[00:00:07]
          STEWART. CITY COMMISSIONS, 23RD SEPTEMBER, JUST BEFORE WE GET GOING, IF YOU WISH TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT, YOU YOU MAY NOT COME UP TO THE DAIS OR COME UP TO THE PLATFORM, THE SPEAKERS WITHOUT BEING CALLED. SO YOU CAN'T COME UP AND THEN HAND IN YOUR GREEN CARD. SO YOU HAVE YOU HAVE QUITE A BIT OF TIME HERE TO GET YOUR GREEN CARDS IN. AND THEN IF YOU'RE CALLED BY THE CLERK, YOU MAY APPROACH AND MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT ON ANY ISSUE YOU WISH. THANK YOU SO, MADAM CLERK, ROLL CALL PLEASE. MAYOR RICH. YES, PRESIDENT. COMMISSIONER. CLERK PRESENT. COMMISSIONER. 
          COLLINS HERE. COMMISSIONER JOB HERE. COMMISSIONER REID HERE. AND SHE JUST HANDED THAT ME THE SHEETS. THE INVOCATION THIS EVENING WILL BE PROVIDED BY PASTOR DENMARK. THERE IT IS. 
          NEXT TIME. AND THEN WILL YOU PLEASE LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AFTERWARDS? THANK YO. 
          LET'S TAKE A POSTURE OF PRAYER. FATHER, THANK YOU FOR THIS EVENING AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE IN THIS PLACE TO THIS EVENING, TO DISCUSS PLANS AND FUTURE OF OUR COMMUNITY. LORD WE THANK YOU, GOD THAT YOU CARE ABOUT OUR COMMUNITY. WE THANK YOU THAT YOU ARE HERE IN THIS ROOM. AND SO WE INVOKE NOT ONLY YOUR PRESENCE, BUT WE INVOKE THIS EVENING YOUR GUIDANCE AND YOUR DIRECTION. I PRAY, JESUS THAT AS THE PRINCE OF PEACE, YOU WOULD BE THAT THIS EVENING, AS DISCUSSION IS MADE AND AS HEARTS SHARE THOSE THINGS THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO THEM, WE JUST ASK YOU TO GUIDE AND DIRECT, BE WITH OUR COMMISSION, BE WITH EACH COMMISSIONER. THEIR FAMILIES WATCH OVER AND PROTECT THEM, LORD, AND GIVE THEM WISDOM AND STRENGTH AND HEALTH. AND AGAIN, WE THANK YOU FOR THEM. AND WE JUST ASK YOUR BLESSING UPON THEM. AND UPON THIS EVENING, IN JESUS NAME, I PRAY, AMEN. AMEN I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. OH, YEAH, I HAVEN'T SEEN COMMENTS BY CITY COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER 
          [COMMENTS BY CITY COMMISSIONERS]
REED. SURE, I'D LIKE TO MOTION FOR AGENDA ITEM 12 TO BE PRESENTED FIRST AND THEN AGENDA ITEM 13 PRESENTED AFTER THAT. JUST SO THEY CAN COME IN AND LEAVE AFTER THEY PRESENT. I'D ALSO LIKE TO SEE AGENDA ITEM TEN BE RESCINDED FOR NOW, AND JUST WAIT UNTIL WE DO BOARD REORGANIZATION IN DECEMBER. I THINK IT'D BE MORE APPROPRIATE AT THAT TIME, AND I'M ALSO OPEN TO AMENDING MY MOTION AS WELL. OKAY, WHEN WE GET TO THE APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA, WE'LL TAKE THOSE ITEMS UP. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER JOB, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS THIS EVENING? NO COMMISSIONER COLLINS. YES, I HAD A FEW, I ALSO AGREE ABOUT PULLING AGENDA ITEM TEN, AND THEN ALSO, I WANTED TO ASK THAT WE COULD PULL FOUR FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR DISCUSSION, BEYOND KIND OF HOMEWORK, CROSSING T'S, DOTTING I'S, ASSUMING THAT WE APPROVE THE BUDGET TONIGHT, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THAT ENVIRONMENTAL ATTORNEY BUDGETED. SO WHAT I WANTED TO ASK IS THAT WE COULD IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE FOR OUR NEW COMMISSION, HAVE MAX STUCKEY COME IN, DO A, D AND D AND HAVE MAX STUCKEY PRESENT TO GIVE HIS INSIGHT AND MORE CONTEXT ON HOW THAT ENVIRONMENTAL ATTORNEY WOULD FUNCTION. AND SO WE CAN HAVE SOME DEBATE. I KNOW WE WEREN'T ALL NECESSARILY ON THE SAME PAGE ABOUT THAT, SO I WANTED TO ASK THAT IF THERE WAS SOME CONSENSUS THAT WE COULD AGAIN, HAVE MATT COME IN AND HAVE A D AND D, BECAUSE I SEE IT AS A PROCESS THAT'S GOING TO TAKE SOME TIME. WE SHOULDN'T BE IN A RUSH AND POTENTIALLY WE WOULD HAVE A PANEL SAME KIND OF A THING WHEN WE HIRED MR. BAGGETT, SO I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE LED THAT OFF BY HAVING MAX STUCKEY PRESENT, BEYOND THAT, I WANTED TO, YOU KNOW, LAST MEETING THERE WAS APPARENTLY SOME CONFUSION. I TALKED ABOUT YOU KNOW, HAVING BRIGHTLINE PAY FOR HALF OF THE STATION. AND BASED ON THE 2018 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND BEYOND, AND THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION FROM YOU, MAYOR, ALSO FROM BLAKE FONTENOT IN THE PAPER. SO I WANTED TO TAKE A MINUTE. AND EVEN THOUGH WE'RE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT BRIGHTLINE LATER, WHILE I'M STILL FRESH, GO INTO WHY I SAY BRIGHTLINE SHOULD PAY HALF AND THAT THAT WAS AND SHOULD BE THE DEAL GOING FORWAR, IF I START SORT OF USING BLAKE FONTANA'S ARTICLE OPINION, 
          [00:05:08]
STEWART'S RIFFS OVER BRIGHTLINE AND GROWTH WILL HEAL ONLY IF PEOPLE SEE THE TRUTH, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS BROUGHT UP IS BLAKE SAID COLLINS SEEMED TO BE REFERRING TO THE 2018 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THAT SETTLED A LAWSUIT BETWEEN BRIGHTLINE AND MARTIN COUNTY. THE CITY OF STEWART WASN'T A PARTY TO THAT AGREEMENT, BUT EVEN IF IT WAS, COLLINS IS MAKING AN INCORRECT ASSUMPTION ABOUT WHAT THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ACTUALLY SAYS IN REFERENCE TO ME SAYING THAT BRIGHTLINE SHOULD PAY FOR HALF OF THAT STATION. SO I BROUGHT WITH ME TONIGHT THOSE VARIOUS AGREEMENTS SO WE COULD TIMELINE THROUGH THIS WITHOUT ANY CONFUSION, BECAUSE THERE APPEARS TO BE A LOT. SO FOR TRANSPARENCY'S SAKE, YOU HAVE TO TAKE MY WORD ON IT. BUT I'M READING FROM RIGHT NOW THE 2018 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. ON PAGE EIGHT OF THAT AGREEMENT, SECTION SIX, BRIGHTLINE STATION IN THE TREASURE COAST. THAT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT SAYS THAT WITHIN FIVE YEARS, BRIGHTLINE AGREES TO BUILD AT LEAST ONE TRAIN STATION ON THE TREASURE COAST. FOLLOWING COMPLETION OF THAT STATION, AT LEAST TWO NORTHBOUND AND TWO SOUTHBOUND BRIGHTLINE TRAINS WILL STOP AT THE STATION EACH DAY, WHICH I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T NECESSARILY KNOW THAT THAT THE AGREEMENT THAT WE WERE ABOUT TO ENTER INTO ONLY HAS TWO STOPS, FOR RESIDENTS. SO IF YOU'RE PLANNING ON GETTING ON AN EVENING TRAIN AFTER HANGING OUT IN MIAMI, YOU'RE GOING TO BE IN A HOTEL. SO FOR ME, WE'LL TALK ABOUT THIS LATER WHEN WE GET INTO THESE DISCUSSIONS. BUT THAT WOULD BE ONE OF THE THINGS I WANT TO SEE UPDATED IN A FUTURE AGREEMENT. BUT CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATION, THIS IS BRIGHTLINE SAYING CONSTRUCTION OF THE STATION IS SUBJECT TO THE PAYMENT OF 50% OF THE STATION CONSTRUCTION COST BY THE COUNTY AND OR MUNICIPALITY IN WHICH THE STATION IS LOCATED. IF SUCH PAYMENT IS REQUESTED BY BRIGHTLINE. SO RIGHT OFF THE BA, BRIGHTLINE AGREES TO BUILD THIS STATION RIGHT AS LONG AS THE COUNTY OR MUNICIPALITY THAT IT'S IN AGREES TO PAYING HALF. PRESUMABLY BRIGHTLINE IS PAYING THE OTHER HALF, AND IF THERE'S CONFUSION THERE, WE'LL MOVE DOWN TO THE NEXT SEGMENT. IN THE EVENT THE APPLICABLE COUNTY OR MUNICIPALITY, OR BRIGHTLINE ELECTS TO SEEK FEDERAL, STATE OR OTHER GRANT MONEY TO DEFRAY THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF SUCH STATION. UNDER THIS PARAGRAPH, THE OTHER PARTY SHALL COORDINATE IN GOOD FAITH WITH SUCH EFFORTS. LIKEWISE, IF A PARTY IS SUCCESSFUL IN OBTAINING GRANT MONEY FOR ANY CONSTRUCTION, THE COST OF WHICH IS TO BE SHARED ON AN EQUAL BASIS, THEIR PAYMENT OBLIGATIONS SHALL BE REDUCED ON AN EQUAL BASIS. SO AGAIN, BRIGHTLINE AND MARTIN COUNTY ARE THE TWO PARTIES IN THIS AGREEMENT. AND THEY ARE SAYING, HEY, IF ONE OF US GETS GRANT MONEY BECAUSE WE'RE SPLITTING THE COST OF THIS STATION, WE'LL ALSO SPLIT THE GRANT MONEY AGAI, BRIGHT LINE, SAYING THEY'RE GOING TO PAY HALF. SO THIS PARTICULAR AGREEMENT JUST SO WE'RE ON THE TIMELINE IS NOVEMBER 25TH OF 2018. SO LET'S ZOOM AHEAD HERE. TO DECEMBER 12TH OF 2023. AND I AM LOOKING AT THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT REGARDING THE JOINT PROPOSAL TO BRIGHTLINE TRAINS, LLC. SO THIS IS BETWEEN THE CITY OF STUART, RIGHT, AND MARTIN COUNTY WITH REGARD TO BRIGHTLINE. AGAIN WITHIN THE WHEREAS CLAUSE ON THE FIRST PAGE, IT REFERENCES THAT PREVIOUS AGREEMENT. SO WE'RE STILL CONTINUING WITH THE SAME THEME OF PAYING HALF. WHEREAS THE NOVEMBER 25TH, 2018, THE COUNTY ENTERED INTO A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH BRIGHTLINE, WHEREIN THE COUNTY WAS SUBJECT TO THE POTENTIAL PAYMENT OF 50% OF THE CONSTRUCTION COSTS. OKAY AND ON THE NEXT PAGE, AND I KNOW THAT THIS THIS WAS A CONTENTIOUS POINT, IS THERE WERE SOME WHO SAID, AND I'LL, I'LL USE THE PHRASING. AS SOON AS THE CITY GOT INVOLVED, THAT 2018 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WAS OUT THE WINDOW. WELL, THIS AGREEMENT IS BETWEEN THE CITY. THIS IS INVOLVING THE CITY. AND WITHIN THIS AGREEMENT, SECTION B, SUBSECTION SIX, THE COUNTY AND CITY AGREE TO COOPERATE IN APPLYING FOR FEDERAL, STATE OR OTHER GRANTS TO OFFSET THE COST OF THE PROJECT. IF THE CITY AND OR COUNTY ARE SUCCESSFUL IN OBTAINING GRANT FUNDS FOR THE PROJECT, THE FUNDS WILL BE DISTRIBUTED AS FOLLOWS. AS TO THE TRAIN STATION, THE COST OF WHICH AS TO THE TRAIN STATION, THE COST OF WHICH IS TO BE SHARED BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND BRIGHTLINE ON AN EQUAL BASIS. SO WITHIN THE CITY'S OWN AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY, THERE'S AN UNDERSTANDING THAT THE STATION'S COST WILL BE SHARED BETWEEN BRIGHTLINE AND THE COUNTY. LET'S 
          [00:10:07]
FAST FORWARD TO DECEMBER 20TH OF THE SAME YEAR. SO WE WENT FROM DECEMBER 12TH TO THE 20TH. AND WHAT I'M LOOKING AT IS OUR RFP RESPONSE. THIS IS WHAT THE TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING PUT TOGETHER TO SEND A BRIGHT LINE TO SAY, PLEASE PICK US. AND IN THIS RFP RESPONSE, THERE'S A LITTLE GRAPH, RIGHT. SO WE HAVE SUBMITTED THIS WITH THE COUNTY TO BRIGHTLINE SAYING PICK US. 
          AND THERE'S A LITTLE CHART IN HERE THAT MAKES THIS PAINFULLY OBVIOUS, EVEN FOR ME, A MERE CHIROPRACTOR TRYING TO UNDERSTAND ALL OF THIS. RIGHT. WHO PAYS FOR WHAT. AND IT SAYS TRAIN STATION AND TRACK WORK. BRIGHTLINE COUNTY, CITY. WE GOT THREE LITTLE COLUMNS HERE, AND I ENCOURAGE YOU TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THIS TRAIN STATION AND TRACK WORK UP TO 50%. BRIGHTLINE BRIGHTLINE IS GOING TO PAY UP TO 50% OF THE TRAIN STATION AND TRACK WORK. THE COUNTY UP TO 50%. CITY AND A NOT APPLICABLE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ON THE HOOK FOR THAT. THAT'S AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THOSE GUYS THAT HAS BEEN CONSISTENT OVER FIVE YEARS. THIS HAS WE HAVE MATRICULATED THROUGH THIS AND THIS IS STILL THE DEAL. PARKING GARAGE, STREETS, THE PARKING THAT'S NECESSARY FOR THIS. THE CITY IS ON THE HOOK FOR THAT. 100% OF IT. THE COST ESTIMATES IN HERE ARE BASED ON BOCA. SO NOT REALLY RELEVANT TO GET INTO BECAUSE NOBODY KNOWS WHAT IT'S GOING TO COST. SO THOSE DIFFERENT ESTIMATES OF COULD BE 15 MILLION. COULD BE YOU KNOW. SO WHAT HAPPENED. HOW DID WE GO FROM THE COUNTY AND BRIGHTLINE SPLITTING THE COST OF THE STATION AND THE CITY BEING ON THE HOOK FOR THE PARKING TO A RADICALLY DIFFERENT DEAL THAT, IN MY OPINION, AND WE MAY NOT ALL AGREE IN THIS ROOM TONIGHT, BUT IT NEEDED TO BE RESCINDED. AND RELOOKED AT NOT COMPLETELY CANCELED AND REMOVED FOREVER. BUT RENEGOTIATED SO THAT IT'S A GOOD DEAL. FAST FORWARD TO MARCH FOURTH, 2024. SO WE GO FROM DECEMBER 20TH TO MARCH 4TH. BRIGHTLINE SENDS A LETTER TO US AND SAYS, CONGRATULATIONS. WE PICK YOU CITY, COUNTY, CONGRATULATIONS. AND IN THAT LETTER FROM BRIGHTLINE, THEY SAID, WE PICK YOU AND YOUR PROPOSAL, BUT WE'D LIKE TO CHANGE SOME THINGS IN THE FINAL DEAL. SO FOR FIVE YEARS WE'VE BEEN GOING A CERTAIN DIRECTION. 
          WE'VE HAD A DEAL AND THE 11TH HOUR WE'D LIKE YOU TO TWEAK A FEW THINGS THAT, IN MY OPINION, WERE FUNDAMENTALLY, IT'S A FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT DEAL. SO WITHIN THE BULLET POINTS OF THINGS THAT THEY WANTED TO CHANGE, I'LL READ THIS ONE OFF AGREEMENT BY MARTIN COUNTY TO MODIFY THE 2018 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. KEY TERMS THAT WOULD NEED TO BE MODIFIED INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO REMOVE THE OBLIGATION OF BRIGHTLINE TO PAY 50% OF THE COST OF THE STATION TO BE DEVELOPED ON THE TREASURE COAST. THAT'S A BIG DEAL. THAT'S NOT A LITTLE THING. THAT'S A BIG DEAL. ALSO, IN THE BULLET POINT JUST ABOVE THAT. AND LET ME MAKE A POINT HERE. ONE OF THE AND BLAKE'S ARTICLES AND BLAKE'S ARTICLE, HE SAID, YOU KNOW, CONTRACTUAL LANGUAGE IS SPECIFIC. IF BRIGHTLINE WAS ON THE HOOK FOR IT, THAT WOULD BE VERY, VERY CLEARLY ARTICULATED. 
          WELL BRIGHTLINE THOUGHT THEY WERE ON THE HOOK FOR IT UP UNTIL MARCH 4TH, 2024. THAT'S WHY THEY ASKED IT TO BE CHANGED. BLAKE SO BULLET POINT JUST ABOVE THAT CITY OF STUART COMMITMENT, RIGH? FUNDS SHALL BE USED ON THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE PARKING GARAGE TO BE DEVELOPED ON THE LAND. RIGHT. THAT'S THAT'S BEEN THE DEAL FOR FIVE YEARS. AND OR HERE'S THE CHANGE TRAIN STATION. SO NOW IT'S NOT JUST THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE ON THE HOOK FOR THE PARKING GARAGE OR THE PARKING. WE ALSO WANT YOU TO BE ABLE TO USE YOUR MONEY FOR THE TRAIN STATION. RIGHT. 
          BECAUSE IF BRIGHTLINE IS NOT PAYING FOR IT, SOMEBODY HAS TO. AND WHO'S IT GOING TO BE? THE CITY. RIGHT SO THERE WAS SOME OTHER INTERESTING REQUESTS IN THERE. THE RIGHT TO DEVELOP THAT TRIANGLE PARCEL THAT TOD TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS WHAT HAS PEOPLE NERVOUS BEYOND JUST THE STATION, THAT THERE MAY BE MORE TO THIS. AND I'LL SORT OF TRANSLATE THAT INTO NORMAL SPEAK. TOD IS FOUR STORY MIXED USE APARTMENTS RIGHT THERE NEXT TO YOUR BALL FIELDS AND A COUPLE BULLET POINTS DOWN WHERE IT GETS INTERESTING AS WELL. AND THIS IS RELEVANT BECAUSE IT'S ACTUALLY 
          [00:15:06]
PART OF WHAT'S ON OUR AGENDA TONIGHT WITH THE ASHLEY CAPITAL. ITEM IN THE EVENT THAT THE CITY OF STUART REMEDIATES, THE CITY OWNED LAND LOCATED SOUTH OF MONTEREY ROAD, THIS IS OUR FORMER DUMP. THE CITY WOULD AGREE TO LEASE TO BRIGHTLINE APPROXIMATELY THREE ACRES OF LAND AT THE SAME TERMS OF THE LEASE. WHY DOES BRIGHTLINE WANT THREE ACRES FROM OUR OLD DUMP THAT'S NOWHERE NEAR THE STATION? RIGHT. AND WHAT ARE THE TERMS OF THE LAND OVER HERE FOR THE TRAIN STATION THAT THEY WANT THAT THREE ACRES AT A DOLLAR A YEAR FOR 80 YEARS. THEY WANT CITY OWNED LAND. MORE OF IT. THAT'S NOT RELATED TO THE TRAIN STATION FOR A DOLLAR A YEAR. FOR 80 YEARS, I CAN'T TELL YOU EXACTLY WHY. ALL I CAN PRESUME IS THAT THEY WOULD HOPE TO RELOCATE ERNSTON PRODUCE, AND THE LUMBER YARD SO THEY COULD BUY THAT AND BUILD MORE TOD APARTMENTS AND MIXED USE AT FOUR STORIES OVER THERE. SOUNDS LIKE A GREAT DEAL FOR THE CITY OF STUART. YOU GET TO PAY RIGHT? YOU'RE ALREADY A MARTIN COUNTY RESIDENT, SO YOU'RE ON THE HOOK FOR 15 MILLION SINCE WE LIVE IN MARTIN COUNTY, BUT NOW YOU GET TO PAY THE OTHER HALF OF THE STATION AND DEAL WITH THE PARKING GARAGE. IN THE FUTURE. YOU GET TO GIVE UP FOR A DOLLAR A YEAR. 
          FOR 80 YEARS, THAT REMEDIATED LAND SO THAT BRIGHTLINE CAN RENT IT TO WHOEVER, AND THEN THEY CAN BUILD ON THAT LAND, APARTMENTS AND MIXED USE. SO THAT WAS MY MAJOR ISSUE WITH THE DEAL IS EFFECTIVELY BRIGHTLINE IN THIS PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP, BRIGHTLINE WAS OFF THE HOOK. 
          BRIGHTLINE PAYS NOTHING. NOW IN THE DEAL THAT WE WERE ABOUT TO ENTER INTO. IF I MOVE FORWARD ONE MORE ROUND TO AUGUST OF 2024, THIS SORT OF CAPS IT OFF ON THE THIRD PAGE. I'LL JUST ZOOM DOWN TO NUMBER FIVE. THE FUNDS HERE THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT, THE COUNTY WOULD BE PAYING 15 MILLION UP TO FOR THE COST OF THE STATION. THE CITY SHALL COMMIT UP TO 30 MILLION. AND THE FUNDS SHOULD BE USED ON THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE TRAIN STATION WITH RELATION TO THE CITY AND COUNTY. WE'RE BOTH WOULD BE ON THE HOOK UP TO 15 MILLION FOR THE COST OF THE STATION. BUT NOW THE COUNTY IS CAPPED. COUNTY IS NOT PAYING ANY MORE THAN 15 MILLION. SO IF THAT STATION COSTS MORE RIGHT THAN THE 30 MILLION THAT WE'RE BOTH ON THE HOOK FOR NOW AND SECTION FIVE, THE CITY IS COMMITTING TO PAYING AN ADDITIONAL UP TO 15 MILLION ON TOP OF ITS 30. OKAY SO JUST TO RECAP THIS, IN THIS DEAL THAT WE ALMOST ENTERED INTO, I KNOW EVERYBODY WANTS A STATION, BUT PLEASE HEAR ME. IT IS ABOUT THIS DEAL. THE COUNTY WOULD BE ON THE HOOK FOR 15 MILLION. THE CITY WOULD BE ON THE HOOK FOR 45. THIS LITTLE CITY WOULD BE ON THE HOOK FOR 45. AND THEN IN THE FUTURE, POTENTIALLY BE LOOKING AT A GARAGE. DOES THAT SOUND LIKE A GOOD DEAL FOR THE CITY? MY ISSUE IS NOT WITH THIS STATION. MY ISSUE WAS WITH THIS DEAL. SO TO BRING IT ALL THE WAY BACK TO MY ORIGINAL COMMENTS LAST TIME, THAT IS THE CONTEXT FOR WHY I SAID WE NEED A NEW DEAL. I AM HAPPY AND I'LL WE'LL PROBABLY GO INTO MORE DETAIL WITH ALL OF OUR VARIOUS COMMENTS AT THE END WHEN WE TALK ABOUT BRIGHTLINE. I'M HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN A STATION WITH A DEAL THAT LOOKS MORE LIKE THE DEAL WE WERE MOVING INTO FOR FIVE YEARS, UNTIL THE 11TH HOUR WHEN EVERYTHING CHANGED. SO THANK YO. COMMISSIONER CLARK. OH, THANKS. 
          I JUST WANTED. TO SAY, I'M GLAD TO BE BACK. I WANTED TO, I DON'T KNOW, CALL THE CITY MANAGER. I KNEW WHEN I CAME ON THE BOARD WHAT HAPPENED, BUT I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE WHAT THE ROLE, WHAT THE 
          [00:20:02]
MODUS OPERANDI IS NOW. BUT I WANTED TO. I'M PRETTY SURE THAT ALL THE COMMISSIONERS KNOW ABOUT THE CODE OF CONDUCT. I THINK THAT WE STARTED THAT AFTER SEVERAL EVENTS, AT THE CITY. SO I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY HAS THAT. AND THE OTHER THING THAT I THOUGHT THAT WOULD BE GOOD FOR ALL OF OUR COMMISSIONERS, AS WELL AS OUR NEW COMMISSIONERS, IS, THE FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES HAS, SEVERAL COURSES TO HELP US GET INVOLVED WITH THE STATUTES ON GROWTH MANAGEMENT, ON ETHICS. THERE'S A MANDATORY ETHICS THING, BUT THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER THINGS THAT THE LEAGUE OF CITIES DOES AND HELP TO MAKE US BE BETTER. GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND, TO BE ABLE TO CARRY OUT OUR DUTIES BETTER. AND SO I WANT I THINK THAT THERE'S ONE COMING UP IN OCTOBER, THIRD AND FOURTH IN TAMPA. AND I HOPE THAT CITY MANAGER WILL SHARE THAT WITH, THE WAY THE LEAGUE OF CITIES DOES IT, YOU HAVE TO AT LEAST BE NEW TO THE COMMISSION OR HAVEN'T SERVED ONE TERM YET, TO GET PRIORITY IN SIGNING UP. I THINK THEY'LL TAKE OTHER PEOPLE, BUT THEY'RE USUALLY HAVING SO MUCH, SO MANY PEOPLE COMING ON IN DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES ALL OVER FLORIDA. SO THEY GIVE PRIORITY. AND OF COURSE, IT COSTS FOR HOTEL AND FOR REGISTRATION AND SO ON. BUT I THINK IT'LL BE GOOD, TO LET FOR THE CITY CLERK AND CITY MANAGER TO PROVIDE INFORMATION. SO THAT OUR NEW COMMISSIONERS GET AS MUCH, YOU KNOW, HELP AS POSSIBLE, ESPECIALLY FROM THE STATE THAT'S ALWAYS PASSING NEW LEGISLATION. AND ALWAYS HAVING LOTS OF THINGS TO DO THAT WE GET TO LEARN AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE WITH OUR PEERS AND TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND BETTER THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WE'RE WORKING WITH IN OUR DECISION MAKING, SITUATIONS THAT WE FACE AS COMMISSIONERS. I WANT AGAIN, TO I PROBABLY DIDN'T SAY CLEARLY IN THE FIRST MEETING THAT WE HAD FOR THE CRA, IT WAS ALLUDED TO, BUT THERE HAVE BEEN SO MANY ISSUES GOING ON WITH THE CRA, AND I JUST WANT TO THANK STAFF, ESPECIALLY MISS GANDY, FOR THE WORK THAT SHE'S DOING AND FOR THE FOR HOPEFULLY THE CITY MANAGER AND ALL OF OUR STAFF RESPONDING TO THE PUBLIC ON THE QUESTIONS THAT THEY HAVE. AND I JUST REALLY WANT TO COMMEND THEM FOR WORKING AND RESPONDING TO THOSE ISSUES. THAT'S IT. OKAY I JUST HAVE A BRIEF COMMENT REGARDING HOW WE CONDUCT THESE MEETINGS. AND, IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL OF US TO LEARN HOW IT HOW WE GO FORWARD IN A DECOROUS MANNER. AND SO THERE WAS AN ISSUE LAST WEEK, AND THIS IS OUR WEEKLY ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER LESSON REGARDING A MOTION AND A SECOND IN ORDER TO HAVE DISCUSSION. AND THAT IS IN FACT THE RULE. NO DISCUSSION WITHOUT A MOTION AND A SECOND. AND THAT'S FOR THE SAKE OF EFFICIENCY. IF THERE'S NO IS THERE IF THERE'S INSUFFICIENT INTEREST FROM THE COMMISSION TO EVEN COME UP WITH THAT, THEN WHY PROCEED? AND WHY WASTE EVERYBODY'S TIME? BUT THE MOST IMPORTANT REASON FOR THAT REALLY IS WE CAN'T HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON AN ISSUE UNLESS WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. AND SO AND ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS WE DO UP HERE IS LISTEN TO YOU. 
          SO IF WE PUT AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA AND THE PUBLIC LOOKS AT IT AND WANTS TO COMMENT ON THE VALUE OF FOR EXAMPLE, INVOLVEMENT WITH FEMA IN DEALING WITH POTENTIAL HURRICANE DAMAGE, THE LEAST WE CAN DO AS COMMISSIONERS IS PROVIDE A MOTION AND A SECOND AND ALLOW THE PUBLIC TO GIVE US THEIR THOUGHTS ON THE VALUE OF THAT ITEM. IT DOES NOT MEAN YOU'RE GOING TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF IT. IT SIMPLY MEANS THAT THE ITEM IS WORTHY OF DISCUSSION. AND SO LET'S ALL AGREE GOING FORWARD THAT THAT'S HOW WE SHOULD PROCEED. AND THEN THIS IS JUST JUST HAPPENED TODAY. THIS IS THE CHARM OF A SMALL CITY STORY I GOT THERE INSTALLING NORTH OF THE BRIDGE ON DIXIE HIGHWAY. WE'RE DOING SOME IMPROVEMENTS, WHICH WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT FOR A LONG TIME. AND I GOT A CALL FROM A BUSINESS OWNER THIS MORNING GOING, THEY'RE TEARING UP THE SIDEWALK, AND I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT. NO ONE'S SPOKEN TO ME. AND SO I CALLED 
          [00:25:02]
MILTON. WE, YOU KNOW, WE HAVEN'T HAD A GOOD MILTON STORY IN A WHILE. I CALL UP MILTON, AND HE GOES, OH, I'LL DRIVE RIGHT UP THERE. AND MILTON IN FIVE MINUTES. HE'S STANDING THERE TALKING TO THE BUSINESS OWNER, EXPLAINING TO THEM WHAT IS GOING ON, AND YOU KNOW, WHAT THEY CAN EXPECT. AND THEY, THEY ACTUALLY WERE NOT TEARING UP THE SIDEWALK AT THAT TIME. BUT YOU KNOW, THAT JUST COULDN'T HAPPEN IN MOST MUNICIPALITIES. AND I BELIEVE, PARNELL SPOKE WITH THEM TO, TO CLARIFY. BUT THAT'S A CUTE STORY, BUT IT REVEALS A PROBLEM WE HAVE BECAUSE THEY SAID NO EFFORT HAD BEEN MADE TO CONTACT US. AND OR INFORM US OF, YOU KNOW, THIS PROJECT. AND THAT'S JUST NOT THE CASE. WE'VE HAD MEETINGS WITH THE PUBLIC UP THERE. WE'VE DONE A NUMBER OF MAILINGS. WE HAD SIGNS, THE ELECTRONIC SIGNS INDICATING THAT THIS PROJECT WAS BEGINNING. AND IT IS SUCH A CHALLENGE. WE HAVE TO KEEP THE RESIDENTS INFORMED OF WHAT WE'RE DOING. AND, BUT ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS CALL AND YOU'RE GOING TO GET A RESPONSE AND SOMEONE, TO LISTEN TO YOUR CONCERNS. THAT'S ALL MY COMMENTS. SO I'M NOT GOING TO OVERLOOK THIS. COMMENTS BY CITY 
          [COMMENTS BY CITY MANAGER]
MANAGER THIS EVENING, I WAS ON SEPTEMBER 9TH. THE CITY OF STUART RECEIVED A LETTER, REGARDING DETECTIVES PETCHEY AND JACOBSEN FOR HARD WORK THAT THEY HAD DONE IN HELPING A STORE OWNER IN TOWN RECOVER A $6,000 LOSS THAT A PERSON HAD ESSENTIALLY STOLEN FROM HIM. AND HE WROTE A FULL PAGE LETTER ACCOMMODATING THE EFFORTS THEY WENT TO TRACK THIS PERSON ALL THE WAY BACK TO MICHIGAN, WHERE THEY WERE, AND RECOVER HIS MONEY. SO I WOULD GO, YOU KNOW, I NEED TO RECOGNIZE THEIR HARD WORK AND THANK THEM FOR THAT, ALSO ON WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 2ND, SPEAKING OF THE POLICE, THIS IS NOT MY TITLE. THIS IS THEIRS, BUT IT'S COFFEE WITH A COP. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO HAVE COFFEE WITH THE COP ON WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 2ND IN DOWNTOWN, STUART WILL BE HOSTING AND SEVERAL OF THE CITY OF STUART POLICE OFFICERS WILL BE THERE. HAVING COFFEE AND HAPPY TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS, THE LAST THING I WAS GOING TO MENTION TO, TONIGHT IS ALSO I WAS GOING TO BRING UP, THE I GUESS IT'S CALLED THE EMO, FROM THE LEAGUE OF CITIES, AND IT'S A, PROGRAM THAT THE FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES DOES FOR, FIRST TIME COMMISSIONERS. AND IT'S ESSENTIALLY A, A CONVERSATION OR A MEETING THAT LASTS FOR TWO DAYS. IT'S OCTOBER 3RD AND FOURTH OR FOURTH AND FIFTH. I CAN'T REMEMBER WHICH ONE, BUT IT'S THE INSTITUTE FOR ELECTED MUNICIPAL OFFICER OFFICIALS. AND THE SUBJECT MATTER IS THE MUNICIPAL LANDSCAPE IN FLORIDA PUBLIC OFFICIAL LIABILITY EFFECTIVE COUNSEL TECHNIQUES, BUDGETING AND ACCOUNTING, TAXES, AND OTHER SOURCES OF REVENUE AND PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURES. AND IT'S A TWO DAY PROGRAM, AGAIN, IT'S OCTOBER 4TH AND FIFTH, IF ANY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS ARE INTERESTED IN ATTENDING THAT, PLEASE CONTACT ME SOMETIME THIS WEEK, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY IT'S COMING UP AND WE'D NEED TO GET YOU REGISTERED TO GO. I THINK THEY HAVE IT AGAIN IN THE SPRING AND I CAN CHECK INTO THAT IF YOU CAN'T MAKE IT IN OCTOBER, BUT I WOULD RECOMMEND GOING, IT'S BENEFICIAL. AND EVERYBODY THAT ATTENDS IT SEEMS TO THINK IT'S A REALLY GOOD PROGRAM, AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU. SO 
          [APPROVAL OF AGENDA]
APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. SO APPROVAL WITH WELL WE HAVE SOME MODIFICATIONS HERE. SO OKAY. 
          BRING UP ITEM NUMBER. 12 AND 13. AND ARE YOU SAYING TABLING ITEM TEN. CORRECT. AND THEN PULLING AGENDA ITEM FOR, FOR DISCUSSION. YES. SO WE'RE MOVING 12 AND 13 IN FRONT OF EIGHT NINE. AND IS THAT CORRECT. YES. OKAY. AND WE'RE PULLING FOUR FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR. CORRECT. AND THEN TABLING, AGENDA ITEM TEN. WHY WOULDN'T WE PULL 11 TWO AND BRING ALL THREE OF THOSE UP IN FRONT. THEN FOR THE FAMILY ARAPAHO. I MADE A WHATEVER THE WILL OF THE BOARD IS. THAT'S FINE. I DON'T EXPECT THEM TO TAKE TOO LONG. SO WE'RE GOING TO MOVE 11, 12, 13 TO BE THE IN THAT ORDER. WHERE ARE THEY BEING MOVED TO IN FRONT OF EIGHT, NINE AND TEN? IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. YES. OKAY AND THEN WE'LL DEAL WITH THE CONSENT CALENDAR WHEN WE GET THERE, ANY 
          [00:30:08]
OTHER CHANGES TO THE AGENDA BEFORE WE HAVE APPROVAL? IT WAS THE ITEM TEN. YES. AND THEN YEAH ITEM TEN WAS GOING TO BE PULLED. SO BASICALLY IT WAS GOING TO BE 11 1213 IN THAT ORDER PULLING ITEM TEN AND THEN PULLING AGENDA ITEM TEN. YEAH. PULLING IS TABLING TABLING 1010. AND PULLING AGENDA ITEM FOR DISCUSSION. I BELIEVE THAT WAS WITH THE CONSENT CALENDAR. WHEN WE GET TO IT. OKAY. SO WE HAVE APPROVAL WITH THAT COMMISSIONER COLLINS, MAYOR, I SAID GOOD JOB. 
          I HAVE JUST ONE QUESTION. YES. OKAY SO JUST GOING BACK SO THERE'S NO CONFUSION THAT WHEN WE VOTE, THEY MUST BE VOTED IN THE ORDER OF 11, 12 AND 13. CORRECT? OKAY. THANK YOU. 
          CONSIDERED AND VOTED ON IN THAT ORDER. YES. I SECOND IF NOBODY ELSE SECONDED I DID SECOND, SECOND, SECOND. SO COMMISSIONER COLLINS, YOU MADE THE MOTION SECONDED BY. I THOUGHT IT WAS SHOT. YEAH, I MADE THE MOTION. OKAY. COMMISSIONER REID, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CLARK. CAN WE DO ALL IN FAVOR ON THIS ONE? YOU CAN? YES. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE, AY. OKAY. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC 
          [COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC (Non-Agenda Related)]
ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS. MADAM CLERK, DO YOU HAVE ANY GREEN CARDS? YES, I DO, I HAVE SUZANNE AND ARTHUR MUGAVERO. CAN THEY COME TOGETHER WITH. YOU. GOOD EVENING. I'M SUZANNE MUGAVERO, I'M HERE TODAY TO REQUEST AN EXCEPTION TO THE ZONING AND PROGRESS REGULATIONS FOR ACTIVE SMALL BUSINESSES. MY NAME IS SUZANNE AND MY HUSBAND, ARTHUR. WE ARE OWNERS OF RAMEY FLOORING HOME. WE OWN THE BUILDING AND THE BUSINESS. FOR THE PAST THREE YEARS, RAMEY HAS BEEN LOCALLY OWNED AND OPERATED FOR 40 OVER 40 YEARS. IN STUART. AND WE EMPLOY WE CURRENTLY EMPLOY 12 PEOPLE. WE'RE SEEKING TO REDUCE THE FOOTPRINT AND THE COST TO OPERATE OUR RETAIL STORE. SINCE ACQUIRING RAMEY IN 2000 AND 2021, WE'VE EXPERIENCED A DECLINE IN IN SALES. LIKE MOST BUSINESSES HAVE RECENTLY BY SELLING THE BUILDING AND DOWNSIZING THE BUSINESS, WE KNOW RAMEY CAN BECOME STRONGER AND MORE SUSTAINABLE FOR THE FUTURE. THE BUILDING IS 15,000FT■!S ANDE HAVE A BUYER INTERESTED IN PURCHASING THE BUILDING AND LEASING BACK TO US 6000FT■!S. TE REMAINING 9000FT■!S WILL BE UTILIZED SOLELY FOR ONE INDIVIDUAL'S PERSONAL STORAGE USE. WE ARE SEEKING APPROVAL TO INSTALL A ROLL UP DOOR AND A SMALL DRIVEWAY IN THE BACK OF THE BUILDING FOR ACCESS NEXT TO RAMEY IS PUBLIX AS THEIR TRUCKS EXIT THE PUBLIX PLAZA, THERE ARE CURRENTLY CURRENTLY DRIVING OVER WHAT WHAT WHAT ONCE WAS GRASS ON OUR PROPERTY, BUT NOW IT HAS BECOME DIRT DUE TO THE FREQUENT TRAFFIC, AND NOW NOTHING CAN AND NOTHING CAN GROW THERE. WE BELIEVE ADDING A SMALL AMOUNT OF PAVERS TO THE AREA WOULD BE BENEFICIAL FOR EVERYONE. WE ALSO UNDERSTAND THE REASONING BEHIND THIS RULING, BUT WE BELIEVE IT IS NOT INTENDED TO APPLY TO CURRENT SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS. WE ON THE PERMIT WE ARE SEEKING WILL HELP REDUCE THE IMPACT ON STEWART. WE ASK IF YOU COULD CONSIDER A MOTION TO REVIEW NEW PERMITS FOR ACTIVE BUSINESSES. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. LINDA KAY RICHARDS. 
          GOOD EVENING, LINDA KAY RICHARD, COMMAND POINT CIRCLE. CONGRATULATIONS. AND WELCOME TO OUR NEW COMMISSIONERS. IT'S MY FIRST TIME MAKING PUBLIC COMMENTS SINCE YOU'VE BEEN HERE. 
          I FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT YOU WERE PUT IN THE POSITION OF THE VOTER, PUT IN YOUR POSITION BY THE VOTERS OF THE CITY OF STEWART, BECAUSE THEY'RE FED UP WITH THE RECKLESS DEVELOPMENT OF THE PREVIOUS COMMISSION. I SUPPORT YOUR ACTIONS OF GETTING A BETTER DEAL WITH BRIGHTLINE, AND I SUPPORT YOUR ZONING IN PROGRESS. I ONLY WISH YOU WERE SITTING HERE WHEN WE HEARD HILTON TRUE AND COSTCO. I'M HERE TO GIVE A QUICK UPDATE ON THE 50 ACRE CANARSIE PUD. AN ABOMINATION IS WHAT MY BROTHER LIKES TO CALL IT. WE'VE BEEN OVERLY ASSURED THAT IT'S ALL GOING TO BE FINE WHEN IT IS ALL DONE. I TRULY HOPE IT IS, BUT I'M HERE TO MAKE OUR OUR CONCERNS KNOWN, MR. WICK, I NIT WICK, I THINK I PRONOUNCE THAT CORRECT. THE HEAD OF YOUR DEVELOPMENT OFFICE HAS BEEN VERY RESPONSIVE TO ME, LETTING ME KNOW THAT AGAIN, EVERYTHING WILL 
          [00:35:04]
BE FINE. I STILL HAVE NOT RECEIVED THE COPY OF THE PLANS THAT I ASKED FOR LAST WEEK, AND WERE PROMISED OF THE ELEVATION AND THE LANDSCAPES ALONG OUR BORDERS, AGAIN, WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO CONCERNS OF OUR CONCERNS OVER THE DRAINAGE AND FLOODING OF OUR PROPERTY, BECAUSE IT'S CONTINUING TO HAPPEN. I HOPE THAT IN FIVE YEARS, WHEN IT'S ALL DONE, WE DON'T HAVE THESE PROBLEMS, BUT WE ARE CONTINUING TO HAVE THESE PROBLEMS. IT'S BEEN VERY CLEAR THAT CLEAR CUTTING 50 ACRES OF LAND AND FILLING TEN ACRES OF WETLANDS HAS CAUSED HEADACHES FOR THIS DEVELOPER. THERE'S A LOT OF WATER OVER THERE, AND WE LOOK AT THEM AS THEY'RE MAKING DECISIONS ON THE FLY, BUT EVERYTHING'S GOING TO BE OKAY IN FIVE YEARS. WE DO HAVE A BAFFLE BOX ANYWAYS. THOSE ARE MY CONCERNS FOR WHAT'S GOING ON THERE. FINALLY, I KNOW YOU PULLED THE ITEM, BUT I BELIEVE EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO PUBLISH A BLOG OR PRETEND TO BE A NEWS SOURCE AS LONG AS THEY DO NO HARM. HOWEVER, I DON'T BELIEVE A PUBLIC REPRESENTATIVE ON A CITY BOARD SHOULD BE ABLE TO PUBLISH DEGRADING COMMENTS ABOUT CITY COMMISSIONERS. I COULD GO ON FOR MANY MINUTES ABOUT THE LIES AND UNTRUTHS AND BULLYING THAT THIS PARTICULAR REPRESENTATIVE HAS PUBLISHED AGAINST ME, AND OTHERS, BUT I REFUSE TO GIVE THE BULLY ANY MORE AIRTIME. I REALLY HOPE YOU DO FIND TO REMOVE THIS MEMBER AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CITY BOARDS. WHY ANYONE THINKS A SEMI-RETIRED DEVELOPER FROM CONNECTICUT IS THE RIGHT PERSON TO MAKE DEVELOPMENT DECISIONS FOR OUR CITIES? I CANNOT COMPREHEND. AND IF MY MEMORY SERVES ME RIGHT, HE WAS ONCE FORCED TO RESIGN DURING HIS TENURE AS A COMMISSIONER. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO MY PUBLIC COMMENT AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND SERVICE. THANK YOU. 
          FRANK MCCRYSTAL. ANYONE HERE? I DON'T SEE MR. MCCRYSTAL. OH, THERE HE IS. TALKATIVE TONIGHT. 
          NICE THE FULL ARMOR OF GOD. REAL QUICK. YOU'RE RIGHT. IT'S NOT JUST THE TRAIN STATION ITSELF. 
          TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT IS A PLANNING STRATEGY THAT BUILDS DENSE COMMUNITIES AROUND TRANSPORTATION HUBS. IT PROMOTES DENSE, COMPACT, URBAN FORM AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT USE. ANOTHER ALL I KNOW SOME MORE HAPPY TALK CALLED 15 MINUTE CITIES AN URBAN PLANNING CONCEPT WHERE WORK, SHOPPING, EDUCATION, HEALTH CARE AND LEISURE CAN BE REACHED BY A 15 MINUTE WALK BIKE RIDE OR PUBLIC TRANSIT RIDE FROM ANYWHERE IN THE CITY. SOME GOOD EXAMPLES OF THESE 15 MINUTE CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES THAT ARE GIVEN ARE PORTLAND, SAN FRANCISCO, AND MINNEAPOLIS. 
          TOWNS WHERE THOSE WHO CAN'T AFFORD A CAR CONGREGATE AND DEFECATE ON THE SIDEWALKS. HOW WALKABLE IS THAT SOUND TO YOU? THIS WALKABILITY THING, IT'S GOT TO BE LAUGHED AT ONCE AND FOR ALL. WE'RE NEVER GOING TO BE CARMEL, CALIFORNIA. WE'RE NEVER GOING TO BE NEWPORT, RHODE ISLAND. WE LIVE IN THE TROPICS. NO ONE WANTS TO WALK ANYWHERE TEN AND A HALF MONTHS OUT OF THE YEAR. SO PLEASE STOP. TO THE NEW COMMISSIONERS. THANK YOU. AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THE COUNTY AND YOUR CITY COMPADRES. THAT SEEMED TO TREAT YOU AS IGNORANT RUBES THAT NEED TO BE EDUCATED. YOU'RE PIONEERS IN THE FACT THAT YOU DO THIS. YOU REPRESENT. YOU WENT OUT AND TALKED TO US AND YOU REPRESENT THE PEOPLE OF STUART, OKAY? NOT JUST THE FINEST OF PEOPLE WHO HAD BEEN RUNNING THE SHOW BEFORE THEN. SO THANK YOU. CARRY ON, MY FRIENDS. THANK YOU. I HAVE LUCY MCGUIRE. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. THANK YOU FOR HAVING US HERE TONIGHT AND LISTENING TO US. 
          [00:40:04]
UNFORTUNATELY, I DO HAVE TO LEAVE IN A FEW MINUTES AND I WILL BE WATCHING ONLINE AS SOON AS MY NEXT COMMITMENT IS OVER. BUT I WOULD LIKE CLARIFICATION ON WHAT HAS BEEN SPENT IN REGARDS TO WHAT YOU HAD MENTIONED, COMMISSIONER COLLINS, WHAT HAS BEEN SPENT ON THE RAIL CONSTRUCTION, AS TO WHAT THE PROPER RAIL NEEDED TO BE PUT IN PLACE FOR THE BRIGHTLINE IN ORDER TO COME THROUGH THIS AREA. SO IN CLARIFICATION OF WHAT YOU SAID, WE WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR 50% OF STATION AND RAIL CONSTRUCTION COSTS, BUT WHAT MONEY HAS ACTUALLY BEEN SPENT TO BRING UP OUR RAIL TO THE POINT THAT IT NEEDED TO BE FOR BRIGHTLINE TO COME THROUGH, WHICH IS ALREADY COMING THROUGH OUR AREA? I FEEL LIKE THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT THING THAT WAS MISSED OUT. I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS ON CLARIFYING WHAT YOUR STANCE WAS AND THAT YOU DO WANT A STATION, BUT I THINK WE NEED CLARIFICATION ON WHAT'S ALREADY BEEN SPENT. AND WAS THAT SPLIT BY THE CITY OR AND OR THE COUNTY? I WOULD LIKE CLARIFICATION ON THAT, HOLD ON. 
          YEAH, SO I WOULD LIKE AND THEN I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO KNOW WHAT DISCUSSIONS HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE PAST TWO WEEKS TO RENEGOTIATE THIS DEAL, I FEEL LIKE THAT IS AN IMPORTANT THING. 
          WHAT HAS BEEN DONE IN THE PAST TWO WEEKS IN ORDER TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS DEAL AND FIND A BETTER SOLUTION FOR US. I FEEL LIKE THOSE ARE QUESTIONS THAT NEED TO BE ANSWERED, AND I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT I HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO SAY THAT. SO THANK YOU AGAIN FOR BEING HERE AND FOR ANSWERING OUR CONCERNS. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU. I HAVE NO MORE COMMENTS, MAYOR. 
          [CONSENT CALENDAR]
OKAY. SO MOVING ON TO THE CONSENT CALENDAR. MR. MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. PULL IN ITEM NUMBER FOUR. CORRECT OKAY. THAT'S IT. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CLARK PULLING AN ITEM FOR A SECOND. ANYONE? I'LL SECOND THE MOTION SECOND BY COMMISSIONER JOB. ALL IN FAVOR, TAKE A ROLL CALL. ROLL CALL. ROLL CALL. AND COMMISSIONER READ. THIS IS TO PULL FOR DISCUSSION, CORRECT? NO, THIS IS ONE TWO. THIS IS ONE, TWO, THREE, FIVE. EVERYTHING BUT FOUR. YOU'RE OKAY? YES. I'M SORRY. WE NEED WE NEED PUBLIC COMMENT. I'M SORRY. DO WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS? WE NEED PUBLIC COMMENT. 
          NO, WE DON'T HAVE. YOU NEED TO ASK FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE CONSENT AGENDA PULLING ITEM FOUR? WE HAVE ONE IN THE BACK, ONE. THERE'S ONE BACK. I SUBMITTED A, THAT'S NOT FOR CONSENT CALENDAR. WAS IT FOR A PARTICULAR ITEM? I'M SAYING I'VE SUBMITTED A GREEN CARD FOR COMMENT, BUT I WASN'T CALLED ON. BUT THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE TO. 
          WE STILL HAVE SEVERAL UP HERE. ACCORDING TO DEPENDING ON THE AGENDA ITEM THAT YOU PUT IT UNDER, WHICH ITEM DID YOU WANT TO ADDRESS? OKAY. SO THAT'S THE NUMBER 12 OR 14 I THINK. RIGHT. 
