[1. CALL TO ORDER]
[00:01:33]
>> SPEAKER: I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT THAT UNDER NEW BUSINESS WEEK FAILED TO NOTICE ÃMAKE NOTICE THAT WE THANKED MR. ALL FOR HIS YEARS OF SERVICE.
I'M NOT SURE HOW MANY YEARS HE WAS ON THIS BOARD MAYBE MR. BURCH CAN REMIND US.
HE WAS HERE A LONG TIME, WASN'T HE? >> SPEAKER: I DON'T KNOW.
[5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
>> SPEAKER: ANYWAY WE THANKED HIM LAST MONTH AND I WILL DO IT AGAIN THIS MONTH.
I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THE MINUTES THAT THERE ARE NO FURTHER ITEMS THAT NEED TO BE
REVIEWED ON IT. >> SPEAKER: MR. CHAIR, I MOVE THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.
>> SPEAKER: SECOND. >> SPEAKER: PLEASE CALL THE ROLE.
>> MR. BURCH, MS. DIAZ, MR. BRODRICK, MR. O'CONNELL, MS. JOHNSON SCOTT, CHAIRMAN CROWELL
CREYAUFMILLER. >> SPEAKER: UNDER NEW BUSINESS WE ARE GOING TO AS I UNDERSTAND
[6. NEW BUSINESS]
IT READ ALL OF THE AGENDA ITEMS A THROUGH K AT ONE TIME AND I THINK I PROBABLY STILL NEED TOANNOUNCE THEM INDEPENDENTLY. IS THAT CORRECT, MR. SWEENEY? >> SPEAKER: I BELIEVE THAT'S
THE FORMAT THATHAS BEEN TALKED ABOUT AND APPROVED. >> SPEAKER: OKAY.
SO WE WILL TRY THIS . ITEM A VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION OF 1955 SOUTH JENKINS ROAD ALSO 1925 SOUTH JENKINS ROAD. ITEM B VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION Ã PARDON ME.
2925. I'M STILL HAVING TROUBLE WITH MY EYES, FOLKS.
ALSO, ITEM B, 3335 SUNRISE BOULEVARD. 3366 S. 25TH ST. 3540, S. 25TH ST. ITEM C, 2409 ELIZABETH AVENUE. 3240 S. 25TH ST. 3306 S. 25TH ST. 3418 SUNRISE BOULEVARD. ITEM D, 1810 AVENUE Q. 2404 ÃÃ1908 AVENUE Q.
1910 AVENUE Q. 1912 AVENUE Q. KEEP ME STRAIGHT, FOLKS.ITEM 81706 JUANITA AVENUE.
2000 NORTH 19TH ST. 2000 ROSARITA AVENUE. 2004 AVIENDA AVENUE.
AVIENDA AVENUE. 2005 AVIENDA AVENUE. 2206 NORTH 23RD ST. 2213 NORTH
[00:05:12]
19TH ST.. 2305 NORTH 19TH ST. 2306 NORTH 23RD ST. ITEM F, 3301 AVENUE A.ITEM G, 3601 WEST WILDERNESS DRIVE. ITEM H, 2675 MCNEIL ROAD.
ITEM I, 4880 EDWARDS ROAD. ITEM J, 2250 SOUTH JENKINS ROAD.
AND ITEM K 2402 VALENCIA AVENU . AND I THINK THAT'S ALL OF THEM.
WITH EVERYBODY'S HELP. THANK YOU. MR. CRAGIN ARE YOU GOING TO DO
ALL OF THESE? >> SPEAKER: I WILL. >> SPEAKER: MR. CHAIR, WOULD YOU OBJECT BECAUSE TONIGHT'S AGENDA IS SPECIFICALLY FOR THESE ANNEXATIONS THAT ESTHER CRAIG COULD GIVE US A BRIEF EXPLANATION AS TO WHY THIS IS TAKING PLACE?
>> SPEAKER: THAT WOULD BE FINE. >> SPEAKER: THOUGHT WAS MY PLAN.
SO BACK IN JUNE OR JULY, YOU GUYS SAW THE FIRST BATCH OF QUARTERLY ANNEXATIONS.
I BELIEVE THERE WERE 11 ANNEXATIONS AND THE PLANNING BOARD SAW THEM IN THE CITY AND ITS EFFORT WITH ANNEXATION AGREEMENTS ARE TRYING TO ANNEX PROPERTIES INTO THE CITY THAT ARE CONTIGUOUS IN THE CITY LIMITS IN AN EFFORT TO SQUARE OFF OUR MAP BOUNDARIES.
AN HOUR ANNEXATION AGREEMENTS HAVE BEEN PILING UP FOR THE LAST FEW YEARS AND WE HAVE NOT CONDUCTED ANNEXATIONS VIA THOSE AGREEMENTS. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN SOMEONE SIGNS IS THE AUTHORITY AGREES TO GIVE THEM WATER WASTEWATER SERVICE IN EXCHANGE THEY SIGN A DOCUMENT STATING IN EXCHANGE FOR THE SERVICE ALLOWING THE CITY TO ANNEX ONCE THEY BECOME THE 29 PROPERTIES TONIGHT ARE CONTAGIOUS WITH THE CITY LIMITS AND 28 OF THEM ARE THROUGH ANNEXATION AGREEMENT ONE OF THE ANNEXATIONS IS THROUGH A VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION OR HAVE AN APPLICANT REQUESTING TO BE ANNEXED IN. WE ARE GOING TO BE DOING THIS EVERY QUARTER THAT THIS IS THE SECOND CHANCE THIS YEAR THE CITY HAS HAD A CHANCE TO DO THIS PROCESS WE WILL START AGAIN JANUARY 1 WITH THE FIRST QUARTER OF NEXT YEAR.
>> SPEAKER: SO THAT WE ALL UNDERSTAND, SOME OF THESE GO BACK AS FAR AS 2007 BASED ON
WHAT I HAVE READ THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS. >> SPEAKER: SOME OF THESE GO BACK TO THE 80S. NOT THESE BUT THE AGREEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN ANNEXED TO PIGGYBACK ALL THE
WAY TO THE 80S >> SPEAKER: THE POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE WAS WE HAD IN ANNEXATION, FORCE AND THERE WAS A COMMENT MADE ABOUT THE CITY BEING HASTY IN TRYING TO MOVE FORWARD VERY QUICKLY ON ANNEXATION AND I WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT SO THE PUBLIC WATCHING ON T.V. AND THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE THERE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UNDERSTAND THESE ANNEXATIONS ARE NOT HASTY. IN THIS GROUP SOME OF THEM GO BACK TO 2007.
SO THERE'S BEEN NO RUSH, IN FACT, IT'S PROBABLY BEEN OVERLOOKED TOO LONG AND THAT'S WHY WE ARE GOING THROUGH THIS MOTION. YOU ARE ON, SIR.
>> SPEAKER: THANK YOU. SO I'M GOING TO START OUT WITH GIVING YOU A GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION OF EACH OF THE ANNEXATION AREAS. THE PURVEY FOR THE PLANNING BOARD TONIGHT IS JUST A FORWARD RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL OR DENIAL TO THE CITY COMMISSION FOR THE ACTUAL ANNEXATION ITSELF. THE CITY COMMISSION IS CHARGED WITH ASSIGNING THE FUTURE LAND USE AND ZONING TO THE PROPERTIES.
