![youtube image](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/iWedHDYCEZM/mqdefault.jpg)
►
From YouTube: Planning and Zoning Board 2-28-22
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
To
order
the
february
28th
normal
meeting
of
the
tarpon
springs
planning
and
zoning
board,
can
I
have
a
roll
call.
A
D
C
Thank
you.
This
is
a
quasi-judicial
proceeding
where
the
board,
sorry,
the
planning
and
zoning
board
acts
in
a
quasi-judicial
rather
than
a
legislative
capacity.
At
a
quasi-judicial
hearing.
It
is
not
the
board's
function
to
make
law,
but
rather
to
apply
a
law
that
has
already
been
established
in
a
quasi-judicial
hearing.
The
board
is
required
by
law
to
make
findings
of
fact,
based
upon
the
evidence
presented
at
the
hearing
and
apply
those
findings
of
fact
to
previously
established
criteria
contained
in
the
code
of
ordinances
in
order
to
make
a
legal
decision
regarding
the
application
before
it.
C
The
board
may
only
consider
evidence
at
this
hearing
that
the
law
considers
competence,
substantial
and
relevant
to
the
issues.
If
the
competent,
substantial
and
relevant
evidence
of
the
hearing
demonstrates
that
the
applicant
has
met
the
criteria
established
in
the
code
of
ordinances,
then
the
board
is
required
by
law
to
find
in
favor
of
the
applicant.
By
the
same
token,
if
the
competent,
substantial
and
relevant
evidence
at
the
hearing
demonstrates
that
the
applicant
has
failed
to
meet
the
criteria
established
in
the
code
of
ordinances,
then
the
board
is
required
by
law
to
find
against
the
applicant.
C
A
A
C
And,
as
we've
discussed,
I
do
not
believe
you
have
a
legal
conflict,
but
the
code
and
the
statute
do
allow
for
recusal
if
it
is
believed
to
have
a
appearance
of
a
fair
and
unbiased
proceeding.
So
when
we
begin
that
application
you'll
hand,
the
gavel
to
your
vice
chair.
A
C
A
E
C
And
I
would
like
to
speak
to
the
applicant
before
we
get
started
just
briefly.
We
do
have
a
quorum,
so
we
are
able
to
go
forward
with
the
meeting.
However,
the
applicant
should
be
aware
that
there
are
members
missing
this
evening
and
you
do
need
a
an
affirmative
vote
of
the
majority
present
since
the
chair
is
not
participating.
C
His
vote
will
not
go
towards
that
majority
vote.
So
if
you
wish
to
defer
this
to
a
later
meeting,
that
is
your
prerogative,
because
you
can
wait
for
all
the
board
members
to
be
present.
That
is
your
decision,
and
with
that
I
will
let
you
guys
begin.
F
F
F
You
can
see
the
area
it's
in
over
here
is
flammer
ford
and
a
medical
complex
here.
The
duke
energy
transmission
yard,
here
on
19
to
the
south
of
cicada
cemetery
to
the
east
and
northeast
are,
is
a
mix
of
residential
housing,
single
family
town
homes
in
this
area
proposed
single
family.
Here
you've
looked
at
that
project
a
couple
weeks
last
month
and
then
up
north
of
course,
some
mobile
home
zoning.
F
F
This
area
in
yellow
is
the
phase
ii
area.
It's
currently
occupied
by
development.
It's
disturbed
and
developed.
Some
of
the
paperwork
submitted
by
the
applicant
indicates
this
was
a
horse
boarding
facility.
I
think,
there's
auto
repair
going
on
here,
so
it's
currently
developed
and
disturbed
by
and
large
as
far
as
the
uplands.
This
is
an
overlay
showing
just
the
survey
units
under
construction
here,
the
structures
that
are
on
site.
F
There
is
a
pretty
substantial,
duke
energy
easement
on
the
south
side,
so
this
property
does
have
some
development
challenges
associated
and,
as
we'll
see,
the
applicant
has
planned,
tried
to
plan
and
situate
the
development
around
that
wetland
still
having
to
stay
out
of
that
duke
energy
easement.
So
it's
a
bit
of
a
challenge.
F
F
F
F
F
There
was
a
a
variety
it's
granted
to
go
down
to
zero.
In
certain
spots
for
that
15-foot
wetlands
setback,
that
variance
has
now
expired.
The
applicant
also
received
a
conditional
use
approval
for
the
entire
project
for
the
yard
dimensions.
It's
called
alternative,
dimensional
plan.
You
guys
have
seen
it
a
couple
times
under
residential
multi-family.
You
can
do
that.
F
The
only
things
that
haven't
that
the
applicant
was
it
was
basically
doesn't
have
to
go
back
for
the
sidewalk
on
spruce
street
was
waived
at
the
time.
If
you
remember,
spruce
street
had
was
being
reconstructed
board
of
adjustment,
waved
that
sidewalk
requirement
and
that
area
is
now
built.
There's
a
sidewalk
on
the
north
side
of
spruce
street,
and
there
was
a
vacation
of
pine
street
to
the
south,
that
portion
of
pine
street,
that
borders,
the
applicant's
property
and,
of
course,
that
vacation
was
completed
so
that
still
exists.
F
F
E
I
don't
mean
to
interrupt
you.
That's
fine!
Go
ahead!
Okay,
because
I'm
looking
at
the
the
waiver
requests.
Can
you
tell
us
what
the
waiver
requests
were
and
what
was
granted
for
phase
one.
F
Yes,
there
was
a
there
were
no
waiver
requests
because
it
was
not
a
planned
development
so
and-
and
I
will
give
you
a
little
more
information,
so
they
had
to
get
three
separate
approvals
in
addition
to
the
road
vacate.
F
They
actually
had
to
get
four
separate
approvals
for
phase
for
processing
this
under
residential
multifamily.
They
wanted
a
different
wetland
setback.
They
had
to
get
a
variance
for
that,
because
there
are
no
waivers
outside
the
plan
development
process
they
weren't
in
that
process.
They
had
to
get
a
variance
for
that.
That's
now
expired
and
they
needed
different
yard
dimensions
which
they're
asking
for
tonight
for
phase
two
to
be
consistent
with
phase
one.
They
needed
those
two
for
that
they
had
to
get
a
conditional
use
approval.
F
So
those
were
the
two
things
they
asked
for
the
staggering
requirement
which
we'll
look
at
only
comes
in
with
the
plan
development,
so
they
didn't
that
wasn't
required
at
the
time
and
the
light
pole
design
didn't
exist
at
the
time.
The
board
just
passed
that
a
few
months
ago,
so
they
didn't,
they
didn't
need
waivers
for
those
items
back
in
in
the
first
go
around.
F
They
were
required
to
get
a
wetland
set
back
variance
and
the
reason
they're
here
as
a
planned
development
or
one
reason,
is
staff
advised
they
tried
to
go
back
in.
We
were
looking
at
three
applications
again.
Staff
suggested.
Why
don't
we
just
process
this
as
a
plan
development,
so
this
board
and
the
board
of
commissioners
can
look
at,
can
be
the
board
because
remember
variances
go
to
board
of
adjustment.
They
don't
go
to
anybody
else,
can
be
the
reviewing
bodies
that
review
everything
at
one
time.
F
F
These
are
the
setbacks
in
the
residential
plan,
development
and
here's.
What
the
applicant
wants,
there's
a
50-foot
requirement
for
wetland
setback
and
planned
development
that
comes
in
with
the
plan
development,
so
that
was
kind
of
introduced
as
part
of
that
again
previously,
the
applicant
only
needed
to
set
back
15
feet,
so
we
can
talk
about
that
when
we
get
to
that.
Of
course,
the
staggered
effect
did
not
apply
before
plant
development.
F
Wants
you
to
stagger
the
facades
by
two
feet:
they're
asking
that
that
b
wave
the
current
the
units
that
are
under
construction
now
are
not
staggered.
F
On
the
property-
and
this
is
just
a
little
bit
better
view
of
the
phase
two
layout-
so
I
did
indicate
actually
this
is
this-
is
the
original
phase
two
layout
just
shows
that
we're
originally
going
to
be
starting
here,
phase
two
and
coming
around
59
units
added,
and
these
blue
areas
just
kind
of
show
you
some
of
the
adjustments
that
have
been
made
to
revise
that
to
66
units.
F
Just
want
to
kind
of
point
out,
because
we
do
have
a
little
bit
of
discussion
about
the
wetland
impacts.
If
you
look
at
that
area,
that's
circled.
These
are
the
wetland
and
buffer
impacts
in
shading
that
are
part
of
this.
The
honeycomb
areas
are
the
wetland
creation.
The
applicant
is
mitigating
wetland
impacts
on
the
site,
which
is
the
first
preference
by
city,
comprehensive
plan
on
mitigating
wetlands,
and
then
the
applicant
is
also
establishing
some
upland
buffer
reservation
to
compensate
for
a
loss
buffer.
F
F
The
wetland
is
not,
and
this
just
kind
of
shows
some
of
the
you
know
the
lots
have
kind
of
been
reconfigured
retooled
so
that
we
do
have
some
increase
some
wetland
impacts
which
there
were
none
before
and
there
was
some
increase
in
buffer
impacts,
the
tree
mitigation
and
landscape
plan.
This
is
basically
the
last
version.
The
applicant
gave
us
we
believe
that
the
applicant
can
comply
with
the
landscaping
plan.
We
believe
that
the
tree
mitigation
can
be
met,
especially
with
the
on-site
planting
of
cyprus.
F
F
The
number
of
trees
is
there,
but
the
species
and
layout
aren't
going
to
work,
but
we
can
work
with
the
applicant
on
that.
I
can
go
into
more
detail
of
what
about
that,
if
you
need
to
so
with
respect
to
your
six
criteria
for
review
that
you
use
for
plan
developments,
okay,
the
first
one
is
consistency
with
the
comprehensive
plan.
F
F
We
do
have
some
issue
with
the
wetland
and
increased
buffer
impacts
staff
had
difficulty
kind
of
justifying
those
impacts.
Given
the
proposed
layout,
they
do
not
seem
to
be
unavoidable
impacts.
What
we're
doing
is
adding
seven
lots,
and
that
seems
to
be
resulting
in
the
impacts
we
didn't.
I
mean
that
seems
to
be
the
sole
reason
for
the
impacts.
We
did
not
feel
that
the
applicant
provided
sufficient
rationale
for
why
those
impacts
were
necessary
or
why
denial
of
those
impacts
would
create
a
unreasonable
deprivation
of
use
of
the
property.
F
So
we
just
didn't
see
the
rationale
and
the
applicant
can
certainly.
G
F
That
physical
character
of
the
site-
again
this
is
an
up
and
disturbed
site.
It
seems
to
be
suitable
for
development.
It's
already
developed
the
applicant
again
there's
challenges
presented
by
the
duke
energy
easement,
the
wetlands,
so
the
applicant
is
trying
to
overall
design
around
those
physical
impediments.
F
Land
use
compatibility
again,
there's
a
mix
of
housing
types
in
this
area
and
the
development
is
oriented
away
from
19
away
from
the
streets
they
they're
oriented
that
the
entrances
and
everything
oriented
internally.
F
I
think
this
is
a
a
pretty
good
choice
for
something
to
be
adjacent
to
cicada
cemetery
you're,
going
to
get
town
homes
limited
lots,
not
a
lot
of
late
neighborhood
activity,
they're
oriented
away
and
they're
150
160
feet.
You
know
with
that
easement
away
from
circadia,
so
this
will
improve.
I
think
the
compatibility
with
cicada
over.
What's
there
now
the
auto
repair
and
kind
of
kind
of
mess,
that's
there
now.
I
think
the
applicant
would
agree.
This
is
this
is
an
upgrade
for
that
phase.
F
Two
area,
public
facilities
are
being
provided
to
phase
one
and
we
have
adequate
facilities.
All
levels
of
service
are
met
with
this
project
transportation.
We
have
pretty
easy
access
to
keystone
and
19
via
jasmine
spruce,
mellon
street.
F
The
applicant
is
proposing
internal
sidewalks
all
through
the
development
we're
going
to
carry
the
sidewalk
down
north
jasmine
and
we
do
have
the
requirement
for
the
second
access
and
that
is
being
provided
to
north
jasmine
on
that
south
road.
I
think
it's
grand
cypress
avenue
and
that
will
be
in
emergency
access,
and
this
is
very
close
to
the
pinellas
trail.
So
there's
easy
access
to
that
as
well.
F
F
So
the
wetland
and
buffer
impacts
are
also
being
mitigated
on
site.
Again.
You
know,
staff
staff
agrees
that
it
makes
sense
to
build
this
development
out.
We
just
don't
feel
we
can
get
there
with
the
proposed
wetland
impacts,
given
kind
of
the
almost
kind
of
a
straight
face
phase
test
with
the
comprehensive
plan.
Unless
we
can
hear
more
from
the
applicant
on
what
that
rationale
would
be
again.
Landscaping
is
not
yet
in
full
compliance,
but
we
can
work
with
the
applicant.
The
numbers
of
trees
are
there.
