Good evening. Welcome to the LPA meeting for March 6th. March 5th, 20 26. Can I get any approval of the November 6th minutes? >> Um, November 20th minutes.
>> Well, November 6th to 1st. >> Okay. No. Um, I would move to approve the November 6th minutes. >> A second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I. >> Now, can I get a motion for November? >> Motion for November 20th. Second. >> All in favor? I
>> I I >> Okay. Now we have a quasi judicial hearing for. This is for item 26638. Mr. Senate, you're presiding.
>> I have no uh experte communications to divulge. >> Yeah. >> Neither do I. This thing works. Uh, we need to swear I swear them. >> Oh, that's this quasi judicial thing. Thank you for the cheat sheet. All I
have to do is use it. >> All those giving testimony, could you please stand? Except for attorneys. >> Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the evidence you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Okay.
All right, Mr. Sunn. Now it's your turn. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening, members of the LPA. I'm John Sennet, principal planner with Growth Management. A copy of my work history has been filed with the clerk. This is a request by Martian Associates
Land Planning and Design on behalf of Bule Land South for approval of the sixth amendment to the island crossings commercial PUD agreement, including revised master site plan and final site plan for out parcel A. The proposed development of out parcel A consists of
a two-story 99,922 ft residential storage facility and associated infrastructure. Out parcel A consists of approximately 6.83 acres located at 11850 Southeast Federal Highway and Hope
Sound. Included is a request for a certificate of public facilities reservation. Here you can see the overall island crossings commercial PUB outlined in red. It's located just west of the intersection of Federal Highway and Bridge Road in Hope Sound. It's just
over 25 acres. It's anchored by a Publix Plaza. It also includes several out parcels that have been developed with a gas station, a Wells Fargo bank, a Wendy's, uh Cleveland Clinic Wellness Center. Out parcel A is located in the southern
portion of the PUD with frontage along Bridge Road. Out parcel A is approximately 6.83 acres. Out parcel A contains a portion of Southeast Florida Avenue which is an easement which provides access to the adjacent
Bridgetown residential development to the north. Out parcel A contains a storm water detention area in the northeast portion and there's also an existing 2.3 acre preserve area on the site.
The blue areas to the west, south, and east of out parcel A are within the Hobound redevelopment zoning district. To the northwest, you can see that the Bridgetown development is subject to a separate PUB agreement.
And to the northwest, the Hopestown Golf Club is within the RM5 zoning district. The future land use designation about parcel A is general commercial. The Bridgetown development to the north is within the commercial office residential
future land use designation. To the northwest in yellow, you can see the low density future land use designation. To the west of out parcel A in brown is a CRA neighborhood future land use designation. And to the south and east
in red is the CRA center future land use designation. The island crossing is commercial PUB. It's formerly known as a Ross Common Square commercial. It was adopted in August 1989 and most recently modified
via the fifth amendment to the PUD in August 2007. This PUD contains seven parcels totaling approximately 25.6 acres. The proposed sixth PUD amendment adds residential storage facility as a permitted use for out parcel A. It
clarifies that SMRU shall provide the water and wastewater service for the project. The sixth amendment removes the 23 acre out parcel G which is currently within the Hobound community redevelopment area. This amendment includes a revised
master site plan to reflect an increase in maximum allowable building square footage and the out then the removal of out parcel G. The amendment also includes a revised timetable of development for out parcel A. The proposed development of out parcel A
consists of a two-story 99,922 ft residential storage facility, also known as Bridge Road self storage and associated infrastructure. Out parcel A will construct turn lanes, including a right turn lane within the
Southeast Bridge Road rightway, as well as left and right egress lanes in the existing internal drive connecting to Southeast Bridge Road. There's no change to the existing 2.3 acre preserve area on parcel A. Exotic vegetation will be removed within the preserve area uh in
accordance with the existing preserve area management plan. A parking rate adjustment is requested pursuant to section 4.625 Martin County Land Development Regulations. 10 parking spaces are proposed. The applicant's proposed PUB public
benefits include a pedestrian plaza with benches in the southeast corner of out parcel A. Uh approximately 0.52 acres of additional native upland vegetation will be preserved in landscape buffers on out parcel A. And the applicant is also proposing a $25,000 contribution to the
Hobound Historical Society to be used for restoration and maintenance of the Hobound Railroad Station. This is the proposed final site plan for out parcel A. In the western portions in the the hashing, you can see the
existing uh roughly 2.3 acre preserve area. And the proposed building is located on the eastern side of El Parcel A. There's no additional connection to Bridge Road proposed as part of this. The project would utilize the existing
access drive. Here's a closer look at the proposed building. And in green, I've highlighted the areas of uh additional native vegetation that are proposed to be saved in the landscape buffers as part of this
development. In the southeast corner, you can see the the applicant's proposed pedestrian plaza adjacent to the sidewalk along Bridge Road. The applicant is requesting alternative compliance from the primary facade transparency criteria of article 4
division 20. Staff recommend approval. The board of county commissioners is the final decision maker for this application. These are the proposed building elevations at the top here. This south elevation, this would be the view along
Bridge Road. And I know the applicant also has some colored 3D renderings that kind of give a better idea as well. Development review staff have found the Buand South application to comply with all applicable regulations and the comprehensive growth management plan as
detailed in the staff report. Staff recommend approving the sixth amendment to the Island Crossings commercial PUB zoning agreement with revised master site plan. staff recommend approving the final site plan for the island crossings commercial pud out parcel a project also known as bridge road self storage. That
concludes my presentation. >> Jim um yeah when when the um preserve area management plan was put over parcel A was it put over on both sides of the
uh southeast bridge road access or just on the southeast side? It was put on. So this road >> Yeah. >> is is Southeast Florida Avenue. >> Oh, Florida. I'm sorry. >> Yes. And that is the configuration of the preserve area.
>> So So the one on the southeast side was not covered under a pamph? >> No, this this area if you're referring to the area proposed. Yeah, >> correct. It is not encumbered by a PAMP. Okay. >> Um and the applicant is proposing to uh save that native vegetation there within
their proposed buffers. >> Okay. Thank you. That's it. >> Um I guess the only other question I had was the uh facade and the other uh architectural uh amenities are are um approved by the
Hobound NAC and the um CRA. >> So this is a PUD. It's it's not within the Hobound CRA. >> Okay. But it is within the CRA's purview or not? >> No, it's it's outside of the CRA boundaries. All right.
>> It is subject to the commercial design criteria of article 4 of our code. >> Okay. >> Anything else, Jim? >> No. >> Facade. Is it facade? I've never heard that. >> Facade. >> That's what you said. >> Facid. >> How would you pronounce that?
