Www.volusia.org



PLEASE COMPLETE A PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SLIP AND INDICATE IN THE SUBJECT LINE THE ISSUE YOU WISH TO ADDRESS. YOU MAY USE THE BACK IF NECESSARY. AFTER YOU ARE RECOGNIZED BY THE COUNTY CHAIR, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD BEFORE BEGINNING YOUR COMMENTS. YOU MAY SPEAK UP TO THREE MINUTES, DURING THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION OR WHEN THE AGENDA ITEM IS HEARD. COUNTY COUNCIL WILL NOT ANSWER QUESTIONS OR REQUEST DURING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION. PLEASE BE COURTEOUS AND RESPECTFUL OF THE VIEWS OF OTHERS. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED BY ANY MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL THAT ITEM SB OF REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. ALL OTHER MATTERS INCLUDED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA WILL BE APPROVED BY ONE MOTION. CITIZENS WITH CONCERNS SHOULD ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS BY FILLING OUT A PUBLIC PARTICIPATION SLIP AND GIVING IT TO THE DEPUTY CLERK PRIOR TO CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS BEING PULLED. IF THERE IS NO ONE OUT THERE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK TO SOME AGENDA ITEM OR SOMETHING THAT IS NOT ON THE AGENDA, GOING ONCE, GOING TWICE, GOING THREE TIMES. WE WILL SEE YOU BACK HERE AT 9 AM. >>> WE WILL NOW HAVE THE INVOCATION. >> I AM GRATEFUL TO LIVE IN THIS COUNTY. WE HAVE GREAT LEADERSHIP AND GREAT FIRST RESPONDERS. WE ARE GRATEFUL AND SUPPORT YOU. THANK YOU. FATHER WE THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THIS COUNTY. WE ASK YOU TO WATCH OVER US. WE ASK YOU TO GUIDE THE AFFAIRS OF GOVERNMENT AND OUR FIRST RESPONDERS. WATCH OVER THEM AS THEY SERVE AND PROTECT THIS COMMUNITY. GRANT WISDOM, AND UNDERSTANDING AND GUIDE THEM IN THE DIFFICULT DECISIONS THAT THEY MAKE. GUIDE THE AFFAIRS OF THE COUNCIL. WE THANK YOU FOR THAT TODAY. THANK YOU FOR WATCHING OVER THEM. IN JESUS NAME, AMEN.

PLEDGE ONE PLEDGE IN PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

ME WE HAVE THE ROLLCALL PLEASE. MR. PATTERSON, MS. DENYS,

MR. KELLEY, MR. WHEELER, MS. POST, MR. LOWRY, AND MS. CUSACK IS ABSENT TODAY. >>>

DOES ANYONE WISH TO PULL ANYTHING OTHER THAN ITEM E. IS THERE A MOVE TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ITEM E. IS THERE A MOTION? ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. THE MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. >>> ITEM E THIS MORNING IS RELATED TO QUALIFIED TARGET INDUSTRY TAX REFUND PROGRAM. I THINK IT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST THAT I NOT VOTE IN THIS AND I HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST FORM THAT I AM FILING. I WILL ABSTAIN FROM VOTING ON THIS MATTER.

IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE. >>

I SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. . THE MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. . LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT MR. PATTERSON HAS WITHDRAWN FROM ITEM E DUE TO IT BEING A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

MR. CHAIR. I AM GOING TO BRING FORWARD MR. MOATS. THIS IS AN IMPORTANT UPDATE THAT WE PROMISED TO BRING. AS THE COUNCIL MEMBERS NO THIS IS THE BIGGEST SINGLE PROGRAM WE HAVE. IT IS HEALTH INSURANCE FOR THE EMPLOYEES. WE ARE TRYING TO GET THE RIGHT PROGRAM AND HEALTHCARE. ONE OF THE KEY ELEMENTS THEY ASKED FOR AND I SAID IT WOULD DEMONSTRATE IS A BETTER WAY TO ACCESS HEALTHCARE. IT GETS CONFUSING ABOUT WHAT DOCTORS THERE ARE, WHERE THEY ARE, AND MANY OTHER THINGS. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE STAFF CAME UP WITH WAS TO DEVELOP AN APP. WE ARE GOING TO SHOW YOU THE APP TODAY AND RELEASE IT TO THE MEMBERSHIP.

SO IT IS NOT AVAILABLE YET?

WHEN YOU SAY GO, IT WILL BE AVAILABLE.

MY NAME IS TOM MOATS AND I AM THE HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR. THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS HAS BEEN GOING VERY WELL. WE ARE EXCITED ABOUT IT AND JOHN HAS SHOWN YOU SOME THINGS THAT WE BELIEVE WILL BE BENEFICIAL TO THE COUNTY. IT IS HERE THIS MORNING TO SHOW YOU THE APP AND HOPEFULLY THEY WILL GET AN AWARD FOR THAT. WE UNDERSTAND THERE ARE ACTUALLY OTHER COUNTIES ALREADY ASKING TO LOOK AT IT. AT THIS POINT I WILL TURN IT OVER TO JOHN ROBINSON. >>> MY NAME IS TOM ROBINSON AND I HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS PROJECT FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS NOW. I HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT YOUR BENEFITS AND COMING UP WITH RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGE. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO THIS MORNING IS GIVE YOU AN UPDATE ON THE TRANSITION TO THIS PLAN. WE WILL BE GOING OVER THAT IN SOME DETAIL. IN ADDITION TO THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THE PLAN SUCCESSES. AND WHAT HAS HAPPENED OVER THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS AS WE MOVED IS THE FACE. WE WILL ALSO TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE INITIATIVES WE HAVE COMING UP. WE ARE HOPING TO SUSTAIN SOME OF THE PROGRAMS THAT WE WILL BE PUTTING IN PLACE. WE WANT TO HELP PEOPLE ACHIEVE ABDOMEN HEALTH. WE WILL TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE ENHANCEMENTS WE ARE PUTTING IN PLACE AS WELL. THERE WAS AN EXTENSIVE RFP PROCESS. THERE WERE A NUMBER OF OPTIONS OFFERED THROUGH THE PLAN ITSELF. WE BEGAN WORKING ON THAT AND THE COMMUNICATION FOR THAT CHANGE THIS PAST SUMMER. THERE WERE EXTENSIVE COMMUNICATIONS DONE WITH COUNTY EMPLOYEES AND RETIREES THROUGH THE PROCESS. IN ADDITION TO THE WRITTEN COMMUNICATION, THERE WERE APPROXIMATELY 85 MEETINGS THAT WERE HELD WITH EMPLOYEES THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY TO TALK ABOUT THE PLANS, THE EXPENSE, AND HOW TO COMMUNICATE WITH IN THE PLAN. THERE REALLY HAS BEEN NO DISRUPTION IN CARE. THERE HAVE BEEN NO MAJOR PROBLEMS WITH THAT AT ALL. WHERE WE DID RUN INTO ISSUES WAS TRANSITIONING CARE WITH PEOPLE IN THE MIDDLE OF SOME KIND OF TREATMENT. IF THAT PARTICULAR PERSON WAS NOT WITHIN THE NETWORK, WE MADE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THAT. THE DOCTORS AND HOSPITALS THAT ARE PART OF THE PLAN, WE WILL TALK ABOUT THAT AS WE GO THROUGH THE VISITATION. WE EXPANDED THE REGIONAL AND NATIONAL NETWORK. THEY HAD A GREAT DEAL OF INFLUENCE ON THE MEMBERS AND PROVIDERS AS WELL. WITH THE RECOGNITION OF CIGNA OVER HEALTH MART HAS BEEN A POSITIVE CHANGE FOR THE COUNTY EMPLOYEES. IF THEY ARE GOING TO SEEK SERVICES OUTSIDE OF THIS AREA IT IS MUCH MORE RECOGNIZED THAN HEALTH MART. IT IS JUST A DIFFERENT WAY OF WORKING AT THIS POINT. HEALTH MART IS STILL PAYING FOR CLAIMS INCURRED PRIOR TO JANUARY 1. THAT WILL STAY IN PLACE FOR THE NEXT YEAR. WE HAVE SEEN SOME HEALTH PLAN SUCCESSES OVER THE YEAR.

A PERSON WAS IN TENNESSEE. THEY HAD A SERIOUS ACCIDENT. THEY WERE ABLE TO GET TO AN IN NETWORK HOSPITAL AND IN NETWORK PHYSICIAN. IT WAS REALLY PAINLESS IN TERMS OF THE PLAN. THEY WERE ABLE TO GET BILLS PROCESSED CORRECTLY. WE ARE VERY COMFORTABLE ABOUT THAT. THE EXPANDED NETWORK THAT WE HAVE IN WHICH PROVIDERS HAVE NOW HAS HELPED EMPLOYEES. IT HAS HELPED WITH CO-PAYS AND OTHER PARTS OF THE IN NETWORK PROGRAM.. WE HAD ISSUES WITH A NUMBER OF CASES OF COLLEGE STUDENTS AWAY AT COLLEGE AND NOT BEING ABLE TO USE URGENT CARE FACILITIES IN THEIR AREA. THAT HAS CHANGED WITH THE NATIONAL NETWORK NOW. PHARMACY SAVINGS HAS BEEN A THEME. PATIENTS THAT HAVE GONE TO THE PHARMACY HAVE SEEN AN EXPANDED LIST OF FORMULARY DRUGS THAT ARE PART OF THE PLAN. THIS IS ANOTHER WAY OF NOT ONLY SAVING FOR THE MEMBER BUT FOR THE PLAN ITSELF. THERE HAVE BEEN SOME CUSTOMER SERVICE ISSUES. THE TRANSITION HAS BEEN GOOD FROM THE PROVIDER PERSPECTIVE AND THE MEMBER PERSPECTIVE AS WELL. THERE HAS BEEN CRITICAL INFORMATION ON PLANS AND COVERAGES HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO INDIVIDUALS. WE MADE SOME CHANGES TO THE COPAYMENT STRUCTURE. WE WANTED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF BETTER SAVINGS THAT WE HAVE THROUGH MAJOR RADIOLOGY SERVICES. THAT IS A FREESTANDING FACILITY COMPARED TO SOME OF THE HOSPITALS. THAT INFORMATION HAS BEEN PASSED ON TO EMPLOYEES. WE WERE ABLE TO NEGOTIATE THAT SOME. SOME OF THE INITIATIVES WE ARE LOOKING AT FOR 2017 INCLUDES HOW WE CAN HELP PEOPLE ACHIEVE OPTIMAL HEALTH. WE HIRED A REGISTERED NURSE THROUGH CIGNA HEALTHCARE. THEY ARE IN-HOUSE HERE WITH THE COUNTY. SHE IS THE PERSON THAT CONNECTS PEOPLE TO THE PROGRAMS AVAILABLE THROUGH THEIR PLAN. THIS PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL WILL BE HELPING MEMBERS NAVIGATE THROUGH THE PROCESS WITH GAPS IN CARE AND OTHER THINGS AS WELL. WE WILL BE CONCENTRATING ON COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAMS STARTING WITH DIABETES PROGRAMS.

WE WILL BE LOOKING AT WEIGHT MANAGEMENT AND OTHER PROGRAMS THAT WE CAN PROVIDE BETTER BENEFITS. THIS FALL WITH THE INITIATIVE WE WILL DO AN ON-SITE BIOMETRIC SCREENING. WE WILL HAVE REGISTERED NURSES THERE TAKING BLOOD. INDIVIDUALS THAT HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE NUMBERS CAN GET THOSE ANSWERED AS WELL. THERE WILL BE AN ONLINE RISK ASSESSMENT AVAILABLE. WE WILL WANT PEOPLE TO FOLLOW THROUGH WITH THAT AS WELL. ALL OF THIS INFORMATION WILL BE ADDED . FROM THERE CIGNA CAN REACH OUT TO PEOPLE WHERE THERE ARE NEEDS. SOME OF THE ENHANCEMENTS THAT WE MADE TO THE PLAN THAT ARE QUITE VALUABLE, IS THE EMPLOYEE BENEFITS THEME. AS WE WENT THROUGH THE EXTENSIVE REVIEW THAT WE DID THERE WAS A TEAM OF ADMINISTRATORS AND UNION LEADERS THAT MEETS EVERY FEW MONTHS. WE SHARE INFORMATION BACK AND FORTH. IT HAS BEEN VERY VALUABLE IN OUR WORK AT THIS POINT. MY IS SOMETHING THAT YOU WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW. IT IS PERSONALIZED FOR EACH MEMBER. THERE IS INFORMATION THERE ABOUT A NUMBER OF ISSUES. MD LIVE OR TELEMEDICINE IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE ADDED. THAT IS FOR PEOPLE THAT HAVE MINOR

ISSUES THAT DON'T REQUIRE URGENT CARE OR IF THEY CAN'T GET TO THEIR DOCTOR THEY CAN CALL MD LIVE AND VIDEO CHAT OR THROUGH THE PHONE HE CAN GET A VISIT WITH A DOCTOR AND RECEIVE SERVICES. THAT IS A GOOD BENEFIT AS WELL. THE NATIONAL NETWORK THAT WE HAVE HAS OVER 7000 ACTUAL PROVIDERS IN THAT NETWORK. THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE TRAVELING OUTSIDE THE AREA. THERE ARE ABOUT 5800 HOSPITALS WITHIN THE NETWORK AS WELL. THAT HAS HELPED TREMENDOUSLY AS WELL. THE LAST THING TO TALK ABOUT, AND WE NEED TO DEVOTE A GOOD AMOUNT OF TIME TO, IS SOMETHING THAT JOE WILL PROVIDE YOU SOME DETAIL ON. WE WILL SHOW YOU THAT APP AND THEN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ON IT. >> I AM THE DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES. I AM GOING TO BE JOINED BY INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY. HE IS GOING TO DEMONSTRATE THE APP. THE APP IDEA CAME OUT OF THE EMPLOYEE BENEFITS THEME. WE WANTED TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO THE HEALTH PLAN. AT 9 PM AT NIGHT OR 2 PM ON A SATURDAY AFTERNOON. WE WANTED TO BE ABLE TO OFFER A SERVICE. ALL WE DID WAS GET WITH OUR VERY COMPETENT IT STAFF AND TOLD THEM WHAT WE NEEDED AND WANTED. THEY TOOK IT OVER AND HAVE PRODUCED A VERY NICE APP. AS MR. MOTES SAID, THERE ARE OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENTS THAT MR. ROBINSON WORKS WITH THAT WOULD LIKE AN APP LIKE THIS. I WILL NOW TURN IT OVER TO JOHN AND HE WILL DEMONSTRATE THE APP. AGAIN, THEY HAVE DONE AND OUTSTANDING JOB FOR MUCH LESS THAN IF WE WENT OUT ON THE OPEN MARKET AND HAD SOMEBODY BUILD US A NAP.

GOOD MORNING. I AM HERE TO SHOW YOU THE NEWLY DEVELOPED MEANT -- DEVELOPED HEALTHCARE APPS. WE HAVE WORKED RECTALLY WITH HR ON THIS PROJECT.

IT SAVED THE COMPANY ABOUT $20,000 WORKING ON THIS IN-HOUSE. WE WANTED IT TO BE A VERY SIMPLE APP , INTUITIVE, AND EASY TO NAVIGATE. SO FOR EXAMPLE, LET'S SAY I AM PLAYING TENNIS, I FALL, AND A BREEZE MANEY. LATER ON I CAN TELL THAT I'VE HURT MYSELF. SO I CAN GO TO MIGHT BENEFIT APP. I LOOK AT THE MY DOCTORS BUTTON. AND THEN I TAP ON MY CURRENT LOCATION. AND THEN I CAN SELECT A SPECIALTY. I'M GOING TO SELECT A SURGEON AND WITHIN 20 MILES. I CAN SEE WHERE ALL OF THE FACILITIES NEARBY ARE LOCATED. I CAN SEE THE ORTHOPEDIC ASSOCIATES HERE. AND I CAN SEE THE MULTIPLE DOCTORS AT THAT LOCATION. I CAN SEE THERE IS A WEBSITE ASSOCIATED WITH THE FACILITY AS WELL. IT WILL ASSIST ME IN MAKING A CALL TO THEM . GOOGLE MAPS WILL ALSO SHOW ME HOW TO GET THERE. IN ADDITION, I CAN LOOK AT THIS INFORMATION IN A TABULAR FORMAT. I CAN SEE DIFFERENT COLUMNS LIKE FOR INSTANCE WHICH FACILITY IS THE CLOSEST OR FARTHEST AWAY.