F
F
F
We
can't
deal
with
the
50-foot
wetland
setback
because
you
would
not
be
able
to
carry
out
the
street
layout.
Those
types
of
things
to
phase
two
staff
agrees
that
the
50
feet
is
too
much
and
it's
a
kind
of
a
switch
here,
but
that
being
a
major
rationale
for
this
project
is
to
be
consistent
with
phase
one
we've
got
setbacks.
F
F
The
poles
are
not
powder
coated
black
or
green
they're.
A
light
color,
you
know
so
applicant
would
like
to
just
carry
that
through
the
development
makes
sense,
but
the
addition
of
the
seven
lots
in
our
mind
alters
that
phase
two
enough.
That
consistency
with
the
original
just
is
not
a
sufficient
rationale
for
that.
F
So
we
have
not
made
a
recommendation
at
this
point
again.
We
haven't
recommended
denial
because
it
makes
sense
to
build
this
out,
but
we
are
looking
at
you
know
some
issues
with
with
the
wetlands
the
trc
has
reviewed.
This
has
been
there
s
five
or
six
times
and
phase
one.
We
would
like
to
see
come
to
closure
on
some
issues
on
phase
one
which
I've
listed
here.
F
Now
we
have
supplied
a
res,
a
ordinance
with
recommended
waiver
language
and
recommended
conditions.
Should
this
be
approved
as
presented
by
the
applicant.
These
are
the
conditions
we
would
recommend
so.
F
D
E
D
D
F
F
D
F
So
that
means
that
if
they
were
to
need
a
variant,
the
same
variance
they'd
have
to
go
back
and
apply
for
a
new
one
with
conditional
use
they
would
have
to.
They
would
have
had
to
utilize
that
on
phase
two
within
one
year
of
approval,
otherwise
they
would
have
to
go
back
and
ask
for
to
start
over
and
ask
again.
D
F
F
Uses
both
those
the
variants
and
conditionally.
D
D
Under
review
criteria,
number
four
adequacy
of
public
facilities
and
I'm
just
going
to
read
the
words
that
were
typed,
whoever
wrote
them
levels
of
service
are
generally
met
with
recreation
being
proposed
at
the
clubhouse
in
the
duke
energy
easement
and
then
in
a
different
place.
You
share
some
concern
about
maybe
the
lack
of
detail
on
the
level
of
service
for
public
facilities,
specifically
recreation
and
I'm
going
to
hone
in
on
this
for
a
little
bit
in
previous
applications.
D
F
I
probably
maybe
danced
around
the
item
a
little
bit
in
the
staff
report,
but
actually
the
board
of
commissioners
expressed
concern
a
few
developments
back
about
the
lack
of
top
lot
mini
park
type
facilities.
Ever
since
then,
we
have
been
suggesting
to
plan
development
projects
subdivision.
You
know,
residential
projects
that
you
know,
that
is
a
concern
of
the
boards.
The
comprehensive
plan
shows
a
deficiency
in
that
specific
area,
all
our
others
facilities
the
the
athletic
fields,
the
open
space
nature
park,
all
that
all
those
standards
have
been
met.
F
F
The
applicant
declined
to
create
a
tot
lot
out
of
one
of
the
lots
or
anything
like
that.
They
labeled
the
easement
as
recreation
open
space.
Beyond
that,
I
have
no
details
as
to
what
that
means.
Frankly,
I
believe
the
applicant
will
be
maintaining
that
area
and
they
can
speak
to
that
as
far
as
like
mowing.
D
D
D
D
F
D
F
D
D
Okay,
yeah,
I
think
I've
got
a
few
more
surprise.
Okay,
on
on
sidewalks
been
a
lot
of
discussion
lately
in
this
area.
About
sidewalks
is
that
it
it
appears-
and
I
tried
to
look
real
careful-
is
that
the
applicant
has
proposed
a
continuous
sidewalk
along
jasmine
on
the
west
side.
Is
that
how
I
understood
that.
D
F
D
Okay
and
then
I'm
just
gonna
repeat
back
to
review
criteria,
environmental
design
and
I'm
actually
gonna
read
your
concerns
because
you're
so
polite
and
soft-spoken
staff
is
concerned
that
new
wetland
impacts
are
primarily
associated
with
the
new
seven
new
additional
lots.
Since
the
original
proposed
design
in
2014
2014
rationale
supporting
those
impacts
has
not
been
provided.
D
F
Yeah
so
yeah
I
mean
they,
they
have
provided
a
planning
narrative
with
requests
for
waivers
and
rationales
for
those,
but
we
don't
we
don't
see.
We
don't
feel
it's
sufficient
to
support
the
request.
I
mean
they.
They
did.
I
I
would
say
when
you
say
have
they
addressed
it.
They
did
respond
to
our
requests
for
more
information.
You
know
for
information
on
these,
but
we
don't
feel
that
the
basis
supplied
is
sufficient.
D
Okay,
thank
you
on
on
another
page
on
this
is
staff.
Recommendations
is
because
you
were
polite
enough
to
lay
out
a
couple
of
options
for
thought
process
for
us,
and
I'm
just
going
to
read
this
one.
If
we
were
to
entertain
approval
phase
one
outstanding
issues,
clubhouse
construction
should
be
completed
co,
so
I'm
understanding
that
their
first
phase,
they
haven't
even
completed
the
work
on
the
infrastructure
for
the
first
phase.
Yet.
F
A
H
F
D
D
F
The
there
were
some
issues
and
I
believe
the
applicant's
engineer
can
address
this
with
the
lift
station,
not
pumping
or
or
maybe
one
pump
wasn't
working.
That's
been
repaired
verified
by
our
engineer.
F
D
F
D
D
F
I
believe
the
applicant
is
working
with
them
on
that's
why
the
buffer
compensation-
that
is,
I
believe,
in
response
mostly
to
swift
nuts,
so
you've
got
impacts
to
wetlands,
and
you
have
to
compensate
for
that.
Somehow,
I
think
with
swift
mud,
if
you
have
impacts
to
a
buffer,
you
also
have
to
compensate
for
that
somehow
and
the
applicant
can
probably
they're
confirm
whether
that's
whether
my
statement
there
is
accurate.
D
F
Once
you
look
this
at
this
and
give
a
recommendation,
assuming
that's
what
happens
tonight,
this
preliminary
plan
development
will
go
to
the
board
of
commissioners
for
two
readings
once
the
once.
It's
an
ordinance
so
it'll
have
the
two
readings
once
they
adopt
that
ordinance.
F
D
D
D
Oh,
it's
page
6
of
15
at
the
back
portion
of
the
application,
okay
and
then
halfway
down
it's
just
the
staff
has
provided
an
analysis
of
the
comprehensive
plan
of
what
meets
and
what
doesn't
and
then
bringing
out
the
comprehensive
plan
as
to
why
so
objective
1.1
of
our
comprehensive
plan
is
in
reference
to
the
coastal
planning
element.
D
It's
the
intent
to
protect
that.
D
And
I
want
to
read
one
sentence:
so
I've
got
this
right.
F
Another
page,
that's
in
the
staff
report
and
I
have
attached
that
objective
at.
D
The
end
of
the
day
and
that's
about
what
I
was
oh
see,
we
got
it
in
two
spots
here:
policy
1.1
evaluate
all
wetlands
for
future
preservation,
designation
with
a
goal
of
in
quotations;
no
net
loss
of
wetlands,
okay.
So
here's
the
tough
question
as
proposed.
Is
there
a
net
loss
of
wetlands.
F
F
D
D
Before
the
end
is
so
because
you're
have
been
too
polite
to
weigh
in
as
a
staff
recommendation,
and
I
want
to
know-
I
really
appreciate
that
it
appears
to
me
and
it
appears
that
staff
that
it
clearly
does
not
meet
the
comprehensive
plan
objective
1.1
of
no
wetland
impact
is
it.
Can
I
put
that
on
you
does.
That
is
that
a
fair
analysis
that.
F
F
That
is
something
that
that
may
be
unavoidable
to
build
around
and
may
not
make
even
make
sense
you
might
be.
It
may
be
a
disturbed
wetland
loaded
with
melaleuca
or
brazilian
pepper
tree
right,
and
then
it
makes
more
sense
and
with
a
development
layout,
it
may
be
very
difficult
to
build
a
development
in
in
the
land
on
the
land.
That's
there
without
impacting
that
wetland,
it
may
make
no
sense
for
some
small,
isolated
piece
to
be
to
try
to
leave
it.
F
So
it's
harder
to
say
I
can't
avoid
this
wetland
or
it
would
be
very
difficult
to
avoid
this
wetland.
It
was
harder
for
us
to
say
that
and
come
up
with
a
staff,
like
I
say
straight,
face
kind
of
rationale:
oh
yeah,
we've
got
to
have
these
seven
extra,
these
seven
additional
lots.
So
that's
why
the
impacts-
and
we
just
could
not
get
there,
so
each
situation
is
unique
and
again
this
is
a
this
is
a
cypress
native
cypress
wetland.
F
It's
not
a
highly
disturbed,
although
it's
going
to
be,
you
know
it's
pretty
much
encircled
by
disturbed
uplands.
It
is
not
not
a
badly
degraded
wetland
or
anything
of
that
sort
that
I
my
understanding
is.
The
mitigation
is
going
to
be
to
scrape
down
and
plant
more
cypress
wetlands
adjacent
to
the
the
cypress.
That's
there.
F
It's
a
judgment
call,
that's
that's
the
comprehensive
plan
right.
We
have
the
implementing
regulations,
the
talk
about
mitigation,
but,
but
just
that
you
know
this
is
one
of
those
judgment
calls
that
you
look
at
the
comprehensive
plan
to
say
you
know:
where
is
this
on
that
scale
of
yeah?
We
do.
The
city
does
allow
wetland
impacts.
F
That's
not
the
waiver
request.
The
waiver
requests
us
to
the
buffer.
They
don't
have
to
have
a
waiver
request
to
impact
wetlands.
We
do
allow
that.
It's
just
that.
You
know
where,
on
that
scale,
is
it
where,
on
that
reasonable
use
of
the
property?
Is
it?
Those
are
the
questions
and
we
again
couldn't
get
to
that
point.
D
Okay
and
then
I'm
just
gonna
read
what's
obvious
and
we're
all
here
there
is
that
the
the
critical
elements
is
that
the
project
does
not
comply
with
the
side,
yard
setback,
the
corner,
lot,
setback,
the
rear
yard
setback
or
the
wetland
buffers
or
the
staggered
effect.
F
Yeah,
but
you
got
to
look
so
we
looked
at
the
development.
I
mean
this
again.
Staff
encouraged
the
applicant
to
go
with
the
rpd
standard.
If
this
were
a
brand
new
blank
piece
of
land-
and
you
know
you're
asking-
we
have
had
requests
for
waivers
to
that
50-foot
setback
before
that
is
something
that
the
rpd
assumes
that
we
are
a
brand
new
development
on
a
completely
vacant
piece
of
land.
So
now
I
can
apply
that
newer
standard
that
50
feet.
We've
had
a
couple.
F
F
F
E
F
Yeah
staff
would
be
willing
to
support.
I
think,
the
the
waiver
consistent
with
the
pr
you
know,
the
previous
proposal,
you're
you're,
probably
gonna-
have
to
have
some
yeah
some
adjustment
of
that
buffer
to
accommodate
the
59
lots
that
were
originally
proposed
for
phase
two
and
we're
certainly
amenable
to
looking
at
that.
I
I
think
we
would
probably
support
that,
and
is
that,
because.
F
C
F
E
Yes,
okay
phase,
one,
you
re,
the
city
had
required
them
to
do
a
15
foot,
wetlands
buffer.
F
F
E
F
E
F
B
B
So
you
know
I'd
like
to
answer
your
questions
and
I
think
once
you
hear
the
answers
and
you
understand
the
historical
context
and
the
planning
and
approval
process
and
the
underlying
rationale-
planning
rationale
that
that
preceded
all
this
and
was
part
of
the
original
development.
I
think
that'll
help
to
clarify
a
lot
of
this
and
they'll
all
fall
into
place
and,
of
course,
we're
here
to
answer
any
questions.
B
I
have
our
engineer
rich
here
and
also
the
applicant,
so
we're
all
pleased
to
have
the
opportunity
and
obviously
based
upon
the
discussion
that
that's
taken
place.
Clearly
there
has
to
be
a
questions
answered,
but
but
I'm
confident
that,
once
you
understand
the
history,
the
precedent
and
all
the
things
that
proceeded
and
all
the
things
that
are
part
of
this
project
that
it'll
all
fit
in
and
make
sense.
B
B
It
was
designed
as
a
single
project
and
one
depends
upon
the
other,
for
instance
everyone
who
is
now
in
phase
one.
I
mean
it's
a
disservice
not
to
allow
the
project
to
go
forward,
because
it
would
create
a
certain
hardship
not
only
on
the
applicant,
but
also
on
the
people
who
are
now
in
phase
one.
