Good morning ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the Charlotte County Board of County Commissioners regular and land use meeting for Tuesday March 25th 2025. Let the record show all commissioners are present. If you wish please rise for the invocation given by Captain Israel Rosino of the Florida Division of the Salvation Army followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. Father, we thank you for this morning as we you gave us an opportunity to get off of bed and to live another day. Father we pray that our commissioners who continue to use their wisdom to better our county and the citizens they are residing here. Guide our discussions today and let that bring honor and glory to you and all that we do and say. We pray all this in the wonderful name of Jesus Christ. Amen. Amen. Hi, pleasure. Regions to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God in the individual with liberty and justice for all. Thank you, Captain, for visiting with us today. Next on the agenda, we have changes to the agenda, Mr. Porrez. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioners, I have two items for you on the change memo. The first one, change number one to R3. We added the updated agenda for the water authority upcoming meeting. And then change number two to item H2. Add an attachment regarding the SMG on the event center contract and also updated the wording in the action item. Move the changes. Second. We have motion in second to move the changes. Is there any further discussion? Is there any opposition to the motion hearing none passes? Mr. Chairman, move the proclamations. We have motion in second to move the proclamations, any further discussion, any opposition to the motion passes unanimously. Commissioner Doit, you have the honors. Good morning, everyone. We've got a few proclamations today. Whereas one of the most meaningful gifts that he and Dean can bestow upon another is the gift of life. Whereas over 104000 men, women, and children are currently on the national waiting list for organs of which 5,500 reside in Florida. And whereas 48,149 historic number of organ transplants occurred in last calendar year. There are many people that are waiting. And the need for organ eye and tissue donation remains critical as a new patient is added to the national waiting list every eight minutes. Sixteen people died to the lack of available organs. whereas life link of Florida, the nonprofit organization dedicated to the recovery of organs and tissue for transplant therapy and Florida with a mission to honor donors and save lives throughout the donation procedure. Therefore, it's proclaimed that the month of April 2025 shall be known in all of Charlotte County as Donate Life Month and receiving the proclamation for Donate Life Month, you must be Amy. Okay, congratulations. I want you to know that you like the... I'm going to have to go. I'm going to have to go. I, it is fitting we honor him and reflect on the the importance of parliamentary procedure. And Robert's rules of order occasionally revise as widely recognized and accepted as the authority for public and private organizations throughout the world. It's timely to reflect on the importance of procedure for meetings and making them run effectively. The National Association of Polymitarians has, by adoption of a standing rule, designated the month of April as Parliamentary Law Month. And the National Association of Polymitarians has the premier provider of parliamentary leadership that mission is to provide education and resources to enable efficient and democratic decision-making throughout the use of parliamentary procedure. Therefore, it be a pro claim that the month of April 2025 is known in all of Charlotte County as parliamentary law month. And receiving that is Hey, me Newman. Oh, true. Oh, okay, you're right, you're strong. You're right. that is Amy Newman. Oh, true. Oh. Okay, you're right. You're strong. You're right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm looking for Tim Richie. Whereas water is a basic and essential need of every living creature and clean, safe, and sustainable water resources are vital to our economy environment, citizens, and visitors. In Shalah County and our water management districts work together to increase the awareness of importance. And whereas Shalah County has designated April typically a dry month when water demands are most acute as water conservation month to help education citizens about how they can help save Florida's precious water reserves. And Shala County encourages and supports conservation through various educational and special events. And whereas all water users including residential commercial industry, architectural, institutional, hospitality, private citizens and others can all help make positive contributions. Therefore, it will be a pro claim in the month of April 2025. Shall be designated and observed in Charlotte County as Water Conservation Month. David, please. Thank you. This is my favorite I've gotten to do this for a couple of times. I'm not going to announce who's going to receive it just yet. Let me get at least halfway through. Whereas Charlotte County Easter Egg Cllent event will be held on Saturday April 12th. And the Easter Egg scavenger hunt will take place March 22nd through April 10th, continuing a tradition of Charlotte County celebrating this our our 61st year. Shala County encourages inclusion for all by hosting this annual event. And over 1,500 children and family members traditionally participate. Whereas Shala County Community Services recognizes all volunteers and donors supporting this event, including Shala County Youth Sports Council members organizations, and where Shala County Community Services. Thank all of our community sponsors for supporting the 2025 Easter excellent event and Easter eggs gathered around who are all vital pod to help make it a success. Therefore be it proclaimed that April 12th. So we know in all of Shala County, as Shala County Easter, excellent event day. And accepting this, we have Mark and the Easter Bunny. Thank you. Where as the nation's 369 counties are more than 330 million Americans provide essential services to create health safety and vibrant communities and whereas counties fulfill a vast range of responsibilities to deliver those services. And whereas counties and intergovernment partners enact local state and federal programs to address the needs of their residents, shall the county and all counties take pride in the responsibility to protect and enhance health, well-being safety of all of our residents in official and cost-effective ways. Whereas that role includes a responsibility to inspire county residents, to engage with their communities, and to lead by highlighting our strength as intergovernmental partners, whereas each year, 1991 the National Association of Counties has encouraged counties across the country to elevate awareness of county responsibilities, programs and services. Now therefore be a pro claim that the month of April 2025 shall be designated and observed in Shala County as National County Government Month and we're gonna have everyone come down I guess for a photo thing up or down Chairman I guess we're all up here I'm gonna just go over here. Oh, well, you guys are gonna join us up there, then. Nope. What do I do? I'll try to give it to you. Sure. That's up there, then. Okay. What do I do? I'll try to give it to you. Sure. I'll try to give it to you. I'll try to give it to you. I'll try to give it to you. Sure. I'll try to give it to you. I'll try to give it to you. Sure. I'll try to give it to you. Sure. I'll try to give it? Yeah. Yeah. You want to just move? Yeah. Just like the following. Just to give it this first thing. Yeah. You guys want each take a hand? Yeah. Oops. Oh my gosh. Yeah. Thank you. Next we move on to employee recognition. You go on Mr. Flores. Actually if I could just add thank you for recognizing, you know, National County Government Month. You said 3000 counties where 1500 where 1,500 plus employees strong so board your vision, your guidance. You know, I see a lot, every department represented in this room but it really boils down to them. They're the ones delivering the services out there to the communities and I thank them for that. So next we've got employee of the month. So I'll turn over to Travis to do the particulars. Thank you. Good morning commissioners, Travis Perdue, for the Red Third Facility Director. It is my absolute pleasure to present to you our employee of the month from March of 2025. Scott Francis was nominated as employee of the month by several members of community services. He's recognized for his high level of customer service, his leadership and timely response and handling complex concerns and requests. He exemplifies the county mission of delivering exceptional service. But he also exemplifies the county vision and values with leadership commitment, resourcefulness, and being supportive. A few comments from his colleagues, Scott's work ethic leadership and passion for enhancing our community may come a standout candidate for this honor. He could be observed solving various complex problems with due diligence, explanation, and inspiring a level of precedence with a specific respect to issues pertaining to aquatic facilities. Others have stated that Scott is committed to quick response times when work orders are submitted, Scott is accountable and will follow up personally when work orders are not able to be completed in any traditional way. And Scott is resourceful and will find the answer if he does not already have it. He's energetic and supportive and will find a way to get the job done. Here at Facility Scott has been employed since November of 2016. He's a supervisor and our maintenance and repair team. And he's worn many hats. He continues to exhibit leadership qualities for all to see and follow. He's supported not only those in the department, but as stated above, he works across the entire county and supports the entire county. He demonstrates an outstanding commitment to upholding and exemplifying our core values. Consistently goes above and beyond his duties to ensure that our customers are taken care of and with the utmost respect and professionalism. He keeps our facility safe, efficient, well maintained. His dedication and exceptional work ethic truly embody the values of our organization. So I present to you, Scott'll just lay out the ground rules. Anybody wishing to address the board during this portion of the meeting? I'll fill out a card, state their name for the record, and state which agenda item or items will be addressed. We mark Shelby limited to three minutes, and Shelby addressed to the commission as a body and not to individual members. Mr. Smallwood, you had R2 on here, but I have a letter that references Burnt Store, that's F5. So yeah, you can come forward. And Mr. Chairman for the record, he handed me a copy and I've distributed to every commissioner and to the clerk. I got it. Thank you. So smallwood, 24368, Treasure Island Boulevard. Trusting the wastewater treatment plan on Bernstore Road. Good morning, commissioners and staff. I'm here today to talk about the Bernstore Road wastewater treatment plan. That plan was built to a 500,000 gallon capacity, but was modified. Half of that plan was converted to a digester. That probably allowed the plan to run more efficiently, but also cut capacity to 250,000 a day. That plant in the middle of February was running 338,000 gallons to 348,000 gallons a day. That is over capacity by over 100,000 gallons a day. Staff has now projected another 1,800 ohms to be built this year to be added to the current plant. This is unacceptable. DEP estimates 4,500 gallons per month usage for a three bedroom home. I will be very conservative and figure it for 100 gallons a day. This does not include the RV park in Lee County that is hooked up to our wastewater treatment plant. It has 520 lots and is currently only half full. Expected to be full next year. That means 250 lots at 75 gallons for a total of 18,750 gallons a day. This brings the total to 538,000 gallons a day. Even if you convert the plant back to a 500,000 gallon a day, it will be over capacity one year from now. What does this all mean to you and me? We can start with high ammonia discharges into the deep well, also high BODs and solids. If the discharge pumps can even handle the extra into the deep well, and that we will be able to accept this extra affluent. Next will be the fees that we have to be paid to DEP because the plant is running over capacity. We as concerned citizens would like to have answers to these problems. The new plant was voted down six months ago, so where do we go from here? The biggest concern is the pollution that likely could happen with the plant running over capacity nearly every day. The new plant will cost $175 million. Where will this money come from? We already have a wastewater treatment plan, but you have allowed the builders to come and build without paying enough impact fees. And now you will expect us to pay for a new wastewater treatment plant through higher utility bills. This is unacceptable. The builders should have been responsible for the new wastewater treatment plant. These outlook figures are only for one year. The worst part being that even put on a fast track, it will take two years to build a new wastewater treatment plant. By waiting until the current wastewater treatment plant is in a field state before you stop building It means that defines from DEP will not stop until the wastewater treatment plan is in operation Bottom line is that we as concerned citizens demanded you stop building permits in the March store corridor They'll until the new wastewater treatment plant is built. Thank you, sir Thank you, sir. Thank you for your comments Next I have Denise Dull L1 and then Jerry Waxler L1 in the queue. Good morning Denise Stull Director of Operations Peace River Community Housing Partners porch. As a certified community land trust in a future community housing development organization or a chodo Port has a responsibility to take a leading role as a trusted community partner and expert in affordable housing development As a nonprofit developer we are uniquely positioned to drive sustainable community led development by leveraging all available resources and including the Charlotte home program application process and the ability to request incentives. Charlotte County's bold goal of adding 200 new affordable housing units per year over the next five years remains a top priority. It is clear that the county also faces a significant shortage of affordable housing. A Southwest Florida Regional Housing report prepared by the Florida Housing Coalition for the Collaboratory in February of 2025, found that no county in the Southwest Florida region has sufficient affordable and available rental units for households, earning up to 120% of area median income. The greatest need is among households earning at or below 80% AMI, with the largest deficits in the below 60 to 50% AMI ranges. This shortage is expected to increase exponentially over the next 10 years. Historically, detached single-family homes have been the predominant type built in Charlotte County, largely due to zoning regulations. This trend continues today, even though many working residents in Charlotte County cannot afford home ownership. The Florida Housing Coalition's report confirms this fact that it's finding stating that even two person households earning up to 140 percent AMI cannot afford a moderately price to bedroom home in this area. I mean, sorry, data continually shows that the wrong type of housing is being built to support the economic population of our working community. This is why the development of multifamily affordable housing is so critical. In the immediate area surrounding Porch's villas on Scott Street Project, at least three vacant multifamily lots are currently listed for sale, with another listed as a mobile home community. Extending the sewer system to support our project will create an opportunity for porch and other nonprofit developers to consider these sites for future affordable housing development. The area is strategically located near schools, employment centers, retail and medical facilities. Because this is an area considered to be a coastal high hazard area, a sewer extension would ensure that development can still proceed in a way that promotes smart growth and sustainability. Purchase committed to environmentally responsible building practices and recognizes that a sewer system is far more reliable than a septic in a flood prone area. Sceptic systems in high hazard coastal zones are prone to failure due to heavy rain, storm and rising groundwater leading to contaminated ocean of yards and the duration of water quality. Additional sewer backups into homes and flooding creates serious health hazards. Sewer infrastructure offers a more resilient long-term solution support. Thank you, great. Thank you, ma'am. This is Waxler. Good morning. I'm Jerry Waxler, President of the Board of the Peace River Community Housing Partners Inc. or Portsch. Portsch is requesting approval of a second amendment to its Charlotte home application for construction of a triplex on the corner of Scott Street and La Villa Road on land donated to us by Charlotte County. All units will be rented to low income families, residents earning at or below 30% of the area meeting income with preference given to qualified veterans. Each commissioner was emailed an overview of the request and copies of that overview have also been provided this morning. Portia's requesting an amendment to the Laura to extend the certificate of occupancy to the deadline to March 2026. We are also requesting additional funding beyond the existing approved funding to reimburse Ports for permitting fees, utility connections, and the installations of an FPL Power Poll. But the big thing is an additional $150,000 to extend a sewer line from Cooper Street to the property, including installation of a lift station. If installed, the line will pass by five vacant lots, four of which have multifamily zoning, and one of which has manufactured home conventional zoning, requiring sewer connections to those lots when those properties are developed. All lots, including porches, are located within the Coastal Eye Hazard area. For both water quality and safety concerns, sewer is preferred over septic tanks, and this would be consistent with Charlotte County's septic to sewer goals. Additionally, there is an ongoing cost for maintenance and repair of septic systems, which is often higher for septic systems serving rental units. The cost savings of a sewer connection would be utilized by Porch in its continuing efforts to rehabilitate and develop housing for very low income families, especially veterans. Porch is not relying solely on government funding, having raised $416,617 in cash and in kind donations to date, which represents 45% of the total development cost, and that is with the $150,000 sewer connection. Courts is and will continue to be Charlotte County's partner in addressing the overwhelming need for affordable housing and respectfully request approval of the funding detailed in its home application. Thank you very much. Thank you for your comments. Just a question for the board on this next one. I received two cards from some young folks in the audience. They wanted to come up together to speak on F3, which is the widening of Harborview Road was it? Yeah, King's Highway and Harborview Road. Is there any objections and I'm speaking together? I think Harborview Road was it? Yeah, King's Highway and Harborview Road. Is there any objections to them speaking together? I think they needed to support. I have no objection. Okay, same same three minutes. So they will get the same three minutes not total of six. They need to work together on their time. If they work together is that okay, you can come okay you can come forward then together good morning morning my name is Devanti Bryant I'm here also with Trionner we're both students at Port Shalahide and members of Big Brothers and Big Sisters Beyond School, Beyond School Walls. Thank you for your opportunity to speak with us and share our views with you today. The item we would like to comment on is F3 Highway, Harborview Road Intersection Improvement. We think that the proposed improvement are good and necessary and will help improve the traffic in the area and make it safer for drivers. We appreciate the Public Work Department always trying to find a way to improve quality of our infrastructure. We also believe that road widening is not the solution to fixing traffic traffic issues in every situation. Widing roads may temporarily reduce the congestion but it also leads to induce demand. It generates more traffic in long roads. We believe that one of the potential ways to help reduce traffic, because that is to explore the ideas of fixed route transportation systems in the public bus system. Public transportation benefits the community by helping reduce traffic congestion. Because buses can carry more passengers than a regular car can, and it also helps people who may not have access to a vehicle. We feel that the bus system would benefit the county as a whole, but specifically we wanted to share how it could help us as younger residents of the county. Many high school students work part-time jobs after school and on weekends, and many do not have access to their own vehicles. A bus system could help more students have after school jobs, and not have to rely on their parents to take them to work, which is expending gas, money, and so on and so forth. A bus system would also benefit young people because it would give us a way to get to the library, sports game, shopping, going to the beach, hanging out with friends. It would give us other things to do. We'd get more involved with our community. We'd make more time for friends and be able to go out. Walking or riding a bike is not always an option because of the weather in Florida, because of the distances where we live and where we need to go, because of the limited walkability of our county, and because there are many streets where it's not safe to ride your bike, even with designated bike areas. While we understand there are many challenges to implementing a bus system in Charlotte County, such as funding and the way that the county is laid out geographically. We thought it was important to share of views with the leaders and decision makers. We hope you will take our thoughts into consideration as you continue your efforts to make Charlotte County a great place to live, work and play. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Now I hope you got excused from school. I know Superintendent Viannello. He's watching. And he's watching right now. Jeff Lustig, F5. And that's my last card, so anybody wishing to speak, you still have an opportunity, just fill out a card, and you can come forward, you'll have three minutes. Hello, commissioners, Jeff Lostig. I was at the Pintagorda citizens fair to talk to all the different utilities individuals. And the big subject came up about their $37 million water treatment plant that they were looking to build. And I asked the head of the utilities, what percentage of that water was used for irrigation and for plants? And he said about 30 to 40 percent. It may be time like they're doing in Arizona not having the same kind of plants, using native plants that don't need this kind of irrigation to decrease the level of water usage. If it's that much water that's being used for trees and green grass, maybe we could use more nature species that would require less water. I know it's a radical theory, but unfortunately, these non-native palm trees suck up huge amounts of water and provide little shade. It's, you know, a node would change the nature of our town, but whether or not we'd be able to keep taking out water from the aquifers and from the peace river and whatnot, there may become a time when we have to make that kind of change. And to fund these extravagant, not extravagant, but these necessary improvements will make it unaffordable for the next generation. You've done a great job in maintaining a water supply for our county. I've heard you talk about that many times. But now we have to deal with the waste water. And I don't know if that fits. It's just a thought. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. OK, anybody wishing to speak? You'll have three minutes. OK, we're going gonna move on to the consent agenda commissioner Deutsch Mr. Truex Mr. Constance have five okay have five and commissioner Dory L1 C specifically sir L1 L1 okay Move the balance second okay have motion and a second to move the balance of the consent is it includes F3 Yeah, includes F3 right so the kids know that yes, this is this is their item passing Okay, yeah, this is your item passing when we approve consent So we have a motion a second to move the balance of consent. Is there any further discussion? So any optus into the motion? Okay, passes unanimously. Okay, F-5. This is, well, few things. Mr. Smallwood had come up. I have a letter I want to read into the record as well. I have a bunch of questions, but this is one of those items again where I'm very uncomfortable with item C which is allowing the chairman to sign the contract after completion of negotiations. I definitely want this to come back so that we can see what the number is. So this is going to be pretty big and we we don't know what that looks like. So can you explain the process and the ranges and what we're expecting here? For the record, Kim Corbett, senior vision manager, purchasing. On the construction manager at risk contracts, what happens is initially when we sign the contract, the initial phase that's going to be in this first part of it is going to be the pre-construction services, which are going to be on the minimal side. When we get into the G&P, the guaranteed maximum price, that will be by amendment and that will come back to the Board of County Commissioners as they normally do for your consideration. So the largest amount is going to be in the amendment, not in the front end of the initial contract. Okay, well that's good to know. And I'm glad the gentleman here from Utilities for the next, for the item on the regular agenda, because I want to read this letter from the Bernsturk Court of Coalition. And this is from their president, John Fleming, we all received this. Dear commissioners, on February 25th, 2025, members of the coalition testified before the board. Over concerns, residents had shared with the group about the capacity of the Burned Store water treatment and wastewater facility. It was our intention that day to allow county staff and members of the board to fully be fully transparent by providing an accurate description of the ongoing challenges the county has been facing at the plant, especially the timeline where full capacity will be reached at the plant. At least one commission and one staff member were made aware of our intentions. Instead the county decided to make comments which we knew at the time were not an accurate depiction of current conditions at the facility. I say this because prior to our testimony we had numerous discussions with staff at the South County, at the South District Office of the Florida State Department of Environmental Protection. What we learned was that shortly after Hurricane Irma, the county began experiencing problems with the facility and that those problems, especially uncontrolled wastewater spills, were worsening, causing the county to have to enter into a consent agreement with the state sometime between 2018 and 2019. We also learned that conditions at the facility worsened during the rainy season. When we last spoke with DEP, we were informed that this whole matter is currently before the EP's legal division in Tallahassee, and because of this further information could not be provided. I'm gonna stop there. Mr. Watson, can we go through this letter like section by section and just kind of help me? Figure out where we're at. For the record, Dave Watson, Charlotte County Utilities Director. And Jeremy for us operations manager. Very good. So, so far, is this accurate or do you have issue with any of these statements? So, the majority of the e-m emails correct, but we also have already began the process of what Mr. Smallwood had mentioned the 174, 75 million, whatever that number was, we were not happy with that number at all. None of us were happy with it. So that's why we revisited the options to expand the plan. So now moving forward with the C-MAR, we have other options to get the treatment plan up to, you know, where it needs to be, but we're not experiencing any out of compliance matters right now. We had just had our inspection done last month or the month before and minor issues were resolved on site and it was a matter of small maintenance items that were addressed like pressure gauges stuff like that so everything is in compliance at the plan. Okay that's the that's the sentence I was looking for. So we're in compliance we're not being we're being fined. We're not currently being fined. Okay just that's good. So I'm going to jump back to Mr. Smallwood's letter or statement about the capacity for wastewater being a half a million gallons a day. And then we switched to a digester, which limited us back to 250, is that correct? So the way the plant is currently running, because we are utilizing a digester for part of the treatment process, we are running at 250,000 gallons a day, but the plant is permitted to 500,000 gallons a day. So what we're doing is we converted over the digester to help with the treatment process to produce better water that's going down into the deep well. So we're still meeting all specs, but we are borderline maxed out, but that's why we're adjusting. Right, which is not a new issue for us, which is why we're working on this. But the capacity, let's dial back maybe five years. The capacity that we had, was that enough for the current level of platted lots and homes that were there? At the time, yes. Okay. So as developers have come online with these huge multi-acre developments, which they have every right to develop, why didn't we have a better plan to say, well, wait a second, where are at capacity for what's in the ground now? And I'm even second guessing whether this first come first serve policy is a good idea. We needed to say, look, we're here. So anybody bringing these large developments, you have a choice. You can kick in tens of millions of dollars into the kitty to expand this plant because it's all going to be for your capacity or you can build your own package plant, right? So, with our plan expansions, we go specifically by the DEP regulations and that really ties into when we're planning to expand, when we start construction and so on. Once that plant hit 50% capacity, and that is for actual capacity connections. That's when we start our annual review and you know, watching the plant capacity. When we hit 75% capacity, technically we are in design at that point, 90% were in construction. That was the original timeline when we, you know, went through this process with the 2 and F M G D expansion. You know, when those numbers came in obviously, they were too high. We had to go back. That's where we are now. We've gone back. We're bringing it an engineer and a seamer on board. We're going to be expanding to the 1MGD, which we believe is going to be in the $20 million range. And go from there. The intention right now is once we have this dialed in, and we know where we're going in the timeline, I'm going to be coming back to the board talk talk about a longer-term solution. You know, as that whole area builds out, the additional half-MGD will get us a little over 4,000 more units at about 160 gallons per unit per day. So we do have also a short-term solution in the CMAR and the existing engineering contract. We do have the ability to bring a package plant into do incremental expansions as needed so that we stay in compliance with the EP. And you'll be seeing all that as we go through this process with the engineer to CMAR. OK, but if the incremental expansions are tripped by specific large developments going in, is there a way to pass through that cost directly to that developer, or is this going to go through the same process of I guess essentially bonding or having to finance the expansions if we have to, but either way this is going to be born by current rate payers. Is that correct? This would be born as well the developers as they come in, they pay their connection fee. There is no mechanism in place currently that would put specific costs on a developer for plan expansions. It's just the connection. Okay, but again, answer the question, and this expansion is going to be borne by current rate payers. Yes. just the connection. Okay, but again, answer the question, though. This is gonna be, this expansion is gonna be borne by current rate payers. Yes, because the expansion technically would be done in advance of the new connections coming on. Thank you, thank you Mr. Chair. Yeah, nobody's in the queue, so I'd like to just jump in with a couple of comments. So we do the same thing with our water. You know, every time we do a plan expansion or things that we're doing at the authority, it all goes to all the rate payers. You know, wastewater is no different where we get our end is through these connection fees and other costs. That's been the policy, the board. Now, if the board wants to make a new policy that says anybody that new comes in, you have to pay for the plan. You know, that's a different conversation, but we've always assessed new development based on our fee structure. And you know, since I've been on the board, we revisit those to make sure that they're accurate enough to date and we make the adjustments where necessary. There's detailed formulas that are used to figure all of that out. But the key is we're in compliance. We have an agenda item that was a result of us being in compliance when we met those thresholds. Unfortunately the bid came in tens of millions of dollars over budget. I can't remember what's it? 60 million or 70 million? It was 90 million originally budgeted and it came in at 170 something Yeah, so we're 80 million over budget so back level yeah almost double So we were on the pathway. What was that eight months ago? I can't remember how long it was approximately Yeah, so unfortunately with numbers like that the board had a discussion We said there's no way we could pass those rates through to the people was It was untenable. So we tasked staff eight months ago to come back with an alternate plan. And that's where we are today. This was born out of those discussions eight months ago and keeping with the timeline that DEP has with their thresholds. So yeah, things are tight right now. My discussion with Mr. Watson was at our last utility meeting. We had four years or to five years worth of hookups for that plant, but that was without the 2024 numbers. Um, I believe you now added, and this will be for our next utility meeting, the 2024 numbers, you dropped the 2021 numbers. is that correct? That will be correct, yes. And so that timeline now has been readjusted. And is it now 18 months estimation? I can't remember on. So we don't have, we haven't calculated it yet. We're still in the process of preparing our presentation for May. But those numbers will be included and yes yes it will substantially reduce from where it was at our last projection. Okay, so I think what's out there in the community is that the board has been unaware of where we are with the status of our wastewater treatment plants. We have quarterly utility meetings for a reason, so we can solely focus on these issues. So the fact that we're here today shows we've been keeping in compliance with the requirements of expansion. Unfortunately that $90 million hiccup caused this delay. But I like the fact that we've got Plan B through this process in place with potential package units. If we need. The agenda item calls for I believe a total of 17 months of five months I think of planning and then the balance for construction. Is that correct? Yes, that's correct. Okay. And then there's a number in the agenda item of $20 million. So we kind of have an idea of where we are on the number. I think the commissioner constants is a point, you know, how much is this all going to be? That $20 million is in that item. Any other comments on this? Move approval. Second. Okay. We have motion a second to approve F-5. Is there any further discussion? Commissioner Dordier has- Chairman, yeah, and relative to Commissioner Constance's comment about bringing back C-5C, I'm okay with it the way it is today, because it is a smaller bite of the apple. I am absolutely supportive of when this thing finally comes back. You got the big plant expansion and we need to see all of that at that time, because it is significant dollars at point but for this one today I'm okay with the item as written and okay at another comment there was discussion from the public that this is going to impact existing hookups and residents that live out there it is not if you are hooked up to the system and you are a customer this does not impact existing Bernstor residents or any customers of that particular plant at all, this is strictly new development. Can I get confirmation on that? That's correct. Okay, because I think there's word out there that if there's an issue with the plant, then all those customers are out of luck. No, no. The flow is going to continue to come to the plant as normal. Okay, that's normal. And in terms of new development, in our utility agreements, the developers understand that the capacity is not guaranteed unless you pay for it. And if you pay for it, that means we have it to offer. So if there comes a time where a big user comes in and the plant's not ready, they're just going to have to wait or come up with an alternative plan. So this only really impacts new development that's coming in for an application and that community understands where we are in this process. So it's been transparent because again we've talked about the things I'm talking about now at previous quarterly meetings and we're going to continue to talk about these things at our quarterly utility meetings. Commissioner Constance, sir. Yeah, thank you. I wanted to read a little bit more of the letter, another excerpt, and then, Mary Ellen Kiss sent something in cervical questions relating to a couple paragraphs. So, Mr. Fleming, further states that on July 18, 2024, during a county commission meeting, residents learned for the first time that many developers were not paying the full amount for utility hookups. You were also providing a timeline for one facilities throughout the county would reach full capacity. Jeremy Frost also pointed out that Bernstore facility had the shortest timeline to reach full capacity and that there was a chance the capacity could be reached before a new plan could go online. Also, your planning department estimates 1800 new homes will be built over the next 12 months. Was that factored into Frost's calculations? Yes. Yes. Okay. I can clarify. So that 1800 