Feb 26, 2024 City Commission

>> ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK? PUBLIC COMMENT IS CLOSED.

WE ARE BACK TO DISCUSSION OR FOLLOW UP.

MR. WHITEHOUSE. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR IF YOU FELT LIKE THERE WERE ANY QUESTIONS IN THERE, YOU NEEDED TO ANSWER.

>> MADAM MAYOR, I DON'T HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE ATTORNEY HERE, BUT I DO HAVE A QUESTION ON OUR BACK BASE STUDY, ARE WE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT THINGS LIKE THIS DURING THE BACK BASE STUDY?

>> THE BACK BASE STUDY IS A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY OF THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY.

IT INCLUDES THIS PART OF TOWN, I CAN'T TELL YOU OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD OF OAK STREET IS GOING TO BE CONCENTRATED ON WITHIN THAT REGION OF THE STUDY AREA.

BUT IT IS A CITYWIDE STUDY.

>> WELL, I'M JUST HOPEFUL THAT WE CAN GET SOME IDEAS FOR DEALING WITH THIS.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND, IS IT THAT THE REST OF THE PEOPLE ARE UNABLE TO BUILD A SEAWALL? I KNOW THAT'S COSTLY.

>> NO, IT WOULD BE AN APPLICATION TO OUR PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD FOR CONSERVATION, OVERLAY ZONE DEVELOPMENT.

AFTER THE PLANNING BOARD APPROVES THAT, THE CITY WOULD ISSUE A BUILDING PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE SEAWALL.

IT'S A ROUTINE APPLICATION THAT GOES BEFORE OUR PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD.

>> [NOISE] THIS IS MY NEIGHBORHOOD, AND SO I'M WELL AWARE OF ALL THE COMPLAINTS THAT HAVE COME THROUGH FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS.

ONE OF THE FEARS WAS EXACTLY WHAT MS. MEDORHOUSE AND MS. STEVENSON MOAS MENTIONED WAS THAT THIS WALL WAS GOING TO MOVE THE WATER SOMEWHERE ELSE.

THEIR EXPERTS THAT ENDED UP BEING THE RESULT OF THEM WINNING THE LAWSUIT MENTIONED THAT IT WOULD NOT AFFECT BECAUSE THE WATER WOULD GO AROUND THE WALL.

BUT AFTER THE FACT, BECAUSE THERE WAS THERE WAS NO STORM BETWEEN THE PCB HEARING AND THE RESULT, THERE'S NOW A VIDEO OF THE FACT THAT BEFORE AND AFTER, IT DOES REALLY AFFECT ALL OF THE NEIGHBORS BECAUSE OF THIS WALL.

I THINK THAT IF WE HAD BEEN ABLE TO HAVE AN EXPERT [NOISE] DO AN ACCURATE STUDY, IT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE HELPED.

IT PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BUT REALLY IS THE EFFECT OF WHAT HAS HAPPENED HAS BEEN NEGATIVE LIKE ALL THE NEIGHBORS, EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE NOT EXPERTS, BY DEFINITION TESTIFIED TO.

I'M ASKING THE ATTORNEY IF SHE CAN TALK ABOUT WHAT ARE OUR OPTIONS HERE? I KNOW ONE IS TO ADMIT THE PERMIT.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER OPTIONS?

>> UNFORTUNATELY, TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COURT'S ORDER, UNLESS THERE WERE SOME CHANGE IN THE WALL ITSELF, AND I HAVE NOT BEEN APPRISED THAT THERE HAS BEEN, IT WOULD BE VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO BRING IN ANY NEW EVIDENCE.

THE COURT ESSENTIALLY REVIEWS THE CASE BEFORE IT WITH ALL THE DATA AND THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS PRESENTED AT PCB, JUST AS YOU DO, AND THE JUDGE HAS RULED AND SAID WE DID NOT PROVIDE ANY EVIDENCE TO REBUT WHAT THE APPLICANT HAD PRESENTED.

JUST SO FOLKS UNDERSTAND THE WAY THE PROCESS WORKS, GENERICALLY, THE APPLICANT HAS THE BURDEN TO PROVIDE THE EVIDENCE.

ONCE THE APPLICANT PROVIDES THE EVIDENCE, THEN IT'S CALLED BURDEN SHIFTING.

THE BURDEN SHIFTS TO THE CITY OR SOMEONE WHO WANTS TO CHALLENGE TO PROVIDE CONTRARY EVIDENCE, IF I CAN PHRASE IT THAT WAY.

BUT IT HAS TO BE OF ESSENTIALLY THE SAME CALIBER.

FOR INSTANCE, IF YOU HAVE AN ENGINEER'S REPORT THAT SAYS WHATEVER THE APPLICATION IS, IS FINE, MEETS ALL THE CRITERIA,

[00:25:02]

THEN YOU WOULD NEED SIMILAR EXPERT EVIDENCE TO REBUT THAT, AND SHIFT THE BURDEN BACK, AND THAT WOULD BE THE FIRST PART.

IT WOULD BE THE BURDEN SHIFTING, AND THEN ARTICULATING WHY THERE IS A GOOD PUBLIC POLICY TO DENY.

BUT THAT DIDN'T OCCUR AT PLANNING AND ZONING, AND THAT IS THE HEARING WHERE IT'S THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING, LIKE THE LITTLE MINI TRIAL, AND SO AT THIS POINT, IT'S TOO LATE FOR US TO CHANGE THAT, AND THE COURT HAS REVIEWED ALL THE EVIDENCE, HAS GIVEN YOU DIRECTION IN A COURT ORDER TO BASICALLY FOLLOW THROUGH AND ISSUE THE PERMITS, UNFORTUNATELY.

>> WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO APPEAL?

>> NO, YOU'VE ALREADY MADE THAT DECISION.

YOU HAD 30 DAYS AFTER THAT AUGUST ORDER, WE HAD A SHADE MEETING, AND THE COMMISSION'S DECISION AT THE TIME WAS TO NOT FURTHER APPEAL THE ISSUE SO THAT WINDOW HAS CLOSED.

>> REALLY WHAT WAS LEFT ON THE TABLE FOR US TO DO IS APPLY THE JUDGE'S ORDER.

>> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> CAN I MAKE [INAUDIBLE] BEFORE?

>> ABSOLUTELY. WE'LL GO AROUND THE TABLE.

>> [INAUDIBLE]

>> A LITTLE RELUCTANT, BUT AS I RECALL, THIS WAS ACTION THAT WAS TAKEN WITHOUT A PERMIT, AND THEN IT RETROACTIVELY WENT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD.

IT'S EFFECTIVELY, AND I'M NOT MINCING WORDS HERE, AND I'M RELUCTANT TO DO THAT, BUT THEY ASKED FOR FORGIVENESS, NOT PERMISSION.

THEY DID NOT GO THROUGH THE PROPER CHANNELS, AND THAT DOESN'T SIT WELL WITH ME.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE MOVING FORWARD THAT WE DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO AVOID SUCH A SITUATION AGAIN.

THE JUDGE'S DECISION CLEARLY IS FINAL.

OUR HANDS ARE TIED.

I AGREE WITH MS. COLADY THAT THIS IS ANOTHER NAIL IN THE COFFIN FOR OUR CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONES, AND I'LL SPEAK MORE TO THAT LATER AND SOME OTHER COMMENTS THAT I HAVE ABOUT WETLAND LOSS.

BUT IT PAINS ME THAT WE'RE GOING IN THIS DIRECTION AND THAT OUR NEIGHBORS ARE BEING IMPACTED SO NEGATIVELY, AND THAT IS JUST GETTING WORSE RATHER THAN BETTER, AND I WISH THERE WERE MORE WE COULD DO.

>> COMMISSIONER GARRIS.

>> I GUESS THAT MEANS WE CAN'T SEND IT BACK TO PLANNING AND ZONING.

>> NO, MA'AM.

>> NO, MA'AM. WHAT WE NEED UNFORTUNATELY, DOESN'T SIT WELL WITH ANY OF US, OF COURSE, BUT WE'VE BEEN HERE BEFORE.

WE HAD JUDGES ORDER US TO ISSUE PERMITS, AND WE'VE DONE THEM IN GOOD FAITH BECAUSE THIS IS A SYSTEM THAT WE OPERATE WITHIN.

WE DON'T LIKE IT, BUT WE WILL, SO I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FROM ANYONE.

NO ONE WANTS TO DO IT.

>> I UNDERSTAND.

>> I WILL DO IT.

>> IT WOULD BE ESSENTIALLY A MOTION TO APPROVE THE APPEAL AND ISSUE THE PERMITS CONSISTENT WITH THE COURT ORDER.

THAT WOULD BE, LET ME GET THE ADDRESSES RIGHT, 40 HILDRETH WAY AND 0 HILDRETH DRIVE.

>> WHAT YOU SAID, THAT'S MY MOTION.

IT'S FUNNY, BUT IT'S NOT REALLY FUNNY.

>> SECOND.

>> ANY DISCUSSION?

>> I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT WHEN WE SAY THAT THERE'S A DRAIN THAT THE CITY HAS THERE, ARE WE JUST NOT KEEPING IT CLEAN ENOUGH SO THAT THEY'RE GETTING WATER FROM THE WATER SIDE AND THE STREET SIDE?

>> IF THERE'S A STORMWATER INLET THAT NEEDS MAINTENANCE, WE WILL CERTAINLY LOOK INTO IT.

WE GO BACK AND REVIEW THESE MEETINGS AFTERWARDS.

WE CAN CONTACT THE PROPERTY OWNER ON OAK STREET AND SPEAK TO THEM ABOUT WHICH INLET THEY'RE SPEAKING OF AND LOOK AT OUR MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE.

WE HAVE TO PUT A TIDE CHECK VALVE IN THERE.

WE'LL GO THROUGH THAT AGAIN.

>> I'D APPRECIATE THAT. I'D ALSO APPRECIATE BRINGING THIS ISSUE UP WITH BACK BAY STUDY, IF AT ALL POSSIBLE, TO SEE THEIR IDEAS. THANK YOU.

>> GOOD POINT. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS? MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

THIS IS AN APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL BY PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD OF

[6.B. Appeal of approval by the Planning and Zoning Board of a Conservation Overlay Zone Development Permit regarding a dock modification at 11 Magnolia Avenue. (A. Skinner, Planning and Building Director)]

[00:30:01]

A CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT REGARDING A DOCK MODIFICATION AT 11 MAGNOLIA AVENUE.

MS. SKINNER, YOU ARE FREE TO PRESENT.

>> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS AMY SKINNER.

I'M THE DIRECTOR OF THE PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT.

THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS AT 5 RADIO ROAD AND AN INDIVIDUAL, STATING THAT HE WAS AN AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNER AT 1 RADIO ROAD FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR NEW BOAT SLIPS, INCLUDING LIFTS AND CATWALKS, TO AN EXISTING STRUCTURE AT 11 MAGNOLIA AVENUE.

THE PZB APPLICATION FOR CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONE DEVELOPMENT WAS FILED IN NOVEMBER OF 2022.

THE APPLICATION WAS HEARD BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD IN FEBRUARY OF 2023 AND APPROVED BY A MAJORITY VOTE OF THE BOARD OF 5 - 2, WITH CONDITIONS.

THE CONDITIONS INCLUDED THREE CONDITIONS THAT THE FOUR BOAT SLIPS WERE FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY.

THE CITY ARCHAEOLOGIST WOULD EVALUATE THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND THAT STAFF WOULD DETERMINE THE NEED FOR A SUBMERGED LAND LEASE.

THE APPLICATION ALSO INCLUDED ANOTHER DOCK STRUCTURE TO THE SOUTH, BUT THIS STRUCTURE IS NOT PART OF THE APPEAL.

THE PZB APPLICATION WAS HEARD AND ADVERTISED CORRECTLY.

ALL PROPER PROCEDURES WERE ADHERED TO AND COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE WAS PRESENTED.

THE TWO APPEAL APPLICATIONS WERE FILED IN A TIMELY MANNER.

IT IS THE STAFF'S UNDERSTANDING THAT PARTIES ATTEMPTED TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE.

HOWEVER, STAFF WAS NOTIFIED THAT THE APPEALS APPLICATION SHOULD PROCEED TO THE CITY COMMISSION.

REPRESENTATIVES, I BELIEVE FOR THE APPLICATION ARE HERE.

THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND I'M AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

>> THE NEXT UP WILL BE THE CITY ATTORNEY, ISABELLE.

>> IT'S ME.

>> ISABELLE, CITY ATTORNEY.

>> THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR.

I DID WANT JUST TO CLARIFY IF MR. MICHAEL INGRAM IS PRESENT.

HE FILED AN APPEAL APPLICATION ALONG WITH THE KULAGAS, BUT I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO HAVE ANY COMMUNICATION WITH HIM RECENTLY.

WE'RE NOT SURE IF THAT PARTICULAR APPELLANT IS PRESENT.

AGAIN, I CAN'T SEE BEHIND ME, BUT IS MR. MICHAEL INGRAM PRESENT?

>> IF MR. INGRAM IS PRESENT, WOULD YOU PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF NOW? WE HAVE NO MR. INGRAM IN THE ROOM.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I WILL HELP YOU AT THE TIME WHEN YOU'RE READY FOR A MOTION TO ADDRESS MR. INGRAM'S APPLICATION.

BUT FOR NOW, MR. SID ANSBACHER IS HERE ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS, AND I BELIEVE MR. WHITEHOUSE IS ALSO HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT'S, THE KULAGAS.

