##VIDEO ID:VTIRfT29KP0## e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e see all right we got headlights all right let's see what's going on here all right at this time I will call our regularly scheduled meeting of the board of adjustments and appeals for October 23rd 2024 to order and uh may we have a roll call please chairman Taylor here Vice chairman vanen here member Smith Rodriguez here member Wheelis here Al member green here okay we have a five members we have already set for business uh at this time would you please stand with me as we pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States iedge Al to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liy and justice for all thank you uh oh call to order I jumped out of I got out of order I should have called us the order first all right roll call has been done we had do have a quorum uh do we have uh any corrections or any uh changes to the minutes from September 23rd 25th 2024 to make no I'll motion to approve the minutes from September 25th 2024 right second all right so we have approval we have motion on approval all those in favor please say I I there's none opposing thank you okay uh back okay all persons who anticipate speaking on any public hearing item must fill out an oath card to be heard on that agenda item and fill out the oath and sign the oath contain their own the cards are located on the table near the entrance to the council chamber or may be obtained from the recording secretary this meeting will be conducted in accordance with procedures adopted in resolution 24- 1997 those speaking in favor of a request will be heard first those opposed will be heard second and those who wish to make a public comment on the item may speak third the applicant may make a brief rebuttal if necessary a representative for both side for or against May cross-examine a witness anyone who speaks is considered cons a witness if you have any photographs sketches or documents that you wish you desire for the commission to consider they must be submitted into evidence and will retained by the city please submit such exhibits to the recording secretary this time um staff has the item that we have tonight been properly advertised yes the item has been popularly advertised all right do any of our members have any statements to make uh and visiting the site or speaking to any members of the public regarding the item that is on tonight's agenda no I drive by the site every day have for years it's on the way home all right but you didn't physically go in there no okay um I will admit that I was at a forum put on by the Titus uh location and and I was the question asked me when is our next Board of adjustments and appeal meeting and I answered that question but that was the end of my discussion that I had with the applicant Mr Jesse all right so we have no Cent agenda items and we have no o business so I guess we'll get right to the first order of business which is variants number 21-2024 the address is 3550 South Washington Avenue snap please enlighten us thank you for variance 21-2024 at 3550 South Washington Avenue the applicant is requesting a variance to the Land Development regulations chapter 34 section 34-1 128 non-residential minor division qualifications section 34-1 128 A1A to allow the qualification of a non-residential minor division without meeting the condition that the water sewer and reuse be provided by the addition of a service lateral only for each lot being proposed no main extension required for property located in the Urban Village zoning District um as submitted by Jesse Wright registered agent for Titusville Mall LLC owner and for powers of the baa ldr section 34226 states that the board shall Grant a variance request when in the opinion of the board of adjustments and appeals owing to special conditions the literal enforcement of such ordinance or regulations would do manifest Injustice to or impose an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant in order to authorize any variance to the provisions of such ordinance the board must consider the following criteria special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land structure or building involved which are not applicable to other land structures or building in the same zoning special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant granting the variants requested will not confer upon the applicant any special privilege that is denied by the ordinance to other lands building buildings or structures in the same zoning District the literal interpretation of the provisions of the ordinance would deprive the applicants of Rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the same zoning District under the terms of the ordinance the variance granted is the minimum variance that will make possible the reasonable use of the land building or structure and granting the variance the granting of the variance will preserve the spirit of the ordinance and remain in harmony with its general purpose and intent in granting the variance the public safety and Welfare must be assured and in no case shall granting of a variance result in a change of use which would not be permitted in that zone with that the applicant is requesting a variance to section 34-18 of the code to allow an application for a non-residential minor division to be approved without first meeting the conditions that would allow the property to qualify for a minor division as described in section 34-1 128a of the code which states to qualify for a minor for a non-residential minor division the following conditions must be met one in all zoning districts except as provided for below where improvements being proposed do not exceed the following criteria a water sewer and reuse can be provided by the addition of a service lateral only for each lot being Prov proposed no main extensions required the applicant is requesting to allow for the division of land by creating a new lot without the utilities necessary to serve the lot or Lots if approved the application will be qualified without the main extension required for water sewer and reuse the intent of the non-residential minor division is to be an administrative process for the division or creation of a limited number of lots with minimal need for public facility improvements where a parcel is part of and governed by a current approved site plan A non-residential minor division allows for the fee simple ownership of portions of the site without the need to Plat the newly created Lots while maintaining the Integrity of the approved site plan creating a lot without utilities does not meet the intent of the minor division process lots that are created and sold without necessary infrastructure can become unbuildable with multiple Lots approved as part of the site plan an easement dedicated to the city will be necessary to ensure access and maintenance of the public utility main the requestor received approval of the site plan with utilities including a water main to develop redevelop the subject property with commercial residential and a hotel use the division of land proposed as part of the non-residential minor division process must be consistent with and governed by the approved site plan all necessary utilities are expected to be available without main extension when a lot is created per section 34-1 128 A1A of the code unless the variance request is approved staff recommend denial of the variance no special conditions or circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land granting the variance would provide special privilege that is otherwise denied by ordinance the granting of the variance does not preserve the spirit of the ordinance and remain in harmony with its general purpose and intent granting the variants could compromise Public Safety and Welfare and the creation of lots without utilities necessary to surf the lot is inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the non-residential minor division process in addition the request has the potential to create an unbuildable lot that's it that's you thank you sorry all right do we have questions for staff on what is presented so far noit I'll wait you going wait to yeah I'm gonna wait all right so we're going to wait for all questions until we've hear testimony so the tech case will open up public public