Good afternoon. I'd like to call this meeting of the Charlotte County Planning and Zoning Board to order. If the secretary would please call the roll. Michael Gravenson. Here. Doug Ezzo. Here. Steven Vieira. Here. Philip Smallwood. Here. Clint Baker. Here. Okay, roll and set. Go ahead. Thank you. We're all here. I'd like to remind everybody to silence their cell phones so they don't interfere with the proceedings here today. The minutes of March 10th were circulated. Any corrections, additions, or comments? They're not hearing any objections. We'll prove those as circulated. Any announcements from the staff? Yes, sir. We'd like to move item 5 on the agenda. TCP 2204 to after item number 7, PD 2200015 and PD 2503. It's all relating to the same item, but sequentially they need to be heard that way. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Okay. At this time, we'd like to swear in. Anybody that's going to be speaking about any petition that's quasi-judicial on the agenda. And if you have a doubt that whether you have to do that, please stand now and take the oath. If the Secretary will give that please. Yes. Yes. I have a vote. Everyone rise. Okay. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you've got to give is going to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, please say I do. Hi. Okay, thank you. You may be seated. Okay. Anything else that will proceed with the first item on the agenda? Good afternoon for the record. G.A. Shall, Community Development Department. And I have been sworn in and my planning expert qualification that attached to staff report as exhibit one. Tina Powell, Parks and Natural Resource Division Manager, Char County Board of County Commissioners is requesting applications, PS-24-07, and Z-24-16. And today's hearing, the adoption hearing is scheduled for May 27, 2025. This actually this project is the county's housekeeping for parks and recreation. So the request is small scale. The plan meant that he's from Low Dance density residential to parks and recreation and a companion rezoning from residential single family five to parks and recreation and subject property located in commission district two. The notification of public hearing for these two applications was sent to the adjacent property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject property. So you can see on the screen that is a boundary. And this is general location of the subject property which is located in the South County area. This is the area image at mid-range. You can see the subject property which is located on East of I-75 and north of Duncan Road. And this is the area image of the subject property at the full range. And the subject property contains approximately 4.4, 8.3 acres. The site contains existing counties' dark park. On the screen, this is 2050 framework map. The site is designated as a maturing neighborhood. And this is a 2030 feature and use map. Site is currently designated as low density residential. And if the board approves the request small scale plan amendment, the subject property will be designated as parks and recreation. And this is the zoning map. The site is currently zoned RSF5. and if the board approves the associated rezoning the site will be zoned PGR. So as I mentioned before the site contains county park. So the purpose of this unified application is to amend the flume designation to parks and recreation and the rezoning to PKR. To make sure that the subject property will only be used as a park or other recreation uses and no residential development can be constructed on the site in the future. So also furthermore, the proposed PKR fluim and the PKR zoning are the most appropriate Fruim designation zoning categories for the current and proposed use of the subject property as a county park. So it steps professional opinion that the request a small scale payment and the PKR-fruim zoning are generally consistent with county' comprehensive plan and the counties' code of laws and ordinance and any other applicable guidelines. So I'd be more than happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Any questions for staff? Okay. Do we have the parks and rec people want to come up and say anything or do we just go to public comments? You can just go to public comments, sir. Okay, thank you. So we'll open up public comments and anyone who wishes to speak about these two petitions, please come forward. That make a motion. We close public comment. Second. I have motion in second close public comment, any comments? All in. I make a motion. We close public comment second. I have motion and second close public comment any any Comments all in favor say aye any opposed say nay so public comment time is closed Any comments or questions for this to these two petitions Okay, then I'll entertain emotions on now. Emotion to forward application, PAS 207 and Z246, one at a time. To the Board of County Commissioners with recommendation of approval based on the findings and analysis and the staff report dated March 28, 2025 Charlotte County comprehensive plan evidence and testimony presented to public hearing before the plan and zoning board That's second I have motion in a second any discussion on the motion all in favor of the motion say aye Any post-say nay so that goes forward a A motion to forward application Z 2416 to the board of county commissioners with the recommendation of approval based on the findings and analysis and the staff report dated March 28th 2025 Charlotte County comprehensive plan and the evidence and testimony presented at public hearing before the planning and zoning board Got second. I have a motion in. Any discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, say aye. Any opposed, say nay. So that goes forward to the BCC with recommendation for approval. Item number three on the agenda, please. Good afternoon for the record. Jay shall come here to the Department of Department. And I have been sworn in and my planning expert qualification is attached to staff report as exhibit one. Derek Rooney is requesting application PD-25-04 and adoption hearing for this application is scheduled for May 27, 2025. The requested reason is from Plan Development PD to PD. This is a major modification amending ordinance to Son24-012 to reduce the number of buildings from 11 to 8 and to increase the maximum square footage for many storage uses from 77,000 square feet to 11,000 square feet and to increase the maximum square footage of storage units from 68,000 square feet to 90,000 square feet dedicated to indoor storage of recreation vehicles and boats and trailers, along with reasonable related private goods. And also to adjust the parking area and the internal roadways. The subject property in commission district two. And the notification of public hearing for this petition was sent to the property owner and adjacent property owners within 1,000 feet. You can see on the screen, that is a boundary. And the subject property which is located in South County area, and this is the image of the subject property at mid-range. of subject property located on the south, west of Taylor Road. This is a subject property image at four-range. You can see the subject property. On the screen, this is the 2050 Fremork map. The site is designated as Economic Center. And the subject property is currently designated as commercial with PD reasoning. So I would like to provide a brief history of the subject property. On April 23, 2024, the Board of County Commissioners approved a small scale plan amendment for the subject property to commercial and companion reason only to PD plan development in order to have, I'm sorry, I missed one slide. This is flood zone, the subject property is within flood zone X. And on the screen, this is the adopted General PD concept plan. Back April, 2025, the approved PD rezoning allows a maximum of 145,000 square feet of storage, including 11 buildings. You can see on screen 11 buildings and no more than 6.8 thousand square feet dedicated to recreation vehicle storage. So you can see on the screen this is adopted General PD Concept Plan. So during the final design of this project, the property owner discovered that the adopted General PD concept needs to be revised in order to adjust the layout of the buildings, parking area, and the internal roadways as well as to update the maximum square footage of the proposed development. So that's why the applicant authorized by the property owner is requesting to these PD rezoning applications. So on the screen, this is the new proposed updated general PD concept plan. So the proposed FARR for our ratio will be increased from approximately 0.322 to 0.44. So if the board approves the request PD rezoning, which is still below the maximum allowable for a ratio of one under the commercial future management designation. You can see on the proposed gen. PD concept plan, the proposed remains the same will provide 25 foot PD setback and also will require a type D buffer with at least 15 feet in width and a six foot tall opic fence or wall for portions of subject property immediate adjacent to probably zone RMS 5 and RE1 with low density residential future and use map designation compared to type C buffer is required by our code. So they provide more enhanced landscape and buffer requirement. So therefore it is steps professional opinion that the proposed change minimizes detrimental impacts on surrounding properties. So And also the proposed change with conditioned A through L, general consistent with county's comprehensive plan and the commercial through the nation and show our county's code of laws and ordinance and any other applicable guidelines. So I'd be more than happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions for staff? We'll hear from the applicant's representative then. Thank you, Derek Rooney, Ray Robinson for the record. I have been sworn. We accept Jay Shao and her expert testimony and all conditions proposed in the PD. As you can see, this concept plan that's in for you does no longer bifurcates the main building on the first parcel. It makes a lot more sense. So when from concept to trying to design the actual build, the owners found that design didn't work. So we're back here a year later. With a more realistic design allows us to reduce the number of buildings, but also allows us to maximize that front building and get a little more square footage. I see you got a big crowd here, so I won't belabor it. If you have any questions for me, I'm here, the owners are here as well. Okay, thank you. Any questions for Mr. Rooney? Okay, thank you. So we'll open up public comment. Anyone wishes to speak about this petition? Please come forward. Seeing none I move make a motion to close public comment. Second. I have a motion second to close public comment. All in favor say aye I public comment time is close Any comments or discussions from the board? And I'll entertain a motion on this petition. Make a motion to forward application PD-2504 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval with conditions A through L based on the findings and analysis in the staff report dated April 5th 2025 Charlotte County Comprehensive Plan. The evidence and testimony presented to public hearing before the planning and zoning board. Second, I have a motion in the second, any discussion of the motion. All in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. That goes forward with the recommendation of approval. Item number four, please. Good afternoon again for the record. Jay Schall, Community Development Department. I also have been swung and my planning expo qualification is attached to staff report as Exhibit One. DR Horton is requesting application PD-24-18. An adoption hearing for this item is scheduled for May 27, 2025. The request to rezoning is from planned development PD to PD. This is a major modification to the adopted PD conditions and associated PD concept plan as establishing ordinance number 2022-022. And the applicant is also requesting to adopt a general PD concept plan for residential development up to 230 dwelling units, a reduction of 48 units. And also, if the board approves these PD rezoning, it is required a transfer of 96 density units from the coastal high hazard area. Because the property currency contains 230 non-coast high-residency units by Resolution 2021-107. And the subject property is located in Commission District 2. The notification of public hearing for this application was sent to the property owner and adjacent property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject property. This is the general location of the subject property, actually sorry, there was a wrong slide. I'm sorry, I don't know why. This is supposed to have general location, I'm sorry. This is the hairy image of the subject property at mid-range. The subject property is located within the boundary of the Bernstau area plan. And this is the subject property, the area image of the subject property at 4-range. You can see the subject property located on the East Side Bernstow Road. So this is the 2050 framework map. The subject property is designated as emerging neighborhood. And the property is currently designated as Bernstow Village Residential with a PD rezoning. So I would like to provide a brief history of this subject property. Actually this subject property has a lot of history. The first rezoning happened in 2007. The board approved a rezoning from our AGE, actually, to, for approximately 78.56 acres and also approved a PD concept plan, but that concept plan went longer, expired, to allow for mixed residential 42 single family units and 350 multi-family units. And also, subject property was reduced in size from approximately 7.56 acres to 6.8.43 acres as a result of taking associated with the Bernstor Road Widen project. So since then, 2021 and 2022, there's another four times the PD reason for this piece of property. So I just want to mention the existing Onan 2022-022, which allows for the residential development up to 278 units, also requiring a transfer of 48 density. So that's the history of the subject property. And also, like I mentioned to you before, there was a transfer density transfer, because the base density on the side was six units, and the transfer of 2024 non-residential units. Non-Costoha has a density on the side. So as of today, they have 230 non-Costoha has units. However, the D.R. Horton, the contract purchase of subdepropropthi, is requesting for these changes, these PD rezoning, will allow for residential development I want to show. This is the subduepropthi and step back. The subduepropthi, portion of subduepropthi is located within the coastal high hazard area, which is category one of coastal high hazard area. That's why I tried to mention the original plan, approved plan allowed the 230 non-coastor high hazard units. So, development must be located outside of that. Actually, this is the flood zones. It's 9 A, E, X and portion D. So on screen, this is the proposed genera PD concept plan. You can see this is the coastal high hazard area, the boundary. So the changes they will have approximate 96 coastal high hazard units for this subject property. So that's why I mentioned before they require this major modification and they require to transfer 96 coastal high-hat density for this project. But this, the applicant actually, if the board approved this general PD concept plan, if they want to move forward, actually the applicant need come to the county to re-certcertify the non-coastal high hazard density because the site have 230. The requesting is 230 units. So but however the proposed council plan shows 96 units what will be located in the coastal high hazard area. So they must re-certify the density, priority you call it, re-certify non-coast Ohio has a density and then transfer co-stow-high has a density on the site in order to move for the final detailed site print approved for this project. I want to ask a question. So if they have 230 density units now and 96 of those don't qualify as coastal high hazard. Yeah, correct. Can they then, after they've transferred into 96 transfer out, 96 non-coastal high hazard density units someplace else? Yes, they're required to do that. Oh, they're required to do that. Yeah, because they require. Actually, actually you can chase the back. They have six base density. That six base density could be located in the coastal high-hands area. Anything above that, they must transfer. So based on the plan, based on their request, 96 coastal high-hands density, I need it in order to achieve the proposed general PD concept plan. Okay. Thank you. So the proposed will have reduction of 48 units. Like I mentioned in the last time, the board approved the general PD concept plan and PD is only for the site allows for the maximum residential development up to 278 units. But this time there is a reduction of 48 units. So they revised the General PD concept plan to show the proposal. So this still we below the Bernstow Village residential category, which allow up to five units per acre. This is within that range less than that. So it is staff's professional opinion that the proposed change is general consistent with the county's comprehensive plan and the intent of the Bernstowe area plan which allows for suburban type of residential development along Bernstowe Road. And also it's consistent with the county's cold and ordinance. And I tried to point out there is existing PD condition because the portion within coastal high has an area. We specifically have county has the policy, specifically related to development in the coastal high has area so There is adopted PD condition M for the money a monetary contribution in order to ensure that the residential development is Consistent ways coastal planning policies 3.2.4. So that's where the condition still remains. The developer property owner is required to pay 187.5 dollars per resident units, which for that project, the density located in the coastal has an area. So therefore it is staff's professional opinion that proposed change to reduce the maximum resident's device from 278 to 230 and to revise the environment conditions, minimize detrimental or negative impacts on surrounding residential uses. So the proposed change with conditions A through O is general consistent with county's comprehensive plan, the intent of the Bernsturter Area Plan, and the county's code of laws and oneness and any other applicable guidelines. I believe the applicant agreed with all proposed PD conditions, so I'd be more than happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Okay. I will have the applicant's presentation then please. Good afternoon. Neil Montgomery for the record representing DR Horton. I happens to warn we do agree with and accept the testimony that Jay Shah has provided today. We have our team here But basically we're changing from a tiny home the simple light project to a DR Horton Real home project from reducing the density by 48 units, but if you would like to hear from our team, we can do that or If you have any questions if you go with the plan or you're accepting the county's debt presentation. Yes, sir. And you have nothing to add to that. Does the board have any questions for the applicant's attorney? Okay. If we have any, we'll call you back. Thank you, sir. Thank you. So we'll open up public comment. To anyone who wants to speak about this petition, please come forward. Good afternoon. My name is Scott Cope. Address 1, 2, 0, 2a. It's Berkstor, I'll put the Gorda. I live and reside and own the property in the northwest corner. I have about a thousand foot of common property line with the subject property. My concern is the buffer and the setback. The type A buffer is only three foot high as could we get a taller buffer but more important. When I look at the layout on the north side of the property it says 25 foot PUD setback. On the east side of the property it says 25 foot PUD setback. On the south part of the property, it also says 25 foot PUD setback. The only place it doesn't say that is over along the property line that goes on entire length of my property. And I was wondering why that is, why my property is being treated separately than the rest of the properties in the diagram. Thank you. Debra Cope, 1-2-0, 2-0, Burt Store Red. We've been going through this for a long time. First with Simple Life, we've been here many times. The, when Simple Life, we got some changes made going through the process with Simple Life on our border with that property where they were going to do an enhanced buffer Right now the land use on that property it says it's residential. It's not its ag and ag in AE That's how we use it. We have cows. We have Well if when they go right up to our property line I mean we're gonna like you looking at these houses. They're gonna be looking be looking at our cows or burn pit. So I'm kind of wondering the same thing why the setback is not larger and why we got rid of the enhanced buffer that was originally with simple life, supposed to be between our properties and the fact that in the coastal high hazard area they weren't gonna be able to build there, but now if they build there then they're going to be right up against our property line so that's all I I had to say. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else? I make a motion. We close public comment. Second. I have a motion. Second close public comment. All in favor say aye. We don't usually answer questions and answers from the public here, but I will ask either the staff or the applicant to make a quick response. Yes, sir I can respond but the applicant can as well that second interior line You see the little arrows right next to where it says at the top and on the side It just wasn't labeled on all the on all sides of it, but that 25 foot PD buffer as required by the code is there. It goes all the way around the perimeter and actually down below there's even a higher buffer. With respect to the buffering standards, typically there's minimal buffering from residential to residential. But if the applicant is willing or wants to, or if you folks want to try to increase it, you could but typically residential to residential, it's a minimal buffer. And the other thing that would mess up that a little bit would be if you're zoning his ag, which would I would think be minimum again. Right. And as well, which is why there's also with the PD the enhanced 25 foot PD setback so there's that 25 feet before the lots even start and then the structures will still have whatever their structural setback is typically in the rear 10 feet so from property line to potential residential structures probably at a bare minimum 35 feet, but that question may be better answered by the applicant. Kyre point out because used to be to have storage proposed, so that's why I have type de buffer, but there is no storage is proposed for this General PD concept plan, so there are no need to ask him for provide type D buffer. Okay. I would suggest to the people from the public, the residents there that they get a whole of the attorney before they get away and just have a brief conversation with them. Any other questions or discussion from the board? Yeah, I have one. Looking at the water use and sewer use for this area, what in all the little homes going to be like two bedrooms or one bedroom compared to most of these probably being three bedroom and the water use would be, and the sewer use would be much more. All right, their experts, would be the ones to best address that. Good afternoon for the record Carl Bronco, Jr. I am in the engineer of record for the project. Up to this point we have been working with CCU Charlotte County utilities to permit the project through them and with regards to water and sewer use. Yes or the smaller the tiny homes did have a smaller use but the modeling that we are doing and the permitting that we are doing through Charlotte County utilities and through FDP will take into account the larger use that you will see from the single family homes that the R. Horton is proposing. But that plant right now is pretty much a full capacity. Just two points on that. Sorry. We are reducing density. Sorry. Apologies. Dan Daly, CM Landry's planner working for the applicant. We are reducing density by 48 units. So that needs to be taken to account. The other aspect of it is when CCU does their projections. They look at what's already been zoned along the corridor, and this has already been zoned. So, I mean, when you say it's at capacity, that's presuming that there's development on this side. Just for the record, awesome, Mr. Smallwood, is that if they can't demonstrate the ability to connect to the water and sewer system, they can't proceed. And that will be resolved at site plan. Any other questions or discussion? Okay, I'll entertain a motion then. Motion to forward application PD2418 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval with conditions A through O based on the findings and analysis in the staff report dated March 30th 2025. Charlotte County's comprehensive plan and the evidence and testimony presented at the public hearing before the plan in zoning board. I have a motion in the second and discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion say aye. Any opposed say nay. So that goes forward to the DCC with a recommendation for approval. Okay, so now it's item six on the agenda. Six. Six and seven. Six and seven. I guess Okay, bye Okay. Good afternoon again for the record. J. Schell committee department. I have been sworn in and my planning expert qualification is attached to the staff report as Exit One. Benderson Development Company LLC is requesting applications 22 LED-000000-000007 and LED-25-07 and also PD-22-00015 and PD-25-03. And the BCC adoption hearing for this item is scheduled for May 27, 2025. I just want to point out, actually, you can see the number 22 LED and PD-22, which is the original revisions to the Hoverview DI Department order and the amendments to the Hoverview DI PD. These two applications were presented to the Planning Zoning Board on May 13, 2024. and the planning zoning board recommended approval of these two applications. So on January 7, 2025, the applicant submitted a new two application, is LED-25-02, which is further amendment to the Hopperview DRI-D Order and the Resonance Application PD-25-03 to amend the Hopperview DRI PD. So I tried to tell you specifically the application we received this year, January, to further revise map H age to allow commercial development in the West Village and also to amend the accepted B in the Department order to replace the existing table one. Hubbard UDI land use tree tree off with a new land use E.Ccremes matrix, and no changes to the for-for-for-housing requirement. And also update PD conditions and revise the proposed general PD concept plan. So I just want to point out there are so many two applications for Department of Order changes and two applications for the PD rezoning. Just one moment, Mr. Attorney. For us to listen to this, how are we going to be voting on this? Is it by the agenda item or is it each petition number? It's going to have to be each petition number. It's going to have to be each petition number. Because two of those were previously approved. Do they have to come back to us after they went through the state review? No, I them to you. Actually you need to basically the revision to the Department of Order to have two petitions but I represent evidence to you including the new information and the same as the PD rezoning. Yeah, resolution have only one for the Department of Order changes, which is 22 LAD 50407 and the LAD-2502. That's by one resolution. So we're going to vote on each of those items. The resolution and the ordinance. And then, excuse me, then the 2PD items after that. Okay. Number seven. Actually, that's only have one ordinance for two PD items. Yeah. Yeah. So it's going to be, I guess that's three votes, right? Um. So we're going to make four motions and votes. I think he said three. You only need one for the PDs because it's one ordinance. Okay. I believe that's, yeah, that's correct It's just help us to understand how we're going to be listening to the presentation and what our vote will have to vote on. Yes. Thank you. Okay. I'm sorry. Continue. And my presentation will include actually is no, will be together. Revision to how review doesn't matter. The two different petition, but I just present all the proposed changes. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. So the proposed amendment to the Harborview Development Regional Impact, DRI, Development Order, DL Resolution Number 2010-083 and a request PD rezoning which is a major modification to the existing Harborview DRI PD. Onence number 2010-071 by revising the development rights, removing the public marina, updating development standards, and the applicants also requesting to adopt the general PD concept plan, and the subject property is located in commission district one. The notification of public hearings for these applications was sent to the property owners and adjacent property owners within 1000 feet of the subject property. The subject property is generally located in the middle county area and contains approximately 653 acres. So this is the subject property which is located north of the Peace River and at the intersection of I-75 and Harborview Road in the Port Charlotte area. So on the screen, this is 2050 framework map. The majority of the subject property is designated as economic center. a small portion of of the property located as southwest corner of I-75 is designated as agricultural and rural, which contains wetlands and no development shall occur on it. And this is 2030 future NANDs map. The majority of the subject property is designated as DRI mixed use and only a small portion at the southwest of the I-75 is designated as preservation as I mentioned no development proposed in this area. So the entire site is Zong PD. So now I would like to discuss the history of the Harbourview project. The Harbourview DRI was original approved on May 17, 1992. So the board approved the original review 1 byolution No. 92-62, which allowed for a mixture of commercial and residential development. including commercial uses up to 936,540 square feet, office medical uses up to 406,8217 square feet, score feed and a residential development up to 468,270 square feet and a residential development up to 1,227 units. And the property for this origin harbor view DRI contains only 408 acres. So April 13, 2004, the board approved amendment to the DeVarmorites for three different phases, which were, they have phases, want to be 03, to 08, 06, to 10, they have three phases. So they amend the phasing, but the total direct rights remain the same. So June 22, 2006, the Board approved an amendment to this HALVU deal by incorporate additional 106 acres and allowing for commercial up to 870,928 square feet. 928 square feet and office and medical uses up to 414,000 to 207 square feet and residential development up to 1,387 units. So basically the commercial is the double slice reduce but the residential is a little bit go up. And also maintain the existing only entitlement of 116 multi-family units on additional land because they incorporate the 106 units, 106 acres to the site. And also update map age and expanding the salt water marsh preserved and appropriate upland buffer. So that's what changed happen in 2006. And the latest change happened and the border approved on September 21, 2010. The border approved amendment to the Harborview DRIDO, which includes an expansion of the development sites to approximate 653 acres of Health, Department of Health, Department of Health, Department of Health, Department of Health, Department of Health, Department of Health, Department of Health, Department of Health, Department of Health, Department of Health, Department of Health, Department of Health, Department of Health, Department of Health, Department of square feet, and a reduction in office and medical uses from 414,270 square feet to 50,000 square feet. And I increase in the amount of units from 1,387 units to 3,859 and adding 350 hotel rooms and adding a puppy marina with 260 wet boat slips and 192 dry storage boat slip. So that's why as of today, they have approved Harborview Harborview DRI Devarm rights I just mentioned to you Sorry, what's there is slow for the for the slide? I'm sorry So the department includes three villages you can on the screen which include the West Village and East Village and North Village. So you can see you have single family homes located to the east of east village and to the north village. I believe the deep creek element school is located direct to the east of the north village and have single family homes to the north village, north of north village and have single single-family homes to the south west of the proposed west village. And the small closer, I want you to see this north village and this is elementary school, and this is east village, and they have single-family home, and also they have single-family single family home and the counties East Campus is located across Harrowy Road to the Northwest and the The entire West Village can see on the screen is located in the coastal high-haz area. And the majority of the east village is located in the coastal high-haz area. And the North Village is located outside of the coastal high-haz area. So this is the flood zones. You can see the majority of North Village is flood zone X. And East Village, you can see the flood zones X, 10, E, 11, A, and 13, V, E. And also to the West Village, I believe it's 10, A. Now the applicant's proposing revisions to the approved the divine order due to the divine condition changes and the law and the state law updates since 2010. So now I would like to present the major changes of the proposed divine order, major changes to the Hopperview DI demand order. The first updating the land use condition and revising map H as Exhibit A and updating Exhibit B and Exhibit Bicycle and Pedestring System map to remove the approved marina uses. So we should remove the approved 260, 260 wet boat slip and 190 dry boat slip. They're proposed to remove the proposed public marina and also they're proposed to add a new land use equivalency matrix to provide flexibility to the proposed mixed use development. However, they have specific condition on how to use the land use equivalency matrix. That means you can convert from multi-family to single family. And they also can convert from residential to non-residential. And also they can use the matrix to convert one category of non-residential to another category of non-residential. To say that, that's in general speaking, they cannot increase the maximum residential development rights. So you can see this is proposed map H. The thing you can see, this is a West Village, which is proposed for commercial. The existing approved one is for residential only, but the proposed one for the West Village they want to have commercial development, which is consistent with the complex, which removed the population concentration away from coastal high-heist area, and also removed the mixed use and commercial from east village to north village. And obviously they removed the approved public marina from the site. So I did a comparison, you can see this is adopt map page. You can see and they have public marina, they have been removed and they have development, and the new proposed for the West Village is only for commercial. And also for the East Village, they only allow for residential development, and they shift the mixed use and commercial to the North Village in this area. So I already mentioned land use equivalency matrix. So they have that there, but they have very specific condition. So, the purpose for that is they cannot increase the residential environment rights, but they can use that for, converts that for non-residential or from multivamie to single family. And also, the update exhibit to remove the approved marine users. So this is a bicycle and pedestrian system map. They must update that accordingly because this is only used for the residential and this west village is only for commercial. So they updated this map. and also removing removing, revising the Department of Order for internal and statutory consistent and to reflect updated for the laws. And now I want to point out, they have amendment to some of specific conditions. The first regarding vegetation and wildlife. has proposed to preserve approximate 61.21 acres of scrub-jabitat and also to require an ego-management plan. And also for the wetland conditions to reclassify and clarify what land preserved-preserved category from three to five categories. And also to modify the 100-foot buffer, which is called green zone requirement. Because the actually what-and-boundaries have not been finalized and the detailed development proposal is still under design. Therefore, the applicant is proposing to revise the development order to allow that modification to the buffer configuration may be permitted at the time of the final detailed site plan. Subject to demonstration to the county's reasonable satisfaction of net ecological benefit of the alternative buffer. So, however, in no case, shall the modified buffer reducing a net reduction in buffer acreage, which is approximately 17.29 acres, or reduced buffer waste to less than average of 100 feet. That's it's specific for that 100, the green zone. They made, they add some specific requirement and add a little bit of flexibility. But the intent is same, try to make the green zone to protect the wetland and also for future development to the north of the green zone. So staff and no objection to the proposed language at it will not only provide flexibility to the development, but also better achieve the goal of preserving the coastal land. And also they amend the Exhibit E, map F1, wetland impact impact preservation and wildlife areas and greens on map. So they update that. So you can see on the screen this is Exhibit E. So you can see they have coastal wetland which is what in the preserved area, in 165.34 acres actually increased used to be 150 acres. And also the added squad J preservation, you can see CDEF in this area, a total of 61.21 acres. and also to add a new requirement to set a timeline for convince of the preserved area to an entity acceptable to the county and also to allow the airplanes and to be preserved or relocated into the preservation area. The next change is to the stormwater management and water quality and to amend the language related to the stay and federal agency standards and permitting requirements to confirm with the current stay and federal requirements. Because as I mentioned before, the DI was originally adopted in 1992 and the last change happened in 2010. But since then, the state law has been, um, have some changes. So they want update, they want order to be consistent with the current requirement. And next, big changes for transportation requirement and to amend outdated requirements and establishing significant impact, impact roadways. So they define that and establish that. And also to require that traffic study for the project phases will be accumulative and will include any previous evaluated phase to determine the extent of significant impact rate. So in a very clear set of criteria for the review of the traffic for the proposed development. Also to ensure that impact fee payments shall be subject to counties cold and related rules and regulations. Another change is for transportation is to require additional traffic studies if any roadway segments are significantly impacted beyond what is currently described in the Harborview DIAI deal. Try to make sure that any transportation aspect will be considered during the final detail site plan review. And also to require that the department provide a supplemental analysis to the county if an initial analysis of the required reference segment shows that the project is causing impacts to additional significantly impacted interstate segments. And also for transportation section to update the option listed in the binding commitment by there's for specific for scheduling of facility improvements. So requiring that the schedule of the facility, that are necessary to meet the adoptive level of service shall be reflected in the CIP. And also removing the duplicative concurrency requirement. And also removing the duplicative requirement of the FDOT adopted work program for further interstate highway strategic intermodal system. So, basically, is housekeeping, try to make sure the development order is refract the current requirements. And also for the prop-Share Payments, add the specific provision. So, Shower County must agree to the proposed mitigation in writing and writing shall become an exhibit to this deal if it is fully executed by the developer and the county. Try to make sure the public safety and concurrency will be addressed during the site print review and move forward of this project. And the last couple of things for the transportation is to remove the requirement of relocation of discovery drive because it's already built there. And also to add the requirement that transportation analysis for the first phase is submit to the county prior to issuance of building permits for this project. And this requirement is in addition to the existing requirements that the first required by annual transportation won't report is submitted. And the deal is amended to contain a binding commitment to provide needed roadway improvements for any proposed development identified in such monitoring report. So We try to make sure there's assurance to make sure the concurrency and public safety will be addressed when the project is moving forward. And the next changes for the police and the fire protection and education to replace with the county's impact fee code, the same thing because the existing DO have updated the information and also to replace the provisions with the new language which states that the The developer shall comply with the Shaw County regulations and updated interlocal agreement for coordinated planning and school concurrency. So because I already mentioned the proposal is removed puppy Marina. So these proposals to remove all requirements, except F and except H, which are associated with the Marina uses. So they remove the Marina uses, so they remove all these requirements, because they do not apply anymore. But only retain the ability to develop the 20 private dots along the desoldal canal. And regarding floodplain and hurricane preparedness to delete the duplicated provisions that afford building code requirements. It's already afford building code. We don't need to duplicate that in divar motor. And also to add the maximum resident to our units of 733, within in the coastal high-haz area, we in the east village just want document what the vested government writes there. And regarding the recreation and open space section to provide an option for neighborhood park. So because like I mentioned, the original development order is long time ago, they tried to provide the bit more flexibility and better for the development and also to increase the acreage of the preservation area. And also the Exhibit D, Harborview D.I. Land Management Plan is updated to provide the management plan and the primary, private more detailed protection of coastal wetland and other species habitats and preserve the land and also to provide higher environment standards for development. That all contained in exhibit D. And there is other housekeeping for this one to update build out and expiration dates to December 31, 2035 and all other cleanup for the for the development order. So like I mentioned, they also requesting for the amendment to help reviewoverview DRI PD, zone means. So I just want to point out a couple of things for that. For example, the proposed PD condition edge includes the additional up to five feet of building height is permitted when accommodation free board to improve flood resiliency of the project. And also the PD, like I mean to the PD condition, all landscaping and buffer requirements has been updated. They have specific type C buffer requirement and type A buffer for the along the major roadways. So and also they they added specific landscaping requirements to the proposed PD condition, as PD country, OV3 for convenience food and beverage storage with gas pumps used in the West Village. So, because they proposed commercial uses to the West Village, but they have very specifically escaping requirement, actually they also have signage requirement for that commercial development. Like I said, actually this is proposed PD condition Q regarding signage to include that requirement of poll sign because that location is close to I-75. So we will have tall sign. So when people travel I-75, they can see the signage. And also, they add external signage for the convenience food and beverage store with a gas pump in the West Village with graphics. So if you approve these PD rezoning, there is graphic to show the signage requirement for the West Village. And also the proposed PD condition are required that the Habitat Management Plan to make sure that this on site what and identified as preservation open space on the general PD concept plan shall be restored and preserved in perpetuity. And an ego management plan will be submitted with a final detailed site plan application. And also PD condition S is updated to have an option for all of a fee simple dedication for approximately 165.34 acres of coastal wetland, which is A and B in this area. And also the PD condition GG is added to address the HCP fee of 3.5 million, which shall be paid to Shar County no later than 30 days after from the day the Board approved the PD Resonance Application and it's associated HubBurviewDI, Department of Order amendments. And I try to point out the last thing is in order to response and address comments raised during actually this revision to HubBurviewDI, Department of Order and the PD Resonance was presented to the planning zone to the Board of County Commissioner on June 11th, 2024. And during that hearing, there is comments raised for the existing traffic congestion and safety concerns on Harborview Road during school days. So the PD condition H is addressed to address these concerns. I can read it to a specific said, the applicant and property owner may include mitigation measures in the final details site plan to address traffic congestion and safety concerns caused by student drop off and pick up at the Deep Creek Elementary School. So I believe it's staffed professional opinion that proposed revisions to Harborview DRI Department of Order and proposed revisions to Harborview DRI PD, a general consistent with the county's comprehensive plan and the state laws and the code of ordinance. I'd be more than happy to answer any question you may have. I believe that applicant agrees with all proposed PD condition A through at your edge. I'd be more than happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, if I might, you'd ask me a question before we start about what the motions are going to be. So we've been, Miss Schau as usual is being very, very detailed and complete with our presentation. So the motion that you will make for number six will be on LAD25-02. The motion on number seven will be on PD25-03. You will not be making emotions on those other two. Those are there for informational purposes. So to understand the process by which we got to these votes. And I will have the applicants council confirm all that when they get up for