Feb 23, 2022 Town of Bluffton Planning Commission

[I. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:11]

TO ORDER WEDNESDAY FEBRUARY THE TWENTY THIRD AT THE PARK. >> MAY I HAVE A ROLL PLEASE? MR. HERE LOOK OVER HERE. SURE. JASON STEWART.

HERE IS YOUR ACCOUNT, DUNCAN HERE. MR. RICH DUNBAR HERE.

NOTICE REGARDING THE INTERNMENT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL NOT YOUR NEW ITEMS AFTER 930 UNLESS AUTHORIZED BY MAJORITY VOTE OF THE COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT ITEMS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN HEARD BEFORE 930 MAY BE CONTINUEDT REGULAR MEETING OR SPECIAL MEETING DATE AS DETERMINED BY THE COMMISSION MEMBERS NOTICE REGARDING PUBLIC COMMENT EVERY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO IS RECOGNIZED TO SPEAK SHALL ADDRESS THE CHAIRMAN AND IN SPEAKING AVOID DISRESPECT TO THE COMMISSION STAFF OR OTHER MEMBERS OF THE MEETING.

STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS IS SPEAKING FOR THE RECORD. COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE

[V. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA]

AND NOW ON TO THE ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA AND I HEAR THAT WE NEED TO AMEND AGENDA ITEM

NUMBER TWO ON NEW BUSINESS TO THE OLD BUSINESS CATEGORY. >> YES.

IS THIS I WASN'T STABLE AT THE LAST MEETING HAD IT NOT ON SONG.

YES. I MOVE THAT WE ADOPT THE AGENDA WITH THE AFOREMENTIONED CHANGE . SO ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ALL IN FAVOR.

[VI. ADOPTION OF MINUTES]

YES. YOU ALWAYS HAVE SOMETHING ON IT WAS NOTHING.

YOU HAD ONE PART BUT I'M LETTING GO. >> SO NOW WE HAVE PUBLIC

[IX.2. Unified Development Ordinance Amendments (Public Hearing)]

COMMENTS, RIGHT? >> NOT ON THEIR AGENDA. WE STILL DON'T HAVE ANY OF THAT. SO WE WILL MOVE ON TO OLD BUSINESS.

>> I'M SURE WE'LL BE PRESENTING. THANK YOU.

THIS IS AGAIN THIS IS OLD BUSINESS WAS CONTINUED FROM OUR JANUARY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND THIS RELATES TO PROVIDING ADDITIONAL TREES IN CHAD BEFORE YOU START.

>> SORRY, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. SO I NEED TO OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC HEARING. SO. OH, RIGHT.

IS THIS PUBLIC HEARING NEEDED IN THE FIRST CALL? >> I AM DOING THE FIRST CALL

FOR PUBLIC COMMENT THAT CAN CALL THIRD CALL. >> WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING . RIGHT. THANK YOU.

AGAIN, THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM THE JANUARY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING IN ORDER TO ALLOW STAFF SOME ADDITIONAL TIME TO ADDRESS SOME QUESTIONS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAD AND THIS IS AMENDMENTS TO SECTION FIVE POINT THREE NATURAL RESOURCES TREE CONSERVATION PLANTING AND LANDSCAPING AND SPECIFICALLY TO SECTION FIVE POINT 3 3 5 POINT 3 7 IN 5 POINT 3 8 AS WE INDICATED BACK IN JANUARY. THERE HAS BEEN INCREASING CONCERN ABOUT THE LOSS OF TREES TREE COVERAGE THROUGHOUT TOWN. AND AS YOU MAY RECALL BACK IN SEPTEMBER 2021 THE TOWN ADOPTED A REVISED STORMWATER ORDINANCE THAT MADE REFERENCE TO TREE CONSERVATION AS PART OF A BETTER SITE DESIGN PRACTICES FOR STORMWATER AND CONSERVING TREES OF COURSE HELPS WITH INFILTRATION. STORMWATER RUNOFF PREVENTS POLLUTANTS FROM GETTING INTO BE AFFECTING WATER QUALITY AND MY AMONG OTHER THINGS.

>> SO WHAT WE'D LIKE TO DO IS CONNECT THE STORMWATER ORDINANCE REVISED ORDINANCE WITH OUR SECTION FIVE POINT THREE OF THE TREE CONSERVATION ORDINANCE AND WHAT WE'VE DONE WE'VE IDENTIFIED WAYS TO ADDRESS REPLACEMENT OF REMOVE TREES.

WHAT I WANT TO DO IS JUST HIGHLIGHT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AND IF WE NEED TO GO THROUGH THE ACTUAL TEXT AMENDMENTS WE CAN DO THAT. AND I DO WANT TO INDICATE ALSO THAT THE REPORT THAT WAS GIVEN TO YOU, THE REPORT THAT WENT OUT AND THE AMENDMENTS THAT

[00:05:04]

SO AGAIN, LET ME JUST HAND OUT I DO I DO HAVE HANGOUTS HERE. SO LET ME JUST HIGHLIGHT THE CHANGES THAT WE'RE PROPOSING WITH REGARD TO REPLACEMENT. I REMOVE TREES.

SO CURRENTLY AS YOU KNOW, THE AUDIO APPLIES TO A PERCENT OF THE LAND AREA AND TOWNS DOES NOT INCLUDE PLAN UNITS DEVELOPMENTS. HOWEVER, WITH THE CHANGE THE REVISED WATER ORDINANCE, THE TREE CONSERVATION ORDINANCE WHAT COULD ALSO APPLY? TOWN WIDE SO THE CURRENT REQUIREMENT FOR TREE COVERAGE AT PER THE UDA WAS SEVENTY 75 PERCENT OF A SITE. THERE IS NO SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT FOR TREES TO BE REPLACED ONLY THAT TO 75 PERCENT TREE COVERAGE BE MAINTAINED.

WHAT WE'D LIKE TO DO IS TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN SITES THAT ARE SMALLER THAN ACRE AND LARGER THAN AN ACRE. SO FOR A SITE THAT WOULD BE LESS THAN AN ACRE WE PROPOSE KEEPING THE 75 PERCENT TREE COVERAGE REQUIREMENT AND THIS WILL GET AT THE SMALLER PLOTS WE HAVE IN OLD TOWN FOR EXAMPLE. SO THAT WOULD BE MAINTAINED AND THEN OUT OR ANY LOT THAT'S AN ACRE OR LARGER AND THERE WOULD BE A REQUIREMENT FOR 15 TREES TO EITHER BE PLANTED OR RETAINED ON SITE AND ANY TREE WITHIN AN EXISTING BUFFER OR A PROPOSED BUFFER WOULD NOT COUNT TOWARDS THAT REQUIREMENT. AND AGAIN THIS RELATES BACK TO THE STORMWATER ORDINANCE AND THE ATTEMPT TO PROVIDE FOR MORE TREES TO HELP WITH THOSE STORMWATER ISSUES. WE HAVE A SECTION ALSO THAT WE ARE PROPOSING A REPLACEMENT OF PROTECTED TREES OR PROTECTED TREES ARE IDENTIFIED HERE IN THIS COLUMN.

THEY INCLUDE SIGNIFICANT TREES THAT ARE 24 INCHES DIAMETER AT REST HEIGHT OR GREATER.

AND FOR EVERY SIGNIFICANT TREE THAT WOULD BE REMOVED THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE FIVE TREES PLANTED OR IN ITS PLACE OR THREE TREES THAT ARE A LITTLE BIT LARGER WITH A SIX INCH CALIBER MINIMUM CALIPER THAT'S REQUIRED BY THE TOWN IS TWO AND A HALF INCH.

AND WITH THIS PROPOSAL WE MAY BE ABLE TO GET SOME LARGER TREES ANY TREE LESS THAN 24 INCHES, 18 INCHES OR LESS THAN 24 WOULD REQUIRE THREE TREES AND THEN I'M NOT GOING TO READ THE WHOLE STORY THERE BUT YOU CAN SEE AND THE LARGER TREES WOULD REQUIRE MORE REPLACEMENT TREES. SO THAT'S A SECOND HIGHLIGHT OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AND THEN THE FEE IN LIEU OF TREE PLANTING. WE TALKED ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT LAST TIME TOO. THIS WOULD BE BASED ON MARKET RATE.

THE FEE IS BASED ON THE CALIPER INSTANT MARKET RATE AND THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE PURCHASE INSTALLATION AND ONE YEAR MAINTENANCE. IT'S NOT POSSIBLE TO GET ALL TREES ON THIS SITE AS DETERMINED BY THE VIDEO ADMINISTRATOR.

