM OF PARAGRAPH C. >> KELLY IS CHANGING IT RIGHT

NOW. >> IF THE BOARD IS IN AGREEMENT >> ARE YOU ALL OKAY WITH THAT?

>> BOARD MEMBER: I HAVE NO IDEA WHERE WE ARE. I'M SORRY. >> CHAIRMAN: ARTICLE 2, ITEM C.

FOUR SENTENCES DOWN AND STARTS WITH "MINUTES ARE AVAILABLE THROUGH REQUEST TO COMMUNITY

DEPARTMENT" >> WOULD IT BE OKAY IF WE CAN JUST START AT THE BEGINNING OF THE BYLAWS AND WORK OUR WAY THROUGH THE CHANGES ONE AT A TIME IN ORDER? AND THEN WE CAN GET TO THE UPDATES THAT MR. CLARK HAS MADE WHEN WE GET TO THAT SECTION AS OPPOSED TO

KIND OF JUMPING ALL AROUND? WOULD THAT BE OKAY? >> CHAIRMAN: ALL RIGHT WITH ME.

WHAT ABOUT THE BOARD? OKAY. OKAY. SO YOU HAVE SOMETHING AT THE TOP?

>> BOARD MEMBER: WELL I'M JUST WALKING DOWN THIS LIST. SO WE GO TO A-2 AND THERE'S SOMETHING WE WANT TO CHANGE THERE. RIGHT? SO, WE WANT TO TAKE OUT THE WORDS "OR COMMISSION."

>> BOARD MEMBER: YES. MR. CHAIRMAN CAN I SAY, THOSE ARE PRETTY MINOR EDITS. AND I DON'T HAVE -- THOSE ARE MY EDITS. THE ONES THIS BLUE. THOSE CAME AFTER OUR COMMITTEE AND THEN KELLY DRAFTED BASED ON OUR SUB-COMMITTEE'S CONVERSATION. AND THESE BLUE EDITS ARE JUST ONES THAT I LOOKED AT AND I WOULD CHARACTERIZE MOST OF THESE AS

PRETTY MINOR. SO, THERE'S NO GREAT -- >> BOARD MEMBER: SO THEN THE FIRST -- WELL, THEN THE FIRST CHANGE THAT WAS RECOMMENDED BY THE SUB-COMMITTEE IS IN ARTICLE 4 SECTION A? WHERE IT'S UNDERLINED WITHIN ONE WEEK SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE SCHEDULE MEETING DAY ALL AGENDA ITEMS SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED BY WRITTEN STAFF REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS? AND THEN THE NEXT SENTENCE SAYS... SCHEDULED MEETINGS WITH THE PAB SHALL BE CANCELLED ONLY WITH APPROVAL OF THE CHAIRPERSON WITH PAB AFTER DISCUSSION WITH STAFF. THOSE

ARE FROM THE SUB-COMMITTEE MEETING >> RIGHT.

>> BOARD MEMBER: THE NEXT ONE... AGENDA ITEMS THAT REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARING OR OTHER ITEMS MAY BE AT THE DISCRETION OF STAFF B. AND THEN I'M NOT SURE WHAT HAPPENED. WE HAD I GUESS SAID REORDERED.

BUT NOW YOU WANT TO CHANGE IT TO MOVE FORWARD TO ACCOMMODATE CITIZENS IN ATTENDANCE?

>> BOARD MEMBER: WELL OUR DISCUSSION WAS THAT IF YOU HAVE A MEETING, KIND OF LIKE WHAT WE

[02:20:01]

HAD THIS EVENING, WHERE THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE HERE FOR AN ITEM THAT IS DOWN ON THE AGENDA, THIS SIMPLY SAYS THAT THE CHAIR SHOULD HAVE THE DISCRETION, SHOULD FEEL COMFORTABLE MOVING

AN ITEM FORWARD TO ACCOMMODATE THE PEOPLE THAT ARE HERE. >> BOARD MEMBER: IN THE SUB-COMMITTEE MEETING WE USED THE WORD "REORDERED." SO YOU WANT TO CHANGE IT TO THIS

VERBIAGE HERE? >> BOARD MEMBER: YEAH. >> BOARD MEMBER: AS OPPOSED TO

THE WORD REORDERED? ALL RIGHT. >> CHAIRMAN: THINGS LIKE THAT THERE'SER IN BEEN AN OBJECTION

IN THE PAST TO DO THAT. >> BOARD MEMBER: RIGHT. I GUESS I'M JUST USED TO A LITTLE MORE ORDERLY WAY OF LOOKING AT BYLAW REVISIONS. AND SO I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED AS TO, YOU KNOW, LIKE WHAT WE'RE REALLY DOING. I MEAN, WHAT WE'RE -- WHICH ONES WE'RE REALLY LOOKING AT. SO, ARE WE GOING TO VOTE ON THEM ALL TOGETHER AS ONE THING OR ARE WE GOING TO VOTE ON THEM SECTION BY

SECTION? >> CHAIRMAN: HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO HANDLE IT?

>> I DON'T SEE WHERE AT THE SUBCOMMITTEE WE HAD THIS NUMBER 4, I DON'T SEE WHERE THAT

IS. CAN SOMEONE TELL ME WHAT WE DID WITH THAT? >> BOARD MEMBER: WHAT WAS NUMBER

4? >> BOARD MEMBER: WHEN WE HAD OUR SUB-COMMITTEE SAYS, ACTIONS OF THE PAB SHALL BE TRANSMITTED BY SEPARATE LETTER TO THE COMMISSION STATING THE ACTIONS TAKEN AND THE REASONS BEHIND SUCH ACTION. IS THAT SOMEWHERE ELSE IN HERE?