their presentation. Okay, so that's going to be a motion per item on the item number on the agenda. So that's just two motions. Yeah, well it's an motion on number six, a motion on number seven, and then you'll go back and do number five after that. Yes, yes. Okay. Any questions for staff at this point? Yeah, I do. Going to the equivalency matrix, if I could. I'm assuming that we're talking about moving all of the residential component out of the West Village and being absorbed in the East and the North Village. And is that correct? No. OK. The proposal is changed. You approved the residential west village from residential to commercial. No. They were not used in currency. Maybe they were used something because for the gas station, they were potentially used at land use in crimson matrix. And there is another purpose of this land use accrued matrix, as I mentioned, because they approved to have very little single family home and have a lot of multi-family. So they can use a converging table to convert some units of multi-family to single-family homes. Okay. So then, are we using that matrix then to increase the number of multi-family homes as opposed to single-family homes? Is that the way? Oh, the purpose is to use the matrix to convert multi-family to single-family. Multi-family to single-family homes. Yes, because single-family is only a bit of a 2016 unit, but the proposed has more single-family. So they need to convert from multi-f to single family. Yes, because single family is only a bit of a 2016 unit, but the proposal has more single family. So they need a convert from multi-family unit to single family. OK. OK. Concurrency. I'm concerned about concurrency, particularly water. I read through the documentation. And some way very deep inside, I think, was around page 192, I read that the Schallock County Utilities will allow the Schallock Harbor Water Association to purchase water in bulk for service to the development. And my question is, does the Schallock Harbor Water Association, is there concurrency concurrency matter current when was it written and do they have the capacity to feed this development water, potable water? Okay, I can't answer. I'm going to be able to but African should answer the rest. We did not change any original adopted the the water and sewer requirement in the Department of order. So I believe water will be provided by Shara County, sorry, Shara Haber, Water Association and sewer service will be provided by Shara County utilities. Okay so I guess the applicant will answer the questions not. So I'll let it go at dot. Derek Rooney, great Robinson on behalf of Henderson Development. I agree with Mr. David that Jay did a very thorough job, probably the most thorough and detailed job I've ever seen or do. And I thank her for a presentation. We accept her testimony. We have a presentation. I'm assuming everyone is here for us. So I think it's probably best that we do put on our presentation unless there's desire to move forward faster. I wanna emphasize just briefly before I bring up by Jim France from RVI planning to walk through our slide show that as Jay emphasized in history this project's entitlements go way back to 1992 with the current density and intensity vested in 2010. The current proposal and the proposal that you recommended to prove on last year brought the code up brought the project up to its current standards. The revisions that we've made since then, which included retaining the affordable housing at the request of the county commission, which originally had asked to remove that, removing the marina, increasing the buffers, addressing additional environmental concerns, and moving the commercial intensity from the east side of I-75 to the southwest village which is further away from existing residential development. The the land use equivalency matrix, Mr. Vieira, more likely not this project will build out and a substantially single family development. At that case the entitlements will be coming from the multi-family. I do wanna hit one additional question, which was you asked about the utilities. As Ms. Shalpoin out, there's no increase since last time, as far as my understanding with the letter of availability, that availability is there from Cheryl Harbor Water Association, and it should be noted that, of course, this project, right now, there are only plans possible to move forward with a commercial component of it. Any project of this size would take years and years of development before the unit counts would get to a substantial number, and there's nothing planned, a short run, and as far as I understand, our one association is moving forward with their own expansions and should be well ahead of this project. With that, I'm gonna bring Jim France up from RBI. Did you have a follow-up? I apologize. Just one question. My concern actually is the water component. And looking ahead at other items that we're going to listen to today, I'm curious as to when concurrency was determined, was it pre-sunseeker? Was it recently within the last year, last 30 days, last 60 days, for the water component from Charlotte Harbor Water? I just want to know when it was established that there was enough water, was it before the recent development? Because we've had some seeker, we've had an explosion of building in Harbor Heights that's taken up a lot of capacity. So I just want to make sure that in the end, there's water available for the community of Harbor Heights and Charlotte Harbor. So I'm just trying to confirm that and get that straight answer. Right. From a perspective of concurrency, just speaking strictly of concurrency, whether it was utility concurrency, road concurrency, any school concurrency, those issues, the conditions that are placed on development order in the PD, those are show process how do you address those issues when you move forward. So if it turns out that after this is approved, a thousand home development gets planned and they're moving for the one move forward as fast as possible but Charlotte Harbor Water does not have the capacity to serve, then those units will not be able to proceed to CO without that water being available in the develop, or would have to work with the utility or seek alternative water supply in order to move forward. That's concurrently says, what you're looking for is not available at the time you come in for your building permits. Therefore, here's the mitigation strategy. You have to adapt to deal with that. All right. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Gem France with RVI Planning and Landscape Architecture. It's actually a couple of us on our team that still need to be sworn in. Could do that. Okay, yes. It did stand up too. If there's anybody else in the audience that came in late, you can stand up now and get sworn in. That would be great. Do you solemnly swear the testimony about the gift is going to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Please say I do. All right, thank you, maybe she did. Okay, so I don't see Jay at the computer, but if we can move to. We have our whole team here with us today. Next slide. And I won't read everything on the slide, but I'll highlight that Benderson has owned the property for some time now, has plans to continue to own and stick with the property through the development of all the commercial areas. And you can see that commitment to the area, to the neighborhood, to the county, reflected in all of the work that we've done to revise plans to address comments that we've received from the community. Next slide. As Jay walked through all of the different changes that we have proposed, we really want to highlight some of the primary benefits of the application. And we've seen a lot of these when we came back, when we came before you last time, but to reiterate those and to reiterate the things that Jay pointed out, we are eliminating the marina. That has the impact of preserving, reducing impacts to wildlife habitat, sensitive wildlife habitat, reducing boat traffic that would be going from the piece of river up to the marina that was previously located there. So we're enhancing compatibility with harbor heights next next door neighbors, and as Jay pointed out, a lot of additional preservation area, a lot of additional preservation condition changes, all reflecting increased preservation area in the property, reflecting the addition of scrub J preservation areas and updating environmental preservation requirements and all of those conditions to today's standards. The initial application that you'll have seen also reduced the intensity in the east village by removing some of that mixed use area in the Marina and making that primarily residential development. And all of these benefits have come without a request for increased density. So a lot of benefits and really demonstrating that work, trying to bring the property into today's market, today's standards, and not necessarily asking for an increase in density. The changes to the DRI map H include, as we mentioned, the increase of those preserve areas, and you can see them reflected in this map in areas DE and F in the North Village and C in the East Village. Those are preserve areas that were not previously included in MapH. We've also removed the proposed relocation of discovery drive that was originally approved in MapH, so that would have potentially changed the routing for existing residents to our east. That will no longer occur. Discovery drive will remain as it is. Again, I mentioned we reduced intensity in the East Village by removing the marina and the commercial and mixed juices. And we've increased the scrub J and go for tortoise preserve area. I mentioned already in C area C. In the West Village, the proposal that we're bringing forward today includes a limitation to commercial uses, as J mentioned. So again, that has a number of different knock-on effects, such as reducing the amount of residential units in the coastal hazard area. Next slide. The PD concept plan is very similar to the DRI map H. And then you can see the increased open space and preserve areas for a total of 226 acres. Again, in the PD concept plan, you see the removal of the commercial and mixed use areas, the removal of the marina impacts reflected in the changes to this map. Again, we are reducing, I mentioned we're reducing impacts, density and intensity in the coastal high hazard area in the West Village, that was also the case with our previous proposal in the East Village as well. We've also, and Jay covered all of these changes to the conditions, but we've also added the green zone standards that were previously only in the DRI to the PDE. So seeing some duplicate preservation and open space standards in the PDE as well. I mentioned that we're improving compatibility. And so for the East Village, the setbacks and buffers, all comply with your current LBC. The maximum height is limited to 38 feet within 100 feet of the Eastern property line. Beating this dead horse like to oblivion, we've removed the commercial intensity from the East Village, removed the Marina impacts and we have not made changes to the Discovery Drive location. So we had a neighborhood meeting back when we were here last year in May and walked through all of these changes with the neighborhood. And so we think this revised proposal really does a lot to improve compatibility with the neighborhood. Again, you see the Coastal High Hazard Area map does cover most of the East Village, all the West Village, and our changes today reduce the potential density and intensity in those areas. Definite benefit to the project and to the population in this area. We've removed some stormwater conditions that are duplicative with state requirements and we've remained consistent with Charlotte County's master storm water management plan. I'm going to turn it over now to Matt Miller, our environmental expert. Good afternoon commissioners. For the record, my name is Matthew Miller. I'm the Director of Environmental Services at WRA Engineering and I've been sworn. We've worked really hard with your staff Tina Powell and Jamie Jamie Skidera on these environmental enhancements to the project. Specifically, we're moving the marine impacts. We have an increase of 57 acres of what was previously approved for preserves, including 61 acres of ScrogJ and go for Tortoise Habitat Preservation, which is all part of the Charlotte County HCMP. There's a $3 million scrub J mitigation payment, which goes to the county's fund to acquire and enhance the offsite scrub J areas. There's the Eugul Mest Protection. There's a EugulESP on the site. When we come to Final Site Plan, we'll identify where that nest is. We have an idea. We know where it is now. Whenever that Final Site Plan comes up, we'll make sure it's in the same spot or if it's moved or moved accordingly and maintain those protections. And then the green zone is the 100- average buffer to that really high quality wet one on the south side preserves A and B. And I'll turn over to Becca to talk about traffic. All right, good afternoon. Becca Bond Transportation Traffic Engineer on this project with Kimmy Horn and I have been sworn. Jay did a great job. Had a lot of transportation slides up there, so for the sake of time, I'm going to go through these and I'll come back up for any specific questions if you have them. So the transportation analysis was completed and approved previously as mentioned. In 2010, there was an update to increase the density and intensity of this project. So the additional traffic was analyzed at that time. With this proposal, we are not proposing, as mentioned, any additional density, which means we're not proposing any additional traffic impacts. Additional traffic studies and monitoring reports will be conducted with each future site plan application. So as they come in, as Jay mentioned in her slides, they will build upon each other. So the first one that comes in will analyze the specific impacts of the limits of that project. And then from there on, they will be cumulative. So we will include the background and continue to build. So eventually you will see another full study of the whole DRI. You can move on to the next one. So the latest equivalency matrix, conversion matrix has been mentioned quite a few times. This is especially important for traffic because what this does is it maintains the trip cap from what was previously approved in 2010 So not only does it allow you to switch from multifamily to single family, but it also maintains that the traffic impact cannot exceed what was previously approved So you might have you know the number of dwelling units or the number of square-footed footage change, but you're still maintaining that same cap. And this equivalency matrix allows us to do that. Next one. So here are the scheduled improvements. These are projects that are already underway that I just want to touch on. The first one being Harborview Road from Melbourne Street to I-75, there's a planned widening from two to four lanes and a construction of around about at the Charlotte County Eastport campus driveway. Design is underway and was funded by DOT in fiscal year 2020. Rideaway acquisition was funded by FDOT in fiscal year 2023 and 2024. Construction is partially funded by FDOT in fiscal year 2026 but not completely funded. So do want to acknowledge that. The I-75 in a hardware view road interchange is part of FDOT's planning and feasibility study along the I-75 corridor. Improvments are planned at that I-75 interchange with hardware view road, and they're being considered as part of this project once we're moving into that final site plan stage. And with DOT have already started including analysis of that interchange. As mentioned, traffic monitoring reports are required as part of this DRI. A traffic study will be submitted by NEOLE to Charlotte County and FDOT for review. Any improvements that are required by the traffic associated with this project, those improvements will be undertaken, and that will include the roadways listed here, and any major intersections along these roadways. Additionally, at a minimum, the following functional improvements are anticipated for the development once again, not going to read through these. They are in the presentation that was provided happy to come answer questions for them. But this does include turn lanes at all of the project driveways. It is mentioned in that first bullet point, signalization of the West Village project driveway. However, we are exploring around about at that location. So just wanted to mention that. I'm going to hand it back off to Jim. So that is the conclusion of our presentation. Again, want to reiterate that we agree with staff and their recommendation of approval. Again, we're reducing intensity and removing marine impacts in this project, providing significant open space in preserve areas, and improving compatibility with the surrounding areas through this revised development conditions. And so we'll be available for any additional questions comments that you have and appreciate your time. Thank you. Any questions from the board to the team? Not at this time. Okay. Thank you. So we'll open up public comment. Those wishing to speak, please come forward. State your name. I'm sorry? It's item number six. Item six. Item is 6 and 7. 6 and 7. Dr. Madoo, little harbor heights. Dr. Madoo, little harbor heights. The agenda says that there will be five minutes for each petition. So do I get ten minutes? You have five minutes ma'am. That's the rule. Five minutes but for which petition? You're on number six, we're on item number six. Item number six thank you. Okay, let me be snarky a little bit. I'm sorry but if you have a 10 minute presentation it's not very succinct. It's not a little bit, I'm sorry. But if you have a 10 minute presentation, it's not very succinct. It's why? Not very succinct. It's not short enough for the presentation that you want to be giving. Because we are dealing with two petitions. Normally, when we do that, give five minutes. Because most of this material and information is the same. Sometimes we have two petition numbers because part of it is the land use portion. And part of it is the zoning portion. but continue with start with your presentation and please try to keep it short. Okay, I'm very disappointed in that because it doesn't seem like that's the way your rules go but I will speak very quickly. Wow, agenda item number 622 pages of submittals. I would ask, has the board had time to read all the information in this petition? It took me quite a while. It's my understanding that in this petition, for changes to over 14 years of development orders, it's over 14 years. And a lot has happened in 14 years. The 2010 buildout data originally expired in September of 2020, and according to an email from Jay dated October 17, 2021, there was an extension that took place for the build out date to April of 2023, and then also to February of 2025, and which we are not past that date, and I would ask if there's been a formal request for another extension on this project. And if so, I would like to get a copy of that. And now the developers seeking another extension to 2035. Where does it end? It seems like these extensions, the public hearings, the staff time, the P and Z time, the BCC time, and the admin time to grant all these extensions is costing us taxpayers a lot of money. I would like to go back to a question that Mr. Viera had touched on about a letter of availability of water, which was never really, it was kind of skirted around. We had had touched on about a letter of availability of water, which was never really, it was kind of skirted around. We attended those of us from Harbor Heights, the Charlotte Harbor Water Association Annual Meeting in January of 2025, which was held at the Harbor Heights Event Center, and we specifically asked the CHWA, if they had been provided any estimates of water for any part of this development, or had been asked about a letter of availability for any part of the development, including the elephant in the room, which has not been mentioned today, which is the buckies at the West Village. And we were specifically told that no, the Charlotte Harbor Water Association has not been approached and has not been asked and has not provided a letter of availability. So that seems like that goes against the rules, which we are trying to address here today. Regarding the PD, again, this submittal that was provided is 452 pages. And I asked, again, has the board had a chance to look at all this information and really evaluate and analyze what's in that information. It's very confusing. We had one week. It wasn't provided to anybody to the public except for a week ago. And I'd like to speak about this land use equivalency matrix and the traffic analysis on January 7th, 2025. There was an email from Jay to Jim France at RBA asking, will you provide a TIS, which is a traffic impact study, for the proposed buckies, January 8th, 2025? The next day, the email response from Jim France states, we discussed it at our meeting last month that we won't need to provide a TIS for buckies at the zoning stage since we're not changing densities and sensities and we'll utilize the revised conversion matrix so the overall trips won't change due to the addition of a buckies unquote. Now how is that logical when the matrix clearly shows that the traffic generation of a buckies is much higher equivalent, see, for one fuel pump than residential or other commercial properties. One fuel pump is equivalent to 25 plus multifamily housing dwelling units. 