YOU'LL RECALL THAT THIS IS AN APPEAL ON THE RECORD OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD HEARING BASED ON THE RIGHT TO APPEAL THE APPROVAL OF THE CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONE DEVELOPMENT.

PUBLIC COMMENT WILL BE ALLOWED, BUT IT IS UNSWORN BECAUSE WE ARE NOT INTRODUCING ANY NEW EVIDENCE.

IF THE PROPERTY OWNER PRESENTS MODIFICATIONS, THEN WE WILL OPEN UP PUBLIC COMMENT AND SWEAR FOLKS IN FOR THAT PORTION.

BUT OTHERWISE, IT WILL BE UNSWORN PUBLIC COMMENT.

YOU KNOW WE'VE DONE THIS A NUMBER OF TIMES, BUT THE REQUIRED FINDINGS BY THE CITY COMMISSION IS WHETHER THE CITY COMMISSION FINDS [NOISE] IN ITS OPINION THAT ERROR WAS MADE WITHIN THE TERMS OF THIS SECTION AND AFFIRM, REVERSE, OR MODIFY THE ACTION.

THAT IS YOUR CHARGE FOR TODAY.

AGAIN, YOU ARE USING ESSENTIALLY THE SAME STANDARD THAT A JUDGE WOULD USE, WHICH IS WHETHER OR NOT WE HAD PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS AT THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD HEARING, WHETHER THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD APPLIED THE CORRECT LAW, AND FINALLY, THE ISSUE OF COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD, WHETHER THE DECISION WAS SUPPORTED BY COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD.

WE'VE HAD YOUR STAFF PRESENTATION.

WE CAN DO PUBLIC COMMENT FIRST AND THEN HEAR FROM THE APPELLANT AND THE PROPERTY OWNER, OR YOU CAN SWITCH THAT UP HEAR FROM THE APPELLANT, HEAR FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THEN HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT.

WE DO HAVE TO PROVIDE THESE FOLKS WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO REBUT.

IT IS AT THE COMMISSION'S DISCRETION WHICH ORDER YOU WISH TO GO FORWARD, WHETHER YOU WISH TO HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE FRONT END OR NOT.

>> I WOULD RATHER HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT AFTER THERE'S SOME GOOD AMOUNT OF INFORMATION SHARED.

>> I AGREE.

>> AFTER THE APPLICANT SPEAKS.

[00:35:03]

BUT I THINK THE FIRST THING, WE WANT TO DO EX PARTE COMMUNICATION NOW.

I HAVE NO EX PARTE COMMUNICATION ON THIS. I'VE HAD NONE.

>> I HAVE NONE.

>> I HAVEN'T HAD ANY.

>> ANYONE HAD ANY?

>> NO, NOT AT ALL.

>> I HAD A COMMUNICATION WITH ZACH MCKENNA.

>> THAT'S DONE WITH THAT.

NO, WE'RE NOT HAVING PUBLIC COMMENT, THE FIRST APPELLANT'S REPRESENTATIVE PRESENTATION. WHO WOULD THAT BE?

>> MR. WHITEHOUSE, I BELIEVE.

>> [BACKGROUND] MR. WHITEHOUSE, YOU WILL HAVE 20 MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. COMMISSIONERS, FOR THE RECORD AGAIN, JAMES WHITEHOUSE, ST. JOHNS LAW GROUP, 104 SEA GROVE, MAIN STREET HERE IN ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA.

I AM HERE ON BEHALF OF THE KULAGA FAMILY, JOHN AND ELISE KULAGA.

I AM RECOGNIZED AS AN EXPERT IN CITY, COUNTY, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAW.

THIS APPEAL IS BROUGHT BY CITY RESIDENTS, JOHN AND ELISE KULAGA.

THEY'RE THE PROPERTY OWNERS AT 5 RADIO ROAD.

AS YOU SAW FROM YOUR PACKET, I SHOWED WHERE THEIR HOUSE IS LOCATED.

I CAN SHOW YOU ON THE OVERHEAD, BUT IT'S ALL PART OF THE RECORD THAT WAS IN YOUR PACKETS, I BELIEVE.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT, I CAN BRING IT BACK UP.

BUT RIGHT NOW, LET ME JUST GO THROUGH THE APPEAL ITSELF AND THEN WE CAN HAVE THOSE QUESTIONS OR I CAN PUT THE STUFF UP ON THE OVERHEAD.

IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE APPLICANT IS NOT OBJECTING TO THEIR STANDING.

THEY DO LIVE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT THERE WITHIN THE 300-FOOT NOTICE AREA.

THEY ARE DIRECTLY AND IMMEDIATELY AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, THIS CONSERVATION ZONE 1, FOR THE SIGNIFICANT MODIFICATIONS TO A DOCK TO INCLUDE FOUR NEW BOAT LIFTS WITH CATWALKS.

AGAIN, I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH THE STANDING PROOF BECAUSE IT'S WITHIN YOUR PACKETS AND I DON'T BELIEVE THEY'RE OBJECTING TO IT.

AS I SAID, CITY RESIDENTS JOHN AND ELISE KULAGA AND THEIR FAMILY, PROPERTY OWNERS OF 5 RADIO ROAD, LIVE ON IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT PROPERTY WITHIN THE 300-FOOT NOTICE AREA.

THESE RESIDENTS ARE DIRECTLY AND IMMEDIATELY AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.

THE PROPOSAL CALLS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE MOST SENSITIVE ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS OF THE CITY CONSERVATION ZONE 1.

FURTHER, THIS PROPOSAL SEEKS TO FURTHER EXPAND THEIR ALREADY EXISTING DOCK IN THIS SIGNIFICANTLY CONSTRAINED AREA OF HOSPITAL CREEK.

ALL THE TESTIMONY AS TO THAT IS ON THE RECORD AND THAT YOU CAN CONSIDER.

THE WATERWAY IS VERY NARROW HERE AND VERY SHALLOW.

THEY ARE ASKING FOR SIGNIFICANT MODIFICATIONS TO A DOCK TO INCLUDE FOUR NEW BOAT LIFTS WITH CATWALKS.

THAT SPECIFIC LANGUAGE WAS IN THE STAFF REPORT VERBATIM.

THE PZB'S GRANT IS BASED UPON THE APPLICANT'S SUBMITTAL OF VAGUE AND INCOMPLETE ANSWERS AND MATERIALS ATTEMPTING TO ADDRESS THE CITY CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSERVATION ZONE 1 DEVELOPMENT.

THESE ANSWERS ARE INCOMPLETE AND VAGUE AT BEST AND DO NOT EFFECTIVELY ADDRESS THE 17 CRITERIA AS REQUIRED BY OUR CITY CODE.

MOREOVER, THE APPELLANT, ADJACENT RESIDENTS, AND SIGNIFICANT USERS OF THE CREEK IN THIS AREA FOR MANY YEARS WILL BE IMMEASURABLY DAMAGED IF THIS REQUEST AND APPROVAL IS MERELY GLOSSED OVER AND ALLOWED BECAUSE THE APPLICANTS WANT MORE DOCKS AND CATWALKS FOR WHAT THEY CLAIM WILL BE PERSONAL USE OF THIS ALREADY OVER USED AND BURDENSOME COMMERCIAL DOCK.

THE KULAGA'S PROVIDED THE FOLLOWING DIRECT TESTIMONY AT THE PCB HEARING AND EXPRESSED THE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT THAT THIS PROPOSAL WILL HAVE ON THEIR PROPERTY.

THE CREEK AREA, WHICH THEY USE ALL THE TIME, AND THEIR VISTAS LOOKING OUT AT THE BAY AND TOWARD THE LIGHTHOUSE, ETC.

THE APPLICANT ALREADY HAS A SIGNIFICANT STRUCTURE IN THE AREA AND NOW SEEKS TO SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE THEIR IMPACT ON THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND THEIR SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE CREEK AND THE ENVIRONMENT, AS WELL AS ON THE OTHER NEIGHBORS IN THE COMMUNITY THAT SHARE THIS VERY CONSTRAINED WATERWAY.

THIS IS THEIR TESTIMONY IN FULL AND IT CLEARLY LAYS OUT THE FACT BASED TESTIMONY THAT WAS IGNORED BY THE PCB'S GRANT OF THIS SIGNIFICANT MODIFICATION TO THE COMMERCIAL DOCK.

THIS IS FROM THE KULAGA'S AND IT WAS IN THE RECORD, SO I'M JUST REPEATING IT FOR YOUR KNOWLEDGE.

DEAR BOARD MEMBERS, MY NAME IS JOHN KULAGA AND MY FAMILY AND I LIVE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THIS COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES REQUESTED IMPACT.

TO BEGIN, I AM SET THAT I CANNOT BE THERE TO REPRESENT US FOR SUCH AN IMPACTFUL MANNER DUE TO THE LACK OF APPROPRIATE TIME GIVEN WITH A CERTIFIED LETTER DELIVERED TO US ONLY SEVEN BUSINESS DAYS BEFORE THE MEETING, WE HAVE HIRED OUR ATTORNEY, MR. WHITE HOUSE, TO READ OUR HEARTFELT AND GENUINE OBJECTIONS.

MY WIFE ELISE, HAS BEEN A RESIDENT OF ST. AUGUSTINE SINCE 1982 AND MYSELF SINCE 1989.

[00:40:05]

WE HAVE SEEN THIS CITY TRANSFORMED FOR THE BETTER AND FOR THE WORSE.

WE ARE NOT OPPOSED TO DEVELOPMENT OF APPROPRIATE GROWTH IN THE NATION'S OLDEST CITY, BUT STRONGLY OPPOSE THE FOUNTAIN OF YOUTH DOCK EXTENSION AND ENLARGEMENT.

OUR FIRST OPPOSITION IS BASED ON THE DISCREPANCY IN THE FILING.

THE FILING IN DECEMBER STATES FOR COMMERCIAL USE, BUT THE RESPONSE IN JANUARY SAYS FOR PERSONAL USE.

PAGE 1 OF FOUR OF THE APPLICATION DATED DECEMBER 12, 2022 STATES, "THE PROPOSED WORK WILL ENHANCE VISTAS AND SCENIC OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE BENEFITS OF THE PUBLIC AS A WHOLE.

THE APPROVAL OF THE DOC WILL GIVE THE PUBLIC THE BENEFIT OF RENTING A BOAT DURING OPERATING HOURS AND OBSERVE THE VISTAS AND SCENIC OPPORTUNITIES IN THE VICINITY.

IN A SUBSEQUENT EMAIL EXCHANGE WITH JACOB FREDERICKSON, SENIOR PLANNER, DATED JANUARY 17, 2023, STAFF ASKED THE SPECIFIC NATURE OF HOW THE PROPOSED DOCK WITH BOAT LIFTS WILL BE USED, AND THE APPLICANT RESPONDED THAT THE ADDITIONAL FOUR BOAT LIFTS PLAN TO BE USED BY THE FAMILY WHO OWNS THE FOUNTAIN OF YOUTH FOR PERSONAL BOATS.

ELISE AND I ARE BOTH AVID OUTDOORSMEN THAT ENJOY THE WATERS OF ST. AUGUSTINE.

AS LONGTIME LOCAL, AVID ANGLERS, WE HAVE A CANOE, A SKIFF, AND AN OFFSHORE VESSEL, AND USE THE CREEK IN THIS AREA OFTEN.

WE HAVE PERSONAL EXPERIENCE AND HAVE SEEN THIS WATERWAY OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS AND CONNECTING WATERWAYS REACH A POINT OF SAFETY CONCERN TO BOTH HUMAN AND MARINE LIFE DUE TO THE LARGE POPULATION INCREASE IN INEXPERIENCED BOATERS.

THE PROPOSITION BEFORE YOU FURTHER INCREASES THE SAFETY CONCERN FOR BOTH HUMAN AND MARINE LIFE IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER.

ONE, THE PROPOSED LIFT LIMIT FOR DOCKS IS CURRENTLY 12,000 POUNDS.

THIS IS APPROXIMATELY A 34 FOOT VESSEL AND A 10-FOOT BEAM WIDTH.

THIS IS A VERY LARGE BOAT AND THEY WANT FOUR FOR PERSONAL USE? NUMBER 2.

AT LOW TIDE, THE NAVIGABLE WATER IN FRONT OF THE CURRENT EXISTING DOCK IS 75 FEET AT BEST.

TO BACK OUT, A 34-FOOT VESSEL WITH OTHERS ONCOMING LEAVES THIS LITTLE ROOM EVEN FOR THE MOST EXPERIENCED CAPTAIN, NEVER MIND A RENTER.

ALSO THE TIDE FLOW CURRENT IN THE CREEK CAN GET VERY STRONG WHICH FURTHER COMPLICATES THE NAVIGATION. NUMBER 3.

AT LOW TIDE, MANY AREAS OF IN HOSPITAL CREEK ARE ONLY THREE FEET DEEP.

THAT WOULD NOT ALLOW A 12,000-POUND VESSEL TO PASS SAFELY WITHOUT HARM TO THE VESSEL AND MARINE ENVIRONMENT BY STIRRING UP SILT.

SILT STIRRED UP CAUSES MANY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ISSUES HENCE WHY YOU NEED A PERMIT FOR DREDGING.

NUMBER 4. AT THE CAUSEWAY BRIDGE, THERE IS ALSO A KAYAK AND CANOE LAUNCH.

