[00:00:09]
WHAT I CALL IT AFRICAN DUNKIN HERE.
TERRY HANNEKE MATTHEW YOST, TREY GRIFFIN, CHARLIE WETMORE, AMANDA JACKSON, DENMARK, RONALD WILLIAMS HERE.
THANK YOU US REGARDING ADJOURNMENT.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL NOT HEAR NEW ITEMS AFTER 9:30 PM UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY A MAJORITY VOTE OF THE COMMISSION MEMBERS, PRESENT ITEMS, WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN HEARD BEFORE NINE 30 MAY BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT MEETING OR AN ADDITIONAL MEETING DATE AS DETERMINED BY THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS NOTICE REGARDING PUBLIC COMMENTS, EVERY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO IS RECOGNIZED TO SPEAK SHALL ADDRESS THE CHAIRMAN.
AND THEN SPEAKING OF WHAT, DISRESPECT TO THE BOARD AND COMMISSION, TOWN, STAFF, OR OTHER MEMBERS OF THE MEETINGS, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
AND SPEAKING FOR THE RECORD COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES.
HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS I HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY, UM, MA'AM MADAM CHAIRMAN, IF YOU COULD MOVE YOUR MICROPHONE MICROPHONE, SO IT CAN BE A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO IT SO WE CAN HEAR OKAY.
UM, MAY I HAVE AN ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA QUESTION? SECOND, SECOND DISCUSSION.
UM, MAY I HAVE AN ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES? SO MOVED SECOND, SECOND RECUSED FROM RECUSES.
AND TERRY FOR THE RECORD HAS JOINED US, HOLDING THEM KNOW THAT YOU HAVE JOINED US FOR THE RECORD.
UM, SO ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING ANY PARTICULAR PROJECT? THERE'S NOTHING AT ALL.
SO OLD BUSINESS BELONG TO THE NEW BUSINESS.
UM, FIRST UP IS THE L APARTMENT STREET, NAMING APPLICATION, A REQUEST BY THE L APARTMENTS LLC ON BEHALF OF THE REED GROUP FOR APPROVAL OF A STREET NAMING APPLICATION FOR A NEW STREET NAMES TO BE USED IN THE PROPOSED L APARTMENTS MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT.
THE PROPERTY IS IN VOCALS OR PLAN PD PLAN U P D WHATEVER AND CONSIST OF APPROXIMATELY 45 ACRES IDENTIFIED WITH TAX MEMBER NUMBER IN YOUR PACKET LOCATED NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF BLUFFTON PARKWAY AND HAMPTON PARKWAY.
HEY AMANDA, I HAVE TO RECUSE MYSELF.
SO AGAIN, THIS IS A FOUR, THIS IS A REQUEST BY THE LA APARTMENTS, LLC.
ON BEHALF OF THE REGROUP OWNS THE PARCEL FOR APPROVAL OF STREET NAMES TO BE USED FOR THE PROPOSAL.
IF THE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AND PARCEL 10 B, UH, THIS IS A PROJECT THAT YOU ARE ALL SHOULD BE VERY FAMILIAR WITH.
YOU ACTUALLY APPROVED THE PRELIMINARY PLAN, UH, JUST A FEW MONTHS AGO.
UH, ONE OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE WAS THAT THEY PROVIDE THREE STREET NAMES TO ALLOW ADDRESSING, UM, FOR NINE 11 EMERGENCY SERVICES FOR ALL THE BUILDINGS ON THE INSTRUCTED ON SITE.
AND THE THREE STREET NAMES THAT THEY HAVE CHOSEN ARE LOWERY PAST SYKES TRAIL AND RIGS LANE.
UM, ALL THREE OF THESE NAMES WERE VETTED WITH THE NEIGHBORING MUNICIPALITIES, UM, COUNTY HILTON HEAD, THOMAS HILTON, HEAD OIL, UH, TOWN OF BLUFFTON.
THESE HAVE ALL BEEN APPROVED FOR USE BY SO, UH, AND IN COMMISSION ACTIONS FOR STREET NAMING APPLICATION, UM, AS GRANTED BY THE POWERS AND DUTIES SET FORTH.
AND UDO'S I'VE IS YOU CAN APPROVE THE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED, APPROVE IT WITH CONDITIONS OR DENY THE APPLICATION, UM, BASED ON THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA THAT IT DOES NOT ALREADY EXIST WITHIN BEAVER COUNTY, THAT THERE ARE NOT THE SAME PRIMARY NAMES SUCH AS SMITH'S, UH, STREET BOULEVARD, UM, SIMILAR, OR CAN BE CONFUSED WITH ANOTHER NAME OR COMPLICATED WORDS OR UNCONVENTIONAL SPELLINGS, AND ARE NOT NUMBERS
[00:05:09]
OFFENSIVE.THEY'RE LOGICAL EASY TO PRONOUNCE ASSOCIATED WITH A HISTORY OF BLUFFTON WHEN POSSIBLE.
UM, THEY REPRESENT A CONDOM THEME WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT AND THEY MUST COMPLY WITH ALL OTHER APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS IN APPLICATIONS.
UH, ALL MEET THE THREE PREMIER FOLLOWING STREET NAMES, BE APPROVED AS MAORI PASS BIKES, TRAIL, AND RIGS LANE ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
AND I BELIEVE, UH, DUNCAN IS HERE TO REPRESENT THE APPLICANT.
SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION, UH, ACCEPTING THE NAMES THAT HAVE BEEN PROVIDED THERE? SECOND, SECOND, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? WELL DISCUSSION.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE.
THAT CAN ITEM IS PARCEL SEVEN A AND REQUEST BY PARCEL SEVEN EIGHT, LLC.
FOR APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF GRADING LIMITED CLEARING GRUBBING LEVELING, AND RESTABILIZING IN THE TOWNS THAT BOOK WALTER, THE PROPERTY IS ZONED BUCHALTER, PUD, AND IDENTIFIED BY TAX MAP NUMBERS IN THE PACKET LOCATED NORTHEAST OF THE INTERSECTION OF BUCK WALTER PARKWAY AND BUCHALTER TOWN BOULEVARD.
AMANDA, I NEED TO RECUSE MYSELF.
AS A CAMERAMAN, AS YOU SAID, THIS IS A REQUEST HERE, ALL THE REMAINING TREES FILL LEVEL AND GRADE A PARCEL AT PARCEL SEVEN, A UH, LOCATED WITHIN THE BUCK WATER PLAN, UNIT DEVELOPMENT, UH, AND FURTHER THE BUCK, WALTER COMMENTS PHASE ONE MASTIC MASTER PLAN CONSISTING OF 1.58.
IT'S NOT LIGHTING UP THERE ANYWAY.
YOU CAN SEE THE PARCEL IN RED WITH THE YELLOW ARROW, TOWNHOMES LOTS BEHIND IT.
THAT IS THE APPLAUD FOR TOWNS, UH, TALENT FOR SECTION OF AQUATRU TOWNS ABOUT CULTURE PARKWAY AND BLUFFTON PARKWAY, ARIEL.
UH, SO, UH, A LITTLE MORE BACKGROUND.
THE APPLICATION IS SUBJECT TO THE STANDARDS SET FORTH IN THE BOOK.
WALTER PED AGREEMENT, BUCHALTER COMMON IS PHASE ONE MASTER PLAN.
UM, AGAIN, THE APPLICANT IS NOT PROPOSING TO DEVELOP OR CONSTRUCT BUILDINGS, ROADS, OR PARKING TO SERVE A SPECIFIC USE ON THE PROPERTY, BUT INSTEAD IS PROPOSING TO CLEAR ALL THE REMAINING TREES FILLING GRADE THE ONE AND A HALF ACRE SITE THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY CLEARED IN APPROXIMATELY 2009, SOMETIME BETWEEN 2008, 2009.
I'VE GOT SOME AERIAL PHOTOS TO SHOW YOU THIS, UH, PRELIMINARY APPLICATION WAS ACTUALLY REVIEWED BY STAFF AND THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE, UH, COMMENTS WERE PROVIDED AT THE FEBRUARY 10TH MEETING OF THE DRC.
I DID A RESPONSE TO COMMENTS SUBSEQUENT TO THAT.
PHASE ONE MASTER PLAN, IDENTIFYING PARCEL C7.
THE HIGHLIGHTED ON THE R THERE IS, IS IT A AERIAL PHOTO THAT I REFERRED TO? SO THIS WAS TAKEN 2008.
YOU CAN SEE, UH, PARCEL WAS COVERED IN SILVER CULTURE PLANET TIMES, SOMETIME BETWEEN
[00:10:01]
2008.AND WHEN THIS PHOTO TAKEN IN 2009, THE PARCEL WAS COMING SLIGHTLY CLEAR EXCEPTION OF A FEW TREES ALONG THE PERIMETER.
AND WE'LL SEE IF THIS WILL WORK AGAIN.
I HAVE A CURSOR YOU CAN SEE, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S THE SLIDE SHOW, BUT IT'S SHOWING UP ON MY MONITOR.
AND THIS IS, UH, THIS WAS TAKEN 2020.
SO YOU CAN SEE THE HEIGHT TO THE WEST.
UH, THAT SITE WAS, HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO REVEGETATE AND THE, THE PARTIALLY ALLOWED TO RE VEGETATE DOWN IN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER.
UM, SO ON A PRELIMINARY APPLICATION, AS YOU'RE FAMILIAR, THERE ARE SIX CRITERIA THAT YOU WILL REVIEW WHEN, WHEN, UM, RECOMMEND APPROVAL DENIAL OR GO THROUGH THOSE CRITERIA.
TERRY IS CONFORMANCE WITH THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS PROVIDED IN ARTICLE FIVE OF DESIGN STANDARDS.
UM, ACTUALLY WITHIN THE BOOK, WALTER PED AND NOT SUBJECT TO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE, BUT UNDER TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH ANY APPROVED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, PD CONCEPT PLAN, MASTER PLAN, SUBDIVISION PLAN, OR OTHER PLANS THAT ARE REPLICABLE.
SO STAFF FINDING IS THAT FOR THE DEMOLITION PLAN PROVIDED THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO REMOVE ALL REMAINING TREES ON SITE, UH, FOR OWNING AND DEVELOP BY STANDARDS ORDINANCE COMMONLY KNOWN AS BDS 90 DASH THREE, SECTION FIVE, 7.9.
CLEAR CUTTING IS PROHIBITED FOR MORE STAFF IS FINDING IS THE APPLICANT HEARINGS FIELDING AND GRADING ONLY ISN'T IT.
I PROPOSE THAT SPECIFIC USE FOR LOCATIONS.
BUILDINGS, ROADWAYS, PARKING YOUR OPEN SPACE.
THIS TIME, THE FUTURE USE OF THE PROPERTY IS UNKNOWN.
AND A PATIENT CAN NOT BE MADE AS TO THE CONFORMANCE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OR MASTER PLAN OR NUMBER THREE, IF IT'S ASSOCIATED WITH A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED MASTER PLAN, UH, MICHELLE ADHERE TO THE TRAFFIC AND ACCESS PLANS THAT WERE PROVIDED AT THAT TIME, STAFF FINDING IS A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS WAS INCLUDED WITH THE BUCK WATER PDD DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND THE PHASE ONE MASTER PLAN.
UM, BUT AS THOSE SPECIFIC USE HAS BEEN PROVIDED, NO ADDITIONAL INFORMATION RELATING TO TRAFFIC HAS BEEN PROVIDED FOR, UH, THE APPLICANT IS NOTED THAT THE REQUIRED UTILITIES, UM, WILL BE REQUIRED ARE, ARE AVAILABLE, UM, PULLING FOOTFALL THROUGH TOWNS BOULEVARD AND THOSE, UH, SERVICE LETTERS CAN BE PROVIDED AT THE TIME OF FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION NUMBER FIVE, THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSING, UH, IN REGARDS TO PHASING, UH, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING GRADING AND EARTHWORK ONLY, AND NOT PROPOSED THE CONSTRUCTION OF INFRASTRUCTURE, ROADS, PARKING UTILITIES, OR BUILDINGS THAT WOULD REQUIRE PHASING CLEARING FILLING AND GRADING THAT'S PROPOSED IS, UH, TO BE COMPLETED IN SPACE.
LASTLY, THE APPLICATION MUST COMPLY WITH THE APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS AND THE APPLICATIONS MANUAL STAFF HAS FOUND THAT THE APPLICATION IS WE HAVE DETERMINED THAT THE APPLICATION IS INCOMPLETE, UH, PER THE COMMENTS PROVIDED AT DRC FEBRUARY 10TH, 2021.
THE APPLICATION IS LACKING THE FOLLOWING MATERIALS THAT ARE REQUIRED PER THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION CHECKLIST, ASSIGNED DEVELOPMENT PLAN, APPLICATION CHECKLIST, A NARRATIVE DESCRIBING THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND USES FOR THE SITE, A SCHEMATIC LAYOUT AND DESIGN INDICATING OVERALL SITE CONFIGURATION TO INCLUDE ROADWAY, DESIGN, BUILDING LOCATIONS, BUILDING SIZE, GENERAL, SETBACKS, AND GENERAL LOCATION AND INGRESS EGRESS OF PARKING AREAS ON THE SITE PROPOSED TO OPEN SPACE AREAS AND A NARRATIVE OR PLAN
[00:15:01]
NOTES DESCRIBING THE PROPOSED EXTERIOR LIGHTING SCHEME FOR THE PROPERTY FURTHER.THE APPLICANT MAINTAINS THAT THE APPLICATION IS FOR GRADING ONLY THEREFORE THOSE APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIFIC USE LIKE CONFIGURATION AND TRAFFIC EXCESS, ET CETERA, DON'T APPLY.
UNFORTUNATELY, THERE IS NO PROVISION WITHIN THE TOWN OF BLUFFTON FOR A GRADING ONLY PERMIT.
THE GRADING ATLANTA SERVANTS THAT ARE DESCRIBED, UM, ARE ONLY PERMITTED THROUGH A FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN OR AT THE TIME OF ISSUANCE, THAT PERMIT IS ISSUED WITH THE APPROVAL FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
OH, AGAIN, THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS THE AUTHORITY TO TAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS.
YOU CAN APPROVE THAT YOU CAN APPROVE THE APPLICATION WITH CONDITIONS, OR YOU CAN DENY THE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED AFTER IS RECOMMENDING THE APPLICATION, BE DENIED AS IT IS INCOMPLETE AND LACKING THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION LISTED IN THE REVIEW CRITERIA UNDER ITEM SIX, ASSIGNED DEVELOPMENT PLAN, APPLICATION CHECKLIST, A NARRATIVE DESCRIBING THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND USES FOR THE SITE, A SCHEMATIC LAYOUT AND DESIGN INDICATING OVERALL SITE CONFIGURATION TO INCLUDE ROADWAY, DESIGN, BUILDING LOCATIONS, BUILDING SIZE, GENERAL SETBACKS, AND ORIENTATIONS GENERAL LOCATION AND INGRESS EGRESS OF PARKING AREAS ON THE SITE PROPOSED UP IN SPACES AND A NARRATIVE OR PLAN NOTES DESCRIBING THE PROPOSED EXTERIOR LIGHTING SCHEME FOR THE PROPERTY.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS I SAW JOHN AND I DID NOT SEE TOM COME IN EARLIER, BUT APPLICANT AND OWNER IS HERE AS WELL.
ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR WILL? OKAY.
WOULD THE APPLICANT OR OWNER LIKE TO COMMENT? HELLO.
I APPRECIATE YOUR GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TONIGHT ABOUT MY NAME IS TOM ZEN, Z I N N.
AND I'VE BEEN WORKING IN BUCK WATER SINCE 1999.
SO, UH, IN ON A LOT OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS AND HIT UP A LOT OF INITIATIVES AND SO FORTH.
AND SO ON DURING THE LAST 22 YEARS, UH, THAT THE N N OWNED THE, UH, UH, THE ONE AND A HALF ACRES IN THE TOWNS OF BUCK WALTER, WHICH GOES BACK A LONG WAY AND AS WILL POINTED OUT, IT STARTED OUT WITH THE RESIDENTIAL PIECE FIRST AND THEN THE COMMERCIAL PIECES IN FRONT AND MIXED USE SIMILAR TO, UM, A LOT OF THE OTHER PROJECTS WE'VE WORKED ON, UH, UH, CROSSROADS AND BUCK WATER PLACE TO SOME DEGREE NOW THAT WE HAVE INTERCONNECTIVITY TO THE RESIDENTIAL PIECE.