IF YOU DO HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE THE STAFF IS PROPOSING A BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AT THE END OF THE PRESENTATION.
SO THE ANNEXATIONS ONE AND TWO ARE LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF SOUTH JENKINS ROAD NORTH OF OKEECHOBEE ROAD AND SOUTH OF ORANGE AVENUE. THIS IS ACTUALLY AROUND THE CAMPING WORLD OUTDOOR SITE AND THE SAMUEL GATES ACADEMY AND CELEBRATION POINT.
ANNEXATIONS THREE AND FIVE ON THE EAST SIDE OF S. 25TH ST. AND NORTH OF DADE ROAD
[00:10:01]
ANNEXATION SIX THROUGH NINE ARE ON THE EAST SIDE OF S. 25TH ST. DIRECTLY SOUTH OF ELIZABETH AVENUE AND NORTH OF DADE ROAD AND ANNEXATIONS 10 THROUGH FOUR ARE LOCATED CLOSER TO THE INTERSECTION OF AVENUE Q AND NORTH 19TH ST. ANNEXATIONS 15 THROUGH 23 ARE ALL IN THE PARADISE PARK AREA, AND THERE IS NINE ANNEXATIONS WITH 10 ACTUAL PARCELS, ONE OF THE PARCELS HAS A DUAL ÃOR THE SAME ADDRESS AND PARCEL ID SO IS CONSIDERED ONE PARCEL.ANNEXATION NUMBER 24 IS WEST OF ENGLE ROAD NORTH OF ORANGE AVENUE AND SOUTH OF AVENUE A.
ANNEXATION NUMBER 25 IS WEST OR EAST OF S. 25TH ST., SOUTH OF BELL AVENUE AND WEST OF WILDERNESS DRIVE. ANNEXATION NUMBER 26 IS WEST OF MCNEIL ROAD AND BORDERS THIS ONE THAT CAME TO THE PLANNING BOARD NOT TOO LONG AGO. ANNEXATION NUMBER 27 BORDERS THE EAST SIDE OF MCNEIL ROAD AND JUST NORTH OF EDWARDS ROAD. ANNEXATION NUMBER 28 IS THE SAMUEL GAINES ACADEMY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF SOUTH JENKINS ROAD AND NORTH OF OKEECHOBEE ROAD. AND ANNEXATION 29 IS A VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION APPLICATION THAT WE HAVE FROM AN APPLICANT. IT'S LOCATED NORTH OF VALENCIA AVENUE AND EAST OF NORTH 25TH ST. IT'S ALSO IN THE PARADISE PARK AREA.
THE VOLUNTARY ANNEXATIONS ARE REQUIRED PER SECTION 171.044 OF FLORIDA STATUTES AND THEY MUST BE CONTIGUOUSTO THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS . THEY MUST BE REASONABLY COMPACT AND THE PETITION MUST BEAR THE SIGNATURE OF ALL OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY AND THE AREA PROPOSED TO BE ANNEXED AND THE ORDINANCE IS ADOPTED UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL FOLLOW DUE PROCESS AND NOTICE STAFF WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT PRIOR TO THE PLANNING BOARD MEETING ABOUT TWO WEEKS AGO WE MAILED OUT NOTICES TO ALL OF THE AFFECTED APPLICANTS THAT ANNEXATION WAS PENDING AND WE ATTACHED A COPY OF THE ANNEXATION AGREEMENT WITH THAT NOTICE AS WELL NOTIFYING THEM THE PLANNING BOARD DATES IN THE CITY COMMISSION DATES THERE ALSO BE A SECOND NOTICE SENT OUT AFTER CITY COMMISSION HAS MADE THEIR DECISION AND IF THEY ARE ANNEXED AND THE CITY THE CITY CLERK WILL SEND EVERYONE A WELCOME PACKET LETTING THEM KNOW EVERYTHING THEY NEED TO KNOW ABOUT BEING ANNEXED INTO THE CITY LIKE TAXES, TRAAND TRA PICKUP.
THEY MUST BE SENT OUT TO ST. LUCIE COUNTY AND WE WILL BE SENDING THOSE OUT ON OCTOBER 16, 2019 WHICH IS NEXT WEEK. THIS IS BECAUSE THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT THAT WE HAVE WITH ST.
LUCIE COUNTY REQUIRES WE NOTIFY THEM IN WRITING 30 DAYS PRIOR TO ANY FIRST READING BY THE CITY COMMISSION SO WE MUST SEND THEM A LETTER AND A DRAFT ORDINANCE OF THE ANNEXATION AND THEN THE NOTIFICATIONS ARE ACTUALLY REQUIRED TO PROPERTY OWNERS, HOWEVER, WE DID NOTIFY AS I SAID, THE APPLICANTS JUST SO THEY WERE AWARE THAT THEY WERE BEING ANNEXED INTO THE CITY, POSSIBLY.O FOR THE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT FOR A QUASIJUDICIAL HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE ONLY ACTION CAN BE TOO RECOMMEND TO FORWARD OR NOT THE VOLUNTARY ANNEXATIONS. THERE WOULD BE TWO PUBLICATIONS OF THE ANNEXATION ORDINANCE WITH A MAP AND THE ST. LUCIE NEWS TRIBUNE AND TWO READINGS OF THE ANNEXATION ORDINANCES WITH 72 HOUR NOTICE WILL ALSO BE GIVEN BEFORE CITY COMMISSION. AND UPON SUCCESSFUL ANNEXATION, THE CITY CLERK WILL NOTIFY THE PROPER AUTHORITIES LIKE THE COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS AND THE STATE OF FLORIDA ABOUT THE PENDANT ANNEXATIONS AND ALL CERTIFIED NOTICES WILL BE SENT TO ALL CURRENT PROPERTY OWNERS AS I EXPLAINED AT THE VERY END OF THE PROCESS. SO THE ACTION REQUESTED TONIGHT IS THE PLAN ÃWE RECOMMEND THE PLANNING BOARD FORWARD THE 29 ANNEXATIONS TO THE CITY COMMISSION AND WE WILL DO THIS WITH SEPARATE MOTIONS SO YOU WILL DO MOTION 6A, 6B, 6C AND SO ON AND SO FORTH TILL WE GET TO 6K. WE CAN OPEN UP ALL ITEMS FOR ONE PUBLIC HEARING SO IF THERE'S ANYONE IT'S HERE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK ON ANY OF THE ITEMS, THEY CAN SPEAK ON THOSE ITEMS ON THEM WHEN IT COMES TIME FOR A VOTE, WE WILL JUST DO IT DOWN THE LINE 6A, 6B, SO ON AND SO FORTH. I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS
YOU MAY HAVE. QUES BY THE BOARD? >> SPEAKER: I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION. MR. GREEN, COULD YOU ÃIN THE MOTION THAT BEING LISTED AS ITEM NUMBER SIX ARE JUST DOING THESE SEPARATE ITEMS UNDER NUMBER SIX?
