[00:00:08] No voice detected
Thank you.
[00:00:30] Speaker 1
I 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.
[00:00:44] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:00:44–00:00:50 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:00:50] Speaker 1
two, approval of the agenda in minutes.
[00:00:53] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:00:53–00:00:57 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:00:59] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:00:59–00:01:05 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:01:00] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:01:01] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:01:02] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
[00:01:05] Speaker 1
All in favor? Aye. All right. Ayes have it. The second item is the last month's minutes. Has everyone had a chance to look over those minutes? Anyone like to make a motion to approve or amend?
[00:01:21] Speaker 3
I'll make a motion to approve the minutes as presented.
[00:01:24] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:01:24–00:01:25 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:01:25] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:01:25] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:01:26] Speaker 1
Okay. Any discussion? All in favor?
[00:01:30] No voice detected
All in favor.
[00:01:31] Speaker 1
All right. Any opposed? Just checking. Just in case. That's it. Thought I missed a couple of
[00:01:40] Speaker 1 · Machine re-recognized
eyes
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:01:40–00:01:40 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
[00:01:40] Speaker 1
there. We have no old business currently.
[00:01:44] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:07]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up; a language review questioned the wording · 00:01:44–00:02:44 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:01:51] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
[00:01:55] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:01:55] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
[00:02:00] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
[00:02:02] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
[00:02:04] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:02:06] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:09]
[00:02:15] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:02:15] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:02:16] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:02:18] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:02:18] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:02:19] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:02:20] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:10]
[00:02:30] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
[00:02:36] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:02:36] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:02:36] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:02:37] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
[00:02:38] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
[00:02:40] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:02:40] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:02:40] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:02:40] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
[00:02:44] Speaker 4
Place, which are currently incompatible from a redevelopment standpoint. The goal is to amend the city's future land use map to a category that will allow the expansion of current single family use and the future redevelopment of property. So just a reminder of the relationship between future land use and zoning, that future land use categories help guide the growth and development of a community while zoning designations define the specific standards for how land is to be developed. As explained by Florida's Growth
[00:03:18] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:03:18–00:03:21 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:03:21] Speaker 4
are required to be implemented by the standards established in the zoning standards. This is the reason that in Florida specifically, future land use categories and zoning designations must be consistent.
[00:03:35] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:03:35–00:03:40 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:03:40] Speaker 4
designation of commercial as shown on the left map. However, the current zoning district of 18 of these parcels is RU1-7 single family residential and two are RP residential professional as shown on the map on the right. ‸ So the subject parcels were platted and developed as a single family residential neighborhood in 1959. The future land use subsequently became commercial to be consistent with the surrounding character of development. Single family residential as a land use is not compatible or permissible within the commercial future land use. Furthermore,
[00:04:21] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:04:21–00:04:27 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:04:27] Speaker 4
It was recently brought to the city's attention that one of the property's primary structures was completely lost due to a fire. Because the lot is now vacant, a single family residence cannot be reconstructed until the future land use and zoning designations are consistent and are established such that a single family residential is an allowable use. So upon the review of the standards for future land use categories table in the city's comprehensive plan, staff determined that the current zoning and future land use of the subject
[00:05:00] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:12]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:05:00–00:05:12 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:05:12] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:05:12–00:05:18 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:05:18] Speaker 4
any expansion of current use or redevelopment should it be necessary due to loss of property or voluntarily. Staff recommends amending the future land use to neighborhood commercial. residential. This category allows the development and continuation of single family residential use. As part of this correction, this request is in combination with the request to also rezone 18 of the 20 parcels to the neighborhood commercial zoning district referring to ordinance 9 2024 to be presented in the next agenda item.
[00:05:55] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:05:55–00:06:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:06:00] Speaker 4
the city's comprehensive plan.
[00:06:01] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:06:01–00:06:06 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:06:06] Speaker 4
areas are intended to be low impact in nature and serve the needs of the immediate residential area.
[00:06:14] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:06:14–00:06:21 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:06:21] Speaker 4
and are less than 1000 feet from a variety of residential uses. 18 of the parcels are currently single family homes. This future land use supports commercial uses, but is transitional as it allows for small scale commercial and multifamily in between single family and large scale commercial.
[00:06:42] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:06:42–00:06:42 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:06:42] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:06:42] Speaker 4
Most importantly, the neighborhood commercial future land use is
[00:06:46] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:06:46–00:06:51 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:06:51] Speaker 4
district with the exception of mixed use,
[00:06:53] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:06:53–00:06:57 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:06:57] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:07]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:06:57–00:07:05 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:07:05] Speaker 4
potable water sanitary sewer solid waste stormwater transportation police fire school and park services.
[00:07:12] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:15]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:07:12–00:07:28 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:07:28] Speaker 4 · Machine re-recognized
Staff also finds that the proposed future land use map amendment is consistent with the land use element policies and goals of the comprehensive plan
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 00:07:28–00:07:37 · gap filled by a machine re-reading (not checked by a person)
[00:07:39] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:07:39–00:07:41 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:07:41] Speaker 4
amendment will include an expedited state review. The following steps will be a hearing before city council, transmittal of
[00:07:51] Attribution uncertain
the
[00:07:51] Speaker 4
package ‸ to the state for Department of Economic Opportunity Review, and then adoption by the city council by a second hearing. Staff has determined that the request for an expedited state review for comprehensive plan amendment complies with all relevant sections of the city code of COCO of the ordinance and comprehensive plan. Staff recommends approval of the requested expedited state review comprehensive plan text amendment. In conclusion, staff also recommends the planning and zoning board recommend approval to the city council of ordinance 08 2024, a city initiated request of a future land use map amendment consistent with Florida statute chapter 163 to change the future land use map designation of 20 parcels of real property totaling approximately 3.36 acres from commercial to neighborhood commercial.
