Good afternoon. I'd like to call this meeting of the Charlotte County Planning and Zoning Advisory Board to order. If the secretary would please call the roll. Michael Gravinson. Here. Doug Iso. Here. Steven Vieira. Here. Clint Baker. Here. Okay. We have four out of the five positions here. We have a position that is vacant. Mr. Shaw, would you explain the status of our vacancy? Yes, sir. We have received notice of the missing record unfortunately had to resign from this board. The Commission Administration, BCC assistants have posted that position and there is an item on tomorrow's board of county commissioners meeting for an appointment of a resident from that district. Okay. So we have the expectations that we'll have a full board come our next meeting. That is our hopes are. Okay. Thank you. I'd like to remind everybody to silence their cell phones so they don't go off and interrupt any of the meeting. The minutes of the August 12 meeting were circulated. Any corrections, additions, or comments? Not hearing any comments from the board except those as having been circulated. Any other announcements from the staff? No sir, not at this time. Thank you. Okay. If there are quasi-judicial petitions on the agenda today if you are going to be speaking to or for about one of those we ask that you rise and take it an oath. In the Secretary will administer that at this time. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you're about to give is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth if so please say I do. Thank you. Okay thank you. So we'll begin with our first petition, please. And Mr. Viera is on that petition, so he will have to excuse himself and step off from the diet. Thank you, Mr. Viera. Okay. For the record, Jenny Shao, Community Development Department. The applicants, Deborah and Stefan Viera are requesting a flat vacation application PV-24-02 the board of county commissioners adoption hearing is scheduled for October 22, 2024. The requested plat vacation is to vacate a portion of Harbor Heights Section 1 consisting of lots 9 through 11 and 52, block 10 as recorded in Plot Book 3 pages 21a through 21d of the public records of Charlotte County, Florida. The applicant is requesting a plaque vacation in order to comply with a settlement agreement with the county in association with resolution number 2024-023. The property contains 20,000 square feet more or less and is located at 2289 Talbrook Terrace. It is located in Commission District 1, this out of property. This is the location map. This is the aerial location map at full range. This is the aerial location map at mid range. This is the aerial location map. This is the Eagle View image. The future land use map designation is low density residential. In the zoning district is residential single family 3.5. The notification of the public hearings has been sent to all property owners within a thousand feet of the site boundary. And here you can see the proposed plot vacation. Here is the property ownership map. And here you can see the proposed plot vacation. Here is the property ownership map. And here is the proposed plot vacation overlaid onto the aerial. The applicants own the subject property. If approved, the petition would allow for more developerable space on the property. No residents will be denied reasonable access to their property as a result of this petition. All pertinent departments have reviewed the petition and all affected utilities have been notified. County staff have offered no comments or objections. Based on the property size, future land use map designation, and zoning district, only one residential unit can be built on the site. Therefore it is also staff's professional opinion that this application application number PV-24-02 is consistent with Charlotte County's comprehensive plan, Charlotte County's code of laws and ordinances and other applicable guidelines. Thank you, I welcome and am open to any questions. Okay, thank you. Any questions from the board? Yeah, you say it was in a settlement that it has to come into, I guess, agreement with them. So what was the settlement? The settlement agreement was, I believe, for the release of a conservation easement that was on the settlement. The settlement agreement was, I believe, for the release of a conservation easement that was on the property. The lots nine through 11. Yes, if you'd like more information. There's, we have come to find out that there has been some situations out in this area of harbor heights, where density was removed from a piece of property. Then the people that severed off the density were letting the properties go to tax deed sales typically. Where unsuspecting purchasers bought them with no density and have no ability to build. This one we were able to catch prior to Mr. Villera constructing anything. The next to hear unfortunately staff missed that one We have taken numerous steps in order to keep this from happening in the future We've added a GIS layer as well so that you can see where all the conservation easements are So that hopefully this situation does not occur again in the future Unfortunately, there are a lot of lots out here that are still currently being publicly traded. Anything that the county had in surplus, we have pulled off the market because they're essentially unbuildable. But there are privately circulating pieces of property that have this situation. Mr. Vier purchase this from the county. This was one where a title search did not find that there was a conservation easement on it either. So there was a number of failings in these two situations, but the ones are on the private market. Currently, we have no control over those. So we may be