[00:15:02]
THAT'S IT. >> SPEAKER: I WOULD LIKE TO ASK QUESTIONS IN REGARDS TO COUNTY ZONING COMPARED TO THE CITY ZONING. I KNOW THAT ÃAT LEAST I NOTICED SOME OF THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE CURRENTLY ZONED IN THE COUNTY ARE ZONED AGRICULTURE DOES THE CITY HAVE ANY TYPE OF ZONING IN REGARDS TO AGRICULTURE?
>> SPEAKER: WE DON'T HAVE ANY AGRICULTURAL ZONING BUT WHAT WE DO IS LOOK AT THE ALLOWANCES FOR WHAT THE AGRICULTURAL ZONING ALLOWS FOR DENSITY AND THEN WE WILL GET AN APPROPRIATE CITY ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE BASED ON WHAT THE DENSITIES ARE AND BASED ON WHAT'S CURRENTLY
SURROUNDING THOSE PARCELS. >> SPEAKER: WHICH BRINGS UP ANOTHER QUESTION AND PROBABLY FOR A DIFFERENT ONE NON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHICH ONE. I NOTICED ON JENKINS OR THAT NECK OF THE WOODS, SOME OF THE ZONINGS MAY BE COMING IN AS RESIDENTIAL BUT YET, YOU AND I BOTH KNOW THAT JENKINS ROAD HAS BEEN CHANGED TO COMMERCIAL OVER A NUMBER OF PERIOD OF TIMES AND PROBABLY WILL CONTINUE TO BE ZONED AND AS COMMERCIAL.AN THE APPLICANT JUST ASK FOR VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION AND THEN YOU INDICATED IF STAFF TRIES TO PUT THE BEST DESIGNATED ZONING TO IT, BUT HAS THE PLANNING BOARD ALLOWED TO ADJUST BACK TO LET'S SAY IF A PIECE OF PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY TO THE EAST AND NORTH IS COMMERCIAL, I HESITATE?
WHY DON'T WE ANNEX IT AS COMMERCIAL AND BE DONE WITH IT? >> SPEAKER: THE STATE STATUTE SAYS WE HAVE TO GIVE IT A LIKE PZONING AND LIKE FUTURE LAND USE.
IF SOMETHING WAS RESIDENTIAL WE COULD NOT GIVE IT A FUTURE LAND USE AND ZONING OF COMMERCIAL.
>> SPEAKER: ALL RIGHT. BUT IF THEY WANT TO COME BACK THEY CAN ALWAYS DO THAT?
>> THEY CAN COME BACK IN THE FUTURE. >> SPEAKER: THAT'S WHAT I ANTICIPATED BUT I WAS TRYING TO GET AHEAD OF THE CURVE BECAUSE THERE'S NO SENSE ÃTHAT'S THE
QUESTIONS I HAVE. >> SPEAKER: ANY OTHERS? >> SPEAKER: I HAVE A QUESTION CONCERNING ONE OF THE PACKETS. I NOTICED IN YOUR LAST PACKET, WE HAVE THE APPLICATION FOR ANNEXATION, AND THAT IS NOT INCLUDED IN ANY OF THE OTHER PACKETS.
IS THERE A REASON FOR THAT? >> SPEAKER: ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE FEBRUARY 4, 2002
VALENCIA? >> SPEAKER: YES. >> THAT'S NOT BEING ANNEXED VIA TREE TO ITS BEING ANNEXED BECAUSE AN APPLICANT CAME TO US SAYING THEY WANTED IT TO BE
ANNEXED VIA AN APPLICATION. >> SPEAKER: SO THE FPUA AGREEMENTS IN THE APPLICATION YOU ARE SAYING IS THAT ACT AS [INDISCERNIBLE] IN THIS LAST CASE THIS 29TH CASE, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO FPUA AGREEMENT, SHE LITERALLY FILLED OUT AN APPLICATION TO BE VOLUNTARILY
ANNEXED? >> SPEAKER: OKAY. IN THE AREA, EVERYBODY ÃI SHOULDN'T SAY EVERYBODY.UT MOST RESIDENTS RECEIVED FPUA SERVICES, CORRECT?
>> SPEAKER: IN THIS INSTANCE, HER NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH SHE'S THE ONLY ONE ON HER TITLE
BLOCK THAT'S NOT IN THE CITY LIMITS. >> SPEAKER: I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION. WITH ALL OF THESE ANNEXATIONS, THE CITY ÃTHE CITY STANDS TO GAIN BASED ON THE INFORMATION HERE SO OTHER THAN WATER AND PERHAPS SIDEWALKS, WHAT OTHER THINGS ARE THE CITIZENS GETTING FOR THEIR MONEY IN ANNEXED INTO THE CITY?
>> SPEAKER: THEY WILL GET SEWER SERVICE, GARBAGE SERVICE, THEY WILL GET THE CONTINUATION OF THE SERVICES AND WE WILL TAKE PARADISE PARK FOR INSTANCE. AS A PATCHWORK BETWEEN THE CITY LIMITS AND COUNTY LIMITS. SO IT'S REALLY HARD FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO DECIDE SOMETIMES WHAT THEY NEED TO GO AND DO THEY NEED TO SERVE. SO ONCE WE START ANNEXING THAT WHOLE ENTIRE AREA WHICH IS WHAT THE PLAN ISULTIMATELY , THAT WHOLE AREA WILL NOW BE SERVICED BY THE FORT PIERCE POLICE DEPARTMENT INSTEAD OF THE ST. LUCIE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT. SOMETIMES IT'S CONFUSING WITH THE PUBLIC WORKS FOLKS ABOUT TRASH PICKUP AND OTHER SERVICES THAT THEY ALSO PROVIDE BECAUSE IT'S HARD TO TELL WHO'S IN THE COUNTY AND IS IN THE CITY. YOUR NEXT-DOOR NEIGHBOR COULD BE IN THE CITY AND YOU COULD BE IN THE COUNTY AND THAT'S WHAT'S GOING ON A LOT AND PARADISE PARK.
>> SPEAKER: NOW TOO I UNDERSTAND YOU TO SAY THAT THEY WOULD GET SEWAGE HOOKUP ALSO?
THEY DON'T HAVE TO PAY FOR THAT? >> SPEAKER: NO.
>> SPEAKER: OKAY. >> SPEAKER: MR. CHAIR, THERE'S ONE OTHER ASPECT OF BECOMING AN
[00:20:01]
ACTUAL ANNEXED PROPERTY. YOU NOW HAVE THE ABILITY ÃYOU BECOME A CITIZEN OF FORT PIERCE. MS. JEFFERSON, FOR EXAMPLE, IT WAS SURROUNDED BY CITIZENS ON THREE SIDES IS NOT A CITIZEN AND DOESN'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO VOTE FOR CITY OFFICIALS.SO SHE IS EFFECTIVELY SURROUNDED BY NEIGHBORS OF THE CITY WHO GET TO VOTE, TICKEMYER, AND REPRESENTATIVES IN HER DISTRICT AND SHE DOESN'T AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
SO IT WILL ALSO ENABLE STANDING TO VOTE. YOU TRULY BECOME A CITIZEN OF
THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. >> SPEAKER: MR. CHAIRMAN? >> SPEAKER: A COUPLE OF OBSERVATIONS. ONE IS, IT WOULD BE NICE THE APPLICATION SHOWED THE CURRENT CITY BOUNDARIES. I PICKED UP ON THAT SPECIFICALLY ON THE SITES ON JENKINS ROAD. IT SHOWS ÃIT DOESN'T REALLY SHOW WHAT THE OUTLIERS ARE.
