##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