[0:00] join us for the invocation, which will be led by Reverend
[0:04] Anna Singh and followed by the Pledge of Allegiance, which
[0:08] will be led by Richard Voloshin.
[0:12] Good morning. Good morning. Thank you for
[0:18] inviting me. Let's join together in heart, mind and
[0:22] spirit. Creator of our universe who breathed light and life and
[0:28] divine love into our lives. Thank you for drawing us
[0:31] together. Thank you for uniting us as one people. Your people.
[0:38] Our people. We may come from different places and live in a
[0:43] variety of ways and exist in varying circumstances. But out
[0:47] of we who are many, you have made us one. Loving one. As we
[0:52] begin a new school year, and as we enter a new season of
[0:56] governance for the people of our beloved Martin County, we
[0:59] ask for your wisdom, your grace, and your compassion for
[1:02] all your people in the decisions we face today. You
[1:07] have commissioned us to look after our future, that is, our
[1:10] children and our students. You call us to honor our seniors,
[1:14] those who have helped us to become who we are, and you have
[1:18] appointed us to serve, to protect, to defend, and to
[1:23] uphold the very values that bind our community together in
[1:27] the decisions we make today. May we do all these things to
[1:31] the very best of our abilities, with the talents that you have
[1:35] blessed us. Amen. Amen. Thank you, Mr. Olson.
[1:44] My Richard Olson. Good morning. All right. Thank you. Good
[1:47] morning. I'm only. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
[1:52] United States of America and to the republic for which it
[1:55] stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
[2:00] justice for all. God bless America.
[2:04] And I see that you are a Vietnam veteran. Would you like
[2:07] to tell us a bit about your Army service, sir?
[2:09] I was drafted into the Army at the age of 22 years old. If I
[2:14] finished my apprenticeship as a machinist. And of course, being
[2:19] a machinist, they made me in military policemen. And, uh, I
[2:23] refused to be in office. I passed the test and, uh, so I
[2:29] made me a military policeman at Fort Riley, Kansas. And then
[2:34] when Vietnam broke out, I was transferred to the first
[2:37] Infantry Division at Fort Riley, Kansas. And I landed
[2:41] with the first troops. We went over by troop ship, and we got
[2:45] there. And the very beginning of October, and I was at the
[2:50] Michelin rubber plantation at like that was our base camp
[2:54] next to the camp, right next to the Cambodian border. I've been
[2:58] in a couple of major battles and, uh, I came home June 30th,
[3:05] 1966, and we ended in San Francisco. And they asked me I
[3:10] wanted to re-up, and I said no. And they gave me money to go
[3:14] back to Brooklyn, New York, where I came from. And I landed
[3:18] in Brooklyn. I went to get my job back at the New York Daily
[3:22] News. I was hired there two months before I was drafted,
[3:25] and they told me I didn't finish my probationary period,
[3:28] again. But the VA had and my union had a little different to
[3:33] say. So anyway, uh, I got a phone call. I reported to the
[3:36] New York Times and I worked at the New York Times as a
[3:39] machinist and a machine shop foreman for 43 years, and I
[3:45] lived in Brooklyn. I was in Long Island Valley Stream, and
[3:48] then I went to Milford, Pennsylvania, on the New York
[3:50] New Jersey border, because we did most of our printing in
[3:54] Jersey, and I didn't want to pay New York tax, Jersey tax,
[3:58] and commuting. So I moved to Pennsylvania and I built a home
[4:02] there, and I was there for 40 years. And then my daughters
[4:06] lived in Florida, and I moved down here to Palm City, and
[4:11] here I am at 83 years old now. Fantastic.
[4:14] And that's basically it. Here you are. Thank you for
[4:18] your service. Thank you, Mr. Gold.
[4:28] Sir Richard is a Purple Heart recipient.
[4:32] And a Purple Heart recipient. Thank you.
[4:34] Thank you very much. Uh, our agenda this morning
[4:39] will consist of an additional item. It's consent nine, which
[4:43] is an adopt a proclamation commending Jacob Crosby and
[4:47] Parker bestowed upon the achievement of Eagle Scout.
[4:50] There's one request to withdraw from the agenda, and that's a
[4:53] public hearing. Quasi judicial. Number two, which is request
[4:57] for certification of an agricultural enclave pursuant
[5:00] to sections one, six, 3.31, six two and one six, 3.3164.
[5:06] Florida Statutes. Um, there are no, uh, agenda pulls. Is there
[5:13] a motion to approve the agenda, including the consent agenda?
[5:16] I'll move approval of the agenda and the consent agenda.
[5:20] Second. Any objections? The motion is
[5:23] approved. We will begin with proclamations. The first
[5:26] proclamation is a proclamation. Uh. Declaring Purple Heart Day.
[5:35] Good morning, commissioners. The Purple Heart is the oldest
[5:38] military decoration in use today and evolved from the
[5:40] Badge of Military Merit created by General George Washington in
[5:44] 1782. The Purple Heart is awarded to members of the
[5:47] United States Armed Forces who have been wounded or died in
[5:50] combat with the declared enemy of the United States of
[5:52] America. The board recognizes August 7th as Purple Heart Day
[5:55] in Martin County, and appreciates the sacrifices our
[5:58] Purple Heart recipients and all veterans have made in defending
[6:01] our freedoms and once again, here to accept we have Richard
[6:04] Voloshin, US Army Vietnam veteran and Purple Heart
[6:08] recipient. I was wounded while we were
[6:25] going to an ambush. The jolly, the Viet Cong ambushed a bunch
[6:33] of men on highway 13, which is nothing but a little blacktop
[6:37] two lane road that went from Saigon all the way up into next
[6:42] to Cambodia. They hit them and we were going with the medical
[6:47] Corps, and we were their escort. I was in a jeep on the
[6:51] right hand side with an M14 rifle on my lap, and I was
[6:55] covering the right flank, and it was an explosion. Uh,
[7:00] shrapnel went through the jeep, passed the sandbags into my
[7:03] leg, and, uh, I was blown out of the Jeep. I landed on my
[7:08] right shoulder where I have arthritis now, and, uh,
[7:12] basically that's it. Medic ran over to me, and you saw the
[7:17] wound? It was hot shrapnel. It was like being kicked in the
[7:21] shin with a burning polka. And, uh, he went to rip my pants to
[7:26] get. And the shrapnel popped out, and he called me the
[7:30] luckiest S.O.B. he ever met. And, uh, he threw a bandage on
[7:36] my leg, and he said, can you wiggle your toes? I go, yep.
[7:39] And he says, can you get up? I go, yep. He says, give me a
[7:42] hand with the wounded. And we ran over. I limped over, he ran
[7:46] over, and, uh, we started working on the wounded. I was a
[7:50] military policeman, so I had more medical training than any
[7:53] regular GI. And, uh, basically that was it was beginning of
[7:57] June, and I was supposed to come home, what they called an
[8:01] early out. And then the early out was canceled. And the
[8:06] meantime, I took all got signatures of all the men I
[8:09] served with. And that's all the Vietnamese South Vietnamese
[8:12] flag, the men I started with, plus my brigade commander,
[8:16] Colonel William Broad back, who was the best, best military
[8:20] officer I have ever met. He cared about his men, and he was
[8:24] a World War Two retread. Now, the one thing I can say about
[8:28] him, he was very smart. We used to bring when we went on a
[8:32] search and destroy, we would bring three 105 howitzers by
[8:36] Chinook helicopter out in the field to set up a set up an
[8:41] artillery base, and this is long before they ever thought
[8:44] of doing, uh, little bases with artillery and military police.
[8:50] We used to be bodyguards for all dignitaries. And him. I was
[8:55] an Margaret's bodyguard. In January of 66, I was Charles
[9:00] Kuralt bodyguard, and they had a Christmas special. The only
[9:05] time in Vietnam we had a truce. It was a Christmas truce from
[9:10] Christmas Eve to the end of Christmas Day. And he was
[9:17] there. And it was a TV special, if you ever want to see it, you
[9:20] go on the computer and you put down Christmas in Vietnam,
[9:24] 1965, and we'll be Charles Kuralt. And that's exactly
[9:29] where I was at the Michelin rubber plantation. And
[9:34] basically, that's it. I came home, I married my sweetheart.
[9:37] We were engaged before I went over, and we've been married
[9:40] this year, 60 years. Nice.
[9:46] I'm 60 years. And, uh, I'm still above around. That's
[9:54] basically it. Thank you. Sir, when I. Well, one other thing.
[9:57] When I came home from Vietnam. Now I got home. And when you
[10:03] looked at me, you didn't want to come near me. I had that
[10:06] what they call the the thousand yard stare. And, uh, I got home
[10:12] and that was it. I left Vietnam, Vietnam the morning of
[10:15] June 30th, 1966, at four in the morning. I landed in San in San
[10:21] Francisco, June 30th, 7:00 in the morning. By 2:00 in the
[10:28] afternoon, I was out of the Army. That's how fast
[10:32] everything went. I received this Purple Heart in the mail
[10:37] with a letter from Colonel William, brought back one of.
[10:40] You know where the hell I was, he says, I called your name
[10:44] three times, and I was getting ready to put you down as AWOL.
[10:47] And then they told me they sent me home. So that's my story,
[10:52] and I'm sticking to. It. Every story.
[10:58] Thank you. Thank you for your service.
[11:19] And I promise. Our next proclamation is a
[11:43] proclamation congratulating the 50th anniversary of the
[11:46] Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council in Martin
[11:48] County, Florida. The Treasure Coast Regional Planning
[11:51] Council, or RPC, was established on August 19th,
[11:55] 1976, through an interlocal agreement among Indian River
[11:58] County, Martin County, Palm Beach County, and Saint Lucie
[12:01] County to address issues of regional importance. TCP has
[12:05] supported sustainable growth, environmental stewardship,
[12:08] economic vitality and regional resilience for the benefit of
[12:11] its member counties and municipalities. The year 2026
[12:14] marks the 50th anniversary of the Treasure Coast Regional
[12:17] Planning Council, representing five decades of dedicated
[12:20] service to the region, and the board commends its longstanding
[12:23] service to the Treasure Coast region. And here to accept we
[12:25] have Thomas Lenihan, who's the executive director of the
[12:28] Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council.
[12:30] Thank you. Good morning. Um, I don't know if I could say it a
[12:32] lot better than that proclamation, but, um, it's
[12:35] absolutely been our our pleasure to serve as your
[12:38] regional planning council, uh, and undertake all the various
[12:41] things that we get to do with you all, whether it's, uh,
[12:44] rewriting CRA codes to make them more, uh, effective, um,
[12:48] different technical support, first responder hazardous
[12:51] materials training that we do for your fire department, uh,
[12:55] economic development activity, all those different things.
[12:57] It's absolutely been, uh, been a pleasure to be part of all
[13:01] that. And we look forward to many more happy years together.
[13:04] So thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Excellent.
[13:33] Thank you. Thank you so much.
[13:41] And our last proclamation is a proclamation declaring Florida
[13:45] Water Professionals Month in Martin County, Florida. Water
[13:49] industry professionals dedicate themselves to the production
[13:51] and distribution of safe drinking water, as well as the
[13:53] proper collection, treatment, reuse, and disposal of
[13:56] wastewater and stormwater. Water professionals are
[13:59] essential first responders as defined by Florida statute
[14:02] during storms and other catastrophic events. Working to
[14:05] ensure safe drinking water and safe disposal of wastewater for
[14:07] our communities. The board recognizes August as Florida
[14:11] Water Professionals Month and asks residents to join us in
[14:14] thanking all water and wastewater professional staff
[14:16] for their hard work and dedication, and here to accept
[14:19] several folks. But David Voisin, whose utilities and
[14:22] solid waste chief plant operator.
[14:25] Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, commissioners.
[14:32] Good morning. It's an honor to be here today
[14:35] as we recognize the month of August as Florida Water
[14:37] Professionals Month. Much of the work performed by water
[14:40] professionals have been out of sight, but never should be out
[14:43] of mind. 24 hours a day, seven days a week are dedicated. Team
[14:47] provides safe drinking water and protect the public health
[14:52] and preserve our environment. Access safe drinking water is
[14:56] fundamental to a healthy community. These essential
[14:58] services are often taken for granted because they are
[15:01] delivered seamlessly every day. Martin County Utilities has a
[15:04] long standing commitment to operational excellence. Our two
[15:08] water and wastewater facilities have each earned the Florida
[15:11] Department of Environmental Protection Operational
[15:13] Excellence Award on three occasions, recognizing
[15:16] outstanding operation, maintenance and regulatory
[15:20] compliance. In addition, the Martin County has won the
[15:23] American Waterworks Association Region eight Best tasting
[15:26] Drinking Water competition 11 times, reflecting the
[15:30] dedication and expertise of our team. While we do not seek
[15:34] recognition for the work we do, our team quietly serves the
[15:37] community every day. Our water distribution, wastewater
[15:41] collection, crews respond to water main breaks, wastewater
[15:45] collection, sewer line maintains critical
[15:47] infrastructure and ensures reliable service, often without
[15:50] the public even knowing the efforts are required. This is a
[15:54] hallmark to public service. Our department demonstrates
[15:57] humility through a meaningful work we perform every day. Our
[16:00] greatest success is that our customers can turn on the tap,
[16:03] flush the toilet, and trust that these essential services
[16:06] are always there. And on behalf of our dedicated men and women
[16:10] of our department. I want to thank you for this proclamation
[16:13] recognizing Florida Water Professionals Month. We
[16:15] sincerely appreciate your gratitude.
[16:18] Thank you. Thank you. These are coins commemorating 50th
[16:54] anniversary. Treasure Coast Regional Planning.
[17:14] Next, we will take up public. Comment. You want to give a
[17:17] speech first? Yes. Last. For those who are making public
[17:24] comments, since we are in an election season, politicking is
[17:27] prohibited, which is defined as advocating the election or
[17:30] defeat of a candidate for public office, either partisan
[17:33] or non-partisan. This includes the use of words, dates, signs,
[17:37] props, and or wearing apparel that convey a message of
[17:40] support for a person or group of persons. You'll have three
[17:44] minutes to speak. Uh, 15% 15 seconds before your time is up.
[17:50] Uh, a buzzer will sound you give you 15 seconds to wrap up.
[17:54] Thank you. The first request to speak
[17:57] form. I have is from Angela Harrison.
[18:00] Miss Harrison will be followed by Victoria Blake. Going to
[18:06] make me nervous. Uh, yeah. Good, good. Good morning.
[18:09] Everybody. Hello. Morning. Yeah. We're here again. Um, I
[18:14] really don't have much to say today. I just want to follow up
[18:18] on what I've been saying. Angela Harrison from Tent City
[18:21] Helpers. Thank you for always allowing us to speak and for
[18:25] hearing us and taking into consideration the things that
[18:28] we do speak about. Um, my main concern is getting us the
[18:33] Dignity Bus. Um, we are applying for a grant. I think
[18:38] it's Martin 100. If I'm not mistaken, grant? Um, Gail
[18:43] actually told me I thought that we were going to apply for the
[18:46] grant to try to contribute to the dignity bus, but what her
[18:51] idea was that if you guys could come together, if we could get
[18:54] the dignity Bus on the agenda, or maybe one of you guys could
[18:59] go and take a look at it and see what a wonderful idea it
[19:02] is. She actually thought that it would be an amazing idea to
[19:06] contribute that 100,000 for salaries, for the Dignity Bus,
[19:11] because, of course, with the Dignity Bus will need somewhere
[19:14] to park it. And we will also need, um, of course, people to
[19:19] take care of it at night when the people are there taking
[19:22] showers. Um, I guess maintaining, you know, the pets
[19:25] and whatnot. Um, I think that's really all I have for today.
[19:32] Um, once again, you guys can follow us on Facebook or come
[19:35] out with us on Mondays. We actually have a really good
[19:39] time. It's kind of sad how much fun we have. Um, we had a few
[19:44] guys get jobs this week and they were really, really proud
[19:47] of themselves. They were just, you know, I was I do have kind
[19:52] of a short story of one of our gentlemen that, you know, he
[19:56] did lose his job recently after being very proud that he did
[20:00] get a job. And he said to me, he's like, I'm, I'm sorry that
[20:05] I disappointed you guys. Oh my gosh. And it it absolutely
[20:10] broke my heart. And I just told him, I said, you could never
[20:14] disappoint us. We're just so proud of all of you guys for
[20:17] what you do. You know, there's such good people. They're so
[20:21] thankful. They're so kind. You know, they tell us to have a
[20:25] good week. They tell us, you know, they they bless us. And,
[20:30] um, they're just really amazing people. And. Dignity bus guys.
[20:36] Dignity bus. Dignity. Dignity bus. We need that for us. And
[20:40] as always, have a wonderful week. Um, looking forward to
[20:43] seeing you guys again with any decisions that you have for us.
[20:46] Thank you. Victoria Blake.
[20:49] Is next, followed by Larry Cohen.
[20:58] Good morning everyone. I'm Victoria Blake, representing
[21:03] tent City Helpers. I volunteer every Monday. We go to six
[21:05] different locations, um, and feed a warm meal, essential
[21:10] supplies, sleeping bags, tents, etc. for the unhoused in Martin
[21:13] County. Um, so we've come and asked to be on the agenda with
[21:17] no response to date. And Angie and I have talked are going to
[21:20] talk about some ideas like the Dignity Bus and some other
[21:23] ideas. We have to raise funding for at least land and or a
[21:26] shelter. Um, some quick stats. Um, since January of this year,
[21:31] we have seen 290 individual unhoused. I've personally had
[21:37] over 13,000 views of when I've spoken here. Awesome. And we've
[21:42] had over 103,000 views of since when Angie and we have come to
[21:47] speak in front of the commissioners. Um, so we're
[21:50] excited about that visibility. And we just reached a 4000
[21:53] followers on Facebook. Uh, so we have a lot of constituents
[21:56] and residents in Martin County that do care about our
[21:59] unhoused. Um, I'll start with some wonderful stories she
[22:02] mentioned. One, I'm going to change their name to protect
[22:05] their identity. But, um, Ned finally got a job, and his
[22:10] demeanor completely changed. He went from being completely
[22:13] defeated to just proud. You could see the hope in his eyes
[22:17] and tears. We're just. We're so proud of you. Um. Bobby still
[22:21] feels blessed. He has his job. Then he goes. He knows I give
[22:24] him crosses all the time. He goes, do you watch The Chosen?
[22:26] And we had this conversation about our favorite characters
[22:29] and disciples on the Chosen. I'm like, this is fantastic.
[22:32] Um, three unhoused thanked us for the Bibles. We deliver that
[22:36] Calvary Community Church donated, um, one of our
[22:39] unhoused has been an immobilized wheelchair for some
[22:42] time. And Rashawn, that works at Treasure Coast Homeless
[22:45] Service Council, helped him get up and walk yesterday. There
[22:48] were tears. It was beautiful. She is an angel. Um, so I'm
[22:53] going to just state some of this. Um, I'm asking that
[22:57] people please send letters or call governor DeSantis office.
[23:01] Um, House Bill 1365 passed the Florida Legislature,
[23:05] legislature and was signed into law by governor DeSantis on
[23:09] March 20th, 2024. The law went into effect October 2024. The
[23:15] bill, 1365 says it is illegal to sleep in public properties.
[23:22] The law mandates that counties and municipalities designate
[23:26] specific areas for public camping or sleeping. Yet Martin
[23:30] County has nowhere. We have nowhere for the unhoused to go.
[23:34] Governor DeSantis address is 400 South Monroe Street in
[23:37] Tallahassee. His phone number is on his website. Um, I'm
[23:41] personally going to be reaching out to some friends of mine at
[23:43] WPBF and other news media for visibility, requesting action.
[23:47] Um, also, thank you from our state local grants and local
[23:52] churches, um, churches, residents and more. I just pray
[23:55] that you will search your hearts for action. Please.
[23:59] Action to support Tent City Helpers and our unhoused. Thank
[24:02] you very much. Thank you. Larry Cohen is next,
[24:06] followed by Mike the Armed Fisherman. Good morning. Good
[24:15] morning commissioners. Uh, Larry going. Here for the
[24:20] Woodlands Owners Association. I have an aerial, but I
[24:24] understand it's too late to present that to submit this.
