##VIDEO ID:KK4ibZKS0Ww## e e e good morning everyone good morning good morning good  morning everyone I want to make this observation um my name is har Jones I'm the director for development service is very very imperative  and and I see that many of you all are doing this it's there is imperative that if you do  want to speak that you please fill out one of those uh Pink slps make sure you put the card  make sure you put the right case and also too because it's very very imperative and  and I would the board members will be making that more clearly if you do do on the resoning  cases if you do not speak at this hearing you cannot speak when it come to the board  of count Commissioners meeting is imperative whether but I mean I have nothing to say you  need to get your voice on the record whether you in favor or you like so speaking at this  meeting is very very important so you can be so you will be able to speak the  same thing when it goes to the BCC level level especially on the resoning cases that's critical know your for e spe you got you you got to speak at this if you don't speak here yes yes but you can't but you can't say  any more if if that's all you say you can't say anything different at the board Mee so everything  that you do want to speak and address you need to say it even if it's very very generic you can okay okay okay we want to we're going to explain all that at the beginning all of that  will be explain at the beginning we the presentation got to make that  case we're going to go through maps and and explain what's going on okay before I'll be absolutely I'm glad you here we provide some ucation okay okay ready all right good morning everybody this uh meeting of the esami County planning board for September 10th  2024 is here by called to order with seven members present we do have a quorum uh  if I could just remind you to turn off your cell phones or put them on silent  during the meeting and if you could please all join me for the Pledge of Allegiance IED Al to the flag of the United States of America and  to the rep stands one nation God indivisible and justice for all thank you do we have proof of publication yes sir did the publication meet all legal requirements  yes sir and I'll entertain a motion to wave the reading of the legal advertisement got a motion do  we have a second second all those in favor please signify by raising your right hand motion carries  the rezoning meeting minutes from the previous meeting dated August the 6th have been provided  to the board members are there any additions deletions or Corrections if not I'll entertain  a motion got a motion do we have a second second okay all those in favor please signify by raising  your right hand motion carries the resoning hearing package for September the 10th 2024 with  findings of facts has been provided to the board members I will entertain a motion to accept the  resoning hearing package with findings of fact and legal advertisement into evidence is there  a motion so moved motion do we have a second okay all those in favor please signify by raising your  right hand all those opposed all right uh will the court reporter please swear in members of the staff right and the board has previously qualified staff to offer expert testimony in the area of  land use and planning do any of the board members have questions regarding their qualifications and  ability to offer expert testimony all right seeing none all right at this hearing the  planning board is acting under its authority to hear and make recommendations to the board  of County Commissioners on resoning applications these hearings are Quasi judicial in nature quasi  judicial hearings are like evidential hearings in the court of law however less formal all testimony  will be given under oath and anyone testifying before the planning board may be subject to  cross-examination all documents and Exhibits that the planning board considers will be entered into  evidence and made part of the record opinion testimony will be limited to experts and closing  arguments will be limited to the evidence in the record before making a decision the planning  board will consider the relevant testimony the exhibits entered into evidence and the  law each individual who wishes to address the planning board must complete a speaker request  form that's in the back of the room and submit to the planning board clerk you will not be allowed  to speak until we receive a completed form and please note that only those individuals who are  present and give testimony on the record at this hearing before the planning board will be able to  speak at the subsequent hearing before the board of County Commissioners no new evidence can be  presented at the board of County Commissioners meeting therefore all testimony and evidence  must be presented here today the planning board will provide a recommendation for each resoning  request to the board of County Commissioners which will review testimony documents and  Exhibits consider the closing arguments and make a final decision all Decisions by the BCC are final  and anyone who wishes to seek judicial review of the decision of the BCC must do so and a court of  competent jurisdiction within 30 days of the date the board of County Commission approves  or rejects the recommended order of the planning board all written or oral Communications outside  of this hearing with members of the planning board regarding matters under consideration  today are considered expar Communications expart Communications are presumed presidential under  Florida law and must be disclosed as provided in BCC resolution number 96-13 as each case is  heard I will ask that any board member who has had or been involved in any experte communication to  please ident ify themselves and describe the communication as required by section 27.2 of  the Escambia County Land Development code the planning board's recommendation to the  BCC shall include consideration of the following approval conditions the applicant has the burden  of presenting competent substantial evidence to the planning board establishing that the requested  zoning District would contribute to or result in a logical and orderly development pattern  the appropriate surrounding area within which uses and conditions must be considered may  vary with those uses and conditions and is not necessarily the same area required for  mail out notifications a logical and orderly pattern shall require demonstration of each of  the following conditions a consistent with the comprehensive plan that the proposed zoning is  consistent with the future land use flu category as prescribed in LDC chapter 3 and with all other  goals objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan if the rezoning is required to properly enact  a proposed flu map Amendment transmitted to the state for agency review the proposed zoning is  consistent with the proposed flu and conditional to its adoption B consistent with zoning District  Provisions the proposed zoning is consistent with the purpose and intent and with any other  zoning established provision prescribed by the proposed District in chapter 3 compatible with  surroundings all the permitted uses of proposed zoning not just those anticipated by the rezoning  applicant are compatible as defined in chapter 6 with surrounding uses the uses of any surrounding  undeveloped land shall be considered the permitted uses of the district compatibility is not  considered with potential conditional uses or with any non-conforming or unapprove approved uses also  in establishing the compatibility of a residential use there is no additional burden to demonstrate  the compatibility of specific residents or activities protected by fair housing laws D approp  appropriate if spot zoning where the proposed zoning would establish or reinforce a condition of  spot zoning as defined in chapter 6 The isolated District would nevertheless be transitional in  character between the adjoining districts or the difference with those districts would be minor or  sufficiency sufficiently limited the extent of these mitigating characteristics or conditions  demonstrates an appropriate sight specific balancing of interest between the isolated  district and adjoining lands e appropriate with changed or changing conditions if the land uses of  developed conditions within the area surrounding the property of resoning have changed the changes  are to such a degree in character that is in the public interest to allow New Uses densities or  intensities in the area through rezoning and the permited uses of the proposed District  are appropriate and not premature for the area or likely to create or contribute to sprawl at  the beginning of each case as long as there are no objections from the applicant we will allow staff  to briefly present the location and Zoning maps of the photos for the property next we will hear  from the applicant and any witnesses that they may wish to call on then we will will hear from  staff and any Witnesses they may wish to call call on and then finally we will hear from members of  the public who have filled out one of the speaker request forms all right today there are four cases  to be heard and the first resoning application for consideration is case number z-20 24-12 which  request request a resoning of Lillian Highway uh parcel number 25-2 s-3 31- 231- 00-00 from ldr low  density residential district four dwelling units per acre and heavy commercial and light Industrial  District hcli 25 dwelling units per acre to hdmu high density mixed use District 25 dwelling units  per acre as requested by Meredith Bush agent for Cecilia fgura trusty Cecilia fgura revocable trust  one3 interest um Antonia arga one3 interest and Naomi mag willly 1/3 interest owners uh board  members has there been any expart communication between you the applicant of the applicant's  agents attorneys or Witnesses with fellow planning board members or anyone from the general public  prior to this hearing have you visited the subject property and please also disclose if  you are a relative or business associate of the applicant or the applicant's agent no to all no  to all no to all no to all no to all no to all no to all okay staff was notice of the hearing  sent to All interested parties yes sir was notice of the hearing posted on the subject property yes  sir great all right um Meredith you if you're good with it we'll go with the photos and okay staff uh  please present your maps and photographs for casy -224 D12 good morning board Caleb mccardy aicp  planner um scambia County uh yes this resoning request is from ldr low density residential and  mixed um hli heavy commercial light industrial um The Proposal is to high density mix use  so our map here we have a location um showing the property along Lillian Highway this is our 500t radius zoning map showing that the frontage along Lillian is hli  and the back portion is low density residential the future land use of the property is mixed use Suburban um this is our existing land use map um the the property is currently vacant um we've included a wetland map that shows some jurisdictional Wetlands  on the subject property and also flood zones um female flood zones as shown  on county maps this is an aerial photo um showing the property of long Lilian this  is our notice of public hearing sign that we posted on the property along Lilian Highway um this is looking East along Lillian this is looking West along Lilian Highway this  is looking North across Lilian from the site and this is looking South onto the site it's a wooded  site um this gives us another look East onto the site from the retail property to the West that  concludes UD our maps and photos all right thank you I have a quick question yep uh staff could you  explain how we have two zoning categories for this parcel yeah it appears that um the previous zoning  designation um that was a C2 and the back part was a RR so this is just a carryover of the historic  zoning assignment from the county let me add let me add to that thank you and and I believe I I  believe you was here Jay you know we had a ccat studies I can't think of the acronym NOW it been  that long ago um and and it was it was like in under the ccat study we were tached to eliminate  split zoning that that's what the task however we was also forewarn and tached that we could  not down Zone and so and so and so to down Zone that acli to aot that would been a down zoning  and that that would have given us the opportunity for a for a potential taking that's why because  of the rules of the law that remain that the tax was to eliminate but we have we still have  we still have some split Zone properly still in the present case because of the down zoning that  we could not do why wouldn't the parcel of the the entire parcel been given the the uh greater zoning because because of the impact to because of the impact to the surrounding properties and and and  all of that so we we wanted to stay try to stay consistent because you see it was the R2 that  was that was more residential the C2 was very very high high commercial so to to take all that either  one way still would have a significant adverse impact one way or the other Mr inw well is an  impossible task if if you look north of there that's Crown Point it's a total subdivision  and the fact that it's hcli is absolutely insane but I understand why because they couldn't reduce  and this is the problem and this is why we're here and this is probably why they're here too  right and I'm I'm glad you bought it up Mr Powell because yes that is a that AC that's a fullblown  residential subdivision nonc commmercial at all and we have a lots of subdivisions like that so  again the tax of not down zoning that's why we had to leave that as is all right let's any more okay  let's uh get into it here would the applicant or the representative please come forward um do you  have any witnesses that you need to be sworn in uh the developer is also present um but he's he's  filled out a forum to speak so okay um and then if you'll just State your full name and address for  the record uh Meredith bush with Clark pardington 125 East in tendencia Pensacola Florida 32502 all  right and did you receive a copy of the rezoning hearing package with findings of fact I did and  do you understand that you have the burden of providing by substantial competent evidence  that the proposed resoning is consistent with the comprehensive plan furthers the goals objectives  and policies of the comprehensive plan and is not in conflict with any portion of the  County's Land Development code I do understand all right go ahead um so I'll just walk through  the crit criteria really quickly um criteria a is it consistent with the comprehensive plan  the proposed amendment is consistent with the intent and purpose of the future land  use category of mixed juuse Suburban Criterion B consistent with the zoning District Provisions the  proposed amendment to hdmu is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Land Development  code the parcel is adjacent to heavy commercial light industrial medium density residential and  high density mixed juuse property the hdmu m the hdmu district establishes appropriate areas and  land use regulations for a complimentary mix of high density residential and compatible  non-residential uses within urban areas the primary intent of the district is to provide for  a mix of neighborhood retail sales services and professional offices with greater dwelling unit  density and diversity than the low density mixed use District residential uses within the district  include all forms of single family two family and multif family dwellings the resoning request  is consistent with the zoning District Provisions as to criteria C compatible with surroundings the  proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding existing uses in the area within a 1500t radius  the applicant has identified property zoned MDR hdmu and hcli within a the general vicinity there  are residential and Commercial uses the commercial uses include a smoke shop a car wash an automotive  service center a plumbing company and a U-Haul dealer to ensure additional compatibility with  existing adjacent uses if the amendment is approved further review and evaluation through  the development Review Committee process may be necessary criteria