[CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:05]
US. JORDAN'S WOULD YOU LIKE TO REAL CALL? OR DO YOU WANT TO STAND FOR THE PLEDGE? FIRST WE CAN DO REAL CALLED. OKAY, LET'S CALM AND WILL STAND. CHARLIE GREEN HERE. VICE CHAIR, BROWNFIELD. BOARD MEMBER RICH MEMBER STRONG, REMEMBER MASSING REMEMBER MATTERS HERE. REMEMBER BY TALLY. RIGHT NOW, EVERYONE, LET'S STAND FOR THE PLEDGE. ALLEGEDLY. OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. VIRGINIA WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE
[APPROVAL OF AGENDA]
AGENDA. MOVE APPROVAL HAVE A 2ND 2ND. ALL IN FAVOR. ALRIGHT, ANY OPPOSED? FANTASTIC DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON NON AGENDA ITEMS? OKAY? ANY VIRTUAL COMMENTS GREAT. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS ON NON AGENDA. OKAY, GREAT. UM THE FIRST ITEM, WHICH I AM TO READ[1.
CPUD AMENDMENT TO INCORPORATE AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR AS AN ALLOWED USE (RC)(QUASI-JUDICIAL):
ORDINANCE 2475-2021; AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE CENTURY PLAZA COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CPUD) LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF U.S. HIGHWAY ONE NORTH OF ITS INTERSECTION WITH CENTRAL PARKWAY TO ALLOW AUTOMOBILE REPAIR SERVICES, MAJOR, ON PARCELS 2 THROUGH 5 OF THE CPUD; PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENTS AND CONDITIONS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
]CORRECT. FULL ITEM, OKAY? IS CPU D AMENDMENT TO INCORPORATE AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR AS AN ALLOW IT USE QUASI JUDICIAL ORDINANCE 2475-20 TO 1. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE CENTURY PLAZA COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF U. S HIGHWAY, ONE NORTH OF ITS INTERSECTION. WITH CENTRAL PARKWAY TO ALLOW AUTOMOBILE REPAIR SERVICES MAJOR ON PARCEL TWO THROUGH FIVE OF THE CPU D, PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN DEVELOPMENTAL DOCUMENTS AND CONDITIONS, PROVIDING FIRST.SEVERABILITY PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. OKAY UM DO THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY EXPORTED COMMUNICATIONS TO DISCLOSE. OKAY, GREAT. UM CITY ATTORNEY DO YOU NEED TO PLACE ANY WITNESSES UNDER OATH? LIKE THAT GENTLEMAN.
OKAY THANK YOU. WELL, THE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLEASE PROVIDE A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE AGENDA ITEM, INCLUDING THE LOCATION SIZE OF THE PROPERTY. CURRENT ZONING ZONING REQUESTED UNLESS THE APPLICANTS REQUEST TO DEVIATE FROM THE LAND USE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. YOU SHOULD INCLUDE A SUMMARY OF THE POSITION OF THE INTERVENER IN THE INTERVENER WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CLARIFY DURING THE PRESENTATION. HELLO, MADAM CHAIR ERIN WILLETT CO. WITH DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. THE REQUEST BEFORE YOU IS TO AMEND THE CENTURY PLAZA COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT BY PROVIDING AN AMENDMENT TO THE BEAUTY AGREEMENT TO ALLOW AUTOMOBILE REPAIR SERVICES MAJOR ON PARCELS TWO THROUGH FIVE AS THE C P U. T. THE CENTURY PLAZA CPD WAS APPROVED IN 1990. THERE HAVE BEEN MANY SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS AMENDMENTS TO THE CPU D, BOTH FOR A REVISION OF THE PD AGREEMENT AND FOR THE TIMETABLE OF DEVELOPMENT. THE CURRENT PERMITTED USES LIST FOR PARCELS 1234 AND FIVE DOES NOT CURRENTLY INCLUDE AUTOMOBILE REPAIR SERVICES. AND ON PARCEL SIX AND THE ONLY PERMITTED USES FOR THE SUBURBAN LODGE FACILITY, WHICH IS A HOTEL MOTEL. THE PROJECT ZONING FOR THE CPU. D IS ZONING AS A COMMERCIAL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT. FUTURE LAND LEASES COMMERCIAL. THE PREVIOUS USE WAS THE GOODWILL STEWART STORE AND DONATION CENTER. AND THE EXISTING USE IS VACANT COMMERCIAL. GOODWILL LEFT THE PROPERTY AND RELOCATED SOMETIME LAST YEAR. AND THE TWO MAPS THAT YOU SEE IN FRONT OF YOU ARE THE ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP. THE ZONING MAP YOU CAN SEE ABOVE IS INDUSTRIAL LAND. AND THE PINK ON OUR AS A COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FROM THE YELLOW IS R THREE THAT YELLOW THAT YOU SEE IN THE BOTTOM LEFT HAND CORNER OF THE ZONING MAP IS THE TOWN PARK CONDOMINIUMS. AND FOR FUTURE LAND USE, YOU SEE A MIX OF INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FUTURE LAND USES.
[00:05:04]
IN TERMS OF PROJECT INFORMATION LIKE I HAD STATED BEFORE, THERE'S A MIX OF INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL AND MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES. THIS IS THE SITE SURVEY. THE PREVIOUS GOODWILL WHICH IS THE BUILDING AND PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THIS AMENDMENT ON IS LOCATED ON FOUR PARCELS. THE SUBURBAN LODGE IS TO THE SOUTH. THE VACANT BANK BUILDING, WHICH IS CURRENTLY BEING RETROFITTED TO BE A CURE LEAF MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES TO THE SOUTHEAST AND DIRECTLY TO THE WEST IS THE PRESERVE TRACKED FOR THE BEAUTY. THIS IS THE PROJECT SITE INFORMATION THAT WAS SUBMITTED FOR THEIR PROPOSAL AND THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO UTILIZE THE EXISTING BUILDING. UM THEY'RE PLANNING TO GET OFF. THE WESTERN PARKING AREA FROM THE PORTICO SHARE WESTWARD TO THE PRESERVE AREA NORTH AND THEN CONNECTS AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE BUILDING. THEY'RE PROPOSING ON RELOCATING A COUPLE OF SHRUBS WHERE NEW ROLL UP GARAGE DOORS WILL BE LOCATED, THAT I'LL SHOW YOU ON. THE ELEVATIONS. THE APPLICANT HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT THEY MEET THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS BY PROVIDING 59 SPACES WHERE 55 ARE REQUIRED. IN TERMS OF ARCHITECTURAL MODIFICATIONS. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING THE ADDITION OF ROLL UP GARAGE DOORS . THE ADDITION OF SPAN DRILL WINDOWS A SIX FT TALL, GALVANIZED CHAIN LINK FENCE WITH BLACK PVC PRIVACY SLATS, WHICH IS WHAT I HAD MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY. WITH A DOUBLE ENTRY, EXIT GATE AND ROLLING SLIDING ENTRY EXIT GATE, THE RELOCATION OF BUSHES AND NEW PAINT COLORS. STOP HAS ANALYZED THIS APPLICATION. THE FIRST ISSUE THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION IS THAT THE APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED BY THE CONTRACT PURCHASER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. SPECIFICALLY SAM BAIRD, THE CEO OF SIGNS ON BEHALF OF COLLISION CRAFT. THE CITY'S CODE REQUIRES THAT A COMPLETED APPLICATION SHALL BE SIGNED BY ALL OWNERS OR THEIR AGENT OF THE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THE PROPOSAL. A NOTARIZED SIGNATURES BY OTHER PARTIES WILL BE ACCEPTED ONLY WITH NOTARIZED PROOF OF AUTHORIZATION BY THE OWNERS. IN A CASE OF CORPORATE OWNERSHIP. THE AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED BY A NOTATION OF THE SIGNERS OFFICE IN THE CORPORATION AND EMBOSSED WITH THE CORPORATE SEAL. IN ADDITION TO THE APPLICANT BEING SIGNED BY THE CONTRACT, PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY, UM THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE CPD DID NOT SIGN THE APPLICATION. HOWEVER, THE PRESIDENT. OF THE CENTURY PLAZA PIO A SUBMITTED A LETTER TO THE CITY THAT STATES THAT THE BOARD VOTED UNANIMOUSLY IN FAVOR OF THE ASSOCIATION GRANTING ITS CONSENT TO THE APPLICATION.BASED ON A SUPER MAJORITY OF THE SHAREHOLDERS, MEMBERS OF THE ASSOCIATION. THE VOTE FURTHER GRANTED AND AUTHORIZED THE PRESIDENT OF THE ASSOCIATION TO SIGN AND PROVIDE THE LETTER TO THE CITY AS WELL EXECUTE ANY OTHER NECESSARY DOCUMENTS IN ORDER TO AMEND THE PEUT TO ALLOW AUTO REPAIR SERVICES. AS AN ADDITIONAL PERMITTED USE ON PARCELS TWO THROUGH FIVE INCLUSIVE. ADDITIONALLY AS A PART OF STAFFS ANALYSIS, WE LOOKED AT THE AUTOMOBILE REPAIR SERVICES MAJOR AND MINOR USE IN SECTION 2.2 POINT. OH, TWO TABLE TWO OF THE LAND YOU SAYS.
AUTOMOBILE REPAIR SERVICES ARE ALLOWED THROUGH THE CITY COMMISSION. PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS IN A C P U. T, WHICH IS THE ZONING DESIGNATION FOR THIS PROPERTY. STAFF HAS INCLUDED WITHIN THE AGENDA WITHIN THE ORDINANCE AND RIGHT HERE ON THE PRESENTATION, SOME DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, UM. THE FIRST IS A CODE SECTION THAT THE YOU SHALL BE CONDUCTED WITHIN A FULLY ENCLOSED BUILDING. UM ANOTHER IS THAT VEHICLES ARE NOT PERMITTED TO BE PARKED WITHIN THE FENCED AREA AFTER BUSINESS HOURS. OUTDOOR STORAGE IS PROHIBITED ON THE PROPERTY. THE ROLL UP DOOR SHALL REMAIN CLOSE AT ALL TIMES, EXCEPT ONE. VEHICLES MUST ENTER AND. LEAVE THE SERVICE PHASE. VEHICLES ARE PROHIBITED TO BE SERVICED, CLEANED OR STORED UNDERNEATH THE PORTICO SHARE A UNITY OF TITLE BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO FIRST CEO. AND THEN SOME OTHER CODE SECTIONS IN REGARDS TO SOUND IN REGARDS TO PERMITS. UM IN REGARDS TO STORMWATER.
LIMITATIONS IN REGARDS TO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. AND THAT ANY EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE, SIDEWALK OR PRIVATE PROPERTY THAT'S DAMAGED DRINK CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE CEO. FURTHERMORE ACCORDING TO SECTION 11.1 POINT 10, A OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, ANY MINOR AMENDMENT OR TO A PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED PEUT ZONING ORDINANCE, INCLUDING BOTH CONDITIONS AND PEUT AGREEMENTS. SHALL BE PROCESSED IS AS IF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS A NEW REZONING APPLICATION. SO IN FRONT OF YOU ARE THE CRITERIA FOR REZONING THAT THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY SHALL CONSIDER IF APPLICABLE, THE EXISTING LAND
[00:10:02]
USE PATTERN, THE POSSIBLE CREATION OF AN ISOLATED DISTRICT. THE POPULATION DENSITY PATTERN. THE POSSIBLE OVERLOADING OF THE CITY'S SEWAGE COLLECTED COLLECTION, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL FACILITIES, THE POSSIBLE OVERLOADING OF THE CITY'S DRAINAGE SYSTEM. THE EXISTING DISTRICT BOUNDARIES FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE EXISTENCE OF CHANGED OR CHANGING CONDITIONS, WHICH MAKE THE PASSAGE OF THE PROPOSED USE NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE, THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED USE UPON LIVING CONDITIONS AND THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOOD. THE IMPACT OF THE USE UPON THE FLOW OF LIGHT AND AIR TO ADJACENT AREAS. THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED USE UPON PROPERTY VALUES THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED USE UPON IMPROVEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF ADJACENT PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH EXISTING REGULATIONS AND THE EXISTENCE OF OTHER ADEQUATE SITES IN THE CITY FOR THE PROPOSED USE IN DISTRICTS ALREADY PERMITTING SUCH USE. WE DO HAVE AN INTERVENER, WHICH HAS RAISED. A TOTAL OF THREE ISSUES WITH THIS LETTER. THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY ON NOVEMBER 5TH. THE FIRST ISSUE WAS THAT THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE PROCESSED AS A MAJOR BEAUTY AMENDMENT. THE APPLICATION WAS ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED AS A MINOR PEUT AMENDMENT. THIS HAS SINCE BEEN RECTIFIED. UM THE ADDITIONAL FEE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE CITY AS WELL AS THE REVISED APPLICATION. AND IS BEING PROCESSED AS A MAJOR BEAUTY AMENDMENT. THE SECOND ISSUE IS PERMITTING AUTO CARE SERVICES. MAJOR WILL DISTURB THE CUSTOMERS AT THE SUBURBAN LODGE EXTENDED STAY HOTEL AND IS DISRUPTIVE AND CONSISTENT WITH AND INAPPROPRIATE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE LONGSTANDING PRIOR USES WITHIN THE BEAUTY. AND THREE THE APPLICATION FAILS TO COMPLY WITH SECTION 11.1 OF THE LDC AS IT HAS NOT BEEN SIGNED BY ALL OWNERS OR THEIR AGENT OF THE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THE PROPOSAL. THE LETTER STATES THAT THE APPLICANT DID NOT INCLUDE THE SIGNATURE OF STEWART HILLS AND INSTEAD INCLUDED A LETTER FROM THE THAT WAY. THE APPLICANT HAS GIVEN PUBLIC NOTICE. AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY REVIEW THE EVIDENCE AND CRITERIA FOR THE CPU. THE AMENDMENT, WHICH WAS THE REZONING CRITERIA, I PREVIOUSLY STATED TESTIMONY FROM THE APPLICANT AND INTERVENER AND RECEIPT OF PUBLIC COMMENT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY, I'LL YIELD TO THE PETITIONER. THANK YOU TYSON WATERS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER. FOX MCCLOSKEY YEARS. I WANT TO THANK STAFF. WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THEM ACTUALLY, SINCE APRIL ON THIS PROJECT. JOB WE APPRECIATE GREAT PRESENTATION, GIVING AN OVERVIEW. WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO DO. JUST A COUPLE OF DOCUMENTS THAT I HAVE FIRST.IMPORTANT SO I THINK WE'RE DOWN TO REALLY TWO ISSUES THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH. ONE IS COMPATIBILITY WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA. AND THEN TO THIS ISSUE OF AUTHORITY, WHICH I THINK AT THE END OF THE DAY BECOMES KIND OF A LARGER ISSUE THAT WILL SPEND MORE TIME ON DISCUSSING I THINK THE COMPATIBILITY ISSUE. I DON'T REALLY THINK THERE IS ONE. ONCE YOU LOOK AT ALL THE FACTS AND WHERE THIS PROJECT IS LOW. IT'S LOCATED RIGHT ON FEDERAL HIGHWAY . SO YOUR MAJOR THOROUGHFARE IN THE CITY OF STEWART. HAS FRONTAGE ON ON FEDERAL HIGHWAY.
SEE INTENSE DEVELOPMENT ALL AROUND. THE NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS THE FUTURE LAND USE, NOT KIND OF BLOWN OUT SO YOU CAN SEE A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN WHAT THE CITY SHOWED YOU IN THEIR THEIR PRESENTATION. RED YOU CAN SEE OUR PROPERTY OUTLINED IN BLACK. THE RED IS COMMERCIAL. GREAT IS INDUSTRIAL. THIS PROPERTY ABUTS INDUSTRIAL LANDS IN THE NORTH IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF THEM. THEY ALREADY HAVE A CAR. I BELIEVE A CAR REPAIR SHOP, MARINE WAREHOUSE AND OTHER. HE SAYS ACROSS THE STREET, AS YOU PROBABLY KNOW, FROM LOOKING AT THE AERIAL REALLY INTENSE. AND THEN THROUGHOUT, UP AND DOWN. A HIGHWAY ARE COMMERCIAL USES. THE BLUE AND THE BACK IS A MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. IMPORTANT WALK UP HERE TRYING. THE WESTERN EDGE OF MY BLACK LINE. IS WHAT APPEARS TO BE ANOTHER PARCEL BEFORE. SEX THAT'S ACTUALLY 100 FT.
LANDSCAPE BUFFER, AND IF YOU EVER BACK IN THAT AREA, IT'S PRETTY DENSE LANDSCAPE BUFFER.
SO EVEN THOUGH WE'VE BOUGHT MULTI FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS. THERE'S A LARGE BUFFER BETWEEN THE TWO AND WHERE THE EXISTING BUILDINGS LOCATED LOCATED BETWEEN THE EXISTING GOODWILL CENTER, WHICH IS GOING TO BE THE NEW. AIR CENTER AND THE FRONT OF THE MULTI FAMILY.