[24:27] The last time this aerial was in this room was 25 years ago
[24:31] this week. And our concerns are still concerning. I'd like to
[24:38] speak today about the Cove Road project, a live local project
[24:44] that purports to build 198 apartments in four different
[24:48] buildings, each one three stories high. It presents
[24:52] serious concerns to our residents, which I'd like to
[24:56] highlight. The first one has to do with surface water runoff,
[24:59] especially during the 100 year, three day storm events which
[25:03] seem to be occurring about 4 to 5 times in the last 25 years
[25:09] since I've been here with this map. As all this water is
[25:16] routed through the main ditch of the Coral Gardens drainage
[25:19] basin. You have an alternative. You can route this water to the
[25:24] south through the improvements that you made 20 years ago, 20
[25:28] to 25 years ago. Up in the Summerfield area. And I'd like
[25:34] you to consider that, because the flooding that has occurred
[25:38] downstream of the Coral Gardens drainage basin is tremendous,
[25:42] including culminating with 5 to 6ft of water in Fisherman's
[25:46] Cove some 25 years ago. This aerial map has been all the way
[25:52] to Tallahassee, and has been in the hands of the governor and
[25:55] his ombudsman, and 25 years ago. So as an alternative, I hope
[26:05] you will consider routing a lot of that water to the south and
[26:08] have your staff really look at drainage. We are also concerned
[26:11] this project is out of character by its three story
[26:15] height, and also by its tremendous density, which is in
[26:18] contrast to the single family residential neighborhood that
[26:22] is going to be placed in. We are also concerned about
[26:26] increased need for public safety, which now makes up 60%
[26:30] of the county's budget. If I'm correct. Traffic impact to Cove
[26:36] and Willoughby is going to be added. And these roads are
[26:41] already over capacity. Another concern, especially three times
[26:46] a day on Willoughby. Another concern is that the impact that
[26:51] this dense project presents to the schools. Project also
[26:57] raises concern about concerns for seniors and handicapped
[27:01] about accessibility. Will this project have elevators to get
[27:06] to the third floor and I'll stop right here. Except to
[27:12] point out that these this offers major tax concessions
[27:16] all the way from sales tax to ad valorem tax. That cannot be
[27:21] recouped and will only increase residents existing residents
[27:26] taxes. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Mike, the armed
[27:32] fisherman is next, followed by Justin Dugas.
[27:43] Hi, friends. Hello.
[27:46] All right. I'm going to be as nice as
[27:49] possible. I have a huge problem with Martin County Sheriff's
[27:54] Office right now. Currently, I'm under an injunction. I was
[28:03] out open, carrying and I had just got my guns back. The
[28:10] court said, hey, you could have your guns. And they came and
[28:15] they were ready to take me off to jail. They were ready.
[28:21] That's not the problem, because they were lucky enough to. I
[28:24] got Ahold of my attorney. He called whoever he had to call
[28:27] over here. I'm sure it's the the attorney here. My name is
[28:32] Michael Taylor, by the way. Whoever the attorney is, you
[28:37] got that phone call? Yeah, well, somebody got that phone
[28:40] call anyway. And in a nutshell, they were taking me off. They
[28:46] got a phone call from the attorney or whoever my attorney
[28:49] talked to, and they drove me back around. But then I did a
[28:54] records request, a FOIA public records request. Well, guess
[28:59] what? With the Martin County Sheriff's Office right now, I'm
[29:04] number as of Thursday of last week, I was number 85. And I
[29:10] put it in in July. I, I can see where they're at. There are
[29:18] people that have not received the records request from almost
[29:24] March. I here we are. I've. My records request has been paid
[29:33] for and done with. And they're saying, oh, you know, we're
[29:37] well. Well and and I go by the armed fishermen. And I promise
[29:43] you, if you look at the next video that I put out, it's
[29:45] going to be showing you that I went to your to your sheriff's
[29:49] office. I was like, hey, do you want me to work for you?
[29:53] Because I'm a YouTuber. I can edit videos all day long, every
[29:58] day and whatever. I could probably do my job. I could
[30:02] probably do their job better than they can do their job. But
[30:07] hey, I'm sitting here waiting. Actually, it's probably been at
[30:12] this point. It's been two and a half months since I paid for
[30:15] it, and they just say, oh, you're just in the queue. And
[30:20] then I keep asking for, all right, the last ten records
[30:23] that you produced turning, you probably know that anything
[30:28] that you already produce and I ask for a copy of, I'm allowed
[30:32] to get it for free. But for some reason they sit on their
[30:36] hands. I do not want to have to sue this city or this county
[30:43] over a records request. You know, under the 119 statutes.
[30:49] And that's exactly what's going to happen if I don't get these
[30:52] records. So look up Michael Taylor.
[30:55] Sir, your time is up. The armed fisherman and you all
[30:59] be the next YouTube stars to.. Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Thank
[31:03] you. Justin Dukas is next, followed by Jamila. Something.
[31:20] Good morning. Good morning. Good.
[31:26] So my name. Is the mic on. Know the
[31:29] microphone is. All right. All right. My name
[31:33] is case number two six cv 14065SM and the Southern
[31:40] District of Florida Federal Court. I now hold a Martin
[31:46] County record of committing a crime. 678 nights in a row.
[31:53] What is that crime? That crime is sleeping. House bill 1365
[31:59] was passed 678 days ago and turned into Florida. Statute
[32:03] 1250125.0231. And basically it says that, uh, you cannot
[32:11] sleep, um, in public. But we all know that you cannot, uh,
[32:15] sleep in the woods because that's trespassing. The woods
[32:17] is owned by somebody. So it basically says that if you are
[32:21] houseless in Martin County, if you want to go to sleep, you
[32:23] cannot sleep in Martin County. That, um, is a violation of the
[32:29] right to travel on top of a few other things. So for about four
[32:34] months in a row by ten different people, we have, um,
[32:39] came up here and spoke at this very podium and voiced our
[32:43] concerns and our needs. And, um, you guys have talked about
[32:48] a lot of things. Uh, you've talked about train whistles,
[32:51] you've talked about, um, RV parks, you've talked about a
[32:54] lot of things, but there has been no mentioning, no
[32:57] muttering, no, uh, syllable about this civil rights crisis
[33:01] that's going on right now. Um. So the ship agenda was great,
[33:09] and that was passed even though we didn't talk about it. It's
[33:12] great. Thank you for that because we need that. But that
[33:14] does not address the crisis in which it's going on tonight, in
[33:18] which I have to commit a crime tonight in order to sleep. So I
[33:23] called the senator two times and told them to amend the law.
[33:27] How, uh, amend the law. And of course, they don't listen to me
[33:31] because I'm just, you know, a constituent. Who am I? Um, and
[33:36] since I filed this lawsuit, I have been harassed and, um,
[33:39] pulled over for three times by the Martin County Sheriff's
[33:44] Office, um, for minor traffic and very minor traffic
[33:47] infractions, I believe, for the sole purpose of harassing me,
[33:52] that is, um, retaliation to my First Amendment right. And I
[33:55] want to let everybody know that, um, everything is being
[33:58] held accounted for. Um, now, the federal judge ordered me
[34:02] and the defendants to confer in court in person on August 18th.
[34:07] Um, if you guys want to show up, it's open to the public.
[34:10] It's open. Everybody. Um. Spending so much money in, uh,
[34:18] legal fees instead of addressing the actual problem.
[34:23] Um, flock cameras. We don't want them take them down. And
[34:26] please address this, uh, during the public comments, please.
[34:30] Thank you. Jamilah is next, followed by Candace Callahan.
[34:48] Good morning. Good morning everyone. How are
[34:50] you this morning? Good morning.
[34:52] I just had the. Oh, Taylor. Hold on. My doctor was on the
[34:57] phone at the same time. My name is Jamie Yang, Escalona,
[35:00] executive director of Yaya Pobeda. You guys should know my
[35:02] face already. Let's chat about why I haven't been here since
[35:07] June. On June 18th, one day before Juneteenth, my
[35:12] participant, Toni Miller was lynched in Miami. She was what
[35:16] we call motel homeless. The system failed her. And while we
[35:21] are still fighting for transparency, unhoused
[35:23] individuals in Martin County now have to worry about hate
[35:27] crimes compounded by mass surveillance, aka flock. I want
[35:32] to publicly thank my friends at Tent City Helpers. They have
[35:35] shown up to speak to you consistently no matter what.
[35:39] This shelter line item has been asked for for months without a
[35:44] single acknowledgment from the commission outside of a
[35:46] possible visit to La Jolla for land use, which I'm not sure if
[35:49] that was done or not. I would love to hear some comment on
[35:52] that. We have all invited you to our fireside chats, our
[35:56] outreaches. Still no response. It is election season. Might I
[36:01] add. Remember that for later. Tent City Helpers has
[36:04] consistently provided evidence jailing unhoused individual
[36:08] cost taxpayers more than housing them. A transitional
[36:11] housing facility with wraparound services, employment
[36:13] access, disability applications, veteran services,
[36:16] pathways to permanent housing is cheaper than raids and
[36:19] incarceration, and let's address the age old argument 40
[36:24] to 60% of unhoused people in the US do have jobs. The whole
[36:28] get a job excuse that doesn't stand anymore. And I lost my
[36:33] place. Give me one second. I'm going to lose some time here.
[36:42] The criminalization of not having a home is metastasizing
[36:45] cancer across our region. We just had to fight SR four in
[36:48] Miami, a city ordinance that took away the lead time before
[36:51] police raids, allowing folks to move and service workers to
[36:54] connect with them. That model threatens the spread here. But
[36:57] here is what I saw today. What really breaks my heart. Human
[37:01] services are the lowest funded department in your entire
[37:03] budget yet on the Florida Opioid Abatement Fund website,
[37:06] there is yet another massive award to Martin County
[37:08] Sheriff's Office under the guise of prevention. Meanwhile,
[37:11] smaller nonprofits like ours are barely scraping by. The
[37:13] barriers to access these funds are so high that even when all
[37:17] of these type of grants can have, we barely cover peer
[37:20] support, specialist salaries alone. The flock lease expires
[37:24] next year. Pensacola used opioid abatement funds to
[37:26] purchase those cameras, a violation of federal usage
[37:28] standards. I urge this board not to renew. I'm wondering if
[37:33] we're using those dollars here. We're going to find that out to
[37:36] the commissioners. My tone deserved better. My tone
[37:42] deserved better. I hope that this is not happening here,
[37:46] because we will find out. Thank you. Candace Callahan is
[37:52] next, and Miss Callahan is the last request to speak for me. I
[37:55] have. Good morning. On my good.
[38:05] Hello. Not yet. Are we good? Okay. Um. Good
[38:11] morning everyone. It's been some time since I've come
[38:13] before you. I'm Candace Callahan, the executive
[38:16] director for Stuart Main street. Um, Stuart main Street
[38:19] is the nonprofit that has been partnering with the City of
[38:21] Stuart for 40 years to help revitalize them and maintain at
[38:25] this point, the historic downtown. We serve as a key
[38:28] economic vitality driver and also of cultural preservation
[38:32] and community engagement throughout the historic
[38:35] downtown, functioning as a central economic hub for Martin
[38:39] County. There's been a lot of discussion recently about
[38:42] preservation amongst all of our communities, not just downtown
[38:45] Stuart. So I thought I'd come and share some initiatives that
[38:48] we have been doing and working on to help O and also some of
[38:52] our recent accomplishments as well. So we are proud to have
[38:56] recently helped our CRA received the designation for
[38:59] the historic downtown, putting the district on the National
[39:02] Register of Historic Places, and we have just applied for
[39:05] the historic marker to serve as a permanent symbol of community
[39:09] identity. We have just been awarded a $50,000 grant to help
[39:13] the city develop design guidelines to help preserve and
[39:16] protect our downtown charm that we've become so known for. We
[39:20] have also applied for a $25,000 grant to help enhance and
[39:23] develop a new user friendly digital walking and art history
[39:27] tour to help better engage our youth and promote the
[39:30] importance of preservation and strengthen local tourism. A few
[39:34] weeks ago, we recently, um, were recognized from the
[39:38] Secretary of the state and awarded in four categories
[39:41] among 70 other Main Street programs across the state. We
[39:45] received an award for volunteer of the year, Business owner of
[39:48] the year, board Member of the year, as well as recognition
[39:51] for our Saving Stuart event, which some of you have
[39:53] participated in before and come and supported. So thank you for
[39:56] that. And that was in the category of telling Main Street
[40:00] Story. We applied for the Great American Main Street Award and
[40:03] waiting their decision. This week. We are long overdue for
[40:06] this almost 40 years of proven transformation, national
[40:09] recognition and tourism attraction. But most
[40:12] importantly, our resilient public private partnerships
[40:15] with the City of Stuart and the good folks like you. We will
[40:19] begin work on a large scale art mural project for Flagler Park,
[40:23] um, where we host our farmers market every week. And that
[40:26] should start, I think, next month. And just a friendly
[40:29] reminder that this is the slowest time of the year for
[40:32] our small business owners in our downtown. If we don't want
[40:35] to lose our charm, we need to support our small businesses.
[40:37] So whether you're grabbing an ice cream or a coffee or having
[40:40] dinner, coming to Rock and Riverwalk, it all helps. Um,
[40:44] and we are happy to maintain our weekly events market on
[40:47] Maine. Our Farmer's Market, Rock and Riverwalk, and our
[40:50] Summer Car Show series to help boost foot traffic as well. And
[40:54] we appreciate your support and your partnership, and thank you
[40:57] all for your service. Thank you. Thank you. Next
[41:01] comes Commissioner comments. Commissioner Vargas.
[41:04] , yes, I would like to send a special recognition to the
[41:08] teachers administration and all of the support professionals
[41:13] that support our schools. All the other professionals support
[41:15] our schools and our students. Uh, when this gentleman, uh,
[41:19] Mr. Voloshin was speaking, I remember being in Lao Cai,
[41:22] Vietnam and near the Lao border in Cambodia. It's mountainous
[41:27] and rice paddies tucked right into the mountainous range
[41:32] right there. I have a couple of questions. This bill, 1365, has
[41:38] Human Services looked into this. I'm sorry. I'm asking Mister
[41:45] Donaldson. Miss Alder. Um, yes, we are familiar with
[41:48] the bill in terms of its actions, and we, um, are fully
[41:53] aware of all the restrictions it places on the county to
[41:56] provide them, uh, to not allow public property for the use of,
[42:01] um, uh, camping, sleeping, etc..
[42:05] We've spoken about that before. So is there any remedy, any
[42:09] other pathway? The, um, the remedy requires
[42:14] this, uh, public stated that the in order for the county to
[42:17] provide a shelter, they also have to provide all of the, um,
[42:22] uh, accessory components that goes along with it. So it's not
[42:25] just about providing the facility. You have to provide,
[42:28] um, uh, adequate health care and a whole group of other
[42:32] things that go along with it. So essentially, the bill
[42:35] requires that if you're going to provide a place for the
[42:39] homeless, that you have to have a well constructed, well-run
[42:43] operation that is not, um, simply designating a campground
[42:48] and with an arrow saying, you can camp here, you have to
[42:50] provide multiple services in order to provide that. And so
[42:54] that is a significant expense. And I'm not aware of of any
[42:59] county in the state that has yet to meet the requirements of
[43:03] the bill. Yeah, I'm going to look further
[43:05] into that. Um, with my fellow commissioners from other
[43:08] counties to see what they've done to get ideas there. The
[43:12] other thing is, Mr. Taylor was here and he was talking about
[43:15] the FOIA. Too slow. I've seen it very fast. Is there a
[43:18] problem in that department addressing his, um, request?
[43:22] The that would be the sheriff's department. We do not manage
[43:25] the sheriff. He's a separate elected constitutional officer.
[43:29] And so, no, we do not provide oversight to that.
[43:31] Okay. So he hasn't made an application here with this
[43:34] county? No. Through the sheriff only. Okay. I needed to be sure
[43:38] about that. Thank you. Mr. Capps.
[43:44] There's been a lot. Of interest in helping the
[43:48] unhoused and a lot of comments made, um, for many of our
[43:55] meetings. And I know there's a lot more that we could probably
[44:00] do, but something came to mind that doesn't really get
[44:06] mentioned. And and that is what are we doing now? And there are
[44:11] some things we're doing now. We have a category of spending in
[44:16] our budget called grants and Aids. And I thought I would
[44:20] just mention that we do provide, uh, several of our
[44:26] grants and Aids that bring benefits to the unhoused. Um,
[44:32] I'm looking here at a list. One is called Veterans Homeless,
[44:38] $10,000. Another one is Treasure Coast Homeless
[44:42] Council, $25,000. Uh, another one is called food Bank.
[44:49] $20,000. And another one that I think is closely related to
[44:55] helping the unhoused is one called New Horizons, which is,
[44:59] um, mental health. It's like a hospital over by Martin South.
[45:05] That is the one, right? Yeah, that's where it is. New
[45:07] horizons. Am I getting them mixed up? That's the that's the
[45:10] name of that one over there by, uh, Martin South, right? Yes. I
[45:14] took a tour of them. Now that's Coral Shores. Coral shores?
[45:18] Yes. Anyway, we we, uh, we give, uh, $407,000 to New
[45:22] Horizons, uh, which is closely related to helping the
[45:28] unhoused. I don't say that to to say that that's all that we
[45:33] should do. I know that there's probably other things we can
[45:35] do, and we really appreciate people coming in to help us to
[45:40] come up with new ideas on how we can enhance services to the
[45:45] unhoused. But I wanted to mention that we do some things
[45:49] now and then. I wanted to mention another thing that I
[45:56] had the privilege to attend 10 or 12 days ago. I, along with
[46:01] numerous federal, state and local leaders, had the
[46:04] privilege of attending the Indian River lagoon South
[46:09] Milestone celebration at the C23C24 reservoir and stormwater
[46:16] treatment area up in Fort Pierce and Indian River lagoon
[46:21] South is a part of the comprehensive Everglades
[46:24] Restoration Plan and sitting on a huge piece of land, it will
[46:29] have massive reservoirs of water, uh, containing runoff
[46:34] from the region that will filter through stormwater
[46:37] treatment areas that will clean the water before it goes into
[46:42] Ten Mile Creek and then into the North Fork of the Saint
[46:48] Lucie River. Uh, there was a very impressive lineup of
[46:52] federal and state speakers at this event. And I would like to
[46:56] point out that Commissioner heard was the only local
[47:00] official who was asked to speak at this event because of her
[47:03] role in Everglades restoration. From the very beginning. And
[47:08] Commissioner heard your comments were excellent. You
[47:11] represented us very well at this event. I appreciate that
[47:14] very much. And as I learned more about Everglades
[47:17] restoration, uh, I want to I become more grateful for the
[47:22] progress that has been made. And I want to put my own
[47:26] shoulder to the wheel and see what I can do to help, because
[47:31] the issue of Everglades restoration is very, very
[47:35] closely related to the health of our own local environment
[47:39] and our waterways. Another contribution that that
[47:46] Martin County has made to the, um, to homeless is in, I think,
[47:52] about 2010, uh, I was asked to contribute substantially to,
[47:58] uh, the construction of the Miss Butterfly facility in Port
[48:03] Salerno, new Monrovia. Um, it's a facility for homeless
[48:06] mothers. And I thought it was a very worthy facility. And I did
[48:10] contribute substantially to the construction of this project.
[48:14] It's been a wonderful success since then. So, you know, we
[48:18] have made inroads. We have addressed, uh, homeless and we
[48:23] haven't done enough, but we certainly keep moving in that
[48:26] direction to make sure that we provide the best quality of
[48:29] life for all the residents of Martin County, and also, I just
[48:33] wanted to mention the agenda item that's been withdrawn from
[48:38] the agenda today, and that's public hearing, quasi judicial.
[48:42] Number two, I just wanted to say that, uh, Gina Nabi was the
[48:47] staff person who prepared the staff report, and I want to say
[48:51] that it's the best staff report I have ever read. Uh, the
[48:55] proofing that she did on this extremely complex, complicated
[48:59] issue was remarkable. It was so professional. It was it was a a
[49:04] pleasure to see our staff. Uh, solve this very, very complex,
[49:12] uh, challenge. So thank you, Miss Nabi. Commissioner Candy.
[49:19] Thank you very much. Um, a week from today will be election
[49:25] day. Uh, we have the election and the. And the opportunity
[49:30] for voting has already begun. We are in our early voting. Uh,
[49:37] window. It started on Saturday. Uh, also, if you had requested
[49:43] a vote by mail ballot and have yet to turn it in, uh, you
[49:48] still can. You can either drop it off at the supervisor of
[49:51] elections office or mail it in. Uh, I know I'm serving on the
[49:56] canvassing board with Commissioner Vargas. Uh, and
[50:00] that supervisor of elections, Vicki Davis, had said she sent
[50:04] out approximately 15 or 16,000 ballots, and only about 6000
[50:08] have returned, which is a pretty low percentage even in
[50:13] an off year election. You can vote early in Hobe Sound. You
[50:17] can vote early in Indian Town, and you can vote early in the
[50:21] Martin Luther King on Martin Luther King and Stuart from 9
[50:26] to 5, I think, until this weekend. So, uh, the 15th, uh,
[50:31] and then of course, a week from today, August 18th, is Election
[50:35] day. Uh, this election for all of the local seats, the local
[50:40] positions will be decided during this primary. A lot of
[50:44] folks that think that, hey, I will not vote during the August
[50:48] primary, I will wait and vote in November. The local
[50:53] positions will be decided during the primary. So I know
[50:59] that some people after the fact are frustrated. Um, who you
[51:05] vote for is obviously your prerogative, but it is
[51:07] important to vote. I would tell you, I think this will be a
[51:12] historically low voter turnout. Uh, it's also an opportunity
[51:17] for people to vote for the positions that really, I think,
[51:21] have some of the most relevance to your day to day life. School
[51:26] board commissioners, city commissioners, village
[51:30] commissioners. So the opportunity to have a say in
[51:36] that is now, uh, so I appreciate that. And in regard.
[51:40] And let me add that all voters, regardless of your political
[51:44] affiliation, are eligible to vote in all of the local
[51:49] elections this year, which is kind of unusual.
