[Call to Order] [00:00:10] >> WELCOME TO THE CLAY COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, OCTOBER 7TH. THE MEETING IS NOW CALLED THE ORDER. PLEASE STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. >> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. >> MY NAME IS PETE DAVIS, I AM THE CHAIRMAN OF THE CLAY COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION. THE MINUTES WILL BE TAKEN BY CHRISTINE BLANCHETTE, RECORDING SECRETARY FOR THE CLERK'S OFFICE. THANK YOU, MS. BLANCHET. OTHER STAFF PRESENT INCLUDE MS. BRYLA, LEGAL DEPARTMENT , COURTNEY GRAHAM IS OUR LEGAL DIRECTOR, AND MR. RINSING HER FROM REAL ESTATE. OF COURSE WE HAVE KELLY REALLY RUNS THE SHOW AROUND HERE. WE ALSO WANT TO THANK THE DEPUTY FROM THE CLAY COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT. DID I MISS SOMEBODY? WE DO WORRY ABOUT IT. THIS IS DEPUTY BUTLER. ALL RIGHT, MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, TONIGHT TO MY RIGHT OUR VICE CHAIRMAN NORTON, COMMISSIONER RALPH , MR. BILL GARRISON, IN OUR SCHOOL WERE REPRESENTATIVE. THE CLAY COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION IS A CITIZEN ADVISORY BOARD TO THE CLAY COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS. MOST OF THE DECISIONS TONIGHT MADE BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ARM RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS THE BCC . THE BCC WILL HAVE FINAL SAY IN THEIR MEETING ON EITHER THE SECOND TUESDAY, ONE WEEK FROM TODAY, OR THE FOURTH TUESDAY, THREE WEEKS FROM TODAY. THE BCC MEETING STARTS AT 4:00 P.M. . ZONING AND LAND-USE MATTERS STARTING AT 5:00 P.M. PLEASE CHECK THE AGENDA FOR THESE ITEMS ON THE CLAY COUNTY WEBSITE. IF THERE'S ANY ITEM ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA THAT YOU WISH TO SPEAK ABOUT, AND I KNOW PEOPLE HAVE ALREADY, FILL OUT THE COMMON CARD FOUND IN THE VESTIBULE JUST OUTSIDE THE DOUBLE DOORS AND GIVE IT TO MS. BLANCHET. AT THIS TIME, PLEASE PUT YOUR CELL PHONES ON SILENT OR VIBRATE, IF YOU NEED TO TAKE [1.  Approval of Minutes] ALL DURING THE MEETING PLEASE STEP OUTSIDE. IF YOU NEED TO LEAVE THE MEETING, PLEASE DO SO LIGHTLY. THE FIRST ITEM FOR THE AGENDA TONIGHT, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 2ND MEETING FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION. >> SO MOVED. >> SECOND. >> ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. AT THIS TIME, ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC MAY COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT INCLUDED ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA, BUT PERTINENT TO THE BUSINESS AND PLANNING COMMISSION. I DON'T HAVE ANY CARDS THAT WANT TO SPEAK AT THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD , BUT I'M GOING TO OPEN IT. DOES ANYBODY WISH TO SPEAK OF ANYTHING NOT ON THE AGENDA? SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. WE ALWAYS WELCOME THE PUBLIC TO THE COMMISSION MEETING AS CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IS THE BACKBONE OF OUR DEMOCRATIC FORM OF GOVERNMENT. YOUR PRESENCE HERE IS APPRECIATED. ALL THE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ARE VOLUNTEERS. RESIDENTS APPOINTED BY THE CLAY COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS. THE DUTIES ARE OUTLINED IN SECTION 163 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES, APPREHENSIONS FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT AND REZONINGS. THE COMMISSIONER DECISIONS ARE ADVISORY TO THE BOARD OF COUNT COMMISSIONERS. THE PROCESS FOR THE MEETING WILL BE EACH ITEM ON THE PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA WILL BE PRESENTED BY A MEMBER OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT, MS. BRYLA. AS PART OF THE PRESENTATION, STAFF WILL RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE [00:05:04] LAND USE ZONING OR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CHANGE. NEXT THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. FOLLOWING THE APPLICANT PRESENTATION, I WILL OPEN THE FLOOR FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO OFFER THEIR VIEWS. IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK DURING THIS HEARING, YOU WILL NEED TO FILL OUT A COMMENT CARD, GIVE IT TO MS. BLANCHET, TAKE THE OATH, WHICH MS. BLANCHET WILL ADMINISTER MOMENTARILY. IF YOU ARE NOT SURE IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK, GO AHEAD AND TAKE THE OATH ANYWAY. YOUR SPEAKING TIME IS LISTED TO THREE MINUTES. THE LIGHTS ON THE PODIUM WILL HELP YOU KEEP TRACK OF THE TIME. YOUR TIME IS FOR STATING YOUR VIEWS, NOT FOR ASKING QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT, MEMBERS OF THE STAFF, OR COMMISSIONERS. YOUR COMMENTS ARE TO BE DIRECTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THE APPLICANT AND THE PUBLIC WILL HAVE THE CHANCE ESTATE OF USE, THE FLOOR WILL BE CLOSED FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS, AND THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC. AT THAT TIME, THE COMMISSIONERS WILL DISCUSS THE MATTER AND, IF NECESSARY, RENDER A DECISION. AGAIN, I COMMEND YOU FOR PARTICIPATING IN THIS PROCESS. BEFORE WE BEGIN THIS PROCESS, THOSE THAT WISH TO SPEAK TONIGHT OR WHO THINK YOU MIGHT, I NEED TO HAVE YOU STAND SO MS. BLANCHET CAN SWEAR YOU AND KIND OF MOVED TO THE CENTER LITTLE BIT. >> YOU ALSO ALWAYS WHERE THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE [1.  Public Hearing to consider COMP 25-0012 and PUD 25-0005 (District 4, Comm Condon) (J. Bryla)] US THE WHOLE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD? THANK YOU ALL. >> OKAY. THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING NUMBER ONE ON THE AGENDA IS PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER COMP PLAN 250012 AND PUD 25-0005 . >> YES, JENNI BRYLA HERE TO PRESENT THE SMALL-SCALE LAND-USE AGREEMENT, TO 5-0012, AND THE COMPANION REZONING PIECE, WHICH IS PUD 25-0005 . IF YOU'LL RECALL, THIS WAS SLATED TO COME BEFORE YOU A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO AND IT WAS CONTINUED. SO, THIS REQUEST IS FOR 16.34 ACRE PROPERTY WITH A CURRENT INTER-LAND-USE OF RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND A ZONING DISTRICT OF AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL. THEY ARE REQUESTING TO CHANGE TO URBAN FRINGE LAND-USE AND PUD DEVELOPMENT FOR THEIR ZONING DISTRICT. IT IS IN THE CLAY HILL MIDDLEBURG OVERLAY, AND IT IS IN COMMISSIONER CONDON'S DISTRICT. AS YOU CAN SEE, BY THE LOCATOR MAP AND THE AERIAL IMAGE, THE PROPERTY IS ESSENTIALLY AT THE INTERSECTION OF COUNTY ROAD 218 AND STATE ROAD 21, OR BLANDING BOULEVARD. THERE IS A CONSIDERABLE DEVELOPMENT TO THE PROJECTS NORTH AND CONSIDERABLE DEVELOPMENT TO THE SOUTH ALONG BLANDING. SO, AS STATED, THE EXISTING LAND USE OF RURAL RESIDENTIAL IS SHOWN ON THE GRAPHIC ON THE LEFT WITH THE PROPOSED URBAN FRINGE ON THE RIGHT. AND URBAN FRINGE ALLOWS FOR A HIGHER DENSITY, BUT NOT AS GREAT A DENSITY AS YOU SEE 10 , WHAT THEY WERE PREVIOUSLY ASKING FOR. THE CLAY COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES THAT SUPPORT THE REQUEST CAN BE FOUND, SHOWN HERE. THE PROJECT IS WITHIN THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY, WITH DENSITY PROPOSED UNDER FOUR UNITS TO THE ACRE. THESE VACANT LANDS ARE ENCOURAGED FOR DEVELOPMENT THROUGH THE COMP PLAN POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES. THIS WOULD BE CONSIDERED AN INFILL DEVELOPMENT, AS IT IS IN THE URBAN BOUNDARY. CHAPTER 163 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES REQUIRE THAT WE AS PLANNERS ANALYZE THE APPLICATION , TO ENSURE THAT IT IS NOT SPRAWL . AFTER DOING THE ANALYSIS OFFERED IN FLORIDA STATUTE, IT IS DETERMINED THAT THIS IS NOT CREATING A SPRAWL DEVELOPMENT. FOR SEVERAL REASONS. THE PROJECT DOES NOT SUPPORT SPRAWL BASED ON THE FACT THAT IT DIRECTS ECONOMIC GROWTH TOWARDS AREAS THAT CURRENTLY HAVE INFRASTRUCTURE IN PLACE. TWO, IT IS CONSIDERED INFILL DEVELOPMENT, AS THERE ARE [00:10:01] SIMILAR DENSITIES SURROUNDING THE PROPOSED SITE. THREE, IT PRESERVES AGRICULTURAL LANDS BY LEAVING AREAS ON THE FRINGES UNDEVELOPED. FINALLY, THE PROJECT DOES NOT PROVIDE FURTHER IMPACT TO UNDEVELOPED OPEN SPACE AS THE PROJECT TAKES ADVANTAGE OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICE ALREADY IN PLACE. THIS IS THE COMPANION PIECE, AS I SHARED, THE PUD 25-0005 , REQUESTING A CHANGE FROM AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL. THE PROJECT IS PROPOSING THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS, WITH LARGER LOTS ON THE NORTHERN EDGE OF THE PROJECT , DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING RB ZONING DISTRICT. THEY WILL ALSO BE REQUIRED TO MEET THE 35 FOOT HEIGHT ALONG THE NORTHERN EDGE AND ONLY PROVIDE ONE-STORY HOMES. THEY WILL PROVIDE A TYPE B BUFFER ON ALL SIDES OF THE PROPERTY. HEARS THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN. YOU CAN SEE THE LARGER LOTS ON THE NORTHERN EDGE OF THE DEVELOPMENT WHERE THEY HAVE, I BELIEVE IT IS 50S IN THE MIDDLE. AND ON THE SOUTH END, ALONG WITH THE ENHANCED LANDSCAPE BUFFER AND THE WETLAND MITIGATION AREAS. THE APPLICANT HAS WORKED DILIGENTLY, AS I SHARED, WITH THE M■IDDLEBURG ITIZENS DVISORY COMMITTEE. WHEN THEY HEARD THE PRODUCT FOR THE THIRD TIME THEY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL 7-0. STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE CRITERIA AS EVIDENCED BY THE STAFF REPORT, AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF BOTH COMP PLAN TO 5-0012 AND PUD 25-0005. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. THE APPLICANT IS HERE. >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COMMISSIONER? >> CAN YOU PUT THE SITE PLAN BACKUP? JUST LEAVE IT UP? >> SURE. >> THANK YOU. >> IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT? >> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS FRANK MILLER, MY ADDRESS IS ONE INDEPENDENT DRIVE, SUITE 2300 , IN JACKSONVILLE. THANKS FOR BEING HERE SO WE CAN FINALLY BRING THIS TO A RESOLUTION. THIS PROPERTY HAS SEEN A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT PROPOSALS. NOT ALL OF WHICH MADE IT TO YOU ALL. THERE WAS A PROPOSAL FOR AN ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY, OR ELDERLY CARE LOCATION . THERE WAS CONSIDERATION OF TOWNHOMES . AND MY INVOLVEMENT WAS ORIGINALLY WITH A PROJECT THAT WOULD'VE BEEN 40 FOOT LOTS AND WOULD'VE HAD 69 OR 70 UNITS ON THE PROPERTY. WE FILED AN APPLICATION AND, ALONG WITH THE LAND-USE, CHANGED TO UC 10 THAT WAS NECESSARY TO GET THE DENSITY, WE SAW IT WITH THE 40 FOOT LOTS. BEFORE WE CAME TO YOU ALL WE WENT TO THE COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND THEY WERE NOT PLEASED WITH IT. WE TALKED WITH THEM AND WE CAME BACK AND SOUGHT , AT THAT POINT, A CONTINUANCE OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING, BASED ON THOSE APPLICATIONS. WE THEN WENT BACK TO THE CAC WITH A NEW PROPOSAL, WHICH WAS THAT WE WOULD REDUCE THE NUMBER OF LOTS FROM 69 TO 70 , TO 51. WE WOULD INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE LOTS FROM 40 FEET TO 60 FEET, ALONG THE NORTH BOUNDARY ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT. AND 50 FOOT INTERIOR AND ADJACENT TO THE SHOPPING CENTER PROPERTY. CAC LIKED THAT PLAN, BUT RECOGNIZED THAT WITH OUR STRAIGHT ZONING WE COULD NOT BE BOUND BY THAT. SO WE THEN WITHDREW THE APPLICATION FOR THE UC 10 LAND-USE CHANGE IN THE MODIFIED PLAN, AND REAPPLIED OR APPLIED FOR WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE [00:15:01] YOU NOW, THAT IS THE APPLICATION FOR URBAN FRINGE LAND-USE AND PUD . THE URBAN FRINGE LAND-USE LIMITS THE DENSITY TO LESS THAN FOUR UNITS PER ACRE, WHICH WE ARE WELL WITHIN. IT IS 3.3, I THINK, UNITS PER ACRE. IN THE MEETINGS WITH THE CAC AND THE CONVERSATIONS WITH RESIDENTS, THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE LOTS TO THE NORTH HAVING TWO STORY HOMES, WHICH COULD LOOK INTO THEIR BACKYARDS. SO THE PUD REPLIES THAT THE LOTS ON THE NORTH WILL BE 60 FEET WIDE, BUT SECONDLY, THEY WILL BE RESTRICTED TO SINGLE-STORY HOMES. THE REMAINDER OF THE LOTS , AGAIN, ARE NOT 40 FOOT , BUT 50 FOOT LOTS WITHIN THE PROJECT AND SURROUNDING FROM THE SOUTH END AND ADJACENT TO THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY ON THE SOUTH AND EAST. WE CAN COME BACK TO THE SITE PLAN, BUT JENNI , CAN YOU PULL UP ONE OF THE MAPS THAT SHOWS , THAT WOULD BE A GOOD ONE, I THINK. WHAT'S NOT REALLY CLEAR ON THESE MAPS IS JUST TO THE NORTH IS THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION , WHICH WE ARE ON BOUNDARY WITH. BUT WHAT IS TO THE EAST AND THE SOUTH IS THE PUBLIC SHOPPING CENTER. WITHIN THAT AREA, I THINK YOU HAVE ANOTHER SLIDE THAT SHOWS THE RED FOR THE COMMERCIAL, THERE YOU GO. YOU CAN SEE THIS PARCEL IS SANDWICHED BETWEEN AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL PROJECT AND HUMONGOUS AMOUNT OF COMMERCIAL. WITHIN THAT COMMERCIAL, AND YOU PROBABLY KNOW BETTER THAN ME, BUT THERE IS A TON OF COMMERCIAL STUFF. EXCUSE ME, I WILL FIND MY NOTES. THERE'S A NUMBER OF OTHER COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES WITHIN THAT AREA. AND THAT, I THINK, IS WHY ORIGINALLY SOMEONE SAW IT AS A TOWNHOME. BECAUSE THIS IS KIND OF A TRANSITION FROM A SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED TO RESIDENTIAL ATTACHED , TO COMMERCIAL. OBVIOUSLY THAT WASN'T WELL-LIKED BY THE COMMUNITY , SO IT WAS DROPPED. AND I CAN'T SEEM TO FIND MY NOTES ON IT. ON THE TYPE OF COMMERCIAL HERE. I THINK THERE IS A TRAILER PLACE . YEAH. I MEAN, THERE ARE TONS OF COMMERCIAL WITHIN THAT AREA. PARDON ME FOR FUMBLING ABOUT IT. SO, THE PRESENT APPLICATIONS BEFORE YOU , AND APPLICATION FOR URBAN FRINGE, WHICH LIMITS THE DENSITY TO LESS THAN FOUR ACRES. WHICH WE ARE WELL WITHIN. AND THE PUD PROVIDES FOR A LIMIT OF 51 UNITS, 17 OF WHICH ARE THE 60 FOOT LOTS ALONG THE NORTH BOUNDARY ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. AND 50 FOOT LOTS , 3450 FOOT LOTS IN THE BALANCE OF THE PROJECT. IN ADDITION TO THE CAC MEETING, WE ALSO HELD A COMMUNITY MEETING THAT, IN ONE OF THE CAC MEETINGS A NUMBER OF PEOPLE SHOWED UP, WE TOOK EMAIL ADDRESSES AND CONTACTED THEM LATER, AND HELD A NON-CAC COMMUNITY MEETING. WE HEARD THEIR CONCERNS AND TRIED TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS. I WILL TELL YOU, ONE OF THE CONCERNS SOME OF THE FOLKS OF THE NORTH HAVE HAD IS THEY HAVE A DRAINAGE PROBLEM UP THERE. AND IT IS NOT OUR PROBLEM, IT IS A PROBLEM THAT WAS CREATED WHEN THAT PROJECT WAS DEVELOPED. AND WE HAVE OFFERED TO SEE WHAT WE CAN DO IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF OUR PROJECT THAT MIGHT HELP WITH THAT. ALTHOUGH, AS YOU KNOW, UNDER THE ST. JOHNS RIVER ERP REQUIREMENTS , WE CAN'T CHANGE EITHER WHAT COMES ONTO US OR WHAT FLOWS OFF OF US AFTER DEVELOPMENT. SO, TO THE EXTENT WATER IS FLOWING FROM THE PROJECT ON US, IT WILL HAVE TO BE DEALT WITH IN THE DEVELOPMENT AND TO THE EXTENT WE HAVE WATER FLOWING OFF OF IT AS IT IS NOW UNDEVELOPED, WE CAN'T INCREASE [00:20:02] THE WATER. WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT. THE OTHER ISSUE THAT WE'VE HEARD IS TRAFFIC . AS YOU WILL SEE, PINE TREE LANE , WHICH IS THE ONLY FRONTAGE THIS PROPERTY HAS, DROPS DOWN INTO 218. THE INTERSECTION OF 218 AND BLANDING BOULEVARD IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION , REDEVELOPMENT NOW. WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO IMPROVE THAT INTERSECTION. BUT I THINK THE CONCERN IS THAT IT'S HARD TO GET DOWN PINE TREE LANE RIGHT NOW. IF YOU ADD THESE HOMES, IT'S GOING TO MAKE IT EVEN HARDER. AND THERE MAY BE, I THINK, SOME CONCERN THAT PEOPLE LEAVING THIS PROPERTY WILL GO NORTH AND, TO EVERETT AVENUE, AND EXIT EVERETT AVENUE ONTO BLANDING BOULEVARD. WE HAVE NOT DONE A FULL-SCALE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS. THE COST OF A TRAFFIC ANALYSIS IS NOT AN EXPENSIVE, AND IT DID NOT SEEM NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE TO DO IT BEFORE WE'VE HAD THE ZONING THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO CONSTRUCT OR DEVELOP WHAT WE WANTED TO CONSTRUCT. AND, AS YOU PROBABLY KNOW, IN THE PROCESS OF THE COUNTY REVIEWING DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND ENGINEERING PLANS FOR DEVELOPMENT, THEY WILL EVALUATE THE TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS . BUT YOU WILL ALSO FIND IN STAFF REPORTS AND ITE ANALYSIS OF THE TRANSPORTATION, AND I BELIEVE IT CONCLUDED THAT THERE WOULD ONLY BE 61 PEAK HOUR TRIPS FROM THIS PROPERTY. SO IT'S NOT A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC. THERE IS TRAFFIC. BUT THE ALTERNATIVES ARE THAT THIS PROPERTY EITHER DOES NOT GET DEVELOPED OR IT GETS DEVELOPED WITH SOME LESSER DENSITY, WHICH MAKES THE PROJECT, IN EFFECT, FINANCIALLY INFEASIBLE. OR YOU WAIT 20 YEARS AND PUT COMMERCIAL ON IT. WE BELIEVE THAT THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE TRANSITION FROM THE RESIDENTIAL IMMEDIATELY TO THE NORTH, TO THE COMMERCIAL IMMEDIATELY TO THE SOUTH AND EAST OF THE PROPERTY. AND WE WOULD ENCOURAGE ANY QUESTIONS , HOPEFULLY WE CAN ANSWER, AND WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU SAID WARD THE APPLICATIONS >> QUESTIONS? >> I HAVE A QUESTION. IS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION BEING GIVEN TO PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, TO THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES THAT YOU SPOKE ABOUT? >> THERE HAS BEEN CONSIDERATION OF THAT. ACTUALLY, ON ONE DRAFT OF THE SITE PLAN, WE INCLUDED A LITTLE WALKWAY. BUT THEN WE WERE TOLD BY THE RESIDENTS THAT IS STUPID, WE DON'T WANT THAT. SO RIGHT NOW WE DON'T HAVE IT ON THE PLAN. MY GUESS IS EVENTUALLY PEOPLE WILL START WALKING THROUGH THERE. IT'S HARD TO STOP THEM, BUT AT THE PRESENT THERE IS NO PLAN TO PUT A WALKWAY. >> THE REASON FOR MY QUESTION IS ONE WAY TO MANAGE OR TRY TO ADDRESS TRAFFIC CONGESTION IS TO HAVE WALKABLE NEIGHBORHOODS. WHERE YOU CAN WALK FROM A RESIDENCE TO PUBLIX, OR TO A RESTAURANT, OR THAT SORT OF THING. ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE CITIZENS CONCERNED ABOUT TRAFFIC, IT SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD BE EXPEDIENT TO GIVE THAT A LITTLE MORE CONSIDERATION. I HOPE THAT YOU WILL. >> I THINK WE WOULD BE FINE PUTTING IT IN. I THINK THE CONCERN IS THE NEIGHBORS DID NOT WANT IT. >> AND I UNDERSTAND THAT. >> WE ARE KIND OF CAUGHT BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE. >> THANK YOU. >> A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. FIRST, I WOULD LIKE TO FOLLOW-UP ON THE COMMENT. ABSOLUTELY, IF YOU LOOK AT THE MAP OF WHERE THE PROPERTY IS AND THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. IF I'M IN THERE, I HAVE A CHOICE OF GOING ALL THE WAY OUT TO PINE AVENUE, 218, UP TO 21 TO GET A COMMERCIAL. SAME THING FOR EVERETT AVENUE. I WOULD GO A STEP FURTHER AND NOT PUT JUST A WALKWAY, BUT A PATH WIDE ENOUGH FOR GOLF ARTS. BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DO. THEY'RE GOING TO GET IN THE GOLF CARTS AND RUN OVER INTO PUBLIX AND EVERYWHERE. THOSE [00:25:02] KINDS OF THINGS. EVEN IF IT'S NOT ON THE PLANT INITIALLY, I WOULD URGE THAT YOU CONSIDER RESERVING AN EASEMENT WHERE THAT COULD BE PUT IN. IT CHOOSE INDIA LOTS A LITTLE, BUT IT REALLY ENHANCES THE PROPERTY. >> COULD YOU PUT UP THE SITE PLAN AGAIN? AS I RECALL, WE HAVE ROOM TO PUT IT IN THERE NEXT TO THAT POND. ACTUALLY, THAT'S KIND OF WHERE IT WAS INTENDED ORIGINALLY, WHEN WE HAD IT ON THE PLAN. >> I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO THINK OF THAT AS YOU GO THROUGH THE WHOLE DESIGN PROCESS. THE WAY PEOPLE ARE USING GOLF CARTS NOW, TRYING TO STAY OUT OF THEIR CARS, AND IT'S A PUBLIC SHOPPING CENTER THERE. I MEAN, IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE A SELLING POINT, I THINK, TO SAY LOOK, YOU'VE GOT A GOLF CART, TWO MINUTES TO BE AT THE GROCERY STORE HERE. I HAD A COUPLE OF OTHER QUICK QUESTIONS. THE DEVELOPMENT TO THE NORTH OF THIS IS RB ZONING. WHERE YOU ARE PROPOSING A PUD . OTHER THAN THE ADVANTAGES OF DOING A PUD IN SOME CASES, WITH THE SPIT ON RB ? >> NO. BECAUSE THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE , NOT SO MUCH THE FRONTAGE, IT IS THE LOT SIZE. AS I RECALL, AND JENNI , YOU CAN CORRECT ME ON THIS. BUT IT'S EITHER THE FRONTAGE OF THE LOT REQUIRED IN RB, OR IT IS THE ACTUAL SIZE . AND IT JUST WOULD NOT WORK. >> OKAY, THE OTHER THING I WAS READING THROUGH THE PUD, AND IF I REMEMBER RIGHT, THE FRONT SET BACKS ARE 20 FEET. BUT THERE'S ALSO A COMMENT IN THERE ABOUT NOT BLOCKING THE SIDEWALK. WHICH MEANS THE GARAGE HAS TO BE 25 FEET OFF THE SIDEWALK. IT ONLY SAID THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE. YOU CAN PUT THE FRONT DOOR ON THE SIDEWALK, BUT WAS THERE SOMETHING? I DID NOT SEE IT, ABOUT MAKING THE DRIVE WAS 25 FEET? >> I THINK WE PROVIDED THAT THE GARAGE HAS TO BE 25 FEET SETBACK . >> OKAY, I DID NOT SEE IT. BUT IF YOU TELL ME IT'S IN THERE I HAVE NO REASON TO DOUBT THAT. THE ONLY OTHER QUESTION I HAD, WATER AND SEWER. IS IT CURRENTLY AVAILABLE FOR THIS PROPERTY? OR IS THE DEVELOPER GOING TO BRING IT IN? >> I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT'S IN THE STREET, BUT IT IS SERVED BY SEWER AND WATER. >> OKAY. I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER, SINCE I DON'T LIVE DOWN IN MIDDLEBURG. ISN'T THERE A TRAFFIC LIGHT AT EVERETT AVENUE IN 21? IS THERE A TRAFFIC LIGHT THERE? >> YES. >> OKAY. THAT'S ALL I HAD, THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? >> FOLLOW-ON. I DO AGREE THAT I MULTIUSE PATH WOULD BE PROBABLY PREFERABLE IF THE OWNER DECIDES TO GO THAT ROUTE. THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE, AND IT IS KIND OF RELATED TO THAT. AND IT MIGHT AFFECT THE NEIGHBORS VIEW OF SOMETHING LIKE THIS. IS THERE INTERCONNECTIVITY TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE NORTH? IS THAT AN OPTION? SO THEY COULD USE THAT PATH? >> IT'S AN OPEN SPACE LOT TO THE NORTH. >> ? >> JUST ANOTHER IDEA THAT MIGHT PROVE FRUITFUL. I DON'T KNOW. >> WE WILL LOOK AT THAT. YOU KNOW, AS YOU MAY HAVE HEARD, IN OTHER SITUATIONS , CONDUCTIVITY IS BOTH A SWORD AND A SHIELD. SOME PEOPLE WANT THEM, BUT WHEN THE DEVELOPMENT IS THERE THEY DON'T WANT ANYBODY DRIVING THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT. SO WE WILL CERTAINLY CONSIDER THAT. >> THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> I GOT ONE. THE AERIAL PHOTO , CAN YOU DRAG THAT UP? RIGHT THERE. ALL THAT AREA OVER WHERE THE PUBLIC'S WAS IS READ FOR COMMERCIAL, BUT IS THAT PRESERVED NEXT TO THE DEVELOPMENT SITE? BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE ON HERE IT'S TREES. >> I BELIEVE THAT IS TRUE NOW. I DON'T BELIEVE THERE IS A CONSERVATION EASEMENT OR ANYTHING ON IT. >> OKAY, SO IT IS POTENTIAL FOR ANYTHING THAT MIGHT HAVE IN THE [00:30:03] FUTURE, IT IS NOT PROTECTED BY WETLANDS OR PRESERVED? >> EXACTLY. I SUSPECT THAT A GOOD PORTION OF IT IS WETLANDS, BUT I HAVE NOT REVIEWED THAT PARCEL. >> OKAY, ALL RIGHT. >> SO THE LAND-USE SURROUNDING IS NOT PRESERVATION, AS YOU CAN SEE. >> I KNOW IT'S COMMERCIAL, BUT SOMETIMES IT'S WETLANDS, EVEN IF IT'S COMMERCIAL, YOU STILL CAN'T DO ANYTHING WITH IT. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT, I WILL OPEN, THANK YOU, MR. MILLER. OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I HAVE ONE CARD ON THIS. CRYSTAL COLITIS . >> I MET 2157 PINE TREE LANE, THIS IS THE PROPERTY NEXT TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. AND I AM HERE TO VOICE SOME SERIOUS CONCERNS WITH THE REZONING OF THAT PROPERTY. FIRST, TRAFFIC, WHICH WAS MENTIONED . OUR COMMUNITY HAS SOME SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT TRAFFIC. WHEN YOU ARE DISCUSSING THIS AND LOOKING AT IT, TALKING ABOUT HOW THIS IS DEVELOPED, BUT THERE , OUR ROAD IS ACTUALLY A TWO LANE RURAL ROAD. THERE ARE HOUSES ON ONE SIDE THAT ARE RESIDENTIAL, ON THE OTHER SIDE MUCH LARGER LOTS. THE LAND THAT THEY ARE PROPOSING TO USE IS A PASTOR. RIGHT NOW WE ARE DEALING WITH A LOT OF TRAFFIC CONCERNS. THERE'S A LOT OF SPEEDING DOWN THE ROAD. IT'S ALMOST UNSAFE. IT HAS BEEN REPORTED TO POLICE THAT PEOPLE SPEED CONSTANTLY THROUGH THERE, 60, 70 MILES PER HOUR. PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO WALK, THERE'S CHILDREN PLAYING, AND WE ARE VERY CONCERNED THAT THE ATTIC TRAFFIC IS GOING TO MAKE IT A BIGGER SAFETY CONCERNED. YOU CAN SIT AT HOME AT NIGHT AND LISTEN TO PEOPLE RACE DOWN THE ROAD. SO WE KNOW THAT THAT ADDED TRAFFIC OF 100+ CARS IN THAT DEVELOPMENT IS JUST GOING TO ADD TO THAT. WHEN THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT THE CONSTRUCTION THAT'S GOING ON ON 218, I DON'T REALLY SEE HOW THAT'S GOING TO IMPROVE THE INTERSECTION RIGHT THERE. CERTAIN TIMES, I MEAN, THERE' NOT ALWAYS TRAFFIC. BUT IN THE MORNING AND EVENING YOU COME OUT OF PINE TREE LANE AND GO TO 218, IT'S BACKED UP AT THE LIGHT. SO THAT'S JUST GOING TO ADD TO IT, IF YOU GO THE OTHER WAY THE FIRE STATION IS ON EVERETT. IT BACKS UP WAY DOWN EVERETT IN THE MORNING. AND ALSO FOR THE FIRE TRUCKS TO BE ABLE TO GET OUT OF THE STATION, I FEEL LIKE THAT IS JUST GOING TO ADD TWO MORE CONCERN THERE. MOST MORNINGS WHEN YOU GO ON EVERETT IT IS BACKED UP WAY PAST THE FIRE STATION DOWN THERE. THAT IS JUST ONE CONCERN. MY NEIGHBORS HAD A LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT FLOODING. CURRENTLY MY BACKYARD DOES NOT FLOOD. IN THE FRONT IT DOES FLOOD IF THERE'S HEAVY RAINS. MY CONCERN IS, WILL NOW HAVING THREE NEW NEIGHBORS, HOW THEIR PLANS ARE LAID OUT I WILL HAVE THREE HOMES BACKING UP TO MY YARD. SO, I'M CONCERNED ONCE THEY'VE MADE IMPROVEMENTS TO THAT LAND AND BUILD HOUSES THERE, THAT IS GOING TO CAUSE MORE FLOODING. ANOTHER CONCERN IS PRIVACY. WHEN I BOUGHT MY HOUSE THERE, I WAS NOT THINKING IT WAS GOING TO BE A LARGE COMMUNITY NEXT TO ME. IT WAS A PASTOR THAT WAS RURAL. SO IT'S VERY CONCERNING TO ME. I NEVER EXPECTED TO HAVE FOUR OR FIVE NEW NEIGHBORS ADJOINING MY PROPERTY. THAT IS ANOTHER CONCERNED. THE PASTOR IS CURRENTLY HOME TO A LOT OF WILDLIFE. WE HAVE DEER, TURKEYS, BIRDS EVERYWHERE. I KNOW THAT SOMEONE MENTIONED ABOUT THE GREEN SPACES THERE, THERE'S A LOT OF GREEN SPACES. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT THAT BUILDING A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO COST. WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT BUILDING A PATH TO PUBLIX AND THINGS LIKE THAT, I THOUGHT I WAS BUYING A HOUSE IN A RURAL AREA. THE THOUGHT OF GOLF CARTS DRIVING AROUND IS VERY CONCERNING. THERE'S A LARGE HOMELESS POPULATION AROUND PUBLIX, SO ARE WE OPENING UP SIDEWALKS TO HAVE PEOPLE WALKING BACK INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD? EVEN THOUGH IT SEEMS LIKE IT IS A DEVELOPED AREA, IT STILL HAS A VERY RURAL FEEL. AND I WOULD REALLY ENJOY FREE TO BE THAT WAY. SO I AM OPPOSING THE ZONING CHANGE. I APPRECIATE THE CHANCE TO TALK. THANK YOU. >> MA'AM? IS YOUR LOT THE ONE THAT IS SOUTH OF THIS? >> I AM DIRECTLY ON THE BORDER OF THE PROPERTY, TO THE NORTH. >> SO, IN THE PICTURE YOU ARE [00:35:03] BELOW THAT? >> YES, I'M TO THE NORTH. ACCORDING TO THE PLANS I'VE SEEN THERE WILL BE ABOUT 3.5 HOMES BORDERING MY YARD. >> THANK YOU. >> I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER CARDS. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS ITEM? YES SIR. YOU GOT HERE LATE, YOU DID NOT GET A CHANCE TO TAKE THE OATH, SO I WILL HAVE YOU TAKE THE OATH. >> RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, PLEASE. DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR TO AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD? >> I DO. >> MY NAME IS BRENDAN AUTRY, ALLIE THAT WHILE AND DRIVE ABOUT A BLOCK AWAY FROM THE PINETREE EVERETT INTERSECTION. ANYWAY, I AGREE WITH MOST EVERYTHING THAT THE GENTLE LADY WHO JUST SPOKE SAID. ALL OF HER CONCERNS ARE THINGS THAT PRETTY MUCH EVERYBODY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS CONCERNED ABOUT, TOO. SOME OTHER QUESTIONS THAT I HAD OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OR WHATEVER IS WHENEVER THE INCREASED TRAFFIC ON PINETREE, UNDOUBTEDLY THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT MORE INCREASE TRAFFIC BECAUSE OF THE DEVELOPMENT. IF IT IS CONSTRUCTED. IS THE COUNTY GOING TO BE TAKEN CARE OF, PINETREE RIGHT NOW, AS IT IS, IS A TWO LANE RURAL TYPE ROAD, IT IS PAVED, BUT IT HAS A LOT OF UNDULATIONS, FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM. POTHOLES, ALMOST. BECAUSE OF ALL THE WATER MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS AROUND THE FRONT OF THE HOMES ON THE SAME SIDE AS THE DEVELOPMENT ON FLOODING IN FRONT OF THOSE HOMES. SO IT CAUSES THE , IT UNDERMINES, BASICALLY, PARTS OF PINE TREE LANE. AND IT'S GOT SOME PRETTY BIG DIPS IN IT RIGHT NOW AS IT IS. BUT WITH INCREASED TRAFFIC I CAN ONLY SEE THAT GETTING WORSE. SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION IS, BUT IS THE COUNTY SUPPOSED TO, YOU KNOW, AS THE ROAD IS USED MORE HEAVILY, IS THE COUNTY SUPPOSED TO COME OUT THERE AND IMPROVE THE ROAD AS IT IS? BECAUSE THERE'S REALLY NO WAY THAT THEY COULD INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE ROAD. I MEAN, IT'S NOT POSSIBLE. IF YOU'VE DRIVEN ON PINETREE, YOU WOULD SEE THAT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO PUT FOUR LANES IN THERE. IT'S JUST NOT GOING TO WORK. ANYWAY, THAT'S ONE OF MY CONCERNS. ALSO, THE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE 218 INTERSECTION THERE WHERE PINETREE HITS 218, THAT GENERAL AREA AROUND THE CVS, AND I'M NOT SURE HOW MANY OF YOU ARE PERSONALLY FAMILIAR WITH THE INTERSECTION THERE, BUT I DON'T REALLY SEE IMPROVEMENTS TO THAT BEING ANY KIND OF ALLEVIATION TO THE TRAFFIC ISSUES THERE RIGHT THERE RIGHT NOW. WITH INCREASED TRAFFIC THAT'S JUST GOING TO BE WORSE, BECAUSE AS I'VE MENTIONED MANY TIMES IN THE PAST, TRAFFIC HAS ONLY GOT TWO WAYS TO GET OUT OF THE PROPERTY. THEY CAN GO NORTH TO EVERETT, THEN TOWARDS BLENDING , IN FRONT OF THE FIRE STATION THERE. THAT'S GOING TO CAUSE TRAFFIC PRBLEMS FOR THE FIRE STATION, IN THEORY. THE MORNINGS WHERE RUSH-HOUR IS GOING ON, IF YOU HAVE AN EMERGENCY THEY ARE LUCKY IF YOU ARE GETTING OUT OF THERE. ALSO, IF PEOPLE GO SOUTH TO 218, IT'S NOT A VERY LONG DRIVE FROM THE PROPERTY EXIT ON PINETREE TO 218, BUT THAT , I MEAN, THERE'S REALLY NOT, I DON'T SEE THEM BEING ABLE TO PUT ANOTHER LIGHT UP THERE TO LET THE TRAFFIC, THE INCREASE TRAFFIC GET ON THE 218. IT'S A REALLY SHORT DIFFERENCE TO WHERE THE PINETREE INTERSECTS 218 AND THE INTERSECTION WITH BLANDING, WHERE 90% OF THE TRAFFIC COMING OFF 218 IS PROBABLY GOING TO GO. SO I'M NOT REALLY SURE HOW THAT WOULD BE ANY IMPROVEMENT . YOU KNOW, WHEN THEY FINISHED THE 218 IMPROVEMENT, I DON'T SEE HOW THAT'S GOING TO ALLEVIATE TRAFFIC ISSUES FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE. SORRY. ANYWAY, YEAH, BASICALLY IT'S ALL TRAFFIC ISSUES. AND WITH THE LADY SAID. >> THANK YOU, MR. DAUGHTRY. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? IF NOT I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND, MR. MILLER? >> I REALLY DON'T HAVE A WHOLE LOT TO SAY, EXCEPT THAT , IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONSTRUCTION PLAN REVIEW BY THE COUNTY , CONSIDERATION WILL BE MADE AS TO WHAT IMPROVEMENTS ARE NECESSITATED BECAUSE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT. IT MAY BE THE TURN LANE, I BELIEVE, I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE JENNI , YOU WOULD KNOW, BUT THE PAVEMENT ON PINETREE LANE MAY BE NARROW. BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ISN'T. SO, TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE ARE IMPROVEMENTS TO BE MADE , MY GUESS IS THERE IS RIGHT-OF-WAY THERE THAT THEY COULD BE MADE IN [00:40:02] . IT MAY MEAN THAT YOU GOT TO COVER A DITCH OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT WITH PIPES. BUT THE MOBILITY FEE THAT THE COUNTY IMPOSES ON DEVELOPMENTS IS INTENDED FOR THE COUNTY TO USE THE MONEY TO ADDRESS TRAFFIC CONCERNS. SO, THIS PROJECT WILL BE PAYING CLOSE TO $200,000 IN MOBILITY FEES FOR 51 HOMES , AND THE COUNTY CAN USE THAT MONEY TO ADDRESS A PINETREE LANE ISSUE. AND THE OTHER THING IS THAT THE DRAINAGE AND THOSE TYPES OF THINGS , AGAIN, WILL BE HANDLED IN THE PROCESS WITH THE ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, WITH THE COUNTY, AND THE CONSTRUCTION PLAN APPROVAL. AND WE HAVE TO, THE PROJECT HAS TO ACCEPT THAT THE WATER THAT IS COMING ON IT NOW, THEY CAN'T BLOCK IT. AND IT CANNOT ALLOW MORE WATER TO LEAVE THE PROPERTY THAN CURRENTLY IS LEAVING. AND YOU HAVE TO DO THAT PRE-POST ANALYSIS FOR THE DISTRICT PERMIT. YOU'VE HEARD SOME CONCERN ABOUT HAVING A CONNECTION TO THE PUBLIC'S BECAUSE OF THE HOMELESS, THAT'S WHAT WE'VE HEARD BEFORE. WE WILL ADDRESS THAT AND CONSIDER IT, BUT WE DON'T WANT TO OFFEND OR UPSET NEIGHBORS BECAUSE OF THAT. WE CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND YOUR THOUGHTS. AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANYTHING ELSE, IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT IS ENOUGH OF AN ANSWER, I WILL BE HAPPY TO ADD TO IT. >> ANYBODY HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. MILLER? THANK YOU, MR. MILLER. OKAY, BOARD INPUT. >> YES, I DID THIS ANALYSIS FOR THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT, GENERATING 51 DWELLINGS, WOULD GENERATE 26 STUDENTS. WHILE THERE IS CONCURRENCY EVERYWHERE EXCEPT FOR THE ELEMENTARY LEVEL, THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL NEXT DOOR DOES HAVE SPACE, SO FROM OUR STANDPOINT, THERE IS ADEQUATE SPACE TO SERVICE THE STUDENTS THAT COME FROM THIS DEVELOPMENT. >> THANK YOU. FOR DISCUSSIONS? ARE WE READY FOR A MOTION? >> FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES AND TO MOVE THIS BOARD, I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS APPLICATION. >> I WILL SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND. >> THANK YOU, MADAM COUNTY ATTORNEY. CAN WE MOVE A VOTE TOGETHER OR DO WE HAVE TO DO THEM SEPARATELY? >> TO THEM SEPARATELY. >> SO WE WILL MAKE A MOTION TO DO THE COMP PLAN. AND THEN WE WILL GO TO THE PUD SECOND. >> ALL RIGHT. DISCUSSION? >> I WOULD JUST MAKE A COUPLE OF QUICK COMMENTS. I AM VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIS INTERSECTION. I LIVE ON COUNTY ROAD 218 AND DRIVE PAST THE SPOT. IF YOU WANT TO GET A VISUAL, IF YOU GO TO GOOGLE MAPS AND PUT IN BLANDING BOULEVARD COUNTY ROAD 218, YOU WILL LAND IN THAT AREA. AND YOU CAN SEE PINETREE LANE. THE TRAFFIC CONCERN IS LEGITIMATE. TRAFFIC CONCERNS ARE THROUGHOUT THIS COUNTY. AND YOU ARE NOT GOING TO PUT A DEVELOPMENT ANYWHERE THAT'S NOT GOING TO IMPACT TRAFFIC. THIS ONE, THE LADY AND ANYBODY WHO HAS COMMENTED ON THE TRAFFIC, AND I'M SURE FRANK HAS HEARD MANY, MANY TIMES . IT IS TOUGH, BECAUSE WHEN YOU COME OFF OF PINETREE LANE, YOU ARE