THERE IS A LARGE VOLUME OF KAYAKERS, CANOERS, AND PADDLEBOARDERS THAT LAUNCH FROM HERE TO SAFELY ENJOY ST. AUGUSTINE'S WATERS OF HOSPITAL CREEK WITHOUT FEAR OF LARGER POWERED BOATS RUNNING THEM OVER.

CURRENTLY, THE MOTORIZED BOAT TRAFFIC ON HOSPITAL CREEK IS LOW.

DO YOU WANT INEXPERIENCED BOAT RENTERS NEXT TO HIGH VOLUME OF UNDER MOTORIZED VESSELS? NUMBER 5.

DUE TO THE BUSY MAIN WATERWAY, OUR MARINE LIFE HAS VERY FEW REFUGES ANYMORE.

HOSPITAL CREEK IS ONE OF THE LAST FEW AREAS WITHOUT HEAVY BOAT TRAFFIC FOR MANATEES AND OTHER ANIMALS TO SURVIVE UNDISTURBED.

HOSPITAL CREEK IS NOT DEEP IN ALLOWING EXPERIENCED BOATERS INTO AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA AND STIRRING UP MUD SILT HAS NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON MARINE LIFE.

THIS PROPOSITION FOR PERSONAL USE VERSUS COMMERCIAL IS QUESTIONABLE WITH THIS FILING, BUT THE REALITY IS THAT IT IS A SEGUE INTO COMMERCIAL USE.

REGARDLESS OF THEIR CONFLICTING PROPOSED USE, THIS ALONE SHOULD BE ENOUGH TO DELAY OR DENY THIS APPROVAL.

THIS IS A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, NOT A PRIVATE RESIDENCE, AND STATING THEY WILL USE IT FOR PERSONAL USE IS ONLY A CLEVER DISGUISE AND CLEARLY CONFLICTING WITH THEIR ORIGINAL APPLICATION.

THE FAMILY OF THE FOUNTAIN OF YOUTH HAS DEEP POLITICAL CONNECTIONS IN THIS SMALL TOWN, WHICH IS EVIDENT HERE.

WHY WOULD THEY WANT A LARGER DOCK FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY, BUT NOT ALLOW US OR OTHER NEIGHBORS TO BUILD A DOCK IN THE NEAR VICINITY IN FRONT OF OUR OWN LAND AND HOUSES ON THE CREEK.

THEIR REPRESENTATIVES ARE HERE IN THE ROOM, YOU CAN ASK THEM THAT QUESTION.

WHY WON'T THEY ALLOW A NEIGHBOR TO BUILD A DOCK YET THEY ARE ASKING FOR PERMISSION TO EXTEND ONE.

THAT BEING SAID, HAS THE CITY COMMISSION DONE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY? HAS THE CITY RECENTLY LOOKED AT THE NON-MOTORIZED BOATER VOLUME IN HOSPITAL CREEK? WILL THE CITY CONSIDER PUTTING A BAN ON COMMERCIAL USE OF THE PROPOSED PERSONAL DOCK? IS THE DOCK APPROVED FOR PERSONAL USE? IF THE DOCK IS APPROVED FOR PERSONAL USE BUT USED FOR COMMERCIAL USE, WILL IT BE STOPPED OR AT LEAST TAXED APPROPRIATELY FOR THE USE IN LAND VALUE? IF APPROVED, WILL THE CITY SET UP PROPER CONTINUOUS ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORS TO ASSURE THE IMPACT OF INCREASED BOAT TRAFFIC DOES NOT AFFECT WILDLIFE IN THE SENSITIVE AREA? THERE ARE MANY MORE QUESTIONS OUR COLLEAGUES IN THE COMMUNITY HAVE THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED.

THIS IS NOT A SIMPLE DOCK EXTENSION APPROVAL, THERE'S A LOT TO BE UNCOVERED AND RESEARCHED HERE.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PERSONAL REVIEW OF THIS MATTER AND AS FELLOW ST. AUGUSTINE RESIDENTS, FOR PUTTING YOURSELVES IN OUR SHOES FOR A FEW MINUTES, ELISE AND JOHN KULAGA".

AGAIN, THERE WAS ALSO ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY FROM FACT BASED WITNESSES AT THE PCB HEARING, WHICH IS WHAT YOU NEED TO RELY ON FOR YOUR DECISION TODAY.

[00:45:04]

FURTHER, THE TRANSCRIPT ALSO CONTAINS SEVERAL OTHER FACT BASED WITNESSES THAT DISCUSSED THE CONSTRAINED CREEK AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL, PARTICULARLY CAPTAIN ZACH MCKENNA WHO CURRENTLY RUNS ENVIRONMENTAL ECO TOURS UP AND DOWN THE CREEK AND HAS DONE SO FOR SOME 17 YEARS FOR PEOPLE TO ENJOY AND UNDERSTAND THE FRAGILE ECOSYSTEM, SPOKE AS THE IMPACT OF THESE ADDITIONAL FOUR DOCKS AND CATWALKS ON THIS CONSTRAINED AREA OF THE CREEK AND THE EFFECT OF THE ENVIRONMENT BASED UPON HIS FIRSTHAND FACT BASED KNOWLEDGE OF THE AREA.

HE SPOKE ABOUT THE PRISTINE NATURE OF HOSPITAL CREEK AND THE FACT THAT THIS APPLICATION DID NOT IN FACT ADDRESS THE 17 CRITERIA IN A MANNER TO SHOW THAT IT WOULD NOT UNDULY IMPACT THE ENVIRONMENT AS THE OTHERS HAVE STATED.

I WANT TO GO QUICKLY TO THE APPLICANT'S ATTEMPT TO ANSWER THE CITY CODE CRITERIA.

THE APPLICANTS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONES ARE TO BE EVALUATED ACCORDING TO CERTAIN CRITERIA SET FORTH IN SECTION 11-29C OF THE CITY CODE.

THE OWNER HAS COMPILED WITH EACH OF THOSE CRITERIA AS STATED BELOW.

THE ONES I'M GOING TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO, ALL OF THIS IS IN YOUR PACKET AND IT WAS IN THE STAFF REPORT.

I WANT TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THE ONES THAT I'VE HIGHLIGHTED IN MY APPEAL AS TO NUMBER 7, THE IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT ON VEGETATIVE AND ANIMAL COMMUNITIES.

THE APPLICANT REPLIED, THERE ARE NO ANTICIPATED VEGETATIVE IMPACTS.

I CAN'T EVEN READ MY OWN WRITING, AS ALL MARSH, MANGROVES, AND SEA GRASS ARE NOT PRESENT.

ALSO THE DOCK AND MINIMALLY SHADE A SMALL AREA OF OPEN WATER, BUT WILL BE BUILT AS REQUIRED BY STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES FIVE FEET OR HIGHER ABOVE KNEE HIGH WATER.

AGAIN, YOU CAN READ THE REST OF THAT.

I'M NOT GOING TO READ IT TO YOU, BUT IT'S IN YOUR PACKET THAT WAS PART OF THE STAFF REPORT.

THEY TALK ABOUT THE EFFECT ON BOAT WAY TRAFFIC, THEY ALSO TALK ABOUT THE IMPACT ON DEVELOPMENT VISTAS AND NUMBER 12, AND SCENIC OPPORTUNITIES BY LINEAR FEET, HEIGHT, MASS, AND PERCENTAGE OF SITE.

THEY SAY NOT APPLICABLE, WHICH CLEARLY IT'S APPLICABLE.

IF YOU LOOK TO THE FACT BASED TESTIMONY WITHIN THE RECORD, THEY TALK ABOUT THE IMPACT ON PLANT AND ANIMAL HABITAT AND POTENTIAL LOSS IN ACRES AND PERCENT OF SITE.

THERE WAS NO TESTIMONY OTHER THAN THEM RESPONDING THAT IT WAS NOT APPLICABLE.

NUMBER 15, IMPACT ON DEVELOPMENT OF WATER QUALITY, THEY STATED IT'S NOT APPLICABLE.

THERE WASN'T ANY TESTIMONY AS TO THAT AS WELL.

THEN YOU CAN SEE AS TO NUMBER 16, THEY TALK ABOUT THERE'S EXTREMELY SMALL LOSS OF FORAGING HABITAT, AND THOSE ARE ALL YOUR 17 CRITERIA THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD HAS TO BASE THEIR FINDINGS ON.

WE BELIEVE THERE WAS NOT APPROPRIATE TESTIMONY AS TO SUCH.

OUR COMMENTARY ON THE RECORD ON THE 17 CRITERIA, THE PCB FAILURE TO ADDRESS THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, OUR COMMENTS ON THE RECORD WERE BASED UPON OUR DISCUSSIONS WITH VARIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL EXPERTS IN THE FIELD AND THEIR COMMENTARY WAS INCLUDED AND OUR CONCERNS EXPRESSED IN OUR COMMENTS ON THE RECORD AS NOTED ABOVE.

COMMENTARY BY THE APPLICANT IN THE RECORD AS TO THEIR CRITERIA AS THE CITY CODE DOES NOT ADDRESS THE ISSUES REQUIRED FOR APPROVAL.

IN FACT, THE PCB MADE ERROR IN NOT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSING EACH OF THE 17 CRITERIA AS REQUIRED BY THE CODE.

IF THEY HAD DONE SO AS REQUIRED BY THE CODE, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN APPARENT AS FOLLOWS.

A MOST OF THE JUSTIFICATIONS FOR WHICH THIS PROJECT SHOULD BE APPROVED, THAT WERE SUBMITTED BY THE CONSULTANT WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY INFORMATION.

B, THE CODE REQUIRES REVIEW OF THE CRITERIA FOR CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONE DEVELOPMENT.

C, THE STATEMENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT ARE EASILY REFUTED OR DO NOT ADDRESS THE REQUIREMENTS AS FOLLOWS.

I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH ALL THOSE, BUT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE SPOT WHERE I HAVE HIGHLIGHTED UNDER THAT PART OF MY APPEAL, WHICH SAID FURTHER, THE APPLICANT CONTRADICTED THEMSELVES BY STATING THAT IT IS BOTH A PRIVATE DOCK, THAT THE PUBLIC CAN RENT BOATS.

ACCORDINGLY IF THEY SAY IT IS PRIVATE, THEN IT WILL NOT BENEFIT THE PUBLIC.

IF THEY SAY IT IS PUBLIC FOR RENTALS, INEXPERIENCED BOATERS POSE A CONDITION OF RISK TO LOCAL PLANTS AND WILDLIFE.

IN CONCLUSION, A STRICT SCRUTINY REVIEW OF THE RECORD CLEARLY REVEALS THE APPLICANT DID NOT MEET EACH AND EVERY REQUIREMENT, GUIDELINE, CODE, REGULATION FOR THIS REQUEST.

THE DOCUMENTARY AND TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE OFFERED BY THE FACT BASED WITNESSES COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MORE ONE SIDED.

IN FACT, THEIR TESTIMONY WAS UNCONTROVERTED, SAVED SEVERAL VAGUE ASSERTIONS BY THE APPLICANT.

YOU HAVE THE VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT WITHIN YOUR RECORD AS WELL THAT YOU CAN LOOK AT ALL THESE.

I MENTIONED A FEW OF THEM, I WON'T MENTION ALL OF THEM.

THE BOARD MEMBERS COMMENTS AND FAILURE TO FULLY EVALUATE THE 17 CRITERIA SHOW THEIR CLEARLY PREDETERMINED POSITIONS ON THE MATTER PRESENTED.

[00:50:05]

THESE COMMENTS SERVES AS A GUIDING LIGHT FOR THIS COMMISSION'S EVALUATION OF WHETHER THE BOARD FULLY EVALUATED THE CRITERIA AND ANALYZED THE PROPOSAL AND WHETHER THE FACT BASED TESTIMONY PROVIDED CALLED THAT PROPOSAL INTO QUESTION UNDER THE CODE CRITERIA.

THE COURTS HAVE RULED THAT ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS CHARGED WITH THE ADMINISTRATION OF CITY AND COUNTY GOVERNMENT ARE SUBJECTED TO INCREASING PRESSURES.

ON ONE HAND, THEY ARE PRESSED TO ALLOW GROWTH ONLY IF IT IS COMMENSURATE WITH AVAILABLE ROADS AND SERVICES.

ON THE OTHER HAND, IS THE PRESSURE FROM LANDOWNERS WHO WISH TO DEVELOP THEIR VACANT PROPERTIES IN A MANNER THAT RESULTS IN THE LARGEST RETURN OF CAPITAL OR PLEASURE.

STILL, ANOTHER PRESSURE IS THE DESIRE OF NEIGHBORS WHO DO NOT WISH THEIR PRESENT ENJOYMENT OF THEIR LANDS DISRUPTED IN THE SLIGHTEST BY THE USE OF ADJOINING VACANT PROPERTY.

OPPOSITION OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS MUST BE CONSIDERED BY THE CITY IF COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE PRESENTED SHOWING AN ACTUAL EFFECT ON THEIR PROPERTY AS PROHIBITED BY THE CRITERIA.

FINALLY, AS AFA MENTIONED, THERE WAS NO COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO SUPPORT A GRANT OF THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR APPROVAL.

TO THAT END, THE EVIDENCE RELIED UPON TO SUSTAIN THE ULTIMATE FINDING SHOULD BE SUFFICIENTLY RELEVANT AND MATERIAL THAT A REASONABLE MIND WOULD ACCEPT IT AS ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION REACHED.