SO I AM ON THE WAY TO THE DOCTOR'S OFFICE AND I AM WORRIED ABOUT THE CO-PAY. I CAN LOOK UP THE COPAYMENTS. I KNOW THIS IS CIGNA RADICAL. FOR SURGERY I CAN SEE IT IS $80. I GET TO THE DOCTOR'S OFFICE AND DISCOVER I LEFT MY WALLET AT HOME. BUT THROUGH THE APP I HAVE A PICTURE OF MY HEALTH CARD. I CAN EMAIL IT RECTALLY TO THE RECEPTIONIST AT THE OFFICE. AND THEN I GO TO PHARMACIES. BY PUSHING THAT BUTTON I AM BROUGHT BACK TO THE CIGNA WEBSITE.

I CAN SEE THERE 100 AND 64 PHARMACIES IN THE AREA. NOW ALL OF THAT IS BEHIND ME . I'M READY TO GO ON VACATION. I'M GOING TO LEARN HOW TO SNOW SKI. BUT I HAVE NEVER DONE THAT BEFORE SO I WANT TO BE SURE THERE IS SOMEBODY AROUND THAT CAN HELP ME. I CAN LOOK UP LOCATIONS IN THE AREA WHERE I WILL BE VISITING. AND I WANT TO SHOW WITHIN 30 MILES HOSPITALS THAT ARE THERE. SINCE I AM OUT OF THE AREA I HAVE THE OPTION TO GO BACK TO THE PROVIDER WEBSITE. AND THEN IT KNOWS THAT I AM LOOKING FOR VAIL COLORADO. AND I SEE THERE ARE SEVEN HOSPITALS THERE SO I KNOW I WILL BE COVERED. AND THEN LET'S SAY I GET BACK AND I FEEL LIKE I HAVE A COLD. I CAN GO TO ON-CALL SERVICES AND TELEMEDICINE THROUGH THE APP. THIS IS THE MD LIVE. I HAVE LOGGED IN UNDER THE ACCOUNT I CREATED. I SIGN IN. ON THIS APP YOU ARE ABLE TO UNDER THE MY HEALTH BUTTON ABLE TO RECORD INFORMATION ABOUT YOURSELF, INCLUDE SYMPTOMS. I AND THEN BROUGHT TO A SCREEN THAT SHOWS ME ALL OF THE DOCTORS THAT ARE ON CALL. SOME ARE AVAILABLE I BY PHONE . OTHERS ARE AVAILABLE BY VIDEO. FROM THERE I CAN SELECT A DOCTOR. THERE IS A BRIEF OVERVIEW HERE OF ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE THERE.

I THINK AT THIS POINT THE COUNCIL CAN SEE WE HAVE GONE TO THE EXTREME TO DO WHAT THE CITY EMPLOYEES WANTED WHICH IS PART OF WHY WE AGREED TO USE OUR HEALTHCARE PLAN. SO UNLESS THE COUNCIL HAS OTHER QUESTIONS OR MR. MOTES , IF YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING ELSE, WE WILL RELEASE THIS TO THE EMPLOYEES.

MS. DENYS.

ONE THING THAT HEALTH MART DID VERY WELL WAS RELATED TO DOCUMENTATION.

CIGNA IS USING HARD COPIES . WELL THIS IS A GREAT MOVE FORWARD, CIGNA IS MOVING BACKWARDS. YOU HAVE TO GET A NOTIFICATION THROUGH U.S. MAIL.

WE WILL LOOK INTO THAT. THAT IS DEFINITELY SOMETHING WE CAN IMPROVE UPON.

THAT CAN TAKE AS MUCH TIME AS GOING TO SEE A PHYSICIAN ITSELF. FILLING OUT ALL OF THE DOCUMENTATION AND SENDING IT IN. ANYTHING YOU CAN DO TO WORK ON THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? IF NOT WE WILL MOVE ON. JoANNE HAS THE NEXT THREE UPDATES.

GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS JoANNE MAGLEY, I AM THE COMMUNITY INFORMATION DIRECTOR. WE HAD A VERY SUCCESSFUL DAYTONA BEACH HALF MARATHON. I AM GOING TO START MY PRESENTATION WITH A VIDEO RECAP. [ SILENCE ] [ MUSIC ] .

I HAD A BUTTERFLIES IN MY STOMACH. I WAS WAITING FOR HIM. IT WAS INTENSE. IT WAS FUN. I LIKE THE BEACH. >> THE RACE WAS GOOD. IT WAS NICE WEATHER.

I WAS THE WEAK LINK. [ LAUGHTER ].

[ MUSIC ].

I WENT OVER THE BRIDGE TWICE AND IT WAS VERY HARD BUT I CONQUERED IT.

THE BRIDGE GAVE ME A BIT OF TROUBLE BUT OTHER THAN THAT IT WAS GOOD.

[ MUSIC ].

I LIKE THE BEACH. YOU ARE IN DAYTONA, YOU SHOULD RUN ON THE BEACH.

WHAT AN AMAZING JOB! >>> WE ESSENTIALLY HAD FOUR EVENTS. WE HAD A HALF MARATHON, A 5K , AND A SPEEDWAY CHALLENGE. IN TOTAL WE HAD 2984 REGISTRATIONS. I HAVE JUST A FEW SLIDES TO SHOW THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF OUR RUNNERS. SO , 29% WERE FROM WITHIN VOLUSIA COUNTY. 17% WERE FROM OUTSIDE OF FLORIDA AND 2% WERE FROM OUTSIDE OF THE UNITED STATES. THIS IS PRETTY TYPICAL OF RUNNING EVENTS IN THIS COUNTRY AND OUT OF THE COUNTRY. 55% ARE FEMALE AND 45% ARE MALE. AND BEFORE I GET TO THE SLIDE, FROM AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WEBSITE -- SIDE .

WITH THIS SLIDE I WANT YOU TO FOCUS AND. THIS IS THE BEGINNING OF THE 5K. YOU SEE ON THE RIGHT, THE LITTLE GIRL IN THE PINK AND OTHER LITTLE KIDS THERE . WE HAD 247 CHILDREN THAT WERE AGES OF 19 AND UNDER PARTICIPATE IN BOTH THE HALF AND THE 5K. FOR THE HALF THERE WERE SIX KIDS BETWEEN THE AGES OF 10 AND 14. THERE WERE 20 20 AGES OF 15 AND 19. FOR THE 5K, 43 CHILDREN WERE EIGHT YEARS AND UNDER. 59 OF THEM WERE BETWEEN 9-11 YEARS OLD. 52 WERE BETWEEN 15-19 YEARS OLD. THAT IS JUST ONE WAY TO SHOW HOW FAMILIES ARE REALLY INVOLVED WITH THIS EVENT. ON THIS LAST SLIDE YOU CAN SEE A COMPARISON FROM 2016 INTO 2017. IN EACH OF THE AREAS FOR THE RELAY, FOR THE LABS, FOR THE TRACK WE INCREASED BETWEEN 2% UP TO 10% IN THOSE AREAS. I DO WANT TO SAY A BIG THANK YOU TO MS. WHEELER. SHE WAIVED THE GREEN FLAG TO GET THINGS STARTED. MISSA DENNIES WAIVED THE FLAG A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO. WE APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT THERE. I ALSO PASSED OUT YOU HAVE AT YOUR SEAT -- SOMETHING WE CALL THE HALFTIME. IT IS A PHOTO RECAP IT SHOWS THE DIFFERENT ELEMENTS OF THE RACE. I AM SURE YOU ALSO SAW LAST WEEK'S COVER OF THE JOURNAL. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. I DON'T KNOW IF MS. DENYS WANTS TO ADD ANYTHING . >> JoANNE I WAS GOING TO MENTION THAT I DON'T KNOW HOW FAR UP THE AGES WANT BUT I DO REMEMBER ONE MAN CROSSING WHO HAD JUST CELEBRATED HIS 80th BIRTHDAY. AND ALL I COULD DO WAS WAVE A FLAG [ LAUGHTER ].

WE HAD A COUPLE OF PEOPLE THAT WERE 80 YEARS OLD. THEY REPRESENTED ALL AGE GROUPS. >> I THINK NEXT YEAR WE WILL HAVE FRED, PAT, AND I OUT THERE WAVING THE FLAGS. [ LAUGHTER ]. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A

HALF MARATHON. WE KID ALL TAKE TURNS -- WE COULD ALL TAKE TURNS. [ LAUGHTER ].

HOW MANY PARTICIPATED?

THERE WAS A 2984 REGISTRATIONS. THERE WAS 2417 THAT ACTUALLY PARTICIPATED. SOME PARTICIPATED IN MORE THAN ONE EVENT.

I THINK WE HAVE ONLY SCRATCHED THE SURFACE. IF WE AS A COUNTY CAN DO ANYMORE I THINK WE CAN MAKE THIS -- I KNOW SEVERAL PEOPLE THAT RUN MARATHONS . PEOPLE WILL TRAVEL ALL OVER. IN NASHVILLE THEY HAVE 24,000 OR MORE PARTICIPATING. HAVING THE THRILL OF THE SPEEDWAY

AND PEOPLE HAVING THE ABILITY TO COME RUN THE SPEEDWAY AND THE BEACH, I THINK THAT IS AN ENTICEMENT. AND THE BRIDGE IS

NICE TOO.

WE THINK THE WAY THINGS WENT A FEW WEEKS AGO WILL PUSH OUR REGISTRATION NEXT YEAR. LAST YEAR WE HAD A REALLY BAD WEATHER AND THAT HINDERED INKS. IT WAS COLD AND RAINY. THIS YEAR WE HAD REALLY GOOD WEATHER. WE DID NOT HAVE ANY HICCUPS ALONG THE WAY. THE COURSE WAS MARKED VERY WELL. WE WERE REALLY CONFIDENT GOING IN. >> CAN WE AS A COUNSEL DO MORE TO HELP IN THE PROMOTION OF THIS?

MR. CHAIR.

YES. >> THE HOTEL MOTEL ASSOCIATION IS VERY PLEASED. THE MARKET HERE IS WEAK. THE HOTELS NEED THE PEOPLE. AS YOU SEE THE DEMOGRAPHICS HERE, PEOPLE WILL SPEND MONEY. THEY ARE TRAVELING AND USING HOTEL ROOMS. WE BELIEVE THAT THIS IS A TREND THAT THE COUNCIL WANTED US TO GO ON. WE WANTED TO BRING NEW PEOPLE TO THE COMMUNITY. I WILL BE HAPPY TO BRING MORE INFORMATION IN THE FUTURE.

NEXT ITEM JoANNE.

THE NEXT ITEM IS THE COMMUNITY EVENTS UPDATE. YOU HAVE AT YOUR SEAT THE NEWEST EVENTS THAT HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THE CALENDAR.

WE HAVE THREE THAT HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THE SHEET. THOSE ARE HIGHLIGHTED. ON FEBRUARY 24, THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE THE THUNDERBIRDS WILL BE AT THE DAYTONA BEACH AIRPORT. THE SUPPORT AIRCRAFT , THE C-17 IS SCHEDULED TO ARRIVE AT 12:30 PM. AFTER THAT THE F-16S WILL FOLLOW. A FLYOVER WILL HAPPEN ON SUNDAY TO START THE DAYTONA 500. IF YOU FLIP THAT SHEET OVER THERE IS

INFORMATION ABOUT A WORKSHEET ON HOW TO WORK WITH VOLUSIA COUNTY. ON THE BOTTOM IN AUGUST WE ADDED THE NATIONAL LIFEGUARD CHAMPIONSHIPS FROM AUGUST 9 TO 11th. THOSE ARE THE LATEST EVENTS ADDED TO THE CALENDAR.

WE ARE ALSO IN THE PROCESS OF TRYING TO SECURE A 10 YEAR CONTRACT FOR THE NATIONAL LIFEGUARD CHAMPIONSHIPS.

THAT IS ALL I HAVE FOR THAT ITEM.

ITEM 4. JoANNE IS GOING TO TELL YOU ABOUT WHAT WE WERE GOING TO DO TO ADVERTISE FOR AN ADVISORY BOARD. THIS MIGHT BE ONE OF THE ITEMS YOU WANT TO PUT ON THE AGENDA FOR OPEN DISCUSSION. I THINK THIS HAS BEEN A PROBLEM AND THAT IT HAS GOTTEN WORSE. WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE PEOPLE TALK ABOUT IT ANYMORE RELAXED SETTING. I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR US TO PROVIDE YOU THE INFORMATION SO YOU CAN BE PREPARED.

I GOT THE MOST UPDATED COMPILATION OF BOARDS, ATTENDANCES, FUNCTIONS AND SO FORTH. I WAS AMAZED AT THE VOLUME OF INFORMATION THERE. I GUESS IT DOES NOT MAKE MUCH DIFFERENCE.

I THINK IT IS A COMPREHENSIVE VIEW OF WHERE WE ARE GOING TO GO. JoANNE WILL SHOW YOU THE PLAN ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE PLAN TO ADVERTISE. THIS IS AN ISSUE FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS. THEY BE AT THE END OF THE DAY WE CAN TALK ABOUT HOW AND WHEN TO SCHEDULE THAT.

THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. >> WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF MAKING SURE EVERYBODY GETS A COPY OF IT.

WE HAVE HEARD THAT WE NEED SOME ASSISTANCE IN THE PR DEPARTMENT. WE HAVE A LIST OF PR INITIATIVES THAT WE CAN DO. WE HAVE A NEWS RELEASE THAT CAN GO OUT ANYTIME. WE HAVE A NUMBER OF SPOTS OPEN ON THE BOARD. WE CAN ALSO DISTRIBUTE THE PSA TO OTHER CITY GOVERNMENTS THAT HAVE TELEVISION. WE CAN DO INTERVIEWS ON THAT WITH VARIOUS BOARDS AND COUNCILS THERE. WE CAN ALSO BE ON WS TB AND DO SEGMENTS THERE. WE HAVE THE REAL ESTATE SECTION ON OUR WEBSITE. THEY HAVE A BANNER AND WE CAN USE THAT TO PROMOTE OPENINGS THERE. WE COULD DO A FIVE MINUTE PRESENTATION AT VARIOUS CHAMBER GROUPS IN THE AREA TO GET INTO THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY AND ADDRESS THOSE MEMBERS ABOUT THE OPPORTUNITIES THAT WE HAVE. WE HAVE A NUMBER OF SOCIAL MEDIA CHANNELS THAT WE CAN USE. WE CAN ALSO PUT FLYERS AND POSTERS UP AT AREA LIBRARIES AND COUNTY BUILDINGS. THERE IS A LOT WE CAN DO THAT WILL NOT COST MONEY. WE WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW ABOUT THESE BOARDS. WE JUST NEED DIRECTION ON ALL OF THE BOARDS THAT WE ARE HAVING A HARD TIME FILLING.

I THINK ONE OF THE GUEST THINGS WE MIGHT BE MISSING IS USING SOCIAL MEDIA LIKE FACEBOOK, AS TO GRAHAM, TWITTER. ESPECIALLY FACEBOOK. YOU COULD EVEN EMPHASIZE A SECTION AND HAVE IT LINKED SOMEWHERE . WE COULD HAVE OUR ON PAGE, CREATE A SEPARATE ACCOUNT EVEN FOR THAT. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE WAY PEOPLE ARE GETTING THEIR NEWS AND INFORMATION, SOCIAL MEDIA AND THINGS LIKE THAT ARE REALLY COMING TO THE FOREFRONT. I THINK THAT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA. I KNOW YOU TOUCHED ON IT. I KNOW WE HAVE A FACEBOOK PAGE AND I HAVE BEEN USING IT MORE. I KNOW PEOPLE ARE TAGGING THIS RIGHT NOW AS WE SPEAK. [ LAUGHTER ]. MAYBE THEY WILL POST THAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR PEOPLE TO SERVE ON BOARDS.

THANK YOU.

WE WILL MOVE TO ITEM 5.

I BELIEVE ITEM 5 HAS BEEN PULLED. IS THAT CORRECT ? ITEM 5 IS WITHDRAWN.

ITEM 6. >>> THIS IS ONE OF MANY STEPS WE WILL BE TAKING

IN PLANNING FOR FIRM 10. FIRM 10 IS 47,000 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE COUNTY. THE LAND OWNER WORKING WITH THE COUNTY AND OTHER AGENCIES CAME UP WITH A MASTER PLAN TO GUIDE THIS PROPERTY FOR THE NEXT 50 OR 60 YEARS. THERE WAS 821 ACRES LOCATED IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF WEST OF I-95. THAT IS IDENTIFIED AS THE GATEWAY. THIS 120 ACRES IS WITHIN THE SERVICE AREA OF THE CITY OF EDGEWATER. AFTER GOING THROUGH A PLANNING PROCESS, WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE CITY OF EDGEWATER COULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROPERTY. WE AGREE THAT THE CITY AND THE COUNTY NEED TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PLANNING. IT INCLUDES UPWARDS OF 4000 92 HOUSING UNITS. THIS WILL BE A VALUABLE PART OF THE CITY OF EDGEWATER. THIS PLANNING AGREEMENT PROVIDES A SITUATION FOR BOTH THE CITY AND COUNTY CAN REVIEW CHANGES. THE CITY HAS AGREED TO WORK WITH US. THEY WANT TO BE SURE WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO WORK WITH EACH OTHER AND HAVE MUTUALLY SUCCESSFUL GOALS. AS SUCH WE WANT TO HONOR ALL OF THE ENTITLEMENTS IN THE PROPOSAL. WE WANT TO ENSURE THAT IN THE FUTURE THOSE BODIES WILL WORK WITH THE LANDOWNER. THERE IS A REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER HERE. IF THERE IS ANY QUESTION FOR ME OR THEM, WE WILL TAKE THOSE NOW.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? MS. DENYS.