[51:51] Yes, true. Sometimes if you are a one party affiliation or
[51:54] another, the ballot would be specific, but all seats are
[51:58] available for every. As Commissioner Heard said, every
[52:03] whatever your political party affiliation is, you can vote
[52:07] for all of the seats. Except, of course, if you're in an
[52:10] unincorporated Martin County, you don't vote in the city of
[52:12] Stuart, you're not voting in Indian Town. But for all of the
[52:16] seats that are available for you to select, you can, in
[52:20] regards to the unhoused situation that's been discussed
[52:24] quite a bit. Uh, I had a conversation with the ladies
[52:27] that spoke this morning several weeks ago, and I was very
[52:32] intrigued by the Dignity Bus and have reached out to the
[52:36] folks up north that have won and have planned to go and see
[52:40] it, because I think to hear about it is one thing, but to
[52:44] see it and to understand how they are able to do it, I think
[52:48] is an opportunity that might be the closest, uh, way that we
[52:53] can assist at a higher level without getting ourselves too
[52:56] much into a legal or a logistical quagmire. It's being
[53:01] done. From what I understand, successfully. Just to our
[53:05] north. So I will tell you that I'm heading up to see it and to
[53:11] speak to the folks that are doing it. And when I do, I will
[53:14] come back and give you my impression.
[53:16] Okay, good. Commissioner Hetherington.
[53:20] I look forward to learning more about the Dignity Bus. And then
[53:24] I just came back from, um, American Water Resources
[53:27] Association meeting, which is one of my favorite meetings of
[53:30] the year. Uh, several years ago at this meeting, on the way to
[53:35] the meeting, we were in our district two. We were having an
[53:39] issue with Monterey Subdivision and contaminated wells, as
[53:43] cited by the Health department. Um, I remember Drew Bartlett
[53:47] was just moving from the department. Uh, the DEP over to
[53:51] director of the South Florida Water Management, and I want to
[53:55] thank him again because, uh, because of his actions in
[53:59] connecting district to our office with DEP, we were able
[54:04] to mobilize within weeks. Um, and those folks were getting
[54:08] bottled water, and he was able to connect us with the right
[54:13] people at DEP. And we were able to partner with the city of
[54:17] Stewart to get those folks onto sewer. We received. I want to
[54:22] say it was about a $1.8 million grant at the time, and it was
[54:28] almost 100% funded. Moving those folks from contaminated
[54:33] wells to sewer. So and it was a great partnership between DEP,
[54:38] the district two office, the city of Stewart. I want to say
[54:42] this was again five years ago, and it was a result of being at
[54:47] that, a meeting and talking with the right people at the
[54:51] right time, and that they were on water within 18 months,
[54:56] which I would say the at the speed of government. It was a
[55:01] really good partnership. So that meeting, it always has a
[55:05] special place in my heart. And then as I sat there and listen,
[55:08] there were panels throughout the two days. We had Army Corps
[55:13] talking about and South Florida water management talking about
[55:16] Everglades restoration. Uh, Colonel Bowman was there. Major
[55:20] Bell uh, we had Drew Bartlett and all five water management
[55:24] districts around the state, and, uh, there were panels on
[55:29] biosolids. And I sat there very proud representing Martin
[55:33] County, because as they started to talk about biosolids and
[55:38] land application and emerging technology around the state,
[55:43] that was, um, really addressing how we manage biosolids. I
[55:49] wanted to raise my hand and say, yes, we're the poster
[55:52] child. And they did mention Martin County, you know, in the
[55:55] halls, because we are a leading example in the state of how we
[56:01] manage our biosolids, how we partner with Everglades
[56:05] restoration, and even the example of the site where we're
[56:10] going to eventually store muck dredged out of the Indian River
[56:15] lagoon is a very good example. I was very proud to represent
[56:20] Martin County and to listen to all the accomplishments and
[56:25] hear all these people from around the state of Florida,
[56:27] from the Panhandle, all the way to the keys, and the
[56:30] recognition that we get for and Martin County for being leaders
[56:35] in water restoration. Everglades restoration and
[56:40] water policy. So it was my pleasure to attend. And again,
[56:44] I came back very proud of Martin County and the things
[56:46] that we've done over the past ten years.
[56:50] Very nice. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Donaldson. Miss elder.
[56:55] Okay, in that case, let's proceed. We'll take up public
[56:59] hearing, quasi judicial number one, which is a public hearing
[57:03] to request approval of the major final site plan for
[57:07] southwest 96th Street. Mono pine. Wireless
[57:10] telecommunications facility tower. This is quasi judicial.
[57:15] Any ex-parte disclosures Mr.. Vargas I have none. The form
[57:20] has been filed. Commissioner Capps.
[57:24] If I have any. They have been filed.
[57:25] I don't have any. And they've been filed. Commissioner Campi.
[57:29] I don't have any. And that's been filed.
[57:30] And Commissioner Hetherington. I don't have any and they've
[57:32] been filed. Mr. Sinnott, have you filed all
[57:35] of your required things with the clerk?
[57:37] I'm turning a copy of my work history and the agenda item to
[57:40] be filed as exhibit one, and the applicant submitted their
[57:44] affidavit of mailers at this past Thursday's LPA hearing.
[57:48] Is the applicant here? Yes. Anyone who's going to be
[57:51] providing sworn testimony, please stand up, raise your
[57:54] Right hand and be sworn in. Do you swear or.
[58:00] Affirm the evidence you're about to give will be the
[58:02] truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help
[58:05] you God. I do.
[58:07] Please proceed, Mr. Sinnott. Thank you, Madam Chair. Good
[58:10] morning, commissioners. I'm John Sennett, principal planner
[58:13] with growth management. This is a request by United Commercial
[58:16] Telecom on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Fazlul and Zarina Ahmed
[58:20] for major final site plan approval to construct a 120
[58:23] foot stealth design monoplane. Wireless telecommunications
[58:27] facility and associated infrastructure. The subject
[58:30] site is a portion of an approximately 1.7 acre parcel
[58:34] located on the south side of southwest 96th Street,
[58:37] approximately 230ft west of the intersection of southwest 96th
[58:42] Street and Southwest Corner Highway and Stuart included as
[58:45] a request for Certificate of Public Facilities exemption.
[58:49] There are no interviewers for this application. The subject
[58:54] site is just west of the intersection of 96th and
[58:57] Kanner, to the east of the site is an existing Sunoco gas
[59:02] station, right at the corner. The subject site is located
[59:07] within the LC limited Limited Commercial zoning district. The
[59:11] adjacent properties to the west and the south are also within
[59:14] the LC zoning district. The gas station property to the east is
[59:19] within the R-3 zoning district, with a covenant to GC. The
[59:24] future land use designation of the subject site is limited.
[59:27] Commercial. The adjacent properties to the west and
[59:30] south are also within the limited commercial future land
[59:32] use designation. The gas station property to the east is
[59:36] within the general commercial future. Land use. The closest
[59:42] existing cell tower is 1.5 miles to the east. Located on
[59:47] the northern end of the South Fork High School property. The
[59:52] proposed 96th Street Tower is a 120 foot stealth design
[59:56] monoplane. Wireless telecommunications facility to
[59:59] accommodate four wireless carriers. It will be within a
[1:00:02] 1600 square foot lease area within an overall 1.7 acre
[1:00:07] parent parcel. A separate application has been approved
[1:00:10] for the development of a one story, 9472 square foot
[1:00:15] convenience store retail building on the parent parcel.
[1:00:18] The tower relies on infrastructure that will be
[1:00:21] constructed as part of the development of the convenience
[1:00:24] store. The proposal complies with the requirements of
[1:00:28] Division 18, article four, Land Development Regulations. Martin
[1:00:32] County Code. There are no existing structures of
[1:00:34] sufficient height in the area, which could support co-location
[1:00:37] of antennas and provide equivalent improvements to
[1:00:40] service within a three quarter mile search ring. The subject
[1:00:43] property owners were the only responsive landowners based on
[1:00:48] coordination with information Technology Services, the
[1:00:51] Sheriff's department and emergency management. The
[1:00:53] proposed tower is not expected to interfere with existing
[1:00:56] public safety. Telecommunications facilities,
[1:01:00] as part of the application review process. Martin County
[1:01:02] retained an independent technical consultant for
[1:01:05] Unwired 4G. Unwired confirmed that no existing tower within a
[1:01:09] reasonable distance can provide equivalent improvements due to
[1:01:12] spacing constraints, height limitations, and propagation
[1:01:15] characteristics. 4G Unwired verified the proposed tower
[1:01:19] would materially improve service quality and reliability
[1:01:22] for users in this area of the county. We do have present with
[1:01:25] us today, Mr. Mark Nygren of 4G on Wired. He available to
[1:01:29] answer any technical questions. This is the proposed final site
[1:01:35] plan. The tower is located east of the proposed convenience
[1:01:39] store on the parcel. The tower relies on a driveway,
[1:01:42] stormwater facilities and landscaping that will be
[1:01:45] installed as part of the development of the convenience
[1:01:47] store. As part of the approved convenience store development
[1:01:51] order. There is also a preserve area established on the
[1:01:55] southern portion of the property. That area shown in
[1:01:58] the the hatching to the south of the convenience store. This
[1:02:05] is a profile view of the 120 foot mono pine cell tower. Is a
[1:02:14] photo simulation of the proposed tower as viewed from
[1:02:16] the adjacent property to the west. Just under 500ft west of
[1:02:21] the tower, there's another photo simulation as viewed from
[1:02:25] Kanner Highway, roughly 450ft south of the tower. And there's
[1:02:32] a photo simulation as viewed from Pratt Whitney Road,
[1:02:35] approaching the intersection with Kanner Highway. This
[1:02:40] application was heard before the local planning agency this
[1:02:42] past Thursday, August 6th. The LPA voted 4 to 0, recommending
[1:02:47] approval, with one member being absent. Development review
[1:02:52] staff have found the United Commercial Telecom application
[1:02:55] to comply with all applicable regulations in the
[1:02:57] Comprehensive Growth Management Plan, as detailed in the staff
[1:02:59] report. Staff recommendation is to move that the board receive
[1:03:04] and file the agenda item and its attachments, including the
[1:03:07] staff report, as exhibit one and move to the board. Adopt
[1:03:10] the resolution approving the final site plan for the
[1:03:13] southwest 96th Street Pine Tower project. That concludes
[1:03:16] my presentation. Questions for staff. Mr. Kamps.
[1:03:23] How tall are these towers? Usually, is this common? 120ft.
[1:03:31] I'd have to defer to the applicant for common heights,
[1:03:35] but this one is 120. And that's that's permitted per Division
[1:03:39] 18 of our land development regulations. But I'm sure the
[1:03:42] applicant could could address that as well.
[1:03:45] Thanks. Is this a major or minor
[1:03:49] development? The tower application is a
[1:03:52] major. How about the development order
[1:03:56] for the convenience store? That was a minor development.
[1:04:00] And that was approved in January of this year.
[1:04:02] So that was approved by staff. Yes. That was a separate
[1:04:06] application that did not include the scope of the tower.
[1:04:10] That is the convenience store, the preserve area, stormwater
[1:04:14] facilities and parking and driveways.
[1:04:17] So if I'm not mistaken, there is an existing convenience
[1:04:20] store gas station that's next door.
[1:04:24] Next door on the adjacent property. Yes, to the east.
[1:04:27] How on earth do we permit these things next to each other?
[1:04:33] Paul Schilling, growth Management Director for the
[1:04:36] record. Thank you, Commissioner. Um, so there is a
[1:04:39] Sunoco fueling station on the corner. I believe that's the
[1:04:43] the brand name that includes a smaller convenience store. This
[1:04:48] project, as I recall, which I approved, was, um, potentially
[1:04:52] other commercial uses, meaning other retail, if I'm not
[1:04:55] mistaken. So it's not a it's not a whole wholly developed
[1:05:00] convenience store there. There will be other retail uses, such
[1:05:03] as a dry cleaner. Um, um, those types of uses. A mailbox place,
[1:05:10] something like that. Okay. And, um, this application
[1:05:17] is the tower separation setbacks and fall zone criteria
[1:05:23] of our land development regulations shall not apply to
[1:05:26] any stealth tower. Why not? That's the criteria. As you
[1:05:31] indicated within Division 18. So it would if it wasn't a
[1:05:38] stealth tower. Those the fall zone and setbacks and tower
[1:05:43] separations would apply. Correct.
[1:05:48] Can you explain why? I mean, just because it's disguised as
[1:05:55] a pine tree? Um, why is it not subject to fall zone
[1:06:00] protections? Uh, as John indicated, Paul
[1:06:04] Schilling for the record. So, as John indicated, Division 18
[1:06:07] guides this process of the land development regulations and has
[1:06:11] for many years. Um, so the stealth tower is the is the
[1:06:16] appearance of it. Um, the requirements for it to blend
[1:06:21] into the neighborhood, for lack of a better term, but also more
[1:06:25] importantly, is the engineering involved. Uh, the towers are
[1:06:28] engineered to, in essence, and I'm sure the applicant or
[1:06:32] consultant could talk about this, but our engineered to
[1:06:35] fall within their own footprint. So the footprint of
[1:06:39] that leased area or right around that area, as opposed to
[1:06:42] having guy wires and other components of a traditional
[1:06:47] radio antenna. So they are designed I'm not aware of the
[1:06:51] research I've done of any of these ever failing, but they
[1:06:54] have at times had some, um, issues, maybe with a branch or
[1:06:58] two that need to be replaced from time to time. But they are
[1:07:01] engineered substantially, and I'm sure the applicant could
[1:07:04] talk about that. But that's the essence of of the requirement.
[1:07:08] Okay. Thank you.
[1:07:11] Thank you. With the applicant, like to
[1:07:22] make a presentation. I'm happy to answer any
[1:07:25] questions. If you guys would like me to come up and answer
[1:07:27] at least. Okay. Sure. Tell us about the
[1:07:30] fall zone protections. My name is Kevin Wright. I'm
[1:07:36] the director of operations for United Commercial Telecom. And
[1:07:39] thank you for having me. Uh, so fall zone, first and foremost,
[1:07:42] Paul is correct. Uh, the towers are designed typically to
[1:07:46] collapse on themselves. They design a break point. So towers
[1:07:51] don't fall like this. They fall like this on top, on top of
[1:07:54] themselves, like he said. So. So that fall on for this
[1:07:59] particular tower would fall within the footprint of our
[1:08:02] lease area. That's the way they're designed nowadays. I
[1:08:04] mean, maybe back in the day before my time they weren't,
[1:08:07] but that most all towers are designed to collapse on
[1:08:11] themselves. Into a 1600 square foot lease.
[1:08:17] Correct. So they would have multiple break points on the
[1:08:19] tower that if a section were to fail, it would fold over onto
[1:08:25] the tower, not fall off to the side.
[1:08:30] Okay. And I see that there was a consultant who was hired to
[1:08:39] do the, um, I don't know what you call it. The. Yes. So who
[1:08:45] paid for that consultant. Mark Kent.
[1:08:49] Johnson, for the record. And that is being reimbursed by
[1:08:52] the. Yes. Have we been I see that there's
[1:08:54] an outstanding balance. Yes. That is we've been
[1:08:57] reimbursed for most of the balance. The outstanding
[1:09:00] balance is to have Mr. Seagram present with us today. That
[1:09:04] balance will be payable, uh, during the post approval
[1:09:07] process for this. Okay. Thank you. Any further
[1:09:11] questions? I wish it was an American flag.
[1:09:16] I wish it was an American flag. I think the pine trees, you
[1:09:19] know, I get that it's stealth, but I.
[1:09:21] Mean. They look like. cheap
[1:09:25] artificial Christmas trees. I guess the flag wouldn't be
[1:09:28] stealth. So then they'd have to. They'd have to fly with the
[1:09:31] fall zones. No, it's stealth as a cell
[1:09:34] phone tower. It's obviously like, for instance, in Palm
[1:09:38] City, they a long time ago, they put one on a church
[1:09:41] property and it was a cross. Yes, sir. Uh, I like, you know,
[1:09:45] obviously if you see a flag on a massive flagpole, you
[1:09:48] understand it's a cell phone tower. I just think. Or even
[1:09:52] the one that we have that's right around the corner over
[1:09:54] here is just a monopole. That's not stealth. I guess.
[1:09:58] That's itself. Is all internal, correct? Yes.
[1:10:01] I just think that that sort of you just your eye erases that.
[1:10:04] Whereas when you see these large artificial pine trees
[1:10:09] that are way taller and I get why they have to be that tall
[1:10:12] than the surrounding landscape, they just look sort of
[1:10:15] ridiculous. But I guess that's falls within the definition of
[1:10:19] stealth. I just like the concept of a really large
[1:10:22] American flag would be more appropriate than a cheesy, for
[1:10:26] lack of a better word. Uh, pine.
[1:10:28] Tree. But that's just a personal
[1:10:30] opinion and won't affect my decision making.
[1:10:35] Mr. Capps. So, uh, the the 120 foot height
[1:10:39] is a common height for such towers.
[1:10:43] It is? Yes, sir. I mean, we we build them much taller than
[1:10:46] that as well. Uh, 200 foot, uh, keeping it under the 200 foot
[1:10:51] threshold keeps with the FAA from having to light the tower.
[1:10:55] That's the requirement with the FAA. But also, if you're in a
[1:10:58] flight plan, we would like the tower. We're not in this
[1:11:01] particular area, but 120 foot is a standard, a standard
[1:11:06] height pole in Florida, built a lot of towers in Florida. I've
[1:11:09] built a lot, 120 foot poles in Florida. Yes, sir.
[1:11:13] Okay. And I have one question. Broward County Attorney, how
[1:11:17] this issue of of towers and Martin County has been an issue
[1:11:22] in the past where people have wanted the county commission to
[1:11:26] intervene and perhaps prevent a tower, uh, from being located
[1:11:32] somewhere. I think there was one. And right in a
[1:11:35] neighborhood that created a stir.
[1:11:39] A sidewalk. So those towers are a little
[1:11:41] bit different. Those are towers that are not even towers. Those
[1:11:44] are, um, communications that are installed in our right of
[1:11:48] way by like AT&T, a company, and they have the right to do
[1:11:51] that. So we can't intervene in this. This is a different
[1:11:54] situation. This is on private property and it's 120 foot
[1:11:59] stealth tower. So it's a different situation. But when
[1:12:01] the utility when the utility companies want to install in
[1:12:05] our right of way, we don't have a say in that. That's the
[1:12:07] circumstance that came up with the sidewalk with the residents
[1:12:09] and their house. So it's a little bit of a different
[1:12:11] situation. Okay.
[1:12:13] So our level of discretion would just be the general
[1:12:17] principles of judicial decisions. Competent,
[1:12:19] substantial evidence in the record.
[1:12:21] Correct. So we have land development regulations that
[1:12:24] govern these towers. And as long as like any other site
[1:12:28] plan, if they meet the land development regulations, then
[1:12:31] ideally it would be approved based on the competent,
[1:12:34] substantial evidence proven that they met those land
[1:12:37] development regulations. Further questions. This is a
[1:12:43] public hearing. Would anyone from the public like to address
[1:12:45] us? Thank you. I don't see any back to the board. Or is there
[1:12:49] a recommendation? Move staff's recommendation.
[1:12:59] Second. There's a motion and a second.
[1:13:01] All those in favor? I opposed that motion passes unanimously.
[1:13:06] Thank you commissioners. Thank you. We will now move on
[1:13:09] to, uh, department quasi judicial number one, which is a
[1:13:15] article ten appeal consideration of an article ten
[1:13:18] appeal by Corey Beaton regarding denial of building
[1:13:21] permit number so-and-so for the construction of a single family
[1:13:26] residence. This is quasi judicial. Commissioners.
[1:13:29] Commissioner Vargas, any quasi judicial disclosures?
[1:13:33] Ex-parte disclosures. Okay, okay.
[1:13:36] Um, I do not have any that, uh, form has been filed.
[1:13:39] Commissioner Capps. If I have any. They have been
[1:13:42] filed. I don't have any. And they've
[1:13:43] been filed. Commissioner Campi. I don't have any. And that's
[1:13:46] been filed. Commissioner.
[1:13:48] If any. They've been filed. All right.
[1:13:52] Uh. Let's see. So, commissioners,
[1:13:55] this is the, uh, procedure for this is unique. Um, follow
[1:14:00] along on page 335. We will now have the summary of an
[1:14:05] introduction of appeal by staff.
[1:14:07] So, Commissioner, we need to have everybody sworn in first.
[1:14:10] I don't think that's happened. Has it?
[1:14:12] So I thought that we didn't have to have people sworn in
[1:14:15] because we're not accepting any new evidence.
[1:14:17] We're not accepting new evidence, but it would be ideal
[1:14:20] to just wear it in for this, for the appeal, just in the
[1:14:22] abundance of caution. So. Do you swear or affirm the
[1:14:28] evidence you're about to give will be the truth, the whole
[1:14:30] truth, and nothing but the truth. So help you God?