THERE MUST BE SUCH EVIDENCE AS WILL ESTABLISH A SUBSTANTIAL BASIS OF FACT FROM WHICH THE FACT AT ISSUE CAN BE REASONABLY INFERRED.

IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE APPLICANT CLEARLY FAILED TO ESTABLISH WITH COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THEIR APPLICATION MET ALL OF THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE CITY GUIDELINES AND COMPLIED WITH ALL OF THE CITY CODES REQUIRED.

THIS FACT WAS CONTESTED BY THE COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ADDUCED AT THE HEARING FROM THE FACT BASED WITNESS TESTIMONY.

IN FACT, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD, SHORT OF THE VAGUE ANSWERS BY THE APPLICANT AS TO THE PURELY HYPOTHETICAL OPINIONS AND CONJECTURES POSITING THAT IT WOULD NOT AFFECT THE ENVIRONMENT AND WOULD NOT UNDULY IMPACT THIS CONSTRAINED AREA OF THE CREEK, LET ALONE COMPETENT AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT REFUTING THE CITIZEN NEIGHBOR FACT BASED TESTIMONY IN SOME THE SPECULATIVE REASONS OFFERED BY THE BOARD BROUGHT ON BY THE UNSUBSTANTIATED, VAGUE ASSERTIONS OF THE APPLICANT IN THEIR ATTEMPTS TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THE CITY CODES, GUIDELINES, AND STANDARDS.

THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION THAT THIS APPROVAL, WHICH WAS OPPOSED BY EVERY FACT BASED CITIZEN WITNESS ON THE RECORD WHO OFFERED SUBSTANTIVE, COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY WAS IN FACT A VIOLATION OF THE CITY CODE THAT REPRESENTS A FAILURE TO FOLLOW THE ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW AND AN ORDER THAT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD, MUCH LESS EVIDENCE THAT WAS COMPETENT AND SUBSTANTIAL.

SUCH AN ACTION IN THE CASE AT HAND IS CLEAR ERROR.

AS YOU HEARD EARLIER, FACT BASED CITIZEN TESTIMONY CAN BE RELIED UPON TO DENY AN APPLICATION.

THERE'S A BURDEN SHIFTING UNDER YOUR CODE AS YOU HEARD IN AN EARLIER ITEM TODAY.

ONCE THE APPLICANT SHOWS AND HAS TO PRESENT COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, THEY MEET ALL 17 OF THE CRITERIA, THEN THE THE BURDEN SHIFTS BACK TO THE CITY OR TO OTHER COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT THEY MEET THAT OR NOT.

I WOULD POSE IT TO YOU, THEY DIDN'T MEET THE 17 CRITERIA IN THE FIRST PLACE, SO IT WOULD NEVER HAVE SHIFTED.

IF IT DID SHIFT, I WOULD POSE IT TO YOU THAT THERE WAS COMPETENCE SUBSTANTIAL ON THE EVIDENCE TO REFUTE THEIR EVIDENCE, AND THEREFORE, THAT THIS APPLICATION ITSELF SHOULD BE DENIED.

THE [INAUDIBLE] WOULD ASK RESPECTFULLY THAT YOU CONSIDER THEIR TESTIMONY FROM THE INITIAL HEARING AT THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD AGENCY, AS WELL AS ALL OF THE WITNESSES THAT TESTIFIED WITH FACT BASED TESTIMONY ON HOW THIS WILL UNDULY AFFECT HOSPITAL CREEK, AND WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU UPHOLD THIS APPEAL AND DENY THE PERMIT.

I AM AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR.

>> QUESTIONS?

>> NOT AT THIS TIME.

>> NOT AT THIS TIME. OKAY.

>> THANKS.

>> THANK YOU, MR. WHITEHOUSE.

WE WILL GO TO THE SECOND APPLICANT.

>> NOW MR. INGRAM, UNLESS HE'S COME INTO THE ROOM, MR. MICHAEL INGRAM.

>> WE ARE NOT GOING TO [OVERLAPPING]

>> HE IS NOT THERE. NO, I DON'T BELIEVE HE'S PRESENT.

NOW WE HAVE MR. [INAUDIBLE] BAKER.

>> HIS REPRESENTATION IS NOT HERE, THEREFORE HE WILL NOT BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK AT THIS HEARING.

MR. [INAUDIBLE] BAKER, YOU WILL HAVE 20 MINUTES.

>> WHICH I SINCERELY HOPE I DON'T USE.

>> [LAUGHTER] THANK YOU.

>> [INAUDIBLE] BAKER, UPCHURCH, BAILEY, AND UPCHURCH 780 NORTH PONCE DE LEON BOULEVARD,

[00:55:04]

HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT AND RESPONDENT HERE, THE FOUNTAIN OF YOUTH.

AS MR. WHITEHOUSE HAS ALREADY SAID, WE'RE NOT GOING TO OBJECT TO STANDING.

AS FAR AS WE'RE CONCERNED, WE HAVE OVER 1,300 LINEAR FRONTAGE FEET.

PART OF THAT FRONTAGE GOES TO THE NORTH OF THE ADJACENT CONDOMINIUM AND CONDOMINIUM DOCK AND FRONTS ON THE KOLOGO'S PROPERTY.

THEY'RE ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY.

IF NOT, THE PROPOSED DOCK SITE.

FIRST OF ALL, I HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT THE CONSERVATION ZONE ORDINANCE, THE FIRST TIME WAS 1990, ON BEHALF OF YOU ALL HAD MENTIONED AT THE 430 HEARING, GAMBLE AND ROY BARNES AND SEVERAL OTHERS REGARDING THE ZZO, AND IT WAS DRAFTED BY JEFF DOBSON IN ITS FIRST ITERATION, ESSENTIALLY TO TRACK LANGUAGE THAT I WORKED WITH IN MY FIRST POST LAW SCHOOL JOB AT DIVISION OF STATE LANDS, WHAT WAS THEN THE DNR, WHAT'S NOW THE DEP.

WE HAVE TO REMEMBER THE CONTEXT AND WE ALSO HAVE TO REMEMBER WHAT THE APPEAL ACTUALLY IS.

AS MISS LOPEZ APPRISED YOU, ON APPEAL, THE ISSUE IS NOT WHETHER IF YOU WERE SITTING IN THE SEATS OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD, WHAT YOU WOULD HAVE DONE.

IT'S WHETHER THERE WAS COMPETENT AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

WHAT IS COMPETENT AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE? IT IS EVIDENCE THAT IS SUFFICIENT TO COME TO A DECISION THAT MEETS THE CRITERIA OF THE APPLICABLE CODE WHEN WE'RE DEALING WITH MUNICIPAL CODE LAW.

THE LENGTHY AND EXPOSITORY ANALYSIS BY MR. WHITEHOUSE, WHILE THOROUGH, DOESN'T CONFRONT THE FACT THAT WHAT HE'S ASKING YOU TO DO IS IMPROPERLY REWEIGH THE EVIDENCE BELOW.

WHAT WAS THE EVIDENCE BELOW? YOU HAVE YOUR OWN STAFF REPORT, WHICH, AS MR. WHITEHOUSE NOTED IN THE LAST ITEM, IS GENERALLY DEEMED TO BE SIGNIFICANT EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF A DECISION.

YOU HAVE A REPORT BY RYAN CARTER OF CARTER ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES.

FIRST OF ALL, MR. WHITEHOUSE RAISES THE QUESTION OF WHETHER IT IS TO BE A PRIVATE OR A PUBLIC FACILITY.

WE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT IT WOULD BE FOR PRIVATE USE.

WHETHER AT ANY POINT IT WAS CONSIDERED FOR COMMERCIAL USE IS IRRELEVANT TO THE FINAL DECISION THAT IS BEFORE YOU, WHICH IS THAT IT'S PRIVATE.

THERE IS PUBLIC USE, HOWEVER, OF THE OBSERVATION DECK, WHICH MR. CARTER DISCUSSED BOTH IN THE APPLICATION MATERIALS AND BEFORE PZB.

MANY OF THE QUESTIONS THAT MR. WHITEHOUSE RAISED REGARDING WHAT WE AND THE VIZ CALL BENTHIC COMMUNITY, BENTHIC HABITAT, PLANT LIFE, ARE NOT RELEVANT BECAUSE THE RECORD REFLECTS THAT MR. CARTER NOTED, THIS IS A SANDY, MUDDY AREA.

WE DON'T HAVE GRASS HERE, WE HAVE SAND, WE HAVE MUD.

THAT'S WHAT THE RECORD REFLECTS.

THE PROPOSED STRUCTURES WILL NOT BLOCK OR DISRUPT ANY VISTA OR SCENIC OPPORTUNITIES.

THESE ARE A PLATFORM AND FOUR LOW PROFILE BOAT LIFTS WITH FOUR FOOT CAT WALK IN THE MIDDLE OF A, FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES,

[01:00:02]

A VAST PARCEL OF FRONTAGE.

THIS IS NOT A 50 FOOT BY 50 FOOT BY 50 FOOT, THIS IS IN THE MIDDLE.

AS FAR AS THE [INAUDIBLE] ARE CONCERNED, YOU HAVE A SIMILARLY SIZED DOCK IN BETWEEN WITH MULTIPLE BOAT STORAGE IN THE CONDO DOCK.

THAT'S ALSO IN THE RECORD.

WHATEVER THEIR VISTA IS, THERE IS A STRUCTURE IN BETWEEN, THAT'S IN THE RECORD.

MOREOVER, I WOULD POSIT BECAUSE YOU'RE TRACKING THE GENERAL CASE LAW OF FLORIDA IN THIS, YOU'RE BASICALLY TRYING TO ADOPT A RIPARIAN RIGHTS ANALYSIS.

WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT HERE BECAUSE THIS IS BASICALLY THE 1821, THIS IS THE SOVEREIGN LANDS/APPLICATION FOR A DOCK PERMIT THAT THE STATE USES AND A FEW MINOR CHANGES, BUT FOR THE MOST PART THAT'S WHAT IT IS.

WHAT THE VISTA IS IS BASED ON A RIPARIAN RIGHT.

YOU STAND AT THE END OF YOUR PROPERTY.

WHAT DO YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO AS A RIPARIAN? DOCK, ACCESS TO THE CHANNEL AND VIEWSHED.

I WOULD SIMPLY POINT OUT, EVEN IF THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE DOCK IN BETWEEN, THEY HAVE THE STRAIGHT SHOT OUT TO HOSPITAL CREEK.

THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SAYING THAT SOMETHING IS NOT APPLICABLE AND SOMETHING IS NOT COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

ASIDE FROM ASKING IT TO REWEIGH, WHAT MR. CARTER IS SAYING AGAIN, IS AT SEVEN FOR EXAMPLE, THERE ARE NO ANTICIPATED VEGETATIVE IMPACTS AS SALT MARSH, MANGROVES, AND SEAGRASS ARE NOT PRESENT.

THIS IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL EXPERT WHO IS STATING THAT.

NO ONE HAS COUNTERED THAT ON THE RECORD, EVEN IF THAT WERE RELEVANT.

THE STORAGE OF POLLUTANTS OR USE OF POISONOUS CHEMICALS AND MATERIALS, WE'RE NOT HAVING ANY.

THAT IS A REPRESENTATION THAT GETS MERGED INTO THE APPLICATION AND INTO THE PERMIT.

IMPACT OF BOAT WAKE.

IT'S FOUR MORE VESSELS ON A NAVIGABLE WATER BODY.

AGAIN, I POINT OUT IT'S FOUR TOTAL VESSELS ON OVER 1,300 FRONTAGE FEET.

THERE ARE MORE THAN THAT FOR THE ADJACENT CONDO IN THE RECORD.

IT'S EVIDENT THERE ARE EIGHT SLIPS THERE AND THEN EVERYBODY ELSE HAS SINGLE FAMILY LOTS GOING BACK AND FORTH.

RYAN ACKNOWLEDGES A VERY SMALL LOSS OF JUVENILE HABITAT, BUT NOTES AS ANY OF US WHO HAS DOCKS OR HAVE HAD DOCKS WILL NOTE THAT YOU WILL HAVE SHELLFISH THAT WILL AFFIX AND YOU WILL HAVE FISH THAT WILL BE ATTRACTED TO PILINGS, THAT IS A TYPICAL THING.

THE FACT THAT THE DECK WILL NOT EXCEED SIX FEET OVER MEAN HIGH PROPOSED HEIGHT BEING FIVE FEET IS ALSO CONSISTENT WITH THE CRITERIA.

THE FACT THAT THE CRITERION BOAT LIFT SHALL HAVE A MAXIMUM CAPACITY OF 12,000 POUNDS AND SHALL BE LOW PROFILE OR NO PROFILE, IT MEETS THAT CRITERION.

WHETHER THEY EXPRESSLY STATED EACH ONE OF THE 17 CRITERIA, THEY HAD THOSE FACTORS ADDRESSED, BOTH IN THE STAFF REPORT AND IN MR. CARTER'S REPORT.

AGAIN, OUR POSITION WOULD BE THERE'S PLENTY OF COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

NOW IS NOT THE TIME TO REWEIGH.

NOW IS THE TIME TO SAY, SINCE THEY HAVE CHOSEN TO ATTACK THE DOCK ON THE OTHER SIDE OF

[01:05:06]

A MAJOR DOCK AND LOST PRESENTING A STRONG ARGUMENT, BUT WITHOUT ANY SUBSTANTIAL COMPETENT EVIDENCE IN OUR VIEW BUT IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER.

ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS DETERMINE THAT THOSE TWO REPORTS, YOUR STAFF ARE THE EXPERTS AT REVIEWING YOUR CODE, AND MR. CARTER, WHO IS THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT, CONSTITUTED COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

IN CONCLUSION, THE LAW IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR, THEY DON'T HAVE TO MAKE FINDINGS, THEY BEING THE BOARD BELOW, THEY JUST HAVE TO HAVE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD BEFORE THEM.

I WOULD COUNSEL THAT FROM THE APPLICANT'S STANDPOINT, WE BELIEVE THE RECORD IS REPLETE WITH COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND I HAVE USED 11 MINUTES AND I AM READY FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

>> VERY NICE. COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS? WE WILL DO PUBLIC HEARING AFTER HE FINISHES, BUT IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FROM HIM NOW AT THIS TIME.

NO QUESTIONS FROM HIM AT THIS TIME?

>> I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD.

>> NO, GO AHEAD.

>> GO AHEAD.

>> ONE OF THE POINTS YOU BROUGHT UP, ONE OF YOUR CRITERIA WAS WHEN YOU USED THE TERM BENTHIC ENVIRONMENT AND I'M ASSUMING YOU'RE REFERRING TO SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION, SEA GRASSES, WHICH WE DON'T HAVE.

I AGREE. BUT WE DO HAVE EMERGENT VEGETATION, THE SALT MARSH GRASSES AND THE MANGROVES AND THEY ARE SUBJECT TO EROSION AND WE SEE THAT THROUGHOUT THE CITY FROM BOAT WAKE.

>> IS THAT A QUESTION OR A RESPONSE?

>> IT'S NOT ACTUALLY A QUESTION, IT'S A STATEMENT.

I JUST WANTED TO FURTHER CLARIFY A BIT.

WELL, MAYBE I GUESS IT IS QUESTION.

YOU WERE REFERRING TO SUBMERGED OF AQUATIC VEGETATION, BUT YOU DID NOT INCLUDE IN THAT CRITERION WHEN YOU WERE DISCUSSING IT, YOU DIDN'T INCLUDE THE SALT MARSH GRASSES AND THE MANGROVES.

I'M WONDERING WHY YOU ADMITTED THOSE.

>> MA'AM, THE RECORD REFLECTS THAT MR. CARTER STATED THAT THIS IS AN AREA WITHOUT VEGETATION PERIOD.

THAT IT IS MUD AND SAND AND THAT'S IN THE APPLICATION.

>> BUT THERE IS VEGETATION RIGHT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE DOCK. I'VE BEEN IN THAT AREA.

I'VE BEEN GOING BACK THERE FOR YEARS.

THE DOCKS THEMSELVES WOULDN'T BE BUILT ON TOP OF VEGETATION, BUT THERE IS ADJACENT VEGETATION. IT'S RIGHT THERE.

>> MA'AM, THE RECORD REFLECTS THAT THAT IS HIS TESTIMONY AND WITH ALL RESPECT TO THE BOARD'S ABILITY T ASSESS EXTRA RECORD ANALYSIS.

IT'S COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE BY THE EXPERT THAT THERE IS NOT VEGETATION IN THIS IMMEDIATE AREA.

>> BY THE WAY, MR. WHITEHOUSE DIDN'T ASK FOR IT.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

I WILL I ASSUME HE WILL AS WELL.

I STAND READY TO REBUT IF NEED BE.

>> YES. WE WILL ALLOW YOU THE OPPORTUNITY.

>> BUT FIRST WE'LL GO TO PUBLIC COMMENTS.

IF THERE'S NO MORE QUESTIONS OR OBSERVATIONS BY THE COMMISSION AT THIS TIME, WE'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC.

THIS PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN.

I DO NOT HAVE ANY SPEAKER CARDS.

IF ANYONE WISHES TO SPEAK, THEY CAN CERTAINLY COME TO THE PODIUM AND SPEAK AND THEN FILL ONE OUT AND HAND IT IN AFTERWARDS IF YOU LIKE.

ANYONE HERE WISHES TO SPEAK? MS. [INAUDIBLE].

>> BJ CLAY WEST CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE, I WAS LISTENING INTENTLY.

WE HAVE AN EDUCATION IN LAW.

I KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO BE ONE.

NOTHING PERSONAL AND LISTENING TO THIS AND WHAT WENT BEFORE ON THE OTHER APPEAL, I JUST WANT TO BRING THIS UP.

I AM LISTENING ABOUT COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

[01:10:02]

SOME PEOPLE ARE EXPERTS. WE'LL GO WITH THAT.

BUT THEN PEOPLE LIKE THESE, I HOPE I DON'T MESS UP THEIR NAME.

THE CALOCUS, I DON'T THINK THEY'RE HERE TONIGHT, THEY JUST LET THE LAWYER CAME.

WOULD HAVE BEEN NICE IF THEY COULD HAVE SHOWN UP.

BUT ANYWAY, GOOD.

HE'S SAYING THEY'RE HERE.

FACT BASED TESTIMONY, THEIR WORDS AS INDIVIDUALS, HOW CAN THEY BE CONSIDERED COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE? BECAUSE THEY LIVE THERE, AND IN THE OTHER CASE, THE INDIVIDUALS THAT LIVED IN THE AREA WERE NOT GIVEN AS COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND AND THAT'S WHY I WOULD NEVER BELIEVE ME WANT TO BE A LAWYER.

IT SOUNDS GOOD, BUT IT'S BETWEEN A LAWYER SAYS THIS AND ANOTHER ONE SAYS THAT; AND THEN HERE WE ARE NOT COMPETENT PEOPLE TO GIVE AN OPINION.

THAT'S MY CONCERN ABOUT THIS, AND I'D LOVE TO HEAR FROM THEM AS TO HOW THEY ARE COMPETENT, AND THE OTHER PEOPLE IN THE OTHER CASE WERE NOT COMPETENT.

I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU CAN DECIDE THAT.

IT JUST SEEMS BECAUSE I GOT A SECOND TO GO BACK ON OUR PCB, GO BACK ON OUR STAFF AND HERE YOU ARE NOW.

I DON'T KNOW HOW WE'RE GOING TO GET THIS HANDLED BECAUSE I THINK OUR COMP PLAN HAS GOT SOME HOLES IN IT AND YOU GET THE RIGHT LAWYER YOU CAN HAVE A CAVE THERE INSTEAD OF A HOLE.

I DON'T KNOW HOW IT CAN BE SOLVED REALLY AND TRULY.

BUT THIS IS AGAIN CONCERNING TO ME BECAUSE EVERYBODY THAT LIVES ON THE WATER WANT TO HAVE THEIR OWN LITTLE THINGS, AND THAT'S FINE AND DANDY, BUT YOU'VE GOT PEOPLE FIGHTING EACH OTHER FOR THAT VIEW AND THAT WATER AND WHAT THEY CAN DO ON IT, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW IT CAN BE SOLVED.

THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO GET UP HERE AND I'LL FILL OUT THE CARD.

BUT I APPRECIATE ONE OF THEM ONLY TAKING 11 MINUTES. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE HERE TO SPEAK FROM THE PUBLIC? WAIT ONE MORE MINUTE.

FIVE MORE SECONDS.

OKAY, PUBLIC COMMENT IS CLOSED.

WE ARE NOT BACK TO DISCUSSION AMONG OURSELVES YET.

ALTHOUGH DISCUSSION IS WELCOME.

I THINK WE SHOULD AFFORD THE THE FIRST APPELLANT REBUTTAL.

EACH ONE WILL HAVE ONE, TO BE FAIR.

>> THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. AGAIN, JAMES WHITEHOUSE ON BEHALF OF THE KULOGA FAMILY.

MR. KULOGA IS PRESENT HERE.

HE WAS NOT ABLE AS YOU HEARD ME SAY FROM HIS STATEMENT AT THE INITIAL PCB, THEY WERE OUT OF TOWN AND RECEIVED SHORT NOTICE AND THAT'S WHY THEY WERE NOT AT THE PCB.

BUT THEY ARE HERE TODAY AND THE REASON THEY'VE HIRED ME IS BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THE LAW AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT'S REQUIRED OF THE LAW, AND THAT'S WHY I'M HERE TO PRESENT THAT ON THEIR BEHALF.

TO ANSWER MS. CLADY'S COMMENTS.

I WILL TELL YOU JUST BRIEFLY AS YOU KNOW FROM YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE WAY THAT THESE DECISIONS ARE CONSIDERED.

LAY WITNESS TESTIMONY CAN BE CONSIDERED EXPERT TESTIMONY AS LONG AS IT IS FACT BASED TESTIMONY ON THE RECORD THAT TALKS ABOUT THEIR FIRSTHAND KNOWLEDGE OF EVENTS, AND THAT'S WHAT THIS IS HERE, AND THAT'S WHY I POINTED YOU TO SEVERAL EXAMPLES OF WHAT WAS IN THE RECORD OF YOUR WRITTEN TRANSCRIPTS AS TO MEMBERS WHO TESTIFIED AT THE ORIGINAL PCB HEARING BECAUSE THAT CAN BE CONSIDERED.

THAT'S WHY I ALSO POINTED YOU TO OUR 17 CRITERIA BECAUSE AS YOU KNOW IN CONSERVATION ZONE DEVELOPMENT, THAT'S WHAT WE LOOK TO, AND YOU GUYS ARE WELL AWARE OF THAT.

THE 17 CRITERIA IS EVALUATED, AND YOU WILL LOOK AT EACH ONE OF THOSE 17 CRITERIA, THEY DON'T ALL ALWAYS APPLY TO EVERY APPLICATION.

BUT IN THIS ONE, PARTICULARLY IN THE AREAS THAT I POINTED YOU TO, NUMBER 1 TALKS ABOUT THE PROPOSED WORK WILL HAVE A BENEFIT TO THE PUBLIC AS A WHOLE AND THEY STATED THIS IS A PRIVATE DOCK, PUBLIC BENEFITS MAY BE ECONOMICALLY RELATED THROUGH CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND MARINE BOATING RELATED PURCHASES.

IF THEY'RE SAYING IT'S A PRIVATE DOCK.

BUT THEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE MARINE BOATING RELATED PURCHASES, I DON'T KNOW HOW THOSE THINGS RELATE TO EACH OTHER.

I THINK THEY GO AGAINST EACH OTHER AND THEY EXPLAINED THAT LATER IN THE EMAIL THAT I POINTED TO YOU,

[01:15:02]

THAT'S ALL PART OF THE RECORD WHERE JACOB ASKED THEM ABOUT IT, AND THEY SAID, "WELL, IT'S NOT REALLY GOING TO BE A PUBLIC DOCK EVEN THOUGH IT'S A PUBLIC ENTITY.

WE'RE GOING TO KEEP THESE FOUR FOR OUR FAMILY, BUT IT'S ON THE SAME DOCK." I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT MAKES SENSE.

AGAIN, THAT'S IN THE RECORD.

IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT I'M MAKING UP, AND THAT'S WHY I THINK YOU SEE IN THE PCB ORDER, THEY SPECIFICALLY REFERENCED THAT BECAUSE THAT WAS A QUESTION THAT A NUMBER OF THE PCB MEMBERS HAD, IF YOU LOOK AT THE RECORD, AS TO WHETHER THIS WAS GOING TO BE A PRIVATE OR A PUBLIC DOCK, AND HOW THAT WAS GOING TO OPERATE, WITH HALF OF IT BEING A COMMERCIAL ENTITY OF THE FOUNTAIN OF YOUTH ON THE SAME DOCK.

I THINK THAT WAS A LITTLE CONFUSING.

I THINK THAT CALLS INTO QUESTION NUMBER 1.

THEN NUMBER 4, THEY TALKED ABOUT THE PROPOSED WORK WILL ENHANCE VISTAS AND SCENIC OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC AS A WHOLE, AND THEY SAID THE APPROVAL OF THE DOCK WILL GIVE THE PUBLIC THE BENEFIT OF RENTING A BOAT DURING OPERATING HOURS AND OBSERVE THE VISTAS AND SCENIC OPPORTUNITIES IN THE VICINITY.

AGAIN, THAT WAS THEIR INITIAL ANSWER, AND WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I THINK MR. ANSBACHER TRIED TO ADDRESS THAT BECAUSE I THINK THAT IS AN ISSUE AND HE SAID, THAT DOESN'T MATTER NOW BECAUSE THE PCB QUALIFIED THAT BY SAYING THAT THIS IS ONLY APPROVED FOR PRIVATE USE.

AGAIN, I THINK THAT CALLS INTO QUESTION ADDRESSING THAT NUMBER 4 WHICH IS IN YOUR CODE SPECIFICALLY AND YOU HEARD FROM THE KULOGA'S TESTIMONY FROM PCB.

HOW IS THAT GOING TO BE REGULATED BY THE CITY? HOW'S THE CITY GOING TO STOP SOMEBODY AT THE FOUNTAIN OF YOUTH FROM USING THOSE BOATS OR RUNNING OUT THAT BOATS AFTER IT GETS APPROVED AND IT'S IN USE.

THEN JUST A COUPLE OF OTHER AS TO NUMBER 10 ON THE RULES.

IT TALKS ABOUT THE EFFECT OF BOAT WAKE AND BOAT TRAFFIC ON MANATEES, VEGETATION, SHELLFISH AND WILDLIFE, AS WELL AS SHORELINE EROSION.