D appropriate of spot zoning  the amendment request if granted would not create spot zoning the property is adjacent to MDR and  hdmu zoning and hcli Zoning hdmu would be an appropriate zoning category and and Criterion e  appropriate with changed or changing conditions based on the existing uses and intensities in  the zoning District allowances the proposed amendment would not create urban sprawl and  would be compatible with existing development it is in the public interest to allow the hdmu  zoning the proposed rezoning will contribute to a logical and orderly development pattern um so  that's the criteria and um I believe staff is in agreement that we have met the criteria and I'll  allow them to go through their fin findings but I would like to just um respond to the earlier  conversation regarding the residential and hcli although we're asking to go to hdmu it is for  residential development um we initially came in and requested HDR but because of the spot  zoning um and the adjacent hdmu the county felt it would be better for us to do hdmu and came  back and asked us to change our application and we did so um it's a 20 Acre Site they're about  Nine Acre or 20 a little over 20 Acre Site they're about nine acres of up lenss all development would  be limited to those front that front Upland acreage um there'd be a 25t buffer from the  wetlands um the reason for the rezoning is for the smaller lot size and although the um zoning  is not based upon you any specific development we have submitted a conceptual site plan as well as  a Wetlands assessment um to outline you know what the actual intent of the development is  I know I saw on Facebook um some concerns from citizens you know that this was going to be an  apartment complex or things like that I mean the intent is single family uh development uh  the developer is a local Pensacola native and he's present um to answer any questions you may have all right Bard are there any questions for the applicant at this time just a comment  Meredith in your package on page 14 page 38 of the the uh overall resoning packet  it still references HDR so that was probably just an oversight would you  that the change that was a mistake yes okay yeah so you'd ask that be amended to hdmu all right there any further questions at this time we do st's got us so go all right if we need you to call you back up here all right uh  staff if we could have you give your presentation please certainly thank you all right proceeding  to our conditions for this proposed resoning uh for Criterion a if it's consistent with the  comprehensive plan um our finding showed that the proposed amendment to hdmu is consistent  with intent and purpose of the future land use category mix use Suburban the mix use Suburban  allows residential development and different types of retail sales and services while promoting  compatible infield development additionally in accordance with Comprehensive plan um future land  use 1.5.1 the maximum densities and intensities are encouraged in the underutilized properties  in the mix use Suburban category to promote the efficient use of existing roads utilities  and infrastructure furthermore future land use 2.1.2 promotes compact residential development  by allowing rezonings to higher densities in the mix use Suburban future land use category  next concerning Criterion B if the request is consistent with the Land Development code our  findings show that the proposed amendment to reson to high density mix use which is 25 dwelling units  per acre is consistent with intent and purpose of the Land Development code we found that the  primary intent of the district is to provide for a mix of neighborhood Retail Services service and  professional offices with greater dwelling unit density and diversity than the low density mix  use District the hdmu district is appropriate to provide transitions between areas are used for  medium or high density residential and area zone are used for commercial the hdmu zoning district  is suitable for areas where the intermixing of uses has been custom and where future uses are  uncertain and where some Redevelopment is probable the property to the West is Zone heavy commercial  light industrial and the property to the east is a three loock commercial subdivision that consist of  hcli heavy commercial light industrial hdmu and ldr Zoning districts Additionally the resoning  to hdmu is an appropriate transition between the hli zone property to the  West and the hli hdmu and ldr Zone properties to the east additionally in a memo dated August 16  2024 from transportation and traffic operations staff comments have been provided concerning the  resoning request they State Transportation and traffic operations has no concerns regarding the  capacity of Lilian Highway in the vicinity of the proposed project please note that tto's review is  solely based on the resoning application system middle sub midle packet so the comments above  hold no bearing on any tto comments made then during the development review process Contin  continuing to Criterion C if the resoning request is compatible with the surrounding uses we found  that the proposed amendment is compatible with the surrounding properties in area within the  500t radius area all properties are within the ldr LMU MDR hdmu and hli Zoning dist districts  that consist of single family dwellings or Comm commercial uses on the individual Lots  the acli zone property abing the East and West are commercial uses consisting of General retail and  automotive repair the property of cross Lilian consists of single family residential homes to  the South single family dwellings are found yet are located at a substantial distance from the  development area of the subject property due to environmentally sensitive lands therefore  the mix of the single family dwellings and the adjacent commercial uses contributes  to the general compatibility of the proposed hdmu zoning District being requested equally  important is the fact that the proposed amendment request if approved will be removing the poent  potential of a future request to reone the subject property to hli and in entirety thus aboring the  potential of allowing more egregious and adverse impacts to the surrounding properties due to the  litany a potential for hli zoning preserving the character and quality of residential neighborhoods  as well as protecting them from the intrusion of incompatible development by ensuring that  new development is compatible in character and size is what this Quest appears to do Criterion  D if it's appropriate if spot zoning we found that by definition the amendment to hdmu would  not be considered spot zoning due to due to the contiguous land to the east being the same zoning  District furthermore the development area is substantially limited environmentally sensitive  lands on the southern half of the subject property although the resoning request includes the entire  parcel development would likely be on the northern half due to these constraints on  the land Criterion e if appropriate with changed or changing conditions we found that the land  uses or development conditions within the area surrounding the properties have not changed the  development within the area has historically remained a mix of residential and Commercial  and with the request to hdmu the PO potential uses densities and intensities Allowed by the district  would be compatible with the existing surrounding development patterns the proposed amendment would  not create or contribute to Urban spraw that concludes our findings for this case and we  found that it met all the criteria thank you uh board is there any questions for staff at this time all right uh for those members of the public who wish to speak on this matter  please note that the planning board bases our decision on the approval conditions  and exceptions described in section 2- 7.2 of the esami County Land Development code  during our deliberations the board will not consider not consider General statements of  support or opposition accordingly please limit your testimony to the  approval conditions and exceptions described in section 2- 7.2 please also note that only  those individuals who are present and give testimony on the record at this hearing for  the planning board will be allowed to speak at at the board of County Commissioners all right Mr hak I did have a form for you if you wanted to speak or if you just filled  that out in case there were questions like to speak I okay all right we've got Thomas  P um peran I'm sorryto sorry Ponto Ponto yes I apologize have you uh please could  state your name and address um and be sworn in for the record and then we'll get your  time started yes my name is Thomas Ponto I'm at 720 Hannis Terrace Pensacola Florida 32506 ra yourth truu I do okay uh I'm speaking against the uh the zoning I live at Hannah Terrace which is  directly across the street from the proposed resoning lived there since we built the house  in 2020 and before that lived less than a mile down the road at 12,000 one Lillian Highway so  I'm very familiar with the uh traffic in the area and that's uh my my big biggest concern  this property being directly across the street from Hannah Terrace you try to get out in the  highway certain times of the day you know and turn left going east uh morning noon and night  you know the morning Rush going to work I'm Happ to be retired so I'm lucky in that respect but  uh morning Rush lunchtime rush and evening rush it is very difficult to get out and turn left  it creates a a dangerous situation where people have to look for that little opening and try to  make a Mad Dash across uh uh to get where they need to go if you put this Development Across  The Street no doubt you're going to have to put turn Lanes in um you'll be cars stopped  in the middle of the road and turn left in in a turn lane it'll create an impossible  situation to get out of our subdivision at certain times of the day so I don't know how  you uh how you mitigate that but uh it's it's a it's a very uh difficult challenging situation  already and this would this would make it uh impossible at certain certain times of the day  I uh noticed the the change in the zoning from low density residential to high density mixed  use I I don't see how it quite fits the criteria when the current uh purpose is for suburban and  the proposed is for urban but you know be that as it may I'm not an expert in this area so um  but I'm I'm strongly opposed not that I oppose development in general good for the county good  for the owners of the property you know good for the people that want to move there but this  particular uh request in the in the area that's at is going to create a very difficult situation for  the people in the area thank you thank you very much all right next we've got Christopher maxmer you please could uh come forward State your first and last name and address for the record and be  sworn in yeah Christopher maxheimer 555 Rola Place Pensacola Florida 32506 ra right ttim case truth  yes uh I just want to voice my opposition to this just like the gentleman said I live uh  just north of there on Rola place I've lived there Seven Years I'm building a house on Mir  just to the to the West so I know the traffic uh troubles on on Lilian highway there between dog  track all the way to Alabama uh so I just wanted to voice my opposition to this just it's going  to add more uh in the findings from the tto they stated there's not going to be any impact but that  was from what 816 they're building more houses to the West that aren't even filled yet they  haven't thought about the impact of those yet before we build however many more more houses  here uh additionally with all these houses and I don't know if it's um you know any concern with  with with you gentlemen but adding more houses and all this how does it affect the schools uh  you know attendance are they going to build more more schools because my wife's a teacher at Blue  Angels Elementary and they're already packed so we're going to add more houses and add more  students or we're going to build more schools um and then thirdly um with half of it being wetlands  and everywhere else in the area that we're uh is being developed and we're taking away the natural  habitat that the little bit that's left of woods and everything is getting taken away and now we're  you know you got the 25 foot uh you know between the wetlands and and where you devel it but  100 years from now how how does that affect the wetlands in the long run and all we're doing is  just taking down trees um and natural habitat that that's left in the area and and developing it for  what for the the you know the property owners to to make a little Buck to throw um you know however  many I haven't seen the plan I'd like to is there a way for me to see cont okay thank you we do have okay all right all right uh but that's all I have thank you thank you Robert books please  could uh come forward State your first and last name and address for the record and be sworn in Robert books 1432 Little Creek Drive raise your right hand a couple things first of all uh see compatible with surroundings uh that that's probably true  for the first 100 feet off of uh Highway 100 where for the commercial but the whole 20 acres backs up  into a little Creek subdivision so first I'd like to talk about the properties that butt up against  that on the north side of Little Creek when that uh subdivision was developed over 30 years ago the  Lots were all sloped to drain back into that area you the what I'll refer to as Wetlands is is the  property we're talking about I'll refer to it as Wetlands uh into that Wetlands on the other side  of the street those properties when they were developed over 30 years ago had a ditch behind  them for their runoff that ditch came around and then crossed under through a culvert under Little  Creek Drive and funneled back into that wetland lands so these wetlands are crucial now 30 years  ago I you know it wasn't as dense as it is today and thank God with all the foliage and the trees  and everything it's it's helped a lot with the water runoff but this whole this whole area no in  okay so that ditch behind those homes then there was about another 50 homes 10 15 years ago and  added to that subdivision and they took that ditch and they made a holding Pond out of it but now  that holding Pond is now uh the runoff from that goes again down uh next to 1429 Little Creek under  Little Creek Drive back into that Wetlands again so the Overflow from that pond is is crucial and  then they built homes behind that which all also use that pond for runoff for you know you know  what I mean so we see that property that's being considered in those Wetlands is not just simple  Wetlands we see it as almost as a holding Pond now when I first moved there over 30 years ago  uh there was actually a stream that ran through that that took the water from our properties and  the properties across the street uh uh in into Puro Bay with a with a bridge there under 98  by dog track so um you know and also uh just off of um Highway 98 you saw you saw it there there  are two ponds right where you right where they're considering the commercial Pond ponds in that area  I I would assume and have learned that that's a type five Wetland so how how how is all that going  to work and and what scares us in our subdivision and everyone I've talked to is against this come  in wrap up your comments real quick okay uh what scares us is that so much of our wetlands are  being traded off for other properties or stuff and they end up you know building on them but just as  just and I'll close with this just as you wouldn't consider high density over a pond a neighborhood  uh hold building Pond would you you wouldn't you wouldn't consider changing the density of that to  high high density why would you consider this any different thank you Mr B thank you I guess  I'm done e yes sir thank you for the opportunity yes sir appreciate all right next we have Sher clayy share I think that's Sher clayy Sher Clary you don't want to speak okay and you  understand you won't be able to speak at the board of County Commissioners meeting as well  okay I will note that you did you did uh put that you were against the project so all right  uh Dexter Drayton you please come forward state your name and