Aug 03, 2022 Planning and Zoning Board

[00:00:01]

GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 3RD IS NOW CALLED TO ORDER.

RAINER, WOULD YOU PLEASE LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE OF EARLY.

THREE.

HOW THE ROLL CALL, PLEASE.

YES. MR. BOEREMA PRESIDENT.

MR. GOOD. MISS JORDAN PRESENT.

MISS MIRAGE. MR. OLSZEWSKI PRESIDENT.

MR. WARNER PRESIDENT.

MR. WEINBERG PRESIDENT.

MR. KARAFFA HAS ASKED TO BE EXCUSED, AND OUR DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY, ERIC MESSENGER, IS PRESENT.

WE DO HAVE A CORNER. Q DO I HAVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING?

[ADOPTION OF MINUTES:]

SECURED BY MR. WEINBERG.

SECOND BY MR. OLSZEWSKI.

ALL APPROVED. I.

THE BENEFIT OF THE APPLICANTS AND THE AUDIENCE.

[ANNOUNCEMENTS:]

THE LAND DEVELOPMENT STAFF WILL PRESENT THE STAFF REPORT FOR EACH CASE.

BOARD MEMBERS WILL THEN BE ASKED IF THEY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF.

THE APPLICANT OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVE WILL THEN BE ASKED TO APPROACH THE PODIUM AND PRESENT ANY INFORMATION GERMANE TO THE CASE AND TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD OR WILL THEN BE OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS.

WE WILL FIRST HEAR THOSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICATION AND THEN THOSE OPPOSED TO THE APPLICATION OR ALL PROCEEDINGS.

ALL APPLICANTS AND SPEAKERS FROM THE AUDIENCE MUST SIGN A SPEAKER OATH CARD LOCATED AT THE PODIUM AND AT THE BACK OF THE ROOM.

PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY AND SPEAK DIRECTLY INTO THE MICROPHONE AND STATE YOUR NAME, ADDRESS AND COMMENTS FOR THE RECORD.

AS A COURTESY, I ASK THAT IF THERE ARE A GROUP OF PEOPLE FROM A NEIGHBORHOOD WHO MAY HAVE SIMILAR COMMENTS, YOU INFORMALLY APPOINT A SPOKESMAN TO CLARIFY YOUR VIEWS. AFTER PUBLIC COMMENTS, I WILL BRING THE CASE BACK TO THE BOARD.

AT THIS TIME, THE FLOOR WILL BE CLOSED AND NO FURTHER COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE WILL BE HEARD.

WELL THEN CALL FOR A MOTION IN A SECOND, AT WHICH TIME THE BOARD MAY HAVE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR FURTHER DISCUSSION.

I WILL THEN CALL FOR A VOTE.

DECISIONS OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD ARE THEN FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL DISPOSITION.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENDANCE AND FOR YOUR COOPERATION IN ADHERING TO THESE MEETING GUIDELINES.

HEY, JUST A FEW THINGS.

A BUSINESS.

WE HAVE SOME REQUESTS TO CONTINUE CERTAIN CASES AND UNDER OLD BUSINESS FD 16, 20, 22 WE NEED TO REQUEST A

[OLD/UNFINISHED BUSINESS:]

OKAY. MOTION TO CONTINUE CASE 16 2022 TO SEPTEMBER 6TH.

SECOND MOTION AND THE SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR I.

OK 1622 IS CONTINUED UNDER NEW BUSINESS.

WE HAVE A MOTION TO CONTINUE.

PD 32 2022 SO MOVED.

OKAY. MOTION AND A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR I 32 2020 TO MOVE TO THE SEPTEMBER MEETING.

329 2022.

IS CONTINUED TO THE.

SEPTEMBER MEETING WITHOUT A VOTE NEEDED.

MOTION TO CONTINUE.

PT 39 2022 MOTION TO CONTINUE.

T 39 2022 TO SEPTEMBER SIX.

OCEAN IN A SECOND ALL IN FAVOR I AND FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE WE HAVE SOME CASES THAT WERE WITHDRAWN.

IF YOU'RE HERE FOR CASE F D 31 2022, THAT'S BEEN WITHDRAWN.

CP 2822 HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN.

CP Z 28 2022 HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN AND WILL NOT BE HEARD THIS EVENING.

OKAY TO CONTINUE WITH OLD AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS.

MS.. BERNARD WE HAVE A SPEEDY 26, 20, 22.

GOOD EVENING. THIS IS CASE.

PD 26 2022.

THIS IS THE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE THREE FORKS THAT WE WENT THROUGH, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, I BELIEVE, LAST MONTH.

[00:05:01]

THE EXISTING ZONING IS AEW AND S.R.

IN BREVARD COUNTY WITH EXISTING LAND USE OF AEW IN RS ONE BREVARD COUNTY AND ITS CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED LAND.

IT IS APPROXIMATELY 124.33 ACRES.

AND SOME THINGS TO NOTE ABOUT THIS IS THAT THIS IS CONSIDERED AND CLASSIFIED AS A LARGE SCALE, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH MEANS THAT IT'S OVER 50 ACRES IN SIZE. IT WAS HEARD BEFORE CITY COUNCIL ON THE SEVENTH AND THEN SENT UP TO D.O., WHICH IS THE STATE REGULATORY AGENCY, AND THAT WAS SENT ON THE 14TH OF JULY.

THEY HAVE A PERIOD OF ABOUT 60 DAYS TO REVIEW IT.

SO WE ARE HEARING THIS TONIGHT BECAUSE IT WAS ALREADY ADVERTISED.

AND BUT WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR D.O.

TO COME BACK AND IF THEY HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR CONCERNS.

SO I JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT SINCE IT'S ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE, IF WE DON'T HAVE THOSE COMMENTS BACK BY THE 18TH, THAT IT MAY BE CONTINUED AND WE'D LIKE TO HAVE IT CONTINUED WITH THE COMP PLAN AND THE PDB, THE FINAL PDP BEING HEARD TOGETHER. SO WITH THAT, THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO PRESENT HIS POWERPOINT AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU GUYS MIGHT HAVE.

THANK YOU. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I JUST HAVE A QUICK JUST TO UNDERSTAND.

SO WE ARE ABLE TO MAKE A DECISION NOW.

HOWEVER, GOING GOING FORWARD, WE STILL HAVE TO WAIT ON.

RIGHT. SO SO IT'S SCHEDULED TO GO FOR THE 18TH ON CITY COUNCIL.

AND SO WE'RE WAITING TO HEAR BACK FROM DEO.

SO. YEAH.

OK OK.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SAYING THEN WILL THE APPLICANT OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVE APPROACHED THE MICROPHONE? THANK YOU, JAKE WYSE, CIVIL ENGINEER FOR THE PROJECT.

THIS ADDRESS IS 2651 WEST OF GALILEE BOULEVARD IN MELBOURNE.

SINCE YOU HAVE A PRETTY HEAVY AGENDA TONIGHT, YOU GUYS HAVE ACTUALLY SEEN OUR PRESENTATION TWICE.

WE'VE GONE THROUGH SOME PRETTY DETAILED ANALYSIS OF IT.

COUNCIL'S ACTUALLY HEARD IT TWICE.

THIS BOARD HAS GRACIOUSLY RECOMMENDED UNANIMOUS APPROVAL ON BOTH OCCASIONS.

CITY COUNCIL HAS GRACIOUSLY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL ON BOTH OCCASIONS.

AS STAFF HAD MENTIONED, WE'RE GOING THROUGH AN ANNEXATION, A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND A REZONING.

SO WITH THAT, WE JUST ASK THAT OUR PREVIOUS TESTIMONY BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD, AND THE INTEREST OF SAVING TIME JUST STARTED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.

BUT IF THERE ARE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS, APPRECIATE A CHANCE TO RESPOND.

Q. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? SEEING NONE. FOR THE RECORD, THERE ARE NO LETTERS IN THE FILE ON THIS CASE.

THE FLOOR IS NOW OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS.

IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS REQUEST? SAYING THAT ANYBODY OPPOSED.

I MEAN, THE FLOOR IS NOT CLOSED FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS AND THE CASE IS BROUGHT BACK TO THE BOARD BOARD MEMBERS AFTER HEARING THE EVIDENCE.

ARE THERE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR EMOTION, PLEASE? MOTION TO APPROVE PD 26 2022.

SECOND ASKED DO WE NEED TO STAY SUBJECT TO ANY STAFF? JUST, YOU KNOW, LET ME REVISE MY MOTION TO INCLUDE ANY CONDITIONS OF ANY STAFF COMMENTS.

SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR.

I MEAN, HE OPPOSED.

IT CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY THE NEXT CASE PD.

[NEW BUSINESS:]

MR. RAMOS.

GOOD EVENING. I'M TANYA RAMOS, SENIOR PLANNER AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT.

AND THIS IS K Q 34 2022.

THE OWNER IS OLIVER WEST MALABAR PROPERTIES AND THE LOCATION IS THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF MINTON ROAD AND MALABAR ROAD.

THIS IS A 2.9 ACRE SITE AND IS COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ZONING.

AND THEY'RE REQUESTING.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO OPERATE A CAR WASH IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, WHICH IS A CONDITIONAL USE.

AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF Q 30 FOR 2022, SUBJECT TO STAFF COMMENTS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT.

[00:10:04]

YOU. THERE'S A BOARD.

HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NONE. WELL, THE APPLICANT.

JUST FOR CLARITY, A LITTLE BIT OF CLARITY.

SO IS IT JUST GOING TO BE A CAR WASH THAT'S GOING TO BE LOCATED AT THIS AT THIS HOME? I BELIEVE WHEN THEY ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED, THEY ALSO SHOWED LIKE AN OIL CHANGE FACILITY.

BUT IT'S ONLY THE CAR WASH THAT REQUIRES THE CONDITIONAL USE.

STAFF. THEN WHILE THE APPLICANT.

WE'RE. HI.

GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS CASEY WALKER WITH CSC PROPERTIES.

I AM WORKING ON BEHALF OF COLE OLIVER.

WE'LL BE DEVELOPING THIS PROPERTY INTO THE CAR WASH LOCATION AND THE OIL CHANGE LOCATION, AS WAS MENTIONED A MOMENT AGO.

AND I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE ABOUT THIS PROJECT.

WHATEVER. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? YOU, MADAM CHAIR? YES, SIR.

CAN YOU JUST, UM.

IN A BRIEF SENSE, BUT JUST ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT MORE ON THE BUSINESS MODEL HERE.

I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE AUTOMOTIVE FACILITY, OIL CHANGE PLACE, WHAT IT WILL OFFER AND HOW IT INTEGRATES WITH THE CAR WASH.

IS IT KIND OF IS IT MEANT TO BE? THAT WHERE YOU CAN ACCESS EVERYTHING ALL FROM ONE? OR IS IT TWO DIFFERENT BUSINESSES ON ONE PARCEL OF LAND? I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE BUSINESS MODEL.

IF THE TWO ARE COMPLEMENTARY OR WHAT HAVE YOU, THEY COULD BE COMPLEMENTARY.

IN THIS CASE, IT'S SORT OF AS A COINCIDENCE THAT THEY'RE SIMILAR USES THE CAR WASH SITE WAS THE ORIGINAL USE INTENDED HERE AND WE HAD A BIT OF A LITTLE BIT OF ROOM LEFT OVER ON THAT HARD CORNER AND TAKE FIVE OIL CHANGE IS ONE OF OUR OTHER CLIENTS THAT WE DO BUSINESS WITH AND THEY FIT PERFECTLY HERE.

AND. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, SIR.

ONE MORE QUESTION, MADAM CHAIRMAN.

HAS THE PROPERTIES ON THAT SIR.

HAVE HAD WORKING THE PROPERTIES ON THAT LOT.

ARE THEY ALREADY PURCHASED.

WE HAVE THEM UNDER CONTRACT.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

YES, SIR. I'M SURE YOU DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO TO TO THE QUESTION, WHAT TYPE OF CARWASH ARE WE? ARE WE? WHICH BRAND OR WHICH BRAND? WHAT TYPE OF. I MEAN, FULLY AUTOMATIC.

YEAH. SO THIS WILL BE A FULLY AUTOMATIC 120, 230 FOOT AUTOMATED CAR WASH.

YOU KNOW, YOU MIGHT HAVE ONE OR TWO STAFF MEMBERS RUNNING A REGISTER, BUT THE ACTUAL WASH ITSELF IS COMPLETELY AUTOMATED.

THINK LIKE A TOMMY'S CAR WASH, MR. BUBBLES, THAT SORT OF THING.

WE ACTUALLY HAVE FOUR DIFFERENT CAR WASH COMPANIES PURSUING THIS SITE RIGHT NOW, SO I COULDN'T TELL YOU WHICH BRAND IT'S GOING TO BE.

QUESTIONS THE APPLICANT.

THANK YOU. FOR THE RECORD, THERE ARE NO LETTERS IN THE FILE ON THIS CASE.

THE FLOOR IS NOW OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS.

IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS REQUEST? OPPOSED. BRITAIN.

BILL BATTEN, 586 OCEAN SPRAY STREET SOUTHWEST.

NOT SO MUCH AS I'M OPPOSED TO IT BECAUSE IT'S DEVELOPMENT AND COMMERCIAL COMING TO WITHIN THE CITY OF PALM BAY ON A COMMERCIAL PIECE OF PROPERTY.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT TO SEE.

BUT IT GENERATED A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR ME AND I WAS HOPING THE APPLICANT WOULD BE ABLE TO ANSWER THEM.

NORTHBOUND TRAFFIC AND EASTBOUND TRAFFIC LEAVING THE ESTABLISHMENT IS GOING TO HAVE TO CROSS FOUR LANES OF TRAFFIC IF THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO.

A. IN ORDER TO MAKE THEIR TURNS COMING OUT OF THAT RESIDENCE OR OUT OF THAT ESTABLISHMENT.

THAT'S THE FIRST ONE THAT I DIDN'T SEE WHERE THEY WERE, HOW WOULD THEY'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO IT, WHICH MEANS PEOPLE THAT LEAVE, THAT WANT TO GO NORTH OR EAST, HAVE TO GO AND PULL UP ON THE ROAD, THEN MAKE U-TURNS IN TRAFFIC IN ORDER TO MAKE THEIR DEATHS REACH THEIR ORIGINAL DIRECTION OF DESTINATION.

THE OTHER QUESTION IS, WITH THE OIL CHANGE, WE ALREADY HAVE ONE JUST ACROSS THE STREET AND A LITTLE BIT NORTH.

AND THAT OIL BUSINESS, OIL CHANGE BUSINESS HAS GOT SO MANY CARS IN IT RIGHT NOW THAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY HAVING TO PARK CARS ACROSS THE STREET IN ORDER TO HAVE PARKING FACILITIES.

SO I'M HOPING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE ENOUGH LOOKED LIKE THEY MIGHT HAVE ENOUGH TO MAINTAIN THEIR PARKING ON SITE.

BUT I WASN'T SURE, HOPEFULLY, THAT THE DEVELOPER COULD ANSWER THOSE TWO QUESTIONS.

[00:15:01]

THIS IS A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE SEEING HAPPEN.

THANK YOU. FURTHER COMMENTS.

SEEING THEN WITH THE APPLICANT LIKE TO RESPOND.

ALL RIGHT. SO TO ANSWER THAT FIRST QUESTION, THE ISSUE ABOUT CROSSING MULTIPLE LANES OF TRAFFIC OR MAKING U-TURNS, THE SITE PLAN THAT WENT OUT IN THE LETTER ACTUALLY HADN'T HAD THE UPDATED ACCESS PUT ON IT.

BOTH ENTRANCES TO THIS SITE WILL BE PORKCHOP, RIGHT AND RIGHT OUTS ONLY, SO THERE WON'T BE ANYBODY GOING AGAINST ONCOMING TRAFFIC.

YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO DOWN TO A SIGNAL AND MAKE A U-TURN TO GO NORTHBOUND OR EASTBOUND.

TO ANSWER THE OTHER QUESTION.

THIS WOULD BE A THERE WOULD BE NO HOW DO I PUT THIS? PUBLIC PARKING AT THIS LOCATION AND THIS MODEL OF TAKE FIVE, THE CUSTOMERS DON'T EVEN GET OUT OF THEIR CARS.

AND THEN AS FAR AS HIM SAYING THAT THE OTHER OIL CHANGE BUSINESSES ARE EXCEPTIONALLY BUSY, THAT WAS ONE OF THE REASONS WE KIND OF WANTED TO DRAW INTO THIS MARKET.

UH, TRY TO TAKE SOME OF THAT BUSINESS FOR OURSELVES.

I THINK I MISSED SOMETHING.

WHAT YOU SAID WAS 5 MINUTES WAS JUST THE WASH, OR THAT WAS THE OIL CHANGE.

THAT'S JUST FOR THE OIL CHANGE.

HE MENTIONED THE OIL CHANGE BUSINESS, I BELIEVE.

COME OUT OF YOUR CAR IN THE OIL CHANGE.

NO, MA'AM. YOU PUT LIKE YOU PULL UP, THEY DO YOUR AND YOU GO, YOU DON'T EVEN GET OUT.

AND THE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.

YES, MADAM CHAIR, THIS THIS IS THE LOCATION THAT'S RIGHT DOWN FROM THE PINEAPPLE FROM THE SCHOOL.

IT'S YEAH. NORTHWEST CORNER OF MALABAR ROAD AND MINTON ROAD.

SO DO YOU ALL HAVE ANY PLANS IN PLACE FOR HOW YOU'RE GOING TO HANDLE THAT SCHOOL TRAFFIC ALONG WITH THE TRAFFIC THAT THIS THAT THIS WILL GENERATE? I CAN YOU KNOW, I CAN BALLPARK THE TRIPS PER DAY THAT THESE WILL CREATE.

IT'S NOT EXTREME.

A BUSY TAKE FIVE ON AN EXCELLENT LOCATION MIGHT GENERATE 40 OR 50 TRIPS A DAY ACROSS THE ENTIRE OPERATING HOURS.

THE CAR WASHING OUT OTHER HAND MIGHT DO 300 TRIPS, BUT I BELIEVE THAT.

BOTH OF THESE ROADS HAVE OVER 22,000 CARS A DAY ON THEM ALREADY.

AND ONCE YOU GET OVER ONCE YOU GET OVER A CERTAIN THRESHOLD.

THEY SAY YOU'RE NOT REALLY OR AT LEAST OUR STUDIES SHOW AND OUR TRAFFIC STUDIES SHOW FOR OTHER SITES THAT YOU'RE NOT CREATING A DANGER BEYOND WHAT'S ALREADY OUT THERE, THE CURRENT TRAFFIC COUNTS. SO IT'S BASICALLY RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM WHERE WE ARE NOW.

RIGHT. IT'S RIGHT HERE, RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM MCDONALD'S.

THE SCHOOL. THAT WAS THAT PINEAPPLE COVE.

THAT'S. THAT'S IN THERE BACK IN THE.

SIR. THANK YOU. JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT.

ALL RIGHT. THE FLOOR IS NOW CLOSED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT IN THE CASE IS BROUGHT BACK TO THE BOARD.

IS THERE ANY MORE DISCUSSION OR EMOTION? MOTION TO APPROVE SIU 34 TO 2022 SUBJECT TO STAFF COMMENTS.

QUESTION BY MR. WEIMER SECOND BY MS..

MIRAGE ALL IN FAVOR.

MEAN HE OPPOSED MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

HEY. NEXT CASE.

35, 20, 22.

MR. RAMOS. SEE YOU 35 2022.

THE APPLICANT IS FAR RESEARCH.

EVAN FUTCH OF AVID GROUP IS HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.

THE LOCATION IS SOUTH OF NW, ADJACENT TO ROWENA DRIVE, NORTHEAST IN THE VICINITY OF ROBERT J.

COLLIN BOULEVARD AND THE EAST COAST RAILWAY.

THE SITE IS 0.46 ACRES AND IS ZONED HEAVY INDUSTRIAL.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE TO ALLOW THE STORAGE OF LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM PRODUCTS AND SIMILAR CHEMICAL PRODUCTS IN A HEAVY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF Q 35 2022 SUBJECT TO THE STAFF COMMENTS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT.