TRYING TO CROSS TWO LANES OF WESTBOUND TRAFFIC. MOST PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE HEADED EAST TOWARDS BLANDING BOULEVARD. THE OTHER OPTION IS TO GO WHATEVER DIRECTION THAT WILL BE, NORTH, I THINK, ON PINETREE AROUND EVERETT. AGAIN, THERE IS A LIGHT THERE, BUT TRAFFIC IS NOTORIOUS WHEN BACKED UP THERE. EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT, I USE IT ALL THE TIME. SO I ACKNOWLEDGE THE TRAFFIC ISSUE. BUT I THINK THE OTHER FACTORS INVOLVED HERE MAKE THIS A VIABLE PROJECT. SO I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THE COUNTY'S RECOMMENDATION. I DO WANT TO COMMENT ON MR. MILLER'S EFFORT AND THE CAC , ALL THE COMMUNITY PEOPLE WHO ARE INVOLVED IN IT. THIS IS A CLASSIC EXAMPLE OF THE DEVELOPER WORKING WITH THE CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THEIR CONCERNS AND GO FROM WHATEVER IT WAS, 70 WATTS, TO 50 LOTS , PROVIDE ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPPORTUNITIES. AND THE INTERESTING THING ABOUT CUTTING THROUGH THERE TO GO TO PUBLIX, [00:45:03] IT'S GOOD AND BAD. THERE ARE A HANDFUL OF HOMELESS PEOPLE, THERE ARE HOMELESS PEOPLE BEHIND WINN-DIXIE. WE ARE AT THE POINT WHERE WE HAVE A HOMELESS ISSUE IN THE AREA. AGAIN, I DON'T THINK ANY OF THOSE ARE FACTORS THAT SAYS LET'SDON'T THE ZONING OR THE LAND-USE, THE COMP PLAN AMENDMENT. WATER AND SEWER EXIST. TRANSPORTATION IS BEING IMPROVED. I DON'TKNOW THAT FOUR LANE AT 218, THE PRIMARY WORK THERE, IS REALLY GOING TO IMPROVE THE CIRCUMSTANCE. THE CONDITION OF PINETREE, IT'S A NARROW ROAD AND PROBABLY COULD BE WIDENED. AGAIN, THAT IS FOR THE COUNTY TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS. IT IS INFILL. THAT'S ONE THING I REALLY LIKE ABOUT IT. I DON'T LIKE SPRAWL. NOBODY LIKES SPRAWL. THIS IS INFILL. THEY'RE GOING TO GENERATE A LOT OF MONEY. FROM THE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE, YOU ARE GOING TO GENERATE MONEY THERE. TO ME IT HAS A LOT OF POSITIVES. SCHOOL CONCURRENCY IS ALREADY AVAILABLE. YOU ARE NEAR A FIRE STATION, NEAR COMMERCIAL . PUBLIX, WINN-DIXIE, MCDONALD'S, FAST FOOD, EVERYTHING YOU COULD WANT IN THE SUBURBAN AREA FOR COMMERCIAL IS RIGHT THERE. DRUGSTORES, DOCTORS, DENTISTS, EVERYTHING. SO I DO SUPPORT THIS. >> COMMENTS? >> MY CONCERN IS TRAFFIC. AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE WHAT THE COUNTY WOULD BE , WOULD PROPOSE FOR PUTTING THIS IN BEFORE I WOULD SUPPORT IT. >> CAN I BOOK , CAN I MAKE A STATEMENT , MR. CHAIR? COUNTY ATTORNEY, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT THIS BODY DOES NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION TRAFFIC. WE LOOK AT LAND USE AND ZONING ONLY. SO WHEN WE MAKE A DECISION THAT SHOULD NOT BE, TRAFFIC IS DEALT WITH BY THE COUNTY STAFF AND BY THE ENGINEERS, AND BY THE BCC. SO I WILL JUST ADD THAT TO THE CONVERSATION. >> WELL, IT IS A FACTOR THAT IS CONSIDERED, BUT IT IS NOT A DETERMINING FACTOR. THE ISSUE ON THIS PROPERTY ALSO IS NOT IF THIS PROPERTY IS GOING TO DEVELOP, IT IS WHEN. IT'S GOING TO GO. COMMISSIONER GARRISON, I THINK MR. MILLER HAS DONE ABOVE AND BEYOND TRYING TO MAKE THIS A PALATABLE DEVELOPMENT. IT IS CERTAINLY BETTER THAN WHAT COULD BE PUT THERE. I THINK THE TRAFFIC CONCERNS ARE GOING TO INCREASE NO MATTER WHAT. BECAUSE OF WHAT IS EXPANDING OUTSIDE THE REALM OF THIS PARTICULAR AREA AND 218. THAT IS WHAT IS DICTATING THE EXPANSION OF THE 218 ROAD. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? >> I DO, I REALLY WASN'T GOING TO COMMENT ON THIS ONE, BUT THIS IS ALL AR ZONING. WHEN I LOOK AT THIS ONE, I WILL ADMIT THAT IF YOU LOOK AT IT STRICTLY FROM KIND OF INFILL DEVELOPMENT AND ALL, IT DOES MAKE SOME SENSE. BUT I ESPECIALLY THINK I'M SWAYED BY THE FACT THAT THE CAC VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO SUPPORT IT. THAT CARRIES A LOT OF WEIGHT WITH ME, WITH THE CAC IN THE AREA. AND I THINK MR. MILLER AND THE DEVELOPER HAVE TRIED VERY HARD TO MAKE THIS AS PALATABLE AS YOU CAN. NO DEVELOPMENT IS EVER GOING TO BE PALATABLE. THERE ARE SOME THAT I REALLY, REALLY OPPOSE. BUT WE ARE NOT GOING TO STOP IT IN LESS WE BUILD A WALL AT THE GEORGIA WIND . BECAUSE OUR GOVERNOR JUST INVITES MORE AND MORE PEOPLE IN. SO I WOULD , YOU'VE GOT TO PUT THEM SOMEWHERE. HOPEFULLY THEY WILL GO FURTHER SOUTH. BUT OVERALL, THIS IS , THIS MAKES SOME SENSE TO ME. >> READY FOR A VOTE? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, SAY AYE . ALL OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. MOTION CARRIES WITH ONE NAY . NOW WE NEED TO WORK ON THE PUD. DO I HAVE A MOTION ON THE PUD? >> I MOVE APPROVAL. >> WE HAVE MOTION TO APPROVE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION. >> I WILL SECOND, MR. CHAIR. >> ANY DISCUSSION? >> JUST ONE QUICK POINT. IF I'M LOOKING AT THIS CORRECTLY, IT IS A PASTOR . AND IT IS NICE RIGHT NOW. I BELIEVE IN THE CURRENT LAND USE AND ZONING THERE COULD BE ABOUT 16 HOMES PUT ON THAT PROPERTY. SO OBVIOUSLY 50 IS MORE THAN 16, BUT WITHOUT ANY CHANGES, THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO DEVELOP HOUSES THERE AT A MUCH HIGHER DENSITY THAN WHATSITS ON THAT PROPERTY TODAY. [00:50:02] >> THE ONLY THING I WILL ADD, IF I COULD, I WILL ECHO WHAT COMMISSIONER GARRISON SAID. MR. MILLER, GREAT JOB MEETING WITH THE COMMUNITY AND CHANGING YOUR DIRECTION BASED ON THE VOICE . THAT'S WHAT WE WANT, WE WANT INVOLVEMENT ACROSS THE BOARD. SO I JUST WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT, THANK YOU. >> READY FOR A VOTE? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO APPROVE, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSE? MOTION CARRIES. OKAY, THANK YOU [2.  Public Hearing to consider ZON 25-0026. (District 4, Comm. Condon) (J. Bryla)] VERY MUCH. SECOND AGENDA ITEM IS PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER 251-0026. MS. BRYLA . >> DOING A FAST SHUFFLE HERE TONIGHT. THANK YOU, CHAIR. AGAIN, JENNI BRYLA, ZONING CHIEF HERE TO PRESENT ZON 25-0026. THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE REZONING FOR SIX PARCELS, TOTALING 8.25 ACRES . THIS CHANGE IS BEING REQUESTED AS ONE OF THESE LOTS IS CURRENTLY VACANT AND WOULD BE CONSIDERED UNBILLABLE TODAY. THESE PARCELS ARE IN COMMISSIONER CONDON'S DISTRICT AND THE WEST END OF CARTER SPENCER ROAD. A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON THIS. THESE PROPERTIES HAVE A FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF RURAL RESIDENTIAL , BUT ARE IN THE AGRICULTURAL OR AG ZONING DISTRICT. THE AG ZONING DISTRICT REQUIRES 20 ACRES TO BUILD ON THE PROPERTY. AND SO, THIS COMBINATION OF LAND USE AND ZONING WOULD NOT ALLOW FOR THE VACANT LAND TO BE BUILT UPON. IT ALSO WOULD NOT ALLOW FOR THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES TO ADD TO THEIR PROPERTY , OR ADD TO THE BUILDING STRUCTURE, OR ADD ANY SHEDS OR ADDITIONAL THINGS AS THEY WOULD BE CONSIDERED LEGAL NONCONFORMING . ALL OF THESE LOTS ARE APPROXIMATELY 1-2 ACRES. ADDITIONALLY, WE DID PROPOSE TO CHANGE ALL SEVEN OF THE LOTS , HOWEVER, ACCORDING TO STATE STATUTE, WE SENT OUT A NOTICE 30 DAYS PRIOR TO THIS HEARING TO THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS AND I DID RECEIVE ONE REQUEST TO REMOVE THEM FROM THE REZONING. SO YOU CAN SEE THAT CHANGE ON THE MAP ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE. SO, THIS IS TO CHANGE FROM THE AG ZONING DISTRICT TO AR , AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL, FOR SIX PARCELS TOTALING 8.25 ACRES. ALL SIX BUT ONE CURRENTLY HAVE A HOUSE ON THE PARCEL. THIS CHANGE WOULD MAKE THE PROPERTY BUILDABLE SO THEY COULD IMPROVE THEIR PROPERTIES. THE MIDDLEBURG CAC DID HEAR THIS APPLICATION AND VOTED 9-0 TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL . BASED ON THE ANALYSIS THAT I PROVIDED TO YOU IN THE REPORT, STAFF DOES DETERMINE THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CONFERENCE OF PLAN AND THE INTENT OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND SURROUNDING USES, THEREFORE STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL. I AM HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT ANYONE MAY HAVE. >> MR. CHAIR? >> COMMISSIONER. >> THIS SOUNDS VAGUELY FAMILIAR TO ME. DID WE CHANGE THEM LOTS IN THE SAME AREA FOR A SIMILAR REASON SOME YEARS BACK? >> I THINK SO. TO THE NORTHEAST. THOSE WERE CHANGED, AS YOU CAN SEE, THEY HAVE THE AR ZONING. BUT THE REST OF THEM EITHER WERE NOT FORMED AT THAT TIME , BUT THEY WERE NOT CHANGED. >> THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD IS I KNOW THIS CHANGE IS BEING , TO MAKE THESE LOTS BUILDABLE AND ALL. BUT WITH THESE LOTS CREATED [00:55:07] PRIOR TO 92? ARE THEY NOT LOTS OF RECORD ALREADY? >> NO, SOME OF THEM WERE CREATED ILLEGALLY, OR THAT IS A