address for the record and be sworn in yes good morning my name is Dexter dren my address is 143  Little Creek Drive Pensacola Florida 32506 I do yes I'm coming in to speak on behalf of Little Creek Drive Little Creek uh subdivision  and the reason I'm coming in to speak I really don't agree with what's been done as what's in  the plans for this uh property directly behind my property on Little Creek Drive  and the reason I'm coming in is to speak on first of all is uh the flooding that we're  experiencing since they put the new subdivision in directly across the street from Little Creek  Drive that's behind uh the 1437 all of those homes have flooded on numerous occasions at  least four times that I've been there and as has only started since they built the new subdivision  back there that that's one of my concerns and the second concern I have is the area that  you're talking about building I don't think it's compatible with the existing areas that we have  already you know as far as housing single family homes and uh you know single story homes I don't  think what you planning on bringing in would be suffice uh as for being compatible with what we  have already and the third thing I wanted to talk about also is um the traffic you know they said  the meeting here this morning was going to be 8:30 I left my house at 7:45 and I barely made  it because it's almost impossible turning out a little Creek Lane onto Highway 98 and as you  all know I'm sure as a county you know we have a lot of traffic going you know east and west  and then we have a lot of bad roads in the Little Creek subdivision Little Creek area that you know  they're washed out but you got you know patches where you you run into problem where you have to  dodge this have to dodge that with as far as road conditions so none of that's been considered as  far as improving the area that you're talking about uh res zoning and I you know I just want  to bring it to your attention that's all I have thank you very much all right our next speaker is  Larry Van Patton pleas come forward state your name and address for the record and be sworn in Hello Larry Van Patton 13113 Haron Inlet certainly um I'd just like to Echo a few of the themes we've been hearing um  I'm cons and if I could get some clarity uh high density means there'll be more than four  homes per acre is that the definition yes the back portion of the property is low density  residential currently which allows four dwelling units per acre um the request um would to be  assign the high density for the entirety of the property um which would allow 25  dwelling units per acre potentially and what are the development plans how many homes in  that there's a preliminary development plan that has been submitted to the county again  the caveat to that is very preliminary um you know things related to storm water  infrastructure environmental concerns all those things would be reviewed once a more formalized  plan is submitted to the county all those applicable reg relations would have to be met  related to you know County requirements so there's no number of homes they're looking to do yet this  about 50 about 50 um and I'd also like to repeat the one gentleman's um concerns about the schools  if that's another 50 homes um you know I know those schools are already at capacity so that's  a concern and also the traffic I don't know you said the Department of Transportation looked at  that and um I don't know have they driven that road recently um it seems at least uh  there should be consideration of turn Lanes or you know two lanes in each direction as part  of the expansion of all this um that's all just concerned citizen trying to get some answers very  good yes sir yes sir thank you very much all right um that's all I had for speakers so Mr homc um as  a developer if you'd like to come up and and speak and if there's any questions from the board you'd  be willing to answer as well yes uh Jim homec 1700 Scenic Highway apartment 400 penscola Florida right I do thank you uh yeah we we looked at this property um and uh just wanted to kind of  review what we plan to do with it we we have a layout there for 50 40 foot single family lots  we plan to use just the nine acres of Uplands in the front with no impact at all to the to  the wetlands in the back um so that that's basically the plan that we have um we could  have gone with a higher use with high density we know that's going to be allowed but we just  want to do the 40ft single family lots and I'll answer any questions that we have you all might  have I think also in in looking at the density and the impacts also you might want to look at  with 20 acres I think that's about two and a half three units an acre and if we talk about  the Upland uh Acres were about five units per acre so that's the that's the type of density  that we're actually going to use to develop the property gotta um board members are any questions I'll ask I'll ask a question since we uh heard a lot about storm water runoff and it being right  there on the wetlands is how in a development like this um in your in your past how do you how do you  deal with those mitigating circumstances when you get to that point in this process which is  I know is down the line but well yeah that's correct um obviously we'll we'll dis design  a storm storm storm water Pond that meets the county code which is much more restrictive than  when Little Creek was developed is I think everybody here knows um and we'll have that  also be be 25 foot off off the wetlands it we'll have a overflow go into the wetlands um but all  the water that we have on our site will be will be the pond will be designed to handle that all  the all the runoff from our water right now will go into that pond and that'll hold that that water okay my comment is more question is more for uh staff horse uh it's illegal for a parcel to  dump water onto another parcel correct yes yes every site got to maintain its own storm water  capture own capture its own storm water so you know it's interesting to hear that water's being  diverted it's been said that water's being diverted from other neighborhoods onto this  person's under the applicant's parcel so it's well interestingly enough and horse can can speak  to this uh whatever water is currently coming onto our site we will also have to take into  consideration and design that into to the storm water Pond uh so yeah we're not only responsible  for the water that that's that is created by our development but if water's coming in from other  areas then we also have to design our pond and make it big enough to to handle that water so  um we actually improve the water flow with that that situation and Mr Jay and you made a You made  a very good point and I'm not let me say it again I am not a storm water expert and I do not plan  on being one don't want to be one it's very is a very very professional scientific uh requirement  we have a very very good County engineering department um but I do know this is my 10 year um  um the many of these old areas they were designed to a 25 year storm event I know enough to say  that but after swad analysis and all of that we changed the standard to designed  it for a 100e storm event so the storm water requirements they are much more intense and  they're much more better and they looking at the whole area instead of just one Pacific uh  lot at this time because of the different changes that has occurred with the Land  Development Co and with our engineering department as with the new regulations Mr chair I just in I hope not to be redundant but I know that you in your opening speech you  mentioned to the general public that the five criteria are the items that we have to take in  consideration which is difficult for people who come in that road is terribly uh busy I have uh  it's very busy and they're correct however in this in our perview what we have to consider  doesn't that will go through at a later point when he goes through the the gauntlet of the DRC and  they have to determine whether or not maybe maybe his subdivision merits a traffic light maybe it  uh merits uh turn Lanes whatever that case may be and the developer who takes the risk has to incur  the cost of those things so that's why those five criteria are so important and another issue if I  do the math I mean theoretically with the yield per acre it could be up to 241 units per acre  which is obviously not logical it doesn't make sense and he's coming with potentially 50 and  we're not to consider that either but to me given the hli designation I would almost uh rush to uh  meet up with the developer to say hey we've got these concerns and and try to work along with them  because this is much better than potentially the items if you look in hcli what could be put there  um I you know I think of one on Gul Beach highways very similar that uh that we lost in here and I  wish that you had developed on that property I've only mentioned it every time we're in here but uh  uh but it is frustrating and it's a difficult task when they have these overlays it's not  because it's horse's fault or the County's fault but they were hand it's not Mr Jones fault for for  this for this particular thing I won't I'll I'll subject that in other things but but for but to  try to get your hands around what was and try to make a a comprehensive development over you know  we we have history back to 1600 for God's sake we we built a lot of stuff since then and now we're  trying to get a grasp on it and it's a challenging thing to get your hands wrapped around and there  are and you know there's a lot of I don't want this next to me I don't want a lot of yield but  quite frankly I think it's a generous 50 units as opposed to 200 I don't know it just seems to  me it it it checks the boxes there but there are certainly items and I hope and there have been uh  you know subjects in the past where their storm water management has a hated the people on either  side I'm not saying that that is definitely going to happen but it has occurred and I I just wanted  to get that out for the public it is frustrating and so glad they come with these concerns they're  legitimate there's serious traffic issues on them that's that's that's no joke you'll find out when  you're driving out all the time but and you know I think that as much as they can I'd be involved  in the DRC process and see what they have to go through but um it's a challenge thank Mr P along  those lines the tto always puts a uh an assessment in there again it'd be nice to see if they would  base that on Max buildout just throw the numbers out hey this is what potentially could be just  for an assessment I mean we infrastructure is on everybody's Minds storm water roads schools we  get it and you know if they're going to put in an assessment out there you know have some have some  meat to it well you know Jay on that road there that's a state road too so there that's going to  come into even a heavier opinion when the state gets to it I mean I deal that all the time that's  I want to say the governing Authority when it comes to the ones where we do seem to have the  traffic problems so all right any further questions or comments all right thank you  thank you all all right uh we do not have any more speakers on the item we've heard from the app can  we've heard from staff um if there's no further questions or comments um I will entertain a motion I'll make a motion to approve z 20241 12-12 um per  the staff findings I'll second that okay is there any discussion on the item if not all those in favor please signify by raising your right hand  all those opposed motion carries all right we will move on to our second uh resoning case let me all right um this is case number z-20 24-13 the uh applicant is Buddy pagee the agent for Pedro of Lillian Properties LLC owner address  is 13141 Lillian Highway future land uses mixed use uh Urban and this is a request from MDR mixed  density residential district 10 dwelling units per acre to hdmu highdensity mixed use District  uh 25 dwelling unit per acre um Mr Paige are you good with staff uh going over well hold sorry well  one are you good with them showing their their pictures and photographs first before we get you  up here okay and then before we do that members of the board has there been any expart communication  between you the applicant of the applicants agents attorneys or Witnesses with fellow  planning board members or anyone from the general public prior to this hearing have you visited the  subject property and please also disclose if you are a relative or business ass associate of the  applicant or the applicant's agent no to all no to all no to all no to all no to all no to all  and no to all okay staff will have you go through the photographs okay good morning Alison Lindsay  Urban plan or development services so this is the location map showing the location on lilan this  is the zoning map showing the current zoning of MDR and the surrounding this is the future land  use map showing the current mixed use urban and this is the existing land use map and this is a  flood zone map and this is an aerial photo of the site on corner of Lillian in Spanish moss  this is a public hearing sign that was posted on Lillian this is looking East along lilan Highway  and this looking West along lilan looking North across lilan Highway from the subject  site this is looking South onto the subject property and this is looking South onto the site and this is the public hearing sign that was posted on Spanish moss this is looking Northwest  onto the site from Spanish MTH and this is looking North along Spanish moss and this  is looking South along Spanish Moss Drive looking west from the site toward Spanish moss and that's  the maps and photographies all right thank you very much uh Mr Paige if you would please come forward right um did you will you please State your full name and address for the record uh  buddy excuse me buddy page 5337 Hamilton Lane in Pace Florida and did you receive a copy of the  reasoning hearing package with findings of fact I did and do you understand that you have the burden  of providing by substantial competent evidence that the proposed resoning is consistent with the  comprehensive plan furthers the goals objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan and is  not in conflict with any portion of the County's Land Development code I do all right good to go I do Mr chairman this application originally started out uh when I got involved with it  uh to include two Parcels of property one where the restaurant sits now and then an  additional uh lot adjacent to it and to the South that piece to the South my understanding  was back then that that was going to be used for uh parking between the building  and the restaurant and then the building uh the residential unit itself would be uh an office  for the operation uh that is since uh changed the owner came down and met uh with the staff  so the application was significantly changed to reflect that the app the request now is only for  the restaurant itself and that's what uh that's what we had uh prepared uh since that point the  items that are are in the application dealing with uh consistency with the comprehensive plan  item a uh staff finds that it is consistent uh and consistency with the zoning Provisions  under Section 2-7 uh the staff finds that the application is consistent with that as well  item C deals with compatibility of surrounding uses I think the uh photo shots that you've seen  indicates exactly what is around it now um the board Might Recall uh the resoning of the little  whiskey store just uh in the extreme northeast corner of that yellow area uh and it's next door  to a a neighborhood bar which is not quite on that particular uh shot hit that location uh  but that general area over the years uh and my uh my in-laws has has still has some apartments right  at the bridge in that area so I'm very familiar with what it looked like since about 1955 there  have been a number of things that start up and go down and start up and and go down but taking  a look at the increase in the traffic counts that are crossing that bridge now compared to what it  used to be uh that area area and of course over in Alabama as well is undergoing a considerable  amount of uh development so item C in terms of compet compatibility of the surrounding  