16 plus hotel rooms, 17 plus single-family homes, that's one pump. They're proposing 120 pumps. So you tell me how that makes any sense or where the logic is in that. So I would contend that a traffic impact study updated is required if they're gonna plan on putting a buckies there. So the TIS that is published was from 2022. So shouldn't there be an update on that? And there was no hurricane evacuation evaluation. You know what's going to happen there during the hurricane? How are the people of Harbor Heights and Deep Creek going to get out of there when you've got all that residential and a bucky sit in there? If I might remind you, major hurricanes in the last seven years, Irma was a cat board. They're looking at coastal high hazard areas. Beep. Thank you. Hello, Laura Johnson from Harbor Heights. I'd like to thank you first for being the voice of reason as we look at this development proposal. In actuality, this should be a complete redo with the entire development order. However, since we're here, I'm going to respectfully ask you to consider what is reasonable. Is this comprehensive plan reasonable based on the county's current state of sanitation and water resources is the intensity and density reasonable? You well know that the county's infrastructure cannot handle the proposed density and intensity. Doing so would be unethical and unsafe. For example, the sewer system and roads are inadequate to safely handle the proposed request. This will create severe issues with lack of sewer services. How can this proposal be approved when commissioners have indicated there is no money to update the sewer system and waste water management systems? I live on San Marino Canal where the lift station has failed multiple times during previous hurricanes, resulting in raw sewage being dumped into the ditches. The raw sewage then went from the ditches to the drainage drains into the canal and ultimately into the peace river. The smell was horrific and the fish kill only added to that. So having lived through that once was more than enough for me and I'm asking you guys to use your common sense on your logic and your reason to stop this from happening. Another concern I have is the level of services from police and emergency responders. Adding this intensity is beyond reasonable measure. Adding the intensity is just simply unsafe. Flooding and potential environmental disasters is intensified by the proposal. You guys know we've talked about a small toothed sawfish, rickery and breeding ground that's adjacent to where the buckies is going. I've been to gas stations. I see on the ground gas and oil leaks and I see flooding and I've seen hurricanes and I've seen all of that water washing of the piece river which isn impaired river. And I just beg you to please use reason. So I asked you at the beginning to be reasonable and think about what's reasonable. Now I'm begging you to take a reasonable action and just deny this buckies that we're talking about is going to be a 10,000 pound gorilla environmentally with just environmentally with just asking to please Consider the impact of public safety resources the light pollution we're talking about signs that are God knows what that's gonna look like when you're coming over 75 and the people that are living there whether it's environmental with the light pollution or in general the storm evacuations we all know that's gonna be a nightmare nightmare. It's tough to get out of there right now and evacuation in Florida is almost a pointless issue as it is right now with traffic up 75 people trying to get gas during that time there's going to be traffic backed up 75 all the way trying to get down and turn around and it's going to be tough for all the deep creek residents there in general But I'm just asking you before you cast your vote to consider this as the public the deep creek residents I have to suffer throughout. Thank you Hello, my name is Mike doodle and I live in Harbor Heights. And I understand that something's going to be built there because they should be able to build something. Now, what they had, what you presented in 2006, look kind of reasonable. That looked like something right-sized for the neighborhood. Now, you know, most people who lived in that area, when we bought there, we were pretty much, you know, One of the things that the realtor has told us and we were told is, look, it's a low impact area. There's hardly nothing here. You're this rural. And with this metropolitan abomination that you want to put there, 3600 apartments, 5 to 7000 cars, getting in the traffic, adding traffic to that area. I mean, that's just way too dense for that area. 3600 apartments plus and the five to seven thousand cars doesn't include what buckets is going to provide. And I'm going to go on a little bit off for what Laura talked about about the infrastructure. I don't know, we talked a lot before about the school at 3 o'clock, 2.30 to 3 o'clock. You can't get from Rio de Janeiro all the way over there, it's backed up. Still that way, doesn't seem like anything is going to be done about it. The mass evacuation, if there is a hurricane, somebody mentioned how are we going to get out of there? how people from Harp Heights can get to the interstate. All those people would be pulling out right in front of us from this abomination that they want to build. Laura mentioned the sewage problem already. There's not a lot over there that has sewers, but they can't even take care of the ones that they do have sewers. There's only one that I know of, I don't know about them all, but you ride your bike there after a big storm, after the hurricane, you know, and it stinks. You ride your bike through there, all that stuff's on your back, it throws it up on your back, you know, just can't even use it. There doesn't seem to be any plan to update the road east of the interstate, even the presentation that they just gave. Never talked to, talked about the intersection at 75, and talked to out west of the intersection of 75 in Harborview Road. Nothing about east to there at all. There's going to be a loud traffic even on Discovery Road, because a lot of people are going to come in and go down Discovery Road. That's hardly, hardly, it's not made for that kind of traffic. As time goes on, you know, we talk about, I heard a lot of this stuff was approved in 2010. Well, there's a lot changed since 2010. From what, 2004 through 2017, there was no hurricanes at all, right? But 2010, right in that time period, what might not have been taken to account a lot of the information. Public sentiment seems to have changed. Look at some of the projects that are getting shut down now. Fishermen's Village, they were through that because so much opposition, the public opposition of that kind of development. More recently, the TAG development. It got withdrawn because so much opposition to the density and how much stuff was being built there in their rural area. This is our rural area where we live. At the, one of the meetings, both meetings or was the gentleman, the board meetings. There's a guy that was talking about, he says, all these developers want to come and make all these changes. And you guys are supposed to represent us. There should be some negotiation. They want to take out the arena. Well, they wouldn't have got that arena of pass at EPA anyway, most likely. But when they take the arena out, there should be, can't you guys negotiate for less density, something that fits the area, 70 foot tall buildings? I don't see any of those within 10 miles of that area. Do you? I mean, I, there's no, there's nothing like that. I mean, I just, I just think there's way over development for that area. And most of us think that moved there, we're not anticipating that kind of situation, you know, and we didn't move there for that. And I think the whole Pentegrin and Charlotte County is kind of getting that way too, that we're seeing a lot of development that nobody anticipated or wants. Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Eric Frown. I live on Voyager Drive of Resident of Harbor Heights. Been watching this unfold for many years. I actually have the original binder from the original DRI for this. Can we put the slide up that shows velocity storm surge? The reference is that possible? Can I ask for that and get it? Thank you. We know the area is severely behind the curve with regard to infrastructure, whether it's water resources, sewage resources. Now when you look at the environmental impact, let's talk about what your storm surge elevations are going to be. At this point, when you look at, even if you stick to your guns and it remains single family residences, what would the base flood elevation of those slabs be in that area in the east village? Are they going to build at what? 14 feet? 16 feet? 20 feet? We ran what you want to call extrapolations years ago using software analysis on soil percolation as the area started to build out. So what happens? This is soil become more permeable as we increase the density. We lose the amount of area where water can absorb into that area. What happens to everything else north of there? Now we're going to have to build houses at 20 feet, everything's going to become a stilt frame, not to mention traffic, but that is a problem. And I'd like to know why there's not a more concerned stance when you are supposed to be representing us. There's only one of you on this board that has remotely any skin in this game. But no one else seems to be concerned about this. Where is your responsibility? Because if you make a bad call, do you pay for this? It's not a rhetorical question. No, you don't. Because you have no skin in this game. And it's sad to see this developed to this point. Thank you for your time. Dickel Adamer, Harbour Heights, never worried about the water problem until the last two hurricanes. It was three feet higher than it's ever been at our house, came this much of coming in our front door. Now they're going to have to build as the other gentleman said, I'm not sure how many feet are going to build, how much fill they have to put in. But forever, every one foot acre of fill displaces 326,000 gallons of water. So if you multiply that by 10 feet or 12 feet and then multiply that by 250, some acres of land that's going to be built on, you're going to be over a billion gallons of water, additional water displaced. Now that's not going to make a bit of difference out in the Atlantic Ocean, but when you put it at the mouth at a piece of river, if it raises water level that much, it's going to be in my house. That's why I think there needs to be fewer buildings or buildings built on stilts. Something is not going to displace the water to rise at a water level. Thanks. I'm happy now. I don't know why anyone would want to put hundreds of thousands of gallons of gasoline underground on the border of a coastal high hazard area. But that's just me. They paint a very nice picture of this project and I would just ask that you guys tread lightly and use some good judgment. Hi, I'm Jackie Moran. I live in Harbor Heights. We don't need more traffic in our area. We have trouble as it is with our school. They're doing nothing about the traffic there. If we have more, we're really going to be backed up. It's getting backed up now all the way past the traffic light We're getting more. We're really gonna be in trouble We don't need no more. We don't need nothing there and We already got Sun Seekers using water from farmers and Pustinous more money. They're gonna cost us even more We don't need that. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Beverly Constable from Harbor Heights. This past weekend, I had the opportunity to go into a buckies. Never been there in my life. I heard wonderful things about it. My husband and I got off the interstate. There were three ways into the buckies. Every single one was backed up. When we drove around 120 pumps, three times we finally found a pump. My husband pumped. I went inside to experience the buckees. I got inside barely. There were so many people in there. I swear it was beyond the fire rules and regulations. The line for the bathrooms went all the way to the doors. Please don't do this to our community. You put a sign up for Bucky's, it's going to be a destination. And it will be a disaster. And as was said, with the gas tanks under underground, the amount of water to flush those toilets were doomed. Please use your common sense and reconsider this whole project. Thank you. Hello, I'm Sharon Brandt. I'm also from Harbor Heights. I've lived out there now close to 45 years. I've seen a lot of changes come to our whole area. I have also, like this young lady, just said, I have been to a buckies. My kids love on the way to Atlanta to stop at the buckies. It is unbelievable. It is mind-boggling. There are so many people there, like they say, using the restrooms, using the gas pumps, if you can get to a gas pump without standing in line. But what worries me most is I have been able to travel on Harborview Road for 45 years to get into Port Charlotte to get done what I need in my community. I just left a doctor's office right there in the harbor. You are going to stop me from going into Port Charlotte. There is no way with the traffic that I have seen at Buckies, let alone all the houses you want to build there. There is no way that our little road, even if you expand it to four lanes, is going to be able to get us to Port Charlotte, to the doctors, to the pharmacies, to the grocery stores that we need to get to. You are changing our whole way of life. You're taking it all away from us. Please don't do this. Bucky's is a fun destination and my grandson loves to go there for the barbecue. But it's not for a community like ours. Why can't it go in Pena Gorda out to Jones Loop where they've already done so much? You have that area there that used to be the rust park. Use that. It's a big area. Use that. Everything is there for that. Not in a little community like Deep Creek and Harbor Heights and Deep Creek School where my daughters have gone. No, it's just not right. We didn't move out there for this. We moved to enjoy beautiful Charlotte County and just look what's happening to Cape Coral. They don't have water. You're asking us to do without showers, laundry and all of that because you're sending it all with the restrooms and buccas and all the other houses out there. It's not right. Please, please think about it. This is a beautiful place, and I have raised three daughters here that are young women now. It is home. You guys have made it home over the years. Don't change it now. You're taking everything away from us and stranding us out in deep creek and harbor heights because we won't be able to get into the harbor. Thank you. Hey, good afternoon, everybody. Jim DeBor harbor heights. I'd like to, I wasn't planning on talking, but I got thinking about some things and understand, you know, there's some things said that I have some issues with. I guess we heard from the developer on their side that the engineering company, but we haven't heard from any residents who are in favor of the project. I'm guessing that's a telling sign. So if you, at the end of this discussion, vote to extend to push forward this project, I think you'll have to answer to some people. Because I'm guessing there aren't any residents here who are in favor of the project. Also, the environmental impact of the buckies. I've heard a lot about, you know, hundred pumps. That seems a little ridiculous. Like the consider light pollution, which we already have a problem with, we won't be able to see the stars at night night. Won't be able to see the moon barely at night. Noise pollution. If you've ever been to any of these super gas stations, they have trucks and cars that idle through the night. I realize it's on the other side of the interstate. The interstate's noisy enough for us, but on those nice spring nights when we have the windows open, all we're going to hear is the rumble of 100 diesel trucks. And of course, some people have already talked about the oil pollution, the petroleum pollution will come from the spilt gas and oil, all the additional cars, and then the next rain storm washes it right into the river. The developer talked a little bit about eagles and eagle nests. Yes, there are eagles nests. At least one eagle nests in that area. I've seen it. I've had the pleasure of seeing both eagles. They're beautiful animals. Everybody will agree with that. They're talking about saving the eagles nests. Why do that? They leave a tree, one tree up where the Eagles nest is. That's probably all they have to do. But that's not what Eagles need to survive. They need a vast area to hunt in and get their food in. And the last thing is also the scrub J and the tortoise or tortoise mitigation. A lot of people think, oh, they'll put away a play, a portion of this vast map, put it away for the scrub J and tortoises. That's not how it works. They have to pay a fee, a fairly small fee, which buys a small portion of land someplace else. And that, what they hope that the scrub jays and tortoises will move into, that's again not how nature works. It's all I have to say. to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. Courtney Mason, Honegorta, I've been sworn in. How are 60 to 70? I'm going to go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go think about Charlotte County residents and please think about the wildlife. It's okay to say no. It's okay to put things on hold to gather more information. My grandfather, Dr. Walter Offenberg, was a hermitologist for the University of Florida. He was very involved with a Gulfur Tortises Conservation. The Charlotte County developments, which are conveniently being represented by the same legal teams, are negatively impacting the populations of Gulfurs and many other protected species. As far as Grupt J's go, the $3.5 million Grupt J fee will be a great asset to help mitigate other county-owned Grupt J preserves. There are 122 acres of scrub-jay habitat. 60 of those acres will be destroyed. As I've missed it in the application, there is one mention of Gulf or Tortises. There was no mention of the endangered sawfish that have breeding populations in that area. Is there an updated wildlife protective species assessment other than the 2022? One that my friend had to send me because I couldn't find it in the application. Apparently there could be 506 tortoise burrows on that site. Gulfers are keystone species and their burrows can serve as homes to over 350 other species. Florida is running out of recipient sites to relocate them. There's no current studies that let us know their survival rates at these locations. Vagant lots in my neighborhood are consistently being cleared without permits, and golfers are being varied alive. With the chance of them being able to dig themselves out, there's really nothing FWC can do unless they catch them in the act or somebody's video recording them at that time. And even with proof, there's a good chance that FWC will not file any charges. So once again, please think of the Charlotte County residents and the wildlife. Thank you. Hey. Hey, the... Anybody else wants to address these petitions? Hello Jeff Good of Harbor Heights. I think traffic is going to be a problem. I'm kind of concerned about that. I've been to some buccas often, they're remote. They're off a freeway. Sometimes they have a dedicated off ramp and they're set back off the highwayways. The traffic will still get back there to the off ramp. If you put a buckies there, I guarantee you will have traffic up the ramp, up the off ramp and that's just a few put a buckies there. I mean, you add the other homes and then you have harbor heights that still being developed a little bit, Homes are going in, increases traffic. And sun seekers will probably get more traffic over time. And that's portal over to that establishment. Thank you. Stefan Mollner, Sharla Coney. I just wanted to second what all the citizens said before me in agreements with them. Let me make a motion we close public comment. Second. I have a motion second to close public comment. All in favor say aye. Aye. Public comment time is closed. The applicant's representative has a chance for rebuttal. Thank you. I'm not gonna do a full rebuttal. I will say that you've heard you've quite a bit from the public and the neighbors. If you have any specific questions, I will be happy to call up the relevant experts or if I can address them, I will. I'll point out a few things that I know I have the answers to. One of the questions was about how much higher these homes can be built, one of the conditions is to allow up to five additional feet of free board above the base flood elevation to make sure that the homes that are built are out of the flooding area. I will point out there's an issue that came up last year running for the County Commission.. This was a concern that neighbors raised at the time. It's all reiterated that's now. The preserve on this property has substantially increased. And if we go back to the preserve areas, you'll see that those areas generally tend to be up in the Northeast village, buffering the existing homes. That also happens to be the highest and driest portions of the property. So the developer is taking the position that preserve the environmental habitat, use that for Gulf of Torses, use that for scrub-j mitigation. That area rather than mitigate and use those for homes, that area is being set aside. The homes that would be provided already commercial buildings would have the additional free board and flood proofing to allow them to not be wiped out during some storm events. So it's kind of a given take where we're not putting the homes in the highest and dry spots. We're going to build them to better standards, but we're also not increasing specific conditions, not increasing any density in the overall project or within the coastal high hazard area from what was previously approved. With regards to saw fish and some of the other issues, we can have the environmental experts come up, but we remove the marina uses. We're not having any impacts or water uses at all, so we're not, I don't believe there was any requirement for us to consult on that. Going to the potable water and sewer, and I apologize if it wasn't clear with my comments responding Mr. Vieira, concurrency for the benefit of the neighbors concurrency means concurrent. It's, is the infrastructure necessary? Is it concurrent with the development and the impacts thereof? At this stage, we're at the 10,000 foot view of this project. And we've barely been at the 10,000 foot view of this project since 1992, iterating it in different variations in development or since that, bringing down substantially more than half the amount of commercial entitlements. Now moving to with the equivalency matrix, looking to move away likely in the future from more of the multifamily into more of a single family, which is more consistent with the neighborhood. That's the way the development is moving forward. But at this point, we are still not at the building permit stage. So that letter of availability under chapter 380, 06 Florida Statutes, when it comes to going to the local government checking with the portable water, checking with sanitary sewer, seeing if its capacity is there, that's at the building permit stage. We're still, we're not even entitling this property. In fact, it has the entitlements. It has the entitlements. What we're doing is reconfiguring, bringing up to date, making the project more marketable, and more available to be developed under today's standards and needs. With that, I will stand here and answer any questions. And if I need any experts,, otherwise, please let me know. I'll bring them up. I do have a question for you. On the road improvement component of the presentation, I didn't see any reference to any improvements on discovery drive. Is there any improvements to the discovery drive? One of the speakers talked about its width. It wasn't built for that sort of traffic and I concur with that actually. So I didn't see that. I don't know if that's an oversight. I don't know what the potential is for that. I don't believe. There was originally a proposal to relocate Discovery Drive. I know that. I don't believe that it's going to be used for access to the project at all anymore. it's no longer going to be used for access. So the discovery drive only more main has is and only those neighbors on the east side discovery driver utilize will be correct. And I apologize. I'll bring up one other point. The issue of the traffic in the school. That was made very clear to us last year with county commission. I have spoken multiple times at school district. The condition that Jay read out earlier, HH, addresses that. In the map you have above you, you see where the preserve area D in the north east corner there. That directly borders the elementary school. The proposal is now where that arrow arrow points in off Rio de Janeiro, we're going to build a extended bus loop line and connect it into the school. The school district's been providing the designs with that. So is that project moves to site planning? What'll happen is traffic will be deviated off of Harborview into Rio de Janeiro and there will be additional stacking throughout that entire parcel to allow traffic to stack up there instead of in the median and the side of the road. So we do believe that we're addressing that issue. That's a current traffic condition. And as soon as we came to school board and talked about that, they started working with us trying to develop that plan. One question talking about the big elephant. Are we to be considering buckees? I don't think you're proposing that in this particular change, are you? No, and I believe it's a beaver, not an elephant, but the Mr. Baker, there is an interest from buckees for the West Village, as there will be representatives from Bucky's at the Board of County Commissioners to here address that concern. The changes that are, the only change reflected in in the proposal in front of you today that's different from what you saw last year that would address that would be further defining what a multi-pump facility like Bucky's would allow. It probably was allowed under the old code, but that traffic consideration when you took it into the equivalency matrix had to be addressed. So that's the only change that affects Bucky's potential for Bucky's. And potential is always just potential, Yeah. I have a question about water and sewer again. Sure. So impact fees at this time don't seem to be covering the expansion that's going on in this county. So who covers that impact fee? I was watching a can I was watching a commissioners meeting and Utilities said, well, the public's going to cover that. Is that the way it's going to be? I think I saw that one. So there, in this area, portable water is covered by, it's covered by a Charlotte Harbor Water Authority. And as a, as a service area, they're only required to plan for in their water capacity studies, the existing and planned entitlements. So at some level, they would have planned for this DRI over the last 30 years because it always showed up as at least so many units. They have their own connection fee and impact fees, but similar to what happened when Sunseeker came in, when you have a project that may have a unique or a large beaver came in, a different use than ever was contemplated, it would be that user who would pay the upgrades necessary to make that plant have the capacity necessary to serve them. Because just because I think the bigger problem is when it comes to impact fees isn't whether the impact fee is enough is whether or not the impact fee is also tied into a plan to get you there. So you pay your impact fee but if the plans are not already in place or in the works to make the upgrades necessary, you're not going to see the resulting capacity increase. And I think with respect to the county what's been happening most of that conversation has happened down on Bernstor Road where there's been a lot of development but the plant hasn't been keeping up with those expansions the county has been figuring out how to stage that. The county deals with its utilities in three areas, West County Central and Bernstore. The central plant I believe is already working through three phases up to 16 million gallons per day of wastewater. So there the county is already well on its way and has way and has likely enough capacity to serve this site at full build out but it would still be required to pay the impact fees to the county to make that to help facilitate that. And of course anytime someone's paying impact fees they're paying impact fees or connection fees and the with respect to Charlotte Harbor Water then, then those are fees towards the plant and capacity increases that do not have to be borne by the ratepayers. The existing ratepayers. So just to continue that, just a little bit. I do know that the East Coast Port campus is being expanded. I think you're right. 