It's now 6:02 on the 27th of October, 2025, and I call this meeting of the planning commission to order. >> May I please have a roll call? >> David Doll >> here. >> Marggo Warren >> here. >> Nicholas Andrews
>> here. >> Debbie Cole. Justin Henderson >> here. >> Dean Haddock >> here. Matthew Filer uh for the staff. Do we have any minutes? >> Uh only the ones were attached for this
particular item. There's no minutes to approve. No. >> All right. All right, then we're going to skip o over the uh review and vote on the previous minutes. All right. Uh moving forward, are there any is there any correspondence for any item on the agenda?
>> Uh no. >> All right. Is there any old business? >> Uh just the one item. Yes. >> All right. So I know some of you have heard this before, some of you haven't. So, I'm just going to go through the staff report again as those were a standard
hearing. So, I'm sorry. Oh, please. Yeah. All right. Good evening, commissioners. David Migot, city attorney. I just wanted to um go over this because this is um an old business. It's a it's a
rehering and I wanted to there's a court order that applies to this. So, I want to make sure everyone's aware of the parameters for tonight. So, this relates to a conditional use application to allow for a medical marijuana treatment center dispensing facility located in the commercial limited C1 zoning
district and it's pursuant to section 34-617 D21 of the Jacksonville Beach Land Development Code. On July 28th, 2025, this board held the public hearing on this conditional use application. A motion to approve the conditional use application failed by a
3-2 vote. Based upon this vote, a final order was issued denying the conditional use application. Uh the applicant then filed a petition for writers in the circuit court challenging the final order. Uh the parties agreed to hold the
litigation in a band and bring this matter back before this board asking the court for permission to do so. Pursuant to the court order holding litigation in the bands, this hearing tonight shall be limited to the record from the July 28th, 2025 hearing. Now, as with any
public hearing, the city has filed all notice requirements for this hearing. Additionally, in accordance with Florida law, uh public comment will be allowed at this hearing. However, this is important. Based on the court order, no new public comment that comes out
tonight can be considered evidentiary. As a result, should any member of the public choose to speak tonight, which they have the the right under Florida law to do so, they will not be sworn in. Tonight, you could take any action on this application as you would any other conditional use application based on the
record from July 28th. Under section 34-422,422I and 34-547 of the land development code, you have the authority to hear, consider and approve approve with conditions or deny applications for development permits for
conditional uses. So again, the only difference is that you are limiting you are limited to the original staff report and record from the previous hearing. As this is a quasa judicial hearing, I strongly suggest that you discuss what evidence you are relying on in your deliberations as your decision tonight
must be supported by competent substantial evidence that is in the record. Um, is there any questions related to the the legal procedure of this hearing? >> So, just a point of clarification here. So, if we're limited to what the previous hearing, then all we do is the
opening the public hearing for public comment. Ma'am, >> um I believe staff can make a presentation because the staff report was in the original >> correct >> uh hearing. Uh the staff report is uh something that you could base your decision on. So I think you're you're
entitled to ask questions on the staff report as it was part of the original hearing record. Um I would I would suggest strongly suggest you allow the applicant to speak as well. Uh the only the key difference is one of the key
differences of limiting that record is public comment still allowed but they won't be sworn and the public testimony cannot be considered uh if it was not previously made at the last hearing. >> Okay. So we can go through the applicant can uh speak again.
>> That's correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. I I think I understand. Are there any other questions or is there anything that's unclear to the commission members on this? All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So, seeing that there is no uh new business uh old business, I'm going to
go through uh the notice to the public um for completeness sake so that we do this as we normally do our normal meetings. So to the public, the planning commission means are meetings are gen generally quasi judicial in nature. All decisions of the commission will be based on competent substantial evidence
including testimony provided in this meeting with the caveat of what the city attorney has just said. Any person who is not an applicant or agent that wishes to speak will need to fill out a speaker card located on the side table by the door and turn them into the city clerk. Each member of the public will be given
three minutes to speak on each item. Please refrain from speaking from the audience and applause or cheering is not allowed and please silence your cell phones. Okay. Can you please read the application by title? >> Yep. Can we please have the
staff report for PC 11-25? >> Yes, you may. So, this is PC1 1125. It is a conditional use application for a property located at 243rd Street South. It's a conditional use to allow the uh use of the property for a medical
marijuana treatment center dispensing facility located in the commercial limited uh C1 zoning district pursuit to section 34617 D21 of the Jacksonville Beach Land Development Code. The subject property is located in the C1 commercial limited
zoning district. The subject property is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Third Street South and Second Avenue South. The property was most recently a retail establishment, which was the former Salt Life uh property. The applicant is seeking to open a new
medical marijuana treatment dispensing facility under the C1 zoning district uses. A dispensing facility has allowed conditional use approval and under state law um since 2017 uh is to be treated no differently than a typical commercial pharmacy under the code.
