Jan 08, 2020 Planning Advisory Board

[Item 1]

[00:00:05]

>> ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING EVERYONE. HAPPY NEW YEAR.

THIS IS THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD REGULAR MEETING FOR JANUARY 8, 2020.

WOULD YOU TAKE THE ROLL, PLEASE. >> MEMBER CLARK. >> HERE.

>> MEMBER BENNETT. >> HERE. >> MEMBER PHEUPB SHOE.

>> HERE. >> MANY SCHAFFER. >> HERE.

>> MEMBER ROBAS? >> HERE. >> THE FIRST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA

IS THE MEETING MINUTES. I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE -- >> MR. CHAIRMAN, MY NEIGHBOR TO

THE LEFT DIDN'T GET CALLED. >> HE DIDN'T GET CALLED. MR. STEVENSON, ARE YOU HERE? WELL, THANK YOU. WE HAVE SEVERAL MINUTES TO APPROVE.

[Item 2]

>> THERE WAS A CITIZEN THAT APPEARED HERE AND MENTIONED THERE WAS A DATE THAT WAS IN ERR. WOULD WE LIKE TO HAVE THEM MAKE THAT COMMENT?

>> APPARENTLY ITEM 4.4 ON APRIL 10TH MEETING IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH, MISS GIBSON PRESENTED THE CASE ACCORDING TO THE STAFF. NOTES NOTE THIS ALREADY HAD BEEN DISCUSSED SINCE OCTOBER 2019.

IT WAS IN APRIL. I'M ASSUMING THAT WOULD BE 2018. SO WHEREVER KELLY IS.

WOULD THAT BE CORRECT? OKAY. WE'LL MAKE THAT CORRECTION.

DO WE HAVE ANY OTHERS? THAT'S ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE TO APPROVE THEM ANYWAY.

NOT HEARING ANY, DO I HAVE A MOTION? >> MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND. >> THANK YOU. >> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

OPPOSED. THANK YOU. WE DID ALL OF THOSE WITH ONE

[Item 3.1]

THAT WOULD BE CITY STAFF WILL MAKE A REPORT ON PEDK2019-18 EXPANSION OF THE HISTORIC

DISTRICT AMELIA ISLAND. >> LET ME GET THIS PULLED UP. >> TELL US WHO YOU ARE, FOR

THOSE WHO DON'T KNOW. >> I'M THE CITY'S HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLANNER.

THANK YOU FOR HAVING US HERE TONIGHT. >> THANK YOU.

>> LET ME GET THIS UP ON THE SCREEN, SHOW YOU SOME PICTURES. SO I'M HERE TONIGHT TO TALK ABOUT THE EXPANSION OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT TO INCLUDE THE OLD NASSAU COUNTY JAIL PROPERTY WHICH IS NOW THE AMELIA ISLAND MUSEUM OF HISTORY. I'LL GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY ON THIS VERY INTERESTING SITE. THE STRUCTURE WAS LISTED ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES IN 2009 BEING CITED AS A SIGNIFICANT BUILDING OF LOCAL HISTORY AN ARCHITECTURE. WHAT THAT MEANS THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE MAINTAINS THE REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. IT DOESN'T CARRY WITH IT ANY REGULATIONS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. BUT IT GIVES SIGNIFICANCE TO THOSE SITES LIKE OUR HISTORIC DISTRICT OR SOME OF OUR INDIVIDUALLY NOMINATED PROPERTY. THEY FELT THAT THIS BUILDING, ON ITS OWN, HAD ENOUGH SIGNIFICANCE TO BE INCLUDED INDIVIDUALLY ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES. THIS SITE HAS SERVED AS THE NASSAU COUNTY JAIL FOR A LONG TIME. SO THE SITE HAS SIGNIFICANCE IN ITSELF, NOT JUST THE BUILDING.

STARTING IN 1878 TO 1978 THIS WAS THE NASSAU COUNTY JAIL. THIS IS THE THIRD VERSION OF THE JAIL ON THAT PROPERTY. AS I SAID, THIS SITE AND BUILDING ARE BOTH SIGNIFICANT.

THE BUILDING ITSELF, BECAUSE OF ITS CONSTRUCTION, IN 1938, FALLS JUST OUTSIDE OF OUR DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT'S PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE, WHICH GOES TO THE LATE '20S.

THAT'S WHY THIS PROPERTY IS BEING CONSIDERED A NONCONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE.

SO EVERY BUILDING IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT FALLS INTO THE CATEGORY OF CONTRIBUTING OR NONCONTRIBUTING STRUCTURES. AND WHAT THAT MEANS IS NEWER BUILDINGS OR BUILDINGS THAT HAVE LOST THEIR ARCHITECTURAL INTEGRITY ARE CONSIDERED NONCONTRIBUTING OR LATER BUILDINGS FROM AFTER THE PERIOD. AND THE BUILDINGS THAT WERE BUILT DURING THE PERIOD ARE CONSIDERED CONTRIBUTING. THEY HAVE A LITTLE BIT -- THEY FOLLOW THE SAME SET OF GUIDELINES, SO INCLUDING THIS BUILDING INTO OUR LOCAL DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT WOULD MEAN THAT IT WOULD HAVE REGULATIONS ON IT. THE BIG ONE WITH THAT WOULD BE ITS PROTECTION TO BE REVIEWED FOR DEMOLITION, WHICH IT DOESN'T CURRENTLY HAVE.

[00:05:02]

HAS A LOT OF COOL FACTS ABOUT THE HISTORY OF THAT PROPERTY. THE BOARD OF THE MUSEUM AND THE CITY, THE CITY IS ACTING TONIGHT AS THE AGENT FOR THE MUSEUM, HAVE BOTH DETERMINED THAT THIS PROPERTY MERITS BEING IN THE DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT. THIS HAS GONE BEFORE THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COUNCIL AND THEY HAVE VOTED TO PASS THIS ON TO YOU, TO CONSIDER THIS FOR INCLUSION TO THE HISTORIC DISTRICT AND PASS THAT ON TO THE COMMISSION.

I'M HERE TONIGHT TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE AND I BELIEVE ALSO MEMBERS OF THE MUSEUM ARE HERE. WE CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.

THANK YOU. >> ANYBODY ON THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

>> I DO. >> MEMBER STEVENSON, GO AHEAD. >> SAL, TWO THINGS.

ONE, ARE THERE ANY ADVANTAGES THE MUSEUM WILL GET IF THEY WERE GIVEN THIS?

>> SO, YES. PROPERTIES THAT HAVE STATUS EITHER ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER INDIVIDUALLY OR TO CONTRIBUTING TO A HISTORIC DISTRICT, THINGS LIKE STATE GRANTS, FEDERAL GRANTS, THINGS LIKE THAT. IT DOESN'T CHANGE THAT BECAUSE THEY ARE ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER. IT JUST ADDS ANOTHER LEVEL TO IT, IF THEY WERE TO APPLY FOR SOMETHING. THEY WOULD BE RECOGNIZED BOTH BY THE NATIONAL REGISTER AND LOCAL.

>> IT'S LIKE ANOTHER ATTA BOY? >> CORRECT. >> CONVERSELY, ARE THERE NEGATIVES THAT COULD COME ABOUT BECAUSE NOW THEY'RE GOING TO BE UNDER WHAT, HDC?

>> CORRECT. >> I THINK THAT BIUILDING NEEDSA LITTLE WORK.

MY QUESTION IS, DO THEY HAVE THE MONEY TO DO IT, IF THEY WERE POSITIONED TO HAVING CLEAN IT UP? IS IT GOING TO PUT A BURDEN ON THE MUSEUM AND THEIR ABILITY TO

BE A FINANCIALLY STABLE ORGANIZATION? >> IT SHOULDN'T HAVE TOO MUCH OF A FINANCIAL IMPACT. WHAT IT DOES HAVE IS, HAVING THAT REVIEW PROCESS, MAKES SURE THAT THE WORK THAT IS DONE WOULD BE REQUIRED ANYWAY. IF THE BUILDING NEEDED A ROOF, WE HAVE CITY CODES ANYWAY THAT WOULD SAY THAT YOU NEED TO PUT A NEW ROOF ON IT.

IT'S NOT JUST THE HISTORIC ASPECT OF IT. BUT THE WORK THAT WOULD BE DONE GETS REVIEWED TO MAKE SURE THAT WORK IS IN KEEPING WITH THE INTEGRITY OF THE BUILDING.

IT MAKES SURE WE DON'T DO ANYTHING INAPPROPRIATE TO THE BUILDING.

>> ANYONE ELSE? WE'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING.

WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM ONLY? RAISE YOUR HAND.

SEEING NONE, PUBLIC MEETING IS CLOSED. I THOUGHT IT WAS INTERESTING ABOUT THE TWO PRISONERS THAT WERE SHUCKING PEAS THAT DECIDED TO RUN AWAY AND NO ONE CHASED

THEM BECAUSE THEY FIGURED THEY WERE THERE LONG ENOUGH. >> THAT REPORT IS ACTUALLY REALLY INTERESTING TO SEE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WENT ON THERE.

MR. ROBAS? >> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE CASE 2019-32 WITHOUT CONDITIONS. I WOULD NOTE THE HDC MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PART OF THE RECORD. THAT CASE 2019-32 AS PRESENTED, IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW AND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CLOSE TO

WARRANT APPROVAL AT THIS TIME. >> THAT'S MY ANSWER. YOU MADE THE INCORRECT MOTION BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING -- IT WAS HDC CASE THAT WAS REFERENCED. THAT'S THE LANGUAGE YOU'RE READING. YOU HAVE TO FIND THE STAFF REPORT AND GO WITH THE FONT

WE'RE USED TO. >> 2020-18. >> DO WE HAVE A PAGE NUMBER? ONE OF THE 577 PAGES? LOOK IN THE 200'S, LOW 200'S, I THINK.

218. >> YOU KNOW WHAT? AT LEAST MY VERSION, IF YOU HAVE

[00:10:02]

A CASE NUMBER. >> RIGHT HERE. >> IT'S AS SIMPLE AS THAT.

>> AS YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST REFERENCE TO THE CASE NUMBER. >> CASE NUMBER 2019-18.

>> OKAY. >> I HAVE A SECOND FROM MISS MINSHEW.

DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, DO YOU WANT TO TAKE A VOICE VOTE? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> NEXT ONE ON OUR AGENDA PAB

[Item 3.2]

>> GOOD EVENING, BOARD MEMBERS. JACOB PLOW, CITY'S PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

I WILL BE PRESENTING THE CASE 2019-19 FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR HABITAT HUMANITY'S SIX ON ELM, THE PROJECT OFF OF ELM STREET. JUST SOME BASIC INFORMATION. PROPERTY OWNER JOHN CONYERS REPRESENTED TONIGHT BY MISS PRINCE. YOUR QUESTION TO ANSWER IS THE FINAL PLAT FOR SUBPLOTS A AND D AND SUBLOT B OF NINE TO CREATE SIX TOWN HOMES FOR NASSAU HABITAT FOR HUMANITY. PROPERTY IS LOCATED BETWEEN ELM STREET AND SOUTH 13TH STREET WITH THE CURRENT ZONING R-2 AND A FUTURE LAND USE OF MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

PROPERTY IS VACANT SURROUNDED BY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, EAST AND WEST AND AT THE ELM STREET PARK TO THE SOUTH. AS A NOTE, ALL REQUIRED APPLICATION MATERIALS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED. ALL FEES HAVE BEEN MADE. ALL REQUIRED NOTICES HAVE BEEN MADE. AND ALL REQUIRED MATERIALS ARE PART OF THE OFFICIAL RECORD AND THAT IS MADE AVAILABLE ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE. LITTLE BIT OF BACK TKPWROUPB INFORMATION. APPLICANT'S REQUESTED A FINE PLAT, REPLAT TO CREATE SIX TOWNHOME UNITS WHICH ARE ATTACH SINGLE FAMILY HOME DWELLING UNIT FORCE HABITAT HUMANITY.

TWO CONTAIN THREE LOTS OF RECORD SUBLOT A AND D OF LOT B AND SUBLOT B OF LOT NINE AND BLOCK 231 WHICH DATE BACK TO THE ORIGINAL 1857 CITY PLAT. THE THREE EXISTING LOTS OF RECORD SUPPORT TWO DWELLING UNITS AS THEY ARE TODAY BASED ON THE CITY'S DEFINITION OF NET DENSITY. THE PROPOSED REPLAT SIMPLY ALLOWS FOR EACH OF THE UNITS TO BE SOLD FEE SAME. IN KEEPING WITH NASSAU HABITAT FOR HUMANITY MODEL TO PROVIDE HOMEOWNERSHIP. ONE PREVIOUS APPLICATION THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTED A VARIANCE 2019-11 WHICH IN SIMPLEST TERMS MAINTAINED THE EXISTING BUILDING. IT WOULD BE PERMITTED TODAY MINUS ANY KIND OF APPLICATION OUTSIDE TODAY. WHAT WAS APPROVED ALLOWED FOR THE INTERIOR UNITS, WHICH I'LL SHOW YOU ON THE PROPOSAL HERE AND LATER ON IN THE PRESENTATION TO HAVE A FRONTAGE OFF OF ELM STREET WHERE THE ORIGINAL LOTS OF RECORD HAD AN EAST/WEST ORIENTATION.

SO GETTING INTO CONSISTENCY WITH THE PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, THE CITY HAS FIVE PUBLIC FACILITIES INCLUDE TRANSPORTATION, WATER, SEWER, DRAINAGE AND SOLID WASTE.

COMPLIANCE WITH THESE LEVELS SERVICE HAVE BEEN REVIEWED AND CONFIRMED BY THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE DIRECTION FOR COMPAQ URBAN DEVELOPMENT WHICH MAXIMIZES THE USE OF EXISTING PUBLIC FACILITIES.

THEY COMPLY WITH NET DENSITY AND ARE PERMISSIBLE PER THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

ALSO, FURTHER SUBJECTED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. NASSAU HABITAT FOR HUMANITY PLAN TO BUILD THREE TOWNHOMES FURTHERS THE CITY'S OBJECTIVE FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING, IT IS LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY, ON EXISTING PAVED STREETS WITH ADEQUATE ACCESS TO CITY FACILITIES. AGAIN, ALL PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES ARE CURRENTLY AVAILABLE TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND EACH OF THESE SERVICES CAN BE MAINTAINED FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE.

PART OF WHAT'S INCLUDED IN NASSAU COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT RESERVATION NOTIFICATION, WHICH WAS PROVIDED FROM THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, WHICH WE ALLOWED THE CITY TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF CURRENCY WITH THREE ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNITS, OR THREE ADDITIONAL LOTS THAT WOULD BE

[00:15:03]

THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH BOTH THE TOWNHOME AND SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. PRIMARY PLAT WAS ABLE TO COMBINE WITH THE FINAL PLAT BECAUSE THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT FRONTS EXISTING STREETS HAS ACCESS TO EXISTING WATER AND SEWER LINES, HAS ALLOWED THROUGH CHAPTER 11 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. AND THE FINAL PLAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED FOR TECHNICAL COMPLIANCE AND WILL SEE FINAL SIGNOFF TOMORROW JANUARY 9TH.

SO WITH THAT, IN CONCLUSION, THE REQUESTED FINAL PLAT, REPLAT, IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND, THEREFORE, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.

FOLLOWING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE ADVISORY BOARD, IT WILL REMOVE FOR CITY COMMISSION APPROVAL. AT WHICH TIME CONSTRUCTION CAN COMMENCE.

I WANTED TO BRING UP THE PLAN ITSELF AND THEN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THE BOARD HAS.

I HAVE THE FINAL PLAT ITSELF AND THE ENGINEERING DOCUMENTS. LIKE I SAID, THEY'RE COMBINED.

I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THE BOARD HAS AT THIS TIME.

>> DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING? >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. FOR STAFF, THERE'S WORK RELATED FROM THE DEVELOPER HERE. IN THE STAFF REPORT, THERE IS A SENTENCE THAT SAYS TREE SURVEY SHOWING PROTECTED TREES PROPOSED REPLACEMENT TREES IF REQUIRED IN LANDSCAPING BUFFERING HAS BEEN ADDRESSED. COULD YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW THE TREES THAT ARE ON THE PROPERTY ARE BEING HANDLED WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT, PARTICULARLY IN TERMS OF

REPLACEMENT? >> ABSOLUTELY. THE TREES, TREE SURVEY AND THE TREE RETENTION OR REMOVAL ARE PART OF THE SITE ENGINEERING PLANS THAT THE PRELIMINARY PLAT

APPLICATION. I'M SCROLLING TO THE SITE PLAN. >> THAT'S PAGE 5.

>> SO THERE'S AN LS-1 SHEET AND LS-2. THE LS-1 SHEET SHOWS THE PROPOSED BUILDING FOOTPRINTS, DRIVE WAYS, ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WITH ALL OF THE TREES ON THE LOT. THE LS-2 SHEET SHOWS POST DEVELOPMENT AND TREES THAT WILL BE RETAINED. SO THE CITY'S CODE HAS, OBVIOUSLY, TREE PROTECTION REQUIREMENT. REQUIREMENTS AND PROVISIONS FOR MITIGATION AND PRESERVATION OF TREES OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT. THE SURVEY THAT'S PART OF THE FIRST FEW PAGES OF THE PRELIMINARY PLAN HAS ALL TREES ON THE SITE THAT ARE 5 INCHES IN DIAMETER OR GREATER. THERE'S OBVIOUSLY TREES WITHIN THE BUILDING FOOTPRINTS AND THE IMPROVEMENTS ON THE LOT WHERE THE DRIVE WAYS AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRE TREE REMOVAL. ALL OF THE LOTS GO ABOVE AND BEYOND MEETING THE MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH EACH OF THE BUILDING FOOTPRINTS. FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, BUILDING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, WHICH THESE ARE ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNIT, GET A MITIGATION -- OR EXEMPTION AND REPLACEMENT CREDIT. ON THE LS-1 SHEET, IT KIND OF GETS INTO THE MORE SPECIFICS ON THE EXACT NUMBER OF TREES SHOWING COMPLIANCE WITH THIS SECTION. EACH ONE OF THE LOTS GOING WELL ABOVE IN RETAINING EXISTING

TREES AND MEETING OUR TREE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENTS. >> SO JUST FOR THE RECORD, ARE THERE -- EXCUSE ME. ARE THERE REPLACEMENT TREES THAT ARE REQUIREED?

>> THERE ARE NOT. ON THESE LOTS, WHAT IS BEING RETAINED IS COMPLYING WITH THE

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR MITIGATION AND PRESERVATION. >> OKAY.

THEN THE TREES THAT ARE BEING RETAINED, IF YOU WOULD DESCRIBE, ARE NOTEATED ON THE PLAN?

>> THEY ARE. ON LS-1. AND MORE SPECIFICALLY, THEY'RE CLEAR ON LS-2. THEY SHOW THE LOCATION AND THE DIAMETER OF EACH.

FOR EACH LOT ON THE LS-2 SHEET. >> OKAY. THANK YOU.

[00:20:02]

I JUST WANTED TO SORT OF ADD MY TWO CENTS TO SAY I THINK THAT'S AN APPROPRIATE THING FOR US TO LOOK AT, AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET BACK TO IT AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE.

I'M NOT SUGGESTING A CHANGE IN IN PLAT, BUT I THINK FOR FUTURE PURPOSES, IT'S SOMETHING WE

OUGHT TO LOOK AT. >> MR. STEVENSON? >> YES.

COUPLE QUESTIONS. ONE MAY BE A COMBINATION THAT YOU AND JOHN ANSWERED.

I WASN'T AWARE THAT HABITAT WAS ACTUALLY OFFERING WHAT WE CALL A MULTIUNIT STRUCTURE ON THEIR MENU. IS THIS THE FIRST TIME IT'S EVER BEEN DONE OR IS THIS JUST THE

FIRST TIME FOR NORTHEAST FLORIDA? >> I THINK THE APPLICANT WOULD

BE BETTER PREPARED TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. >> I'M LOOKING TOWARDS THE CHAIR. WOULD YOU PERMIT ME TO GET UP OR WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO WAIT? TERESA PRINCE. I REPRESENT THE APPLICANT IS ACTUALLY JOHN COTMER.

BUT UPON REPLAT, THE SALE WILL COMMENCE AND I ACTUALLY REPRESENT HABITAT FOR HUMANITY.

I'M HERE AS AN AGENT TONIGHT ON BEHALF OF JOHN. SO THE TOWNHOME STRUCTURE IS AVAILABLE IN OTHER PLACES IN NORTHEAST FLORIDA. WE'RE NOT DOING THE TOWNHOME STRUCTURE HERE. WE HAVEN'T DONE IT YET. AND THE REASON WE'RE DOING IT WAS A REQUIREMENT OF THE DONATION. I CAN GET INTO THAT MORE WHEN I DO MY PRESENTATION. BUT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, THE TOWNHOME CONCEPT, THIS WILL BE THE FIRST ONE FOR THIS HABITAT HUMANITY BUT IT IS NOT UNCOMMON FOR OTHER HABITATS.

>> MY REASON FOR ASKING THAT, I THOUGHT WAS THERE A CHANCE -- THIS IS A GREAT ALTERNATIVE.

WE'VE GOT, WHAT, 42 HABITAT HOMES ALREADY IN NASSAU COUNTY. MY QUESTION IS, IF THEY THREW A MONKEY WRENCH INTO THE PROCESS LIKE, OH, WE'VE GOT THESE OTHER REQUIREMENTS ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. JUST WASN'T SURE WE WERE ON THE SAME PAGE.

>> WHAT DROVE US IN THIS DIRECTION, IF I MAY, MR. CHAIRMAN, CONTINUE, IS THE DONOR THAT WAS SO GRACIOUS IN COMING TO HABITAT, NEEDED HABITAT TO BE ABLE TO GUARANTEE THAT THEY COULD DO SIX AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS. AND SO THAT'S WHEN THE PROPERTY MADE THE MOST SENSE. IT'S ALSO WHY WE DID NOT SIMPLY BUILD THESE TOWNHOMES ONE AT A TIME. AND WHY WE WERE FORCED -- NOT FORKED, BUT WHY THE CODE REQUIRES US TO GO INTO THE PLATTING PROCESS. BECAUSE WE ARE GOING TO HAVE THE SIX LOTS. IF WE HAD NOT HAD TO GUARANTEE TO THE DONOR THAT WE WOULD NEED THE FULL SIX UNITS, WE COULD HAVE JUST DONE A TOWNHOME AT A TIME AND NOT EVEN GONE THROUGH THE PLATTING PROCESS UNLESS SOME OTHER REASON HAD REQUIRED US TO RECONFIGURE.

SO THIS WAS REALLY DRIVEN, THE TOWNHOME CONCEPT, WAS DRIVEN BY THE UNIQUE -- BY THE LOTS THAT WERE AVAILABLE AND BY THE ZONING AND ALLOWING US TO GET SIX LOTS. WE WANTED TO REPLAT SO WE COULD HAVE FEE SIMPLE OWNERSHIP. WE HAVE SIX STRUCTURES. LOT OF THE TOWNHOME CONCEPT WAS DRIVEN BY THE DONOR'S REQUIREMENT THAT IN ORDER TO CLOSE AND DONATE THE MONTHTY TO

CLOSE ON THE LAND WE WOULD GUARANTEE SIX BUILDABLE LOTS. >> I GUESS MY FINAL COMMENT WOULD BE I THINK THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS UP FRONT WITH THE COMMISSION AND A LOT OF PEOPLE, SO I COMMEND EVERYBODY FOR THIS APPROACH. IT CERTAINLY IS NEW AND LET'S

HOPE THERE'S MORE OF THEM. >> HOW ARE YOU OFFERING THIS TO THE PUBLIC?

ANYONE CAN BUY ONE? CERTAIN INCOME LEVEL. >> YES.

THANK YOU FOR ASKING THAT. >> IF YOU WANT TO MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION.

>> I'LL MAKE MY PRESENTATION. WERE YOU DONE? >> YES.

[00:25:01]

>> OKAY. AGAIN, WE ARE RELYING ON STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND THEIR ANALYSIS OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE PLAN. JUST TO GET INTO THE BACKGROUND OF WHO'S DONATING AND MAKING THIS PROJECT WORK. THE CITY, IT IS IN THE FRONT OF THEIR MINDS AND AL DEUCE AND I ATTENDED A CITY COMMISSION MEETING AND THE CITY GRACIOUSLY WAIVED ALL THE PERMITTING FEES AND THE APPLICATION FEES. SO THAT WAS HUGE IN ALLOWING THIS PROJECT TO GO FORWARD. HABITAT HAS NOT -- THIS HABITAT FOR HUMANITY HAS NOT BEEN THROUGH THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS BEFORE. SO AS BOARD MEMBERS, YOU CAN UNDERSTAND THAT IT WAS A GREAT UNDERTAKING. AND SO IN ORDER FOR HABITAT TO BE ABLE TO OFFER THESE SIX UNITS, YOU SEE JOHN IN THE AUDIENCE.

HE HAS DONATED HIS TIME TO DO THE ARCHITECTURE. YOU SEE ASA GILLETTE HERE TO DO ALL THE ENGINEERING PLANS THAT YOU SEE, ATTEND THIS MEETING, SAME WITH MR. KOTNER.

MY OFFICE HAS DONATED ITS TIME. MIKE MANZI WITH MANZI AND DRAKE HAS DONATED ALL THEIR TIMES FOR THEIR SERVICES FOR THE SURVEYING. THAT HAS MOVED FORWARD A LOT FOR THIS PROJECT TO GET DONE. I WILL ASK AL TO COME FORWARD AND ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS SPECIFICALLY, MR. CHAIRMAN. YOU DO HAVE TO QUALIFY, YOU HAVE TO PUT IN A CERTAIN NUMBER OF HOURS, BUT I THINK AL COULD MORE ELOQUENTLY EXPLAIN THAT. IT WILL NOT JUST BE ON THE OPEN MARKET. YOU TO QUALIFY, PUT IN TIME, MEET AN APPLICATION AND MEET A CERTAIN INCOME LEVEL OR BE BELOW A CERTAIN INCOME LEVEL. WOULD YOU LIKE TO EXPAND ON THAT

OR WOULD YOU LIKE MORE DETAIL? >> YOU CAN MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION.

IF THAT'S PART OF IT, THAT'S FINE. THEN THE BOARD CAN ASK QUESTIONS AND THEN WE'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING. TELL US WHO YOU ARE.

>> AL PARTUSE. I'M PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD FOR NASSAU HABITAT.

AS TERESA INDICATED AND I BELIEVE ONE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS INDICATED, WE'VE BUILT 43 HOMES IN NASSAU COUNTY SINCE WE STARTED BUILDING HOMES 25 YEARS AGO.

THESE ARE OUR FIRST TOWN HOME CONCEPT HOMES BECAUSE WE ARE TRYING TO CREATE AN AREA WHERE WE CAN PUT SIX HOMES IN ADJACENT LOTS AND THE ZONING REQUIRED THAT WE BUILD THEM AS TOWN HOMES. OUR REQUIREMENTS, THE REQUIREMENTS FOR QUALIFYING FOR A HABITAT HOME ARE RELATIVELY STRAIGHT FORWARD AND THEY'RE DOCUMENTED IN HABITAT INTERNATIONAL GUIDELINES. AT AN MACRO THERE'S AN INCOME REQUIREMENT.

THE RECIPIENT OF THE HOME CANNOT HAVE AN INCOME THAT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO QUALIFY FOR A MARKET RATE MORTGAGE. IN THIS COMMUNITY, AT THIS TIME, THAT MEANS THAT THE MAXIMUM INCOME OF A HOMEOWNER FOR HABITAT FOR THEM TO QUALIFY IS APPROXIMATELY $37,000 A YEAR.

THAT WOULD BE THE MAXIMUM INCOME THAT WE WOULD CONSIDER FOR A HABITAT HOME.

IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE WOULD LOOK AT EMPLOYMENT RECORDS. WE'D LOOK AT WORK HISTORY, THOSE KINDS OF THINGS. AND WE WOULD WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE MONTHLY PAYMENT FOR HOMES WOULD NOT EXCEED ANYMORE THAN 30% OF THEIR TAKE HOME PAY ON ANY GIVEN MONTH.

SO AT THE MACRO LEVEL, THE TWO PIECES THAT WE LOOK AT AS THE CRITERIA THAT WOULD BE BENCH MARKS ARE MAXIMUM GROSS INCOME OF APPROXIMATELY $37,000 A YEAR AND TOTAL DEBT LOAD, HOME RELATED DEBT LOAD OF NO MORE THAN 30% OF YOUR TAKE HOME PAY. OTHER THAN THAT, THE ONLY REQUIREMENTS ARE RELATIVELY STRAIGHT FORWARD. EMPLOYMENT RECORDS, CRIMINAL

RECORDS, CREDIT RECORDS, THOSE TYPES OF THINGS. >> IS THERE A MINIMUM TIME PERIOD THIS PERSON HAS TO LIVE IN THE HOME BEFORE THEY CAN SELL IT?