units, that was actually one developer that came in and those connections right? The projection is not that they're going to build 1800 units in one year That will be spread out over however those homes sell it's not going to be 12 months It'll be something longer than that. It's typical of all the developers. No, that's a great point I just you know, I want to go through these these items because it you know there are questions You have answers. I just want to make sure we go through this. More importantly, why do staff report from the planning department fail to mention this critical issue instead only mentioning how utilities will be provided. Okay, I think it covered most of those questions. And then I just want to read this letter from Mary Ellen Kiss. She was not able to be here this morning. The doctor Kiss says it's unfortunate that recent communications to residents with the press. And to the board of county commissioners presented an adversarial picture of the coalition's relationship with the county. However, these communications represent a high level of frustration with respect to responsiveness or lack thereof by the county regarding our concerns. We've tried extremely hard to become informed and to be able to address the impact of over development along the Brunstor road corridor. It is inconceivable that the county would approve the current level of development without ensuring appropriate levels of developer investment in the surrounding infrastructure. This is not only a concern for Charlotte County but also for the surrounding counties. While the Board of County Commissioners is addressing concerns about shortfalls in the capacity of our wastewater treatment plan with the award of contracts to Kimberly Horn and John F. Swift, is this sufficient to support the approved development beyond the 1800 units referenced in the RFP to what extent will properties in the older existing neighborhoods be affected while increased taxes are the norm as costs increase for the public services, will we bear the burden because developers have not held an equitable standard? Okay, so again, we'll have zero impact on the existing customers as far as capacity goes the capacity is gonna be there for them We we work with the permitting department and but we have big developers come in we look at the numbers the available ERCs that are remaining And we say yes or no the DEP won't step in until we hit our max ERC availability, and then they'll say, okay, now it's a problem. So we are tracking the ERC's, that's the available flows for each house, and we're still right on track. And as far as the financial impact on current rate payers, you're not going to have an answer until Rath Tellus goes through all of the costs involved and then how that's going to be paid for on the back end. Not just for this first half million gowns, but the bigger expansion that we were unable to afford. Correct. And Rath Tellus will be coming in in May at our quarterly update. Perfect. We recognize that the county may be hamstrung by regulations governing impact fee rates controlled by the state legislature. As we convene now the state is trying to limit local control of our governance structure and our ability to access resources. Our regional structure is at risk. This is unacceptable. We have not seen any action by the Board of County Commissioners to address this usurpation of local control. Well, I'm going to stop right there because we have done nothing but go along with our fellow counties and floor association of counties up to the legislature year after year after year to fight for the retention of local control. So the appearance may be that way, but I will respectfully disagree with Dr. Kiss on that one. The coalition can be and wants to be a partner with the county to ensure the viability of our economy and public services. We acknowledge the amount of time that staff from county development, public works, utilities, the commissioners offices, and administration have invested in providing information to the coalition, and are grateful for their availability meet with us. Let's work together to put Charlotte County and Southwest forward the first. So I just want to end, let's a good note on that letter and I appreciate the opportunity to put that in the record. Yeah, I appreciate that. A couple of things as I read that letter and other letters. So a lot of the things that are in those letters we we discuss as a board. And to Dr. Kiss's point about, and you just brought it up about preemption and what's going on at the state legislature. All the public needs to do is go to our website, look at our 2025 state legislative agenda. And in there we're fighting preemption. We have a whole host of things in that. People just need to go to our website. The information is there and if they read it, they'll see we are taking action. Our quarterly meetings, you can go online. We have I think we have two years worth of video. You can look at multiple quarterly utility meetings and look at all the discussions the board has had about this issue, water, wastewater, not just for Bernstor, but the entire county. It's full of information and board discussion, and that's why we have those meetings. We're solely focused on utilities at those meetings. Just go to our website and look the information is there. The board discussions are there. Staff input is there. Professional reports are there. Consultant reports are there. You just have to know where to look. Unfortunately we don't call everybody up when we have an agenda item and say, hey, you may be interested in this item. You need to come to our meeting. You need to look at our agenda. It's only a couple times a month, scan it. If there's anything that interest the public. Just like we had the kids come in today. They were interested in a construction project. They came in and spoke and had their time to address the board. So please look at the agenda item, look at our website, it's full of information about much of what's been stated in those letters. Any other comments on the item? I just like to add that we are very open to all the customers and this surrounding areas coming to our plans, not only doing the tours, but asking those questions. We try to make it that we have all of our staff on hand for these questions. And, you know, we want to be very open and answer any questions that come up. So I feel like a lot of it just gets passed around, but not directly from us. I had Mr. Floor as in the queue, then Commissioner Constance. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to reiterate, you touched on a lot of it. I mean, we're in compliance and we're prepared. I mean, you have a strategic plan and you can't just flip a switch and a plant comes online tomorrow. So it takes four, five, six, eight years to get these things lined up. So I appreciate Dave and Jeremy, at least clarifying a lot of the information out there. You know, I thank Dr. Kisfer sending in her letter, we've talked about it. A lot of HOAs reach out when they're preparing their newsletters just for some information. So I definitely offer that to the Bernstorke Coalition in advance. But we can certainly, there's a lot of information out there. We do direct them to the website. So, you know, but they can certainly call and ask if there's any questions that they need to clarify. One thing, too, you mentioned it's, you know, we go by the book, FDEP requirements, we have to meet those minimum standards. That's our board's policy discussion, if we want to go above and beyond. It's our job to find the funding. If we want to build a six-lane road, we're a four-lane road be quiet right now, we can look at that, but it's gonna be costly. If we wanna build stormwater infrastructure to 200-year storms, where we're normally doing it to 50-hundred-year storms, then we can look at that, but there is that cost to it. So we weigh that and we try to balance that out, especially affordability. And then last thing is we will definitely be bringing back discussion of the board around connection fees in another year, impact fees. So we've got to make sure we've got again that balance of who should pay and then affordability on the residents. So thank you. Thank you, sir. Mr. Constell. Yeah, and I just, I wanted to thank Dave and Jeremy for coming up. I didn't prepare them, but you guys did a great job of answering the questions. and we needed to get this out there. So I appreciate you being spot on as usual. And while this initial cost is probably not gonna be the- and we needed to get this out there, so I appreciate you being spot on as usual. And while this initial cost is probably not gonna be the big chunk, I'm not gonna support this at the moment. I wanna see what we have to talk about financially in May, and then I'll see how I feel about that. So thank you. Any further discussion on the item? Okay, is there any objections to the motion? I post. Okay, so passes 4 to 1 with Commissioner Constance in opposition. Thank you. Okay, we, L1. Mr. Chairman, I pulled it only. I have no problem with L1, paragraph A and B. Just I want to have a little conversation on C. This is the approval of the additional award of 150,000 for sewer extension to the parcel. If you will refer to on the agenda item to the white paper attached, they're at the end there towards the end, they have an engineer's cost estimate. So I had some questions. If you look at that in detail, you'll see that it includes some water distribution as well as sewer information. So the total price of course is just under 150,000 with everything souped and not so to speak, mobilization contingency, design cost. But I had some questions. I need some clarifications as to, has this actually been designed and permitted yet by somebody? Good morning commissioners for the record calling turners, senior manager, human services. We're here on behalf of the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee and their recommendation to consider this request from a piece of community housing partners and they are here this morning to address those questions. My understanding is that estimate was provided for the purpose of discussion and deliberation and that the engineering and design and those things would come through their procurement policies. Okay. And the reason I bring it up is we've had some conversation today about cost increases and things like that. I mean, an engineer opinion of cost right now could be off by whatever. So I'm concerned about the fact that it may not be anything close to 150,000. Do they have the financial resources if they go through this process to pay for it if it comes in at 300,000? If you see what I'm trying to get to it and we saw that we just talked about the Bernsturter wastewater Facility down there. So I guess that's part of my problem that the the utility that who will be the owner of this these utilities It'll be the city of Punta Gordo does it set a precedent for us to finance line extensions for another utility company? These are just the questions I've got. I'd rather take step back from this. If they can build a project with regular connection to city water, I believe they have, probably have city water capability, and can put us up, I don't like septic systems, don't misunderstand me, but I think there's a, I've got some questions relative to setting precedent, and whether or not this 150,000, once they get started, how are they gonna take care of it? It goes way over budget. Would we be captured 150? I mean, those are the types of questions I've got. So I would prefer commissioners if that one got if L1C got deferred for a little bit so they can possibly come back with some answers and then maybe we can address it in a timely manner. I don't know how long it will take after to wrap our arms around that. But I need your recommendations too relative and genette relative to are we setting a precedent doing a line extension paying for a line extension for another utility. Well that will always be the argument that you will hear. It could be limited to the fact that it's a affordable housing project. You could always also condition your award or your approval of this to not to exceed 150,000 and they have to deal with the consequences of cost overruns. So you have options. I would just prefer that we actually define that before we would approve that 150. I'm not against it. I'm not against it, but if we can do it relatively fast, get those boundaries on it. I feel, I just feel more comfortable. But I'm okay with a pair of us, A and B. Just the point of information. Yes, sir. The design costs are in the 150,000. I know. But all of them. So they can't do a design without a commitment. They haven't even taken real bids yet. That says base bid, but they haven't even put it out for bid yet. That's the point I'm trying to make. And it includes water as well as wastewater. That's the other part of it, the 150. So. 3000 dollars, I think we look at it. Well, there's no objection from the board. Is it okay if Mrs. Waxler answers some questions? Absolutely, I think we need that. you have the floor. The project is already designed. What we did spend the money on initially was the board. Is it okay if Mrs. Waxler answers some questions? Absolutely. So we have the floor. The project is already designed. What we did spend the money on initially was the design of a septic system. So we have a design. We are permitted. We have a building permit. The lot has been cleared. Fill is on the lot. We are moving forward. We will not spend the money. We can go out to bid on the sewer, but we will not spend the money to design. The problem is you've got to design it first. We don't want to incur the cost of design if we know that we're not going to receive the funding to put in the sewer system. We'll stick with the septic system that we already have. We feel very strongly that sewer is better. It provides community benefits. While this does go, it is the city's utility department that benefits. That's by interlocal agreement. It is the county's area you have by interlocal agreement, allow the city to serve it. It is property that is in unincorporated Charlotte County. I mean, it is not within the city limits. We can go either way. We just feel very strongly that for properties located in the coastal hazard area, they should be served by sewer. But the cost of sewer relative to the cost of building the unit is very high for an organization that is looking to serve affordable housing customers. We have raised almost half a million dollars toward the cost of this. If it had cost went from 150 to 300,000, that's a lot of additional funding. I understand. But we do, we have shown that we have the ability to raise additional funds. Should there be unexpected cost overruns. But we don't want to incur additional cost unnecessarily by going to design unless we know that we have the support of the board to help support the sewer extension. Mr. Jim, point of order. Let's get her name for the record. Okay. Jerry Waxler, I'm President of the Board of Fortune. Thank you. I'm Rusty. What other point, I guess, is there an opportunity to approach the city of Pond of Borda for some kind of a reimbursable agreement where other connections will take place along that line. Now speaking now from my experience as a land use attorney, the city of Pena Gorda has not entertained a reimbursable agreement in decades. I asked on a number of projects over the last, I'd say, 10 years. And they absolutely will not consider it. So you haven't approach to the matter. We have not approached them. I don't think that would go well if we did, but we have not approached them. I had a comment. I'm done. Thank you, sir. You're taking a deep pause. I appreciate it. Yeah, so what's interesting about this is the county donated the land for this project. Oh, yeah. Okay. Yeah, so we gave it a land and they're actually being consistent with our sewer policy. You know, we're trying to get away from septics. And this is a triplex. So do we want to have three families on septic systems in that particular area or do we want to be consistent with our own septic dissuuer? Our goal is to try to get people on, you know, it happens to be the utility for the city, but that doesn't make a difference if we believe at the core, you know, in these urban areas we need to go to sewer. And nothing prohibits the board, because that's why we have the funding in our account to fund this. Is that correct, Jeanette? Obviously, yeah, there's no prohibition against it. And it's tied to affordable housing and it's coming out of the trust fund. So that's what we set it up for. You have the floor, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, with that, and with the boundaries that sort of came a recommendation from the county attorney. I will move approval of L1 in its entirety with the subject to L1C being restricted to a maximum of 150,000. And that this is only going to occur relative to the fact that it's an affordable housing project that gives it special consideration. Can I ask you to maybe amend as well and say, affordable housing project that is being funded through Charlotte Hall, because that really restores it. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Okay. I'll remind that. Yes, sir. Okay. Is there any further discussion? I have one discussion point. So in my conversations, I learned something about the building code that I didn't know. So there's an additional cost to this item for fire sprinklers because it's a triplex. If you had a duplex, there's no cost associated with that. You go to a triplex, you have to put a sprinkler system in. I can't remember the cost. This is Waxor, can you come up please? How much of that add to the cost of the project? Almost 100,000. So you have $100,000 to add a sprinkler system just because you went from a duplex to a triplex. That doesn't help affordable housing. Not to mention you have to maintain a sprinkler system, the control box, you have monthly costs associated with monitoring that. So you know, every 20 years you're going to have your heads tested. It is a lot to it. Yeah, there's a lot. Well, you know, it's on necessary. Yeah. You do the right separation just like you do a duplex, it is unnecessary. Right. I mean, you have the right, the right thing walls, fire rated walls, you know, so this This potentially could be a legislative thing on affordable housing. I mean, to have a $100 dollar cost For that is is excessive. So I don't know how we approach that commissioner Trex. I know it's a building code issue To that end I've fought the fire sprinkler Lobby before and we came together to coalesce a little bit But this is something that we don't agree with as far as the builders so you know when anything you want to talk about in fire suppression that's needed beyond that but but triplex's if they have the right separation just like a duplex to say you're not talking about multi-story you're not talking about there's a whole lot of things that that need to be into consideration but I believe it is going to be under discussion just so you know. I just wanted to add, adding insult to injury. If this was a, not a triplex, but a three unit townhome on three platted lots, we draw imaginary lines, no sprinkler system is required under the code. We could not plat, we did that if you read the white paper, we probably lost about nine months in our process because we thought it was a work around, we were going to plat, it doesn't matter, we were going to own it anyway. But because it is located in the coastal high hazard area, there is a provision not in the land use section, but in the coastal planning element of the comp plan that limits platting to no more than three and a half units per acre, units per acre, regardless of the zoning of the property, this is own ten units per acre. And so we were not able to plot, we had spent the money on a number of items, had to come back. So it really is, it's an unimaginable condondrum there. You can plot it into three lots and make it townhomes, and then it's okay not to be sprinkled. but if it's not, doesn't have the imaginary lines, it must be sprinkled, and then of course, the Coastal Hazard limitation in the comp plan. So for our purposes, the easiest fix is to remove that for even if you just amend the comp plan to remove that limitation for a affordable, a multi-family affordable housing units, that would help so that we could, you know, for town homes in the Coastal High Hazard area, affordable housing, would be something that would fix it for Charlotte County without having to deal with the fire suppression or fire sprinkler lobby. Yeah, well, I know staff is listening that. I'd probably like to talk about that further if you'd've probably time to have a board discussion on that. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Any further discussion? Mrs. Turner? Yes. The county attorney's office has asked just to let you know that the land use restriction agreement amendment number two that's before you will be amended to add the contingency of the cap on the 150 for the sewer extension prior to execution. Okay, thank you. Okay, any further discussion? Any opposition to the motion? Hearing none, passes unanimously. Thank you. Okay, we're going to move on to the regular agenda. Item number R1, West Coast Inland Navigation District district April 4th, 2025 agenda. Morning commissioners, Tommy Scott, community services. Apologize, typically we have members of the WCIND. They had some last minute challenges, so they were able to send me their draft agenda, which will go live and post tomorrow for their April 4th meeting. So I'll roll through some of the items they have. Under consent, they just have their normal approval of minutes, their invoices paid, and a resolution for a budget amendment for $136. Under their administrative agenda, Sarasota County is offering to purchase some surplus property. They will be reviewing and having a presentation on their annual audit, and there are some strategic property discussions that they will be having as a board. And then they will have their standing old business of derelict vessel updates, the Venice Jettie repairs, and building construction updates. Yeah, pretty light agenda for them. Are there any questions or comments you would like us to take back? Nope. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Okay, we'll move on to our two wastewater collections and treatment ordinance presentation. Good morning, Ken Stacker, the utilities department. Good work, Ken Stacker, the utilities department. Good work, heard? What's that? There it is. All right. We've talked about this a couple of times. We redid our sewer ordinance. The main reasons is we wanted to make sure we aligned with DEP on all the adjusted regulations. And we adjusted how we do fines. We pulled them from the ordinance to be handled through resolutions and code compliance. So I just kind of go through the original County ordinance was last update in 2001. This is being done to comply with mainly with these three regulations that we have here in Florida. Through Division 1, mainly updating all the definitions and adding some new sections concerning I and I, infiltration and infl, and in Division II, we added a new title and we updated Section 38123 to include the dental office point source category and we raised the maximum concentration of limits to meet what the new regulations are for FDEP. In Division IV, we changed the permit renewal from one year to not to exceed five years. Division five is where we changed the rates and fees and fines to be addressed by a resolution. So I'll have to come through. So you guys see everything. Section 6 is updated section 38150 to comply with the FAC 62, 625 and FAC 62, 625 title is the pre-treatment requirements for existing and other sources of pollution. So this is the pre-treatment side of the ordinance and, we don't have any industrial users at this point, but we did add in the ability, in case we do get industrial users, we have the ordinance adjust that as well. So when we do get them. Division 7-8, we're just combined together. And the entire, throughout the entire Article 5 of the, of the ordinance, we remove the maximum concentration limits specific to each facility. And when we say facility, we're talking about our facilities, our WRFs. So we have Westport, Eastport, Rotunda, and Bernstor. And in 2001, Bernstor wasn't even a part of the ordinance. So we had to add that in. And we also made one specific maximum concentration limits for all of our facilities, not individual facilities. Remove this section concerning search warrants and remove the enforcement section. Again, it's all through code compliance. And we clarified and consolidated sections. We would all the definition throughout all sections up into division one. So all definitions are in the same spot. And if any questions. Any questions for staff? Commissioner Consons. So this is an ordinance we don't need public. Well, that's what I'm asking for in the end. in the is an ordinance. We don't need public. Well, that's what I'm asking for in the end. We want to have you guys approve for a public hearing. Gotcha. Okay. Well, that wasn't part of the item. So I just was a little confused. Okay. Any other questions? Oh. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for that. So we have approval to go public hearing. Do we have a date? We will be bringing back an item at the next meeting to set the date. Okay. Yes. This is just pre pre pre pre. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Moving on to our three water authority agenda April 2nd, 2025. Good morning. Is this Ken Stegger? So I'll go through the Peace River, Minnesota Regional Water Splay Authority Board of Directors Meeting, Agenda. So it would be, you know, the call to order in vocation, pledge allegiance, and we'll get into the consent agenda. They'll read the minutes from February 6, 2025. Then item two is Resolution 2025-03, recognition of the month of April as the Water Conservation Month. Item three is Resolution 2025-04, recognition of National Drinking Water Week. Number four, award of contract for purchase of water treatment chemicals. And they do have a list of the chemicals if we only read them off. Item five is property insurance renewal for the authority of facilities Item six is the Phase 2B Regional Interconnect amended resolution on the necessity of pipeline easements. And this is the line that is for us. Anybody has any questions? The Phase 2B State Forestry Parcel easem 7, Item 8 is Treatment Trains 7 and 8 of Plant 4 Rehabilitation Project, Phase 2. Item 9 is the Peace River Facility Expansion, Design Amendment No. 1 for Warden Smith. Item 10 is a declaration of their surplus. Then they'll be in regular agenda. Item 1 being water supply conditions report. Item 2 being the 2025 A slash B slash C bond financing. Request to proceed. Item 3 is an integrated regional water supply plan 2025 update. Item four is a draft five-year capital improvements plan and the 20-year capital needs assessment. I'm going to review that. They do have some tables in there showing the amounts. Number five is the Surface Water Supply Expansion Project or SWSEP update in reservoir pumping station early works package to archer Western. Number six is the PR3 HDR Contract Services Amendment number four for CEEI services. You hold on one minute. Yes, Commissioner Dory. Thank you, Mr Chairman just I can't just a clarification going by memory now like a year or so ago I remember that we were supposed to get Because he got different they got different delivery packages designed bit Construct on the reservoir and then C.R. For the plumbing, I think, pump station stuff, and then actually design build on the plant expansion, I believe, right? We were supposed to get GMPs guaranteed maximum prices at the April meeting. I don't see any of that here. Is that been deferred now to the summer? I think you're getting, when you're in the... I got ahead of it. Or the archer western. I'm just talking about the GMPs. Yeah, I haven't seen it yet. They didn't discuss that at the meeting, the pre-gender meeting or anything. So I don't think this is chairman. It's chairman of the water authority now. If you could dig back and look at it about a year ago and see if I'm correct if they were supposed to come up with a GMP at this meeting. I don't, I don't, it's not here so I don't think they're ready. I, I, my memory is they're having some problems with 404, 404 permitting with DEP in the core. Yeah. And that's the land getting, getting that done. But if you could clarify that and when we're going to get the GMPs because that's an important date for Yeah relative to what's our 3MGD gonna cost us is it gonna cost us 60 million is it gonna cost us 65 million? What is it? Can you get that question to the authority? I have my pre-agenda meeting Monday and I can follow up with them at that time. I was hoping we'd have the GMP this meeting and that way you know we're going to have to to get that stuff. Yeah, very much right. Well just to let the public know and I know most of us know, 404 permitting is still in litigation, but the new DEP Secretary felt like it was gonna come back to Florida the way things were going. So that would speed it up hopefully at that point in time but 404 is a mess. Oh it is. So just to be clear to GMPs. Guaranteed Max from the panel for the PR3 and Plan Expansion projects. PR3 would probably still just be HDR's engineers opinion across. Okay, because that's designed to be a good track. But the CMAR stuff I think was the pump station and some of the plumbing around the reservoir, I can call it pump. The reservoir pump stations and stuff like that. And then you had, I think they were going design bit. They wouldn't be ready for design, bills, GMPs, yet for the plant. But just so his initial, when we went out of the 18 MGD and we requested the three. Yes, we had an estimate I think of 60, 61, 62 million hectare. I'm just trying to see where we are now. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Yes, sir. All right. I believe we're at PR 3 project construction services work order number four. This is the, I think the last item of the regular agenda. So we'll go into a tentative budget for fiscal year 2026. They go over for item one, they do the tentative budget for fiscal year 2026. Item number two is Resolution 2025 Resolution Setting Fourth Preliminary Schedule schedule of rates fees and charges for fiscal year 2026 Then they have the General Counsel's report the executive director's report and routine status reports from from all their staff members and Board of Intercomments and public comments and other comments from the board Mr. Chairman. Mr. Dordy you have floor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, just looking at the tentative budget, you can see it's all the majority of the increases, obviously capital. It's just amazing. We're going capital heavy right now with the reservoir. So looks OK. I just cost per 1,000. I think went up three cents a gallon, I think it's very cool. So it's kind of leveled off from the old days, sir, you know, when it was down to what in the 7080? 79 cents. 79 cents here. Thank you, sir. Yeah, thank you. Any other comments? Thank you, Ken. Thank you. Okay, we're going to move on to item R4 2025 Finance Committee commission assignments. Do you want me to handle this? Yeah, yeah. You go ahead. Okay, so the Finance Committee was originally formed in 1993 by Board Action, but you did your committee assignments in January or December, I believe. But we failed to note that your debt policy also requires that the, I think that committee members currently are commissioner Chouex and commissioner Dordy, but our debt policy requires that the chairman be on that committee. Commissioner Constance. Yeah, I mean I think that makes sense and I wanted to bring forward that you know it seems kind of arbitrary that we have a finance committee that's less than the full board. And so I wanted to bring up a, yeah, I guess Commissioner Sam needs to be the chair, but B, why can't it be a committee of the whole? Why are we having a separate, smaller committee? Why not just have a finance committee? We have CRA committees, we have other committee meetings during meetings. Why can't we just have a finance committee meeting as a breakout during one of our commission meetings, then all five of us can look at the policies and those types of... Everybody's welcome now. Right. It's not a closed room. So the board members are all welcome to be in that room at the same time. Right, but you have two commissioners making a decision where you could have everybody sitting in their voting. I'm just putting it out there. Mr. Nolk, you're right. If I may, so the debt policy currently states that and that's at the board's discretion however you want to handle that. The current board members are the county comm toller, the deputy county toller the chairman of the BCC a second member of the second commissioner County attorney county administrator and the director of budget and administrative services That's the company. Do they all vote? Yes. Okay fine. Then I then it's more than just the commission. Okay. That's fine Commissioner Dordy. Yeah, I was gonna recommend that it, you know, it makes sense. I will attend, but I think it makes sense right now. Obviously that you would be the member in commission of tracts if he's got the time to do it. I was gonna go whether I wanted or not. So you were in the same position. Exactly what I'm just like a water authority. I use to do with the MPO I'll be there just in a different seat, but I'll listen I'll get the information So so we're probably gonna need a motion then to change the committee sign We've got too many years of authority and I what I used to do with the MPO. I'll be there just in a different seat, but I'll listen. I'll get the information. So we're probably going to need a motion then to change the committee assignments. Move. Move. No. Move commissioners say it was the chair and commissioner to ex as the second member from the commission. Second. Okay. We have motion a second to move myself as chair of the finance committee and commissioner two x's I guess as a second second second second. Second second. Any further discussion? Any out? I will move myself as Chair of the Finance Committee and Commissioner Chu X is, I guess, as a second. Any further discussion? Any opposition to the motion? Okay, that passes unanimously. Okay, that brings us to the public hearing portion of the agenda. Item S1, ordinance amending the code relating to security, alarm systems, regulations. Good morning, commissioners, Terry Cockin, for Bill from Elishar, for Charlotte County. I am actually here for any questions. You guys received all of the things I will start off by saying this ordinance hasn't been updated in over 20 years. Things have changed. Technology has changed. So we are coming into current times for that. The other portion of the ordinance is that we're removing it from the court system and bringing it to the sheriff as the review authority for the alarm fines, if any. Again, the alarm ordinance is, the sole goal is to not have any in Charlotte County. I did pull numbers from last year, just so you guys know. Last year in 2024, there were a total of 4,098 alarm calls, which is up around two to three percent, which is not surprising because of our population increase. Of those, almost half, 1,952 of those were businesses. Now we have 12,000, I'm sorry, almost 13,000 businesses in Charlotte County, so we're doing really good. And we have over 200,000 residents in Charlotte County, which we're doing really good. Of those businesses though, 83 responses were for banks. And as you know, we don't send one deputies to a bank when we have an alarm. So to say this is, and I heard some comments earlier in earlier meetings that this is a fee generator and a profit a profit generator for the sheriff that is absolutely incorrect. We want all of the alarms to be actual alarms that's the sole purpose of the alarms and there are forgiveness things in there for the first couple of alarms as long as we get the alarms in under control. So, we, do you have any questions? Just a couple of questions on the alarm. Is this going to have any impact on the sheriff's operating budget? No, we already have an FTE for an alarm coordinator. So that FTE is still going to do all the alarm coordination. We are going to have a review board that is going to consist of likely lieutenant, a district commander, those are the commanders that are in those areas and they're going to do it. So it's not going to be an absolute burden on the sheriff for that particular unit. Okay, how do you feel about homes and businesses being directly wired into the sheriff's office? For I don't understand. You know, when the log goes off you get the notification Yes, so the way that it is now most people have alarm systems right those alarm systems go to a company ADT you know something something to that effect In here is an auto dialing. We don't want auto dialing directly in there because it could be a false alarm. They have the ADT and Ring and all those people call the owners and say, is this a false alarm? If the owners say yes, then they don't call the Sheriff's Office. So that's already step one. If they can't get a hold of the owner for some reason or the owner says I don't know what that is, then they'll call the sheriff's office and they will respond. Okay so it's probably maybe a 15-20-second delay, something in that bullpuck? I depend on the company. You know between the chair and the service would get hold of you guys. Correct. There is some sort of delay, but again, the benefit outweighs if it really is a false alarm. I dealt in depth with this issue, believe it or not, about 50 years ago. And we had our residences in the community. Wyatt, and this is, you know, it wasn't as sophisticated as we are now, and we didn't have the alarm services, but they would be wired right into the police station. And so when the, when the alarm, when the alarm went off, it went into the police station in the car, you know, on patrol or something would be dispatched immediately. And the problem we dealt with there was it was new and people were experimenting. Our biggest problem with the false alarms back in that day. Not wanting to put a police vehicle in jeopardy rushing to a scene. And so we initiated it with some different stance again. We put large fines for false alarms. And it's sort of quiet of things down, but obviously the industry has become a lot more sophisticated now. Right, and we do not have any of that right now. There's no alarms that go directly to the Sheriff's Office. It's usually through an outside company, which, again, a lot more efficient. And we only get those that do not have an owner response or a business owner response. And what precipitated is, I think, back was one issue where the alarm went off. We set the patrol car, it got there, like it was in the area. And three guys were standing in the driveway and one said to the other, two, he says, see, I told you that you get here in less than two minutes. That was the, that was the, you know, the, the, the straw that broke our back and so we initiated big penalties and it helped. But that was before you had only alarm companies too, so it's very different that. Correct. And these penalties, again, fiscal reminders to get it done. We just want the system to be operating correctly. And if there is an alarm, we want it to be something that we would, excuse me, that we would go to, I false, you know, an actual crime. And an actual crime is not a false alarm. That is an actual alarm. Any other comments where we open this up to the public. Okay, this is a public hearing regarding S1. Is there anybody from the public wishing to come forward? You'll have five minutes to speak. Hi Jeff Lusted here. Thank you for updating our ordinance for false alarms. I doubt we would think it's fair to give a 60-day jail sentence to a Walmart manager if their burglary alarms went off too many times. I'm sure Judge Burns will be grateful not to have to listen to appeals from business owners for these tickets and should be handled by the county sheriff. I always thought that was interesting when I would go to court and they would get tickets for false alarms and would have to go in front of Judge Burns who was very kind to the people who did show up but he was very aggravated that the large businesses didn't show up. I too, from that age of 50 years ago, when they talk about tripping an alarm, it was literally we had a piece of thread that we put in front of doors and there was a like a mouse trap kind of thing and you would truck it and that's what sent the alarm to the police department. I've been through in my 40 years as a small business owner every different kind of alarm system known to man and now they are very effective. They don't give false alarms and they aren't directly plugged into the sheriff's office. We were the first ones to insist that the alarm company call us before they call the sheriff and that's decreases rate of alarms. And it's only a minute or two difference. If there are any other of these kinds of ordinance that have jail terms, I would hope that the county attorney would look into that because to live under the threat of a 60 day jail fine for being a small business owner isn't really the most pleasurable experience that I used to have to deal with. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Anybody from the public wishing to speak please come forward you'll have five minutes. Mr. Chairman, I'd say no one else is rising and moved to close public. we had motion second to close public input portion of the public hearing. Any further discussion? Any opposition to the motion? Okay passes. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chair, we have to read your arms. Yeah. Yeah, I'm waiting. Yeah, I'm waiting to go. Somebody read the ordinance. Yeah, I was in the queue. Go ahead. Go ahead. Okay. Okay, move in order. That's for the Board of County Commission. It's the Charlotte County Florida Mending Chapter 2-5, Article 6. Sections 2-5-141, 2-5-142, 2-5-145, and 2-5-146 of the code of laws and ordinances of Charlotte County Florida governing security alarm systems, amending and adding definitions of alarms, including alarm review authority, amending registration of security alarm systems, including fees, amending penalties, amending right to contest, contest by omitting court review and allowing for appeal authority, providing for codification and scribes and errors, providing for conflicts of law, providing for severability, and providing for ineffective dates. Second. Motion is second to approve the ordinances. Is there any further discussion? Any opposition to the motion passes unanimously. We move on to S2 ordinances to amend the generalance and special acts chapter 1 to S10 entitled licenses and business regulations. Good morning commissioners, Brad and Akbar, on behalf of the Shoreland County Attorney's Office. We bring this item before the board to make our ordnance better conform with recent changes to floor to statute 456-0341 that pertains to human trafficking, public awareness signs. Proposed changes in our ordinance would be to sign size, font size as well as where to report suspected violations of human trafficking laws. We ask at the board a approved proposed ordinance. Any board questions? Okay, we're going to open this up for a, for the public hearing portion of the item. Anybody wishing to speak on this item? You'll have five minutes. Please come forward. Anybody wishing to speak? You'll have five minutes. Please come forward. Mr. Chairman, I see no one rising with the closed public input. Second. A motion is second to close the public input portion of the public hearing. Is there any further discussion? Any oppositions in the motion passes unanimously. I have Commissioner Trux and the Q. Mr. Chair, we move in order to the Board of County Commissioners of Charlotte County, Florida, amending the general ordinances and special acts. Chapter one through ten entitled licenses and business regulations of the code of laws in orderances of Schaller County, Florida to conform to statutory requirements for human trafficking, public awareness signs, providing for inclusion in the Charlotte County Code, providing for severability and providing for effective date. Secretary, motion a second to move the ordinance. Is there any further discussion? Any opposition to the motion passes unanimously. Well we've completed our morning agenda. We are in recess until 1 p.m. public input any subject. Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. Welcome back to the Charlotte County Board of County Commissioners, regular and land use meeting for Tuesday, March 25, 2025. Let the record show all commissioners are present. We have now arrived at our 1 p.m. public input any subject anyone wishing to address the board during this portion of the meeting? Must state their name for the record? Remarks on any counter-related subject shall be limited to three minutes and shall be addressed to the commission as a body and not to individual members. They will not be any discussion. Anybody wishing to speak on any counter-related matter? Please come forward, you'll have three minutes. Good afternoon. My name is Shirley Stewart. I believe you all got my email that I sent to each and every one of you along with pictures and statistics. I live in the Waterford Estates neighborhood on airport road. And this particular development that was originally put in as a request in the planning department should never have been approved any time that you open a public residential development the first thing you look at is what is around that development they failed on that the planning commission did and then that ultimately falls under your purview as the county commissioners We're asking and we have done our research and a little homework a lot of homework with some engineering expertise some noise level you also received pictures of how far our back porches are from open gun range. You also got in the email and big bold print in the center. We support and always will and always do our local sheriff's department that is not in question. Never has, never will be. What is in question is whoever made the decision to approve a 200 I'm sorry 603 home residential development next to any open gun range should never ever have happened. I sat on a planning commission and that is one of the first things we would look at is what surrounds the residential development. We have in our neighborhood children that come screaming in the house with their ears on their their head on their ear the hands on their ears. We have what is alarmingly increasing as I also included the PTSD and that's a very personal issue that a lot of people have. But you have no idea nobody does when that might snap. And we do not want that to happen in our community or anywhere. So those are things that we are really wanting to look at, that we want you to look at, the one and only resolution that we have determined through the engineering, not working, the topography of the land is to move the structure to a location and then for the love of goodness in God we trust, please zone around that shooting range so that nobody can build next to it. Okay? Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Anybody wishing to speak please come forward. You'll have three minutes. I'm Connie Went and I also live in the residential development right behind the den range. A couple comments, first of all, there's no hours, no stipulated time. So even if we had headphones for our children or whatever, I've got decibel readings over here. I just took readings yesterday when they were just shooting the small guns. 99, 99 in my backyard. So I can see through to the gun range. And when they are shooting the long guns and the bigger loads it's way over 100 decibels. We have no way of protecting our children or ourselves because we don't know. Sometimes it's six in the morning, sometimes many times this week alone. It's been after six o'clock at night. When people want to go outside their children or home, want to have dinner, want to go in their backyards, they can't. There's no hours on this. The holidays, we had all day on Labor Day. When people have picnics and stuff, it was going on all day long. Halloween, I finally called in at five o'clock because we opened the Waterford Gates because of the catastrophe. Kids were running. Can you imagine if you're a kid and all of a sudden you hear a bunch of guns shooting? On our street. The kids were running away. They don't know that this is what this is. My grandchildren came. They come running in the house crying and screaming like looking for cover. I have a recording if you'd like to hear it. To just get an idea of what it's like to sit in my backyard. You can't answer a phone. You can't do anything. So the EPA standards are 80. 80. We can't get it below 80, and the gun range was made, and it's not big enough for your rifles and stuff. So the people move back out of there, which isn't safe, that's not how it's supposed to be made, to shoot. So one, it's not safe, they're not using it the way it was made to be used. So when they move out of there and shoot, we get it even louder. So these are some of the things that are our concerns. If you can't close it in, it has to be moved. How can that be safe? All would take was one person turning or somebody knocking them or I accidentally discharged when they're standing outside range that isn't made to be done, and they could shoot one of us very easy. That's in closing, at least until we get a remedy to this, could we please get some hours, like not after five o'clock at night, not on holidays and weekends, just to be good neighbors to us. We'd like to be able to enjoy our houses. Make sure you speak into the mic. Thank you, ma'am. Anybody wishing to speak? Please come forward. You'll have three minutes. My name is Phil Krause. I was here on the last issue and something that was said that was untrue. You said that I asked about the decibel reading. It was supposed to be a study. You said that, yes, it was done within all acceptable ranges. I worked in that industry for over 40 years as a hearing instrument specialist. I know about sounds, acoustics. You are over 70 decibels, you start to have a hearing loss, just stop. At 100, it's permanent and it starts right away and you are at a hundred several times your your readings were on your side of the fence where you where the men have baffling we have no baffling out of the side of this bunker I mentioned it when we first talked about this you built it in a shape that it made the sounds louder, amplified the sound, and now it's coming straight out the side, unamplified, right towards where the first victims water fit a state. And I said, come over to our side, take it from over there when you're shooting all long guns, not pistols inside, all long guns. And the reason why you built this thing is because you almost killed kids at the school. Rounds were found in the parking lot over there. And I just spoke with a sheriff just a few days ago. This is interesting. I asked him about the long guns and being outside the bunker. He said, yes, I says accidental discharge. Could you kill somebody at water fit absolutely? And then you said the last time about being first. you're not the first anymore. You're closed for five years. That makes us first. We sit in the cap mercy and you should be considering this. Right now you have no empathy for us at Waterford to say, none. And I don't know why. I think maybe you think we're just snow birds, but we're not. I'm a first responder. Most of us around, a lot of my neighbors are first responders. We love this country. We love the sheriff's department. We love all of you. But have some empathy for us. Can't go on like this. The other day I was just yesterday, my doctor's appointment, but doctor comes in the room after taking my blood pressure. Bill, why is your blood pressure so high? I'm being shot at 24 hours a day, seven days a week. That's what, and I think the last time I was here, you don't know how loud it is. I won't do it again because I don't want it, but it is loud on our side of the fence. Unbathlete comes sprayed at us. So please have some empathy for your fellow man. I'm asking you, please, whatever it takes, keep your noise on your side of the fence or move. Thank you, sir. Anybody wishing to speak, please come forward. You'll have three minutes. Any candidate related matter? I have packets they said they would distribute but you can give them to the deputy. He'll distribute them for you. Yeah, no problem. Thank you. Should I wait to start to they get this? Yeah, you have You have you started yet? Wait till we get these passed out. We don't want to take it out of your time. Thank you. You can go ahead, ma'am. Commissioners, I live in the DR Horton Development called Palmetta Landing in Babcock Ranch. I was contacted by a DR representative and informed that there was a warrant to issue with my home after investigation. I discovered there was in fact no warrant to issue. It was actually a DR Horton design change error involving the Carrington Twin Villa. Excuse me, ma'am. Paul's on it. Did you say your name for the record? Oh, Irene Gettle. Thank you. Go ahead. Carrington, Twinville, as a potential cost savings, they reduce the ceiling height from their phase one, which is the preserve from 10 foot to a nine foot ceiling height in phase two in Paul Metal Landing. This attempt at opposed potential cost savings for DR Horton turned out to be an epic failure because for some unknown reason the modification also changed the front entry door from a solid insulated door, which was installed in phase one to a insulated door with the transum in phase two. I wish to note that both DR Horton and the Charlotte County Building Department in reviewing and approving the certified plans, as well as during the inspections process completely missed the fact that the transom clearly states in the plans that the window schedule is 36 by 12 inch impact transom and yet the transom installed in my home was merely a non-impact tempered glass. In my opinion the fact that a certificate of occupancy was issued for my home was a a direct violation of the Florida Building Code listed below. Commissioners, I am here today because I believe the Charlotte County Building Officials failed its residents and did not comply with the Florida Building Code. The original front entry, impact, resistant covering, detailed on the original approved and certified plans, did not require any homeowner installation. find it very difficult to understand why the building officials continue to tell homeowners that the builder has the right to change impact materials that have been certified on the original plans any time they wish with any product they choose. The building code contains a specific section regulating impact-resistant system which clearly states what is permitted will be installed. In my opinion this issue is the result of a DR Horton design change gone bad and the Charlotte County Building Department should require DR Horton to correct their mistake in a way that was originally permitted with an impact trans, transom that does not require homeowner installation. I have yet to be presented with any documentation that even suggests that a metal hurricane shutter was ever intended to be installed on my home. To allow DR Horton to fix their mistake with a metal band aid will have a negative impact on my home by increasing my homeowner's insurance cost and will also reduce the resellability of my home. I intentionally purchased my Carrington villa because it boasted fully impact protected. When I bought my home, I knew I physically was incapable to install any shutters so I would have never purchased it. Thank you, ma'am. Anybody else wishing to speak on any counter-related matter? Please come forward. You'll have three minutes. It states your name for the record. Good afternoon. My name's Roland Coderra. I live in South Gov. I'm here this afternoon to address the boat ramp issue or experience in there. Currently, the South Gov. Cov. ramp located in the park on Amical of St. is inaccessible and unusable. It's Dudo, Hurricane Helene and Hurricane Milton. There are adjacent boat ramps that are usable marathon ramp that presents an problem with the steep angle because it's not unsafe to pull the boats out of there over 24 feet. If you go over to L. Joe Bean, which is across the harbor, you experience a short ramp and limited traffic and limited maneuverability with vehicles, trucks, and trailers. From what I understand, it's $120,000 to have the contractor who did the inspection to make the repairs. That's a drop in the bucket. I'm on the waterway board with on the MBSU. We even looked at alternative ways of funding that, which legally we couldn't because of the way the tax dollars are collected. So we had to go another out. We went to the yacht club, we went to the HOA, and there's all stipulations of all of that because it's a public use ramp, so it's hard to use private money to fund it to repairs. $120,000 is a drop in the bucket to this committee. So what I've heard, I'd rather the engineering report that prepares a not major. It's approximately two weeks, the full weeks to make this happen. We're quickly approaching the 2025 hurricane season. That waterway, I'm sorry, the boat ramp within that waterway is a major outlet for a lot of boats and neighbors living on neighborhood. Without that, we have to go across the harbor or fight the other ramp. So I'm asking in the interest of that neighborhood, you know, we're looking at 5, 6,000 lots in there. I can't give you an exact number of waterway and how many boats are in there. We're talking about 1,000. My insurance cover requires me to pull my boat out of the water. So I have to take it out, put an adjacent lot to my house and have to tie it down. It's my own personal issue. It's a lift height and everything and water tight. But it's still a major waterway. And it's impacting on myself and all the boat owners. But people who live in that neighborhood. because it's limited on my it's my own personal issue it's a lift height and everything and water tight But it's still a major waterway and it's impacting on only myself and all the boat owners But people who live in an area that don't live on waterway lots have trailers So now they have an hall and water down the Pocita, which is a parking issue down there if you're not in there early enough during the day Or in the mornings when the place gets filled up. So again, if there's any way that We could get this fixed, quickly issue permits, drop a work order in it, get parks and wrecks to open this thing up. It'd be greatly appreciated by the residents of South Dakota. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you for your comments. Anybody wishing to speak on any county related matter? Please come forward. You'll have three minutes to state your name for the record. Michael O'Barracker, good afternoon commissioners, what he said. I moved here seven years ago from up north, you know, clear water, to be nearer the water and have access for my boat. I moved into South Gulf Cove, working fine. Now I can't do anything and it could be years. I don't have a big boat to go to some of the ramps that require bigger boats to go across the bay. But I don't know how and the department says it's because of storm surge are using FEMA as the source. I'm not sure what storm surge or was. If you talk to any of the residents, we had a little tide go up, but not a storm surge, in a canaled community with a lock. I don't know how you get storm surge. So trying to blame it on and headed over to FEMA. Again, 120, 125,000 to get this completed. Take care of people that don't have lifts. My boat's on a trailer. I can't go across the bay in it. It's smaller, so going to Positah, to up there, it's unusable right now. I've talked with the department several times, Stonewall. No idea, no plan could be years. How can that be accessible for such a minute amount of money? We're sure not spending a lot of money on our roads because if you go up and down gas parola, down south of our community, that's the road needs to be taken care of, but that's another thing. But it seems like it's a simple thing. There are even fixes I've been told that can be done temporarily for a final item. We just need some help to be able to enjoy the community we moved here for many of us, not just myself, but for the reason of using it to get our boats in and for people because when the storms come to get boats out in a timely fashion and that's with the South Gulf Coast Park ramp. As was mentioned the Butterford is not a good option. It's very steep, it's got an in water hazard it has almost zero parking, no facilities there whatsoever. So that is not a good option for basically anybody. Thank you for listening and hopefully you can get on your attention and get done. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you for your comments. Anybody wishing to speak, please come forward. You'll have three minutes. State your name for the record. My name is John Ossonich. You can pick that mic up and there you go. Thank you very much. Appreciate that. My name is John Osanich. I live in South Dakota. COVID as well. I'm here to speak on. I believe it's you before later on. However, I would like to just chime in with what they said about the boat ramp. That boat ramp is fairly critical to the about 5,500 homes that are there now. I think there's about 500 under construction at the moment. And it's a plot of 15,000 lot development. As was stated, the Butterford ramp, if you have a two-wheel trailer, it is a very dangerous ramp to use, because it drops straight off, and you could lose the trailer on that. The South Gulf Coal ramp is one that we use, and I use it all the time to get my boat out of the water before hurricane season hits. So it is pretty critical to us. Plus it's one of the few that has been severely damaged and I think for less than 120,000 we could probably put a temporary fix in there. I would ask since that study has been done that we allocate the funding, we actually made some suggestions at the MSBU since I sit on that as well on what to do there as well. But I would hope that you would consider everything that you've heard since I've heard it as well. I don't want to be repetitive. And I only have one question. When I speak later, I have a package that I'd like to just give to you, gentlemen. Who would I give that to? That's for land use. Yes, yes. You give it to the deputy at that time. If you want to speak. Yes, yes. You give it to the deputy at that time. If you want to speak about that, nothing prohibits you from speaking now. However, we can't take it into consideration until the night. No, I'll wait till later. Okay. I just want to make sure that you had the documentation that you could follow along easily. Yeah. Absolutely. All right. Yep. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Well, good afternoon commissioners and everybody in the chamber today. My name is Tim Ritchie and I am the citizen of Walters R and founder and president of March against Mozec. What I handed you out today is SB 832 slash HB 585 former phosphate mining lands. These are being sponsored by Senator Danny Burgess or Republican 23 and Rep. John Albert Republican 46. I'm asking you very politely today. Considering Rep Danny Nix's office is in this building, I want all five of you on this. It's bad enough that I didn't see one representative from Charlotte County last Tuesday at Plant 6 with the FDEP Mosaic Dog and Donkey show for the 8,000 feet deep injection well. You know, it was interesting, FDEP Top Dog, John Coats came up and said said hello, was nice to see John, but you know they couldn't answer one of my questions. Commissioners, I want to know which one of you are going to come with me. Is it going to be you, Commissioner Dordy, or you Constance, or you to say, or you to Rex? I was invited to to Code tozec's laboratory and meet their scientist, and I'm requesting one of my representatives go to that meeting with me. I want you to know, I'll be at DeSoto representing every resident in citizen in Charlotte County in the city of Punta Gorda. Do you know? I handed mosaic. Can you imagine Commissioner Dirty, I am see Foss Fait filed paperwork in Dicoto County to have a biosolid plan? Do you know what that means everybody? And that's going to be 15 miles from this chamber. That's human waste. Pupu. That they want to turn into organic fertilizer. Now, county attorney, Nulton, I want you involved in the same with you, county administrator. You think you guys love the piece for a Charlotte Harbor? I want you to start proving it to every resident in citizen in this county. I want a board set up and I want Brandon Moody and me on that board together. And Mr. Richard Russell, by the way, he can't be here today because he is very ill and captain Paul DeGaida they want your help in action. This is going to destroy. Thank you sir. Anybody wishing to speak please come forward you'll have three minutes on any county related item. State your name for the record, sir. My name is Lewis Colletto, and I've got handouts. The deputy would pass them. Thank you. I moved to Fort Myers about four years ago, four months before Hurricane Ian. And I lived in a town home near the airport, and it had shutters. At that point, after experience in Hurricane Ian and I lived in a town home near the airport and it had shutters. At that point after experiencing Hurricane Ian I said in the future one day I want to move away and get a home that has impact windows and doors. In May of last year I bought a twin villa that also has to do and the reason I'm here because of the transim issue. The plants, and I'm a retired builder in the construction industry and a home builder for over 30 years. When the plan attached, construction documents attached to my contract clearly showed that the impact transim window was supposed to be impact class. On February 21, we get an email from the home warranty people of the R-Horton saying that that glass was not hurricane impact glass. The president of the president of the R-Horton Southwest Florida Division last week issued a press release. And he quoted him. He said that they acknowledged that they overlooked the problem and it was a mistake. They also indicated that the fix and repair was to put four bolts in a hurricane shutter on the transit window as a solution. And they are also blaming the inspector from Charlotte County that did not catch the mistake on the transit window. Usually every before you get a certificate of occupancy it's got to be inspected by the building department. They missed it. So in my mind this mistake is not only the builders mistake the inspector it also. And I will not accept four bolts and a shutter over that transom glass. It was attached to my contract and I'm inspecting a resolution to give me what I paid for. And that's simply not right what's being done to not just me, but there's at least 40 to 50 other homeowners. And most of people are senior citizens like myself. And this has to be corrected. I will not accept the band-aid remedy that's being offered. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Anybody wishing to speak on any county-related matter? Please come forward. You'll have three minutes to date your name for the record. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Members of the commission, my name is Richard Patrick. And I'm here today to ask you to support two bills that are moving through the Florida legislature regarding the restoration of one rights for our returning citizens. It's a very important issue because each year the Florida Department of Corrections releases about 5,000 men and over 160,000 women from Miss Prisons and Jails. And based on information that I've looked at over the past number of years, and number of these come back into our community. and what these two bills would do, they would create a database which would allow returning citizens to check to make sure that they have fulfilled the requirements of their sentences so that their voting rights can be restored. So long should we be looking at our TV and asking why is it that if a returning citizen was issued a voting card, was registered, was given all the required information by the particular supervisor of elections. That on the cameras we see someone being carded off in handcuffs and a blaring head lying which says, voter fraud. The reason for that is that many times these return in citizens really don't have the information in a centralized place to allow them to know whether or not they have completed all the requirements of the citizens of their sentences. And these two bills, HB489 and Senate Bill 848, would do just that. It would centralize all the information for these individuals so that they could go look and see whether or not they have other requirements that they should meet. It would empower them to take stands to make sure that they are in good stand into vote, it would ensure some fairness in the system that they aren't then under the scrutiny of the law when they show up to vote, and it would allow them to have trust in the system. For all those returning citizens who come back to Charlotte County every single month and I've looked at some of the stats about 50 or more depending on the month. That would give them the assuances that when they go to the supervised elections that they would have enough information to ensure that they are safely voting. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Anybody wishing to speak on any county relatedrelated matter? Please come forward. You'll have three minutes to date your name for the record. Hello commissioners, Jeff Lustig. The society grows great when old men plan trees and who shade they shall never sit. Those are the decisions that you have to make as commissioners and the board about plans that will never actually see happen that are long term, at least in my lifetime, that I won't see happen. You're doing a really good job on that. The distraction from this has been one of your commissioners. Then he was, again, introduced as a commissioner when he took the proclamation for the order of moves and he was given this title. He may do these things as a private citizen, but he can't use the monitors of honorable when he's doing that. If I'm incorrect, I apologize. I wasn't going to mention it again except that literally after I said that, the chairman then brought up these two confusing things. You know, he, as well, we were talking about the alarm bill today and he was talking about something that was 50 years ago. Then only I knew what the reference was. It's time to move forward, and we have good government here. And that's all. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Anybody wishing to speak on any county related matter? Please come forward. You'll have three minutes. State your name for the record. Okay, we're gonna move on. Do you gentlemen like to do comments? Start with that. We'll get them. 30 minutes. Okay, Mr. Flores, any comments? I'd like to yield my time and have Community Services Director, Tommy Scottie, wanted to give an update on and your beach progress. Okay, opening. Thank you, Tommy. Good morning, commissioners. Tom Scott, can you serve a director? I want to thank you, Tommy. Morning, commissioners. Tommy Scott, Community Service Director. I thank you, Mr. Flores, for giving me some time so I could give you all an update. I was here back in March at the second meeting to give you an outline and an update kind of on phase plans, phase one and phase two, phase one being an intermediate opening phase of the Southern section along with the circulator route. We anticipated it was going to take us about four weeks to accomplish that. I'm here today to tell you that we'll be able to do that on April 2nd, so we're about a week ahead of schedule to be able to open that. I'd again like to thank Heidi Maddox and her team and Transit who are also stepping forward to make this circulator route to be able to run from Tringalli out to the beach. So I know that hopefully it'll give some additional capacity for people because we do understand that parking is limited. Additionally, we're well on our way into phase two. Phase two, if you remember, is the removal of the boardwalk extending the rest of the environmental fence once that boardwalk is out. Repaving the damaged drive lanes, reinstalling concrete walkways, ensuring up the rest of the park area. We pushed out the PRs, purchase requisitions out for a vendor to start the demolition of the boardwalk. So we hopefully will have that done by the middle of April. As soon as that's done, then we'll immediately start working on the fence. We're putting together bid packets to be able to move forward with the other thing. So we are actively working and moving at a faster pace than we had anticipated moving. I stand here doly appreciating that it is not fast enough for most. It is not fast enough for the businesses that are out there and the residents who want to come and enjoy our beaches. But there is a process that we go through because we are making sure that we are doing this all in compliance with the funding strategies that we had outlined to you all and you all approved at the last meeting to make sure we can maximize the amount of funding that we get back from FEMA, the amount of money that we have from insurance, minimizing the amount of money that we have from the county to make sure we can accomplish all those tasks. So we're moving forward. Does anybody have any questions for me? Sounds good. Yeah, I've got a question. Not related to the beach, but related to another issue that you may have some input on. Okay. Since we've got you up at the mic, the South Gulf Cove boat ramp. Can you explain because we've had some public input regarding the status, costs, and things like that. Can you give us from staff perspective where we are with that? So they're accurate in everything that they've described that we have done an engineering study that it has damaged that a engineering report has said that it should be closed until there are steps taken to remedy both short-term and long-term strategy. We are going through that. I'm getting some feedback on the mics are you? Yeah it just talking hot? No no it's not you. I got it earlier. I'm getting that better. Okay county attorney's office for the wind. And so, you know, it's still there, right? Just put the white and see. Just put the one button. This one. It's... Okay. County attorney's office for the win. So, you know, it's still there, right? This one? The turn off the podium. Oh, you got a mic up there. Yeah, that's probably it. Check one. Check one. Better. Might be better. Okay. Keep going. Good. So everything they said, I think that's where I started was accurate, right? Engineering study has been concluded, recommending closing of the ramp until we're able to make repairs, short term midterm. It is included in the package of information that we have pushed forward to FEMA to go through the process to secure funding. So what we've also been working on is, and I've- Real quick. Okay. The engineering that we have and the repair I heard, it was 120,000, we had a cost estimate. That was the original, rough order of magnitude cost, I believe, from the engineer that did that for the short term fix. I believe that's correct. The short. Okay. Hold on a minute, we're talking to staff. We can't get any. I don't have that reporting for anyone. Okay. Yeah. Okay. So the board had approved that a previous meeting that we were going to move forward with a certain dollar amount of projects while we are still in compliance with FEMA but move ahead with local dollars in hopes to get that. That's my camera down the road. Yes sir. Is this project included in that bundle? It was not initially included in that bundle. So what we are actively working on is to maximize those projects bundling them together to get even more cost saving so that way we can fold that project in. Just because we know it is a high priority. I've communicated with many of the neighborhood residents of South Gulf Cove. We are actively working on this. We do have other boat ramps. I appreciate that it isn't the best fix for them. But we do have other boat ramps. I appreciate that it's not the boat ramp that they want to use. So there are options available to them. We are actively working to try and find strategies to maximize those dollars that we've already identified that we're moving forward with so that way we can fold that one into it as well But I don't have that identified as of now But we are actively working to try and include that in that first four and a half million Okay, so that that's the key because there's some boat ramps down that have a different scope Some are over a million in repair. And what the board was talking about a week or two ago, whenever we had our last discussion on this, was the low hanging fruit that we can bundle in some of these smaller projects. I mean, it's not insignificant the amount of money, but it's not a million dollars. Can we bundle it in? So I just want to make sure, for me, at least as one commissioner, I'd like to make sure that this ramp, because of that price tag, if we have the engineering and you need to get board approval to get it bundled for funding, to check that box for local funding, I'm all for it. My other colleagues can chime in if they want, but that's my position on a commissioner Dory. Yeah, I think another facet of this in the discussion of short term, long term was required permitting. So I'm not sure if this one requires any core permitting or any of that nature. So that's one facet of it that could delay it depending on what the type of project is and whether the deal and in the water or not. I don't think it does. I don't believe it does. Just because of the nature of South Gulf Cova and the lock system and everything. I don't believe that it is required to have that. But it's one facet that you're looking at. But it is one facet that we're evaluating. Again, there we have thousands and thousands of assets that we are actively trying to work on and repair from four storms. And so the first phase of our recovery was to get some of the to your point low hanging fruit, focusing on things that have been down for a long