STRONG WORD, BUT THEY GO TO PROPERTY APPRAISER AND CUT THE LAND, AND THEN IT'S A SURPRISE TO THEM WHEN THEY COME TO OUR OFFICE AND SAY YOU CAN'T BUILD ON IT. >> OKAY, I'VE GOT A COMMENT ABOUT THAT, BUT I MIGHT WAIT UNTIL WE ARE DONE WITH THIS . >> OKAY. >> I HAVE ONE QUESTION, MR. CHAIR. IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, BASED ON THE ARROW, THESE LOTS BACKUP TO A RUNWAY? >> YES SIR. >> IT SEEMED LIKE SEVERAL MONTHS OR A YEAR OR SO AGO WE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT ZONING CHANGES AROUND THE AIRPORTS. DOES THIS COME IN, DOES THAT HAVE ANY IMPACT IN THIS APPLICATION AT ALL? >> NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE. >> LAST THING COME OUT OF PERSONAL CURIOSITY, THE PERSON WHO OPTED OUT, THAT LOT WILL REMAIN , WHATEVER THE TERM IS, NONCOMPLIANT? SO THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DO ANYTHING TO THE PROPERTY? >> LEGAL NONCONFORMITY. THEY CAN REMAIN IN THE CURRENT EXISTING STATE FOR AS LONG AS THEY WANT. >> THEY CAN'T MAKE THE NONCONFORMITY ANY WORSE. SO THEY CAN'T ADD ON. >> HOPEFULLY NOTHING HAPPENS WHERE THEY HAVE TO REBUILD OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. >> WELL, WE DID PASS, IF THERE WAS AN ACT OF GOD THAT IT WAS DESTROYED, THEY COULD REBUILD. >> SAME FOOTPRINT. >> I THINK THERE WERE, IF THAT IS AN ACTIVE RUNWAY, IS IT? >> IS A LITTLE PRIVATE STRIP . >> EVEN IF IT'S A PRIVATE STRIP, I THINK THE LATEST AIRPORT POLICY REQUIRES A CERTAIN SET BACK FROM THE RUNWAY. ISN'T THAT RIGHT? THE EXISTING IS EXEMPT FROM THAT, BUT IF YOU TRY TO BUILD ON IT YOU HAVE TO HAVE A SETBACK OF SO MANY FEET OFF THE RUNWAY. THAT'S NOT MY PROBLEM, BUT OKAY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ALL RIGHT, IS THE APPLICANT HERE? THE COUNTY, MY BAD. IT'S YOU. I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND I HAVE TWO CARDS ON THIS. THE FIRST ONE, COLONEL DAVIS. >> I THINK I'M ON THE NEXT ONE. >> ARE YOU? >> I'M INTERESTED IN THE PUD 25-006. >> THAT'S NOT THIS ONE, YOU ARE RIGHT. OKAY. AND MR. CHARLES WHEELER? THAT'S OUR NEXT CARDHOLDER. >> MY NAME IS CHARLIE WHEELER, I LIVE AT 1471 CIRILLO WAY . I AM HERE IN SUPPORT OF THE CHANGE IN DESCRIPTION , AND THE LOT I OWN IS SOUTHWEST , THE SECOND LOT IN. IT IS 1 1/4 ACRE, AND I GOT THE PROPERTY 10 YEARS AGO WITH THE HOPES OF MAYBE PUTTING A HANGER . I TALKED TO MR. SPENCER YEARS AGO ABOUT THAT AND HE DID NOT SEEM TO HAVE AN ISSUE WITH IT. BUT I'VE GOTTEN TO THE POINT IN MY LIFE WHERE FLYING IS NO LONGER UNATTAINABLE DESIRE . AGAIN, I THANK YOU FOR THE PANEL TO CONSIDER THIS SITUATION . DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME? >> SO YOU DON'T CURRENTLY HAVE A HOUSE ON THE PROPERTY? >> NO, I'VE HAD THE PROPERTY CLEARED SEVERAL YEARS AGO WITH THE INTENTION OF PUTTING A STRUCTURE ON THERE. BUT WHEN I VISITED THE COUNTY I DID NOT GET THE RESPONSE I REALLY, REALLY WANTED. >> THANK YOU, SIR. APPRECIATE IT. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO THE APPLICANT. >> I WAS THE ONE HE SPOKE WITH AND SAID HE COULD NOT BUILD ON IT. >> WELL, NOW I CAN. >> MR. CHAIR, I WILL MOVE THE [01:00:03] STAFF REPORT ON THIS ONE. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? CALL FOR A VOTE? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? SAME SIDE. >> MR. CHAIR, I KIND OF JUST WANT TO MAKE AN AFTER VOTE STATEMENT ON THIS. I RECENTLY DID SOMETHING SIMILAR WITH SOME PROPERTIES, I CAN BIND THEM AND I WILL TELL YOU THAT THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE WAS EXPLICITLY CLEAR TO ME THAT IF I DID THAT AND WANTED TO SEPARATE THEM LATER THAT I HAD TO MAKE SURE THAT THE SEPARATION THAT I WOULD TALK TO ZONING BEFORE I DID ANYTHING, BECAUSE THEY DID NOT WANT TO PUT ME IN A POSITION WHERE, IN THE FUTURE, IF I SAID I LIKE TO SPLIT THIS BACK OFF, I WOULD BE TOLD NO. BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT BE IN COMPLIANCE. >> AND I APPRECIATE THAT, AND THE FACT THAT WE HAD WRITTEN SOME LANGUAGE FOR THE BOTTOM OF THE PROPERTY APPRAISER SHEETS, TO LET THEM KNOW WARNING, WARNING . >> BOLD LETTERS. I DON'T KNOW WHEN THIS WAS DONE, BUT IF ANYBODY TRIES TO DO THIS NOW, THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE IS CERTAINLY MAKING THEM AWARE OF THIS PITFALL. >> WOULD LIKE TO MAKE PEOPLE [3.  Public Hearing to consider PUD 25-0006. (District 1, Comm. Sgromolo) (J. Bryla)] ANGRY. >> ALL RIGHT, THE THIRD AGENDA ITEM IS PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PUD 25-0006. >> IT EVENING ONCE AGAIN, JENNI BRYLA HERE TO PRESENT PUD 25-0006. THE APPLICANT HAS ASSEMBLED 10 PARCELS AND TWO PORTIONS OF PARCELS TO CREATE A 7.88 ACRE TRACT THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO DEVELOP INTO 26 DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES. SO, HERE YOU CAN SEE ALL OF THE PARCELS THAT HE HAS ASSEMBLED. THE TRACK IS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF COUNTY ROAD 220 IN BETWEEN HUTCHINSON ROAD AND N LAUREL DRIVE. THE TRACK IS BIFURCATED AT SUE MEADOW, LANED BY ANOTHER SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT TO THE NORTH. THE FUTURE LAND USE FOR THE LAND IS URBAN COURT 10, WHICH IS A DENSE FUTURE LAND USE WE HAVE THAT ALLOWS 10 UNITS TO THE ACRE. THIS LAND-USE IS INTENDED FOR HIGHER DENSITIES, WHICH THIS APPLICANT, HOWEVER, IS NOT PROPOSING THAT HIGH OF A DENSITY. BUT RATHER 3.3 UNITS TO THE ACRE. SO, ON THE LEFT YOU CAN SEE THE PORTION OF THE AR LOT THAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO TURN TO PUD. AND IT IS THE ORANGE COLOR, THEN THE GREEN. SO THAT IS ONLY A PORTION OF THE LOT. WHEREAS THE REST ARE ENTIRE LOTS . AND THEN ON THE RIGHT IS THE PROPOSED REZONING IF IT WERE ALL PUD . SO YOU CAN SEE THERE'S ALSO PUD ZONING TO THE NORTH OF THIS TRACK. THIS GRAPHIC SHOWS THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN FOR THE PROJECT . AS YOU KNOW, PUD ZONING REQUESTS ARE SUPPOSED TO BRING WITH THEM AN ENHANCED STANDARD. THIS PROJECT WILL BRING WITH IT WATER AND SEWER, WHERE THERE CURRENTLY IS NO WATER AND SEWER BUT WELL AND SEPTIC ON THE LOTS. THE APPLICANT WILL BE DEDICATING ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR SAFETY , BUILDING A PUBLIC PARK, AND WITHIN EACH RESIDENTIAL POD PROVIDING OPEN SPACE THROUGHOUT A FORMALIZED STORMWATER SYSTEM. AGAIN, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO CHANGE THE RE ZONING AND AR ZONING TO PUD, TO CREATE 26 DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES. THERE IS NO CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR THIS AREA OF THE COUNTY, AND THE REQUEST IS DEEMED COMPATIBLE WITH COUNTY ROAD 2045 CONFERENCE A PLAN BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN THE STAFF REPORT. STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS PUD REQUEST. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THEY MAY HAVE. >> QUESTIONS, STAFF? >> I DO HAVE ONE QUICK ONE, CHAIR. WE GOT TO GO BACK ONE FROM THAT. THAT ROAD RIGHT [01:05:02] THERE, SUE MEADOWS LANE, IS THAT COUNTY OWNED OR PRIVATE? >> I BELIEVE IT IS PRIVATE. IT IS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTED RIGHT NOW, CURRENTLY. >> QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? IS THE APPLICANT HERE? >> GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS TRAVIS, AND YEAH, WE CAME UP WITH THIS PROPOSAL. >> CAN YOU GIVE US YOUR FULL NAME? >> TRAVIS SIMPSON. >> YOUR ADDRESS? >> 973 LAKE ASBURY DRIVE. SO WE CAME UP WITH THIS PROPOSAL JUST DUE TO THE FACT THAT IT IS PRETTY CONFORMING TO WHAT IS ALREADY THERE. AS JENNI MENTIONED, I THINK SHE SAID AT ONE POINT YOU COULD DO TOWNHOMES THERE. AND TECHNICALLY THE FUTURE LAND USE WOULD ALLOW FOR THAT. BUT WE FELT THAT DUE TO THE CURRENT ZONING AND ALSO WHAT IS SURROUNDING, THIS MADE THE MOST SENSE. THE RE ZONING ACTUALLY ALLOWS FOR 60 FOOT LOTS ALREADY. SO WE COULD DO A DEVELOPMENT THE WAY IT IS, AND MAY BE JUST HAVE THAT SMALL SLIVER OF AR TO THE NORTH CHANGED, IF THAT WAS APPROVED, OF COURSE. AND HAVE A VERY SIMILAR LAYOUT . THE ISSUE WITH THE RE ZONING IS THAT THE LOT COVERAGE IS NOT VERY HIGH. ONLY 30%. AND ALTHOUGH IT COULD BE DONE , IT WAS GOING TO LIMIT THE PRODUCT THAT WE COULD PUT ON THE LOTS. WHEN IT CAME TO THE HOUSES. AGAIN, IT COULD BE DONE, BUT WE ARE ASKING FOR 50 FOOT LOTS. THE DEVELOPMENT THERE HAS A COMBINATION OF 40 AND 50 FOOT LOTS. SO, YOU KNOW, TO HER POINT, AS WELL, THE RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION. WE ARE ALSO DOING TWO POCKET PARKS, ONE FOR EACH SIDE. AND I THINK WE HAVE ANOTHER ONE THAT SHOWS THAT, AS WELL. A SITE PLAN. BUT ON THE EAST SIDE THERE, WE ARE ALSO GOING TO BE DOING OR PROPOSING A WALKWAY AROUND THE POND. SO WE ARE DOING OUR BEST TO ENHANCE THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND I THINK IT'S A PRETTY REASONABLE ASK , JUST BASED ON WHAT IS ALREADY ZONED AND WHAT IS ALREADY THERE. IT IS BORDERING 220 , COUNTY ROAD 220, WHICH IS A MAJOR ROAD. I THINK AT SOME POINT DOWN THE ROAD SOMEONE EVEN COULD ARGUE COMMERCIAL FOR IT. MAYBE NOT QUITE THERE YET. BUT AS IT STANDS, I THINK THIS WOULD BE A PRETTY GOOD PROPOSAL FOR THE AREA. ANY QUESTIONS, HAPPY TO ANSWER. >> QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? >> I'VE GOT ONE. THE LEFT PARCEL, THE LEFT PORTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT, YOU GOT A FINGER IN THE ROAD, IT COMES TO A Y. IS THAT TIDE TO AN EXISTING ROTOR IS THAT SOMETHING FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT? >> GOING TO THE NORTH, YOU MEAN? >> ON THE WEST SIDE, GOING TO THE NORTH. >> THAT IS HUTCHINSON ROAD RIGHT THERE. IT IS CURRENTLY A ROAD. IT IS NOT A PAVED, WELL, I GUESS YOU COULD KIND OF CALL IT PAVED. NOT QUITE. I THINK IT IS GRAVEL, HARD GRAVEL. TO THE NORTH OF THAT WE WOULD NOT NECESSARILY BE DOING ANYTHING THERE, I GUESS . WHICH IS WHY YOU SEE THE LAYOUT WHERE WE WOULD PAVE THE ENTRANCE TO HUTCHINSON AND THEN INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. >> OKAY, THANK YOU . >> YOU SIR. >> I HAVE ONE QUESTION, SINCE YOU BROUGHT UP THE ROAD. CAN YOU GO BACK TO THAT ONE? RATHER THAN TYING INTO 220, AS YOU POINT OUT, IT'S KIND OF A BUSY ROAD. WHY DIDN'T YOU TIE INTO SUE MEADOWS LANE? >> GREAT QUESTION. WE DID EXPLORE THAT OPTION. POULTRY WAS NOT VERY COOPERATIVE, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU. THEY WOULD'VE HAD TO AMEND THEIR PUD, GOTTEN ENGINEERING INVOLVED. I TALKED TO THE GENTLEMAN WHO IS THE HEAD OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND THE CONSTRUCTION, AND HE SAID HE'D RUN IT UP THE CHAIN, BUT 99% THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. SO I KIND OF LEFT IT AT THAT. WE CAN'T JUST BARGE IN TO THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD, SO TO SPEAK. WE WOULD ABSOLUTELY HAVE DONE IT, YEAH, BECAUSE JENNI ASKED THAT, INITIALLY. WE WOULD'VE HAD NO PROBLEM WITH IT. >> THANK YOU. THANK YOU, APPRECIATE IT. >> I WILL OPEN PUBLIC HEARING. [01:10:03] COLONEL DAVIS? >> GOOD EVENING. I'M GLAD TO BE HERE. I'M GLAD TO BE ANYWHERE, I'M 93 YEARS OLD >> EYE UPON YOU, SIR. >> I WILL TELL YOU WHAT. COLONEL W DAVIS JUNIOR, I LIVE AT 1466 HUTCHINSON ROAD, MIDDLEBURG, FLORIDA. JOYCE AND I MOVED OUT TO THE STICKS , AND THAT'S WHAT IT WAS, 40 YEARS AGO LAST MONTH. TIMES CHANGED DRAMATICALLY. AND COUNTRY LIVING IS WHAT WE SOUGHT AND WHAT WE THOUGHT WE BOUGHT. BUT IT'S TURNING INTO RESIDENTIAL PLUS PLUS PLUS. BY VIRTUE OF ALL THE BUILDING THAT IS GOING ON. IN ADDITION TO WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT AT THIS MOMENT, 78 HOUSES ARE SUPPOSED TO BE BUILT IN MURRAY FORUMS, WHICH IS NOT INVOLVED IN THIS TONIGHT, I JUST MENTIONED THAT. THEY ARE IN THE PROCESS OF BUILDING THAT ROAD, THAT SADIE WHATEVER IT IS ROAD THAT SPLITS THESE TWO PROPERTIES. 78 NEW HOMES IN THERE. AND HERE WE COME WITH 26 NEW HOMES RIGHT ONTO 20. WITH ONE INSURANCE THAT JOINS, AS YOU MENTIONED, IN A Y AT THE BEGINNING OF HUTCHINSON ROAD. I TURNED IN, IF I AM HEADING WEST, I TURN IN MY ROAD AND I GO DOWN ABOUT A FOOTBALL FIELD LENGTH AND I AM AT HOME. WE LIVE IN A TWO STORY LOG HOME THAT WE BUILT THEIR 40 YEARS AGO. AND WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE INTERSECTION . TONIGHT IS THE FIRST TIME I HAVE SEEN THE SITE PLAN . I WISH I'D SEEN IT SOONER. THAT INTERSECTION THERE AT THAT Y WITH ALL THOSE PEOPLE LIVING DOWN THERE , AND PEOPLE COMING DOWN FROM HUTCHINSON TO GET ONTO 20 . THAT IS A SITE TO BEHOLD AND THINK ABOUT, WONDER IF , IN THE MORNING GOING TO WORK, AND COMING HOME IN THE EVENING, IF THAT Y IS GOING TO BE WORN OUT IN THE FIRST YEAR. WORN OUT, I MEAN OVERUSED. WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS GOING TO BE LOW INCOME HOUSING . WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE TRAFFIC. AND THE PRICES OF THE HOUSES, WHETHER OUR REAL ESTATE IS GOING TO GO UP OR DOWN. JEAN IS A GOOD FRIEND OF MINE. I THOUGHT HE HAD SOLD THE PROPERTY TO SOMEBODY ELSE. I DID NOT KNOW HE STILL OWNED IT, I'M SORRY. BUT THIS CAME AS A SURPRISE WHEN WE GOT THE NOTICE IN THE MAIL ABOUT THIS THING. MORE THAN A SURPRISE, IT WAS A SHOCK. WE ARE NOT IN THE COUNTRY, WE ARE NOT IN THE STICKS, SO TO SPEAK, ANYMORE. AND HAVING BEEN THERE 40 YEARS, IT IS A BIG CHANGE. FOR EVERYBODY ON HUTCHINSON ROAD, WHICH INCLUDES JEAN. I'M SORRY IF I'VE OVER SPOKE IN MY TIME, BUT I APPRECIATE YOUR INDULGENCE. WE ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS INTERSECTION WHERE THE Y IS. [01:15:02] ESPECIALLY WHEN TRAFFIC IS SOMETHING ALREADY, AND IT'S GOING TO BE A GREAT, GREAT SOMETHING DOWN THE ROAD. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, SIR. >> MR. CHAIR, COULD I ASK THE COLONEL A QUESTION? I KNOW I'M OUT OF ORDER. >> COLONEL, I'M JUST CURIOUS, WHICH BRANCH OF SERVICE DID YOU SERVE IN? >> U.S. ARMY, GERMANY. >> OUTSTANDING. I APPRECIATE YOUR SERVICE TO OUR GREAT COUNTRY. >> I WILL ADMIT, TO THE COLONEL'S COMMENTS, I THINK A LOT OF US FEEL THE SAME PAIN THAT YOU ARE FEELING AS FAR AS GROWTH. IT IS KIND OF LIKE DRINKING OUT OF A FIRE HOSE AROUND HERE LATELY. THE COUNTY IS WORKING VERY HARD, TRYING TO CONTROL IT AS MUCH AS THEY CAN. AND, BUT THERE ARE CERTAIN REGULATIONS . WITHOUT YOU, KELLY? OKAY. WE HAVE TO COMPLY , SO WE ARE TRYING TO KEEP A LID ON THIS AS TIGHT AS WE CAN. BUT SOMETIMES WE CAN'T. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS, AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR SERVICE. OKAY, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. THERE IS NOBODY ELSE HERE TO TALK ABOUT IT. >> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF, IF I COULD. JENNI, THE CONCERN ABOUT THE Y THAT DROPS OFF INTO HUTCHINSON. IS THAT A REQUIREMENT THAT HE HAS TWO ACCESS POINTS INTO THIS LEG? >> IT DOESN'T NEED A REQUIREMENT. >> IT HAS NOT GONE TO DRC YET. SO WE WOULD BE ABLE TO DISCUSS THAT WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT . WE CANNOT CLOSE OFF HUTCHINSON, BUT WE MAY BE ABLE TO RECONFIGURE WITH SOME DIFFERENT SITE PLAN. >> SO WE OBVIOUSLY WOULD NOT CLOSE OFF HUTCHINSON. I'M JUST CURIOUS, WHEN WE ALLOW ACCESS FROM THIS DEVELOPMENT ONTO HUTCHINS? IS THAT REQUIRED, I GUESS IS MY QUESTION? >> I DON'T KNOW THE FIRE CODE. BETH, MAYBE YOU CAN? I DON'T THINK THAT IT WARRANTS HAVING THE TWO ENTRANCES. >> I KNOW THAT IS A LITTLE BIT OUTSIDE OF OUR PURVIEW HERE, BUT BECAUSE OF THE COLONEL'S CONCERN, I WAS CURIOUS. SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. >> IF HUTCHINSON ROAD IS CONTAINED WITHIN THE PROPERTY, THAT THE APPLICANT IS PURCHASING, THEN THAT IS ALL PART OF THE DEAL. >> MR. CHAIR? I JUST , I KNOW YOU'RE TRYING TO LOOK AT THERE. THAT'S WHY ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT CONNECT TO THE OTHER ONE. THE ROAD THAT GOES UP TO THE CENTER OF THIS. WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN THE REASONABLE THING TO DO. AND I THINK IT'S A PROBLEM THAT POULTRY HOMES DOES NOT WANT TO DO WHAT THEY SHOULD DO FOR THE COUNTY. I CAN ONLY SAY THAT IN THE FUTURE , WHEN WE SEE ANOTHER THING COMING HERE LIKE THAT THING, I'M GOING TO PUT THEM ON RECORD TO SAY THAT THEY WILL ALLOW THESE OTHER PROPERTIES TO CONNECT INTO THEM. BECAUSE THE WHOLE PROBLEM COULD SOLVE IF THESE TWO, INSTEAD OF BOTH OF THESE COMING OUT TO 220, THEY COULD HAVE JUST TIED INTO WHAT IS ALREADY AN INTERSECTION ONTO 20 . AND YOU CAN'T, THE ONE THAT'S ON THE LEFT, ON THE WEST, IF YOU DID NOT CONNECT THAT TO HUTCHINS ROAD, AND TRY TO BRING THAT OUT DIRECTLY TO 220, NOW YOU ARE ADDING YET ANOTHER CURB CUT ON 220 WITHIN SENSE. I THINK THEY DID THE BEST THING THEY COULD. I THINK THE REAL PROBLEM IS THAT YOU COULD NOT TIE INTO THAT ROAD GOING UP INTO THAT NEW DEVELOPMENT. AND I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING WE SHOULD ALL REMEMBER THE NEXT TIME WE GET SOMETHING LIKE THAT THAT COMES IN HERE. >> WELL, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THAT. THE ROAD IS GOING INTO THAT NEW DEVELOPMENT, IS THAT NOT A PUBLIC STREET? OR IS IT GOING TO BE MAINTAINED? >> I'M NOT 100% SURE. I HAVEN'T RESEARCHED THAT. BUT I ANTICIPATE THAT IT IS PRIVATE. IT IS PUBLIC? OKAY. I STAND CORRECTED. >> THEN I HAVE A QUESTION FOR OUR COUNTY ATTORNEY, PLEASE. YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION. WHY CAN WE NOT INSIST THAT THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT CONNECT INTO THAT [01:20:01] OAD? IF IT'S A COUNTY ROAD? HOW CAN THE DEVELOPERS SAY THEY WON'T LET THEM CONNECT? >> THEY PROBABLY HAVE LOTS ADJACENT TO IT. >> DOES