>> THEY CAN'T SELL THE HOME FOR THE LIFE OF THE MORTGAGE. THE MORTGAGE -- WE CARRY THE MORTGAGE. HABITAT FOR HUMANITY ISSUES THE MORTGAGE AND CARRIES IT.

THE REQUIREMENT IN THE DEED IS THAT THEY HAVE TO GIVE US RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL IF THEY SELL THE HOME WITHIN THE LIFE OF THE FIRST MORTGAGE. IF WE ARE OFFERED THE HOME TO BUY IT BACK UNDER RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL, WE WILL PAY THEM BASICALLY EQUITY THEY'VE PUT INTO THE HOME. SO THERE'S NO OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO BUY THE HOME FROM US AND

[00:30:03]

>> HOW DO YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MARKET VALUE AND WHAT YOU WOULD CONSIDER THE VALUE OF THE HOUSE TO SOMEONE WHO WOULD QUALIFY FOR THE PROPERTY?

THAT COULD BE A PRETTY WIDE RANGE. >> WELL, WE DON'T USE MARKET VALUE FOR PURPOSES OF MORTGAGING THE HOME. OUR HOMES ARE SOLD TO HABITAT HOMEOWNERS FOR OUR COST TO BUILD THE HOME. THE TAX BASE IS DETERMINED BY THE CITY BY USING MARKET VALUE. BUT THAT'S ONLY FOR PURPOSES OF THE TAX ESCROW.

FOR PURPOSES OF THE MORTGAGE, WE SELL THE HOME TO THE HOMEOWNER AT OUR COST.

THAT IS OBVIOUSLY SIGNIFICANTLY BELOW THE MARKET VALUE OF THE HOME.

THE MARKET VALUE OF THE HOME IS RELEVANT ONLY IN TERMS OF SETTING THE TAX BASE, BUT IT IS NOT RELEVANT IN TERMS OF THE MORTGAGE. SO THE HOMEOWNER BASICALLY BUYS THE HOME WITH US CARRYING THE MORTGAGE, AND THE COST OF THE HOME TO THEM IS EQUAL TO OUR

COST. >> LIKE WISE, IS IT POSSIBLE FOR SOMEONE TO QUALIFY AND THEN TURN AROUND AND SELL IT IMMEDIATELY AND REAP A BIG WINDFALL? YOU COULD QUALIFY THEM FOR, SAY A $200,000 HOUSE BUT IT'S WORTH $350,000 ON THE MARKET. WHAT'S TO STOP SOMEONE FROM MOVING IN, ACQUIRING THE PROPERTY AND THEN WITHIN A VERY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME, USE IS WORD FLIPPING OUT, PAY OFF THE MORTGAGE AND THEY'RE GONE AND WE JUST LOST OUR AFFORDABLE

HOUSING. >> I'LL DO THAT. >> TERESA PRINCE CREATED THE

PAPERWORK FOR THAT. >> THE MENTAL GYMNASTICS THAT KEEPS YOU FROM DOING THAT.

I JUST WANTED AL TO SPEAK TO THE QUALIFICATIONS BECAUSE HE IS MORE FAMILIAR WITH THE PROJECT.

AND YOU DO HAVE TO DO THE -- I THINK IT'S 300 HOURS OF WORK BEFORE YOU CAN QUALIFY.

WE HAVE A SECOND MORTGAGE FOR THE VALUE OF THE HOME. OBVIOUSLY, IT SOLD THE FIRST MORTGAGE IS BASED ON, AS AL SAID. IT'S BASED ON WHAT HABITAT HAS INTO IT. THAT'S WHY IT'S SO IMPORTANT THAT WE KEEP THE EXPENSES DOWN, SO IT IS AFFORDABLE. WE HAVE A SECOND FOR THE REMAINING VALUE AND WE HAVE A RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL EVEN AFTER THE FIRST MORTGAGE IS PAID OFF.

AND SO IN VARIOUS SITUATIONS -- WHERE IT'S HAPPENED MORE RECENTLY IS SOMEONE'S FAMILY MEMBER DIED AND LEFT THEM ANOTHER HOUSE. WE WERE ABLE TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY BACK AND, AS AL WAS SAYING, IT'S JUST ON WHAT THEY PAID IN.

WE DON'T WORRY ABOUT THE SECOND AT THAT POINT. WE LOOK AT WHAT THEY PAID IN AND BUY THE HOUSE FROM THEM. THERE'S A CALCULATED, IT'S A VERY COMPLICATED CALCULATION.

THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS WERE DONE BY BUDDY JACOBS OFFICE. WE RENEWED THEM AND REFRESHED THEM IN 2012 TO MAKE SURE THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. SO THAT WE KEEP THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING STOCK WITHIN HABITAT. SO WE HAVE GONE TO GREAT LENGTHS TO PROTECT THAT.

SO FAR, IT'S BEEN TESTED A FEW TIMES AND IT'S WORKED. >> WHAT IS THE DURATION OF THE

TYPICAL HABITAT MORTGAGE? IS IT 20 YEARS, 30 YEARS? >> I THINK IT'S 30.

>> PLEASE COUPLE HERE SO WE CAN RECORD YOU. >> I DON'T HAVE THE MORTGAGE IN FRONT OF ME. I KNEW WE WERE DOING THE PLAT TONIGHT SO I WASSEN PREPARED TO

ANSWER MORTGAGE QUESTIONS. >> CURRENTLY FOR A TWO BEDROOM HOME, WE GENERALLY OFFER A 20-YEAR MORTGAGE. FOR A THREE BED-ROOM HOME, USUALLY A 25-YEAR MORTGAGE.

>> YOU MAY WANT TO STAY CLOSE IN CASE SOMEONE HAS ANOTHER QUESTION.

>> AND SO TONIGHT WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR AGAIN IS TO APPROVE THE PLAT.

AND WHAT TRIGGERED THIS WAS NEEDING TO HAVE THE GUARANTEE THAT WE COULD BUILD ALL SIX LOTS RATHER THAN JUST PIECE MEAL BUY. AS STAFF SAID, WE MEET THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REQUIREMENTS AND WE HAVE BEEN THROUGH TRC, THE FINAL SIGNOFF IS JUST TO MAKE SURE IT GETS INTO RECORD.

THEY SIGNED OFF BASICALLY LAST TIME. AND WE DO HAVE ONE CORRECTION TO THE PLAT LANGUAGE THAT I'D LIKE TO CIRCULATE. COULD YOU BRING UP THAT PLAT? YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO READ IT. I HAVE PRINTED IT FOR YOU.

IT'S NOTE 12. WHAT WE DID, THE DRAINAGE -- >> WE CAN JUST PASS THEM AROUND.

>> THAT'S A GOOD IDEA. I'LL TAKE ONE AS WELL. I HAVE IT ON THE SLIDE.

[00:35:04]

INSTEAD OF THE EASEMENTS, WE SHOULD HAVE RESTRUCTURED IT AS SWALES.

THEY'RE DESIGNATED AS SWALES IN THE ENGINEERING PLANS. THIS NOTE 12, WE TALKED WITH STAFF. STAFF HAS WORKED WITH US TIRELESSLY TO FIGURE OUT THE BEST WAY TO DO THIS PROJECT. THE DRAINAGE IS VERY IMPORTANT IN NASSAU COUNTY, ESPECIALLY ON THE ISLAND. SO ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT, IT WILL TELL THE OWNER THEY'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT DRAINAGE SWALE AND THE BUILDING OFFICIALS SHOULDN'T ALLOW THEM TO ISSUE ANY BUILDING PERMITS TO THAT AREA. NO PAVER, NO CONCRETE PADS.

WE ARE GOING TO REQUEST, IF YOU APPROVE TONIGHT, THAT YOU AUTHORIZE THESE CHANGES BEFORE WE PRESENT TO IT THE COMMISSION. I DID SHARE THEM WITH JAKE AND KELLY TODAY.

I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR YOU, BUT DID YOU HAVE ANY CONCERNS? >> I DIDN'T.

I CAN POINT OUT ON THE PLANS EXACTLY KIND OF -- THESE AREAS HERE ARE DRAINAGE SWALES WHICH ARE SELF-CONTAINED ON EACH OF THE INDIVIDUAL LOTS. EARLIER PHASE THERE WERE SOME CROSS, SOME SWALES THAT CROSSED PROPERTY LINES AND REQUIRED EASEMENTS.

THAT'S NO LONGER THE CASE. AS TERESA MENTIONED, IT'S KNOWN THAT THIS NOTE IS INTENDED TO

PROTECT THE FUTURE. >> WE FEEL LIKE SOMETIMES THESE ISSUES GET LOST AND ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU'VE LOST YOUR DRAINAGE. SOMEBODY PUT SOMETHING THERE

THAT SHOULDN'T BE THERE. >> ARE THERE RESTRICTIONS ON LANDSCAPING BEYOND PUTTING GRASS DOWN. CAN YOU PUT TREES IN IT OR JUST, QUOTE, GRASS?

>> IT SHOULD BE MAINTAINED ESSENTIALLY AS A DRAINAGE SWALE. I'M SURE THERE'S LIMITED --

>> GRASS, I WOULD THINK, WOULD BE THE ONLY THING YOU COULD PUT THERE.

>> NO MAJOR LANDSCAPING. >> RIGHT. THAT, I THINK, GETS INTO -- WE WERE TRYING TO, I DON'T WANT TO GET TOO FAR IN THE WEEDS ON THE FACE OF THE PLAT WHAT THEY COULD OR COULDN'T DO. WE JUST WANTED TO MAKE THE CITY AWARE THAT IF THEY COME IN FOR A PERMIT -- I SEE YOU LOOKING OVER. DO I NEED COMMENTS ON THE DRAINAGE? WE WERE JUST TRYING TO AT LEAST GET IT ON THE PLAT IF SOMEONE CAME TO PULL A PERMIT TO DO LANDSCAPING OR IF IT WAS DONE WITHOUT A PERMIT, THERE WOULD BE GROUNDS THE REMOVE IT. THAT SIMPLY HAS TO DO WITH DRAINAGE ISSUES.

NOTHING HAVING TO DO WITH IT BEING A HABITAT HOME. WE JUST WANTED TO BE CLEAR ON THE PLAT, WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR IT. THERE ARE EASEMENTS CLEARLY

DEPICKED ON THE PLAT. THOSE ARE FOR THE INTERIOR LOTS. >> BUT THIS WOULD CONTAIN -- WOULD PROVIDE WATER RETENTION REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT PARTICULAR SQUARE FEET.

>> YES, SIR. IT'S JUST A NOTE TO TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT GETS PRESERVED AND MAKE SURE THAT IS PART OF THE ENGINEERING OF THE SITE AND IT SHOULD BE MAINTAINED.

>> STEVENSON? >> SO WHO ENFORCES THOSE PROVISIONS ON EACH SWALE?

>> WELL, WHEN WE COME IN TO BUILD, THE CITY WILL ENFORCE IT INITIALLY WITH THE DEVELOPER,

HABITAT. >> I'M TALKING ABOUT. >> AFTER THAT, THE CITY.

THE CITY. JUST LIKE WITH ANY OTHER DRAINAGE AREA.

I THINK YOU'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF ENFORCING A LOT ON THE CORNER OF SIMMONS AND FIRST THAT WAS A DRAINAGE SWALE THAT PEOPLE WERE USING SOMETHING ELSE FOR AND ONCE THE CITY WAS MADE AWARE OF IT, CODE ENFORCEMENT WENT OUT. JUST LIKE ANY OTHER PIECE OF PROPERTY.

>> THE CITY HAS SUFFICIENT AUTHORITY? USUALLY AN EASEMENT RUNS TO THE

BENEFIT OF THE CITY. >> IT'S NOT AN EASEMENT. >> THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING THE QUESTION. IS THERE SUFFICIENT AUTHORITY IN THE CITY TO ENFORCE THAT?

>> RIGHT. >> HOW I UNDERSTAND EURBGT THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I HAVE SEEN IT IN THIS DETAIL. IT'S A SWALE THAT IS PART OF THAT PROPERTY OWNER'S PROPERTY, IS THAT RIGHT? WHAT IT IS, IT'S A RESTRICTION ON THE USE OF IT.

IT'S NOT BURDENING THE PROPERTY WITH AN EASEMENT. IT'S JUST SHOWING THAT PROPERTY OWNER IS ON NOTICE THAT THAT'S THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY AND THEY HAVE TO MAINTAIN IT.

IT'S NOT LIKE THE CITY NEEDS AN EASEMENT OR HOA NEEDS AN EASEMENT TO GO IN THERE AND

MAINTAIN THE DRAINAGE. >> IF I MAY, I THINK THE QUESTION IS, IF SOMEONE COMPLAINS THAT THERE'S NOT PROPER DRAINAGE THERE AND THE CITY FINDS THAT THE FUTURE

[00:40:03]

UNPERMITTED -- >> THANK YOU. YOU STATED MY QUESTION REALLY

WELL. WONDERFUL. >> THE ANSWER IS, JACOB IS NODDING HIS HEAD YES BECAUSE HE'S AWARE MORE THAN I SPECIFICALLY OF PROVISIONS IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. NUMBER ONE, I THINK WE ALL PRETTY MUCH KNOW THIS.

YOU HAVE TO KEEP YOUR DRAINAGE ON YOUR PROPERTY. IF SOMEBODY PUT SOMETHING ON YOUR PROPERTY THAT, LET'S BE LIKE SOME KIND OF PLANTING OR LANDSCAPING, AS A PROPERTY OWNER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMOVE THAT FROM YOUR PROPERTY. IF IT'S A MORE PERMANENT OBJECT,

I WOULD THINK IT'S A CODE VIOLATION. >> THAT'S THE WAY I UNDERSTOOD

IT WHEN WE WORKED WITH STAFF. >> THAT'S CORRECT. IT'S A DRAINAGE, THE DESIGN ELEMENT IS PART OF THE SUBDIVISION PLAT AND NEEDS TO MEET THE CITY DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS, THESE SWALES ARE REQUIRED AND THEREFORE BE NOTED AS PROTECTED SO YOU CAN'T COME IN THERE AND FILL THEM AN COVER THEM WITH CONCRETE. IT WAS DESIGNED INTO THE SITE.

ALL WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS NOTE THAT WE'RE PROTECTING THOSE IN THE FUTURE IF FOR SOME REASON

THEY WERE TO GET FILLED IN OR COVERED UP. >> WHO KNOWS WHAT THE ABILITY OF OUR PEOPLE WOULD BE TO EVEN PUT IN AN EXTRA CONCRETE PAD. IT'S PROBABLY MORE PERTINENT IN OTHER TYPES OF HOMES. WE JUST WANT TO IT BE CLEAR BECAUSE WE KNOW DRAINAGE IS AN ISSUE. AND WE ARE DRAINING ON THE SITE. JUST THOUGHT WHEN KELLY AND I SPOKE ABOUT IT AND JAKE, JUST THE MORE INFORMATION YOU HAD ON THE PLAT, THE BETTER OFF WE

WOULD BE. NO WHICH PROJECT IT IS. >> OKAY.

I HAVE A COUPLE. MISS MINSHEW. SORRY, ROBAS.

>> WILL THERE BE A DEVELOPER INSTALLING A FENCE BETWEEN THIS PROJECT AND THE EXISTING HOMEOWNERS OR WILL THAT BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS ONCE IT'S DEVELOPED, ONCE PURCHASED AND THEY'RE LIVING THERE? THERE ARE ALREADY EXISTING HOMES

IN THESE OTHER PROPERTIES, OR NEARBY. >> CORRECT.

NOW, AS FAR AS THE PLAT IS CONCERNED, SINCE THIS ISN'T REALLY PERTINENT TO THE APPROVAL OR DENIAL OF THE PLAT, THE CODE DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT ANYONE FENCE THEIR YARD, SO IT WILL JUST BE THE DECISION -- THESE WILL JUST BE HOMES AS IF ANYBODY ELSE WAS PLATTING AND BUILDING A HOME. YOUR CODE DOESN'T REQUIRE A FENCE, SO IT WOULD BE THE

RESPONSIBILITY OF AN INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNER TO MAKE THAT DECISION. >> MISS MINSHEW.

>> I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION ABOUT THE SWALE. HOW DEEP WITH THESE SWALES?

>> ENGINEERING PLANS, THEY PROVIDE. >> I'M TALKING CUBIC FEET.

>> ONE FOOT. IT'S ON THE PAGE SPECIFICALLY. >> SO I GUESS MY QUESTION WOULD BE, I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT ANYBODY FILLING IT IN WITH CONCRETE, I'M MORE CONCERNED

WITH DIRT. >> SAME ISSUE. >> SO NOW THERE'S NO SWALE.

BUT THE ONLY WAY ANYBODY WOULD KNOW ABOUT IT IS IF THERE WAS A DRAINAGE PROBLEM AND SOMEBODY COMPLAINED TO THE CITY. OTHERWISE THERE'S NO WAY TO ENFORCE.

>> OR IF THE CITY IS PRO-ACTIVELY NOTICING THAT THERE'S AN ISSUE, IT WOULD

BECOME A CODE ENFORCEMENT ISSUE. >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

>> ARE YOU DONE WITH YOUR PRESENTATION? >> I AM.

>> DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE.

WHY DON'T YOU STAY CLOSE. WE'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING.

DOES ANYONE WANT TO SPEAK ON THIS? RAISE YOUR HAND.

YES. COME UP HERE, TELL US WHO YOU ARE AND WHERE YOU LIVE.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS MIKE KEGLER. LITTLE ABOUT ME.

I'M A RETURNING SON TO THIS ISLAND. I DIDN'T GROW UP HERE, BUT MY FAMILY'S BEEN HERE SINCE THE CIVIL WAR. I LIVE AT 325 VERNON STREET, WHICH IS RIGHT UP THE STREET FROM THIS LOCATION ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE STREET, 325. I BUILT MY HOME HERE IN 2016. AND THE ONLY WAY I WAS ABLE TO AFFORD TO COME BACK TO THE ISLAND WAS TO GET WITH SOME RELATIVES WHO ACTUALLY OWNED PROPERTY HERE, AND THEY WERE ABLE TO SELL ME THE PROPERTY BELOW MARKET VALUE BECAUSE I PROMISED NOT TO FLIP IT AND TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT OPPORTUNITY.

I CAME BACK HERE TO RAISE MY FAMILY AND TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS BEAUTIFUL LOCATION THAT WE ALL SEEM TO LOVE. I'M CONCERNED -- FIRST OF ALL, LET ME COMMEND THE EFFORTS TO

[00:45:01]

MY FAMILY, AS I SAID, HAS BEEN HERE. MY FAMILY -- MY FAMILY HOME IS 1202 BEACH STREET. IT'S BEEN THERE SINCE 1895. TWO STORY GREEN AND WHITE HOUSE.

THIS AREA, MY DAD USED TO BOX ON THIS STREET. THERE USED TO BE A GOLDEN GLOVES BOXING RING OVER HERE. WE WERE ALL SHRIMPERS AND FISHERMEN.

WE HAVE A LONG HISTORY HERE. NEEDLESS TO SAY THE AREA HAS CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY.

THIS USED TO BE AN ISLAND OF SIGNIFICANT COLOR. I GET CHALLENGED BY CERTAIN COUNCIL MEMBERS AS TO WHY INDIVIDUALS OF COLOR DON'T TEND TO PARTICIPATE IN A LOT OF THINGS. ONE OF THE REASONS IS, AND I CAN SPEAK FOR AT LEAST WHAT I HEAR FROM MY RELATIVES AND FAMILY MEMBERS WHO HAVE BEEN HERE. THEY ARE MOVING OFF THE ISLAND BECAUSE IT'S EXPENSIVE TO LIVE HERE. THEY WIND UP GOING TO JACKSONVILLE AND TEND NOT TO PARTICIPATE. I'M PARTICIPATING BECAUSE I CAME BACK AND I CAN AFFORD TO LIVE HERE IN THE AREA. SO MY CONCERN AS FAR AS HOW THIS IS BEING PRESENTED IS, ONE, HOW ARE FOLKS GOING TO KNOW THAT THIS OPPORTUNITY EXISTS? MY COMMUNITY, MY FAMILY MEMBERS, DON'T TEND TO KNOW THAT THERE'S OPPORTUNITIES OUT THERE.

LOT OF TIMES SOME OF THESE OPPORTUNITIES DON'T GET TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF SIMPLY BECAUSE FOLKS AREN'T COMMUNICATED IN THE PROPER FASHION. I'M CURIOUS AS TO HOW PEOPLE WILL KNOW THAT THESE HOMES ARE AVAILABLE AND HOW THEY CAN PUT THEIR APPLICATIONS IN AND MAKE SURE THAT WILL THERE BE SOME ASSISTANCE. PARTICULARLY FOR FOLKS WHO ALREADY HAVE TIES TO THE COMMUNITY. THAT'S MY MAIN CONCERN.

MEMBER BENNETT ASKED A LEGITIMATE QUESTION. HOW DO YOU ENSURE FOLKS AREN'T JUST TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE SYSTEM? I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.

IF YOU MOVE DOWN THE STREET FROM ME, I WANT YOU TO BE -- I DON'T WANT YOU TO BE AN INVESTOR.

I WANT YOU TO HAVE SOME OWNERSHIP IN IT BECAUSE I'M LIVING NEXT TO YOU.

I WANT YOU TO HAVE SOME OWNERSHIP IN THIS PROCESS. ONE, HOW DO WE MAKE SURE FOLKS IN THE COMMUNITY THAT HAVE TIES TO THE COMMUNITY HAVE AMPLE OPPORTUNITIES TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS? 'CAUSE RIGHT NOW MY FAMILY -- AGAIN, WE'RE FROM THIS ISLAND ON MY DAD'S SIDE. MY MOM'S SIDE, THEY'RE FROM THE OTHER GUCCI ISLANDS, THE HAMMERHEADS AND THE ST. HELENA ISLAND, ST. JAMES ISLAND. THOSE ISLANDS ARE CHANGING DRASTICALLY, ALSO. THE BIG ISSUE HERE IS, WE DO NEED TO HAVE SOME DIVERSITY ON THESE ISLANDS, THESE WEALTHY ISLANDS. FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVEN'T LIVED HERE FOR RELATIVELY LONG PERIOD OF TIME, ONE OF THE BEST FISH SANDWICHES I EVER HAD IN MY LIFE USED TO BE MADE RIGHT HERE ON THIS ISLAND. THE SHRIMP AND FISH YOU GET TODAY DON'T COMPARE ANYTHING TO WHAT WE USED TO MAKE 'CAUSE GRANDMA USED TO PUT HER FOOT IN IT, YOU KNOW. WHEN SHE MADE HUSH PUPPY, YOU KNEW IT.

THAT CULTURE IS LEAVING THIS ISLAND IN DROVES. WE NEED TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT BECAUSE IT CHANGES THE FLAVOR OF THE ISLAND. DOESN'T NEED TO BE ALL ONE OR THE OTHER. WE NEED TO HAVE SOME DIVERSITY. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE, ONE, WE KNOW HOW TO COMMUNICATE THIS TO THE COMMUNITY AND WHAT EFFORTS WE'RE GOING TO MAKE TO DO THAT. AND SECONDLY, WHAT IN THE SELECTION PROCESS, IF YOU HAVE MULTIPLE PEOPLE LOOKING AT IT, WILL THERE BE SOME PREFERENCE OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE TIES TO THE

AR AREA? >> STAY WHERE YOU ARE FOR A MINUTE. WE'LL GET YOU AN ANSWER. TERESA?

>> MAKING ME HUNGRY. >> SURE. THIS ISN'T A TYPICAL SITUATION WHERE WE'RE GOING TO GET FINAL PLAT APPROVAL AND, LIKE MOST DEEP POCKET DEVELOPERS, JUST BREAK GROUND ALL SIX GO UP AND WE START STICKING FORESALE SIGNS IN THE YARD.

AS FAR AS HOW THEY MARKET, I HAVE TO ASK AL. MANY OF OUR PEOPLE ARE POLICE OFFICERS, TEACHERS. IT IS AMAZING THE PEOPLE THAT QUALIFY FOR THIS INCOME LIMIT.

WE ALREADY HAVE PEOPLE IN THE PROCESS. YOU HAVE TO SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETE SO MANY HUNDREDS OF HOURS ON SOMEBODY ELSE'S HOUSE BEFORE YOU CAN BE CONSIDERED ONCE THE INCOME IS ESTABLISHED. AL WILL HAVE TO ANSWER HOW YOU KICK PEOPLE AND FIND PEOPLE.

SO IF YOU CAN ANSWER THAT. THIS PLAT APPROVAL, OBVIOUSLY, ISN'T RELIANT ON THESE TYPES OF

[00:50:01]

IT'S GONNA TAKE US A WHILE TO DEVELOP THIS LAND. BUT AS FAR AS HOW DO PEOPLE FIND

YOU TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROGRAM? >> HOW WOULD THEY APPLY TO BUY ONE OF THESE? TELL US WHO YOU ARE AGAIN. WE HAVE TO KEEP A RECORD.

>> AL PERTUCE, 96776 SILK CREEK DRIVE. THE BEST SELLERS OF HABITAT HOMES ARE THE CURRENT 44 HOMEOWNERS. MOST OF THEM ARE STILL EMPLOYED BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T RETIRED YET. SOME HAVE LIVED IN THEIR HOMES MANY YEARS AND ARE RETIRED. BUT THE MOST CURRENT HOMEOWNERS THAT WE HAVE, THE LAST FIVE OR SIX, THEY WORK AT THE OMNI. THEY WORK AT BAPTIST. THEY WORK AT STARTING POINT.

THEY WORK IN THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE. >> HOW DO THEY FIND OUT ABOUT YOU? WHEN ONE OF THESE IS AVAILABLE, I THINK IS THE QUESTION.

>> IF YOU THINK OF THE FACT THAT MOST OF THE PEOPLE THAT YOU MEET ON A DAY TO DAY BASIS ARE YOUR COLLEAGUES AT WORK. MOST OF THE PEOPLE WHO I'M REFERRING TO ARE PEOPLE WHO APPLY FOR HABITAT HOME AND ARE NOW LIVING IN ONE, THEN IT STANDS TO REASON THAT THE BEST PEOPLE WHO ADVERTISE OUR AVAILABILITY ARE HOMEOWNERS WHO CAN TALK TO THEIR COLLEAGUES AT WORK. IT'S A RELATIVELY BIG EVENT IN SOMEONE'S LIFE TO MOVE INTO A BRAN NEW HOME. AND IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE STAFF AT BAPTIST LIKE ONE OF OUR HOMEOWNERS IS, AND YOU JUST MOVE INTO A BRAND NEW HOUSE, YOU CAN BET THAT YOUR COLLEAGUES KNOW THAT YOU MOVED INTO A BRAND NEW HOUSE. AND THEY'RE GOING TO ASK YOU HOW YOU GOT THAT HOUSE. AND YOU'RE GONNA SAY, WE APPLIED TO HABITAT.

WE DO NOT FIND THAT WE NEED A VERY LARGE MARKETING EFFORT. WE FIND THAT OUR HOMEOWNERS ARE OUR BEST MARKETERS. HOWEVER, HAVING SAID THAT, WE GENERALLY MAKE IT KNOWN THROUGH THE FACT THAT WE HAVE VOLUNTEERS WHO COME AND VOLUNTEER FOR US. WE HAVE CONNECTIONS WITH EMPLOYERS WHO MAKE IT KNOWN TO THEIR EMPLOYEES. WE HAVE CONNECTIONS WITH CHURCHES WHOSE PASTORS ARE AWARE THAT WE HAVE A PROGRAM FOR HOMEOWNERS.

SO THE IDEA IS THAT IT IS UP TO PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY WHO FEEL THAT THEY WOULD LIKE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO REACH OUT TO US AND WE HAVE NOT HAD DIFFICULTY IN THE PAST HAVING THAT BE THE

CASE. >> YOU PROBABLY HAVE A LIST OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE ALREADY ASKED

YOU IF THERE'S AVAILABILITY, I WOULD THINK. >> WE DO.

GENERALLY WHAT HAPPENS IS THAT THE REQUIREMENTS, BECAUSE THEY INVOLVE SOME OF THE THINGS I JUST MENTIONED, SUCH AS YOU HAVE TO COMMIT TO 300 HOUR OF SWEAT EQUITY.

YOU HAVE TO HAVE A RELATIVELY ROBUST EMPLOYMENT HISTORY. YOU HAVE TO HAVE AN ADEQUATE LEVEL OF INCOME TO MAINTAIN A DEBT LOAD THAT IS WITHIN OUR LIMITS THAT OUT OF EVERY APPLICANT THERE IS GENERALLY, I WOULD SAY, HALF WHO, WHEN CONFRONTED WITH SOME OF THESE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS, FIND THAT IT'S NOT SOMETHING THEY WANT TO PURSUE.

THEY HAVE TO UNDER GO FINANCIAL COUN COUNSELING.