part of the hearing and our first card please Chelsea Anderson Miss Anderson please AR come and greet us again with your name and address for the record sure um hi good evening I'm Chelsea Anderson I'm an attorney at Mangrove title and legal 1530 US Highway 1 in rockage and I'm here with Jesse Wright on behalf of Titus full Maul LLC um I do have a PowerPoint I'm not sure what oh oh there it is um so we are here tonight requesting a unique procedural variants um specifically from Land Development code section 34-1 128 A1A um to allow this minor division uh for the Titusville Resort and destination Redevelopment project um prior to construction of the main extension and instead of um having having the main extension constructed before the minor division is uh approved we were the applicant proposed in the variance request that the extension be constructed within 6 months of the approval date of the minor division so um I have some visuals because this is a complicated project with a lot of facets going on um what are we doing here the the overall plan for this development this is the old Sears Town mall and my client is redeveloping it with a mixed use called Titusville Resort and destination and as part of that overall Redevelopment plan um he intends to divide the property into these five lots that you can see on this visual um in front of you and I have handouts of this if if that is helpful for anyone as well um so all of the Lots would be wholly owned and operated by llc's that the applicant created um that are all have a soul member Soul manager that is Jesse Wright and there's also a set of conditions covenants and restrictions that um is recorded against the property that addresses um various things including the maintenance and construction obligations of the parcel owners for the utility infrastructure that serves the development as a whole so this project uh seemed like it fit the intent of a minor division under the code because as staff read in the staff report um under the code it's intended for areas where minimal public infrastructure is needed um you know here we're bounded by four main roads that are existing we're not constructing any new public right ways with this um all of the utility infrastructure within the development is private um and what we're you so anyway I'm going to get into a little bit of the background and history of the application my client would like to talk about that further after I speak um so we met with we met met with staff several years ago starting this project we ended up submitting in November of 2022 um our minor division application so to divide all five Parcels at once staff came back and said hey we can't process that under Florida Statutes you cannot create three or more Parcels without triggering subdivision plotting so how about you go back and submit one parcel at a time and we said okay we can do that so September of 2023 we resubmitted and we started with the hotel parcel that is the parcel in red um we submitted in September um got minimal comments from staff we addressed them uh then we got a site plan approved in October of 2023 that's um something that's required before you can get a minor division you have to have an approved site plan so site plan's approved October 2023 we say staff are we ready can we record it takes a very very long time to get an answer back and finally they said yes if site plans approved you can record so March of 2024 this year we did record as you can see from the property praised website the hotel parcel is separated there are a set of ccrs recorded against property um staff had said after the first one this should be smooth sailing because we're just going to amend the ccrs um we have the overall structure in place we're going to each parcel that comes on board we'll add the new parcel owner and you know go forward that way so we submitted the next month April of 2024 for the the AL parcel which is the green parcel and that's an assisted living facility use um took us two months to get comments back on that and there was no mention of an issue with the water main extensions in those comments we responded to the comments um and then in July I got email not an official comment letter that said you don't qualify for a minor division because you need to construct the water main extensions first so that's where we kind of came to a standstill on the minor division um so as I said we do have an approved site plan um this is one of the sheets from the approved site plan that shows the water infrastructure design um I've circled in yellow I don't know if you can see that too well but there's three points of connection um to the city's existing water mains there's one to the north off of Country Club Drive there's one to the South off of narice and there's one to the East off of Hopkins and forgive me I'm not an engineer so um Ashley can correct me with anything that I'm any technical details I'm misstating with that um our develop velopment team collaborated with staff and came up with this looped design where we would hook in at these three points to the existing water mains and um there would be this lateral loop around the site to serve all of the development um and again this is all private the only public portions are where we are hooking into the city main um at those connection points um so I I am going to go through oh sorry I have one more visual I thought this was good from the approved site plan this is a phase development so everything in purple that's phase one um and as you can see all of the this is the utility infrastructure everything is self-contained within the phase one Parcels except there's a branch of purple going into phase two and that is where we're connecting um to the main on Hopkins so I'm going to go brief ly through the criteria for granting the variants and how we believe we meet them um the first one's the special conditions and circumstances that exist that are peculiar to this property um that's not applicable to other properties in the UV zoning District uh first of all I'd like to point out the the Urban Village zoning District there's three properties in the entire city that have it um it and they're controlled by the US One Corridor master plan there is the miracle City Mall former Miracle City Mall which was redeveloped already as Titus Landing um there is a property at the very south of the city I call it the southern Gateway property it's across from Kennedy Point Park it's largely um undeveloped vacant there is a building on it I don't know the history of it but it's not in use um and then there is this site which is the former sear Town Mall um that we're talking about today um so this is unique it is the only property that is currently you know it was developed with a mall um Titus Landing was but it's already been redeveloped so uh it has existing Water and Sewer Service right now it's been serviced since the 60s when the mall was built um and we have demoed half the mall but the part that's standing still has Water and Sewer Service currently um so this isn't like we're proposing to do a minor division out in a green field where Miles of pipe need to be laid to provide water and sewer to the site um and then again there is a recorded set of ccrs against the property addressing the construction and maintenance obligations for this infrastructure that's a private utility infrastructure um that's already existing and was recorded against property uh the second condition the special conditions and circumstances are not a result of the applicants actions so this property was built with the searstown mall about back in the 60s um my client wasn't around then he bought it in 2018 it was what it was it had the existing development on there and he's working within the constraints of that um and then as I said during site plan review um our team did work with the city and came up with this system with a lateral Loop going around to serve all the sites as being the best option for this development um he my client did not realize that creating a system like this would prohibit him from dividing the property through the minor division process at that time uh granting the variance will not confer uh on the applicant a special privilege denied by other lands in the same zoning District again this is only three properties in the