UM, THE BACKGROUND OF THE LOT IN ADDITION TO WHAT WILL FIT SAID WAS THAT THE LAW HAS ALREADY GONE THROUGH, UM, AND WAS APPROVED FOR GRADING ONLY.
UM, AND UNFORTUNATELY, UM, AT THE END OF ONE YEAR, AND I DIDN'T RENEW IT DURING THAT ONE YEAR PERIOD OF TIME.
SO THERE'S A LOT OF HISTORY, UH, AND, AND I DON'T WANT TO TAKE A LOT OF YOUR TIME, BUT I WILL GIVE YOU, UH, YOU KNOW, HIGHLIGHTS OF THE HISTORY OF THAT AS TO, UH, UH, THIS PARTICULAR LOT IN THE GRADING ONLY PERMIT.
ALSO TALK ABOUT OTHER GRADING, ONLY PERMITS WITHIN A STONE'S THROW OF THIS LOCATION, UH, THAT HAVE BEEN PERMITTED IN THE PAST AND THE REASONS FOR THE PERMISSION IN THE PAST.
SO IT GOES BEYOND JUST SIMPLY THIS PARTICULAR LOT, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY BENEFICIAL TO THE TOWN OF BLUFFTON.
THEY HAVE A GRADING ONLY PERMIT UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
NOW, THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE TO DO SO IS WHERE YOU HAVE NO INFRASTRUCTURE.
YOU HAVE NO UTILITIES, YOU HAVE NO WHATEVER, AND PEOPLE GO OUT AND THEY, THEY, UH, CLEAR LOTS AND THEY GRADE LOTS WITHOUT ANY PLAN THAT'S WRONG, THAT'S WRONG.
SURE IT DOES, BUT IT'S NOT THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
THE RIGHT THING TO DO IS TO MAXIMIZE THE NUMBER OF TREES YOU CAN HAVE FOR AS LONG AS YOU CAN PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT.
AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE DID ON THIS LOT.
IN 2008, THE TOWN OF BLUFFTON PASSED AND A PASS THE POLICY CALLED THE GOOD NEIGHBOR POLICY, THE GOOD NEIGHBOR POLICY ENCOURAGED ALL DEVELOPERS TO MAXIMIZE THE NUMBER OF TREES THAT THEY HAD ON THEIR SITE FOR AS LONG AS THEY HAD THAT THEY COULD BEFORE, YOU KNOW, THE MARKET CAUGHT UP AND IT WAS TIME TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY.
[00:20:03]
THE HEAD OF THE POA AT THE TOWNS OF BUCK.WALTER CAME TO ME, WE MET ON SITE.
HE REMEMBERS IT BETTER THAN I, FRANKLY, IN TERMS OF THE DETAILS, WHAT CARS WE WERE DRIVING.
AND HE ASKED ME TO KEEP SOME TREES, THE TREES THAT YOU SAW THERE, THE THINNED OUT TREES, WE HAD THE RIGHT TO TAKE DOWN.
WE HAD THE RIGHT TO CLEAR-CUT.
WE HAD THE RIGHT TO HAVE NOT A SINGLE TREE OUT THERE.
WE PASSED ON THE OPPORTUNITY, DECIDED NOT TO DO IT BECAUSE WE FOLLOWED THE GOOD NEIGHBOR POLICY AS WE DID BUCK WATER PLACE, BUCK, WATER, CROSSROADS, AND ALL, ALL THE REST OF THE DEVELOPMENTS WE'VE BEEN IN NOW, SHOULD WE HAVE DONE THAT 20, 20 HINDSIGHT OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS, PROBABLY A MISTAKE, BUT YOU KNOW, YOU LIVE AND LEARN, BUT FROM A GREATER GOOD STANDPOINT, WE DID THE RIGHT THING AND WE ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO THE RIGHT THING.
STEFAN BARUTH, WHO WAS THE PRESIDENT OF THE POA, SENT A LETTER.
THAT LETTER IS INSIDE THE PACKAGE THAT I SENT OUT EARLIER TODAY.
UM, IN FACT, I TWITTER DIFFERENT WAYS TO PRESENT THIS BECAUSE, UM, IT COULD PRESENT IT IN A LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS, FRANKLY, THAT THERE'S TWO MAJOR ISSUES, ALL THE REST OF IT, YOU KNOW, JUST STATIC.
IT'S KIND OF LIKE THE DIRT PILE WE TALKED ABOUT EARLY ON, BUT THE TWO MAJOR ISSUES THAT EXIST OUT THERE DEAL WITH A GRADING ONLY PERMIT AND GRADING WITHOUT A SPECIFIC USE.
EVERYTHING ELSE THAT GOES INTO THESE COMMENTS, INTO THE COMMUNICATION, INTO THE TWO EMAILS, THREE EMAILS THAT I ASKED TO BE DISTRIBUTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION REALLY REVOLVE AROUND.
THE ISSUE BECOMES SHOULD THE PLANNING COMMISSION ALLOW THE FINAL PHASE OF OUR HORIZONTAL DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT A SPECIFIC USER HERE, YOU CAN SEE THERE WASN'T A SPECIFIC USER FOR ANY OF THESE TRACKS.
WE DIDN'T HAVE SPECIFIC USERS.
I, I HAVEN'T DONE THIS FOR A LONG TIME.
I USED TO DO A LOT IN THE YEAR, 2000, 2001, BUT I'M GETTING KIND OF IN THE AGE WHERE I'M NOT REALLY MAKING PRESENTATIONS, THEN I MESS UP SOME THINGS TO THINK ABOUT LIKE ALL THREE OF YOU.
UM, SO ANYHOW, YOU CAN START UP THERE AT C1, WHICH IS THE TRACK IN THE RIGHT THAT WAS CLEARED WITHOUT ANY USERS.
UH, THE, THE PROPERTY, THE FIRST PROPERTY DOWN THE VINEYARD WAS CONSTRUCTED THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH OF THAT, UM, WHICH NOW HAS A, UM, UH, A CHILDCARE FACILITY TO BE PUT ON.
THE USER WAS FOUND AGAIN, IT WAS SPECULATIVE DEVELOPMENT IN TERMS OF THE HORIZONTAL COMPETE COMPONENT TO IT.
AND THEY NOW ARE MOVING FORWARD WITH A PLAN TO, UM, HAVE A CHILDCARE FACILITY ON THAT SITE.
THEY SPOKE TO ME, WE GOT 20 EMAILS GOING BACK AND FORTH.
I COULDN'T PROMISE THE DELIVERY DATE BECAUSE OF WHERE WE'RE GOING, WHAT WE'VE BEEN GOING THROUGH FOR THE LAST YEAR.
OBVIOUSLY THE DELIVERY DATE WAS THERE.
WHY? BECAUSE I FOLLOWED THIS GOOD NEIGHBOR POLICY, WHICH, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY WAS NOT TO BY BENEFIT FOR THE SOUTH THAT HAD A C TO 100% OF THAT PROPERTY WAS SPECULATIVE DEVELOPMENT, SPECULATIVE, HORIZONTAL DEVELOPMENT, ALL THE TREES WERE TAKEN OUT.
BASICALLY YOU HAD THE INFRASTRUCTURE PLACED IN AND THE, THE, THE, THE BUYERS WERE NOT IDENTIFIED AS USER FOR NOT IDENTIFIED.
THEY SHOWED UP, THEY MADE AN OFFER.
AND WE NOW HAVE A CARWASH AND PARKERS AND OPT-IN HEALTHCARE AND SO FORTH.
AND SO ON, ON THAT SAME THING APPLIES TO WASHINGTON SQUARE, 37 ACRES, CLEARCUT, NOT A SINGLE TREE LEFT, NOT FOLLOWING THE GOOD NEIGHBOR POLICY, WE, BUT THEY, IN FACT, DID THEY DIDN'T HAVE A SINGLE USER FOR ANY PORTION OF THAT TRAP.
THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THOUGH THEY WERE ALLOWED TO FINISH THE GRADING OF THEIR LOTS, REALIZING, AS HEATHER SAID, THEY'RE GOING TO REGRET IT.
IT TOOK DOWN THE TREES AND THEY'RE REGRADING IT.
THE IDEA OF, OF, OF NOT FOLLOWING THE GOOD NEIGHBOR POLICY IS A MAJOR MISTAKE.
AND I URGE YOU TO CONSIDER, YOU KNOW, REVERSING THAT DECISION AND BEGINNING TO INSTITUTE THAT POLICY, THE, UH, THE GRADING WITHOUT A USER, AGAIN, IT'S JUST NOT DONE.
SO IF THE ISSUE IS IN FACT, SHOULD THE PLANNING COMMISSION ALLOW THE FINAL PHASE OF OUR HORIZONTAL DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT A SPECIFIC USER, IT'D BE TOUGH TO SAY IT WOULD BE TOUGH TO ADJUST.
I'M STILL LOOKING FOR SOME LOGIC.
THERE REALLY SUGGEST THAT THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS ANYTHING BUT A YES, THEY SHOULD ALLOW IT BACK.
[00:25:05]
WHEN THE, WHEN THE FIRST, UH, GRADING ONLY PERMIT WAS GRANTED IN THE PACKAGE I SENT OUT LAST NIGHT, YOU GOT THIS MORNING WHERE MY COMMENTS LIKE I'VE HAD, UH, ATTACHMENT ONE IN THE ATTACHMENTS IS THE VERY FIRST ONE IN THERE.CLEARLY SPECIFIES THE CONDITIONS ON WHICH THE GRADING PERMIT WAS APPROVED FOR THIS VERY SAME LOT.
WE SUBMITTED VIRTUALLY THE IDENTICAL PACKAGE, 99.9% OF IT.
OTHER THAN THE DATE, A FEW OTHER THINGS WHERE WE'RE IDENTICAL IN THAT, IN THAT PACKAGE ITEM.
NUMBER ONE, YOU'LL FIND THAT THE, UM, THE MEETING, A MEETING TOOK PLACE WITH STAFF AND MY ENGINEER AT THE TIME IT WAS APPROVED.
AND THE MINUTES TO THE MEETING, I'M GOING TO SUMMARIZE IT.
IT'S IN YOUR PACKAGE UNDER ATTACHMENT ONE BASICALLY PROVIDED THAT THE DEFINED SCOPE OF THE WORK REQUIRES A GRADING PERMIT.
THAT WAS A DECISION BY THE TOWN OF BLUFFING WITH MY ENGINEER AND ATTENDANCE.
SECOND ITEM, THE GRADING PERMIT IS ESTABLISHED THROUGH PROTOCOLS IN PLACE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION.
AGAIN, THAT'S WHAT THE MINUTES WITH THE TOWN OF BLUFFTON, THIRDLY, NOT APPLICABLE ITEMS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION WILL BE ADMITTED.
WE CAN COVER WHAT THOSE ITEMS ARE THAT WERE ADMITTED THAT OBVIOUSLY THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION IS A LONG LIST OF STUFF AND NOT ALL THAT STUFF IS APPLICABLE FOR FLEET WHERE APPLICABLE THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE CLEARLY INDICATED FOR GRADING PERMIT ONLY.
SO, YOU KNOW, FAST FORWARD FOUR YEARS AND ALL THAT.
I, AGAIN, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD HAVE GRADING PERMITS ONLY UNLESS YOU HAVE A SITUATION LIKE MINE OR SIMILAR, WHERE YOU HAVE ALL INFRASTRUCTURE IN PLACE.
I SUBDIVISION FIVE LOTS WERE CREATED THROUGH THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS AND WE FOLLOWED THE GOOD NEIGHBOR POLICY.
ANYHOW, NUMBER FOUR, WHERE APPLICABLE THE APPLICATION SHOULD BE CLEARLY INDICATED FOR GRADING PERMIT.
ONLY NUMBER FIVE APPLICANT MAY PROCEED FROM PRE-APPLICATION TO FINAL PLAN SUBMISSION, A MEETING, THE STAFF OR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW NUMBER.
NEXT ONE, NO PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED AT THIS TIME.
THE ACTUAL USE OF THE SITE WAS UNKNOWN.
AGAIN, IT WAS SPECULATIVE DEVELOPMENT.
WE DIDN'T HAVE A USER BACK THEN AS THEY HAD ANYBODY UP AND DOWN AND BUCKLE WATER PARKWAY AND BUCK WATER COMMONS, WHICH WAS 250 ACRES THAT INCLUDED WETLANDS.
BUT YOU THROW IN BUCK WATER PLACE.
THERE WAS AT LEAST 250 UPLAND ACRES THAT WERE, THAT I'M SPEAKING FOR WITH REGARD TO PROJECTS WITHOUT, YOU KNOW, W THERE WERE, THERE WERE DONE WITH HORIZONTAL SPECULATIVE DEVELOPMENT.
THE TIMEFRAME FOR THE TIME REVIEW OF THE APPLICATION IS APPROXIMATELY THREE WEEKS, 10 DAY REVIEW PERIOD, DRC MEETING THEN RESPOND TO APPLICANTS.
SO WE DID IT BASICALLY AROUND THREE WEEKS.
LAST TIME AROUND THIS TIME I APPLIED JAN.
I APPLIED FOR THIS PERMIT IN JANUARY.
WE HAD OUR DRC IN FEBRUARY AND WE'RE HERE TODAY, BUT I'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS THING FOR OVER A YEAR BECAUSE WE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS LAST YEAR ABOUT IT AS WELL, DOING PARTS OF IT, AT LEAST PROVIDING THE ACCESS.
CAUSE RIGHT NOW THE PROPERTY DOESN'T HAVE ACCESS.
EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE AN ACCESS, WE HAVE A CURB GUIDE, BUT YOU NEED TO GO CROSS SOME PROPERTY THAT YOU CAN'T GO ACROSS WITH A VEHICLE TO GET TO THE PROPERTY.
BUT ANYHOW, THAT'S A, THAT'S A DETAILED, IT WAS DONE IN THAT PAST.
IT WAS DONE WITHIN A VERY QUICK TIMEFRAME.
UM, AND MOVING ON NUMBER AND THE FINAL ONE, WHICH IS PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE FROM THE 20,000 FOOT PERSPECTIVE, WHICH IS APPLICABLE TODAY, THE WORK PROPOSED WILL IMPROVE THE OVERALL AESTHETICS FOR THE SITE.
IF YOU GO OUT THERE TODAY AND TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND FIGURE OUT THIS GRADING PERMIT TO LOOK AT IT SIX MONTHS FROM NOW, YOU WILL AGREE WITH ME THAT THE SITE'S GOING TO LOOK BETTER.
IT'S GOING TO LOOK A LOT BETTER.
AND WE HAVE A LONG TRACK RECORD OF DEVELOPING.
REAL ESTATE HAS A LOT OF TREES ON IT.
WE LEFT A LOT OF INCREMENTALLY ON IT.
INCIDENTALLY, ONE THING WE'LL SET ABOUT THE COMMENTS THAT WERE ATTACHED.
I'VE HAD A NUMBER OF EMAILS THAT TOOK PLACE SUBSEQUENT TO THE DRC MEETING EMAIL THAT WAS ATTACHED TO THE PACKAGE, WHICH IS AN EMAIL THAT I SENT BEFORE
[00:30:01]
THE DRC MEETING.IT WAS SAD FOR US TO DISCUSS SOME OF THESE KINDS OF THINGS AT THE DRC MEETING, WHICH WAS THE REASON WHY I SAID IT, IT WASN'T MY RESPONSE TO WHAT THE DRC HAD TO SAY.
IT'S LIKE THE PACKAGE I SENT THIS MORNING.
YOU ALL TALK, YOU'LL DO WHAT YOU DO, BUT THE PACKAGE THAT I'M GOING TO SEND TO YOU AFTER THIS MEETING BY SAN SOMETHING AFTER THIS MEETING, THAT'S THE ONE WE NEED TO BE LOOKING AT.
AND THAT'S SOMETHING I SENT TO YOU HERE YESTERDAY, BECAUSE THAT'S IRRELEVANT THAT DOESN'T EVEN, THAT'S NOT EVEN CURRENT IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN.
SO WHERE'S THE PROBLEM, LIKE WHERE DID THIS COME ABOUT? UM, I'M THINKING BACK ON MY PAST AND, UH, THE PROBLEM WISE IS WE HAVE THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION CHECKLIST, AND I THINK IT'S GREAT TO GO THROUGH THROUGH THESE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION CHECKLIST.
NOT EVERYTHING ON THIS IS APPLICABLE TO EVERYTHING THAT WE TALKED ABOUT.
THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT GO AND GET ADMITTED.
