PALM BEACH COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING Thursday, May 22, 2008 9:35 a.m. - 3:45 p.m. 301 North Olive Avenue Jane M. Thompson Memorial Chambers 6th Floor West Palm Beach, Florida Reporting: Sophie M. (Bunny) Springer Notary Public

2

A T T E N D E E S Addie L. Greene, Chairperson Jeff Koons, Vice Chairman Karen T. Marcus, Commissioner Burt Aaronson, Commissioner Jess R. Santamaria, Commissioner Robert J. Kanjian, Commissioner Robert Weisman, County Administrator Verdenia Baker, Asst. County Administrator Barbara Alterman, Director, PZ&B Jon Mac Gillis, Zoning Director MaryAnn Kwok, Chief Planner, Zoning Ora Owensby, Senior Site Planner, Zoning Ron Sullivan, Senior Site Planner, Zoning Carrie Rechenmacher, Senior Site Planner, Zoning Joyce Lawrence, Site Planner II, Zoning Anthony Wint, Site Planner II, Zoning Carol Glasser, Site Planner II, Zoning Bob Banks, Assistant County Attorney Isaac Hoyos, Planning Dept. Patrick Rutter, Chief Planner, Planning Sussan Gash, Planner II, Planning Stephanie Gregory, Planning Ruth Moguillansky-DeRose, Principal Planner OCR George Webb, County Engineer Jim Choban, Engineering Dept. Ken Rogers, Director, Land Development Division Nick Uhren, Senior professional Engineer, Traffic Div. Jon Pancoast, Monitoring Division Rob Robbins, Deputy Dir. ERM Bob Kraus, ERM Kenny Wilson, Health Department Jeanne Matthews, Parks & Rec Dept. Linda Federico, Clerk Donna Adelsperger, Site Plan Tech

3

I N D E X Agenda No. Petition No. Page 1 PDD2006-1682(Control 2006-529) 7 2 DOA/R2007-1597(Control 1998-023) 7 3 ABN/PDD2007-728(Control 2007-236) 8 4 SR 1999-029.2 9 5 CR 1997-148 9 6 SR 1984-130 11 7 DOA/R2007-1428(Control 1976-121) 11 8 ZV/CA2007-739(Control 2007-166) 11 9 DOA2007-1005(Control 1998-062) 11 10 CA2007-1790(Control 2007-357) 11 11 Z2007-2004(Control 1979-124) 11 12 ZV/SV/DOA2008-092(Control 1980-085) 11 13 ZV/DOA/R2008-094(Control 1999-006) 11 14 ZV/Z/CA2008-097(Control 1986-013) 11 15 EAC2008-311(Control 2001-010) 11 16 CORRECTIVE RESO R-2006-0515(Control 2004-456) 11 17 SR 2001-005.2(Control 2001-005) 14 18 SR 1984-123A.10(Control 1984-123A) 15 19 SCA 2007-041 9, 16 20 ZV/DOA2007-845(Control 1974-083) 9, 59 21 Z/CB2007-846(Control 2007-259) 9, 59 22 CB2007-846(Control 2007-259) 9, 59 23 PDD2007-848(Control 2004-354) 11 24 DOA/TDR2007-1202(Control 2003-011) 10 25 CA2007-1199(Control 2007-346) 92 26 DOA/TDR2007-1400(Control 2005-103) 60 27 DOA2007-994(Control 1981-139) 11 28 Z/CA/TDR2007-1621(Control 2007-052) 70

4

I N D E X Agenda No. Petition No. Page 29 Z2007-1180(Control 2006-442) 89 30 TDR ANNUAL REPORT 2006-2007 132 COMMISSION COMMENTS 129 DIRECTOR COMMENTS 133 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER: 136

5

P R O C E E D I N G S

CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Good morning. MR. Mac GILLIS: Good morning. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Thank you. We’ll have roll call and opening prayer and

Pledge of Allegiance by Commissioner Koons. CLERK: Commissioner Aaronson. COMMISSIONER AARONSON: Here. CLERK: Commissioner Greene. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Here. CLERK: Commissioner Kanjian. COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: Here. CLERK: Commissioner Koons. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Here. CLERK: Commissioner McCarty. COMMISSIONER McCARTY: (No response) CLERK: Commissioner Marcus. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Here. CLERK: Commissioner Santamaria. COMMISSIONER SANTAMARIA: (No response) VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: If you could please

stand. (Whereupon, the prayer and Pledge of

Allegiance were given.) CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Commissioner Marcus. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Is Robert Burr here,

the attorney? If you could -- staff has an answer to your

question here if you want to get it ahead of time, Jim, right there. He’s right behind you, sir. Right there.

Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: And also I’d like for

the benefit of the commissioners and the audience we will have a full -- we have six commissioners who will be here until after -- at least until 12:30 so we don’t have to worry about any postponements until after that. Everybody understands. I see some happy faces.

Commissioner Kanjian. COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: Thank you, Madam

Chair. As you and I discussed briefly the other

day to talk about for us today, I wanted to announce for those who didn’t read in the paper about the Newsweek rankings that have come out for our Palm Beach County public schools, which I’m very proud to say that we have three schools that have been ranked in the top 100, and in fact we have nine schools that have been ranked in the top five percent nationally.

And in previous years we’ve been switching in and out with three of our schools usually getting in, two of them a year, and this year we got all three of them in, and we’re -- and we got several more.

So I wanted to let you know that in the top five percent nationally and in the top 100, to start off with, Suncoast was ranked number three in the nation. Our Dreyfoos School for the Arts was

6

33, Atlantic High School was 57, Boca was 142, Spanish River was 191, Palm Beach Gardens High at 646, Forest Hill High School at 767, Jupiter at 828 and Dwyer at 939, and I think that’s wonderful.

And, you know, it frustrates me sometimes when I hear people talk about, oh, we’re so low nationally and all the rest and we don’t spend enough money and the rest, that I think people, and after spending time on the School Board, if they actually got into our schools and saw what we were doing, you’d be really, really amazed with what’s happening in our public schools.

And I’m particularly happy with Dwyer High School because just a year ago Dwyer was a C school. We went through an issue with a change in boundary, and even before the boundary went into effect, it was ranked as an A school last year, and it’s a top five national school. It’s a school people should be proud to go to.

So I’m very proud of our schools in Palm Beach County. I wanted to make sure everybody knew that.

CHAIRPERSON GREENE: That’s a good thing. AUDIENCE: (Applause) COMMISSIONER MARCUS: And, Madam Chair, I

will be attending Dwyer’s graduation ceremony tomorrow ‘cause my niece is graduating from there, so --

CHAIRPERSON GREENE: And since we’re bragging on schools --

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: I know you’re all

aware that we have two Boynton Beach high schools, but the Boynton Beach high school that I’m referring to is the one that the principal is Principal Perry.

This commission gave them funds yesterday. They have been invited to sing at Carnegie Hall for three consecutive times, and they were never able to go.

Well, with the check that this commission presented to them yesterday they will be singing at Carnegie Hall in 2008.

AUDIENCE: (Applause) CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Thank you. That’s a good thing, Commissioner Kanjian.

Thank you. Okay. Do we have proof of publication? MR. Mac GILLIS: Yes, Madam Chair. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Move to receive and

file. COMMISSIONER AARONSON: Second. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: You heard a motion by

Commissioner Marcus, second by Commissioner Aaronson.

Ready for the question. All in favor. COMMISSIONERS: Aye. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: All opposed. (No response) CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Ayes have it, 6-0. Mr. Attorney, swearing in.

7

MR. BANKS: Yes. Would anyone wishing to testify at today’s hearing please rise.

CHAIRPERSON GREENE: I’ve always told you to tell people who go swearing in to sit down.

(Whereupon, speakers were sworn in by Mr. Banks.)

MR. BANKS: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Commissioner Koons

said except for the court reporter. Thank you very much. Adoption of agenda. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Move adoption. COMMISSIONER AARONSON: So moved. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Motion by Commissioner

Marcus, second by Commissioner Aaronson. Ready for the question. All in favor. COMMISSIONERS: Aye. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: All opposed. (No response) CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Ayes have it, 6-0.

CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Are there any postponement, withdrawals?

MR. Mac GILLIS: Yes, Madam Chair. Before I get to that, I’d just like to

remind anyone in the audience here who’s for Item 25, Bergeron Sand Rock and Aggregate, that will be time certain for 2:00 p.m. today.

That’ll bring us to Page 1 of your agenda, Item No. 1 for postponements, PDD2006-1682, which is 112th/Northlake Office, is requesting a 30-day postponement.

No motion is required. This is by right.

MR. Mac GILLIS: Item 2, DOA/R2007-1597, Pratt and Orange MUPD, postponed 30 days to Monday, June the 30th, 2008.

No motion. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Madam Chair, we have

8

a card on that one. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Ms. Larson. MS. LARSON: I know it’s postponed, but I

want the commissioners to be aware. There was a meeting on this gas station out

in The Acreage. The ALA held it. There were over 100 people at the meeting.

The ALA did not accept votes from anybody who was not a member of the ALA. They only took members who were voting on this out there from their members, and it was, you know, the people against this gas station -- in your charter, Palm Beach County Commissioners charter, 3.3, you are to protect the wellfields, public and private, in this County. It’s in your charter. It’s 3.3.

I won’t read it to you, you know, you guys --

MR. BANKS: This is a postponement. You need to speak to this postponement.

MS. LARSON: I am. Well, the -- you know, I just wanted to be on the record. I want it to be on the record.

Nobody wanted this gas station out in The Acreage, and water migrates at 7500 feet. That’s a mile and a half. If that tanks leak, we’re in big trouble. We are all on well water.

COMMISSIONER AARONSON: Madam Chair -- MS. LARSON: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: This will be on next

month’s agenda? MS. LARSON: Yes. MR. Mac GILLIS: Yes. COMMISSIONER AARONSON: Madam Chair, when

we have a postponement, I think the proper thing is for people to voice their opinion when it comes back.

Thank you.

MR. Mac GILLIS: Okay. That’ll bring us to Page 2 of your agenda, Item No. 3, Abandonment PDD2007-728, Tidal Wave Industrial Park, postponed for 30 days to June 30th, 2008.

No motion required by right.

9

MR. Mac GILLIS: Item 4, Status Report 1999-029.2, Stop and Shop, postponed for 60 days to July 24th, 2008.

I believe we need a motion on this one. COMMISSIONER AARONSON: So moved. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Second. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Motion by Commissioner

Aaronson, second by Commissioner Marcus. Ready for the question. All in favor. COMMISSIONERS: Aye. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: All opposed. (No response) CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Ayes have it, 6-0.

MR. Mac GILLIS: We’ve had a request this morning on Item No. 5, Status Report 1977-148, postpone for 30 days to June 30, 2008.

COMMISSIONER AARONSON: So moved. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Second. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Heard the motion by

Commissioner Aaronson, second by Commissioner Marcus.

Ready for the question. All in favor. COMMISSIONERS: Aye. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: All opposed. (No response) CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Ayes have it, 6-0.

MR. Mac GILLIS: We received a request at a quarter to 4:00 -- quarter to 5:00 yesterday for Items 19, 20, 21 and 22 by the applicant requesting a 30-day postponement on these items that are all related to the north -- Value Hotel.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Madam Chair. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Commissioner Marcus. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: That -- I don’t

think -- I think the reason for the request, because some Board members were going to be missing

10

this morning, but since everybody’s going to be here, I would prefer, please, that we go through with this this morning.

CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Any other commissioner?

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: These folks have been --

CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Any other Commissioner? I would agree. Okay.

MR. KINO: Can I speak to that?

MR. Mac GILLIS: Okay. We had a request late yesterday, as well, for Item 24, DOA/TDR2007-1202, the Colony at Lake North [sic], found on Page 12 of your agenda, 30 days.

I believe the district Commissioner and the residents and applicant are all in agreement with this postponement.

COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: Yes. Madam Chair, I would move that we postpone.

COMMISSIONER AARONSON: Second. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: You’ve heard the

motion for postponement from Commissioner Kanjian. Second by Commissioner Aaronson.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: For Item No. 28? MR. Mac GILLIS: It’s No. 24. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: I’m sorry. MR. Mac GILLIS: Colony at Lake Worth. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Ready for the

question. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: You have -- you have

cards here for this one, for 24. MR. Mac GILLIS: Uh-huh. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Even though we’re

postponing it? COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Well, if they want to

speak to the postponement. COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: Madam Chair, I’ve

spoken to several of the homeowners, including some of the leaders of the group yesterday about this, and the applicant has let me know that they will work with the homeowners on the north edge and see if they can minimize that impact, and I hope that we can do that.

CHAIRPERSON GREENE: So do they want -- you want to speak to the postponement, or you just don’t want to speak now that it’s postponed?

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: I think these cards are from some folks from the public or the city or something.

CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Okay.

11

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: I guess we can just ask them if they want to speak --

CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Okay. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: -- to the

postponement. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Ms. Cindy La Corsblum

(ph). (No response) CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Mr. Thomas -- City of

Greenacres. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: There he is. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: And, Ms. Larson, you

can take the last one. MR. LANAHAN: Good morning. Tom Lanahan,

planning and engineering director for the City of Greenacres.

Basically I only need to speak if it’s not being postponed today, and then I would also ask what -- what day would the hearing be that it would be going to?

MR. Mac GILLIS: It would be June 30th, 2008.

MR. LANAHAN: June 30th. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: You’re welcome. Ms. Larson. MS. LARSON: You only want to speak to the

postponement, so. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Thank you. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: So there’s a motion

on the Colony only; right? CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Right. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: This is just for Item

No. 24. COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: That’s correct. I

move the motion. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Okay. Got a motion

and a second. Ready for the question. All in favor. COMMISSIONERS: Aye. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: All opposed. (No response) CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Ayes have it, 6-0.

MR. Mac GILLIS: Okay. That’ll bring us to Page 3 of your agenda, the consent agenda. If any commissioner would like any of these items pulled, if you, I guess could either indicate or have me go through them.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Move adoption of the consent agenda.

12

COMMISSIONER AARONSON: Second. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: You’ve heard the

motion by -- MR. Mac GILLIS: Actually, there was two

additional ones that are on your add and delete that were added to the consent agenda, Item 23, PDD2007-848, Merchants Walk, found on Page 12, and Item 27, DOA2007-994, Ruth Rales Family Service, found on Page 14 of your agenda.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: I would include that in my motion.

CHAIRPERSON GREENE: You’ve heard the motion by Commissioner Marcus, second by Commissioner Koons.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Madam Chair, I still have this one card for Item No. 12.

MR. Mac GILLIS: Okay. Which one -- COMMISSIONER MARCUS: From Mr. Burr. Did

they answer your questions? You need to come to the microphone.

MR. BURR: Thanks for letting me speak. I’m Robert Burr.

We represent the Homeland Property Owners Association, which is a gated community, and part of the request here is that the access go through Homeland -- Homeland, on Homeland Road, and the -- as far as the residents and the association knows, nobody’s been using that access so far.

The trucks have been going through a dirt road to the west and to the south of the community, so our basic problem, and I sent a letter to Mr. Rogers, and he sent me a responsive letter.

Is that there’s an easement which I’ve gone through which is recorded at OR Book 4000, Page 999. The easement runs in favor of Strazulla (ph) Brothers Company and Miller American Industries. Neither of those parties are the applicant or the owner.

There’s been no showing what that -- this easement runs in favor of the applicant or the owner.

You know, and kind of compounded with that as far as the association knows, that Homeland Road hasn’t been used. Homeland Road is privately owned by the association.

You know, we request or suggest that there should be a title opinion from the attorney for the applicant saying, you know, here is why this easement runs in favor of the applicant, you know, the predecessor was this owner.

Maybe it’s true. Maybe it’s correct, but it should be laid out very black and white that somebody can look at the opinion and the representation and -- and get it in about, you know, 30 seconds, but it’s just -- the County has kind of just accepted this agreement as saying yes, that does provide access.

MR. BANKS: Okay. It’s really a private legal matter that doesn’t involve this rezoning.

They’re -- it’s a TV tower. It has access now. It’s going to continue to have access. The -- this rezoning does not change whatever

13

access it has. It’s really not a County issue, and that’s

what Mr. Rogers responded to the person that wrote the letter.

MR. BURR: Yes, he did. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Commissioner Koons. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: I wanted to comment

on the consent agenda. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Oh, okay. MR. Mac GILLIS: Actually I have one more

comment on it before you make your motion. Item 9, the Traffic Division has an amended

condition. MR. UHREN: Yes. Thank you, Madam

Chair. Nick Uhren, for the record. The County Engineer’s requesting a change

to -- sorry. The County Engineer is requesting a change to Condition Engineering 1.a for Item No. 9.

The applicant has been notified of this proposed change, and they are in agreement with this new language, and I’d like to read the new language for Condition item -- Engineering 1.a into the record today.

The condition should read, “Building permits for more than 15,100 square feet of light industrial shall not be issued until the property owner makes a payment of $202,507.20 to Palm Beach County for the construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of Belvedere Road and Pike Road, which will be incorporated into a scheduled road construction project at this intersection consistent with Article 12.B.2.F.1.”

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: I would include that in my motion.

MR. UHREN: Thank you. COMMISSIONER AARONSON: Madam Chair. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Commissioner Aaronson. COMMISSIONER AARONSON: Do we have to --

would you request disclosure on consent agenda? MR. BANKS: Yes. COMMISSIONER AARONSON: Okay. I would

disclose that on consent agenda 10, I spoke to the agent, and on 27 that was moved to consent I was -- spoke to the agent, and on 15 I spoke to the agent and residents, and that’s my disclosure for the consent agenda.

CHAIRPERSON GREENE: We have a motion on the floor. Are we ready for the second?

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Just I’ve got a comment.

CHAIRPERSON GREENE: I’m sorry. Commissioner Koons.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Just one comment. I just wanted to bring to the Board’s attention Item 14 of the consent agenda is for the Red Cross to move onto some property at the corner of Military and Gun Club right adjacent to the County’s complex out there.

And I just wanted to note that we’re very happy to have them move out there to be across from the EOC and stuff like this, and they’re -- if anybody feels very generous, we’re also looking for

14

some money to support the construction. But, anyway, I just wanted to note that,

and we’re very happy they’re moving out of there, which frees up the property in downtown West Palm Beach.

CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Thank you. Commissioner Kanjian. COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: Madam Chair, Item

17 -- COMMISSIONER MARCUS: That’s not on

consent. COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: It’s not? COMMISSIONER MARCUS: That’s on regular. COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: Well, then, we’re

okay then. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Are we ready for the

question? Ready for the question. All in favor. COMMISSIONERS: Aye. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: All opposed. (No response) CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Ayes have it, 6-0.

MR. Mac GILLIS: Okay. That’ll bring us to Page 9, the regular agenda, Item 17, Status Report 2001-005.2, Okean Office MUPD.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: I’d move approval. MR. PANCOAST: Excuse me, Commissioner. I

must add something to that, to your motion. Approve a time extension and adopt a

resolution to amend conditions to make the traffic work ‘til December 31, 2008.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Say that again? MR. PANCOAST: Adopt a resolution amending

conditions of approval which -- CHAIRPERSON GREENE: What is he doing? COMMISSIONER MARCUS: I don’t know. I

don’t understand -- MR. PANCOAST: That’s for Item 17. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Right. I -- CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Are you trying to make

a -- are you trying to make an amendment to her motion?

MR. PANCOAST: Yes, please. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: But the motion we

have is to approve a time extension ‘til December 31st, 2008.

MR. PANCOAST: I understand that. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Okay. MR. PANCOAST: I made a mistaken when

15

I wrote up the -- COMMISSIONER MARCUS: So the motion should

really be what? MR. Mac GILLIS: I think he wants to

approve a time extension and adopt a resolution. The time extension must be a condition on

one of the Engineering conditions. MR. PANCOAST: That is correct. MR. Mac GILLIS: Okay. So you need to --

the resolution has to be amended to allow the extension for the traffic.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: So we’re extending the traffic approval until December --

MR. Mac GILLIS: And amending the existing resolution to allow that.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: -- 31st, ‘08. MR. PANCOAST: That’s right. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Okay. I would

include that in my motion. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Second. MR. PANCOAST: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: You heard the

amendment to the motion by Commissioner Marcus, second by Commissioner Koons.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: We did have a card, but they only wanted to speak if I pulled it or opposed it; correct? Right. Okay.

CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Hope minutes got that ‘cause I’m lost, but, anyway.

Ready for the question. All in favor. COMMISSIONERS: Aye. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: All opposed. (No response) CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Ayes have it, 6-0.

MR. Mac GILLIS: That’ll bring us to Item 18, Status Report 1984-123A.10 --

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: I’d move approval. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Second. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: You heard the motion

by Commissioner Marcus, second by Commissioner Koons.

Ready for the question. All in favor. COMMISSIONERS: Aye. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: All opposed. (No response) CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Ayes have it, 6-0. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: And, again, we had a

card, but I don’t think wanted to speak unless I

16

had questions.

MR. Mac GILLIS: Okay. That’ll bring us to Page 10, Item 19, Small Scale Amendment 2007-041, Northlake Roan Commercial, also known as the Northlake Value Place Hotel, found on Pages 243 through 301 of your backup material.

Stephanie Gregory will present this item. MS. GREGORY: Good morning. Stephanie

Gregory, with the Planning Division. The item before you today is a small scale

amendment known as Northlake Roan Commercial. The subject site is located 300 feet north

of the northwest corner of Northlake Boulevard and Roan Lane. The applicant is requesting a change of the land use from High Residential, 12 units per acre, to Commercial High in order to develop an extended stay hotel.

The 3.06 subject site is located within the Urban-Suburban tier and is currently vacant. In addition, the subject site is located within the Redevelopment, Revitalization and Infill Overlay, specifically within the Elmwood Estates, Roan Lane CCRT area.

Next, please. On the north side of the subject property

is the Covenant Centre International Church with an institutional future land use designation.

To the east is October Park, a multi-family residential neighborhood with an HR-12 future land use designation.

And to the south is the Capitol Lighting retail and home furnishing store with a CH future land use.

Finally, to the west is the I-95 entrance ramp and right-of-way.