AND WE REQUEST THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ALSO APPROVE.

SEE YOU 35 2022 SUBJECT TO THE STAFF COMMENTS AND AS I SAID, THE APPLICANT IS ALSO HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

IS THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF?

[00:20:07]

WHILE THEY'RE GETTING THAT PREPARED.

MY NAME IS EVAN OF AVID GROUP.

I'M HERE REPRESENTING FARR CHEMICAL FOR THIS CASE.

AND I'D LIKE TO GO A LITTLE BIT FURTHER, A LITTLE BIT DEEPER INTO WHAT OUR CHEMICAL IS AND WHAT THEY DO THERE, AND ADDITIONALLY WHAT THEY'VE CONTRIBUTED TO THE COMMUNITY THUS FAR.

AND THEN I'D LIKE TO GET FURTHER INTO THE CONVERSATION OF THE ZONING AND EXACTLY HOW WE'RE MEETING THE CRITERIA.

SO MOVING FORWARD, FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT DON'T KNOW FAR CHEMICAL AND WHAT IT IS THAT THEY DO THERE, THEY DO WORK AND PRODUCTS FOR AEROSPACE, PHARMACEUTICALS, PERSONAL HYGIENE, EVEN ADHESIVE PRODUCTS AND EVEN FLAVORS AND FRAGRANCES.

SO THEY USUALLY WORK WITH THE END PRODUCT AT THE WITH OTHER COMPANIES.

FOR OUR RESEARCH IS FOUNDED BACK IN 1983 IN THIS LOCATION, AND THEY'VE BEEN PRESENT AND OPERATING THEIR MAIN MANUFACTURING FACILITY FROM THIS LOCATION SINCE 83.

AND BASICALLY THEY'VE BEEN A NEIGHBOR HERE AND AN EMPLOYER HERE, A MAJOR EMPLOYER, FOR THAT MATTER, FOR THE LAST 39, 40 YEARS, MOVING ON 40 YEARS. SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THEY CONTRIBUTE IS THAT THEY THEY HIRE LOCALLY FROM FLORIDA AND FLORIDA TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY.

THAT'S HERE. FLORIDA, SORRY.

FLORIDA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, I BELIEVE IT'S CALLED.

AND ALSO TO THEY EMPLOY FROM RISE PROGRAM FOR SECOND CHANCE.

AND ADDITIONALLY THEY ALSO HAVE WORKED WITH BREVARD COUNTY CAREER SOURCING SO.

I WOULD SAY THAT THE LARGEST PARTNERSHIPS IN SENSE IS THE NUMBER OF.

THIS IS THE WRONG SLIDE.

LET'S JUST KEEP GOING.

YEAH, THAT'S NOT THAT WAS AN UPDATED SLIDE.

SO BUT AT ANY CASE AND THEIR PARTNERSHIP WITH THE CITY AND THE SENSE THAT THEY PROVIDE THEIR DOORS OPEN FOR THEIR INSPECTIONS AND THEY PROVIDE ANNUAL BUYER INSPECTIONS, POLICE INSPECTIONS, THEY TAKE IN THE INFORMATION THAT IS PROVIDED TO THEM AND THEY TRY TO IMPROVE THE FACILITY UPON THAT.

THE MOVING INTO ZONING THE.

OBVIOUSLY THE SITE IS ZONED HEAVY INDUSTRIAL.

MANY OF ITS NEIGHBORS ARE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL.

EAST AND WEST IS HEAVY INDUSTRIAL.

AND ALSO TO THE NORTH IS HEAVY INDUSTRIAL.

THERE IS A PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH THAT WAS REE ZONED AT SOME POINT IN THE PAST.

I DON'T PERSONALLY HAVE THE DETAILS ON THAT ONE, BUT IT WAS VERY ZONED TO THE BAYFRONT MIXED USE AS YOU SEE ON THE SLIDE.

AND THAT PROPERTY IS.

MORE OR LESS BORDERED MUCH BY THE MAIN MANUFACTURING FACILITY.

NOT SO MUCH. IT'S MUCH LESS BORDER WITH THE STORAGE FACILITY THAT WE'RE HERE TO DISCUSS TODAY.

AND I WANTED TO SHOW YOU AN AERIAL OF WHAT IT CURRENTLY LOOKS LIKE OUT THERE NOW AND WHAT IT'S LOOKED LIKE FOR A GOOD PORTION OF THE LAST 40 YEARS.

AND AS YOU CAN NOTICE, IT'S BEEN INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY IN THIS AREA FOR A LONG TIME, WITH EXCEPTION TO VERY LONG TERM AND ESTABLISHED RESIDENTS THAT ARE TO THE NORTH. WE ALSO DID CONDUCT A COMMUNITY MEETING BACK ON JULY 20TH.

WE DID NOT GET ANY PARTICIPATION.

WELL, WE GOT ONE PARTICIPANT.

IT WAS THE DIRECT NEIGHBOR TO THE WEST OF OUR PROPERTY HAD CAME OUT TO SEE WHAT IT WAS, WHAT WAS GOING ON.

BUT OUR ADVERTISING LIMITS ARE ARE LIMITED BY THE PROTOCOLS AND OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY'S CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS. SO WE DON'T ADVERTISE FOR MILES, OBVIOUSLY.

SO WE DIDN'T PICK UP EVERYBODY.

BUT ALSO I WANTED TO POINT OUT TO THAT TO THE SOUTH THERE, THE BAYFRONT MIXED USE FOR MANY OF THOSE YEARS USED TO BE A CEMENT PLANT, I BELIEVE, FOR SIMEX OR RINKER, ONE OF THOSE TWO COMPANIES. AND IT'S EXHIBITED THAT INDUSTRIAL LOOK AND FEEL ALL THESE YEARS.

AND WE'RE JUST CONTINUING OUR OPERATIONS.

WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY EXPANDING.

WE'RE BASICALLY TAKING THE CHEMICALS THAT ARE LOCATED THAT ARE LOCATED ON THE MANUFACTURING FACILITY AND PROVIDING BETTER STORAGE FOR THOSE CHEMICALS.

[00:25:03]

THIS IS THE SITE PLAN AND THIS IS WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING FOR AN EXISTING WAREHOUSE BUILDING.

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EXPANSION BEING PROPOSED IN THIS CONDITIONAL USE FOR THIS FACILITY.

IT'S EXISTING TODAY.

IT'S GOING TO STAY EXISTING TOMORROW IN THE SIZE THAT IT CURRENTLY IS.

THE ONLY IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE BEING MADE IS INTERIOR BUILDOUTS.

WE'RE REMOVING SOME WALLS AND I BELIEVE WE'VE GOT A SLIDE FOR THAT.

WE'RE REMOVING SOME WALLS, AS YOU CAN SEE, ON THE BOTTOM THERE.

AND WE'RE GOING TO EMPTY OUT THE SPACE.

SO THAT WAY WE HAVE ROOM FOR STORAGE AND THERE IS A SINGLE OFFICE AT THE FRONT AND IT'S AN AIR CONDITIONED OFFICE.

THE REST OF THE FACILITY, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, IS NOT AIR CONDITIONED.

IT'S IT'S NOT MADE TO STORE ANYTHING THAT REQUIRES TEMPERATURE CONTROL.

IT'S JUST A STANDARD STORAGE FACILITY FOR THESE TYPE OF CHEMICALS THAT THEY ARE PROPOSING TO PUT IN THEIR CHEMICALS THAT ARE ALREADY CURRENTLY IN USE AT THE FACILITY.

GOING THROUGH THE CRITERIA.

AND BEAR WITH ME. I HAVE A TERRIBLE MEMORY, SO I WILL BE LOOKING AT THESE SLIDES OCCASIONALLY FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS.

THERE IS CURRENTLY TWO DRIVEWAYS GOING INTO FACILITY, SO YOU HAVE FULL ACCESS AROUND THE BUILDING.

THE MAIN, I THINK THE TIGHTEST PORTION OF THE DRIVEWAY THAT GOES AROUND THE BUILDING IS 20 FEET.

SO IT'S STILL ACCESSIBLE FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES.

SHOULD IT NEED TO BE? AND ALSO THE PARKING SPACES IN THE FRONT OF THE FACILITY.

THIS IS A UNIQUE SITUATION BECAUSE THE PARKING SPACES ARE NON-CONFORMING.

THERE'S CURRENTLY FIVE PARKING SPACES.

AND THE REASON THEY'RE NON-CONFORMING IS OBVIOUSLY THEY'RE UNPAID PARKING SPACES AND THEY'RE ALSO IN THE RIGHT OF WAY MAJORITY IN THE RIGHT OF WAY, NOT COMPLETELY, BUT A MAJORITY. AND WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO DO, WORKING WITH STAFF, IS TO MOVE THIS PARKING SPACES INTO A CONFORMING LOCATION, THE PARKING SPACES. BY DOING THIS, WE'RE CURRENTLY PROPOSING AN ADA SPACE AS REQUIRED AS REQUIRED IN OUR DISCUSSIONS WITH STAFF AS WELL.

WE'RE STILL LOOKING INTO EXEMPTION OPTIONS BECAUSE THIS IS NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

THIS IS A PRIVATE FACILITY.

THE ONLY PEOPLE THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT WORK THERE.

SO THAT'S SOMETHING WE'RE GOING TO EXPLORE, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING WE'LL WORK OUT WITH STAFF AS WELL.

WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO IT WHATSOEVER.

IF WE DO, WE JUST HAVE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PARKING.

AS YOU MAY NOTICE IN YOUR REPORTS, I BELIEVE THE PLAN THAT YOU HAVE HAD INDICATED ONE REQUIRED PARKING SPACE.

THAT WAS AN OBVIOUS TYPO AND IT IS ACTUALLY FIVE PARKING SPACES THAT ARE REQUIRED AND WE'RE CURRENTLY PROPOSING THREE, BUT WE'RE WORKING WITH STAFF ON THAT AS WE MOVE FORWARD THROUGH THE TECHNICAL REVIEW PART OF IT.

WE HAVE NO ISSUE PROVIDING IT.

SO IF IT'S WHAT'S REQUIRED, WE'RE NOT MAKING A NON-CONFORMING SITUATION WORSE.

THAT'S NOT OUR GOAL HERE.

SO ADEQUATE UTILITIES.

IT'S ALREADY GOT UTILITIES.

WE DON'T INTEND TO USE MORE.

PROBABLY WE INTEND TO USE LESS.

THIS IS GOING TO HAVE A BATHROOM INSIDE AND JUST THE OFFICE SPACE IT'S GOING TO SERVE AT ANY GIVEN TIME.

YOU KNOW, AN OFFICE WORKER STORAGE, ANYBODY IN A STORAGE FACILITY, IT'S GOING TO BE FOR ACCESS FOR EMPLOYEES BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THE USES.

SO IT'S LITERALLY JUST FOR STORAGE.

SO. UH, AND ADDITIONALLY THE BUFFERING.

WE'RE WORKING WITH STAFF ON THIS ONE TO WE'RE WORKING WITH STAFF TO PROVIDE THE NECESSARY LANDSCAPING AND BUFFERING THAT'S BEING REQUESTED OF US.

I JUST WANTED TO REMIND EVERYBODY THAT WE ARE EAST AND WEST COMPATIBLE USES.

SO WE'RE KIND OF IN DISCUSSIONS WITH STAFF ON THAT, BUT WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO MAKING IMPROVEMENTS WHERE WE HAVE TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS.

AGAIN, I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH THAT.

AND THERE'S AN EXISTING TREE LINE AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY THAT SEPARATES US FROM THE BAYFRONT PROPERTY.

SO THERE IS GOOD SCREENING AND EXISTING SHRUBBERY THERE THAT'S NOT GOING ANYWHERE.

IT'S GOING TO STAY THE WAY IT IS.

NO SIGNAGE IS BEING PROPOSED AT THIS TIME WITH THIS PROJECT.

SHOULD THAT EVER CHANGE IN THE FUTURE, WHICH I HIGHLY DOUBT IT.

IT WILL BE DONE FOR CODE.

IT'S NOT AN ISSUE. YARDS AND OPEN SPACES, AS INDICATED.

IT'S IT'S THERE ARE A NUMBER OF NONCONFORMITY THAT ARE LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY.

AND WE'RE NOT MAKING ANY MAJOR ADJUSTMENTS OTHER THAN THAT AS REQUESTED OF US BY STAFF.

AND WORSE, AS YOU SEE, IT IS PRETTY MUCH WHAT IT IS.

BECAUSE IF YOU START, IF YOU DO CREATE MORE OPEN SPACE BY REMOVING CONCRETE, YOU'RE GOING TO END UP MAKING ANOTHER NON-CONFORMING SITUATION.

WE DRIVE AISLES AND PARKING SPACES, SO IT IS AS YOU SEE IT, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE PLANNING ON DOING.

[00:30:05]

SO THERE'S NOT CREATING ANY ADDITIONAL NOISE OR HAZARDS ASSOCIATED WITH WHAT'S ALREADY GOING ON AT THE MANUFACTURING FACILITY.

THE PROPOSED USE, IT WILL BE.

IT WILL BASICALLY ALLOW FOR A CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT FOR STORAGE FOR THE STORAGE OF CHEMICALS.

IT WILL NOT. YOU CAN SEE IN THERE IT SAYS TEMPERATURE CONTROLLED.

THAT IS IT'S NOT ACCURATE.

IT'S JUST IT'S NOT TEMPERATURE CONTROLLED.

IT'S AMBIENT TEMPERATURE.

AND AS I SAID IN THE BEGINNING, THE TEMPERATURE CHEMICALS THAT ARE RELATED WITH TEMPERATURE CONTROL IS NOT BEING STORED AT THIS LOCATION.

ONLY STANDARD CHEMICALS THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE THAT.

THE THE USE OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AS SAID BEFORE ITS COMPATIBLE EXISTING USES AND THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES.

CURRENTLY THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH, WHICH IS THE ONLY ONE, AS YOU READ IN YOUR STAFF REPORT, THAT IS OF A DIFFERENT ZONING THAT YOU WOULD PROBABLY CLASSIFY AS NOT COMPATIBLE IS A MIXED USE PROPERTY AND THERE ARE OPTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT ON THE PROPERTY THAT ARE NOT SAFE.

FOR INSTANCE, YOU WOULDN'T WANT TO PUT RESIDENTIAL RIGHT NEXT TO A HEAVY INDUSTRIAL.

SO THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS THAT ARE WITHIN THAT ZONING DISTRICT FOR THAT TRANSITION BECAUSE IT'S MEANT TO BE MIXED USE.

SO WE FEEL STRONGLY THAT THAT THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH IS NOT 100% INCOMPATIBLE.

THE WE ARE PROVIDING AS WHAT'S REQUIRED FROM CITY STAFF AND AND THERE ISN'T REALLY OUTSIDE OF THAT ALL THE OTHER PROPERTY THAT SURROUNDS US IS COMPATIBLE.

SO WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANYTHING THAT'S THAT'S ABOVE AND BEYOND.

THAT'S STANDARD. UM.

THE OPERATION AND SEE WHAT'S THE NEXT ONE.

THE DEVELOPMENT OPERATION.

THE PROPOSED USE WILL BE IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH ANY ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS.

THIS IS CORRECT. IF YOU GUYS HAVE ANY TYPE OF CONDITIONS THAT YOU'RE PLACING ON IT OR A STAFF HAS ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS, WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO IT AND WE'RE HAPPY TO HEAR WHATEVER IT IS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO, THAT YOU'RE CONCERNED WITH ANYTHING THE CITIZENS OF THE AREA IS CONCERNED WITH.

WE'RE HAPPY TO ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES.

AND WE'RE WE WOULD REALLY LIKE TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY THIS AFTERNOON TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS ANYONE'S CONCERNS IF IF I'M ABLE TO COME BACK UP. OH, AND ALSO TO THERE WAS A LETTER WITH THE STAFF REPORT FROM A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.

I WANT TO ADDRESS THAT.

WE HAD RECEIVED THAT LETTER ABOUT THE SAME TIME YOU GUYS HAD RECEIVED THAT AGENDA.

SO YOU DIDN'T HAVE WE DIDN'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THAT.

I WAS HOPING THAT TODAY, IF I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY, I COULD SHARE WITH YOU A LETTER FROM OUR COUNSEL THAT TALKS ABOUT THE SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES THAT WAS BROUGHT UP IN THAT IN THAT LETTER, AND BE ABLE TO SHOW YOU THE RESULTS OF SOME OF THOSE.

A SUMMARY, ANYWAY, OF THE RESULTS OF THE OF THE TESTING THAT WE'VE DONE THERE AND SHOW THAT THERE'S NOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL HARM.

SO TO MY KNOWLEDGE.

DROP SOMETHING. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT WAS.

AM I ABLE TO PASS THESE OUT? AND WHAT'S THAT? OKAY. LETTER.

YEAH, A LETTER FROM THE COUNCIL.

FROM OUR COUNCIL. OH, JUST TO ADDRESS THE LETTER THAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR PACKET.

WELL, COPIES OF A BUNCH.

I JUST HAD ONE BUNDLED.

YOU GUYS CAN PASS IT ON.

I MEAN, I HAVE NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE INTO THE ISSUES THAT ARE ARISEN OUT THERE, BUT THAT'S WHY I'M SHARING WITH YOU THE COUNCIL'S LETTER.

THEY ARE. THEY ARE VERY MUCH.

KNOWLEDGEABLE INTO THE ISSUE.

ALEX, WILL YOU PROVIDE A COPY OF THIS TO OUR BOARD OF ATTORNEY, PLEASE? ALL RIGHT. AND WITH THAT, I HAVE NOTHING ADDITIONAL TO ADD UNLESS YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR ME WHILE I'M UP HERE.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY. THANK YOU.

I WAS LITERALLY GOING DIRECTLY TO THE SAFETY CONCERNS.

THE LAST TIME FARR WAS HERE, THEY TOLD US SOMETHING COULD HAPPEN AND BLEW UP THE ENTIRE AREA AND RESIDENTS OF THE NEW BAYFRONT COMMUNITY WOULD PROBABLY ALL DIE THERE.

[00:35:01]

IS THIS SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE DOING? THE SPECIAL LIQUID PETROLEUM IS IS SOMETHING NEW THAT YOU'RE ADDING TO YOUR BUSINESS MODEL OR IS SOMETHING YOU'VE ALWAYS DONE? THIS IS NOT AN EXPANSION.

LET ME BE CLEAR THAT THIS IS NOT AN EXPANSION.

THIS IS SIMPLY TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO SAFELY STORE WHAT'S ALREADY THERE.

WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT TO BUILD THE STORE, THE CHEMICALS IT'S ALREADY PRESENT.

IT'S NOT AN EXPANSION.

SO NOW THAT WE'RE STORING THEM, IT'S NOT SAFE.

SO YOU NEED ACTUAL STORAGE? OH, IT'S. IT'S SAFE WHERE IT'S AT.

IT'S JUST IT'S IT'S BETTER TO HAVE IT IN AN INDOOR ENVIRONMENT.

IT'S BETTER TO HAVE IT IN A SECURED ENVIRONMENT.

NOBODY CAN GET NEAR IT.

IT'S BEHIND A LOCKED DOOR.

IT'S JUST EXTRA SECURITY.

IMPROVING YOURSELF OR IMPROVING.

OKAY, GOT YOU. SO THE QUESTION THEN I WOULD ASK STAFF IS IF THEY ALREADY HAVE THOSE STORAGE, WHY DO WE NEED AN ADDITIONAL NEED TO DO THIS REZONING? FOR THIS CURRENT USE, THERE IS A CONDITIONAL USE ASSOCIATED WITH IT SO THAT IT'S A REQUIREMENT OF THE PROCESS THEY'RE GOING THROUGH TO BE ABLE TO OPERATE IN THE MANNER THEY'RE ASKING FOR. SO IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, SORRY IF I'M NOT SPEAKING LOUD ENOUGH.