[00:08:51] Speaker 2 · Machine re-recognized
Thank you.
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 00:08:51–00:09:05 · gap filled by a machine re-reading (not checked by a person)
[00:08:54] Speaker 1 · Machine re-recognized
All right, so this item is primarily focused on the future land use. The next one is the actual zoning, possible zoning changes for the land itself.
[00:09:03] Speaker 4 · Machine re-recognized
That's correct.
[00:09:04] Speaker 1 · Machine re-recognized
All right, just want
[00:09:05] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 00:09:05–00:09:05 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:09:05] Speaker 1 · Machine re-recognized
sure it's clear. Anybody have any questions for
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 00:09:05–00:09:08 · gap filled by a machine re-reading (not checked by a person)
[00:09:08] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:09:08–00:09:10 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:09:10] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:09:11] Speaker 6 · Machine re-recognized
do you have any information to explain to allow the future redevelopment, what that really means
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 00:09:11–00:09:17 · gap filled by a machine re-reading (not checked by a person)
[00:09:18] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:09:18–00:09:20 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:09:20] Speaker 6
us.
[00:09:21] Speaker 4
So by future redevelopment, we mean with the lots being existing as they are single family residential. If anything were to happen to one of the homes due to loss of fire, for example, like what actually happened to one of the properties, or if someone wanted to demolish and voluntarily demolish and redevelop the lots as they are, they could do so as single family. residential.
[00:09:49] Speaker 2
Okay.
[00:09:50] Speaker 4
Any future development, the other options that come along with neighborhood commercial is a small scale multifamily and small scale commercial. So that that would only be able to happen if there was a case where a number of lots would be able to be combined into, you know, ‸ so that the lots and the development is more cohesive with the standards and the ordinance for. For the neighborhood commercial zoning category.
[00:10:25] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
So. That neighborhood has been there for years ‸ and I developed the property on the
[00:10:35] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:10:35–00:10:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:10:38] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
It's the one with the real steep roof that's light blue with the ‸ scales. And, uh, of course that used to be a house and it was a real estate office ‸ quite some time. Uh, how does this change affect the two existing commercial? Is that grandfathered in?
[00:10:57] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Yes, actually the, the residential as I'll describe in the, um, also in the zoning ordinance amendment that, uh, that residential professional that use of those two properties that are adjacent to us one. Uh, is, um, one of the only zoning designations that is compatible with neighborhood commercial. So what we're doing is we're aligning the future land use with the zoning to, to create a compatible situation where redevelopment is possible. I
[00:11:29] Speaker 6
understand that. And I support that. It's just that the other questions when certain words come up, it makes me want to consider another possibility for what's existing. Um, so we're basically not, uh, this change is not going to allow anything drastic later. And under commercial, uh, that does not allow, uh, is there variances that will allow to put bars and things like that on the street there?
[00:11:59] Speaker 4
That would, do you recall the.
[00:12:03] Speaker 6
And if so, what would be the process?
[00:12:06] Speaker 4
Right. I, I,
[00:12:07] Attribution uncertain
I
[00:12:07] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
do know that, um, restaurants, small scale restaurants are allowed in the neighborhood commercial zoning district. Keeping in mind that neighborhood commercial is a much smaller scale than general commercial, which ‸ a lot of a property and, and which
[00:12:23] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:12:23–00:12:27 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:12:27] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:12:27–00:12:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:12:30] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:12:30] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:12:31] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:12:31] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:12:33] Speaker 4
this middle ground zoning. That's kind of a transition in between residential and larger commercial.
[00:12:40] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
I'm just trying to prevent surprises later for the existing residents that have been there. And I think a lot of them have been there for years.
[00:12:48] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Yes.
[00:12:48] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
So I don't want them to later it because what I see in front of us, I understand and support it. I just don't want the residents to be harmed later for a surprise that may be, wait a minute. I thought this was to keep what we got. But when you mentioned that somebody can buy multiple properties, put them together and then make, um, a low density commercial. Is that how we called it?
[00:13:13] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Yeah. Neighborhood, small scale. Neighborhood. Right.
[00:13:15] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice
Uh, so are there variances that they could apply to alter, uh, uses that this commercial umbrella is bringing? Like, for example, uh,
[00:13:27] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:13:27–00:13:30 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:13:30] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:13:30–00:13:36 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:13:36] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
It doesn't stop there. There's a lot more in the city that it needs to be, uh, addressed similar to this. Uh, and that's something I'm going to bring up under open discussion. But, uh, for this, if it isn't anything that could harm the residents in the future and later on, they end up having a bar with outside liquor and lights and all that.
[00:13:58] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:13:58–00:14:02 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:14:02] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice
support the way it's presented and you've answered all my questions. Thank you.
[00:14:06] Speaker 4
Thank you.
[00:14:08] No voice detected
I
[00:14:09] Speaker 2
have a question.
[00:14:10] Attribution uncertain
Um,
[00:14:10] Speaker 2
along those lines, can ‸ you give me an example? ‸ The neighborhood commercial, I'm trying to distinguish that from regular commercial.
[00:14:17] Attribution uncertain
Is
[00:14:17] Speaker 2
that like that?
[00:14:18] Attribution uncertain
The
[00:14:18] Speaker 2
village now?
[00:14:20] Attribution uncertain
Is
[00:14:20] Speaker 2
that similar?