Next, please. As previously mentioned the subject site is

located within the Elmwood Estates, Roan Lane CCRT area.

To date staff has received three phone calls opposing the amendment and six calls requesting additional information, and we have received 17 letters of objection, including one from the City of Palm Beach Gardens and 16 from adjacent property owners.

On October 26th the Planning Commission voted 5-4 in favor of staff’s recommendation for approval; however, they did modify the condition to limit the square footage to 46,652 square feet.

On December 20th staff participated in an

17

IPARC fact-finding panel with the City of Palm Beach Gardens, and the panel concluded that there was sufficient data; however, there was not sufficient analysis, and that a conflict exists.

Staff is recommending approval with the condition for the following reasons.

The amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. It is consistent with the Board of County Commissioners’ infill directive. It is consistent with the RRIO Overlay. It is consistent with the current Commercial High depth along North Lake Boulevard, and, finally -- as well as it expands the existing commercial node.

And, finally, it meets Policy 3.5.D if conditioned to 62,500 square feet of commercial use.

And this concludes my presentation. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Commissioner Marcus. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Could you go back to

your pictures of the neighborhood for me, whoever’s doing the -- okay. Thank you.

MR. KINO: Good morning. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Good morning. MR. KINO: Greg Kino, for the record, on

behalf of Value Place. I’m pleased to represent them this morning.

Just as an introductory item here, one of the items that you’re dealing with that you spoke about is the Comp Plan amendment to commercial.

There are other associated items that will also be considered this morning which we believe are part and parcel of the Comp Plan amendment.

You’ve already heard staff talk about the hotel use, and our presentation is based on the project, and certainly the County has every discretion right to vote on them in any particular order that they wish and any time they wish, but our presentation is geared towards the project as a whole, and we’ll certainly be talking about the land use component and requested --

CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Commissioner Marcus. Just a minute. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: But the item

presented to us just now is just the Comp Plan. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Just the Comp Plan. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Correct? MR. BANKS: That’s correct. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: So -- MR. BANKS: Right, and the reason I

recommended that we hold the public hearing on the Comp Plan first is the Comp Plan decision is legislative. It’s not quasi-judicial.

All the testimony and let’s say opinions of the residents are relevant because it’s a legislative decision.

The Board has the greatest amount of discretion regarding the Comp Plan amendment, so the cleanest way to conduct this proceeding is to do the Comprehensive Plan amendment first, vote on that, and then if that’s approved, we can proceed to the quasi-judicial public hearing.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: But -- so the

18

applicant for his purposes should just speak to the Comprehensive Plan?

MR. BANKS: Right. Well, he -- right, but he can present -- because it’s legislative in nature, he can present whatever evidence he thinks is appropriate.

If he wants to speak about the hotel, he’s perfectly able to speak about the hotel.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Okay. Thank you. MR. KINO: Okay. Thank you. Before we present, I’d like to acknowledge

the members of the community -- we’ve been at this for about a year and a half, and that’s several neighborhood meetings, and we know them, some of them are here, I actually know their names and faces now.

At this time there’s also a -- and we can appreciate their concerns. Some of the people live there. Some of the people own rental property there, but it’s -- they all have an investment and a stake in the community.

Also, another large stakeholder in the community is the adjacent Covenant Centre Church that’s here this morning. There’s many -- maybe you could raise your hands and let the Board know who’s from the church that’s here, and they would like to be heard this morning, also, to express their opinions.

And we know it’s an emotional issue for some people, particularly the ones that live there, and that’s why we have -- and you’ll find in our presentation we have been very responsive to things that have been brought up that -- existing problems that are in the neighborhood.

This morning -- what’s the good news is this is not the Value Place’s first hotel. They’ve got about 90 of these thus far open, and so there’s a track record for you to review and consider, and they’ve heard these arguments before, and 90 of them have been approved across the United States, and there are many more in the pipeline.

So we believe that we can and have addressed these issues and concerns that you’ll hear from the neighborhood satisfactorily, and I think you’ll find that this morning.

You’ll also hear this morning from experts in traffic and drainage. There’ll be some discussion about an agreement reached with the Sheriff’s Department about -- there’ll be some -- a discussion this morning about an agreement reached with Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Department about the safety and crime prevention measures that I think are going to be particularly pertinent and relevant to your deliberation, and they have concluded that these measures will certainly make the neighborhood safer than it is right now.

You’ll also hear from leaders and members of Covenant Church, as I’ve mentioned. I think you’ll find that the main issues that are going to be raised are crime-related and fear of the unknown, which is always a difficult topic to address with experts, but we ask that you keep an

19

open mind about the facts that we’ll present. You know, and I just want to close before I

turn it over to Jeff Brophy. You know, there’s an old adage, if it ain’t

broke, don’t fix it, but if it is broke, and you’ll hear the testimony about there are problems in that area, and we know -- Value Place knows that we didn’t cause those.

We have not set foot on the property, have not built anything, and I think you’re going to find that the testimony and the conditions that we have agreed to, actually we’re going to make it a better situation.

So if it is broke, I think it’s incumbent on this Board to fix the problems, and we’re going to help try to do that.

Thank you much. I’m going to turn it over to Jeff Brophy --

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Madam Chair, could I just say that since we’re supposed to be just dealing with the Comp Plan and he’s just listed a bunch of people that are going to deal with issues that aren’t relative to the Comp Plan, could we limit the time of this presentation so that all the rest of these people that came here and have been coming to many meetings, can we give them 10 minutes or something?

MR. BANKS: It’s a legislative public hearing. It’s really the Board’s discretion, so it’s the -- the Chair can determine how much time to give them to make their presentation.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: I mean I just -- it just sounds like you’ve got like a 20-minute presentation on things that don’t relate to the Comp Plan.

MR. KINO: Well, in all due respect, they do because we’re not talking about commercial land use here. We’re -- we’re kidding ourselves, and we’re -- you know, and -- we’re talking about the ultimate use, the hotel use here. That’s what we’re talking about.

And in all due respect, we’ve been at this for a year and a half. They spent a couple hundred thousand dollars, and they’d like to be heard, and we appreciate your indulgence in that, and if you want to vote them down, you vote them down, but I think it’s -- I think after you hear the testimony, you may have a different opinion than when you came in here, and often sometime -- often we, without the full opportunity to hear the evidence we form our opinions perhaps prematurely.

COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: Madam Chair, we’re going to -- I mean we’re expecting to be here all day, and if it’s all day for this item, we’ll be here all day for this item.

I think we’ve all talked to lots of people on this issue, so it’s important to hear everybody.

CHAIRPERSON GREENE: But then I’m -- I’m confused. Go back to the attorney.

I thought that we were going to follow the agenda and do the Comprehensive land amendment first.

20

MR. BANKS: That’s what we’re -- CHAIRPERSON GREENE: And he has -- MR. BANKS: That’s what you’re doing,

correct. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: But he’s gone into --

matter of fact, you even referred to the letter from the Sheriff Department, which I --

MR. KINO: I did. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: -- the information

that you just stated, I didn’t get it from this letter because the last sentence in this letter said that security plans with commitment for continuing the discussion.

Nothing in this letter said that they support what --

MR. KINO: If you back up one line, you’ll find what I just said will certainly make --

CHAIRPERSON GREENE: So you see where this is going?

MR. BANKS: But I responded it’s up to you as the Chair to decide how long you want them to make their presentation.

So you can limit them. If you want to say 10 minutes or 20 minutes, that’s -- that’s --

MR. KINO: Madam Chair, maybe I -- MR. BANKS: Because it’s a -- it’s a

legislative public hearing so we have great discretion. They don’t get to speak all day.

MR. KINO: Madam Chair, maybe I can suggest.

If you think at any time that anything we’re talking about is not relevant to this neighborhood and the community and the issues that are faced in the community, then you --

CHAIRPERSON GREENE: No, sir, it’s not that -- we just want to make sure everyone here gets, you know, gets to be heard.

MR. KINO: How about I sit down and let the people that really have something to say --

CHAIRPERSON GREENE: That may help you. MR. KINO: Here I go. Thank you very much,

Madam Chair. Let me introduce David Redfern. He’s the

president of Value Place. He’s one of the founders of the company. He’d like to briefly address you.

CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Thank you. MR. KINO: Thank you. MR. REDFERN: My name’s David Redfern,

president of Value Place, also a partner in this, as well as the other Value Places that we have open.

I just wanted to thank you for allowing us to speak. This is an important project to us, and I know it’s important project to the neighbors, as well as the church and you as Commissioners.

I wanted to tell you two things, one, who we are and about our standards. First of all, who we are.

Value Place is one of the -- of our fourth brands that we’ve started. I work with our chairman named Jack De Boer. Jack De Boer started the Residence Inn Company. I worked for him in the

21

Residence Inn Company. That was started in the early ‘70s.

So since the early ‘70s we have been developing and building brands that ultimately end up being nationwide brands, as we’re doing with Value Place.

Residence Inn started in Wichita, Kansas, and now has 500 locations nationwide. We started that company. We started that concept. We built the first 103 of those.

Then we started a company called Summerfield Suites. Summerfield Suites is also an extended stay hotel brand. It is currently owned by the Hyatt organization, and obviously has the same amount of standards as Value Place, as well as Residence Inn.

In the late ‘90s we started our third company called Candlewood Suites. Candlewood Suites is now owned by Intercontinental Hotel Corporation. Intercontinental owns all the Holiday Inns, et cetera.

We started Candlewood Suites in the late ‘90s, again, very similar to Value Place, extended stay hotel, very similar to this product, and I’ll tell you the one thing that was interesting when we sold it to Intercontinental, it was the only time that they’ve said we’ve never bought a group of hotels -- we sold them 125 hotels. They said we’ve never bought a group of hotels that had zero -- zero deferred maintenance.

And what deferred maintenance means is nothing needed to be fixed.

So that goes to my second point of who we are, and our high standards.

We build these brands to the higher standards, to all the codes and above so that we can build hundreds of the -- hundreds of them nationwide.

We bring this product to the people that we find that they need it, and it is interesting to see how, when we begin these brands, we come to commissioners like you that are unfamiliar with Value Place, and I want you all to know that we come here knowing that we are the unknown, but we did start three other major nationwide brands.

Value Place will be a nationwide brand. We currently have 91 properties open. Ten thousand people last night stayed in a Value Place.

So we may be new to you, but I wanted to let you know who we are to you.

I’ll turn this over to Jeff. He’s going to go over -- through some of the specifics, but I wanted to stand here as the president and owner of Value Place to let you know who we are and what we stand for.

There’ll be some discussions on some challenges that we have with this site, and I think we’ve done a lot of things above and beyond what we are required to do to make it work for the church, as well as the neighbors, and that tells you what kind of neighbor we are.

We couldn’t be a quality neighbor, we

22

couldn’t be a business partner in our Residence Inn brand, in our Candlewood Suites brand and our Summerfield Suites brand, we couldn’t do that in the past if we weren’t community partners.

We will continue that. We will continue to have the highest standards, and I wanted you all to know that I will step back and speak towards the end, but I want to introduce Value Place and the people that’ll speak.

Thank you. MR. BROPHY: Good morning. For the record,

Jeff Brophy, with Land Design South. I’m going to -- I apologize for any

redundancy with Stephanie’s presentation. The -- actually make sure that we have the

right one. I’m going to go over, and I’ll try to state

as closely as I can to the items as they relate to the Comp Plan themselves.

David spoke briefly about who they are. I’m not going to go into this. I think he hit everything that we need to know there.

The location map, very quickly, we’re located on the northeast corner. It actually constitutes two properties.

The original property that Value Place was looking at was a 2.38-acre vacant site directly on Roan Lane. We actually brought this forward to the Planning Department, told them of our intent for the hotel and the Commercial High land use.

One of the issues is that finger piece just to the west of us is actually an institutional land use, and with all the other commercial along the corridor they were hoping for us to obtain that.

Right now it’s just used as overflow parking for the church. Us obtaining that would really consolidate the commercial node on the corner.

We went back to the church and did work that out and ended up with the 3.06-acre site that you know today.

The request -- we do have the Comp Plan amendment from HR-12 to CH.

Just really quickly on the zoning issues, it’s a DOA to the existing church to remove that land area, rezoning to the CG district, and then the Class B conditional use for the hotel.

Give you an idea of the surrounding uses, this is our site here, both of which have an HR-12 land use. To the north we have the institutional land use of the church, and to the south and really along that corridor you see the dominant Commercial High, part of which is unincorporated, part of which is within the City of Palm Beach Gardens.

As you can see, we’re kind of sandwiched in between that institutional use and the Commercial High to the south.

Surrounding us we do have a mix of high and medium residential, as well as some industrial and mixed use projects to the east.

Just to give you a real quick context, this is a shot down Northlake Boulevard. You can see

23

it’s a dominant commercial corridor. Just on the east side of Roan Lane is the

Edwin Watts. To the south is the existing gas station, as well as the existing Capitol Lighting.

To the north we have the Covenant Centre Church, and to the east we have what’s known as the October Park duplex community.

To the west is the I-95, and this shot really kind of shows exactly what we’re dealing with, and, you know, there’s a very specific reason why this hasn’t been developed as residential, and I understand the argument that there is residential along the 95 corridor.

Just to the north of us we have that -- they also have a sound attenuation wall, but, you know, on a three-acre site it becomes very difficult to develop as residential, especially in this location.

Not only is the on ramp elevated, but also I-95 is actually elevated just to the west of us.

And this here, this is a shot down Roan Lane. This is an important shot. This would actually be where the proposed entrance would be, and as you can see, there’s actually no residential entrances along this right-of-way.

In fact, from our proposed entrance 400 feet south all there is is commercial access entrances along that -- along that right-of-way.

This gives you a broader shot. This is our site here outlined in red.

This is the commercial corridor along Northlake Boulevard, and as you can see, we’re not out of context with the rest of the commercial areas in terms of depth in the area.

In fact, one of the -- one of the arguments, I know from Palm Beach Gardens, as well as the residents, has been access. And actually, the -- the properties here with the orange circles are actually other commercial properties along this corridor that actually access on residential access streets and don’t front directly onto Northlake Boulevard. So there is a precedent for the commercial.

Development potential under the residential land use, currently we have HR-12 land use, RM zoning.

In terms of maximum amount of density per site plan approval with TDRs and bonus densities we’re up around 20 units to the acre.

Requested use approval would be above that; however, it’d probably be impossible due to the fact -- the size of this site with setbacks and buffers, et cetera.

Inappropriate for residential land use, really, it’s funny. It’s the exact opposite of why we’re going to go through the commercial issues.

It’s the proximity to the I-95 corridor, being compatible with the existing Commercial High to the south and the crime.

We’re going to -- they’re going to talk about crime a little later, but there is a crime issue out there we all know, and I think the

24

residents will speak to it as well, but with a -- with the residential there’s no -- there’s no security in place, and with the proposed hotel we’re going to be able to do that.

The proposed development is actually going to be a Commercial High CG zoning.

Right now it’s -- under the land use it’s conditioned at 62,500 square feet. We’re approximately 43,000 square feet of hotel.

And why is it appropriate? Again, for the exact reasons why it’s inappropriate for the residential, which we’ve already gone over.

Comp Plan compliance really quick. We are in compliance with all the policies of the Comp Plan. The site does not encroach into the existing residential. The hotel and church can be viewed as transitional uses. This isn’t a retail. This isn’t an office. This isn’t a high traffic generator.

Again, our entrance, as well, doesn’t cross one residential driveway before it’s access.

We also -- there’s also the need for the CH land uses. It’s a community-serving use, and I don’t think anyone can argue that we need lower cost hotels, especially with what’s surrounding us.

We’re also adjacent to the I-95 and existing commercial uses, and, as Stephanie mentioned, we meet the long-range transportation plan, and in terms of this use, compared to other commercial uses, we’re less of an impact.

If this was to go to, say, a retail or office, the traffic impacts would be substantially higher.

Again, we are in a few overlays, redevelopment overlays. We’re also just on the north border of the Northlake Boulevard Overlay District which encourages redevelopment of that corridor.

And in terms of hotel locations, again, this is really a snapshot of what’s existing around there, and you can tell from a -- from a market analysis that this is an ideal location for this hotel.

The proposed site plan -- now, I know we’re talking about Comp Plan issues, but I think a lot of what is going to be talked about in terms of the public comment is going to come down to site planning issues.

We do have -- it’s three acres, just under 43,000 square feet, 121 rooms. We have 192 parking spaces, 77 which are going to be shared with the church.

Currently they have unimproved parking on their site. We’re actually going to improve that parking and allow for better drainage.

Our entrance is directly across from Van Cott. This is the safest location, as anything farther south is going to cause turning movement issues. Anything farther north is going to then encroach into the residential, and we wanted to keep that as far south as possible.

We have cross access, again, and shared

25

parking with the church, and we have buffers provided -- required by the ULDC and upgraded buffers along the Roan Lane.

We also have 9,000 square feet of dry retention in the back, which is going to allow for the existing drainage problems to be incorporated into this site and outfall west instead of east into the Roan Lane right-of-way.

The building is also in alignment with the church to the north and the Capitol Lighting to the south and set back 300 feet from the nearest home.

And we’ve also agreed we would be responsible for roadway improvements from Northlake Boulevard up to the project’s entrance.

This gives you kind of a panoramic shot of the existing site conditions.

To the south of us is -- well, it’s not very well maintained along the Capitol Lighting boundary.

To the west, to the back of the site, again, is the I-95 corridor.

And along our frontage, again, you can see that there hasn’t been a lot of road improvements lately. There’s no sidewalk.

We will also propose a sidewalk in order to finish the connection up Roan Lane.

And this gives you a snapshot of the proposed use. This is the hotel with the landscaping in the front and the required sidewalk and landscaping.

We did have -- going through this process we submitted over a year ago for the Comp Plan.

In August just before the LUAB we had a letter of objection issued from Palm Beach Gardens. It was based on traffic, water, sewer and incompatibility.

We provided them with the traffic study and the water and sewer concurrency approval. We also requested several meetings with staff and police, and initially we found it difficult to meet with them; however, we finally did get to sit down with them.

Unfortunately, their police presence wasn’t there at the meeting to discuss the security issues and mitigation measures that we were willing to put in place.

And in terms of incompatibility, I guess I have a problem, only because we’re really trying to understand where they’re coming from.

This is the same group that approved 120,000 square foot Gander Mountain retail actually just to the south of us. Our project’s outlined in red.

Just to the south of us, 120,000 square feet, the biggest Gander Mountain store actually in the country, directly adjacent to residential.

We actually have a right-of-way splitting us between the four residential units that are adjacent to us. They’re actually directly adjacent to single family residential, and then on top of that, access their site through 1700 linear footage of residential right-of-way.

26

So I find their claim of incompatibility for our site a bit disingenuous. I guess we could have submitted as a Bass Pro shop and probably would have had a better outcome.

More importantly, though, than the objections of Palm Beach Gardens where the three community meetings that were held, really, the same issues kept coming up; traffic, drainage and security and crime.

In terms of traffic there’s been claims there is an existing traffic problem out there, it really has to do with the proximity of the lights.

Currently at the Roan Lane intersection you’re forced to go westbound at that light. You can’t go eastbound, so one of the issues was the amount of traffic that would be added to that.

Unfortunately, with the proximity of those lights there’s no way that the Roan Lane intersection will ever go eastbound there, but there is access out to Sunrise through a street that’s actually maintained by Palm Beach Gardens behind Edwin Watts and McDonald’s.

Again, the hotel is a low generator in terms of commercial use. It’s one of the lowest, a lot lower than, say, a medical or professional office.

We did do the -- we were approved through the Comp Plan, and we accept the conditions of approval, and we meet all the traffic performance standards for concurrency for the rezoning.

And, in addition to that, we plan on improving Roan Lane from Northlake to the project entrance and include a left-bound into our site to avoid any backup of people trying to go northbound on Roan Lane.

Drainage, there is currently a flooding problem on Roan Lane. The residents have expressed that to us.

Now, while this vacant site isn’t the entire cause of it, it -- right now it does sheet flow onto Roan Lane, and the required road improvements, we’re actually going to have to take those -- that drainage and actually contain that on our site, and in addition to that, all the historical drainage between the church and the vacant site is actually going to have to be held on our site and then is going to outfall to the west, again, instead of sheet flowing the way it is right now onto Roan Lane.

In terms of crime, that really ends my portion of the presentation in terms of land use, and I just ask Greg to come back up to review the crime issues.

MR. KINO: Thank you, Jeff. Thank you again for the opportunity to

address you on this issue which I think is very significant and relevant to today’s proceeding.

I have with me, and I’m just going to introduce for the record, the crime statistics for 2007-2008 for -- this is the Roan Lane area we’ll talk about. It’s basically bounded on the west by I-95, the north on Roan Court which is the dead

27

end, if you will, of that neighborhood, Sunrise Drive at the east, which is the next road to the east of Roan Lane and Northlake Boulevard to the south.

And in 2007 there were 641 calls for service in that neighborhood. In 2008, unfortunately there are already 285 calls which will double. If they keep up that pace, it’ll double the amount of crime that’s in that neighborhood last year.

And we’re not talking about, you know, unfortunately, things like a stolen vehicle or breaking and entering. We’re talking about some serious crimes that are going on in that neighborhood, assault -- I’m just reading from the list, shots fired, armed juvenile fight, armed -- that’s a problem.

We have spent significant time with Deputy Peskowitz (ph) and other officers in the area, talking about gang activity in that area, armed -- armed crimes. So there is a problem there.

Value Place did not cause that problem. We’re not there yet, but there is a problem there, and something needs to be done to help address that, and we truly believe that if you develop this site as residential, multi-family residential, which this neighborhood already is, all you’re going to do is perpetuate the same condition.

We truly believe that if there is a change, and you look at it closely and you look at our proposal, what we actually do is help with that situation.

So I do want to give those reports to you. Also want to you about some -- like I said,

Value Place has been in business for some time now. They’ve got other hotels open. They have good working relationships with other law enforcement agencies.

I have some letters here from the City of Wichita Police Department, and they conclude that they have a -- Value Place has a Safe program, they call it. It was a -- it was a -- actually started a national program that now other hotels are using to go into communities when they do and set up these relationships with police officers and address things in advance of even opening, and you’ll -- I think you’ll that very compelling.