time. Shade, we just put out that we are going to do a bunch of shade that hit the media today in the comments back where where have you been for the last two and a half years. We've been working through this process for two and a half years to try and get to this point. We'll, I can stay here and tell you, we will try and fold that in. in. If we can't fold it in in the four and a half, then I'll work with administration to be back to identify an additional funding source to be able to do that But our goal has been we've been trying to work towards folding that into that money But if not then we'll come back and we'll have further conversations But there is a there's a process and there is an amount of hours in the day and we're trying to do 60 different parts worth of damages that is everybody's priority one and we acknowledge that and we want them to be all fixed as well We're trying to play by all the rules that are in front of us whether it's FEMA permitting funding all of those things to get them delivered as quickly as well This one just struck me because it sounds like there's engineering that's already done a number has been identified That you and a rough order of magnitude has been done not designed Okay, but just an evaluation. We may be further ahead with this and others other things So that's why I and well anything we've done engineering a port on yes, right? We know that a lot of things are damaged and have had engineering reports done some of them have varying price. Right. Okay. Ars is working through our process so that way we can give you all good recommendations to maximize the opportunity to get reimbursed that of things further along in the process. Any other questions from Mr. Scott? Any other update? I don't have any unless you all have any further questions from me. No, I'm just thanks for being here to update us. Thank you. Mr. Floor, is anything else or was that it? That was it, thank you. Okay, Mr. Norton. Commissioner, is the only thing I have is in response to some of the citizens' comments. I know they don't want to hear it, but I think they need to know while it's unfortunate that we may have missed something on one of our inspections. is on the Babcock Ranch item. Legally, the county is not responsible for that. It does not relieve DR Horton from their contractual obligations and that's where those homeowners should be looking at. So other than that, I don't have anything. Thank you, Mr. Stone. Mr. Dordy. Come on, it's just what very briefly just want to touch base on the trip to Tallahassee last week, you know, as opposed to some misunderstandings we are working very, very hard in Tallahassee on our home rule responsibilities. Let's face it, the cities and counties in the state of Florida right now are under attack. By, there's like 51, I think it's correct, 51 preemption bills and 30 some odd amendments. It's unprecedented, the attack this year at the state level. So anyways, we worked really hard. We had a lot of meetings trying to fight that off and keep our home rule, let us decide here at home what we want, but it's a tough battle. But we had a lot of good meetings with various senators. Won't go through all the list. Representatives, we met with the Vice Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Representative Al Des, very good, very good conversation with her. Senator Albritton's legislative aide, Mrs. Harrison, to go over water issues and Senator McQuain from Marion County, I believe, and really good meeting with him won't go into the details along with our own reps, Representative Danny Nex and Vanessa Oliver. So we had good, good meetings with them. I just wanted to share that. It was productive. It's, but everybody stay tuned. There's a lot going on up there right now. They could affect this in different directions relative to appropriations. Might probably bring more of your money home. And that's the battle we've got right now, along with policy up there. One thing I do wanna bring up, ten gentile of that, I had a conversation with the county manager from Glades County, Paul Carlyle. He used to be the county manager years ago, went to Sebastian for about five years and came back. Now he's now back with Glades County. He actually had a meeting I understand with a secretary Purdue of FDOT about Burmont Road, kind of road 74. I would like just I just wanted to bring it forward to y'all. I know we have an MPO meeting next week, but they've had a meeting and I got some favorable discussion going on conceptually to look at the possibility and it would be negotiated. And Mr. Flores had a conversation I think yesterday with Mr. Carlisle as well, but I would like us to give positive head nods to Mr. County Administration and the legal to conceptually work with Glades County and FTOT to start working on some negotiations to find out what that all may mean. But I didn't want to get him going on it without y'all knowing this was happening. We can talk more about it next Monday at MPO too. We'll have LK sitting here, so we'll try to find out what's going on. But if you're all, I have no more details than that, but other than it's a concept that we might, it might be worth trying to start negotiations. Okay. Okay with it? Yeah. Absolutely. That's all I had to., thank you, Mr. Chair. We're not when it's swapping roads. Oh hold on one minute. Yeah, good. I'm sorry I can see you over there. Sorry commissioners for the record Emily Lewis deputy County administrator Commissioners. I was gonna ask if you could please Just kind of consider adding that to the legislative agenda It is something in in the background we've started talking to members of our legislative delegation about some time ago, but it would be very helpful if we're going to move in that direction to have it as a part of our legislative agenda so we can really proactively start working it. Can't make a motion right now, but I've given positive head nod on that. So yeah, I mean, I think we're all in agreement, but do we put it on the next agenda? Well, you can put it on the next agenda. Confirm it. Yeah, good catch. Thank you. OK, Mr. Constance. Thank you. Yeah, so talking about the meeting on the 31st, I had a good Cree agenda with Lachgurum, who's our interim director. And so I just, there's a whole bunch of roads that I'm going to bring up at that meeting that we need, we need to change some geography. I think it's Chancellor coming up onto 41. If you need to make a right turn at that light, you have to sit there for a whole light change. I mean, there's so many things that we allow that gas station to be built so far up in the air and then their driveway comes down. I don't know how we get around that, but I really want to go through some of the problem spots. I won't go through this whole list, but I'm going to bring it up on Monday And so we can talk about it. But I think we're experiencing growing pains. And so. I won't go through this whole list, but I'm going to bring it up on Monday and so we can talk about it. But I think we're experiencing growing pains and sometimes it's not adding lanes. It's just making intersections more usable. So I think that's going to be part of the direction on Monday. That's it. That's it. Mr. Treks. Okay. Mr do it. Just a reminder for many folks know it, but this coming Saturday at 10 a.m. we're having the 50th anniversary memorial for Vietnam, our veterans. Just about 50 years ago, believe it or not, that the last American troop officially left Vietnam, and there'll be about 75 veterans receiving a pinning for the last time. It's gonna be a pretty neat program, it's gonna be 10 o'clock at the replica of the Vietnam Wall in Puerto Gona. Thank you, again. Okay, well, Commissioner Consus and I were at the first responders appreciation night the other day. And Commissioner of Agriculture, Wilton Simpson, was a keynote speaker and state attorney Mirafox was there. Very well attended event. And I just wanted to say what an outstanding job our first responders do. And it was an honor and privilege to be there and honor them on behalf of the residents of Charlotte County. I wanted to touch on some of the comments made during Citizens' input. The noise study that was done, that was submitted I believe to Waterford Estates to the Association. You're looking at me that's my understanding I would ask. I'm not a good person. I'm not a good person. I'm not a good person. I'm not a good person. I'm not a good person. I'm not a good person. I'm not a good person. I'm not a good person. I'm not a good person. I'm not a good person. I'm not a good person. I'm not a good person. I'm not a good person. and according to the study, where the noise was measured from. I don't have the study in front of me. I just know it was done and submitted, and according to the study, it was within acceptable limits. Correct. For the Rackokeleg job, the Assistant County Administrator. Yes, the study was the various points across the county property, including right up against the property line between the county property and Waterford Estates, where the decibel levels were measured. All levels were in acceptable ranges, per the study and per the equipment that we were using. They decibel me to that we were using to perform those measurements. Yeah, and I know the gun range is a historical gun range. It's been there for a very, very long time well before this development came in. But I heard a new argument today that I didn't really hear before. Was that we shouldn't have issued the permits because it was next to a gun range. I assume that went through the normal rigors of staff review for concurrency, setbacks, and everything else. Is there anything on our code that would have prohibited that? No. A development permit from being issued, even though there was a historical gun range there? No, no, there's nothing in our code that would prohibit that. In fact, if we had have prohibited or limited that. We wouldn't have approved that. Yeah, I mean, if there had been something in the code, we wouldn't have approved it. If we had of actually put any limitations on development on that site based on a gun range, knowing there's nothing in our code, then we would have been restricting the private property rights of the folks that developed the water for the state's development. So here's where I am with this. I don't think the county did anything wrong in what we did. I think the permits were properly issued, whether the review, my understanding is, and I didn't look at the contract, but I believe at some point when this came up a while back, there was some fine print in the contract when they sold the homes disclosing there was a gun range there. But regardless of all of that, we've got a problem. We've got folks now that have infilled in the community. There's a lot of noise, and it's a county facility operated by the sheriff. It's that issue. It's, you know, what can we do? Well, we can do some things. It's probably gonna cost money, but can we, as a county facility, we regulate operating hours? I think it is not unreasonable to, in the midterm here, to at least set hours and the types of guns that can be used there and let him still use the range, whether it's between 10 and 5, something like that, work with the sheriff and have that conversation because again without pointing fingers there's a noise issue that clearly is there for the residents that live there. So you know I need to take a deeper dive on this and see what options we have. We spent a lot of money on that facility to get it semi- and closed. I just don't know what the answer is right now. I don't think we're in the wrong. I don't think the people are necessarily in the wrong. It's an unfortunate situation that we have to, I feel, at least me, I feel I have to address it at this point in what we can do. So I have Commissioner Doichen the Q. Go ahead, sir. Thank you. I see some validity in what you're saying. I've been working with the residents around the fairground on and off again for a couple of years because there are times that the fairground emits a lot of noise and much of the sound barrier was removed by hurricanes. And we came up with and found something that they're looking into now. It's actually, believe it or not, it's a fast growing, non-exceptible environmentally tree that grows three or four feet a year. It grows rapidly. It's very tense. It's a type of bamboo. I have it upstairs on my desk, but it's something that perhaps you could go with what you're saying, maybe at the end of our property or at the beginning of their property, you know, we might be able to look into putting that up. It wouldn't solve the problem completely, but it definitely, it's so dense and it grows so fast, it does have an effect in reducing sound from people that have used it. So I don't have the name here, I've got it upstairs. Because in the years that facility was not available to the sheriff, he went off site. I want to say it was in East County somewhere. I believe so, yes. And that was for a number of years and was able to complete his training on that. I know there was issues with using these bang-bomb. I don't know which, I can't remember the terminology. I think that had stopped. I believe so. If I may recommend that we have a sit down with the sheriff, if you have a conversation with the sheriff and see if we can get some more answers for you and maybe a potential solution. I do know the sheriff was meant to be notifying Walter Buddha's States as to when he was going to be using the facility in the hours. He was going to be using the facility. I'm assuming that's still going on. But let us revisit with the sheriff and see if we can see what we can come up with. Yeah, I'd appreciate that. I know there was communication a while ago where he was communicating hours of operation, but it doesn't sound like maybe that's maybe not happening now. I also don't know if that communication is going to every resident in the In more to put, the states are just to the homeowners, the chair of the homeowners association. So I don't know that, but we will find out. Right. And just are you? that communication is going to every resident in the Immortiford Estate, so just to the homeowners, the chair of the homeowners' association. So I don't know that, but we will find out. And just, are you aware of that disclaimer in the contract? I don't know. I have not seen one of the contracts for sale out there. Because the gun range is not a latent defect. In other words, it was always there. It wasn't hidden. Anybody who bought in that community, any level of due diligence would show that there was a historical gun range. I think it was there since the 60s. I believe so, yes. It's been there a long time. Right, so again, but it doesn't prohibit us from looking at something to help the neighbors. Commissioner Dordy. Yeah, I think it, you know, I would support the administration getting with the sheriff to discuss hours and to look at the different weapons and the different noise levels with the different weapons. And maybe that's the answer that they can work within certain hours with normal duty weapons and then these larger, they got to practice on all that stuff, they got to practice it nice too. I mean, there's all types of requirements the sheriff has. So what we have to be knowledgeable of is that whatever that, if he has to move off site to do it, there's gonna be a cost associated with it. And but I think they'll probably, I think we need that input directly from the sheriff as to how what the options are. And then we can go from there. Yeah, it sounds like a plan. Very good. Yeah. Okay. Got some head nods on that. Thank you. On the Babcock window situation, I don't know if Ben Bailey is available or if he's around. I just wanted to. There he is. Ben, you're waiting outside for this. I just wanted to confirm the process of the plans review for those windows and what our obligations are as a county wants to review the plans and then to the customer. Ben Bailey, Community Development Director. Yes, the plans came in after investigation. That did show that it was supposed to be impact. When we went out there all the windows, I guess were impact except for that transom we did miss that. We have been in touch with the contractor and they are working through a solution right now. They are open to trying to fix whatever they can. I just talked with the building official and he says they think they found a solution with another window but I don't know if that's totally been flushed out yet. So we're working with them. We can't dictate what type of impact goes on there. We just look for code compliance. It can be a shutter or it can be impact glass. I think the comment was because we reviewed it and signed off on the CO that we're liable for the fact that the glass was issued. Can you speak to that? I can speak to that. Go ahead. And I did speak to it. We are not liable. We're not liable with that. And I have the case in case anybody needs it. Legally, we are not responsible. It's an error that was made, but Kaiselal provides that we do not have a special duty of care to the individual homeowner. So- Between them and the builder. It's between them and the builder. And I understand that whatever the fix is, that the Bens department is going to fast track that fix and work with the R Horton to make sure we can accommodate the homeowners to the extent it can be. Mr. Trex. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, this is a civil matter. It is a matter between and in the contract and how they resolve that issue is between the homeowner and the builder. And if the builder isn't willing to provide what was originally in the contract, the civil actions, their recourse. I don't know that it would warrant a civil action because the amount of money spent is less than buying a window and replacing it yourself, quite frankly. And so it is really up to them. You've been in construction, I am in construction. If a builder doesn't live up to his contract, it's a problem. And if they don't want to fix the issue, that's on them. And I do apologize for their behavior because I take that personally as a builder myself and my fix to that, my remedy would be replace the window. But I'm a small guy. I don't have 50 homes out there that have this issue. And they're held on the stock exchange, and they have shareholders to answer to, and how they make their decisions is how they make their decisions. But I will tell you that in my opinion, the remedy that you should receive is a replacement, not a shutter, because I certainly understand people when they buy impact or think they're getting impact resistant windows, they're doing that because they don't want to get on a ladder. They're doing that because they don't want to lift something heavy. They could go to a lighter weight solution that would be easier, but it would still not keep off of the ladder having to put those in. So I understand all that and I am empathetic for the situation but it is a simple matter and the county cannot do anything to resolve that. Yeah, I agree with what you said and especially about DR Horton. I would hope if it's just isolated to 50 homes, when you look at the thousands that they build, they would look at this and say the remedy is just to fix the windows and move on. If it's in the contract and that's what was contracted for. So I don't disagree. I think being, you know, a good business in the community, they would want to just take care of these 50 customers because it doesn't sound like it's systemic through thousands of homes. It sounds like it's pretty isolated. You mentioned there's a workout, a new workout that's being discussed. Building fish, I have been in communication with the contractor there. They're wanting to work something out. The particular brand of window, the manufacturer didn't create, I guess an impact glass for that particular transom, but they did find, I think, another brand that fits that opening. So I think that's kind of what's being flushed out. Okay, there definitely is a manufacturer out there that doesn't. So, it's just the compatibility and it's just kind of working out the little details of how that's kind of fitted in there. So they're wanting to fix it. So, and we're working with the contractor. know, we're not going to be holed up in the permitting process and inspection. We'll make sure those are done quickly and according to code. Okay, good. I'm glad it sounds like they're a little close to them. Maybe we were yesterday. Yeah. It just came through right before the meeting. Okay. Just before I came over here, I got good from Sean McNulty, the building official. Okay, well, that comes to a good resolution. That's all I have, gentlemen, and it is two o'clock right on time for 2 p.m. Land Use Agenda. The first item we have is public input, Land Use, on consent agenda items only. Anybody wishing to address the board during this portion of the meeting must fill out a card, state their name for the record, and state which agenda item or items will be addressed. Remark shall be limited to three minutes max, and shall be addressed to the commission as a body and not to individual members. This is for the consent agenda, not the regular land use agenda. anything from U A1 to U A6, this is your time to speak on consent agenda items. Okay, so I'm going to start to move consent. Is there any further discussion? Can we delay for a second? Yeah, there we go. I'm speaking really slow. Okay. Yeah, I was talking. That's like, is there any further discussion? Okay, hearing none, any opposition to the motion? No, sir. Okay, passes unanimously. Okay, we are going to move on to Land Use Public Hearing for UB1. So, swearing in, I had that written on my list. Anybody who's gonna give testimony today to any of the Land use items, please stand up and be sworn by the clerk. Anybody given testimony that's going to speak today on these land use items, please stand up and be sworn. Anybody. Anybody who's going to speak. Anybody who's going to speak. Anybody who's going to speak. Anybody who's going to speak. Okay. If you're here, you're going to talk to get it right. In case you speak, swear in and then if you decide not to, that's okay, but just in case you're going to speak, put you swearing. Please raise your right hand. You sound me swear the testimony that you're about to give is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth please say I do. I thought I said it clear. All right first item is UB1. Bluegrass land and mine, large scale plan amendment to MRE. Good afternoon. For the record, Jay Shao, committee department department. The applicant, Bluegrass land and mine is requesting a large scale plan amendment, L-24-07 and the applicant is also requesting the rezoning. The petition number is Z-24-18 and today's hearing is a transmittal hearing for the large scale plan amendment only and both petition will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their adoption hearing on May 27, 2025. The requested large-scale Plain Amendment is from agriculture, AG, to mineral resource extraction, MRE. And also I just mentioned, the applicant is also concurrently requested a reasoning from agriculture AG to excavation and mining EM which will be presented to the board on May 27th 2025 and the subject property is located in Comhsin and the public health insurance and the public health insurance and the public health insurance and the public health insurance and the public health insurance and the public health insurance and the public health insurance and the public health insurance and the public health insurance and the public health insurance and the public health insurance area image of the subject property which is located in the east county. And this is the area image of the subject property at the middle range. You can see the subject property is located to the east side of the U.S. of stay route 31. And this is the area image of the subject property at the full range. You can see the subdued property. The majority of subdued property has an existing commercial excavation operation under excavation number O4-EX-10. And the site contains approximately 308.01 acres. The stated purpose of this application is to allow for continued mining operation on the subject property. Because the board adopted MRE future land use created and adopted MRE future land use map designation 2008 and creates the EM zoning in 2007. So in the complex, very specific stated, you can continue to have the mining, if the mining was approved, prior to December 15, 2008, they can continue to have that mining. But for this case, because they have remaining area, they want to mine. So they need to apply for the land change and rezoning in order to apply for new mining permit. They can move forward. So this is the 2050 framework map. The entire site is designated as agriculture and rural. and the site is currently designated as agriculture on the 2030 future NANDs map and the surrounding properties are all designated as agriculture. And this is a proposed future NANDs map designation which is mineral resource extraction if you approve the large scale plan amendment. And this is existing zoning on the subject property, subject property's Zoned AG agriculture. And this is proposed EM zoning. So there are very specific requirements and special provisions under the proposed mineral resource extraction future land use map designation. now would like to briefly discuss whether or not the proposed changes meet these requirements and provisions. First is talking about the limitation on location. So you can see on the screen, the subject property is located in the rural service area and is also located in the East County and the site is located outside of the MRE prohibited area. So this is a map on the screen. You can see that purple that area is prohibited, but this is located outside. And the subject property is also located outside of one half mile setback of creek system. So you can see this is subject property and this is half mile. And also the subject property is located outside of the prime aquafore recharge area of northeast shore county. So therefore the subject property meets the location limitation requirement of the proposed MRE fluim designation. And as I mentioned before, the subject property contains approximately 308 acres which meets the minimum acreage of 50 acres under this fluim designation. Then second, I would like to talk about the submittal requirement. So on the screen, which shows this required, you need to provide 500 foot the feature exhibit with the surrounding subject property. So there are two existing residents located to the north of the subject property and within the 500 foot of the existing excavation site. And you can see also there are two wetland located on subject property which will be preserved and no excavation activity proposed in this area. So this is half mile features of the new property. So they have additional two property residents located just beyond the 500 feet and within half mile of the subject property. And also there are some isolated wetlands located to the northwest and also to the east and south east of the subject property. So the proposed addition commercial excavation will need an amendment to the environmental resource permit which will also require analysis of impacts to on-site and off-site wetlands. So that's his staff's professional opinion. These land use change and the reason we should not have negative impact to the surrounding weapons. Also the proposed change will not increase or decrease residential vulnerabilities for the subject property. So therefore, student generation is not expected to change as the results of this proposed change. So on the screen you can see this is overall excavation site. Basically I mentioned they want to continue mind the remaining site of the subject property. And this is the post-recommissioned plan of the subject property. So the county's public works department revealed the applicant's traffic impact statement, memorandum, and agreed with the conclusion, which states that additional trips generated by the proposed excavation were not be significant enough to affect the level of service of stay road 31, Albert Monroe, which is County Road 74. So in addition, due to the safety concerns, both right and left turning are recommended. So the turning requirements and permits on stay road 31 shall be coordinated with FDOT. So therefore it is staff's professional opinion that the proposed large-scale plan amendment meets and is consistent with all requirements and various goals objectives and the policies as set for the County's comprehensive plan and section 163-3177 for the laws and the county's code of laws and ordinance and other applicable guidelines. So I'd be more than happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Any questions? Yes sir, Commissioner Constance. So, you're statement at the end of the staff court says unlikely to create any detrimental impacts on the surrounding properties? Yes. Because excavation have similar impacts like the noise, the visual impact like the agriculture uses. It's also surrounding agriculture land. Well yeah, and I really appreciate maybe when the applicants up here, if you could generate for me a couple of maps, because you have it just around this piece of property. I really wanna see a larger framework map, a larger zoning map, a larger land use map. If can maybe pull up. I would do that for the adoption hearing, but all surrounding within half mile is all agriculture, future land use map designation and agriculture zoning and the framework is agriculture and rule. But I will prepare all the maps. Yeah, I really want to see that in that, because it's one thing, I know that it's It's a very big property. So the scale is correct, but actually I can't see Because that's my feeling is that this whole thing is agricultural and now even though it's been an existing operation prior to 2008 It's it's not we're now gonna do this we're now allowing this non-conforming use to now be conforming so okay Thank okay, thank you. Thank you. Yes, sir. Commissioner, if Jay, if you could go to the last slide, in our presentation, 20 shows a bigger... Yeah, the one online shows 20, and it shows a bigger zoom out. Yeah, there you go. Did this one? This is the... to make a big one. I mean, I can see state road 31 that debuts the property, but I really want to see. Yeah, but I mean, that's showing a pretty good area around it. 17. Yeah, you've got a big I'm not saying you can't get more I'm just saying for right now you can see that it's a pretty good. Right, But that's want yeah but I want a framework I want to I want a zoning map I want to see I want to see the three or four layers and I can't see them at this at a much larger scale that's all thank you yeah I I think when you go to the staff report itself I'm'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. left turn are recommended. So are they recommended because there's an identifiable issue that staff found so they recommended they put it in but we can't make them do it is that it? I think the transportation can better answer a question. Because I mean safety is something we're charged with and it says but due to safety considerations it's recommended. Good afternoon for the record Robert factory and I've been sworn. Yes I mean it's it's really up the numbers do not show that you require a right turn and a left turn lane because the traffic is not increasing it's the same operation and the number of trucks would be the same. However if DOT requires those then, then the applicant will coordinate with DOT. Or DOT could say, you know, you don't need the right turn and the turn. So that's up to the state to determine that. But did the county, somebody put the language in there for a reason? It was at the county that added that language about safety. It's the traffic engineer who did this study and we agreed with this study. Okay, so the traffic engineer for the applicant wrote that. That's interesting. Is that caught my eye? But can I ask a question recommended versus required two different things? Yeah, I mean, if you're reading a report, to me to make a statement about safety means something tripped and they're like, yeah, there's a potential safety problem here, safety considerations are recommended. You know, we get staff reports, there's always recommendations, and we become the final arbiters on to agree with the recommendation or not. So I was wondering if that recommendation came from staff or now I learn it's from the applicant's traffic engineer. Okay, thanks for that clarification. All right. All right. We'll bring the applicant up. Good afternoon, Rob Bernson, big W. Law. I have been sworn in. I'm here on behalf of the applicant. I also have the engineers for the project Gary Bain and Reed McCown with me and they can answer the hard questions. I'll answer the easy ones. We joined in the staff report. This is an indicated excavation that's been ongoing for many years. The rules changed if you want to expand your excavation. You come in and amend the complaint and the land use to allow, the zoning to allow for excavation and mining and that's what we're doing. A lot of the issues with regard to turning and things of that is actually decided typically at the excavation hearing side of it and it is a state road so we can't tell the state we have to have turn lanes or we can't have them that will be determined through them as they go forward with the permitting. I'd like to reserve time at the end of public hearing, and then I have my engineers available to answer any specific questions. Any questions for the applicant? I had one question. Just to confirm the materials here, it's just going to be aggregate, sand, dirt. I just want to confirm what's coming out of this. My engineers shook their head, yes. OK. Okay. Thank you. Okay. We're gonna open up this item to the public for the public hearing portion. You'll have five minutes to speak. Anybody wishing to speak on UB1? Please come forward. You'll have five minutes. State your name for the record, sir. Hello, Jeff Lustig. That's interesting. The construction, the mineral construction site is the same as an agricultural site. I find that hard to believe if I was living next to one, would you want to live with a place where a lot of cows or there may I find out what they're mining from this place and I noticed it's awfully close it's in a watershed region it's awfully close to our creeks you know she said it was only a certain amount of way that seemed very germane and of course the traffic issue the large trucks coming in and out all day long. And how would you protect, will there be pools of debris of water that will be contaminated through this excavation and what are they going to do with it? That's the map that I was looking at. And that's one of our most important resources. And it just seems that there's just a very small space where this possibly could be used for on the maps of where they're allowed to drill like this. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Anybody wishing to speak on this item? Please come forward. You'll have five minutes. Last call. Anybody wishing to speak? Please come forward. You you'll have five minutes. Mr. Chairman I see no one else rising move to close public input. Motion to second the close of public input portion of the public hearing. Any further discussion? Any opposition to the motion? Passes unanimously. Okay Mr. Vernsen, we'll rebuttal. I think just briefly we have the MRE Exclusion area in the county which covers Everything in purple is where you cannot have an excavation which really limits Where you can have an excavation in Charlotte County this meets all of the Locational requirements we respectfully request that you would transmit this But we're happy to answer any questions you might have. I have Commissioner Doherty the Constance and the Q. Well Mr. Chairman I was going to move the transmittal of petition PAL-204-07 to the Florida Department of Commerce and other state agencies for review and comment. Okay we have a motion and a second is there any further discussion Commissioner Constance? Yes. Rob, thanks for staying up there. You're correct. However, there are excavations going on in the purple that are legacy excavations. Is that not correct? I believe that could be correct. Yes. Thank you. Yeah, and since we're discussing this item, I would just say that it's an existing facility and one of the things to help keep costs down, especially in construction, is to have a readily available material such as this for taxpayer funded road projects and things like that. We get materials from these mines as well and it helps keep costs down to have this stuff localized and not trucking it in from across the state. Any further, go ahead. Yeah, and notice was given to all the surrounding properties. And this is, you know, publicly noticed. So if people were really going to have a problem with it, they would have been down here complaining and we didn't hear from anybody. So thank you. Any other comments? We have motion a second to move this item in the transmittal. Is there any opposition to the motion? Hearing none passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you, sir. We'll move on to UB2, West Port Village PD rezoning. This is quasi-judicial. I'll start to my right, Commissioner Dordy. Any disclosures? Yes, sir. I had my monthly staff briefing with the community development, Mr. Bailey, Mr. Collinon, and county turners office, Miss Walker, and file my paperwork this morning. Commissioner Constance. No disclosure, sir. Commissioner, you're correct. No disclosure. Mr. Bailey, Mr. Collinant, and County Turner's office, Ms. Walker, and file my paperwork this morning. Commissioner Constance. No disclosure, sir. Commissioner Tricks. No disclosure, sir. Commissioner Tricks. No disclosure. No disclosure. I'll hold the phone. I'll hold the phone. I'll hold the phone. I'll hold the phone. I'll hold the phone. I'll hold the phone. I'll hold the phone. Okay. This is Xiao. Good afternoon again for the record, J. Shell Community Department Department and my planning expert work. Okay. Mr. Schell. Good afternoon again for the record, J. Schell Community Department Department and my planning expert qualification is attached to staff report as Exhibit One. Cultural group acquisitions, LLC is requesting petition PD-24-17 and today's hearing is adoption hearing. The requested rezoning is from Plan Department PD to PD. This is a major modification amending ordinance number 2020-008 converting through the adopted equivalency matrix. 