          THAT'S THAT'S THE LAST. OH THEY'RE GOING TO CALL ME. YEAH. WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO THOSE ITEMS YET. YEAH. STAY TUNED. GOOD LUC. SO SEEING NONE ROLL CALL PLEASE. COMMISSIONER REED. YES, COMMISSIONER. COLLINS. YES, COMMISSIONER. CLARK. YES, COMMISSIONER. GIOVI. YES, MAYOR. 
          [4. OLD CITY LANDFILL 2ND DUE DILIGENCE EXTENSION REQUEST (RC): RESOLUTION No. 96-2024; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE  CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, EXTENDING THE DUE DILIGENCE PERIOD AT THE  OLD CITY OF STUART LANDFILL FROM SEPTEMBER 30, 2024 TO MARCH 31,  2025; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.]
RICH. YES SO, MR. BAGGETT, WILL YOU READ ITEM FOUR FOR OUR CONSIDERATION, PLEASE? OF COURSE. MR. MAYOR. RESOLUTION NUMBER 96, DASH 2024, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, EXTENDING THE DUE DILIGENCE PERIOD AT THE OLD CITY OF STUART LANDFILL FROM SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2024 TO MARCH 31ST, 2025, PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I'LL MOVE APPROVAL OF THE RESOLUTION NUMBER 96 DASH 2024. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CLARK. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? OKAY. MOTION FAILS FOR LACK OF A SECOND. WHAT WAS IT PULLED? IS THERE IS THERE SOMETHING I DON'T REALLY. YOU PULLED IT, BUT I ASKED FOR. YEAH, I PULLED, SO THIS WAS. CAN'T DISCUSS IT UNLESS THERE'S A SECOND. SECOND. RIGHT I'LL SECOND IT. OKAY. THANK YOU. SORRY. I WAS READING SOMETHING AT THE SAME TIME. OKAY. IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? DO YOU WANT TO DO A. DO YOU WANT US TO. DO YOU WANT A PRESENTATION? THERE IS ABSOLUTELY REPRESENTATIVES HERE OKAY. ABSOLUTELY PLEASE STEP UP TO THE MICROPHONE. SURE GOOD EVENING 
          [00:45:06]
COMMISSIONERS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR HAVING US THIS EVENING. WE APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY. 
          WE REALIZE YOU HAVE A VERY BUSY AGENDA, BUT WE DO APPRECIATE YOUR TIME, I WANT TO START OFF BY FIRST ACKNOWLEDGING A COUPLE OF MY TEAM MEMBERS THAT ARE HERE TODAY, RYAN BLOSS IS OUR DIRECTOR OF LEASING, AND MARK QUIMBY IS OUR DEVELOPMENT MANAGER FOR ALL OF ASHLEY CAPITAL. AND LEADS ALL OF OUR BROWNFIELD DEVELOPMENT, WE ALSO HAVE RICK MORTON, WHO IS OUR PRINCIPAL, AND FOUNDER OF ASHLEY CAPITAL HERE WITH US. THIS EVENING, WE PUT TOGETHER A BRIEF PRESENTATION, IF IT IS OKAY WITH YOU, WE'D APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COLLECTIVELY GIVE YOU AN UPDATE ON WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING, AND THEN WE CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE. 
          I ALSO WANT TO JUST THANK STAFF. THANKS TO MIKE AND LEE AND YOUR TEAM. THEY'VE BEEN REALLY, REALLY KIND AND GENEROUS AS WE'VE WORKED THROUGH THIS PROJECT FOR THE LAST YEAR. AND TO EVERYONE THAT'S HERE, I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR PATIENCE WHILE WE JUST DO THIS BRIEF PRESENTATION. AS WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS PROJECT FOR A YEAR. SO WITH THA, I THINK THE PRESENTATION IS GOING ON THE SCREEN. OKAY. AND THAT'S NOT ME. PRESENTATION WHERE'S YOURS? FIRST? YOU KNOW, THE FIRST HERE. OKAY WHAT'S YOUR PRESENTATION? EXCUSE ME. THIS IS ON THE OTHER SCREEN. HERE WE AR. YES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO I'D LIKE TO START OFF BY GIVING YOU A LITTLE INTRODUCTION TO OUR COMPANY, WE HAVE SOME SLIDES, AND I'M JUST GOING TO TURN A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE IT'S A LITTLE EASIER. SO I CAN FOLLOW ALONG WITH YOU ALL, OUR COMPANY HAS BEEN AROUND FOR 40 YEARS. IT WAS FOUNDED IN 1984 BY TWO PRINCIPALS. AS I SHARED, RICK MORTON IS HERE TODAY. HE IS ONE OF OUR FOUNDING PRINCIPLES. WE ARE ONE OF THE LARGEST PRIVATELY HELD REAL ESTATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT FIRMS IN THE NATION, OUR MAIN GOAL AND WHAT WE DO IS WE ACQUIRE UNDERPERFORMING ASSETS AND REAL ESTATE, TO DEVELOP FOR ITS HIGHEST AND BEST USE. THERE'S TWO TYPES OF PROPERTIES THAT WE ACQUIRE. WE ACQUIRE WHAT'S CALLED GREENFIELD SITES, AND WE ACQUIRE WHAT'S CALLED BROWNFIELD SITES. SO GREENFIELD SITES ARE SITES THAT WE IDENTIFY WITH A VISION, LAND THAT IS UNDERUTILIZED. AND WE SEE A VISION FOR LONG TERM DEVELOPMENT. WE ALSO ACQUIRE PROPERTIES THAT MAY HAVE SOME ENTITLEMENTS THAT HAVE NEVER COME TO FRUITION OR ANTIQUATED SUBDIVISIONS THAT CAN BE TRANSITIONED TO A HIGHEST AND BEST USE. AND THEN WE ALSO DEVELOP BROWNFIELD SITES. WE REMEDIATE, WE REUSE OUR COMPANY OVER ITS LIFETIME, HAS BUILT MILLIONS OF SQUARE FEET AND HUNDREDS OF ACRES OF BROWNFIELD SITES. AND MARK WILL TALK ABOUT THAT A LITTLE BIT WHEN HE COMES UP. OUR CURRENT REAL ESTATE PORTFOLIO IS ACROSS SIX STATES. WE HAVE OVER 60 BUILDINGS, AS YOU SEE, WITH 40 PROPERTIES AND 32,000,000FT■!S. AND WE ARE NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED YEAR OVER YEAR AS A TOP 20 OWNER, OPERATOR, DEVELOPER AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT. SO WHAT'S DIFFERENT? AND SETS US APART WITH MAYBE THE STANDARD DEVELOPMENT IS THAT WE OWN AND OPERATE OUR PROPERTIES WE DON'T SHARE AND WE DON'T SELL, WHEN WE INVEST IN A COMMUNITY AND WE INVEST IN A PROPERTY, WE'RE ALL IN, WE'RE THERE FOR THE LONG HAUL. WE ACQUIRE AND WE ENTITLE AND WE SITE PLAN AND DEVELOP. WE LEASE AND WE PROPERTY MANAGE. SO WHEN WE MAKE AN INVESTMENT, WE ARE 120% COMMITTED TO WHAT WE'RE DOING. AND OUR PARTNERSHIPS IN THE COMMUNITY. SO NEXT SLIDE ABOUT THE OLD CITY OF STEWART LANDFILL. I JUST WANT TO FOR THE FOLKS AT HOME, ARE HERE TODAY THAT MAY NOT BE FAMILIAR WITH THE LANDFILL, THERE IS A VISUAL THERE. THE LANDFILL IS 50 ACRES. IT SITS ON MONTEREY AND MONTEREY ROAD EXTENSION BEHIND THE CREMATORIUM NEXT TO THE JAIL AND BEHIND THE FIRE STATION. IT IS CENTRALLY LOCATED IN. THEY'RE ALL GOING TO BLOW UP AND SHALL I CONTINUE OR WHAT IS IT? IT'S AN AMBER ALERT, SO YOU SHOULD LOOK AT THAT. OH, YEAH. OKAY OKAY. GOOD TO CONTINUE, SO IT'S 
          [00:50:01]
CENTRALLY LOCATED IN, IN THE CITY, WHAT'S WONDERFUL ABOUT THIS SITE, AS YOU CAN SEE, THE PURPLE LINE IS, IS THE MARTY BUS ROUTE. IT'S CENTRALLY LOCATED BETWEEN DIFFERENT POINTS BETWEEN THE MARTY, AND IT'S ALSO A ONE MILE BIKE RIDE TO 10TH STREET. SO IT HAS GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES. SO I'M GOING TO STOP AND I'M GOING TO ASK MY COLLEAGUE MARK QUIMBY TO COME UP HERE. AND GO THROUGH THE CITY OF STEWART LANDFILL. SOME OF THE DUE DILIGENCE AND HIS EXPERTISE. AND THEN WE'LL FINISH OFF. SO THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, JILL, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, MY NAME IS MARK QUIMBY. AS SHE SAID, I AM A DEVELOPMENT MANAGER WITH ASHLEY CAPITAL. I HAVE A LONG HISTORY OF DEVELOPING CONTAMINATED LAND, AND THAT'S WHAT MY FOCUS IS AT ASHLEY CAPITAL. CAN YOU SPEAK UP, SIR? YES. SORRY. SO BRIEFLY, THE LANDFILL. WHAT'S IMPORTANT HERE IS THAT MARTIN COUNTY RELINQUISHED CONTROL OF THE LANDFILL IN 1962, TO THE CITY. 
          IN 1980, IT CEASED OPERATIONS, AND IT CLOSED A FURTHER DUMPING AND DISPOSAL IN 1987. SINCE 1987, THE PROPERTY ESSENTIALLY HAS BEEN VACANT. STEWART USES A PORTION OF IT AT THE MOMENT FOR A YARD TRANSFER STATION OR LOCATION. IT'S ONLY ON A SMALL PIECE OF IT, BUT WHAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT HERE IS THAT THE CITY IS LIABLE FOR THE CLOSURE OF THE LANDFILL. THEY'RE CONSIDERED THE LIABLE PARTY BY THE DEPARTMENT OF AND ENVIRONMENTAL WORK IS ONGOING, AND THAT IS COMPLETELY AT THE CITY'S EXPENSE. SO WHAT WE WANTED TO DO IS BRIEFLY GO OVER THE DUE DILIGENCE TIMELINE, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S A REASONABLE QUESTION TO ASK US THAT IF WE'RE ASKING FOR AN EXTENSION, WHAT HAVE WE BEEN DOING? RIGHT, THIS IS THE SECOND EXTENSION. SO THE FIRST EXTENSION WAS OR THE FIRST LETTER OF INTENT WAS APPROVED IN OCTOBER OF 2023, THE PURPOSE OF WHICH WAS TO GIVE US THE TIME TO BASICALLY BUILD A TEAM AND FIGURE OUT WHAT THE KIND OF TIMELINE WAS GOING TO LOOK LIKE, TO FIGURE OUT THE NATURE OF THE LANDFILL. THERE HASN'T REALLY BEEN A LOT OF STUDY OF THE LANDFILL, ENVIRONMENTALLY SPEAKING. THERE'S BEEN VERY LITTLE TESTING DONE, INSIDE THE BULK OF THE LANDFILL, EXCEPT FOR SMALL PIECES OF IT RELATED TO MINOR ISSUES, BUT IT HASN'T REALLY BEEN FULLY CHARACTERIZED. AND ONE OF THE LARGEST CHALLENGES WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO REDEVELOP A LANDFILL. YES, THERE'S THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS, BUT THERE'S ALSO THE STRUCTURAL CONCERNS, RIGHT. LIKE HOW DO YOU BUILD ON A DUMP? AND THERE ARE TRIED AND TRUE WAYS TO DO THAT, BUT YOU NEED A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF STUDY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT TO DO AND WHAT IT WILL COST. SO OUR GOAL AND WHAT WE'VE BEEN PLANNING AND WORKING ON SINCE WE STARTED ON THIS PROJECT, WAS BUILDING A TEAM. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAPPENED AS WELL IS WE WORKED WITH THE TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING, AND THEY AGREED TO SUPPORT THE PROJECT WITH A GRANT. SO THEY HELPED US WITH SOME OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY COSTS WHILE WE THEN WORKED ON FUNDING ALL OF THE CIVIL ENGINEERING COSTS, THE ENVIRONMENTAL ATTORNEYS, THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER AND THE SURVEY WORK. THEN IN APRIL, ONCE WE KIND OF GOT A HANDLE ON WHAT WE NEEDED TO DO, WE ASKED FOR ANOTHER EXTENSION REQUEST THAT BROUGHT US TO WHERE WE ARE NOW. AND THE GOAL OF THAT EXTENSION REQUEST WAS TO GET US THROUGH THE DUE DILIGENCE, LIKE ACTUAL PHYSICAL TESTING OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THROUGHOUT THE SUMMER. NOW, THE REASON WHY THE REQUEST TOOK US TO NOW IS BECAUSE THE GOAL WAS TO GET A HANDLE ON HOW MUCH TIME WE WOULD THEN NEED TO ANALYZE ALL THAT INFORMATION, AND THEN COME UP WITH AN ACTUAL PLAN AND COST ESTIMATE, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE HERE NOW, TODAY. SO WE COMPLETED THE PHASE TWO STUDY. WE COMPLETED THE GEOTECHNICAL STUDY. THOSE REPORTS ARE NOT FINISHED YET, BUT THEY'RE BEING FINISHED AS WE SPEAK. WE THOUGHT THEY WOULD BE DONE THIS MONTH. IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S GOING TO BLEED INTO THE FIRST OF NEXT MONTH, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR THIS REQUEST FOR EXTENSION, WHAT I WANTED TO DO WAS JUST KIND OF SHOW YOU SOME CONTEXT. SO WHAT THIS IS SHOWING YOU IS WHAT THIS IS ALL THE WORK THAT WE DID OVER THE SUMMER. SO WE DID 45 BORINGS, WE DID 20 TEST PITS, 16 GROUNDWATER WELLS, 27 VAPOR WELLS, TWO SURFACE SAMPLES. THE POINT THAT I'M TRYING TO MAKE IS THAT IT'S A COMPLICATED SITE, AND THE ONLY WAY TO KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH THIS SITE IS TO COLLECT A LOT OF INFORMATION AND COLLECT THE RIGHT INFORMATION, AND THAT HAS BEEN OUR FOCUS, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON. AND SO GOING THROUGH THIS, THIS TAKES US TO THIS NEXT SLIDE, WHICH IS SO WHAT'S NEXT. RIGHT. SO WE'RE ASKING FOR AN EXTENSION OF THIS DUE DILIGENCE PERIOD THROUGH MARCH OF 2025. BECAUSE IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND IS WHAT THIS AGREEMENT IS GIVING US. 
          BASICALLY EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS TO THE PROPERTY. BUT WE HAVEN'T ACTUALLY COME TO THE FINAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY IN TERMS OF THE PURCHASE OF THIS LAND. RIGHT? THIS IS JUST GIVING US THE ASSURANCES THAT WE HAVE ENOUGH TIME AND SOUL RIGHTS OF THE PROPERTY SO THAT WE CAN MAKE THESE INVESTMENTS, FIGURE OUT WHAT THE PLAN IS, FIGURE OUT HOW COULD WE DEVELOP IT AND WHAT WOULD IT COST. AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR THIS TIME, BECAUSE IF WE DON'T HAVE THAT, WE'RE NOT OBVIOUSLY LIKE, WE CAN'T. IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE FOR US TO SPEND ALL THIS MONEY. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T EVEN HAVE ANY RIGHTS TO IT, WE ALSO AGREED IN ALL OF OUR AGREEMENTS THAT WE'RE GOING TO SHARE ALL THIS INFORMATION WITH THE CITY. SO THEY'RE GOING TO GET COPIES 
          [00:55:02]
OF ALL THESE REPORTS AS WELL, AND WHAT OUR PLAN IS TO TAKE THESE NEXT ROUGHLY SIX MONTHS IS TO EVALUATE ALL THIS DATA, DETERMINE WHAT THE BEST APPROACHES ARE, BECAUSE THERE'S GOING TO BE MULTIPLE CHOICES WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE. HOW WHAT IS THE BEST, MOST COST EFFECTIVE WAY TO SUPPORT THESE BUILDINGS THAT WE WANT TO BUILD? THAT'S A DETAILED ANALYSIS. WE HAVE TO DO SOME PROS AND CONS. WE HAVE TO ANALYZE THAT INFORMATION AND COME UP WITH A STRATEGY AND FIGURE OUT WHAT THE ULTIMATE COST IS GOING TO BE, SO THAT WE CAN THEN FIGURE OUT WHAT THE REMEDIATION AND REDEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE AT THIS TIME. 
          WE'VE ALSO BEEN WE'VE ALREADY ENGAGED WITH DEP, BUT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO CONTINUE TO NEGOTIATE WITH THEM ON WHAT THE REDEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE. WE'RE ALSO GOING TO HAVE TO CONTINUE TO UNDERSTAND THE CITY CLOSURE REQUIREMENTS AND HOW THAT WOULD INTERACT WITH OUR DEVELOPMENT, AND NEGOTIATE THE ACTUAL PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY. ALL THESE THINGS STILL HAVE TO HAPPEN, BUT WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS THE EXTENSION IS JUST TO ALLOW US TO CONTINUE THIS PROCESS. SO BUT BY THE END OF THIS PERIOD, OUR HOPE IS THAT WE CAN HAVE ALL THESE ISSUES RESOLVED AND GET INTO A PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY. SO THAT'S WHAT OUR PLAN IS AND WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR IT. AND THEN A COUPLE, WE ONLY HAVE A FEW EXTRA SLIDES HERE. AND THE MAIN THING IS LIKE, WELL, WHY DEVELOP THE LANDFILL. RIGHT. RIGHT NOW IT'S VACANT. THERE'S NO JOBS, NO TAX REVENUE, NO, NO ECONOMIC IMPACT. YOU HAVE AN UNCLOSED LANDFILL THAT'S ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, AND THE CITY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CLOSURE OF THAT LANDFILL. AND THEY RECENTLY MET WITH DEP. WE WERE INVITED TO THAT MEETING BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN KIND OF LIKE WORKING HAND IN HAND WITH THE CITY AND TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE STATUS IS. 
          AND THE MAIN MESSAGE FROM THE DEP IS THE CITY IS NOT AS CLOSE AS THEY WOULD HAVE HOPED TO CLOSE. THIS LANDFILL. WITH THIS REDEVELOPMENT THAT WE'RE HOPING TO ACHIEVE IS GOING TO BRING JOBS, NEW TAXES, REVENUE, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, AND IT'S ALSO GOING TO HELP GET ENVIRONMENTAL CLOSURE BECAUSE THE CITY CAN LEVERAGE THE DATA THAT WE'VE COLLECTED AND ALSO EVENTUALLY BE ABLE TO LEVERAGE THE DEVELOPMENT AS PART OF THE LANDFILL CAP FOR THE CLOSURE. SO WHAT WE'RE REALLY LOOKING FOR HERE IS A WIN WIN. WE'RE NOT TRYING TO DO ANYTHING BUT SORT OF LIKE MAKE THE PROPERTY USEFUL. AND REALLY AT THE CITY'S BENEFIT AND WORK WITH THEM AND PARTNER WITH THEM ON THE WHOLE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. SO I THINK, JILL, YOU WANTED TO COME BACK UP AND BRIEFLY TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE WERE PLANNING ON DOING. THANK YOU. MARK SO JUST, A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION TO CLOSE THIS OUT, I'M A RESIDENT OF MARTIN COUNTY FOR OVER 22 YEARS. I SERVED AS YOUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LIAISON FOR EIGHT YEARS WHILE I WAS AT THE BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BOARD. I'M A FOUNDING CREATOR OF THE BUSINESS ACCELERATOR PROGRAM THAT HELPED MANY OF YOUR CITY BUSINESSES, IN TOUGH TIMES. AND BILL WEST, I THINK IS STILL HERE, WHO WAS ALSO INVOLVED? CASTRONOVO CHOCOLATES GOT THEIR SECOND CHOCOLATE MIXING FROM THAT PROGRAM. AND SO I'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH THE CITY FOR A LONG TIME. I KNOW IT'S MARKET AND I BELIEVE IN IT. AND I BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE A GREAT PROJECT HERE AND A GREAT PROJECT, A PARTNERSHIP, JUST SOME LANDFILL REUSE MARKET DEMAND NUMBERS FOR YOU TO TAKE WITH YOU TODAY, CURRENTLY, IF YOU GO ON COSTAR OR LOOPNET, THERE IS ZERO SPACE IN THE CITY OF STUART FOR, SIZE RANGE OF 5 TO 50,000FT■!S. YOU CAN SEE A CONCEPTUAL RENDERING. THESE ARE SMALLER BUILDINGS THAT WOULD FIT A MID PRODUCT SIZE SMALL TO MID PRODUCT. AND THAT IS WHAT WE ENVISION. IT GOES TO THE MARKET DEMAND OF YOUR AVERAGE LEASE SIZE OF 7300FT■!S. IN THE TWO ZP CODES SURROUNDING THE CITY OF STUART AND NEIGHBORING STUART, YOU CURRENTLY HAVE A VACANCY RATE OF 3%. THAT HOVERS, BUT 3% IS LOW. THERE'S NO INVENTORY TO HELP BUSINESSES GROW AND EXPAND IN THE COMMUNITY HERE, PROVIDE MODERN SPACE OPTIONS. I'M SURE YOU DRIVE AROUND YOUR COMMUNITY OFTEN. YOU KNOW THAT YOUR BUILDINGS ARE AGED, 1970S TO 1990S IS A LOT OF THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT. IT GIVES AN OPPORTUNITY FOR MODERNIZED FACILITIES IN YOUR COMMUNITY, AND IT GIVES OPPORTUNITY FOR OTHERS THAT MAY BE STARTING OUT, STARTUPS AND ENTREPRENEURS TO TAKE SPACE THAT IS A LITTLE OLDER AND DOESN'T HAVE AS HIGH DEMAND. AND ALSO JUST TO NOTE, 97% OF THE BUSINESSES IN MARTIN COUNTY. AND THAT ALSO GOES FOR THE CITY OF STUART. THERE'S VERY LITTLE DIFFERENTIAL, HAVE LESS THAN 20 EMPLOYEES. AND SO THERE'S A DEMAND AND THERE'S ALWAYS BEEN A DEMAND FOR OUR FLOURISHING ENTREPRENEURIAL MARKET. SO THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS. THESE ARE USUALLY THE MOST IMPORTANT. RIGHT, YOU KNOW, AS AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPER OR FORMER ECONOMIC DEVELOPER, WE THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO, TO RAISE THE COMMUNITY UP, CURRENTLY, THE CITY OF STUART HAS A 13% POVERTY RATE, QUALITY JOBS AND DIVERSIFIED JOBS WILL REDUCE YOUR POVERTY RATE. UNEMPLOYMENT RATE HOVERS AT 3% SEASONALLY. IT GOES HIGHER. 
          EVERYONE KNOWS THAT, WE KNOW WITH DIVERSIFIED QUALITY JOBS, WE CAN REDUCE THAT NUMBER AS WELL. OUR COMMUTE, 70% OF YOUR LABOR FORCE, ALL COMMUTES FOR WORK EACH AND EVERY DAY. YOU HAVE A VERY TALENTED COMMUNITY, BUT THEY'RE OUT COMMUTING BECAUSE THERE'S NOT ENOUGH 
          [01:00:01]
DIVERSIFICATION IN THE JOBS THAT ARE HERE. ANOTHER STATISTIC IS YOUR MEDIAN INDIVIDUAL INCOME IS $39,000. IT'S LESS THAN $19 AN HOUR. AND SO THIS IS ANOTHER WAY WHERE YOU BRING IN EMPLOYMENT AND INDUSTRIAL, AND INDUSTRY DIVERSIFICATION TO RAISE THAT MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME FOR QUALITY FAMILIES. AND THEN LASTLY, YOU HAVE A LOT OF, TALENT PIPELINE DEVELOPMENT GOING ON IN THIS CITY. AND IN STUART, YOU'VE GOT THE NEW BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB IN EAST STUART, YOU'VE GOT THE PROJECT LIFT FACILITY COMING ON BOARD. YOU HAVE THE REACH CENTER AT THE AIRPORT. ALL OF THESE TIE IN NICELY TO WHAT WE'RE LOOKING TO DO, FOR PARTNERSHIPS BETWEEN INDUSTRY AND TALENT, PIPELINE DEVELOPMENT OF YOUR RESIDENTS. AND THEN LASTLY, WHY US? IT'S A COMPLICATED SITE. THERE ISN'T ANYONE IN THIS REGION THAT CAN DO WHAT WE DO, AND I STAND BEHIND THAT. I'M NOT ABLE TO SAY THAT I'VE BEEN PART OF THE HISTORY OF ASHLEY CAPITAL FOR 40 YEARS, BUT I'VE BEEN PART OF THE COMPANY FOR TWO AND A HALF YEARS. THEY HAVE BEEN SELECTED BY THE GM TRUST TO REVITALIZE PROJECTS. MARK IS OVERSEEING THE REVITALIZATION OF 300 ACRES IN MICHIGAN, THE FORMER BUICK CITY. WE'RE THE PARTNER THAT YOU WANT TO TAKE THIS UNDERUTILIZED, 50 YEAR OLD CONTAMINATED SITE AND BRING IT INTO THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE. AND SO WE ASK FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION FOR THE EXTENSION TODAY, AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU AND BEING PARTNERS IN THE LONG RUN ON THIS PROJECT. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, I'M PRETTY SURE WE HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR YOU. OKAY COMMISSIONER COLLINS, LESS QUESTIONS FROM ME AND JUST MORE STATEMENTS, BUT, FOR ME, I WOULD I APPRECIATE THE UNSOLICITED OFFER FOR YOU GUYS TO WANT TO INVESTIGATE THIS AND MAKE IT HIGHEST AND BEST USE, BUT FOR ME, I WOULD PERSONALLY LIKE TO NOT GO DEEPER INTO THIS DIRECTION AND IS BECAUSE THAT LAND FOR US SAVES US HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS EVERY YEAR, MOST PEOPLE DON'T REALIZE, BUT WHENEVER WE COME BY AND COLLECT YOUR YARD WASTE, THAT HAS TO GO SOMEWHERE. WE DON'T JUST TAKE THAT TRUCK AND DRIVE IT OUT TO OKEECHOBEE. THAT YARD WASTE GOES TO THIS LOCATION AND DRIES OUT BEFORE IT ULTIMATELY GETS TRANSPORTED. AND THAT WEIGHT DIFFERENCE IS AMOUNTS TO HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS EVERY YEAR. ALSO, THAT LAND POTENTIALLY COULD BE USED TO STORE GARBAGE TRUCKS, RIGHT? THAT'S WITHOUT OFFENDING ANYBODY BECAUSE OF WHAT'S CURRENTLY THERE. SO INSTEAD OF GOING ANY DEEPER INTO THIS DIRECTION AND HAVING YOU GUYS INCUR ANY MORE EXPENSE, FOR ME PERSONALLY, I WOULD, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE VOTE, I'M GOING TO BE VOTING NOT TO RENEW THIS, TO NOT GO ANY DEEPER INTO THIS, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO SELL THIS LAND. I DON'T WANT TO GIVE UP ANY OF THIS COUNTY PROPERTY THAT TODAY MAY BE UNDERUTILIZED. BUT AS THINGS EVOLVE AGAIN, IT SAVES US A LOT OF MONEY EACH YEAR. BUT WE MAY FIND OVER TIME THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO UTILIZE THIS MORE. SO THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS FOR DISCUSSION. SO ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT FROM ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS? NO COMMISSIONER RICH, MAYOR. RICH. YES. BASICALLY IT'S JUST IT'S AN EXTENSION FOR THEM TO DO THEIR DUE DILIGENCE, THOUGH, WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE NEGOTIATING TO SELL IT, THOUGH, IT'S MAINLY THE APPLICANT JUST LOOKING FOR AN EXTENSION FOR DUE DILIGENCE. SO WE'RE NOT NEGOTIATING THIS OR THAT OR KEEPING SOME OF IT FOR THE CITY OR POTENTIALLY SELLING IT ALL. IT'S JUST DUE DILIGENCE TO KNOW WHAT'S, YOU KNOW, CONTAMINATED SITE. YOU DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC QUESTION. THAT'S REALLY DISCUSSION. SO I DO HAVE I DO HAVE ONE THEN. OKAY. DID ASHLEY CAPITAL OR ANY OF THE CONSULTANTS WITH ASHLEY CAPITAL HAVE ANY DISCUSSION WITH BRIGHTLINE ABOUT THE POTENTIAL THREE ACRES THAT THEY WERE ASKING FOR AT THIS SITE? I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE DAY AFTER WE RECEIVED THE LETTER ON MARCH FOURTH, I CONTACTED BRIGHTLINE AND TOLD THEM THAT THAT WAS NOT AVAILABLE. SO THAT'S NEVER BEEN ON THE TABLE. CORRECT. BUT PRIOR DISCUSSIONS BEFORE THAT LETTER, WERE THERE ANY WHERE BRIGHTLINE HAD REACHED OUT OR YOU GUYS HAD REACHED OUT TO BRIGHTLINE? WE'VE NEVER TALKED TO BRIGHTLINE. I DID HAVE PEOPLE ASK ME ABOUT EARNEST, EARNEST, AND, BUT WE'VE NEVER TALKED WITH THEM EITHER. YOU KNOW, PEOPLE HAVE JUST TALKED ABOUT IT. CHATTER WISE, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY IT'S IN THE CITY. AND WHAT WILL HAPPEN THERE. BUT WE'VE NEVER HAD THOSE CONVERSATIONS, OKAY. AND WE DO NOT DEVELOP RESIDENTIAL. WE DO NOT DEVELOP OFFICE. WE DO NOT DEVELOP MULTIFAMILY. WE ARE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPERS. WE HAVE NO INTEREST IN TAKING A FORMER LANDFILL AND HAVING ANYTHING TO DO WITH ANY MULTIFAMILY PROJECT. 
          THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD ENGAGE IN A DISCUSSION. AND WERE THERE ANY TIES WITH 
          [01:05:02]
ASHLEY CAPITAL AS FAR AS ANY EQUITY PARTNERS IN THE COMPANY THAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE DONATE, DONATION MONEY TO ANY ELECTED OFFICIALS THAT WERE RUNNING IN THE CITY OR THE COUNTY IN THIS, PRIMARY ELECTION? AND MARTIN COUNTY. I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING I. WAS ANY DONATION MONEY GIVEN TO CAMPAIGNS FOR CANDIDATES THAT WERE RUNNING IN THE CITY OF STUART OR MARTIN COUNTY. AND AUGUST 20TH, 2024 ELECTION THIS YEAR. YES, I BELIEVE MY BOSS MADE A SINGLE CONTRIBUTION, BUT I DON'T HAVE I DON'T HAVE A LOG, SO I APOLOGIZE. I CAN'T ANSWER THAT IN ITS ENTIRETY. OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. COMMISSIONER GOP. YES. HI. THANK YOU, WHEN WE MET, YOU ALLUDED TO THE FACT THAT THIS EXTENSION WOULD ALSO. YOU THOUGHT WOULD LEAD TO THE RENEGOTIATION OF PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY. OKAY, SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR THAT THEIR INTENTION IS CERTAINLY TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY RIGHT. BUT IT'S A LEASE. WE DON'T WE DON'T HAVE A WE DON'T HAVE ANY LETTER OF INTENT FOR PURCHASE OR LEASE. RIGHT NOW. WE HAVE A DUE DILIGENCE LETTER OF INTENT. YES, IT WOULD. IT WOULD BE OUR LONG TERM OBJECTIVE THAT WE WOULD ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY AND DEVELOP IT. THAT WOULD BE OUR END GOAL. DID YOU READ IT, COMMISSIONER? THANK YOU. NO, NO COMMENTS. SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THIS A LONG TIME AND I'VE TALKED TO THEM EXTENSIVELY. WE'LL GET DISCUSSION. JUST LOOK AT THE I SENT YOU. IT IS NOT YOUR PLAN TO CREATE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING HERE AND IN FACT THAT REALLY WOULD NOT BE THAT POSSIBLE. NOBODY SAID THAT. NO, WE WOULD NOT DO THAT. RIGHT. OKAY. IT'S FOR INDUSTRIAL IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY. IT'S JUST INDUSTRIAL. CORRECT. DO YOU HAVE SOME IDEA OF WHAT TAXES THE CITY COULD GENERATE FROM THIS SITE IF IT WERE DEVELOPED? SO THE COUNTY MILLAGE IS, A LITTLE OVER 16, I THINK THE CITY MILLAGE IS ABOUT 18 AND CHANGE IN TOTAL. AND SO BASICALLY THAT'S $18 PER $1,000 OF VALUATION, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW THE NUMBERS TODAY BECAUSE WE'RE NOT BUILDING ANYTHING. SO I DON'T WANT TO BE QUOTED. BUT YOU GOT TO THINK THAT, SPEC DEVELOPMENT AT THIS POINT IS ANYWHERE FROM 60 TO $80 A SQUARE FOOT. WE THINK THAT WE CAN GET ABOUT 400,000FT■!S ON THIS PROPERTY. AND 4 OR 5 BUILDINGS. SO IT'S QUITE EXPANSIVE THE AMOUNT OF TAX REVENUE. AND THEN SECOND TO THAT IS WHEN YOU HAVE, INDUSTRIAL BUSINESSES AND COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES THAT OCCUPY SPACE. THEY ALSO HAVE TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY. SO INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES DO NOT GET HOMESTEADED. SO THERE'S NO HOMESTEAD VALUATION TO THAT. 
          THERE'S NO CAP. AND THEN TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY IS ALSO TAXED, AT THE FULL RATE OF REAL PROPERTY. AND THERE'S NO CAP ON THAT AS WELL, OTHER THAN THE FIRST $25,000 EXEMPTION. SO WE FEEL LIKE, YOU KNOW, THE REVENUE WOULD BE SUBSTANTIAL. THAT WOULD PROBABLY OFFSET YOUR TREE DEBRIS. YEAH, THAT WE COULD HELP MAYBE MOVE SOMEWHERE. BUT THAT'S JUST OUR OPINION OKAY. SO THANK YOU, IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? SORRY. ONE MORE TIME. YOU HAVE A QUESTION OF THEM OR. 
          OKAY. YES. ACTUALLY FORGIVE ME. OKAY IS YOUR INTENT TO YOU ACQUIRE BROWNFIELD AND GREENFIELD SITES? IS THE INTENT TO ACQUIRE THIS SITE? YES. PURCHASE? YES. RIGHT. BECAUSE THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION WHETHER YOU MIGHT LEASE OR NOT. YOU WANT TO PURCHASE THIS PROPERTY. THAT WOULD. THAT'S BEEN THE GOAL FROM DAY ONE. IS WE WOULD HAVE AN INTEREST IN ACQUIRING THIS PROPERTY. SO CAN I MAKE ONE COMMENT? JUST ONE QUICK LITTLE. OH WE'LL GO TO DISCUSSION. 
          THAT'S FINE. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU. SO THERE'S NO PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS. SO DISCUSSION. SO IF THE INTENT IS TO PURCHASE THIS PROPERTY UNLESS WE ARE LOOKING TO SELL THIS PROPERTY TO ASHLEY CAPITAL, WE ARE CAUSING THEM TO INCUR MORE EXPENSE AND BE MORE INVESTED INTO THIS. SO UNLESS WE DON'T WANT TO, UNLESS WE WANT TO SELL IT, WE SHOULD NOT EXTEND THIS FURTHER AND COMMIT THEM DEEPER INTO. THIS WOULD BE MY COMMENT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? NO MR. CLARK, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? NO. THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND. YEAH, THERE IS A MOTION ON THE TABLE AND THE MOTION WAS TO EXTEND IT. SO WHO MADE THE MOTION OR DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT? I DO, MAYOR RICH. OKAY, I'D LIKE TO SEE WHAT THE MOTION. WHO MADE THE MOTION? YOU. 
          COMMISSIONER CLARK. COMMISSIONER CLARK, IF MAYBE YOU WERE WILLING TO, AMEND YOUR MOTION TO INCLUDE ANY CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION, CANCELED CHECKS TO ADD TO YOUR MOTION AND WHO THEY WERE PAID T. 
          THE MOTION WAS ACTUALLY JUST TO DISCUSS. THERE WAS AN OFFICIAL MOTION. OKAY SO THEY'VE BEEN TO DISCUSS. WELL, IT'S A MOTION FOR APPROVAL. NO, IT'S A MOTION FOR. YEAH. CORRECT. OKAY. IT'S A 
          [01:10:01]
MOTION TO APPROVE THIS. CORRECT. AND I WAS JUST SEEING IF DISCUSSION THE RESOLUTION 96 2024 AS PRESENTED. AND AS, AS, THE STAFF HAS PUBLISHED THERE, SO HE'S ASKING RECOMMENDATION. 
          HE'S ASKING IF HE CAN AMEND YOUR I DON'T SEE THE NO, I DON'T I DON'T I DON'T THINK, I DON'T THINK I NEED TO WHY WHY DOES THAT WHY DO WE NEED TO I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT I'D LIKE ON THE RECORD JUST SO IT'S THERE. IN ORDER FOR ME TO SUPPORT THIS, FOR THE DUE DILIGENCE PROCESS. 
          THAT'S ALL I'M ASKING FOR. WELL, IT'S ON THE RECORD ALREADY. THEIR CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION REPORTS THAT YOU CAN SEE AND YOU CAN KNOW IF ANYBODY HAS RECEIVED A CONTRIBUTION. I KNOW THAT IN THE PAST YEARS, I PROBABLY RECEIVED SOMETHING FROM ASHLEY CAPITAL AND A LOT OF OTHER DIFFERENT PEOPLE. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT WHY, THE AUGUST 2024, WHY IT WOULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE. I JUST, I. I MEAN, IF YOU'RE SAYING THAT IT SHOULD. MR. HELP ME. PLEASE. MR. BAGGETT, HOW DO WE ATTACH THIS TO THE STAFF REPORT? MR. MAYOR WHAT MAY I WELL, I'M SORRY, I WAS TALKING WE NORMALLY DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE ANY CAMPAIGN CONVERSATIONS ON THE DAIS AT ALL. YES, SIR. SO THIS IS KIND OF A GRAY AREA FOR US AT BEST. I MEAN, YOU COULD ALWAYS BROUGHT UP. IT COULD ALWAYS BE BROUGHT UP IN COMMISSIONER COMMENTS. IF YOU FEEL IT'S BETTER TO THIS DECISION. MAYOR RICH, MAY I. YES. IT JUST MAKES MY JOB EASIER IF I HAVE IT IN ONE CENTRAL LOCATION INSTEAD OF ME HAVING TO GO LOOK THROUGH REPORTS FOR CANDIDATES TO JUST FIND IT. IF IT WAS JUST IN ONE EMAIL, THAT'S ALL I WAS ASKING FOR. THANK YOU. I'M HAPPY TO HAVE STAFF. PULL IT. JUST MARTIN COUNTY IS WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR. LIKE ALL OF THE CAMPAIGNS IN MARTIN COUNTY, CITY OF STUART MARTIN COUNTY. RIGHT. WELL, I WAS GOING TO DO SCHOOL BOARD MARTIN COUNTY, LIKE. YEAH OKAY. YEAH, I CAN GET THAT FOR YOU. AND THAT WOULD BE SEPARATE FROM THIS MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME. ARE WE STILL GETTING COMMENTS? OKAY. DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THE MOTION? WE DO. AND HAS THE RESOLUTION TITLE BEEN FULLY READ? YES THANK YOU COMMISSIONER GOP DO YOU HAVE COMMENTS? WELL I, I JUST WANTED TO SAY I THINK IT'S UNFAIR TO HAVE ASHLEY CAPITAL GO FORWARD IF WE HAVE NO INTENTION OF SELLING THE PROPERTY. I MEAN, JUST FROM A FINANCIAL AND A MORAL SENSE, WHY HAVE THEM GO FORWARD, EXPAND THEIR MONIES WHEN WE HAVE NO INTENTION OF SELLING THEM THE PROPERTY RIGHT. AND I WOULD ASSUME IF THEY'RE DOING ALL OF THAT, THEY'RE CERTAINLY NOT GOING TO GIVE US THE REPORTS IF WE'RE NOT SELLING THEM THE PROPERTY. THIS, MR. MAYOR, YES. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT STARTED SOME TIME AGO, AND THEY'VE BEEN DOING THE STUDIES. 
          THEY'VE HAD TWO, TWO BITES AT THE APPLE ALREADY. THEY'RE JUST ASKING FOR ADDITIONAL TIME. AND THAT WAS WITH THE INTENT OF THE CITY YOU HAVE IN THIS LANDFILL THAT HAS BEEN SITTING THERE A LONG TIME, EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT THE COUNTY HAD TAKEN A PORTION FOR THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, AND I DON'T THINK THAT THEY TOOK A PORTION FOR THE, FOR THE, FOR THE SWIMMING AREA, BECAUSE I THINK THAT THAT WAS ALREADY CLEAR. BUT THIS PART FOR THE CITY HAS BEEN THERE AS THE QUOTE UNQUOTE, OLD LANDFILL. AND THIS WAS AN INTENT ON THE COMMISSION THAT HAD ORIGINALLY STARTED THIS DISCUSSION WITH ASHLEY CAPITAL THAT THEY WERE GOING TO BE WORKING. AND IF THEY CAN FIND A GOOD, LEGITIMATE USE FOR IT, AFTER DOING ALL THE ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES THEY HAD AGREED THAT THEY WERE GOING TO PUT THE TIME AND EFFORT AND MONEY INTO IT. AND HOPEFULLY WE WOULD ALSO NOT TURNCOAT ON THEM AND LET AT THE LAST MINUTE SAY, NO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO LET ANYBODY USE THIS PROPERTY AND DEAL WITH THIS BROWNFIELD AND DEALING WITH BROWNFIELDS IS A BIG ISSUE THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES. AND TO HAVE SOMEBODY WANTING TO DO SOMETHING WITH IT AND TO DO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND SOMETHING THAT'S NOT GOING TO, CREATE ANY ADDITIONAL NEGATIVE IMPACTS IN THE FUTURE AND GO TO TELL US WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH THE LAND. I YOU KNOW, I THERE IS A WAY TO DO THINGS AND TO WORK AND TO COMPROMISE AND TO MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT THINKING THAT THE WHOLE WORLD AND THE SKY IS GOING TO FALL IN. AND I REALLY THINK THAT WE OWE IT TO IF WE'VE STARTED TO WORK WITH THEM IN THIS MANNER, AND THEY'RE DOING THEIR BEST EFFORTS TO FIND AN ANSWER, AND WE'RE GOING TO WE SHOULD CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THEM, FIND THE ANSWER AND WORK WITH THEM. MR. COLLINS. SO JUST JUST BUSINESS HERE, JUST DOLLARS AND CENTS THERE. I CANNOT SEE 
          [01:15:02]
HOW THIS PROPERTY IN TERMS OF AD VALOREM, RIGHT, IS GOING TO PRODUCE MORE THAN THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS THAT IT CURRENTLY SAVES US BY HAVING THAT YARD MATERIAL BREAK DOWN THERE, THAT THAT MATERIAL IS GOING TO HAVE TO GO SOMEWHERE. AND RIGHT NOW IT DOESN'T OFFEND ANYBODY. IT JUST SITS THERE. IT'S NOT CLOSE TO SOMEBODY'S BACKYARD. IT GOES THERE, IT DRIES OUT. AND THEN WE TAKE IT TO OKEECHOBEE. THERE'S A POTENTIAL THAT THAT COULD BE IF WE GET INDUSTRIOUS, WE COULD HAVE IT BE COMPOST MATERIAL FOR PEOPLE WITH GARDENS AND THINGS. 
          I'M SAYING THAT SELFISHLY, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I'M INTO. BUT IT'S GOING TO COST US MORE, AND WE'RE GOING TO LOSE THE LAND IN ANY FUTURE POTENTIAL AS WELL. FROM A BUSINESS STANDPOINT, IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE TO SELL THIS PROPERTY BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO COST MORE IN TERMS OF HAVING TO STORE THAT SOMEWHERE ELSE OR TAKE IT DIRECTLY OUT THERE. IT SAVES US AGAIN, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS BY HAVING THAT MATERIAL DRY OUT BEFORE WE TAKE IT TO OKEECHOBEE. THANK YOU. MR. MR. MAYOR, IS IT POSSIBLE THAT MR. BAGGETT, MR. MARTEL AND MISS MARISSA AND MR. MR. M I CAN'T THINK OF WHAT MR. ASHLEY CAPITAL'S LAST NAME IS, BUT, IS IT POSSIBLE THAT WHEN THEY COME IN WITH THEIR. IF THEY, WE DO ALLOW THEM TO GET THIS ANALYSIS DONE, THAT THEY ALSO INCLUDE AN ANALYSIS OF WHAT, WHAT EITHER COST SAVINGS OR EXPENSES. IT WOULD BE IF THE CITY DOESN'T USE IT FOR ANY PURPOSES, THAT THE CITY MAY OR COULD USE IT FOR, THAT THEY, THEY KIND OF INCLUDE THAT SO THAT WE CAN MAKE THAT A PART OF ANY FUTURE DISCUSSION IF WE NEED TO. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? MR. YOU'RE SAYING, I MEAN, I THINK WE SHOULD CUT IT OFF ALREADY. WE KNOW WHAT THAT PROPERTY SAVES US. WE DON'T NEED AN ANALYSIS FOR THAT. WE KNOW HOW MUCH THAT ANALYSIS OUR GUYS KNOW WHAT THAT. YES, BUT WE DON'T. YOU YOU HAVEN'T MADE THE CALCULATION OF WHAT TAXATION WE WOULD REALIZE. SO ALL YOU'RE SHOWING IS THE DEBIT. YOU'RE NOT SHOWING THE CREDIT. IT COULD WELL EXCEED THAT. BUT YOU HAVEN'T BOTHERED TO MAKE THAT CALCULATION. SO IT SEEMS ON 100 WHAT'S WHAT'S AD VALOREM. SURE YOU CAN COME UP WITH A COUPLE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS. WHAT'S THAT. WHAT WAS 70, $80 MILLION PROJECT. IT WOULD HAVE TO BE LIKE A 70, $80 MILLION PROJECT. YEAH, WE CAN SPEAK. THANK YOU, MR. COLLINS. THANK YOU, RICK MORTON, MORTON. THESE ARE BALLPARK NUMBERS. JUST AS COMMISSIONER, YOUR YOUR ESTIMATE ON THE WAY. SAVINGS IS BUT $1.40 A FOOT FOR THE REAL ESTATE TAXES ON 400,000FT. THAT'S $560,000. 
          TYPICALLY, YOU'D HAVE EQUIPMENT THAT'S TAXED EQUALLY. AGAIN, JUST NOT PROMISING ANYTHING. BUT IF YOU WANT A BIGGER THAN A BREADBOX KIND OF NUMBER, SO YOU'RE LOOKING AT SOMETHING OVER $1 MILLION, ARE YOU WILLING CAN I ASK A QUESTION? YOU MAY ASK, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO CARVE OUT OF THIS PARCEL ENOUGH ROOM FOR US TO HAVE SPACE FOR THAT HURRICANE DEBRIS, THE HURRICANE, SURE THAT WE COULD BE ABLE TO FIGURE THAT OUT, TO BE ABLE TO STORE. THAT'S WHAT THIS IS EFFECTIVELY, IS HURRICANE DEBRIS FOR YARD STORAGE. AND IT IS SO THAT WASTE HAS TO GO SOMEWHERE. 
          AM I WRONG? I THINK WITH THE HURRICANE DEBRIS THERE, ANYTIME THERE'S BEEN A HURRICANE IN THE PAST RIGHT. I'M NO EXPERT IN THAT. IT HAS TO GO SOMEWHERE. AGREED MARTIN COUNTY TAKES IT OUT TO 714 AND 995. IT'S FURTHER AWAY FROM, HOMES. YOU MENTIONED. IT'S NOT CLOSE. THAT'S NOT QUITE TRUE. I MEAN, THERE ARE HOMES RIGHT ON THE EAST SIDE, RIGHT. IF YOU HAVE A FIRE. BUT THEY CAME AFTER THAT DUMP WAS ALREADY THERE. THAT'S THE UNDERSTANDING. DISAGREE. BUT THE CITY YOU KNOW, PART OF PART OF WHAT I FROM MY PERSPECTIVE. YES, SIR. WE'RE LOOKING IS THE CITY STILL LIABLE IF YOU'RE IN THE CHAIN OF TITLE PERIOD. AND I AGREE WITH YOU. I'M SURE IT SAVES SOME MONEY. 
          BUT GOING OUT TO I 95 AND 714 IS NOT THAT MUCH FURTHER. THAT'S WHERE THE MARTIN COUNTY IS DOING THE WEIGHT MORE THAN THE DRIVE AND THE GAS. IT'S THE WEIGHT OF THE MATERIAL BEFORE IT'S DRIED OUT. THAT'S THE COST SAVINGS IS BY THE TIME WE TAKE IT OUT THERE, IT'S DRIED OUT. YEAH. 
          THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE IN THE COST SAVINGS. BUT MY POINT BEING. YES, SIR. IT'S NOT THAT MUCH FURTHER TO TAKE THOSE EXTRA FIVE MILES TO SEVEN, 1495, WHICH IS WHERE THE COUNTY DOES IT. BUT THE, THE OTHER THING THAT YOU SHOULD NOT OVERLOOK IS THE CITY IS IN THE CHAIN. THEY'RE LIABLE AT THIS POINT. IF SOMETHING HAPPENS, THE NEIGHBORS GET SICK. THEY DID IT. YOU KNOW, THAT'S THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE DO. WE'RE NOT PERFECT. WE DON'T HAVE ALL THE SOLUTIONS. WE DON'T HAVE A MAGIC WAND. BUT WE KNOW HOW TO DEAL WITH THESE THINGS. WE KNOW HOW TO CAP IT AND TURN IT INTO SOMETHING PRODUCTIVE. SO I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT. THERE'S A PERHAPS SOME EXTRA COST, ALTHOUGH I WOULD ARGUE THAT AN EXTRA FIVE MILES IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE THAT MUCH, AND IT GETS 
          [01:20:05]
YOU OUT OF THE LIABILITY CHAIN. IT GETS YOU AWAY FROM THE DEBRIS CATCHING FIRE, SMOKING, WHATEVE. 
          THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT'S HAPPENED IN PORT SAINT LUCIE, AS I'M SURE YOU'RE AWARE. SO ANYWAY, I, I DON'T MEAN TO PROMISE THOSE NUMBERS BECAUSE IT IS WHAT IT IS AND IT MAY BE THE SIZE OF THE PROJECT MAY BE REDUCED, PARTICULARLY IF YOU WANT SOME SPACE FOR A HURRICANE, SOME DEBRIS THAT'S YOU DON'T KNOW ANYBODY MORE REASONABLE THAN ME. I'M JUST A FROM ALABAMA. I KIND OF MADE IT. YES, SIR. AND I MADE GOOD, QUITE FRANKLY, BY BEING REASONABLE. 