We also have letters from the Town of Raynham, Massachusetts Police Chief which wholeheartedly endorsed the type of development they were doing and based on their track record.

Topeka Police Department. We did surveys. Value Place did a survey after their hotels were open a year, so there was some track record.

They did a survey and sent it out to the various police departments. We received many of those back, and I’m going to provide those to you, also, but we have Topeka Police Department. I’m just going to read this to you. Just take a second.

“When Value Place came to Topeka, I assumed it would be a low budget place with several problem

28

tenants. The exact opposite has been true. With the exception of break-ins, a common problem in any hotel, we have had no issues with Value Place. The management has been a pleasure to work with and have been proactive, taking our suggestions for decreasing the likelihood of car break-ins.”

They indicate that these surveys that I’m turning to -- turning in to you, that there’s less crime in these extended stay hotels than the other chains that actually have even been mentioned because of their focus on crime and safety.

Also, I think is very significant is the letter from the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office. We’ve met with them several times, and they’ve been very -- they realize they have a problem in that neighborhood that they can’t quite get their arms around. We do have a letter here from Colonel Michael Gauger (ph)that I think you’ve seen, and it lists the various things that we were willing to do or that we are -- Value Place does as a corporate policy in any of its hotels, but after the discussions and the problems that the Sheriff’s Department indicated --

CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Sir, may I ask you, how long is your presentation because we do want to hear from --

MR. KINO: Sure. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: -- everybody in the

audience. MR. KINO: Okay. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Thank you. MR. KINO: I’m almost completed. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Okay. MR. KINO: I think this is fairly

significant because it shows not only there’s a working relationship that -- that --

CHAIRPERSON GREENE: We have it. MR. KINO: Okay. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Oh, okay. MR. KINO: Maybe for the rest of the people

that have not heard that yet -- COMMISSIONER MARCUS: No, we all have it. MR. KINO: I know, but the -- but the

residents -- UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: We’ve all

heard it. MR. KINO: The residents -- COMMISSIONER MARCUS: The residents know --

know. They have it. They got it. MR. KINO: Okay. Well, I guess someone

doesn’t want me to say this, but I’m going to say it again.

We’ve listed all the security measures in here, and they conclude that a permanent law enforcement presence of a substation which we have offered to the sheriff’s office at no charge, the police -- City of Palm Beach Gardens may use it, as well as the Highway Patrol, will certainly make the neighborhood safer, and I think that can’t be ignored. There’s a problem there. This hotel use can actually help with the problem.

All you would do is if you leave it for

29

multi-family is more of the same. It’s not been effective to put that same multi-family use in there.

Also, I’d like to just let you know, and there is an occupancy agreement as part of anybody who stays in it they must sign that requires certain rules to be followed. It is very extensive, two pages of things you cannot do.

They have innkeeper’s rights. They can evict for any of these reasons or any other reason not on here. There’s this very broad -- as opposed to multi-family residential you have to go through an eviction process, and if anybody knows, and I think some of the residents know how difficult it is to get someone out. They don’t have that problem.

They can -- if there is a problem, they can immediately take action, and they’ll work closely with the Sheriff’s Department on that.

Finally, and just -- I think some of you have seen this, there are -- this is a stack of testimonials from people that have stayed in Value Place hotels across the country, and I think if you take the time to review these, you’ll find that many people have very good experiences at Value Place and what we’re doing -- what we’re saying is the truth.

CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Thank you. MR. KINO: Thank you for your time. I just wanted to introduce -- CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Now, wait, wait. How

long is his presentation? MR. KINO: Steve Sutter will speak one

minute. He is -- CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Is anyone after him? MR. KINO: I think just the president just

wanted to say thank you again and close up the remarks and then -- okay. Actually, I’ll hold him. I’ll just -- I’d like for you to hear from Steve Sutter because he’s been working on this a year and a half and very, very instrumental in working with the Sheriff’s Department --

CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Two minutes. MR. KINO: -- and knows the operations very

well. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: He has two minutes. MR. KINO: Okay. Thank you. MR. SUTTER: I’m Steve Sutter, senior

director of development for Value Place, and, Commissioners, thank you for giving me a couple minutes.

I just did want to go over the -- our safety concerns.

Every guest is registered within a room, and we’ve -- we pass this on to you. Their IDs are scanned into our system. It comes up on the computer with their picture. We have zero tolerance policy on any illegal activity.

All the guests are screened against the Family Watchdog website, which is a sexual offender list, and they’re refused to be guests.

We’ve added cameras. We initially had

30

eight cameras, and we’ve agreed to 15 cameras in this location.

And since this letter came from the Sheriff, we had another meeting with the Palm Beach Sheriff’s office and agreed to fence the front of the property. We offered the substation, and they’ve accepted that.

The -- with the number of policies that, you know, we have in place, but the substation would be at no cost, you know, to the -- to the Sheriff’s office. We’d also like Palm Beach Gardens to use it and the Highway Patrol.

We have a dedicated parking space out near the road by the bus stop that’ll be a WiFi station for the Sheriff’s office to use to do their reports, so there’ll be vehicles parked there most of the time.

We also discussed, and we’re open to striping the road that’s supposed to be maintained by Palm Beach Gardens that runs behind Edwin Watts. We’ll strip it and sign it, you know, put signage up.

And we’re willing to condition to a minimum weekly rate.

You’ll hear some things later on about a rate of 169 or 179, and that is not us, and that is not Palm Beach. We’re currently 359 a week plus a deposit. That’s where we’re at, and we’ll condition to a -- to a reasonable rate of, you know, 329 or something like that if you’d honor that.

And thank you for your time. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Madam Chair. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Commissioner Marcus. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: I just have to say

that I -- you all are very nice people, but I am highly insulted about the reason we should put a hotel in a neighborhood is because they have a lot of crime.

I mean then we have to do it in Lake Worth, we have to do it in Limestone Creek. If that’s the solution to a crime problem, I can tell you I’m going to have a really strong conversation with the Sheriff’s office after this about why they aren’t in there helping these people who are trying to help themselves.

So I’m really insulted on their behalf. I just wanted to say that.

AUDIENCE: (Applause.) CHAIRPERSON GREENE: And I’d like to say

something, also -- thank you, Commissioner Marcus. When I -- when you first met with me the

first thing your people did, they gave me this letter from the Sheriff Department, and you started listing to me -- giving me a list of all these things the Sheriff Department is going to do to clean it up, and I’m saying to myself if you were -- if you really came to me to convince me, you should have come to me telling me the good things.

Everything here -- if this is what the

31

Sheriff is going to do when the hotel gets there, why isn’t the sheriff doing it now?

AUDIENCE: (Applause.) CHAIRPERSON GREENE: So the -- now we’ll

hear from -- two minutes, Ms. Rebecca -- please pronounce your last name. I may mispronounce it, Kanakis? Oh, I did it right. Okay.

Mr. David Redfern. MS. KANAKIS: Good morning. My name is

Rebecca Kanakis, and I wanted to just share briefly.

I am a recent addition to the Value Place staff. I’ve been living in south Florida for the past 40 years, and they came to me because they’re expanding the concept brand of Value Place in south Florida.

Just so that you know, I’ve got currently four projects coming down. I have a -- along the Gold Coast, Port St. Lucie, Margate, Fort Pierce, Vero Beach, and there’s currently one project under construction in Homestead.

I just wanted everyone to be aware, especially the homeowners -- I can understand their concern. I’ve done a lot of research before I came a member -- became a member of Value Place and I actually stayed a week at a Value Place, and I was able to see the people that were there.

And I basically can tell you first hand -- I don’t know if any of these people have stayed at a Value Place -- but first hand I can tell you that I met with businessmen and women, and I met with people with families that were remodeling or being relocated. I met with consultants, nursing staff people.

As I was going in and out of the hotel, I felt very safe, and it was a very clean atmosphere, and I felt that the standards were very simple to understand and feel like this was just a place for me to come in, do my job, have a nice place to speak and continue my weekly visit there.

I think that this hotel in this -- in this area -- and I apologize if you feel insulted.

Basically, the whole issue with the security was brought up only because it was such a big concern, and we feel that we can help -- help the situation there, and I feel that the use for Value Place in that -- in that area will be a good -- a good match.

So that’s basically it. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Thank you. MS. KANAKIS: Thank you for your time. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Mr. Redfern. The next person, Ms. Marilyn Thomas -- I’m

sorry, Mr. Bill Chaffee. MR. KINO: Madam Chair, Mr. Redfern, with

your approval, will just wait ‘til the very end. He was the president of Value Place. He’d like to just address you at the very end if that’s okay, so he’ll pass for now.

CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Who, Mr. Redfern? MR. KINO: He’s the president. He’d like

to just address you at the very end before you

32

deliberate. Okay? CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Okay. So Mr. Bill Chaffee. MR. CHAFFEE: Madam Chairman, members of

the commission, my name is Bill Chaffee. I am a vice president of Value Place, and I

think that’s okay to admit ‘cause I’m proud of that.

But very shortly -- very briefly I want to discuss with you part of my responsibilities are cleanliness and safety in the hotels, and I think it’s important that we understand that there’s been some comments made, and they will continue to be made, about the operation of our hotels, and we’re very strict in what we do.

And I’ve contacted all the managers of the surrounding hotels about some issues that have been raised around the holidays and around weekends, and I can’t find a single manger that -- in reviewing the security tapes and reviewing what they do, that there’s been any of the incidents that have been purported to have occurred.

I’m not saying if you didn’t -- I’m not saying that people don’t have the right opinions. I just want you to understand from my position that it’s a 24/7 job for all of us to protect our customers and protect our clients.

Now, the neighborhood is an issue. I won’t address any of that. I just want to address the people that stay in our hotel.

Mr. De Boer’s policy is that if a lady comes on a business trip and stays in one of our hotels, can she walk from the furthest portion of that parking lot and feel that she’s safe all the way to the door back. That’s our number one responsibility, or a male traveler.

The other issue is the cleanliness of inside the hotel. I have been in the hotel and restaurant business all my life. I’ve never witnessed a program that is more diligent and more difficult to execute and is more -- is better done than what we see in the hotels.

I know it’s difficult to relate to the zoning issue, but since we’re all on the same page right now, I just wanted to say that to you and thank you for your time.

CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Thank you. Mr. John Little and Mr. Jim Taffuri. Is Mr. Jim -- am I pronouncing your name

correctly, Taffuri? MR. TAFFURI: Taffuri. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Oh, Taffuri. MR. TAFFURI: Yes, ma’am. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: And, Mr. John Little,

you can take that mic. Thank you. MR. TAFFURI: Good morning. My name is Jim

Taffuri, and my firm is an owner of the subject property. Our office is at 2934 Westgate Avenue in West Palm Beach.

My home has been in District 1 for over 30 years, and I’ve been licensed over 20 years as a Florida real estate broker.

33

I’d like to first offer my thoughts on the rezoning.

The existing residential zoning on this site is not only antiquated, but illogical. The property frontage sits just off the commercial artery of Northlake Boulevard, and when you see an aerial and visit the site, what leaps out at you are the uses that border the subject property and how removed they are from the residential character.

To the north sits a 29 -- a 22,000 square foot mega-church rising 40 feet, commercial institutional use.

To the west, the I-95 northbound entrance ramp. You can vividly see here and feel cars and semis accelerating to merge onto the Interstate.

No noise will exist here as the DOT stopped installation at the north side of the church boundary where presumably no further residential would be considered.

And at the south border is a commercial retail center and service station, an intense commercial use.

The subject property is essentially surrounded by commercial use and highway, and failing to approve the rezoning would continue to leave the strained zoning pocket or enclave that exists.

This enclave creates severe locational obsolescence for any fee simple residential use, workforce or otherwise, as no builder would construct homes offering these views and exposures, especially in our current market, competing with a massive inventory of over 18,000 homes countywide priced between 164 and $304,000.

This property would continue to sit vacant and remain a haven for vagrants and vandals. Residential fails miserably, both from a planning and a viability standpoint.

I urge you to vote with staff and approve this rezoning.

Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Mr. Steve Sutter, will

you take that mic, please. Mr. Little. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: He already spoke. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: He did? Okay. Then

Mr. Richard Krone (ph) will take that mic, please. MR. LITTLE: Good morning, Commissioners. I’m trying to place my speech to two-minute

or three minutes. My name is John Little, and I am, too, a

principal of the company that owns the property. My residence has been in District 1 for

over 40 years, and I live within two miles of the property.

I am a licensed general contractor and have had professional businesses for over 20 years in the north end of the county.

I’m going to try to paraphrase a little bit.

A small handful of residents have voiced

34

their concern by rezoning the property and allowing a hybrid hotel/residential complex will diminish the quality of the neighborhood.

The City of Palm Beach Gardens has proven their concerns wrong by allowing a 128,000 square foot mega high intensity retail center, Gander Mountain, to wrap around the Sandtree neighborhood and the Sun Court area.

Gander Mountain has proven they can become a good neighbor and blend together, even with traffic counts and size many times the scale of this proposed proposal.

The placement of Section 8 housing or workforce housing on the property will only create additional vacancies and issues.

Landlords are not required to accept written leases. They’re not required to have background checks. As to a hotel has innkeeper’s rights. Value Place will also scan licenses against the Florida Warrants database and against for sexual predators.

Just out of curiosity I have also pulled up the sexual predators in the area. Within 0.3 miles average there’s over 10 sexual predators right in that little area that currently live.

The neighborhood has issues. Issues can be corrected. Issues can be slowly turned around and resolved by good partners, good businesses working with the neighbors in the area.

Truly, working extensively with Value Place I have truly gotten to know their midwestern values, hence Value Place and their desire to be a good neighbor with a quality hybrid residential commercial product.

Their diligent screening process is something that interests me as being a seller in the area and having to live in the area, knowing that I don’t want a seedy-type operation running within two miles of my house.

Commissioner Aaronson, just one little quick thing. I apologize.

Commissioner Aaronson was correct when he said to the effect a few months ago that we must look at an organization who brings tourism dollars into our local economy.

Value Place will bring in approximately one million dollars into the County within the first year with revenues and about a half million dollars year after year thereafter with taxes.

So I encourage the commissioners to vote on the commercial change and the approval for the --

CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Thank you. MR. LITTLE: -- Value Place Hotel. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Mr. Erik Benz and Mr.

Norman Benz. MR. BENZ: My name is Erik Benz. I am on

staff at the so-called mega-church. We moved in June of 2005, and I just wanted

to bring to the Board’s awareness that since we’ve moved in, we have done various neighborhood outreaches. We’ve tried our best to be a good

35

neighbor. We’ve done Christmas present parades where

we’ve given every child in the neighborhood a present, and we’ve done Easter activities, too, with Easter egg hunts and things like that.

And so I wanted to affirm the relationship that the church has with the neighborhood, and we’ve been there in bad times as well.

We’ve hosted of no charge or anything like that, just out of being a good neighbor, when there’s been a funeral and those types of things, and not to try to, you know, win over the neighborhood, but just to try to be a good neighbor, and that’s been our effort.

We’ve poured over a million dollars into renovation of the property. I don’t know if you remember what it looked like before we moved in.

It needed a roof. It was worn down. We’ve done landscaping. We’ve brought all the buildings up to code because they had a -- mold issues and things like that.

And so it is our desire to continue to be a good neighbor, and we feel like, you know, it’s a difference of opinion for some of the neighborhood is that Value Place will do the same thing, and we believe that the words that they’ve given us, that they will be good neighbors, too.

And so it’s just -- I’m just speaking to affirm the relationship that the church has with the neighborhood and, hopefully, you know, we can come to an agreement, but that’s it.

CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Thank you. Mr. Bill Fries -- I hope I’m pronouncing

your name correctly. Mr. Benz. MR. BENZ: I am Norman Benz. I am lead

pastor of Covenant Centre International. We are located just north of the property in question.

I am in support of the proposal that’s before us today, and I want you to know I’ve lived in northern Palm Beach County for 27 years.

And I have seen this property for many, many years, even before we acquired it, and over the years the property that is in question has been a haven for crime and vagrancy, and it has been a sore spot in the north county area, and I believe that what we are proposing -- or what is being proposed today is a good deal for the community and a good deal for the church.

As a community of faith we live in this community, also, and we have much at stake here. We are an active congregation from morning to evening, so the business on this lot next to us has received our priority attention in relation to our ministry operation.

We have met with community leaders, with County staff, with Board members. We’ve been in these meetings with the business leaders and executives so that we will be fully informed of everything that is available to us.

We believe that Value Place Hotel has made it clear that security, lighting, maintenance and

36

landscaping will be at the highest level. Crime at the property will decrease.

The traffic impact is within County guidelines. Property assessed values will increase. The income from tax revenues will be substantial. The increase in monies being spent with local businesses will be significant.

Drainage at the intersection of Van Cott and Roan Lane will improve. The building is set back from the street, and the landscaping will provide much relief and beautification. And as we have also heard, Value Place Hotel is a reputable company with proven leaders of -- and business leaders of integrity.

Covenant Centre is a congregation with a constituency of 2,000 plus people with an average weekly attendance of between 700 and 800, and the leadership of Covenant endorses this project, and I urge you to vote in favor of this development --

CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Thank you. MR. BENZ: -- and please do not discount

the voice of the people of Covenant. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Thank you. MR. BENZ: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Ms. Linda Brook, Mr.

Fries. MR. FRIES: Yes, ma’am. Thank you, and

good morning and thank you for the privilege of commenting. You have a major task before you.

I’m a member of Covenant Centre International. I’m one of the elders.

I respect the views of our community, but I hold a different view with regard to the advantages of this proposed addition.

First I’d like to say that from a numbers standpoint the church had 846 people attend its services last week. We have an overall community of people that attend in excess of 2,000. There’s a lot of people there.

So from pure numbers standpoint I think we have a strong voice that should be heard by you, and I appreciate your hearing that.

We believe the addition of the hotel is a positive, not only for the church, but also for the community. For the community -- for the -- for the neighborhood. If I lived there, I’d feel this way.

There’s improved safety and security I think it is -- absolutely would happen.

There’s improved drainage, and there’s going to be enhanced property values, not decreased, but increased. That’s my sense.

The plus for the church, also the improved security and safety for our congregants and the preschool, the sale of two-thirds of an acre of land which right now is unusable to us, and then the addition of parking spaces that will help our growing congregation.

So on balance, we hold the addition of the hotel to be a positive, not only for the church, but for the community.

And I encourage you and respectfully request that you reverse the decision of your

37

Zoning board and approve a Class B conditional use for the addition of the hotel.

Thanks very much. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Ms. Judy Benz. Ms. Brooks. MS. BROOK: Good morning. My name is Linda

Brook, and I’m the teaching pastor at Covenant Centre International.

Allow me to explain to you the business that we are in. We are in the business of serving families.

The absolute best possible scenario for Covenant Centre International would be for family units to move into that place, but the reality of it is, is that that is not reasonable to expect that that’s going to happen for the same reasons that the gentleman who was already talking about why it can’t be used as residential.

Right now it is a haven for crime and vagrants. Let me tell you what happens at our church, what has happened three times since we met with you a few months ago.

We have had people come into our church on Sunday morning highly inebriated, harassing the church members. We had one person come in who came in in such an inebriated state that he also exposed himself to a number of the people there, including children.

We have children. We have a school there. We’re very concerned about the safety of the people who work there and the safety of the people who come in and out.

If there is another alternative that is better than Value Place and this commission can move on that, then what we are concerned about is, is that that needs to be safe. We need to have a safe place for our people to come in and out, and if someone can build houses there or would, it’d be great, but the reality of it is it is not going to happen.

CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Thank you. MS. BENZ: Hi. I’m Judy Benz, and I’m in

charge of all the children’s activities at Covenant.

When our property at Riverside was blown away by the hurricanes of 2004, we found ourselves with a place to need -- that we needed to go, and the property on Roan Lane was available, and as you’ve already heard, we made improvements in that, but our goal was to be a good neighbor to the neighbors, and we have done that, and I love the children of the neighborhood, and many of them come to our ministry and to our youth, our middle school and high school activities.

I have a heart for children. I’m over our preschool.

The preschool entrance would be at the back of the parking lot of the hotel, and I will tell you honestly I was concerned in the beginning, but after I heard the protection that they were going to put into place, I felt like the added security and the lighting was not going to do anything but

38

to help us, and my heart is to protect any children that we’re -- walk onto our property and any children that are in the neighborhood.

So I just feel like that this is going to help us to have a better, safer place, and also I have personally seen people walk out of those woods and -- that have been in illegal and immoral activities on that lot, and the only way that lot gets cleaned up is when I pick up the phone and I call somebody at the County office or I call the owner, and I harass them until the lot is cleaned up.

And so, to me, to see lights and locked gates is just a step in the right direction.

Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Thank you. These are the people who oppose but don’t

wish to speak. Mr. Nicholas Armstrong, Mr. Gerald Nottage,

Mr. Charles Clark, Ms. Julie Kaires, K-a-i-r-e-s, Ms. Kathy Kouns and Ms. Ester Votino.

Okay. The next, Mr. David Levy wish to speak, and Mr. Richard Marrero.

MR. LEVY: As a clarification are we just speaking on the zoning change?

CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Comp Plan. MR. LEVY: On the Comp Plan change? Okay. My name is David Levy. I’m with the City

of Palm Beach Gardens. I’m currently the vice mayor.

By unanimous consent of our council we oppose this project.

I do have an objection to the characterization that was given by the applicant of Gander Mountain. That project was originally zoned commercial. They reconfigured the roadway so that the access would not go through the residential neighborhood, and in fact they reconfigured Sandtree Plaza’s entrance so it would not go through a residential neighborhood.

So characterizing Gander Mountain is disingenuous.

I’d also like to go on the record as saying we oppose this project because it’s just plain and simple, too intense. It’s a four-time increase in density, which no one has yet talked about. We’re going from 32 units to 121 units.

The roadway in that area, in our opinion, cannot handle it. Their traffic report, which I saw, was inadequate and did not address traffic on Roan Avenue.

We also are concerned about the incompatibility with the residential neighborhood there.