[00:14:22] Speaker 4
Yeah. Uh, yeah, somewhat similar.
[00:14:25] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:14:25–00:14:30 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:14:30] Speaker 4
professional businesses that are currently on the corner.
[00:14:36] Speaker 4 · Machine re-recognized
US-1. Those are zoned residential professional, which is a category within neighborhood commercial, which is an example of, say, a home that was converted into a professional business, say, a small accounting firm or law firm or one or two-chair barbershop.
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 00:14:36–00:14:55 · gap filled by a machine re-reading (not checked by a person)
[00:14:55] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 00:14:55–00:14:56 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:14:56] Speaker 4 · Machine re-recognized
tailor, seamstress, things that are on that very small scale,
Flag: the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 00:14:56–00:15:00 · gap filled by a machine re-reading (not checked by a person)
[00:15:00] Speaker 4
Uh, of,
[00:15:03] Attribution uncertain
of, of cocoa place and us one.
[00:15:03] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:15:03–00:15:07 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:15:07] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:15:07–00:15:11 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:15:10] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:15:12] Speaker 7 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:28]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 00:15:12–00:15:40 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:15:39] Speaker 7 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:15:39–00:15:52 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:15:40] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:15:40] Speaker 7 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:12]
[00:15:54] Speaker 1
‸ I don't believe so.
[00:15:55] Speaker 4
Offhand, ‸ I'm not familiar with the actual engineering development of Cocoa Place.
[00:16:01] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:09]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:16:01–00:16:10 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:16:10] Speaker 4
been. ‸ Okay. ‸ Mm-hmm.
[00:16:13] Speaker 1
All right. So the final question I have is this future land use map change, does that bind us to doing something with the next ordinance? I mean, is this independent? Are these independent issues as in we approve commercial neighborhood for future land use? It is not requiring us to approve the next ordinance, or they both fall flat if they don't both move forward?
[00:16:41] Speaker 5
Yes, ma'am.
[00:16:42] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:16:42–00:16:48 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:16:42] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
[00:16:48] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice
approval, ‸ only the zoning districts that are allowable in the neighborhood commercial future land use ‸ would be the only options for you to choose from. And so as Jen has said,
[00:17:05] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:10]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:17:05–00:17:15 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:17:15] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice
is one of the options that's available. And then CN is what staff is recommending. But there, I believe, RP, CN, and we can look in...
[00:17:29] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:17:29–00:17:32 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:17:31] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:17:32] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
slide. Mm-hmm. It is...no, the one with the chart.
[00:17:45] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:17:45–00:17:47 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:17:45] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:17:46] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:17:49] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:17:49–00:17:56 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:17:55] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:17:56] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:17:57] Speaker 1
Those are the options then.
[00:17:59] Speaker 4
So, ‸ so yeah,
[00:18:00] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:08]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:18:00–00:18:08 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:18:08] Speaker 4
future land use are coincidentally neighborhood commercials, the name of the zoning district as well. So, that's...
[00:18:19] No voice detected
That's...
[00:18:19] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
That's... Come... Restricted commercial. Commercial restricted. Residential professional. Professional services. And PUD. So, and PUD is very common to a lot of the zoning districts as a special agreement.
[00:18:35] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
So, if we did not recommend the approval of this ordinance, the next ordinance we would have to choose something under the commercial to rezone it as.
[00:18:45] Speaker 4
That's correct.
[00:18:46] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
So, that, that's what I want to make clear.
[00:18:48] Attribution uncertain
So,
[00:18:48] Speaker 4
yes. And so we feel,
[00:18:50] Attribution uncertain
we
[00:18:50] Speaker 4
feel, staff feels that neighborhood commercial is one of the, is the best option and the best fit for the future land use change for this.
[00:19:02] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Understood. Thank you. Thank you very much. Go ahead, Ms. Stewart.
[00:19:06] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:08]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up; a language review questioned the wording · 00:19:06–00:19:15 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:19:15] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:19:16] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice
That's correct.
[00:19:17] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:19:17–00:19:22 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:19:18] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:19:20] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
[00:19:21] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:19:22] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:19:22] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:19:24] Speaker 2
It does. Mm-hmm. Yep.
[00:19:27] No voice detected
Okay.
[00:19:27] Speaker 1
Thank you. So, at this time we'll open this up to the public. Again, I'll let you know that this item is for the future land use change and the next item is for the zoning change itself. Just to give you a heads up. So, everyone, anybody who'd like to come up and speak on this item, you're welcome to do that at this time. Okay, ma'am, you have to just,
[00:19:48] Attribution uncertain
uh,
[00:19:49] Speaker 1
sir, are
[00:19:49] Attribution uncertain
you
[00:19:49] Speaker 1
gonna speak on the next topic?
[00:19:51] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:19:51–00:19:53 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:19:53] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:19:53] Speaker 1
Okay. Okay. If you want to, is it okay?
[00:19:56] Attribution uncertain
It
[00:19:56] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
just happens.
[00:19:57] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:19:57–00:19:57 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:19:57] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:19:57] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:19:58] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
You have to be sworn in.
[00:19:59] Speaker 5
Yeah. Yeah.
[00:20:01] Speaker 1
Yeah.
[00:20:02] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:20:02–00:20:03 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:20:03] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:20:03] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice
No? Okay, good. Okay, no, no. Congratulations. It's not as official as we thought it was.
[00:20:09] Attribution uncertain
You
[00:20:09] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
don't need to be sworn in.
[00:20:11] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
This is a legislative matter. Yeah.
[00:20:13] Attribution uncertain
So,
[00:20:13] Speaker 5
you don't need to be sworn in for a quasi judicial one like zoning. That's when we swear people in.