AS IT SAYS HERE, WITH REGARDS TO THE, THE PERMIT FOR THE, UM, FOR THE GRADING PERMIT, THERE'S A LOT OF STUFF GETS SUBMITTED.
HOWEVER, ON THIS DEVELOPMENT OF PLAN CHECKLIST, THERE IS NUMBER THREE, A DETAILED NARRATIVE DESCRIBING THE EXISTING OR THE DESCRIBING THE USES.
THE PROPOSED USES AND ACTIVITIES WILL BE CONDUCTED ON THE SITE.
NUMBER THREE, YOU MOVE ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE UNDER LOCK AND BUILDING PATTERN.
NUMBER ONE, A SCHEMATIC LAYOUT DESIGN INDICATING OVERALL SIZE CONFIGURATION ROADWAY, DESIGN, BUILDING LOCATIONS, BUILDING SIZES, GENERAL SETBACKS AND BUILDING ORIENTATION.
WE FAIL MISERABLY, BUT THAT'S NOT THE INTENTION.
THE INTENTION OF THIS ISN'T COME BACK TO THE PODIUM.
THOSE ITEMS WERE APPLICABLE, LARGE PLANT DEVELOPMENT LIKE CROSSROADS, LIKE THE 37 ACRES, THE LIE OVER AT, UH, WASHINGTON SQUARE.
THAT'S WHERE WE GET INTO THE DETAIL DEALING WITH USES.
THAT'S WHERE WE GET INTO THE DETAIL OF OVERALL SITE CONFIGURATION ROADWAY, DESIGN.
YOU KNOW, WE'RE, I'M NOT GOING TO BE DESIGNING THE ROADWAY FOR ONE 70 WASHINGTON.
SQUARE'S NOT GOING TO BE DESIGNING THE ROADWAY FOR, UM, UH, FOR THE BLUFF BUCK, WALTER PARKWAY.
THEY'RE GOING TO BE DESIGNING THE INTERNALS ROADWAYS LUDLOW.
WE'RE GOING TO DESIGN THAT OUR INTERNAL ROADWAYS ALREADY IN PLACE.
IT'S CALLED BUCK WATER COLLINS BOULEVARD.
IT'S BEEN IN PLACE SINCE 2005.
WE DON'T HAVE A ROADWAY TO DESIGN A BUILDING LOCATION.
THERE'S NOT A SINGLE LOCATION ON THAT.
OTHER, OTHER THAN WHERE THE BUILDING LOCATION WAS IDENTIFIED, THE BUILDING I HAD LOCATIONS ARE IDENTIFIED IN THAT THE MASTER PLAN AND IT WON'T CHANGE, BUT YES, WE HAVE 465 SQUARE FEET OF BUILDING LOCATIONS ON OUR MASTER PLAN THAT YOU SEE THERE FOR 70 ACRES OF THE CROSSROADS DEVELOPMENT.
THAT'S WHAT WAS INTENDED, NOT BUILDING LOCATION ON A LOCK, WHICH HAS NEVER TAKEN PLACE ON ANY OF THE LOTS AND BUCK WATER PLACE.
WE'RE IN BUCK, WATER COMMONS EVER FROM A SPECULATIVE STANDPOINT.
NOW WHEN BLUFFTON FRESH CAME ON BOARD, YEAH, THAT'S DIFFERENT.
I SAID THE BUILDING PERMIT STAGE, BUT WE'RE NOT AT THE BUILDING PERMIT STAGE.
SO ANYHOW, THIS, THIS APPLICATION PLAN IS THE GENESIS FOR THE COMMENTS THAT YOU SEE RELATED TO, UH, THE, UH, ISSUES ON GRADING WITH, WITHOUT, YOU KNOW, SPECIFIED USERS AND ALSO, UM, MATTERS DEALING WITH THE GRADING ONLY PERMIT ALSO IN THE GRADING ONLY PERMIT THERE'S PHASES TO THIS THINGS, THESE THINGS, AS YOU KNOW, THERE'S INFINITE PHASES THAT THESE THINGS YOU DON'T, I COULD GO AND SAY, OKAY, I'M GOING TO GO OUT AND I'M GOING TO PUT IN SOME UTILITY, SOME LANDSCAPING, UH, AND MAYBE SOME STREETLIGHTS.
THERE'S NOT A PERMIT FOR STREET LIGHTS AND LANDSCAPING.
SO IF YOU CAN DENY AN APPLICANT, THE ABILITY TO PUT THE STREET LIGHTS IN THE LANDSCAPING.
SO FOR THEM, BECAUSE THERE'S NOT A PERMIT IN THE CODE, OH, IT MAKES NO SENSE TO DO THAT.
BUT GRADING PROCESS, THERE'S MANY, MANY PHASES TO, UH, DEVELOPING THE HORIZONTAL INFRASTRUCTURE AS THERE IS WITH VERTICAL INFRASTRUCTURE.
AND THE GRADING COMPONENT IS JUST ONE OF THOSE MANY PHASES TO THE DEVELOPMENT.
[00:35:01]
UM, LET'S, LET'S, IF YOU DON'T MIND, I'M KIND OF PASSIONATE ABOUT THIS.UM, WE'LL GO THROUGH THE PLANNING STAFF REPORT IF THAT'S OKAY.
UH, THE STAFF REPORT AND SOME OF THE THINGS WE'LL SET, UH, SO I CAN KIND OF PUT THIS INTO CONTEXT OF WHAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT WITH REGARD TO GRADING ONLY PERMITS AND SO FORTH AND SO ON.
CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION REAL QUICK? JUST BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE GETTING A LOT OF INFORMATION AND IT'S KIND OF OVERWHELMING.
CAN WE TAKE A PAUSE AND MAYBE ASK SOME QUESTIONS? OH YEAH, YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.
WE COULD DO IT, WHATEVER FORMAT.
THERE'S A LOT OF INFORMATION KIND OF HISTORY.
THERE'S PLENTY OF YEARS OF HISTORY HERE.
AND I DON'T WANT TO TAKE UP A LOT OF YOUR TIME TALKING ABOUT THINGS THAT, AND I DEFINITELY DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT ANYTHING REDUNDANT, BUT IF YOU COULD DO THAT, THAT'D BE GOOD.
I DO HAVE A QUESTION AS FAR AS TIMING.
AND WHY ARE WE DOING THIS NOW VERSUS WHENEVER YOU HAD THE PERMIT? LIKE, WHAT'S THE WHAT'S CHANGED BETWEEN, LIKE, WHY IS THIS, WHY ARE YOU COMING NOW VERSUS, OKAY, OKAY.
THE QUESTION, THE QUESTION, LET ME REPHRASE IT.
WHY DIDN'T HE GET IT DONE WITHIN THAT ONE YEAR? SURE.
WHY DIDN'T YOU, WHY DON'T WE START THERE AND THEN GO FROM THERE? WELL, I HAD A LOT, I HAD A LOT IN THAT LOT.
WE ENDED UP GETTING A BRAIDING ONLY PERMIT ON IT.
IT WAS ON THE SOUTH, UH, SOUTHERN CORNER, RIGHT BEFORE YOU GO TO MISS THE BLUFFS 0.7 ACRES.
AND IT HAD SOME STOCKPILE, DIRT ON IT THAT WE HAD USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE OTHER, OTHER THINGS.
AND IT HAD A BUNCH OF TREES CAUSE I DIDN'T, I, YOU KNOW, I DID FOLLOW THE GOOD NEIGHBOR POLICY AND STUFF.
AND WE SAID, HEY, THE TIME IS RIGHT.
AND SO WE WERE IN THE PROCESS OF DOING IT.
I BEING A GOOD NEIGHBOR, ALLOWED THE FOLKS IN THIS LAKE BLUFF, UH, LEAVE A LOT OF THEIR EQUIPMENT THERE AND SO FORTH AND SO ON.
AND LO AND BEHOLD, AND I CAN SEND EMAILS TO CONFIRM THIS, IF YOU NEED IT BY 48 TRUCKLOADS OF DIRT, BASICALLY A CONTRACTOR, YOU KNOW, THEY WERE GONE.
AND WHEN I GOT MY SOIL, WHEN I GOT THE 48 LOADS OF SAND BACK FROM THE MINE ON, UH, THE BLUFFTON PARKWAY, THE YEAR WAS UP.
I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS A BIG DEAL.
I DIDN'T THINK THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE A HUGE POLICY SHIFT WITH REGARD, TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IS THE TIMING.
AND MAYBE WE'LL, YOU CAN HELP ME FROM WHENEVER HE HAD THIS GRADING PERMIT TO WHEN SOMETHING CHANGED IN THE CODE, I GUESS, OR WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS ARE LIKE.
W WHERE DID THIS SHIFT AND CHANGE HAPPEN AND HOW DID HE GET CAUGHT UP IN THAT, I GUESS.
SO JUST TO CLARIFY, ACTUALLY, UM, THERE WAS A PERMIT ISSUED, UM, 2017, UM, AND PER THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE THAT PERMIT EXPIRES IN TWO YEARS.
SO AFTER A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS, UM, AS WE WERE CLEANING UP, IF YOU WILL, OUR PERMITTING SYSTEM, WE SENT LETTERS TO EVERYONE WHO HAD NOT ACTED ON, UM, AN APPROVED PERMIT AND LETTING THEM KNOW THAT FOR THIS SECTION OF THE CODE, YOUR, YOUR PERMIT HAS EXPIRED.
YOU KNOW, YOU, THERE WAS AN OPPORTUNITY THAT, YOU KNOW, TO HAVE APPLIED FOR AN EXTENSION OF THAT PERMIT.
UM, BUT THAT, THAT OPPORTUNITY HAD PASSED BY THAT POINT.
AND THERE WAS NO EXTENSION FILED.
IT WAS, THERE WAS A REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION AFTER IT HAD EXPIRED, BUT THERE'S NO PROVISION TO PROVIDE AN EXTENSION THAT REQUEST WAS MADE TO THE UDL ADMINISTRATOR, BUT THERE'S NO PROVISION TO PROVIDE AN EXTENSION AFTER THE PERMIT HAS EXPIRED.
YOU, YOU, KNOWING THAT YOUR PERMIT IS NEARING EXPIRATION, YOU CAN REQUEST A PERMIT TO EXTEND IT PRIOR TO EXPLORATION, BUT NOT AFTER.
MAY I COMMENT? I WILL SWEAR ON A STACK OF BIBLES.
I'D NEVER, EVER RECEIVED A LETTER AND THERE ARE THOSE, THOSE ARE MAILED OUT OKAY.
I DIDN'T, I NEVER RECEIVED A LETTER.
I'D NEVER RECEIVED NOTIFICATION.
IT OUGHT TO BE ON AT LEAST AT A MINIMUM ON THE COMPUTER SOMEPLACE THAT THIS LETTER WAS SAID, WHETHER IT GOT TO ME OR NOT, IT'S A DIFFERENT ISSUE, BUT THE ISSUE IS WHETHER IT WAS SENT AND A COMPUTER HERE IN TOWN HALL SHOULD HAVE THE LETTER THAT WAS SENT TO ME.
THAT THAT WAS SENT AS AN EMAIL, AS A COURTESY, UM, TO THE FACT NOT A REQUIREMENT.
I MEAN, THERE'S A REPRESENTATION MADE THAT I RECEIVED SOMETHING WELL.
AND IF IT WAS BY EMAIL, THERE'S ELECTRONIC, EITHER PATIENT THAT WAS SAD EIGHT YEARS.
SO PARDON ME IS YOUR WAY FOR THE FIRST TIME I'VE EVER HEARD OF THIS? WELL, EITHER WAY THE PERMIT WAS UP IN 2019.
[00:40:01]
NOW IT'S 2021.SO YOU'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS SINCE 2019 TO TRY AND GET IT AGAIN.
I HAVEN'T WORKED WITH HER ON IT FOR, WELL OVER A YEAR.
I'D HAVE TO GO BACK TO SEE ACTUALLY IN YOUR PACKET, IN YOUR, NOT THIS LAST PACKAGE, BUT THE PACKAGE BEFORE, UH, HEATHER SENT AN EMAIL TO ME DATED, I THINK IT WAS MAY 23RD, 2020, IN WHICH SHE SAID THAT SHE'S REFERRED IT ON TO WILL AND KEVIN WHO WILL TAKE W WHO WILL, UH, SO LET WE GET THE WORDS IN BETWEEN THE 2019 AND 2020, WAS THERE A CODE CHANGE THAT CHANGED SOMETHING? NO.
SO THE GRADING PERMIT, WHEN DID THAT WHOLE PAIN, IF IT'S NO LONGER ALLOWED, WHEN DID THAT CHANGE? IF HE HAD IT AT ONE TIME, WHEN DID THAT CHANGE? WE ISSUED A, WE ISSUED A, UM, A PERMIT THAT AT THIS POINT WE RECOGNIZED WAS AN ERROR.
AND WE DIDN'T WANT TO REPEAT THAT THERE.
SO THAT WAS NEVER REALLY A, A THING.
SO IF HE HAD DONE IT IN THE TWO YEARS, THEN HE WOULD HAVE BEEN ADVANTAGEOUS OVER SOMEONE ELSE BECAUSE IT REALLY SHOULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED.
SO IT'S NEVER BEEN A, A PERMIT.
THERE'S NEVER BEEN A GRADING ONLY PERMIT AT THE TOWN.
WE GOT A GRADING ONLY PERMIT ON THE TRACK.
I JUST REFERRED TO THAT HAD THE 48 LOADS OF DIRT ON IT.
THAT WAS A GRADING ONLY PERMIT.
THAT'S WHAT I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IF IT WAS FURTHER POST TO BE A PERMIT OR IT WASN'T, BUT IT WAS AN ERROR ON THE TOWN THAT WAS IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICANT AT THE TIME.
BUT GOING FORWARD, IT SHOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST.
I'M GOING TO, I'M GOING TO POINT TO SEVERAL PLACES AND I'LL COME RIGHT BACK THAT WETLAND, THE TOWN OF BLUFFTON CAME TO ME AND ASKED ME TO GRADE.
IT ONLY GRADED, WHICH I DID, WHICH IS RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE FRONT ENTRANCE OF CARE, CORE ACT.
GRADING ONLY I DID AT THE REQUEST OF THE TOWN COST ME SICK BUCKS.
I DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT NUMBER, BUT THAT TOOK PLACE.
NUMBER TWO, POINTING AT ANOTHER PART IN PART IN PHASE TWO.
THAT TOOK PLACE LONG AFTER, LONG AFTER THE, UH, AND THAT TOOK PLACE RECENTLY, THAT TOOK PLACE WITHIN THE VERY PAUL WAS THERE AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IT AFTER OUR POD WAS REMOVED, TREES WERE REMOVED.
A GRADING PERMIT WAS ISSUED AND I SOLD THE PROPERTY TO DAN.
WHO'S OVER AT PUBLIX NEXT TO THE PUBLIC THAT WAS ISSUED LONG AFTER WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.
NO OTHER WELL, I'M POINTING TO ONE THAT ACTUALLY OCCURRED.
NUMBER THREE, POINTING TO ANOTHER PIECE IN PHASE TWO, THIS ONE IS OWNED BY THE TOWN OF BLUFF AND IT HAS 4.72 ACRES.
IT'S AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PIECE IS THE ONLY PIECE OF REAL ESTATE IT'S GOING TO BE AVAILABLE IN WATER PLACE IN THE FUTURE WHAT'S NEEDED ON THAT TRACK IS SOME SERIOUS BUSH HOGGING TO MAKE IT SO THAT IT'S ATTRACTIVE.
WE SPENT A LOT OF MONEY ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
THE TOWN DOES, THE TRACK IS NOT PLEASE GO OUT AND TAKE A LOOK BEHIND THE POLICE STATION, TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND SEE IF IT'S A MARKETABLE SITE.
AND I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO FIND IT.
I'D BE HAPPY TO SPEND A THOUSAND DOLLARS TO CLEAN IT UP.
WE USED TO SPEND A LOT OF MONEY IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BACK IN THE DAY WHEN WE FIRST GOT STARTED.
DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR RICHARDSON THEN? BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF, I GUESS, MISINFORMATION MISCOMMUNICATION, BUT AS A PLANNING COMMISSION, WE ARE, WE HAVE A CERTAIN DUTY TO GO BY, UM, THE REVIEW CRITERIA.
SO IF HE'S SAYING THAT HE WANTS A PERMIT, WHO IS, WHO DOES THE GRADING PERMIT, WHO DECIDES THAT MADAM CHAIRWOMAN, IF I CAN TRY TO TAKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO KIND OF OFFER A SYNOPSIS OF WHAT I'VE HEARD TODAY AND, UM, HAVING SPOKEN, SPOKEN WITH THE APPLICANT BEFORE AND HAVING SPOKEN WITH, WITH STAFF ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, KIND OF TO BRING MYSELF UP ON IT AS WELL.