B
Right
now
is
the
fact
that
we
started
with
one
process
and
now
we've
shifted
to
another
process,
and
that
was
mutually
agreed
to
by
staff
and
by
the
developer,
because
we
both
agreed-
and
I
think
pat-
will
confirm
this-
that
we
felt
that
this
would
expedite
the
process
and
would
be
the
best
way
to
go.
So
that
was
the
underlying
rationale
from.
G
B
And
I
think
what
happens
is
your
eyes
tend
to
glaze
over
when
you
start
comparing
the
one
process
with
another
process,
the
requirements
of
this
process,
the
requirements
of
that
process?
What
is
the
standard
here?
What
is
the
standard
there?
I
think
look.
I
think
we
have
to
kind
of
cut
through
all
of
that
and
and
yes,
we
have
to
comply,
but
from
the
very
beginning
in
in
when
we
initiated
this
process.
All
of
these
requested
variances
at
that
time
were
provided
because
of
the
fact
that
this
is
a
very,
very
difficult
site.
B
Half
the
site
is
is
open
space.
Okay,
first
of
all,
you've
got
that
huge
wetland
area
to
comply
with,
and
then
in
addition
to
that,
you've
got
the
the
easement
that
we
have
to
deal
with.
So
consequently,
there
are
as
staff
recognizing
as
previous
staff
recognize
and
as
previous
planning
and
zoning
boards,
and
that's
and
as
previous
boards
of
adjustment
have
recognized
we're
dealing
with
a
constrained
site,
but,
however,
a
viable
site
that
adds
a
great
deal
to
the
community.
B
So
you
know
that's
kind
of
a
bit
of
the
bit
of
the
filter
that
you
you
have
to
use
when
when
looking
at
this
now
by
the
way,
obviously
I
have
to
thank
staff
and
staff
has
worked
hard
and
they've
done
a
great
job
and
we've
all
been
working
towards
one
thing:
producing
a
development
project
that
is
going
to
be
a
success
that
is
going
to
be
an
addition
to
the
community
and,
based
upon
my
understanding
and
pat,
you
can
correct
me.
B
I
mean,
I
think,
that's
if
we
were
just
to
take
the
project,
the
second
phase
of
the
2014
plan.
We
went
forward
with
phase
one
we
didn't
go
forward
with
phase
two.
I
think
staff
would
basically
basically
give
it
its
blessing
and
say
okay.
This
is
what
we
mean.
This
is
what
what
what
we're
happy
with.
I
think
staff
also
supports
the
current
application.
Clearly
we
meet
all
of
these
criterias.
Obviously
we
need
all
of
these
all
of
these
variances
that
we
had
previously
to
complete
the
project.
B
So
I
think
the
the
real
issue
with
staff
is
these
additional
units
and
staff
is
absolutely
right.
We
didn't
do
a
very
good
job
in
explaining
and
I'll
take
take
responsibility
for
that.
Explaining
what
the
underlying
rationale
is.
We
assume
that
okay,
we're
going
ahead,
we're
gonna
and
the
engineer
will
talk
in
detail
that
we're
going
ahead,
we're
providing
we're
providing
mitigation
that
exceeds
the
level
of
impact.
B
The
impacts
are
very,
very
small,
you're
dealing
with
a
very
kind
of
disturbed
wetland
area
and
so
from
the
swift
mud
point
of
view
also-
and
the
engineer
will
give
us
an
update
that
if
swift
mud
is
satisfied
with
it
and
gives
us
his
blessing,
why
should
this
not
be
acceptable
to
the
city
and
because
they
will
have
the
last
say
the
the
outstanding
items,
the
checklist
that
is
there?
That's
that's
normal.
This
is
a
project
that
is
ongoing.
This
is
not
a
project,
that's
finished.
B
This
is
not
phase
one
you,
you
know
you,
you
cross
all
the
I's
dot,
the
t's
and
it's
done
this
project
is
in
process
and
all
the
meetings
we've
had
with
trc.
Everyone
has
recognized.
Okay,
these
things
have
to
be
done.
For
instance,
the
clubhouse
is
a
big
one.
Why
is
a
clubhouse
not
not
completed,
because
we
we
needed,
we
needed
electrical
work
done
that
electrical
work,
as
you
could
hear
from
the
applet
is
going
to
be
done
here
shortly.
All
right.
B
B
You
can't
separate
the
two
because
the
very
emergency
access
that's
going
to
be
provided
comes
in
phase
two.
There
are
peop
just
recently.
I
was
talking
to
one
gentleman
here
outside
who
is
concerned
about
the
emergency
medical
access,
because
there
are
potential
issues
he
needs
to
know
that
an
emergency
vehicle
can
get
in
that
doesn't
happen
unless
phase
two
is
approved
from
the
very
beginning
phase.
One
and
phase
two
are
one
project.
E
E
B
Public
comment,
the
the
and
I'll
need
clarity
on
that
question
I'll
be
happy
to
answer
it,
though
in
time,
because
you
know,
I
believe
that
your
question
should
always
be
treated
with
respect
and
valid,
so
but
I'll
just
continue
right
now
I'll,
stick
with
the
planning
stuff
how's
that
okay,
so
so
regarding
rega.
So
basically,
I
think
the
key
the
key
issue
here,
I
think
that
has
to
be
addressed-
is
the
seven
lots
all
right
could.
B
Could
the
developer
adjust
the
plan
to
to
address
those
if,
if
required,
if
basically
take
it
back
to
the
original
2004?
Yes,
but
I
think
he's
justified
in
seeking
the
highest
and
best
use
for
his
property.
He
he's
he's.
Probably
I
just
estimated
he's
probably
paid
just
shy
of
a
million
dollars
in
taxes
on
that
property
from
the
beginning
of
of
the
period
where
he
started
this,
you
know
the
applicant
also
has
rights.
When
we
went
through
this
process,
the
applicant
went
on
good
faith.
B
We
had
earlier
on.
No
one
was
involved
with
these
discussions,
but
the
the
the
decision
to
go
ahead
with
phase
one
and
hold
on
phase
two.
You
know
there
was
a
good
faith
understanding
by
the
applicant
that
he
would
be
treated
fairly
and
that
the
types
of
considerations
and
the
approvals
that
were
granted
him
based
up
on
the
physical
aspects
and
the
planning
rationale
at
that
time
would
hold.
B
So
those
are
some
things
to
consider
so
regarding
the
planned
development
staff
agrees
that
a
reduction
and
then
and
I'm
reading
from
from
the
report,
pat.
B
Okay,
regarding
regarding
the
rationale,
so
basically,
the
the
plan,
as
proposed
without
the
loss,
would
probably
be
be
in
in
full
compliance
with
everything
that
that
that
staff
wants.
But
the
rationale
now,
though,
for
why
the
additional
seven
lots
so
I'll
all
address
that
and
pat
I'll
provide
that
to
you
as
a
document.
Okay,
that
you
can
include
to
the
report.
Okay,
first
for
subsequent
hearing
regarding,
first
of
all,
regarding
the
issue
of
the
number
of
units.
Okay,
the
permitted
units
based
upon
the
16.52
acres
is
122
units.
B
The
2014
plan
had
95
units.
B
The
2022
plan
proposes
102
units,
that's
20
units
below
what
okay
hypothetically,
what
would
be
legal
and
permissible,
subject,
of
course,
to
site
conditions,
there's
an
increase
of
seven
units
and
we're
still
13
units
below
what
would
be
the
maximum
under
the
existing
zone,
the
the
the
land
use
and
zoning
the
rate
so
and
the
request
is
compatible
with
land
use
and
zoning,
so
that
I
want
to
establish
that
first
that
this
is
not
just
a
wild
request
regarding
the
wetlands
in
the
wetland
buffer,
the
total
site
is
16.52
acres,
the
wetland
and
the
submerged
lands
are
4.78
acres.
B
B
The
seven,
what
we're
basically
looking
at
what
we're
basically
weighing
here
in
the
balance
is,
is
the
fact
that
there's
5847
square
foot
of
wetlands,
that
are
the
issue
and
the
impact
versus
the
mitigation
of
8596,
so
we're
mitigating
more
than
required
and
mitigation
by
the
way,
is
a
standard
tool
for
dealing
with
sites
that
are
difficult
to
deal
with,
as
in
this
case
and
which
makes
which
makes
perfect
sense.
B
The
question
is:
this
is
what
the
impact
is
and
what
the
supposed
loss
is
of
wetlands.
The
other
side
of
the
question
or
the
equation
has
to
be
also
looked
at.
What
is
lost
if
we
don't
grant
those
additional
seven
lots.
What
do
those
seven
lots
mean?
Those
seven
lots
mean
seven
families
looking
for
housing
housing
is,
by
definition
a
resp,
a
a
public
interest.
It's
a
responsibility
of
government
to
provide
housing
to
meet
the
housing
needs
of
its
people
right.
B
B
You
talk
about
ad
valorem
taxes.
You
talk
about
impact
fees.
You
talk
about
application
fees,
you
talk
about
water
and
sewer
fees
to
the
city.
These
are
all
the
things
that
the
city
needs
to
operate,
to
run;
okay,
so
that's
from
a
community
and
from
a
planning
perspective
and
from
the
point
of
meeting
the
needs
and
the
requirements
and
and
caring
for
the
community.
B
B
The
other
issue.
Of
course
is
the
applicant
an
applicant
does
have
rights,
and
as
long
as
you
comply
and
as
long
as
you're
reasonable
and
of
course
sometimes,
decisions
have
to
be
made
weighing
the
environment
against
other
benefits,
social
benefits,
economic
benefits
that
all
comes
into
it
and
that's
kind
of
where
I
think
you
are
you're
in
the
position
here
or
you
have
to.
I
think,
as
far
as
the
the
the
plan
itself,
you
know
has
been
gone
through
long
ago
approved,
and
I
think
staff's
issue
right
now
is
the
wetlands
they
they
want.
B
They
want
a
narrative,
they
want
support,
and
this
is
what
I'm
giving
you
right
now
you're.
I
guess
you
have
to
make
that
decision
as
to
which
weighs
more
heavily
whether
you
can
see
or
whether
you,
whether
you
see
the
seven
units
being
more
important
or
the
fraction
a
small
fraction
of
an
acre
of
wetlands
that
are
going
to
be
mitigated
anyways.
B
E
Sir
okay,
first
of
all
I
you
know,
I
appreciate
the
applicant's
noble
cause
by
adding
seven
more
units,
but,
let's
be
honest,
seven
more
units
means
more
income
and
more
profitability
that
I've
never
known
a
developer
to
develop
more
density
because
it
was
a
noble
cause.
So
you
know
okay,
so
I
guess
my
question
is:
oh
I'm
sorry,
I
didn't
know
if
you
were
finished
or
not,
because
I
do
have
some
comments.
E
B
I
I
I
I
mean
I
I
the
engineer
is
up
and
can
answer
some
questions,
but
certainly
we're
both
we're
both
here.
Okay,.
E
All
right,
the
the
thing
is
you,
you
said
earlier
that
had
this
thing
been
approved
years
ago,
obviously
we
wouldn't
be
here,
but
but
you're
asking
for
consistency
in
from
phase
one
to
phase
two
and
that's
what
I
think
I
heard
you
say
I
I
don't
disagree
with
that:
okay,
okay,
but
it
to
be
consistent
phase
one
had
a
15-foot
wetland
setback
and
that's
not
being
consistent.
H
The
requirement
was
a
15-foot
setback
that
was
reduced
by
variance
to
zero
under
the
new
process.
It's
a
50-foot
step
back
that
we're
now
reducing
to
zero.
So
it's
it
was
zero
either
way
and
and
the
seven
lots
adding
seven
lots
is
the
wetland
impact,
I
think,
is
a
little
bit
misleading
we're
adding
seven
lots.
Yes,
one
of
the
lots
is,
I
think,
90
square
feet
on
the
tip
of
a
wetland
that
smooth
mode
wouldn't
even
look
at
because
it's
just
90
square
feet.
H
The
rest
of
the
impact
is
for
two
of
the
other
units
that
going
that
are
going
to
the
north,
the
the
so
it's
90
there's
about
2
000
there,
another
2
000
along
the
the
southern
lobe
of
the
regular
shape
portion.
We're
straightening
it
out.
Could
we
reduce
that?
Yes,
but
to
reduce
that
means
further,
reducing
the
ers
we
could.
H
E
When,
when
the
applicant
bought
the
property
okay,
because
one
of
the
concerns
or
one
of
the
things
that
you
all
addressed,
is
the
the
you
know
the
difficulties
with
that
type
of
with
the
property
that
you
have,
you
have
the
the
large
utility
easement
you've
got
the
wetlands
etc.
Isn't
that
part
of?
H
We
knew
that
going
in,
but
but
that
again
it
was
a
long
time
ago.
Swiftman's
rules
have
changed
and
made
it
much
more
difficult.
We
wouldn't
have
had
to
provide
the
additional,
probably
50
or
60
percent
back
in
those
days.
It
would
have
been
maybe
a
one
for
one
or
even
less
than
one
to
one,
because
the
wetland
isn't
isn't
superior
quality.
B
There's
also
another
also
going
back
this
one
advantage
of
being
older.
Going
back
to
the
historic
perspective.