[00:20:18] Speaker 1
Thank you, ma'am.
[00:20:19] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Uh-huh.
[00:20:19] Speaker 1
Appreciate it. So, I just want to make sure that way we got it covered. Go ahead, ma'am.
[00:20:22] No voice detected
Okay. I filled out my card.
[00:20:24] Speaker 1
Yes. Ms. Sanger.
[00:20:26] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 00:20:26–00:20:40 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:20:30] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:20:30] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:07]
[00:20:37] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:20:37] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
[00:20:40] Speaker 2
home instead of taxes?
[00:20:43] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:20:43–00:20:45 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:20:48] Speaker 4
We don't anticipate there being, as the use will remain the same as single family residential and Brevard County will continue to use that use for that property use for tax purposes. So, we don't anticipate that there should be a change in property taxes.
[00:21:08] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:07]
Flag: flagged by the automatic checks · 00:21:08–00:21:15 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:21:16] Speaker 4
I
[00:21:16] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up · 00:21:16–00:22:13 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:21:18] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:21:20] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
[00:21:27] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
[00:21:29] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:22]
[00:21:51] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:22]
[00:22:12] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
[00:22:14] Speaker 4
Well, a
[00:22:15] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:22:14–00:22:17 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:22:20] Speaker 4
But as far as a restaurant like Dunkin' Donuts, any kind of commercial development like
[00:22:27] Attribution uncertain
that, I think
[00:22:27] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice
that,
[00:22:28] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:22]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:22:27–00:22:49 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:22:50] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:29]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output; the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up; a language review questioned the wording · 00:22:49–00:23:34 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:23:18] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:23:19] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
[00:23:25] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
[00:23:29] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:23:30] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:23:31] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:23:32] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:23:34] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:23:34] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
this is a, we felt, staff felt that this was a logical remedy because currently the future land use is large-scale commercial. So we were trying to, and with the fact that it's single-family residential zoning and large-scale commercial future land use, no development could happen at all because of that discrepancy. So
[00:23:59] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:23:58–00:24:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:24:05] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice
type zoning, that down using it back down to neighborhood commercial and then getting the zoning category to align with that was a reasonable compromise ‸ that would still maintain consistency with the surrounding land use. So, but we, but like I said, we anticipate, we do not anticipate that, that that type of development would happen anytime soon.
[00:24:37] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice
Aren't
[00:24:37] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:24:37–00:24:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:24:39] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Because of the way that, they're at more risk of development now if we don't do anything
[00:24:44] Speaker 1
than
[00:24:44] Speaker 3
if we correct this. Because we're, and from what I'm reading and the way I understand it is the city's actually trying to protect your interests.
[00:24:55] Speaker 6
That's correct.
[00:24:56] Speaker 3
From future development. Because you, right now, they put a warehouse next to your house.
[00:25:00] Speaker 2
There are, there's a warehouse. There's a car dealership in the back of us and there's warehouses on
[00:25:04] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:25:04–00:25:06 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:25:07] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
I understand. I've been on your street a million times. So
[00:25:10] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:25:09–00:25:13 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:25:13] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice
but you're not, you're residential. So you're not, my understanding is the city's trying to actually help you.
[00:25:22] Speaker 1
So someone
[00:25:23] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:25:22–00:25:26 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:25:26] Speaker 3
And surround you with warehouses.
[00:25:28] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Correct. Legally. The way it
[00:25:30] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
is now that could happen.
[00:25:32] Speaker 1
On, we're talking about on your street right now, though. The
[00:25:34] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 00:25:34–00:25:35 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:25:35] Speaker 1
your actual street.
[00:25:36] Attribution uncertain
Currently,
[00:25:36] Speaker 1
someone could buy your street, half of your street, most of your street, and they could redevelop it. A
[00:25:41] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:25:40–00:25:45 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:25:45] Speaker 1
because that is the appropriate zone for it. They would have a high probability to receive it. And then you would be literally on your street surrounded by people like that. So we can't stop what's already been developed, but we're trying to prevent, I believe, that from happening to the rest of the street.
[00:26:00] Attribution uncertain
And now
[00:26:00] No voice detected
that
[00:26:00] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:10]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output; the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up; a language review questioned the wording · 00:26:00–00:26:53 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:26:10] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:43]
[00:26:55] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:26:55–00:26:59 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:27:00] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
The staff, I need to see if you could answer this as an example for her concerns. And her question was legitimate. If somebody, a developer, was wanting to buy the property that's fronting US-1 and several other properties behind it, and that, of course, would allow enough land where possibly a Dunkin' Donuts could be built. However, the method it takes to get that approved is that where a person has to ask for a variance,
[00:27:32] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:27:32–00:27:35 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:27:35] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice
to see whether the variance will be approved or not.
[00:27:39] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:27:39–00:27:43 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:27:43] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice
up, like she mentioned, and buy the front lot, which is very commercial, both of them, both corners, and if they add the other properties next to it, they would have a much larger commercial plat. ‸ So what would be the process of a person wanting to do that? And
[00:28:01] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · Machine re-recognized
with
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:28:01–00:28:02 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
[00:28:02] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice
the residents also be notified with plans like that that might happen?