areas uh taking that house next door out of consideration here today uh it is compatible  uh item uh D appropriate of spot zoning I think the staff indicates in their findings that uh it  would not be uh a case of or a finding rather of spot zoning uh and item uh e appropriate uh with  change conditions uh there was some discussion there uh but it says in the conclusion however  the resoning would allow the Redevelopment uh the Redevelopment to uh coexist with the commercial  and residential uh surrounding or uses uh in the in the area so Mr chairman A through five all five  of those the staff after a slight modification on E finds that uh the application uh produces enough  information to be uh considered uh compatible with the area and consistent uh with those things that  have been uh requested in terms of uh of data the I think the bottom line to all of this is that uh  he the owner is not going to be able to do even though he's got seven other restaurants  in Pensacola he's not going to be able to do what he originally thought uh it's going to be scaled  down to something that does fit in with that area and of course he's governed by the number of seats  multiplied times a factor that yields and demands the number of parking spaces and that's what  drives the whole operation is the number of seats inside and the number of parking spaces outside so  taking that that uh adjacent piece of property out of consideration um I'm not sure how things are  going to proceed in terms of what size restaurant he's going to be able to come in with at some  point uh but that's what the request is of me that's what they concluded at the meeting my  understanding is with the staff I was not there uh and that's what we're asking the board to do today  based on uh successful uh consistency with these five was staff findings we would ask the board's  consideration to approve all right thank you Mr P any questions for the applicant Mr P Mr paig uh  page 106 of the package uh there's a partiel split out combination request is that a hold  over from the original co- course of action what holds over I'm sorry on page 106 of the package yes sir that was that was uh originally when they were doing the two Parcels okay I was going to ask Mr Paige there was an active restaurant of the same name at one point in time  prior to this is that correct I'm I'm not hearing that I'm sorry I said there the the  restaurant did operate from that same location at one point in time is that correct yes it's it will  operate the same okay I'm just curious why there would need to be a zoning change or is it just  to kind of coordinate thank you well because uh currently it's medium density residential  which does not allow that it's only residential so because they were closed over a year um they  lost their legal non-conforming status and now have to reone to reopen thank you and that's the  code that's what the code says specifically yes right any further questions for the applicant  at this time all right thanks so much um staff if we'll have you do your presentation yes sir  okay so for criteria a consistency with the comprehensive plan the proposed amendment to  hdmu is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Land Development code mixed use urban the  mixed use urban future land use is intended for a mix of residential and non-residential uses  while promoting compatible infill development and the separation of urban and Suburban land  uses within the category as a whole criteria B consistent with the Land Development code the proposed amendment is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Land Development  code the hdmu district is appropriate for a complimentary mix of high density residential  uses and a compatible non-residential uses where the intermixing of uses has been custom  and where some Redevelopment is probable hdmu district is appropriate to provide transition  between areas zoned or used for medium or high density residential and areas zoned or used for  commercial the subject property meets locational criteria for infield development along an arterial  Street where already established non-residential uses exist and for site design which states any  intrusion into a recorded residential subdivision is limited to a corner lot any additions will go  have to go through a site plan review process criteria C compatible with surrounding uses the  proposed amendment is compatible with the surrounding uses in the area the subject  property is adjacent and contiguous to HD tmu which allows high density residential uses and  compatible non-residential uses there are several existing commercial commercial uses adjacent to  and near the subject property along lilan Highway making this request consistent with the applicable  requirements of the Land Development code the applicant has stated that the purpose to reone is  to reinstate a restaurant that had long standing in the community until it closed the business was  closed for more than one year causing it to lose lose its legal non-conforming status therefore  zoning rezoning will bring the building into compliance with the code it would be necessary  to minimize or eliminate adverse impacts on any adjoining residential uses and to provide a more  balanced approach where existing uses within mixed use development districts can coexist the tto had  no capacity concerns along Lilian Highway which is a state road in the area of the requested parcel  criteria D Spot zoning it would not be considered spot zoning as the adjoining parcel to the East  and Parcels to the north across the are zoned hdmu with some commercial uses therefore this  request would not extend privileges not generally extended to properly similarly  located in the area criteria e appropriate with changed or changed conditions the land uses or  development conditions surrounding the site have not changed the request to rezone would allow  the Redevelopment to coexist with commercial and residential uses in the area and that's in staff's  findings thank you now I do have a question can we pull up the zoning map on this again I  have a question in regards to staff on this one sorry I got ask so this was a restaurant for 20  some odd years why wasn't this caught in the original rezonings and all that like what was  the zoning previous to this um I answer your first question I don't know but we can we can  we can put the original zoning um more than like it had to be it had to be either R1 or R2 and  and it it was here before me okay yeah cuz that's what I'm trying to grasp my head how that didn't  get caught when that resoning kind of happened it's acknowledging that it was a restaurant so  that's why I'm a little confused why it didn't get pulled up in the hdmu category there so with all  the other around it don't know okay yeah I just I mean it says that the sorry huh it was R1 yeah  yeah property papers says it was built 1958 so yeah I mean it's been there for a long time how  that wasn't caught is yeah I agree with you yeah I mean it kind of feels almost like there was a  taking to a degree at that point when it's not it was already something that was there under that zoning yeah it wasn't so that's one thing we just don't know all right are there any uh  further questions for staff at this time okay we'll uh get members of the public up here and  please note that we base our decision on approval conditions and exceptions described in section 2-  7.2 of the Land Development code and during our deliberations the board will not consider  statements General statements of support or opposition uh please limit your testimony to  the approval conditions and exceptions described in section 2- 7.2 and please  also note that only those individ idual who are present and give testimony today at this hearing  we'll be allowed to speak at the board of County Commissioners um so our first speaker is Laura  Lee Nichols if you'll please come forward state your name and address for the record and be sworn in Laura Lee Nichols 1031 Spanish Moss Drive Pensacola 32506 I do um thank you uh one of the biggest concerns I have is living for six years and watching this  building get multiple citations um deteriorate and then just recently a month ago they came in and  did construction without a permit um just shooting stuff up so I'm concerned about the building um we  are one of the closest residents to the building so once this happens that means there isn't enough  parking where are they going to park there are no street lights on our street there's no stop sign  to turn into our street we already are vandalized we already have people coming and taking gas out  of our tanks so I am concerned my biggest concern was the property of 10:30 so if they  do get this zoning is there an opportunity that they could try to Zone that again because they've  been trying very hard we are wildlife habitat we have box turtles we have multiple families  of birds and that property is a habitat and it should stay residential so that's my concern is  that if they because they have continued to want to Zone that as their parking lot and that would  be a parking lot directly across the street from my house so um I just want to make sure  that they are always up to code I'm glad they're here today to try to get a permit because they've  been doing everything without a permit before ma'am which uh parcel is yours on the map on the map so can we do the areial maybe that might help on the corner there so on the corner and then and then that one right be right behind it yes I got you thank you  quick question for staff is add something um as Mr Paige stated when this originally came  in they did come in for two you know what staff said we recommend that you don't do  that but we were not going it did not en me any other the if that second parcel it not any of  the Criterion so we strongly and they we had a meeting and they they decide say still this was  still a fif F chance but staff was not going to support that because that is a subdivision  and and that would have been commercial intrusion so that's why staff did consider that and we did  look at the criteria and we did meet with them and we did give them some options going forward  but this is still and told them this is still 55th and he still got to meet all of the criteria for  this one as well um is there open code enforcement on this I am not aware of all those issues um uh  uh that's not if it is that would be appro Department I I'm not aware of those things  so if it is all those things got to be worked out and rectified before operations can begin right all right any further questions okay uh next speaker is Matt HK please  come forward please state your name and address for the record and be sworn in hi good morning um I'm Matt hodek 1031 Spanish Moss Drive 32506 I do um the lots that are on the corner with Laura Le Nichols um I'm her partner um we own the  lot right on the corner the wooded lot that I bought after I bought the house directly south  of it um that was six years ago it was a beautiful neighborhood still a beautiful neighborhood um I  bought that wooded lot and specifically for the wildlife in the area um because I've been seeing  it getting dwindled down deer getting hit on the road all the time um birds not having a really  good place to hang out Turtles everything um so I did that for that Co for that reason and I spent  extra money on it just just for that and uh um I want to maintain that and don't want people  um parking along the edge of the road U because they don't have any parking at the restaurant  that whole intersection is right on a corner which is bad to begin with um traffic uh in  the mornings and the afternoons and all day long really is really horrendous through there um it's  right on that corner so if somebody misses the corner they take out power lights you know the  almost crashed into actually they did crash into the restaurant um so that's a concern um traffic  then with the additional residents come to the restaurant how is that going to affect all the  traffic going through the neighborhood it's a horseshoe um Road right there that you know  has has two ways in so they're just going to use that to drive traffic through you know if they and  they're going to park along the edge um what else says there uh you know it's been closed down for  six years i' I've lived there for six years and I haven't seen that place opened and so what's the  how how bad is it degraded in that process we had Sally hit and do damage to it so with all of that  being said um is it how how well is it going to get remodeled you know or or how are fixed um and  what what kind of detriment is it to uh um the surround environment and that's um pretty much  all I have to say about that um I appreciate your time thank you thank you next we've got  William Miller if you'll please come forward state your name and address for the record and be sworn in I'm William Miller I live at 1040 Spanish moss I do I've lived there since 2017 we bought the property and built a new home I live at the  third third uh lot on the right the Jason to the house that they were going to tear down and uh my  understanding is I spoke to some of the employees of the owner and they said that they were going  to tear the house down and put a parking lot in the back and cut all those oak trees down on that  second lot that's adjacent to the restaurant we moved there and and went to the restaurant quite  a few times before we moved in the area and we enjoyed it it was good food um it's it's become an  eyesore the the pictures that you have up here of the restaurant here locally or recently were taken  within a month this whole place the whole porch has been knocked down from a car running off the  road and running into it the restaurant's been hit several times the big Fountain they had out front  was run over uh if you'll look at the parking lot pictures again you'll see where cars have skid  across that parking lot it's in a bad curve the Pole's been knocked down uh at least once maybe  twice since I've been there been several bad wrecks people running off the road every day  there especially at night there's no lighting bad traffic uh we've had burglars in our area because  of the reason there's been people living in that restaurant uh at times that we've run off Matt  and I both have run people off and kids off and being in there it's been disarray and then all  of a sudden put up this beautiful front on it or started to without permits and it's like putting  lipstick on a pig it just doesn't work you know nobody's inspected it nobody's been out to look  at it I guarantee you there's mole mildew there wasn't much to it as the closing of it when when  I was there the last few times it was open um you know and then my property value is going to go  down on top of that and there's the runoff there is just where's it going to go there if we're on  septic tanks uh where's the runoff going to go there's no provision for anything there other  than them tearing down the house and cutting down all the oak trees on a residential and then it'll  it'll also change my property value as being commercial and I I don't know what else to say  except I'm deadly against it thank you thank you any questions for the speaker our uh next speaker  is Alexis mines please come forward to state your name and address for the record and be sworn in good morning my name is Alex mines and I live at 1051 Spanish Mage right and ttim in this case  truth yes sir we're here today to discuss the resoning of the property at 1314 Lillian Highway  this is a really old building as you know it was built in 1958 and I am uniquely familiar with the  history of this property because my family moved here in 1974 and at that time it was a very small  rural area as a matter of fact my family's home the address was route to box 399 n Rural Route  2 Box 399 n and every morning I would get on a school bus and we would drive past this building  and it was a restaurant in 1950 in 1974 and it was operating as a small Neighborhood Restaurant  and that was great and we went on drive on by it down Highway 98 on simple two lane road to  Myrtle Grove Elementary School well let's fast forward 50 years it's not that way anymore the  population has exploded out where we live and uh things have really really changed the county  has had to build Blue Angel Elementary