This is a four-story hotel that is going to be adjacent to single family homes. We do not feel that that is compatible.

My planner from my staff will -- Richard will talk about that a little bit more.

The other thing, though, that was brought up in their presentation that concerns me is this is the fourth hotel chain that they’ve started.

39

They’ve sold three hotel chains. Is Value Place going to commit to being the

owner of this in perpetuity? I don’t think so. So what’s going to happen, they may take care of it, but the people they sell it to may not.

So with that, I will end my presentation with a minute 26 left.

MR. MARRERO: Good morning, Madam Chair, Commissioners. My name’s Richard Marrero, planner with the Growth Management Department.

I’m here only to speak on the land use amendment, not the actual hotel use.

On December 20th, 2007, the City filed an objection with IPARC fact-finding panel. The panel concluded that sufficient data was provided, but not sufficient analysis was done by Palm Beach County to support the future land use amendment.

To date we don’t think that the analysis was expanded upon at the panel’s recommendation.

Another thing that we had -- I’m just here to talk about planning and growth, and this area has been identified as a revitalization area, and our City has similar goals as far as furthering the economic incentives to communities, making them better places to live.

Just from a planning, growth perspective we would like to see value-added employment in communities, places where members of the community could go to work, make a living.

We met with the hotel partner, and they said at the most, four to six employees would work at the hotel at any given time.

So just from a planning perspective we feel that the roadway is already substandard. It’s not going to support something this intense, and I understand that the residential zoning district may not be the best zoning designation.

There are other less intense commercial zoning designations that could be looked at.

And I just thank you for your time and urge you to consider our objection.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Can I ask him a question?

CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Commissioner Marcus. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: There was a reference

made, and you may or may not know this -- I’m trying to go back to my memory, but that you all maintain that alley?

MR. MARRERO: We do. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: You do maintain it?

Do you own it? MR. MARRERO: We don’t own it. It was just

under our maintenance obligation. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: It’s owned by all of

the -- McDonalds, the golfing -- MR. MARRERO: Edwin Watts. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Right. MR. MARRERO: Correct. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: And it was -- we

specifically worked on that so -- I think it was referenced that the only way out of Roan Lane right now is a right-hand turn. You can only go

40

westbound, and then you have to get over to I-95, under I-95, to do a U-turn to come back if you want to go east.

So -- and there’s a -- what we refer to as a peanut, even though there is a signal there.

So what we worked out with the City was that -- but it’s privately owned and you’re maintaining it, I’m interested in that, is that this alleyway behind these commercials that are on -- right on Northlake is how the residents can go up this alley, and then they can go to another signal which is where the Home Depot and another major intersection.

But if these private property owners at one time decide that they want to do something with the property, they can do something with that property and that alley goes away, so it’s just another point of reference for the Board on how difficult this intersection is.

But I didn’t think you owned it. I didn’t know you maintained it, but --

MR. MARRERO: Correct. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Thank you. MR. MARRERO: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Thank you. Ms. Marilyn Thomas and Ms. Patricia Coloma. MS. THOMAS: With your permission I will

use my schoolmarm voice since I have to operate from this computer.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: We have a handheld right there.

MS. THOMAS: Handheld. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Yeah, because the

court reporter has to get you on the record. MS. THOMAS: Okay. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: And just for the

record, Madam Chair, she was my neighbor 30 years ago. I used to live in this area right next door on Wilshire. This was one of my -- this was my first home ownership opportunity.

MS. THOMAS: Yes, I’ve been a 29-year resident of the Roan Lane community. In that time I have never been robbed. I take walks at night. I have never been harmed, and I am not afraid to live in my neighborhood.

There have been some problems. We have benefitted from the Community Revitalization program and are continuing to work with the police and our neighbors and our area residents to keep the crime under control.

There are a few things that I would like to point out that I feel are extremely important.

Is it showing up, the picture? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No. MS. THOMAS: I -- grandma needs some help

here. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Hang on. He’s

coming. MS. THOMAS: Thank you. My name is Marilyn Thomas. I need a whole screen, too -- there we go.

All right.

41

We are a quiet neighborhood with a fragile infrastructure. We are working with all of the available agencies and our neighbor, the church, and we appreciate your work with our children, to keep the crime situation under control.

I’d like to point out a couple important things. One, the entire length of Northlake, there are no other four-story buildings, commercial or otherwise, from U.S. 1 all the way out to Royal Palm, but the proposed site is not on Northlake. It is on Roan, which is a very fragile little area, in some areas only 18 feet across.

These three items here are going to be addressed by the following 10 speakers. The proposed hotel site is directly across from our residents.

This is possibly the way it would look, and, again, four stories is way too high for our little neighborhood and way too intense.

It’s also a 24/7 business, and that’s another problem.

Traffic and safety. We only have one access and one egress to and from Northlake Boulevard, which has already been dealt with.

We are a diverse middle class residential neighborhood. This is a low budget extended stay hotel. May I mention that was addressed in the Palm Beach Post on Sunday and the problems associated with a low budget extended stay hotel down in West Palm Beach?

And it is out of character for our quiet neighborhood to have a four-story hotel. This is possibly the way it might look to the residents across the street.

Child safety. It’s in tight proximity to family dwellings and the schoolbus stop, and, Patricia, you take over from here.

MS. COLOMA: Good morning. My name is Patricia Coloma, and I live on 3812 Van Cott Circle.

I would like to make emphasis that my family and I have lived there for 10 years, and that is our biggest investment and our biggest asset, our house.

And when we bought the house, we knew that that property site was not zoned commercial, and it was not in consideration to be changed to a commercial zone.

I am here representing my two children, one of them is here, and hundred of other childrens that live in my neighborhood whose parents could not afford to take a day off to come to this meeting.

They didn’t know if it was going to be cancelled one more time or not, and they couldn’t afford to take -- take off the income of one day.

I would like you -- I would like to ask you, ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of these kids and these working families not to approve the change of zoning. Excuse me.

Allowing commercial zoning in there, this hotel will just be too much traffic. The kids play

42

on the streets. They don’t all have parks to play in, and the streets are their playing areas.

Please do not allow this change of zoning. Thank you. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Thank you. Dave Kouns, and then after that is Elyse

Isadore. MR. KOUNS: My name is Dave Kouns. I live

at 3950 Wilshire Street. I’m going to deviate from my speech because

I want to keep it short and simple. Like I told some of the commissioners, one

picture’s worth a million words, and with the pictures comes an idea of our neighborhood and our association with the church and this particular piece of property.

I cut my grass whenever I -- my leg allows me to do it.

They maintain that property over there, and the reason why vagrants hang out there is because they’re not properly maintaining the property. There was a fence that used to be up there that was taken down. So the vagrants come and -- come and go from the 24-hour gas station on the corner.

Twenty-four in a residential -- 24-hour extended stay hotel is not appropriate for residential.

They also failed to mention how many tractor-trailer spaces there are going to be in the parking lot there, and 24/7 just does not fit with our neighborhood and our children that catch the schoolbus there.

I’ve been working with the Sheriff’s Department for -- we started the Crime Watch in 2003, and their manpower, I’ve been through three community policing agency patrol. I have a new one now that seems to be -- Detective Sorenson (ph), who seems to be on top of the thing. He’s there four days a week.

We have crime. Every -- every neighborhood, including their neighborhoods, have crime. None of those people live here, live in our neighborhood.

By the pictures you can see that the roadway just cannot accept any more traffic in the handout there. That just overflows onto the road.

We’re a mixed middle class neighborhood, and that’s all I have to say.

But I have been working with Community Revitalization since 2002 and the Sheriff’s Department to do what we can about the crime and about revitalization.

Thank Commissioner Marcus and y’all for approving the lights and the speed bumps on the road, but we are a dead end street, and it’s just one way out.

Edwin Watts owns his property. So does the Jerry and Joe’s and so does McDonald’s, and thank God for Palm Beach Gardens maintaining the property.

We maintain the litter on the property that’s the vacant property that’s to be used for

43

the hotel. So we do our share as a community, what we

can. It’s a lot of working people. With gas at $4 a gallon a lot of people can’t show up.

And I think I’m speaking for them. And they would come at night, but you don’t have night meetings. We talked about that with Commissioner Kanjian earlier.

But I appreciate you voting against this commercial use. There was at one time a person that wanted to buy it to build a residence, but that was --

CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Thank you. Mr. Dominic Calcero (ph). Ms. Isadore. MS. ISADORE: Thank you. My name is Elyse

Isadore, and I bought my first house on Van Cott Circle, 3847 Van Cott Circle, almost 12 years ago. It’s a great neighborhood.

And I just want to say that a four-story, high-intensity commercial, 24-hour a day, seven-day a week, facility does not belong inside a residential neighborhood in front of people’s single story homes on a dead end residential street.

It’s not compatible with the surrounding properties, and the land is zoned multi-family ‘cause it’s a residential multi-family neighborhood. It should remain zoned multi-family residential.

We would have many more people here at this meeting; however, it’s a week day, and most people work, and they can’t afford to take the day off work.

We live here. We raise our children here. We care for the elderly here. We’re entitled to some quality of life, and I’m very, very disappointed in some of the things that I have had to hear this morning. It makes me very angry, but I’m going to be polite and be nice.

We did have a buyer for the property when it was up for sale prior to the tax deed certificate sale, and he’d offered 1.5 million for the property to build multi-family housing on the property.

So there is opportunity to have multi-family built there. We also have a brand new multi-family townhouse community on the south end -- not the south end, the north end of Roan Lane called Dove’s Landing (ph), and that’s been fairly successful. They’re mostly occupied now, and so it can be done, and that was a much smaller parcel of land than what we have here at this, you know, particular site.

I ask you please don’t change the zoning and please don’t allow a 24/7 facility in our neighborhood.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Can I ask her a question?

CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Sure. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: You mentioned that

the -- you had -- there was a buyer --

44

MS. ISADORE: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: -- who was interested

in doing that -- MS. ISADORE: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: -- and it didn’t

happen because somebody picked it up on a tax deed? MS. ISADORE: No, there was -- it was --

the property was up for sale prior to the tax deed certificate sale.

There used to be a house on the property. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: What’s a tax deed

certificate sale? MS. ISADORE: It’s when the property owner

couldn’t afford to pay their property taxes, and -- COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Oh, so it went in -- MS. ISADORE: -- then they got auctioned

off at the tax deed certificate sale, which is how the current owner acquired the property in question.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Mr. Calocero. Did I mispronounce your name?

MR. CALOGERO: That’s okay. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Okay. Ms. Karen Walter, take this mic, please. MR. CALOGERO: Yes. My name is Dominic

Calogero. First I want to say good morning,

Commissioners. I’ve lived on Roan Lane since 1978. For

the past 13 years my wife and I have managed 89 units, apartment units, in this residential neighborhood, and has made -- we’ve made it our home.

The property owner, Mr. Filipo Amelio (ph), who actually is the person who wanted to purchase that property a few years back that we’re talking about.

Mr. Filipo Amelio and myself and our tenants fear the possible encroachment of a towering 24-hour facility in our neighborhood. We just feel it’s just too -- just too big, way too big.

Upon my observation of hotels and motels in our area there are approximately 16 of them, and I believe that they do not encroach into a residential community.

One of our concerns is that this project -- if this project is allowed, it will set a precedent for other large commercial buildings to move into other residential areas in our County.

I plead with you to not allow this project to move forward for all of our families here on Roan Lane and some of the businesses on the Northlake thoroughfare or corridor.

Also, couple things, if I may, add. They were talking about how long it takes

for an eviction. I’ve been handling the evictions for this community -- well, for the area that I take care of for the past years, 13 years, and it takes approximately a month for an eviction. I

45

have had it happen in one day, and that was by the help of the County sheriffs.

Also -- and then we also talked about Gander Mountain. Actually, we had nothing to do with Gander Mountain, but, again, I don’t believe two wrongs make a right, either, and I think that this would be a wrong.

Even though Gander Mountain is taking care of the problem over there, I don’t believe that Value Place will help us.

I heard them talk about safety. I’ve heard them talk about their safety, not our community’s safety.

I may also be wrong on this, but the gentleman, David, who is one of the owners, it sounds to me that they’ve built many projects, and I don’t know if I consider him a flipper of property or not, but it sounds like they’ve had many and sold them.

I just hope that you give us the consideration I feel we’re due to not allow this project to continue.

Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Thank you. Mr. Jeff Summers. Ms. Walter. MS. WALTER: My name is Karen Walter. I’ve

lived in October Park for 25 years, and I want to thank Commissioner Kanjian this morning because I am a teacher at William T. Dwyer, and we have worked very hard to get where we are. Thank you very much for acknowledging us today.

And I’ll see you tomorrow, Commissioner Marcus.

I am a mother. I have raised my son in this community. He knows no other home. He’s 23. He’ll speak in a moment. I am an FAU graduate student. I am your workforce.

I have lived in this community for 25 years. It is affordable housing. It’s a great community. My community is not broken. I love living here, and I enjoy the atmosphere of having children around all the time.

Many families choose to raise their children in this community. It is a fabulous place to raise your children.

I’ve been door knocking for the last couple of months about this issue. In this door knocking I have run into one resident that said sure, go ahead and build a hotel.

I have run into three that have said, uh, I don’t care.

And the remainder of the 75 to 80 doors that I have knocked on have signed petitions and do not want the zoning changed in our community.

Today I’m very fortunate that I do have paid sick time that I can use as a personal day to come here and address you. Many of my neighbors do not have that opportunity.

I told them when I was knocking on the doors that I would speak for them today, and that their signatures on these petitions would speak for

46

them, as well. Okay. You guys have been having trouble

getting developers to put affordable housing in the communities, right? That’s what I hear, anyway, and that’s what the Palm Beach Post tells us all.

So here you have an affordable housing community. It’s already zoned like that. It is already there. So why would you even think about considering changing this zoning when it’s already zoned for that particular use, and it is right smack in the middle of an affordable housing community.

I was -- I’m going to finish up, but I was actually very shocked that this even got this far. I have been a voter since I’ve lived in Florida, 30 years, and to have something like this put in my back yard is -- it amazed me that it got this far.

But I trust you guys. I vote for you guys. Okay. I’m here today to tell you to please, please, please keep our community in mind as you vote on this rezoning issue today and know that we are a workforce community, and we are representative of the workforce.

CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Commissioner Aaronson. MS. WALTER: Thank you. COMMISSIONER AARONSON: Ma’am. MS. WALTER: It’s been mentioned many times

that you don’t want a four-story facility. It’s too high for the neighborhood, but having approximately 3.6 acres there, in order to have affordable housing, it would have to be multi-story.

MS. WALTER: The -- COMMISSIONER AARONSON: Now, I happen to

agree with you. I think this is what we’re looking for is affordable housing in places -- this is infill. I think many of us on this Board have been looking for that.

So what would happen if it had to be three stories to make 12 to an acre?

MS. WALTER: The Dove’s Landing facility that Elyse spoke to you about earlier is two-story, and it works out very nicely.

COMMISSIONER AARONSON: But if it had to be three stories and it was affordable housing, would there be an objection from the community?

MS. WALTER: Probably, and most of these communities -- the butting up against 95 is no big deal. They’re -- all of these duplexes butt up against 95.

COMMISSIONER AARONSON: The reason I asked the question is I happen to agree with you, okay, and I see your point of view, but I’ve been through this drill before.

We don’t want this, but then when something else comes back that you want, the objections are there that it’s either too high or doesn’t have this, it doesn’t have that.

I’m asking now whether the community, the same 80 people that you knocked on the door for, would accept if a developer came along and wanted to put -- build -- they’re allowed, certainly, 12

47

to an acre, correct, and I don’t know whether or not they’re allowed bonus on it, as well, possibly.

MS. ALTERMAN: That’s certainly a possibility, yes.

COMMISSIONER AARONSON: Okay. So you could be talking about 16 to an acre, and on three acres you’re talking about 48 units, and 48 units are going to have to be multi-story.

Now, when you come back with that, will the objection be that’s too high for us because --

MS. WALTER: I’m sure -- I’m sure we have some very ingenious developers in this County.

COMMISSIONER AARONSON: I don’t know whether we do or not.

MS. WALTER: And I’m sure that there are ways that we could get around doing two-story, and if you would -- if you would look at Dove’s Landing, they did a very nice job there constructing two-story units, townhouse-style units, that are consistent with the community that exists there already.

COMMISSIONER AARONSON: It -- it would have to be enough units for them to be wanting to take that property --

MS. WALTER: And Elyse also told you that there was someone willing to do that, and there probably will be again in the future.

COMMISSIONER AARONSON: So -- but -- but the fact is we would still have people coming up objecting to the height, and that’s what you’ve said.

MS. WALTER: I can only speak for myself. COMMISSIONER AARONSON: Okay. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Okay. COMMISSIONER AARONSON: The other part that

I wanted to mention in this letter that I read from the Sheriff’s Department, nothing in this letter indicates to me that the Sheriff has given his approval on this.

It seems to me, the way I read the letter, that the Value Place went to the Sheriff’s Department, told the Sheriff’s Department what they would like to do to improve the security.

The Sheriff’s Department then went ahead and said well, yeah, you can do this, that, the other thing, gave them many ideas to improve the -- but in no way do I see this as endorsing us to approve the project.

MS. WALTER: Value Place is not going to pay for a full-time Sheriff to be there.

COMMISSIONER AARONSON: Right. MS. WALTER: And Commissioner Marcus’

office has already assured us that the County does not have that within their budgetary constraints right now.

COMMISSIONER AARONSON: What I’m saying is it was mentioned that the Sheriff gave an approval, basically. That was the way it was presented.

The way I see it is that the Sheriff just gave a bunch of ideas and signed on the bottom, and that was signed by Colonel Geiger (ph) that the --

MS. WALTER: Yes.

48

COMMISSIONER AARONSON: But in no way, shape or form is it an endorsement of the project.

MS. WALTER: No. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Thank you. MS. WALTER: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Mr. Ryan Walter. I

assume that’s your son, Ms. Walter. MS. WALTER: You’ll know when you see him. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Mr. Summers. MR. SUMMERS: Hello. My name is Jeff

Summers. I built the house there in -- I’ve been

there since 1982, built the first house there, and in 1995 I built a second house for my mother on the same property, raised five children there, and they’re all grown now.

My major concern about this going up there, well, number one, it is zoned for residential. It’s not zoned commercial. So my suggestion is build the commercial somewhere else where it’s zoned commercial.

But my main concern is, is right on the west side of I-95 there is a low cost hotel there, and they’ve had problems in crime there.

There was another low cost hotel off of Blue Heron Boulevard just on the east side of 95 which had a lot of problems in crime, and it’s -- it’s currently shut down, but I think it -- I think they’ve actually knocked it down. They bulldozed it already.

CHAIRPERSON GREENE: They’re renovating it. MR. SUMMERS: Huh? CHAIRPERSON GREENE: They’re renovating it,

but you are right. MR. SUMMERS: They’re renovating. Okay. But the thing is these low cost hotels, my

concern is it’s going to bring in the transient people, people that can’t afford to rent an apartment.

I do rent apartments myself. For a person who can’t afford it, that’s where they go, you know, low cost hotels. So -- thank you.

CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Thank you. Ms. Mary Lopez. Mr. Walter. MR. WALTER: Yes, I’d like to thank the

Board for hearing the members of the community today, and I’d just like to point out that I believe it’s inconsequential, the quality of the building of this hotel, seeing if they planning on selling it, and that the area is incompatible with it, as well.

Using Gander Mountain as an analogy for this is totally erroneous because Gander Mountain actually has a four-lane, two in each direction, leading up to it, while Roan Lane is only a two-lane street, one in each direction.

I heard Mr. Fries say that if he was a neighbor, he would take the same standpoint that he does now; however, he is not, and I don’t believe he has a leg to stand on on that argument.

And the people that live on the street are

49

the ones that are opposed to it, not the ones that are here temporarily.

Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Thank you. Mr. William Waller. Ms. Lopez. MS. LOPEZ: My name is Mary Lopez, and I’m

here to represent our neighborhood. I have 387 opposes here -- COMMISSIONER AARONSON: Motion to receive

and file. MS. LOPEZ: -- that we do not want -- CHAIRPERSON GREENE: You’ve heard the

motion to receive and file by Commissioner Aaronson.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Second. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Second by Commissioner

Marcus. Ready for the question. All in favor. COMMISSIONERS: Aye. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: All opposed. (No response) CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Ayes have it, 6-0. Sorry about the interruption. MS. LOPEZ: That’s okay. We don’t want this hotel in our

neighborhood. How many of you all that’s voting and speaking up for this hotel, the owners, do you have one in your neighborhood? Do you want your children living in this environment?

How many of you have stayed in this hotel you’re asking for?

This is our community where we’re raising our kids the best way, the only way we know how. We have good children coming out of that neighborhood. We do not want this interfering.

There is nothing can be good coming from a hotel of that size, not in a neighborhood where there are kids transferring daily back and forth by there. There’s nothing good can come of it.

I am voting against it. I oppose it with all my might. It’s not good, and I don’t wish to have it. And I ask you all to please don’t approve this.

CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Ms. Lopez, we’ll take the petitions.

Mr. Waller, and the last person is Mr. Judson Holmes.

MR. WALLER: Hi. My name’s William Waller. Thank you for allowing me to be up here.

I’ve lived at -- I live at 3884 Kenneth Street, and I’ve lived there for 17½ years.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: You can pull your microphone down just a little bit.

MR. WALLER: I’ve lived at my property for 17½ years, and my partner has lived there for 23 years.

It’s always been a residential neighborhood, and it should stay that way. Please don’t destroy our neighborhood and our way of life.

My property abuts the Covenant Centre

50

Church boundary on the north, and as one of the people here mentioned, this church is a mega-church, which are -- which really is inappropriate for that neighborhood to begin with, but it’s already there.

I really would not like to see you compound, like somebody said, a wrong by putting another -- a four-story hotel there.

It’s already a visual impact to look up and see the church. Don’t get me wrong. The church is a good neighbor, but it’s in a residential neighborhood, one way in, one way out.

And to put a four-story hotel up there that’s now going to tower and look down over my property is an invasion of my privacy, and adding cameras is going to make it worse for me.