IT'S APPROXIMATELY 230 FT, SO THERE'S A LOT OF SPACE BETWEEN THE TWO USES. IF YOU WANT TO GO TO THE NEXT ONE. THIS IS THE ZONING MAP AGAIN BLOWN OUT A LITTLE BIT MORE TO SEE THAN WHAT THE CITY SHOWED YOU. WHAT IT SHOWS YOU IS THE ZONING FOR THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AGAIN
[00:15:03]
IMMEDIATELY. NORTH THIS PROPERTL ZONE PROPERTIES. YOU SEE IF THE KIND OF THE LIGHT PINK CPU DS, WHICH. AUTO REPAIRS AREN'T ALLOWABLE USE KIND OF THROUGH THIS PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS. AND THEN EVERYTHING ELSE IN RED IS B TWO AND AUTO REPAIR SALES. AUTO REPAIRS ISN'T ALLOWABLE USE IN THOSE ZONING DISTRICT. SO AGAIN, WE'RE IN THE HEART OF THIS PRETTY INTENSE. AREA RIGHT ON FEDERAL HIGHWAY, MOST OF WHICH ALLOWS WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR, SO IT'S VERY COMPATIBLE WITH OUR SURROUNDING AREAS. THE REQUEST TODAY. IS TO MODIFY THE USE ON PARCELS TWO THROUGH FIVE. THOSE PARCELS. WHAT SUBJECT TO THIS APPLICATION. WE HAVE NO RECOMMENDATION OR REQUEST TO CHANGE PARCEL ONE. AND NO REQUEST TO RECOMMENDATION TO CHANGE PARCEL SIX. ONLY PARCEL THAT SUBJECT TO THIS APPLICATION. PARCELS TWO THROUGH FIVE. WHICH IS AS STAFF PRESENTED IS GOING TO BE UNDER A UNITY A TITLE AND THAT'S THAT'S IMPORTANT FOR PART TWO OF THIS CONVERSATION. AGAIN I TALKED ABOUT KIND OF TWO OF THOSE PICTURES. A LOT OF THE PATIL, MISS OF THE AREA. US ONE ADJACENT TO INDUSTRIAL ADJACENT IN PART OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON A HIGH, INTENSE HIGH TRAFFIC AREA, RIGHT WHERE YOU WANT THIS TYPE OF USE. AND I THINK WHAT'S IMPORTANT IS, I THINK IN AND OF ITSELF. THIS USES COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREAS. BUT AS ADDITIONAL PROTECTION AND ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE. WE'VE AGREED AND AS PART OF THIS PD, THERE'S A NUMBER OF CONDITIONS THAT STAFF WENT OVER THAT FURTHER RESTRICT AND PROTECT, PROTECT, NOT JUST OUR NEIGHBORS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT, BUT ALL OF THE SURROUNDING AREAS. ALL OF THE OPERATIONS ARE GOING TO BE FULL. THANK ALL OF THEM. THANK YOU. ALL OF THE OPERATIONS ARE GOING TO BE FULLY INDOORS, SO THE REPAIR WORK. IT'S NOT GOING TO BE OUTSIDE IN THE PARKING LOT. IT'S GOING TO BE INSIDE. WITHIN THE BUILDING. THE VEHICLES ARE NOT PERMITTED TO BE PARKED WITHIN THE FENCED AREAS AFTER BUSINESS HOURS. SO THIS IS A TYPICAL BUSINESS, SO YOUR HOURS ARE. 7 38 TO 5 36 O'CLOCK. WHEN IT CLOSES DOWN. THOSE VEHICLES ARE NOT NOT ALLOWED TO BE PARKED IN THE PARKING AREAS. OUTDOOR STORAGE IS PROHIBITED.THE ROLLED UP DOORS TO REMAIN CLOSED, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF VEHICLES ENTERING AND LEAVING BASE, SO EVERYTHING'S GOING TO BE OPERATED ON AND REPAIRED INSIDE IN A CLOSED FACILITY, SO THE ONLY TIME YOU'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO SEE INSIDE THE BUILDINGG INTO THE SHOP AND OUT OF THE SHOP. ALL OF THE WORKS OTHERWISE GOING TO BE IN A CLOSED FACILITY , SO PASSER BYES WHETHER IT'S FEDERAL HIGHWAY MORE ALONG THIS ROAD TO ACCESS STEWART LODGE OR THE OTHER FACILITY THAT'S COMING IN THERE. THEY WON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON INSIDE THE PROPERTY. NO VEHICLES MAY BE SERVICED OR CLEARED AND THE DRIVE THRU AREA SO THIS GOODWILL KIND OF IN THE BACK OF AN AREA WHERE YOU COULD DRIVE THROUGH AND DROP OFF CLOTHES THAT'S NOT CONSIDERED INDOORS, SO NO WORK CAN BE PREPARED. NO WORK CAN BE DONE WITHIN THAT AREA, EITHER. AND THEN ALL NOISE MUST COMPLY WITH COATS. SO EVEN THOUGH WE'RE INSIDE A CLOSED FACILITY, WE STILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH ALL OF YOUR NOISE ORDINANCES. AND AGAIN WE'RE ONLY GONNA BE OPERATING DURING NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS, SO HOTEL GUESTS. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE DISTURBED WHEN THEY'RE IN THEIR UNIT AT NIGHT OR IN THE MORNING. SO I THINK WITH WITH ALL OF THESE WITH THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT AND ALL OF THESE DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS THAT WE'VE AGREED TO, AS PART OF THIS P U D I THINK WE'RE CERTAINLY DEMONSTRATED THAT WERE COMPATIBLE WITH THE AREA. IT'S APPROPRIATE USE WITH THEN. IN THIS PARCEL RIGHT ON US ONE. I THINK WE'VE SATISFIED ALL OF THOSE CONDITIONS THAT STAFF HAS TOLD YOU TO LOOK AT. AND NOW WE GO TO, PERHAPS THE MORE IMPORTANT ISSUE AND THE BIGGER ISSUE IN THIS ROOM, AND I HONESTLY THINK IT APPLIES NOT JUST OF THIS PROJECT BUT KIND OF MOVING FORWARD ON OTHER PROJECTS TO THIS ISSUE AS STAFF POINTS OUT THAT. AND APPLICATIONS REQUIRED TO BE SIGNED BY ALL OWNERS OR THEIR AGENT OF THE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THE PROPOSAL. THAT'S THE IMPORTANT WORD SUBJECT TO THE PROPOSAL. ONLY PARCELS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO THIS PROPOSAL. THE ONLY PARCELS THAT ARE GOING TO BE CHANGED BASED ON THIS PROPOSAL PARCELS 234 AND FIVE WHICH ARE OWNED BY THE APPLE. PARCELS ONE PARCEL SIX ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THIS THIS PROPERTY. I DON'T DISPUTE THAT THEY MIGHT BE AFFECTED BY IT. BUT THAT'S WHY WE DID NOTICE.
THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD. THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO INTERVENE SO YOU CAN PARTICIPATE IN BUT TO SAY THIS PROJECT CANNOT MOVE FORWARD BECAUSE OF ANOTHER PROPER. THAT'S WITHIN THE SAME DEVELOPMENT BUT NOT SUBJECT TO THIS PROPOSAL NOT DIRECTLY AFFECTED AND GOING TO BE CHANGED BY THIS PROPOSAL HAS TO SIGN OFF. I THINK IT'S INCREDIBLE AND REALLY WILL HAVE A CHILLING EFFECT ON OTHER DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE CITY THAT HAVE MARCHED MULTIPLE PARCELS WITH. APPROXIMATELY TWO YEARS AGO, I WAS IN FRONT OF
[00:20:04]
THIS BOARD AS WELL AS THE CITY COMMISSION TO AMEND THAT DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS WITHIN THE HARBOR RIDGE. IT WAS MY CLIENT WHO OWNED ONE LOT, ONE OUT PARCEL AND THE ASSOCIATION THAT WE WERE THE APPLICANT AND WE MOVE FORWARD. HAD WE BEEN REQUIRED TO OBTAIN THE 130 UNIT OWNERS? WITHIN THE HARVARD IT NEVER WOULD HAVE HAPPENED. EVEN THERE'S NO WAY THAT I COULD BUY ONE GET 130 PEOPLE TO AGREE WITH ME, LET ALONE TRACK 130 PEOPLE DOWN TO GET THEM TO SIGN AN APPLICATION THAT CAN'T BE THE INTENT OF THIS. THE INTENT IS IF YOU'RE GOING TO CHANGE SOMEONE'S LAND. THEY HAVE TO PARTICIPATE. THEY HAVE TO SIGN OFF. THAT'S WHAT IT HAS TO BE, AND THAT'S WHAT WE BELIEVE IT IS. EVERYONE THAT WAS AFFECTED. EVERYONE AFFECTED IN THE HARBOR BRIDGE CERTAINLY WAS ABLE TO ATTEND BECAUSE THEY WERE GIVEN NOTICE. THEY WERE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD AND SPEAK. BUT THEY WEREN'T REQUIRED TO BE AN APPLICANT BECAUSE THEIR PARCELS THEIR UNITS WERE NOT THE SUBJECT OF WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO CHANGE. AND TAKE IT EVEN A STEP.I GUESS EVEN A CLOSER STEP TO THIS. HAD MY CLIENTS DECIDED. YOU KNOW WHAT? WE'RE GOING TO JUST CHANGE THIS TO A BANK, SO WE DON'T NEED TO MODIFY THE PERMITTED USES. BUT WE'D LIKE TO MAKE THE PROPERTY A LITTLE BIT PRETTY. SO WE'RE GONNA WE'RE GONNA SPRUCE UP THE BUILDING A LITTLE BIT, AND WE'RE GOING TO ADD MORE LANDSCAPE. SOUNDS LIKE A GREAT IDEA. I DON'T KNOW WHO WOULD BE OPPOSED TO THAT. BUT FOR ME TO DO THAT I HAVE TO AMEND MY PD. I HAVE TO AMEND THE PEUT TO GET LANDSCAPE PLAN APPROVAL AS WELL AS THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL. WELL, GUESS WHAT? UNDER THIS INTERPRETATION. I CAN'T DO THAT. AND THAT'S THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THIS SUBDIVISION WITHIN THIS DEVELOPMENT, SIGN OFF AND AGREE TO DO IT. SO NOW I'M HELD CAPTIVE EVEN FOR THE SMALLEST THING IF I WANT TO AMEND THESE APPROVALS. BECAUSE I MIGHT HAVE ONE PROPERTY OWNER THAT SAYS YOU KNOW WHAT? NO OR I MIGHT HAVE A PROPERTY OWNER THAT'S IN EUROPE CAN'T TOUCH BASE WITH THEM, AND I CAN'T GET THEM TO SIGN AND I CAN'T MOVE FORWARD TO MAKE THE SMALLEST MODIFICATION. THAT'S THE CHILLING EFFECT WE'RE GOING TO DEAL WITH. IT HAS TO BE AND I THINK THE APPROPRIATE INTERPRETATION IS IF YOU'RE ASKING TO CHANGE SOMEONE'S PROPERTY CHANGED THE USES CHANGED THE SITE PLAN CHANGE WHATEVER ON THAT PROPERTY.
THAT'S WHEN THEY HAVE TO BE A PARTY TO THE APPLICATION, AND THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE HERE. WE'RE ONLY ASKING YOU TO CHANGE PROCESS 234 AND FIVE YOU'VE GOT THE APPLICANT IN FRONT OF YOU.
YOU'VE GOT THE APPLICANT. THAT SIGNED THE APPLICATION. YOU'VE GOT A NEIGHBOR THAT WAS PROVIDED NOTICE AND THEY'RE HERE TO PARTICIPATE, BUT TO SAY THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD ON ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OR ISSUES WITH THIS SITE. BECAUSE WE'VE GOT A NEIGHBOR THAT REFUSES TO SIGN AND PARTICIPATE IN ANYTHING. I THINK THAT CANNOT BE THE WAY THAT WE MOVE FORWARD. AGAIN I THINK THE PUBLIC PURPOSES NET BY ALLOWING PEOPLE TO PARTICIPATE THE PUBLIC PURPOSE AND THE BETTERMENT OF THIS CITY IS NOT MET BY REQUIRING EVERY SINGLE OWNER AND DEVELOPMENT TO SIGN OFF ON. CATION WENT, THEIR PROPERTY IS NOT SUBJECT TO THAT CHANGE. WITH THAT. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DO ANY OF THE MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE AFRICAN. OKAY? URGES THE INTERVENER HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. NO QUESTION. OKAY SO INTERVENER YOU MAY NOW PRESENT. I DO. IT'S VERY HELPFUL. THANK YOU SO MUCH. I'M SCOTT TANAKA. I'M AN ATTORNEY WITH RAJIC LAW. I AM HERE TO REPRESENT THE INTERVENER, WHO IS JOINED BY THEIR MANAGER TODAY. LEWIS DUTY. AND SO. THE INTERVENER IS A NEIGHBOR AND IS ONE OF THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE SUBJECT TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. THE CPU D. AND SO. WE DO OBJECT TO THIS PROPOSAL BECAUSE IT VIOLATES THE CODE OF THE CITY. IT HAS NOT BEEN SIGNED BY THE OWNERS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO THE CHANGE IN THE P U. D THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE REAL MEANING OF PROPERTY, SUBJECT TO THE CHANGE THAT IS THE OWNERS OF THE C P U D THAT IS BEING CHANGED BY YOUR PROPOSED CHANGE IN THE ORDINANCE FOR YOUR RECOMMENDATION, SO IT'S ANOMALOUS TO SAY THAT THIS POTENTIAL. REQUESTED APPLICATION ONLY ONLY AFFECTS AND ONLY CHANGES AND ONLY MAKE SUBJECT TO THE CHANGE THESE PROPERTIES THAT ARE REPRESENTED BY THE OWNERS HERE TODAY IT CHANGES THE CPU D THAT HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR DECADES. BET CPU D HAS A MASTER PLAN THAT ALL OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS AGREED TO THAT MASTER PLAN HAS SPECIFIC USES THAT ARE PERMITTED THAT ALL OF THE OWNERS RELIED UPON AND AGREED UPON AND MADE THEIR INVESTMENTS WHEN THEY PURCHASE THEIR PROPERTY. MY CLIENT PURCHASED A SIGNIFICANT ASSET HAS SPENT A LOT OF MONEY UP, KEEPING IT. AND UPGRADING IT. AND IT IS A VERY NICE EXTENDED STAY HOTEL AND THAT WAS ALL DONE IN RELIANCE UPON THE CPU, D. AND THAT RELIANCE WAS
[00:25:03]
SPECIFICALLY BASED UPON THE VERY SPECIFIC USES THAT WERE PERMITTED IN THAT. AND I PROVIDED THAT DOCUMENT TO MR MARTEL. BUT I'LL JUST REFER SPECIFICALLY TO THE USES THAT ARE PERMITTED ON PARCELS. TWO THROUGH FIVE. RETAIL AND RETAIL SERVICE ESTABLISHMENTS. BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL OFFICES, REAL ESTATE AND INSURANCE AGENCIES. FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS. BANKS RESTAURANTS WITH LIQUOR SERVICE DRIVE IN RESTAURANTS, BARBER BEAUTY SHOPS. HOTEL MOTEL. MULTI FAMILY OR RESIDENTIAL UNITS, COMBINED WITH NON RESIDENTIAL USES ART GALLERIES, TRAVEL AGENCIES, LAUNDRY CLEANING FACILITIES OR OTHER SIMILAR STOREFRONT USES. SCHOOLS CHILDCARE CENTERS NURSERY. PRE SCHOOL KINDERGARTENS. CHILDCARE MEDICAL. FACILITIES AND CLINICS , LODGES AND FRATERNAL ORGANIZATIONS, BAKERIES. VETERINARIAN ANIMAL CLINICS, RECREATIONAL FACILITIES SUCH AS BOWLING SKATING MINIATURE GOLF HEALTH SPA CLUB. PRINTING SHOPS , RESEARCH FACILITIES, LFC. CONGREGATE LIVING FACILITIES AND NURSING HOME FACILITIE CONSPICUOUSLY ABSENT. IS A COLLISION DEPOT OR AUTO REPAIR CENTER, WHICH IS IN MANY JURISDICTIONS CONSIDERED AN INDUSTRIAL USE. AND WHILE. THERE IS INDUSTRIAL USES TO THE NORTH . THEY ARE NOT CONTAINED WITHIN THIS P U D AND THE OWNERS WITHIN THIS BEAUTY WOULD NEVER HAVE APPROVED OF AN INDUSTRIAL LIKE USE. WHEN THEY BOUGHT INTO THIS , P U D AND THEY BOUGHT THEIR PROPERTIES. SO IF THE P U D IS GOING TO BE CHANGED THE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THAT CHANGE ARE THE ONES THAT HAVE TO APPROVE OF THE USE IS HERE. SIMPLY PUT. THAT'S WHAT YOUR CODE REQUIRES. THAT'S WHAT MR MARTEL EARLIER OPINED ON AND CORRESPONDENCE. I BELIEVE THAT WAS HIS POSITION INITIALLY TO THE APPLICANT AND THAT HAS NOT BEEN SATISFIED. AND THERE'S GOOD REASON TO REQUIRE ALL OF THE OWNERS TO AGREE WHEN THERE'S A C P U D WITH SIX LOTS. THEY HAVE VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS. THE CPU D CONTROLS ALL OF THEIR ACTIVITIES THEIR DEVELOPMENT AND REQUIRES THEIR CONSENT TO CHANGE ANY OF IT. SO YOUR CITY CODE IS SIMPLY. CONFIRMING THE VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS THAT THESE FOLKS HAVE ALREADY AGREED UPON WITH HIM WITHIN THEIR OWN DOCUMENTS TO REQUIRE. AND SIMPLY PUT THAT HASN'T BEEN DONE HERE. SO IN TERMS OF THE VERY, VERY SPECIFIC AND OVERARCHING ISSUE OF AUTHORITY. 11.11 OH, SPECIFICALLY REQUIRES ALL THE OWNERS TO JOIN IN AND THAT WASN'T DONE. NOW LET ME JUST BRIEFLY MENTIONED WHAT THE APPLICANT TRIED TO DO TO CIRCUMVENT THAT REQUIREMENT BECAUSE IT KNEW. THAT ALL OF THE OWNERS SUBJECT TO THIS APPLICATION HAD TO JOIN AND IT ASKED MY CLIENT TO JOIN AND MY CLIENT DECLINED, EVEN THOUGH OFFERS OF MONEY WERE MADE. MY CLIENT SAID, I CANNOT ABIDE BY AN INDUSTRIAL TYPE. USE TOO NOISY EVEN IF YOU DO IT INDOORS. THE LIGHT AND THE AND THE OTHER TYPE OF NOISE POLLUTION ARE NOT COMPATIBLE WITH AN EXTENDED STAY HOTEL. AND WHY IS THAT? IT'S BECAUSE THESE FOLKS WHO STAY AT THE HOTEL, IT'S LIKE THEIR HOME . THEY STAY THERE FOR WEEKS AT A TIME, SOMETIMES MONTHS AT A TIME. WOULD ANY OF US WANT A COLLISION DEPOT TO BE PUT INTO OUR BACKYARD? WITHOUT OUR CONSENT WITHOUT OUR APPROVAL. I THINK THE ANSWER TO THAT IS NO. THAT'S A VERY EASY ANSWER. AND THAT'S WHY MY CLIENT REFUSED TO SIGN OFF ON THE APPLICATION. SO THEN WHAT DID THE APPLICANT DO? THE APPLICANT INITIALLY DID NOT JUST SUBMIT THIS APPLICATION AND SAY. THE LIVES OF THE HOTEL IS NOT A PROPERTY SUBJECT TO CHANGE . WHAT THEY DID WAS A CLEVER BAIT AND SWITCH. AND THEY SAID TO THE HOTEL. WE NO LONGER NEED YOUR CONSENT BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO WITHOUT NOTICE. KICK YOU OUT OF OUR PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION AND THEN GET THE P A WAY TO PROVIDE APPROVAL. AND WHY WAS THAT DONE? THE ONLY REASON WHY THAT WAS DONE IS BECAUSE THE APPLICANT KNOWS THAT IN LIEU OF EVERY OWNER SIGNING OFF, AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 11 POINT AT ONE THEY COULD THEY THOUGHT THEY COULD. CREATE A PROXY FOR OWNERS SIGNING OFF BY HAVING AN APPEAL TO SIGN OFF. THAT MIGHT HAVE WORKED IF THE DOCUMENTS PERMITTED THE ASSOCIATION TO STAND IN PLACE OF THE OWNER.THAT'S NOT WHAT THE POC DOCUMENTS PROVIDE FOR, AND WE'VE GIVEN THOSE TO THE CITY COUNCIL , THE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION GOVERNING DOCUMENTS DOES NOT STATE ANYWHERE. THAT THE ASSOCIATION HAS THE AUTHORITY TO CHANGE ANY OF THE ZONING TO AFFECT THE CPU D TO SIGN OFF ON APPLICATIONS FOR OWNERS DOESN'T SAY ANY OF THOSE THINGS. SO THE APPLICANTS
[00:30:05]