THERE WOULD BE A REQUIREMENT THAT THERE BE PAYMENT INTO THE BLUFF TOWN A TRUCK TOWN OF BLUFFTON TO REFUND AND THAT WOULD HELP THAT PLANTINGS ON PUBLIC PROPERTY AND TO MAINTAIN

THE TREES ON PUBLIC PROPERTY. >> SO THOSE ARE THE HIGHLIGHTS OF THE ORDINANCE AND IF YOU LIKE AND BEFORE I GO THROUGH THE SYSTEM AND THE CRITERIA I CAN PULL UP THE AMENDMENTS IF YOU'D LIKE TO WALK THROUGH THAT ,DO THAT QUICKLY. LET ME MAKE THIS LARGER SO THERE ARE SOME MINOR AMENDMENTS HERE. THE SECTION FIVE POINT THREE THREE TREE CONSERVATION SECTION 4 AND THIS IS JUST A SETUP THAT THE FACT THAT THERE IS A REQUIREMENT AND SECT SUBSECTION G. SO THIS IS NOTHING OF ANY SUBSTANCE HERE. THE MAIN CHANGES AS I POINTED OUT WOULD COME WITH THE REPLACEMENT. I'VE REMOVED IT REMOVED PROTECTED TREES.

AGAIN WE MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN PROPERTIES THAT WILL HAVE LAND DISTURBANCE THAT ARE SMALLER ACRE AND PROPERTIES THAT ARE AN ACRE OR MORE. AGAIN TREE COVERAGE WOULD ONLY BE REQUIRED. SEVENTY FIVE PERCENT COVERAGE WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR THE PROPERTIES LESS THAN AN ACRE REPLACEMENT TREES WOULD HAVE TO BE TWO AND HALF INCHES AND THEN WE DO ENCOURAGE LARGER REPLACEMENT TREES IF THAT'S POSSIBLE.

[00:10:05]

COUNTED AS TWO TREES. >> SO THAT'S WHEN THE ORDINANCE.

AND HERE IS THE CHART THAT I JUST WENT OVER AGAIN REQUIRING THE LARGER TREES, REQUIRING MORE REPLACEMENT TREES AND THEN IF THERE IS THE ABILITY NO ABILITY TO PLANT ON SITE IN THE

FIELD, LOU, WOULD BE BASED ON MARKET RATE. >> AND LET ME GO BACK UP HERE.

HE MENTIONED THIS TOO. I'VE JUST WE'RE PROPOSING THAT THIS BE REMOVED HERE AND THE PORTION THAT I HAVE IN STRIKE THROUGH BECAUSE THIS REFERENCES THE TREE COVERAGE AND THIS IS

ACTUALLY IN THE LANDSCAPING SECTION. >> SO I REMOVE THAT.

SO THOSE ARE THE PROPOSED CHANGES, THE ALTERNATE AMENDMENTS THAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING. I THINK ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT NOT FOR EVERYONE.

COMMON QUESTIONS GOT KATHLEEN IF ANYBODY ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS. >> FIRST I'D LIKE TO BRIEFLY COVER THIS FOR A SECOND NOT A SECOND. THAT'S JUST BECAUSE WE WERE JUST HANDED THIS. I JUST WANT A QUICK QUESTION. I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH STAFF ABOUT THE FACT THAT THIS ORDINANCE WILL ACTUALLY ALLOW THROUGH STORM WATER TO APPLY THIS TO PEOPLE IN ALREADY APPROVED PROOF P.D., CORRECT? CORRECT.

THAT STILL HOLDS TRUE WITH ALL THESE CHANGES. SO I BUILT MY HOUSE FOUR YEARS AGO IN HAMPTON LAKE, CLEARED THE LOT BECAUSE OF HAVING TO MOVE DIRT AND EVERYTHING.

ALL THE TREES HAD TO BE CLEARED. THIS WILL REQUIRE ME TO HAVE A 75 PERCENT COVERAGE AS DEFINED BY WHEN THE TREE IS MATURE CRACK ME.

>> YES, IT'S 75 PERCENT LAW COVERAGE IS BASED OFF OF THE TYPE OF TREE AND WHAT THE

MATURE RATE IS FOR THAT TYPE. >> SO. SO WE'RE NOT SEEING ANY RECOVERIES 75 PERCENT ON DAY 1. IS THAT WHAT IS MORE THAN 30 YEARS OR MORE APPROPRIATE?

YES. >> OK. THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR NOW.

ALL RIGHT. WELL, LET ME JUST FOLLOW ON THAT QUESTION.

WHEN WOULD THAT BECOME EFFECTIVE FOR THE VARIOUS P D THAT HAVE CONSTRUCTION GOING ON OR PLANNED? WOULD IT BECOME EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY?

>> IT DEPENDS ON HOW THE TOWN COUNCIL OPTION WHETHER THEY PUT ON A DELAYED EFFECTIVE DATE OR WHETHER THEY CONSIDER AN ALTERNATIVE LIKE A PENDING ORDINANCE WHICH WOULD ALLOW IT TO BE EFFECTIVE FOR APPLICATIONS THAT COME IN EVEN PRIOR TO ADOPTION BUT AFTER FIRST READING. SO THERE ARE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT WAYS BUT THE ASSUMPTION IS IT WOULD BE EFFECTIVE ACROSS THE ENTIRE TOWN.

IT DOESN'T DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN DOESN'T DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT DETAILS TO BE EFFECTIVE IN CROSS. AS OF THE DATE OF ADOPTION AND IT'S PENDING ORDINANCE DOCTRINE IT IS DESIGNED TO PREVENT PEOPLE FROM TRYING TO RUSH IN APPLICATIONS TO NOT HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THIS NEW ORDINANCE. SO YOU KNOW, FIRST READING AND THEN AMPLE TIME TO MAKE SURE FULLY CONSIDERED BEFORE SEPARATING.

>> THANK YOU. AND TO FOLLOW UP WITH THAT, ANYBODY THAT ALREADY HAS A PERMIT FOR THIS TAKE EFFECT TAKES EFFECT. IT DOES NOT GO RETROACTIVE.

IT'S JUST MOVING FORWARD. CORRECT. AND OUR MOTION TONIGHT IS JUST A RECOMMENDATION. IT COUNCIL. CORRECT.

RIGHT. KATHLEEN CONSTABLE CHAIR IF I CAN JUST BECAUSE AS ALWAYS WE HAVE PEOPLE WATCHING AND WE GOT PEOPLE HERE IN THE AUDIENCE AND I I JUST ALWAYS LIKE TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT WITH SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WE PERCEIVED.

>> AND AS COMMISSIONER WETMORE, YOU KNOW, POINTED OUT IN BLUFFTON WE HAD THIS NOT NECESSARILY UNIQUE BUT WE DO HAVE A ZONING STRUCTURE THAT IS HEAVILY RELIANT UPON AN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS AND THESE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS TYPICALLY WILL LOCK IN CERTAIN AS HAVING WALLS AND CERTAIN REGULATIONS FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME.

AND THAT'S USED BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA CATTLE AND MANY OF THEM ARE ENGINEERED TO DECADES AND DECADES AGO ALL OF THOSE AGREEMENTS WITH THE SOUTH HAVE SOME LIMITATIONS AND THAT'S THAT CAN BE. BY SOME SET CRITERIA THOSE THINGS CAN BE DONE.

[00:15:04]

>> THE TOWN IS WHEN IT'S NECESSARY TO ADDRESS THE PUBLIC IN THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, WELFARE AND THAT'S BUILT WITHIN THE DEVELOPING AGREEMENTS ARE ALSO WITHIN SOUTH CAROLINA TO PROVIDE THAT SORT OF FLEXIBILITY BECAUSE OF CHANGES CIRCUMSTANCES.

BUT IT'S NOT LIKE IT'S NECESSARILY CHANGED THE DENSITY THAT WE'RE PERMITTING.

IT'S A BAD IT REALLY TIES BACK IN TO A LOT OF CONCERNS AND PROTECTION OF THE WATERSHED AND THAT'S THE BASIS ON WHICH WE'RE MAKING PROCESS AND HAVING IT APPLY THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRETY OF THE GAME. I HOPE THAT PROVIDES A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT AND A LITTLE BIT A LITTLE BIT MORE TO THE AND SO LIKE IN THE FUTURE WHEN WE'RE ALL NOT HERE IT COULD CHANGE

AND BE AMENDED AGAIN DEPENDING ON WHAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES. >> ABSOLUTELY.

AND THIS IS THAT'S AND. I'M SURE PEOPLE RECOGNIZE THE TOWN HAS BEEN VERY RELUCTANT TO TRY TO CHANGE BUILDING AGREEMENTS IN THE PAST. IT REALLY THERE HAS TO BE A HIGH THRESHOLD MET TO FEEL CONFIDENT THAT THESE SORTS OF CHANGES CAN COME INTO EFFECT AND BE DONE. AND THAT'S THAT'S A IT'S ULTIMATELY A TOWN COUNCIL DECISION. IT'S A PUBLIC BODY AND MAKE THAT DETERMINATION AND IT MEANS THAT SHOWED GREAT HAVING COME FROM YOU KNOW, KATHLEEN. I HAVE TO VOTE FROM BEING A LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. I HAVE A STRONG SENSE OF STEWARDSHIP FOR THE ENVIRONMENT. SO I AM FULLY AN ADVOCATE FOR THE TREES AND FOR AND PRESERVATION OF THOSE AND MITIGATION OF THOSE SHOULD THEY NEED TO BE REMOVED.