THEY SAID, "THE PROPOSED DOCK SITE IS LOCATED IN A CHANNEL OF WATER OF HOSPITAL CREEK MATANZAS BAY.

DUE TO THE TIGHT AND CONFINED NATURE OF THE HOSPITAL CREEK CHANNEL, IT'S DIFFICULT TO NAVIGATE DURING LOW TIDE." AGAIN, IN THE RECORD YOU HEARD THESE OTHER PEOPLE TESTIFYING FACT BASED THAT THIS IS A CONSTRAINED AREA.

IN FACT, THE EXPERT STAFF ALSO COMMENT ON THE FACT THAT THIS IS A CONSTRAINED AREA.

HOSPITAL CREEK IS CONSTRAINED.

THAT'S FACT BASED TO ADD ANOTHER 35 FEET CLOSER INTO THE CHANNEL IN THIS AREA IS A PROBLEM, AND THAT'S FACT BASED TESTIMONY AND THAT'S AN ISSUE.

AGAIN, AS TO COMMISSIONER BLONDER'S QUESTIONS, I THINK THERE IS SOME QUESTIONS BECAUSE THEY SAY ON A NUMBER OF THESE NOT APPLICABLE.

WELL, IF THEY SAY NOT APPLICABLE THAT MEANS THAT THEY MAY HAVE IN THEIR REPORT THAT IT'S JUST MUD AND SILT IN THIS AREA.

BUT WHEN THEY SAY NOT APPLICABLE, IT'S NOT DIRECT TESTIMONY SAYING THAT THERE'S NONE OF THIS STUFF.

IT'S JUST SAYING WE'RE SAYING IT'S NOT APPLICABLE AND THEN IF YOU HAVE FACT BASED TESTIMONY THAT COMES IN AND SAYS, "HEY, LISTEN, WE'VE BEEN IN THIS CREEK FOR DECADES AND WE SEE ALL THIS STUFF GOING ON," THAT'S FAKE BASED TESTIMONY.

PEOPLE CAN TESTIFY AS TO WHAT GOES ON IN THEIR AREA.

IT JUST HAS TO BE DIRECT.

IT CAN'T JUST BE SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF, "HEY, LISTEN, WE HAVE FLOODING IN OUR AREA AND WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT FLOODING." AGAIN, I DON'T WANT TO REFER TO AN EARLIER DECISION, BUT THAT'S WHY THE COURT SAID THAT'S NOT ENOUGH.

YOU CAN'T JUST SAY THERE'S TOO MUCH PARKING OR THERE'S TOO MUCH FLOODING.

YOU HAVE TO SAY, "HEY, LISTEN, I WALK OUT MY BACK DOOR EVERY DAY AND THIS IS THE FLOODING AND HERE ARE PICTURES OF IT." IF ALL OF THAT'S ON THE RECORD, THEN THAT CAN REFUTE TESTIMONY.

IF THERE'S EXPERT TESTIMONY THAT OUR ARCHITECT OR AN ENGINEER WHO COMES IN AND SAY, "HEY, LISTEN, WE HEAR WHAT THEY'RE SAYING, BUT WE LOOKED AT IT AND THERE'S NONE OF THAT GOING ON." THEN THEY WEIGH IT AND THEY COULD WEIGH AN EXPERT, LIKE AN ENGINEER, OR AN ARCHITECT, OR A LAWYER MORE THAN THEY MIGHT WEIGH THE CITIZEN FACT BASED TESTIMONY, BUT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT'S NOT STILL CONSIDERED EXPERT.

IN THIS CASE, I THINK THERE'S PLENTIFUL AMOUNT OF FACT BASED TESTIMONY IN THE RECORD.

JUST TO BE CLEAR, ALL YOUR FINDINGS OR YOUR ORDER IN THIS HAVE TO BE BASED ON WHAT WAS IN THE RECORD, NOT NECESSARILY WHAT YOU KNOW ABOUT HOSPITAL CREEK, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, BECAUSE I THINK IF YOU BASE IT ON WHAT YOU HEARD THESE PEOPLE SAY, EVEN IF YOU HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE OF IT, AS LONG AS YOU BASE IT ON WHAT THEY SAID, THEN THAT WILL BE UPHELD IN COURT BECAUSE THAT IS FACT BASED TESTIMONY.

JUST IN CONCLUSION, I THINK YOU CAN LOOK TO YOUR STAFF REPORT WHICH MAKES A LOT OF COMMENTARY ON THE FACT THAT ADDRESSING THESE, THEY DON'T GO THROUGH AND SAY THEY DIDN'T ADDRESS THIS OR DID ADDRESS THIS.

THEY PROVIDE YOU WITH THEIR ANSWERS TO IT,

[01:20:01]

AND I THINK THAT'S WHEN WHEN YOU GET TO A HEARING AND YOU HEAR FACT BASED TESTIMONY FROM WITNESSES AND THEN THEY STATE THEIR PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE, THEN THAT CAN AFFECT A DECISION.

IN THIS CASE, I THINK THERE IS ENOUGH OF THAT THAT REFUTED SOME OF THE EVIDENCE.

IF THE BURDEN DID SHIFT BACK TO THE COMMUNITY OR TO THE BOARD TO REFUTE IT, IN THIS CASE, I THINK THAT'S THE CASE.

I DON'T THINK IT'S REWEIGHING IT. I THINK YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE RECORD, AND WE'D ASK YOU TO UPHOLD THE APPEAL AND DENY THIS PERMIT. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. MR. ANSBACHER.

>> I'LL TRY TO BE BRIEF AGAIN.

THE WEIGHING OF WHETHER CITIZEN TESTIMONY IS COMPETENT AND SUBSTANTIAL WOULD MATTER IF YOU WERE DEALING WITH DEFENDING A DENIAL.

IT LEGALLY DOES NOT APPLY.

WHAT APPLIES, AGAIN, AS MISS LOPEZ SAID, IS WHETHER, IN TERMS OF WHAT MR. WHITEHOUSE HAS CHALLENGED, THERE WAS COMPETENT AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

I WOULD NOTE THAT THE THINGS THAT MR. CARTER SAID WERE NOT APPLICABLE WERE GENERALLY BECAUSE NO POLLUTANTS, BECAUSE WE'RE NOT STORING ANY.

THE LACK OF IMPACT ON WAKE BECAUSE OF NARROW AND TOUGH CONFIGURATIONS.

AGAIN, THERE DOES NOT HAVE TO BE AN EXPRESS FINDING ON ALL OF THESE FACTS.

THERE JUST HAS TO BE THE EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD.

I'LL POINT OUT JUST FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, YOUR PZB, YOU SELECT WITH BASICALLY EXPERTISE IN SIGNIFICANT AREAS.

YOU'LL NOTE IF YOU LOOK AT THE RECORD, CARL BLOW LED THE DISCUSSION AT COMMITTEE.

CARL BLOW, I DON'T HAVE TO TELL YOU HIS RECORD AND I CAN'T.

IT'S NOT IN THE RECORD.

BUT HE CERTAINLY WAS DEFERRED TO AND YOU ALL CHOSE HIM.

AS FAR AS THE PERSONAL USE VERSUS THE NON PERSONAL USE, WE'RE STUCK WITH IT BEING A PERSONAL USE.

I'VE REPRESENTED BRUNSWICK BOATS FOR OVER 25 YEARS.

I CAN TELL YOU IT'S EASY ENOUGH TO GO LOOK AT LICENSE RECORDS AND DETERMINE WHETHER IT'S A PERSONAL CRAFT OR A COMMERCIAL CRAFT.

THERE ARE ANY NUMBER OF WAYS OF LOOKING IT UP.

IF WE DON'T COMPLY, THAT'S WHAT CODE ENFORCEMENT IS FOR.

BUT WE ALSO, IN TERMS OF PUBLIC USE, HAVE ALREADY SAID ON THE RECORD THE ONE THING THAT DID NOT CHANGE IS THAT PLATFORM IS A PLATFORM FOR SCENIC VISTAS.

SCENIC VISTAS OF NEARLY 1,400 LINEAR FEET OF FRONTAGE AND FOUR CRAFT VERSUS WHAT THE RECORD REFLECTS ISN'T EVEN 200 FEET OF WIDTH AND EIGHT CRAFT NEXT DOOR BETWEEN US AND THE COLAGAS.

IT IS OUR POSITION THAT UNDER THE CODE, AS MR. DOBSON DRAFTED IT, AS MR. BROWN REVISED IT, AS MISS LOPEZ HAS REVISED IT, WE MEET THE CRITERIA, AND WE SINCERELY HOPE THAT YOU ALL WILL UPHOLD THE DECISION BY YOUR SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS BELOW, BASED UPON YOUR SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS WHO GAVE THE REPORT, AND BASED ON THE SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT WHO FILED THE APPLICATION. THANK YOU.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT.

WE ARE BACK TO DISCUSSION.

WHO WOULD LIKE TO BEGIN?

>> CAN WE HAVE AMY COME BEFORE US?

>> YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF?

>> HI. CAN YOU GIVE US A SHORT SCENARIO OF THE FINDINGS OF WHY THIS WAS GRANTED?

>> I BELIEVE THE PZB LOOKED AT THE APPLICATION AND LISTENED TO THE APPLICANT'S, I GUESS, TESTIMONY REGARDING THE PROPOSED FOUR BOAT SLIPS, AND DETERMINED THAT IT WAS APPROVABLE.

THAT THE IMPACT WAS NOT SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH TO DENY THE APPLICATION, THAT IT MET THE 17 CRITERIA AS APPLICABLE.

THEY VOTED TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION.

[01:25:01]

>> THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF?

>> I ACTUALLY DO, AND THIS IS NOT ME RE WAITING THE PZB'S DECISION.

I WANT TO BE REALLY CLEAR ABOUT THAT.

I JUST WANT TO EDUCATE MYSELF.

IS THERE A RESIDENCE ON THE SITE? MY UNDERSTANDING IS THERE IS NOT.

>> NO. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IT'S A COMMERCIAL PIECE OF PROPERTY.

>> THEN IN A FUTURE WORLD, IF WHOEVER OWNS THAT PROPERTY WERE TO DECIDE TO RENT BOATS OUT USING THOSE FOUR BOAT SLIPS THAT ARE SITTING THERE, WOULD THAT REQUIRE A COMMERCIAL LICENSE FROM THE CITY OR WOULD THEY JUST BE ABLE TO DO THAT BECAUSE THEY ALREADY HAVE A COMMERCIAL OPERATION THERE?

>> I BELIEVE IT WOULD REQUIRE RE REVIEW OF THE STATUS OF THE BOAT SLIPS BECAUSE FIRST OF ALL THE APPLICATION IS ONLY GOOD FOR THE APPLICANT.

THERE WERE CONDITIONS IMPOSED ON THE APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION.

IF SOMEONE ELSE WERE TO COME IN.

>> OR EVEN IF THE APPLICANT WERE TO COME IN LATER?

>> LATER, AND REQUEST THAT IT BE A COMMERCIAL USE INSTEAD OF THE LIMITATION TO PERSONAL USE, THEN I BELIEVE THAT WE WOULD SEND IT BACK TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

>> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. VICE MAYOR.

>> TRYING TO SIMPLIFY THIS, WHERE I COME DOWN IS THAT WE HAD AN EXPERT WITNESS, RYAN CARTER.

WE HAVE STAFF FINDINGS THAT SUPPORT THE APPROVAL OF THIS.

WE HAVE AT LEAST ONE EXPERT ON THE PZB THAT KNOWS A LOT ABOUT WATERWAYS AND BOATING AND DOCKS.

I CERTAINLY AM GOING TO VOTE TO APPROVE AND SUPPORT PZB'S POSITION ON THIS.

I DON'T THINK IT'S A BAD IDEA TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR, MAYBE YOU BAN ANY COMMERCIAL USE.

THEY'VE ALREADY SAID THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE COMMERCIAL USE.

BUT BECAUSE IT WAS TALKED ABOUT INITIALLY, MAYBE WE STIPULATE IT'S PRIVATE USE ONLY.

THE OBSERVATION PLATFORM THAT IS COMMERCIAL, THAT CAN BE EASILY HANDLED BY PUTTING A GATE BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL OBSERVATION PLATFORM AND THE PRIVATE DOCKS.

YEAH.

THAT PUBLIC DOES NOT GO ON THE PRIVATE DOCKS.

I THINK THE CASE THAT WAS MADE THAT THE VISTA IS IN JEOPARDY DOESN'T HOLD FOR ME BECAUSE OF THE EXISTING CONDO WITH SIX BOAT SLIPS BETWEEN THE PERSON THAT'S APPEALING THIS AND THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY.

THERE'S ALREADY SIX BOAT SLIPS THERE ON 200 LINEAR FEET, WHEREAS THIS PROJECT HAS OVER 1,300 LINEAR FEET, AND THEY'RE ASKING FOR FOUR PRIVATE BOAT SLIPS.

I THINK THERE IS A PUBLIC BENEFIT AND THAT FINANCIALLY BY BUILDING THESE STOCKS, IT DOES HELP THE BUSINESSES, WHOEVER BUILDS IT.

I THINK THE BOATS THAT WILL BE OUT ON THE WATER WILL USE THE MARINA FOR FUELING.

THERE'S BENEFITS TO BUSINESSES IN THE AREA BY HAVING FOUR BOATS THERE.