city with this zoning um this is a unique situation this one already has water and sewer uh we're not proposing selling this off to a new part a third party these entities are wholly owned and operated by my client and there's a set of ccrs that govern um the construction and maintenance it provides for easements across the property so each part owner has to allow access so that these utilities can be installed they can be maintained over time um the literal interpretation of the provisions would deprive the applicant of the rights commonly enjoyed by other property owners in the same zoning District so the main reason that my client needs to sub to divide this property is because of obtaining different types of financing mechanisms um based on the different uses uh for example the hotel parcel that's going to have a very different type of financing than an assisted living facility um and also insurance requirements so that was really the impetus for for needing to break the property into five Parcels like this um whether this is the minimum variance uh that would make this possible um we believe that it is uh my client has proposed a date certain for constructing them uh constructing the main extensions would be six months from date of approval um the main factor in the timing is of course the storms um that's what everybody who's you know doing development it's a major setback every time we have uh storm season I did propose some additional options um when this issue came up um staff was not receptive to them so you know like having a reversionary clause in the deed whereby if the infrastruct if the extension isn't constructed within a certain time period Then the ownership would revert back um also if the issue was during subdivision they would have a bond for this well why not require a bond there's other opt there's the option to do a conditional approval for a minor division so um unfortunately that those were not accepted options and then um okay granting the variance will preserve the spirit of the ordinance and remain in harmony with the general purpose and intent again I do feel that this is within the the purpose and intent of the minor division um section 34126 states that a minor division is intended to be administrative for zoning districts not requiring the creation of new streets right of way we're not requiring that um into a limited number of lots with minimal need for public facility improvements and it's also designed to Pro provide for infill in areas of the city currently served by adequate public facilities and services so this seems like the type of project that would qualify and be intended for a minor Division if we look specifically at the code section that we're asking to deviate from uh 34128 A1A it's the requirement that water sewer and reuse be provided by addition of service lateral only for each lot with no main extensions required there's no specific stated intent behind that but I can infer that the intent is to prohibit creating new Lots um in an area where there are no public facilities around um they could end up being a abandoned for whatever reason you know foreclosure or sale to a third party and then they would be unbuildable without someone spending millions of dollars to bring in service to an area of the city where there isn't service already um here I don't think that that is really as big of a concern because there are three existing Mains within close proximity to this project um if we're talking specifically about the AL parcel it's it's directly north of the AL parcel the green one there's an existing main um in fact staff did propose uh during the minor division process they said hey you could amend your site plan to show the AL parcel hooking into the existing main right there north of it and as long as it meets you know code then we would not have a problem approving the minor division but of course we would have to construct it that way and we don't want to do that we want to have a lateral Loop and serve the entire development um okay and then two more granting the variants uh the public safety and Welfare may be assured um I don't think there's a public safety issue here um if something happened and you know the this project fell apart and there was this lot created again there's a main just north of it um whoever would become the future owner of the project would have to probably amend the site plan for whatever they want to do unless they happen to want to build exactly what my client is doing which that rarely happens um and then the final criteria is it won't result in a change of use that would not be permitted in that zone here we're not opposing any change in use all the uses are already approved um on the site plan and master plan and they're consistent with the Urban Village zoning so um with that I'm going to hand it over to Jesse he wants to go through some more history on on what we've been doing for the past three or four years on this project and um then we're here for any questions no we're gonna ask questions first I think of you oh yeah that's fine I know I have I need an elementary understanding okay I'm not an industry professional on this board so I just need to break it down for a second am I to understand that if each uh minor division parcel hooked directly in to the main the one of the three mains you would be good to go maybe not exactly but generally speaking be good to go or you could have your lateral Loop and none of those main extensions uh none of yeah none of those main extensions yeah I'd like if staff could chime in because that was what was told to us if we could show that we could hook in and not have this lateral Loop then there would not be a problem assuming that it met code you know that's a a broad statement maybe then maybe it is a question for anybody can answer anybody in the room can answer this um I'm trying to understand is the problem that there's a lateral Loop plus the extensions meaning it could hook directly into the extensions no problem or it could be solely a lateral Loop not hooking into the extensions I'm trying to understand what the actual problem is if anybody could explain that to me hi my name is Ashley and I'm with public works so when this when we were having these discussions there is a water M and a sewer M on Country Club which is is that North roadway where this specific the ALF lot that we're talking about is at and so cir on this the if you go back um on the North the north is Country Club okay so there's a water man and a sewerman there and so when they brought up the ALF what I asked was for them to go back to their engineer to see can the ALF be served by that water man and that sewer M so thus not needing all of this looping but their engineer did not provide the answer to that so I don't think we can confidently say that especially fir flow could be met because this is a multi-story building and on Country Club it's only a 6in main which is the minimum size for a fire hydrant okay so follow-up question if you could please explain to me specifically and not in fancy industry terms what paragraph A1A means because I'm reading this and it says do not exceed the following criteria which sounds a bit strange to me but could you please just tell me what the city expects this visual to look like so for the the first qualification water and sewer and reuse can be provided by the addition of service lateral only for each lot being proposed no main extensions required what that normally means is if you you could think think of it as like a home for a simple example it would just be your water service you wouldn't have to provide a larger main you wouldn't have to install a fire hydrant or something like that it would just be a a simple building connection only so and their site plan as approved is to provide a whole entire network of water Ms and Sewer for the site okay so the city is expecting the developer to put in more the expectation would be you would install the infrastructure and then your minor division could be recorded okay install the infrastructure of what the water and sewer Ms so this in their approved site plan so those three what are those three extensions already there the three the three extensions on the three roads if you think of where um the mall is three roads have Mains right now in the roadways so