[00:28:12] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:28:12–00:28:25 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:28:13] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:28:13] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:12]
[00:28:25] Speaker 4
There are restrictions on the restaurant that outdoor entertainment would be prohibited, that the restaurant would be required to close no later than 10, Sunday through Thursday, no later than midnight on Friday and Saturday, and the walls and or opaque vegetative screening buffers shall be required between the restaurant and adjacent properties with residential designations. There is also a minimum lot size
[00:28:55] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 00:28:55–00:28:56 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:28:56] Speaker 4
for the neighborhood commercial zoning, and this is something I was going to cover in the next ordinance, but the minimum lot size requirements for all of the sub-districts of the neighborhood ‸ commercial have a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet and a minimum lot width of 75 feet. So I believe all of these lots are currently only 60 feet wide.
[00:29:27] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
That's
[00:29:27] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice
why we would say that any sort of non-residential development, or I should say non-single family residential ‸ development that would happen would need to conform to the minimum lot requirements for ‸ the
[00:29:45] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · Machine re-recognized
developer
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:29:45–00:29:46 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
[00:29:46] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:29:46–00:29:49 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:29:47] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
[00:29:50] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
They could. Last
[00:29:52] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
question while we're on the restaurant subject. Are they going to be allowed to serve liquor at the restaurants at that location? I
[00:29:59] Speaker 4
believe that if there's a minimum seating of 40 40 seats, then they are permitted to serve beer and wine alcohol,
[00:30:07] Speaker 6
beer and wine, not liquor.
[00:30:10] Speaker 4
And liquor.
[00:30:12] Attribution uncertain
And
[00:30:12] Speaker 4
liquor.
[00:30:12] Speaker 6
Beer and wine meaning beer, wine and liquor.
[00:30:15] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:30:15–00:30:17 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:30:21] Speaker 6
All right. That's all my questions for right now.
[00:30:25] Speaker 4
I will add though that as it stands right now with the
[00:30:29] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:30:29–00:30:35 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:30:35] Speaker 4
than the neighborhood commercial development. So let's say there were two or more vacant lots along
[00:30:42] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:30:42–00:30:48 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:30:48] Speaker 4
current future land use of commercial. They would they would they would
[00:30:54] Attribution uncertain
be
[00:30:54] Speaker 4
permitted to develop according to those standards, but we're trying to to to we're trying to minimize the impact of what that would be by using neighborhood commercial as our designation.
[00:31:10] Speaker 2 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:10]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 00:31:10–00:31:20 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:31:20] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:31:20–00:31:25 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:31:25] Speaker 4
So,
[00:31:27] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:31:27–00:31:33 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:31:33] Speaker 4
land use became commercial, but it did so to be more.
[00:31:37] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:31:37–00:31:40 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:31:37] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
[00:31:40] Speaker 4
land use, which is commercial. So, um, but the, the zoning being have being are you one dash seven single family residential just by definition of our in our comprehensive plan that the future land use of commercial and zoning of single family residential aren't in alignment.
[00:32:05] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:32:05–00:32:12 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:32:12] Speaker 4
up the zoning to neighborhood commercial, we are trying to better align it, um, while still allowing the single family residential use, which is an allowed use in neighborhood commercial. So, it's one of the options if someone were to choose to redevelop, they could do so a single family.
[00:32:34] Speaker 3
All right. And all of this really came to light because of the one property owner that
[00:32:39] Speaker 3 · Machine re-recognized
wanted
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:32:39–00:32:40 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
[00:32:40] Speaker 3
to rebuild and all of a sudden they found out that they couldn't.
[00:32:43] Speaker 4
Yes. Yes. So we, so we, so
[00:32:45] No voice detected
we,
[00:32:46] Speaker 4
in a way have them to thank for bringing it to light so that we could remedy it for future homeowners property owners. If,
[00:32:54] Attribution uncertain
if
[00:32:54] Speaker 4
that were to ever happen again by loss or voluntarily. Well, I,
[00:33:05] Speaker 4 · Machine re-recognized
realize
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:33:05–00:33:06 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
[00:33:06] Speaker 4
that and we, the city is aware that, that, um, the family lost a family member in the fire and the loss of this property.
[00:33:15] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:33:15–00:33:20 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:33:20] Speaker 4
the property owner that let us know and that brought it to light that this was a problem. And so we are very, um, we're sorry for that loss and we've already expressed that to the homeowner.
[00:33:33] No voice detected
All right.
[00:33:35] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:33:35–00:33:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:33:37] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said); a language review questioned the wording · 00:33:37–00:33:42 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:33:43] Speaker 1
Yes, ma'am.
[00:33:43] Attribution uncertain
What
[00:33:43] Speaker 1
do you have?
[00:33:44] Speaker 8 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:33:44–00:33:46 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:33:47] Speaker 8 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Yeah.
[00:33:48] Speaker 1
Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Yeah.
[00:33:49] Attribution uncertain
You
[00:33:49] Speaker 1
have to come to the podium. ‸ State your name. Right.
[00:33:52] Speaker 8 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:33:52–00:34:44 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:33:52] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:33:54] Speaker 8 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:51]
[00:34:45] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output · 00:34:45–00:34:48 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:34:47] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:34:47] Speaker 1 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:34:48] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; the recognizer flagged its own output; the recognized words and the detected speech do not line up; a language review questioned the wording · 00:34:48–00:34:57 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:34:49] Speaker 8 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
[00:34:51] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:34:51] Speaker 8 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:34:52] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:34:52] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:34:52] Speaker 8 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:34:52] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
[00:34:57] Speaker 8
how much parking do they have to have without being on the streets? Because if they're on the streets, then nobody comes down there. If a lawn truck is there or somebody doing work on the house, it blocks up the whole street. Where are they going to park?
[00:35:17] Speaker 2
Right.
[00:35:19] Speaker 8
Is my question. Are they going to be allowed to park on the street? No, ma'am.