          I'M NOT AS SMART AS ANYBODY ON THAT PANEL, BUT I'M A REASONABLE GUY, AND I CAN WORK THINGS THROUGH. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER JOB. YEAH, I HAVE ONE QUESTION, WHEN I MET WITH JILL. MARISSA, ANY OF YOU COULD ANSWER IT WHEN WE MET, YOU SAID EVEN AFTER THE SALE, THE CITY WOULD STILL BE LIABLE FOR ANY CONTAMINATION UNDERNEATH ON THAT PROPERTY. THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING, I'LL ANSWER THAT. IT. IT'S COMPLICATED. RIGHT. SO, LIKE, THE WAY IT WOULD WORK, WOULD BE AS PART OF THE NEGOTIATION OF THE SALE, WE WOULD HAVE TO WORK OUT WITH THE CITY THE TERMS RIGHT NOW, ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, IT'S JOINT AND SEVERAL. THAT'S FLORIDA LAW. SO LIKE WE IF ONCE WE BECOME OWNERS, WE ESSENTIALLY ALSO BECOME LIABLE AND THEN SO ARE AND BUT YOU'RE STILL THERE TOO. AND SO THEN IT'S A QUESTION OF WHO'S STANDING IN FRONT OF WHO. AND THAT'S ALL PART OF THE NEGOTIATION. AND THE ONE POINT I'LL MAKE IS THAT IF IT WAS TRULY THE COMMISSION'S LIKE HARD AND FAST DESIRE, THEY NEVER, EVER WANT TO SELL THIS PROPERTY. 
          I, I WOULD WANT YOU TO VOTE NO BECAUSE THAT LIKE, WHAT WOULD WHY ARE WE DOING THIS RIGHT. BUT TO YOUR POINT ABOUT BEING, YOU KNOW, BEING KIND WITH OUR MONEY, WHICH WE APPRECIATE, RIGHT, IS THE IDEA THAT WE'VE ALREADY SPENT MOST OF THE MONEY. MOST OF THE MONEY WAS ON THE STUDY SIDE. 
          ALL OF THIS FIELD WORK THAT WE DID, THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WE NEED TO SPEND BETWEEN NOW AND WHAT WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT, THE THINKING SIDE, AND IT'S A MUCH SMALLER PERCENTAGE OF THE OVERALL FUNDS. AND WE WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE CITY'S CONCERNS ARE. RIGHT. WE WANT TO KNOW ABOUT THE TRANSFER NEEDS AND HOW MUCH ACREAGE YOU WOULD NEED TO MAKE. HOW MUCH ARE YOU ACTUALLY USING? HOW MUCH WOULD YOU NEED? IS THERE A VIABLE ALTERNATIVES OR NOT? THOSE ARE ALL THINGS THAT WE WANT TO WORK WITH YOU AND BE REASONABLE AND TRY TO FIGURE OUT A DEAL, AND WE MAY COME TO THE END OF THAT AND THERE MAY BE NO DEAL, BUT THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN SAYING THERE'S NEVER GOING TO BE A DEAL IN THAT CONVERSATION IS DEAD NOW. AND THAT'S AND THAT'S THAT'S REALLY OUR POSITION IS WE KNOW THAT WE'RE GOING TO SPEND MONEY BETWEEN NOW AND MARCH, BUT THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WE'RE GOING TO SPEND IS A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE MONEY WE'VE ALREADY SPENT. SO WE'RE SORT OF LIKE WE'RE ALREADY IN IT TO WIN IT. AND SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR THIS EXTENSION, BECAUSE WE UNDERSTAND THE CITY IS GOING TO HAVE CONCERNS. WE HAVEN'T EVEN NEGOTIATED A PRICE YET. RIGHT OR THE TERMS OF THE LIABILITY. THERE'S THINGS WE HAVE TO WORK OUT WITH DEP. THIS IS A VERY COMPLICATED SITE, BUT REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU DO WITH US AND WHAT YOU DO NOW, YOU STILL HAVE A CLOSURE OBLIGATION WITH DEP THAT IS UNMET. AND THERE'S INFORMATION THAT HAS NOT BEEN COLLECTED THAT WILL NEED TO BE COLLECTED. THERE'S THINGS ABOUT THE CAP THAT NEED TO BE LIKE RESOLVED THAT AREN'T RESOLVED. SO THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT NEED TO BE WORKED OUT. THAT'S WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR THIS TIME. AND WE WOULD OBVIOUSLY WORK WITH YOU AND TRY TO FIGURE SOMETHING OUT, BECAUSE YES, WE DO WANT TO BUY THE PROPERTY OR PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY OR WHATEVER, BUT WE CAN'T EVEN FIGURE OUT THAT DEAL IF WE DON'T HAVE THIS EXTENSION. 
          MAYOR. COMMISSIONER COLLINS SO WE'RE ASKING FROM NOW TO MARCH FOR THE EXTENSION. I FEEL A LOT MORE COMFORTABLE WITH MR. MORTON SAYING HE'S WILLING TO CARVE OUT POTENTIALLY. I KNOW WE'RE NOT NEGOTIATING EXACT DETAILS OF A DEAL, BUT THAT WE COULD POTENTIALLY CARVE OUT LAND FOR THAT DEBRIS, FROM ONE OF YOUR LIPS, IF WE GET TO MARCH AND WE'RE NOT HAPPY AND WE CAN'T SEEM TO COME TO A DEAL OR WHATEVER. ARE YOU ARE YOU CONSIDERING US MORE EXPOSED BY TAKING THIS NEXT LAYER AND, DO YOU MEAN LIKE, DID WE THE EXTENSION IF WE GET TO IF WE GET TO MARCH AND SAY WE DON'T IN TERMS OF LIABILITY. YES. NO. YOUR LIABILITY IS THE SAME NOW AS IT IS THEN. AND JUST FROM YOUR LIPS. RIGHT. ALL THE INFORMATION WE'VE COLLECTED IS GOING TO BE PUBLIC BECAUSE IT WAS PASTED INTO THIS. IF WE GET TO MARCH AND WE'RE LIKE, WE CAN'T, WE DON'T WANT TO DO IT, WE DON'T WANT TO SELL IT. YEAH, THE LIABILITY IS ALL OURS RIGHT NOW. SO WELL, I MEAN, IT IS I MEAN, WHAT HE'S SAYING IS FACTUALLY TRUE, RIGHT? LIKE YOU GUYS ARE LIABLE IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION. YES YOU ARE. 
          YOU'RE PUTTING MORE MONEY INTO THIS PROPERTY, IS WHAT I'M SAYING IN TERMS OF TESTING. SO SURE, SURE. WE PUT WE DON'T ANTICIPATE DOING A LOT MORE GROUND TESTING BETWEEN NOW AND MARCH. IT'S MOSTLY ON THE CONSULTING, THE ESTIMATING SIDE, THE ENGINEERING SIDE, REALLY TRYING TO PROCESS THAT INFORMATION, WHICH IS WHY I'M SAYING I APPRECIATE THAT. RIGHT. 
          LIKE I DON'T WANT TO WASTE MONEY. RIGHT. BUT LIKE, WE'RE AT THE POINT THAT WE DON'T THINK THAT WE FEEL LIKE AT THE END OF THIS PERIOD, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO PRESENT WHAT WE WANT TO DO AND 
          [01:25:03]
NEGOTIATE TERMS WITH YOU. OKAY. I FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY I NEED TO I NEED TO AMEND SOMETHING THAT SAID, ONE OF THE THINGS ABOUT DOING THESE IS THE COST OR $10 A FOOT, $20 A FOOT HIGHER. SO TO YOUR POINT, IN TERMS OF THE ECONOMIC TRADE OFFS, AT LEAST SHORT RUN, IT MAY BE VERY CLOSE, MAYBE EVEN A SLIGHT NEGATIVE, BECAUSE WE WILL NEED SOME DEGREE OF TIF OR SOME SOME SOMETHING TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN. IT IS EXTRAORDINARILY EXPENSIVE TO DO THESE KIND OF THINGS. SO WHEN I'M TOSSING OUT NUMBERS AS TO WHAT IT COULD BE, THAT'S A LONG RUN NUMBER. TO BE FAIR, IT'S NOT, DOING THESE THINGS DOESN'T COME WITHOUT A COST. WHETHER YOU'RE DOING IT OR WE'RE DOING IT, IT COST CAN COST MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO CLOSE THESE THINGS. SO I DON'T WANT TO I DON'T WANT TO FOOL ANYBODY THAT THE MONEY STARTS FLOWING IN THE DAY WE CONSTRUCT IT. IT DOESN'T DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY. WE WOULD NEED HELP, SOME SORT OF SOMETHING TO, TO GET IT BUILT. SO JUST DIDN'T DIDN'T WANT TO LEAVE YOU WITH A ERRONEOUS IMPRESSION. THANK YOU. OKAY OKAY. YOU KNOW, SO THIS IS SAT VACANT FOR 37 YEARS, PRODUCING NO INCOME FOR THE CITY NOT BEING BUILT ON. SO THE JOBS AND BUSINESSES CAN BE CREATED. I THINK WE'VE BEEN. AND I'VE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CITY MANAGER. I THINK WE'VE BEEN NEGLIGENT. AND WE OWE THE CITIZENS OF STUART THE OBLIGATION TO GET A COMPREHENSIVE KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT IS THERE AND WHAT ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS MAY OR MAY NOT EXIST LEGALLY. WE HAVE WE ARE FULLY LIABLE FOR ANY PROBLEMS THAT MAY RESULT FROM THIS. SO THE ABILITY THAT TO PARTNER WITH THIS VERY EXPERIENCED GROUP AND UNDERSTAND WHAT CHALLENGES THERE ARE IS A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY. AND THIS IS THE SECOND GROUP THAT ACTUALLY HAS, HAS, HAS TAKEN A LOOK AT THIS BROWNFIELD. THE FIRST ONE I WAS NOT HAPPY WITH AT ALL. AND THEY BACKED OUT. THEY OBVIOUSLY A VERY CONSCIENTIOUS THEY'RE DOING A VERY GOOD JOB AND ALL WE'RE AGREEING TO DO RIGHT NOW IS LEARN ABOUT THIS SITE AND WHAT WHAT IS THERE, IF IN THE FUTURE WE WANT TO DO ANYTHING, WE WOULD HAVE TO WE BASICALLY HAVE TO GO BACK AND START FROM ZERO AGAIN WITH SOMEBODY ELSE, OTHERWISE WE WOULD BE UNABLE TO DEVELOP IT BECAUSE WE HAVE TO GAIN KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT'S IN THERE. AND WE'RE VERY CLOSE HERE. YOU'RE ONLY ASKING FOR MARCH, CORRECT, THE MAJORITY OF THEY'VE INCURRED THE MAJORITY OF THE EXPENSES. I JUST I TO NOT LET THIS GET TO COME TO A CONCLUSION. I IT TO ME WOULD BE NEGLIGENT ON OUR PART AND I HOPE WE CAN I HOPE WE CAN COME TO AN AGREEMENT WITH THEM THIS EVENING. SO SEEING NO FURTHER COMMENTS, WILL YOU CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE? COMMISSIONER REID WAS THE MOTION AMENDED TO INCLUDE. NO, NO IT WAS. DON'T NEED TO. GOTCHA. I'M GOING TO HAVE TO VOTE NO THEN. MAYOR RICH. YES, COMMISSIONER. CLARK. 
          YES, COMMISSIONER SELBY. YES, COMMISSIONER. COLLINS. YES THANK YOU. THE MOTION IS APPROVED. 4 TO 1. SO MR. MAYOR, WILL YOU BE CALLING ITEM NUMBER? I WILL BE ASKING MR. CHAIRMAN TO. YES WHETHER WE END UP IN AGREEMENT OR NOT. ALL THE INFORMATION WE HAVE WILL BE GIVEN TO THE CITY. 
          [11. ABANDONMENT OF S.E. ARAPAHO AVENUE - CARLA WILLIAMSON AND TODD  BRITT (RC) ORDINANCE No. 2534-2024: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE  CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, TO PROVIDE FOR THE ABANDONMENT OF CERTAIN  PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WITHIN THE CITY BEING THAT CERTAIN 50-FOOT RIGHTOF-WAY, AS SET FORTH ON THE PLAT OF ELDORADO HEIGHTS, AS RECORDED  IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 5, OF MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA PUBLIC RECORDS, AS  DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT “A” ATTACHED HERETO AND DEPICTED IN EXHIBIT “B”  ATTACHED HERETO; AND REQUESTING THE $19,000 PRIVILEGE FEE FOR  ABANDONING PUBLIC PROPERTY TO BE WAIVED IN ITS ENTIRETY; PROVIDING  FOR CONFLICTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE  DATE; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.]
THANK YOU SIR. THANK YOU. WILL YOU READ ITEM NUMBER 11 FOR OUR CONSIDERATION, MR. BAGGETT? MR. ORDINANCE NUMBER 2534 DASH 2024, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUAR, FLORIDA, TO PROVIDE FOR THE ABANDONMENT OF CERTAIN PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY WITHIN THE CITY. 
          BEING THAT CERTAIN 50 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY AS SET FORTH ON THE PLAT OF EL DORADO HEIGHTS, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK ONE, PAGE FIVE OF MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA. PUBLIC RECORDS, AS DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A ATTACHED HERETO AND DEPICTED IN EXHIBIT B ATTACHED TIER TWO AND REQUESTING THE 
          [01:30:01]
$19,000 PRIVILEGE FEE FOR ABANDONING PUBLIC PROPERTY TO BE WAIVED IN ITS ENTIRETY. 
          PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. MR. MAYOR, IF THERE IS NO CHANGE FROM STAFF ON SINCE THE FIRST READING, I DON'T KNOW IF, I'VE FORGOTTEN YOUR NAME. MR. BRUCE, MICHELLE. SORRY, MICHELLE. MICHELLE. IF THERE'S NO CHANGE SINCE THE FIRST READING AND THIS IS THE SECOND READING OF THIS, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE. ITEM NUMBER 2534, DASH 2024. UNLESS THERE'S BEEN SOME MAJOR CHANGES OR ANY MAIL IN CHANGES OR LEGAL DESCRIPTION CHANGES OR ANYTHING, HAS THERE BEEN ANY CHANGES? NO. WE RECEIVED WE RECEIVED A, APPROVAL FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER. THE APPLICANT NEIGHBOR, STATING THAT THEY ARE FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE RIGHT OF WAY ABANDONMENT AND THE PRIVILEGE FEE ISSUE. IS THAT A NEW ISSUE OR THAT WAS IN THE REQUEST IN THE $19,000 IN THE PRIVILEGE FEE, COMMISSIONER CLARK, THAT'S THE SAME FROM THE FIRST READING, SAME TIME. OKAY OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND? AND JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, WE'RE WAIVING THAT FEE. CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. YES LISTING A WAIVING OF THE. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CLARK AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COLLINS. IS THERE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ISSUE? SEEING NONE, IS THERE A COMMENTS OR DISCUSSION BY THE COMMISSIONERS? I HAVE NONE. I JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT THIS AREA, MISS WILLIAMSON AND MR. BRITT, I'VE SEEN THEM COME IN HERE AND JUST FOR THEM TRYING TO DO SOMETHING DECENT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I THINK IT'S A GOOD THING AND I REALLY APPRECIATE THEIR EFFORTS. I DROVE BY IT TODAY. IT'S ACTUALLY IT'S NOT A TINY PIECE OF PROPERTY BY ANY MEANS. BUT YEAH, I APPRECIATE THE EFFORT THAT THEY'VE MADE. AND IT CERTAINLY MAKES SENSE. SO ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS. SEEING NONE ROLL CALL PLEASE. COMMISSIONER CLARK. YES. 
          COMMISSIONER. COLLINS. YES MAYOR. RICH. YES, COMMISSIONER. READ YES, COMMISSIONER. SELBY. 
          YES MR. BHAGAT THAT PASSES UNANIMOUS. WILL YOU READ NUMBER ITEM 12 FOR OUR CONSIDERATION, 
          [12. 55 S.E. OSCEOLA STREET - FLAMINIA, LLC MAJOR URBAN CODE CONDITIONAL  USE (QJ): RESOLUTION No. 87-2024; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE  CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, GRANTING A MAJOR URBAN CODE CONDITIONAL  USE APPROVAL FOR FLAMINIA, LLC LOCATED AT 55 SE OSCEOLA STREET, AS  DESCRIBED WITHIN THE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION; GRANTING RELIEF  TO DEVIATE FROM CERTAIN CODE REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING REQUIRED  PARKING, PAYMENT IN LIEU OF PARKING (PILOP), SIDEWALKS, BUILDING  SETBACKS, POOL LOCATION, DRIVEWAY WIDTH, FENCE HEIGHT, AND  ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS FOR THE PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDING AND  PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING; REQUIRING SPECIFIC POLICIES TO BE  CONSIDERED INCLUDING PARKING REQUIREMENTS, PAYMENT IN LIEU OF  PARKING (PILOP) PROGRAM, AND VARIOUS DESIGN STANDARDS; PROVIDING  AN EFFECTIVE DATE; PROVIDING FOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL; AND FOR  OTHER PURPOSES.]
PLEASE? SURE. MR. MAYOR, I JUST WANTED TO REMIND YOU THAT THE. THIS IS A QUASI JUDICIAL. SO THIS IS SO IT'S THE GET OUT YOUR YELLOW SHEETS. YOU DO, AND IT'S RESOLUTION NUMBER 87. DASH 2024, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, GRANTING A MAJOR URBAN CODE CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL FOR A FLAMINIA LLC LOCATED AT FIVE FIVE SOUTHEAST OSCEOLA STREET AS DESCRIBED WITHIN THE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION GRANTING RELIEF TO DEVIATE FROM CERTAIN CODE REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING REQUIRED PARKING PAYMENT IN LIEU OF PARKING, ALSO KNOWN AS PILEUP SIDEWALKS, BUILDING SETBACKS, POOL LOCATION, DRIVEWAY WIDTH, FENCE HEIGHT, AND ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS FOR THE PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDING AND PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING REQUIRING SPECIFIC POLICIES TO BE CONSIDERED, INCLUDING PARKING REQUIREMENTS, PAYMENT IN LIEU OF PARKING PROGRAM, AND VARIOUS DESIGN STANDARDS PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE, PROVIDING FOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. SO MR. BAGGETT, FOR THE BENEFIT OF OUR NEW COMMISSIONERS, COULD YOU EXPLAIN WHAT AN EX PARTE COMMUNICATION IS BEFORE I ASK THEM TO IT? SURE. IT WOULD BE, ANY COMMUNICATIONS THAT YOU HAD PRIOR TO THIS MEETING WITH, THE APPLICANT OR ANYBODY ELSE AS FAR AS, COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING THIS PROJECT COMING BEFORE YOU NOW, IT'S MY OPINION. IT EXCLUDES STAFF, BUT ANYBODY ELSE YOU WOULD NEED TO DISCLOSE WHETHER IT WAS, EMAIL OR THEY CALLED YOU EITHER ONE OR ANY TYPE OF COMMUNICATION LIKE THAT. SO ANY COMMUNICATION WITH ANYONE REGARDING THIS SPECIFIC ITEM. 
          YES. OKAY. SO, COMMISSIONER REED, DO YOU HAVE ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATION? I DO, I ACTUALLY HAD A MEETING WITH THE APPLICANT AND THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE, AND I'M HERE WITH AN OPEN MIND. OKAY. COMMISSIONER JOB. YES, I DID HAVE A MEETING WITH THE APPLICANT AND HIS ATTORNEY, AND I'M WITH AN OPEN MIND. I TALKED BRIEFLY WITH THE APPLICANT. I KNOW THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVES. AND I'M HERE WITH AN OPEN MIND. OKAY, THIS IS NOT THE STARBUCKS, RIGHT? YOU REALIZE THAT? YEAH. THIS IS MY YOUTUBE, RIGHT? YEAH, YEAH, I KNOW, AND I DON'T HAVE ANY. SORRY I'M SURPRISED. ON CLIENT, THIS IS THE HOME ON THE RIGHT. 
          [01:35:07]
THIS IS THE HOME. YEAH, YEAH, I KNOW, COMMISSIONER JOB. DO YOU WISH TO CORRECT YOUR STATEMENT THEN? NO OH, OKAY. NO, I MET WITH THEM. YES. OKAY COMMISSIONER COLLINS, YES. I SPOKE WITH THE APPLICANT AND I SPOKE WITH MY CRB APPOINTEE WHO CONSIDERED THIS ITEM, REGARDING THEIR DELIBERATIONS. SO IS, WILL THE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLEASE PROVIDE A BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE AGENDA ITEM, LET ME JUST LET ME. OH, I'M SORRY. YES. WE NEED TO PUT THE POTENTIAL WITNESSES UNDER OATH. YEAH, WE'LL ALL POTENTIAL WITNESSES FOR THE APPLICANT, AND STAFF, PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, DO YOU AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY THAT YOU ARE ABOUT TO PROVIDE IN THIS HEARING WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP YOU GOD? I DO, NOW, THE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, WILL YOU PLEASE MAKE A PRESENTATION REGARDING THIS ITEM? GOOD EVENING. MAYOR. COMMISSIONERS. FOR THE RECORD, MY NAME IS CHRIS MCCRANE, PRINCIPAL PLANNER WITH THE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, TONIGHT I'M PRESENTING AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 12, SUBMITTED BY FLAMINGO LLC FOR A MAJOR URBAN CODE CONDITIONAL USE PETITION FOR THE EXISTING PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDING AND A PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, THE 0.6 ACRE PARCEL IS LOCATED AT 55 SOUTHEAST OSCEOLA STREET AND IS DESIGNATED BY THE URBAN CENTER ZONING DISTRICT. THE DOWNTOWN FUTURE LAND USE, AND IT IS SITUATED WITHIN THE CITY OF STUART'S, COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA, IN ACCORDANCE WITH PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OUTLINED UNDER SECTION 11.02 .05 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ON AUGUST 19TH, 2024, THE APPLICANT MAILED NOTICES TO 56 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS LOCATED WITHIN 300FT OF THE SUBJECT PARCEL, IN ORDER TO PROVIDE. EXCUSE ME. I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO PAUSE SO WE CAN WAIT FOR. WE'RE MISSING TWO. YOU STILL HAVE A QUORUM. FOR THE VOTES AREN'T THAT EASY. THROUGH THE STAFF REPORT, WE'LL JUST WAIT A FEW MINUTES, SEE IF THEY CAN RETURN TO LISTEN TO YOUR RIG AS A COURTESY TO THE APPLICANT. IF THEY TAKE TOO LONG, I'LL SEND THE SHERIFF OUT TO APPREHEND THEM. OH HERE HE COMES. THANK YOU, MR. COMMISSIONER. YOU'RE NOT TALKING TO EACH OTHER. 
          SHE'LL BE BACK IN JUST A MOMENT. SHE'S DOING COMMERCIAL BREAK OR SOMETHING. 
          OKAY. OKAY, WELL, LET'S. LET'S. MASQUERADED, MR. MCCRANE. IS THAT MR. MCCRANE? YEAH. WHY DON'T WE GO AHEAD? ARE YOU READY? YEAH, THAT'S FOR 4 OR 5. WE'LL GO AHEAD. ALRIGHTY. IN ACCORDANCE WITH PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OUTLINED IN SECTION 11 0205 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ON AUGUST 19TH, 2024, THE APPLICANT MAILED NOTICES TO 56 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS LOCATED WITHIN 300FT OF THE SUBJECT PARCEL. THE NOTICE WAS TO PROVIDE DETAILS OF THE REQUESTED MAJOR URBAN CODE, CONDITIONAL USE PETITIONS, AND THE DATE AND TIME OF BOTH THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT BOARD PUBLIC HEARING, WHICH WAS HELD ON SEPTEMBER 3RD, 2024, AND TONIGHT'S CITY COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING, IN ADDITION, THE APPLICANT HAS ALSO POSTED TWO PUBLIC NOTICE SIGNS ON THE SUBJECT PARCEL, ONE FRONTING SOUTHEAST SEMINOLE STREET AND THE SECOND FRONTING SOUTHEAST OSCEOLA STREET. SO THE SUBJECT PARCEL AND THE PARCELS TO THE SOUTHEAST AND THE WEST ARE DESIGNATED BY THE URBAN CENTER ZONING DISTRICT. AND THE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH ARE DESIGNATED BY THE URBAN WATERFRONT ZONING DISTRICT. AND AS I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, THE PROPERTIES, INCLUDING THE SUBJECT PARCEL, ARE ALL DESIGNATED BY THE DOWNTOWN FUTURE LAND USE. SO ON FEBRUARY 29TH, 2024, THE DEVELOPMENT 
          [01:40:05]
DEPARTMENT RECEIVED APPLICATIONS FOR A MINOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND A MAJOR URBAN CODE CONDITIONAL USE, WHICH WAS SUBMITTED BY LUCIDO AND ASSOCIATES ON BEHALF OF FLAMINIA, LLC, TO SUBDIVIDE THE SUBJECT PARCEL AND CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITHIN A PORTION OF THE SITE FOR THE EXISTING PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDING. ALSO KNOWN AS THE FORUM BUILDING. THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION AND AMENDMENT TO THE EXISTING PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDING, FOR REQUIRED PARKING, AND THE SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT OF THE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, REQUIRE REVIEW AND ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL BY THE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR. FOLLOWING REVIEW BY THE COMMUNITY COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT BOARD AND APPROVAL BY THE CITY COMMISSION FOR THE REQUESTED MAJOR URBAN CODE, CONDITIONAL USE AS A CONDITION OF THE MINOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL AND BEFORE A SITE PERMIT OR BUILDING PERMIT MAY BE ISSUED FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. THE APPLICANT WILL BE REQUIRED TO RECEIVE FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FROM THE CITY COMMISSION TO SUBDIVIDE THE SUBJECT PARCEL. ACCORDING TO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 11.01 .06, THE CITY COMMISSION MAY GRANT A MAJOR URBAN CODE CONDITIONAL USE IF THE APPLICANT DEMONSTRATES CONSISTENCY WITH AND FURTHERS THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THE CRA REDEVELOPMENT PLAN, AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND THE DEVELOPMENT WILL MEASURABLY IMPROVE THE FORM, FUNCTION AND TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS OF THE URBAN CODE. MAJOR URBAN CODE. 
          CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL MAY BE REQUESTED FOR RELIEF FROM THE FOLLOWING CODE REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING DENSITY, PERMITTED USES. SETBACKS, PARKING REQUIREMENTS, LOCATION OF BUILDING AND STRUCTURES, NUMBER OF STORIES, BUILDING HEIGHT AND ARCHITECTURAL REQUIREMENTS. THE PRIOR TO ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF THE MINOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO SUBDIVIDE THE 0.6 ACRE PARCEL AND CONSTRUCT THE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, BOTH THE EXISTING PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDING AND THE PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING REQUIRE AUTHORIZATION TO DEVIATE FROM CERTAIN URBAN CODE REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE EXISTING BUILDING, OFFICE OR OFFICE BUILDING, TO WAIVE THE PAYMENT IN LIEU OF PARKING FEES FOR THE PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDING TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM BUILDING WIDTH FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING TO DEVIATE FROM THE REQUIRED FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING BALCONY. REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. SIDEWALK REQUIREMENTS THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF A FENCE IN A FRONT YARD, AND THE LOCATION OF A POOL WITHIN THE FRONT YARD OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. SO THE PROPOSED SITE HERE, LOCATED IN, OUTLINED IN RED, LOCATED ON SOUTHEAST SEMINOLE STREET TO THE NORTH SOUTHEAST, DENVER TO THE EAST AND SOUTHEAST, OSCEOLA STREET TO THE SOUTH, THE 0.44 ACRE LOT FRONTING SOUTHEAST SEMINOLE STREET IN SOUTHEAST DENVER AVENUE WILL INCLUDE THE EXISTING 10,895 SQUARE FOOT PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDING, 25 OF THE 41 PARKING SPACES, AND THE EXISTING, TRASH COLLECTION AND LANDSCAPING. THE PROPOSED 0.16 ACRE LOT FRONTING SOUTHEAST SEMINOLE AND SOUTHEAST DENVER WILL BE DEVELOPED WITH A TWO STORY, 5570 SQUARE FOOT DETACHED, SINGLE FAMILY DWELLIN, ATTACHED TWO CAR GARAGE, ACCESSORY POOL AND PATIO, AND ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPING. I'M JUST GOING TO RUN THROUGH SOME OF THE CONDITIONAL USES AND WHAT THE CODE REQUIRES AND WHAT THE DEVIATION REQUEST IS, THE FIRST CONDITIONAL USE PETITION IS FOR A REQUEST TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES FOR THE EXISTING PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDING BY A TOTAL OF SIX, TOTAL PARKING SPACES, ACCORDING TO THE CITY OF STEWART'S REQUIREMENT FOR CALCULATING PARKING AS OUTLINED UNDER SECTION 601.10 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, THE GROSS FLOOR AREA SHALL BE USED WHEN CALCULATING THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES RELATING TO FLOOR AREA, WHEREAS THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO UTILIZE THE LEAST FLOOR AREA TO CALCULATE THE SITE'S PARKING REQUIREMENTS, ACCORDING TO SECTION 3.0103 OF THE CITY'S URBAN CODE, ONE PARKING STALL IS REQUIRED FOR EVERY 350FT■!S OF GROSS FLOOR AREA. FOR PROFESSIONAL OFFICE USES, SO THIS REQUEST WOULD RESULT IN A DEVIATION OF THE SIX PARKING SPACES, AGAIN, THIS IS THE SECTION IN THE CODE THAT TALKS ABOUT, PARKING FOR CALCULATING PARKING. AND, IT TALKS ABOUT THE GROSS FLOOR AREA IS USED FOR THE COMPUTATION OR THE CALCULATION OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES. APPLICANT IS ALSO REQUESTING THE CITY COMMISSION TO WAIVE THE PAYMENT IN LIEU OF, PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND FEES FOR UP TO THREE REQUIRED SPACES, WHICH WOULD BE PAID INTO THE, STEWART PAYMENT IN LIEU OF PARKING TRUST 
          [01:45:05]
FUND, ACCORDING TO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 3.0103, SUBSECTION F AND SECTION 6.01.19, INSTEAD OF PROVIDING UP TO THREE PARKING SPACES REQUIRED FOR ANY USE, LOCATED WITHIN THE CRA, A DEVELOPER MAY PAY INTO THE STEWART PAYMENT IN LIEU OF PARKING TRUST FUND, A SUM OF MONEY THAT IS THE PRODUCT OF THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED, BUT NOT PROVIDED IN THE CURRENT COST TO PROVIDE A SINGLE PARKING SPACE IN THE CRA. ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT'S SUBMITTED PILOT CALCULATIONS, $8,072.36 WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER TO BE PAID INTO THE STEWART PILOT TRUST FUND FOR A SINGLE REQUIRED PARKING SPACE, THE COST TO PROVIDE A SINGLE PARKING SPACE IN THE CRA IS BASED ON THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR, ESTIMATED COST PER PARKING SPACE, WHICH IS BASED ON A 7200 SQUARE FOOT, 22 SPACE PARKING LOT, AND THE. IT INCLUDES THE COST OF PAVING, CAR STOPS, DRIVE AISLES, DRAINAGE, LANDSCAPING, SIGNAGE, SITE LIGHTING, AND THE VALUE OF THE LAND. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO ALLOW A 13.5 WIDE DRIVEWAY APRON ON SOUTHWEST SOUTHEAST SEMINOLE STREET AND UP TO A 22 FOOT WIDE DRIVE AISLE ON SITE, ACCORDING TO THE URBAN CODE STANDARDS FOR THE URBAN CENTER ZONING DISTRICT, A TEN FOOT WIDE DRIVEWAY MAY BE ALLOWED IF NO ACCESS, ALLEYWAY ACCESS IS AVAILABLE TO THE REAR OR SIDE OF THE LOT, ALTHOUGH NO ALLEYWAY ACCESS IS AVAILABLE, THE PROPOSED FUTURE CORNER LOT DOES FRONT SOUTHEAST SEMINOLE STREET AND SOUTHEAST DENVER AVENUE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO UTILIZE THE BALCONIES TO OVERLOOK THE PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING PATIO AND POOL COURTYARD, WHEREAS THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES THE BALCONIES TO FACE THE PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY ON SOUTHEAST SEMINOLE STREET IN SOUTHEAST DENVER AVENUE. SO HERE ON THE DEPICTION, IT JUST DEPICTS WHERE THE BALCONIES WOULD BE PROPOSED OVERLOOKING THE POOL, POOL, COURTYARD AND PATIO. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO PROPOSING TO ALLOW A MINIMUM 7.34FT FRONT YARD SETBACK, AS MEASURED FROM THE PROPOSED FIVE FOOT TALL PRIVACY WALL, A 10.22 FRONT YARD SETBACK AS MEASURED FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND APPROXIMATE 33 FOOT YARD SETBACK AS MEASURED FROM THE NORTH NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE PROPOSED DETACHED GARAGE, SO, ACCORDING TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, THE FRONT BUILDING FACADE IS REQUIRED TO BE CONSTRUCTED PARALLEL TO THE STREET ALONG THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE WITH A REQUIRED BUILD TO LINE OF ZERO FEET. WHEREAS THE PROPOSED DESIGN WOULD ALLOW FOR A MINIMUM 7.34FT FRONT YARD SETBACK AS MEASURED FROM THE. THE FIVE FOOT PRIVACY FENCE, A TEN FOOT, 10.22 FRONT YARD SETBACK IS MEASURED FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, AND AN APPROXIMATE 33 FOOT YARD SETBACK, AS MEASURED FROM THE ATTACHED GARAGE, I WOULD LIKE TO MENTION THAT THE FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS ARE INCLUSIVE OF THE TWO FOOT WIDE PEDESTRIAN EASEMENT FOR THE FUTURE SIDEWALK, EXPANSION ON THE, ADJACENT LOT FRONTING SOUTHEAST DENVER AND SOUTHEAST SEMINOLE STREET. ACCORDING TO THE URBAN CODE STANDARDS OUTLINED UNDER SECTION 3.0104, WHEN A PERMIT FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION OR RENOVATION IS ISSUED, THE OWNER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A MINIMUM SIX FOOT WIDE CONTINUOUS SIDEWALK ALONG THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF PARCEL FRONTAGE THAT ABUTS A PUBLIC STREET. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO WAIVE THE REQUIREMENTS TO CONSTRUCT A SIX FOOT WIDE SIDEWALK, AND IS REQUESTING TO PROVIDE THE TWO FOOT WIDE EASEMENT FOR PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AND ALSO FOR SIDEWALK TO BE CONSTRUCTED BY THE CITY AT A LATER DATE, A FOUR FOOT WIDE SIDEWALK CURRENTLY EXISTS ADJACENT TO THE SUBJECT PARCEL, AND THE APPLICANT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO CONSTRUCT THE TWO FOOT WIDE SECTION TO COMPLETE THAT SIX FOOT WIDE SIDEWALK SECTION. THE CITY CRA IS CURRENTLY WORKING TO IMPROVE THE STREETSCAPES ON SOUTHWEST SEMINOLE STREET. HOWEVER, THERE ARE NO PLANS OR DESIGNS AT THIS TIME TO IMPROVE THE STREETSCAPE ON SOUTHEAST SEMINOLE STREET. THEREFORE, STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CODE DEVIATION AND WOULD REQUEST THAT THE APPLICANT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CONSTRUCTING THAT SIDEWALK. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO REQUESTING TO ALLOW A DECORATIVE WALL AND COLUMNS BETWEEN 4 TO 5FT IN HEIGHT TO BE CONSTRUCTED ADJACENT TO SOUTHWEST SEMINOLE STREET. I'M SORRY, SOUTHEAST SEMINOLE STREE, ACCORDING TO SECTION 3.13.01.04, SUBSECTION P FENCE IS LOCATED IN THE FRONT YARD. SHALL HAVE A 
          [01:50:06]
MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF FOUR FEET ALONG THE FRONT AND SIDE PROPERTY LINES TO THE FRONT FACADE OF THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING AND ALONG THE SIDE PROPERTY LINES BEHIND THE FRONT FACADE. 
          IT CAN BE INCREASED UP TO SIX FEET, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT A CONCRETE WALL AND COLUMNS TO SHIELD THE POOL AND PATIO LOCATED IN THE FRONT YARD, AND A DECORATIVE METAL GATE ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING DRIVEWAY. THE FINAL PETITION REQUEST IS TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE PERMITTED WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, AND ALSO ALLOW THE STRUCTURE TO BE LOCATED BETWEEN THE FRONT BUILDING FACADE AND THE FRONT PROPERTY BOUNDARY. 
          ACCORDING TO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, NO ACCESSORY STRUCTURE MAY BE PERMITTED BETWEEN THE FRONT FACADE OF THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING AND THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE, AND SHALL ONLY BE CONSTRUCTED IN THE SIDE AND REAR YARDS, SUBJECT TO A FIVE FOOT SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACK, ON CORNER LOTS. THE SIDE YARD SETBACK SHALL BE TEN FEET. SO ON SEPTEMBER 3RD, 2024, THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT BOARD HELD A PUBLIC HEARING AND VOTED THREE ONE IN FAVOR OF ALLOWING THE PROPOSED DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING TO DEVIATE FROM THE FOLLOWING CODE REQUIREMENTS, TO ALLOW A 13.5FT WIDE DRIVEWAY APRON ON SOUTHEAST SEMINOLE STREET AND UP TO A 22 FOOT WIDE DRIVEWAY ON SITE TO ALLOW THE BALCONIES TO OVERLOOK THE PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING POOL AND PATIO COURTYARD. INSTEAD OF THE STREET FACADES ON SOUTHEAST SEMINOLE AND SOUTHEAST DENVER, TO ALLOW A MINIMUM 7.3 FOR FRONT YARD SETBACK AS MEASURED FROM THE PROPOSED FIVE FOOT TALL PRIVACY WALL. A 10.22 FRONT YARD SETBACK AS MEASURED FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND AN APPROXIMATE 33 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK AS MEASURED FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE PROPOSED DETACHED GARAGE, TO WAIVE THE REQUIREMENTS TO CONSTRUCT A SIX FOOT WIDE SIDEWALK AND INSTEAD REQUIRE THE PROPERTY OWNER TO DEDICATE A TWO FOOT WIDE EASEMENT ALONG THE FUTURE CORNER LOT FRONTING SOUTHEAST SEMINOLE STREET AND SOUTHEAST DENVER AVENUE TO ALLOW A DECORATIVE WALL AND COLUMNS BETWEEN 4 TO 5FT IN HEIGHT WITHIN THE FRONT YARD ALONG SOUTHEAST SEMINOLE STREET TO ALLOW A POOL TO BE CONSTRUCTED BETWEEN THE FRONT FACADE OF THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING. WITHIN THE INTERIOR COURTYARD OF THE PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, AND ALSO THE MAJOR URBAN CODE CONDITIONAL USE. REQUESTS TO ALLOW THE EXISTING PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDING TO REDUCE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING SPACES BY SIX, FOR A TOTAL OF 25 PARKING STALLS FOR THE EXISTING 10,895 SQUARE FOOT STRUCTURE, AND THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FEES FOR UP TO THREE PARKING SPACES TO BE PAID INTO THE PAYMENT IN LIEU OF PARKING TRUST FUND. UPON REVIEW OF THE MAJOR URBAN CODE CONDITIONAL USE, THE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDS THE APPLICANT BE REQUIRED TO PAY THE FEE FOR UP TO THREE REQUIRED PARKING SPACES INTO THE PAYMENT IN LIEU OF PARKING TRUST FUND, SO THE CITY MAY CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES IN THE CRA, AND THAT THE OWNER ALSO BE REQUIRED TO CONSTRUCT A SIX FOOT WIDE SIDEWALK CONTINUOUS SIDEWALK ADJACENT TO THE FUTURE LOT, FRONTING SOUTHEAST SEMINOLE STREET AND SOUTHEAST DENVER AVENUE, AND TO ALSO DEDICATE A TWO FOOT WIDE SIDEWALK EASEMENT FOR ACCESS TO THE CITY OF STUAR. 
          THIS CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. THE APPLICANT DOES HAVE A PRESENTATION AS WELL, AND THEN THE STAFF AND THE APPLICANT WILL BE ABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THE BOARD MAY HAVE. 
          THE PETITIONER PLEASE. YES, THANKS. MR. GREGORY. YEAH, I THINK IT'S UP THERE. GOOD EVENING FOR THE RECORD, MY NAME IS MAURICE CRADY. I'M SENIOR PARTNER WITH ACETO AND ASSOCIATES AND ALSO A 35 YEAR MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PLANNERS. AND THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE BEEN DOING LAND PLANNING IN MARTIN COUNTY FOR 43 YEARS. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE EVER BEEN BEFORE A GOVERNMENT BODY ASKING FOR ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME. AND ACTUALLY THE FIRST TIME I'VE EVER BEEN BEFORE A GOVERNMENT BODY ASKING FOR INCREASED SETBACKS SO WE CAN PROVIDE MORE LANDSCAPING. SO WITH THAT, LET ME JUST GET RIGHT INTO IT. WE'RE, YOU KNOW, IT IS AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING, AND I'M SURE YOU GUYS ARE ALL FAMILIAR WITH IT. THE PROPOSED SITE AREA IS A VACANT PARKING LOT IN THE BACK. THAT'S THAT DOESN'T IT'S NOT IN USE. THIS WAS AN ARBITRARY PICTURE TAKING, AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE'S NO PARKING BACK THERE, AND IT'S, AT ONE POINT, JOHN DID ALLOW THAT THAT AREA TO BE USED FOR OVERFLOW PARKING FOR EVENTS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. BUT SINCE THEN, SINCE THE LAST FEW YEARS, IT'S GOTTEN OUT OF HAND. HE'S HAD TO PUT UP NO PARKING SIGNS ON THERE, AND HE'S NOT INTERESTED IN, MAKING THAT A PAID PARKING AREA FOR OTHER, OTHER PROJECTS. AND, YOU KNOW, JOHN IS NOT MY TYPICAL CLIENT EITHER. YOU KNOW, JOHN IS A FIXTURE IN DOWNTOWN STUART, HE HE HE WORKS IN DOWNTOWN STUART. 
          [01:55:06]
HE PLAYS IN DOWNTOWN STUART. AND HIS GOAL IS TO LIVE IN DOWNTOWN STUART. THIS IS THIS IS A HOME FOR HIM TO LIVE IN, HE CURRENTLY WORKS IN THE FORUM BUILDING. YOU CAN SEE HE HE RECENTLY RENOVATED THE BUILDING, PAINTED IT AND REDID THE LANDSCAPING AROUND IT. AND I WANT TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND, THOUGH, THE, THE PROPERTY IS ON EXISTING PLATTED LOTS THAT WERE PLATTED ORIGINALLY WHEN THE CITY WAS PLATTED IN IN 1983, YOU CAN SEE THERE WAS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON THE PROPERTY THAT WE'RE LOOKING TO BUILD. AND SOMETIME BETWEEN 1983 AND 1986, THE OFFICE BUILDING WAS, WAS BUILT. AND YOU CAN SEE THE FOUR FOOT WIDE SIDEWALK WAS CONSTRUCTED AND THE PARKING WAS BUILT, AND JOHN'S FAMILY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IN 1989. IT'S A THREE YEARS AFTER IT WAS. AND ABOUT THE SAME TIME I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, THE BUILDING WAS PROBABLY BOUGHT AFTER WATER AND SEWER WAS OR CONSTRUCTED AFTER THE WATER AND SEWER WAS BROUGHT INTO THE CITY. SO AGAIN, THE, THE PROPOSED SITE AREA IS IN THE BACK OR ADJACENT TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME. THIS IS THE GARAGE OF THE ADJACENT SINGLE FAMILY HOME. THIS IS THE FOUR FOOT SIDEWALK, AND CURRENTLY THERE'S A 12 FOOT ACCESS DRIVE INTO THE PARKING LOT AT THIS LOCATION AND ANOTHER ACCESS DRIVE INTO THE PARKING LOT AT THIS LOCATION. AND THIS IS WHAT WE LIKE TO DO ON THIS PROPERTY. WE'RE GOING THE WRONG WAY. THIS IS THIS IS AGAIN THE SITE AREA A LITTLE CLOSER. YOU CAN SEE THE ACCESS AND THE ADJACENT GARAGE OF THE ADJACENT UNIT IS EXACTLY WHERE WE WANT TO PUT OUR GARAGE AS WELL. AND THIS IS WHERE THE PROPERTY IS TO BE SPLIT, WE ARE RETAINING THIS LANDSCAPE STRIP AS A, AS A LANDSCAPE BUFFER BETWEEN THE PARKING LOT OF THE OFFICE BUILDING AND THE PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY HOME, AND ACTUALLY ADDING TO THAT BUFFER AS WELL, BUT, YOU KNOW, JOHN DOESN'T WANT, YOU KNOW, THIS CONDITIONAL USE STUFF. THE MAJOR CONDITIONAL USE, YOU KNOW, IS REALLY DESIGNED FOR SOMEONE THAT WANTS TO DO MIXED USE. AND, YOU KNOW, JOHN'S NOT INTERESTED IN IN PUTTING RETAIL ON THE FIRST FLOOR OR BUILDING A RESTAURANT OR AND PUTTING APARTMENTS ABOVE THAT TYPE. HE'S LOOKING JUST TO BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY HOME TO GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL, PLAN FOR THE CITY OF STUART. THIS IS THE PARKING LOT IN THE BACK, STANDING ON THE CORNER OF DENVER, LOOKING BACK TOWARDS SEMINOLE AGAIN. THIS IS THE EXISTING RESIDENCE, AND THIS IS ANOTHER PICTURE LOOKING FROM SEMINOLE OR. YEAH, FROM SEMINOLE STREET TO THE BACK OF THE BUILDING. THESE ARE THE PARKING LOT OR THE EIGHT UNIT OR EIGHT SPACES THAT ARE UNDERNEATH THE PARKING OR THE SECOND FLOOR OF THE OF THE OFFICE BUILDING. AND YOU CAN SEE AGAIN, THIS IS THE GARAGE AND THE DRIVEWAY NEXT DOOR TO US. THIS IS A FPL TRANSFORMER OR SOME TYPE OF BOX, BUT WE'LL BE PUTTING OUR OUR DRIVEWAY IN THIS LOCATION ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT AND LEAVING THIS FOUR FOOT LANDSCAPE AREA AND ACTUALLY ADDING TO THAT LANDSCAPE AREA. THIS IS THE TWO STORY BUILDING ACROSS FROM SEMINOLE STREET, THAT WILL BE LOOKING AT OUR, FRONT, WHICH, I'LL SHOW YOU IN A MOMENT. THIS IS THE CORNER OF DENVER AND SEMINOLE. LOOKING BACK TOWARDS THE, THE OFFICE BUILDING. THIS IS A CARROTWOOD TREE. IT'S EXOTIC, INVASIVE. IT WILL HAVE TO BE REMOVED AS PART OF THE SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN. AND YOU CAN SEE THE FOUR FOOT SIDEWALK. WE'LL WE'LL, YOU KNOW, WE ARE WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO CLOSE OFF THIS ACCESS AND RESTORE THE SIDEWALK ON BOTH SIDES. SO THERE WILL WE ARE AGREEING TO REPAIR AND RESTORE THE FOUR FOOT SIDEWALK. BUT YOU CAN SEE THE WHOLE ROAD HERE IS DAMAGED AND YOU JUST CAN'T BUILD TWO FEET ONTO A SIDEWALK. IT REALLY NEEDS TO BE DONE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE ROAD CONSTRUCTION, BECAUSE THERE'S PROBABLY UTILITIES THERE AND OTHER ELEMENTS THAT WILL NEED TO BE ADDRESSED. IT'S NOT SO EASY AS ADDING TWO FEET OF SIDEWALK. WE ARE, BUT WE ARE GOING TO DONATE THE TWO FEET OF SIDEWALK EASEMENT SO THAT WORK CAN BE DONE IN THE FUTURE. SO AGAIN, THIS IS THE SITE, WELL, WHY THAT HAPPENED. THAT WAS THE SITE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT, LET ME GET BACK. AND SO WHAT WE WOULD LIKE IT TO LOOK LIKE. AND THIS IS A LITTLE CLOSER VIEW OF IT, SO AGAIN THIS IS OUR, OUR DRIVEWAY WHICH WILL BE ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY. IT IS 13FT AT THE AT THE FRONTAGE. THESE ARE OVER TEN FEET TWO IT APPEARS, BUT WE'RE ABOUT THE SAME WIDTH, BUT IT WILL BE, 22FT BECAUSE IT IS A TWO, TWO, TWO CAR GARAGE. SO WE ARE THIS IS A THESE ARE DECORATIVE GATES. AGAIN THIS IS THESE ARE DECORATIVE WALL 
          [02:00:04]
FEATURE ALONG HERE THAT TIES INTO COLUMNS THAT WILL MATCH THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE BUILDING. 
          THERE'S NO WALL OR FENCE ON THIS ON THIS SIDE. THIS WILL ALL BE LANDSCAPED AREA, WE ARE PROPOSING FROM THIS CORNER ALL THE WAY AROUND A DECORATIVE, VERTICAL RAIL FENCE THAT WILL TIE IN THE COLUMNS HERE, AND ALSO INTO DECORATIVE GATES AT THE AT THE GARAGE, THINK OF A BLACK WROUGHT IRON FENCE OR SOMETHING ALONG THAT LINE. AND, AND, AND AGAIN, WE'RE, WE'RE LOOKING TO UNDER THE CODE, WE CAN BUILD ALL THE WAY UP TO THE, TO THE SIDEWALK OR TO THE PROPERTY LINE ON ALL OF OUR CORNERS. BUT THAT'S NOT THE INTENT HERE. WHAT WE'D LIKE TO DO IS, IS SET BACK A LITTLE BIT, PUT SOME LANDSCAPING IN THERE. THE POOL IS IN THE FRONT YARD IS A WAIVER. BUT AGAIN, THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT THE PUBLIC CAN SEE. IT'S GOING TO BE BEHIND A DECORATIVE WALL WITH LANDSCAPING, AND, AGAIN, ON ALL THE OTHER SIDES, IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO BUILD UP TO THE PROPERTY LINE. AND HE DOESN'T WANT TO DO THAT. IT WOULD MAKE BETTER SENSE TO HAVE SOME LANDSCAPING. SO THIS IS, WHAT THE ARCHITECTURE WOULD LOOK LIKE. THIS IS THE FRONT YARD THAT WILL BE FACING SEMINOLE STREET. THIS IS THE GARAGE WITH THE WITH THE DECORATIVE GATES THAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT. THESE ARE THE COLUMNS. THE COLUMNS ARE FIVE FEET. BUT YOU KNOW, THE BOTTOM OF THE WALL IS AT FOUR FEET. AND THAT'S WHAT THE CODE REQUIRES, AND YOU CAN SEE THAT, THIS IS THIS ABOVE HERE IS A SECOND FLOOR TERRACE, THAT THAT IS OPEN TO THE AIR, AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THE, THE ELEMENTS, IT'S A CLASSIC MEDITERRANEAN MEISSNER TYPE ARCHITECTURE. OKAY. OKAY. MOVING ON. ME AGAIN. ALL RIGHT. WELL IT ALL SPED UP QUICKLY. 
