[Call to Order] [00:00:11] >> THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF JULY 6, 2023. THE MEET SOMETHING NOW CALLED TO ORDER. BILL GARRISON WILL LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. >> >> MY NAME MARY BRIDGMAN. CHAIR OF THE CLAY COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION. MINUTES FOR TONIGHT'S MEETING WILL BE TAKEN BY THE RECORDING SECRETARY FROM THE CLERK OF COURT'S OFFICE. THANK YOU. OTHER STAFF PRESENT THIS EVENING INCLUDE ED LEIMAN, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND ZONING. MIKE BROWN, OUR ZONING CHIEF. SAMANTHA OLSON, ONE OF OUR PLANNERS. ALSO PRESENT, OUR LEGAL STAFF, OUR GENERAL COUNSEL, COUNTY ATTORNEY COURTNEY GRIMM, LAUREN MOCK, OUR FIRE CHIEF PRESENT. AND HAROLD [INDISCERNIBLE] OUR COUNTY MANAGER. AND WE'D LIKE TO THANK DEPUTY ASH OF THE CLAY COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE FOR PROVIDING SECURITY THIS EVENING. ARE THERE ANY OTHER OFFICIALS OR STAFF PERSONS WHOM I MAY INTRODUCE BEFORE I INTRODUCE THE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION? IF NOT, I'LL INTRODUCE OUR VICE CHAIR, PETE DAVIS. COMMISSIONER HOWARD NORTON, COMMISSIONER -- AND TO MY LEFT, COMMISSIONER MICHAEL BOURRE, COMMISSIONER JOE ANZALONE, COMMISSIONER BILL GARRISON AND COMMISSIONER -- THE CLAY COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION IS AN ADVISORY BOARD TO THE CLAY COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. MOST OF THE DECISIONS MADE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ARE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERERS, OR THE BCC. THEY'LL HAVE THEIR FINAL SAY ON THE AGENDA ITEMS, EITHER JULY 11, THE SECOND TUESDAY. OR JULY 25, THE FOURTH TUESDAY. WHICH ARE EITHER ONE OR THREE WEEKS FROM TONIGHT. THE ZONING PORTION OF THE BCC MEETING IS HELD DURING THE REGULAR MEETING, WHICH STARTS AT 4:00 PM. AND WE REQUEST THAT IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN, TO CHECK THE BCC AGENDA FOR THESE A ITEMS. IF THERE IS AN ITEM ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA THAT YOU WISH TO SPEAK ABOUT, PLEASE FILL OUT ONE OF THE COMMENT KACARDS, WHICH YOU' FIND IN THE VESTIBULE OUTSIDE, AND GIVE IT TO MS. HAGGARD BEFORE YOU SPEAK. WE REQUEST YOU PUT YOUR CELL PHONES ON VIOLENT OR VIBRATE, AND IF YOU NEED TO TAKE A CALL, STEP OUTSIDE. YOU NEED TO LEAVE DURING THE MEETING, DO SO QUIETLY. [1.  Approval of Minutes] THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE MAY 2 MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. DO I HEAR A MOTION? >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR -- ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. MOTION CARRIES. THE SECOND ITEM OF THE AGENDA IS APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE JUNE 6 LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REVISION WORKSHOP. DO I HEAR APPROVAL ON THOSE MINUTES? ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. ANY OPPOSED SAME SIGN. MOTION CARRIES. [Public Comment] NOW, AT THIS TIME -- THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. AT THIS TIME, ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC MAY COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT BUT PERTINENT TO THE BUSINESS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. SO I DON'T HAVE ANY -- I DON'T BELIEVE I HAVE ANY COMMENT CARDS, BUT I WILL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. IF ANYONE WANTS TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION. SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. SN NOW, BEFORE WE BEGIN THE PUBLIC HEARINGS, THERE ARE A COUPLE HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS. WE'LL REVERSE ORDER OF ITEMS 1 AND 2. WE'LL BEGIN WITH MS. OLSON ON THE ITEM THAT IS NUMBER 2 ON THE AGENDA, AND THEN GO THROUGH THE [00:05:01] REST OF THE AGENDA IN THE ORDER PRESENTED. SO BEFORE WE BEGIN, THOSE HEARINGS, MS. HAGGARD WILL SWEAR IN ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK EITHER IN FAVOR OR IN OPPOSITION TO AN APPLICATION. MS. HAGGARD, ANYONE WHO PLANS TO SPEAK, IF YOU'D STAND AND -- I THINK THAT WOULD INCLUDE ANYONE REPRESENTING AN APPLICATION, WOULDN'T IT? >> YEP. >> OKAY. OR AN APPLICANT. SO -- >> RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. >> THIS IS FOR ALL OF THEM. WE'LL DO IT ALL AT ONCE. >> [2.  Public Hearing to consider ZON-0623-00014 (District 5, Comm. Burke) (S. Olsen)] SO WE'LL BEGIN WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ZON-0623-00014 AND MS. OLSON WILL PRESENT THIS. >> THE APPLICATION WOULD CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM PS1 TO PO1. IF LOT IS CURRENTLY VACANT. AND THE COUNTY SEEKS TO UTILIZE THE PROPERTY FOR A NEW FIRE STATION, REPLACING THE ONE IN THE A DJACENT PARCEL. AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE PROPERTY. IT IS GOING TO BE CHANGING TO PO1 ZONING, WHICH IS THE ZONING OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY NEXT DOOR. IT FITS THE AREA THERE IS A PRELIMINARY CYCLING. OKAY, SO OVER HERE THIS IS A SEPARATE PARCEL, SO THIS IS AN EXISTING BUILDING, BUT THAT'S NOT THE PARCEL WE ARE DISCUSSING TODAY. THE PROPOSED REZ ZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REZONING PLAN AND COMPATIBLE WITH THE ZONING AND LAND YUSZ DESIGNATIONS. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION. >> PROP ERETY WHERE WE OPERATE THE EXISTING FIRE STATION 24 AT THAT LOCATION, THAT IS THE SMALLER'S VOICE, THAT IS NOT PART OF THE CHANGE.WE ARE PLANNING TO REMOVE THE TRAILER THAT IS OPERATING THERE THAT IS HOUSING OUR PERSONNEL. REMOVE THE TEMPORARY LOCATION WHERE VOLUNTEERS HAD PREVIOUSLY OPERATED, THAT HOUSES OUR APPARATUS AND CONSTRUCT A REAL FIRE STATION ON THE SITE. TO DO THAT WE NEEDED MORE LAND THAN WE HEAD. THE COUNTY GOT AN AGREEMENT WITH THE SHALLOW BAPTIST CHURCH IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT. IT BOUGHT PART OF THE PROPERTY THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO HAVE THE ACCESS SPACE UP TO THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, AND THEN ON TO THE REAR WHERE THERE WAS AN EXISTING SOFTBALL FIELD AND VACANT LAND BEHIND IT. WE DON'T HAVE TO USE ALL THE SITE AS YOU CAN SEE, OR FROM THE APPLICATION THAT WE HAVE FOR STATION. THERE IS ACCOUNTABILITY PLACING WAREHOUSING CAPABILITIES WHERE WE COULD HOUSE EQUIPMENT AND STORAGE CAPACITY. [00:10:01] THE PRELIMINARY AND REAL PURPOSE IS TO CONSTRUCT THE FORMAL FIRE STATION, HOPEFULLY TO -- AND GROWTH IN THAT AREA WITH ADDITIONAL PROPERTIES MOVING TO THE OUT YEARS. THAT IS THE PURPOSE. AND I'LL STAND BY FOR ANY QUESTIONS. >> DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? IF NOT, I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING IN THIS MATTER. I DON'T HAVE ANY COMMENT CARDS. IS THERE ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC HERE. IS THERE ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC PRESENT WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? SO IF -- LET'S START WITH THE GENTLEMAN ON THE RIGHT. WHEN YOU'RE DONE SPEAKING, MIC UP THE COMMENT CARD. THEY WERE OUT THERE IN THE VESTIBULE. FILL IT OUT AND GIVE IT TO MS. HAGGARD HERE. I THINK YOU WERE NOT PRESENT WHEN WE ADMINISTERED THE OATH. >> I WAS. BUT I DIDN'T KNOW WE WERE OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. >> LET'S ADMINISTER IT TO YOU NOW. SO WE CAN TAKE CARE OF THAT. AND THIS GENTLEMAN HERE, TOO. >> >> I DO. >> AND IF YOU WILL PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF, GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, AND YOU WILL HAVE -- SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE. >> MY NAME IS BRIAN ANDERSON, I OWN A PIECE OF APPROPRIATORTY ADJACENT TO THERE. IT IS IN OUR BUSINESS NAME. IT IS UNDEVELOPED, NO ADDRESS. ACROSS THE STREET FROM FIRE STATION. I WANT THE SEE A SITE PLAN OF WHERE THEY ARE ENTERING AND EXITING THE FIRE STATION, WHERE PROPOSING AND WHERE THEY ARE ACTUALLY -- VERSUS NOW THAT IS EXISTING. I NEVER SAW ANY SITE PLAN. >> THIS IS IT! YEAH, BUT YOU CAN'T SEE THAT. WE NEED SOMETHING TO PRINT OUT AND VIEW THAT WHERE WE CAN SEE IT. >> I CAN E-MAIL IT TO YOU. >> GIVE ME YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS AFTER THIS. AND POTENTIAL WAREHOUSES THAT IS ON THE SITE PLAN AS WELL. THE ENTRANCE AND THE EXIT. PER FEBLG. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS AGENDA ITEM. IF YOU'D COME FORWARD AND IDENTIFY YOURSELF. WE HAVE A THREE MINUTE LIMIT ON SPEAKING IN THE -- ARE THE LIGHTS OPERATIONAL TONIGHT? >> MY RESIDENCE IS 3935 SWEAT ROAD. I'M THE PROPERTY LINE NEXT TO THE CHURCH AND FIRE HOUSE. I HAVE BEEN FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS. >> CAN YOU RAISE THAT MIC UP A LITTLE? >> HOW ABOUT NOW? MY NAME IS ZEKE, I'M AT 5939 SWEAT ROAD, I SHARE PROPERTY LINES WITH THE CHURCH AND FIRE HOUSE, WHICH I HAVE FOR 20 YEARS. I'M CONCERNED AS TO WHAT THE FIRE CHIEF HAS JUST SAID, THAT WE ARE GOING TO PUT WAREHOUSES, WHICH IS BASICALLY IN MY FRONT YA YARD. THIS IS A BEAUTIFUL PIECE OF PROPERTY. THERE IS STATE CONSERVATION LAND RIGHT BEHIND IT. AND I NEVER KNOWN ANY OF THIS WAS GOING TO HAPPEN. THE WAY THESE PROPERTIES ARE DESIGNED, I HAVE A TRIANGLE IN MY RIGHT OF WAY TO MY DRIVEWAY, WHICH IS CONCERNING TO ME, JUST BY LOOKING AT THE PICTURE RIGHT NOW, WHICH IS NOT PROPOSED FOR THE WHOLE PROPERTY. AGAIN, I'D LIKE TOE HAVE A PLAN OF THAT AS WELL, WHICH I CAN PROVIDE MY E E-MAIL ADDRESS. I'M ALL FOR BUILD AGO FIRE HOUSE FOR THE MEN TO REST AND FOR US TO ARE NEW FIRE EQUIPMENT AND PROTECT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. MY CONCERN IS IT IS GOING TO BRIGHTEN UP MY BEAUTIFUL SKY AT NIGHT. AND I'M THE ONLY ONE IN THIS AREA THAT IS GOING TO SEE IT IN THE EVENING. AS YOU CAN TELL, WE HAVE ONE OTHER GENTLEMAN HERE. IT IS A BLANK PIECE OF PROPERTY. BUT THIS IS MY HOME. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >> DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER PERSON WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? IF NOT, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC P. [00:15:07] WOULD THE APPLICANT CARE TO MAKE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? THE AREA TO THE REAR IS WHERE WE COULD PUT ADDITIONAL THAT WAS THE INTENT OF THE PURCHASE AND WHAT HE DO AT THE PROPERTY. YOU LOOK AT IT, IF YOU WENT TO THE TOPOLOGY OF THE 3R07ERTY, AS YOU COME OFF SWEAT ROAD OFF TO THE EAST OF THAT, THE PROPERTY RISES SUBSTANTIALLY. AS YOU COME FROM THE MAIN ROAD OFF THE COUNTY ROAD AND GO UP, IT RISES ON TOP OF IT. SO IT BECOME A RERATION SHIP. THE REASON WE NEEDED THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY IS BECAUSE THE FRONT AREA WASN'T AS DEVELOPABLE BECAUSE OF THAT. WE NEEDED THE ADDITIONAL SPACE TO HOUSE IT. YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE PROPOSED STATION DESIGN AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW. A FOUR BAY DOUBLE DEEP. I BELIEVE WE WERE UP TO 10 OR 11,000 SQUARE FEET TOTAL, WITH THE ENCLOSED SPACE FOR HOUSING EQUIPMENT AND THE REASON IS WE BELIEVE THAT AS THE AREA BEGINS TO GROW, WHICH IS IT IS GOING TO DO -- DEMAND FOR ADDITIONAL APPARATUS THAN WHAT WE ARE PROVIDING OUT OF -- STATION IN THE AREA NECESSARY. >> JUST A QUICK QUESTION. >> AND I'M ASSUMING THAT THE BUFFERS AND ALL THE OTHER NECESSARY THINGS WOULD HAVE TO BE IN PLACE FOR THAT TO APPLY SO THAT THERE WOULD BE PRIVACY FOR RESIDENTS AND ET CETERA. >> ABSOLUTELY. >> THANK YOU. >> HOW FAR IS THIS FROM WHERE THE EXPRESSWAY IS GOING TO BE? I KNOW IT IS FAIRLY CLOSE. YOU KNOW, MILEAGE WISE. >> I WOULDN'T HAZARD TO GUESS OFF THE TOP. IT IS WITHIN A FEW MILES WITHIN THE ENTRANCE OFF THE EXPRESSWAY. >> THANK YOU. >> ONE QUESTION. >> MR. DAVIS. >> IF I INTERPRET THIS CORRECTLY, ALL ACCESSES FOR THE EMERGENCY VEHICLES IS ON THE -- >> IT IS ON TO THE COUNTY ROAD. >> 226. >> SO NO ACCESS ON SWEAT ROAD ON 17 OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. JUST ON -- >> NO, I'D LOVE TO GET IT OFF 17, BUT IF YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE PROPERTY, AS YOU MOVE OFF SWEAT, MOVING BACK TO THE WEST THERE IS A LARGE FDOT RETENTION AREA FOR 17, SO NO, ALL OUR ACCESS IS GOING TO BE OFF COUNTY ROAD, WHICH IS WHERE WE SERVE IT FROM RIGHT NOW. >> DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ACCESS TO THIS PLAT? WAS IT IN YOUR. >> IT IS PART OF THE PACKAGE. >> THEIR HYPER LINKS ON THE -- IT'S UNDER SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS. >> YEAH. IT'S ON THE FIRST DOCUMENT AND AND PART OF THE APPLICATION. I HAVE SEEN THIS BEFORE. AND THIS IS WHERE I SAW IT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BY THE COMMISSION? QUESTIONS OR ANYTHING ELSE? >> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. >> MR. ANZALONE. >> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE STAFF REPORT! WE HAVE A MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND. MR. NORTON. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION BY THE COMMISSION? SO WE'LL GO AHEAD WITH THE QUESTION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED, PLEASE SIGNIFY BY THE SAME SIGN. AND NO OPPOSITION, SO THE MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU, MS. OLSON. NOW I'LL GO TO WHAT WAS [1.  Public Hearing to consider ZON-0523-00010. (District 5, Comm. Burke) (M. Brown)] PREVIOUSLY ITEM 1 ON THE AGENDA. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ZON-0523-00010, AND THIS IS [00:20:06] PRESENTED BY ZONING CHIEF MIKE BROWN. MR. BROWN. >> MADAM CHAIR, AND BE PLANNING COMMISSION. THIS REZONING REQUEST, THE APPLICANT IS BENJAMIN THOMAS SE SENIOR. THE AGENT IS [INDISCERNIBLE], GOES BY CJ, IF HE GETS UP AND SPEAKS. THIS IS A REQUEST TO CHANGE THE ZONING ON 0.58 ACRES FROM BA2 COMMERCIAL AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICE TO BA NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS. IT'S PRESENTLY A VACANT PARCEL SO NO ADDRESS, BUT IT IS OFF CORNER OF FRAZIER ROAD AND U.S. HIGHWAY 17, IN COMMISSION DISTRICT 1, COMMISSIONER BURKE'S DISTRICT. IT IS SCHEDULED TO GO TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S ON THE -- AT THE JULY 25 MEETING AT 5:00 PM. THE BACKGROUND IS DESIGNATED COMMERCIAL ON FUTURE LAND USE MAP. THE PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF THE SUBJECT PARCEL IS BLACK CREEK VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT, WHICH YOU SHOULD BE FAMILIAR WITH WHEN YOU DRIVE UP 17. PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH AND WEST ARE PRESENTLY ZONED BA2S, ACROSS U.S. HIGHWAY 17 IS COMMERCIALLY ZONED PROPERTIES. THE SUMMARY, THE REQUEST TO REZONE 0.5 ACRES FROM BA2 TO BA, STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE APPLICATION AND DETERMINED THAT THE REQUEST IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA. THE BA ZONING IS ALLOWED IN THE COMMERCIAL FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. BROWN. >> I AGREE ZONING SEEMS TO BE IN LINE. MY QUESTION IS IF THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO BUILD SOMETHING NORTH OF 2500 SQUARE FOOT, DO WE HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT THAT IS? >> THE USE OR SIZE? >>THE USE OF THE STRUCTURE. >> NOT SPECIFICALLY. I KNOW HE HAS -- HE'S MENTIONED HE HAS A COUPLE OPTIONS, BUT AGAIN, ANYTHING THAT IS ALLOWED UNDER THE BA ZONING COULD END UP BEING THERE. >> WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HIS INTENDED USE IS? >> NO. HE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE MORE SPECIFIC WHEN WE -- WHEN I TALKED WITH HIM HE'S INDICATED HE HAS A COUPLE OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO HIM. >> THANK YOU. >> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? WELL, AT THIS TIME WE'LL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. >> [INDISCERNIBLE]. >> DO YOU HAVE REMARKS YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE OR YOU JUST WOULD BE -- >> I AGREE WITH MR. BROWN ON THIS. THE REASON A. WHEN WE WERE DESIGNING THIS BECAUSE OF THE RETENTION POND TO DEVELOP -- I6Z I HAVE A SMALL SITE PLAN I CAN SHOW YOU. WE ARE LOOKING AT 3200 SQUARE FEET INSTEAD OF 2500. NOT SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT. I KNOW ALMOST CERTAIN, ALTHOUGH WE HAVE NOT SIGNED ON IT YET. WE ARE INTEND TOGETHER HAVE TWO USES OR TWO OCCUPANTS ON IT. ONE OF THEM MOST LIKELY IF EVERYTHING GOES OKAY, WOULD BE AN UPSET UPS STORE. THIS IS THE SECOND REVISION. [00:25:52] WE HAVE HAD -- WE ARE LEANING MORE TOWARDS THIS IS A 3200 SQUARE FEET. >> WE'LL TAKE A FEW MINUTES TO PASS THIS AROUND. >> CAN I ASK A QUESTION OF STAFF WHILE WE'RE WAITING ON THAT? I KNOW WE HAVE THE 2500 SQUARE FOOT LIMIT? OUR CODE AND WE HAVE RUN UP AGAINST THIS SEVERAL TIMES RECENTLY THAT I KNOW OF. HAS THERE BEEN ANY OF THOUGHT INTO LOOKING AT THAT AS AN FAR FOR THE SITE OR FAR NOT TO EXCEED ANYTHING ALONG THOSE LINES. >> WE HAVE HAD DISCUSSIONS AS PART OF OUR UPDATE, SPECIFICALLY ON THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE AS IT DOES SEEM TO BE A LITTLE INADEQUATE. AND SO I'M NOT SURE HOW WE MIGHT -- WHETHER WE'D GO WITH THE FAR APPROACH OR JUST INCREASING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE AT THIS POINT. >> I'M NOT CERTAIN, BUT THE WAY THE CODE READS -- I'D HAVE TO CHECK, BUT I MEAN, I KNOW THIS IS A FAIRLY SMALL PARCEL. IF THIS WAS 5 ACRES, YOU'RE STILL LIMITED AT 2500 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING ON IT. WHICH CAUSES PEOPLE TO COME IN AND ASK FOR ZONING BECAUSE OF THE SQUARE FOOT ISSUE. I JUST WANTED -- >> WE ARE CONSIDERING -- OR AT LEAST LOOKING AT -- I DON'T KNOW WHERE WE'LL END UP YET. >> IS THAT THE CORRECT BUFFER? TEN FEET ON THE BACK PROPERTY LINE, THE RESIDENTIAL. >> MROBLY NOT. >> I THOUGHT THAT WAS A BIGGER BUFFER. WE UNDERSTAND WE ARE LOOKING AT ZONING NOT A FLIGHT PLAN. >> ANY DEVELOPMENT WOULD GO THROUGH DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND ALL THAT WILL BE WORKED OUT. >> SO MY QUESTION WOULD BE IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR INCREASE IN SQUARE FOOT AND, ARE YOU LOOKING FOR -- WHAT'S THE HEIGHT WHERE THE ELEVATION OF THE STRUCTURE -- IS IT A ONE STORY OR TWO STORY STRUCTURE? THE BUILDING. IS THE BUILDING ONE STORY OR TWO STORY. >> I'M NOT SURE. THE MOMENT -- WERE APPROACHED BY SOMEBODY WHO WOULD LIKE TO HAVE AN UPS STORE ON IT. WHEN WE TRY TODAY DESIGN IT, TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, WHATEVER THE CODE ALLOWS US, OUR LIMIT WOULD BE THE PARKING AND RETENTION POND THAT WE HAVE TO PUT ON IT AND THE USE. SO IT HAS TO MAKE ECONOMIC SENSE, AS YOU POINTED OUT ABOUT THE BUFFER, MAYBE WE'D HAVE TO CONTRACT THE BUILDING, BUT AT THIS POINT WE ARE LOOKING AT ONE STORY, BUT AT THE SAME TIME -- WE ARE GOING THROUGH ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENT AND ALL THE ADDITIONAL COSTS, WE'D LIKE TO OPTIMIZE THE BUILDING AS WE CAN. FROM MY UNDERSTANDING TALKING TO CIVIL ENGINEER, THE LIMIT WOULD BE PARKING UNLESS WE GO UNDERGROUND RETENTION POND WHICH DOESN'T MAKE SENSE ON THIS SITE BECAUSE IT IS A SMALLER SITE, TOO MUCH COST SO IN LOOKING AT UNDERGROUND RETENTION, IT WOULD BE NORMAL RETENTION AT MOST, CANDIDLY PARKING ON TOP OUT. DEPENDING UPON THE -- WHAT SQUARE FOOT AND UPS WOULD TAKE AND WHAT IS LEFT AND THE PARKING, AND THE ECONOMIC COST OF IT -- THIS -- AS I SAID, THIS IS STILL DEVELOPING. BUT WE KNOW FOR SURE THAT IF WE'RE GOING THROUGH ALL THAT PROCESS OF DEVELOPING AND PUT AGO BUILDING IN, WE'D LIKE TO ENVELOPE SIZE AS WHAT IT E DICTATES. NOW THAT WE POINTED OUT THE [00:30:05] BUFFER MIGHT BE WRONG, IT MIGHT CONTRACT A LITTLE MORE. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. >> MAYBE MORE A COMMENT THAN A QUESTION. COMBINATION OF BOTH. FOR THIS SIZE STRUCTURE -- MIC, SORRY. DON'T HAVE MY MIC ON. FOR THIS SIZE STRUCTURE, MIKE, WHAT -- I FWHOEF REQUIREMENTS FOR THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES FOR THAT BUILDING. I DO BUSINESS WITH UPS STORES AND I KNOW THEY TYPICALLY HAVE SOMETIMES ANYWHERE FROM THREE TO SIX EMPLOYEES. IF EACH PERSON IS BRINGING A CAR AND THEY HAVE TO PARK THAT, THAT IS SIX CARS OR THREE TO SIX CARS FOR THE EMPLOYEES. AND THEN WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IS GOING IN THE OFFICE THAT IS GOING TO BE NEXT DOOR TO THAT. WHAT HAPPENS IF IT IS AN INSURANCE AGENCY OR SOMETHING WHERE THEY HAVE TEN EMPLOYEES. HOW ARE YOU GOING TO MANAGE THE PARKING FOR EMPLOYEES AND FOR THE CUSTOMERS COMING IN TO DO BUSINESS IN THESE TWO PARTICULAR PROPERTIES THATS MY CONCERN WITH THIS. >> WE HAVE ADOPTED RATES BASED ON THE SPECIFIC USE. IF THEY DON'T HAVE SPECIFIC USE, WE'LL USUALLY DO A GENERAL -- WE HAVE A GENERATE FOR DIFFERENT USES, RETAIL OR OFFICE OR WHATEVER. WHATEVER IT MAY BE. THAT IS WHAT WE'LL APPLY BASED ON THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE. JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON THE HEIGHT QUESTION, BA ZONING, IF THAT IS APPROVED FOR THE SITE, MAXIMUM OF 35 FEET IS ALL THAT COULD E DONE, TWO STORIES. . THERE IS ALSO A LIMITING BA. IF IT IS ONLY ONE STORY, IT CAN ONLY BE 22 FEET. >> THE BA2 THAT IT CURRENTLY HAS, WHAT IS THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION ON THAT? >> IT IS ONE STORY MAXIMUM 22 FEET HEIGHT. >> I APPRECIATE YOU READING THROUGH THE LINES. YOU SAW MY CONCERN. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT. >> THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR. >> SO ON FRAZIER ROAD, I FWHOEN I LOOK AT FRAZIER ROAD, IT IS NOT A THROUGH STREET. I BELIEVE IT IS A DEAD END, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN. OVERFLOW PARKING, HOW IS THAT GOING TO AFFECT ANYTHING ELSE THAT IS GOING ON. >> THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE ON SITE PARKING OR ALL THE REQUIRED PARKING ON SITE SEW I MEAN -- >> IF THAT LOT IS FULL AND PEOPLE ARE COMING TO DO BUSINESS IN THAT BUILDING -- >> AS LONG AS THEY PARK LEGALLY OFF THE RIGHT OF WAY JUST ANY OTHER STREET. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS AT THIS TIME? THANK YOU. SO I WILL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER. I DON'T HAVE ANY CARDS FOR THIS MATTER. IS THERE -- OKAY. SIR, IF YOU'D LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND JUST GIVE YOUR CARD TO MS. HAGGARD HERE. >> >> WHERE ARE YOU HEAR WHEN WE SWORE IN THE PEOPLE WHO WERE GOING TO SPEAK. >> WE WERE NOT SWORN IN. >> I'LL ASK MS. HAGGARD TO TAKE CARE OF THAT AS WL. >> PLEASE TURN AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, AND THEN PROCEED WITH YOUR COMMENTS. >> DEAN [INDISCERNIBLE], CLAXTON, 1503 FRAZIER ROAD. THAT TRACT THAT I LIVE ON -- I REPRESENT -- I'M REPRESENTING -- I'M NOT THE RECORD OWNER. MY WIFE IS ONE OF THE RECORD OWNERS. THAT TRACT EXTHE ENDS ROUGHLY FROM ABOUT 600 FEET DOWN FRAZIER TO 17. ON THE WEST SIDE OF U.S. 17 AT THAT POINT. SO IT'S DIRECTLY OPPOSITE. THERE IS A RESIDENT. MY NEIGHBOR RESIDENCE IS ON THE [00:35:05] OPPOSITE SIDE OF FRAZIER, RIGHT BEHIND THE TRACT IN QUESTION. AS FAR AS I KNOW, I'M THE ONLY RESIDENTS OF FRAZIER ROAD HERE TODAY. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT ANYBODY ELSE. I HAD A COUPLE CONCERNS AND COMMENT COMMENTS. AT THAT POINT -- ON THAT SIDE OF 17, THE WEST SIDE OF 17, AS FAR AS I'M AWARE, THERE IS NO OTHER BA ZONED TRACT FROM 209 TO THE BRIDGE, THE BLACK CREEK. I COULD BE WRONG ABOUT THAT, BUT I'M NOT AWARE OF ONE IF THERE IS ONE. THAT IS CONCERN ONE. CONCERN TWO IS THAT AT THAT POINT ON U.S. 17, FROM 209 GOING NORTH TO THE BRIDGE, COMING FROM SOUTH FROM THE BRIDGE, THE TRAFFIC PATTERNS ON THOSE TWO TREKSS OF U.S. 17 ARE NIGHT AND DAY. NOT JUST RUSH HOUR TIMES, BUT SEVERAL TIMES A DAY. SO -- AND ALSO AT THAT POINT, FRAZIER ROAD IS, LIKE, AS IT STANDS NOW, IS A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, DOWN TO A POINT. I THINK SOMEBODY HAS -- I THINK SOME FOLKS FURTHER DOWN HAVE CONVERTED IT PRIVATE BUT IT IS, AS FAR AS I KNOW, PUBLIC PAST OUR TRACT, ALL THE WAY TO OUR -- MAYBE JUST BEYOND. BUT AS FAR AS I KNOW, THE RIGHT OF WAY WIDTH, ALL THE WAY TO 17 IS, LIKE, NO MORE THAN 30 FEET. CERTAINLY. AND I'D BE SURPRISED TO HEAR IF IT WAS ANY MORE THAN THAT. AND IT IS UNIMPROVED. SO I HAVE A CONCERN THAT IT'S GOING TO NEED SOME KIND OF EXPANSION OR IMPROVEMENT, PAVING, ET CETERA. I WOULD ALSO BE CONCERNED THAT YOU MIGHT REQUIRE A TRAFFIC SIGNAL TO DEAL WITH THE IN AND OUT ACCESS TRAFFIC TO THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ON THE TRACT. I'M NOT -- I'M NOT REALLY TRYING TO EXPRESS FAVOR OR OPPOSITION, I'M JUST RAISING SOME ISSUES THAT I THINK MIGHT COME UP. >> WE APPRECIATE YOUR PARTICIPATION VERY MUCH. >> HAPPY TO HELP. IF ANYBODY HAS ANY QUESTIONS OF ME, I'LL BE ABLE TO HELP. HELP WITH WHAT I KNOW. >> MADAM CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT TO THE SPEAKER, PROPERTIES ACCORDING TO THIS MAP, PROPERTIES ALONG 17 ON BOTH SIDES ARE ALL BA2, BV. SO YOU SEE ALL THESE GRAY PROPERTIES -- >> I BELIEVE THERE ARE SOME BA, STRAIGHT BA ON THE EAST SIDE OF 17, YES. >> THEY ARE ALL BUSINESS OF SOME VARIETY. >> RIGHT. I THINK I WAS REFERRING TO JUST THE WEST SIDE OF 17. SOUTHBOUND. AND I'M NOT AWARE -- I DON'T -- I'M MOTT SAYING THERE IS NOT SOME. NOT ONE OR TWO THAT MAY BE -- HAVE NOT BEEN ADDRESSED WITH ANY SITUATION YET BUT I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY STRAIGHT BA ON THAT SIDE, WHICH WOULD BE OUR SIDE OF 17 SOUTHBOUND ON THE WEST SIDE. SOMEBODY MAY -- DOWN ON -- NOW DOWN ON BLACK CREEK, THERE IS SOME DEVELOPMENT POSSIBLY PROPOSED FOR WATER FRONT RESTAURANT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THERE MAY BE SOMETHING GOING ON THERE. THAT I'M NOT AT THIS POINT AWARE OF. BUT I HAVE IMPRESSIONS THAT THERE COULD BE SOMETHING THERE. BUT THE REST OF THE WAY, I DON'T KNOW OF ANY STRAIGHT BA TRACT. THERE ARE SOME BA 2S IN USE I THINK FAIRLY NEAR US UP ON 17, ON THAT SIDE. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. >> I HAVE A QUESTION OF STAFF AT SOME POINT. >> THANK YOU, SIR. WE APPRECIATE YOUR PARTICIPATION. >> APPRECIATE IT VERY MUCH. >> CAN I GO? MR. BROWN, ON HERE -- WHEN I LOOK AT THIS, CLEARLY ALL THOSE HOUSES ARE RESIDENTIAL. ON THIS PARCEL WHEN I LOOK AT [00:40:09] THE AERIAL MAP, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE IS SOMEBODY THAT MAY BE IS LIVING ON THIS PIECE, BEHIND THEM NORTH OF FRAZIER ROAD, EVEN THOUGH IT IS LAND USE COMMERCIAL, IS IT CONSIDERED RESIDENTIAL AS FAR AS BUFFERS, YOU R OR IS IT CONSIDERED COMMERCIAL. >> I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE USE IS, BUT IT WILL BE THE ZONING WILL DICTATE THE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS. >> I THINK THE ZONING ACCORDING TO THIS MAP IS BA2. >> POINT OF ORDER. I DID NOT CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING YET. IS THERE ANY OTHER MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER CARDS. SO I DON'T SEE ANYONE. I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME. SO WE'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR COMMENTS. >> IT'S FUNNY HOW THESE LITTLE ONES GIVE US MORE TROUBLE THAN THE BIG ONES. I HAVE A COUPLE OF CONCERNS ABOUT THIS. ONE IS IT IS A FAIRLY SMALL PARCEL AND IT BACKS UP THAT RESIDENTIAL AND THERE IS A -- IF THEY GO TWO STORIES, THERE IS A 35-FOOT BUFFER. THEY ARE GOING TO LOSE 35 FEET OF SPACE ALONG THAT SIDE THAT FACES THE RESIDENTIAL. SO THAT COMPACTS IT MORE SO I QUESTION WHY WE NEED THE LARGER BUILDING IF WE KEEP COMPACTING THE AMOUNT OF SPACE THAT THEY HAVE AVAILABLE TO USE