THEY HAVE TO APPLY FOR A MORTGAGE USING THE SAME MORTGAGE YOU WOULD USE IF YOU WERE APPLYING FOR A BANK MORTGAGE. WE DON'T FIND THAT THE DEMAND FOR OUR HOMES IS SO LARGE THAT WE HAVE TO INCREASE OUR CAPACITY. WE FIND THAT PEOPLE WHO CALL OUR OFFICE AND ARE GIVEN AN APPLICATION -- AND ANYBODY WHO CALLS OUR OFFICE AND REQUESTS AN APPLICATION, IF THEY MEET THE INCOME CRITERIA, THEY WILL BE GIVEN AN APPLICATION.

>> DOES THAT KIND OF ANSWER YOUR YES? >> ABSOLUTELY.

>> ALL RIGHT. WELL, GOOD. >> IT DOES NOT.

>> IT DOES NOT? >> I JUST WANT TO FOR THE RECORD, WE ARE HERE FOR A PLAT APPROVAL. I'M HAPPY TO EDUCATE PEOPLE ON HABITAT BUT THIS IS A HEARING FOR A PLAT APPROVAL. ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THIS GENTLEMAN ASKED IS DO YOU GIVE

DEFERENCE TO LOCALS. >> LET ME EXPLAIN WHY I'M SAYING THIS.

>> MIKE KEGLER AGAIN. >> GOTCHA. >> WE HAVE SOME -- MY DOCTOR ATE

[00:55:08]

NFL IS 70% AFRICAN-AMERICAN YET CAN'T SEEM TO FILL LEADERSHIP POSITIONS WITH AFRICAN-AMERICANS BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY LOOKING FOR THEM. WHAT I JUST HEARD IS EXACTLY WHY CERTAIN PEOPLE IN THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN COMMUNITY DON'T HEAR ABOUT THIS.

'CAUSE IT'S NOT REALLY -- NOBODY IS REALLY LOOKING FOR IT. I'M SAYING THAT IF WE WANT TO CHANGE THE CULTURE HERE, WE HAVE TO ACTIVELY LOOK AT CHANGING IT. WE JUST CAN'T HOPE IT HAPPENS BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HAPPEN. IT DOESN'T HAPPEN. SO WHAT I'M SAYING TO YOU TONIGHT IS, OKAY, THIS IS GREAT, WE HAVE SIX OPPORTUNITIES HERE. WE NEED TO MAKE SURE FOLKS ARE WELL AWARE PARTICULARLY THAT I HAVE NEVER SEEN THIS ADVERTISED. I HAVE NEVER SEEN THE REQUIREMENTS PUT UP IN PATRICIA THOMPSON'S CENTER. MARTIN LIEUER THIS KING.

NEVER SEEN IT. THAT'S THE COMMUNITY CENTER RIGHT THERE.

NEVER SEEN THESE REQUIREMENTS, NEVER HEARD ABOUT IT BEFORE. I'M PRETTY ASTUTE, OKAY? SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS, WE HAVE SOME BLINDERS IN THE COMMUNITY. IF WE WANT TO TRULY CHANGE THE CULTURE OF THIS COMMUNITY OR KEEP CERTAIN THINGS DIVERSE, WE HAVE TO ACTIVELY TRY TO DO IT

INSTEAD OF HOPING THAT IT HAPPENS. >> I WANT TO INTERRUPT YOU.

PLAT APPROVAL. WE ARE LOOKING A- I THINK YOU HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION NOW THAT IF YOU KNOW PEOPLE WHO YOU THINK WOULD BE INTERESTED AND WOULD QUALIFY, THEY NEED TO CONTACT HABITAT AND GET AN APPLICATION AND FROM THERE IT'S THEIR PROCESS AND HOW THEY WORK.

>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, SIR. ANYONE ELSE? ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SPEAK ON THIS? OKAY.

I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION. >> YES, SIR.

>> THAT GOES TO, DURING THE REGULAR HEARINGS THAT WERE HELD SO FAR TO DATE, THIS IS GOING TO CREATE TOWNHOUSES OR DUPLEXES IN A DETATCHED SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD.

THE CONCERN THAT I HAVE IS THAT, ONE, IS IT GOING TO CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD BY NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN PEOPLE WANTING TO BUY LOTS. THE DENSITY IS THERE.

YOU CAN PUT TWO HOUSES ON ONE LOT. ALL OF A SUDDEN WE CAN CREATE A BUNCH OF TOWNHOUSES IN A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS NOW CURRENTLY PRIMARILY SINGLE FAMILY DETATCHED HOMES. THAT COULD HAVE A DRAMATIC IMPACT ON THE OVERALL NEIGHBORHOOD MOVING FORWARD INTO THE FUTURE. SO ARE PEOPLE GOING TO SEE THIS AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO ALL OF A SUDDEN CREATE MORE HOUSING IN AN AREA THAT WASN'T NECESSARILY

BUILT FOR IT BECAUSE NOW WE'RE CHANGING PLATS. >> THAT'S A GOOD POINT, INTERESTING POINT, BY LOOKING AT THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN THAT EXISTS THERE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD CURRENTLY AND KIND OF LOOKING AT THE UNDER LYING LOTS OF RECORD.

THE DUPLEXES THAT I MENTIONED ARE IN THE STAFF REPORT COULD BE BUILT TODAY AND OWNED.

TWO UNITS COULD BE BUILT ON EACH ONE OF THOSE LOTS TODAY BASED ON THE DEFINITION OF DENSITY.

SO THE DIFFERENCE HERE BEING THESE ARE TOWN HOMES, THERE'S TWO UNITS IN EACH BUILDING BUT THEY'RE FEE SIMPLE AND WILL BE SOLD AS ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY UNITS.

THERE ARE 25X100 FOOT PLAT LOTS OF RECORD TO THE EAST OF THIS AND 86X100 FOOT PLAT LOTTED TO THE NORTH OF THIS. IT'S A VERY DIVERSE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH REGARDS TO THE LOT LAYOUTS AND THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF DENSITY THERE BLANKETED WITH THE R-2 ZONING.

>> WHERE ARE THE 25 FOOT LOTS? THOSE WOULD BE DETATCHED HOUSING?

>> YOU COULD BUILD SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON EACH ONE OF THOSE PLATS OF RECORD.

I GUESS TRYING NOT TO GET TOO FAR OFF FROM YOUR QUESTION, THE TOWN HOME IS MUNICIPAL HOUSING TYPE FOR R-2 ZONING DISTRICT. THERE ARE PARAMETERS THAT HAVE TO BE MET WITH REGARDS TO

DENSITY. >> WE ARE INCREASING DENSITY HERE.

I GET THE NET DENSITY TAKES SO MANY SQUARE FEET AND DIVIDE IT. MY POINT HERE IS WE'RE ACTUALLY

REPLATTING SO WE'RE CREATING SMALLER LOTS. >> WE ARE CREATING SMALLER LOTS.

>> MY QUESTION THEN GOES, IS THAT GOING TO BECOME A TREND, WHERE WE HAVE NOW SINGLE FAMILY

[01:00:05]

DENSITY AND MORE HOUSING WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT BE BAD. >> THEY'RE ZONED R-2, CORRECT?

>> WE'RE NOT CHANGING ANY DENSITY OR PARAMETERS, TO YOUR POINT.

WE ARE SUBDIVIDING THESE LOTS INTO SMALLER LOTS. BUT THE TWO DWELLING UNITS ON EACH ONE OF THESE LOTS COULD BE BUILT TODAY, ABSENT PLATTING PROCESS, ABSENT ANYTHING OTHER

THAN THE BUILDING PERMIT. >> CURRENT EXISTING LOT, YOU'RE TELLING ME WE CAN BUILD TWO

HOUSES. >> YOU CAN BUILD ONE DUPLEX UNIT.

>> IS THAT AN ALLOWABLE USE? >> YES. >> I FORGET WHAT THE ZONING IS.

>> R-2. IT IS PERMITTED. >> OKAY.

DO YOU THINK IT'S GOING TO CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD MOVING FORWARD HAVING TOWNHOUSES GO IN? OR HAS THAT ISSUE COME UP IN YOUR PREVIOUS MEETINGS? HAS THERE BEEN ANY COMMENTS TO THAT IN THE MEETINGS THAT HAVE BEEN HELD SO FAR?

>> THERE HAVE NOT. THE PUBLICLY NOTICED MEETING OUTSIDE OF THIS THAT WAS HELD WAS THE VARIANCE REQUEST WITH REGARD TO THE SET BACKS, THE TRC MEETINGS ARE PUBLIC MEETINGS.

THERE'S NO POSTING AN ADVERTISEMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THEM.

IT'S CERTAINLY A DIFFERENT PRODUCT IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT IT REALLY, IN THE NATURE OF KIND OF NOT CHANGING DENSITY, THOSE TWO DWELLING UNITS COULD BE BUILT TODAY.

THEY WOULD JUST HAVE TO BE UNDER ONE OWNERSHIP. CONFIGURATION OF TWO DWELLINGS, THAT COULD HAPPEN TODAY. SO IN THE SENSE OF CHANGING THE NEIGHBORHOOD FROM WHAT IS ALLOWABLE IN OUR CODE, I WOULD SAY, NO. IT'S JUST A MATTER OF WE'RE

DROPPING A LOT LINE AND EACH ONE CAN BE SOLD FEE SIMPLE. >> ANYONE ELSE?

DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANTED TO ASK? >> I THINK STAFF HANDLED THE QUESTION REALLY WELL. WHAT I WANTED TO EMPHASIZE IF THIS PLAT APPROVAL PROCESS -- AT THE PLAT LEVEL, MY UNDERSTANDING FROM CASE LAW, ONCE STAFF APPROVED IT, IT'S AN ADMINISTERIAL ACT. IF THIS PLAT WASN'T APPROVED ANOTHER DEEP POCKET DEVELOPER COULD JUST PUT THESE DUPLEXES ONE UP AT A TIME TO THE EXTENT THEY WANT TO AND MAYBE NOT EVEN HAVE TO REPLAT. WE TRIGGERED IT BY THE THREE LOTS.

WHAT I THINK STAFF HAS ALREADY SAID IS WE'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING THAT IS NOT ALREADY PERMITTED.

IF THE REPLAT PROCESS DIDN'T HAPPEN, SOMEONE ELSE COULD COME ALONG AND DO IT ONE AT A TIME AND MAINLY WE MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS. WE'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING THAT ISN'T ALLOWED UNDER THE CODE. I THINK STAFF ANSWERED IT. I JUST WANTED TO EMPHASIZE THAT.

>> YOU JUST TURN AROUND AND LOOK AT ALL THE BIG LOTS. SOMEBODY AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE WOULD CONSIDER BUYING LOTS AND DOING EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING.

>> EXACTLY. SOMEONE COULD COME ALONG AND DO IT IN A DIFFERENT FORMAT, DIFFERENT STYLE, BIGGER. MAYBE THEY WOULD DO A LARGER -- ONE THIN ABOUT HABITAT THAT WILL ALLOW IT TO FIT INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS BECAUSE WE NEED TO KEEP THE COST DOWN SO OUR PEOPLE CAN AFFORD THE MORTGAGE, WE'RE NOT GONNA PUT THE TAJ MAHAL UP.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE AN MCMANSION NEXT TO EXISTING DEVELOPMENT.

I THINK IT WILL FIT INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. ANYWAY, THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME

ADDRESS THAT. >> DOES ANYONE HAVE ANYTHING ELSE?

>> NO. >> NO? DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS FROM

THE BOARD? >> I CAN MAKE A MOTION WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.

>> YOU'RE GOOD? ALL RIGHT. MR. CLARK.

>> I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE IT. I HAD A COUPLE COMMENTS.

ONE IS, TO THE HABITAT FOLKS. I'D REALLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO TRY TO ADDRESS THIS GENTLEMAN'S CONCERN ABOUT MAKING SURE THE COMMUNITY KNOWS ABOUT THE PROJECT AND HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT APPLICATION. I UNDERSTAND THAT FINDING APPLICANTS, YOU'VE ALREADY GOT A LIST AND MAYBE IT'S NOT PARTICULARLY CHALLENGING. BUT I TAKE HIS POINT THAT HE WANTS TO FEEL LIKE THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY THAT ACCRUES TO THE AGAIN COMMUNITY FOR PEOPLE TO GET THEIR NAME IN AND POSSIBLY GET ONE OF THE HOMES. SECOND THING I WANT TO SAY BEFORE I MAKE MY MOTION IS THAT I REALLY DO APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT HABITAT IS DOING HERE.

I THINK THIS IS JUST GREAT FOR THE COMMUNITY. MY APPRECIATION EXTENDS TO THOSE FOLKS WHO DONATED THEIR TIME, THE ATTORNEY, THE ENGINEER, THE ARCHITECT AND PERHAPS OTHERS WHO HAVE DONATED. I THINK THAT'S A GREAT TRIBUTE TO YOUR WORK AND THE HABITAT PROGRAM. SO WITH THAT, MY MOTION IS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PAB CASE

[01:05:07]

>> THANK YOU. >> SECOND. >> I HAVE A SECOND BY MISS MINSHEW. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENT, QUESTIONS? HEARING NONE. DO YOU WANT TO CALL THE MOTION, PLEASE?

>> READ THE MOTION BACK? >> JUST CALL THE ROLL. REMEMBER ROLAND.

>> YES. >> MEMBER MINSHEW. >> YES.

>> MR. CLARK. >> YES. >> MR. BENNETT.

>> YES. >> MR. STEVENSON. >> YES.

>> MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME. NEXT IS REVIEW AND DISCUSS

[Item 3.3]

THIS IS -- YOU'RE UP, KELLY, RIGHT? GO AHEAD.

>> GIVE ME ONE MOMENT TO GET SOME ITEMS PULLED UP HERE. WHILE THAT'S PULLING UP, LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON WHY YOU'RE SEEING THIS THIS EVENING. THE CITY MANAGER HAS PREVIOUSLY DIRECTED THAT WE TAKE A LOOK AT DIFFERENT METHODS AND WAYS FOR MEETING THE COMMISSION'S GOALS TO INCREASE OUR TREE CANOPY OF 5% WITHIN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS. AND OF COURSE AS PART OF THAT COMES A PLANTING STRATEGY WHERE YOU HAVE THE PUT PLANT MATERIAL INTO THE GROUND IN AN EFFORT TO RESTORE CANOPY FROM PRIOR ACTIVITIES WHICH HAVE OCCURRED. IN ADDITIN TO THAT, THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT HOW WE EVALUATE TREE PROTECTION WITHIN THE CITY AND HOW WE CAN MAKE CHANGES FROM THE LEGISLATIVE SIDE IN AN EFFORT TO DECREASE LOSSES WHICH OCCUR.

SO THE LANGUAGE YOU SEE BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING IS IN AN EFFORT TO START EXPLORING THAT OPPORTUNITY. I WILL PREFACE ALL OF THIS WITH THE FACT THAT PREVIOUSLY WHEN THE CITY HAS UNDER TAKEN ORDINANCE CHANGES WITH RESPECT TO TREE PROTECTION, THERE HAVE BEEN LENGTHY PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESSES, WHICH ENGAGED THE COMMUNITY IN A MEANINGFUL WAY TO GET FEED BACK OF HOW WE UNDER TAKE THESE CHANGES. THE CHANGES YOU ARE REVIEWING TONIGHT ARE VERY QUICK CHANGES AND IN OUR PROFESSIONAL OPINION COULD BE EXECUTED WITH SPEED.

THAT'S NOT TO SAY THIS SHOULD NOT BE UNDER TAKEN. IT IS BY NO MEANS A PERFECT ORDINANCE. AND THERE ARE DEFINITELY OTHER AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT.

AND THERE MAY BE OTHER METHODS THAT THE BOARD AND COMMISSION WISHES TO CONSIDER AS WE MOVE FORWARD INTO AN OVERALL REVISION OF OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT WE HAVE MUCH MORE DETAILED DISCUSSIONS ABOUT DURING THAT TIME FRAME. SO WITH THAT UNDERSTANDING, I'LL QUICKLY GO THROUGH WHAT THE PROPOSED CHANGES LOOK LIKE. AND LET ME JUST INCREASE IT FOR PUBLIC VIEW AS WELL AS FOR THOSE WATCHING FROM HOME. PROPOSED CHANGES ARE THE THREE AREAS. THE FIRST IS WHERE WE HAVE REPLACEMENT EXEMPTIONS.

THIS IS WHERE YOU HAVE TO, IN A RESIDENTIAL SETTING, REMOVE TREES.

TREES THAT ARE WITHIN THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT OR FIVE FEET SURROUNDING THAT FOOTPRINT RECEIVE AN EXEMPTION OF REPLACEMENT DIAMETER OF INCHES REMOVED.

AT THE PRESENT TIME YOU HAVE AN EXEMPTION OF 80% OF THOSE INCHES WITHIN THAT AREA.

[01:10:03]

WE ARE ONLY TALKING AB THOSE THAT ARE IMPACTED BY THE DEVELOPMENT OF THOSE OCCURRING ON SITE. MAKING YOU CHANGE FROM AN 80% EXEMPTION DOWN TO 60% EXEMPTION.

IN THINKING THROUGH WHY 60%? WHY NOT 50%, 40%? GOING TO A 60/40 IS A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT SHIFT IN AN OF ITSELF, BUT ONE WHERE WE ANALYZE PROPERTIES AND HOW THEY COME IN TODAY. FOR THE MOST PART, YOU WILL GET COMPLIANT WITH THIS LEVEL AS IT EXISTS. VERY OFTEN PROPERTIES ARE GOING ABOVE AND BEYOND THIS 80/20 SPLIT THAT WE SEE TODAY. PARTICULARLY ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.

AND SO I DON'T SEE IT AS BEING OVERLY BURDENSOME AT THIS TIME. YOU COULD POTENTIALLY GO TO A 50/50 SPLIT. WHAT STARTS TO HAPPEN WHEN YOU CONTINUE TO DECREASE THAT RATIO IS YOU'LL FALL INTO A SITUATION WHERE THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY IS NO LONGER ABLE TO MEET THAT MITIGATION OF INCHES WITH WHAT HAS BEEN RETAINED ON SITE OUTSIDE OF THAT DEVELOPMENT ENVELOPE. AS A RESULT OF THAT, THEY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO INFLATE BACK THROUGH NEW PLANTINGS EITHER BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THE LOT THEY'RE WORKING ON OR WHAT SITS ON THE PROPERTY IN TERMS OF A CANOPY. IN THAT PAGE, YOU'LL PUSH PEOPLE INTO NEEDING TO MAKE CONTRIBUTIONS INTO THE CITY'S TREE FUND.

SO YOU'LL START TO GROW THAT FUND AT A GREATER RATE IN A WAY THEN THAT THE CITY IS GOING TO GO OUT AND DO TREE REPLACEMENT ACTIVITIES ON OTHER PUBLIC AREAS, PUBLIC STREETS AND YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO PROVIDE TREE PLANTING THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY TO AREAS WHERE TREES CAN BE PLANTED. SO THERE'S A BENEFIT THERE AS YOU LOOK AT THOSE RATIOS STARTING TO CLIMB AND BALANCE OUT. THERE'S JUST A POINT OF CAUTION.

YOU DON'T WANT TO GET TOO FAR WITH IT. 60/40 SPLIT TAKING AWAY FROM THAT IS IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE STILL ACCOMPLISHABLE BUT WHERE IT'S NOT, IT WILL START TO PUSH

PEOPLE INTO HAVING TO PAY INTO A TREE FUND. >> SO WHY WOULDN'T YOU WANT TO

HAVE PEOPLE THAT BENEFIT THROUGH THE TREE FUND? >> THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT AT ALL. SOME SCENARIOS JUST WITH THE SIMPLE CHANGES, YOU START TO GET THERE. MY POINT IS SAYING 60/40 IS STILL AN ACHIEVABLE FIGURE IS THAT OFTEN PEOPLE DO EXCEED THE 80/20 RATIO TODAY. THEY'RE CLOSER TO THE 60/40

SPLIT. >> IF SOMEBODY MET THE 60/40 SPLIT THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY

INTO THE TREE FUND? >> THAT'S RIGHT. THEY ARE MAKING PAYMENTS FOR WHERE THEY'RE HAVING TO REMOVE TREES. SO THERE IS A TREE FEE ASSOCIATED WITH THE REMOVAL OF TREES. THAT GOES DIRECTLY INTO THE TREE

FUND IN ADDITION TO THAT. >> THAT'S PART OF THEIR PERMITTING.

>> YES. >> THEY'RE HAVING TO PAY FOR EVERY TREE THEY TAKE OUT.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> HOW MUCH IS THAT? >> I WANT TO SAY RIGHT NOW 300

FOR THE FIRST THREE TREES AND 85 FOR EVERY TREE THERE AFTER. >> DO WE HAVE AN AVERAGE VIEW AS

TO WHAT -- HOW MUCH MONEY DOES THAT GENERATE ON AVERAGE? >> IT'S DIFFICULT TO COMPARE APPLES TO APPLES FOR THAT. UNTIL LAST APRIL OR MAY, I BELIEVE, WE DIDN'T HAVE A 100% OF THOSE FEES GOING DIRECTLY INTO THE TREE FUND. SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEIR

REVENUE GENERATION IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE. >> BUT YOU HAVE SIX MONTHS

WORTH. >> SIX MONTHS WOULD BE ENOUGH. >> I DO THINK THAT ANYWAY, I'M

NOT SURE WHAT I THINK. >> LOOKING AT THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, PROPERTIES IN A SIMILAR WAY THAN WHEN YOU'RE NONRESIDENTIAL AND MIXED USE. SETTING THE STANDARD TO BE THE SAME AS THE 60/40 RATIO. THERE IS A REQUIREMENT AT 25% RATIO.

[01:15:09]

MAKING THEM EXACTLY THE SAME. >> I WANT TO MAKE SURE I CLEARLY UNDERSTAND HOW THIS CALCULATION WORKS. THIS IS NOT A TREE BY TREE KIND OF THING.

YOU TAKE ALL OF THE TREES AND YOU CALCULATE THE DBH, DIAMETER AND BREAST HEIGHT.

THAT GETS YOU A NUMBER. THEN YOU APPLY THIS PERCENTAGE, WHETHER IT'S 50% OR 40% OR WHATEVER IT IS TO THAT AGGREGATE DBH OF ALL THE TREES ON THE SITE.

THAT BECOMES -- >> ALL THE TREES BEING REMOVED. >> FROM THE CONSTRUCTION.

>> RIGHT. RIGHT. THIS IS NOT A TREE BY TREE THING. YOU ARE NOT SAVING A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TREES.

YOU'RE SAVING A TREE DIAMETER. WHICH I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH THAT. JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND IT BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S KEY. A KEY FACT TO UNDERSTAND HOW

THIS THING IS STRUCTURED. >> RIGHT. AT THE PRESENT TIME THAT'S HOW WE WOULD DO IT. I'LL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT, THE PROPOSED CHANGES.

THE SECOND SET OF CHANGES RELATES TO PRESERVATION CREDITS. AN EFFORT UNDER TAKEN BETWEEN 2014 AND INTO LATE 2015 WE HAD A TREE COMMITTEE ESTABLISHED TO REVIEW WHAT I WOULD CALL MINOR CHANGES TO OUR CODE. OUT OF THAT GROUP CAME THIS INITIATIVE AND IDEA OF HAVING PRESERVATION CREDITS AVAILABLE WHERE A DEVELOPER WENT TO THE EXTENT OF SAVING GROUPS OF TREES OR ISOLATED TREES WORTHY OF BEING ABLE TO CAP ON THERE. THEY REALLY DESIGNED AROUND THOSE AREAS. THE INTENT BEHIND IT WAS THAT YOU WOULD HOPEFULLY SEE THAT DESIGN APPROACH AND THAT EYE FOR IT WHEN YOU REVIEW HOW YOU DEVELOP A PROJECT.

IN THE FIVE YEARS THAT THIS HAS BEEN IN PLACE, WE HAVEN'T REALLY SEEN THAT INTENT COME TO FRUITION. WHAT WE HAVE SEEN IS WHERE A SITE PLAN WILL COME IN.

THE ARBOR ASSESSMENT WILL COME IN AND THEY ARE DETERMINED THAT THEY COULD REASONABLY SURVIVE IN A POST DEVELOPMENT STATE. IT INFLATES THE FIGURES UNDER WHICH THEY ARE PROVIDING BACK THAT TREE RESTORATION. THE DESIGN KIND OF PUSH TO SAVE CERTAIN TREES THAT ARE QUALIFYING TYPES, WE JUST HAVEN'T SEEN THAT HAPPEN. SO THIS REQUEST IS TO MODIFY WHERE WE ARE PROVIDING FOR SOME SMALLER TREES TO RECEIVE THOSE ADDITIONAL CREDITS.

AND SETTED SET A HIGHER STANDARD FROM WHERE YOU ARE AND SET IT AT AN EVEN LOWER AMOUNT.

AND REALLY WE'RE NOTED SEEING THE OUTCOME. IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE SOME MECHANISM FOR PROVIDING INCENTIVE FOR WHERE SOMEONE IS GOING THROUGH THAT EFFORT TO REDESIGN AROUND A PARTICULAR TREE BUT THE WAY WE WERE HANDLING IT PREVIOUSLY WAS TOO

GENE GENEROUS. >> I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS.

YOU SEE THIS MORE ON LARGER PLAT DEVELOPMENTS VERSUS INDIVIDUAL LOTS.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. PRIMARILY THERE HASN'T BEEN A NEED TO TRY TO GET THESE

PRESERVATION CREDITS ON AN INDIVIDUAL LOT. >> SO SOMEBODY COMES IN WITH A PLAT THAT WE JUST SAW, THEY HAVE TREES ON THERE. THE FIRST THING YOU DO IS FOR EACH CONSTRUCTION FOOTPRINT, YOU DO THE CALCULATION EARLIER, RIGHT? MAYBE DO THAT. AND THEN AFTER YOU DO THAT, THEN YOU COME IN AND DO THIS SO IT'S

AN ADDITIVE PROCESS. >> WHAT YOU WOULD HAVE SEEN BETWEEN WHAT YOU SAW IN THOSE LANDSCAPE PLANS THIS EVENING WOULD BE WHERE A DEVELOPER SOUGHT TO GET CREDIT BECAUSE THE CITY WASN'T MEETING THOSE MINIMUM INCHES. THEN THEY SHIFTED THINGS TO WORK AROUND CERTAIN TREES. YOU WOULD SEE ANOTHER ITEM WHERE THEY HAD QUALIFIED --

[01:20:06]

>> FOR ONE OF THESE CREDITS. >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> YOU'RE REALLY NOT SEEING

THEM. >> THAT'S MY POINT. WE'RE NOT SEEING IT COME TO FRUITION IN THE WAY THAT I THINK THAT GROUP AND MY THOUGHT WAS THAT IN DRAFTING THESE

STANDARDS. >> BECAUSE THIS VALUE ENOUGH INCENTIVE TO A DEVELOPER OR TO

AN ARCHITECT WHO IS LAYING OUT THE PLAT. >> SO NOBODY IS USING THE

SMALLER TREE CREDITS? >> NO. >> ARE THEY USING THE 20 TO 24 INCH CREDIT? YOU ARE USING THAT? WHAT ABOUT TREES OVER 24?

>> WE WILL SEE WHERE PEOPLE ARE USING THIS, BUT WHAT IS HAPPENING, YOU JUST SEE THE SITE PLANS INFLATED FIGURES SO IT'S NOT REALLY MEANINGFUL. LIKE, THEY WOULD HAVE MET THEIR

REQUIREMENTS ANYWAY. >> SO WHY ABOUT TREES OVER 24? >> THE SAME.

>> OVER 24 THEY WOULD GET A CREDIT? >> TODAY THEY WOULD GET THE THREE TIME CREDIT. UNDER THIS PROPOSAL THEY WOULD ONLY GET TWO.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> YOU'RE WELCOME.

>> THE THIRD COMPONENT OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE IS -- WELL, EXCUSE ME.

FOURTH COMPONENT INCLUDED IN HERE ARE REQUIREMENTS WHICH SPEAK TO INSPECTION, SPECIFICALLY WHEN INSPECTIONS ARE TO BE CONVICTED. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IS NOT CLEAR WITHIN THE CODE TODAY. IT READS THAT WHEN AN APPROVED INSPECTION OF THE TREE PROTECTION AREA MUST BE DONE BY A CERTIFIED ARBORIST AND BE COMPLETED BEFORE ALL TREE CLEARING ACTIVITY, GETTING INTO FENCING, PROTECTIVE FENCING. IT'S FOR ALL PROJECTS.

FOR ALL SUBDIVISION PROJECTS A THIRD PARTY ARBORIST IS REQUIRED TO BE PRESENT FOR ALL TREE CLEARING ACTIVITIES AND PROVIDE AN AFFIDAVIT ATTESTING TO THE COMPLIANCE OF THE PREVIOUSLY RECEIVED TREE REMOVAL PERMIT AND THE INSTALLATION OF PROTECTIVE FENCING IS COMPLIANT.