This
property
was
not
zoned
initially
for
residential,
we
re-zoned
it
so
we
were
dealing
with
industrial,
so
you
have
to
you,
know
again
see
so
at
that
you
know
based
upon
the
original
intent
and
understanding
of
the
the
the
applicant.
Of
course,
you
know
that
wasn't
even
in
the
thinking
process,
but
you're
absolutely
right.
E
So
when
when
when
y'all
went
in
for
the
trc
and
the
trc
expressed
its
concerns
to
the
applicant-
and
you
know
just
this
is
kind
of
bothers
me-
that
the
applicant
elected
to
go
public
hearing
with
no
changes
to
the
proposed
project
instead
of
maybe
addressing
or
trying
to
address
the
concerns
of
of
you,
know,
trc.
H
E
E
E
So
I
mean
that's
my
that's
my
concern
instead
of
saying,
okay,
what
can
we
do
to
address
some
of
the
concerns
this
staff
has
and
and
whether
you
could
address
them
and
say,
wait
a
minute?
You
know
staff,
you
know,
we
don't
think
our
concerns
are
valid
or
we
have
you
know
or
attempt
to
try
to
resolve.
Well,
the.
D
H
The
well,
the
way
I
understand
it
is
is
the
the
the
city
is
deficient
in
park:
land,
not
the
site
itself
phase.
One
and
phase
two
has
the
clubhouse
in
the
pool
the
city
is
deficient,
so
we
were
given
the
opportunity
for
an
open
space
in
the
duke
energy
easement
that
will
be
maintained
and
we
didn't
want
to
get
specific
because,
like
I
said
the
city,
the
site
wasn't
deficient,
so
it
wasn't
something
the
site
had
to
create
to
get
site
approval.
D
I
Go
to
the
comment
where
we
didn't
address
any
of
those
issues
at
the
trc
we
addressed
nine,
most
of
the
most
of
them
I'll
tell
you,
which
ones
are
still
outstanding.
They
wanted
us
to
to
put
in
the
deed
restrictions,
the
the
no
parking
signs
and
a
couple
other
little
things.
The
lawyer
did
that.
Okay,
we
got
the
lift
station
fixed
okay,
they
want
me
to
put
some
street
signs
in
a
no
parking
on
the
street
sign.
I
ordered
them
that
so
that
it's
not
like
it
sounds.
I
It
sounds
like
we're
sitting
here
doing
nothing
coming
to
you
guys
with
you
know
nothing
being
done
that
that's
not
the
case.
Okay,
what
was
the
other
thing?
The
clubhouse
there's
one
little
thing
with
the
electric
the
pool
electric
permit
has
to
get
res
inspected,
and
that's
that
that's
the
last
thing
with
that.
Okay,
so
and
the
the
big
thing
with
with
the
trc
was
they
wanted
to
make
sure
the
lift
station
worked.
I
So
that's
a
hundred
percent
working
the
little
bit
of
trash
or
something
that
they're
talking
about
in
there
that
doesn't
prevent
the
lift
station
from
working
and
we
could
clean
that
if
we
want
the
lift
station
people
there
that
we
hire
they're
going
to
start
putting
this
little
thing
where
they
come
and
inspect
it,
because
there's
not
that
much
many
people
living
there
now
now
right
now,
there's
phase
one's
36..
I
I
D
I'm
so
sorry,
I'm
going
to
interrupt
and
that's
not
very
polite,
but
I
was
asking
a
question
specifically
and
if
I
may
be
so
bold
as
to
correct
the
engineer,
I
don't
think
I
heard
staff
incorrectly
and
yes,
the
city
does
have
addition
deficiency
in
regards
to
parks,
but
I
believe
that
specifically
staff
said
your
project
has
a
deficiency
in
that
category.
Anyone
can
share
with.
C
I
This
is
emmanuel
manuel
speaking,
I
don't
think
she
said
our
project
has
a
deficiency,
but
she
had
suggested
that,
based
on
these
last
hearings,
you
had
with
the
apartment
complex
and
a
couple
of
little
good.
All
these
other
things
be
a
good
idea
if
we
dedicate
an
open
space,
so
we
said
hey
that
was
my
plan
anyways
I
plan
on
putting
a
dog
park
there.
I
plan
on
putting
additional
parking
for
people
over
there
that
live
there,
and
I
was
planning
on
putting
like
a
little
nature
trailer.
I
D
I
Energy
has
an
easement
only
they
don't
have
a
right-of-way
there,
so
they
they
can't
tell
us
what
we
can
and
can't
do.
The
big
thing
they
didn't
want.
There
was
additional
drainage.
Originally
I
was
going
to
put
a
lake
there
to
cover
cover
the
fill
that
I
need.
Okay,
they
wouldn't
they
didn't
want
us
to
do
that.
I
was
back
and
forth
with
the
lawyer,
so
I
said
rich
can.
Can
we
fit
the
drainage
in
the
existing
pond,
so
it
all
fits
over
there.
I
We
had
to
connect
it,
and
you
know,
as
long
as
we
give
them
access
to
their
lines.
They
can't
pretty
much
tell
us
that
we
can't
put
a
tennis
court
there
because
of
the
fence,
but
we
can
put
a
dog
park
little
four-foot
fence.
We
can
put
trails
in
there
if
we
want,
we
can
put
parking
spaces
and
they're
in
there
doing
their
thing.
I
Now
I
don't
know
if
you
notice
they're
they're,
changing
a
couple
poles
and
then
they're
doing
that,
but
the
plan
is
is
to
make
that
part
of
the
community
and
make
it
a
beautiful
space
where,
because
we're
very
dog
friendly
here,
I'm
gonna
put
a
dog
park.
I
want
to
put
a
little
nature
park
where
you
can
walk
around
you
know,
and
then
I'm
going
to
have
an
area
where
the
retention
pond
is
where
the
community
can
go
back
there
and
have
a
little
picnic
over
there.
So
you
know
we're.
I
It
says
it
says
recreation
area,
but
we
didn't.
I
didn't.
I
haven't
scribbled
down
where
the
where
the
dog
park
is
going
to
go
and
all
that
stuff
yet
which
I
can
and
one
of
the
reasons
we
didn't
do
it
already.
Is
that
shouldn't
stop
us
from
moving
moving
ahead?
I
mean
we
still
got
two
more
meetings
with
the
commissioners.
You
follow
me.
E
Know
one
of
well,
I
think,
some
of
the
times
what
the
issues
which
is
not
your
problem,
the
issues
that
we
have
is
we
want
to
make
sure
what
we
recommend
or
or
some
of
the
discussions
that
we
have
actually
make
it
to
the
commission
and
that
the
commission
has
the
opportunity
to
listen
to
what
our
recommendations
are
and
that's
not
your
problem
right.
So.
I
So
I
don't
have
a
problem
showing
you
know.
We
listed
that
whole
area,
it's
almost
three
acres
for
a
recreation
area.
You
know
and
the
people
that
live
there.
I
think
these
people
all
are
living
here
now.
You
know
I
was
going
to
ask
them
what
they
might
want
to
want
me
to
put
in
there
for
sure
I'm
putting
the
dog
park.
I
was
going
to
put
a
little
gar.
You
know
nice
little
park
where
you
could
walk
around
the
community.
I
You
know
you
want
to
exercise,
you
know
and
it's
going
to
be
maintained
by
the
community
as
well
as
far
as
that
goes
now.
As
far
as
as
far
as
the
wetland
encroachment
it,
it
is
deceiving
because
you
know
it
sounds
like
we're.
We're
really
need
that
area
to
get
seven
lots.
I
I
We
finally
decided
we
got
a
chance
to
get
this
going
and
make
something
out
of
it,
and
then
nobody
told
us
the
the
those
variances
which
is
a
seven
and
a
half
foot
setback
and
they've
already
given
us
for
24
lots,
the
rear
yard
setback
they
gave
that
to
us
in
phase
one
and
then
on
phase
two.
We
need
it
for
five.
We
need
it
for
maybe
15
lots
out
of
the
66..
It's
not
all.
I
Okay
and
the
reason
we
needed
to
go
from
15
to
seven
and
a
half
is:
if
you
look
at
the
property,
I
got
that
wetland
in
the
middle
of
it.
Okay,
and
then
I
know
I
should
have
did
my
due
diligence,
but
you
know
it
was
a
tough
property
plus
we
had
to
design
it
for
a
hundred
year,
storm
event,
okay
and
anybody
else
they
could
have
went
and
bought
wetlands
at
a
wetland
bank
and
try
to
take
out
the
whole
wetland.
I
didn't
do
that.
I
You
know
I,
like
the
wetland
you
know
just
now,
I'm
asking
for
seven
more
lots
to
help.
You
know
I've
been
carrying
this
thing
for
almost
16
years
and
it
doesn't
mean
nothing
to
anybody
else,
but
I
I
got
a
million
dollars
in
freaking
taxes
I
paid
okay
and
yeah.
The
seven
lots
are
going
to
help
me
get
a
little
bit
of
it
back,
but
all
my
costs
went
up.
My
my
development
cost
went
from
900
000.
It's
gonna
be
over
a
million
five
just
to
develop
the
stupid
property,
the
phase
two
okay.
I
So
if
you,
if
you
looked
at
the
zoning,
I
could
put
he
said
120.,
it's
127
lots
because
you
get
one
I
got
12
acres
of
upland
at
10
is
122
lots
plus
one
lot
per
wetland.
So
it's
127
lots.
If
I
really
wanted
to
try
to
jam
it
all
in
there,
I'm
not
j,
I'm
only
asking
102
versus
127.,
that's
20
percent,
less
that
I
could
put
in
there
if
she
wanted
to
go
in
there
and
stuff
them
in
there.
I'm.
D
I
Somebody
wanted
to
put
three-story
condos,
you
know
people
do
it
all
around
here.
They
put
four-story
apartment
complexes,
they
got
them
all
over
the
place.
I
don't
want
to
do
that.
I'm
just
asking
for
seven
more
lots,
and
actually,
if
we
didn't
encroach
in
the
wetlands,
it
would
be
about
I'd,
probably
lose
two
or
three
out
of
the
seven,
because
they
I
wouldn't
have
to
encroach
so
it's
not
I'm
not
encroaching
to
get
seven,
I'm
encroaching
more
or
less
to
get
three
more.
If
you
look
at
the
plan,
you
follow
me.
I
E
G
My
name
is
joel
bouchard
and
I'm
a
resident
769.
grand
cycle.
C
G
G
D
C
For
everybody,
let
me
let
me
get
to
the
actual
rule,
it's
not
the
only.
If
he's
the
only
speaker,
it's
a
limit
to
the
individuals
that
are
present,
so
let
me
just
read
it
and
make
sure
we
get
it
correct.
It's
four
minutes
per
person
I
just
I
just
had
it
hold
on.
Where
did
we
go
all
right
says.
Members
of
the
public
present
at
the
hearing
may
donate
their
time
to
a
speaker
to
extend
the
speaker's
time,
but
said
donation
shall
forfeit
the
donators
right
to
speak.
C
Each
donation
shall
extend
the
speaker's
time
an
additional
two
minutes
in
no
event
shall
the
speaker's
time
be
extended
beyond
10
minutes
of
total
speaking
time.
So
if
this
gentleman
is
speaking
on
behalf
of
others,
we
need
to
know
who
they
are
and
how
many
they
are.
There
are
to
get
the
timing
correct.
So.
E
G
No
that's!
Okay
again,
my
name
is
joel
bouchard,
769,
grand
cypress
lane
and
I'm
speaking
on
behalf
of
our
resident
owners
association
who
the
majority
of
phase
one
is
here.
I
want
to
thank
you
for
your
time
and
your
diligence
in
this
project.
G
It
is
a
nice
project,
there's
a
reason
why
we
chose
to
live
there,
but
there
are
a
whole
host
of
issues
that
you've
all
touched
on
this
evening.
That
we
feel
is
very
important
to
all
of
us
and
I'm
going
to
try
and
make
this
as
small
as
possible.
You've
already
hashed
a
good
portion
of
our
concerns
in
regards
to
the
wetlands,
the
setbacks
and
the
changing
of
the
community
as
it
was
originally
laid
out
when
we
bought
into
this
complex.
G
It
was
95
units
we
were.
We
were
promised
things.
We
were
shown
things
and
we
were
told
certain
things
were
going
to
happen
again
comments
I
make
to
that
is:
let's
see
it
in
writing
and
let's
who's
going
to
follow
up
on
it.
We
we
have
already
discovered
a
whole
host
of
issues
as
residents
and
taxpayers
in
the
town
of
tarpon
that
living
here
we're.
We
are
limited.
You
talk
about
resources,
open
spaces,
parking
is
already
a
critical
problem.
G
We
have
a
clubhouse
that
we,
a
haven't,
had
a
co
on
in
two
years,
with
residents
living
there,
we
have
a
pool
and
a
hot
tub.
Again
all
all
other
issues.
We
could
discuss
at
another
point
in
time,
but
parking
key
four
spots
at
the
pool
outside
of
the
one
handy
or
two
handicaps.
Okay.