I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. I DO HAVE A COMMENT. THIS STARTED BEFORE I JOINED THE COUNCIL. COUNCILMAN PATTERSON, WERE YOU HERE WHEN THIS STARTED?

BACK IN THE DAY.

BACK IN THE DAY.

IT WAS MANY YEARS AGO. THERE WERE MANY THINGS GOING ON. PEOPLE WERE ALWAYS AT MY DOORSTEP ABOUT THE ROAD THAT MIGHT BE GOING THROUGH THEIR. I HAVE A PRETTY GOOD HISTORY

WHAT I WILL SAY IS IT HAS COME A LONG WAY. WHAT WE ARE SEEING HERE IS JUST A FEW PAGES. THERE HAVE BEEN HARD FOUGHT YEARS INTO THIS PROJECT. I AM GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE JOINT PLANNING AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF EDGEWATER FOR THE GATEWAY DISTRICT IN THE FRONT AND DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT. THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND THERE HAS BEEN A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

I.

THOSE OPPOSED, LIKE SIGN. . THE MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

WE NOW MOVE ON TO ITEM 7.

I AM CLAY IRVIN. WE HAVE RECEIVED A REQUEST

FROM THE ATTORNEY FOR JOHN PUGH. HE IS ASKING THAT THIS ITEM BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT AGENDA ON MARCH 16.

YOU REQUESTED A CONTINUANCE. THAT DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THAT THE 16th IS AN AVAILABLE MEETING. IS THE REQUEST BY THE APPLICANT TO CONTINUE THIS WEATHER OR NOT WE CAN DO IT AT A CERTAIN TIME? IS THERE A MOTION MR. PATTERSON? >> IS THIS BECAUSE WE ARE ABSENT A MEMBER? >> THERE IS NO GUARANTEE.

IS VERY MOTION TO CONTINUE? -- IS THERE A MOTION TO CONTINUE ? >> [ Indiscernable ] >>

I AM JUST GOING TO ASK IF LEGAL CAN WEIGH IN ON THAT.

IF THERE IS NO MOTION TO CONTINUE WE MUST DECIDE TO TAKE ACTION ON IT ABSENT SOME OF THE PEOPLE INVOLVED.

I HAVE BEEN IN VAULT WITH THIS AND MR. PEWS PROPERTY FOR SOME TIME. I HATE TO MAKE AN ADVERSE VOTE ON THIS. THE STAFF AND I HAVE SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON THE PROJECT OVER THERE. I DON'T WANT TO GET TOO FAR --

IF THERE IS NO MOTION TO CONTINUE. WE WILL HAVE TO CONTINUE. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

MR. CHAIR.

YES.

LET ME SAY SOMETHING. >> IF YOU FIND OUT IN THE MORNING A COUPLE OF THINGS COULD HAPPEN. WE COULD NOTIFY THE PUBLIC. THAT WOULD GIVE ME SOME TIME TO FIGURE OUT WHEN I CAN PUT IT ON A NEW AGENDA. I WILL TELL YOU THAT IF THE COUNCIL SO CHOOSES, I WILL FIND A WAY TO MAKE SURE IT GETS ON THE AGENDA FOR THE 16th. IN OTHER WORDS, THIS IS A LITTLE DIFFICULT TO MAKE IT HAPPEN IN THE MORNING.

I PERSONALLY WOULD HAVE CONTINUED IT FROM A PERSONAL STANDPOINT. I KNOW THERE'S AT LEAST ONE PERSON FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WANTS TO SPEAK TO THE ISSUE. AND ANOTHER PERSON

I WOULD JUST SAY IN REGARD TO THAT IF WE JUST CONTINUE BECAUSE SOMEBODY IS ABSENT TODAY THAT COULD CREATE A SCHEDULING NIGHTMARE. I THINK IT IS KIND OF A LAME EXCUSE UNLESS THERE IS SOME SORT OF EMERGENCY OR RESTRUCTURING -- RESTRICTING CONFLICT AS TO WHY WE CAN'T DO THIS TODAY.

LET'S JUST MOVE ON. CLAY PLEASE JUST GIVE US THE REPORT ON THIS.

YES HER. I WOULD BE GLAD TO.

WE HAVE A REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE AGENT FOR MR. PUGH. THERE IS AN INDUSTRIAL PERSONAL THAT IS CURRENTLY HOUSING STORAGE. IT IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE RAILROAD. THERE IS EXISTING STORAGE THERE. IT IS USED AS A FLEAMARKET.

THE COUNTY ORDINANCES IDENTIFY SPECIFIC CRITERIA THAT ARE LAID OUT IN YOUR REPORT THERE. IT IS IN THE COUNCIL AGENDA PACKET. THESE ARE THE TECHNICAL STANDARDS THE STAFF REVIEWED IN ORDER TO MAKE A DETERMINATION AS TO THE RECOMMENDATION. THIS IS A CONCEPTUAL PLAN THAT SHOWS HOW THE PLAN WILL BE UTILIZED. THIS WAS PRESENTED BACK IN JANUARY AND A PUBLIC HEARING WAS HELD. ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT SOME HAD WAS THEY DID NOT SEE REPRESENTATION FROM THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. THE ASK THE APPLICANT TO MAKE SURE TO CONTACT -- GOING FORWARD THERE SHOULD BE PURE ARCTIC REVIEWS BY COUNTY STAFF. WE FEEL THAT THE RECEPTION WOULD ONLY BE AVAILABLE FOR A FEW YEARS. THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS IDENTIFIED BY RESIDENTS. IT ALSO GIVES YOU AS THE COUNCIL THE ABILITY TO TONIGHT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION OR APPROVE IT IF NEEDED. IT ONLY OPERATES ON SATURDAYS AND SUNDAYS. IT IS OPEN FROM 5 AM TO 6 AM. IT IS CLEANED UP EVERY NIGHT.

ALSO THEY CANNOT UTILIZE THE BUILDING FOR THE PUBLIC. ONE ISSUE THAT HAS BEEN RAISED AND I WANT TO BE SURE THE RECORD IS CLEAR, THERE IS CURRENTLY MR. PUGH AND HIS AGENT WERE ISSUED A PERMIT TO HAVE VENDORS OUT THERE FOR 24 HOURS. THERE WERE ALSO BE A SIMILAR ONE FOR THE FEW WEEKS COMING UP AROUND THE 500. THEY WILL STILL BE ABLE TO GET [ INDISCERNABLE ] . I WILL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >>> THE REQUIREMENT COMING BACK IN TWO YEARS. THE PEOPLE OPERATING THIS HAVE BEEN OPERATING AT FOUR 50 YEARS. HAVE WE HAD ANY PROBLEMS IN THE LAST 50 YEARS ? HAS SOMETHING HAPPENED THAT MAKES IT NECESSARY TO ADD THIS? >> IT IS GOING TO BE DEVELOPED FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD WALMART. WE ARE ADDRESSING CONCERNS BROUGHT TO US

--.

WE HAVE TWO PEOPLE THAT WISH TO SPEAK. ARE YOU HERE TO SPEAK COLLECTIVELY? PLEASE COME FORWARD. STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

THANK YOU. I AM JERRY WALSH. WE ARE SNOWBIRDS. WE ARE HERE THREE MONTHS OUT OF THE YEAR. WE HAVE BEEN COMING DOWN HERE FOR ABOUT 10 YEARS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

AND YOUR WIFE FEELS THE SAME WAY?

YES SHE DOES. [ LAUGHTER ].

WE ARE VERY HAPPY TO BE HERE. WE MEET SO MANY INTERESTING PEOPLE HERE. YOU CAN TELL I HAVEN'T SPOKEN IN PUBLIC BEFORE. [ LAUGHTER ].

I THINK THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE FEEL THAT WAY WHEN THEY ARE HERE . [ LAUGHTER ].

IF YOU HAVE BEEN OVER TO THAT AREA BEFORE IT HAS MORE TRAFFIC ON THAT SIDE OF TOWN. IT IS VERY HEAVILY USED.

FRANCIS ROGUE L.'S I AM SORRY IF I BUTCHERED YOUR LAST NAME. [ LAUGHTER ]. >> FRANCIS ROACH. I HAVE TWO PROPERTIES IN THE AREA. I HAVE TWO PROPERTIES, ONE ON THE RIVER, AND ONE ON LAKESIDE DRIVE ON THE LAKE. I DO HAVE CONCERNS WITH WHAT HAPPENS IN THAT AREA. I DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THE PUBLIC MEETING PORTION OF THIS PROCESS. I SAW SOMETHING ABOUT THE FLEAMARKET IN THE PAPER ON JANUARY 13. ON JANUARY 20 I WAS HAVING BREAKFAST WITH MY NEIGHBOR, SUZANNE THOMAS, AND I ASKED HER WHAT WAS GOING ON WITH THE FLEAMARKET. AND SHE DID NOT KNOW.

BECAUSE I WAS TALKING TO HER, I CALLED JANUARY 20 IN THE AFTERNOON AND ASKED ABOUT THE FLEAMARKET. I WAS TOLD I COULD COME TO THIS MEETING TODAY. AND THEN SUZANNE CALLED A FRIEND AND SOME EMAILS WERE INSTITUTED

AND IT WAS NOT UNTIL THE 23rd THAT ANYONE IN THE AREA GOT NOTICE. APPARENTLY SUZANNE AND MR. WILSON AND MR. PUGH AND HIS NEIGHBOR DECIDED THERE WAS NOT AN ISSUE. THEY DID NOT BRING IT TO THE PENINSULA. I HAVE TALKED TO PEOPLE ON THE RIVER AND THE LAKE. THEY DID NOT KNOW IT WAS COMING. THAT MUST BE A GOOD THING BECAUSE IT MEANS THE PEOPLE GOING ARE NOT USING OLD NEW YORK TO GET THERE. THAT IS THE NUMBER ONE CONCERN. THE TRAFFIC.

THERE HAS BEEN DISCUSSION ABOUT SIGNAGE AND THAT IT COULD BE BETTER. THAT WOULD DETER TRAFFIC AND KEEP THEM ON I 44. I LOOKED THROUGH THE THE LAND COMMUNITY FACEBOOK PAGES. THEY TALKED ABOUT HOW SOME GUY WAS CHASING ANOTHER GUY WITH A MACHETE. THERE ARE CRIMES OF CONVENIENCE THAT OCCUR. THE ANIMALS CAN'T BE THERE DURING THE CIRCUS BUT WE CAN PUT THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE THERE. MAYBE SOMETHING NEW HAS COME UP. IF THEY ARE NOT HERE RIGHT NOW THEN YOU SHOULD OFFER THEM THAT CONTINUANCE. THEY ARE NOT HERE TO DEFEND OR PROMOTE THEIR ISSUE. I FEEL THAT THIS SHOULD BE A CONTINUED ITEM.

THANK YOU.

ED ROSSMAN. ED PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

I LIVE IN QUAIL HOLLOW ON THE RIVER. I AM A MEMBER OF THE FORMER ORGANIZATION THAT EXISTED ON THE PENINSULA. THERE IS NO SUCH OFFICE OR ANY SUCH MEETING. I WOULD LIKE TO ECHO EVERYTHING SAID BY THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER. THE ONLY OTHER THING I WANT TO RAISE IS CONDITION NUMBER 12. MR. PATTERSON SEEMS TO THINK THAT IS NOT NECESSARY. WE HAD CONTACT -- WE MEANING PEOPLE FROM THE FORMER ORGANIZATION -- WITH MR. PUGH. HE MADE SEARCHING

PROMISES INCLUDING SIGNAGE, TRAFFIC PROBLEMS AND WE WERE SATISFIED ONLY IF HE AGREED TO REVIEWS AT SIX MONTHS, 12 MONTHS, AND 18 MONTHS. I THINK THAT TWO YEARS IS RIDICULOUS. THERE IS NOTHING THAT WILL BE DONE FOR TWO YEARS IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS IN TRAFFIC. NO STUDY WAS DONE OF THE ROADS.

I DON'T KNOW WHY IT WAS NOT RAISED THAT TRAFFIC COULD COME ONTO OLD NEW YORK. I'D DON'T KNOW WHY IT WAS NOT RAISED AT A PLANNING MEETING. THEY DIDN'T DO A TRAFFIC STUDY ON EUCLID AT ALL. THE SIGNAGE PROBLEM IS A REAL PROBLEM. THEY NEED TO PUT SIGNS UP. THERE SHOULD BE A SIGN WHERE EUCLID JOINS OLD NEW YORK. AND SEVERAL OTHER PLACES. EVEN THEN PEOPLE STILL TAKE OLD NEW YORK. THE EASIEST WAY IS THE SHORTEST WAY.

WITHOUT OBJECTION WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. MR. PATTERSON. >>

I DON'T REALLY OBJECT TO IT. I JUST DON'T FEEL IT IS REALLY NEEDED. THAT AREA FOR YEARS AND YEARS THE CIRCUS HAS BEEN OPERATING OUT THERE. THE ENTRANCE WILL BE OFF OF STATE ROAD 44. THEY ARE VERY AWARE OF THE PROBLEM OUT THERE. THERE IS A TRAFFIC PROBLEM THERE NOW AND IT IS NOT BECAUSE OF THE FLEAMARKET. YOU HAVE THE TRAIN STATION DOWN THERE I DON'T THINK YOU'RE ADDING TOO MUCH TO THAT ISSUE. PEOPLE WILL COME BACK EVERY WEEKEND. I HAVE FRIENDS THAT WERE GOING TO THE OLD LOCATION ALMOST EVERY SATURDAY OR SUNDAY TO SEE WHAT IS GOING ON. THAT LOCATION IS THE ORIGINAL FAIRGROUNDS GOING BACK MANY YEARS AGO. THERE IS ALSO A RACETRACK OUT THERE. THERE IS A LOT OF HISTORY IN THAT LOCATION OUT THERE. I THINK MR. PUGH HAS WORKED WITH PEOPLE VERY WELL. MR. CHAIR I MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR A FLEAMARKET ON LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONED PROPERTY LOCATED AT 535 FAIR STREET, DELAND. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? ALL IN FAVOR SAY I

I.

THOSE OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. .

GOOD MORNING I AM CLEAR URBAN . ANYONE CAN APPEAL TO THE COUNTY COUNCIL. THAT IS WHAT YOU HAVE IT BEFORE YOU TODAY. THAT IS PERTAINING TO A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME LOCATED ON A 7500 SQUARE FEET LOT. THE PROPERTY OWNER , MELANIE EDDINGTON, CONTACTED THE COUNTY STAFF ABOUT A SCREEN ENCLOSURE ON THE BACKSIDE OF HER HOME. THIS IS ON PAGE 837 OF YOUR AGENDA PACKET. THERE ISN'T AERIAL PICTURE. IT IS A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME ON THE BARRIER ISLAND. WHEN MS. EDDINGTON CAME IN AND CONTACTED US ORIGINALLY IT WAS INDICATED THAT WHERE SHE WANTED TO PLACE IT WAS GOING TO REQUIRE APPROVAL. SHE MADE APPLICATION FOR THAT. SHORTLY AFTER THAT IT WAS WITHDRAWN AND REFUNDED BACK TO HER.

SEVERAL YEARS LATER SHE PUT UP A SCREEN ENCLOSURE. ONE OF OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT INSPECTOR SAW THAT A SCREEN ENCLOSURE HAD BEEN PUT UP AND THAT THERE WERE NO PERMITS. MS. EDDINGTON HAS NOW COME FORWARD TO GET IN AFTER THE FACT PERMIT FOR HER SCREENED IN PORCH. YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE ENCLOSURE IS LOCATED. IT IS ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY. IF YOU GO TO THE PHOTOGRAPH YOU CAN SEE THAT. THIS IS THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY FROM THE WEST LOOKING EAST. IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE ELEVATION FOR THE HOME THERE IS A FENCE ON TOP OF THAT. THIS IS AGAIN ONE OF THE CONCERNS RAISED . THAT PREVIOUS PICTURE WAS ON PAGE ZERO -- 48 OF YOUR PACKET. ON PAGE 0 -- 49 THIS IS A PICTURE OF THE ENCLOSED STRUCTURE IS ON THE PROPERTY LINE. ADDITIONAL PICTURES REFLECT THE LOCATION OF THE ENCLOSED -- SCREEN ENCLOSURE IS. AT A MEETING IN JANUARY , A RECOMMENDATION WAS OFFERED THAT IF THE COMMISSION FEELS THAT THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE THAT THE COMMISSION MADE A -- MOTION TO APPROVE. AGAIN BECAUSE OF A 3-3 TIE [ INDISCERNABLE ] .

