CAPTIONING
SEPTEMBER 24, 2002
BOCC LAND USE
AFTERNOON SESSION


**NOTIFICATION:
**This is not an official, verbatim transcript of the
**following meeting.  It should be used for informational
**purposes only.  This document has not been edited;
**therefore, there may be additions, deletions, or words
**that did not translate.


>>PAT FRANK:  THE MEETING OF THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IS NOW RECONVENED.
WE HAVE OUR AFTERNOON AGENDA, AND MR. MOREDA, IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO SAY BEFORE WE START ON THE ITEMS?
>>JOE MOREDA:  YES, MA'AM.
I HAVE ONE ANNOUNCEMENT AND SEVERAL CHANGES TO READ INTO THE RECORD.
I'VE BEEN ADVISED THAT MR. McWEENY WILL BE HERE AT 2:55.
IF THERE'S A BREAK IN THE AGENDA OR FOLLOWING THE 3:00 TIME CERTAIN TO PRESENT AN ISSUE RELATED TO A RESOLUTION FOR A WATER SERVICE ISSUE, AND I WAS ALSO ADVISED THAT THIS HAS BEEN SENT TO YOUR OFFICE, THE DRAFT RESOLUTION, AND ANYWAY, JUST TO PUT YOU ON NOTICE, THEY'LL BE HERE EITHER AT 2:55 IF THERE'S A BREAK IN THE AGENDA OR FOLLOWING A TIME CERTAIN FOR THE BOLEMAN'S.
>>PAT FRANK:  THIS IS THE ITEM DEALING WITH THE PURCHASE BY THE CITIES OF MILTON AND GULF BREEZE BY FLORIDA WATER SERVICES?
>>JOE MOREDA:  YES, MA'AM.
READING THE RESOLUTION, THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS IN THE PREAMBLE.
>>PAT FRANK:  OKAY.
>>JOE MOREDA:  THE CHANGES TO THE AGENDA FOR THE AFTERNOON START WITH ITEM 1-B, PERSONAL APPEARANCE, 02-1117.
THIS PETITION HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN.
ITEM 1-C, DRI NOPC FOR APOLLO BEACH, THIS PETITION HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN.
ITEMS --
>>PAT FRANK:  IS THAT WITHDRAWN OR IS IT EXTENDED?
>>JOE MOREDA:  ITEM 1-C, THE PETITION HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN.
ITEM 1-D, PRS 02-1089, STAFF IS REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE OF THIS ITEM, AND THAT HAS BEEN AMENDED FROM OCTOBER 8th TO OCTOBER 22nd.
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' MEETING FOR THAT DATE.
ITEM 1-E, 59/209, STAFF IS REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE.
THAT SHOULD REFERENCE OCTOBER 22nd, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS LAND USE MEETING.
ITEM 1-F, PRS 02-823, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE TO OCTOBER 2nd.
EXCUSE ME.
OCTOBER 22nd.
ITEM 1-G, PRS 02-1192, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE TO OCTOBER 22nd.
ITEM 1-H, PRS 01-1421, APPLICANT REQUESTS A CONTINUANCE TO NOVEMBER 12th.
ITEM 1-I, DRI 159, EAST SHORE COMMERCE PARK, APPLICANT REQUESTS A CONTINUANCE TO NOVEMBER 12th.
THAT CONCLUDES THE CHANGES TO THE AGENDA.
I DO NEED TO ADD THAT THERE IS A MINOR ADDENDUM BEING ADDED TO AGENDA ITEM 5-D-2.
I REFERENCED THAT IN THE MORNING AND I'LL REITERATE IT.
THERE'S ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE BEING ADDED TO THIS ITEM TO REFLECT THE BOYETTE FARMS PHASE 2B, UNIT 1 PARTIAL REPLAT.
A MINOR REVISION HAS BEEN MADE TO INCLUDE AN ACCEPTANCE DATE AS PART OF THE REVISION FOR THIS ITEM.
THAT DATE WOULD BE -- THAT FOLLOWS THE VACATING?
THAT DATE IS REFLECTED IN THE BACKUP AND WILL FOLLOW THE VACATING THAT'S RELATED TO THIS ITEM, AND WE'LL TOUCH ON THAT AGAIN WHEN WE GET INTO THAT VACATING ISSUE THAT MS. HAMRICK WILL SPEAK TO.
AT THIS POINT, THEN, WE MOVE FOR THE --
[ INAUDIBLE ]
>>PAT FRANK:  IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA CHANGES?
>> SECOND.
>>PAT FRANK:  RECORD YOUR VOTE.
>>RECORDING SECRETARY:  MOTION CARRIED 6-0.
>>JOE MOREDA:  THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS.
THAT BRINGS US TO THE 1:30 PORTION OF OUR AGENDA, AND MS. PEGGY HAMRICK FROM THE REAL ESTATE DEPARTMENT IS HERE TO SPEAK TO THE VACATINGS, STARTED WITH 5-5.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS.
PEGGY HAMRICK FROM REAL ESTATE.
OUR FIRST ITEM IS 5-A.
IT'S VACATING PETITION V10, 3/20/2002, AND WE ASK THAT YOU VACATE ANY AND ALL INTEREST, AS IT MAY APPEAR, IN AND FOR THE PUBLIC AND HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY IN THE NORTH 13 FEET OF THE PLATTED 20-FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT OVER AND ACROSS LOT 33 IN THE EAGLEWOOD ESTATE SUBDIVISION, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED ON THE RESOLUTION AND SKETCHES HERETO ATTACHED.
A COPY OF THE PETITION BY DONALD R. MARTIN AND JODI L. MARTIN, HUSBAND AND WIFE, IS HEREBY OFFERED AS EVIDENCE.
>>PAT FRANK:  THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO THIS PETITION TO VACATE?
THERE'S A MOTION TO APPROVE THE ITEM.
>>THOMAS SCOTT:  SECOND.
>>PAT FRANK:  RECORD YOUR VOTE, PLEASE.
>>RECORDING SECRETARY:  MOTION CARRIED 6-0.
>> NEXT ITEM IS 5-B, V18, 5/31/2002.
STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT YOU VACATE A 5-FOOT PORTION OF A PLATTED 10-FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT OVER AND ACROSS LOT 18, BLOCK 12 OF WESTWOOD LAKES, PHASE 2B, UNIT 1, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED ON THE RESOLUTION AND SKETCHES ATTACHED HERETO.
A COPY OF THE PETITION BY MANISH PATEL AND ALKA PATEL, HUSBAND AND WIFE, IS HEREBY OFFERED AS EVIDENCE.
>>PAT FRANK:  THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM?
>> MOVE THE ITEM.
>> SECOND.
>>PAT FRANK:  RECORD YOUR VOTE.
>>RECORDING SECRETARY:  MOTION CARRIED 6-0.
>> OUR NEXT ITEM IS ITEM 5-C, VACATING PETITION NUMBER V27, 7/10/2002.
WE RECOMMEND THAT YOU VACATE PORTIONS OF THE PLATTED 15-FOOT REAR/SIDE YARD DRAINAGE EASEMENT OVER AND ACROSS LOT 4, BLOCK 1 OF THE ESTATES OF LAKE ALICE SUBDIVISION, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED ON THE RESOLUTION AND SKETCHES ATTACHED HERETO.
A COPY OF THE PETITION BY WILLIAM J. BARRY AND ELIZABETH A. BARRY, HUSBAND AND WIFE, IS HEREBY OFFERED AS EVIDENCE.
>>PAT FRANK:  THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.
ANYBODY HERE ON THIS ITEM IN OPPOSITION TO IT?
IS THERE A SECOND?
>>THOMAS SCOTT:  SECOND.
>>PAT FRANK:  RECORD YOUR VOTE, PLEASE.
>>RECORDING SECRETARY:  MOTION CARRIED 6-0.
>> MY LAST ITEM IS ITEM 5-D-1, VACATING PETITION NUMBER V28, 7/12/2002.
STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE BOARD VACATE ALL OF LOTS 15, 16, AND 17 OF BLOCK 6 AND THAT CERTAIN PARCEL DESIGNATED TRACT D-2, TOGETHER WITH THE DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS SHOWN THEREON PER THE PLAT OF BOYETTE FARMS PHASE 2B-1 BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED ON THE RESOLUTION AND SKETCHES ATTACHED HERETO.
WE RECOMMEND THAT THAT BE SUBJECT TO THE WETLAND CONSERVATION AREA SETBACK LINE AFFECTING SAID TRACT D-2.
A COPY OF THE PETITION BY WESTFIELD HOMES OF FLORIDA, INCORPORATED IS HEREBY OFFERED AS EVIDENCE.
>>PAT FRANK:  THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.
ANYBODY HERE ON THIS ITEM?
>>JIM NORMAN:  MOVE THE ITEM.
>> SECOND.
>>PAT FRANK:  AND THIS IS ALSO D-1 AND D-2 TOGETHER.
>> THAT'S ITEM D-1 ONLY.
AFTER YOU ACT ON THAT ONE --
>>PAT FRANK:  LET'S RECORD OUR VOTES ON ITEM D-1.
>>RECORDING SECRETARY:  COMMISSIONER HART.
MOTION CARRIED 7-0.
>>JOE MOREDA:  THANK YOU.
THE NEXT ONE IS ITEM 5-D.2 ACCEPT THE REPLAT FOR RECORDING FOR BOYETTE CREEK PHASE 2B, UNIT 1, LOCATED IN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 30 AND RANGE 20.
 -- SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE ON 7/12/2002, BOYETTE FARMS PHASE 2B, UNIT 1.
>>PAT FRANK:  THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH OUR ACTION ON D-1.
IS THERE A MOTION?
>>JIM NORMAN:  PUBLIC HEARING.
>>PAT FRANK:  LET ME SEE.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO THIS?
>> MOVE THE ITEM.
>>PAT FRANK:  RECORD YOUR VOTE.
IS THERE A SECOND?
>> SECOND.
>>PAT FRANK:  RECORD YOUR VOTE.
>>RECORDING SECRETARY:  MOTION CARRIED 7-0.
>>JOE MOREDA:  THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM 6-A.
THIS IS A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 02-0950, FISHHAWK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.
THIS IS A PETITION TO EXPAND AND CONTRACT THE FISHHAWK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.
MR. JOE INCORVIA OF OUR STAFF WILL MAKE A BRIEF INTRO STATEMENT AND THEN WE'LL HAVE THE APPLICANT.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON.
JOE CORE VAN WITH PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT.
WE RECOMMEND YOUR APPROVAL OF THE FISHHAWK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT EXPANSION AND CONTRACTION.
THE FISHHAWK COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT WAS APPROVED IN 1996.
IT CONTAINS 965 ACRES AND IS A PORTION OF THE LARGER FISHHAWK DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT WHICH HAS 4,870 ACRES.
IT IS BEING REVISED FOR 1,070 ACRES.
IT WILL CONTAIN APPROXIMATELY 1800 HOMES BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER THE EXPANSION AND CONTRACTION.
THE PRIMARY PURPOSE IS TO REFINE THE ORIGINAL LEGAL DESCRIPTION TO CONFORM TO THE ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE SUBDIVISIONS AND ITS NEIGHBORHOODS.
NO ADDITIONAL BONDS OR DEBT IS BEING ISSUED.
DEBT MANAGEMENT HAS REVIEWED THE DEBT OF THE EXISTING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND FOUND IT IN GOOD STANDING.
THE SUBMISSION FOLLOWS ALL STATE REQUIREMENTS.
THE PETITION WILL -- A SECOND PETITION WILL BE BROUGHT IN IN THE FUTURE FOR ANOTHER CDD IN FISHHAWK, AND IT WILL ABUT THIS ONE.
THE ARRANGEMENT IS THAT WHEN IT IS BROUGHT IN, THERE WILL BE AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TWO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS, SUCH THAT THEY HAVE THE SAME TAX ASSESSMENT RATE.
>>PAT FRANK:  THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO DISCUSS THIS?
>>JIM NORMAN:  NO OPPOSITION?
>>THOMAS SCOTT:  IT'S EITHER SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION.
[ INAUDIBLE ]
>>JIM NORMAN:  I'LL MOVE THE ITEM.
>>THOMAS SCOTT:  SECOND.
>>PAT FRANK:  IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION?
>>JIM NORMAN:  GOOD COMMENTS.
>>PAT FRANK:  LET ME JUST SAY THAT I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT IT, AND I'VE BEEN CONSISTENT IN SAYING THAT I THINK THIS IS A VERY BAD WAY TO FINANCE INFRASTRUCTURE.
AND ONE OF THE THINGS IS IF YOU NOTICE ON PAGE 3, THAT CHAPTER 190 SAYS THAT YOU HAVE TO -- YOU HAVE THE SIX CRITERIA, AND THEN THE FOURTH ONE IS THAT AFTER THE EXPANSION AND CONTRACTION, THE DISTRICT REMAINS THE BEST ALTERNATIVE -- BEST ALTERNATIVE AVAILABLE FOR DELIVERING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND FACILITIES TO THE AREA THAT WILL BE SERVED BY THE DISTRICT.
I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT.
I BELIEVE THE DEVELOPER HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY TO FUND THIS ON HIS OR HER OWN, AND IT SHOULDN'T BE PASSED ON TO THE PEOPLE THROUGH ASSESSMENT -- ASSESSMENTS AFTERWARD THAT APPEAR ON THEIR TAXES AND BECOME A LIEN ON THEIR PROPERTY IF THEY DON'T PAY IT.
RECORD YOUR VOTE.
>>RECORDING SECRETARY:  MOTION CARRIED 4-3.
COMMISSIONER EASTERLING, FRANK, PLATT, AND -- I'M SORRY.
EASTERLING, FRANK, AND PLATT VOTED NO.
>>JAN PLATT:  NO, I VOTED YES.
I'M SORRY.
I VOTED YES.
>>RECORDING SECRETARY:  WE'LL EDIT THAT VOTE.
>>JAN PLATT:  STUCK ON NO.
[ LAUGHTER ]
[ INAUDIBLE ]
>>JIM NORMAN:  DID YOU SAY YOU BELIEVE?
[ LAUGHTER ]
>> WE JUST NEED TO HAVE THE VOTE ANNOUNCED PROPERLY.
>>CHRIS HART:  COMMUNICATION NEEDS TO PUT OUT A PUBLIC NOTICE.
>>RECORDING SECRETARY:  THE MOTION CARRIED 5-2.
EASTERLING AND FRANK VOTED NO.
>>JIM PORTER:  THANKS.
>>JOE MOREDA:  THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM 6-B PERSONAL APPEARANCE 02-1085.
THIS REQUEST IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF 78th STREET A QUARTER MILE SOUTH OF 36th AVENUE.
IT PERMITS 160 TOWNHOMES.
THE REQUEST IS TO ELIMINATE THE TOWNHOME PORTION AND CONVERT THAT TO 125 SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES.
ALSO THERE AN ADDITIONAL REQUEST TO DELETE AN ACCESS POINT.
STAFF IS SUPPORTING THIS PARTICULAR REQUEST OR BOTH REQUESTS SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.
>>PAT FRANK:  OKAY.
IS THE APPLICANT HERE?
>> GOOD AFTERNOON.
MY NAME IS FRANK VALENTI.
I'M WITH STAR DEVELOPMENT.
WE'RE THE APPLICANT FOR THE MODIFICATION.
>>PAT FRANK:  IS THERE ANYONE HERE ON THIS ITEM?
>>JIM NORMAN:  I'LL MOVE THE ITEM.
>>PAT FRANK:  AND --
>>THOMAS SCOTT:  SECOND.
>>RONDA STORMS:  I'VE GOT A QUESTION.
>>PAT FRANK:  COMMISSIONER STORMS.
>>RONDA STORMS:  YOU-ALL WERE JUST HERE.
THIS WAS APPROVED ON JUNE 11th OF 2002.
SO --
>> THAT WAS PRIOR TO OUR OWNERSHIP OF IT.
IT WAS APPROVED FOR THE TOWNHOME SITE, AND WE'RE ASKING TO REDUCE IT FROM 160 TOWNHOMES TO APPROXIMATELY 120 SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS.
>>RONDA STORMS:  I UNDERSTAND, BUT I GUESS WHAT I'M WONDERING IS, IS -- I MEAN YOU-ALL PURCHASED IT OR WHATEVER, BUT I GUESS WHAT I'M WONDERING IS, DID STAFF ANALYZE THIS FOR -- TO SEE IF THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN APPROVED FOR SINGLE-FAMILY?
WAS IT APPROVABLE FOR SINGLE FAMILIES WHEN IT WAS A TOWNHOME OR WHEN IT WAS APPROVED FOR THE TOWNHOME, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO BE -- YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT EVEN SIX MONTHS AWAY, AND HERE WE ARE CHANGING THE DEAL.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY DIDN'T GET IT UNDER -- FOR TOWNHOME APPROVAL AND THEN COME BACK A FEW SHORT MONTHS LATER AND ASK FOR IT TO BE SOMETHING ELSE WHEN IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPROVABLE FROM THE OUTSET AS SINGLE FAMILY.
>>JOE MOREDA:  TO OUR KNOWLEDGE, THE SINGLE FAMILY'S ACTUALLY A REDUCTION IN INTENSITY.
THE ACCESS POINT AND THE SPECIFICITY OF THE CONDITION REQUIRING THE TOWNHOMES IS WHAT ACTUALLY PUT THIS PROJECT BACK INTO THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS.
WE DON'T ANTICIPATE THAT THERE WAS -- THAT THERE WILL BE ANY PROBLEM BECAUSE IT'S CONVERTING TO SINGLE-FAMILY, NOR DO WE UNDERSTAND IT TO BE CONDITIONED SPECIFICALLY TO TOWNHOME BECAUSE SOMEONE WAS OBJECTING TO SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES IF THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTIONS.