16 million gallons of wastewater treatment per day, which would handle this development. It is already under construction. It started in February of this year. I guess merely my question is probably Mr. Collinan is that Who is paying for that expansion at this point in time? I Believe that is being borne by whatever funds are available within the CCU They're an enterprise fund and the connection fees. I just want to make a clarification We don't have utility impact. They would be connection fees, connection and capacity, but we do not have impact fees for utilities like we do for roadways, government, all those other items. So I just want to, you know, for the general public to know it's a different similar, but a different funding source. And the my understanding, and I will attest that I am not an expert in utilities, but they do not have any reserved capacity until those connection and capacity fees are paid. So on paper, it's similar to roadway capacity. If you think about Bernstor road, where on paper the entitlements may already be tripping concurrency related items, but the actual rubbers not hitting the road. Same thing here. On paper, and that's why as new customers come on, they pay into it. That payment then gets us moving to our next phases of improvements so that it's ready as time goes on for all those developments. Does that make sense to everybody? All right. Okay. Any other questions from the board for the applicant? Okay. Thank you. I have a couple of questions for staff. The development order, the DRI, that does not expire. Some rules can change by state of statute, so they have to do different things, but the DRI exists, does not expire, still have rights involved with their DRI. In general speaking yes but I try to answer very specific question because there is a DVRM order expire February 2025 but however the applicant requested revisions to DVRM order since 2022. We have been reviewing the changes. So the answer to that I don't believe that is expired. Please answer the review. But their development rights continue to exist through the DRI. Now we change our zoning a little bit. Our land use a little bit over the years. But a lot of their, you know, things can happen here without this meeting having to occur. Now, they have to do plat maps and stuff, but there still are things that could happen out there as development goes. Correct. They're right. What Jay was saying, I'll see if I can clarify that a little bit because under the very numerous executive orders, extending development orders due to storms that have been going on and even other natural disasters such as the COVID pandemic, the applicants can request to extend D.O.'s at this point. I don't know if any development orders permits things will ever expire if they're requested. So it's what Jay is saying is because they've already, they have put an application into us which included an extension of the date that their projects have asked. We can't say no to those executive orders regardless. We typically just wait until they come in and do something else and then update the development orders. If not, we'd be updating development orders. Honestly every year just because of the natural disasters. So in our opinion, no their their DO is still valid because by requesting the DO extension through the application to change the entitlements as well as extend the development date, where we feel comfortable with the S, they requested under the executive orders for extensions and they're still falling under those. My point kind of was that we have a hierarchy here of number of different things being a DRI The development orders within that DRI that are up tied to the land use and the zoning codes so that each step of this creates some development rights that the applicants that property owners have. So there's some things that can happen on the property that just going through a permit application stage of a construction permit application stage. And the construction could start, not what they want to build at this point maybe, but they could be building something along this corridor. Mr. Chairman. That's kind of a yes or no, I guess, but. You know, you can maybe add a little clarification. So it's not typical, especially for the public, we don't see a lot of DRIs in Charlotte County. No. We don't really see them much left in the state because the ones that are still being utilizing the process are winding down because the legislature essentially said, you don't need to do these anymore But a development a regional impact is a project that was because of its size because of it the number of units was so intense that it required a more a larger more consistent review at a statewide and with regional entities to get involved The development order itself could be abandoned the state allows for that to be abandoned, the complex and the basin title and the complex zoning would stay in place. One of the advantages of the development order is that it not only, you know, fests the rights, but it also places obligations on the property owner to conform to the requirements of that development order. Obligations which through the process going through this, these amendments may not, may no longer be supported by either state law or by Charlotte County Code. So there are requirements, some of the green space and the buffering and some of the things that are included in this development order, who wouldn't be required if the development order didn't free. So it's, I it's, you know, it's no, it's no silver boat to say, oh, the development order's expired. No, because the entitlement is certainly made, but all the obligations on the developer order might expire. So I think really the, and what Mr. Cohn was saying as well, yeah, we had the application in process, but beyond that, yet all these statutory extensions as a result of hurricanes, we haven't even tacked those on to figure out what the true extension date is. My point to the neighbors would be, you wouldn't want this to expire because then you'd still have the same developments, but just under a more condensed set of rules. Thank you. Any other discussion? I mean, or comments? Are you ready to make your... Unless you hit something? No, no. Before I make a motion, I just want to make a couple of comments if I could. I've owned property in Harper Heights for 25 years. I've lived in Harper Heights for 21 years. I had the not so good sense to stack instruction of a home about two months before Hurricane Charlie hit and that wiped that out. I volunteered in Harbor Heights for almost any public committee that needed to be done. When we needed roads, sidewalks, I was the chairman of those committees to improve the neighborhood. So I'm embedded in Harbor Heights. I have a lot of respect for the community in general. My reward for being the chairman of that committee was that my the tires of my vehicles were flattening garbage was thrown to my yard as my thanks for putting new sidewalks and roadways in Harbor Heights. It's and my thanks went to Bill Trux and Sheriff Pramal who intervened and stopped that from happening. So when I sit out here and I listen to this conversation that we're having about whether we should allow this development or not allow this development and a number of houses. I knew that 25 years ago when I came here, I knew about this development. I knew that it was an inevitable situation that was going to happen. And a gentleman get up and said that there's probably somebody at P. It had some skin in the game. And I'm sure he was referring to me because I've known him for a number of years. And I also have one of those binders that's eight inches that can have the original DRI report and that sort of thing. And it might start a good fire one day, I guess. My point in saying all of that is that I know the developer has certain rights that he is entitled to and has been entitled since 1992. The numbers have diminished significantly since that point in time. When I listen to all of this and I've got to consider the impacts that are coming and how long it's really going to take to build this portion out. We're talking East Village and the overall development order. I see that being ten years since since 1992. So, you know, who knows when it will really get built out. I see that the developer has actually listened to everybody that came here in previous meetings and is looking into improving the traffic situation at the school. The water situation in the sewer, the county is expanding the sewer plan. I see a lot of positive things moving forward. Oh am a guy and I'll say it straight out. I am a pro development person. I am in favor of good development. I don't see, there might be a different discussion concerning the West Village, but as far as the East Village and the North Village go, I see that as reasonably good development to occur in the area. So I'm going to make a motion to move there along to the Board of County Commissioners and we're looking at LAD 25-02. Is that the motion we're looking for? So I'm going to make a motion to forward application 22-LAD-00000000007 in LAD 25-02. The Board of County Commission was a recommendation of approval based on the findings and analysis on the staff report, date of March 25th, 2025. Charlotte County's comprehensive plan and evidence and testimony presented at the public hearing before appointing his zoning board. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Say nay. So that goes forward to the BCC with a recommendation for approval. You have another... In the second motion, we're at003 correct? PD 25-03. Okay. Make a motion to forward application PD-25-0015 and PD 25-03. There are board of county commission with the recommendation of approval with conditions A through double H based on the findings and analysis of the staff report dated April 5th, 2025. Shalikonis County has a plan in the evidence and testimony presented at the public hearing before the planning is only boarded. Second. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? All in favor, the motion say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. It goes forward to the DCC with a recommendation for approval. Do we have another presentation for item five on the agenda? Can we take a small break? Yes. Okay, five minute recess. you you Oh I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna sure if I can do it. I'm not sure if I can do it. I'm not sure if I can do it. I'm not sure if I can do it. I'm not sure if I can do it. I'm not sure if I can do it. I'm not sure if I can do it. I'm not sure if I can do it. I'm not sure if I can do it. I'm not sure if I can do it. Music [♪ OUTRO MUSIC PLAYING [♪ music I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go back to the hotel. I'm gonna go back to the hotel. I'm gonna go back to the hotel. I'm gonna go back to the hotel. I'm gonna go back to the hotel. I'm gonna go back to the hotel. I'm gonna go back to the hotel. I'm gonna go back to the hotel. I'm gonna go back to the hotel. I'm gonna go back to the hotel. I'm gonna go back to the hotel. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm gonna go home. I'm sorry. I'm I'm going to be, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm not a man, I'm Thank you. Okay, we're back in session. We're starting going back to item number five on our agenda, please. Good afternoon again for the record, J. Schell, applicants are requesting TCP-204. It's a little bit long history. Actually this original revisions to the complex was presented to planning zoning board in February 2023. Actually that was presented, you can see they're transmitting hearing last June 11th. We are going to present the final version of revisions to how to review the RIPD. We think maybe it's a good idea to represent the complinement of the newpeViewDI. And the proposed changes is to amend future land use, FluM Pandex 6, the Environmental Regional Impact HoppeViewDI by removing permitted pubic marine land use to the right and increasing the total minimum acreage of open space preservation and recreation uses to 226.55 acres and also updating notes to remove notes number one for the West Village residential and to revise and re-number notes number two, to new notes number one one to reflect a new land use e-crimson matrix. I just mentioned to this specific for Harborview DRI project and it's located in commission district one and you can see this area this is just very familiar. I think the other changes and PD is only and the screen, this is specific changes on the screen. And because in Shark County Comprehensive Plan, we always use future land use appendix 6 to document all the DIs. We have seven active DIs to document the different rights for each of the DI's. So I want to see this steps for financial opinion that proposed tax amendment general consistent with sections 163-3177 for the laws and various goals, objective and policies established in Shower County comprehensive plan and insurer county code of laws and ordinance, and other applicable guidelines in addition are different rights within the R.I. insurer county are required to be adopted in the county's comprehensive plan. So I'd be more than happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Okay, any questions for the staff? Okay. Is this just a land use change? Does the applicant have anything or is this applicant this? The applicant, because they have multiple. Okay, requested. Afternoon, Jim, friends with our guy planning. Let's get a architecture. We don't have a presentation on this one today. This is implementing the changes that we talked about. Okay. We're available for any questions. Okay, thank you. Any questions for the applicants represented? Okay. Thank you. So we'll open up a public comment. Anyone wish to speak on this petition? Please come forward. Hi, Dreama do a little harbor heights. I want to get a few more points in that I didn't get last time. In its memorandum to to the board, staff states that in their professional opinion, the proposed tax amendment does not create negative impacts on the county's infrastructure, such as roadways and utilities, and it minimizes the impacts on surrounding existing residential and future residential neighborhoods. The additions of a buck is, we'll do quite the opposite in regard to the impacts on the roadways utilities and existing residential neighborhoods. The mere fact that this development is defined as a development of regional impact by definition clearly indicates that it has major impacts on the safety and welfare of surrounding communities. That is the definition, the Florida State definition. Buckeys are generally built outside of populated areas. I don't know of one in the state of Florida. I believe there's three and a fourth on the way that has been built in a residential area up by Ocala. The news reports that FDOTOTS building a new interchange to accommodate the buckies, do the traffic increase it's going to be up there. And the parking that goes with this buckies destination requires an enormous amount of impervious pavement. And yet I see in this submittal that they're asking for a variance to lessen the spacing of the island plantings between the parking spaces from 10 that's required to expand those spaces to 15. And the island plantings are probably the only green space within this building and the in the impervious area, this whole lot. And I'm wondering if variances and special cases have to go in front of the board of zoning appeals to be approved for that. And I hope that if that is true, that the proper protocol will be taken to do that and also that they will make sure that this development maintains at least a 20% green space to help lessen the impacts. The memorandum also claims that the proposed development will increase the minimum acreage for the open space from 136 to 226 acres. Well, that is a fact. The prior approval for the 136 acres should never have been passed. The wetlands alone on the property are 165 acres. And it's very hard to build on a wetlands and to get that permitted. And the scrub J habitat is reported to be 122 acres, which half of that has to be preserved. So that adds up to 226 acres. This is not an improvement. This is a requirement. I don't care how pretty you try to make it sound as to what you're doing is improving the situation. It's required to be done. So I just wish that staff would you're not going to quit spinning it as a plus and be honest about how it's required in mandatory to follow the rules. And because of these two changes, it's claimed that the proposal is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies set forth in the comprehensive plan. And it just appears that there has not been sufficient due diligence in the facts being brought to this board. This is a development of regional impact and all the items need to be scrutinized and analyzed. Not just rubber stamped for approval. It's the board's responsibility to require that. just because the developer says, oh, it's not going to affect people. Well, yeah, it is. Where's the analysis? You know, where's the traffic impacts that he updates? Where's the analysis that was done? There's been no analysis. It's just been said and this has been said. And enhancing the compatibility with harbour, it does not. We're all single family residential. Everything around that there's one multi-family apartment building on the very, very northwest tip of the north village. That's it. Everything else is single family. So this does not fit into that area at all. And they're claimed that they're not increasing the density, they're not requesting to increase the density. How could they? They did that in 2010. They increased it threefold. You couldn't put another apartment or a dwelling unit on that property if you tried, especially with all the coastal high hazard area and everything that's all the restrictions on that. So I just think that it's been played up. These changes more than they really are. Thank you. Hi Laura Johnson again. I just want to say please don't approve this. Thanks. Mike, do a little again. I just want to reiterate what they said. But I just cannot see how you can use something from 2010 when there have been so many changes to the area. And you talk about the, they have rights. Well, if you make a right in 1900 and everything changes to 2025, the rights change too. You can't go by the same right you did 15 years ago, because so it's been so much changes. There's been flooding. There's been a lot more construction in here. So things have changed since then. It seems like at least things should be updated to 2025 before you guys make some kind of decision that's going to affect all of us forever. Thank you. I'm going to go to the next one. Dick discussed the east village. Is that what we're talking about now? No, all we're talking about is a text amendment for the comprehensive plan for the land use map. OK. OK. All right, because the last episode, like we're talking about the traffic. No, this. No, I just want to say that that area east getting off the four lane anything going into that area where the buck is that we're not discussing would go is left hand turn. You've talked about widening hard reviewed for a-hand turn signal or turn lane to get northbound on 75. But the day's going to come and that's going to need to be around about not another left-hand turn because there's just not enough room there. You know, like a turn lane is nice and you can get 10, 12, 15 cars in there but you can't get more than that. I wish you could vote it down. Make a motion, we close public comment. Second. Hang on, just a second. My name is Tyler Peterson. I'm a resident of deep creating here on several properties and harbor heights as well. I just wanted to clarify the original zoning of this area was intended to be city center. Is that correct? In the in the comp plan, those are original intended use. I saw that on slides earlier. Said city center, mixed use. I was just arguing. It's the RIMX use. The future NAND use map designation is DRI mixed use. I was just arguing that a buck used would be almost borderline and industrial use. And thus not compatible with mixed use. I use. Big fan of Benderson, love what they've done with UTC, that whole area. You specifically don't see a buckies next to UTC. It is not a compatible use in any way. I'm not sure if the item you guys are talking about now even has anything to do with the buckies. No, it we're just letting people talk for no reason Okay, great. Well, thank you I Yeah, I have a motion then the second to close the public comment Any discussion all the favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Public comment and time is closed. Mr. Chairman, I'll move a motion to forward TCP-22-04 to board a county commission with the recommendation of approval. Based on the findings and analysis on