ATTEMPT TO USE THAT ASSOCIATION AS A PROXY FOR THE INDIVIDUAL OWNER HAS NO LEGAL AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, I THINK IT'S A REAL INDICATION OF THEIR KNOWLEDGE.THAT THE OWNERS ARE REQUIRED TO SIGN OFF. THEY KNOW. THAT THIS THIS ORDINANCE REQUIRES ALL THE OWNERS TO APPROVE OF IT, BECAUSE THEY'RE ALL BEING SUBJECTED TO THE CHANGE AND THE ONLY REASON WHY THEY BOOTED. THE HOTEL OUT OF THE PEEL AWAY IMPROPERLY AND WITHOUT DUE PROCESS, AND THEN HAD THE SIGN AND APPROVAL WAS TO WAS TO ATTEMPT TO MEET THAT REQUIREMENT. UNDER SECTION 11.1 OF THE CITY. BUT THAT CANNOT POSSIBLY SUCCEED BECAUSE AGAIN. THE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION GOVERNING DOCUMENTS VERY CLEARLY DO NOT GIVE THE ASSOCIATION ANY POWER TO SIGN OFF ON AN APPLICATION. THEREFORE IT'S WHAT WE CALL ULTRA BEERS HAS NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER. SO THE MOTIVE WAS CLEAR THEIR KNOWLEDGE OF THE SUBJECT TO LANGUAGE CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THEY KNEW THE OWNERS HAD TO AGREE. AND THEY CIRCUMVENTED THAT. IN THEIR EFFORT TO CHANGE. CHANGE THAT REQUIREMENT INTO SOMETHING THAT A SIMPLE POS COULD SIGN OFF ON SO. WE DO OBJECT TO THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPLICATION WITHOUT OUR CLIENT'S SIGNATURE. WE BY THE WAY, SO THIS IS THE FIRST TIME HEARING TODAY THAT A NEW APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED. TO CHANGE THE MINOR APPLICATION TO A MAJOR CHANGE APPLICATION. I DID NOT DO THAT, UM, I JUST GOT NOTICE OF THIS MEETING ABOUT 45 MINUTES BEFORE IT STARTED, SO I THINK THE CITY CLERK WAS OUT WITH COVID. I UNDERSTAND. SO I'M NOT BLAMING ANYBODY. THAT'S THAT'S UNFORTUNATE. I HOPE SHE'S OKAY. BUT I JUST HAVE TO PUT MY OBJECTION TO NOTICE ON THE RECORD BECAUSE OF THAT ISSUE. MY CLIENTS WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE HOTEL CAN'T BE HERE TODAY BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT IN THE COUNTY. SO THEY'VE SENT LEWIS IN THEIR PLACE. BUT LEWIS ISN'T PREPARED TO TESTIFY. SO, UM. ME WE ASK THAT FOR NOTICE PURPOSE AS WELL THAT THIS MEETING BE RE ADJOURNED TO A POINT AFTER WE GET PROPER NOTICE AS AN INTERVENER, NOT JUST PUBLIC NOTICE. I'M NOT DENYING THE PUBLIC NOTICE WAS PROVIDED BY CAN SEE THAT. TWO. THIRD AND LASTLY, I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMPATIBILITY ISSUE. I MENTIONED THAT THE INDUSTRIAL USES ARE NOT A PART OF THE CPU D THEY'RE ALSO NOT WITHIN THE CPU, D. AND THE USES THAT ARE ADJACENT ARE NOT A COLLISION DEPOT. AND THEY ARE NOT AS INTENSE AS A COLLISION DEPOT AND I DON'T THINK YOU'LL FIND A COLLISION DEPOT IN THE VICINITY. THE VICINITY IS RETAIL. THAT'S WHAT'S IN THIS PARCEL. RIGHT NOW. THESE SIX PROPERTIES ARE ALL A RETAIL LIKE USE AND THE NEW USE GOING IN WHERE THE BB AND T BANK IS GOING TO BE A RETAIL USE. THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA CENTER. SO. GIVEN THAN EXTENDED STAY HOTEL IS LIKE A HOME. AND THESE PEOPLE. GO TO THIS HOTEL, AND THEY STAY THERE FOR EXTENDED PERIODS AND GIVEN THAT MY CLIENT RELIES UPON THAT BUSINESS MODEL AND HAS INVESTED SIGNIFICANTLY IN THE CITY OF STEWART, BY BUYING THAT PROPERTY AND MAINTAINING IT AND KEEPING IT. MM AND THE STANDARDS TO WHICH, UH, YOU SEE IT. IT'S A NICE UP KEPT HOTEL FOR AN EXTENDED STAY. IT WOULD BE HIGHLY INCOMPATIBLE. TO FOIST UPON THIS OWNER. A USE THAT IT NEVER APPROVED OF IT WILL NOT SIGN OFF ON. AND IT NEEDS TO SIGN OFF ON IN ORDER FOR THIS TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY OF STEWART. SO UM, I THINK THAT'S EVERYTHING. I WANT TO JUST CHECK MY NOTES BRIEFLY. QUICK ANALOGY . YOU KNOW IF YOU HAD A PROPERTY AND LET'S SAY ANY ANY PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, THE MONARCH THE MEADOWS MARTIN DOWNS AND YOUR NEIGHBOR. WAS. CHANGING HIS USED TO SOMETHING THAT'S NOT PERMITTED BY THE ASSOCIATION DOCUMENTS DON'T DON'T EVEN NECESSARILY CALL IT A COLLISION DEPOT BUT MAYBE MAKING IT MULTI FAMILY. WOULD YOU GIVE UP YOUR RIGHTS TO OBJECT TO THAT? BECAUSE THE ASSOCIATION APPROVED OF. BECAUSE THE MONARCH PEOLA DECIDED TO SIGN OFF ON IT BECAUSE THEY'RE GETTING PAID MONEY TO ALLOW MULTI FAMILY. CHANGE IN USE. THE ANSWER IS NO . YOU WOULDN'T DO THAT NORMALLY , AND THE ANALOGY THAT THAT HAS BEEN MADE HERE BY MR WATERS IS THAT. THE POUSADA HAS THAT AUTHORITY SIMPLY BECAUSE IT WOULD BE. TOO RISKY AND TOO INTERFERING TO ALLOW AN INDIVIDUAL OWNER, TOO. TO INTERFERE WITH THIS KIND OF APPLICATION. WELL. THE
[00:35:04]
APPLICANTS SIGNED UP FOR THAT WHEN THEY BOUGHT THE PROPERTY. THEY SIGNED UP FOR IT, KNOWING IT WAS WITHIN A C P U D AND KNOWING THAT ALL THE OWNERS WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE IT IF THEY WANTED TO CHANGE IT. SO WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO NOW IS AN END RUN AROUND THAT REQUIREMENT.BIG BECAUSE THEY CAN MAKE MORE MONEY PUTTING IN AN INCOMPATIBLE USE. YOU ARE THE SEPARATION BETWEEN MY CLIENT'S PROPERTY RIGHTS AND. THEIR DESIRE TO MAKE MONEY AND ADD TO THEIR BOTTOM LINE. PROFIT SO I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME I ASKED YOU TO LOOK CAREFULLY AT THE AUTHORITY ISSUE THAT COMPATIBILITY ISSUE AND ASK YOURSELVES IF YOU WOULD AGREE. TO THIS KIND OF CHANGE IF IT WAS IN YOUR BACKYARD. ANY QUESTIONS I CAN ANSWER. IS THIS THE POINT THAT WE CAN ASK THEM? QUESTIONS AND QUESTIONS? OKAY THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO FOLLOW THEIR OKAY? YES, DOES DO YOU ANYONE ON THE COMMITTEE, WHICH TO ASK QUESTIONS. I DO. I WAS GONNA SAY I DO. BUT ALL YOU GUYS GO. SO, MR POLITICA. CAN AFRICA KIDNAPPED A OKAY? CERTAINLY YEAH, THAT WAS ACTUALLY MY QUESTION WAS GOING TO BE TO YOU. SO YOU ALSO INDICATED HE PROVIDED DOCUMENTS. SCOTT'S NOTES FIRST. ONLY A LOT BETTER THAN WHAT I CAN SAY. YEAH. SO FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH. LET LET ME BE CLEAR THAT. ERIN ON BEHALF OF THE CITY WHEN DOING THE REVIEW, RECEIVED AN APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT AND SAID. THAT SHE COULDN'T OR NOT PERMIT FOR A. TO MOVE FORWARD, BUT SHE SAID SHE COULDN'T PROCESS IT WITHOUT EVERYBODY'S SIGNATURE. AS MR TANAKA POINTS OUT THAT QUESTION ABOUT PROPERTIES. EXAMPLES WHERE MONARCH OR SOMETHING. OTHER IS WINDERMERE OR OR PINES OR WHEREVER IT MIGHT BE. HAR BRIDGE BEING ANOTHER KIND OF THAT MR WATERS REFERRED TO IF HARD BRIDGE CAME IN TODAY AND WANTED TO DO. THEY OWN THE PROPERTY. THAT'S THE GRASS FIELD ACROSS THE STREET THERE TO ORIGINAL. THERE WAS A PHASE TWO IN THAT, AND LET'S SAY THAT HARBOR RIDGE WANTED TO COME IN AND BUILD A. LANDSCAPE PARKING LOT IN THAT GRASS FIELD THAT'S IN THAT PLAZA THAT'S ACROSS THE STREET ON. DIXIE OR WHATEVER YOU WANNA CALL THAT ROAD USED TO BE A WINNER.
THE CITY CODE SAYS THAT THE HARVARD DEVELOPMENT ORDER OR PUY DE. THE CODE REQUIRES THE SIGNATURES OF ALL OWNERS TO MOVE FORWARD TO AMEND THE PD. SO HISTORICALLY DOES THAT MEAN THAT EVERY SINGLE CONDO OWNER IN THE HAR BRIDGE AS WELL AS ANYBODY THAT OWNS ANY BOAT SLIPS, AS WELL AS THE RESTAURANT OWNER, AS WELL AS THE MARINA OWNER ALL HAVE TO SIGN THEIR SIGNATURES TO THE. APPLICATION AND THE ANSWER. THAT QUESTION IS YES, I GUESS I MEAN, THAT CODE SAYS WITH THE GOAT SAYS. WHEN THAT HAPPENED, AND AARON POINTED THAT OUT, ERIE APPLICANTS AND MR WATERS CAME IN, AND WE MET WITH THEM AND DURING THAT MEETING MR WATERS DID IN FACT, POINT OUT. THAT. ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS IN THE PAST THE CITY HAS ALLOWED. FOR THE ASSIGNMENT OF THAT SIGNATURE AUTHORITY. FOR EXAMPLE, WE RECENTLY HAD A PROJECT CALLED THE CANTOR LLC. AND IT WAS A COSTCO AND SOME APARTMENTS OUT ON CANADA HIGHWAY IN A COMPANY BY THE NAME OF EMINEM CONSTRUCTION. WAS THE APPLICANT. BUT DURING THE PROCESS OF THAT QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING, YOU PROBABLY LEARNED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS OWNED BY A GENTLEMAN BY THE NAME OF MAHMOUD HADID, AS WELL AS ANOTHER SECTION WAS OWNED BY DR NINI OR NINI HOLDINGS OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT. AND THEY HAD SIGNED DOCUMENTS ASSIGNING TO EMINEM CONSTRUCTION, THE ABILITY TO COME IN AND SIGN ON THEIR BEHALF AND PURSUE THE STUFF. IN MANY OCCASIONS, THE CITY HAS SITUATIONS WHERE VISTA PINES OR WHERE THE PINES OR WHERE. MAYBE IT WILL BE IS ON THE CITY. BUT WHEN YOU HAVE THESE DEVELOPMENTS THAT THE H O A OR THE PIO A DOZEN FACT. HAVE THE AUTHORITY IN THEIR GOVERNING DOCUMENTS. TO DESIGNATE THE PRESIDENT OF THE. PIZZA OR WHATEVER IT IS TO HAVE THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO SIGN. THE APPLICANT APPLICATION AND MOVE FORWARD ON BEHALF OF WHATEVER THE ENTITY IS. ANOTHER SUBJECT WOULD BE IF THREE PEOPLE YOU KNOW ON THE CORPORATION. THE CITY. DOESN'T KNOW WHAT THE PERSONAL BYLAWS OF THE CORPORATIONS SAY OR WHAT THE LLC
[00:40:05]
REGULATES AS IT PERTAINS TO WHO HAS SIGNATURE AUTHORITY OF THE SHAREHOLDERS. BUT IF THE. OWNER OF ONE OF THE OWNERS OF A CORPORATION PRESIDENT CORPORATION COMES IN AND SAYS, HEY, I OWN ABC CORPORATION AND WE OWN THIS LAND AND WE WANT TO DO THIS AND HE SIGNED, THE AFFIDAVIT SAYS. I'M THE OWNER. OBVIOUSLY THE CITY'S RESPONSIBILITY IS TO BELIEVE HIM OR AT LEAST RELY ON IT AND PROCESS THE APPLICATION. IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE FOLLOWING THE REJECTION. OF THE. INITIAL APPLICATION BECAUSE IT DIDN'T HAVE ALL THE SIGNATURES ON OCTOBER 14TH. THE CITY WAS PROVIDED WITH A LETTER THAT SAID TO HIM AND MAKE IT TURN. PLEASE FIND THIS LETTER AS THE CENTURY PLAZA PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATIONS LETTER OF SUPPORT AND JOINED HER FOR THE PROPOSED CENTURY PLAZA. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDED PROPOSED EMANATE DEVELOPMENT. AS ON AND ON AND ON AND ON. AND AT THE LAST PARAGRAPH SAYS IT'S A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE ASSOCIATION. DULY NOTED, NOTICED, AND WITH A QUORUM IN ATTENDANCE, THE BOARD VOTED UNANIMOUSLY IN FAVOR OF THE ASSOCIATION GRANTING ITS CONSENT TO THE APPLICATION TO AMEND THE PD BASIC PART OF THE SUPER MAJORITY OF SHAREHOLDERS, ET CETERA. AND IT SUPPORTED IT. WE THEN, UM. IT SAID THE VOTE FURTHER GRANTED AND AUTHORIZED THE PRESIDENT OF THE ASSOCIATION TO SIGN AND PROVIDE THIS LETTER TO THE CITY AS WELL AS EXECUTE ANY OTHER NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. IN ORDER TO AMEND THE P U D TO ALLOW AUTO REPAIR SERVICES AS AN ADDITIONAL PERMITTED USE IN PARCELS TO FIVE. THE STAFF NOR MYSELF. OR ANYBODY AT THE CITY HAS ANY LEGAL STANDING. TO RULE IN FAVOR OF MR TANAKA. OR TO RULE IN FAVOR OF MR WATERS. AS TO WHAT THEIR P O A AUTHORIZES OR DOESN'T AUTHORIZE. I EVEN IF, BY THE WAY, I'VE NEVER SEEN IT WHEN WE SAW THIS LETTER, AND IT DOESN'T MATTER TO ME, BECAUSE I'M NOT A JUDGE, EVEN WHATEVER I THOUGHT WOULDN'T MATTER. BECAUSE IT'S AN INTERNAL CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP. BETWEEN THE MEMBERS OF THAT, ESSENTIALLY THAT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP. THAT IS CREATED BY THIS. IF IN FACT THE DOCUMENT OR IN THIS CASE, IT'S POS BECAUSE IT'S A PROPERTY AS SOON AS ISSUES DOCUMENT AUTHORIZES. THE BOARD TO VOTE AND MAKE DECISIONS THAT ALLOW THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD TO MAKE APPLICATIONS TO AMEND THE P U. D THEN, IN FACT, THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS COMPLIED WITH THE CODE IN THE CODE DOES HAVE THE SIGNATURES OF ALL THE PROPERTY OWNERS BECAUSE IT'S BEEN ASSIGNED BY THEIR ADOPTION OF THE A AND BEING PARTICIPANT OF THE POUSADA WHEN THEY BOUGHT INTO THE CONDO ASSOCIATION OR BOUGHT INTO THE P U D THE FIRST THEY BOUGHT IT IN. A SIGN THAT THEY SAY DID YOU READ THE HOTDOG SIGN THEM AND THEY ARE AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME AS IT GOES OR WHATEVER THEY ARE. THE ALTERNATIVE TO THAT WOULD BE. THAT IN EVERY SINGLE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT ANYTHING EVER HAD TO HAPPEN. IF ONE PERSON RESIDING IN MARTIN DOWNS OBJECTED. TO THE CLUBHOUSE, GETTING NEW. WINDOWS ON A PERMIT. I'M USING MARKDOWNS.IT'S NOT IN THE CITY OF STEWART. YOU SAY? WELL, NO, YOU HAVE TO HAVE ALL THE OWNERS SIGNATURES, AND THEY SIMPLY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ACQUIRE ALL THE OTHER SIGNATURES. SO FOR EFFICIENCY PURPOSES, LOTS OF KOALAS DO IN FACT. DEDICATE THAT IT TURNED OUT THAT IN THE ARTERY CASE THAT MR WATERS WAS REFERRING TO IT WAS UNDISPUTED. THE NOBODY EVEN OBJECTED THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO IT. EVEN TO THIS DAY, THAT ISSUE HAS NEVER COME UP. THEY HAD THE AUTHORITY TO SIGN IT. THEY SIGNED IT. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE WE HAVE WE HAVE A DIFFERENT SITUATION. THE SITUATION WE HAVE TODAY IS THAT YOU HAVE AND I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY MEMBERS THERE ARE THE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T. I'M NOT A MEMBER. THERE'S PARCELS WITHIN IT. BUT I KNOW THAT THERE'S ONE OF THE MEMBERS HERE, SAYING. WE'RE NOT. WE'RE OBJECTING AND WE DIDN'T SIGN IT. AND BY THE WAY, IT'S OUR OPINION THAT EUROPEO A. THAT DOESN'T ALLOW THE PRESIDENT OF THE TWO SIGN ON HER BEHALF. AND HE ALSO SAYS HE WAS KICKED OUT ILLEGALLY. WELL, I HEARD THAT TODAY, TOO, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE CASE, AND THAT'S NOT IN THE LETTER. AND IF HE WAS ANY, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT ALSO MATTERS. TO THE CITY WHETHER HE'S KICKED OUT OFE CITY HE WAS KICKED OUT OR WASN'T KICKED OUT THE ONLY ISSUE WEEK. NEED TO KNOW IS WHETHER OR NOT THEY CAN SIGNED. BY A MAJORITY VOTE, I GUESS IS THE WAY TO DESCRIBE IT. I DON'T THINK YOU COULD. KICK THEM OUT OF THE THING. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WILL AFFECT THE WAY THEY WOULD GET CORUM OR NOT. BUT FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH. THERE'S NEVER GOING TO BE A DAY. THAT THE CITY HELP A OR CITY COMMISSION WOULD RESOLVE.
[00:45:09]
THAT QUESTION. BECAUSE. IF IN FACT, THERE'S AN INTERNAL DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS UNDER THEIR INTERNAL P O A DOCUMENT. THE CIRCUIT COURT WOULD BE THE PLACE TO RESOLVE THAT. SO WHAT? WHAT? WHAT STAFF? DID HIS CAME TO ME AND SAID, WELL, CAN WE GO FORWARD ON THIS? AND I SAID, WELL, I'M NOT AT LIBERTY. TO TELL THE APPLICANT THAT I'M SIDING WITH. B. PRESIDENT OR THE OWNER OF THE HOTEL AND THAT YOUR DOCUMENTS DO OR DON'T SAY THAT? AND THEREFORE YOU CAN'T EVEN COME FORWARD AND I TOLD THE APPLICANT. BUT I'M ALSO NOT AT LIBERTY TO SIDE WITH THEM TO TELL THE HOTEL THAT IN FACT, NO, YOU'RE WRONG. THE APPLICANT DOES HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE FOR A MAJORITY AND GO FORWARD. BUT BUT I DID FEEL THAT. AT A MINIMUM.WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION FOR DUE PROCESS AND HAD AN OBLIGATION TO LET. THEM PRESENT THEIR CASE TO THE GOVERNMENT BOARD. IS IT RELATED TO IT? BECAUSE THEY PROVIDED US WITH THE CORPORATE RESOLUTION AND SAID, LOOK, WE HAVE THIS AUTHORITY. AND SO THE WHETHER THEY HAVE THE AUTHORITY OR NOT, IS A CHALLENGE INTERNALLY THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE DRESS. ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
WHAT DOES CONCERN ME? FOR TODAY'S PURPOSES, WITH SCOTT'S COMMENT THAT HE DIDN'T ACTUALLY HAVE NOTICE OF THE MEETING. BECAUSE IT IS A QUESTION JUDICIAL HEARING AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE HAVE NOTICED THAT THE MEETING AND HE IS ACCURATE TO SAY THAT THE CLERK HAS BEEN OUT FOR TWO WEEKS WITH COVID. AND SO AND SHE WILL BE OKAY. BUT. THINK WE SHOULD ADDRESS THAT. I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS ACTUALLY A MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OR NOT, BUT IT MATTERS AND I THINK YOU SHOULD ADDRESS IT. AS IT RELATES TO THE ISSUE OF AUTHORITY TO MOVE FORWARD. I WOULD THIS SIGNATURE THING. THE ONLY ISSUE. I THINK THAT THE BOARD SHOULD DECIDE. IS AS A BOARD IF. THERE WAS NOBODY OBJECTING. DOES. THE BOARD BELIEVED THAT THE CODE ALLOWS.