seeing those situations in the future. So the conservation easement is I think of conservation as an environmental issue but this is more because the density was removed. That is correct. The conservation easement, these are in scrub jay areas, that's one thing, but these are also substandard, smaller than these owning district allows, while vested in buildable, a developer, or two or three, a few of them have purchased these lots in order to take the density off and transfer them elsewhere to other projects. And again, then they stop paying taxes. They have cheated to tax deeds. Some of them have cheated directly to the county Nobody bit on them, but many of them are still again out there circulating in public So what here from the afternoon mr. Cherea. Thank you Stephen Vieira to 309 tellbrook Terrace We do accept my show as an expert witnessbrook Terrace. We do accept Michelle as an expert witness in this whole thing. We do have a resolution and agreement in place with the county and we fully accept the conditions of that agreement. Okay. Any questions to Mr. Vieira? Okay, thank you. We'll open public comment and we're wishing to speak about this petition. Please come forward. That motion we close public comment. Second. I have a motion second to close public comment. All in favor say aye. Aye. Public comment time is closed. Sounds like it's a legislative housekeeping type of corrections. So I will entertain a motion. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion for the application PV-24-02 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval based on the findings and analysis and the staff member of dated August 27, 2024. Charlotte County's comprehensive plan and the evidence and testimony presented at the public hearing before the planning and zoning board. Second. I have a motion to the second and a discussion on the motion. All the favor of the motion say aye. Aye. So that goes forward to the BCC with recommendation for approval. And on to the next item and Mr. Vier and you are welcome back to the dius. for the record. Johnny Shao Community Development Department. The applicants John P. and Holly D. Keith are requesting a Platt Vacation Application PV-24-03, and the Board of County Commissioners adoption hearing is scheduled for October 22, 2024. The requested Platt Vacation is to vacate a portion of Harbor Heights section 11, replat of part two, consisting of lots two through 17, block 187B as recorded in Platt Book 6, pages 13A through 13B, I mean 13D, my bad, of the public records of Charlotte County, Florida. The applicant is requesting a Platt vacation in order to comply with a settlement agreement with the county in association with resolution number 2024-023. The property consists of 82,698.9 square feet more or less or 1.9 acres more or less and is located at 27163 sand Carlos drive. The subject property is located in Commission District 1. This is the location map. This is the aerial location map at full range. This is the aerial location map at mid-range. This is the aerial location map. This is the Eagle View image. The future land use map designation is low density residential. The zoning district is residential single-family 3.5. The notification of public hearings has been sent to all property owners within a thousand feet of the site boundary. And here you can see the proposed plat vacation. Here is the property ownership map. And here is the proposed plat vacation overlaid onto the aerial. The applicants own the subject property. If approved, the petition would allow for more available space on the property. No residents will be denied reasonable access to their property as a result of this petition. And all pertinent departments have reviewed the petition. All the affected utilities have also been notified. County staff have offered no objections, except for one condition from the Comprehensive Planning Department. The property currently contains a total of 16 substandard lots, plotted lots of which two lots contain residential development rights. A restrictive covenant is required to limit the maximum residential development rights. A restrictive covenant is required to limit the maximum residential development or development of two units. So if approved by the Board of County Commissioners, the applicant would record a restrictive covenant to fulfill the condition of approval from comprehensive planning. Therefore, it is also staff's professional opinion that this Plot Vacation Application number pv-24-03 is consistent with Charlotte County's comprehensive plan, Charlotte County's code of laws and ordinances and other applicable guidelines. Thank you, I welcome and I'm open to any questions. Okay, thank you. Any questions for staff? Okay. Then we'll hear from the applicant or representative. I'm John Keith, I am the applicant in this case. I feel that they're being too restrictive with the number of homes that I could possibly put on there in the future. I've got like she said 16 lots you can see the overlay I've got the back half of the property there's eas easements on both sides. And I think I should have at least the three point, whatever it was that I had originally, put my glasses on, I could tell you. 3.5. Okay, 3.5, I think I should at least have that amount. I'm not asking for any more, but if they've restricted the way it is now, should I decide to subdivide and or sell in the future, then I'm really restricted. So that's how I feel about it. Mr. Tirti. I guess my question is, are you not going to accept the covenant that's been offered? I have not seen the covenant and you're saying two houses. So no, I will not accept that. If I may, Mr. Chair, the reason for this is the property that