[00:35:25] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
When you provide the project information with site plan and all that, you cannot use street parking to make up for on-site parking. I mean,
[00:35:39] Speaker 8
‸ it
[00:35:41] Speaker 6
would require parking on site, which could prevent possibly that idea of a duplex and four cars there. You're right about that. All right. But it would require on-site parking. You cannot count street parking to satisfy on-street parking because the code requires that you provide parking for the project you're going to build on the site that you want to build it.
[00:36:05] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:36:05–00:36:07 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:36:07] Speaker 4
That's correct. You are correct.
[00:36:09] Speaker 6
So that should help you.
[00:36:11] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:36:11–00:36:15 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:36:15] Speaker 6
duplex?
[00:36:16] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
It is not. And that's what I wanted to- I wanted to reassure and just clarify that the person you mentioned that is the new owner of that property would not be able to build a duplex at this time because the lot- And that one thing, another thing I was going ‸ to cover in the next item is that the lot is non-conforming by our current development standards. However, where there is a non-conforming lot, a single family home would be able to be built. So with the lot being non-conforming dimensionally, as per our current residential standards, the only thing that can be built on that lot is a single family home.
[00:36:59] Speaker 8 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:10]
Flag: words only one machine reading has (possibly not said) · 00:36:59–00:37:10 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:37:10] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
The issue we're here for today.
[00:37:12] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:37:12–00:37:14 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:37:12] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:37:12] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
[00:37:15] Speaker 6
‸ Now, do you understand what non-conforming means, ma'am? Yes. Okay. So you can't enlarge an existing non-conforming issue.
[00:37:24] Speaker 1
Right.
[00:37:24] Speaker 6
All right. So I'll now close this to the public.
[00:37:27] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:37:27–00:37:29 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:37:28] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:37:28] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:37:29] No voice detected
So
[00:37:29] Speaker 2
let's say you decide not to approve either one of these. What happens to them going forward? Oh. Just to make it clear.
[00:37:39] Speaker 4
Well, so if, if, if, if,
[00:37:42] Attribution uncertain
if
[00:37:42] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
the board decides not to recommend approval of this ordinance or the following ordinance of rezoning, um, ‸ there is a standstill for any kind of develop development. So where, for example, the owner of the, the property that is vacant currently would not be able to do anything until a reconciliation of some sort happens between the future land use and the zoning.
[00:38:10] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:38:10–00:38:13 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:38:13] Speaker 3 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: the recognizer flagged its own output; a language review questioned the wording · 00:38:13–00:38:16 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:38:15] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:38:17] Speaker 1
And
[00:38:18] Attribution uncertain
fill
[00:38:18] Speaker 1
the void.
[00:38:18] Speaker 5 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Any
[00:38:19] Speaker 1
other questions for the staff?
[00:38:21] Speaker 5
Well, I was also just to answer that question
[00:38:23] Speaker 5 · Machine re-recognized
to you.
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:38:23–00:38:23 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
[00:38:24] Attribution uncertain
I
[00:38:24] Speaker 5
mean, remember that you're making a recommendation, right? So the city council could, if you decided, the board decided you wanted to recommend denial of, of this, um, suggestion, the city council could decide differently. Just.
[00:38:40] Speaker 1
Mm-hmm. All right. Thank you. Mm-hmm. Anyone else?
[00:38:45] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:38:45–00:38:47 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:38:46] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
[00:38:47] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice
I'll make a motion that we approve that staff recommendation for tonight's project.
[00:38:52] Speaker 1
Okay. Second.
[00:38:54] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:38:54–00:38:56 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:38:55] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:38:55] No voice detected · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
[00:38:56] Attribution uncertain · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
[00:38:58] Speaker 1
All right. Uh, any, ‸ any further discussion? Yeah. All right. Uh, all in favor?
[00:39:06] No voice detected
Aye.
[00:39:07] Speaker 1
Any
[00:39:08] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:39:08–00:39:09 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:39:09] Speaker 1
right. Thank you. Move on to
[00:39:11] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:39:11–00:39:15 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:39:12] Attribution uncertain
uh,
[00:39:12] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
[00:39:24] Speaker 4
A zoning map amendment also for Cocoa Place. This request is in consideration of the zoning map amendment to change the zoning category of the 18 parcels of real property totaling approximately 3.1 acres from the city of Cocoa zoning district.
[00:39:41] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:39:41–00:39:46 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:39:46] Speaker 4
This request is also concurrent with a request to change the future land use category of all 20 parcels from commercial down to neighborhood commercial under ordinance 08-2024. And this presentation assumes that request has been heard and granted by the board. As previously stated, 18 of these parcels are currently zoned.
[00:40:11] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:40:11–00:40:12 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:40:12] Speaker 4
There
[00:40:13] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:40:13–00:40:18 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:40:18] Speaker 4
professional. The two RP parcels are to retain their zoning as RP is compatible with neighborhood commercial future land use. On the right would be the result of the zoning map amendment with the 18 parcels being neighborhood commercial zoning and the eastern most end parcels remaining residential
[00:40:39] Speaker 2 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
professional.
[00:40:43] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice
Although the subject parcels have existed in the city since 1952. The lot dimensions are considered nonconforming to the city's current
[00:40:52] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:40:52–00:40:55 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:40:56] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice
Particularly the lots are only 60 feet wide where the minimum
[00:41:00] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:41:00–00:41:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:41:04] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice
However, in accordance with appendix a zoning article 10 nonconformities section 3 in any district in which single family dwellings are permitted a single family dwelling and customary accessory billings buildings may be erected on any single lot which is of record. Even if it is nonconforming due to its dimensions. Any new homes that are erected will be required to meet applicable setbacks without needing to obtain a variance.