ONE ITEM THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE HAS TALKED TO ME ABOUT IS EX PARTE COMMUNICATION.

WE HAVE SEVERAL PEOPLE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK.

FOR THE RECORD MY NAME IS GLENN STORCH . I HAVE A POWERPOINT FOR YOU. I WILL NOT BE PROVIDING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BEYOND WHAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE BOARD. THAT WAS A 3-3 TIE. HAD THERE BEEN ANOTHER MEMBER THERE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A DIFFERENT STORY. BUT THERE WASN'T. GETTING SOMEONE ON THAT BOARD IS IMPORTANT AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. I WOULD LIKE TO GO INTO SOME OF THE HISTORY HERE. YOU NEED TO HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING AS TO WHY THIS IS HAPPENING. MELANIE IS A WONDERFUL PERSON. SHE IS A FRIEND AND HAS GONE THROUGH PERSONAL HARDSHIPS IN THE PAST. AFTER THOSE HARD SHIPS SHE WAS ATTEMPTING TO PROVIDE SPACE FOR HER MOTHER. SHE DID NOT HAVE ANY EXPERIENCE WITH CONSTRUCTION. SO SHE ASKED OUR FIRM IF WE COULD DO IT. WE STARTED THAT PROCESS. I ASKED IF ANYONE WAS GOING TO OBJECT TO THIS AND SPEAKING WITH HER . SHE ASSURED ME THAT NONE OF THE NEIGHBORS HAD ANY PROBLEMS WITH IT. UNFORTUNATELY, DURING THE PROCESS MELANIE HAD FINANCIAL ISSUES.

THIS WAS ALSO AROUND THE DEATH OF HER HUSBAND. SHE NEEDED THE MONEY BACK. LATER ON , AS CLAY INDICATED, SOMEONE GAVE HER BAD ADVICE. SHE WAS TOLD THAT SHE NEEDED A BUILDING PERMIT TO BUILD A WALL BUT NOT A SCREENED IN PORCH. SHE TOOK THAT INFORMATION AND BUILT THE SCREENED IN PORCH. NONE OF HORROR -- NONE OF HER FRIENDS OR NEIGHBORS HAD PROBLEMS WITH IT.

TYPICALLY CODE ENFORCEMENT IS COMPLAINT BASED. IT IS NOT INTENDED TO FOCUS ON SOMEONE. IN THIS CASE IT DID. I WILL TELL YOU THAT THE VARIANCE IS ONE. LOOK AT WHAT SHE DID . SHE HAS A WALL ON THE BACK. THIS STRUCTURE IS ON ITS OWN PROPERTY LINE. THAT STRUCTURE WAS PERMITTED BY THE COUNTY. EVERYTHING WAS DONE AS IT WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN DONE. I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY SHE WOULD THINK THERE WAS NO PROBLEM THERE. THE COUNTY WANTED TO MOVE THE SCREENED PORCH BACK 5 FEET. IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME. YOU ARE LOOKING AT WHAT YOU PRESENTLY HAVE. YOU HAVE A STRUCTURE THAT ALLOWS FOR

-- [ INDISCERNABLE ] . THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS CASE ITSELF ARE THAT'S MOVING THE SCREENED IN PORCH 5 FEET WOULD REDUCE THE VALUE AND CREATE STRUCTURAL PROBLEMS.

WHY WOULDN'T YOU BE ABLE TO PUT [ INDISCERNABLE ] . OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE AREA HAVE HAD NO PROBLEMS WITH THIS. HOW OFTEN DO YOU GET THAT. [ INDISCERNABLE ] WHETHER THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH ZONING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD -- I'M SURE MANY OF THE NEIGHBORS AGREE WITH THAT. IN THE PACKET, AS YOU SEE, YOU HAVE A LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE ASSOCIATION RECOMMENDING THIS. YOU HAVE NEIGHBORS RECOMMENDING THIS. YOU HAVE ALL THESE MEMBERS HERE TODAY TO SUPPORT THIS. AGAIN, IT IS NOT INJURIOUS. I HAVE ONE [ INDISCERNABLE ]. THE PLANNING BOARD CHAIRMAN DID HIS BEST. IT WAS A VERY FAIR HEARING. SOMEONE COMMENTED ABOUT IF THE PORCH WAS PUT IN A FIRE TRUCK COULD NOT GET BACK THERE BUT THERE IS A FIVE FOOT WALL THERE. THE SCREENED IN PORCH HAS NO EFFECT. BASED ON THAT, IT MAKES NO SENSE. IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A VARIANCE. TAKING IT DOWN WOULD BE COST PROHIBITIVE. THE NEIGHBORHOOD BELIEVES IT IS A GOOD THING. THANK YOU.

ANY QUESTIONS? >> THERE ARE EIGHT NEIGHBORS. IF WE ALLOW EACH OF YOU THREE MINUTES THAT MEANS WE WILL BE HERE ANOTHER 24 UNITS. [ LAUGHTER ]. I HAVE A LIST OF EACH OF YOUR NAMES HERE. MELANIE EDDINGTON, ABBY MILLS, AND SEVERAL OTHERS ARE STANDING IN SUPPORT OF THIS.

WE ALSO HAVE A LETTER FROM ANOTHER NEIGHBOR THAT SUPPORTS THIS BUT COULD NOT ATTEND.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT. MISS WHEELER. >> [ INDISCERNABLE ] >> I DID HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH ESTHER STORCH ABOUT THIS. THERE WAS NOTHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WAS PRESENTED HERE TODAY.

HAS ANYONE ELSE HAD X PARTAKE CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS.

THOSE THAT HAD COMMUNICATION WITH MR. STORCH HAS

-- HAVE SHARED.

I KNOW THAT THOSE PRESENT HAVE NO OBJECTION. BUT THERE COULD BE SOMEBODY THAT MOVES IN LATER THAT OBJECTS. BUT WHEN I SAW THE PICTURES I DID NOT SEE ANYTHING THAT COULD BE A HINDRANCE. >>

I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE APPEAL OF A VARIANT IN CASE THE 1703.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE THIS COMMENT. YOU HAVE A WALL AND YOU PUT A SCREEN ON TOP OF IT. I WOULD HAVE ASSUMED THE SAME THING. IF YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE A WALL THERE I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THE SAME THING. MS. DENYS

WE DESPERATELY NEED ONE MORE APPOINTMENT TO FILL A COMMITTEE SEAT THERE. WE NEED TO GET ANOTHER APPOINTMENT. I AM NOT SURE WHO THAT IS. JUST FOR THE RECORD. THIS IS WHY THAT IS SO IMPORTANT.

I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT A TIE VOTE MAKES ME HAVE A QUESTIONS. I THINK IT IS OUR ROLE TO WORK ON [ INDISCERNABLE ]. >> I APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT THEY DO. I AM NOT BIG ON PEOPLE ASKING FORGIVENESS INSTEAD OF PERMISSION. I DON'T WANT THIS TO BE CONSTRUED AS IF PEOPLE THROW THINGS THAT WE WILL RUBBER STAMP IT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. IF NOT. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> THOSE OPPOSED, LIKE SIGN. . THE MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. . NOW WE WILL MOVE TO ITEM NUMBER NINE. [ INDISCERNABLE ] >> IS THERE A MOTION TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM.

I THINK THERE IS A MINIMUM OF 120 DAYS. >> I AM JIM MORRIS ON BEHALF OF ONE OF THE APPELLATE. THE QUESTION HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN. AS CATHERINE PATTERSON INDICATED EARLIER [ INDISCERNABLE ]. WE WITHDRAW THE REQUEST AT THIS TIME.

YOUR NAME PLEASE?

I GUESS THE ITEMS THAT WE THOUGHT WERE GOING TO BE WITHDRAWN ARE CONTINUING WITH NO ADVERSE IMPACT.

>>> I AM GOING TO REFERENCE I BELIEVE IT IS FIRST AND FOREMOST EXHIBIT 1. THIS PROVIDES YOU A ROUGH SKETCH OF THE OWNERSHIP. WHAT YOU WILL SEE IF -- IS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY THAT WE ARE REVIEWING TODAY. TO THE NORTH IS JAMES AND KAREN McINTYRE, AND TO THE EAST ,

STAFF REQUIRES AS PART OF A REVIEW OF ANY APPLICATION, A LETTER VERIFYING THAT THE OWNERSHIP FOR THIS PROPERTY IS SUCH THAT WE DO NOT HAVE A SITUATION WHERE ACCOMMODATIONS ARE REQUIRED. IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION, CODY JAMES McINTYRE EARNS SOLELY THE PARCEL WE ARE REVIEWING TODAY, HOWEVER JAMES AND KAREN McINTYRE, OWNS THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH. BASED ON HOW WE HAVE INTERPRETED OUR CODES AND EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE PAST, THOSE ARE THEREFORE CONSIDERED TWO SEPARATE OWNERSHIPS. FROM STAFF PERSPECTIVE, AND IN ACCORDANCE TO OUR PAST PRACTICES IN REGARDS TO BEING ABLE TO IDENTIFY IT, BECAUSE IT IS NOT MEETING ALL OF OUR REQUIREMENTS IN REGARDS TO DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS, THERE ARE A SERIES OF VARIANCES THEY HAVE TO GO FOR DINNER ORDER TO GET APPROVAL FOR BUILDING PERMITS ON THIS PROPERTY. THOSE WERE THE ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED. PLD RC AGREED THAT YES, IT COULD BE A DEVELOPED LOT, AND LOOK AT THE OTHER OPTIONS. I WOULD LIKE YOU TO LOOK AT PAGE 915 OF YOUR AGENDA PACKET. IF I COULD HAVE THAT UP THERE PLEASE, JOHN. THIS IS KNOWN AS EXHIBIT 3. THIS IS A PLOT PLAN THAT REFLECTS THE SOUTH OF THE BUILDING THAT COULD BE CONSTRUCTION IF IT COMPLIED WITH ALL OF THE MINIMUM SETBACKS. WHAT YOU SEE IN THE REAR IS A REAR SETBACK OF 20 FEET, ALONG THE FRONT,

THERE IS A 25 FOOT SETBACK, AND ON THE SIDE, THERE IS A SEVEN FOOT SETBACK ON THE OTHER SIDE. IT RESULTED IN A FOOTPRINT OF 524 SQUARE FEET. AS YOU CAN SEE, THE DEPTH VARIES FROM 16 FEET EIGHT INCHES ON THE EAST SIDE TO A SHALLOW DEPTH OF 12 FEET ON THE SOUTH AND NORTH SIDES. THIS IS WHAT WAS PROVIDED IN REGARDS TO ANALYZING WHY THE VARIANCES WERE REQUIRED. IF WE COULD HAVE THE NEXT PAGE PLEASE, THAT IS EXHIBIT 4 ON PAGE 916 OF YOUR AGENDA PACKET. THIS REFLECTS THE REQUEST FOR MR. McINTYRE IN REGARDS TO THE VARIANCE IS CAN DEVELOP A LOT FOR HIS SINGLE-FAMILY HOME. WHAT HE IS REQUESTING IS A 20 FOOT SETBACK THAT WOULD GO TO 15, HE REQUESTED A FIVE FOOT SETBACK IN THE FRONT TO ALLOW THAT TO GO TO 20 FEET FROM THE 25. IT RESULTS IN 881 SQUARE FEET WITH A DEPTH ON THE SOUTH SIDE AND ON THE NORTH 22 FEET EIGHT INCHES. THE REASON WHY WE ARE PRESENTING THAT TO YOU IS THE STAFF REVIEWED ALL OF THE CRITERIA CONTAINED IN REGARDS TO THE VARIANCE. OUR NUMBER ONE GOAL IS TO MAKE SURE IT WAS A REASONABLE AND A MINIMUM VARIANCE AVAILABLE FOR THE PROPERTY. ALL OF THIS HAS OCCURRED BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A RESULT OF THE PROPERTY OWNER. IT WAS TAKING IN REGARDS TO ROADWAYS AND ALSO THE FACT THAT HE HAD A LEGAL NONCONFORMING LOT TO BEGIN WHAT THE SMACK BEGIN WITH. -- NONCONFORMING LOT TO BEGIN WITH. THE PLD RC REVIEWED THE APPLICATION AND FOUND THAT IT COULD BE DEVELOPED, HOWEVER, RECOMMENDED ONLY APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCES THAT PERTAINED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LOT AS WELL AS THE FRONT. THEY DID NOT APPROVE THE REAR YARD SETBACK WITH A VARIANCE OF 5 FEET AND REQUIRED THEM TO COMPLY WITH A 20 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK. YOU HAVE A VERY UNIQUE SITUATION TODAY. MR. WELLS WHO IS REPRESENTING THE PROPERTY OWNER IS REQUESTING THAT YOU REVIEW THIS AND COME UP WITH A FINDING THAT THE PLD RC MADE AN ERROR IN DENYING THE REAR YARD SETBACK.

ALSO, IF YOU DECIDE TO ALLOW THE LOT TO BE DEVELOPED, TO PLEASE STRIKE DOWN THE VARIANCE THAT THE PLD RC AWARDED TO THE FRONT. SO, YOU HAVE TWO DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES COMING INTO THE DECISION FROM THE PLD RC. I WOULD ASSUME THAT YOU NEED TO MAKE A DECISION AS TO CAMELOT HE DEVELOPED AS A NONCONFORMING LOT IN REGARDS TO THE VARIANCES TO THE FRONT AND REAR WHETHER OR NOT YOU ARE UPHOLDING WITH THE PLD RC OR IF YOU ARE GOING TO COME UP WITH AN ALTERNATIVE. AS YOU CAN SEE, BOTH PARTIES HAVE THEIR ATTORNEYS REPRESENTED HERE, SO I'LL BE GLAD TO SIT DOWN IF THERE IS ANY QUESTIONS STAFF, I WILL BE GLAD TO ANSWER THEM.

LET'S SEE, WE HAVE MR. MORRIS. WE WILL GO WITH YOU FIRST. I AM ASSUMING YOU ARE WITH THE --

I WOULD SAY THAT THE APPLICANT'S APPLICATION IS THE FIRST ON YOUR AGENDA. I TURNED MY APPLICATION AND WHEN I CAME IN, SO IF IT IS A PLEASURE FOR ME TO GO FIRST, I WILL, BUT THEIR ITEM IS FIRST ON THE AGENDA.

OKAY, THEN WE WILL GO WITH THAT. I WAS JUST GOING BY THE CARDS , HE DID NOT HAVE A CARD FILLED OUT. SELECT I UNDERSTAND IT IS NOT EXACTLY NORMAL.

THIS ISSUE IS NOT NORMAL. JUST MAKING THAT STATEMENT.

JOSH WELLS REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT IN THIS CASE AT 340 NORTH CAUSEWAY . AS WE JUST HEARD, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO FOCUS ON HERE IS THE RESULT OF THE STAFF REPORT AND WHAT THEY CAME UP WITH IN THEIR ANALYSIS OF THIS PROPERTY. [ LAUGHTER ]

THANK YOU, MR. MORRIS. I CAME INTO THIS PROCESS, I AM REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT.

WHAT THEY LOOKED AT WITH A FIVE CRITERIA FOR A VARIANCE. WE DO ACTUALLY HAVE THE FATHER OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY HERE WITH US TODAY.

LET ME STOP YOU HERE FOR A SECOND. WE HAVE THE TWO ISSUES. ONE FIRST OF ALL, IS IT DEVELOPABLE BASED UPON OWNERSHIP IS ONE OF THE ISSUES IS THAT CORRECT MR. MORRIS?

WOULD IT BE OKAY WITH THE TWO ATTORNEYS IF WE ADDRESSED ONE PART FIRST AND THEN THE SECOND PART?

I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THAT MR. CHAIRMAN.

WE WILL ADDRESS THE PART OF WHETHER OR NOT THE OWNERSHIP IS DETRIMENTAL TO THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. CAN WE DO THAT?