SO WHAT I WAS SAYING BEFORE IS IT'S A CONDITION THEY USE IN THIS AREA AND THIS PROPERTY DOESN'T CURRENTLY HAVE A CONDITIONAL USE.

SO WE'RE MAKING SURE THAT IT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH ANY FUTURE USE THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING.

ARE YOU SAYING THAT THIS PROPERTY'S ALREADY BEING STORED WITH THAT CHEMICAL FROM YOUR COMPANY? NO, NO. I'M SAYING THAT THE AT ONE TIME IT WAS THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY.

BUT IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, THOUGH, THAT THE HAZARDOUS CHEMICAL OR THE CHEMICALS AND LIQUID PETROLEUM, I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER, AS IT SAYS IN THE CODE, BUT AND IT'S SIMILAR PRODUCTS IS A REQUIREMENT OF A CONDITIONAL USE.

NORMALLY IT'S A WAREHOUSE YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO JUST STORE ANYTHING NON-HAZARDOUS NON CHEMICAL RELATED IN THE BUILDING BY PERMIT BY RIGHT.

BUT FOR TO ADD THAT EXTRA STEP OF MAKING IT ACTUAL CHEMICAL, THEN WE HAVE TO BE HERE FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE AND ASK FOR ASK FOR THIS AND NOT NOT ONLY THAT BUT ALSO TO SHOW THAT WE'RE MEETING THE STANDARDS AND WE'RE TRYING TO DEMONSTRATE THAT WE'RE DOING THIS IN A SAFE WAY.

WE DON'T WANT WE DON'T WANT THE COMMUNITY TO THINK WE'RE NOT DOING SAFE THINGS THERE.

IT'S IT'S IN OUR APPLICANT'S BEST INTEREST TO RUN A SAFE, SAFE FACILITY.

JUST TO REITERATE, ARE YOU SAYING YOU'RE CURRENTLY STORING PETROLEUM? BUT NOW BECAUSE YOU'RE ADDING THIS NEW, YOU'RE IMPROVING THE STORAGE, YOU HAVE TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE.

WHEN THAT BUILDING WAS AND I MAY BE SPEAKING OFF TONE HERE, CORRECT ME, BUT THIS IS REPRESENTATIVE FROM FA.

BUT BASICALLY THEY WERE CREATING THEY USE THIS FACILITY FOR STORAGE AND BEGINNING WITH NOT KNOWING THAT A CONDITIONAL USE IS REQUIRED FOR THIS TYPE OF CHEMICAL OR ANY TYPE OF CHEMICAL FOR THAT MATTER.

SO WHENEVER THAT WAS UNDERSTOOD, THEY STEPPED BACK.

THEY DID WHAT THEY HAD TO DO TO COMPLY WITH PALM BAY AS THEY ALWAYS TRY TO WORK WITH PALM BAY.

AND THEN THEY CAME FORWARD WITH THIS CONDITIONAL USE.

NOW THEY CAME FORWARD WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE LAST YEAR.

ORIGINALLY, WE NEVER MADE IT TO THIS POINT.

YOU KNOW, WE MET WITH THE COMMUNITY.

THERE WAS A LOT MORE COMMUNITY THAT WAS PRESENT AT OUR MEETING AT THE TIME.

WE DISCUSS A LOT OF ISSUES, DIDN'T SO MUCH RESOLVE A LOT OF NECESSARY ISSUES.

THERE WASN'T A WHOLE LOT OF WIGGLE ROOM.

THEY WERE IN THE MIDDLE AT THAT TIME OF DEALING WITH THE MOST RECENT INCIDENT THAT I'M SURE THAT YOU'RE FULLY AWARE OF.

AND AND THEY WERE UNDER INVESTIGATION.

SO THERE'S NOT MUCH THAT THEY COULD TALK ABOUT.

A LOT OF THAT'S OVER WITH.

NOW, THAT LETTER I GIVEN YOU KIND OF EXPRESSES THAT, YOU KNOW, INVESTIGATIONS WITH OSHA THAT'S ALL OVER WITH AND THEY'RE COMPLIANT.

SO NOW THEY JUST WANT TO DO THE RIGHT STEPS AS BEING A GOOD NEIGHBOR AND BE ABLE TO JUST GET THAT FORMAL PERMISSION FROM THE CITY TO BE ABLE TO STORE THE CHEMICALS THAT THEY ORIGINALLY BOUGHT THE BUILDING TO DO.

BUT BY ALL MEANS, THEY THEY UNDERSTAND SAFEGUARDS AND THEY THEY UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS AND THEY'RE JUST HAPPY TO TO WORK WITH YOU.

MADAM CHAIR, IF I MAY, SINCE WE DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE THE WHOLE TIME TO SIT AND READ THROUGH THIS 14 DIFFERENT THING, ARE YOU ABLE TO SUMMARIZE FOR US SO EVERYBODY CAN HEAR WHAT IS IT THAT YOU HAVE? BECAUSE SAFETY IS AN ISSUE.

AND IN THE LETTER THE PERSON HAD, IT POINTS OUT, YOU KNOW, THE CONCERN WITH THE LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM, NOW THAT WE KNOW YOU HAD IT ON THERE BEFORE.

SO I CAN'T SAY THAT THEY HAD LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM THERE.

MY UNDERSTANDING BACK THEN WAS THAT THE THAT THAT WAS NOT THE CASE, THAT THEY JUST HAD A CHEMICAL BROUGHT UP THERE AND THEY DON'T REGULARLY USE THE LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM.

AT THE TIME THAT WAS BECAUSE THAT WAS WHAT WAS IN THE CODE.

SO IT WAS MANUALLY PUT INTO THE CONDITIONAL USE.

[00:40:02]

BUT IT WASN'T ORIGINALLY A PETROLEUM PRODUCT THERE THAT I AM KNOWLEDGEABLE OF.

AND AS FAR AS SUMMARIZING THE FORM, I AM NOT THE BEST PERSON TO SUMMARIZE THAT FORM I AM IS WRITTEN BY AN ATTORNEY.

I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY. OTHER QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. SO.

WHEN I THINK BACK TO THE EXPLOSION THAT HAPPENED IN 2020 AND THE REPORTS AT LEAST THAT I READ WERE THAT IT WAS ROUGHLY 40 BARRELS THAT IGNITED AND CAUSED THE PLUME AND THE EXPLOSION AND THE SONIC BOOM LIKE EFFECTS TO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.

IF YOU'RE TO ADD A LICENSE STORAGE FACILITY INSTEAD OF STORING YOUR PRODUCTS UNLICENSED ON THE AUXILIARY AREAS OF THE PROPERTY, AS THE REPORT SAYS YOU HAVE.

HOW DOES THAT NOT INCREASE YOUR CAPACITY FAR BEYOND 40 BARRELS OF EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS AND FLAMMABLE MATERIALS TO EXPONENTIALLY SIZE THE NEXT EXPLOSION THAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAPPEN? TO SUMMARIZE THE QUESTION, HOW IS THIS NOT DIRECTLY INCREASING THE CAPACITY FOR A CATASTROPHIC EVENT? WELL, THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.

AND VERY WELL WORDED TO THANK YOU.

BASICALLY, BY PROVIDING THIS FACILITY FOR ONE, IT DOES PROVIDE A BETTER ENVIRONMENT TO STORE THE CHEMICAL, AS YOU MENTIONED, RATHER THAN JUST RANDOMLY EVERYWHERE. THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY, IS TO BE ABLE TO SEEK THOSE THOSE PERMISSIONS.

AND WE'RE ALSO HERE TODAY TO GET YOUR FEEDBACK.

WE'RE HERE TODAY TO GET YOUR CONCERNS AND MAKE IMPROVEMENTS, WORK WITH THE STAFF AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE BEST FACILITY THAT WE CAN FOR STORAGE. YOU KNOW, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT HAPPENED BACK IN 2020.

I UNDERSTAND THAT. AND I'VE SEEN PHOTOS.

I'VE SEEN NEWS CLIPS AND EVERYTHING ABOUT THE SITUATION, HOWEVER.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE MANUFACTURING FACILITY IN ITSELF.

THIS IS SIMPLY A STORAGE BUILDING THAT IS NOT ACTUALLY PART OF THE MANUFACTURING FACILITY.

IT IS ONLY BENEFITING IT TO BE ABLE TO STORE ITS CHEMICALS IN A SAFE ENVIRONMENT THAT WILL HELP MOVE FORWARD WITH PREVENTING SUCH THINGS LIKE THAT.

NOT THAT. NOT THAT MOST OF THE CHEMICALS THERE NOW AREN'T STORED PROPERLY.

I'M NOT SAYING THAT.

I'M JUST SIMPLY SAYING IT'S PROVIDING SECURITY SAFETY AND IT'S PROVIDING A BETTER SITUATION FOR THE STORAGE OF CHEMICALS.

THAT KIND OF ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? TO AN EXTENT. TO AN EXTENT.

I'LL JUST BE VERY HONEST AND TRANSPARENT.

AND, YOU KNOW, YOU MAY NOT KNOW THIS, BUT THE REST OF THE BOARD AND THE COMMUNITY KNOWS THAT'S HOW I ROLL.

WHEN I LOOK AT THIS, I JUST LOOK BACK TO YOUR COMPANIES.

REPRESENTATIVES OWN WORDS IN THIS VERY CHAMBER OF HOW DANGEROUS THE CURRENT OPERATION WAS AND HOW BAD YOU DIDN'T WANT THE RESIDENTIAL TO COME NEAR YOU.

BUT THAT WAS SO MANY YEARS AGO, AND NOW THE RESIDENTIAL IS COMING NEAR YOU, AND NOW YOU WANT TO EXPAND YOUR CAPACITY TO HAVE THESE HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS ON YOUR FOOTPRINT.

WE'RE NOT EXPANDING THE BUSINESS.

NO, BUT YOU'RE MAN, YOU'RE GOING TO MANUFACTURE AT THE SAME RATE.

BUT IT WOULD SUFFICE TO SAY THAT YOUR STORAGE CAPACITY IS GOING TO INCREASE.

SO YOU'RE FINISHED PRODUCT BEFORE IT MOVES OUT ON THE TRUCKS OR TRAINS OR HOWEVER YOU GET THE HECK OUT OF THERE.

YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO STORE FAR MORE THAN 40 BARRELS ON YOUR CURRENT FOOTPRINT.

I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY BARRELS YOU'LL BE ABLE TO STORE, BUT LEGALLY YOU'LL BE ABLE TO STORE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE THAN YOU CAN FINISH PRODUCTS.

SO WHETHER YOU KEEP YOUR MANUFACTURING RATE AT THE EXACT SAME OR NOT, YOU'RE ONLY MAKING THIS STORAGE FACILITY TO FILL IT WITH FINISHED PRODUCT.

AND IF THAT RELATIVELY LARGE STORAGE FACILITY INTERACTS WITH ANYTHING FROM THE MANUFACTURING FACILITY THAT'S SO FAR AWAY, THAT MAKES A BIG ENOUGH BOOM, LOGIC JUST SAYS THAT IT'S GOING TO MAKE A BIGGER BOOM THAN LAST TIME.

AND LAST TIMES WAS SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH TO IMPACT THE RESIDENTS THAT HAVE LIVED AROUND THAT PLANT FOR YEARS, LET ALONE ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RESIDENTS OR BUSINESSES THAT WILL BE ON THAT BAYFRONT MIXED USE.

THAT BAYFRONT MIXED USE PROJECT IS GOING TO BRING HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE ON A DAILY BASIS TO THAT AREA.

AND IF AN EVENT EQUIVALENT TO THE 2020 EVENT HAPPENED AND ALL OF THAT STUFF WAS BUILT, WE WOULD HAD A SERIOUS, SERIOUS PROBLEM, BIGGER THAN WE HAD.

NOW THAT STUFF'S GOING TO ALL BE BUILT AND YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE EXPONENTIALLY MORE PRODUCT ON YOUR PROPERTY.

IT'S JUST I'M TRYING TO ADD ALL THE THINGS TOGETHER.

AND AGAIN, I REVERT BACK TO YOUR COMPANY'S REPRESENTATIVE'S OWN WORDS IN THIS CHAMBER SO MANY YEARS AGO.

I JUST HOW HAZARDOUS OVERALL YOUR OPERATION IS AND HOW INCOMPATIBLE IT IS WITH RESIDENTIAL AREAS.

[00:45:05]

AND I'M HAVING A LOT OF TROUBLE FIGURING OUT HOW ADDITIONAL STORAGE AT THIS FACILITY IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA.

SO THAT'S WHERE I'M COMING FROM.

QUESTION. SO JUST LISTENING TO OUR FELLOW BOARD MEMBER, IT DID DAWN ON ME THAT CURRENTLY YOU ARE NOT NECESSARILY YOUR STORE IN THOSE CHEMICALS, BUT NOT NECESSARILY STORING THEM IN A SAFE WAY OR SAFE ENOUGH WAY.

I'M TRYING TO BE NICE.

YOU'RE STILL STORING THEM, BUT YOU'RE TRYING TO IMPROVE YOUR STORAGE FACILITY.

SO THE THING IS THAT YOU ARE IN A HEAVY INDUSTRIAL AREA.

YOU WILL OPERATE BECAUSE YOU LEGALLY CAN OPERATE.

SO IT IS PROBABLY NECESSARILY INCUMBENT AND ACTUALLY WHAT MY FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS THINK TO HOW IT'S STORED IN A WAY THAT IT WON'T CAUSE AN ISSUE AGAIN.

SO I GUESS YOU HAVE TO REALIZE HOW WE ARE LOOKING AT IT.

ONE, YOU DID HAVE AN ACCIDENT THAT IMPACTED PEOPLE.

AS OUR FELLOW BOARD MEMBER MENTIONED, YOU ARE INCREASING THE CAPACITY BECAUSE YOU COULD POSSIBLY STORE MORE IN A NICE, NEW, SOPHISTICATED THING.

THE QUESTION WOULD THEN BE IS.

YOU ARE YOU DOING THIS BECAUSE YOU ARE INVESTIGATED AND YOU ARE REQUIRED TO STORE IT IN NO WAY MEET THE REQUIREMENTS YOU MEET CURRENTLY CORRECTLY.

YOU MEET THE REQUIREMENTS.

YEAH. YOU WILL SEE IN THAT IN THAT SUMMARY THAT YOU KNOW THAT WE'RE MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS.

WE DON'T HAVE ANY TYPE OF SAFETY ISSUES CURRENTLY, WE DON'T HAVE ANY TYPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES CURRENTLY.

SO WE COULD CONTINUE JUST AS WE ARE OPERATING, AS YOU MENTIONED, BUT WITH NO LIQUID PETROLEUM OR YOU CURRENTLY DO HAVE THE LIQUID PETROLEUM. IT'S LIKE A I COULDN'T.

YES. STEVEN MIRABELLA HERE IS IS THE PLANT MANAGER AND HE COULD CLARIFY THAT FOR YOU A LITTLE BIT.

IT'S NOT REALLY LIQUID PETROLEUM FOR IT IS.

BUT HE'S A SPECIALIST. YES.

BECAUSE WE JUST WANT TO CONFIRM IF SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU YOU'RE CURRENTLY DOING IT.

AND WE SAID, OKAY, NO, YOU DON'T.

THIS DOESN'T PASS. IT DOESN'T PASS COUNCIL.

HOW DOES THAT IMPACT YOUR OPERATION? ONE AND IF YOU DON'T APPROVE IT AND YOU'RE STILL STORE IT THE WAY IT IS, IS IT SAFE ENOUGH FOR THE COMMUNITY? AND I AGREE WITH YOU 100%.

THE I MEAN, IF YOU DON'T I'M NOT LOCKING YOU GUYS INTO AN APPROVAL BASED ON THE FACT THAT IT'S GOING TO MAKE EVERYTHING BETTER.

BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER, THEY HAVE A STORE THE WAY IT IS NOW, WHICH IS SAFE.

BUT, YOU KNOW, PROVIDING FACILITIES THAT PROVIDE A BETTER ENVIRONMENT AND OBVIOUSLY BETTER SAFETY MEASURES TO IMPROVE THE SAFETY EVEN FURTHER IS BENEFICIAL NOT ONLY TO THE COMPANY BUT ALSO TO THE RESIDENTS AROUND.

AS RANDALL HERE SAID, I'M SORRY.

I DIDN'T WANT TO PRONOUNCE YOUR LAST NAME.

CHAYEFSKY. CHAYEFSKY.

THANK YOU. AS AS HE MENTIONED, WE GOT THIS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT COMING IN AND THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT BUILDING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OR RESIDENTIAL UNITS RIGHT UP AGAINST HEAVY INDUSTRIAL THAT'S EXISTING.

SO WHEN YOU DO THAT AND WE CAN'T MAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PROPERTIES TO PROVIDE FOR ENCLOSED STORAGE FACILITIES AND LEAVE IT THE WAY IT IS, WHAT ARE WE DOING AT THE END OF THE DAY FOR FOR SAFETY, FOR PROGRESS OR, YOU KNOW, FOR FA, FOR THAT MATTER, BEING ABLE TO STAY IN COMPLIANCE OVER THE YEARS, TO BE ABLE TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR, BE ABLE TO DO BETTER IN THE COMMUNITY.

WHAT ARE WE DOING? WE'RE HAMPERING THAT ABILITY.

IF WE'RE STOPPING THEM FROM BEING ABLE TO STORE CHEMICALS IN A WAY THAT THE CITY WOULD LIKE US TO BE ABLE TO STORE THE CHEMICALS AS WELL, OBVIOUSLY, BECAUSE AS YOU'VE MENTIONED HERE, THERE'S BEEN THERE'S BEEN AN INCIDENT IN THE PAST THAT THAT WAS AN ISSUE.

AND FARMERS ARE HERE TODAY MAKING THEIR EFFORTS TO PROVIDE GOOD STORAGE FACILITIES.

ARE THEY NOT IN COMPLIANCE NOW? NO, THEY ABSOLUTELY ARE IN COMPLIANCE NOW.

AND THEY CAN STAY EXACTLY THE WAY THEY ARE.

WITHOUT A DOUBT. YOU CAN VOTE YOUR WAY TONIGHT AND GO AND THAT'S IT.

AND BUSINESS AS USUAL THE NEXT DAY.

BUT I DON'T SEE HOW THAT PROGRESSIVELY MOVES ANYTHING FORWARD, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU HAVE A RESIDENTIAL USE THAT'S MOVING IN NEXT DOOR AND YOU'RE MOVING IN SO CLOSE.

THEY HAVE BETTER FACILITIES ON SITE TO ME AND IN MY OPINION, AS IF I HAD LIVED NEXT TO THIS THING, I WOULD WANT TO KNOW THAT IT HAS THE PROPER FACILITIES TO MANAGE ITS PRODUCTS AND CONTINUE AND CONTINUE DOING WHAT IT'S DONE FOR THE PAST 40 YEARS AND CONTINUE TO EMPLOY PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD

[00:50:08]

IT'S I DON'T THINK THAT'S FAR REACHING BY ANY MEANS.

AND I THINK YOUR CONCERNS, WITHOUT A DOUBT ARE LEGITIMATE CONCERNS.

AND I DON'T QUESTION THAT.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, TOO, IF YOU DON'T LET SOMEONE EXPAND INTO BETTER FACILITIES, BETTER OPERATIONAL PRACTICES AND A HIGHER SENSE OF SAFETY, ARE WE HAMPERING THEM AT THAT POINT? YOU KNOW. SO IS THAT KIND OF ADDRESSES? WELL, I MENTIONED THAT WAS THE THE TOSS UP.

YEAH. YEAH, EXACTLY.

ARE WE ABLE TO GET ANY CLARIFICATION ON THE LIQUID PETROLEUM? BECAUSE I'M STILL CONFUSED AS TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU CURRENTLY HAVE IT ON NOW OR NOT.

MIRABELLA. NEW PLANT MANAGER OF THE FAR FACILITY.

I. I STARTED JUST A YEAR AGO.

SO THE THE EXPLOSION THE INCIDENT HAPPENED BEFORE MY TIME.