UM, THE APPLICANT BACK IN 2017 HAD WHAT WAS CALLED A GRADING PERMIT.
IT WAS ISSUED BY THE TOWN AND THE TOWN DISCOVERED AFTER THAT HAD EXPIRED THAT THERE WAS NO, THERE WAS NO PROCESS TO ACQUIRE A GRADING PERMIT.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE BOOK, WALTER W BUCHALTER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, THE APPLICATIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT, UM, IN
[00:45:01]
GRADING IS CONSIDERED PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT, PART OF THAT DEFINITION OF DEVELOPMENT.THAT WOULD BE A DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
UH, WHAT WE ARE HERE TODAY, THIS APPLICATION, THE PLANNING COMMISSION IN THE UDL ADMINISTRATOR HAD THE JOINT AUTHORITY TO MAKE A DETERMINATION ON A PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
AND THEN THE UTO ADMINISTRATOR WITH THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN Y'ALL'S RESPONSIBILITY TO DO IS EVALUATE THE APPLICATION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN UNDER THE SET CRITERIA THAT, UM, STAFF WENT THROUGH EARLIER.
THE CRITERIA THAT STAFF IS SAYING THAT THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION DOES NOT ME REALLY, REALLY BOILS DOWN TO THE SUBMISSION BEING LARGELY JUST ABOUT GRADING AND NOT HAVING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT IS REQUIRED AS A DEVELOPMENT PLAN, BUT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN REQUIRED IF THE APPLICANT HAD BEEN SEEKING, WHAT WAS FORMERLY THOUGHT OF.
IT'S JUST A GRADING PERMIT APPLICATION.
AND SO WE HAVE THIS, WE HAVE A CHANGE IN THE INTERPRETATION OF THE RELEVANT ZONING REGULATIONS, UM, THAT HAS KIND OF CREATED THIS, UH, THIS LITTLE BIT OF AN ISSUE WHERE IT'S RIGHT, THE DETERMINATION OF FIND THAT'S CROSSED, WHERE IS THE DETERMINATION IT'S, IT'S ULTIMATELY UP TO THE STUDIO ADMINISTRATOR AND STAFF.
IF STAFF HAS MADE AN ERROR IN THE PAST, THEY'RE UNDER NO OBLIGATION LEGALLY TO CONTINUE TO MAKE THAT SAME ERROR.
AND THAT, THAT REALLY IS WHAT THE, THE ISSUE IS.
UM, THEY MADE A DETERMINATION THAT WHAT THEY WERE PERMITTING IN THE PAST WAS NOT APPROPRIATE AND IT WAS NOT AUTHORIZED, BUT TOWN COUNCIL OR THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, UM, AS, WITHOUT KIND OF VEERING OFF THE SUBJECT TOO MUCH.
UH, THE APPLICANT ALSO MENTIONED A GOOD NEIGHBOR POLICY THAT MAY HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY THE TOWN IN 2008.
UM, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THERE WAS NOTHING DEFINITIVE STATING THAT TOWN COUNCIL ADOPTED A GOOD NEIGHBOR POLICY.
AND IT REALLY B TOWN COUNCIL WAS THE ONLY ONE WHO COULD EVEN IN THEORY, OVERRIDE A ZONING ORDINANCE WITH A POLICY.
UH, BUT EVEN THAT IT'S, IT'S A ZONING ORDINANCE, WHICH YOU WERE PERMITTED TO SET BY LAW AND POLICIES OR DETERMINATIONS FROM STAFF CAN'T OVERRIDE, WHAT THE S WHAT THE, WHAT THE SET LAW IS IN A PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCE OR WHAT IT IS ON THE RECORD.
AND SO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS WHAT CONTROLS YOUR CRITERIA OR SET IT'S SIX CRITERIA.
AND ULTIMATELY IT'S UP TO Y'ALL TO SEE WHETHER THE APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT, MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR A DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL.
AND I HOPE I SUMMARIZE THAT IN A WAY THAT WAS RIGHT.
I JUST WANT EVERYBODY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT OUR DUTY IS AND WHAT WE'RE REVIEWING AGAINST.
SO IF HE IS ADAMANT ABOUT THIS GRADING PERMIT, WHO WOULD HE NEED TO, OR HOW, WHAT WOULD THE AVENUE BE FOR HIM TO GO DOWN TO, TO HAVE THAT A FACTOR? SO IF, IF THE APPLICANT WANTS TO HAVE A PROCESS FOR A GRADING PERMIT ONLY TO BE INCORPORATED INTO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, UM, I MAY HAVE TO DEFER A LITTLE BIT TO STAFF, BUT THAT PROCESS WOULD BE VERY, YOU KNOW, AN EXPANSIVE PROCESS THAT WOULD INCLUDE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT TO CREATE THIS GRADING PERMIT PROCESS.
UM, AND THEN POTENTIALLY I'M SEARCHING FOR HEATHER WHO ACTUALLY KNOWS THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION, BUT I DO, I THINK YOU WOULD NEED A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE TWO READINGS OF COUNSEL, AND IT'S SIMILAR TO, UM, UTO TEXT AMENDMENT.
THE OTHER OPTION, IF THE APPLICANT WANTS TO GRADE THE PROPERTY.
MY UNDERSTANDING FROM STAFF'S INTERPRETATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AT THIS POINT IS TO GO THROUGH AND GET A DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
AND THE DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT PLAN REQUIRES THAT THE USES BE PROVIDED IN A CERTAIN INFRASTRUCTURE BUILDING LAYOUT.
I BELIEVE, UM, ALL THAT, THAT SET FORTH IN THE BUCK, WALTER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BE INCLUDED IN THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
SO THE FACT THAT IT LACKS THOSE PARTICULARS, ACCORDING TO STAFF IS LARGELY THE BASIS FOR THE DENIAL.
ANOTHER QUESTION, AND I FORGOT WHAT IT WAS ABSOLUTELY THINKING.
WHAT'S, WHAT'S YOUR OVERALL GOAL FOR CLEAR CUTTING THE LOT AND GRADING IT WITH ABSOLUTELY NO USER.
MY GOAL IS TO MAKE IT COUNTRY CLUB BEAUTIFUL, THE WAY EVERYTHING ELSE IS THAT WE HAVE DONE IN BACKWATER PLACE AND SO FORTH AND SO ON, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE, THEY, THE BLOOD RIGHT NOW IS NOT A VERY PRETTY LOT, YOU KNOW, WE RE YOU KNOW, WE RECOMMEND THE FOLKS LIKE THE TOWN ON THIS 4.7 ACRES.
AND WE RECOMMEND OURSELVES THAT THESE, THESE PROPERTIES NEED TO LOOK, DON'T BE THE LOOK THE WAY THEY LOOK, AND IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE A GOOD FIT.
IT DOESN'T LOOK, IT'S NOT CHARACTERISTIC OF WHAT WE HAVE.
THE GOLF SUMMIT GOAL WILL BE TO EITHER DO A, BUILD A SUIT OR SELL IT, OR DO
[00:50:01]
SOMETHING WITH IT, MAKE IT MORE ATTRACTIVE.SO THAT IVY, BROOKE COMES BACK TO OUR PARCEL RATHER THAN WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO GO TO THE NEXT.
I HAVE A LOT OF COMMENTS ON WHAT RICK RICHARDSON SAID, YOU KNOW, AND HE KNOWS LAW A THOUSAND TIMES BETTER THAN ME, BUT I CAN GUARANTEE YOU IN THE YEAR 2000 AND LOSE HIM.
HE CAN CONCUR WITH US WHEN WE ALL SAT TOGETHER, WE DID, WE CRAFTED THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, THIS DEVELOPMENT CREAM, IT WASN'T GOING TO CHANGE WITH POLICY OR PERSONNEL.
THIS, THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WAS GOING TO THE WITHHOLD THE TEST OF TIME AS PROVIDED BY STATE LAW, THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ON THE VERY, THE VERY FIRST SUBSTANTIVE THING THAT IT SAYS IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
THIS IS OUR BUCHWALD ATTRACT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IN THE FRONT OF THE VERY FIRST SUBSTANENT THE THING DEVELOPMENT, GREAT AGREEMENTS WILL ENCOURAGE THE BEST THING OF PROPERTY RIGHTS BY PROTECTING SUCH RIGHTS FROM THE EFFECTS OF SUBSEQUENTLY ENACTED LOCAL LEGISLATION, OR FROM THE EFFECTS OF CHANGING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, WHICH MAY CONFLICT WITH ANY TERM OR PROVISION OF DEVELOPING AGREEMENT OR ANY WAY HINDER RESTRICT, OR PREVENT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT.
AND THAT'S BASED ON STATE LAW AND STATE LAW SAYS THE LACK OF CERTAINTY OF THE APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT COULD RESULT IN A WASTE OF ECONOMIC, ATLANTA RESOURCES, UH, SO FORTH.
AND SO IN GETTING TO CAUSE THE COST OF DEVELOPMENT TO ESCALATE, ENCOURAGE PRIVATE PARTICIPATION, PREDICTABILITY ENCOURAGES THE MAXIMUM EFFICIENT UTILIZATION OF RESOURCES AT THE LEGAL ECONOMIC COST TO THE PUBLIC DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS WILL ENCOURAGE THE BEST THING OF PROPERTY RIGHTS BY PROJECTING EACH SUCH RIGHTS FROM THE EFFECT OF SUBSEQUENTLY INACCURATE LEGISLATION OR FROM THE EFFECTS OF CHANGING POLICIES, PROCEDURES OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, WHICH MAY CONFLICT WITH ANY TERM OR PROVISION OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND SO FORTH.
AND SO ON, WE COUNT ON THESE THINGS, NOT CHANGING WITH NEW STAFF AND NEW ADMINISTRATION.
WE'RE GOING TO, WE'RE GOING TO BE WITH OUR, SO LET ME ASK THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR WHAT'S.
IT, DOES IT HAVE LANGUAGE IN THERE ABOUT CLARITY? IT ALLOWS THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE REAL ESTATE.
THIS IS A PHASE OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.
NOW, MAYBE IT'S STILL WILL OR KEVIN.
SO HE'S MENTIONED AND COMPARED IT TO LIKE WASHINGTON SQUARE.
SO WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT WASHINGTON SQUARE, I GUESS PERHAPS DID WITH THEIR PLANNING VERSUS WHAT HE HAD, BECAUSE HE'S IN AN, A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THEY'RE IN A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
SO WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT? HMM, WASHINGTON SQUARE, UM, WAS GRANTED A OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE IN WASHINGTON SQUARE.
THEY GRADED THE PROPERTY TO INSTALL ALL OF THE STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE.
AND THEN THE REMAINING PARCELS THAT WOULD, IN MY OPINION, WOULD BE ANALOGOUS TO PARCEL SEVEN, A OFF OF BUCK WACHTER TOWNS.
EACH OF THOSE REMAINING PARCELS IS REQUIRED TO GET A DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVED, WHICH LIGHT GLOW COUNTRY REFRESH HAD TO GO THROUGH PRELIMINARY PLAN SHOWING PARKING LAYOUT, BUILDING LOCATION, ADA, ACCESS, EVERYTHING THAT IS ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, APPLICATION CHECKLIST.
SO I WOULD SAY, I WOULD SAY OVERALL, IF YOU WANTED TO MAKE AN ANALOGY, PARCEL SEVEN A WOULD BE THE SAME AS AN UNDEVELOPED WITHIN THE WASHINGTON SQUARE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, THAT REQUIRES A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO BE FURTHER DEVELOPED.
WELL, UH, ON THAT BASIS, WOULDN'T THE BUYER OF A GRADED LOT, WHO, ALL THE THINGS THAT WE SAID EVERY OTHER D UH, DEVELOPMENT SHOULD DO, YES, THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE IS PREPARING IT FOR SALE, BUT ALL THOSE OTHER PROCESSES WOULD HA WOULD HAVE TO BE ACCOMPLISHED, CORRECT BEFORE IT COULD BE PROOF.
SO IN THIS INSTANCE, IF IT WERE GRADED NOW VERSUS, YOU KNOW, SAY THAT IT WAS THEN THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT THAT CAME IN, THEY'D HAVE TO COME BACK AND DO ALL THAT ALL OVER AGAIN.
I MEAN, AND PROVIDE ALL OF THE OTHER INFORMATION THAT THEY NEEDED, MEANING, BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S GONNA, WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE.
IT COULD BE MEDICAL OFFICES, IT COULD BE WHATEVER THAT FITS INTO THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS.
PORTLAND, I, I'M JUST CONFUSED, UH, GOING OFF MATT'S QUESTION.
IT SOUNDS LIKE TO ME THAT THIS IS TO IMPROVE THE PROPERTY FROM A MARKETING STANDPOINT.
[00:55:01]
WOULD BE ONE REASON THAT WOULD BE, THAT WOULD BE ABSOLUTE ONE REASON.AND TO, TO, TO TACKLE IT TO WHAT WILL SAID, I HAVE A DETAILED ANALYSIS AT THE VERY END OF YOUR ATTACHMENTS TO ANSWER THE SPECIFIC QUESTION THAT YOU HAVE.
AND, AND SPECIFICALLY HEATHER WROTE THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE.
EITHER DEVELOPMENTS HAVE BEEN APPROVED THAT INCLUDE THE ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE AND PAD READY DEVELOPMENTS, SUCH AS WASHINGTON SQUARE.
THIS INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF ALL THE RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE, INCLUDING STORMWATER PARKING AND ROADS OR SPECIFIC USES SUCH AS RETAIL, RESTAURANT AND OFFICE.
LET'S DISSECT THAT IF YOU TURN TO ATTACHMENT 13, WHERE I DISSECT EVERY WORD OF THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT TO THIS AS IT IS, BECAUSE IT'S TOTALLY OPPOSITE OF WHAT WE'LL JUST SAY.
FIRST OF ALL, IT SAYS SIMPLY GRADING A LOT AND REMOVING TREES IS NOT A DEVELOPMENT PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY.
WE BELIEVE THE GRADING OF OUR LOT AND REMOVING MOSTLY THE SMALL PINES ON A A HUNDRED PERCENT OF CONSISTENT WITH THE GOOD NEIGHBOR POLICY THAT WE TALKED ABOUT IS EXPRESSED BY KIM JONES ON EIGHT 18, 2008 MEMORANDUM STAFF.
IT SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED, ESPECIALLY SINCE ALL MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE IN PLACE.
WE LEFT TREES THERE THAT SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED.
WASHINGTON D WASHINGTON SQUARE TONIGHT, WASHINGTON SQUARE IS THIS FAR DOWN THE FOOTBALL FIELD WE'RE HERE.
WHY ARE WE HERE? BECAUSE WE WERE ONLY ASKING TO GET TO WHERE WASHINGTON SQUARE IS TODAY.
WE HAVE ALL THE, AND WE HAVE MORE INFRASTRUCTURE THAN THE WASHINGTON SQUARE HAS.
WE HAVE MORE INFRASTRUCTURE THAN WASHINGTON SQUARE HAS, BUT WE'RE STUCK HERE.
WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DO LOCK RATING, WHEREAS WASHINGTON SQUARES, A LOT OF DEAL RATING.
THAT'S UNFAIR, BUT WASN'T WHAT I'M THINKING.
I'M UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THAT AREA HAD ALL OF THAT DONE FOR WHEELCHAIR? OR WHAT IS IT CALLED? FUCK WALTER, WHATEVER YOUR PV.
WHAT IF WE DID NOT HAVE ALL THAT DONE AT THE TIME? ALL WE DID WAS TO DO SOME TIME SILVER COLOR, WHAT'S THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR LIKE, WHAT PARSONS DOES THAT INCLUDE, I GUESS IN THAT AREA, THAT INCLUDES ALL OF THOSE, LIKE HIS PARCEL SEVEN A WHICH WHAT'S THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THAT? OKAY.
MADAM CHAIRMAN CHAIRWOMAN, IF I CAN, THAT'S PART OF THE BULK WALTER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, RIGHT? UM, PARCEL SEVEN 80 IS INCLUDED WITHIN THAT.
ARE YOU ASKING WHAT PERCENTAGE OF A PARTICULAR CONCEPT AND THAT BECAME A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT? THERE WERE THINGS THAT HAD TO BE PUT IN PLACE AT THE TIME, CORRECT? I THINK YOU'RE CONFUSING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THERE WASN'T A DEVELOPMENT PLAN, RIGHT.
TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS WHAT ESTABLISHED THE PUD.
DEVELOPMENT PLANS OR WHAT IS REQUIRED TO GET AN APPROVED HORIZONTAL INFRASTRUCTURE.
YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT.
THE COMPARISON WITH WASHINGTON SQUARES, LIKE WHAT WAS DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN THAT THERE WAS NO DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN THAT AREA.
SO IS THIS AN INDIVIDUAL PARCEL NOW HAVING TO DO ITS OWN? I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW WE CAN COMPARE THE TWO.
IT, IT, IT, IT'S A DIRECT COMPARISON.
WASHINGTON SQUARE HAD 37 ACRES.
THIS TRACK GOT ITS ANCHOR, WHICH IS THE RESIDENTIAL PIECE, 214 TOWNHOMES, WASHINGTON SQUARE PUT IN ITS INFRASTRUCTURE.
WE PUT IN OUR MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE, ALL OF OUR MASTER INFRASTRUCTURE IS IT IT'S CALLED TOWN CENTER BOULEVARD.
BUT THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING IS LIKE, Y'ALL BOTH DID THOSE THINGS.
WE BOTH DID THE SAME THING NOW, BUT IN THE WASHINGTON SQUARE, EACH INDIVIDUAL PARCEL NOW HAS TO COME BACK AND DO THEIR OWN DEVELOP, BUT THEY'VE ALREADY DONE THEIR GRADING.
THEY DID THE GRADING PART OF THEY DID.
NO DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS WHAT I'M ASKING IS ALL THE PARCELS IN THAT DEVELOPMENT PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, RIGHT? SO WASHINGTON SQUARE AS A DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH 37, WHATEVER PARCELS IT IS, THAT WAS AN OVERALL DEVELOPMENT.
WHEN EACH ONE COMES BACK, THEN THEY EACH HAVE THEIR OWN.
W WHAT THEY DID THE BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT THEY DID AND WHAT I DID.
AND THIS IS WHAT EXACTLY WHAT WE, AS THE TOWELS SHOULD NOT BE ENCOURAGING.
EVERY PIECE OF VEGETATION ON THAT 37 ACRES IS GONE.
IF WE HAVE A RECESSION, IT COULD BE GONE FOR 10 YEARS.
AND THAT'S GREAT THAT YOU DID THE OPPOSITE.
I'M JUST TRYING TO, BUT NOW WE'RE BEING PENALIZED.
WE'RE BEING PENALIZED FOR FOLLOWING THE GOOD NEIGHBOR POLICY THAT WE FOLLOWED BY, BY ALLOWING VEGETATION TO BE THERE.
AND THAT, WHICH IS JUST INCREDIBLY UNFAIR
[01:00:01]
BECAUSE HAD I KNOWN, HAD I KNOWN WHAT WE HAD KNOWN? WELL, THEY STILL HAVE TO DO WHAT YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE WANTING TO DO.LIKE IF THEY WANT TO DEVELOP THAT PIECE OF PARCEL IN THEIR GREATER PLAN, THEY STILL HAVE TO FOLLOW THE SAME STEPS.
AND THAT'S WHAT THE, THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE DOING AS A PLANNING COMMISSION, THE CORRECT THING, AND GOING BY THE RIGHT CRITERIA THAT WE'RE ALLOWED TO RULE ON.
THEY'VE TAKEN AND THEY'VE DONE IT.
IT'S BASICALLY, WHEN WE'RE TALKING TO GREG, HE HAD STOPPED REMOVAL.
I MEAN, ALL THEM, FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, GETTING A BACKHOE OUT THERE AND DISTURBING THE EARTH.
GETTING DOWN AND PULLING OUT THESE STUMPS.
THAT'S SHORTENS THE DEVELOPMENT TIME THAT LETS IVY BROOK OPEN IN THE FALL TIME INSTEAD OF A YEAR FROM NOW OR WHATEVER IT TAKES TIME.
WELL, YOU KNOW HOW LONG IT TOOK WASHINGTON SQUARE TO TAKE THAT STUMPS OUT OF THERE, YOU KNOW, HOW LONG IT TOOK ALL THAT SITE WORK TO GET DONE.
IT'S A VERY LONG PERIOD OF TIME.
NOW THAT IT'S DONE, THEY DON'T HAVE, THEY DON'T HAVE A PAD READY SITE, BUT THEY DO HAVE SHOVEL-READY SITES.
THEY HAVE 37 ACRES OF SHOVEL-READY SITES.
AND I DON'T HAVE A SHOVEL-READY SITE ON MY ONE AND A HALF ACRES.
AND I'M ASKING TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THE SAME SHOVEL-READY TYPE OF TYPE OF PRODUCT THAT THEY HAVE.
AND I HAVE MORE INFRASTRUCTURE.
I GOT FULL GROWN TREES IN PLACE.
I GOT, YOU KNOW, I GOT A LOT OF STUFF ON BUCK, WATER, FLATLAND TOWN'S BOULEVARD.
THE WASHINGTON SQUARE DOES NOT HAVE, BUT YET I'M NOT ALLOWED TO BRING IT UP TO BE AT THAT SAME POINT ON THE 50 YARD LINE WHERE WASHINGTON SQUARE IS, I'M SITTING BACK HERE AT THE 30 YARD LINE HAVING TO DO, HAVING TO PULL OUT ALL THOSE STUMPS AND DO ALL THE THINGS YOU HAVE TO DO TO GET THERE, TO BE ABLE TO BE WHERE WASHINGTON SQUARES TODAY.
I'M NOT ASKING TO BE AHEAD OF THEM.
I'M JUST ASKING TO BE AT THE SAME LEVEL THAT THEY ARE.
AND THERE'S NO REASON THAT I CAN THINK OF FROM A HEALTH SAFETY AND WELFARE STANDPOINT, THAT THE TOWNSHIP AND APPROVE IT.
THERE'S NO DETRIMENT FOR THE TOWN TO, TO ISSUE THE GRADING PERMIT, TO GET ME TO EXACTLY WHERE WASHINGTON SQUARE IS.
AND IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
YOU KNOW, WE TALK ABOUT LAW AND SO FORTH, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE ALL LOOK AT WHAT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO, AND LET'S FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET THERE.
BUT WHEN THE WASHINGTON SQUARE, WHAT I UNDERSTAND WENT THROUGH WITH THEIR DEVELOPMENT PLAN, THEY WOULD HAD TO GO THROUGH ALL THESE REQUIREMENTS AND THEY DID GRADING AS PART OF THEIR PROCESS, I GUESS.
BUT THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING IS LIKE, THAT'S, WHAT'S DIFFERENT IS THAT YOURS IS A DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WENT THROUGH WHENEVER IT WENT THROUGH IT, THEY'RE JUST UP IN TIME, BUT YOU BOTH HAVE TO HAVE THE PARCELS GO THROUGH A DEVELOPMENT PLAN, JOSH TILLER FOR THE RECORD.
UM, I THINK THE DIFFERENCE IS WITH TOM, HIS, HE ADOPTED THE GOOD, GOOD NEIGHBOR POLICY.
HE HELD OFF ON RE REMOVING THOSE TREES AND DOING SOME OF THAT GRADING THAT WASHINGTON SQUARE TOOK ADVANTAGE OF.
SO IT'S, IT'S NOT THAT HE'S REALLY, IF THERE'S A DIFFERENT WAY TO LOOK AT IT, HE'S NOT REALLY ASKING FOR A NEW DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.
HE'S ACTUALLY ASKING TO FINISH OUT THAT ORIGINAL DEVELOP DEVELOPMENT PERMIT THAT EXPIRED.
BUT IF THERE ISN'T ONE IN IT, THERE REALLY ISN'T THAT KIND OF PERMIT IN PLACE, OR IT'S NOT AVAILABLE OR ALLOWED OR THE TOWN, YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T AGREE THIS.
BUT IT UNDERSTOOD, BUT REMEMBER THAT, THAT PERMIT THAT ALLOWED IT TO BEGIN WITH EXPIRED.
BUT CAN WE, AS PLANNING COMMISSION GRANT, ACCORDING TO STAFF REPORT, YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO APPROVE IT.
DOES THAT MEAN THAT WE WOULD BE GRANTING A PERMANENT, UM, DEVELOPMENT, PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN, WHICH WOULD THEN ALLOW FOR A PERMIT? NO, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND HOW IT WORKS.
AND I THINK MR. TILLER DID AN EXCELLENT JOB OF KIND OF SUMMARIZING THE ISSUE THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WASHINGTON SQUARE AND PARCEL SEVEN EIGHT IS, IS TRULY THE FACT THAT WASHINGTON SQUARE WENT AHEAD AND DID WHAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING WHILE STILL UNDER THE, THEIR ORIGINAL APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN, UH, PARCEL SEVEN 80, THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY THAT THAT DEVELOPMENT PLAN HAS EXPIRED.
SO UNDER THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, WHICH AGAIN, AS, AS THE APPLICANT CORRECTLY POINTED OUT IS, IS LAW.
IT DOESN'T CHANGE WITH CHANGING ORDINANCES.
UM, UNDER THE, UNDER THE CULTURE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, HE HAD TO FILE A NEW DEVELOPMENT, A NEW APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT HAS ALL THIS CRITERIA THAT IS REQUIRED
[01:05:01]
TO BE CONSIDERED.THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THAT IN EFFECT THE, HIS APPLICATION BE TREATED MSS, AN EXTENSION, OR A RE ALLOWING HIM TO DO WHAT HE WOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO DO UNDER HIS APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
AND ULTIMATELY IT'S THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION AS TO WHETHER TO APPROVE THAT PRELIMINARY, PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN BASED ON THE CRITERIA THAT WAS PRESENTED TO YOU EARLIER, UM, STAFF'S OPINION IS THAT IT SHOULDN'T BE APPROVED FOR THE REASONS THAT MR. HOWARD EXPLAINED, AND ULTIMATELY THOUGH HIS PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION ON THE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE UDL ADMINISTRATOR, AND THEN IT WOULD GO TO FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, WHICH WOULD BE THE DECISION OF THE UTO ADMINISTRATOR.
YEAH, JUST, JUST TO CLARIFY, IF THE PRELIMINARY PLAN IS APPROVED, THEN THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO GET, UM, A STORMWATER PERMIT APPROVED THROUGH THE MS. FOUR.
UM, AND THEN AFTER A STORMWATER PERMIT IS APPROVED, THEN THE APPLICANT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
AND THAT IS ULTIMATELY REVIEWED BY STAFF AND APPROVED BY THE EDO ADMINISTRATOR.
SO YOUR APPROVAL TONIGHT IS IF YOU'RE REVIEWING TONIGHT, IS, IS PRELIMINARY PLAN, NOT GRADING PERMIT, YOU'RE, YOU'RE REVIEWING A PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AGAINST THE SIX CRITERIA THAT ARE IN THE STAFF REPORT.
THAT'S WHY I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR RICHARD'S QUESTION BEST IN WHAT I'M HEARING.
IF WE WERE TO APPROVE, WE'RE ESSENTIALLY APPROVING A WAIVER TO EXISTING RULES, MR. WILLIAMS. I THINK THAT THE, UH, I COULD CERTAINLY SEE HOW YOU WOULD INTERPRET IT THAT WAY.
I'M TRYING NOT TO INFLUENCE Y'ALL'S DECISION ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.
AND SO I, THE WAIVER OF EXISTING ROLES IS, IS KIND OF LOADED.
I, I THINK WHAT YOU WOULD BE APPROVING IS THAT YOU WOULD BE OVERRIDING STAFF'S OPINION AS TO WHETHER THE CRITERIA HAS BEEN MET.
UM, YOU WOULD BE SAYING THAT WHERE IF YOU THINK THAT MAYBE THE CRITERIA HASN'T BEEN MET, THESE, THIS INFORMATION WAS NOT PROVIDED, YOU WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE DISREGARDING SOME OF THE CRITERIA AND YOU COULD, YOU WOULD JUST NEED TO INCORPORATE THAT INTO WHATEVER MOTION YOU FELT, WHATEVER MOTION WITH FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, BUT IN EFFECT.
YOU'D BE ALMOST, I THINK THE MOST, A PROPER ANALOGY WOULD BE EMMA'S GRAINING OF VARIANTS FROM WHAT THE SET LAW HAS TO ALLOW OR WHAT THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT REQUIRES TO PERMITTING EMIS AN EXTENSION OF THE ORIGINAL UNDERLYING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO, UH, IT'S GONNA BE DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO CONTINUE WITH THE GRADING THAT HE'S REQUESTED.
SO IF SOMEONE APPROVED IT, THEY WOULD NEED TO EXPLAIN WHY AGAINST THE CRITERIA THAT STAFF HAS GIVEN.
SO ANYTIME THAT Y'ALL MAKE A MOTION, UM, IT'S ALWAYS BENEFICIAL TO INCLUDE THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT'S IN, UM, AN ISSUE THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE CHALLENGED OR LITIGATED IN THE FUTURE.
THIS WAS, THIS WAS REPAIRED IN 2017, I THINK.
AND IT IS THE, UH, CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR THIS PIECE OF REAL ESTATE THAT WAS USED WHEN WE GOT THE ORIGINAL GRADING PERMIT.
AND IT'S THE IDENTICAL AND IDENTICAL ONE SUBMITTED FOR THIS GRADING PERMIT AS WELL, THIS SCHEMATIC.
CAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS IS TOXIC.
WELL, LET'S GO THROUGH THE LIST.
THESE ARE THE THINGS REQUIRED ASSIGNED DEVELOPMENT PLAN, APPLICATION CHECKLIST ASSIGNED IN NEW YORK SECOND.
SO THAT'S OUT OF THE WAY DONE THE NARRATIVE DESCRIBING THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT USES FOR THE SITE.
AGAIN, THAT WAS INTENDED FOR WASHINGTON SQUARE, THE USES FOR THE SITE THAT WAS INTENDED FOR, UM, BACKWATER, CROSSROADS BUCK WATER PLACE, NOT FOR A LOCK, NOT FOR A SINGLE LOT, BUT ANYHOW, I PUT
[01:10:01]
IN, I PUT TOGETHER THE NARRATIVE AND ANOTHER FIVE MINUTES, THE NARRATIVE DESCRIBING THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND USES FOR THE SITE POSSIBLE USES WHAT THAT IS.THAT'S WHAT WE USED TO DEVELOP BACK IN THE DAY WHEN WE DID A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS BASICALLY SPACE THAT COULD BE DIFF DIVVIED UP DIFFERENT KINDS OF WAYS, DEPENDING ON WHAT THE USER NEEDED, BUT IT'S SPECULATIVE.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS, IS THAT DISCUSSION TOOK PLACE WITH STEVE BIRD ABOUT, YOU KNOW, A DEVELOPER, YOU KNOW, PUTTING TOGETHER WHAT WE THINK WE COULD DO.
AND, YOU KNOW, AND THAT'S ON OUR WEBSITE AND WE'RE MARKETING THE HECK OUT OF IT RIGHT NOW AND SAYING, YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHAT COULD NOW WHAT'S COME TO US IS THREE, THREE, UH, UM, CHILDCARE'S A CHURCH AND THE WHOLE BUNCH OF OTHER STUFF, NONE OF WHICH OF THESE IS A SITE PLAN.
BUT YEAH, I MEAN, THERE'S A LOT OF, YOU KNOW, THIS WHOLE PUBLIC THING THAT GOT ALL APPROVED WITH THE SITE PLAN AND NEVER, NEVER CAME TO BE, THEY HAVE VIDEOS AND EVERYTHING AND NEVER CAME TO BE.
NOW I COULD COME TO YOU ALL AND SAY, THIS IS WHAT I PLAN TO DO, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO BE THAT KIND OF A PERSON.
I'M NOT INTENDING TO BUILD THIS EMPTY BUILDING IN THIS LOCATION.
THERE'S TOO MANY FOLKS THAT WANT SPECIFIC THINGS FOR THIS LOCATION, BUT I FOLLOWED, I'M GOING TO FOLLOW THIS AND YOU CAN SEE, I FULFILLED EVERY ONE OF THESE.
THE NEXT ONE IS A SCHEMATIC LAYOUT AND DESIGN INDICATING OVERALL SITE CONFIGURATION, INCLUDING ROADWAY DESIGN IN THEIR BUILDING LOCATION, IN THEIR BUILDING SIZE, GENERAL, SETBACKS AND ORIENTATION.
ALL THAT WAS SUBMITTED, BUT WILL, IS THAT PART OF THIS PACKAGE THAT WAS NOT PART OF THE, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN REVIEW BECAUSE IT'S NOT PART OF THE APPLICATION.