>> Facade. >> Facade. Okay. >> Wait a minute. Wait a minute. >> Okay, >> Rick. No. >> And I have no questions. Now you can walk back. Just got to make sure you didn't forget about us. >> Forget about you.
>> Good evening. Thank you so much for donating of your time. Um, just really quick, uh, Miss Elder, would you mind confirming that we have a quorum here this evening? >> We do. >> Perfect. Thank you so much. Thank you for donating of your time. Members of the local planning agency, we really
appreciate you. Not only is this a part of the statutory requirements, but uh, it helps us to understand how we sit. So we do appreciate your time. My name is Audrey Creech of McCarthy Summers representing the applicant Buand South LLC on the
applicants as you know sixth PUD amendment of the island crossings commercial planned unit development. So additionally we're doing the master site plan uh amendment as well as uh the master site plan or final site plan for out parcel A. Out parcel A is the last
developable lot because out parcel G, which is vacant, right up against what used to be the old Barnett Bank building, is very, very small. So, this is the last go at protecting what we can protect and basically closing down this
CPU. Now, I am not the heavy lifter on this particular project. I'm going to have Mike McCarti of Mccardi and Associates come up and give the details. and honestly the very pretty vegetation and other things that go with this project. However, before we do that, I need to
get some procedural things out of the way. So, first I have the certificate of u certification of surrounding property owners being noticed within 500 ft. I also have a no objection letter for out parcel seed. Now as uh staff intimated
and thank you staff for doing so um very well. There are seven commercial out parcels within the CPU um we were tasked with getting no objection letters from all of them. So in your agenda packet you have the no objection letters for out parcel A which
of course is the applicant out parcel B which is the Wells Fargo out parcel E F and G. Unfortunately, I could not get it out parcel C signed in enough time for the agenda, but I have the no objection letter signed out parcel C here with me
tonight, which I will be giving to staff. Additionally, out parcel D, which is the Publix, which is the largest of the parcels, has given their no objection, but they could not get it signed in time for this particular hearing. We will have it signed into
staff by city commission or county commission when it comes up on March 10th. But I have a handy dandy email from council for Publix specifically stating that they have no objection and they will be getting us that no objection letter so that I can give it to staff add
>> and that's okay with okay >> additionally I have the resume for myself work history and the resume and work history for Mr. Mike Mccardi all of which I will provide to staff now >> and with no further ado I'm going to let
uh Mr. Mike McCarti talk about the specifics of this >> project. Make a presentation. Why? We have to hear from the public. Let them make their >> Well, see if they're getting public comment. >> Go ahead. Go ahead, Mike. >> Sounds good. Thank you. >> Can I make I'm walking
>> because I want to hear from the applicant. >> Are you guys already showing us out of here? >> Oh, good evening. >> You never know what he's going to say. I know Mike a long time. >> How are you, sir? Good to see you. Well, there's no public comment. >> Appreciate your time. Good to see you, Jim.
>> Mr. Hardman, how are you? Um, >> I love you, man. >> Mike McCarti with McCarti Land Planning. Appreciate your time this evening. Uh, this has been a long time coming to get here. Uh, it's been about three years on this application from inception uh,
conceptual design, meeting with the client. Um, Mr. Buell, great client to have. um he came and met with us, walked in the door and sat down to discuss this particular site. And being that it's an
old PUD, it's got a lot of hair on it, a lot of amendments, a lot of lot of history, right? And um Mr. Buell and his family had a residence on Jupiter Island. They have a long history here in Martin County. He also resides um within
Bridgetown, the community that's just to the north of this site. Um he came to us and he said, "Look, I'm buying this site. I want to make sure that what happens here is good for our community, meaning, you know, his his interest in that area being that he lives there."
And so we went through a laundry list of various uses that he could do there. And he he would say, "No, we're not doing that. No, I don't want to do that. It's got to be something complimentary to the community that can benefit the community
and not be a problem. And I said, "Deal?" Okay. So, fast forward to three years later, we're before you to discuss this
project. Island Crossing PUD was established in 1989. Um, since then there's been six amendments. This is the sixth amendment, five prior to today. Um, the amendment before you
is to allow the proposed bridge road storage facility on our parcel A. Um, as Audra indicated, this the last parcel of the CPU. Um, the permitted uses within the CU CPU consist of commercial
and retail uses and out parcel A was previously approved in 2007. Um, that has since expired. Um, the proposed amendment adds residential storage facilities as permitted use for out parcel A and
increases the maximum allowable building square footage. The difference when I look at the uses that were permitted in 1989 versus today and how we how we operate storage facilities is very different. In
the 80s it was common place that you would throw up rows of barracks buildings and roll up doors. Fast forward to 2026, we're going vertical and we've created these high-end climate
controlled Gen 5 facilities that look like professional office buildings. And that's what you're going to see this evening. Might be a little redundancy in in my presentation, but bear with me, please. This is out parcel A, which staff uh
presented to you already. So we'll pass through that one. This is the revised master plan. You can see we had to take a master plan from the 1980s, make some data modifications to it. This is what uh has been deemed consistent with with
what's being proposed by staff. This area I think is is useful in showing the island crossings PUD which you can see there in the green and then the red is out parcel A of Island crossings PUD. You'll also see
Bridgetown to the north in in the green outline. And then all of the hatched area that you see in blue that is all the CRA. And and when you look at this, you say, "Wow, why is this property not in the CRA?"
I'm willing to bet that it's quite simple because there was a peed from 1989. So, why not carve out and go around it? However, the reason why I mention that is because when you see our design tonight, you're going to see that we went ahead and we implemented many of
the architectural uh elements of the CRA and the way the building approaches the street. So, when you look at this, this is our site plan. If you if that's legible on your screen, and if it isn't, forgive me. But you'll see, as staff indicated,
there are these preserve areas on the west side of the site and then a 50-foot strip that's on the east side of the entry of Florida Avenue. Those were already established per the PUD prior to us. Okay. So, we did not want to mess
with that. We didn't want to make any modifications to those areas. we were trying to, you know, localize our development within a certain cluster end of this development um site. So, what we
did is we we made it to where the parking comes around the back of the building. The building has a presence on the street, which is consistent with the CRA. And then what we did is we we've gone and preserved that rare and unique scrub habitat along the front of the
building and then along the back of the site as well. Um, as staff indicated, we requested a reduction in the park a reduction in the parking rate. The current parking rates in in in the codes contemplate a whole bunch of parking.