I'VE GOT 25 YEARS, ALMOST, ALMOST 25 YEARS WITH DUPONT BEFORE I JOINED THE FA TEAM.

SO THIS SITE HAS ALWAYS HAD PETROLEUM PRODUCTS.

IT'S PART OF THE MANUFACTURE OF THE PHARMACEUTICAL MATERIALS, I THINK.

RANDALL, YOU HAD A GREAT QUESTION ABOUT HOW IT LOOKS LIKE THIS IS AN EXPANSION AND HAVING MORE MORE CHEMICALS ON SITE.

BUT IN REALITY, IF YOU UNDERSTAND THE BUSINESS MODEL OF FA, THIS IS KIND OF A SPECIALTY CHEMICAL FACILITY.

SO WHAT HAPPENS IS WHEN WHEN THESE BIG PHARMA COMPANIES, THEY THEY MAKE ORDERS TO US, THEY THEY ACTUALLY SUPPLY US THE RAW MATERIALS.

AND SO IT'S IN OUR INTEREST TO CONSUME THOSE RAW MATERIALS AND GET THEM OUT OF THE SITE.

SO WE DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY INTEREST IN INCREASING THE CAPACITY OF THE CHEMICALS ON SITE BECAUSE WE ACTUALLY LIKE A TRADITIONAL CHEMICAL PLANT.

THEY'LL THEY'LL HANDLE RAW MATERIALS AND STORE RAW MATERIALS.

AND AS ORDERS COME IN, THE INVENTORIES GO UP AND DOWN FOR US.

WE HANDLE RAW MATERIALS FROM OUR CUSTOMERS AND WE PROCESS THEM AND WE SHIP THEM OUT.

SO SO TO YOUR POINT, IT WAS AN EXCELLENT QUESTION.

AND HOPEFULLY THAT KIND OF EXPLAINS HOW THAT HOW THAT OCCURS FOR US.

BUT YES, WE'VE ALWAYS HAD LIQUID PETROLEUM.

I'VE PARTNERED WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.

THEY'VE COME TO OUR SITE.

I VALUE THEIR EXPERTISE.

WE'VE WE'VE TOOK CARE OF ALL THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS AND WE ACTUALLY HAVE A PRETTY GOOD WORKING PARTNERSHIP WITH THEM.

SO, YES, ALL THE CHEMICALS TODAY ARE STORED PROPERLY AND IN COMPLIANCE.

AND WE'VE BEEN WE'VE BEEN DOING SO EVER SINCE.

SO THIS IS GOING TO HELP MAKE THE PLANT A LITTLE MORE EFFICIENT ON HOW WE AND HOW AND WHERE WE STORE CHEMICALS, ON HOW WE ABLE TO BRING CHEMICALS INTO THE SITE, HOW WE CAN GET THEM INTO WHAT WE CALL BUILDING 14, WHICH IS OUR PROCESS AREA, AND THEN GET THEM SHIPPED OFF.

SO THERE'S NO NEW PRODUCTS BEING STORED AT THE SITE.

THIS ISN'T A NEW ALL THE SAME PRODUCTS.

AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT'S GOT A LIST OF ALL THE CHEMICALS THAT WE GET FROM OUR CUSTOMERS.

AND AND SO THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THAT BUSINESS MODEL.

FIRST. BEING NONE.

THANK YOU. FOR THE RECORD, THERE ARE THREE LETTERS IN THE FILE AND WE WERE GIVEN A PACKET WITH EXHIBITS TODAY, SO IT'S IN THE RECORD, WHICH IS NOW OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS.

IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS REQUEST? NO. BILL BATTEN, 586 OCEAN SPRAY STREET, SOUTH WEST.

THE APPLICANT ANSWERED MY BIGGEST CONCERN, AND THAT WAS IF THEY'D BEEN WORKING WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND THAT'S WHAT THEY SAID THEY HAVE AND THEY'VE GOT A LIST OF ALL THE HAZMAT MATERIAL IS CURRENTLY ON SITE AND WHAT WILL BE COMING ON SITE.

SO THAT ANSWERED THAT QUESTION ON ME LIKE IT WAS MORE OF AN INDUSTRIAL SITE BECOMING BETTER PREPARED AND LET'S SAY BETTER LAYOUT TO CONTINUE FUNCTIONING TO DO THEIR BUSINESS WITHIN THE CITY OF PALM BAY.

ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT, THIS THIS IS THE INDUSTRIAL AREA OF PALM BAY.

IT WAS PRE DESIGNATED THE INDUSTRIAL AREA OF PALM BAY.

AND THEN DEVELOPERS STARTING, WELL, LOOK AT THIS BEAUTIFUL LAND.

THEN THE CITY STARTED CHANGING WHAT WAS INDUSTRIAL SITES STARTED MAKING IT RESIDENTIAL SITES.

NOW WE'RE SEEING THE ARGUMENT ABOUT, WELL, I KNOW OUR COMP PLAN SAID IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE INDUSTRIAL, BUT LET'S PUT THE LET'S PUT THE RESIDENTIAL MOVE INTO THE INDUSTRIAL AREA.

NOW, LOOK WHO'S SUFFERING.

THE INDUSTRIAL AREA IS NOW STARTING TO SUFFER.

THEY'RE MODIFYING THEIR BUSINESS MODEL OR FOOTPRINT IN ORDER TO BECOME A BETTER AIDE TO THE CITY OF PALM BAY.

SO I'M IN FAVOR OF THEM DOING WHAT THEY'RE DOING.

[00:55:03]

THEY KNOW IT'S A HAZARDOUS SITUATION, AND THEY'VE PUT THAT HAZARDOUS SITUATION IN THE INDUSTRIAL AREA WHERE IT NEEDED TO BE.

IT JUST HAPPENS THAT THE CITY OF PALM BAY KEPT BUILDING RESIDENTS UP NEXT TO THEM.

INSTEAD OF THEM, INSTEAD OF THEM BEING THE CULPRIT OF THE SITUATION.

I THINK IT'S THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT THEY KEPT MODIFYING WAS THE CULPRIT OF THE SITUATION.

THANK YOU. IF ANYONE ELSE WISHED TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS REQUEST.

ANYONE AGAINST.

PAM.

GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS PRISCILLA LIVINGSTON.

I LIVE AT 2390 SHENANDOAH ROAD, NORTHEAST PALM BAY.

I'M MAYBE TWO STREETS OVER FROM THE FOLKS FROM THE CHEMICAL PLANT AND THE YOUNG MAN THAT WAS JUST SPEAKING.

HE SAID THAT.

THAT WAS THE INDUSTRIAL AREA? NO, THE NEIGHBORHOOD I LIVE IN IS CALLED FAIRVIEW.

HOUSES THAT I LIVE IN WAS BUILT IN 1959.

I'VE BEEN LIVING IN THAT HOUSE SINCE 1980.

THE CHEMICAL PLANT CAME IN, I THINK IT SAID IN 82, 83, AND WE WERE NOT GIVEN ANY WARNING OR ANYTHING ABOUT THAT CHEMICAL PLANT COMING INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

OKAY. I JUST WANT TO CLEAR THAT UP FOR THE RECORD THAT THAT THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD DIDN'T BUILD AROUND THE CHEMICAL COMPANY IN AN INDUSTRIAL AREA BECAUSE WE WERE THERE. THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS THERE.

NOW, THERE HAVE BEEN TIMES THERE HAVE BEEN QUITE A FEW OCCASIONS THAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT HAS HAD TO COME TO THE CHEMICAL PLANT. THE LAST TIME I THINK IT WAS IN 1980, AND AT THAT TIME, I WAS NOT ABLE TO GET HOME.

ROBERT CONLEY WAS BLOCKED OFF BY PALM BAY POLICE UNIVERSITY WAS BLOCKED OFF BY MELBOURNE POLICE.

SO WE WERE NOT ABLE TO GET INTO OUR HOUSE WHEN THEY HAD THAT CHEMICAL EXPLOSION.

BUT WE NEVER FIND OUT WHAT REALLY WENT ON OR ANYTHING.

NOW, TODAY, THE COUNCILMAN SAID THAT ALL THE BARRELS BLEW UP.

WE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED.

WE JUST SAW IT ON THE NEWS AND WE HAD TO TAKE A TIME BEFORE WE CAN GET HOME.

NOW, AS FAR AS HOW THEY STORE THEIR CHEMICALS, I DON'T KNOW.

BUT THERE HAVE BEEN TIMES WHEN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT HAS COME, BUT HAD BEEN FOR A LONG TIME, HADN'T HAD ANY DISTURBANCE UNTIL THIS DISTURBANCE IN SEPTEMBER OF 2020, WHEN I HAPPENED NOT TO BE HOME AND WASN'T ABLE TO GET HOME FOR MAYBE THREE OR 4 HOURS.

I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT'S A GOOD THING WHAT THEY'RE DOING WITH THOSE CHEMICALS OR NOT.

I DON'T KNOW. BUT I WANT TO FEEL SECURE IN MY HOUSE.

I DON'T WANT TO FEEL LIKE SOMETHING THAT'S GOING ON.

I LOOK OUT THE BACK DOOR AND THERE'S THE FIRE DEPARTMENT DOWN THERE AND A BIG, BIG PLUME OF SMOKE GOING UP IN THE AIR THAT JUST I'M NOT FAR AGAINST IT, BUT I JUST WANT TO FEEL SAFE IN MY HOME.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

ANYONE ELSE, SIR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS? GOOD EVENING, WARD.

RICHARD DEWITT. ON BEHALF OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER MLF DASH TWO, DASH ONE LLC, I JUST WANT TO PUT ON THE RECORD THAT WE DID FILE A NOTICE OF AFFECTED PARTY, SO THAT GIVES US CERTAIN RIGHTS IN THESE PROCEEDINGS.

THAT WAS PURSUANT TO 59.03.

SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE OUR COURT REPORTER HERE.

YOU SHOULD HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU A COPY OF MY PRESENTATION.

AND IN THE BACK OF THAT PRESENTATION IS ALSO SEVERAL EXHIBITS THAT I'LL REFER TO AND JUST POINT OUT SOME HIGHLIGHTS WITHIN THOSE EXHIBITS. SO FIRST AND FOREMOST, YOU CAN SEE FROM THE FIRST PAGE IS THE MAP.

IT'S ALREADY BEEN SHOWN BY STAFF.

I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH THE WHOLE THING, BUT IT SHOWS THE CLOSE PROXIMITY AND THE SIZE OF OUR PROPERTY TO THE FA CHEMICAL FACILITY.

NOW AGAIN, WE ARE THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER.

WE'RE LOCATED AT 33, 70 AND 34, 20 DIXIE HIGHWAY.

WE'RE OPPOSING THE APPLICATION OF OUR RESEARCH FOR A CONDITIONAL USE TO ALLOW THE PROPOSED STORAGE OF LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM PRODUCTS AND OF CHEMICALS IN SIMILAR PRODUCTS. NOW, IN ORDER TO RECEIVE A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL FROM THIS BOARD.

THE APPLICANT.

[01:00:01]

AND IF AFTER HEARING ALL OF THE TESTIMONY FROM STAFF, THE APPLICANT, OPPOSITION, THE RESIDENTS, THAT YOU DON'T BELIEVE THEY MET THEIR BURDEN, THEN YOU SHOULD RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THIS APPLICATION.

SO STAFF MENTIONED FARR PURCHASED THAT ADJACENT PROPERTY 2650 ROWENA DRIVE IN 2019.

THE PROPERTY CONSISTS OF AN EXISTING WAREHOUSE APPROXIMATELY 4700 SQUARE FEET, AND IT'S DESCRIBED BY FAR AS BUILDING NUMBER 15.

NOW, THAT'S GOING TO BE IMPORTANT IN A LITTLE BIT WHEN I REFER TO THE EXHIBIT.

SO PLEASE REMEMBER THAT BUILDING 15 SO FAR AGAIN SEEKS TO STORE LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM PRODUCTS AND OTHER PRODUCTS ON THE PROPERTY.

HOWEVER, WHAT FAR IN THE STAFF REPORT DO NOT MENTION IS THAT FA HAS BEEN STORING THESE HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS AT THE PROPERTY SINCE 2019 IN VIOLATION OF SEVERAL CITY FIRE AND STATE REGULATIONS.

AND WE'LL GET TO THAT IN THE EXHIBIT.

SO REVIEW OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

WHILST WHILE THE APPLICANT DOESN'T MENTION IT IN THEIR PRESENTATION, STAFF DOES.

STAFF SAYS THAT THEY'RE COMPLIANT WITH.

COMPATIBLE WITH FLU GOAL FOUR, WHICH SAYS IT PROVIDES SUFFICIENT AREA FOR GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF CLEAN INDUSTRY TO PROVIDE EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES AND EXPAND THE CITY'S ECONOMIC BASE.

WHAT IS AN ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT IS POLICY 4.1 B, WHICH SAYS YOU HAVE TO DEVELOP AN INCORPORATE INTO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, SPECIFIC STANDARDS AND CONTROLS TO EVALUATE AND MONITOR NEW INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT.

AND HERE'S THE KEY PART.

MINIMIZE IMPACTS ON NATURAL RESOURCES, PUBLIC FACILITIES AND THE PUBLIC IN GENERAL.

ADDITIONALLY, THEY HAVE TO LOOK AT REVIEW CRITERIA 185.087.

I KNOW THE APPLICANT WENT THROUGH THE ENTIRE ITEMS, BUT I'M SIMPLY GOING TO FOCUS ON TWO ITEM DX AND ITEM G.

ITEM DX ADEQUATE SCREENING AND OR BUFFERING WILL BE PROVIDED TO PROTECT AND PROVIDE COMPATIBILITY WITH ADJOINING PROPERTIES IN ITEM G. THE PROPOSED USE WILL NOT CONSTITUTE A NUISANCE OR HAZARD BECAUSE OF THE NUMBER OF PERSONS WHO WILL ATTEND OR USE OF THE FACILITY, OR BECAUSE OF VEHICULAR MOVEMENT, NOISE, FUME GENERATION OR TYPE OF PHYSICAL ACTIVITY.

NOW. HERE'S WHERE THE RUBBER HITS THE ROAD.

AND IT'S MY POSITION THAT THE APPLICANT DOES NOT MEET THE CRITERIA UNDER THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THAT'S THE FIRST ONE I HAVE TALKED ABOUT.

SO DESPITE THEIR SELF-SERVING COMMENTS REGARDING PROMISED COMPLIANCE WITH FIRE DEPARTMENT REGULATIONS AND ITS COMPANY OVERVIEW, WHICH IN THEIR BACKUP SURPRISINGLY TOUTS A 35 YEAR HISTORY OF SAFE, RESPONSIBLE OPERATION, THE APPLICANT FAILS TO ADDRESS, AS I MENTIONED, ANY COMPATIBILITY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THEREFORE, IT'S MY POSITION THEY DO NOT MEET THIS BURDEN.

SO AGAIN, FLU GOAL NUMBER FOUR PROVIDE SUFFICIENT AREA FOR GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF A CLEAN INDUSTRY.

HERE, THE PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE IS THE COMPLETE OPPOSITE OF A CLEAN INDUSTRY.

THEY'RE INTENDING ON STORING LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM PRODUCTS IN OTHER DANGEROUS CHEMICALS.

AND AGAIN, LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS IS A COLORLESS, ODORLESS, FLAMMABLE GAS THAT IS AN EFFICIENT, EFFICIENT, SORRY, GAS THAT CAN CAUSE UNCONSCIOUSNESS AND OR DEATH.

IF OXYGEN LEVELS ARE SUFFICIENTLY REDUCED.

NOW YOU'LL SEE IN THE ATTACHED EXHIBITS FAR CANNOT BE TRUSTED TO SAFELY STORE THESE CHEMICALS THAT ARE DANGEROUS.

THEN WE LOOK AT POLICY 4.1 BE DEVELOP AND INCORPORATE INTO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, STANDARDS AND CONTROLS TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS, NATURAL RESOURCES, PUBLIC FACILITIES, AND AGAIN, PUBLIC IN GENERAL.

YOU'RE ALLOWING THE STORAGE OF DANGEROUS CHEMICALS FAILS THIS POLICY OF 4.1 B BASED ON THEIR PAST PRACTICES, HISTORY OF SAFETY VIOLATIONS AND INCIDENTS.

IT WOULD ACTUALLY INCREASE AND NOT MINIMIZE THE IMPACTS ON THE NATURAL RESOURCES AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

AND AGAIN, THIS WILL BE MADE CLEAR IN THE EXACT IN THE TAPS EXHIBITS.

AS FOR THE REVIEW CRITERIA, WHILE THEY RELY UPON GENERIC FINDINGS, THE SAPPHIRE STAFF REPORT RECOGNIZES THAT THE STORAGE

[01:05:06]

BUT IT IS SILENT ON ANY OF FARR'S PAST HISTORY OF SAFETY ABUSES, VIOLATIONS AND INCIDENTS.

IT'S ONLY REQUIRING A CHANGE OF USE PERMIT AND A FUTURE FIRE ANALYSIS NEEDED TO PROTECT THE STORAGE HAZARD, NOT THE PUBLIC.

SO ITEM RD ADEQUATE SCREENING TO PROTECT AND PROVIDE COMPATIBILITY.

HERE ARE THE SOLE SCREENING OF BUFFERING.

BUFFERING PROPOSED BY FAR IS A SIX FOOT CHAIN LINK FENCE.

AND WE ALL WE ALL KNOW TOO WELL THE POTENTIAL FIRE FOR EXPLOSIONS AT FA FACILITIES AS OCCURRED ON SEPTEMBER 8TH.

AS WE'LL BE SHOWING THE ATTACHED EXHIBITS FAR CANNOT BE TRUSTED TO STAY SAFELY STORED.

THESE DANGEROUS CHEMICALS AND A CHAIN LINK FENCE PROVIDE ZERO PROTECTION.

ITEM G. THE PROPOSED USE WILL NOT CONSTITUTE A NUISANCE OR HAZARD HERE.

FAS PASS HISTORY OF SAFETY ABUSES.

VIOLATIONS IN INCIDENTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES.

AND I BELIEVE YOU'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO BE SHOCKED BY THE EXHIBITS THAT ARE PART OF THE BACKUP HERE.

AND THIS WILL NOT PROTECT THE PUBLIC AT LARGE.

ALL RIGHT. LET'S GET TO THE EXHIBITS BECAUSE I THINK IS WHERE THE RUBBER HITS THE ROAD AND.

AS A BOARD MEMBER.

SORRY, OLD CHEF OLSZEWSKI, I THINK YOU NAILED IT IN A COUPLE OF OTHERS DID THAT WHEN THEY WERE HERE BEFORE YOU LAST TIME.

THEY WERE SCREAMING HOW DANGEROUS THIS WHOLE FACILITY IS, HOW DANGEROUS IT IS.

BUT NOW THEY'RE COMING IN AND CHANGE OF THEIR TUNE.

I MEAN, IT'S FAR FETCHED, NO PUN INTENDED, BUT IT'S FAR FETCHED FOR THEM TO COME IN HERE AND DO THAT BEFORE YOU WITH A STRAIGHT FACE.

SO IF YOU LOOK AT EXHIBIT NUMBER ONE, THIS IS ACTUALLY THE CITY COUNCIL BRIEFING THAT THEY USE BACK THEN ON AUGUST 1ST, 2019. AND SOME OF THE THINGS I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT TO YOU.

PAGE ONE.

IF YOU LOOK DOWN IN THE MIDDLE, IT SAYS AND IT'S LABELED DANGEROUS MATERIALS.

IT SAYS FAR CHEMICAL PERFORMS REACTIVE CHEMISTRY WITH THE HIGHLY HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS OF A CORROSIVE, TOXIC AND FLAMMABLE NATURE. THAT'S THEIR WORDS, NOT OURS.

PAGE FIVE.

HERE. THEY'RE LISTING THE DANGEROUS CHEMICALS.

AND I HEARD WHAT THE APPLICANT SAID ABOUT THE THAT THEY'RE ALREADY STORING THE LIQUID.

UH, CHEMICALS TODAY, BUT IT'S NOT LISTED IN THERE.