School to accommodate the children and it outgrew it  and then we had to build Blue Angel Elementary and it outgrew it but one thing has remained the same  that section of Highway 98 that runs along there between Crazy Horse and the Lilian Bridge it's  still a two-lane road we have no traffic lights we have no tun no Cher Lanes to get into in and out  of the subdivision or the restaurants or anything and prior to this building closing numerous years  ago it was a restaurant it was in an area I think it was Z medium density residential and  there was a problem already on busy nights they couldn't handle the parking and that was years  prior before this extra population they would the lot that they showed that's wooded that belongs  to Mountain LLY they would park along there they just used it like a parking lot they'd go up into  our neighbor's yard because you know they just couldn't handle the parking and now it's even  worse that lot has sat unused there are potholes if you looked at the pictures when he showed you  that are huge and there's numerous potholes and now not only that they want to not only reopen  it they want it reson to a High Den mixed use and upon hearing that I started reading and it  says that it's designed for urban areas that have well develop streets and Roads and Central water  in sewer and that sort of made me laugh because this building doesn't have sewer it has an old  poorly maintained septic tank and not only that when you start talking about um the issue during  the hurricane the front of that building had a lot of damage it was just ripped off and the  owners did nothing they left it open the pictures now show what they started to do when they wanted  to reopen it and I believe at that time there was no permit there's a permit now but they just going  to go ahead and do it without a permit so they closed the holes up five years later so for five  years water has blown into that building and it stayed in a clothed building dank nasty building  well also so I wonder about that we've also had people move into the building and when the police  are called and they move them along the owners put plywood they just plop plywood up there's  um graffiti on the back of the building and this building has been allowed to be an eyesore for the  county and our owners in the area for years and now it wants to reopen and the owners want to put  as little money and as little effort into it as possible and they seek to have the property one  Qui to be rezoned for their purposes and I ask you today to say no to their request to reson it  and put an end to this history building sad sad history or being allowed to continue Decline and  fall into further neglect thank you m mes all right um we have no more speakers on this item  and um I'll Now open up the floor to questions for either the applicant or staff at this time all right seeing none I will entertain a motion by one of the board members I move to approve uh based off of stat findings for  Z 2024 D13 I second that motion okay is there any discussion on the motion  yeah I'll jump in there I go back to historically this is operated as the use that it's trying to  reopen as um I don't understand why this wasn't the drag net we have members of the public that  I understand they're having issues with it in its current standing I do but we also have it  where was operating under the those conditions for historical I don't know why this wasn't picked up  when it was originally that's concerning to me on a whole other front um but I'd suggest that  you know the county you know through permanent and and all this fall through this extensively  and with any code enforcement or anything else like that I think this goes back to the people  just needing to be a good neighbor in their Community that's my personal opinion so and  and and let me let me ask some that's you made a very very good point Mr F horn if is my potential  Mr Mr Page these are these these would be new owners correct no same own same owners but  I I I do know that there are some building code plans going on so they're going to have to apply  they're going to have to comply with the latest building code requirements and if and if anyone  want to if any other the public they can reach out to the bill inspection department they can  put their hands on those plans as well so so that those plans will be made available to the public absolutely any further comments all right if not I'll call a question all those in favor  of the motion please signify by raising your right hand all those opposed motion  carries 5 Z with Tim off the DI all right we've got our third case here today all right CA case z-20 24-14 the applicant is Buddy pagee agent  for Trinity wild LLC the owner address 9200 block of Mobile Highway the future land use category is commercial and this is a requested rezoning  from hdmu high density mixed use District 25 dwelling units per acre to hli heavy commercial light industrial 25 dwelling units per  acre Mr Paige if you're okay with it will allow staff to go over the photographs and before we do that um board members I will ask if there has been any ex  parte Communications between you the applicant the applicants agents attorneys or Witnesses  with fellow planning board members or anyone from the general public prior to this hearing  have you visited the subject property and please also disclose if you are a relative or business  associate of the applicant or applicant's agent no to all no to all no at all no all no to all uh  no to all no to all all right thank you now we'll go to staff for the photographs yes sir so this is  the location map showing the location between uh West Nall Road and Mobile Highway this is the 500t  radius zoning map showing the parcel is hdmu this is the future land use showing the future land use  of commercial the existing land use of of the area and this is the flood zone map of the area this  is an aerial site of this of the property this is the public hearing sign that was posted on Mobile  Highway this is looking West along Mobile Highway looking East along Mobile Highway looking North  onto the subject site from Mobile Highway looking South across Mobile Highway from the subject site  this is the public hearing sign that was posted on West 9mile Road looking West along 9mile Road  looking East along 9mile Road and this is looking South onto the site from West 9 Mile Road looking  North across 9 Mile Road toward Tower Ridge Road and that's the maps and photos all right  thank you Mr Paige if you would please come forward and now we we've already uh got your  name got you sworn in and then just want to make sure that you received a copy of the  rezoning hearing package with findings of fact for this case yes sir and you do understand that  the burden of providing by substantial competent evidence that the proposed resoning is consistent  with the comprehensive plan furthers the goals objectives and policies of the comprehensive  plan and is not in conflict with any portion of the County's Land Development code yes sir all right Mr chairman this um this particular request is for uh started out being a request  for something a little more intensive than just regular res zoning mainly a regular commercial  because portion of it was already heavy commercial light industrial numerous meetings and this has  been a project that's been probably six months just on my desk the owners have decided that uh  they can do everything that they want to do on the site with just just a uh commercial zoning  category uh but the uh the request that we had put in originally was for hli to make it  all the same type of Zoning for both of of the parcels uh but in reviewing the staff's comments  and reviewing that then with the owners uh they're in a position today to accept all  of the uh staff's recommendations on uh items B which is a consistency with the Land Development  code uh C which is change conditions we accept the uh comments from the staff on that or their  recommendations and also on uh item number e in terms of appropriate uh with change conditions  the retail uh that they want to put in there will still fit into this lesser category so with all  of these uh uh recommendations that we accept the staff uh comments uh Mr chairman that's uh that's  the position that we're in here uh today so as the staff reads each one of those uh you will notice  that uh at the bottom it says uh the staff would recommend and I just want to say at this point we  we accept all of those recommendations from the staff all right thank you any questions for the applicant all right staff will have you go ahead and  make your presentation thank you Mr Paige thank you okay so I want to give you a little background because I saw some of you kind of question with  Mr Paige so on this parcel um there's the same owner owns the corner piece that's currently hli  and then he had this back piece so he had done a combination split request to combine them and then  wanted to change the hdmu piece to match the hli but then when staff started looking at it we said  there's no there's no reason to so we talked them in talked them to to understanding that commercial  would be less intense so just to give youall a little background for how we got here so the  criteria a consistency with the comprehensive plan the hcli the amendment to hli would be  consistent with the future land use category which is commercial commercial allows different types of  retail sales and services as well as residential if it's part of a predominant commercial  development criteria B consistency with the Land Development code the proposed amendment is  not consistent with the intent and purpose of the Land Development code the hcli that was originally  requested has a potential to create adverse impacts on surrounding properties although the  property is between two arterial Transportation networks and the proposed amendment meets a  locational criteria for the hli zoning District the rezoning request is not suitable for any  industrial type uses which would be allowed as per LDC 3- 2.10 resoning to commercial is appropriate  to provide transition between areas zoned or used as high density mixed use and areas zoned or used  as heavy commercial or industrial commercial zoning would be a more compatible uh zoning  therefore staff could support commercial zoning instead of the requested hli and the tto had given  no capacity concerns and fdot will be the one to dictate um access location criteria C compatible  with surrounding uses the proposed amendment is not compatible with the surrounding existing uses  in the area within the area are partial zoned hdmu hcli industrial and rmu the subject property is  unique as it sits between 9M Road and Mobile Highway and in this parcel together with the  western part which is being combined would allow more intense uses than the rural mix use zoning  in the immedient area although there is spot Zone parcel of that hcli adjacent to the subject par  parcel and an industrial Zone parcel 500 ft to the north the request to hli is not consistent  with the surrounding rmu Zone properties that is currently a compact traditional neighborhood  supportive and compatible with rural community characteristics staff would recommend a less  intent zoning of the commercial instead of the requested hli criteria D um it was determined  that the proposed hli would not create establish a reinforce a condition of spot zoning as the  Western portion is currently zoned hli however if the request were for commercial this partial  would become a transition between the hli and the r use Zone Parcels contributing to a logic  and orderly development criteria EO appropriate with changed or changing conditions the land use  or development conditions within the area surrounding the property are not changing  and the request would allow a more intense use associated with the hli that may adversely impact  the character of the community and contribute to sprawl the development within the area has been  a mix of residential and non-residential uses offering retail sales services to the growth  growing population in the area however hli is too intense and the more appropriate zoning would be  commercial and that's staff's findings all right thank you Mr chair I just want to maybe clarify  and state the obvious that we are now according to Mr Paige not requesting hcli and requesting  commercial is that correct yes sir we are yes sir is he he is the applicant is um I think because  of when he read the staff's findings and then as he stated he spoke with the owner and they agreed  that commercial would be suitable for them okay so so you need to re have him restate his request let  him say that again I just wanted to I want it to be on the record so that the people speaking and  the next question is towards our attorney Mr I'm glad Mr chairman that that that's correct uh we  accept the the uh uh the commercial category rather than the hli okay and do I need to do  that with the other two as well because there are two others here and let me just say this in any  case where the staff has made a recommendation at the end of their findings that says the staff  would recommend we would we would accept that recommendation are you referring to criteria  criteria for example the U uh Item B item C right and item e yeah yeah yeah yes the whole yeah we're  talking overall just as long as that's on the record and I just asked the attorney are we okay  with that given that it's more or less a a down zoning it's an easier transition just with the  notification the qu judicial nature of the whole thing I just want to make sure we're good first of all it's the board's discretion overall uh however there may be less evidence in staff  findings because it wasn't looking specifically at uh commercial use but it is a less intense  use so uh the board could proceed do we have to uh make a motion or anything with this or  no that wouldn't be no okay that's all thank okay well we do have one speaker on the item  i' I've got one other question so the eastern part is going to go commcial commercial the  western part is staying hcli or is the whole thing going commercial no the the portion to  the West the hli is remaining hcli we're just resoning the hdmu portion yes one part thank you  good clarification thank you Mr re all right uh our one speaker on the item is William uh tinker  tinker please come forward please state your name and address for the record and be sworn in my name is William tinker and I live at 880 bpin Lane Pensacola Florida and I do nobody likes to see a rural area get built up but I don't have any opposition to it  being commercial and uh so I don't want it to be uh the industrial thing because I don't think it  fits the area uh in the picture you saw uh from the different angles there was tree lines but  behind all those tree lines are houses yes and uh so I don't have any objection I withdraw any  objection to it so I hope that's helpful all right thank you very much all right that was our only  speaker on the item um if are there any questions for the applicant or staff and if there's not then  I will entertain a motion for this case regarding case z 2024 T4 uh with the change uh request to  Commercial and based on staff's findings regarding commercial I recommend approval all right do we  have a second I'll second that motion all right any discussion all right if not all those in  favor please signify by raising your right hand all those opposed okay um we're going to take  a let's take a break five minute break before we get into this uh last case I know most of you are  here for this um but we'll take a quick break and we'll get back to it here in just a few minutes good to see you question seen run this place right you're you got any question yes sir got the best we got work Bri were was our legal coun yes commercial ring into and his wife used go Church she's awes completely uh off my payroll and out of my uh responsibility great day get today out Chang my whole are you running away us than told they going to ask you gets me going going the I only allow myself one of these sugar ones on uh big  days like it's energy a lot of caffeine some days I just need to just on days like today where I got to be high high attention was not just there so they change which one was Theiss said could to staff are y'all ready staff