>>RONDA STORMS:  NO, I DON'T THINK YOU'RE HEARING WHAT I'M SAYING, JOE.
WHAT I WANT TO KNOW IS, THIS ISN'T A WAY FOR A DEVELOPER TO GET APPROVAL SO THAT LATER THEY JUST SAY, OKAY, WHAT WE'LL DO IS WE'LL GET WHATEVER IT IS WE CAN GET NOW AND THEN JUST COME IN AND DO A SERIES OF MODIFICATIONS TO GET ULTIMATELY WHAT WE WANTED TO GET, AND THEN FOLKS WOULD FORGET THAT INITIALLY WE WEREN'T SUPPOSED TO GET WHAT WE WOUND UP GETTING.
YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING?
IT'S SORT OF LIKE THE CONCEPT IT'S EASIER TO ASK FOR FORGIVENESS THAN IT IS TO ASK FOR PERMISSION, BUT NOT REALLY.
IF YOU CAN'T GET WHAT YOU ULTIMATELY END UP WITH, AND IT'S NOT APPROVABLE AT THE FRONT END, WE DON'T WANT TO GIVE THEM A BACK DOORWAY TO GET THIS THING.
IT JUST CAUSES MY EYEBROWS -- YOU KNOW, MY EYEBROWS AREN'T PINNED UP TO THE BACK OF MY HEAD, BUT THEY ARE RAISED TO SAY WHY WOULD YOU DO IT THAT WAY, BECAUSE IT'S NOT A CHEAP PROCESS TO DO IT THIS WAY.
>>JOE MOREDA:  I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE CASE HERE.
I THINK THAT THEY HAVE JUST A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT PROJECT -- DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO IT?
[ INAUDIBLE ]
>>JOE MOREDA:  RIGHT, BUT THEY'RE DELETING AN ACCESS POINT, AND THEY'RE ALSO GOING BELOW THE THRESHOLD.
>>RONDA STORMS:  I KNOW IT'S A DIFFERENT DENSITY.
IT'S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO GIVE ME A PROFESSIONAL OPINION FOR ME TO KNOW GOING FROM TOWNHOMES TO SINGLE-FAMILY IT'S LESS DENSITIES.
I GET THAT.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT --
>>JIM PORTER:  ON THE ZONING ITSELF, AND THE IDEA OF SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES VERSUS TOWN HOUSES, THE EXISTING ZONING BEFORE ALLOWED FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
>>RONDA STORMS:  OKAY.
SO THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION.
IT'S JUST STRANGE.
THE STORY THAT WE'RE GIVEN IS THAT THEY JUST BOUGHT THE PROPERTY AND THEY WANT TO DO SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES, WE CAN BUY.
OKAY.
>> THE REASON IT'S BEFORE YOU IS IT COULD HAVE BEEN HANDLED ADMINISTRATIVELY, THE CONVERSION, BUT SINCE THEY WANT TO GO BELOW 5,000 SQUARE FEET, THAT TRIGGERED A ZONING HEARING THRESHOLD.
IT TRIGGERED THE PUBLIC HEARING.
I DON'T THINK THIS IS THE WAY TO DO AN END AROUND, BECAUSE WHAT THEY'RE COMING UP WITH IS PROBABLY LESS INTENSE THAN WHAT THEY PROPOSED BEFORE.
TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, IT'S A SLIGHT CHANGE FROM WHAT THEY HAD BEFORE AND THE CHANGES TRIPPED UP THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS.
>>RONDA STORMS:  I KNOW HOW IT CAME UP BEFORE.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE'S NO WAY TO CALCULATE ALL THE WAYS FOLKS CAN BE CLEVER, YOU KNOW, SO I'M JUST TRYING TO ASK OUT IN THE OPEN.
>>PAT FRANK:  COMMISSIONER NORMAN.
>>JIM NORMAN:  I WAS GOING TO AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER STORMS THEY WERE GOING THE OTHER WAY.
IF THEY WERE TRYING TO MOVE FROM THE INTENSITY, TO ME IT SEEMED LIKE LESS CARS ON THE ROAD, LESS EVERYTHING.
>>PAT FRANK:  LET ME ASK A QUESTION.
THIS IS AN IMPACT-FREE ZONE, ISN'T IT?
>>JOE MOREDA:  IMPACT-FREE FEE --
>>PAT FRANK:  IS THIS IN THE IMPACT-FREE ZONE?
>>JOE MOREDA:  I'D HAVE TO CHECK ON THAT.
>>PAT FRANK:  WHAT'S THE --
>>JOE MOREDA:  I COULD GET YOU AN ANSWER TO THAT, BUT WE WOULD NEED TO CONTINUE IT TO THE END PORTION OF THE AGENDA AND WE CAN GET SOMEONE FROM THE IMPACT PROGRAM HERE TO TELL YOU WHAT THE FEES WOULD BE.
ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TOWNHOMES AND SINGLE-FAMILY OR --
>>PAT FRANK:  I'M JUST TRYING TO FIND OUT IF IT WAS APPROVED BEFORE WE PASSED THE IMPACT-FREE ZONE.
>> COMMISSIONER FRANK, I'M JOHN WITH STAR 101 DEVELOPMENT.
THIS IS NOT AN IMPACT-FREE ZONE, AND TO COMMISSIONER STORMS' EARLIER COMMENT, WE WISH WE HAD PURCHASED THE PROPERTY SOONER, BEFORE IT HAD ALREADY BEEN BEFORE THE BOARD ONCE, BUT WE JUST CAME TO A LITTLE LATER THAN SOMEONE ELSE DID, AND LIKE THE -- LIKED THE THING FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RATHER THAN TOWNHOMES.
>>JIM PORTER:  COMMISSIONER FRANK, THE IMPACT-FREE ZONE WAS ADOPTED PRIOR TO THIS REZONING BACK IN JUNE.
>>PAT FRANK:  PRIOR TO THE PREVIOUS REZONING?
>>JIM PORTER:  YES.
THE PREVIOUS REZONE WAS DONE JUNE 11th AND IT WAS DONE SHORTLY BEFORE THAT.
>>PAT FRANK:  IT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL IF STAFF WOULD GIVE US THE INFORMATION ON WHETHER -- IN THESE AREAS WHERE THERE IS A QUESTION ABOUT IT WHETHER IT IS AN IMPACT-FEE-FREE ZONE OR NOT, YOU KNOW.
THAT SHOULD BE -- THAT SHOULD BE DESIGNATED ON OUR DOCUMENT.
>>JIM NORMAN:  I DON'T KNOW IF MY MOTION GOT A SECOND.
>>THOMAS SCOTT:  SECOND.
>>PAT FRANK:  IT DID.
RECORD YOUR VOTE.
>>RECORDING SECRETARY:  MOTION CARRIED 7-0.
>>JOE MOREDA:  THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM 6-C, PERSONAL APPEARANCE 02-1129.
THE APPLICANT IS FISHHAWK COMMUNITIES, LOCATION OF THE SITE IS ON FISHHAWK RANCH, BOYETTE AND LITHIA-PINECREST ROAD.
THE REQUEST IS FOR A REVISION OF CONDITION NUMBER 7 WHICH REQUIRES AN INTERNAL BUFFER BETWEEN LOTS WHICH HAVE A DIFFERENT AREA OF MORE THAN 2,000 SQUARE FEET.
I CAN TELL YOU THAT WHEN STAFF REVIEWED THIS, THIS IS A RATHER UNIQUE CONDITION, AND WE REVIEWED THE RECORD TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANY PARTICULAR REASON WHY THAT CONDITION WAS INSERTED, AND WE COULD NOT FIND ANY HISTORICAL BASIS FOR THE CONDITION.
AND BECAUSE OF THAT, WE'RE SUPPORTING THE CHANGE.
THERE DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE ANY REASON TO REQUIRE IT.
AND I JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT ON THE RECORD BECAUSE IT IS A RATHER UNIQUE CONDITION.
AND USUALLY WHEN WE FIND THAT, THERE'S SOME HISTORICAL BASIS FOR IT, BUT WE DID REVIEW THE RECORD AND COULD NOT FIND ANY PARTICULAR REASON FOR THAT LANGUAGE.
>>PAT FRANK:  DOES IT ALTER THE NUMBER OF UNITS?
>>JOE MOREDA:  ULTIMATELY, IF YOU ADDED THEM ALL UP, I -- I WOULD IMAGINE IT COULD, IF YOU ADDED A 20-FOOT BUFFER BETWEEN LOTS THAT WERE -- THAT HAD A 2,000-SQUARE-FOOT DIFFERENCE BECAUSE IT WOULD USE UP MORE AREA, SO WITHOUT DOING THE MATH, IT WOULD SEEM THAT THEORETICALLY SPEAKING, YES, IT WOULD -- IT WOULD -- IT WOULD ALLOW, YOU KNOW, MORE LOTS TO BE ACHIEVED, NOT NECESSARILY A HIGHER DENSITY.
THEY WOULD JUST BE ABLE TO APPROACH THAT CAP, YOU KNOW, WITH MORE SUCCESS.
>>PAT FRANK:  UH-HUH.
WHICH OTHERWISE THEY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE BECAUSE THEY MAY HAVE WETLANDS OR SENSITIVE AREAS THAT MIGHT NOT ALLOW THE MAXIMUM.
YES, COMMISSIONER.
>>RONDA STORMS:  DOES -- I'LL ASK MY QUESTION IN JUST A MINUTE.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS.
ERIN LARRINAGA REPRESENTING THE DEVELOPER, FISHHAWK COMMUNITIES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP.
MY ADDRESS IS 501 EAST KENNEDY.
THEY'RE SEEKING THIS MODIFICATION TO AMEND AND DELETE THE REQUIREMENT THAT ABUTTING LOT SIZED SIZES WHICH VARY HAVE A BUFFER BETWEEN THE LOTS.
AS MR. MOREDA WAS DISCUSSING, THAT'S AN OLD DISCUSSION THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL ZONING BACK IN THE LATE 1980s.
HOWEVER, THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AT THIS POINT DOES NOT REQUIRE BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL USES, AND COUNTY STAFF ADVISED THEY NO LONGER COMMONLY REQUEST SUCH A BUFFER BETWEEN LIKE RESIDENTIAL USES BECAUSE THE RESULT CAN BE UNDESIRABLE BECAUSE YOU GET THESE UNMAINTAINED BUFFER STRIPS THAT ARE NOT OWNED BY THE LOT OWNERS AND THEREFORE CAN DETRACT FROM THE ADJACENT LOTS.
THE REQUESTED CHANGE TO THESE ZONING CONDITIONS WILL APPLY ONLY TO THE UNDEVELOPED PORTION OF THE SITE WHICH CONSISTS OF APPROXIMATELY 575 ACRES.
THEREFORE, THERE WON'T BE ANY IMPACT TO THE EXISTING DEVELOPED PORTIONS OF THE LOT.
>>RONDA STORMS:  THAT WAS WHAT MY QUESTION WAS.
I WANTED TO KNOW IF WE WERE GOING TO BE CHANGING IT FOR PEOPLE WHO HAD PURCHASED BEFOREHAND.
BUT THESE WILL BE PEOPLE WHO PURCHASE WITH NOTICE?
>>.
RIGHT.
THESE WOULD BE FOR UNDEVELOPED PIECES OF PROPERTY THAT HAVE NOT YET BEEN PLATTED, SO --
>>RONDA STORMS:  NOBODY'S GOING TO EXPECT TO HAVE A BUFFER IF THE BUFFER ISN'T THERE?
>> RIGHT.
>>RONDA STORMS:  OKAY.
>>PAT FRANK:  APART FROM THE FACT THAT IT MAY NOT BE REQUIRED RIGHT NOW, WHAT'S THE AFFECT ON THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO INCREASE AS A RESULT OF THIS?
>> WELL, THERE'S A TOTAL OVERALL AMOUNT OF UNITS THAT'S BEEN APPROVED FOR THE FISHHAWK DRI.
THIS IS A DRI PROJECT, AND YOU KNOW THAT THE SALE RECENTLY OF THE PROPERTIES SOUTH OF FISHHAWK CREEK OCCURRED, SO THERE IS A COMMITMENT BY THE DEVELOPER TO TAKE OUT A NUMBER OF UNITS AS A RESULT OF THAT SALE.
THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE REDUCING THE DRI BY IS ABOUT 2,569 UNITS, AND I THINK AT THIS TIME THEY'RE PROJECTING THAT THEY WILL BUILD OUT THE REMAINING RESIDENTIAL ENTITLEMENTS THAT ARE APPROVED UNDER THE DRI, SO I THINK THAT WILL OCCUR REGARDLESS.
>>PAT FRANK:  WELL, WHAT I'M ASKING YOU IS, OBVIOUSLY YOU-ALL HAVE COMPUTED WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO WITH THE UNDEVELOPED 575 ACRES.
>> RIGHT.
>>PAT FRANK:  AND YOU -- YOU ARE COMING WITH THIS -- WITH THIS IDEA OF REMOVING THAT BUFFER IN ORDER TO GET MORE LOTS.
THERE'S NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT.
>> I MEAN, I REALLY --.
>>PAT FRANK:  AND I'M ASKING HOW MANY MORE LOTS.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WILL BE A NET INCREASE IN TOTAL LOTS FOR THAT 575 ACRES.
>> MY NAME IS DON WHITE.
I'M WITH FISHHAWK COMMUNITIES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, AND THE ANSWER IS THERE WILL NOT BE A CHANGE IN THE NUMBER OF UNITS.
THE ACTUAL SIZE OF UNITS WILL VARY, THE SIZE OF LOTS, BUT THE TOTAL NUMBER OF LOTS WITHIN FISHHAWK RANCH WOULD NOT CHANGE.
>>PAT FRANK:  OVER WHAT YOU ANTICIPATED BUILDING BECAUSE OF THIS --
>> OVER WHAT WE PREVIOUSLY ANTICIPATED BUILDING BEFORE WE APPLIED FOR THIS CHANGE.
>>PAT FRANK:  OKAY.
NOT WHAT WAS PERMITTED, BUT WHAT YOU ANTICIPATED BUILDING.
THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?
>> IN FACT, THEY'RE BOTH THE SAME.
WE EXPECT WE'RE GOING TO BUILD EVERY PERMITTED UNIT, COMMISSIONER FRANK.
>>PAT FRANK:  OKAY.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE ON THIS ITEM WHO WANTS TO SPEAK?
YES, MA'AM.
IN OPPOSITION?
[ INAUDIBLE ]
>>PAT FRANK:  WELL, JUST COME UP, AND IF YOU DON'T MIND EXPRESSING YOUR VIEW ON THE TAPE.
>> HI.
MY NAME IS NANCY THOMPSON, AND I HAVE SEEN YOU-ALL ON TV, BUT I'VE NEVER BEEN HERE.
>>PAT FRANK:  WELCOME.
>> I LIVE RIGHT ON THE NORTH, SOUTH, AND WEST BOUNDARY LINE OF FISHHAWK.
I'M NOT OPPOSING THEIR -- WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO.
MY QUESTION, AND MY CONCERN IS IN RESPONSE TO SOME OF THE SETBACKS THAT HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED, AND I DON'T KNOW IF NOW IS THE TIME TO ADDRESS THAT OR IF I SHOULD DO IT IN ANOTHER WAY.
>>PAT FRANK:  IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE TO THIS PARTICULAR REQUEST.
>> OKAY.
>>PAT FRANK:  BUT I WOULD SUGGEST THAT --
>> I'LL DO IT ANOTHER TIME IN ANOTHER WAY.
>>PAT FRANK:  WHO CAN SHE SPEAK WITH ON STAFF WHEN WE GET THROUGH HERE.
>>JOE MOREDA:  BRIAN GRADY IS AVAILABLE TO SPEAK TO HER.
HE'S OUR REZONING REVIEW TEAM LEADER.
>> I'M SORRY, THE NAME?
>>JOE MOREDA:  BRIAN GRADY.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>>JAN PLATT:  IF SHE'S CONCERNED -- YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT SETBACKS?
>> YES.
>>JAN PLATT:  SO, SEE, SOME OF THESE LOTS MAY FALL IN THAT CATEGORY, COULDN'T THEY?
>> I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY BUT HIGH REGARDS CONCERNING THE NEW DEVELOPMENT AND FISHHAWK.
WE HAVE ADDRESSED THIS ISSUE PERSONALLY AND WE HAVE COME TO AN AGREEMENT.
I THINK MY CONCERN IS THE BROADER ISSUE, AND -- AND THE DEMANDS THAT HAVE BEEN PLACED UPON THE LAND OWNER THAT ABUTS PARCELS.
FOR INSTANCE, I'M AGRICULTURAL, AND I AM NEXT TO A PDMU, AND SOME OF THE SETBACKS THAT ARE RELATED TO MY PARCEL AND THEIR PARCEL.
>>PAT FRANK:  UH-HUH.
>> THOSE ARE MY CONCERNS.
>>PAT FRANK:  OKAY.
THEN.
>> IT'S A MUCH BROADER ISSUE.
>>PAT FRANK:  I THINK THIS SHOULD BE DISCUSSED WITH STAFF, AND IF YOU CAN -- IF THE STAFF CAN RESPOND TO HER QUESTIONS AND LET THE BOARD MEMBERS KNOW WHAT YOUR RESPONSE IS, MAYBE -- IT MAY BE SOMETHING THAT WE WANT TO BRING BEFORE THE BOARD, IT MAY NOT.
>> OKAY.
THANK YOU.
>>PAT FRANK:  OKAY.
ANYONE ELSE HERE TO SPEAK?
IS THERE A MOTION?
>>CHRIS HART:  MOVE APPROVAL, MADAM CHAIR.
>>PAT FRANK:  RECORD YOUR VOTE.