he purchased. The main portion, can you go back to the pre right there? Lot 7 and 8 were the only ones that actually had density on them. He purchased the other lots, had no density. This was one of two properties. We've cross referenced all of the building permits with all of the conservation easement properties. This is one of those two properties that I mentioned previously that we missed the building permit, that this was within a conservation easement with that because he owns Lot 7 and 8 as well. Those two were not part of that conservation easement have that density. That's the reason that he is limited to two is because that is the only density that is left on that entire piece of property. Absent that, he could not be building anything and had we caught that ahead of time before issuing the building permit we would not have issued the building permit. We have denied other building permits now that we put these new protections into place. We have been trying on these properties where we aired with the settlement agreements to be able to do this. But we have denied others for that same reason because now that the protections again are in place, we have caught them at building permit stage. So the properties he purchased did not have any density on them. So the issue with covenant is once the conservation easements, which is what were placed on those lots, 16 lots, once that is released, then that larger property would actually have, would be a subject to the 3.5 RSF 3.5 and you take the square footage of the property you'd have more than two density units. And Olli has his two density units on it now. So if the applicant is not going to agree to the restriction of the two units that was what his native density was then, maybe we ought to, I don't know if this stage, if we should continue it or because we're going to have a problem. Tom, kind of a question for you. Sure. If it reverts back and you've got 17 or 16 lots there, and it's 3.5, if he didn't't do anything could he not transfer densities on those and There's no receiving it's not a receiving area. Oh, you can't receive anymore No, that's the reason we've had the issues with all these all these lots is that you can't the dense This is a sending zone only so Under the way the law works if the county makes an error in a permit Then we're the county makes an error in a permit, then the county's subject to damages, potentially damaged claim, but that house would have to be removed. So it would be a big problem because we have essentially had this settlement agreement discussion for quite some time and got into this point. And actually we have a settlement agreement. So I don't know what the correct posture is. I mean we can move it along to the board and then see if we can work something out. But I had before I purchased those other two lots, I had a density on the tax rolls of 3.5. Well, that's the zoning designation. But those lots, all the other lots, had had their density removed. Right, I understand that. So now you only had two units of density on that site. And the only reason we went into the settlement agreement was because both parties felt that, at least we felt at the time, that the best solution was to try to vacate the lot. And then you'd have the two density units on it and you'd be able to keep your house. Otherwise, if we're not going to do that, then I don't know what the, that kind of throws a monkey wrench into the process for us because you can't put additional density on there. And I can't have three units. I don't understand why you can't. Because when those lots were purchased by a prior owner who was a developer, they entered into these conservation easements, which is what they used to do back in the early part of the TGU program. That's how the density was essentially removed from the property and that density was moved to another location. There is no native density on lots two through six and nine through seventeen. The county should have caught the fact that there was no density on those lots when you submitted for your building permit but it was not caught. So the settlement we entered into was to say okay if you combine the lots altogether you vacate the plat that way you'll get to keep the two units of density from 7 and 8 across the entire parcel. There is not going to be any more density other than that on that site so you can never get the three and a half. So I don't know if you're if we can continue this to the next hearing Mr. Chairman if that's what the applicants desire is or I have two questions or a question in the comment. Comment would be that I would suggest forwarding this on to the commissioners because the ending result is going to need to be the vacation of this property so that the two units can be developed on this property in whatever manner you may want to being three quarters of an acre each or you know pushing an acre each. Then you have options to do it. The question being does he have a recourse against the previous seller or against his title insurance, not against the county, but against we can't speculate on is we can't speculate on it. We can't speculate on that, but the reason the county entered into the settlement agreement was for the purpose of, you know, both parties acknowledging that it was not in anybody's interest to go and have the home removed, you know, that there was an error on both sides, essentially, because he may not understand it. The applicant may not understand it, but he had no residential density on the lots where his house exists is sitting right now. So that house should not be there. It was a mistake, but by both parties said, okay, we'll acknowledge a mistake, and this is how we'll fix