THAT WAS A PART OF THE APPLICATION THAT WAS SUBMITTED.
AND THAT WAS SUBMITTED, ABSOLUTELY SUBMITTED IN.
THAT WAS AF THAT DID NOT TAKE PLACE IN MY TWO PAGE LETTER PRIOR TO DRC, BUT ABSOLUTELY WAS INCLUDED IN SEVERAL OF MY PACKAGES AFTER THE DRC NAVY.
IT WASN'T A PROPER, LIKE THE INFORMATION WAS THERE, BUT IT WASN'T.
SO IT'S A CONCEPTUAL PLAN THAT WE DID NOT, IT'S NOT REVIEWED AS PART OF THE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION.
IT'S A CONCEPT PLAN THAT WAS PROVIDED JUST AS INFORMATION.
WHAT WAS THE CONCEPT PLAN PROVIDED BEFORE THE FACT AND CONTINUOUSLY MULTIPLE TIMES DURING AN AFTER, BUT NOT IN MY LETTER THAT TOOK PLACE THE DAY BEFORE THE DRC MEETING IN PREPARATION FOR THE DRC MEETING WAS NOT IN THAT WAY, BUT WHEN YOU SUBMIT HER, YOUR APPLICATION FOR THIS REVIEW, THAT SPECIFIC PLAN WAS JUST INFORMATION ONLY.
IT WAS CALLED A SCHEMATIC LAYOUT AND DESIGN.
THAT'S A SCHEMATIC LAYOUT DESIGN.
THAT'S WHAT WE USED THE LAST TIME AROUND.
I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE DISCONNECT IS HERE VERSUS WHAT IT SAYS, THE GENERAL LOCATION OF INGRESS AND EGRESS OF PARKING AREAS TO THE SITE.
THERE'S THE PARKING AREAS, THE EGRESS AND INGRESS.
WE ACTUALLY HAVE THE CURB CUT, WASHINGTON SQUARE.
WE HAVE, I THINK, WASHINGTON SQUARE ANYMORE.
THE SUBMITTAL FOR THIS APPLICATION IS WHAT IS THAT JUST FOR INFORMATION ONLY, OR WAS THAT THE ACTUAL PLAN SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW? THIS IS A CONCEPT PLAN THAT THE APPLICANT IS.
I THINK HE JUST SAID HE HAS NO INTENTIONS OF CONSTRUCTING, SO IT WAS NOT REVIEWED AS PART OF THE PRELIMINARY APPLICATION.
SO THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING IS WE CAN'T REVIEW THAT AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION, RIGHT.
RICHARD SAYS THAT'S NOT THE SAME THING.
RICHARDSON GOING BACK TO OUR TWO MAJOR ITEMS. OKAY.
THIS IS, THIS IS SUPER IMPORTANT.
THE TWO MAIN OR MAJOR ITEMS ARE, DO I NEED TO HAVE THE USE DEFINED PRIOR TO MOVING FORWARD? IF THAT IS TRUE.
I AM THE ONLY UN ALL OF BUCK WATER COMMONS, ALL 250 ACRES, SOMEBODY ONLY PIECE OF REAL ESTATE, WHERE I USE HAD TO BE DEFINED BEFORE YOU CAN DO ANY GRADING, GRADING, MADAM CHAIRWOMAN.
I THINK THAT QUESTION IS BETTER POSED TO STAFF AS TO WHAT THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES.
MY UNDERSTANDING BASED OFF OF WHAT, UH, STAFF HAS PRESENTED TODAY IS THAT YES, THE USE IS ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THAT'S PART OF WHAT'S AND THAT'S PART OF YOUR CONSIDERATION.
SO IN LOOKING AT THIS APPLICATION, LOOKING AT THE REVIEW CRITERIA, IT'S WHETHER THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN MEETS THE REVIEW CRITERIA
[01:15:01]
BEFORE YOU STAFF HAS OUTLINED, WHAT THEY BELIEVE IS THE, IS WHERE THE APPLICATION FAILS TO MEET THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA.AND, UM, AS FAR AS THE CONCEPT PLAN OR ANYTHING ELSE, I, I, I, I CAN'T REALLY, I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE COMMENTING ON THAT.
I MEAN, ON THAT IF I MAY REFER, REFERRING TO USES, OKAY.
WHEN SOMEONE SUBMITS AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT PLAN, UM, THEY NEED TO LET US KNOW, IS THAT AN OFFICE USE, IS THAT A RESTAURANT USE, IS THAT A RETAIL USE, UH, CAUSE THERE'S VARIOUS REQUIREMENTS FOR EACH ONE OF THOSE.
SO, UM, TO CONCEPTUALLY, YOU KNOW, BRING A PLAN IN FRONT OF US AND NOT TELL US WHAT THE USE IS, WILL THAT IS GOING TO, UM, HAVE CHANGES IN THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
AND THAT'S USUALLY A LARGE FACTOR THAT COMES INTO PLAY WITH, WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SITE.
UH, YOU MIGHT HAVE A SITE YOU'RE OF 2000 SQUARE FEET WHERE A RESTAURANT IS, AND WE'RE GOING TO REQUIRE 24 PARKING SPACES VERSUS EIGHT PARKING SPACES.
SO THAT WILL MAKE A HUGE DIFFERENCE.
AND WHEN WE'RE REVIEWING PLANS.
SO WHEN WE'RE ASKING FOR A USE LIKE THAT, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE REFERRING TO.
IS IT AN OFFICE USE OR RETAIL USE RESTAURANT USE? AND, AND THAT'S THE PROBLEM.
WE'RE, WE'RE GETTING A SPECULATIVE PLAN THAT IS OVERLAID ON A SITE PLAN TO SAY THAT IT MIGHT BE THIS.
WE DON'T NEED TO HAVE NOTHING.
SO WHEN WE'RE REVIEWING THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN, WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT IS GOING TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON THAT PROPERTY.
AND HE IS NOT PROVIDING THAT INFORMATION.
WHAT ARE WE ARE? WHAT WE'RE RECEIVING IS HE WANTS TO BRING IN AND FILL IN THREE TO FOUR FEET OF DIRT ONTO THIS PROPERTY.
IN ORDER TO, AS HE STATED EARLIER, HE HAD 48 TRUCKLOADS OF DIRT THAT HE NEEDS TO PUT SOMEWHERE.
AND IF CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT YOU'RE LOOKING TO PUT THAT DIRT ON THIS PROPERTY WITH NO PLANS FOR DEVELOPING THE SITE, UH, W UH, BY DEVELOPING, PUTTING, BUILDING, I HAVE MORE PLANS THAN WASHINGTON SQUARE TO DEVELOP THEIR SITE.
FIRST OF ALL, NUMBER TWO, NO, WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT PUTTING THREE OR FOUR FEET ON A FILL ON THAT PROPERTY, BUT NUMBER THREE IS THAT YOUR PLANS SHOW, YOU SHOW A GRADING PLAN WITH THREE TO FOUR FEET, AS WELL AS A STOCKPILE OF DIRT ON THERE, WHICH, WHICH WE SAID WE WOULD REMOVE, WE WOULD SPREAD THE STOCK PILE OF DIRT.
BASICALLY YOU TAKE THE, THE, THE, THE ORGANICS, YOU PUT THEM IN A, IN A MOUND, YOU BRING IN THE OTHER DIRT, YOU TAKE THE STOCKPILE AND YOU FILL IT IN EVERY DEVELOPMENT IN BUCHWALD.
EVERY DEVELOPMENT IN SOUTH CAROLINA, EVERY DEVELOPMENT IN THE UNITED STATES HAD A STOCKPILE TO DO THIS.
WELL, BUT THE FACT IS YOU WANT TO MINIMIZE THE LENGTH OF TIME THAT, THAT STOCKPILE IS OUT THERE, WHICH WE PROMISED AND GUARANTEED.
AND WE COULD PROBABLY TALK ABOUT THIS ALL NIGHT LONG, SO WE NEED TO KIND OF WRAP UP WHAT EVERYBODY'S GOT.
UM, I JUST WANTED EVERYBODY TO BE CLEAR ON WHAT OUR CHARGES, AS THE PLANNING COMMISSION, WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE ON YOUR PART, WHAT STAFF INFORMATION NEEDS.
I JUST WANT EVERYBODY TO BE CLEAR ME QUESTIONS.
ANOTHER QUESTION FOR, I'M SORRY, THIS IS, THIS IS WELL-TRAVELED TERRITORY AND THIS IS MY LAST MEETING.
IT'S A BOY I'M GOING FOR WHERE I THINK THERE'S CONFUSION IS OBVIOUSLY THE WAY THE UTO IS WRITTEN.
AND THEN, AND YOU'RE SAYING, THAT'S THE CRITERIA WE MUST USE.
MR. HEN, THEN IF THAT'S THE CASE, I MEAN, IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S SOME WIGGLE ROOM HERE, OR HE, SOMETHING HAPPENED.
THIS WAS APPROVED BEFORE AND NOW SOMETHING CHANGED.
UM, THE P THE ONLY PART THAT REALLY CONFUSES ME AND I, AND AMANDA, UH, TOUCHED UPON IT IS ALL THAT PLANNING AND DESIGN AND USE.
CAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW WHO'S GOING TO, WHO'S GOING TO BUY IT, RIGHT.
UH, ALL THOSE DECISIONS ON PARKING, ET CETERA, WILL BE DETERMINED ONCE WE KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO BE ON WHAT'S, WHAT'S GOING TO BE BUILT, WHICH IS THE CASE FOR EVERY OTHER DEVELOPMENT.
WHY IS THIS DIFFERENT? THAT'S WHERE I'M REALLY CONFUSED.
SO I THINK IT, IT BOILS DOWN TO THE FACT THAT THERE'S NOT AN ACTIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN OR OTHER PERMIT, UM, OR CURRENT
[01:20:01]
PERMIT ON THE PROPERTY.AND IN PRIOR YEARS, AS THE APPLICANT HAD MENTIONED THE TOWN, UM, IN AIR RECOGNIZED WHAT WAS KNOWN AS A GRADING PERMIT, AND THERE IS NO PROCESS IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THAT.
UM, THE APPLICANT HAS SAID THAT, YOU KNOW, THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WAS INTENDED TO HAVE TO VEST CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS.
AND THAT'S ABSOLUTELY TRUE, BUT YOU HAVE TO READ THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR WHAT IT SAYS, AND IT DOES NOT HAVE A PROCESS FOR A GRADING PERMIT.
THE PROCESS TO GET GRADING APPROVED IS A DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN HAS EXPLICIT CRITERIA.
SO THIS EXPLICIT CRITERIA THAT Y'ALL ARE TO CONSIDER TODAY IS WHAT'S THERE THAT'S REALLY ULTIMATELY THE ISSUE IS THAT THERE'S NOT AN ACTIVE PERMIT.
THIS IS THE PERMIT THAT HE WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH.
THIS WOULD BE THE FIRST STEP OF A DEVELOPMENT.
IT WOULD BE IT, WELL, YOU HAVE THE, YOU KNOW, THE MASTER PLAN CONCEPT PLAN, BUT TO REALLY, TO GET IN IS TO START ACTUALLY MOVING FORWARD WITH DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, YOU NEED THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THERE IS NO DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN PLACE.
AND THAT'S WHAT THE APPLICANT IS APPLYING FOR RIGHT NOW.
AND I, I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND MR. ZEN'S FRUSTRATION.
AND, UM, I THINK, I THINK STAFF UNDERSTANDS THAT AS WELL, BUT I ULTIMATELY THE QUESTION IF, OR THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS DOESN'T MEET THE CRITERIA FOR THE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE CRITERIA THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY STAFF AND THE, AND THE ANALYSIS PROVIDED BY STAFF THAT IT DOESN'T.
UM, ULTIMATELY I, IT'S DIFFICULT TO KIND OF CONDENSE A, OBVIOUSLY A VERY COMPLEX AND A LONG STANDING ISSUE DOWN TO SUCH A SIMPLE ANALYSIS, BUT IT'S WHETHER THE APPLICATION FOR THE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN MEETS THE APPLICABLE CRITERIA.
THAT'S ON THE SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU BOILS IT DOWN TO WHAT WE WERE SAYING.
ANY OTHER QUESTION COMMENT? NO, I MEAN, I APPRECIATE YOUR FRUSTRATION WITH, AND ALSO APPRECIATE ALL THE HISTORY, BUT I MEAN, IT'S PRETTY SIMPLE TO ME, IT BOILS DOWN TO THIS APPLICATION AND WHAT'S IN IT, OR WHAT'S NOT IN IT REGARDLESS OF WHAT HEART EMOTIONAL TIES ARE TO IT.
SO CAN I SAY TWO SENTENCES, TWO SENTENCES? THANK YOU, HARRY.
ONE SENTENCE AT A LATER DAY, WASHINGTON SQUARE.
AND WE WILL DECIDE WHETHER THERE'S GOING TO BE A RESTAURANT, AN OFFICE BUILDING OR SOME OTHER USE.
AND WE'RE GOING TO DECIDE AT THAT POINT IN TIME, HOW MANY PARKING SPACES ARE GOING TO BE NEEDED, WE'RE GOING TO DECIDE THE CONFIGURATION AND THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING THAT IS GOING TO TAKE PLACE AS A DIFFERENT STEP.
AND WE HAVE AN ARB, A WHOLE SET OF CCNRS GUIDELINES, THE WHOLE BAILEY WICK OF CHECKS AND BALANCES TO MAKE SURE THAT IT GETS DONE RIGHT.
AND IT'S BEEN PROVEN AND IT'S TIME TESTED OVER THE LAST 20 YEARS AS A LONG.
UM, ANYTHING ELSE I'M AGREEING WITH TREY? I THERE'S A LOT OF FRUSTRATION HERE, BUT WE WOULDN'T BE HERE.
IF YOU HAD APPLIED FOR THE EXTENSION WHEN YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO APPLY FOR IT.
GOT TO SAY SOMETHING ON THAT WE WOULDN'T HAVE.
IF I, IF THAT DID NOT TAKE PLACE, WE WOULDN'T HAVE INTERCONNECTIVITY TO MISS THE BLUFF.
THE ONLY REASON THERE'S INTERCONNECTIVITY INSTEAD OF CONNECTIVITY, IF DOMESTIC BLUFF IS, I WAS A GOOD NEIGHBOR WITH REGARD TO THAT, THOSE TRUCKLOADS OF DIRT, I COULD HAVE TAKEN THAT DIRT I COULD HAVE.
I COULD HAVE UTILIZED IT AND DONE THIS.
MY QUESTION IS IF YOU HAD APPLIED FOR THE EXTENSION FOR THEIR PERMIT BEFORE IT RAN OUT, WOULD WE STILL BE HERE? I WOULDN'T.
IF THEY, IF THEY CAN PROVE THAT I, THAT THEY GOT THE EMAIL TO TOM'S IN.
AND I RECEIVED THAT EMAIL THAT SAID THAT HE WAS GOING TO EXTEND.
YOU GOT, YOU KNOW, I LOST A THROW OUT THE WHITE, WHITE FLAGS, BUT I DIDN'T GET THE EMAIL IF I GOT IT IN YOUR CALENDAR AND YOUR TICKLER FILE THAT THIS THING WAS COMING.
IT WAS, I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T, THAT WAS A MISTAKE IN TERMS OF MY COMPONENT OF, IT WAS A MISTAKE, THE NOTICE COMPONENT OF IT, BUT NO YOU'RE RIGHT.
IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN, IT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN, IT WAS NOT, IT WAS NOT INTENTIONAL.
WE, WE UNDERSTAND YOUR FRUSTRATION AND WE APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO.
BUT AS A PLANNING COMMISSION, WE ARE CHARGED WITH CERTAIN CRITERIA AND THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO BASE IT UPON.
I, SO, MATT, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENT QUESTION?
[01:25:03]
OKAY.SO DOES ANYONE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION MOVE THAT WE DENY THE APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED THERE? A SECOND SECOND, THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF DENIAL, PLEASE SAY AYE.
ON TO THE LAST NEW BUSINESS, CORRECT.
UM, IT'S A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE AMENDMENTS TO THE TOWN OF BLUFFTON CODE OF ORDINANCE CHAPTER 23, ARTICLE THREE, APPLICATION PROCESS, SECTION THREE POINT 19 SITE FEATURE HISTORIC DISTRICT IN SECTION 3.2, ONE SIGN PERMITS, ARTICLE FIVE DESIGN STANDARDS AND SECTION FIVE POINT 15.6 Q AN ARTICLE NINE.