>> WE NEED A SECOND.
>> SECOND.
>>PAT FRANK:  RECORD YOUR VOTE, PLEASE.
>>RECORDING SECRETARY:  MOTION CARRIED 7-0.
>>JOE MOREDA:  THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA 6-D, PERSONAL APPEARANCE 02-1188.
THE LOCATION OF THE SITE IS ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LUMSDEN ROAD AND KINGS AVENUE.
THIS IS A REQUEST TO EXPAND THE BUILDING ENVELOPE FOR PARCEL "A" ON THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SITE PLAN.
THE ACTUAL BUILDING SIZE WILL REMAIN THE SAME.
THE REASON THE ENVELOPE WHERE THAT BUILDING WILL BE LOCATED NEEDS TO BE EXPANDED IS BECAUSE AN ACCESS POINT HAS BEEN IMPROVED IN AN AREA OF THE SITE THAT REQUIRES THE BUILDING BE SHIFTED, AND THE ENVELOPE RIGHT NOW IS -- IS WITHIN 200 FEET OF A PROPERTY LINE, AND ANY TIME THAT SHIFT OCCURS ON A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SITE PLAN, A PUBLIC HEARING IS REQUIRED FOR THAT TYPE OF AMENDMENT AND THAT'S WHY THIS CASE IS BEFORE YOU.
IT'S ACTUALLY A CHANGE TO THE GRAPHIC, AND NOT A TEXTUAL CHANGE, SO IT'S A LITTLE UNUSUAL IN THAT WAY, BUT NONETHELESS, A PUBLIC HEARING IS REQUIRED.
THERE'S NO SQUARE FOOTAGE INCREASE.
IT'S AN ADJUSTMENT TO THE BUILDING.
THE BUILDING ENVELOPE WILL ACTUALLY MOVE CLOSER TO LUMSDEN ROAD.
>>PAT FRANK:  THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO THIS ITEM?
[ INAUDIBLE ]
>>THOMAS SCOTT:  SECOND.
>>PAT FRANK:  RECORD YOUR VOTE.
>>RONDA STORMS:  I JUST WANT TO KNOW FROM --
[ INAUDIBLE ]
MY PICTURE.
I JUST WONDERED IF SHE WAS THE ONE OR HER CLIENT WAS THE ONES WHO PUT THE HORNS AND THE BEARD THERE.
>>RECORDING SECRETARY:  THE MOTION CARRIED 7-0.
>>PAT FRANK:  I THINK THERE'S ALSO A SIGN ABOUT ME ON THAT LOCATION THAT'S NOT TRUE.
[ LAUGHTER ]
>>PAT FRANK:  STILL THERE.
>>JOE MOREDA:  THE NEXT ITEM IS ITEM 6-E ON THE AGENDA PRS 02-1190.
THIS PARTICULAR TRACT IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF RACE TRACK ROAD ON THE EAST & WEST SIDE OF COUNTRY WAY BOULEVARD.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING AN ADDITIONAL ACCESS POINT TO COUNTRY WAY BOULEVARD.
EXCUSE ME, TO RACE TRACK ROAD.
THERE'S CURRENT ACCESS TO COUNTRY WAY BOULEVARD.
THEY'RE ASKING FOR AN ADDITIONAL POINT TO RACE TRACK ROAD WHICH IS WHY THIS CASE REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING.
OUR TRANSPORTATION REVIEW SECTION HAS REVIEWED THIS, AND THEY FEEL THAT THEY CAN SUPPORT IT.
THEREFORE, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THIS AMENDMENT.
>>PAT FRANK:  THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE ON THIS ITEM IN OPPOSITION TO IT?
IS THERE A MOTION?
>> SO MOVED.
>> SECOND.
>>PAT FRANK:  RECORD YOUR VOTE.
>>RECORDING SECRETARY:  MOTION CARRIED 7-0.
>>JOE MOREDA:  THE NEXT ITEM IS ITEM 6-F, PERSONAL APPEARANCE 02-1191.
THE LOCATION OF THIS TRACT IS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF RACE TRACK ROAD, 800 NORTHEAST OF NINE EAGLES ROAD.
THIS IS A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A REVISION TO THE LOT WITH REQUIREMENT FOR VILLAGE F, A REDUCTION BY 10 FEET, WHICH IS EFFECTIVELY A CHANGE FROM 70 FEET TO 60 FEET, AND ALSO TO RECONFIGURE SOME DEVELOPMENT PARCELS TO ALLOW DIFFERENT SIZE LOTS.
STAFF REVIEWED THE REQUEST AND DOES NOT OBJECT.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS.
FOR THE RECORD, SUE MURPHY, 401 EAST JACKSON STREET HERE ON BEHALF OF TAYLOR-WOODROW COMMUNITIES.
WHAT WE'RE SIMPLY TRYING TO DO IS REDUCE THE LOT WIDTHS BUT NOT THE LOT SIZES AND NOT INCREASE THE NUMBER OF LOTS IN ONE OF THE PODS WITHIN THIS PROJECT.
THE PROJECT IS APPROVED FOR 797 UNITS.
WE ARE NOT INCREASING THAT AT ALL.
THE LOT WIDTHS ARE GOING TO COME DOWN TO MEET A DIFFERENT PRODUCT THAT SEEMS TO BE IN DEMAND THERE.
ALSO THERE WERE WETLAND ISSUES THAT WE WERE TRYING TO AVOID.
BY RECONFIGURING THESE LOTS TO SLIGHTLY NARROWER OR LONGER LOTS, IT MAKES EVERYTHING WORK MUCH BETTER.
THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES -- THE PROPERTY'S SURROUNDING EXTERNALLY BY A CREEK TO THE NORTH, NINE EAGLES ROAD TO THE WEST, AND ON THE OTHER SIDE ARE ZONING DISTRICTS THAT ALLOW 50-FOOT LOTS, SO THIS IS 10 FOOT WIDER THAN THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES ALLOW.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS -- THE OTHER THING THAT WAS DONE WERE THE STAFF CONDITIONS.
THERE WAS A VILLAGE "K" ON THE PLAN APPROVED.
VILLAGE "K" IS NOW AN EXISTING WETLAND POND ALONG RACE TRACK ROAD AND THAT HAS BEEN ELIMINATED AS A VILLAGE WITHIN THE PROJECT.
THAT'S REALLY ALL WE'RE HERE ABOUT TODAY, BUT I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>>PAT FRANK:  THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION TO THIS.
>>JIM NORMAN:  MOVE THE ITEM.
>>CHRIS HART:  SECOND.
>>PAT FRANK:  RECORD YOUR VOTE.
>>RECORDING SECRETARY:  THE MOTION CARRIED 7-0.
>> THANK YOU.
>>JOE MOREDA:  THE NEXT -- ACTUALLY THE NEXT TWO ITEMS ON THE AGENDA, ITEM 7-A-1 AND 7-A-2, DRI NUMBER 140, THE FIRST ISSUE ON THE AGENDA IS THE NOPC, NUMBER 02-882.
MR. JOE INCORVIA OF OUR STAFF IS HERE TO MAKE A BRIEF INTRODUCTION ON THIS ISSUE.
>> JOE INCORVIA WITH PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT.
THE STAFF RECOMMENDS THE PROPOSED CHANGE TAMPA TRIANGLE.
THE IMPACT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION.
A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DEVELOPER IS -- IS HERE, MICHAEL BROOKS.
THIS 121-ACRE DEVELOPMENT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED BY YOU IN 1987.
IT IS LOCATED AT U.S. 301 AND CAUSEWAY BOULEVARD, AS SHOWN IN YOUR PACKAGE ON MAP 2 ON PAGE 9 OF YOUR REPORT.
THE PROJECT IS WITHIN THE I-75 CORRIDOR AND WITH -- WITHIN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CATEGORY, RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE 35.
THE PROJECT CURRENTLY ALLOWS FOR 860,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE USES, AND 240 DWELLING UNITS.
THE PROPOSED CHANGE, THROUGH A TRADEOFF MATRIX WOULD ALLOW FOR A REDUCTION IN OFFICE USES FROM THE 860,000 TO 400,000 SQUARE FEET, AND ALLOW UP TO 380 ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS FOR A TOTAL OF 620.
THE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION, THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS HAVE ALL REVIEWED THE PROPOSED CHANGE AND RECOMMEND -- ARE COMFORTABLE WITH IT.
ITS APPROVAL, OUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS EXPRESSED A CONCERN THIS REVISION, IF DEVELOPED RESIDENTIALLY PERMIT READY LAND FOR QUALITY EMPLOYMENT GENERATING USES.
PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOGNIZE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTS'S CONCERNS, HOWEVER NOTHING HEREIN WITHIN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PRECLUDES THIS USE, AND WE WILL FOLLOW UP AND WORK WITH THEM TO SPECIFICALLY REVIEW THE I-75 CORRIDOR TO DETERMINE IF FURTHER FUTURE INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PROTECTION NEEDS TO BE ESTABLISHED.
>>PAT FRANK:  IS THERE ANYONE HERE ON THIS ITEM?
ANYONE IN OPPOSITION OR WANT TO SPEAK FOR IT.
>> HERE ON BEHALF OF THE DEVELOPER.
SEEING THERE'S NO OPPOSITION, FOR THE RECORD, MIKE BROOKS HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
I WANT TO MAKE ONE CORRECTION.
THE CHANGE THAT'S BEING REQUESTED HERE IS TO ADD MULTIFAMILY USES TO ONE OF THE PARCELS WITHIN THIS PROJECT.
THE DEVELOPMENT IS GOVERNED BY A MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT THRESHOLD TABLE THAT IS ALSO SUBJECT TO A CONVERSION MATRIX.
THERE IS NO REDUCTION IN OFFICE SPACE BEING PROPOSED AS PART OF THIS NOPC.
IT IS SIMPLY A MODIFICATION TO THE MATRIX TABLE ITSELF.
THE MATRIX TABLE IS BASED ON A MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PEAK TRIPS THAT ARE ALLOWED THAT WERE APPROVED BACK IN 1987, THAT HAS BEEN MODIFIED THROUGH A NEW METHODOLOGY THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY STAFF AND BEEN REVIEWED BY ALL OF THE RELEVANT AGENCIES, AND WE'D ASK THAT YOU APPROVE THIS CONSISTENT WITH ALL THE STAFF REPORTS.
>>PAT FRANK:  IS THERE ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC HERE ON THIS ITEM?
>>THOMAS SCOTT:  SECOND.
>>PAT FRANK:  ITEM'S BEEN MOVED.
COMMISSIONER PLATT.
>>JAN PLATT:  ON THESE THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH NOW, WE DON'T GET A DECENT MAP OF WHAT IS BEING SUGGESTED.
THE ONLY THING THAT I'VE GOT IN MY BACKUP IS -- OH, SOMETHING ON PAGE 16, WHICH REALLY ISN'T THAT GREAT, AND I WISH THAT IN THE FUTURE YOU WOULD DO A BETTER MAP, BUT DELANEY CREEK, WHAT IS THE STATUS OF DELANEY CREEK WITH THIS?
WHAT FURTHER IS GOING TO BE DONE ABOUT DESTROYING THAT CREEK?
YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN REALLY UPSET OVER THE YEARS OF WHAT'S HAPPENED TO DELANEY.
WHAT -- WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN WITH DELANEY CREEK WITH THIS CHANGE?
IT RUNS THROUGH THIS PROJECT.
>> COMMISSIONER, I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE ISSUE OF DELANEY CREEK AS IT RELATES TO THIS PARTICULAR SITE, AND --
>>JAN PLATT:  WELL, IT'S IN THE BACKUP.
IT'S EVEN IN THE -- AND THAT'S WHY IT'S HARD FOR ME TO SEE FROM THIS MAP HOW IT'S BEING IMPACTED, BUT I DID NOTICE THAT IN THE STAFF BACKUP --
>> THE BEST MAP IS ON PAGE 9.
IT'S LABELED MAP 2.
>>JAN PLATT:  I'M LOOKING, PAGE 41, PAGE --
PAGE 41, IT SAYS DUE TO THE VOLUME SENSITIVE NATURE OF DELANEY CREEK, NEW DEVELOPMENT IN THE DELANEY CREEK WATERSHED MUST SATISFY HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY SWFWMD REQUIREMENTS.
ONLY A PORTION OF THE SITE IS WITHIN THE DELANEY CREEK WATERSHED AREA.
WHAT PAGE IS THAT?
[ INAUDIBLE ]
>>JAN PLATT:  OKAY.
SO HOW -- TELL ME ABOUT DELANEY CREEK AND THIS SITE AND WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED.
AND WILL THIS HAVE ANY IMPACT?
AND IF SO, WHAT?
>> ARE WE ON?
COMMISSIONER PLATT, WE HAVE AN OVERHEAD MAP HERE TO BETTER DESCRIBE THE AREA THAT'S BEING PROPOSED FOR THE CHANGE.
DOWN IN HERE, YOU CAN SEE --
>>JAN PLATT:  WAIT, WAIT, WAIT.
THAT'S NOT UP ON THIS YET.
>> IT'S UP NOW.
THIS IS THE TAMPA TRIANGLE PROJECT THAT YOU SEE HERE ON THIS MAP.
THE DEVELOPER HAS CONSTRUCTED, AS PART OF THE PIPELINE TRANSPORTATION REQUIREMENTS HERE, FALKENBURG ROAD EXTENSION, AS IT COMES AROUND TO U.S. 301, ROUGHLY 4.5 MILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF IMPROVEMENTS.
YOU ALSO CAN SEE THE RETENTION IN THE DRAINAGE AREAS HAVE ALREADY BEEN APPROVED WITH SWFWMD AND LOCAL NACP, SO ALL OF THE DRAINAGE ISSUES HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED AS PART OF THE PREDEVELOPMENT STAGE OF THIS PROJECT.
THE PARCEL IN QUESTION IS PARCEL "E" WHICH SITS RIGHT DOWN HERE IN THE ELBOW.
PRIOR TO THIS NOPC WAS APPROVED FOR BUSINESS, RETAIL, OFFICE, AND SERVICE AND DISTRIBUTION USES.
THE ONLY CHANGE WE'RE MAKING IS ADDING MULTIFAMILY TO THAT PARCEL.
>>JAN PLATT:  DOES STAFF HAVE AN ANSWER TO MY QUESTION OR DID YOU JUST PUT ALL THIS WRITING IN HERE FOR NAUGHT.
I'M READING FROM YOUR LANGUAGE.
>>JOE MOREDA:  COMMISSIONER PLATT, OUR ITEM IS NEXT WHICH IS THE ACTUAL MAJOR MODIFICATION THAT -- THAT, YOU KNOW, OUR -- I GUESS, DIVISION REVIEWED, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING OF THIS ISSUE IS IT'S JUST SIMPLY TO ALLOW A CONVERSION IN LAND USES, THAT ANY REGULATIONS HAVING TO DO WITH ANY ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OR ANY TYPE OF PERMITS, NONE OF THAT IS CHANGING, SO IT JUST BROADENS THE USE LIST IN TERMS OF ALLOWING FOR RESIDENTIAL USE IN A PARTICULAR TRACT, BUT IT WOULDN'T DIMINISH ANY KIND OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW THAT'S ALREADY BEEN APPROVED.
>>JAN PLATT:  WELL, WOULD THIS USE HAVE A GREATER IMPACT OR A LESSER IMPACT?
>> GREATER.
>>JAN PLATT:  STAFF?
ON THE WATERSHED.
I'M JUST PICKING UP ON WHAT'S IN THE BACKUP.
>>JOE MOREDA:  THE QUESTION IS INTERESTING, BUT IT WOULD APPEAR TO ME THAT WHETHER IT'S COMMERCIAL, MANUFACTURING, OR RESIDENTIAL, THAT WHEN IT GOES THROUGH THE PERMITTING PROCESS, IF THE TECHNICAL REVIEWS ARE HANDLED THE WAY THEY'RE DESIGNED TO BE HANDLED, AND ALL THE REVIEW AGENCIES ARE INVOLVED IN THAT, THAT THEY WOULD HAVE EQUAL IMPACT IF THE PROJECT IS DESIGNED PURSUANT TO THOSE REGULATIONS.
I DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S ANY SPECIFIC REGULATIONS IN THE D.O. OR IN THE ZONING THAT WOULD -- THAT ARE CRAFTED SPECIFICALLY TO DELANEY CREEK, BUT MR. INCORVIA WOULD HAVE TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS RELATED TO THE DO, BUT I KNOW IN ZONING NO REGULATIONS HAVE BEEN CHANGED EXCEPT FOR TO ALLOW MULTIFAMILY IN A SPECIFIC TRACT.
>> COMMISSIONERS, LET ME OFFER A PERSPECTIVE ON THIS AND SEE IF IT FITS.
I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THE EXPERTS HERE FROM EPC TO TALK ABOUT THIS.
THEIR COMMENTS WERE THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY CONCERNS, AND THE QUESTION REALLY, IS BEST ANSWERED WHEN YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC DESIGN, AND SO I'M GOING TO REFER TO -- I WOULD THINK IT'S RELATED TO A COUPLE THINGS, HOW MUCH IMPERVIOUS SURFACE DO YOU HAVE FOR COMMERCIAL VERSUS A RESIDENTIAL, AND I CAN'T JUST BLANKET SAY THAT A RESIDENTIAL IS LESS, BUT INTUITIVELY, I WOULD SAY THAT YOU GENERALLY HAVE YARD AROUND A RESIDENTIAL WHICH WOULD ABSORB RUNOFF DIFFERENTLY THAN A LARGE PARKING LOT FOR A BUSINESS OR SOMETHING, BUT IN EITHER CASE, THE WATER -- THE DESIGN, THE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS WILL HAVE TO SEPARATE THAT RUNOFF WATER AND TREAT IT PRIOR -- THE DESIGN OF THE LAYOUT PRIOR TO IT ENTERING ANY NATURAL WATERWAYS IF THAT'S PART OF THE DESIGN, AND I'VE JUST EXTENDED MY EXPERTISE IN THIS AREA AS FAR AS IT GOES, SO --
>>JAN PLATT:  THANK YOU.