I I BY FAR PROBABLY AS MUCH AS ANYBODY IN THIS ROOM HAVE THAT PASSION.

THAT BEING SAID, I'M ALSO QUITE ADAMANT ABOUT PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THIS FEELS KIND OF LIKE A

CIRCUITOUS ROUTE FOR CALLING IT. >> I THINK WE DISCUSSED YESTERDAY THAT THIS WAS YOU KNOW, YOU CAN DO THESE KINDS OF THINGS BECAUSE OF IT BECOMING A HEALTH SAFETY WELFARE CONCERN AND WILDLIFE. ABSOLUTELY.

SEE THE BENEFITS OF HAVING TREES AND WHAT THEY CAN DO. I THINK THIS IS POTENTIALLY FALSE OFF A FALSE PURPOSE FOR THIS. THE I WENT THROUGH THE PETA DOCUMENTS THIS MORNING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS THIS MORNING AND I FOUND IN EVERY ONE OF THEM THEY WERE EITHER END OF THE OLD 90 DASH THREE THEY HAVE THEIR OWN WRITTEN DOCUMENT, YOU KNOW THEIR OWN REQUIREMENTS FOR TREE PROTECTION AND TREE MITIGATION ENTRY COVERAGE. SO I AND THOSE HAVE BEEN IN PLACE FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME. SO MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE REASON THAT THIS HAS COME TO PASS THAT WE'RE HAVING TO ADDRESS THIS IS BECAUSE OF THE PUBLIC OUTCRY ASSOCIATED WITH THE TREE CLEARING THAT'S HAPPENED. THIS TO ME THIS PROPOSED CHANGE DOESN'T PREVENT THE TREE CLEARING THAT HAS HAPPENED PREVIOUSLY.

SO IT WOULDN'T PREVENT THAT OUTCRY PUBLIC OUTCRY AND FROM A TREE AND FROM A PATH MOVING FORWARD. ONCE YOU'VE CLEARED IT AND THEN REPLANTED.

I THINK THAT THERE COULD BE AN ARGUMENT FROM THE DEVELOPERS THAT THIS IS FAIRLY ONEROUS PARTICULARLY IF YOU'RE THE WAY THE 90 DASH THREE WORK IS WRITTEN.

IF I RECALL CORRECTLY IT'S ONE TREE EXTENSION CALIPER THAT YOU HAVE TO REPLACE FOR EVERY 24 INCH AND ABOVE TREE KELLER BRANCH REMOVED. SO YOU GO FROM THAT TO THREE SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASES THAT COST. IT ALSO CREATES POTENTIAL CONFUSION WHEN YOU'RE GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS OF YOU'RE NOW TAKING THIS LIKE WHEN YOU KNOW WHEN YOU GO THROUGH THIS DEVELOPMENTAL PROCESS YOU'VE GOT TO GO TO YOU'VE GOT TO REVIEW THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND EVERYTHING THAT'S UNDER THERE AND THERE ARE DESIGN GUIDELINES UNDER THERE. AND SO NOW YOU'RE FACING A SITUATION WHERE YOU'RE LIKE,

[00:20:04]

WHAT'S REQUIRED IS THIS OVER AND ABOVE AND BEYOND IS THIS LESSER WHICH IS MOST GENEROUS TO THE PROPERTY AND I JUST I HAVE MAJOR CONCERNS ABOUT THIS AND HOW HAS IT BEEN REVIEWED IN

REGARDS TO PROPERTIES THAT HAVE BEEN GOING THROUGH DEVELOPMENT? >> AND DOES THIS DOES THIS WORK ON THOSE PROPERTIES WHERE WE ARE OR ARE WE SEEING THESE PROJECTS THAT ARE CAUSING THE PROBLEM THAT WE'RE REACTING TO AND MAKING THESE CHANGES? AND SO THAT'S KIND OF A LOT OF QUESTIONS, THOUGHTS, CONCERNS I HAVE. ANY SUGGESTIONS AS FAR THINGS THAT YOU SAW THAT I THINK WE DON'T NEED TO CHANGE IT? I THINK THE 75 PERCENT COVERAGE WORKS. I THINK THAT THE DUTIES ARE MORE THAN ADEQUATELY COVERING TREE REMOVAL AND TREE REPLACEMENT. THE FACT THAT THE PEOPLE ARE CRYING ABOUT ARE THESE CLEAR CUTTING OF TIMBER LAND WHICH IS A CROP WHICH IS ALREADY PERMITTED. MY UNDERSTANDING BASED OFF OF YESTERDAY A CONVERSATION I HAD YESTERDAY WAS THAT THEY'RE CLEARING HARDWOODS THAT'S NOT ALLOWED EITHER UNDER THE UNDER THE GUIDELINES. SO I UNDERSTAND WHEN YOU GO THROUGH DEVELOPMENT PROCESS OR WHETHER YOU'RE DOING CIVIL CULTURE EITHER WAY I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH SOME OF THE THINGS THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. SO THAT'S WHY I DON'T UNDERSTAND AND WHATEVER CONVERSATION JOB HAD IS THERE SOMETHING THAT I'M MISSING? CHARLOTTE OR KEVIN I DON'T KNOW WHAT HER CONCERNS ARE AS FAR AS WHATEVER YOU'VE DISCUSSED JOIN

ME IF YOU MIGHT BE CAPABLE OF DOING THAT. >> SO IS THERE ANY THREE OF DOCUMENTS THERE IN A STATEMENT THAT TO YOU CANNOT CLEAR CUT BUT YOU ACTUALLY 15 TREES PER ACRE. THAT'S RIGHT. FIFTEEN NO.

COME FROM FOUR ALSO STATES THAT IT DOESN'T EXPLICITLY STATE THAT BUFFERS TREES AND BUFFERS CANNOT BE COUNTED TOWARDS 15 TREES BREAKER. SO THAT IS THAT CAVEAT.

WHERE YOU CAN NOT HAVE TO PLACE ANY TREES ON THE SITE YOU CAN SAY TODAY OK HERE'S HOW MANY TREES ARE HAVING A BUFFER THAT SATISFIES 15 TREES PER ACRE REQUIREMENT ON WHICH YOU PLANT ANY MORE TREES WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT. AND THAT IS WHAT WE'RE TRYING

TO ADDRESS. >> WHERE HAVE YOU SEEN THAT? NO PLANTING WAS DONE WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT OR MINIMAL WE'RE AFTER IT DONE DEVELOPED. CALHOUN STREET BRIDGE AND THE THE ONE WE APPROVED CIRCLE HEADING OUT OF TOWN. THEY PRETTY MUCH CUT EVERYTHING IN THE MIDDLE. THE WHAT IS A CALLED NEAR RIVERSIDE VILLAGE.

I THINK IT'S GONNA BE BEAUTIFUL WHEN IT'S DONE. HOW DID THE FIR TREES.

>> WAS THAT 15 TREES AN ACRE AND THAT'S NOT THE INTENT. KYLE HERRING INDUSTRY AND BUFFER WOULD STILL BE UNDER THE 75 PERCENT COVERAGE. SO THAT DIDN'T CHANGE THAT.

THIS ISN'T GOING I THINK THAT MIGHT HAVE RESULTED IN SMALLER BUILDING FOOTPRINTS WITH TREES

FIRST IT NOT WHEN THIS THING HAPPENED. >> NOT WHEN THAT PERCENTAGE IS BASED OFF OF OUTSIDE OF THE ROOF AREA. SO IT DOESN'T IT WOULDN'T

CHANGE THAT. THE RIVERSIDE. >> YEAH WELL THAT'S HOW IT'S BEING. AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THAT'S HOW IT'S BEING INTERPRETED IN COURT CURRENTLY AS THEY EXCLUDE ANYTHING THAT'S UNDER THE ROOF. EVERYTHING ELSE IS 75 PERCENT.

SO IT DOESN'T CHANGE HOW BIG THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE IS. THAT'S GRANTED BY THE BUILDING

AND THAT'S ABOUT IT. >> IF YOU HAVE A SMALLER FOOTPRINT YOU OTHERS BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS WHERE YOU CAN PUT TREES INSIDE THE PROPERTY NOT JUST ON YES.

>> BUT YOU'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE THAT SIZE OF BUILDING FOOTPRINT .

SO THAT BUILDING BUILDING FOOTPRINT IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE BECAUSE OF THIS CHANGE.

OKAY. WELL LET'S GET BACK ON WHAT I MEAN.