The storage facilities just don't have that type of demand. you know, you're talking about somebody that goes here two, three times a year and and that's it. So, um the target market for this project is to cater to individuals Jupiter Island and within the Hobound
area within a couple miles and then also to cater to some of the customers that are going to be coming from Discovery and those other projects in the surrounding area. Um this graphic here shows the preserve area on the west side
of Florida Avenue, 1.81 81 acres that is to remain as is. Okay. Um I did add a couple notes here on this graphic. Um the maximum building coverage under general commercial just for comparison p
purposes is 60% would be 60%. And on this particular track of land being, you know, over 6 acres, the the allowed buildable square footage or coverage would be 100,000 or 178,633
square ft with a minimum open space of 20%. What you see before you proposes only a 16.78% building coverage or a 49,961 square footprint because we are going
vertical. We're vertically integrating. Okay. Um the proposed open space 68.52%. That's quite I I I like that. I I get excited when I see that kind of a number. you should too. Um,
we'll move on to here's our landscape plan. You can see aside from the preservation and all the hatching that you see on the three sides, the one side that is exposed to the uh east uh end of the building along that access drive to
the public's anchor. We did a really strong enhancement planting plan for that area and you can see that here which is um graphically shown in a planting scheme of varying ground
covers, shrubs, grasses, canopy trees, palms. Here's our public element that you'll see right there on the on the corner uh with benches and a little arcade. All ties into this crosswalk. This crosswalk's going to be redone. The
sidewalk's going to be extended and tied in. So, there's a lot of uh lot of benefit happening here. Here's the here's a zoomed in image of that corner and the enhancement that it's going to bring to the corridor.
And here's the east perspective on the east side of the site. Um you can see we broke up that building. This is twotory. We've got elevation changes in the roof lines. We've got gables, gussets,
banding. I mean, you name it, it's there. It looks pretty sharp in my opinion. You can see we've got the rare and unique habitat here along the back where we're going to be maintaining that. The sidewalks as well, tying into Bridge
Road. And this is a perspective on the northeast corner. Okay. Showing how we're breaking up that building. We're we're undulating the the walls and the planes. Um and then this is the southwest corner of
Bridge Road. Uh southwest corner of the site at Bridge Road and Florida Avenue. So to your when when you're standing here, you're kind of facing east and to your left where you see that curb that is into uh Bridgetown. And so this
is that front um preserved 25- ft native habitat buffer that will remain. And this is a perspective from Southeast Florida Avenue from the west side of the
site. And this is a little further north as you're getting towards the entry to Bridgetown. So, we've done a really uh we took a lot of time and effort in trying to make sure that this project
looks good all the way around it and it's it's cognizant of its neighbors. Um let's kind of run through the public benefits and and this is going to be a couple slides so bear with me. Um, this project
f is a fulfillment of critical local need. Um, currently underserved by similar services, the area will benefit from convenient access to secure CAT 5 climate controlled storage, reducing the need for long commutes and supporting
local efficiency. Two, strategic location and service provision. The location along Bridge Road in US1 with the geographic area of the CRA makes this an ideal location. Low impact land use as a self storage facility. The
project represents a low traffic, low utility demand use that reduces strain on local infrastructure. The land use has less environmental and service impact than alternative byite retail uses. So when we're talking about high
turnover uses such as retail or a Starbucks or restaurants, this is a very low impact use in comparison to what could be there. Um environmental pre preservation, ecological stewardship. You can see in our plans and everything
that's been presented, project proposes preservation of rare and unique scrub habitat along the south the sites northern and southern boundaries exceeding the minimum code requirements. Um these native vegetation areas contribute to wildlife habitat
preservation, natural storm water filtration, reduced irrigation demand, improved ecological corridors and serve as a preserve area interface connecting the habitat communities. Additionally,
so through this approval, the project ensures full compliance with the preserve area management plan, including invasive species removal, native replanting, and long-term maintenance for ecological function.
Five, archite architectural and aesthetic integration. The architectural elements proposed harmonized with bridge road corridor, the existing island crossings PUD and the surrounding neighborhoods in CRA. Materials, scale,
and facade treatments are designed to maintain visual consistency, reducing massing impacts and support cohesive community aesthetics. Enhanced landscape buffers. I talked about that. by using native habitat
um are unique aesthetic elements of the project that offer form and function. Pedestrianoriented design elements such as pedestrian plaza at the corner of Bridge Road with benches and public art enhance the aesthetic and the pedestrian oriented experience.
Uh let's talk about transportation and connectivity. Number seven project supports multimodal um mobility and traffic safety through construction of new dedicated turn lanes. So there's going to be a new turn lane in order to uh turn into the plaza
um on Bridge Road um which will improve traffic flow and access. Installation of new sidewalks and crosswalks to improve pedestrian safety and connectivity to the surrounding neighborhoods. internal pedestrian pathways linking the
facility to public sidewalks and adjacent developments. Public green space and community enhancement, a public uh publicly accessible green space as I indicated on the plan and in our graphics with shaded seating areas
at the southeast corner of the property. Um, we're using native landscaping, pedestrian friendly scale and design, a visually appealing amenity that contributes to the character of the Bridge Road Corridor. Obviously, there's some economic
development and local job creation that also occurs with a project like this. There's the construction jobs obviously and procurement of local services during the development. um ongoing employment opportunities for the operations and
then there's the increase in tax base to the county. Uh my client also is uh willing to make monetary contribution to preserving uh the history and long-term stewardship. applicants committed to taking an active
role by contributing to the railroad contributing the railroad magnet pledge in the amount of $25,000 to the Hobound Historical Society to relocate and restore the old Hobound Railroad Station.
That concludes my presentation on the benefits of this project. If you have any any questions or comments, love to have them at this point. >> Thank you, Mike. That was pretty uh conclusive. I appreciate it. >> Thank you, >> Mike. I have one question. >> Sure. >> How's Katie? >> Very good. Thank you.
>> You're welcome. >> Thank you. >> Is there any other questions? >> Do we have any public comment? Seeing none, back to the board. Rick, >> make a motion to approve. >> I got a second. >> Second the motion.
All in favor? >> I I passes unanimous. >> I could have saved his 10 minutes. >> It's not saving us 10 minutes. He has to make that presentation. >> No, we didn't. >> He spent a lot of money, the owner, for him to do that. And now he's all teed up for next Tuesday. >> Thank you.
>> And they got to practice. >> And they got to That's what I said. Teed up for >> He can practice at home. >> You're in a rush. >> I got a grandson playing baseball. >> OH, WELL, you didn't say that. >> Thank you, John. grandson. >> How are the grandkids up in Connecticut?