okay all right we'll have everybody take their seats please uh we will get to our last resoning case of the day one second sorry on can you just scroll up a little bit so I can read oh my phone might work now oh you have this you did right just sitting here reading off my phone uh the ne the next resoning application  for consideration is case number z-20 23-3 which request rezoning of mle Court parcel  number 23-1 n-30 d1200 d002 2- 046 from low density residential uh ldr District Four  dwelling units per acre to MDR medium density residential district 10 dwelling un units per  acre as requested by Meredith Bush agent for calary Ridge LLC owner uh members of the board  have there been any xart communication between you and the applicant of the applicants agents  attorneys or Witnesses with fellow planning board members or anyone from the general  public prior to this hearing have you visited the subject property and please also disclose  if you are a relative or business associate of the applicant or the applicant's agent no to all  no to all no to all no to all no to all no to all all right and we'll get our last uh board  member on record when he steps back in uh staff was notice of the hearing sent to All interested  parties yes sir was notice of the hearing posted on the subject property yes sir all right um Meredith are you okay with staff going over um photos prior to um getting  into the specific findings and criteria um Miss menu represents the applicant um in the case that  went up to Circuit Court and has some arguments to be made regarding the scope of today's hearing  I believe that would be appropriate at this time all right all right um and Mr chairman since it  is a 2023 uh case just I'd like to give you the background on how we got here this is a rather  unique situation um and I am absolutely certain uh these folks would like to help out with filling in  some details there okay one second um do we have any we went through expart communication just want  to make sure we get you on the record no to all okay great and that's okay with with y'all if um  Mr Homer goes through kind of history of how we got here today I'm I'm Lisa muu I'm at 433  East Government Street Pensacola 32502 and I represent Calvary Ridge LLC in litigation  uh that went to Circuit Court uh before anyone speaks I need to put on the record  an objection to the hearing continuing um and I'll be giving you more detail  about that I understand you want to hear from the attorney as to the background but before  that even begins we're objecting to having this hearing at all so we would suggest that  there is no jurisdiction of this board to be having this hearing today okay and Chris can  you um this matter was remanded by the board of County Commissioners uh pursuant to section 2-  7.26 uh the BCC uh is able to adopt modify or reject recommendation to the planning  board or turn the resoning case to the board for additional instructions as is the case here whenever it's appropriate I'd like to be able to speak to that board is that okay with everyone  any objections from from here please go ahead would is it okay if I stay here or would you like  me to come to the podium I'm fine with that you've got your notes there and yes thank you very much  uh thank you board members uh this case as you may recall about a year ago two years ago was before  you um and I I was not the attorney Meredith was and you found unanimously that the resoning  should be approved uh it went before the County Commission and uh they denied it and then we went  to Circuit Court and in that decision the judge ruled that there was New Evidence added and that  there was not competent substantial evidence to support the county commission's decision to deny  um so it went back before the BCC and at that time the same commissioner commissioner Barry  who had been found specifically by the Circuit Court to have uh committed um error by adding  his own facts into the record uh was um spec specifically uh challenged by the judge about that  so when we got back to it uh commissioner Barry then made a motion instead of approving the  rezoning said um Mr buros made it after they talked uh and he seconded it that uh there  should be another planning board hearing on they sent it back to the planning board to consider  compatibility C only that's what it said so from a legal standpoint we are objecting that this  hearing should not even occur Escambia County knows um firsthand that the planning board has  no jurisdiction after the decision of the board of County Commissioners was Final and it went to  Circuit Court uh they're aware of that because of the case of terore Development LLC versus  Escambia County Florida which is a case 2017 CA 1778 and so this is a fairly recent situation  where uh a Dollar General store was trying to be uh approved on Gul Beach Highway and the county  did the same thing they lost at Circuit Court they went back and they said we're going to have a new  hearing and bring in new evidence and the Circuit Court was sent again now a motion for contempt  of Escambia County and the county was found in contempt for having another hearing at adding new  evidence after it had been finalized and already gone to Circuit Court and this is what the Circuit  Court said there is no judicial doctrine statute rule or common law Maxim prescribing a default  rule permitting local boards to Simply push the reset button and conduct a new quasi judicial  evidentiary hearing after a board closes the evidence deliberates votes decides and then  the decision is quashed and remanded for further proceedings that's what scambia county was told in  the terrore case exactly what they're doing today um it says the Circuit Court says however local  boards cannot make up procedural rules ad hoc Case by case and that's what commissioner Barry and  commissioner Bergos and the BCC are attempting to put in your hands now so that you can be found in  contempt for having a new hearing adding in New Evidence um pushing it off to you after you did  your job you did exactly what you were supposed to do um and now the commission wants you to have a  new hearing when the section that Council decided to you is a really interesting section of the Land  Development code because it doesn't have anything in it about after you go to court and you win a  petition for C saying here's the procedure to have a new hearing it's not in there there's not the  word sers sh isn't in there anywhere so there is no procedure which is the same thing that happened  in teramore that there wasn't any procedure and the CC Court said you can't just make up the rules  as you go because you don't like the decision that came from the evidence so that section  of the of the uh scaman Land Development code was amended in the like some before 20 and before that  guess what there was a procedure for remanding and having another quaa judicial hearing but  Escambia County took that language out it's not in there anymore so they made a specific change  to the com the LDC saying no we're not going to send things back and it may have had something  to do with teramore that it's not appropriate you shouldn't be doing that when after we've won we've  gone to Circuit Court the staff did the right thing you did the right thing and this developer  this owner has done the right thing for two years um you should not allow one or two Commissioners  to put you in this position and have you have a new evidentiary hearing so we would like to make  sure that the tore decision is in the record um because of this being a legal argument argument  we object to any new evidence being put into this record um we don't think it's appropriate and we  believe it to be illegal and to be in violation of the circuit Court's order ordering the county  to have uh further proceedings where the court has said there was no substantial compettive  evidence to turn down the resoning thank you coun would you spell the name of that case for me yes  t e r a m o r e Development LLC and and that was the um Dollar General Store um excuse me me you sir we can't have you give any testimony at  this time but you did fill out a speaker request form yes okay um  border any questions for uh miss minu or for County staff or the County Attorney I would  only say as the atlarge member and not the uh the only one not representing any particular District  me too um okay sorry I I would uh again defer back to our County attorney which no offense but  to the County's uh litigation record this year has been pretty uh difficult to say the least uh not  in not making action in fear of uh uh anybody's reprisal or because they want to you know we've  been yelled at before by any number of people but quite frankly there's a point to be made uh  do they have the jurisdiction or ability to send it back for one item because it contradicted our findings so the guiding case on this is Broward County versus gbv intern  uh from 2001 my understanding from that case is that when the a court quashes an order it leaves  the subject matter pending before the lower trib tribunal in this case the BCC as if no order had  been entered this means that the parties revert to their positions they held at the time the original  decision was made retaining their rights to proceed further to protect their legal rights it's  essentially as if a vote never had occurred and that's the votc Lev at the BCC level further there  is a process in a procedure uh the process is the board BCC is allowed to since it's essentially as  if a vote had never occurred the BCC is able to adopt modify or reject the recommendation  of the planning board in this case they chose to remand uh back to the planning board so it is up  to the board whether they wish to hear additional evidence and we have there's County staff has  three different exhibits that that the uh planning board can accept or deny uh into the evidentiary  record uh before they make their recommendation at the board of County Commissioners so with  all due respect is remand uh qualify to allow different more or any different uh information  be to be presented in a quasa Judicial Hearing in other words are we exposing oursel by taking  anything uh exceptional or additional to us being in the same that the board of County  Commissioners were from before does remand Define that we can add on to quas judicial information sent so looking at the language uh the planning the recommendation by the BCC  can be returned to the planning board with further instructions uh for additional facts  or clarification which would allow uh consideration of those issues so it's the county stance that I'm just going to try and get this right um they denied the resoning went to court the decision that they  made was squashed was the ruling and so now the County's opinion is that essentially there was no vote made at the County commission level to before so that's  the effect of a quashing but their decision was to remand it back to the planning board  for further with further instruction and for clarification and clarification that  was coming when it came back after the Court's ruling correct that they it was once the order  was sashed by the Circuit Court it was remanded back to by the board of County Commissioners at  that point it was remanded back to the board of County Commissioners who made the decision  to remand it back to the planning board for further cons consideration of the specific  issue of compatibility it does not say to have a new hearing the motion did not say to have a new hearing so that would be the only way it would come back to the planning board is through a hearing but Drew will present uh that the planning board can consider adding additional  exhibits into the record uh at this time I would recommend that uh he present on that  issue of what can be admitted into evidence and what exactly the board of count or what exactly  the planning board uh has the opportunity to admit or reject into the evidentiary record Madam Council you're trying to bring in the teramore case from 2007  into the evident uh no it's not evidence it's legal argument okay  you're trying to bring it into us correct yes you want a copy of it CH board um I'm very familiar with that I was on the boa when all that happened so um it  was exhilarating so um if um would you would the if the board wishes to um review the ter  more case or then I'll accept a motion to for the board to review that I'm not concerned about that one as much as I am about what Mr Homer has to say next and  I think at that point is when we have to make a decision about additional evidence okay um  and is there an objection from the applicant for Mr Homer to I guess give us an overview  of what the County stances on where we can proceed from here it's a very fine  line uh Mr chairman because I believe that the what's going to be discussed is that they have  new evidence um and so uh as soon as that can is opened um you know it's been on the record  so uh if we I that's why I would like to have a continuing objection if I could on the on any new  evidence uh as you proceed with even hearing about what they are considering adding understood and Mr  Homer are you able to make your presentation to us without giving us what the New Evidence would be or I I'd also like to point out without talking about the exhibits or adding actual  testimony because you need to be able to vote on whether you want to accept new testimony as  well okay in addition to the the items being brought about so the way I'll explain this is  should this board proceed with the hearing staff does have some exhibits that we would be asking  for each one for you to give us a vote on each one of those if you want to admit it in as new  evidence along with the testimony that comes with each one we're going to need a vote on  each one and Miss mchu has to be given the opportunity to object on each one so that  that's kind of where we are it's difficult to talk about it without talking about it  right for for our County attorney um opinion you've got um the applicants attorney saying  that um the circuit dra judge said we cannot accept new evidence yet we we were sitting  here asking to be accepting new evidence what is your what is your opinion if we accept new  evidence would we be held as board members in contempt of the circuit circuit judges um ruling I'm unable to speculate but I am able to provide my understanding existing case law  which is at the quashing essentially makes it as if no vote had occurred at the board  of County Commissioners meeting and the board of count County Commissioners are are in abled  to remand the matter back to the planning board uh with instruction uh this is also  not the board of adjustment this is the planning board which does have a different process explain  that process if you don't mind explain what's the difference between adjustment and and us  when it comes to accepting new evidence there's a difference between accepting new evidence and  having instructions um and instructions are a clarification new evidence is New Evidence  um that according to the attorney would um put us in contempt for hearing the New Evidence so  I'm I'm I'm I'm a little concerned about the pro process and procedures you know right as we as  we're listening to it and it I need clarification or I'm I'm going to um oh okay or you know so I  need to know how to go forward let me let me just give you a to kind of help with that a little  clarification on the two different boards and how it works um planning board makes a recommendation  to the BCC they're they make the actual decision um and from then an issue would end up going to  Circuit Court with the board of adjustment you're in a different situation in that that  board makes the decision it doesn't go from them to the BCC uh you know if someone has an  issue it goes straight to Circuit Court from the board of adjustment that's why in those hearings  you'll find the staff making an absolute yes no recommendation instead of just talking about  does it appear to meet the uh criteria as with this board because it is a One-Stop shop and I  think that that tends to complicate matters so for clarification um again we're just a recommendation  board the BCC has the authority to overrule us which they've done numerous times before even  if we um stick with our original and say we are not