WELL YOU'RE I'M I'M STILL ASKING WHERE HAS THIS BEEN? WHERE WHERE IS THIS CHANGE GOING TO POSITIVELY IMPROVE SOMETHING THAT'S DONE TO BEN A MISTAKE THAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST. LIKE FOR INSTANCE, THE THE RIVERSIDE IF THEY WERE PLANTED IN THE BUFFER NOW THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE COUNTED NOW. THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE.

THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN ON THERE, YOU KNOW, OUT OF THE BUFFER. BUT NEW RIVERSIDE IS GOING TO

PLANT I MEAN THEY STILL HAVE TO HAVE IT IN THE PARKING LOTS. >> THEY STILL HAVE TO FOUNDATION PLANTINGS. SO IT'S NOT LIKE THE TREES ARE GONNA BE PLANTED.

THEY STILL HAVE TO SAY IT'S NOT GOING TOWARDS THE COUNT. THEY STILL HAVE TO REPLACE TREES CORRECT BACK TO REPLACE TREES SO THAT NO PLANTING MIGHT BE HIGHER THAN WHAT THEY

CURRENTLY HAVE. >> SO IF YOU COUNT THE TREES ARE THE BUFFER RIGHT NOW.

OK. YOU TAKE THAT NUMBER. HOW DO YOU DO YOU START TO DO LANDSCAPE BALANCING FOUNDATION PLANTINGS BUT ONCE YOU MEET THAT THRESHOLD, THOSE AUDIENCE REQUIREMENTS WHERE IT IS YOU TAKE ALL THOSE TREES THAT ARE IN THE BUFFER OUT OF THAT COUNT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PROVIDE THOSE TREES IN THAT AREA THAT'S DISTURBED OUTSIDE OF THE

[00:25:04]

BUT FROM DAY AGAIN JUST TRYING TO PROVIDE A VERY HIGH OVERVIEW OF SOME OF THESE ISSUES AND KIND OF LOOK DOWN AT IT. OFTENTIMES THESE ORDINANCES ARE NOT NECESSARILY JUST IN RESPONSE TO PUBLIC CRITICISM ABOUT A CERTAIN PROJECT IT IS ABOUT PLANNING AND DEVELOPING FOR THE FUTURE. AND INSTEAD OF BEING REACTIVE, BEING PROACTIVE IN TRYING TO ADJUST THINGS AND TRYING TO ADDRESS ISSUES IN ADVANCE. MY UNDERSTANDING IS FROM DISCUSSIONS OF STAFF AND LISTENING TO VACATION TO THE LAST FEW YEARS INCLUDING I BELIEVE THAT A MAYBE A SO LOCAL MEETING THAT I HAVEN'T EVER ASKED FRAZIER 20 20 I THINK IS EVEN BEFORE CODED THERE WAS A THERE WERE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT WELL HOW DO WE ADDRESS BOTH THE QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF THE STORMWATER RUNOFF? AND ONE OF THE THINGS AND I BELIEVE IT WAS I AT THE TIME CHAIRMAN SOMERVILLE OR VISE CHAIR OR SOME OF THESE COUNTY ALSO WAS REALLY HAMMERING BLUFFTON IN PARTICULAR ON THE TREE COVERAGE.

I BELIEVE MR. IT WAS A PROFESSOR MONEY MONEY PERHAPS WAS OVER AT UCB IT WAS A MEMBER OF WAY THAT PROVIDE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS ON WHAT WAS WHAT WAS ESSENTIAL WHAT WAS

ESSENTIAL TO PRESERVING THE NATURE OF THE WATERSHED. >> THERE ARE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT SOLUTIONS THAT HAVE ALL TO BEEN WORKING IN CONJUNCTION WITH ONE ANOTHER. THESE SEPTIC SYSTEMS ARE MOVING . THAT'S OBVIOUSLY ONE FOR WATER QUALITY.

THE OTHER ONE THAT HE HAD RECOMMENDED WAS REDUCING THE NUMBER ROOFS THAT CAN BE CONSTRUCTED IN THESE DELICATE AREAS OBVIOUSLY. THOSE ARE GRANTED THOSE ARE THOSE YOU DON'T REALIZE IT ALREADY. GREAT.

NOW IN EUROPE AS WELL. WATER THOSE SORTS OF AREAS. ANOTHER ONE THAT REALLY HAMMERED ON WAS THE TREES AND TRYING TO PRESERVE AS MANY TREES AS YOU POSSIBLY CAN BECAUSE OF THE ABILITY OF THOSE TREES TO SOAK UP SOME OF THE SURFACE WATER AND SOME OF THIS PART OF IT KIND OF REDUCING THE QUANTITIES AND ALSO IDEALLY IMPACTING THE QUALITY RUNOFF AS WELL. SO I THINK THAT WAS REALLY THE IMPETUS TO LOOK AND EXAMINE OUR CURRENT FRAMEWORK, EXAMINE IT IN THE CONTEXT OF SMALL WATER, EVEN ALL OF IT TOGETHER INCLUDING WRITING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ADEQUATELY ADDRESSING THESE ISSUES TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT THAT WE LEGALLY AND IN GOOD CONSCIOUS COULD. AND SO I THINK THAT'S WHERE STAFF IS COME TOGETHER WITH THIS. OH YEAH.

AND PERHAPS I I'M MISTAKEN BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S REALLY RESPONSE TO A SINGLE PROJECT THAT WE'VE SEEN THAT CREATED AN ISSUE WHETHER IT WAS A PERHAPS MAYBE AN ADEQUATE TREE CANOPY FROM THE PUBLIC'S PERSPECTIVE, FROM A VISUAL PERSPECTIVE. BUT IT'S REALLY A MORE CONCERTED EFFORT TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES THAT OUR COMMUNITY.

BUT I'M ALSO TRYING TO ADDRESS THIS AS A WHOLE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE STORMWATER WOMEN'S AND SOME OTHER STEPS THAT THE TOWN OF STATE HAS MORE OF A PROACTIVE APPROACH.

>> IT'S NOT A REACTIVE YES, MA'AM. >> WELL, THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING OF THIS BUT IT CERTAINLY MR. DUNCAN, YOUR CONCERNS ARE WELL NOTED IN PARTICULAR. HAVING HAVING SEEN YOU ON PLANNING CONDITION A NUMBER OF TIMES THAT I TRULY BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE VERY FEW PEOPLE CARE AS MUCH ABOUT THE LANDSCAPE, THE TREES AND THE GREEN SPACE AND THESE PROJECTS .

IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVE ALWAYS FOCUSED ON TRYING IN? I DO APPRECIATE YOUR CONCERNS.

I UNDERSTAND WHERE THEY'RE COMING FROM. I JUST HOPE TO TRY TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION TO THE BEST OF MY EXTENT. YEAH, I APPRECIATE ALL OF THAT BACKGROUND AND MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE STORM WATER CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE ARE ONES WHERE IT'S ESSENTIALLY CREATING TREATMENT DREAMS WHICH IS IMPROVING WATER QUALITY AND CERTAINLY LIKE I SAID, TREES ARE VERY BENEFICIAL. THEY SOAK UP WATER.

THE WATER IN THIS LAKE AND WE DON'T FROM A ENGINEERING STANDPOINT WE DON'T REALLY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT HOW MUCH WATER YOU KNOW, HOW MUCH THAT'S CONTRIBUTING TO THE SYSTEM.

WE THINK PUT IT IN THIS BIG HOLE AND THEN WE DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT.

>> SO I'M I'M VERY I'M VERY SENSITIVE TO THAT. BUT AS I SAID, I'M ALSO VERY

[00:30:01]

AND I I WANT SOMETHING THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO BE MAKING CHANGES TO THE TREE REPLACEMENT, THE TREE COVERED , THE TREE MITIGATION IT'S SOMETHING THAT WHEN I HAVE CLIENTS THAT COME ASKED ME HEY, I SAW YOU WERE, YOU KNOW, A YEAR RECOMMENDING APPROVAL

OF THIS AND THAT AND THIS IS JUST TOTALLY BACKWARDS. >> HOW DO YOU DEFEND YOURSELF AND I RIGHT NOW I DON'T SEE HOW THIS IS HELPING THE SITUATION. I EVEN IF YOU WANT TO CALL IT A PROACTIVE RATHER THAN A REACTIVE, I'M NOT SURE THAT IT IS RELIEF ADDRESSING WHERE ISSUES ARE BROKEN WITHIN THE SYSTEM. I'M NOT SURE THAT IT'S EVEN QUANTIFIABLE FROM SAYING THIS IS ACTUALLY WHAT'S GOING TO GET US THERE.