Currently,
given
the
state
of
the
widths
of
the
driveways
in
phase
one,
certain
certain
residents
can't
even
park
their
cars
side
by
side
in
their
driveways
two
parking
spaces
can't
do
that
parking
parking
at
the
at
the
pool
in
the
clubhouse.
G
Okay,
we
have
lamp
posts
that
everybody
keeps
touching
base
on
we've
had
mine
was
in
the
middle
of
my
my
garage.
We
had
to
have
that
move
before
we
could
start
the
driveway.
We
currently
have
a
resident
that
has
been
living
there
for
over
a
year
that
has
a
lamp
post
that
does
not
grant
access
to
their
driveway.
They
can't
they
have
to
drive
around
it
to
get
into
their
garage,
not
being
moved
been
sitting
there.
Now
it's
a
legal
battle.
We
have.
G
We
have
had
power
issues
that
were
approved
in
this
community
to
where
the
powers
run.
We
have
we've
had
multiple
units
with
no
power
or
inadequate
power
to
sustain
the
unit's
operations
or
the
home's
operation.
Duke
energy
has
been
telling
residents
here,
hey
it's
a
design
flaw.
This
was
approved
by
by
the
town
or
zoning
or
whoever
we
don't
know
why
they
ever
approve
this.
This
is
constantly
going
to
be
a
headache.
G
G
Okay,
I
just
I'm
sorry
all
right
great
building.
We
love
where
we
live.
There's
a
lot
of
opportunity.
There
tarpon
is
a
great
place.
We
just
don't
want
to
be
narrowed
into
a
tight
box
where
phase
one
already
is
we're
gonna,
add
another
seven
units
on
top
of
what
was
originally
proposed.
There
is
nothing
anywhere
in
here
that
shows
the
open
space
additional
parking
right
now
when
everybody
moves
in
and
people
are
moving
in,
there
is
no
place.
G
There's
no
place
to
park
two
cars
in
the
driveway
where's,
the
moving
truck
going
to
be
where's.
The
construction
equipment
going
to
be
everything
is
in
the
roadway.
There's
a
propose
in
here
in
the
drawing
that
we
see
for
the
second
access
and
everything
here.
Everybody's
statements
is
that
it's
for
emergency
use
only
we
were
promised.
That
was
a
second
entrance,
so
the
whole
second
phase
doesn't
have
to
come
through
the
first
phase
and
out
one
single
gate
to
get
out
of
the
community.
G
Again,
not
a
lot
of
foresight
here
and
it's
it's.
That
is
that
the
four.
G
G
I
can
go
through
a
list
of
things
that
are
not
your
concerns
about
what's
been
going
on,
but
you
definitely
need
to
look
at
this
proposal
with
an
open
mind
going
forward
how
it's
going
to
impact
the
residents
are
going
to
live
there
where
they're
going
to
park
their
cars,
where
guests
are
going
to
come
to
visit
them.
Are
they
going
to
park
in
the
pond?
Where
are
they
going
to
park?
G
K
Glenn
branswitz
I'm
at
753
grand
cypress
I
moved
in
in
august
of
20.,
I'm
a
physician
and
a
pharmacist
and
a
researcher
and
one
of
the
first
things
I
researched
moving
into
that
property
with
those
power
lines
because
part
of
the
research
I
did
going
back
when
I
lived
in
the
city
of
pittsburgh
was
the
risk
factors
of
leukemia
being
anywhere
near
those
lines
you
can
look
it
up
in
british
medical
journal
was
just
published
recently,
28
increased
risk
of
childhood
leukemia
being
anywhere
underneath
those
lines.
That's
a
problem
for
me
problem
number
two.
K
When
I
moved
in,
I
wanted
to
check
on
hoa
structure-
and
I
know
that
has
nothing
to
do
with
this
board
here,
but
I
started
to
look
at
how
this
corporation
that
started
in
2014
had
everything
laid
out
and
how
many
things
in
the
whole
structure
of
manual's
properties
are
listed
under
the
ownership
of
the
hoa,
which
was
fine.
I
didn't
have
a
problem
with
that,
but
being
semi-retired.
Now
I
planned
on
moving
into
this
place.
As
my
last
home,
I
was
going
to
stay
here.
K
My
concern
is
with
the
infrastructure
of
this
project,
with
the
pumps
that
have
already
gone
bad
once
and
when
I
looked
and
saw
how
everything
is
filed
and
everything
is
under
the
name
of
the
hoa,
which
is
a
real
big
problem,
because
if
something
does
happen
when
he
finally
turns
this
over
to
the
hoa
it's
going
to
be
split
among
the
owners
right
now,
there
are
17
active
owners.
90
percent
of
them
are
here
today
there's
a
major
concern
of
what's
going
on
in
this
property
major
concerns.
K
When
I
looked
at
the
finances
that
were
just
published
at
the
end
of
2021
and
the
hoa
had
a
63
000
loss,
that's
a
problem
because
if
that
gets
turned
over
with
only
17
units,
a
63
000
loss,
what's
going
to
happen
when
we're
up
to
92.,
that's
a
concern
for
me
as
a
resident.
I
don't
need
those
expenses
passed
on,
I'm
on
a
fixed
income
right
now.
K
You
don't
have
to
feel
sorry
for
me,
but
I
don't
want
those
kind
of
expenses
passed
on
to
me
at
any
point
that
property
with
those
easements
cannot
be
used.
You
can
check
with
duke
energy,
you
cannot
put
property
under
there.
You
can't
have
children
under
there.
You
can't
have
pets
under
there.
That's
a
real
big
problem,
I
know,
and
on
the
surface
it
sounds
really
good.
Just
look
it
up
in
all
the
medical
journals,
it's
everywhere,
28
to
38
increased
risk
of
leukemia
in
children
and
in
pets.
C
Hi
dawn
bouchard
769
grand
cypress
lane.
Thank
you
for
your
time
and
listening
to
us.
One
of
the
real
concerns
I
have
is
when
this
community
is
turned
over
to
the
hoa.
What
are
the
additional
financial
burdens
we're
going
to
have
because
of
this
infrastructure,
if
it's
not
sufficient
for
the
existing
units
as
well
as
phase
two
and
these
additional
seven
units?
What
additional
financial
burden
is
this
going
to
put
on
the
existing
residents?
C
I
also
have
a
concern
for
potential
owners.
If
this
development
is
changing,
what
is
the
accommodations
or
what
is
the
communication?
That's
going
to
be
to
those
potential
owners
that
have
purchased
this
town
home
in
a
development,
that's
under
rezoning
and
being
changed
against
their
contract
and
what
they
have
agreed
to
buy.
We
were
proposed.
We
were
shown
that
we
were
only
going
to
have
95
units.
Now
it's
going
up
to
102..
C
There
were
promises
and
things
that
were
made
to
us
in
the
sales
office
about
accesses
and
amenities
that
we
were
going
to
have,
and
now
it
looks
in
this
proposal
that
those
amenities
and
things
of
that
nature
are
going
to
change.
So
for
anybody,
that's
a
potential
new
owner
that
could
have
a
negative
impact
on
what
the
community
views
in
tarpon
springs
for
this
development,
and
I
don't
want
to
see
that
happen
to
other
people,
because
there's
there's
no
way
that
they're
going
to
know
about
these
changes.
C
So
I'm
very
concerned
about
that.
As
far
as
the
wetlands
go,
I'm
a
little
concerned
with
the
easement
or
the
lack
thereof,
because
it
looks
to
me
as
an
untrained
person
that
some
of
those
units
are
going
to
be
built
on
that
wetlands
and
what
happens
if
those
buildings
sink
and
what
are
the
liabilities
to
the
homeowners
and
the
hoa
association?
C
If
there's
a
problem
with
that
building
or
those
buildings
and
those
those
structures
with
that
encroachment
as
well
as
I
saw
a
tortoise
impact,
has
anyone
done
a
study
on
other
animals
that
live
in
those
cypress
ponds?
Are
there
any
sandhill
cranes?
We
know
that
we
have
a
barn
owl.
We
have
seen
him
on
various
occasions,
so
I
would
like
to
understand.
Not
only
are
you
considering
the
tortoise,
but
what
other
animals
in
that
area?
Are
you
considering?
C
G
Good
evening
dan
duvall
745
grand
cypress
I'll
make
it
quick.
I
know
your
time
is
valuable.
I
think
the
gentleman
on
the
end
here
I
apologize.
I
don't
have
everybody's
name
memorized,
but
all
the
questions
that
he
was
arised
during
the
discussion
are
exactly
what
I
was
going
to
sit
here
and
go
over.
You
guys
already
are
ticking.
The
right
boxes.
G
Manual
is
a
good-hearted
guy.
I
think
his
intentions,
most
of
the
time,
are
pretty
good
and
I
understand
he's
trying
to
make
up
some
of
the
incurred
loss,
but
I
do
implore
you
guys
to
come
visit.
If
you
get
a
chance
walk
through,
we
don't
want
it
to
feel
like
a
penitentiary
when
you're
walking
down
just
because
all
the
units
are
crammed
in
right
now
the
biggest
deal
no
parking
whatsoever,
and
now,
if
you
guys,
are
sticking
up
signs
that
say
no
parking
on
the
street.
G
If
my
daughter
comes
to
visit
from
college,
I'm
not
sure
where
to
tell
her
to
park.
You
know
we
didn't
buy
into
this
area
because
we
didn't
love
it.
We
want
to
see
manuel
be
successful.
I
think
the
first
plan
he
had
most
of
us
might
have
gotten
up
and
left.
G
If
you
said
hey,
it's
approved,
let's
just
make
sure
all
the
wetlands
and
all
the
things
are
taken
care
of,
but
seeing
these
additional
units
put
in
just
really
scare
the
heck
out
of
everybody
and
the
last
thing
I
think
you
guys
need
to
think
about
take
a
drive
down
that
street.
I've
already
had
discussions
with
the
city
manager.
He
was
very
helpful,
getting
stop
signs
put
in,
but
that
road
is
not
designed
to
carry
the
volume
of
traffic
it's
carrying.
So
those
are
just
things
to
think
about.
So
thank
you
for
your
time.
F
C
I
I
I
appreciate
the
people
that
moved
in
there.
I
really
do
I
mean
they
helped
move
the
project
along
parking.
Is
the
project
rich
can
tell
you
it
was
designed.
According
to
the
standard
we
we
meet
the
parking
requirement.
My
plan
is
to
put
an
additional
parking
in
phase
two.
That's
why
I
need
phase
two.
I
I'm
gonna
put
it
up
against
the
property
line
there,
probably
15
20
25
parking
spots
I
can
have
over
there,
but
I
can't
do
it
until
I
can
start
tearing
everything
down
and
start
phase
two
that
second
access,
the
fire
marshal
doesn't
require
us
to
make
that
accessible.
But
you
know
if
they
want
to
make
it
accessible.
You
know
I'm
here
to
make
people
happy.
You
know
I
don't
have
a
problem
with
that
either
there'll
be
another
third
access,
that's
not
going
to
be
accessible,
but
you
know
the
fire
marshal.
I
I
I
talked
about
the
recreational
area,
the
parking
spots
I'm
prepared
to
put
15
20
30
parking
spots
over
there.
Okay,
that
was
part
of
the
plan.
I
could
show
that
on
the
planet
to
make
sure
everybody
sees
it,
so
they
don't
think
I'm
just
telling
them
what
they
want
to
hear.
I
mean
I'm
prepared
to
put
the
parking
spaces
there.
I'm
prepared
to
put
the
dog
park
the
whole
recreation
area
program
over
there,
there's
no
houses
underneath
the
power
lines.
It's
160
feet
away
from
the
power
line.
I
I
But,
and
if
you
look
at
the,
if
you
look
at
the
prior
plan
versus
the
new
plan,
we're
not
adding
more
building
pads
to
it,
we're
adding
a
one
one
lot
on
one
a
couple
here
and
there
and,
like
I
said
the
only
the
out
of
the
seven
lots,
there's
only
three
that
are
in
the
wetland
and
only
parts
of
them.
Okay,
the
other
ones,
are
landing
on
the
on
the
upland
part
of
the
project.
I
Okay-
and
that's
all
you
know,
I
want
to
make
everybody
happy.
If
I
can,
I
mean-
and
you
know,
like
I
said
I'll
put
on
the
plant
recreation
area,
dog
park
parking
spaces
and
we
added
that
emergency
lane
for
the
fire
marshal,
but
he
didn't
tell
us
he
needed
it
open.
You
see
what
I'm
saying.
H
Yeah
yeah
just
rich
kelly,
just
briefly
the
parking
and
the
driveway
with,
what's
which
I
hear
is
a
little
bit
of
a
problem.
They're
up
for
code,
it's
not
like.
We
had
a
variance
to
reduce
the
driveway
with
or
anything
and
and
the
seven
units
that
we're
talking
about
I've
already
described
manual
did
too
that
only
three
of
them
are
impacting
the
wetland.
The
other
portion
of
the
wetland
impact
would
have
to
be
made
anyway,
unless
we
didn't
give
them
any
backyards.
H
E
I
I
I
understood
quite
I
have
a
question.