I THINK THAT THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY DOES HAVE A VISTA ALONG HIS RIPARIAN RIGHT AWAY.

THAT'S NOT INTERRUPTED BY THIS AND THAT'S BASICALLY WHERE I COME DOWN.

>> MADAM MAYOR.

>> I AGREE 100% WITH WHAT YOU JUST SAID.

I THINK SOME OF THE CONFUSION TOO ABOUT THE COMMERCIAL AND I DON'T KNOW, I COULD NOT PICK THAT UP FROM THE TRANSCRIPT.

COMMERCIAL VERSUS PRIVATE WAS THAT THERE WAS TWO THINGS BEING REQUESTED AT THE SAME TIME, THE COMMERCIAL DOCK WHICH IS NOT EVEN NEAR THE SLIPS.

THAT TO ME I THINK IS PRETTY CLEAR.

I AGREE THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE CONSTRUCTION.

THERE'S GOING TO BE A MARINE PURCHASES.

THE OLD SAYING, YOU HAVE A BOAT, AND IT'S NOTHING BUT A HOLE IN THE GROUND, A HOLE IN THE WATER, YOU THROW MONEY DOWN.

SOMEBODY'S GOING TO BE GAINING FROM THOSE FOUR BOATS MONETARILY AROUND HERE.

[01:30:01]

I DON'T PARTICULARLY SEE A REASON WHY WE CAN DENY IT.

>> OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

>> I'D LIKE TO SPEAK AT SOME POINT.

>> OF COURSE. I JUST WANTED TO ASK A QUESTION BEFORE WE GO ANY FURTHER.

WILL YOU RESTATE THE THREE PROVISIONS OF THE PERMIT THAT WAS APPROVED?

>> AMY. OKAY. YES, MISS SKINNER.

>> YES. THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD ATTACHED THREE CONDITIONS TO THEIR APPROVAL.

THE FIRST CONDITION WAS THAT THE FOUR BOAT SLIPS WERE FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY.

THE SECOND IS THAT THE CITY ARCHAEOLOGIST WOULD EVALUATE ANY IMPACT BASED ON THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND THAT STAFF WOULD DETERMINE THE NEED FOR A SUBMERGED LAND LEASE.

>> OKAY. THEY DID APPROVE SLIPS.

>> THEY APPROVED THE FOUR BOATS.

>> IN LOW PROFILE?

>> YES. CORRECT.

>> NOT EXCEED 1,200 POUNDS?

>> 12,000 POUNDS.

>> 12,000 POUNDS WHICH IS PRETTY, LIKE A COMMERCIAL, I GUESS.

I DON'T KNOW THAT MUCH ABOUT BOATS BUT THAT SOUNDS LIKE A FAIRLY BIG BOAT.

YEAH. OKAY. MOTORS ARE HEAVY. ALL RIGHT.

DOES THE LANGUAGE IN THE PROVISION ABOUT THE PERSONAL USE, DOES IT SAY SLIPS AND DOCK OR IS IT THE WHOLE FACILITY? I'M NOT CLEAR ON THAT BECAUSE I'M HEARING DIFFERENT THINGS.

>> I BELIEVE IT WAS FOR THE DOCKS.

THE FACILITY IS A VIEWING PLATFORM FOR THE VISITORS TO THE FOUNTAIN OF VIEW.

>> YEAH. THAT'S NOT PART OF THIS DISCUSSION TONIGHT, CORRECT?

>> IT WAS PART OF THE SAME ORDER.

>> IT WAS PART OF THE APPLICATION.

I UNDERSTAND AND I CAN UNDERSTAND SOME CONFUSION ABOUT COMMERCIAL VERSUS BUT I'M SPECIFICALLY TALKING ABOUT WHAT'S BEING APPEALED.

>> ON THE SPECIFIC ORDER.

>> THE LANGUAGE ON THE ORDER THAT WAS STATED BY THE BOARD SAYS, THE BOAT SLIPS ARE FOR PERSONAL USE OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS ONLY.

ALL I CAN DO IS HAVE FAITH THAT WHEN THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT COMMERCIAL USE, THEY WERE REALLY TALKING ABOUT THE OTHER PORTION, LIKE COMMISSIONER SPRINGFIELD SAID, I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR SOME ASSURANCE ON THAT.

BUT THAT'S ANOTHER ISSUE.

BUT I DO SUPPORT WHAT VICE MAYOR SAYS.

I THINK THEY DID HAVE EXPERT TESTIMONY AND INFORMATION PROVIDED.

I WENT BACK AND REVIEWED THE VIDEO AND READ THE TRANSCRIPT.

I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT PLANNING AND ZONING ERRED.

I THINK THEY MADE THE PROPER DECISION.

>> WELL, I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE WITH YOU ALL.

>> I KNOW YOU WANT TO.

I DO THINK THAT THE PZB MADE AN ERROR ON THEIR DECISION, AND IN FACT, THAT WAS NOT A UNANIMOUS VOTE ON THE PZB.

I READ THE TRANSCRIPT AS WELL AND SO FORTH.

I THINK THAT THERE THERE'S A FEW THINGS THAT I'D LIKE TO SAY.

THE PUBLIC BENEFIT IS I THINK WHERE THE PZB UNDERSHOT THIS DECISION, I DON'T SEE THAT FOUR BOAT SLIPS IS A PUBLIC BENEFIT OF NOTE OR SIGNIFICANCE.

I THINK THAT'S REALLY THE APPLICANT AGREED TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE THOSE FOR PRIVATE USE ONLY.

I WOULD HAVE TO SAY THERE'S NO PUBLIC BENEFIT TO THIS APPLICATION.

I ALSO AM CONCERNED THAT THERE WILL NEED TO BE DREDGING OF THIS PART OF THE CREEK AT LOW TIDE.

NOW, THIS IS NOT INTRODUCING NEW EVIDENCE, BUT IT IS A CONCERN IN TERMS OF SEDIMENTATION THAT WOULD BE AN IMPACT ON THE CRITERIA THAT WAS ONE OF THOSE THAT WAS NOT APPLICABLE OR I CAN'T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHAT THE EXPERTS SAID.

THERE'S NO WAY THOSE BOATS ARE GETTING OUT OF THERE AT ANY LOW TIDE, ESPECIALLY OF THAT SIZE.

I JUST IN PRACTICAL TERMS, I DON'T SEE THAT THAT'S A NON IMPACT.

I WOULD MOVE IF I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE I'LL BE OUT VOTED ON THIS.

BUT SHOULD THAT MOTION ON THE OTHER SIDE FAIL,

[01:35:01]

THEN I WOULD I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF UPHOLDING THE APPEAL AND DENYING THE PERMIT.

>> ANY OTHER FURTHER DISCUSSION? DO WE HAVE DO WE HAVE A MOTION?

>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE MY STATEMENT A MOTION.

>> IS THAT A MOTION TO DENY THE APPEAL AND CONFIRM THE PZB APPROVAL OF THE CONSERVATION OVERLAY ZONE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT?

>> YES, IT IS.

>> I'LL SECOND AND I'D LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT.

I THINK PART OF THE PROBLEM HERE IS THAT WE HAD TWO SEPARATE ITEMS IN THE IN FRONT OF THE PCB UNDER ONE APPLICATION, ONE IS COMMERCIAL, ONE IS PRIVATE.

I THINK THAT REALLY CAUSED SOME CONCERN.

I WOULD POINT OUT TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS THAT ANY DOC THAT'S BUILT ON ANYBODY'S PRIVATE PROPERTY IS OF NO BENEFIT TO THE PUBLIC.

EVEN THE DOCK NEXT DOOR, WHICH IS WITHIN A FEW FEET OF THIS DOCK OF THESE BOAT SLIPS, IS NOT FOR PUBLIC.

THE DOCK THAT WAS PROPOSED BY NUMBER 1 OR NUMBER 5, I DON'T KNOW WHICH ONE IT WAS AND DENIED BY THE LANDOWNER WAS ALSO NOT FOR PUBLIC BENEFIT.

I DON'T SEE THAT AS AN ARGUMENT RIGHT NOW.

>> I GOT YOU. UNDERSTOOD. ANY OTHER FURTHER DISCUSSION, MADAM CLERK? PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

>> CYNTHIA GARRIS? YES.

>> BARBARA BLONDER?

>> NO.

>> MADAM MAYOR?

>> COULD I TAKE A MOMENT HERE TO TALK ABOUT BOTH OF THESE ITEMS, 6A AND 6B, AND MAKE A SUGGESTION ABOUT EXPERT WITNESS.

>> BEFORE WE LAUNCH INTO THAT, IF YOU DON'T MIND, I JUST WANT TO CLOSE LOOP ON MR. INGRAM'S APPLICATION.

IF WE COULD A QUICK MOTION REGARDING HIS STANDING OR A LACK OF STANDING.

THAT WAY I CAN DRAFT AN ORDER FOR YOUR SIGNATURE.

I APOLOGIZE FOR INSERTING MYSELF, BUT I BELIEVE THERE'S A MOTION IN YOUR PACKET WITH INFORMATION AS WELL FROM MR. ANSBACHER AS WELL AS MISS SKINNER'S ANALYSIS THAT IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT MR. INGRAM EVEN HAD STANDING.

I KNOW HE'S NOT HERE, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE HIM THE COURTESY OF GIVING HIM A FINAL ORDER IF WE COULD HAVE A MOTION ON THAT.

I WILL MAKE THE MOTION THAT MR. INGRAM DOES NOT HAVE STANDING.

>> ON SECOND THAT. ANY DISCUSSION? NO. WE'LL CALL THE ROLL, MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

>> ROXANNE HORVATH?

>> WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO DO IS HAVE A FOLLOW UP COMMENT ABOUT ADDRESSING A CONCERN THAT YOU HAVE.

CAN WE HOLD THAT UNTIL COMMISSIONER COMMENT?

>> SURE. BUT MY COMMENTS ARE GOING TO BE REALLY LONG THEN.

JUST WARNING YOU

>> THAT'S FINE. BECAUSE WE ARE REALLY WANT TO DO THIS [OVERLAPPING].BUSINESS

>> THAT'S FINE THAT'S NO PROBLEM.

>> IT'S BEEN A LONG MEETING SO FAR ALREADY.

WE WILL MOVE ALONG TO ITEM 9A1,

[9.A.1. Ordinance 2024-04: Amends the existing design of the building for the existing Planned Unit Development (PUD) at 36 Granada Street and 8 DeSoto Place to enclose a courtyard. (A. Skinner, Director Planning and Building)]

WHICH IS ORDINANCE 2024-04, WHICH AMENDS THE EXISTING DESIGN OF THE BUILDING FOR THE EXISTING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, PUD AT 36 GRANADA STREET, AND EIGHT, TO PLACE TO ENCLOSE A COURTYARD.

>> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS AMY SKINNER.

THIS ITEM IS THE INTRODUCTION AND FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE 2024-04 TO AMEND THE EXISTING PUD AT 36 GRANADA.

THE PROPERTY IS INCLUDED IN AN EXISTING PUD CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION.

TO CONVERT THE BUILDING INTO A RESTAURANT USE, THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO ENCLOSE THE OPEN SEATING AREA ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING.

THE APPROVED PUD HAD THIS AREA AS OPEN PORCH SEATING, INCLUDING THE ENTRANCE.

THE REVISED ELEVATIONS INCLUDING ENCLOSING THIS AREA AND MOVING THE ENTRANCE AREA CLOSER TO GRANADA STREET.

ROTATING A DOOR ENTRANCE THAT WAS DIRECTLY OUT ONTO DESOTO PLACE TO THE REAR OF THE BUILDING IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER, AS ILLUSTRATED ON THE ELEVATIONS.

REVISED ELEVATIONS ARE INCLUDED WITH THE DOCUMENTS, AND I CAN SHOW YOU IF MARIN CAN TURN ON THE OVERHEAD, PLEASE.

[01:40:04]

I CAN ROTATE THIS TO ANOTHER ORIENTATION.

BUT THIS IS GRANADA STREET.

THIS IS THE NEW FLOOR PLAN.

THIS IS REPRESENTING THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING ON GRANADA STREET.

THIS IS THE DRIVEWAY WHERE PEOPLE WOULD BE TURNING INTO THE DRIVEWAY IN BETWEEN THE PURPLE BUILDING THAT EXIST AND THE BUILDING THAT'S UNDER CONSTRUCTION RIGHT NOW, THIS DRIVEWAY WOULD LEAD TO THE BACK AREA WHERE THE PARKING IS.

IN THIS YELLOW HIGHLIGHTED AREA.

THIS IS THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING.

THIS IS WHERE THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT ENCLOSING OPEN SEATING.

THE EXISTING ENTRANCE IS HERE.

THEY ARE MOVING THE ENTRANCE INTO THE RESTAURANT TO RIGHT HERE IN THIS FRONT CORNER CLOSER TO GRANADA STREET.

THIS IS THE BACK SOUTHWEST CORNER THAT I NOTED.

ALSO IS A CHANGE WHERE THERE'S AN EXISTING DOOR DIRECTLY OUT ONTO DESOTO.

THE ROTATING IT TOWARD THE BACK.

THE ELEVATIONS WOULD CHANGE SLIGHTLY.

LET'S SEE, THIS IS THE EXISTING ELEVATION IN THE PUD YOU CAN SEE THAT THE OUTDOOR SEATING JUST HAS A CANOPY OVER IT.