>> They're good. >> You spoil it >> when I can. >> Okay. Are we ready to move on? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. NPH2 LDR25-02 article 12 division 1 and five
recreational vehicle park standards in the Hopetown Sound Community Redevelopment Area. Mr. Senate. Oh, here we go again. This is quasi judicial. >> Okay, go ahead, Mr. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening, members of the LPA. I'm John Senate,
principal planner with growth management. A copy of my work history has been filed with the clerk. This is a request by Florida's mobile park to amend division 1 uniform redevelopment standards and division 5 Hob Sound article 12 community redevelopment code land development regulations Martin
County code to modify the recreational vehicle park standards specific to the Hobound community redevelopment area. Article 12 establishes redevelopment zoning districts permitted uses and development standards for Martin County's six community redevelopment
areas. Table 12-1.02 and section 12.1.01 division 1 article 12 identifies which standards of article 3 are modified replaced or do not apply in the redevelopment zoning districts. Section
3.91 recreational vehicle park division 3 article 3 applies as written in the redevelopment zoning districts. This proposed LDR amendment to article 12 is to modify the RV park standards specific to the Hobound CRA. The
remaining CRAAS would continue to be subject to the requirements of section 3.91. And in the blue hatching in the aerial image to the right, you can see the limits of the HO sound CRA. This table shows the current section
3.91 RV park standard in the lefth hand column and in the right hand column you can see the applicant's proposed RV park standard that would be specific to just the Hobound CRA. The current standard is that each
recreational vehicle site shall be a minimum of 2,000 square ft. The applicant is proposing a minimum site size of 1500 square feet for each RV site. Current standard is that at least one wastewater pumpout station shall be provided within the facility. The
applicant is proposing that at least one wastewater pumpout station shall be provided within the facility unless the RV park has a portable water and sewer hookup at each site and the park only rents to recreational vehicles that are self-contained units. The current density standards is that maximum
density shall not exceed 10 RV sites per acre. The applicant is proposing a maximum density of up to 15 RV sites per acre. The current standard is that recreational vehicles shall be limited to a short-term rental basis for
tenencies of less than six consecutive months or a total of 6 months in any calendar year. The applicant is proposing to modify this such that pursuant to the terms of an employment agreement, managers or caretakers are exempt from the short-term tenency
requirement. Uh the current standard regarding accessory dwelling units is that an accessory dwelling unit for a park manager or caretaker may receive a separate address from the park office. The accessory dwelling unit shall not be a recreational vehicle or mobile home. Uh similarly, the applicant is proposing
an accessory dwelling unit for a park manager or caretaker may receive a separate address from the park office if the accessory dwelling unit is a permanent structure. The proposed amendment removes the prohibition on park trailers. It also contains other provisions which are
consistent with the existing section 3.91 criteria. This proposed amendment would allow a manager or caretaker to occupy an RV site indefinitely. This conflicts with the LDR definition of RV park as the commercial use of land to provide
individual spaces for two or more recreational vehicles on a daily fee or shortterm rental basis for tenencies of less than six consecutive months. There's no proposed limit on the number of managers or caretakers which may occupy RV sites. RV parks are subject to state
regulations, including Florida Administrative Code, Chapter 64E-15 and Chapter 513 Florida statutes. Section 64E-15.002 Florida Administrative Code stipulates that each RV space shall contain a
minimum of,200 square ft and that density shall not exceed 25 RV units per acre of gross site. Based on provisions in Florida statutes and Florida administrative code, Martin County LDR standards regarding RV parks could be preempted if the proposed LDR text
amendment is approved. Such preeemption could result in RV parks being developed in accordance with the state standards rather than the more restrictive Martin County LDR standards. And if I may, I would just like to read from chapter 513
Florida statutes. This is section 513.1115 paragraph 4. This section does not limit the regulation of the uniform fire safety standards established under section 633.206. However, this section supersedes any
county, municipality, or special district ordinance or regulation regarding the lot size, lot density, or separation or setback distance of a recreational vehicle park which goes into effect after the initial permitting and construction of the park.
The application was presented at the January 14th, 2026 Hobound Neighborhood Advisory Committee meeting. The Hobound NAC recommended denial of the application. The application was also presented at the February 23rd, 2026 Community Redevelopment Agency meeting.
The Community Redevelopment Agency also recommended denial. Staff recommend denial of the proposed ordinance amending article 12, Community Redevelopment Code, Land Development Regulations, Martin County Code. That concludes my presentation. >> Okay. Any questions? Rick,
>> show me where this park is again on >> into the mic, please, so they can pick up. >> So, this application before you is would be specific to the Hobound CRA. I'll let the applicant discuss their intentions. It is not property specific. It is
specific to the Hobound CRA. >> So, it's not a single piece of property. >> Correct. Yeah. >> I got I got one more question. Can you go into a little bit more detail about
why changing this would allow a preeemption by the state? Is it because of a particular um bill that is being proposed or had been proposed or is it because their standards are considerably more lenient
than ours and >> we don't want to attract their attention? >> Well, there's existing language within Florida statute that speak to preeemption. Um so it's it's more so the fact of potential for preeemption under
existing uh language. So, I guess I'm still wondering why there's an increased >> Fox, would you like to add to that? >> Yeah, I can I can weigh in on this. Um, Sebastian Fox, senior assistant county attorney. For the record, John read a provision from chapter 513
uh that references this section superseding any county, municipality, or district ordinance that goes into effect after the initial permitting. Uh so our office's analysis of the existing statutes um give us significant concern that any
change that would result in um any change in density, setbacks, spacing between um lots within the park um could have the unintended consequence of um
causing the uh Florida Administrative code provisions to come into effect. Um, so we've reviewed uh legislative history of the statutes when they were enacted and made that determination um to prevent a situation where an applicant
down the road could come in uh point to a preeemption and be afforded the density uh requirements under the administrative code. >> Does that make sense? >> It does. I'm just curious whether I mean there's a bunch of other ways that could do that as well.
>> Live local is just one of them. I just I mean I was just curious what what was the red flag and I guess you've you've answered that pretty. >> Yeah, the the plain language of the statute references the the superseding the possibility of the state state's
regulation superseding ours. >> Okay. Before you begin, Miss Qu. So, it is the CRA's desire not to have this happen. Is that correct?
>> That is correct. >> And it was the NAC's desire not to have this happen. They voted and what was the vote? >> It was four to three. >> Four to three. It was close. What about the CRA? >> Uh five uh 5 to one.