80, 4745.76 square feet of regional commercial uses to 350 units of single family units and 58,394.16 square feet of regional commercial uses to 320 multi multi-family use. In order to have a mixture of residential, commercial, development up to 670 units, 250,000 square feet of regional commercial, 150 keys of hotel uses, and 150,000 square feet of other commercial users, including government users and the applicant is also requesting to adopt the General PD concept plan and the subject property is located in Commission District 4. The notification of public hearing for this application was sent to the property owners and adjacent property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject property. And this is the general location of the subject property which is located in the middle county area. And this is the area image of the subject property at the mid-range. The sub property is located between US 41 and stay road 776 in the Port Shard area. And this is the area image of the subject property at the full range. The property contains approximately 154.93 acres. On the screen, this is a 2050 framework map. The subject property is designated as CRA on the 2050 framework map. So we all know this subject property is part of the murder of village committee redevelopment area. The property within this CRA. This is the last big piece ofroom area, the property within this CRI, and this is the last big piece of the CRI, the property in the CRI. And this is the 2030 Future Nandies map, the subject property is designated as Markov Village mixed use. And this is the zoning for the subject property. The property was zoned to PD in January 2020 to allow for construction of a mixture of retail entertainment and hotel users, including a water park. However, no final detail site print was submitted since the board approved the PD Resonning in 2020 and the initial General PD concept print expired on January 28th, 2021. So now the applicant is applying for change the vision of the property from a pure mixture of non-residential development to a mixed-use development including residential, commercial and government users. The majority of the subject property is located within flood zone X except you can see the portion the remaining, is located in blood zone 9AE. On the screen, this is proposed general PD concept plane. And this is general PD concept plane overland the area. So I just tried to point out in the complex, specifically for a murder of bilge mix use, the conversion of one use to another use is based upon traffic generation and is intended to ensure that total traffic volume generated by the final development of the properties within the murder of bilge CIA does not exceed the total traffic volume that would have been generated by the original, original planning of the property. So that's why I just mentioned the applicant requesting to convert certain amount square footage of regional, approved regional commercial to 350 single-family units and also convert 53,394 square feet of regional commercial to 320 multi-family units in order to achieve the proposed and the new vision of the property for a mixture of residential commercial development. So staff finds that the question is consistent with the county's comprehensive plan. And I also try to point out as according to the submitted and classification impact definition statement, the subject property does contain in this area and somewhere in this area contain approximately 2.83 acres of scrubby wetland and also approximately 0.72 acres of fresh water marsh and approximately 0.86 acres of hydro disturbed land. So this wetland are classified as category two wetland based on the criteria as established in the county's comprehensive plan. So also these on-site wetlands have significant impact by exotic species and surrounded by the development. So provide minimum ecological function. So therefore this wetland will be considered a relative low quality from the wetland function and ecological quality perspective and impacts to this wetland would likely be permitted by the state. And county man specialist has reviewed the submitted statement and agreed with the conclusion, which states that preservation of these unsighted wetland is not feasible or practical and would provide no noticeable ecological benefit. So staff concurrent to review these General PD Council plan and the proposed changes. Staff believe this proposed changes consistent with the County's comprehensive plan and I believe the applicant agreed the proposed PD conditions A through AA. So this petition was presented to the Plan in Zoning Board on February 10th, 2025, and the Plan in Zoning Board also recommended approval of this P.D. Resoning with conditions A through AA with a 320 vote. So I'd be more than happy to answer any questions you may have. Any questions for staff? Okay. Commissioner Cossack? Well, yeah, I guess I don't see the developer's agreement attached and I thought we had agreed there was going to be a trebuffer at the South end. I thought we did that for part two and. Oh, I can't say that question. Actually, there is, I believe, early last year the property to the west. They had the major modification to the PD for the commercial portion, the 25 natural buffer. They defined what is natural buffer, what kind of trees could be removed, what can replace with the 25 natural buffer area. This project will have same buffer continues from the property, which will require that natural buffer from the west for the commercial along state road 7776. So this project, the condition, the proposed condition Z require exact the same landscaping and buffer. The same diameter trees are gonna be left, all the lanes are exactly the same. I'm hoping Tom David's listening because I really want to make sure that we don't have to go through this again. This is our bite at the apple because this is approving the PD. Sean Column and Planning's owning official. I have in sworn. Yes, we did it with them to make sure that it was the same as what we were doing with the assembler portion as Jay stated in the middle. The condition is the same. It's that 25 feet everything above that certain diameter. I think it was. I think it was. Yeah, eight or nine something like that would be retained. All the underbrush and then it would also be supplemented with other plantings to bring it up to at least a minimum landscape offer. The multi-family portion in the middle portion of Murdoch Village, they've got a 60 foot, but for the commercial portion, we kept the 25 and we matched it. And we made very sure of that that when we were working with the colder folks on the conditions for this, that it was very clear that what was approved for similar with that natural buffer we need to carry that over here for the commercial portion along 776. Okay. Thank you. to go to the staff report. I'm going to go to the staff report. I'm going to go to the staff report. I'm going to go to the staff report. I'm going to go to the staff report. I'm going to go to the staff report. I'm going to go to the staff report. I'm going to go to the staff report. report. I do want to mention that this is a modification to the previous lost lagoon development that was approved out there that had 2 million square feet of commercial and retail, two hotels with conference centers and 500 keys with an additional five hotels and 750 more keys and a 45 acre water park and we are we have asked for a reduction in all of those categories to 670 residential units converting some of the commercial previously approved for the property 250 square feet of regional commercial 150,000 square feet of commercial uses that includes government uses, 150 keys of hotel use, and I apologize 250,000 square feet of regional commercial use. And we are available for any questions. We believe this is in compliance with the Lane Development Code and Comprehensive Plan and we're available for any questions you may have. Any questions for the applicant? Okay, thank you. Thank you. Okay, we're gonna open up the public input portion. I have one. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Mr. Frackery, can you come up? I wanna talk about the intersection of Toledo Blade in 776 and I wanna make sure that That Design and geometry is satisfactory because that's a lot of inflow and outflow especially for spring training but you know also coming up from Murdoch circle and then coming around so I know the south side is very constrained if the county is able to adjust that on the south side. Is there enough room and space because it looks tight to me? And I want to make sure that the county has enough right of way for future expansion should we need it. And I don't know that I'm really pleased with this design here. Right now, we approved the methodology and the consultant is moving forward to do the detailed traffic analysis. And that will dictate the Laneage on 776 and on the north end and on the south end. On the south end is very strange that according to the right away, which is this couple of buildings and the rest of the country. But on the north end, obviously, we will have the ultimate configuration built from the get-go, but also the Deban transportation after view the study and do a nice and require a nice analysis and based on those, the lineage will be accordingly for the ultimate configuration. Right, and I think that's really what I'm sure is that we have all the right of way we would ever need and learn some. I don't want to have us having to go back to the developer and saying, hey, you know, it's too tight and they say, well, sure, we'll sell you some more. I mean, you know, this is our opportunity to get this straight because actually, The road is ours, right? For short, we have to look at it primarily. It has some realignment adjustment. We talked about that. But that's the whole point is we're not sure the set the southern portion may change. If we have some sort of a taking at some point to make it larger as it probably needs to be. And that could go west or that could go east. So you know, we're going to need that wiggle room on the top part, and I don't see it here on the map. The engineer, the applicant, committed to working with us on an alignment based on the study and to some mismatch, some matching of the future expansion either on the south side or the north side. So it will be aligned accordingly for any future ultimate expansion, if needed. But the plan is to build the north and further study for the ultimate configuration. Because I know there's now two lanes heading up and heading down, there probably should be another right turn lane to go west coming from the north. I see another right turn lane coming from the west going north, so that's good. But I don't know, I just feel like even the north part is kind of tight. Do we have the ability? Yes, we do. We talked to the engineer and we're comfortable with the discussions that any realignment will be needed and I think it will be needed and they will be working with us on that. So if we need it right now I only see five lanes potentially or designed. What if we needed seven? You know, and that's my worry is where... You know, this is in 20 years, somebody's going to be sitting up here, talking to somebody like you going, why didn't we plan better for this? Because we should have known, we were going to four lane Murdock all the way and, you know, I mean, I'm just right now is this is the moment right here. We're approving a PD or not approving a PD. This is the moment where we get to ask for everything. They will be committed to the traffic study and we will make sure it happens. And that includes the future expansion. The way I'm visiting right now, right only two throughs, two lefts and two north. But the traffic study will dictate that, and the DOD approval will dictate that. What's happening when 776? Similar to what we're doing on Flamengo. So we're looking at the ultimate configuration, and they're going to build it according again. Again, I just want to make sure we have more, not just enough land, more than enough land, like what we need plus 50 feet extra that we'll never use on either side. Do you know what I mean? We need to be planning for bigger intersections, because at some point, who knows, this might even become a roundabout. We're not planning correctly. And I have a problem with planners. I'm a broken record. I say this all the time because planners don't have a long enough event horizon. They're not thinking generationally. OK, they're not. Jay, you're not. You're doing what the book says to do. And I guess that you're being paid for. But we need to be thinking about the long term. And when we have this land in play, I'm having problems with this. That really am. I don't think we have enough information today to approve this little postage stamp. I think, I think, who's gonna applaud your game trouble, then? I think we have the applicant who wanted to come up. Is that the traffic engineer? If it's okay with the board? Yes, sure. Yes. All right, Back of on transportation engineer on this project with Kim Lee Horne, I have been sworn. I do want to provide some clarification. So there are, there's a developer commitment here for the widening of Toledo Blade. So that is being done. Those construction documents are in process now but are not complete. And so totally here what you're saying, those plans are going to have to be reviewed and approved by DOT and the county. And we'll have to account for all of the future traffic for this development and all the background developments that are occurring in this area. So specifically the intersection of Toledo Blade and 776, that is technically under DOT's control and jurisdiction. So that will go through rigorous analysis with DOT and the county. So the process has started, but that will occur all throughout those final site plan to make sure all the details are in place. Because like you said, it's hard to know those final details when you're at a planning stage you need to know all the nitty gritty you need to know exactly what turning movements are happening there you need the latest volume traffic counts at that intersection so this is all underway and none of that can be built or approved until all of that analysis is completed so right now we're you know, looking at the entitlements truly a reduction from what was previously approved to what's being proposed now. You still have the floor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that and you're talking about current conditions and I'm talking about future conditions and I'm talking about where is written? Because this is all about what's on the black and white when you go to court. Where is it written that the developer is going to give us as much land as we need at that intersection? Because I'm very concerned about the fact that these are the only documents I'm seeing today and I'm being asked to vote on this. And this to me is unacceptable. So it's not detailed. It is not a detailed site plan. It is not showing me a future use site plan. And you don't have a crystal ball. Neither do I. So, I'm looking at what might be required. But then I'm also looking at what's wildly, you know, excessive. Because guess what? We're living in wildly excessive now. Every time I turn around, intersections are failing, and planners were supposed to do their job and didn't do their job. So now we're stuck picking up the pieces. So even though I'm not a planner, I'm trying to do the best job I can sitting up here with all the years experience I have and trying to figure this out. Mr. David. Just a Tom David, Deputy County Attorney. Excuse me, just a Commissioner, that this is the General PD concept plan. So it has to go through all the site planning, all the engineering and analysis and all that. So we'll come back at some point. I think it could be back, right? This one come back. Will it come back? I don't know that it comes back to us. Second question. So is that this section of land and the south is already in Seoul too, we don't own this anymore. Just so you're aware of that. County does it. Sean Column and Clang's owning official. I have been sworn. Yes, you will have the final detail. Site Clang come back before you. All of these alignments and everything. These were all included in the purchase and sale agreement. You folks approved all of that. This is all consistent with everything. All of the documentation that you folks have approved via the original loss of the goon as well as the transfer documents when it was assigned to the culture group and we would respectfully request to that you approve this with respect to the the southern end. We can't fix the sins of GDC. We do look to the future, sir, and we are looking at the future of this, but that won't, that won't be the end of this. Okay, but hang on, so I believe there was a neuronic statement made by Mr. David, which is we don't own the road. We own the road. We don't own the property anymore. Great, agree. But be careful, we own the road still. And part part of the agreement we made in selling that road was we wanted to make sure we had everything we needed on the north side because we didn't know how big it was going to need to be and I thought that was promised us that they were going to do that and I need to know that it's in writing I know this is just a concept plan but it doesn't come back to us mr. Cullen and does it the final detail site plan will come back to you and if there's, if it shows that instead of this 120 foot width, just for reference to southern portions only 80 feet so this is right good 50 feet more, almost 50 feet more, it will, the adjustments will be made at that time. Again, being conceptual while it's a very detailed concept, there are still opportunities or changes on the applicant is. in the audience, I'm sure they're hearing loud and clear your statements. And we have been working very closely with them as well as public works to make sure that yes, we are looking for the future. As long as the final site plan comes back to us, I'm a little bit more, I'll be calmer. But I just, I don't want to see, you know, that we've had mistakes made in the past And I'm going to say way in the past, but we're dealing with them now, and I just want to prevent that. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairwoman Three MPO members It's up to you to fix that intersection. Yeah, okay. We're left. It's up to you guys who represent us all to fix that intersection. That intersection only have an 80 feet. There is some right away there, but I don't know that we own it. I'm going to call it right away. There's a e-there's a, there's some grass there. We may have to buy that grass to get more on that south side, and I don't disagree. I think the questions and the foresight is warranted, but I also know that we want this intersection fixed. It's on us to fight with FDOT to fix it the right way. Because they have made accommodations to do some things there now, but they're not in place. And as they continue to widen 776, which we know that's coming in the future, that intersection is gonna have to be fixed even further down the road. So to plan forward is really important. I don't have no problem with this right now. It does look like there's more availability on the north side for an additional lane there in the future. And with 120 feet, it sounds to me like we've got plenty of room at least for the next 50 years. I don't know about beyond that, sir. Thank you. Is that it, sir? I had Commissioner Dordy, then Constance. Yeah, I'll be very brief. Again, I was trying to jump in. Mr. David helped out a lot. Jump in to try to give you some relief on the fact that this was a request to amend the adopted PD concept plan. So the final PD will come back to us. Hearing us loud, the applicant hearing us loud and clear, provide more detail. I'm pretty comfortable that what they're showing as far as right away with the Toledo Blade on the north side is probably probably gonna work out very nicely. South side's gonna be another issue, and we have our work head out for that. But yeah, we're gonna see a whole bunch more detail when we get to final. But I just, that's why I was gonna jump in. I could hear your concern that you thought this was it today, and it's not. We got another bite of the apple. Commissioner Constance. and commission trucks on with you and we've had very good reception from F dot and I want to do want to say that the applicant did a very good job, or looks to be doing a very good job with Flamingo. And we got ahead of that one because that's their northern side is wide open. They're doing a great job. The plan, thank you Mr. Fakru, the plan for Flamingo on both sides. schematic is amazing. I have that in my head as I look at this. So, and you know, I just don't want to see them turning dirt, and then we're not in the right place. That's all. Thank you. Yeah, thank you, sir. Yeah, so my comments are staff and our planners have to abide by a certain code and our ordinance and rules. It's up to us, we're the visionaries. That's what people send us here for, not staff. It's not their vision, it's our vision. So I just want to remind the board of that, that we all have a role to play. There's just to look at the technical aspects and we comment, neither get public testimony, we either approve or don't approve. I would say that this is consistent with the approval that when we first accepted this deal, they had a concept plan. This is very consistent to what I remember seeing months ago, and now they're bringing it back. Understanding this is a concept, and that it's coming back for further comment. I was wondering Commissioner Constance, if you were gonna bring up the intersection, and certainly you did, because if we don't get it right, you will be intolerable to work with from this diet. I can tell you right now. We've spoken about it as members of the MPO. We've spoken about this during the course of our normal review of these things, about how important Flamingo intersection is, this intersection is. So yeah, I don't disagree with your concern. But what makes me feel better and for people in the audience that don't know, Commission of Adority is a professional civil engineer. And to have him on the board, and when he looks at these intersections, I like to hear your commentary on that, because it does weigh when I look at these things. And hearing you say it looks like we may have enough room here makes me feel a lot better in conjunction with the professional consultants and things like that. The details to come. The details to come. Okay. Now, can we get back to public comment? I don't know. We've got to get to public comment. Any more comments from the board? Okay, I'm going to open this item up for public comment. Anybody wishing to speak on UB2, Westport Village PD rezoning? You'll have five minutes. Please come forward. Hi. Name for the record, ma'am. Amy Friedle. What's going on with the wetlands? I couldn't understand. We don't interact, but you can make your statement and then we can make a little note. It's going on with the wetlands I couldn't understand. We don't interact but you can make your statement and then we can make a little note. I didn't understand what's going on with the wetlands. I heard exotic species and then I heard they're going to go away. And I think that's a horrible idea for Charlotte County. Those intersections? Yes, right on. The baseball game makes me late for church. And yeah, I think those intersections are horrific and I think we should consider something to get those ballpark visitors to the ballpark. A bridge, trams, something, something's gotta be done. And I don't think we can afford to lose our wetlands anywhere. That's why I'm here. Thank you. Thank you, man. Anybody wishing to speak on the side? We'll have five minutes. Please come forward. Hi, Jeff Lustig. Remember when I-75 was just two lanes. And that was only less than 15, 10 years ago. I mean, think about the growth. That'll be a major, remember, you're going to have people who don't, who are going to be visiting us at these intersections, too, who don't really know the roads and the ways in and ways out. And you're having all these new shopping centers and whatnot, which is great. But you'll need to deal with that. It always seems you guys get behind on getting what you want as a division. It's always this last dish effort that we have one chance to deal with it. It's a very end and it's always right up to the end when you get to make your choice in your decision. I guess maybe that's the way things are, but it's gonna be a really good plan, and I'm sure you'll figure out new creative solutions for intersections. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Anybody wishing to speak on this item? You'll have five minutes. Please come forward, state your name for the record. Last call. Anybody wishing to speak on this item? Please come forward. You've already spoken, ma'am. I'm sorry, he's spoken. That's okay. Mr. Chairman, I see no one else rising and move close to both the computer. Second. Motion to second. Second. Motion a second to move to close the public input portion of the public hearing is ready for the discussion. Any opposition to the motion? Okay, the public hearing is closed with the applicant like to come forward and offer any rebuttal. Hi again, Linda Stewart with Morse Engineering. regarding Okay. I'll be right back. I'll be right back. I'll be right back. I'll be right back. I'll be right back. I'll be right back. I'll be right back. I'll be right back. I'll be right back. I'll be right back. I'll be right back. I'll be right back. I'll be right back. I'll be right back. I'll be right back. that are listed as endangered species in the Charlotte County Land Development Code. The wetlands that are onsite were found to not be substantial wetlands that would necessitate preservation. Therefore, that's what Jay was talking about that they would be eliminated. It had they been found to be viable, then we would have preserved them in accordance with local and state regulations. And the applicant will continue to work with Charlotte County regarding the the intersections and anything that's that's found during the process with the final site plans as well as with Kimley Horn to take care of any traffic or road issues that may come up. Thank you for your concerns. You recognize. Yeah real quick so are you gonna mitigate the wetlands or you're to purchase a mitigation bank or do something for the wetlands? They plan to mitigate with additional vegetation. So you're just going to put it in another location on the property, but you can't recreate anything. Correct. That's my understanding. Okay. Is there is there's something in our book that says you if you're going to eliminate wetlands you must Create them or is that swift mud or no or DEP? Is anybody involved in that or FWC? Sean Cullen playing zoning official haven't sworn. Yes, those are Entity such as DEP it keeps switching sometimes. It's water management district sometimes it's DEP They're the ones that determine what can be done. People always have the option of recreating or modifying the existing ones. They can buy credits or a number of options available to them. And that is done at the permitting stage. OK. So they'll be in compliance at permitting. Yes. OK. Thank you. I have the questions for the applicant. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Okay, gentlemen. What's your pleasure? Mr. Chairman, I move in order to support a county commission as a Charlotte County floor, amending the Charlotte County zoning outlist from plan development PD to PD. A major modification to the existing PD, ordinance number 2020-008, the adopted PD concept plan, Plan, and its associated PD conditions. Converting through the Adopted Equivalency Matrix previously approved 84,745.76 square feet of regional commercial uses to 350 units of single-family units and previously approved 58,394.16 square feet of regional commercial uses to 320 multifamily units in order to have a mixture of residential commercial development up to 670 residential units, 250,000 square feet of regional commercial uses, 150 keys of hotel uses, and 150,000 square feet of other commercial uses for governmental uses. Adopting a general PD concept plan for multiple parcels generally located north of Belgium being road, state road 7776, south of Seymour Avenue, east of the Kilmo Waterway and west of Collinswood Boulevard, within the boundary of the Bernard Ockville and community development, redevelopment area, in the Port Charlotte area containing 154.93 plus or minus acres, commission district four, Charlotte County Florida petition number PD-24-17, applicant, culture group, acquisitions, LLC, providing an effective date. Second. Motion is second to move the ordinance. Any further discussion? Yeah, I just wanted to jump in. There was a question about the ballpark. So at the NPO, we have been working very, very hard to fix that. We looked at the bridge scenario. It's just the cost to put that in for one month of spring training. It was millions and millions of dollars. But we did approve and worked with FDOT through many, many. I want to say it's been years of effort. It has to put in additional turn lanes, double left turn lanes into the stadium, a right turn lane if you're heading from Englewood, heading towards 41 to get traffic off the road and stacked in those turn lanes instead of all stacked in the road. So that's in the near term in the next work plan, I believe, over the next several years, but that's all being worked on. Commissioner Chu, I just want to add to that. I've been pushing for that for years and years and years and I also said we need two lanes not one. One is not going to solve the problem and they need to be a half a mile long. We have the issues with rescues having to go around and through Northport to get to Port Saud Hospital or vice versa. And it's not been an acceptable scenario for a long time. And for FDOT to drag your feet on this, it has not been something that's made myself or many people who have to traverse that road during those games. It's just been a mess. So anyway, keep pushing guys. We need it. We're working on a commission adorate. Yeah, I agree with you, the commission attracts. The geometric improvements will provide some relief to that situation, not entirely solve the problem, but you're right, Mr. Chairman. I've been involved with a pedestrian bridge connecting to sports facilities, the Tampa Bay Bucker News, Raymond James, stadium to the New York Yankee Spring training facility on the other side of Dale Mayberry. I was involved as a design civil engineer on those two projects. And. Tampa Bay Buckingeers, Raymond James, stadium to the New York Yankees, Spring Training facility on the other side of Dale Mayberry. I was involved as a design civil engineer on those two projects and the cost of even back then was incredible. It's not feasible to do it here for us. But anyways, the geometric improvements should provide pretty significant relief. Yeah, even when the games weren't sold out, the traffic is bad. And I know these turn lanes are going to help get traffic off the road and stack. So it will be an improvement from what we have. OK, any other comments on this item? We have a motion in a second to move the ordinance. Any further discussion? Is there any opposition to the motion? OK, passes unanimously. OK, gentlemen, we're going to move on to UB3 and UB4 will be a unified presentation. Okay, so just a little ground rules we have a lot of speakers today and for many of you who have never been to a public land use here or have spoken before the board, you're going to get your opportunity to speak. I just ask that we keep the decorum of this boardroom. We want to listen to what you're saying. You'll have five minutes and order us to focus on that. If I've got to start banging this gavill around, it throws me off and throws everybody off. So please just keep within the decorum and the rules. You'll have your five minutes. We want to hear what you have to say. And if we're, and if things start getting out of order, it becomes harder for us to focus on listening to you. But we're all going to have that chance to speak. Now, if you hear people saying the exact same thing you want, you have the option to come up to the mic and just wave in support of what somebody just said or just say I'm in opposition to the plan, things like that. I know some people are uncomfortable about speaking, but that's all up to you. You're each going to be given the opportunity to speak for five minutes on these items. So with that said, we're going to move to UB3, which is application TCP 24-day-03 harbor village comprehensive plan amendment. Mr. Schau, I'm sorry. Oh, I'm sorry. I mentioned the PAL 24-04 and then you'll have to get everybody's wasad additional. They're both legislative. No. Oh, they are. Yes, they are. I thought they were both me. both me. Thank you. Sorry, you gotcha. And also, you before PAL24JS, you're a four harbor village large-scale map of amendments. We're going to be doing a unified presentation. So for both items, we're going to get one presentation by staff. Mr. Shal, you're recognized. Good afternoon for the record. J. Shell Community Development Department. The applicant, Miranda Holmes, LFCO further, is requesting application TCP-24-03, which is a large-scale plan amendment. It's a tax amendment to the county's comprehensive plan. the PL-24-04, which is a large-scale amendment, which is a map amendment, and the applicant is also concurrently applied for PD Resonning, PD-24-14. However, the PD Resonning will not be presented to the board today. We're just very briefly because that will be presented to you at adoption hearing with both three items. So today's hearing is a transmittal hearing only for TCP-24-03 and PL-24-04. The requested large-scale test amendment is to amend future land use FAU appendix 7 compact wealth mix use master department plan section one and requested large scale map amendment is to amend future land use map, Sears map number one, 2030 future land use map, and future land use map, Sears map number one, 2030 future land use map, and future land use map, Sears map number two, 2050 framework map, and future land use map, Sears map number three, 2030 future land use map, which is 2030 service area, the new nation map. And as I mentioned to you, the African Actress is also concurring to request a rezoning for only 840 acres of the subject property, but that will be presented to you on schedule May 27, 2025. And the subject property is located in Commission District 4. The notification of public hearings for these three items was sent to the property owners and Jason property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject property. So you can see this is the red, the buffer, as a notification we sent out. And this is a general location of the subject property. The subject property is located in the West County area. And this is the area image of the subject property at the middle range. So this area, you can see, this subdued property actually is located south of Maca River and east of Stair of 776. And this is the area image of the subdued property at the full range. So you can see the subject property actually for highlighted in yellow. That is subject property for the large scale tax amendment and large scale map amendment. And the site contains approximately 1,174.14 acres. And the portion of the property subject to the PD reason, which is a high lighting purple area and that side contains 840 acres. So this is the from Sir's map number 3, 2030 service area, the Indonesian map. You can see the subject property. Actually have you have majority of subject properties located inside urban service area and only to the northern portion that is located in the rural service area. And this is the 2050 framework map and you can see the subject property, majority of subject property located in the emerging neighborhood. And to the northern portion, the subject property is located in the agricultural and rural service area. Actually, it matches with the 2030 service area in the nation map. And you can see closely look at this is the existing 2030 future 90s map. We can see all the site for developer area is designated as compact growth mix use and to the northern portion that in the rural agriculture area, which is designated as preservation. So this is the existing zone in. The site, majority of the side have RSF2 and they also have PD zoning that was done portion of the property in 2020 and also there is a small tiny portion of the agriculture. So you can see this is the coastal hazard area basically pretty much the entire subject property located in the coastal high hazard area except only tiny bit along gasping road is outside the coastal high hazard area. And this is the frozen map, the subject property is located in both front zone 8, 8, 9, 9, 8. So before I start talking about the very specific changes, I would like to provide a little history of this subject property. Actually on January 20, 2009, a large scale plan amendment was approved by the Board of Khan commissioners by ordinance number 2009-002 in order to have a mixture of residential up to 3,960 units and a commercial uses up to 1.5 million. So which is the site for the FAR for non-residential, which is 0.0292. So that was approved in January 2009. So the county's conference plan was rewritten in 2009 and 2010, which was adopted on July 2020, 2010, and took effective on June 15, 2011. So this development was re-adopted in the current comprehensive plan. So the development rights remain the same, actually the maximum development rights for 3,960 residential units and are approximately 1.5 million commercial uses. So there's one change to the complaint happened back to 2021, both approved tax amendment. That's just purely for the corrections. There was a typo in the FAR. It should be 0.0292. There is a point, the correct for that, and also the correct of the master development date that was wrong should be 0.0292. There is a point that correct for that and also the correct of the must-debrem plan date that was wrong should be July 11. But that date was on was corrected and also clarified the timing and the requirements for recording of the other perpetual conservation easement. So today we are here is according to the application. The market demand and conditions have changed since the project was originally approved and adopted in the county's comprehensive plan in 2009. So the applicant who is a contract purchases requesting this tax amendment. So we have two, why is tax amendment, another is map amendment. Now I'm going through the detailed changes for the tax amendment, which is a complaint, they have a deflection. The first change is the project name is changed from West County Council Center to Hopper Village. And the second change is the project contains approximate 1,174.14 acres. So next changes for the complex language is regarding the base residential density. As I mentioned before, I show pretty much right now the entire subject property is located in the coastal high hazard area. Because the future land use map, Sears map number 14, coastal high hazard area and evacuation route, that map was updated and adopted by the board in 2008 in order to reflect the new storm surge zone. So now I just point out the majority of sight is located in the coastal high hazard area. So that's why there is in the complex, there was a map to show. This is coastal high hazard area. This is outside, but actually right now, it's entire site pretty much inside the coastal high hazard area. So we update the map, figure one, dash eight. And because the coastal high-hats area. So we update the map, figure 1-A. And because the coastal high-hats area changes, and the total acreage of the subject property is 1,174. So we recaculate the base density. So the base density right now is 1,790 instead of origin cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of