AND H O A OR A PROPERTY ASSOCIATION. TO ASSIGN. THAT AUTHORITY TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE ASSOCIATION. WAR DOES THE BOARD BELIEVED THAT NO OUR POLICY IS. ALL SIGNATURES OR THE MATTER CAN'T COME FORWARD. NOT PICKING ONE OF THESE GUYS JUST RIGHT OR WRONG, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO GO DOWN THAT PATH BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE US FOR YOU GUYS TO EVEN TRY TO NUMBER ONE NUMBER TWO. I DON'T THINK OF THE JURISDICTION OR THE AUTHORITY TO DO IT ANYWAY. BUT JUST SIMPLY IF YOUR POSITION ON THIS BOARD IS THAT NO, I DON'T CARE. IF THEY HAD 100% VOTE OF ALL THEIR BOARD MEMBERS THAT SAID, ONE GUY CAN VOTE OR ONE GUY CAN SIGN IT. WE WANT ALL SIGNATURES ON ALL MATTERS, AND THAT'S WHAT THE CODE SAYS. AND I THINK THAT AARON ATTACHED TO YOUR AGENDA ITEM. IT'S LIKE ON PAGE TWO OF HER EXPLANATION. IF, IN FACT THAT'S YOUR POSITION. THEN THEN YOU PROBABLY SHOULD VOTE THAT WAY, AND THAT'S A DIRECTION TO STAFF AND THAT'LL BE A DIRECTION TO THE CITY COMMISSION AND THE CITY COMMISSION WOULD HAVE TO RESOLVE IT TO SAY THAT MOVING FORWARD. STAFF IS NOT TO ACCEPT ASSIGNMENTS LIKE THAT, AND THAT THEY NEED THE SIGNATURE OF ALL OWNERS IN THAT PROPERTY, NOT IT'S NOT IN THIS PARTICULAR QUESTION ISSUE. THE QUESTION. THEIR QUESTION IS DID THE PROPERTY ASSOCIATION ALLOW THEM TO DO IT? DID THEIR INTERNAL CORPORATE DOCUMENTS ALLOW THEM TO HAVE THAT MEETING AND MAKE THAT VOTE? WE DON'T KNOW. AND WE'RE NOT PARTIES TO THAT DOCTOR. BUT LET'S ASSUME, LET'S SAY IF I SAID IT DID DID DID IT IF I SAID OKAY, THAT DOCUMENT ALLOWED THEM TO DO IT? WELL, OKAY, BUT. DOES IT MAKE IT OK NOW WITH THIS BOARD STILL ALLOW ONE SIGNATURE. TO MOVE FORWARD ON THIS. P U D AMENDMENT. OR WOULD YOU STILL REQUIRE ALL SEVEN PARCELS OR PROPERTY OWNERS SIGNATURE TO MOVE FORWARD? SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, I THINK IT SHOULD BE LIMITED THAT BECAUSE I THINK THAT THEY SHOULD. THEY COULD FILE A CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE AND SEEKING INJUNCTION TO STOP US FROM MOVING FORWARD. MY CONCERN FROM THE CITY'S PERSPECTIVE. IS THAT I CAN'T TELL YOU DO NOT MOVE FORWARD. BECAUSE IF IT GOT INTO CIRCUIT COURT LITIGATION.
AND IT LASTED FOR FOUR YEARS AND AT THE END OF FOUR YEARS, THE CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE RULED IN FAVOR. OF THE APPLICANT AND SAID, YEAH, YOU SHOULD HAVE MOVED FORWARD TO THE OF STEWART.
[00:50:06]
BUT IN THE MEANTIME, LOTS OF DAMAGES ACCRUED. IT COULD BE A PROBLEM THAT THE CITY WOULD HAVE BECAUSE THERE'S A NEW STATUTE THAT JUST CAME OUT LAST YEAR ABOUT PROPERTY RIGHTS, AND WE HAD TO, UM, INTERCOM PLANTS BECAUSE OF IT, AND IT DEFINED THE SPEED TO WHICH THE STAFF HAS TO PROCESS THINGS. SO WE CAN'T JUST STAND BACK AND SAY. WILL WAIT TO SEE WHAT YOU GUYS RESOLVE. WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THAT. ON THE OTHER HAND, I ALSO DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR YOU. TO JUST VOTE. HANDSOME TODAY AND THEREFORE WE'RE VOTING IN HIS FAVOR, TOO, BECAUSE. THAT'S NOT BASED ON THE EVIDENCE, AND THE EVIDENCE WOULD BE WHAT'S EVER INTERNALLY THERE. THE QUESTION FOR THE CITY'S POLICY IS. THE COAST READS OF JUST WHAT IT SAYS. HISTORICALLY THERE HAS BEEN ASSIGNMENTS OR DELEGATION OF SIGNATURES LIKE THAT. IS THAT BEING APPROPRIATE OR NOT? AND THEN ALSO, I THINK YOU SHOULD ADDRESS THE CONTINUANCE ISSUE AND THEN FINALLY. OBVIOUSLY THERE'S ALSO THE UNDERLYING APPLICATION ITSELF. ASSUMING THAT IT WAS A BANK OR WHATEVER IT IS. WHAT'S THE LANDSCAPING? WHAT'S THE SETBACKS, YOU KNOW, LIGHTING FENCING NOISE THAT IT NORMALLY TAKES PLACE, AND OBVIOUSLY. THAT'S FOR THE BOARD AS WELL. BUT I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THE ISSUE FOR THE CITY'S SIDE OF IT. WE DID NOT TAKE A POSITION AND I STILL DON'T KNOW. WHO'S WHO'S RIGHT. AND I'M NOT GUESSING AND IT DOESN'T MATTER.YOU KNOW, I DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DECIDE. I WANT TO LET YOU GUYS KNOW. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE I SIT DOWN. WELL, OKAY. FIRST OF ALL, YOU SAID, YOU'RE GOING TO CLARIFY FOR US. YOU'RE NOT RULING ON WHAT? THERE YOU ARE. YOU SEEM TO BE ASKING US TO DO TWO DIFFERENT THINGS, MIKE, YOU'RE SAYING. YOU'RE SAYING I'M NOT GOING TO TOUCH THIS? PEEL A ISSUE. AND WHETHER AUTHORITY EXISTS WITHIN THIS GROUP. HOWEVER, HOW MANY MEMBERS ARE IN THE HALLWAY.
THREE. SIX PART, OKAY? AND THERE'S THREE PEOPLE ON THE P A. A VOTE. SIX PART OKAY, BUT THAT'S. BUT SOMEBODY MALE MORE THAN ONE PERSON, APPARENTLY. OKAY? SO THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS THREE. AND THERE WERE. FOUR SO HE WAS NOT KICKED OUT. OH, DO THEY HAVE A DO THEY HAVE A VOTE? OKAY? UM, OKAY. BUT MIKE SO. AND THEN YET YOU'RE SAYING WE HAVE TO DECIDE WHETHER EVERY P O A IN THE CITY OF STEWART. AND YOU DON'T GET TO SAY THIS VERY OFTEN, BUT IT'S I MEAN, YOUR QUESTION WAS REDUCTO AD ABSURDUM. NO OTHER YOU'RE SAYING WELL, WE HAVE TO GET.
OKAY IN THE ORGANIZATIONS I'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH. SOME AUTHORITIES ARE GRANTED TO SAY THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AND JUST THE PRESIDENT CAN SIGN. BUT THEN OTHERS ARE. OH WELL, IF YOU WANT TO TEAR DOWN HALF THE BUILDINGS , YEAH, YOU HAVE TO GET EVERYBODY TO VOTE. SO YOUR CONCEPT IS THAT IT'S IN THE DOCUMENT. I WOULD THINK I WOULD THINK. YEAH. WHICH MR. KONOPKA SAID HE GAVE TO YOU. IS THAT CORRECT? BY THE WAY? I DON'T HAVE THEM. AND BY THE WAY, IF YOU CAME TO ME, IT WOULDN'T HAVE ANYTHING. THEY SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO THE TIME JUST SAYING I'M JUST SURPRISED HE GAVE THEM BECAUSE AS YOU SAID, MIKE, YOU'RE NOT EVEN LOOK AT HIM ANYWAY. I WOULDN'T BECAUSE I CAN'T RULE ON THEM. I'M NOT GOING TO INTERPRET. SO WHY SHOULD WE RULE ON THAT? IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO RULE OH, I THOUGHT YOU SHOULD HAVE SAID WE NEEDED TO DECIDE WHETHER WE WANTED THAT THINK HE'S SAYING WE NEED TO MAKE IT RECOMMENDED. I THOUGHT YOU WERE. JUST TO CLARIFY. I THOUGHT YOU WERE NUMBER ONE. I THINK AS A BOARD WE CAN ONLY MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS CORRECT. SO I THINK WHAT YOU ARE SUGGESTING IS THAT WE AS A BOARD MAKE A RECOMMENDATION IN THIS AREA. IS THAT CORRECT? IT WOULD BE A RECOMMEND. SO THE RECOMMENDATION I WAS SUGGESTING THAT YOU MAKE. IS THAT IN THE CODE, IT SAYS. A COMPLETED APPLICATION SHALL BE SIGNED BY ALL OWNERS OR THEIR AGENT OF THE PROPERTY, SUBJECT TO THE PROPOSAL AND NOTARIZED. TO GO ON. BUT SIGNATURES BY OTHER PARTIES WILL BE ACCEPTED ONLY WITH NOTARIZED PROOF OF AUTHORIZATION BY THE OWNERS. SO I THINK THE CHAIR IS GREAT.
YOU'RE JUST ASKING US TO SAY WHETHER WE AGREE WITH. DOES DOES THIS APPLICATION APPLY WITH THAT CODE? RIGHT OKAY, THAT IS IT NOTARIZED RIGHT BY WAIT A MINUTE. SO ONCE STEP BACK ONE SECOND. HUGE JUST READ. IF I'M READING IT CORRECTLY, THAT WITH THE ALLOWANCE THAT THERE'S ONE
[00:55:03]
YOU KNOW, ALLOWED, OR WHATEVER THAT CAN SIGN FOR ALL. THEN WE HAVE TO HAVE A DOCUMENT THAT'S NOTARIZED THAT SAID ALL PEOPLE AGREE TO THAT. BASICALLY CAN YOU READ THAT AGAIN? CODE SAYS, OKAY , A COMPLETED APPLICATION. SHALL BE SIGNED BY ALL OWNERS. OR THEIR AGENT OR AGENTS OF THE PROPERTY, SUBJECT TO THE PROPOSAL AND NOTARIZED, OKAY. NO APPLICATION IS SIGNED BY THE PRESIDENT. OF THIS. PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION. AND NOTARIZED, BUT THE CODE SAYS IT SHOULD BE ALL KNOW IT SAYS ALL OWNERS OR THEIR AGENT. THE PRESIDENT OF THE ASSOCIATION IS ALSO GIVEN US A NOTARIZED DOCUMENTS SAYING I AM THEIR AGENT. AND IT HAS BEEN.DESIGNATED TO ME BY CORPORATE RESOLUTION, ESSENTIALLY BY A BOARD MEETING THAT WE HAD THAT VOTED AND ALL OWNERS AUTHORIZED ME PURSUANT TO OUR INTERNAL DOCUMENTS, AND, AS CAMPBELL RICH POINTED OUT, SOME ASSOCIATIONS SAY THAT THE PRESIDENT CAN SIGN IF IT'S JUST TO HIRE THE LAWN MAN. OTHER ASSOCIATIONS SAY THE PRESIDENT CAN SIGN IF IT'S. TO DO DEMOLITION AND MODIFICATIONS , AND THEY ALL READ DIFFERENTLY. AND SO IT DEPENDS ON WHAT THE. INTERNAL ENTITLEMENT STRUCTURES SAY. BUT THE CITY IS STUART. HAS A DOCUMENT. FROM THIS. P O A. YEAH THAT SAID IT HAD A SPECIAL MEETING. AND IT'S. INTERNAL DOCUMENTS AUTHORIZED THEM TO DEDICATE OR ASSIGNED THIS RESPONSIBILITY TO THE PRESIDENT. AND THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS NOW SIGNED AND HAS AUTHORIZED US TO MOVE FORWARD NOW. THE QUESTION IS OKAY. WELL, WHAT HAPPENS IF. THEY'RE LYING. YEAH YEAH. WHAT BURDEN OF PROOF IS REQUIRED THAT THERE'S LIFE IS THAT WE HAVE THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO. WE, WE I'M TELLING YOU. IT'S 100% TRUE THAT THAT HAPPENED IN THEIR HERE. WE CAN TALK ABOUT SUNSETS.
THAT HAPPENED. THE QUESTION IS WHAT HAPPENS NOW? BECAUSE WE NOW HAVE ONE MEMBER OF IT SAYING NO , THE DOCUMENTS DON'T SAY THAT. SO FROM MY PERSPECTIVE. WE DON'T GET TO SOLVE THEIR P O A DOCUMENTS JUST AS WHEN MR RICH TALKED ABOUT THE OTHER ASSOCIATIONS WHOSE MEMBERS OF HAVE DIFFERENT AUTHORITIES AND STUFF THAT IS INTERNALLY AND IF YOU'RE IN A. LIMITED PARTNERSHIP OR A OR A SHAREHOLDERS MEETING OR A COMPANY. SORRY. MORE LIKE GASKET. UM, ANYWAY, THE, UM. IF YOU'RE IN IN A MEETING LIKE THAT, AND YOU HAVE A DERIVATIVE CLAIM, BECAUSE YOU HAVE AN INTEREST IN IT, OR YOU ARE A INDIRECT PRIVET E. YOUR REMEDY MAY BE SPELLED OUT IN IT THAT YOU HAVE TO GO TO ARBITRATION FIRST, BUT I DON'T KNOW, BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE THE DOCUMENT OR IT MAY BE THAT YOU NEED TO FILE A CIRCUIT COURT ACTION AND SEEKING INJUNCTION TO PREVENT THEM FROM MOVING FORWARD AT ALL. OR THAT YOU NEED TO FILE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT OR FOR BREACH OF OR FOR DAMAGES, OR WHATEVER IT IS NOW. THE PERIL AND RISK IS THAT I TELL ERIN LOOK I READ THE CODE. AND I SAY TO MYSELF, OKAY, WELL, WHAT'S THE CODE, SAYING? THE CODE SAYSD APPLICATION TO MOVE FORWARD TO THE L P A. AND I HAVE A COMPLETED APPLICATION AND IT NEEDS TO BE NOTARIZED. IT'S NOTARIZED BY ALL OWNERS OR THEIR AGENT. AND I HAVE AN AFFIDAVIT FROM THIS PRESIDENT SAYING. I'M THE DESIGNATED AGENT. SO I HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO THIS. AND I'M MOVING FORWARD. AND. SO THEN I SAID, WELL, HOW CAN I TELL HIM? NO, THEY CAN'T MOVE FORWARD . SO WE SAY, OK, THEY CAN MOVE FORWARD AND THEN IT'S EVOLVED UNTIL BEGINNING OF YOU GUYS AND NOW THE ISSUE AS WELL. THEY'RE ASKING YOU GUYS TO DECIDE. WHETHER OR NOT ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER IS RIGHT ON THEIR INTERNAL DOCUMENTS, AND I DON'T WANT YOU TO DO THAT. I ONLY WANT YOU TO DECIDE. WHAT. HAS THE POLICY OF THE CITY. BEEN MET. DID THE CITY. ATTAINING COMPLETE APPLICATION SIGNED BY ALL OWNERS OR THEIR AGENT. SIGNATURES BY OTHER PARTIES WILL BE ACCEPTED ONLY WITH A NOTARIZED PROOF OF AUTHORIZATION BY THE OWNERS. IN THE CASE OF CORPORATE OWNERSHIP.
THE AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED BY A NOTATION OF THE CITY SIGNERS. OFFICE IN THE CORPORATION IN BOSTON. THE CORPORATE SEAL A CONCEPT PLAN MAY SIT UNAIDED, BABA BABA. MR WATERS IS HERE OBVIOUSLY, IS THE ONE THAT'S ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. YOU MAY WANT TO ASK THE APPLICANT TO GO ON RECORD OF SAYING, YEAH, WE HAD THE MEETING AND WE HAVE AUTHORITY FROM ALL
[01:00:02]
OWNERS. TO GO FORWARD. AND BECAUSE THE AND THEN IF THERE'S A DISPUTE BETWEEN. THE TWO AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY REALLY HAVE THAT. AUTHORITY. I DON'T WANT THAT TO BE YOUR DISPUTE BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR YOU GUYS TO CARRY THE BURDEN OF THAT DISPUTE. AND SO THAT MY FEELING WAS LOOK, I WANT TO I CAN'T. I CAN'T BLOCK ANYBODY FROM COMING TO THE MEETING.BECAUSE I INTERPRET IT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. AND I ALSO KNOW THAT HISTORICALLY WE HAVE IN FACT ACCEPTED. THESE ASSIGNM&-PT GO FORWARD TODAY WAS TO YOU LET THEM PRESENT THEY IT'S TOO FULL KNOWN PRESENT THE HEARING AT THE SAME TIME, HONESTLY, I WAS HOPING THEY WOULD WORK IT OUT BETWEEN BEFORE THE HEARING THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. BUT BUT SINCE WE'RE HERE. WE MAY WANT TO ADDRESS AND RESOLVE. FIRST ON THE WHOLE ISSUE OF THE CONTINUANCE BECAUSE THAT MATTERS FIRST I AGREE, AND THEN YOU KNOW, AND I'M PLEASE DON'T KICK THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD JUST FOR THE SAKE OF THAT BECAUSE IT WILL STILL COME BACK. SO OUR ONE QUESTION I DO WANT TO SAY IS SO ARE YOU SAYING HIS STATEMENT? AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, IS ACCURATE THAT HE DID ONLY RECEIVE KNOWLEDGE. 45 MINUTES BEFORE OF THIS. I WANT THE CITY TO CLARIFY THIS ONE, PLEASE. I. I JUST WANT TO MAKE. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S I HAVE NEVER HAD HIM LIE TO ME. OK NO, NO, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT LIKE YOU SAID, I JUST WANT TO GO UNDRAFTED. YES, YOU DID, YOU KNOW. WHEN HE SAYS THAT TO ME, I TOTALLY HONESTLY I DON'T I DON'T NO. SO BEFORE THIS ARE YOU MAKING AN. GO AHEAD AND SAVE THAT WAY. JESUS YEAH, SO, YEAH, I CAN. I CAN CLARIFY THIS A LITTLE BIT. I'M SURE I CALLED MR KONOPKA ABOUT AN HOUR BEFORE THE MEETING TO SEE IF HE HAD A PRESENTATION PREPARED, SO THAT WAY I COULD UPLOAD IT TO THE SYSTEM. AND THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME HE HAD HEARD OF THE MEETING . THE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAD NOT REACHED OUT TO HIM AND THE CITY CLERK HAS BEEN OUT SICK WITH COVID, SO IT IS POSSIBLE VERY POSSIBLE THAT HE DID NOT RECEIVE NO UNTIL MY PHONE CALL COULD HANDLE IT. EITHER WAY. I THINK BEFORE YOU VOTE ON A CONTINUANCE, WHICH I THINK MR MARTEL SAN YOU PRETTY MUCH HAVE TO GRANT TO AVOID. QUASI JUDICIAL PROCESS ISSUE, BUT BEFORE YOU CONSIDER THAT BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO COME BACK ON THIS AND I'LL BE HERE MAKING THE SAME ARGUMENTS, BUT I JUST WANT TO AGREE WITH MOST OF EVERYTHING THAT MR MORE JUDGES SAID OTHER THAN A COUPLE OF THINGS. WHICH I'M GONNA WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THESE FOR YOU TO THINK ABOUT FOR THE NEXT MEETING. SO THE LANGUAGE WHICH WHICH MIKE READ BACK IS REALLY IMPORTANT COMPLETED. APPLICATIONS SHALL BE SIGNED BY ALL OWNERS. SUBJECT TO THE CHANGE OR THEIR AGENT, RIGHT? APPEAL. TO IS NOT THE AGENT FOR AN OWNER FOR PURPOSES OF THIS KIND OF APPLICATION. THEY CANNOT STAND UP AND SAY THAT THEY HAVE RECEIVED AN ASSIGNMENT FROM THE OWN. RIGHT SO WHEN MR MARTEL SAYS, WE HAVE WE HAVE PERMITTED ASSIGNMENTS OF AUTHORITY IN THE PAST. 100% AGREE WITH THAT, AND YOU SHOULD CONTINUE TO ACCEPT ASSIGNMENTS.