I JUST I HAVE MAJOR CONCERNS ABOUT THAT. AND GORDON CAN YOU HELP COMPLETE THAT LOOP OF WHERE THE DISCONNECT IS OF THE TWO DIFFERENT THAT'S WHAT I

DISCUSSED EARLIER. >> AS FAR AS THE TREES AND THE 15 TREES PER ACRE SO FOR THAT 15 TREES PER ACRE OUT OF THIN AIR IT'S REFERENCED IN THE VIDEO DOCUMENTS THAT WE'VE JUST CARRIED THAT OVER TO SAY YOU CANNOT COUNT THE TREES IN ANY BUFFER TOWARDS THAT 15 TREES PER ACRE ALLOTMENT BECAUSE PREVIOUSLY IT WASN'T WELL DEFINED.

>> THAT'S AN ALL YOU'RE TRYING TO DO NOW IS DEFINE IT. IT'S OKAY.

WELL, I THINK THAT YOUR CONCERNS ARE HEARD AND YOU CAN EITHER WAY YOU WANT AND EVERYBODY HAS VOTE. SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION FOR RECOMMENDATION OR

NOT TO TOWN COUNCIL FOR THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS. >> YOU HAVE ANY KIND OF A MOTION? WELL, I MEAN I'LL I'LL THROW THIS OUT HERE.

THIS IS I WILL SAY BEFORE I DO THIS, MY CONCERN FROM BACK WHEN I WAS IN COUNCIL PLANNING COMMISSION IS THAT THE WATER RUNOFF TO THE RIVER AND I FEEL AND I HEAR YOUR CONCERNS.

>> I JUST RESPECTFULLY I FEEL THAT THIS WILL HELP US WITH THOSE ISSUES.

>> SO I MOVED TO RECOMMEND WE APPROVE THE AMENDMENTS TO THE TOWN OF BLUFFTON CODE OF ORDINANCES CHAPTER TWENTY YOU KNOW ARTICLE 5 DESIGN STANDARDS SECTION FIVE POINT THREE NATURAL RESOURCES TREE CONSERVATION PLANTING AND LANDSCAPING SPECIFIC TO SECTION FIVE POINT THREE POINT THREE TREE CONSERVATION SECTION FIVE POINT THREE POINT SEVEN LOT LANDSCAPING SECTION FIVE POINT THREE POINT EIGHT FEET IN LIEU OF TREE REPLACEMENT AND OR

SPECIFIC LANDSCAPING AND PRIOR TO THE SECOND. >> MAY I JUST ASK A CLARIFICATION QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN UNTIL WE SECOND PAPA ROBERT'S RULES.

>> THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. >> AND THEN A DISCUSSION THIS IS ABOUT THE MOTION.

SO THIS IS PERHAPS TO HELP MR. RIBAUT WITH THIS NOTION. THE ULTIMATE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS THAT WERE SUBMITTED IS THIS FOURTH AMENDMENT SUBMITTED BY STAFF? YES. THANK YOU. I'D LIKE TO AMEND MY AMENDMENT . OKAY. SO TO CLARIFY THE FIRST SENTENCE OF THE MOTION CHANGES TO I MOVED TO RECOMMEND THAT WE PROVE WITH THE AMENDMENTS

AMENDED BY SNAP THIS EVENING AS WE HAD PREVIOUSLY. >> YES SIR MR.

MR. MEASUREMENTS. >> I HAVE A SECOND. YEAH.

OKAY. DO I ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? THE ONLY DISCUSSION I ALWAYS HAVE I RESPECT AND APPRECIATE COMMISSIONER DUNCAN'S FEEDBACK AND INPUT.

MY HOPE IS THAT THIS WILL MAKE ENOUGH OF A DIFFERENCE TO GET US ON THE PATH SO THAT WE CAN, YOU KNOW, DEAL WITH THE THREE ISSUES THAT WE'VE BEEN DEALING WITH.

SO I SUPPORT THIS BUT I DO APPRECIATE YOUR FEEDBACK. AND RESPECT YOUR OPINION.

ALL RIGHT. CAN I GET ALL IN FAVOR? >> HI, ALL POST.

[IX.1. Buckwalter Parkway Access Management Plan (Proposed Amendment)]

NOW WE'RE GONNA GO TO NEW BUSINESS. BACKWATER PARKWAY ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN. THIS IS ALSO AMENDMENT. AND KEVIN , YOU'RE GOING TO

COVER THAT WITH US, PLEASE. >> OKAY. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MADAM CHAIRMAN, THIS EVENING WE'RE HERE TO PROVIDE A

[00:35:06]

SO YOU ARE PROVIDING A RECOMMENDATION TO TOWN COUNCIL WHO WILL POTENTIALLY HAVE SUPPORTING INFORMATION FOR A RESOLUTION THAT THEN GOES TO BEAUFORT COUNTY COUNCIL.

SO JUST TO WE'RE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE LADDER. >> YOU'RE AT THE HEART.

THAT'S RIGHT. >> SO THIS OBVIOUSLY SEE YOU NOTICE THE DATE OF THIS PRESENTATION YESTERDAY OCTOBER 18TH, 2021 21. THAT IS NOT A TYPO.

THIS IS THE PRESENTATION THAT HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED TO YOU FOR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AS WELL AS TOWN OF BLUFFTON TOWN COUNCIL. SO THIS IS A PRESENTATION BY MR. JARED FÉLIX WHICH IS BEAUFORT COUNTY ASSISTANT TO ADMINISTRATOR FIELD AND TRANSPORTATION. SO AS WE ALL KNOW AND WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS IN THE PAST THIS BACKWATER PARKWAY, THE ORIENTATION OF THIS IS OVER HERE IS 2 278 TOWARDS THE SIDE HERE. AND THEN AS IT GOES DOWN TO BLUFFTON PARKWAY TO THE FAR EDGE HERE. SO THERE ARE ONLY FOCUSED ON THE NORTHERN PORTION.

THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY PROPOSED REALIGNMENTS OF BLUFFTON PARKWAY.

SO THIS IS ONLY FOR THE ACCESS MANAGEMENT PORTION BUCKLES OR PARKWAY AS YOU'VE SEEN IN

NUMEROUS PREVIOUS PRESENTATIONS . >> THIS IS THE EXISTING 2007 ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN OBVIOUSLY IN THE NORTH SECTION WHICH HIGHLIGHTED VARIOUS LOCATIONS OF PROPOSED CURB CUTS WHICH MAJORITY THOSE ARE ALREADY IN PLACE AS WELL AS PROPOSED TRAFFIC LOCATIONS. AND THEN AS IT GOES ON THIS IS OBVIOUSLY YOU CAN TELL FROM 2007 THAT IS COLD PLACE. THAT IS ALL TREES AT THAT POINT .

I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO TOO GREAT OF A DETAIL BUT THERE ARE VARIOUS SECTIONS BOTH EXISTING

AND PLAN THAT WERE PART OF THIS. >> THIS PRESENTATION MIGHT BE BETTER JUST TO GET TO THE VISUAL HERE TO BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN THIS.

SO IN THE PREVIOUS TWO THOUSAND SEVEN PLAN AND I'M GOING TO USE MY CURSOR HERE TO SHOW WHERE IT SAYS ALL KIRO WHICH IS RIGHT AND RIGHT OUT ONLY THAT WAS A PREVIOUS LOCATION OF A TRAFFIC LIGHT THAT HAS SINCE BEEN SHIFTED. THAT WAS ON THAT THIS WAS THE SOUTHERN LOCATION OF PINELLAS DRIVE. IT HAS BEEN SHIFTED TO THE NORTHERN LOCATION OF PINELLAS DRIVE. ALSO IT INCLUDES VARIOUS POTENTIAL FUTURE CONNECTIONS THROUGHOUT THE DEVELOPMENT. CASSIDY DRIVE UP HERE CURRENTLY IS A FULL ACCESS POINT THAT WOULD BE CONVERTED TO A RIGHT IN RIGHT OUT ONLY.

WHAT THAT DOES IS IT THEN WOULD HAVE INDIVIDUALS THAT NEED TO GO INTO THAT LOCATION WOULD HAVE TO COME DOWN AND THEN ESSENCE MAKE A U-TURN AT THE LIGHT AND THEN GO BACK UP TO

THE SITE THEN ACTUALLY STILL ON THIS SITE HERE. >> WE HAD A PREVIOUS LIGHT BEING LOCATED HERE. THIS WAS AT THE ENTRANCE TO WHAT IS NOW THE MAIN RIVER MARKETPLACE AND WASHINGTON SQUARE THAT WOULD BE CONVERTED TO A RIGHT IN RIGHT OUT ONLY.

THERE WAS A TRAFFIC LIGHT PROPOSED THERE AND THEN THE NEW PROPOSED LOCATION WOULD BE FOR MUCH STREET AND PARK SIDE DRIVE. THAT IS THE MAIN ENTRANCE FOR WOODBRIDGE. OBVIOUSLY ALL OF THESE LIGHTS JUST BECAUSE THIS ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN IS ADOPTED DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THE LIGHTS ARE GOING IN RIGHT AWAY. IT STILL WOULD BE REQUIRED TO HAVE A SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS FOR EACH ONE OF THEM TO DETERMINE AT THAT POINT IN TIME IF IT IS APPROPRIATE TO HAVE A LIGHT AT THAT LOCATION AS DEVELOPMENT COMES ON LINE. WE THEN WORK WITH THE ENGINEERS AS WELL AS COUNTY TO DETERMINE. ALL RIGHT.