what they're proposing are connections to each of those including a network of piping to reach each of their Lots internally if their ma if those Mains didn't already exist on those existing roads the city would expect the developer to put in Mains just like that just on their property well any development whatever is necessary for that development is required to install those Mains so if there was no infrastructure there they would be installing all of that plus what's inside of their property making sure I'm on the right page I just wanted to also point you out to the the agenda packet includes the entire section of the code on page 25 you may see that there's additional criteria that's required for the non-residential minor Division and it's laid out a bit differently than it is in your staff report right I assume all the other criteria has been met and that's why we're only here on a okay I I guess I'm I might be an idiot I'm not understanding is the problem that these Mains that exist on these roads is not on the development property no the problem is is from each of those roads they're connecting to those Mains and then installing large water Ms throughout to serve each of these proposed buildings so their connections are not directly to those roadways they're internal so when you separate those Lots now a water man is crossing each of those lots and if it's not installed you like if the if the hotel went to go build today the main connection is actually more in front of the AL so they don't have the water man to their property per the site plan and it wasn't proven to us that they could be served from a direct connection just to Country Club so there's a risk that you couldn't build it because now you're Crossing property lines where right now today it's one ice property so if this was going to be an Amazon warehouse one building they're going to hook into one main and call it a day um no it all depends on the use and how much fire protection when it comes to water so if it was one giant building like the mall was before it had multiple connections and it's not really the multiple connections that's necessarily the problem it's the internal networking that's required to make their plan work all the pipes inside the facility to get water to each of the buildings and get the sewage from the buildings to the remains on the roadway so per the code the city is is requiring all of the piping the internal network of piping to be done throughout the entire ploted area so in the current site plan what is approved is a phased utility system so for the water they do have to make all three connections to meet fir flow needs for what they deemed phase one for sewer um it follows the colors there basically everything in the purple could be installed and you could delay the pink to the Future for that that future phase because they don't plan to build that phase okay okay so miss Anderson yes in elementary terms now that I've gotten that could you break down what the specific problem is in just layman's terms so I'm not engineer either this is my understanding it is slightly different than what Ashley just said what we've been told is that we don't have to construct internally the private part of the utility infrastructure prior to approval of a minor division I've been told that what we have to construct is the portion that will be dedicated to the city as part of their public INF structure and the only portions that are going to be dedicated to the city as part of their public infrastructure are where we connect to their water mains there you can't read it from here but there's like a six we're going from a 6 in to a 10 in in a couple spots and correct me if I'm wrong so in the current approved site plan the whole water man is to be public the sewer is to be privately owned but I would point out that that section doesn't talk about it being private or public it just says that water and SE reuse can be provided by addition of service lateral only okay so this is different than the written comment that I got via email so it's worse now it's worse now and now it's worse now we have to construct all of our I'm being told uh at this hearing all of our water infrastructure before we can divide the property even though we have divided it your initial understanding oh sorry under your initial understanding where you only had to do part of it the basic Elementary reason of why that can't be done is what so we're doing it we're doing it as fast as we can um why it can't be done faster I oh so it can be done you just we're doing it we're trying to do it as fast as we can but we need to get it's all about the financing and the funding and I understand the intent of the code and the concerns but there's also you know like there's a real world where we have there's other factors involved um so we're but now everything is actually worse yeah from what you now understand the requirements to be then that which actually would affect our variance process Council if if the applicant is under one understanding of why they're asking for the variance and now there's a new understanding I'm sure their variance still holds in some sense but maybe the timeline that's going to be proposed by Mr Wright is going to change do we have a problem here I don't know how the timing makes a significant impact on this type of decision one way or another it is worthy of of a discussion but I would like to comment at this point on the statement made by attorney Anderson regarding the reversion as a potential solution for this project and the reason why the city rejects that proposal is because a reverter is a tool that can revert the title and ownership but it does not have any effect on the actual split of the property into different Lots the applicant has stated that he would be that one owner anyway and so I don't I don't see how that tool of a reverter could have any effect on the ownership and as it relates to this request for a lot split prior to being qualified by the city's code um as far as the timing the impact of a decision by this board is something that runs with the land it is indefinite it's not something that you set a timeline on once you establish a variance from the city's code it's a recorded order um so that's why I started off with I'm not really sure how the timeline plays into this application to begin with I do understand that it is part of the applicant's presentation that in within six months the utilities will be constructed but I I also don't I'm not confident um what the confusion is with the mains being required prior to the Lots being split um I would turn it back over to Ashley to comment on the correspondence on that well let me follow up then one qu question um it sounds like if I'm going to hear from the applicant to say yeah and just let us split in six months we'll have everything done let's just do this if we said yes it met the code and yes we accept this Condition it's actually not enforcable which is why Miss Anderson sounds like she's trying to put some sort of of sanction upon herself or her client but there's actually nothing that can be done about it that you can undo a lot split no any other questions Miss Anderson this point okay not for M Harris um for Chelsea um could you repeat your last statement you can't undo a lot split can't undo it okay understand no if I could address the the statement that he's the same owner so I mean he's the same Jesse would be the manager and member but there's separate llc's which are legally separate entities so they wouldn't be the same owner and that's there separate entities obtaining financing um separate entities holding so um yeah all right well your other card for Mr Wright is yes Jesse Wright I hear Jess Okay you Okay subject to further questions of course I'm not going anywhere okay thank you sir if you're expecting us to see that I think you got to push it back because it's a pretty high ledge here thank you good evening I don't really know why we're here tonight uh I need your name and address for the record please name is yes name is Jesse R Tedy 461 South Washington Avenue I don't know why we are here tonight I have developed in multiple different cities from Selma California to Birmingham Alabama Nashville Crossville Tennessee Jackson Mississippi and other cities any developments that I've had