YOU HAVE PRETTY MUCH INTRODUCED THIS FOR ME.
SO LET ME TELL YOU WHY WE ARE PROPOSING TO UPDATE OUR SIGN REGULATIONS.
UM, IT'S FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS, INCLUDING SUPPORTING OUR STRATEGIC PLAN.
UH, IT IS AN ACTION ITEM, UM, TO MAKE, UH, GOVERNMENT MORE EFFICIENT.
AND HIGH-PERFORMING, IF YOU'VE READ THROUGH OUR EXISTING STUDIO, THERE'S SOME VAGUENESS WITHIN THE EXISTING, UM, SIGNED SECTIONS THAT WE ARE LOOKING TO IMPROVE.
UM, SO WE ARE, UH, PROVIDING MORE COMPREHENSIVE REGULATIONS.
IT'S NOT A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE, EVEN THOUGH IT MAY LOOK LIKE IT.
UM, THERE'S SOME REFORMATTING THAT'S BEING PROPOSED.
WE ARE STREAMLINING SOME OF OUR PROCEDURES AND WE'RE ENSURING THAT OUR REGULATIONS ARE LEGALLY COMPLIANT AND THAT THEY'RE ALSO CONTENT NEUTRAL.
SO SIGNS ARE REGULATED IN TWO WAYS IN BLUFFTON.
AND AS YOU KNOW, UM, A GOOD PORTION OF THE COMMUNITY OF THE TOWN IS REGULATED BY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS, APPROXIMATELY 92%.
SO MOST SIGN REGULATIONS ARE VERY SPECIFIC TO, UH, THAT, TO A PARTICULAR PUD, UM, ANYWHERE WHERE SIGNS ARE NOT ADDRESSED BY THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, THEN THERE'S RELIANCE ON THE BEEF FOR COUNTY, UH, ZONING ORDINANCE.
UM, WE ARE SPECIFICALLY LOOKING AT THE, A PERCENT OF THE TOWN THAT IS REGULATED BY THE UTO.
AND THAT INCLUDES AREAS THAT ARE WITHIN OLD TOWN AND OLD TOWN HAS ITS OWN SPECIFIC SIGN REGULATIONS, AND THEN THERE'S EVERYWHERE ELSE.
SO, UH, THE SECTIONS THAT ARE PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED, UH, YOU SEE UP HERE INCLUDE SECTION FIVE, 14 SIGNS, AND THIS IS SOMEWHAT OF A GENERAL SECTION.
AND THEN THERE IS THE OLD TOWN BLUFFTON HISTORIC DISTRICT SIGN GUIDELINES, WHICH ARE PROPOSED TO SOMEWHAT RELATE BACK TO FIVE 13.
WE DON'T WANT A LOT OF REDUNDANCY IN THE ORDINANCE AND REPETITION.
UH, WE WILL, UM, UH, CROSS-REFERENCE BACK TO THAT SECTION AGAIN, I'LL EXPLAIN THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PERMITTING PORTION AS WELL FOR, UH, OLD TOWN BLUFFTON.
THE PERMIT PROCESS IS CALLED A SITE FEATURE PERMIT ACTUALLY PERMIT DOESN'T EXIST IN THE TITLE RIGHT NOW, BUT WE'RE PROPOSING TO CHANGE THAT.
AND THEN THERE'S A SPECIFIC SIGN PERMIT SECTION THAT ACTUALLY APPLIES TO THE EIGHT PER THAT THE REST OF TOWN OUTSIDE OF OLD TOWN.
AND IT ALSO APPLIES TO THE PUD.
SO I'M DON'T MEAN TO CONFUSE YOU, IT, IT, IT IS A LITTLE BIT CONFUSING.
AND THEN, UM, ADDITIONALLY, THERE ARE SOME TERMS, DEFINITIONS THAT WE WANT TO PROVIDE UPDATES TO AS WELL.
THERE ARE PORTIONS OF THE UTO THAT DO REFERENCE SIGNAGE, UM, BUT WE ARE NOT MAKING AMENDMENTS TO THOSE THAT INCLUDES THE LIGHTING SECTION.
THERE'S A, A PARTICULAR SUBSECTION RELATING TO, EXCUSE ME, SIGN ELIMINATION.
NON-CONFORMING SIGNS IS ANOTHER SECTION PENALTIES AND ENFORCEMENT.
NONE OF THESE THREE SECTIONS WILL BE, UH, ADDRESSED BY THE AMENDMENTS THAT ARE PROPOSED.
SO WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS PROVIDE A VERY HIGH LEVEL OVERVIEW OF WHAT'S CHANGING.
IF YOU'D LIKE TO GO INTO SPECIFIC CHANGES TO THE TEXT, WE CAN DO THAT.
UM, BUT RIGHT NOW I JUST WANT TO HIT UPON THE THINGS THAT ARE CHANGING AND EACH SECTION.
SO AS YOU SEE ON THE COLUMN TO THE LEFT, UM, THERE'S OUR CURRENT, UH, SIGN SECTION, AGAIN, THIS RELATES TO EVERYWHERE EXCEPT OLD TOWN AND NOT THE PUD.
AND AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE VARIOUS SUB SECTIONS, UM, THE WAY IT'S ORGANIZED IS SOMEWHAT CONFUSING.
SO THE PROPOSAL IS TO REORGANIZE WHAT YOU SEE THERE.
SO FOR EXAMPLE, UM, WALL SIGNS, DIRECTORY SIGNS,
[01:30:01]
PERMISSIBLE SIGNS WILL NOW BECOME PERMANENT SIGNAGE AND, UH, SETBACKS FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY SIGN MATERIALS WOULD THEN BE UNDER GENERAL REQUIREMENTS.SO THE, THE REFORMATTING, I THINK WILL HELP READERS FIND INFORMATION MUCH MORE QUICKLY.
AND I THINK IT'LL HELP STAFF AS WELL.
SO, UH, SOME OF THE HIGHLIGHTS HERE WITH THE BULLET POINTS, UM, IMPROVED, UH, INTENT STATEMENTS, INCLUDING STATEMENTS RELATING TO CONTENT NEUTRALITY, UH, NON-DISCRIMINATORY REGULATIONS, AS WELL AS THE PROTECTION OF FREE SPEECH.
AND THIS HAS BEEN SOMEWHAT OF A BIG ISSUE FOR THE PAST SIX YEARS OR SO, UM, UH, DUE TO A SUPREME COURT CASE, UH, RELATING TO, UH, SIGNAGE AND IT'S SMALL TOWN IN ARIZONA.
AND, UM, AS A RESULT OF THAT, UM, THE WAY COMMUNITIES APPROACH THE SIGNS SECTION OF YOUR ZONING ORDINANCES IS CHANGE.
UM, SO WE ARE SIMPLY DOING WHAT A LOT OF OTHER COMMUNITIES HAVE DONE AND WE'RE CLEANING UP OUR ORDINANCE.
UM, AGAIN, THE CROSS-REFERENCING WILL HELP THE READER IDENTIFY OTHER SECTIONS OF THE ORDINANCE THAT MAY APPLY.
WE DON'T HAVE ALL OF THIS INFORMATION, UNFORTUNATELY UNDER ONE SECTION, UH, OF THE UTO.
SO I THINK THIS WILL HELP, UH, READERS, UH, UH, SUBSTANTIALLY THE EXEMPT AND PROHIBITED SIGN SECTIONS.
AREN'T CHANGING MUCH, AGAIN, WE'RE JUST ELIMINATING ANY VAGUENESS THAT MIGHT BE IN THOSE SECTIONS.
UH, THE PERMANENT SIGNS SECTION, UM, IS WHERE I THINK, UH, TH THE, THE MOST IMPROVEMENTS WILL OCCUR RIGHT NOW.
WE REFERENCED FREE STANDING AND BUILDING SIGNS, BUT WE DON'T SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFY THE SIGN TIGHTS.
UM, SO WE'RE GOING TO PROPOSE AMENDMENTS TO THAT.
THERE'S NOT A LOT OF CHANGE TO OUR TEMPORARY SIGNS SECTION, UH, MOSTLY REMOVING REPETITIVE LANGUAGE IN THAT SECTION.
UM, THE OFF-PREMISE SIGNS SECTION RELATING TO PDS WILL REMAIN, AND WE'RE A SIGN MAINTENANCE SECTION.
UM, THAT INCLUDES MINIMUM CONDITIONS THAT HAVE TO BE MET, UH, AND, UM, THAT A BUSINESS WOULD HAVE TO BE OPERATIONAL IF, UH, IT CEASES AFTER 30 DAYS, THEN WE COULD REQUIRE THE SIGN TO BE REMOVED.
UM, THE LEGAL, UH, HIGHLIGHTS HERE THAT I MENTIONED THE CONTENT NEUTRAL APPROACH.
WE ARE FOCUSING MORE ON THE NON-COMMUNITY NON-COMMUNICATIVE ASPECTS OF SIGN REGULATION.
BASICALLY THE TIME THAT SIGNAGE CAN BE, UH, PLACED OUT, INCLUDING THE TEMPORARY SIGN REQUIREMENTS, UM, THE MANNER THAT SIZE, HOW IT MIGHT BE ILLUMINATED.
UM, AND WE ALSO INCLUDE A PORTION OF THE UDA OR RECOMMENDING THAT WE INCLUDE, UM, UH, LANGUAGE IN THE EDO THAT RELATES TO ALLOWING A SUBSTITUTION CLAUSE, UM, THAT CAN WORK COMMERCIAL MESSAGES CAN BE SUBSTITUTED FOR NON-COMMERCIAL MESSAGES, AND THAT WAY ALL SPEECH IS TREATED, TREATED EQUALLY.
WE ALSO HAVE A SEVERABILITY SECTION, AND THIS IS SUGGESTED, UH, BY RICHARDSON, UM, THAT, UH, IF ANY PROVISIONS OF THE SIGN RELATED SECTIONS ARE FOUND TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL OR INVALID, THAT IT WOULDN'T INVALIDATE OTHER SECTIONS OF THE UTO.
UM, AND THAT'S SOMETHING, UM, MOST SIGNS SECTIONS DO YOU HAVE? AND IF I MAY JUST TO EXPLAIN THE, THE RATIONALITY BEHIND THAT, UH, THE SUPREME COURT CASE THAT, UM, CHARLOTTE MENTIONED WAS, YOU KNOW, DECIDED AND ARGUED BY SOME, SOME INCREDIBLY BRILLIANT LEGAL MINDS THAT DID NOT APPLY A LOT OF PRACTICALITY TO IT.
AND IT'S VERY HARD TO UNDERSTAND AND PUT INTO PRACTICE.
IT HAD TO DO WITH SOME VERY KIND OF EXTREMELY HIGH LEVEL FIRST AMENDMENT CONCERNS.
AND THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF DEBATE, A LOT OF CONCERN ABOUT, WELL, HOW DO WE TAKE THAT AND ACTUALLY INCORPORATE IT INTO A SIGN ORDINANCE THAT IS APPARENTLY CONSTITUTIONAL.
AND THERE'S A TON OF DISAGREEMENT ON THAT.
UM, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT STATES THAT HAVE TRIED TO PUT OUT MODEL SIGN ORDINANCES, AND THEY ALL DIFFER QUITE A GOOD BIT.
SO THIS IS REALLY TO PROTECT IN THE EVENT THAT A SINGLE PORTION OF IT IS SOMEHOW DETERMINED TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON FIRST AMENDMENT GROUNDS IN THE FUTURE THAT THE REST OF THE SIGN ORDINANCE CAN CONTINUE TO STAY IN PLACE, BUT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH, UH, AN ANALYSIS OF THE WORK THAT STAFF DID AND PUTTING THIS TOGETHER.
UM, IT, IT, I THINK THAT THEY DID A WONDERFUL JOB.
LET ME MOVE ON TO OUR SIGN PERMIT SECTION, AS YOU CAN SEE, I'VE GOT TWO COLUMNS.
THEY ARE BASICALLY SHOWING THAT THE FORMAT, UM, REMAINS THE SAME.
UM, THE ONLY THING THAT'S CHANGING THERE IS INCLUDING CROSS-REFERENCES TO OTHER SECTIONS OF THE, UM, UTO AND, AND
[01:35:02]
WITH OLD, EXCUSE ME, I FEEL LIKE I FORGOT SOMETHING THERE.SECTION WOULD BE, UM, RELATED TO OLD TOWN.
AGAIN, OLD TOWN HAS ITS OWN SPECIFIC SIGN REQUIREMENTS, WHICH, UM, AS YOU CAN SEE THERE FROM THE LEFT-HAND COLUMN, AGAIN, IT'S, IT'S A LITTLE UNCLEAR THESE SUBSECTIONS, HOW YOU WOULD FIND WHAT, UM, SIGNS ARE PERMITTED.
SO THE PROPOSED FORMAT WOULD FOLLOW SOMETHING SIMILAR TO WHAT I SHOWED YOU FOR SECTION FIVE, 13 EXEMPT SIGNS, PROHIBITED SIGNS, TEMPORARY SIGNS, MASTER SIGNED PLAN WILL ALL REFERENCE BACK TO FIVE 13.
UM, THERE IS NO MENTION RIGHT NOW OF THOSE IN, UH, IN OLD TOWN.
UM, THE PERMANENT SIGNS ARE GOING TO BE REORGANIZED A LITTLE BIT, SO THAT IT'S CLEAR WHAT'S PERMITTED RIGHT NOW.
UM, FREE STANDING SIGNS ARE REFERENCED AS MONUMENT SIGNS, AND THAT'S A PARTICULAR SIGN TYPE THAT REQUIRES A BASE THAT THE SIGN SITS ON.
AND AS YOU KNOW, FROM DRIVING AROUND OLD TOWN, WE HAVE OTHER SITES, OTHER TYPES OF FREE STANDING SIGNS, ANYTHING FROM A, WHAT WE'RE CALLING A POST AND ARM, KIND OF THE REAL ESTATE SIGN THAT THE HANG WITH THE SIGN HANGING DOWN.
UM, WE ALSO HAVE DOUBLE POST SIGNS OR, UM, COLUMN SIGNS.
UM, WE'RE JUST MAKING CERTAIN THAT THE READER UNDERSTANDS THAT THOSE OTHER SIGN TYPES ARE PERMITTED.
UH, WHAT WE HAVE FOR BUILDING SIGNS, IT'S REFERENCED AS WALL SIGNS, WHILE SIGNS IS A SIGN TYPE.
AND, UH, IT IS A PROPOSED CHANGE TO BUILDING SIGNS WITH, UM, A VARIETY OF BUILDING SIGNS, ALLOWED WALL SIGNAGE, WINDOW SIGNAGE, AWNING SIGNS, CANOPY SIGNS, AND PROJECTING SIGNS.
UM, THERE IS THE ABILITY TO HAVE SOME OTHER SIGNS ON THE BUILDING AS WELL, BUT THEY FALL UNDER THE EXEMPT CATEGORY AND WOULD NOT REQUIRE A SITE FEATURE PERMIT.
AND WE ARE ADDING, UH, PROPOSING A MASTER SIGN PLAN REQUIREMENT.
AND THAT'S CERTAINLY GOING TO HELP WHEN WE HAVE DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE MORE THAN ONE BUSINESS, WE CAN REQUIRE THAT UPFRONT AND HAVE THE SIGNS CHANGE OUT.
WE CAN, UM, IDENTIFY HOW MUCH SIGNAGE THERE IS ON A BUILDING.
SO THAT'LL HELP STAFF AT THE SITE FEATURE, HISTORIC DISTRICT PERMIT.
AGAIN, WE'RE ADDING THE WORD PERMIT TO THE TITLE.
UM, THIS PERMIT ACTUALLY COVERS A VARIETY OF THINGS, NOT JUST SIGNAGE.
UM, BUT THESE ARE THINGS THAT STAFF WOULD REVIEW AND DON'T REQUIRE REVIEW BY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION.
UM, ANYTHING FROM SIGNS TO MODIFICATIONS, TO SITE ELEMENTS, WHICH COULD BE PARKING LOTS OR LIGHTING GARDEN STRUCTURES, STRUCTURES INTENDED TO, UM, SCREEN, UH, MECHANICAL AREAS, MAINTENANCE, AND REPAIR TO THE EXTERIOR THAT DOESN'T CHANGE.
UM, THE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES.
SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN SIGNS.
THIS IS MORE THAN JUST A SIGNED PERMIT.
SO I WANTED TO MAKE CERTAIN, YOU UNDERSTOOD THAT AGAIN, THIS IS A STREAMLINING OF THE SECTION, AND THEN CROSS-REFERENCING OTHER PARTS OF THE STUDIO.