The site is currently developed with an existing structure and existing parking with uh required landscaping. The proposed use would not change the parking demand substantially. Um and the applicant is committed to adding additional alternative parking to address these deficiencies. This does
not affect the use request. Uh but it's important to know that they are um there are not any traffic or parking related issues anticipated with this new use. All activities are well regulated through the state licensing process and all activities will be contained inside the building as with any other retail
use. Surrounding uses include offices to the west and adjacent to the property, a fast food establishment to the south, also adjacent, uh, a Jacksonville Fire and Rescue Department fire station to the north across Second Avenue North, and an office used to the east across Third
Street. As the use will function, uh, as a commercial retail establishment, it is not anticipated that the new use will have any more intense uh, will be any more intense than the previous uh, retail sales use. Based upon the application and analysis stated in the report, the planning and development department recommends approval of PC
1125. And just for clarity, this is the this is the site here. As you can see, it's got uh existing parking lot driveway on the intersection there. Um this is looking from uh second at the
facility. Um again has required landscaping and existing parking. There is a small deck or whatever you want to call it right here. Um, and we had previously discussed with the applicant if they do need to provide additional uh parking once they determine the internal
allocation of uses um they would have the opportunity to use some of the more um diverse options that are now in the code including uh bicycle parking and uh golf cart parking which they have room to expand if that's necessary. Again, just a little bit better look at
the parking facility and the little deck there. That's pretty much the extent of it. I'm happy to take any questions. Are any questions for the planning staff? Okay. As a reminder, each member of the public will be given three minutes to
speak when we open the public hearing. Does any commission member have any exparte communication to disclose? Will the applicant please come forward to be sworn in and give any presentation? >> Good evening. Zach Miller 3203 OAR court I believe from the direction of your council. No one's being sworn in. I
don't mind but just clarifying. >> Correct. So >> sorry. Clarify that again. Um, no one's being sworn in tonight. >> Got it. Um, again, good evening, Zach Miller, 3203 bar in court. I'm the representative for the applicant in this
case and their council. Um, because the record is closed, I'm going to limit this to argument only. Conditional uses are different than resonings. On conditional uses, there's a presumption that the use is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Uh once the applicant meets their initial burden
that there's competent substantial evidence um the burden then shifts to produce on the record competent substantial evidence that it doesn't meet the requirements in the code. By law the staff report is competent substantial evidence. So by law the applicant has met its burden. In this
case at the July hearing there was no one in opposition. There was no testimony in opposition. The comments in opposition came from board members themselves. And while I understand I've served in a board just like this, by law, what board members say and what evidence they point to cannot be
competent, substantial evidence. You're operating in a quasa judicial manner. Therefore, you can't create the evidence in opposition. Um, that's a due process violation that's not following the correct law. So in this case, once the applicant met their initial burden and
the staff report evidences that, you have to point to some evidence that was presented because there was no evidence presented. It's presumption. I'd also point to in the record that even those members that voted in opposition conceded that the applicant met all the
technical requirements in the code. That's an admission that they met the essential requirements of law, that there was competent, substantial evidence they met the requirements. I understand there are some concerns about the use I understand there's some concerns about the comprehensive plan but there's no competent substantial in
the record that points to not meeting either one of those criteria and there's a presumption that is consistent with the comprehensive plan with that I'm happy to answer any questions you might have >> there any questions >> thank you
>> thank you I'll now open the public hearing. Do we have any speaker cards? We do. Um, looks like we got a Keith Proctor. >> Is this on this item? >> Excuse me. >> Are you here? Are you speaking on this item?