IT'S NOT THE CITY. AND WHEN I SAW THE APPLICATION COME IN, I KNEW THAT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT SAM GATES ACADEMY HAD NOT BEEN ANNEXED AND I SUGGESTED TO THE CITY STAFF THAT WE INCLUDE THAT IN THE ANNEXATION BECAUSE WE HAVE A VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION WITH UTILITIES AUTHORITIES AS WELL. AND THE SECOND IS A GOOD POINT WAS MADE ABOUT WHAT'S GOING TO BE THE ASSOCIATED SONY AND COMP PLAN. I THINK IN THE SPIRIT OF TRANSPARENCY, IT WOULD BE A VERY GOOD IDEA CONSIDERING WHAT HAPPENED RECENTLY ÃWAS DISCLOSED RECENTLY AT THE SITE ON THIS ROAD THAT IT WOULD BE I THINK BEHOOVES THE CITY TO DESIGNATE WHAT THE PROPOSED ZONING AND COMP PLAN DESIGNATION WOULD BE WHEN IT CAME INTO THE CITY AND THAT WAY, AGAIN, IT'S TRANSPARENT TO THE PUBLIC ON WHAT THE PROPOSED
USE IS GOING TO BE. >> SPEAKER: WE CAN ADDRESS BOTH ESTHER SANDERS COMMENTS.E ARE REQUIRED BY STATE STATUTE AND THE ORDINANCE BE PRESENT TO THE CITY COMMISSION TO HAVE THE MAP WHICH DELINEATES THE BOUNDARIES AND ITS PROXIMITY THUS PROVING CONTINUITY WITH THE CITY LIMITS. SO THE ORDINANCE HAS THAT MAP AND IT WILL BE ADVERTISED IN THE NEWSPAPER WITH MATT. CLEARLY DEFINED IN BLACK AND WHITE BECAUSE WE CAN'T PRINT THE COLORS OF THAT WILL BE TAKING CARE OF THE TWO POINTS. THE POINT IS THE STAFF REPORT THAT WE HAVE AS WELL AS THE PRESENTATION ASSEMBLY FOR CITY COMMISSION WILL HAVE THE ZONING DISTRICTS OUTLINED WHAT IT IS TODAY WITH THE COUNTY AND WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING TO DO WITH THE CITY. THUS NOT ONLY CONTAINED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT, IT WILL BE CONTAINED WITHIN THE ORDINANCE AS WELL. WE'VE ADDRESSED IT TWO TIMES IN
EACH RESPECT. >> SPEAKER: I DON'T THINK THAT WE CLEARLY ÃI DON'T CLEARLY UNDERSTAND THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION CONCERNING LAND USE REGARDING RESIDENTIAL VERSUS AGRICULTURAL, AND I THINK THAT MR. BURCH IDENTIFIED A COUPLE OF PROPERTIES HE FEELS ÃYOU
FEEL WAS ÃAGRICULTURAL NOW, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THE POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE IS IF WE ARE TO TRY TO BRING IN PROPERTIES THAT ARE IN THE COUNTY, WE SHOULD TRY TO BRING THEM IN AS A LIKABLE PROPERTIES IN THE CITY AND AS STAFF AS INDICATED, IN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE WE HAVE AGRICULTURAL ZONING. WE HAVE INDUSTRIAL ZONING AND THERE ARE PROPERTIES THAT WE HAVE BROUGHT IN OR HAD TO DISCUSS RECENTLY THAT WERE INDUSTRIAL AND MY POINT WAS BASICALLY LIKE ZONING FROM THE COUNTY TO THE CITY, AND WE DON'T HAVE AGRICULTURAL. I DON'T KNOW IF STAFF GIVEN WAS TO DEAL WITH THAT WITHINTHE CITY. WE HAVE A STATE . THE STATE IS PROBABLY THE LARGEST THING WE HAVE AS FAR AS ZONING IS CONCERNED THAT POTENTIALLY COULD BE AGRICULTURAL. I KNOW ON A STATE PROPERTY YOU ARE ALLOWED TO BOARD HORSES, AND WE HAVE SOME OF THE PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE.
IN THE CLIP BOARD HORSES IF THEY CHOSE TO COLLECT ON FAIRWAY DRIVE AND SUNRISE BOULEVARD NORTH OF EDWARDS ROAD. AND I BELIEVE IN THE STATE PROPERTY THEY CAN DO THAT. AND MAYBE DOWN INDIAN RIVER DRIVE THEY CAN DO THAT TOO.
>> SPEAKER: MY POINT ON DEPICTING THE CITY LIMITS, IF YOU LOOK AT THE FRST ANNEXATION A AT SOME JENKINS YOU CAN SEE THE TWO PARCELS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED BUT IT DOESN'T SHOW THE CITY LIMITS. FOR INSTANCE, SAM GATES ACADEMY WHICH IS ACROSS THE STREET FROM THAT, YOU CAN'T TELL FROM THE DRAWING WHETHER IT'S IN THE CITY LIMITS OR NOT.
I KNEW IT WASN'T AND AGAIN, I THINK THE CITY LIMITS NEED TO BE CLEY DEPICTED ON WHAT'S BEIN
[00:25:10]
PROPOSED. >> SPEAKER: THE BOUNDARY LINE? IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE
REQUESTING? >> YES.F YOU LOOK AT THAT DRAWING SPECIFICALLY ON THAT FIRST ANNEXATION THE PARCEL ON THE SOUTH IS IMMEDIATELY ACROSS THE STREET FROM SAMUEL GAINES ACADEMY AND THAT'S AN ENCLAVE IS NOT IN THE CITY LIMITS AND EVERYTHING AROUND IT IS.
SO THE CITY LIMITS IS NOT DEPICTED THERE. >> SPEAKER: I AGREE.
YOU KNOW, I THINK ÃTHE BOARD IS MORE SENSITIVE TO THIS ISSUE NOW CONSIDERING THE SITUATION THAT WE HAD AT HAND OFF OF SALVAS ROAD RECENTLY AND I THINK WE ARE MORE THE MEASURE HERE BEFORE THIS COURT WITH PANNEXATIONS IS MORE OF A HOUSEKEEPING ISSUE TO MOVE IT FORWARD TO THE COMMISSION FOR DECISIONS. AND I THINK THAT WE ARE RATHER SENSITIVE ABOUT THE HOMOGENIZING, IF YOU WILL LAND USE AND THERE ARE TIMES THAT WE ARE SEEING LAND USE BUT IS IT REALLY FULLY HOMOGENIZED AND DOESN'T SEEM TO BE COMPLETELY COMPATIBLE, AND I DON'T WANT TO SEE ANY FURTHER CASES COME BEFORE US ON EMPTY LOTS THAT WE MIGHT ANNEXED THAT WE RUN INTO SIMILAR ISSUES THAT WE HAD HERE RECENTLY.