[00:41:40] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:23]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 00:41:40–00:42:02 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:42:02] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:42:02–00:42:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:42:04] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice
to ensure
[00:42:05] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:42:05–00:42:06 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:42:06] Speaker 4 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
that they are no longer non-conforming and that the parcels can accommodate the new development. And that's speaking to any future multi-family or neighborhood commercial, small-scale commercial. The lots would
[00:42:20] Speaker 2
have to be combined in order to do that.
[00:42:24] Speaker 4
Planning and Zoning Staff Report covers the analysis of the criteria according to Appendix
[00:42:29] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:42:29–00:42:34 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:42:34] Speaker 4
land use patterns, school districts, consistency with the comprehensive plan, traffic, storm water and other utilities and public services, and has determined that the zoning change will not negatively or adversely affect, impact the neighborhood or surrounding areas. With regard to concurrency, the maximum density increase possible as a result of the rezoning would be a net gain of 27 units. This is minimal and is not anticipated to negatively impact public facilities, particularly because the property is adjacent to a major arterial of US-1. However, because the lots are non-conforming in nature, the density is likely to remain unchanged, and no further impact of public facilities is
[00:43:19] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:09]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:43:19–00:43:28 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:43:28] Speaker 4
with Appendix A, Zoning Article 21, to change the zoning map map
[00:43:33] Speaker 4 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:43:33–00:43:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:43:38] Speaker 4
from ru 1-7 single Family Residential, to CN, Neighborhood Commercial.
[00:43:45] Speaker 1
All right. Thank you, ma'am. Anybody have any questions for staff? All right. Seeing no questions, I'll open it back up to the public on this item. Anybody from the public like to speak on this item?
[00:44:01] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Okay. Now we'll close the item to the public, bring it back to the board. Move to approve as
[00:44:07] Speaker 1
staff recommends. Okay. We have
[00:44:08] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:44:08–00:44:13 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:44:13] Speaker 1
further discussion on this item? All right. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. All right. Moving on to item number five.
[00:44:37] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:44:37–00:44:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:44:38] Speaker 1
nothing on here, but do we have anybody like to add anything?
[00:44:43] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Is there Abby? Nothing? Are you sure? Well, you know I'm going to want to be on top of that. All right. and we'll go on to other business. Item six. Yes, Go ahead, sir. um There's a couple of points. uh From last time uh last time that we met, I had uh mentioned about an advanced septic tank system, and I've done more homework on it. I'm even more impressed. It's called
[00:45:13] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:07]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:45:13–00:45:20 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:45:20] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice
um I didn't bring the paperwork. I didn't have time enough to make copies of it to bring to the meeting, but I wanted the staff to be maybe a little familiar with it, which I can bring it later. uh It's a very big advantage financially as well, which also saves trees and tearing up the River Road and things like that, because as I mentioned the last meeting, uh there's a lot of older homes there, and some of their uh septic tanks, some of them are in the rear of the property, not in the front. uh So that could be a devastating um cost prohibitive uh job to try to upgrade it. But this on-site uh septic tanks are an advanced septic system. uh They're saying that its lifespan is almost double or triple than the old septic tanks that we have, uh and I highly recommend that we probably uh provide a little more information about it. uh Maybe I'll try to get the information that I have access to to have it shared in case the council brings it up for discussion, because
[00:46:32] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:46:32–00:46:36 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:46:36] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice
be familiar with it. um The last thing and other thing I wanted to bring up, and uh ironically, uh
[00:46:46] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a possible machine repair could not be placed · 00:46:46–00:46:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:46:48] Attribution uncertain
think that uh uh uh uh
[00:46:48] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
[00:46:54] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice
I'm going, I think the the best thing that I should do is prevent to present it to the council, if I'm correct, uh about the importance of looking on our ordinances, because I think that with this recent development uh of someone wanting to um utilize a piece
[00:47:17] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:09]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:47:17–00:47:26 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:47:26] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice
to increase the intensity of what this person wanted to ‸ build in the in the village. And
[00:47:32] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:05]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:47:32–00:47:38 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:47:38] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
know, is it the right way to do it by just seeing about asking for a variance? And if it gets supported, fine. If it doesn't, it doesn't. Or should we change the ordinance to not allow um something as severe as that just by merely asking for a variance? I'm not asking for an answer now. But uh this is something that I'm really going to be uh presenting and seeing if there's a way that we can solve and prevent uh what what what happened. And that was the only other thing I wanted to share with the board. uh uh Because a lot of these ordinance that we have, unfortunately, i'll give you a little background. And it's not good. We had uh a person that was in the planning zoning department.
[00:48:27] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:48:27–00:48:33 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:48:33] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice
were harmful to the city that he supported. uh And I'll never forget the day that this person single-handedly shown how an adult company and assisted them in opening for business in the village.
[00:48:55] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:10]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:48:55–00:49:05 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:49:05] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice
existing because it's there and it runs with the land. the
[00:49:12] Attribution uncertain
land
[00:49:12] Speaker 6
So these people that are there operating could sell and continue it and even get larger. So the importance of loopholes like this that was changed. I think we really need to look into it because it could really create some problems and lawsuits because when a person is granted a variance, it's very easy to give it very hard to take it away. Right, Todd?