>> Uh, yes. I I don't even know if I'm like if if I should be here or for the next Monday one, but I can read it anyways. It's only three minutes. It's just for um grease trap variance. >> Okay. So, not in relationship to this topic. >> Uh yeah, it's it's related to grease
trap uh for my business at Jack Dominoes in Jacksonville Beach. >> So, I can wait till next week. I'm really nervous. I'm not good at this. >> I would I could be wrong. I s I would suggest probably coming when that item's read. Okay. >> Because we're not reading that item
tonight. We're not discussing on that. >> I understand. >> To be clear, you have an application in for >> uh I'm just trying to figure out what to do because I've been quoted $26,000 to just redo a grease trap that you know I didn't even break. Someone else >> I'll get you my information before you
leave. >> Yeah, we can chat offline. >> Okay, that'd be awesome. Thank you so much. I'll just save this. >> Appreciate your time. >> No problem. Okay, moving on. We have I have four more here. All wish not speak. Nathan Renu.
Nathan does not wish to speak but he is in support of PC1 1125. Jenny Edwards does not wish to speak. She is in support of PC1 1125. John GTO. Get that right. Does not wish
to speak. He is in support of PC1 1125. Michael Fernandez does not wish to speak and he is in support of PC1 1125. Is there anyone in the audience who has not filled out a speaker card and wishes to speak? If so, please fill out a
speaker card before you leave. All right. I will now close the public hearing and bring that back to the board for discussion. >> Is there a motion? >> Motion to approve. >> Second. discussion.
>> I have a question for staff >> and and I have a question >> andor andor for Mr. the so I get that you know we discussed this back sorry I forget when it was
>> when did we talk >> July >> July we talked we discussed this back in July at pretty good detail and then we're back here doing it again today according to the staff report it does check the boxes and it's under the impression I think of
the board that we are to meet and discuss what how that goes goes further. Otherwise, if we're just checking boxes and approving things, then why do we even need this commission? If the if the staff approves it and we can't say anything about it, then what
does it matter? Let me uh address that as best I can. So, it is a public hearing. Now granted, it's it's a little different this time because it's back here on on remand um or or through a mutually agreed abandance and bringing it back in the
court case. >> So, but in a general sense, you know, these hearings are open for public comment. And in Florida, it's I'm I'm going to tell a lot of my answer is going to be stuff you already know, but I want to give a comprehensive answer. So your decisions on quasi judicial
matters such as this have to be based on competent and substantial evidence. So that's relevant evidence that a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Um public comment is allowed and public comment may or may not be competent
substantial evidence. So that's one reason why hearings like this take place is the public should have a right to to discuss these matters as well. you know, they they live here, they work here. Um, so what you can't do in a general sense is make your decision based on citizen
wishes or the the clamor of the crowd. You know, a bunch of people who don't give any evidence or maybe give um generalities at best. That is not competent substantial evidence. But there are cases where there's fact-based lay testimony by the public that could
be competent substantial evidence. And generally the more specific and fact-based it is uh the more likely it is. You know mere generalizations as I kind of already said of opposition are to be disregarded but fact-based testimony uh is not if it is confident
substantial evidence. So that's why we're here in a general sense uh specifically to to this case for the you know the p the petitioner's rights were based on what happened at the last hearing. So we are framing it in that
matter um to it's a fair it's a fairness issue if if you know they're alleging in their litigation that um you know the decision um was improper that they gave me uh three different chief reasons um you
know one of which was competent substantial evidence. to to ensure a a fair playing field. It should be uh brought back before you all in this case in the exact same status it was the first time it was before you. Now
whether or not you know the staff report recommends approval if you if I'm not saying it's up to you guys to determine if there's any competent substantial evidence. um to the contrary, if you if you I'm not if you were inclined to deny
it, you would have to find competent substantial evidence to the contrary. And I'm not telling you specifically where where you can and can't find it, but you know, we have the whole public hearing so that everything could be put on the record. And in in a
general sense, we do this so the public has a right and everyone it's as fair as possible. And in this case, it's it's much more restrictive because of the litigation and and the level playing field for the applicants. I may not have answered your question at all, but I tempted to try to give you an idea of
why it's so restricted this time, but I also kind of got longwinded because you said, why are we even here? And in a general sense, these are, you know, what you all do is is very important and I don't want to trivialize, you know, public hearings on