          SORRY ABOUT THAT. I'M GOING TO GET YOU ALL THE, ALL OF THE VIEWS. THIS IS THE VIEW FROM DENVER AVENUE ON THE ON THE EAST SIDE. THIS IS THE VIEW FROM BEHIND THE BUILDING FACING THE OFFICE. SO THIS IS THE. THIS IS THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY LOOKING TOWARDS THE OFFICE BUILDING. AND THEN THIS IS THE THIS IS THE GARAGE. AND THE DRIVEWAY TO THE GARAGE WHICH WOULD BE ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON, ON SEMINOLE STREET. AND YOU CAN SEE THAT, YOU KNOW, THE BALCONIES WILL BE VISIBLE FROM THE STREET, BUT THEY'RE NOT OVERHANGING THE SIDEWALK. 
          THEY'RE THEY'RE BASICALLY DESIGNED TO COMPLEMENT THE POOL COURTYARD, SO THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS, IS REALLY BASED ON THE THREE PARKING SPACES, THE PAYMENT IN LIEU OF PROVIDING THE PARKING AND THE SIX FOOT SIDEWALK AND WHEN I WHEN I FIRST MET WITH JOHN, YOU KNOW, I ADVISED HIM THAT THERE'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE CONCERNS ABOUT ELIMINATING PARKING. AND SO ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS I HAD HIM DO WAS, LET'S LOOK AT THE PARKING DURING THE PEAK HOUR, DURING THE PEAK SEASON. AND I AND HE WENT OUT TWICE, ONCE IN THE MORNING BETWEEN, LIKE TEN AND 11 AND ONCE IN THE AFTERNOON IN THE EARLY AFTERNOON DURING DECEMBER THROUGH MARCH, WE HAD 18 DIFFERENT DATA POINTS, TO DETERMINE HOW THIS PARKING IS AFFECTED AND WHAT ONE OF THE BENEFITS IS THAT THE BUILDING IS 100% OCCUPIED. IT'S BEEN 100% OCCUPIED FOR MOST OF THE TIME. 
          THAT THAT JOHN HAS BEEN IN THE OFFICE BUILDING. YOU CAN SEE THE RANGE OF, OF USES. WE HAVE A LAW FIRM. WE HAVE JOHN, IS THE TENANT OF THE SECOND FLOOR. HE'S THE ATTORNEY, PROPERTY OWNER. WE HAVE A PLUMBING, HVAC, COMPANY IN THERE, CPAS, OPTOMETRISTS AND ADDITIONAL LAW FIRMS. SO THE TOTAL LEASABLE AREA IS ONLY 8910FT■!S. THERE'S A LOT OF COMN AREA BUILT INTO THIS, THIS BUILDING. SO THESE ARE THE DATA POINTS. AND AGAIN, I HAD THEM GO OUT, YOU KNOW, DURING JANUARY THROUGH MARCH NOT DECEMBER. AND LOOK AT THE WELL, ACTUALLY IT DID START IN DECEMBER. THIS IS THE SECOND. SO WE HAD 18 DATA POINTS FROM DECEMBER THROUGH MARCH. AND IN EVERY CASE, YOU KNOW, I HAD HIM LOOK AT THE 25 PARKING SPACES TOTAL, WHETHER THEY WERE IN THE BACK PARKING SPACE OR ON THE FRONT. AND TO DETERMINE HOW MANY WERE OCCUPIED. AND, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN SEE THE NUMBERS, 14 OUT OF 25 WERE OCCUPIED, TEN OUT OF 25, TEN OUT OF 25, IN MOST CASES, THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY SHOWED THAT OF THE 25 PARKING SPACES, AT ANY ONE TIME, ONLY 47% WERE OCCUPIED. SO OUT OF THE 25 PARKING SPACES, THERE WERE ALWAYS 10 OR 12 AVAILABLE THROUGH THIS PERIOD. AND JOHN HAS BEEN THE TENANT OUT THERE FOR 35 YEARS MORE SO IT'S 
          [02:05:05]
CONSISTENT WITH WHAT HE'S OBSERVED OVER TIME AS WELL. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE PARKING RATE, BASED ON OUR LEASABLE AREA, WE MEET THE CODE, IF YOU LOOK AT THE PARKING RATE ON THE GROSS LEASABLE AREA, THAT'S WHERE THE 31 SPACES COME IN, BUT WE WERE WILLING TO, TO ADD A NOTE ON THE PLAN THAT, THAT, THAT, THAT LOCKED IN THE BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE SO THAT NO LEASABLE AREA COULD BE INCREASED IN ORDER TO LOCK IN THAT PARKING RATE, SO THESE ARE THIS IS THE ACTUAL DATA ON THE SITE PLAN. FIRST FLOOR, SECOND FLOOR, LOOKING AT THE TOTAL. THAT'S WHERE THE 31 SPACES COME. THAT'S THE CODE REQUIREMENT. IF YOU LOOK AT THE NET LEASABLE AREA, WHERE WE'RE WITHIN THAT RANGE. SO THE NOTE THAT WE ADDED ON, ON TO THE SITE PLAN WAS THAT THE PROPOSED PARKING RATE FOR THE EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING IS SUPPORTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT OF, BY JOHN. AND WE WOULD BE WILLING TO RECORD THAT SO THAT IT REMAINS IN FULL FORCE, IN EFFECT, FOR THE LIFE OF THE BUILDING, BECAUSE WE DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S ANY NEED FOR ADDITIONAL PARKING. SO THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO, AGAIN, PROVIDE THAT, THAT, THAT THE FEE INSTEAD OF THE PARKING. 
          AND THAT WAS WHAT THE CRB AGREED TO, AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SIX FOOT SIDEWALK, WE FEEL WOULD BE BETTER DEFERRED UNTIL THE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS ARE DONE AT THE SAME TIME. BUT WE WILL DEDICATE THE TWO FOOT EASEMENT SIDEWALK TO THE CITY. AND SINCE THIS WAS DONE, YOU KNOW, WE DID TAKE A LOOK AT THE REQUEST OF STAFF AND ONE OF OUR MEETINGS WITH THE COMMISSIONERS AT HOW WE COULD INCREASE THE NUMBER OF SPACES ON THE PROPERTY. AND THESE ARE THERE ARE CURRENTLY EIGHT SPACES HERE AND NINE SPACES HERE, AND THEY'RE ALL JUST OVER TEN FEET WIDE. SO WE DID WE DID TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT WE COULD DO TO GET CLOSER TO, GOSH DARN IT. ALL RIGHT. HERE WE GO. ALL RIGHT. SO WE JUST BY RESTRIPING THESE SPACES AND NOT INCREASING THE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS AREA, WE CAN ADD ONE SPACE HERE. SO THAT WOULD GO UP TO NINE SPACES INSTEAD OF EIGHT. 
          AND AGAIN BY RESTRIPING THESE SPACES WE COULD WE COULD GET ANOTHER SPACE HERE. SO THAT WOULD GO FROM 9 TO 10. SO WE WOULD HAVE 27 SPACES TO SERVE THE OFFICE BUILDING, IN THE, IN THE AFTER CONDITION. AND AGAIN, THE STUDY SHOWED THAT 12 TO 14 WAS THE MAX, 14 WAS THE MAXIMUM ON ANY ONE DAY DURING THE PEAK SEASON. SO WE FEEL WE HAVE PLENTY OF PARKING TO SUPPORT, THE EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING AND, AND, AND WE DON'T FEEL LIKE ADDITIONAL PARKING IS NECESSARY, BUT I'M GOING TO HAVE JOHN SPEAK TO THAT A LITTLE BIT. HE'S, HE'S THE OWNER AND HE'S HIS DESIRE TO BUILD HIS HOME HERE. SO, JOHN, IF YOU CAN EXPLAIN YOUR GOALS. THANK YOU. MAURICE AGAIN I'M JOHN MICA, I'M THE OWNER OF THE FORUM BUILDING. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. I WILL BE BRIEF. 
          I'D JUST LIKE TO TAKE YOU BACK A LITTLE BIT INTO THE HISTORY OF THE FORUM BUILDING. IT WAS PURCHASED BY MY FATHER IN 1989, BUT IT'S EXISTED AT THAT LOCATION SINCE THE MID 1980S. 
          SINCE WE TOOK IT OVER IN 1989. AND AFTER HIS PASSING IN 1996, I TOOK IT OVER. WE'VE TRIED TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR. WE'VE PAID SUBSTANTIAL TAXES TO THE CITY. WE HAVE ALSO ALLOWED PEOPLE TO PARK IN THE PARKING LOT, STARTING WITH MY FATHER, AND THEN I, WE OPENED UP THE WHOLE PARKING LOT TO THE CITY. PEOPLE COULD COME IN AND PARK IN OUR PARKING LOT, GO DOWNTOWN, FREQUENT THE LOCAL BUSINESSES, AND WE DID THAT FOR ALMOST 40 YEARS UNTIL A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, WHERE IT JUST BECAME UNSUSTAINABLE. AND AS MAURICE SAID, I HAD TO PUT UP, NO PARKING SIGNS THAT BACK PARKING LOT HAS BEEN VACANT SINCE WE BOUGHT THE BUILDING. NOBODY EVER USES IT. AND I WOULD LIKE TO BUILD A HOUSE THERE TO LIVE IN IT. IT IS FOR MY USE. I WOULD LIKE TO LIVE THERE. EVEN IF YOU GIVE ME PERMISSION TO BUILD THIS HOUSE. AND I OCCUPY THAT BACK PARKING AREA, THE PARKING LOT THAT REMAINS HERE, ESPECIALLY WITH THE TWO ADDITIONAL PARKING STALLS. WE LOCATED THROUGH THROUGH RESTRIPING WILL BE MORE THAN ADEQUATE. THE FORUM DOESN'T NEED ANY ON STREET PARKING IN FACT, IN THE FUTURE WE WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE CITY PARKING COMING ON AND USING OUR PARKING LOT BECAUSE I SIMPLY CANNOT MONITOR IT. 20 47I CAN'T HIRE SOMEONE TO STAND OUT THERE. SO THE POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE IN A ROUNDABOUT WAY IS WE'VE NEVER NEEDED YOUR PARKING. WE DON'T NEED YOUR PARKING NOW AND IN THE FUTURE WE WON'T NEED YOUR PARKING. NONE OF OUR PEOPLE WILL PARK ON THE STREETS. THEY DON'T NEED TO. AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO 
          [02:10:06]
ABSORB SOME OF YOUR EXCESS. AND THAT'S WHY I'VE ASKED NOT TO HAVE TO PAY INTO THAT. I BELIEVE YOU CALL IT A PLOT FUND. IS THAT CORRECT? IN TERMS OF THE STYLE OF THE HOME, WE HAVE TRIED TO STAY WITH A HISTORIC HOME THAT WAS BUILT IN PALM BEACH IN THE LATE 1920S, EARLY 1930S. IT'S A MIZNER STYLE HOME, AND WE'VE TRIED TO DO SOMETHING THAT WAS APPROPRIATE FOR THE AREA. A COMMENT WAS MADE SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINE, WELL, YOU COULD HAVE A TENANT IN THE FUTURE THAT MIGHT NEED SOME PARKING SPACES IN THE 35 YEARS WE'VE HAD IT, WE'VE HAD EVERY POSSIBLE KIND OF TENANT ANYONE COULD POSSIBLY HAVE. WE'VE HAD ATTORNEYS, WE'VE HAD CPAS, WE'VE HAD COMMUNICATIONS COMPANIES, WE'VE HAD DOCTORS, WE'VE HAD LAWYERS, WE'VE HAD MEDICAL REHABILITATION FACILITIES. I CAN'T THINK OF A KIND OF TENANT WE HAVEN'T HAD AT ONE POINT OR ANOTHER. AND WE'VE ALWAYS HAD EXCESS PARKING A FINAL NOTE MORE IS SUGGESTED. GO TALK TO YOUR NEIGHBORS. SO I KNOCKED ON A FEW DOORS AND I MADE A FEW PHONE CALLS, AND EVERYBODY'S ELATED THAT I'M BUILDING THIS HOME. ONE PERSON SAID TO ME ON THE PHONE, YOU ARE GOING TO ENHANCE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THAT'S ALMOST A DIRECT QUOTE. SO I WOULD ASK THAT YOU APPROVE THIS. I DON'T WANT TO PAY INTO THE PELEOP. AND REGARDING THE SIDEWALK, I KNOW MORRIS WENT OVER IT. I'M NOT A LAND PLANNER. I'M NOT AN ENGINEER. BUT FOR ME TO BUILD A SIX FOOT SIDEWALK THAT FUNNELS INTO A FOUR FOOT SIDEWALK ON EITHER END JUST DOESN'T SEEM PRACTICAL OR NECESSARY. SO THANK YOU. DO ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICAN? MR. MR. COMMISSIONER CLARK. MR. MAYOR, WITH REGARD TO THIS PROPERTY AT 55 SOUTHEAST OSCEOLA STREET, I JUST WANTED TO FOR OUR CITY ATTORNEY OR FOR YOURSELF TO JUST EXPLAIN TO THE PUBLIC OR EVEN THOSE WHO ARE WHO ARE AT HOME OR THOSE WHO ARE HERE, THAT UNDER THIS CONDITIONAL USE AND THE QUASI JUDICIAL THAT IT IS SET UNDER SECOND READING. BUT IT'S, IT'S BECAUSE IT'S A ONE AND DONE WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE AND I JUST WANTED PEOPLE TO BE AWARE OF THAT, THAT, IT'S NOT LIKE WE'VE SEEN ALL THE DETAILS BEFORE. IT'S JUST THAT IT'S THIS IS THE WAY THAT IT'S COMING TO US, ISN'T THAT CORRECT? MR. THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. AND SO I JOHN, I'M SORRY, I'VE KNOWN MR. MIYUKI FROM MIYUKI FIELDS WILKINSON. RIFKIN, I GO BACK, MISTER. CRAIG. I CANNOT SAY HOW LONG I'VE KNOWN YOU, WE'VE WORKED TOGETHER YEARS AGO. MANY YEARS AGO AT THE MARTIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. SO, THE ITALIAN ASPECT AND THE IDEA OF THE VERY CAREFUL DETAILS ON THE 5 OR 6 REASONS FOR THE, IT'S PROBABLY LIKE, MORE LIKE SEVEN REASONS FOR THE FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL AND TH, THE TASTEFULNESS IN WHICH THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN, IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE SOME THINGS AND OF COURSE, TO ACCOMMODATE THE ENTIRE SINGLE FAMILY USE, AND THEN WITH THE POOL AND THE LANDSCAPING AND THE, THE VARIOUS SETBACKS AWAY FROM THE, THE, THE FRONT YARD AND, AND THE STREETSCAPE AS WELL AS THE BUILDING LINES WITHIN THE PROPERTY. I JUST THINK THAT IT'S GENIUS AND IT'S GOOD AND IT'S A GOOD WAY FOR REDEVELOPMENT TO HAPPEN AND FOR SOMETHING NEW TO HAPPEN. AND IT'S NOT LIKE IT'S EXTREME DENSITY. IT'S JUST THAT IT'S, IT'S, IT'S SOMETHING GOOD THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IN A, IN ANOTHER SPACE OR PART OF A SPACE. I JUST I COULDN'T DECIDE FROM LOOKING. I DON'T KNOW IF I MAYBE IT WAS THERE, BUT I CAN'T REMEMBER. AND MY COMPUTER IS DOWN SO I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT I READ. BUT IN THE, THIS WHOLE THING, THE TWO STORY FORM BUILDING WAS NEVER A PUD. IT WAS A STRAIGHT ZONING. WELL, ORIGINALLY WAY BACK WHEN. COMMISSIONER CLARK. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE CRAS URBAN SUB DISTRICT, SO IT'S NEVER BEEN A PUD. I WOULD IMAGINE THAT IT WAS PRIOR STRAIGHT ZONING 
          [02:15:02]
BEFORE. YEAH. LONG TIME AGO. YEAH. OKAY. YEAH THAT'S FINE. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE DISTINCTIONS ARE PUT OUT THERE, SO THAT WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON. BUT I THINK THAT IT'S A GREAT THING. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR MAYBE JUST HAVE IT UP FOR DISCUSSION. IF I COULD SAY WITH REGARD TO RESOLUTION NUMBER 98, 87 DASH 2024 THAT, I WOULD REQUEST THAT THE BOARD ACCEPT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVE THE PROJECT AS PRESENTED AND AS REQUESTED FOR THE DETAIL, CHANGES. ON REQUEST REGARDING THE CONDITIONAL USE. YEAH. COMMISSIONER. COMMISSIONER, WE ALREADY HAVE A MOTION. OKAY WE DID. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I'M JUST. I'M SORRY. I THOUGHT YOU WERE ASKING IF SHE WAS MAKING A MOTION THAT. OH, OKAY. I DIDN'T HAVE A PRIOR MOTION. OKAY, WELL, LET'S LET'S GO THROUGH THAT. 
          LET'S. WE NEED TO GO THROUGH THE STEPS IN THE HEARING. YEAH. I'M SORRY. DO ANY OF THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR STAFF? I DO NO, MAYOR RICH. COMMISSIONER MEAD. 
          YES, I'M FAMILIAR WITH THAT, THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. I ACTUALLY HAD TO DO IT FOR MY OWN PERSONAL RESIDENCE IN 2018 TO NOT HAVE A ZERO FOOT SETBACK, DOES STAFF KNOW WHAT THE ORIGINAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS WERE WHEN THIS ORIGINALLY WAS BUILT? NO, IT'S GOING WAY BACK. NO, I DO NOT HAVE THAT FIGURE OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. AND AS FAR AS THE SITE PLAN, IT HAS A FENCE AROUND THE POOL, RIGHT? IT DOESN'T COUNT FOR THE GATE, THE DRIVEWAY GATE. IT'S ALREADY ENCLOSED PERMANENTLY. I GUESS THE POOL. YES. SO THE POOL PATIO AND COURTYARD WOULD BE ENCLOSED TO THE WEST BY THE STAIRCASE THAT LEADS TO THE SECOND FLOOR AND IS ATTACHED TO THE GARAGE AND THEN TO THE FRONT. YOU WOULD HAVE THE 4 TO 5 FOOT, DECORATIVE FENCE, AND THEN IT WOULD BE BOUNDED BY THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME TO THE EAST AND SOUTH. SO IT WOULD BE ENTIRELY ENCLOSED, WHICH WOULD BE A REQUIREMENT OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE AS WELL. SO, AND THEN AS FAR AS THE TWO FOOT SIDEWAY EXTENSION THAT WOULD BE ON THE CITY, THAT WOULD ADD THAT AT A LATER DATE IF WE WENT THROUGH THERE, BECAUSE THEY'RE JUST GIVING US THE RIGHT OF WAY. CORRECT, IF. YEAH, IF IT WAS APPROVED, HOW IT IS SO, I MEAN, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WAS TO CONSTRUCT IT AND TO PROVIDE THE, THE EASEMENT, BUT IT WOULD BE UP TO THE BOARD TO, TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION. AND THE APPLICANT WAS WILLING TO GIVE THE EASEMENT, JUST NOT DO THE SIX FOOT SIDEWALK ON SEMINOLE STREET AT THIS TIME. I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN AN EASEMENT ON OR UNDER WHICH MR. MIYUKI WOULD REMAIN LIABLE FOR ANYBODY THAT MAY HAVE GOTTEN HURT ON THE PROPERTY VERSUS A DEDICATION OF RIGHT OF WAY, WHICH WOULD PLACE THE PROPERTY IN THE NAME OF THE CIT. 
          I DON'T REALLY CARE AS LONG AS HE KNOWS THE EASEMENT MAKES HIM PART OF THE CLAIM. YEAH, THERE REALLY IS A REASON WHY WE WOULDN'T DEDICATE THE RIGHT OF WAY. SO I THINK I THINK WE WILL. 
          WE'LL AGREE WITH THAT. OKAY. YEAH NO, WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO DEDICATE RIGHT AWAY INSTEAD OF AN EASEMENT. OKAY. RIGHT. AND IN AND AS A CONDITION OF IT IN DOING SO WE CAN JUST LIKE THE COMMISSION DID ON THE US ONE CORRIDOR, GIVE HIM THE ORIGINAL SETBACKS OR WHATEVER HIS BUILDING IS FROM WHERE IT IS NOW ANYWAY. NOT THAT HE'S GOING TO KNOCK THE BUILDING DOWN ANYWAY, BUT FROM THE STANDPOINT WE CAN CREDIT IT ACCORDINGLY. YEAH. WELL, YOU KNOW, AND THE EASEMENT WITH AN EASEMENT, YOU GET THE RIGHT, YOU GET WITH THE RIGHT OF WAY. THE PROPERTY LINE CHANGES TO THE SHORTER, THE TWO FEET SHORTER WITH AN EASEMENT, IT'S TWO FEET WIDER. BUT YOU GET THE LIABILITY SIDE RIGHT. FOR THE RECORD AGAIN, MAURICE, YEAH, WE'RE FINE WITH THAT. I MEAN, THE SETBACK ZERO. SO THAT THAT ISSUE IS REALLY NOT EVEN APPLICABLE. BUT WE WILL WE WILL IF WE CAN KEEP THE SITE PLAN THE WAY IT IS INSTEAD OF A TWO FOOT EASEMENT, IT WILL BE A TWO FOOT RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION AND NOT TWO. YEAH, NOT TO INTERRUPT, BUT JUST ON THAT POINT, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT GIVING THAT, COMMITTING THAT RIGHT OF WAY JUST FOR THE SITE AREA. IT WOULD BE SEMINOLE STREET IN DENVER FOR THE FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME AREA. YES. SO THIS THIS WOULD BE A CONDITION I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS IF POTENTIALLY WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE YOU PAY TO BUILD THE SIDEWALK THERE SO THAT IT CAN BE CONTINUOUS, BECAUSE YOU WERE ABLE TO DO THIS BECAUSE YOU OWN THE ENTIRE PROPERTY TO DONATE THAT TWO FEET FROM SEMINOLE TO OSCEOLA, SO THAT WHEN IT COMES TIME TO REDO, WE'RE GOING TO REDO THOSE SIDEWALKS, THAT WE CAN DO IT CONTINUOUSLY AND NOT HAVE TO REVISIT IT. YEAH, YEAH. AS LONG AS THERE'S I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY IMPACT TO THE BUILDING, BUT THAT, THAT WOULD BE CONDITIONED ON, ON NOT IMPACTING THE BUILDING. IT DOESN'T OF COURSE. YEAH. OKAY THAT'S FINE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE APPLICANT OR STAFF. YEAH. I WAS GOING TO SAY I APPRECIATE YOU CARVING OUT THOSE ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES. YOU KNOW. AND SO ONE LAST QUESTION THEN IF WE IF WE PROVIDE THE TWO EXTRA PARKING 
          [02:20:03]
SPACES AND WE ADD THE EASEMENT IN FRONT OF THE OFFICE BUILDING ON, ON DENVER, THEN WE DO NOT NEED TO RECORD THE AFFIDAVIT, THAT WE WERE AGREEING TO RECORD. IS THAT IS THAT OKAY WITH YOU GUYS? I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE I MEAN, WE WERE GOING TO RECORD AN AFFIDAVIT JUST TO FIX THE SQUARE FOOT LEASABLE AREA IN THE BUILDING. BUT IF WE DON'T NEED TO DO THAT, WE WOULD RATHER NOT DO THAT. I DON'T I DON'T THINK IT WOULD, AND IT'D BE UP TO THE DEVELOPMENT STAFF. BUT I THINK THE WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT YOU WOULD DEDICATE A TWO FOOT RIGHT OF WAY ALL ALONG DENVER, RIGHT? YEAH. AND SEMINOLE. YEAH. AND SEMINOLE AND DENVER. RIGHT. WELL, YOU WE'RE ALREADY DOING SEMINOLE, BUT NOW YOU'RE GOING LONGER AND YOU'RE GOING TO RESTRIPE TWO SPACES. DID YOU SAY YES? YES. AND RESTRIPE TWO SPACES, THE WHOLE LOT TO COME UP WITH TWO SPACES. AND THEN SO MR. MIYAGI WAS SUGGESTING THAT IN LIEU OF THE PAYMENT, IN LIEU OF PARKING AND IN LIEU OF THE AFFIDAVIT, THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. CORRECT THAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD. CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME THE AFFIDAVIT IN MORE DETAIL WHAT HE WAS GOING TO SAY IS, BECAUSE HE'S LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, RIGHT NOW HE DOESN'T USE EVEN A THIRD OF THE PARKING IN THE PARKING LOT. HE WAS GOING TO SIGN AN AFFIDAVIT THAT HE WOULD NEVER HAVE TENANTS IN IT FOR THE LIFE OF THE BUILDING THAT WOULD WOULD NEED THE EXTRA PARKING SPACES, A CALL CENTER, RIGHT? LIKE LIKE RIGHT. 
          HE'S NOT A CHIROPRACTOR, RIGHT? RIGHT. BUT THE REALITY OF IT IS, IS THAT IF HE'S DEDICATING THE RIGHT OF WAY AND BUILDING THE TWO SPACES, I DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT IT MATTERS. I MEAN, THAT'S REALLY. MR. MIKEY'S OFFICE IS IN THE OFFICE BUILDING, TOO, RIGHT? YES. SO OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE COMMUTING FROM YOUR HOUSE. NO. YOU'RE GETTING CREDIT FOR THAT. NOW. HE DOESN'T HAVE TO PARK. I REMEMBER THAT COMING UP IN THE CRV. SO I JUST WANT TO POINT THAT OUT. SO THAT'S PROBABLY A COUPLE SPOTS RIGHT THERE. BUT YEAH MY PARKING MY DRIVEWAY. SO IT'S PLENTY WIDE ENOUGH. YEAH IT'S PLENTY WIDE ENOUGH. I FORGIVE ME I ACTUALLY INTERRUPTED COMMISSIONER READ. 
          VERY GOOD, IT'S A GREAT PROJECT. I WAS ACTUALLY AT THE CRB. SO YOU WENT AND RESTRIPED IT JUST TO ADD THOSE TWO SPACES TOO, DIDN'T YOU? WOW. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL. MAYOR RICH, DOES THE PETITIONER WISH TO OFFER ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION? OKAY. ALL THE ALL THE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRESENTED AND THE HEARING IS CLOSED. DOES ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WISH TO MAKE A COMMENT REGARDING THIS PROJECT? MADAM CLERK, DO WE HAVE ANYONE? I DO HAVE ONE. FRANK MCCRYSTAL. 
          YEAH MOTION. BEEN REDUCED TO THREE. IS THAT HOW IT HAPPENED? AND THEN, I HAVE JUST BELIEVE IT OR NOT, IN THE LAST 15 MINUTES, TALKED TO TWO PROPERTY OWNERS ON THAT STREET IS MY IT WAS MY PERSONAL OPINION THAT THE HOUSEOT RIGHT OF WAY ON SEMINOLE AND DENVER STREET AND RESTRIPE TO CREATE TWO ADDITIONAL SPACES IN HIS PARKING LOT, IN EXCHANGE FOR THE CITY WAIVING THE PAYMENT IN LIEU OF PARKING AND THE REQUIREMENT TO FILE THE AFFIDAVIT. OKAY, I'LL KEEP MY MOTION AND MAKE IT, SUBJECT TO ADDITION AND QUALIFYING AS ITERATED BY THE CITY MANAGER. THAT'S MY MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND I CAN CHANGE IT TO WHATEVER I WANT? YES I'LL SECOND. I'LL SECOND THAT. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CLARK AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COLLINS. SO FOR THE RECORD. MR. BAGGETT, IT SAYS WE 
          [02:25:03]
SHOULD REREAD IT. I SUPPOSE WE SHOULD. BUT I THINK IF WE CAN REITERATE IT AGAIN. BUT MR. MARTEL. OKAY, BUT OKAY, IF WE JUST SAID THE MOTION. OKAY, I THINK WE DON'T NEED TO REPEAT IT. SO IS THERE A DISCUSSION? EXCUSE ME. THANK YOU. MADAM CLERK. MADAM CLERK, DO YOU NEED TO HAVE IT READ CLEARLY? NO, I HAVE IT. YOU HAVE IT, MADAM CLERK. SO ALL OF US, HAVING HEARD THE MOTION AND WITH THE CHANGES, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? I HAVE NO. IS IT A ROLL CALL? I THIS IS A NICE PROJECT. IT'S NICE TO SEE PEOPLE MOVING DOWNTOWN, DOWNTOWN, DOWNTOWN, DOWNTOWN ALL THE TIME. AND YOU AND YOUR FAMILY HAVE BEEN AROUND HERE A LONG TIME. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMITMENT TO THE CITY, AND IT'S ABILITY TO PROSPER. I THINK I THINK WE CAN GO FOR A VOTE. YES. YES COMMISSIONER CLARK. YES, MR. COLLINS? YES, COMMISSIONER. 
          CLARK. YES, MAYOR. RICH. YES, COMMISSIONER. DOBEY. YES, COMMISSIONER. REED YES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. NICE HOUSE. YES. BEAUTIFUL OKAY. MR. BAGGETT, WILL YOU READ ITEM 
          [13. 2300 S.E. OCEAN BOULEVARD - STARBUCKS AT OCEAN EAST MALL MAJOR  CONDITIONAL USE PETITION (RC): RESOLUTION No. 97-2024; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE  CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, GRANTING A MAJOR CONDITIONAL USE PETITION  FOR THE STARBUCKS AT OCEAN EAST MALL LOCATED AT 2300 SE OCEAN  BOULEVARD, AS DESCRIBED WITHIN THE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION;  GRANTING RELIEF TO DEVIATE FROM REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACKS,  MINIMUM LOT COVERAGE, LOCATION OF PARKING, AND LANDSCAPING  REQUIREMENTS FOR THE S.E. OCEAN BOULEVARD OVERLAY ZONE  STANDARDS OUTLINED UNDER LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 3.03.00;  REQUIRING CERTAIN DESIGN STANDARDS TO BE CONSIDERED; PROVIDING AN  EFFECTIVE DATE; PROVIDING FOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL; AND FOR  OTHER PURPOSES.]
NUMBER 13 FOR OUR CONSIDERATION? ABSOLUTELY. RESOLUTION NUMBER 97, DASH 2024, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, GRANTING A MAJOR CONDITIONAL USE PETITION FOR THE STARBUCKS AT OCEAN EAST MALL, LOCATED AT 2300 SOUTHEAST OCEAN BOULEVARD, AS DESCRIBED WITHIN THE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTION GRANTING RELIEF TO DEVIATE FROM REQUIRED BUILDING SETBACKS, MINIMUM LOT COVERAGE, LOCATION OF PARKING AND LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SOUTH SOUTHEAST OCEAN BOULEVARD OVERLAY ZONE STANDARDS OUTLINED UNDER LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 30.030.00, REQUIRING CERTAIN DESIGN STANDARDS TO BE CONSIDERED, PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE, PROVIDING FOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND OTHER PURPOSES. AND MR. MAYOR, I JUST WANT TO REMIND YOU, THIS IS ALSO A QUASI JUDICIAL THE YELLOW SHEET REMAINS OUT. YES THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS TO DISCLOSE REGARDING THIS ITEM. I DO. I ACTUALLY MET WITH THE APPLICANT AND THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE, AND I'M HERE WITH AN OPEN MIND. I MET WITH THE APPLICANT AND HIS ATTORNEY, AND I ALSO RECEIVED, AS I THOUGHT MOST THE COMMISSIONERS DID, AN EMAIL FROM A MEMBER OF THE LPA. COMMISSIONER COLLINS, I BELIEVE I SPOKE WITH MR. RAINES EARLY ON A WHILE AGO. YES YEAH. ROBERT I THINK WE'RE PROBABLY REQUIRED TO WAIT FOR COMMISSIONER CLARK TO DISCLOSE HER EX PARTE. YEAH. DID YOU HAVE QUORUM TO CONTINUE? BUT BEFORE SHE PARTICIPATES, SHE WOULD DISCLOSE SHE WOULD NEED TO DISCLOSE. I I THINK WE NEED TO WAIT. ARE YOU REALLY GOING TO ADJOURN OR DO YOU THINK IT'S JUST WONDERFUL? I THINK THE RULE THAT'S HEARD IS AT LEAST DO THE DISCLOSURE AT THE HEARING SO THAT THE APPLICANT HAS A CHANCE TO RESPOND. OKAY UNLESS THE APPLICANT WANTS TO WAIT FOR COMMISSIONER CLARK, WE CAN CONTINUE. NO, I'LL JUST GO. AS I MET WITH THE APPLICANT AND MR. RAINES TWICE. ONCE IN QUITE A LONG TIME AGO. AND THEN JUST. I THINK LAST WEEK, WE JUST NEED TO MAKE SURE WHEN COMMISSIONER CLARK COMES BACK AGAIN, SHE'LL DISCLOSE IT BEFORE THIS HEARING BECAUSE SHE IS. CAN YOU CAN YOU PLACE ANY. OH, IT'S EX PARTE DISCLOSURE. COMMISSIONER CLARK, TALK TO MR. RAINES AND HIS CLIENT. HAVE NO, I'M HERE WITH AN OPEN MIND. MR. BHAGAT, CAN YOU PLEASE SHARE ANY POTENTIAL WITNESSES UNDER OATH, PLEASE? YES. WE'LL ALL POTENTIAL WITNESSES FOR THE APPLICANT AND THE CITY STAFF. PLEASE STAND, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND BE SWORN IN. YOU AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY THAT YOU ARE ABOUT TO PROVIDE IN THIS HEARING WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. SO HELP YOU GOD. I DO. STAFF, WILL YOU GO AHEAD AND MAKE YOUR PRESENTATION REGARDING THIS? PLEASE MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS, FOR THE RECORD AGAIN, MY NAME IS CHRIS MCCRANE, PRINCIPAL PLANNER WITH THE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, TONIGHT I'M PRESENTING AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 13, SUBMITTED BY KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER, OCEAN EAST CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, FOR A MAJOR CONDITIONAL USE 
          [02:30:05]
PETITION FOR THE PROJECT TO BE KNOWN AS STARBUCKS AT OCEAN EAST MALL, BEFORE I BEGIN, I DID WANT TO JUST MENTION, FOR THE RECORD, THERE IS A MINOR ERROR IN THE RESOLUTION THAT WAS ATTACHED TO THE AGENDA, IT DID STATE IN THE FIRST WHEREAS CLAUSE THAT THE LPA PUBLIC HEARING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 12TH, 30, 34 SHOULD BE 2024, SO I JUST WANTED TO MENTION THAT FOR THE RECORD, SO THE 11.29 ACRE SUBJECT PARCEL IS LOCATED AT 2300 SOUTHEAST OCEAN BOULEVARD, AND IT FRONTS SOUTHEAST OCEAN BOULEVARD TO THE NORTH. THE MARTIN COUNTY COMMISSION, OR MARTIN COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, AND THE PUBLIC LIBRARY TO THE WEST AND SOUTH, AND A MOBIL GAS STATION. 
          REDEEMER LUTHERAN CHURCH, BARN THEATER, AND THE EAST OCEAN GARDENS CONDOMINIUM TO THE EAST. 
          THE SITE WAS DEVELOPED IN THE 70S AS A COMMERCIAL SHOPPING PLAZA, AND CURRENTLY INCLUDES APPROXIMATELY 100 AND 108 18,000FT■!S OF BUILDING AREA WIH APPROXIMATELY 522 ASSOCIATES OR 520 ASSOCIATED PARKING STALLS AND LANDSCAPING. PURSUANT TO PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OUTLINED UNDER SECTION 11.0205 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ON AUGUST 27TH, THE APPLICANT MAILED NOTICES TO PROPERTY OWNERS LOCATED WITHIN 300FT OF THE SUBJECT PARCEL TO PROVIDE DETAIL OF THE REQUESTED CONDITIONAL USE PETITION AND THE DATE AND TIME OF BOTH THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING, WHICH WAS HELD ON SEPTEMBER 12TH, 2024, AND TONIGHT'S CITY COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING. ADDITIONALLY, THE APPLICANT POSTED A PUBLIC NOTICE SIGN ON THE PROPERTY FRONTING SOUTHEAST OCEAN BOULEVARD. SO THE SUBJECT PARCEL AND THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SOUTHEAST OCEAN BOULEVARD, ARE DESIGNATED BY THE B1 OR BUSINESS LIMITED ZONING DISTRICT PROPERTIES TO THE EAST AND WEST INCLUDE A MIX OF B1 BUSINESS LIMITED AND B2 BUSINESS GENERAL, AND THE PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH AND EAST ARE DESIGNATED BY THE R-3 OR RESIDENTIAL MULTIFAMILY OFFICE ZONING DISTRICT. PROPERTIES. THE SUBJECT PARCEL AND THE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTHEAST AND WEST ARE DESIGNATED BY THE COMMERCIAL FUTURE LAND USE, AND THE PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH AND WEST ARE DESIGNATED BY THE PUBLIC. 
          PROPERTIES TO THE EAST ARE DESIGNATED BY INSTITUTIONAL. SO ON APRIL 29TH, 2024, THE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT RECEIVED APPLICATIONS FOR A MINOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND A PLAT SUBMITTED BY KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES ON BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER. APPROVAL BY THE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR FOR A MAJOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION IS REQUIRED. ACCORDING TO SECTION 11 0103 FOR A NON RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT UNDER 50 ZERO ZERO ZERO SQUARE FEET AND BUILDING AREA. THE MINOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND PLAT APPLICATIONS ARE CONCURRENTLY UNDER REVIEW BY STAFF AND ARE PENDING FINAL DETERMINATION OF TONIGHT'S MAJOR. MAJOR CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST PURSUANT TO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 11.0105, THE ISSUANCE OF A SITE PERMIT OR VERTICAL BUILDING PERMITS FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL BE CONTINGENT UPON THE CITY COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A PLAT CONFORMING TO THE MINOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN GRANTED BY THE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR. ON APRIL 10TH, 2000, THE CITY COMMISSION ADOPTED ORDINANCE NUMBER 17 1719 DASH 2000 AND AMENDED THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE SOUTHEAST OCEAN BOULEVARD OVERLAY ZONE UNDER SECTION 3.03.00 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. ON DECEMBER 20TH, 2024 OR 2004, THE CITY COMMISSION ADOPTED ORDINANCE NUMBER 2009. DASH ZERO FOUR AND AMENDED THE OCEAN BOULEVARD OVERLAY TO PROVIDE A CONDITIONAL USE EXCEPTION PROCESS, WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION, SO THE SOUTH SOUTHEAST OCEAN BOULEVARD OVERLAY IS DIVIDED INTO TWO SECTIONS. THE PROFESSIONAL OFFICE SECTION AND THE COMMERCIAL AND MULTIFAMILY SECTION, THE PROFESSIONAL OFFICE SECTION IS SITUATED ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDE OF OCEAN BOULEVARD, AND IS BOUNDED BETWEEN SOUTHEAST GEORGIA AVENUE TO THE WEST AND SOUTHEAST, ORIOLE AVENUE TO THE EAST. SINCE ITS ADOPTION IN 2000, APPROXIMATELY THREE DEVELOPMENTS HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE PROFESSIONAL OFFICE SECTION OF THE OCEAN BOULEVARD OVERLAY ZON, I WOULD LIKE TO STATE FOR THE RECORD THAT DURING MY PRESENTATION FOR THIS AGENDA ITEM ON SEPTEMBER 12TH, 2024, BEFORE THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY, I MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS ONLY ONE PROJECT, WHICH WAS DOCTOR SIEGFRIED'S OFFER OFFICE AT 1052 SOUTHEAST OCEAN, BUT IT IS ACTUALLY THERE'S BEEN THREE PROJECTS, THERE'S ALSO BEEN A COUPLE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS, OVER BY HOSPITAL POND, WHICH ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE PROFESSIONAL OFFICE SECTION. THOSE WERE BUILT IN ABOUT 2018 AND 2019. SO IN 2003, THE FIRST PROJECT WAS CONSTRUCTED UNDER THE OCEAN EAST 
          [02:35:08]
OCEAN BOULEVARD OVERLAY AT 903 SOUTHEAST OCEAN BOULEVARD. THE VACANT SITE WAS DEVELOPED AS A 5600 SQUARE FOOT, ONE STORY PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDING WITH ASSOCIATED ON SITE PARKING ADJACENT TO THE OFFICE BUILDING AND SOUTHEAST OSCEOLA STREET, THIS THIS DEPICTS THE SITE LAYOUT. IT'S BOUNDED BY OSCEOLA STREET TO THE NORTH AND OCEAN BOULEVARD TO THE SOUTH. IN 2016, AT 604 SOUTHEAST OCEAN BOULEVARD ON THE SITE OF THE FORMER ATLANTIC COURT APARTMENTS, THE CITY COMMISSION APPROVED THE PINEAPPLE PLACE PUD VIA ORDINANCE 23, 25, 2016 FOR A 4500 SQUARE FOOT, ONE STORY PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDING AND FIVE TOWNHOME UNITS ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF OCEAN BOULEVARD AND HIGH SCHOOL AVENU, THE ONE STORY PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDING FRONTS SOUTHEAST OCEAN BOULEVARD AND INCLUDES 17 ON SITE PARKING SPACES BETWEEN THE FIVE TWO STORY TOWNHOME UNITS FRONTING SOUTHEAST HIGH SCHOOL AVENUE AND EAST EAST FIFTH STREET. IN 2022, THE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR GRANTED A MINOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR DOCTOR SIEGFRIED'S MEDICAL OFFICE. AT 1052 SOUTHEAST OCEAN BOULEVARD. THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL GRANTED A 5000 SQUARE FOOT, ONE STORY PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDING ON THE CORNER OF SOUTHEAST OCEAN BOULEVARD AND SOUTHEAST ALAMANDA WAY, WITH 23 ON SITE PARKING SPACES, REFUSE COLLECTION, AND ASSOCIATED LANDSCAPING. SO THE SUBJECT PARCEL IS DENOTED IN RED AND IS LOCATED WITHIN THE COMMERCIAL AND MULTIFAMILY SECTION OF THE SOUTHEAST OCEAN OVERLAY ZONE, WHICH IS SITUATED ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDE OF SOUTHEAST OCEAN BOULEVARD AND LOCATED BETWEEN SOUTHEAST MADISON AVENUE TO THE WEST AND THE CITY OF STEWARTS BOUNDARY TO THE EAST, WHICH IS LOCATED AT THE APPROXIMATELY AT THE FOOT OF THE BRIDGE LEADING TO HUTCHINSON ISLAND. STAFF DID NOT IDENTIFY ANY PRIOR DEVELOPMENTS APPROVED UNDER THE SOUTHEAST OVERLAY ZONE COMMERCIAL AND MULTIFAMILY SECTION. SO ON THE 211 .29 ACRE SITE, ALSO KNOWN AS OCEAN EAST MALL, WAS CONSTRUCTED IN THE 70S AS A SHOPPING PLAZA AND AS I STATED BEFORE, IT CURRENTLY INCLUDES APPROXIMATELY 118,000FT■!S OF BUILDING AREA FR GENERAL COMMERCIAL USES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO GROCERY, RETAIL, SHOPPING AND SHIPPING, AND POSTAGE, HAIR AND BEAUTY, OFFICE AND MEDICAL. UPON SUBDIVISION OF THE 11.29 ACRE SITE, THE REMAINING 10.59 ACRES PARCEL WILL RETAIN THE EXISTING BUILDING AREA AND 492 OFFICE OFF STREET PARKING SPACES, AS IS REQUIRED BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS LEGAL AGREEMENT WITH THE CURRENT PLAZA TENANTS, THE REMAINING 0.7 ACRE PARCEL WILL BE DEVELOPED FOR A PROPOSED 2767 SQUARE FOOT STARBUCKS COFFEE RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE THRU DRIVE THRU SERVICES, A COVERED OUTDOOR SEATING AREA AND ASSOCIATED PARKING REFUSE COLLECTION AND ON SITE LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS. THE 0.7 ACRE SITE WILL ALLOW FOR THE ROUGHLY 2700 SQUARE FOOT DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANT WITH AN INCLUSIVE, 500 SQUARE FOOT COVERED OUTDOOR SEATING AREA, LANDSCAPE BUFFERING, PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS TO THE ADJACENT RIGHT OF WAY, ASSOCIATED OFF STREET PARKING, REFUSE COLLECTION AND A DEDICATED FIRE AND VEHICULAR PASS BY LANE. SO BUILDINGS WITHIN THE COMMERCIAL AND MULTIFAMILY SECTION OF THE SOUTHEAST OVERLAY ZONE ARE REQUIRED TO BE CONSTRUCTED ADJACENT TO THE STREET ALONG SOUTHEAST OCEAN BOULEVARD PROPERTY PROPERTY BOUNDARY WITH A SETBACK OF NOT LESS THAN TEN FEET AND ALSO THE WIDTH OF THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 50FT OF THE LOT WIDTH, SO THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO CONSTRUCT THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING WITH A 64 FOOT, TWO FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY BOUNDARY ADJACENT TO SOUTHEAST OCEAN BOULEVARD. 
          THIS WILL ALLOW THE PROPOSED BUILDING WITH TO BE APPROXIMATELY 27% OF THE PARCEL WIDTH. AS OPPOSED TO THE REQUIRED MINIMUM OF 50%. THE OWNER PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IN 2022, AND HAS STATED THAT THERE IS NO INTENT TO REDEVELOP THE OCEAN EAST MALL AT THIS TIME. 
          AND HAS INSTEAD DECIDED TO REVITALIZE THE SITE BY UPDATING THE EXISTING BUILDING FACADES, ADDING ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENTS, AND RETROFITTING THE SIGNAGE, SO DUE TO THE EXISTING BUILDING PLACEMENTS ON OSCEOLA, I'M SORRY, EAST OCEAN MALL AND THE ADJACENT CHURCH GAS STATION OFFICE BUILDINGS AND THE RETAIL PLAZA STAFF IS SUPPORTING THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO INCREASE THE BUILDING SETBACK FROM SOUTHEAST OCEAN AND ALLOW THE BUILDING WIDTH TO BE 27% OF THE PARCEL WIDTH, DUE TO THE CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR DRIVE THROUGH QUEUING AND VEHICULAR PATTERNS 
          [02:40:05]
WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OF THE OUT PARCEL, THE APPLICANT IS UNABLE TO MEET THE BUILDING PLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS OVERLAY ZONE. AND COMBINING THESE WITH THE SITE CONSTRAINTS, AND THE EXISTING BUILDING PLACEMENT ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES STAFF REQUESTS THE OR IS IN AGREEANCE WITH THE REQUESTED CODE DEVIATION. SO DUE TO THE PROPOSED BUILDING PLACEMENT, THE APPLICANT IS ALSO REQUESTING AN EXCEPTION TO THE PARKING LOCATION REQUIREMENTS. LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES THAT NO MORE THAN 25% OF THE PARKING AREA, OR ONE ROW OF PARKING MAY BE LOCATED BETWEEN THE FRONT BUILDING FACADE AND THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE, AND THAT ALL OTHER PARKING MAY BE LOCATED AROUND THE SIDE OR REAR BUILDING OF THE FACADE, AND THE CODE ALSO REQUIRES THAT ALL PARKING AREAS BE SCREENED BY LANDSCAPING BUFFERS, SO 25% OF THE PARKING AREA OR ONE ROW OF PARKING MAY BE LOCATED BETWEEN THE FRONT BUILDING FACADE AND THE FRONT PROPERTY BOUNDARY. ALL OTHER PARKING MUST BE LOCATED AT THE REAR OR SIDE. SO WITH THIS, THEY'RE PROPOSING TO LOCATE EIGHT PARKING STALLS, ADJACENT TO SOUTHEAST OCEAN BOULEVARD, WITH THE OTHER REMAINING PARKING STALLS ALONG THE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, THIS WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 42% OF THE PARKING AND THEN 57% OF IT WOULD BE ALONG THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING. 