listening testimony we're going to put our uh  original recommendation forward to the BCC they can still do whatever they want to because this  is just a recommendation we have no authority to make uh uh public uh law or anything of that  nature any changes it's just a recommendation so with that in mind what's the purpose of us  going through this process again if it's nothing more than just a recommendation and we have no Authority can can I say address one part of that about the procedure in the teramore case  um one of the central Parts about this was that there wasn't a procedure in place and that's what  I keep hearing from you is that what is the procedure we're supposed to follow and in the  terore case it says a local governmental entity must first promulgate a procedure that would  allow it to reopen evidence on remand from Sir Shori otherwise by reopening the evidence that he  is not proceeding to the same extent which could have proceeded on in the first place so there is  no procedure in your code on what to do to remand a case on sers and that's I'm just quoting to you  what the Circuit Judge said in in terore um if the code had it we'd all be reading it to you but  we aren't because it isn't there hey Chris if the Circuit Court squashed the original case and it's  remained back to us why then does that case not Clos and it it's considered new so the when when  the Circuit Court reviews these decisions uh they have to look at them narrow very narrowly uh to  ensure that due process was followed the essential requirements the law were met um and that there  was confet substantial evidence in the record that's all that the Circuit Court looks to they  don't reway the evidence so when they remanded that decision they based it uh in part uh on the  deliberations of the commissioners and determined that due process was not afforded to the applicant  uh for the way deliberations were handled at that point uh as it relates to the planning board the  board of County Commissioners once the matter was remanded are able through the process uh outlined  uh in section 2726 to ad op modify or reject the recommendation of the planning board so the effect  of it going back again is that it quashes the order and if that have the vote never occurred  so the board of County Commissioners do not lose any rights uh by by that quashing there uh they're  able to follow the process already established there's no need for an additional process then  so their vote is squashed our vote is not your initial vote they tasked the uh planning board to  conduct a new hearing to consider uh the issue of compatibility and I believe uh changed conditions  as well uh and okay hold on okay M mchi would you agree with the County's position that a quashed  decision resets the decision that the county can then go back and make it after the case ruling  came out no because of the lack of a procedure in the Land Development code about what happens  when C quashes the decision and it comes back to the BCC and that's exactly why in the terore  case that they were found in contempt because they tried to reset it they had new staff opinions uh  they tried to redo what they had done before another bite at the Apple is what the court  said and the only thing that's in this motion let's be clear that was sent to  you um so that Criterion C can be fully explored as chairman Barry said and that the surrounding  neighborhood can be considered and the impacts considered that's the motion for Criterion C  specifically compatibility with the surround in area there's no wording about having new evidence okay so I guess and let me just make sure I'm I'm clear the the the Court ruled that  the bcc's decision was quashed where does that in your opinion leave the County Commission in my  opinion they should have looked at the evidence of the record of your hearing and as the judge said  the judge went forward and said that it is not evident that the county would have found competent  substantial evidence to support its denial that's what the Circuit Court said so the Circuit Court  did look at the record and the record from you and said there's no there's no competent substantial  evidence to deny the resoning and the only thing that they could hang their hat on was commissioner  Barry's comments which the Circuit Court said were wrong they should not ever been allowed  okay so in my opinion what the BCC should have done when it went back to the BCC is  they should have said let's look at the record what does the record say the staff  had recommend approval everything was there uh and they should have approved the resoning but  instead they delayed it another several months by sending it kicking it back to you okay and  it's the County's position that a quash ruling resets their decision in the first place and  they still have the ability to send it remand it back to us do I have that correct that is correct and so now we've got to figure out what the definition of quashed is and what  the judgments what it I mean what a position to be in um well that's why I gave you the teramore  case because it's very clear if you don't have procedures in place which you don't then you  can't have a new hearing but the Teran Moore came back to the board of adjustments yes it did yes  not the Planning and Zoning Board that's correct I mean I see where that's the more definitive  one there they have that ability we're just making a recommendation to the board of County  Commissioners I I give where the evident Tre coming into this as an issue though so but this  is where you have the evidentiary hearing I know I know get it's the same process the that's why the  BCC should not be adding evidence either because they're supposed to be looking at as a Appel at court and may I ask the uh either Andrew or the attorney it was remanded and what  was the Border County Commissioner's instruction specifically I'll pull up the the minutes of the meeting give me a  moment here it is if you I just read it to them but if you want another copy it I I'll read it verbatim uh so in the minutes of that meeting I will make  this is by commissioner Barry I will make a motion that this be remanded back to the  planning board so that Criterion C can fully be explored as chairman excuse me it was May  as chairman Barry just said and that the surrounding neighborhood can be considered  and the impacts considered that's the motion for Criterion C specifically  compatibility with the surrounding areas it was foros correct I stand corrected there  so that does not say adding new additional information it just says clarification which  is assuming we didn't consider that to begin with it is up for the board to determine that uh  I would to note that it it's directing uh for the planning board to consider C to be fully explored but doesn't the the Land Development code in uh I don't know if it's paragraph 2.7.2 Bravo uh  so paragraph five or I'm sorry six says final determination the BCC at its scheduled hearing  shall adopt modify or reject the recommendation of the planning board or SRI or return the resoning  case to the board with instructions for additional facts or clarification isn't that a procedure it's  in the Land Development code it's a lang it's language but it's not a procedure about what  you're supposed to do now and that's why there was a procedure before in that one section it's been  removed that tells you yes after assert and it goes back you can have a new hearing and these are  the procedures you follow the county decided to remove that it's their choice they removed it so  now the procedure is not there the only procedure is there is for a remand whenever the county is  either approving denying before it goes to court can I ask um for historical with Horus you know  um i' would love to have your understanding of the when it was removed I'm ass 2015 when when things  changed that was removed um what was the procedure beforehand what is you give me some kind of an  opinion of of what your understanding the before and now is I would have to have the opportunity  to look at the old language if it was there I do not because I do not want to say anything that  wasn't there so I would I would need to look at the old language to provide clarification  on what was there and and and compare the two now so unfortunately I'm not able to make that  because I just don't have that I just can't recall at this time yes sir it's right here horse thank you as usual um I'm just gonna read it I'm I I am not going I'm may not be  able to give an opinion because you got to take you got to you got to read the whole thing when  you're looking at making interpretations you got to look at the whole context not just one  paragraph and I know the attorneys know that's B well looking at in hold so I'm just going to  read from the old Land Development code article two L dc2 again this is old language e the board  of County Commissioners shall review the record and the recommendation of the planning board and  either adopt the recommended order modify the recommended order as set forth here in  reject the recommended order or remand the matter back to the planning board  for additional facts for clarification so that is still in there I believe Mr J you that is correct  that is correct so that portion is yet in there thank you findings a fact or findings regarding  legitimate public purpose may not be reject or modified unless they are clearly erroneous  or unsupported by the record that's still I'm still in old language when rejecting or  modifying conclusions of law the board of County Commissioners must state with particularity its  reasons for rejecting or modifying the recommended conclusion of Law and must make a finding that is  substantial that is substituted conclusion of law is as more reasonable than the conclusion  that was rejected or modified how okay that's the old right that's the that's that's the old  that's I'm I don't have the new in front of me so I cannot compare but that's still in there  so I got to be clear see I I was stained by an attorney so thank you you follow along with me  please it's hard to please respond if it's if I'm not reading the verbatim language of the RTC okay so however the board of County Commissioners may not modify the recommendation to a more  intensive use than requested by the applicant and advertise the review shall be limited to  the record below only a party of record to the proceedings before the planning board  or representative shall be afforded the right to address the board of County Commissioners  and only as to the corrections of the findings do my questions to you is that is that language  inside the Land Development not in this section not in that section that's very very clear now  it it could be somewhere else but it's not in the section not in that section so uh let me  okay I'm going to read this again only a part the record to the proceedings before the planning  board of represent sh before the right to address the board of County Commissioners and only as to  the correction of the findings I read that before I'm just trying to get back up to where I left  off or conclusion of law as based on the record the board of County Commissioners shall not hear  testimony now another portion that is highlighted by Mr by by miss m in the event the matter is  remanded to the planning board and I think this may be I feel an as so I think that she won't this  point to be clear read on what she's stating an additional quasa judicial hearing for the purpose  of hearing testimony and receiving EV evidence relevant to additional facts and clarification  requested by the board of count Commissioners will be conducted by the planning board I'm going  to read that again in the event the matter is remanded to the planning board an addition requir  our judicial hearing for the purpose of hearing testimony and receiving evidence relevant to the  additional facts and clarification request by the board of count Commissioners will be conducted by  the planning board and it's my understanding again that this is old l language of Article 2  2.08 that's the beginning of rezonings amendments to the Zone Testament of this code the old Land  Development code prior to the new adoption in April 2015 so this is old language but again we  still have to look at the code is different now what she saying could have been another part I'm  just not aware of that at that time so I just read read what was given to me at this time uh  question so I heard Horse Say in hearing testimony uh Chris without hearing any new information Lorden I'm trying to figure out how to walk this fine line if there's new testimony  present today would that be considered new evidence prior to any real documentation okay  if let little hypothetical situation what if we didn't accept any and we just had  it all to the planning board taking the consideration we took from z20 uh 23-3  just from what what that was previously I don't even know we have different voting  numbers since then too so I know that and if that was in your hypothetical situation you'd  also need to keep it mind you couldn't take in new testimony from public that weren't at that  first one but then could the people that were previously G the opportunity to give  testimony then give it again in the future and not in ours if we're just limitting it  to this that would be the board accounting commission if we're just going for the one Criterion I mean I'm looking at you Chris on this one I have no idea on this would  you restate your question there I'm sorry so the people that previously in case z223 D3 that gave  testimony would they be if we were to limit this to just the board hear it at this quasi judicial  hearing would they be able to bring testimony in the board of County Commissioners if we made  a decision today but only eliminated to the board so the original from 2023 the speakers because we  have case z 20233 here right I would defer to our typical process that they would be able to restate  their arguments right at so at the board of County Commissioners heing those people from 2023 now  it's up to this board whether to decide to allow new uh testimony uh it if it did they those people  would be allowed to speak at the board of County Commissioners meeting as well so will you're saying relook at what we looked at back in March of 2023 allowed just those people that  spoke that day that are here today to speak no one knew just the ones from that case back  then if we're just doing a continuation of this case from that day and time  if we said if we said we did our job back then we did fully comprehend what our objectives were  in C and we stick by that sighting it wasn't easy it was difficult there's a lot of emotional uh uh  stuff presented to us it was a very difficult decision but the everything fell in place for  the our vote at that particular time if we say we still stand by that and we take it and we continue  our recommendation back to the board of county commissioner they can then do something whatever  they want with it that's our recommendation then and it is now okay again the people yeah  the people I would imagine that folks would say well we've got new evidence that may change your  mind quite frankly there was a lot of evidence it was mostly emotional it was difficult and  it was in people's homes and their location and I understand that but quite frankly we did our job I I do wish to clarify something looking at the order from teramore that decision was  based on a process the language 2726 is not applicable to board of adjustment they don't  have a process to to reopen uh the evidence uh and in that decision by the Circuit Court uh the  court disagreed with the petitioner's premise that there is an absolute prohibition on local  government entities reopening the evidentiary record on remand after rid of cersai is granted  Ed so their decision was that they declined to say there's an absolute ban on it but when there's no  process to reopen evidence uh they would not be able to do so uh the the County's position is that  the uh provision outlined in 2726 would allow for the board of County Commissioners to remand it uh  with further instruction to consider additional issues I wanted that clarified remember that's  the language that they took out of the code about having new testimony that's what Horus just read  to