I DON'T THINK IT'S GOOD FOR ANYBODY. IT'S NOT GOOD FOR THE BOARD, IT'S NOT GOOD FOR THE APPLICANT. IT'S CERTAINLY NOT GOOD FOR THE CITY. SO I THINK WE ARE RATHER SENSITIVEABOUT THESE ISSUES , AND I AGREE WE NEED A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL I THINK IF WE ARE GOING TO VISIT THESE ITEMS
AND INTELLIGENTLY TRY TO DISCUSS THEM. >> SPEAKER: MR. CHAIR, THE STAFF HAS SUGGESTED THAT THE PACKAGE OF INFORMATION IS GOING FORWARD TO THE CITY COMMISSION IS IT POSSIBLE IN THE FUTURE THAT'S A PACKET OF INFORMATION WOULD BE PROVIDED
>> WHEN WE CREATE THESE MAPS WE WILL TURN ON THE LAYER FOR THE CITY LIMITS AND WE WILL SUPERIMPOSE THAT LAYER WITH THE IDENTIFYING PARCELS THAT ARE BEING ANNEXED TO THE CITY.
>> SPEAKER: THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. >> I CAN ALSO ASSURE YOU THAT THE CHOICE FOR THE ZONE AND FUTURE LAND-USE WAS TAKEN WITH GREAT CARE BY MYSELF LIKE FOR INSTANCE, COUNTY HAS ARGUED RESIDENTIAL URBAN FUTURE LAND-USE.
IN THE OLD CITY OF FORT PIERCE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WE USED TO HAVE AND ARE YOU AND AN UPDATE
FROM 2011 ARGUE THAT MISSION WITH >> YOU ARE SUGGESTING THAT THE TRENT [INDISCERNIBLE] AT THE CITY LIMITS AROUND ALL OF THE PARCELS AND MAKING SURE THAT THERE WAS NO SPOT ZONING THAT WAS GOING TO OCCUR AND THAT ALL THE PARCELS THAT ARE ANNEXED INTO THE CITY HAVING LIKE ZONING AND FUTURE LAND-USE WITH THE REST OF THE PARCELS AROUND IT.
>> WERE YOU A PRESENTER AT THE PROPERTY THAT WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING OVER ON SALVAS ROAD BRIEFLY HERE. SO YOU ARE KIND OF IN THE HOT SEAT SO I THINK YOU WILL HAVE TO BE MORE CAREFUL THAN FORWARD. YOU ARE NOT THE ANNEXATION OF
THE PROPERTY >> SUPTWE WOULD GIVE IT THE FUT LAND-USE AND THE ONLY COMPATIBLE ZONING WE CAN LEGALLY GIVE IT IS OUR FIVE HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.
SO WE HAD TO GIVE IT AND ARE FIVE WE ALSO HAD OTHER R5 IN THE AREA IS DIRECTLY TO THE EAST AND THE TREASURE CAY APARTMENTS DIRECTLY TO THE SOUTH.
SNOW HAVE CONTINUALLY BETWEEN AND R5 ZONE NOW ON JENKINS. >> SPEAKER: MR. CHAIR, I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR ITEM G, AND THIS HAS TO DO WITH OVER ON Ã LET'S MAKE SURE I GOT IT RIGHT.
S. 25TH ST. AND BELL AVENUE. AND SPECIFICALLY THERE'S ONLY ONE PROPERTY THERE ON WILDERNESS DRIVE. I DON'T KNOW, BUT I'M SURE ALL OF THAT PROPERTY AND THERE WAS PROBABLY ÃWHAT WILL THIS ANNEXATION DO ÃI WILL READ WHAT I WROTE DOWN.
WHAT WILL THIS ANNEXATION DO OF THIS PROPERTY TO THE REST OF THE PROPERTIES ON WILDERNESS
DRIVE? >> THIS PROPERTY IN THE COUNTY WAS ZONED OR AS THREE LOST] YOTHERE IS A SINGLE-FAMIL RESIDENCE. THAT WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD IS
[00:31:49]
BUILT UP IN HIM SO THE PARCEL THAT'S GOING TO BE ANNEXED AND IF IT MOVES FOWARD WOULD BE ON THE CORNER DIRECTLY SOUTH OF IT THERE'S A PARCEL THAT ANNEXED AND THERE'S ONE REMAINING PARCEL THAT IS DIRECTLY SOUTH FOR. I BELIEVE AS A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE . ALL OF THE OTHER PARCELS THAT ARE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ARE ALREADY ANNEXED INTO THE CITY. THE FPUA PROVIDES WASTEWATER SERVICE THROUGHOUT THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARIES AGREEMENT. SO IT'S COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT OF WHETHER OR NOT YOU WERE IN THE CITY OR NOT YOUR WATER AND SEWER SERVICES DEPENDENT ON YOUR PAIN.THAT'S FUNCTIONALLY THE ONLY THING THAT DETERMINES WHETHER OR NOT YOU CONTINUE TO GET
WATER OR NOT. AS LONG AS YOU PAY. >> SPEAKER: MR. CHAIRMAN, MOST OF THOSE SUBDIVISIONS THERE'S A MASTER DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS DONE BEFORE THEY WERE SUBDIVIDED, SO WHETHER OR NOT AN INDIVIDUAL ÃIT MAY JUST TAKE SOME WORK GOING BACK TO
FPUA FOR THOSE ORIGINAL MASTER AGREEMENTS. >> SPEAKER: MR. SANDERS, YOU AND I BOTH KNOW AND WE WILL GO ONE STEP FURTHER ORANGE BLOSSOM STATES THERE ARE PROPERTIES IN THERE THAT RECEIVE CITY WATER AND I DON'T KNOW IF THEY RECEIVED CITY SEWER OR NOT BUT IT WAS DEVELOPED BACK IN THE 50S. WHETHER OR NOT THAT WAS A MASTER PLAN, I THINK THE DEVELOPER WAS KELLY A GENTLEMAN NAMED KELLY. AND I KNOW THERE IS ONE PIECE OF PROPERTY ON THE CORNER OF WYOMING AND S. 19TH ST. THAT HAD BEEN ANNEXED AND THAT WAS A VOLUNTARY AND THEN IT HAPPENED TO BE SOMEBODY WHO WORKED FOR THE CITY AND THEY CHOSE TO COME INTO THE CITY. OF COURSE, THERE IS A NICE CITY STREETLIGHT RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEIR HOUSE TOO. THEY ARE RECEIVING SOME SERVICES, AT LEAST AS FAR AS THE STREETLIGHTIS CONCERNED OTHER THINGS , REDUCED PRICE OF THESE ARE TAXES THAT ARE ON
>> SPEAKER: WE CAN'T TURN THE WATER OFF OR SUGGESTIVE WATER IS GOING TO BE TURNED OFF IF
THEY DON'T AND >> SPEAKER: ANY FURTHER COMMENTS?