it. So I don't have any problem with it moving on to the board. We can try to fix it. So I don't have any problem with it moving on to the board. We can try to fix it between now and then, come to some further agreement, but it has to be resolved, obviously. Yes. Well, I was not informed of this agreement that I could only have two densities on the property. I've never been informed of that. I was informed that I had one, I could put one house on it when they removed the conservation easement and that was all I was told. I was never told that I could only have two densities. Well, that's all you have, it's two densities. But if you want to pass it on to the board, Mr. Chair, we can discuss with the applicant offline and if he decides that you know he doesn't agree with where we're going, then we can go back to the drawn forward and start over. Okay. I don't usually ask the applicant this question, but have you inter talk to the end-use attorney about this? Or this is all just you've talked with the county and proceeded up to this point? I'm just dealt with the county. I am not hired in an attorney or anything else. And the one to do that. I didn't want to move forward and get this done. But you're not restricting other developments to owning one house per that amount of land. So I hope they can affair it. I'll ask you. Maybe we need to have a sit down and go through it more time. So we understand it's fair that you've been, the fact that you don't understand it is a fair point. But this is what it is. That's what the county's limited to. We cannot allow you to have more than two on there. So, okay. It's just a legal impossibility to do that. Okay. At this point, we'll open a public comment if there's anyone else out in the public that wishes to comment on this, please come forward. I'll make a motion. We close public comment. Second. I have a motion and a second to close public comment. Paul in favor say aye. All right. All right. Okay. Okay discussion. Will we with the motion be to go as is and then they just discuss. I there my opinion is that the correction of this issue which is there's a conservation easement because the density units have been transferred off by a previous owner and So it does not have the density other than two units That the correction of this is the play a vacation of this plaque and Then the two units can be placed anywhere on this parcel As single-family units it would then have to be split in half somewhere if they want two units. They can maintain just one unit. Subject to the rest of the code, obviously. Yes, but his other option is to have his house removed and move to the camping. Well, that would be his option. Our option right now is do we continue this? Do we recommend that it go forward to the BCC with a recommendation of yay or nay? I mean, that's three options. Just from the legal departments perspective, we have no problem having it go forward with a positive, you know, recommend and approve of a no problem with that. We obviously will have to work something out. As I say, my opinion, the correction of this is to move it forward as a vacation. Okay. Yeah, that's fair. And then they can, and then the applicant and the county can can work out to discuss and be educated on the rest of the involvement of this. Yeah. And I know Mr. David and Mr. Cullen will gladly talk with the applicant after the meeting or some other time at their conveniences. So any other comments? No. Okay. Mr. Chairman. Yes. I'll make a motion. Please? Okay. Mr. Chairman. Yes. I'll make a motion. Please. I'll make a motion to forward application PV-24-03 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval based on the findings and analysis and the staff memo dated August 30th, 2024. Charlotte County is comping us a plan, and the evidence of testimony presented at the public hearing before the planning in zoning board. I second. I have a motion in a second. Any discussion on the motion? All the favor of the motion say aye. Any opposed say nay. So that goes forward to the BCC with a recommendation for approval of the plant vacation. Item number three, please. For the record, Jenny Shao Community Development Department, I have been sworn in. My professional qualifications are attached to the staff report as Exhibit 1. The applicant Tucker's investment LLC is requesting a preliminary plan application pp-24-03 in the board of county commissioners adoption hearing is scheduled for October 22, 2024. We requested preliminary plan is for a subdivision to be named Willow Phase 2 being a replot of tracked F-2 of Tucker's point Phase 1 as recorded in Plot Book 27 pages 7 I mean 3A through 3Z29 of the public records of Charlotte County Florida. The proposed subdivision consists of 281 residential lots, five lake tracks, a common tract, and one right of way tract. This site contains 77.96 acres, more or less, and is generally located north of Tucker's grade east of Tamiya Metrile, west and south of I-75 and within the east county area the subject property is located in Commission District 2. This is the location map. This is the aerial location map at full range. This is the aerial location map at full range. This is the aerial location map at mid-range. This is the aerial location map. This is the Eagle View Image. The future land use map designation is low-density residential. The zoning district is planned development or PD. The notification of the public hearings has been sent to all property owners within a thousand feet of the site boundary. Here you can see the proposed 281 lots, five lake tracks, a common track and one right right-of-way track. Here are the proposed lots and tracks overlaid onto the aerial. If approved, the applicant