>> Five to one. Okay. Thank you. Unless you want to add something else. >> Uh just that we 100% support staff's recommendation. We just feel in in the analysis that there's too much potential harm that can be done and not enough
potential benefit to the community um to recommend approval. >> Okay. Thank you. Okay, Miss Story, come present. It's like old week. >> Yes. Thank you. Um,
let me let me get uh kind of restructured a little bit. So anyway, um, so good evening and thanks for having us. Um, I am uh, just for the record, I'm Christa Story. I am an
attorney with Polymath Law, which is located in Hollywood, Florida. Um, prior to joining Polymath Law, I was a member of the Martin County Attorney's Office for 25 years, retiring in 2022 as
a senior assistant county attorney. And most of that time I spent representing the local planning agency. Some of you, Mr. Moyer, you were on there for >> Good evening again. >> Good. A long time. Yes, sir. I am pleased to be here with my clients
um Suzanne and Michael Graham who are in the audience. I've been representing them on this application since 2023 in various forms. The Grahams are the owners of the Florida's RV park and
they've been working through this just under about two and a half years. The application before you is a text amendment. We understand that it's a revision to the language of article 12. John uh Mr. Senate has done a very good
job of putting that forward. We have some slides too, but I'm not going to duplicate that. Um but I just want to hit the the specifics on the head and Mr. Ber, thank you for mentioning the issue
about preeemption. Um, I'm st we're standing here because I um although I um certainly don't take lightly the the opinion of the county attorney's office, I do not share their opinion that preeemption is imminent as a result of
this application. But I I want to kind of circle around about uh one thing first. So, um, after spending 25 years with the county attorney's office, I can't I don't know
if I can remember an applicant coming forward with a staff recommendation of denial, but it is the applicant's absolute right to do that. And we're standing here before you because
staff is not the decision makers. The LPA at this point in time is the decision maker and ultimately the board of county commissioners will be the decision maker. So what we ha what you have is your role your job is to
consider certainly the advice of your staff, the growth management department, the county attorney's office. That's what they're supposed to do. Provide you with recommendations. You weigh that. You're also you also should be listening to the applicant's
presentation. And if there's any members of the public, that's also the piece of it. This is not quasi judicial. It's a legislative matter. It's a policy decision. So, it's in a it's in a little different framework. So, you've got
three participants participants, three parties. You've heard from one, you're hearing from us. And I don't know if there are any members of the public here this evening. The most sub what the thing is that the most significant
portion of the denial of the application is the opinion of the county attorney's office that any revision to the land development regulations regarding RV parks in Martin County is going to
trigger preeemption of Martin County's all of the regulations with the the concern that the state has less strict standards. In particular, they've this county attorney's office has cited to the
statutory language. John read that, but I want to focus on that again. It's section one 51315 print 44 Florida statutes. And I've looked at this molded over. We
tried to sort it out because I will tell you the history. I've also looked at the legislative history. We've also reached out to the the association that the Grahams um uh belong to, the professional association.
We've reached out in every way, shape, and form we can. And I and have arrived at either not at a conclusion that I think is different. The section that's been cited to says
it's it dates back to 2022 House Bill 343 which was an effort an intent to ensure that existing RV parks were not
disadvantaged by subsequently adopted ordinances. you know, the the threat of hurricanes and other types of things. And um you know, I'm a longtime proponent of local
government and preeemption and the um um the impact on home rule these days is not something that I take lightly at all. Some of you may know me and I'm still trying to I'm kind of still in the fight with that. But the concern
oftentimes is the overreach of local government. And this that particular provision of the statute was intended to allow existing R existing RV parks to maintain
what they had been permitted and constructed to do and to rebuild in case there was an issue and they were completely wiped out. recognition that RV parks have a function and they provide
services for tourists and they also do provide um a level of affordable housing in this state. So the language in that particular provision that was cited, it says the
section would supersede any county, municipal, municipality or special district ordinance regarding lot size, lot density or separation or setback distance of a recreational
vehicle park which goes into effect after the initial permitting in construction of the park that is directed at existing parks. I do not share believe it is ex it is
directed to protect parks that may come later. The intent of the legislation was to protect protect existing parks. you know, certainly it's um you know, everybody has their role that they're
playing in this situation and um you know, the county attorney's office is providing its information in your staff. I just kind of I don't mean to be flip about it, but the county attorney's office is not the only lawyer
in the room. And um I don't share their opinion about the preeemption. I don't share the opinion that is imminent and that it will be automatic and um because and the opinion that's
been shared with you is definitely to the detriment of my client the Florida's art department. One of the things that's concerning is there has been no context given by the county attorney's office as to how the
preeemption might unfold. I am very familiar with um how preeemption occurs when the state legislature adopts bills and they've they they're they're doing it just right
now as we speak. I will tell you that and I know what that looks like. I spent 25 years with the Martin County Attorney's Office. I have 15 other years as a local government attorney. and the preeemption that's being
asserted that that that um is going to take place maybe as a result of this. I I've never seen that occur before that that somehow that something would be triggered and the state would come in
and look at a particular regulation that is limited to one small piece of Martin County and then that somehow would open the door. Um, you know what would have to happen is that someone would have to assert
that someone in some way would come forward and say we want to develop under other rules and then that would that that individual would have to have would have the
obligation of having to point to either an implied or express preeemption of the state by the rules and regul regulations that Martin County currently uses. There may or may not be agreement about
that. It may take it may take the filing of litigation. It's not something that you flip the light switch and then Martin County's um RV regulations get thrown out. That's
not how this would work in my opinion currently. And also then the staff, you know, and I appreciate the staff. I respect them. They're going to have a robust defense of the county's rules and regulations like they always do. So this threat of
preeemption, I think it's a bit of fear-mongering and um it it is concerning. So, um, one of the other things that, um, I I do
want to talk about is that we've done our homework. Also, we've tried to reach out and figure out, you know, the legislative history. Initially, my clients were told by the Martin County Health Department that Martin County's uh regulations regarding RV parks were
not applicable and the standards that the Martin County Health Department through the statutory provisions those were applicable. Subsequently, we learned that wasn't the prevailing opinion. And so we embarked on a back and forth
and ultimately we one of the pe the we reached out to representative Overdorf's office who had been as well as the association who had been involved in that legislation. And so this is where we come to offer to you that that
legislation is intended to protect existing parks. So, the other piece of this kind of um concern that has been expressed by by I think the staff
is that if this occurs, it will open up Martin County's doors and there will be just a um numerous people will be coming forward
to start RV parks. in Martin County. Somebody's got to come forward and do that. So, what we've done is my clients and I give credit to the Grahams and particularly to Miss Graham who's done her research. This application
unexpectedly cost them a lot more money than they anticipated once they got a staff recommendation of denial. They've done doing their research. They reached out to everywhere they could. And one of the things that we did do
because this idea that there's going to be an explosion of RV RV parks in Martin County does not really compute in spite of the what the Grahams who have been operating an RV park for 16 years have
said staff has assert asserted that these are that's going to take off and there's going to be a problem and there's going to be increased density in spite of not having any oper any
business experience with RVs having no understanding of the capital it would take to do that. So, but what the Grahams did is we reach is reached out. We've got an opinion and I think this letter probably went unfortunately did
not go to the LPA, but it went to the board of county commissioners by Drew Poston who's the senior vice president of SLC Commercial. And I've lost my um excuse me just a minute and I apologize we can get this
to you. they reached out to get someone who might know a thing or two about land use and um the interest of de developers in Martin County and I'll just I'm going
to share with a portion of what he said because I know I'm going on a bit. He stated that based on my long experience in this market, I want to emphasize that there is no current demand for land to develop new RV parks in Martin County.