SURE. JUST TO HELP OUT WITH THE DISCUSSION, IF EVERYONE WOULD PLEASE TURN TO PAGE 9-32. >> I THINK I CAN CUT THIS REAL SHORT. THE STAFF DETERMINED THAT IT WAS A DEVELOPABLE LOT. THAT IS NOT AN APPEAL FROM THE PLD RC. THAT APPEAL IS NOT BEFORE YOU TODAY, AND IS MUCH AS I APPRECIATE THE INTERPRETATION AND THE FACT THAT WE HAVE TITLE INFORMATION INDICATES THEY ARE TO SEPARATE OWNERS, I DO NOT BELIEVE THE ISSUE IS BEFORE YOU TODAY. I BELIEVE IT IS A SEPARATE DEVELOPABLE LOT AND WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THE ASSUMPTION. THANK YOU.

I MADE THAT ASSUMPTION MYSELF, BUT I WAS NEVER INFORMED THAT THAT WAS THE CASE. MR. MORRIS .

THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I HEARD THOSE WORDS UTTERED, BUT I AM NOT GOING TO WASTE HER TIME ON THAT.

THAT SOLVE THAT. WE WILL MOVE TO THE ITEMS OF THE VARIANCE.

YES SIR, IF YOU GO TO PAGE 9-32, V , STAFF RECOMMENDATION, YOU WILL SEE VARIANCE 1 , 2, AND 3. IF YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THOSE INDIVIDUALLY AND ALLOW THE PARTIES TO TALK ABOUT EACH ONE OF THOSE VARIANCES, THAT WILL ADDRESS THE CONCERNS. THAT WAY, YOU WILL BE ABLE TO TAKE IT DOWN ONE ITEM AS A TIME. FOR THE FIRST ONE IS TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION ON A SUB STANDARDIZED LOT. THAT IS WHAT THE MAIN ISSUE IS.

ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT? BOTH OF YOU OKAY ON THAT RUSH MARK COUNSELORS? THANK YOU. -- BOTH OF YOU OKAY ON THAT?

NO, I AM NOT OKAY AT ALL. I THOUGHT WE JUST SAID IT WAS A BUILDABLE LOT.

I THINK WITH THAT QUESTION OUT OF THE WAY, EACH OF US HAS OUR OWN SIDE TO TAKE TO ARGUE OUR CASE AND PRESENT EVERYTHING AND WE CAN HAVE A DECISION FROM THE COUNCIL. >> IS THE VARIANCE PART OF THE BUILDABLE LOT THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT NOW. IT IS BUILDABLE TO 500 AND SOME ODD SQUARE FEET. THEY ARE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW IT TO GO TO 800 AND SOMETHING SQUARE FEET WITH A FRONT AND BACK SETBACK. IS THAT CORRECT?

YES. THAT IS CORRECT. >> IT IS A SUBSTANDARD LOT. IT IS A SEPARATE LOT. THE VARIANCES THAT ARE YOU LOOKING AT AS I UNDERSTAND IT ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE HOUSE AND THE FRONT YARD AND REAR YARD SETBACK. DO WE AGREE ON THAT OR DO YOU NOT -- OR DO WE NOT AGREE ON THAT?

THAT IS WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING , TO ALLOW THE VARIANCES IN THE FRONT AND THE BACK. >> WHAT I THINK WE ARE BOTH GOING TO DO IS JUST PRESENT OUR CASE .

THE CODE ACTUALLY DOES REQUIRE A VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION . >> EVEN IF IT IS COMPLIED WITH THE MISSIONS, BUT I DO HAVE ARGUMENT AS TO WHAT YOU PERMIT ON THE SUBSTANDARD LOT, BECAUSE IT IS NOT A GIVEN. I ACKNOWLEDGE IT IS A SUBSTANDARD LOT, I DO HAVE ARGUMENT IN RELATION IS WHAT YOU WANT TO ALLOW. I WILL TRY NOT TO GET BACK UP AGAIN. I AM SORRY, MR. WELLS.

IF YOU DO, I AM GOING TO COUNT THAT OFF OF YOUR THREE MINUTES.

CAN WE HOLD JUST ONE SECOND? SORRY. WE ARE NOW READY TO PROCEED. SORRY ABOUT THE SHORT DELAY, BUT WE DO WANT TO GET IT RIGHT BECAUSE THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT.

OKAY, GOING BACK TO THE STAFF REPORT AND WITH RESPECT TO THE FIRST VARIANCE THAT WAS REQUESTED TO CONSTRUCT ON A SUBSTANDARD LOT, WE FULLY AGREE WITH THE STAFF REPORT AND WE FULLY AGREE WITH THE PLDRC'S DETERMINATION THAT IT IS A SUBSTANDARD LOT AND CONSTRUCTION SHOULD BE ALLOWED ON THAT LOT. WE ARE FOCUSING ON VARIANCES 2 AND 3 WHICH ARE THE VARIANCES TO THE FRONT AND REAR YARD SETBACKS. 5 FEET EACH TO CONSTRUCT A HOUSE OF WHAT THE STAFF CALLED A REASONABLE SIZE. GOING THROUGH THE FIVE VARIANCE CRITERIA, IN THE STAFF REPORT, THEY DID A LITTLE BIT OF A HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE LOTS THEMSELVES AND HOW THEY CAME TO BE THE SIZE THEY ARE. THROUGH THAT ANALYSIS, THEY SHOWED THAT IN THE 60s, THE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR TERMINAL -- TURTLE MOUNTAIN ROAD WAS TAKEN AWAY WHICH CREATED THIS LOT THAT HAD BEEN REDUCED BY APPROXIMATELY 40% BY THE TAKING OF THAT ROAD. THIS LOT WAS CREATED WELL BEFORE THE 19 80 ORDINANCES. WITH THOSE 2 FIRST CRITERIA, THAT THERE ARE SPECIAL CONDITIONS THAT EXIST ON THE PROPERTY THAT WOULD REQUIRE A VARIANCE , AND THAT THOSE CONDITIONS WERE THE RESULT OF ACTIONS THAT WERE NOT THE ACTIONS OF THE APPLICANT OR OWNER. THEY FOUND THOSE PRETTY QUICKLY BECAUSE OF THE TAKING THAT HAPPENED BACK IN THE 60s , SO AGAIN, WE AGREE WITH THE PLDRC. THERE ALSO DOESN'T SEEM TO BE VERY MUCH DISPUTE ABOUT THE FIFTH REQUIREMENT FOR THE GRANT OF A VARIANCE. I ONLY SAY THAT BECAUSE THERE DID NOT APPEAR TO BE MUCH SPECIFIC DIRECTION TO THAT PARTICULAR REQUIREMENT IN MR. MORRIS'S LETTER OF APPEAL. IN THAT REQUIREMENT , IS THE GRANT OF THE VARIANCE WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE PURPOSE OF THE LDC AND THE COMP PLAN. IT WILL NOT BE INJURIOUS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD INVOLVED. IF YOU LOOK AROUND THE AREA, YOU CAN SEE ON THE AERIAL MAPS THAT ARE A PART OF THIS STAFF REPORT, THERE ARE MANY OTHER HOUSES IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. ACTUALLY, THE HOUSE DIRECTLY TO THE SOUTH TO THE RIGHT THERE AS YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE PROPERTY, THAT HOUSE WAS ALSO CONSTRUCTED ON THE APPLICANT AS HE MENTIONED IN HIS LETTER OF APPEAL. HE REQUESTED THE EXACT SAME VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THAT HOUSE. THEY WERE ANALYZED IN THE EXACT SAME WAY BY THE EXACT SAME STAFF. THEY WENT THROUGH THE PLDRC AND THOSE VARIANCES WERE GRANTED. AGAIN, THAT WAS IN THE APPLICANT'S LETTER OF APPEAL. SO, THIS FIFTH REQUIREMENT THAT IT IS NOT INJURIOUS TO THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES IN THE DISTRICT, AGAIN, IT WASN'T TOUCHED ON VERY HEAVILY BY EITHER OF THE STAFF OR THE OPPOSITION IN THIS CASE. SO, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO FOCUS ON ARE THE REQUIREMENTS 2 -- 3 AND 4. THOSE REQUIREMENTS SAY THAT THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD DEPRIVE THE OWNER, DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT'S OF REASONABLE RIGHTS THAT ARE AFFORDED TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE DISTRICT. IF YOU LOOK DIRECTED TO THE SOUTH, THE HOUSE THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED THERE RELATIVELY RECENTLY HAS BEEN AFFORDED EVERYTHING THAT WE HAVE ASKED FOR IN THIS CASE AND RECEIVED THOSE PROPERTY RIGHTS ON A PROPERTY WHICH IS ACTUALLY SLIGHTLY LARGER THAN THE PROPERTY THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. IT WAS ALSO A SUBSTANDARD LOT AT THE TIME, BUT IT IS A LITTLE BIT LARGER. WHAT THE STAFF DID IN THEIR REPORT WAS TO GO THROUGH AND DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE HOUSE THAT COULD BE CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT THE GRANT OF ANY OF THESE VARIANCES, WOULDN'T THAT BE REASONABLE GIVEN THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS, GIVEN THE HOUSES NEXT DOOR AND BEHIND AND IN FRONT OF IT. THEY FOUND THAT NO, IT WOULD NOT BE REASONABLE AND THAT IN FACT IN THEIR WORDS, IT WILL BE ABNORMALLY SMALL FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. YOU CAN SEE THAT ON THE SITE PLAN THAT SHOWS THE DIMENSIONS THAT WERE PUT UP THERE EARLIER. THE NORTH WALL OF THE HOUSE WITHOUT THE VARIANCES WOULD HAVE BEEN APPROXIMATELY 12 FEET. BUT, WITH A NORTH WALL OF THE HOUSE ARE APPROXIMATELY 12 FEET, YOU KNOW , I DON'T KNOW WHAT KIND OF CAR MOST OF YOU DRIVE, BUT MOST PEOPLE HAVE CARS THAT ARE LONGER THAN 12 FEET. I CERTAINLY DO. YOU KNOW, A SINGLE WIDE TRAILER IS 15 FEET, SO IT IS A VERY SMALL HOUSE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THIS STAFF WENT OUT OF THEIR WAY TO NOTE THAT EVEN CALLING IT EXCEPTIONALLY SMALL AND OF INCOMPATIBLE SIDE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT IS IN THE STAFF REPORT UNDER THE ANALYSIS. TO THAT, THE REQUIREMENT TO GRANT A VARIANCE -- THE FOURTH REQUIREMENT TO GRANT A VARIANCE , THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF CONFUSION HERE I THINK OF THE ANALYSIS OR APPLICATION OF WHAT THIS TEXT ACTUALLY MEANS. THE FOURTH REQUIREMENT SAYS THAT THE VARIANCE IS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE THAT WILL MAKE POSSIBLE THE REASONABLE USE OF THE LAND OR STRUCTURE. IT IS NOT A MINIMUM VARIANCE REQUIRED AND IT IS NOT THE MINIMUM USE REQUIRED, IT IS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE REQUIRED FOR REASONABLE USE. WHAT THE STAFF DID IS THEY ANALYZE ALL OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND SAID IF WE DON'T GRANT THESE VARIANCES, IT IS NOT GOING TO BE A REASONABLE USE. SO, THAT IS WHY THE STAFF MADE THEIR RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL OF THAT FOURTH REQUIREMENT OF

VARIANCES, BECAUSE THEY LOOK AT THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY OF THE FLOOR PLAN WITHOUT THE VARIANCES AND SAID, THIS IS AN EXTREMELY SMALL HOUSE AND EXCEPT THOSE -- AND EXCEPTIONALLY SMALL HOUSE TO USE THEIR TERMS. AGAIN, ANALYZING

-- SO, WITH RESPECT TO HOW THIS WENT THROUGH AT THE PLDRC , YOU ARE KIND OF PUT IN A POSITION TO CHOOSE WHETHER OR NOT THE SPECIFIC GRANT OF THE TWO VARIANCES WAS APPLIED CONSISTENTLY WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE STAFF REPORT TO WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SAY THAT THERE WAS A REASON WHY HE SHOULD OF BEEN DENIED AT THE PLDRC LEVEL. WE REALLY DON'T BELIEVE THERE IS, BECAUSE IN THE STAFF REPORT, YOU HAVE EVERYTHING THAT YOU NEED. YOU HAVE THE HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF THE PROPERTY TO DETERMINE THE SIZE AND ITS NATURE AS A BUILDABLE LOT. YOU HAVE THE STAFF'S ANALYSIS OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT IT IS CONSISTENT TO THE RIGHTS GIVEN TO THOSE PROPERTIES. YOU HAVE THERE ANALYSIS OF WHETHER OR NOT IT IS A REASONABLE USE TO ALLOW A 12 FOOT HOUSE TO GO ON A PARCEL. SO, IT IS OUR POSITION THAT THE STAFF WAS CORRECT IN THEIR ANALYSIS. THEY HAD ALL OF THE STAFF IN INFORMATION THEY NEEDED AND THAT ALL THREE VARIANCES SHOULD BE GRANTED AND APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION. THANK YOU.

MR. MORRIS. >> I AM HERE ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSING PROPERTY OWNER. THEY LIVE IMMEDIATELY EAST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. IN OTHER WORDS, IT IS TOWARDS A 1 MONTEREY -- A 1 A . THEY HAVE A 3000 SQUARE FOOT LOT. THEY HAVE BUILT IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL REQUIRED SETBACKS BY THE COUNTY CODE. AS YOU LOOK AT THE VARIANCE REQUEST, YOU HAVE THREE. THE FIRST IS TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION ON A STANDARD BLOCK -- SUBSTANDARD LOT. NOW, IN REGARD TO THE ARGUMENT, WHAT I KNOW IS THE APPLICANT HAVE A PIECE OF PROPERTY REFERRED TO AS THE PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT I THINK IS BEING DEVELOPED FOR SPECULATIVE PURPOSES, BUT WHAT IS IMPORTANT, IS THAT IT IS GIVEN THAT THE VARIANCES ARE NOT GRANTED FOR ECONOMIC REASONS. THAT DOESN'T CREATE A PECULIAR SITUATION. THE OTHER THING THAT IS CLEAR, YOUR ATTORNEYS WILL ADVISE YOU THAT A VARIANCE TO ONE PROPERTY DOES NOT SET PRECEDENT FOR ANOTHER PROPERTY. THE THIRD THING THAT YOU HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND IT IS NOT OUR DUTY TO PROVE THAT THEY ARE NOT ENTITLED, IT IS THERE DUTY TO PROVE THEY ARE ENTITLED. TO DO THAT, THEY NEED TO PRESENT TO YOU SUBSTANTIAL, COMPETENT EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS THEIR POINT OF VIEW. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE STAFF REPORT, YOU DON'T SEE ANY EVIDENCE THAT APPEARS SQUARE FOOTAGE OR DOES ANYTHING OTHER THAN SIMPLY LOOK AT THINGS AND SAY WELL, THAT IS KIND OF A LITTLE HOUSE. NOW, YOU PROBABLY KNOW THE HOUSE BUILT ON THE RIVER I THINK WAS BENT -- BUILT BY JUDGE MATTHEWS. IT WAS BUILT CODE COMPLIANT, AND IT IS A RIVERFRONT HOUSE IN ORMOND BEACH. ANYTHING THAT HURTS THE VALUE, THEY ARE OBVIOUSLY CONCERNED ABOUT. THEY DON'T THINK HAVING A HOUSE THAT MEETS CODE REQUIREMENTS WILL CAUSE THEM A PROBLEM IF THIS HOME IS BUILT CONSISTENT WITH THE CODE STANDARDS APPLICABLE BY THE COUNTY. THE PLANNING BOARD GRANTED THE FRONT YARD VARIANCE BUT DID NOT GRANT THE REAR YARD VARIANCE BECAUSE THAT IS THE PART THAT GOES TOWARDS MY CLIENTS PROPERTY. THE FRONT YARD GOES TOWARDS A 1 A. THE ARGUMENT HERE IS THEY NEED ENOUGH SPACE IN THE WIDTH OF THE BASE OF THE HOUSE ON THE FIRST FLOOR TO ACCOMMODATE A GARAGE. THERE IS NO GARAGE REQUIREMENT. I WILL SAY TO YOU THAT I DON'T HAVE ANY CONFUSION ABOUT WHAT CRITERIA NUMBER 4 MEANS. CRITERIA NUMBER FOUR IS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE THAT WILL MAKE POSSIBLE THE REASONABLE USE OF THE LAND BUILDING STRUCTURE. WHAT YOUR ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRES IS WHAT IT DEFINES TO BE A REASONABLE USE. THE APPLICABLE ZONING REQUIRES 1000 SQUARE FEET. THIS HAS