>> SPEAKER: I HAVE ONE. JUST A SUGGESTION THIS IS GOING TO YOUR POINT THIS IS KIND OF A GROUP OF APPLICATIONS YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THE CROSSOVER OF THE ZONING IN THE EVENT THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS NOT GOING TO COMMIT FOR WHATEVER REASON THERE'S ONLY DELIGHTED WITH THE CITY'S ZONING I WOULD SUGGEST MAKING THAT AN OUTLIER TO THE PACKAGE SO WE CAN DISCUSS INDEPENDENTLY AND THERE WAS NOT A DIRECT CORRELATION BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND CITY ZONING SO THAT CAN BE ADDRESSED SPECIFICALLY TO THE PLANNING BOARD I CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION TO DO THAT. WE WOULD HAVE BIGGER ISSUES WITH LEO ENOUGH FOR HIM HE
[00:35:02]
WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE A MUCH MORE DETAILED EXPLANATION TO THIS DATE AS TO WHY WE COULDN'T FIND. IF IT WAS ÃTHE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE COUNTY THE CITY IN TERMS OF AGRICULTURAL EXCEPT FOR SOME USES ARE ALLOWED IN THE NOMENCLATURE OF AGRICULTURE. BUT WHEN YOU BREAK DOWN AS WE DID THE TEXT ASSOCIATED WITH AGRICULTURAL ZONING AND WE GO BACK TO OUR CODE AND LOOK AT THE TEXT THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH OUR TEXT INVOLVED IN BOTH DOCUMENTS WERE BOTH WERE NEGATIVE FOR US TO MAKE A LIKE FOR LIKE ENOUGH TO BE THAT THRESHOLD THAT THE STATE REQUIRES.THE TWO COMING TOGETHER, WHAT WE PROPOSE, CAN'T BE SO ANOMALOUS THAT SOMEONE ÃANOTHER LAYPERSON WOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT. IF THAT WAS THE CASE, NOT ONLY WOULD YOU HAVE AN EXPLANATION WHICH WOULD HAVE A FURTHER EXPLANATION FOR LEGAL AND QUITE FRANKLY I DON'T KNOW IF WEWOULD BE COMFORTABLE BRINGING FORWARD WITH TOO LATE. >> IS EXACTLY THE REASON OF GETTING TO THE POINT IS IN THE EVENT THERE SOMETHING GIVING DISCOMFORT THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED ILLEGALLY BY THE BOARD SO IF IT'S CLOSE BUT THERE'S A FUDGE FACTOR THERE THEM IN ESSENCE, I'M LOOKING TO SHIFT THE BURDEN OF THE FROM THE DEPARTMENT TO THE BOARD AND TO MR. SWEENEY'S OFFICE. THERE SOMETHING THAT'S THIS IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.
I'M JUST SUGGESTING TAKING IT OFF THAT RELIGION EQUIPS ME PROBABLY WOULDN'T BRING IT WITH A GROUP LIKE THIS BECAUSE WE WANT TO MAKE THIS THE COMMISSION REPORTED THE BEST.
THIS IS A LOW HANGING FRUIT. SO WHAT CAN WE BRING FORWARD THAT WAS LOCATED FRUIT THAT WOULD GIVE YOU THE LEAST AMOUNT OF CONSTERNATION APPROVING SO MANY ANNEXATIONS AT ONE TIME.
E RECOGNIZE THIS IS ÃAS WE INCREASE WITH THE ANNEXATIONS THE NUMBER OF VEXATIONS WILL BE LOOKING AT IS A BUBBLE WILL INCREASE AS RESEARCH PCS PARCELS TOGETHER WE NOW HAVE MORE CONNECTIVITY SO WE WILL BE BRINGING MORE FORWARD TO YOU. THE POINT IS NOT TO OVERBURDEN YOU WITH DIFFICULT ANNEXATIONS. THE POINT IS TO BRING FORWARD TO AND FILL THOSE GAPS BUT MAKE T SO COMMONSENSE THAT YOU READ THE SELF-REPORTS FOR WITH THOSE ADDITIONAL MAPS TO GIVE YOU THE CLARITY OF WHAT CONNECTS TO THE CITY AND WHAT CONTIGUOUS BUT THAT YOU CAN MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION WITHOUT SPENDING HOURS LOOKING AT ONE OF THESE AND WONDERING AS IS APPROPRIATE FOR YOUR CLICK TO SEE MORE AND MORE AMAKA. I THINK AS YOU MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS IS YOU WILL FIND MORE CHALLENGING CONDITIONS LOW HANGING FRUIT WILL BE GONE AND NOW IT'S MORE DIFFICULT TO GET OUT. I JUST SUGGESTING TO ASSIST US AND ASSIST YOU THAT AN OPEN DIALOGUE ON ANYTHING YOU CONSIDER TO BE A BIT OF A
CHALLENGE THANK YOU. >> I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO THE PUBLIC MEETING IF I MADE.
NO OBJECTION FROM THE BOARD. I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC MEETING. ANYONE SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF THESE PROJECTS? ANYONE SPEAKING OPPOSED VERY GOOD.
THANK YOU. WE WILL MOVE BACK TO THE BOARD. ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS >> SPEAKER: JUST A QUESTION OF CURIOSITY PROCESS TO COMPLETE PROJECTS THAT THE COUNTY MAY HAVE STARTED IN THESE NEIGHBORHOODS ONCE THE CITY TAKES OVER HOW DOES THAT WORK SO IF THERE WAS A PROJECT THAT WAS IN THE COUNTY THAT ISN'T COMPLETED YET, WE WOULD TAKE OVER FOR SITE PLANS EVERYTHING. A PERFECT EXAMPLE CELEBRATION IT WAS A SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION THAT WAS APPROVED IN THE COUNTY ABOUT 10 YEARS OF 2017. AND THEY HAD TO BASICALLY EVERYTHING FORWARDED OVER TO THE CITIES AND THEY WERE ABLE TO START BUILDING OUR SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES AFTER THEY RAN AND THEY DECIDED THEY WANTED TO COME IN AND DO MODIFICATIONS TO THEIR SITE PLANS SO THEY HAD TO GO THROUGH OUR MAJOR MODIFICATION OF THE SITE PROCESS.
ANY PROJECTS WE WOULD HONOR WHAT COVERAGE ANYTHING THAT WAS APPROVED IN THE COUNTY IS STILL
STANDING AS LONG AS >> SPEAKER: OKAY. DO YOU DO THIS BY PRIORITY?
>> SPEAKER: THE APPLICANTS WOULD HAVE TO COME TO US AND TELL US THEY HAVE AN ACTIVE SITE PLAN SHOWS PROOF THAT THEY HAD AN ACTIVE APPROVAL FROM THE COUNTY COMMISSION.
>> FOR PENDING PERMIT. >> . >> THAT'S THE EXACT SITUATION WITH THE PROPERTY THE ADJOINING RESIDENTIAL ANNEXED INTO THE CITY WHEN THEY WERE IN THE
[00:40:09]
PROCESS. >> SPEAKER: ANOTHER EXAMPLE RIGHT NOW IS WHAT THE NAME OF IT RIGHT NOW IS THAT IT WAS CALLED SEDONA IT'S ON THE CORNER OF 25TH AND EDWARDS, I BELIEVE. THAT PROPERTY, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE A FPUA ANNEXATION AGREEMENT IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THERE WAS SOME SORT OF AGREEMENT IN PLACE THAT THE CITY WAS NOT TO ANNEX IT UNTIL AFTER IT BASICALLY BUILT OUT 100 PERCENT IN THE COUNTY ONCE IT'S COMPLETED WITH ALL THEIR FINAL IN THE CITY IS ALLOWED TO ANNEX IT AGAIN.