          THE APPLICANT HAS STATED THAT BASED ON THEIR THEIR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, AND THE OVERLAY ZONE DICTATES YOUR REQUIRED LANDSCAPING IS BASED ON YOUR BUILDING SETBACKS. SO WITH WITH THE DECISION OF THE BOARD, THEY HAVE DECIDED HAVE THEY HAVE MENTIONED THAT THEY WILL BE ABLE TO MEET LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS BASED ON WHATEVER SETBACKS WE APPROVE TONIGHT? SO IF YOU DO APPROVE THE SETBACKS THAT THEY'RE REQUESTING, THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO PLANT 25% FLOWERING TREES, 25% PALMS AND 50% SHADE TREES. BUT THE LANDSCAPE PLAN, I JUST WANT TO MENTION ANY LANDSCAPE PLANS THAT HAVE TO BE REVISED WOULD BE DONE UNDER THE MINOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION. SO ANY REVISIONS WOULD COME AFTER THIS MEETING SUBMITTED ADMINISTRATIVELY TO THE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND THEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED UNDER THE MINOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN, THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SECTION 3.03.04 REQUIRES THAT NO MORE THAN 65% OF THE BUILDING SITE MAY BE COVERED BY IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE. UPON BUILD OUT, THE 0.7 ACRE SITE WILL INCLUDE APPROXIMATELY 9.1 OF BUILDING AREA, 70.2 IMPERVIOUS AREA, AND 20.6 PERVIOUS AREA OR OPEN SPACE, THIS IS DEMONSTRATING THAT THERE'S A DE MINIMIS CHANGE IN THE DEVELOPMENT FOR THIS BECAUSE THE EXISTING TODAY THERE IS APPROXIMATELY 79% IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE ON THE SITE. WITH 21% PERVIOUS, AFTER THE MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 12TH, THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO WORK WITH STAFF IN INSTALLING IMPERVIOUS OR PERMEABLE PAVEMENT WITHIN THE SITE TO MEET THE 65% REQUIREMENT. SO THIS DEVIATION REQUEST WOULD NOT BE A REQUEST FROM THE APPLICANT. THEY WOULD BE WORKING WITH STAFF UNDER THE MINOR DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND SITE PERMITTING TO MEET THE REQUIREMENT FOR, IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE. SO JUST TO RECAP, THE SEPTEMBER 12TH, 2024 LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY, THE BOARD VOTED 4 TO 1 IN FAVOR OF FORWARDING A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS TO THE CITY COMMISSION WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. TO THE CITY COMMISSION, TO ALLOW THE FRONT BUILDING FACADE TO BE CONSTRUCTED ADJACENT TO SOUTHEAST OCEAN BOULEVARD WITH A 64 FOOT SETBACK, AND TO ALLOW THE WIDTH OF THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING TO BE 27% OF THE LOT WIDTH TO ALLOW 42% OF THE PARKING AREA LOCATED BETWEEN THE BUILDING FACADE AND THE FRONT PROPERTY BOUNDARY. THE APPLICANT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO INSTALL PERMEABLE PAVEMENT TO COMPLY WITH THE 65% MINIMUM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS, AND THEY WOULD ALSO BE REQUIRED TO REVISE THE LANDSCAPE PLAN TO COMPLY WITH 25% FLOWERING TREES, 25% PALMS AND 50% SHADE TREES, THE APPLICANT IS ALSO AGREED TO INSTALL ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE PLANTINGS ALONG THE ENTIRE BOUNDARY OF THE 11.29 ACRE PARCEL TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THIS FUTURE OUT PARCEL. SO ANY EXISTING LANDSCAPING ALONG THE FRONTAGE OF THIS ENTIRE PARCEL WOULD BE CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT, SO THE CITY OF STUART DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAS REVIEWED THE MAJOR CONDITIONAL USE FOR THE SOUTHEAST OCEAN BOULEVARD OVERLAY ZONE AND RECOMMENDS THE CITY COMMISSION GRANT APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 97 DASH 2024, WITH THE CONDITIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY AT THE PUBLIC 
          [02:45:03]
HEARING ON SEPTEMBER 12TH, 2024, THE APPLICANT HAS PREPARED A BRIEF PRESENTATION AS WELL AND THEN STAFF AND THE APPLICANT WILL BE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD. DOES THE PETITIONER WISH TO MAKE A PRESENTATION? ROBERT GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. FOR THE RECORD, MR. STAND AND SWEAR, I'M AN ATTORNEY. I CAN'T SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, NO, I'M AN ADVOCATE, NOT A WITNESS. OKAY, SO, I MEAN, MR. BAGGETT, YOU AGREE? I AGREE, OKAY, I JUST WANT EVERYBODY ABOUT THE LAWYERS. YES. THANK YOU. YES SPECIAL EXCEPTION. SPECIAL GOOD EVENING. FOR THE RECORD, MY NAME IS BOB RAINS, AND I'M A LAND USE ATTORNEY WITH THE GUNSTER LAW FIRM. AND HERE THIS EVENING, ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, ALSO, I'D LIKE TO THANK YOU ALL FOR MOVING US UP AND GIVING US A CONSIDERATION THIS EVENING, I HAVE ALSO WITH ME THIS EVENING, CHRISTINA BELT, WHO IS WITH KIMLEY-HORN. AND THEN JUST A MOMENT, I'M GOING TO HAVE HER COME UP AND MAKE A SHORT PRESENTATION. ALSO, WE HAVE OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEER, STEPHANIE GUERRERO, HERE, AND SO SHE'S AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE. 
          AND ALSO THE OWNER, ALAN ESQUENAZI, IS HERE, SO WE'VE GOT OUR ENTIRE TEAM HERE AND WILLING TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE, AS MR. MCCRANE STATED, YOU KNOW, THIS IS SHOPPING CENTER. WE'RE ALL, I THINK, VERY FAMILIAR WITH IT. IT'S BEEN HERE SINCE 19, I THINK CIRCA 1972. AND I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS, IT HAS KIND OF FALLEN INTO A STATE OF DISREPAIR, AND THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF VACANCIES OCCURRING IN THE BUILDING. AND AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE APPLICANT, PURCHASED THE PROPERTY OUT OF FORECLOSURE, YOU KNOW, I REMEMBER AT ONE POINT THERE WAS EVEN GOING TO BE, FOR INSTANCE, A JERSEY MIKE'S THERE. 
          WE ALL KEPT WAITING FOR. AND I WAS PERSONALLY DISAPPOINTED WHEN THAT DIDN'T OCCUR, SINCE I CAN WALK TO THIS LOCATION. BUT AGAI, THE OWNER PREVIOUS OWNER WAS NOT ABLE TO DO THE REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS THAT WOULD HAVE BROUGHT THE JERSEY MIKE'S HERE. SO I'VE LOOKED AT THE APPLICANT AND KIND OF CONSIDERED HIM AND TOLD, FOLKS, WHEN WE DISCUSSED THIS PROJECT, YOU KNOW, HE'S HE'S KIND OF BEEN THE KNIGHT ON THE WHITE HORSE COMING IN HERE. I THINK. AND YOU CAN ALREADY SEE SOME OF THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN DONE. AND CHRISTINA WILL COVER SOME OF THOSE AREAS, I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO JUST FINISH MY PART OF THE PRESENTATION BY JUST POINTING OUT, I THOUGHT YOUR STAFF DID AN EXCELLENT JOB, AND THEY'VE BEEN VERY HELPFUL IN WORKING US THROUGH THIS PROCESS. 
          YOU KNOW, IF YOU LOOK AT PAGE SEVEN OF THE STAFF REPORT, THAT'S THE MAJOR CONDITIONAL USE AND THE STANDARDS OF REVIEW FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 11.011. I'M NOT GOING TO READ THROUGH THOSE, BUT I THINK WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT, YOU CAN SEE THE STAFF DID A GOOD STRONG ANALYSIS OF THIS PROJECT AND WHAT THESE CHANGES WOULD MEAN AND HOW THEY, YOU KNOW, COMPLY WITH THE CODE. SO WITH THAT, LET ME TURN IT OVER TO MR. BELT. AND IF YOU'LL JUST KIND OF STATE NOT ONLY YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD THAT YOU'VE BEEN SWORN IN, BUT ALSO YOUR EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND AND WORK EXPERIENCE, PLEASE. YES HI. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS CHRISTINA BELT WITH KIMLEY-HORN, I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH KIMLEY-HORN RIGHT OUT OF SCHOOL FOR 11.5 YEARS, AND PRIMARILY MY FOCUS HAS BEEN ON DRIVE THROUGH DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION. SO THIS IS THIS PROJECT IS I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH AND I'M EXCITED TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT IT TODAY, BEFORE I GET STARTED, I DID JUST NOTICE, CHRIS, THAT THAT'S I DON'T THINK THE LATEST AND THEY I BROUGHT A USB DRIVE, SO IT SHOULD BE ON THE DESKTOP. SORRY. THAT'S ALL RIGHT. THERE WE GO. ALL RIGHT, SO THIS IS FOR THE PROPOSED STARBUCK. AND IT'S LOCATED AT 2300 SOUTHEAST OCEAN BOULEVARD. IT IS WITHIN THE EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER. AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE AERIAL HERE. AND IT IS LOCATED IN THIS YELLOW COURT, LOCATION, WHICH IS A UNDERUSED PORTION OF THE PARKING LOT. AS YOU CAN SEE, JUST WITHIN THE AERIAL HERE. THAT MOST OF THE VEHICLES, VEHICLES PARKED OVER HERE, AS THERE'S A SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT WITH THIS OFFICE, WE ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING DISTRICT. IT'S A STRICT ZONING DISTRICT. AND THE OVERLAY, THAT WE THAT STAFF HAS MENTIONED, WE ARE WITHIN. SO, TO JUST TOUCH ON SOME OF THE FACADE IMPROVEMENTS THAT THE OWNER HAS MADE TO THIS TO THIS EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER. I WANTED TO SHOW SOME OF THE RENDERINGS AND ELEVATIONS, AS IT WAS AN OLDER SHOPPING CENTER AND FROM 1970 AND HE'S REALLY COME IN AND GIVEN A REFRESH AND MADE IT CLEAN, MODERN DESIGN, AND SOME OF THESE IMAGES WILL SHOW THAT. SO THE TOP IS THE EXISTING AND THE BOTTOM IS SOME OF THE PROPOSED RENDERINGS WITHIN THE SHOPPING 
          [02:50:03]
CENTER. HE'S ALSO INCORPORATED SOME NEW WILL BE INCORPORATING NEW LIGHTING AND SIGNAGE. AS STAFF MENTIONED. AGAIN, JUST SOME RENDERINGS TO KIND OF SHOW THE UPDATES THAT ARE GOING TO BE MADE TO THIS EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER TO REALLY REFRESH IT. AND I WANTED TO SHOW THOSE BECAUSE THIS BRINGS US TO WHY WE'RE HERE FOR THE PROPOSED STARBUCKS, THE PROPOSED STARBUCKS, NOT ONLY DID WE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE DESIGN OF THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED STARBUCKS AND THE CONFIGURATION OF THE DRIVE THROUGH, BUT ALSO HOW IT WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER, BECAUSE IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT THERE'S CONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE TWO. SO THE PROPOSED THIS IS AN IMAGE OF THE PROPOSED ARCHITECTURAL RENDERINGS THAT SHOW, THE PICKUP WINDOW. THIS IS WHERE CUSTOMERS WILL PICK UP THEIR FOOD. AND THIS IS WHERE CUSTOMERS WILL ENTER THE DRIVE THROUGH AND GO AROUND THE BUILDING TO THEN EXIT. IN RELATION WITH THIS PROJECT, WE'LL ALSO BE PROPOSING A PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION TO SOUTHEAST OCEAN BOULEVARD FOR ADA ACCESS, AND ALSO AN OUTDOOR SEATING. HOURS OF OPERATION ARE 530 TO 9. AND THIS WE'RE ANTICIPATED TO HIRE 25 EMPLOYEES. HERE ARE SOME MORE PROPOSED RENDERINGS OF THE PROPOSED STARBUCKS. AND THIS SHOWS ONE FROM EACH SIDE AND AGAIN THIS IS THIS IS WHERE THE CUSTOMERS WOULD PICK UP THEIR THEIR FOOD WHENEVER THEY ORDER. THIS IS WHERE THEY ENTER THE DRIVE THROUGH. AND THEN THEY CIRCLE AROUND AND THEN THEY WOULD LEAVE THIS IMAGE DOWN HERE SHOWS THE OUTDOOR COVERED PATIO, WHICH WILL BE A NICE AREA FOR CUSTOMERS TO DRINK THEIR COFFEE OR GET SOME WORK DONE AS THEY, VISIT THIS STORE. AND THIS IS ANOTHER VIEW OF THE OUTDOOR PATIO. THIS IS THE THIS IS THE SHOPPING CENTER. ALL RIGHT. SO HERE'S THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN, WHICH YOU ALL HAVE SEEN BRIEFLY. THERE'S FOUR MAIN TOPICS THAT WERE WAIVERS THAT WERE REQUESTING. BUT REALLY THEY ALL KIND OF HINGE UPON THIS BUILDING PLACEMENT. AND THAT'S REALLY IN REGARDS TO THIS BEING A DRIVE THROUGH USE TO HAVE THE BUILDING PLACEMENT BE UP AGAINST. OOPS, SORRY ABOUT THAT. TO MEET THE BUILDING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, IT WOULD NEED TO BE NO LESS THAN TEN FEET, WHICH WOULD MEAN THE BUILDING WOULD NEED TO BE UP ALONG THIS LOCATION, AND IT ALSO WOULD NEED TO BE WITHIN THE 50% LOT WIDTH THE BUILDING WOULD NEED TO BE ESSENTIALLY IN THIS SHAPE, PARALLEL TO SOUTHEAST OCEAN BOULEVARD, WHICH REALLY ISN'T CONDUCIVE OR WORKS WITH THE PROPOSED DRIVE THROUGH, AS CUSTOMERS NEED TO BE ABLE TO ENTER THE DRIVE THROUGH, ON THEIR DRIVER'S SIDE AND THEN EXIT. AND I'LL TOUCH. I'LL SHOW THAT IN A SECOND WITH THE AN AERIAL. I'M FROZEN. THERE WE GO. SO THE EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER HAS FLOW ONE WAY. DRIVE FLOW PATTERNS THAT GO UP AND THEN DOWN AND THEN UP AND THEN DOWN. SO WE WANTED TO STAY CONSISTENT WITH THAT TO ENSURE THAT CUSTOMERS, WHENEVER THEY'RE GOING TO GET THEIR COFFEE, THERE'S NO CONFUSION. THEY COULD EASILY GET IN AND GET OUT AND NOT HAVE TO MAKE A, EAST TO AN EAST TO WEST MOVEMENT. HERE, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO CONTINUE TO ENTER THIS WAY AND THEN LEAVE TO OCEANS EAST BOULEVARD OR OCEAN BOULEVARD. SORRY. THE NEXT WAIVER, AS STAFF TOUCHED ON, IS THE PERVIOUSNESS TO BE LESS THAN 65% OF THE IMPERVIOUS COVER. WE HAVE WORKED WITH STAFF, AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH STAFF TO HAVE THE PERMEABLE PAVEMENT, AS WE DO WANT TO ENSURE THAT WE MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS. AND THIS THIS IMAGE DOES SHOW THE EXISTING PERVIOUS. AND THEN WHAT WOULD BE PROPOSED TO SHOW THAT IT IS A DE MINIMIS EFFECT. AND THEN AGAIN, THIS ISN'T THE THIRD WAIVER REQUEST FOR THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED PARKING, WHICH IS ALONG SOUTHEAST OCEAN. BUT AGAIN, IT HINDERS ON THE SETBACK AND THE BUILDING PLACEMENT FOR THE DRIVE THROUGH THESE PARKING SPACES ALONG HERE. ASSIST WITH MEETING OUR PARKING REQUIREMENT. AND WE DO. THE OWNER OF THE SHOPPING CENTER DOES HAVE NOT ONLY ARE WE MEETING THE CITY'S PARKING REQUIREMENTS, HE HAS OBLIGATIONS TO HIS EXISTING TENANTS AS WELL TO MEET FOR MEET A PARKING RATIO FOR THOSE TENANTS. SO WE NEEDED THOSE PARKING SPACES TO MEET OUR PARKING REQUIREMENT. AND ALSO TO PROVIDE ENOUGH SPACES FOR THE CUSTOMERS THAT WANT TO, SIT AND ENJOY THEIR COFFEE INSIDE THE STARBUCKS. AND THEN THE LAST WAIVER IS FOR THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE. AND AS AS IT WAS MENTIONED, WE ARE GOING TO PROPOSE A BUFFER ALONG HERE WITH PROPOSED ADDITIONAL NEW PLANTINGS AND ALSO INCREASE THIS EXISTING HERE AS WELL TO BE CONSISTENT AND PART OF OUR 
          [02:55:07]
DISCUSSIONS WITH THE LPA BOARD AND PRIOR TO THE LPA BOARD, WE ALSO AGREED TO PLANT ALL THE WAY ALONG SOUTHEAST OCEAN BOULEVARD TO REALLY HAVE A CONSISTENT LOOK FOR THE OVERALL SHOPPING CENTER IN THE STARBUCKS, SINCE IT IS VERY COHESIVE BETWEEN THE TWO. AND THIS IMAGE SHOWS THE EXISTING KIND OF CORNER. THIS IS SOUTHEAST OCEAN BOULEVARD, AND THIS IS THE INTERNAL DRIVE INTO THE SHOPPING CENTER. AND WE ARE GOING TO PLANT SOME FLOWERING TREES AND THE CRAPE MYRTLES, POTENTIALLY CRAPE MYRTLES, HOLLIES, THINGS OF THAT NATURE THAT WOULD CONTINUE NOT ONLY ON THIS CORNER, BUT ALL THE WAY DOWN THE ENTIRE SHOPPING CENTER, RIGHT? ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE RIVER, ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE DRIVEWAY, TO ALL THE WAY DOWN TO HERE, TO THIS DRIVEWAY. OKAY OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND WITH THAT, AGAIN, I WANT TO THANK STAFF. THEY DID A VERY THOROUGH PRESENTATION AS WELL. SO I TRIED TO KEEP IT BRIEF, BUT I'M HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU, BY THE WAY. THANK YOU. YES, COMMISSIONER CLARK. IT'S FOR THE TRAFFIC FIRST. AND I'VE TALKED TO MR. RAINES ABOUT THIS, JUST WALK US THROUGH THOSE ENTRANCE AND EXIT AND GOING AROUND THE BUILDING AND THE IMPACT ON THE EAST OCEAN BOULEVARD. OKAY. I'M SORRY. CAN YOU REPEAT IT ONE MORE TIME? THE ENTRANCE AND EXIT INTO THE INGRESS AND EGRESS FOR WHERE THAT SITS IN THE PARKING LOT. OKAY SO, THIS IS THE EXISTING LIGHTED INTERSECTION AT SOUTHEAST OCEAN BOULEVARD. CUSTOMERS CAN COME DOWN INTO THIS EXISTING INTERNAL DRIVE AND MAKE A RIGHT HERE TO THE EAST SIDE OF THE ON THE EAST SIDE. EXACTLY. AND THEN THEY CAN CIRCLE. THEY WOULD CIRCLE THE DRIVE THROUGH. THIS IS ALSO THE FIRE LANE WIDTH. SO THIS IS A LARGE VERY LARGE DRIVE AISLE LARGER THAN WE NORMALLY WOULD HAVE FOR A FIRE APPARATUS TO BE ABLE TO GET AROUND. THEY WOULD THEN ENTER CIRCLE THE SITE. IT'S TYPICAL OF A OF A DRIVE THROUGH TO HAVE A ONE WAY CIRCULATION, JUST TO HELP WITH THE FLOW AROUND THE BUILDING THEY WOULD ENTER, AND THEN THEY WOULD ORDER THEIR FOOD HERE, AND THEN THEY PICK UP THEIR WINDOW, PICK UP THEIR FOOD. HERE WE HAVE TWO COVERED WINDOWS. THERE'S ONLY ONE COVERED, ONE WINDOW HERE FOR THEM TO PICK IT UP. AND I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S COVERED. I'D HAVE TO GO BACK ON IN. I THINK IT'S A SMALL AWNING. I'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE RENDERING AND LOOK AT THE RENDERING. YES. 
          HERE, OBVIOUSLY THAT'S TYPICAL. I'M SORRY. IN HERE? YEAH JUST FOR THE SAKE OF MY OWN UNDERSTANDING, THOSE IMAGES DO NOT REPRESENT THE PLANTINGS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO, THEY? NO OKAY. DO YOU HAVE THAT SOMETHING RENDERING OF THAT? I DON'T HAVE A RENDERING, WE HAVE THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. HERE HOW WIDE IS THAT WHICH, THAT THAT CORRIDOR FOR THE LANDSCAPING. IS THAT WITHIN THAT 15 FOOT RIGHT HERE. HOW WIDE IS THAT? IS THIS RIGHT HERE IN THE FRONT ON SOUTHEAST OCEAN ON THE SIDE OVER HERE? YEAH I CAN TELL YOU. LET ME PULL UP THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. AND DO YOU HAVE AN IDEA OF THE NUMBER OF TREES THAT YOU'LL BE PLANTING? TOTAL WHAT HAPPENED? I LOST IT. LOOKED LIKE QUITE A FEW. I DIDN'T WANT TO COUNT THEM. I THOUGHT YOU WOULD KNOW. 
          I HAVE THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. LANDSCAPE PLAN UP? YEAH. I CAN PULL THE WHOLE LANDSCAPE PLAN UP, PLEASE. THANK YOU. THAT'S MY MAJOR CONCERN AS WELL. WHILE WE'RE WAITING IS THE LANDSCAPING. I'D LIKE TO SEE SOME. I THINK THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE SOME NICE MATURE SHADE TREES RIGHT THERE. LIKE, ESPECIALLY ON THAT WEST SIDE FOR THE PARKING THAT'S EVERYBODY'S GOING TO WANT TO PARK. AND IT'S KIND OF A DESERT OUT THERE NOW. IT'S PRETTY BLEAK. SO I AGREE IT'S A REAL OPPORTUNITY. IT REALLY IS. IT'S LIKE SOMETHING LIKE SO CURRENTLY THE THIS EXISTING DRIVE AISLE STOPS ABOUT HERE. SO WE ARE EXTENDING IT DOWN MUCH FURTHER, WHICH WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL TREES THERE. LET'S LOOK AT THE QUARTER SHADE TREES. YEAH. WHAT WHAT ARE WE LOOKING AT HERE. IS IT. OH I SEE IS YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE HOLLIES. HOLLIES HOW BIG OF A TREE IS THAT GOING TO BE? WHICH MATCH WHAT'S GOING TO ALSO BE ALONG THE FRONT. WE WERE TRYING TO KEEP THE, HOW TALL? I'M NOT SURE. WELL I'M SURE THEY'RE UNDERSTORY TREES. I KNOW 
          [03:00:01]
WE WERE TRYING TO KEEP CONSISTENT WITH THE TREES ALONG SOUTHEAST OCEAN BOULEVARD. THE TREES ALONG SOUTHEAST OCEAN BOULEVARD CAN'T BE LARGE OAK TREES BECAUSE THERE'S EXISTING FPL OVERHEAD POWER POLES THERE, AND IT WOULD BLOCK YOUR SIGNAGE. AND YOU GOT TO SEE THE STARBUCK, TONIGHT, MORE SO BECAUSE OF THE POWER POLES, WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE WE HAVE TO HAVE A RIGHT TREE IN THE RIGHT PLACE FOR THAT EAST AND WEST SIDE, ESPECIALLY THE WEST SIDE WHERE THAT PARKING IS GOING TO BE. THE DRIVE THROUGH MIGHT BE NICE TO BE SHADED, BUT REALLY THAT SOME BIG LIKE OAK OR ROYAL POINCIANA, SOMETHING BIG THAT'LL REALLY THROW OUT SOME SHADE ALONG THAT WEST SIDE FOR ME. I'M SORRY. THE WEST. THE WEST SIDE. YES OKAY. THAT WOULD BE THE EAST. SO OVER. YOU'RE SAYING OVER HERE ON THIS SIDE? YES. EXACTLY. BETWEEN THE TWO. OKAY. ALL THOSE SPOTS THERE ARE THERE UNDERSTORY? YEAH. SO IF THOSE ARE UNDERSTORY RIGHT THERE, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN, EIGHT FEET? TEN FEET. YOU KNOW. YEAH. SO HAVING THOSE BE TALLER TREES WHERE THERE'S A LITTLE MORE SHADE FOR THAT DRIVE THROUGH, BUT ESPECIALLY ON THAT WEST SIDE FROM BASICALLY TOP TO BOTTOM OF YOUR FOOTPRINT SHOULD BE NICE. BIG BEEFY SHADE TREES THAT YOU CAN PARK UNDER. 
          COMMISSIONER COLLINS, THE LANDSCAPE PLAN DOES DENOTE THE HOLLIES WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 12FT AT HEIGHT, RIGHT HERE ON THE PLAN. NO FEET IN HEIGHT. AND THEN WHAT'S ON THE WEST SIDE? SO THE ON THE WEST SIDE WE HAVE, WHERE ARE WE AT TRYING TO FIND. SO WE HAVE CR AND SM. CRAPE MYRTLE. THAT'S THE WEST INDIAN MAHOGANY. SO THAT BIG CLOUD LOOKING THING ON THAT WEST SIDE IS NOT A TREE. THAT'S WHERE I'M GETTING CONFUSED. THOSE CLOUDS ARE NOT TREES. NO. OKAY, SO FOR ME NOT TO HOG ALL THE AIRTIME, BUT I WOULD WANT TO SEE ALONG THAT LINE BIG SHADE TREES FOR EVERYBODY TO PARK UNDER THROUGH THERE, SO YEAH, MR. MAYOR, MY NAME IS ALAN. MY NAME, I'M A PARTNER WITH OCEAN EAST CAPITAL PARTNERS. I JUST WANT TO ADD. YES, SIR. WE'RE DOING THE ENTIRE SHOPPING CENTER IN TERMS OF LANDSCAPING. YEP I'M ALL ABOUT LANDSCAPING AND WHETHER YOU APPROVE IT OR NOT, WE'RE DOING THE ENTIRE SHOPPING CENTER JUST TO BEAUTIFY THE ENTIRE PLACE. 
          BUT YOU'RE WORRIED ABOUT JUST THE WEST SIDE? I'M WORRIED ABOUT THE WHOLE SHOPPING CENTER. AND WE ARE ABOUT TO SPEND SIX FIGURES IN LANDSCAPING, THE WHOLE SHOPPING CENTER. AND I AM BEYOND THANKFUL THAT YOU'RE DOING THAT. INSTEAD OF WANTING TO JUST BUILD APARTMENTS. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR INVESTING AND MAKING THIS NICE. THAT WAS JUST MY ONLY CONCERN WAS I'D LIKE TO SEE SOME BIG SHADE TREES THERE. YES, SIR. SO I BELIEVE WE CAN WORK WITH STAFF TO UPDATE THE LANDSCAPE PLAN TO SHOW SOME OF THE LARGER TREES. JUST THEY JUST CAN'T BE ALONG SOUTHEAST OCEAN. 
          BUT WE CAN ON THE SIDE BY SIDE AND BY GRANTING YOU THAT SETBACK, WE'RE ACTUALLY INCREASING YOUR REQUIREMENT FOR SHADE TREES AS FOR, UNDERSTORY TREES, WE CAN'T STILL MEET THE ALONG SOUTHEAST OCEAN. WE STILL CAN'T MEET THE, SHADE TREE, THE SHADE TREE, BECAUSE OF THE OVERHEAD POWER POLES. CHRIS, DO YOU FEEL LIKE YOU GOT DIRECTION FOR THAT? WEST SIDE? I DO, YES. 
          ANY OTHER? I DON'T HAVE ANY. I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. I FIRST WANT TO SAY, MR. ESKENAZI. THANK YOU. THE SHOPPING CENTER IS COMING ALONG BEAUTIFUL. YOU'VE DONE A GOOD JOB OF RESTORING IT. I DO HAVE SOME MAJOR CONCERNS, THE EAST OCEAN OVERLAY WAS THERE TO PROTECT SOUTHEAST OCEAN BOULEVARD FROM BECOMING US ONE. AND MY CONCERN IS WITH THIS DRIVE THROUGH STARBUCKS THAT WE'VE SET A PRECEDENT THEN, AND I DON'T WANT TO WIND UP SEEING SOUTHEAST OCEAN BOULEVARD BECOME US ONE. MY OTHER CONCERN IS TRAFFIC AND THE FLOW OF THAT TRAFFIC. I'M FAMILIAR WITH THIS, THIS SHOPPING CENTER. MOST PEOPLE EXITING THE SHOPPING CENTER GO TO WHERE THE STARBUCKS WOULD BE AND THE GAS STATION, BECAUSE THERE'S A LIGHT THERE. 
          AND UNLESS YOU'RE GOING TOWARD HUTCHINSON ISLAND, IF YOU'RE LEAVING THE SHOPPING CENTER, IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A RIGHT, IT'S ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE A LEFT. SO EVERYONE'S GOING TO BE GOING AND I ENVISION NOW PEOPLE COMING IN TRYING TO GET OUT ALL THROUGH THAT ONE ROAD BETWEEN YOU, THE STARBUCKS AND THE, GAS STATION. SO I SEE A LOT OF CONGESTION THERE. I MEAN, I JUST HAVE THOSE CONCERNS. I DON'T WANT TO SET A PRECEDENT FOR SOUTHEAST OCEAN BOULEVARD FOR SOUTHEAST OCEAN BOULEVARD BECOMING US ONE, AND I JUST WANT TO ADD THAT THERE ARE SIX ACCESS POINTS IN THE SHOPPING. THERE ARE SIX ACCESS POINTS TO GET IN. THIS HAS GOT GREAT ACCESS IN TERMS OF GETTING IN AND OUT OF THE SHOPPING CENTER. RIGHT. BUT ONLY IF YOU'RE MAKING A RIGHT. 
          [03:05:01]
IF YOU'RE COMING OUT BY BY FRESH MARKET AT THE BACK END, YOU HAVE TO MAKE A RIGHT. YOU KNOW. SO AGAIN, YOU'D HAVE TO GET TO A LIGHT, COME AROUND THE SIGNAL AND YOU HAVE THE FULL, THE FULL ACCESS TO MAKE A LEFT AT THE SIGNAL RIGHT. I JUST WANT TO ADD ONE MORE THING IN TERMS OF WHAT YOUR CODE ALLOWS, WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR. YOUR CODE WANTS US TO TURN THE BUILDING. YOU GAVE THREE EXAMPLES EARLIER OF WHAT YOUR CODE WANTED TO PUSH THE BUILDING UP FRONT, WHICH IS ALLOWED, BUT ULTIMATELY THAT WOULDN'T WORK FOR A DRIVE THROUGH. SO THAT'S JUST THE DIFFERENTIATION THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. NO, NO, I UNDERSTAND. I'M JUST SAYING THAT FOR ME, I JUST FEEL THAT THAT SOUTHEAST OVERLAY IS TO PROTECT SOUTHEAST OCEAN BOULEVARD, AND I WOULD NOT LIKE IT TO BECOME SOMETHING ELSE. AND WHILE I THINK THAT EVERYTHING LOOKS GREAT, THE TREES LOOK GREAT. YOU KNOW, YOU'RE DOING A GREAT JOB. I APPRECIATE THAT YOU'VE REFURBISHED AND YOU'RE OBVIOUSLY GOING TO RENT TO OTHER PEOPLE. I JUST HAVE AN ISSUE WITH WHAT THIS BRINGS. AND THEN I HAVEN'T EVEN LISTENED TO THE TRAFFIC REPORT. AS MR. RAINES KNOWS, MY MOST FAVORITE THING, THE TRAFFIC REPORT. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS STEPHANIE GUERRA. I'M A TRANSPORTATION ENGINEER WITH KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES. I'VE BEEN PRACTICING FOR 11.5 YEARS, AND MY SPECIALIZATION HAS BEEN IN TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDIES, AS PART OF THE PROCESS, WE DID GO THROUGH A TRAFFIC STUDY PROCESS, WHICH WAS REVIEWED BY THE CITY'S TRAFFIC CONSULTANT AS WELL AS FDOT, FDOT DOES MAINTAIN OCEAN BOULEVARD AS WELL AS MONTEREY ROAD AND AS PART OF THAT, WE FOUND THAT THE PROJECT TRAFFIC THAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS LESS THAN 2% OF THE CAPACITY OF THOSE ROADS. AND I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN IS OF MAYBE EXISTING TRAFFIC AND ACCUMULATION. WE DID FIND THAT BASED ON THE LATEST TRAFFIC DATA THAT WAS COLLECTED IN 2023 ON THOSE ROADS, BOTH OF THOSE ROADWAYS OPERATE AT A LEVEL OF SERVICE SEA. DURING THE PEAK HOURS. OKAY, OKAY. DID YOU SAY, COMMISSIONER, IF I COULD JUST GO BACK ON ONE OTHER THING, AND I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN ABOUT SETTING PRECEDENT, IF YOU WILL, IN THAT AREA. YEAH. 100%. 
          BUT I THINK TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION, THIS IS THE MOST UNIQUE PIECE OF PROPERTY ALONG THE EAST OCEAN OVERLAY BECAUSE IT'S BY FAR THE LARGEST SITE AND IT'S AN EXISTING SITE. AND YOU KNOW, THE SITES, FOR INSTANCE, MR. MCCRANE SHOWED WERE, YOU KNOW, SMALL REDEVELOPMENT SITES WERE COMPLETELY VACANT LOTS AND WHATNOT. SO I DON'T THINK WE'LL BE SETTING A PRECEDENT BECAUSE NOBODY ELSE CAN REALLY COME IN AND MAKE THE SAME CLAIM WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUES OR CONCERNS THAT THEY HAVE. ALSO, AND I JUST WANTED TO REITERATE WHAT WE HAD SPOKEN TO YOU WITH, TOO, AND THAT WE WON'T BE DOING ANY ADDITIONAL BECAUSE I KNOW YOU HAD A CONCERN THAT THERE WOULD BE OTHER OUTPARCELS GOING ALONG THAT WAY. AND THAT JUST IS NOT GOING TO BE PRACTICAL BECAUSE OF THE PARKING THAT WE TALKED ABOUT PREVIOUSLY, THAT NOT ONLY FOR THE CITY PARKING REQUIREMENTS, WE COULDN'T LOSE THAT PARKING, BUT MR. SHAUGHNESSY ALSO HAS PARKING REQUIREMENTS WITH HIS TENANTS. SO THIS WILL BE THE ONLY OUT PARCEL THAT IS PLANNED FOR IT. 
          SO I UNDERSTAND I UNDERSTAND, BUT AT SOME POINT MR. ESKENAZI MIGHT DECIDE TO DO ANOTHER QUADRANT IN THE PARK. AND IT'S A HUGE PARKING SPACE. SO THERE'S A POSSIBILITY IN THE FUTURE THAT THAT MIGHT COULD THAT BE A CONDITION, I'M ASKING THIS THE ATTORNEY OR THE CITY MANAGER, IF THAT COULD BE A CONDITION OF AN APPROVAL. IS WHAT THE FACT THAT THE APPLICANT IS SAYING THAT HE DOESN'T PLAN TO USE ANY OTHER PARTS OR QUADRANTS IN THE SHOPPING CENTER FOR SOMETHING SIMILAR TO A STARBUCKS? YEAH. WE AGAIN, HE CAN'T DO IT BECAUSE OF THE PARKING REQUIREMENT. THERE'S A PARKING RESTRICTION, THE PARKING RESTRICTIONS FOR BOTH THE CITY AND THE TENANTS WOULD NOT MAKE IT FEASIBLE FOR HIM TO BE ABLE TO DO ANY OUTPARCELS ALONG THAT WAY. SO THAT WAS THE I MEAN, WE'RE WILLING TO ADD THAT IN A DECLARATION IF THAT WOULD SOLVE AN ISSUE FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT, NO PROBLEM, OKAY. MR. REED, DO YOU HAVE ANY ALL MY QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ASKED BY MY FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS. THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF FROM THE COMMISSION? NO, I DO NOT HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, DOES THE PETITIONER WISH TO OFFER ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BEFORE WE CLOSE? NO, I THINK WE'RE GOOD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SO THE PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE HAS ENDED AND THE HEARING IS CLOSED. DOES ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WISH TO MAKE A COMMENT? SEEING NONE, DO YOU WISH TO MAKE A FINAL STATEMENT, MR. RAINES, OR. OKAY MR. MAYOR, MAY I MAKE A MOTION? YOU CERTAINLY MAY, COMMISSIONER CLARK, ITEM NUMBER 97. DASH 2024, MOVE APPROVAL. 
          ARE WE ADDING AN ELEMENT CITING THE SHADE TREES? OH, YEAH. DO YOU WANT TO ADD THE SHADE ON THE 
          [03:10:01]
WEST SIDE? YES. SORRY. YES. WITH THOSE CAVEATS, THE SHADE TREES, THE, AND THE LPAS, THE LANDSCAPING ALONG THE ENTIRE PARCEL FRONTAGE AND THEN THE, SETBACK DEVIATION, THE PERCENTAGE OF PARKING AS STATED IN THE RESOLUTION, THE PERVIOUS, PERVIOUS PARKING. THAT'S. YEAH, THAT'S BEEN AGREED TO. AND THEN COMMISSIONER JOBE'S POINT DO WE HAVE WE HAVE A MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND DO DID DID COMMISSIONER CLARK ADOPT THAT MOTION. YES. SHE OKAY. SO I NEVER MR. MCRAE SAYS AND WHATEVER MISS, THE CITY CLERK HAS WRITTEN DOWN AS ADDITIONS. I DON'T KNOW THAT SHE HAS THE, I HAVE WITH SHADE TREES AND SETBACK DEVIATION, PERVIOUS PARKING. AND THEN THERE WAS A DECLARATION THAT THE APPLICANT IS WILLING TO PUT INTO THE MOTION OF NO ADDITIONAL OUTPARCELS, NO ADDITIONAL. I THINK WE HAVE CLARITY. WE HAVE CLARITY. SECOND. OKAY SECOND, BY COMMISSIONER COLLINS. ARE WE ALL CLEAR ON WHAT THE MOTION IS? YES. WE'RE CLEAR. OKAY. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION AMONGST THE COMMISSIONERS? I HAVE NONE. 
          AGAIN, I JUST WANT TO ECHO THANK YOU FOR NOT TRYING TO BUILD APARTMENTS IN MIXED USE HERE. 
          THANK YOU FOR INVESTING INTO THIS, PLAZA AND MAKING IT BEAUTIFUL, BECAUSE I LIVE BASICALLY ACROSS THE STREET, AND I'M SURE DAN BONGINO IS REALLY LOOKING FORWARD TO GETTING ALL THAT STARBUCKS, HIS CAPPUCCINOS IN THE MORNING BEFORE HE GOES ON. AND CHRIS, MAN, THANK YOU. 
          IN THESE LAST TWO PRESENTATIONS, I APPRECIATE YOUR THOROUGHNESS AND BEING SUCH A STICKLER. YOU PROBABLY MADE THESE GUYS CRAZY, BUT YOU DID A GREAT JOB. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU SIR. YEAH. 
          JUST LIKE TO SAY THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE CITY LIKES TO DO. WE LIKE TO SHARE THESE RESOURCES. 
          WE'RE NOT PAVING ANYTHING OVER. ADDITIONALLY, IN FACT, HE'S. THIS IS A VASTLY OVER PARKED SPACE, 520 CURRENTLY. THIS IS A GREAT LITTLE BUSINESS TO ADD. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU DID IT, BECAUSE THAT WHEN I'M DATING MYSELF HERE, MR. RAINES SAYS THAT BURGER KING, THAT OLD BURGER KING HAS SAT EMPTY FOR DECADES. AND THEY WERE. IT WAS A STARBUCKS. AND YOU WERE ABLE TO GET THIS BUSINESS THERE. IT'S VERY ATTRACTIVE, AND I THINK IT WILL HOLD A GREAT DEAL OF APPEAL FOR PEOPLE AS A PLACE TO MEET EACH OTHER. SO IF YOU KNOW ANYBODY AT WHOLE FOODS, JUST SAYING YOU KNOW, IT'D BE NICE FRESH MARKETS IN THERE, FRESH MARKET. IT'S NOT REALLY COMPETITION RIGHT. IT'S EXPENSIVE. FRESH MARKET. YES THEY ARE. YEAH THIS SPACE SEE NO COMMENTS. ROLL CALL PLEASE. COMMISSIONER REED. YES, COMMISSIONER. COLLINS. YES, COMMISSIONER. CLARK. YES, COMMISSIONER. GOBI. YES, MAYOR. RICH YES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          YES, SIR. THANK YOU. HAVE A GOOD NIGHT. SO MR. ESKENAZI, IF YOU RENT ALL THOSE SPACES, YOU'LL BE USING ALL THOSE PARKING SPACES. MR. BAGGETT, SPACE FOR YOU. THERE YOU GO. MR. BAGGETT, WILL 
          [8. FIRST AMENDMENT TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH MARTIN COUNTY FOR  MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL CABINETS (RC): RESOLUTION No. 98-2024; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE  CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN  INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF STUART AND MARTIN  COUNTY TO PROVIDE MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL CABINETS WITH  DECORATIVE ART WRAP; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND FOR OTHER  PURPOSES.]
YOU READ ITEM NUMBER EIGHT FOR OUR CONSIDERATION, PLEASE? SURE RESOLUTION NUMBER 98, DASH 2024, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF STUART AND MARTIN COUNTY TO PROVIDE MAINTENANCE OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL CABINETS WITH DECORATIVE ART WRAP PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, I CAN TALK TO THIS EVEN THOUGH PAUL HAD PREVIOUSLY BROUGHT THIS BEFORE Y'ALL, AND THIS WAS AN AMENDED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT REGARDING THE DECORATIVE WRAPS AROUND THE BOXES. THROUGHOUT THE CITY, AND THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AMENDED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AS DRAFTED BY THE COUNTY WAS THAT THEY WERE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGES, TO THE WRAPS ON THE BOXES IN QUESTION, YOU WANTED, YOU GUYS, A MAJORITY OF YOU VOTED THAT WE WANTED US TO GO BACK TO THE COUNTY AND INSIST THAT THEY COVER THE COST FOR ANY DAMAGES THAT THEY CAUSE, AND THEY SAID, NO, NO, NO, NO, WE'RE BACK TO THE ORIGINAL. GOOD TRY. I ALWAYS TRY YOUR ARGUMENT. 
          YOU SAID IF YOU GUYS WANT TO PUT THE WRAPS ON IT, YOU'RE GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE. IF WE HAVE AN EMERGENCY SITUATION, WE DON'T WANT TO BE RESPONSIBLE IF SOMETHING HAPPENS. AND THEN WHAT IF SOMEBODY ELSE DAMAGED IT? WE DON'T WANT TO BE IN A FIGHTING MATCH WITH THE CITY. BASICALLY, IT WOULD BE ON THE HONOR SYSTEM IF THEY WERE FIXING SOMETHING THAN DAMAGE THAT I'D EXPECT THEM TO SAY SO. BUT OKAY. ARE YOU DONE WITH YOUR PRESENTATION? DO WE HAVE A MOTION? MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO MOVE APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NUMBER 98 2024. SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER COLLINS AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CLARK. RESOLUTION 90 8-2024. IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ISSU? SEEING NONE. MADAM CLERK. NONE. NO, NONE. SEEING NONE. QUESTIONS 
          [03:15:10]
OR COMMENTS BY ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS? NO COMMENTS. NONE SEEING NONE. ROLL CALL PLEASE. 
          MAYOR RICH. YES, COMMISSIONER CLARK. YES, COMMISSIONER. REED. YES, COMMISSIONER. COLLINS YES. 
          [9. 1251 SW NORTON LANE (STANCAVICH) - DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION BY THE  CITY COMMISSION (RC): RESOLUTION No. 103-2024; A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE  CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, FINDING APPLICANT/OWNER, ROBERT  STANCAVICH'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CERTAIN REQUIRED CONDITIONS  SET FORTH IN RESOLUTION NO. 69-2024; PROVIDING CITY STAFF WITH  FURTHER DIRECTION; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE, AND FOR OTHER  PURPOSES.]
COMMISSIONER. GOBI. YES. MR. WILL YOU READ ITEM NUMBER NINE FOR OUR CONSIDERATION, PLEASE? ABSOLUTELY RESOLUTION NUMBER 103, DASH 2024, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, FINDING APPLICANT OWNER ROBERT STANKOVIC'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CERTAIN REQUIRED CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN RESOLUTION NUMBER 69, DASH 2024, PROVIDING CITY STAFF WITH FURTHER DIRECTION. PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE, EFFECTIVE DATE AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. MR. MARTELL OR MR. BAGGETT, DO YOU WISH TO PROVIDE SOME INFORMATION REGARDING THIS ITEM? I'M HAPPY TO, REFRESH YOUR RECOLLECTION. THE COMMISSION, RECENTLY HAD A REQUEST BY THE APPLICANT TO, DO LIFT A UNITY OF TITLE ON THE PROPERTY THAT THE MATTER HAD BEEN PENDING FOR SOME TIME, THE UNITY OF TITLE WAS CONDITIONED UPON MR. STANKOVIC. COMPLETING FOUR ITEMS THAT WERE LISTED IN THE RESOLUTION. BY, I BELIEVE, SEPTEMBER 12TH. AS OF, THE TIME OF THIS AGENDA ITEM, HE HADN'T DONE THEM, THE 22ND. OKAY WHATEVER THE DATE WAS, AND ON TOP OF THAT, HE HAD CLAIMED THAT HE HAD, IN FACT, DONE THE LOT SPLIT, BUT HE HADN'T ACTUALLY GOTTEN OR MADE APPLICATION FOR A SECOND ADDRESS, WHICH WE WENT AHEAD AND DID FOR HIM, THAT THAT HAS BEEN DONE NOW, SO WHERE IT SAYS 12 FIVE 1251 SOUTHWEST NORTON LANE AT THE TOP, THAT'S THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE THAT HE'S LIVING IN. THE NEW ADDRESS IS 1231 NORTONS LANE. BECAUSE THAT'S THE PROPERTY THAT'S I BELIEVE IT'S 1231 IS THE NEW ADDRESS OF THE HOUSE THAT'S UNDER CONSTRUCTION. HOWEVER ESSENTIALLY, THE BUILDING INSPECTOR PROVIDED THE DOCUMENT THAT'S HANDED OUT TO YOU THAT HAD A LIST OF EVERYTHING. AND IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT MR. STANKOVIC CAME IN THE DAY BEFORE THE DEADLINE, SO AS IT STANDS, IN ORDER TO PROPERLY FULFILL THE TERMS OF THE, RESOLUTION, IF THE COMMISSION WERE TO ORDER A THE CITY TO FORECLOSE ON THE LIEN OR FORECLOSE ON THE HOUSE, ESSENTIALLY IT WOULD REQUIRE THE CITY ATTORNEY TO, HAVE A CODE ENFORCEMENT HEARING TO ADJUDICATE THE FINE THAT'S BEEN RUNNING FOR THE LAST YEAR, ON TOP OF THE OTHER FINES THAT HAVE BEEN RUNNING SINCE 2018. AND THEN ONCE THAT'S ADJUDICATED, THE STATE STATUTE REQUIRES THERE TO BE A 90 DAY PERIOD DURING WHICH THE HOMEOWNER CAN BRING THE MATTER OR RESOLVE THE MATTER BEFORE THE MUNICIPALITY CAN EVEN FILE THE FORECLOSURE. SO YOU WOULD EXPECT, ESSENTIALLY, BY GRANTING TONIGHT'S RESOLUTION, BE GIVING HIM A 90 DAY EXTENSION TO COMPLETE IT, BECAUSE IF, IN FACT, HE WERE TO GET THE ITEMS AND COMPLETE THE STUFF AND GET THE PERMIT AND GET THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSTRUCTION PURSUANT TO THE TERMS OF THE RESOLUTION, BEFORE THE BEFORE THE FORECLOSURE WAS FILED, THERE'D BE ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO FILE THE FORECLOSURE. BUT, BASICALLY THE PROBLEM RAN THAT THE RESOLUTION WAS VERY CLEAR. IT HAD A REQUIREMENT THAT CERTAIN CRITERIA TAKE PLACE. THE CRITERIA DIDN'T TAKE PLACE. AND AS STAFF, WE DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY OR DISCRETION TO WAIVE IT. IT WAS THE COMMISSION'S DIRECTION. MR. STANKOVIC WAS AWARE OF IT. IN FACT, BEFORE WE SCHEDULED IT FOR HEARING, HE WAS EMAILING PEOPLE SAYING THAT THE CITY WAS HOLDING HIM UP. AND SO I EMAILED HIM AND I SAID, MR. STANKOVIC, DON'T COME FORWARD BEFORE THE COMMISSION UNTIL YOU'RE READY TO MOVE FORWARD, BECAUSE WHEN YOU DO, THE COMMISSION IS GOING TO PUT A DEADLINE ON THE RESOLUTION AND YOU'RE GOING TO NEED THE RESOLUTION AND YOU'RE GOING TO NEED TO MEET THE TERMS OF THAT DEADLINE. SO WE DIDN'T BRING IT FORWARD. IT WAS MR. STANKOVIC'S REQUEST FOR US TO HAVE THE RESOLUTION TO LIFT THE UNITY OF TITLE AND THE TERMS THAT WERE IN THE RESOLUTION. HE WAS STANDING HERE JUST AS HE IS NOW. WE'RE NEGOTIATED BETWEEN THE BOARD AND HIM, AND HE ACTUALLY DID HAVE AN ATTORNEY REPRESENTING HIM THAT NIGHT, AND HAD REPRESENTED HIM THROUGH THE APPLICATION PROCESS. SO IT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD AS TO HOW YOU WANT TO HANDLE IT OR WHERE YOU WANT TO GO FROM HERE, BUT STAFF DID NOT 
          [03:20:05]
HAVE THE DISCRETION TO CONTINUE TO IGNORE IT, AT THIS POINT, MR. STANKOVIC, ONLY IF COMMISSIONERS HAVE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS OF YOU WILL. YOU NEED TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. SO I'M SORRY. SAY THAT AGAIN. I SAY ONLY IF COMMISSIONERS HAVE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS OF YOU WILL. 
          YOU NEED TO PROVIDE INFORMATION. DOES DOES ANY COMMISSIONER WISH TO. YES. SPEAK YOUR PIECE. OKAY OKAY. I HAVE A QUESTION. SO, MR. STANKOVIC, IF WE, GIVE YOU ADDITIONAL TIME, WILL YOU BE ABLE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS? AND. AND, MR. MARTEL, CAN IT GO BEYOND THE 90 DAYS, OR DOES HE JUST. WE CAN ONLY GIVE HIM ANOTHER 90 DAYS AND EVEN WITHIN THAT TIME, WE STILL HAVE TO LOOK AT. I MEAN, YOU CAN GIVE HIM FOREVER. IT'S JUST THAT IT'S BEEN SEVEN YEARS. CAN I JUST SAY SOMETHING SO YOU CAN ANSWER SPECIFIC QUESTIONS? MR. OKAY. DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? YES I JUST WANT TO KNOW IF HE IF HE CAN, IF HE CAN DO THIS WITHIN 90 DAYS, IF HE CAN. ABSOLUTELY. I'M BRINGING YOU A $25,000 CHECK BECAUSE I WENT INTO THE OFFICE AND I ASKED HOW TO GET A BOND BECAUSE IT HAS TO BE A CITY ACCEPTABLE BOND. SO WHEN THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, THEY SAID, WELL, I DON'T KNOW. AND AND I SAID WE WOULD WAIVE THE BOND UNTIL THE PERMIT WAS ISSUED SO HE COULD COMPLETE ALL THE OTHER ITEMS FIRST AND MADE SURE THE BOND WAS NOT HOLDING IT UP. 
          COMMISSIONER COLLINS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. STANKOVIC? I JUST WANT HIM TO BE ABLE TO SPEAK AND KIND OF SAY HIS PIECE WITHOUT HAVING TO BE DIRECTED BY US. IT'S HIS HOUSE, MAN. SO GO AHEAD AND SPEAK. I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. YEAH ON 86, I HAD KNEE REPLACEMENT SURGERY. PREVIOUS TO THAT, I THINK IT WAS JULY, I DON'T REMEMBER. IT WAS ABOUT A MONTH BEFORE THAT. I WAS HAVING A PROBLEM WITH MY EMAIL BECAUSE I GET ABOUT 100 EMAILS A DAY. SO I SENT OUT AN EMAIL TO MR. MARTEL AND, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL TO USE MY SECONDARY EMAIL ADDRESS. 