A PROPOSAL OF THREE STORIES HIGH . THAT COMPUTES TO 1048 SQUARE FEET. THEY HAVE REASONABLE USE AS DEFINED BY THE AUDIENCE. -- ORDINANCE. THE STAFF FINDS THAT IT IS INCREMENTALLY. WHAT IS COMMENSURATE IN RELATIONS TO A HOUSE? YOU HAVE A BATHROOM, YOU HAVE A BEDROOM, YOU HAVE A PLACE TO PREPARE FOOD. BY VOLUSIA COUNTY CODE, THAT MAKES A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE. FROM A CODE PERSPECTIVE , THE CODE DEFINES REASONABLE USE BY THE MINIMUM STANDARDS IMPOSED. ON PAGE 915 OF YOUR STAFF REPORT WHICH IS THE APPLICATION OF JUST THE SUBSTANDARD LOT VARIANCE, IT SHOWS A HOME CAN BE BUILT THERE. WOULD BE THE BEST HOME FOR THE MARKET THAT SOMEONE COULD BUILD AND HOPE THEY GET THE MOST MONEY FOR AND THEY SELL IT, I WOULD SAY PROBABLY NOT. I WOULD SAY WHAT YOU HAVE IS A RECORD COMPLETELY ABSENT OF ANY EVIDENCE THAT SHOWS THERE IS A PHYSICAL HARDSHIP WITH THE PROPERTY. IN FACT, THIS IS A PART OF THE OLD BASSOON SUBDIVISION DIVIDED MANY, MANY YEARS AGO. THERE ARE ALL SIZES IN DIFFERENT COLORS AND DIFFERENT CONFIGURATIONS OF HOMES. EVERY SQUARE INCH CAN BE PACKED THERE AND IT IS BEING PACKED THERE. WHILE THE SUBSTANDARD LOT DEFINITION MAKE QUICKLY BE MET, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU HAVE A OWNER THAT BOUGHT ONE PROPERTY IN 2014, AND I THINK THE LOT THAT IS BEFORE YOU NOW IN 2016 IS PLAYING GAMES WITH YOUR CODE. THEY ARE ADJACENT PROPERTIES OWNER -- PROPERTY OWNERS. AS YOU LOOK AT THIS, THE VARIANCES DON'T SET A STANDARD FOR YOU TO GRANT ANOTHER VARIANCE. THE REASONABLE USE CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED AS DEPICTED IN SECTION 915. THAT IS WHY I THINK YOU SHOULD DENY VARIANCES NUMBER 2 AND 3. YOU HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION AS IT RELATES TO WHAT SHOULD BE APPROPRIATE ON THE PROPERTY. I THINK FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE GARAGE, THERE IS NO NECESSITY FOR IT. TWO STORIES WILL BE REASONABLE, BUT IN NO INSTANCE SHOULD YOU GRANT THE REAR YARD SETBACK. THEY HAVE SUBSTANTIAL INVESTMENT IN WHAT THEY ARE BUILDING, AND IN THE LETTER I SENT TO YOU WHICH WAS MY EX PARTAKE COMMUNICATION TO ALL OF YOU, I HAD A DEPICTION WHICH SHOW THEIR HOUSE UNDER CONSTRUCTION, BUT THEY ARE RAPIDLY FINISHING THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY. SO, BASSOON BEACH HAS BEEN A PROBABLY -- PROBLEM AREA. IN A HIGH RENT AREA, YOU HAVE A HOUSE AND THERE IS NO SHOWING BY THE APPLICANT THAT ENTITLES THEM TO THE GRANTS OF THEIR REQUEST . I KNOW THAT MR. WELLS CAME INTO THE CASE LATE, BUT HE IS BOUND BY THE PETITION FILED BY THE BUILDER . WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT, ALL THAT YOU SEE IS FINANCIAL ARGUMENT AS TO WHY THE VARIANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED. IT SIMPLY SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED. IT FAILS TO COMPORT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND YOU SHOULD DENY BOTH VARIANCES 2 AND 3. YOU SHOULD SIMPLY STAND WITH THE PLANNING BOARD ONE DENIAL OF THE REAR YARD VARIANCE. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.

WITHOUT OBJECTION, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION OF THIS PROCEEDING, HOWEVER WE WILL ALLOW COUNSEL IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS THAT WE NEED TO ASK OF THEM. ANY QUESTIONS? THAT IS WHAT WE JUST HAD. I JUST CLOSED IT, SORRY.

THANK YOU. SO, THERE IS NO MORE PUBLIC ANTICIPATION? THANK YOU, SIR. I DO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY WAS HEARD. LOOKING AT BOTH SIDES OF THIS, AND I THINK WE HAVE TO GO BACK ALMOST TO THE ORIGINAL INTENT IN THIS. THE FIRST THING THAT I THINK IS CLEAR IS IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I THINK THIS HOME IS CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD. IF I HAD TO PUT THIS IN A CATEGORY, THIS IS A PERSONAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ISSUE, AND UNFORTUNATELY, IT HAS BEEN SUBJECTED TO PREVIOUS INJURY FROM THE TAKING OF TURTLE MOUNTAIN ROAD. IT JUST IS WHAT IT IS IN THAT PARTICULAR LOCATION. SO, TO USE ORMOND BEACH WITH WHAT IS GOING ON IN BUT SOON BEACHES APPLES AND ORANGES. JUST DOESN'T WORK. BECAUSE OF WHAT HAPPENED OUT THERE WITH TURTLE MOUNTAIN ROAD AND THAT TAKING. THAT IS CLEAR. SO, WITH THAT, AND HAVING HAD MULTIPLE CONVERSATIONS WITH STAFF ON THIS, I AM GOING TO BECAUSE IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD , AND BECAUSE OF WHAT I JUST SAID, I AM GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO UPHOLD THE PLDRC HEARING AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT IT IS A BUILDABLE LOTS AND MOVED TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE TO SECTION 72-206 TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION ON A SUB STANDARDIZED LOT AND TO A VARIANCE FOR FRONT YARD FOR THE REQUIRED 25 TO 20 FEET FOR PROPOSED FAMILY DWELLING AND MAKE SURE THAT I AM SAYING THIS RIGHT. I KNOW YOU ARE LOOKING AT ME. I AM UPHOLDING THE PLDRC HEARING RECOMMENDATION AS A TILTABLE LOT. I AM APPROVING THE APPEAL OF THE REAR VARIANCE SETBACK FOR ALLOWING FOR A 15 FOOT SETBACK, AND THE MOTION INCLUDES UPHOLDING THE VARIANCE APPEAL BY PLDRC FOR THE FRONT SETBACK. ALL OF THESE VARIANCES SUBJECT TO THE FIVE STAFF RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS.

VERY CLEAR.

AFFIRM, AFFIRM, REVERSE. >> AFFIRM, AFFIRM, REVERSE.

THANK YOU.

IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION ?

THE MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NO DISCUSSION. >> THE SECOND WAS BY MR. CHAIR, MR. LOWERY. THANK YOU.

ALL IN FAVOR SAY I .

I.

THE MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUS . THANK YOU BOTH FOR YOUR PATIENCE IN GETTING TO THIS ISSUE, AND APPRECIATE IT MAKING IT MOVE TODAY INSTEAD OF HAVING TO COME BACK. FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO MAY HAVE NOTICED SOME INDIVIDUALS WALKING , THOSE ARE TOMORROW'S LEADERS. STAND UP AND LET US SEE WHAT TOMORROW LOOKS LIKE TODAY. WE ARE GOING TO GIVE YOU A HAND, BECAUSE IF YOU ARE HERE TODAY, YOU ARE LEADERS TODAY. [ APPLAUSE ] AND YOU HAVE VISIONS OF BEING LEADERS TOMORROW, BECAUSE WE LIVE IN THE DAY AND WE LOOK FURTHER TOMORROW. WE DON'T LIVE IN THE PAST. YOU ARE IN THE IS RIGHT NOW, SO YOU ARE LEADERS RIGHT NOW AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED AND AS FAR AS WE ARE CONCERNED. THANK YOU FOR TAKING YOUR TIME TO COME OUT AND ENJOY SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE DO AT THE COUNTY COUNCIL WHICH IS WORK THROUGH ISSUES. AS YOU ALL WORK THROUGH ISSUES OF YOUR OWN EVERYDAY. THEY MIGHT NOT BE AS COMPLEX AS TRYING TO PROVIDE SETBACK AND BUILDABLE GARAGES, BUT THEY ARE COMPLEX AND WE DO APPRECIATE YOU. WHILE YOU ARE HERE, WE WOULD LIKE FOR EACH ONE OF YOU -- DO YOU WANT TO GET IN THAT PICTURE? [ LAUGHTER ] WE WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT YOU WITH A VOLUSIA COUNTY PEN THAT YOU CAN CARRY WITH YOU.

MR. CHAIR, CAN WE HAVE A 10 MINUTE RECESS?

YOU GUYS JUST HAVE A SEAT, TAKE A BREAK, AND WE WILL COME BACK AND PRESENT YOU -- LET'S TAKE A 10 MINUTE RECESS. THOSE OF YOU WHO WANT TO STAY AND PASS OUT THE PENS

-- >> [ SILENCE ]

I AM READY . OKAY. WE WILL GO TO ITEM NUMBER 10.

MR. BRENTON. YOU ARE ON SCHEDULE.

GOOD MORNING MR. CHAIR. BEFORE YOU IS AN ITEM THAT DEALS WITH ESTABLISHING A RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT IS PRESUMED TO BE DEDICATED TO THE PUBLIC O'STEEN MAY TOWN ROAD. FLORIDA STATUTE ALLOWS THE STATE AS WELL AS LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO ESSENTIALLY MAKE CLAIM TO OWNERSHIP OF LAND

THAT IS ADJACENT TO PUBLIC ROADS MAINTAINED FOR MANY YEARS BY THE PUBLIC AGENCY. THAT IS THE SITUATION IN THIS CASE. IT RUNS ABOUT 22 MILES ACROSS THE EASTERN PART OF THE COUNTY. IT IS A MIXTURE OF PLANTED RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND WHAT HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED BY THE COUNTY OVER 30 YEARS. IS NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH OWNED BY THE COUNTY, BECAUSE WE RECOMMENDING

AN ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY BEYOND WHAT IS MAINTAINED OF THE COUNTY. SO, THIS SECTION FROM 1300 FEET WEST OF RIVER OAKS

TO PELL ROAD IS A SECTION THAT WE ARE DEALING WITH HERE AND THERE YOU CAN SEE IT. WE HAVE HAD THE RIGHT-OF-WAY SURVEYED, WE HAVE HAD A ROAD AND BRIDGE STAFF WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY BEYOND JUST MOWING. THIS INCLUDES CLEANING DITCHES AND CLEANING TRASH OUT OF THE DITCHES AND REMOVING SEDIMENT IN THE DITCHES AS WELL AS THE PAVEMENT. WE HAVE SURVEYED THE OUTSIDE LIMIT OF WHAT THE COUNTY HAS BEEN MAINTAINING. IN MOST INSTANCES , ON THE SOUTH SIDE AS WELL AS THE NORTH, THE MAINTAINED AREA GOES TO THE BACKSIDE OF THE MAINTAINED DRAINAGE DITCH. A GOOD BIT OF THIS SECTION IS QUITE DEEP. THE BACK SLOPE IS ONLY FOUR OR 5 FEET OF DISTANCE.

DOESN'T GO TO THE TOP?

HE GOES TO THE TOP IN THE BACK. MOST PEOPLE RECOGNIZE THAT. THEY HAVE BEEN SO AND THAT IS THE ONLY AREA THE COUNTY MAINTAINED FOR MANY YEARS. THE MAINTENANCE MATH IS VERY DETAILED, BUT IT ESTABLISHES WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING TO SIMPLY CLAIM OWNERSHIP TO ALLOWS YOU TO ESTABLISH THIS AND THEN, IF YOU ADOPT IT , IT IS RECORDED WITH THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT. UNLESS THERE IS ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS ON THAT, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT COUNCIL APPROVED THE MAINTENANCE

THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. BRENTON? >>

BIGGER PICTURE -- BIGGER PICTURE QUESTION, JERRY. THIS IS AN COMPLETION TO THE TRAIL SYSTEM?

GUESS IT IS. WE HAVE THIS ON MANY, MANY ROADS. WE TYPICALLY ONLY BRING THIS FORWARD WHEN WE HAVE A COUPLE OF PROJECTS THAT WERE ARE REQUIRED. THE NEXT ITEM SPEAKS TO NEEDING TO PURCHASE AN ADDITIONAL 30 FEET FROM OUR RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND THIS NEEDS TO ESTABLISH. IN THIS SECTION ON THE SOUTH SIDE, IT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE -- THERE IS STRONG EVIDENCE WE HAVE. YOU CAN GO OUT AND SEE WHERE THEY SCOOPED OUT THE BOTTOM WHERE ALL OF THE DEBRIS AND SEDIMENT RUNS. IT IS ESTABLISHING THE LIMITS OF THE CURRENT OWNERSHIP ABOUT THE COUNTY AND THEN, WE WILL USE THAT AS THE NORTHERNMOST BOUNDARY IS WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING FOR THE 30 FOOT --

DO WE HAVE A MOTION?

SO MOVED.

SECOND.

ANY ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SAY I .

THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY, AND SINCE YOU ARE GETTING THERE, WE WILL MOVE TO ITEM NUMBER 11.

BEFORE YOU AS I ALLUDED TO IS AN ITEM THAT WE ARE BRINGING TO YOU TO ESTABLISH THE ALIGNMENT IN WHICH FOR THE MOST PART FOLLOWS THE FORMER THE MAJORITY FROM THE PROPERTY FROM THE FEC RAILROAD, BUT THERE WERE INSTANCES WHERE THEY COULD NOT ESTABLISH CLEAR TITLE OR INSURABLE TITLE, SO THEY DID NOT PURCHASE THOSE AREAS. I THINK I NEED SOME TECHNICAL HELP HERE. WILL YOU GO TO THE FIRST SLIDE THERE? OKAY, BEFORE YOU HEAR IS THE REGIONAL SYSTEM. IT GIVES YOU A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND AND HOW LARGE THE SYSTEM IS. OF WHAT YOU SEE ON THAT SYSTEM WHICH IS OVER 70 MILES , OVER 53 MILES EASILY

COMPLETED OR UNDER CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION. WHAT YOU SEE CIRCLE THERE IS A 3 1/2 MILE THREE QUARTERS OF A MILE WAS NOT PURCHASED BY THE STATE OF FLORIDA. THIS WAS AN AERIAL. YOU CAN SEE THE BEGINNING. THIS AREA IS THE BEGINNING, AND HERE IS THE END OF IT. EVERYTHING EXCEPT WHAT IS SHOWN IN BLUE WAS PURCHASED BY THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND THE PROPOSED ALIGNMENT OBVIOUSLY IS WITHIN THAT 100 FEET THAT WAS PURCHASED. THIS IS 4000 FEET . WE HAVE EVALUATED ALL ALTERNATIVES TO ESTABLISH WHAT WE BELIEVE IS THE LEAST IMPACTFUL AND THE MOST PRUDENT ALTERNATIVE TO RECOMMEND TO YOU. [ SILENCE ]

THIS IS THE GRAPHIC THAT IS IN YOUR PACKAGE. YOU CAN SEE THERE ARE MULTIPLE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT ARE ON EITHER SIDE OF THE 100 FEET OF RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT WAS AS I SAID, PURCHASED BY THE STATE OF LAURA. . THEY BELIEVE THEY HAVE CLEAR TITLE TO IT, AND COUNTY HAS A LEASE TO USE IT FOR TRAIL PURPOSES. IN SOME INSTANCES, YOU WILL NOTE THAT HOMES ARE FAIRLY CLOSE TO IT. IT IS WHERE THE RAILROAD USED TO RUN. IT CONTINUES ON TO THE EAST. AGAIN, ALL PROPERTY OWNERS ADJACENT OR IMPACTED, THEY WERE NOTIFIED THIS FOUR WEEKS AGO AND THEY RECEIVED

ALL THE AND MATERIALS. WE GAVE THEM A LINK TO THIS COUNSEL DATE, SO THAT THEY WOULD KNOW WHEN IT WOULD BE HARD. OKAY, THIS BEGINS THE NEXT QUARTERS OF A MILE. YOU CAN SEE IN THIS AREA, YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE IS THE 100 FEET OF WHERE THE RAILROAD USED TO OCCUPY. IT IS 1300 FEET LONG BY 100 FEET DEEP. THE STATE APPARENTLY WERE NOT ABLE TO ESTABLISH CLEAR TITLE. THERE IS ANOTHER PROPERTY OWNER LISTED THERE AND ST. JOHN'S DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION THAT HAS CLAIMS TO IT THROUGH QUICK CLAIMS ETC. THEY WOULD REQUIRE IF WE WERE TO ACQUIRE THAT THE STATE COULD NOT ESTABLISH THAT THE FEC OWNED IT CLEAR, SO THEY DID NOT PURCHASE IT. IT IS A VACANT PIECE OF PROPERTY. IT IS ZONED A 1 WHICH REQUIRES 10 ACRES. IT IS ONLY THREE ACRES. VERY NARROW. TO THE SOUTH IS ZONED A TWO EVEN UNDER A 1 OR THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE MOST LIKELY IS PURCHASED BY PROPERTY OWNERS TO THE NORTH OR SOUTH

THE MINIMUM IS NECESSARY IF YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH CONDEMNATION WHICH IS ALWAYS A VERY BAD TERM

AND WE ARE NOT ABLE TO GO SEE IT, SO WE EVALUATE ALTERNATIVES. YOU CAN SEE IT IS ALTERNATIVE THAT SWINGS TO THE NORTH. UPON THAT LARGE PARCEL THEN GOES ON THE FRONT OF THE ROAD. WE ARE SHOWING A 30 FOOT EASEMENT ON THE WEST SIDE AND ALONG FRONTAGE OF THAT PARCEL IN THE DARK BLUE. IN THIS SECTION, IT IS SOMEWHAT DEBATABLE . IN THIS WORK, IT COULD GO EITHER WAY IN OUR OPINION. WHY IT IS PREFERRED ON THE LIGHT BLUE IS SIMPLY THAT WE DON'T BELIEVE IT HAS ANY DEVELOP ABILITY PROPERTY OWNER HAS CONTACTED US , AND THEY WOULD PREFER WE DON'T GO THROUGH IT.

WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT HERE. YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE TURQUOISE OR LIGHTER BLUE WHICH IS THE ROAD THAT WOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH THE THREE ACRES THAT WE COULD REQUIRE. I AM SPEAKING TO THE ONE THAT IS CIRCLED VERSUS THIS ONE.

RIGHT. I HAVE NOT GONE BEYOND THAT IN THIS DISCUSSION.

OKAY.

I GUESS I JUMPED AHEAD OF YOU.

THE OVAL TO THE NORTH IS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE LIGHT. BUT, WE HAVE RECEIVED SOMEBODY INDIVIDUALLY WITH SOME PROPERTY OWNERS TO THE EAST AND TO THE SOUTH THAT HAVE IT SHOULD GO ON THE DARK BLUE. THE ONE ALONG THE FRONTAGE.

THAT IS WHY I AM CONFUSED BECAUSE IT APPEARS SINCE WE DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE THAT THREE ACRES THAT YOU ORIGINALLY HAD CIRCLED. WE HAVE TWO CIRCLES ON MINE.

ALL RIGHT, THIS ONE. THIS ONE RIGHT HERE. OKAY, THAT DARK BLUE.

RIGHT.

IT IS NOT PRACTICAL TO GO IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.

WE WOULD HAVE TO REQUIRE AN ADDITIONAL 30 FEET TO THE SOUTH ON THAT PERSON'S PROPERTY. THE LIGHT BLUE GOES THROUGH A PARTIAL , WE WOULD HAVE TO REQUIRE AT MINIMUM AT 30 FEET, WE WOULD OFFER MORE LIKELY TO PURCHASE THE WHOLE HUNDRED FOOT. BECAUSE, IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY DIFFICULT DEVELOPABLE POTENTIAL.

MR. CHAIR.

GUESS.

LET ME SEE IF I CAN HELP OUT HERE. EITHER OF THESE ROUTES, THE LIGHT BLUE GOING TO THE ST. JOHN'S DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OR THE DARK BLUE ROUTE GOING UP ADJACENT TO OUR RIGHT-OF-WAY WILL REQUIRE ACQUISITION.

RIGHT. ULTIMATELY, YOU WILL END UP WITH AN IMMINENT DOMAIN ACTION. I THINK STAFFS PURPOSE IS TO GO THROUGH WITH THE ST. JOHN'S DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, AND MR. BRENTON NEEDS DIRECTIONS AS WE MOVE ALONG THIS ROUTE WHETHER WE ARE GOING TO GO UP OR WHETHER WE ARE GOING TO ACQUIRE FROM THE ST. JOHN'S DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. EACH ONE OF THESE DECISIONS AS WE MOVE FURTHER AND FURTHER TO THE EAST WILL START TO LEARN THE TRAIL.

I WAS KIND OF AWARE OF THAT. I WAS JUST LOOKING AT THE NEXT SECTION, I GUESS. YOU ARE BASICALLY SAYING YOU REALLY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE ST. JOHN'S PROPERTY TO GET TO THE POINT -- TO GET TO THERE, YOU WANT TO GO FROM THE BLUE NOT TO THE YELLOW STRAIGHT ACROSS IS YOUR PREFERRED ROUTE TO GET TO THAT POINT .

THEN YOU HAVE ANOTHER DECISION OF WHICH WAY TO GO.

SO, WE KNOW THAT WE HAVE TO DO THAT. I HAVE GOT THAT PART OF IT. NOW, I HAVE GOTTEN THIS TO THE NEXT ONE.

OKAY. THE NEXT POINT.

ASSUMING THAT WE HAVE TO ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY. IT IS GOING TO PUT US -- MY LITTLE DRAWINGS ARE NOT SHOWING UP ARE THEY? I THOUGHT I HAD DONE THAT. ANYWAY, OKAY , -- [ SILENCE ]

>> HERE'S WHERE WE ARE. WE ARE GETTING TO THAT POINT, BECAUSE THAT IS THE WAY WE HAVE TO GO BECAUSE IF WE DO THE DARK BLUE LINE, IT WOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE TO GO ACROSS THAT WAY IS WHAT YOU ARE BASICALLY SAYING.

KNOW.

MR. CHAIR, IF I CAN ADD, HISTORICALLY, WHAT IS GOING ON IS WE SHOWED YOU 2 ALTERNATIVES. YOU HAVE GOT COMPLAINTS FROM SOME CITIZENS THAT THEY PREFERRED THAT YOU ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH OF THEIR PROPERTY.

I HAVE READ THOSE. I UNDERSTAND THAT PART.

LIGHT BLUE LINE IS THE PREFERRED ROUTE.

ONE, THEY TRY TO REQUIRE PROPERTY AS MUCH AS THEY CAN TO GIVE BUFFER TO THE TRAIL. NUMBER TWO, THEY TRY TO KEEP THE TRAIL AS FAR AWAY FROM THE ROAD AS THEY CAN, SO IT IS A REAL TRAIL AND BECAUSE OF DANGER. THE CLOSER WE GET THERE ESPECIALLY IF PEOPLE HAVE YOUNG KIDS, WE WILL HAVE PROBLEMS. THAT IS WHY THE PREFERRED WOULD BE THE ST. JOHN'S. YOU COULD SAY FURTHER AWAY FROM THE ROAD AND YOU HAVE A SAFETY BUFFER IF WE REQUIRE ALL OF THE PROPERTY.

I WAS GETTING IS PREFERRED TO GO STRAIGHT ACROSS TO THE POINT WHERE IT IS NOT SHOWING UP. WE ARE THERE. NOW, WHETHER WE ARE ON THE LIGHT BLUE OR DARK BLUE, WE CAN GO ALONG THE FRONTAGE --

WE CAN. THAT IS WHY THEY CONNECT.

OKAY.

THIS COULD HAVE GONE ALONG HERE.

OKAY, THE LIGHT BLUE ON THE RIGHT THAT YOU JUST HIT WITH A REDLINE, WILL IT GO BACK ON THE ROAD?

IT WILL. IF WE ARE THINKING OF KEEPING IT OFF THE ROAD, WHY IS THAT THE PREFERRED ROUTE? HERE, WE ARE ALONG THE ROAD. WHY IS THAT PREFERRED AS TO THE OTHER. THE REASON I AM ASKING IS BECAUSE OF THAT, WE CAN KEEP PEOPLE HAPPY OVER HERE THEN, WHY WOULD NOT WE JUST COME UP HERE IS A THERE IT GOES. WE ARE ALREADY GOING TO BE ON THE ROAD.

THE UNIQUENESS OF THIS FIRST SEGMENT IS THAT IT IS A SINGLE STRIP OWNED BY A SEPARATE ENTITY, AND IT IS 100 FEET AND A TRAIL IS ONLY 12 FEET. HE GOES THROUGH THE MIDDLE. YOU HAVE TREE BUFFER ON EITHER SIDE. IT IS UNIQUE IN THAT EXIST IN THAT SECTION. IF THAT HUNDRED FEET HAD NOT BEEN PROTECTED AND IT WAS JUST A PART OF THE ADJACENT LOT, WE WOULD'VE RECOMMENDED IT GO ON THE FRONTAGE.

THAT IS FINE. THOSE FOUR LOTS THAT ARE UNDERNEATH IT THERE, ARE THOSE THE PEOPLE THAT ARE RUNNING TO US?

NO, SIR. THEIR HOMES ARE PRETTY FAR BACK.

THE EMAILS THAT WE ARE GETTING ARE NOT FROM THAT RED LINE RIGHT NOW.

THEY ARE ALONG THE LIGHT BLUE THIS JOE HERE PREFERS GOING THROUGH HIS PROPERTY. ANOTHER HOME TO OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS FURTHER SOUTH, RECOMMEND IT GOING ON WITH THIS ONE. THEY ARE JUST PRESSING THEIR -- EXPRESSING THEIR CONCERNS FOR THEIR NEIGHBORS.

OKAY.

THANK YOU. WE HAVE A NATURAL BOOK BUFFER. IT IS NOT -- SO, WE HAVE GOT A NATURAL BUFFER BUILT-IN. I DON'T KNOW IF ANY OF YOU HAVE EVER BEEN ON THE TRAIL OR ANY OF OUR TRAILS. I WILL TELL YOU. I HAVE GOT TO RECOGNIZE OUR TRAIL QUEENIE COUNCILWOMAN. PLEASE SAY HELLO. IN THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE HAVE HAD IN THE PAST AND LOOKING AT ALIGNMENTS, IT HAS BEEN CONTENTIOUS AND THAT IS A KIND WORD. AFTER THE TRAIL HAS GONE IN, THESE LAND OWNERS AND HOMEOWNERS ARE NOT ONLY THRILLED IN THE REAL ESTATE MARKET, THEY ARE MARKETING AS TO HOW CLOSE THEY ARE TO THE TRAIL OR THE TRAIL IS ON THEIR PROPERTY. IT IS A TREMENDOUS ADVANTAGE. IT IS BEAUTIFUL. WE ARE MAKING THE AREA BETTER. WE REALLY ARE. AESTHETICALLY AND WHAT OTHER WAY . WHAT I AM SAYING IS I SUPPORT THE BLUE TRAIL BECAUSE OF THE BUFFER AND BECAUSE IT IS A NATURAL BUFFER BUILT IN, AND THEN,

IF WE GO TO THE RIGHT OR THE LEFT, THAT IS ANOTHER CONVERSATION. IT JUST SEEMS FROM EVERY INTENTION, WE SHOULD DO THE LIGHT BLUE AND KEEP THEM OFF OF MAINE TOWN ROAD. IT IS SAFER, FOR THE BIKERS TO STAY OFF THERE, AND I THINK IT IS BETTER FOR THE RESIDENCE ACTUALLY. BECAUSE, YOU WON'T EVEN KNOW IT IS THEY ARE.

DOCTOR LARRY.

LET ME FOLLOW UP. I AM GOOD TO THE RED CIRCLE COMING FROM THE LEFT.

EVERYBODY IS GOOD TO THE RED CIRCLE.

NOW, WHAT IS THE HINDRANCE TO USING THE DARK BLUE ON THE RIGHT?

I WILL ADDRESS THAT. I AM AT THAT POINT.

THANK YOU, SIR. >>> IN THIS INSTANCE, RATHER THAN SPLITTING PEOPLE'S PROPERTIES AND BEING IN THE BACKYARD OF EIGHT PROPERTIES OVER SEVEN AND BEING IN THE FRONT YARD OF OTHERWISE, WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT WOULD BE ON THE BACKSIDE OF THE ROADSIDE DITCH. WHICH IS THE LIGHT BLUE. >> IF WE COULD DO THE SAME THAT YOU DID WHERE WE ASKED THEM TO DEDICATE THE FOOTAGE THAT IS NEEDED, WOULD THAT BE THE OPTION THAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR ARE NOT REALLY?

NOT IN THIS CASE. BECAUSE, WE OWNED -- ESTATE ON THE OTHER. THEY OWNED THE 100 FEET, SO WE WERE GOING THERE. SO, COUNSEL THEN SAID WE ARE GOING TO GO RIGHT THERE, WE ARE GOING TO USE THE 100 FEET THAT IS OWNED BY THE PUBLIC UNLESS YOU GIVE US AN EASEMENT.

THERE ARE FOUR LOTS RIGHT THERE THAT I AM SEEING.

AND THREE MORE ON THE NEXT SHEET.

THOSE SEVEN PROPERTY OWNERS WOULD PREFER THAT IT GO TOWARDS THE FRONT.

YES, THEY DO. THEY PREFERRED RATHER THAN BEING ON THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY. >> THEY WANT TO BE PAID FOR THE BACK OR THE FRONT?

ABSOLUTELY. WE ARE NOT LOOKING FOR A DONATION THIS CASE, BECAUSE WE HAVE TWO GO ONE ROUTE OR THE OTHER. SO, WE ARE LOOKING AT THE ONE THAT IMPACTS THE PROPERTIES THE LEAST. WE BELIEVE AFTER EVALUATING IT, THE LIGHT BLUE IS STILL SAFE, BECAUSE WE ARE ON THE BACKSIDE OF THE DITCH 20 OR 30 FEET FROM THE ROAD, AND IT IS ON THE FRONTAGE WHERE THE ROAD IS AND IT IS WHERE THEY PREFER IT AS WELL .

IF I WAS ONE OF THOSE SEVEN , I WOULD BE INCLINED TO SAY IF YOU PUT ON THE FRONT, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ALLOW YOU TO USE THAT . MAYBE THERE ARE NOT WE HAVE GOT TO REQUIRE IT ON EITHER THE FRONT OR THE BACK. KEEP IN MIND. THEY DON'T WANT TO AT ALL.

IF THAT IS THE CASE, I GUESS THAT IS WHERE WE ARE. . THIS IS A BIG PART OF THE STATEWIDE SYSTEM THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE WANT TO TAKE OUT AND LET IT STOP THERE. [ CAPTIONERS TRANSITIONING ]

THE NEXT THREE ARE A SIMILAR SITUATION. WE HAVE NOT HEARD FROM THEM. THE CLOSEST HOME. YOU IS ON THIS PARTIAL in Vincent 105 feet from the proposed trail. The next closest -- let me jump back is this gentleman road in. He is right here. He is 140 feet from the proposed trail . So they are not even close to the proposed trail and that is the reason why we diverted. Any questions before we hit the next? We are getting to the point that we are and now we are at a choice of going South again to go East and West. We see this light blue line and go straight across having to acquire property along the bed, I am guessing.

We are at this point so here is what we are saying is our preferred. There is a reason versus using what was acquired by the state. There is three more property owners in this section. The first two properties are very , very large. The large parcels you have split the property here. The only reason that this light blue is being recommended is because if the property owners donate 30 feet. Donate. Similar to Cal Creek where we own this but we have really split the property and we think we should continue along the frontage along as they are really -- willing to donate .

I simply are not going to vote on any of this.

We are asking you to do that. This is not new to County government, but for municipal governments, we have had to look at trails but not on this magnitude.

I just want to clarify. So this area here is what we are talking about but all of this I see appear you have waiting to to -- Whiting, so this area through here it is not currently there is, correct?

No. It is not.

Already.

The state owns it. The state owns the yellow.

How are we breaking up their property if we continue that down?

Okay.

And leave that the current status but have the trail in the middle of it.

These are large agricultural parcels. So it is very similar to Cow Creek picks like so they do not own it but they are using it?

It is not fenced. They see this as far as use, they do not see that 100 feet so if we put the trail here, we would be fencing both sides. You have cattle and crossings. It would cut this piece and that part in half so as with Cow Creek the previous counsel was receptive to saying if you donate along the frontage.

Let's get them to donate that and move to the next slide.

All right. Next slide . They are going to donate that.

Agreed.

I think we need to take a vote. We are not there yet.

The property owner from here going this direction has already signed an easement donating that.

No. They did not donate that.

The first property owner that we were on the previous slide two brothers and they are having some disagreement over on related to the trail. They both like the idea of being on the frontage and one is ready to sign today and the other is the managing partner, and he has the authority to convey it. He is not quit there yet from illegality standpoint. We believe he is going to convey that easement. So in this motion is that our recommendation is to be on the light blue on these last two parcels, and if they can be those two easements to us, then that is my recommendation. If they do not and we go back to the other alignment.