THEY HAVE BROMINE.

THEY HAVE OTHER STUFF I CAN'T PRONOUNCE TMC'S.

AND ALL OF IT GOES TO THE WHOLE THING THAT SAYS AN ACCIDENTAL SPILL OR RELEASE WILL PRODUCE CORROSIVE ACID AND VAPOR CLOUDS. AND THEN AT THE BOTTOM IS WHEN THEY SAY FAR'S PRIMARY CONCERN IS THE LOCATION OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

SO THAT'S THE TUNE AND THE STORY THEY TOLD YOU WHEN THEY WERE BEFORE YOU BEFOREHAND.

SO THEY CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

THEY CAN'T HAVE THEIR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO.

THEY NEED TO PICK ONE AND GO WITH IT.

SO LET'S MOVE TO EXHIBIT NUMBER TWO.

EXHIBIT NUMBER TWO IS INTERESTING.

AND I DON'T IT'S SAD, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THE BOARD IS AWARE OF IT.

SO THIS IS AN INCIDENT REPORT FROM MAY 21ST FROM 2008.

WHERE ANOTHER EXPLOSION OCCURRED AT THE PROPERTY.

HOWEVER, THIS INCIDENT.

RESULTED IN THE DEATH OF A FORMER EMPLOYEE.

AND WHAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU, IS THAT AN INCIDENT REPORT DISCUSSING THAT? SPECIFICALLY ON PAGE FIVE, WHERE THEY GO THROUGH THE PAINSTAKING DETAILS OF EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED, HOW THE EXPLOSION OCCURRED, AND THE INJURIES TO THEIR OWN EMPLOYEE.

I DON'T NEED TO GO THROUGH ALL OF IT.

IT'S THERE. IT HAPPENED.

AND IT'S PART OF FAVRE'S HISTORY.

AND HOW THEY OPERATE.

EXHIBIT THREE.

EXHIBIT THREE IS A JANUARY 14TH, 2021 WARNING LETTER FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION REGARDING THE FIRE AND EXPLOSION THAT OCCURRED ON SEPTEMBER 8TH.

NOW, WHAT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE IN THIS IS THE DISCUSSION OF AN UNCONTAINED SOIL PILE LOCATED

[01:10:03]

AT BUILDING 15 ADDRESS 2650.

ROWENA. THEN THE LETTER GOES ON AND WARNS OF VIOLATIONS ON THAT SITE FROM ALL THE DIFFERING SOIL PILES.

EXHIBIT FOUR.

EXHIBIT FOUR IS DEPP'S DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION HAZARDOUS WASTE INSPECTION REPORT.

THIS IS DATED THE NEXT DAY, JANUARY 15, 2021.

AND AGAIN, THIS LETTER IS A FOLLOW UP TO A SITE INSPECTION FOLLOWING THAT SEPTEMBER 8TH EXPLOSION.

AND WHAT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE ON THIS IS ON PAGE ONE IS THAT IT SAYS ON SEPTEMBER 9TH AND IT'S THE BOTTOM PARAGRAPH.

FIRST PAGE, FA CHEMICAL WAS LAST INSPECTED ON SEPTEMBER 9TH AND 29TH IN RESPONSE TO THE FIRE AND SUDDEN RELEASE OF HAZARDOUS WASTE ON SITE.

HERE'S THE KEY. THE FACILITY WAS NOT IN COMPLIANCE AT THAT TIME.

SO WHEN THEY TOUT THEIR HISTORY OF SAFETY AND CONCERN FOR THE COMMUNITY, IT CLEARLY WASN'T BACK THEN.

SO HOW CAN THEY BE TRUSTED FOR A NEW FACILITY FOR STORAGE? AND THEN THAT LETTER GOES ON AND LISTS SEVERAL VIOLATIONS.

SO IF YOU LOOK AT PAGES TWO THROUGH FOUR, THEY LIST THE NEW VIOLATIONS, WHICH ONE OF THEM IS STORAGE OF HAZARDOUS WASTE AND LABELING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE? EXHIBIT NUMBER FIVE, THIS IS THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND FAS DOES FAR BEHIND IT.

THEIR CONSENT ORDER.

AND THIS IS THE CONSENT ORDER THAT WAS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PARTIES OR PARTIES BETWEEN DEP AND FA AFTER AS A RESULT OF THE EXPLOSION.

NOW, WHAT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE HERE IS PAGE TWO, PARAGRAPH FIVE, AND I'M GOING TO READ FROM IT.

DURING AN INCIDENT ON SEPTEMBER 8TH, 2020, AN UNKNOWN AMOUNT OF POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, INCLUDING THOSE LISTED AND EXHIBIT A, WERE RELEASED INTO THE AIR AND SOIL NEAR THE SOUTH END OF THE FACILITY DUE TO AN EXPLOSION AND A FIRE.

THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS.

AND THEN THEY GO ON TO LIST ON PAGE THREE, A3K.

ALL THE ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS THAT WERE FOUND BY DEP.

NOW LET'S JUST LOOK AT K.

I MEAN, ALL OF THEM ARE BAD, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT PAGE THREE.

SORRY. IT'S ON PAGE FOUR OF 17.

THE FACILITY FAILED TO MAINTAIN AND OPERATE THE FACILITY TO MINIMIZE THE POSSIBILITY OF A FIRE EXPLOSION OR RELEASE OF HAZARDOUS WASTE IN VIOLATION OF 40 CFR.

NOW, THIS IS SIGNED BY FAR.

THEIR PRINCIPAL SCIENTIST IF YOU LOOK ON THE BACK OF THIS.

HE AGREED TO THAT.

SO HE'S ACKNOWLEDGING EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS.

MR. BEATTIE. VICE PRESIDENT.

NOW THIS ONE'S. THIS ONE'S INTERESTING.

EXHIBIT SIX.

STATEMENT BY PALM BEACH.

SORRY. PALM BAY.

FIRE MARSHAL.

LOOK AT THREE A.

FIRE MARSHAL MIKE IRVINGTON FOUND PAPERWORK ON PRIOR INSPECTIONS 2014, 2015, 2018 AND 2020.

NOW LOOK AT A 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE FIRE.

I HAD THEM REMOVE CHEMICALS FROM BUILDING 15.

THE ONE THAT'S A SUBJECT RIGHT NOW.

2650 ROWENA AND HE ISSUED A STOP WORK ORDER ON THAT BUILDING UNTIL THE CHEMICALS REMOVED.

THEY NEVER APPLIED FOR A BTR.

OR NOTIFIED FIRE THAT THEY WERE USING IT FOR CHEMICAL STORAGE AND THUS IT DID NOT HAVE ANY REQUIRED SAFEGUARDS FOR CHEMICAL STORAGE.

THAT'S NOT WORKING WITH FIRE AS THEY TOUTED A SECOND AGO.

THE SHIPPING CONTAINERS TO STORE EMPTY DRUMS AND DID NOT LIST THE STORAGE CONTAINER IN THEIR CONTINGENCY PLAN.

THAT'S THEIR PAST PRACTICES.

EXHIBIT SEVEN AND EXHIBIT EIGHT.

[01:15:02]

AND IT LISTS SEVERAL ACTIONS AND ITEMS THAT THAT FAR FAILED.

SO. I MEAN, THE PROOF IS THERE.

YOU KNOW, THEIR PAST PRACTICES.

THE EXHIBITS SHOW IT.

YOU'VE HEARD FROM THE APPLICANT, YOU'VE HEARD FROM THE OPPOSITION.

THEY CAN'T HAVE THEIR CAKE AND EAT IT, TOO.

MY CLIENT IS ZONED MIXED USE.

THEY'RE TRYING TO BLOCK IT.

BUT NOW THEY'RE COMING IN TO ASK YOU FOR MORE STORAGE.

WITH ALL THEIR PAST PRACTICES.

SO I URGE YOU TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THEIR APPLICATION.

I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. I APPRECIATE IT.

ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WAS TO SPEAK ON THIS ISSUE.

AND WITH THE APPLICANT LIKE TO RESPOND.

MR. DEUTSCH DOES PUT ON SOME GOOD POINTS.

I WON'T DENY THAT THERE HAS BEEN SAFETY ISSUES OUT THERE.

WE ALL KNOW IT'S HISTORICALLY SHOWN, BUT FOR THE MOST PART, WE HAVE COME HERE TODAY TO DO THIS WITH THE CITY, TO BE ABLE TO MOVE AGGRESSIVELY FORWARD AND REMAIN COMPLIANT WITH THE CITY STANDARDS.

YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING ILLEGAL TODAY.

WE'RE IN COMPLIANCE.

WE'VE SHOWN THAT. HE HAD MENTIONED THAT WE'RE NOT ENVIRONMENTALLY AND COMPLIANT.

WE ARE ENVIRONMENTALLY COMPLIANT.

THAT'S WHY I GAVE YOU THAT LETTER TO SHOW YOU THAT THE RESEARCH THAT HAS BEEN DONE IS SHOWN THAT THERE'S NO WATER CONTAMINATION.

SO THAT STATEMENT I DON'T AGREE WITH.

AND ALSO.

THE. WE DO PUBLICLY PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.

THERE HAS BEEN SOME CHANGES HAS TAKEN TO PLACE WITH FAR OVER THE YEARS SINCE THOSE INCIDENTS HAVE OCCURRED, AND IT'S BEEN AN IMPROVING PROCESS.

NOW, WHAT MR. DEWITT DOES NOT EXPLAIN, THOUGH, IS WHEN WHEN WE ORIGINALLY OR LET ME REPHRASE MYSELF, I WASN'T PART OF THE CASE.

THIS IS MY UNDERSTANDING.

AND MY KNOWLEDGE INTO IT IS WHEN THAT REZONING WAS OCCURRING, A REZONING IT TO MOVE DENSE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO HEAVY INDUSTRIAL.

I WANTED TO BE CRYSTAL CLEAR.

I WANTED TO BE TRANSPARENT THAT THEY DO OPERATE A HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USE AS THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN FOR MANY YEARS.

AS THE OTHER GENTLEMAN HERE EXPLAINED AND THE OTHER YOUNG LADY THAT'S HERE THAT EXPLAINED THAT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE NORTH HAS BEEN THERE SINCE THE FIFTIES IS 100% CORRECT.

WE HAD SPOKEN ABOUT THAT FROM SOME OF THE PRIOR NEIGHBORS, FROM PRIOR COMMUNITY MEETINGS A YEAR AGO, ABOUT HOW LONG THE COMMUNITY HAS BEEN THERE.

IT'S NOT NEW. AND JUST AS THE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY IS NOT NEW AND WHAT IS NEW IS BAYFRONT MIXED USE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH THAT WAS REZONED THE CITY APPROVED REZONING.

A ZONING DISTRICT THAT HOUSES A DENSER RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT NEXT TO HEAVY INDUSTRIAL.

AND OUR COMPANY, THE COMPANY I'M HERE REPRESENTING, HAD INDICATED AT THAT TIME THAT THERE WERE HAZARDS AND IT WAS VOTED IN TO REZONE IT.

AND AS I SAID HERE EARLIER, BAYFRONT DOESN'T ONLY OFFER RESIDENTIAL AS AN OPTION.

THERE'S OTHER OPTIONS THAT ARE COMPATIBLE THAT PRODUCES A LESS OF A POPULATION ADJACENT TO HEAVY INDUSTRIAL.

BUT I UNDERSTAND AS WORKING WITH MANY DEVELOPERS, THE FINANCES OF THAT APPLIES AND YOU'RE GOING TO GIVE IT TO THE HIGHER USER, DESPITE IF IT'S NECESSARILY SAFE AT ALL TIMES TO PLANT THEM RIGHT NEXT TO HEAVY INDUSTRIAL.

I'VE SEEN IT OVER AND OVER.

HOWEVER, WE'RE NOT HERE TODAY TO REALLY FOCUS, I WOULD SAY, ON THE MANUFACTURING FACILITY.

IT'S GOING TO OPERATE, IT'S GOING TO CONTINUE.

IT'S GOING TO DO THE SAME PRACTICES.

IT'S GOING TO DO WHAT IT HAS BEEN DOING FOR.

BASICALLY 39 YEARS.

IT'S GOING TO BE PRODUCING FOR AEROSPACE INDUSTRY.

IT'S GOING TO BE DOING WHATEVER DIVISIONS THAT THEY DO TO THEIR CHEMICALS THERE.

THEY'RE GOING TO BE WORKING WITH FRAGRANCES.

THEY'RE GOING TO BE WORKING WITH THE PHARMACEUTICALS.

THEIR BUSINESS IS THEIR BUSINESS MODEL.

[01:20:03]

WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR TODAY IS TO HAVE A STORAGE FACILITY NEXT DOOR NOT ONLY BE APPROVED HERE AS A CONDITIONAL USE, BUT ALSO TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE THEIR STORAGE FACILITIES NEEDS AND BE ABLE TO DO THAT IN NOT ONLY A SAFE WAY, BUT A RESPONSIBLE WAY.

DENYING THAT APPLICATION TODAY REMOVES THEIR ABILITY TO MAKE A BETTER EFFORT AT CREATING NOT ONLY A SAFER FACILITY, BUT A MODERN FACILITY.

YOU KNOW, IT'S IT'S NOT IT'S NOT AN ANTIQUATED FACILITY.

THEY'RE PUTTING AN INVESTMENT IN TO MAKE THIS THE BEST POSSIBLE FACILITY FOR THEIR NEEDS AND ALSO BE ABLE TO CONTRIBUTE TO A SAFER ENVIRONMENT.

I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR TO DENY THEM TODAY AS THEY ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO OPERATE AS THEY'RE ALLOWED TO.

THEY JUST ARE MAKING AN EFFORT TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY.

THEY'RE MAKING THEY ARE MAKING AN EFFORT TO BE A BETTER COMMUNITY MEMBER JUST BECAUSE THEY'VE HAD YEARS OF EXPERIENCE, WHERE THEY'VE HAD ACCIDENTS, THEY'VE HAD THEIR MISFORTUNES AND THEY HAVE DONE THINGS.

WE ALL ARE ON A LEARNING CURVE HERE, AND THEY HAVE LEARNED THEY'RE EXPANDING TO THE POINT WHERE THEY CAN PROVIDE FACILITIES TO BETTER ACCOMMODATE THEIR NEEDS.

AND AND AS I MENTIONED, THEY'RE NOT EXPANDING NEW SERVICES HERE.

THERE IS NO NEW SERVICES BEING EXPANDED HERE.

ALL THAT'S BEING ASKED FOR IS A STORAGE FACILITY THAT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY, AS I SAID BEFORE.

WE'RE WORKING WITH STAFF.

STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.

IT DOES MEET THE CRITERIA.

YOU KNOW, THE STAFF REPORT CLEARLY INDICATES THAT I WILL NOT TAKE THIS TIME AND TO STEP THROUGH EVERY SINGLE CRITERIA AGAIN, TO REBUT WHAT MR. DEWITT HERE HAD INDICATED, THE STAFF HAS INDICATED THAT IT'S IN COMPLIANCE WITH YOUR CRITERIA.

WE HAVE ALSO MADE AN EFFORT TO POINT THAT OUT, THAT IT IS THAT WE'RE THE ITEMS. THAT NEED ADDITIONAL WORK WILL BE DEALT WITH DURING TECHNICAL REVIEW AND WE'RE FULLY OPEN TO WORK WITH STAFF.

THERE'S NO PART OF US IN OUR ORGANIZATION THAT DOESN'T WANT TO WORK WITH STAFF AND MAKE THIS RIGHT.

AND THERE'S NOBODY HERE IN THIS COMPANY THAT IS OUTRIGHT TRYING TO ARM ANYBODY.

AND WE'RE HERE TO MAKE BETTER.

WE'RE TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT THING, BASICALLY.

SO I DO ASK THAT YOU RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE COUNCIL TONIGHT IN LIEU OF THE PRESENTATION THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED AND TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE FACT THAT THE FACILITY HAS BEEN HERE AND THERE'S NO DETRIMENT IN BEING ABLE TO PROVIDE BETTER FACILITIES FOR A COMPANY HAS BEEN OPERATING THIS LONG AND IT'S TRYING TO MAKE GOOD EFFORT WITHIN THE CITY OF BOMBAY.

AND I'M HAPPY FOR ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE, BUT I THINK THAT'S ALL I CAN REALLY SAY AT THIS POINT.

SO PLEASE TAKE CONSIDERATION IN OUR APPLICATION, AND I APPRECIATE ANY DECISION THAT YOU MAKE.

THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I DO HAVE A QUESTION.

YES, MA'AM. AT THIS TIME, ARE THEY USING LIQUID PETROLEUM IN OTHER PARTS OF THE PLANT? STEPHEN. I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

I DON'T KNOW THEIR OPERATION.

UM. SO I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S.

I DON'T KNOW. BE EXACT MISLEADING.

RIGHT. SO OUR, OUR, OUR FORKLIFTS RUN ON LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM, LPG GAS.

WE DO HAVE OTHER CHEMICALS THAT WE HAVE SOME KOSHER MATERIALS THAT WE DO EXTRACT WITH, LIKE OTHER FOOD.

I'VE WORKED WITH DUPONT SOY PROTEIN AND WE MADE SOY FLAKES.

AND AND IN THAT PROCESS, YOU HAVE PETROLEUM PRODUCTS THAT YOU USE TO EXTRACT VEGETABLE OIL.

WE HAVE THE SAME THING. WE HAVE SOME KOSHER PRODUCTS THAT WE WE DO USE ORGANIC.

SO WE WE WE HANDLE PHARMACEUTICALS.

SO WE DO HAVE ORGANICS ON THE SITE.

YOU KNOW, AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S IT BRINGS UP SOME POINTS THAT THAT'S IN OUR PAST.

BUT I DO KNOW RIGHT NOW I HAD A GREAT UNTIL MARCH SERVING MY CHERINGTON RETIRED AT A GREAT OPEN.

OPEN DOOR POLICY WE EXTENDED TO THE CITY CITY MEMBERS WHO CAME AS WELL TO THE SITE VISIT US AND

[01:25:04]

I'M CONFIDENT TODAY YOU ALL ARE WELCOME.

OPEN DOOR. JUST LIKE I HAVE WITH THE FIRE FIRE DEPARTMENT.

THEY CAME ON MANY SURPRISE VISITS FROM SOME COMPLAINTS.

DIDN'T FIND ANY ANY VIOLATIONS WITH THOSE SURPRISE VISITS.

SO I'M I'M HIGHLY CONFIDENT THAT IF YOU IF IF ANY OF YOU WANTED TO VISIT THE SITE, I'LL BE HAPPY TO BRING YOU AROUND THE SITE.

AND YOU WOULD FIND THE SAME THING THAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IS FOUND.

WE'RE NOT IN ANY VIOLATIONS TODAY.

WE HAVE BEEN COMPLIANT WITH OSHA.

WE'VE MADE THOSE WE MADE THOSE MODIFICATIONS.

AND SO THAT'S THAT'S THE THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING TODAY.

I CAN PROMISE YOU THAT.

THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT. SO SO THAT THAT'S WHAT WE DO.

BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION, BUT.

IT WAS GETTING TO THE POINT WHERE IF HE COULD NOT USE THIS.

DENIED FOR CONDITIONER USE.

COULD YOU MOVE THAT TO ANOTHER PART OF YOUR FACILITY AND STILL OPERATE? WELL, WE'LL CONTINUE TO OPERATE LIKE WE DO TODAY.

BUT FOR US TO BE A MORE EFFICIENT FACILITY, FOR US TO HAVE BETTER FACILITIES, FOR US TO TO BE THE BENEFIT TO THE BE A BENEFIT TO THE THE TO THE SITE, THE COMMUNITY HAVING THIS FACILITY, THE STORE TO STORE OUR CHEMICALS IN A WAY THAT WE CAN BRING MATERIALS AND FLOWS IN TO THE SITE.

IT'S IT'S A BETTERMENT FOR FOR EVERYBODY.