THEY WOULD LIKE TO CHANGE IT SO THAT THE OUTDOOR SEATING IS ENCLOSED.

THIS IS THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING.

THIS IS THE EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION WHERE THEY'RE SHOWING THE MAIN ENTRANCE CENTRALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING.

THEN AGAIN, THEY WOULD CHANGE THE ENTRANCE TO THE FRONT CORNER CLOSER TO GRANADA STREET.

AGAIN, THIS IS THE NORTH ELEVATION.

EXCUSE ME, LET'S SEE.

SOUTH ELEVATION.

YES, SOUTH ELEVATION.

HERE IS THE BACK DOOR DIRECTLY OUT ONTO DESOTO.

THIS IS WHERE IT'S ROTATED TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY.

THEN THIS IS WHERE THE EXISTING OPEN SEATING IS WITH THE CANOPY AND THE STAIRS GOING DOWN OUT THE BACK.

THEN THIS IS WHERE IT'S REPRESENTED AS BEING ENCLOSED, BUT THEY STILL HAVE THE STAIRS OUT THE BACK WITH A DOOR.

THE FRONT ENTRANCE IS AT THE OPPOSITE END NEAR GRANADA STREET.

THIS IS A INTRODUCTION AND FIRST READING FOR THE ORDINANCE.

>> AMY, ON THAT BOTTOM ELEVATION ON THE RIGHT SIDE SHOWS THAT DOOR.

>> THIS?

>> NO, TO THE OTHER END OF THAT ELEVATION.

CLOSER TO THE TITLE BLOCK.

ALL THE WAY DOWN. BOTTOM ONE. NO.

>> BOTTOM RIGHT.

>> BOTTOM RIGHT ALL THE WAY TO THE RIGHT OF THE BOTTOM RIGHT.

>> THAT'S IT.

>> THAT ONE.

>> SORRY, I'M UPSIDE DOWN AND LEFT HANDED AND LOOKING BACKWARDS.

>> IT'S HARD FOR YOU TO DO IT UPSIDE DOWN, I KNOW.

>> THIS IS THE REAR ELEVATION THAT SHOWS THE NEW DOOR COMING OUT OF THE BACK ALSO.

YOU'RE RIGHT, THIS IS WHERE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT ENCLOSING THE OPEN SEATING AREA.

THEN I NEGLECTED TO MENTION THAT THIS IS THE REAR DOOR AFTER IT'S BEEN ROTATED OFF OF DESOTO.

>> QUESTIONS. THIS DOES NOT REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING.

THIS IS A FIRST READING AND WHAT WE WOULD BE DOING WOULD BE MOVING IT TO SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE APPROVAL OR DENIAL.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NO QUESTIONS. NO QUESTIONS.

NO COMMENTS. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO KEEP MOVING THIS TO PUBLIC COMMENT.

>> I WILL MAKE THE MOTION TO MOVE THIS TO SECOND READING, READ BY TITLE ONLY.

>> SECOND.

>> ORDINANCE NUMBER 2024-04, IN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING FOR APPROXIMATELY 0.75 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 36 GRANADA STREET, PARCEL ID NUMBER 203240-00008 DESOTO PLACE PARCEL ID NUMBER 203230-0000 AS MORE PARTICULARLY

[01:45:05]

DESCRIBED HEREAFTER TO AMEND ITS CURRENT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PUD CLASSIFICATION, ADOPTING A NEW PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PUD INCLUDING A REVISED FLOOR PLAN AND ELEVATION DRAWINGS, PROVIDING FOR APPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES, PROVIDING FOR SEVERANCE OF INVALID PROVISIONS, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

>> MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO STAFF REPORTS.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

[10.A. Review of memorial plaque for former Mayor George Gardner at Herbie and Annette Wiles Park on East Park Avenue and its proposed location. (D. Birchim, City Manager)]

THE FIRST ITEM UP IS A PRESENTATION BY MR. BERGEN REGARDING A MEMORIAL PLAQUE FOR FORMER MAYOR GEORGE GARDNER AT THE HERBIE IN ANNETTE WILES PARK ON EAST PARK AVENUE.

MR. BERGEN, GOOD EVENING.

>> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, VICE MAYOR, AND COMMISSIONERS.

ON JANUARY 8TH, THE CITY COMMISSION APPROVED A PLAQUE FOR FORMER MAYOR GEORGE GARDNER AT HERBIE AND ANNETTE WILES PARK WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE WORDING OF THE PLAQUE RETURNED TO THE CITY COMMISSION AND THE LOCATION SPECIFIC LOCATION OF THE PLAQUE ALSO RETURNED TO THE CITY COMMISSION FOR FINAL APPROVAL.

ON THE OVERHEAD, YOU SEE THE PLAQUE ITSELF.

IT SAYS GEORGE R. L. GARDNER 1937-2021.

MAYOR, COMMISSIONER OF CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE FROM 2002-2008.

GEORGE LOVED HIS FAMILY AND COMMUNITY AND WE ARE ALL BETTER OFF FROM HIS LASTING CONTRIBUTIONS TO MAKE ST. AUGUSTINE A BETTER PLACE.

THAT'S A QUOTE FROM MAYOR TRACY UPCHURCH IN 2021.

GEORGE AND HIS WIFE SALLY RESIDED AT 57 FULLERWOOD DRIVE.

THE PLAQUE ITSELF WILL BE A STAINLESS STEEL PLAQUE MOUNTED ON A COQUINA STONE UNDERNEATH THE HERBIE WILES INTERNET WILES PARK SIGN, ROUGHLY IN THE CENTER OF THE PARK.

WELL, OFF TO THE SIDE ACTUALLY.

THE CIRCLE SHOWS WHERE THE EXISTING PARK SIGN IS AND WHERE THE GEORGE GARDNER PLAQUE WILL BE INSTALLED.

I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. THANK YOU.

>> OKAY. QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? I SEE THERE'S SOME PEOPLE FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD HERE TONIGHT, HAVE BEEN WAITING PATIENTLY.

DOES ANYONE AFFORD THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO SPEAK?

>> BEFORE I DO THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE SPECIAL THANKS TO GINA BURRELL AND THE FULLERWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION FOR THEIR HARD WORK ON THIS PROJECT.

>> VERY NICE. THANK YOU.

I SEE MISS BURRELL BACK THERE.

I KNOW SHE SPEARHEADED IT AND KEPT IT GOING. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

AGAIN, I'LL ECHO MR. BERTRAM'S COMMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE COMMISSION HERE.

SEEING THAT NO ONE WISHES TO SPEAK, WE SHOULD DEFINITELY APPROVE THIS.

>> SECOND.

>> [LAUGHTER] ALL RIGHT. MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

>> THANK YOU. NANCY SIKES-KLINE?

>> WONDERFUL. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.

CONGRATULATIONS.

WE LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING IT.

I HOPE YOU THROW A BIG SHIN DIG WHEN YOU PUT IT IN THERE.

THAT NEIGHBORHOOD'S GREAT AT DOING PARTIES IN THAT PARK. ALL RIGHT.

LET'S MOVE ON TO ITEM 10B,

[10.B. Noise Ordinance update. (A. Cuthbert, Assistant Police Chief)]

THE NOISE ORDINANCE UPDATE.

ASSISTANT POLICE CHIEF, MR. ANTHONY CUTHBERT.

WELCOME. GOOD EVENING.

>> GOOD EVENING MAYOR, VICE- MAYOR, AND COMMISSIONERS.

ANTHONY CUTHBERT, ASSISTANT CHIEF OF POLICE FOR THE CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

THIS EVENING, I'LL BE GIVING YOU A LITTLE REVIEW AND UPDATE OF THE EXISTING NOISE ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE.

THE CITY COMMISSION EXPRESSED THEIR WISHES TO HAVE THE NOISE ORDINANCE REVIEWED AND ANALYZED, POSSIBLY CHANGE THE WAY THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT MEASURES NOISE COMPLAINTS.

AFTER DISCUSSING WITH CITY MANAGER, I MADE CONTACT WITH A GENTLEMAN BY THE NAME OF ERIC ZWERLING.

I DON'T KNOW IF ANY OF YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH HIM, BUT HE'S A NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONALLY KNOWN EXPERT IN THE FIELD OF NOISE.

I'LL JUST GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF A BACKGROUND ON HIM, SO YOU KNOW THAT WE'VE GOT THE BEST WORKING WITH US.

MR. ZWERLING ASSISTED IN AUTHORING OUR CURRENT NOISE ORDINANCE AND HAS TRAINED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FROM OUR AGENCY,

[01:50:03]

AS WELL AS OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES THROUGHOUT THE NATION.

FOR NEARLY THREE DECADES, MR. ZWERLING HAS FIELDED CALLS AND TRAVELED NATIONWIDE TO EXPLAIN THE DANGERS OF LOUD SOUNDS ON PEOPLE'S LIVES.

HE HAS WRITTEN NOISE REGULATIONS FOR COMMUNITIES FROM FLORIDA TO ALASKA.

HE HAS FOR 30 YEARS SPECIALIZED PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE ON NOISE REGULATION AND ENFORCEMENT, INCLUDING EXTENSIVE PUBLICATIONS AND CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS.

MR. ZWERLING HAS WRITTEN AND ASSISTED IN THE AMENDMENT OF NOISE CODES FOR ALL JURISDICTIONS ACROSS THE UNITED STATES AND INTERNATIONALLY.

HE HAS TRAINED THOUSANDS OF NOISE ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATORS THROUGH THE RUTGERS UNIVERSITY.

MR. ZWERLING IS CURRENTLY THE DIRECTOR OF NOISE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CENTER, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES NOISE POLLUTION TRAINING AT RUTGERS UNIVERSITY.

MR. ZWERLING ALSO OPERATES HIS OWN NOISE CONSULTING AGENCY.

AS OF RIGHT NOW, I'VE BEEN IN CONTACT WITH MR. ZWERLING.

I BELIEVE A CONTRACT WAS RECENTLY SENT TO THE CITY AND I'VE PROVIDED WITH HIM DETAILED MAPPING OF THE HISTORIC DOWNTOWN AREA, WHICH CONSISTED OF RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES.

THE ST. AUGUSTINE POLICE DEPARTMENT WILL BE ASSISTING MR. ZWERLING IN HIS ANALYSIS OF THE ORDINANCE AT HIS REQUEST, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE NOISE SAMPLINGS AND REPORTS AT LOCATIONS DIRECTED BY HIM.

THE CURRENT METHOD OF NOISE READING IS WE TAKE NOISE METER READINGS FROM COMPLAINANTS' PROPERTIES.

IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, WE WOULD LIKE TO TRY AND CHANGE THAT SO WE CAN TAKE NOISE METER READINGS FROM THE SOURCE.

IN SHORT, MR. ZWERLING SAYS, YES, THIS IS POSSIBLE, BUT THERE'S A SMALL CAVEAT TO THIS.

WE WOULD HAVE TO RAISE THE NOISE PERMISSIBLE LIMITS, AND THAT'S WHAT HIS ANALYSIS WILL BE TO TELL US EXACTLY WHAT THAT PERMISSIBLE LIMIT WILL HAVE TO BE RAISED TO.

THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS IF YOU ARE A RECEIVING PROPERTY AND YOU'RE RIGHT NEXT TO THE SOURCE, YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE THE FULL BRUNT OF THAT NOISE, IF THAT'S CLEAR.

IN CONCLUSION, WE'LL BE WORKING WITH MR. ZWERLING IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS PROVIDING HIM WITH SOME NOISE MEASUREMENT READINGS.

IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, I'LL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO ANSWER.

>> I WOULD THINK THAT EITHER OR WOULD BE A WAY TO EVALUATE THIS, EITHER FROM THE SOURCE OR FROM THE PERSON RECEIVING IT.

IF THAT SITUATION YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT OCCURS SIDE BY SIDE, YOU COULD TAKE IT EITHER WAY.

>> WELL THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE ANALYSIS.

IF WE WERE ABLE TO TAKE IT FROM THE COMPLAINANT'S PROPERTY, THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE THE BEST SCENARIO.

BUT AS WE'VE DISCUSSED BEFORE, THE PROBLEM THAT WE RUN INTO AS A POLICE DEPARTMENT IN RECEIVING NOISE COMPLAINTS IS A LOT OF TIMES THE COMPLAINTS ARE ANONYMOUS.

IN THAT CASE, ENFORCEMENT IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT READS THAT WE HAVE TO ACTUALLY READ IT FROM THE COMPLAINANT'S PROPERTY LINE.

>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION.

>> SURE.

>> I AM AWARE THAT THERE ARE OTHER COMMUNITIES IN THE COUNTRY USING SENSORS THAT ARE DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT THIS COMMUNITY, AND THAT THOSE CAN BE MONITORED.

A PERSON DOESN'T HAVE TO ACTIVELY BE THERE TAKING THE NOISE MEASUREMENT.

THESE ARE PRETTY WIDELY USED.

IS THIS SOMETHING THAT OUR CONSULTANT COULD CONSIDER AS A POSSIBILITY?

>> I WILL CERTAINLY BRING IT TO HIS ATTENTION.

HE CAN REVIEW IT AND WE CAN CHECK ON THE LEGALITY OF THAT.

>> THE LEGALITY IN MAKING A CASE WOULD BE THE HARDEST THING BECAUSE THESE THINGS ARE EASY TO DEPLOY AND FAIRLY CHEAP.