TO THEM. WITH THAT BUFFER, AND THE RETENTION IS POND, IT IS REALLY GOING TO MAKE THIS A SMALL PARCEL TO PUT THAT MANY SQUARE FEET ON.PTHE OTHER THING THAT IW SOME PEOPLE MIGHT HAVE CONCERNS WITH, BUT I WANTED TO BRING IT UP. THE APPLICANT, HE IS REALLY FORCED TO GO IT ON TO FRAZIER ROAD. MY GUESS IS FDOT IS NOT GOING TO GIVE HIM A CURB CUT ON TO U.S. 17. THAT IS GOING TO PUT ALL THE IN AND OUT TRAFFIC INTO THAT PARCEL ON FRAZIER ROAD, WHICH I DON'T WHAT KIND OF SHAPE IT IS IN. IS THAT A FAIRLY SIMPLE ROAD THT SHORTLY THE COUNTY WILL HAVE TO DO SOMETHING WITH BECAUSE OF THE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC THAT'S GOING TO BE GEERATED RIGHT THERE AT THE INTERCHANGE. I THINK THOSE WERE A COUPLE ISSUES WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT. I'M LIKELY NOT TO SUPPORT THIS MOSTLY BECAUSE I THINK WE ARE GOING TO TRY TO PUT TOO MUCH ON TOO SMALL OF A PARCEL. >> OTHER COMMENTS. >> EVERYBODY KNOWS I'M A FAN OF HEALTHY GROWTH AND PROPER DEVELOPMENT FOR OUR COMMUNITY. I UNDERSTAND WHY THIS IS A BA2 CURRENT ZONING BECAUSE OF ITS ONE-STORY REQUIREMENT. JUMPING TO A BA AND A TWO STORY, I NORMALLY WOULDN'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH, IN A BA2 CURRENT ZONING EXCEPT FOR THAT THIS BACKS UP TO RESIDENTIAL. THAT IS MY BIG -- THAT IS MY BIG CONCERN ABOUT THIS. HAD IT NOT AND HAD BEEN A LITTLE FURTHER SOUTH, I WOULD SUPPORT THIS. BUT BECAUSE THE PARCEL BACKS RIGHT UP -- I THINK THE TIGHT SITE REQUIREMENTS ARE GOING TO BE THE OWNER'S RESPONSIBLE. I THINK THE SITE MIGHT BE A LITTLE TIGHT FOR THE INTENDED USE. MY CONCERN WRAPS AROUND THE EL IS VAGUS. THIS TWO STORY THIS CLOSE TO RESIDENTIAL, YOU'D HAVE TO FEEL LIKE YOU WERE IN THEIR BACKYARD IN ORDER TO GET ANY USAGE OUT OF THIS SITE. THIS IS ONE I'M NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT. >> ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? MR. ANZALONE. >> I BELIEVE THE RESIDENTIAL AREA BEHIND THIS PROPERTY -- AND THE REASON WHY NO ONE IS AT THIS MEETING TO POTENTIALLY CONTEST THIS, IS TO BECAUSE THOSE ARE ALL RENTAL PROPERTPROPERTIES. THAT ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT IS RENTAL DEVELOPMENT. I'M SURE THE OWNER OF THE RENTAL DEVELOPMENT MIGHT NOT CARE, BUT I'M SURE THAT THE RESIDENTS -- IF THAT WAS THE CASE -- PROBABLY WILL. THE PEOPLE RENTING THOSE HOMES. I KIND OF FEEL LIKE COMMISSIONER PUCKHABER, THAT I HAVE A HARD TIME BECAUSE OF THE SIZE AND PARKING IS AN ISSUE AND KNOWING [00:45:01] THAT ROAD IS VERY NARROW AND SMALL. IF IT WAS JUST AN UPS STORE, I'D SAY YEAH, THAT'S OKAY. AND PROBABLY WOULDN'T NEED 3200 SQUARE FEET. BUT TWO 1600 -- AND IF HE GOES UP. I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO PUT CARS INGRESS AND EGRESS OFF FRAZIER 17. THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME FROM A PLANNING PERSPECTIVE. LIKE MICHAEL, I LIKE GROWTH, TOO. BUT NOT AT THAT EXPENSE. >> SO ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR DISCUSSION? >> I WILL MAKE JUST ONE MORE.THAT THIS IS ON THE DOWN SLOPE COMING OFF THE BRIDGE OVER BLACK CREEK. I KNOW A LOT OF YOU GUYS WEREN'T AROUND HERE WHEN WE HAD THE FAMOUS CRAYTON ROAD PARCEL. THERE IS A TRAFFIC THERE NOW. THAT TRAFFIC LIGHT LITERALLY TOOK A STATE REPRESENTATIVE TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN BECAUSE FDOT SAYS THERE IS NO WAY THEY ARE PUT AGO TRAFFIC LIGHT ON THE DOWN SLOPE OF THAT BRIDGE. AND I WOULD THINK THEY'D TAKE THE SAME POSITION ON THIS ONE. SO YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE UNREGULATED TRAFFIC COMING IN AND OUT OF THERE. THAT WAS A CONCERN OF MY MINE, TOO. THEY ARE GOING TO BE LOOKING RIGHT BOO INTO THE BACKYARDS AND SIDE YAURDZ AND WINDOWS OF THESE HOUSES. >> ARE WE READY TO ASK FOR A MOTION? DO WE HAVE A MOTION? >> I MOVE THAT WE DO NOT RECOMMEND THE STAFF REPORT THAT WE VOTE NOT TO RECOMMEND IT, BASED ON THE DISCUSSION WE HAVE HAD HERE AS THE REASONS. >> SECOND. >> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO NOT RECOMMEND THE STAFF REPORT. WE HAVE A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION AS STATED SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> ANY IN OPPOSITION TO THAT? >> AYE. >> SO WE HAVE ONE. ONE IN OPPOSITION. SO THE MOTION TO WITHHOLD OR DENY THE -- NOT APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION HAS CARRIED. >> MADAM CHAIR, WOULD YOU LET THE APPLICANT KNOW THAT THE BCC IS STILL GOING TO GET THIS. >> YES, THIS WILL COME -- DO YOU KNOW WHAT DAY IT WILL COME BEFORE THE -- >> YES, TO JULY 25 MEETING. >> JULY 25, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WILL MEET IN THIS ROOM AND -- DO ALL THE ZONING MATTERS -- ARE THEY AT 5:00. >> 5:00 OR SOON THEREAFTER IT WILL BE HEARD. >> IF YOU'D LIKE TO ATTEND THAT MEETING AGAIN AND BE AVAILABLE FOR THE COMMISSIONERS WHO WILL HAVE THE FINAL SAY. WE ARE SIMPLY AN ADVISORY BOARD. SO OUR RECOMMENDATION WAS NOT TO APPROVE IT, BUT THEY CAN DO AS THEY SEE FIT. SO I THINK WE ARE READY TO MOVE ON TO ITEM 3, THE PUBLIC HEARING [3.  Public Hearing to consider ZON-0623-00016 (M.Brown)] TO HANDLEZON 0623-00016. BOTH OF THESE ARE AMENDMENTS TO LAND CODE. >> THIS IS PROPOSED CHANGE TO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. INITIATED BY THE COUNTY STAFF. AND THIS IS AN AMENDMENT TO OUR PS3 ZONING DISTRICT. AND IT WOULD SPLIT THE -- JUST A QUICK SUMMARY. SPLIT THE USES PRESENTLY ALLOWED IN PS3 ZONING DISTRICT AND ESTABLISH A NEW PS6 ZONING DISTRICT. THIS WOULD BE A COUNTY WIDE IMPACT BECAUSE -- AGAIN, CHANGED TO THE CODE SO IT WILL APPLY COUNTY WIDE. CODE CHANGES REQUIRE TWO PUBLIC HEARING. THE FIRST READING WILL BE NEXT TUESDAY, JULY 11 AND ADOPTION HEARING WILL BE JULY 25. IT WOULD INCLUDE VARIOUS USES, INCLUDING HOSPITALS AND RELATED MEDICAL OFFICE FACILITIES, GROUP HOMES, WHICH INCLUDE DETENTION CENTERS, DRUG AND ALCOHOL ABUSE TREATMENT, INTERMEDIATE CARE FACILITIES AND LICENSED [00:50:01] INSTITUTIONS FOR THE INSANE. THAT IS OUR COUNTY CODE WORDING. AS YOU HAVE SEEN IN THE PAST WHEN ENTITIES REQUESTED REZONING TO PS3, THERE'S BEEN CONCERN OVER THE MIX OF USES. THERE'S SOME OF THOSE USES THAT NEIGHBORS OR CITIZENS AND COMMITTEE ARE COMFORTABLE WITH, BUT ALSO PROVIDED COMMENTS THAT THEY ARE NOT COMFORTABLE WITH ALL THOSE USES. RECOGNIZING THAT, WE HAVE ATTEMPTED TO SEPARATE THOSE USES WITH, AGAIN, RECONSTITUTING A NEW PS3 DISTRICT WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THE HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL OFFICE COMPONENT OF THE PRESENT ZONING PS3 AND CREATING THE NEW PS6 ZONING DISTRICT WHICH INCLUDES DETENTION CENTERS, DRUG AND ALCOHOL TREATMENT FACILITIES, INTERMEDIATE CARE FACILITIES AND INSTITUTIONS. IS THAT'S -- THE COMMENTS WE HAVE HEARD AT STAFF IS THAT'S -- THOSE WERE THE USES THAT WERE MOST UNDESIRABLE OR HAD THE MOST CONCERNS FROM NEIGHBORS AND INTERESTED PARTIES. . AS DRAFTED, THE PS3 -- THE NEW PS3 AND PS6 ZONING DISTRICTS WOULD BE ALLOWED IN THE SAME LAND USE CATEGORIES AS PRESENTLY ALLOWED IN THE PS3 TODAY. ALL THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WOULD REMAIN THE SAME FOR BOTH THE PS3 AND NEW PS6. AND TO PROTECT THOSE LANDOWNERS WHO HAVE PS3 TODAY, IT WOULD ONLY APPLY TO NEW REQUESTS FOR REZONING TO PS3 OR PS6. IF YOU HAVE A PIECE OF PROPERTY TODAY THAT IS PS3 -- IF THESE CHANGES ARE ADOPTED BY THE BOARD, YOU WOULD STILL HAVE THE SAME MIX OF USES THAT YOU HAVE TODAY EVEN AFTER ADOPTION. BUT IF YOU COME IN FOR A NEW PS3 OR PS6, YOU HAVE TO APPLY FOR ONE OF THOSE. WOULD ABOUT APPLY -- YOU'D ONLY APPLY FOR ANY ONE COMING IN FOR NEW OR REZONING. I WENT A LONG WAY AROUND ON THAT. THAT'S REAL QUICK SUMMARY. YOU HAVE IN YOUR PACKET, I INCLUDED A REDLINE CROSS THROUGH. I HAVE THEM HERE IF WE NEED TO DISCUSS THEM. WITH THAT, STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THESE PROPOSED CHANGES. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF AT THIS POINT ON THAT. >> QUESTION. >> MR. BOURRE AND THEN MR. PUCKHABER. >> THANK YOU, MR. BROWN, FOR THE PRESENTATION. I'M CONFUSED. I BELIEVE IN THE KIS METHOD, KEEP IT SIMPLE. IT SEEMS YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TWO PS3 ZONINGS. ONE IS THE ORIGINAL PS3 THAT ALLOWS THESE USES AND THE NEW ONE IS THE ZONING THAT ALLOWS THE HOSPITALS AND COLD OUT USES. HOW IS THE COUNTY GOING TO TRACK -- I GUESS -- HOW ARE WE GOING -- CAN -- WHEN WE TALK ABOUT PS3 WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE ABLE TO TRACK THE CURRENT VERSUS NOW WHAT THE NEW IS. THEY REALLY KIND OF -- THERE IS OVERLAP THAT I THINK IS GOING TO BECOME CUMBERSOME. >> . >> I'LL TRY TO KEEP IT SIMPLE. YOU WON'T SEE ANY OF THE OLD ONES. THE OLD ONES ONLY APPLY TO THOSE EXISTING PS3 TODAY. SO FROM A STAFF STANDPOINT, IN OUR SYSTEM, WE KNOW EVERY PARCEL ZONED PS3 TODAY. SO WE'D -- WE'LL HAVE THAT. ANYTHING COMING IN FOR DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL, WE'D APPLY TODAY'S RULES, IF IT IS ZONED PS3. >> I UNDERSTAND. I UNDERSTAND WE'D ONLY SEE THE CHANGES. I GUESS MY QUESTION -- >> ANYBODY COMING -- IF CODE CHANGE IS ADOPTED, ANY CHANGE COMING BEFORE YOU FOR PS3 WOULD ONLY RELATE TO THE HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL OFFICE USE. >> SO A HOMEOWNER OWNS A PIECE OF PROPERTY NOW. IT IS ZONED PS3. THEY GO UNDER COUNTY WEBSITE TO SEE THE ALLOWABLE USES. THEY ARE GOING TO SEE THE NEW LIST OF USES AND NOT WHAT THEY ARE ALLOWED TO ON THEIR PARCEL. THAT IS THE CONFUSION I'M [00:55:03] GETTING AT. >> YEAH, I -- THAT -- WE HAVE THAT CONFUSION TODAY WITH SOME OF THE OTHER LAND USES. >> THIS IS A MORE SYSTEMIC PROBLEM THAN JUST PS3. >> YEAH, YEAH. >> ARE WE ADDING TO THE PROBLEM BY NOT CREATING TWO NEW USES AND NOT REUSING A CURRENT USE. I'M TRYING TO -- >> RATHER THAN MAINTAINING A PS3 COMING UP WITH A PS6 AND PS7 -- I MEAN, I CAN SEE -- I CAN SEE WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM. >> THAT'S -- I'LL LEAVE IT ON THE TABLE. THANK YOU, MR. BROWN. >> TO COMMISSIONER BOURRE'S POINT, THAT WAS THE THOUGHT I HAD AS WELL. IN EXIST CODE YOU FIND REFERENCES ABOUT THIS ONLY APPLYING -- THERE IS DATES AND THAT KIND OF THING. I THINK THIS ONE HAS POTENTIAL TO BE A BIGGER PROBLEM BECAUSE OF WHO IT INVOLVES. I FOR ONE WOULD PREFER TO SEE THIS. EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID, MR. BROWN. CLOSE PS3. JUST LIKE WE HAVE CLOSED BB ZONING AND THAT KIND OF THING. JUST CLOSE IT. IF SOMEONE HAS IT, THEY KNOW WHAT THESE AN FROM THIS DAY FORWARD OR FROM APPROVAL DAY FORWARD WE'D CREATE A PS6 AND PS7. WE'D DO EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT BUT THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY CONFUSION. PEOPLE WOULD ASK FOR 6 OR 7. MY OTHER QUESTION WAS HOW ARE WE GOING TO DEAL WITH WITH IN A HOSPITAL WANTS TO LOCATE SOMEWHERE IN THE COUNTY. THIS IS GOING TO COME UP AT SOME PO POINT. SOME OF THE SERVICES THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT SPLITTING OUT OF PS3 ARE OFTEN PROVIDED BY A HOSPITAL IN HOUSE. WHAT DO WE DO WITH THOSE CASES WHERE I WANT TO BUILD A NEW HOSPITAL AND I'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK. I WANT TO INCLUDE SOME OF THOSE LIST USES THAT WE HAVE CARVED OUT FOR THE NEW ZONING. ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT IT IS A FULL SERVICE HOSPITAL? I CAN'T PROVIDE THOSE SERVICES NOW BECAUSE OF MY ZONE ING. >> REALLY WHERE STAFF THOUGHT THE DIFFERENCE WAS AND TRIED OF TIE IT IN THERE WITH WAS MORE OF THE -- BASICALLY A HOSPITAL -- SOME OF THOSE SERVICE MAY BE, LIKE, AN OUTPATIENT, NOT NECESSARILY A RESIDENTIAL TYPE WHERE SOMEBODY COMES TO LIVE FOR SOME OF THE REHAB TYPE USES. AND THAT'S WHAT THE INTENT OF THE PS6 WAS TO BE THOSE TYPES OF USES. WHERE IF IT WAS A HOSPITAL WHERE YOU MIGHT HAVE SOME TYPE OF OUTPATIENT -- WE'D LOOK AT IT -- STAFF AS, LIKE, THAT IS ACCESSORY OR ANCILLARY TO THE HOSPITAL. >> I GET YOUR LOGIC. I'M WONDERING WHAT OUR COUNTY ATTORNEY WOULD SAY ABOUT THAT. >> I MEAN, I HAVE WORK MIC]. >> DID YOU HEAR MY WHOLE QUESTION? BASICALLY THE QUESTION WAS WE ARE GOING TO TAKE SOME USES, WHICH HOSPITALS OFTEN PROVIDE. WE ARE GOING TO SLIT THEM OUT INTO SEPARATE ZONING DISTRICT. SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A HOSPITAL COME BACK IN HERE AND ASK TO BUILD A HOSPITAL. ARE WE TELLING THEM IF THEY ARE NOW UNDER THE HOSPITAL ZONING THAT THEY CANNOT PROVIDE THOSE SERVICES AT THE HOSPITAL? THEY CAN'T BE WHAT I'D CALL FULL SERVICE HOSPITAL AT THAT POINT. >> I GUESS WHEN I LOOKED AT IT WHEN WE SPLIT IT OUT, I WASN'T LOOKING AT IT OR UNDERSTAND THAT THE THINGS WE MOVED TO PS6 COULD BE IN A HOSPITAL. I LOOKED AT THEM AS MORE GROUP HOMES. >> THERE IS TREATMENT STUFF THEY DO IN HOSPITAL. THERE IS STUFF IN THIS LIST THAT'S CONCERNING. MR. BROWN WAS SAYING THAT IT [01:00:05] WOULD BE AN INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT THAT WOULDN'T BE A PROBLEM, BUT I'M ASKING YOU, ARE WE KWOING TO GET INTO A FIGHT WITH A HOSPITAL BECAUSE WE EXCLUDED SOMETHING THEY WANT TO PUT INTO A HOSPITAL LATER ON? >> I CAN'T PREDICT THAT? I THINK THAT DEFINITELY COULD HAPPEN. I MEAN, WHEN WE SPLIT IT OUT I WASN'T THINKING THAT THE ITEMS THAT WERE GOING TO PS6 WOULD BE IN A HOSPITAL UNDER PS3. SO I MEAN, THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING WE NEED TO RELOOK AT, BUT -- >> I THINK THEY ARE AT ORANGE PARK MEDICAL. I THINK YOU HAVE A FULL MEDICAL PLUS PSYCHIATRIC WARD. >> AND YOU HAVE DRUG ABUSE AND ALCOHOL TREATMENT. >> CAN I GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE? >> YEAH, I'M -- I MADE MY POINT. I JUST WANTED TO -- >> I TOTALLY AGREE. AS A MATTER OF FACT, I WAS GOING TO COMMENT ON THAT. EXAM I WOULD BE IF SOMEBODY IS ACTING STRANGE, THE PEOPLE THAT INTERACT HAVE A RIGHT TO CALL THE BAKER ACT, HAVE THIS PERSON INCARCERATED IN A HOSPITAL FOR I THINK, MINIMUM 48 HOURS YOU SHOULD PSYCHIATRIC CARE IN A HOSPITAL WHERE HE'S WATCHED AND THAT SORT OF STUFF. THERE IS NO OUTPATIENT TREATMENT AT ALL. SO MY QUESTION WAS GOING TO BE THE SAME THING. ND THAT IS IF WE MOVE ALL THIS STUFF TO PS6, DOES THAT MEAN THAT THE HOSPITALS CAN NO LONGER PLAY IN THAT ARENA ALONG WITH ALL THESE OTHER ACTIVITIES THEY NORMALLY PLAY WITH, WITH DRUG ABUSE AND THE OTHER THINGS AS WELL? >> THAT WAS NOT THE INTENT. I MEAN, IT WAS -- >> I UNDERSTAND THAT IS NOT THE INTENT, BUT WE MIGHT BE SETTING UP TRAP HERE THAT THE HOSPITALS -- >> MAYBE IT IS NOT CLEAR. IT IS MORE TOWARDS THE STAND ALONE -- LIKE, GROUP HOME TYPE FACILITIES. >> WHEN WE LOOKED AT DEFINITION OF GROUP HOMES FOR US, THOSE ITEMS, THE A THROUGH D, THOSE WERE SPECIFIC GROUP HOMES. THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS IN A HOSPITAL. THAT IS WHERE YOU -- THESE PEOPLE LIVE. >> I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT GROUP HOMES. I'M TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE THAT ARE BASICALLY PSYCHOLOGICALLY IMBALANCED AND THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE AROUND THAT INDIVIDUAL CALL LAW ENFORCEMENT TO HAVE THIS PERSON TAKEN OFF THE STREETS BECAUSE HE'S PRESENTING HAZARD TO OTHER PEOPLE. SO UNDER THE BAKER ACT THEY CAN HOSPITALIZE THAT GUY UP TO A OBSERVATION.OD OF TIME FOR - IS THAT -- THAT'S NOT GROUP HOME. GROUP HOME IS -- >> I THINK THAT'D FALL UNDER I, LITTLE I. THAT WOULD BE -- I MEAN, A HOSPITAL COULD STILL HAVE THAT FACILITY. >> SO... OKAY. I'M PIGTAILING ON MR. BOURRE'S COMMENT. ARE WE CREATING A CONFUSING SITUATION UNDER PS3 BY SEGREGATING THIS STUFF OUT AT PS6? >> WELL, I THINK WHAT MIKE AND I UNDERSTOOD WAS THAT THE ITEMS FOR HOSPITALS WOULD STILL REMAIN UNDER PS3. THE ITEMS FOR GROUP HOMES WILL BE WHAT'S MOVED TO PS6. >> MY POINT IS, ALONG WITH MR. PUCKHABER'S, THAT IS A LOT OF HOSPITALS PROVIDE THESE SERVICES ALL RIGHT NOW UNDER PS3 IN A LOT OF CASES -- >> THEY DON'T PROVIDE A GROUP HOME. THEY DON'T PROVIDE IT AS A GROUP HOME -- >> NO, THEY DON'T. I MEAN, I HAVE A GROUP HOME LIVING IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT A GROUP HOME IS. I'M SAYING THEY PLAY AND INTERACT IN THESE OTHER AREAS, WHETHER DEALING WITH DRUG ABUSE OR SOME OF THESE OTHER THINGS AND YET WE ARE ISOLATING THAT OUT OF A HOSPITAL WHERE YOU'RE SAYING -- YOU ARE SAYING THAT IS PART OF THE HOSPITAL. >> I WOULD DISAGREE. A HOSPITAL -- WHATEVER CAN OCCUR WITHIN A HOSPITAL IS STILL ALLOWED YOU SHOULD THE LITTLE I. THIS IS SPECIFICALLY FOR GROUP HOMES. >> A SEPARATE STAND ALONE STATE LICENSED GROUP HOMES FOR THOSE USES WOULD FALL UNDER THE PS6. IF THAT WAS THE INTENT. >> IT OCCURS TO ME THAT IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S -- I WAS LOCKING AT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AND IT IS TALKING PERSONS WITH PSYCHIATRIC NT OF - DISORDERS AND I WOULDN'T -- AND WHAT WE ARE WORRIED ABOUT IS INPATIENT SETTINGS, WHICH I THINK ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE CONFUSION IS COMING ACROSS. MAYBE THAT COULD BE PARSED OUT A LITTLE MORE CLEARLY, BUT I DON'T -- I PERSONALLY DON'T SEE A [01:05:07] RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT CENTER AS THE SAME THING AS AN INPATIENT SETTING IN A HOSPITAL. AND. SO I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE CONCERN IS COMING FROM, FROM WHAT I'M HEARING. >> I THINK THE ANSWERS I HEARD ARE ADEQUATE. I BROUGHT THAT UP BECAUSE I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS CLEAR. IT SOUNDS LIKE OUR COUNTY ATTORNEY -- I KNOW YOUR ATTORNEY AS WELL AND MIKE ARE SAYING THAT. THAT IS WHAT I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT. WE WEREN'T GOING TO CEO YALT A PROBLEM, NOT SO MUCH FOR EXISTING HOSPITALS, BUT AS A GROWING COUNTY, I THINK IT IS A MATTER OF TIME UNTIL SOMEBODY WANTS TO BUILD A HOSPITAL HERE SOMEWHERE. I STILL HAVE AN ISSUE THAT THERE BOURRE BROUGHT UP THAT I THINK WE NEED TO ADDRESS, WHICH IS, ARE WE CREATING A PROBLEM BUSINESS BASICALLY WE HAVE A 3SHGSS3 LEGACY AND PS3 NEW THAT MAYBE WHOA SHOULD LOOK AT THAT. >> WE HAVEN'T HAD THE PUBLIC HEARING YET. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. MR. S, IF YOU WANT TO COME FORWARD AND SATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. >> HERE IS HERE IS THE PROBLEM YOU'RE TRYING TO SOLVE HERE. PEOPLE WHO HAVE PS3 TODAY HAVE THESE VARIOUS RIGHTS, INCLUDING AT THESE GROUP HOMES. THAT IS INCONSISTENT AND INCOMPATIBLE WITH HOSPITAL MOB KIND OF STUFF. THAT IS NOT IN THE SAME CATEGORY STAY CAN HAVE DRUG AND ALCOHOL TREATMENT OUTPATIENT SERVICES. THEY CAN DO THAT BUT ARE NOT OPERATING GROUP HOMES TO PROVIDE THAT SERVICE IF YOU ARE GOING TO TRY TO OPERATE ONE THAT IS -- SAYS DHS, BUT IS REALLY DEPARTMENT HEALTH I THINK IS WHAT IT IS CALLED NOW. THAT IS A COMPLETELY SEPARATE ANIMAL. WHAT YOU DON'T WANT TO DO IS JUST ELIMINATE THE UNFAVORABLE USES, PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL, THE GROUP HOMES. THEN YOU MAY RUN INTO A PROBLEM WITH [INDISCERNIBLE] ACT. SOMEBODY CLAIMING YOU HAVE MATERIALLY DEVALUED THEIR PROPERTY BECAUSE THEY HAD PLANNED TO USE IT FOR THAT PURPOSE. SO THAT'S WHY YOU CAN'T JUST WIPE IT AWAY SO YOU KNOW I DON'T EXPOSE THE COUNTY TO THIS HARRIS ACT KIND OF CLAIM. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN BY THAT. THE CLAIM THAT YOU HAVE DEVALUED THEIR PROPERTY OF STATUTORY ALTERNATIVES TO INVERSE CONDEMNATION. OF CHAPTER 70. THAT IS WHY YOU HAVE TO LEAVE IT IN THERE FOR PEOPLE WHO HAD THAT ZONING BEFORE THIS TOOK EFFECT AND THEN GOING FORWARD, YOU SANITIZE IT FOR PEOPLE WHO WANT TO COME IN AND GET THAT REZO REZONING. THE STAFF KEEPS TRACK OF THE DATES WHEN ALL THESE THINGS TAKE PLACE. IN FACT, THE ONLINE VIEWER MAP -- I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE BEEN THERE, BUT THE COUNTY HAS A MAP THAT'S GIS TYPE MAP THAT'S OVERLAID WITH FLOOD ZONES AND LAND USES, THE ZONING. AND THOSE ARE ANNOTATED WITH THE REZONINGS ACCOMPLISHED THE PARTICULAR ZONING FOR PARCEL OR PROPERTY. STAFF KEEPS TRACK OF THAT. IT WOULD NOT BE DIFFICULT CERTAINLY IF I WERE INVOLVED WITH A PARTY SEEKING TO DO THAT. I WOULD BE LOOKING TO MAKE SURE [01:10:02] THERE WAS NOTHING IN THE CODE THAT I NEEDED TO BE AWARE OF. TOE GO AFTER -- I HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE CATEGORY. IT IS PLAIN TO ME THAT IF YOU ARE PRIOR TO THIS DATE OR IF YOU ARE ON OR PRIOR TO THAT DATE, YOU HAVE THESE RIGHTS AND AFTER THAT DATE, YOU ONLY HAVE THESE RIGHTS. SO THEN YOU EXPORT THOSE UNDESIRABLE USES THAT ARE KIND OF LIKE WISE OVER TO PS6. THAT IS THE DESIGN OF THIS. I CERTAINLY HAD A HAND IN IT AND I WORKED WITH STAFF WITH YOUR COUNTY ATTORNEY AND YOUR ZONING CHIEF TO GET THIS RIGHT. SO THAT'S IT IN A NUTSHELL. IT'S AN EFFORT TO OBTAIN WHAT PEOPLE ALREADY HAVE RIGHTS TO, SO YOU DON'T TAKE AWAY FROM THEM BUT GOING FORWARD, TO LIMIT ITS USE TO JUST THAT USE. >> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC THAT'D LIKE TO SPEAK TO ITEM 3 ON THE AGENDA? . IF NOT, I'M GOING TO CLOSE OUR PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR COMMENT AND DISCUSSION. >> WHY CAN'T WE HAVE, LIKE, A P PS3.2 OR -2 FOR THE NEWER LANGUAGE SO IT IS NOT CONFUSED WITH THE OLDER? GIVE IT A NAME. IT'S OWN IDENTITY. >> I THINK THAT WAS MR. BOURRE SAYING PS6 AND 7. >> WHY CAN'T WE DO THAT? >> I THINK MARK HAS A BURT HARRIS CONCERN ABOUT IT. I DON'T HAVE THAT CONCERN. I THINK YOU COULD LEAVE WHAT YOU HAVE FOR PS3 AND THAT IS FOR ANY PROPERTY THAT CURRENTLY HAS IT BUT ANY PROPERTY WANTING TO CHANGE COULD DO YOUR PS6 OR 7. >> MM-HM. AND. >> I'M CONFUSED BECAUSE I THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO HAVE A NEW VERSION OF PS3, BUT THE OLD VERSION RETROACTIVE TO ANYONE WHO CURRENTLY HAS THE ZONING. >> YES, THAT IS WHAT IT SAYS. IT STAYS WITH ANY PROPERTY THAT HAS IT. >> I'M GOING BACK TO THE PROPERTY OWNER THING AGAIN. -- IT SEEMS LIKE IT IS CONFUSING IN THAT RESPECT. WITHOUT HAVING A SEPARATE DESIGNATION FOR IT, THEY CAN CONTINUE -- I'M NOT GOING TO SAY WE'D APPROVE THAT, BUT IT WOULD CONTINUE TO GO BACK AND BECOME SOME SORT OF A FIGHT. I'D THINK SOMEBODY WOULD HIRE AN ATTORNEY TO FIGHT THAT AND COUNTY GETS INVOLVED -- >> BUT IT IS CLEARLY LABELED IN THE ORDINANCE, IF YOU WORKED ON THE PROPERTY AND ITS PS3 AS OF AUGUST 20-SOMETHING, YOU HAVE ALL THOSE. IT IS ONLY FOR AN APPLICANT COMING IN AFTER THAT AUGUST DATE THAT THEN YOU HAVE LIMITED USES. >> QUESTION. >> MR. PUCKHABER. >> I UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN SAID. AND I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO HERE, BUT I'M GOING TO GO BACK AGAIN -- ONCE THIS CHANGE IS MADE, IN OUR CODE, IT'S GOING TO SHOW -- BECAUSE YOU HAVE A RED LINE COPY HERE. IT IS GOING TO SHOW THE CURRENT OR NEW VERSION OF PS3. IF I WANT ENTITLEMENT, I HAD PS3 PRIOR TO THIS DATE OR I PURCHASED A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT HAS PS3 ON IT PRIOR TO THIS DATE, WHERE IN THE CODE AM I GOING TO WHAT MY OLD ENTITLEMENTS WERE BECAUSE THEY ARE BEING STRUCK OUT OF PS3. >> NO, THE CODE -- THE UPGRADED -- UPDATED CODE WILL REMAIN WITH ADDING THE DATES THAT ARE IN THERE. YOU'LL SEE THE EXISTING PS3. >> LIKE TO MAKE A FEW MORE COMMENTS. >> IN ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION. ONE, IT IS WHAT YOU HAVE TODAY. THAT IS WHAT IS CURRENTSLY ALLOWED. THE HOSPITALS, GROUP HOMES. I JUST CHANGED -- IT USED TO SAY FOR THE TREATMENT OF THE INSANE, WHICH IS REALLY NOT PC, SO I CHANGED IT TO PSYCHIATRIC DISORDERS. [01:15:07] AND IT SAID FOR CARE FACILITIES FOR MENTALLY RETARDED. THAT IS NOT PC EITHER. >> I SEE IT. >> SO THIS IS STILL INTACT. >> ALL THE WORDING THERE TODAY REMAINS. WEARE JUST CUTTING IT OUT INTO A SECTION WITH A DATE ON IT! TWO SAYS A NEW DATE. THIS IS ALL YOU GET. >> MR. BOURRE HAS A QUESTION. >> JUST TO UNDERSTAND THE LOGIC CHAIN BEHIND THIS, MS. GRIMM. WHEN SOMEBODY GOES ON TO THE COUNTY -- TO THE -- >> PROPERTY APPRAISAL WEBSITE. WHEN SOMEBODY LOOKS AN AT THEIR PARCEL. JUST THE AVERAGE PERSON, NOT AN ATTORNEY. JUST AN AVERAGE PERSON WANTS TO SEIZE THEIR PROPERTY AND SHOWS THEY HAVE PS3 AND THEN THEY CLICK ON THE DEFINITIONS FOR PS3 -- NOT THE CODE, BUT JUST THE DEFINITIONS -- WHAT DEFINITION IS GOING TO POP UP? THE NEW OR OLD ONE? >> I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PROPERTY APPRAISER PUTS ON THEIR WEBSITE. >> THAT IS WHERE FOLKS GO. MOST FOLKS DON'T EVEN KNOW WHERE THE CODE IS. >> I DIDN'T KNOW THE PROPERTY APPRAISER HAD A DEFINITION. WE SHOULD TALK TO THEM. >> THERE ARE A LOT OF -- >> WE HAVE CONCERNS WITH THE WAY THE PROPERTY APPRAISER IDENTIFIES PROPERTY. THEY HAVE A WHOLE DIFFERENT MECHANISM FOR NAMING PARCELS FOR THEIR USE. THEY DON'T MATCH UP WITH OUR ZONING AND WE RUN INTO CONSTANTLY. >> I SUPPORT THE IDEA OF -- OR THE INTENT OF WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE BY THE SEPARATION. I GET THAT. I AWE SUPPORT IT. I DON'T SUPPORT THE WAY IT IS WRITTEN NOW. I'M IN THE BUSINESS AND I IT IS CONFUSING. TO ADD ANOTHER LAYER OF CONFUSION WHERE AN AVERAGE PERSON WHO DOESN'T KNOW AND GOES TO COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT THEY CAN AND CAN'T DO ON THEIR PROPERTY -- THEY ARE NOT GOING TO GO TO CODE -- I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT IS FIXED, BUT THIS IS MY CONCERN WITH THIS LANGUAGE. >> ARE WE READY FOR A MOTION? >> I'LL TRY. I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER BOURRE. I THINK THERE IS A -- WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THIS -- THIS BOARD, WE TAKE THE CITIZEN'S VIEW OF A LOT OF THIS STUFF ALTHOUGH WE ARE TYPICALLY BETTER EDUCATED IN THESE MATTERS THAN THE AVERAGE CITIZEN, BUT WE ARE NOT ATTORNEYS. WE'RE NOT PROFESSIONAL PLANNERS. AND I FIND THE WAY THIS IS BEING DONE TO BE CONFUSING. I ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT WHAT IS GOING ON BUT I'D PREFER TO SEE THIS LOCKDOWN PS3 AS IT EXISTS TODAY, CREATE -- TAKE WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO AND MAKE THAT PS7. DO A PS6 AND PS7. IT WILL BE CLEAR TO ANYBODY THAT LOOKS AT ZONING. SO MY MOTION WOULD ACTUALLY BE TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE STAFF REPORT BUT ASK STEPHANIE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT CHANGING IT -- CHANGING THE DESIGNATIONS. LOCKING DOWN PS3 AND CREATE A 6 AND 7 TO DO EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO DO. BECAUSE I DON'T THINK ANYBODY -- I'M GETTING THE FEELING, NOBODY IS REALLY AGAINST WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO. WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE WAY IT IS BEING DONE. >> I'LL SECOND THAT. >> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION BY THE COMMISSION. >> I'D HAVE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. IT WOULD BE SOMEBODY DOES A FRIENDLY REVIEW OF THE PROPERTY APPRAISER WEBSITE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE DESIGNATIONS CONFORM AND INFORMATION IS ALL UNIFORM. >> AS THE MAKER OF THE MOTION, I ACCEPT THE AMENDMENT. >> SECOND. >> ALL RIGHT, SO WE HAVE A MOTION THAT HAS BEEN AMENDED. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR COMMENT? SO ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, PUT FORWARD BUSINESS MR. PUCKHABER, PLEASE SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED SAME SIGN. MOTION CARRIES. SO HOPEFULLY THERE WILL BE -- WE'LL HEAR MORE ON THIS -- >> IF I COULD MAKE A COMMENT ON THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S PIECE. THEIR CODES ON THEIR WEBSITE IS FOR TAX PURPOSES. [01:20:02] IT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH WHAT THE THIRD FLOOR SAYS THEIR ZONING IS. SO LONG STORY SHORT, WE CAN'T FIX THAT. AND THAT'S A CALL WE TAKE A LOT OF TIMES -- THEY'LL SAY YEAH, BUT THE PROPERTY APPRAISER SAYS IT IS AG. THAT'S BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THTHEY ARE TAXING IT AS BECAUSE IT HAS PINE TREES ON IT, BUT ITS ZONING COULD BE SOMETHING TOTALLY DIFFERENT. >> MAY I ASK A QUESTION. >> THIS MAY BE -- THIS IS JUST A QUESTION. TO BODY IS OBVIOULY JUST A RECOMMENDATION BOARD. UNDERSTANDING STAFF MAY NOT BE ABLE TO DO ANYTHING DIRECTLY. CAN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REVIEW THIS AND COME UP WITH SOME KIND OF FIX BETWEEN BOTH BODIES SO IT IS ALL UNIFORM? >> NO, BECAUSE -- IN MY OPINION, AND THE COUNTY ATTORNEY MIGHT SAY DIFFERENTLY, THEY ARE USED FOR DIFFERENT PURPOSES. SO THEY WON'T MARRY UP. SO LET'S USE ONE OF THE BIG LAND MANY -- WE ARE NOT GOING TO CALL NAMES. WHO LIVES IN LAKE ASBURY, THEY FALL UNDER LAKE ASBURY MASTER PLAN ZONING. SAY THEIR ZONING IS MASTER PLAN COMMUNITY. I BET YOU MONEY, IF YOU GO AND LOOKED ON THE PROPERTY APPRAISERS, WHAT THEIR PROBABLY SAY AG BECAUSE TODAY HE STILL HAS PINE TREES PLANTED THERE. FROM A PROPERTY APPRAISERS PPUR STILL -- HE'S AG EVEN THOUGH HE'S NOT ONE HOUSE TO 20 ACRES. HE IS 3:1 WHEN HE FINALLY DECIDES TO CUT DOWN THOSE PINE TREES AND USE THE ZONING THAT HE'S GOT. IF THAT MAKES SENSE. I MIGHT HAVE JUST -- >> IT WILL CATCH UP. IT IS DELAYED THEN? >> IT MIGHT CATCH UP ONE DAY. YOU CAN'T LOOK AT -- SO -- I MEAN, YOU CAN'T LOOK AT AREAS REVERSE OF THAT. SO YOU CAN'T LOOK AT AREAS MORE RURAL IN NATURE. SAY AN AREA IN CLAY HILL OR KEY KEYSTONE. AND LOOK ON THERE FOR TAX PURPOSES. IF IT IS A SMALLER LOT AND AG RESIDENTIAL IN OUR ZONING, IT MAY NOT HAVE AN AG ZONING IN THE PROPERTY APPRAISERS BECAUSE IF IT IS A SMALL ENOUGH AG RESIDENTIAL PARCEL, IT IS NOT BEING USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE, IT WON'T BE TAXED AS THAT ON THE PROPERTY APPRAISERS WEBSITE, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. AM I MAKING IT CLEAR AS MUD? >> NO. AND I KNOW MIKE IS SAYING -- I NEVER REALLY LOOK AT THE PROPERTY APPRAISERS. I USUALLY -- >> A LOT OF PEOPLE DO. >> I USUALLY GO TO GIS MAPS THAT HAVE THE ZONING. >> WE GET A LOT OF CALLS THAT SAY THAT. SAY HEY -- BILL IS LOOK AT ONE RIGHT NOW. THEIR CATEGORY ON THEIR WEBSITE IS STRICTLY FOR TAXING PURPOSES. NOT REALLY WHAT YOU CAN DO THERE BY ZONING CODE. AND THE PROPERTY APPRAISERS IS STATEWIDE CODE. I MEAN, IF YOU -- I'M SURE SOME OF YOU GUYS HAVE PAID ATTENTION TO THIS. IF YOU GO TO ANOTHER COUNTY, EVERY COUNTY I HAVE GONE TO IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA USES THIS VERY SAME SOFTWARE. SO WHOEVER IS THE MAKER OF THE SOFTWARE -- THEY ARE DOING WELL IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA BECAUSE EVEN ONE OF MY MORE RURAL COUNTIES I LIKE TO HANG OUT IN AND SEE WHO OWNS PROPERTY, THEY USE THE SAME EXACT SOFTWARE. SO THESE TAX CODES ARE USED THROUGHOUT THE STATE FOR TAXING PURPOSES. >> MR. ANZALONE. >> WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE SOMEWHERE IN THE END OF THE LANGUAGE, AT THE END, LIKE SOME OTHER MATERIAL, HAVE A FOOTNOTE WITH A REFERENCE TO A PARTICULAR CODED AREA? >> I WOULD THINK OUR ONLY THOUGHT WOULD BE THAT WE COULD HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THE PROPERTY APPRAISERS AND IT MAY TAKE A CONVERSATION WITH THE STATE OF PROPERTY APPRAISERS ASSOCIATION. WHEN YOU GO INTO THE SITE YOU HAVE TO AGREE THAT THIS MIGHT NOT BE 100% ACCURATE BY THE LINES AND STUFF. YOU HAVE TO CLICK THAT BUTTON. HECK, IT MIGHT EVEN SAY IT ON THERE. I JUST HIT "AGREE." >> THE FOOTNOTE TOOK THEM TO THE ZONE -- >> THEY MAY BE WILLING TO SAY, THE CODING IN THIS SYSTEM HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ZONING OR LAND UNIVERSE USE OF THIS PROPERTY. THIS IS TAX CODING. >> I THINK WE NEED TO ADDRESS THAT. I HAVE HAD CITIZENS COME IN AND HAVE THAT CONFUSION AND IT CREATES A PERCEPTION ON THEIR PART THAT THE LAW ISN'T BEING [01:25:06] FOLLOWED BY SOMEBODY. THAT IS NOT GOOD FOR ANY OF US, THAT ARE PARTICIPATING IN CLAY COUNTY GOVERNMENT. SO JUST SOME DISCLOSURES AND SOME CROSS REFERENCES MIGHT SERVE THE PURPOSE. JUST SOME EDUCATION TO THE STAFF AS TO WHAT WE SEE IN THIS CHAMBER WHEN PEOPLE COME IN CONFUSED ABOUT WHY THEIR TAX BILL SAYS ONE THING AND THEY ARE DEALING WITH A ZONING ISSUE OF ANOTHER -- >> MADAM CHAIR, JUST -- I'M SURE EVERYBODY KNOWS THIS, BUT PROPERTY APPRAISER IS CONSTITUTIONAL. SO WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING BUT ASK THEM TO DO SOMETHING. WE HAVE NO INFLUENCE -- >> BELIEVE ME, I UNDERSTAND THAT. WE ARE ALL HERE TO SERVE THE PUBLIC, WHICH IS WHY I THINK DIALOGUE AND DISCUSSION ARE IN ORDER. IT DOESN'T HURT TO ASK. WE ARE ALL HERE FOR THE SAME REASON. SO HOPEFULLY SOMETHING MIGHT COME OF THAT. I THINK WE ARE DONE WITH THIS [4.  Public Hearing to Consider ZON-0623-00013 to Amend Subsection 3-5(ba) of the Land Development Code (E. Lehman)] ITEM, AREN'T WE? SO LET'S GO TO ITEM 4. WHICH IS ZON-0623-0013. AND ARE YOU HANDLING THIS FOR MR. LAYMAN. >> YEAH, I'LL FILL IN UNLESS YOU WANT TO HEAR FROM HIM. THIS IS ALSO A PROPOSED CODE CHANGE. AGAIN, INITIATED BY THE COUNTY STAFF AND THIS IS TO AMEND SECTION 305BA OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH IS CONDITIONAL USE REQUIREMENT FOR BOAT STORAGE AND RV FACILITIES. OR BOAT AND RV STORAGE FA FACILITIES. THE PROPOSED CHANGE -- I'LL GET INTO THE DETAILS. PRESENTLY, THE CONDITIONAL USE REQUIREMENT FOR RV AND BOAT STORAGE IS LOOKED AT AS A USE -- BOTH USES ARE STAND ALONE USE AS A CONDITIONAL USE WITH REQUIREMENTS. ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS IS IN THEIR -- IS IT HAS TO BE A MINIMUM OF THREE ACRES. WHAT WE HAVE COME TO REALIZE IS THAT THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES ADJACENT TO EXISTING PUBLIC OR PRIVATE MARINAS WHERE THERE MAY BE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO IT WHERE IT WOULD BE SFWROEPT STORAGE. SOLELY BOAT STORAGE WITH WHERE RVPS WOULDN'T BE INCLUDED. BECAUSE OF THE PROXIMITY TO THE MARINA, IT WOULDN'T MAKE SENSE. THREE ACRES IS TOO BIG AT THAT POINT BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE BOTH USES. SO THIS PROPOSED CHANGE WOULD ALLOW FOR PARCELS THAT ARE ADJACENT TO AN EXISTING MARINA THAT HAS BOAT RAMPS, IT WOULD WAIVE THE 3-ACRE REQUIREMENT IN THOSE CASES. WE THINK IT WOULD POTENTIALLY KEEP TRAFFIC OFF THE ROADS BECAUSE IF YOU'RE LOCATED ADJACENT AND HAVE ACCESS DIRECTLY TO THAT MARINA, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO TAKE YOUR BOAT HAVE ANOTHER RV AND BOAT STORAGE AND DRIVE IT DOWN TO THE MARINA. YOU JUST ACCESS IT. THE PROPOSED CHANGE WOULD JUST WAIVE THE 3 ACRES. IF THE PARCEL IS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO A PUBLIC OR PRIVATE MARINA WITH BOAT RAMPS, THE USE IS ONLY -- AGAIN, AS I SAID, WOULD ONLY BE AVAILABLE FOR BOAT STORAGE. THE RV STORM STORAGE WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED AND PROVIDES ACCESS FROM PARCEL TO MARINA AND COMPLIES WITH ALL OTHER ACCESS REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN THE EXISTING 3-5BA RV AND BOAT STORAGE CONDITIONAL USE. I HOPE I DIDN'T MESS THAT UP TOO BAD. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE. ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? >> SO THERE'S NO LIMIT? THERE IS NO LIMIT ON THE SIZE? >> YEAH, JUST WAIVES THE 3 ACRES. >> ALL RIGHT. AND MR. ANZALONE. >> MY CONCERN IS, WOULD THIS BE JUST RESTRICTED TO BOATS THAT ARE TRAILERED OR WOULD THIS ALSO INCLUDE BOATS THAT ARE TAKEN INTO DRY DOCK, PUT UP ON THE STILTS OR STANDS AND LEFT THERE ABANDONED FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS THAT WOULD BECOME AN EYESORE FOR [01:30:08] THE AREA? >> THAT IS -- WE DIDN'T -- I'LL BE HONEST, STAFF DIDN'T THINK . >> I BELIEVE IT WAS FOR THE TRAILER-TYPE STORAGE. >> YEAH. >> WE DIDN'T CLARIFY THAT. BUT THAT WAS THE -- >> I WAS GOING TO KIND OF ASK THE SAME THING BECAUSE IT'S THE DRY STORAGE. I MEAN I MEAN IT'S NOT IN OUR JURISDICTION BUT WHEN YOU GO FROM REYNOLDS ROAD DOWN THERE TO THOSE DEAD STORAGE BOATS, IT LOOKS BAD. I WANT TO REPHRASE THAT QUESTION. DO WE HAVE ANY -- BECAUSE ALL WE'RE DOING THE EXPANDING THE PARKING AREA FOR THE MARINA. -- SO WHAT IF THEY DO DRY STORAGE ON THE EXPANDED AREA. JUST MAKING THE MARINA IT'S NOT REALLY CHANGING. I THINK THE BIGGER QUESTION WHICH IS NOT PART OF THIS IS SHOULD WE BE LOOKING AT ASKING MARINAS TO EITHER DO A BETTER JOB OF SCREENING OR HAVE SOME LIMIT ON HOW LONG THEY CAN -- I MEAN, I THINK BECAUSE LIKE JOE SAID I'VE SEEN BOATS SIT THERE UNTIL THEY RUST BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THE RELEVANT TO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE BUT I THINK IT'S AN ISSUE. >> THAT CAN BE OWNED BY A SEPARATE. >> SO I HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT WHAT WE'RE DOING BECAUSE PEOPLE BUILD THEIR HOMES ON SPECIAL -- CLOSE TO A MARINA. >> WE GOT ONE ON THE NORTH END RIGHT NOW LOOKS LIKE AN IT BOMBED OUT ZONE. WANTS TO BUILD SOME RESTAURANT WHICH I DON'T THINK IS EVER GOING TO HAPPEN. I CAN'T TELL YOU WHICH STONEING DISTRICTS THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED IN. THAT LIMITS WHERE YOU