>>RONDA STORMS:  MADAM CHAIR.
>>PAT FRANK:  YES, GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER.
>>RONDA STORMS:  WELL, I THINK IT'S MORE ACCURATE TO SAY THAT EPC DIDN'T RAISE ANY OBJECTIONS, BUT THEY LISTED A NUMBER OF CONCERNS, SO -- SO IT'S NOT THAT THE EPC DIDN'T HAVE ANY CONCERNS BECAUSE I, YOU KNOW, SEE QUITE A FEW INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS THAT THEY MADE, AND I WOULD COUNT THOSE AS CONCERNS.
BUT I WOULD JUST CALL THE BOARD'S ATTENTION TO THE PROJECTS, REMEMBERING JUST A -- WELL, LET ME JUST SET ALL THAT ASIDE BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO GIVE COUNSEL HEARTBURN, BUT THIS IS AN AREA -- THIS -- THERE IS NO RECLAIMED WATER AVAILABLE TO THIS PARTICULAR AREA, AND WE ARE GOING FROM COMMERCIAL USAGE TO MORE INTENSE, I CONSIDER MULTIFAMILY IN AN AREA FOLKS WANT TO REMEMBER WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ALL DOWN THAT LUMSDEN CORRIDOR IS BECOMING AN APARTMENT ROW HOUSING AND WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DOING IS ADDING ADDITIONAL MULTIFAMILY FROM SOMETHING THAT WAS SLATED TO BE DEVELOPMENT.
I WOULD NOT SUPPORT THAT FROM A PERSPECTIVE OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CONCERNS, BUT ALSO FROM THE MULTIFAMILY CONCERNS.
I THINK IT'S A REGRESSIVE STEP.
I DON'T CONSIDER IT A ONE-FOR-ONE, AND I CONSIDER IT TO BE MORE INTENSIVE THAN -- THAN THE COMMERCIAL MANUFACTURING PERMITTED USE THAT WOULD BE THERE NOW.
I ALSO THINK THAT IT WOULD HAVE A GREATER IMPACT ON THAT DELANEY CREEK AREA THAN -- THAN WOULD A MANUFACTURING.
SOMEWHERE BELOW IT -- CERTAINLY IT'S NOT -- ANYWAY, THAT'S WHAT MY PERSPECTIVE IS, SO I'M JUST STATING I CAN'T SUPPORT ADDING -- TAKING OUT AND ADDING ADDITIONAL MULTIFAMILY HOUSING THERE.
THAT -- THAT PARTICULAR AREA -- WELL, I'M GOING TO JUST STOP THERE, AND -- WE DENIED FALKENBURG MODIFICATION.
DOWN THERE WHERE THE -- IF FOLKS CAN REMEMBER, IF YOU KNOW WHERE CELEBRATION STATION IS, THEY WANTED TO COME IN AND ADD AN APARTMENT -- SOME MORE MULTIFAMILY THERE, AND WE DENIED IT THERE, AND THAT'S JUST RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER FROM THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION.
AND I WOULD JUST ENCOURAGE THE BOARD NOT TO SUPPORT ADDITIONAL MULTIFAMILY, BUT TO PROTECT THE INITIATIVES THAT WE HAVE TRIED TO DO ALONG THE I-75 CORRIDOR, WHICH IS THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES FOR DRI.
AND I THINK THAT'S A BETTER STANDARD FOR US TO GO TO.
>> I JUST WANTED TO REMIND THE BOARD, COMMISSIONERS, THAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY VOTING ON TWO ITEMS TODAY.
FIRST ONE IS WHETHER THIS IS A SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION FROM THE DRI.
AND THERE IS A SPECIFIC FINDING THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO MAKE IF YOU WANTED TO FIND IT WAS A SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION.
I COULD ASK SUSAN FERNANDEZ TO DO THAT.
THE OTHER IS THE MAJOR MODIFICATION THAT'S NEXT WHETHER TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL ON THAT SITE.
THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE VOTES, AND IF YOU NEED TO BE REMINDED OF WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT NOW --
>>PAT FRANK:  TELL US WHAT THE STANDARD IS.
>>JIM PORTER:  IF I COULD ASK SUSAN FERNANDEZ TO COME UP AND ASK WHAT YOU'RE VOTING ON 7-A-1 ON THE SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION PART OF IT.
>> IT'S DETERMINED ON WHETHER THERE ARE NEW REGIONAL IMPACTS OR ADDITIONAL REGIONAL IMPACTS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN ADDRESSED IN THIS ORDER, AND THE GUIDELINES ARE SET FORTH IN THE STATUTE AND THEY'RE FAIRLY BRIGHT LINE.
THEY'RE BASED ON DENSITY OR INTENSITY IF THEY WANT TO INCREASE, FOR EXAMPLE, A CERTAIN AMOUNT.
THERE'S A POINT WHERE IT WILL BE CONSIDERED ENOUGH TO TRIGGER FURTHER DRI REVIEW.
SO THAT'S THE INITIAL QUESTION.
THE PARTICULAR -- THIS PARTICULAR REQUEST HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND DETERMINED THAT IT DOESN'T TRIGGER ANY OF THOSE THRESHOLDS AND THEREFORE THE STATUTE BEING APPLIED TO IT, IT IS NOT A SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION.
>>PAT FRANK:  WHAT IS THE -- THE FLEXIBILITY THEY HAVE IN PARCEL "E" IN TERMS OF CREATING MULTIFAMILY?
COULD THEY HAVE MULTIFAMILY IN THE ENTIRE PARCEL?
>> I THINK JOHN HEALY WOULD BE THE BEST PERSON TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THE TRADE-OUT MATRIX.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS.
JOHN HEALY, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT.
IF I MIGHT SAY, COMMISSIONER PLATT, YOU WERE READING FROM AN AMENDED AND RESTATED DEVELOPMENT ORDER.
IT'S A DEVELOPMENT ORDER THAT HAS BEEN IN EFFECT FOR SOME TIME, AND THAT PROVISION WAS ADOPTED WHEN THE PROJECT WAS FIRST INITIATED.
I CERTAINLY BELIEVE THAT THE PERMITTING PROCESS WOULD HAVE ADDRESSED ANY ISSUES ABOUT STORMWATER RUNOFF, BOTH VOLUME AND IN QUALITY ON THAT SITE.
STANDARDS OF WHICH THEY WOULD STILL BE SUBJECT TO TODAY.
THAT PARTICULAR PROVISION IS NOT MEANT TO BE CHANGED.
THE APPLICANT HAS NOT MEANT TO CHANGE THAT AT ALL.
WITH REGARD TO ALLOWING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THAT SUBJECT PARCEL THERE THERE IS A MATRIX WHICH ESSENTIALLY ESTABLISHES A TRADEOFF, HOW MUCH YOU HAVE TO GIVE OF ONE USE FOR ANOTHER USE.
HOW MUCH RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT COULD GO ON THAT SPECIFIC PARCEL WOULD BE VARIABLE, AND IT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO ZONING STANDARDS TO ENSURE --
>>PAT FRANK:  BUT THE POSSIBILITY IS IT COULD BE ENTIRELY MULTIFAMILY?
>> IT COULD BE, YES, MA'AM.
>>PAT FRANK:  OKAY.
NOW, HERE'S MY OBJECTION TO IT.
EXCUSE ME.
GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER.
>>JAN PLATT:  WELL, I'D LIKE TO ASK STAFF TO WHAT EXTENT CAN WE TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE MEMO THAT WE HAVE IN THE BACKUP FROM BRUCE REGISTER REGARDING THE CONCERNS THAT OUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS EXPRESSED?
CAN WE TAKE THOSE INTO CONSIDERATION?
THEY RECOMMEND THAT THE DRI SQUARE FOOTAGE APPROVED FOR OFFICE USE NOT BE REDUCED AND RESIDENTIAL USES NOT BE ALLOWED WITHIN PARCEL "E."
>>RONDA STORMS:  UNDER A-2 MAYBE.
BUT NOT UNDER A-1.
>> AS SUSAN POINTED OUT, YOU'RE ON THE PART ABOUT WHETHER WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED IS GOING TO CREATE ADDITIONAL REGIONAL IMPACTS AND IT'S STATUTORILY DRIVEN.
YOU HAVE THE ABILITY, WHEN YOU CONSIDER A-2, WHICH IS A MAJOR MODIFICATION, TO CONSIDER IT JUST LIKE YOU WOULD CONSIDER ANY OTHER MAJOR MODIFICATION AND WEIGH THOSE THINGS THAT YOU NORMALLY WEIGH AND VOTE IT UP OR DOWN, BUT --
>>RONDA STORMS:  CAN WE USE THAT IN THE SECOND ONE?
>>JIM PORTER:  WELL, IF IT WAS PART OF THE RECORD, I COULD SEE WHETHER IT WAS INTRODUCED AS PART OF THE RECORD.
>>RONDA STORMS:  IT IS PART OF THE RECORD.
>>JIM PORTER:  YOU NEED TO SEE WHETHER THAT'S RELEVANT OR NOT TO A LAND USE CONSIDERATION.
THAT'S THE DETERMINATION THAT YOU MAKE.
>>JAN PLATT:  WELL, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, IN MY BACKUP, THAT IS IN THE ONE PART.
>>JIM PORTER:  I KNOW.
>>JAN PLATT:  IT'S ALL COMBINED, SO THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING THESE QUESTIONS.
IT'S NOT DIVIDED.
STAFF DIDN'T DIVIDE WHAT WE -- SO I'M JUST TAKING IT ALL AS THE FIRST ONE.
AND I GUESS FROM A REGIONAL IMPACT -- I MEAN, I REMEMBER WHEN THIS WAS APPROVED IN THE FIRST PLACE AND THERE WAS GREAT CONSTERNATION BECAUSE OF THE LOCATION WITH I-75, 301 AND CAUSEWAY.
HAVE THE TRAFFIC PEOPLE LOOKED AT THIS IF THIS -- I MEAN, YOU CAN'T TELL ME THAT IF WE JUST SAY, OKAY, IT'S ALL GOING TO BE MULTIFAMILY, THAT THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE A MAJOR CHANGE IN THE -- IN THE TRANSPORTATION ISSUES.
>> COMMISSIONER PLATT.
I'M SORRY.
>>JAN PLATT:  THAT'S FROM -- LET ME JUST ASK OUR STAFF, DID YOU LOOK AT THE TRANSPORTATION?
BECAUSE LOOK AT WHAT THIS ABUTS?
>>RONDA STORMS:  MADAM CHAIR, I HAVE A POINT OF -- JUST A PROCEDURAL QUESTION, BECAUSE MAYBE WE SHOULD DEAL WITH 7- -- 7-A FIRST.
I'LL MOVE THAT WE FIND IN KEEPING WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR 7A-1.
WE'LL GET TO A-2.
WHAT I UNDERSTAND FROM COUNSEL IS THAT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS FIRST QUESTION BEFORE WE CAN TALK ABOUT ALL THIS OTHER STUFF.
>>PAT FRANK:  MY ONLY CONCERN IS THAT I THINK IT IS A SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION.
>>RONDA STORMS:  OKAY.
>>PAT FRANK:  SO I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THE SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION BECAUSE I AM CONCERNED, AND THE TRAFFIC IS MY CONCERN THERE BECAUSE IF YOU REMEMBER -- DO YOU REMEMBER THE DEVELOPMENT ACROSS 301 THAT WE HAD WHERE THE RESIDENTS WERE VERY UPSET BECAUSE WE HAD A TRUCK ROUTE THAT WENT THROUGH THEIR AREA?
AND WE SAID THAT WAS A DESIGNATED TRUCK ROUTE.
IT WAS FALKENBURG ROAD THAT RAN FROM SOUTH COUNTY, WENT UP THROUGH THERE, CROSSED OVER 301, WENT THROUGH -- WENT RIGHT HERE SO YOU CAN SEE WHERE IT PICKS UP HERE.
YOU CAN SEE WHERE FALKENBURG PICKS UP ON THE SOUTHERN PART OF PARCEL "E," AND THEN GOES UP TO CAUSEWAY BOULEVARD OR CONNECTS WITH INTERSTATE 75.
NOW, HERE'S MY CONCERN.
THE IMPACT OF A MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT THAT COULD BE THE WHOLE TRACT OF LAND THERE WHERE YOU HAVE A TRUCK ROUTE, AND YOU HAVE TRAFFIC, THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT IS GOING TO BE SUBSTANTIAL.
>> COMMISSIONERS, REGARDING THE QUESTION ON THE CHANGE IN TRAFFIC LEVELS, THE MATRIX THAT IS SET UP HAS A TOTAL NUMBER OF TRIPS ALLOWED THAT IS UNDER THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER; IS THAT CORRECT?
I WAS LOOKING FOR SOME REINFORCEMENT OF THAT.
AND THE TRADEOFF EQUATES THE LAND USES TO NUMBERS OF TRIPS, SO THAT -- THE UPSET TOTAL OF THAT WON'T CHANGE, BUT I THINK COMMISSIONER FRANK'S CONCERN ABOUT WHAT YOU END UP WITH POSSIBLY IS YOUR MIX OF TRAFFIC OF RESIDENTIAL -- PEOPLE THAT ARE FAMILIES AND SO ON WITH TRUCKS, YOU KNOW, THAT OCCURS A LOT OF PLACES IN THE COUNTY, BUT THAT IN TERMS OF POINT OF ORIGIN, IF THERE'S MULTIPLE USES WITH RESIDENTIAL ADDED, THAT CERTAINLY IS SOMETHING THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN IF IT WAS ALL COMMERCIAL OR ALL INDUSTRIAL.
>>PAT FRANK:  WE DON'T HAVE TO CREATE THE PROBLEM.
>> JOHN HEALY, PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT.
WITH RESPECT TO THE REVIEW OF THE TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS, WE DO DISTRIBUTE THIS TO OUR TRANSPORTATION PLANNING DIVISION FOR REVIEW, AND THE PURPOSES OF THE TRADEOFF MATRIX IS TO ENSURE THAT IF YOU INCREASE ONE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT, YOU DECREASE ANOTHER TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT SO THAT THE APPROVED TRIPS ARE NOT INCREASED.
SO THE NET RESULT OF ANY CHANGES IN THE DEVELOPMENT, BE THEY COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WILL BE THAT THE PROJECT WILL NOT PUT OUT MORE TRIPS THAN IT IS ALREADY APPROVED FOR.
>>PAT FRANK:  BUT YOU'RE -- YOU'RE MISSING THE POINT THAT TRUCK TRAFFIC AND PEDESTRIAN USE AND SINGLE-FAMILY, YOU KNOW, TRANSPORTATION IN A MULTIFAMILY PARCEL THAT'S RIGHT AT -- RIGHT ON THIS ROAD IS -- IS A TREMENDOUS IMPACT.
IT'S GOING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE TO THOSE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE, IF THEY DECIDE TO LIVE THERE.
I DON'T -- I DON'T SEE HOW THAT CAN'T BE CONSIDERED BECAUSE A TRUCK AND A CAR ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
>> I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT, COMMISSIONER.
I WAS MERELY DESCRIBING OUR TRANSPORTATION REVIEW, AND IT DEALS WITH THE NUMBER OF TRIPS THAT ARE GENERATED.
>>PAT FRANK:  COMMISSIONER STORMS.
>>RONDA STORMS:  MAY I ASK SUE TO COME UP AND ENUMERATE SPECIFICALLY WHAT WE COULD CONSIDER FOR WHETHER OR NOT IT'S A SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION?
BECAUSE INTUITIVELY, IT APPEARS JUST FROM AN INTUITIVE STANDPOINT, IT APPEARS TO BE A SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION.
SO I GUESS I JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT CRITERIA WAS USED BECAUSE WHEN YOU PUT THINGS ON PAPER, JUST -- YOU'RE UP THERE IN THE COURTHOUSE AND UP THERE DOING LEGAL STUFF AND SOMETIMES WE'RE DOWN HERE DOING CONSTITUENT STUFF AND THE TWO DON'T SEEM TO MINGLE, SO WHAT PEOPLE TELL US AND THE EXPERTS TELL US WHAT WILL BE ON PAPER AND WHAT ACTUALLY OCCURS -- AND BY NOW WE'VE BEEN HERE -- ALL OF US HAVE BEEN HERE LONG ENOUGH TO SEE EXPERTS TELL US OH, THAT WILL BE FINE, IT WILL BE OKAY, AND MEANWHILE, THE CONSTITUENTS HAVE TO DEAL WITH WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN OKAY AND WAS NOT GOING TO BE ANY PROBLEM.
SO I JUST WONDER, WHAT IS THE CRITERIA, WHAT'S THE SPECIFIC CRITERIA AND HOW IS THIS MATRIX CALCULATED AND ET CETERA.
WHAT KIND OF INFORMATION?
WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
>> WELL, THE QUESTION OF WHETHER IT IS OR NOT A SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION REQUIRES A LOOK AT ALL OF THE LAUNDRY LIST OF GUIDELINES THAT ARE IN THE STATUTE.
IT WILL HAVE, FOR EXAMPLE, THINGS THAT SAY, ADDING X AMOUNT OF ACREAGE OR MORE, YOU KNOW, ADDING X AMOUNT OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS OR MORE.
THOSE THINGS HAVE BEEN DETERMINED TO BE SIZABLE ENOUGH THAT THEY TRIGGER THE NEED FOR FURTHER DRI REVIEW.