>> BOARD MEMBER: THE DECISION OF THE SUB-COMMITTEE WAS NOT TO DO THAT.

>> BOARD MEMBER: SO WE DECIDED NOT DO THAT? >> BOARD MEMBER: RIGHT.

>> BOARD MEMBER: OKAY. >> BOARD MEMBER: ACTUALLY, I THINK WE DECIDED NOT TO DO IT BUT ALSO I THINK THERE WAS DISCUSSION AT OUR MEETING IF YOU MIGHT REMEMBER THAT THERE SHOULD BE A DISCUSSION HERE WITH THE FULL BOARD ABOUT HOW THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE TRANSMITTED.

BUT NOT PART OF THE BYLAWS. >> BOARD MEMBER: OKAY. SO, ARE WE GOING TO INCLUDE MR. CLARK'S

NEW CHANGES AS WE GO THROUGH THESE? >> CHAIRMAN: WE CAN VOTE ON THEM

SEPARATELY. >> BOARD MEMBER: I GUESS I'M JUST CONFUSED WHY WE HAVE NEW CHANGES AFTER OUR COMMITTEE MEETING THAT WE'RE JUST SEEING RIGHT NOW.

>> THEY'VE BEEN FORWARDED TO YOU PREVIOUSLY. >> BOARD MEMBER: WHEN?

>> WHEN I RECEIVED THEM. >> BOARD MEMBER: I DON'T REMEMBER GETTING THEM. THIS IS

THE FIRST TIME I'VE SEEN THESE. >> WHY DON'T WE JUST MOVE THIS TO NEXT MONTH'S MEETING SO

EVERYBODY HAS A CHANCE TO REVIEW? >> BOARD MEMBER: I DON'T WANT TO

MOVE IT. I WANT TO GET THROUGH IT. >> CHAIRMAN: OKAY. I THINK

THESE CAME OUT, WHAT, MONDAY? >> NO. AS SOON AS I RECEIVED THEM I FORWARDED THEM THAT DAY.

I DON'T REMEMBER WHICH DAY. >> CHAIRMAN: BUT THERE WERE EMAILS SENT OUT.

>> BOARD MEMBER: I SWEAR I DIDN'T GET THEM. BUT WHATEVER. OKAY.

>> CHAIRMAN: DO YOU WANT TO POSTPONE THIS? >> BOARD MEMBER: NO. I WANT TO

GET THROUGH IT. >> I THINK IF WE GO THROUGH THE BLUE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN NOW PUT BEFORE US THEN WE CAN VOTE FOR EACH ONE OF THEM. BECAUSE THERE'S NOT THAT MANY. THEN

WE'LL BE DONE WITH IT. >> CHAIRMAN: YEAH. >> BOARD MEMBER: SO LET'S DO

THAT. SO, LET'S START WITH ARTICLE 2, A-2. >> CHAIRMAN: WE'RE OKAY WITH THE DOCUMENT THE WAY IT IS WITH THE EXCEPTION NOW THAT WE'RE GOING TO ADDRESS MR. CLARK'S -- EACH

COMMENT OF MR. CLARK'S? >> BOARD MEMBER: YES. >> CHAIRMAN: IS THAT CORRECT FOR

THE REST OF THE BOARD? >> BOARD MEMBER: YES. >> WHAT YOU ARE ASKING RIGHT NOW IS ARE YOUR FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS OKAY WITH THE WORK THAT THE SUB-COMMITTEE DID? SO, THERE'S

NEW LANGUAGE IN THERE. OKAY. >> CHAIRMAN: CORRECT. BECAUSE IF WE'RE GOOD WITH THAT WE CAN

JUST DEAL WITH THE ITEMS THAT APPEAR. >> BOARD MEMBER: THAT WILL WORK

TOO. >> CHAIRMAN: THAT IS ALL RIGHT? >> BOARD MEMBER: YEP.

>> CHAIRMAN: THE FIRST ITEM IS ON PAGE 1. IS THERE AN ISSUE WITH ANY ONE OF THESE THAT WE CAN JUST ZERO IN IF THERE IS ONLY ONE OR IS THERE A BUNCH OF THEM.

>> BOARD MEMBER: I'M FINE WITH MR. CLARK'S. >> CHAIRMAN: I GOT ONE VOTE

THEY'RE OKAY. HOW ABOUT THE REST OF US? >> BOARD MEMBER: SO ARE WE

LOOKING AT EVERYTHING ON PAGE 1 OR EVERYTHING PERIOD. >> CHAIRMAN: WELL, YOU KNOW, IF NO ONE HAS A PROBLEM WITH ANYTHING AND MR. ROLAND JUST STATED THEN WHY GO THROUGH EACH

THING. >> BOARD MEMBER: I CAN'T SPEAK FOR EVERYONE.

>> BOARD MEMBER: THAT'S FINE. >> CHAIRMAN: PICK AND CHOOSE WHICH YOU LIKE.

>> BOARD MEMBER: LET'S JUST VOTE ON THEM. >> CHAIRMAN: SO WE'RE OKAY.

>> BOARD MEMBER: WE ARE

[02:25:05]

THAT I DID WANT TO BRING UP SINCE IT IS IN THE BYLAWS. THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE METHOD IN WHICH WE ARE CHOSEN TO BE ON THIS BOARD. IT SEEMS LIKE SOME PEOPLE ARE HAPPY WITH IT AND SOME PEOPLE ARE UNHAPPY WITH IT AND I'M ONE OF THOSE WHO ARE UNHAPPY WITH THE WAY IT IS. I LIKE THE OLD SYSTEM WHERE YOU COULD APPLY TO BE ON THE BOARD IF THERE WAS AN OPENING. THE WHOLE COMMISSION COULD VOTE ON YOU. YOU AS AN ALTERNATE COULD START AS AN ALTERNATE. AS PEOPLE DROPPED OFF YOU COULD MOVE FORWARD ON THE BOARD AFTER BEING APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION. AFTER THIS LAST YEAR, WE SEEM TO HAVE PEOPLE -- I MEAN, TONIGHT WAS A PERFECT EXAMPLE. WE HAD SOMETHING THAT WE ALL DEALT WITH A YEAR AGO WHEN THAT WAS THE HEIGHT THING.