issues with we sat down with the city and we worked it out these are two facts that I hope that you would remember from tonight the fact is that the city made a mistake back in November of two two years ago the city made a mistake and they admitted it when we signed when we applied for the initial application two years ago exactly 23 months ago they reviewed the application they agreed to separate the hotel parcel without having the main and the sewer line at that time if they had told us that you need to do this for the rest of the Lots we would have done that this isn't a scenario that you come sandbagging in the in the legal term on the 11th Hour when we have bulldozers and we have pipes and everything else onside to come and tell us now you need to do this before we go forward we are not disputing that we're not going to be putting the pipes actually if you look at your pamphlet that I've G given out you don't have to read the whole thing you'll see the pictures of all the pipes everything is already on site there are well over $2 million in equipments and pipes that are ready to go underground the issue with the city is the timing this is not a scenario that we're going to change the side plan to go North to the country club or to NZ or anywhere else we are not changing that it costs a lot of time and money and I don't have that sort of a timeline if the city is going forward with this project to be in Titusville we need to make a decision tonight and the decision either going to be yes or no if it's going to be no this property is going to go right into foreclosure in March of next year why as Miss Anderson mentioned every single parcel has to be financed with a construction loan we have a bridge loan of about 11.6 million that has to be paid off and these loans usually gets paid off by a construction loan the construction loan per the use has to be coming from a lender that needs to have the parcel identified and as a separation I am very dedicated to this project I heard from the city attorney that maybe Jesse R is going to sell this l no we are not selling any Lots we're going to go all the way through I've looked at the mayor's eyes back in the city council a year and a half two years ago and I said we will finish this project all the way to the end now if there is a trust issue you can look at my background so the point is this we need time to be able to put these T these pipes into the ground the city should have told us two years ago that you needed to do this and I'm hoping that if this Administration is not going to admit they have already admitted they made a mistake if this Administration is going to look and say well we just going to put it aside and we're not going to deal with this I'm hoping that the new Administration comes in and solve any of these mistakes that has been taking place over the past few years I'm extremely angry and not happy with the fact of changing this and changing that no we're not changing anything on a side plan we're not going to be moving pipes into a 6inch pipe on Country Club it doesn't make sense we need to continue with our side plan the master plan got approval last night unanimously all members said okay we passed the master plan we have a side plan that is going forward to be done on an administrative basis again the point is why are we here tonight the city has made a mistake that if they had told us two years ago that these things had to be done we would have put it into the schedule and put it into into the infrastructure uh timeline the infrastructure cost is 7.1 million I can send the contract to you if you like to see it they have six month to do the infrastructure we're only talking about phase one I disagree with the city saying that this is going to be part of the public and no it's all going to be private we're going to give the city the easement that's all you're going to get the bottom line is very simple and that is this if these Parcels cannot be subdivided with the promise and with the full intention that all these pipes are going to go underground in time we can be forced with the hurricane that we just had with Christmas holiday that's coming up comes February of next year we have to have the infrastructure completely done this isn't something where I can just imagine well maybe we can push it out couple of month two or three month no the loan is due and payable in February of next year this is why we have tried to work with the city and if you look at the chain of email what the hell we had to go through I hate to use that word what we had to go through email after email that's taken about two years from November of 2022 to March of this year to get finalize the hotel parcel that was subdivided my attorney tells me well if the city make a mistake they can just undo it but then go ahead and undo it it doesn't make any difference to me at this point in time why is that because I need to have all the parcels completely separated I need to have the construction loan come in and pay certain portion of this bridge loan so we can go vertical if the decision is going to be a condition of about six months and the city and you guys trust in me to go ahead and go forward with this project God willing comes March or may maybe April May of next year we're going to go vertical we already have the financing that is already in progress for the hotel and the Al and the two restaurants which is right on US1 I am working on the financing for the multiunit it is a complex project it's taken me a year just to switch ilf independent senior living to the AL because I know the city needs a Alf and that's where we are besides that I've given you a pamphlet and I can answer any questions you have and again I apologize I'm extremely um not normal let's put it that way the the the least I can say but I spent a lot of time this project I work pretty much 160 hours a week in this project pretty much every day and I would like the city to be on time on the emails and things that we're sending out to the city but that is our position I'll be happy to answer any questions I I have a question but before I Turn to You Mr Wright I have a question for somebody over at the city um the hotel I can't remember what parcel but the hotel lot that was in the far right hand corner of that image is already separated right it's recorded and separated anybody yes that was a big yes so if it's already recorded and separated without having complied with the code then in theory they can continue doing what they're going to do on that separated lot right so excuse me I think um so when you're taking one lot and dividing it into two um the city used to have a process called a lot split process and city council did away with that process so now our options for subdividing land are either the platting process which is the full-blown state required process the non-residential minor division which is this process and the small scale plat when you're creating between three and 10 Lots so um it appears that if the intent is to create five Lots um as was shown in the colorful diagram with the five um subdivided parcels um it looks like the intent was to try to do lot split after lot split after lot split to sub subvert the process of the the minor division the non-res minor division process and so now that we're aware that that's the intent is to create five individual Lots um we believe that the pre prerequisites need to be met in order to qualify for this process so how' the hotel lot get split in the first place unfortunately staff um when reviewing the utilities simply looked that utilities were available on Country Club and did not take into account the approved site plan which required main extensions so is the separated lot the hotel yes even being separated still subject to the site plan this while Eddie's looking I do think that it would be it is subject to the site plan but now there's different ownership so there were different parcels and so the water man is proposed to cross those property boundaries and same as the other infrastructure sewer storm and so there's not an easement in place today for the water M which is supposed to H be public with a public easement so there's things like that that cause a complication so there would have to be permissions between the parcel owners to put the utilities across those and