AND YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT IN CONTEXT OF THE EXISTING ORDER AND WHAT DOES IT ALLOW AND WHAT KIND OF A REVIEW WAS DONE WHEN THAT INITIAL ORDER WAS ADOPTED.
SO IF THERE ARE NEW REGIONAL IMPACTS OR REGIONAL IMPACTS THAT WERE NOT PREVIOUSLY ADDRESSED, AND YOU TRIGGER ONE OF THOSE THRESHOLDS IN THE STATUTE, THEN YOU WORK -- YOU BECOME A SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION AND GO THROUGH THE WHOLE DRI REVIEW AGAIN.
MOST CHANGES THAT COME BEFORE YOU ARE NOT OF THAT CALIBER.
WE'VE ONLY HAD MAYBE TWO IN THE LAST FOUR YEARS THAT WERE --
>>RONDA STORMS:  OKAY.
MY NEXT QUESTION IS IF WE FIND THAT THIS IS NOT A SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION, IS IT THEN AN IF THEN STATEMENT THAT WE MUST FIND IN SUPPORT OF THE ZONING MODIFICATION?
>> NO.
>>RONDA STORMS:  SO IF WE FIND THAT THIS IS NOT A MAJOR MODIFICATION, I CAN STILL VOTE AGAINST IT BECAUSE OF ALL OF MY OTHER OBJECTIONS AS -- AS THE MAJOR MODIFICATION?
>> THE TYPE OF ISSUES THAT YOU-ALL ARE TALKING ABOUT ARE REALLY MORE LAND USE-RELATED, MORE PLANNING-RELATED TYPE ISSUES.
>>RONDA STORMS:  THAT GOES TO THE MAJOR MODIFICATION.
>> IT DOES.
IT'S A MORE IMPACT-BASED REVIEW.
IT LOOKS AT HOW MANY TRIPS PER DAY WILL THIS PARTICULAR USE GENERATE AND YOU GET A VESTED STATUS AS TO THOSE TRIPS AND THOSE USES.
IF YOU CHANGE IT IN SUCH A WAY THAT DOESN'T UPSET THAT, THAT BASICALLY LEAVES IT INTACT.
FROM A REGIONAL STANDPOINT, THERE'S NOT MUCH OF A BASIS TO DENY THE THING.
THE FIRST DECISION YOU'LL MAKE TODAY IS WHETHER IT IS OR ISN'T A SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION.
YOU THEN GO ON TO THE SECOND PART, AND THAT IS DO YOU APPROVE OR DENY THE REQUEST.
AND IT SOUNDS LIKE WHERE YOU ARE HEADED YOU'RE NOT HAPPY WITH THE REQUEST, BUT YOUR ISSUES ARE MORE LOCALLY BASED, SO THEY'RE BETTER DISCUSSED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE REZONING, BUT IF YOU MAKE A DECISION TO DENY THE REZONING FOR ALL THE USUAL COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE REASONS, OF COURSE, YOU WOULD NOT ADOPT THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER AND MAKE THAT CHANGE WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER, EVEN THOUGH YOU'VE DECIDED IT'S NOT A SUBSTANTIAL DEVIATION.
>>RONDA STORMS:  OKAY.
>>JIM PORTER:  OKAY.
MR. MOREDA HAS A --
>>PAT FRANK:  MR. MOREDA.
>> FROM WHAT I'M HEARING IS THERE ARE A LOT OF IMPACTS ON DELANEY CREEK.
AT THIS POINT MY QUESTION WOULD BE TO CONTINUE THE ITEM AND BRING APPROPRIATE STAFF BACK IN TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS INSTEAD OF KEEP MOVING FORWARD AND GRASPING.
I MEAN THAT WOULD BE MY SUGGESTION.
WE CAN BRING IN SPECIFIC STAFF TO DEAL WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES, DEAL WITH TRANSPORTATION ISSUES.
TELL YOU HOW THE MULTIFAMILY'S GOING TO AFFECT THE ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORTATION OR WHATEVER ELSE IS OUT THERE THAT WE NEED SPECIFIC ANSWERS FOR.
>>JIM NORMAN:  MOVE TO CONTINUE.
>>JAN PLATT:  SECOND.
>>PAT FRANK:  I DON'T KNOW WHY WE'D ASK TO CONTINUE.
I'M NOT GRASPING FOR ANYTHING.
I KNOW WHERE THE AREA IS AND I DON'T AGREE WITH IT.
>>JOE MOREDA:  WE'LL HAVE OUR EXPERTS AVAILABLE FOR EACH OF THOSE QUESTIONS.
>>PAT FRANK:  WHETHER DELANEY CREEK IS AFFECTED OR NOT DOESN'T CHANGE MY OPINION.
>>STACEY EASTERLING:  WHEN'S THE CONTINUANCE FOR, TO THE NEXT DAY OR NEXT LAND USE?
>>JOE MOREDA:  NEXT LAND USE WOULD BE MY SUGGESTION.
>>RONDA STORMS:  WHEN'S THE NEXT LAND USE.
>>JOE MOREDA:  OCTOBER 8th.
>>RONDA STORMS:  NO, BECAUSE I WILL BE OUT OF TOWN ON OCTOBER 8th, AND I WANT TO BE HERE.
>> WE CAN MOVE TO THE NEXT DATE.
>>RONDA STORMS:  WHEN'S THE NEXT AVAILABLE DAY AFTER THAT?
>>JOE MOREDA:  OCTOBER 22nd WOULD BE THE NEXT AVAILABLE DATE.
>>RONDA STORMS:  OKAY.
>>PAT FRANK:  RECORD YOUR VOTES.
>>JIM NORMAN:  MOVE TO OCTOBER 22nd.
PLATT AND HAVE THESE TWO SEPARATED.
IN MY BOOK, THEY'RE TOGETHER, SO I DON'T -- I --
>>PAT FRANK:  OKAY.
A-1, 7-A-1 AND A-2 ARE DEFERRED TO OCTOBER 28th.
22nd.
EXCUSE ME.
>>RECORDING SECRETARY:  MOTION CARRIED 6-1.
COMMISSIONER FRANK VOTED NO.
>>JOE MOREDA:  THAT WOULD BRING US TO THE ITEM HAVING TO DO WITH -- SINCE WE HAVE TIME, IF IT'S YOUR DESIRE TO DEAL WITH THE RESOLUTION ON THE WATER SERVICE, THE FLORIDA WATER SERVICE RESOLUTION.
>>PAT FRANK:  UH-HUH.
>>JIM NORMAN:  WE'VE ALL READ IT, BELIEVE ME.
>>THOMAS SCOTT:  I GO AHEAD AND MOVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION --
>>JIM NORMAN:  SECOND.
>>THOMAS SCOTT:  ON THIS FLORIDA WATER SERVICE.
>> SECOND.
>>PAT FRANK:  ANY DISCUSSION?
RECORD YOUR VOTE.
>>RONDA STORMS:  SEE HOW EFFICIENT YOU ARE?
>>THOMAS SCOTT:  I'M GLAD THEY'RE ON TOP OF IT.
I MEAN --
[ INAUDIBLE ]
>>RECORDING SECRETARY:  MADAM CHAIRMAN.
FRANK FRANK I VOTED.
>>RECORDING SECRETARY:  I'M SORRY.
THE VOTING SYSTEM IS HUNG UP.
ARE THERE ANY VOTES IN OPPOSITION?
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO ORAL VOTES, SO --
>>PAT FRANK:  ALL IN FAVOR.
>>RECORDING SECRETARY:  MOTION CARRIED 7-0.
>>PAT FRANK:  HOW DID MILTON END UP WITH ALL THIS CAPITAL TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT?
>>THOMAS SCOTT:  WHO IS MILTON?
>>PAT FRANK:  MILTON IS NORTH FLORIDA.
>> THEY'RE ADJOINING CITIES.
ONE MAY BE IN ESCAMBIA AND THE OTHER IN ROSA COUNTY.
>>PAT FRANK:  WHERE DID THEY GET ALL THAT MONEY BECAUSE IT IS ESCAMBIA COUNTY.
>>DAN KLEMAN:  EVERY INDICATION THAT WE HAVE IS IT'S AN EFFORT AT MUNICIPAL CREATIVITY REALLY AS A PROFIT-MAKING ENDEAVOR FOR THOSE TWO CITIES.
ALSO IT IS IN SOME WAY LINKED TO FORMER FLORIDA WATER COMPANY EXECUTIVES WHO'S BEEN -- WHO HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THOSE DISCUSSIONS.
>>THOMAS SCOTT:  I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THEY CAN BUY THIS THAT WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO BUY FOR THE LAST FOUR YEARS AND MAYBE LONGER.
>>PAT FRANK:  THERE'S SOMETHING VERY STRANGE ABOUT THIS.
VERY STRANGE.
>>DAN KLEMAN:  WILLING SELLER.
[ INAUDIBLE ]
>>PAT FRANK:  WHERE -- WHERE'D THEY GET THE MONEY FROM?
>> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
>>PAT FRANK:  THEY HAVE THE BORROWING ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT?
[ INAUDIBLE ]
>>PAT FRANK:  I THINK THIS OUGHT TO BE REALLY CHECKED INTO.
I REALLY WONDER ABOUT THIS, AND WHAT'S THE STAFF DOING ON LOOKING TO SEE HOW -- WHAT THE BACKGROUND IS?
>>DAN KLEMAN:  WE ARE ATTEMPTING TO LEARN EVERYTHING WE CAN ABOUT IT AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN.
MIKE McWEENY WHO IS THE GUY WHO PROBABLY KNOWS THE MOST ABOUT IT ON STAFF IS AT THE SWFWMD MEETING AND IS EXPECTED BACK SOMETIME THIS AFTERNOON, BUT WE WILL CONTINUE TO INFORM THE BOARD AND WILL CONTINUE TO INVESTIGATE THE INITIATIVE AND SHARE WITH YOU EVERYTHING WE LEARN.
>>PAT FRANK:  OKAY.
>>DAN KLEMAN:  AND CONTINUE TO OPPOSE IT AS YOU'VE JUST AUTHORIZED IN YOUR RESOLUTION.
>>PAT FRANK:  WELL, HOPEFULLY THEY'RE NOT GETTING ANY FEDERAL OR STATE MONIES TO DO THIS.
IF SO, WE NEED TO KNOW ABOUT IT VERY QUICKLY.
[ INAUDIBLE ]
>>JIM NORMAN:  HE'S GOING TO BE WORKING GANDY TOO HARD.
BRIDGE OVER THE --
>>PAT FRANK:  WE HAVE ONE MORE ITEM ON THE AGENDA THEN.
>>JIM NORMAN:  AND I SEE MS. BOLEMAN IN THE AUDIENCE NOW.
YOU WOULDN'T MIND?
YOU'D LIKE THAT, WOULDN'T YOU.
WE HEARD YOU WERE FEELING BAD.
[ INAUDIBLE ]
>>JIM NORMAN:  HOPE YOU DIDN'T BRING US ANYTHING.
[ LAUGHTER ]
>> ARE YOU READY FOR ME?
>>PAT FRANK:  YES.
>>JOE MOREDA:  WE'RE WAITING ON STAFF FROM REAL ESTATE AND PUBLIC WORKS, AND WE CALLED THEM AND TOLD THEM THAT WE'RE RUNNING A LITTLE BIT EARLY, SO THEY'RE ON THE WAY.
>>THOMAS SCOTT:  THE HURRICANE WAS HEADED TOWARD LOUISIANA THE LAST I HEARD.
[ INAUDIBLE ]
>>THOMAS SCOTT:  THAT'S WHAT I HEARD EARLIER.
TOWARDS LOUISIANA.
[ LAUGHTER ]
[ INAUDIBLE ]
>>THOMAS SCOTT:  NOT TODAY.
>>PAT FRANK:  HOW LONG IS STAFF GOING TO TAKE?
>>JOE MOREDA:  WE CAN GO AHEAD AND MOVE FORWARD WITH JUST THE INITIAL PRESENTATION, BUT BOB GORDON'S A MAJOR PART OF THAT, AND HE'S SUPPOSED TO BE HERE AT 3:00, SO --
>>PAT FRANK:  DO YOU WANT US TO RECESS UNTIL 3:00?
[ INAUDIBLE ]
>>JOE MOREDA:  WE CALLED.
>>RONDA STORMS:  HE CAN'T BE HERE ANY FASTER?
>>JOE MOREDA:  HE'S ON HIS WAY.
THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING?
>>RONDA STORMS:  FROM WHERE?
>>JOE MOREDA:  FROM UPSTAIRS.
>> RONDA HOW OLD IS YOUR BABY NOW?
>>RONDA STORMS:  SHE'S THREE YEARS OLD.
>>PAT FRANK:  LET'S STAND IN FORMAL RECESS.
[ RECESS TAKEN ]
>>PAT FRANK:  THE BOARD IS NOW RECONVENED, AND WE'RE ON THE FINAL ITEM ON THE AGENDA.
>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS.
THE FINAL ITEM FOR THE DAY IS A STATUS REPORT THAT THE BOARD ASKED FOR ON JUNE 11th.
THE BOARD ASKED FOR A REPORT ON THE STATUS OF THE HIXON ROAD REALIGNMENT ISSUE, AND ALSO ON THE CONDITIONS OF ZONING IMPLEMENTATION QUESTION.
I HAVE SEVERAL STAFF PEOPLE HERE TO SPEAK.
WE HAVE PEGGY HAMRICK FROM REAL ESTATE TO SPEAK TO THE HIXON ROAD ISSUE, AS WELL AS BOB GORDON FROM DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, AND OBVIOUSLY I'M HERE FROM ZONING TO SPEAK TO THE IMPLEMENTATION QUESTION.
I THINK I'LL GO AHEAD AND GO INTO THE ZONING QUESTION FIRST SINCE WE HAVE THE MAPS IN FRONT OF YOU, AND WE CAN GO AHEAD AND DISCUSS THE ISSUES AS WE KNOW THEM.
I THINK IT'S WORTH IT TO GIVE SOME HISTORY ON THE SITE AND THE ZONING OF IT.
THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL IN 1996 HAD THE PARCEL CONFIGURED INTO A PARCEL "A" AND A PARCEL "B" AND A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SITE PLAN, AND DURING THAT ZONING REVIEW AND PART OF THE APPROVAL, IT REQUIRED A MASONRY WALL ON THE PERIMETER OF THE PROJECT ALONG PARCEL "A" AND PARCEL "B" BETWEEN THE SITE AND THE BOLEMAN PROPERTY.
IN 1998, THIS PARTICULAR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CAME BACK IN FOR A MAJOR MODIFICATION TO ADD TWO ADDITIONAL USES INTO THE ORIGINAL ZONING APPROVAL.
AND AT THAT TIME, PARCEL "A" WAS ACTUALLY DIVIDED ON THE SITE PLAN AND NOW WAS REFERENCED INTO A PARCEL "A," PARCEL A-1 AND PARCEL A-2, AND THAT'S REALLY CRITICAL FOR DISCUSSION IN TERMS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION ZONING CONDITIONS AT LEAST ALONG THAT PERIMETER OF PARCEL "A."
DURING THIS CHANGE, THERE WAS ALSO A REQUEST TO ELIMINATE THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE WALL ALONG PARCEL "A" IN THE AREA WHERE BRIAN'S POINTING TO, AND REQUIRE A CHAIN-LINK FENCE WITH SCREENING.
THAT ULTIMATELY WAS APPROVED, AND THE WALL REQUIREMENT WAS MAINTAINED ON THE PERIMETER OF PARCEL "B" IN THE AREA WHERE BRIAN'S NOW POINTING TO.
SUBSEQUENT TO THAT, DURING THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, AFTER THAT AMENDMENT WAS APPROVED, PARCEL A-1 WAS DEVELOPED WITH A BANK.
WHEN THAT SITE PLAN WAS APPROVED, THE SITE DEVELOPMENT STAFF DID NOT REQUIRE ANY CHAIN-LINK FENCE PLACEMENT ALONG THE PERIMETER IN THE AREA WHERE BRIAN'S POINTING TO BECAUSE THEY DID NOT HAVE ANY CONTROL OF THAT PROPERTY.
AND THAT'S WHY THERE IS NOT A CHAIN-LINK FENCE OR A SCREEN, YOU KNOW, AT THIS POINT IN TIME IN THAT AREA OF THE SITE.
WHEN PARCEL A-2 AND PARCEL "A" COME INTO DEVELOPMENT, PART OF THEIR SITE PLAN APPROVAL WILL BE TO REQUIRE THAT CHAIN-LINK FENCE.
ON PARCEL "B," THAT PORTION OF THE SITE WAS APPROVED, MY UNDERSTANDING, FOR MULTIFAMILY.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ACQUIRED THAT PARCEL, AND PARCEL "B," AND ULTIMATELY USED IT FOR RETENTION.
WHEN THEY DEVELOPED THAT SITE FOR RETENTION, THEY DID NOT PLACE A WALL -- IT WASN'T KNOWN TO THEM, APPARENTLY AT THAT TIME.
THEY DID NOT BUILD THE WALL FOR SCREENING, AND THEY BUILT A RETENTION POND PURSUANT TO THEIR TYPICAL REQUIREMENTS.
SO AT THIS POINT IN TIME, THAT WALL HAS NOT BEEN BUILT ALONG PARCEL "B," AS THE ZONING CONDITIONS REQUIRE.
SO I THINK BOB'S GOING TO SPEAK TO -- THIS HIS PART OF THE PRESENTATION.  WHAT.
PUBLIC WORKS' RECOMMENDATIONS WOULD BE IN TERMS OF THAT WALL REQUIREMENT, BUT THE WAY THE ZONING IS RIGHT NOW OR TO BRING THE ZONING INTO CONFORMANCE, THAT WALL NEEDS TO BE CONSTRUCTED OR THE REQUIREMENT NEEDS TO BE AMENDED OUT OF THE ZONING.