[1:14:32] I do.. Okay, so, commissioners, um,
[1:14:35] Elise Elder, County Attorney, I'm just going to give an
[1:14:37] overview of this process. It doesn't come before the board
[1:14:40] very often. This is an article 12. I mean, our article ten
[1:14:44] appeal. What that means is Mr. Beaton filed for a building
[1:14:47] permit. It was denied by staff. He appealed that decision to
[1:14:51] the county administrator, who held an administrative review
[1:14:55] meeting to go over the building permit. Mr. Beaton was given an
[1:14:59] opportunity to speak and present his case at the
[1:15:02] administrative review meeting. Mr. Donaldson, um, issued a
[1:15:07] opinion or a ruling upholding the denial of the building
[1:15:10] permit. Mr. Beaton appealed that decision to this board. So
[1:15:14] your your view today or your role today is a little bit
[1:15:17] limited. As Commissioner Heard said, that there are quasi
[1:15:20] judicial procedures in the agenda item. So what happens is
[1:15:24] I'm giving you this quick overview. Mr. Beaton will have
[1:15:27] 20 minutes to present his case. Once he is done, the board will
[1:15:31] have the opportunity to ask him questions. Once the questions
[1:15:35] are over, staff will have an opportunity to present their
[1:15:38] case. We will have 20 minutes. Um, the board can, um, ask
[1:15:42] questions of staff, and then you deliberate and make a
[1:15:46] ruling. So just to point out that the standard for your
[1:15:51] review is limited. So the three questions you need to decide is
[1:15:55] whether the county administrator accorded
[1:15:58] procedural due process, whether the county administrator
[1:16:02] adhered to the essential requirements of law, and
[1:16:05] whether the final action by the county administrator was based
[1:16:07] on competent, substantial evidence in the agenda item.
[1:16:11] Those three different areas are defined so the procedural due
[1:16:16] process just means that the board must decide whether the
[1:16:18] county administrator's review of the building permit was
[1:16:21] conducted fairly and impartially, according to all
[1:16:24] of our land development regulations and our procedures,
[1:16:27] to see if the essential requirements of law were filed,
[1:16:31] the board must decide whether the Mr. Donaldson applied the
[1:16:35] correct provisions of the applicable law and code when
[1:16:38] making his decision, including state statute and the Land
[1:16:42] Development Regulations and the county's code, and he did not
[1:16:45] abuse his legal authority in the process, and the final
[1:16:49] determination is whether the decision is based on competent,
[1:16:53] substantial evidence that Mr. Donaldson received during the
[1:16:57] Administrative Review hearing. Um, that's the board's
[1:17:00] standard. So if you don't have any questions, we can have Mr.
[1:17:03] Beaton come up and give his initial, uh.
[1:17:07] Side questions for Miss Elder before we turn it over to Mr.
[1:17:10] Beaton. Please. Okay.
[1:17:13] Miss elder, so based on what you just told us, we are
[1:17:16] deciding on those three criteria, not necessarily on
[1:17:20] whether or not we feel that it's a legitimate project.
[1:17:24] Correct. So you're not supposed to sub your substitute your
[1:17:27] decision for the county administrator. If he made his
[1:17:30] decision based on evidence presented at the review
[1:17:33] meeting, you should uphold it. Even though there might be
[1:17:35] evidence on the other side to substantiate Mr. Beaton's side
[1:17:40] of the story. As long as Mr. Donaldson's was decided based
[1:17:44] on the competent, substantial evidence, your role is to
[1:17:48] uphold that, not to substitute your judgment for his. So
[1:17:51] that's the standard in an appeal.
[1:17:53] So, in other words, to decide if we felt that the technical
[1:17:57] process was followed correctly. Yes. And there was evidence to
[1:18:01] support his name. Not if we agree that it was a
[1:18:03] good project or a bad project. Correct?
[1:18:05] Correct. Final question. What would the applicant's, uh. What
[1:18:12] could he do if he's unhappy? What's the recourse of based on
[1:18:15] today's decision? Is there no. What's the next step in the
[1:18:18] process for him. To follow up? Probably file a
[1:18:20] lawsuit. If he was, if he chose to, um, to appeal your
[1:18:24] decision, basically. Thank you.
[1:18:27] Commissioner Vargas. So, um, and I understand
[1:18:31] everything you've said, and I've looked at this before I
[1:18:34] came to this meeting and had a lot of questions. So in the
[1:18:38] event that the applicant is unhappy, file a lawsuit against
[1:18:43] whom? The county. They would file a
[1:18:45] lawsuit challenging the denial of a building permit with, um,
[1:18:49] the circuit court. Okay. It was my understanding
[1:18:52] that he can get a building permit. However, there's a
[1:18:55] little bit difference in so far as the land mass he was going
[1:19:01] to be building on. And it has to do with something dealing
[1:19:05] with the, uh, regulations going back to the 1980s. Is this
[1:19:11] correct? So he was denied a building
[1:19:13] permit, so he cannot build any house at this time. And that is
[1:19:16] what he's appealing. And he will provide you with his his
[1:19:19] facts. And then we'll give you the county side.
[1:19:22] So now we take what the vote dealing with Mr. Donaldson's.
[1:19:28] At the end of. The activity.
[1:19:29] Okay. At the end of this meeting, this agenda item,
[1:19:32] you'll vote. Mr. Beaton, you'll have 20
[1:19:38] minutes to to, uh, talk with us.
[1:19:41] All. Good morning. Good morning.
[1:19:44] Morning, chair and commissioners. Uh, my name is
[1:19:45] Corey Beaton. I'm the appellant and the property owner at 18250
[1:19:49] Southeast Box at River road, Jupiter, Florida. Um, just want
[1:19:52] to thank you guys for your time and the opportunity to be here
[1:19:55] today. Um, what I'm asking is for the board to reverse the
[1:20:00] county administrator's decision, uh, and the denial of
[1:20:04] my building permit application. So, uh, before I explain how we
[1:20:08] got here, I think it's critically important to
[1:20:10] identify and define what this case is and what it is not. Um,
[1:20:13] this is not title action. I hold recorded title to the
[1:20:17] property contained within my legal description. If another
[1:20:20] party believes it has a competing ownership interest,
[1:20:24] there's a judicial process for resolving that dispute. This
[1:20:28] administrative appeal is not that process. Um, the questions
[1:20:32] before this board are much narrower. Miss elder, uh, kind
[1:20:35] of explained them. It's it's whether I was afforded
[1:20:37] procedural due process, whether the county administrator
[1:20:41] observed the essential requirements of law. And was
[1:20:44] the decision supported by competent, substantial evidence
[1:20:47] contained in the record. And I respectfully submit that the
[1:20:49] answer to all three of those is no. Um, so I'd like to start
[1:20:53] with kind of how we got here. Uh, before I purchased this
[1:20:57] property, I contacted the Martin County Zoning
[1:20:59] Department. My point of contact was Amy Offenbach. Um, I had
[1:21:03] extensive conversations with Miss Offenbach, and at the
[1:21:06] time, the property appraiser was showing the property to be
[1:21:09] 1.69 acres. Uh, the property boundary line had been moved to
[1:21:15] the mean high water line. Um, contrary to what the legal
[1:21:18] description actually called for, the boundary of the
[1:21:21] property extends into the water. Um, so she explained
[1:21:25] that a one zoning required two acres and that the acreage
[1:21:29] discrepancy needed to be addressed. She gave me a
[1:21:31] roadmap of everything that I would need to do before I
[1:21:34] purchased the property. And, um, I performed extensive due
[1:21:38] diligence before I, before I actually bought it, I hired a
[1:21:41] professional license surveyor. I retained legal counsel, and I
[1:21:45] researched the the property's history and chain of title. I
[1:21:49] went through a lot of old documents and documentation on
[1:21:51] it, and figured out exactly how it came to be and why it was
[1:21:54] what it was. Um, so I specifically asked her if I'm
[1:21:57] able to get the property boundary moved back out to its
[1:22:00] rightful location, and the property appraiser then
[1:22:03] reflects two acres, will that suffice? And she said yes. So
[1:22:07] at the same time, I was closely watching a neighboring property
[1:22:10] who was going through the permitting process. Um, his
[1:22:13] property was strikingly similar to mine. It was 1.7 acres of
[1:22:17] dry land and it was two acres total. It was also a non-legal
[1:22:20] lot of record, and he had applied for a building permit.
[1:22:24] Um, ultimately, the county approved his permit. So, uh,
[1:22:29] this was not an isolated incident. Uh, instant. There
[1:22:33] was three other properties within the same neighborhood
[1:22:36] that the county staff had approved development on, under
[1:22:38] the same exact circumstances. The first was in 1984, two
[1:22:42] years after the comp plan. The people that knew it better than
[1:22:45] anyone else, um, than another in 2016, and then this 1 in
[1:22:51] 2023. The county staff has now attempted to dismiss all of
[1:22:54] those approvals by characterizing all of them as
[1:22:56] mistakes. Um, but I feel that 40 years of county action, um,
[1:23:03] does not erase those approvals. Those happen. These were
[1:23:06] separate properties, separate applications, separate county
[1:23:09] reviews and and separate growth management staff that that
[1:23:14] reviewed these, um, most importantly, the most recent
[1:23:18] and comparable property was actively being permitted while
[1:23:22] I was performing my due diligence on this property. So
[1:23:25] from everything reasonably available to me, uh, the county
[1:23:28] staff guidance, the surveying, the appraisal records, the
[1:23:31] historical county approvals, and a neighboring building
[1:23:34] permit actively being built, I had every reason to believe
[1:23:37] this property was buildable. I relied upon that information
[1:23:40] when I purchased this property, and after closing, I presented
[1:23:44] all of my evidence to the property appraiser and was able
[1:23:47] to get the boundary moved back out to its rightful location,
[1:23:50] which then reflected that the property was 2.01 acres, uh,
[1:23:53] exceeding the two acre requirement. I contacted miss,
[1:23:57] uh, Miss Offenbach. I contacted her back. Uh, I presented her
[1:24:01] with everything. She confirmed that, yes, the property on her
[1:24:04] end was now shown two acres. She confirmed that a single
[1:24:06] family residence, uh, that I was eligible to put a single
[1:24:09] family residence on the property. And, um, at my
[1:24:12] request, she followed up in writing, defining, um, the
[1:24:17] applicable zoning and setback requirements, and did verify
[1:24:19] that a single family residence was an allowable use for this
[1:24:23] property. So as a landowner, I that was it. I had everything
[1:24:28] that I needed to to proceed with development. Um, I relied
[1:24:33] upon that representation. I hired an architect, I hired
[1:24:36] engineers, I got environmental studies, done, surveys, site
[1:24:40] plans, core borings, uh, soil samples, testing everything
[1:24:44] that was needed to prepare a building application. I spent
[1:24:47] tens of thousands of dollars. I sold a ton of assets off a
[1:24:52] truck, tractor buggies, farm equipment, vacant land,
[1:24:54] everything to make sure I would have enough funding to finance
[1:24:56] this build. Uh, ultimately, I sold my home that my family had
[1:25:01] lived in for 15 years. Uh, to make sure we'd have enough
[1:25:04] money to build this house. Um, sacrifice. That's what I told
[1:25:08] my wife. It'll all be worth it in the end. Uh, you know, we'll
[1:25:11] be able to build on this, and it's going to be all worth it.
[1:25:14] Um, these were enormous decisions that I made, but I
[1:25:16] made them because I had done my due diligence. I relied upon
[1:25:19] the information, uh, that was available to me, including the
[1:25:22] information that Martin County staff gave me. So fast forward
[1:25:26] several months. Um, I submit my permit application. Uh, the
[1:25:31] review process was moving forward, and then a staff
[1:25:34] comment was added to my building, uh, file that said
[1:25:38] lot size incorrect. Uh, staff cited comp plan policy 4.14 and
[1:25:44] took the position that the submerged portion of the
[1:25:46] property could not be counted towards the two acre
[1:25:48] requirement. Uh, I discussed this extensively with staff and
[1:25:52] with senior Assistant County Attorney Sebastian Fox. Um, Mr.
[1:25:56] Fox made it very clear we're not disputing your property
[1:26:00] boundary. We're not disputing the fact that you have. And you
[1:26:03] own a two acre tract of land. We're just saying that because
[1:26:05] of this policy, you can't use the submerged land portions of
[1:26:09] it. So the problem was, is policy 4.14 does not say that I
[1:26:16] can't use my submerged lands. It specifically defines exactly
[1:26:20] a boundary. The boundary line, as where the submerged lands be
[1:26:24] excluded. And that's to stop people from being able to use
[1:26:26] riparian rights and try to claim land that's not theirs.
[1:26:30] Um, that was the basis for the permit denial that that is
[1:26:34] consistent on the conditions report. Um, that's precisely
[1:26:39] why I filed the article ten appeal, because I needed Mr.
[1:26:42] Donaldson to look at policy 4.1 for the actual reason the
[1:26:46] permit was denied. Based upon the facts and the evidence that
[1:26:49] was available at the time of permit denial. Uh, Miss Elder
[1:26:52] stated that it's based upon the evidence presented in the
[1:26:55] hearing. It is not an article ten appeal is specific. It's
[1:26:59] the facts that we're in the in the the facts in the evidence
[1:27:04] established at the exact time of permit denial. Um, his job
[1:27:08] is to put himself in the shoes of the decision maker that had
[1:27:11] the information available to look at it and figure out if
[1:27:13] they made the right decision. But that unfortunately, policy
[1:27:17] 4.14, that question was never decided. Instead, the basis for
[1:27:22] the denial changed. Uh, and this transformed into, uh, that
[1:27:28] I hadn't conclusively established ownership of the
[1:27:31] submerged portion of my parcel. Um.
[1:27:36] At that time, the record included my recorded legal
[1:27:39] description and unbroken chain of title extending more than 60
[1:27:43] years. Two professional boundary surveys, not one, but
[1:27:47] two professional licensed surveyors that are authorized
[1:27:49] to conduct boundary surveys in this state. Uh, a letter from
[1:27:53] my survey or written statement, uh, reiterating that this is my
[1:27:57] property, uh, property appraiser records that are
[1:28:00] recognizing is it a two as a 2.01 acre parcel? Decades of
[1:28:04] taxation and historical evidence concerning the
[1:28:06] property. Yet the administrator's decision
[1:28:09] states, and I quote, following the administrative review
[1:28:14] meeting, the county received confirmation from the state of
[1:28:17] Florida that it claims ownership of the submerged
[1:28:20] lands in question. Those five words are extremely important.
[1:28:25] Following the administrative review hearing, the
[1:28:28] administrator then relied upon that information to conclude
[1:28:31] that I did not own the submerged lands and declared
[1:28:34] the other issues of remaining the other remaining issues
[1:28:38] moot. Um, the administrator never decided the issue that I
[1:28:42] actually appealed. I was never given a meaningful opportunity
[1:28:46] to examine or respond to the new information upon which
[1:28:49] decision upon which that decision was based. The basis
[1:28:53] for a governmental decision cannot become a moving target
[1:28:57] after a hearing is over. Uh, that is a due process problem.
[1:29:02] I had requested Miss Amy Offenbach be present during the
[1:29:05] administrative review hearing. She was my point of contact at
[1:29:08] the county. She knew this better than anyone else. She's
[1:29:10] who I dealt with primarily. I was told by Miss Elder that the
[1:29:14] administrative review process is limited to the county
[1:29:17] administrator, the county attorney, and the growth
[1:29:20] management director. And Miss Amy Offenbach would not be
[1:29:24] present. And she wasn't. And instead, this county
[1:29:28] substituted and didn't abide by their own code and brought
[1:29:30] three extra people into the administrative review hearing
[1:29:33] that had no business being there. That all had input, and
[1:29:36] I was deprived of my procedural due process rights. Um, now the
[1:29:40] essential requirements of law, the administrator was to review
[1:29:44] the facts established at the time of denial. I presented a
[1:29:47] recorded deed in a legal description, a chain of title
[1:29:51] two boundary surveyors, a surveyors written statement,
[1:29:54] property appraiser and tax records and historical evidence
[1:29:57] concerning the property. So what legal authority authorized
[1:30:01] the administrator to disregard this evidence? I found nothing
[1:30:05] in article ten or Martin County Code or applicable law that
[1:30:08] authorizes the county administrator while reviewing a
[1:30:11] building permit denial to disregard those documents and
[1:30:14] substitute an adjudicated ownership claim in his place.
[1:30:19] He is he is not to adjudicate, completing competing claims of
[1:30:23] real to real property. He is not authorized to disregard my
[1:30:26] recorded title and professional surveys, and he is not
[1:30:29] authorized to obtain new information. After the
[1:30:33] administrative review meeting and use it against me without
[1:30:36] an opportunity to respond. So the essential requirements of
[1:30:39] law were not afforded to me as far as Depp's claim, uh, at
[1:30:44] some point I just have to say this plainly. Uh, an
[1:30:49] administrative building permit appeal is not a quiet title
[1:30:52] action. I don't care what Depp claims to own. A claim is not
[1:30:57] title. A claim is not evidence of conveyance, and a claim is
[1:31:01] certainly not a court judgment. I hold the recorded title. I
[1:31:05] have the legal description. I have an unbroken chain of title
[1:31:08] spanning more than 60 years. I have boundary surveys and I
[1:31:11] have Martin County has assessed and taxed this property and
[1:31:15] treated it as buildable for decades. The county has
[1:31:18] collected $269,000 on this property in the last 25 years,
[1:31:24] and are going to try to say that it's unbelievable. I don't
[1:31:26] think that that is fair. Yet somehow my entire interest in
[1:31:31] this property is supposed to just disappear because Depp is
[1:31:34] making a claim. I think everyone understands that
[1:31:38] sometimes government agencies can be wrong. And I think
[1:31:42] Jonathan Dickinson was a great example of that. With Depp. Um,
[1:31:46] everyone remembers what happened there. Uh, Depp is not
[1:31:49] a court. Martin County is not a court. And this article ten
[1:31:52] proceeding is not quite title action. Um, if Depp believes it
[1:31:59] owns property contained within my recorded legal description,
[1:32:02] then they have every right to bring that claim into a proper
[1:32:05] judicial forum and prove it. There's a process for that. But
[1:32:08] until that happens, I'm not going to voluntarily surrender
[1:32:11] my property that I purchased. I physically purchased this
[1:32:13] property with my own money. I pay taxes on it, and it's been
[1:32:18] delineated by a surveyor to to show his mine. And if they have
[1:32:22] an issue with that, then there's there's another avenue
[1:32:24] for that. But this, this proceeding is not that. So most
[1:32:27] importantly, uh, the reason for today's appeal, um, this was
[1:32:34] not the reason that the permit was even denied. Mr. Donaldson
[1:32:39] violated the essential requirements of law by relying
[1:32:42] upon post hearing information, disregarding my legal
[1:32:45] description and boundary survey, and attempting to
[1:32:48] adjudicate title to lands which is well beyond his legal
[1:32:51] authority. And in an administrative hearing. Um,
[1:32:54] finally, as far as competent, substantial evidence during the
[1:32:58] administrative review, there were references to state TIF
[1:33:01] deeds, leases and other documents, supposedly in the
[1:33:05] record are supposedly, uh, that have been recorded. Not a
[1:33:10] single document establishing that the state owns the
[1:33:13] property contained within my legal description was
[1:33:15] introduced for me to examine or rebut. Not a single document.
[1:33:19] The documentary documentary evidence before the
[1:33:22] administrator supporting my position included my deed,
[1:33:25] legal description, chain of title, survey, surveyor
[1:33:27] statement, property appraiser records, tax records,
[1:33:31] historical evidence, and decades of county treatment of
[1:33:33] similar situated properties. That was the actual evidence. I
[1:33:38] was not presented with a single piece of evidence to say
[1:33:41] otherwise. I public record requested any emails or
[1:33:44] correspondence that Mr. Donaldson had with Depp.
[1:33:47] Following the administrative review process. There was none.
[1:33:50] He relied upon a verbal claim to make his decision. That is
[1:33:55] not substantial evidence whatsoever. In conclusion, I'm
[1:34:02] not asking for special treatment. I'm asking for the
[1:34:04] code to be interpreted and applied to my property the same
[1:34:07] way it's been applied for the last four decades in this
[1:34:10] county. The permit was denied based upon policy 4.14. The
[1:34:14] administrator never decided whether that interpretation was
[1:34:17] correct. The citizens must be able to rely upon the recorded
[1:34:21] deeds, legal descriptions, boundary surveys, property
[1:34:25] records, and decades of taxation. Unless a court of
[1:34:29] competent jurisdiction determines otherwise. Think
[1:34:33] about what an alternative means. If somebody can simply
[1:34:36] make a claim against property that a citizen holds recorded
[1:34:39] title to, and has paid taxes on for decades, and the county can
[1:34:43] disregard that citizens deed and surveys merely because of
[1:34:45] that claim, then what exactly does property ownership mean in
[1:34:49] Martin County? I'm asking to build a single family home on
[1:34:54] my own property. For my family, my property surrounded on three
[1:34:58] sides by four houses. I respectfully asked this board
[1:35:05] to reverse the county administrator's decision,
[1:35:07] reverse the permit denial, and direct staff to process my
[1:35:09] building permit consistent with the property's recorded legal
[1:35:12] description and the applicable provisions of the Martin County
[1:35:15] Comp Plan and Land Development Regulations. Thank you. Any
[1:35:19] questions? Thank you. Questions for Mr.
[1:35:21] Beaton. We'll have to ask him.