I just don’t think that -- I don’t think that it should even be entertained to put a commercial property, period, on a residential -- what is now zoned residential and always has been residential, and until four or five years ago there was a house there.

And I’m just begging you please don’t change the zoning to commercial and leave it as is as residential. I’m sure something can be worked out there, and I just think it would destroy our way of life.

And thank you for listening to me. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Thank you. Oops, I’m

sorry. Mr. Redfern, you asked us to call you last.

Is that still -- okay. MR. HOLMES: Okay. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Oh, no. He’s going to

speak. No, he’s going to speak, but I’m just letting Mr. Redfern to take the mic.

MR. HOLMES: Okay. My name is Jud Holmes, and I live on the corner of Van Cott and Roan Lane, right on the corner directly -- when I open my door, the lot is facing me, and it’s a sore spot.

Before, you know, the people lived there -- I lived there 20 years, and my father-in-law lived there two years. In fact, he was friends with the man that owned the place, the old man, before he died.

So we go back a long way. So the point I’m saying is we don’t need a

situation there, oh, they had the house there, that was the haven for the people that, like the people that -- the drifters and all that, that was the haven.

They burnt that down. That was burnt down. Crime is there. I’ve been robbed twice,

and I’ve had my mailbox knocked over three times, but we’ve had a situation, we’ve had lights put in. We’ve had speed bumps, and things have improved in our neighborhood. It’s not as bad as these people make it.

One big thing that everybody seems to forget, we have children. I live on a corner lot --

CHAIRPERSON GREENE: You’ve got to stay at

51

your mic so we can pick you up. When you move away, we can’t hear you.

MR. HOLMES: Okay. The bus stop is 60 feet from me. It’s across the street. There are about 30 children age five to 10 that take this bus every morning.

It is maybe 40, 50 feet from the proposed area where they want to have that driveway for the hotel. Okay.

CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Oh, wow. MR. HOLMES: So everything is congested. On my easement on my south side three cars

every morning park there to let their kids out. Across the street, more cars. In my driveway, more cars. I’m on a corner, don’t forget.

Just to pick up -- this happens in the morning, at the end of the day, 2:30, pick-up time, it’s a repeat process.

So it’s bad for the kids. It’s a bad area to put a driveway for children getting out of school.

CHAIRPERSON GREENE: This is what you’re referring to?

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Yep. MR. HOLMES: Yeah, I’m on a corner, yeah. So that’s one thing. Another thing I’d like to touch on, like I

say, the crime. Sure, there’s crime. I’ve been robbed a few times, but since they put them lights up, since the speed bumps, the cops have did a good job, and I’m proud to live in a neighborhood where I am.

And one other thing, let me mention, as far as nobody wanted this parking -- this bus stop they planted it on me, they tried the church. The church had it for about two weeks, and they told them they didn’t want the bus stop in the church, went back to me. That’s --

UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: Not true. UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: It’s not

true. It’s not true. MR. HOLMES: Well -- UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: It’s not

true. MR. HOLMES: -- let me just say one thing.

They -- CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Okay. Sir, sir. Sir,

time -- MR. HOLMES: I know I’m -- for two weeks

all of a sudden the bus went there. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Time, sir. MR. HOLMES: Then it came back to me. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Okay. Thank you. MR. KINO: Madam Chair, I’m pleased to let

you know that we’re just about done, and Mr. Redfern would like to address you briefly.

I’d just like to close because there were some things that just were factually untrue, and I --

CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Could you let us know how long?

MR. KINO: Give me two minutes.

52

CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Thank you. MR. KINO: Well, actually, I’d like three

that the residents were getting. We -- somehow we got two, they got three, but who’s counting.

CHAIRPERSON GREENE: You’re right. MR. KINO: I’m sure that that was just an

oversight, but we’ve talked about various things tonight, and -- this morning -- it’s almost tonight.

I want to thank you for your time. We -- it’s been a long road. We’ve

appreciated the opportunity to express ourselves and get the facts out to you for whatever decision you may make.

Traffic, we’ve heard traffic, traffic. We met all concurrency requirements. We were required to do three different studies, very conservative in the approach. We meet all concurrency requirements.

There will be no tractor-trailer spaces in the parking lot. That’s for sure.

Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office. Let me explain this. I never said they endorsed this project. What I said is what that letter says, that the addition of the substation will certainly make the neighborhood safer. That’s what it says, and we --

COMMISSIONER AARONSON: All I’m pointing out to the people is that it’s not an endorsement from the Sheriff.

MR. KINO: Absolutely. Never said that. Never would represent that.

We’ve worked with them closely, and they like the things that we’re going to do to help that neighborhood.

David Levy and other residents spoke to four-story. Commissioner Aaronson is correct. Based on the size and the drainage requirements and parking, this will be three or four stories of multi-family if that’s what -- if that’s what it becomes. So that’s really -- it’s irrelevant because it will be that type of intensity.

Hours of operation. The variance was granted by the Zoning Commission for 24 hours’ operation because they realized the operational aspect of this business are -- it closes at 6:00 p.m., the office. It’s not open on Sundays. It functions as a residential. It does not function as a retail and a typical office.

The right-of-way issue. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: They turned you down

on that. They turned you down on that. You had to

apply for a zoning appeal or something. MR. Mac GILLIS: No, they did apply -- they

did approve the hours of operation. They denied the hotel.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Oh, I gotcha. Okay. MR. KINO: Okay. So that was -- that was

not an issue for them, and we’d ask that you respect their opinion.

The right-of-way issue is factually wrong.

53

In all due respect to Richard Marrero, who has apparently represented to Commissioner Marcus, he’s wrong, and I know he’s wrong, and he knows it ‘cause he sent me the actual easement deed.

Actually, it is owned by the City of Palm Beach Gardens. They maintain it, and I’ve got it right here, and I’ll make it a part of the record, so it’s not correct, and that’s another thing I wanted to make you aware of.

The City has a requirement to maintain that for right-of-way, and they are, and it’s being utilized by the residents, as well as the business.

The Inns of America. We’re sorry that exists. It’s not what we do, and we’re -- it’s unfortunate. They rent by the hour, perhaps even as opposed to even the evening.

As Bob Banks will advise you, the standard of review is fairly debatable. Is this a fairly debatable, leaving it as residential versus change to commercial?

Your staff report strictly is very strong in its support for this change to commercial.

The LUAB supported it as commercial. It’s arbitrary in the sense that it’s not

appropriate for residential due to its proximity to I-95.

And I also wanted to say that there are petitions in support of this project. There’s 112 --

COMMISSIONER AARONSON: Move to receive and file.

CHAIRPERSON GREENE: You know I let you go over time, don’t you?

MR. KINO: I know you did. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Okay. MR. KINO: I appreciate that. I won’t take

up -- CHAIRPERSON GREENE: You heard the motion

to receive and file by Commissioner Aaronson. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Second. MR. KINO: And I want to thank -- CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Second by Commissioner

Koons. Ready for the question. All in favor. COMMISSIONERS: Aye. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: All opposed. (No response) CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Ayes have it, 6-0. Our attorney seems to be -- MR. BANKS: Let me say, this is a

legislative decision but you’ve heard ample evidence. If you want to approve this project or if you want to turn the project down, you can’t really be challenged.

So, you know, he’s trying to argue that it’s -- would not be fairly debatable to turn this project down, and I think that’s -- that’s not accurate.

MR. KINO: I would expect him to say that, and he would expect me to say what I did about -- about the --

54

MR. BANKS: And I will also say that we’ve had the Comprehensive Plan for, I don’t know, it’s like 19 years now, and we’ve never had a challenge to denying a Comprehensive Plan amendment, land use change.

It’s virtually impossible to challenge, you know, not changing the land use.

CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Thank you. MR. KINO: Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Time. MR. KINO: I’d just to introduce David

Redfern again, and thank you again for all your time.

CHAIRPERSON GREENE: You’re very welcome. MR. REDFERN: Thank you. Thank you.

Again, my name, for the record, is David Redfern, president of Value Place and partner and owner in this -- in these Value Places.

I come in conclusion to, hopefully, state a couple, three things that I think need to be stated on just a clarification point, but I wanted to first and foremost talk about where we stand as a foundation.

I started when I stood up here on the other podium stating we’re not new. What I meant by the fact that we’re not new is that we have started other brands.

We owned the Residence Inn company for 15 years, the Summerfield Suite company for 12 years and the Candlewood Suites company for 12 years.

We sold them to companies that have equal standards to ours. That’s Marriott, Hyatt and Intercontinental. All those brands would continue to own this property with the high standards we had.

I wanted to state to you so that you knew that if we did sell, that’s where we go.

Again, our plan is to continue to be the owner of Value Place. My money will be in this and will continue to be in this if and only if someone of equal or higher standards takes its place. Point one.

Point two, improved communities. I stand here along with other people that spoke. That’s Patricia and her son. That’s Dave Kouns. That’s Alicia [sic], Don [sic], Karen, Jeff, Mr. Walters, Mary Lopez, William and the other gentleman that spoke at the end.

I want to let you know that we want to be a community with you guys. We want to be a community with Palm Beach. We want to be a community with Palm Beach Gardens. That’s what we’ve done in the other 91 locations. That’s what we come here to do today.

I think you see by the efforts that we’ve shown, we want to improve the community, improve the bus stop, improve the police situation, whatever that may be. We stand here improving the community.

I hope you look upon that, though you may have difference opinion on some of the things, you cannot argue that we stand here with the want and

55

the desire to be a community member. Point one. Point two, there’s been some mention on the

24/7, and that -- I want you to know our hours of operation -- our desk is only open from 9:00 to 6:00 Monday through Friday, from 10:00 to 2:00 on Saturday, and we’re closed on Sunday.

If you do not have a reservation during those hours, you cannot come into the building.

Third, and most importantly, it goes back to our community, I appreciate the petitions, but do remember that we have 1200 church members that stand here in favor of this. They have come and witnessed what they’ve stated as wanting to be also part of the community partner, and I appreciate that those 1200 church members have also agreed that we should be there, as well.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Are you representing the church now or Value?

MR. REDFERN: I’m the president of Value Place.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Okay. MR. REDFERN: And I’m restating what the

church members stated. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Okay. Okay. Thank

you. MR. REDFERN: No. Thank you. I appreciate

it. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Thank you very much.

MR. REDFERN: Again, thank you for your time. Thanks for everyone being here. We know we took a lot of time, but it’s important.

Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Thank you. Commissioner Marcus I’d like for Ruth to

talk a little bit about what the CCRT is doing in the community because they have been working hard out there with the residents.

So maybe she can just in one second to talk about what they’re doing.

MS. MOGUILLANSKY-DeROSE: Good morning, Commissioners. On behalf of Mr. Tate (ph), my manager couldn’t be here in our office.

We -- really, our role is to come back to the Board what the community concerns are. We actually had a couple of meetings. Well over 100 people were in attendance, and they were unanimously opposed to the project.

We have been working really hard with the neighborhood thanks to the Board support and funding that has been allocated to -- in the community to try to address quality of life issues and really to try to spark a sense of community pride in this community.

In the past neighbors didn’t know, you know, each other, or if they knew, they didn’t talk to each other.

I think that we have really achieved a lot in terms of improving crime in the neighborhood, and the fact that they have more calls, that is a great thing. That is not synonymous of more crime. Now there are more people who really want to make a difference in the community, and they get on the

56

phone, and they call the Sheriff’s office. So it is a good thing to have more calls. Now, while residents agree that the

Northlake corridor has increasingly become a node for commercial-related uses, the subject site is not located on Northlake. It is located on Roan Lane, which is a local street within a residential neighborhood.

So this hotel or any other commercial use, it will not be compatible, you know, with the surrounding neighborhood.

Now, the reestablishing safety among neighbors and the traffic situation that currently exists at the intersection of Northlake and Roan Lane are two of the many issues we are trying on an ongoing basis to deal with, and residents are really concerned with the erosion of safety and the adverse impact of this project on the, you know, on the traffic, but mainly with the safety because of the transient nature of the development.

As it has been discussed, and I think that I cannot say anything better than what the residents have done. I think that they have done a wonderful job in advocating the needs and -- of the community and why they are concerned with this, and this is indeed a prime area for housing development.

That is what is today, and I am sure that if this project comes in the future for workforce housing or residential development, there will be mitigation strategies that can be put in place to ensure that that development is consistent and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

That’s it. Thank you. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Madam Chair. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Commissioner Marcus. I just wanted -- I wanted Ruth to tell you

what she’s been doing in the community because they have been working really, really hard to bring themselves up.

And just a couple of other points that was -- references were made.

There was a reference made that this is Northlake Boulevard, and there’s a Northlake Overlay Zone that is looking at redevelopment of the corridor.

This property is not in that Overlay Zone. It is outside of the Overlay Zone, so I just want to make that clear for everybody.

The -- and I’ve had this conversation with Nick from Traffic and everybody else.

We do traffic studies that talk about impacts on arterial and collector roads. We don’t have a traffic study that talks about a residential street, especially, as the residents have said, this is a dead end road.

This an 18 or 19-foot right-of-way, narrow, very narrow, and so it’s -- so even though they say it -- and I can’t -- I’m just continued to be shocked that anything else can be approved on Northlake, but -- ‘cause Northlake is a disaster,

57

but, you know, I guess because it’s a low traffic generator, is -- but it doesn’t -- we don’t do a residential impact on a residential street analysis. We only do it on what is -- would be a major highway.

So, to me, that’s also a flaw in terms of maybe perhaps our analysis out there.

The schoolbus, I’m surprised that more people didn’t talk about it. I passed this picture down.

They did talk to the School District about trying to move this schoolbus location, and the School District said this is the only spot that it can be at, but you can see the amount of kids that are in this community and that actually utilize this bus stop.

I -- Madam Chair, like I said, I -- I’ve calmed down from the insults to the community, who is working very hard to bring it up, and we want to continue to work with them to bring up the community, and, like I said, I know the area very well because I -- it was the first home I ever owned, and it was a great neighborhood to have kids in ‘cause that’s where my three kids were when they were little.

So I would -- I would just like to make a motion to deny the commercial land use change just because it’s not compatible. It doesn’t belong in this neighborhood.

Let these folks work together to get a residential developer, and there’s interest shown, who can design it right. We can buffer it right and let their neighborhoods, you know, grow.

So I would move to deny the commercial zoning.

CHAIRPERSON GREENE: You’ve heard the motion by Commissioner Marcus.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Second. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Second by Commissioner

Koons. Ready for the question. All in favor. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Aye. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Aye. COMMISSIONER AARONSON: Aye. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Aye. All -- all in favor of her motion. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Right. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Okay. 6-0. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Thank -- thank you,

Madam Chair. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: We’ll take five --

wait. COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: You didn’t ask

opposed. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: All opposed. COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: Aye. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Okay. So it’s 5-1. Okay. And we’ll take a five -- COMMISSIONER SANTAMARIA: I have a

statement to make -- CHAIRPERSON GREENE: We -- wait, wait. She

58

wants to take a five minute -- okay. Wait, don’t move because we’re going to take a five-minute break after this.

You oppose? COMMISSIONER MARCUS: He’s going to speak. COMMISSIONER SANTAMARIA: I have to speak

first before I make a vote. I’d like to speak first and then -- CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Oh, I’m waiting. I’m

not saying anything. COMMISSIONER SANTAMARIA: Okay. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: I just want to let you

know that she was waiting on us to give her a break.

COMMISSIONER SANTAMARIA: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Okay. So don’t be

long. COMMISSIONER SANTAMARIA: I visited this --

I visited the site. I went up and down the street and evaluated the circumstances of how a hotel operation would impact positively or negatively, and for those that don’t know it, I do own a hotel business for the last 30 years with 166 rooms, and based on my knowledge of the hotel business and evaluating all I’ve heard today I need to make certain comments.

I -- a hotel business has a low traffic flow. It’s my opinion -- it’s my opinion that a maximum density as allowed now for apartments, because that’s what would probably come in would be apartments, probably would create more traffic in that corner.

It’s a tough -- it’s a tough, tough ingress and egress situation, and it’s my opinion, again, that balancing a maximum apartment complex and a hotel as been proposed would not be -- would not increase the traffic.

It’s my opinion that probably an apartment complex with all working families moving in and out at the same time early in the morning and late in the afternoon actually be -- create more traffic impact, more negative traffic impact, and based on my knowledge of the hotel business and imagining a hotel on that site, I would say it would not be a negative impact on the community.

Of course, we would find -- we would only find that out after it was built, and if we -- after several years, but based on my knowledge of the hotel business and based on what I think the management of the Value Hotel people as presented, again, it’s my opinion that it would not create any negative impacts on the communities, and based on my knowledge of the hotel business and traffic flow in the sense that I have a probably more intense hotel with 166 units, weighing the pluses and minuses, I would tend to support the recommendation of the staff.

So, really, my vote would be to support the recommendation of the staff because I do -- I -- based on my knowledge and experience I do not see that the hotel as proposed would be a negative on the community if -- so that’s -- so my vote would

59

be to support the staff. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: So you’re voting no? COMMISSIONER MARCUS: So you’re voting no? COMMISSIONER SANTAMARIA: Right. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Okay. So it’s 4-2. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Okay. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Okay. We’ll take a

five-minute break. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Okay. Thank you. (Whereupon, a short break was taken in the

proceedings.)

CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Okay. We’re back. MR. Mac GILLIS: Madam Chair, we’d ask that

the Board take a motion on Item 20, 21 and 22, which were the related zoning applications just to withdraw those so there’s no confusion.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: You want a motion? MR. Mac GILLIS: Yes. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: I’d move to withdraw

Items 20, 21 -- MR. Mac GILLIS: Twenty-two. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: -- and 22. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: You heard the motion

by Commissioner Marcus. COMMISSIONER AARONSON: Second. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Second by Commissioner

Aaronson, and I know every -- we don’t need to explain to the audience why we’re doing this, do we?

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: No. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Okay. They know.

Okay. MR. Mac GILLIS: Okay. That’ll bring us to

Page -- COMMISSIONER MARCUS: We have to vote on

it. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Oh, I didn’t get the

motion -- COMMISSIONER AARONSON: Being that -- being

that we -- CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Motion by Commissioner

Aaronson -- made the motion by Commissioner -- COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Marcus. COMMISSIONER AARONSON: I have to ask a

question on this. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: I was just -- MR. BANKS: No, I think we’re -- since

we’re withdrawing them, we don’t need to do disclosure, right. Okay.

COMMISSIONER AARONSON: Huh?

60

MR. BANKS: We don’t need disclosure, is that your question?

COMMISSIONER AARONSON: Fine. MR. BANKS: Okay. COMMISSIONER AARONSON: Okay. I’m

disclosing anyhow. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Oh, I did -- oh, I

didn’t do -- MR. BANKS: No, that was legislative in

nature so it didn’t need disclosure; correct. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Okay. So I can carry

the motion through now? COMMISSIONER AARONSON: Yeah. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: All ready for the

motion. All in favor. COMMISSIONERS: Aye. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: All opposed. (No response) CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Ayes have it, 6-0.

MR. Mac GILLIS: Okay. CHAIRPERSON GREENE: Then we’ll start with

No. 20 -- MR. Mac GILLIS: Twenty-six, DOA/TDR2007-

1400, Haverhill Acres, found on Page 464 through 499.

Staff is recommending approval, subject to 26 conditions and six on the TDR application.

Joyce Lawrence will give you a brief presentation.

MS. LAWRENCE: Good morning, Commissioners. Joyce Lawrence, for the record.

Proposed is a development order amendment for the Haverhill Acre Planned Unit Development.

The 11.82-acre parcel of land was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on September 22nd, 2005, for 89 units.

The applicant is requesting to reconfigure the previously approved site plan to add 71 additional units of which 29 will be through the Transfer of Development Rights Program for an overall of 160 multi-family units.

Of the 160 units, 39 will be designated as workforce housing.

The proposed site plan indicates 10 multi-family unit -- buildings, sorry, a 0.36-acre recreational site with a pool and a tot lot and a 2.3 -- 0.23-acre private civic site and five dry detention areas, totaling 1.79 acres.

A total of 367 parking spaces will be

61

provided and one access point from Stacey Street. Just a brief history on the site. On July 21st, 2005, the Board of Adjustment

recommend approval for two variances to allow the residential development to proceed in compliance with the PUD regulation.

This site has a 50-foot frontage along Stacey Street, and this is not classified as a collector or arterial road.

So the first variance was to allow a deviation which required a PUD to have a minimum of 200 linear feet of frontage along an arterial or collector street.

The second variance allow a deviation from the ULDC Article 3.E.1.C which requires legal access on an arterial and collector streets.

At the Zoning Commission hearing, and this was on May 1st, 2008, hearing, this item was pulled from consent and was presented by staff and the applicant.

The Zoning Commission recommended that the cash-out money should be used towards improvement of the neighborhood park, and this should either be on the current parcel or on the adjacent school site.

Two representatives from the public were present, and they objected to this proposal. Their main objections were construction timing for the school and the proposed units and also children safety during construction.

There was also the issue raised on increase in traffic.

The Zoning Commission voted unanimously, 7-0, in support of the request.

Staff had received seven -- sorry, five letters from the public regarding this project.

Staff is recommending of the request, subject to 26 conditions of approval as indicated in Exhibit C on Pages 484 to 493 and six TDR conditions of approval in Exhibit C as indicated on Page 494 to 495 of your packet.

This concludes my presentation. If there are no questions, I’ll turn it

over to the agent for a presentation. Thank you. MR. IRAVANI: Good morning, Mr. Chairman.

Jeff Iravani, on behalf of the applicant. This project was approved three years ago

as a townhouse subdivision. Unfortunately, it was the wrong project. It was not viable, and, therefore, it was not built.

The applicant, the new owner, Lavish Corporation (ph), they have done a lot of projects in urban infill development, and they have experience, and we have developed this site plan that we are presenting to you today.

The site is pretty much as it was previously. It has the loop roadway.

We have a cul-de-sac in access. We are building a bus shelter at this point. We’re going to have a landscape focal point in this area, at the cul-de-sac and also landscape focal area in

62

this area (indicating). We’re going to have buildings all around.

Going to be a pool area and a lot tot [sic] for recreation.