THERE'S ASSIGNMENTS HAVE TO SAY THAT THE SIGN OR IS THE OWNER. AND THEY ASSIGN ME CAN THEN STAMP AND SAY WHATEVER ONE LIKE I COULD BE MY CLIENTS ASSIGNED ME AND I OFTEN STAND UP AND REPRESENT MY CLIENT IN COURT AND HEARINGS. I AM HERE FOR THE OWNER. I COULD NOT DO THAT FOR THE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION IF THEY'RE NOT MY CLIENT, AND THEY HAVEN'T ASSIGNED ME THAT RIGHT? SO WHEN? WHEN MIKE SAYS WE ACCEPT ASSIGNMENTS, ABSOLUTELY. YOU SHOULD ACCEPT ASSIGNMENTS, BUT IT NEEDS TO BE AN ASSIGNMENT FROM THE OWNER. NOT FROM THE PEORIA AND IT CAN'T BE A REPRESENTATIVE. STANDING UP HERE SAYING THAT WE REPRESENT THE OWNER. THE PAPUA DOES NOT REPRESENT THE OWNER. THAT'S A SEPARATE ENTITY. AND THE PEOPLE. HE HAS CERTAIN RIGHTS, WHICH YOU REALLY DON'T NEED, AS MIKE SAID, INVOLVE YOURSELF WITH, BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT IS NOT THE ASSIGNED ME AND I THINK MR WATERS ALREADY READILY ADMIT THAT AND I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT HIS LETTER. OR THE LETTER FROM THE PEORIA AND IF YOU COULD PULL THAT UP. I DON'T THINK IT SAYS WE HEREBY REPRESENT. ALL OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS, INCLUDING STUART HILLS LODGE LLC. WHO HAVE GIVEN US THE AUTHORITY. TO SUBMIT THIS APPLICATION. THAT AUTHORITY MAY BE IN THAT BY LAW.
THAT'S NOT WHAT YOUR THAT'S NOT WHAT YOUR CITY CODE ALLOWS THEM . RIGHT SO YOU'RE SITTING COULD GIVE DON'T YOU IN COURT, MR CONNECT? WHY ARE YOU ASKING US TO MAKE THIS BECAUSE YOUR JOB IS REALLY TO ADVISE THE CITY COMMISSION ON WHAT THE CODE ALLOWS AND DOESN'T ALLOW. AND IT'S PLAIN. IT, SAYS THE OWNER OR THE OWNER'S AGENT. SO IF YOU CAN GET MR WATERS TO SAY THAT HE
[01:05:01]
IS THE AGENT. FIRST STEWART HILLS LODGE LLC. THEN YOU MIGHT HAVE A DISPUTE ABOUT THE FACTS BECAUSE I'M DENYING THAT BUT I DON'T THINK MR WATERS CAN STAND UP HERE AND SAY I AM THE S SHINY. FOR THIS AREA. NOT TO GET YOU OFF. BUT BEFORE WE GO, BECAUSE IF WE DISCUSS AND DECIDE THAT THERE SHOULD BE A CONTINUANCE. BECAUSE OF IT THAT NOTIFICATION ISSUE I WOULD HATE BECAUSE AS YOU SAID, YOU'RE GOING TO COME AND TELL US THE EXACT SAME INFORMATION SO WE DON'T HAVE TO LISTEN TO IT RIGHT NOW, BASICALLY, SO BEFORE WE DO ANYTHING ELSE. CAN WE PLEASE HAVE A DISCUSSION ON IF WE WOULD LIKE TO GRANT A CONTINUANCE? OKAY? OKAY? SO WILLIAM, WE WOULD OBJECT TO ANY CONTINUANCE. OUR OBLIGATION IS TO POST THE PROPERTY AND TO NOTIFY ALL PROPERTY OWNERS. WE POSTED THE PROPERTY ON NOVEMBER 24TH. SENT NOTICE TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS, INCLUDING THE PROPERTY OWNER WHO'S REPRESENTED HERE TODAY, WE PROVIDED NOTICE WHETHER OR NOT THAT NOTICE TRICKLED DOWN TO THEIR ATTORNEY. THAT'S NOT OUR PROBLEM, AND THAT IS NOT GROUNDS TO GRANT A CONTINUANCE BECAUSE THERE WAS A LACK OF COMMUNICATION ON THEIR SIDE.THERE'S A BIG A BIG BLUE SIGN OUT IN FRONT OF THE PROPERTY FOR TWO PLUS WEEKS NOW PEOPLE HAVE HAD NOTICED NOW FOR TWO PLUS WEEKS. IF THAT WASN'T COMMUNICATED THAT'S NOT GROUNDS FOR CONTINUES. THE FACT THAT THEIR ATTORNEY WASN'T TOLD BY. THEIR CLIENT OR ANYONE ELSE UNTIL THE HOUR BEFORE THIS HEARING. THAT'S NOT GROUNDS. TO CONTINUE THE WE WANT AND WE NEED A DECISION GOOD OR BAD, RIGHT OR WRONG. WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD TO THE CITY COMMISSION. THERE IS NO REASON TO CONTINUE IT BECAUSE A LACK OF COMMUNICATION ON. THE INTERVENER SIDE, SO I WOULD ASK YOU NOT TO GRANT THE CONTINUANCE TO CONTINUE THIS DISCUSSION ABOUT COMPATIBILITY WITH THE AREA AND WHETHER OR NOT WE HAD THE AUTHORITY TO FLY AND PROCEED WITH THIS APPLICATION. NO, WE.
WHAT WHAT? WHAT CONSTITUTE BOARD. WHAT CONSTITUTES NOTICE, MIKE. ILLEGAL AND, YES, THERE'SD THE HEARING TOOK PLACE, AND I DON'T DOUBT. THAT THEY GOT NOTICE OF THAT BECAUSE THEY INTERVENE. SO THEY WOULDN'T HAVE FILED AN INTERVENTION. IN FACT, THEY DIDN'T GET THE NOTICE OF THE ISSUE AND THE STUFF. I MEAN , I DON'T THINK THAT'S AN ISSUE AT ALL. WHAT WOULD. CAUSED ME TO HAVE A LITTLE CONCERN. WAS THE FACT THAT THEY DID INTERVENE. AND THAT. AS THE INTERVENER. THE CITY CONTACTED THEM TODAY AND SAID, ARE YOU GOING TO BE SUBMITTING AND ANYTHING FOR THE FOR THE. HEARING AND IRONICALLY I MEAN, THAT HAPPENS BEFORE WHERE PEOPLE DON'T I MEAN, SO IT'S NOT THAT THAT'S CRAZY, UNHEARD OF HER THAT THAT'S NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE. BUT. AND I BELIEVE THERE'S EVEN A LETTER. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S THE INTERVENER LETTER IN THE THING OR IF IT'S JUST AN OBJECTION LETTER. IN THE AGENDA ITEM. I DON'T HAVE THE. INTERVENER LETTER IN MY. AT THE END OF NOVEMBER. 5TH IS THE OBJECTION LETTER. I DON'T KNOW THE DATE OF THE INTERVENER LETTER. SO THE BE OF INTERVENER. LETTER TO THE CITY CLERK. WAS NOVEMBER. 30TH ENCLOSED. PLEASE FIND IT. FIRMS CHECK IN THE AMOUNT OF $400, WHICH REPRESENTS APPLICATION FOR INTERVENER STATUS. PLEASE SPEND A COPY OF THE APPLICATION LETTER FROM MR TANAKA DATED NOVEMBER 5TH. WITH OUR APPLICATION, SO THE. NOVEMBER 5TH LETTERS. WHAT'S IN YOUR AGENDA, SO I'M NOT GOING TO READ IT ALL THE WAY BACK INTO THE RECORD BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MATTER, BUT I DO KNOW THAT THEY DID. HEY, MONEY TO THE CLERK OF THE CITY. ON NOVEMBER 30TH. WHICH AGAIN. I DON'T KNOW THE SPECIFIC DATES HERE, BUT I ALSO KNOW THAT THE CLERK HAS BEEN OUT. SINCE THANKSGIVING. DO THEY GET TO MEET? SO IS IT AUTOMATIC THAT SOMEONE IS GRANTED INTERVENER STATUS OR DO THEY HAVE TO GET APPROVAL? LIKE WITH THE CLERK? I'VE HAD TO NOTIFY THEM THAT THEIR APPLICATIONS AND INTERVIEW PROVED THAT HAS HAPPENED. THE CLERKS ASSISTANTS ACCEPTED THEIR CHECK. I'M SURE IT'S BEEN CASHED. OKAY, SO AS SOON AS THAT HAPPENS, IT'S ACCEPTED IS THAT
[01:10:04]
THE WAY IT LOOKED AT OR DO THEY NEED TO HAVE OFFICIAL NOTIFICATION? THERE IS NO THERE IS NO, THERE IS NO ORDER OR FORM OR ANYTHING. THEY DON'T WAIT TO ANOTHER HEARING. HAVE THE BOARD EXCEPT THEIR STATUS AS INTERVENER. IT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN AN APPLICATION. WHEN THE APPLICANT DROPS THE CHECKOFF. THEY'VE DROPPED OFF THE APPLICATION. SO THE APPLICATION FOR INTERVENER WAS DROPPED OFF ON IT LOOKS LIKE. NOVEMBER IT'S ACTUALLY DATED NOVEMBER 9TH. BUT IT WAS. THE LETTER WAS DATED NOVEMBER 30TH. I KNOW THAT THE CITY GOT IT BECAUSE THE STAFF IS HANDING IT TO ME. SO. IT HAPPENED AFTER THANKSGIVING. BUT BEFORE THIS HEARING SO. YOU KNOW , THERE'S TECHNICAL RULES ON HOW MANY DAYS PRIOR TO A HEARING YOU AFTER INTERVENE AS WELL AS FAR AS FOLLOWING THE CODE IS CONCERNED, BUT I THINK IT'S FIVE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO I THINK THEY'RE PROBABLY AHEAD OF THE FIVE DAYS. AND I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S ANY MAGIC ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. AS FAR AS WHAT DIFFERENCE IT WOULD HAVE MADE AS FAR AS THIS L P A. HEARING IS CONCERNED IF SOMEBODY CALLED HIM YESTERDAY TO REMIND THEM OF THE HEARING OR TODAY TO REMIND THEM OF THE HEARING. I JUST HEARD HIM SAY IT. AND IT. MADE ME CONCERNED AT THE SAME TIME I RECOGNIZE. MR WATER IS CONCERNED THAT THEY DO WANT TO PROCESS THE THING AND EVERYBODY WANTS TO MOVE AS QUICKLY AS THEY CAN. FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH. I DID SAY DON'T KICK THE KICK THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD JUST BECAUSE I'M BRINGING IT UP BECAUSE I'M NOT SUGGESTING TO DO THAT. AND I DO PROMISE YOU THEY IT'S NOT GOING TO DISAPPEAR. ABOUT MISSING INTEREST SOLVE ITSELF. COMING.SO SO I DON'T I DON'T WANT TO PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH ON WHICH WAY YOU SHOULD. HOW YOU SHOULD RULE OR NOT. THERE'S ALSO ONE OTHER OPTION, AND I. I'M GOING TO GET IN TROUBLE WHEN I DO THIS. WATCH HER. GIVE ME THE EVIL EYE. THERE'S ALSO THE HAY WE'RE GOING. TO CALL A IS IT WAS THIS WASN'T GOING TO BE ON THE DECEMBER 13TH MEETING ANYWAY. WAS IT JANUARY 10TH SO THIS BOARD. COULD ASK FOR A SPECIAL MEETING. AND JUST HEAR THIS MATTER. NEXT WEEK ON WHATEVER DAY THURSDAY. SO FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, AND I SEE YOU GUYS CRINGING, TOO. BUT I MENTIONED IT JUST BECAUSE THAT'S ALSO AN OPTION. I'M NOT, YOU KNOW, RATHER THAN KICKING THIS HEARING TILL FEBRUARY, BECAUSE IF THEY CAN'T BE HEARD BEFORE THE JANUARY 13TH MEETING, AND THEN IT MAKES IT SO IT CAN'T BE HEARD TO THE FEBRUARY MEETING THAT. THERE'S OTHER SOLUTIONS OTHER THAN THAT, WHICH WOULD GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, AND IT MAY UM, I MEAN, BECAUSE I THINK FIRST. IT WILL BE MY POSITION THAT. I'M GOING TO ASK WHOEVER IS GOING TO TESTIFY ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. DID YOU HAVE THE AUTHORITY OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS TO SUBMIT THE APPLICATION? SIR. I'M ASSUMING IT'S GOING TO BE YES. AND THEN WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO WITH THAT? BECAUSE NOW THE APPLICATIONS IN FRONT OF YOU NOW YOU HAVE TO ADDRESS IT ON ITS MERITS, ANYWAY. AND IF THE IF THE. OWNER OF THE HOTEL SAYS THAT PERSON IS IF THEY SAY NO, IT'S EASY TO BECAUSE WE'RE DONE AND WE'RE OUT THE TOUR, RIGHT? NOPE. WE DIDN'T OKAY. DONE I DOUBT THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. I ASSUME IT'S GOING TO BE YES. AND THEN WE HAVE TO MOVE FORWARD ON THE PROCESS OF THE APPLICATION AND HERE. THE HEARING. AND THEN WHETHER YOU GRANTED OR DENY IT.
THE HOTEL PERSON STILL HAS THE REMEDY. OF ADDRESSING THE FACT THAT THEY DIDN'T THAT THEY USURPED THE LANGUAGE OF THEIR PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION. IF, IN FACT IT DIDN'T AUTHORIZE THAT TO OCCUR, AND THEY PROBABLY SHOULD ADDRESS IT. ANYWAY EVEN IF YOU DENY THE APPROVAL BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO COME UP AGAIN FOR THEM ON ANOTHER LEVEL SOMEWHERE ALONG THE WAY, AND YOU PROBABLY SHOULDN'T LET THE BOARD DO THINGS THAT THEY'RE NOT AUTHORIZED TO OTHERWISE DO. BUT THAT'S NOT OUR ISSUE AND THE ISSUE FOR US IS THIS HEARING BEFORE US TODAY AND DID THEY HAVE NOTICE OF THIS HEARING? YES, TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY KNEW IT WAS OCCURRING. DID MR CANNOT CONTROL WAS TODAY? CLEARLY HE DIDN'T BUT AGAIN IS THAT DOESN'T MATTER. I DON'T KNOW. THAT'S YOUR GUYS IS DISCRETION. OKAY BRIAN DID WERE YOU HAD SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY? I DIDN'T. I FORGOT. UM SO I'M GOING TO I'M GOING TO JUST. THROW OUT SOME OF MY THOUGHT. IT'S OBVIOUSLY COMPLEX. I THINK UM. MAYBE I CAN ASK A QUESTION. THE APPLICANT IS HE.
IT IS. IT IS A PROPERTY PURCHASED ON HER CONTRACT. IT'S UNDER CONTRACT, OKAY? PASTOR
[01:15:02]
DOES SO, UM. TYPICALLY IN THAT DUE DILIGENCE PERIOD IS WHEN YOU LOOK AT. BEAUTY DOCUMENTS, LOOK AT ACCEPTABLY AND KNOW THAT YOU'RE TAKING ON A RISK. IF YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE A USE, THAT'S NOT ACTIONABLE. THAT'S THAT'S MY FIRST THING. GO AHEAD. SO WE DID THAT. BACK IN APRIL, THE FIRST TIME STAFF WAS ENGAGED AND THE RESPONSE FROM STAFF WAS YES, IT'S PERMITTED USE. YOU CAN DO THAT ON THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY. SO WE MOVE FORWARD AND RELIANCE ON THAT AND THEN I THINK ADDITIONAL STAFF LOOKED AT IT AGAIN BECAUSE BECAUSE SO WE WENT TO STAFF AND SAID, IS THIS A PERMITTED USE? YES, IT IS. YOU CAN DO WHAT YOU WANT TO DO. GO AHEAD AND SUBMIT YOUR DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS, MEANING YOU'RE BUILDING PERMITS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO THAT'S WHAT WE DID, AND THAT'S WHEN STAFF DIFFERENCE THAT LOOKED AT IT. STARTED THE REVIEW AND SAID, WAIT A MINUTE. I CAN'T DO THIS. AND SO BY THAT POINT WE WERE. WE WERE KIND OF LOCKED IN AND INTERESTING. OKAY, PRETTY PRETTY DEEP INTO THIS. AND SO WE'VE. WE'VE BEEN WORKING AND STAFF TO DEMOCRATIC HAS WORKED VERY CLOSELY CLOSELY WITH US REALLY HELPED US OUT THROUGH THIS WHOLE PROCESS, BUT WE DID DO OUR DUE DILIGENCE UP FRONT AND. JUST GOT SOME INCORRECT INFORMATION THAT WE UNFORTUNATELY RELIED ON. AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY. AGAIN. STARTED IN APRIL. THOUGHT WE'D BE DONE BY MAY OR JUNE AND IT'S DECEMBER AND WORK. OKAY, THANKS. THANKS. UM I THINK. MIKE THERE'S MAYBE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A P AWAY IN A HAMMOCK CREEK. VERSUS A C P U. D AWAY.IN THE SENSE THAT IN MAYBE IT'S JUST THE SCALE OF THE P L. A IN THE PUY DE WHEN IT'S A SIX LOT, PEUT. IT'S KIND OF DIFFICULT TO SEE THAT THERE'S ONE UNIT IN THAT BEAUTY. THAT. DOESN'T AGREE WITH THE CHANGE IN A C P U D. AND CAN THEN BE HURT. BY THE OTHER PD MEMBERS BECAUSE OF A CHANGE IN THE PD THAT THEY INITIALLY AGREED TO. SO, UM. I UNDERSTAND THE FACT THAT YOU KNOW P AWAY VOTING HOW THAT GOES DOWN. IT APPEARED FROM THAT LETTER. IT WAS A. SUPER MAJORITY OF THE VOTE, MEANING THE LARGE VOTED AGAINST IT. AND THE OTHER MEMBERS VOTED FOR IT. I'M ASSUMING MY OPINION IS THAT DO IT. EITHER HAVE NEITHER HAVE THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO DO IT. OR THEY DON'T. AND WE DON'T KNOW IT'S VALID AND WE DON'T REQUIRE PROOF OF THEIR LEGAL AUTHORITY LIKE DOCUMENTS, SAYING THIS IS WHAT GRANTS AS THE AUTHORITIES ARE TAKING IT ON THEIR WORD, SIGNED AN AFFIDAVIT. EVERY MEETING. BIG IT UP. REMAIN. 100 FT OF HIS HEAD. OH REQUIRE THEM TO SUBPOENA THOSE PEOPLE AND BRING THEM IN THE ROOM AND TESTIFY. MAILED THE LETTER.
EVIDENCE PRESENTED IS FROM THEM THE APPLICANTS UNDER OATH. THE REMEDY IS. HI YOU'RE BREACHED THE RADAR. COLONEL, BECAUSE BY THE WAY. GRANTING WORK DENYING OF THIS APPLICATION TODAY.
THERE'S NOT HER EVEN. IT'S NOT.
HERE'S THE. VIOLATED THE AND YEARS AND BILL. BUILDINGS. TOWNHOUSES. DISTRICT COURT. GO.