          ALSO SO WHEN I WAS IN THE HOSPITAL ON 86, HE SENT OUT THE EMAIL ON 88 TO MY FIRST EMAIL, BUT NOT HE DIDN'T DO THE SECOND EMAIL, WHICH GOES TO MY PHONE. THE OTHER ONE GOES TO MY COMPUTER, WHICH I WAS IN THE HOSPITAL, SO I DIDN'T ACTUALLY FIND OUT ABOUT THAT EMAIL UNTIL IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN A DAY BEFORE, BUT I THINK I THOUGHT IT WAS TWO DAYS BEFORE. IT DOESN'T MATTER. 
          IT DOESN'T EMAIL. I'M JUST SO I'M CLEAR WHAT EMAIL? I'M SORRY. WHAT EMAIL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? THE EMAIL FROM, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. OKAY, SO THE RESOLUTION IS WHAT TOLD YOU WHAT TO DO WHEN YOU WERE HERE IN FRONT OF THE BOARD. YOU APPLIED FOR A RESOLUTION WHERE THE BOARD VOTED TO LIFT A UNITY OF TITLE ON A PROPERTY THAT HAD BEEN UNIFIED BECAUSE OF THE DENSITY OF THE PROPERTY. NEXT DOOR. AND WHEN YOU BOUGHT IT, IT WAS ONE LOT WITH A UNITY OF TITLE ON IT. 
          AND YOU ASKED THE CITY COMMISSION TO SEPARATE THAT INTO TWO LOTS. AND AS A CONDITION OF THAT, IN THE RESOLUTION, THERE WAS A LIST OF THINGS YOU HAD TO DO. THERE WAS NO EMAIL TO COME WITH IT. THAT WAS IT. RIGHT. WELL, THERE'S IT WAS VERY SIMPLE FROM THE COMMISSIONERS. ONE OF THE THINGS WAS TO APPLY BY THE 22ND FOR A STANDARDIZED BUILDING PERMIT. SO 14 DAYS BEFORE THE 22ND, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL ASKED ME TO CERTIFY MY ROOF TRUSSES, WHICH FROM THE ORIGINAL MANUFACTURER. SO I TRIED CALLING THE ORIGINAL MANUFACTURER. NO RESPONSE. I JUST LEAVE A MESSAGE AND MESSAGE. THEY HAVE AN ANSWERING SERVICE THERE, SO THERE'S NO WAY THAT I COULD HAVE HAD WITHIN 14 DAYS CERTIFIED MY ROOF TRUSSES. AND THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT. THAT'S WHY I WAS HERE. THAT'S IT WAS RAISED AT THE MEETING BY COMMISSIONER RIC, SPECIFICALLY THE CERTIFICATION OF THE TRUSSES. YES, SIR. THAT WASN'T PART OF THE IT WASN'T THE EMAIL. RIGHT. WE TALKED ABOUT IT BEFORE. RIGHT? WE DID TALK ABOUT IT BECAUSE WHEN THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND BRUCE DUNCAN WAS OUT AT THE JOB SITE, YOU KNOW, WE WENT OVER THE ROOF TRUSSES SO AND, IS IT IS IT LOU, IS IT LOU HATTON? LOU MENTIONED THAT LIKE 1 OR 2 OF THE TRUSSES, HE HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT. SO, HE SAID TO, YOU KNOW, POSSIBLY, YOU KNOW, HAVE THEM LOOKED AT. SO BUT IT WASN'T UNTIL THAT EMAIL ON EIGHT 
          [03:25:07]
OVER EIGHT THAT IT WAS, YOU KNOW, IN WRITING THAT I NEEDED TO GET THEM RECERTIFIED. THEY NEVER NO ONE EVER SAID THAT I NEED TO ACTUALLY GET THEM RECERTIFIED. AND IN FACT, YOU KNOW, MY OWN ENGINEER WHO'S HER, YOU KNOW, HE WROTE OFF, HE SIGNED OFF ON ALL THE ROOF TRUSSES PREVIOUS TO THAT. SO AND MY, MY. AND THAT'S ANOTHER THING TOO, IS, YOU KNOW, WHY IS LOU SPECIFICALLY ASKING FOR THE MANUFACTURER? BECAUSE THE MANUFACTURER DOESN'T HAVE YOUR ENGINEER CAN SIGN OFF ON THOSE ROOF TRUSSES. THAT'S WHAT WE TOLD YOU. HE'S A HE'S A LICENSED ENGINEER. ALL HE HAS TO DO IS CERTIFY HIM. AND THAT'S SUFFICIENT. BUT ON THE EMAIL, IT SAYS THAT HE'S SPECIFICALLY ASKING FOR A COAST TRUSS. THAT'S AN EMAIL ON EIGHT EIGHT SPECIFICALLY SAYING, IT SAYS, I WILL REQUIRE YOU TO BE ASKING FOR A COAST TRUST TO GIVE YOU A LETTER OF RECERTIFICATION OF THE ROOF TRUSSES. THAT WAS ON EIGHT, EIGHT. I DIDN'T GET, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, I WAS IN THE HOSPITAL. I DIDN'T SEE THAT UNTIL A FEW DAYS BEFORE THE 22ND. WHEN THAT WAS DUE. YOU KNOW, I PUT IN THE REST OF THE APPLICATION, BUT THERE IS NO WAY THAT I COULD HAVE HAD THE ROOF TRUSSES CERTIFIED. CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION? SURE. DO YOU FEEL LIKE IF WE GAVE YOU 60 DAYS BEFORE WE ROLL INTO THIS PROCESS, THAT YOU COULD SORT THIS OUT? YEAH THERE'S. YEAH, THE ROOF TRUSSES. ABSOLUTELY. THERE'S A SECOND THING WHICH MR. MARTEL KNOWS ABOUT TOO, WHICH I WOULD LIKE TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE SPECIFIED, BECAUSE THERE'S A COMMUNITY NEXT DOOR THAT HAS A DRAINAGE PROBLEM AND IT DRAINS, YOU KNOW, ACROSS MY DRIVEWAY AND THEN ACROSS BETWEEN THESE, MY NEIGHBOR AND MY PROPERTY. AND IT'S SUPPOSED TO GO DOWN INTO THE CREEK. YES BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOW AS ROBERT LONG'S HOUSE AND, WHEN I ORIGINALLY APPLIED FOR MY BUILDING PERMIT, YOU KNOW, THEY SIGNED OFF ON MY, MY, SITE PLAN, SO, BUT AS A PART OF THIS LOT SPLIT, THAT'S WHAT WE ASKED YOU TO DO. CAN YOU DO IT? OH, YEAH. SO, FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, THE UNITY OF TITLE BACK WHEN THAT PROPERTY NEXT DOOR WAS DEVELOPED, THE STORMWATER PLAN FOR THAT PROPERTY WAS TO FREE FLOW ACROSS THIS OPEN GRASS AREA INTO THE MANGROVES AND INTO THE WATER. WHEN MR. STANKOVIC CAME IN 2015 AND DIDN'T DO THE LOT SPLIT THAT, HE TOLD THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HE WAS GOING TO DO, HE FILLED IN THE SWALE AND REDIRECTED THE WATER TO GO TOWARD MR. LONG'S HOUSE. AT THE HEARING WHERE YOU GUYS WERE ENTERING THE LIFTING OF THE UNITY OF TITLE SO THAT HE'D HAVE TWO PROPERTIES. HE WAS TOLD THAT HE HAD TO GET A STORMWATER PLAN AND A SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY, SO THAT HE COULD SHOW THAT THIS WATER THAT WAS ALWAYS DESIGNED TO FREE FLOW ACROSS THE DRIVEWAY AND INTO THE CANAL COULD EITHER BE DONE BY A GREAT IN FRONT OF HIS DRIVEWAY AND PIPED INTO THE CANAL, OR WHATEVER POSSIBLE ENGINEERING DESIGN THAT HIS ENGINEER WANTED HIM TO DO. THE PROBLEM IS, NO ONE EVER DID ANY FLOODPLAIN SURVEY. NOBODY DID ANY STORMWATER DESIGN. NOBODY EVEN SUBMITTED A THEORETICAL DRAWING OF WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO THE FLOOD WATER. SO AS WE STAND HERE TODAY, NOTHING HAS CHANGED. CORRECT. CAN YOU GET THAT DONE IN 60 DAYS? WE DO. YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO WAY THAT, YOU KNOW, JUDY CALLED ME UP AND SAID, YOU KNOW, IN ONE WEEK WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT DEMOLISHING YOUR HOUSE. CAN YOU JUST DO IT? ABSOLUTELY ABSOLUTELY. WHEN DID WE PASS THE RESOLUTION? THAT WAS JULY 22ND. 
          SO 60 DAYS AGO. RIGHT. AND NOTHING'S HAPPENED. RIGHT PLEASE. YES, MA'AM. MR. MAYOR. 
          SO, MISS, I, I'M ON THE SAME LINES AS MR, MR. COLLINS, BUT I WANT TO ASK MR. MARTEL, GOING BACK TO THE UNITY OF TITLE, YOU SAID THAT'S SEVEN YEARS AGO. I'M JUST ASKING QUESTIONS. THAT'S ONE THING. THE OTHER THING IS, I'M LOOKING AT THIS LETTER WITH, TYSON WATERS, WHO APPARENTLY RETAINED TO HELP YOU AT SOME POINT, AND HE'S REFERRING TO A JULY 22ND OF 2025. AND I'M WONDERING IF THAT'S JUST A TYPO OR IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S YET TO COME, OR IF THAT'S AN OUTSIDE DATE. I DON'T KNOW IF IT EVEN MEANS ANYTHING, BECAUSE IT'S NOT ANYTHING THAT'S IN A RESOLUTION OR ANYTHING. AND THEN THE OTHER THING IS TO GO TO MR. TO WHERE MR. COLLINS IS, IS WHAT NOW? WHAT WHAT DOES HE HAVE TO DO? AND CAN HE DO IT? AND IF HE DOES IT, IS THERE STILL 
          [03:30:05]
REPERCUSSIONS FROM THE PAST WHERE HE HAS TO PAY ALL THESE FINES FOR SOMETHING THAT HE DIDN'T DO BEFORE? WHAT ARE HIS RISKS THAT HE STILL STANDS TO EITHER STILL LOSING HIS HIS HOUSE OR OR THE TITLE TO THE WHAT? WHAT IS IT, MR. MARTEL? CAN YOU JUST GO IN AGAIN? THERE'S UNRELATED MATTERS. OKAY. IN 2015, MR. STANKOVIC CAME BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND UNDER OATH TOLD THE BOARD THAT HE WAS GOING TO DO A LOT SPLIT. THE FOLLOWING MONTH, HE NEVER DID IT. IT NEVER HAPPENED. HE DID PULL A PERMIT ON HIS HOME ADDRESS AND STARTED CONSTRUCTION. 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019. IT DIDN'T GET FINISHED. IN ROUGHLY 2019, THE BUILDING INSPECTOR GAVE HIM DEADLINES TO FINISH THE CONSTRUCTION AND MULTIPLE TIMES HE WAS CAUGHT PUTTING WINDOWS IN WITHOUT PERMITS, DOING THINGS THAT WERE INAPPROPRIATE. BUT HE NEVER DID IT. THE PERMIT EXPIRED, AND THAT'S WHEN THE BUILDING INSPECTOR REALIZED THAT HE'D NEVER GOTTEN THE LOT SPLIT ANYWAY. SO THE ONLY WAY TO GET THE PERMIT REISSUED WAS TO GET A LOT SPLIT. SO 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023. THE HOUSE IS SET IN AN ISSUE OF DISREPAIR. HOWEVER, RANDOMLY, THE NEIGHBORS WOULD CALL AND SAY THAT HE WAS DOING WORK IN THE HOUSE, THAT THE ELECTRICITY IN THE HOUSE, THAT HE WAS STORING THINGS IN THE HOUSE AND WE WOULD HAVE TO GO OUT AND HAVE MULTIPLE CODE ENFORCEMENT HEARINGS AS A RESULT, THERE'S ABOUT FIVE CODE ENFORCEMENT LIENS RECORDED AGAINST THE PROPERTY. ULTIMATELY TYSON WATERS STARTED REPRESENTING HIM AND CAME IN IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD AND ASKED FOR YOU TO LIFT THE UNITY OF TITLE THAT HAD BEEN PUT ON THE PROPERTY WHEN THE, DEVELOPMENT NEXT DOOR I THINK IT WAS 25, LIKE TOWNHOUSES WERE BUILT. THIS WAS PART OF IT. AND THIS WAS THE END. THAT WAS LIKE THE WHERE THE WATER RAN OFF INTO POPPLETON CREEK FOR THAT PROPERTY. THE COMMISSION GRANTED THAT RESOLUTION IN JULY, AND I'M ACTUALLY TRYING TO FIND IT. AND I DON'T KNOW, IT WAS A RESOLUTION, BUT IT WAS AN ORDER. SEPARATING OR REMOVING THE UNITY OF TITLE FROM THE TWO PARCELS SO THAT HE COULD HAVE TWO SEPARATE LOTS SO THAT HE COULD THEN GO GET A PERMIT AT THAT HEARING IN JULY, HE TOLD THE BOARD THAT 60 DAYS WAS PLENTY OF TIME TO TAKE CARE OF ALL OF THE STUFF. 
          UNFORTUNATELY FOR THE CITY STAFF WEEKLY, WE HAVE NEIGHBORS COME IN AND ASK US WHAT THE STATUS I, AND THEY'RE VERY FRUSTRATED WITH US BECAUSE WE AREN'T ENFORCING IT. ACCORDING TO THEM. SO WHEN THE DEADLINE RAN, WE'VE SAID IT BEFORE. THE BOARD BECAUSE THERE ISN'T REALLY MUCH MORE WE CAN DO. IT'S A COMMISSION RESOLUTION. IF THE COMMISSION WANTS TO EXTEND IT, THAT'S FINE. 
          IF THE COMMISSION WANTS TO EXTEND IT WITH DIRECTION TO STAFF, NOT TO COME BACK SO THAT YOU EXTEND IT, AND THEN THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS THE RIGHT TO SEEK THE FORECLOSURE OF THE LIENS. IF HE DOESN'T COMPLETE, THAT'S FINE TOO, BUT IT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD. BUT THE LIENS, REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU DO, WHETHER YOU EXTEND IT, DON'T EXTEND IT, OR WHETHER HE MAGICALLY FIXES IT, TONIGHT WOULD STILL BE IN EXISTENCE UNTIL SUCH TIME AS HE SCHEDULES ON HIS OWN. ANOTHER HEARING TO COME BEFORE THIS BOARD AND DESCRIBE FOR YOU WHY YOU SHOULD WAIVE THE LIEN OR REDUCE THE LIEN, OR DO WHATEVER. AND THE BOARD WOULD HAVE TO AGREE TO DO THAT. AND YEAH, THAT'S THE END OF WHAT HE WAS SAYING, IS I JUST WANT TO SAY FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, WHEN STEVEN MAYER OR MEYER WAS WORKING INTO THE I GUESS HE WAS IN THE BUILDING OR THE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, YOU KNOW, I FILLED OUT A PAPER. HE ASSIGNED ME AN ADDRESS OF ONE, TWO, FIVE, FIVE SOUTHWEST NORTON LANE. SO THAT'S THAT'S PRETTY MUCH THE BIG THING THAT WAS I DISAGREE WITH MISS MARTEL ABOUT, BUT HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU PAID TAXES ON THE SECOND PARCEL? I'VE ALWAYS PAID TAXES ON ONE ON ONE PARCEL. RIGHT. YOU NEVER PAID TAXES ON TWO PARCELS. IT'S ONE PARCEL. SO WHEN YOU SAY YOU HAD TWO ADDRESSES FOR THE LAST SEVEN YEARS, YOU ONLY HAD ONE TAX BILL. WELL, I AGREE, I AGREE BECAUSE IT NEVER GOT DONE. THAT WAS A PROBLEM. AND WE, YOU KNOW, 
          [03:35:02]
THERE'S NO WAY I COULD GO BACK TO THE MAYOR TO SAY, WELL, WHAT'S GOING ON? BECAUSE HE WAS NO LONGER WITH THE TOWN. SO BUT IT'S BEEN A LONG, ROUGH ROAD, I DID I WAS LOOKING AT THE ORIGINAL RESOLUTION. IT WAS 69, 20, 24. WOULD IT MENTION IN THE ORIGINAL RESOLUTION BACK IN JULY OF THIS YEAR, WHERE MAYOR RICH PUT THE STIPULATION ON FOR THE TRUSTEES TO BE CERTIFIED? IT IT IT WAS A DISCUSSION THAT WAS HAD. OKAY. SO IT'S NOT IN THE ACTUAL WHICH THE RESOLUTION NUMBER. WHAT WAS IT. IT'S 69 DASH 2024. OKAY, IT WAS JUST AN INQUIRY. SO WE WHAT WAS DISCUSSED IS THAT HE HAD TO HE HAD TO SUBMIT A COMPLETE BUILDING APPLICATION THAT INCLUDES MEETING WITH THE BUILDING INSPECTOR WHO, OUT OF HIS OWN, I GUESS, CONCERN TWO WEEKS BEFORE THE DEADLINE RAN, SINCE HE HADN'T HEARD ANYTHING FOR 45 DAYS FROM MR. STANKOVIC. 
          NOT TRUE. HE REACHED OUT TO HIM AND SAID, HEY, WHERE'S YOUR STUFF? YOU'RE GOING TO NEED TO CERTIFY THOSE TRUSSES THAT SAT OUT IN THE RAIN FOR TWO YEARS. THAT'S NOT TRUE. AND BY THE WAY, WE DON'T HAVE TO GET INTO THE DEBATE OF WHAT WE'RE NOT UNDER OATH ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. I WAS JUST ASKING. THE NEIGHBORS HAVE SAID THAT YOU PAINTED THEM RATHER THAN THEM BEING REGULAR. 
          WOULD PEOPLE HAVE SAID THEY WERE OUTSIDE? HE WAS JUST ASKING YOUR ENGINEER TO CERTIFY HIM. IT DOESN'T BOTHER ME AT ALL AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED. IF YOU'RE IF YOUR ENGINEER WILL CERTIFY HIM. 
          WE'VE TOLD YOU THIS A HUNDRED TIMES. WE'LL ACCEPT IT. THAT'S GREAT. SO IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THEY'VE BEEN LEFT OUTSIDE. OKAY? SO IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE COACHED. TRUST AND JUST HAS TO BE CERTIFIED BY AN ENGINEER. OKAY. BECAUSE THAT WAS MY BIG PROBLEM. THAT'S WHAT MADE ME, YOU KNOW, I DON'T RECALL GETTING THAT EMAIL. AND IN RETURN, MR. STANKOVIC, THAT WAS IT. 
          COMMISSIONER JOB, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I IT'S WELL, I GUESS MY QUESTION IS OBVIOUSLY 2023 WAS NOT A GOOD YEAR FOR YOU. YOU HAD HEALTH ISSUES OR WHATEVER. BUT WHAT ABOUT THE SIX YEARS BEFORE? YOU'VE OBVIOUSLY HAD TIME TO DO A LOT OF THIS. YOU KEEP ASKING FOR EXTENSIONS AND THEN THEY'RE NOT COMPLETED. SO WHAT WOULD LEAD THIS BOARD TO BELIEVE THAT YOU WOULD NOW SAY IN 60 DAYS THAT YOU WOULD HAVE IT COMPLETED? WELL, I WOULDN'T HAVE THE HOUSE COMPLETED, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ASKING. THE LETTER THAT COMMISSIONER CLARK WAS REFERRING TO, SECTION ONE OF THE RESOLUTION STATED THIS RESOLUTION IS CONDITIONED UPON THE OWNER APPLICANT, MR. STANKOVIC, PERFORMANCE OF THE FOLLOWING A COMPLETING THE PROCESS OF SEPARATING THE PROPERTY INTO TWO SEPARATE PARCELS AND CREATING A NEW LEGAL LOT SEPARATE FROM THE OWNER APPLICANT'S HOMESTEAD WITH ITS OWN PARCEL ID NUMBER. PRIOR TO AUGUST 30TH, BE SUBMITTING A COMPLETE APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME UNDER CONSTRUCTION ON THE PROPERTY PRIOR TO AUGUST 22ND, 2024. C COMPLETING CONSTRUCTION OF THE EXTERIOR OF THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME DESCRIBED IN THE PERMIT, INCLUDING LANDSCAPING AND ADDRESS AND ADDRESSING STORMWATER ISSUES TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY BUILDING. OFFICIAL PRIOR TO JULY 22ND, 2025, 2025 AND D POSTING A BOND ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY IN THE AMOUNT OF $25,000 TO COVER THE COST OF DEMOLITION OF THE HOME. IF IT NEEDS TO BE DONE, BUT HE CAN'T GET THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED WITHOUT PROVIDING A SURVEY AND A FLOODPLAIN ELEVATION AND THE STORMWATER PLAN WITH IT, SO HE DOESN'T HAVE TO BUILD THE STORMWATER PLAN IN ONE NIGHT. ALL HE HAD TO DO IN THAT 60 DAYS WAS SUBMIT THE PLAN, HELP ME, BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO. I'M ADAM HART, I'M THE ENGINEER FOR THE PROJECT THAT HAS TAKEN OVER. OKAY, BEFORE YOU COMMENT, BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE STORMWATER PLAN. SO I GOT A CALL FROM ONE OF YOUR NEIGHBORS, AND YOU WENT TO HIM AT THE END OF LAST WEEK, AND YOU ASKED HIM FOR THE NAME OF AN ENGINEER WHO COULD DO THE STORMWATER PLAN. YOU DID NOT EVEN ATTEMPT TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE UNTIL NO ONE HERE IS LAST ENGINEER. I HAVE A HIGH RESPECT FOR EVERYONE HERE. THERE IS AN ENGINEERING PLAN THAT WAS DONE BY MILCORE GROUP BACK IN 2016 THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY. THAT PLAN STILL APPLIES. NO PROPOSED CHANGES ARE PROPOSED TO THAT PLAN ON THAT PLAN AND ASSUME THAT BOTH LOTS WERE BEING SPLIT. WHAT WAS SUBMITTED INTO THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION WAS THAT PLAN AGAIN, MILCORE GROUP. YEAH, BUT THAT PLAN WAS SUBMITTED AND NOT SIGNED BY THE GROUP AND IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LIKE DIFFERENT PAGES OF IT WERE DONE, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, IT WASN'T ACTUALLY SUBMITTED AND SIGNED BY AND CERTIFIED AS A, AS A PLAN. AND IN FACT, I KNOW IT WASN'T SUBMITTED BECAUSE HE HASN'T DOESN'T HAVE AN ACTIVE PERMIT. NO, IT WAS SO THE SO MELISSA CORBETT DID, WHO USED TO OWN MILCORE, SOLD MILCORE TO A NEW COMPANY IN TOWN. THAT COMPANY HAS ALL THEIR RECORDS. WE'RE ENGAGING. WE HAVE BEEN ENGAGING THEM TAKE OVER THE WORK. THEY 
          [03:40:01]
DON'T DO RESIDENTIAL ANYMORE. THEY DO ALL COMMERCIAL WORK. BUT GETTING A HOLD OF THEM AS AS ROBERT HAS SAID, HAS BEEN VERY DIFFICULT. AND AFTER 2016, THE DEP CHANGED AND THE CITY OF STUART COMMISSION ADOPTED DIFFERENT REGULATIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL STORMWATER. SO HIS PERMIT HAS TO BE COMPLIANT WITH CURRENT CODE. SO THAT 2016 PLAN WOULDN'T HAVE MET THE CODE THAT WAS ADOPTED IN 2018. BUT A BRAND NEW SURVEY WAS WAS, RETAINED THIS YEAR, BRAND NEW SURVEY. THE ELEVATION CERTIFICATE WAS DATED. I BELIEVE LAST YEAR. AND ALL THIS IS WE HAD A SURVEY WE HAD THAT IN 2023. A NEW PERMIT APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED AGAIN BECAUSE OF THE 2000, BECAUSE OF THE 2016 PERMIT BEING EXPIRED, 2023 A PERMIT WAS APPLIED FOR AGAIN WITH A BRAND NEW SURVEY AND A FLOOD. A FLOOD, ELEVATION CERTIFICATE BY A NEW SURVEYOR SINCE BLOOMSBURG IS NO LONGER AROUND. SO THAT SINCE THE CODES CHANGED AGAIN IN JANUARY, EVERYTHING WAS. THE SURVEY WAS REDONE AGAIN FOR THIS AUGUST 22ND SUBMISSION. WE HAVE A NEW SURVEY. WE HAVE THE SAME ELEVATION CERTIFICATE. GREAT FLOOD DIDN'T CHANGE ALL THAT. AS OF AUGUST 22ND, ALL THE PERMIT APPLICATION WAS PUT IN. WE RECEIVED COMMENTS BY AUGUST 29TH. SEPTEMBER 17TH WE REPLIED TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND PROVIDED ALL THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION INTO THE ELECTRONIC SYSTEM. BUT ON SEPTEMBER 13TH, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL PUT A STOP HOLD IN THE SYSTEM WHERE THE PERMIT WILL NOT MOVE FORWARD BECAUSE THE CITY IS AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME, REFUSES TO ALLOW THE PROCESS TO CONTINUE IN PERMITTING. SO WHEN YOU ASK THE QUESTION, ARE ALL THE DOCUMENTS IN PERMITTING TODAY? YES. IS THE IS THE IS THE FLOOD MANAGEMENT PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED THAT KOTLER, HERRING AND MILCORE DID? IS THAT THE SAME PLAN FROM 2016? YES. WE ARE GETTING THAT UPDATE. 
          BUT AS THE ATTORNEY SAID IN JULY'S MEETING, THAT'S ONE OF THOSE ITEMS THAT BECAUSE OF EVERYONE'S AVAILABILITY, WE DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN MEET A 30 DAY REQUIREMENT ON THAT. THAT WAS BROUGHT UP DURING THAT MEETING. BUT BUT IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, THOSE DOCUMENTS WEREN'T SUBMITTED AS IF THEY WERE 2016 DOCUMENTS. THEY WERE SUBMITTED LIKE THEY'RE CURRENT. 
          THERE'S NO CODE REFERENCE ON THAT DOCUMENT. RIGHT? SO IT'S STAMPED IN 2016 BY MILCORE. BUT THERE'S NO CODE REFERENCE TO THE 2022 FLOOR BUILDING CODES ON THOSE PLANS. SO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS SO WAS IT REPRESENTING THAT IT MEETS CODE. WE ALL WE'RE DOING IS SUBMITTING THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FLOOD MANAGEMENT PLAN. THAT'S ALL WE WERE DOING. WE CAN'T WE CAN'T SUBMIT A BRAND NEW FLOOD MANAGEMENT PLAN. WE CAN'T RECERTIFY THAT UNTIL EITHER MELISSA COMES BACK INTO THE CIVIL ENGINEERING WORLD. SHE'S LOCAL. THAT WAS THE CONCERN THAT THE STAFF HAD WHEN THEY GOT THIS DOCUMENT. THAT WAS BASICALLY NOT APPLICABLE. THAT WAS ALMOST EIGHT YEARS OLD, THAT SHE DIDN', THAT THEY DIDN'T EVEN THINK THAT SHE KNEW THAT SHE WAS RESUBMITTING PLANS THAT SHE'D BE LIABLE FOR. WELL, AND THAT WE'RE MEETING CODE THAT THEY NEED TO GET WRITTEN. WHEN SHE DID THEM SIGNED AND SEALED. AND AS ENGINEERS, WE'RE STILL LIABLE FOR THOSE DOCUMENTS WE STAMPED, SIGNED AND SEALED TEN YEARS AGO. SO. SO WHAT WE DON'T KNOW RIGHT NOW IS WHETHER OR NOT MILCORE GROUP IS NO LONGER THE COMPANY THAT BOUGHT MILCORE GROUP. WE'RE WE ARE WE ARE IN CONVERSATION WITH THEM AND TRYING TO SEE IF THEY CAN TAKE OVER THE PLAN. 
          BUT, SIR, JUST JUST FOR CLARITY, THERE WOULD BE A STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS THAT COULD RUN IF IN FACT, THAT ENGINEERING GROUP SUBMITTED PLANS. BUT BY RESUBMITTING THEM IN 2024, THEY NOW HAVE A NEW STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS THAT THEY'RE NOW EXPOSED TO FOR LIABILITY BASED UPON THOSE PLANS. AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS, BUT IF THEY'RE REPRESENTING TO THE WORLD THAT THEY'VE NOW MADE ENGINEERING CERTIFICATES IN 2024 AND THEY'RE SUBMITTED IN A PUBLIC RECORD AS A PART OF AN APPLICATION FOR A BUILDING PERMIT, THAT FIRM AND THEIR PARTNERS ARE ON THE HOOK FOR ANY LAWSUITS THAT ARISE OUT OF A FAULTY PLAN, EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY HAVE BEEN WRITTEN IN 2016. SOMEBODY HAS NOW RESUBMITTED THEM AND RE UPPED THE ANTE ON THEM. UNLESS THEY HAD PERMISSION TO DO SO. SO WHAT? WE'RE SO WHAT WE'RE TRYING WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO SAY IS THE ATTORNEY, TYSON WATERS HAD MENTIONED AT THE JULY MEETING THAT THE CIVIL ENGINEER WAS THE ONE PIECE OF THE PUZZLE, NOT BARRING THE RECERTIFICATION OF THE TRUSSES, BECAUSE THAT WASN'T A REQUIREMENT OUT OF THAT MEETING ON IN WRITING. BUT HE HAD MENTIONED THE CIVIL ENGINEERING IS THE ONE ITEM IN THAT PACKAGE THAT WE WOULD HAVE A HARD TIME GETTING DONE WITHIN 30 DAYS. SO WE WERE RESUBMITTING THE STILL ELECTRONICALLY SIGNED AND SEALED 2016 PLAN. I DID 
          [03:45:02]
CONTACT MELISSA. I LEFT HER A MESSAGE, TWO YEARS AGO OR LAST YEAR IN 2023. WE REACHED OUT TO MELISSA WHEN SHE WAS STILL AT MILCORE. AND YOU KNOW, SHE WAS AWARE OF IT. IN 2023, WE RESUBMITTED THE SAME PLAN. BUT WE UNDERSTAND THAT THAT PLAN HAS TO BE RECERTIFIED. SO ALL WE'RE DOING IS RESUBMITTING THAT PLAN AS PART OF THE ALREADY APPROVED FLOOD MANAGEMENT PLAN THAT WAS PART OF THE HISTORIC PERMIT RECORD ON THIS PROJECT. RIGHT. WE GOT YOU KEEP YOU KEEP SAYING THE SAME THING, MR. MAYOR. GOT IT. WE HAVE EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF THE PUZZLE THAT YOU'VE ASKED FOR. LAST, IN JULY 22ND WAS SUBMITTED BY SEPTEMBER 17TH IN THE SYSTEM WAITING TO PROCEED TO MOVE THAT PLAN IS NOT LEGAL. MR. HOLD ON. MR. MR. CITY MANAGER LET MR. MARTEL SORRY I JUST I CONCLUDE HIS COMMENTS. IT'S VERY DIFFICULT FOR THE CITY STAFF TO BE ACCOUNTABLE AND HAVE TO SAY THAT THEY RECEIVED A COMPLETE APPLICATION. WHEN THE PLAN YOU SUBMITTED, YOU KNOW THAT YOU CAN'T EVEN GET A HOLD OF THE PERSON WHOSE SIGNATURE IS ON IT FOR TWO YEARS NOW. I MEAN, THAT'S THAT THAT'S KIND OF DISINGENUOUS. AND THE BUILDING INSPECTOR IS SITTING HERE IN THE BACK OF THE ROOM FOR HIM TO BE ACCOUNTABLE TO THAT AND TO BE HELD THAT HE ACCEPTED SOMETHING LIKE THAT AND LET SOMEBODY HAVE A PERMIT WITH THAT. YOU KNOW, I THINK HE'D PROBABLY LOSE HIS LICENSE. I MEAN, I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT WOULD HAPPEN, BUT I CAN'T IMAGINE SOMEBODY LIKE DOING IT, LET ALONE THINKING THAT THAT'S COMPLETE. BUT AGAIN, I GUESS IT IS. AND WHAT DOES HE NEED TO DO? WHAT IS NEXT? I'M NEXT. I'M NEXT, MR. COLLINS. SO. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO, MR. MARTEL AND OUR COMMISSION BOARD, I'M GOING TO ASK, MAYBE I SHOULD MAKE A MOTION. CAN WE. IS IT IS IT IN THE BEST INTERESTS? IF WE CAN TABLE THIS AS STAFF TO MEET WITH THIS PERSON WHO IS TRYING TO DO A HOME? APPARENTLY, THEY'VE HAD ISSUES. I'M. I'M. I DON'T LOOK AT THIS COMMISSION AS SOME TYPE OF A, HOA THAT'S GOING TO PUNISH SOMEBODY BECAUSE THEY HAVE A FLAG OR THEY DON'T HAVE A FLAG. I KNOW THAT THIS IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THAT, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IT WILL LOOK AS IF WE SIMPLY JUST SAY THAT HE'S NOT COMPLYING AND HE'S NOT GOING TO IT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE IT'S DOWN THE ROAD. SOMETHING IS GOING TO HAPPEN, AND YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET ALL YOUR PERMITS. I THINK THAT IF WE NEED TO TABLE IT, LET STAFF AND THE, THE, THE HOMEOWNER AND HIS ENGINEER COME UP WITH EVERYTHING THAT THEY NEED TO DO TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS AND HOW THEY'RE GOING TO DO IT. I KNOW THAT YOU SAID IT'S BEEN DONE ALREADY. THAT'S WHAT WE DID IN JULY, BUT LET'S TRY TO GET IT. LET'S TRY TO GET IT AGAIN. AND SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO DO THIS, MAYBE COME BACK TO THE NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AND SAY THESE ARE THE THINGS, BECAUSE APPARENTLY THERE'S SOME THERE'S SOME GAPS HERE THAT AND I DON'T WANT THIS, THIS TO BE WHERE WE'RE WE'RE AT THE POINT WHERE HE'S NOT ABLE TO HAVE A HOME AND TO FINISH HIS HOME. HE HAS A HOME. WELL, I MEAN, TO, TO COMPLETE THIS THING. HE HAS A FULL HOUSE HE LIVES IN NEXT DOOR TO IT. MAYBE LET JODY SPEAK TO IT THEN. JODY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS REGARDING THE SITUATION OR THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT? I MEAN, JODY IS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE BUILDING. 
          THE BUILDING INSPECTORS WHO WILL DO IT HAS ALREADY SEEN HIM. SO THAT'S ONE QUESTION, THOUGH, WITH CAMPBELL, RIDGE SAID THAT YOU SAID I CALLED SOMEBODY A WEEK SOMEWHERE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE. CAN YOU JUST REPEAT THAT? I GOT A CALL FROM ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS. YOU HAD APPROACHED THEM AND SAID, YOU NEED TO GET THE DRAINAGE, A DRAINAGE PLAN, AND. YES. AND YO. 
          IT WAS ONLY LAST WEEK THAT YOU WERE APPARENTLY MAKING THAT EFFORT. THAT'S NOT TRUE. FIRST OF ALL, WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET AHOLD OF. WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET AHOLD OF THE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THE PROJECT PREVIOUSLY. YEAH, WE UNDERSTAND, WE UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT WE GOT IT. 2016 PLAN. 
          YOU HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO GET IT FOR TWO YEARS. MR. MARTEL EXPLAINED TO YOU HOW THAT'S AN UNACCEPTABLE SITUATION. BUT I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT'S NOT TRUE, BECAUSE I HAVE NO IDEA WHO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. FINE SO WE WOULD LIKE TO. NO, NO, NO, WE'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM OUR BUILDING INSPECTOR, PLEASE. OKAY. JODY GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS JODY KOOGLER FOR THE RECORD, I'M THE DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, I'VE BEEN SPEAKING WITH MR. STANKOVICH, AND, I'VE BEEN GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS. I'VE BEEN HERE TWO YEARS, ALMOST IN OCTOBER OF THIS YEAR. AND, MR. STANKOVICH IS FILE ENDS UP ON MY DESK EVERY SIX WEEKS. SO LAST YEAR, WHEN MR. STANKOVICH WAS REQUIRED TO COME IN FOR A BUILDING PERMIT, HE CAME IN, FILLED OUT A BUILDING PERMIT, SUBMITTED IT WITH NOTHING ATTACHED. SO THAT WAS VOIDED IN 2023 WHEN THE BOARD ASKED HIM TO DO SOMETHING 
          [03:50:04]
AT THE CODE BOARD. THAT WAS THE STIPULATION THAT WAS REQUIRED. HE DIDN'T. HE FAILED TO DO THAT THIS YEAR. WE GAVE HIM TILL JULY 22ND, ON JULY 22ND, AND WE ASKED HIM TO AUGUST 22ND TO SUBMIT A FULL SET OF PLANS. THE BUILDING OFFICIAL SENT HIM A LIST ON AUGUST 8TH. BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT HEARD FROM MR. STANKOVICH AND WANT TO LET HIM KNOW. HEY HERE'S YOUR LIST. THIS IS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR. IT WAS JUST A COURTESY TO MR. STANKOVICH. MR. STANKOVICH CAME IN AT FOUR, SUBMITTED HIS APPLICATION AT 458 OR 4 ON 822. THE BUILDING OFFICIAL REVIEWED IT WENT OFF HIS LIST THAT HE PROVIDED HIM. THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT ARE MISSING OTHER THAN JUST PLANS. 
          SO AND WE DID PROVIDE HIM THAT LIST. IT WAS IN HIS PORTAL, AND WHEN I REACHED OUT TO HIM AGAIN AND TALKED TO HIM ABOUT GOING TO THIS BOARD, THAT'S WHEN SOME OF THE ACTION STARTED HAPPENING. 
          THIS IS THE NORMAL ROUTINE THAT WE RECEIVE. AND THEN WE WON'T HEAR ANYTHING FOR A WHILE. THAT HAS JUST BEEN THE PAST. I'M HOPING THAT MOVING FORWARD, THAT WE CAN GET SOME RESOLUTION FROM MR. STANKOVIC. LOU HATTON BUILDING OFFICIAL, AS SHE ALREADY STATED, I DID IT AS A COURTESY BECAUSE WE HADN'T HEARD A THING. SO EIGHT, EIGHT I TOOK OFF MY TYPICAL CHECKLIST WHICH SAYS ONLY COMPLETED APPLICATIONS WILL BE ACCEPTED. HE COMES IN ON THE 21ST. HE'S GOT A TAPE ON HIS KNEE. ALL RIGHT. THAT'S GREAT. IT WASN'T UNTIL THE 22ND AT 2:00 OR 250 SOMETHING, THAT THE APPLICATION BEGINS TO HAVE SOME ACTIVITY. AND HE DIDN'T GET DONE UNTIL MAYBE FIVE SOMETHING OR OR. WELL, AFTER FIVE ON ON THIS POINT. SO I TOLD MY, MY GIRLS IN THE OFFICE THAT I WOULD DO THE INTAKE. SO AS I DID, I TOOK THE CHECKLIST, WENT DOWN ITEM PER ITEM. WHAT WAS SUBMITTED, WHAT WASN'T SUBMITTED. BUT I HAD HAD SOME ISSUES WITH AND THIS AND THAT. I DID AT THE END JUST MAKE THE STATEMENT THAT TO PROTECT HIM AS WELL AS TO PUBLIC IF HE HAPPENED TO SELL THE HOUSE THAT I WANTED THE TRUSSES CERTIFIED. I KNOW HE HAS A P, AND THAT'S GREAT, BUT I THINK THE MANUFACTURER OF THE TRUSS, WHO KNOWS THE GUSSET PLATES AND KNOWS WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO DO AND FABRICATES THEM, WOULD HAVE THE PRIME ATTENTION THAT I WANT TO SEE WHETHER THEY WOULD EVEN ACCEPT IT AT A TIME. I'VE GOT PICTURES RIGHT NOW THAT ARE DATED 217 OF 2021, LEANING AGAINST THE HOUSE. THE SHEATHING WASN'T INSPECTED TILL 810 OF 2021. FIVE MONTHS LATER, PLUS THE CONDITION OF THE DISCOLORING OF THE TRUSSES, IF I MAY. YEAH YEAH. THANK YOU. LOU, THERE'S TWO SETS OF TRUSSES. OF COURSE. THANK YOU, THANK YOU LOU. I DON'T BECOME CERTIFIED AND WE ALL HAVE SEEN PROJECTS EVEN ON EAST OCEAN WHERE, PULTE HOMES DID A SIX PLEX MULTI UNIT, TWO STORY. THEY COULD BUILD THAT AND HAVE THE TRUSSES, THE FLOOR SYSTEM AND THE ROOF SYSTEM DONE IN TWO WEEKS. THIS IS FIVE MONTHS THAT DETERIORATION I WENT THERE TUESDAY BEFORE HE HAD HIS HEARING IN JULY. ME BRUCE DUNCAN AND VITO LORENZO TOOK A DRONE, FLEW ON TOP, WALKED INSIDE TO INSPECT MULTIPLE TRUSSES WERE HAD DAMAGED OR BUSTED, BUSTED WEBS, THE TIE DOWNS AND EVERYTHING HAD NOT BEEN COMPLETED. THE PAPER ON TOP HAD WAS EXPOSED FOR 6 OR 7. WHO KNOWS? FIVE YEARS? SIX YEARS? MANUFACTURERS ON THOSE MAYBE GAVE YOU 60 DAYS, SIX MONTHS, WHEN I WORKED DOWN AT PORCHES, I WOULD GET ON THE TURNPIKE FROM, FROM PALM CITY, GO SAY, THERE WAS ONE HOUSE THAT I OBSERVED FOR A YEAR EXPOSED TO 30 POUND, FELL 30 POUND. FELT BAD. NOW, BY THE TIME HE CAME BACK INTO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT TO GET THAT THING PERMITTED AND GET IT BACK GOING, INCH AND A HALF OF THE TOP OF THE TRUSS CHORDS WAS ROTTED. WOW. HE HAD TO GET A SPECIFIC ENGINEER TO RECONSTRUCT THEM IN PLACE. BEFORE HE CAN GO ANY FURTHER. THE CONDITION OF 
          [03:55:06]
THESE TRUSSES, I DO WANT THEM CERTIFIED. I'M NOT PROTECTING HIM. I'M PROTECTING HIM AND THE PUBLIC. AND ON JULY 19TH, MR. STANKOVIC WROTE AN EMAIL TO MR. HATTON. LOU, IT WAS NICE MEETING YOU ON TUESDAY. I WANT TO TOUCH BASE WITH YOU AND BRUCE ABOUT FINDINGS FROM TUESDAY. WHEN WE WERE TALKING, BRUCE ASKED ME ABOUT THE PLAN TO MOVE FORWARD. I WISH MY ENGINEER WAS STILL THERE WHEN WE WERE TALKING THEN. WHAT I DID AFTER OUR MEETING WAS I WENT OVER WITH THE ENGINEER. 
          ALL THE CONCERNS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP WHEN YOU AND BRUCE WERE THERE. I THINK THE MAIN TOPIC OF IMPORTANCE WAS THE TWO ROOF TRUSSES THAT NEEDED TO BE CORRECTED AND ENGINEERED. HE SAID THAT IT'S NOT A PROBLEM TO DO THIS, AND ALSO AGREES THAT THIS MUST BE DONE CORRECTLY. 
          THERE WAS SOME PLYWOOD THAT NEEDED TO BE CHANGED. THE FASCIA NEEDED TO BE FINISHED, REPLACE SOME OF THE MISSING PEEL AND STICK, AND THEN TAR PAPER THE ENTIRE ROOF BEFORE FINAL SHINGLES. THE FINISHING OF THE STRAPPING SHOULD ALSO BE DONE AT THIS TIME, WITH THE DOUBLE AND TRIPLE BEAM STRAP UPGRADES. EVERYTHING LISTED ABOVE IS FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE OUTSIDE OF THE HOUSE. I DO REALIZE THAT THE SECOND FLOOR PLYWOOD NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED AND RECOVERED PER THE ENGINEER. WHILE THE ROOF IS BEING FINISHED, THE WINDOWS CAN START TO BE INSTALLED. THE HEIGHT OF THE OPENING IS OVERSIZE FOR COMMON WINDOW SIZES AND WILL NEED TO BE BOTTOM FILLED AND SEALED AND WINDOWS INSTALLED. THE GARAGE DOORS CAN ALSO BE INSTALLED AT THIS TIME. 
          THE STUCCO CAN BE STARTED IMMEDIATELY. ALL THE BLOCK WILL NEED TO BE SPECIALLY PRIMED SINCE IT ALREADY HAS A LIGHT COAT OF PAINT, SO THE STUCCO WILL ADHERE ONCE THE LOWER WINDOWS INSTALLED, THEN THE STUCCO CAN BE CONTINUED UP. THE SHORT AREA OF THE DRIVEWAY, APPROXIMATELY 20FT FROM THE OVERHEAD GARAGE DOORS TO THE ALREADY EXISTING PAVERS, WILL NEED TO BE POURED. ONCE THE STUCCO IS DONE, THE ENTIRE OUTSIDE OF THE HOUSE WILL BE PAINTED AND COMPLETED AT THIS POINT, LANDSCAPING CAN BE DONE. I CHECKED CURRENT PRICING AS COMPARED TO 2023 WHEN I PUT IN FOR THE PLAN REVIEW WITH THE CITY AND IT DIDN'T GO UP MUCH. I HAVE THE FUNDS IN THE BANK TO COMPLETE THE HOUSE INSIDE AND OUT. MY PLAN IS TO COMPLETE THE ENTIRE HOUSE AND GET THE CO ASA. I WILL ELECTRONICALLY SUBMIT THE BUILDING PLANS IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE BOARD RELEASES THE UNITY OF TITLE. THE DAY I GET THE PLANS ACCEPTED AND STAMPED THE VERY NEXT DAY, I CAN START TO WORK ON THE HOUSE AGAIN. I WILL BE USING MY ENGINEER, ADAM HART TO BE THE LICENSED PRIVATE PROVIDER TO PERFORM BUILDING INSPECTIONS. SINCE HE WILL BE ON SITE VERY OFTEN UNTIL THE HOUSE IS COMPLETE, WE WILL SUBMIT THE REQUIRED ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS TO DO THIS. WHEN WE WHEN SUBMITTING THE PLANS, THE DRAINAGE ISSUES HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED AND EVERYTHING APPEARS TO BE WORKING. I DID SPEAK WITH ROB LONG, WHO'S THE OWNER OF THE HOUSE NEXT TO ME, AND HE AGREED. I DID EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO ADDRESS THE WATER ISSUES. I HAVE A LETTER FROM MADELINE, THE NEIGHBOR UP THERE UP FRONT THAT THERE ARE NO PROBLEMS. SHE ADDED SOD AND GUTTERS TO KEEP RAINWATER AWAY FROM ROB LONG'S PROPERTY. THERE IS ALSO DRAIN PIPING RUNNING THE LENGTH OF ROB'S HOUSE TO KEEP THE WATER AWAY. PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF I'VE COVERED ALL THE TOPICS OF DISCUSSION NEEDED FOR THE BOARD HEARING ON MONDAY, JULY 22ND AND AN EMAIL FROM MY ATTORNEY, TYSON WATERS, TO MIKE MARTEL. I DID AGREE TO HAVE THE OUTSIDE OF THE HOUSE COMPLETED FROM ONE YEAR OF THE BUILDING PERMIT BEING APPROVED. THE OTHER CONCERN WAS RAINWATER AND DAMAGE THAT HAS ALSO BEEN ADDRESSED. IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT BEFORE WE EVER CAME BEFORE THIS BOARD, THAT RAINWATER DAMAGE AND STORMWATER HAS BEEN THE PRIMARY ISSUE ON THIS PROPERTY SINCE 2019. NOW, THE REALITY OF IT IS, IS IT'S THE BOARD'S DISCRETION. AND FOR STAFF WEEK, IT'S FINE WITH US IF YOU GIVE THE EXTENSION, THAT'S GREAT. IT MAKES IT SO THAT WHEN THE NEIGHBORS COME AND YELL AT US, WE CAN SAY WE'VE DONE EVERYTHING WE WANTED. AND THAT'S WHY I PUT IT ON THE AGENDA, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THESE GUYS ARE GETTING TIRED OF GETTING YELLED AT. OKAY? SO LET'S WE THERE'S BEEN NO MOTION YET. CORRECT, MARY. RIGHT SO LET'S GET A MOTION IN A SECOND BECAUSE THERE IS PUBLIC COMMENT. CORRECT? MARY I'D LIKE YES I'M SORRY. IS THERE A PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS MAKING A MOTION. BUT I THINK MR. MR. HE WAS GOING TO MAKE A MOTION WITH 60 DAYS. I WOULD LIKE TO STILL KEEP IT TO 90 DAYS, BUT THAT'S UP TO MR. AND MR. COLLINS MADE A MOTION OR WHATEVER. SO I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DO 60 DAYS AND THEN ROLL INTO THIS PROCESS. THE 90 DAYS THAT MR. MARTEL IS TALKING ABOUT IS ONCE THAT PROCESS IS INITIATED. SO I'M SAYING 60 DAYS OF GRACE, YOU'RE SHAKING YOUR HEAD. YOU FEEL LIKE THAT'S CONFIDENT, BUT THE BASICALLY IT'S GOING TO AUTOMATICALLY ROLL INTO THIS PROCESS AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE HAVING TO HEAR THIS AGAIN. SO YOU'RE YOU'RE GIVING ME THIS LIKE YOU'RE WANTED. OKAY. LET'S JUST THIS IS SECOND, SECOND, SECOND. THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND OKAY, CLARITY. THE MOTION IS SEPTEMBER TO EXTEND THE DEADLINE SET FORTH IN THE RESOLUTION UNTIL NOVEMBER. UP TILL NOVEMBER 22ND OR 23RD, 2024. IS THAT RIGHT? YES. AND 
          [04:00:06]
THAT THE ITEM NEVER BE BROUGHT BACK AND FORTH AND THAT IT BE AUTOMATICALLY DIRECTED TO THE CITY ATTORNEY TO ADJUDICATE THE LIEN AND MOVE FORWARD WITH THE FORECLOSURE IF THEY'RE NOT COMPLETE? IS THAT THE MOTION? IS THAT YOU AGREE WITH THAT? YES AND I HAVE A QUESTION I SECONDED AND I HAVE A QUESTION. OKAY MR. MARTEL, IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT QUESTIONS? I DO HAVE ONE. OKAY. BARBARA TAYLOR, MISS TAYLOR, ARE YOU STILL HERE AT 1020? SHE'S GONE. I THINK SHE LEFT. IS THAT IT? MARY? THAT'S THE ONLY ONE. OKAY. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS OKAY, SO I HAVE A QUESTION, MR. MAYOR. IS THAT OKAY? YES. WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF THIS 20 500 $0 CHECK THAT HE HE A, PROFFERED TODAY MR. MARTEL MR. BAGGETT HE DIDN'T PROFFER IT TODAY BUT IT DOESN'T. IT'S THE PURPOSE FOR THE CHECK WAS A CONSTRUCTION BOND. IT WAS TO ALLOW SUFFICIENT FUNDS TO RESTORE THE PROPERTY IN THE MATTER OF A DEFAULT. BUT AS I POINTED OUT WHEN HE CAME IN, BEFORE I TOLD HER IT WAS FOR DEMOLITION OF IT, IF IT WAS AN UNSAFE STRUCTURE. BUT AT SOME POINT, THERE WAS A PROPERTY ON EAST OCEAN BOULEVARD THAT STOOD THERE ON HIGH SCHOOL AVENUE FOR 12 YEARS. THAT WAS WAS NEVER TEARING DOWN. AND THE CITY HAS A POLICY OF DOING THE BONDS. WHEN HE CAME IN THE DAY BEFORE THE DEADLINE RAN, I IMMEDIATELY TOLD LOU, DON'T WORRY ABOUT THE BOND. 