We also have a dry detention area. The project is on C-51, requires a lot of drainage, but the dry detention in this projects are higher than they usually are. They usually about one foot above the water table. These are going to be a few feet. So we believe that after the rain is over, this area would be available also for recreation.

The project access are gated for traffic control. They have pedestrian walkway throughout the site, and also around the rec area.

In developing this site plan the owner have worked with the County. We are providing drainage requirement for north Stacey Street through our development and our dry detention area.

We are work with the School District. We are providing easement for a water main for the school to go through our project.

We’re also providing a contribution, our fair share, for reconstruction of Stacey Street. As you know, the Stacey Street is going to be reconstructed with the -- with a signal at the intersection with Haverhill, and that’s done for a school benefit.

The parcel to our site [sic] is going to be a new elementary school. To our north the parcel is also owned by school. At one time it was going to be Boys and Girls Club, but I’m not sure what they’re going to do with it.

To our west is Lake Worth Drainage District, and to our south is Village of Haverhill -- or Town of Haverhill.

We worked with OCR, and we want to thank Ruth for working with us.

We received a list of homeowners, and we had a meeting. We mailed the notices to them, and we had a meeting with them in, I believe, February in Hilton Hotel, and the neighbors overwhelmingly were in favor of this project.

We also worked with Sheriff Department. They have a lot of interest in this area, and we are providing them with a substation in a clubhouse, and I believe they have sent a letter in support of this project.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes our presentation. Glad to answer any concern you may have.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Yeah, just everything you said is true. I just want to confirm what.

We’ve worked very closely with -- sometimes you question those things, but we worked very closely with the School Board on this.

This is the infill Stacey Street school that we facilitated and the developer, the County, the School Board, everybody’s worked very well to kind of bring this in for a landing. So just to -- appreciate all the work.

I do have some cards here. If there’s any questions from the Board?

63

(No response) VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Joseph Roche from

Cole Street. Oh, is that -- this is for -- MR. Mac GILLIS: No. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. This is -- MS. LAWRENCE: Haverhill. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Oh, this is 20 --

okay, I got the wrong cards there. I flipped off the wrong page. This is --

MS. KWOK: Twenty-six. MR. Mac GILLIS: Twenty-six, Haverhill

Acres. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Well, everybody

signed 26 on these cards. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Oh, they did the

wrong thing. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Which one -- are you

on 28? VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Yeah, that’s got to

be 28. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Okay. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Yeah, that’s 28.

Anybody wish to favor -- anybody wish to speak on this? Yes. Yes.

MS. RUTAN: Are you -- VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Anybody on this

particular project. You all are 28. So we’ll switch that to --

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: What’s your name? MS. RUTAN: Janice Rutan. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Yes. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Yeah, you -- okay.

You are 26. Okay. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. MS. RUTAN: And I was not sworn in. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Yes. Oh, you

weren’t? (Whereupon, speaker was sworn in by Mr.

Banks.) MR. BANKS: Thank you. MS. RUTAN: I’m here to represent Mayor

Joseph Kroll with regard to this project. I believe he had hand delivered letters in opposition.

The town is extremely concerned about the density of the project, and at the meeting with the Zoning Commission the other concern of the safety of the children and the timing of the construction at the same time the school was addressed, and I believe that was part of the conditions of approval.

As you’re aware, the Town of Haverhill has recently entered into an interlocal agreement with the Palm Beach County School District in which they have agreed to construct an eight-foot wall on the town’s northern boundary, which is the southern boundary of this project, and the town is requesting that as a condition of approval that wall be continued along the -- which would be their southern boundary, the town’s northern boundary, to protect the Town’s single family residential units from the excessive density of the project being

64

constructed. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. Thank you. Is there anybody else that wishes to -- COMMISSIONER MARCUS: I think these are the

wish to speaks. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Yes. Just come

forward and -- yes, ma’am. MS. BRANDENBURG: Thelmalee Brandenburg. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. MS. BRANDENBURG: I live one block south of

Stacey Street. I’m also two houses away from Cole Street. That’s why there’s some confusion on some of the cards.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. MS. BRANDENBURG: My main thing is to just

limit the total size of the Haverhill Acres, and the developers did promise a police substation back there.

Could there be a motion from you all to make them build that before they get their certificate of occupancy, ‘cause we get a lot of sheriff’s helicopters over the neighborhood.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Ma’am, that’ll be part of the approval process, yeah. That’ll be available before they get their CO.

MS. BRANDENBURG: That’s all on that one. Thank you.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. Anybody else wish to speak? I don’t want

to goof up the cards. Yes, ma’am. MS. LINDBERG: Merry Lindberg, also in the

same neighborhood -- VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. MS. LINDBERG: -- which is across Haverhill

from Stacey Street. Born and raised in the neighborhood. My

parents built their house on Park Lane in 1950. I stood at the bus stop across from Stacey and went to Military Trail Elementary School, et cetera, et cetera.

My concern, like the rest of the neighbors, and I know this one is pretty far down the track is that, again, just the extreme level of density, combined with the school is going to be a traffic nightmare.

I mean we just -- we’re involved in another project right in that same neighborhood where they were wanting to put in housing, and we were told -- and a daycare, and we were told the traffic counts, this and that.

I mean now we’re talking about 169 units in there plus a school coming out of Stacey Street and hitting Haverhill right at our neighborhood.

We already have -- our street, Park Lane and Cypress, are still the little narrow dirt roads. We have so much cut-through traffic from Belvedere to Haverhill to beat the light at Haverhill and Belvedere that -- I mean it’s just -- it’s incredible.

But, as I say, it seems like this is pretty far down the track, but it’s certainly making it

65

very burdensome in what was a true original suburban neighborhood.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? MR. BRANDENBURG: Howard Brandenburg, and I

oppose the density of it. I don’t think the 71 units should be added into it because of the density and the traffic and the traffic that it’ll put on for the school area coming out of Stacey Street, even though it is going to be, I guess, modified somehow.

I don’t see how that much traffic at the same time in the morning and afternoon will come out at a traffic light at Stacey and Haverhill. It’s just going to back up traffic that much more.

As you know, Belvedere and Haverhill does have a little bit of a problem, and I know the substation is going to be there, and that’s -- that’s my main objection, is the extra 71 units.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. Thank you. Just to comment, the one project that you

mentioned, there was housing that’s going to daycare, that’s coming through as daycare right now, so we fixed that before.

And just -- COMMISSIONER MARCUS: I was going to read

the three that want to just oppose it and not speak would be Joseph Roche, and then Rhonda Shoumate and William Shoumate, all oppose it.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. Yes, sir. Any comments? MR. IRAVANI: Mr. Chairman, regarding the

density, the entire Stacey Street is all high densities. We are RH-8.

Our density’s about 13 with the TDR, and you could actually have had -- we’re eligible for additional 18 TDR, but the owner decided to go with this number because it makes the project viable. At the same time it provides attractive site plan.

I remember about 20 years ago we did a project on Stacey Street, 12 units per acre, further to the east, and it was a HUD project.

So our density is compatible with the Stacey Street.

In addition, as I mentioned, Stacey is going to be reconstructed by the County for school, and then the red light’s going to be in there, so the traffic issue would -- would resolve.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Yes, Commissioner Kanjian.

COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The -- you know, I’m seeing this amazing consistency of the public not wanting workforce or affordable housing anywhere near them, and I just want to point out the fact that I don’t have a problem with that, them having that concern.

I want to point out that I’m being told all the time by our staff that the public is clamoring for more workforce housing.

This Commission has taken the position that we want to encourage lots more workforce housing,

66

and this is a good example of a project that fits those needs.

But I encourage the public who continues to come in here to say they don’t want this near them, that they need to make sure that everybody’s aware that these procedures that are put in place by the County are being put in place because they’re being told that that’s what the public wants, and I’m not sure the public wants it. I’ve been saying that for a while.

I kind of think that you guys live in a type of neighborhood where it consists of homes would -- would be nice, but these are the rules that are put in place, and they’ve been put in place because they say that’s what the public wants.

But every single time we do one of these projects everybody anywhere near it says they don’t want it.

So I hope that our fellow commissioners hear the voices of the community as they continue to say they don’t want it, but there’s a whole -- there’s apparently about a million two of you out there that never show up here that want it. It’s only the people who come here that don’t, and I hope that we take note of that.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Commissioner Aaronson.

COMMISSIONER AARONSON: The fact of the matter is we do need affordable housing. Our staff says we need it. We’re short affordable housing.

This Board has taken an action that we do need affordable housing.

Just like the last thing that was here before us, the question that I asked of the people -- Commissioner Koons --

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Yes. COMMISSIONER AARONSON: The last thing I

asked of the people was okay, I’m going to oppose the hotel, but we can build 48 units there, and will you accept the 48 units, and the people who say they live in workforce housing and affordable housing would not make a commitment if it was three stories.

I’m going to support that. If a builder comes through, I am going to support that because Commissioner Marcus, Commissioner Koons talk about infill, talk about small, three acres, four acres, five acres of infill -- when I talk about massive projects, they say we could do it with infill, and yet the people come forward, and even though they say they want it, not in my back yard.

That’s the constant cry. Have it for everybody else, but not in my back yard.

I think we need it. I think this developer that’s going to do it needs the density. It was approved by everybody.

I’m going to make a motion that we go ahead to adopt a resolution approving a Development Order Amendment to reconfigure the preliminary site plan to add 71 units.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. Is there a

67

second? COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: Second. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Second. Discussion. Yes, sir. Go ahead. COMMISSIONER SANTAMARIA: One more time I’m

going to repeat my statements that I’ve said in the past.

I am 100 percent in support of affordable housing.

The problem I have is what we are defining as affordable housing is not affordable housing, and I think I have the right to make that statement because I have built 3,000 affordable homes over the last 25 years.

So I know what affordable housing is, and I’m -- stated on record that what we are calling affordable -- workforce affordable housing is not true affordable housing.

That’s my first point. So if we think we’re producing affordable

housing, you’ll find out soon enough that we’re not.

Secondly, you know, just adding density and adding density, which is the way we think we’re going to get the affordable housing, again, is just adding more traffic on the roads, more congestion, and, again, reducing the quality of life of the neighborhood.

So I have no problem with affordable housing if it were true affordable housing, but all of this extra density we’re giving our developer-builders, you know, is really detrimental to the neighborhood.

So those are my concerns, and I will continue repeating those concerns. We’re putting too much high density units in those areas, and we’re not really accomplishing affordable housing.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. There’s a motion and a second.

COMMISSIONER AARONSON: I just want to answer that.

AUDIENCE: (Applause.) COMMISSIONER AARONSON: The answer to that,

until this Board sits down, ‘cause this is the Board that sat down and made the rules and regulations for affordable housing, we’re the ones that approve the density on the advice of the staff, we went ahead and did that.

Until this Board turns around and says we’re not going to give the additional density, this is what our rules and regulations created, and what we’re doing is we’re going by the rules and regulations.

So that’s why I made my motion. That’s why I have the motion in, and that’s why I’m going to support it, and if you want to have a workshop on another day and say what we did was wrong, I personally, and you heard me say last week, the fact is what was affordable at $164,000 was -- is not affordable anymore because you have gasoline at $4 a gallon, you have food prices going up.

I’ve said this continually that affordable

68

is a moving target, depending upon what the economy is, but the fact is if you want to have a workshop and go over it, but right now we have our rules and regulations in place, and I’m going to support the rules and regulations ‘til this Board makes a decision to change the rules and regulations of affordable housing.

So that’s why I made my motion. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. There’s a

motion -- COMMISSIONER SANTAMARIA: A final moment --

final comment? VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SANTAMARIA: For the record, I

was not yet elected into this Commission when those rules were made.

COMMISSIONER AARONSON: Fine. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. There’s a -- COMMISSIONER AARONSON: And we can have

another workshop. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. There’s a

motion and a second. Discussion. (No response) VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: All those in favor,

aye. COMMISSIONER AARONSON: Aye. COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: Aye. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Aye. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Aye. All those opposed. COMMISSIONER SANTAMARIA: Aye. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. Show it

passing, 4-1. Disclosure. COMMISSIONER AARONSON: Okay. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: I had so many

meetings on this I’m up for the Nobel Peace Prize. COMMISSIONER AARONSON: I -- VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Working with the

School Board and Engineering Department, and I just want to thank all the staff publicly to be able to take a look at this.

COMMISSIONER AARONSON: Okay. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: This is one of the

more -- I spent more time on this project than any other project in the last five years.

COMMISSIONER AARONSON: We’re not at the end.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: I’m just disclosing. COMMISSIONER AARONSON: I also want to make

a motion to adopt a resolution approving the transfer of development rights for 29 TDR units and to designate this application as a receiving area and to allow the sale of each TDR unit that is designated as workforce housing at a cost of $1.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. There’s a motion, second.

COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: Quick comment, Mr. Chair, and I’m going to -- I’m going to support this motion, but --

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay.

69

COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: But I’m going to ask that we look at -- as a staff we look at how these units are coming back to us, and if they don’t get built -- it’s frustrating to me that $1 is pretty low. I understand why we want to do it this way, but I am a little frustrated when we only get half of it up front. It’s only a dollar.

I think we need to start looking at making them pay more if they don’t do it. If they get up here and get approved for it and don’t do it, rather than just a dollar because we end up approving a lot of these things. Nothing happens with them, and that’s a concern for me.

So I don’t blame the consumers and the neighbors when they say these are -- these are a lot of units being put in. They’re getting all this extra density, and it really doesn’t cost anything, but it doesn’t cost anything if they don’t end up building them either, and we don’t do this project.

So I sure hope we take a look at that. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. There’s a

motion and a second. Second was Kanjian. The second, Kanjian. Aaronson, Kanjian.

Yes, did you wish to -- MS. RUTAN: I just wanted to ask if

there’ll be any consideration -- COMMISSIONER AARONSON: I can’t hear a word

you’re saying. MS. RUTAN: It’s just I’m asking him if

there’s any consideration for the buffering on southern side of that to the Town of Haverhill that abuts the -- our north side, which is all of the residential homes.

MR. IRAVANI: There is a six-feet wall at this point that was on the site plan with the landscaping as required by Palm Beach County.

There’s a six-foot wall along the south which abuts Haverhill.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: And that’ll match the School Board wall.

MS. RUTAN: The School Board is eight feet. MR. IRAVANI: It will, sure. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: We can’t go eight.

Eight looks like a prison. Okay. So that’s six-foot wall. Motion, second. Discussion. (No response) VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: All those in favor,

aye. Aye. COMMISSIONERS: Aye. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Opposed. (No response) MS. ALTERMAN: Just -- VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Yes. Hang on. MS. ALTERMAN: Just want to also add that

there should be space provided for the Sheriff’s substation.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: I think that’s agreed upon and in a condition of approval.

COMMISSIONER AARONSON: It’s part of my

70

motion. MR. IRAVANI: Yes, we agree to that. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. There’s a --

oh, that carries. Was that 5-0 -- 5-0. Okay. Do we want to try and do 28 before

lunch? MR. IRAVANI: Thank you. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: It’s the same. It’s

the same residents that are here, so -- I mean I can stay.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. We’ll do 28, and we’ll do the mining.

COMMISSIONER AARONSON: I got ten minutes. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: What’s that? Okay. MR. Mac GILLIS: Okay. Twenty-eight,

Z/CA/TDR2007-1621, Cole Street Villas. Anthony Wint will give us a brief

presentation on this item. MR. WINT: Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Anthony Wint, Planner II, for the record. We will now turn to Item No. 28, which can

be found on Page 525 of today’s agenda. Proposed is the rezoning of 1.42 acres of

land from the Residential High density zoning district to the residential multi-family zoning district and a Class A conditional use to designate this application as a receiving area for the transfer of development rights for five units.

These units will be deed restricted as workforce housing units.

The site plan indicates 13 multi-family units, a 2100 square foot recreation area, a 962 square foot dry detention area, 46 parking spaces, and access to the site will be from Cole Street.

This item was heard at the May, 2008, Zoning Commission meeting. The issues discussed were density as a result of TDRs, schoolbus location, crime, streetlights, redirecting Parks and Recreation funds and visual screening on the western property line.

To address the density as a result of TDRs staff recommends a Conditional Overlay Zone to meet the traffic performance standards.

To address the schoolbus location staff spoke with Michael Owens of the School Board, and he indicated there’s already a schoolbus in close proximity, and there are only -- there are less than half a dozen children utilizing that bus stop currently.

To address the crime issue, this is a CCRT

71

community, and they have been working with the Sheriff’s office on those issues.

To address redirecting Parks and Recreation funds, Jeanne Matthews is here in the audience, and if the Board needs to hear from her regarding this issue, she’s willing to speak.

And to address visual screening on the western property line staff recommends Landscaping Condition No. 6 which requires an eight-foot wall.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: That’s too high. MR. WINT: Staff received 47 comments from

the public regarding this project, one letter from the Town of Haverhill with 16 signatures in opposition.

Staff is recommending approval, subject to 17 conditions which can be found in Exhibit C and four transfer of development rights conditions in Exhibit C-1.

If there are no questions for staff, I can turn it over to the applicant.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Any questions? (No response) VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. Applicant. MR. KIER: Good morning, Commissioners. My

name is David Kier from Seminole Bay Land Company. We are the agents, planners and landscape architects for this project.

My presentation will be seven minutes or less.

This is a workforce housing project consisting of 13 units, five of which have been acquired through the transfer of development rights and Workforce Housing Program.

This project in terms of location is located one-quarter of a mile west of Military Trail, one block north of Belvedere.

Cole Street essentially starts at the Super Wal-Mart and then runs west for one-quarter mile where it comes to an abrupt stop at some existing single family residences which are approximately one unit per acre.

The properties which are adjacent to us on the west side are portions of at least 15 properties that Seminole Bay annexed into the Town of Haverhill at no cost to the Town of Haverhill and at a significant loss to our company and client in the hopes that we could include Cole Street in that annexation.

The Town of Haverhill decided not to pursue an aggressive approach to annexation and decided in an opinion issued by their planner, which I disagree with, that this could not be annexed, and we had understandings at that time of a reasonable density that would have worked in the Town of Haverhill and still allowed us about 12 units per acre.

Per the president of the council, Town of Haverhill has since changed their opinion on workforce, slash, affordable housing and now would not grant densities in the range that we were discussing with them during our annexation attempts.

72

Our project consists of two buildings -- VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: You’re on. MR. KIER: -- two buildings. They are two-

story buildings. Two-story buildings abut our property to the north, but, most importantly, we tried to limit the lot coverage here because density spread out in one-story buildings leaves us no grass, no retention, no place for the children to play.

So we’ve rather cleverly laid out the site with the idea we’re trying to pull these buildings in more than the required setbacks to provide actual living, working back yards on there.

Additionally, as well as giving money to the County Parks and Rec contribution, we are creating a real playground on site. This is not a detention area that only works when it’s dry. This is surface grade well-drained land, fenced and secured, invisible to all the residents of the community.

Our units are four-bedroom, two and a half bath with a one car garage, two additional spaces at the units for family members plus guest parking located in new places.

This truly is a family community with four bedrooms.

The prevailing housing stock in this neighborhood is largely one and two-bedroom apartments. Rents in the area, two-bedroom apartment, about 850 a month.

Our units will be $200,000, plus or minus, based on workforce housing. Essentially, we’re looking at a $2,000 per month we must generate to break even.

So we are not going to be renting or bringing in the type of homeowners that are going to be anxious to go out and rob from the neighborhood because their houses are going to be significantly worth more.

Today I’m requesting approval of the various zoning, conditional uses, transfer of development rights and Workforce Housing Program conditions, but I more specifically request the elimination of three conditions and consideration on a fourth.

The elimination, number one, that I would like is the condition for any lighting of Cole Street.

When I visited this neighbor -- neighborhood, I did not drive through in a car. I parked, and I walked through this neighborhood, and most of the residents that are here today will tell you -- well, maybe not most, but certainly half will tell you I have knocked on their doors.

I’ve talked with them. I’ve sat down. I know them by name. So this is not a surprise, but they feel that doing affordable housing in this neighborhood is somehow going to degrade their homes, and if you’ll look, I have for your consideration a copy of this map which maps out existing density around our site for approximately, let’s say, 500 to 700 feet.

73

I would ask if we can receive this -- COMMISSIONER AARONSON: Motion to receive

and file. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Second. MR. KIER: -- as well as photographs of the

neighborhood into the record. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: There’s a motion to

receive and file. All those in favor, aye. Aye. COMMISSIONERS: Aye. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. Aaronson and Marcus. MR. KIER: If you’ll have the opportunity

to look at these photos as the neighbors come and talk to you about the neighborhood, you make your own decisions about whether this neighborhood is appropriate for infill development.

Anyway, the elimination of the condition for lighting of Cole Street, we ask to be eliminated. We are a new neighbor to this area. Why are we lighting the entire street a quarter of a mile down there?

We made the OCR and other divisions aware of the fact that there’s only one streetlight on this street as it is right now. In truth, there’s actually two more, but they’re not street lights. They’re turned the other way into the lots.

I’ve not been challenged or in any way been contradicted by staff on that.

Second, we will agree to provide an all-weather bus shelter if required; however, we will not take part in any acquisition of land, establishments of easements, professional fees, et cetera.

In short, you give us a site, have it clear and ready, we’ll build a bus stop. In lieu of that, we’ll provide an acceptable amount of money into an escrow account so that money would be available when that site is available.

Finally, I’m asking for the elimination of the eight-foot wall.

At the Zoning Commission I agreed to this condition rather quickly with the idea, what’s the deal.

After that meeting I went home and brought my clients over, and we sat on my patio, and we put up an eight-foot wide wall out of sheets of PVC.

As Commissioner Koons said, this is not privacy, this is detention. This is enclosure.

I would suggest to you that this condition is not only arbitrary, it’s irrelevant, and, most importantly, it’s punitive towards my owners.

The irrelevancy stems from the fact that immediately along the ditch, slash, canal -- and it is a ditch ‘cause it drops so quickly -- are a number of areca palms already at 18 to 20 feet tall.

The pictures on this board represent both the views from the neighbors to the west and the views from within the site at the second story.