AND STILL INTACK ONCE THE CLEARING ACTIVITIES HAVE TAKEN PLACE.

THIS IS GETTING AT, IN ADDITION TO WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE, WE WANT FOR THESE LARGER SCALE PROJECTS A THIRD PARTY TO GO OUT THERE AND VALIDATE THAT AND PROVIDE THAT IT IS KEEPING WITH

WHAT IS PERMITTED. >> WHAT HAPPENS IF THEY ARE NOT SO TRUTHFUL ON THE AFFIDAVIT?

>> WE WOULD HAVE CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION THROUGH INSPECTIONS.

>> THERE'S A PENALTY AND TAX TO THAT ARBORIST SPECIFICALLY IF THEY VIOLATE SOME OF THE RULES?

>> IN THAT SCENARIO, I THINK AND THE ATTORNEY COULD SPEAK TO THIS MORE.

I BELIEVE IN THAT SCENARIO, LET'S SAY THAT A CONTRACTOR HAS VIOLATED THE PROTECTIVE FENCING PROVISION AND WE SAID YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE THIS IS PUT BACK IN PLACE AND COMPLETELY COMPLIANT WITH WHAT THAT ARBORIST ATTESTED TO, WE WOULD EXPECT THEY DO SO IMMEDIATELY.

IF NOT IT WOULD BECOME A CODE ENFORCEMENT ISSUE, CONTINUALLY VIOLATING THE TREE PROTECTION.

>> HOW WOULD WE KNOW THAT? THEY'RE DOING THE INSPECTION. THEY'RE PROVIDING THE AFFIDAVIT.

CITY STAFF IS COMING UP AND VERIFYING THIS. >> WE WOULD, YES.

THIS IS IN ADDITION TO WHAT'S PERFORMED BY STAFF. >> I DON'T WANT TO GET TOO FAR OFF THE POINT. DOES THIS HAPPEN WITH --

>> NO. >> THIS IS PROPOSED LANGUAGE. >> OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. >> ANYONE ELSE ON THIS SECTION? THAT'S ADDING A LEVEL OF

PROTECTION. >> THAT'S CORRECT. IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT PART TO MAKE SURE WE GET INCLUDED IN THERE BECAUSE IT GIVES US THE AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE THAT ADDITIONAL CERTIFICATION OF TREE PROTECTIVE BARRIERS ARE BEING DONE.

THE OTHER KEY PIECE OF THAT IS THAT THEY'RE PRESENT FOR ALL CLEARING ACTIVITY.

[01:25:02]

>> MISS MINSHEW? >> COULD WE REQUIRE THAT THE DEVELOPER USE A PARTICULAR LIST OF ARBORISTS THAT WE HAVE VETTED AND APPROVED RATHER THAN -- BASED ON THAT, THEY COULD GET -- I DON'T KNOW. I'M SURE ALL ARBORISTS ARE WONDERFUL PEOPLE.

COULD YOU GET SOMEONE WHO WAS NOT AS SKILLED OR KNOWLEDGEABLE AS IS EXPECTED TO BE, SO WE COULD REQUIRE THAT THEY SELECT AN ARBORIST TO DO THAT VALIDATION PROCESS TO BE ON SITE

OFF OF A LIST OF APPROVED ARBORIST BY THE CITY. >> ISN'T AN ARBORIST BY

DEFINITION CERTIFIED? >> CITY ATTORNEY MAY BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT.

>> WHAT'S THE QUESTION? >> QUESTION IS, CAN WE ASSIGN A LIST OF ARBORIST TO DO THAT

WORK? >> SURE. WE CAN REQUIRE AN ARBORIST.

>> YOU CAN SAY, HERE'S THREE ARBORIST, YOU CAN USE THESE THREE.

>> I'M SURE THERE'S A STANDARD THAT THEY HAVE TO SAY I'M AN ARBORIST RATHER THAN CUTTING OUT

TREES. >> ONE LEVEL GETS A STATE CERTIFICATION.

>> SURE. ISA IS INTERNATIONAL. >> WE ALREADY HAVE THAT

SOMEWHERE IN HERE? >> NOPE. >> HAVE WHAT?

>> WE TALK ABOUT ARBORISTS. DO WE DEFINE WHAT WE MEAN, WHO THAT IS?

>> THERE'S A DEFINITION FOR A CERTIFIED ARBORIST IN THE CODE TODAY.

HOWEVER, THE QUESTION IS CAN THE CITY PROVIDE A LIST OF PREQUALIFIED THIRD PARTY

ARBORISTS THAT WE INSIST YOU WORK WITH IN DOING THIS WORK? >> YEAH.

>> OKAY. >> I JUST THINK THAT WOULD ADD ANOTHER LEVEL OF PROTECTION AND OVERSIGHT THAT WE HAVEN'T -- WE ALWAYS HAVEN'T SEEN A LEVEL OF COMPETENCE THAT WE WOULD HAVE

PREFERRED TO. >> I THINK THIS IS A REALLY GOOD POINT.

I WONDER IF YOU COULD TAKE IT ONE STEP FURTHER AND HAVE THE CITY CONTRACT WITH AN ARBORIST THAT YOU SELECT. BASICALLY THEY ARE U CONTRACT TO YOU.

THEN WHEN THE DEVELOPER HAS NEED FOR AN INSPECTION, THEY WOULD USE THE CONTRACTOR THAT YOU'VE

SELECTED AND PAY THEM DIRECTLY. >> NO. CAN'T PAY THEM DIRECTLY, NO.

>> WE ALREADY HAVE A CITY ARBORIST. >> THIS IS WHAT WE COULD DO.

CITY ARBORIST, A CONTRACTED ARBORIST. WE HAVE AN ARBORIST ON STAFF.

WE CAN REQUIRE SORT OF TO YOUR POINT, A LITTLE DIFFERENT. WE CAN REQUIRE THAT IT BE THE CITY ARBORIST THAT COMES OUT AND MAKE IT PART OF THE APPLICATION FEE, THE FEE THAT WOULD COVER THE ARBORIST. THERE CAN BE ADDITIONAL FEES IF SOMEBODY'S NOT IN COMPLIANCE THAT IF WE HAVE TO RE-REVIEW SOMETHING OR REINSPECT SOMETHING THAT THERE ARE THOSE FEES ADDED, WHICH I WOULD RECOMMEND THOSE. EVENTUALLY THAT WILL SLOW DOWN THE VIOLATION TO AND THEY KNOW THAT A CITY ARBORIST AND WE CAN CONTACT AN ARBORIST ALSO THAT WE CAN USE IF OUR ON STAFF ARBORIST IS NOT. BUT WE CAN'T HAVE, HERE'S A PREAPPROVED LIST.

YOU HAVE TO USE ONE OF THEM. THAT'S FINE AS LONG AS WE HAVE A GOOD AMOUNT OF VARIETY AND THEIR PRICES ARE VARIABLE. THE CITY DOESN'T TAKE A CUT OF IT.

WE CAN HAVE IT. IF THERE ARE ONLY AND WE HAVE MORE AVAILABLE NOW, THANK GOODNESS. BUT IT USED TO BE NOT TEN YEARS AGO WE HAD ONE.

I WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN COMFORTABLE WITH SAYING THIS IS THE LIST AND YOU HAVE TO USE THAT PERSON.

I THINK THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN TOO RESTRICTIVE. >> WHAT CAN'T WE DO?

>> I THINK WE CAN HAVE A LIST AND SAY YOU HAVE TO USE SOMEBODY ON THIS LIST AND THEY CAN HAVE THEIR TRANSACTION FOR PAYMENT ASIDE. THE CITY, WE DO HAVE ON STAFF FULL-TIME ARBORIST, BUT WE CAN ALSO CONTRACT OR HAVE PREAPPROVED ARBORIST THAT WE SAY IF, FOR EXAMPLE, OUR ARBORIST IS BUSY OR SOMETHING, THE CITY CAN CONTACT THEM, PAY THEM TO DO

THESE INSPECTIONS AND INCLUDE IT. >> THEN THERE WOULD BE FEES.

[01:30:03]

>> THERE WOULD BE A FEE. >> THAT WOULD BE ACTUALLY TO MY WAY OF THINKING, THAT WOULD BE

THE VERY BEST. >> BETTER WAY TO DO IT. >> OKAY.

>> KELLY, IF YOU DON'T AGREE. >> I'M JUST THINKING THE LOGISTICS OF HOW DO YOU PRESENT

THAT FEE AND WHERE THAT FALLS IN HERE IS ALL. >> WHERE IN THE PROCESS?

>> WE'RE JUST GONNA THROW IDEAS OUT TONIGHT. YOU CAN THINK ABOUT THIS.

>> DID YOU GET YOUR ANSWER QUESTIONED? >> I DID, YES.

ALL RIGHT. THAT WAS A BIG ONE. >> THE LAST PIECE.

I WANT TO PROVIDE A LITTLE PREFACE TO IT. CONTAINED IN CHAPTER 11.

IT'S NOT WITHIN THE VERSION YOU BUT AT THE PRESENT TIME, SECTION 11 SPEAKS TO VIOLATIONS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND SETS A PENALTY AT $500 PER VIOLATION FEE.

THIS SPECIFIC PENALTY FOR VIOLATION OF TREE PERMIT REQUIREMENT, HOWEVER, GO RIGHT INTO WHERE THIS HAS OCCURRED YOU HAVE TO REPLACE, PROVIDE A RESTORATION PLAN, UNABLE TO MEET THE RESTORATION PLAN ON SITE, HERE ARE THE DOLLAR FIGURES ASSOCIATED WHAT YOU CAN PAY INTO THE TREE FUND. THERE'S NOT AN ADDITIONAL SET FINE FOR PENALTY FOR THAT VIOLATION BEYOND WHAT YOU ARE REQUIRED TO DO AS PART OF RESTORATION PLAN.

I WANTED TO HAVE THE CONVERSATION WITH THE BOARD AND CERTAINLY KEEPING WITH WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED BEFORE THE COMMISSION JUST RECENTLY LAST NIGHT, A COMMISSIONER COMPARED THE CITY'S ORDINANCE AGAINST WHAT HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED IN THE CITY OF TAMPA, WHERE THEY ARE LEVYING PENALTIES OF UP TO $15,000 PER TREE. REALLY POINTING OUT THE STAGGERING DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT THE CITY'S ORDINANCE READS AND WHAT IS REQUIRING VERSUS WHAT THE CITY HAS BEEN ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH. SO THE FEE THAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED IN THIS ORDINANCE IS AN INITIAL ATTEMPT TO AT LEAST PUT IN THERE SOMETHING BEYOND THE RESTORATION PLAN COMPONENT. RIGHT NOW WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING WHERE YOU NEED THAT RESTORATION PLAN AND YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET ALL OF THIS ON YOUR PROPERTY.

YOU'RE GOOD. AS LONG AS YOU GET THE PLANTING IN PLACE AND YOU'VE DONE EVERYTHING IN KEEPING WITH THE REQUIREMENT, WE DON'T HIT YOU WITH AN ADDITIONAL PENALTY.

THIS STARTS THE CONVERSATION ABOUT SHOULD WE BE TAKING IT AN ADDITIONAL STEP FURTHER?

>> BEFORE WE GET INTO THE ACTUAL NUMBER, I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS, IF YOU DON'T MIND.

WHERE IS THE PROBLEM COMING FROM? IS IT THE SINGLE FAMILY OWNER THAT WANTS TO BUILD ON A VACANT HOUSE A NEW LOT OR IS IT THE DEVELOPER THAT'S BUILDING TEN HOUSES OR WHATEVER? WHERE IS THIS PROBLEM ORIGINATING FROM?

>> DURING THE TIME I HAVE WORKED FOR THE CITY, IT'S BOTH IN PRETTY MUCH EQUAL AMOUNTS.

IT'S THE LARGE SCALE DEVELOPER WHO TAKES OUT TREES WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT THEIR CONTRACTOR IS DOING AND IT IS THE HOMEOWNER WHO HIRES AN OUTSIDE CONTRACTOR TO BUILD THEIR HOME FOR THEM AND THEY GET OVERZEALOUS AND REMOVE EXTRA TREES THAT THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE.

IT'S ALSO A HOMEOWNER WHO, UNFORTUNATELY IN OUR COMMUNITY, THIS IS VERY COMMON.

OUR ELDERLY POPULATION BECOMES PREY TO UNSCRUPULOUS TREE COMPANIES WHO COME OUT.

THEY SAY THIS TREE LOOKS TO BE A HAZARD AND YOU NEED TO REMOVE IT.

OF COURSE, THEY'RE SCARED AND AGREE AND PAY CASH FOR TREE REMOVAL TO OCCUR.

>> EVERYBODY WANTS TO ASK FOR FORGIVENESS RATHER THAN PERMISSION.

THAT'S ALWAYS ON GOING. >> MY RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTION IS, IT'S ACROSS THE BOARD.

IT IS NOT ALWAYS A BIG DEVELOPER. IT IS NOT ALWAYS AN ISOLATED HOMEOWNER. IT IS AFFECTING EVERYBODY IN DIFFERENT WAYS.

>> MY LAST QUESTION IS THAT, HAVE WE OR ANY OTHER COMMUNITY EVER REQUIRED A REPLACEMENT? CUT DOWN A 100-YEAR-OLD TREE, THEY'VE GOT TO REPLACE A 100-YEAR-OLD TREE.

THAT'S AN EXTREME EXAMPLE. PEOPLE CUT DOWN TREES, THAT TREE FILLS A CERTAIN NICHE ON THAT PROPERTY OR WHATEVER. NOW THAT TREE IS GONE AND THEY PUT MONEY IN A FUND.

[01:35:03]

WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT NUMBERS IN A MINUTE, BUT $2500 IS NOTHING -- WELL, IT'S 2.5% OF A $100,000 LOT. TRYING TO FIND ONE NOW FOR UNDER 60 OR 75,000?

YOU ANSWERED MY QUESTION. >> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WOULD REALLY TOLERATE ABOUT THE ORDINANCE IS THAT IT'S TOUGH TO ANSWER THAT VERY CONCERN. IT IS REQUIRING A RESTORATION PLAN BE PROVIDED. THAT WOULDN'T GO AWAY UNDER THE PROPOSED CHANGE AT ALL.

AND ONE OF THE AREAS THAT I GET PHONE CALLS FROM OTHER JURISDICTIONS ON IS THIS RESTORATION COMPONENT OF OUR ORDINANCE. WHERE YOU HAVE THAT REQUIREMENT IN PLACE, YOU ARE GETTING PEOPLE WHO ARE BRINGING BACK THE TREES NOT ONLY TO THAT SITE WHERE IT HAS BECOME OVERLY BURDENSOME AND ALTHOUGH NOT VERY CLEAR IN THIS ORDINANCE, I HAVE EXTENDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE AN ADJACENT PROPERTY WHERE MEMBER A FRONT YARD IS VOID OF A TREE AND THEIR NEIGHBOR IS WILLING TO ACCEPT IT, IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY OR COMMON TRACT WITHIN AN HOA SO THAT YOU GET THOSE INCHES BACK IN THE SAME LOCATION ALMOST WHERE THEY WERE REMOVED.

>> I WOULD ASK, DID ANYBODY WATCH THE CITY COMMISSION MEETING LAST NIGHT?

THEY TOUCHED ON THIS. >> I HAVE A FEW COMMENTS. >> UNTIL 11:00.

>> WE WANT TO HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC. DO WE WANT TO OPEN UP PUBLIC HEARING NOW AND MAYBE INVOLVE THE PUBLIC IN THIS SO THAT WE'RE NOT JUST TRYING TO DEAL WITH

THIS AMONGST OURSELVES? >> I'D LIKE TO JUST THROW THIS OUT.

IT MIGHT SIMULATE SOME CONVERSATION. >> MR. CLARK?

IF HE'S DONE, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. >> I HAVE TWO THINGS.

WE STARTED TALKING ABOUT THIS. >> WE ALL HAVE BUSINESS. >> WE HAVE BUSINESS AFTER THIS,

SO -- >> I HAD TWO IDEAS I WANTED TO THROW OUT.

ONE, IN MY EXPERIENCE WHEN PEOPLE PLANT REPLACEMENT TREES OR TREES AT ALL, THERE'S A FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT DIE RATE. IN OTHER WORDS, THE TREE WILL SOMETIMES DIE AND YOU'RE LEFT WITH NOTHING. SO I THINK WE HAVE TO LOOK AT A MAINTENANCE FUND THAT WOULD RUN FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS. IF THE TREE DIES OFF, THE CITY HAS RECOURSE TO GET A NEW TREE PLANTED THERE. I SUPPOSE I COULD THINK OF SITUATIONS WHERE PERHAPS THE NURSERY PROVIDED A WARRANTY THAT RAN FOR THREE YEARS. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE TREE GETTING PLANTED AND THIS. THE SECOND COMMENT I GOT I GUESS THE MORE SUBSTANTIVE ONE.

FOR WHATEVER REASON IT'S GOING TO BE REALLY HARD TO COLLECT A PENALTY OF $2500 OR $5,000 OR WHATEVER IT IS. THOSE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO COME TO THE CITY AN WHATEVER THE APPROPRIATE CODE GROUP IS AND ASK FOR A WAIVER AND THE FEE WILL BE WAIVED.

I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT LOSING THE WHOLE ENCHILADA, SO TO SPEAK, TO MAKE SOMETHING SO ONEROUS FOR THAT HOMEOWNER WHO LOSES ONE TREE THROUGH THIS AND WE'RE ASKING THEM TO PAY A PENALTY. MY THOUGHT PROCESS IS THAT WE OUGHT TO LOOK AT SOMETHING THAT PROVIDES SORT OF A GRADATION OF THE PENALTY. FOR THE FIRST TREE THAT'S REMOVED IN AN UNAUTHORIZED MANNER, THE PENALTY WOULD BE LOWER THAN THE SUCCESSIVE TREES THAT WOULD BE REMOVED. IF A DEVELOPER, WE TALKED ABOUT, MADE A BLUFF, REMOVED TEN TREES AND THEY WERE UNAUTHORIZED, I THINK THEY OUGHT TO PAY A SIGNIFICANT PENALTY OF THAT.

[01:40:05]

LOWER PENALTY AMOUNT. I HOPE I'M BEING CLEAR. >> THEN IT GOES UP.

>> SO THE NUMBER OF TREES THAT ARE REMOVED WOULD BE AN IMPORTANT VARIABLE.

>> THE TENTH TREE COULD BE $10,000. >> WHATEVER.

I'M OPEN AS TO HOW THAT GRADES UP. IF WE MAKE IT TOO ONEROUS FOR THE AVERAGE HOME OWNER THAT DOES THIS, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO LOSE THE WHOLE THING.

I THINK IT WILL ATTRACT THE ATTENTION OF LEGISLATORS THAT WILL PASS LAWS THAT SAY WE CAN'T DO IT ANY MORE OR IT WILL BECOME TOO DIFFICULT POLITICALLY. MAYBE YOU ALL THINK I'M CRAZY,

BUT THAT'S MY THOUGHT. >> I'M GOING TO SECOND THAT. >> GO AHEAD.

>> I WOULD SAY BASED ON WHAT'S GOING ON THE LAST SIX MONTHS, THE LEVEL OF TREE EMOTION HAS GONE HIGHER. I THINK IN ALL FAIRNESS TO EVERYBODY CONCERNED, WE SEE A DEVELOPER WHO HAS TAKEN DOWN 50 TREES AND THAT CREATED A LOT OF EMOTION.

I WOULD PROPOSE YOU RECONSTRUCT THE WHOLE PROCESS AND IT WOULD BE ON A BALANCED APPROACH.

AGAIN, GOOD POINT MADE. YOU'VE GOT A HOMEOWNER FOR WHATEVER REASON THEY CUT A TREE DOWN. I THINK WHAT YOU'VE GOT TO DO IS MAYBE LOOK AT A MORE DETAILED STRUCTURE. SCALE THE PENALTY BY THE TREE VARIETY.

SCALE IT BY THE TREE DIAMETER. OBVIOUSLY, IF YOU'VE GOT A 5 INCH DIAMETER TREE, YOU CAN'T REPLACE A 5 INCH TREE. YOU CAN GET ONE AT LIBERTY. A 25 INCH TREE, NOT GONNA HAPPEN. ALSO NEED TO SCALE IT BY THE NUMBER OF TREES REMOVED.

ON TOP OF THAT, I THINK YOU'VE GOT TO PUT THE CUMULATIVE NUMBER OF TREES REMOVED OVER A PERIOD OF TIME LIKE TWO YEARS OR THREE YEARS BECAUSE A DEVELOPER, THE 50 TREES THAT COME OUT OF THE BLUFF, THEY CAN GO BACK IN SIX MONTHS AND TAKE OUT ANOTHER 20. THERE'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WOULD STOP THEM UNLESS YOU LOCK AT SOMETHING CUMULATIVE. I WOULD PROPOSE A STRUCTURE THAT DOESN'T PENALIZE THE HOMEOWNER. MAYBE THE FIRST TREE IS $1,000. THEN YOU LOOK IN TERMS OF A SCALE, THE TENTH TREE IS GONNA COST YOU 25,000. BUT PUT SOME BALANCE IN SO THE TYPICAL RESIDENT DOES NOT GET WHACKED TOO HARD FOR ONE TREE. I DO THINK YOU NEED TO LOOK AT MAYBE VARIETY AND PUT SOME MORE BALANCE AND JUDGMENT. JUST MAKES IT A LITTLE MORE SCIENTIFIC IN TERMS OF WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO. WE'VE GOT GROUPS ON THIS ISLAND THAT CAN GIVE US GUIDANCE. WE'VE GOT OUR OWN TREE GUY THAT CAN ALSO DO THE SAME THING.

THEN A QUESTION SAYING YOU TOOK OUT A BIG CREPE MYRTLE? I WASN'T QUALIFIED.

WE NEED MORE CLARIFICATION. JUST SOME THOUGHTS. >> ALL RIGHT.

SO HOW DO WE WANT TO PROCEED AS A BOARD? OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING? OKAY. PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN. IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK, COME UP

HERE, TELL US WHAT YOU THINK OF THESE ITEMS HERE. >> I AM MARGRET KIRKLAND 1337 PLANTATION DRIVE. I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE AMELIA TREE CONSERVANCY.

I GUESS I COULD GO ON AND ON ABOUT ALL OF THESE POINTS, BUT I'LL TRY TO BE BRIEF.

I THINK THERE IS A GREAT DEAL OF CONSENSUS AT THIS POINT THAT NOT ONLY DO WE NEED TO FOCUS ON REVISING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUT THE CODE. AMELIA TREE CONSERVANCY SUPPORTS THAT. I'M ALSO SUPPORTIVE OF STOP GAP MEASURES.

WE HAVE THINGS GOING ON HERE THAT NEED TO BE STOPPED 10, 20 YEARS AGO.

OKAY? THE LONGER WE KICK THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD, THE WORSE IT GETS.

WE ARE VERY CLOSE TO BECOMING SOUTH FLORIDA RIGHT NOW. I THINK SOME OF THESE THINGS ARE VERY HELPFUL AND VERY GOOD. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS HAPPENING ON THIS ISLAND FROM ONE END OF THE ISLAND TO THE OTHER IS THE FACT THAT PEOPLE ARE BUILDING HOUSES THAT ARE WAY

[01:45:05]

BUT WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THAT. SO, YOU KNOW, HAVING SOME PERCENTAGE THAT HAS TO BE THE RATIO FOR -- WELL, WE HAVE THIS BUT IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE A

PERCENTAGE FOR IMPERVIOUS MATERIAL ON THE LOT. >> WE DO HAVE THAT.

>> YES, WE DO HAVE THAT. WE COULD IMPROVE THAT, BUT WE HAVE THAT.

IT'S REALLY CRITICALLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE THAT'S ONE OF THE BIG THINGS THAT'S GOING ON.

WE HAVE NEVER BEEN TERRIBLY SUPPORTIVE OF THE INCENTIVE PLAN.

I'M AN EDUCATOR. I HAVE SPENT MY LIFE TRYING TO GIVE PEOPLE INCENTIVES TO DO THINGS. SINCE I HAVE BEEN HERE, I HAVE NOT SEEN INCENTIVES WORK FOR THE DEVELOPERS AND THE BUILDERS. I JUST DO NOT SEE IT WORKING. THIS IS ANOTHER PROBLEM THAT THEIR DEPARTMENT AND THE REST OF US ARE STRUGGLING WITH ALL THE TIME.

I'D BE PERFECTLY HAPPY IF THERE WERE NO INCENTIVES. BUT GETTING RID OF AS MANY AS POSSIBLE WOULD BE A GOOD THING FOR ME. THE INSPECTION NOW, AND WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT IS F2D, THE ADDITION OF REQUIREMENT FOR A THIRD PARTY INSPECTOR.

I AGREE THAT HAVING A LIST IS BETTER THAN JUST HAVING IT OPEN TO ANY ARBORIST.

MY FIRST PREFERENCE WOULD BE TO HAVE IT BE A CITY ARBORIST. THERE ARE A COUPLE OF REASONS FOR THIS. ONE IS THE MORE PARTIES YOU HAVE INVOLVED AND THE MORE COMMUNICATION HAS TO TAKE PLACE BETWEEN THOSE PARTIES, THE MORE ROOM THERE IS FOR MISCOMMUNICATION, MISUNDERSTANDING. WE HAVE TREES CUT ALL THE TIME, BOTH IN THE CITY AND COUNTY. SO WE NEED TO HONE IT DOWN SO THERE'S NOT TOO MANY PEOPLE INVOLVED. THE PEOPLE WHO DON'T CARE ABOUT IT ARE NOT GOING TO BOTHER TO COMMUNICATE CLEARLY. MAYBE HIRE SOMEONE WHO IS A TREE CUTTER.

THEY ASSUME THEY KNOW THE REGULATIONS, WHICH THEY PROBABLY DON'T, AND THEY JUST LET THEM GO. THAT IS AN ISSUE. WHAT WE HAVE FOUND OVER THE LAST SIX YEARS IS HE WHO PAYS THE CHECK OKAY, GETS THE OUTCOME THEY WANT.

THIS IS NOT ALL ARBORIST. I'M NOT ACCUSING ALL ARBORISTS OF BEING LESS THAN HONEST.

BUT THIS DOES HAPPEN. IT HAPPENS REPEATEDLY. WE KNOW IN EVERY FIELD WE EXPERIENCE THE SOURCE OF THE FUNDING INFLUENCES THE OUTCOME, WHETHER IT'S MEDICAL RESEARCH OR TREE CUTTING. SO I WOULD PREFER THAT IT BE THE CITY ARBORIST BECAUSE THEN THAT PERSON IS BEHOLDEN TO THE CITY FOR THEIR SALARY AND THEIR WELL-BEING.

SO I THINK THAT'S MY VIEW OF IT. I UNDERSTAND WHY IT WAS DONE THIS WAY, BUT INY IT INTRODUCES MORE PROBLEMS THAN IT SOLVES. IN REGARD TO THE FINE, ALL IN FAVOR OF INCREASING THE PENALTIES OF ALL SORTS, BE IT A FINE OR REPLANTING. THAT'S IMPORTANT.

[01:50:10]

60 YEARS SEA LEVEL WILL BE RISING MUCH HIGHER. WE NEED THE PROTECTION NOW.

OKAY? TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVE SOME LEVEL OF SUSTAINABILITY ON THIS ISLAND. I UNDERSTAND THE POINT OF WANTING TO HAVE SOMETHING DIFFERENT FOR INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNERS THAN WE HAVE FOR DEVELOPERS.

I HAVE SOME SYMPATHY FOR THAT. HOWEVER, IN MY EXPERIENCE IN THE PAST SIX YEARS, I WILL SAY THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE CUTTING TREES FOR DIFFERENT REASONS. THERE'S A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF IGNORANCE OUT THERE AND THERE'S A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF INFLUENCE FROM THE COMPANIES THAT ARE IN THE BUSINESS OF CUTTING TREES AND FROM INSURANCE COMPANIES. THE INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE GOING ON MODELS THAT MAY APPLY ANYWHERE IN THE COUNTRY. MAYBE KANSAS AS WELL AS ON A BARRIER ISLAND. AND SO THEY MAY NOT BE USING THOSE MODELS IN AN APPROPRIATE WAY. WE'VE HAD LOTS OF COMPLAINTS ON THAT.

I KNOW DAVE HAS BEEN OUT AND HELPED RESIDENTS WHO WERE IN THAT SITUATION.

SO THERE ARE LOTS OF THINGS INFLUENCING THESE PEOPLE. IN MY OWN NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU KNOW, I GET MAIL FROM THE COMPANIES THAT CUT TREES ALL THE TIME.

IF THEY CUT MY TREES, IT WILL PROTECT ME FROM THE STORM. THAT'S A BALD-FACED LIE.

IF I CUT MY TREES, THAT MAKES ME VULNERABLE TO THE WINDS THAT COME WITH THE HURRICANES.