          WE CAN MAKE HIM GET THE BOND BY THE TIME THE PERMIT IS ISSUED, BECAUSE IT'S NOT LIKE HE CAN JUST WALK IN WITH THE PERMIT AND WE ISSUE IT. IT'S GOT TO BE REVIEWED BY ALL THE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS AND ALL THIS STUFF ANYWAY, SO I WASN'T LETTING THAT HOLD UP THE DEADLINE BY ANY MEANS. IT WASN'T EVEN A CONCERN QUITE FRANKLY. I DON'T EVEN CARE IF YOU WAIVE THE LIEN OR THE WAIVE THE, $25,000 BOND. THAT DOESN'T MATTER TO ME. THAT'S JUST NORMALLY A STANDARD PRACTICE OF THE BOARD. DOESN'T MATTER TO ME. IT'S JUST A REMEDY THAT WOULD BE USED TO SECURE THE COST OF DOING THE FORECLOSURE OR THE COST OF. I DON'T BELIEVE THE MOTION CURRENTLY BEFORE US ADDRESSES THAT ISSUE IS THAT CORRECT? RIGHT NOW IT DOESN'T. OKAY. SO LET'S PROCEED WITH DISCUSSION ON THIS SPECIFIC MOTION. ANY OTHER MR. REED? COMMISSIONER REED, MY ONLY QUESTION OR COMMENT WOULD BE HOPEFULLY YOU CAN DO THIS WITHIN THE NEXT 60 DAYS BECAUSE THEN IT GETS PASSED OFF TO LEE BAGGETT. OKAY, RIGHT. MY COMMENT WOULD BE THAT YOU WERE JUST GIVEN A DATE. 
          I DIDN'T SEE YOU WRITE IT DOWN. WELL, NO, NO, I, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE DATE BECAUSE YOU KNOW, ON 722 IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSION, YOU KNOW, I AGREED TO HAVE THE OUTSIDE OF THE HOUSE DONE BY, 722 2025, YOU KNOW, IS ONE YEAR. AND WHAT I ASKED FOR WAS ONE YEAR FROM THE ISSUING OF THE BUILDING PERMIT WAS WHAT I WAS HOPING FOR. BUT BECAUSE THIS THIS MOTION DOESN'T PROVIDE THAT SAYS I THINK THE RESOLUTION SAYS IT ANYWAY. I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME, BUT I THINK THE TERM OF THE RESOLUTION HAS THE CONDITION ON THE RESOLUTION SAYS, ONE YEAR FROM IT DOES SAY, BUT DOES THE MOTION CHANGE THAT? THEN COMPLETING CONSTRUCTION ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME DESCRIBED IN THE PERMIT, INCLUDING LANDSCAPING AND ADDRESSING THE STORMWATER ISSUES TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE CITY BUILDING OFFICIAL PRIOR TO JULY 22ND, 2025. SO IT DOESN'T SAY ONE YEAR. IT IDENTIFIES A DATE BECAUSE I ALREADY ASKED FOR ONE YEAR, BECAUSE ALREADY WE'RE IN TWO MONTHS INTO THAT ONE YEAR, AND I WAS HOPING THAT IT WOULD BE ONE YEAR FROM ISSUING THE BUILDING PERMIT. I'D LIKE TO COMMENT. MR. STANKOVIC, YOU'VE PUT THE CITY IN A TERRIBLE POSITION. YOU HAVE CONSTANTLY MISREPRESENTED THE FACTS REGARDING THIS. YOU HAVE CONSTANTLY MISREPRESENTED WHAT THE STAFF HAS DONE. WE ARE IGNORING THE PERIL THIS BUILDING POSES TO YOUR NEIGHBORS. IF THIS HOUSE WERE TO CATCH FIRE AND CAUSE OTHER HOMES NEAR YOU TO CATCH FIRE, I AM SURE WE WOULD GET SUED AND WE SHOULD BE SUED. THIS IS OPEN AND FLAGRANT DEFIANCE OF THIS PROCESS. THE PROBLEM YOU HAVE IS I JUST WENT THROUGH THIS MYSELF AND THE CITY WOULD HAVE QUESTIONS OF ME AND ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS, AND I WAS ABLE TO SATISFY THEM WITHIN A DAY OR TWO BECAUSE I HIRED CONTRACTORS AND I HIRED COMPETENT PEOPLE. SO YOUR EXCUSES ABOUT THESE TIME FRAMES JUST MAKES NO SENSE, ESPECIALLY IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT YOU'VE BEEN AT THIS FOR SEVEN YEARS. YOUR LACK OF GETTING A DRAINAGE PLAN IS A DANGER TO YOUR 
          [04:05:04]
NEIGHBOR'S HOUSES, AND WE'RE IGNORING THAT. AND I'M NOT WILLING TO IGNORE THAT ANY LONGER. I'M NOT WILLING TO GIVE YOU ONE MORE DAY. I'M NOT WILLING TO GIVE YOU ONE MORE DAY. AND I WILL NOT BE VOTING FOR THIS MOTION, YOU JUST SHOW NO WILLINGNESS OR ABILITY TO MOVE FORWARD AND TO DEAL HONESTLY AND STRAIGHT FORWARD WITH WITH THE STAFF WHO ARE MAKING EVERY EFFORT TO HELP YOU. AND CAN I RESPOND IF YOU WISH. WELL THE STAFF HAS BEEN VERY GOOD TO ME. I WANT TO SAY THAT ALL ALONG BECAUSE WHEN I WENT INTO THIS, I NEVER BUILT A HOUSE BEFORE. WHEN I STARTED, I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT A UNITY OF TITLE WAS UNTIL MR. MARTEL POINTED IT OUT TO ME. I HAD NO IDEA WHAT GOING INTO IT A FEW YEARS INTO IT, I DIDN'T KNOW THAT THERE WAS TWO MORE UNITY OF TITLES ON TOP OF A COUNTY UNITY OF TITLE. SO, YOU KNOW, THE BECAUSE THE HOUSE IS IN THE JURISDICTION OF THE CITY, NOT THE COUNTY, BUT THE COUNTY HAD A UNITY OF TITLE ON IT. SO IT TOOK A LONG TIME FREE FOR TYSON WATERS TO GET THAT RELEASE FINALLY. SO I'M FINALLY AN ATTORNEY, MR. STANKOVIC. THEY COULD HAVE SOLVED THAT PROBLEM FOR YOU. IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION REGARDING THE MOTION? IF NOT, CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. ALL RIGHT. PUBLIC COMMENT. OH, WE DID PUBLIC COMMENT. OH, YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT. SHE WASN'T HERE. CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. 
          COMMISSIONER CLARK, YES, FOR THE MOTION THAT I SECONDED, COMMISSIONER REED. YES, COMMISSIONER. COLLINS. YES COMMISSIONER. SELBY. NO. MAYOR. RICH. NO SO YOU. DO YOU UNDERSTAND? NO, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT. OKAY, SO HE CAN SPEAK WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY OR WHOMEVER TOMORROW I'LL. I'LL REPEAT RESTATE THE MOTION. THE MOTION WAS TO GRANT A 60 DAY EXTENSION TO THE TERMS OF THE RESOLUTION THAT WERE SET FORTH. SO. SO UP UNTIL NOVEMBER OF 24, YOU HAVE TO SUBMIT THE COMPLETE BUILDING APPLICATION AND HAVE A PERMIT ISSUED. OR THE CITY ATTORNEY IS THEN INSTRUCTED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE FORECLOSURE. OKAY AND IT STILL STANDS FOR THE 2025 TO BE. THE RESOLUTION HAS NOT BEEN AMENDED, BUT I SUSPECT THAT IF YOU GET REAL CLOSE, YOU COULD PROBABLY COME HERE BEFORE THIS COMMISSION NEXT SUMMER AND SHOW THEM HOW HARD YOU'VE BEEN WORKING. WELL, THAT'S WHAT THEY WOULD SHOW YOU. SOME COMPASSION. THAT'S WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT THE LAST TIME. IS THAT IF I TRY REAL HARD, YOU KNOW, I'M GOING TO TRY TO GET EVERYTHING DONE AND THEN RIGHT, AND GET RID OF THE, THE FINES, OBVIOUSLY, BECAUSE THERE'S NO WAY I CAN PAY THE FINES. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. SO WE PULLED TEN. CORRECT. WE PULLED TEN. YES 1010 WAS TABLED. TABLED. TABLE TEN I'M SORRY. ITEM NUMBER 15. SO WE'RE ON ITEM 
          [14. TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 2.6.23 - NON-MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES (RC): ORDINANCE No. 2531-2024; AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE  CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA AMENDING AND RESTATING THE CITY’S LAND  DEVELOPMENT CODE; MORE SPECIFICALLY AMENDING SECTION 2.06.23  ENTITLED “RESERVED” AND INSERTING SUPPLEMENTAL USE STANDARDS FOR  NON-MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES; AMENDING THE LAND USE TABLE IN  SECTION 2.02.02 TO INCLUDE NON-MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARY AS AN  ALLOWABLE USE UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS; AMENDING SECTION 3.01.03  TO ESTABLISH PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-MEDICAL MARIJUANA  DISPENSARIES WITHIN THE URBAN CODE DISTRICTS; AMENDING SECTION  6.01.13 TO ADD OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-MEDICAL  MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES; AMENDING CHAPTER XII DEFINITIONS FOR  CONFORMING TERMS; AMENDING CHAPTER 30 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES  TO PROHIBIT SMOKING IN PUBLIC PARKS AND RECREATIONAL AREAS;  PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTING PROVISIONS;  PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND FOR  OTHER PURPOSES.]
14. 14. WE'RE GETTING THERE VERY SLOWLY. BUT WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ALONG NOW. AND. OH YEAH, YOU'RE THE MAN. SO MR. BAGGETT, WILL YOU DO PLEASE READ ITEM 14 FOR OUR CONSIDERATION. ORDINANCE NUMBER 2531 DASH 2024, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF STUART, FLORIDA, AMENDING AND RESTATING THE CITY CITY'S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, MORE SPECIFICALLY, AMENDING SECTION 2.06.23 ENTITLED RESERVED AND INSERTING SUPPLEMENTAL USE STANDARDS FOR NON-MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES. AMENDING THE LAND USE TABLE IN SECTION 2.02.02 TO INCLUDE NON-MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARY AS AN ALLOWABLE USE UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS. 
          AMENDING SECTION 3.01.03 TO ESTABLISH PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES WITHIN THE URBAN CODE DISTRICTS. AMENDING SECTION 6.01.13 TO ADD OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES. AMENDING CHAPTER 12 DEFINITIONS FOR CONFORMING TERMS. AMENDING CHAPTER 30 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES TO PROHIBIT SMOKING IN PUBLIC PARKS AND RECREATIONAL AREAS. PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY. 
          PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTING PROVISIONS. PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION. PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. AND JUST TO REMIND YO, THIS IS THE FIRST READING. BUT WE DO HAVE A PRESENTATION FROM BEN. MR. HOGARTH, I SEE YOU ASCENDED TO THE CHAIR AND HAVE A PRESENTATION FOR US. YES. EVENING COMMISSIONERS, BEN HOGARTH, FOR THE RECORD, JUST FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY, TONIGHT I'M GOING TO KEEP THE POWERPOINT, AS MUCH TO A MINIMUM 
          [04:10:02]
AS POSSIBLE, JUST TO GO INTO THE BRIEF HISTORY OF WHERE THIS CAME FROM. I APOLOGIZE IF THERE'S ANY PUNS INVOLVED WITH MARIJUANA TONIGHT. THEY'RE PURELY, JUST RANDOM. SO, TOTALLY NOT INTENDED, BUT WITH THAT SAID, AT THE JUNE I BELIEVE IT'S JUNE 24TH, BUT THE SECOND MEETING IN JUNE OF THE COMMISSION, THE COMMISSION DECIDED, DETERMINED THAT IT WOULD BE IN THE BEST INTEREST TO CONSIDER IF RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA PASSES THE, THE BALLOT INITIATIVE. I'M GOING TO GO TO THAT, IN NOVEMBER, WE SHOULD HEAD OFF, POTENTIALLY WHERE THESE DISPENSARIES COULD GO AND BE LOCATED IN THE CITY, AND AT THE TIME, THE COMMISSION DETERMINED THAT IT WOULD BE IN THEIR BEST INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC THAT WE TRY TO KIND OF PROHIBIT AND LIMIT WHERE THESE DISPENSARIES COULD GO IN THE FUTURE, PARTICULARLY IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA. AND SO, OBVIOUSLY, THERE WERE SOME HISTORICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN THE LAST DECADE OR SO OF THESE BALLOT INITIATIVES PASSING IN OTHER STATES. CONCERNS OF WHAT IT CAN WHAT CAN HAPPEN TO YOUR DOWNTOWN AREA. SO, STAFF PROCEEDED TO LOOK AT, SIMILAR ORDINANCES IN OTHER CITIES, OTHER STATES, AND ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE'RE DOING THIS IS BECAUSE WE HAVE A HIGH DEGREE OF CONFIDENCE THAT AMENDMENT THREE CAN PASS, IT'S POLLING OVER 60% IN ALMOST EVERY POLL THAT WE'VE LOOKED AT, THERE'S NO GUARANTEES. BUT IN CONSIDERATION OF THAT, WE'VE MOVED FORWARD. WE HAVE DRAFTED A BASIC, ORDINANCE THAT COVERS, FOR THE MOST PART, LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. AND THEN THERE'S A SMALL SECTION WHICH WE CAN GET INTO THAT, THAT DEALS WITH, THE WHERE SMOKING IS PROHIBITED. AND SO WE ADD SMOKING PROHIBITION, ALONG THE RIVERWALK, IN THE DOWNTOWN, ALONG AROUND OUR PARKS, SO THAT'S REALLY THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE, AND THE TIMING OF IT IS SPECIFIC TO RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA. AND SO TO HOPEFULLY NOT CONFUSE ANYONE. IN 2016, MEDICAL MARIJUANA WAS ADOPTED IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA BY THE VOTERS, IN IN MARTIN COUNTY, I BELIEVE IT WAS OVER 70% APPROVAL RATING, ON AVERAGE. SO IT'S JUST SOMETHING TO CONSIDER RIGHT NOW, POLLING, FOR RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA, IN THE 60 PLUS PERCENTILE RIGHT NOW. SO WITH THAT SAID, THE THERE'S A PRETTY EXTENSIVE AGENDA ITEM THAT'S BEEN ATTACHED, THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECTS TO THIS ARE KIND OF DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS. 
          ONE OF THE AT THE LDC MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 12TH, CITY STAFF MET, TO DISCUSS WITH THE, SORRY, I SHOULD SAY THE LPA. ONMET WITH E LPA GAVE US A LITTLE BIT OF DIRECTION. ONE OF THE KEY ELEMENTS OF THAT WAS TO INCREASE DISTANCES FROM FROM A BASIC 500FT, TO 2500FT. AND THOSE DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS, TIE INTO WHERE DISPENSARIES ARE SEPARATED FROM ONE ANOTHER AND 2500FT WHERE A DISPENSARY WOULD BE LOCATED AWAY FROM A SCHOOL. SO I'M GOING TO BRING UP A FEW MAPS, ACTUALLY JUST TO SHOW KIND OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HER. SO. SEE IF I CAN INCREASE THIS A LITTLE BIT IN SIZE, SO THIS WOULD BE AN EXAMPLE OF A 500, FOOT BUFFER FROM INSTITUTIONS IN THE CITY, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE CHURCHES. EVEN SO, WE MADE THIS TO INCLUDE CHURCHES AND SCHOOLS, TO GENERALLY SHOW WHERE JUST PROHIBITING VIA DISTANCE REQUIREMENT, SOME OF THESE DISPENSARIES COULD GO. I'M GOING TO ZOOM IN EVEN FURTHER SO YOU CAN SEE THE DOWNTOWN. SO OBVIOUSLY JUST A MAP LIKE THIS UNTO ITSELF DOESN'T COMPLETELY PROHIBIT DISPENSARIES FROM GOING DOWNTOWN. THE GOAL, OF COURSE, BEING TO TRY TO MAKE THIS USE APPLICABLE ONLY TO THE US ONE CORRIDOR, WHERE IT CAN BE KIND OF BETTER REGULATED, THESE BUSINESSES AREN'T ALL ON TOP OF ONE ANOTHER, SO IT'S IMPORTANT TO SEE THAT EVEN AT A 500 FOOT BUFFER, THERE'S A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF THE CITY THAT'S ALREADY COVERED AND WOULD BE PROHIBITED FROM HAVING ANY FURTHER USE OF THIS KIND. SO MOST OF THE DOWNTOWN, BUT IT DOESN'T COVER EVERYTHING. NOW THAT'S ONLY 500FT AND THAT'S MINIMUM. LEGAL. THE LPA REQUESTED THAT WE LOOK AT THE 2500 BUFFER, AND SO IF WE DO ALL INSTITUTIONS, AND JUST INSTITUTIONS, NOT INCLUDING PARKS. SO CHURCHES AND SCHOOLS ONLY AT 2500FT, THIS IS WHAT WE GET. YES, AND SO, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT IN STAFF IS, IS HOW DO WE NOT OUTRIGHT PROHIBIT THE ACTIVITY? WHICH MORE OR LESS WILL WILL, YOU KNOW, BE SOMETHING I'M SURE THAT THE STATE WILL PREEMPT US FROM BEING ABLE TO DO IN THE FUTURE. WE DON'T KNOW FOR CERTAIN, BUT IT'S 
          [04:15:03]
SOMETHING THEY'VE DONE IN OTHER ISSUES. BUT HOW DO WE ALLOW IT IN AND PROHIBIT IT FROM THE DOWNTOWN AREA, WHICH WAS REALLY THE DIRECTION WE RECEIVED AT THE BEGINNING, FROM THE COMMISSION. 
          BUT AT THE SAME TIME STILL KIND OF ALLOW IT ALONG THAT US ONE CORRIDOR. THE PROBLEM WITH 2500FT WHEN WE APPLY IT UBIQUITOUSLY TO ALL CHURCHES AND SCHOOLS, IS IT'S COVERING THE WHOLE CITY. INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, I SPOKE WITH OUR GIS TECHNICIAN TODAY. WE LOOKED AT A 2500 FOOT BUFFER FOOT BUFFER FROM JUST SCHOOLS. SO NOT THE CHURCHES, NOT ALL THESE INSTITUTIONS. AND IT COVERED AN AREA THAT WAS VERY SIMILAR, THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME DIFFERENCES, BUT IT COVERED AN AREA, A SQUARE FOOT AREA THAT WAS VERY SIMILAR TO JUST THE 500FT OF ALL THE INSTITUTIONS. SO AGAIN, THE LPA DIRECTED STAFF TO, TO LOOK AT ONLY IN THEIR RECOMMENDATION. OF COURSE, IF THE COMMISSION IS ONLY 2500FT FROM SCHOOLS AND WE DIDN'T AT THE TIME, WE WEREN'T REALLY TALKING CHURCHES PER SE THAT CAME UP IN THE DISCUSSION, BUT THEY'RE SPECIFIC KIND OF RECOMMENDATION TO US WAS AT LEAST 2500 FROM SCHOOLS. AND SO THERE'S A COUPLE OF WAYS WE CAN SOLVE THE DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS. AND PART OF TONIGHT, EVEN THOUGH IT'S THE FIRST READING, IS TO JUST GET SOME BASIC DIRECTION AND GUIDANCE FROM THE COMMISSION ON WHAT THE COMMISSION FEELS COMFORTABLE WITH, OBVIOUSLY WE'RE TRYING TO DO THIS BEFORE THE BALLOT GETS PASSED AND ADOPTED IN NOVEMBER, 2500FT. HOWEVER, JUST LOOKING AT THIS MAP AGAIN, COVERS ALMOST, AND I'M GOING TO GO NORTH OF THE BRIDGE HERE, ALMOST THE ENTIRE US ONE CORRIDOR WOULD EFFECTIVELY BE, PROHIBITED FROM ANY KIND OF USE AT 20 500 FOOT BUFFER FROM ALL CHURCHES, ALL SCHOOLS. IF WE DID ONLY SCHOOLS, THAT'S NOT THE CASE EVEN AT 2500FT, SO THAT WOULD BE KIND OF THE FIRST ELEMENT. THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER PARTS OF THE CODE THAT WE COVER, AND MAYBE I'LL JUST TAKE A MOMENT TO STOP HERE AND AT LEAST ON THE DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS, SINCE THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT ELEMENTS AND KIND OF GAUGE THE COMMISSION ON ON THIS PLACE, I COULD SELL THEM WOULD BE THE MARINA'S NORT. DO YOU HAVE A MAP THAT SHOWS JUST THE SCHOOLS? UNFORTUNATELY, WE DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO GET THAT READY FOR TODAY, WE CAN BRING THAT BACK FOR THE MAIN HEARING, THE SECOND HEARING, WHEN WE HAVE THAT AND THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE COULD, WOULD BE HAPPY TO INCLUDE AND COMPARE. WHEN I LOOKED AT IT VERY QUICKLY THIS MORNING WITH OUR GIS TECH, IT IT COVERED AN AREA THAT WAS VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU SEE HERE. IT WOULDN'T EFFECTIVELY PROHIBIT THE DOWNTOWN. AND FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, SOMETHING ELSE THAT STAFF ALSO DISCUSSED, BECAUSE REALLY, THE COMMISSION'S DIRECTION TO US EARLIER WAS WE JUST WANT TO EXCLUDE IT FROM THE DOWNTOWN. AND WE THOUGHT, WELL, IF CODE CHANGES, IF ZONING CHANGES IN THE FUTURE AND WE JUST, YOU KNOW, IF YOU LOOK AT THE DRAFT ORDINANCE, WE'RE ALLOWING IT IN THE BUSINESS DISTRICTS, WE'RE ALLOWING IT IN INDUSTRIAL, WE'RE IN THIS DRAFT, WE'RE ALLOWING IT IN KPD, AND EVEN URBAN HIGHWAY. IF ALL OF THOSE CODES CHANGED IN THE FUTURE, IF THAT ZONING CHANGED, THEN SUDDENLY THIS WOULD HAVE TO BE UPDATED. WHAT WE'VE DECIDED TO DO TO TRY AND HEAD THAT OFF IN THE FUTURE IS TO ALSO CREATE THIS MAP. AND THIS IS ALSO CITED AS A FIGURE IN THE DRAFT ORDINANCE THAT WE WOULD UPDATE FOR THE SECOND HEARING AND FINAL HEARING, BUT THIS WOULD SURVIVE REGARDLESS OF ZONING CHANGES. THIS WOULD BE A PROHIBITION. GENERALLY DOWNTOWN, OF ALL THE PARCELS THAT WE'VE IDENTIFIED HERE. AND THIS CAN CHANGE. AND THIS IS JUST ONE OF THE ZONES WE DIDN'T KNOW HOW FAR DOWN WE SHOULD GO DOWN OCEAN. WE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS. SO IF YOU GO FAR FARTHER DOWN TO THE EAST DOWN OCEAN BOULEVARD, I FORGET WHAT STREET THIS IS. WE CUT IT OFF AT. SORRY, WHAT WAS IT? OH, PALM BEACH ROAD. THAT'S RIGHT, SO WE WENT AS FAR DOWN EAST AS PALM BEACH ROAD IN THE EXCLUSION ZONE. BUT THIS IS A DRAFT, AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WANT TO SHOW THE COMMISSION. THE IDEA HERE IS OBVIOUSLY NOT US. ONE IS NOT COVERED IN THE EXCLUSION, BUT THE ENTIRETY OF THE DOWNTOWN IS. AND ARE WE ASSUMING ALL THE CURRENT DISPENSARIES WILL JUST BECOME. THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE TALK THE WAY THE BALLOT INITIATIVE HAS BEEN DRAFTED SORT OF IMPLIES, AND MORE THAN SORT OF THAT, THE FIRST BUSINESSES THAT WILL TURN KEY OVER TO RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA DISPENSING ARE THE ARE THE MEDICAL DISPENSARIES. NOW, RIGHT NOW IN CODE WE'RE PROHIBITED MEANING PREEMPTED FROM FURTHER REGULATING THE LOCATION OF THOSE DISPENSARIES. 
          MORE THAN WE DO WITH JUST BASIC PHARMACIES. THE PROBLEM IS THAT UNLIKE REGULAR PHARMACIES, THESE PHARMACIES TOMORROW, I MEAN, TOMORROW, I MEAN, SIX MONTHS AFTER ADOPTION OF THIS BALLOT IN NOVEMBER COULD POTENTIALLY BE SELLING CANNABIS RECREATIONALLY, WE'RE NOT SAYING THAT'S GOOD OR BAD. WE'RE NOT TAKING A POSITION ON IT. WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS WE REALLY HAVEN'T REGULATED THAT. 
          AND, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE BUSINESSES DOWNTOWN THAT COULD START, YOU KNOW, SENDING IN APPLICATIONS AND GETTING READY WITH THE ANTICIPATION THAT THAT'S HAPPENING. AND ONCE 
          [04:20:01]
THEY'RE GRANDFATHERED IN, THERE'S NO, YOU KNOW, UNDOING THAT, AND SO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS MAKE SURE WE GET SOMETHING ON THE BOOKS BEFORE THAT HAPPENS. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS EXTEND TO AT LEAST MONTEREY PERSONALLY. OKAY AND I LIKE THE IDEA OF THAT. LET ME ZOOM OUT THERE. YEAH. 2500 FOOT DISTANCE FROM SCHOOLS AND CHURCHES. YEAH. AND THIS WOULD NOT INCLUDE THE EAST OCEAN OVERLAY BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE RIPE FOR IT NEEDS TO BE ON US. 
          IT NEEDS TO BE ON MORE INDUSTRIAL AREAS. IN MY OPINION. SO RIGHT NOW, AS YOU CAN SEE IT GOES ALL THE WAY DOWN THE FLAGLER PARK, DOES NOT THIS MAP DOES NOT TOUCH ANY PARCEL THAT ABUTS US. ONE FOR THE MOST PART. THERE ARE SOME CAVEATS HERE WHERE THE FRONTAGE IS, ARE NOT REALLY CONSIDERED, US ONE, BUT FOR THE MOST PART, THE PARCELS DO NOT ABUT US ONE THE ONES THAT WE'VE PROHIBITED HERE. SO WE'VE TRIED TO MAINTAIN THAT. JUST REMEMBER, WHATEVER THE EXCLUSIO. 
          SO IF WE TAKE THIS EXCLUSION ZONE THAT ENDS AT PALM BEACH ROAD AND EXTEND IT AS FAR DOWN EAST AS MONTEREY, WE CAN DO THAT, THE OTHER CAVEAT THAT WE'LL ADD IS THIS IS GOING TO SURVIVE SIMULTANEOUSLY AND CONCURRENTLY WITH THOSE DISTANCE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS. SO THIS WILL WILL ALWAYS BE THERE. THIS WOULD BE AN EXCLUSION NO MATTER WHAT. BUT THEN IF WE GO TO THE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS, EVEN WHEN YOU GET TO US ONE, AND THIS IS JUST A 500 FOOT FROM CHURCHES AND SCHOOLS, THESE ALSO APPLY. SO WHETHER WE HAVE A 500 FOOT BUFFER OR A 2500 FOOT BUFFER, THERE IS TWO DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS. ONE IS FROM DISPENSARY TO DISPENSARY. SO THAT'S ONE DISTANCE REQUIREMENT. THE OTHER IS JUST FROM A DISPENSARY TO A SCHOOL OR THE INSTITUTION, WHATEVER. WHATEVER WE WORD THAT IS RIGHT NOW, THE LANGUAGE IN CODE IS ONLY SCHOOLS. SO WE'VE KEPT IT BARE MINIMUM TO WHAT STATE LAW SAYS. AND IT'S UP TO THE COMMISSION TO, TO TELL US, LIKE, YOU KNOW, HOW FAR WE TAKE THAT, OF COURSE, THE CONCERN BEING IF YOU TAKE IT SO FAR THAT YOU HAVE THIS MAP NOW, YOU'VE EFFECTIVELY PROHIBITED IT. SO THOSE ARE THE BOUNDARIES IN 2500. THAT'S 2500. YES, SIR. SO IT WOULD WIPE OUT US ONE. COMMISSIONER COLLINS, YOU KNOW. YEAH BUT THAT OTHER MAP THAT YOU BROUGHT UP, IT HAS, IT'S JUST THE DOWNTOWN. THE EXCLUSION. YES. YES, MA'AM. WHAT IS THIS BASED ON? SO WE USED THE FORMULA BASED CODE AS A STARTING POINT, AND SO WE HAVE THAT AS THE DOWNTOWN AND THEN AS STAFF DISCUSSED MORE AND MORE. AGAIN, WE DIDN'T HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF DIRECTION FROM THE COMMISSION AT THE TIME. WE SAID, OKAY, WELL, IF WE WERE, YOU KNOW, THOSE OF US WHO HAVE TRAVELED THE STATE AND HAVE SEEN, YOU KNOW, THESE LOCATIONS IN OTHER STATES, YOU KNOW, THERE'S 30 SOMETHING THAT HAVE ADOPTED MARIJUANA LAWS, YOU KNOW, WHAT ARE THE PAINS? WHAT ARE THEY DEALING WITH? WHAT ARE THE PROBLEMS? WHAT ARE THE ISSUES? EVEN FOR COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES, LET ALONE THE CULTURE THAT CAN CREATE DOWNTOW? WE REALIZED THAT THE COMMISSION WAS REALLY ON TO SOMETHING ABOUT WE DON'T WANT, YOU KNOW, TEN OF THESE SHOPS CONGREGATED IN ONE SPOT DOWNTOWN. SO THE EXCLUSION MAP AGAIN, THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS SO IF ZONING WERE TO CHANGE DOWNTOWN, THIS EXCLUSION ZONE WOULD SURVIVE ON ITS OWN. AND AGAIN, I'D LIKE TO SEE IT EXTENDING TO MONTEREY BECAUSE, SOMETHING TO CONSIDER IS LIKE HOMESCHOOL, RIGHT? THERE'S IT'S NOT JUST SCHOOLS WHERE KIDS ARE, YOU KNOW, YOU WANT TO GET AWAY FROM YOU WANT TO EXCLUDE IT FROM THOSE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS AND AROUND. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF YOU COULD BRING BACK A FEW DIFFERENT MAPS, OBVIOUSLY ONE SORT OF EXTENDING THAT OUT A LITTLE BIT, BUT ALSO, RIGHT, LET'S SAY LIKE 1500 FEET FROM SCHOOLS AND CHURCHES. RIGHT. AND THEN MAYBE EVEN POTENTIALLY. YEAH DAYCARE, ANY, ANYWHERE WHERE THERE'S SCHOOL DOESN'T IT IS A DAYCARE, DAYCARE, SCHOOL. YEAH. SO WE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE DAYCARE. I DON'T WANT TO SAY IT'S A SLIPPERY SLOPE. IT'S, IF A NEW DAYCARE WERE TO OPEN UP OR WANT TO OPEN UP IN, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A DISPENSARY WITHIN THE ZONE. THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT THEIR HOME, A RESIDENTIAL HOME COULD BECOME A DAYCARE POTENTIALLY IN THE FUTURE. AND IT'S ALMOST LIKE WE COULD START BLANKETING THE MAP AND CREATING A LOT MORE CHALLENGES. THE OTHER PROBLEM IS THAT WE'RE SUCH A SMALL CITY, EVEN EVEN A 500 FOOT BUFFER JUST TO SCHOOLS WILL FUNCTIONALLY CREATE THAT. PLUS, THE EXCLUSION MAP WILL RULE OUT ALMOST THE ENTIRETY OF THE CITY, EXCEPT FOR THESE THESE POCKETS OF US. ONE, WHICH AGAIN, IS SORT OF THE DIRECTION WE GOT FROM THE COMMISSION ORIGINALLY IS TO JUST KEEP IT TO US. ONE, IF WE HAVE THE 2500 FOOT BUFFER THAT THE LPA ASKED US TO, TO LOOK AT, THAT 2500 WOULD ONLY APPLY TO SCHOOLS. SO IT REALLY IT'S A KIND OF A GUT CHECK OF THE COMMISSION IS WHAT'S MORE, THE PRIORITY FOR YOU IS IT TO COVER MORE OF THE MAP WITH MANY 500 FOOT TO, TO APPLY TO EVERYTHING OR KEEP IT TO KIND OF THE SCHOOLS? BUT DO THESE HUGE DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS THAT COVER FAR OUT. SO IT'S, IT'S YOU KNOW WHAT, WHAT IS THE PRIORITY REALLY OF THE COMMISSION? IS IT MORE ABOUT WHERE THE SCHOOLS ARE 
          [04:25:05]
OR IS IT. I ACTUALLY DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF PUTTING THEM ALL ON ONE. I MEAN, PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DRIVE THROUGH TOWN AND LIKE, YOU KNOW, WOW, THIS IS A VERY HIGH COMMUNITY. I'D LIKE THEM TO BE HAVE THE ABILITY TO BE A LITTLE MORE CONCEALED OFF THE BEATEN PATH. PLUS YOU PUT THEM ALL ON ONE BOY THAT'S REALLY GOING TO SLOW TRAFFIC DOWN. YEAH, THAT'S TRUE. SO IT'S INTERESTING, WE APPARENTLY HAVE SIX DISPENSARIES ALREADY IN THE CITY THAT WE COULD IDENTIFY, ONE IS NORTH OF THIS MAP, KIND OF SHOWS YOU WHERE THEY ARE NORTH OF US. ONE, THERE IS ONE HERE, I BELIEVE, ON THE EAST SIDE. ONLY SIX IN THE CITY. BOY IT SURE SEEMS LIKE THERE'S MORE THAN THAT THERE THAT WE COULD IDENTIFY. AND NOW THE DIFFERENCE IS THERE ARE PROBABLY A LOT OF MARIJUANA TREATMENT CENTERS, MTCS, YOU KNOW, DOCTORS OFFICES DOING THE PRESCRIPTIONS AND ALL THAT. BUT AS FAR AS THOSE WE COULD IDENTIFY AS ACTUAL DISPENSARIES SELLING CANNABIS PRODUCTS, SO MOST OF THEM ARE SEPARATED EXCEPT. WELL, I SAY MOST, BUT THERE'S THREE RIGHT HERE THAT ARE SO CLOSE TOGETHER RIGHT NOW, STAFF TALKED AND WE'D PROBABLY HAVE TO WRITE IN AN EXEMPTION TO THESE THREE FROM THE DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS FROM ONE ANOTHER. THEY ALREADY EXIST. MY FEAR WOULD BE THE DAY AFTER THAT. WE ADOPT AN ORDINANCE LIKE THIS. AND THEN THE AMENDMENT PASSES. 
          WHICH OF THESE THREE IS THE FIRST TO. WELL, FIRST OF THE THREE TO GET THE OPTION TO SELL RECREATION IN THAT OPTION, THE OTHER TWO OUT. SO LET'S DO A BARGE. I'LL PUT IT OUT IN THE RIVER. LET ME DO A BARGE. THEY HAVE TO GO TO AND THEN COME BACK. SO I, I KNOW I KNOW IT'S LATE AND WE DIDN'T WANT TO GET INTO EVERY MICRO DETAIL TONIGHT AT THIS HEARING, SOME DIRECTION FOR STAFF WOULD DEFINITELY BE APPRECIATED. AT LEAST GOING BACK AND REWRITING SOME OF THESE THESE PARTS IS JUST DECLARE THIS IS A FIRST READING. WE DON'T NEED TO VOTE, DO WE? MUST DO IS READ AND MOVE IT TO SECOND. YEAH, RIGHT. BUT WE DO NEED TO GIVE DIRECTION. GIVE HIM SOME DIRECTION. DID YOU GET FEEDBACK FROM ME? YES SIR. THERE'S ALSO RESTRICTION BECAUSE IT'S ONLY GOING TO BE ALLOWED IN CERTAIN ZONING WE HAD IN THE BUSINESS DISTRICTS AND CP PUDS AND IPADS. 
          SO THAT ALSO WOULD LIMIT IT WHERE IT COULD BE AS WELL. SO BETWEEN THE SETBACKS AND THE RESTRICTION TO THOSE SPECIFIC AREAS, YOU SHOULD PROBABLY BE ABLE TO SHOW US WHERE THEY COULD BE RATHER THAN SHOW US WHERE THEY CAN'T BE, SHOWS WHERE THEY COULD BE. AND WE PROBABLY, ESPECIALLY IF WE DO A 2500 FOOT BUFFER MAP SPECIFIC TO SCHOOLS ONLY, AND THEN WE TAKE THAT WITH A ZONING OVERLAY. WE CAN SHOW EXACTLY WHERE THEY COULD GO. I LIKE THE IDEA WE ALL BE ON US. 
          ONE I DON'T LIKE THE CITY STARTED TO DO A ZONING IN PROGRESS, WHEN THE REFERENDUM FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA CAME FORWARD. BUT WHEN THE CITY OF STUART VOTED 86% IN FAVOR, WE DECIDED THE ZONING IN PROGRESS WASN'T NECESSARY. SO, THE MORE THE INTENTION OF THIS, THIS ORDINANCE WASN'T SO MUCH TO DO. A COMPLETE BAN OF MARIJUANA SALES AS MUCH AS IT WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE REGULATED IT FROM CERTAIN AREAS OF STUART, THAT WE DIDN'T NECESSARILY THINK WERE THE MOST APPROPRIATE, I THINK THAT YOU'RE GOING TO FIND WHEN THE VOTE COMES IN, THAT THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE IN STUART THAT REALLY DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE WITH IT BEING DIFFERENT THAN A MEDICAL MARIJUANA. I DON'T KNOW. I MEAN, I YES, I THINK THAT THE COVER BAR IS LEGAL AND MARIJUANA IS NOT, BUT IT SOON WILL BE LEGAL. BUT RIGHT. THEY WOULD BE. BUT SO GOOD LUCK. SIR. 
          AND JUST TO CLARIFY AGAIN, THE 2500FT FROM SCHOOLS WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE TO THE COMMISSION. 
          WELL, THE STATE LAW RIGHT NOW IS 1000FT FROM SCHOOLS LIKE IT'S A CRIME TO SELL DRUGS WITHIN 1000FT OF A SCHOOL. THAT IS AN ENHANCEMENT. I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY HAVE TO BE SO FAR AWAY FROM A CHURCH, HONESTLY, I DON'T. WELL, AGAIN, WHEN WE SPOKE WITH THE LPA, IT WAS ONLY THE SCHOOLS. YEAH ALL RIGHT. DO WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS? MADAM CLERK, I DO ACTUALLY FRANK MCCRYSTAL. I NEED YOU TO FRANK MCCRYSTAL BEFORE WE SEND YOU AWAY, MR. HOGARTH. YES, SIR. I'M GONNA NEED ONE EXEMPTION FROM YOU GUYS. WHO IS CALLED. OKAY. MR. MR. MCCRYSTAL, LET ME PREFACE MY. WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN HIDING? LET ME PREFACE MY COMMENTS BY OBVIOUSLY ADMITTING THAT I'M A CERTIFIABLY CRAZY PERSON OUT WAY PAST MY BEDTIME. HOWEVER THERE'S SOME THAT ISN'T ISN'T JIVING WITH THIS FOR ME. I'VE BEEN SITTING ON THE CRB BOARD FOR ALMOST A YEAR AND IT HAS. I DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS GOING TO BE THE ARTSY FARTSY BOARD. YOU KNOW, I HAD NO IDEA THAT THE 
          [04:30:04]
POWERS THAT BE, ESPECIALLY THE PREVIOUS TWO COMMISSIONS AND ALL THE WHO'S WHO OF THE CITY OF STUART, ARE SYSTEMATICALLY TRYING TO TURN US INTO KEY WEST AND PROVINCETOWN, OKAY. AND SO I'M THINKING IF THERE'S ONE PLACE WHERE YOU NEED TO SELL WEED, IT'S DOWNTOWN. IT'S PERFECT. OH, AND BY THE WAY, ALL THOSE PEOPLE THAT WILL BE ATTRACTED TO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT, THE ONES WHO DON'T LIKE CARS, CAN'T AFFORD CARS. THEY DON'T HAVE TO DRIVE ANYWHERE TO GET THEIR WEED. SO DOWNTOWN IS THE PLACE TO SELL WEED TO ALL THE ARTSY FARTSY PEOPLE. YOU CAN TAKE THAT TO THE BANK. I HAVE ROBERT HAMILTON. I CAN'T WAIT. LET'S HEAR IT, STUART. AND THERE WAS A CHURCH IN SOUTH FLORIDA IN THE 80S CALLED THE MAUI. BINGO. THERE YOU GO. AND I MIGHT DECIDE TO CHANGE THE CHURCH. AND MAYBE THAT WILL BE THE THING TO DO. 
          BUT ON A SERIOUS NOTE, IT'S INTERESTING. THE MAP WE SAW. WHAT I WANT TO KNOW IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE CHRISTMAS PARADE IS HAPPENING AND WE'RE ALL SITTING DOWN THERE WATCHING THE PARADE, AND THE PEOPLE ARE GETTING HIGH. BUT NOW THE PEOPLE SAY, WAIT A MINUTE, MY DOCTOR IS MY DEALER. BECAUSE A LOT OF THE ELDERLY, WHICH I WAS SHOCKED TO A LOT OF THE HUFFING AND PUFFING AND THERE ARE A LOT OF LOCATIONS HERE, BUT ON THE SAME NOTE, BUT A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. I NOTICE HOW THE COMMITTEES GOT TOGETHER TO DEAL WITH THE MARIJUANA ISSUE, JUST LIKE MR. MOTEL, AND LOU WAS JUST DEALING WITH AN ISSUE WITH THAT GENTLEMAN WITH THAT BUILDING. WELL, AS I SAID BEFORE THE COMMISSION, YOU HAVE THE POWER, YOU CONTROL THE CITY, HE RUNS IT. HE GIVES YOU YOUR LEGAL ADVICE. I URGE YOU TO TAKE WHAT I SAID EARLIER SERIOUSLY. YOU HAVE THE POWER TO RESOLVE THIS. I WILL SHARE THE LETTER I RECEIVED FROM THE GOVERNOR WITH YOU ALL WAS PROBABLY WORKING ON IT NOW. WITH THAT SAID, HAVE A GOOD EVENING AND NOW I KNOW WHY STUART'S A HAPPY PLACE. WILL BE WILL BE. I HAVE CAROL ANNE LEONARD. THIS MORNING. IT'S GOING TO BE IMPORTANT. WELCOME, MISS LEONARD. WELL, I WASN'T EXPECTING TO HAVE TO SPEAK ON THIS ISSUE, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY I THINK THINGS ARE GETTING A LITTLE BIT OVERBOARD. CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS? CAROL ANNE LEONARD, 1712 SOUTHEAST JACKSON. WELL, I DON'T KNOW. STUART OKAY. ANYWAY THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS TO CONSIDER. YES. WE DON'T NEED DISPENSARIES ALL CLOSE TOGETHER. 
          WE DON'T NEED THINGS BY THE SCHOOL. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE CHURCH ISSUE. YES, THERE'S A LOT. SOME PLACES, BUT I THINK, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE. THEN IT'S DAYCARES, THEN IT'S THAT. THEN IT'S THIS. HOW MANY THINGS ARE YOU GOING TO SAY YOU CAN'T SMOKE NEXT TO? I MEAN, YOU HAVE TO BE REASONABLE, AND YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND ALL THIS, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU THAT WE NEED TO TAKE THE TIME AND CONSIDER EVERYTHING AND MAKE IT FAIR TO EVERYBODY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. 
          AND FOR CLARITY, IT'S YOU CAN'T SELL, RIGHT. YOU CAN SMOKE IT ANYWHERE. WELL, WELL, I THINK THE STATE'S PROBABLY GOING TO REGULATE THE OPEN SMOKING OF IT TO BE PROHIBITED. BUT WE'LL FIND OUT. I THINK WE WILL BE JUST FINE. RIGHT RIGHT. IT IS JUST ON THE SALE. ESTABLISHMENT SELLING. 
          OKAY, BEN. CRYSTAL CLEAR. RIGHT ABSOLUTELY. AND WE COULD BE A LITTLE BIT MORE THOROUGH IN THE SECOND HEARING WITH THE MOTION TO MOVE TO THE SECOND MOVE TO DO A MOTION TO PUSH IT TO THE SECOND READING. OKAY CAN WE HAVE A MOTION, PLEASE, TO MOVE IT TO THE SECOND READING? I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE IT TO THE SECOND READING OF A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER JOB. SECOND SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COLLINS. ANY DISCUSSION? FURTHER DISCUSSION. SEEING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR. ROLL CALL, PLEASE. MAYOR RICH. YES, COMMISSIONER. CLARK. YES, COMMISSIONER. COLLINS. YES, COMMISSIONER. JOB. YES, COMMISSIONER. REID YES. OKAY. THE FINAL ITEM, D AND D 
          [15. BRIGHTLINE RESPONSE TO RFP DISCUSSION]
DISCUSSION AND DELIBERATION OF THIS MEETING. WHAT? WE STILL HAVE THE BUDGET MEETING AFTER THIS MEETING IS OVER. ALL RIGHT, JUST SAYING. YEAH, I SAID THE FINAL ITEM ON THIS MEETING. 
          YEAH, JUST ON THIS. THERE'S STILL THE. WHAT HAPPENED? SO THIS IS THERE'S NO MOTION HERE. 
          [04:35:02]
THERE'S MR. COMMISSIONER COLLINS HAS ALREADY MADE EXTENSIVE. I A FEW MORE POINTS, BUT I'M SURE YOU DO. I SCHEDULED THIS ON THE AGENDA FOR D AND D AT THE REQUEST OF, THE COMMISSION LAST MEETING, AND, I INTENTIONALLY DIDN'T DO A PRESENTATION BECAUSE EVERYBODY KNOWS THE STORY. 
          THERE'S NO REASON TO GO BACK AND REHASH IT, I WANTED TO SAY THAT IT'S FAIRLY COMMON THAT I'M ASKED. WELL WHAT AUTHORITY ARE YOU DOING? OR WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO COMMUNICATE WITH BRIGHT LINE? AND I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT IT'S NONE. I'M NOT. I'M TELLING THE COUNTY AND BRIGHT LINE THAT I HAVE NO AUTHORITY BECAUSE I DON'T, THE ONLY AUTHORITY THAT I HAVE RIGHT NOW IS TO FOLLOW THE DECEMBER 12TH, 2023 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT THAT THE CITY SIGNED WITH THE COUNTY, COMMISSIONER COLLINS MADE REFERENCE TO IT EARLIER TODAY, I CAN READ FROM IT IF YOU'D LIKE, BUT EFFECTIVELY IT SAYS THAT THE CITY WILL IN FACT ENTER INTO OR DID IN FACT ENTER INTO A LOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY IN THAT THE CITY WOULD AGREE TO ACCEPT THE LAND FROM THE COUNTY AND ENTER INTO A LONG TERM LEASE WITH BRIGHT LINE. TO USE THAT PROPERTY AS A TRAIN STATION AND PARKING FOR SAME AND THAT THE CITY WOULD PAY THE COSTS OF THE PARKING GARAGE NECESSARY TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE RFP, WHICH IS 200 PARKING SPACES. IN ADDITION, IT SAYS THE CITY WOULD PROVIDE 54 ADDITIONAL SPACES WITHIN 0.25 MILES OF THE COURTHOUSE. AND, I HAD BEEN NEGOTIATING WITH, THE COUNTY TO AGREE TO PLACE DIAGONAL PARKING OF APPROXIMATELY 54 SPACES ON STEIDTMANN BOULEVARD, DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THE BASEBALL FIELDS RIGHT NEXT TO THE COURTHOUSE. 