That is the only other option we have.

Exactly.

I did not realize you had already asked them to convey the easements pick

He jumped ahead. He is so anxious.

But my question is so it is an option and you put it out there. That I did not know. If we already have agreement for the easements on some of these properties, in my opinion that changes the dynamics completely because you can make the case a little stronger and this is what we had in Cow Creek but you have got -- and I do not know what you are going to look at. We need a time element on this because if we agree to these easements it is not going to be by the way that the brothers figure it out at a family reunion. That is not how we are going to do this. We are going to put a time on it certain like we did with Cow Creek. If it does not happen to me go forward with the land we own.

Thank you,

Ms. Denys. Some minor amendments to the easements with the lawyers but we are done and they will execute so the Whitings will execute what was in your package and will probably require some minor adjustments but they will be execute I am certain. And then we will move into the a Miami court process at that point. It is exactly what we did with Cow Creek but yes, we are ready to go.

If you had started out with Pat and we would have said 10 minutes on this discussion.

So you wanted us to go from East to West?

If you are going to say by the way --

Just on these two.

That is enough. That helps.

Okay. So where do we go from here?

That concludes it. My recommendation now would be that you approve the preferred alignment shown on your exhibits in light blue and that you authorized staff to proceed with negotiations . We would to appraisals on these parcels and proceed with negotiating on the eight parcels that we previously debated. And that you authorized staff to accept the easements from Whitings and from Mr. Davis and the subject of the

Whiting falling through the go back to what we do own.

I have three people who have filled out cards to speak on this.

Okay. Robin Brown? And Keith Brown. Why do you come down as a team unless you disagree .

I Robin Brown. I live on 200 Batton Road in hosting. We are talking about the stretch along may town and the four properties. My husband and I own one and I'm ever since my mother who would be impacted twice by the preferred alignment that is being proposed today. She did send a letter to you via Alex cord.

Are you indicating that when you put your arrow?

Yes.

They go. So you have to yours and your mother pick

We are the Brown. This is my mother right here. If you can see, her property has been impacted twice. We are here today to address the alignment. You want it to go along this way and the reason for that is so it does not impact my mother's property twice and there is a lot of safety issues. I was born and raised in as seen. I know the area well and Afghanistan the beauty of it. -- And I have seen the beauty of it. We do target practice and all of this in the security of our property will be taken away with the alignment that is being proposed here today. Unless you have physically driven out to that round and seeing our home and seeing how we live, you will not fully understand how this impacts us if it takes the light blue route and the dark blue route on our security.

I know you've got time but they are not taking the front and the back.

No, sir. I am sorry. My mother's property here would be impacted twice if they come this route, the blue .

That is two separate properties but I understand it. She doesn't have a second property being affected twice.

In the top left corner. They are saying they do not either one.

No ma'am. What we are proposing today my husband and I we presented you with the brand preferred alignment and what we would like to do is that comes up here is to come up Rover Oaks and along here it would be the least impact to our home and to our privacy and is going to have to go along a lot of Maytown anyway because that property -- you're going to have to acquire that anyway. I just feel like this is an opportunity that you can here are concerns. We are coming to you as land owners to work with you to ask you to consider what we want and what we are asking. We know the trail is coming. But we should have a say in how it will impact us. When you look at that diagram, it looks like a piece of property, but that is our backyard and privacy pick

You are talking the backyard is the light blue?

The dark blue would be the backyard. So we are coming today to ask that you bring to the would ask that you would bring it up river Oaks and across the whole Front Park of Maytown. Is to be the least impact to my mother and property and ours.

Got you.

And that we are hoping and asking the council to consider are wishes. We have tried to present you with this information fervently.

For three minutes our past and I am sure your husband will fill us in on something you have not covered. Do you have anything else to add to that, Lester Brown? Okay.. I think all of us up here understand what you have requested.

Keith Brown, 200 Batton Road. Good morning for letting us come to speak to you on behalf of our neighbors and our family. Being part of the resident of Volusia County and the many generations of Volusia County I am hoping for your consideration, understanding and mostly your support on what we are facing on this unique 4000 feet that you get to deal with today. I sent two emails with attached maps a few days ago. I have copies here if you do not have one to be able to look at it again. First of all, let me say we are not in support of the trail. We live out there for a reason but knowing that we know that the trail is coming , and we are here in front of you today to let you know we are willing to work with you all if you all are willing to see and understand and listen to our views along this. It has great impact along this trial to our agricultural lifestyle. First and foremost is the safety and security of our property and the tranquility of our lives. Our preferred alignment would go a long Maytown starting out at River Oaks. It would be on the west side of river Oaks for a safety issue you would relieve a mid-walk crossing because this is a unique area. You can change for you do not have to cross but go up the west side of river Oaks and crossword traffic has stopped and continue along Maytown roads where the majority of the preferred is located. By doing this alignment also it impacts each parcel only one time instead of my mother-in-law's partial -- parcel twice making the value of it go down to those that are looking for an agricultural parcel. I believe safety should be on your mind. One of the main concerns on that. The other concerns are the use of these agricultural pieces being hunting, shooting, livestock and just some. We are willing to negotiate with the county to construct a trail on our proposed alignment and listening to us and having some dialogue with yourself and trying to get -- your staff and try to get this to go forward. If you are not willing to work with us, you have to exercise eminent domain and we will exercise Eminent Domain on our behalf for us to get what we think we deserve.

Okay. Thank you, Lester Brown. -- Mr. Brown . Mr. Macomb -- Mr. McCall? and hopefully you can point out where your property is pick

Whining is Steven McCall and my wife and my four kids live at 215 road which is right there.

That is easy.

You have probably know that communicated with you the email to express my concerns. But this is our family statement about our thoughts on the plan of the trail. We have reviewed both the right-of-way and the alignment proposals

provided by the county. I think it is pretty clear that between us and Shoreline Drive are opposed to the trail alignment and leave the preferred route should be adjusted on Maytown Road similar to the completed sections done . Just down the street. We have the following concerns and considerations for the alignment proposal. Our family frequently shoots guns on the property. I am sure that will be unnerving too many trail users. The 10 acre partial -- parcel househunting activity. There is deathly hunting activity there. Losing significant portion used for recreation and driving in a loss of privacy around our pool with traffic close to our home in the current proposed track would mean the modification of the following features of our property.

You are talking about the proposed being the light blue to the north that will affect you on Maytown Road?

Yes.

Okay.

Do you have a picture?

I've got the map. But he is just saying if it is on Maytown Road it will still affect his life. Sorry.

Going even the preferred route will be taking approximately 75 trees on our property many of them that are decorative columns and our kids zip line in that tree area. It would have to be modified. After thoughtful deliberations seeking guidance we would prefer for legal action in the cost and delays to the county.

In consideration for updating the trails preferably between the edge of the road in the back of the drainage ditch we would be willing to negotiate for the acquisition of our portion of the men required.

Thank you.

I think I have one more. Mrs. Ardida? Great Mrs.

I am Marguerite Ardida and I live at 532 West Lawrence. I will be very brief. I did not have anything to add about the alignment. I just think it is extremely important that we get this resolved as soon as possible. I am the cofounder of the alliance and I just wanted to point out that this East Central Florida rail has no Rail Trail and it is part of a statewide system on two counts. It is part of the coast to coast to St. Petersburg and the St. Johns River and then on up to Saint Augustine. So I just hope that we can get this resolved because it is so important to our local economy here because of the importance of the trail.

Thank you and thank you to the previous speakers for your comments that you have made. I did read the emails and especially the gun shooting one. That alarmed me but I can assure you of the trail is completed I will avoid the gunshots. Council?

Jerry, do you have any way where you can put these two where the seven properties are affected basically from river Oaks where it goes and all of the way over to the other property where the Smiths party agreed -- already agreed ? The whites . I am sorry.

I do not have it.

Okay. IPad it would have been kind of helpful to have seen this right here and straighten that up. That will get them what they want. Overlap them and fold it. Because I think what you're going to see if you use the point where we have to go up into Maytown then I am going to agree though I am not the final voice on this but once you get up there are, why not stay there? I think you mentioned something along those lines that if we have to go up there are, that would seem that we could do that and where we have to acquire property and acquire easements already to utilize it. So I do not necessarily agree staying on the west side of river Oaks makes a different. Either way you have the traffic to go up that side if we go up. I also believe that where we had the easement with the get the 100 feet or whether it is not being used if we have got to acquire it, I guess that is the other part instead of dropping down in the middle. If you have got to go up and get the 3 acres or the 100 feet easement, why not just get the 100 feet easement and keep it up there? I don't know that that is part of the proposed -- pardon me.

Dr. Lowery, I am sorry. I am going to finish before I go to the rest of you. When I see you pop up I think I've got to stop. Enemy, that is kind of where I am thinking it looks like it might make sense.

I was going to ask a question. If she could scoot the math a little bit West of river Oaks Drive -- scoot the map a little closer to river Oaks Drive. We are requesting here? They would have to stop there anyway. What would be the advantage and disadvantage.

This is out --

Instead of going like this, why would you not go up across like that?

Because this is owned by Mr. Hicks, who is not involved at all. We would involve one more.

Okay.

My question is why are we not just going across? Why is this little section here proposed? Because this is the 100 foot area and I did want to tell you I actually agree with being able to do what you need to do and enjoying that.

I've not, which makes it even more dangerous. [ laughter ]

It is coming and it is for the betterment of the area that we do have the trails come through, and it is better for the state. I would just like to say I am in agreement for keeping it along Maytown because it is a very small section.

The same thing I said where the three

The same thing I said where the 3 acres are right here. Just take it 100 feet and go here.

Exactly. Have we heard from that land owner? Talk we have not. Two land owners. One is East Coast and one is St. John's.

About it. The guy who actually owns the property .

This is a separate owner from this little strip. And I think in my previous remark this was almost equal to going up along here. Either one of those are good alignments. It wishes that this was an unavailable 100 foot strip and you could go down the center of it.

We have not heard from that home owner. Correct?

We have not heard from them.

He is trained to keep the cost as low as he can. He will tell you it has less economic value and you will pay less money for that piece. With a buffer on each side of the trail.

Okay. Yes. My comment is kind of going over yours, Heather. Going to the Maytown Road at that first section. I was going to ask also with that property owner if he had been contacted and so it was kind of overlapping hers. I understand the property of St. John's is straight through, but looking at the least amount of impact on the owners of all of the properties. And I think I kind of was moving it toward the Maytown Road at this point.

Along that alignment.

Yes. But we have not heard from them.

We had corresponded with them a couple of years ago, and they were notified. We got an inquiry from about that property, but it was not the owner. It was another person's name. We just shared this information for you. This was a perfectly good alternative and that is what I discussed earlier. It could have gone from a staff standpoint of to the cost of -- the toss of the coin.

My second question was when it was first presented to us just a few minutes ago, it was stated that to go toward Maytown would be so much more dangerous but it was stated on the section further east. Is there something different on that section that you have read? That would be more dangerous?

No.

For development?

In my opinion, there is no real danger because we are on the back side of the ditch so it is probably the biggest downside is that you are not out in the middle of a field but back here you have homes expect that we are not infringing on somebody's privacy .

That is the upside.

Thank you. This is some good discussion. Jerry, the trail is what, 12 feet wide? How much buffer

and we go to the Maytown Road, what is the puffer between the ditch and the trail ?

We are recommending requiring a 30 foot easement and having the 12 foot trail in the center so --

Okay. So we have got 30 feet and in the middle of the 30 feet would be the 12 foot trail.

Yes.

Okay. That is a pretty good buffer but keep going to the east and that really large parcel. Can you move that map down? That is where we said where we owned that yellow line.

Cow Creek if I recall here is what the deal was that if they would give us the easement out front we want give out right away -- we would get back our right away.

With Cow Creek we could not give them promises. We set this is state ones, -- owned , and we will support any actions they wanted to try to get the state to release it but Seaman has been working with them and there are no strings attached. You give us an easement, but there is no guarantee other than our support if you wish to try to convince the state to release it.

Okay. All right. I just wanted to make sure that we understood that. I think that we could say the same thing here just knowing there is no guarantees and it is an arduous task either way it will happen but it determines if the easement will be out front or if we will exercise our right and use the right away that currently exists.

I think they are hearing that both of those property owners are receptive and we wanted to convey the easement.

I think it is a very good solution to where we can go for this.

Mr. Patterson?

My major concern to and I think it had been brought up

with the safety of riding a bicycle. I worry more about somebody driving down the road and texting as a bicycle rider that somebody shooting a gun. ISIL safer somebody shooting a gun in a backyard then somebody writing down the road so as long as we got along that Maytown Road and we know that there is some kind of a buffer between somebody riding a bike, I did not have a problem with that. But just in those areas I just want to make sure.

Mr. Patterson, it is a sloping shoulder of grass that goes into a significant ditch with a back slope and then the trail would be. So from a vehicle going up you're not going to get a trail user pic

It would be 9 feet from the edge of the back of the judge.

Correct. I heard Mr. Dinneen saying something .

I think he was thinking that perhaps in this section we were proposing it on the north side of the ditch but in this section we were forced in a couple places to do that. Here is the other thing. The previous counsel pointed to make sure with it easier to give up and go along Maytown without a real trail and all you had was a lane next to Maytown Road. So what this was was that the Council made exceptions for the thought it was in the best interest of the public to keep the trail off of Maytown into a real trail because you are going into sections here where once you get involved with it, it is a long ride so making sure there is going to be a quality trail counsel wanted it as far off from the main road as they could get it. You are trying to really minimize how much of it is right against Maytown Road. Dr. Lowery?

And also, on Mr. Patterson 's, it was taken serious by council members who believe that in today's world the people riding there that there is a greater likelihood someone could end up --

We got that one. Dr. Lowery?

Maytown Road is a trail, in a sense. Not long ago I would go that way to go fishing. I am ready to make a motion on this if that is possible.

Fire away.

I would like to propose and I think I understand the community's feeling and I would like to propose that we followed the preferred route with the exception as the able line property where we do with the alternative route. The dark blue. That is my motion.

I will second it.

Motion has been made and seconded by Ms. Dennings.

With an exception. These on the easements do we want to put a time limit on here that it will revert back to? Are you sure?

We will be good.

All right. You are seconding his motion. Miss post ?

I understand we cannot guarantee the land owners that we are in any way shape or form going to give them the property. I understand that. But can we make sure that we are noting that we will at least if they are interested in that that we can show support in that way ? If we are taking the top of their property?

You are going to pay for it . We are buying it . Or they are going to donate.

Yes.

The only place not purchasing the property is at the Whiting and the Deep Creek Reserve over on the far east. That is where they are going to donate in exchange at not constructing the trail through the existing state.

That is what I'm talking about. What you discussed and it is noted. That the Council will support

and just to comment I hope that those who have contacted us will see that we are working to try to make the best of both worlds and they will not try to hold their feet to the fire to stop a statewide trail system in having a section and they are trying to work with what some have called the brand preferred route and hopefully they can work with us as they have asked us to work with them. I think that we are trying to arrive at the best for everybody. This trail system is huge. We just need to have this part completed so the motion is made and seconded .

I would like to have that motion restated because we have been all over the place here.

Could I offer a description of it? I understand that as the trail alignment will cross River Oaks Drive which will turn north following the alternative trail alignment and then turn East along the frontage of Maytown Road on the Abilene property and will continue to the intersection with the preferred alignment and extend along Maytown Road

--

Across the Brown.

-- And will terminate there at the last property that we will be a growing from would be Vincent and then as long as the two next property owners convey the easements as needed, we will continue along the frontage. Otherwise, we will proceed with using what was purchased by the state of Florida. Is at clear to everyone?

Thank you. With that if there is no other comments all in favor. The motion carries unanimous pick thank you for being patient and our questions. The key to those of you who came today. To believe feeling that you are not totally destroyed and I'm going to right back my bike if this thing is finished and wave at you. Keep the coats holstered. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair? You may want to look at whether you want to go to lunch. The other parties from the previous conference have arrived. Everything is ready for now for lunch. We have one other item, I think., Which is just appointments and then begin the rest of it down with a recess and then people reconvene meeting after lunch -- we will reconvene the meeting after lunch. If you want to 12 now we can. It is appointment of the Volusia account went educational authority. In a councilmember may nominate one position. We have two applicants. Is Emily Wood nominate?

Researcher I would like to nominate Terence M. Henry to the Volusia County educational facilities authority.

Okay. All of those in favor say aye. Those opposed. The motion carries. At this point in time at 12:41 we will now recess and locate in the training room for the extended balance of the meeting. Thank you very much.

>> [ Event concluded ]

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download