then at some time when the water man is built then you would have to have easements from both of those Property Owners to the city if you built that water man the way it's in the approved site plan so if the hotel is separated now what's the issue with just using the funding that you've obtained for the hotel and starting the construction on that separate property parcel I am obtaining two USDA loan government loan and they're connected meaning that both loans has to go parallel together the payoff of the existing Bridge Loan which is my problem not the city's problem is that a portion of the 16.6 which is about 7.1 would be paid on the ALF side and the rest 9.5 million be paid on the hotel side that means at the minimum I have to have both Parcels separated but this is not about just separating the Al and the hotel I'm asking the board to continue discuss the discussion to have all the parcels completely separated because the next one is the multi-unit 24 unit this is a mixed Zone project meaning that we have all the components that needs to go together at the same time the point that I'm really trying to make is this the city has made a mistake two years ago and they should have told us that just because they oversight they didn't see it this that the other they had two years to do it two years that's a long time isn't it do I need to be punished because of this why can't they make more mistakes and separate the auto Lots Chelsey wants to uh so I don't think my question was answered but on that note are you the individual that prepared this stapled yes I am packet here where it says we initially filed in we filed the initial application for minor division City responds we cannot do all five Parcels at one time that was November 21st 2022 and then you write on 99 2023 our attorney revised the application and submitted Pro to the city's request so in that year sounds like you were advised that you couldn't do all five Parcels but you waited a year to file your new application so I'd like to address that the comment that was made that this is the first time that the city is aware that we were are trying to get five Parcels I mean this has been in discussion for three years now we've had hours and hours of phone calls and meetings and they were aware that this was the procedure and this would they said you guys do one at a time this was not something that I dreamed up um there is a procedure in the code this it's very frustrating because I don't believe any procedure was followed in our application and reviewing it um in terms of timelines under Section 3429 it says the administrator shall have 15 working days to review the application and either approve approve with conditions or deny and give us the findings that did not happen um then in section 34130 it says for good cause shown either the administrator or the applicant May at any time refer the application to the subdivision approval process in chapter 34 if three years ago they had said you cannot do this you need to go through small scale platting we would have done small SC plotting the problem is it's been 3 years and now like you know the time frame for us to do that has passed what happened between November 2022 and September 2023 on this timeline okay so between that um that is when we did the there was a refinance yeah the Bri the second Bri one yeah so this is all behind the scenes stuff that there was a refinance going on um we got a new lender a bridge loan the new lender had very strict requirements on signing off on everything they had to review all of our proposed ccrs so and they're a huge bank that has a you know a bureaucratic process it took us forever to get that approved with the lender then I would have to go back to the city get it approved at the city if they made a change go back to the lender so it took us about a year to get to that I'm sorry what can of I the question you ask you said I did not give you the answer can you repeat that question one more time please I'll be happy to answer that my question was rephrased now because I don't remember the exact wording if the city already separated out the hotel and you were indicating that you that's where you were starting and you're going to have funding for that I'm wondering why you cannot capitalize on if you're saying it's the city's stake to have separated it and to Simply start your building on that to pay off part of the bridge loan okay so in the phase one we have what we call a lift station that is servicing all four components the out parcel of two restaurants the hotel with the attached restaurant in addition to the Al and the multi unit so when we say well just start the hotel we can't do that because every everything is interconnected all the piping having the lift station to be in operation for all these components to get the CEO has to go at the same time and we're doing the infrastructure as John mentioned we're doing the infrastructure for the entire phase one for all four components and when we're done with that we're going to demo the rest of the all and we would be putting the retail there right now we have close to about 35 tenants there so the fact that they made a mistake and they didn't tell us that is a big deal and so had we told this then things would have been different we wouldn't be here right now all right thank you are there any other questions of these Witnesses at this point to bring forth I would I would like to just address a few more things that that staff mentioned if you'll allow it yes okay um so Regarding why does timing have anything to do with it when we put a time my understanding from a legal perspective of what a variance is is you can't just request a blanket variance it has to be a variance a specific approval from something to something specific so for example a setback you can't just say I want a a variance from a 10 foot setback it has to be okay from 10 feet to 8 feet or something a specific quantifiable approval so here the requirement is that these be constructed prior to approval of a minor division so we put a timing in there of 6 months after so it's not just indefinite that's why we I understand the timing does matter on it um regarding the reversion I mean the reversion of a lot split how to undo it is a lot merger we do them all the time um and you just if the ownership reverts back to the same uh owner of the remaining Parcels then we would just go to the um property appraiser fill out a lot merger form say hey yeah we're the owner of all these we want to combine them back into it's the reason for Lots like that is for tax purp tax assessments with the property praiser so you just ask for a lot merger um okay and then regarding the easements so they keep saying there's no easements there is no easements there is easements there's a whole set of conditions covenants and restrictions and those are easements they are not as built in place easements of a line but they are easements and they do gr Grant access for construction of utilities so I know they're not you know as Bel as builts of what you would see for public infrastructure but they are valid easements on the property and they do exist right now so the owner of the hotel parcel has to allow the owner of the remainder of the property to Traverse their property boundaries to maintain infrastructure construct infrastructure and vice versa that does exist right now I have one more question sure does the applicant attorney or the city does someone possess some sort of Correspondence that says yes you can have this minor separation without complying with subsection a so that exist it there is an email that said yes we were good to go ahead and record it does not say even though you don't meet subsection a because that was never brought up until July 3rd of this year but you're talking about recording the the one I'm asking if if this timeline is accurate then in November 2022 when the city said we cannot do all five Parcels at once oh okay is there something else that says yeah we can do them one at a time and you don't need to comply with subsection a does that exist no and that's been my issue all along is that nothing has been I haven't gotten written correspondence everything has been verbal over phone calls and meetings so the reason why we're here on a variance instead of an appeal of an a decision