the comprehensive plan, comprehensive planning staff memor staff member, and April 5th, 2025, and the evidence and testimony presented at the public hearing before the planning and zoning boy. I have a motion in the second. Any discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, say aye. Any opposed, say nay. That goes forward to the BCC with recommendation for approval Okay, next item on the agenda are these Three the last three items are they all together? Yes, you're going to make one presentation for all three Okay, we're done. Good afternoon for the record, Jay-Shall Community Development Department. I have been sworn in and my planning expert qualification is attached to staff report as Executive One. Tab and waterfront VLIGI LLC is requesting applications PL-23-0004 and PS-24-0002 and PD-24-08. The transmittal hearing for PL-23-0004 which is a large large-scale plan amendment, is scheduled for May 27, 2025, and all three applications are scheduled to be presented to the board on July 22 for their adoption hearing. The requested large scale plan amendment is to amend Shar County Fumzee's map number 3, 2030 service area, the Indonesian map to extend the urban service area boundary to include 14.52 acres of the property and also to amend and Shar County from Series Map number two, 2050 framework from Agriculture Rule to revitalizing neighborhood for approximately 11.51 acres of the property and to manage neighborhood for approximately 3.01 acres. And then the requested small scale plan amendment is to amend Shara County Fruits Series map number one, 2030, Fusion and New's map from preservation PR for approximately 11.01 acres and products and recreation for approximately 8.57 acres and low-density residential for approximately 0.75 acres to high-density residential for approximately 11.05 acres and preservation for approximately 9.28 acres. The applicant also requested a rezoning from Immaram Institute's sensitive ES for approximately 9.74 acres, products and recreation for approximately 3.51 acres and residential single family 3.5 for approximately 0.75 acres and residential multi-family five for approximately 1 approximately 1.27 acres and commercial tourist for approximately 5.06 acres to plan development. In order to allow for residential development up to 156 units and if the board approves this PD, reason all this application, it is required to transfer a density of 152 units to reach the maximum of 156 units. And the applicant is also requesting to adopt a general PD concept plan. The subject property is located in commission district 5. and then notification of public hearings for these reapplications was sent to the property owners and adjacent property owners within 1,000 feet of the subject property. The subject property is located in the Portshark area and in the MIP County area you can see on the screen. And this is the area image of the subterge property at mid-range. You can see this located southwest of the US 41 north of the Peace River. So this is actually the subterge property. You can see the subterge property generally located north of the Peace River south of Edgewater Drive and west of Bayshore Road and east of Lester Street. And the property contains Shard Harbor Yacht Club and some vacant parcel. And now on the screen, this is 2030 service area, Dignity Nation Map. So the majority of the area for the proposed residential development except for the existing yacht club is located in the rural service area. So these areas, rural service area, only the existing yacht club is located inside urban service area. So these areas were service area only the existing yacht club is located inside the urban service area. And this is the 2050 framework map. Obviously the property located outside urban service area. So we gave them a designation as agriculture rule. And again the existing yacht club is designated as designated as Reviderized Neighborhood. And this is the existing future land use map designation. You can see the property designated as preservation and parks and recreation. And this is existing zoning designation. There are various zone, there are ESRMF5 and CT and PKR. Sorry, CT. Yes, RMF5 and CT. Now I would like to provide a brief history of the subject property. You can see parcel 17 and 18 were owned by Sharah County and used as a park before. So on September 16th, 2008, the board approved the small scale plan amendment for a portion of lots, 17 and 18 from medium density residential to partisan regression for approximate reacres and for the preservation for approximate 3.3 acres. So this was the future Indian youth map designation, Prime 2008. So you can see this is the database preservation and the portion of last 17 and last 18, there are media against the residential. And then they will change the board of proof that small scale plan amendment. So as of today, it's preservation for, for parcel 17 and parcel of 18 at the PPR. The purpose of that application was to ensure that future maintenance and use map designation. Designations are consistent with the onsite wetland and the use of the property as a county park. So that's what the reason the board approved the small scale plan amendment back to 2008, which is show from destination. So I want to point out this map shows 1997 Urban Service Area map. The property was located inside urban service. So as part of the county's comprehensive plan rewrite in 2009 and 2010, the urban service area boundary was revised from this one, like 1997, 2010, to clearly distinguish urban from rural place based upon the plan future lane uses for the area and development limitations, such as the environmentally sensitive habitat. One of the key provisions of that revision was that those areas deemed to be particularly sensitive areas where increased density should be restricted and density should be encouraged to be removed, such as coastal area and other land that have substantial environmental sensitive land were removed from the urban service area. So placed in the rural service area. So that's the subject property action. P1718 and the portion of the preservation land which designated preservation land was perceived removed from the urban service area. So, and also I try to point out the entire subject property except for the Marina basin. The entire subject property is located in the tropical storm surge of the coastal has a area. Also the subject property is located in the flood zones 9AE, 10AE and 12AE. On the screen, it shows the proposed expansion of the proposed service area to include the entire subject property. I tried to point out these steps, professional opinion, that a proposed expansion meets one urban spraw indicator that it fails to encourage a functional mix of uses. The proposed is pure residential development, up to 156 units, and also incorporate the existing Yacht Club. Any addition, this proposed expansion is associated residential development only achieves three criteria of a development pattern urban form regarding discouraging the profil the development only achieves three criteria of a development pattern or urban form regarding discouraging the, cannot pronounce it, I mean, lack of the urban sport to discourage that. It is staff's professional opinion that proposed change to increase the residential development rights from four units for the site to 156. It's now consistent with county comprehensive plan, such as goals, objective, specifically related to development in the coastal high hazard area. Our specific goal is try to move the population constitution away from coastal high hazard area. And also for this subject property, there is no established vision or intent in the comprehensive plan supporting this proposed project. So it is steps professional opinion that allowing the proposed development would set a president of allowing more intense development on the upland portion of this property rather than protecting and preserving this land which are located in the rural service area and are designated as preservation on the 2030 future land use map. So I just point out to the map which we did as part of the comprehensive rewrite. So we went through all the property in Shah Rakhani. So we moved the property inside urban service area to move that outside urban service area. Even for this case, it's kind of in weird situations, all of those urban, but this is in the rural service area. The key purpose of that action is try to make sure that we are not increased direct rights for that property. It can be better protect and preserve the property is designated as preservation. So on screen, you can see this is proposed framework. If the border proves extension of the urban service area, you need to have the flume destination. So one flume destination is extended that revisation for these areas proposed for residential development and also the mansion neighborhood because the preservation area will remain the same, no change to this portion. This portion of the property. So this is a proposed flume designation. You can see the change. The portion is for high density residential and high density residential and this is the preservation. And on the screens show the proposed general PD concept plan. So I tried to point out if the board chose to approve the request changes, I would like to address some PD, proposed PD conditions. So in order to achieve, first I want to talk about the base density of the property. So in order to achieve the proposed development up to 156 units, the proposed PD-conditioned F addressed that a total of 152 density units must be transferred onto the property. And those transferred density units must come from the chopping stone surge of the coastal high hazard area and from 9 A E and 10 A E or.E. are more restrictive FEMA flood zones. So that's it's PD condition have been drafted. And the second question, I second see I want to talk about the site wetland. So a habitat management plan is proposed as part of our PD condition K to make sure that on site wetland identified on the general PD council plan shall be restored and preserved in perpetuity. And as part of these PD condition staff recommended at a minimum of 25 foot buffers required along all wetland. We understood that the county article 15 of the county code, the service water and protection requires that the buffer shall be a minimum of 15 feet in width. But we asked for minimum is 25. Because we really want to protect our site wetland. However, I believe the applicant, the property owner, does not accept the 25 foot minimum minimum width of the buffer requirement. So it's a board decision whether they will agree with the staff's proposed PD condition. The minimum buffer is 25 feet in width, or the applicant's proposed they wanted the average of 25, but instead of minimum. And also the proposed PD condition T is proposed to address shelter requirement, which will require that the developer to pay $135.9 per resident unit as a monetary contribution pursued to the coastal policy, coastal element, policy 3.2.4, application for development between the coastal high hazard area and free board, the P.D. condition H is proposed that the first habitat floor elevation for this project shall be at least two feet above but no more than three feet above the ground lowest minimum habitat floor elevation for which a building permit may be issued for multi-familist structure. They are proposed to make sure to promote and the flooding reasonings. So they propose have elevated structures. So the subject property is subject to regulation section 3-988, waterfront property, which the maximum heights of residential structure are 35 feet. However, section 3-9-45, the PD code, allows that for every square footage of the floor, over 35 feet in height, a corresponding outdoor pervious open spaces required to be provided. So this is a graphic show they do. In this case, the applicant is requesting approval of building heights for the proposed six buildings to a maximum height of 65 feet. So corresponding amount of additional outdoor open space is approximately 6.06 acres that were provided for this project. And also they will provide based on the 20% open space in addition. 20% open space will also be provided. So the map is shown in the required open space and additional open space. So therefore based on staff review of the project, it is staff's professional opinion, both the large-scale plan amendment and the small-scale plan amendment is generally not consistent with the county's conference plan and section 163-317 for the law and shall the county's code of laws and the ordinance and any other applicable guidelines. If the board approves the associated large scale plan amendment and small scale plan amendment, it is that opinion that the PD-resonant application general consistent with PD-conditioning A through V, general consistent with the county's comprehensive plan, and the county's code of law and ordinance and any other applicable guidelines. So I believe the applicant agrees with all proposed PD conditions, except for condition K related to what and the buffer. So I'd be more than happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Any questions for staff? Not at this time. So we'll have the applicants representative come forward. Good afternoon. My name is Michael Hamons. Michael Peagham is attorney in law, P.A. And I represent the applicant, Tarpen Waterfront Village LLC. The, we have a team here for you in order to address the items of the proposal and to address Michelle's objections and concerns that she had addressed for us. I want to start out with however the important part. And that is what in the world happened here that we would consider this rural. I've been involved in the Conference of Lanyard's Plan in Charlotte County since 1988. I was on the committee that helped put it together and draft it. And we were driven at the time to identify urban service area versus rural areas for a purpose, for a reason. Because the comprehensive land use plan is supposed to drive the capital improvements plan so that we have infrastructure in place for development as it comes. It's a timing issue. It's in order to force the county to deal with its budgetary process. And so one of the things that one of the key ingredients is you put the urban service area because that's where you can provide the services. That's where the sheriff's department is. That's where the schools are. That's where the roads are. That's where the sewers and the water exist. This is where all of these urban services are. If you put them way out in the hinterland, then that causes Urban sprawl you leapfrog out to do things and it becomes more expensive to do that. Well what we have here is a this was a made up idea that this is rural because the county bought the property in order to make a park. But the park didn't exist. It never came into being. It was there next to Dockler's property, which the YMCA had. And it had some uses that were park-like through them. the county and its acquisition, obtained the property, changed it, parks and wrecks, made it rural, which was a made up thing. I mean, that's nothing rural about Charlotte Harbor at Edgewater and 41. There's nothing rural about it. And all of the infrastructure is already in place. As a matter of fact, it's the exact opposite of urban sprawl. It is urban infill. From this location, you can walk to Walgreens and CVS. You can walk to Publix to the grocery store. I'm not talking about getting your car in ride. I'm talking about you can walk there. You can walk to the liquor store. You can walk to the Cancer Care Center that's on the corner of Bay Shore and Edgewater. You can go over to the Comcast and give them a hard time about your bill. You can walk over and do it. You don't even actually have to have a car to live here. This is exactly good sustainable walkable planning to have density in here. Yes, it's in Hurricane High Hazard. It's topical storm, but we've got ways to deal with that. And we are. You've already heard some of that. And we're going to talk about it in some detail for you as we go. The team that I have here to help us walk through this is, well, I don't expect for him to speak as a matter of fact, I've asked him not to. But we have the manager of Tarpen Waterfront Village here, Jeffrey Delora. We actually have folks from the yacht club who are here, the folks in red shirts who are here in support of this application. And we have Ben Smith, land-use planner for Morris DePueh. He's here, Ben's in the back here. We have Bill Morris from Morris DePueh here. He's a civil engineer. We have Paul Owens, an ecologist who's going to talk about the preservation of the wetlands and the improvement of the wetlands, the management that's going to happen. We have Reed Fellows, our transportation engineer, and we've got Tyler Peterson, who's an architect, our architect for the site addressing this, one of the things that I want you to understand is that the county, just like the county in an earlier application for you today, took an existing ramp and made it into a park. And so they changed the zoning to parks and recs and took the land, the low density residential. They did the same thing here. This property was this good chunk of this property was medium density multifamily before the county bought it and changed it to the parks and recs and stripped the density from it. As a matter of fact we've had some conversations back before there was an ever an application about you know it might be appropriate that when we start off here that the instead of going through and buying transfer development rights which we're going to need to do to move some of that so take it from an area that's already in danger and move it so that we're not increasing that. But you know the county stripped those off and stuck them in their pocket. Just like they stripped the residential density off of that park today and stuck it in their pocket. So yes we have to have transfer development rights that are going to come here and how we get there may be through having to purchase them and it may be through otherwise but there's no doubt that we're not going to increase beyond what has already been exposed through the counties zoning and Compliance in the past to any more of what's happened there. As a matter of fact, we're talking about 156 units. Why is that important? Well, we're putting them on the upland. You know, you've already been part of a process there on Bayshore that was outside the urban service area has been brought in because Harpoon Harries was losing their place over at Fisherman's Village and wanted a new place and so it bought some property. And so y'all have been through this process already that this isn't really rural. It comes into the urban service area and we've got a lot of square feet of commercial that's been allowed this gut entitlements there on the adjacent immediately to the east of us and so it's not like we're out there in the rural areas and we're asking to change something to urban the county's already done that next to us and and they only made it rural back by by fiat because they were going to. Well, nobody wanted to be a park there. And as a matter of fact, it was overrun by homeless, drug use, and nuisance that the neighborhood got fed up with, got, were really upset about, and went, when the county sold it after not developing developing it as a park they were happy about that. We had a community meeting it's one of the things that that responsible development goes comes in and says everybody within a thousand feet come and let's talk about it and we did it early on so that they would understand what this program was and we We did it at the yacht club. Yacht club's been there for over 50 years. Miss Shaw said, this is a single use circumstance. It's not. The reason that the yacht club was purchased was in order to provide a continuing yacht club, which, although it's not open to the public, it's quasi-public because it's a yacht club. And people come there, they become members, there's a basin that's been approved there. I mean, it's access to the water. We're trying one of our complinen requirements and ideas is that we're supposed to increase the ability of people to get to the water to use our great natural resources that we've got. We have a basin. We've got a yacht club. This is going to be a facility and a minute for these 156 residential uses. But it's also going to continue to be a yacht club. And so it's going to be a mixture of uses. It's got that commercial tourist that's already part of it. So this notion that we're a single use is just simply not true. There are some technical ways that you can say that, but the reality of it, the common sense, the approach to it, and the real way that it's going to work work on the ground is that it's a mixture of uses that includes recreational facilities for this particular group. It's not rural. Every bit of this screams urban and it screams it because it has all of the infrastructure in place already. This is not urban sprawl. This is a misidentification of something as rural. And so don't be misled about that and recommend approval on the change in the urban service boundary. Bring us back into the USA, OK? Isn't that fun? Isn't that fun? We'll say that. Bring us back into the USA. That we are in the urban service area because that's urban services that are available. Once we want you there and we've got to be something, well what did we do? We looked at it and said we want to preserve every bit of the wetlands on there except for the one place where we've got to come from Lister Street because we don't have access otherwise. We have frontage on Lister Street and so we're entitled to access our property. And so we've got a long environmental permitting phase that we've got to go through. But we've also as part of the plan development that we've agreed to as conditions, is we're going to upgrade all of the wetlands. We're going to take, and it's a fairly impacted wetlands. I mean, I've been in there. I don't know if you all do that kind of thing when you get ready to think about a piece of property, but I go get on it. I get my, put my boots on and I go way through, and I walk through all of it it's a fairly degraded wetlands But it's a good wetlands to enhance and preserve and we're going to save every bit of it The question on the PD that that Jay has is that is that because we're trying to put everything out of the wetlands and stay on the Uplands that in order for make this economically sound We we were cramming stuff right onto all the uplands, not getting off into the wetlands. And some of that out of the six buildings that are there, we're going to increase the above board so that we're out of the flood designation. And then it's multi-story. And we're keeping the units so that we stay within the 65 feet. And so we've put away all kinds of open space for you, for us, for the community, for the critters. And I think it's a good idea. I mean I've been here since 1960. I've been involved in development. I've been against development. I know developments that didn't make it. The tag lakeside thing. They didn't have water ensuer. They're way out. They're almost to Arcadia and and yet considered in the urban service area but they didn't have water ensuer. We've got that. The the let me stop and I'm going to reserve some time at end of all this but but let me go ahead and ask for Lindsay our Lindsay Rodriguez is his here and she's with Morris to pew and she's the one that put together our slide presentation and You're gonna do speaker has been coming up first you just run in the show there. Okay Ben Smith is going to come up and talk to you about he's our planner we do have everybody's resume and as they come up they're going to present themselves I've been doing land use planning and litigation and