land use decisions. So, thank you. I've got a question. Um, I don't know the significance kind of of what I'm asking, but um, I was a little disappointed in the transcript um, of what I said. Um, which leads me to
believe that the frequent comments that we get about not speaking into the microphone loud enough must have been something that I was doing that evening. So, um, I'm happy to make kind of the two major points that I wanted to make
that evening, um, clearly because I don't feel like they're clearly reflected in the transcript, um, because they keep kind of I must have faded out or whatever. But I won't do that if if my colleagues don't think that I need to or if the attorney
doesn't think that I need to. I I you know just I mean no no new evidence has come up tonight so I I think you could say whatever you want to say because I know based it's going to be based on the last hearing. >> Okay. So there's no question I would
simply be restating more succinctly um what I intended to state or what I I thought I stated in July. Should I do that? >> I think you can do that if you wish to. >> Okay. I would like to do it because I I don't think it was clear um given the the transcript. So I mean kind of there
were two points um that I tried to make. Um one I thought that there's some kind of significance to the salt life um building. It's you know it's not a landmark but it's something that means something in the beaches. And I thought
the applicant was kind of responsive to the significance of that building as being sort of meaningful. Um, and in their plans they were kind of looking into how to make it work in the future with the new use. So that was one of my points. Um, and my other point was that
as a planner um, I need to look to the comprehensive plan or to community input to tell me um, you know, what we should be doing in cases like this. and I didn't see anything in the comp plan that wasn't that that would would
incline me to deny the application which is why I approved it. So, so those were my two kind of big and thank you for you know kind of hearing me on that one. Thanks. >> Thank you. Are there is there any further discussion?
>> Um yeah I I have a a question a comment. The comment first um just being in this uh rehearing I think points to the need for us to consider reconsider um a potential amendment or excuse me
appeal process. Um I know we uh did not include that when we revised or uh passed a new LDC. Um but it would I think serve to help us in situations like this. I know that's not going to be our business for this evening, but I do
want to just put that out there for future discussion with this uh committee. And then um my question um Mr. Megan, if this one is best directed to you, um may
I um ask the committee or inquire as to our um any rationale for our denial of the claim in the previous uh hearing and whether that is relevant uh or should be
discussed and and really maybe more generally how to proceed on a rehearing without new evidence. events um without having the exact same discussion other than roll of the dice that we have different committee members present tonight. So your decisions and I may not answer
your question specifically because I want to focus on the key issue here. you know, there there's standards for conditional uses and you need to weigh the evidence uh to see if this conditional use application in your mind um meets those standards. And and and
Christian, if you want to chime in at any point based on your, you know, experience in dealing with the code in case I slightly misstate something, I look at it from more of a legal perspective. But you know there's for example in 34-553 of your land development code are the
standards applicable to all conditional uses. So, we're here tonight to determine whether or not the application um and and the evidence submitted with
this the staff report and any uh any testimony at the first hearing that was competent and substantial evidence whether or not it meets the standards for approval of a conditional use permit. And
you know what anyone said, you know, your your discussions to the second part of your question. Again, I don't want to influence you guys because I'm just giving legal information. You guys have to make the decision. But um you're not bound by your previous vote. What what you should
be doing tonight is looking at the evidence um as the bounds of the evidence that are allowed to be here tonight and make your decision on as to whether or not um I believe there is a motion on the table at this point, right? So whether or not you you feel
that there was competent substantial evidence presented to support that motion and ultimately if you if you feel there is you should um you should vote yes. If you feel there isn't you should vote no. But in either case, I would
highly recommend um that if you feel the need to discuss why you're you're making your decision. Um what evidence you heard um it would be helpful um for for your decision. The the the
more discussion, the the better the the record is. Um but again, it's entirely your decision on how much to discuss it. just the you know what evidence you're relying on is generally helpful. And Christian on on the LDC side, I don't know if I misstated the section at all,
but >> um >> I'll got it. >> Thank you. >> So just for clarification, the staff report is a recommendation to us. Correct.