The last inquiry I encountered was more than a decade ago when the owner of Charlie's Bar and Grill received BOCC approval for the CNC Recreational Vehicle Resort. The project ultimately did not proceed because it was not
financially feasible. The property has since been approved for the Parrot Circle self-s storage facility, which you may recall. He concludes by saying, "In my professional opinion, there is no present demand nor
any foreseeable future demand for land to develop new RV parks in Martin County." So, the elephant in the room that this is going to lead to an explosion, I think it is not accurate.
So those are kind of some of the policy the legal arguments and things and I know this is a text amendment but there's been a long history to this application and although it could apply
to other properties right now talking about application potential to my pro my client's property we want to share a little bit with you and give you a little background around and then we'd be happy to answer any questions. And um the Grams have put together just a a
little little SL slideshow. And again, I recognize fully that it is not simply about one piece of property, but the scare tactics have been used is that this would open it up and there would be overabundance of RV.
>> Before you proceed, is that all right with uh >> It's our it's our presentation. Okay. And the Grahams are here if you have any questions. They wanted to share kind of how the park has proceeded
over time. So, the Grahams have been embarking on this. They started down this path when they um were interested in making improvements to the park. And at that point in time uh back in
2023, they realized that the property that there had been a land use change and a resoning and a change to the um the designations on their property
that would make that problematic. So just a a little bit fact a few facts and then we'll I'll I'll move on. But I it's very important to understand. So, the Grahams um bought
this piece of property, the Well, let me give you the address. I'm hope if you don't know where it's located, it is located in Hope Sound on Federal Highway and I've got my papers out of whack. So, excuse me just a sec.
See where I'm at? Okay. Alrighty. I should have this memorized. We've been making this is the third time we've made this presentation recently. So, the Florida Days RV Park is located
at 10 100 1075 um Federal Highway in Hope Sound. There's two pieces of property. The Grahams purchased the develop parcel in 2010 and the VA there's a vacant parcel in 2020. Those of you who've been here
for a long time may remember that the developed parcel was the infamous Anglein mobile home park. I think that it's probably safe to say this is a considerable improvement from the angle-in mobile home park if you've
ever driven by or have any knowledge of Florida's RV. So when the Grahams were embarked on this and wanted to make some improvements, they
became aware that the future land use in the zoning was changed and at that time and so this was the CRA code and not only was that but then subdists were applied to parcels.
The Graham's developed parcel which has the had the existing RV park on it was assigned the general subd district in which RV parks were not a permitted use.
It was an existing business and I know this this is a this is a topic this isn't a topic and I'd appreciate the opportunity if I can finish my presentation and then Miss Elder you can jump in. Thank you so much. Thank you so much.
The subd district that was applied to the undeveloped piece of property would have allowed RV parks. Now, so what happened is the Grahams had to go through a process and some of you were here on the LPA when they came
forward for a subdist for the developed parcel which would then allow this use to continue. Now, there's been some disagreement
among I've had some disagreements with the county attorney's office in the past over the assertion of certain facts. Um, and but the bottom line is that this is the fact as it exists currently. The
board of county commissioners in January 2025 made a decision to approve the subdist and RV parks are now a permitted use. So what went on before
and the assertions of whether or not that use was appropriate and whether or not the county enforced its rules and regulations regarding RV parks or mobile homes is moot at this point. This is a
permitted use and the and my clients have coming come forward to ask for some revisions to the code to enable them to improve their property and that's why we're here tonight. So
after the subdist change came through, they've embarked on a process of amending the code, gone back and forth a bit, a compromise. What has been presented to you tonight is a compromise between what is allowed under the
Florida Administrative Code and what is currently allowed in Martin County. The elephant in the room is the preeemption issue. the also the other elephant in the room is anytime you talk about increasing density in Martin County I know very well that throws up
red flags but one of the things one of the um I keep saying maybe another thing I want to leave you with one of the things about density is if you all you all know what typically what density means it's the number of dwelling units
per acre the idea of applying density to to a commercial use on which people's part um units move in and out and using that as
one of the uh concerns or a concern that would support a recommendation of denial against this policy I think is a bit it's not we're
not comparing apples to apples and so this is a commercial use. Um, let me see. So, I think that the code the provisions that the um we're proposing to change are before you. We'll be happy to answer any questions.
Yes, you know, you you've have a recommendation of denial from your staff, the NAC, and the CRA. That's all part of the process. But ultimately, we're before you now, and the board of county commissioners is the one who
makes the decision, and we'll be um strongly advocating no matter what happens tonight to to the board of county commissioners. We've engaged in conversation with all my clients have with all the members of the board and so
we'll just move forward. Be here to happy to answer any of your questions that you may have. >> Okay. Thank you, M. Well, I asked a question earlier that this didn't apply to one particular property, right? >> Correct. >> So, this but this is the applicant
already has a park. >> Yes. >> And he's already using it and he's wanting to change it. Change change the density on that parcel, but all parcels in the county is so >> No, no, just just in the Hope Sound CRA only. Okay. >> Only. And that, you know, is a change
that's evolved over time. At one point the proposal was to make changes throughout the county and rightly so that my client happens to be in the hopeand CRA and that you know they were they're really not advocating on behalf of anyone else.
>> So it was very limited and restricted. Yes sir. >> So the other question is the explosion of of RV parks. How much? I don't even you know and I think I know something but how how how much what other what is a zoning district for a land use for a
for an RV park and how many places in the county are allowed? Do we know that? >> Well, John said it uh growth management for the record. I would like to point out for the Hobound CRA, within the Hobound CRA, RV parks are permitted
within the corridor subdist uh that equates to about 61 acres. >> Okay. >> Best case, worst case scenario, however you want to put it. >> Okay, Jim. >> M story, how many RV parks are there in
Hope Sound right now? I may have to turn to my client to answer. >> Miss Graham, would you want to come up and answer that question? >> Or if she knows, I don't know. She's the She's the data wizard behind this. >> Please forgive me. I was in sales.