presentations since 1982 and I would ask you to consider me to be an expert in land use planning also. But we've got Ben Smith who that's what he does every day day in and day out for a everyone. Ben Smith with Morris to de Pue Associates. I'm director of Planning at Morse de Pue. First off just a little bit about myself. I was sworn by the way. Thank you for that accommodation for us tall folks. So yeah, a little bit about myself. I am six foot five. And also I've been working in planning and zoning for 18 years now, 12 of which I've been ASCP certified. Most of that time has been working in a consulting capacity for local governments. I've worked in a staff capacity, preparing staff reports, doing things like that. So first of all, I say that because we really appreciate how much time and effort goes in to these things from a staff standpoint. And we genuinely do really appreciate everything that staff has done to get this to this point. And I say that because we do have, as Michael Aiman said, there are some things we're not completely aligned on with staff here. So with that, I just want to give an overview of the future land use map changes. As you can see on the existing map here, the property directly to the north, butting our subject property, it is already designated high density residential. It is a multi-family development. And the plan is to extend that designation south onto the subject property. So what that does is not only is consistent with that existing high-ven city residential that is already there, but it also provides a transition of intensity between the commercial property that was recently approved to the east, as well as the single-family residential that is existing to the west. The other thing we're asking for is to modify the existing preserved designation. So right now you'll see that it follows parcel lines. The property owners committed to preserving all of the wetlands, as Michael Hammett said, so that area is going to be extended in some cases, in due areas where it doesn't currently exist, onto areas that are mapped as wetlands by our ecologists. And in other areas, the plan is to designate it as high density residential which will allow for the companion plan development rezoning application to aggregate that density and cluster it in the upland areas. And so that's all mapped. We have the uplands map, the wetlands map, and this strategy is actually, it's not a new strategy. We didn't think of it. It's actually the same exact thing that the property to the east did. You can see there wetland lines are mapped with this preserved designation and that was approved by the county not long ago. So we thought if it worked there, it can work for this site as well. Next slide please. So Michael Hamon stole a lot of thunder when he talked about the rural service area but he talked about it from a common sense perspective. He's absolutely right. This area is clearly not rural. It's urban, it's been urban. The entire area around it is urban, but I want to point out, and this is in our narrative, in our application. We have a thorough analysis of this. I won't believe we're all of that for you here today in an interest of time, but this property meets all the criteria for the urban service area designation. So you have criteria in the conference of plan. We went through those one by one, we have that, we've demonstrated that. And it does not meet the description, the county's description, and your conference of plan, it does not meet that description for a rural area. So based on that alone, what we're asking for is to correct an inconsistency, what we identify as an inconsistency and to remove this enclave that exists right now in your mapping. You know the other part of this of that actually go back, Lindsay, please. Part of that is this is a long analysis. A staff did a pretty good analysis, mostly finding that the property meets all of the indicators or sorry, does not meet all the indicators of urban sprawl and the county has 13 of those and staff found that we meet the definition of infill basically all except for one, which is that it fails to encourage a functional mix of uses. However, we would submit that it does encourage and provide a functional mix of uses. Firstly, it's not a requisite to provide onsite commercial with the residential in order for the project to encourage and mix of uses. The project location is in an area of the county that is already mixed use with service commercial, retail, medical, institutional uses all within walking distance and is adjacent to property recently approved for commercial use. So the viability and success of commercial uses generally is supported by having more dwelling units nearby and supported by the residents of those units. So with that, a butting property being approved for commercial use, though hasn't developed yet as a commercial project, I would submit that allowing for residential units on this property would support and encourage that mix of uses to occur and allow for that commercial development to realize. Additionally, as Attorney Hamons pointed out, the project is proposing a pretty substantial residential amenity package. Honestly, for a 156-development unit or a project, this type of amenity package is fairly rare. You have a clubhouse with a marina, a huge tennis court area, a new gym being proposed, all these things to support this community, which most projects coming in of this size would not have that type of a package that they're proposing with it. So just wanted to point out that that in itself bringing in those residential manatees does represent a mix of uses and that we categorically disagree with the characterization that it is a single use residential development. Next slide please. Approval of the Urban Service Area designation requires the neighborhood framework designation to be amended because the current designation of agricultural rural can only be used for properties located in the rural service area. So therefore the applicant is requesting a change to the neighborhood framework map. the designations that are proposed were directed by staff and we are in agreement with staff's assessment for the revitalizing neighborhood and managed neighborhood designations. So we don't have anything really, I won't belabor this, we're in agreement with staff and these are just designations that have to occur as a matter of course with the other change that we're proposing. Next slide please. Again, our application narrative provides in-depth analysis of the consistency of all three of these applications with the county's conference plan. In the interest of everyone's time, I'm not going to restate all of that analysis, but do want to hit a few major points. The existing land use and zoning designations are outdated and do not promote infill of the property. So in order for this to be a successful infill project, in order to discourage urban sprawl in other areas of the county. This designation will, these designations will support that. In addition, the preservation future land use designation is being placed on all wetlands consistent with the plans described in tent of that policy. Next slide, please. We provided in our application and staff also provided some analysis of the criteria that the floor statute provides for urban sprawl. We are mostly in agreement with staff's analysis, except that I do want to add a few points to that. So creating a waterfront development in an urbanized area of the county, providing clustering of density on uplands, and it's going to preserve the environmental sensitivity of land areas and avoid adverse impacts to natural resources and ecosystems. So from construction to occupation the project is going to provide the county with economic growth. And as discussed previously the project creates a balance of land uses providing additional support to the existing and planned commercial uses in the area contributing to the walkable mixed use context of the area. Next slide, please. So throughout the staff reports, staff was able to cite one goal and one objective that in the county's comprehensive plan that in their opinion the proposed amendments are not consistent with. These are coastal planning, goal three, and coastal planning objective 3.2. I'd like to discuss goal three and the related objectives and policies to address staff's concerns, and I'll add that Bill Morris is going to be presenting next to provide additional testimony and context from an engineering standpoint. the staff staff report, staff site, a portion of a sentence from goal three and a portion of a sentence from objective 3.2 without providing any of the context of the policies that implement that goal and that objective. Next slide, please. While the intent is to limit density intensity in the CHHA as stated in the goal The implementation of that intent is realized in the subsequent policies which provide for the county's transfer of density program So that program is what we have to do and that's how we're going to be consistent with this goal. So anyway, these requests are consistent with coastal planning goal three and the related objectives and policies. As you can see, they set up the ability for the transfer intensity that as part of the plan development condition, we are going to have to adhere to as part of this project. So next slide please. I'm not going to belabor this. All of this analysis is in our narrative. Next slide please. Next next So for context the county already approved a very similar request for transfer of density In the coastal high hazard area very near to this project and in that case the county found that that project was consistent with coastal planning goal three so Similar project in the coastal high-hazard area utilizing transfer of density as is as is required by your comp plan I would submit this as a very similar request and to be honest we're just confused as to why that project was consistent, but an artist is not in staff's opinion. So we're having trouble finding the differences there. Next slide, please. I want to point out that condition H for the plan development and these are staff's proposed conditions. We have no problem with this condition. It states that in order to accommodate free board to improve flood resilience of the project, the first habitable floor elevation for this project shall be at least two feet above, but not more than six feet above. The lowest minimum habitable floor elevation for which a building permit may be issued. So the important part of that is that the first finished floor of this project of all the new residential development that's being built is going to have to be at least 2 feet above the lower, what you have to permit at. So FEMA, you're going to have to be at least 1 foot above FEMA, we'll have to be at least two feet higher than that. So based on that alone, this project will meet and all of the modern building requirements. This project is going to meet or exceed all county, state, and federal requirements for modern coastal construction. So do the modern standards and the proposed conditions of the Plan Development, this development will be far more resilient than the majority of the existing nearby development. Next slide, please. I think here again, we have, we've established in our narrative how we meet the rezoning criteria. If there's any questions about that, we'd be happy to address, but I'm not gonna go into all that here. Same with the plan development criteria, we provide a analysis of that in our narrative. Next slide, please. You already seen the general concept plan that we've prepared clustering of the residential, the proposed residential buildings in the Uplands. There's a, I don't know if it was mentioned before, but if you can't see it, there is a boardwalk that is being proposed to connect the residential to the amenities that will allow for the residents to walk to these amenities without having to get out on the list or without having to take a car. And the boardwalk itself provides a pretty great recreational amenity, I would say. And here you can also see the access from the listar that Tony Hamins mentioned at the north end of the plan. Next slide, please. Through the preservation, clustering, and buffering, over half of this site is going to be open space. There are some areas here where we're showing the green and light green colors to demonstrate the minimum requirements being met, but in reality, even more of the site will be open space. The buffers surrounding the proposed fitness center and some other areas will also be open space. So we just wanted to point that out. Next slide, please. So last one, we do have letters of availability from service providers. As an example here, this is a letter that we received in the Charlotte Harbor Water Association. And that concludes my presentation. I'm happy to come back up to answer any questions if you have them. Thank you. And our next speaker will build bill moors. Good afternoon. For the record of bill moors with Morse to P.O.S.O. See it's a professional engineer licensed in the state of Florida. I have been accepted as an expert in civil engineering in numerous jurisdictions throughout the state of Florida. I'm relatively certain I have been by this body as well in the past, but out of an abundance of caution I'll ask to be accepted as such here today. I have also been sworn Next slide, please So as you heard from staff's presentation this project We acknowledge is located in a flood zone in the coastal high hazard area. This slide shows an excerpt from the FEMA Firm map, the flood insurance rate map that illustrates zones AE9 and AE10 are the areas of interest where the developable portions of the project where the buildings are going to be placed on the site. There are some other flood zones that are further to the south on the property. However, those will not will not be developed by any habitable structures. And as such, are not particularly relevant to the to the conversation about the coastal high hazard area. As you have heard numerous occasions development in the coastal high hazard area does require some additional consideration and believe we believe and have this project has been designed to take those considerations into account and has addressed them in a remarkable way. As you've heard from the testimony that Mr. Smith had just offered, the project addresses goal three of the coastal planning element quite definitively. And we want to go through a few slides to demonstrate how that has occurred or how that has been accomplished. Next slide please. This slide illustrates or lists if you will, some characteristics about the project and about what it is that the design is intended to accommodate. The existing grade on the site ranges from about elevation 0.5 to about 5.7 depending on where you are. Obviously the upland area is going to be closer to to the latter part of that range, the higher end. and average of the existing grade for the available portion or for the portion where the buildings are being proposed is Browned elevation 3 to elevation 4 where and again the theme of base flood elevation ranges between elevation 9 and 10 depending on where you are within that area. The coastal high hazard area for tropical storm ranges from elevation 3.15.7 for category 1 storm 4.5 to 6.6 and you'll see towards the bottom I won't read them all just because it's been a long day for everybody. The the slosh map which is a model that's created by NOAA that is intended to estimate a worst-case scenario for hurricane stages and how they are accounted for relative to existing ground level, not proposed with existing ground level. Next slide please. Why is this relevant? So want to illustrate for you how all these different elevations correlate to the first habitable floor elevation, which is shown on the graphic at elevation 22.5. That is where, so the buildings that are proposed or that are anticipated or contemplated as a part of this project will be elevation building over parking. Where parking average parking lot elevation is at elevation 7.5. So it's at an elevation higher than a large portion of the design storms or model storms that are concerned of the coastal high hazard area. By elevating it that way, it will, in essence, take that portion out of the concern of the coastal-ass area within the confines of that little island that we're creating there. And you can see that the different ranges of things that we're illustrating here, where slosh for cat 1 through cat 5 ranges up to elevation 13 plus where the minimum finished habitable floor elevation is above all of those. And therefore, we are satisfying pretty remarkably the flood protection requirements for this proposed design. I did want to clarify one thing that Mr. Smith did note. The condition that staff has offered about providing finished floor at a range between plus two above base flood up to but no higher than plus six is acceptable to us. However, we want to be clear that as long as the maximum height measured from plus six is extended for that range of height. In other words, we're We're not penalized if we want to extend the building the finished floor height. In other words, we're not penalized if we want to extend the building, the finished floor height for the first habitable floor above that. As long as that is acceptable to the board then, and I think this doesn't pose any issue. And it would not elevate the building above the maximum height there? Currently in this it's depicted as it depends on where relative to the chart. On the chart what's the height? On the chart it is at 71.0. 71.0. I can't see it. What's the maximum height there? Currently in this it's depicted as it depends on where relative to the chart. What's the height? On the chart it is at 71.0. Thank you. Yes sir. The condition that's offered by staff would put it somewhere between if it's at plus two, depending on which base flood location you're in, it would be either elevation 76 or 77, or if it's plus six, it would be at 80 or 81. Just to clarify. Next slide, please. Other concerns that we've heard about are about the stormwater management and how the development of the project would impact the drainage patterns for any sort of stormwater runoff received from the adjacent properties to the north principally since there is as you you can see from from contour maps the the elevations of the site are declining, are falling to the south. The existing drainage pattern shown by the blue arrows will be retained and is required to be so by the Southwest Florida Water Management District. Next slide, please. And conversely to that, the proposed development will help impede storm surge migration in London for the properties located directly to the north because of the amount of mass that's being placed between where the source of the surge would be coming from and the other properties to the north that happened to be Lower lying than what is proposed for this property There this will help protect in a small way, but in a but in a in a In a productive way Have will keep storm surge from Moving out of that area the red line that has been drawn around the project and around the access drive are, in essence, a, where a retaining wall would be located between the development and the lower lying wetland areas and preserve areas. I would also note that that same retaining wall will be a structural buffer between the development and the preserve areas. So it does account for some of the buffering that the project will make between the areas that are being utilized by the residents and the areas that are to be preserved. Next slide. I'm going to have to ask you to wrap this up. Okay, yes sir. I'm one or two slides away. Mr. Chair, just to remind the applicant the presentation is 20 minutes limitation. I think we've exceeded that. I think we're double that. So it's your whole team. Yes, or I understand. Thank you. With that, I will pass off to Mr. Polo and who is the ecologist for the project. Thank you. I'm sorry. Yeah. Mr. Heyman, you need to wrap it up. Yes, sir. So to wrap up, if I may, I do need to make one clarification from what Ms. Moore said. No matter what the graphic says, no matter what, the condition is that we accept on the PD is that we will be at least two feet above the FEMA building elevation that was permittable, at least two and no more than six. And the top of the building will not exceed 65 feet. There's don't, there was a, I'm not sure exactly where that explanation came from but there is very clear what the condition is and we can live with it whether we adjust the height of the rooms of the structures themselves or whatever. But we can still get the number of units that we need in there under that 65 feet from the measured height of what would be the required final elevation that FEMA would allow us to be at. So no matter that we're going to be up higher than that, we'll still be under 65 feet from that elevation. So don't let that confuse us at all. As I wrap up here, if I may, what Mr. Oas was going to tell you is that we've got a wetland management plan to take care of maintaining the wetlands to take the exotic invasives out. We have a, we've done the transportation engineering, this necessary. We're not causing any problems, so our transportation guy who is going to get up and that's what he was going to tell you. We meet all the levels of service. And at this point, we don't believe that there's any turn requirements, but that's a review will happen further as this moves forward. We do, number one, it's not rural. It is proctorally urban. Please recommend that and pass that along. We accept all of the conditions within the PDs except for one that we didn't get to. that is they want a staff wants a minimum of 25 feet the rules and every agency say minimum of 15 average of 25 that's what we want to live with there's a corner of a couple of buildings that because we're doing this concentration of the buildings are of the uplands that there's a couple of places where they'll be get into that buffer area at the 25 foot minimum we just need a little bit flexibility on that. Other than that this is a really good project it's going to be an addition it will help take care of a yacht club that's been through great times in the past and has great times to look forward to. And it's a development that will make a walkable community for 156 residential units with access to Charlotte Harbor. Thank you. For you walk away, any questions from the board? Mr. Heman. I've got a couple. From the presentation, I get the impression that the yacht club is being folded into this project. The yacht club, the property is owned by Tarpen Waterfront Village LLC, and the yacht club, Charlotte Harbor yacht club is a tenant with, and they're locked together, yes. But it's gonna continue as a yacht club. But I hear that it's as a clubhouse for the residents of these units. The unit owners will be members of the yacht club. Yes, sir. Okay. And the purchasers of this property, then they were aware, they bought it from the county. So they were aware of this zoning and that it was in the rural service area. Paid exactly what the county paid for it when they bought it when it was multified, yes sir. The question was that they were- Of course he was aware of the situations, okay. Okay, thank you. Other questions? Thank you. We'll open up public comment and you will have a chance to respond to that. Anyone who wishes to speak about this petition please come forward or the three petitions please come forward. Hello, I'm Steve Moore at a deep creek. I'm a member of the shard at Arbery dot club and everything that was just explained to you has been an unwavering dedication to get this project done. We do firmly believe that this will help that community. It'll help the yacht club and overall