I
understand
the
requirement
for
the
second
access,
but
it's
a
fire
marshal
telling
you
that's
going
to
be
an
exclusive
access
for
no.
H
E
H
D
If
I
may
be
so
bold
chair,
I
think
without
because
we
didn't
get
a
before
and
after
on
the
original
site
plan,
I
think
that
their
owners
were
told
there
were
going
to
be
two
accesses,
but
then
there
only
was
one
and
then
the
fire
marshal
said.
No,
you
must
have
access
for
us,
but
the
owners,
the
whole
time
want
two
because
there's
too
much
traffic
for
one
so
now
they're
going
to
concede
and
go
okay,
we'll
go
back
to
two
exactly
exactly
right,
but
we're
going
to
take
the
cul-de-sac
away.
D
J
D
H
H
H
D
H
H
For
the
residents
that
would
be
in
the
like
the
very
south
end
along
the
cemetery
property,
there's
there's
a
nexus
there.
Now,
it's
just
you
know
it's
for
the
industrial
park
or
whatever.
I
E
Okay,
any
other
questions.
We
need.
Okay,
let's
go
ahead
and
turn
this
over
to
to
the
board
and
for
discussion.
I.
B
That
that's
quite
all
right,
william
conrad.
The
the
last
point
I
want
to
make
is
that,
from
the
very
inception
phase
one
and
phase
two
comprise
the
development
they
rely
on
each
other
clearly
and
some
of
the
solutions
that
are
required,
many
of
them
in
phase
two.
So
I
want
everyone
just
to
remember
the
kind
of
the
historic
perspective
and
that
this
is
one
total
development,
although
we
have
two
phases
and
different
methodologies
for
planning
approval.
But
so
thank
you
very.
F
And
staff
would
ask
I've
noted
maybe
five
items
that
the
applicant
said
that
they
were
willing
to
change
on
the
site
plan.
I
would
like
to
get
clarification
from
the
board
whether
those
changes,
whether
you've
noted
those
changes,
whether
you
want
them,
accept
them.
What
the
status
of
those
are.
F
F
F
Okay,
all
right!
Additional
parking
on
the
south,
not
sure
how
that's
accessed
and
how
you
get
to.
F
Okay,
I
would
need
to
know
how
that,
where
that
third
entrance
is
and
how
it
works.
So
we'll
make
a
note
of
that.
But
we
can't
review
the
standards
for
that
until
we
see
it
and
then,
as
far
as
the
improvements
in
the
easement,
I'm
not
sure
if
the
applicant
can
commit
to
specific
improvements
now,
not
knowing
whether
duke
energy
has
purview
over
approving
those
and
whether
they
will
approve
them.
But
I
heard
dog
park
and
trail.
K
F
J
D
I
I
just
want
to
do
a
preface
is
that
I
do
appreciate
and
have
listened
to
staff,
that
there
is
some
good
parts
of
this
project,
but
obviously
there
have
been
some
things
that
haven't
gone
quite
right
and
I
think
it's
painfully
obvious
that
this
plan
preliminary
site
plan
is
incomplete,
a
whole
bunch
of
ways.
Therefore
chair.
I
am
going
to
motion
that
we
deny,
as
submitted
application,
21-133
rezoning
and
print
preliminary
plan
development
approval.
E
D
That
also
addresses
all
the
current
residents
concerns
in
the
trc
that
you
carefully
try
to
get
them
to
understand
is
that,
obviously
the
city
has
got
concerns
about
the
current
state
of
the
development.
Much
less
giving
a
whole
new
wave
that
might
have
the
same
challenges
and
I'll
be
a
little
bit
firmer.
To
listening
to
the
residents
is
that
the
waivers
frankly,
some
of
those
should
probably
be
off
the
table.
E
One
of
the
things
and-
and
I
think
I
prefaced
it
with
with
this
still
swift
mud
application
still
pending
is
we
don't
know
what
the
swift
but
comets
are
going
to
be,
and
so,
if
you
move
forward
and
then
and
swift
mud
has
comments
that
change
the
site
plan,
you
know
that's
why
I
I
question,
and
I
know
pat,
what
you
indicated
is
what
that's
not
required,
but
it's
beneficial
to
this
board
to
find
out
when
somebody's
making
application
that
the
site
plan
is
consistent
with
what
swift
mud
may
require
and
not
approve
something
just
to
go
back
to
a
drawing
board
and
amend
and
amend
a
site
plan
to
take
into
consideration
what
swift,
mud's
requirements
might
be.
D
E
D
I'll
go
one
step
further,
if
I
may,
in
regards
to
duke
and
the
easement
is
that
there
are
easements
that
could
be
granted.
That
would
be
in
perpetuity
forever
to
the
hoa
that
says.
Yes
hoa.
You
do
get
to
use
this
land
and
sure
they
might
only
have
an
easement
without
getting
that
discussion.
They
need
to
be
provided
that,
as
fact,
forever
recorded
document
as
part
of
the
agent.
E
D
That
that
is
true,
someone
that
unfortunately
reads
a
lot
of
easements
such
as
you
do.
Each
one
is
specific
to
itself,
so
it
has
its
own
verbiage
and
language,
and
it
might
say
some
things
that
maybe
someone
isn't
aware.
E
Of
yeah,
I
think
mr
lane
lindiakis
would
be
correct
that
I
don't.
I
couldn't
see
duke
energy
objecting
to
some
utilizing
the
property
for
those
particular
purposes.
They
just
don't
want
to
see
construction
or
or
overuse
that
impact
their
ability
to
access
it.
But
that
being
said,
there
was
a
motion
in
a
second.
E
Are
there
any
other
concerns
of
this
this
board
or
any
discus
further
discussion?
That
would
help
my.
C
Only
concern
on
that
is
the
agreements
that
were
at
the
beginning.
There
was
agreements
that
were
made
that
were
actually
promised
to
everybody.
That
was
saying
that
this
was
the
development.
This
is
what's
going
to
happen
and
then
coming
in
they're
saying
this
was
all
approved
prior
and
then
now
they're
wanting
to
make
changes,
but
they're
still
wanting
to
go
back
on
the,
but
it
was
proved
before
so.
I
don't
think
that
that's
a
fair
assessment
to
anybody,
especially
the
people
that
have
already
bought
into
the
complex.
E
Yeah,
I
can
understand
they're
concerned
about
the
number
of
units.
Certain
certain
items
in
the
development
are
really
not
this
board's
purview.
It
may
be
issues
they
may
have
with
a
developer
or
something
that
that
that,
but
but
at
the
end
of
the
day
we
we
approve
the
you
know
we're
approving
a
site
plan,
and
you
know
if
something's
not
working
in
the
development.
E
That's
that's
the
developer's
purview,
not
ours,
but
but
taking
your
concerns,
I
understand
so
other
than
other
than
having
any
further
discussion.
We
had
a.
We
had
a
motion.
We
had
a
second
so.
F
F
So
if
the
preliminary,
whatever
plan
layout,
is
approved,
if
something
is
approved
on
preliminary
plan
development,
if
I
did
say
that
the
city
can't
require
those
permits,
that's
true,
but
if
the
permits
come
back
with
a
different
layout,
they
would
have
to
come
back
to
you
with
the
revised
preliminary
plan
development.
Remember
the
final
or
site
plan
phase
has
to
match
exactly
what
was
approved
in
preliminary.
F
E
E
So
we
have
a
first.
We
have
a
second
unless
there's
further
discussion,
I'd
like
to
call
for
a
vote.
D
E
A
Okay,
let's,
let's
take
a
a
five
minute
break
and
we'll
pick
it
back
up
at
well.
It
says
9
10.,.
A
A
A
So
that
that
brings
us
to
application
20-150,
it's
a
proposed
site
plan,
approval
for
gemiini
storage
on
the
northeast
corner
of
safford
and
mears
boulevard.
Do
we
have
a
staff
report?
Please.
F
F
I
think
I
have
a
real
detailed
map
of
what's
around
it,
but
basically
the
the
plaza
is
commercial
here
along
alt
19.,
just
north
of
it
is
a
construction,
basically,
a
construction
yard
company
that
has
a
construction
yard
there,
there's
single
family
up
on
lincoln
avenue
and,
of
course,
beerus
boulevard
in
the
field,
landfill
and
wetlands.
South
of
that.
F
This
is
for
site
plant
approval
for
gemini
storage,
to
store
boats
and
recreational
vehicles
on
about
one
one
and
a
half
acres
total
the
uncovered
outdoor
storage
is
for
up
to
72.
Actually,
I
think
that's
73
boats
and
rvs.
This
is
in
the
intensive
business
zoning
district,
the
commercial
general
future
land
use
map
category.
F
The
site
had
some
wetland
fill
illegal
wetland,
fill
impacts
that
occurred
prior
to
the
current
owner,
purchasing
the
property
and
the
owner
has
been
working
with
the
southwest
florida
water
management
district.
On
that
issue,
and
this
they
they
have
put
on
the
plans,
a
representation
of
where
that
old
jurisdictional
line
was
so.
This
area
shaded
in
green
is
the
impact
area,
that's
been
filled.
The
rest
of
this
area
is
wetland
with
a
little
bit
of
upland
some
kind
of
creating
an
island
in
there.
F
In
the
remaining
wetlands,
the
access
to
the
project
will
be
from
safford
avenue.
There
is
an
existing
city
drainage
facility
here
along
south
safford.
The
applicant
proposes
to
culvert
that
driveway
to
accommodate
that
drainage,
our
city,
drainage
staff
have
looked
at
the
project
and
approved
the
proposal
for
the
project
and
for
the
driveway.
F
F
Okay,
opaque
fence
and
then
a
chain
link
fence
up
here
on
the
north
side,
there
would
be
parking
lot
buffer
surrounding
the
parking
lot
on
the
three
sides
here
inside
the
fences
on
the
south.
The
applicant
proposes
to
do
some
upland
buffer,
which
we'll
see
in
in
a
minute
some
planting
in
this
area,
and
there
is
no
fence
proposed
for
the
south
side.
F
Just
to
kind
of
point
out.
The
applicant
has
proposed
some
regular
parking
spaces
here,
we'll
talk
about
those
in
a
minute,
so
we
have
regular
just
customer
parking
spaces,
one
handicap
and
then
some
others
here
that
will
be
paved
the
rest
of
the
property
will
be
the
existing
surface,
which
is
a
crushed
concrete
and
overgrown
with
grass.
Basically,
the
applicant
proposes
to
put
parking
stops.
We
did
require
parking
stops
for
the
spaces
and
then
the
spaces
are
to
be
delineated
with,
I
guess
bollards
that
have
a
chain
between
them.
F
I
haven't
received
a
kind
of
a
picture
of
what
that
would
look
like,
but
that's
the
proposal-
oh
and
just
a
notation
he
city
has
asked
the
applicant
if
they
would
grant
a
20-foot
drainage
easement
along
the
south
side
of
the
property
that
is
kind
of
an
issue
that's
outside
and
beyond
this
site
plan
approval,
that's
not
something
that
is
a
part
of
this
request
or
part
of
the
city's
requirements.
That's
a
separate
kind
of
item
the
standalone
item,
but
the
applicant
has
shown
it
on
the
site
plan.
F
This
is
just
an
overlay
on
the
aerial
aerial
photograph
of
that
site
plan,
and
then
this
is
showing
the
buffer
area
that
the
apple
applicant
proposes
to
plant
with
pine
trees,
cord
grass
and
wire
grass
and
the
applicant
has
proposed
that
this
would
achieve
90
percent
opacity
at
six
feet
in
height
within
one
year.
There
are
some
native
plants
here
there
is
a
lot
of
brazilian
pepper
here
which
the
city
would
require
to
have
removed.
F
F
F
This
was
the
property
in
about
2018
and
I
didn't
put
it
on
the
slideshow,
but
the
applicant
did
include
an
aerial
photograph
in
their
exhibits
and
we
have
their
plan
sets
here
of
really
this
same
aerial
except
you
can
see,
there's
a
lot
of
truck
parking,
I'm
not
sure
if
that
was
associated
with
this
northern
development
extending
down
or
not,
but
there
was
previous
parking
and
storage
of
vehicles
on
the
site.
You
can
see
that
in
various
aerials
going
through
the
years.
F
These
are
just
some
ground
photographs
of
the
site
where
the
this
is
a
chain
link
fence
with
shade
cloth
on
it,
six
feet
in
height.
So
that
shows
you
what
a
six
foot
fence
would
look
like.
That's
on
the
property.
Now
this
is
looking
from
south
south
stafford
avenue
again
from
south
safford.
That
fence
ends
here,
it's
probably
about
where
the
new
fence
would
end.
So
with
all
this
pepper
removed,
it
would
be
easy
to
see
the
property
from
this
area
and
from
mears
boulevard,
which
is
over
here.
F
This
just
shows
some
of
the
surface.
That's
very
overgrown.
Now
it's
getting
overgrown
with
grass.