THAT'S WHAT THAT'S THAT'S THE BENEFIT OF US HAVING THAT FACILITY OFF OVER AND WHAT HE REFERS TO AS BUILDING 15.

I'M. FOUR IS NOT CLOSED FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS IN CASE IS BROUGHT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR DISCUSSION.

I WAS JUST, YOU KNOW, REMIND ME WHAT THE THE LADY SAID THAT SHE JUST WANTS TO FEEL SAFE IN HER HOME.

AND BASED ON, YOU KNOW, JUST WHAT LITERALLY HERE THEY ARE GOING TO OPERATE LITERALLY THE WAY THEY ARE RIGHT NOW. SO IF I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS, THEY'RE TRYING TO IMPROVE THEIR CURRENT STORAGE FACILITY.

IS THAT CORRECT? SO IF THAT IS IS THE CASE, I, I WILL BE IN SUPPORT OF THAT AND REALLY WITH THE LADY THAT SAID, I WANT TO BE SAFE, FEEL SAFE IN MY COMMUNITY.

IF WE COULD SHUT THEM DOWN, THAT'S A DIFFERENT THING WHERE THEY COULD NOT OPERATE THERE.

BUT IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.

THEY'VE BEEN THERE. THAT'S NOT SOMETHING REALISTIC.

SO IT WOULD THAT IN MIND.

I WOULD SUPPORT THIS.

I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN DO THE MOTION COMMENT.

FORMER. FAR CHEMICAL HAS A LONG HISTORY OF SAFETY VIOLATIONS.

GOING BACK TO 2008, THEY HAD THAT EXPLOSION THAT KILLED ONE OF THEIR EMPLOYEES IN 2020.

THEY HAD THE EXPLOSION WHICH EVERYONE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS FAMILIAR WITH.

EVEN AFTER THAT EXPLOSION, THEY CLEANED UP THE CONTAMINATED SOIL.

THEY RECEIVED A VIOLATION FOR IMPROPERLY STORING THAT CONTAMINATED SOIL.

IT CAN'T BE TRUSTED, FRANKLY.

I HAVE TO AGREE WITH MR. DEWITT THAT THAT THIS APPROVING THIS THIS CONDITIONAL USE IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH OUR FUTURE LAND USE.

LIKE I SAID, YOU KNOW, FARAZ HAS HAS A LONG HISTORY OF OF OF OF, YOU KNOW, IMPROPERLY STORING CHEMICALS.

THEY EVEN STORED CHEMICALS ILLEGALLY IN THIS BUILDING THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR CONDITIONAL USE TO NOW STORE IT LEGALLY.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO WAY THAT I WILL SUPPORT THIS OR ANY OTHER EXPANSION OF OF OF OF HIS ABILITY TO STORE HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS.

HAVING SAID THAT MOTION TO DENY SIU 35 TO 2022 SECOND.

YOU HAVE A MOTION TO DENY.

ALL IN FAVOR.

I POSED A POSE.

WE'RE DISCUSSING. OH.

IT.

WHILE I'M IN FAVOR.

KYLE. NIALL.

AND JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THAT THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS TO RECOMMEND THE COUNCIL DENIAL ON THIS CASE.

MR. WEINBERG IN A SECOND, JUST SAYING IT OUT LOUD AND I VOTE ALL IN FAVOR OF DENIAL.

ONE, TWO, THREE.

I. ALL OPPOSED.

[01:30:04]

OH, IT'S ONLY TWO.

BOTH. MOTION WOULD CARRY 4 TO 3.

YOU'RE NOT AGREEING WITH THE.

PROMOTION FEELS FORWARD. YOU WANT TO DO A ROLL CALL? MADAM CHAIR, CAN WE DO A ROLL CALL? VOTE FOR MISS PAL'S BENEFIT.

WE JUST GO ONE BY ONE. SHE'LL CALL US BY NAME AND WE'LL JUST TELL HER HER VOTE.

SHE'LL LOG IT INTO THE RECORD.

RIGHT. TONIGHT? YES. NOT IN FAVOR OF.

WHO? YOU'RE VOTING AGAINST THE MOTION.

MOTION IS TO RECOMMEND FOR DENIAL OF VOTING AGAINST THE MOTION.

DISCUSSION. BUT BUT THERE IS A MOTION ON THE FLOOR.

AND I AGREE WITH THE DENIAL.

I. WANTED TO DISCUSS THE MORE CLARIFICATION QUESTION.

YEAH, I JUST FIRMLY DON'T THINK THAT THERE WAS ENOUGH CLARIFICATION AS TO WHAT THE WHAT THE TRUE MOTIVE BEHIND ALL OF THIS.

BEHIND THIS IS IS CAN STILL GO EITHER WAY.

BUT I KNOW I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE A MOTION SO.

I'M ALL FOR THE MOTION FOR THE.

YES, I.

OKAY. SO.

OKAY. I'M NEI I.

I MADE MOTION I.

I. AND ROBERT, AS I WAS 43, I DIDN'T REALIZE YOU WERE.

SHE CARES. OR SHE CARES FOR TWO.

THREE, RECOMMEND FOR DENIAL.

YOU HAVE EVERYTHING YOU NEED. MS..

POWELL HAS EVERYTHING SHE NEEDS, MA'AM.

THE NEXT CASE IS CP 17 2022.

MR. ANDERSON.

SO.

GOOD EVENING, BOARD MEMBERS.

BEFORE YOU, WE HAVE CASE NUMBER 17, 2022 IS LOCATED SOUTH AND ADJACENT TO DOROTHEA FIELDS AVENUE, NORTHEAST AND IN THE VICINITY WEST OF NORTH VIEW STREET NORTHEAST.

IT IS APPROXIMATELY THREE ACRES IN SIZE AND ITS CURRENT FUTURE LAND USE IS INDUSTRIAL.

THE REQUEST IS FOR THE CHANGE IN FUTURE LAND USE FROM INDUSTRIAL TO MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.

AND THE RECOMMENDATION FOR CASE 17 2022 IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AND STAFF IS AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

I DO BELIEVE THE APPLICANT IS HERE AS WELL.

THINK YOU JUST BOUGHT OR HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NONE. EPIC AND FORWARD.

GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS MIGUEL RONALDO'S NORTH SHORE DEVELOPMENT 2295 SOUTH SHIAWASSEE ROAD, SUITE 306 ORLANDO 32835 PARDON THE VOICE.

I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU ALL MAY HAVE.

IN ESSENCE, I WAS HERE LAST YEAR WHERE MY APPLICATION WAS TO REZONE AND MASTER PLAN THE EMU PARCEL THAT YOU SEE ON THAT MAP RIGHT NOW. AFTER AFTER THAT HEARING, WE WERE APPROACHED TO ACQUIRE THIS ADDITIONAL PIECE OF PROPERTY AND INCORPORATE IT INTO OUR MASTER PLAN. THAT MASTER PLAN.

WE HAD ALREADY FILED A PRE APPLICATION AND HAD IT PRESENTED IT TO STAFF WHERE WE'VE ALREADY BEEN STARTING TO WORK ON THE IMPROVEMENTS ON THE PROPERTY.

I'M HERE TO ADDRESS ANYTHING THAT YOU ALL MAY HAVE OR ANY CONCERNS.

IT'S A BOARD. HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? SIR. JUST ONE QUESTION, PLEASE.

POPE. THAT'S A CORRECT QUESTION.

YOU HAVE ANY RESERVATIONS ABOUT THE CHEMICAL COMPANY BEING.

ALMOST ADJACENT TO YOUR PROPERTY? NOT AT THIS TIME, NO.

SIR. I'M NOT TO ASK IT TO OPEN ENDED.

BUT WHAT ARE YOU BUILDING HERE, SIR? WE ARE GOING TO DO A MULTIFAMILY AND MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT.

[01:35:01]

RIGHT UP ON THE CORNER OF RJ CONLAN AND COMMERCE PARK BOULEVARD.

AND THEN BETWEEN MORE OR LESS WHERE THE WHERE IT SAYS BEAM, YOU WILL BE A MULTIFAMILY PARCEL ACCORDING TO THE BEAM VIEW STANDARDS.

YOU'LL NOTICE THAT THERE'S A LINE, A PURPLE LINE THAT'S IN BETWEEN THE PROPERTY.

THAT'S ACTUALLY A STORMWATER EASEMENT WITH THE ST JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT THAT BISECTS THE OTHER PARCEL TO THE WEST FOR THE LEFT OF THAT PARCEL WHERE IT SAYS MFR, WE INTEND TO BUILD MULTIFAMILY APARTMENT BUILDINGS.

SO WE'RE CONTINUING OUR PMU THAT WE HAVE ACROSS THE STREET ON ON THE COMMERCIAL PIECE, MIRRORING IT ACROSS THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF RJ CONLIN AND THEN FROM THERE INTO MORE OF A, MORE OF A MULTIFAMILY FURTHER TO THE WEST.

THIS PARCEL WILL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE MASTER PLAN.

IT'S INTENDED IS FOR TRAFFIC CIRCULATION AS WELL AS STORMWATER MANAGEMENT.

WE DO NOT INTEND TO TAKE OR USE THAT PROPERTY FOR ADDITIONAL DENSITY OR UNITS.

ONE FOLLOW UP QUESTION, IF I MAY.

SURE. WHY NOT GO FOR THE BAYFRONT MIXED USE AND JUST HAVE IT ALL BE THE SAME? THAT WAS OUR INITIAL APPLICATION TO THE STAFF, BUT THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY ACTUALLY LIES OUTSIDE THE BEAM VIEW OR THE CRA BOUNDARIES.

RIGHT. AND SO WE ATTEMPTED OUR NEXT, THEN WE TURN AROUND AND STRUCK THAT OUT FROM BASICALLY INDUSTRIAL TO QEMU AND THEN WE WENT WITH OUR MX 20, WHICH IS WHAT THE ZONING DESIGNATION IS TO THE WEST OR TO THE LEFT.

UNFORTUNATELY, BASED OFF OF THE CRITERIA, WE DON'T MEET THE, THE STANDARDS FOR THE AH M 20 DENSITY, SO WE'RE ASKING FOR THE ARM 20 ARM 15.

AGAIN, WE'RE NOT GOING TO USE IT FOR, FOR RESIDENTIAL.

IT'S MORE OF A OF A OF A ON SITE CONTAINMENT FOR ADDITIONAL STORMWATER AND TRAFFIC.

BUT IT WAS AN OPPORTUNITY THAT WAS PRESENTED TO US AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE.

THANKS FOR UNPACKING THAT, SIR.

THAT'S ALL, MADAM CHAIR. THANK YOU.

THE OTHER QUESTIONS.

YOU'RE WELCOME. FOR THE RECORD, THERE IS A LETTER IN THE FILE IN FAVOR OF THIS APPLICATION.

THE FLOOR IS NOW OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS.

IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS REQUEST? WE WENT AGAINST. OH.

MR. BATTEN. GILBERT IN 586 OCEAN SPRAY STREET SOUTHWEST. SEE? LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TO RESIDENTIAL.

WE JUST HAD AN ARGUMENT ABOUT HOW THAT WAS NOT A GOOD IDEA AND YOU VOTED AGAINST THEM HAVING THE ABILITY TO IMPROVE THE SITUATION AND YOU VOTED AGAINST IT.

SO LET'S LET'S CHANGE OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AGAIN.

NOW, LET'S PUT SOME MORE RESIDENTIAL NEXT TO INDUSTRIAL.

IT MAKES A WHOLE LOT OF SENSE.

PEOPLE WERE SAYING THAT THIS WAS THE INDUSTRIAL DESIGNATED AREA IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

AND WE KEEP TAKING OUR INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY AND LET'S SAY LET'S PUT HOUSES ON IT.

HE SAYS HE'S NOT GOING TO PUT HOUSES ON IT, BUT WHAT DID HE WANT TO REZONE IT TO? HE WANTS TO ZONE IT TO RESIDENTIAL.

THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE IT AS A WASTELAND FOR STORM WATER.

THEY CAN DO THAT.

YOU CAN DO THAT WITHOUT CHANGING THE ZONING.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO CHANGE THE ZONING TO MAKE IT A RECIPIENT OF STORM WATER HOLDING.

THERE'S NO NEED TO CHANGE IT FROM INDUSTRIAL TO RESIDENTIAL.

AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO SHAKE YOUR HEAD AT ME BECAUSE I DON'T AGREE WITH YOU SOMETIMES.

THE COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE.

SEEING THEN WOULD YOU LIKE, SIR? WOULD YOU LIKE TO RESPOND? WELL, IT'S IT'S HIS OPINION, AND I UNDERSTAND IT AND I RESPECT IT WHEN IT COMES MORE TO THE FINANCING SIDE OF THE EQUATION, WHEN WE'RE GOING FORWARD TO GET FINANCING, IT MAKES THESE PEOPLE A LOT MORE COMFORTABLE KNOWING THAT THE ENTIRE MASTER PLAN IS MORE OR LESS WITHIN THE SAME ZONING.

AND THAT WAY, WHEN WE BUNDLE THIS FOR THE PACKAGE, FOR FINANCING, WE'RE NOT SHOWING AN INDUSTRIAL PIECE OR OR OR.

OR HIGH END COMMERCIAL ACTUALLY, THAT IT IS HARMONIOUS WITHIN ITS OVERALL DEVELOPMENT.

AND SO HAVING THE INDUSTRIAL DOWNSIZING TO A TO A MULTIFAMILY GIVES GIVES A BETTER PRESENCE FOR OUR FOR OUR MASTER PLAN.

[01:40:02]

SO YOU WOULD NOT BE OPPOSED TO US PUTTING A RESTRICTION ON IT THAT YOU CANNOT BUILD ON IT AND IT'S ONLY RESTRICTED FOR STORMWATER? CORRECT. THAT'S FINE WITH ME.

AND WE'VE ALREADY PRESENTED SITE PLAN TO STAFF ALREADY WHO ALREADY UNDERSTANDS WHAT, WHAT, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO WITH THE PARCEL.

THE COMMENTS. I'M HERE.

JUST BRIEFLY, I'M NOT SURE IF WE CAN DO THAT.

I WOULD WANT TO SEEK SOME COUNSEL, EITHER FROM STAFF OR PERHAPS EVEN THE THE DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY ON IF WE'RE TO SAY A CERTAIN USE.

AND THEN WITHIN THAT, IS THERE CAN WE RESTRICT THE USE WITHIN MULTIFAMILY? CAN WE CAN WE DO THAT? JUST KNOWING THAT WE'RE GOING TO WORK WITH A SITE PLAN ANYWAYS WITH STAFF.

I MEAN, I'M AMENABLE TO SUBJECT TO.

WE'VE DONE THAT IN THE PAST OR BE ABLE TO RESTRICT USE.

WE WOULD LIKE TO DEFER TO OUR ATTORNEY ON RECORD IF HE HAS ANYTHING TO SPEAK ON.

BUT IF NOT, WE HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL THAT WE COULD THROW IN.

I ASKED.

WE HAVE ACTUALLY PUT CONDITIONS ON ZONING IN THE PAST, BUT NEVER TO THE POINT OF ESSENTIALLY REMOVING ALL ENTITLEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPERTY AND LOOKING TO POTENTIALLY INFRINGE ON PROPERTY RIGHTS.

YEAH. I DON'T THINK WE COULD.

I WOULD APPRECIATE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TO LOOK THAT UP, PERHAPS IF WE WANTED TO BRING THAT BACK, IF THAT'S SOMETHING WE WANTED TO DO, BECAUSE I WANT TO MAKE SURE I'D WANT TO GIVE YOU THE RIGHT ANSWER.

IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE IT'S SOMETHING WE'VE DONE BEFORE, SO I WOULDN'T BE COMFORTABLE APPROVING THAT RIGHT NOW.

IT'S SOMETHING I COULD COME BACK WITH AT A LATER DATE.

WORK OUT? EXACTLY.

WELL, PERSONALLY, I DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THEM ACTUALLY PUTTING PROPERTY ON THERE.

I WAS JUST ACTUALLY BECAUSE HE WAS SO ADAMANT IN STATING THAT IT WASN'T FOR THAT.

SO THAT'S THE ONLY REASON I SAID, WELL, OKAY, IF LET'S LET'S SEE IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT.

SO I. SO IS THERE ANOTHER CLASSIFICATION OTHER THAN OUR RM 15 THAT.

IT BETTER HEAR.

TERM IN TERMS OF TALKING ABOUT WHAT IS NECESSARILY BETTER FOR THE SITE BECAUSE THIS SOUTHERN PROPERTY IS GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS NORTHERN USE. WE WOULD LIKE FOR IT TO BE AS CLOSE IN PARTICULAR FUTURE LAND USE AS POSSIBLE TO CORRESPOND WITH ANY FUTURE SPATIAL ANALYZES THAT WE MAY CONDUCT.

SO FOR INSTANCE, IF WE WERE TO LEAVE IT INDUSTRIAL AT THIS MOMENT FOR A FUTURE LAND USE, WHEN WE'D GO TO TAKE AN INVENTORY OF OUR FUTURE LAND USE, IT'S GOING TO SHOW IT AS INDUSTRIAL LAND, WHICH WOULD BE A MISNOMER FOR ALL OF YOU.

AND WHEN WE DO TRY TO PRESENT THAT INFORMATION GOING FORWARD, SAYING THAT OTHER AREAS MIGHT BE MORE CONDUCIVE FOR INDUSTRIAL USE.

SO WITH THAT, WE WOULD PREFER FOR IT TO BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE MORE ALONG THE LINES OF WHAT THE DMU TO THE SOUTH IS CERTAIN CORRESPOND WITH THAT.

HOWEVER, I WOULD NOT SUGGEST PUTTING A CONDITION ON IT THAT WOULD RESTRAIN ANY PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD NEED TO CONSIDER AT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LEVEL. THAT IS ONE OF OUR REVIEW CRITERIA IS NOT TO INFRINGE ON PROPERTY RIGHTS.

DID YOU SAY THAT YOU HAD SOME MORE CONDITIONS THAT YOU WANTED? NO, WE DO NOT TYPICALLY PUT CONDITIONS ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THIS IS STILL THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

IF YOU WERE TO LOOK FOR CONDITIONS, IT WOULD BE ON THE COMPREHENSIVE THE ZONING THAT WOULD BE COMING NEXT.

OKAY. I THOUGHT YOU SAID SOMETHING.

YOU WANTED TO ADD SOMETHING. THE FLOOR IS NOT CLOSED FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS IN THE CASE IS BROUGHT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR DISCUSSION OR A MOTION.

I JUST LIKE TO TALK. I'M SORRY.

YEAH, I JUST LIKE TO TALK ABOUT IT JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE BECAUSE I THINK IN, YOU KNOW, JUST AS WE JUST TALKED WITH THE THE FA CHEMICAL COMPANY THAT WAS HERE BEFORE, THE PROBLEM WITH THESE THESE PUTTING THESE RESIDENTIAL, YOU KNOW, REZONING THAT INTO IF YOU LOOK AT THE WHAT'S TO THE EAST WEST AND IT SAYS INDUSTRIAL IS IS ALL AROUND IT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE OTHER PARCEL PROPERTY THAT HE HAS THERE.

AND I DON'T KNOW THAT WITH SUCH A SMALLER PIECE OF PROPERTY LIKE THIS, THAT THERE'S ADEQUATE BUFFERS INVOLVED.

I THINK NORMALLY WHEN YOU SEE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WITH AN INDUSTRIAL AREA AND THEN A RESIDENTIAL AREA, USUALLY YOU HAVE SOME SORT OF LARGE BUFFERS IN BETWEEN THERE TO PROTECT THINGS LIKE CHEMICAL SPILLS OR OR.

A LOT OF TIMES IT'S, YOU KNOW, OTHER TYPE OF AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY OR OTHER TYPE OF BUFFERS WHERE IT'S NOT SO CLOSE.

AND IN THIS CASE, IT IS VERY CLOSE TO THAT CHEMICAL COMPANY.

BUT I THINK WHAT YOU HAVE DISCUSSED IN IN JUST REALLY USING IT FOR STORMWATER, IT DOES CREATE THAT NATURAL BUFFER.