[1:35:23] Yeah. Thank you. Thank you sir. Um, just as an
[1:35:30] aside, what do you do for a living?
[1:35:32] Uh, firefighter. Interesting.
[1:35:34] You did a nice presentation. Uh, second question. Um, am I
[1:35:39] allowed to just generally ask questions just for background?
[1:35:42] Like, what did you pay for your property and when did you
[1:35:44] purchase it? I purchased it, uh, 2023. I
[1:35:47] paid 1.3 million. 2023.
[1:35:50] 1.3. At the time, it was assessed at
[1:35:55] 1.1. On the property appraiser role.
[1:36:02] It's a two acre is the criteria for being allowed to have the
[1:36:06] building permit correct? Two eight, two acres or more. And
[1:36:12] what is that? I'm just doing this for reiteration. What is
[1:36:17] the what is the county saying that you what is their
[1:36:22] interpretation of the amount of property that you have? Uh.
[1:36:26] 1.7 of dry land, 2.01 acres. Total, 1.7. 2.2.01. So that's
[1:36:40] the little extra is what's in the water just.
[1:36:44] Yes. Correct. Thank you.
[1:36:50] Mr. Vargas. You know, um, having been in
[1:36:54] real estate for many years, I really admire the lengths you
[1:36:57] went to. I would do the same thing as you. Uh, if I were
[1:37:02] planning on moving my family, my homestead, my last home, I
[1:37:06] think forever home to this piece of property. You
[1:37:10] certainly have spent a lot of money, uh, looking into. Is
[1:37:14] this the right move for my family? And then also to sell
[1:37:17] your homestead? Yeah.
[1:37:20] That's admirable to me. When I have been involved with the
[1:37:25] county, not this county, but another county. Uh, and looking
[1:37:29] at property, I, too, had to rely on what staff said, uh,
[1:37:34] because that's the only way I can say. Well, you know, this
[1:37:37] is this is a good avenue to take or. No, I really should do
[1:37:41] something else. But you've done the other something else in
[1:37:45] addition to that, policies here should not be floating and
[1:37:50] should not, you know, be constructed as situations come
[1:37:53] up. Um, we're talking about three other properties, 1984,
[1:37:57] 2016, 2023, which were labeled as mistakes. They could have
[1:38:03] been. However, you're basing your argument on the fact that
[1:38:08] these are similar properties, correct?
[1:38:11] Identical. Identical. Um, so having said
[1:38:16] that, we're talking about submerged lands, riparian
[1:38:20] rights. And this is this is the key component. Is that correct?
[1:38:25] Correct. To be able to allow you to go
[1:38:27] forward. Okay. Um, but you certainly have the landmass
[1:38:33] without interfering with, um, conservation areas. That would
[1:38:39] be unbelievable. Correct? Okay. Um, so having said that, I
[1:38:45] understood that what you're looking for, I understand what
[1:38:49] you've done to to spend $1.3 million, um, is a chunk of
[1:38:57] change. And as I say, it's very hard to to remake that again.
[1:39:05] Okay. Um, I just wanted to clarify. I think a report was
[1:39:09] was thorough, complete. It was very understandable. We don't
[1:39:14] need to go through all the facts again. It's already
[1:39:16] recorded. Thank you. Thank you.
[1:39:18] Any further questions? Would staff like to give a
[1:39:22] presentation? Yes.
[1:39:24] Thank you. Chair. Uh, Pete Walden, deputy growth
[1:39:27] management director, and I do have a copy of the agenda with
[1:39:31] some, uh, exhibits. I threw l which did not make it into the
[1:39:36] formal agenda that is included. And I believe those were
[1:39:39] provided on the DS for the commissioners. So I'm going to
[1:39:44] go through a brief history of the events that led up and the
[1:39:48] timeline that led up to this, and then I'll give it back to
[1:39:52] the county attorney and administrator to follow through
[1:39:55] about process and the decisions made. So this is a synopsis of
[1:40:00] the property and the timeline that is the subject of the
[1:40:03] quasi judicial appeal before you today. According to deeds
[1:40:08] shown on the property, Appraisers website in April of
[1:40:11] 2000, lot one, River's Edge and unrecorded subdivision was
[1:40:16] divided and sold. This created the parcel that Mr. Beaton now
[1:40:20] owns. In January of 2016, a zoning letter was issued to Mr.
[1:40:27] McNicholas of McCarthy, summers, Bob Co wood, Norman
[1:40:31] Bass and MLBPA regarding the subject site. The letter stated
[1:40:37] the zoning district of A-1 Small Farms District, the land
[1:40:42] use of rural density, both required a minimum lot size of
[1:40:46] two acres, and the development setbacks of the parcel. The
[1:40:51] letter also called into question the lot size,
[1:40:54] indicating that the property appraisers website described
[1:40:57] the lot area as 1.69 acres. While the survey showed two
[1:41:02] acres, including submerged lands. In October of 2023,
[1:41:08] McCarthy summers submitted an application for a future land
[1:41:13] use amendment and concurrent zoning district change for the
[1:41:16] subject property. The amendment was to change the existing land
[1:41:20] use of rural density to one unit per two acres to a state
[1:41:25] density one unit per acre, and the concurrent A-1 Small Farms
[1:41:30] District to one re dash one, a residential estate district. In
[1:41:38] December of 2023, the application was formally
[1:41:41] withdrawn. Of note, staff supported the land use changes
[1:41:47] and was prepared to take it forward to the Board of County
[1:41:50] Commissioners on August 7th of 2025. Mr. Beaton applied for a
[1:41:56] building permit to construct a single family residence on
[1:42:00] April 24th of 2026. The Martin County Building official
[1:42:05] emailed a conditions report to Mr. Beaton, stating the
[1:42:08] building permit could not be issued due to the inability to
[1:42:11] meet zoning requirements. On May 14th, 2026, the county
[1:42:17] administrator received a notice of appeal regarding the denial
[1:42:21] of building permit build 2025 080317 for the construction of
[1:42:27] a single family residence at 1802 50 Southeast Loxahatchee
[1:42:32] River road. Mr. Beaton's property. On June 17th, 2026,
[1:42:38] Don Donaldson conducted an administrative review of the
[1:42:42] permit application. Mr. Beaton and county staff attended on
[1:42:47] June 30th, 2026. Mr. Donaldson sent a determination to Mr.
[1:42:51] Beaton that the denial of the permit was appropriate. On July
[1:42:57] 10th, 2026, the county received a Notice of Appeal to the BCC
[1:43:02] for the subject parcel and building permit. Staff prepared
[1:43:06] the earliest appropriate hearing regarding the matter
[1:43:09] for today's agenda, and with that, I'll give it back to the
[1:43:13] county attorney and Mr. Donaldson to follow through
[1:43:16] with the process and the decisions made.
[1:43:18] So I'm just going to summarize some of the facts that Mr.
[1:43:21] Waldon, um, just told the board and that what were discussed at
[1:43:25] the article ten appeal review meeting that Mr. Beaton
[1:43:29] neglected to tell the board. So in 2001, like Mr. Waldon said,
[1:43:34] Mr. Beaton's property was created by an illegal lot
[1:43:37] split. Um, this was, uh, told to the previous owner who hired
[1:43:42] Terry McCarthy's firm to do a land use and a zoning change
[1:43:46] because they needed that change in order to build a house on
[1:43:49] the property. Because the current zoning said you have to
[1:43:51] have two acre lots, and they only had 1.74. So they went
[1:43:56] through the entire application process, and it was teed up to
[1:43:59] come to the board for a land use and zoning change, to
[1:44:02] change the land use and zoning for one acre parcels. Because
[1:44:06] the predecessor understood that Mr. Beaton's property did not
[1:44:10] qualify for a building permit, as it was currently situated,
[1:44:14] given it was an illegal lot split. Mr. Beaton bought the
[1:44:18] property and withdrew that application. It was Mr. Beaton
[1:44:21] who knew about the application. Staff explained the
[1:44:23] implications of it. He withdrew the application so after he, um
[1:44:30] applied for the building permit, I was involved in that
[1:44:32] process as well. I spoke to Mr. Beaton. I've emailed Mr.
[1:44:35] Beaton, I've had, um, meetings with Mr. Beaton and I
[1:44:40] questioned the ownership of the submerged land because it's
[1:44:43] very unique in Florida for anybody to own submerged lands.
[1:44:46] So I did some independent research during that time. I
[1:44:50] found tiff deeds that, um, the DEP in the state had over his
[1:44:55] property, and it might show he has ownership of that property.
[1:44:59] But if you have a Tiff deed over that, the state is
[1:45:01] claiming an interest in it and it's not really your property.
[1:45:05] So I explained that to Mr. Beaton and I asked him, can you
[1:45:08] write to the state? You can write to DEP and you can get a
[1:45:11] letter from DEP that they're not claiming any ownership in
[1:45:15] the land. Mr. Beaton refused to do that through the process. So
[1:45:20] this was something that I raised throughout the process
[1:45:22] for Mr. Beaton to get this letter from DEP or some proof
[1:45:26] that he owned the land, he insisted he had a legal
[1:45:30] description and a boundary survey. So he owned the land
[1:45:34] and he didn't need to do anything further. The building
[1:45:38] permit was denied. We had the article ten appeal with Mr.
[1:45:41] Donaldson. During the article ten appeal, I raised the issue
[1:45:44] again. I told Mr. Donaldson that there was a question of
[1:45:48] ownership of the submerged lands, that dep that the state
[1:45:52] had some tiff deeds over these back from the 60s, and it was
[1:45:56] in the whole area where his house was. So this issue was
[1:45:59] raised during the article ten appeal. The other issue is that
[1:46:03] even if Mr. Beaton owned the land in Martin County, based on
[1:46:07] the comprehensive plan, you cannot use submerged lands
[1:46:11] towards your lot density. That is a strict policy in Martin
[1:46:14] County. Any applicant who's been before this board,
[1:46:17] including prior developments, have followed that. And I'm
[1:46:21] going to let Mr. Schilling talk about that for a second,
[1:46:24] because that's an important aspect of this. Even if you own
[1:46:27] the land, he wouldn't be able to have his building permit.
[1:46:30] Uh. Thank you, Paul Schilling,
[1:46:32] growth management director, for the record. So, um, yes. So the
[1:46:37] 1967 zoning code, which is the A-1, requires two acre lots.
[1:46:43] Um, fast forward to today. Um, there's still that provision.
[1:46:47] That provision is in place with the with the category C and the
[1:46:52] land use appropriate to this. Um, that does not talk about
[1:46:58] submerged land. It talks about lot area. In fact, um, it's
[1:47:02] crystal clear says shall not be less than two acres. Um, that
[1:47:07] has been the case since 1967. This lot was carved out of a
[1:47:12] piece, as were multiple lots within this unrecorded
[1:47:15] subdivision. Um, some met the lot size, some may not have.
[1:47:20] But this one in particular was created in the year 2000 or
[1:47:23] thereabouts. It does not qualify for any reduction in
[1:47:27] shoreline protection zones, so it has a 75 foot shoreline
[1:47:30] protection zone, which, as you may recall, was a matter that
[1:47:34] was debated substantially. We've met with this gentleman,
[1:47:38] um, multiple times throughout throughout this whole process.
[1:47:43] Um, uh, the facts that he mentioned with a member of my
[1:47:47] staff, um, are, are I would argue I would, uh, say that are
[1:47:55] not accurate. Um, certainly, uh, he had his own opinion. Um,
[1:48:00] he requested one of our members of staff withdraw that
[1:48:03] application vehemently, uh, for the land use change. That that
[1:48:08] Miss Alder just mentioned. So regardless of of of of a lot of
[1:48:13] things, quite frankly, um, I, the board no one in this agency
[1:48:20] has the has the jurisdiction to violate the comprehensive plan,
[1:48:25] um, or the or the zoning district. Um, and what I was
[1:48:29] getting at earlier, had this lot been created prior to the
[1:48:32] zoning code, then it may have been a different matter. Uh,
[1:48:36] but we have never allocated submerged land for creating a
[1:48:42] buildable lot in that manner. We do have a couple down the
[1:48:46] street, one in particular that Mr. Beaton mentioned. Um, it
[1:48:50] was an application to redevelop that site. It had been a lot
[1:48:53] split. I think that was in 2023 or thereabouts. Uh, and a
[1:48:57] member of my staff and I missed that. Um, that was a survey
[1:49:02] that indicated, uh, the water within the boundary, but also
[1:49:06] the upland, which clearly did not meet it. I missed it, um,
[1:49:10] but that does not give me jurisdiction. Uh, or the
[1:49:14] ability to violate the comprehensive plan in the
[1:49:17] zoning code and continue to do that. So have there been things
[1:49:20] that have happened throughout the county within the last 40
[1:49:23] years? Certainly. Uh, we're not perfect. We do our best. Uh,
[1:49:27] fast forward to 2023 and certainly the last 15 years,
[1:49:32] uh, our processes, we've got much more refined. We have the
[1:49:35] tools to to make decisions instantly. But, um, the way
[1:49:41] that was characterized is not necessarily accurate. Um. Any
[1:49:45] other questions? Maybe I'll extrapolate a little
[1:49:49] bit more on, uh, the comprehensive plan and what it
[1:49:51] says. It basically goes in 4.18 states that we count the upland
[1:49:57] areas from the mean high water line upland.
[1:50:00] No it doesn't. So.
[1:50:03] Um. So it's been our policy, at
[1:50:06] least in the last ten years that I've been working with
[1:50:08] Development Review, that all developments that get approved
[1:50:11] in any sites have to meet the density of the upland area. So
[1:50:16] that's that's been what we do. We even have when the
[1:50:19] development comes in, we have the DEP certified, the mean
[1:50:22] high water line. So we make an accurate determination as to
[1:50:27] the upland area. So that is something that the county has
[1:50:31] done thoroughly. And yes, there have been some mistakes in the
[1:50:35] permit review process. Uh, like Paul said, but uh,
[1:50:39] substantially throughout our history, we count the upland
[1:50:43] area for density purposes. So the last thing I want to
[1:50:46] touch base is the administrative review meeting.
[1:50:48] And Mister Donaldson's decision. Mr.. Um, Schilling
[1:50:52] was there, Mister Walden was there but didn't speak. And
[1:50:55] Mr.. Um Dougherty was there. They're the department heads
[1:50:59] that were responsible for the denial. So they were there. So
[1:51:02] there was no no other testimony except for me. And then,
[1:51:06] mister, if you read the letter, which is part of the record, it
[1:51:09] says, after reviewing the record and considering the
[1:51:11] information presented during the administrative review
[1:51:14] meeting, I have determined that the denial of the above
[1:51:17] referenced building permit was appropriate because you did not
[1:51:20] conclusively demonstrate that you own the submerged lands at
[1:51:23] issue. That was an issue raised during the hearing. It was an
[1:51:27] issue addressed by staff, and that's what Mr. Donaldson based
[1:51:30] his his decision on. Down below, there's a sentence that
[1:51:36] says, in addition, Deb told us they are claiming an interest
[1:51:39] to the land that did not go into Mr. Donaldson's decision.
[1:51:42] As you can see, the way the letter is written, that was
[1:51:45] just an FYI. We want to let you know that Mr. Donaldson found
[1:51:48] this, but we also found out from DEP later, after he made
[1:51:52] his decision, because Mr. Donaldson made his decision
[1:51:55] relatively quickly that DEP agreed. So that was just for
[1:51:59] informational purposes. It had nothing to do with Mr.
[1:52:02] Donaldson's decision. He had no contact with DEP. So I'm going
[1:52:05] to ask Mr. Donaldson to explain to you what he based his
[1:52:08] decision on. So, there, uh, again, um, Mr.
[1:52:13] Beaton's, uh, issue was, uh, uh, the two, as he's mentioned
[1:52:19] about the, uh, interpretation of the code related to total
[1:52:23] land area. And then it was, um, principally with his surveys
[1:52:28] and his legal descriptions, as he has, saying that that that
[1:52:32] was evidence that he owned the land. And reading the surveyors
[1:52:36] note, if there is, uh, it simply has a boundary survey of
[1:52:41] the legal description that was recorded in the courthouse or
[1:52:45] that he had from the lot split. Um, and there was no testimony
[1:52:50] to assert that they actually owned submerged lands. I think
[1:52:54] it is a boundary survey. It is a survey of the legal
[1:52:58] description that he has. But it's but there was no testimony
[1:53:02] or evidence to say that this boundary survey, uh, meets and
[1:53:06] bound survey, um, had, uh, ownership of, of the submerged
[1:53:11] lands and in the state of Florida, you know, when we
[1:53:14] became a state in all of the submerged lands to the mean
[1:53:19] high water line are owned by the state, except for a few
[1:53:23] areas where prior kings of Spain or England donated or
[1:53:28] conveyed properties under um, uh, that so so that portion of
[1:53:34] property is complicated, and I'm, I'm not, uh, testifying to
[1:53:39] be an expert on it, but we've come across it with county
[1:53:41] owned property, um, in various properties that we either own
[1:53:46] or purchased, and it may have a boundary description that shows
[1:53:50] out into the water, but we actually don't own it. And in
[1:53:52] some cases we do. In Jensen Beach, there's some areas that
[1:53:56] we actually have tiff deeds. Uh, and so that, that, that,
[1:54:01] that, uh, it is complicated. All I said was that looking at
[1:54:05] Mr. Beaton's survey, that he presented, it was certainly a
[1:54:09] boundary survey. Uh, and the surveyors note, uh, which is, I
[1:54:13] think one of the exhibits in here, he simply surveyed the
[1:54:17] boundaries that were provided by Mr. Beaton and that what
[1:54:21] they found that that were recorded, um, and and you can
[1:54:25] record as was done in this property a lot split. You can
[1:54:29] go in and split your property. Um, and create divided into
[1:54:35] pieces the, the issues. When you divide it into pieces, you
[1:54:39] may be legally able to do that. Um, and the I think the term of
[1:54:44] art that we used as an a legal law split doesn't mean it was
[1:54:48] done. Um, uh, you know, you know, it when, when you do a
[1:54:54] lot split, it just means that it may not comply with the
[1:54:57] county codes for building purposes. So a lot split that
[1:55:01] would be considered, um, under the zoning code as a lot split,
[1:55:05] like when Palm City Farms, you convey a ten acre lot could be
[1:55:09] split into two, five acre lots. You can go and do that and
[1:55:12] record it without even talking to the county at all. When it's
[1:55:16] provided as evidence to the staff for a building permit.
[1:55:18] Then they check to see doesn't meet the zoning codes. So those
[1:55:21] are you can do lots of things in recording in the courthouse
[1:55:25] of, of uh, conveyance of properties. Farmers do it all
[1:55:28] the time to split out pieces of property that they farm
[1:55:31] different pieces, but it doesn't mean it's eligible for
[1:55:33] a building permit. So in this particular case, I specifically
[1:55:37] looked at there was a lot of discussion on on. And as you
[1:55:41] can tell about ownership of the entire parcel, I'm sure that's
[1:55:46] what Mr. Beaton was conveyed, uh, from the prior property
[1:55:49] owner, uh, the surveyor simply plotted out as a a boundary
[1:55:55] survey, but I didn't feel that there was any substantial
[1:55:59] evidence to actually affirm that the, um. And the surveyor
[1:56:05] did not state that. It just simply said they they they they
[1:56:08] did a boundary survey based upon was a recorded. So, uh,
[1:56:12] other than Mr. Beaton's testimony that it had been
[1:56:14] dredged from uplands, uh, in the past and, um, and the
[1:56:20] assertion that that and other parcels of the property were,
[1:56:24] were actually, um, privately owned, based upon the sequence
[1:56:28] of events, um, under his opinion, I didn't find any
[1:56:33] other substantial, competent evidence from from other
[1:56:36] experts to affirm his, his, his claim on the submerged land.
[1:56:40] And so that was basis of my decision. And then following
[1:56:44] that decision, um, Miss Elder is correct. They did reach out
[1:56:48] to DEP to find out if there was any, um, claim, because this is
[1:56:53] on the Loxahatchee River, a wild and scenic river which has
[1:56:57] a lot of, um, interest from the state. Um, and um, as well as
[1:57:03] our Indian River lagoon and other areas. So it's a that
[1:57:06] that portion of the of property rights is complicated and, and,
[1:57:11] and given the what I had received, that was the basis of
[1:57:14] my decision. I don't I don't have any
[1:57:19] further questions. So under the board's rules, now is the time
[1:57:21] for the board to ask questions to staff and then it's board
[1:57:25] deliberation. Right.
[1:57:27] Commissioner Hetherington. I have a couple questions. I
[1:57:30] might have some more. So the lot was split prior to your
[1:57:33] ownership? Yes. Okay. And then you started to go into this,
[1:57:38] Pete and and Paul, you you mentioned the comprehensive
[1:57:41] plan. I think it was 4.1 E. How do you defined in that policy
[1:57:48] what is owned it. That's where the two acre requirement is.
[1:57:55] What defines in that policy. Uh. Substantiates a lot ownership.
[1:58:04] Well the policy from a simplicity standpoint, from our
[1:58:09] regulatory role is we're regulating what is from mean
[1:58:12] high water upland. Um, so the comprehensive plan is talking
[1:58:17] about some other things, but generally, um, it is the, the,
[1:58:22] um, uh, measurement of lot size from the mean high water line.