It is a recommendation but uh as the as was pointed out earlier the the case law does say that it is considered competent substantial evidence. Uh so that is compet competent substantial evidence in the record. Uh whether there is
contrary competence potential evidence that outweighs it is is is up to you all. But if if there's not, then I would I would think you would have to approve this uh absence of conflicting evidence that that you weigh stronger.
>> Okay. Uh nothing has changed materially in my thinking here. Um specifically standards applicable for all conditional uses. The conditional use is consistent with the visions, intents and strategies of the comprehensive plan, including standards for building commercial intensities,
densities, and intensities of use. And B, the conditional use is compatible with existing permissible uses in the immediate vicinity of the land proposed for development and designed so it is consistent with the harmonious development of the zoning district in which it is proposed.
Commercial limited as defined in the comprehensive plan is land use c is this land use category is intended to apply to commercial areas that can exist within close proximity to residential areas without creating an adverse effect to the development and character of such
areas. I do not believe it meets that standard. I guess I have a question too when it comes to you know we get back to confidence substantial. So I know in the last meeting we discussed and we talked about things I guess when we were
talking about the intensities of the same use in that same area and how there are multiple businesses in the same area doing the exact same thing. We presented that as the board. Does that was where does that fall in confident substantial? You know, you said as long
as it if a general person could make sense of it, I mean, these are it's out there. It's fact, but it didn't get presented in the hearing. Curious. So to the extent that you think uh a
code provision doesn't apply, it would it it it you know the best way to do that and and the record's limited tonight would be to ask questions of staff, ask questions to the applicant to try to elicit more information that
could help perhaps bring more evidence to light to to make a decision. Um, now I don't think, you know, we're limited tonight as to how much that could happen, but in a general sense, um, you know, if those are concerns of yours, you know, bring them up during the
public hearing and and ask staff, ask the applicant, ask um questions to to help bring that to light so it's it's on the record and then the board can hear it and then the board can discuss it and see if there's any other evidence out there.
It's That's my best answer because you know we're working under a limited record tonight. >> Understood. >> If I if I can just this is just my personal opinion, but I I think based on our conversation initially there was
discussion and I I think at least part of your point was um the ability of this use to work with residential uses that that you're right that that's one of the things that's one of the criteria we need to look at. I don't see a problem
there. Um, we did have a conversation um back in July about um the preponderance of smoke shops throughout J Beach and that's different and that's not medical marijuana. Um and so I I personally
don't see the kind of inconsistency with res with proximity to residential >> point. Um, and and I I just did want to point out that we we did spend some time on the amount and I I agree about the amount of smoke and that's one of the things one of the reasons why we talked
about working on the comp plan because maybe we're missing some stuff. Um, but I I just don't see this particular use as being a problem. >> Understood. I read the entire definition. More to the point was the adverse effect on the development
character of the area. It turns it it severely changes the character of that area because you build two things that are the exact same right next to each other. And so this has been my point the entire
time. Nothing new has been presented by design. Right. Um so I I I read what I think the standards are that uh that cause me to disagree with the recommendation. Is it the
um of sort of the the sticking points? Just to kind of drill down on that a little bit. Um is it the harmonious uh development? Is it the density? Is it proximity to residential? All three.
>> Um so you could point to all three. the proximity to residential is is the least um impactful as far as um my concern. It's the you know the harmonious development and the charact changing the dramatically changing the character of the area. It's a commercial limited
um use zone, right? And so we're supposed to take careful consideration in what we approve there for conditional uses. It's not just a straight commercial zone. If it were were, correct me if I'm wrong here, it would be allowed. Correct.
>> Um I mean it's allowed through approval. So it is a use. >> Well, I'm talking about without need for conditional use. >> I would say this is a commercial category that is less intense than commercial two which allows it by right, but it is still a commercial category. So it does allow it. Got it.