IS IT TIME FOR A DETERMINATION ,A WARRANT AND IF AT THAT POINT IT IS DETERMINED THEN

THEY START TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF A LIGHT. >> THIS ALSO INCLUDES POTENTIAL LOCATIONS OF A NEW LIGHT. THIS IS THE KROGER FUEL CENTER AND THEN THEY WOULD HAVE A LIGHT AT THIS LOCATION AND THEN THERE'S ALREADY IN THE WORKS FOR A CONNECTION BETWEEN WASHINGTON SQUARE AND THE PLACE. SO IT WOULD THEN CUT THROUGH AT

[00:40:02]

ONLY AS LIMITING ACCESS ALONG THE PARKWAY AND THEN YOU STILL HAVE THE TWO EXISTING LIGHTS THAT ARE LOCATED HERE. IT GOES INTO THE INTO GREAT DETAIL ON THE LENGTH OF EACH ONE OF THESE OBVIOUSLY SCENARIO ONE IS THE 2007 2000 21 IS FOR SCENARIO TWO AND YOU CAN SEE SOME OF THESE WOULD BE LINKED OUT WHILE SOME OF THEM ARE KIND OF KIND OF SHORTENED UP A

LITTLE BIT. >> THAT ULTIMATE GOAL IS TO HAVE A UNIFORM AMOUNT OF DISTANCE IN BETWEEN THOSE TRAFFIC LIGHTS WHILE FOR A SAFETY STANDPOINT PROVIDING THEM AT KEY LOCATIONS THERE IS. WELL THAT'S REALLY IT FOR THE PRESENTATION.

SO SO THIS EVENING YOU WOULD JUST BE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION .

>> I DON'T HAVE A A PROPOSED MOTION IN FRONT OF YOU. HOWEVER, THE STAFF REPORT HERE

YOU HAD ALL THAT INFORMATION. >> SO IN ESSENCE YOU'D BE MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO TOWN COUNCIL WHO ULTIMATELY IS PROVIDING A RESOLUTION AND TO BRING THIS IN FRONT OF BEAUFORT COUNTY COUNCIL. AND THEN FROM A TIME STANDPOINT YOU CAN SEE WHERE WE ARE IN THE PROCESS WHICH THIS EVENING, FEBRUARY 20 THIRD IS THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAKING THAT RECOMMENDATION AND THEN WE WOULD FOR THIS TO THE MARCH 8TH TOWN COUNCIL MEETING OR THE 6TH . AGAIN, THIS IS A COUNTY PROJECT.

I'LL TRY TO ANSWER AS MANY QUESTIONS THAT I CAN AND CAN START DOWN ON THIS SIDE.

>> QUESTIONS. YEAH. >> AS I DID TALK WITH STAFF YESTERDAY. I'M STILL CONCERNED ABOUT THE ADDITION OF THE TRAFFIC LIGHT AT THE KROGER FUEL CENTER. EXCUSE ME. I'M GOING TO PUT THE SIGN UP.

OK, YOU KNOW WHAT THAT REALLY DOES IS WHEN YOU PUT THAT LIGHT IN THERE WILL BE THREE LIGHTS AT BLUFFTON PARKWAY. IT'LL BE THE SECOND LIGHT AT FOURTH QUARTER PLACE AND THEN THE KROGER FUEL CENTER LESS THAN TWENTY SIX HUNDRED FEET. SO IT'S THREE LIGHTS WITHIN A HALF A MILE. THE STUDY THAT WAS GIVEN TO US SUGGESTS THAT CRASH RATES INCREASE THE MORE LIGHT YOU HAVE. IN FACT ONE OF THE THINGS IT SAID WAS IF YOU HAVE SIX SIGNALS PER MILE WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT THAT IS THE CRASH RATE GOES UP TO SEVEN POINT FIVE CRASHES PER MILLION MILES.

>> IT ALSO SAYS THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S BE THE WHERE THAT AREA IS INNOVATION DRIVING BUCK WALTER ON THE CRASHES THAT WE ALREADY HAVE THERE'S ONLY THREE IN A TWO YEAR PERIOD OR ONE AND A HALF PER YEAR. SO. AND THEN FINALLY THE DAY DELAY ASSOCIATED WITH ACCESS FROM THE KROGER FUEL CENTER. WHEN YOU LOOK AT AGAIN THIS STUDY THAT TALKS ABOUT HOW LONG A DELAY IT LASTS. IT'S THE LOWEST DELAY OF ANY

OF THEM. >> IT'S IT'S 11 SECONDS. >> SO IT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE THAT MUCH OF AN ISSUE. AND IF SOMEBODY REALLY HAS AN ISSUE OF GETTING OUT OF THERE, THEY CAN JUST GO THROUGH BACKWATER PLACE TO GET ONE OR THE OTHER LIGHT SO I KNOW THIS

IS HURTING BEEN APPROVED BY JUST ABOUT EVERYBODY. >> I JUST WANT TO GO ON RECORD.

I THINK WHEN YOU START LOOKING AT PUTTING TOO MANY LIGHTS IN A SHORT PERIOD YOUR CAN INCREASE THE CRASH RATE THAT'S GOVERNMENT DATA THAT SAYS YOU HAVE MORE WE'RE IN COLLISIONS.

SO I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT YOU KNOW, IF WE HAD ANY INFLUENCE I'D SUGGEST TAKING THAT ONE OUT FOR NOW AND SAYING LET'S GO REVISIT IT WHEN THE BUSINESS THERE'S THERE'S THERE'S REALLY

NO ROAD ACROSS THE STREET FOR IT RIGHT NOW DEMANDS IT. >> BUT THIS ALSO LIKE HE SAID, LIGHTS AREN'T GOING TO COME RIGHT AWAY. IT JUST DEPENDS ON DEMAND.

I UNDERSTAND. BUT ESSENTIALLY WHAT I'M SAYING IS WE'RE AGREEING TO IT AND IT WILL BE PUT IN WHEN IT'S WARRANTED. AND I WOULD SAY LET'S SAY NOT PUT IT IN AND GO REVISIT IT WHEN IT'S REQUIRED. I MEAN LIKE I SAID, THERE'S THERE'S LOTS DATA THAT WOULD SUGGEST THREE LIGHTS IN A HALF MILE IS NOT A GOOD DESIGN.

>> SO WHAT I GUESS I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IS ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE SCENARIO TO NUMBER FOUR KROGER FUEL CENTER DRIVE TO BUCK ALSO PLACE JUST THE KROGER FUEL CENTER.

>> YEAH, I KNOW THAT LINE. THAT IS BECAUSE THE DISTANCE THE DISTANCE BETWEEN BLUFFTON

[00:45:01]

>> SO THE BOTTOM THREE ON THAT PAGE. >> THAT'S RIGHT.

MAYBE I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE TO ME THAT THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THEM

. >> NO NO THAT'S THE TWENTY ONE SEVENTY SIX IS A KROGER FUEL CENTER TO PARK SIDE DRIVE. YOU REALLY LOOKING AT THE FIRST TWO NUMBERS 10 77 14 96 WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY A HALF MILE AND AGAIN I RECOGNIZE THAT THIS HAS ALL BEEN APPROVED BUT I THIS IS ONE OF THESE THINGS WHERE JUST BECAUSE IT'S APPROVED DOESN'T MEAN AS KATHLEEN JUST SAID I

HAVE TO AGREE TO IT. >> WELL, I HAVE TO ADMIT I SHARE THAT CONCERN, RICHARD.

I TALKED ABOUT THIS YESTERDAY AND I DIDN'T GET IT IN THE BEGINNING.

AND AS WE TALK FURTHER, I GET IT. THREE LIGHTS THAT CLOSE

TOGETHER ARE AN AREA CONCERN. >> I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SOLUTION IS.

THING I DON'T KNOW IS I MEAN IT'S NOT OUR DECISION TO LEAVE IT ON HERE OR NOT.

WE CAN MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND THIS WITH THE FACT THAT COUNCIL TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT THAT AND SEE IF IT MADE SENSE TO THEM AS WELL I THINK WOULD PROBABLY BE OUR BEST WAY TO HANDLE HANDLE THAT ISSUE. SO YOU'RE RIGHT. YOU'VE BEEN HERE.

YOUR ROLE IS ADVISORY IN THIS AT LEAST IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE. YOU NEED TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO TELL COUNCIL ONE WAY OR ANOTHER AND YOU CAN MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION AS SUCCINCT AS YOU WOULD LIKE. YES, OR YOU CAN ADD IN THOSE SORTS OF THOSE SORTS OF COMMENTS. IT'S REALLY UP TO SOMEBODY ELSE DISCRETION.