AND THEN FINALLY OUR LAST SECTION THAT'S PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED OR THE DEFINITIONS.
UM, SOME DEFINITIONS ARE PROPOSED TO BE REVISED, WHICH I'VE IDENTIFIED HERE.
UM, SOME NEW DEFINITIONS ARE PROPOSED.
I TALKED ABOUT THE COMMERCIAL MESSAGE AND NON-COMMERCIAL NON-COMMERCIAL MESSAGE WHEN IT MAKES CERTAIN THAT THE READER UNDERSTANDS THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THOSE.
WE ALSO USE THE TERMINOLOGY FOR SIGN AREA IN SIGN PHASE.
SO WE THOUGHT IT WAS NECESSARY TO INCLUDE DEFINITIONS FOR THAT.
AND THEN, UM, WE WERE PROPOSING THE ELIMINATION OF SOME DEFINITIONS, UM, THAT AREN'T ACTUALLY USED IN THE BODY OF THE UTO.
SO THESE DID NOT SEEM NECESSARY TO KEEP, UM, AND I'M GOING TO SKIP ON TO WHAT THE REVIEW CRITERIA IS FOR A TEXT AMENDMENT, BUT IF YOU WANT TO REVIEW ANYTHING SPECIFIC, UM, REGARDING THE, UH, TEXT AMENDMENTS THAT ARE PROPOSED, WE CAN DO THAT.
THERE ARE FIVE CRITERIA THAT HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED WHEN LOOKING AT A TEXT AMENDMENT, UM, CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH THESE UDL AMENDMENTS ARE.
UM, THESE ARE, UM, UH, MINOR ADJUSTMENTS TO HELP WITH THE LONG-TERM VISION OF THE TOWN.
UM, WITH REGARD TO DEMOCRAT DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES, PREVAILING ECONOMIC TRENDS.
IT'S NOT SO MUCH ASSOCIATED WITH THAT.
UM, BUT I THINK WE COULD, UH, SAY THAT IT DOES FURTHER BEST PLANNING PRACTICES BY INCLUDING THE CONTENT NEUTRALITY LANGUAGE AND MAKING CERTAIN THAT IT'S LEGALLY COMPLIANT.
UM, SIGNAGE DOES ENHANCE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE.
UM, THIS IS A CONCERN PERHAPS RELATED TO MOTORISTS, NOTHING THAT'S DISTRACTING TO MOTORISTS.
SO FOR EXAMPLE, WE DO NOT PERMIT, UH, ANIMATED SIGNS WITHIN THE TOWN.
[01:40:01]
UM, SO, UH, IT CERTAINLY FURTHERS THAT CRITERIA.UM, THERE IS NO RELATIONSHIP TO PUBLIC SERVICES AND IT DOES COMPLY WITH THE APPLICATIONS MANUAL.
UM, SO FOLLOWING UP, YOU CAN APPROVE THE AMENDMENTS AS THEY'VE BEEN PROPOSED.
YOU CAN MAKE AMENDMENTS, UM, TO WHAT'S BEEN PROVIDED, OR YOU CAN DENY THE, UH, THE PROPOSAL, ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR CHARLOTTE CLARIFICATION'S UM, I HAVE ONE QUESTION RIGHT NOW, UM, THE SIGN AREA AND SIGNED FACE DEFINITIONS.
I JUST WANT TO GET AN UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THOSE ARE CONSIDERED DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT AND CAUSE I'M SURE THEY'RE REFERENCED IN SOME MECHANISM WITHIN THE DOCUMENT ITSELF AS TO HOW THOSE ARE APPLICABLE.
UM, THE SCENARIO LOOKS VERY SIMILAR TO HOW THE COUNTY HAS THEIR STRUCTURE, BUT THEY HAVE, I'VE GONE ROUND AND ROUND WITH THE COUNTY IN TERMS OF HOW THEY INTERPRET THEIR SIGN AREA AND SIGN FACE AREA AND THE WHOLE.
SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I'M CLEAR ON THE DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS OR HOW YOU VIEW SIGN AREA VERSUS SIGN FACE.
SO YOU ACTUALLY IDENTIFYING SOMETHING THAT I IDENTIFIED BEFORE THE MEETING, WHEN I WAS GOING THROUGH THIS, I THINK BOTH DEFINITIONS LOOK VERY SIMILAR AND THEY NEED TO BE MADE MORE DISTINCT.
AND TYPICALLY WHEN I USE SIGN FACE, I'M REFERENCING THE SINGULAR FACE SIGN AREA USUALLY MEANS THE ENTIRETY OF THE SIGN.
IT COULD BE THE, UH, THE MULTIPLE PANELS.
AND I DO THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED.
SO I WOULD LIKE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR STAFF TO BE ABLE TO CORRECT THAT.
UM, AND RIGHT NOW I DON'T HAVE LANGUAGE, UM, TO PROVIDE TO YOU, BUT PERHAPS IF THE COMMISSION WOULD ALLOW STAFF TO MAKE CORRECTION, UM, THAT, THAT WE WOULD FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH.
AND JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THIS IS STILL GOING TO TOWN COUNCIL FOR TWO READINGS AFTER THIS, IT WILL, IT WILL.
SO RIGHT NOW IT'S PROPOSED TO MOVE FORWARD TO COUNCIL FOR FIRST READING ON THE 13TH AND THEN FOR ADOPTIONS SECOND READING ON AUGUST 10TH.
SO THERE'S STILL LIKELY THAT SOME THINGS MIGHT BE MODIFIED BY STAFF IN AN, IN ADDITION TO EVEN WHAT WE MIGHT BE COMMENTING ON APPEARANCE NOW, IS THAT, OR IS THIS NORMALLY, UM, ANY MODIFICATIONS WOULD BE BASED OFF OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION? SO IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MADE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MODIFICATIONS, WE WOULD PRESENT THAT TO PLANNING COMMISSION.
SO WE WOULD, WE WOULD UPDATE THE DOCUMENT, BUT THEN ALSO, YOU KNOW, PUT THAT ORIGINAL, UH, INFORMATION IN THERE AS WELL, JUST SO THAT WAY THEY COULD SEE PRE PRE PLANNING COMMISSION AS WELL AS KIND OF LIKE ANY COMMISSION.
SO IN YOUR RECOMMENDATION, YOU WOULD COMMENT ON THAT CLARIFYING CHASE AREAS VERSUS, OKAY.
DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? ALL RIGHT.
SO THEN WE WOULD NEED TO MAKE A MOTION OR RECOMMENDATION TO TOWN COUNCIL, CORRECT? CORRECT.
WITH THE, WHAT THE, UH, PROVISION THAT WE, UH, ADJUST THE LANGUAGE FOR SIGN AREA IN SIGN PHASE.
SO KATHLEEN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE THAT? UM, YEAH, JUST ONE MORE QUESTION IN TERMS OF WHERE THAT SIGN AREA AND SIGN FACE, UM, VERBIAGE IS USED IN THIS, DO YOU KNOW, DO YOU HAVE A POINT OF REFERENCE AS TO WHERE THAT MIGHT BE? IT'S USUALLY, UM, I THINK WE'RE OFTEN THAT I'M, I'M LOOKING BACK AT WE'RE THINKING BACK, UM, SIGN FACE IS MORE TYPICALLY USED, UM, IN THE D IT'S IN THE DIMENSIONS, THE REQUIREMENTS FOR EACH SIGN TYPE IT'S SPECIFIED.
UM, ONE THING THAT, UM, WELL, THERE WAS A COUPLE OF ONE THING THAT I SAW, UH, THERE WAS SOME DEFINITIONS ABOUT PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY SIGN, UH, SANDWICH BOARDS.
I DIDN'T SEE MENTIONED AS A SPECIFIC QUALIFIER IN TERMS OF TEMPORARY SIGN.
AND I THOUGHT THAT MAY BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL AND I IT'S ENTIRELY POSSIBLE I COULD HAVE MISSED IT.
AND IT'S REFERRED TO NOW AND SUPPORTABLE SIGN, THEY'RE CALLING, YOU'RE CALLING IT A PORT, A PORTABLE SIGN.
YOU KNOW WHAT PAGE IT IS? THAT'S IN THE DEFINITIONS IS THAT, SO IT ISN'T THE DEFINITION SECTION AND IT ISN'T THE TEMPORARY SIGN TYPES SINCE IN, UM, FIVE 13.
AND I'M SORRY, THE PAGE NUMBERS GOT A LITTLE CHANGE HERE.
SO IT'S JUST COVERED UNDER THE, ANY SIGN IT'S ON PAGE 66.
SO IT WOULD FALL UNDER TEMPORARY SIGNAGE.
[01:45:01]
USE OF THE TERM PORTABLE WAS INTENDED TO REALLY GET AT ANY TYPES OF, UM, SANDWICH BOARD A-FRAME SIGNAGE OR, OR H FRAME SIGNS.UM, AND THESE WOULD HAVE TO BE BROUGHT IN NIGHTLY.
UM, AND I THINK I SAW IN HERE SIGNS WHERE YOU'RE, IT'S A, THOSE KIND OF HANGING BANNERS THAT YOU'VE GOT KIND OF, YOU KNOW, YOU PUT THEM IN THE GROUND, THEY'D COME UP, THEY'D GET BUSINESS NAME ON IT.
THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE ALLOWED UNDER THIS KIND OF CORRECT.
UM, AND ANY PROPERTY THAT FALLS UNDER THE UTO? CORRECT.
SO IF YOU'RE UNDER A PUD THAT STILL COULD BE ALLOWED UNDER THE PUD, BUT IF IT'S UNDER THE PROPERTY, THAT'S UNDER THE UDL NOT BE ALLOWED.
AND THINGS LIKE DRIVERS WANTED SIGNS THAT ARE TEMPORARY CURRENTLY PERMANENTLY IN THE GROUND IN FRONT OF BUSINESSES.
THOSE ARE NOT PERMITTED NOW AND WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED UNDER THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE.
AND, BUT THE POLITICAL SIGNS, THAT KIND OF THING IS STILL IS STILL 10 MINUTES PER A TIME LINE.
UM, ANOTHER THING I NOTICED, UM, AND THIS WAS TOWARDS THE BEGINNING OF THE PACKAGE, UM, AND IT'S NOT IN THE, I DIDN'T HEAR SO MUCH TO GO THROUGH I, AND MAKE IT ALL THE WAY.
UM, THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT REMOVING, UH, NOT ALLOWING HISTORIC STRUCTURES TO BE LABELED ON SIGNS OUTSIDE OF THE HISTORIC AREA.
WELL, NO, THAT'S AN EXEMPT SIGN.
AND IT'S PERMITTED UNDER THE PROPOSAL.
SO THAT IS LOCATED ON PAGE 60.
YOU'RE SAYING UNDER, FOR THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, WHAT I'M REFERRING TO IS ON PAGE 50 WHERE THEY TALK ABOUT, UM, AND MAYBE I'M, MAYBE I, PERHAPS I MISREAD IT.
UH, I THOUGHT IT SAID A NON-RELATED NON-RELATED SIGN AMENDMENT TO THIS SECTION INCLUDES REMOVING THE REFERENCE TO HISTORIC STRUCTURES OUTSIDE OF OLD TOWN, AS IT PROCESS, NOT YET EXIST TO IDENTIFY SUCH STRUCTURES.
IT SOUNDED IF, AND PERHAPS I MISREAD THIS, THAT IF YOU'RE ONLY ALLOWED TO WRITE IN A HISTORIC ON YOUR PROPERTY, IF YOU'RE A HISTORIC SITE WITHIN THE OLD TOWN, BLUFFTON, AND I'M SORRY FOR THE CONFUSION ON THAT.
SO THIS RELATES TO THE SITE FEATURE PERMIT AND THE SITE FEATURE PERMIT RIGHT NOW, AS IT READS IS FOR OLD TOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT AND HISTORIC STRUCTURES THAT MAY BE LOCATED OUTSIDE OF OLD TOWN.
WE DON'T HAVE ANY OF THOSE RIGHT NOW IDENTIFIED.
AND WE DON'T HAVE REVIEW CRITERIA, EVEN IF WE DID.
SO FOR THE TIME BEING WE'VE REMOVED THAT, UM, I'M NOT CERTAIN WHY THAT HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN THE SITE FEATURE PERMIT.
UM, BUT WE PRESENTLY DON'T REVIEW HISTORIC STRUCTURES.
SO HYPOTHETICALLY I HAVE A PROPERTY THAT'S OUTSIDE OF OLD TOWN, BLUFFTON OUTSIDE OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
UM, SO IT'S NOT BEEN REVIEWED BY THE HISTORIC DISTRICT PRESERVATION BOARD OR ANYTHING, BUT IT HAS, IT FALLS UNDER A STATE OR A FEDERAL JURISDICTION.
AND I AM DOING IT, LET'S SAY I'M DOING, UH, A BED AND BREAKFAST AND I'VE GOT A HISTORIC PROP, YOU KNOW, STRUCTURE THAT EXISTS ON SITE THAT'S FEDERALLY OR STATE RECOGNIZED.
I COULD PUT A SIGN OUT IN FRONT OF THAT, THAT SAYS IT'S A HISTORIC SITE.
SO IT'S EXEMPT WHETHER OR NOT IT'S AN OLD TOWN OR OUTSIDE OF OLD TOWN.
I'M JUST MAKING SURE I DIDN'T HAVE ANY OTHER, I THINK, I THINK THAT'S IT.
WELL, DO YOU WANT TO MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION WITH THOSE ITEMS? YES.
MAKE A MOTION TO, UM, APPROVE THE APPLICATION WITH RECOMMENDATION, CORRECT.
IS THAT HOW SHE NEEDS TO WORD IT AS A RECOMMENDATION? I MAKE A RECOMMENDATION FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION WITH THE AMENDMENT TO ADDRESS UNDER THE DEFINITIONS, UH, DISTINGUISH ADDRESS THE DEFINITIONS OF SIGN FACE AND SIGN AREA.
I CAN TRY TO
[01:50:02]
WE DEAL WITH THAT OR ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, AYE.DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION, KEVIN? OKAY.
WANT TO TALK TO US AND TO HERE, UM, WHILE IT'S NOT LISTED ON HERE.
UM, UM, TWO OF YOU ARE LEAVING US THIS EVENING, SO, UM, TERRY HANOCK AND, UH, TREY GRIFFIN.
UH, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR ALL OF THE YEARS OF SERVICE THAT YOU HAVE PROVIDED TO US ON THIS BOARD.
UH, HEATHER'S PROVIDING SOMETHING FOR BOTH OF YOU, UM, JUST A SMALL TOKEN OF OUR APPRECIATION FOR ALL THAT YOU'VE DONE FOR US.
AND IF, IF, IF BOTH OF YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING REAL QUICK, WE WOULD APPRECIATE IT.
NOW YOU HAVE TO, UH, IT'S JUST BEEN AN HONOR AND A JOY TO, UH, BE, UH, BE A PART OF, UH, WHAT HAPPENS HERE IN THIS DOWN AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE STAFF YOU GUYS HAVE PUT UP WITH ME FOR SO LONG WITH MY, MY CALLS, UH, ASKING YOU CRAZY QUESTIONS AND EVERYTHING, AND I DEEPLY APPRECIATE IT.
I CAN STILL CALL WITH CRAZY QUESTIONS.
KEVIN LOVES THEM, DO IT ALL THE TIME.
THANK YOU FOR PULLING ME OUT OF THE FIRE A FEW TIMES.
BEEN MY PLEASURE, RIGHT? I'LL JUST SECOND.
I'LL MAKE IT EASY, BUT I APPRECIATE EVERYTHING YOU DO.
UM, RICHARD DELCOR IS ACTUALLY IN THE AUDIENCE RIGHT NOW.
UM, SO WE HAD AN ORIENTATION EARLIER TODAY, SO, UH, HE'LL BE, UH, UP ON THE DICE, UH, STARTING NEXT MONTH, UH, AS WELL AS A INDIVIDUAL NAMED JASON STEWART.
UH, HE IS ACTUALLY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR FOR RINCON.
UM, SO HE'S BEEN, UH, WORKING IN MUNICIPAL PLANNING FOR A VERY LONG TIME.
SO, UM, YEAH, SO, UM, WE GOT SOMEBODY WHO KNOWS WHAT THEY'RE UM, SO THEY'LL, THERE'LL BE UP THERE WITH YOU GUYS, UH, STARTING NEXT MONTH.
I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE MOTION.
YOU WANT TO SECOND THAT I THINK EVERYBODY'S IN FAVOR.