[00:49:44] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:01]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:49:44–00:49:46 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:49:46] Speaker 6
The reason I'm pointing out Todd is he was on the City Council also and he's done a lot of homework about this stuff. That's why I knew that he would be uh in the position he's in right now, as he stated. So i I just want to bring this up as a heads up for the staff
[00:50:03] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:50:03–00:50:07 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:50:07] Speaker 6
possible. And I will be more specific about the adult company that I had mentioned with you all privately. uh
[00:50:18] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:50:18–00:50:22 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:50:22] Speaker 6
that I'm talking about,
[00:50:23] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:50:23–00:50:26 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:50:26] Speaker 6
on how they feel. uh Correct me if I'm wrong. Is this something I need to present to the council to get the ball rolling? Or would you all suggest a different way for me to do this? Should I start with the city manager and start that way? What would you all prefer?
[00:50:42] Speaker 5
So, first of all, I would recommend that, um ‸ because I, I think I know the matter that you're
[00:50:51] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings · 00:50:51–00:50:54 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:50:54] Speaker 5
one you were referring to, but the, the, um there is, you know, currently, uh
[00:51:00] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:51:00–00:51:04 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:51:04] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:51:04–00:51:07 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:51:07] Speaker 5
So, um I think, first of all, I would recommend that we, uh you know, not discuss changing zoning ‸ or making, you know, changes until that matter has concluded.
[00:51:21] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
Okay. Thank you.
[00:51:22] Speaker 5
um and you know, but as a general matter, the part of the board's duties, this board's duty, uh as a planning and zoning board is to study, um the zoning of the city and make recommendations as a board. If you feel that that is appropriate. So, um
[00:51:46] Speaker 5 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:51:46–00:51:51 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:51:51] Speaker 5
or open discussion at some point, um later when, when that matter has concluded. um but you know, so, so you could discuss it as a board, um or certainly you, uh you know, Mr. Greenwood on your own as an individual could make, you know, statements during a city council meeting. Well,
[00:52:15] Speaker 6
uh uh a past city council, uh I mean, planning zoning board meeting. A lot of the people are new up here. I think Todd was here then, but
[00:52:24] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:07]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:52:24–00:52:31 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:52:31] Speaker 6
and we had a individual show up here, because they all of a sudden wanted to start, the city wanted to start charging um fees uh for gravel to be installed that never existed. um And um the way that it developed,
[00:52:50] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:52:50–00:52:55 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:52:55] Speaker 6
step further, which they were suggesting very expensive materials other than the white lime rock that a lot of people use. That is a very quick fix. It uh satisfies drainage issues. uh
[00:53:12] Attribution uncertain
and
[00:53:12] Speaker 6
it
[00:53:12] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio]
Flag: the machine readings disagree here · 00:53:12–00:53:13 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:53:13] Speaker 6
uh
[00:53:13] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:53:13–00:53:17 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:53:17] Speaker 6
lime rock is a great base for concrete to be added on top of it. It makes it more, much stronger. And, uh the way the outcome happened was
[00:53:31] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:06]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:53:31–00:53:37 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:53:37] Speaker 6
And this board showed that they would like the, um code enforcement to stop, uh uh re to stop the method they were taking about this subject because it really wasn't discussed and it really wasn't finalized. And this board showing a consensus helped to convince that we need to leave everything as it was. And that's how I understand it, that it was left. We had, uh ‸ not only it involved me, but there was also another residential uh person that owned property that had put gravel down the lime rock.
[00:54:16] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:54:16–00:54:20 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:54:20] Speaker 6
saying, you need to go get a permit. We don't allow it anymore. Things like that. And finally it was, uh discussed that, they should leave it as it was. So that's an example of what this board was able to
[00:54:33] Attribution uncertain
do
[00:54:33] Speaker 6
to do In addition, bringing the tree board back, this board voted it back. And
[00:54:40] Speaker 6 · Machine re-recognized
that
Flag: words were replaced by a machine repair · 00:54:40–00:54:40 · machine repair: words replaced where two further machine readings agreed (not checked by a person)
[00:54:40] Speaker 6
one person that altered these ordinances let that expire. So there's two primary things that this board has done that I think is extremely significant uh
[00:54:54] Attribution uncertain
because
[00:54:54] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice
all it does is it enhances and it's, uh uh allows Coco to become even better than it is now. So I just want to give kudos to the board.
[00:55:04] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:55:04–00:55:07 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:55:07] Speaker 6 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
about this gravel thing? I don't remember. You were
[00:55:09] Speaker 3 + overlapping voice · overlapping voices
versus impervious. Yeah. we discussed that Well,
[00:55:13] Speaker 6
not only that but
[00:55:14] Attribution uncertain
i think that
[00:55:14] Speaker 6
the lime rock itself, um uh it is, um a nice strong base for future concrete. It's part of the process. So it just didn't make sense not to allow it.
[00:55:27] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:55:27–00:55:31 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:55:31] Speaker 6
absolutely necessary. But I will bring this back after tonight's discussion
[00:55:37] Speaker 6 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:04]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:55:37–00:55:41 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:55:41] Speaker 6
Thank you.
[00:55:42] Speaker 1
All right. Thank you, Mr. Greenwood. Anyone else? All right. Well, then I will read this text that says our next regularly scheduled meeting will be October 2nd, Wednesday, October 2nd. uh
[00:55:57] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:03]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:55:57–00:56:00 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:56:00] Speaker 1
All right. And if anybody
[00:56:03] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:09]
Flag: numbers, amounts, negation or names differ between the machine readings; a language review questioned the wording · 00:56:03–00:56:13 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:56:13] Speaker 1 · Unclear audio
[unclear audio — 0:02]
Flag: a language review questioned the wording · 00:56:13–00:56:15 · unresolved: the words are not shown (unclear audio); listen to the recording
[00:56:15] Speaker 1
You all have a good evening.