I HAVE ONE QUESTION WHICH IS AGAIN RELATED TO THIS LIGHT BECAUSE I ALSO SHARE THAT CONCERN AS WELL BY REMOVING THE POTENTIAL FOR THAT LIGHT LOCATION THERE WITH WOULD THAT INCREASE FLEXIBILITY IN THE FUTURE FOR DETERMINING A LOCATION FOR A LIGHT?

>> I MEAN IF AS THINGS DEVELOPED THAT MAY NOT BE THE BEST PACE PLACE FOR THE LIGHT, IT MIGHT BE A QUARTER MILE OR TENTH A MILE DOWN THE ROAD AT ONE OR THE OTHER INTERSECTIONS THAT THEY'RE JUST BECAUSE OF HOW THINGS HAVE DEVELOPED. IS THERE A VALUE ADDED FROM JUST REMOVING THAT BECAUSE IF IF AT SOME POINT IN 20 YEARS THEY'RE LIKE NO, WE REALLY DIDN'T SEE THE LIGHT IN THIS LOCATION, WE COULD COME BACK TO THIS PLAN AND ADD THIS HERE AT

A LATER DATE. >> WELL, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW 2007.

I TO BE ON COUNCILS WHEN WE DID THE LAST THERE WEREN'T ALL THE RIGHT SPOT.

SO HERE YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT. YEAH, RIGHT. >> AND THEN WE WOULD BE RIGHT BACK HERE REQUESTING AN AMENDMENT TO AN ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE PLAN IN PLACE TO PROVIDE THE JUSTIFICATION TO WARRANT THE ANALYSIS TO

DETERMINE IF THE LIGHT IS THEN NEEDED. >> SO IT WOULD STILL HAVE TO GO BACK EVEN IF WE APPROVED WHATEVER WE DID OR RECOMMENDED THIS PLAN AND COUNSEL RECOMMENDED IT AND SAY IN 15 YEARS SOMEBODY COULD STILL COME BACK AND MAYBE AND AMEND THAT LOCATION. YES. IF IT WAS WARRANTED BECAUSE WOULD WOULD IN OR SAY THAT IT HAPPENED IN A YEAR AND THEY COME IN AND SAY HEY, WE REALLY NEED THAT LIGHT. DO WE SEE THAT AGAIN? WELL, I MEAN YOU'RE GOING TO THIS IS YOU'RE GOING TO BE SEEING WELL, YOU'RE GOING TO BE SEEING THE DEVELOPMENT.

YES. THAT WOULD BE COMING IN TO CAUSE THE LIGHT THE LIGHT WHICH AT THAT POINT YOU WOULD THEN BE LIKE RECOMMENDATION. WELL, YOU WOULD DETERMINE BASED

OFF OF WHAT OCCURRED. >> I'LL GIVE YOU A PERFECT EXAMPLE.

PARKER'S IN FRONT OF SANDY POINT PARKERS AT SANDY POINT. THIS 2007 ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN DID NOT HAVE A SUBWAY THERE. IT STILL GOT BUILT THERE.

SO THE SHORT ANSWER WOULD BE IF IT GETS LOCATED SOMEWHERE ELSE NOT AS A TEMPORARY LIGHT.

>> SO I DID KNOW HOW LONG IT'S SO FAR. >> TWELVE YEARS.

>> THAT IS A TEMPORARY LIGHT. OK. SO IT DOES EVENTUALLY HAVE TO CONFORM THE ACCESS MANAGEMENT WHICH IS WHY I WOULD SUGGEST WE RECOMMEND EVEN THOUGH WE MAY GET IGNORED DELETE THAT KROGER FUEL CENTER LIGHT IN THE ACCESS PLAN THAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO LOOK AT IT COULD END DEMANDING THAT THAT LIGHT AS PROJECTS COME THROUGH AND WE SAY THAT WE PLAN FOR THAT LIGHT POTENTIALLY BEING THERE IT THEN BECOMES A NECESSITY AS THINGS DEVELOP BY NOT HAVING IT THERE WE'RE NOT THEN CREATING THE DEMAND AT THAT LOCATION FOR THE LIGHT IS

ANOTHER WAY TO LOOK AT IT THAT MAKES SENSE. >> I'LL LET YOU MAKE THAT VERSION. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING WHICH I WOULD I WOULD SUGGEST

[00:50:01]

FLAT OUT SAYING YOU SHOULD. >> YES. WELL I THOUGHT AND WHAT I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST THAT WE APPROVED THE RECOMMENDATION PLAN BUT SUGGESTS THE DELETION

OF THE SIGNAL AT THE KROGER FUEL CENTER RECONSIDERED LIFE. >> I THINK WE'RE GOING WHEN WE GET TO THE LEAD OR THE HIGHWAY I SAID WHAT I WOULD SAY IS I WOULD MOVE TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION BUT SUGGEST THE DELETION OF THE SIGNAL AT THE KROGER FUEL CENTER.

>> BE CONSIDERED I WOULD PUT A REASON ON THERE THAT DUE TO THE PROXIMITY TO THE OTHER ONE I'VE GOT A WHOLE LIST APPROXIMATELY I COULD SHARE WITH YOU JUST AS THOUGHT OF .

OK. SURE. SURE I DO.

WERE YOU DONE KATHLEEN? YES, I'M DONE. I DO HAVE ONE THING AND I'M

GONNA BE AS NICE AS I CAN ABOUT THIS. >> CAN YOU GO BACK UP? I DON'T KNOW IF HERE'S A NUMBER OF THE WAYS OUR HOURS ARE ON THE PACKET BUT CAN YOU GO BACK

UP TO 13? >> YEAH. WHEN YOU SAY IT ONLY GOT 9 A.M.

WHEN YOU SAY 30, WHAT DO YOU KEEP GOING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL 2007 PLAN?

>> OH YES. AS A YES. IT'S ON TIME FOR THAT GET GONE.

I WANT TO SEE THE MAP. NEXT ONE THAT ONE TOWARDS THE BOTTOM.

SCROLL DOWN JUST A LITTLE BIT. OKAY. UP TO TWO COMMISSIONERS INTO STAFF. I AM BEGGING US THAT WE NEED TO ESPECIALLY WHEN WE ADOPT THIS NEW ONE. BUT ALSO THE CURRENT ONE ONE MORE APPROVING DEVELOPMENTS WE NEED TO LOOK AT THIS BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT WILL YOU DO ME A FAVOR, KEVIN AND POINT THE PARK SIDE WE APPROVE THE DEVELOPMENT TO THE SOUTH, THE PARK SIDE THAT IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE A FRONTAGE BEHIND IT AND HAVE AN ACCESS SIGNAL AT THIS POINT TIME.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MOVING THE SIGNAL NOW. BUT WHEN WE DID THAT AND WHEN THE PARK THIS WAS DONE BEFORE THAT WE IGNORE. I DON'T SAY IGNORED.

WE DIDN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT THE INTENT WAS TO HAVE ACCESS ROADS ALONG THE BACK OF THESE PROPERTIES AS SHOWN BY THE DOTTED LINES AND ON THE NEW ONES.

I JUST I BEG ALL INCLUDING MYSELF. WE NEED TO LOOK AT THIS.

WE'RE GOING TO END UP WITH SOME OF THE PROBLEMS THAT WE'VE HAD FOR YEARS ON OTHER ROADS.

SO THAT'S THAT'S ALL I HAD. I JUST AS LONG AS THE MAP WAS HERE.

ALL RIGHT. SO RICHARD, YOU WANT TO START THAT MOTION?

YOU DON'T HAVE LANGUAGE FOR THE MOTION OVERALL. >> NO.

>> OK. I'VE GOT IT. YOU'RE GOT TO WING IT.

YOU SAID YOU KNOW, I'VE GOT MY OTHER PIECE. >> WELL, I MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT THE BUFF WALTER PARKWAY ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLANS PROPOSED AMENDMENT WITH A RECOMMENDATION THAT WE SUGGEST DELETION OF THE SIGNAL AT THE KROGER FUEL CENTER BECAUSE THAT WOULD CREATE THREE LIGHTS IN LESS THAN A HALF OF MILE POTENTIALLY CAUSING MORE ACCIDENTS.

>> OKATIE NOW LOOKING IN ITS EYE. >> OK.

DO WE HAVE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? >> ALL IN FAVOR.

[X.1. Determination of Minor or Major Amendment to the Hampton Lake Master Plan (Staff – Kevin Icard)]

>> THANK YOU. NOW WE'RE ON TO DISCUSSION DETERMINATION OF MINOR OR MAJOR AMENDMENT TO THE HAMPTON LIKE MASTER PLAN. KEVIN , CAN YOU DO THIS IN

SEVEN MINUTES? >> I TOTALLY CAN DO THIS. LESSONS OF JUST CLARIFY JUST TWO OF US LIVE IN HAMPTON LAKE. WE DON'T HAVE TO RECUSE OURSELVES, SIR.

CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. SO THIS WOULD BE UNDER THE NO GREATER INTEREST THAN A MEMBER OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC AFFAIRS AND ANYWAY, THIS IS CALLED THIS KIND OF VISION COMES UP QUITE A LOT. I BELIEVE THERE'S EXPERIENCE ON IT THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE TO RECUSE YOURSELF JUST BECAUSE YOU IN THIS PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD OTHERWISE THEY MAY HAVE LIVED IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT WOULD HAVE REDUCED THEMSELVES IN THAT REALLY HISTORIC DISTRICT. THINGS THAT ARE HBC STRUGGLE.

OKAY. >> THANKS. ALL RIGHT.

NOW I HAVE SIX MINUTES. ALL RIGHT. SO WE'RE HERE THIS THIS THIS EVENING. SO THE DEVELOPERS FOR HAMPTON LAKE WHO ARE IN THE AUDIENCE HERE. MR. REED AND MR. REED HAVE COME TO STAFF AND WITH QUESTIONS THEY HAVE A SITE IN THE HAMPTON LAKE MASTERPLAN AND I'M GOING TO ON THIS A LITTLE BIT TO MAKE A LITTLE BIT EASIER TO SEE. SO THERE IS A PASSEL OF LAND. THIS THING IS VERY SLOW.

I APOLOGIZE. FIVE MINUTES. I HEAR YOU.

[00:55:01]

AND WHAT I'VE DONE HERE IS THE AREA THAT IS TECHNICALLY IN GREEN HERE IS A ANOTHER MASTERPLAN WHICH IS CALLED THE RIGHT WATER MASTER PLAN AND THAT IS LOCATED HERE.

THERE IS WETLAND PRESERVE LAND TO THE NORTH. THIS IS DEDICATED AS COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS TO THE WEST AND THEN BACK ONTO THE HAMPTON MASTERPLAN. YOU HAVE WETLANDS AREA HERE AND THEN COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT TO THE EAST AND THEN COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT TO THE SOUTH. SO THE APPLICANT IS NOT EVEN AN APPLICANT AT THIS POINT. THEY HAVEN'T SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION.

THEY'RE LOOKING AT US AS TO DETERMINE IF THIS IS A MINOR AMENDMENT OR A MAJOR AMENDMENT

TO THE MASTER PLAN. >> A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO I HAD THE CODE SECTION PULLED UP A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO WE HAD A A SECTION OF THE ORDINANCE THAT SPECIFICALLY GAVE THE ABILITY TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO REVIEW AND DETERMINE IF A MASTERPLAN AMENDMENT IS

CONSIDERED A MAJOR AMENDMENT OR A MINOR AMENDMENT WAS THERE. >> ALL RIGHT, GOOD.

IS IT DEVELOPMENT? I'M GETTING THERE. I HAD IT PULLED UP.

>> ALL RIGHT. SO HERE IT SAYS AT THE REQUEST OF THE UNION ADMINISTRATOR THAT THE ADMINISTRATOR MAY SUBMIT AN APPLICATION TO AMEND APD MASTER PLAN TO A PLANNING COMMISSION FOR DETERMINATION OF MAJOR OR MINOR STUFF. WHAT WE'RE GETTING DOWN TO IS STAFF IS LOOKING TO PLANNING COMMISSION TO DETERMINE IF CHANGING THE BROWN HERE TO YELLOW WHICH IS THAT NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL THAT'S THE LESS INTENSE DEVELOPMENT THAT WAY THE APPLICANT WHICH HAS DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS THEY HAVE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS TO BE ABLE TO DEVELOP ON THIS SITE AS WELL AS THE ADJACENT SITE AT THE SAME TIME.

ALSO YOU'LL NOTICE A LOT OF THESE DOTTED LINES ON HERE. THOSE ARE THE POWER LINES AND THE POWER LINE RIGHT OF WAYS. SO THIS DOTTED LINE RIGHT HERE THAT REPRESENTS THE AREA TO THE SOUTH OF WHERE A BUILDING CAN ACTUALLY GO. SO THIS SITE IS EXTREMELY LIMITED ON BUILDING PLACEMENT AND THEN PARKING LOT PLACEMENT. SO IT'S THE INTENT OVERALL HAS ALWAYS BEEN FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND TO NOT HAVE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OUTSIDE OF THE GATES. SO I'M LOOKING TO YOU TO KIND OF PROVIDE THAT GUIDANCE AND THEN IF DETERMINED WHICH STAFF IS AT THE BELIEVING THAT IT'S MORE OF A MINOR AMENDMENT, WE WOULD THEN PROCEED WITH THE APPLICATION TO GO THROUGH THE MINOR AMENDMENT PROCESS WHICH STILL GOES TO THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE WHICH THREE OF YOU WILL SEE THAT WHEN YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE COMMENT ON IT AND THEN ANY NECESSARY CHANGES ARE MADE AND THEN IT'S APPROVED AN ADMINISTRATIVE LEVEL. SO WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING FOR?

>> THIS IS NOT A MOTION. IT'S JUST A IT'S NOT AN EMOTION.

>> IT'S A I MEAN IS IT AN OFFICIAL MOTION? THAT WAS THE QUESTION HAD AS WELL. JUST FOR CLARITY PURPOSES, THIS IS Y'ALL ARE LOOKING FOR A PLANNING COMMISSION TO PROVIDE GUIDANCE AS TO WHAT THE VIDEO ADMINISTRATOR SHOULD DETERMINE IN THIS CASE WHETHER IT'S A MATTER AMENDMENT MAJOR AMENDMENT.

YES. THIS IS OF SOMETIMES IN THE OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED VIDEO MINUTES BEFORE YOU GO TO YOU FOR A DECISION TO PROVIDE THAT GUIDANCE TO THAT STAFF.

SO THIS IS MORE INFORMAL DISCUSSION. I'VE GOT A MOTION WOULD NEED TO BE MADE JUST TO GET YOUR READY FOR OPINIONS. YES.

HE'S BEEN USED TO COMMERCIAL. I DON'T SEE WHY IT'S NOT COMMERCIAL.

I DON'T SEE WHY YOU CAN'T DO THAT. KEEP US OUT OF IT.

I MEAN IN A BAD WAY. I'M WITH YOU BECAUSE I THINK THAT WAS A MISTAKE.

>> THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE MADE THAT RESIDENTIAL. I DON'T KNOW.

MAYBE IT WAS AN OVERSIGHT BUT THAT WOULD HAVE NEVER HAPPENED. AND AS YOU KNOW, THE DEVELOPED

PLAN WILL COME TO YOU YET AGAIN. >> ANYONE OR ANYBODY ELSE.

I JUST HAD A QUESTION CAME UP IN THE MEETING YESTERDAY. >> DOES THIS WOULD THIS SET ANY

[01:00:04]

YOU KNOW ALL THE LIMITATIONS ON THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL HOW MATURE THEY ARE MADE IT AND MADE COMMENT ABOUTHAPS EVEN JUST AN ERROR IN THE COLORING ON THE PLANT THAT MAYBE IT WAS NOT INTENDED TO HAVE. I THINK THAT YOU HAVE ENOUGH FACTORS THERE THAT WOULD DIFFERENTIATE THIS FROM THE MAJORITY OF YOUR OTHER MASTER PLAN AMENDMENTS THAT YOU WOULDN'T SET A PRECEDENT AND I DON'T THINK THAT SHOULD BE A OVERRIDING CONCERN.

BUT JUST TO CLARIFY, IT WAS MR. REED'S ERROR, NOT OURS, RIGHT? >> CORRECT.

ABSOLUTELY. IT'S NEVER WRONG. CARRY ON IS NEVER OUR FAULT.

>> IN TERMS OF HOW THIS MASTER PLAN WAS SET UP IN TERMS OF PERCENTAGE OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTY VERSUS RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IS THIS BY CONVERTING THIS PROPERTY OVER TO COMMERCIAL, WOULD THAT UPSETTING ANY KIND OF BALANCE? THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR THAT

? NO. >> YOU'VE GOT TWO PEOPLE ON EITHER SIDE OF YOU THAT WOULD SAY NO AND WE'LL LIVE IN THAT COMMUNITY.

>> WELL, NO. I MEAN LIKE IN TERMS OF REQUIRE YOU'RE ONLY ALLOWED SO MUCH COMMERCIAL AND THIS WOULD BE BREAKING HE AND HE HAS ONLY LINE ALREADY MARTY ASSOCIATED

SO GOOD. >> THAT'S IT. SO I WOULD SAY WE ADJOURN.

I DON'T KNOW. YOU'RE GOOD. >> EVERYBODY DID SOMETHING.

I'M OKAY WITH THE TOPIC. ALL RIGHT.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.