the cost of there is map changes because they changed to increase the preservation area. So obviously the complex and there's a figure 1B also needed to this existing figure 1B to show area A which is preserved area, but the proposed large-scale amendment will increase the preserved area A. You can increase from these areas. It's used to be developable when I'll be put under the preservation and also this area and also this area. So that's why this new complaint adopt is a request to adopt a new figure one C to document what's a map changing request. And also the next big change is maximum residential density. As I mentioned before, the applicants request the maximum residential density reduced by 485 units. So basically right now the proposal is 3,475. And also changes to the maximum for a ratio. They change that to the maximum commercial and lighting industrial square footage. So the site will have a maximum of one million square feet of commercial and 400,000 square feet of light industrial. So basically, the ads, the light industrial uses and concurrently reduce the commercial uses. So original approval, as of today, is 1.5 million. But now the proposal is one million for commercial and 400,000 square feet for lighting industrial. And the next change is as regarding the perpetual conservation easement. Original the perpetual conservation easement was requested in the perpetual conservation easement. Originally the perpetual conservation easement was requested in the complaint because when they did this project back to 2009, there was the area to the northern area A under the preservation. They had the base density 159 units and then we need to whole project and say okay we put that area in the preservation but that 159 units could be used for the available area but however in order to do that they need to have the area have the perpetual conservation easement to the area A, which the 159 density came from and to only limit to the users to passive recreation area. So we all know the county and water management district generally no longer wish to accept easement and maintain its responsibility. So therefore, the applicant is proposing to remove the required petrol conservation easement and replace this easement requirement with a wetland and natural resource management plan to protect and preserve insect wetlands and natural resources in perpetuity. And also, these changes include to define the passive recreation activity and uses. Because in the component right now, we only talk about the passive recreation uses, but we never define specific defined what does it really mean. So these changes define what is passive recreation activity and uses. And also the large change for the complaint is for the master development plan. So the applicant is proposed a conceptual land use plan to illustrate the location of the proposed residential, commercial mix use and preservation area. And also there's a pattern book associate with this development proposed to establish a vision of this mix use and development and preservation principles. So on the screen this is a proposed conceptual land use plan. And they also have the pattern move to define what the design principles regarding residential, commercial, mixed use, and the preservation area. So the next thing I would like to talk about is the applicant proposed the detailed changes for the large scale map amendment. So I have they have three big changes. So basically I want to go to the map. So then picture and the words maybe can work with that. So the first big changes is amend the 20. Amand the 2030 future end use map. So the proposed portion of the subject property will be designated as CGMU. I go back. So basically changes from CGMU. Right now approved this 1081.75. Yeah, I just want to make sure that staff has the full attention of the board. Keep going. Thank you. You keep going. Oh, okay. So this is from CGMU existing. have 181.75 acres and preservation for 92.39. So they will change that I show this is a proposed one. Basic is they will change from this 28.1 over acres for the preservation. They want to add that to CGMU and then they want to remove for portion of CGMU designation to preservation. So three area, this area, this area and this area. And then the second change is to amend the framework, 2050 framework, which is matches what it proposed for the future and end use map designation. Basically, we want to change from agriculture and rule to emerging neighborhood for 28.01 acres of the property and for 99.13 acres of the property from emerging neighborhood to agriculture and the rule. So I want to point out which is this map. So 28.1 is here, used to be its agriculture and the rule. So they changed that to bring that in for emerging neighborhood, which will future have development. And then they remove 99.13 acres, which including three areas. Why is this area and this area and this area? Because they contain the wetland. So they move that from emerging neighborhood to agriculture and rural and want to put that under preservation. So that's why that can be preserved in perpetuity. And the third change is for 2030 service area, DINNATION, same thing. They try to extend the urban service area. This is a proposed 2030 service area DINNATION. So it's the same thing for the 28.01 acres used to be in the rural service area. They bring that inside the urban service area. And the concurrently, they removed 99.13 acres of the property, which inside the urban service area. they move that to the rural service area, which is 1 and 2 and 3 this area. So it is the staff's professional opinion based on the environment assessment report, and and you want to better protect the wetland on site so they request this large scale for three maps changes for the service area denomination and 2050 free work map and 2030 future land use map. To based on that they redrafted what area for the variable area will be designated as CGMU, Future Land Use Map designation, and all the wetland area, they want that to be under preservation and outside urban service area, and under the agriculture and the rule for more of discrimination. So, these proposals still will achieve a mixture of residential and commercial, and commercial, which is CGMU, the intent for the CGMU uses. And also, the applicant proposed the conceptual and development plan and also the patent book. So the proposed development must achieve, the proposed plan, which just showed you which illustrates the location for residential commercial and mixed use and also the proposed development must comply with the proposed pattern book which established the the different principles for the recreational uses, for the saltwater marsh, and residential vision, and the commercial, and mixed youth all in that area. So the applicant is also, I tried to point out also, concurrent apply for 840 acres of the subject property, the rezoning from PD, ISEF 2, and RMF 5 to PD. So also requesting adopt General PD concept plan in order to have a mixture of residential commercial and lighting industrial development. So that this proposal will be part of this whole development, will be maximum 2000 units for this development. So this is the proposed zoning, the PDE, but they will present to you for the adoption hearing. So this is the proposed general PD concept plan for 840 acres. So it is staff's profession of pinning the proposed large-scale tax amendment to the county's comprehensive plan and the proposed large-scale map amendment to three from serious map. A general consistent with county's comprehensive plan and Section 163, 3177 for the statute and the charter county code of law and ordinance and the other opportunity bill guidelines. So I'd be more than happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Any questions for staff? No, no, okay. I have a question for you about the history in 2008. At that point, the property became entitled. It received 1,831 units. Let me see here. Yeah, believe it with a maximum residential density of 3960. Yes. Once, just for the people who are in the audience, once those entitlements are given, we have to deal with that. Those entitlements run with the land. So I just wanted to make sure that was clear that this piece of property isn't something new coming to the board. It's something that's been entitled, and now we have to figure out what the applicant wants to do to change from what he's entitled to today, what they're asking for now. I have a question about the 2000 units. As I go through here, I'm seeing a lot of reductions in certain areas for residential. And Then I'm seeing on that slide if you go back right there. It jumps back up to 2,000 units. Can you just- Oh, that's part of the PD. So it's a little bit complicated. The original project is the 1,174 units. As 74 acres, the maximum development rise as they requested 3475 so I said the concurrent concurrently apply for PD rezoni by only 840 acres of the subject property not entire property and they asked the maximum resident development rights it's 2000. What is the total net reduction from what they're entitled to today to what they're asking for right now? Okay, the reduction is 485. Okay, that's the net reduction. Yes. Okay. I just want to be clear on that number because I saw a couple different numbers and I was trying to track it. If I may jump in and try to clarify that, the entirety of the compact road mixed use area is not the same as the PD that is also being proposed with this. Not all the property owners have joined in with the PD portion of it. And so that's why those numbers aren't matching, but the overall density. So as you see here, these areas are included in the compact rope mixed use, but only those folks that own here in the perfectly area. I want to note total. I would be so, run the numbers total with the compact mixed use, with the PD, and what it's currently entitled to. What are those numbers? What's the net difference? Oh, the tone of a whole set, I mentioned, is 3,475 is reduction of 485 units. From the 3,960. 960. Okay, that's what I wanted to confirm. When you look at the compact growth, mixed use, and the PD combined, plus what they're entitled to, the net reduction is 400 in change. That's what I wanted to confirm. Just to put that in reference, compact growth, mixed use, if you recall, has a maximum allowable density of up to 65 units per acre. They are at today with what's entitled, probably about just shy of three units per acre what they're proposing is going to be about 2.8 units per acre. So even though it's clustering the density in these areas the additional open space and preservation areas it's going to look far more dense but it is actually less dense overall for the entirety entirety of the site than the adjacent platted lands at RSF 3.5. So that is something to keep in mind as well. They're adding more into preservation, but their maximum overall density, while it could have potentially, they could have asked for up to 65 units per acre back in 2008. They were coming in more like three units per acre, and right now they're at about 2.4 to 2.8 units per acre back in 2008 they were coming in more like three units per acre and right now they're about 2.4 to 2.8 units per acre. A good luck getting density in a high hazard area. That is an issue that they will have to contend with you. Yeah, it is and I appreciate the reduction to be consistent with moving units out of the high coastal area, high hazard area. So it's going to be interesting because in light of the, the series of storms we had, that's different from when this came before the board last time. So, you know, I've got a different perspective in looking at these things. Any other board questions or staff? Okay, we'll move on to the applicant. Mr. Bernson, you're recognized. Good afternoon again. Rob Bernson, big W. Law. I have been sworn. We do accept Miss Shaw as an expert. I don't think I said that last time, but she is. And I think it's important. You've touched on it. She's touched on it. But I look at this is what we looked at as a new car in 2009. all the bells and whistles and things that we thought were really neat in a car in 2009. And if you look at it now, plugging your phone into the cigarette lighter is not the technology we're using today. And that's kind of what we're looking at here. We've looked at this project from 2009 and we've updated it to what today's market demands are and recognizing what environmental issues are on the land today. So we are going from compact growth mixed use with 1,081.75 acres and preservation of 92.39 acres today, which is already approved. We are reducing 71 acres of the compact growth mixed use down to 1,010. and we're adding 71 acres of wetland to the preservation to go from 92 to 163 acres of preservation. We are reducing the density that's currently approved of 390 to 3,960 to 3,475 and we're reducing the commercial light industrial from 1.5 million plus to 1.4 million square feet. So again, reductions, reductions. We are the ag rule area is increasing by 28 acres, but at the same time, the neighborhood going to ag is being increased by 99 acres. So again, as we identified today's wetlands and we preserved those wetlands, all of that area is coming out of the developer compact growth mix juice and going into preservation. Extending the urban service area by 28 acres, at one point, but actually at the same time, removing 99.13 acres. So again, a net reduction. This overall reduction in use ends up with 745 fewer PM peak trips. We are preserving and enhancing the on-site wetlands with a net increase of 71 acres of preservation. But at the same time, we're keeping things from the original project that makes sense, like the pocket parks, the multimodal trails, the pedestrian connectivity, and the interconnectivity between uses. We have prepared for this hearing. We're not doing the PD today. We have the information for the flood study if you want to hear it today, but that is really more appropriate for the PD adoption stage, but our engineer has prepared studies that you've seen on other places showing storm surge from the various maps and and predictions. We have worked with staff to include conditions in our PD based on that study. In addition, there were a large number of residents from the neighborhood immediately adjacent to this property. We had a community meeting with that village, which was very well attended, and as a result of that meeting, we have provided additional PD comments to Ms. Schau to address the concerns that those residents raised at that hearing that we had with them. With that, I'd like to reserve time. So a lot of people standing up. So I know there's going to be quite a bit of comment. We have our full development team here. But like I said, I'll rely on you. If you want to do the engineering flood level study now, we can or we can hold that off to our adoption hearing in May. Mr. Dory. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with you, Mr. Berson, to have the full board briefed on that evaluation at the PD hearing that would make sense. I did get the briefing. It's very well done, professionally done, looking at both the architectural and engineering response because of this property and where it sits in the coastal high hazard, the applicant is well aware of the concern this board has had over that and they are addressing it. It's very well done, but I think it'd be appropriate to defer that till the PD hearing. Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? I have a question for you. I think there was some concern in the prior plans. There was no access to the waterway and boating that goes out to the harbor eventually. But I think you're adding that now on this. Are you, would that be in compliance with the regulatory agencies regarding spacing, distance, permitting? Things like that. I'd love to say no. But of course, yes. Yeah. Everything that we're doing is in compliance with all of the regulatory agencies. We are proposing additional access to the waterway, not only for the project, but for the public. I mean, these aren't quasi-judicial, which is a higher standard. So typically, if somebody has an opinion of something, we all have opinions. I have opinions. But we look to make sure that things are consistent with the ordinances, codes, and regulations, and the agencies that do these kind of things, that determine separation, setbacks, things like like that. I just thought I'd ask the question I have received a lot of emails regarding these items, but we'll get to that after public comment. Okay, but yes, that's part of the upgrading of the overall 2009 version to the 224 office. I know, that's the difference. Any other questions? we're going to open up the public input portion of UB3. I guess it would be UB4. Anybody wishing to speak? You will have five minutes. Please come forward, state your name for the record. Hi, Jeff Flustick. They changed the name of this project to Harbor Village. Is there a Harbor project that's similar to this, that is literally identical, that had a 25 to 35-year life? That's also had to be turned around to be conformed, or at least are you allowed to build in these areas? And do you have to put everything on stills because of the potential flood, so flooding and whatnot? And do you wanna go down? One of the reasons why I thought that you weren't as proactive on the Harvard Heights project was you didn't wanna be known as people responsible for selling houses in a high coastal floodplain. I think that's a real problem. I think you also have a real problem with the traffic there. I'm a call on what not. That's all. Thanks, sir. Anybody wishing to speak? Please come forward. You'll have five minutes. I'll do it. While he inscribes that to you. Most of my conversation is around the documents. You can see in the maps. You'll see in there as well. Thank you. My name is John Ossonic. I'm going to put the information I put together. It's taking me dozens of hours of research and numerous phone calls with different organizations, including SWIPMUD. And what I like to say is my name is John Lissant. I am a member of the MSP U.S.G.C. Waterways Advisory Board. I'm also a certified mentor with the Charlotte County Score Association, which gives mentorship to small businesses. I'm here to speak to the agenda item, UB4 and UB3. The new development proposal of Harbor Village. The development is about the Butterford Waterway, the entire length of the canal that leads from the lock to the lagoon. Please be aware this is not a lagoon, but a canal that in some areas is less than 100 feet wide, which is the area that borders the outside of that. The man-made system was originally approved in 1958 since then many programs have been put in place to protect the environment and ensure protection of the natural habitat. The Charlotte Harbor estuary was added to the list in 1972 for Charlotte, Lee and Sarasona counties. It's clearly stated in that study, which was between the FDEP and part of the Florida Forever Program, that the Charlotte Harbor Actuary Project aims to protect the remaining natural areas around Charlotte Harbor, conserving flatwoods, scrub and salt marshes that support bald eagles, sandal cranes, scrub, jays and man's amenities. Conserving the flatwoods and prairies behind the mangrove swamps and salt marshes along Charlotte, Lissita Harborsville, protective water quality of the estuary habitat for the Florida manatee and other wear wildlife. It further states the project provides an essential addition to lands previously acquired through the environmentally endangered lands program. In 1998, the Council also designated an extra 1,390 acres of the Mayac Estuary as essential. That's on your map in the attachment. The map included shows the essential land to the EEL project. Please note that there's the same land as the developers attempting to reclassify. Sea lands that are critical to the wildlife. Oops, sorry. See figure two, which is the second one. That blows up the section so that you can see the green shaded area, which is part of that essential protection. I have no objection to the continued growth of both residential and commercial expansion in accounting. However, I do not agree with the elimination and destruction of protected lands that are critical to the wildlife and some endangered species. I object strongly to the developer's plans and that measures and that measures to need to be taken by the developer and accounting to protect these areas. The impact of the following full access to the waterway and a budding against the canal has many pitfalls. The county allows the building of docs along these waterways as long as the structure is less than 1000 square feet. Meaning that without any approval from FDEP or SwiftMud, if a landowner puts in a permit for a dock less than 1,000 feet, it's pretty much rubber stamped by the dock builder. Let's see. The county, there is. This is problematic as we've seen by the removal of the protected growth once the private landowner purchases the property. We've seen this in Harbor West and in Harbor East. We have seen this already in Harbor West in Harbor East, but now it's full clearing mentality, already in Harbor East. In other words, we've seen one property that fully cleared a lot and did so against what the recommendations are. Unless the county specifies additional restrictions along this waterway, I can elaborate further, but this has been raised many times in the past but continues to be ignored. Many newcomers to the area assume this can be done. The county permitting systems need to be immeliorated, in my opinion. It could be simple maybe designating the entire area to be inspected before the approval to restrict construction until FDEP or SWIFT mod, first approves the permitting. The essential land for EEL is only one of the many reasons this project needs additional review. The building of these docs and removal of all the natural habitat does not allow for protection. Some ideas and examples, developer, should explain. You've got time. You've got 30 seconds. OK. One other minute. The development should explain about classification. It's necessary and why it would benefit versus harm the environment. If the docs are allowed, a widening of the canal is required because it's less than 100 feet in some spots, and it would impact an available waterway, which is a two-way waterway to and from the lock. It has it as for two-way boat traffic, especially boats with drafts, grade and five feet. Manatees often enter this area making this an area would impede the possibility of harm these animals. The impact of the development and how it is structured. Thank you. Thank you. Back time, sir. Yeah, thank you. We have your document, though. Thanks. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chairman. If I may, I don't believe the clerk has a copy of it. So if somebody can provide the clerk with a copy. I'm going to give it a moment. OK. Thank you sir. Mr. Chairman. Yeah, if I may I don't believe the clerk. Oh, I saved a copy of it So if somebody okay, we'll buy the car with the copy Okay, yeah one more He's killing he's gonna give Like I said tough to get it Thank you sir Anybody else wishing to speak on this item you'll have five minutes. Please come. Your name for the record. Hi, my name is Timothy Delaney. I'm from South Gov. And I'm a member of the South Gov. A Homeowners Association. What I'd like to say is pretty much the dundin of what the previous gentleman was speaking about. He, I'll try to take off where he was coming from. He was mentioning about the environmental sensitivity of that canal and that waterway. And there are a manatee in there, and there I've seen otter in there. And on the property to the left, there have been seen Florida Panthers. And it is a host to all the exotic wildlife native to this area. The area to the right, if you look at the map, that's all designated parkland, and it's parkland for a reason. It's environmentally sensitive. The property to the left with all the pretty colors on it. You don't see it that way, but it's exactly the same property as there, and they're paradoxically interdependent. If you take out the property on the left, that's going to cause damage to the property on the right, to the land on the right. This, that canal provides safe haven for all the wildlife, the manatee, and there's haven for the fish like snook and other species from because of the lock, the red tide. When we have a red tide outburst break, those fish could come into that canal and take refuge and save, save, you know, save themselves from that red tide. Another thing I'd like to say is that the big section of land, which you don't see underneath there, if you go, I guess that would be south to the bottom of there, is a community called South Gulf Cove and it consists of 15,000 units. There's 15,000 properties there and those properties are dependent. It's a waterfront community and they're dependent on access to that lock. It's already at maximum capacity. We already had two manatee in the last ten years, get killed in that area of there. And that's why we now have a, we have a manned lock. It used to be unmanned. So that's why that, we have that. If we had an additional 100 docs in that canal, it would be devastation to the environment there. And it would be devastation to just being able to get, it'll cut off, greatly cut off access to South Gulf Cove, the acts, it would cut off South Gulf Cove's access to Charlotte Harbor and the Gulf. And to have the impact of two-story units at the bottom of there, right there at the mouth of Butterford Canal, Butterford Waterway and where the turn is, where I guess that turns into the lagoon. If we put a two story, a two story village, they call it a marina village, that would be, it would be a nightmare. That's all I have to say. Thank you, sir. Anyone wishing to speak, you'll have five minutes. Please come forward, state your name for the record. Jim Crouse. I want to . forward stage a name for the record. Jim Crowes, I want to continue with the discussion about the area along the canal that runs up to the lock. I know Commissioner Doich has worked very diligently to get an opening for some of the people in Port Charlotte that have been trying to alleviate that long putt. If you put docks along that whole waterway, you're going to make that an hour-long putt in addition to what everybody else in South Galcobe is having to do. Now, if you're not a boater, that seems real scenic and serene, but if you're a boater an hour-long putt is a big turn-off and you talk about property values plummeting, you will take and devastate the property values in South golf cove. In addition, what doesn't show up on this plan is this blue area that's kind of a blob at the bottom of the map there. I'm assuming that's a big lagoon, they're going to excavate and I don't't know if they're taking that in consideration on the removal of that many acreage of property. I know over in Harbor East, originally the property was 31 acres. They took a density based on 31 acres when you the board approved the amount of homes that were allowed to be built there. They then dug a seven acre pond in the middle. So you subtracted seven acres from 31. All of a sudden your density goes from from from about 2.3 up to about 4.1 per acre. It just it just if you've driven into harbor east, the homes are on top of one another. The driveways are one car deep, they are very, very tight. Yes, overall the property has a lot of area, but not a lot of home area. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Anybody wishing to speak please come forward. You'll have five minutes to date your name for the record. Hi there, Maria Kittenplan. I live in South Gulf Cove. I am encouraged by the boards earlier sensitivities to congestion and safety and some of the prior land use cases you have been looking at. And I think this one particularly encompasses both those concerns. I'm a voter and I'm trying not to be redundant but that outfall canal if you add more docs there it will not only have an impact on the time it takes to get into Charlotte Harbor but it will also cause congestion from all the boats coming from South Gulf Coast and in through that area, if you've got other people coming with their boats from the Harbor West. The other thing is we have, and that's a congestion problem, that would be like putting Harbor Village in and having Toledo Blade intersection right there. So if you were concerned about Toledo-Blade's intersection, this is exactly what you would have except on the water. The second thing is the safety issue. We have, from time to time, tow boats bringing in very large vessels from the harbor that have been disabled for some reason, and they use that canal to come into the marina located at the south canal of south Gulf Cove. The problem is these tow boats, depending on the size of the vessel they're towing, they're going to need quite a bit of room to negotiate that curve from the south canal, if they're bringing a boat in from the harbor, from that south, from that outfall canal, leading from the lock, to turn into the lagoon to take that boat over to the Marina for repairs. And the third issue I want to bring up is I live in South Gulf Cove, and during Hurricane Milton, we had quite a bit of storm surge in our neighborhood despite the fact that we had that spit of land from the park on the other side of the lagoon. That did flood and we did have water come up to our road. I had water halfway up my back yard and halfway up my front yard during Milton. So putting more houses in areas where you have possible coastal flooding seems to me not to be a real good idea. Now I know you get a lot of extra tax money from that because those properties become very valuable once they're built on. But you're going to have even more problems with people making claims, insurance claims, the next storm that comes up through Charlotte Harbor and pushes all that water over that preservation area into Harbor West. That's it. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you for your comments. Anybody wishing to speak? You'll have five minutes. Please come forward, State. Your name for the record. I am Linda Gatz. I just want to say that I oppose Miranda Holmes building on conservation land and for all the reasons to Mr. Lainey said and I really oppose docs being built along the Butterford. We already have to deal with Harbor East building all those docks on the St. Paul Interceptor Waterway that leads into the Blind Curve. That's a very dangerous area to begin with. They've got crab traps there. It's narrow and we're already having to deal with that because they're taking out the mangroves and building docks there Please please Don't let Maran to build along the Butterford Waterway. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Your comments Anybody wishing to speak please come forward. You'll have five minutes date your name for the record Hello, my name's Keith Malin and I live Arbor West directly across the waterway from the portion where the dock Marina may go into. My concern is it's my understanding this is all high coastal flood area. When you backfill all those wetlands, it's gonna raise the elevation of the power. Water flow south. Any water that would have come in during a storm surge, it would naturally flow into the wetlands, is now going to flow south. And if you look at the funnel, tell me where it's going to go, directly in the harbor west. I want to know, as of today, when this project is done and we have a major flood, Isbaranda Holes will lead to compensate the homeowners for flood damage. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody wish to speak? Please come forward. You'll have five minutes to date your name for the record. Roland Cudera, resident of South Gulf Coast. Good afternoon commissioners. My concern is regard to the item of justice, UB3 and UB4s are where he spaded. I'm here to express concerns not only with land usage, but changes of density and proposed harbor village, but also taxic of the waterway MBSU adjacent to the development. As Florida continues to expand, so does West County in Port Charlotte. We are seeing more and more of our green space disappear as well as increase in residents, traffic, and overall congestion. Seems that FDOT public works and our own elected officials are slow to respond to remedy these conditions with the exception of today's discussion. In adding the high density housing and commercial development, the route we need, in my opinion, is no. I'm sure many of the folks here today who represent SDC who are sitting in this room agree. Currently, only two process within the proposed harbor village are contributing to the L-S-E-L-T-Go-Cove M-B-S-U funding. Non-validant tax. The planned expansion of harbor village includes residential water access of rumored commercial a marine or wet and dry stack, and residential dockage along the Butterford Waterway, leading to Charlotte Harbor. And all the fannists, all units within Harbor Village to include the business and residential units should be including additional taxes that Southgove Cove residents are currently paying for operations of the lock and dredging of our waterways. In the coming years, the Southgove Cove MBAU is looking at a potential $20 million expense, possibly excluding six to seven million that we may get from Florida, from the state of Florida, to add additional lock, tend to house and refurbishment of the existing lock that will be accessible to Harbor Village residents and future businesses. This future expense should not be absorbed by the residents of South Gov. South Coast. It only be feared to assess the entire new development of Harbor Village with the non-Adabot-Owned Taxes as well. It's time to stop passing the expense of the developers onto the developers and not the current taxpayers. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Anybody wishing to speak? Speak. Please come forward. You'll have five minutes. State your name for the record. Good afternoon, Paul Beallik, resident of Salisgolf Kov. As Mr. Kudair said, I'm agreeing 100% with the taxation. I believe they're also talking about having a marina in there. Instead of having it just a one piece of property being taxed, every slip in there needs to be taxed in non-adform. Business should not get away with only $100 a year for the MSPU. Okay. Another point I'd like to make is perpetual, perpetual conservation easement. I looked at up and this morning in the dictionary. It means timeless. It means forever. It doesn't mean until a developer outside the state of Florida wants to maximize their bottom line. Also, the safety, as you've heard many, many people say, building ducts along the Butterford Waterway will cause safety hazard. It's a two way thing. There's lots of curves in there. It's narrow. We know people that vote, right? More hit, most of them have more money than the sense, and they don't understand the rules of the waterways. Is there just going to be an accident? You need to protect the safety of your constituents. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Anybody wishing to speak? Please come forward. You'll have five minutes. State your name for the record. Good afternoon. My name is Dan Bonus, resident, South Gulf Cove. Also one of the directors on the HOA. I agree with a lot of things that have been said. The Butterford Waterway is, well, you can see it's a chokehold. It would, I think that a lot of things that have been said. The Butterford Waterway is, well, you can see it's a chokehold. I think that a lot of people here wouldn't really mind the expansion that these folks are interested in if there was a Southern lock. And there have been a lot of... this new development if the folks that are trying to push that along, they're already going to have access to the lock. And if we had a parallel lock, to me that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. But a southern lock, and if these folks would push hard to get that, then they wouldn't be impacting everybody that lives in South Gulf Coast. We'd have an out here, and they'd have theirs. And that's pretty much all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Anybody wishing to speak, please come forward. You'll have five minutes to date your name for the record. buildings are in the area. We live in South Dakota as well. I also agree with everything that has been mentioned in regards to the waterways and how it impacts. I also don't feel the infrastructure is there, even as far as roads and all that in our area. I'm sure all of you are aware how many residential buildable lots are in or on Cape Hays Peninsula between Gulf Co, between South Gulf Co, between Meadows, between the Sands, between Rotunda. There's not hundreds of buildable lots. There are thousands of buildable lots, and I just don't feel this area needs to be developed with everything that's already available there if people are really looking to move to that area. And we'd just appreciate it if you guys would take all of that into consideration. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody wishing to speak please come forward. You'll have five minutes to state your name for the record. You all can raise your hands too if you like what you're hearing. So we can get the message that way. My name is Ken Pavell. I'm a resident of the village of Holiday Lake. The only adjoining property directly adjoining. I'm not a boater, but I am a driver. And I drive on gasp or a road and 776, almost daily, both directions. This property is all to the east of both of those roads. I see six entrances. What of someone is coming from Englewood and wants to get to some of that commercial property down on Gasperrilla Road? How are they going to get into that? Will they have to come down? Gasperrilla? Make a U-turn at, and then drive back up. What about people who want to get out of that commercial and head back to South Gulf Coast? How are they going to access a Southbound lane on Gasparilla Road? I don't see are there proposed traffic lights? Like they had to put in that marathon after many people were killed. It's going to be a mess. Everything must have flowed that way. You have no access to go left to go back to South Gulf Cove where most of these people live. I was just wondering what the traffic control is going to be like. And further, I'm sure that people will be avoiding that northern section of Gasparilla and coming down Marathon from 776. There's already been a massive increase in traffic on that road. And Marathon were at Mietzskert, Gasparila. There's no right turnling. Oh, geez, that's just like you talking about in that other project. I think not just the boating has to be considered, but the traffic, more importantly. Thank you. Stop beating up my microphone, but the applicant is hearing a lot of the comments. They're listening to all the comments. They're going to come back for rebuttal and probably address a lot of the concerns and then we're going to weigh in as well. Just so the audience knows. Super. Thank you, sir. Anybody wishing to speak, please come forward. You'll have five minutes to date your name for the record I guess better the microphone get beat up than us My name is Jerry Bird. I'm on the board of directors South Gulf Cove HOA I have three major concerns this property The first is 771 and 776 are part of evacuation routes. You've already got two other large communities that you've already approved going down to 771. You've got fishing property and you've also got the big motorhome park that's going in right across from us. Combined with all the people that we're going to add here, I don't see any improvements or anything else we're doing to 77 and 7-76. So evacuation could be disastrous. Okay, the second one is the mangroves up butterford waterway, going from the top of the lock or top of the lagoon up to the lock. Those are natural barriers to erosion, and they're also a nursery for the smaller, fishing animals. And when you take those out, just to put in docks, then you destroy all that, all that for everything else. The third thing, and the most important thing I think, is the docks are going up there. That's 100 feet and sometimes not even 100 feet wide. We've already got crab traps all through there. We've got, if you stick a hundred docks in there, you can come out 25 feet on a dock, but that's sailboat water. So now you've got sailboats coming in there, 40 and 50 feet long. Now you've got 40 and 50 feet sticking out into them. So you're reducing your amount of you that you have back for people to use drastically. I'd say you're setting up for disaster. So I'm gonna ask ask you to not to eliminate the docs going up there and not bother the man of growth. Thank you. So like I thank you sir thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak please come I see you please come forward you'll have five minutes. Stay tuned in for the records sir. Michael Oberacker resident of South Gulf Coast. Good afternoon again, commissioners. I really oppose the Harbor Village development for multiple reasons, both the vastest of it and the environmental area. Both are very important. With the other development, and I agree with everything's's been said addressing the waterway in the hazard of boating with Dox being put out the over development and people there's a lot of other land that Almost already developed that any builder could be in if they wanted to just build homes But but the congestion your infrastructures over the top now. We don't have enough. You drive driven down gaspill road lately with the trucks and the traffic below South Goal Code. That's a ridiculous, that's a death trap going down that road. It's extremely hazardous. But with all the development, here, the other development you talked about earlier at Toledo Blade, you ain't got enough lanes. You need a lot more. You need 10 lanes to get out and out of here, especially in a storm. Thank you, sir. Anybody wishing to speak? Please come forward. You will have five minutes. Stayed your name for the record. I like that waving and support. Yeah, you know, the problem is I feel like I want to wait back. I caught myself a few times. You have five minutes, ma'am. Hi, my name is Marcia Vicaro and I'm a South Gulf Co-Resident. I would just like to say, I do oppose the development. I know there's probably nothing that we can do about it, but I feel like it's your position and your job of Charlotte County in which to do things intelligently and put a lot of thought into this, there's nothing up on that map that makes any sense to the environment, our birds' sanctuary, our water safety. Not to mention, like you said so earlier, you think the big picture and you're thinking way out there. This isn't thinking way out there when you're sitting at the light at Super Day to turn into our development. You're not sitting there when you're at the publics trying to get out and you're not sitting there every day you go on your phone and see on Facebook, somebody else was killed at one of those and it's all a matter of we need a light and we don't just need a light. I mean, we can't even get just a right turn only there. So this whole development up here is going to do nothing, but create a whole lot of safety issues, waterway, on our highways, everywhere else in our neighborhood. And we're looking to you for answers to help make things work better around us. But all we're seeing right now is a lot of congestion with everything going on in Gasporella and it's just not fair. I mean you guys get paid to sit there and try to speak for us and you tell us to come out and voice our opinion and we're here voicing that. And I mean self-love cove can speak pretty loud and we can get pretty onary and I know you guys just want to make a buck up, but think about what you're doing for the animals that are there. I mean, really think about it. That's what we care about. That's why we moved here. Thank you, your comments, man. Anybody wishing to speak? Please come forward. You'll have five minutes. Please state your name for the record. Linvot, Southgolf cove. So many things. Okay, Mr. Constance, I applaud you for saying what you said about you're looking 20 years ahead for that traffic issue. Well here's a boating traffic issue. The second thing, you're four fathers. If that's what you want to call them, the people that came up with the maps back in 1998, they saw South Gulf Cove developing. And they said, woo, we need to put on some breaks here. So along the interceptor waterway, which doesn't show on this map, around the whole harbor east and up all the way to the lock, was called environmentally sensitive lands. And back when my parents were looking to buy in South Gov, they were told no docks would be allowed to be placed on environmentally sensitive lands. We've got how many endangered and protected species that will be directly impacted by all this building. And nobody's doing anything about it. We would like you to do something about it. You're in the power to do it. Please continue to protect our environment for the future generations. So they can see the Panthers if they're still around. So they can see a manatee. All these things happen in that last woodaway. And I was so upset when I saw all those little lots being put up towards the upper, I'll call it upper right hand corner of that red line going up the waterway. They're all going to have docks or they're going to want docks. The white little dot that is now harbor east. Okay, it's there. However, people are gonna be wanting to put first off, they brought in a lot of dirt. A lot of dirt. They built that up. If you stand on St. Paul Drive and look down, you can see they've got another five, six, seven feet than our development development in South Gulf Coast. Those people see the flooding coming. They try to get out. They're not going to be able to because the last two storms are roadways wet under water. You couldn't get out after a certain point. When you displace, because you've brought in so much fill, all that. I mean, Harbor East is this big. Look at how big this new development is. They bring in so much fill to build what they want to build. Where's that water going to be displaced? How many homes are going to go under? They're going to bring it in. They got to build the ground up. So please look at all of these things when you're making your decisions. Early on Harborview East was advertised as would-or. Then somewhere along the line, it changed to Wooder Front. Remember the environmentally sensitive lands. And remember our roads. And remember the lives that are there now. Not just people, but the animals. And help us protect for the future. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your comments, ma'am. Anybody wishing to speak, please come forward. You'll have five minutes to date your name for the record. Hello, my name is D.D. Anderson, and I live in Harbor West Development. I just want to say thank you for everybody who has spoken so far. They've done a great job and I'm in full agreement so without a pen I'm going to try to adjust my notes accordingly. But the environmental concerns that I have, the projects adjacent to my Aoka River, which is a fragile ecosystem already that's under stress from previous developments. It's greater stormwater runoff carrying pollutants into the river and the surrounding wetlands and the destruction of natural habitats for local wildlife, including the endangered species. We also have an increased risk of flooding due to the loss of natural water absorption, areas which will be at risk yet again. So the part that concerned me that I didn't understand, which I took to the internet to try to figure out, is this I guess the base density, which I found out they do incentives on top of that, which Jim also mentioned, which extends that to even more people in a smaller area. So that really does encourage urban sprawl. So the urban sprawl is going to, I guess, put a strain on we the taxpayers for taking care of the roads, the congestion, everything that has to be done. That falls on the taxpayer, it doesn't fall on the developer. We all know the developer comes in, they leave, they don't care about 5, 10, 20 years, 30 years from now. So I appreciate the concern for that and being brought up. So with that, I guess we need to look at not just the short-term impact. I think we need to look at the cumulative impact of what this is going to do to our community. And the small town feel and the local feel that it did have 30 years ago, and yes, I was here 30 years ago because my parents owned. So it's had that feel before and it doesn't have it now, right? But we don't want it to get any worse. So I would like you to use, I guess, your moral compass and your integrity driven decision making and I oppose basically the whole darn work. So thank you for your time. Thank you, ma'am. Anybody wishing to speak please come forward. You'll have five minutes to state your name for the record. Last call. Anybody wishing to speak? You'll have five minutes. Hi, my name is Laura Lippincott. I also live in South Cove and I agree with everything that's been said today. My major concern and I was scared of death to move to Florida and begin with because of hurricanes and two months after I got here we got hit by Hurricane Ian. My home was destroyed and it was terrible even with the insurance companies. So this past year we had Helene and we had Milton and the flooding was something I have never seen since I'm new to the area, but also what other residents have said. So my major concern is the mangroves that are going to get destroyed on the east side of the Butterford Waterway. They should be protected all the way up to the lock. That whole area, and I agree, that's a preserve for their animals as well as for humans because if that gets developed I think we're gonna see much more flooding. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Anybody wishing to speak please come forward you'll have five minutes. Stayed your name for the record. Hi, I'm John Bridal. I also live in South Gulf Coast, but I have one of those nice advantages right there below Holiday Lake where it looks like a big funnel. I live right down below that. So where all that water is going to go after they build it all up, it's pretty much of my back yet. I can't see it anywhere else. So I made it through four hurricanes. And I'm thinking at this point, I should probably sell and bail. Get out of here. If this goes in, there's no chance of making it. Have a nice day. Thank you, sir. Anybody wishing to speak? Please come forward. You'll have five minutes to date your name for the record. Hi, my name is Bernie Krueger. I just want to bring attention. nice year there was a development in Sarasota and not even a flood zone. Never had flooding and they had a rainstorm over there and they put them under five feet of water. What changed? A whole new development on the other side of the road and that's where all of that broke up and all that water had to go somewhere. And the officials in Sarasota were strangely quiet about it. So think about this, you know, you got to think with what we're not taking into consideration to impact through this. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Anybody wish to speak? Please come forward. You'll have five minutes. Good evening, my name is Tammy Parr and I live in South Golf Cove as well. And I agree with everything that's been said tonight and I certainly oppose this development. And for two reasons, number one, the evacuation scares me because with Milton we did get water and we weren't able to get out. So we ended up on our countertop for quite some time. Secondly, the congestion that we're already seeing in that waterway that goes up to the lock, our boat's been hit twice because, as someone said, people come around the corner, it's only 100 feet right now. And if they were to develop it and have docs that come out even a few feet, it's going to be a tragedy because that waterway was not built for all of these docs that are now being put up. The mangrove is absolutely, It scares me the thought that they might be eliminated. So I hope that between the evacuation, the safety hazard of that lock, I hope that you'll take that all into consideration. Appreciate your time. Thank you, ma'am. Anybody wishing to speak? Please come forward. You'll have five minutes. My name is Paul Burleson. I live in Gulf Cove. I agree with everything that everybody has said here. The traffic is horrible. I'm born and raised in Florida. Probably maybe the only one in here. But and I'm a retired state trooper right here in the state of Florida. And I like to talk to you about the traffic. I don't think anybody is aware of how bad this traffic is going to be. I've worked so many bad accidents over my years that I just I hate to see that. So it's something that you should really consider of what the impact is gonna be with all this new development. Thank you, sir. Anybody wishing to speak, please come forward. You'll have five minutes. Good afternoon, my name's Robert K. Troll. I live in South Gulf Coast. I agree with pretty much everything has been said. I oppose the development. I think just referring back to the 2009 plan, they were entitled at the aggregate numbers that seemed to be consistent. What isn't consistent is their entitlement to waterfront property along the butthurt waterway. I think, you know, that's a lot of the reasons why, as already been said, I think the other point is there's a grassroots effort that they're taking private funds and buying lots along the south part of South Gulf Coast. And that's to give environmental and preservation of waterfront property. This would take away and just diminish the impacts that that grassroots effort had. That's all I have to say. Thank you, sir. Anybody who wishes to speak please come forward. You'll have five minutes to date your name for the record. Good afternoon. My name's Nina Gonzalez. I live in Charlotte County. I'm here to just comment on UB3 item one deeds remove perpetual conservation easement and replace with uses permitted with an area A as shown in figure one C above. Perpetual seems like pretty black and white to me, so I don't understand why any developers able to change that for any reason. I'm also here to advocate for the animals because they can't come here and talk to you guys. Um. Only when the last tree has been cut down, the last fish has been caught and the last stream has been poisoned. Will we realize we cannot eat money? And that's all I want to say, thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you for your comments. Anybody else wishing to speak, please come forward. You'll have five minutes. Last call. Come forward. My name is Wendy Hall. I'm from South Gough Cove. Purchased my house five years ago because of the amount of time it would take me to get up to the lock. Now with all these, I strongly opposed putting in docs along the Butterfield. I agree with everything everyone said here today. But if you put those docs in, it's going to take us, well, they said, over an hour, an hour and a half to get there. We have 15,000 lots in Southgolf Kov versus what, 2,. And we're a boating community, and I don't think it's right that, you know, you put the docks in and causes everybody in South Gough Cove a lot longer to get it to the lock and get out to the harbor. I don't agree with changing the environmental piece of it. I think we should preserve that. And I don't think 100 docs with this new new neighborhood should take precedence over how Southgolf cove feels about putting docs in. It's very narrow. There's crab tracks on both sides. Also, the infrastructure, I think, that should be put in first before they even start developing this neighborhood, because it's going to be a nightmare. There's going to take forever. There's going to be a line of boats trying to get out of that lock. It's going to be too narrow. And like they said, it's going to be a lot of accidents, I think. You got all those boats in that boat, Marina at the end of the lagoon. And there's some big boats in there coming through. You know, so that's all I have to say, thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Anybody wishing to speak, please come forward. You'll have five minutes. State your name for the record. Thank you. Good afternoon. Thank you for your consideration. My name is Pam Beallock. I live in South Gulf Cove. I agree with everything that's been said so far. I'm very opposed as whoever word of you to pretty much the ridiculousness of all of this. One thing that hasn't been mentioned is we've talked about the inconvenience, loading as a recreational activity. So maybe that will weigh low on your end. I had my one-year-old granddaughter this weekend. We wounded that blind curve on Butterfield. We chose not to do that again. That's now. There's already a doc being built. I don't understand how that's allowed without this happening, but there was already a there's already a doc being built right on that corner. But another thing that has not been mentioned is we've all anyone who is a voter and has been out in the harbor, whether change is fast and the safety of trying to get back home with that kind of congestion and that narrowness, people going this way and people going that way and a doc, it's a disaster. And I think lives are gonna be on your heads. Think about the safety police for the people that live here, thank you. Thank you for your comments, ma'am. Anybody wishing to speak please come forward, you'll have five minutes to date your name for the record. Hi, Bill Fakenpray, I live in Harbor West right across from where the connector goes up to the lock. I kind of agree with everything that everybody said. All the concerns with the various waterways, the docks, the marina, congestion, and so on. So you might want to consider instituting or requiring the developer to put an additional parallel lock in there using an impact fee, then to pay for that additional lock, parallel lock there. Also, a way to eliminate possibly all those docs, hundreds of docs going down that waterway is to revise the plan and put a conservation, a 25 foot conservation easement, running all the way down to the intersection there, which would prevent any docs from being built into the waterway. The houses could still be built along that. They still would have the view but they wouldn't interfere with the boat traffic going through there. Right now, there are boats that come through there 40 foot motor boats that fly through there at about 40 to 50 miles an hour and you're going to try to allow them to put docs in there I mean all those residents if it's built and they built docs are going to be screaming bloody murder That their docs are being blown apart by these motorboats. So put a Conservation easement running all the way down to the intersection there and that would be a way to maybe alleviate that problem and an impact fee to pay for a parallel lock there. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Anybody wish to speak please come forward. You'll have five minutes. State your name for the record. Good afternoon. My name is Lawrence Esposito. I'm a resident of South Gulf Coast. I built my house a year and a half ago, and I had to raise it up. Like they will have to do to build this. And when it rains, my neighbor, this house has been there a while. It flows down right into there, so I saw it. And then when they were building Harbor East, I saw, they've mentioned before, all the trucks that came in, there were thousands of trucks that they brought in to build up the property. And the property is now... So I saw it. And then when they were building Harbor East, I saw, as they mentioned before, all the trucks that came in, there were thousands of trucks that they brought in to build up the property. And the property is now level with mine. I guess it's right across the canal for me. Now, and then when it rains hard, all that sand, even now, even though they've done a lot of grass and everything, it rolls down into the canal, which is very visible, it's coming down. If this is approved, that same thing's in this much bigger area. All that water's got to go somewhere. I'm a native Florida and myself and hurricanes. I've been through them before. I've destroyed my homes. And I win this not a problem. It is the water. And I think that will greatly affect our neighborhood. We let this go. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Anybody wish to speak? Please come forward. You'll have five minutes. Hi, Patty Simons. I live in Harbor West. I did go to the previous meeting. And we talked about a marina. No. This marina, how many of their boat slips? And the marina, I haven't heard anybody talk about that. But is that additional boating besides docks going down the waterway? You just don't know. Yeah, we don't interact with the applicant is hearing your question. Okay, so that's my question. So not only do we have all those docks, but are we also going to have, you know, a marina with boat slips that's going to add to the traffic? Thank you for your comments, ma'am. Anybody wishing to speak? You'll have five minutes. Please come forward. Good afternoon. My name is Todd Lally. I live at the north end of South Gulf Cove. I've been there since 2018, and I've noticed over the years that this is no longer a canal with a few boats going through. This is a water highway at this point. On a Sunday, on a three-day weekend, it's boat after boat after boat. So as you go up the butter for there, you have that large bend about a quarter of the way up. That's pretty much a blind curve. And so if you have a hundred feet between you with mangroves that extend out a 15 foot beam on your boat versus another 15 foot beam on the boat, there's literally like 15 feet to maneuver to try to avoid a head-on collision. If you have a head-on collision, especially the southbound boat, if he cracks to the right like the Coast Guard and Strux, He's gonna hit a dock or he's going to hit a boat it's going to be fatal. Alright so if you're going 20 miles an hour and you hit a dock or you hit a boat you're going to kill kids you're going to kill people on your boat. So my question to the developer is is that your intention to make this a no wake zone. Make sure you address your comments to the board they're hearing you. Okay, is that the intention where you're going to try to mitigate this and say hey, we're intention to make this a no-wakes zone. Make sure you address your comments to the board. They're hearing you. Okay. Is that the intention where you're going to try to mitigate this and say, hey, we're going to just try to pull all the levers of government, make this a no-wakes zone, and then you could inconvenience the 15,000 lot owners who live in South Gulf Cove, which already have to go through a long process. If you live in the southwest portion of South Gulf Cove, it takes you already 45 minutes to an hour to get out. If it goes to a no-wakes... which already have to go through a long process. If you live in the southwest portion of South Gulf Coast, it takes you already 45 minutes to an hour to get out. If it goes to a no-wake zone, you can add another half hour minimum to that. Well, then what's the point going voting? You don't even get out of the neighborhood within two hours. So thank you. Thank you, sir. Anybody wishing to speak, please come forward. You'll have five minutes. Last call, anybody wishing to speak please come forward, you'll have five minutes. Anybody else? Mr. Chairman, I see no one else rising. I moved to close public input. Second. I have motion to second to close the public in proportion to the public hearing. Is there any further discussion? Any opposition to the motion? Passes, okay. Mr. Bartson, rebuttal. Thank you. I'm going to have several of our team members come up to address specific areas, but I just want to start with the overall. I think you tried to set the table at the beginning. This is not a vacant piece of property that's designated as agriculture that we're coming in to put a new project in. This is a project that is approved already for 3,960 dwelling units, of which we're reducing that to 3,475 dwelling units. It's approved for 1.5 million square foot of non-residential development, which we're reducing to 1.5 million square feet. So there's a lot of things that are in here already that we are reducing. The same thing that was concerns about getting rid of the perpetual conservation easement. That's because the agencies don't accept them anymore. Back in 2009, that was a standard condition you would would grant an easement, conservation easement to a county or water management district. They don't accept them anymore because of the responsibilities of having to maintain that. But what we are doing is putting those lands into preservation, taking them out of the compact growth mix use and putting them into preservation. So there's a lot of things that are in the old plan that do not have the protections that the new plan does. Again, this is the comp plan amendments for the map and for the text. We will come back at the adoption hearing when both of those can be adopted with the PD. And the PD is where all of the conditions come into play, including the fact that there is a 25-foot PD buffer around the project. So I'd like to start with the engineering comments. There was a lot of flooding discussion, so we'll start with engineering and we'll go through the various consultants. Can you hold on one minute? Mr. Duhich, you're in the queue to just want to wait until I didn't know if you had a question for Rob. I have a question before him. I want to ask you one question. OK, well, sir, you recognize if you have a question. OK. I just want to say something. All the people here, someone came up and said, there's nothing we can do about it. That's not so. You're here. You're doing something about it. And we're listening to you. And we're happy you're here. Also, some of you know that it's been a long time dream about the Southern about getting a lock down the Southern end. And I'm starting to think maybe it is just a dream, but maybe it is, if this kind of support can come out maybe at some point you guys could sort of help do that. But my question is withdrawn and I'd like you to just clarify something because I don't think you can just put a docket. If it's my understanding that not only do we have to approve it, you've got to get the Corps of Army engineers to approve it. No, no, no. Okay, hold on a minute. I was going to have Sean to respond to that. Yeah, hold on a minute. So I talked earlier about the decorum of the room. We didn't interrupt you when you spoke. It's our chance to work and get through these issues and this data. So please give us an opportunity to talk to staff and listen to the applicants so we can make a good decision here today. Thank you. Go ahead, sir. You have a few. So I may not be right on this, but would you explain the process? And I agree. If there's no, there's some shop curves there. I've been up and down there. And part of the problem, I'm not really a power voter, but part of the problem is some of the boats go too fast and we all know that coming around the curve. That's another issue. But could you explain? You can, as my understanding, you can only go so far into the canal. You've got to get a DM, and I think also the core of Army, but would you explain that please? Yes, there's Sean Cullin in planning zoning official. Yes, we have local regulations on how far out into a water body a docking structure can go. 25% of the width or 25 feet whichever is less. We've got other provisions relating to staying off of channels, things like that. With respect to state and or federal permitting, that habitat has been passed back and forth between numerous agencies. I believe currently FDEP has jurisdiction on docs. They also have jurisdiction on mangroves. We do not regulate the cutting of mangroves. We would have to have a very expensive and time consuming process put into place for the state to delegate that authority to us. So all mangrove removal as well as docs go through both local permitting as well as state permitting. Now if Army Corps of Engineers did take back over jurisdiction of this, then there may be federal permitting involved. But again, that potato has been passed through SWIFMA, FDEP, and Army Corps. Had nauseam over the years, every couple of years, when they realized the difficulties with those regulations, they pass it to a different agency. So if the canal's 80 feet wide, and someone's gonna put a dock in, they can go out 20 feet? 25% or 25 feet, whichever is the last one. And that, well, if it's 80 feet wide, the max they could go out is 20 feet. The canal, between property lines, and I don't know if we have any of those maps showing property lines. I was trying to make simple math. Between the property lines the canal is about 200 feet wide. Open water span just doing some GIS measurements it's averaging about 120 feet of actual open water between the edge of the vegetative fringes. That's just based on doing some going around various locations on that canal going up relating to, you know, and just measuring that. But there'd be nothing. So if someone's got a doctor that goes out 25 feet, theoretically, they could put a boat at the end of that and the boat's got a 12 foot beam. It's like a 40 foot boat. Correct. The intent of the docking is that every all the pieces of the dock, so you've got your dock and then your lift typically, and that all fits within that 25% or 25%. Can you put the, would it be legal to put your boat beyond that, which would technically be infringing on the, on the right to pass and repass on the canal? So that's where I'm not a boater. I will fully admit that. I would think that 120 feet is plenty of room. I could be wrong. Now, if my understanding with when people just lash off the outside, I believe that is regulated by the Coast Guard. I don't believe that we have any regulations relating to that. They don't regulate the construction. We don't regulate structures. We don't regulate the size of somebody's dock. All right, excuse me, dock. We don't regulate the size of somebody's boat. We regulate the placement of permanent structures that being the doc in the lift facility. So what somebody does and ties on if that becomes a safety issue, that's a safety issue for maybe the marine patrol or something like that. But again, we can only regulate structures, physical structures. We can't tell you, hey, you can only have a 20-foot skiff boat. Well, I don't want that. I want a 30-foot center console. We can't regulate that. So yet, to make a long story short, yes, they're both local and state and possibly federal permitting requirements. Mr. Rebel, you recognize. Good afternoon, commissioners for the the record-todd Rebel with Atwell Court Charlotte. So I'm going to try to address the three issues that came up today from the, sorry, oh, I was legislative, but I was foreign, and so in case it matters. Anyways, I'm going to address the three items that were brought up regarding engineering related items, which is flood zones, storm surge, and storm water, which is obviously a big concern. And I think rightfully so. And I think it's unfortunate. A public hearing like this is not always the easiest way to convey data and have conversations. We were very fortunate at the planning zoning meeting. We had a bunch of residents from the holiday lakes community from the mobile home community directly to the south of us show up. We were able to get contact information. We actually held a community meeting with them. And I think we had probably just over 100 people in the room and had a great conversation. And because of that, I think we only have one person stand up from holiday lakes today in front of you. We resolved all their questions and concerns because we had a forum that we could do that in. So hopefully we can try to convey this information through this public hearing process and maybe we even have a follow up prior to the adoption hearing. So let's start with flood zones. So flood zones are pretty much what every resident is going to deal with when it comes with building home. If you're building a house in Rotunda, South Gulf Coast, deep creek, then really your finished floor is gonna be driven by FEMA. And so FEMA recently, I think it was two years ago now, updated the maps. All right, so the gentleman set up said, hey, I'm much higher than the person next to me is, that's true, right? So if you have a home that was built back in the 80s, you're going to be, your minimum finished floor was probably much lower than what is required by today's code. So not only did the FEMA zone change, it switched data. So even if it went from an eight AE to an eight AE, it really went up a foot 1.1 feet to be more accurate than everybody else. Plus the Florida building code recently changed to add a foot free board on top of that. So in some locations in South Gulf code, you can literally see a two foot differential between finish floors. And of course that is all to do more structural protection when it comes to your hurricanes and flooding. So yes, this site will have to comply with all those new regulations. And we all know that Milton had about an 8.2 plus or minus elevation of the overall surge. And so when you look at new homes that were constructed that meet the new codes with the plus one free board, most of them had minimal to no damage from the flooding. So that's what the state's going to. I know some places, my brother Liz and Pensacola, that county up there has a plus two requirement on top of FEMA. So there's been discussions in the state level that that may happen. That's a pretty big differential when you start talking about finished floors. So let's talk a little bit about storm water and there was concerns about where is all the water going to go. Well in the state of Florida we, and specifically in our area, we have to deal with the water management districts. In our case it's the Southwest Florida Water Management District. We're required to capture all our stormwater runoff. If you can see the site plan that we had for the PD, you'll see all these lakes. Those lakes are there really to capture. They do multiple things. Number one, people like looking at lakes. Number two, there is on site fill. So we hope not to truck in the thousands of trucks they're talking about because the cost of that is immense. But it also captures and does our water quality treatment and the attenuations required for this project. So every drop of runoff has to be directed to these lakes and treated prior to discharge into the waterway system. So that's a state standard. Charlotte County also has a storm water permit that's required, but reality is that basically follows state standards. So there's nothing above and beyond that. But that all has to be done as part of the development of this project. It has to be designed and permitted to meet the state standards, and we'll have to maintain that throughout. So it's different than a lot of areas in Charlotte County, as you guys I'm sure know when it comes to maintenance of certain areas with flooding, most of the areas that were built back with GDC, rotunda, they do not have master stormwater systems, right? So all the runoff that occurs gets into the roads, gets into the ditches, ditches get overwhelmed and flooding occurs. In this situation, we're required to meet standards for minimum road elevations. And then of course our finished floors will have to meet the requirements per FEMA. Storm surge is another thing that was brought up at the community meeting, which is a huge concern. Obviously it's ripe on everybody's brain. I also like some of the people that spoke. I was born and raised here in Charlotte County. We used to love hurricane days. There was never any issue. We got out of school. It was great. Not until my adult years that we actually have, Charlie come through and then he and and yes it like there are more and more. The reality is it just takes the right direction and I think Haleen proved that right. It was off long ways and we didn't think we were going to get any storm water and power surge impact and we did. So it's making everybody in the industry rethink how we do development. and you talk to developers, yes, they want to save money, but they also have to sell homes. And so you can't just say, hey, we meet the bare minimum requirements because they have to sell against other safer areas. Perhaps we have to show how we meet standards. The insurance has gone through the roof. So you want to make sure you can say, look, I'm this much higher than FEMA. I'm this much more secure with wind load. All these things are helping to sell homes, right? So these developers are taking note of that, especially in southwest Florida. So when it comes to storm surge, there's really two types of floodplain. There's a freshwater flood plain which happens when it rains and the people that had concerns about filling in a low area whether it's a wetland or any kind of area that's currently holding water. When it rains and that water goes there and then you fill that area and they're correct, that has to go somewhere. Now, in a situation like this, even if that was the case, we're required per the state standards to provide floodplain compensation. So that's a requirement that even if we had an area like that, we have to give back the same volume that we're filling in. So that wouldn't be an issue even if there was fresh water. However, when it comes to storm surge, that's a whole different thing, right? That's a slug of the, it used to be Gulf of Mexico, now a Gulf of America, whatever you want to say. That water comes in. It's a slug of water. There is literally nothing anybody can do to stop. You can't dig a hole. We could dig this whole site into one lake and it's not gonna change elevation One bit it's a volume thing and I try to explain that by saying take coffee cup and take a rock Size of golf ball and put it in there. What's gonna happen? You're probably gonna have coffee spill all over your desk take that same rock Same size of golf ball throw in the golf what happens? Nothing is not going to move. It's too much volume. There is not enough fill you could put on this proper, we could fill it 30 feet and it's not going to change one bit that storm surge elevation that comes in. There's concerns about deflection of water. That happens in a VE zone with wave action, And that is an actual calculation. You have to prove through the VE calculations that you not deflect any wave action to create more damage to your neighbors. This is a different thing. When that water comes into an elevation, it doesn't matter what's in front of it, it just sits there. And water seeks its own elevation unless you change with through volume. So that's part of the problem that I think a lot of people don't understand that it's difficult to understand, but the reality is it is a slug of water that comes in. And it's not a wave action where this property would deflect waves to the adjacent neighborhoods and create problems. So with that, I'm going to sit down, but if there's any questions, it'd be more than happy to answer those. Any questions? I know it is complicated. Any questions from Mr. Rebel? OK. Thank you. We're going to have our environmental consultant come up and discuss the environmental issues and the waterway issues. Good afternoon. For the record my name is Tim Hall which are all associates. We're an environmental and marine consultant company working for the developer and I can through some of the comments. I heard your staff kind of clarified that the width of the waterway, how we measured it, it varies between about 120 and 150 foot wide of open water. And then the mean high water line goes into the mangroves a little bit. The platted width is 200 feet, as he said. Docs that would be built along that waterway would be up to the individual lot owners, whether they build them or not. They would need to minimize impacts to the mangroves along the shoreline. So it's not like the mangroves are going to be clear cut. There would be a pathway to meet the exemption criteria under the state's rules and the core of engineers' rules. That pathway would be four feet wide out to the dock. And then the dock, if it meets certain size size limitations can be qualified as not needing state permitting. However, all of the docks do need a federal authorization. And if you like I can qualify that a little bit more. DEP has a delegation from the core under a program called the State Programmatic SPGP, State Programmatic, what's the general permit? Yeah, and so if the doc meets certain criteria, when DEP reviews it, then they have the authority to issue on behalf of the core. When you get a DEP permit, there's three things that are laid out in that authorization. There's a regulatory authorization that says your doc meets the state regulatory criteria. There's a proprietary statement that either says the doc is not over state lands and does it need proprietary authorization or it is over state lands and the prior the proprietary authorization is either granted under some authorization that could be a lease or consent of use and then there's also a regular federal authorization and under the federal it'll say it meets the SPGP criteria and is granted on behalf of the court. Or it will say it does not meet those and you need a separate court permit. So that's how that review is done by the state for those individual docs. As your staff said, there is a limitation to the 25% the width of the waterway for the state and the core. That includes the vessel as well as the doc. So you can't have a four if you're allowed 25 feet in this waterway at 120 feet wide. You'd be allowed about 28-30 feet. And so if you've got a 40-foot boat, it would have to be more parallel to the shoreline, not perpendicular because the dock would stick out to, or being because the boat would stick out too far. There was a question, I think somebody asked whether or not it was the intent of the developer to put idle speed on this waterway. The developer doesn't have that ability to do that, whether or not a speed zone gets put in place. That's reviewed by the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the Coast Guard. And it's either done for safety or for manatee resource protection. So with some of the comments here about safety issues on there, I mean, it sounds like a speed zone could be put on the waterway now, even without any docs there, just for those blind corners. I haven't run a power boat through that waterway. I did take my kayak up and down it. People do drive fast along there, and that's just an education or a voter owner problem to be able to get them to understand the limitations of the waterway and how best operates safely within it. And lastly, I, somebody talk about the mangroves on the east side of the waterway. This project does not extend to the east side of the waterway. That environment only sensitive land and those mangroves on the east side will remain to be in the state that they currently are. And I think that was the majority of the comments. I can answer any questions if you have. Commissioner Constance, you're in the queue. Yeah, thank you. Restate again the length of the dock. I think it was stated that it was either 25 feet or 20 percent, whichever is less. What is the number? So, under the state regulations, it's 25 percent. That's their limitation. Your local rules are more restrictive and that if the waterway is wider than 100 feet, you're still limited to 25. Okay, because you said 28. 