THAT'S THE STATUS OF THE ZONING CONDITIONS AS WE KNOW IT.
THERE'S ALSO BEEN A RECENT APPROVAL FOR A MODIFICATION TO THE ZONING, WHICH REALLY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY OF THE SCREENING AMENDMENTS WHICH WAS RECENTLY APPROVED THIS YEAR.
AND I BELIEVE THAT WAS IN JUNE OF THIS YEAR, WHICH IS WHERE THIS REPORT REALLY STEMS FROM.
HAVING SAID THAT, IF YOU DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, AT LEAST AT THIS POINT ABOUT THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS, I'LL GO AHEAD AND INTRODUCE BOB GORDON, AND HE CAN SPEAK TO THE HIXON ROAD REALIGNMENT ISSUES AND THE STATUS OF THOSE ISSUES.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO GO, PEGGY?
OR I'LL -- ACTUALLY, PEGGY HAMRICK WOULD LIKE TO GO.
>>PAT FRANK:  COMMISSIONER NORMAN.
>>JIM NORMAN:  WHEN WE DETERMINED THAT THOSE WALLS WERE -- OR THE WALL ON "B," WHEN WE DETERMINED THAT THAT WAS AN OVERSIGHT AND THAT IT WAS NOT CONSTRUCTED, WHY DIDN'T WE DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT THEN?
>>JOE MOREDA:  THAT'S BEEN DETERMINED BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR TO BE A REQUIREMENT.
I'M NOT -- BELIEVE THAT --.
>>JIM NORMAN:  WELL, BECAUSE IF ANYBODY ELSE HAS CONSTRUCTION OR ANYTHING ELSE IN THIS COUNTY AND THEY LEAVE OFF SOMETHING OR WHATEVER, WE'RE ON THEM LIKE -- YOU KNOW, WE MAKE THEM STOP.
WE MAKE THEM DO EVERYTHING.
I MEAN -- AND IT SEEMS TO BE A HISTORY OF THIS PROPERTY FROM ROADS CUTTING THROUGH IT TO WALLS NOT BEING BUILT, TO YOU NAME IT.
IT SEEMS TO BE, YOU KNOW, WE JUST DO WHAT WE WANT TO.
>> HEAR!  HEAR!
>>JIM NORMAN:  I MEAN, THAT'S READING ALL THE RECORDS WAY BACK WHEN, THAT'S WHAT SEEMS TO OCCUR HERE.
AND, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE DETERMINED IT WAS AN OVERSIGHT, I DON'T KNOW WHY WE DIDN'T TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION.
MAYBE YOU CAN ANSWER THAT WHEN YOU --
>> I CAN'T ANSWER THAT.
PEGGY HAMRICK FROM REAL ESTATE.
PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT, PAULA HARVEY HAD ASKED ME JUST TO BE HERE JUST TO KIND OF REFRESH THE BOARD'S MEMORY ON THE ACTIVITIES THAT WE WERE INVOLVED IN.
THEY DATE BACK TO 1999.
AND AT THAT TIME, WE, AND SOME OTHERS IN THE COUNTY, WERE ASKED TO PREPARE A REPORT REGARDING HIXON ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY.
THE CONCLUSION THAT WE REACHED AT THAT TIME WAS THAT HIXON ROAD, LIKE MANY OTHER ROADS THAT HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY HAS, IS A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY BY VIRTUE OF FLORIDA STATUTE 95-361.
AND THAT'S AS A RESULT OF THE COUNTY'S CONSTRUCTION AND CONTINUOUS MAINTENANCE OF THIS ROAD FOR WELL OVER 30 YEARS.
I THINK MS. BOLEMAN WILL PROBABLY SAY 50 YEARS.
WE DID AT THAT TIME FIND AN OLD 1938 DEED TO HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY FOR A 50-FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY.
SOME OF HIXON ROAD IS LOCATED WITHIN THE DEEDED RIGHT-OF-WAY.
SOME WAS NOT, SO IN DECEMBER OF '99, AT THE BOARD'S APPROVAL -- WITH THE BOARD'S APPROVAL, WE ISSUED A QUIT CLAIM DEED TO MS. BOLEMAN FOR ANY PORTION OF THE DEEDED RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT WAS NOT OCCUPIED WITH HIXON ROAD AS IT'S PHYSICALLY LOCATED.
WE MADE THAT CONVEYANCE TO HER, AND PROVIDED HER A COPY OF THAT RECORDED DEED IN EARLY 2000.
SO THAT REALLY WAS THE EXTENT OF OUR INVOLVEMENT IN THAT ISSUE.
>>BOB GORDON:  GOOD AFTERNOON.
BOB GORDON, INTERIM DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS.
BEFORE I DO MY PRESENTATION, LET ME ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, COMMISSIONER NORMAN.
FIRST OF ALL, THE -- THIS PAGLEN ROAD SEGMENT, WHAT THEY CALL SHELDON ROAD NOW THAT CONNECTS TO EHRLICH AND BEARSS WAS DEVELOPED BY THE CITRUS PARK MALL, THAT WAS J & B.
GRANTED, THEY WERE OUR AGENT.
WE DIDN'T FIND OUT ABOUT THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS UNTIL THIS OTHER MODIFICATION CAME IN.
I WAS NOTIFIED THAT WE WANTED A STATUS REPORT ABOUT THE -- THE REALIGNMENT FOR THE HIXON ROAD, AND IT WAS AT THAT POINT, THEY SAID HEY, WE'VE GOT SOME CONDITIONS ON THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT WE NOW OWN.
IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO BUILT IT FOR US.
IT'S HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY PROPERTY.
WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO EITHER BUILD THE WALL OR COME BACK AND MODIFY THE REQUIREMENTS, AND OUR RECOMMENDATION, AS I GO THROUGH THIS PRESENTATION, WILL BE TO MODIFY THAT REQUIREMENT.
I THINK WE'LL FIND, BASED ON THE SAME REASONS THAT THE PIECE TO THE NORTH WAS REMOVED, THAT SAME CONDITION WAS ON THAT PIECE ON THE NORTH/SOUTH PIECE OF THAT WALL.
PROBABLY EVEN THOSE ARGUMENTS AND STRONGER ARGUMENTS WOULD ARGUE FOR REMOVING THAT REQUIREMENT FROM THE POND BECAUSE IT'S A VERY PASSIVE USE.
I HOPE THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION, BUT WE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT UNTIL JUST RECENTLY IS YOUR ANSWER.
IT IS COUNTY PROPERTY.
WE WEREN'T THE BUILDER OF IT.
J & B WAS THE BUILDER OF THAT.
OKAY.
MY PART OF THE PRESENTATION IS JUST TO BRIEF YOU -- BRIEF YOU AND BRING YOU UP-TO-DATE ON THE STATUS OF WHAT'S HAPPENED OUT THERE.
YOU RECALL THE LAST TIME -- THE LAST ACTION OF THIS BOARD WAS TO DIRECT THAT THIS REALIGNMENT OF HIXON ROAD -- AND COULD SOMEBODY HELP ME WITH THIS BOARD HERE?
COULD I HAVE THE MICROPHONE.
>>JIM NORMAN:  WHILE YOU PONDER THAT, I GUESS I'M JUST STUNNED THAT WE DIDN'T WANT TO.
I GUESS WHAT YOU TOLD ME, WE DIDN'T WANT TO.
THAT'S WHY YOU'RE BACK BEFORE US TODAY IS TO NOT TO DO IT.
>>BOB GORDON:  EXCUSE ME.
COULD YOU PUT THAT DOWN SO I CAN SEE HIM.
NO, THAT WAS NOT WHAT I SAID, COMMISSIONER.
I SAID WE DIDN'T FIND OUT ABOUT THIS UNTIL THE RECENT MODIFICATION THAT CAME UP.
AT THAT POINT --
>>JIM NORMAN:  SO YOU'RE BACK BEFORE US TO ASK THAT WE REMOVE THAT?
>>BOB GORDON:  YES, SIR.
>>JIM NORMAN:  OKAY.
THAT'S MY POINT.
[ LAUGHTER ]
>>BOB GORDON:  YES, SIR.
WE DIDN'T FIND OUT ABOUT IT YEARS AGO WHEN THE POND WAS BUILT.
THAT'S MY POINT.
CAN I HAVE THE MICROPHONE?
>>RONDA STORMS:  YOU PULLED THAT OUT OF YOUR POCKET?
THAT IS A VERY DEEP POCKET.
>>BOB GORDON:  YEAH, I WAS -- IS THIS ON?
TESTING, TESTING.
IS IT ON?
OKAY.
THANK YOU.
I GET THE FEEDBACK HERE.
OKAY.
JUST TO KIND OF GET YOU ALIGNED HERE, THIS, OF COURSE, IS SHELDON.
THIS IS THE SHELDON ROAD EXTENSION.
THIS IS THE COUNTY POND PARCEL RIGHT HERE.
OF COURSE, THEN THIS IS HIXON THAT SWINGS THROUGH HERE.
THIS IS MS. BOLEMAN'S PROPERTY OVER HERE.
THE LAST TIME WE MET AND TALKED ABOUT THIS, THE BOARD DIRECTED -- WE PROVIDED LIKE THREE ALTERNATE ALIGNMENT POINTS TO REALIGN AND CONNECT HIXON ROAD TO SHELDON ROAD.
THE BOARD CHOSE THE LEAST EXPENSIVE OPTION WHICH ACTUALLY WAS ECLIPSED ACROSS THE NORTH END OF THE RETENTION POND PARCEL AND CONNECTS INTO SHELDON ROAD.
THAT PARCEL AT THAT -- THAT CONSTRUCTION COST AT THAT TIME WAS ESTIMATED ABOUT $118,000.
I'VE DONE A RECENT UPDATE BECAUSE THAT'S ABOUT THREE YEARS OLD.
THAT'S GROWN TO ABOUT $128,000 BASED ON ABOUT A 3% CONSTRUCTION COST INDEX INCREASE PER YEAR.
SOME THINGS -- OTHER THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED OUT THERE SINCE THEN.
YOU-ALL ARE AWARE OF THE CITRUS PARK HIGH SCHOOL AND THE ACCESS MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS WE HAD OFF OF EHRLICH AND GUNN OVER HERE, AND WHAT WE'VE DONE SINCE THEN, I'M SURE MOST OF YOU ARE AWARE THAT THE SCHOOL AGREED TO ADD AN ENTRANCE OFF OF HIXON ROAD.
IT CUTS THROUGH THEIR RETENTION POND AND PROVIDES ACCESS UP INTO THEIR PARKING AND STAGING AREA SO THAT STUDENTS, TEACHERS, AND BUSES CAN NOW COME IN THROUGH A SIGNAL THAT'S BEEN INSTALLED.
WE HAVE TEMPORARY SIGNALS THAT HAVE BEEN INSTALLED.
WE HAD A 660-FOOT LEFT TURN LANE THAT WE EXTENDED, ALMOST QUADRUPLED THE LENGTH BACK HERE TO COLONIAL GRAND.
THE LEFT TURN STARTS HERE.
THE LEFT TURN COMING INTO HIXON ROAD HAS NOW BEEN EXTENDED ALL THE WAY DOWN TO HERE.
WE HAVE SPENT ABOUT $126,000 TO DATE.
THE NEXT PHASE OF THIS PROJECT WILL BE TO REPLACE THE TEMPORARY WOODEN POLES WITH THE BIG STEEL MAST ARMS THAT YOU SEE AS OUR NEW COUNTY STANDARDS.
THAT WILL ADD 250,000 TO THAT PROJECT.
THAT WILL COMPLETE ALL THE ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE CONSTRUCT IN THIS AREA, PRIMARILY TO ACCOMPLISH SAFE ACCESS INTO AND OUT OF THE SICKLES HIGH SCHOOL.
THAT SEEMS TO BE WORKING PRETTY EFFECTIVELY.
WE'VE HAD NO ACCIDENTS IN THE TIME SINCE THESE IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN IN PLACE, SO THAT'S ONE THING I THINK YOU SHOULD CONSIDER.
THE CONCERN THAT WE HAVE IS THAT -- WE HAVE TWO RECOMMENDATIONS FOR YOU.
ONE IS TO CONSIDER WHETHER YOU WANT TO KEEP THIS ON THE UNFUNDED LIST.
WE THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA.
AT SOME POINT IN TIME, I THINK MRS. BOLEMAN MAY FIND SOMEBODY WHO WILL FIND THE VALUE OF THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY AND WANT TO DEVELOP THAT.
AT THAT POINT, WE THINK -- TALKING TO THE PLANNING FOLKS, TOM THOMSON THINKS IT'S A VERY GOOD THING TO MAINTAIN TWO ACCESS POINTS, RIGHT IN, AND RIGHT OUT HERE.
YOU HAVE MEDIANS WITH LEFT TURN LANES, SO BASICALLY THIS PROVIDES GOOD RIGHT-IN, RIGHT-OUT, BUT NO LEFT-TURN MOVEMENT.
THIS INTERSECTION UP HERE HAS FULL MOVEMENT IN ALL DIRECTIONS WITH THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL.
IT MAKES -- YOU KNOW, ACCESS TO THIS PARCEL COULD BE GREATLY ENHANCED BY HAVING BOTH OF THOSE.
THE PROBLEM THAT WE'VE HAD WITH -- WE'VE DONE WHAT THE BOARD DIRECTED.
WE'VE ADDED THIS TO THE UNFUNDED LIST.
I HAVE TO BE HONEST WITH YOU.
ALL THE CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHEN A ROAD OR INTERSECTION GETS BUILT DOESN'T RAISE THIS THING TO THE LEVEL OF BEING -- BECOMING FUNDED UNLESS THE BOARD SAYS FUND EVERYTHING IN THAT CATEGORY.
THEN IT WOULD PICK THAT ONE UP.
I HAVE TO BE HONEST WITH YOU.
FROM AN ENGINEERING PERSPECTIVE -- THERE'S OTHER THINGS THE BOARD CAN CONSIDER AND DOES CONSIDER, SO OBVIOUSLY I'M NOT TRYING TO SAY YOU HAVE THE -- DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO WHATEVER YOU CHOOSE TO DO.
WE HAVE A DILEMMA ON HOW THAT STAYS ON THE UNFUNDED LIST.
WE WANTED TO BRING THAT UP AS AN ISSUE.
THE SECOND ITEM WAS CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE -- THIS IS A VERY PASSIVE USE OF THE LAND, THE PREVIOUS ZONING ON THIS ALLOWED FOR THE USE OF MULTIFAMILY AND DETENTION PONDS.
THERE'S OBVIOUSLY GOING TO BE NO MULTIFAMILY WHATSOEVER.
 -- IT'S UP THERE.
IT'S IN PLACE.
OUR RECOMMENDATION TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO SUBMIT A MINOR MODIFICATION TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE ARCHITECTURALLY FINISHED CONCRETE MASON WALL ALONG THE NORTH SIDE, REPLACE THAT WITH WHAT'S IN PLACE RIGHT NOW.
I'VE BEEN OUT THERE.
YOU KNOW, THERE'S NOTHING THAT'S UNATTRACTIVE ABOUT LOOKING ACROSS HERE.
THERE'S NO INTENSE ACTIVITY HERE THAT'S GOING TO, YOU KNOW, I THINK REQUIRE THE BUFFER AND SCREENING FROM THIS PROPERTY.
AND IT'S NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE BLOCK WALL REQUIREMENT THAT WAS REMOVED FROM THIS PARCEL UP HERE WHICH INCLUDES OTHER COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES.
THAT'S THE TWO PARTS OF OUR RECOMMENDATION.
THAT'S SORT OF AN UPDATE OF WHAT'S HAPPENED SINCE WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS LAST -- AND THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN IN PLACE.
AND WE CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.
ANOTHER THING, WE ALSO DID SOME TRAFFIC STUDIES.
THERE'S ABOUT 24,000 VEHICLES PER DAY RUNNING ON SHELDON THROUGH HERE.
THERE'S ONLY ABOUT 2,400 ON HIXON AND THAT VOLUME IS 98, 99% OF ITS STOPS GO HERE.
THERE'S PROBABLY ABOUT THREE HOMES HERE, MRS. BOLEMAN?
>> ABOUT SIX OR EIGHT.
MOWERS GO BACK THERE ALL THE TIME.
>> YOU PROBABLY CAN'T HEAR HER ON THE RECORD, BUT MRS. BOLEMAN SAYS THERE'S HALF A DOZEN HOUSES.
THE TRAFFIC VOLUME ON HIXON ROAD IS VERY LOW UNTIL YOU GET TO THIS POINT, AND WE HAVE NO -- NO RECORD OF ANY ACCIDENTS SINCE ALL OF THESE IMPROVEMENTS WERE IN PLACE, AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE.
>>PAT FRANK:  COMMISSIONER NORMAN, THEN COMMISSIONER STORMS.
>>JIM NORMAN:  WE DID ALL THAT WORK OUT THERE, THE LANE, THE LIGHT, THE TURN, THE RETENTION POND, AND WE JUST HAPPENED TO MISS THE WALL?
>>BOB GORDON:  WHEN YOU SAY "WE," OUR AGENTS MISSED THAT REQUIREMENT, YES, SIR.
>>JIM NORMAN:  HOW MANY YEARS?
>>BOB GORDON:  HOW MANY YEARS THAT'S BEEN IN PLACE, SEVEN OR EIGHT YEARS.
>>JIM NORMAN:  WE DID ALL THAT WORK OUT THERE, AND IF -- DO WE TYPICALLY -- IS THAT -- IS THAT HOW WE TYPICALLY ENFORCE THINGS OR -- OR OVERSEE IF THIS BOARD PUTS A WALL REQUIREMENT OR FENCE REQUIREMENT OR THINGS LIKE THAT?