of an administrator is there is no decision I don't have a written denial I don't have something that is appealable so you know I understand this is a weird request and we're really like at our last resort trying to to move forward on this process thank you to staff is there a written approval approv with conditions or deny denial of the request for to section 34-1 129 no the reason I'm asking is because one of the um criteria would be special conditions and Circumstance do not result from the actions of the applicant did the applicant submit a request for the minor division in written form yes it's assigned um it's assigned a number and everything in the portal and so they submitted it but the administrator did not make findings and fored that to the in writing to the applicant or they did I'm just reading section 34 -129 so if somebody could address that in detail I'm not sure if you if you want to hear from us anymore if you want to hear from you wouldn't mind letting the city respond first and then um you can have a rebuttal yeah so what we've found so far Tabatha is pulling up the is that there was an application for a non-res minor Division and there were several comments from the varying various uh reviewing departments that was sent and the letters dated uh June 19th of this year and there's uh two comments from Water Resources about utility easements one comment from our engineering department about storm Water Management Facility and one comment from planning about surveys and then an invitation to resubmit through the portal so that's June 2024 but their application was submitted in 2022 that non-residential minor division was submitted um April 25th 2024 the one we're pulling the comment letter from there's two minor divisions one didn't hear that there's two there were two minor divisions one in 2022 which was the hotel request and then in 2024 was the ALF where this discussion started and in the revision process for the one in 2022 um there was the staff review where a comment letter was sent back with the comment September 5th 2023 um from planning for acknowledgement that it'll be processed with the site plan upon approval boundary lines partiel notes and notes to the minor division documents what I what I'm asking is sounds the applicant is saying that there was an initial application for a minor division of the five Parcels at once in 2022 was there an application in 2022 for that all five I thought this was for the hotel only second review Miss Anderson if you could a brief yes or no on that was there an application for all five minor divisions in 2022 yes November 21st 2022 um I emailed the application uh to the city Mandy lth and Brad Parish I do not know if the portal existed at that point I think it came on board at sometime in the last three years okay so stop the drawing that's attached with the um applic from 2022 only shows the hotel parcel being subdivided from the the larger so I I have the email I have it printed and it has uh Phase 1 a parcel 1 Phase 1 a parcel 2 Phase 1 a parcel 3 the legals for all five Parcels um and it did have this the ccrs that had an exhibit that showed all five Parcels that is correct I'm sorry about that thank you on the additional Pages the other uh partials were shown okay so in November 2022 all five are being requested under the minor division is there a written finding sent to the applicant within 15 days of that application there was a comment letter provided on September 5th of 2023 Sor I don't I mean I'm reading the stat or statute I'm reading this section it doesn't really indicate comments it says findings saying the administrator shall have 15 days to review application either approve approve with conditions or deny said request the findings of the administrator shall forward the to the applicant in writing the findings so did that happen doesn't that's 232 so is this not the 22 application it is the 22 application the next this this is 2023 the comment so the last correspondence on that application indicated that there was additional information required in order to continue with that process um at the end of the letter it says please upload your resubmittal through bsna through the online portal can you clarify which application that was on the 2022 uh the date on that is September 5th 2023 yeah that's the one a year later right I'm talking about 2022 was there a for findings sent to the applicant within 15 days of the 2022 application but that was the one and only review started okay so the review for the 2022 um non-res minor division was where we go this is yeah that was for water resources that one was for engineering it just jump through was December 19th uh 2022 that's when the the review was started for for staff um was the start in complete do it one the denial it started on December 21st 2022 and planning disapproved um January 20th 2023 so I'm thinking the answer to my question is no not within the 15 days that I can see okay sorry resp not within the 15 days that I can see okay not within 15 days we did not receive a copy of a disapproval from that the comment letter is that in com we're the comment letter is the disapproval of that first review because there's items that are still needed we never received a comment letter from our November 21st 2022 application we did receive a comment letter from our September application where we revised it to be just the hotel parcel after verbal discussions with staff and the comment letter that we received had no mention of any non-compliance with 34-1 128 A1A and neither did the comment letter that we received um on our latest application staff can you respond to that or is there anything regarding that section that earlier for the most recent application it was all correspondence from email on the AL that this section of the code came till that it was missed PRI it was missed on the 2022 and that was made aware in emails to them and that's why we said they didn't meet the qualifications for the ALF in the in that minor division in the 2024 emails in the 2024 yeah I'd like to make two comments before we if I if I may the city has made a mistake but so what nobody's out there looking to see who's going to sue what whatever that's number one what do we do now and number two the decision to go forward without this property getting to foreclosure is rest with you guys there's nothing I can do to have my infrastructur people to go forward to put in these pipes in tomorrow morning and it takes time and I just need some leniency from the city to be able to do this project but I appreciate your time thank you sir is there any other questions of either one of the witnesses or do we have any other cards no sir all right we have no other cards s Mr chairman you have a question of the witnesses of the applicant yes um all right have a question given the successful in installation of the infrastructure when would you anticipate uh starting construction so we are in a when would you anticipate obtaining your building permit and moving forward the building plan should be done is already being worked on on the assisted living and also for the hotel multiunit is going to take up to about February um we're pretty much going to go for building permit as early as March or April the financing would be done by the end of the year so we will go vertical for a period of about 18 months for the hotel and the Assisted Living multi-unit would be pretty much trailing behind those two and that could take another probably about 24 months starting March April of next year okay thank you any other question to either one of the witnesses all right thank you very much so we'll close the public portion of the hearing at this time is there follow-up questions for staff or does staff have a comment that they wish to make sorry I was just looking at one one additional thing because I I think I found um why it took so long from the 2022 application for the nonr minor division to when the comment letter was issued I believe the reason is because a site plan has to be approved for um for the non-res to be considered and so I was looking at the uh date that the site plan was approved and the last uh comment letter that was uh sent out was September 5th of 2023 so that would line up with then the decision on the non-res minor division could be issued because a site