AND NOW WE'VE GOT, WHAT, THREE, FOUR, FIVE NEW PEOPLE ALMOST DEALING WITH SOMETHING WE ALREADY DEALT WITH IN THE PAST. AND WE'VE NEVER HAD THOSE KINDS OF ISSUES BEFORE. AND MY THINKING HAS ALWAYS BEEN, IF THE COMMISSION DOESN'T LIKE IT, YOU ONLY TAKES THREE COMMISSIONERS TO REMOVE ANYONE FROM THIS BOARD. SO, TO HAVE INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONERS APPOINTING PEOPLE TO ME IS CREATING MORE HAVOC ON THE BOARD. WE DON'T HAVE ANY CONTINUITY WITH WHAT'S GOING ON.

I MEAN, THERE'S A LOT TO BE SAID IF YOU WERE HERE A YEAR AGO. AND I THINK JENNY YOU WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. AND NOW AS A VOTING MEMBER IT SEEMS TO BE IT'S FAIR TO THE ALTERNATE. WHO AT SOME POINT YOU REALLY GET TIRED OF BEING AN ALTERNATE. YOU KNOW, YOU SPEND THE TIME AND THE ENERGY AT SOME POINT YOU WANT TO VOTE. SO I WOULD HOPE THAT MAYBE WE'D -- WE DON'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT TONIGHT, BUT AS WE SEND THESE BYLAWS ALONG, WHY NOT--

>> YOU DON'T SEND THEM ALONG. >> CHAIRMAN: WE DON'T? I THOUGHT THIS HAD TO BE PUT IN TO--

>> NO IT'S ALL YOURS. >> CHAIRMAN: OKAY. SO, LET THE COMMISSION KNOW THAT WE ARE HAPPY WITH THE WAY THINGS ARE OR WE'RE UNHAPPY WITH THE WAY THINGS ARE. BECAUSE AS I SAID, OVER THE LAST YEAR, PEOPLE HAVE COME AND GONE. AND NOW WE HAVE NEW PEOPLE STEPPING IN TO ITEMS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN HANDLED BY PEOPLE SIMPLY MOVING FORWARD AND JUST HAVING HISTORY WITH THE BOARD. SO, DOES ANYONE WANT TO SPEAK TO THIS? THAT'S MY OPINION.

>> BOARD MEMBER: MR. CHAIRMAN, WHAT ARE YOU PROPOSING EXACTLY? >> CHAIRMAN: I PROPOSE GOING BACK TO THE OLD SYSTEM. THE OLD SYSTEM WAS THAT YOU MADE AN APPLICATION TO THE CITY, THAT YOU WANTED TO BE ON THE BOARD, AND THEN TYPICALLY AS ABSENCES CAME UP, THE COMMISSION WOULD DISCUSS THE VARIOUS CANDIDATES TO BE FILLED. YOU TYPICALLY AS AN ALTERNATE. BECAUSE USUALLY THE ALTERNATES MOVED INTO BEING ONE OF THE VOTING MEMBERS. BUT THAT ALSO HAD TO BE APPROVED BY

THE COMMISSION ALSO. WAS TO MOVE SOMEONE FORWARD. >> BOARD MEMBER: SO THE DIFFERENCE IS UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM THE COMMISSION BASICALLY, EACH COMMISSIONER SELECTS EACH COMMISSIONER THEN THEY VOTE ON IT AS A GROUP. WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT IS A SYSTEM WHERE THE PAB ITSELF WOULD PLAY A ROLE BASICALLY IG PEOPLE THAT WERE GO IN FRONT OF THE

COMMISSION? >> CHAIRMAN: NO. >> BOARD MEMBER: THEN I DON'T

UNDERSTAND. >> BOARD MEMBER: THE PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF HOW PEOPLE WERE APPOINTED TO THE BOARD, THE CITY CLERK AND STAFF WOULD SAY WE'VE GOT TWO MEMBERS AVAILABLE, TWO OPENINGS AVAILABLE ON THE PAB. BROADCAST IT OUT TO THE CITIZENS. CITIZENS READ IT AND IF INTERESTED WOULD SEND EMAIL OR RESUMES OR WHATEVER TO THE CITY CLERK. THE CITY CLERK WOULD FORWARD THAT THIS TO THE CITY COMMISSION AND THEN THE COMMISSION WOULD THEN VOTE ON WHO THEY WOULD CHOOSE. THAT CHANGED UNDER A PREVIOUS COMMISSION RULE LATELY THAT SAYS WHATEVER SPOT IS OPENING A COMMISSIONER PICKS THAT PERSON. AND THAT PERSON IS SELECTED.

>> CHAIRMAN: PARKS AND RECREATION FOLLOWS THAT PROCESS RIGHT?

>> >> BOARD MEMBER: NO >> WE'RE THE ONLY ONE --

>> BOARD MEMBER: THE FOLLOW THE OTHER ONE >> ALL THE OTHER BOARDS IN THE

CITY DO >> THEY'LL POST WHEN THEY HAVE OPENINGS.

>> CHAIRMAN: WE'RE THE EXCEPTION. >> BOARD MEMBER: SO ALL YOU ARE

SAYING IS LET'S RETURN IT BACK TO WHERE IT WAS >> BUT IT'S NOT OUR DECISION.