IS THAT TYPICAL?
>>BOB GORDON:  IF IT HAD BEEN KNOWN BACK THEN, SOME ACTION WOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN.
IF WE'D HAVE KNOWN ABOUT IT, WE WOULD HAVE DONE SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
WE AGREE, IT'S SOMETHING THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE A LONG TIME AGO.
AS SOON AS WE FOUND OUT ABOUT IT, WE WANTED TO COME TO YOU AND TALK ABOUT IT.
>>JIM NORMAN:  ARE WE GOING TO FINE OURSELF?
>> MAY I MAKE A COMMENT?
>>BOB GORDON:  MIGHT FIRE THE DEVELOPER.
>>PAT FRANK:  WAIT A MINUTE, MS. BOLEMAN, I CAN'T SEE YOU.
COMMISSIONER STORMS WANTS TO BE RECOGNIZED FIRST.
>>RONDA STORMS:  REFRESH MY MEMORY, HOW WAS IT THAT WE MISSED THAT POINT?
WAS IT LEFT OFF A PUNCH LIST?
>>BOB GORDON:  I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN MISSED.
I CAN TELL YOU AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, THE DEVELOPER, J & B WAS DOING THE CONSTRUCTION.
I THINK THE ACQUISITION WAS PROBABLY HELPED SOMEWHAT BY THE REAL ESTATE DEPARTMENT.
FOR SOME REASON, IT WAS NEVER COMMUNICATED TO PEOPLE THAT HAD THE ABILITY TO PUT THAT IN THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, OH, BY THE WAY, THERE'S A ZONING CONDITION HERE THAT HAS TO BE MET AND PERHAPS SOMEBODY -- I'M JUST SPECULATING.
PERHAPS SOMEBODY THOUGHT, OKAY, WE'RE NOT BUILDING WHAT WAS ZONED ON HERE, SO MAYBE IT ISN'T REQUIRED.
I DON'T KNOW.
I'M JUST SPECULATING.
>>RONDA STORMS:  BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS PUBLIC WORKS NEVER GOT THE INFORMATION.
>>BOB GORDON:  WE NEVER KNEW ABOUT IT.
>>PAT FRANK:  HERE'S WHAT I UNDERSTAND HAPPENED.
THERE WAS A MODIFICATION TO THE ZONING IN '98, AND THE PETITIONER REMOVED THE CONCRETE REQUIREMENT AND PUT IN THE -- THE CHAIN-LINK FENCE REQUIREMENT.
>>BOB GORDON:  THAT'S CORRECT, AND THE INTERESTING THING I THINK IN THE MODIFICATION, THEY REMOVED IT ONLY FROM THIS PORTION OF IT RIGHT HERE.
THEY DID NOT DO IT ON THIS SIDE.
NOW, IN THAT APPLICATION, THEY ALSO INCLUDED, YOU KNOW, ALL THESE PARCELS, EVEN THOUGH THE COUNTY ALSO OWNED THIS ONE.
THAT'S MIGHT HAVE BEEN OVERSIGHT BY THE APPLICANT.
>>PAT FRANK:  WHAT I'M SAYING THERE WAS A MODIFICATION, IT WAS MATTER OF RECORD.
WHO POLICED IT TO SEE THAT THEY DID IT, THAT THEY PUT IT IN?
WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR DOING THAT.
>>BOB GORDON:  I'M SORRY?
>>PAT FRANK:  TO MAKE SURE THAT THE MODIFICATION WAS FOLLOWED THROUGH WITH.
WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY WAS THAT?
>> CRAIG WITH PLANNING AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED THEN.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED THEN, I KNOW WHAT WE DO TODAY.
IT'S ON THE PLANS.
THE PLANS WOULD SHOW A WALL OR FENCE, AND WHEN THE PLANS ARE APPROVED, A COPY WOULD GO TO INSPECTORS IN THE FIELD AND INSPECTORS IN THE FIELD WOULD RUN THAT OFF THEIR LIST.
IN THIS CASE, IT SOUNDS LIKE IT WASN'T ON THE PLANS OR IN THE FIELD AS FAR AS INSPECTIONS, SO -- THIS WAS '96 WE'RE TALKING ABOUT?
>>PAT FRANK:  NO, '98.
>>JIM NORMAN:  THAT WAS WHEN THE ADJUSTMENT WAS MADE FOR THE UPPER PARCEL, BUT THE OTHER ONE SHOULD HAVE HAD A WALL.
>> TODAY -- WHAT'S KIND OF -- WE USUALLY DEAL WITH DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.
THIS WAS JUST A POND PROJECT.
IT WAS PART OF THE ROAD PROJECT.
IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CAUGHT ON THE PLANS AND BY AN INSPECTOR IF IT WAS ON THE PLANS.
MY GUESS WAS IT WASN'T ON THE PLANS.
>>PAT FRANK:  WELL, WILL THIS BE CORRECTED WHEN YOU GET ALL THIS ON THE -- COMPUTERIZED?
>>RONDA STORMS:  I HOPE SO.
>>PAT FRANK:  I HOPE SO BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS THAT FALL.
MS. BOLEMAN, YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING?
>> MY NAME IS SUNNY, SUNNY, BOLEMAN, BOLEMAN.
I LIVE AT 8305 HIXON ROAD.
I WANT TO CLARIFY ONE THING.
YOU'VE THROWN THE TERM AROUND, "RETENTION POND," AND A LEGAL STATUS IS FOUR TO SIX FEET.
NOW THEY'RE SAYING IT'S A POND.
IT'S A BORROW PIT.
THEY DUG THAT 37 AND 39-FEET DEEP.
MY HUSBAND AND I WENT OVER THERE AND ASKED THEM WHAT ARE YOU DOING?
THEY SAID WE'RE DOING A RETENTION POND.
SOMEONE FROM THE COUNTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN OUT THERE BIRD-DOGGING THAT.
THEY TOOK OUR FENCE DOWN, PUT A GREEN CHAIN-LINK FENCE UP ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF OUR PROPERTY.
THEN THE COUNTY HAD A SURVEYOR GOING OUT THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF MY BUNKHOUSE PROPERTY WHICH IS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF HIXON ROAD.
WE WENT OVER AND SAID WHAT ARE YOU SURVEYING?
OH, WE'RE SURVEYING THE PROPERTY LINE.
WE SAID NO, YOU'RE NOT.
THAT'S THE MIDDLE OF OUR PROPERTY.
THE COUNTY'S ALWAYS TAKING OUR PROPERTY.
I HAD TO GO DOWN ON GEORGE ROAD AND TALK TO THE HEAD HONCHO AT THE SURVEYING PLACE AND TELL HIM YOU CAN'T TAKE OUR PROPERTY.
HE WAS DOING THE EASY THING.
HE WAS GOING TO THE EDGE OF THE SWAMP, AND THERE WAS A SURVEY STAKE THERE, AND 126 FEET OUT THERE WAS OUR PROPERTY CORNER, BUT HE WASN'T GOING THERE.
HE WAS GOING TO THE ONE AT THE EDGE.
EVERY TIME WE'VE TURNED AROUND, THE COUNTY'S TAKING OUR PROPERTY.
THEY'VE RUN OVER US.
THEY'VE DUG THE BORROW PIT, SO I PUT A SIGN OUT IN IT AND IT SAYS SUNNY'S LAKE.
EVERYBODY'S LAUGHED AT THAT, HOW DID THAT SIGN GET OUT THERE?
A DIVINE ACT OF PROVIDENCE.
I'M GOING TO BE SITTING IN MY HOUSE AND EXPECT A BULLDOZER TO COME THROUGH AND TAKE HALF MY HOUSE, THE COUNTY WILL.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO.
I GET SO FRUSTRATED.
LET'S GO BACK.
HE'S TALKING ABOUT $118,000 DUE THIS LITTLE DAB OF ROAD OUT THERE.
WE PAID TAXES FOR 33 YEARS ON PROPERTY THAT THE COUNTY WAS CLAIMING BECAUSE THE DEED AND ALL WAS MESSED UP.
SO THEY'VE MADE ENOUGH MONEY OFF OF US IN TAXES, THEY COULD HAVE BUILT TWO OR THREE LITTLE OLD ROADS OUT THERE.
THAT ISN'T WHAT I'M UP HERE FOR.
I'M UP HERE FOR ENFORCING THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS RESPONSE.
I'M ASKING THE COUNTY TO ENFORCE THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ORIGINAL PARCEL "A."
NOW, THAT IS A-1 AND A-2 LOCATED TO THE EAST OF OUR PROPERTY.
THE LAST TIME I WAS UP HERE, THE BANK PEOPLE GOT UP AND PRESENTED THIS BEAUTIFUL PLAN THAT THEY WAS GOING TO BUILD AN ANNEX TO THE CITRUS PARK BANK AND THEY WAS GOING TO LANDSCAPE IT AND FENCE IT AND BERM IT.
I GOT UP AFTER THAT AND SAID I HEARD THE SAME THING IN '96.
I HAVEN'T SEEN A BERM, I HAVEN'T SEEN A LANDSCAPE, I HAVEN'T SEEN A FENCE.
THAT'S WHAT THEY PROMISED THE FIRST TIME THEY DEVELOPED.
THEN THEY WAS GOING TO BUILD THIS LITTLE ANNEX THEY WAS GOING TO PROMISE US AGAIN.
WE'VE GOT NOTHING BUT PROMISES AND NO ACTION.
WHERE DO WE STOP HERE, PEOPLE?
I'M FRUSTRATED.
THAT REQUIREMENT ORIGINALLY, FOR THE EAST SIDE OF OUR PROPERTY, SPECIFIED THE NORTH PERIMETER OF PARCEL "B," WHICH IS NOW THE BORROW PIT, AND THE WEST SIDE OF PARCEL "A," WHICH IS MY PROPERTY.
"A" SHOULD BE BUFFERED AND SCREENED WITH A SIX-FOOT MASONRY WALL.
NOW, IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE ARCHITECTURALLY FINISHED AND HAVE LANDSCAPING.
THEY CAME OUT PERSONALLY TO OUR HOUSE, MY HUSBAND WAS STILL ALIVE.
HE DIED FEBRUARY 23rd IN 2001, AND MY SON-IN-LAW GARY, AND I'M SURE YOU-ALL HAVE HEARD OF HIM, HE LIVES IN BRADENTON, HE'S BEEN TRYING TO HELP ME STRAIGHTEN THIS MESS OUT.
HE HAS GREAT FAITH IN YOU-ALL.
I SAID I'VE ABOUT LOST FAITH IN YOU-ALL BECAUSE I GET PROMISES, PROMISES, AND MORE PROMISES, AND I GET NOWHERE.
I'M JUST STANDING UP HERE SPINNING MY WHEELS.
SUE MURPHY AND BRUCE FREEMAN CAME OUT AND SAT ON MY PATIO AND TALKED TO MY HUSBAND AND I, NOW COULD WE JUST PUT A BOARD FENCE UP INSTEAD OF THE MASONRY WALL.
I SAID YOU COULDN'T RUN FAST ENOUGH TO GIVE ME SOME OF THOSE OLD ROTTEN BOARDS.
I SAID IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO ANYTHING, DO LIKE THE COUNTY, YOU-ALL, CAME OUT AND PUT THE GREEN CHAIN-LINK FENCE.
AT LEAST IT WILL BE A CONTINUATION OF WHATEVER, SIX-FOOT HIGH?
I SAID I WANT A GATE IN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER WHERE A HOBO LIVED ON MY PROPERTY.
AT LEAST IT WILL ALL BE THE SAME, WITH THE BERMS, FENCING, AND LANDSCAPING.
I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY OF THAT.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS ZONING REQUIREMENT WAS SPECIFIED IN THE ZONING REQUEST OF RS 96-0252 WHICH WAS APPROVED IN 1996 NOT '98 AS INDICATED IN YOUR REPORT.
AT THAT TIME THERE WAS ONLY PARCEL "A" THAT RAN THE ENTIRE EAST SIDE OF THE BOLEMAN'S PROPERTY AND THE ZONING REQUIREMENT TO THAT PARCEL, SUBSEQUENTLY THE FIRST CITRUS BANK WAS BUILT.
THAT'S WHEN THEY FIRST PROMISED US FENCES, BERMS, AND LANDSCAPING.
THEN WHEN THEY WANTED TO DO AN ANNEX, THEY PROMISED US BERMS, FENCING, AND LANDSCAPING.
THIS REZONING WAS APPROVED IN -- THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING HOW OLD YOUR LITTLE GIRL WAS BECAUSE ONE OF THE MEETINGS I WAS HERE YOU WERE PREGNANT AND HOME EXPECTING THE BABY.
I'M GLAD SHE'S DOING WELL.
THIS MODIFICATION REQUEST BY MEF, THAT'S MUNSY AND FREEMAN, I DON'T KNOW WHO THE "E" STANDS FOR, WAS SUPPORTED BY SUNNY AND REESE WHO WERE WITHOUT LEGAL COUNSEL.
WE WAS BEING GOOD NEIGHBORS.
THEY CAME OUT AND SAT ON MY PATIO AND WE TOLD THEM, OKAY, FORGET THE BLOCK WALL.
WE THOUGHT MAYBE THEY'LL COME AND DO IT NOW.
THEY HAVEN'T DONE IT YET.
IN FACT, SUNNY AND REESE BOLEMAN DID GIVE APPROVAL TO CHANGE FROM CONCRETE BLOCK WALL TO A GREEN CHAIN-LINK FENCE.
IT HAS NOW BEEN SIX YEARS SINCE THE ORIGINAL ZONING REQUEST APPROVED AND MEF HAS NOT ABIDED BY THE COUNTY'S REQUIREMENT.
WHY DO YOU HAVE REQUIREMENTS IF THEY CAN'T BE ENFORCED OR NOBODY DOES ANYTHING OR THEY JUST GET AWAY WITH IT.
I DON'T KNOW.
WE WANT THIS REQUIREMENT FOR PARCEL "A" ENFORCED IMMEDIATELY AND NOT WHEN MEF DECIDES TO DEVELOP SITES IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE FENCE LINE.
THIS LANGUAGE DOES NOT APPEAR IN PD 96-252 APPROVAL AND IS, WE BELIEVE INVALID.
WE ARE ASKING THE COMMISSIONERS TO NOT ACCEPT THIS REPORT AS IS.
FURTHER, WE ARE ASKING THE COMMISSIONERS TO SUPPORT CODE ENFORCEMENT AGAINST MEF FOR VIOLATING THE REQUIREMENTS OF PD 96-252.
IN ADDITION, WE'RE ASKING THE COMMISSION TO ALLOCATE FUNDING TO THE HIXON ROAD ALTERNATE 1 PROJECT IN THE SHORT-TERM TO CORRECT THE ERRORS AND OVERSIGHTS MADE BY THE COUNTY OVER THE LAST 50 YEARS.
I MEAN, I'M NOT JUST GOING BACK SIX YEARS, I'M GOING BACK -- I'VE LIVED ON THAT PROPERTY OVER 50 YEARS.
MY COWS ARE HAPPY THERE.
I JUST SOLD VICTOR, MY LITTLE BULL.
I JUST DON'T KNOW -- YOU TELL ME.
I ASKED YOU THE LAST TIME I WAS HERE, WHAT CAN WE DO?
WHAT CAN YOU DO?
WHAT CAN YOU DO TO HELP ME AND CORRECT SOME OF THIS MESS?
AND I'M PUTTING IT BLUNTLY, MESS.
I KNOW YOU GET TIRED OF SEEING ME DOWN HERE.
I EVEN WORE SOCKS WITH A COMPASS ON THEM SO I COULD FIND MY WAY BACK TO CITRUS PARK BECAUSE IT HAS CHANGED SO OUT THERE.
I'M THE ONLY RURAL THING LEFT THERE AND I'M BEING RUN OVER BY PEOPLE, BY THE COUNTY, TRAFFIC, YOU NAME IT, AND I'M STILL IN A LITTLE EUTOPIA THERE IN MY KINGDOM, BUT I CAN'T GET ANYBODY TO HELP ME.
AND I COME DOWN HERE TO THE POWERS TO BE AND BEG AND PLEAD, PLEASE TRY AND HELP ME.
>>PAT FRANK:  WELL, LET'S ISOLATE WHAT SOME OF THE PROBLEMS ARE.
THE REZONING WAS IN '96 ORIGINALLY AND THEN THERE WAS A MODIFICATION IN '98.
AND IN '98 YOU AGREED TO DROP THE CONCRETE REQUIREMENT ON PART OF THE --
>> THESE EAST SIDE BECAUSE THE COUNTY PUT IN THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE GREEN CHAIN-LINK.
>>PAT FRANK:  AND THEY NEVER DID THAT.
NOTHING HAS HAPPENED SINCE THEN.
NOW, HOW SOON CAN THAT BE ENFORCED?
DO WE HAVE ANY RECORD THAT THAT WAS A REQUIREMENT TO BEGIN WITH?
>> IT WAS IN THE ORIGINAL ZONING.
IF YOU GO BACK TO '96, IT SAYS IN THERE, AND THE COUNTY NEVER -- NO ONE NEVER NOTIFIED US TO SAY THEY WAS GOING TO DIG A BORROW PIT.
NOBODY EVER OH KAID TO REMOVE OUR FENCE.
NOBODY TRIED TO TELL US THEY COULDN'T TAKE HALF OF OUR PROPERTY.
IT'S BEEN US FIGHTING WITH THEM.
>>PAT FRANK:  IF WE WENT BACK TO THE '96, IT WOULD SAY A CONCRETE WALL, WOULDN'T IT?
>> YES.
>>PAT FRANK:  SO AT LEAST THEY HAVE TO BUILD A CONCRETE WALL.