plan was um approved for the site all right thank you why wasn't there just a denial then in 2022 I understand there's a a second application or amended application submitted in September 2023 so that timeline makes perfect sense over on that part but why not why wasn't there just a denial we could we could do that most most likely um the applicant works with the staff to try to avoid a denial and just say hold off I don't know if there's any um correspondent saying that they agreed to hold off on that uh if without that a denial should have happened here is there any discussion anybody would like to say amongst ourselves here since I personally see and understand the timeline with financing and the different things of that nature If This Were a quote unquote vacant piece of property I could see the utilities being put in and being in place and being subdivided and sold etc etc uh but this is again just I don't think we've had a code for something like this before and uh I don't see that we can follow conventional guidelines that were drawn before this project came on from from a building standpoint as far as that goes I reviewed the all the paperwork the uh PDF that we're sending in advance and I was expecting to hear sufficient evidence to outright deny the request because the code is pretty clear and pretty simple but having heard having reviewed the um the ldr sections in its entirety pertaining to this issue and then hearing that there was at least one application in 2022 that went unanswered and I know this is quasa judicial so I know we're not getting copies of everything I think there might be special circumstances that now have resulted from the actions of the city not the actions of the applicant which created a a whole um reaction down the line regarding financing and Manpower whatever else um to Mr Wright's comment about putting our trust in him and he promised he's going to get it done I I'm not inclined to put any trust in him on a on a personal level I don't know him and reading the emails that he's put together here where he's interested in calling out members of the city and placing a banner on a structure and kind of stooping to such lowlevel means does not invoke trust as a person as a business person who has hired the attorney to go through the process it doesn't seem that they have faulted themselves are there anybody else I could comment yes it's almost like a domino effect on all while all intentions were well to begin with because of that missing piece and then the 15-day administrative uh no action on that within the time limit has created a mess down the line I think it needs to be rectified because I don't think that the um owner had dirty hands in this or did anything that was that it wasn't supposed to do that's just my opinion okay sir do you have an opinion or the timely processing of of site plan and uh Land Development requests uh has inevitably been um a problem with developers over the years and this is probably the worst case that I've seen we need to do everything we can to move this project forward that's whatever the legal requirement is do you have a comment sir I go by this site every day um there's a lot of equipment out there moving it's a it's a big process once it gets started you do not want to stop it big picture this city needs this project to move forward we need assisted living facilities we need restaurants we need it all this developer is asking for six months and at this stage with the evidence provided tonight I don't believe that is a uh and a bad thing I don't see where where we can lose as a city so with that I would propose approving variance number 21-2024 uh to allow the qualification of a non-residential minor division without meeting the condition that the water sewer and reuse be provided by the addition of a service lateral only for each lot being proposed uh no main extension required for property located in the Urban Village zoning District thank you does that meet the requirements law Council I'm sorry I believe that it responds to the applicants request but I do believe there are some current concerns of the city that are not addressed by the motion um one being as the applicant proposed a potential lot merger condition um number two a timeline and number three easements granted to the city that would be necessary to um maintain the property I was going to make that friendly Amendment accepting the applicant's proposal of six months and council's proposal to do a land merger if there's a failure to comply as well as the easement to the city well as long as it's friendly Ashley do you need any specific language on the easements for the condition to the approval if it's granted um no just that the city's um typical easement language is included so easements granted acceptable to in the form acceptable to the city mhm Council any issue um no I believe I have a form that you sent me before and I can work with you on acceptable language so um are we fin to use the phrase six months would would be from the date that this order is signed or does there need to be a hard date in there anybody no no coming up I mean well that's what I'm saying if we're putting six months in there or putting a date because I'm not I don't think our language is going to include acts of God or the National Weather Service what else do I have a second then we'll have discussion if I have a second I'll second it all right we have a second more discussion yes um there's some there was specific uh discussion regarding the acceptance of easement uh only over an as built condition and that's would not probably lend itself to anyone's favor there no itd have to be an easement over the proposed Center Line of the pipe that's not installed so there's the potential there might need to be an amendment in the future if it's installed differently than the plan but it would Supply at least an easement based on the current site plan okay thank you but such an amendment wouldn't require coming back before us to move it 6 Ines or 3 feet because of something unexpected that's already in the ground is that correct corre that is something you no it wouldn't come to this body but the acceptance and or amendment of any easement goes to city council it would would go to city council okay we need to understand exactly I think with the specificity that it's the easements pursuant to the location of the the appr the proposed uh water man the water on the site plan on the approved site plan yeah okay I just want to be clear that we're that you're okay with the language and she's making notes so she says she's okay with it right good one another yes sir a comment um do we want to Define any timeline specifically well Mr Wright stood up and said six months and he was quite adamant about that do we want want to make that a condition I I did in my friend my Amendment yes very AC I AC all right he accepts it all right any further discussion seeing none we'll have a roll call please chairman Taylor yes Vice chairwoman van diven yes member Smith Rodriguez yes member Wheelis yes alterate member green yes very good you have a 5 decision on that congratulations all right glasses we go yeah how far do we go down to this thing uh 71 I don't want to go that far about 70 what we got on 70 um okay that takes care of all the applications we have at this point um do we have a date set yet for our next meeting meeting staff or some some November 5th the vote was November 5th of the December 5th excuse me apies December November November 7th is the new application deine so they're all running together in my head I've been sending out emails to all the potential applicants to let them know the due date altered the sth is the is the deadline date of November November 7th is the deadline December 5th fth meeting okay got that underline I do not have any at this time but they've been talking about that yeah new deadline all right staff do you have anything to add to us tonight Council extra person I'm sorry staff staff members down this way anything add no nope well we had a good dinner the other night we enjoyed it somebody we know got a certificate 10 years did you 10 years I got one 10 years yeah so see you missed all the party there you should have been there all right if there's no other business to go forth we'll adjourn this meeting thank you for