We put a platform up there at 12 feet and shot our pictures to show you can’t even see the

74

neighbor’s house, and, additionally, we have more arecas on site. We have seagrapes. We have sabal palms. I can bury that buffer in plants, and my tenants can enjoy more than an eight-foot concrete wall in their face.

The final thing, I don’t know that you can do anything about. We would love if our park donation fee could go to the Town of Haverhill to help them with their facilities, but I do not believe you have the ordinance and the mechanisms in place to allow you to do that today, but maybe at the workshop that Mr. Aaronson -- Commissioner Aaronson has referred to happens, we can look at those sorts of things.

I appreciate your time, and rather than at this point sort of projecting any community response or staff arguments, I would like to return the floor and then be prepared to respond exactly to the comments made, rather than anticipating them.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Thank you. Parks and Rec, do you wish to make a

comment? MS. MATTHEWS: The cash-out will go to the

Trust Fund, and it can be used for neighborhood and community parks within a five-mile radius.

We have two big park projects planned. One is at Haverhill Park. We’re going to be adding --

COMMISSIONER AARONSON: Speak into the microphone, please.

MS. MATTHEWS: We’re going to be adding lighted basketball courts, and at Westgate Community Center we’re going to add interactive splash playground.

So the money will go for those two, and they’re relatively close to this property.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. Thank you. MS. MATTHEWS: And he is providing park

facilities. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Does the Town of

Haverhill wish to make some comments? MS. RUTAN: Once again, I’m Janice Rutan.

I’m the Town Clerk for the Town of Haverhill, and I’m here representing Mayor Kroll, and I do want to start out that Mr. Kier in no way represented the Town of Haverhill in any matters relating to annexation and its future annexation.

So if you could take that into consideration. We are right now moving forward with the annexation of this property.

The Town of Haverhill, again, is objecting, and contrary to what is happening at Stacey Street, we are objecting to the intensity and the density of this project. Cole Street is a neighborhood, also abutted down by Concord and so forth. It is right now primarily residential.

Town of Haverhill also recently annexed property which is directly west of this boundary. We ask that the eight-foot privacy wall be installed. The arecas are there today. We don’t know what will be there tomorrow.

We ask, again, consistent with all of the

75

other projects that abut the residential character of the Town of Haverhill that we maintain that through the construction of these privacy walls.

Thank you. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: I met with the mayor

on Monday, and I expressed, as I’ve been expressing for the last couple of years, Haverhill has to become engaged with the County on future annexation areas to go forward.

We’ve outreached in -- y’all have to be a little bit more responsive to us to be able to sit down. You all keep reacting to us, so we react to you, and that’s not good planning.

So I was very clear to him that we’ve got to get ahead of this curve on your future annexation areas on what’s happening ‘cause we’re doing stuff you don’t want, and -- and -- so, anyway, I just -- that’s got to happen better.

And so -- and we’re outreaching in our URA areas to be able to take a look at this, so --

MS. RUTAN: And we have met with -- VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: -- just take that

message back. And, hey, we’re just trying to -- you know,

we’re infilling, but we need to have a clear thing about what’s going on, and this area is in the annexation areas, yet here we are going through these projects.

Ruth, did you want to have some comments? MS. RUTAN: Thank you. MS. MOGUILLANSKY-DeROSE: No, the only

thing, Commissioner I wanted to mention -- and I want to thank David for meeting with the community. There were approximately 17 people in attendance, and they were all opposed to the project.

And I think that as Janice indicated, I think that the main concern, if you want to compare this project with the previous project that was submitted to the Board, and is the main concern that the residents have is that the subject property abuts to Cole Street, not Cherry Road, on the north.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Uh-huh. MS. MOGUILLANSKY-DeROSE: And that it is a

dead end street. It is a local street. Most of the property with exception of, you

know, a few duplexes are in a -- it’s majority single family homes.

They already have some issues with cut-through traffic on Concord and Cole Street, you know, by people who are trying to avoid the light at Belvedere and Military.

And at the beginning when the applicant shared the project with the community group, the community was not --

COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: Mr. Chair, excuse me just a second.

We’re going to -- we’re going to lose Commissioner Aaronson here in a moment. I know -- do we still have cards from the public?

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Yeah, I’ve got six cards -- seven cards.

76

COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: I mean, I would just suggest that we either let -- let them speak, the --

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: How much time do you have?

COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: He needed to go. COMMISSIONER AARONSON: Twelve-thirty. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. Why don’t you

guys come up and line up real quick. Somebody’s got some pictures we need to do

first, and you want to finish your comments real quick?

MS. MOGUILLANSKY-DeROSE: No, no, just that the impact and the traffic and the incompatibility, that is the express concerns by the residents, but like the commissioner said, they can explain what they --

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. There’s a motion to receive and file some pictures.

COMMISSIONER AARONSON: So moved. COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: Second. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Motion, Aaronson.

Second, Kanjian. All those in favor, aye. Aye. COMMISSIONERS: Aye. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Yes, sir. Two

minutes, brief and brilliant. MR. ROCHE: My name is Joseph Roche. I

live at 4732 Cole Street. I’m right around the corner from this project.

Cole Street is basically a single family residential neighborhood. This project will have a major impact on our little neighborhood.

As a matter of fact, the Town of -- the Haverhill Neighborhood Plan suggests lowering the land use density in this specific area from Residential eight to Residential five. Page 14 references that plan.

The increase in traffic in this -- in this area will definitely have an impact on our neighborhood.

Cole Street is a short 18-foot wide dead end street. Again, the major traffic that cuts through there in the afternoon is already a major impact on our neighborhood.

There is an elementary school bus stop on the corner of Cole and Concord. This project is going to be right around the corner, and with the increase of 40 to 50 more vehicles going out in the morning, we’ve got a potential -- the potential for a disaster here.

The property is being developed as workforce housing. The previous project takes care of all the workforce housing in our neighborhood, in our definite area right there.

We’re asking you please do not approve this project.

We’ve been working with Ruth. God bless Ruth. She’s been helping us. We’ve got our neighborhood back again.

Our neighborhood is a developing nice neighborhood again. We know all our neighbors, and

77

we’re trying to annex into the Town of Haverhill right now, and, you know, to have that hometown feeling with Haverhill.

So, please, don’t approve this project. We’re asking you.

Thank you. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. Yes, sir. And you are? MR. ABBOTT: My name is -- VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: And the next speaker

could line up real quick and -- yes, sir. MR. ABBOTT: My name is Dave Abbott. I

live at -- VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. MR. ABBOTT: -- 1262 Park Lane directly

west of this project. I realize that the project or the owner of

the property has rights to develop, and that he should be allowed to develop his property, but not at the -- we think that this entire area, if you look at the cost of the homes, they are workforce right now. They’re in the under $200,000 range, and there’s ample homes for sale right now.

If you look at Cherry Road, go over there right now, they’ve taken the rental units, and they converted them into condos, and they’re getting ready to sell them, and nobody’s buying them. They’re empty. But here they want to dump more units on us.

But if he is indeed -- if the Board says that he’s -- that we need more workforce housing, is requirable and desirable for Cole Street, we would require the petitioner to provide the following.

We agree with the eight-foot wall constructed on the western property line.

If the petitioner is required to flip, we would -- be required to flip the proposed units bordering on the western property line to the eastern property line, and the play area and the dry retention moved to the western property line. That’s privacy to the one-acre estate home -- lot homes located directly to the west, which includes mine.

We feel that on the two-story, irregardless of all that arecas, he’s still going to be able to move them out, and they’re going to have access looking down into the three, four properties that abut his property.

If the project is allowed to proceed as presented, we ask that the units be deed restricted to single family homes, not allowing them to be converted to rental units in the future.

There’s nothing selling in the area. I don’t know who he’s going to sell them to, but rental units, all you do is keep dropping the price, and somebody will come in rent them, and that’s why we’ve had problems in the past. So we would like to see it deed restricted.

The sewer system. I never understood why this project was viable economically because to go from Cole Street from my property line all the way

78

to Military has to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

I heard that he’s planning on tapping into the project to the north where they have a pump station.

If indeed he is allowed to do that, I would ask that they wall it off on three sides, the west, the south and the east side and make his ingress, egress through the property going to Cherry Road. Dump all the property on Cherry, and he can become a part of Cherry Road.

It makes more sense that way than to -- if he’s not going to put the sewer in, what reason is -- he has no commitment to the area whatsoever.

He’s not willing to put in lights. He’s not willing to put in sewer. He has absolutely no benefit for us whatever.

If the additional five workforce housing units are removed from this petition, we would like to see the allowable eight units be one story, which are compatible with the existing family homes and duplexes in the Cole -- in Cole Street.

That’s basically it. A, I’m against it, but, B, we’re willing to make certain concessions.

Thank you. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Yes, sir. Next speaker. MR. BRANDENBURG: Howard Brandenburg again,

and I live directly in the neighborhood that these Cole Street Villas are going to be built.

Mr. Kier, when he came through, didn’t tell us that he was talking about building 13 units. He just said, “I’m going to build a few units on a small piece of property.”

Now, it’s only 1.4 acres, and he wants to put 13 units on it. That’s too many -- too much density for this area where our property is one acre. Most of the other neighbors are one acre, couple of them half-acre to one and a half acres in -- directly west of Cole Street where Cole Street dead ends.

And I’m asking you again, don’t approve all of these with all 13 units. To me, four units would be viable for that particular area.

URAs, I know -- far as I’m concerned is from Forest Hill up to Congress -- I mean up to Southern, and they’re already overlapping into the residential areas, a postage piece -- postage stamp piece of property that you want to put 13 units on.

If you do approve it, I hope you don’t go over the eight units, and, again, as Dave said, deed restrict it to owner operate instead of rental units.

And Mr. Kier recommended that he was going to sell them for 200,000, roughly. He told -- he told the Zoning Commission that he was going to sell them for 179 to 250, if I remember right. I know 250 was the top value of them. That doesn’t sound like workforce units to me.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Thank you. Thelma, and after that is Rhonda. If somebody’s made your point for you,

79

we’re down to four in the quorum here. Okay. MS. BRANDENBURG: Thelma Brandenburg. As

you know, I live on an acre, just a couple of houses away from this.

My -- I would like, number one, to be restricted to the number that is allowed by law and not elevated to the 13. Keep it at the eight. I wish it was less, but that’s not how the rules are at the moment.

I hope you readdress how dense you’re making this type of neighborhood in the future.

The big thing, I think, is that you make a motion to make them, if you allow this, to do their drainage down Cole Street if you’re going to let them access on Cole Street, because the properties that exist there are low land.

If you don’t do drainage down Cole Street -- they have to raise their property height to be able to build on it legally now.

I know from one other project in the area that was done that abuts our property, we now flood three inches in our garage. We never did before that property was raised and now floods our garage.

Don’t do that to Cole Street. Please make a motion and make them do drainage down Cole Street if you allow them to build in the way they’re proposing to build.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Thank you. Rhonda, and after that is William Shoumate. MS. LINDBERG: Hi, I’m Merry Lindberg. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay, Merry. MS. LINDBERG: I live on Park Lane, which

Dave Abbott’s my neighbor, who directly abuts this property. I live across Park Lane from him so my front door looks right toward this property.

Again, the densities are totally inconsistent with the neighborhood. We don’t have anything that dense, certainly on Park Lane. We’re all acre and half-acre lots, and on Cole Street, again, the most you have is a duplex or triplex scenario.

Cole Street is a narrow road. It’s a dead end road. This is at the very end of a dead end road.

We’re, again, as you’ve heard Mr. Kier describe, they want to do nothing to advantage the neighborhood, other than put their units in there.

He referred to the prospects as tenants. I think that was telling. Obviously, that’s the end goal here is not actually to sell these units, but to rent them.

I’ve not seen any market study in the community meeting that we had that would show that this is a viable project as sales of units in that price range at the end of a, you know, narrow dead end street.

He also tries to color descriptions by saying Cole Street is like a -- you just go to Wal-Mart and head west. Well, that’s incorrect. Wal-Mart is on the opposite side of Military Trail from Cole Street. Cole Street is not at Wal-Mart.

Also, the presentation I believe that was

80

made to the Zoning Commission talked about the multi-family densities. That’s only in the Cherry Street -- Cherry Road area, which is not directly connected to this particular location.

Cole Street is not the level of density of Cherry, and, you know, and now we only learn more recently that that’s their plans for sewers, is to just hook in through Cherry but, nonetheless, utilize Cole Street.

We also already have problems with cut-through through our neighborhood because people just walk through to the dead end of Cole Street and then cut through our back yards. So that’s why, again, things like fencing and privacy are extreme issues for us.

Thank you. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. Anybody else

wishing to speak? (No response) VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: I’ve got Janice

Rutan, William Shoumate or Rhonda Shoumate. MS. LINDBERG: Mrs. Shoumate said they sent

in a letter. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. I think -- MS. LINDBERG: Mrs. Shoumate said they sent

in a letter. Also, if I could just -- VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: -- that’s part of the

record. MS. LINDBERG: Yes, part of the record, and

if I could just -- VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Yes. MS. LINDBERG: -- comment, as well. My

sister also lives there in the neighborhood right next door. It’s the family homes we grew up in. Our parents owned and built the house in 1950.

She also collected petitions from everybody in our neighborhood. I think we submitted those.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: We’ve got those received and filed.

MS. LINDBERG: Yeah, so I think there’s something like, I don’t know, around 100 people or so that have voted no on this project.

Thank you. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. Yes, sir. Petitioner. MR. KIER: Yes. Let me move quickly. I’ll

address the comments in the order of the people that gave them.

As far as the Town of Haverhill, no, we did not represent the Town of Haverhill in their annexation, but much like the little red hen, they were more than glad to accept all the work we did for free, and now they enjoy the benefit of those ad valorem dollars, in addition to a lot of other goodies.

As far as keeping the wall, I think I’ve just said it before. Why are we being punished with an eight-foot wall? That is not screening. That is enclosure. That’s punitive. That’s detention. It’s ridiculous.

As far as status of vegetation, you have the ability that you have used in the past and

81

which we accept that all that vegetation will be preserved. It will be highly xeriscaped, probably 65 to 70 percent native.

The vegetation is not going anywhere. We will accept that as a condition. We have no problem with vegetation.

We cannot additionally do a wall because we’re on the bank of a ditch, not a canal with a three-to-one slope, so the wall could go underneath.

We have not worked out with Palm Beach County how they’re going to maintain because it is a Palm Beach County canal, I believe.

I’m looking towards Jim and Ken. It is not a Lake Worth Drainage District

canal. There’s no provision for maintenance. Put that eight-foot wall up there, and you

invite a slew of problems. Addressing Ruth and the OCR, I’m a little

disappointed and have been with the OCR in that we met with Houston Tate (ph) and members of a big group of OCR people very early in.

We’ve been encouraged, go down this road, it’s a great site plan. You’re doing this and it’s great. It’s up two stories, et cetera.

And now that the neighbors are squeaking, OCR has just turned tail on us and goes on to the neighbors’ side. I’m very bothered by that.

Most importantly, in that staff and the neighbors are making some misrepresentations.

We are at a dead end road here. There is no right-of-way, no provision for a right-of-way. It is a natural and perfect zoning boundary with a ditch and landscaping.

This road, Cole Street, is not going over to Park Lane, and as such, the people on Park Lane are really, I think, stretching the effect of this project on them.

We’ve been told that we cannot count or look towards this, which is 10 to 12 units per acre in this entire block. Look how big this is. This is our entire north property line, but we don’t get to count it because their roads don’t connect to Park Lane.

My road doesn’t connect to Park Lane, but I don’t get the benefit of that argument. I have a real problem with that.

Finally -- I think that completes my comments on OCR.

Mr. Roche represented it as a single family neighborhood on Cole Street. Gentlemen and ladies, it’s not. It’s 30 to 33 percent rental property. Where we’re representing certain things as being single family houses, they’ve been converted to duplexes and triplexes. The meters there, I trust they’re legal conversions, but this street does have rental property, and the bulk of that rental property is not in the greatest of shape.

Mr. Abbott spoke next. Mr. Abbott is the concerned neighbor next door. If you’ll look at the map, Mr. Abbott’s house is 200 feet away from the western boundary for this property. Mr.

82

Abbott’s house is one story, but what Mr. Abbott has not made you aware of is his one-story barn back here of approximately 18, 16 feet. I mean this is a tall building.

So if that’s what we’re going to be compatible on one story, we can do 16 to 18 feet. I guess we might be able to accept that condition. But it is misrepresentation, and that building is not an architecturally designed masterpiece. It’s a block and stucco barn.

Finally, the other neighbors -- same comment applies here. The bulk of the neighbors here today, the Brandenburgs, the Lindbergs, are a minimum of 350 to 400 feet away from this project. They’re on the opposite side of Park Lane. They can’t see this project now.

They’re not going to see it in the future, and I think that one has to question the relevance of their comments in that term, and there is not going to be cut-through traffic.

I think that generally covers it. The last item would be the issue of the

sewer. I walked this neighborhood. I know this neighborhood. The sewer exists already right here (indicating), the corner of Cole and Concord. The manhole’s there. It’s been there a long time.

Now, the people on this street wanted to connect to the sewer, I could only assume that that opportunity has been there for a long time.

We are not going to be tearing up Cole Street. We are connecting here (indicating).

Where they’re getting information that we went to Cherry Hill was just because we said we were going to look at that possibility. Once we knew where the pipes were, the elevations, lift stations, et cetera, our site plan already includes a lift station up front which will be thoroughly screened.

Those of you that know my company and our work, we have not done a code minimum plan in over 10 years, and we certainly are not going to start on this project.

I think that’s enough said from my end. I believe we have met and exceeded the workforce housing requirements. We’ve shown that it can work, and the price that I said of $200,000 was an average. We will have units below and units above.

Thank you for your time. I’m happy to answer any questions.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. Can we go to disclosure. UNIDENTIFIED AUDIENCE MEMBER: We need to

talk about this. We have to talk about this. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: We’re okay. We’ve

got it. Disclosure. COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: Mr. Chairman, I have

met with Mr. Kier, but not specifically on this issue.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. I’ve met with the petitioners. I don’t think I met with Mr. Kier.

83

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: I didn’t meet with anybody that I remember.

COMMISSIONER SANTAMARIA: I met with the mayor of Haverhill.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: Mr. Chair, I have a

question for staff. The applicant noted that they would be

happy or would be willing to do a landscaping condition on there, which was one of the concerns of the residents.

How would we frame that to make sure that that was codified in this? There was a couple of different things about how much percentage and that kind of stuff.

How would we -- how would we make that so that it would be something that we could enforce in our conditions?

MR. Mac GILLIS: Okay. Are we talking about the -- I mean there are conditions recommended by staff in the backup material on Page 540.

COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: Mr. Kier had mentioned that he would be okay with additional restrictions on keeping some of the current vegetation there, which, in essence, screens a lot of the area to start with.

I think that’s what you said; correct? MR. KIER: And I mentioned also -- COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: I want to make sure

if we do this that we -- notwithstanding the fact that you did agree to an eight-foot wall before and you’d like a six-foot wall now, I’m going to assume that this condition that you would like you really, really would do.

Is that -- MR. KIER: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: Okay. So let’s make

sure, but let’s -- let’s get this going here because if we’re going to do it, I want to make sure that we at least address that issue.

How can we put this in as a -- I want to make sure I would phrase it properly.

MR. Mac GILLIS: We would have to require an alternative landscape plan presented prior to final DRO approval that staff work with the applicant and the residents to locate the, you know, the plant materials, the trees, the shrubs and stuff that’s -- works with the proposed wall and elevations and desire to create a visual barrier between those two properties.

COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: Okay. But -- MR. Mac GILLIS: The substance of the

condition is actually there on Page 541 on No. 6. It would be just adding the language that a alternative landscape plan, which allows staff flexibility.

COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: Mr. Chair, then I would make the motion that we adopt a resolution approving the official zoning map amendment from the Residential High Density zoning to Multi-family Residential zoning with a Conditional Overlay Zone

84

with the -- with the additional -- subject to the conditions of approval with additional condition being that an alternative landscape plan prior to DRO would be submitted, and that we would move the wall from eight feet to six feet.

MR. KIER: Commissioner, would you also relieve us of the street light condition?

COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: I’m going to leave the street light off for now.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: You got a question? Attorney?

MR. BANKS: With the street lights? COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: I would -- right now

I’ll leave the street lights on there. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. Is there a

second? (No response) VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: No second. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: My light -- VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Sharing. I can’t -- COMMISSIONER MARCUS: I gotcha. I -- you do a great job, a great

presentation and I appreciate it, but I also hear, and I look at the compatibility issues of the community, and I would like to let Haverhill kind of work it out, also.

So I can’t support the -- the -- is it the TDRs that we’re -- the workforce housing?

MS. ALTERMAN: Yes. They’re asking for five TDR units, and those would be restricted -- Mr. Kier had agreed to restrict those to workforce housing in order to get them for $1 each.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: So by right he can have the eight units?

MS. ALTERMAN: Yes. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Does he even have to

be here to get the eight units? MS. ALTERMAN: I look to staff for -- MR. KIER: Eight is not going to work for

us, especially when we’ve been essentially taken down this garden path for the period of time that we’ve had.

And as I pointed out, it’s about lot coverage. It’s not about units. We are in terms of lot coverage not dense.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: But -- but -- so if we don’t give them the TDRs, we -- I mean I guess I’m asking is if we approve the first one and don’t do the TDRs.

MS. KWOK: Commissioner, if I may. If you -- the applicant actually can go

through the DRO administrative process to get eight units -- actually, six units through the standard density and then another two TDRs through the administrative process for a total of eight units for the site.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: So if -- so if we wanted to encourage that route, we would deny all of these?

MS. ALTERMAN: That would be correct. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Okay. Then I would

move to deny the resolution for the Residential

85

High Zoning District to Multi-family. MR. Mac GILLIS: Actually, to clarify that

it would be 10 units -- MS. KWOK: Ten units. MR. Mac GILLIS: -- 10 units through the

DRO process. MS. KWOK: Yeah. MR. Mac GILLIS: It would be eight through

straight building permit review, 10 through the DRO process and 13 through this process, through the BCC.