would move forward to be able to apply for final site plan review and then obtain final approval from the Board of County Commissioners to begin construction and move forward with this project. All pertinent departments have reviewed the petition with comments from the County surveyor and environmental specialists that will need to be addressed with the final plot application package. Therefore it is also staff's professional opinion that this preliminary plot application number pp-24-03, is consistent with the low-density residential future land use map designation, the county's comprehensive plan, the county's code of laws and ordinances, and other applicable guidelines. Thank you. I welcome and I'm open to any questions. Thank you. Any questions for staff? Yeah. I do. I just have one. And going through the material I saw the letter from Mr. Collinant to the Southwest Engineering and Design. And it was one item that stood out to me that density may have to be transferred onto the site is there already isn't there already sufficient Ten city in place for this development I Believe there is I'd have to defer to Jay Shall I believe this has already been transferred but typically whenever we do preliminary plots and subdivisions like this We put that as a catch all it's why it says may need to be So that we can try to have a built- and suspenders approach that in case we miss something. Any other questions from the board? Then we'll have the agents or the applicants presentation or the agent. My name is Dan Mumford. I'm here on behalf of Tucker's Investment LLC. I'm ready to answer any questions on behalf of the half of Governor. Okay. You accept Ms. Shau as an expert. I do. Okay. Thank you. Any questions for from the board? No? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. We'll reserve rebuttal if you need any. Anyone wishing to speak about this petition please come forward. Make a motion we close public comment. Second. Have a motion second close public comment. All in favor say aye. Aye. Public comment time is closed. Any discussion from the board? More about this petition? Does it all entertain a motion? I make a motion to forward application PPP24-03 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval based on the findings and analysis in the staff memo dated August 27th, 2024 Charlotte County's Conference of plan and the evidence and testimony presented at the public hearing before the planning and zoning board. Hi, second. Hi, I have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? All in favor, the motion say aye. Aye. Motion carries. Next item, please. For the record, Jenny Cheryl Community Development Department. I have been sworn in. My professional qualifications are attached to the staff report as exhibit one. The applicant Babcock Property Holdings LLC is requesting a preliminary application pp-24-06 and the Board of County Commissioners adoption hearing is scheduled for October 22, 2024. The requested preliminary plot is for a subdivision to be named Midtown Parcel 4, being a re-plot of tracked E-48 of Midtown at Babcock Ranch as recorded in Plot Book 27 page 16A through 16Z9 of the public records of Charlotte, Ken, Florida. The proposed subdivision consists of 216 lots and 19 tracks for residential development, roadway, drainage and open space. The site contains 30.62 acres more or less, and it is generally located south of Cyprus Parkway, north of Saw, Palmetto Parkway, west of the county line with Gade Glades County, and east of Babcock Trail. The site is within the boundary of the Babcock Ranch Community Development of Regional Impact, Inc. 2, and the East County Area. The subdivision is located in Commission District 1. Here is the location map. Here is the aerial location map at full range. Here is the aerial location map at mid-range. Here's the aerial location map at mid range. Here's the aerial location map. This is the Google Earth image. The future land use map designation is Babcock mixed use. The zoning district is Babcock overlay zoning district. The notification of the public hearings has been sent to all property owners within 1,000 feet of the site boundary. And here you can see the proposed 216 lots and 19 tracks. Here are the lots and tracks overlaid onto the aerial. And if approved, the applicant would move forward to be able to apply for final site plan review and then obtain final plan approval from the Board of County Commissioners to begin constructions and move forward with this project. All permanent departments have reviewed the petition with comments from the County surveyor and environmental specialists that will need to be addressed with the final plan application package. Therefore it is also staff's professional opinion that this preliminary application, number pp-24-06 is consistent with the Babcock Ranch community, DRI, development orders, the Babcock mix use future land use map designation, the Babcock overlay zoning district, the county's comprehensive plan, the county's code of laws and ordinances and other applicable guidelines Thank you. I welcome and I'm open to any questions Thank you any questions for staff No, okay I will have the applicant or the representatives of presentation, please or the representatives presentation please. Hello. Hi. Erica Woods for the record. Babcock property holdings. We accept Michelle as an expert. And I do not have a presentation for you, but I'm here to answer any questions. OK. Any questions for? Will you rename the parcel for to some other name? We have a long history of interesting naming for our plat. Yes, I live in parcel for. Yeah, I know. Actually, I don't know the name of the neighborhood, but it'll have its own name. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. It's not floating out in the middle of nowhere. There is another plat that's going through process. Yeah, it's just looks hot. Yeah, we'll have I think four plat's coming in. This one's under the old process, and then the three others will come in under the new process. Okay, thank you. All right, thank you. Anyone wishing to speak about this petition? Please come forward. I make a motion. We close public comment. Second. I have a motion of second to close public comment. All in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. It's a public comment time is closed. Any questions, discussions from the board on this petition? Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion. Please. Like the motion to forward application pp-24-06 to the Board of County Commissioners with the recommendation of approval based on the findings and analysis in the staff member of dated September 4th, 2024. Charlotte County's comprehensive plan in evidence and testimony presented at the public I'm on the agenda. I'm on the agenda. I'm on the agenda. I'm on the agenda. I'm on the agenda. I'm on the agenda. I'm on the agenda. I'm on the agenda. I'm on the agenda. I'm on the agenda. I'm on the agenda. I'm on the agenda. I'm on the agenda. I'm on the agenda, please. Good afternoon for the record, J. Shell, Community Department, and my planning extra qualification that is attached to staff report as Exhibit One. So the Tina Powell Parks and Natural Resource Development Manager is requesting this application Z-24-13 and the first public hearing is scheduled for October 22nd and the second public hearing which is adoption hearing is scheduled for November 26, 2024. Because that is by the law. Because if county initiated any rezoning for more than 10 acres, they require two public hearings. So the proposed changes to amend the county's only address from resident to single families 3.5 for approximately 109.767 acres and residential multi-family 10 for approximately 9.5 acres to parks and recreation and the subject property located in commission district 4. So the notification of public hearings for this petition was sent to the adjacent property owners within 1,000 feet. You can see this is a boundary map. And this is the general location of the subter property which is located in the mid county area. And you can see this is a subter property. The site contains the county centennial park. And this is the 2050 framework map, the property designated as CRA. And this is the 2030 future day news map, the subject property designated as Murdoch Village mixed use. And also this is existing zoning. The zoning contains two zoning spaces. The RSS 3.5 and the remaining is RMF 10. And this is a proposed zoning, PKR zoning. So the proposed changes to PKR zoning is to make sure the properties, the zoning is consistent with the current use of the, of our active park and with numerous recreational facilities to serve Shara County citizen and the potential future development of the property. So it's kind of the housekeeping. It's also consistent with County's comprehensive plan because the future and use map designation is Merlot Village mixed use which allows recreational users. This is county's property use for active park. So it is staff's professional opinion. The proposed change is consistent with county's comprehensive plan and the code of laws and the ordinance and other applicable guidelines. So I'd be more than happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Any questions for staff? This is already Centennial Parks. It's already been used as a park. Yes, years. Okay, three years. We just wanted to make sure the zoning is consistent with the use of the site as a park. Part of our ongoing project with community services to get all the parks with PKR zoning. Have the county removed the density in this parcel? Being in the Murdoch Village area, these parcels didn't have any density. Because of the evident domain. Because the density within the entirety of the and J correct me if I'm wrong, but do you want to go into it? Yeah, because this is probably used as a park. And the future N.A.U.S. map designation, Merchant Village, mixed use. And they don't meet the criteria for sending them. So that's why we tried to correct that. I just want to be sure that you don't meet the criteria for sending them. So that's why we try to correct that. I just want to be sure that you don't believe something on the table. When we changed it to the Murdoch Village mixed use and by virtue of it being the park and set aside as the park, it basically lost all the residential rights to it. Because I hate to have you lose that bonus density for other projects. OK, I asked the question. Any other questions from the board? We'll open up public comment, and anyone wants to speak about this petition? Please come forward. I make motion. We close public comment. Second. I have motion second close public comment. My favorite say aye. I public comment time is close. Any other discussion amongst the board? Questions for staff. Then I'll have your chairman. I like to make a motion. Please a motion forward application Z dash two four dash one three the board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval based on the findings and analysis and the staff report dated August 12th 2024 Charlotte County's comprehensive plan and the evidence and testimony presented at the public hearing before the planning and zoning board I have a motion in a second I need discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Motion carries. So that completes our agenda for today. Anything else from the staff? No, sir. Thank you. Then we are adjourned.