STYLISH. TOWN HOUSES AND THEY. THIS CASE GOES WORK. RISKING YOUR OWN PAYROLL. FORD. HERE FACT THAT WE'RE PUTTING. BY NO MEANS IS. JUST WE'RE RELYING ON YOUR STATEMENT. GIVING YOU THE
[01:20:07]
DUE PROCESS THAT YOU'RE ENTITLED TO AS A MEMBER. HEARD. AND I DON'T KNOW. SO THIS TYPE OF USE IS ALLOWED IN CEBU, TMX BEAUTY AND INDUSTRIAL CERTAINLY AND USD TO BE. THERE BUT FOR THE FACT THAT IT'S NOT LISTED AS A USEFUL OUT IN THIS. MENDED THE P U D DOCUMENT TO ALLOW THE USE. THE CITY'S COATES SAYS. FIND US MONEY IN THIS LOCATE. COMMERCIAL. AIR INSIDE. CITY CODE ON US ON. FOR THE PPD. HOW THIS TYPE OF USE. YEAR. IT'S BEEN A MINUTE. LIST THAT SAYS FOLLOWING USES ARE PERMITTED. IT'S NOT SAY IT IN THE BEAUTY THAT ORDER FOR HAS TO BE A MAN.AND THE BEAUTY. SIGNATURE. OWNERS. SONICALLY, LET'S LET'S. PATHETICALLY SPEAKING. HE USED TO BE A GOOD WILL. AND HONESTLY, I DON'T KNOW WHAT GOODWILL IS, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF PD SAYS YOU CAN DO GOODWILL. BUT LET'S SAY THE GOODWILL BUILDING. HAD A PROBLEM AND THEY NEEDED TO MODIFY THE BUILDING AND WHATEVER THEY NEEDED TO DO TO MODIFY THE BUILDING, WE REQUIRED A P U D AMENDMENT. AND THE LANDOWNER FOR THAT PROPERTY FOR THE GOOD BUILT WILL BUILDING WAS GOING TO GET A $500 A DAY CODE ENFORCEMENT FINE UNTIL THEY FIXED WHATEVER THAT WAS, AND IT REQUIRED THE SIGNATURE OF ALL OWNERS. AND SOMEBODY SAID, WELL, NOW YOU KNOW, I'LL GIVE YOU A SIGNATURE.
BUT I WANT YOU GIVE ME HALF YOUR LAND. PART. THAT SURE WHAT WE WOULD DO UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES . I DON'T THINK WE WOULD BE POSSIBLE FOR US TO CODE AND FORCED THEM. UNDER THAT, BECAUSE IT WOULD BE AN IMPOSSIBILITY OF PERFORMANCE. BUT WE'VE RUN INTO THIS SIGNATURE THING. MANY TIMES IN THE PAST, AND WE'VE TALKED ABOUT CHANGING IT. BUT EVERYBODY SAYS NO, IT'S NOT. YOU SHOULDN'T CHANGE. YOU LEAVE IT THERE. THE SIGNATURES AS MR TANAKA SAID, IT'S A PROPERTY, RIGHT. IT'S A VESTED PROPERTY RIGHT THE YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO RELY ON IT. AND THAT'S TRUE. ALONG WITH THAT VESTED PROPERTY RIGHT? THAT WAS CREATED CONTRACTUALLY. IS. IN THE ORDINANCE, IT SAYS, AND THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A. APPEAL A OR AN H AWAY OR WHATEVER THEIR ASSOCIATIONS, MANAGEMENT RIGHTS ARE AND. IT'S GOING TO REGULATE WHATEVER IT REGULATES. AND IN THIS CASE, I THINK, AND I HAVEN'T. WHAT JUMPED INTO A BIT. MY UNDERSTANDING OF TONIGHT'S DISCUSSION WAS THAT MR CANNOT POSITION IS THAT THAT DOCUMENT WAS INTENDED FOR AND CREATED TWS OF COMMON AREA MAINTENANCE AND TO HIRE THE LAWN MAN KIND OF STUFF. BUT THAT IT WAS NOT INTENDED. TO BE USED FOR THE SCOPE. OF CHANGING THE AUTHORITY ON SIGNATURES TO MODIFY THE P U. D. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENT OR DISCUSSION IS WELL, NO, THE BOARD HAS THE OWNERS ARE THE MEMBERS OF THE A HAVE THE RIGHT TO AMEND THE PEOPLE. AH, AND THEY HAD A DULY. HELD MEETING AND THEY HAVE AMENDED THE PEORIN FACT, AUTHORIZE THE. SIGNATURE, SO TO ME. I KNOW THAT LEGALLY. I COULD CREATE A HOLIDAY. AND HAVE MEMBERS OF A AND I COULD CALL IT DULY HELD MEETING AND I COULD AMEND THE PUNTO. AH! AND I COULD IN FACT, HAVE IT. ADOPT BINDING LANGUAGE THAT AUTHORIZED TO OPERATE WITH THAT LANGUAGE MOVING FORWARD. I MEAN, THAT'S PRETTY COMMON. I MEAN, IT HAPPENS EVERY SINGLE DAY OF THE WEEK. NOW. I DON'T KNOW IF IT DID OR DIDN'T AND I DON'T. GET TO DECIDE ANYWAY, SO IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT I READ. THE QUESTION IS, WE HAVE AN APPLICANT THAT
[01:25:05]
COMES BEFORE US THAT SAYS WE HAVE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO DO IT. WE SENT THE NOTICE TO THE PEOPLE WITHIN 300 FT. WE'VE SIGNED THE NOTARIZED APPLICATION. WE FOLLOWED UP WITH THE NOTARIZED DOCUMENTS SAYING WE HAD THE LEGAL AUTHORITY ASSIGNED TO PEOPLE BECAUSE WE HAD ESPECIALLY HEALTH MEETING AND HERE IT IS, AND WE'RE HERE TO WANT THE PRESIDENT PRESENTED TO YOU. WE THEN HAVE ANOTHER. MEMBER OF IT, AND I KNOW IT FEELS WEIRD BECAUSE IT'S SMALL BECAUSE IT'S ONLY THREE. IF IT WAS 3000 AND IT WAS ONLY ONE PERSON OBJECTING. MIGHT IGNORE HIM. BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT MAKES ANY DIFFERENCE AT ALL. THE NUMBER DOESN'T MATTER IF IT'S 3000, OR THREE. ONE OBJECTION IS ENOUGH. IF IT'S EITHER ALLOWED OR IT'S NOT AND SO MY THOUGHT ON IT IS.I CAN'T TELL THEM THEY CAN'T COME TO A HEARING. I CAN'T TELL THE OTHER SIDE THAT I CAN BAR YOU KNOW, IT'S SO I'M STUCK TO LET IT GO FORWARD. YOU GUYS AS A BOARD, BUT I DON'T WANT YOU TO REALLY GET CAUGHT UP IN THE. ISSUE THAT ISSUE. I'D MUCH RATHER SAY TO YOU IGNORE THAT ISSUE ALTOGETHER. HAVE THE HEARING AND JUST TELL US WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS ARE ON THIS APPLICATION. UNFORTUNATELY, IT'S SOMEWHAT INTERTWINED. AND BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT BINDING. YOUR RULING AS IT RELATES TO THE TO THE. APPROVAL OF IT DOESN'T GRANT ANY PROPERTY RIGHTS OR TAKE ANY PROPERTY RIGHTS AWAY. IF ANYTHING, IF YOU'RE INCLINED TO GO FORWARD ON THE HEARING, I MIGHT HAVE YOU IF THERE IS A MOTION SAY SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF WITHOUT. DISCUSSING THIS ISSUE AT ALL OR ASSUMING. THEY HAD THE ABILITY TO BE BEFORE US BECAUSE WE DON'T GET TO DECIDE THAT. THIS IS HOW WE FEEL ABOUT THIS. PARTICULAR USE OR IF WE HAD ALL THE SIGNATURES , THIS IS WHAT OUR POSITION WOULD BE ON THIS VIEWS MAY BE SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT OR CONTINUE IT MOVING ON. WORK CALL SPECIAL MEETINGS OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO DO. I DON'T WANT TO. I DON'T WANT TO PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH AND TELL YOU WHAT TO DO. I JUST. HONESTLY FOR A LONG TIME.
WE'VE NEVER HAD THIS PROBLEM BEFORE. MADAM CHAIR. HE DID ASK US TO FOR CONTINUANCE. I THINK WE SHOULD AT LEAST VOTE ON THAT. YEAH I WOULD AGREE. SO I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT, UM. THAT WE GRANT CONTINUANCE DUE TO INSUFFICIENT NOTICE. ACCORDING TO MR CAN I ASK ONE QUESTION BEFORE AM I ALLOWED TO DO THAT ONE QUESTION NOW THAT WE NEED EMOTION SECOND, THEN WE CAN RIGHT? IS THERE A SECOND? I MEAN, WE ALSO HAVE A PUBLIC COMMENT FOR THIS ITEM, TOO. SO.
YOU DON'T NEED TO GET INTO THIS WHOLE MATTER IF WE'RE NOT IF WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE IT, SO LET'S JUST TAKE CARE OF THAT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. WELL I THINK THEY NEED TO SPEAK ON THE ITEM ITSELF, RIGHT? MATTER WHAT YOU'LL TAKE. RIGHT? WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO SECOND THE MOTION? THE MOTION DIES THAT WERE THAT WORKS DISCRETION TO TAKE THE PUBLIC.
HEY, WHY DON'T WE GO AHEAD WITH THE PUBLIC COMING? ONE OF THEM. JUST.
ACTUAL. PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION DOCUMENTS THAT I REFERRED TO EARLIER AND I JUST SAID. CHECKED YOUR. OKAY? PLEASE START COME TO THE MICROPHONE. LITTLE GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS JEREMIAH HAYHURST. I'M A PROJECT ARCHITECT WITH MATTERS. ENGINEERING FULL DISCLOSURE. I WORKED WITH BILL FOR 25 YEARS. I'VE ALSO DONE WORK FOR SUBURBAN LODGE ABOUT SIX MONTHS AGO, WHEN A CAR HIT THE BUILDING AND ON THE GROUND FLOOR. AND I'VE ALSO HAD MY CAR PAINTED BY CLINTON DEPOT DID A GOOD JOB. SO. I WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT I'VE BEEN IN TOWN PARK RESIDENT FOR 16 YEARS. AND I WAS A BOARD MEMBER FOR EIGHT OF THOSE AND OF THE BOARD. I WAS ALSO THE PRESIDENT BOARD FOR FOUR OF THOSE YEARS. MY CONCERN TODAY. IF YOU COULD MAYBE PULL UP THE THIRD SLIDE. I LIVE IN BUILDING 83. THIS ONE? NO WELL, SEE PEOPLE, LITTLE PEOPLE SAY AERIAL SHOT. THAT'S.
[01:30:08]
YOURS. YES. AT THIS POINT. TO AND AT THAT TIME GOODWILL HAD LOTS OF. LOTS OF ISSUES AS BOARD PRESIDENT. WE HAD A HOMELESS ISSUE. PEOPLE LIVING IN THOSE TREES IN THE BACK THERE. TREES WEREN'T MAINTAINED VERY WELL. WE AS A BOARD HAD TO CUT THE TREES OUTSIDE THE WALL. WE ALSO HAD AN ISSUE WITH THE TREES WITH SUBURBAN. BECAUSE THEY ALSO WE HAD TO GO. I THINK IT'S ALWAYS AN ISSUE OF TREES ON ONE SIDE OF PROPERTY. THE OTHER MY GOAL HERE IS THAT THE TREES ARE GREAT SOUND ATTENUATION. AND WE'VE GOT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE NOT CUT. OR ANYTHING IS DONE TO THOSE DURING THE PROCESS DURING ANY OF THE WORK IS PROPOSED AS. MAYBE A TREE SURVEY WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA FOR THIS CITY TO HAVE UNDER A SURVEY TO ACTUALLY TWO YEARS FROM NOW, THEY CAN'T SAY.ALL THESE TREES HAVE BEEN HERE THEY WERE CUT DOWN COULD BE ONE OF MY SUGGESTIONS. SUGGESTION I HAVE IS. I'M NOT EITHER FOR OR AGAINST THE PROJECT AGAIN. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE BUILDING.
THE GARAGE DOORS BE INSULATED. THERE'S ALSO AN IDEA OF WHEN THE GARAGE DOORS ARE UP AND DOWN.
WHO'S GOING TO MAINTAIN THAT? POLICING OF THAT. MAYBE A 24 HOUR CAMERA. SOMEBODY HAS TO BE DONE BECAUSE AS A FORMER. PRESIDENT OF BOARD, WE WOULD ALWAYS GET NUISANCE COMPLAINTS FROM SUBURBAN POLICE CALLS THINGS OF THAT NATURE. YES. IT'S A HOTEL, BUT. WE'VE BEEN THERE, AND I'VE HAD THIS UNIT FOR 16 YEARS. WEATHER ISSUE IS. OF THE $9600 OF TOWN PARK. 60 OF THEM ARE ELDERLY. RETIRED. BUILDING 84 83 FACE LESS THAN 100 YARDS AWAY FROM THIS POST. SO I'D LIKE TO RECOMMEND HEAVY DUTY LIGHT SHIELDING. OKAY, WHERE WE WOULD HAVE AT LEAST SOME. NIGHTTIME NO LIGHT POLLUTION COMING ONTO OUR PROPERTY. NOT SURE WHAT THE NEW LIGHTING PLAN IS GOING TO CALL FOR. CODES BECAUSE WHEN A LYNCHS BUILT THE CULTURAL CHANGE, SO IF THAT COULD BE SOMETHING IT COULD BE PUT INTO RECOMMENDATION ON MY PART. NOT AS JUST AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN. THE SOUND ATTENUATION FOR THE MACHINERY IS ALSO SOMETHING THAT WOULD RECOMMEND LIBERATION ISOLATION BECAUSE THEY HAVE LOTS OF. MACHINES OF PEACE. YOU CAN HAVE ANOTHER 30 SECONDS. SO. MY ENFORCEMENT ISSUE IS HOW DO YOU MAKE SURE THAT THE GARAGE DOORS CLOSED? OKAY. IT'S GREAT TO SEE THAT.
LET GIDEON GREAT TO HAVE IT IN SOMEONE. BUT YOU KNOW, MOST OF THESE PLACES YOU COULD DRIVE BY THERE. ALWAYS OPEN. SO THE ONLY WAY YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO SIGN IN SITUATIONS OF THE THERE'S SOME ENFORCEMENT ON THE GARAGE DOORS, AND I'D LIKE TO HAVE THEM INSULATED. THAT'S MY ONLY COMMENTS FOR THE STAFF. I HOPE YOU GUYS WORK IT OUT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY I WOULD LOVE FOR US TO HAVE A LITTLE DISCUSSION BEFORE WE HEAR ANYONE. I AGREE. I AGREE. NO NOT RIGHT NOW. WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS FIRST. PLEASE WAIT. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. LET'S HAVE A DISCUSSION. I THINK THE FIRST FOREMOST THE ONLY QUESTION THAT WE SHOULD BE ASKING OURSELVES RIGHT NOW IS DO WE FEEL THAT IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR A. NOTARIZED LETTER FROM THE P O A TWO COUNT, AS SORT OF, YOU KNOW, LIKE AN OWNER'S AGREEMENT IN THIS SITUATION. I THINK WE SHOULD JUST REMOVE ALL OF THE PARTICULARS OF THIS. SPECIFIC COMPLICATED SITUATION AND SAY IN GENERAL, IS THAT OKAY? IF IT'S NOT IF THERE'S SOMETHING IF AREAS GOING ON, THAT'S FOR THE COURTS TO DECIDE WHERE JUST I'M A DUMB DUMB. I CAN'T MAKE THAT DECISION. SO DO WE FEEL LIKE IT'S APPROPRIATE? FOR THEM TO HAVE SUBMITTED THIS LETTER FROM THE POPE TO I THINK THAT'S JUST I'D LIKE TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION. ANYBODY HAVE ANY PROMISED THEY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ON THAT. MIKE SAYS, AND STAFF I KNOW STAFF SAYS IT'S SUFFICIENT. I THINK IT'S THAT'S AND THAT'S IT. THAT'S ALL WE KNOW. JACKIE? YEAH. SO MAYBE THIS CAN BE A LOT LESS COMPLICATED, AND I THINK WE HAVE TO GO ON TO DECIDE IF THIS IS APPROPRIATE. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO. I MEAN, CAN WE JUST. YOUR PHONE. I LEARNED OFF BECAUSE I HER OUT. THE LETTER OR DO ANYTHING. I THINK THE HEARING.
[01:35:23]
ALL THE WAY. THE AL AUTHORITY WE HAD TO MEET. THIS GIVES US THE AUTHORITY SO THAT IT IS ON THE RECORD THAT THEY. I'M HEARING THAT ALL RIGHT? BECAUSE WE'RE NOT NO ELSE. MAKES AND SO TO DO THAT. OVER HERE, AND THIS IS WHAT WE WANT. OKAY, SO IS THIS CONSIDERED A HEARING RIGHT NOW? OUT OKAY? I JUST OKAY. FANTASTIC I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM THAT NOW I AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT.DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE COMMENT? OH I WOULD. YEAH YOU KEEP TELLING US SORRY. YOU KEEP TELLING STUDENTS AND THINGS, MIKE. I THOUGHT YOUR OTHER SUGGESTION WAS SIMPLER. WE CAN MAKE A MOTION SAY WE APPROVED THIS. BASED ON OUR BELIEF THAT THE APPLICATION IS SUFFICIENT AND THAT. LETTER FROM THE MEMBER THAT IS VALID LEGAL. SOMEONE SAID. MIKE SAID IT WAS. TELLING YOU THAT? NO NO, NO. BUT I'M SAYING BASED ON OUR BELIEF THAT IT'S THAT IT IS LEGAL. WE APPROVE IT BASED, YOU KNOW WITH THESE, UH, ADDITIONS OR STIPULATIONS. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOMEBODY ON RECORD. DURING THE HEARING, SAYING THAT THERE WAS A MEETING THAT TOOK PLACE.
IT IS WITHIN THE HOH DOCUMENTS THAT THAT REPRESENTATIVE IS ALLOWED TO REPRESENT. I WOULD LIKE THAT ON RECORD OFFICIALLY GONNA HAPPEN TONIGHT, THEN, RIGHT? HIS GEAR TO SUBMIT THAT, OKAY, THEY CAN IDENTIFY THE RECORD AND SAY, LOOK, WE SUBMITTED IT TO AARON OR WHATEVER AARON GOT OR. REST. INTERVIEW ADVENTURE THING. REST. GUESS WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO.
ASSUMING. TO ADDRESS THAT. IT'S WE'RE NOT GOING. RECOGNIZE. ALL WE ADDRESSED WAS. POTENTIAL USE . THAT ISSUE IS STILL RESERVED FOR THE CITY. TREAT. CENTER. MADAM CHAIR. I AGREE WITH YOU, I WOULD LIKE TO, AND IN FACT, IT SAYS IN THE APPLICATION, IT SAYS THE STAFF QUESTIONS. THE ABILITY OF THE APPLICATION BE FILED ON BEHALF OF THE BEAUTY. HOWEVER HAS THE P O. HAS VOTED IN FAVOR AND SUPPORTS THE APPLICATION. THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS DEEMED THIS REQUEST SHIP YOUR HEARD IN FRONT OF THE CITY COMMISSION. BOARD MEMBER READY APPLICANT TIME THEN TO PREPARE. SO THAT TESTIMONY WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE CITY. OTHERWISE I DON'T TONIGHT. YOU'RE KIND OF I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED. BOARD MEMBER RICH. I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT WAS IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT I WROTE RIGHT PART OF YOUR PACKET. SO YOU'RE RECOMMENDING THAT WE DIDN'T SAY WE WANT THE L P A TO DEAL WITH THIS. YOU SAID CITY COMMISSION SHOULD. DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF THIS DISPUTE DETERMINED. YES THAT'S HAS HAD THE QUESTION ON THE VALIDITY. SO THAT WOULD I WOULD TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU. BUT LET'S. TWIST THE RESPONSIBILITY TO THE CITY COMMISSION. AND THEN THAT GIVES THEM TIME TO PREPARE. RIGHT WE IF WE MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON THIS, CAN WE HAVE THAT AS PART OF THE RECOMMENDATION? SO LIKE YOU'RE SAYING, OKAY, SURE. THEN I'M FINE WITH THAT. I JUST WANT SOMEWHERE. LIKE YOUR RECOMMENDATION THAT THERE'S SOMEBODY THAT CERTIFIES UNDER OATH TO THEIR ABILITY TO DO THIS. AND STAFF AGREES WITH THAT. OKAY GREAT. IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION THAT WE WANT TO HAVE ON? THE MOVE ON WHAT'S BEFORE US. WHERE THERE IS NO MOTION. I UNDERSTAND. ARE YOU THEN WENT TO THE NEXT HIS.