>>JIM NORMAN:  ON THE SOUTH SIDE.
>> ON THE EAST SIDE OF OUR PROPERTY.
>>JIM NORMAN:  WELL, THEY'VE GOT A CHAIN-LINK FENCE SHE AGREED TO.
>> THE COUNTY HAS A CHAIN-LINK FENCE ON SUNNY'S LAKE.
>>PAT FRANK:  WELL, THERE'S A GAP IN THERE.
>> THE WHOLE EAST SIDE, 452 FEET OR SOMETHING NEEDS BERMS AND LANDSCAPING, AND MEF WAS SUPPOSED TO PUT A BLOCK WALL.
WE SAID OKAY, PUT A GREEN CHAIN-LINK FENCE.
STILL NOTHING.
>>PAT FRANK:  OKAY.
WHERE'S THE RECORD ON THIS?
I'M SURE MS. BOLEMAN RECALLS IF THEY HAD AN AGREEMENT ABOUT IT, AND IT WAS IN THERE.
>>JOE MOREDA:  IF BRIAN COULD PUT THE PLAN UP THERE.
>> WHEN I TALKED TO PAULA HARVEY, SHE SAYS YOU MEAN THEY HAVEN'T PUT THAT FENCE UP YET?
WELL, THEY'RE IN ARREARS.
THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE PUT THAT UP IN 30 DAYS IN 1996.
THAT'S SIX YEARS WE HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING.
>> '98.
>>PAT FRANK:  WHAT DO WE DO?
STAFF, GIVE US SOME DIRECTION, BECAUSE APPARENTLY THERE'S SOMETHING THAT'S FALLEN IN THE CRACKS HERE AND WE NEED TO CORRECT IT.
>> LET ME RESPOND TO THE MEF AND THE CITRUS PARK BANK.
ON THE AERIAL, YOU CAN SEE -- I NEED THE MICROPHONE.
>>RONDA STORMS:  MADAM CHAIR, MAY I ASK A QUESTION FIRST?
>>PAT FRANK:  SURE.
>>RONDA STORMS:  HAVE YOU CONTACTED THESE PEOPLE, CRAIG, AND SAID, WHAT'S UP?
WHY DON'T YOU-ALL PUT THAT FENCE UP THERE?
>> THIS IS IS A LEARNING EXPERIENCE FOR ME TODAY, SO --
>>RONDA STORMS:  OKAY.
IF THIS WERE ME AND THIS WERE COMING INTO MY OFFICE, AND THIS WAS A CONSTITUENT COMPLAINT, WHAT I WOULD DO, AND IF IT WERE ME, I WOULD CALL UP THE PEOPLE AND SAY, MS. BOLEMAN'S IN MY OFFICE, YOU-ALL SAID YOU WERE GOING TO PUT UP A FENCE.
CAN YOU GET THAT DONE BY NEXT WEEK SO WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE YOU IN CODE ENFORCEMENT?
>> LET ME POINT THIS OUT TO YOU.
THIS THE BANK PROPERTY RIGHT HERE, AND THIS IS THEIR PROPERTY LINE.
THIS IS MEF RIGHT HERE, AND THIS IS VACANT, AND THIS IS THE PIECE THAT'S ADJACENT TO THE BOLEMAN PROPERTY.
WHEN THIS PIECE DEVELOPS, THAT'S WHEN THE FENCING REQUIREMENT WILL KICK IN.
[ INAUDIBLE ]
>> WELL, THAT'S THE WAY IT EXISTS TODAY.
>>RONDA STORMS:  CRAIG, IS THERE A PROBLEM WITH CONTACTING THOSE PEOPLE AND SAYING, CAN YOU-ALL JUST PUT UP THIS FENCE?
>> WELL, WHAT WE DO IS --
>>RONDA STORMS:  YES OR NO?
THERE'S NO PROBLEM.
>> WE WOULDN'T HANDLE IT THAT WAY.
WHEN THEY COME IN FOR DEVELOPMENT ON THAT SITE THEY WOULD HAVE TO MEET THE SETBACKS AND ALL THAT.
>>RONDA STORMS:  I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
>> RIGHT NOW THE BANK PROPERTY IS A CUT-OUT RIGHT HERE.
IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY BOUNDARY WITH THE BOLEMAN PROPERTY.
>> WAIT, WAIT.
MEF ASKED FOR DEVELOPING THAT PROPERTY.
THEY SOLD SOME OF THE PROPERTY TO THE BANK, SO THEY HAVE STARTED DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE THEY'VE ALREADY BUILT THE BANK.
NOW THEY WANT TO ADD ON TO THE BANK, AND THEY CAME DOWN AGAIN HERE ABOUT SIX MONTHS AGO AND ASKED TO PUT IN FENCE, BERMS, AND LANDSCAPING.
THEY STILL HAVEN'T DONE IT.
>>PAT FRANK:  COMMISSIONER SCOTT.
>>THOMAS SCOTT:  I'M KIND OF WITH COMMISSIONER STORMS.
YOU MEAN WE HAVE NO WAY OF GOING OUT THERE --
>>RONDA STORMS:  JUST TALKING TO THE PEOPLE?
>>THOMAS SCOTT:  I'M HEARING HIM SAY WE HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THE NEXT DEVELOPMENT.
WHEN'S THAT GOING TO BE?
>> IT'S BEEN SIX YEARS WE'VE BEEN WAITING FOR DEVELOPMENT.
>>PAT FRANK:  LET'S GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO THE DEVELOPERS AND SEE IF THEY WILL AGREE TO FIX THAT CHAIN-LINK FENCE RIGHT AWAY.
LET'S DO THAT FIRST, AND LET'S POSTPONE BRINGING THIS ISSUE BACK UNTIL WE GET A RESPONSE FROM THEM.
IN THE MEANWHILE, WE BETTER BE SURE THAT WE AREN'T TAKING MORE OF MRS. BOLEMAN'S PROPERTY INCORRECTLY, SO WE NEED TO -- SHE MUST HAVE SOME SURVEY MAPS THAT SHE CAN SHARE WITH YOU TO LET -- LET THE STAFF KNOW WHERE HER PROPERTY LINES ARE.
SO IF ANYBODY GOES OUT THERE AND THEY'RE IN CONFLICT WITH HER LINES, SHE SHOULD BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A PROBLEM ANYHOW.
IT'S NOT GOING TO BE VALID PROPERTY.
>> THEY WON'T EVEN -- THE SURVEYORS WON'T EVEN TALK TO ME AND I PERSONALLY GET OUT THERE AND WALK AND SHOW THEM WHERE ALL THE MARKS -- THAT OLD CEDAR STAKE WHERE THE PIPE AND THE CONCRETE AND THE REBAR, AND IT'S A 1937 SURVEY, AND I ASKED THE SURVEYORS AND THE COUNTY PEOPLE, DO YOU THINK THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THEY WAS DOING IN 1937?
OH, NO, NO, NO.
THEN YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING.
>>PAT FRANK:  THEY HAVE TO HAVE UP-TO-DATE SURVEYS BECAUSE IN CASE LAND CHANGES TITLE, THEY HAVE TO KNOW ABOUT THE CHANGES.
COMMISSIONER NORMAN, THEN COMMISSIONER PLATT.
>>JIM NORMAN:  FOLKS, WE'RE REALLY SKEWING THIS OUT A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE THERE'S A LITTLE MORE PROBLEMS THAN THE DEVELOPER.
THE PROBLEM ALSO HERE IS US.
THIS RETENTION POND, THE -- IF YOU-ALL -- YOU-ALL DIDN'T HEAR IT, THE COUNTY'S BEFORE US TODAY ASKING THAT THAT BE DROPPED, SO NOT ONLY DID WE HAVE A ZONING IN '96.
IN '98 YOU CHANGED THE OTHER PARCEL.
NOW TODAY THEY'RE TRYING TO CHANGE IT AGAIN AND DROP THE FENCE THING, AND MY DIRECTION WOULD BE THAT WE START TOMORROW ON THAT, AND THE OTHER PIECE THAT THEY WANT TO DROP, IF YOU RECALLED, THEY WANT TO DROP THE CONNECTING ROAD THAT'S IN THE UNFUNDED.
LET ME TELL YOU WHAT THAT DOES TO THE DAMAGE OF THIS PROPERTY AGAIN.
WHAT THEY HAVE IS THEY -- A RIGHT-IN/RIGHT-OUT ACCESS TO THAT PROPERTY ONLY.
WHAT THIS IS GOING TO THE FUTURE SALE OF THAT PROPERTY, IT'S GOING TO GO DOWN DRASTICALLY BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HAVE A KEY ACCESS POINT ON THAT MAJOR STREET ANY LONGER.
SO THE COUNTY, ONCE AGAIN, IS HARMING THEM.
WE MAY NEVER BUILD IT.
>> RIGHT.
>>JIM NORMAN:  AND WE SHOULD DO THEM JUSTICE, BY SAYING IF YOU WANT TO BUILD IT, AND YOU WANT TO BUILD IT YOURSELF, WE MAY NEVER GET TO IT, BUT WHOEVER BUILDS THAT PROPERTY, IT IS AN UNFUNDED AND YOU CAN COME TO THE COUNTY AND SAY I'LL BUILD TO YOUR STANDARDS.
THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO DO.
WE NEED TO MOVE, AS COMMISSIONER FRANK HAS SAID -- AND I'D LIKE TO PUT A TIME ON IT THAT WE GET A REPORT BACK WHAT THAT DEVELOPER SAYS, BUT WE MOVE FORWARD, WE LEAVE THAT ON THE UNFUNDED LIST, AND WE CORRECT OUR PROBLEM AND DO THE RIGHT THING.
WE DEVELOPED A RETENTION POND.
WE SHOULD BUILD WHAT WE SAID WE WERE GOING TO DO.
>> BORROW PIT.
SAY IT RIGHT.
>>JIM NORMAN:  WELL, WHATEVER IT IS, WE SHOULD BUILD WHAT WE SAID WE WERE GOING TO BUILD.
THIS IS AN EMBARRASSMENT, FOLKS.
THIS IS TRULY AN EMBARRASSMENT HOW WE'VE HANDLED THIS.
TODAY BEFORE US IS AN EMBARRASSMENT.
THIS IS TERRIBLE.
WE SHOULD DO WHAT WE SAID.
WE SHOULD LEAVE THE ACCESS POINT ALONE, AND WE SHOULD ASK THE DEVELOPER WHEN COULD WE BUILD THAT CHAIN-LINK FENCE.
>>THOMAS SCOTT:  SECOND.
>>RONDA STORMS:  I HAVE A QUESTION.
>>JAN PLATT:  I'D LIKE THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN THIS.
I THINK WE'VE GOT TO DO WHAT IS FAIR AND EQUITABLE.
>>THOMAS SCOTT:  THAT'S RIGHT.
>>JAN PLATT:  AND IT APPEARS THAT IS NOT WHAT'S BEING RECOMMENDED TO US.
I THINK IT'S ALL BEING LOOKED AT FROM -- WELL, FROM A DIFFERENT -- FROM A DIFFERENT LIGHT, BUT IN HEARING WHAT SHE HAS BEEN SAYING, I THINK OUR ATTORNEYS NEED TO LOOK AT THIS TO MAKE SURE THAT WHATEVER THE COUNTY COMES UP WITH IS FAIR AND EQUITABLE TO HER.
I THINK SHE'S GOT A LOT GOING FOR HER.
IF YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING.
IF YOU CAN READ BETWEEN THE LINES.
>> MY SON-IN-LAW SAYS I SHOULD LOOK FOR A LAWYER.
IT'S BEEN BAD.
>>JAN PLATT:  I HEAR YOU.
I THINK YOU NEED TO FIX IT.
>> I'M NOT THE TYPE TO SUE.
>>JAN PLATT:  I KNOW YOU AREN'T.
>> IF I HAD, I'D BE DOWN HERE 33 YEARS AGO OR MORE.
I'M RELYING ON YOU COMMISSIONERS TO HELP ME OUT OF THIS MESS.
>>PAT FRANK:  COMMISSIONER STORMS?
>>RONDA STORMS:  THAT'S ALL.
>> NO, I HAVE TO GIVE YOU SOMETHING YET.
YOU KNOW MY POLICY.
I HAVE HAD SHINGLES, I'VE HAD SHINGLES IN MY HEAD AND I WAS NOT PLANNING ON BEING HERE.
MY SON-IN-LAW WAS GOING TO COME, AND I TOLD HIM HE SHOULD COME AND MEET YOU NICE PEOPLE BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE I'M KIN TO YOU OR SOMETHING.
>>PAT FRANK:  CAN WE VOTE FIRST?
>> YOU MIGHT WANT TO DO THAT AFTER I DO THIS TO YOU.
>>PAT FRANK:  ALL IN FAVOR?
[ INAUDIBLE ]
[ INAUDIBLE ]
>>RECORDING SECRETARY:  CHAIRMAN FRANK, GO AHEAD AND VOTE.
IT SHOULD BE WORKING NOW.
>>PAT FRANK:  RECORD ELECTRONICALLY.
>>RECORDING SECRETARY:  THE MOTION CARRIED 6-0.
[ INAUDIBLE ]
>> HE DOESN'T WANT TO HEAR ME ON A MICROPHONE.
>>PAT FRANK:  MR. MOREDA.
>>JOE MOREDA:  I APOLOGIZE, BUT COULD I ASK YOU TO REPEAT THE MOTION SO I GET IT RIGHT.
>>JIM NORMAN:  THAT WE FOLLOW THROUGH IMMEDIATELY WITH WHAT WE COMMITTED TO AROUND THE RETENTION POND.
>>RONDA STORMS:
[ INAUDIBLE ]
>>JIM NORMAN:  THAT WE LEAVE THE UNFUNDED CONNECTING POINT.
WE LEAVE IT ON THE UNFUNDED LIST, AND WE CONTACT THE DEVELOPER THAT DEVELOPED THE BANK AND ASK THEM TO INSTALL THE CHAIN-LINK FENCE.
I KNOW IT'S APPARENTLY APPARENTLY THEY DON'T HAVE TO UNTIL THEY DEVELOP THE OTHER PARCEL, BUT BEING A GOOD NEIGHBOR THAT WE WOULD ASK THEM TO GO AHEAD AND INSTALL THE GREEN CHAIN-LINK FENCE.
>> THAT WAS THE APPROVAL IN THE '96 THAT THEY BUILD BEFORE THEY DEVELOP ANYTHING.
THEY BUILT THE BANK AND THEY STILL HAVEN'T DONE IT.
NOW THEY WANT TO ADD ON, AND THEY STILL HAVEN'T DONE.
>> YOU WON.
>>PAT FRANK:  THE DEED'S DONE.
>>JAN PLATT:  YOU WON.
>> I'M SORRY TO BELABOR THIS POINT.
I KNOW YOU'RE TIRED OF THIS BY NOW.
BUT IS YOUR MOTION SAYING WE NEED TO BUILD THE CONCRETE BLOCK WALL ARCHITECTURALLY FINISHED OR COME BACK WITH A MODIFICATION TO FIX THAT ZONING PROBLEM?
>>PAT FRANK:  THERE'S GOT TO BE A WALL THERE, AND --
>>BOB GORDON:  THERE'S A FENCE THERE NOW.
>>PAT FRANK:  THEY ORIGINALLY HAD A MASONRY WALL IN THE AGREEMENT, APPARENTLY, IN THE PD.
THE MODIFICATION, WHICH MS. BOLEMAN SAID SHE AGREED TO WAS A CHAIN-LINK.
NOW, THE LEAST THEY CAN DO IS A CHAIN-LINK, OTHERWISE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BUILD A MASONRY.
>>BOB GORDON:  I'M TALKING ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE -- I'M TALKING ABOUT THE EAST/WEST PIECE, NOT THE NORTH/SOUTH PIECE.
>>JIM NORMAN:  I'LL TELL YOU, WE AGREED TO THAT BUT ANY OTHER CHANGES, YOU NEED TO TALK TO THAT LADY RIGHT THERE FOR THE CHANGE.
WE AGREED THERE WOULD BE A SOLID MASONRY WALL THERE AND ANY THINGS BEYOND THAT YOU NEED TO TALK TO HER AS A SIGN-OFF.
>>BOB GORDON:  WE BOUGHT A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT HAD THAT CONDITION ON IT, AND AT THAT TIME, WE DIDN'T CATCH THE FACT THAT WE SHOULD HAVE CHANGED IT BACK THEN.
YOU'RE RIGHT.
WE'RE WRONG.
WE SHOULD HAVE DONE IT THEN.
>>JIM NORMAN:  YOU NEED TO TALK TO THAT LADY RIGHT THERE.
>>RONDA STORMS:  GET WITH HER, AND IF SHE'LL APPROVE -- MS. BOLEMAN, PUT IT IN WRITING, WHATEVER YOU THINK.
>> I'M GOING TO DEAL WITH MY SON-IN-LAW BECAUSE I SOMETIMES DON'T TRUST MY JUDGMENT.
HE SAID I SHOULDN'T HAVE SIGNED THE WAIVER ON THE GREEN CHAIN-LINK FENCE, BUT I THINK THAT WAS AESTHETICALLY TO MAKE IT ALL CHAIN-LINK FENCE.
LET ME TALK WITH MY SON-IN-LAW AND I'LL GET BACK WITH MR. GORDON, AND I HOPE YOU-ALL NEVER HAVE TO SEE ME AGAIN.
I REALLY DO.
>>JAN PLATT:  WE LIKE SEEING YOU.
>>PAT FRANK:  ALL RIGHT.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER BUSINESS?
 -- ANY FURTHER BUSINESS?
>>JOE MOREDA:  THAT CONCLUDES THE AGENDA.
>>PAT FRANK:  ALL RIGHT.
WE STAND ADJOURNED.
??



 

 




1