28 is what the state would allow. DEP would allow 28, and I was just giving that as an example. God, because I was not jiding with what we were going for. Yeah, no, that's a pretty terrible thing. So the largest it could be would be 25 feet or less if it's narrower. Correct. Yes, sir. Then 125 feet. correct and that is from point of installation so as there are mangroves here as well less if it's narrower. Correct. Yes sir. Then 125 feet. Correct. And that is from point of installation. So as there are mangroves here as well, we go by where mean high water is where you're attaching to the ground is where we start our measuring points from. Okay. So then you made a statement about that includes the vessel. So does that mean somebody can't have a 40 foot boat? If they can have a 40-foot boat, but it would have to be more parallel to the shore rather than perpendicular. Gotcha. So it would have to be up against the sea wall oriented. Or against the dock. You know, if you have a long short dock and then the boat would be more. Oh, yeah, against the long short dock. So beam wouldn't be More than that allowed amount correct, okay, and quite honestly what we see typically is the parallel to shore docking structures occasionally you'll get an angled one on a wider area kind of like a you know angle parking that you'd see it publics But the majority of the docs that we get and and permitted are the parallel with shore. Okay. And I guess my question is if we didn't do anything today, are they allowed dockage under their current PD? That area allows for residential development under their current PD, So they would have certain rights with four docs. Yes. That area. Where's the I'm looking for the original. There's no original. That area is an open zone PD as if you had right. Right. So this area C here, which is what runs along the waterway, that is allows for residential development. So yes, they could have docs. Again, they still have to rezone to PD. They still have to do take all the steps. But yes, it's no different from what they currently have allowed here because this area C allowed for or does allow for residential development. Unless we put a restriction in the PD. Correct. Okay. One other thing to mention because people have brought up manatees as well with the Manatee Protection Plan that we have this area including along this canal is actually a preferred area for new boat and Marina sighting areas, most likely due to the lock that is intended to try to keep the manatees out, but this is actually this whole area including all of South Gulf code is actually a preferred location for new Marina and new dock sightings. So I just wanted to for new say it against the for new Marina's and new dock sighting locations. And why is that because the lock protects them? I believe that's the intent of it is because the lock is intended to try to keep the manatees out or it does try to keep the manatees out. You know, it doesn't always. It's nature. They get in. But if you look at the Manatee Protection Plan by Fish and Wildlife, this area is located in a preferred area. Which means that if they're not there, the voting speeds can be a little bit faster. Not restricted because it's in no way zoomed because it's a manatee protection. And I mean, I've seen them all over the place. I know that. I know that. I know that. I know that. I know that. I know that. I know that. I know that. I know that. I know that. I know that. I know that. I know that. I know that. I know that. I know that. I know that. I know that. I know that. I know that. I know that. be a little bit faster. Not restricted because it's in no way exhumed because it's a manatee protection. And I mean, I've seen them all over the place. I know the plan. I know the plan. We passed the plan. OK, years ago. All right, thank you. Any questions from Mr. Hall? No. Yeah, the public input's closed. And yeah, I can touch on one of the other issues that came up, I had to do with the wetlands and the wetland protection and listed species. So as this development goes through the permitting process with the state and federal agencies, all of those components will be looked at. Any wetlands that do and that being proposed for development will have to be mitigated for. have'll have to meet your code criteria as well. And the intent right now is to try to do on-site mitigation so that the functional value of the wetlands that remain on-site once the development is done are of a higher quality than they are right now. And the way that that's done is by improving hydrology, removing, and in this case, mostly it's going to be removing exotic vegetation. A lot of those areas, because this site has been previously cleared back in, I think, the late 70s, what grew back was generally a very heavy concentration of exotic vegetation, Brazilian pepper, Malalucas, Stray Impines. So all of that exotic vegetation is going to have to be removed. And the wetland areas that are set aside as preserved will be enhanced through that removal, supplemental plantings if they're needed, improvements to the hydrology so that water is able to get in and out of them better than happens now. All of that will be done as part of the later permitting processes as this project moves forward through their development approvals. And the same with the species. Any listed species that are present on site, and I know we have go for tortoises, there is an eagle that has nested out there. So all of those kinds of things will have to be looked at and addressed and either avoided or mitigated for as the project moves forward. Any other questions? I had a clarification I need from Sean, just a dovetail on the Commission of Constance was talking about regarding rights to construct on the water. So they have entitlements to build on the water now, the way it sits. They have entitlements to apply for planned development, consistent with this, which could potentially allow for docs to be done. So they have a right to apply, but it's up to the board we can condition it in the PD. Right. Okay, that's that's what I wanted to. This was also some of these areas have underlying zoning of RSF2 that did allow for absent this PD. These could have all been carved up into two half acre lots under RSF2 which could have all been carved up into, probably half acre lots under RSF2, which could have potentially docks all along that canal. But it's all subject to the PD approval process. No. No. As of right now, because of the future land use map designation of compact, growth, mixed use, they need to come in with a plan development in order to do that. So yes, in a sense yes. Okay, that's what I was asking. Mr. Burton. Oh, I'm sorry, Commissioner Dordy. I just wanted to be in the queue to, he's done with his rebuttal. I have comments and I want to wrap it up. Put yourself back in the queue. I just took you out. You clear me? Thank you. want to forget you. Thank you, super. I got you. Quickly before we go to the traffic. I do want to tell you that portions of the property are within the MSBU for the waterway. That's based on decisions you all make. We are happy to be, you know, whatever is appropriate to be in the waterway. I do know in South Gulf Cove it's just the waterfront lots that are in the district. It's my know for the for the most part. And I believe that's, you know, what would be appropriate here. But that's a decision for your board and the MSBU Advisory Board. But we are, you know, happy to pay our fair share into the waterway district. But I'll go into the traffic comments. Okay, thank you, sure. All right, I guess good evening at this point. Backabond, traffic engineer, back before you again. I do want to focus on the fact that we're talking about the Comprehensive Plan Amendment tonight. So as mentioned, this proposed future land use change reduces the CGMU areas to add preserve areas. So when you're looking at it from a traffic perspective, that's a decrease in entitlements from what's existing and approved today. So it's actually around a 15% decrease in the traffic that would be approved under what is being proposed versus what's approved today. So, from a comp plan amendment perspective, that's the case. I can, however, go into as much detail as you want about the PD today, but that's something we'll also talk about in the next hearing. Any questions? Okay. Well, I had commission or do already in the Q&N constant. Are you going to address the traffic? Not at this hearing. Because that's the PD question, really quite honestly right now. So so I mean my next hearing you mean when it comes back if it if it trans I don't be precisely may may 27 but I was go ahead okay I I still I mean if if it's your choice yeah what I would like to just kind of wrap up the comments just that you know we all know this but we want to explain it again. Today's two applications are related to the comp plan. Not the not the zoning, not the details of the site plan. We you got to see that today kind of the preview of what's coming back in May if we transmit today. I appreciate all of your questions because you know in In a previous life I was a commercial pilot and I like checklists. Well this created a good checklist of issues that I'm sure the applicant has taken good notes so that when we do have that PD hearing which the details that you're concerned about the traffic the stormwater storm certain you know all of those issues, the environmental issues, all get discussed at that hearing. Today was just to take the original comp plan information of the entitlements that have been already put on this property back in 2009 and change those. In most cases, a reduction. So that's really all we're acting on today is those changes. We can't take away the entitlements that they already have. That's just a matter of fact. It was done. Horses out of the barn. So I just wanted to share that with you that I had a personally had a good meeting with the applicants engineer and the applicants representative as to the storm surge issue, the finish floors. There are architectural and engineering solutions to that concern and you will see that at that next hearing. I believe they're prepared, they could have done it today but I think it'd be more appropriate to put that at the PD hearing. Now, as far as the docs along the canal, again, that's a technical thing that can be done. I would hope the applicant has heard the concerns and that, you know, engineering-wise, we can, we can, I'm not a marine traffic guy, but I know that cross-sections can be drawn of that interconnector canal. Drawings can be created to show what those docs are going to look like when they come back for the PD approval, Mr. Bernson, and to be able to show everybody how much usable water way they'll be with the typical boat that will be parked there. We need that information, I believe, to be able to move forward on this. Clearly understand, I like to deal with facts, not speculation as to what may be there, what won't be there. So I think that can be done. But with that said, if it's appropriate, Mr. Chairman, Miss Nolton, can we have, we had a combined presentation, combined public hearing. Can these two petitions be done in one motion? They could, but I would go ahead and do them separately. Okay. You can do one right after another. Mr. Chairman, I'll move transmittal a petition, TCP-24-03 to the Department of Commerce and other state agencies for review and comment. So we have motion in a second. Discussion? Yeah, I'm a commissioner. I'm a commissioner. I appreciate you trying to move things along, but I'm not done. Could the traffic person step up again, please? Because I understand, look, I am not a planner. I'm not a zoning official. I'm not an attorney, I don't do this for a living, I really don't like this process, I don't like the fact that we're just going to do like this little bit and then send it, and when it comes back in a month or two or whenever for the next time, is it still legislative and legislative or is it now quasi-judicial and legislative? It's both. Yeah. So right now, legislative and legislative, it's all opinion. And we can actually decide things now without competent and substantial evidence being weighing down on us where lawyering can move us into a corner we can't get painted out of. But today is the day we get to ask all the questions and find out what's going on and be able to do some tweaking and maybe put some things on this before it gets transmitted. This is what I'd like to get done. And we understand a lot of times in a perfect world, yes, we're bringing the comprehensive plan amendments and the PDs after. The reason we do it this way to show the PD, even though it's not an adoption, is so you get a full picture of what's being proposed. And it's dumbfounded. No, very, no, no, I'm very appreciative of that. Because otherwise we're looking at colors on a map. And I think actually it's being you're presenting it this way because we've criticized you before saying, right, you to see the picture. Sean, how do you know? Exactly. And so also to the applicant, thank you for giving us a little bit more information than just what was required. So I appreciate that. But I really don't want to hear. Can I just say one thing? Good. You asked if when it comes back as a quasi-judicial and legislative. The legislative today is legislative when it comes back. These two components are the legislative. And then the quasi is the PV part. If we don't get through the legislative, we never get to the PED, which is the quasi-judicial. No, that makes a lot of sense. No, I appreciate that. And that makes sense because the PED, the detailed site plan is the quasi part that we have to adjudicate on. You have every right of these two to talk to you. Thank you, Mr. Pernitz. I really appreciate that. I don't know. Thank you for stepping back up for traffic. There were good points. Good questions asked. This is a very complex piece of property with ins and outs. On a very tight road, these folks live there, we've all driven there. It's not fun. People have died there. So just, and I know this is probably beyond the scope, but I think you're here. Let's get your information on the record at least. How will traffic move in an app? How is somebody that comes out going to make a left turn and go south across traffic? How are people that are coming in to the complex? How are they going to get there? What are you envisioning? Safe ways for this to happen with this geometry? Yeah, absolutely. So I will touch on the fact that for the PD presentation, we do have a breakdown of the access point. so you will see that in greater detail. I think the primary thing that will be helpful and hopefully provides some peace of mind as we look at this today is that, I don't know if you can read it from this far away, this other most access on Gasparilla, their access one, yes, where the pointer is. That is proposed to be a full access connection and the developer has committed to a traffic signal at that location. So that will really improve operations in and out of the site. I can go into more detail on the other access points, but. Sorry. Mr. Rebels waving his hands. You got to read it. You got to read it. It's a port of your comments. Wonderful. It was lost on us. Yeah, it was good. So let me know how much detail you want. But I really think that that's one of the, that's the primary concern I heard from the group is, is how that ingress and egress is going to be safer and that will increase the safety of those. Okay. And again, this is probably more than, necessary for here, because I will definitely be revisiting this at the next time you're here. But so that being said, they're probably at some point will need to be more than a single turning lane, a single left in. So, I'm assuming the developer is gonna be prepared to add additional turn lanes and all the, because this is a lot of folks that will be moving in, not the first day, but over many, many years and so they'll have to be a phased in approach. I am fairly certain that the right of way is big enough on Gasparilla to be able able to accommodate additional, maybe it's rubber. Additional, you know, like left turns going south to go into the complex and accelerate or dedicate turn lanes to come out and go on so that, you know, we're really aren't, the ideal situation is this all goes in and normal traffic flow doesn't feel it because we've added all kinds of other components Make sure it's green thank you Robert factory have been spawned six axis points. One of them is the southern end that there's going to be a directional in between. And this Let's try far as the right away, if and when, if Guest Perella will be need to be improved, there is quite a bit of right away. But we're also, and you will see that in the condition is to allow for a larger buffer in case we do need to use 10 feet, 20 feet, or what have you to improve desperately because at this point we don't know that to be able to access that larger buffer. So that would be a condition to the PD condition. Okay, all right, very good. If I can address the turn lanes. So when I say a traffic signal is committed to, it doesn't mean under the existing geometry. Yes, turn lanes are being considered. There will be turn lanes required inbound and outbound at this location. So absolutely, that will be included in the design of that signal. Right, and I, gosh, I hope that the mast arm that's purchased is purchased long enough that if they ever need to add a second light, we don't need a new mast arm. I can't tell you how many times I'm looking around here and we want to do something and the answer is yeah, we can do that but then we have to change out the master arms because we never anticipated a second left turn lane. Well, wait a second. You knew we'd be growing. We, you know, we need to be planning better and spending the dollars better. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you Robert. Jay, I have one more question, so I can continue. So in the presentation, okay, I get it. They're dropping residential units from 3960 to 3475, commercial from 1.5 to 1.4 million. Preservation acreage from 92 increased to 163. Based density from 1831 down to 1790, is that right? Yes. Okay. Then what is the other statistic based density from 1114 up to 2000? That's what confuses me. That's for because the portion, we said 1790 is for total subject property. But the PD rezoning only did one third of that only 840 acres So that is a base density by that so it's 1,100 if I can help you I'm still lost So what they're talking about the PD that is there today, which is the smaller piece is a smaller PD than what we're proposing Right. So in the smaller PD that's there today, the maximum was the 1100, whatever the 1114 units. Now we're expanding the PD, we're basically adding all the land along the waterway and we're increasing the overall number of residential units within the PD from the 1100 to the 2000. There's still the 1200 or whatever the number is for the rest of the PD, for the rest of the compact growth that'll come in as a PD later on. So we're not putting more units in the same amount of land and we've expanded the amount of land and by expanding the land, we're expanding. Right, so purple footprint to the bigger For a purple footprint is white's going from 1114 and that small one to 2000 on the big one, but the overall is still dropping 500 correct Okay, and that's why I was trying to pull up here because they're not sequential because we were The way it's laid out. So yes, this is what's PD currently and then then you go down to the slide. That was my very first question. Watch closely right here, and you'll see a lot of this other area jump purple. That's what I was saying. Right, no, I got it. But because these are not dynamic presentations, it's hard. And I'm not saying that the information's not correct, but it's just getting it spoon fed in a way that we can understand it and for me I'm hoping the public is now understanding it as well I have that's it for now thank you thank you thank you can you go to slide 27 27 you might be different than me yeah yeah because each individual one when it's attached to the ice. So it's the one just before this one. I think it's 27. You might be different than me. I've got 27. Because each individual won when it's attached to the item. So it's the one just before this one? I think it's the one right before, yeah. So second to last one. No. Next, is that? No, you want the one that I have actually shows the area across the street from Casper, LaRoupe. So you see Sawyer Circle? I just wanted to point out that intersection, it's gonna be fully a full signal, actually intersects with the road that goes to Sawyer Circle into the industrial area. So it'll serve a major purpose there, because right now we have people come out of that industrial area, not always in a safe manner. So that help to improve that intersection completely when this location. Right. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions? No. Any more comment? We had a motion and a second for the Transmittle. I have a comment. So I'm going to wait here and ask my turn. So it's your turn. If we approve the Transmittle it obviously you know we've looked at the site plan and I want to make sure that you know it's not 10 amount to yeah we're going to agree with what you're showing here even though you show it so you're talking about the PD yeah the PD okay the PD so I just want to make it clear and maybe this is a rhetorical question, but we have a tender at the lock for a reason. We've had issues with that lock for years, since I've been a member of this board, we've been trying to do the parallel lock years ago we understood it was an issue. So I don't disagree with comments that I've heard today from the public that used that lock. We've recognized it by the fact that we have a tender there. The buttons weren't working. There was so much use going on there. People getting stuck. And the fact that when you look at GIS and look at all the undeveloped waterfront lots that are yet to be developed. And if this comes back, whatever that number is 100, I was trying to count. I was looking on the schedules. I don't know how many are you proposing in the plan. It's significant. It's a significant amount of boats we're adding to an issue we already know. Now, there's a lot of things this board can't do because of previous entitlements. I talked about that in my very first comment about the entitlements. Where we can make a difference is when these projects come back and they want to make an amendment. I look at that as a re-opener. We have another chance to look at the entitlements that were there. The applicant wants to make some proposed changes. Where can we make a difference? That was the second part of my original question a few hours ago. What is the net benefit to the citizens and to the board in reducing density in a coastal high hazard area? Because if we haven't learned our lesson from Ian, Helene, and Milton, then we haven't learned our lesson. That's really bad. So I'm looking at how this density is stacked and where you're putting it now in this new proposed, you know, PD plan showing all of this on the waterway that was, you know, we're dealing with now. I'm going to have an issue, so I'm just kind of telegraphing where, you know, I see this for me, with stacking that type of density on the water, knowing what we know. That's the problem. So I'm just kind of putting it out there. I understand the traffic, I understand the civil site work with drainage. I understand how all those things work. There's going to be a whole host of engineering, traffic studies, designs. Agencies are going to look at this thing and require certain things. So yeah, I understand those things. But I'm looking at the footprint. And what is the end result going to like and how is it going to impact the existing residents. Because you know, this is our chance to commission their concerts this point. Unfortunately, how many times has this board been stuck with stuff that was voted on 20 years ago, this in the case here, 2008, 2009, that none of us are even on this board, but we have to deal with it. And I hate to keep referencing Commissioner Constance, but I am. He's right, you know, in 20 years, we're going to leave this to another board to say, what were those guys thinking? You know, now was our chance. So I just kind of want to put that out there. I want to hear what these regulatory agencies have to say when we transmit, because this is not the final approval. just part of the process. It comes back that that's where we make the decision on this thing. So I appreciate you Commissioner Dory for clarifying that. Like I said a lot of folks don't come to these meetings so the process is sometimes hard for people to understand where we're at. With that said I have Commissioner Constance and Truex in the queue. Commissioner, can I just- Yes, sure. You know, he's going to send you giving us direction. You're not saying you have a problem with this map. You're saying you want to make sure the PD you're comfortable with. Is that correct? You're not saying transmit this, but you don't really like this. Well, what I'm saying is I'm not happy with the density you've got stacked on the water with ducts, potential for ducts. I got a problem with that. So, it's our intention is I'm standing here today that that will be single family along the waterway. Yeah I'm just telling you I can't say it any more clear than I did. If I may jump in just to make sure for full clarity you were correct in that the PD maps these you are not you're not appro you're not transmitting, this was just for informational. But this map is one of those being transmitted and if approved would be adopted in, showing the residential here. Now with that, the original map did have residential here and I pulled up the MSB, UMST, UMAPs, these properties are included in the boundaries of the MSPU so they possibly and I haven't looked at any taxing but they may be paying into the MSPU and so they have been paying for this. I've got the map of it if you want to see it. So I guess what I'm saying is is that it still has to come back for approval at the legislative level. Correct. I'm just telling you, you know, I always like to give the ad, and you know this Rob, you've come before this board. I'm telling you what's on my mind. Right. So that's all I can say. I just wanted to make clear that this map here is one that is up for adoption legislatively, and we'll be coming back for you if you choose to transmit these documents up to the state. It comes back but we're not required to approve this. No sir. Yeah. Commissioner Dory, do I have you in the queue? Or what? I'm sorry I lost it. Okay I've got a reason to queue. I've got Commissioner Truex in the Dory then Constance. Well I was just going to bring up the fact that the West County Stormwater Unit is all of West County. You hit the other side of the bridge coming across of my hacker river and that entire peninsula pays into the West County Stormwater Unit according to the map we have online. Swim, let you know. So that property's been paid into it. Thank you, sir. Commissioner Dory. I was just going to say, it says residential, Sean. Yes, sir. doesn't necessarily mean single family. No, and that is again the inter-finance between them. I'm just throwing to say it says residential, Sean. It doesn't necessarily mean single family. No, and that is, again, the intertwined between them. I'm just throwing something out there. Yes, sir. Under the PD, again, not subject to this, but the mixed use is intended for multifamily. These areas are intended. I understand the intention, but they've got another. I just brought up Mr. Chairman of the fact it says residential, through residential, doesn't mean it has to be residential singing family. Yeah. Who knows, right? Well, or could be residential estate lots that are much larger and less than. There's a whole host of things that could be there. Just want to make that point. Yes. It's just classified as residential. Right. You got it. Okay, Commissioner Constance. Yeah. You have the floor sir. I mean, so I so I guess my big issue at the end of the day is go back eight slides. So I guess the one with all the red color on it. Yeah. That's my problem. That's existing today, including. Yeah, but I'm just saying that's my problem. And you know three, four years ago, I wouldn't be looking at it through the same lens. That's my problem. And I have to say that. So between, but hang on a second, between that, and I get the fact that there's entitlements to the property, but we are a charge of the health, welfare and safety of the citizens of Charlotte County now, and the ones are going to move here. So at the end of the day, that's a nonstarter for me. I got a real problem with the fact that the people are living in the red zone and you have industrial in the yellow zone. That just, I get the fact that you're trying to sell the water and the view and all that, but it's 2025 and we are beaten and bruised and I think people have to recalculate how things go in the market. So between the fact that this is what we're trying to approve this after what we've been through and the fact that we don't have something going in transmittal saying that we're going to protect that waterway. There's no way that I can support this at this time. But I appreciate everything. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, nowide. Countywide. And I have asked you so you folks know, since Hurricane Ian, there are some documents that Noah put out that showed the projected storm surge. So I have requested when those projects came before the County Commission for a land use type of prov look at the storm surge, look at the impact because the concern I had was I didn't want Sheryl accounted to look like Fort Myers Beach or Santa Bel. But there are engineering and architectural solutions to that red area. That's the key. And in every one of those projects that have come previous since Hurricane Ian that were in coastal high hazard, the engineer has provided documentation and studies and evaluation which on this property I have seen. The rest of the board hasn't seen it yet. And I'm just telling you, he's given us an equivalent presentation on May 27th, which I think will show you because we want people to be able to come home. When we order a evacuation, they got to get out of there. But we want them to have something to come back to. We want their homes, their structures, their businesses to be there, not wiped out. So it's a balance. But we are a cognizant of that and we've been working on it ever since Hurricane Ian. And fortunately, the development community, the engineers involved have accommodated because we cannot require that. As Mr. Rebel said, they're required to hit FEMA. And some cases on the Bear Islands, FEMA has lowered the finished floor else. Can you believe that? Yeah. Lower them. And so people are actually doing the responsible thing. But you don't have seen that yet. I have seen it. But on that facet of it, I hope you, you know, on May 27th, you'll see some information that'll make you feel more peace with it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, for me, I've come to the conclusion. I've said, you've heard what my comments were. I said, for me, I've come to the conclusion. I've said, you've heard what my comments were. I said right out of the gate, a few hours ago about the red areas, coastal high hazard, and I talked about the docs and things like that. But I need to hear what the agencies up in Tallahassee have to say. If we don't transmit, I don't get to hear those comments and I can't make a balanced decision because this is not the final decision. This is just a transmittal to get other comments from other agencies. I need the data that would come in May so we can make a data-driven decision with public input. Because I think the board has heard loud and clear and we've discussed it here you know the concern to the community but to get to that point you need the data as much as we need the data we need to understand be careful what you wish for this is our opportunity as a board is a community to reopen this and maybe make it better than what the entitlements already have and to do that we, we need that information. So that's a wrong out with it. So if there's no further discussion, oh, we have Commissioner Duach and the Q. Chris sort of said, as often happens, something I was going to say, but I probably would have looked at this very, very differently a year ago, having gone through probably a dozen hurricanes or so in my life. I'd never gone through floods and I went through two of them, two weeks apart this year. I'm going to support the transmittal, but somehow, and I guess maybe you can do it, according to what Ken said, you're going to have to prove to me that those houses will not get flooded. And that's sort of kind of what I'm looking at because two floods right after each other. I don't want to go through that again. I don't want to see anyone else have to experience that and go through it again. But I'll support the Transmittle. I think it's important we do that and get some more information. But that's just my thoughts. I'm not where I was a year ago. We have motion to second. If there's no further discussion to move you be three, the Transittal. No further discussion? Okay. Any opposition to the motion? No. Okay. Hearing? He said no. He said no. Opposition? No, I'm opposed. He's opposed. So it passes four to one with Commissioner Constance opposed to the transmittal? Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. I'll move the transmittal of petition PAL-24-04 to the floor of the Department of Commerce and other state agencies for review and comment. Sir. We have motion a second to move you before transmittal. Is there any further discussion? Is there any opposition to the motion? No, I am opposed. Okay, pass is 4-1 with Commissioner Constance in opposition. Okay. Thank you. Yes. We've done comments and I just wanted to, before everybody leaves, I just wanted to thank the citizens who came to speak today. Your decorum was excellent. We appreciate the input. And with that, our agenda is complete. This meeting is adjourned.