you that's not in the code anymore we can still consider something brought back to this criteria  as long as we don't accept new evidence to it we can still as this board make a decision based on  that Criterion on the on the original evidence okay but isn't the process announcing a result  a resoning case that we've got basically what we've gone through we've announced this case  we're going to hear it it's been remanded back to us it's been announced we followed all of  the procedures for resoning so i' I'd be led to believe that we do have a process in place  and we're we're executing that process and if I may if I may much respect for much respect for  Miss menu and and and their councel we do want to be very clear that when it come to  case law the laws does you you can use case law in court proceedings the old regulation  of the old land them because that's what it is it's old it's not adopted it's nullified  it's vo it it's it doesn't exist at all so so the Land Development code that's adopted as  of today that it what's Prevail now of they got cases that they're bringing in but the  old language of the old Land Development code respectfully and I know I'm right on this it's  it's it's not adopted it's gone it is absolutely gone the new lament code was adopted in 2015 now  whether or not that wasn't in there that's that's neither here nor there but the case law that she  got presented if that if y'all want to consider that with under the direction from the our County  attorney that's law I'm not a lawyer I can't make that assessment but I can say the old language  of the old en code is null and void and Mr J that's something you consider basically that is gone that's right it's gone that's what the Circuit Court said you have  to prolongate a procedure and as Horus just told you is gone the procedure is gone can I make a motion yes I'd like to make a motion for case z223 d03 to um go with everything  that we said before drop the case as of today for not hearing any more testimony hearing more  evidence and still stating by our original recommendation all right we've got a motion  to um excuse me I object you're making a circuit here I would second that motion okay hold on if  Miss was unsatisfied with County Commission she need to appeal that back to the Circuit  Court County Commissioner you to do your job we need it done who we sir we um we got a motion in  a second on the floor and can I can now and we do got to understand this D we do have our the  the recommendation from the council from our planning board and he made he made his points  as well so that's up to y'all to receive it I just was talking about reading a reading the  old language I was not saying that position with that so I just want to be clear yeah and I just  want sure my my motion stay is is understood as a as a recommendation board we are my motion is to  not change our recommendation the BCC does have the authority to overrule US based on evidence  that they have and they want to overrule us that is their um obligation to do that we are just a  recommendation board and I feel that our original U recommendation still stands that is my um  that is that's where I stand on on this and that's what the motion was for and a point of interest  Mr chair that given the terore case as I sat here and the attorney looked at me in complete contrast  my nature is not to count to an attorney's threat of any sort they said that you will  lose and we did lose and that was okay with me I still haven't gone in to the store don't get me  wrong but they're not suffering greatly because of that but I would uh I I I I do object to the  fact we did our job at that point point in time now what I may contend with is that they pushed  it back on us because it is a difficult emotional case and I'm sorry but we did our job then and I  just can't see that it would be productive to go through that same thing again with the same  results personally I mean my biggest concern here is I always open to the public speaking and I will  say that but for this board right now especially when going back on one Criterion here that was  brought down by the County Commissioners that was remanded by I I think I have to agree with  you know Reed we would stick with that but I want to see that you know can the public for z223 d03  can they speak at the board of County Commission after this because it sounds like the way that  this is getting quashed after the fact it came back to us as if it was that day and time or that  vote and it's going to go back up that way again would that be the case they would not be able to  they have to first speak at the reason zoning hearing which they would have not done if new  evidence is not admitted to allow them to speak but no the ones who did speak back then for z223  d03 the ones that did would they be afforded that ability again they would be able to restate their  arguments with nothing new no new evidence that's I'm saying they're they're able to so they would  just be able to go from where we were back then when we made our decision and when they were able  to subsequently speak to the County Commission back then that is my understanding correct all right Mr second any further discussion yeah I'll say one thing I I wasn't part of this board  last year I'm I'm new um this is my district and in Steven Barry's defense you know he's making a  decision off what he feels is best for the area and and that's what his job is uh so even though  we recomend recomended or this board recommended something back then the BCC is still tasked with  being the final say so that's why we elected them um so this system is working it's just  this one little problem glitch is kind of a an issue so I don't I just want us to remember that  we've elected Steven Barry to a position he knows this road I know this road I have friends in this  neighborhood I I'm going to have to object because here we we're doing the same path agreed you're  trying to add evidence I'm not adding anything but let's just remember what the purpose is and that's it but I I want to say this but the Council of the planning board Council has stated I want to get  that has stated that this decision can come back that the planning board they in their Authority  is making that decision so so they they he has stated that based upon what he's presented to the board my understanding is that there is a process in place to reopen the evidence  should the board choose to do so are we going to take more argument while the motion's on the  table I mean I I thought discussion I don't know that I've heard any argument one way  or the other for this case um so um with that being said we do have the motion on the table to correct me if I'm wrong read but essentially accept our decision uh from March of 2023 uh for  approval of this resoning and sending it back to the board of County Commissioners  for their consideration that is correct with no new um testimony no new evidence okay all  those people making decisions based on sir we we I'll just say this we have already made the  decision back in March 2023 we listened to case to the case from the county from the  applicant to the members of the public we made a decision on that day and six to zero um sent  it to the board of County Commissioners they didn't like it they denied our approval this  applicant took them to court their decision was quashed and it got sent back to them and  now they're trying to send it back to us to redo this case I don't think that this board feels that  it's necessary for us to redo the case because we've already done our job and we feel that we  we did a good job and a thorough job of that and and we're going to send this back to them so so on that note I'm sorry and I know y'all came here and it's been a lot of  time but but all those in favor of the motion please signify by raising your  right hand all those opposed motion carries uh is that five to one and  that will go back to the board of County Commissioners do we have a date on that horse October 3rd October 3D will um members that spoke from the public on that day be notified te technically the 2500 foot radius the mailers were still sent out and the sign  was uh still posted too much noise that's okay all there was still a 2500t radius  on the mailers so anybody we still have that same notice I think he's referring to the back  then with he's referring to the speakers the speakers from okay if we can all be quiet in  one person at a time please if I may okay if I may the speakers who were listed in  the minutes as having spoke at that original planning board meeting were then sent notice  they got notice about going to the BCC they were allowed to speak at the BCC those would be the  only members still allow uh members of the public allowed to speak on that okay my question is will  they be notified again yes we have their speaker request forms from that hearing all right thank you all right um I sorry I know that y'all came down here today uh and I'll just reiterate again that  this board made de ision a year and a half ago listened to testimony listened  to evidence made a decision and this is oh I'm sorry the decision is final  and we make a recommendation to the board County Commissioners and we to continue not respect respectfully respectfully yes close yeah all right so that is the end of the I will we're going to adjourn the rezoning meeting and we do have a regular meeting  to get to yeah yeah I got it right here you got the old and the new you minding it to me yeah's love no I know no let me just give this to him just give me a second here's the new still um if y'all want let's go talk to me so we continue I will all right are you ready for the regular meeting yeah the meeting of the scambi County  planning board for September 10th 2024 is hereby called to order with seven members  we do have a quorum do we have approve of publication yes sir did the publication meet  all legal requirements yes sir and now entertain a motion to weigh the reading  of the legal advertisement so got a motion do we have a second all right all those in favor  please signify by raising your right hand motion carries the planning board meeting minutes for  August 6 2024 have previously been provided to the board I'll entertain a motion to accept the  planning board meeting minutes into evidence do we have a motion so moved do we have second  a motion is second all those in favor please signify by raising your right hand the planning  board hearing package for September 10th 20124 has previously been provided to the  board members the chair will entertain a motion to accept the planning board hearing package and  legal advertisement into evidence do we have a motion so moved second second all those in  favor please signify by raising your right hand motion carries uh we do have a public hearing  concerning the review of an ordinance adopting the 2023 - 2027 update to the 5year schedule of  Capital Improvements and that the Board review and recommend to the board of County Commissioners for  adoption an ordinance adopting the 23-27 update to the 5year schedule of Capital Improvements  for incorporation into part two of the code of ordinances yes so this is the CIP for the fiscal  year 2023 um to 2027 So within the comprehensive plan on chapter the State of Florida requires  that a scamby county provides updates on the 5year capital Improvement so the CIP includes estimates  of costs of improvements and outlines of fiscal policies to guide the funding and construction of  improvements development service doesn't generate the information um each year our department  gathers information from other agencies in the county and we compile it into this one document  and so now we ask that you the board um review this and send it to the board count commission for adoption all right and board members are there any questions for staff I have a couple questions  uh I just read through this thing uh page 19 there's a bu relocate bu Road relocation just  can anybody know anything about that you want me to explain yeah I'll let Drew talk about that one  okay so um I'm not sure what department that's from sorry it's p 19 yeah that's uh with solid  waste yeah um there is a proposal out there we're looking at getting all the background  information north of the interstate to shift the road Eastward uh to allow for expansion of the landfill okay that answers that and then uh page 18 uh the question question Center  enhancements what's the plan for that I I don't know that portion I defer that to parks and then it says on page 50  I think it's 57 reestablish the mass transit advisory committee was that disbanded I'm going to have to make an assumption there i' i'  not involved in mass transit but if it maybe that's maybe that's what  it is Noti they put a note in there to reestablish that yeah and then on page 99 if you could go to that why do they not include I 10 now this is strictly from uh Florida TPO um  the these questions are for my education for the most part yeah so as as Allison pointed  out we just compile the documents they're generated by other agencies um so we we're  not not going to have answers for a lot of their specifics that come from other agencies okay and  then page 125 it's uh says Klondike Road I think it's a bridge replacement it says  off system do you know what that means there's the repair and things typically that means for  unassociated things AR with it but yeah without someone here to answer that that's kind of a  little tough yeah I would defer that to AR County engineer okay and then my last question is page 313 the uh Emergency Operations uh from Sally they're still working on that that stuff or what  does that in reference to um that is information straight from fdot and uh I I once again I  have to defer to the the people who generated the information Cy yeah over 300 pages of this  is the uh Transportation so so I I mean so the question is we're supposed to adopt something  that we you don't have the answers to we can't get answers to so what's the overall purpose of  us adopting something we don't necessarily get answers to so the state it's a state requirement  that we have all these agencies produce all this information um our job is simply to compile it  into one document and then push it through so that the County Commissioners will transmit it onto Tallahassee a procedural matter versus more than anything because it sounds more like a rubber  stamp because we don't have the information we can't ask questions we can't challenge any  in here is this is a truly rubber stamp process we assemble a document full of  information given to us by other people I move to approve then got a motion do we have a second we have a motion to approve on the table  of the five-year work schedule of Capital Improvements for incorporation into part  two of the code of ordinance is there a second second any further discussion see maybe in the future we bring in the people for the other  departments I don't know I don't have a good answer here that's an aspirational goal all right I'm shocked even all those in favor please signify by raising  your right hand all those opposed Miss carries and is there anything else there is one thing you know as before we pack up since this is our technical what first  real case that's been remanded today is that a fact of nature for the past year I can't remember  if we've had another I we've had others but I don't think we've had others that have brought  in additional information that counters what the original um staff findings were I would not advise  proceeding with this discussion at this time thank you all right well then it SS that all right uh  there's do you have any anything for next month or yes um the next meeting will be October 1st I  already have four cases um and then the next one it's going to be considered the November  case but held on October 29th just due to our building being a voting Center so my  Tuesdays are kind of messed up and just for clarification on that CIP when we ask folks  what we're asking them for is what are your plans so that's what it is uh it's  it's everybody's individual plan from all those different agencies again my questions were more  just for my education just reading through that and trying to figure out what what the  plan plans are education's good I need a lot of it all right uh we stand a journ