NOT LOOK LIKE IT. >> IT'S AN ENTRANCE ROAD. AND IF YOU WILL GO BACK , LET'S KEEP GOING BACK. THAT ONE MIGHT BE THE BEST VIEW WE GET OF IT. YOU SEE THAT ROAD, IT GOES RIGHT UP IN THEIR INTO THAT OTHER DEVELOPMENT. AND IF THAT IS A COUNTY ROAD, HOW CAN THE DEVELOPER SAY WE ARE NOT GOING TO LET YOU TIE INTO IT? >> SO, WE DON'T HAVE THE POLICY TO REQUIRE THEM, BECAUSE WHEN THEY DEVELOP THAT PROJECT, ALL THESE PARCELS WERE JUST SITTING OUT AS EXISTING PARCELS THAT WERE NOT BEING DEVELOPED. THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN PLATTED, THE OTHER DEVELOPMENT. WHAT WE COULD DO IS REACH OUT TO THEM AND TALK WITH THEM FURTHER, ONE MORE TIME . I MEAN, THERE'S NO GUARANTEE, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DEVELOPMENT IS AT THAT SPOT. IF THEY'VE GOT OPEN-SPACE, IF THEY HAVE A PARK, WE COULD LOOK AT THAT FURTHER. WE CAN TALK WITH THEM AND HAVE THEM COME IN, BECAUSE IT WOULD MAKE SENSE TO HAVE. THEY ALSO HAVE THE DEVELOPMENT AND DON'T NECESSARILY WANT TO HAVE SOME OTHER PROJECT GOING THROUGH THEIR DEVELOPMENT. >> THAT'S REALLY TOO BAD FOR THEM. >> I THINK WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL. I WILL JUST THROW THIS OUT THERE, I WOULD BE CAREFUL THAT WE ARE GOING DOWN A SLIPPERY SLOPE. WHERE WE ARE GOING TO START TAKING PRIVATE PROPERTY. BECAUSE THEY OWN BOTH SIDES OF THE ROAD GOING IN, THEY ARE NOT. EVEN THOUGH IT'S A COUNTY ROAD, THE PROPERTY TO GET TO IT IS PRIVATELY OWNED. AND IF WE START TALKING ABOUT TAKING OR REQUIRING, I WOULD JUST BE VERY CAUTIOUS ABOUT HOW WE APPROACH THAT. THAT MIGHT NOT BE THE RIGHT APPROACH, THAT'S ALL I WILL SAY ABOUT IT. >> THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO ADD ON. LOOKING AT IT, THE COUNTY DOES NOT OWN UP TO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. SO THEREFORE, IN ORDER FOR THE COUNTY TO REQUIRE IT OR TO ENFORCE IT, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE THROUGH EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDING. AND I DON'T THINK THE COUNTY WOULD HAVE SUFFICIENT INTEREST IN BEING ABLE TO TAKE IT. THAT ROUTE. >> I WOULD NOT WANT TO DO EMINENT DOMAIN. I THINK THIS IS JUST ANOTHER KIND OF LESSON LEARNED, WHEN WE SEE SOMETHING LIKE THIS WE DON'T WILL LET THEM LOCK US OUT OF THE ROAD. >> WELL, IF THE PROPERTY OWNER OF THE DEVELOPMENT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT DID NOT HAVE ANY ACCESS TO IT, THEN IT COULD BE PUSHED TO GAIN ACCESS TO THAT ROAD. BUT SINCE THEY DO HAVE ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY, THE COUNTY CAN'T ISOLATE THEM. THEY WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE SOME SORT OF ACCESS TO IT. I AGREE WITH THE COMMISSIONER, IF IT'S A MATTER OF CONDEMNING THEIR PROPERTY IN ORDER TO PROVIDE ALTERNATIVE ACCESS TO IT, I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO GO DOWN THAT ROAD. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? I WILL ENTERTAIN ONE COMMENT FROM THE COLONEL . THIS IS VERY UNUSUAL, I'VE GOT TO ADMIT. JUST FOR ONE MINUTE. THAT'S ALL RIGHT. >> HUTCHINSON ROAD IS ONE LANE . IT IS DEAD-END. THERE IS ONE LITTLE PULL OFF AREA ONCE YOU ENTER HUTCHINSON ROAD , IN THE EVENT SOMEONE IS LEAVING THE ROAD AS WE TURN IN, THE TWO CARS CAN'T GET TOGETHER. SO THE CAR ENTERING THE ROAD HAS TO PULL OFF IN THAT LITTLE SIDE AREA JUST SHORTLY AFTER THE INSURANCE TO LET THE OUTGOING CAR COME OUT. AND IT IS PAVED WITH, WHAT I'VE BEEN TOLD , IS SIX INCHES OF MILLAN, THE GROUND UP ASPHALT, I THINK. WHICH IS A LOT BETTER THAN THAT DUSTY ROAD. THAT'S THE REASON I BUILT MY HOUSE WAY BACK OFF THE ROAD, TO GET AWAY FROM THAT DUST OVER THE 40 YEARS. HUTCHINSON ROAD, AGAIN, IS ONE LANE. DEAD-END. AND THERE IS A DITCH THAT TAKES WATER , DRAIN FOR MY PROPERTY [01:25:08] AND THE ADJACENT PEOPLE. ALL THE WAY DOWN TO 220 , THAT APPEARS TO BE IN THIS PLAN , TO BE COVERED UP, IF YOU WILL . AND THAT WILL CREATE AN ADDITIONAL DRAINAGE PROBLEM FOR THE PEOPLE UP IN MY AREA. AS THE WATER DRAINS DOWN FROM OUR AREA, AND DOWN TO 220 . WE NEED TO LOOK AT THAT, TOO , PLEASE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COLONEL. I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AGAIN. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? >> I HAD A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. THANK YOU. ON THIS, ON THE ENHANCEMENTS LIST, YOU HAVE RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION. WHERE IS THE RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT IS BEING DEDICATED? >> AT HUTCHINSON ROAD . >> SO WHAT IS YOUR PLAN, TO PAVE THAT , TO WIDEN AND PAY FOR IT COMES IN OFF 220? >> CORRECT. >> SO THE PART THAT WE ARE SEEING ON THE PLAN, THAT WILL ALL BE ASPHALT OR WHATEVER >> YES SIR. >> SO IT WON'T TURN BACK INTO DIRT ROAD. THE ONLY PLACE IT WILL BE DIRT ROAD IS FOR THOSE PEOPLE WHO LIVE ON HUTCHINSON, AND THERE IS NO EXIT OUT THE BACK END OF HUTCHINSON. THERE'S NO REASON FOR ANYBODY BUT RESIDENCE TO GO BEYOND THAT POINT? >> YES SIR, AND TO ECHO THAT, COLONEL, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE, AND I ACTUALLY CAN ECHO SOME OF YOUR SENTIMENTS, LIVING IN LAKE ASBURY. I GREW UP IN LAKE ASBURY. IT HAS BEEN 30 YEARS SINCE I WAS A KID THERE. SIZING THE CHANGES MYSELF. I'M NOT ALWAYS OPPOSED TO SOME OF THIS STUFF NEAR ME. ASBURY HEMIC BEING ONE OF THEM. SO I DEFINITELY CAN RESONATE WITH YOU. TO THAT POINT, FOR ONE, IT IS 26 HOUSES. BUT THERE'S 13 JUST ON HUTCHINSON. SO 13 WOULD BE THE NUMBER THAT WOULD POTENTIALLY AFFECT THE RESIDENCE ON HUTCHINSON, AND ALSO, YES, THEY WOULD HAVE NO REASON TO GO PAST THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO, ASIDE FROM MAYBE EXITING ONTO TO 20, I DON'T SEE TOO MUCH EFFECT FROM TRAFFIC. EVEN THEN, IT'S GOING TO BE PRETTY MINIMAL WITH THE AMOUNT OF HOMES. IN MY OPINION. SO THANK YOU. >> MR. CHAIR, I'M GOING TO MOVE THE STAFF REPORT ON THIS ONE. > OKAY, SO WE NEED SCHOOLBOARD INPUT. >> YES SIR, THANK YOU. MY ANALYSIS , WITH OUR CURRENT STUDENT GENERATION RAISE, THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD PRODUCE 26 STUDENTS , SEVEN ELEMENTARY, TWO JUNIOR HIGH, AND FIVE HIGH SCHOOL. WHERE THIS DEVELOPMENT FALLS , THERE WOULD BE CONCURRENCY FOR THESE 14 STUDENTS. >> THANK YOU, SIR. YOUR TURN. >> I'M GOING TO MOVE THE STAFF REPORT ON THIS. >> WE HAVE A MOTION. >> I WILL SECOND. >> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? >> NO, I THINK I'VE SAID I THIN GOT OURSELVES IN A BOX AGAIN THAT WE HAVE TO GO AHEAD AND APPROVE THIS. >> ALL RIGHT, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION OR MOTION, SAY AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU, COLONEL, APPRECIATE YOUR INPUT. >> YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ELSE FOR US? [Old Business/New Business] >> NO SIR. >> WE DON'T HAVE ANY PRESENTATIONS , UNDER OLD BUSINESS NEW BUSINESS, I HAVE ONE ITEM. THE THREE OF US THAT WENT TO THE SEMINAR LAST MONTH , AND THERE WERE SOME THINGS THAT WERE SHARED WITH US. AND IT ALL CENTERS AROUND THIS SENATE BILL 1080 . I DON'T KNOW, HAS THE COUNTY, I'M ASSUMING YOU GUYS ARE LOOKING AT IT, BUT I LOOKED AT IT AS MUCH AS I CAN ON THE INTERNET AND SO FAR THE ONLY THING I CAN FIND IS THEY ARE GOING TO PROVIDE REFUND AND PUT TIMELINES ON WHEN THE COUNTY HAS TO RESPOND TO THIS. BUT SOME OF THE OTHER STUFF I HAD A HARD TIME SORTING OUT. WHAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT. >> CHAIR, THERE'S TWO LEGISLATION PIECES. THERE IS SENATE BILL 1080, WHICH IS A [01:30:02] TIME CERTAIN FOR REVIEW , BUT THE BIG ONE THAT WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT IS SENATE L1 80 , THAT IS PUTTING A MORATORIUM ON ANYTHING THAT COULD BE CONSTRUED AS MORE RESTRICTIVE. SO IT IS TYING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS HANDS FROM PUTTING FORTH AMENDMENTS THAT WOULD HELP THE COUNTY RECOGNIZE THE CHANGES THAT THE CONSTITUENTS ARE BRINGING FORWARD. >> THE ATTORNEY THAT WAS GIVING THE PRESENTATION INDICATED THERE WAS A CERTAIN NUMBER OF CRITERIA THAT HAD TO BE MET IN ORDER TO , AND IT MET ALL OF THOSE, IT WAS PRETTY MUCH A DONE DEAL. >> FOR SENATE BILL 1080 OR 180? >> I'M NOT SURE. MIGHT HAVE BEEN 180. ARE WE GOING TO BE , ARE WE GOING TO SHARE THAT? WHAT ARE THE NUMBERS OF CRITERIA THAT ARE SPECIFIC ON THESE APPLICATIONS THAT HAVE TO BE MET? >> PRETTY MUCH EVERY COUNTY THAT IS IN FLORIDA FOLLOWS THOSE. >> BECAUSE EVERY COUNTY WAS UNDER AN EMERGENCY ORDER DURING THOSE HURRICANE EVENTS. >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD , IF ANYBODY WISHES TO SPEAK ABOUT ANYTHING THAT IS NOT ON THE AGENDA BUT PERTINENT TO TO THIS COMMITTEE. I SEE NONE, COMING FROM CLOSE THAT. AND WITHOUT ANYTHING ELSE, * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.