it's a very positive project so we really do appreciate your consideration on this. Thank you. Thank you. David. David. David. David. David. David. David. David. David. David. David and we were going through our financial problems. We had a meeting, Tavern Waterfront Village gave a presentation, Mr. Dolorver gave the presentation and at the end of the meeting he made sort of slide and be presentation like we've all seen today and I came away from the meeting and think wow if some of these things could get done this would be fantastic. It's a year and a half later and guess what? Every single one got done. When did you people ever leave or go with a developer that did every single thing that he said? So that's what's going to happen with this development. So I'm all in favor of it. Let's go get it. Hello, my name's Doug Shaw. I've been sworn in. I've been a member of Shalahabiyah Club since January of 2007. When I first got there, I was put on the board of directors as a treasurer. Since then, about half the time I've been there, I've been on the Finance Committee. All that time, Shalahaviyah Club has financially struggled. It was almost a miracle that it existed as long as it has. It was about to close when Toppen Village came in and purchased the property and gave us a very very very It was about to close when Toppen Village came in and purchased the property and gave us a very, very favorable lease that's affordable and allows the club to keep going. And I appreciate that and as do most of the members, I can't say all them do, but most of them do. Now as far as it be in a single use, a place it is not. I was involved in starting a use sailing call, shallow harbor use sailing program there. It's a 501C3. We started in 2010, and we run about 60 or 70 kids through there every summer. It's open to all kids. We put it on the internet. You can sign up. You got to be eight, I think, 20 or something like that. And as long as we check the younger kids, we just make sure they have the tension, span, and whatnot. And then we bring them in. They are also required to swim. And that's about the only requirements we have. We run a international regatta. It's called the Pan Am Games or the Pan Am Regatta. And it's what it is. It's in a boat called a 2.4 meter. Now that doesn't mean the length of the boat. That's the formula that's used to design the boat. It's set up for one person to sail and can be sailed by physical fit people and it can be sailed by handicapped people. The event we call it the Pan Am Games. They're people from Canada. We have people from Puerto Rico sometimes. We have people from England. We have people from Norway. They come in and it's a series. There are three different series. Two of them a week long and one of them is a three day or long-whip weekend. We allow them to keep the boats here at the club so that they can just fly in, use their boats and go sailing. Now as I said, these are boats that sail by individuals that are perfectly healthy and by handicapped. It's quite a sight to see, to go down onto the dock and see wheelchairs lined up. The boats are gone. They are artificial legs and limbs on the dock because they are not allowed to sail with them. They go out and they sail and they race with the regular ordinary completely physical and they do very well. So that's what I have to present about the Chalabhiyah Club that I am delighted that we're putting together, he's putting together this project and I hope it's successful because if it is the Yacht Club of successful if it's not there's a good chance the yacht club will not be successful. Guess it's good evening. I'm John Gowin, I live in Pena Gorda. I'm a member of the Charlotte Harbor yacht club. I agree with everything that's been said here before. TWV, whenever they purchased the property a year and a half ago, promised and delivered everything that was promised was delivered. And it was top high quality at a club, where those of you who haven't visited, is in great shape. So I would recommend it to go with TWV. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, fellow members, I'm Russ Trident, live at Edgewater Village. Condominiums right up at the head of the street, Lister and Edgewater. Live there for a few years now. As you can see, I am a member of the Yacht Club, where I got the memo. So it's something that what I think is important is the people I talk to on the street and also at the CUNNAMINIUM development. They're all pretty much involved in favor of it. They all feel it's going to be a betterment to the neighborhood, aesthetically, also value-wise. What we also enjoy is we being a member, we have a boat there. And what we also like is we can walk everywhere. We can go to the restaurants if it's done at the Yacht Club. You can go down and get a car, oil changed, and walk to it. So as far as not being an urban setting, it isn't open setting. So we strongly support it. Good afternoon. I'm Martin Holland. I have not been sworn in. Anybody else that will be speaking? Then he's be sworn in. You saw him we swear to the testimony you're about to give. Is the truth the whole truth? Not the truth. Please say I do. I do. Okay. Thank you. Committee, thank you for your time today. My name is Martin Holland. I am interesting day. I'm also a resident of Harbor Heights and Mr. Bear, I want to thank you for all you have done that you have been very big champion for us there. The other part about this is that my position with the Charlotte Harbyson Club is on their Commodore. I'm on my fourth term of being their Commodore. I have been very fortunate to have a great team with me. A lot of those individuals are here today. We have gone through pandemic. We have come out of the pandemic and we are still there. Still fighting away and still have a beautiful, amazing that we would still like to share. So one thing I would like to challenge staff on being single point use. We are a membership club but yet we also have may have seen some of you at the club for other different events. We allow that for birthday parties, weddings, retirements, quite a few things through the holidays and these types of events. We are not just a private yacht club. I thank you, Herb from Mr. Shore, who is also part of the advisory to our youth program. We do put through children, young adults from 8 to 18. We can go up to 26 so we have to or want to. The other part of this is that we're also connected with Gardemann Light. So we take it very seriously for being able to take individuals that could not afford normally to be on the water and they give them we give them the sponsorship in the time to do that. We carry those programs into from June into the start of the school year and August. I just will close by saying being Commodore of a membership club and doing it several different times. You can question my sanity some other time, but at the same point it's very rewarding, very humbling and it's been an honor. Trying to keep and utilize this property for growth and the petition is very, very important and should be directly into the same willhouse. Thank you for your time today. Thank you. My name is Michelle Irving and I own a property at 4419 cruise court and I know this is probably not going to be very popular with my neighbors. I'm about to move to Florida full time. I'm about to put hundreds of thousands of dollars into the property and I'm actually very happy that this development is coming in that area. I think as long as it meets all of the regulations with water and storm surge, I think it's going to be a cool for this area. I haven't, I don't live here full-time yet, I will very soon, but I've been coming to this area since I was a teenager, so for over 40 years and I am excited to see what's happened with Port Charlotte and I'm excited that the at-club will still be able to stay in existence. So I'm very for it being a resident and I know it's probably going to be making me not very popular in my neighborhood but I speak the truth. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank day. I mean, I guess last thing to say is I don't see anybody here in opposition. So I don't think that your neighbors are going to be upset with you. We had a community meeting and although there was a couple of people who won't be happy with anything, this is really and truly as a neighborhood that's embraced this project. Thank you. Thank you. Any questions from the board for anybody? Okay. Any discussion from the board? Well, yeah, I remember I had a question for staff. Service areas. We have the urban service area and the rural service area. Is there a third? No, sir. It's urban or rural. The urban service area rural. Rural is just a term. We've got areas along Gasparulo road that are in the rural service area, they're budding a four lane road. We have areas in South Gov. Cove all throughout the county. The reason that this was taken out of the urban service area 25 years ago, because this was removed in the 2050 plan in 2010, was due to the significant environmental issues there. a couple of things that I'd like to correct just to make sure. We did not quote pocket any density when we as the property owner did the future land use map amendment and rezone. That density was extinguished. We did not certify it. It did not become part of incentive density. We chose as property owners, just as any private property owner, to just let that density go. That density no longer exists anywhere. So I just wanted to put that out there. They know we didn't pocket it and then sell land with no entitlements. The other concern that we have is the access. J if you can go to one of the shots that shows the, the, the, the aerials, the title creek, there is no direct access onto Lister. It does front onto Lister, but they will have to bridge that title creek that goes across there. Again, the property immediately to the E.C.O.D.Y.M. Harries had come in, that was already established within the CRA, within the CRA boundaries, meaning it was determined as all the rest of the CRA properties to be a blighted area. And that was the reasons why we were not in opposition to that being brought into the urban service area. A, it had significantly more uplands, but B, it was within the CRA and the intent of a CRA is redeveloping. So there are some pretty significant differentiations here. The reason we are claiming that this is a single use, the area with the other use, the yak love is already in the urban service area. The area to be brought into the urban service area is singularly residential. And that's why we have the concerns with it being designated as sprawl. Whether we agree that this should have been in the urban service area or out, when we did the 2050 plan, which had significant community outreach, significant public participation, This area was deemed to be that it should be removed from the urban service area. And it's been that way for the past 25 years. So with that, that is why staff has made some of the statements that it has. Thank you. Mr. Chair, I think it would be appropriate to give the applicants council an opportunity to rebut those last bit of testimony. Okay. I'm sorry that it took offense at my vernacular of saying pocketed. I just meant that it disappeared someplace. There used to be a lot of density that was applicable to this property that, and so I used the term pocket. It wasn't a pejorative term needing to be defended, I don't think. So, but appreciate that. The point of it is, is that this property has been multi-family in the past. It was changed to coincide with the county's purchase of the property and they decided that it wasn't appropriate to be multi-family because they don't develop multi-family properties. They have parks and recreation. They made the change and now they want to stick to it in the face of the fact that it really, really is not rural. I mean, it goes completely against the notion of rural. And because of the PD and the combination, it does have multiple uses within the project boundaries itself. And it encourages just as the CRA, you know, I was on the advisory committee for the CRA for 15 years. And the point was not just to revitalize that area, but to be a revitalized area that rippled out across the rest of the community and provided benefits. And that's what it is done and is doing. And that's why this property is now ripe again for consideration for its residential development and conjunction with the yacht club and basin that we have there. This makes good sense folks. Please recommend a couple. What about the creek? Yes sir. The access. Yes sir. You know we we we tried really really hard to to avoid that and so Willow is to the to the to the north and there's an easement through there. It's It's not wide enough and I can tell you that if we wanted to book the bear of our neighbors in the manner and in edgewater commons there, if we were to make that access through there, we'd be in the fight with them. And so this is in our first choice. We really wanted to do it otherwise, but there's no practicable alternative. And so when we go and talk to the Army Corps of Engineers and go through the permitting processes there, number one, that creek has already been impacted by the multi-family development to the north. We're putting our roadway as close up to there as possible so as not to chop up the wetland area any more than necessary. There will be the design features of that. We'll continue the hydrologic periods and flows through there. It will impact some wetlands, but we're doing the enhancement. And we're going to have the Army Corps of Engineers. You go through a no-practicable alternative in order to get to this portion of the property unless something develops. And we were able to have some access some other way. This is there's no practical alternative to be able to get to the uplands to be able to use it. So once you get through that then avoidance. Well we're minimizing the effort by moving it as far to the north as possible so it's not to get into the middle of the wetlands, we're breaking it up as small with as little effect as possible, and then mitigation will be required to create or buy wetland credits for any impact that we make here. So yes, there will be some minor impact because we can't avoid it to get to the Uplands portion of the property. Thank you. May I? As a rebuttal. It won't be less than a minute. I'm on the president of I would have been a a consultant at Nevada expert in wetlands and listed cities for 30 years. I moved to be accepted as a witness. I just talked to the vegetation map. You can look, show it up. I just want to talk about the existing conditions and how it is not consistent with a pristine upland by any means of the imagination. What you have on the site is you've got some native trees that are there, some good oak trees, but it is a disturbed site that is full of exotic vegetation. This is not a special site that needs to be protected in the future. This project is a good project. It preserves a better quality while ones. It makes a good buffer around it, and that's the only point I need to make thank you Okay any discussion amongst the board It seems to me that it was Intended to be developed. I mean, I know that area well and some houses over there by it and I believe That project would be I'm not sure why the county is stubborn on it. I mean, I've heard the, I mean, hours of presentation here, but this is one that it seems like the community wants and, you know, I haven't been to the club thought you guys were private outcome now. But, you know, being in here for years, I just, I understand you've got to bridge that. There is some disturbing of that area. The gentleman pointed out it's not a pressing area. But that area on Bayshore was depressed for years and it's an eyesore over there. So this would have to be an improvement, bring money into the yacht club and it seems multi-use to me and urban. That's just my comment. Well, my position on this is that I'm not for it. You county purchased it 15, 20 years ago, changed it to park and recreation and preservation. It's a wetland. Great wetland? Okay, no. But we get up at us frequently that don't develop this area or that area or wherever in which the property owner has the right to it. It's owned where they can do development. They have development rights to it. They bought this with no development rights. It's in the high hazard area where we just went through two hurricanes that probably covered this with two-foot of water. Yes, you can build higher. But you've got an area that has been stripped of development rights. Somebody bought it knowing that they had no rights. Free to come in here? Well not free, but pay their fees, come in and make their presentation. That's the right. But that right ends with wherever we decide, or the commissioners decide what's to do. And the arguments can be made both ways. The other argument is to put all these units next to what was permitted for the commercial restaurant right next door to this. And I know the complaints at that time was, well, they're going to have loud music. The music is going to be too loud. And now somebody wants to build five feet exaggeration from that potential restaurant and entertainment center. So this vacant area, A, people, if they would be saying, I don't want that developed. If they were living around there, I don't want that developed. And here it's mostly wetland. It's in the urban area, but I would suggest to the staff that you create a third designation for our comprehensive plan. Because I understand that it was designated rural to remove it from development area. So that it wasn't just, well, I have rights to do this because it's in the urban service area. Well, it was removed from the urban service area to remove development rights to it. In the county did that, in the county had the property. But they sold the property, somebody bought it, knowing all this. So all three petitions, I'm not four. But it's in my district and somebody else is gonna have to to make the motions for it either way you want the motions. But the point is the county shouldn't have sold it if they thought it was so great. What business does the county end to own property other than to be a part? They shouldn't be developing. They own a lot of property. They do own a lot of property and they shouldn't. So here's the thing. They sold it. So when they sold it, it went back into the kitty to do with what it wants. And so at this point, when you mention high coastal, the gentleman will pay a fair price to get those TD, those Dizzy units, because I did one. I had to buy the property and strip it. It is expensive for them to get those there and we won't be increasing the danger to anybody. He'll be building a hurricane proof house. Yeah, I also object to the heights being put in here because I think along the harbor, 1500 feet within the harbor, you're limited to what, 35 feet? 1200 feet, but again, by going through the PD and increasing the amount of open space, they can petition to go higher being a PD. What's the height to the units, the condos behind it? Three stories? Two stories? I apologize, I don't know. Two? Okay, I got a response from the audience that lived there. Two stories. I go by there a lot. Okay. So now you're going to want to go five stories in this area. And that's, yeah. That's what I was getting ready to say. I feel like six is just a little bit tall. But because of the buildup that you've got to start with, if you're going to put six feet of fill in, 65 feet from where it is today is a lot compared to where it would be if it was built on stills. Yeah, but you won't have anything behind it going all the way to Bay Shore. I mean, it's fairly isolated and it's behind condos already. That area is semi, I mean, it is multi-family and it wouldn't be like it's RS 3.5 you're sticking it in a mill of. I mean that is a ripe area for something like this because it needs a shot in the arm over there, badly. But this isn't be promoted as affordable housing. No, well you don't have to be affordable housing. There you want a nice development because it got a yacht club and a use. And it's going to bring money for the gentleman who's got to pay a ton of money for these density units. I mean, they're trying to get him to pay $100 and something dollars per thing. I mean, that's a lot of money there. And then he's going to have to pay thousands per density unit. They're not cheap. So this won't be your run of the mill ugly looking vinyl siding complex. This is going to be I mean I just know that just from the what I've heard from the people here he did do everything he promised and it seems like a pretty good opportunity for the county to benefit from it being there. Okay. Emotions in order, Mr. Chair. Emotions in order, Mr. Chair. Emotions is in order. Oh, yeah, but I can't. I'll make a motion. You can make the motion. And this is for number eight, this first one. Okay. Emotions move forward, application PAAL-23-00004 to the Board of County Commissioners with recommendation of approval of Transmental of Application PAL-23-00004 to the Florida Department of Commerce and other state review agencies for review and comment based on the findings and analysis in the staff report dated April 5th 2025 short at county's comprehensive plan and the evidence and testimony presented at the public hearing before the planning and zoning board. Second. I have a motion in a second. Any discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion say aye. Anybody opposed to say nay? Nay. So it's you guys say aye? Okay, four to four to one for the motion and Next one yes, sir motion before Application PAS-24-00002 to the Board of County Commission for the recommendation of approval based on the findings and analysis in the staff report date of April 5th, Charlotte County's comprehensive plan and the evidence and testimony presented at the public hearing before the planning and zoning board Second have a motion in a second any discussion of the motion All the favor of motion say aye aye any opposed say nay nay 4 to 1 okay goes to the board County of the Church recommendation for approval. Okay. Number 10, a motion to forward application PD-24-08 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval with conditions A through V based on the findings and analysis in the staff report dated April 5th, 2025, Charlotte County's comprehensive plan, the evidence and testimony presented to the public hearing before the planning is only board. Second. Have a motion in a second. Any discussion on the motion, question on the motion is, because those conditions there was one that was not acceptable to the applicants. That's what he said it was, he'll make it work at $65,000. Okay. Okay. I'll buffer. Condition K. They don't, that's not agree. Oh, he said it was. He'll make it work at $60,000. Okay. Okay. Okay. Well, buffer. Condition K. The applicant does not agree with the buffer. They want the average. They want it to be. What is the percentage? Okay. So which, which, well, your, your motion is to accept it as a staff has proposed it, but that's up to you all. If you want to change it. Well, let's accept it as proposed as they got to go to the commission. That's fine. There you go. That was just a discussion. Yeah, that's accept it as proposed as they've got to go to the commission. That's fine. There you go. That was just a discussion. Yeah, that's just a, and clarity. And complicate. Okay. As there's staff presented those conditions. Okay. All in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. All opposed say nay. Nay. So that's four to one to the BCC with recommendation for approval. Anything else? All opposed say nay. Nay. So that's four to one to the BCC with recommendation for approval. Anything else? No sir. See you next month. Vettac pleads our agenda. We're adjourned.