SO IN THE CITY FROM THE ONE THAT WOULD BE AN EXAMPLE WE WOULD NOT GROUP THAT WE WOULD BRING FORWARD TO YOU. THAT WOULD GO SEPARATELY AS ITS OWN ITEM.
>> GOT IT >> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 6 A WHICH IS 1955 SOUTH
JENKINS ROAD AND 2925 SOUTH JENKINS ROAD. >> SPEAKER: I THINK WHAT WE WERE GOING TO DO WAS ALLOW MR. CRAGIN TO BRING EACH ITEM UP FOR SEPARATE MOTIONS.
>> SPEAKER: THAT'S FINE.E CAN DO THAT. I JUST HAVE THE MAPS WE WILL
JUST DO IT THAT WAY. SO THIS ONE WILL BE ITEM 6A. >> SPEAKER: SO 6A AND YOU WERE
IN THE MIDST OF A MOTION, I BELIEVE. >> SPEAKER: THE MOTION HAS BEEN
MADE WAITING FOR A SECOND. >> SPEAKER: SECOND. SCHEMA MAY HAVE A MOTION BY PEA
AND A SECOND BY MR. >> ITEM 6B. >> SPEAKER: I WILL ENTERTAIN A
MOTION. >> MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND.
WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY MR. O'CONNELL. >> SECOND APPEARS
>> SECOND BY MR. BRODERICK. ALL THE ROLE-PLAYS >> MR. ROBERT
>> YES >> MR. O'CONNELL >> YES
>> MISS JOHNSON SCOTT >> YES >> MR. BURGE
>> YES MA'AM >> MISS YES >> YES.
>> TREATMENT CRIMINAL >> YES MA'AM. ITEM 60.
>> MOVED TO APPROVE. >> SECOND. >> MOTION BY MS. JOHNSON SCOTT
SECOND BY MR. O'CONNOR. ALL THE ROLE-PLAYS >> MS. JOHNSON SCOTT
>> YES >> MR. BURGE >> YES MA'AM
>> MISTY IS >> YES >> MR. ROGER >> YES
>> MR. O'CONNOR >> YES >> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER
>> YES. >> ITEM 6D. >> SPEAKER: I MAKE A MOTION TO
APPROVE 6D. >> SPEAKER: SECOND. >> SPEAKER: WE HAVE A MOTION BY MS. DIAZ, A SECOND BY MS. JOHNSON SCOTT. CALL THE ROLE-PLAYS.
>> ITEM 6B. >> MOTION TO APPROVE >> SECOND BY MR. BRODERICK CALL
ROLE. >> MS. JOHNSON SCOTT >> YES
>> MR. BURGE >> YES MA'AM >> MISTY IS
>> MR. BRODERICK MR. O'CONNELL CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER >> YES MA'AM.
>> ITEM 6F. >> SPEAKER: I MOVED TO APPROVE. >> SPEAKER: SECOND.
>> SPEAKER: BONUS BY MS. JOHNSON SCOTT SECONDED BY MS. DIAZ.
CALL ROLE. >> MR. BURGE >> YES
>> MS. DIAZ >> YES >> MR. BRODERICK
>> YES P>> MR. O'CONNELL >> MS. JOHNSON SCOTT
>> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER >> YES MA'AM. >> ITEM 6G
>> MOTION TO APPROVE >> SECOND >> MOTION BY MR. CONNOR
>> SECOND BY MISS JOHNSON SCOTT. >> MISTY IS
>> YES >> MR. BRODERICK >> YES
>> MR. O'CONNELL >> YES >> MS. JOHNSON SCOTT
>> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER >> YES MA'AM. >> ITEM 6H
>> MOTION TO APPROVE >> SECOND. >> MOTION BY MS. DIAZ AND
SECOND BY MR. O'CONNELL >> CALL THE ROLE-PLAYS >> MISTY IS
>> YES >> MR. BRODERICK >> YES
>> MR. O'CONNELL >> YES >> MS. JOHNSON SCOTT
>> YES >> IS TO BURGE >> YES MA'AM CHAIRMAN
CREYAUFMILLER >> YES MA'AM. >> ITEM 6 I
>> SPEAKER: I MOVED TO APPROVE. >> SECOND. >> SPEAKER: MOTION BY MS.
[00:45:08]
JOHNSON SCOTT, SECOND BY MR. BURGE. CALL THE ROLE-PLAYS>> MR. BRODERICK >> YES >> MR. O'CONNELL
>> YES >> MS. JOHNSON SCOTT >> YES
>> MR. BURGE >> YES >> MISTY IS
>> YES >> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER >> YES MA'AM.
>> ITEM 6J >> SPEAKER: MOTION TO APPROVE >> SPEAKER: SECOND.
>> MOTION BY MR. BURGE SECOND BY MS. JOHNSON SCOTT. CALL ROLE.
>> MR. O'CONNELL >> YES >> MS. JOHNSON SCOTT
>> YES >> MR. BURGE >> YES MA'AM
>> MISTY IS >> YES >> MR. BRODERICK
>> YES >> JERRY GRANT MILLER >> YES, MA'AM.
>> IN THE LAST ITEM ITEM 6K >> MOTION TO APPROVE. MOTION BY MR. O'CONNELL SECOND
BY MS. JOHNSON SCOTT CALLED ROLE-PLAYS >> MS. JOHNSON SCOTT
>> YES >> MR. BURGE >> YES MA'AM
>> YES >> YES >> MR. BRODERICK
>> YES >> MR. O'CONNELL >> YES
>> CHAIRMAN CREYAUFMILLER >> YES MA'AM. >> ALL APPLICATIONS WERE A
MOTION TO APPROVE AND ALL APPLICATIONS WERE APPROVED. >> THANK YOU.HAT SPEED BOATING RIGHT THERE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. A JOB WELL DONE.
ITEM 7 ANY COMMENTS BY PUBLIC? PLEASE STEP FORWARD. NOT SEEING ANYONE, NEXT ITEM IS
[8. BOARD COMMENTS]
ITEM 8 BOARD COMMENTS. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT HERE TONIGHT THAT I THINK THE BOARD FOR CONTINUED CONFIDENCE IN THEIR VOTE LAST MONTH WITH MY STUDIOUS CHAIR AND I APPRECIATE THAT VERY MUCH AND I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO THINK MR. [INDISCERNIBLE] FOR HISASSISTANCE THE PAST YEAR AS VICE CHAIR. >> I HAVE A QUESTION.
IS THERE ANY UPDATE ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FROM THE STATE FOR
>> WE ARE STILL WAITING TO HEAR BACK. THEY GAVE US A DATE OF OCTOBER
21 TWO USUALLY THE STATE TAKES EVERY BIT OF TIME LIMIT. >> SPEAKER: I HAVE ÃI DON'T KNOW IF IT'S A QUESTION OR COMMENT SOMETHING YOU DISCUSS I WOULDN'T HAVE KNOWN THAT BUT IT OCCURRED TO ME ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I THOUGHT WAS A GOOD IDEA IN THE PAST WHERE I HAVE LIVED SOMEWHERE THERE IS AN HOA THE CITY I USED TO LIVE IN AND I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT THEY DO THINGS BETTER I'M WONDERING IF IT'S SOMETHING WE MIGHT WANT TO THINK ABOUT BEFORE YOU BROUGHT A PERMIT TO THE CITY YOU HAD TO HAVE APPROVAL I WAS JUST WONDERING IF THAT SOMETHING WE COULD DO IT IF WE COULD DO IT IF THAT WAS SOMETHING WE SHOULD DO AND IF IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD DO AND COULD DO WHAT THE PROCESS WOULD BE.