You
can
still
see
some
of
the
gravel
crushed
compacted
gravel
on
the
site,
so
staff
reviewed
this
first
site
plan
compliance
with
the
site
plan
standards,
of
which
there
are
four,
I
think,
there's
just
the
four
yeah
compliance
with
the
applicable
provisions
of
land
development
code
and
with
the
comprehensive
plan
I'll
kind
of
take
those
together.
So
this
is
in
the
commercial
general
category
which
talks
about
all
kinds
of
different
uses.
F
Now
the
intensive
business
district
that
this
property
is
in
does
contemplate
outdoor
storage
of
vehicles,
but
not
as
a
use
by
right
things
like
motor
pools
and
fleet
fleet
parking.
Lots
are
listed
under
intensive
business,
but
as
a
conditional
use
that
the
applicant
is
asking
for
a
use
by
right,
boat
and
rv
storage
is
not
a
use.
F
That
is
listed
in
our
land
development
code
at
all,
so
it's
something
we
probably
need
to
add,
but
the
characteristics
of
it
the
facilities,
impacts
the
operation,
vehicular
trips,
those
types
of
things
most
resemble
a
warehouse
or
a
mini
warehouse
type
of
use.
So
that's
how
staff
those
are
kind
of
the
standards
that
staff
applies.
F
I
will
say:
we've
advised
the
applicant
that
we
would
like
to
see
these
storage
boat
and
rv
storage
properties
covered
or
enclosed.
The
applicant
declined
to
do
that.
Obviously,
it's
not
a
strict
code
citation
for
rv,
both
storage.
You
must
enclose
our
cover.
We're
trying
to
review
this
in
the
context
of
the
zoning
and
of
the
commercial
general
land
use
category
asking
for
land
use,
compatibility
and
appropriate
screening
of
some
of
these
more.
F
Less
attractive
uses,
this
is
at
the
corner
of
mirrors
and
safford.
The
trail
is
there,
it's
the
gateway
to
the
city.
Manatee
plaza
is
being
redone,
as
you
know,
with
the
exception
of
the
property
to
the
north,
which,
which
is
you
know,
a
construction
company.
So
it's
a
little
messier
and
it
is
enclosed.
It
is
fenced.
F
It's
it's
really
a
residential
and
retail
and
commercial
areas.
So
this
was
one
that
that
we
just
couldn't
get
there
with
comprehensive
plan,
consistency
and
zoning,
the
zoning
district
consistency.
F
Otherwise,
in
the
zoning
code
we
did
have
some
issues
with
the
parking
plan
standards
not
being
met
in
the
screening
standards.
We
feel
that
the
south
side
probably
needs
to
be
screened.
The
90
opacity
in
one
year
with
just
the
pines
and
wire
grass
is,
is
probably
not
going
to
be
sufficient
for
what's
being
stored
there.
So
we're
looking
at
those
items.
F
We
asked
for
a
an
opaque
fence
of
eight
feet.
The
applicant
declined
to
do
that,
so
those
are
some
of
the
code
and
comprehensive
plan
issues.
The
other
issue
with
the
comprehensive
plan
is
like
the
last
item
you
just
heard.
The
city
does
require
that
mitigation
for
wetland
impacts
be
done
on
site.
First,
if
that's
not
possible,
then
within
the
city
within
the
planning
area.
If
that's
not
possible,
then
we
go
off-site.
This
applicant
is
going
to
be
mitigating
by
going
off-site
to
buy
mitigation
bank
credits,
but
the
analysis
just
has
not
been
presented.
F
F
And
I
can
provide
specifics
on
the
parking
in
the
screening
more
of
those,
if
you
desire
to
have
those
as
to
what
we
asked
for
and
and
what
we
would
think
would
be
the
minimum
needed.
But
at
this
time
staff
is
recommending
denial
of
the
site
plan
as
proposed
by
the
applicant,
because
it
does
not
meet
the
intent
of
the
commercial
general
future
lineage
map
category.
F
If
you
wish
to
do
that,
those
are
listed
on
these
next
two
slides.
We
can
go
over
those
now
or
if
you
want
to
deliberate
first
and
see
if
you
want
to
look
at
those
other
conditions
and
with
that
I'll
answer,
any
questions.
D
Two
short
questions,
please,
and
thank
you
pat
thank
you
for
that
presentation.
D
You
you've
already
helped
me
once,
but
on
site
plan
review
criteria,
intent
of
warehouse
use
permitted
by
right,
not
met.
I
I
had
wrote
elaborate,
but
I
think
that
you
did.
The
idea
is
that
it's
supposed
to
have
a
warehouse
on
it,
not
just
parking
or
storage.
Excuse
me.
F
Yeah,
or
at
least
we
have
approved
one
in
the
past
that
was
covered
with.
A
F
Sides
that
was
one
up
on
rainville
road.
I
don't
know
if
it
was
a
couple
years
ago.
I'm
not
sure
if
you
remember
that
one,
but
it
was
kind
of
a
you
know
a
nicely
designed
covered
like
a
warehouse
without
the
walls
type
thing.
So
we
would
have
accepted
that.
K
F
They
they
could
have
we've.
You
know
normally
processed
all
these
as
a
because
the
the
characteristics
of
it
are
like
a
warehouse
or
mini
warehouse.
As
far
as
the
impacts,
the
traffic,
the
parking
requirement.
All
that
you
know
it,
the
only
difference
if
they
had
come
in
for
conditional
use,
they'd
have
to
show
compatibility
so,
whether
it's,
whether
it's
covered
or
not-
and
I
will
tell
you
we
we
had
that
comment-
this
is
one
that
that
did
go
to
trc
six
times.
F
I
believe-
and
we
had
that
comment
a
couple
times-
staff
relented
on
that
comment,
trying
to
get
some
other
design
criteria
to
make
up
for
that
to
make
it
compatible.
So
the
compatibility
issue
would
still
exist,
even
if,
for
a
conditional
use,
we'd
still
be
looking
for
something
that
is
a
little
little
cleaner,
a
little
more
screened
and
a
little
more
contained
as
far
as
the
parking
there's,
no
containment
of
the
parking
lot.
Things
like
that.
F
D
D
E
Just
you
had
mentioned
it
being
a
gateway,
and
obviously
the
property
north
of
that
site
is
an
eyesore
as
well,
but
that
property's
been
sort
of
grandfathered
in
with
regard
to
any
requirements,
for
you
know,
opaque,
fencing
and
all
that
that
we
would
require
I'm
not
trying
to
change
the
subject.
But
but
I
don't
want
to
set
a
double
standard
where
we
allow.
F
Trying
to
remember
if
board
of
adjustment
can
create,
but
I'd
have
to
look
that
up.
I'm
not
sure
they
can
grant
variances
to
parking
standards
if
you
can
get
one,
but
they
could
the
pro
the
issues
and
I
can
identify
those.
So
the
drainage
has
been
approved.
F
What's
going
to
happen
with
the
surface,
the
main
thing
for
drainage
is:
the
applicant
has
stated
that
the
topography
will
not
change
so
the
elevations
will
not
change.
They
have
stated
that
there
would
be
cr,
the
existing
crushed,
concrete
would
be
used
and
that
grass
would
be
retained
where
feasible,
but
it
would
be
mechanically
raped.
So,
in
my
mind,
I
think
what
is
being
proposed
is
to
break
it
and
have
crushed
gravel
on
it.
The
applicant
can
address
that.
I'm
still
not
sure
what
the
final
surface
will
be.
This
area
down
here
is
not
contained.
F
You
know
migration
over
time
and
extra
parking
of
rvs
boats
in
the
supplement
area.
Buffer
area
is
a
concern
that
planting
staff
has
that
could
be
resolved
either
by
a
fence
along
here,
or
some
type
of
curb
is
what
we
asked
for.
We
did
ask
for
parking
stops
and
the
applicant
did
provide
parking
stops
for
all
the
spaces
based
on
using
the
mini
storage
parking
standard,
because
we
don't
have
one
which
is
very
minimal
parking
standard.
The
applicant
needs
seven
spaces.
F
There
are
five
sta
five
spaces,
the
handicap
being
the
fifth
one
that
appear
to
meet
the
standard.
These
two
are
for
compact,
but
we
don't
have
a
provision
for
compact
spaces
for
this
use.
There
are
no
employees
on
site,
so
these
do
not
comply,
and
you
know
the
parking
standard
requires
striped
or
marked
parking
spaces.
In
this
case,
the
applicant
is
proposing
these
chains
to
be
moved
around
that
that
is
probably
acceptable,
but
yeah.
So
those
those
were
the
items,
the
parking
items
that
we
did
now.
F
F
F
D
E
E
J
Hi,
my
name
is
david
fuchsian,
with
the
engineering
firm
of
fuchsia
engineering.
Richard
kelly,
engineer,
you're
familiar
with,
will
be
assisting
me
in
this
presentation.
J
I
would
like
to
clarify
a
couple
things
before
we
get
into
some
details.
My
clients
did
their
due
diligence
in
2018.
They
met
with
us
with
the
city
staff,
and
at
that
time
they
were
told
there
were
no
violations
on
the
site
city
related,
and
they
also
talked
about
the
proposed
use.
As
a
storage
and
the
city
seemed
to
indicate
that
it
would
be
acceptable.
There
was
no
mention
of
putting
cover
a
roof
on
the
site,
and
at
that
time
they
hired
an
engineer
started
down.
J
The
process
started
encountering
a
bunch
of
obstacles
and,
after
a
couple
years
of
frustration,
they
hired
my
firm
and
I've
been
involved
in
a
couple
years
now,
and
some
of
these
issues
that
are
coming
up
were
just
brought
up
within
the
last
I'd,
say,
eight
months
or
so
of
this
four
year
ordeal,
but
particularly
the
covering
over
the
parking
spaces.
I
I
don't
recall
it
ever
coming
up
until
about
eight
months
ago.
J
As
far
as
the
parking
being
deficient,
we
have
seven
paved
spaces
which
is
what's
required.
The
compact
they're
not
really
compact
in
the
width,
they're
compact
and
the
depth,
and
these
are
seven
pay
parking
spaces
for
one
employee
to
come
to
the
site
periodically
and
for
people
who
want
to
pick
up
their
boats
or
their
rvs
and
use
them
and
then
bring
them
back.
J
We
really
think
that
seven
is
overkill,
but
that's
what
the
city
staff
asked
for
and
that's
what
we
provided
as
far
as
the
surface
this
site
over,
like
20
years,
this
site
has
been
altered.
J
Wetlands
have
been
filled,
construction
debris
has
been
brought
in,
so
it's
so
hard
that
the
soils
firm
had
to
use
this
special
equipment
to
penetrate
it,
to
like
a
three
or
four
foot
depth
and
then
gave
up
so
any
questions
about
the
durability
of
the
surface.
It's
just
not
it's.
Just
not
rational
the
pre,
the
owner
to
the
north,
the
trucking
company
used
to
own
the
site
and
they
have
stored.
J
They
stored
trucks
on
the
site
for
a
number
of
years.
I
have
an
aerial,
that's
part
of
the
plans.
It's
sheet.
Two
of
the
plans,
I
believe,
actually
sheet.
Three,
if
you
like,
I
could
pass
out
the
aerial
too.
You
could
see
that
clearly,
there's
semis
and
trailers
on
the
site
and
they
didn't
appear
to
have
any
problems
negotiating
the
site.
J
Safford
and
for
premiers
is
at
least
200
feet
from
any
of
the
places
that
will
have
an
rv
or
boat.
That's
a
substantial
spatial
buffer,
and
that's
why
we
contend
that
a
six
foot
fence,
opaque
fence
on
the
e
on
the
west
boundary
is
adequate
and
an
eight
foot
fence
is
not
going
to
do
any
good,
it's
more
prone
to
be
knocked
down
during
a
severe
wind,
and
we
think
that
the
six
foot
fence
with
trees
and
and
other
types
of
vegetation
is
going
to
be
provide
adequate
buffering
from
the
motoring
public
on
safford.
J
As
far
as
mirrors
we're
planting
pine
trees
in
our
buffer
and
the
city
is
going
to
be
doing
a
beautification
plan
along
the
north
edge
of
safford
as
safford
is
completed,
and
we
think
that
plus
those
plantings
plus
a
spatial
buffer
from
the
traveling
public
on
the
road
of
mirrors
is
adequate.
People
aren't
going
to
be
seeing
an
eye
sore
as
they
drive
by.
J
Regarding
the
off-site
mitigation
selection,
our
environmental
scientists
had
discussions
with
swift
mud
first
off
the
swift
mud
issue
caught
us
all
by
surprise.
After
I
I
was
hired.
The
client
got
a
letter
from
epc,
saying
you
have
not
done
anything
about
the
violation
that
was
issued
to
the
previous
owner
and
we're
going
to
start
fines.
If
you
don't
start
a
plan
to
take
care
of
this
issue
and
we
go
wait
a
second.
J
J
I've
been
in
this
business
a
long
time
and
I've.
I've
never
had
a
client
do
that
kind
of
due
diligence.
It's
usually
usually
the
the
seller
brings
it
to
the
buyer's
attention,
but
in
this
instance
the
seller
did
not
do
that.