IT DOES NOT PROTECT ME IN ANY WAY. THERE'S A LOT OF MISINFORMATION OUT THERE. HOW DO WE GET THE ATTENTION OF THE HOMEOWNERS? WE HAVE TO GET EVERYBODY'S ATTENTION. WE HAVE TO GET THE ATTENTION OF THE BUILDERS AND THE DEVELOPERS BECAUSE A FEW THOUSAND DOLLAR DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING TO THEM.

THEY'RE JUST PASSING IT ALONG. IN THE COUNTY, THE ONLY THING THAT WE HAVE FOUND THAT GETS THEIR ATTENTION -- I MEAN, YOU CAN SEE IT. THEY ARE INSTANTLY IN THE COUNTY OFFICES. IS A STOP WORK ORDER. A FINE THEY JUST PASS ALONG.

BUT THAT SAID, I'M STILL ALL IN FAVOR OF FINES. WE MAY WANT TO COME UP WITH SOME DIFFERENTIAL FOR INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNERS, SOMETHING THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE HAVE FOR THE DEVELOPERS. BUT WE NEED NOT THINK THAT ALL HOMEOWNERS ARE WALKING AROUND WITH HALOS OVER THEIR HEADS. THEY ARE NOT. AND THEY ARE OFTEN UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF OTHER PEOPLE. THERE IS A LOT HERE. BUT I THINK A SYSTEM, AND I LIKE IDEA OF HAVING MULTIPLE VARIABLES INVOLVED IN THE SYSTEM.

WE COULD HAVE, FOR EXAMPLE, RANGES OF TREE SIZE, BECAUSE TREE SIZE TENDS TO REFLECT THE AGE OF THE TREE. IT TENDS TO REFLECT THE CONTRIBUTIONS THAT THE TREE IS

[01:55:04]

IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE THINK ABOUT ALL OF THESE FACTORS. IT IS THE SHADE TREES THAT COOL OUR TEMPERATURE OR MODERATE OUR TEMPERATURES. THEY EVEN WARM IT IN THE WINTER AND AT NIGHT. WE ALSO NEED TO BE FOCUSED ON THE FUNCTIONS OF THE TREES AND HOW THAT BENEFITS US. A LOT OF OUR ECONOMY, AND I TALK AB ECONOMY NOT BECAUSE I CARE ABOUT IT, BUT BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE CARES ABOUT. A LOT OF OUR ECONOMY DEPENDS ON OUR HAVING THESE TREES, AND A LOT OF THEM, AND GOOD LOOKING TREES, OKAY? I HAVE WHEN I AM IN THE FARMER'S MARKET, I HAVE TOURISTS COMING AND TELLING ME HOW IMPORTANT THE TREES ARE. THAT'S WHY THEY'RE HERE. THEY'RE WILLING TO COME FROM OHIO OR WHEREVER IN ORDER TO PRESENT TO YOU GUYS ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF SAVING THE TREES.

SO IT'S IMPORTANT FOR TOURISM. IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE COMMUNITY THAT LIVES HERE.

LOT OF PEOPLE LIVE HERE BECAUSE OF ENVIRONMENT WE HAVE AND BECAUSE OF THE OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES THAT THAT PRESENTS. IT'S VERY IMPORTANT AND IT SAVES US MONEY, SAVES US FROM HAVING TO SPEND MONEY ON OTHER THINGS THAT WOULD BE PROBLEMATIC LIKE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT.

I'M HAPPY TO WORK WITH KELLY OR THIS BOARD OR ANY GROUP ON DEVELOPING SOME TYPE OF SCALE THAT CAN BE USED FOR FINE. I THINK THERE ARE MANY WAYS TO DO IT.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. ARE WE GOING TO HAVE PUBLIC MEETINGS OR SOMETHING TO GO OVER THIS? IF YOU LOOK AT THE BOTTOM THERE, TREE ORDINANCE WAS CREATED IN 2006. WE ARE OPENING UP THE ISSUE TONIGHT. I ASSUME AT SOME POINT IT WILL COME BACK TO US?

>> I ANTICIPATE BASED ON THE DIRECTION AND THE EXTENT OF THE DIRECTION FOR REVISION MAKING THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE THAT REVISION AND RETURN IT BACK TO YOU AT THE NEXT AVAILABLE MEETING IN FEBRUARY. IF WE'RE LOOKING AT LARGER REVISIONS THAT WOULD EXTEND IT

OUT MORE. >> SHE SAID SHE WOULD WORK WITH A GROUP.

WHEN THE TREE ORDINANCE WAS DONE IN 2006 THEY MET FOR SIX MONTHS BEFORE THEY FINALLY GOT

SOMETHING TOGETHER. YOU CAN CALL IT UP. >> DID THE COMMISSION PROVIDE

ANY DIRECTION AS TO WHEN THEY WANTED THIS BACK? >> THE FEELING THAT I HEARD OVERWHELMINGLY LAST NIGHT WAS THAT QUICKLY YOU WANTED TO MAKE SOME CHANGES, ESPECIALLY AS IT

RELATES TO A PENALTY AMOUNT. >> IS THAT YOUR CONSENSUS FROM LAST NIGHT?

HOW DO YOU FEEL? >> MY NAME IS MIKE.

YEP, I THINK IT WAS IMPORTANT THAT WE ADDRESS IT NOW. >> MIKE LEDNOVICH, 1586 CANOPY DRIVE. I'LL SHARE WITH YOU WHAT I SHARED WITH MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS LAST NIGHT. WE ARE AT A POINT WITH THE TREE CANOPY WHERE TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE. THE REASON THIS -- VERY FRANKLY, THE REASON THIS CAME UP WAS THE AMELIA BLUFF MITIGATION PLAN. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE AMELIA BLUFF MITIGATION PLAN, AND YOU LOOK AT THE PENALTIES CURRENTLY ON THE BOOKS, THEY'RE GOING TO BE PAYING $1300 PER TREE.

NOW, IN THE CITY OF TAMPA EXAMPLE -- AND THAT'S 14 TREES BECAUSE THEY'RE REPLACING OTHERS. IN THE CITY OF TAMPA EXAMPLE, THEY TOOK DOWN 23 OAKS.

CITY OF TAMPA IS FINING THEM $28,000 PER TREE. SO I GUARANTEE YOU THAT GETS

[02:00:06]

WE'RE NOT GAINING. YOUR PLAT RULE TONIGHT, I LOOKED AT THE TREE PLAN.

800 DIAMETER INCHES OF TREES THEY'RE GOING TO PRESERVE 300. AND I GIVE THE ARCHITECT CREDIT.

THAT'S 500 DIAMETER INCHES LESS ON THE ISLAND. AMELIA BLUFF TOOK OUT 52 TREES,

500 -- >> 566 INCHES. >> 566 INCHES OF TREES AND WE'RE NOT REPLACING THEM. SO WE HAVE TO STEP UP OUR GAME. SPEAKING FOR MYSELF AS ONE COMMISSIONER AND INCREASE THE PENALTY. BECAUSE THE 2500, LET ME MAKE THIS POINT. THE $2500 FINE, IF YOU WERE TO APPROVE THAT IN THE AMELIA BLUFF EXAMPLE INSTEAD OF AN $18,000 FINE, THAT WOULD BE A $36,000 FINE.

ONCE AGAIN WHEN YOU'RE BUILDING 34 HOUSES, WHERE'S THAT COST GOING? SO I HOPE I ANSWERED YOUR QUES QUESTION.

>> WE HAVE SO MUCH VACANT LAND THAT'S IN THE CITY LIMIT AND THOSE PEOPLE ALL COME IN AND ASK FOR WATER AND SEWER AND THEN THEY DEVELOP UNDER THE COUNTY RULES.

I KEEP STRESSING THIS. ANYONE WANTING CITY WATER AND SEWER NEEDS TO DEVELOP UNDER CITY RULES. IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO THAT. TELL ME SOMETHING THAT I WOULD PUT IN HERE. I KNOW WE'RE TRYING TO DO A LOCAL AGREEMENT.

WHAT I HEARD LAST NIGHT, NOT VERY SUCCESSFULLY, THAT I, MAYBE WE COULD GO BEYOND THE INTERLOCAL ARGUMENT AND DO IT OURSELVES. THIS IS WHAT WE REQUIRE IF YOU

WANT SEWER AND WATER. THAT'S JUST THE WAY THAT I DO. >> I AGREE.

MY CONCERN WHEN I RAISED THIS THE INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNER TAKES DOWN A TREE.

OBVIOUSLY DO NOT WANT TO FINE THEM $28,000. THE AGGRESSIVE APPROACH, I

THINK, FROM ONE COMMISSIONER'S -- >> LAST NIGHT THEY SAID 13,000

TREES. >> IN TAMPA IT WAS 28,000. >> I UNDERSTAND.

>> WE'RE CHARGING $1300. >> I THOUGHT YOU SAID PENALTY OUGHT TO BE $14,000 A TREE.

>> THAT'S WHY YOU'RE THE ADVISORY BOARD. >> YOU'RE RIGHT.

WE HAVE TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION THAT WE DEVELOP IT FOR ONE LOT, ONE HOMEOWNER

VERSUS SOMEONE COMING IN. >> WE'RE LOOKING FOR YOUR BEST ADVICE ON THIS.

>> FROM YOUR PERSONAL PERCEPTION, SOMEONE ON A SCALED APPROACH, MAYBE EXTENDING BEYOND THE OTHER FACTORS. WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED A NONFUNCTIONAL SOLUTIONS.

>> CORRECT. CORRECT. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU FOR HEARING THAT. >> TELL US WHERE YOU ARE? >> I'M MIKE PERAN.

I LIVE AT 2493 CAPTAIN HOOK DRIVE. WE BOUGHT HERE IN 2013, AFTER MANY YEARS OF LOOKING AT THIS AREA. I'M RETIRED.

I WORK PART-TIME WITH FEMA. I RESPONDED TO SANDY. I LIVED ON LONG BEACH ISLAND IN NEW JERSEY. IT'S A BARRIER ISLAND, MUCH LIKE THIS ONE, BUT THERE ARE 90% LESS TREES ON THAT ISLAND THAN THERE ARE HERE. THAT ISLAND HAD BREAK THROUGHS BECAUSE OF THAT. THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS HAD TO REBUILD ENTIRE BLOCKS OF DUNES

THAT WERE TORN APART. >> IN '50 THEY PUT A BEACH THERE.

>> MY IN-LAWS LIVED THERE FROM '68 UNTIL THEY LOVED IN '80. WE USED TO GO THERE ALL THE TIME. ASIDE FROM THAT, I SUPPORT WHAT MARGRET SAID.

I THINK THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IS DOING A GREAT JOB AS FAR AS PUTTING SOMETHING FORWARD RIGHT

[02:05:07]

IT IS NOT STRINGENT ENOUGH. I'M A HOMEOWNER HERE. I KNOW WHEN I HAVE TO DO SOMETHING, I HAVE TO GET A PERMIT AND GET IT TAKEN CARE OF BY THE CITY DEPARTMENT.

IF YOU'RE DOING CONSTRUCTION, DOING AN ADDITION, WHATEVER. MY LANDSCAPING, PUTTING AN AIR CONDITIONER IN, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GET A PERMIT IN. IF YOU DON'T KNOW THE RULES, YOU'RE GONNA PAY THE PRICE. $5,000 IS WHAT I SAY AND GRADUATE FROM THERE.

FIRST TREE $5,000, SECOND TREE $7,500, $10,000 AND CLIMB IT. PEOPLE SHOULD BE MADE RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT THEY'RE DOING. HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE.

DON'T GUY HEAD AND HOLD THEIR HAND AND SAY, YOU SHOULDN'T DO THAT, DON'T YOU KNOW BETTER THAN THAT? DEVELOPERS DON'T CARE. I WOULD TAKE THIS PARAGRAPH RIGHT HERE, THIRD LINE DOWN, MUST BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ALL SITE CLEARING ACTIVITIES.

THE ARBORIST SHOULD BE OUT THERE BEFORE THE SITE'S CLEARED, BEFORE ANYTHING IS DONE ON THAT SITE, HE SHOULD BE OUT THERE LOOKING AT IT AND TELLING YOU EXACTLY WHAT IS THERE.

NOT AFTER THE FACT. PRIOR TO ALL SITE CLEARING. >> THEY DO.

>> WHAT DO YOU DO? THEY'RE GONNA GET OUT THERE AND TAKE STUFF DOWN BEFORE THE

ARBORIST GETS THERE. >> THEY GET OUT THERE AT THE BEGINNING.

>> MAYBE KELLY SHOULD EXPLAIN WHAT HAPPENS. SAY A SITE PLAN FOR A

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. HOW DOES THAT WORK NOW? >> AT THIS TIME, ONCE A DEVELOPMENT ORDER HAS BEEN ISSUED, A PROJECT CONTRACTOR CAN COME IN AND PULL PERMITS FOR WHAT'S CALLED A SITE PERMIT IN ORDER TO PUT IN THE DRAIN WATER SYSTEM, THE SEWAGE, ALL THAT.

THEN PART OF THE PACKAGE THAT GOES OUT, TREE REMOVAL IS THERE. THERE'S A PAID FEE ASSOCIATED WITH IT. THERE'S ALSO AN INSPECTION REQUIREMENT BEFORE WE CUT TREES.

WE WANT TO SEE WHERE YOUR TREE BARRIERS ARE BEING INSTALLED, AND THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT THAT'S BEEN ISSUED. SO THAT PIECE OF IT IS HAPPENING, BUT IT'S NOT ARTICULATED. THAT IS A PIECE I AM SUGGESTING BE INCLUDED SO IT IS VERY CLEAR.

>> IT MUST BE. IT HAS TO BE. I HAD SOMETHING ELSE TO SAY, BUT

I FORGOT. >> WHILE YOU'RE THINKING, IF YOU PUT A LOT BEING PREPARED FOR AN INDIVIDUAL HOUSE, YOU'LL NOTICE MAYBE DIFFERENT COLORED CAPES ON THE TREES.

THAT'S THE GO AND NO GO. >> I UNDERSTAND. >> THAT'S DONE.

>> IN MY PRIOR LIFE I WORKED IN CONTRACTING. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT.

SO I UNDERSTAND ALL THIS. THAT'S WHY I SAY IT'S IMPORTANT BEFORE ANYTHING HAPPENS, IT'S

STATED THAT THEY HAVE TO HAVE THE ARBORIST OUT THERE THEN. >> THEY DO THAT.

>> THAT ISN'T ARTICULATED ENOUGH. THAT WAS A LOOPHOLE BEFORE AS FAR AS I WAS CONCERNED. BUT AGAIN -- AND ALSO, THE TREES IN THIS TREE REPLACEMENT PLAN, THEY NEED TO BE NATIVE PLANTS, SOMETHING NATIVE. DON'T BRING RED MAPLES DOWN HERE, GUM TREES. FIND SOMETHING INDIGENOUS TO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, THIS ISLAND,

AND THAT'S WHAT THEY HAVE TO REPLACE IT WITH. >> WE'VE DONE THAT.

>> I STILL WANT TO HAVE IT SAID. >> YOU CAN COME BACK. >> I WAS THERE LAST NIGHT UNTIL

11:00 P.M. >> DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING? NO? ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

MISS SCHAFFER, YOUR LIGHT'S ON. >> I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK, IS THERE A PRICE, DO WE HAVE A VALUE OF SAY HOW MUCH A 24 INCH TREE, HOW MUCH DOES THAT ACTUALLY COST AND TO ACTUALLY PHYSICALLY PAY SOMEBODY TO PUT IT IN? SHOULDN'T WE FEE HOW MUCH IT ACTUALLY COSTS? HOW MUCH DOES THAT TREE COST AND TO PUT IT IN?

NOT JUST MAKING UP A FEE. RIGHT? >> I WORKED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT ON ST. SIMON'S ISLAND THAT LITERALLY MOVED OAK TREES, LARGE OLD OAKS.

THEY DEVELOPED A SLED TO PUT THEM ON BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T LIKE THE 400 ACRE GOLF COURSE.

THEY WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU COULD BE OUT ON THE GOLF COURSE AND NOT SEE ANYBODY, JUST TREES.

[02:10:03]

IT WAS ABOUT 50,000 PER TREE. THAT WAS MOVING THEM ON SITE. >> I'M FROM AUGUSTA.

I HAVE SEEN THE AUGUSTA NATIONAL HAULING IN 100-YEAR-OLD TREES. IT CAN BE DONE.

>> THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN THE PENALTY. IF YOU'RE TAKING OUT A 100-YEAR OAK TREE, SHOULDN'T BE THE SAME PENALTY IF YOU TOOK OUT SOMETHING ELSE.

THOSE THINGS HAVE BEEN MENTIONED. WE HAVE A NICE LIST THAT WE'VE

DRAWN UP ALREADY TONIGHT. TAMMY, DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING? >> I DO.

WITH REGARD TO THE NUMBER THAT YOU CHOOSE, IF YOU WATCH THE COMMISSION MEETING LAST NIGHT ESPECIALLY IF YOU STUCK THERE ALL THE WAY. MY CONDOLENCES.

I WANTED TO SAY THAT I TOLD THE COMMISSION LAST NIGHT THAT WHEN WE SET FINES, WHEN THEY'RE PUNITIVE, OR REALLY ANY FINE, IS TO MAKE THE CITY WHOLE. THE CITY IS REPRESENTING THE PEOPLE. SO TO MAKE SURE POPULATION WHOLE AGAIN.

AND IF WE CAN COME UP WITH SOME DATA THAT TELLS US WHAT IT COSTS OR WHAT THE VALUE OF THAT IS, WE INCLUDE IT IN OUR ORDINANCE. WE INCLUDE IT IN DISCUSSION AND DEBATE FOR THE ORDINANCE, I'M FINE WITH IT. IT COULD BE $100,000 A TREE IF THE DATA IS THERE TO BACK IT UP.

IF IT'S NOT THERE AND WE CAN'T FIND THAT DATA DEFINITIVELY, I WOULD SAY, I'M COMFORTABLE LEGALLY WITH STARTING AT $5,000 FOR EACH VIOLATION, SO EACH TREE REMOVED.

WHERE I GET THAT FROM AND THERE'S A BASIS THAT I CAN DEFEND, IS IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT STATE LAW. YOU'VE HEARD OF THIS BEFORE. YOU CAN HAVE A FINE ASSESSED OF UP TO $250 A DAY. THAT'S UNTIL YOU CORRECT THE VIOLATION.

THE STATUTE ALSO PROVIDES FOR IRREPERABLE OR IRREVERSIBLE, A FINE.

IT'S WHAT THE CODE SAYS. THAT'S $5,000. FOR REPEAT VIOLATION, I THINK IT'S $15,000. SO I CAN LIVE WITH TAKING THE NUMBER THAT WE HAVE HERE, INCREASING IT TO 5,000 PER VIOLATION AND THEN I WOULD LIKE TO SEE, I'M NOT SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND THE FINE SCHEDULE, IF YOU WILL, AT THE VERY END OF THE ORDINANCE WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT IF A TREE CANNOT BE REPLACED. BUT SOMETHING LIKE THAT, I CAN -- WHAT I WOULD DO AND BE NOT AS COMFORTABLE AS JUST STICKING WITH $5,000, BUT OKAY WITH, AND I'LL RESEARCH THIS WITH SOME OF MY COLLEAGUES, IS SORT OF A LIST LIKE THIS, THAT YOU CAN BASE IT ON INCHES.

THAT'S HOW WE DETERMINED, AS MISS KIRKLAND SAID. THAT'S HOW YOU DETERMINE HOW OLD THE TREE IS, HOW VALUABLE IT IS. ASSUMING THAT, OF COURSE, THEY'RE HEALTHY.

SO $5,000. I DIDN'T GET YOUR LAST NAME, MIKE.

I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. BUT THEN $7500 AND ON AND ON. I THINK THE HERITAGE TREE AMOUNT NEEDS TO BE INCREASED SIGNIFICANTLY, TO BE HONEST. ALL OF THAT FROM THE LEGAL SIDE, I HAVE TO BE ABLE TO DEFEND THESE. IT'S LESS LIKELY A PROPERTY OWNER WOULD, BUT THE DEVELOPER COULD. WE DON'T WANT TO DO THAT AND THEN IT'S A MESS. AND IN TAMPA, BY THE WAY, SOMEBODY IN THE CITY REALLY GOT MAD AT WHAT THE DEVELOPER DID. THEY'RE GETTING SUED AND CHALLENGED.

I'M NOT SAYING THE DEVELOPER'S GOING TO WIN, BUT WE'LL WATCH THAT ONE CLOSELY.

BUT THAT WILL BE THE ARGUMENT THE COURT WILL SAY. WHERE DID THOSE FEES COME FROM?

HOW ARE THEY JUSTIFIED? >> WE'VE COME UP WITH SOME IDEAS TONIGHT.

LIKE WISE -- EXCUSE ME, MA'AM. WE HAVE COME UP WITH SOME IDEAS TONIGHT.

WE TALKED ABOUT GRADUATED PENALTIES. WE TALKED ABOUT ANY NUMBER OF THINGS, REPLACEMENT. WHAT ARE WE DOING NEXT? WE SAID THIS IS AN EMERGENCY.

WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING NOW. ARE WE GONNA SIT HERE AND SAY NEXT WEEK, NEXT MEETING, THE FINE IS GOING TO BE $10,000, $5,000 AND WORK ON THE REST OF IT? WHERE DO WE GO FROM TONIGHT AND WHAT'S THE PLAN? WE'RE NOT TAKING ANY ACTION

TONIGHT. BUT WE HAVE IDEAS NOW. >> YES.

>> WE'RE WILLING TO COME BACK AND HAVE A PUBLIC MEETING AND DEVELOP SOME LANGUAGE AN MOVE FORWARD VERY QUICKLY. IS WHAT I'M HEARING FROM THE BOARD.

YES? >> I DON'T KNOW WHAT KELLY HEARD.

WHAT I HEARD IS THAT EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THE SUGGESTIONS THAT YOU MADE AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MADE, WE COULD INCORPORATE PRETTY MUCH ALL OF THEM.

[02:15:03]

BACK FOR A FORMAL VOTE ON THE ORDINANCE? >> YES.

>> IN ALL FAIRNESS, THOUGH, I THINK THERE'S BEEN DIFFERENT IDEAS ABOUT THE SAME POINT.

>> I'M JUST SAYING THAT'S WHAT I HEARD. YOU ALL NEED TO TELL US THAT.

I'M NOT SPEAKING FOR KELLY. NEXT STEP COULD BE A FINAL VOTE ON THE ORDINANCE.

BUT WHAT IS YOUR PLEASURE? DO WE NEED TO DEBATE AND LOOK AT LANGUAGE?

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, I THINK YOUR QUESTION IS WHEN DOES THIS COME BACK?

>> HOW ARE WE MOVING FORWARD? >> MY SENSE FROM WHAT KELLY SAID EARLIER AND WHAT THE COMMISSION I THOUGHT, WHAT MR. LEDNOVICH SAID, THERE'S A SENSE OF URGENCY.

I THOUGHT THIS WOULD COME BACK THE NEXT MEETING FOR ACTION. >> SHOULD WE HAVE A MEETING BEFORE THAT WITH THE PUBLIC? PEOPLE SAID THEY'RE WILLING TO WORK ON IT.

WE HAVE SOME IDEAS. WE JUST CAN'T BRING IT BACK AT THE NEXT MEETING WITHOUT SOME DEVELOPMENT FROM THE BOARD. THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE INTERESTED WOULD SHOW UP FOR A MEETING.

>> MAYBE A WORK SHOP IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? >> I THINK THAT WOULD BE IDEAL.

A WORK SHOP SOMETIME BETWEEN NOW AND OUR NEXT MEETING. LET'S FIGURE OUT WHO WANTS TO

LEAD THAT. >> DO WE NEED A MOTION TO HAVE A WORKSHOP?

>> LET'S FIND OUT. >> I THINK WE CAN DO THAT. IT WILL BE DIFFICULT TO HAVE THIS ROOM AT 5:00. IF THE BOARD MEMBERS ARE OPEN TO HAVING A MEETING AT AN ALTERNATE TIME. WE CAN ALSO LOOK AT ALTERNATE LOCATIONS, TOO.

THE OTHER IS, WITH RESPECT TO ADVERTISING FOR THE CHANGES AND TO BE ABLE TO HAVE IT ON THE NEXT AVAILABLE AGENDA, WE DO NEED TO AGREE WHICH SECTIONS OF CODE WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE SO THAT I CAN GET THAT ADVERTISING MOVING. I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT GOING TO EXTEND IT TO ANOTHER AREA OF THE CODE THROUGHOUT THAT DISCUSSION.

IF WE ARE LIMITING IT TO THE SECTIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN HIGHLIGHTED TONIGHT CHAPTERS 4 AND 11, I THINK THAT'S ENOUGH FOR ME TO MOVE FORWARD. THAT WAY THERE'S NOT DELAY IN

RETURNING IT BACK AT THE FOLLOWING MEETING. >> SECTION 11.804 WITH PENALTY.

DO YOU DO A GRADUATED PENALTY, REPLACEMENT OF THE TREES? >> ALL OF THAT CAN BE WORKED OUT THROUGH THE NEXT WORK SHOP. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE NOT GOING TO LOOK AT ANY OTHER

SECTIONS OF CODE. >> JUST THESE. >> ARE THERE ANY OTHER SECTIONS WE'D LIKE, BESIDES PENALTY AND SOME OF THESE ITEMS WE TALKED ABOUT?

>> IT'S FOR WHAT A RECOMMENDATION I HAVE FOR A WORK SHOP.

BUT OTHER SECTIONS, HE'S CLEAR. I DON'T KNOW OF ANY OTHERS. >> MAINTENANCE FUND IDEA.

>> THAT CAN BE INCLUDED. >> I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT. >> YOU TALK ABOUT SOME DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN PROPERTY OWNER AND MAYBE DEVELOPMENT. TALK ABOUT CITY ARBORISTS BEING THE SAME PERSON. WE TALKED ABOUT WHAT'S THE TREE'S REPLACEMENT OR FUNCTION? YOU CAN'T TAKE OUT AN OAK TREE AND PUT IN A PALM TREE. THEY DO TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.

THE ECONOMICS OF IT, ALSO, GRADUATED PENALTY. A LOT OF THIS IS WHAT'S THE

PENALTY AND HOW ARE WE GOING TO HANDLE IT. >> I THINK YOUR LIST WAS ACCURATE IN TERMS OF WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT. THE ONLY THING I WOULD ADD, KELLY HAD MENTIONED IN HER COMMENTS, THE EXEMPTION PROVISION.

MY OWN THOUGHT, I DON'T KNOW THAT ANYBODY COMMENTED ABOUT THAT.

MY THOUGHT IS WE SHOULD SHOOT FOR 50%. 50% EXEMPTION.

IT'S NOW 80%. KELLY RECOMMENDED 60%. I THINK YOU, IN YOUR COMMENTS,

SAID 50% IS PERHAPS ACHIEVABLE. >> THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING I WOULD PUT ON THE WORK SHOP.

>> OKAY. I HAVE JUST EXPRESSING MY OWN VIEW ON THAT SINCE WE HADN'T

REALLY TALKED ABOUT THAT. >> THAT IS ONE ITEM WE'VE DISCUSSED.

WE HIT ALL OF THESE ITEMS. EVERYTHING FITS WITHIN THIS GROUP.

DOES EVERYONE AGREE WITH THAT? THIS IS WHAT WE'RE GONNA TALK ABOUT AT A WORK SHOP.

THEN THE NEXT -- WE HAVE A TECH CENTER IF WE CAN'T DO IT HERE. THAT'S AN IDEAL SPOT.

WHEN, WHERE AND WHO WOULD LIKE TO CHAIR THIS? >> I WILL.

>> OKAY. MISS MINSHEW. ANYBODY OBJECT TO MISS MINSHEW

[02:20:05]

>> NO, NO, GOODNESS, NO. I'M JUST THINKING. >> LET'S FIND OUT WHO WOULD

COMMIT TO THAT FIRST. >> SO THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS.

WE'RE SORT OF GETTING OFF THE RAILS. >> I AM?

>> MISS SCHAFFER'S HAD HER LIGHT ON FOR SOME TIME. I WAS GOING TO SAY -- I KNOW, WE KNOW, THAT THERE ARE SOME BOARD MEMBERS THAT WORK. WHAT KELLY IS TELLING YOU ALL IS IF IT'S NOT AVAILABLE AT 5, KELLY AND I ARE NOT AVAILABLE AT 10.

IT WOULD HAVE TO BE ANYWHERE BETWEEN 9 A.M. UNTIL 2 P.M. >> CAN'T DO ANYTHING AT 5 P.M.?

>> NO. >> 4:30 P.M.? >> I USED TO POST NOTICES WHERE MY OFFICE IS AND I'D HAVE A NICE ROW OF FOUR OR FIVE. I NEED A SECOND BOARD THE SIZE OF THESE MAPS. THAT'S HOW MANY MEETINGS WE HAVE IN THESE CHAMBERS NOW.