>> Please just come through. Please introduce yourself. >> Hi, I'm Susie. Suzanne Owen Brink Graham. Everybody knows me as Susie. Hopefully, um, forgive me. I used to be in sales. I get very passionate about this. So, I'm really not trying to sell anything and
I'm really trying to keep my passion in check. So, I've done a lot of homework and your question is a very loaded question because correctly permitted RV parks are completely different than mobile home parks that have had the old trailer parks owning. Because if you
think about when our parents would motor home, they weren't called motor homes. They weren't called they weren't called RVs. They were called trailers. >> So you either lived in a trailer or you traveled in a trailer. So the old TP zoning covered both. So when you
actually Google map, and I'll challenge everybody to do that, please. If you pull out your phone and you Google map RV parks in Hope Sound, somewhere between 9 and 12 will come up. The correctly permitted parks are Florida's
Fipps Park, the S St. Lucy Inlet District right next to Fibs Park and then the state park doesn't really come up because it's Jonathan Tickson but they also have RVs. >> Okay. >> Did I answer that well enough? >> You did. >> And I've also done homework on other
counties and how many RV parks have been built in a couple decades. >> Thank you. I appreciate it. >> And and so in the old TP zoning, what was the maximum density allowable? >> I don't >> Was it 15 or was it >> It was eight.
Who was eight? >> Eight. >> Well, let's just >> I I I'll continue. >> Yeah. >> When I get a chance. >> Go ahead, please. Mr. >> Uh Pete Walden, deputy growth management director. Yeah, the the uh RT district
and the TP district allowed eight units per acre and those were residential units. That's one of the things that we're getting into tonight is the difference between an RV park, which is a commercial entity, and what used to be a mobile home park, which is a
residential >> uh land use. So, uh, when the applicant's done, I got probably a couple clarifying statements to make. >> Uh, any other questions, Jim? >> Um, now I think I've got a lot of
information. And I'm just trying to sort of weigh. >> Okay. >> I I guess I think the the a important issue is what is going to trigger some sort of preeemption considering that the
applicant's request is considerably less dense than the state's allowable density as well as several of the other issues. Is is density the only issue or are things like pumpout stations and other
changes that you would like to have still holding up the the the the plan? >> I mean I I you know part of the dilemma here has been because the preeemption issue has been so large and that it's
been very difficult to really talk about the policies. So other than the compromise that was um that's being offered about kind of an an in between lot size and then some revisions um the
issue of um whether or not to allow park trailers, the pumpout station, the issue of the um the ability of a of a commercial operation where people do reside there even though they have to
move in and out to have an employee that may be able to live on site. It's one of the one of the issues about one of the issues about managing these types of facilities to have that option to allow
someone who basically lives on the site and is and also is a individual has an RV and yes >> and do we not allow that in Martin County now >> in industrial and a couple other places >> some other places not in >> not in not in an RV park
>> no and and I appreciate the staff's, you know, the concern about there was no limitation on the number or not, but quite frankly, when that conversation ensued, and I'm not being flip, and I don't mean to be disrespectful, but when there was a
suggestion by the staff that that be limited the number, when the question was, is there still going to be a recommendation of a denial? Then the answer was yes. So, you know, so we're sort of at a stalemate on some of these things. That's something that if that's one of the issues can
certainly be willing to talk about the >> Well, let me ask you a question. So, Florida Days is now open, correct? >> Yes. Yes. It's operating. >> It's operating. Has code enforcement done anything to stop the operation?
>> And no, not in the past. No. No. No. And now it's now it's a permitted use. So, Right. >> Nope. So the the reason for this text amendment is for a completely not a completely but a different
use not use but different parameters for their business. Not that not that if this does not go through they won't have a business. Is that correct? >> That's that's true. But one of the one
of the um things that I think is not appreciated by those whose um aren't in the business and when you're an applicant I think we all know that there we used to hear comments by someone who used to sit on the dis of the county commission and talk about that the staff
should appreciate that you're spending somebody else's money when you go through the development process and that is and so that's I'm on behalf of my clients I'm learning about that yes, they can continue operating,
but the economic feasibility of that without having the option to add to address the issue of the lot size and increase the the potentially increase
their number of units is um is really a a stumbling block to what they're trying to accomplish. So >> if there's no other questions for the applicant. >> No. >> Thank you, Miss Story. >> Okay. So if you're you're if you're
going to allow >> what we're going to do now is >> allow the staff to have another >> comment period. I'd like to I'd like to participate if that's >> No. No. Not at this po point. >> Okay. All right. Thank you.
>> Is there further comment to staff? >> Pete. >> Thank you, sir. Again, Pete Walden, deputy growth management director. I this the property the applicant's property does have some history to it. I just want to kind of clarify that the our only concern is not the preeemption,
but it's the actual density increase as well. Um, so in 2006, well, let's go back to the 70s. This this that's when this started out as a mobile home park long before the uh comprehensive plan. So when the comprehensive plan was
instituted, it was given a mobile home land use. In 2006, a uh a land use change and PUD application went before the board. The board approved a land use change to medium density at that time
and then the subsequent PUD application was withdrawn. So the the county was stuck with a medium density land use with an RV uh mobile home park which was non-conforming in many ways but it was
never rectified never fixed. Um so in 2000 as time went on and after the storms of Francis and Jean W was part of it uh a lot more RVs showed up than
mobile homes. So when but the the thing to remember this park has never been sight planned as an RV park. It's always been a mobile home park. The county has allowed the RVs to take over because that's something that's kind of transmitted
all across the county in these older mobile home parks. They've kind of transgressed into these uh pseudo RV somewhat mobile home parks. So, uh, when the CRA looked at the land use changes and zoning changes,
they knew that that park was never site planned as an RV park. That's why it was given the general subdist. So, when the applicant came in in 2023 with an a site plan application and a preapp, it was wellreceived by staff. We
wanted them to redevelop. The main reason is because they have a package plant that serves the park now and we'd love for them to get on water and sewer and site plan in the park. We're all for that. Uh as the conversations went on,
the density talk was and the fact that it was a non-conforming use had to be there had to be a solution for that. So, we went ahead with the uh subdistic change to get it to corridor to make it
so it is a permitted use. Again, it's not site planned. It just because it's permitted use doesn't mean you could just go out and make an RV park. You have to site plan it just like any other permitted use. So, that was part of the process of getting them to redevelop.