          BUT I ALSO, ON A TECHNICAL LEVEL, REVIEWED THE SURROUNDING AREA, AND THERE IS ALREADY 54 SPACES BEING PROVIDED BY THE CITY FOR PUBLIC PARKING, WITHIN THAT RANGE. SO TECHNICALLY SPEAKING, I WOULDN'T HAVE TO EVEN STRIPE THOSE. I THINK IT WOULD. OBVIOUSLY, THE SPIRIT OF THE AGREEMENT IS THAT I SHOULD STRIPE THOSE. IT'S ALSO MY INTENTION THAT IN THE EVENT THAT THE COUNTY GOES FORWARD, WITH BRIGHT LINE AND A STATION ENDS UP AT THAT LOCATION, I WOULD MAKE ALL OF THE PARKING SURROUNDING THE COURTHOUSE AND, THE BASEBALL FIELDS AND EVERYWHERE AROUND THERE, A THREE HOUR PARKING, THE REASON FOR THAT WOULD BE BECAUSE THE PARKING THAT WAS AT THE BRIGHT LINE STATION WOULD BE LIKELY TO BE USED FOR PEOPLE GOING ON LONGER VACATIONS AND INSTEAD OF THEM PARKING FOR FREE AND LEAVING THEIR CAR ON THE STREET FOR SEVEN DAYS, WE WOULD HAVE THE THREE HOUR PARKING, WHICH NORMALLY WILL COVER A BASEBALL PRACTICE IN THE AFTERNOON. IT WILL ALSO COVER ANYBODY GOING TO THE COURTHOUSE FOR ANYTHING. AND THEN WE HAD ALREADY TALKED TO THE CLERK OF COURTS ABOUT PROVIDING COURTHOUSE PERSONNEL WITH STICKERS SO THAT THEIR CARS WOULD BE EXEMPT SO THAT THEY COULD OBVIOUSLY PARK IN THOSE SPACES WITHOUT CONCERN FOR GETTING A CITATION. SO AS I SIT TODAY, I HAVE THAT AUTHORITY BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE COMMISSION HAS STOOD BEHIND. BUT THAT AS A RESULT, I HAVE DONE ABSOLUTELY NO DISCUSSION WITH THE COUNTY AND NO DISCUSSION WITH BRIGHT LINE UNLESS I'M DIRECTED. OTHERWISE, I DON'T HAVE ANY AUTHORITY TO GIVE THEM. OKAY. ALTHOUGH IT'S NOT REQUIRED. THANK YOU, MR. MARTEL. IT'S NOT REQUIRED THAT WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT WITH THE D AND D, BUT IT AS A COURTESY TO THOSE WHO HAVE STAYED SO LONG. IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ISSUE, I'D LIKE TO PROVIDE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY. OKAY. MADAM CLERK WALTER LLOYD, WITHOUT OBJECTION, FROM THE COMMISSION. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND THEN WE'LL DISCUSS AFTER. YES GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS, I'M WALTER LLOYD CABANA POINT. I'M HERE TONIGHT TO SAY THANK YOU AND EXPRESS MY APPRECIATION FOR YOUR RESPONSIBLE DECISION NOT ONLY TO RESCIND THE DEAL WITH BRIGHT LINE, BUT TO CHOOSE THE ONLY WAY TO ENSURE NEGOTIATIONS FOR A BETTER DEAL FOR THE TAXPAYERS. IN THIS PAST ELECTION, PEOPLE SPOKE LOUD AND CLEAR THAT THEY WERE READY TO SLOW DOWN THE IRRESPONSIBLE GROWTH OF THE PAST ADMINISTRATION AND ALLOWING DEVELOPERS TO GET ANYTHING THEY WANTED AGAINST THE LEGACY, CULTURE AND ENVIRONMENT AS DEFINED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. INSTEAD, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS MODIFIED TO FIT THE 
          [04:40:04]
REQUEST OF THE DEVELOPERS WITH LITTLE REGARD TO THE EFFECTS TO OUR QUALITY OF LIFE. IT'S YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO BE GOOD STEWARDS OF STUART'S TAX DOLLAR, AND YOU HAVE STOOD TRUE TO YOUR CAMPAIGN PROMISES TO CHANGE THAT IRRESPONSIBLE TREND OF THE PAST, AND TO LIMIT OUR TAX DOLLARS AND FINANCING PRIVATE BUSINESS AND PURSUING RESPONSIBLE GROWTH. NOW YOU'RE FACED WITH PRESSURE FROM SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS TO IGNORE THE FINANCIAL WELL-BEING OF THE VAST MAJORITY OF YOUR CONSTITUENTS FOR THE SAKE OF THEIR FINANCIAL WELL-BEING. THE IRONY OF THIS WHOLE SITUATION IS THAT THEIR BUSINESSES ARE SUPPORTED BY THE VERY TAXPAYERS THEY SEEK TO PULL FINANCES FROM, WHILE DEMONSTRATING THEIR WISHES TO HAVE YOU IGNORE THE FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THOSE SAME TAXPAYERS, THOSE WHO ARE OPPOSING YOUR DECISION TO RESCIND THIS DEAL ARE CONVENIENTLY IGNORING THE REASON FOR THE DECISION, WHICH WAS TO STAND TRUE TO YOUR PROMISE TO YOUR CONSTITUENTS AND NEGOTIATE A BETTER DEAL FOR THE TAXPAYERS. SO PLEASE KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. 
          DIEGO JARRIN. FINALLY DIEGO. YELLOW. THEY TOLD ME TO WEAR A YELLOW. IT'S. MY NAME IS DIEGO JARRIN. I, I LIVE IN PALM CITY WITH MY WIFE, WE'VE BEEN LIVING IN THE COUNTY. EITHER HERE OR IN PALM CITY FOR 20 YEARS NOW. MY WIFE IS A DOCTOR AT THE CLEVELAND CLINIC, AND I'M A SYSTEMS ENGINEER, I ACTUALLY TRAVEL THREE TIMES A WEEK TO MIAMI. I WORK IN MIAMI, AND I TAKE BRIGHTLINE THREE TIMES A WEEK. I DRIVE TO WEST PALM, AND, YOU KNOW, I TAKE THE TRAIN FROM WEST PALM TO MIAMI THREE TIMES A WEEK. I HAVE A VERY HIGH PAY LEVEL, HIGH PAYING JOB IN THE HIGH TECH WORKING FOR WESTERN UNION. I'M A MANAGER IN THE WESTERN UNION, DIGITAL BANK. MY MESSAGE TO YOU GUYS IS NOT FOR ME. I AM ALREADY WORKING THERE. MY MESSAGE TO YOU GUYS IS FOR OUR KIDS. I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE. YOU KNOW, THE GENTLEMAN HAS HIS OPINION, AND THERE'S A LOT OF OLDER FOLKS THAT HAVE A SIMILAR OPINION. BUT I WANT YOU TO THINK OF OUR KIDS, THE FUTURE GENERATIONS. THERE'S THOUSANDS AND I MEAN THOUSANDS OF HIGH PAYING JOBS IN MIAMI AND IN ORLANDO. THAT OUR KIDS ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO HAVE ACCESS TO IF WE PROVIDE THEM THE MEANS FOR TRANSPORT TO GO TO GET THOSE HIGH PAYING JOBS. AND I'M TALKING, I'M TALKING VERY, VERY HIGH PAYING JOBS, TRUCKING JOBS THAT PAY $150,000 A YEAR, $200,000 A YEAR, JOBS THAT ABSOLUTELY DO NOT EXIST IN THE STORY. MAYBE IN BOCA, BUT CERTAINLY IN MIAMI AND IN ORLANDO. SO THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I WANT YOU TO CONSIDER, I ACTUALLY BROUGHT AN ARTICLE FROM REFRESH MIAMI, WHICH IS A MAGAZINE THAT SPEAKS A LOT OF THINGS ABOUT MIAMI. AND THEY SAY THAT THE MIAMI DADE RESEARCH COUNCIL, THEY HAVE PUBLISHED THAT. 14,818 JOBS ARE CALCULATED TO BE CREATED JUST THIS YEAR. MOST OF THOSE JOBS, THE AVERAGE OF THOSE JOBS IS $98,000. SO I WOULD LIKE YOU TO CONSIDER THAT AND CONSIDER THAT DEEPLY. A LOT OF OUR KIDS, WE WOULD LOVE THEM TO STAY IN THE AREA, BUT IF THEY DON'T HAVE THE JOBS TO STAY IN THE AREA, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT. BUT IF THEY CAN ACCESS JOBS IN MIAMI AND IN ORLANDO THROUGH BRIGHTLINE, THEY WILL CONSIDER IT. SO THIS REALLY IS A PETITION, NOT FOR ME, BUT FOR OUR KIDS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          THANK YOU. THANK YOU. CAROL ANN LEONARD. AND AFTER THAT IS NINA BRODY. 
          OKAY. IT'S CAROL ANN, LEONARD AND STUART, I SUPPORT HAVING A BRIGHT LINE STATION IN A PARKING GARAGE IN THE CITY OF STUART. LISTENING TO COMMISSIONER TONIGHT, IT SEEMS THERE WERE SOME COMMENTS ABOUT SCENARIOS THAT MAY NOT HAPPEN. THAT'S MY OPINION. A BRIGHT LINE I DO THINK SHOULD PAY FOR PART OF THE STATION, IN ADDITION TO FAST ACCESS TO TRAVEL AND EVENTS, I 
          [04:45:08]
HAVE ANOTHER BENEFIT THAT I THINK SHOULD BE CONSIDERED. IT'S TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO TRAVEL TO MEDICAL FACILITIES WE DON'T HAVE IN STUART, SOME IN WEST PALM BEACH, BOCA AND MIAMI. NOW, IN 2009, I DID GO TO MANGONIA PARK. I TOOK TRI-RAIL ALL THE WAY TO MIAMI. I CONNECTED WITH THE ABOVE GROUND SUBWAY SYSTEM, DID A SHORT WALK FROM A STATION TO A MOTEL NEAR WHERE I WAS TO HAVE SURGERY. THE NEXT MORNING, I TOOK A SHUTTLE FROM THE MOTEL TO THE SURGERY CENTER, STAYED OVERNIGHT, AND A FRIEND FROM STUART PICKED ME UP. THE NEXT MORNING WHEN BRIGHTLINE GOES TO TAMPA, THERE'S THE RENOWNED MOFFITT CANCER CENTER. IT SURE WOULD BE BETTER TO RIDE A TRAIN THAN DRIVE OVER THREE HOURS TO GET TO TAMPA. WE NEED TO SUPPORT BRIGHTLINE NOW SO IT CAN GROW AND HELP US WITH OTHER THINGS LIKE COMMUTING TO JOBS, LESSENING THE TRAFFIC ON MAJOR ROADS, AND LESSENING THE EMISSIONS THAT LEAD TO CLIMATE CHANGE. IT'S POSSIBLE TO DO THAT NOW WITH THE BRIGHT LINE CONNECTION TO TRI-RAIL. THANK YOU. NINA BRODY HI, NINA BRODY, 41 SOUTHWEST SEMINOLE STREET. I'M HERE REPRESENTING ONCE AGAIN, SAILFISH COVE, 30 RESIDENTS, FOUR OFFICES FOR RETAIL. FIRST AND FOREMOST, I'D LOVE THAT IF MIKE MARTELLE COULD GET AUTHORITY THAT HE NEEDS TO SPEAK WITH BRIGHTLINE ON BEHALF OF THE CITY. I'VE BEEN FASCINATED WITH MIKE'S INTELLIGENCE AND THE ABILITY THAT HE HAS TO MAKE PRESENTATIONS LIVELY AND HAVE US UNDERSTAND THE ISSUES. SO LAST TIME MIKE, I CAME IN WITH A LOT OF THOUGHTS THAT WERE PRO BRIGHT, BRIGHT LINE, BUT THE WAY YOU WERE ABLE TO SHARE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE TIF, THE CRA, AND KIND OF PUT IT ALL TOGETHER FOR US THAT THE FOREFATHERS OF THE CITY OF STUART HAVE ALWAYS WANTED IT. THERE'S A PICTURE OUTSIDE OF A TRAIN STATION TO NOT HAVE IT. SEEMS RIDICULOUS, THAT BEING SAID, HERE WE ARE AGAIN TILL 11:00 AT NIGHT. WE'RE JUST GETTING STARTED ON THE OPINIONS HERE. LAST TIME YOU HAD TO LISTEN TO US FOR FIVE HOURS. SO I DON'T THINK THE REPEATING OF THE WHY IS NEEDED. YOU'VE ALL RECEIVED THE EMAILS YOU'VE HEARD FROM ALL OF US. WE RALLIED. BUT I DO THINK TO UNDERSCORE THE JOBS ISSUE FOR OUR CHILDREN, WE HAD A RALLY OUTSIDE AND THAT IS WHAT WAS TALKED ABOUT A LOT. WE WANT OUR KIDS TO STAY HERE. I WILL JUST SAY, I HAVE A KID AT UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI, SHE WAS HERE THIS SUMMER BECAUSE SHE HAD AN IMPORTANT INTERNSHIP IN WEST PALM BEACH. SHE DROVE IN MY CAR EVERY DAY BECAUSE WE DON'T EVEN HAVE ENOUGH PARKING FOR A THIRD CAR, TO EMBARRASS HER. SHE HIT ANOTHER CAR ON THE WAY. SHE HIT A POLE IN OUR PARKING LOT. $5,000 WORTH OF DAMAGE TO MY CAR, AND WHILE SHE WOULD LOVE TO WORK AT THAT COMPANY AGAIN, SHE DOES NOT WANT TO DO THAT DRIVE. 
          SHE DID IT FOR 12 WEEKS, DAY IN DAY OUT. TOOK HER TWO HOURS THERE, TWO HOURS BACK. ALL SHE COULD DO WAS PUT HER HEAD DOWN AT NIGHT. SO SHE'S GOING TO LIVE WITH MY MOTHER THIS SUMMER. NOT US. AND SHE'S GOING TO LIVE IN PHILADELPHIA AND WORK AT COMCAST. SO WE JUST LOST SOMEONE WHO COULD HAVE STAYED HERE AND WORKED IN SOME OF THESE BIG COMPANIES IN WEST PALM OR MIAMI. 
          AS THE GENTLEMAN SAID. AND WHEN THESE PEOPLE LIVE HERE, EVEN IF THEY WORK ELSEWHERE, THEY DON'T WANT TO GO THERE ON THE WEEKEND. THEY SPEND THE MONEY IN STUART ON THE WEEKEND WHEN THEY COME HOME HUNGRY, THEY SPEND THE MONEY HERE. SO LAST TIME WE HEARD SO MANY BUSINESSES SAY, ESPECIALLY CAFE MARTIRE, THAT WAS SITTING RIGHT HERE, THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE GOING TO GO OUT OF BUSINESS, BUT THEY HELD ON BECAUSE THE BRIGHT LINE WAS COMING. THEY SPENT A LOT OF MONEY TRYING TO GET THEMSELVES READY. I LIVE IN DOWNTOWN STUART. I SEE THE BUSINESSES LEAVING. WE HEAR FROM THE BUSINESSES THAT THEY CAN'T STAY AFLOAT. SO I'D HATE FOR US TO LOSE THE ABILITY TO HAVE THE BRIGHT LINE. I'D LOVE TO HEAR CHRISTOPHER COLLINS THAT YOU'RE OPEN TO THE BRIGHT LINE. DIFFERENT SORT OF DEAL. BUT IF WE DON'T AUTHORIZE SOMEONE LIKE MIKE TO START TALKING, WE'RE GOING TO LOSE IT TO SOMEONE ELSE. THANK YOU. ROMAN BIANCO. 
          WHO? ROMAN BIANCO. IS ANYONE OUT THERE? OKAY. NEXT. DAVID. HUGO. FIRST OF ALL, KAPOSVAR IS DIFFERENT FROM A MARIJUANA DISPENSARY. DON'T ASK HOW I KNOW THAT. COULD YOU? SECOND OF ALL, COULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE, DAVID HUGO, 6531 SOUTHEAST FEDERAL HIGHWAY, SECOND OF ALL, I'M ACTUALLY COMING IN AT THE TAIL END OF THIS WHOLE BRIGHT LINE 
          [04:50:01]
CONTROVERSY. I MOVED FROM WEST PALM TO UP HERE. MY MOTHER, WHO RETIRED, WAS ABOUT TO RETIRE. 
          AND SO SHE'S COMING TO STUART FOR THAT. AND, I WAS VERY EXCITED ABOUT BRIGHT LINE. BUT THEN I LEARNED THAT, OH, THERE'S SOME KIND OF PROBLEM. AND I SEE ON THE NEWS THAT, OH, IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S SOME, LIKE, MORAL ISSUE THAT, OH, IT'S NOT REALLY FAIR THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE ASKING US TO SPEND ALL THE MONEY TO BUILD THEIR STATION OR WHATEVER, BUT IS THAT TRUE? IS THAT ACCURATE? IS THAT LIKE THE MAIN ISSUE? OBJECTION YOU REALLY CAN'T QUERY THE COMMISSION. JUST ALL RIGHT, WELL, WHATEVER THE REASON, I'LL JUST BE A WITNESS. AND I'M ONE OF THESE YOUNG PEOPLE WHO HAS STUFF IN WEST PALM BEACH. I HAVE POTENTIAL. ORLANDO POTENTIALLY MIAMI. IT'D BE VERY USEFUL TO HAVE BRIGHT LINE. NEARBY, YEAH, THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. FRANK MCCRYSTAL. THANK YOU. FRANK SET A RECORD THIS EVENING ON. HE'S GOING TO NEED A DISPENSARY RIGHT. SKIPPED ONE. I'M GLAD YOU. FIRST, THANKS TO THE COMMISSION FOR YOUR DECISION ON THIS ALREADY. MAKE NO DOUBT THE PRESSURE UPON YOU IN THE FUTURE IS GOING TO BE IMMENSE. AND IT'S NOT COMING FROM THE LOCAL YELLOW SHIRTS. IT'S COMING FROM SOME BIG, BIG PEOPLE. WHEN YOU START YOUR NEGOTIATION WITH BRIGHT LINE, REMEMBER THERE'S ONLY ONE STUART FLORIDA. THERE'S ONLY ONE MARTIN COUNTY. AND THEY ALL WANT IT. IT'S THE DOWNTOWN STATION IN STUART IS STEP ONE IN THE TOTAL TRANSFORMATION OF OUR COMMUNITY. IT'S STEP ONE TO BEGIN THE TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT. A NEW LIFESTYLE THAT THE POWERS THAT BE. HAVE DECIDED THAT HUMANS WILL BE PACKED INTO TIGHT SPACES, LIVE IN TINY HOMES. AND USE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION. 
          PERIOD THE EVIL CAR HAS TO GO AWAY. WHY IS MARTIN COUNTY THE PERFECT POSTER CHILD FOR THAT NEW NEW DEVELOPMENT? BECAUSE THERE IS NO THERE IS NO ANSWER RIGHT NOW FOR OUR TRAFFIC ISSUE. 
          BECAUSE OF THE MISTAKES WE'VE MADE IN THE PAST. MOVING 95 SO FAR OUT WEST THAT WE CAN'T EVEN WE DON'T HAVE ANY. WE'VE ONLY GOT TWO NORTH SOUTH CORRIDORS. SO IF THERE'S IF THE BIG BOYS HAVE SOME PLACE ON THEIR MAP TO BE THE FIRST EXAMPLE OF THIS SHINING 15 MINUTE CITY IN THE SKY, THIS IS IT. IT'S NOT VERO, IT'S NOT FORT PIERCE. IT'S HERE. SO PLEASE, WHEN YOU START YOUR NEGOTIATIONS, KEEP THAT IN MIND. THEY DON'T WANT TO GO ANYWHERE ELSE THEY WANT HERE. YOU HOLD THE CARDS. OKAY SO DON'T MAKE THEM PAY FOR HALF. MAKE THEM PAY FOR EVERYTHING. IN FACT, THEY SHOULD PAY US JUST FOR BEING HERE. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND THEN I HAVE STEVEN VITALE. AT THE LEFT. THE LAST ONE RIGHT. EVENING COMMISSIONERS STEVEN VITALE, THANK YOU FOR EXHIBITING EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP THIS EVENING. I WAS PLEASED TO SEE ALL OF YOU MAKING GOOD DECISIONS ABOUT THINGS LIKE THE STARBUCKS YOU WERE ABLE TO NEGOTIATE SOME SOME GOOD CONCESSIONS, SOME REASONABLE CONCESSIONS. AND THAT'S WHAT EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP IS ALL ABOUT. I DISAGREE WITH MR. MCCRYSTAL. I THINK WE'RE NOT HOLDING THE CARDS. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT BRIGHTLINE WILL DO. I THINK THEY'RE HOLDING THE CARDS AND I THINK YOU KNOW MY POSITION, AND I THINK YOU MADE A MISTAKE WHEN YOU CANCELED THE AGREEMENT. BUT I'M ASKING YOU TONIGHT TO CONTINUE EXHIBITING THAT EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP THAT YOU DID TONIGHT WITH REGARD TO THE BRIGHTLINE MATTER. THIS IS SO IMPORTANT. WE ALL KNOW THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT DECISION TO BE MADE IN THE CITY. IN THE PAST 100 YEARS. SO YOU HAVE THREE OPTIONS. AS I SEE IT, YOU CAN DO NOTHING. THAT WOULD BE TERRIBLE, I THINK. I THINK ALL REASONABLE PEOPLE AGREE HAVING THIS THING 
          [04:55:01]
GO BY 32 TIMES A DAY WITHOUT US BEING ABLE TO GET ON IT IS RIDICULOUS. IT'D BE LIKE HAVING A ROMAN TOWN THAT HAD AN AQUEDUCT GOING BY AND NOT BEING ABLE TO DRAW THE WATER FROM THE AQUEDUCT. WE HAVE TO HAVE THIS STATION. IT'S CRITICAL. THAT'S WHY I'M HERE TONIGHT AT 11:00 PM, BECAUSE I KNOW HOW IMPORTANT IT IS. THE SECOND OPTION IS TO DO SOMETHING UNREASONABLE TO TAKE MR. MCCHRYSTAL'S POSITION AND SAY THEY'VE GOT ALL THE CARDS. LET'S ASK FOR SOMETHING TO HARSH. THAT MEANS WE STILL GET NOTHING. WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO IS BE VERY REASONABLE, LIKE YOU DID TONIGHT. AND GO FOR SOME TYPE OF A REASONABLE CONCESSION. AND THEN THERE'S A CHANCE THAT YOU MADE A BOLD DECISION. YOU MADE A VERY BOLD DECISION. OKAY. AND NOW YOU CAN YOU CAN LOOK LIKE THE HEROES AND GET SOMETHING, AND I'LL BE THE FIRST TO SAY YOU WERE EFFECTIVE LEADERS. IF YOU MAKE THIS HAPPEN. IF YOU DON'T, THEN I'M GOING TO SAY YOU WEREN'T EFFECTIVE LEADERS. BUT YOU HAVE THE POWER. AND IT ALL DEPENDS ON HOW YOU LOOK AT IT. AND I THINK YOU NEED TO SOMEHOW GIVE MR. MORTAL AUTHORITY TO DO SOMETHING THAT IS REASONABLE. THAT'S WHAT THE NEXT STEP IS. AND I ASK YOU TO DO THAT. AND THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME TONIGHT VERY MUCH. 
          THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SO COMMISSIONER COLLINS ALREADY STARTED. SO, COMMISSIONER REED, DO YOU HAVE ANY. I THINK COMMISSIONER COLLINS MENTIONED QUITE A BIT OF IT. YOU KNOW, WITH WHAT THE PUBLIC FELT, IT WASN'T NECESSARILY AGAINST THE STATION. IT WAS ALL THE THINGS THAT COMMISSIONER COLLINS STATED AS WELL, SO I REALLY DIDN'T HAVE MUCH TO ADD. I MEAN, THE WHOLE TWO STOPS A DAY NORTH AND SOUTH BOUND. I DIDN'T THINK THAT WAS GOOD FOR THE RESIDENTS, YOU CAN'T REALLY GO DOWN TO MIAMI AND EXPECT A RIDE BACK IF THAT'S WHAT IT WAS BASED OFF OF RIDERSHIP, IF IT WAS TRUE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, THEY WOULD HAVE HAD MORE THAN TWO NORTH OR SOUTH BOUND FROM THE GET GO. SO WE WOULDN'T BE IN THAT PREDICAMENT, ALSO, THEY WOULDN'T HAVE 251% PRICE INCREASES. SO DRASTICALLY FOR PEOPLE THAT WANTED TO USE IT, BUT I THINK, CITY MANAGER MIKE HAS A LOT OF DIRECTION TO HEAD IN BASED OFF OF WHAT COMMISSIONER COLLINS SAID, POTENTIALLY, MAYBE IF HE CAN REITERATE THOSE ARE THINGS THAT HE'S LOOKING FOR TO OPEN UP DISCUSSION. MR. COMMISSIONER COLLINS, I NEED THE BOARD TO VOTE. THREE I NEED I NEED YOU TO TELL ME NOT JUST CORRECT, AND I'M SURE THEY'LL GET RESTATED AT ONE POINT WITH A MOTION DIRECTION. RIGHT. YOU'RE NOT LOOKING FOR A MOTION TONIGHT. I MEAN, I DON'T THINK THERE'S AN AGENDA ITEM TONIGHT ANYWAY. SO IT'S NOT. YEAH. IT WAS JUST DISCUSSION CORRECT ON WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR. AND A LOT OF THINGS WERE MENTIONED ALREADY FROM PRIOR BOARD MEMBERS. SO. OKAY. 
          COMMISSIONER JOB, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS. WELL I DO HAVE A QUESTION. SO TO GIVE MR. MORTAL THIS DIRECTION, I KNOW WE DON'T HAVE A MOTION, BUT DO WE NOT NEED A MOTION TO PUT IT ON TO THE NEXT CALENDAR SO THAT THERE IS SOMETHING IN WRITING? NO, WE DON'T NEED A MOTION. OKAY, WELL, IF YOU WANTED TO PUT IT ON, WE WOULD NEED A MOTION. BUT TO GIVE HIM DIRECTION TO ENTER INTO START. START TALKING NEW NEGOTIATIONS. NO, WE WOULD NOT NEED A MOTION TO CORRECT. MR. WELL, RIGHT NOW. RIGHT. WE DON'T NEED ANOTHER MOTION TO ADOPT THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE THAT'S ALREADY IN PLACE. SO ABSENT SOMETHING OTHER THAN THAT, I THERE'S NOT MUCH I COULD DO, BUT IF YOU GIVE ME DIRECTION TO DO MORE THAN THAT, I WILL DO MORE THAN THAT, FIRST THING I WANT TO SAY IS, LIKE MANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS, I'VE RECEIVED HUNDREDS OF EMAILS, BOTH PRO AND CON, AND THERE'S, THERE'S BOTH, OPINIONS OUT THERE. I WANT TO THANK COMMISSIONER COLLINS FOR GIVING A LITTLE CLARITY TO THE TO THE PEOPLE WHO HERE WERE HERE EARLIER, IN EVERY EMAIL I GET FOR THE PEOPLE WHO WANT BRIGHTLINE, THE ASSUMPTION IS THAT WE KILLED THE DEAL. AND NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES WE SEEM TO SAY IT, THE ONLY WAY TO RENEGOTIATE WAS TO UNDO THAT, LEASE AND TO UNDO THOSE AGREEMENTS. THAT'S THE ONLY WAY YOU'RE GOING TO GO FORWARD. THERE'D BE NO REASON FOR BRIGHTLINE TO NEGOTIATE WITH US IF THEY ALREADY HAD A SIGNED LEASE. SO THAT'S NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO, I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER REED. I DON'T KNOW THAT BRIGHTLINE WANTS TO BE A COMMUTER TRAIN BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE OFFERED CERTAINLY MORE. TO NORTHBOUND TO SOUTHBOUND, MAYBE SOMEWHERE IN THE FUTURE. THERE'S MORE OF THAT. BUT AS FAR AS I KNOW, WE DON'T EVEN KNOW A TIME FOR THOSE NORTHBOUND AND SOUTHBOUND TRAINS. IF I'M INCORRECT, SOMEONE PLEASE LET ME KNOW. BUT THAT WAS WHAT WAS. THE AGREEMENT WAS VERY LIMITED. YOU HAVE TWO NORTHBOUND, TWO SOUTHBOUND. I MEAN, IT COULD BE 630 IN THE MORNING AND, YOU KNOW, SEVEN AT NIGHT. IT JUST DOESN'T LEAVE MUCH TIME IF YOU'RE TRYING TO GET TO MIAMI OR BACK IN ONE DAY. SAME FOR ORLANDO. SO I JUST 
          [05:00:01]
WOULD LIKE EVERYONE TO UNDERSTAND THE PRO BRIGHTLINE PEOPLE IS THAT WE REALLY DID THIS BECAUSE THE PLAN, THE AGREEMENT WAS NOT IN OUR FAVOR. I MEAN, IT'S ACTUALLY THERE WAS NOTHING THAT BRIGHTLINE HAD TO PUT UP OTHER THAN THEIR NAME. AND THAT'S NOT AN AGREEMENT. 
          THAT'S THAT'S NOT A NEGOTIATION. THAT'S NOT A PLAN FOR ANYONE EXCEPT BRIGHTLINE. SO I WOULD HOPE THAT YOU WOULD SUPPORT THE FACT THAT WE ARE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH SOME GOOD SUGGESTIONS AS TO WHAT THE NEGOTIATION AND WHAT THE PLAN SHOULD BE, AND THAT'S ALL I ASK FOR. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER CLARK. YOU SPEAK MR. RICH. I HAVE NO COMMENT. COMMISSIONER CLARK. OKAY I SPOKE BEFORE. WELL I, I THINK FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, AND I DON'T WANT TO, RAIN ON ANYBODY'S PARADE OR BLAME ANYBODY. AND I UNDERSTAND, AND I HEAR WHAT COMMISSIONER COLLINS IS SAYING, BUT I JUST. I DIDN'T THINK THAT THAT WAS THE WAY TO GO ABOUT TRYING TO GET, SOME CHANGE OR SOMETHING. I THINK THE COUNTY AND OTHER THINGS THAT WE'VE BEEN DISINGENUOUS AND I, IF WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO GO FORWARD, WE NEED TO KNOW THAT WE'RE GOING FORWARD AND WE'RE GOING TO BE ASKING MR. MORTAL TO MOVE FORWARD AND TO TALK TO THE COUNTY AND TO, GET US SOMETHING BETTER THAN WHAT WAS APPARENTLY SIGNED ON. THE NINTH OR WHATEVER THAT DATE WAS. MARK. NO, NO, JUST THE ONE THAT AUGUST THE 9TH. SO, MR. MORTAL. I'LL ASK AGAIN BECAUSE THE PUBLIC IS LOOKING AND WAITING AND THEY WANT US TO MAKE SOME TYPE OF DECISIVE MOVEMENT. I KNOW THAT THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE THE ANSWER, BECAUSE APPARENTLY, THE REASON WHY, THERE WAS THIS IDEA OF, OF RESCINDING, IS BECAUSE YOU CAN ONLY BE YOU CAN'T BE A LITTLE BIT PREGNANT. YOU HAVE TO BE IN OR OUT. AND SO, IS THIS ENOUGH? IS IT ENOUGH FOR US JUST TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION, OR DO WE REALLY NEED TO TAKE A VOTE TO MAKE IT A STRONG THING THAT SAYS THAT WE'RE ASKING YOU TO MOVE FORWARD, SPEAK WITH OUR, OUR OUR COMMISSIONERS, SPEAK WITH THE COUNTY COMMISSION, SPEAK WITH THE, BRIGHT LINE. AND WE ALSO, AS INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONERS, NEED TO DO WHATEVER WORK WE NEED TO DO. BUT I THINK THAT WE NEED TO GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO TRY TO, REBUILD SOME TRUST, REBUILD SOME, SOME BASIS, SOME GUIDELINES, SOME FRAMEWORK OF WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN. AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT MY FELLOW COMMISSIONER JOB IS SAYING. AND I DON'T HAVE THE NUMBERS, BUT I KNOW THAT FOR I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S FOR THE ENTIRE SYSTEM, BUT AT LEAST I KNOW FOR THE SYSTEM IN OUR AREA FOR WHAT'S GOING INTO THE ROOSEVELT BRIDGE, 150,000 IS A MILLION, MILLION PLUS PLUS THE MONEY THAT HAS BEEN PUT INTO ALL OF THE LINES AND ALL OF THE WORK ALONG THE RAILROADS. I DON'T KNOW THAT I I'VE KNOWN THE NUMBER, BUT I'M NOT EVEN GOING TO TRY TO SAY THE NUMBER. I'VE TALKED TO THE BRIGHT LINE, PEOPLE ABOUT IT. SO IT'S NOT FAIR TO SAY THAT THEY'RE NOT PUTTING ANYTHING. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE STATION AREA. THERE'S A LOT OF INFRASTRUCTURE, THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN SPENT AND THE STATION AREA AND THE GUIDELINES THAT WE HAVE FROM THE PREVIOUS AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY, THAT'S THAT'S WHAT THAT IS. I JUST DIDN'T THINK THAT WE USE THE RIGHT METHOD TO COME TO WHERE WE ARE NOW. BUT WE ARE THERE. I HEAR THAT THERE'S INTEREST IN ABSOLUTELY WORKING WITH THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND WORKING WITH BRIGHT LINE TO GET SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO BE, I GUESS NOT. AND I, YOU KNOW, WE'VE EXPLAINED THIS ABOUT WHETHER IT'S GOING TO BE A DRAIN ON OUR RESOURCES AND THE FACT OF WHERE THE FUNDING WOULD AND COULD COME FROM OVER TIME. AND I'M NOT SURE WHY WE'RE STILL, NOT WANTING TO ABSOLUTELY PUT OUR FOOT FORWARD AND SAY, WE'RE WORKING WITH THIS, BUT I'M WILLING TO SAY I'M WILLING TO LET MR. MARTEL WORK REPRESENT US. IF YOU NEED ME, I WILL MEET AND TALK WITH OTHERS, AND I'LL DEFINITELY. I'VE BEEN MEANING TO TALK TO OUR NEW, COMMISSIONERS. THEY HAVEN'T EVEN COME IN YET. WE STILL HAVE THE SAME COMMISSIONERS THAT THE 
          [05:05:03]
COUNTY. BUT, WE JUST NEED TO REALLY. I'M NOT SAYING THAT WE SHOULD SAY THAT WE'VE MADE A MISTAKE, BUT I THINK THAT, FROM THE RESIDENTS, THEIR LETTERS, THEIR SPEECH, AND FROM WHAT I'M HEARING FROM OUR COMMISSIONERS, WE REALLY NEED TO, JUST BE FIRM ON HOW WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD. 
          AND IF WE'RE GOING TO AUTHORIZE OUR STAFF TO MOVE FORWARD, THEN WE NEED TO MEAN IT, SAY IT AND MEAN IT, AND HOPE THAT WHEN THEY COME BACK WITH INFORMATION FOR US OR GIVING THEM THE AUTHORITY TO MOVE FORWARD, LET'S LET'S DO THAT. COMMISSIONER COLLINS. YEAH SO I WOULD SAY WE MOST CERTAINLY DID NOT MAKE A MISTAKE. AND THE RESIDENTS ALSO AGREE WITH THAT EVEN IN THE TCPALM POLL THAT WAS OUT MORE RECENTLY, THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WHO WERE POLLED SUPPORT STUART CITY COMMISSIONERS RESCINDING THE BRIGHT LINE DEAL. SO IT'S YES. WELL, MA'AM, I'M SORRY, IT'S THE TCPALM POLL. AND THAT IS THE MAJORITY VOTE, SO FOR ME, A COUPLE OF THINGS BEFORE, YOU KNOW, TOO MANY SPECIFICS, I WOULD SAY NOT TO RUSH THIS, RIGHT, NOT TO RUSH. YOU'RE ABOUT TO HAVE IN SIX WEEKS OR WHATEVER IT IS, A NEW COUNTY COMMISSION AS WELL. AND THEY'RE GOING TO WANT TO POTENTIALLY HAVE A PIECE OF THIS. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE SOMETHING THAT EVERYBODY'S GOING TO FEEL GOOD ABOUT AND CAN OWN GOING FORWARD, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST FOR THE NEXT TWO YEARS HERE. SO BEING PATIENT, NOT TRYING TO RUSH SOMETHING IN WITH THE CURRENT COUNTY COMMISSION, NOT PUTTING TOO MUCH PRESSURE IMMEDIATELY BEING PATIENT AND MAKING SURE IT'S A GOOD DEAL FOR ALL PARTIES. FOR ME, MORE SPECIFICALLY, YOU KNOW, I MENTIONED THE 50, 50, 50 WITH BRIGHT LINE IN THE COUNTY PAYING FOR THE STATION AND TRACKS PER THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENTS. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S NO TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT, MIKE, YOU DID A REALLY GOOD JOB HEDGING IN THE PREVIOUS DEAL, BUT I DON'T WANT TO SEE, YOU KNOW, THAT TRIANGLE PARCEL OR THE AND I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO CONCERN ABOUT THAT AT ALL. THE COUNTY HAD REMOVED THAT FROM THEIR SETTLEMENT. AND I'M JUST SPEAKING KIND OF MY, MY THOUGHTS ON A NEW DEAL. I UNDERSTAND, I LIKE I MENTIONED BEFORE, WITH THE BALL FIELDS, YOU KNOW, I'D LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE END UP GOING TO REFERENDUM AND DON'T SOMEHOW I DON'T THINK THEY'RE GOING TO END UP IN A DEAL. BUT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S IMPORTANT. BRIGHT LINE, HAVING THE RIGHTS TO PASSENGER RAIL AND FEC TRACKS, I THINK IS SOMETHING TO CONSIDER, AS TRI-RAIL SEEMS TO BE TRYING TO EXPAND THEIR ROUTES. SO SOMETHING THAT I WOULD WANT TO HAVE ADDRESSED IN AN AGREEMENT IS, YOU KNOW, I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF EXCITEMENT AROUND BRIGHT LINE, BUT I HAVEN'T HEARD AS MUCH EXCITEMENT AROUND POTENTIALLY TRI-RAIL COMING TO DOWNTOWN. STUART SO LOOKING AT THAT, ADDRESSING THAT, PREPARING FOR THAT POSSIBILITY, I KNOW IT MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT IN THE FUTURE, BUT IT DOES SEEM LIKE THAT'S PART OF BRIGHTLINE'S BUSINESS MODEL. IS LICENSING THAT PASSENGER RAIL TO TRI-RAIL, THE NUMBER OF STOPS, THE NUMBER OF STOPS IS A BIG ISSUE. WHEN I TALK TO PEOPLE, THE TWO TWO NORTHBOUND, TWO SOUTHBOUND IS NOT ENOUGH, PRESUMABLY BRIGHTLINE DOES ISN'T GOING TO WANT TO STAFF THAT STATION FOR MORE THAN A NORMAL SHIFT AND HAVE TWO SHIFTS. RIGHT. BUT I THINK IF RESIDENTS HERE CAN'T TAKE ADVANTAGE OF GETTING ON A TRAIN IN THE MORNING TO GO TO MIAMI OR ORLANDO, AND THEN LET'S USE MIAMI AND BE ABLE TO GET ON LIKE A BUZZER BEATER TRAIN, RIGHT. FOR THE HEAT GAMES TO COME BACK HERE. WHAT'S A POINT? IF YOU CAN ONLY GET BACK ON JUST AFTER LUNCH TO BE ABLE TO GET BACK? IT KIND OF DEFEATS THE PURPOSE. I KNOW I'M NOT TRYING TO BE DEROGATORY IN SAYING THIS, BUT IN TALKING TO PEOPLE, A LOT OF PEOPLE LIKE THE IDEA OF BEING ABLE TO GO DOWN AND HAVE DRINKS, DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT DRIVING. YOU CAN'T DO THAT UNLESS YOU'RE STAYING IN A HOTEL IN MIAMI WITH THE DEAL THE WAY IT WAS PREVIOUSLY SET UP. SO MAKING SURE THAT IF YOU KNOW, COUNTY AND CITY RESIDENTS ARE ON THE HOOK FOR ANY PART OF THIS, THAT WE'RE ABLE TO TRULY UTILIZE IT AS MOST PEOPLE ASSUME THEY'LL BE ABLE TO, INSTEAD OF HAVING THEM FOOT THE BILL. AND THEN IT ALL COMES OUT THAT NO, YOUR LAST TRAINS AT TWO, I AGREE, YES. I'M SORRY, I'M SORRY, I'M SORRY SIR. 
          PUBLIC COMMENT IS OVER. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. AND THEN OTHER THINGS TO CONSIDER IN NEGOTIATION. I THINK JUST TO KIND OF THROW THIS OUT THERE WOULD BE WHO KEEPS THE $15 PER 
          [05:10:01]
DAY, YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY IF WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY BUILDING A GARAGE WHERE WE WOULD BE ON THE HOOK FOR O AND M, AND I'M JUST KIND OF THROWING THIS OUT THERE SUPERFICIALLY. WELL, OKAY, I JUST, I JUST I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT I DO NOT WANT THE LIABILITY AT ALL. I KNOW PARKING EITHER. 
          SO EVEN A LOT. RIGHT. BECAUSE WE HAVE IT'S 24 HOUR. YOU GOT TO PROVIDE SECURITY ETC. IF SOMETHING GOES WRONG THERE, I DON'T WANT TO BE THE ONE GETTING SUED. FAIR ENOUGH. JUST THROWING THAT OUT. I MEAN, I JUST I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S A TALKING POINT MONEY BANKER. I DON'T THINK IT'S AS LUCRATIVE AS EVERYBODY THINKS. NET NET. IT'S NOT THAT NET. ALL RIGHT. BUT WITH THAT, THOSE ARE MY GENERAL SORT OF IDEAS TO TRY TO CREATE SOME DISCUSSION. SO THANK YOU. SO MOST OF THE OBJECTIONS THERE'S SO MUCH MISINFORMATION ABOUT THIS AND MOST OF THE OBJECTION SEEMS TO BE BASED ON INCORRECT INFORMATION. JUST TONIGHT IT WAS STATED THAT BRIGHTLINE WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO DEVELOP THAT BROWNFIELD. WELL THAT'S WRONG MR. MORTEL IMMEDIATELY STATED THAT THAT'S INCORRECT. THAT WAS IN THE LETTER. OKAY, BUT THAT'S MR. MARTELL. WOULD YOU REPEAT WHAT YOU SAID REGARDING THAT? I DID IT WAS IMMEDIATELY REJECTED BY THEM. ON MARCH 5TH, BUT NONETHELESS, THIS WAS THE DEAL. HERE'S HOW DEALS WORK AGREEMENTS ARE REACHED. AND THEN THEY CHANGE. THE FIRST AGREEMENT WAS BETWEEN BRIGHTLINE AND MARTIN COUNTY. WE WERE NOT INVOLVED. 
          OKAY, THE SECOND DEAL WAS BETWEEN MARTIN COUNTY AND THE CITY OF STUART. BRIGHTLINE WAS NOT INVOLVED. WE PROPOSED TERMS TO THEM. THEY ACCEPTED SOME AND REJECTED SOME. AND THIS IS HOW DEALS ARE NEGOTIATED. THERE'S NOTHING IMPLIED IN A CONTRACT. BRIGHTLINE NEVER RENEGED. OKAY THE FIRST SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT SAID EXPLICITLY THE COUNTY WOULD PAY 50% AND THEY LEFT IT BLANK. 
          THEY DID NOT SAY BRIGHTLINE WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR HALF BECAUSE IT WAS THEIR UNDERSTANDING AT THE TIME THAT FORT PIERCE WAS WILLING TO PAY FOR IT ALL. SO WHY WOULD BRIGHTLINE SAY, OH, WE'LL PAY FOR HALF? BECAUSE THEY WANTED A COMPETITION BETWEEN THE CITY OF STUART AND FORT PIERCE, SO THEY DID NOT RENEGE ON THAT AGREEMENT. WE DECIDED THE CITY AND THE COUNTY DECIDED THAT WE DID NOT WANT TO BUILD THE. WHAT'S IT CALLED, THE TRAC HOPPER MC OR THE BRIDGE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE. THE CITY AND THE COUNTY DECIDED THEY DIDN'T WANT TO BUILD A PARKING GARAGE. BRIGHTLINE DIDN'T FORCE THOSE TERMS ON US. WE MADE THAT DECISION. AND SO AT THAT POINT, OF COURSE, THE TERMS HAVE TO CHANGE. WE HAVE TO COME TO A NEW AGREEMENT BECAUSE THE COST OF A FOUR STORY PARKING GARAGE, WHICH WE WOULD HAVE HAD, THAT BURDEN, IS ENORMOUS. AND SUDDENLY WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT. SO THE OTHER TWO PARTIES GO, WELL, WAIT A MINUTE. IF THEY DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT, THEN. SO TO CALL IT RENEGING IS TO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW DEALS WORK. AND HOW NEGOTIATIONS OCCUR. BUT I WANT TO, YOU KNOW, I WANT TO EMPHASIZE A POSITIVE NOTE HERE. AND I WAS READING THIS ARTICLE ABOUT HIGH SPEED RAIL SERVICE BEING ESTABLISHED OUT WEST AND THE COMMUNITY SAID THEY ARE STRIVING TO PROTECT NATURAL RESOURCES AND PROVIDE THE PUBLIC WITH A NEW, STATE OF THE ART TRANSPORTATION THAT IS CLEAN, SUSTAINABLE AND REDUCES OUR COLLECTIVE CARBON FOOTPRINT. STUDIES HAVE SHOWN THAT HIGH SPEED RAIL IS THE MOST ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY FORM OF LONG DISTANCE TRAVEL, PRODUCING LESS PLANET OVERHEATING POLLUTION PER PASSENGER THAN CARS OR AIRPLANES, WHILE ALSO MINIMIZING NOISE POLLUTION AND REQUIRING FAR LESS SPACE. AND I'M ADDING EXPENSE THAN ROADWAYS. HIGH SPEED RAIL IS ALSO SIMPLY AN EASIER, CHEAPER AND MORE EFFICIENT WAY TO TRAVE. 
          FROM A PASSENGER PERSPECTIVE, I WANT US TO BE A PART OF THAT EFFORT. I SHARE ALL THOSE GOALS. 
          I WANT TO CREATE LESS POLLUTION. I WANT TO LOWER THE CARBON FOOTPRINT. AND THIS ISN'T JUST NOT FOR THE CITY OF STUART, BUT WE GET TO DO IT IN CONCERT WITH ALL OF SOUTHEAST FLORIDA, WITH ORLANDO EVENTUALLY, WITH TAMPA, WE NEED TO FIND A WAY TO MAKE THIS WORK. WE SHARE THESE GOALS THIS GENTLEMAN SPOKE ABOUT FOR THE CHILDREN. THAT'S DIRECTLY FOR THE CHILDREN. THIS IS FOR OUR CHILDREN WELL INTO THE FUTURE. WE NEED TO TAKE ON THIS RESPONSIBILITY AND YEAH, WE'RE GOING TO PAY FOR IT. YOU'RE DARN RIGHT WE'RE GOING TO PAY FOR IT, BECAUSE ANYTHING WORTHWHILE YOU 
          [05:15:01]
HAVE TO PAY FOR. BUT THE BENEFITS I DON'T THINK WE CAN EVEN IMAGINE THE BENEFITS BOTH DIRECTLY. I THINK IT'S A VERY GOOD POINT. EVERYBODY TALKS ABOUT PEOPLE COMING HERE AND OBVIOUSLY THE BUSINESSES WILL BENEFIT. BUT THE OPPORTUNITY IT WILL PROVIDE OUR CITIZENS TO TRAVEL AND ACCESS RESOURCES IN OTHER PARTS OF THE STATE SAFELY, NOT POLLUTING. IT'S JUST IT'S A REMARKABLE OPPORTUNITY AND I HOPE THAT WE CAN THAT MR. MORTAL CAN BE SUCCESSFUL AND FIND A WAY AND STRIKE A DEAL THAT WE CAN ALL AGREE SERVES THE CITIZENS OF STUART AS BEST AS POSSIBLE, I DON'T I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO GET. I MEAN, IS THERE ANY IS THERE AN AMOUNT DO YOU HAVE IN MIND, ANY OF YOU COMMISSIONERS THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO GO OVER 15 MILLION OR. I MEAN, I'M JUST TRYING TO GET. I THINK WE'LL BE STYMIEING OURSELVES IF WE DO THAT. OKAY, FINE. DO YOU FEEL DO YOU FEEL? I FEEL THAT I HAVE DIRECTION TO TELL BRIGHTLINE THAT THE CITY WILL PAY FOR THE PARKING NECESSARY TO COMPLY WITH THE RFP. IF BRIGHTLINE PAYS FOR HALF THE STATION, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT HALF THE STATION MEAN. SO THAT. BUT I'LL TELL BRIGHTLINE. SO THE COUNTY LAST MEETING FIVE ZERO. I WAS SPEAKING WITH THE COMMISSIONER. COUNTY COMMISSIONER TODAY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH NEGOTIATIONS WITH BRIGHTLINE. THEY WANT TO MAKE IT HAPPEN. THEY WANT THE CITY TO BE A PART OF IT. COMMISSIONER COLLINS IS SAYING THE STATION AND TRACK WORK FOR CLARIFICATION FOR THE RFP RESPONSE FOR THE RFP RESPONSE. OKAY BUT I MEAN, THE I CAN CONTACT THEM. I'LL REACH OUT TO THEM REGARDLESS OF THE RESPONSE. I WILL BRING IT BACK AND RELAY THAT TO THE BOARD. I MEAN, DID YOU DID YOU FEEL THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT? DO YOU THINK 15 MILLION IS TOO MUCH FOR THE CITY TO PAY OUT OF THE CRA? COMMISSIONER COLLINS, DO YOU THINK THAT'S ONEROUS? I WANT TO MAKE IT BACK. I THINK WE'RE GONNA GET IN TROUBLE IF YOU START TALKING ABOUT DOLLAR AMOUNTS SPECIFICALLY, I THINK THAT'S GOT TO. YOU GOT TO GET A LITTLE FURTHER DOWN THE LINE. SO THIS IS A COMPANY THAT HAS OH, THE OTHER MISCONCEPTION AND IS, IS THAT IT'S OWNED BY AN ARAB COMPANY. IT IS NOT OWNED BY AN ARAB COMPANY, IS OWNED BY FORTRESS INVESTMENTS OUT OF DALLAS, TEXAS, WHICH IS A WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF A JAPANESE COMPANY, SOFTBANK, WHICH IS ONE OF THE MOST PROMINENT, WORLDWIDE HIGH TECH INVESTORS THERE IS. SO I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT RUMOR, THAT SORT OF XENOPHOBIC RUMOR CAME FROM. HOMOPHOBIC, NOT THAT THAT MATTERS, BUT IT'S XENOPHOBIC. YOU KNOW, THEY'VE INVESTED JUST IN STUART 225 MILLION. YES. THE TRACKS THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE THE GRADE CROSSINGS, WHICH BY THE WAY, THEY HAD TO REDO. I CAN'T THEY HAD TO REDO THE ONE RIGHT OFF THE RIGHT. COMMISSIONER CLARK. 
          THEY HAD TO REDO THAT ONE DOWN BY. THAT GIVES YOU ACCESS TO 10TH STREET, FLORIDA STREET. 
          YEAH. FLORIDA STREET. SO THAT WAS MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, $25 MILLION THEY'RE SPENDING FOR THE BRIDGE, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHEN YOU SAY THEY HAVEN'T MADE A CONTRIBUTION. I MEAN, IT'S AN ENTIRE SYSTEM. YOU'RE CREATING STRAWMEN TO ARGUE WITH. I'VE SAID WHAT I SAID, AND YOU'RE CREATING XENOPHOBIC THINGS, AND I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU'RE GOING. KIND OF BATTING AT THE AIR. I KNOW IT'S LATE. WE SHOULD PROBABLY GO TO BED. WELL, WE HAVE ANOTHER MEETING. NO, WE HAVE A FEW MORE ITEMS TO ADDRES. WE MOVE FORWARD. YOU'RE OKAY, MR. MARTEL, OR DO WE? ARE? WE HAVE A. I'LL LET YOU KNOW. WE ADJOURN AND TALK. CAN WE ADJOURN AND TALK BUDGET? YEAH. THAT'D BE. THAT'D BE GREAT. IN THIS MEETING. YES, THAT'S WHAT I SAID. YEAH. ARE WE ALL DONE WITH THE D AND D OKAY. SEEING NO OTHER ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION, THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED. OTHER ITEMS WE N
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.