THAT'S JUST FOR THE MONTH OF JANUARY. >> OKAY.

>> WE DON'T HAVE ANY ROOM IN HERE. IT HAS TO BE DURING THE DAY.

WE HAVE FOLKS HERE THAT WORK DURING THE DAY. MY PROPOSAL WOULD BE IF YOU HAVE A WORK SHOP AND SOME MEMBERS CAN'T BE THERE OR ATTEND BECAUSE OF THE TIME, YOU SHOULD DO A SUBCOMMITTEE OR YOU SHOULD AT LEAST CONSIDER THAT. I THINK EVERYBODY HERE IS BIG ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND AND SAY, NO, I THINK IT SHOULD BE THE WHOLE BOARD, I DON'T WANT TO BE

LEFT OUT. JUST SAYING. >> I'M CONFUSED.

WE'VE HAD SO MANY WORK SHOPS AFTER 4 P.M. MAKE SURE THE PUBLIC HAS

OPPORTUNITIES TO ATTEND. >> I AGREE. >> YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT I

CAN'T DO THAT. >> WITHIN YOUR TIME FRAME IF YOU WANT A WORK SHOP OR COMMITTEE MEETING BEFORE THE NEXT FEBRUARY PLANNING BOARD, YOU WILL NOT HAVE ANY ROOM.

KELLY CAN CHECK FOR YOU, BUT THERE WON'T BE ANY ROOM. >> DO WE HAVE A TIME?

>> 12TH OF FEBRUARY IS OUR NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING. >> SO EARLY FEBRUARY?

I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S AVAILABLE AND WHAT YOUR TIME SCHEDULE IS. >> I'LL LOOK FIRST TIME TOMORROW. BUT I NEED TO CHECK WITH OTHER VENUES TO SEE IF IT'S POSSIBLE

TO HAVE A MEETING THERE. >> AND THE OTHER THING, TOO, AND I'M STARTING TO ADVISE OUR BOARDS TO HAVE, SUBCOMMITTEE VERSUS WORKHOP. IF A MEMBER CANNOT ATTEND A WORKSHOP, IT'S REPORTED AS AN ABSENCE, IT DOESN'T GO AGAINST THEIR THREE ABSENCES OF THE YEAR WHERE YOU'RE AUTOMATICALLY NOT ON THE BOARD, BUT IT'S STILL IN THE BOOKS AS AN ABSENCE.

>> LET'S FIND OUT HOW MANY PEOPLE WOULD WANT TO ATTEND THAT AND BE PART OF THAT WORKSHOP.

>> I'D LIKE TO ATTEND, BUT IT DEPENDS ON WHEN IT IS. >> SOME PEOPLE IT'S LIKE, NO, I

CAN'T DO IT ANY TIME BEFORE 6 OR -- >> SURE.

>> KELLY'S GONNA FIGURE THAT OUT. >> JUST A QUICK QUESTION.

I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A LEGAL MAXIMUM AMOUNT THAT YOU CAN FINE PEOPLE.

THERE ARE GUIDELINES FOR THAT. >> I'D HAVE TO START AT WHERE'S THE MINIMUM? WHAT'S THE MAXIMUM IF WE'RE GOING TO DO A SCALE. $5,000 RIGHT NOW, I SAID, I CAN JUSTIFY. BUT WE'RE GOING TO RESEARCH THAT SOME MORE.

WE NEED TO GET THIS GOING. WE CAN'T WAIT FOR ME OR KELLY TO FINISH THE RESEARCH.

BUT I AM GOING UP FOR IF THEY ARE LARGER TREES, GOING UP TO $75,000.

>> PEOPLE ON THE COMMITTEE CAN DO THE RESEARCH IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS.

>> RIGHT. YOU CAN DO RESEARCH, YES. IT'S NOT AS EASY AS FINDING OTHER TOWNS OR CITIES THAT HAVE IT. IT'S ME TALKING TO MY COLLEAGUES

AND LOOKING UP THINGS. >> I'M GOOGLING IT NOW. >> I CAN'T EVEN BELIEVE IT'S

JANUARY 8TH. >> WE KNOW TAMPA IS ON THAT LIST.

I'M SURE PALM BEACH IS ON THAT LIST. SOME OF YOUR MORE AFFLUENT COMMENTS ARE. IF THEY'RE GOING TO TELL YOU WHAT COLOR TO PAINT YOUR HOUSE

-- >> YOU'D BE SURPRISED. >> KELLY'S GONNA GET SOME DATES TOGETHER AND TIMES AND SEND THAT OFF TO THE BOARD. YOU'LL REPLY TO HER.

[02:25:03]

>> YES. >> OKAY. ARE WE DONE WITH --

>> WE'RE DOING A WORKSHOP. >> WE ARE GOING TO DO THE WORKSHOP.

AND YOU ARE GOING TO BE THE CH CHAIR.

>> IS IT A WHOLE BOARD WORKSHOP OR SUBCOMMITTEE? >> SHE'S GONNA PUT THE TIMES

OUT. EVERYBODY SAID IT DEPENDS. >> I THINK IT'S A WORKSHOP.

>> IT'S A WORKSHOP, BUT IF YOU CAN'T COME, YOU'RE NOT BEING CHARGED AN ABSENCE.

>> CORRECT. IS THAT ALL RIGHT WITH EVERYONE? >> DO YOU WANT TO VOTE AT THIS

MEETING? >> AT A WORKSHOP? DO WE WANT TO VOTE?

>> CAN'T VOTE -- >> PROBABLY NOT. >> YOU CAN'T VOTE AT WORKSHOPS, SO IF YOU WANT TO VOTE, YOUR SUBCOMMITTEE CAN VOTE. I'M GETTING TIRED.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S WRONG WITH ME TONIGHT. >> WE'LL PUT TOGETHER THE

SUGGESTIONS THAT YOU PUT OUT WOULD BE THE WAY TO GO. >> I'M WITH YOU ON FIGURING IT

OUT. >> WE'RE DONE WITH THIS? >> WE'RE NEVER DONE WITH THIS.

>> WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON -- >> WE'RE DONE WITH THIS ITEM. >> 2006 TREE ORDINANCE, I SAID SIX MONTHS. IT PROBABLY TOOK A YEAR TO PUT ALL OF THAT TOGETHER.

>> MORE THAN THAT. >> IT TOOK TWO YEARS FOR MINOR REVISIONS IN 2014.

>> WE TALKED ABOUT IT FOR TEN YEARS BEFORE WE GOT THE ORDINANCE TOGETHER.

FOR YOUR INFORMATION, FYI. OKAY. ON TO THE NEXT ITEM WHICH IS SELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR. NO?

[Item 4]

WHAT DID I MISS? UPDATE ON ENCROACHMENT. >> I KNOW I HOPE TO BRING BACK SOME LANGUAGE TO YOU. AT THIS TIME I WENT BACK TO THE MEETING MINUTES AND I REALLY FELT LIKE I NEEDED BETTER DIRECTION FROM YOU AND SO I HAVE PROVIDED TO YOU AN ATTEMPT TO GET AT LANGUAGE WHICH IS IN KEEPING WITH WHAT I HEARD FROM THE LAST MEETING IN DECEMBER.

SOME CLARIFYING ASPECTS OF HOW WE WOULD TREAT HEIGHT ENCROACHMENT.

>> DID THE BOARD VOTE LAST NIGHT? >> THEY VOTED ON HEIGHT AND

STRUCTURE.>> THAT LANGUAGE NEED INCLUDED IN WHATEVER WE'RE DOING.

>> IT WOULD BECOME ADOPTED BEFORE THIS WORK IS COMPLETED. >> WHEN I STARTED LOOKING AT THEIR STUFF I THOUGHT, WHERE DOES THAT FIT WITH WHAT WE'RE DOING?

>> THESE WERE CHANGES THAT WERE NECESSARY FOR THE FLOOD RELATED PROVISIONS THE COMMISSION WAS

DOING. >> RIGHT. I HEARD THEM SAY THEY WERE GOING TO TAKE OUT THE HEIGHT OUT OF THAT ORDINANCE AND INCLUDE ONLY OURS.

AND THEN YOU WERE GOING TO BRING BACK -- OUR CONFUSION LAST TIME WAS TO COME BACK WITH A NEW

DOCUMENT THAT WE UNDERSTOOD. BUT THEN THEY VOTED LAST NIGHT. >> THEY VOTED ON THE HEIGHT.

THEY VOTED ON A SECOND READING WHICH HAS HEIGHT COMPONENT CS I IT FOR THE FLOOD PLAN ORDINANCE.

IT ALSO REFERS BACK TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WITH RESPECT TO BUILDING HEIGHTH.

>> OKAY. WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS A REMAINING ITEM THAT WE SEPARATED OUT FROM THE WORK THAT WAS COMPLETED IN DECEMBER AND IT'S GETTING BACK TO WHAT, IF ANY, ENCROACHMENTS ARE ACCEPTABLE TO EXTEND BEYOND THE LINE OR MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT? AND THE LANGUAGE THAT I HAVE PREPARED FOR YOU TO BRING HOME WITH YOU THIS EVENING AND STAORT

CHEW ON A BIT -- GOT IT. SORRY. >> IS THIS WHAT YOU WANT?

>> THERE'S NO ACTION. I JUST WANTED TO SHARE SOME THOUGHTS.

I'LL BE VERY BRIEF. >> IT PROVIDES CLARIFICATION ON ROOF TOP ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES

[02:30:04]

CONFUSION AND HOW IT READS. >> COULD YOU SUMMARIZE HOW THIS ADDRESSES THE CONCERNS YOU HEARD

AT THE LAST MEETING? >> YES. THE PROPOSED CHANGE WOULD ELIMINATE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT FOR ALL RESIDENTS AND STRUCTURES.

THE PROPOSED CHANGE WOULD ALLOW FOR SOME MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO EXTEND TO A POINT OF NO GREATER THAN 42 INCHES TALL FOR NONRESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES. THE PROPOSED CHANGE ALSO ALLOWS FOR MINOR ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES WHICH ARE NONCOMMISSIONED, UNINHABITABLE TO EXTEND NO

GREATER THAN 42 INCHES. >> I LIKE IT. >> THESE MINOR THINGS DOWN HERE, COOPULA. YOU TOOK CARE OF ELEVATOR SHAFT WITH THE LAST ONE.

>> ELEVATOR SHAFTS ARE WITHIN THIS REVISION HERE. AN ELEVATOR SHAFT WOULD FALL UNDER WHAT IS A MECHANICAL REQUIREMENT. UNDER A RESIDENTIAL SETTING NOT

ALLOWED TO EXTEND BEYOND THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT. >> OKAY.

>> 42 INCHES. >> IF YOU ARE PROVIDING ACCESS IN A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE TO THE ROOF TOP AND YOU HAVE AN OPEN DECK, YOU'LL STILL NEED A RAILING FOR FALL PROTECTION.

MINIMUM REQUIREMENT IN THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE IS 42 INCHES.

>> OKAY. DID YOU GET THIS SHEET? >> I DID NOT.

>> JOHN, YOU CAN HAVE MINE. >> JOHN? >> IF YOU DON'T MIND.

>> TELL US WHO YOU ARE. JOHN USED TO BE ON THIS BOARD FOR AWHILE.

>> THANK YOU. I'M VERY COGNIZANT OF YOUR POSITION AND THE SEAT YOU'VE BEEN SITTING IN. I JUST HAVE REALLY THREE POINTS TO DISCUSS ABOUT THIS.

IT RELATES TO THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION. I HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING THIS SINCE MID 2018. LAST TIME IT WAS IN FRONT OF THE BOARD BEFORE THE DECEMBER MEETING WAS IN MARCH 2018. FOR A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY FOR YOU ALL, THE -- WELL, LET ME TELL YOU MY THREE POINTS. I WOULD ADVISE YOU TO GO SLOW ON THIS AND TAKE YOUR TIME.

I HATE TO USE THE WORD COMMITTEE, BUT YOU MIGHT WANT TO THINK ABOUT THAT.

THERE ARE SERIOUS FACTS WITH THIS. YOU WANT TO BE SURE THE CURE ISN'T WORSE THAN THE DISEASE. BY WAY OF HISTORY, THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION IN FERNANDINA BEACH WAS STATIC UNTIL 2004. IT WAS PRETTY DRAMATIC CHANGE. IT'S WHAT WE HAVE ON THE BOOKS TODAY. THAT WAS ABOUT THE TIME THE CURRENT HEIGHT RESTRICTION WAS ADOPTED. COUPLE OF YOU LIVE ON SOUTH FLETCHER.

FROM 2004 TO NOW THERE'S BEEN A DRAMATIC CHANGE. I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT THIS ORDINANCE CHANGE IS FOCUSED FOR. THAT'S FINE. IN SOME WAYS THE HORSE IS KIND OF OUT OF THE BARN. I USED TO DRIVE MY SON TO SCHOOL EVERY MORNING.

WE'D GO DOWN FLETCHER BECAUSE IT WAS A NICE DRIVE. I CAN TELL YOU, FOR A PERIOD OF ABOUT FOUR YEARS THAT A NEW HOUSE WAS BUILT EVERY MONTH, OR TORN DOWN.

THAT WOULD BE ABOUT THE RATIO. MY WIFE AND I HAVE BEEN MARRIED LITTLE OVER 20 YEARS.

WHEN MY MOTHER-IN-LAW CAME DOWN I DROVE HER DOWN FLETCHER AND SHOWED HER EVERY SINGLE HOME THAT HAD BEEN REBUILT AND SHE WAS FLABBERGASTED. OUR WEDDING WAS HERE.

I KNOW PERSONALLY AND ANECDOTALLY IT'S BEEN A LOT. I UNDERSTAND WHY THERE WOULD BE PUSH BACK. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE WANT TO GO BACK TO THE '90S.

BECAUSE WHAT WAS THEN THE NORM BEFORE THE CHANGE WAS ALLOWED WHICH ALLOWED UP TO 25 FEET, HALF FOOT ON BOTH SIDES FOR EVERY FOOT. I BUILT MY HOME ACCORDING TO THE OLD CODE. I BELIEVE I MIGHT HAVE BEEN THE LAST ONE PERMITTED UNDER THE OLD CODE. I JUST WANT TO BE SURE THAT CAREFUL CONSIDERATION IS GIVEN THAT WE DON'T GO BACKWARDS. I GUESS THAT'S THE BEST WAY TO PUT IT.

WE'RE GONNA END UP WITH FLAT ROOFS AT 35 FEET, WHICH YOU ALREADY HAVE.

THAT SEEMS TO BE THE MODERN ARCHITECTURE STYLE. I WANT EVERYBODY TO THINK ABOUT

[02:35:03]

IT'S THERE. IT'S BEEN THERE FOR 15 YEARS. I THINK SOME OF THE A ARCHITECTS WOULD SAY TO HAVE ABILITY TO HAVE ARTISTIC LICENSE. MY SECOND POINT WAS REGARDING CURRENT PROPERTY OWNERS ALONG FLETCHER THAT ARE VERY LIKELY UNAWARE THAT THIS DISCUSSION WAS BEING HELD TONIGHT. I DON'T THINK THEY WERE AWARE OF IT IN MARCH.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S BEEN NOTICED SINCE MARCH. I KNOW THERE ARE APPLICATIONS PENDING AND DESIGNS BEING MADE UNDER THE CURRENT HEIGHT RESTRICTION.

THOSE FOLKS ARE GOING TO BE HARMED PRETTY BADLY BY THIS. THEY'RE GOING ON WHAT'S BEEN ON THE BOOKS FOR NEARLY TWO DECADES. THAT WOULD BE PRETTY DRAMATIC.

THOSE ARE TWO POINTS TOGETHER. IT SEEMS TO ME IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO NOTICE THE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT WILL BE AFFECTED BY THIS SOMEHOW DIRECTLY.

MAYBE AN ARGUMENT TO SAY A YEAR LATER TO RELY ON-YEAR-OLD ADVERTISING ON PAPER IS NOT OKAY OR EVEN LONGER THAN THAT. HAS THERE BEEN A MORE RECENT ADVERTISING?

>> IT WOULD NEED TO BE MORE ADVER ADVERTISED.

>> THAT'S GOOD TO KNOW. IT MAY BE WORTH WHILE GOING A STEP FURTHER.

IF YOU'RE WITHIN 800 FEET, THE OWNER TO BE NOTIFIED. IT'S NOT HARD TO DO.

CAN SEND A POST CARD OUT, OR PARTICULARLY EXPENSIVE. THESE ARE FOLKS THAT WILL BE VERY AFFECTED. THE PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET FROM MINE SOLD YEAR AND A HALF AGO. I CAN'T IMAGINE HE AND HIS WIFE DIDN'T GO THROUGH THE DESIGN CRITERIA WHEN THEY BOUGHT IT AND PLANNING ON DOING WHATEVER THEY'RE PLANNING TO DO.

IF THEY DON'T PICK UP A NEWSPAPER, THEY WON'T KNOW. WHEN THEY GO TO BUILD, THEY WILL BE VERY SURPRISED TO FIND THEY CAN'T DO WHAT THEY THOUGHT THEY COULD DO WHEN THEY BOUGHT IT.

FOR THE CITY'S PROTECTION, I THINK MORE NOTICE. MAYBE EVEN ON WHAT'S PENDING IN FRONT OF THE CITY COMMISSION FOR SECOND READING AS WELL. I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS NOTICED PROPERLY. I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. JUST WATCHING THE MEETING FROM DECEMBER, SEEMS LIKE YOU DIDN'T REALLY AGREE ON WHAT IT SHOULD BE.

THAT'S FINE. THAT'S WHAT YOU ARE HERE FOR, TO DEBATE AND DISCUSS.

WHEN YOU CAN'T AGREE, THAT'S A CLEAR SIGN THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE STUDY AND MAYBE SOMEONE NEEDS TO BE BROUGHT IN TO HELP TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS ARE OF CHANGING THESE THINGS. I KNOW IT WAS A LONG DEBATE IN 2004.

BUT THERE WAS A TRIGGER THAT MADE IT HAPPEN. THERE WAS CONSTRUCTION OF THREE HOMES IN VIOLATION OF THE CURRENT CODE BUT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROPOSED CODE.

>> WE HAD A ZONING CHANGE. >> IT KIND OF FORCED YOU TO ADOPT THIS NEW CODE SO THEY WEREN'T IN TROUBLE WITH THE THREE HOUSES THAT WERE CONSULTED.

THAT'S OLD HISTORY. THERE WAS A LOT OF DEBATE THE FIRST TIME AROUND.

I THINK THERE WAS THIS PANIC THAT ALL OF A SUDDEN WE'D HAVE ONE STRETCH ALONG SOUTH FLETCHER. WHEN YOU GO DOWN THERE, I'D LIKE TO SEE YOU FIND MORE THAN ONE OR

TWO VACANT LOTS ALL TOGETHER. THERE ARE NOT. >> WILL THEY ALL BE TEARDOWNS?

>> THEY'RE ALL IN LIKE THE 600-800 BLOCK. THERE ARE MAYBE THREE LOTS.

THERE'S JUST NOT A LOT. >> WILL THEY ALL BE TEARDOWNS? >> THAT WAS MY POINT WITH MY MOTHER-IN-LAW. I SAID THEY'RE TEARING THEM DOWN.

TEARING ONE DOWN, PUTTING TWO UP. ONE THING I WOULD POINT OUT, TOO. I'M ON A 50 FOOT LOT. THAT HEIGHT RESTRICTION CHANGE WOULD HAVE HELPED US OUT. AT THE TIME IT WAS 10% OF THE LOT WIDTH PERIOD.

EVERY FOOT OVER 20 YOU HAD TO COME IN A FOOT ON BOTH SIDES, FROM EITHER SIDE, EXCUSE ME.

THAT'S WHAT IT WAS BEFORE 2004. IF I WERE TO BUILD A HOME ON A 50 FOOT LOT ON THE OCEAN OR OTHERWISE AND NOT GO OVER 25 FEET. YOU'RE TALKING WIDE AND SHORT.

I COULDN'T PUT ANY MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT IN MY FIVE FOOT SET BACK.

WITH THIS, I CAN'T PUT IT ON THE ROOF EITHER. I HAVE GOT TO PUT IT IN FRONT OR BEHIND. I CAN'T PUT IT IN FRONT. I HAVE TO PUT IT BEHIND.

JUST AN AIR CONDITIONER. >> BUT YOU CAN GO TO 35 FEET. MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT IS STILL

35 FEET. >> RIGHT. >> SO YOU CAN PUT IT ON YOUR

[02:40:01]

ROOF. >> OKAY. I SEE.

ALL RIGHT. I UNDERSTAND. I APPRECIATE THAT.

IF I DID TAKE THE FULL WIDTH, I'D HAVE TO HAVE SCREENING AROUND IT.

THAT WOULD BE ONE PROBLEM. >> CERTAINLY. >> I DON'T KNOW ANYBODY THAT WOULD WANT TO GO 20 FEET ANYWAY. THAT WAS PROBABLY DEVELOPED WITH THE CITY'S FIRST DEVELOPMENT CODE. ANYWAY, I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND WHAT YOU DO.

>> JOHN, WOULD YOU SAY YOUR HEIGHT RESTRICTION WAS MORE RESTRICTIVE WHEN YOU BUILT THAN

IT IS TODAY? >> I WOULD. BUT ALL DESIGNS HAVE CHANGED.

WE'RE VERY RESTRICTED. OUR HOUSE ON A 50-FOOT LOT, OUR HALLWAYS ARE CAVERNOUS.

I WANTED TO DO CONCRETE BLOCK WHICH IS FOUR INCHES MORE. HE SAID YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH WIDTH. YOUR HALLWAYS WILL BE 2 1/2 FEET WIDE AND YOU'LL FEEL LIKE YOU'RE IN A CAVE. THAT'S HOW TIGHT IT WAS. IT DOES ALLOW A LITTLE MORE

LEEWAY NOW. >> SO WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF YOU WERE SITTING UP HERE?

WHAT IS IT THAT YOU THINK WE SHOULD DO? >> IT'S NOT AS INVOLVED AS ANY TREE ISSUE. I HAVE SPENT MY FAIR TIME ON. I JUST THINK YOU NEED TO TAKE YOUR TIME AND STUDY IT AND ANALYZE -- THERE'S SOME FOLKS THAT HAVE BEEN OUTSPOKEN.

WE DON'T LIKE WHAT'S GOING ON. ON THE OTHER HAND YOU HAVE PEOPLE THAT PURCHASED IT UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ARE POTENTIALLY CONSIDERABLY CHANGING.

THIS IS SOME OF THE MOST VALUABLE PROPERTY IN THE CITY. I THINK THEY NEED SOME CONSIDERATION. THEY DO INTEND TO BE FUTURE OWNERS, AS MANY OF THE FOLKS WHO LIVE HERE NOW. I HAVEN'T MET THE FOLKS ACROSS THE STREET, BUT I KNOW WHO THEY ARE. I KNOW THEY INTEND TO RETIRE HERE ONE DAY.

I DON'T KNOW WHEN. THEY BOUGHT WHILE THEY COULD. I WOULD JUST TAKE CAREFUL STUDY OF IT. AND YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY, AND THE DIRECTION TO GO INTO, MAYBE IT'S WORK SHOPS, SUBCOMMITTEES, HIRED CONSULTANTS TO DO A STUDY.

SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINE ORS A COMBINATION OF THE ABOVE. LAST TIME IT WAS DONE, IT WASN'T BEING DONE AT A KNEE JERK REACTION UNTIL IT HAD TO BE DONE THAT WAY BECAUSE THERE WAS A

CLEAR VIOLATION. >> JOHN, IS YOUR CONCERN THAT THERE ARE EUPLT -- IMPLICATION OF THIS ORDINANCE AND CHANGES TO THE HEIGHT REGULATIONS THAT PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND SO IT'S LIKE A FLAT BOX AND YOUR CAUTION IS TO GO FORWARD BECAUSE WE MAY NOT UNDERSTAND ALL THE RAMIFICATIONS? OR IS IT MORE THAT YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC CONCERN ABOUT SOME

ASPECT OF IT? >> I HAPPEN TO HAVE EXPERIENCED IT.

I'M KIND OF SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF A CLIENT. I WOULDN'T SAY IT'S SPECIFICALLY FOR THIS HEIGHT ENCROACHMENT ISSUE. I THINK IT ALSO GOES TO THE FIRST READING LAST NIGHT. I THOUGHT THE READING WAS GONE. I ADVISED A CLIENT I WAS MONITORING THIS ISSUE FOR. I CAME TO A MEETING AND SPOKE IN MARCH OF 2019.

IT DIDN'T COME UP IN APRIL, DIDN'T COME UP IN MAY, JUNE. I ACTUALLY TOLD HIM AROUND THE END OF NOVEMBER THAT I THINK WE MAY, THIS MAY NOT BE COMING BACK UP.

MAYBE IT'S CALLED OFF THE WAYSIDE. WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED.

I WAS UNAWARE, HE WAS ALARMED, I WAS ALARMED. THIS WAS THE FIRST OPPORTUNITY.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT AFFECTS MY PARTICULAR CLIENT. I KNOW THERE'S A COMMISSIONER

HERE. >> IN ADDITION TO YOUR CLIENT, DO YOU THINK THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE, ARCHITECTS, PROPERTY OWNERS THAT ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THIS?

[02:45:01]

>> YES. I KNOW THREE LOCAL ARCHITECTS THAT ARE CONCERNED ABOUT IT.

I HAVEN'T HAD ANY DIRECT CONVERSATION -- I DID HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH ONE PARTICULAR CLIENT. IT DIDN'T REALLY AFFECT HIM AND THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION ORDINANCE. I JUST STUCK WITH THE ENCROACHMENT SIDE.

DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES WITH THEIR PARTICULAR LOT. I WOULD ADVISE AND THE COMMISSION TO TREAD -- NOT CAREFULLY. NOT IN A THREATENING WAY.

JUST BE CAREFUL OF WHAT YOU'RE DOING. BECAUSE I THINK, AGAIN, THE CURE MAY BE WORSE THAN THE DISEASE. I KNOW THERE'S HEIGHT CREEP AND HEIGHT ISSUES.

I KNOW THE GENTLEMAN ON THE 11TH OF DECEMBER CAME UP. HE WAS TALKING ABOUT A DIFFERENT AVENUE. THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN FLETCHER. IF THEY WANT TO PUT AN ELEVATOR SHAFT THERE, IT WON'T AFFECT ME. IT'S AESTHETIC. I DON'T KNOW.

I DON'T KNOW IF WE WANT TO GO BACK TO WHERE WE WERE PRIOR TO 2004.

I DON'T KNOW IF PUTTING THE GENIE BACK IN THE BOTTLE IS SOMETHING WE NEED TO DO.

PRIOR COMMISSION SAID THIS IS WHAT WE NEED TO DO. THIS IS WHAT WE WANT FOR 15, 16 YEARS IT'S BEEN ON THE BOOKS. NOW IT'S BECOME AN ISSUE. NOT LIKE THIS HAPPENED YESTERDAY OR LAST YEAR OR EVEN FIVE YEARS AGO. IT'S BEEN GOING 10, 15.

THANK YOU. >> I'M WELL VERSED IN THIS ISSUE.

>> I'M SURE YOU ARE. >> 2002 TO 2005 I WAS KNEE DEEP IN THE MIDDLE OF IT.

MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT. YOUR FAMILY AND MINE HAVE BEEN AROUND HERE A LONG LONG TIME.

THE GENESIS OF THIS HEIGHT ISSUE STARTED WITH AMELIA'S HOUSE. WHEN THEY BUILT THE SEVEN STORY CONDOS. THE COMMISSION AT THE TIME SAID WE DON'T WANT THAT TO BE A CONCRETE CAVERN ALONG SOUTH FLETCHER. THANK GOODNESS.

FEW PEOPLE ON THE COMMISSION REALLY WRESTLED WITH THAT AS MUCH AS WE ARE NOW.

THEY SAID THAT'S NOT WHAT WE WANT TO DO IN FERNANDINA. IF I COULD GO BACK TO YOUR REQUIREMENTS THAT YOU BUILT YOUR HOUSE UNDER, I'D SAY LET'S GO BACK TO THAT.

THAT'S MORE A HEIGHT REQUIREMENT THEY HAD IN MIND ON SOUTH FLETCHER.

EVENTUALLY THAT CREEP WAS ALLOWED BECAUSE WE WEREN'T PAYING ATTENTION.

WE HAD A FEW PEOPLE THAT DIDN'T DO THE RIGHT THING. IT HAPPENED.

NOW WE'RE TRYING TO REALLY PUT THE HORSE BACK IN THE BARN. >> TURN BACK THE CLOCK.

>> BASED ON YOUR STATEMENT, IF I WOULD SAY LET'S GO BACK TO THE 1990S VERSION, I WOULD SAY ABSOLUTELY YES. I'M VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF, HERE'S THE LINE, BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S WHAT RONNIE AND EVERYBODY ELSE MADE THE DECISION FOR THE COMMUNITY BACK THEN.