Now then they as their time went on they decided that they needed more density to make redevelopment work for them. So they had already gotten by going to corridor and doing an RV park they went from 8 units an acre to 10 units an
acre. So they already got a sizable density bump. What they're looking for is another 50% increase on top of that. And that's where our reservations start because we look at what's there and when
you redevelop and you have your uh site restrictions getting down to 1500 square ft it can be an issue because John can you go to the map of their park since they showed you pictures of the park I think it's only fair that we go to the
map and kind of show what is there now and what the subsequent changes would make. Can you zoom in on one of the uh units? Can you trace the outline of one of them in the area
so we can kind of get an idea of what's existing there and the amount of square feet that it takes to have an RV park. Okay. So, we're looking at 3,000 ft right now is what these are currently at. Now, they do have some up front that
are tighter, but they're even more restrictive. So, our code says you can do 2,000 square foot lots. So, that's a 50% reduction of what they have now. So, they can redevelop and make the site much tighter
than it is now. But their their idea is that they want to go another 500 square ft less than that. And staff has reservations about the end result of what that looks like. So, it's not just the preeemption, it's it's the quality
of what's there. And we do appreciate the fact that they've done a great job managing the park. It is cleaned up. We don't have, you know, help them through the site planning process. We even allow them to have what's existing there and counting that even if
it exceeds the 10 units an acre because it would be an existing non-conforming use. They can use that. So, we're trying to work with them. We just don't feel a that the preeemption is a possibility and b that the 1500 square feet is
actually a viable uh return for the uh amount of space needed. So just wanted to put that in perspective and a comment was made about density and not applying to commercial uses. >> We have density for hotels. We have
density for RV parks. I I >> it's the amount of units that you are allowed to produce for an acre. Okay. Just one there. Miss >> I'm happy to provide an example on the preeemption issue if the if that would help clarify it for the board. >> So just to start, I don't think staff
has ever said that we're worried about there's going to be an influx of RVs. That our our office has never taken that position. But if you look at the language in the statute, which I think Sebastian and John read, um it's vague. It's ambiguous. And I'm going to agree with you on that. So what we did is we
looked at the legislative history and the effect of the proposed changes that's written in the staff analysis says this bill provides that DOH regulations relate relating to the placement of RVs on lots in RV parks
supersedes any county ordinance regarding lot size density separation or setback which goes into effect after the initial permitting and construction of a park floors has been permitted and constructed. So even though they're
asking for 15, as soon as this is passed, they can turn around and say, "Nope, you just superseded yourself. You just in essence preempted yourself and now we want 25." Or they can sell the park and the new owner can say, "This
ordinance is not valid anymore because you adopted an ordinance after I was permitted and you in essence preempted yourself." We're not saying the state's going to come down and preempt anybody, but you are in essence preempting yourself for permitted lots like Florida's and I think there's another
one in Hob Sound giving them the option to argue we are preempted and now 25 units per acre apply. Thank you. So that's where the preemption >> 343 >> I'm sorry. >> Tell me about uh uh the bill 343 that
was referenced. So 343 is the bill that came forward in the legislature in um 2020 2023 and it amended the statute and the language in um the statute that everybody read to you was put in in 2023
>> in 2020. M >> 2020 I'm sorry you're correct. So there was bill 343 and there's staff analysis that accompanies bills for everybody to read when the Senate or the House is um adopting and the language I just read you about saying that we're superseded
comes from the analysis of what the proposed effect of this bill and what this change means. So it means that if I adopt an ordinance and I have a permitted park, even though I adopt an ordinance that gives you more density, I'm still adopting an ordinance. It doesn't say a more restrictive
ordinance. It just says if you adopt an ordinance that go and it goes into effect after a park is permitted. We we are superseded for lot size density. So it has the effect of preeemption. It's not that the state but we are in essence preempting oursel for existing parks
like Florida's. >> Thank you. >> Yes. >> Does anyone have any questions for either the applicant or staff further? >> Okay. Then back to the board. There is no public comment. Seeing none, back to the board.
>> You want to say anything, Jim, before I ask for a motion? This is this is interesting. I mean, it's very interesting whether because I was under the impression that we were concerned about a state preeemption rather than a local preeemption. Um, and I think it is also interesting
that this is considerably less dense than than the state's proposal. Um, which means it would be a very interesting argument that somebody would have to make to permit themselves to go more dense than this one.
um without, you know, ringing the bell for the state to come in and preempt us over whether it's affordable housing or whatever it might be. Um it is it's an interesting issue, but I also think that that 15 units to the acre gets awfully
dense. Um, and and especially when people are moving in and out large trailers and I I just I concern I'm concerned about the the ambiance and the stress on the
systems. I would much rather see pumpout stations and all of them be required for instance. Um, I'm I'm uh I'm conflicted and I have not yet made up my mind. >> Rick, do you want to add anything to that? >> Nope. >> I'm not worried about the preeemption.
If you got the what's the sense of having an NR CRA in a in the other one the NEC, you know, if that's what Oaktown wants and and these people already have a business and it's obviously must be
making money that then you've got two neighborhood groups that are saying they don't want to change this and go that deep. I I can't hardly argue with them. Well, that's my main concern is we have two neighbor not neighborhood two
governmental bodies that do not want the change. At the same time, we also have an operating business and they've been operating and that's why I asked whether code enforcement had
went there or anything else had stopped them from operating. And I understand I think density in a mobile park is crazy. I think it should be so many square feet per unit per trailer. That to me makes sense. Density doesn't. But that's
immaterial because everyone is using density. So I can't support this and I'm not going to go against the people who live in Hope Sound who
don't want to see this get any worse. So I'll be looking for a motion. >> I'll make a motion to deny. >> I don't like motions to deny. make a motion to accept and then we could all vote to deny. >> I'll make a motion to accept county staff's uh recommendation.
>> Okay. >> Which is a denial. >> That's good. Jim, do you second? >> I'm still >> Well, Jim, unless you want to sleep here. >> I I I I reluctantly will second it. >> Okay, we have a motion. We have a
second. Any further? It's a motion to deny. >> No, it's a motion to accept county staff. except county staff. Yes, I'm >> want me to say deny. >> I didn't want you to say deny. You're right. So, is there any other discussion?
>> No. >> Okay. All in favor? >> I >> I opposed. Passes unanimously. Staff's recommendation. >> Thank you. >> Want another motion?
>> We don't need one, >> but he wants to talk first, I think. move this. >> Mr. Chair, >> Mr. Chairman, Paul Schilling, growth management director for the record record rather. Um, so I'm just trying to
pull up the agenda for the forecasting the future meetings and we do have a agenda item for March 19th. So I was trying to get a quorum for that meeting. >> I won't be available. >> I will be there. >> Will or won't?
>> I will. won't will not >> Jim will not >> the 19th it if I can get back from Texas by then I'm supposed to fly in that day and if I don't choose >> if I get in early enough yeah I'll be here
if I don't get snowed in or something >> where you coming from in Texas I don't think you'd be snowed in >> Oh panhandling >> oh you may be snowed in anything No, that's it. Thank you. >> Okay. Unless there's anything else, this
meeting is adjourned.