>> YOU ARE REFERRING TO AN APPLICATION COMPANY BEFORE THE SPORT,
>> REFERRED TO AN APPLICATION Ã HE HAS AN APPLICATION TO THIS BOARD
>> SPEAKER: THROUGH PLANNING FOR CONDITIONAL USE AS AN EXAMPLE FOR SHORT-TERM RENTALS,
>> EXACTLY. >> I GUESS THAT'S A LEGAL QUESTION MORE THAN A POLICY QUESTION, I WOULD THINK. I THINK WE DISCUSSED THIS BRIEFLY ONCE BEFORE BUT LET'S
LET MR. SWEENEY ADDRESS THIS. >> I WOULD HAVE TO DO SOME RESEARCH ON IT.
YOU ARE IMPLICATING PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS WITHIN A PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT AND AS WE RECENTLY SOLD THERE IS INTERPRETATION OF CONDOMINIUM AND HOMEOWNERS DOCUMENTS THEY ARE NOT ALWAYS CLEARLY DRAFTED, SO WHAT COULD APPEAR TO BE APPROVAL MAY ARGUABLY BE NOT APPROVAL TO ANOTHER SET OF EYES. BUT AGAIN, IT'S SOMETHING THAT COULD BE RESEARCHED AND AS YOU SAID THERE ARE DIFFERENT WAYS OF DOING IT THROUGHOUT DIFFERENT AGENCIES AND JURISDICTIONS THROUGHOUT THE STATE SO IT'S SOMETHING FULLY BY THE NEXT PLANNING BOARD THE MIDDLE AND SECOND WEEK OF NOVEMBER MAYBE I COULD HAVE
MORE INFORMATION FOR THIS BOARD. >> WE HAVE DISCUSSED BY THIS BOARD GENERALLY SPEAKING AN APPLICATION COMES TO US INVOLVING A HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION THOSE QUESTIONS GENERALLY COME UP AS WE ARE DOING OUR WORK HERE AT THE BOARD AND I THINK SEVERAL OF US GO INTO THE SECRETARY OF STATE WEBSITE AND WE CAN FIND WHETHER OR NOT A DEVELOPMENT OR A CONDO ACTUALLY HAS AN ASSOCIATION WITH THAT ASSOCIATION NAME IS AND GENERALLY THROUGH THE THERE ARE LEGAL DOCUMENTS AS THEY ARE REGISTERED WITH THE SECRETARY
[00:50:07]
OF STATE AND I'VE DONE THAT A COUPLE OF TIMES MYSELF. SO I THINK THE LEGALITY OF IT WE NEED TO GET AN ANSWER AND I APPRECIATE THAT MR. SWEENEY. ANYTHING ELSE?>> SPEAKER: I HAVE ONE COMMENT TO MAKE ON THE ZBA. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT THAT WE ARE PROPOSING. IT IS SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD BY THE CITY COMMISSION ON THE 21ST. THERE IS A CHANGE AND I KNOW THAT GIVEN SOME CHANGES THAT HAVE HAPPENED LAST TIME WE TEXT THAT HAVE CHANGED TO HELP THE BOARD SOUGHT TO HAVE THE COMMISSION SEASON TICKETS OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE YOU AWARE OF THAT CHANGE.
THERE IS A REQUIREMENT WHERE HE DRAFTING AN ORDINANCE THE CONTENT OF WHAT IS BEING PART OF THE ORDINANCE MUST HAVE A RATIONAL NEXUS THAT IS THE COMPONENTS THAT ARE BEING CHANGED OR PROPOSED MUST RELATE TO EACH OTHER. BECAUSE WE WERE MAKING CHANGES TO THE PLANNING DIRECTOR PUBLIC TITLE AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT THAT IS CLARIFYING AND MAKING MORNING FOR THOSE TWO ENTITIES, THERE WAS NO RATIONAL NEXUS BETWEEN THESE CHANGES IN THE ZONING CHANGES SO AS A RESULT THOSE ITEMS WILL BE SEPARATED GOING BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION SO IT ESSENTIALLY WILL BE TWO ITEMS HEARD BY THE CITY COMMISSION IN TWO SEPARATE ORDINANCES AND SOME OF THE TEXT CONTAINED WITHIN THE ORDINANCES HAS BEEN ADJUSTED. SO I DON'T WANT YOU TO FEEL AS IF WE'VE DONE A BAIT AND SWITCH ON YOU. THE TEXT FOR THE MOST PART IS UNCHANGED.
THERE ARE NO SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES THAT OCCUR BUT IT WILL NOT BE TWO ITEMS CONTAINED WITHIN TWO ORDINANCES ADVERTISED TWO SEPARATE TIMES SEPARATE FROM EACH OTHER.
I WANTED TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION SO YOU DID NOT THINK THAT WE WERE PLAYING FAST AND
LOOSE WITH YOUR APPROVALS. >> YOU THINK WE THINK THAT? >> MR. CHAIRMAN MEGAN, THERE'S NO INDICATION THAT ANY OF THE RESPONSIBILITIES OR DUTIES OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS WOULD
BE TRANSFERRED OVER TO THE PLANNING BOARD, IS THERE? >> THAT'S NOT WHAT WE ARE
RECOMMENDING. >> GOOD. >> THERE ARE NO SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES WE JUST SEPARATED THOSE ITEMS INTO TWO DIFFERENT Ã THERE WAS IN THE PAST.
LEGAL IN THE PAST I WANTED TO MAKE A LOT OF CHANGES IN THOSE WAS TO ELIMINATE THE BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITIES ON OUR BOARD AND WITH THAT BIG PAY INCREASE THAT WE GOT, I DIDN'T FEEL ESPECIALLY NOW THESE DAYS UNLESS THEY REINSTATE THE PAY INCREASE.
WHICH CAN EASILY BE DONE BECAUSE ALL WE HAVE TO DO IS SUGGEST THAT PART OF THE ORDINANCES BE ELIMINATED AND THERE'S ONLY ONE PART OF THE ORDINANCE.
THERE NEEDS TO BE ELIMINATED. I LOOKED AT THIS YEAR'S BUDGET AND I NOTICED IT WASN'T THERE AND I FELT VERY HURT THAT THERE WASN'T COMPENSATION FROM BOARD MEMBERS THERE.
>> I THINK MY COMPENSATION IS VERY GOOD. >> SPEAKER: I'M STAYING OUT OF THIS DISCUSSION. IT WAS A LOT OF FUN TO GET THAT LAST $40 FROM YOU GUYS LAST
YEAR. >> I ALMOST BROUGHT A JUDGE JUDY SUIT AGAINST THE CITY BECAUSE I KNOW WHAT SHE WOULD HAVE SAID.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.