THEY SAID, WE DON'T WANT THIS TO BE THAT. WE HAVE SEEN LARGE HOUSES AND THE ELEVATOR SHAFTS. THEY'RE THERE UP AND DOWN THE STREET.

WHEN VICTORIA AND I LIVED ON THE BEACH, NOT SAYING HOW MANY YEARS AGO THAT WAS, BUT YOU COULD LOOK OVER SOMEBODY'S HOUSE AND SEE THE BEACH. YOU HAVE CLEAR SIGHT LINES.

IT WAS THE BEACH THAT YOU AND I GREW UP ON. CAN WE EVER GO BACK? NO. BUT WE CAN SORT OF MITIGATE THAT AS WE GO FUTURE.

THAT'S WHAT I'M ALL ABOUT. I GET THE ISSUES, BUT I'M HERE -- AT SOME POINT, LIKE THE TREE ORDINANCES WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT. THERE'S GOT TO BE A STIFF FINE.

I'M THERE NOW. HERE'S THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT. THAT'S IT.

NO MORE, NO LESS. JOHN'S DESIGNED MULTIPLE THINGS FOR ME.

IF I WENT TO HIM AND SAID, I HAVE GOT 35 FEET TO WORK WITH, MAKE ME A BEAUTIFUL HOUSE, HE COULD DO IT. ANY OTHER ARCHITECT IN THE CITY CAN DO THE SAME THING.

WHERE THE PROBLEM IS, I'M THE HOME OERPB AND I WANT TO MAXIMIZE.

ARCHITECT SAYS YOU CAN'T DO IT AT 35, YOU GOT TO HAVE 36. >> THEN WE'RE OFF TO THE RACES.

>> THAT'S WHERE WE ARE NOW. THAT'S MY POSITION ON THIS. WE CAN'T MAKE A HARD TPAFPBTD LINE SOON ENOUGH FOR ME. IF WE CAME BACK NEXT MEETING AND SAID THIS IS IT, I'M ALL FOR IT.

>> I DON'T THINK ANYBODY, ESPECIALLY NOT ME, PROMOTED INCREASING THE BUILDING HEIGHT

MORE THAN 35 FEET. I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT. >> I THINK THE OVER ALL

[02:50:02]

>> MY GRANDFATHER SOLD HIM THE DIRT TO BUILD HIS HOUSE. I APPRECIATE YOUR POINT.

AND ACKNOWLEDGE IT. AND AGREE IN SOME WAYS. CERTAINLY NOT OVER 35 FEET.

THAT'S BEEN THE MANTRA THAT I HAVE GROWN UP WITH. NOTHING OVER 35.

I USED TO TELL FOLKS, YOU COULD WRITE THAT IN STONE IF YOU WISH. IT'S 35.

IT'S NOT 35 1/2. IT'S 35. >> THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT IT WAS,

TOO. >> WHAT HAS BEEN ALLOWED SINCE 2004 ARE THESE ENCROACHMENTS.

>> IT HAS. >> MAYBE WHAT THEY INTENDED IN 2004 AND WHAT'S BEING DONE NOW

MAY BE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. I RECOGNIZE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. >> I JUST THINK THERE'S A FEELING THAT YES, IT WAS ALLOWED, BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT.

WHEN YOU DRIVE DOWN SOUTH FLETCHER AND YOU SEE ALL THESE, QUOTE UNQUOTE, MECHANICAL ROOMS OR ELEVATOR SHAFTS THAT ARE NOT BEING USED FOR ELEVATOR SHAFTS AND NOT BEING USED FOR MECHANICAL, EVENTUALLY ONE OR TWO OF US WILL FINALLY GET INTO THESE HOUSES AND YOU START TO SEE, WAIT A MINUTE. THE ELEVATOR IS IN A DIFFERENT PLACE.

AND WASN'T THAT SUPPOSED TO BE THE ELEVATOR SHAFT? NO, IT'S A GLORIOUS STAIR CASE OR SOMETHING ELSE THAT THEY USE IT FOR. IT'S LIKE, WAIT A MINUTE.

THAT'S NOT RIGHT. I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE SEE. JUST FLAGRANT THAT THERE'S THIS -- IT'S JUST GONNA GET WORSE AS THE AVAILABLE AMOUNT OF LAND GETS TIGHTER AND TIGHTER.

PEOPLE ARE GOING TO WANT TO GO UP HIGHER. I THINK THAT WE'VE SAID 35 FEET.

WE'VE ALL HAD TO LIVE WITH 35 FEET. THAT'S WHAT IT IS AND THAT'S WHAT IT NEEDS TO BE. I ACTUALLY THINK THE WORDING HERE THAT WE FINALLY SEE, YOU CAN'T EXCEED 42 INCHES IS A DEFINITE RULE THAT I THINK WE CAN ALL VISUALIZE.

42 INCHES IS A GOOD NUMBER. I'M HAPPY TO SEE THAT WE FINALLY HAVE A NUMBER.

AIR CONDITION HEIGHT, RAILING HEIGHT, WHATEVER THAT IS. RIGHT NOW IT'S A FREE FOR ALL.

I SEE IT ON SOUTH FLETCHER EVERY DAY. I'M HAPPY TO SEE WE'VE GOT SOME

DEFINITION ON IT. >> HAVING GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS WITH A CLIENT OF DESIGNING PAINSTAKINGLY A HOME ON OCEANFRONT WITH FEMA AND THE RULES YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW ALREADY, I MEAN, THERE'S A LOT GOING ON THERE. IT'S NOT AN EASY PROCESS.

IT'S DEFINITELY NOT A FREE FOR ALL. YOU HAVE REGULATORY AGENCIES ALL AROUND YOU. IT'S NOT AS EASY AS IT MIGHT THINKS.

IT TAKES YEARS TO PLAN AND BUILD ALONG THE OCEAN. >> I THINK IF YOU BOUGHT A PIECE OF PROPERTY AND ARE PLANNING ON BUILDING ON IT ON SOME FUTURE DATE, IF YOU BOUGHT IT WITH THE RULES AND REGULATIONS THAT ARE IN PLACE TODAY, YOU STILL ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BUILD IT BASED

ON THE RULES AND REGULATIONS AT THE TIME YOU SUBMIT YOUR PERMIT. >> I DON'T DISAGREE.

THAT'S ONE OF THE POINTS I'D LIKE TO MAKE, WHICH WAS MY THIRD POINT.

MAYBE THERE BE CONSIDERED SOME TYPE OF IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD SO YOU DO HAVE FOLKS THAT ARE DESIGNING TODAY. I'M NOT SAYING TWO YEAR, THREE YEARS.

I'M SAYING SIX MONTHS. AFTER THE HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS ARE MODIFIED.

THAT ANYBODY WHO IS PENDING PERHAPS COULD BE GRANDFATHERED UNDER THE OLD CODE.

THEY MAY HAVE SPENT TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS ON PROFESSIONAL FEES, ARCHITECT, ENGINEERS, PERMITS, EVERYTHING YOU HAVE TO DO IN ORDER TO BUILD AND DESIGN A HOME ON THE OCEAN.

JUST OUT OF FAIRNESS FOR THEM. THEY DON'T KNOW WHEN THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN.

WE STARTED MONITORING THIS IN MARCH OF LAST YEAR AND HERE WE ARE IN JANUARY 2020 TALKING ABOUT IT AGAIN. THEY'RE STILL NOT FINISHED WITH THEIR PLANS, QUITE FRANKLY.

IF YOU THINK OF THE MONEY SPENT TO GET THIS DONE. NOT THAT THERE'S NOT AN URGENCY.

THEY'RE TRYING TO GET THIS BUILT. THEY WANTED TO BE IN BY

[02:55:02]

>> I HAVE A LIGHT ON. I DON'T KNOW WHO IT BELONGS TO. >> MISS SCHAFFER.

>> THAT'S SCHAFFER AND THAT'S KELLY. >> WHO'S ON THE TOP RIGHT?

>> NOBODY. >> PUSH IT FORWARD, RIGHT? >> MISS SCHAFFER IS NEXT.

>> I HAVE A LIGHT. >> ARE YOU WONDERING IS THIS LIGHT ON?

>> YOU'RE GOOD. THAT ONE THERE. >> I HAVE GOT TWO LIGHTS.

>> NO, NO. >> ALL RIGHT. MISS SCHAFFER.

>> IT COST $45,000 FOR YOUR PLAN AND OVER A YEAR TO GO THROUGH STRUCTURAL DEP AND ARCHITECT.

THAT I DO KNOW THE NUMERIC FIGURE FOR THAT. >> IT COULD BE MORE.

>> MINIMUM FOR A 50 FOOT REGULAR 2800 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE. >> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> REALLY? HOW MUCH IS THAT? >> $45,000.

>> THAT COULD BE CHANGED WITH ONE VOTE AND YOU BASICALLY HAVE TO START ALL OVER.

THAT'S REALLY WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. >> I WAS SURPRISED TO HEAR ABOUT

THE CONCRETE BLOCK VERSUS FRAME. >> 4 INCHES. TAKE 4 INCHES OFF A THREE FOOT WIDE HALLWAY AND IT'S 2 1/2 FEET WIDE. IF YOU EVER WALKED INTO A 30 FOOT LONG ROOM THAT'S ONLY 2 1/2 FEET WIDE. OURS IS ALREADY TIGHT, TO BE HONEST. I HAD TO WRESTLE WITH THIS WITH OUR ARCHITECT FOR MONTHS WHILE WE WERE GOING THROUGH IT. THAT'S ALL WE COULD DO. UNLESS YOU GO WITH LIKE A ONE -- I DON'T KNOW. WE WANTED FOUR BEDROOMS, WE HAD TWO CHILDREN, WHATEVER, PLANNING

FOR THE FUTURE. IT DOES GET DOWN TO THE INCH. >> ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANYTHING?

>> I WANTED TO ADD, I HAVE BEEN IN THE TRENCHES WITH THESE LOTS AND SOME OF THEM, WITH THE DEP, THEY'RE WANTING YOU TO BE FARTHER AND FARTHER AWAY. YOU HAVE TO BE SO FAR FROM THE ROAD. YOU PUT CEILINGS, POPCORN CEILINGS WERE POPULAR IN THE 1990S. THEY'RE JUST NOT POPULAR ANY MORE.

KIND OF GET THE FEELING FROM THIS GROUP NOBODY REALLY CARES WHAT'S POPULAR.

I DON'T THINK YOU WOULD LIKE THAT STYLE OF HOME WHETHER IT WAS A ONE STORY HOME OR TWO STORY HOUSE. JUST DON'T LIKE THAT STYLE. BUT THERE'S A LOT OF REALLY HORRIFIC HOMES BUILT IN THE '90S THAT REALLY DON'T DO MUCH FOR THE WATERFRONT EITHER.

THE OTHER POINT I WANTED TO MAKE, THE HOMES THAT ARE BEING TORN DOWN, THEY'RE NOT UP TO CODE. THEY'RE DANGEROUS. NOT LIKE PEOPLE ARE COMING IN TEARING DOWN THESE HOUSES. THEY'RE NOT UP TO CODE AT ALL. THEY'RE PRETTY BAD INSIDE.

JUST DIDN'T WANT EVERYBODY THINKING THAT WE MENTIONED TEARING DOWN ALL THE OLD HOUSES.

HAS ANYBODY SEE THE --

>> THEY HAVE DONE THE BEST I CAN IMAGINE SOMEBODY DOING. TO ME, WHEN I'M THINKING OF ALL THESE -- IF THEY'RE WATCHING, I THINK THEY'VE DONE AN AMAZING JOB.

>> I AGREE. >> THAT IS WHAT I SEE HAPPENING. THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO DON'T CARE ABOUT ARCHITECTURE, THEY'RE GONNA PUT UP A BUNCH OF BOXES. THAT MAY NOT BE YOUR FLAVOR OF STYLE, BUT THAT IS WHAT'S THERE. THAT IS WHAT PEOPLE LIKE. THEY WANT THAT ROOF TOP DECK.

THEY WANT THOSE THINGS. I THINK ALLOW FOR THE ARCHITECTURAL ORNAMENT SO IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE A LOT OF THE SAME HOUSES UP AND DOWN FLETCHER.

THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO SAY. >> THERE'S A GOOD BACK STORY TO THAT SOMETIME.

>> IT TURNED OUT THAT WAY BASICALLY BECAUSE SOMETHING WAS ANGRY.

>> IT WAS BUILT OUT OF SPITE. WE GOT A VARIANCE. >> LET'S BRING IT BACK.

>> I WANT IT NOTED FOR THE RECORD THAT THE HEIGHT CHANGES WERE READVERTISED IN NOVEMBER, NOVEMBER 29TH BEFORE THEY CAME BACK TO THIS BODY ON DECEMBER 11TH AND THEN APPEARED AT FIRST READING LAST NIGHT. SO THESE CHANGES, WHEN THEY ARE CONSIDERED, WILL ALSO RECEIVE AN

[03:00:07]

I WOULD AGREE WITH BEING ABLE TO DO ADDITIONAL OUTREACH. >> NOVEMBER 29TH, I WASN'T CHECKING THINGS. I SHOULD HAVE BEEN. BETWEEN 29TH AND 10TH, I FOUND THE 10TH. THAT WAS REALLY STROKE OF LUCK, TO BE HONEST.

I DON'T KNOW HOW I CAUGHT IT. IF I'M LOOKING AT IT, WHICH I'M DOING PRETTY REGULARLY, HOW THE AVERAGE HOMEOWNER OR LOT OWNER WOULD FIND IT. THAT SEEMS FAIR, AT A MINIMUM.

>> DO YOU HAVE YOUR LIGHT ON? OR YOUR SECOND LIGHT? WHEN WILL WE SEE THE FINAL DOCUMENT THAT WE WILL VOTE ON FOR THIS? I MEAN, WE HAVE THIS NOW.

WHEN WILL WE SEE IT ALL TOGETHER? >> I CAN PREPARE IT AS SOON AS

THE FEBRUARY MEETING FOR CONSIDERATION. >> OKAY.

YOU HEAR THAT, JOHN? FEBRUARY. FEBRUARY MEETING IT SHOULD COME

BACK IN THE FINAL DOCUMENT. >> FINAL PROPOSED DOCUMENT, WHICH WILL THEN GO FORWARD?

THAT'S FEBRUARY 12TH? >> YES. >> OKAY.

THANK YOU. >> THE COMMENT JOHN MADE THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE CARE ABOUT THIS THAT DON'T KNOW OR HAVEN'T HAD SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO PUT THE RIGHT INPUT.

THERE WAS A SIMILAR COMMENT WHEN THIS WAS ON OUR AGENDA ALMOST A YEAR AGO.

I'M ALL IN FAVOR OF TRYING TO ACT ON THIS AT THE NEXT MEETING. I THINK WE SHOULD MAKE ATE SERIOUS EFFORT TO MAKE SURE THE FOLKS THAT CARE ABOUT THIS NEED TO SHOW UP OR, BARRING THAT, MAKE SURE THEY GET THEIR COMMENTS TO KELLY AND THE BOARD PRIOR TO THAT TIME.

I FIND THAT FRUSTRATING THAT WE'RE AT THIS POINT, THIS VERY END STAGE AND THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT SAY THEY HAVEN'T SEEN IT, HAVEN'T READ IT AND THEY'RE CONCERNED ABOUT IT.

THAT I THINK WHEN YOU TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN WHEN WE'RE GETTING AROUND TO IT.

I THINK FEBRUARY IS FINE. I JUST THINK WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THOSE FOLKS WHO CARE ABOUT

THIS ARE HERE AND HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE INPUT. >> I THINK IT'S PROPERTY OWNERS.

>> WHOEVER IT IS. >> IT'S THE PROPERTY OWNERS, THE BUCK STOPS AT THEM.

THEY'RE THE ONES SAYING -- THEY'LL NEVER GET IT DONE BEFORE THEN.

THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN BEYOND THIS ROUND. BUT THEY CAN VOICE THEIR OPINION ON IT, MAYBE OFFER DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES THAN THE TEN OF US ARE DISCUSSING.

>> SEND A NOTICE TO EVERYBODY ON FLETCHER. >> IT APPLIES TO ALL PROPERTIES.

IT'S NOT EXCLUSIVE TO FLETCHER. >> THAT WAS JUST IN EVERYBODY'S FACE.

OUTDOOR KITCHEN ORS WHATEVER THEY WERE PUTTING THERE. >> THIS ENTIRE CITY, I RECALL READING IN SOMETHING PROPOSED IT ONLY APPLIED TOWARDS THE 800 FEET WITHIN CCCL.

>> THERE WAS A PROVISION UNDER FIRST READING IT WAS CONSIDERED TO INCLUDE VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR PROPERTIES IN THAT AREA. TO BE ABLE TO DEVIATE FROM THAT, OR TO GET A VARIANCE WHERE YOU WON'T ADJUST FOR THOSE SET BACKS WHEN YOU GO ABOVE 25 FEET. THAT WAS THE FIRST READING

YESTERDAY. >> OKAY. IF THAT COULD BE NOTICED THAT COULD BE ENOUGH TO TRIGGER. THAT WAY WE DON'T HAVE TO NOTICE EVERYBODY IN THE CITY.

I DON'T THINK THIS AFFECTS EVERYBODY IN THE CITY. I THINK IT AFFECTS PEOPLE ALONG

SOUTH FLETCHER. >> THE ENCROACHMENT ISSUE? >> THIS ISSUE AND THE HEIGHT

RESTRICTION ISSUE. >> THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION IS MOVING FORWARD ON ITS OWN COURSE. GONE THROUGH FIRST READING. IT WILL GET ADVERTISED BY TITLE FOR A SECOND READING ORDINANCE TO APPEAR AT THE FIRST MEETING IN FEBRUARY.

>> I UNDERSTAND THAT. MY POINT IS THAT I DON'T THINK IT'S BEEN -- I REALIZED IT WAS NOTICED ON NOVEMBER 29TH FOR THIS BOARD. IT MAY HAVE BEEN NOTICED AGAIN IN THE NEWSPAPER. I DON'T THINK THAT FOLKS THAT ARE MOST AFFECTED BIT AND THIS

HAVE BEEN PROPERLY NOTICED IN MY OPINION. >> FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT?

>> FROM A MORAL STANDPOINT. REASONABLE STANDPOINT. >> I UNDERSTAND THAT.

>> IF WE LOOK AT IT IN FEBRUARY, IT WOULD GO TO THE COMMISSION WHEN?

[03:05:01]

>> MARCH AND APRIL. >> OKAY. >> YOUR LIGHT IS ON?

>> I'M SORRY. >> WE'RE ALL UNDERSTANDING WHERE WE ARE?

>> ONE THING. UNDER MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT YOU SAID IT INCLUDED ELEVATORS AND

ELEVATOR SHAFTS? >> YES. >> CAN YOU SAY THAT IN THE DEFINITION, MEANING EQUIPMENT WHICH PROVIDE UNDER OTHER MECHANICAL SYSTEMS?

I WOULD JUST LIKE TO CALL OUT ELEVATORS. >> RESIDENTIAL --

>> UNDER SECTION 107 ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS, ADDING MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT.

>> OH. ALL RIGHT. >> THAT DEFINITION OF MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT, IS IT POSSIBLE TO MAKE SOME REFERENCE TO ELEVATORS?

>> ARE WE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE ANOTHER STRUCTURE? THE STRUCTURE THAT HOUSES THE

ELEVATOR. >> I KNOW. I UNDERSTAND.

>> I UNDERSTAND. >> I AGREE THERE SHOULD BE SOMETHING THERE.

>> IT NEEDS TO BE IN SOME DEFINITION SOMEWHERE. >> YEAH.

>> THAT'S WHAT KEEPS TRIPPING US UP. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

>> THANK YOU. YOU SAID YOU'RE WORKING WITH SOMEBODY ELSE?

>> THERE WAS A CONFLICT. >> THANKS. >> ALL RIGHT.

MOTOR COMPANY. FIRST WAS BEHIND THE GRILL WHICH IS NOW A PRIVATE BREWERY.

THEN IT WAS WHERE CAFE CARABOU. THEN MOVED TO AMELIA TAVERN WHICH IS A BREWERY.

ALL FOUR PLACES WHERE MOTOR COMPANY IS ARE NOW BREWERIES OR WERE BREWERIES.

IT'S INEXPLICABLE. >> THERE MUST BE SOMETHING TO THAT, JOHN.

VERY PROFITABLE. >> I'M HAPPY TO SEE THE BUILDING BE PRESERVED.

THANK YOU. >> OKAY. SOMEBODY ASK FOR A BREAK?

>> DO YOU WANT A BREAK? FIVE >> SELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE

[Item 5.1]

CHAIR, THERE ARE EXCELLENT SUGGESTIONS THAT I HEARD. >> EXCELLENT SUGGESTION.

>> THIS IS A SUGGESTION. I DON'T KNOW IF THE BOARD IS INTERESTED IN SERVING ITS CHAIR.

I HAD A DISCUSSION WITH MEMBER ROBAS ABOUT THE ROLES OUR ALTERNATES SERVE.

SOME BOARDS YOU HAVE A NONVOTING CHAIR. SO WE DISCUSSED BRINGING IN AN ALTERNATE CHAIR AND REALLY A FACILITATOR OF THE MEETING. AND ALTERNATE POSITION SPECIFICALLY NOT VOTING ANYWAY WOULD BE THE LAST TO SPEAK AS RELATES TO ANY GIVEN ISSUE, BUT REMAIN A NONVOTING MEMBER. I JUST TOSS THAT TO THE BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION.

>> I AM A NEWBIE. I AM A NEW BIE HERE. I WAS ON THE BOARD OF THE PRIVATE COMMISSIONERS FOR AT LEAST EIGHT YEARS. RAN SOME PRETTY TOUGH MEETINGS.

IT IS TOUGH TO BE AN ALTERNATE WHEN YOU'RE IN HERE AND YOU'RE READING THE SAME MATERIALS AND YOU'RE INVOLVED AND YET YOU DON'T REALLY HAVE A VOICE. THERE'S NOTHING THAT YOU CAN

REALLY DO OTHER THAN SIT HERE. >> YOU HAVE A VOICE. >> YOU DON'T HAVE A VOTE.

>> THAT IS SOMETHING WHERE AS AN ALTERNATE, AN ALTERNATE COULD HELP SERVE THE BOARD, I WOULD

[03:10:07]

IT WAS JUST ADDING SOMETHING FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. >> MY THOUGHT WAS I'D LIKE THE CHAIR TO BE A VOTING MEMBER. I LIKE HAVING SOMEONE WHO'S BEEN HERE FOR AWHILE AND KNOWS WHAT'S HAPPENING INTERACTED WITH RESIDENTS. MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE MR. CLARK OR MR. ROBAS. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT FITS INTO EITHER ONE OF YOUR -- DOESN'T FIT YOURS. YOU DECLINE THAT. YOU'VE BEEN HERE LONG ENOUGH SO

THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THE SYSTEM AND HOW THAT'S MOVING ALONG. >> I'D CONSIDER IT.

I DON'T WANT TO DO SOMETHING WITH A SPLIT VOTE. I THINK IF THE BOARD WANTS ME TO

FULFILL THAT ROLE. >> HISTORICALLY ON THIS BOARD, IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE NEXT PERSON WHO HAD SENIORITY. SO IT KIND OF WENT THROUGH THAT. THE COMMISSION SCREWED IT ALL UP. YOU SEE WHAT'S HAPPENED NOW. WE'VE GOT THREE PEOPLE.

THAT'S THE WAY IT ALWAYS WAS. SOMEONE WHO WAS ON THE BOARD AND HAD THE EXPERIENCE COULD MOVE UP. THEN TWO YEARS AND IT CONTINUED ON LIKE THAT.

THAT WAS PROBABLY WHEN YOU SERVED ON THE BOARD YEARS AGO. THAT SYSTEM WORKED VERY WELL.

BUT AGAIN -- >> I CAN SUPPORT MR. CLARK AS CHAIR.

I WOULD BE -- I'D LIKE TO OFFER MY NAME UP AS VICE CHAIR. PART OF IT IS, I'M ONLY GOING TO BE HERE FOR A YEAR. WE'RE LEAVING AT THE END OF THE YEAR REGARDLESS.

I HAVE LOTS OF EXPERIENCE CHAIRING THINGS AS WELL. IT'S SOMETHING I'D LIKE TO DO.

>> I CAN TELL YOU BEING VICE CHAIR SINCE 2015 I THINK YOU MAY HAVE SOME OPPORTUNITIES TO DO SOMETHING IN BETWEEN. THAT'S FINE WITH ME, TOO. I DON'T HAVE ANY TERRITORYIAL

RIGHTS TO THIS CHAIR. >> YOU'VE DONE A WONDERFUL JOB. I APPRECIATE YOUR HARD WORK.

>> THAT'S ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT BOARDS THE CITY HAS. YOU HAVE PEOPLE THAT MAY OR MAY NOT GET THE CHANCE TO VOTE. IT'S TIME THIS BOARD TALKED ABOUT ONE OF THE REASONS WE HAD AN ALTERNATE WAS TO MAKE A QUORUM. MAYBE IT'S TIME TO EXPAND THE BOARD. THAT WAY WE HAVE SEVEN MEMBERS. THE CORE STILL REMAINS THE SAME.

WHATEVER THE APPROPRIATE NUMBER IS FOUR, FIVE. >> SHOULD BE FOUR.

>> I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING, I HAVE A TOUGH TIME BEING AN ALTERNATE NOW.

EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE A VOICE, YOU DON'T GET A CHANCE TO VOTE ON THIS ISSUE UP OR DOWN.

IT'S TIME WE SERIOUSLY TALK ABOUT GETTING RID OF ALTERNATES OR BRING THEM INTO THE FOLD AN

LET THEM VOTE. >> I COMPLETELY AGREE. I FEEL BADLY FOR THE TWO ALTERNATES. YOU COME TO THE MEETING. YOU SPEND YOUR TIME.

THEN YOU DON'T GET TO VOTE. THAT'S A GOOFY SYSTEM. >> WE WERE 7-2.

WE ALL HAD SEVEN VOTES MEMBERS AND TWO ALTERNATES. AS THE VOTING MEMBERS MOVED ON,

THE ALTERNATES MOVED UP. >> THAT'S NOT THE WAY IT HAPPENS NOW.

>> NOW WE HAVE A POLITICAL BOARD DEPENDING ON WHO THE COMMISSIONERS ARE AND IF THEY

GET MAD AT SOMEBODY, THEY'RE GONE. >> WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT LAST TIME, WE'D LIKE TO DO AWAY WITH THE POLITICAL APPOINTMENTS AND GO BACK TO AN APPOINTED BOARD.

>> ABSOLUTELY. >> IT STILL GOES BACK TO THE FACT THAT WE NEED TO -- WE'RE AT

[03:15:03]

>> SEVEN VOTES MEMBERS BUT ONLY NEED FIVE FOR THE QUORUM. >> FOUR.

>> WE COULD GO TO A FULL SEVEN BOARD, EVERYONE GETS A VOTE, WE WOULDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM MAKING

THE BOARD. >> THE OTHER THING, IF THE COMMISSION TOOK UP AS A DISCUSSION, SORRY, THEN IT COULD BE A COMPROMISE, IF YOU WILL, IF THE COMMISSION STILL WANTS TO HAVE THEIR NOMINATION. THEY'RE NOT POLITICAL APPOINTMENTS.

>> YEAH, THEY ARE. >> I KNOW THEY ARE BECAUSE THEY'RE NOMINATIONS.

YOU'VE SEEN SOME OF THE DISCOURSE ON THE COMMISSION. YOU DON'T THINK THERE COULD BE A DAY WHERE I WON'T NAME NAMES ONE WILL SAY, NOPE, I'M NOT GONNA VOTE FOR YOUR NOMINATION OR THREE WILL SAY, I'M NOT VOTING FOR YOUR NOMINATION. THEY ARE, BUT WHAT I MEAN IS IT STILL REQUIRES A MAJORITY FROM THE COMMISSION. AS A COMPROMISE IT COULD BE, IF THE COMMISSION WANTS TO KEEP IT THAT WAY, YOU CAN HAVE TWO AT LARGE MEMBERS.

MEANING THAT THEY'RE NOT NOMINATED OR APPOINTED BUT GET TO VOTE.

>> THAT'S AN OPTION. >> I DON'T KNOW IF I WANT TO DO AWAY WITH THAT YET.

I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY FEEL. IT COULD BE TWO AT LARGE MEMBERS THAT GET TO APPLY TO THE AT

LARGE SEATS WHEN THEY'RE OPEN. >> LET'S SEPARATE THE ISSUES. I THINK THE ALTERNATE SHOULD BE REGULAR VOTING MEMBER. WE SHOULD EXPAND THE BOARD TO SEVEN AND THEN THE OTHER ISSUE,

THE SECOND ISSUE. I WOULDN'T >> IF WE WANTED TO EXPAND THE

BOARD TO SEVEN NOW, IS THAT AN ORDINANCE CHANGE? >> YES.