>> CHAIRMAN: THAT'S CORRECT BUT AS A BOARD WE COULD SEND THAT TO THE COMMISSION TO RECOMMEND GOING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL. AND NOT NECESSARILY CHANGING THIS BOARD AS IT NOW STANDS.

>> BOARD MEMBER: CAN WE APPROVE THE BYLAWS THEN DO THAT?

[02:30:09]

HE THOUGHT THE BYLAWS TERRE GOING UP SO MIGHT AS WELL SEND YOUR THOUGHTS.

>> BOARD MEMBER: I GET IT. >> YOU DON'T HAVE TO SEND THE BYLAWS ANYWHERE. THEY'RE JUST

FOR US. >> CHAIRMAN: OKAY. >> BOARD MEMBER: THEN WE COULD ACTUALLY SEND A RECOMMENDATION TO THAT WE DON'T LIKE THE WAY THINGS ARE AND WOULD LIKE IT

BACK TO THE WAY EVERYBODY ELSE DOES IT. >> CHAIRMAN: I WOULD LIKE TO

HEAR FROM THE BOARD AS TO WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS ARE. >> BOARD MEMBER: WHY DON'T WE DO

THE BYLAWS. >> CHAIRMAN: WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE BYLAWS WITH NO CHANGES TO THESE, THAT IS CORRECT? AS THEY'VE BEEN PRESENTED.

>> BOARD MEMBER: WITH THE REDLINE OR THE BLUE LINE CHANGES.

>> CHAIRMAN: RIGHT. EXACTLY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THAT I THINK. OR DID WE?

>> BOARD MEMBER: I MOVE WE ACCEPT THE BYLAWS AS AMENDED AND PRESENTED TO THE BOARD TONIGHT.

>> BOARD MEMBER: SECOND. >> CHAIRMAN: WHO SECONDED THAT? >> JUST AS POINT OF PROCEDURE, THESE BYLAWS HAVE TO BE ADOPTED BY AFFIRMATIVE VOTE OF THE MAJORITY OF THE VOTING MEMBERS AFTER AT LEAST TEN DAYS OF WRITTEN NOTICE TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE PAB. SO, YOU CAN VOTE TO TAKE ACTION AS PRESENTED AT THIS MEETING AT A FUTURE MEETING DATE.

>> BOARD MEMBER: WEREN'T THEY PRESENTED TO US TEN DAYS AHEAD? >> BOARD MEMBER: NOT WITH THE

CHANGES >> NOT WITH THESE CHANGES. >> BOARD MEMBER: OKAY. SO WE

CAN VOTE AND THEN -- >> I WILL SEND THEM TO YOU THEN YOU WILL HAVE THEM FOR TEN DAYS

AND AT THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING. >> CHAIRMAN: SO OUR JANUARY MEETING WILL BE FINAL APPROVAL

ON THIS AND WE'LL HAVE A CLEAN SHEET AND EVERYTHING TO DO THAT. >> BOARD MEMBER: DO WE NEED A

MOTION TONIGHT? >> I THINK BY CONSENSUS THAT YOU ARE WILLING TO ACCEPT --

>> CHAIRMAN: A VOICE VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR OF MOVING TO FINAL VOTE IN OUR JANUARY MEETING SAY AYE.

ALL OPPOSED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT PASSES. SO WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON SUNDAYING

SOMETHING TO THE COMMISSION ASKING THAT? >> BOARD MEMBER: THE THOUGHT I HAVE IS THAT WITH THE SYSTEM AS IT IS TODAY THAT THERE COULD BE A PERCEPTION BY THE PUBLIC THAT THERE'S MORE POLITICS INVOLVED IN THIS BOARD. BECAUSE EACH COMMISSIONER APPOINTS A PERSON.

THEN MAYBE THERE IS OR ISN'T. >> CHAIRMAN: THAT WAS ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT CAME UP WHEN IT WAS

PROPOSED AND IN THE PAST. >> BOARD MEMBER: I THINK BY IT BEING -- THAT THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE PAB IS LIKE ALL THE OTHER BOARDS TAKES CARE OF THAT. IT MAKES IT CONSISTENT ACROSS ALL COMMITTEES THAT ADVISE THE COMMISSION. I THINK THAT'S A BETTER PERCEIVED WAY IS THIS

SHOULD NOT BE HELD OUT AS AN EXCEPTION. >> BOARD MEMBER: I THINK YOU LOOK AT IT FROM THE STANDPOINT IT PROVIDES GREATER VALUE AND FROM THE SENSE THAT YOU HAVE GREATER CONTINUITY AND A MIGRATION SO TO SPEAK IF YOU WANT TO GO FROM ALL TO NOTHING.

LET ME CALL IT A CAREER PATH. WITHIN THE BOARD. I DO THINK THE CONTINUITY IN TERMS OF YOUR, YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVE SOMEBODY THAT'S GOT THREE OR FOUR YEARS EXPERIENCE, SOMETIMES THAT CAN SAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE A LOT OF TIME. I WOULD SAY IT'S WORTH PURSUING. THE OTHER THING IS MAYBE NOW IS THE TIME TO DO IT. YOU'VE GOT AN ELECTION COMING UP IN THE NOT-TOO-DISTANT FUTURE.

THINGS COULD CHANGE. >> CHAIRMAN: I HAVE NO IDEA HOW WE WOULD PROCEED IF WE'RE IN

AGREEMENT. >> I THINK YOU HAVE A REGULAR SCHEDULED MEETING TO PUT THIS ON THE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ADOPTION AND BY THE BOARD ITSELF AS BOARD BUSINESS.

>> DON'T WE HAVE A JOINT MEETING WITH THEM COMING UP? >> BOARD MEMBER: YES NEXT WEEK.