WILL -- COULD DO THIS. JUST LIKE IT LIMITS THE MARINA. IF AND BASED ON THE WORDING OF THE CONDITIONAL USE IF THE MARINA WASN'T THERE, YOU WOULD NOT NEED ALL THE CONDITIONS SO YOU WOULD USE THAT RIGHT FROM HAVING IT THERE. IT WOULDN'T REVERT BACK TO ANYTHING. WHATEVER THE ZONING FOR THAT PARCEL IS. STILL, BUT YOU WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO MAINTAIN IT BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT AT THAT TIME -- AT THAT POINT YOU'RE NOT MEETING ALL THE CONDITIONS OF THE CONDITIONAL USE. >> AND ONE OTHER -- THIS WAS BROUGHT TO MIND. WE HAVEN'T REALLY DEFINED HOW THE BOAT CAN BE STORED THERE. CAN THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY BUILD A BOAT HOTEL? -- YOU RACK THEM AND STACK THEM SO TO SPEAK. IS THAT ALLOWED. >> I WILL TELL YOU AS STAFF WE ENVISION IT MUCH LIKE YOU DID. JUST WOULD BE PRIMARILY ON TRAILERS. BUT I THINK THAT'S A GOOD POINT THAT WE COULD TRY TO CLARIFY. I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THOUGHT [01:35:07] ABOUT DRY STACKING OF BOATS. >> I DON'T HAVE A CONCERN WITH IT PER SE. JUST THAT IT NEEDS TO BE KNOWN THAT IT -- THAT'S AN OPTION. AS A MATTER OF FACT, YOU'RE LESS LIKELY TO HAVE A LOT OF JUNK BOATS LAYING AROUND IF YOU HAVE TO RACK THEM AND STACK THEM BECAUSE THEY'RE MORE EXPENSIVE. >> YOU BET. >> AND AS OPPOSED TO JUST TRAILER STORAGE WHERE THEY HAUL IT IN THERE BECAUSE I GOT TO GET IT OUT OF MY YARD AND THEN THEY FORGET ABOUT IT. >> I THINK I MADE THE POINT EARLIER THOUGH THAT WHAT WE HAVE TO RECOGNIZE HERE IS ALL WE'RE DOING IS MAKING THE MARINA'S BOAT PARKING LOT BIGGER. ANYTHING THAT APPLIES TO THE MARINA TODAY OR DIDN'T APPLY IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE BASED ON THIS. WE'RE JUST SAYING MAKE THE PARKING LOT BIGGER. >> I AGREE WITH THAT IF I MAY, MADAME CHAIR. BUT I COME TO MY FIRST POINT OF CONCERN AND THAT IS PEOPLE THAT HAVE BUILT WITHIN A PROXIMITY OF THAT ARMAAMARINA, ONLY TO FIND THAT THEY'VE CLEARED AND PAVED IT AND ARE MOVING BOATS IN THERE AND THAT WAS NOT WHY I BOUGHT MY HOME THERE WAS TO LIVE NEXT DOOR TO A BOAT YARD. >> I WANT US TO -- HAVE NOT OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS YET AND WE DO NEED TO GET TO THAT SO IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT NEEDS TO BE COMMUNICATED RIGHT NOW OR SHOULD WE GO AND SEE IF WE HAVE ANY CITIZENS HERE THAT WANTED TO COMMENT? >> I CAN WAIT. >> ALL RIGHT. SO I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS AGENDA ITEM AT THIS TIME. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? SEEING NONE I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE CAN HAVE A DISCUSSION. >> I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THIS. ONE, OBVIOUSLY WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT, THIS COMMISSION, THE CONCERN OF RV AND BOAT STORAGE POPPING UP EVERYWHERE WHEN WE START TO REDUCE THE REQUIREMENTS AND THEREBY IMPACTING THE NEIGHBORS. YOU KNOW. IMPACTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME OR THE LOOK OF THE COMMUNITY IN GENERAL. >> CAN YOU GO BACK ONE SLIDE? I WANT TO LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE AND SPECIFICALLY ON ITEM THREE UNDER THE NEW LANGUAGE PROVIDE ACCESS FROM THE PARCEL TO THE MARINA. DOES THAT SPECIFICALLY STATE THAT THE PARCEL DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO THE MARINA OR CAN IT BE INTERPRETED DIFFERENT WAYS? >> I CAN TELL YOU WHAT THE INTENT WAS. >> IT HAS TO BE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT. >> I WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS PROPOSED LANGUAGE WOULD LET THEM DO. THEY COULD PUT DRY STOCK BOAT STORAGE THERE. THAT DOES MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCESS AND IS RIGHT NEXT TO THE MARINA BUT ADJACENT TO RESIDENTS ON THE RIGHT AND BEHIND IT. >> THE ASSUMPTION THAT WHATEVER THAT IS ZONED ALLOWS THIS AS CONDITIONAL USE. >> AND REMEMBER WE HAVE WE DO HAVE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE NOT CHANGED BECAUSE ALL THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE BUFFERING SCREENING FOR PRESENTLY FOR OUR BOAT STORAGE WOULD APPLY IN THIS CASE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT TOUCHING AT THIS TIME. [01:40:10] >> JUST SOUTH OF THAT ON 17 DOES THAT MEET THE COUNTY'S REQUIREMENTS FOR BUFFERING AND FOR LANDSCAPING? >> BLOCKERS? >> BLOCKERS. >> NO. >> AND THAT'S MY CONCERN. >> YEAH. THAT WE'RE GOING TO NOW OPEN THE GATES UP FOR PARCELS LESS THAN THREE ACRES TO SOMEHOW FALL INTO THIS LOOPHOLE OF NOT MEETING -- WHEN I DRIVE BY BLOCKERS AND GOD BLESS THEM I'M SURE SHE SERVE A GREAT NEED FOR THE COMMUNITY. BUT THEY NEED TO HAVE THE LANDSCAPING, BUFFERING. IT'S AN EYE SORE WHEN YOU DRIVE BY IT. NOW WE'LL CREATE SMALLER EYE SORES. HOW DO WE LOOK IT DOWN SO THAT WE'RE NOT CREATING MORE PROBLEMS IN THE FUTURE? SGLIFS GOING TO FOLLOW UP WITH WHAT MIKE SAID. TAKING THE SAME SCENARIO, IF THE MARINA ACQUIRED THAT PARCEL OF LESS THAN THREE ACRES, AND INCORPORATED IT INTO THEIR PROPERTY, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT AND WHAT -- BECAUSE THAT SEEMS TO ME WHAT WE'RE KIND OF TALKING ABOUT HERE. OTHER THAN THE FACT IT MIGHT HAVE TO CHANGE THE ZONING ON THAT PARCEL. >> BUT THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT PROPERTY.ARINA TO ACQUIRE THE - ANYBODY CAN. >> I THINKS THAT'S THE FLAW WHICH WE WERE DANCING AROUND. >>. >> MARINAS ARE TYPICALLY AND USUALLY ALWAYS ON WATER WHETHER IT'S A LAKE, RIVER, WHATEVER. IF I'M A HOMEOWNER AND I'M BUYING A PROPERTY ON WATER, I'M SPENDING A LOT OF MONEY ESPECIALLY HERE IN OUR AREA RIGHT NOW. OKAY. I WOULD NOT WANT TO SEE A STRUCTURE GOING UP WITH A 35 FOOT OR 50 FOOT BUFFER THAT'S TWO STORIES AND I CONSTANTLY HEAR A MACHINE DRIVING THROUGH THE LOT TAKING A BOAT, SLIPPING IT OUT, BRINGING IT DOWN. I'M FOR THE TRAILER ASPECT OF STORAGE BECAUSE IN ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO TAKE THEIR BOAT OUT FOR A WEEKEND AND THEY MIGHT WANT TO USE IT ON A FRIDAY, SATURDAY, SEASONED, RATHER THAN DRIVING IT BACK AND FORTH ON A ROAD, THEY COULD PARK IT FOR A FEE ON THAT PARTICULAR MARINA'S LOT AND HAVE ACCESS WITHOUT HAVING TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS. THAGS WHY I'M CONCERNED. >> MY CONCERN IS FIRST ONE THAT WAS BROUGHT UP BY COMMISSIONER DAVIS. THAT IS THE HOMEOWNER AND WHAT THIS WOULD DO BY REDUCING THE THREE ACRE REQUIREMENT AND WHAT THE CAN OF WORKS THAT COULD OPEN UP. >> THAT'S WHY I CAN'T SUPPORT THIS. >>. >> FOR ONE THING THIS IS WORKING WATERFRONT WHICH WE'RE LOSING AT AN INCREDIBLE RATE IN FLORIDA. WE NEED TO STOP IT AND THIS MAY HELP BUT WHAT I DO HAVE A CONCERN WITH IS WHAT MR. RAY BROUGHT UP. I THINK A REQUIREMENT NEEDS TO BE IN HERE THAT THE PARCELS ARE UNDER THE SAME OWNERSHIP. IF THEY'RE NOT, I WON'T SUPPORT THIS. >> I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION. >> ALL RIGHT. >> I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE STAFF'S REPORT. THE LESS THAN THREE ACRE [01:45:06] PROPERTY IS OWNED BY THE MARINA THAT IT IS TRAILERED BOATS ONLY. WHICH PRECLUDES THE CON SEPTEMBERED OF DRY STORAGE. >> OKAY. OKAY. SO -- >> I'LL SECOND THAT. >> AND WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? >> JUST HAVE A QUESTION. YOU SAID UNDER THE SAME OWNERSHIP. ARE YOU -- YOU SAID OWNED BY THE MARINA. I WANT THE DEEDS TO HAVE THE SAME NAME ON THEM. IS THAT YOUR -- >> IS THERE A FRIENDLY CLARIFICATION? >> I DON'T KNOW. I WAS JUST -- >> YES. I WOULD SAY IF IT'S OWNED BY THE MARINA THEN IT IS THE PARCEL OWNED BY THE SAME ENTITY THAT OWNS THE MARINA. >> ALL RIGHT. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? >> JUST FOR YOU TO THINK ABOUT THIS, A LOT OF THE BOAT RAMPS WITHIN THE COUNTY ARE OWNED BY THE COUNTY. OR SELL IT TO SOMEONE WHO WANTS TO OWN IT OR THE PARCEL NEXT TO IT. >> DID YOU HAVE -- DID YOU HAVE AN AMENDMENT THAT YOU WANTED US TO CONSIDER? >> NO. I WAS JUST POINTING THAT OUT TO MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTOOD. OUR BOAT RAMPS ARE A LOT OF THEM WE'VE GOTTEN THROUGH THE STATE. IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN SELL. COUNTY NEEDS WORK ON ACQUIRING THE PARCEL NEXT DOOR. >> ALL IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION AYE >> OPPOSED. >> TWO. TWO IN OPPOSITION. SO I BELIEVING THAT CARRIES. MOTION CARRIES. THAT COG R CONCLUDES THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION OF THE AGENERAL DOPP. NO PRESENTATIONS ON THE AGENERAL GENERAL. ANY OLD OR NEWS BUSINESS THAT NEEDS TO COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION? [Public Comment] SEEING NONE, I WILL OPEN THE FINAL PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. I DON'T HAVE ANY CARDS BUT I'LL OPEN IT. >> OUR NEXT MEETING IS TUESDAY AUGUST 1ST. >> OH. I'VE BEEN REQUESTED THAT IF ANY MEMBER OF THE COMMISSION IS HAVING DIFFICULTY WITH THEIR LAPTOPS, MS. STEWART WILL ACCEPT THEM THIS EVENING WITH THE POWER CORD AND A NOTE THAT DESCRIBES THE PROBLEM AND WILL NOTIFY YOU WHEN IT'S BEEN ADDRESSED. >> AWESOME. >> ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE? ALL RIGHT. WE'RE ADJOURNED. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.