>> IT WOULD COME THROUGH HERE AND THE COMMISSION. >> IS THAT SOMETHING WE'RE

INTERESTED IN PUTTING ON THE AGENDA? >> I'D LIKE TO ASK THAT IT BE ON

THE NEXT AGENDA. >> THAT WAS THE ONLY REASON I BROUGHT IT UP LAST MEETING.

>> YOU DON'T HAVE TO -- JUST SAYING, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO PUT IT ON THERE, IT'S TO ADVISE THE PUBLIC THAT SOMETHING IS HAPPENING. THIS IS MORE PROCEDURAL -- IN FLORIDA, YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE SOMETHING ADVERTISED ON AN AGENDA TO VOTE ON IT.

OUR COMMISSION IS THE ONLY ONE WHO HAS THE 4/5 RULE. >> CAN WE VOTE ON IT TONIGHT?

>> THIS IS A CHANGE TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. >> THE VOTE THAT MEMBER ROLAND

WANTS TO TAKE IS TO SEND THIS TO THE COMMISSION AS A REQUEST. >> I APOLOGIZE.

>> WE HAVE TO GET STARTED. >> WE EXTEND THE ADVISORY BOARD FIVE MEMBERS TO SEVEN AND

ELIMINATE THE ALTERNATES. STRAIGHT FORWARD ENOUGH. >> I'LL SECOND IT.

>> DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION. HEARING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ALL OPPOSED. ALL RIGHT.

MOTION PASSED. >> I CAN'T VOTE. >> CAN'T VOTE NOW.

>> NOW YOU DO ANOTHER. ARE YOU ALL INTERESTED IN FORMALLY REQUESTING FROM THE COMMISSION THAT THEY DO AWAY WITH THE WAY THAT MEMBERS ARE APPOINTED TO BEGIN AND THE

TERMS? >> I AM PERSONALLY BECAUSE I HAVE SEEN NOTHING BUT CHAOS

SINCE THEY'VE DONE IT. >> WE HAVE THAT HISTORICAL CONSISTENCY CONTINUITY IN THE

SYS SYSTEM. >> WE'RE NOT BAD PEOPLE.

>> WHAT I'M SUGGESTING, YOU DON'T HAVE TO SIT THERE FOR THE NEXT TEN YEARS WAITING THAT HOPEFULLY SOMEONE WILL THROW THE HOOK OUT AND WE'LL HOOK HER AND PUT HER ON THE BOARD.

>> WHAT IT ALSO SAYS IS SOMEONE THAT YOU BRING TO THE BOARD BECAUSE YOUR COMMISSIONER IS EXPIRED, YOUR COMMISSIONER EXPIRED, THEN YOU'RE EXPIRED. SO YOU'RE GONE AT THE END OF THE

YEAR. >> REGARDLESS. >> SO WE'VE LOST ALL YOUR

EXPERIENCE. >> UNLESS SOMEONE ELSE AGREES TO APPOINT ME.

>> ARE YOU SURE ABOUT THAT? >> YES. >> YOUR TERMS RUN CONCURRENTLY

WITH YOUR NOMINATING COMMISSIONER. >> NOT A BAD IDEA.

>> HIS TERM WILL EBBING PAOEUR -- >> THREE OF YOU ARE GONE.

>> RIGHT NOW YOU WERE UP AT 11 2018.

[03:20:10]

>> YOU ARE. YOU ARE. >> HE WOULD HAVE TO REAPPOINT

YOU. >> IF HE WINS. IF HE DOESN'T, THEN I'M OUT.

>> MR. STEVENSON COULD BE GONE, TOO. >> HE WILL BE BECAUSE

MR. CHAPMAN IS NOT RUNNING. >> DOESN'T REALLY LEND -- >> THE CONTINUITY.

>> -- TO THE EFFICIENCY OF THIS BOARD. WHEN HE WAS TALKING ABOUT THE HEIGHT FROM 2004 AND 2005, I WAS ON THAT SUBCOMMITTEE WORKING WITH MR. HOWIT.

WE HAD MEETINGS FOR TWO OR THREE MONTHS HERE, HOW WE WERE GOING TO MEASURE.

WE HAD THE WHOLE DISCUSSION BEFORE WE REWROTE THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

>> HOW ABOUT THIS? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION WE REQUEST THE CITY COMMISSION TO REQUEST THAT THEY RETURN TO THE PREVIOUS FORMAT OF SELECTING PLAN BOARD MEMBERS.

>> AND THE NUMBERS? >> WE MADE A MOTION EARLIER WHICH PASSED.

>> OKAY. >> WE REQUEST THE CITY COMMISSION RETURN TO THE

PREVIOUS -- >> SEVEN MEMBER BOARD. >> WITH THREE YEAR TERMS?

THREE YEAR TERMS? STAGGERED TERMS? >> THREE YEAR TERMS.

>> BEFORE YOU LEAVE. IF THE COMMISSION APPROVES THAT MOTION, DOES THAT MEAN THE FOLKS HERE THAT HAVE TERMS THAT ARE TERMINATING IN THE NEXT YEAR OR SO, WILL THEY JUST CONTINUE TO

SERVE FOUR YEAR TERMS? >> THEY COULD STAY. >> IF THE COMMISSION KHCHOOSES

SELECT ALL OF US AGAIN. >> THEN WE GET SLOTTED INTO TWO DIFFERENT CLASSES.

>> THAT'S WHAT I SHOULD BE. >> WE GET SLOTTED INTO CLASSES. >> THERE'S A VACANCY.

NAME WOULD COME UP. THE COMMISSION WOULD DISCUSS WHO EVER THE APPLICANTS WERE, WHICH MAY BE WHATEVER THE SHEET SAYS AND THEY WOULD VOTE ON IT.

>> IS THAT YOUR MOTION? >> YES. >> I'LL SECOND IT.

>> DO WE UNDERSTAND THE MOTION? >> YES. >> HE DOES.

EXPLAIN IT SO IT'S CLEAR TO WHO EVER IS TAKING NOTES. >> CITY COMMISSION RETURN TO THE PREVIOUS FORMAT OF SELECTING PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS AT LARGE.

>> AND IS IT CLEAR AS PART OF THAT MOTION WOULD ALLOW THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE TERMS THAT ARE ENDING BASED ON THE TENURE OF COMMISSION MEMBER, THAT YOU GET TO SERVE OUT A FOUR YEAR TERM,

OR THREE YEAR. >> I'M GOING TO HAVE TO PROPOSE STAGGERED TERMS.

>> THAT'S OKAY. >> WHICH MEANS PROBABLY THE EASIEST WAY TO DO IT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD IS THAT EVERYBODY WILL SERVE, THERE WILL BE SOME THAT SERVE THREE, SOME THAT SERVE TWO, SOME THAT SERVE ONE. THEN THEY CAN GET REAPPOINTED. THAT'S EASY.

>> WE ALREADY HAVE TWO PEOPLE THAT WOULD BE HERE TWO MORE YEARS.

I'M ONE OF THOSE. OKAY. SO I HAVE A MOTION AND I HAVE A SECOND FROM MISS MINSHEW. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED.

ALL RIGHT. MOTION PASSES. GOING BACK TO OUR ORIGINAL WHO'S

GOING TO DO WHAT. >> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION MR. CLARK AS THE CHAIR PERSON

AND MISS MINSHEW AS VICE CHAIR. >> I'D LIKE TO SECOND THAT. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. OPPOSED. ALL RIGHT.

MOTION PASSES. >> DOES THAT COME WITH A PAY RAISE?

>> 20% OF ZERO IS -- >> ALL RIGHT. WE'RE MOVING ON NOW TO REVIEW OF

[Item 5.2]

>> I WOULD LIKE THAT WE APPROVE THE BY LAW AMENDMENT THAT WE REVIEWED AT THE DECEMBER

MEETING. >> SECOND. >> IN THEIR ENTIRETY.

>> SECOND. >> OKAY. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON IT?

>> I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS. >> OKAY. MR. STEVENSON.

>> FIRST ONE IS UNDER ARTICLE 2A, JUST FROM MY EDIFICATION, IT TALKS ABOUT THE CHAIR PERSON SHALL BE ELECTED DURING THE FIRST REGULAR MEETING FOLLOWING THE CITY'S REORGANIZATION MEETING. WHAT DOES THE REORGANIZATION MEETING MEAN?

>> NOW THE COMMISSION IS FOUR YEAR TERMS, THEY MAKE IT A BIT NEATER.

IT WILL OCCUR IN DECEMBER OF NEXT YEAR. SO NEXT YEAR WHEN WE DO OUR

[03:25:05]

THEY HAVE THEIR ORGANIZATION MEETING IN DECEMBER. >> GETS ELECTED IN NOVEMBER.

>> RIGHT. THERE WAS NO ELECTION THIS PAST NOVEMBER, THERE'S NO

REORGANIZATIONAL MEETING. >> MAKES SENSE. ONLY OTHER ONE, AND I THINK I HAVE GOT THE ANSWER. WE SOLVED THE PROBLEM ANYWAY. WHEN WE HAD THE ALTERNATES, MY QUESTION WAS IF I'M NOT HERE AND AN ALTERNATE SITS IN MY POSITION, DOES THAT HAVE TO BE FORMALLY ANNOUNCED BY YOU, THE CHAIR PERSON? THAT GOES AWAY --

>> IF WE GO TO SEVEN, THAT WOULD GO AWAY. >> THAT WAS ALL I HAD.

>> ANYTHING ELSE? MISS ROBAS? >> WITH THE VISIONING MEETING,

HAS THAT OCCURRED? >> JANUARY 29TH OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

>> I THOUGHT IT WAS JANUARY 28TH. JANUARY 28TH.

FULL DAY MEETING AT THE GOLF COURSE. >> THAT'S NOT A REORGANIZATION MEETING. 28TH. 8 TO 4 AT THE GOLF COURSE.

>> IS THAT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC? >> YES, IT IS. >> I'LL SEE YOU THERE.

>> ALL RIGHT. SO WE NEED -- >> ARE WE GOING TO TALK ABOUT

THE BY LAWS? >> WE ARE NOW. >> I'M GOOD.

>> JUST TWO MINOR THINGS. OBVIOUSLY, ON A1 THERE'S A BIG SPACE BETWEEN EFFICIENT AND

MANNER. >> OKAY. >> THEN RIGHT BELOW THAT, IT

SAYS A SHORT CIVILITY STATEMENT. THAT JUST NEEDS TO HAVE A SPACE. >> SHOULD BE SPLIT.

>> I'M A GRAMMARITARIAN. >> THOSE ARE THE TWO BIG ONES THAT I SAW.

>> ALL RIGHT. >> WE NEED TO VOTE. >> MY MINE JUST WENT -- OKAY.

SO, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO -- WE DO HAVE A MOTION? AND A SECOND.

DO WE HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? ALL RIGHT. THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION SAY AYE. OPPOSED. HEARING NONE, UNANIMOUS, PASSED.

[Items 5.3 & 8]

OKAY. UPDATE ON EAR NEXT STEPS. >> FOLLOWING OUR MEETING WITH THIS COMMISSION IN DECEMBER I THINK. DECEMBER 18TH, I WANT TO SAY.

SINCE THEN WE RECEIVED FROM THE NORTHEAST BORDER REGIONAL COUNTER THEIR PROPOSAL AN INITIAL PROPOSAL TO TAKE ON THE WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THE LEGISLATIVE CHANGES TO THE EAR.

SEASONAL POPULATION AND EXAMINE THAT WE CAN EXPEDITE THOSE CHANGES. THE GENERAL DIRECTION IS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS, GET SOMETHING IN PLACE.

AND IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING FROM THE COMMISSION, I KNOW IT WAS IN YOUR DIRECTION AS THE BOARD TO OVERHAUL THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE DOCUMENT.

I BELIEVE EVERYBODY IS ON THE SAME PAGE WITH THAT. THAT'S THE EXTENT OF MY UPDATE AT THIS TIME. WHAT THAT ENDS UP LOOKING LIKE, TIME FRAME WISE AND PUBLIC

ENGAGEMENT WISE, WE STILL NEED TO WORK TOGETHER ON DRAFTING. >> OKAY.

>> I HAVE A COMMENT. AT THE JOINT MEETING, THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THE USE OF A STEERING COMMITTEE. I JUST WANT TO SAY I REALLY LIKE THAT IDEA OF A STEERING COMMITTEE THAT CAN GUIDE THIS WORK. I WOULD SAY FROM THE VERY BEGINNING STAGES. THAT'S SELECTION OF CONSULTANTS, IF THERE ARE GOING TO BE CONSULTANTS. WORKING WITH THE PRODUCT AS IT GOES ON THROUGH ITS DIFFERENT

[03:30:03]

THE BETTER WE CAN CONSTITUTION THAT, THE MORE LIKELY WE ARE TO END UP WITH AN END THAT IS CLOSE TO THE TARGET. IF WE DON'T DO THAT, IF WE DON'T HAVE THAT POLITICAL BUY-IN, YOU RUN THE RISK OF GOING THROUGH ALL THIS WORK AND CONTINUE TO MISS WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT.

I REALLY LIKE THE IDEA OF A STEERING COMMITTEE. I LIKE MISS MINSHEW'S COMMENTS AS WELL ABOUT THE IDEA OF HAVING STAFF OR THE CONSULTANT, IF THERE IS ONE, WORK CLOSE WITH OUR STAFF SO THEY CAN COORDINATE MORE EFFECTIVELY. I THINK THAT'S A GREAT IDEA.

BUT MY POINT IS, I THINK THAT STEERING COMMITTEE IS REALLY IMPORTANT AND OUGHT TO BE BUILT INTO THIS PROCESS FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. I JUST WANTED TO SAY IT HERE.

>> ARE YOU AT THE POINT OF THINKING ABOUT WRITING AN RSP FOR REWRITING THE PLAN?

>> I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE'RE HEADED, YEAH. >> DO YOU HAVE A TARGET FOR WHEN YOU THINK YOU MIGHT HAVE THAT DRAFTED? DO YOU NEED OUR INPUT?

>> I WILL WANT TO HAVE YOUR INPUT ON IT. THIS IS JUST AN INITIA SCOPE AND AN OUT LINE OF WHAT WE'D LIKE TO SEE CRAFTED INTO THAT RSP.

I CAN BRING IT TO YOU IN FEBRUARY TO EXAMINE. I THINK IF WE GO WITH THIS APPROACH OF HAVING A NEED TO PASS THAT INTO THE PROCESS, HAVING THEM ENGAGED WITH

DEVELOPMENT OF THAT RSP IS IMPORTANT. >> DO YOU HAVE A TARGET? DO YOU HAVE AN RSP OUT BY THE END OF THE SECOND QUARTER? OR MAYBE HAVE SOME IDEA? IT WILL TAKE YOU, WHAT, 90 DAYS TO MAKE A SELECTION OR SOMETHING.

>> EXACTLY. >> YOU WOULDN'T START THE PROCESS UNTIL MAYBE 2021?

>> RIGHT. >> THAT'S A LONG WAY AWAY. >> AND WHY ARE WE STARTING OVER? WHY CAN'T WE ADDRESS THE INDIVIDUAL SECTIONS AND FIX WHATEVER WE THINK NEEDS FIXING IN THOSE SECTIONS, RATHER THAN A COMPLETE REWRITE? I SENT MR. MARTIN AN E-MAIL.

HE CAME OUT ON ONE OF HIS DISCUSSIONS SAYING LET'S FIX WHAT WE HAVE TO DO TO GET WHAT'S

NEEDED THIS YEAR. >> THAT'S BEING DONE. >> THIS WOULD BE, WHAT, THE THIRD TIME THIS IS DONE? ARE WE REVISITING A WHOLE NEW -- WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE PARTS THAT WE HAVE, TO IDENTIFY THOSE. WHY ARE WE SPENDING HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS ON A CONSULTANT, WHEN WE HAD A GOOD LAND USE PLAN, AN AWARD WINNER, AND TAKE THOSE SECTIONS THAT WE HAVE PROBLEMS WITH, LET'S ADDRESS THAT AND FIX WHAT WE HAVE?

WHY CAN WE DO THAT? >> I THINK THE SCOPE OF SERVICE IS GONNA SORT THAT OUT.

YOU LOOK THROUGH THE PROCESS OF FIGURING OUT WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE.

YOU'LL BE ABLE TO SAY, HERE ARE THE AREAS WE NEED TO WORK ON. >> YOU'RE ALWAYS TALKING ABOUT WE NEED MORE STAFF. WE NEED A NEW PLANNER. I WOULD THINK THAT A NEW PLANNER COMING IN HERE AND RUNNING THE LAND USE CHANGES WOULD NOT BE -- THAT'S WHAT THEY DO.

THAT'S HOW THEY'RE GOING TO UNDERSTAND THE SYSTEM AND LEARN IT.

TAKE US THROUGH THAT. AND THEY'RE DEDICATED TO DOING THAT.

RATHER THAN HIRING SOME CONSULTANT OUT THERE WHO'S GONNA PULL SOMETHING OFF THE SHELF, BRING IT IN HERE AND WE'RE GONNA ALL WORD SMITH AND GO THROUGH THE WHOLE THING.

WE HAVE BEEN DOING THAT NOW WITH PARTS OF IT, RIGHT? WE CAN FIX THOSE PARTS, I THINK.

AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT. WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THAT. WE KNOW WHAT THE PROBLEMS ARE.

I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE CAN'T DO THAT RATHER THAN GO OUT AND FIND A CONSULTANT.

CONSULTANTS TYPICALLY COME IN, HERE'S THE DOCUMENT. WE GO THROUGH THE DOCUMENT.

WE TRY AN ADAPT IT TO THE CITY. WE'RE SIMPLY DOING THE SAME THING THAT WE COULD DO TO OUR

CURRENT PLAN. SAME THING. >> IT DEPENDS ON HOW YOU WRITE

THE RSP. YOU CAN WRITE THE RSP. >> I'M SUGGESTING LET'S HIRE THE STAFF MEMBER WHO'S GOING TO HAVE TO WORK WITH THAT PLAN WHO NOW UNDERSTANDS THE CHANGES.

IS SOMEONE ON THE BOOKS TO BE HIREED? >> NOT AT THIS TIME.

>> THIS WOULD BE AN IDEAL TIME TO BRING THEM ON. CERTAINLY AT A CHEAPER COST THAN WHAT A CONSULTANT WOULD BE. THAT WOULD BE THEIR JOB. COME UP HERE AND TELL US WHO YOU ARE. WE HAVE TWO PEOPLE WHO SAT THROUGH THIS ALREADY.

[03:35:01]

GOT TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY. >> BONNIE JENKINS 132 SOUTH 15TH STREET.

MARK IS EXACTLY RIGHT. PARKS AND REC HIRED SOMEBODY TO COME IN.

THEY DID THIS HUGE PLAN THAT WAS TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE FOR FERNANDINA, PAID THEM $25,000, I THINK, TO DO IT. NOW PARKS AND REC IS REWRITING THE PLAN TO SOMETHING THAT'S MORE APPLICABLE TO OUR CITY. THAT'S WHAT I THINK WE DO. LOT OF TIME WES BRING SOMEBODY FROM OUTSIDE. THEY HAVE THESE GREAT VISION OF WHAT WE COULD DO WITH WHAT WE HAVE HERE. THEY DON'T MATCH WITH WHAT THE COMMUNITY WANTS HERE.

AND SO WE PAY ALL THIS MONEY FOR A PLAN THAT WE THEN END UP REWRITING ANYWAY.

I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT. I DON'T THINK BRINGING IN AN OUTSIDE CONSULTANT THAT DOESN'T UNDERSTAND THE COMMUNITY AN OUR CITY AND WHAT WE WANT JUST LEADS US TO DEVELOP A DOCUMENT THAT

DOESN'T WORK ANYWAY. >> AND WE CAN HIRE THAT STAFF PERSON, IT'S GONNA TAKE US A

YEAR TO WORK THROUGH IT. THEY CAN STAY AND HELP YOU OUT. >> I PROBABLY HAVE A LITTLE DIFFERENT VIEW. I THINK THOSE KINDS OF EXPERIENCES THAT YOU DESCRIBED HAVE HAPPENED. I HAVE ALSO SEEN ONES WHERE YOU BRING IN STRATEGIC STAFF THAT ACTUALLY PROVIDES KNOWLEDGE THAT WE DON'T HAVE. YOU'RE TYPICALLY NOT GOING TO GET BY HIRING A RELATIVELY NEW EMPLOYEE FOR THE SITUATION. SO I THINK AT THE END YOU END UP WITH A DIFFERENT ACTION. YOU BRING IN SOME OUTSIDE TALENT.

IT CAN GO WRONG, AS YOU DESCRIBE IT. IT CAN BE DONE RIGHT AS WELL.

THE OTHER THING IS, THIS IS SOMETHING FOR DALE TO SORT OUT. BUT IF YOU ADD STAFF TO THE ORGANIZATION, THERE'S A LONG TERM COST TO THAT AND PERMANENT STAFF.

IT SEEMS LIKE CONSULTANT MIGHT BE MORE BUT IN THE LONG TERM SENSE WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE

ULTIMATE COST OF ADDING STAFF, IT'S MORE TO THAT. >> WE HAVE MORE STAFF NOW THAN

WE HAD FIVE YEARS AGO. >> YES. >> I THINK STAFF SHOULD WORK

WITH DALE AND COME BACK TO US AND GIVE US SOME IDEAS. >> I THINK WE'RE A GROWING CITY, WHICH WE CONTINUE TO DO, WE'RE GOING TO NEED NEW STAFF OVER TIME.

THEY WERE THROWING OUT $300,000 NUMBERS AT THAT ONE COMMISSION MEETING FOR HIRING A CONSULTANT TO COME HERE. IF YOU CAN PAY A PLANNER FOR A COUPLE YEARS WITH THOSE KINDS OF DOLLARS AND STILL DEVELOP WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE. WE KNOW WHAT WE HAVE.

WE KNOW WHERE THE PROBLEM IS. WHY START ALL OVER AGAIN? >> JUST BECAUSE YOU BRING IN A

CONSULTANT DOESN'T MEAN YOU'RE STARTING ALL OVER AGAIN. >> THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT DOING

THAT, BRINGING IN A WHOLE NEW PLAN. >> IT DEPENDS ON HOW YOU WRITE THE RSP AND DEPENDS ON HOW YOU SET YOUR SCOPE. I DON'T THINK ANYONE SAID WE'RE JUST GOING TO THROW EVERYTHING OUT AND START ALL OVER. YOU START WITH THE PLAN YOU HAVE. YOU DO WORK THROUGH IT SECTION BY SECTION.

YOU GET YOUR PUBLIC INPUT, WHICH WILL BE A LOT, AND YOU WORK THROUGH IT SECTION BY SECTION.

SO THEN YOUR DELIVERABLES BECOME SECTION BY SECTION. YOU DON'T WAIT UNTIL THE END TO GET TO THE BIG PROJECTS. YOU HAVE DELIVERABLES EVERY FEW WEEKS, WHATEVER THE SCHEDULE IS.

AND SAY SECTION 1 THROUGH WHATEVER IS GOING TO BE DELIVERED ON THIS DATE.

WE'RE GONNA FIX IT, FINISH IT, TIE IT UP AND BE DONE WITH IT. YOU CAN WORK THOSE PROJECTS VERY SUCCESSFULLY. I HAVE DONE THEM IN THE PAST. I GET IT.

I HAVE ALWAYS DEALT WITH PROJECTS THAT WERE HORRIBLE. YOU HAVE SOME AT THE END THAT WERE HORRIBLE THAT YOU PUT ON A SHELF AND NEVER LOOK AT IT AGAIN.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT THIS IS GOING TO BE. >> QUESTION IS, IS THERE A SCHEDULE THAT WOULD DICTATE HAVING A COMPLETED PRODUCT SOONER THAN WE COULD PROBABLY

HANDLE AS A BOARD? >> I THINK THAT'S THE REASON YOU SEPARATE OUT SO MUCH OF THE REQUIREMENT. BECAUSE THEN THERE IS NO ONE OVER YOU, IN TERMS OF WHAT YOU

NEED TO DO. >> THE ONLY THING THAT REQUIRES YOU TO LOOK AT THE WHOLE BIG THING IS THE MISERY THAT YOU'RE GOING THROUGH ON A DAY TO DAY BASIS WITH A PLAN THAT HAS BEEN ADDED TO AND AMENDED AND CHANGED AND MAY NO LONGER BE CONSISTENT SECTION BY SECTION BECAUSE YOU SPENT A LOT -- YOU'VE DONE A LOT OF AMENDING. THIS IS A CHANCE TO TAKE ALL THAT AMENDING AND GIVE IT A FRESH VIEW AND MAKE SURE THE THING YOU DID OVER HERE STILL MATCHES WHAT YOU DID HERE. AND WITH WHAT THE COMMUNITY AND THE COMMISSION SEES AS THE

[03:40:09]

MAYBE WHAT THE CITY'S DONE BEFORE. >> THEY'VE DONE IT BOTH WAYS.

2004 AND 2005, THEY BROUGHT IN A CONSULTANT. HERE'S THE NEW PLAN AND WE WORKED THROUGH IT, BUT VARIOUS COMMITTEES OVER A YEAR, ALMOST TWO YEARS, BEFORE IT FINALLY

PASSED. YOU BROUGHT IN THE LAST ONE. >> WE DID A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

IT WAS STAFF INITIATED. THE AWARD WINNER, WHICH WAS ALL STAFFED.

>> BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY WORK. >> BUT BOARD MEMBERS ALL TOOK ON ONE OF THE SECTIONS AND WORKED WITH IT. WE HAD PUBLIC INPUT.

IT ALL TURNED OUT VERY WELL. TURNED OUT AN AWARD WINNER. YOU ALL ARE RETIRED.

YOU HAVE PLENTY OF TIME TO DO THIS. >> THERE ARE A COUPLE KEY ITEMS I WANT TO MAKE SURE I GET SOME DIRECTION FROM YOU ON. ONE IS MOVING FORWARD WITH REGIONAL COUNCIL, HAVE THAT ENTITY HELP US WITH THOSE LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS.

IS THAT SOMETHING YOU WOULD FEEL CONFIDENT WITH? >> ABSOLUTELY.

>> SECOND IS GUIDANCE ASSOCIATED WITH DRAFTING AND COORDINATING WHO MIGHT SERVE ON THE STEERING COMMITTEE. WE DON'T NEED TO TALK ABOUT IT, JUST START THINKING ABOUT IT AND PROVIDING FEED BACK TO ME INDIVIDUALLY. AND WHO MIGHT WANT TO CHAIR THAT EFFORT AND ALSO HELP WITH DRAFTING OUT THAT SCOPE INITIALLY TO BRING BACK TO THE BOARD. THE THIRD AND THE MOST IMPORTANT OF THESE ITEMS, AND I KNOW IT'S A LATE HOUR BUT I HAVE 14 DIFFERENT LBC REVISION TOPICS, RANGING FROM RACE TRACK AND GOLF CARTS TO SPECIAL EVENTS TO HOW WE HANDLE APPEAL PROCESSES, TO DEVELOPMENT ORDER CHANGES AND COMPLIANCES, STATUTES. 14 DIFFERENT TOPIC AREAS. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS BRING BACK TO YOU A LISTING OF THEM. I CAN PROVIDE IT BY E-MAIL IN ADVANCE.

MY INITIAL THOUGHTS ON WHERE THE PRIORITY NEEDS TO BE. BUT WE NEED TO SEAL THE CODE.

GET THOSE CHANGES IN THAT ABSOLUTELY MUST GET DONE. DECIDE IF WE'RE GOING TO DISPERSE OUT THE REST OF THEM AND SEAL THE CODE. WE CAN'T KEEP PICK.

IF WE'RE GOING TO PICK AWAY THAT WE DID WITH THE CHANGES WE DID LAST YEAR, IT'S GOING TO BE A

TIME CONSUMING YEAR. IT'S GOING TO DELAY OTHER THING. >> ALONG WITH PRIORITY, CAN YOU ALL GIVE US A LEVEL OF EFFORT OF THOSE 14 ITEMS OR SECTIONS SO THAT WE HAVE SOME IDEA THAT THIS IS HIGH PRIORITY BUT LOW EFFORT SO THE LOW HANGING FRUIT, JUST GET THROUGH THEM? OR IS IT, THIS IS A MEDIUM PRIORITY BUT IT'S BIG AND SO WHAT DO WE WANT TO DO WITH THAT.

IT WOULD HELP US MAKE DECISIONS ON HOW WE WANT TO MOVE THROUGH. >> I'LL PROVIDE IT TO YOU IN

E-MAIL AND PROBABLY A TABLE FORM. >> OKAY.

>> ALL RIGHT. >> DO YOU HAVE YOUR LIGHT ON? >> LAST TIME YOU EVER HAVE TO

SAY THAT. >> OKAY. ARE WE DONE?

IS THAT IT? >> NEED A MOTION TO

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.