PARENTS MEETING ITS STAR. IT WAS PRESENTATIONS BY EARNINGS. NUANCE. NO, WE'RE GOOD. WE'RE.
[01:40:08]
WE ARE. I THINK THAT YOU HAVE. OKAY I DO LIKE THE SUGGESTIONS MADE BY A ADJACENT. AN OWNER THAT IF WE DO CHOOSE TO PURSUE THIS THAT ADDING IN SOME OF THE THINGS AS HE SUGGESTED IN THE TREE SURVEY TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING IS DOCUMENTED PROPERLY. SHOULD BE DONE. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT? HE'S GOING TO REALLY LIKE THE SECOND ITEM ON OUR AGENDA TONIGHT. THIS GUY? YEAH. OKAY IT'S ENFORCEMENT FOR TREES. AND THERE YOU GO. UM OKAY. WOULD ANYONE LIKE THE ATTORNEYS TO DO THE REBUTTAL? NO HERE AMONGST US. OKAY? I DO NOT. ANYBODY ELSE KNOW GREAT. OKAY GOOD NIGHT. ASK SOME QUESTIONS OF YES, THAT'S MY NEXT THING WAS, LET'S ASK THE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SPECIFIC PROJECT BEFORE US. MR. KONOPKA. OPERATION. UM. SO THAT'S A VERY LENGTHY LIST OF ALLOWED USES IT RIGHT. IT IS. SO WHAT IS WHAT IS IT? THAT'S UNIQUE ABOUT THIS BUSINESS. NOT RETAIL. WHAT ELEMENTS WOULD BE PRESENT THERE THAT ARE WOULD NOT BE PRESENT, AND SO MANY OF THOSE DIFFERENT USES POSSIBLE USAGE IF YOU'VE DRIVEN BY THE COLLISION DEPOT.OFF OF THE US ONE TO THE SOUTH. YOU'LL SEE THERE'S CARS IN THE PARKING LOT. YOU'LL SEE. THERE'S UM THERE'S NOISE EMANATING FROM THE PROPERTY. THERE'S BANGING HYDRAULIC MACHINES. THERE ARE ENGINES REVVING. YOU'LL HEAR NONE OF THAT NEXT TO A RETAIL ESTABLISHMENT. OR A PROFESSIONAL ESTABLISHMENT WERE AN ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY OR A DOCTOR'S OFFICE OR LAWYER'S OFFICE. SO.
BUT THE EXTENSIVE LIST OF USES ILLUSTRATE THAT THIS WAS CAREFULLY THOUGHT OF. THAT THE USES WERE CONSIDERED BY THE PEOPLE WHO BOUGHT INTO THAT P C P U D. AND THAT INDUSTRIAL TYPE USES WERE NOT A PART OF THEIR CONSIDERATION FOR GOOD REASON. SO YOU. YOU CAST A VERY SKEPTICAL EYE ON THERE A SEARCH PROMISE THAT EVERYTHING WILL BE DONE INDOORS. THE DOORS CLOSED, AND I THINK THE CARS WILL NOT BE PARKED THERE AT NIGHT. CORRECT ISN'T THERE'S NO ENFORCEMENT OF THAT RIGHT GOING FORWARD SO THEY CAN PROMISE YOU THE WORLD HERE TODAY. AND THE CODE DOESN'T REQUIRE THE COLLISION DEPOT TO PUT THEIR CARS INSIDE AND TO KEEP THEIR BASE CLOSED. THEY'RE GOING TO WANT THEIR BAS OPEN. THE LIGHTS ARE GOING TO BE SHINING DOWN IN THE PARKING LOT TO PREVENT THEFTS AND BREAK INS , AND IT'S GOING TO BE NOTHING LIKE THEY RETAIL TYPE USES THAT ARE IN THE C P U D. SO YOU SIMPLY DON'T BELIEVE THEIR CLAIMS. YOU'RE SAYING THAT. THE PRACTICAL MATTER IS THAT'S NOT HOW THEY RUN THEIR BUSINESS. THEY MAY HAVE EVERY BELIEF THAT THAT'S WHAT WILL HAPPEN. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE RUNNING THE COLLISION DEPOT. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE THE ONE SPLITTING THE SWITCH TO TURN THE LIGHTS ON AND OFF TO CLOSE THE BAY DOORS TO OPEN THE BAY DOORS TO DECIDE WHAT KEYS TO LEAVE IN THE PARKING LOT TO DECIDE WHAT TO DO WITH THE CARS THAT THEY HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO FIX THAT NIGHT. AND THE OWNERS WHO HAVEN'T COME TO PICK UP THESE CARS, THERE WILL BE NOWHERE LEFT BUT TO LEAVE THEM IN THE PARKING. OVERNIGHT AND THEN THEY'RE GOING TO NEED TO PROTECT HIM. AND THERE'S GOING TO BE CHAIN LINK FENCES UP RIGHT BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE APPLICATION SAYS THEY'RE GONNA HAVE A CHAIN LINK FENCE SURROUNDING THIS PROPERTY. THAT'S AN EYESORE. OKAY IS THERE A MEANS OF ENFORCEMENT WITH THE CITY? UNDERTAKES. WELL YEAH, THERE'S IT'S THIS IS PART OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE EU DE THEN THAT'S WHAT WILL BE ENFORCED. THE CITY DOES SOUND MONITORING. IF IT'S NEEDED. UM. THE CITY WILL MONITOR THE. THE IMPLICATIONS OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE BEAUTY, AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE CONDITIONS ON PDS, RIGHT. CUBAN. I GOT A QUICK QUESTION FOR YOU. ON THE C P U. D. THESE PARCELS ALL TIED TOGETHER, RIGHT? THEY ALL? YES. THEY'RE ALL PART OF A BEAUTY. YES OKAY, SO THEY'RE TIED TOGETHER AND THEY HAVE COMMON PROPERTY COMMON AREA RIGHT, BUT WOULDN'T A VIOLATION OF ONE THIN JEOPARDIZED THE TOTAL. ESSENTIALLY, YES. SO IF YOU KNOW? IF THERE WAS A VIOLATION IN IT'S THE. TOTAL C P O D THAT WOULD END UP BEING SOME TYPE OF RESPONSIBILITY. ALWAYS THOUGHT EVEN THOUGH WE HAD MULTI WOW. DISCIPLINES WITHIN A B U. D.
[01:45:08]
THAT A VIOLATION. WHAT IS THE VIOLATION OF THE PD AGREEMENT, WHICH IS THE MASTER? THIS IS A.SUB CONDITION OF THE MASTER CPD CORRECT. IT'S UNUSUAL IN THAT THERE ARE. SOME PARTS OF THE P U D HIGHLIGHTED WITH DIFFERENT USES ATTACHED TO THEM. HOWEVER THE OVERALL PDS IS. CONTROLLED BY OR MANAGED BY PROPERTY. OWNERS ASSOCIATION AND THE VIOLATION ON THAT WOULD BE ISSUED TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION. SO IT'S NOT JUST THE CITY. IT'S. THERE'S ASSOCIATION THAT'S SUPPOSED TO ALSO MONITOR IT FOR. YES THE ORIGINAL CPU D, RIGHT? YES, OKAY. I DISAGREE WITH THAT. I DON'T THINK THE ASSOCIATION HAS ANY ROLE IN MONITORING THIS. AND THAT'S NOW IN THE RECORD. YOU CAN LOOK AT THAT. BUT THAT'S NOT THE ASSOCIATION'S RULE. THEY CUT THE GRASS. THEY COLLECT ASSESSMENTS TO MAKE SURE THE COMMON PROPERTY AND ACCESS IS THERE THAT OKAY? GUYS. HOLD UP. IMPORTANCE. OKAY. THANK YOU. WE HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, MR CONNECTOR. THANK YOU, MR WATER. SO THE BARRIER BETWEEN THE HOTEL THE EXTENDED STAY AND WHAT SORT OF BUFFERING. ARE WE CONTEMPLATING? ARE WE WILLING TO WORK FOR MAINTAINING WAS EXISTING HERE? SO I THINK LESS OF THE PROPERTY. VERY LARGE LANDSCAPE BUFFER. THAT KIND OF SHOWS A LITTLE BIT FURTHER TO THE SOUTH WEST. THE PARTY. RIGHT IN FRONT OF BUILDING. THERE'S A LITTLE ISLAND. TREES AND PLANTS. AGAIN. YOUR BUFFER IS. PLUS OUR FEET BETWEEN BUILDING THE BUILDING. AND WE DO SOMETHING MORE THERE. NOT HOLD OUT OF ROOM BECAUSE AGAIN, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING TO DO IS JUST INHERENT AND IMPROVE SITE. NO. EVERYTHING OFF OF OUR PROPERTY IS COMMON.
MAINTAINED BY THIS ASSOCIATION. ACTION AS YOU POINTED OUT. PARCELS VACANT. BEING USED FOR QUESTIONABLE PURPOSES. OFFERS BEING USED AND LOOKED. FREQUENT DEVELOPMENT THAT'S VISITED BY THE POLICE. THINK THAT THEY'RE ALREADY ISSUES AND ALREADY A HEAVY HEAVY MONITORING OF THIS DEVELOPED. THIS PROPERTY HOPEFULLY IS GOING TO TURN THE CORNER AND HELP WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT IMPROVEMENT OF THIS ENTIRE DAY. BUT I DO IF I CAN JUST DIGRESS A LITTLE BIT VERY SHORT, VERY SHORTLY BECAUSE I'M JUST RESPONDING TO A QUESTION ABOUT MR MATTERS ABOUT THE ENFORCEMENT. REPORT WHAT YOU TEND TO HAVE OUR GLOBAL P U. D. THAT IF YOU VIOLATE THIS GLOBAL PV, THEN YES, IT'S AN ENFORCEMENT AGAINST EVERYONE. BUT THEN YOU START SEEING THESE SITES SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS. LIKE THIS, WHERE ONLY APPLIES TO A CERTAIN PARTS OF LIKE A SITE.
ONLY APPLIES TO A CERTAIN PART PROPERTY. SO IF I VIOLATE MY SITE PLAN, EVERYONE ELSE DOESN'T GET IN TROUBLE. I GET IN TROUBLE AND THAT GOES BACK TO THIS ISSUE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WHEN YOU HAVE THESE SITE SPECIFIC AMENDMENT. IT'S SUBJECT. PROPERTY IS ONLY THE PROPERTY THAT'S DESCRIBED IN THERE. EVERYONE ELSE HAS THE CHANCE TO TALK, BUT SO IT ENFORCEMENT OF IF WE VIOLATE THIS P U D AMENDMENT. IT'S A VIOLATION AGAINST THIS PROPERTY. IT DOESN'T AFFECT SUBURBAN LODGE. IT DOESN'T AFFECT THE BANK OR WHATEVER THE NEXT USE IS GOING TO BE, AND IT DOESN'T AFFECT THE ASSOCIATION. IT AFFECTS THIS SITE SPECIFIC. PROPERTY THAT'S SUBJECT TO THIS APPLICATION. ALY OTHER QUESTIONS? YES, THE AREA. THAT ISLAND. THAT FRONT US. ONE IS REALLY NICE PIECE THERE. I MEAN, THAT COULD. REALLY HAVE SOME VERY NICE AND LANDSCAPING IN IT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT. PLAN FOR THAT IS, BUT THAT COULD BE VERY ATTRACTIVE. REALLY. IT'S A BIG PIECE. I DON'T. ARE YOU JUST DOING? THE MINIMUM ASKED FOR BY STAFF, OR DO YOU HAVE PLANS FOR SOMETHING TRYING TO JUST ENHANCE THE LANDSCAPE AND THAT WAS ALREADY THERE BY ADDING A MOVING A COUPLE. OUR IDEA WAS NOT TO REALLY MODIFY THE SITE PLAN CYCLING TOO MUCH BECAUSE WE THOUGHT THIS WAS GOING TO BE A VERY STRAIGHT. BOARD MEMBER RICH I DO WANT TO CLARIFY THAT STAFF DID ASK FOR ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING. EXCUSE ME. STAFF HAS ASKED FOR ADDITIONAL
[01:50:03]
LANDSCAPING, BUT THAT THAT WAS NOT PROVIDED. GOOD. UM. THE GENTLEMAN BROUGHT UP AND I DO. I SUFFERED FROM THIS IN MY OWN NEIGHBORHOOD. SOME OF THESE VERY BRIGHT HIGHLIGHTS. CAN BE VERY INTRUSIVE. IS THERE A MEANS OF ABATING THAT YOU KNOW THE LIGHTING FACING THE HOTEL THERE NOW YOU'VE GONE BEYOND MY KID. OKAY, RIGHT. YEAH. CARSON BAIRD. MOTHER AND I ARE THE ONES THAT ARE DEVELOPING THE PROPERTY. WANTED TO ADDRESS A COUPLE OF THE ITEMS, ONE BEING THE CONCERNS. SO CURRENTLY WITHIN FOUR AND 54 IS A LOWLAND PRESERVE RIGHT NOW. FIVE IS WOODED AREA THAT ACTS AS A BUFFER BETWEEN US AND THE APART. TO CONFIRM HIS. GALLOP HOMELESS PEOPLE. WE VISITED THE SITE WITHIN THE LAST MONTH, AND THEY'RE STILL THERE. WE HAVE NO INTENTION OF REMOVING ANY OF THAT BARRIER. IT'S NOT OUR PLACE. THAT WOULD BE THE PDS IN, WE WANTED TO KEEP THE SIDE AS AS IT IS CURRENTLY AND AS THE LANDSCAPING PLANE WAS APPROVED WAY BACK WHEN WAS FIRST DEVELOP. HELLO. ERIN DID RIGHT TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CHANGE SOME OG ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING BUFFER IN ORDER TO ADDRESS. HIS COMMENTS AND I'M SURE SUBURBAN LARGEST CONCERNS AS WELL ABOUT NOISE. LIKE ANY SORT OF POLLUTION. THAT WOULD BE AFFECTING EITHER OF THE PROBLEM. ONE THAT WAS MENTIONED WAS THAT THE DOORS ARE ALWAYS OPEN UP THE COLLISION DEPOT MORMON SHOP DOWN THE ROAD. THIS IS GOING TO BE OCCUPIED BY A NATIONAL PUBLICLY TRADED AUTO BODY SHOP THAT'S PUTTING. 34 $500,000 INTO THE PROPERTY, INCLUDING A STATE OF THE ART SYSTEM. IN FLORIDA. IT'S NEVER A GOOD IDEA TO LEAVE YOUR DOOR OPEN. 70 DEGREES. AND IT'S A STIPULATION OF OUR ACCEPTANCE TO KEEP THE DOORS CLOSED. SO. THE BUSINESS DECISION WILL ENFORCE THOSE DOORS THING. TENSION OF EVER LEAVING THEM OPEN EXCEPT TO BRING A CAR IN OR TAKE A CAR OUT. BUILDING AS FAR AS NOISE. LUCIEN GOES, THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ANYTHING LIKE THAT, EXCEPT FOR THE ODD MOMENT WAS DOOR OPENS UP AND DOWN. AND AS FOR LIGHT, I TEND TO AGREE WITH HIS SUGGESTION OF MAKING SURE THAT IF THERE ARE ANY LIGHTS ON THE BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY. IN THE PARKING LOT AND MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S SOME SORT OF VISOR THAT PREVENTS. WHERE THAT LIGHT IS GOING TO GO, BUT IT'S NOT ADMITTING INTO SOMEBODY'S APARTMENT OR INTO THE SUBURBS.WE HAVE TO MAKE A SPECIFIC STIPULATION THERE, KEVIN OR AVOID STUFF WE DO REQUIRE AS A PART OF THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS THAT A PHOTO METRIC PLAN BE SUBMITTED AND WE CAN ENSURE IT MEETS CODE IN ANY ANY LIGHT SPILLOVER. WE CAN ENSURE THAT THEIR CUT OFFS PLACED ON THOSE LIGHTS. SOMEBODY, OKAY? GOOD. UT OF CARS COMING. SO YOU'VE GOT A LOT OF STUFF SPILLING OUT OF THOSE CARS. HOW ARE YOU? HOW ARE WE DEALING WITH, YOU KNOW? RUNOFF AND RETENTION AND YOU'RE PROBABLY. IN TERMS OF THAT, CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW. ENGINE OILS AND ALL THE STUFF THAT COMES OFF OF CAR S WHEN IT RAINS. IRON MENTAL PHASE ONE, AND I THINK AS FAR AS. WHAT IS COMING OFF OF THE VEHICLES. IT'S NOTHING THAT YOU WOULDN'T HAVE SEEN IT A REGULAR SERVICE STATION, IF ANY VEHICLES DAMAGED OR LEAKING ANYTHING LIKE THAT IS BEING ADDRESSED BEFORE IT EVEN GETS ON OUR SITE OR IF IT IS BEING BROUGHT INSIDE TO ADDRESS STRAIGHT. THAT WE HAVE TO DO ANY SORT OF ADDITIONAL REGULATION BECAUSE OF THIS TYPE OF BUSINESS COMING. OTHER THAN THE STANDARD BUILDING REGULATIONS, BUILDING PERMIT REGULATIONS. NO OKAY? IT IS. 30 YEARS. STATE AND FEDERALLY MAYBE WHERE YOU SEE. AS FAR AS THE PROPERTY GOES SORRY, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. I'M SAM BAIRD. TIME. THE CEO. COALITION CRAFT.
WHICH CONSISTS OF MY SON AND I SO. WE WISH WE HAD NEVER SEEN THE FOR SALE SIGN. I JUST SPENT A LIVING NIGHTMARE. I HAVE $150,000 TIED UP IN THAT BILL. THAT NOWHERE. CHARGING SOME.
[01:55:12]
BEST. ATTORNEY SAID. BACK IN APRIL. WE GOTTA LETTERS. OUR STANDARD. OPERATING PROCEDURE.TALK TO OUR NEIGHBORS. YOU KNOW? MAKE SURE THE SITE. WORKABLE FINGERS. BECAUSE WE HAVE TO GET A PURSE. TO GET OUR TENANTS. LIEUTENANT HAS OVER 850 LOCATIONS. SOME OF THEM USED TO BE MINE. THEY RUN THEIR OPERATIONS LIKE THE HOSPITAL. LIKE TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR. THE QUESTION WAS, ARE THERE ANY STATE ENVIRONMENTAL OR LOCAL ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS THAT HAVE TO BE ABIDED BY? SORRY I GOT ON THE TRACK. YEAH. ANYHOW, WE'RE INSTALLING HEY. WATER.