>> BOARD MEMBER: TUESDAY. >> CHAIRMAN: YOU JUST SUGGESTED TO BRING IT BEFORE THE COMMISSION NEXT WEEK WHEN WE HAVE OUR MEETING OR PUT IT OFF UNTIL WE --

>> BOARD MEMBER: I THINK YOU NEED TO ADVERTISE IT AND LET FOLKS CHEW ON IT A LITTLE.

>> BOARD MEMBER: I WAS GOING TO SAY YOU GOT TO WRITE IT UP AND PUT IT ON THE AGENDA AND LET US

VOTE ON IT. >> BOARD MEMBER: I THINK THAT'S THE MORE APPROPRIATE WAY. WE DEFINITELY DO NOT WANT TO SURPRISE THE COMMISSION WITH ANYTHING THAT COMES OUT OF HERE.

[02:35:02]

IF I WAS SITTING IN THEIR SHOES AND YOU BROUGHT THIS UP ON TUESDAY I WOULD BE UPSET. I THINK IT'S FAIR TO THEM AT OUR NEXT MEETING IT IS A TOPIC FOR DISCUSSION AND ACTION AND THEN WE EITHER VOTE IT UP OR DOWN. IT IS A RECOMMENDATION ONLY. AND THEY WOULD CHOOSE TO ADOPT IT OR NOT. THAT'S THEIR PREROGATIVE AND THAT'S OKAY. I THINK AT LEAST ON THE NEXT BOARD

MEETING. >> CHAIRMAN: SO KELLY WE CAN PUT THIS ON THE AGENDA FOR JANUARY?

>> FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES, YES. >> BOARD MEMBER: DISCUSSION AND ACTION.

>> NO. HERE'S WHY. YOU HAVE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CHANGE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT ACTION.

IT'S A REVISION TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO CHANGE THE STRUCTURE OF THIS BODY. THE WAY THAT -- YES, THE WAY THAT YOUR BOARD APPOINTMENT IS PROVIDED. IT IS IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT.

>> BOARD MEMBER: THEY PUT IT IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE >> SO WITH RESPECT TO PROCESS AND ONE OF THE ITEMS WE'LL DISCUSS NEXT WEEK IS FOLLOWING THE E. A. R., NEXT STEPS WILL HAVE BOTH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS TO BE MAKING AND ONE OF THE MAJOR ISSUES IDENTIFIED WAS IMPLEMENTATION-BASED MEASURES AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. HOW DO WE WANT TO PROCEED WITH THAT? STAFF HAS A POSITION THAT WE MAY WANT TO LOOK AT REDOING THE ENTIRE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO BETTER REFLECT THE COMMUNITY AT THIS POINT AND TIME. AND TO AVOID THIS CONSTANT NITPICKING OF CHANGES AS WE'RE CURRENTLY DOING. BUT WITH RESPECT TO THIS ISSUE ALONE, IT WOULD INVOLVE ANOTHER LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CHANGE IN ORDER TO MAKE THAT MODIFICATION HAPPEN. IT WOULD BE IN ADDITION TO ANOTHER PILE OF LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CHANGES WHICH HAVE BEEN DIRECTED FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDERATE THIS POINT AND TIME. SO, ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I WILL HAVE IS: DO YOU WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT NEXT BUNDLE OF CHANGES TO THIS LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND INCORPORATE THEM AS PART OF A FUTURE REVISION? OR DO WE WANT TO PARK ON SOME OF THESE ITEMS AND REALLY FOCUS ON THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND REVISING IT IN TOTAL BUT INCORPORATE THEM IN THAT REVISION? SO, I DON'T KNOW. THAT'S KIND OF THE

DIRECTION THAT I NEED FROM THE NEXT MEETING. >> CHAIRMAN: HOW MANY CHANGES ARE SUGGESTED IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AT THIS POINT? WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE

ENTIRE-- >> HOW MANY CHANGES DO I HAVE BACKLOGGED RIGHT NOW?

>> CHAIRMAN: YEAH. YOU SOUNDED AS IF WE HAD SOME BUNDLE THAT'S READY TO GO. TO TAKE ON THE WHOLE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT'S NOT WHAT I HAD IN MIND WHEN I SUGGESTED IT. I THOUGHT IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WE COULD HAVE A MEETING, WE COULD DISCUSS IT, THE PUBLIC COULD COME IN AND WE COULD PRESENT IT TO THE COMMISSION AND THEY COULD TAKE IT UNDER ADVISEMENT AND VOTE ON

IT >> RIGHT. WE WOULD INCLUDE IT IN THE NEXT ROUND OF AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. BUT I HAVE PROBABLY SIX DIFFERENT TOPICS.

>> BOARD MEMBER: AND YOU ARE BASICALLY ASKING SHOULD WE BRING THOSE FORWARD NOW AND TAKE CARE

OF THEM OR WAIT UNTIL YOU BUNDLE THE WHOLE? >> RIGHT.

>> CHAIRMAN: HOW LONG WOULD THAT TAKE? WHAT'S THE BUNDLE GOING FORWARD AND WHEN?