[1:58:30] So like I said earlier, for example, the shoreline
[1:58:33] protection zone that is not taken from a boundary out in
[1:58:36] the Loxahatchee River. It is taking from the shoreline where
[1:58:40] the mangroves are and so forth. You pull that provision up. So
[1:58:44] I could see how it reads. Sure. And then while you're doing
[1:58:47] that, Mr. Beaton, you said when when Mr. Schilling had said
[1:58:51] reference 4.1 e you said it does not say that. What's your
[1:58:55] interpretation of what it says? 4.14 is very clear. It's very
[1:59:00] specific. It can be broken down in Webster's dictionary. It has
[1:59:04] two legs to it. The first says the boundary must be delineated
[1:59:07] as per the state statutes, which is having a professional
[1:59:09] license boundary survey performed. It's based upon the
[1:59:13] legal description of the parcel of land. That's the first leg
[1:59:16] of the policy. The second says no submerged land areas, water.
[1:59:20] Word of that boundary line can be used. So I keep hearing
[1:59:25] staff's talking about the mean high water line. There's
[1:59:27] nothing in there that references mean high water line
[1:59:30] whatsoever. It's the boundary line is what's specifically
[1:59:34] referenced. If no submerged land areas could be used
[1:59:36] towards density, the policy could be this clear. It could
[1:59:39] say no submerged land areas can be used towards density period.
[1:59:44] It doesn't say that it says water word of the boundary
[1:59:46] line. So when you're standing on the land looking out over
[1:59:49] the water, the boundary line for this parcel is unique. It's
[1:59:53] further out. You have to walk out to the boundary line and no
[1:59:55] submerged lands, water, word or outside of that boundary line
[1:59:58] can be used, which would stop me from using then riparian
[2:00:01] rights which all waterfront properties have a right to go.
[2:00:05] Access onto the state lands at that point. And that's what
[2:00:08] this policy prevents. So if you turn around standing now,
[2:00:11] that's your landward direction. The policy does not exclude my
[2:00:14] privately owned submerged lands from being used towards my
[2:00:17] density. It's part of my legal description. I pay taxes on it,
[2:00:20] I'm assessed on it, and it's part of the lot area. He says
[2:00:24] he spoke about the lot area, that the lot area is only 1.7.
[2:00:27] That's that's wrong. The lot area is 2.1 acres, 2.01 acres.
[2:00:32] That is the lot area. Um, it's uplands or submerged lands. It
[2:00:36] doesn't matter. I own the river bottom there. Uh, Miss elder
[2:00:40] speaks about tiff deeds. I keep hearing tiff deeds. Deeds?
[2:00:44] There is no Divest me or my predecessors in
[2:00:47] the chain of title from the ownership of this property. You
[2:00:50] never presented one deed. You didn't give me anything. I
[2:00:53] asked for it. Where?
[2:00:55] Where you didn't ask for anything.
[2:00:56] Okay, well, the decision is whether his decision was based
[2:00:59] upon substantial evidence. There was none. I did ask you
[2:01:03] for it. I did ask you for it. I said where? Show me a deed.
[2:01:06] Give me something. There was nothing..
[2:01:11] Any further questions, Commissioner Harris?
[2:01:13] Are there deeds that we presented?
[2:01:16] There are deeds and declarations that exist that I
[2:01:20] have. But what were they?
[2:01:22] He didn't ask for them, so I did not give them to him. But
[2:01:25] they do exist. And I did bring them up to him, and asked him
[2:01:28] to get a letter of the state, because we found them during
[2:01:32] this process. So they exist. But he didn't ask me for them.
[2:01:35] I mean, I've had him at meetings with him. but I was
[2:01:38] never asked. And you're saying that
[2:01:40] specifically his reference in the title to my property? Is
[2:01:43] that what you're. Saying there? Referenced their
[2:01:45] deeds and declarations that reference your the area of your
[2:01:48] property. Area around my property.
[2:01:50] Correct. Including your submerged.
[2:01:52] Lands, including mine. For the record, my submerged lands.
[2:01:55] That's what you're saying. That's that's what the. Yes.
[2:01:58] All right, let's get back to the procedure here,
[2:02:00] Commissioner Vargas. Okay, uh, just a couple of
[2:02:03] comments. Um, did a realtor sell this parcel to you, or was
[2:02:08] this a for sale by owner? I purchased it directly to the
[2:02:11] owner. Okay. Did you take title
[2:02:13] insurance out? I did, okay. You may want to pull out that
[2:02:17] policy. Uh, because there was some question about the
[2:02:19] ownership and it was divided. Just just a suggestion. You can
[2:02:25] consult an attorney about this. A real estate attorney. Pull
[2:02:30] the policy. Commissioner Campi.
[2:02:35] Thank you. Staff had made testimony, I guess, uh, that
[2:02:44] there was an application from the previous owner to change
[2:02:47] this and that you withdrew that application? Why?
[2:02:52] Yes, sir. So before I purchased the property, the error was
[2:02:56] evident in the future land use in the flume. The error was
[2:03:00] evident everywhere, all over it. 1.69 acres. Conversion of a
[2:03:05] 1.69 acre parcel to a one unit per acre. They were only trying
[2:03:09] to rezone this because it wasn't two acres. That was it.
[2:03:14] Um, the formal zoning verification letter that Pete
[2:03:16] Walden issued for this parcel, he made a mistake. And instead
[2:03:20] of owning the mistake, he he tried to just just. We're going
[2:03:24] down the rabbit hole still right now. We're still going
[2:03:26] down the rabbit hole. And he's trying to to defend his
[2:03:29] position. He had a survey, the formal zoning inquiry letter is
[2:03:33] very clear. It says property appraiser indicates the
[2:03:36] property is 1.69 acres, while a private survey shows two acres
[2:03:40] and submerged lands. Please verify that the lot complies.
[2:03:43] Do you have a copy of that letter?
[2:03:45] Yes, sir, I do. And I asked Miss Amy Offenbach. I said, did
[2:03:49] the landowner ever just take the simple step of verifying
[2:03:52] that it was two acres? And she said, no, they didn't. Instead
[2:03:56] they were going to go for the rezone because the rezone would
[2:03:58] have then allowed one unit per acre, and she wanted to split
[2:04:01] it anyways, but she couldn't split it again. They called it
[2:04:04] an illegal lot split. It wasn't illegal. State um, allows a lot
[2:04:08] split on these parcels, but they they wanted to further
[2:04:11] subdivide it into two parcels an acre and an acre. That was
[2:04:15] the intention from. Madam Chair. May I just, uh,
[2:04:18] just to clarify, throughout this entire last three years,
[2:04:23] this applicant could have had he not agreed with that zoning
[2:04:26] letter that was issued in 2016, which has been
[2:04:29] mischaracterized, um, I may add, that was signed by my
[2:04:33] predecessor. Had he not agreed of the with the contents of
[2:04:36] that letter, he in and of himself could have prior to
[2:04:40] purchasing this property, could have requested a zoning letter
[2:04:44] to answer all those questions and make certain assumptions.
[2:04:47] So I just wanted to. I spoke directly.
[2:04:50] With staff. I'm asking questions. Thank you. Uh, next
[2:04:54] question. I had heard testimony that said you could have
[2:04:58] contacted the DEP, yet you chose not to. Did you ever
[2:05:02] reach out to the state DEP or anybody at the state level?
[2:05:05] Absolutely not. Just a hypothetical scenario. If you
[2:05:08] own property, right. Everyone here lives in Martin County,
[2:05:11] owns property. Uh, let's say you wanted to put a a mother in
[2:05:15] law suite or build a pool in your backyard so you get a
[2:05:17] survey done, you put it on the site plan, you present it to
[2:05:21] the county, your neighbor goes, you can't build that right
[2:05:23] there. That's my property. Okay.
[2:05:26] Thank you. What do you say to that?
[2:05:27] Um. The applicant had said this is to staff. The applicant had
[2:05:35] said that there have been other homes built in the same area
[2:05:39] where all of those lot sizes, two acres or more, or any of
[2:05:44] them less actual homes that are currently existing there now,
[2:05:49] are there homes on property that's less than two acres, or
[2:05:53] are they utilizing water as to get to two acres?
[2:05:59] The one in particular in which I don't recall the the name of
[2:06:02] the property owner that was fairly recent that we missed,
[2:06:05] that I acknowledged, um, in fact took portions of a small
[2:06:10] tributary canal, if you will. Uh, certainly not the
[2:06:15] Loxahatchee River, but it did have, um, it did have a lot
[2:06:19] size less than two acres. Yes, sir. Now, I would point out a
[2:06:23] lot. Split is a private action. So, um, as Mr. Donaldson
[2:06:28] indicated, there can be property scattered throughout
[2:06:30] the county that took it that that utilized that process. But
[2:06:34] when it comes for a building permit is when that comes in.
[2:06:37] There can also be certain there are, uh, almost infinite, um,
[2:06:44] variables with these properties. When they were
[2:06:46] made, what the particulars are, what the ownership. Um, so, um,
[2:06:51] each one is unique in and of itself. But yes, sir, there are
[2:06:55] at least one out there that does not meet the minimum lot
[2:06:58] size of, of. At least one potentially more.
[2:07:00] Correct. Yes. Um. Thank you. Uh, I heard
[2:07:05] testimony that said that there were approvals in 1984, 2016,
[2:07:10] 2023, and then now, are those the approvals that you're
[2:07:14] speaking of? Mr. Schilling? Those are, uh, I believe the
[2:07:21] applicant had mentioned those those, um, I mean, we're
[2:07:24] talking about the period of of almost 50 years or whatever.
[2:07:29] Um, but as I indicated, certainly, um, there are some
[2:07:34] things out there that probably don't. However, um, I have not
[2:07:40] done a deep analysis of those properties back from the 80s
[2:07:44] because, number one, I wasn't here. And number two, there may
[2:07:49] be limited, limited records. I understand I'm just trying to
[2:07:51] run through the points that I had heard from staff's
[2:07:55] presentation in the applicant's presentation. These are things
[2:07:58] that caused me to write a note down. Uh, I had heard that at
[2:08:04] the hearing that you conducted, Mr. Donaldson, that there were
[2:08:08] only supposed to be the administrator, the attorney,
[2:08:11] and the head of the growth management department with the
[2:08:13] three people that was supposed to participate in that.
[2:08:15] However, there were six people at the meeting. We heard that
[2:08:18] it was Mr. Walden. We heard that it was Mr. Doherty who was
[2:08:21] the. Who was the other person? Uh, Mr. Dolan was also there at
[2:08:24] my request. He did have interactions with the applicant
[2:08:27] at some point in time. Now, when it's supposed to be
[2:08:31] only three. Is that so? It's it's not only three, it's
[2:08:34] the department director. So we did have Mr. Schilling and Mr.
[2:08:37] Doherty who was giving all the testimony, um, to Mr.
[2:08:41] Donaldson. So they were both supposed to be there. And then
[2:08:45] Mr. Schilling, if he had questions, had Mr. Walden and
[2:08:48] Mr.. Uh, Doolan if he if Mr. Schilling. But he gave the
[2:08:53] presentation. Understood. But is there any
[2:08:55] requirement that it only be department heads? Is there any
[2:08:58] requirement that it only be three people.
[2:09:00] Know there's a requirement that the people who are
[2:09:02] participating speaking during the review are the department
[2:09:06] heads, the county attorney and the administrator.
[2:09:09] However, we're hearing now that Mr. Dolan did speak.
[2:09:12] To miss. No, no. He. spoke just for the record,
[2:09:15] Mr. Dolan did, in fact, speak. I believe what the applicant
[2:09:19] prior to his purchase regarding the withdrawal of.
[2:09:21] The. Loan, I'm talking only at the
[2:09:23] meeting. No, he did not. Just Mr.
[2:09:25] Schilling and then Mr.. Did you speak?
[2:09:28] Clyde may have had a few words at the meeting. Yes.
[2:09:30] Sir. Right. So, Mr. Walden, you did not
[2:09:34] participate. Uh, was there I might have
[2:09:38] spoken on 1 or 2 instances, but I don't recall.
[2:09:42] Okay. Uh, some other questions. The
[2:09:50] roadmap that the applicant spoke of, that in the beginning
[2:09:56] of your presentation. Sir, you said that during your due
[2:09:59] diligence, you did what most people, smart, savvy people
[2:10:04] that are about to make a more than $1 million investment
[2:10:07] would do due diligence. You said that you spoke to. And
[2:10:11] what I liked is a lot of people would tell the commissioners, I
[2:10:15] spoke to someone at the county who'd you speak to? I don't
[2:10:18] know, makes it much more challenging. You do know you
[2:10:22] said during this testimony that you stood up and swore that you
[2:10:26] would tell us the truth, that you basically, in your word,
[2:10:29] was you received a roadmap on what you would need to do prior
[2:10:35] to you purchasing, closing on the property, correct?
[2:10:37] Correct. For Mrs.. From Miss Offenbach.
[2:10:41] Uh, was that a verbal roadmap or a document?
[2:10:47] It started as a verbal and, uh, it evolved into a written
[2:10:52] document from Miss Offenbach. After getting everything fixed,
[2:10:56] she did confirm all the usage and I was very specific in the
[2:11:01] email chain with Miss Offenbach.
[2:11:03] Okay, so did was those email that email chain or this your
[2:11:09] words roadmap? Um, was that presented to staff and to Mr.
[2:11:14] Donaldson so that we'd have a better understanding of how you
[2:11:18] got to where you were? Yes. Yes, sir.
[2:11:21] Was. Um. I heard from our chair and
[2:11:30] from Miss Elder what the procedure of today's agenda
[2:11:35] item is meant to be, that we weren't going to necessarily be
[2:11:39] hearing additional testimony, even though to me, this sounds
[2:11:43] like testimony. Um, that being said, why isn't Miss Offenbach
[2:11:49] and Mr. Fox here? Are they not allowed to participate in this?
[2:11:54] She seems to be integral in the process that he decided to make
[2:11:59] this investment, and even post closing would have been his at
[2:12:06] least guide through the process. It doesn't get to Mr.
[2:12:08] Schilling. It doesn't get to Miss Elder, and it doesn't get
[2:12:11] to Mr. Donaldson. It goes through a process on the levels
[2:12:16] of employment. Why aren't they here?
[2:12:20] So they didn't participate in the article ten appeal hearing.
[2:12:23] So that's why they're not at this meeting today. They
[2:12:26] weren't at the article ten meeting because you only have
[2:12:29] higher level management department directors that
[2:12:31] participate in that. Except for Mr. Walton.
[2:12:34] Well, their division heads within the growth management
[2:12:36] department. So I think that's why they were there. But you
[2:12:38] usually don't have staff level in there. Um, for article ten
[2:12:42] appeals. It's just not what you do.
[2:12:45] I'm not asking why they were not at that meeting. I'm asking
[2:12:49] why they're not here. Because they didn't participate
[2:12:51] in the administrative review meeting.
[2:12:53] But a lot of what we're discussing is hearsay from
[2:12:59] staff and from the applicant. Their names have been mentioned
[2:13:03] several times. So the board shouldn't consider
[2:13:06] new, should only consider what was presented at the
[2:13:09] administrative review meeting, which is what staff has been
[2:13:13] talking about. That's all that the board should consider in
[2:13:16] this. So those people were not included.
[2:13:18] Believe it or not, I actually can differentiate and discern
[2:13:22] between the two. If so, to me there's really two
[2:13:25] conversations happening at the same time. And from the
[2:13:28] applicant's point of view, it's mostly about hey, I looked at
[2:13:32] this property that I would tell me that I could purchase. Uh,
[2:13:37] and build a single family home, not a neighborhood. One house
[2:13:41] on one piece of property. And it was a 1.7 with a two wet,
[2:13:49] 1.7 dry to get him to the two. I can imagine the
[2:13:54] conversations. Any of us can put our own, put ourselves into
[2:13:58] that same circumstance and say, do we buy this? Can we build a
[2:14:01] house on it? No one is buying a piece of property. You know,
[2:14:05] knowingly, that can have a house on it. You're not buying
[2:14:10] parkland, you're not buying a lot. Um, but that being said,
[2:14:16] if I can separate all of like, hey, how did we get here? To
[2:14:20] the process, Miss Elder. To the process. This that was sitting
[2:14:24] on the dais this morning. This these documents, um, BCC public
[2:14:30] hearing agenda item DPC one exhibits I through l attached
[2:14:35] documents were inadvertently left off the board item left
[2:14:39] off the board item by who? We did. Yes, sir. Our office
[2:14:43] with the rendering of the PDF. Um.
[2:14:48] So we're only getting to see this right now. This morning.
[2:14:52] They were not part of the PDF. Yes, sir. That's my fault.
[2:14:56] If I'm going to do a process of specifically, did the process
[2:15:00] work itself. Out?
[2:15:02] This wasn't part of it. We did have an admission that mistakes
[2:15:09] had potentially been made in the past. Mr. Donaldson, um,
[2:15:18] who I obviously hold in very high regard, I was one of the
[2:15:20] people that voted to make him have the position that he had
[2:15:27] when when commission Chair Hurd asked us if we had any ex-parte
[2:15:33] communications, I said none. And that's been filed. Now,
[2:15:38] that's not just because I had not spoken with you ever or
[2:15:42] anyone that represented you. I hadn't spoken to staff either
[2:15:46] about this particular item. Now there's the agendas come every
[2:15:50] two weeks and there's lots and there's certain things that I
[2:15:52] need to have assistance and hear more deeply on that. I
[2:15:56] would reach out to staff and say, hey, I need to know more
[2:16:00] about this. And then there's times where staff will schedule
[2:16:04] and request to meet with me and say, hey, look, we have an
[2:16:07] agenda item that's coming up. It's going to have this and
[2:16:09] this and this and this. I didn't do that either. I didn't
[2:16:12] hear from them and I didn't ask them. But now all of a sudden
[2:16:16] I'm here with a pretty complicated agenda item. And
[2:16:20] it's funny because when I read the item, the agenda, we all
[2:16:24] look and say, how many items are here, how many pages is it?
[2:16:27] How long is the day going to. Be?
[2:16:30] This looks like a short agenda, but there's no such thing
[2:16:34] because it could be a two agenda, two item agenda, and it
[2:16:38] could take all day. I am finding, and I've been up here
[2:16:42] a while. I'm finding this to be pretty complicated. I'm finding
[2:16:46] that the stakes are remarkably high for you. Remarkably high
[2:16:53] because. And for us, because one of the first questions I
[2:16:57] asked, which I wasn't trying to foretell the future, is what
[2:17:02] would your next step be if you don't get a decision that you
[2:17:05] like today? And our attorney, who I hold in very high regard
[2:17:09] because I also helped her get that job, um, is you would sue
[2:17:14] us now as a commissioner. All five of us. We are not, um,
[2:17:21] we're not looking for lawsuits. A lot of people say, well, you
[2:17:25] shouldn't be afraid of a lawsuit. And I always tell
[2:17:27] people the same thing. I'm not afraid of a lawsuit. I'm afraid
[2:17:31] of losing a lawsuit. I'm afraid of entering into a legal battle
[2:17:37] where going in? I sort of feel nervous. Like it might not go
[2:17:41] our way. Then I try to figure out that these are not only
[2:17:46] professional colleagues of mine. I'll be perfectly honest
[2:17:50] with you, they're friends. These are friends of mine. So
[2:17:54] while I'm listening to you speak, that's why I asked you,
[2:17:57] what do you do for a living? And you said firefighter. I
[2:17:59] thought for sure you were going to tell me. Attorney. Because
[2:18:04] that was, in my opinion, a very well presented appeal. Very
[2:18:11] well done, you know, and I'm thinking, wow, this guy sharp,
[2:18:14] he's got the details. He's he's not reading really from notes.
[2:18:17] He knows his topic. You've also afforded yourself of the
[2:18:21] process of what you could and could not do. Some people would
[2:18:25] have just taken the punch and said, oh man, I'm screwed.
[2:18:28] Excuse my language. You have it. So now I have to. I'm not
[2:18:32] going to guess that you would sue us, but boy, the stakes are
[2:18:37] high for you because otherwise you own a piece of property
[2:18:40] that everyone will know will be nearly impossible for anyone
[2:18:43] else to do anything with. So it's not like you could sell it
[2:18:46] off. And I know I'm talking much longer than I chose to,
[2:18:52] but I really want to lay this out, and I know that I'm also
[2:18:55] speaking on the record that could my words could come up
[2:19:00] again in the future. So in my personal opinion, there's some
[2:19:06] gray areas here. This was not a absolutely you were wrong and
[2:19:12] staff was right. It's not an absolute that the staff was
[2:19:15] wrong and you were right. That's why this process, as far
[2:19:19] as I know, this third step, you appealed it and then you
[2:19:24] appealed it again to Mr. Donaldson, and then you
[2:19:26] appealed it to us, is designed so that the five of us can use
[2:19:30] our opinions, our life experiences, to decide if we
[2:19:35] agree or not. I would never want to be known for as much as
[2:19:40] I like Mr. Donaldson to be his rubber stamp, I'm certainly not
[2:19:44] a rubber stamp. I don't believe any of the five of us up here
[2:19:47] are going to be rubber stamps. So in my particular opinion,
[2:19:53] enough has happened here that this is not a a an agreement
[2:19:59] with Mr. Donaldson's opinion. I don't know what the what the
[2:20:05] negotiated outcome could be versus it's just a simply a yes
[2:20:10] or a no. But if that's the case, I think that you did what
[2:20:18] I would assume you should have done before you purchased the
[2:20:21] property. Once you purchased the property, the two questions
[2:20:26] I had that Miss Elder brought up, which I thought were very
[2:20:29] valid, is why did you withdraw the application when you would?