Um, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe we were instructed in the previous hearing that MMTC facilities are required to be considered by us as any other pharmacy um, and not necessarily specific to the medicine
they offer. >> That's correct. There was a bill, I want to say it was 2017, it might have been 2018, that was a clarification bill after it was originally approved as a you could sell medical marijuana. And it basically required cities to treat them as any other pharmacy. And therefore,
any place that you would allow a pharmacy, you would allow them. Uh we're not allowed to regulate concentration or location. Um we're not allowed to regulate the total number in the city. Basically, it's like a pharmacy. So if you're going to put a pharmacy there, you can put one of these facilities there. and that's how it's been treated
in our code. >> So, I have two things to say on that. I I think when we're considering this, we need to think about it as a pharmacy. And when we're talking about the proximity to residential, there's an argument that could be made that proximity is actually a benefit to
the residential based on the requirements of the law and the requirements of the way we're intended to uh consider this on this committee. So, that's the first thing um I want to point out. And and then the other thing on on the other side of that that might be willing to say is we are in the midst
of an opiate epidem ep epidemic. I don't think anybody would dispute that significantly. Um and pharmacies of other kinds are distributing controlled substances and and all of these things are are heavily regulated and there are mechanisms in place that are the
responsibility of other agencies and institutions to uh police and our job um really I think in this is to approve or deny the application as if it were any
other pharmacy. And if we're um wanting to go beyond that or apply other considerations to this in the discussion, I think we should speak of it as if it's a pharmacy and not thinking about the specific medicine that it's providing.
>> I have a question for Christian. Um my just anecdotal observation um of the medical marijuana sales establishments in in J Beach that I'm familiar with um they tend not to have say the neon signs
of a pharmacy or or advertisements of pharmacy. Um is that a a city requirement, a a state requirement, a federal requirement? Is that just an accident of of history? I I believe it's just a choice that each individual has made. They have the ability to have
internally eliminated signs just like any other commercial entity in C1. So they're regulated by the same C1 sign requirements that any other business would be in C1. >> So based on size, you know, square footage, road frontage, those things, but uh ultimately internal illumination
is allowed. >> Okay. Well, and I didn't just mean neon. I just I just meant that they they seem sort of, forgive my I don't I don't have a better word. they seem sort of classier and more laidback than I would describe a usual pharmacy. But that's just my observation. I think you bring
up a good point though and maybe a way to reach some consensus or or middle ground is I I do believe we have the ability to apply conditions if we were to approve the application and if there are issues about the appearance when
folks turn right on third from beach um and other things about that particular area in terms of impressions of density or or the time of type of harmonious character um that members of this committee were were interested and um
facilitating, preserving, implementing, however we want to consider that that maybe there is um a condition to be placed on it um in that another committee member would like to propose >> through the chair.
Yeah, thank you. Um, I think the only uh conditional use um requirement that we might apply to this particular project is the parking and it's it needs to be a um I haven't seen anything in writing.
I've just seen the minutes from the last meeting that said they were they had worked on a plan for sufficial additional uh parking if needed. And I didn't hear anybody say anything about needing more parking uh or I didn't see any agreement
or conservation, but I can a little bit of clarity. So, the building itself has uh a retail area back when it was originally the the t-shirt shop. Um there was also office space. Um the nature of their business, they haven't necessarily put in for a
renovation permit yet. And so the amount of square footage that's allocated to one use versus another may change that parking equation slightly, but based on the analysis that we did, there's not a situation where they can't provide the additional parking if needed. >> So how would we how would we voice that
in a conditional use requirement for um >> I mean it's already a requirement of the code that they meet the parking requirement. So in essence that's going to happen. Okay. Regardless, that clears that. Thank you. Is there any further discussion? >> May I have a roll call vote on the
motion, please? >> David Doll, >> yes. >> Marggo Moring, >> yes. >> Justin Henderson, >> no. >> Dean Haddock,
>> yes. Nicholas Andrews. >> No, >> to do a planning department report. Correct. >> We don't. But the only thing I can tell you is that we do have a meeting uh the first uh second week in November. Um and we have one item for that meeting.
>> Okay, got it. So um the mo the conditional use is approved. Uh, may we have a motion to adjurnn? >> Motion to adjurnn. >> Second.