STRAIGHT SEPARATOR. WHICH CLEANSES ALL. ANYTHING IN THE INSIDE IF WE WASH A CAR WERE BUFFED OUT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THEN IT GOES THROUGH THE FILTER SYSTEM. THE SUIT. SO YOU WILL BE ABIDING BY ANY STATE REGULATIONS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL PRACTICES. THANK YOU. CAMPBELL I'M NOTHING ELSE DONE. OKAY ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AS VERY QUICKLY? JUST ABOUT THE CHAIN LINK FENCE. I HEAR IT. YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THIS FEELS LIKE A FAIRLY APPROPRIATE USE FOR THIS SPACE. IF WE CAN GET IT TO FIT IN WITH THE OTHER TYPES OF USES, SO IT SEEMS LIKE LIGHT AND NOISE POLLUTION IF THEY IF WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT. CODE ENFORCEMENT IS ENFORCING THAT AND THEN THE ONLY OTHER THING THAT I THINK WOULD KIND OF FALL OUTSIDE OF THAT IS THE CHAIN LINK FENCE, WHICH YOU PROBABLY WOULD NOT HAVE AROUND A RETAIL OR NURSERY SCHOOL OR THAT KIND OF THING HAS BEEN OF AN ICE OR I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN BE DEALT WITH. BUT OTHERWISE, THAT'S ALL. JUST IT IS IT IS PERMITTED. CHAIN LINK FENCE IS PERMITTED WITH SCREENING. WHICH IS WHAT THEY HAVE PROVIDED HERE. HOWEVER WE HAVE ALSO ASKED THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE ABOVE AND BEYOND THAT, AND THAT WAS NOT PROVIDED . SO IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THAT A PART OF YOUR RECOMMENDATION. WELL CONSIDERING HOW LONG WE'VE ALL BEEN HERE TONIGHT, I'M SURE THE APPLICANT WOULDN'T MIND PUTTING IN A BETTER FENCE AND PERHAPS SOME DENSER LANDSCAPING SO THAT WE CAN ALL GET THROUGH THIS. LOVED IT. TREES AND THE BUFFER. TREES IN THE FRONT HAVE BEEN NEGLECT. THE ONES CLOSE TO THE BUILDING. THEY'RE MOSTLY DEAD. OKAY? REPLACING THERE IS AN EXISTING PLANTS THAT COVERS THREE QUARTERS OF THE WE JUST WANT. TO CUT OUT. THE AREA AT NIGHT. IT IS OUR PARKING AREA. TYPICALLY WORK AND WE'RE WE'RE OUT OF THERE BY 6 30. RIGHT? WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? LIKE TO MAKE IT QUICK STATEMENT.
OBVIOUSLY, JURY SAID, YOU KNOW, YOU AND I WORK TOGETHER. TOWN PARK HAS BEEN A CLIENT OF MINE FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS. WE DID THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT BACK IN THE EIGHTIES. AND I'M NOT RETAINED FOR THEM WITH THEM AT THIS POINT IN TIME. THAT'S WHY I DON'T MIND TAKING PART IN THE DISCUSSION. MM HOWEVER, THERE IS SOMETHING COMING UP THAT THEY WILL BE RETAINING ME ON, SO THERE IS A POTENTIAL. CONFLICT SO I'LL BE ABSTAINING IN THE VOTE. DID THAT. DO WE HAVE ENOUGH OF A MAJORITY, BUT WE HAVE ENOUGH. OKAY, SO WE HAVE A COURT, OKAY? FANTASTIC NOW. WITH THE REMAINING LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. ARE YOU REFUSING YOU? THIS. I'M GOING TO ABSTAIN ON THE VOTE. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE APPROVAL. OF THE AMENDMENT WITH, UM AND IMPROVED LANDSCAPE PLAN FEATURING DENSER, MATURE LANDSCAPING AND A FENCE THAT IS MORE APPROPRIATE IN LINE WITH
[02:00:01]
THE CURRENT RETAIL. CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY. IS IT POSSIBLE TO ADD ALSO THE CONDITION THAT WE DISCUSSED EARLIER THAT IT HAS TO BE OFFICIALLY ON RECORD ONCE IT GOES BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION.WHAT THE PIO A DOCUMENT SAY. I WELL, I THINK WE WANT TO ADD ISE UNDERSTANDING WITH WITH THE WITH THE UNDERSTANDING. THAT THE REPRESENTATION BY THE APPLICANTT HOWEVER EFFICIENTLY, DOESN'T IT, MIKE? OUR LEGAL AND VALID. THEN JACKIE'S MOTION. OKAY, I THINK THAT'S YES. OKAY AND JACKIE, YOU FORGOT NOISE AND LIGHT ABATEMENT. WELL THAT'S ALL RIGHT. IT SEEMS LIKE THAT'S KURT . COVER. OKAY, JUST ABOUT ENFORCEMENT, OKAY? WE HAVE THAT JORDAN'S. MADAM CHAIR, MADAM CHAIR. YES THERE WERE OTHER ISSUES MENTIONED DURING THE HEARING, AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT BEFORE YOU VOTE ON THE MOTION THAT. YOU ARE AWARE OF WHAT OTHER ISSUES WERE TOO OUTSPOKEN ABOUT? THERE WERE THE INSULATION OF THE GARAGE DOORS. THERE WAS THE LIGHTING PLANS REQUIRED. THE SOUND ATTENUATION OF THE GARAGE ITSELF. THE TREE SURVEY OF EXISTING PRESERVE AREA. AND ALSO AS WE DID WE HEARD THAT I WOULD SUGGEST ADDING THAT ANY. VIOLATION OF ANY SUBSEQUENT APPROVAL OR AMENDMENT OF THIS PARTICULAR PART OF THE P U. D. BE AIMED SOLELY AT THE OWNER OR OPERATOR OF THIS PARTICULAR AWESOME. JACKIE WOULD YOU LIKE TO AMEND YOUR MOTION TO INCLUDE THOSE ITEMS? I WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT? YES. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SAGA.
BOARD MEMBER RICH YES. BOARD MEMBER STRONG YES. REMEMBER MATTERS. FOR MEMBER VITALY? YES.
CHARLIE GREEN? YES. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, GENTLEMEN. YOU'RE HALFWAY THERE. SHE'LL GIVE IT TO ME BEFORE I LEAVE. GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. LET'S MOVE ON TO THE SECOND ITEM ON THE AGENDA, PLEASE. SURE YOU WANT TO LEAVE CHAIR? CAN WE TAKE A FIVE MINUTE DOESN'T SOUND GRATERS, NETHERLANDS. MINIMUM SEEM TO BE WORKING. OKAY, THERE
[2.
AMENDMENT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO INCORPORATE TREE REMOVAL PENALTIES (RC)
ORDINANCE No. 2478-2021; AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE EXISTING SECTION OF CHAPTER V RESOURCE PROTECTION STANDARDS OF THE CITY’S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, ESTABLISHING “PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS” FOR THE REMOVAL OF TREES IN VIOLATION OF THE CODE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.(RC)
]IT GOES, UM. TOM REED, SENIOR PLANNER. FOR THE RECORD, I WILL BE QUICK AND CONCISE. UM THIS BASICALLY, THE COMMISSION ASKED STAFF TO PUT TOGETHER SOME LANGUAGE, TOO. AMANDA CODE. UH CHAPTER FIVE OF THE CODE HAVING TO DO WITH RESOURCE PROTECTION. TREE PENN TREE PENALTIES SPECIFICALLY. OKAY SO THERE IS SOME HISTORY THAT IS INVOLVED IN TREE PENALTY PENCILED PENALTY AND OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. WAY BACK IN 2000 AND ONE STAFF PUT TOGETHER LANGUAGE SIMILAR TO WHAT IS GOING IS IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT. AH AH FOR THE L P. A TO CONSIDER. AH, SIMILAR LANGUAGE AS I MENTIONED. THEY VOTED 50 TO KEEP A FLAT PENALTY OF $7500 PER VIOLATION. UM, CURRENTLY.HOWEVER I DON'T SEE WHERE THAT $7500 IS STILL IN PLACE IN THE CODE, AND THERE'S NOTHING IN THE CODE FOR TREAT PENALTIES. WE'RE HISTORY, AND MORE RECENTLY, TREES WERE REMOVED ILLEGALLY AT THE OSPREY PRESERVED DEVELOPMENT. AGAIN NO PROVISION IN THE CODE FOR STAFF TO FORMULATE ENFORCE PENALTIES. THE DEVELOPER WHO REMOVED THE TREES AND VEGETATION ILLEGALLY.
CONJURED UP SOME. ACTUALLY DIDN'T CONJURE IT UP, BUT HE USED THE EXISTING MITIGATION THAT WE HAVE IN CHAPTER FIVE, SO IT WAS BASICALLY 1.5 TIMES THE RATIO IN 2.5 ON HARDWOODS. UM.
MORE HISTORY THAN STAFF CONSIDERED RECENTLY THE COST OF TWO TREES RELOCATED TO SHEPHERD PARK AT $13,500 APIECE. THEY WERE 14 INCHES. IN DIAMETER, OR D B H. WE ALSO CONSIDERED THAT IN OUR. PENALTY FORMULATION. SO THIS IS BASICALLY GIVES YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT AND WHAT THE
[02:05:07]
AMOUNTS WERE IN 2000 AND ONE FOR, UH. 4.5 TO 6 INCH TBH DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT. UH, WAS PROPOSED. AT $500. WE'VE. MULTIPLIED EVERYTHING BY FIVE. AND AS YOU CREATE A DUP THE LIS5 INCH VARIETY COMES IN AT 15,000, WHICH IS. A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN WHAT? THE TREES THAT SHEPHERD PARK WHERE RELOCATED FOR UM, MOSTLY BECAUSE OF THE COST OF A CRANE, AND THAT'S WHY IT GETS MORE EXPENSIVE ON THE BIGGER TREES. UM. SO STAFF FEELS IN LOOKING AT. THE RECENT COSTS FOR THE RELOCATION OF THOSE TREES, PLUS A LITTLE BIT MORE FOR A PENALTY THAT THE 2000 AND 21.COLUMN IS APPROPRIATE FOR TODAY, AND WE WOULD LIKE. THE BOARD TO CONSIDER THAT. THEREFORE WE MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND THE APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE 23 78 2021. TEXT AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER FIVE RESOURCE PROTECTIONS STANDARDS CONTAINED IN THE CITY'S LANDED DEVELOPMENT CODE.
THAT'S CONCLUDES SAS PRESENTATION. HUMAN HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I HAVE A QUESTION. SO YOU THIS ASSUMES THAT YOU'RE CATCHING THEM IN THE ACT OR SOON AFTER THEY KNOCKED DOWN TREES AS SOON AS IT'S REPORTED TO US, IF THEY ARE STILL IN THAT WE WOULD SEND CODE ENFORCEMENT OUT THERE TO STOP WORK IMMEDIATELY. USUALLY WE DON'T GET. ALTHOUGH WE HAVE BEEN NOTICED WHEN, WHEN THEY'VE BEEN IN THE ACT BEFORE, UM AND WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO GO OUT AND STOP THEM. IN THE CASE THAT OSPREY PRESERVE IT WAS DONE AND WE DIDN'T KNOW UNTIL THE DAY AFTER A COUPLE DAYS AFTERWARDS.
IS THERE ANY THOUGHT TO IF THE TREES HAVE ALREADY BEEN REMOVED AND TAKEN OFF SITE, SO YOU CAN'T PROVE HOW MANY INCHES WERE TAKEN OFF. IN THE CASE OF OSPREY PRESERVED, THEY ACTUALLY LOOKED AT SOME AERIALS SATELLITE AERIALS TO, UH, DETERMINE HOW MANY TREES HAVE BIG THEY WERE.
IT'S NOT AN EXACT SCIENCE. THEY ENDED UP TAKING AN AVERAGE OF A 10 INCH D B. H IN ORDER TO GET.
THE AMOUNT THAT THEY ENDED UP WITH, SO OKAY? I HAVE A DUMB QUESTION. PROBABLY NO DUMP THIS AFFECTS LIKE HOW DOES THIS AFFECT LIKE PEOPLE WHO OWN THEIR OWN HOMES? LAND LIKE IF I HAD A TREE? THAT WAS PROBLEMS SOME AND I WANTED TO TAKE IT DOWN. COULD I FACE A PENALTY? WHAT? NO, MY NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR NOW. SO OUR COAT. NO, RIGHT. OKAY. ANSWER IS NO. ADAM CHAIR. ARE YOU READING ME OUT? NO OKAY NOW. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS THIS ISN'T LIKE LOCAL HOMEOWNERS THAT WANT TO DO YOU KNOW CHANGES TO THEIR LANDSCAPING. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE THERE WOULDN'T BE A PENALTY ASSESSMENT, ACTUALLY OUR CODE AND KEVIN CAN EXPAND ON THIS. WE HAVE ONE PURPOSE. 1 TO 1 RATIO REPLACEMENT ON RESIDENTIAL TREE GETS TAKEN DOWN WITHOUT A PERMIT. IT'S NO FEED PERMIT. GUYS, NEIGHBOR REPORTS THEM. WE WILL ASK FOR 1 TO 1 RATIO AND IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE AS BIG AS THE OTHER TREE. IT JUST HAS TO BE A 1 TO 1 REPLACEMENT ON RESIDENTIAL OKAY? BUT IT COULD BE IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION IN THE YARD AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF. OKAY, ALRIGHT. CAN WE MAKE THESE PENALTIES HIGHER? THAT'S PRETTY. I KNOW, I WAS GONNA SAY THAT'S PRETTY HIGH PRETTY HIGH TODAY PER TREE THAT THAT HAPPENED. REALITIES AND IN FLORIDA, OKAY, SO, YES, I'VE LOOKED AT COURSE. ST LUCIE. THEY HAVE A 53 TIMES THREE. TIMES THE MEDIC MEDICATION RATIO NOW. UM. IT'S NOT EXACTLY THEY DON'T HAVE AMOUNTS, BUT. WHATEVER THEIR MITIGATION IS REQUIRED, THEY UP IT BY THREE IF THERE'S PENALTY NEEDED. YEAH IN ADDITION TO THAT, AND TOM DID A LOT OF RESEARCH ON THIS, BUT WE ALSO LOOKED AT THE RATE OF INFLATION BETWEEN 2000 AND ONE AND 2021. AND THESE ARE VERY MUCH. OVER THAT, SO THERE IS A PENALTY THERE. UM I THINK THE CITY. AS A RESOURCE AS TRYING TO DEFEND AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE THE EXISTING TREES IN THE CITY. WHERE. WE'RE CONFIDENT THESE ARE VERY SUBSTANTIAL. AMOUNTS WE DID. TOM DID A BIT OF A CALCULATION ON WHAT HAD HAPPENED BEFORE, AND. IT'S SUBSTANTIALLY. YEAH. HOW
[02:10:07]
MUCH? HOW MUCH WOULD I SPRAY HAVE PAID? APPROXIMATELY WE RAN THOSE NUMBERS. THAT WOULD BE $2.5 MILLION. THAT'S A GOOD NUMBER OF APPROVAL, SO BUT THERE'S NO SO WITH THIS BE RETROACTIVE. SO LIKE THE PEOPLE, THAT EXAMPLE YOU USED. BECAUSE THIS WASN'T THERE. THEY WILL FACE NO PENALTY. EVEN THOUGH THERE WERE IN 2000 AND ONE THERE WAS. YEAH OKAY. THERE WAS A SETTLEMENT. IT ENDED UP. BEING ABOUT A HALF MILLION DOLLARS FOR THE COST OF THE PLANTS, TOO. YOU CAN SEE IN ONE OF THE SIDES THAD AFTER THIS. THIS IS LIKE THIS IS THE BEFORE AND THIS IS THE AFTER. PROMISE YOU. THAT IF THE COMMISSION WOULD HAVE PUSHED A $2.5 MILLION PENALTY AGAINST US SPRAY, THEY WOULDN'T HAVE AGREED TO AN ESTIMATED TREE, SIR. IT WOULD HAVE GONE TO WHAT MR STRAHM WAS SAYING THEY WOULD HAVE MADE THE CITY. PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT BECAUSE IT'S A CRIMINAL SANCTIONS. WHAT EXACTLY WAS GONE OR NOT GONE. AND IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE COMPLICATED. I THINK IT'S MORE INTENDED TO BE A DETERRENT AND A TOOL. PEOPLE MAYBE IN THE FUTURE TO AVOID IT, AND IT WILL GIVE COMMISSION. THE ABILITY. MAKE IT REALLY UNCOMFORTABLE, BUT REALISTICALLY, IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO PROVE IT AFTERWARDS BECAUSE FOR OVER TWO MILLION BUCKS, I COULD SPEND SOME MONEY ON PEOPLE FIGHT. IT'S REAL MONEY. BUT AGAIN, IT'S SOMETHING, OKAY? ALL RIGHT. AND DID YOU HAVE FORMALLY MAKE A MOTION? I MOVE APPROVAL OF STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS. TOM IS THERE ANY IDEA OF DOING HAVING THE DEVELOPERS DO TREE SURVEYS EITHER FULL OR PARTIAL? YES TRUE SURVEYS THEY DO GENERALLY RIGHT. IT'S REQUIRED BY CODE TO DO A TREE SURVEY. YES SO YOU ACTUALLY IF THERE IS A VIOLATION, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A PRETTY GOOD IDEA. ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. SO THIS AERIAL THAT WAS JUST A SPIRIT BECAUSE OUR SPRAY I DON'T KNOW.THAT WAS A FEW YEARS BACK WHEN THEY ORIGINALLY WERE APPROVED. I DON'T KNOW HOW THE ACTUAL TREE SURVEY THEY ACTUALLY USED AN AERIAL TO DO THEIR TREE SURVEY. WHICH WAS NOT. GENERALLY WHAT WE ACCEPT. THERE IS ALMOST NEVER. A TREE SURVEY IN AN AREA WHERE THEY'RE NOT GOING TO REMOVE ANY TREES. AND THEN OUR SPRAY. OKAY TIME TO BE A BUFFER, SO THERE'D BE NO REASON FOR RESEARCH. IT'S THE TREES. SURVEYS ARE GENERALLY DONE RIGHT WHERE THE SITE IS GOING TO DEVELOP. IS THERE A RESPONSE TO THAT? WHEN WE NOW ASK FOR A FULL SITE, TREE SURVEY. GOOD, OKAY. BUT GOOD ORDINANCE. YEAH, BUT INDIVIDUAL OWNER IF THEY GOT SOME TREES THEY COME IN AND GET A PERMIT, RIGHT? OR THAT'S NOT REALLY, THAT'S IT. OKAY, BUT THEY STILL HAVE TO GET THE TREE REMOVAL.
RIGHT OKAY, SO THEY CAN REMOVE IT WITHOUT A PENALTY OF REPLACEMENT RIGHT? NO THEY SAID, WHEN WE FOR ONE, WHEN WE REVIEW A TREE PERMIT AND NO FEED, TREE PERMIT, WE LOOK AND MAKE SURE THAT IT'S YOU KNOW, NOT A QUALITY OAK OR SLASH PINE. EVEN THEY HAVE TO GIVE US EVIDENCE THAT IT'S CAUSING DAMAGE TO THE FOUNDATION OF THE HOME. WE DON'T JUST SAY YOU CAN TAKE IT DOWN BECAUSE YOU DON'T. LIKE AN OAK TREE, NECESSARILY, BUT IF THEY INSIST ON IT AND GIVE US EVIDENCE OF IT, CAUSING DAMAGE. UM WE GIVE THEM THE PERMIT, AND YOU KNOW WE WERE REVIEWING IT, SO WE KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING. I MEAN, IF A HOLDOVERS GOT SOME OF HIS 30 FT. 35 FT HIGH, PRETTY BIG. COULD BE A YOU KNOW POTENTIAL DAMAGE TO FALL IN THE HOUSE. SO I MEAN, YES, THERE'S ALL HOST OF REASONS TO REMOVE A NICE GOOD TREE SPEAKS GADGET. IS THAT THERE ARE A LOT. YEAH THAT'S TRUE. THERE'S A LOT OF LOTS OF OLD LOTS AND CITY OF STEWART HAVE SOME PRETTY GOOD SIZED TREES. OKAY? BOARD MEMBER STRONG YES. BOARD MEMBER MATTERS. YES. BOARD MEMBER OF ITALY. YES BOARD MEMBER RICH YES, CHARLIE GREEN? YES. THAT WAS FAST, ALL RIGHT, WONDERFUL.
WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS ONLINE?
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.