>> YOU WOULD BE LOOKING AT A YEAR PROCESS. AT LEAST A ONE YEAR TIMEFRAME AND THAT'S AN AGGRESSIVE APPROACH. AND YOU KNOW THAT HAVING LIVED THROUGH THE LAST ROUND IN 2006 WHICH

STARTED IN 2003. >> CHAIRMAN: CERTAINLY WE'VE ALWAYS LOOKED AT CHANGES IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE CARE OF THIS AS SOON AS

POSSIBLE BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A NEW COMMISSION IN 2020. >> BOARD MEMBER: WHAT ARE THE

SIX YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT >> THERE ARE CHANGES RELATIVE TO THE HISTORIC DISTRICTS THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED. SPECIFICALLY IN OLD TOWN. WE HAVE CHANGES TO SOME OF OUR FENCING STANDARDS THAT WE'D LIKE TO HAVE INTRODUCED. CHANGES TO DRIVEWAYS. CHANGES TO STORM WATER SYSTEMS, STORM WATER -- THE WAY THOSE REGULATIONS READ. CHANGES TO DEFINITIONS THAT NEED TO BE ADDED INTO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. I'M TRYING TO THINK. I HAVE AN OUTLIER ONE TO ADDRESS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS AND REQUIREMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH IT TO BECOME STRICTER ON WHERE WE WOULD ALLOW FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS TO OCCUR.

>> BOARD MEMBER: HOW MANY OF THOSE ARE TIME SENSITIVE? >> THE HISTORIC DISTRICT ONES ARE THE MOST TIME SENSITIVE. I WOULD SAY THAT PROBABLY STORM WATER WOULD FOLLOW AS A CLOSE

SECOND. >> CHAIRMAN: WHAT WOULD BE THE OPPOSITION TO US TAKING THIS ON

[02:40:03]

MEETING IN FEBRUARY THEN THOSE OTHER ITEMS CAN COME UP AS NEEDED AND WE CAN DEAL WITH

THOSE? I'M NOT LOOKING TO DELAY-- >> I JUST WANT TO MAKE THE POINT THAT, AGAIN, HERE WE ARE ADDING NEW LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS INTO WHAT HAS NOW BECOME I CALL IT A FRANKENSTEIN DOCUMENT AT THIS POINT. IT'S KIND OF BITS AND PIECES OF DIFFERENT THINGS ALL OVER THE PLACE. WHEN WE MAY BE TAKING ON A LARGER EFFORT. SO IT'S CERTAINLY THE DIRECTION THAT I NEED THOUGH IS LET ME GO FORWARD WITH THE NEXT ROUND OF CHANGES, GET THEM CODIFIED SO WHEN WE MAKE THE OVERALL REVISION, THOSE ARE PART OF THAT BUNDLE.

>> BOARD MEMBER: IS THIS SOMETHING WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT WITH THE COMMISSION ON

TUESDAY? >> YES. >> CHAIRMAN: I'D LIKE TO PUT

THIS ON OUR FEBRUARY MEETING >> IT'S NOT ABOUT WORK. IT'S JUST A MATTER OF WHERE IS THE TIME BEST USED RIGHT NOW. IT'S NOT THE WORKLOAD ITSELF TO COMPLETE IT BUT HOW DO YOU WANT

TO HANDLE IT. >> BOARD MEMBER: I HAVE A SUGGESTION. I THINK YOU OUGHT TO TAKE THAT LIST AND WHAT THE CHAIR IS TALKING ABOUT CHANGING THE WAY THE PAB MEMBERS ARE NOMINATED AND GIVE US A LIST AT THE NEXT MEETING OR WHENEVER AND LET'S WHITTLE IT DOWN TO THE ONES THAT ARE THE MOST CRITICAL THEN TRY TO GET THOSE OUT OF THE WAY. THEN PUT THE BALANCE OF

THEM INTO THE FUTURE. >> CHAIRMAN: THOSE ITEMS ARE GOING BE EXTENSIVE AND A LOT MORE TIME THAN OTHERS. I'M NOT ANTICIPATING THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE IS GOING BE THAT TIMELY

>> BOARD MEMBER: THE ONES THAT ARE URGENT. THIS THING YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT SHOULDN'T BE THAT HARD TO WRITE THAT UP. WE'RE BASICALLY JUST GOING TO SUBMIT --

>> CHAIRMAN: JUST PULL THE OLD ORDINANCE. >> BOARD MEMBER: BUT IF THERE

ARE OTHERS THAT ARE CRITICAL. >> BOARD MEMBER: THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE.

>> DO YOU HAVE A LIST OF LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CHANGES BY PRIORITY AND KIND OF LIKE WITH SOME TIMEFRAME -- LIKE HOW MUCH TIME YOU THINK IT WOULD TAKE FOR THE STAFF TO GET RECOMMENDATIONS READY FOR THIS ONE, THIS ONE, THIS ONE, YOU KNOW, KIND OF THING?

>> I DON'T HAVE THAT. >> BOARD MEMBER: SO THAT WE COULD BEGIN -- I MEAN, IT WOULD BE NICE TO LOOK AT THE WHOLE BIG ERR LIST AND THEN SAY OKAY WE CAN -- LET'S TAKE THESE THREE, THESE TWO AND IN AN ORDERLY MANNER, YOU KNOW, WORK OUR WAY THROUGH IT. AND IF IT TAKES A

YEAR, IT TAKES A YEAR. >> BUT HOPEFULLY YOU WON'T BE DOING SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT.