[01:45:04]

SO IF THERE WAS A WAY TO PUT THAT IN THERE, I WOULD BE MORE INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THAT.

IT JUST IT'S MORE OF A STATEMENT.

I'M JUST JUST A DISCUSSION WITH THE GROUP.

AND I'D LIKE TO GET YOUR OPINIONS AS WELL.

MR. WEINBERG YEAH.

FIRST OF ALL, AGAIN, YOU CAN'T PUT CONDITIONS ON A CONDITIONAL ON A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGE THAT GOES ON TO ZONING CHANGE.

BUT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE NOT FAMILIAR WITH WITH WITH THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPER, THEY DEVELOPED THE AQUOS PROPERTY.

THEY REALLY HAVE AN INCREDIBLE INVESTMENT IN THE CITY OF PALM BAY.

THIS THIS PARTICULAR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGES TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE BEACHFRONT MIXED USE ZONING JUST TO THE SOUTH OF IT.

BUT SINCE THIS IS OUTSIDE OF THE BAYFRONT AREA, IT CANNOT BE ZONED BAYFRONT MIXED USE.

SO IT MAKES SENSE THAT IT IS COMPATIBLE.

THE ZONING WILL BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE BAYFRONT MIXED USE AND THE MULTIFAMILY TO THE WEST OF IT.

SO YOU KNOW, HAVING SAID THAT, MOTION TO APPROVE CP 17 2022.

YOU HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SAY IF THERE'S NOT A DISCUSSION, I'LL.

BY MR. WEINBERG SICKENED BY MS..

MIRAGE. ALL IN FAVOR.

I OPPOSED A NAY.

OK MOTION CARRIES 6 TO 1.

NEXT CASE. MR. ANDERSON, CPC 17 2020.

OUR NEXT CASE IS GOING TO BE THE CORRESPONDING REZONING OF THIS PROPERTY FROM LIGHT, INDUSTRIAL AND WAREHOUSING TO ARM 15.

IT IS AGAIN FOUR THREE ACRES IN SIZE AND IS LOCATED SOUTH OF AN ADJACENT TO DOROTHEA FIELDS AVENUE AND IN THE VICINITY WEST OF NORTHVIEW STREET, NORTHWEST NORTHEAST.

SO SEEING AROUND THIS PROPERTY, THIS MIGHT GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT MORE LIGHT BEYOND THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT SURROUNDING IS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, NOT HEAVY INDUSTRIAL.

SO THERE ARE A LOT MORE RESTRICTIONS ON WHAT IS ACTUALLY ALLOWED IN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.

IT HAS TO BE MUCH MORE CONDUCIVE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS AND SO FORTH, AND IT IS MORE OF A WAREHOUSING DISTRICT IN GENERAL AS WELL.

AND THEN BEYOND THAT, WE DO HAVE THE M 20 TO THE TO THE WEST, AS YOU CAN KNOW, WHICH IS THE MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL THAT WE SAW ON THE MAP BEFOREHAND TO THE SOUTHEAST, EVEN THOUGH THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF A PICTURE COVERING UP THAT IS COMMERCIAL RIGHT THERE WITH RIGHT BEHIND IT AGAIN ANOTHER ALM 20 LOCATION FOR ANOTHER AN APARTMENT COMPLEX THAT HAS RECENTLY GONE THROUGH DEVELOPMENT AND IS OPEN AT THIS POINT.

SO THE AREA IN GENERAL HAS SOME RESIDENTIAL FLOW SURROUNDING THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL.

WE ARE LOOKING TO SEEK TO POTENTIALLY KEEP THAT LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ALONG THE CORRIDOR OF ROBERT J.

CONDON BECAUSE THAT'S MORE OF AN AVENUE FOR TRIP GENERATION BECAUSE IT DOES ALLOW FOR MORE SEAMLESS INTEGRATION WITH THE TRAFFIC FLOW, WHEREAS THESE OTHER ROADS ARE ON LESS INTENSIVE ROADWAYS.

SO THAT WOULD CREATE MORE TRAFFIC WITH HEAVIER, HEAVIER TRUCKS AND SO FORTH TRAVELING THROUGH THEM FOR DISTRIBUTION PURPOSES.

SO WITH THAT, WE DO FORESEE THIS TO BE SOMETHING THAT IS CONDUCIVE WITH THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA.

AND AS SUCH, WE DO RECOMMEND CP 1720 222 FOR APPROVAL FOR THE REZONING FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND WAREHOUSING TO OUR M 15 SINGLE TO IN MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.

AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AND STAFF IS AVAILABLE TO THANK YOU OR HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

YOU. THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD.

HERE AGAIN, MIGUEL RONALDO'S NORTH SHORE DEVELOPMENT 2295 SOUTH SHIAWASSEE ROAD, SUITE 306 ORLANDO 322835.

JESSE, DO YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE THE ECOLOGICAL REPORT? I'M NOT SURE I MAY BE ASKING, BUT IN THE PACKET HALFWAY THROUGH THE EXHIBITS YOU'RE GOING TO SEE ONE OF THE SITE PLANS THAT WE HAD PRESENTED TO STAFF DURING OUR OUR ECOLOGICAL REVIEW AND OUR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.

AND YOU WILL NOTICE THAT IN THAT SITE PLAN, THIS SITE DOES ADDRESS EVERYONE'S CONCERNS, WHETHER IT IS MORE OF A BUFFER.

ALL ALONG NORTHVIEW AND WINDING A LITTLE BIT INTO OUR CONLIN IS ACTUALLY OUR STORM WATER LAKE AND THEN AT THE NORTHERN EDGE OF THAT L-SHAPE WE HAVE THE DRIVE COMING THROUGH AND THEN THE REST IS, IS, IS THE STORM WATER.

SO IN A WAY, I THINK I WAS ADDRESSING A LITTLE BIT OF SOMEONE'S CONCERNS ABOUT HAVING SOME TYPE OF BUFFER.

IT'S MORE OF AN ESTHETIC TO RJ CONLAN IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA, SEPARATING THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF NORTH

[01:50:01]

AND THEN THE FLOOR IS OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS.

IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS REQUEST? WE OPPOSE MR. BRETON. BILL BATTEN, 586 OCEAN SPRAY STREET SOUTHWEST. OR WE CHANGE THE COMP PLAN FOR THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY FROM INDUSTRIAL TO RESIDENTIAL.

NOW LET'S CHANGE THE ZONING.

SO IT'S THE SAME EFFECTS, SAME STATEMENT AS BEFORE NOW, BUT I'M GOING TO ADD A LITTLE BIT TO IT THIS TIME.

YOU'VE CHANGED THE ZONE, YOU'VE CHANGED THE COMP PLAN.

NOW, IF THE BUILDER.

THEY'VE GOT THAT FIRST STEP ACCOMPLISHED.

DECIDE. WELL, NO, BUT NOW WE WANT TO SELL IT.

I KNOW THEY SAID THAT THEY WEREN'T GOING TO DEVELOP ON IT, BUT IF THEY SELL THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY, GUESS WHAT? WE JUST LOST THAT ONE PIECE OF INDUSTRIAL PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT WE HAD THAT WAS IN THE PRE DESIGNATED INDUSTRIAL AREA.

IT IS NOW GONE BECAUSE YOU JUST VOTED YES ON THE PREVIOUS ITEM.

IT'S NOW BEEN CHANGED UNDER THE COMP PLAN.

ZONING HASN'T CHANGED.

SO AS OF YET THEY CAN'T DO ANYTHING BECAUSE THE ZONING HASN'T CHANGED.

BUT THERE'S NOTHING SAYS THEY CAN'T SELL IT LATER AND THE COMP PLAN SAYS IT'S NOW RESIDENTIAL.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ANYONE ELSE WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? SITTING DOWN THE FLOOR IS NOW CLOSED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

IT'S BROUGHT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR DISCUSSION.

I MISS MARAGH. I'M SORRY IF I PRONOUNCE YOUR NAME INCORRECTLY.

I MAY HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD HOW YOU WERE TRYING TO INTERPRET THAT BEFOREHAND.

WHAT WE HAVE DONE BEFORE IS CONDITION A ZONING IN REGARD TO THE SITE PLAN.

SO BECAUSE THERE IS A SUBMITTED SITE PLAN, YOU COULD CONDITION THE ZONING TO BE IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH THAT SITE PLAN.

THE CONDITION WOULD THEN BE IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL, WITH SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE SITE PLAN.

IF THAT IS SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE CHOOSING TO GO DOWN WITH WHERE I WAS.

I THINK I THINK THE I THINK SOME OF THE ISSUE THAT WE'RE THAT WE'RE SEEING AND THAT WE'RE FACING UP HERE RIGHT NOW IS THAT WE GET WE GET A LOT OF THE APPLICANTS TO COME IN AND SAY ONE THING AND THEN DO SOMETHING TOTALLY DIFFERENT.

SO I THINK AS AS THE AS A BOARD.

I THINK THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO IMPLEMENT AND TRYING TO.

IT ESTABLISHED THIS IS THE PROPER THE THE PROPER DEFINITIONS OR THE PROPER WORDING TO TO TO KEEP APPLICANTS FROM COMING IN OR WANTING TO DO THAT TO TO TO TRY TO DETER THE APPLICANTS FROM DOING ONE, SAYING ONE THING IN THE IN THESE IN THESE PROCEEDINGS AND THEN TURN AROUND DOING SOMETHING TOTALLY DIFFERENT.

SO I THINK THAT'S WHERE ONE OF OUR ISSUES IS.

SO. I DON'T, DON'T, DON'T.

ALSO, I THINK ONE OF THE OTHER PROBLEMS THAT WE HAVE IS ALSO, OTHER THAN THE PROPER WORDING, IS ALSO TRYING TO TO COME TO A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IT IS THAT THE APPLICANTS ACTUALLY WANT TO DO.

AND WHAT IT IS THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO.

ESTABLISH AND PUT ON THESE PROPERTIES.

AND SO I THINK THAT.

EXCUSE ME. I THINK THAT WE AS A BOARD NEED TO NEED TO COME TO COME IN WITH STAFF AND TRY TO COME UP WITH A BETTER A BETTER PLAN SO THAT WE CAN BETTER UNDERSTAND WHAT WHAT IT IS THAT THE APPLICANTS ARE DOING AND WHAT AND THEN WHAT STAFF IS TRYING TO DO AS WELL SO THAT WE CAN MAKE BETTER DECISIONS. WE WILL DEFINITELY WORK WITH THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE TO GET THAT ARRANGED FOR ALL OF YOU SO THAT WE CAN HAVE A MEETING TOGETHER, IF THAT'S OKAY.

IT'S SORT OF COMMENTS, I WOULD SAY, JUST TO CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION.

I THINK IT'S KIND OF A CATCH 22, ISN'T IT, WHERE IF IT'S IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE PROPER ZONING, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SPEND A WHOLE LOT OF MONEY ON ON SITE PLAN.

AND SO TO DELIVER TO THIS THIS BOARD A VERY DETAILED SITE DESCRIPTION OF EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO.

AND AND SO THEY'LL DO THAT AFTERWARDS TYPICALLY.

SO I JUST POINT THAT OUT FOR THE THE GROUP.

YOUR WEINBERG. A COUPLE OF THE NUMBER ONE THIS IS PROBABLY AS RIGHTFULLY POINTED OUT, HAS BEEN HAS BEEN ZONED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL.

IT'S ALSO BEEN VACANT FOR SEEMINGLY FOREVER AND IT'S NEVER BEEN DEVELOPED AS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AGAIN.

[01:55:03]

WE HAVE A SITE PLAN IN FRONT OF US WHICH SHOWS THE MAJORITY OF IT IS GOING TO BE STORMWATER.

SO, YOU KNOW, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT AND I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE CPC 17 2022 SUBJECT TO SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE SITE PLAN I SUBMITTED.

WELL, THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO ADD.

WHATEVER DECISION WE MAKE NEED TO INCLUDE THAT.

OCEAN EVERY SECOND.

SECOND. OCEAN IN A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR.

I OPPOSED NAY MOTION.

CARRIED 6 TO 1.

HEY. THE NEXT CASE TO.

UH, 40, 20, 22, MR. RAMOS.

CASE. TW 40 2022 IS A TEXTUAL AMENDMENT TO THE CODE OF ORDINANCES TITLE 17 LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, CHAPTER 185 AND THE ZONING CODE SECTIONS R ONE 85.043 SUBSECTION B 25 A AND ONE 85.0 44.

SUBSECTION B 22 A THESE ARE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL AND HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS, AND THIS IS TO ALIGN LOCATION REQUIREMENTS FOR ARCADE AMUSEMENT CENTERS WITH OTHER USES OF SIMILAR INTENSITY.

THE CITY OF PALM BAY IS THE APPLICANT.

THE PROPOSED TEXTUAL AMENDMENT WOULD REMOVE THE SEPARATION REQUIREMENT ASSOCIATED WITH ARCADE AMUSEMENT CENTERS AND RESIDENTIALLY ZONED LANDS OR RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE USES.

AND IT ALIGNS WITH THE USE.

IT ALIGNS THE USE WITH THE INTENT AND INTENSITY OF THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL AND HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS.

STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PT 40 2022 AND IS REQUESTING THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES SO ALSO.

IT IS BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I WAS JUST GOING TO. COULD YOU BREAK IT DOWN A LITTLE BIT MORE FOR US IN TERMS OF.

WHAT IS IT YOU WERE TRYING TO ACHIEVE HERE? SO THE ARCADE AMUSEMENT CENTERS HAVE A REQUIREMENT THAT THEY'RE LOCATED, I BELIEVE IT'S 100 FEET FROM ANY RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY, AND THAT IS MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN OTHER USES OF A SIMILAR NATURE.

WHAT WAS THE IDEA BEHIND THE 100 FEET? I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE IDEA BEHIND THE SEPARATION FROM RESIDENTIAL USES WAS.

I THINK THAT THERE WILL STILL BE REQUIREMENTS AS FAR AS SEPARATION FROM SCHOOLS AND SOME OTHER USES, BUT THEY'RE GREATER THAN 100 FEET.

WELL, TO BE HONEST, I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW WHAT THAT WAS BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHY IT WAS THERE.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S AN ARCHAIC RULE OR IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT WAS IMPORTANT.

I DON'T. I WANT OUR KID RIGHT BESIDE ME.

UNFORTUNATELY, WE DON'T KNOW THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF WHAT WAS APPROVED, BUT WE WE HAVE DONE IT IN AN ANALYSIS OF WHAT THE ACTUAL USE DOES IN TERMS OF ITS INTENSITY REGARDING SOME OF OUR SIMILAR USES.

SO FOR INSTANCE, THE BAR BECAUSE A BAR IS VERY MUCH EQUATED TO THE SIMILAR ATMOSPHERE SINCE BOTH HAVE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES BEING SERVED AT THEM.

SO THE NOISE LEVEL, THE AMBIANCE, THOSE THINGS ARE VERY MUCH EQUATED SIMILARLY IN TERMS OF THE USE PATTERN AND THAT'S WHAT'S RESULTING IN US LOOKING AT OUR ORDINANCE A LITTLE BIT MORE, LESS RESTRICTIVE, SORRY, I SHOULD SAY, IN TERMS OF THE EXACT SPACING FROM A RESIDENTIAL AREA, BECAUSE WE DO ALREADY ALLOW FOR BARS IN THOSE AREAS.

I'M SORRY, I GUESS WE HAVE A CULTURAL THING HERE.

WHAT DO YOU DEFINE AS AN ARCADE? BECAUSE I HAVE A WHOLE DIFFERENT IDEA OF WHAT A ARCADE IS, BECAUSE THESE ARE SOME THESE ARE ACTUALLY BY OUR ORDINANCE.

THEY'RE DEFINED BY OUR ORDINANCE. I CAN PULL IT UP IN ONE SECOND IF YOU'D LIKE, BUT THEY'RE VERY SPECIFIC TO COIN OPERATED MACHINES AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE, CASINO SLOT MACHINES. SO I WOULD I WOULD USHER MORE TOWARDS THINKING OF LIKE A DAVE AND BUSTER'S, FOR INSTANCE, BUT AT THE SMALLER SCALE, MOST LIKELY IN MOST AREAS.

BUT THERE ARE SIZE REQUIREMENTS, I BELIEVE, ASSOCIATED WITH THIS AS WELL.

I WOULD HAVE TO DOUBLE CHECK THAT, THOUGH, BUT THEY'RE ESSENTIALLY AN ESTABLISHMENT THAT YOU CAN PLAY GAMES AT AND THEN HAVE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES.

NOT LIKE THAT, NOT LIKE CHUCKY CHEESE, DAVE AND BUSTERS MORE.

IT'S MORE FOR ADULTS. OKAY.

GOTCHA. I USED TO HAVE ONE OVER AT THE BEER AND THE BANK OF AMERICA IS USED TO HAVE ONE IN.

[02:00:06]

SO. THESE ARE THE QUESTIONS.

MR. WEINBERG. MR. RAMOS, WAS THE CITY APPROACHED BY SOMEONE TO CHANGE THIS OR WAS JUST THIS AS A RESULT OF OF OF JUST TRYING TO CLEAN UP SECTION 185? I BELIEVE THERE IS AN APPLICANT FOR A BTR THAT IS BEING IMPACTED BY THIS.

WE HAVE HAD NUMEROUS THIS IS NOT JUST A SINGULAR SINGULARITY BY ANY MEANS.

WE HAVE HAD NUMEROUS APPLICANTS COME FORWARD REQUESTING VARIOUS ZONING AND VERIFICATION LETTERS AND SO FORTH, SEEKING DIFFERENT AREAS THROUGHOUT THE CITY.

AND THEY HAVE FOUND DIFFICULTY OPERATING IN THE CITY DUE TO THIS RESTRICTION, MAINLY BECAUSE IT'S NOT JUST 100 FEET, IT'S 100 FEET FROM THE BACK OF THE BUILDING.

SO IT MAKES IT MUCH MORE DIFFICULT.

AND IT'S 100 FEET TO THE PROPERTY LINE WHERE MOST SETBACKS, FOR INSTANCE, A REAR SETBACK IS USUALLY ONLY ABOUT 25 TO 35 FEET, DEPENDING ON THE ZONING DISTRICT.

YOU'RE ASKING THEM TO BE 100 FEET AWAY.

SO IT'S NOT REALLY FEASIBLE FOR THE BACK OF THE BUILDING TO TYPICALLY BE THAT FAR AWAY.

THANK YOU. OH.

DO YOU HAVE A BEST PRACTICES? WHAT ARE THE CITY'S ZONING? JUST SO THAT I CAN GET A IN TERMS OF THE SETBACK, IN TERMS OF THE SETBACK FROM RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES FOR THIS USE.

WHEN WE HAD DONE OUR ANALYSIS, WE DID NOT FIND OTHER CITIES TO HAVE A DISTANCE REQUIREMENT FOR THIS SPECIFIC USE.

IT WAS STILL MORE SO ASSOCIATED WITH A BAR AND OTHER COMMERCIAL USES THAT HAVE THE SAME SETBACK BUILDING WISE.

SO WHAT I WAS SPEAKING OF IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT.

EVEN THOUGH A BUILDING MIGHT BE ON THE PROPERTY AT 35 FEET SETBACK, THAT'S WHERE THEY'RE RUNNING INTO THE PROBLEM BECAUSE THEY NEED IT TO BE AT 100 FEET.

SO THE BUILDINGS THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO OPERATE IN, LET'S SAY, FOR INSTANCE, THEY'RE NOT CREATING THEIR OWN ESTABLISHMENT, BUT THEY'RE TRYING TO REPLACE AN ESTABLISHMENT.

THOSE ESTABLISHMENTS ARE NOT CONFORMING TO THEIR NEEDS BECAUSE THEY WERE FITTING THE ORIGINAL SETBACKS WHERE THEY'RE NEEDING FOR I MEAN, THE ARCADE THE ARCADE NEEDS THE 100 FEET. SO BECAUSE OF THAT, YOU'RE LOOKING AT VERY LIMITED PARCELS AND THEY TYPICALLY HAVE TO BE ALREADY VACANT FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO DEVELOP AND OPERATE IN THAT AREA, RESULTING IN A LOT MORE RESTRICTIONS, THE ABILITY FOR THEM TO COME INTO THE CITY.