[2:20:33] This would never have happened had you left. But you said that
[2:20:36] was a split to make it to one acre buildable lot. So instead
[2:20:41] of having a single home on this property, it could have been
[2:20:45] two. And you didn't want to do that. Okay. And then the other
[2:20:48] question was why didn't you personally contact the DEP? And
[2:20:53] since I'm being as honest as possible, I didn't really love
[2:20:56] your answer that you just didn't want to. That could have
[2:20:59] been the end of it, potentially, but you weren't
[2:21:03] mandated to. So I'm giving you a pass on. Why didn't you
[2:21:08] contact the DEP? And then on our side, there's been a couple
[2:21:12] of things. I mean, these are very great professional people
[2:21:16] that have to deal with hundreds and hundreds of issues every
[2:21:20] year. And in this particular case, especially if I were you,
[2:21:27] when I hear that someone was able to do this and I thought
[2:21:32] Mr. Schilling was very honest, that's his way. I mean, I think
[2:21:36] he's one of the greatest growth management professionals in the
[2:21:39] state of Florida. And he was honest. He could have sort of
[2:21:42] danced around and said, hey, I don't know what happened. He
[2:21:45] was very honest. And he said, look, we made a mistake in my
[2:21:48] mind, that means something to you. It has happened. Someone
[2:21:54] else got to do this. And I get that. That doesn't. That
[2:21:57] mistake doesn't mean that we've just opened the floodgates and
[2:21:59] now it's a precedent. But in this particular case, I would
[2:22:04] make a motion to disagree with Mr. Donaldson's opinion.
[2:22:09] Commissioner Hetherington. Yes, I echo much of what you
[2:22:14] said, and I won't repeat it, except for the fact that I
[2:22:17] don't think it was your responsibility to reach out to
[2:22:21] DEP to, um, substantiate what your survey and, everything
[2:22:27] claimed. I think your title, your survey actually was
[2:22:31] evidence enough. And, um, I think there's enough reasonable
[2:22:37] doubt. Well, we have tremendous, um, staff. There's
[2:22:41] enough reasonable doubt to me that at least one of the three
[2:22:46] criteria, one is due process. Um, fairly applicable. I have
[2:22:51] questions about how the 4.1 e four, um, either was
[2:22:57] interpreted versus what it says on the document, and I think
[2:23:03] that you presented evidence. So I'm going to second the motion
[2:23:08] commissioners. I'm looking at the, uh,
[2:23:10] supplemental memo that was given to us this morning. And
[2:23:13] it's it's a copy of an email correspondence from Amy, often
[2:23:20] back to Cary Beaton. And among the things that it says is, um,
[2:23:26] zoning, a1 future land use, rural density. And I'll read
[2:23:31] from comprehensive plan the minimum lot size for
[2:23:35] development required by the zoning and future land use is
[2:23:39] two acres. Furthermore, it says there's a 75 foot shoreline
[2:23:46] protection zone from mean high water line, wet side of seawall
[2:23:51] or backside of mangroves exceeds rear setback. So she's
[2:23:55] quoting the comprehensive plan and the and the development
[2:23:59] regulations and saying you have to have two acres and you also
[2:24:07] have to provide for a 75 foot shoreline protection zone from
[2:24:13] mean high water line. And Mr. Beaton knew that he didn't have
[2:24:18] two acres, and he also knew where the mean high water line
[2:24:21] was, and also were the boundary. So I caution you, uh,
[2:24:25] in this motion, that is it is an an admission that you don't
[2:24:31] have to have two acres in order to get a building permit. So I.
[2:24:37] Am. Are you asking me for.
[2:24:38] My. I'm really. Really nervous about proceeding
[2:24:41] with because you then say it's okay to not comply with the
[2:24:46] Comprehensive Plan requirements.
[2:24:49] Well, I think the only difference, Madam Chair,
[2:24:51] respectfully, would be that he. You said he knew that he didn't
[2:24:54] have two acres, and I think his testimony today was the the
[2:24:59] argument here is that he believes that he does. That's
[2:25:03] the point. I'm not agreeing that, you know, it's to roughly
[2:25:06] two acres to build. It's he had 1.7 dry and 2.01 wet. The
[2:25:13] question is, is that portion that's wet able to be part of
[2:25:19] the calculation or not? He's not saying, hey, I thought I
[2:25:22] had 1.7 and that's what I want. He's the argument that I'm
[2:25:26] hearing is that he believes that he does. So when you say
[2:25:30] he said he knew that he didn't, I don't believe that he knew
[2:25:33] that he didn't. I think he even to this moment, he believes
[2:25:36] that he does because I agree with you. I don't want people
[2:25:39] to think, well, it's two or thereabouts. It's two. But what
[2:25:44] we can't figure out right at this moment is, is it
[2:25:46] legitimately two? But he's not saying 1.7. He's saying two.
[2:25:51] May I, but I disagree. He knew that his boundary was two and
[2:25:56] he knew that his dry land was 1.69. And he also knew or he
[2:26:02] should have known because Amy Offenbach wrote to him and said
[2:26:06] that you also have a shoreline protection zone from the mean
[2:26:10] high water line, and you knew that there was a difference
[2:26:13] between mean high water and boundary. You knew that that
[2:26:16] was a 3/10 of an acre difference. May I know
[2:26:21] Commissioner Vargas? Yeah. My question is, are we
[2:26:24] ready to take a vote? You had enough evidence.
[2:26:27] Commissioner Capps would like to make a comment. Commissioner
[2:26:30] Capps.. So, uh, there are two big
[2:26:34] issues at hand here. Um, the first one is, uh, policy 4.1 e
[2:26:41] four, which basically, according to our staff and our
[2:26:48] county attorney, means that we do not count submerged lands.
[2:26:53] Uh, and lot size. And then there's the issue of whether
[2:26:56] you own the submerged lands. And I heard the county attorney
[2:27:02] say earlier that even if it were determined that you did
[2:27:05] own the submerged lands, that's some future date. Uh, we do we
[2:27:12] still do not count submerged lands toward lot size, and I
[2:27:17] I'm gathering that that is an important, uh, precedent and
[2:27:22] policy in our comprehensive plan. Um, and I am I am
[2:27:28] satisfied with the county attorney's analysis and the
[2:27:34] county administrator's decision. And I'm going to make
[2:27:36] a substitute motion. You can't. We have a motion
[2:27:39] and. A second.
[2:27:40] You got a vote. On it.
[2:27:41] Okay? We just have to vote on it. Yeah.
[2:27:44] Okay. Any further comments? There's a
[2:27:47] motion. So just to be clear, are we
[2:27:49] going to issue the building permit or is the board not
[2:27:55] agreeing with Mr. Donaldson and requiring the administrative
[2:27:59] review hearing to be done again to analyze the different
[2:28:02] policies? What's the direction? So we're clear because I'm
[2:28:05] unclear with the motion. I know you disagree with Mr.
[2:28:08] Donaldson, but what is the outcome that the board is
[2:28:10] looking for? So we're clear. We can send it back to Mr.
[2:28:12] Donaldson for another administrative review meeting.
[2:28:15] You can say, based on the interpretation of the code, we
[2:28:18] can issue the building permit. So we need to know what the
[2:28:21] ultimate decision is. Was that outline coming into
[2:28:24] this hearing? It's just based on your whether
[2:28:28] you agree with Mr. Donaldson. But we need to know what the
[2:28:31] next step would be. Can we go to the agenda item
[2:28:33] and see what the recommendation was? Because from what I
[2:28:36] understood of the presentation, introduction was that we were
[2:28:40] to decide if we felt that the process of those three criteria
[2:28:45] was met. Uh, not approving necessarily the building
[2:28:49] permit, because what I'm hearing from my colleague,
[2:28:51] Commissioner Capps, what I'm hearing from staff, this
[2:28:54] gentleman is obviously very capable of making his. Let me
[2:28:57] finish, please. He's capable of making his presentation. Um, I
[2:29:02] was making my determination on not whether or not I think he
[2:29:05] should be allowed to build his house on his property. It's.
[2:29:08] Was he given a fair process through this? And I'm not
[2:29:13] saying it was a travesty. I'm just saying that there was
[2:29:15] enough that would tip it my way and then give him the
[2:29:18] opportunity to do it, look into it a little further. But on the
[2:29:25] other hand, just as a caution, this is not meant to just put
[2:29:30] him back to the starting line for the same outcome I want.
[2:29:35] And I know our staff can do. Let's work with this applicant.
[2:29:38] Let's figure out a way if if it can't be that it's the the
[2:29:44] point, whatever, uh, is wet and it can't be used in the
[2:29:49] calculation. Let's help this gentleman and his family build
[2:29:52] a house on his property, because otherwise we're
[2:29:55] basically telling him it's worthless because no one's
[2:29:58] going to buy it from him. If they can't build. I don't know
[2:30:02] if splitting it into two lots so that you'd put two houses.
[2:30:05] That probably is not really even the the feel, the the
[2:30:09] nature of the neighborhood. Let's help them out. So my
[2:30:12] motion is that I disagreed with Mr. Donaldson's decision based
[2:30:18] on the process, and that he would have to go back and work
[2:30:21] with staff fairly and, uh, accurately to create an
[2:30:28] opportunity. Okay.
[2:30:30] So the alternative recommendation, I just wanted
[2:30:32] to clarify that because it was unclear.
[2:30:34] Okay. Mr. Walden, can.
[2:30:35] You remind me? I just want to point out that a path forward
[2:30:39] was presented to the applicant to rezone and reclassify the
[2:30:44] land use on the property. Uh, Mr. Beaton's made the assertion
[2:30:48] that that, uh, land use and zoning change was to make two
[2:30:52] lots. That's not the case. That was to make it whole and
[2:30:56] buildable. So you have a disagreement between staff and
[2:31:00] Mr. Beaton as to the intent of that land use change? We saw it
[2:31:05] from a competent land use attorney that they wanted to
[2:31:09] make the lot buildable. Staff complied with that and was
[2:31:13] going to take it forward. Understood. But now he's
[2:31:16] hitting the reset button. He he thought that he had a different
[2:31:19] path forward. It ended up right here in front of us. I know
[2:31:23] that our staff will be professional and non unbiased
[2:31:27] in helping him go forward. We can't tell him what to do. He
[2:31:31] might just as readily say I'm hiring an attorney and suing
[2:31:34] us. I hope that's not the case, but he's hitting the reset
[2:31:38] button. So what I would recommend for all parties
[2:31:41] concerned is that whatever has happened in the past remain in
[2:31:44] the past, and we take what you've heard from us today and
[2:31:49] we don't even know what the decision will be. Um, move
[2:31:53] forward, because I'm assuming your ultimate goal for you. I'm
[2:31:56] sure, for your wife, is to get this settled and build the
[2:32:01] house. Sir.
[2:32:04] Commissioner Hetherington. I've lost my train of thought.
[2:32:09] Except for I did want to chime in that I believe that there's
[2:32:13] a private property. Rights are so very important to me, and I
[2:32:17] think there's enough doubt here that I lean into, um, having
[2:32:23] this resolved. And for you to be able to build your family's
[2:32:28] home, maintain my second. What's what? What is the
[2:32:35] motion? So there's an alternative.
[2:32:37] Sorry. There's an alternate alternate recommendation in the
[2:32:40] agenda item. So I was just clarifying if that was the
[2:32:43] motion made by Commissioner Campi. So it just means that
[2:32:46] you are going to adopt a resolution reversing the county
[2:32:49] administrator's decision, remanding the building permit
[2:32:52] back to staff for further review.
[2:32:54] Correct. Does that mean that that's he's
[2:32:59] going to be receiving a building permit?
[2:33:01] It means staff will work with him like we have to see if
[2:33:04] there's an alternate way forward. Um, with the goal of
[2:33:09] trying to work it out with them. But there's no guarantee.
[2:33:13] Okay. Commissioner Vargas.
[2:33:14] Okay. So, um, I've heard everybody's comments here from
[2:33:18] the Dei, and of course, the department. Um, and I work with
[2:33:23] them. Last year and a half, and I think they're wonderful. Uh,
[2:33:27] they're inconsistencies here. We have to do the right thing.
[2:33:31] I disagree with Mr. Donaldson. I want to follow along and go
[2:33:36] ahead and approve the motion that was made by Commissioner
[2:33:43] Campi and seconded by Commissioner Hetherington to
[2:33:46] move forward. We want to do the right thing with you. You've
[2:33:49] done a lot of homework. I understand.
[2:33:54] Thank you. Mr. Donaldson.
[2:33:57] So, following the remanding back to staff to review it, it
[2:34:00] comes back to the two, um, just to say what our decisions will
[2:34:05] be based upon. It comes back to the two fundamental questions
[2:34:09] that Mr. Beaton brought up, which is one, the do you
[2:34:14] include the entire lot boundary in the analysis for the zoning
[2:34:18] district? And number two, the evidence of whether or not the
[2:34:22] property owner owns that property could only be based
[2:34:27] upon what was submitted and not any post evidentiary evidence
[2:34:33] that's been supplied. That's my understanding of what staff's
[2:34:38] job would be to do right now. Is that just remanded back for
[2:34:42] further review? Anyway, limited.
[2:34:45] So yeah, I want to make sure that that's not the case. It's
[2:34:50] not just a review. The information that has already
[2:34:53] been done. I want the more of a robust review. Mr. Waldon said
[2:34:59] that there was some possibilities to, uh, work
[2:35:04] something out that can have a house built on the property. I
[2:35:07] would also, um, ask staff to go back and review the Largo
[2:35:14] approvals decision. Those were inland waters. It's
[2:35:19] not the same. I understand, but it was when
[2:35:21] we were counting. I remember the debate of whether or not
[2:35:24] those lot sizes would count water. I get that it's not the
[2:35:27] Loxahatchee, but I'm just trying to create a situation.
[2:35:31] Look, I'm trying to be very respectful of staff and not say
[2:35:36] that the board or three of the board would approve a building
[2:35:39] permit for this gentleman. That's not our job. That's not
[2:35:43] what we even asked to do here today. I could make an
[2:35:47] alternative motion to just grant him a building permit,
[2:35:52] but I have always said that I value the professional
[2:35:56] experience and and education of our staff. I'm asking that I
[2:36:01] trust our staff to work with this gentleman who's obviously
[2:36:05] capable to create an opportunity where he can build
[2:36:08] a house on his property. I know that if we brainstorm and when
[2:36:12] I say we, I don't mean me. I mean you all brainstorm to give
[2:36:17] an opportunity to build a house here. If you need to come back
[2:36:21] and, and it needs to have some kind of, uh, decision made by
[2:36:26] staff for some change. The goal here is to help our residents
[2:36:32] and landowners build on their property. That's as simple as
[2:36:35] it could possibly be. And I know that our staff is trying
[2:36:37] to do that. Madam chair, madam chair, may
[2:36:40] I, Paul Schilling, for the record. So, um, that very
[2:36:44] avenue or similar was presented about a year ago to the
[2:36:48] applicant of, of ensuing or taking that land use change.
[2:36:52] We've we've analyzed this property for many, many hours.
[2:36:57] Um, and in fact, the only conclusion that I've come to
[2:37:01] personally is that a land use change and rezoning would be
[2:37:05] necessary. So, um, as did the previous owner. So, um, that,
[2:37:11] that in theory would take out the ownership issue of the
[2:37:15] submerged land, um, and so. Let me ask you a question on
[2:37:20] that then, because basically our decision is to agree with
[2:37:23] that or not at this point. Um, what will that entitle for him?
[2:37:29] He's got to go all the way back to the drawing board.
[2:37:32] Uh, it depends on your definition of drawing board,
[2:37:35] but that would be the mechanism that would. We already have.
[2:37:39] Uh, we've analyzed that application several years ago.
[2:37:42] We could, uh, reevaluate it and then bring it back to the be a
[2:37:47] small scale change, uh, land use change.
[2:37:49] It would be decided by you. Decided by you.
[2:37:52] Okay. Does it still come back to us?
[2:37:54] Yes, sir. Sir. You heard?
[2:37:56] That's fair. What are you thinking about? That.
[2:37:58] Um. That was the proposal that
[2:38:01] staff gave me originally. Um, is is to to do a land use
[2:38:05] change. Uh, the neighborhood is highly against the land use
[2:38:08] change. It's a very unique neighborhood. All the lots are
[2:38:10] two acre lots. No one in that neighborhood. They were going
[2:38:13] to come with pitchforks to the meeting. They had said staff
[2:38:15] approved it, and they did. They they was going through the
[2:38:18] process and staff was going to recommend it to the board. But
[2:38:21] the neighborhood is extremely against a rezone. They're all
[2:38:24] two acre tracts of land. People like it the way that it is.
[2:38:27] They don't want to start seeing these lots get split into
[2:38:29] different densities, and it doesn't need to be there. There
[2:38:32] does not need to be a land use change for it. Um, the
[2:38:35] ownership issue keeps coming up. There is no ownership
[2:38:38] issue. This was something that was created by Mr. Donaldson.
[2:38:41] If DEP has an issue, they can take me to court.
[2:38:44] They can. Okay, so let's do this because I think we need to
[2:38:47] wrap this up. I hear your point about splitting it. And if I
[2:38:51] lived in that neighborhood and it's a two acre neighborhood, I
[2:38:54] don't know if I would want because how many vacant lots
[2:38:56] are still there? Uh, there's a handful, and
[2:38:58] they're all less than two acres, so. Okay. Dry land.
[2:39:00] So this. Is so let let that be somebody
[2:39:03] else's problem. You're going to try to figure out a way that
[2:39:06] says the two acres, your combined two acres of what?
[2:39:11] You've been paying taxes on all this time. That's the that's
[2:39:14] the avenue you're going to have to take. But I'm just saying
[2:39:16] that my motion is that you and staff go back and try to work
[2:39:19] that. Out.
[2:39:22] I'm just fearful they're going to say the same thing. Well,
[2:39:24] you can't use your submerged lands and you.
[2:39:26] Have to. I don't I won't.
[2:39:28] Reassure you that this is a group that they're not
[2:39:31] vindictive. Uh, the five of us will be watching. This is a
[2:39:35] professional group. I have the highest regard for, uh. They
[2:39:38] hurt us. They sat right here. Um, I'm looking at Mr. Dolan,
[2:39:43] Mr. Schilling and Mr. Walden. Um, you're going to be in good
[2:39:48] hands. They heard from us that we want you to be able to build
[2:39:51] a house on the property. So short of you being over at the
[2:39:55] courthouse. Let's see if we can't work this out, because it
[2:39:58] doesn't do any of us any good. You or the county taxpayers, to
[2:40:02] let this go to the next level of a lawsuit for a judge to
[2:40:05] figure it out. So try to work with DEP, try to figure out if
[2:40:08] your scenario is accurate, then it's accurate.
[2:40:14] Mr. Donaldson. This, as you said, this is a
[2:40:26] difficult one. And the challenge by your I believe I
[2:40:31] understand the the direction you want us to do. Obviously.
[2:40:35] And, um, you know, certainly staff felt in their prior
[2:40:41] recommendations to the previous property owner and to Mr.
[2:40:44] Beaton that that was a, an a process by which we could get
[2:40:48] to the end. And certainly we recognize that you can have
[2:40:51] disagreements by neighborhoods, but in this case we would we
[2:40:55] still felt that it was appropriate next door. Jason
[2:40:57] Subdivision has a similar estate density. It would be
[2:41:00] matching that. Actually more dense.
[2:41:02] More so I think, um, and then your direction today is for an
[2:41:08] expedient report review and, and work with Mr. Beaton so
[2:41:12] that he can actually get a building permit without having
[2:41:15] to come back to this board or through a lengthy process.
[2:41:20] Ultimately, the the you've heard the challenges here, and
[2:41:23] I just want you to understand that, um, your motion. While it
[2:41:30] remits it back to a process, throws it back into the gray.
[2:41:34] So it all I'm suggesting is we can take it like that, or you
[2:41:37] can be more directive and and. This.
[2:41:39] Today, the building. Permit.
[2:41:42] Okay. I make a motion that directs
[2:41:46] staff to create a building permit for this gentleman on
[2:41:49] his. Property.
[2:41:49] And second. amend my. Oh, was that the original
[2:41:54] motion? Yeah, I was changing.
[2:41:55] My amending. So you have a second..
[2:41:58] A building permit in violation of the elders and the
[2:42:01] Comprehensive Plan. Okay. Is there a second.
[2:42:05] Second? Any further discussion?
[2:42:08] No. All those in favor?
[2:42:16] Aye, aye. Opposed?
[2:42:18] Opposed. That motion passes 3 to 2 with
[2:42:21] commissioners Heard and Capps dissenting. Uh, let's take a
[2:42:26] ten minute break. Thank you.