KIND OF -- WHAT WE'VE WITNESSED OVER THE LAST 24 MONTHS, I WOULD SAY, WHERE YOU ARE GETTING THESE SIGNIFICANT ROUNDS OF LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS COMING THROUGH THROUGH VARIOUS -- FOR VARIOUS REASONS YOU ARE GETTING THEM, THAT IS TAKING ITS TOLL ON THE DOCUMENT ITSELF AND THE INTEGRITY OF THE DOCUMENT. BUT ALSO YOU HAVE THIS NOW LARGER DIRECTION COMING THROUGH FROM THE E. A. R. WHICH SAYS THAT YOUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REALLY ISN'T REFLECTIVE OF WHAT WE'D LIKE TO SEE LONG TERM WITH RESPECT TO FORM AND DESIGN AND HOW WE WANT OUR LAND USE AND ZONING CATEGORIES TO DIRECT BUILDING. SO, IF WE KEEP MAKING THESE LITTLE CHANGES INCREMENTALLY TO IT, IT'S GOING TO FURTHER ERODE THE INTEGRITY OF THE DOCUMENT, ONE. BUT THE OTHER THING IT WILL DO IS HOW DO YOU ADDRESS THAT LARGER ISSUE WITHOUT BENEFIT OF A FULL REVISION? I THINK WE'RE REALLY AT THAT POINT. WE HAVE A COUPLE OF LARGER STATUTORY CHANGES THAT HAVE COME IN PLACE WITH RESPECT TO TIMEFRAMES FOR REVIEW OF SITE PLANS AND LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDERS THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED MORE IMMEDIATELY AND THAT IS A BIG PROCESS. BUT I THINK WE NEED TO CAPITALIZE SO TO SPEAK ON THE ENERGY THAT WE'VE BUILT THROUGH THE E. A. R. PROCESS AND GET A LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE DOCUMENT THAT IS IN KEEPING THAT IMPLEMENTATION MEASURE HAS BEEN MET TO ACHIEVE THE DIRECTION THE POLICY DIRECTION PROVIDED THROUGH --

>> BOARD MEMBER: AND YOU THINK IT WILL TAKE A YEAR TO REWRITE A NEW LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE? SO,

WOULD YOU-- >> THAT IS A VERY AGGRESSIVE APPROACH.

>> BOARD MEMBER: WOULD YOU PROPOSE THAT WE REWRITE THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OR WE REVIEW IT AND CHANGE IT LIKE BY SECTION OR IN CHUNKS SO THAT YOU DON'T WAIT UNTIL THE END TO GET A WHOLE NEW DOCUMENT BUT LIKE YOU CHANGE SECTION 4 AND YOU CHANGE SECTION 5 AND YOU CAN IMPLEMENT THOSE

SECTIONS KIND OF STAND ALONE? >> I THINK THAT WE NEED TO HIRE OUTSIDE RESOURCE. TO IDENTIFY THE APPROACH UNDER WHICH THEY HAVE FOUND THE MOST SUCCESS IN WORKING THROUGH A LARGER

REVISION. >> CHAIRMAN: AND I'LL INTERRUPT HERE. BECAUSE WHAT SHE IS

[02:45:03]

SAYING IS THE PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHAT I AM TELLING. BECAUSE YOU COULD SIT HERE FOR A YEAR AND WORK ON THIS AND IN JANUARY YOU MAY NOT BE HERE. OKAY SO THAT WORK AND ALL THAT STUFF GOES AWAY AND THEN YOU HAVE NEW PEOPLE COMING IN AND NOW WE WANT TO RESTART FROM SQUARE ONE

AGAIN. >> BOARD MEMBER: AND I DON'T DISAGREE. I MEAN I'VE SAT ON THE ZONING BOARD FOR SIX YEARS AND SAW, YOU KNOW, HOW THINGS CHANGE. BUT PEOPLE ROTATED OFF AND ON BOARDS BECAUSE THEIR TERMS RUN OUT AND THEY DID OR DIDN'T WANT TO GET RE-UPPED.

SO, YOU ARE ALWAYS GOING TO HAVE SOME CHANGE. >> CHAIRMAN: SURE.

>> BOARD MEMBER: WE'VE HAD A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF CHANGE IN THE LAST SIX MONTHS BECAUSE

WHATEVER. >> CHAIRMAN: GIVEN THE HISTORY WITH THE BOARD WE CERTAINLY HAD MORE IN THE LAST TWO YEARS THAN WE EVER HAD IN THE PREVIOUS 15 YEARS.

>> BOARD MEMBER: I DON'T DISAGREE. >> CHAIRMAN: AND I THINK WHENEVER WE'VE UNDERTAKEN THE WHOLE CHANGE TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, I MEAN, WE'RE TALKING HOURS AND HOURS OF MEETINGS AND AS YOU SAID TAKE IT BY SECTION.

>> BOARD MEMBER: I THINK THAT KELLY'S POINT ABOUT TRYING TO MARCH THROUGH THE OVERALL REWRITE OF THE LDC MAKES A LOT OF SENSE AND WE OUGHT TO PURSUE IT THAT WAY. ALL I WAS SAYING EARLIER WAS IF THERE ARE SOME AMENDMENTS THAT ARE REALLY PRESSING FOR SOME OTHER REASON, YOU KNOW, WE PROBABLY OUGHT TO DEAL WITH THOSE. I THINK THE CHAIR'S IDEA ABOUT CHANGING THE WAY THAT MEMBERS ARE APPOINTED TO THE PAB, THOSE NEED TO GO FORWARD QUICKLY. I THINK THE REST OF IT I THINK IT IS A MISTAKE TO DO THINGS PIECEMEAL. I THINK WE OUGHT TO LOOK AT THE

WHOLE DEAL AND MARCH THROUGH IT IN SOME SYSTEMATIC -- >> CHAIRMAN: SHE IS SAYING TAKE

A WHOLE SECTION AND JUST DEAL WITH THAT. >> BOARD MEMBER: BUT I THINK WE

OUGHT TO HAVE A PLAN. >> BOARD MEMBER: I AM A BIG BELIEVER IN HAVING PLANS.

>> BOARD MEMBER: BUT I THINK THAT'S WHAT KELLY ADVISING. DON'T DO THIS IN PIECEMEAL.

>> CHAIRMAN: SO THAT STILL COMES BACK TO THERE'S NO REASON -- >> BOARD MEMBER: SELF-DIRECTION

IS THAT WHAT YOU WANTED WITH THIS CONVERSATION WAS DIRECTION? >> YES.