So
we've
inherited
a
problem
and
we're
working
through
it,
but
swiftmind
doesn't
want
in
in
general,
small,
piecemeal
wetland
mitigation
areas.
They're
difficult
to
maintain
splitpot
doesn't
want
thousands
and
thousands
of
mitigation
reports
coming
into
their
offices
every
quarter,
and
they
would
rather
have
these
larger
mitigation
sites.
J
If,
if
that
is,
is
appropriate
and
swift
mud
and
our
environmental
scientists
felt
like
it
was
appropriate
to
do
off-site
mitigation
and
we've
we've
tried
to
convince
the
city
that
this
is
the
best
way
and
we
didn't
know
that
they
were
still
upset
until
we
got
the
staff
report,
so
it
just
does
not
seem
feasible
to
have
off-site.
I
mean
on-site
mitigation
for
this
site.
D
H
Again,
rich
kelly
can.
H
490
kirkland
circle,
dunedin
florida,
three,
four,
six,
nine
eight
four
points
of
denial
pat
showed
on
that
slide
up
there.
Two
of
them
were
were
zoning
problems
that
that
basically
arise
because
you
don't
really
have
a
category
for
for
open
storage
to
fit
into
the
other.
Two
one
was
the
the
wetland
issue.
H
As
you
know,
it's
an
old
violation,
it's
probably
15
or
20
years
old.
So
it's
not
just
the
previous
owner.
It's
an
owner
from
that
long
ago
that
we're
being
stuck
with
because
they're
also
with
the
the
wetlands
should
be
where
it
is
now
not
way
up
there.
H
So
we're
asking
for
because
of
that,
we're
asking
for
a
little
levity
and
not
have
to
mitigate
on-site,
just
wouldn't
be
feasible,
that
much
area
to
mitigate
on-site
and
that's
why
another
reason
why
we
want
to
go,
buy
the
credits
and
the
other
one
was
the
parking
and
they've
touched
on
that
one
anyways.
We
have
the
seven
spaces.
If,
if
one
was
short,
it
goes
to
a
different
one
instead,
but
that's
the
long
and
short
of
it.
A
Does
the
board
have
any
questions.
H
E
That
said,
you
know
that's
doable
for
off-site
mitigation
credits,
but
that
wasn't
even
you
know,
I
don't
think
there
was
a
plan
presented
to
the
staff
with
regard
to
that.
F
F
We
did
get
one
response
at
one
point
that
said
on-site
wetland
creation
is
not
there's
no
room
for
it.
I
mean
you
know
a
biologist's
analysis
of
there's
no
mitigation
available
in
the
city.
We
couldn't
do
a
scrape
down
for
because
the
value
of
the
wetland
compensation
wasn't
gonna
work
because
of
how
many
acres
you
do
or
how
many
square
feet
you'd
have
to
create.
That's
what
we
were
looking
for
and
we
just
didn't
get
it
it.
They
may
be
perfectly.
F
H
And-
and
we
we
move
forward
from
this,
we
can
certainly
put
that
in
writing,
because
that's
exactly
the
long
and
short
of
it
other
than
you
know
we're
inheriting
somebody
else's
problem.
We
can't
do
anything
with
it
because
they
mentioned
that
that,
and
even
the
my
rental
has
tried
to
dig.
You
can't
get
through
that
to
find
out
what's
below
it
and
if
you
can't
get
through
it,
we
don't
know
if
it's
a
viable
source
of
of
available
mitigation.
E
All
had
a
chance
to
look
at
the
staff
recommendations
that
they've
listed.
E
H
The
14
points
I
I
believe,
we'd
accept
pretty
much
all
those
14
points.
I
know
one.
We
talked
about
an
eight-foot
fence
in
lieu
of
a
six-foot
fence
in
the
front
and
dave
touched
on
that
as
well
as
I
don't
think
that
extra
two
feet
is
going
to
do
anything
except
for
end
up
with
a
dilapidated
fence
in
a
few
years.
What
I
would
rather
see
is
is
maybe
even
a
second
row
of
of
taller.
H
Taller
vegetations
trees
that
were
put
in
there,
the
cypress
trees
there's
three
cypress
trees.
You
know
maybe
another
two
row
in
the
front:
instead
of
the
eight
foot
fence,
and
if
they
were
eight
feet
tall
they
would
be,
they
would
provide
a
better
screening,
better
looking
area
than
just
the
fence.
H
E
E
F
My
concern,
could
I
get
a
clarification
of
that,
so
you
said
I
have
the
six
foot
opaque
fence
go
along
mirrors.
Is
that
what
you're
saying
the
south
side.
E
Other
words,
wherever
the
road,
the
the
road
is
visible
from
the
driver
that
that
fence
be
be
installed.
They'll
pick
fence
can.
C
D
H
E
F
Staff
may
interject
staff
has
had
to
ask
that
if
they
do
fence
that
they
fence
along
the
parking
lot,
if
that's
acceptable,
that's
kind
of
what
we
would
like
to
see.
E
F
Along
the
the
applicant
has
fencing
proposed
at
the
borders
of
the
parking
lot
on
the
east
and
west
sides.
Staff
would
like
to
see
that
fence
continued
around
the
border
of
the
parking
lot
along
the
south
side,
because
the
property
line
may
be
in
wetlands.
I'm
not
sure
the
actual
property
line
is
is
what
the
status
of
it
is,
but
the
idea
is
to
screen
the
at
least
from
staff's
perspective.
The
storage,
so
there
will
be
the
applicant
also
will,
I
believe,
still
be
planting
the
upland
buffer
that
they
have
to
plant
for
water
management.
H
That's
correct,
which
would
be
outside
the
fence.
All
that
area
would
be
planted
between
the
stat,
the
the
mirrors
right
away
and
the
parking
yeah.
E
I,
in
other
words,
what
I'm,
what
I'm
saying
is:
there's
a
difference
between
a
fence
and
an
opaque
fence
at
a
minimum,
the
opaque
fence
along
safford
and
an
opaque
fence
along
mirrors,
because
you
have
to
fence
in
your
storage
facility.
Anyways
I
mean
that's,
I
think
that's
no
no-brainer
that
you
have
to
secure.
A
E
Pick
up
the
motion
mike
I'll
pick
up
the
motion:
okay,
the
staff
recommendations,
except
when
it
comes
to
to
fencing
that
the
the
property
be
fenced,
but
at
a
minimum,
there's
got
to
be
an
opaque
fence
along
the
safford
and
mirrors
corridor.
F
A
E
I
guess
the
only
deviation
for
me
was
the
the
height
of
the
fence.
E
K
A
I
still
have
some
concern
about
the
the
use
permitted
by
wright,
question
and
and
the
inconsistency
with
the
future
land
use
policy
and
coastal
management
policy.
Those
as
well.
E
D
D
Okay,
I'm
not
gonna,
disagree,
I'm
just
gonna
read:
what's
there
does
not
comply
with
a
wetland
mitigation
analysis
requirement,
she
said:
hey,
we
want
a
b
and
l
has
a
last
resort
c
and
they
went
right
to
c
and
said
nah.
We
just
too
tough
to
do
that
other
thing
and
I'm
completely
understand
the
situation.
I
don't
know
how
to
say
I'm
empathetic.
D
As
someone
in
the
construction
industry,
I
often
meet
homeowners
that
are
they're
new
homeowners
that
are
burdened
with
homes
that
had
work
that
was
unpermitted
or
as
in
violation
or
and
they
didn't
ask,
and
the
people
didn't
tell
it's
unfortunate.
It
happens
all
the
time.
It's
out
there.
It's
just
how
the
world
works
and
just
to
say
it's
too
tough.
E
E
Have
nothing
that
in
our
that
satisfies,
or
in
our
in
our
development
plan,
that
that
allows
the
type
of
use?
Am
I
correctly
if.
D
D
Without
I
don't
I
I
I
would
politely
disagree
if
this
was
for
a
warehouse
or
for
intensive
business
as
it's
intended
this
we
wouldn't
be
having
this
discussion,
but
they
want
to
put
rv
storage
a
place
where
it's
not
really
allowed.
Oh
that's
the
end.
Those
are
my
concerns.
I
would
agree
that
I
think
it's
kind
of
black
and
white.
F
Boat
and
rv
storage
is
not
specifically
called
out
anywhere
in
the
code,
so
the
reason
that
staff
likened
this
to
a
warehouse
or
a
mini
warehouse
is
because
you
have
people
that
are
leaving
an
item
there
and
they
would
come
back
and
obviously
get
it
to
use
it.
Take
it
out,
just
like
a
mini
storage
facility
there.
Obviously
we,
you
know,
we've
coordinated
with
the
applicant
people,
aren't
going
to
be
doing
work
on
the
rvs
or
washing
the
rvs
on
site,
or
any
of
that.
F
F
Yeah
so
I
mean
and
yeah
so
so
this
was
allowed
to
be
reviewed
by
wright,
because
the
basically
the
facilities
and
activity
impacts-
weren't,
really,
you
know,
really
are
comparable
to
a
warehouse
where
staff
runs
runs
into
issues
is
just
the
neighborhood
compatibility
of
you
know
the
conditions
that
are
that
are
proposed
in
on
the
site.
E
J
E
F
No
notice
to
the
public
other
than
your
agenda.
F
Requirement
to
for
them
to
go
through
those
seven
criteria,
one
of
them,
which
is
compatibility
with
the
neighborhood.
The
compatibility
issue
comes
in
here,
because
the
comprehensive
plan
wants
outdoor
storage
and
commercial
general
to
be
compatible
with
the
neighborhood.
So
that's
why
that
issue
has
been
introduced.
It's
not
taken
on
its
face
in
this
commercial
general
category
that
an
outdoor
storage
type
uses
immediately
compatible
with
the
neighborhood
as
it
would
normally
be.
A
warehouse
is
a
good
example
of
something
that's
allowed
by
right.
It's
enclosed!
F
F
Yes,
so
what
we've
done
is
if
you
would
like
to
approve
this
as
presented
by
the
applicant.
These
are
the
recommended
conditions
that
address
some
of
the
outstanding
issues
and
some
of
the
compatibility
issues
you
can,
you
can
add
to
these,
take
some
away
change
them,
whatever
you'd
like
to
recommend,
if
you're
looking
at
an
approval,
so.
E
F
D
D
J
A
A
All
right
item
number
five
rules
of
procedure.
It's
a
resolution
approving
the
change
of
our
meeting
time
from
7
p.m,
to
6
30
p.m.
Can
we
have
a
quick
staff
report.
F
D
F
Yes,
so
your
next
meeting
is
actually
on
march
28th,
just
a
reminder:
you
were
bumped
a
week
ahead
by
the
board
of
commissioners
and
that
will
start
at
6.
30.
and
second
item
is.
We
did
have
a
request
from
mr
seaman
for
a
planning
zoning
board
workshop,
and
so
we
would
be
looking
at
april
at
the
earliest
to
set
a
a
date
for
a
workshop,
and
I
wanted
to
get
you
all's
feedback
on
whether
you
could.
F
F
Okay,
we
could
use
that
or
or
one
of
the
conference
rooms.
So
would
you
like
to
talk
about
potential
dates
today
this
evening,
or
would
you
like
to
just
email
me
or
I
could
email
you
a
list
of
available
dates
that
other
boards
are
not
meeting?
That
would
be
open
and
I
think
you
were
going
to
ask
whether
a
daytime
or
an
evening
meeting
was
preferred.
A
I
think
that
was
the
one
thing
we
do
need
to
ask
for
sure
is,
since
this
is
a
one-time
thing
for
the
benefit
of
staff.
If
it
could
be
daytime,
they
wouldn't
have
to
have
another
nighttime
meeting
in
that
case,
but
but
if,
if
anybody
can't
be
there
for
a
one-time
daytime
meeting,
we'll
we'll
have
to
do
it
at
night.
F
A
To
be
able
to
maybe
make
some
changes
in
in
our
ordinances
to
to
avoid
some
of
the
things
we've
had
problems
with
in
the
future.
E
F
F
Yes,
there
will
be,
I
think,
what's
happening
right
now.
Is
that
we're
kind
of
regrouping
I
think
we'll
be
coming
back
to
some
of
the
individual.
You
know
boards
individually
and
frankly,
I
think
part
of
the
strategy
now
is
to
slow
down
at
least
for
a
month
or
so,
and
wait
for
the
election
to
play
out
so
that
we
can
get
people
focused,
and
you
know
that's
kind
of
the
feeling
we
got
from
from
all
the
workshops,
including
the
public
workshop
we
held
that
saturday
was
was
just
to
regroup.
F
You
know
talk
with
some
of
you,
you
and
any
other
board,
some
individually
and
and
approach
it.
That
way.
So
we've
gone
back
to
the
consultant.
We've
expressed
kind
of
yeah,
our
feeling
on
how
those
went
and
hopefully
we'll
be
getting
a
revised
kind
of
new
strategy
to
to
tackle
those
again.
We,
we
did
get
a
lot
of
good
feedback
and
comments
from
those
workshops
and
that
will
be
used
so
but.
A
B
Oh
and
one
final
question:
will
the
city
furnish.