[2:58:45] We are back taking up Department one, which is the
[2:58:48] Office of Management and Budget items, which require board
[2:58:51] approval. Miss Murley. Good afternoon, Commissioner
[2:58:55] Stephanie Murley, the director of the Office of Management and
[2:58:57] Budget, here to present ten items today. Yeah. Um, item
[2:59:03] number one is a permission to apply for the Florida
[2:59:06] Department of Environmental Protection, or FDP, for the
[2:59:09] bathtub beach sale. Sailfish Point beach joint nourishment
[2:59:13] project. Our public works is requesting a grant. Award of
[2:59:18] $1,575,380, um, for the construction and feasibility
[2:59:25] funds for the bathtub, Beach and Sailfish. Sailfish Point
[2:59:28] Beach restoration project. There is a grant match of
[2:59:31] approximately 2.6 million, which is budgeted within the FY
[2:59:36] 27 Bathtub Beach CIP sheet. Item number two is a permission
[2:59:44] to apply for FDP Saint Lucie Inlet Management project.
[2:59:49] Public works is requesting application of 5.9 million for
[2:59:53] design costs for the bypassing south at the Saint Lucie Inlet
[2:59:57] State Park. There is a grant match of 5.9 million, which is
[3:00:01] programmed in the FY 27 Saint Lucie Inlet Management Plan.
[3:00:05] CIP shape. This is. The coastal show, by the way.
[3:00:09] Today. Item number three is a
[3:00:13] permission to apply for the local government funding or the
[3:00:17] GFR from FDP for the shore protection project. Public
[3:00:22] works is requesting application for $206,865 for monitoring
[3:00:28] funds for the Martin County Hutchinson Island Shore
[3:00:31] Protection Project. There is a grant match of $243,135, which
[3:00:36] is programmed with the FY 27 Coastal Beach management CIP.
[3:00:44] Item number four is a permission to apply for the FY
[3:00:47] 2728 FDP, l for for MacArthur Boulevard Dune project. Um. Our
[3:00:55] public works is requesting application of 2.2 million for
[3:00:59] design, construction and immediate post construction
[3:01:01] monitoring funds for the MacArthur Boulevard Dune Beach
[3:01:04] project. There is a grant match of 2.2 million, which is
[3:01:08] programmed within the FY 27 coastal MacArthur Boulevard
[3:01:12] project. CIP sheet. Item number five is a permission to accept
[3:01:18] the Florida Department of State, Division of Library and
[3:01:21] Information Services, State Aid to Libraries grant funds. Our
[3:01:25] library is receiving $81,448. That helps fund a full time
[3:01:32] library specialist with our Martin County Library System.
[3:01:35] There is no no local grant match required on that one.
[3:01:41] Item number six is a permission to accept the centers for
[3:01:44] Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC Drug-Free communities
[3:01:48] grant, um, our Health and Human Services Department is
[3:01:51] requesting the acceptance of 125,000 for year six of funding
[3:01:56] that helps expand and support local efforts that aim to
[3:02:00] reduce and prevent youth substance abuse. There is a
[3:02:03] grant match required of 125,000, but that is provided
[3:02:08] through in-kind match dollars through Martin County Staff
[3:02:10] time and coalition member time. Item number seven is a
[3:02:15] permission to accept the FDP Saint Lucie Inlet Management
[3:02:19] Plan Implementation Project grant. This is requesting
[3:02:23] acceptance of 3.4 million for permit required sediment
[3:02:27] sediment bypass monitoring cost. There is a $3.4 million
[3:02:32] match that is programmed with the current FY 26 CIP. Saint
[3:02:37] Lucie Inlet management budget. Item number eight is a
[3:02:42] permission to accept amendment number two for the FDP Saint
[3:02:46] Lucie Inlet Management Plan Implementation Project. This is
[3:02:50] amendment number two. That's increasing the FDP share by
[3:02:53] 425,000, and will also be utilized for permit required
[3:02:58] monitoring. There is additional grant match of 425,000, which
[3:03:02] is programmed with the FY 27. Saint Lucie Inlet Management
[3:03:05] Plan, CIP sheet. Item number nine is a permission to accept
[3:03:12] amendment number three for FDP for the Martin County Shore
[3:03:15] Protection Project. This is the Third Amendment that will
[3:03:18] increase the FDP share by $206,865 for permit required
[3:03:24] monitoring. There is an additional match of $243,135
[3:03:29] that is programmed within the FY 27 beach management CIP
[3:03:33] budget, and item number ten is adjustments to the FY 26
[3:03:38] budget. Um, our Martin County Fire Rescue Department is in
[3:03:42] receipt of additional grant funds from the um, Florida
[3:03:46] Department of Health, Emergency Medical Services, or EMS grant
[3:03:49] in the amount of $3,539, which is used for operating expenses
[3:03:55] in small non-capital equipment needs within the Fire rescue
[3:03:58] department. And this is just OMB requesting a budget
[3:04:01] resolution to accept those funds.
[3:04:03] Questions for Miss Murley. Is there a motion to approve?
[3:04:09] So moved. Second, there's a motion. And a
[3:04:12] second. All those in favor? Aye, aye. Opposed. That motion
[3:04:16] passes unanimously. Will take up Department two, which is
[3:04:21] contracts that meet the threshold for board approval of
[3:04:23] $1 million or greater. Miss Brotherton.
[3:04:26] Good afternoon, Christy Brotherton, your chief
[3:04:29] procurement officer. I have several contracts for your
[3:04:32] consideration. The first one is a pre-positioned contract for
[3:04:36] disaster related debris removal. And this contract has
[3:04:41] a maximum not to exceed value of $3 million, with the maximum
[3:04:45] not to exceed term of five years. And staff is
[3:04:49] recommending that the board award the contract to the three
[3:04:52] highest scoring ranked firms, which is Serra's Environmental
[3:04:56] Services, DRC Emergency Services and Ash Britt and move
[3:05:01] that the board authorize the county administrator, or
[3:05:04] designee to execute all documents related to this
[3:05:08] request. Next, we have a contract for the Sailfish Sands
[3:05:13] Golf Course Pump Station replacement project, and staff
[3:05:19] is recommending that the board award the contract to the
[3:05:21] highest scoring, responsive and responsible proposer. Centroid
[3:05:25] diversified in the amount of $1,569,068.47 and move that the
[3:05:33] board authorize the County administrator, or designee, to
[3:05:36] execute all documents related to this request. Uh, number
[3:05:42] three, we have another continuing services agreement
[3:05:45] for household hazardous waste collection, transportation and
[3:05:48] disposal services. Uh, this contract has a maximum not to
[3:05:52] exceed value of $1 million and a maximum not to exceed term of
[3:05:56] five years. And staff is recommending that the board
[3:06:01] award the contract to the lowest responsive and
[3:06:03] responsible bidder, which is Republic Services, doing
[3:06:06] business as US ecology Tampa. And move that the board
[3:06:10] authorize the county administrator or designee to
[3:06:13] execute all documents related to this request. Number four is
[3:06:19] a continuing services agreement for landscape maintenance for
[3:06:22] utilities and solid waste facilities. This contract has a
[3:06:25] maximum not to exceed value of 1.5 million, and a maximum not
[3:06:29] to exceed term of five years. And staff is recommending that
[3:06:34] the board award the contract to the lowest responsive and
[3:06:37] responsible bidder, which is Treasure Coast Lawn and
[3:06:39] Landscape, and move that the board authorize the County
[3:06:43] administrator or designee to execute all documents related
[3:06:46] to this request. And last, we have the Floridan Aquifer
[3:06:51] supply wells. North Jensen row five, and Tropical Farms Row
[3:06:56] eight projects and staff is recommending that the board
[3:07:01] award the contract to the lowest responsive and
[3:07:04] responsible bidder, which is all Webbs enterprises, in the
[3:07:08] amount of $7,492,300. This includes the base bid and
[3:07:13] alternates. Um, move that the board approve a budget transfer
[3:07:18] from the utilities capital reserves in the amount of
[3:07:20] $3,681,500 to the well TFR zero eight project and $1,910,800
[3:07:29] for, well, Naro five project and $299,937 for the related
[3:07:37] construction phase engineering services for well TFR zero
[3:07:41] eight and move that the board authorize the county
[3:07:43] Administrator or designee to execute all documents related
[3:07:47] to this request done. Thank you. Questions for Mr.
[3:07:51] Perry. Well presented motion to accept
[3:07:53] that. beautiful work. Second. Oh, come on, Mr. Vargas.
[3:07:56] Yes, I have a question. The. Excuse me, 3 million 681 500.
[3:08:03] You're transferring from the capital reserve. So how is that
[3:08:07] going to be replenished? Um, let me.
[3:08:09] Pass that over. And then you want.
[3:08:12] To the. It was put there specifically for this project.
[3:08:15] So it's not to be replenished. You have capital reserves that
[3:08:19] the utility department is holding funds for these
[3:08:22] projects. And then we're pulling it out. So it's not a.
[3:08:26] It's it's. Your, your your microphone.
[3:08:30] So the funds and the capital reserve, um, are um, were
[3:08:36] specifically placed in there for these for, for capital
[3:08:40] projects like this. So the point is, is that there isn't
[3:08:44] the, the replenishment comes over time based upon the
[3:08:48] utilities department or putting in funds to, um, into the
[3:08:52] capital fund for future expenditures. So it is a
[3:08:56] reserve specifically for capital construction. Um, and
[3:09:01] its replenishment is is only needed for future capital
[3:09:05] projects as defined in the CIP or um, in the in the
[3:09:11] department's budget. Okay. I was trying to clarify
[3:09:14] this is not an additional, um, expense to our taxpayers,
[3:09:18] correct. To replenish that account.
[3:09:21] No, it is not. So if you look at the fiscal impact, it says
[3:09:24] funding for this project will be provided through utilities,
[3:09:27] CFC funds. That's capital facilities charges. So, um,
[3:09:31] that's their equivalent of impact fees. So every time a
[3:09:34] building permit is provided or a development is done, they
[3:09:38] they provide capital facility charges, they go into the
[3:09:42] capital reserve budget of the utilities department. Um, and
[3:09:46] it's earmarked it can only stay for utilities. And then as the
[3:09:50] utilities needs to do plan expansions or other things,
[3:09:53] those monies get moved out of that capital facility's charge.
[3:09:58] Um, uh, reserve fund, uh, and then moved into the CIP. Uh,
[3:10:04] through actions like this. So the board has authorized the
[3:10:07] use of CFCs, which is a revenue. It goes into the, um,
[3:10:14] and you also recognize that a revenue in your budget and, uh,
[3:10:19] and then it can't be spent until it's moved out of reserve
[3:10:22] fund into the project fund, as we're doing here.
[3:10:27] Um. This is not something that
[3:10:29] we're borrowing funds for. I think you and I had a
[3:10:32] discussion about. Yeah, this is not a borrowing
[3:10:35] action. This is simply taking funds that have been, uh, built
[3:10:39] up over time. This is a pay as you go project, if you will.
[3:10:43] Um, if there is a borrowing action that will have a, um,
[3:10:47] one will have a larger audience of consultants and bond counsel
[3:10:50] here, uh, going through that and uh, um, which the utilities
[3:10:54] department does on occasion for significant project upgrades.
[3:11:03] Just wanted to be certain about that, because you and I spoke
[3:11:05] about another matter, I think, that dealt with, uh, borrowing
[3:11:09] funds. There is nothing that's being
[3:11:11] borrowed on this particular project.
[3:11:12] Today. Uh huh. Okay. Any further questions? There's
[3:11:17] a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed.
[3:11:20] That motion passes unanimously. Thank you. We will now take up
[3:11:24] Department three, which is adoption of a resolution
[3:11:28] updating the list of county owned properties appropriate
[3:11:31] for affordable housing under resolution number 24. Dash
[3:11:34] 6.15, adopted on June 18th, 2024, and authorizing the sale
[3:11:40] of such properties through public auction. Miss Segura,
[3:11:45] good afternoon, Carlos Segura, road property manager, um, as
[3:11:50] you discuss. This, um, current resolution
[3:11:53] that we have directed staff to sell two county owned surplus
[3:11:57] affordable housing properties through the request for
[3:12:00] proposal process to nonprofit organizations, affordable
[3:12:04] housing communities or land trusts, um, and other
[3:12:09] associated facilities. Um the resolution also required that
[3:12:14] each property remain unsold until the completion of the
[3:12:17] related infrastructure improvements for each of their
[3:12:20] projects. The new Monrovia had the water and sewer project,
[3:12:25] and the Camino Trail had, uh, that project, uh, the Golden
[3:12:31] Gate is what I meant to say. Sorry. Um, the proposed
[3:12:34] resolution would instead authorize staff to market and
[3:12:39] sell these properties through the county's contracted public
[3:12:42] auction process. The public auctions have proven to be more
[3:12:46] effective method for selling county owned properties by
[3:12:50] expanding public participation and creating a more competitive
[3:12:54] sales process. The two properties are. One is the
[3:13:00] parcel on 47th Avenue in New Monrovia, and the other one is
[3:13:05] between. It's in Golden Gate, between Hawthorne and Irish
[3:13:09] streets, um, where the Camino Trail is running through. Both
[3:13:13] properties have already been presented to their appropriate
[3:13:17] Cras, and the agencies have received the required
[3:13:22] authorization to move forward with those. Um staff is
[3:13:26] requesting that the board consider one of the following
[3:13:29] actions. Rescind the resolution and adopt the proposed
[3:13:34] resolution. Updating the county surplus affordable housing
[3:13:37] properties in accordance with section one, 25379. Florida
[3:13:42] Statutes, and authorize staff to market and sell both
[3:13:46] properties through the county's contracted public auction
[3:13:49] process for affordable housing. Or we did a supplemental memo
[3:13:54] where we would sell the, um, residential property in New
[3:14:00] Monrovia through the auction process and possibly just
[3:14:05] donate the property in Golden Gate to the Community Land
[3:14:10] Trust. Um, we also would like the, um, board to authorize
[3:14:19] staff to revise the language within the proposed resolution
[3:14:22] to mirror the recommendation and authorize the chair to
[3:14:26] execute any documents necessary to complete the transaction. If
[3:14:33] there's any questions. Questions for staff.
[3:14:41] Public comment. Would anyone from the public
[3:14:44] like to address this? First, Commissioner Vargas.
[3:14:48] Okay, so I'm understanding as to sell both parcels via
[3:14:51] auction or the other is sell one parcel and then donate it
[3:14:56] to a land trust. Is that correct? Correct.
[3:15:02] Mr. Ranieri, would you like to to address this?
[3:15:05] Yes. Thank you. Commissioner Rob Ranieri, CEO for House of
[3:15:08] Hope, also a board member for the Martin County Community
[3:15:11] Land Trust. Uh, here today to ask you to, uh, act on the
[3:15:17] second request from staff to donate the Golden Gate parcels
[3:15:21] to the Martin County Land Trust. We have an opportunity,
[3:15:25] uh, working jointly with House of Hope, the county staff and
[3:15:29] the land trust to potentially develop some affordable, um,
[3:15:35] transitional housing in the Golden Gate community to be
[3:15:38] used to help residents that are, in challenging times, to have
[3:15:43] an affordable roof over their head. While House of Hope
[3:15:47] provides wraparound services to those individuals or families
[3:15:51] to help them move forward. Commissioner Campi.
[3:15:55] Thank you. I think that that's a great idea for several
[3:15:58] reasons. One, we, uh, constantly speak about how
[3:16:03] we're trying to address affordable housing and and
[3:16:06] transitional housing for our residents. This will be a
[3:16:10] concrete step to show that we're actually trying. It's not
[3:16:12] massive, but it's a step. It's like a sale. It's like a
[3:16:16] starfish. Um, and then also we went through a tremendous
[3:16:20] amount of effort, both on the private side and the county
[3:16:24] employees, to create the land trust. And if all we do is
[3:16:28] create it and then just let it wither on its own, then we
[3:16:31] haven't accomplished much. So this is a step in the right
[3:16:34] direction to show that we are legitimately interested in
[3:16:38] creating a robust land trust. Uh, so I would make a motion to
[3:16:43] accept the second recommendation.
[3:16:45] Commissioner Vargas. Yes. Um, Mr. Ranieri, who would
[3:16:48] be building this housing? Uh, the Martin County Land
[3:16:52] Trust would be responsible for the construction, maintenance,
[3:16:58] um, property management of of any facilities that are built
[3:17:01] on the on the parcels. So, so in perpetuity, we'd be
[3:17:06] responsible for this. How much money is in the land trust
[3:17:09] right now. So the land trust is in its
[3:17:12] early stages. It's a newer nonprofit to the community. Um,
[3:17:16] we're waiting for some other land that the county had
[3:17:20] authorized previously to provide to the land trust down
[3:17:23] in Hope sound. Um, so we're beginning our fundraising and
[3:17:27] development efforts. We've built a pretty strong board,
[3:17:30] um, to navigate the land trust. And now we're trying to move
[3:17:35] forward with some projects to actually utilize land for the
[3:17:39] common purpose of creating affordable housing in
[3:17:42] perpetuity across the community.
[3:17:47] Commissioner Hetherington. Yes. Um.
[3:17:50] I think that this. Has been something that the
[3:17:53] Golden Gate community has, um, looked at.
[3:17:56] For years.. And, um. I would like to see it
[3:18:01] sometime in the near future because community, the land
[3:18:04] trust, um, has been effective, it seems, in hopes and I would
[3:18:08] love to have a presentation on, um, sort of the status and the
[3:18:14] success, because I know Commissioner Jenkins and
[3:18:16] Commissioner Capps are very, um, very intricate level
[3:18:21] involved, um, in the land trust. But I will support this.
[3:18:25] But I would like to see the community land trust, sort of a
[3:18:28] presentation in the near future on where they're at and where
[3:18:31] their vision is and where they hope to go.
[3:18:34] Sure. Thank you. Mr. Capps.
[3:18:38] This by way of review about what a land trust is for those
[3:18:42] who may not know, uh, the land trust owns the land and the the
[3:18:51] occupants of the housing on their, uh, house or their unit
[3:18:58] in the apartment building or condo building or whatever you
[3:19:01] want to call it. And and this enables them to stabilize their
[3:19:07] housing costs and to build equity. Right. Those are the
[3:19:11] purposes. Yes. So that would be, um, the
[3:19:14] purpose for any, uh, any parcel that the, the construction on
[3:19:21] it, the housing put on, it was going to be up for sale for
[3:19:24] residential and not keeps the price affordable for the buyer,
[3:19:28] but also again keeps that unit in affordable housing in
[3:19:31] perpetuity. Um, for these lots, we've been discussing the
[3:19:35] opportunity for transitional housing so that housing would
[3:19:38] be maintained and owned by the land trust in addition to the
[3:19:43] land and the land trust would charge a nominal rent, uh, to
[3:19:48] the person or persons that are living in the homes. Um, and
[3:19:51] then again, like, uh, like I mentioned, the part of the it's
[3:19:55] a, it's a full transitional housing project that we want to
[3:19:59] develop. So the residents would be working with House of Hope.
[3:20:03] Um, and whatever areas of need they have, career coaching. Um,
[3:20:08] medical assistants, um, case management, family centered
[3:20:12] coaching, all different programs and services available
[3:20:15] through House of Hope to help to elevate those residents to a
[3:20:19] higher plateau so that by the end of the transitional period,
[3:20:23] they're either, um, financially ready to purchase a home,
[3:20:27] potentially through the land trust or habitat or the general
[3:20:30] market, or they move on to another rental opportunity. And
[3:20:33] then that transitional home that they had lived in, uh,
[3:20:37] becomes available for the next person or family that may need
[3:20:40] that support. And also, this is just another
[3:20:45] example of a partnership that we're creating. Um, and in
[3:20:48] order to protect Martin County's interest, we will, of
[3:20:51] course, have development agreements and contracts that
[3:20:53] will provide protection to the county.
[3:20:56] That's what. I'm asking for. The
[3:20:58] contribution that the county is making in perpetuity. So these
[3:21:01] we've done them. We've we've done them with habitat. We've
[3:21:03] done them with Miss Butterfly. They're they're different. The
[3:21:07] legal department makes sure that, that our interests are
[3:21:10] protected. That guy right there is going
[3:21:15] to make sure. Those three.
[3:21:19] So there's a motion and a second. Right? Yes. All in
[3:21:23] favor I opposed that motion passes unanimously. Wonderful.
[3:21:27] Thank you very much, commissioners. Good luck.
[3:21:29] Great. Have a great day. Thanks.
[3:21:31] We are now at the end of our meeting. Mr. Erler, would you
[3:21:35] like to speak to us? This is the end of our meeting. Okay. I
[3:21:40] don't see anybody else who needs to speak to us.
[3:21:43] Commissioner Hetherington, any further comments?
[3:21:45] All set today. How about you, Commissioner
[3:21:47] Campi? You talked out yet? Mm.
[3:21:49] Yeah. No such thing. Uh. Oh, gosh.
[3:21:53] But I have. Nothing to add currently.
[3:21:56] Thank you. Commissioner Capps. I'm good.
[3:21:58] And, Commissioner Vargas. Thank you so much.
[3:22:00] How about you, Mr. Donaldson? And Miss Zelda?
[3:22:04] Yeah, right. We are adjourned.