>> BOARD MEMBER: DID YOU GET IT? >> SO WE CAN CARRY NIGHT THE NEXT MEETING TOO TO HAVE AT LEAST ONE OTHER SERIES EVEN IF IT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, NO MATTER WHAT I HAVE TO GET THESE IN TO HAVE THEM PLACED NOW KIND OF AMENDMENTS TO PUSH THROUGH BEFORE WE HOPEFULLY GET TO THAT LARGER STEP. WHICH I THINK WOULD BE VERY EXCITING AND HOPEFULLY WELL EMBRACED.

>> BOARD MEMBER: I DON'T KNOW WHAT ALL THE THINGS ARE THAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, THE SIX THINGS PRESSING AND HOW YOU INTEND TO MARCH THROUGH THE OVERALL REWRITE OF IT. I MEAN, IF WE HAVE STARTED SEE HOW THAT FITS TOGETHER IT WOULD BE EASIER TO REACT TO IT.

>> YES. AND I KNOW IN FRONT OF YOU, BEFORE WE GO, I WANTED TO JUST MAKE SURE YOU RECEIVED A COPY OF JUST THE REPORT ITSELF FOR THE E. A. R. ONLINE AND ATTACHED TO THE SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA FOR NEXT TUESDAY IS THE APPENDY SEIZE WITH ALL THE COMMUNITY INPUT MATERIALS. I DID NOT PUT THAT COMPONENT UP. IT'S VERY LENGTHY. I PRINTED JUST THE BARE MINIMUM THAT I FELT YOU WOULD WANT TO BE ABLE TO REVIEW AND HAVE A PAPER COPY OF.

>> BOARD MEMBER: DO YOU HAVE A PLANNED AGENDA FOR TUESDAY'S MEETING? I KNOW WE SENT OUT A

PUBLIC AGENDA BUT, I MEAN, DO YOU HAVE A-- >> WE'LL HAVE A STAFF PRESENTATION FIRST. PROVIDING INPUT INTO THAT PRESENTATION. THEN I WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO GO THROUGH WORKING TOGETHER I ASK THAT WE HAVE A U-TABLE FORMAT SO WE CAN HAVE A MORE VIGIL ENVIRONMENT FACING THE SCREEN. SO, WE'LL HAVE THE PRESENTATION COMPONENT OF IT AND THEN I'LL GO THROUGH SORT OF THE NEXT STEPS WHICH ARE REQUIRED BY STATE LAW. BUT THEN I AM GOING TO PLACE OUT THERE SOME OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS AND ASK FOR DIALOGUE AND FEEDBACK IN AN EFFORT TO GET REAL DIRECTION FROM THE COMMISSION ON SOME OF THESE ISSUES. AND THEN BE VERY FRANK, HOPEFULLY ALL OF US CAN BE, ABOUT OR HONEST ABOUT HOW, YOU KNOW, STAFF IS CAPABLE OF TAKING ON THESE INITIATIVES AND THE FUNDING ASPECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. BECAUSE IF WE'RE REALLY READY TO TAKE ON THESE BIG EFFORTS, THERE'S A DOLLAR ASSOCIATED WITH THEM. AND I THINK THAT THE COMMUNITY IS IN A POSITION OF WANTING TO SEE US GET THERE. SO WE NEED TO FIGURE

OUT A WAY TO MAKE IT HAPPEN. >> BOARD MEMBER: HAVE YOU BEEN ABLE TO QUANTIFY WHAT THOSE

[02:50:07]

PROJECTS ARE THAT ARE GOING TO REQUIRE OUTSIDE RESOURCES AND EVEN PUT SOME KIND OF DOLLARS TO

THEM SO THAT CAN BE PART OF THE DISCUSSION WE HAVE? >> ABSOLUTELY. THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISION ITSELF I'VE ESTIMATED AT ABOUT $175,000. AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPONENT OF IT, IF WE TAKE A NARROWED APPROACH AND DON'T GO WITH A FULL SCALE REVISION OF THE ENTIRETY OF THE COMP PLAN, THAT WOULD BE ANOTHER 50 TO $75,000 BUT ON A SMALL SCALE.

IT WOULD BE MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE IF WE DO A FULL REVISION OF THE COMP PLAN TOO.

>> BOARD MEMBER: BUT IS YOUR RECOMMENDATION THAT WE DO THE LARGER REVIEW AS OPPOSED TO JUST

THE SMALLER ONE? >> MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO BECOME COMPLIANT WITH STATE STATUTE AND MAKE REVISIONS SPECIFIC TO THINGS THAT ADDRESS TIME STAMPS WITHIN OUR COMP PLAN WHERE WE'RE NOT MEETING. EITHER ELIMINATE THOSE STUDIES OR PLANNING DOCUMENTS OR CHANGE THE TIME ASSOCIATED WITH IT. BECAUSE WE'RE NOT MEETING THEM AT ALL. WE NEED TO BE A LITTLE BIT -- WE NEED TO BE MORE HONEST ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE GOING FUND SOME OF THESE DOCUMENTS.

THE OTHER IS SOME OF THE SPECIFIC POLICY AREAS THAT MAYBE NEED MORE INFORMATION OR EVEN THINGS THAT SHOULD BE ELIMINATED AT THIS TIME BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT PERTINENT TO OUR COMMUNITY. SO, I DON'T SEE WHERE WE NEED TO TAKE ON A LARGE SCALE REVISION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. I THINK THAT THE VALUE WOULD BE BETTER SPENT IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND WORKING

TOWARDS A MODERN CODE. >> CHAIRMAN: IS THAT THE END OF YOUR STAFF REPORT?

>> I THINK SO. >> CHAIRMAN: DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF HER? RIGHT. I GUESS WE'RE OUT OF

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.