JUST ONE MORE THING AND I DON'T KNOW IF I KNOW.

SO RIGHT NOW WE CAN DO A ARCADE IN A COMMERCIALLY ZONED AREA.

IS THAT THE ONLY PLACE IF THAT COMMERCIAL NEEDS ACCORDING TO OTHER COMMERCIAL NEEDS 35 FEET OR SOMETHING BUT THIS ARCADE, IF THEY DECIDE TO PUT IT IN THE SAME BUILDING, THEN THEY WOULD NEED 100 FEET.

SO THEY CAN'T OPERATE, THAT'S WHAT.

SO YEAH. SO IF IT WAS FOR INSTANCE, ORIGINALLY A SUPERMARKET IN THE COMMERCIAL AREA, SAY A PUBLIX, AND THEN THE PUBLIX REMOVED ITSELF AND THIS NEW ARCADE CAME IN AND EVEN DAVID BUSTER'S, BECAUSE THE PUBLIX ONLY NEEDED A 35 FOOT SETBACK FOR THE BUILDING THAT WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO FIT FOR THE NEW ARCADE AT THAT POINT.

SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE TRYING TO ADJUST IT TO REALLY FIT ALONG WITH THE LINES OF THE THE TYPICAL SETBACKS FOR THE ACTUAL ZONING DISTRICT.

JUST, MADAM CHAIR.

THE QUESTION FOR STAFF HERE IS THERE'S NO INDICATION IN THIS USE THAT IT'S GAMBLING.

IT'S FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES.

I'M SEEING NOD TO THE HEAD FOR THE FACT NOT GAMBLING INDICATES GAMBLING.

SO SO YOU DON'T PLAY A LOT OF POKER AND WIN A PUBLIC GIFT CARD.

YOU WASTE AWAY YOUR MONEY AND YOU MIGHT DRINK A BEER OR TWO.

DON'T EXPECT A RETURN.

THAT IS THE INTENT. MAYBE A SPINNING TOP.

THAT WAS THE INTENT OF THE CODE IS TO NOT LEGALIZE GAMBLING.

INSTEAD, IT IS ALLOWING FOR JUST A GAMING TYPE ATMOSPHERE WHERE YOU MAY SPEND MONEY AND GAME AND HAVE BEVERAGES AT THE SAME TIME INSTEAD.

AND FOR CLARIFICATION SAKE, THIS WILL STAY AS A CONDITIONAL USE.

SO IF SOMEONE WANTS TO PUT AN ARCADE IN A PARTICULAR PARCEL, THEY'LL COME BEFORE THIS BOARD AND IT WILL COME BEFORE COUNCIL, OR IS IT NOT A CONDITIONAL USE? SO THAT'S WHERE IT BECOMES AN INTERESTING SITUATION.

IT'S A USE THAT ALREADY HAS A CONDITION IMPLEMENTED ON IT CURRENTLY, BUT IT IS NOT A CONDITIONAL USE, SO IT DOES NOT COME BEFORE THE BOARD CURRENTLY.

IF THEY WERE TO FIND A LOCATION THAT WAS 100 FEET AWAY FROM RESIDENTIAL WITH THAT BUILDING, THEN THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO UTILIZE IT.

NOW WE'RE COMING FOR YOU JUST TO BE ABLE TO REMOVE THE 100 FEET.

BUT AT THAT POINT, IT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT IF THEY WERE IN THE CORRECT ZONING DISTRICTS OR HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL OR COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO OPERATE THROUGH GETTING A BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT.

ONE OF THE QUESTIONS HOW WOULD THIS AFFECT LOITERING AND NOISE? NUISANCE? AS IT HAS THE SAME ANTICIPATED EFFECTS AS A TYPICAL BAR OR OTHER DRINKING ESTABLISHMENT WOULD HAVE.

AND THAT'S WHY WE WOULD LOOK AT THE SAME TYPE OF REQUIREMENTS FOR IT.

WE DO NOT ANTICIPATE OR FORESEE ANY FURTHER NUISANCES ASSOCIATED WITH THIS TYPE OF ESTABLISHMENT AT THIS PERIOD OF TIME DUE TO THE REGULATIONS PUT IN PLACE TO PROHIBIT GAMBLING. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?

[02:05:06]

IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS? BRATTON. BILL BATTEN, 586 OCEAN SPRAY STREET SOUTHWEST. IT'S NOT THAT I'M AGAINST WHAT THEY'RE DOING.

I JUST WANT TO PUT A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY OUT THERE BECAUSE YOU WEREN'T IF YOU WEREN'T PRESENT WITH WHAT HAPPENED WITHIN THE CITY OF PALM BAY BECAUSE OF THE ARCADE ESTABLISHMENTS THAT WERE WITHIN THE CITY, IT GOT VERY, VERY UGLY.

IF YOU GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE BLACK EYES THAT THE CITY HAS RECEIVED, THAT'S ONE OF THEM.

SO I'M ALL IN FAVOR OF A PERSON SPENDING THEIR MONEY AND AND HOPEFULLY WINNING SOMETHING.

YOU KNOW, THEY SAY IT'S NOT GAMBLING, BUT I PROMISE YOU, MOST PEOPLE DON'T GO AND SPEND THEIR HARD EARNED MONEY FOR NOTHING.

IT'S YOU KNOW, YOU'RE PLAYING THE GAME AND THERE'S NOT GOING TO SAY THERE IS SOMETHING THAT YOU GET AS A REWARD FOR WINNING.

BUT I DO KNOW ONE THING.

WHEN YOU SPEND IT, IT'S GONE.

THAT MUCH I CAN TELL YOU.

BUT FOR A LITTLE BIT OF THE HISTORY ON IT, THAT'S WHY I SAY MINE WOULD HAVE BEEN NICE.

WE WOULD HAVE HAD SOME OF THE POLICE REPORTS THAT WENT COINCIDED WITH WHAT WAS HAPPENING AT THESE GAMING ESTABLISHMENTS.

THAT'S WHY THEY HAD TO EXPAND SOME OF THE SAY, WELL, WE DON'T WANT IT THIS CLOSE TO THE NEIGHBORHOODS BECAUSE IT WAS LITERALLY SPEWING INTO THE STREETS.

IF YOU LOOK A LITTLE BIT CLOSER, THEY'LL SAY AND YOU HAVE TO BE A CERTAIN DISTANCE FROM ANOTHER GAMING UNIT BECAUSE WE HAD FEUDS BETWEEN GAMING UNITS.

IT WAS LIKE THE HATFIELDS AND MCCOYS GOING ON IN THE CITY OF PALM BAY, BUT THERE WERE JUST ARCADE GAMES.

LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY THERE.

I'M A I'M A BIG COMPONENT OF ADULT ENTERTAINMENT.

AND I'M A GROWN BOY.

AND I'M I'M NOT AGAINST IT AT ALL.

BUT I JUST WANT ONE YOU AS A T AND Z TO UNDERSTAND WHY THIS WAS IMPLEMENTED IN OUR ORDINANCES, SOME THAT THEY HAD A DIFFERENT CHANGE OR AN ARCADE COMPARED TO ANOTHER BUSINESS IN A LOCATION.

I JUST WANT A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY LESSONS FROM BILL BRATTON TO THE CITY OF PALM BAY.

I'VE BEEN DOING IT FOR MORE THAN A WEEK.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THE OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE.

NONE. WAS NOT CLOSED FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS AND IT'S BROUGHT BACK TO THE BOARD DISCUSSION OR MOTION.

MR.. WEINBERG I THINK WHAT BILL'S REFERRING TO IS WHAT USED TO BE CALLED INTERNET CAFES.

IT WAS THE ONE RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET AND THE WINN-DIXIE SHOPPING CENTER, AS A MATTER OF FACT, WHERE IT WAS ESSENTIALLY AN ILLEGAL GAMBLING OPERATION.

THEY WERE OFFERING GIFT CARDS FROM PLAYING GAMES, AND THEY WERE RAIDED BY THE POLICE NUMEROUS TIMES.

AND THERE WAS A BIG TO DO ABOUT IT BECAUSE IT WAS JUST THEY WERE LOOKING TO GET AROUND THE ILLEGAL GAMBLING LAWS.

THAT'S WHAT WHAT BILL WAS REFERRING TO.

AND WE HAD SEVERAL OF THOSE IN THE CITY.

BUT ANYWAY, THIS IS NOT THAT THIS IS SOMETHING ELSE.

AND IT JUST MAKES SENSE.

I MEAN, RIGHT NOW YOU CAN HAVE A BAR THAT'S THAT'S LESS THAN 100 FEET FROM RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.

SO, YOU KNOW, TO TO CLEAN UP THIS AND ALLOW, YOU KNOW, AMUSEMENT ARCADES, YOU KNOW, WITHIN THAT 100 FOOT, YOU KNOW, REQUIREMENT.

IT MAKES SENSE TO ME.

SO MOTION TO APPROVE T 40, 2022.

AND JUST TO CLARIFY WITH THE STAFF.

YOU SEE ARCADE, WE'RE TALKING DAVE AND BUSTER'S.

IS THERE ANY WAY I SEE WHAT HAPPENED? WELL, I DON'T KNOW WHAT I THINK OF HER.

I THINK OF A WHOLE ESTABLISHMENTS THAT WOULD HAVE A SIMILAR CLIMATE TO THAT, WHERE THEY WOULD HAVE THE GAMING DEVICES OF A SIMILAR NATURE.

WE ARE NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT TYPES OF GAMES THEY MAY PROPOSE IN THOSE.

I CAN PULL UP THE ORDNANCE IN ONE SECOND AND TELL YOU EXACTLY HOW MANY GAMES THEY HAVE TO HAVE THAT TRIP, THAT THRESHOLD.

I THINK IT'S SIX OR MORE.

BUT I'D HAVE TO DOUBLE CHECK.

SO A BAR CAN JUST HAVE THESE GAMES AND THEY'RE CONSIDERED ARCADE.

IF I'M A BAR, I CAN JUST PUT THOSE MACHINES IN.

SO AS SOON AS YOU HAVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF GAMES, YES, YOU WOULD TRIP THE THRESHOLD OF THEN CHANGING THE USE TO BECOME AN ARCADE ESTABLISHMENT.

SO YOU'D BE THE ARCADE AMUSEMENT CENTER, I BELIEVE IS THE PROPER TERMINOLOGY FOR IT, BUT FOR ADULTS ONLY.

CORRECT? DISCUSSION.

THEY CAN THEN DRIVE A SECOND, SECOND MOTION BY MR. WEINBERG. SECOND. I'M ALL IN FAVOR.

I OPPOSED.

SHE CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY THE NEXT CASE PT 41, 2021 MR. WHITE. GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE.

STEPHEN WHITE, PRINCIPAL PLANNER.

THE CASE BEFORE YOU NOW IS TW 41 2022.

[02:10:02]

SECTION ONE 70.114 RESIDENTIAL AREA LIMITATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS ON HEIGHT AND AMENDING SECTION 170.11 FOR A. BRIEF ANALYSIS.

THE PROPOSED TEXTUAL AMENDMENT WOULD EASE RESTRICTIONS ON PROPERTY OWNERS INSTALLING FENCES ON CORNER LOTS WHILE MAINTAINING THE 25 FOOT ST RIGHT AWAY LINES.

THE APPLICATION FOR THE AMENDMENT WOULD ALSO REDUCE THE NEED FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS BY LIMITING THE VARIANCE PROCESS WHILE MAINTAINING PUBLIC SAFETY, ENSURING RIGHT OF WAYS REMAIN VISIBLE.

STAFF WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF T 41 2022 AND REQUESTING THE SAME OF THE COMMISSION.

AND I'M HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.

IT IS ABSURD TO HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

I'D JUST LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU.

WE'VE HAD SO MANY VARIANCES.

IT'S LIKE IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE THE LAW, CHANGE THE LAW, AND NOW YOU'VE DONE IT.

THANK YOU. WE'LL STILL HAVE THE PROCESSES IN PLACE THAT THEY DON'T MAINTAIN THE 25 FOOT RIGHT AWAY LINES.

THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO MEET THE SETBACKS AS OPPOSED.

BUT THIS IS TRYING TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO FULLY UTILIZE THEIR PROPERTIES AS WELL AS.

SAVE TIME FOR BIGGER PROJECTS, I GUESS.

NOT ALL THE VARIANCES THAT WE EXPECT TO PASS.

THANK YOU. SO.

SO SIX FOOT FENCE FOR ALL PEOPLE.

WELL, NOPE, NOPE, NOPE, NOPE.

THAT'S NOT IN THIS PART.

BUT YES, I AM.

I KNOW QUITE A FEW PEOPLE, INCLUDING MYSELF, WOULD BE IMPACTED BY THIS.

AND AS YOU SAID, WITH SO MANY PEOPLE COME BEFORE US WITH THIS AND WE END UP GIVING IT SIMPLY BECAUSE IT MAKES SENSE.

SO I THINK IT'S GOOD.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THING? NONE. THANK YOU.

HERE IS OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS.

IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS REQUEST? SEEING THAT IT'S BROUGHT BACK TO THE BOARD.

THE FLOOR IS NOW CLOSED FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS.

IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION OR MOTION? MOTION TO APPROVE PT DASH 41 2022 MOTION IN A SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR I OPPOSED.

THE MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

NEXT CASE PT 42 2022.

MR. ANDERSON.

ALL RIGHT. AND FOR A FINAL CASE TONIGHT, WE HAVE TRASH 42 DASH 2022, A TEXTUAL AMENDMENT TO THE CODE OF ORDINANCES TITLE 17 LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CHAPTER 185 ZONING CODE PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO MODIFY THE PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE ANALYSIS.

THIS PROPOSED TEXTUAL AMENDMENT PROVIDES FOR A BETTER OVERALL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECT BY REQUIRING MORE OPEN SPACE AND WALKABILITY.

AND IT ALSO REQUIRES A MIXTURE OF USES AND MORE INNOVATIVE DESIGN BEYOND PREVIOUS REQUIREMENTS THAT FURTHER THE INTENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

AND IT ALSO ALLOWS FOR A MORE INTENSIVE REVIEW PROCESS TO PROVIDE YOU ALL WITH BETTER PRODUCTS AT THIS LEVEL.

SO THAT IS SOME OF THE BACKGROUND FOR THIS.

HOWEVER, THERE IS QUITE A FEW CHANGES TO THIS ORDINANCE, SO I DO UNDERSTAND IF YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS AND PLEASE FEEL FREE TO ASK.

OVERALL, STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF PT 42 TO 2022 AND REQUEST THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION DO THE SAME.

STAFF IS AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS, AS I HAD MENTIONED, AND THAT'S ALL.

MR. ANDERSON. HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? MADAM CHAIR, JUST. THANK YOU.

JUST A BRIEF SENSE.

WHAT ARE WHAT ARE SOME KEY HIGHLIGHTS THAT THAT THIS CHANGE WILL BRING TO THE NEXT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT IN PALM BAY? ABSOLUTELY. INSTEAD OF HAVING MINIMUM MAXIMUM COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENTS, WE'RE CHANGING THOSE MAXIMUM THRESHOLDS TO MINIMUM.

SO EACH COMMERCIAL, EACH PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT WILL REQUIRE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF COMMERCIAL INSIDE OF IT, DEPENDING ON HOW DENSE AND HOW MANY UNITS IT DOES HAVE.

BEYOND THAT, IT ALSO CHANGES THE STANDARDS IN TERMS OF STORMWATER PONDS AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND HOW MUCH THAT IS BEING ACCOUNTED FOR, FOR OPEN SPACE, FURTHERING THE UTILITY OF THOSE PONDS AND ALSO ENSURING THAT WE HAVE MORE GREEN SPACE TO ACT IN CONCERT WITH THOSE IN TERMS OF THESE PLANNING DEVELOPMENTS.

AND THEN LASTLY, IT ORGANIZES OUR PLATFORM FOR REVIEW AND A MANNER THAT ALLOWS FOR US TO PROVIDE YOU ALL WITH A MUCH MORE FINALIZED PRODUCT THAT WILL RESULT IN LESS IF NO IF NOT ANY COMMENTS GOING FORWARD BEYOND THE NEXT STAGES.

WONDERFUL. I'D LIKE TO JUST MAKE A COMMENT IN YOUR DIRECTION AND THE DIRECTION OF THE BOARD.

I'D REALLY LIKE TO SEE SOME MORE CREATIVITY OUT OF THE PLAIN UNIT DEVELOPMENTS BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE A DIVERSE CITY.

SO WHETHER YOU LIVE IN THE ORIGINALLY PLATTED OR AS WE EXPAND OR THEY'RE COMING INTO THE ORIGINALLY PLATTED AND ON BIG TRACTS OF LAND, PUTTING THESE THINGS IN, I MEAN, MODERN DEVELOPMENT IN A, IN A UNIT DEVELOPMENT THAT YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO MASTER PLAN.

[02:15:04]

AND AND I HESITATE TO SAY IT, WE'RE NO.

VIEIRA BUT WHEN YOU GO UP TO VIEIRA AND YOU GO ESPECIALLY TO THIS NEWEST PHASES THAT THEY'RE DOING ON THAT FAR WEST END OF JUANITA CAUSEWAY, WHEN YOU SEE HOW INTERCONNECTED THEY ARE, THOSE RESIDENTS, THEY HAVE SO MUCH ACCESS TO QUALITY OF LIFE, ACCESS TO PHYSICAL FITNESS, WHETHER IT'S WALKING THE DOG, WALKING THE KID, WHAT HAVE YOU IN A VERY, VERY SAFE WAY, BECAUSE THEY HAVE SIDEWALKS THAT ARE INTERNALIZED, THAT CROSS THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT THAT AREN'T EVEN EXPOSED TO THE ROADS.

SO, I MEAN, AS A AS A RUNNER MYSELF, I JUST APPRECIATE, YOU KNOW, A PLACE THAT I DON'T HAVE TO INTERACT WITH TRAFFIC ACROSS IT, BUT I JUST REALLY LIKE THE THE DIRECTION TO PUT THE DEVELOPERS MORE ON THE MONEY AND NOT JUST, YOU KNOW, DO THE BARE MINIMUM, BUT, BUT MOREOVER GIVE THAT COMMUNITY THAT THEY'RE DEVELOPING QUALITY OF LIFE AND PERHAPS THE SURROUNDING AREA AS WELL.

MAYBE THEY CAN SHARE A LITTLE BIT.

SO I REALLY LIKE THE DIRECTION AND I THANK YOU FOR IT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? QUESTION. THANK YOU.

AND I'D LIKE TO THANK THE STAFF FOR THIS WELL-WRITTEN, TEXTUAL AMENDMENT.

THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE IT.

AND I CAN SEE WHERE IT'LL REALLY HELP OUR PROCESS GOING FORWARD.

THANK YOU. AND IF YOU HAVEN'T READ IT, YOU NEED TO BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF CHANGES IN IT.

YEAH. OKAY.

THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU.

MARSHAL IN THERE. THANK YOU.

I LOVE THE IDEA THAT YOU CHANGED THAT TO BE THE MINIMUM OR MAXIMUM.

I'VE ALWAYS WONDERED WHY THE FLOOR IS NOW OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS.

IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS AMENDMENT? SEEING THAT IT'S BROUGHT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR A MOTION FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION.

ANYTHING. A MOTION, PLEASE.

MOTION TO APPROVE PT 42 2022.

IT'S A REALLY, REALLY GOOD TEXTUAL AMENDMENT.

IT'S ONE OF THE SECOND.

NO BRAINER. SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR I.

ANY OPPOSED MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

THE LAST BUSINESS IS THE SPECIAL PLANNING BOARD FOR NEXT MONTH IS ON A TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6TH.

[OTHER BUSINESS:]

SO EVERYBODY MAKE NOTE OF THAT AND THE MEETING'S ADJOURNED.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.