MS. KWOK: Yeah. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Okay. MR. KIER: And that would be no workforce

housing on the ten units? COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Right. MR. KIER: That is correct? COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Well, I mean that’s

up to what the DRO process is. MR. KIER: Okay. Ms. Marcus, if I’m not --

I fear that I’m treading into Commission discussion, but --

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Well, we don’t even --

MR. KIER: -- staff’s -- COMMISSIONER MARCUS: We don’t even know if

I have a second yet, so you may not have anything to talk about.

MR. KIER: Okay. Thank you. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Well, no, I’m -- I -- COMMISSIONER MARCUS: I have -- I put a

motion to deny, so I -- if you don’t want to second that, then my motion doesn’t matter. Okay.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: We don’t have anything. We don’t have a second. We don’t have nothing.

MR. BANKS: Can I say we have four -- we have four commissioners today so if --

COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: Mr. Chair, I -- MR. BANKS: This is quasi-judicial. If

we -- if we end up with a tie vote, the item will be continued to the next --

COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: I make a motion that we go ahead and adjourn for lunch because, clearly, and this is one of the problems.

We decided earlier that with four people here it was going to be very difficult, and I don’t want to prolong the agony of the public.

MR. BANKS: What we need to do is continue this into the next -- these two items until the next zoning hearing, which would be --

MR. KIER: That would be very accessible [sic]. I was going to suggest a postponement. That way we’d have the other commissioners here.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Let -- Commissioner Santamaria is trying to say something.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Commissioner Santamaria.

That’s the way we’re going to go right now. COMMISSIONER SANTAMARIA: Do I have a turn

to speak? COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Yes, your turn.

86

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Yes. COMMISSIONER SANTAMARIA: Thank you. Questions to the -- for the staff. In the recent past, say over the last six

months, I don’t want to go through your memory too far back, have we had an applicant who’s come here before us on multi-family housing that has not requested TDRs?

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: I don’t remember. MS. ALTERMAN: Commissioner, let me just

answer that in two ways. First of all, this is below the threshold

requiring workforce housing, your density bonus, ‘cause that is 10 units per acre, 10 units that qualifies.

So he’s only entitled to eight units. So he had to come in through with TDRs if he wanted additional units.

But as -- in answer to your question, generally, yes, applicants do ask for TDR units.

COMMISSIONER SANTAMARIA: So my question is it appears to me that just about everybody who comes in for a multi-family development wants TDRs and wants to increase density. Am I right or not?

MS. ALTERMAN: That -- MR. Mac GILLIS: That statement is

generally correct, yes, Commissioner. COMMISSIONER SANTAMARIA: So what I’m

saying is a parade of applicants who seem to think that this Commission is going to be approving every request for -- whether it’s with TDRs or not with TDRs, the fact remains that -- I’m getting the feeling that every applicant wants more density, and we hear the public saying we don’t want more density, but the thing here is we keep approving higher density.

The neighborhood does not want higher density, but we keep on approving, increasing density, whether it’s TDRs or otherwise.

You know, my question to our legal -- legal staff, legal attorney, is if we seem to be approving applicants who keep coming over and over again for TDRs, increasing -- increasing density, can we ever turn down anybody?

If we have 99 percent of applicants get approvals for increased density, are we ever going to be safe to disapprove anybody?

MR. BANKS: Each applicant’s taken on its own at the public hearing based on the evidence that’s presented.

You know, you make -- you make it based on the evidence that was put before you.

COMMISSIONER SANTAMARIA: Regardless of the fact that we keep on approving just about everybody.

So -- so, anyway, I’m going to repeat one more time.

You know, I’m very concerned that we keep approving applicants who want more density on their project.

You know, again, I have -- I have successfully built 3,000 units, and I never, ever

87

increased density in any of my applications. In fact, the other way around. I actually reduced the density.

So I’m just concerned that we seem to open the door to increasing higher density time and time again.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: So do you want to make a motion?

I mean I made a motion to deny, which would not give him the extra density.

COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: I don’t believe we need a second for a motion to adjourn, so at least let me --

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: No, we -- we -- COMMISSIONER SANTAMARIA: I’ll -- I’ll

second your motion. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Okay. MR. KIER: Actually, Commissioner, a motion

to adjourn is undebatable, primary -- COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: Mr. Kier, thank you. MR. KIER: You must vote on it. COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: I understand

Robert’s Rules. I just asked the -- COMMISSIONER MARCUS: We can’t adjourn

today. We have a 2:00 o’clock -- MR. BANKS: We can’t -- we have a -- COMMISSIONER MARCUS: -- special item, so

we can’t adjourn. MR. BANKS: Right. And we need -- VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Right. I know. MR. BANKS: -- and we have an open public

hearing. The Board either needs to take action or continue the item to next month’s agenda.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. MR. BANKS: Just a motion to continue -- VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Let me make it clear

right now. You did second her motion? COMMISSIONER SANTAMARIA: Yes. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. Which is not

the transfer of density rights. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Which is to deny the

resolution approving an official zoning map amendment from Residential High Density Zoning District to Multi-family Residential Zoning.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. There’s a motion and a second.

Discussion. (No response) VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: All those in favor,

aye. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Aye. COMMISSIONER SANTAMARIA: Aye. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Aye. Opposed. COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: Aye. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: 4-0? COMMISSIONER MARCUS: No, three. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Three -- 3-1? COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: What was this motion

now? I want to make sure. A motion to adjourn is -- is proper. It

88

doesn’t make a difference -- COMMISSIONER MARCUS: We can’t adjourn. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Well -- COMMISSIONER MARCUS: We have a meeting at

2:00 o’clock. COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: Well, just so --

just to be clear -- MR. KIER: But you have to address it -- COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: -- maybe we should

ask the -- MR. KIER: -- you don’t have to accept it,

but you must vote on it. COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: -- the -- Mr. Kier.

Thank you. MR. KIER: I apologize. COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: We can absolutely

adjourn, but -- I mean I appreciate, with all deference, we can absolutely adjourn. So the statement would not be correct that we could not.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. That’s 3-1 just before --

MR. BANKS: Was that-- VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: We can do 29, and

there’s no question that we can come back at 2:00 o’clock?

MR. BANKS: What was the motion? VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: The motion -- COMMISSIONER MARCUS: The motion was to

deny. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: To deny, and it was

3-1 -- COMMISSIONER MARCUS: The first resolution,

I read it into the record. That was the motion. MR. BANKS: Okay. And then if you’re going

to deny it, we need some findings to put into the resolution, so you need to --

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: I said incompatibility, and also working with the Town of Haverhill, the inconsistency with the Town of Haverhill.

MR. BANKS: Okay. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. Before -- just

a point of clarification, point of order. We have one more item, 29, with no cards on

it. We got a couple people in the audience. MR. Mac GILLIS: Two other motions. MS. KWOK: Two other motions. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Oh, two other

motions. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Well, if we denied

the first one, do we have to deny the other two? MS. KWOK: Yes. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: I’d move to deny the

resolution approving a Class A conditional use to allow the transfer of development rights.

COMMISSIONER SANTAMARIA: Second. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. There’s a

motion and a second. Discussion. (No response) VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: All those in favor,

aye.

89

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Aye. COMMISSIONER SANTAMARIA: Aye. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Aye. Opposed. COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: Aye. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Three to one. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: And I move to adopt a

resolution approving -- no. I’d move to deny the resolution for the

TDRs. COMMISSIONER SANTAMARIA: Second. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Second. Discussion. (No response) VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: All those in favor,

aye. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Aye. COMMISSIONER SANTAMARIA: Aye. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Aye. Show that 3-1.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. And then we’ve got one more item, 29, that we could get done. There’s no cards.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: I’d move approval. There’s no cards on that item, and I -- is there a condition we’re trying to delete? Okay.

MR. KIER: My presentation is five minutes or less.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Why don’t you just tell us the condition you want to delete.

MR. KIER: I want to delete the loading zone hours which Westgate CRA and I believe staff are in agreement with, that we should not have hours of operation for the loading zone.

MS. KWOK: That condition has already been deleted --

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Oh. MS. KWOK: -- on the add/delete. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Okay. So with that

in consideration -- MR. KIER: That’s one. The second is I’m

asking as part of the resolution for approval, if granted, that it be very specific that there will be no workforce housing requirement on this.

Staff has multiple positions on whether density bonuses that are received from the Westgate Housing pool, not a transfer of development rights or workforce housing, as to whether those need to be workforce housing or not.

Of course, my interpretation is that they

90

don’t, but I would ask you to be specific in your resolution inasmuch if anybody can get better than market rent or even market rent in Westgate, God bless them.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Could we get the staff to comment?

MR. RUTTER: The Westgate bonus density pool requires 40 percent of the units provided by the CRA to be deeded as workforce.

This falls as one unit. Forty percent of one unit is less than half. There are no required workforce units.

That’s staff’s position. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Okay. MR. KIER: Okay. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: All right. So I move

approval -- VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: There’s a motion and

a second with -- MR. KIER: I have one last thing. I’m asking that the DRO staff be directed

to place this item on the very next DRO agenda to eliminate any references or requirements for additional architectural review, et cetera.

This project has been in the process for two years. The conditions specifically reference the plan, the author, et cetera.

This is a beautiful building here. It’s not a --

MS. ALTERMAN: Commissioner, may I -- we will -- we will process this as expeditiously as possible, like we always do. It will be put on the next DRO that it’s submitted for, and it will be reviewed according to the code.

MR. KIER: Again, I have to ask in the course of one day going through Zoning we asked two people, Wendy and Donna, what we could do in terms of applying for final DRO.

We got two completely different answers. I really need some strong direction. This is Westgate --

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Okay. So I think -- I think that the head of the department has said that if you -- once you file the application, they’ll put it on the next agenda.

So it’s really up to you. If you walk out of here today and go file it, they’ll put it on the next DRO.

MR. KIER: It will be filed in the morning. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Okay. I would -- VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. There’s a

motion and a second -- COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Right. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: -- for 29. All those -- COMMISSIONER MARCUS: So who was the

seconder? Commissioner Kanjian. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: It was Marcus,

Kanjian on 29 to support staff recommendation. Motion, second. Discussion. (No response)

91

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: All those in favor, aye. Aye.

COMMISSIONERS: Aye. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. That’s it. Be

back at 2:00 o’clock, time certain. (Whereupon, a lunch break was taken from

1:05 p.m. until 2:00.)

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: We’re going to go ahead and get started. We’re operating with four people today.

Just before we get started -- Kanjian, Koons, Marcus, Santamaria.

And just a question of the attorney, the last item we took -- soon as he’s finished.

MR. Mac GILLIS: Bob. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Bob. Yo. The

Chairman’s calling Bob Banks. No, specifically Mr. Banks.

Mr. Banks, the -- as we were breaking at 1:00 o’clock, there was -- we had some discussions on some motions we had --

MR. BANKS: In fact, I think the -- the agent for the applicant was asking me after the meeting, you know, like under -- like, you know, when does Robert’s -- when does Robert’s Rules of Order apply.

We use Robert’s Rules of Order, but it’s only to fill in the gaps. We’re following the Board of County Commissioners’ quasi-judicial rules and then Florida law regarding quasi-judicial proceedings, and the Board under both our rules and Florida law is obligated to, you know, vote, make a decision on every item before it.

So for a public hearing we don’t adjourn unless if -- under our rule -- under the quasi-judicial rules if we had a tie vote, the item would be continued automatically to the next meeting.

But other than that, the Board has to finish the public hearing and vote on the item, and I guess the only thing, you know, would be if you lost a quorum, then the remainder of the -- the remaining members of the Board could continue the public, you know, pick the date to continue the hearing to.

But short of losing a quorum, we can’t just adjourn in the middle of a public hearing.

COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: Just to clarify, do we -- at the time when I asked for that, we had a motion that was made. There was no second made, and it was quiet, and that’s what the issue was.

92

I was very concerned that we were not going to do the people’s business, and I don’t know if we did or not, but didn’t make sense the way it went down.

COMMISSIONER SANTAMARIA: On my part I intended to second the motion but did not want to make the second until I expressed why I was going to second the motion.

So that’s why I didn’t -- COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: Oh, but I -- maybe I

just clarified. I think -- I think, Commissioner, that we

need the second to have the discussion about it. That’s -- I mean just under -- the way it normally works, you second, even if it’s for -- to have the discussion, but I think that’s the way it would be ‘cause otherwise we would have just died because there wouldn’t be anything that was actual on the floor.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. I just wanted a -- I just wanted a clarification.

MR. BANKS: And then I do need to do swearing in again because I guess at least the consultants or maybe members of the audience who weren’t here this morning, so --

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. Everybody who wants to speak this afternoon please stand.

MR. BANKS: And who wasn’t sworn in this morning please rise.

(Whereupon, speakers were sworn in by Mr. Banks.)

MR. BANKS: Thank you. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. MR. Mac GILLIS: That brings us to Page 13

of your agenda, Item 25, CA2007-1199, the Bergeron Sand Rock and Aggregate, found on Pages 430 through 463.

Staff is recommending approval of this Type III-B excavation, subject to 39 conditions.

Carrie Rechenmacher will present this case. MS. RECHENMACHER: Good afternoon,

Commissioners. Carrie Rechenmacher, for the record.

The location of the proposed Bergeron Sand and Rock mine is approximately six and a half miles south of the CR-827 on the west side of U.S. Highway 27.

The proposal is a Class A conditional use to allow a Type III-B excavation on a 55 -- 552.97-acre parcel of land in the Agricultural Production

93

Zoning District. A Type III-B excavation allows extensive

processing of materials on site and the use of explosives to extract the material.

The limestone aggregate from the subject site will be marketed to FDOT for road building and construction.

The proposal is to create one large reservoir in six phases and would proceed at a constant rate of no more than 100 acres per year over the next nine years.

It’ll utilize 85 percent of the land until the estimated completion date of 2016.

The land’s current use as a sod field will be shifted to water storage, and certain areas of the site will remain as active agricultural uses.

Access to the site will be from an access point located at the very southeastern corner of the subject property.

Two secondary access points are indicated, one on the north portion of the site for agricultural uses only and a central access point connecting to a 30-foot shellrock road which connects to the asphalt concrete batch plant located on the southeast portion of the site.

There’s a site plan on page 440, an aerial on Page 439, but there’s also another aerial that Jon Schmidt will be talking about in a minute.

Staff is recommending approval, subject to 39 conditions.

I’m available for any questions. Thank you. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. Board comments

of staff? (No response) VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Petitioner. MS. HALPERIN: Good afternoon,

Commissioners. I’m Ellie Halperin, attorney for Bergeron mine.

I think you know most of the consultants that we have with us, but I’d also like to introduce the owner of the mine, Ronnie Bergeron and Lonnie Bergeron, who are with us to answer any questions you might have.

The presentation’s going to try and be short and to the point. Jon Schmidt’s going to make it.

I would like to reserve time, if required, for cross-examination, as well as any experts that we need to cross-examine expert testimony.

Thank you. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. MR. SCHMIDT: Good afternoon. Jon Schmidt,

on behalf of Bergeron Sand Rock and Gravel. The Bergerons have been providing

construction -- or have been performing construction projects for the public and private sector since 1965. They currently provide construction services to FDOT and counties throughout the State, and they are a local supplier of sand, rock and aggregate.

They have provided more material than any

94

other mine to the Everglades restoration project. This slide depicts -- helps depict a few

things. One is how isolated the mine is. Located just off of 27 in the center of the

slide we have five, 10 and 15-mile rings. It also shows how small in size we are compared to the other approved mines and how we’re -- our proximity to some of the CERP and STA projects in the area.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Could I ask you, what’s the big thing up there above your site? Not the -- not the blue, the yellow thing.

MR. SCHMIDT: The Lake Harbor Quarry? COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Oh. MR. SCHMIDT: So you’ve got Lake Harbor

Quarry, the Stuart Mine, South Bay over to the right.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Thank you. MR. SCHMIDT: So this just shows how small

we are compared to them. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: No, I -- your print’s

small, too, or it’s my eyes, one of the two. MR. SCHMIDT: The Bergerons have been

operating a mine for -- nearby for the past 18½ years, and they’re a current supplier of material, certified by FDOT for rip-rap -- rip rock sand, aggregates and Class I road base. They’re also certified by South Florida Water Management and the Army Corps of Engineers for CERP projects.

Their material is also used for agriculture and roadways within the EAA.

They currently operate about a 390-acre mine just to the south of the proposed Type III excavation.

The proposed excavation is located just to the north. It consists of just over 550 acres.

The mining will be done in six phases. The operation will continue to mine the same materials and provide materials to local purposes such as the FDOT, CERP projects and the agriculture, and materials for the site will, again, be primarily local -- for the local region.

This slide shows our overall site plan. The green area is 180-foot setback. The white area is -- will predominantly stay in the agricultural use, and the blue areas are our first phase of mining.

That will continue from the center outward, and we’re keeping our mining to the rear of the site, keeping a large 660-foot buffer along 27 and providing that extra setback and green space.

What are the mining benefits? Aggregate for the Everglades restoration, aggregate for public roadways projects, alternative water supplies, a non-interrupted supply of aggregate.

We’re going to maintain and create more jobs within the Glades area, and this will also provide for future projects, such as the inland port.

In summary, Bergerons have a proven track record of almost two decades of history for no negative environmental impacts, and in fact the lake water quality is better today than pre-test

95

for the property. Again, we allow an uninterrupted supply to

the South Florida Water Management, Army Corps and FDOT.

It’s a very remote location, and the project meets all the goals, policies and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, as well as the ULDC.

We are in agreement with all the conditions of approval and have our experts here if we can answer any of the Board’s questions.

We wish for your support. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. Any Board

comment? (No response) VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Just a question of

staff in terms of DERM. This process went through our ad hoc

preapproval process with DEP. MR. ROBBINS: Commissioner -- my name is

Rob Robbins -- VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Yes. MR. ROBBINS: -- with Environmental

Resources. Actually, this process was engaged with DEP

before we finalized our process so it has actually gone beyond the pre-application phase, have an application pending with DEP. DEP has done their preliminary review and copied us on that information.

There is a fair amount of questions that DEP has but has not identified any potential fatal flaws, as we call them, with the mine.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. Great. Okay. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Can I ask you a

question, Rob? So the DEP staff that’s looked at this is

the mining DEP side? MR. ROBBINS: The mining DEP; correct. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: The CERP side hasn’t

looked at this? MR. ROBBINS: The ERP side is looking at it

concurrently with the mining staff. The CERP folks -- I’m sorry, the CERP

folks -- DEP would be coordinating with the Water Management District as part of that process. I have not seen a response back in that regard yet.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Thank you. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. I’m going

to -- COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Can I ask him one

more question? VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Yes. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: The lease of this,

Jon, is for -- I mean the -- it’s for 20 years, is this, the excavation?

MR. SCHMIDT: This goes up to 2016 under our current plan. It keeps it under 100 acres every year.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: So you’ll be done, out of there in five years?

MS. RECHENMACHER: Nine.

96

MR. SCHMIDT: No. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Nine years? MR. SCHMIDT: Nine. MS. RECHENMACHER: Nine years. MR. SCHMIDT: Nine years. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Okay. So that’s

like -- that’s a condition we have, they’re out of there in nine years?

MR. SCHMIDT: That’s our -- that’s going to be our -- that’s our -- our -- the maximum we would go through this process, as well as the market would stay. That would be the most that we could do.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: So you could be done the shorter --

MR. SCHMIDT: No, it could not be done shorter because we can’t go over 100 acres a year.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Oh, so five years. I gotcha.

And when you’re done with the -- and when you’re done with the mine, what are you doing with it?

MR. SCHMIDT: It gets -- goes into -- it could be multiple things. It could go into irrigation. It could be a CERP project. It could be just a private irrigation for farms in the area.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: So you don’t have any plans for it?

MR. SCHMIDT: Well, it -- I can let the owner speak for that, but when you get to -- I’ll show you one of these graphics.

When you get to this point, the 660 -- the 660-foot setback, those are -- I’m sorry, the 600-foot setback, that’s the minimum setback to be a CERP project.

If you go beyond that, then you’re not eligible to be a standalone CERP project.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Oh, really? Who has those criteria for CERP?

I didn’t know CERP had gotten that -- they had gotten that far along in CERP, especially after the meeting I went to yesterday.

MR. BERGERON: No, here’s what we did -- Lonnie Bergeron --

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Can you give your name?

MR. BERGERON: -- for the applicant. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Oh, okay. MR. BERGERON: We met with South Florida

Water Management pre-application to find out what their footprint requirement would be if they chose to use this as some kind of reservoir for storage, and they said if we were to hold a 660-foot setback to the final phase, which is approximately 10 to 15 years to the end of the project -- it’s market driven. Depends on how much people purchases, how quickly the project will be done.

If we hold that 660, they can design whatever feature they need within that setback of the final phase.

So we met with them in advance to see what their needs would be in the future so that this

97

would qualify for one of their projects. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Okay. Thank you. You said 10 or 15 years. I thought you

said nine years for -- I thought the staff said nine years is when you’re done.

MS. RECHENMACHER: I’m sorry? MR. Mac GILLIS: There’s no -- there’s no

specific condition on that. Based on the phases they’re doing -- once

again, it depends on how quickly they do them because as each phase they go through, they’re required to bond them, come through final DRO, reclaim it, then pass the bond on.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: So he’s doing them in five phases ‘cause it’s 500 acres; right?

MR. BERGERON: Well, mining -- well, it’s about 470.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Okay. So you’re -- you’re doing 100 acres a year, you say?

MR. BANKS: Well, it’s a maximum of 100 acres a year.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Oh. MR. BANKS: So if there’s -- the market’s

slow, it might take longer than a year to do 100 acres.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: With all the screaming for rock out there I can’t imagine it’s ever slow, but -- so could we put a condition on there that said that you need to be done in X amount of years?

MR. BERGERON: Are you asking me or staff? COMMISSIONER MARCUS: I’m looking at the

staff. MR. Mac GILLIS: I mean I guess you could,

and they could always come back, and if they could demonstrate for some -- through a DOA that they needed to extend it, yes.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Okay. My concern would be is that, you know, these things are going on forever and ever and ever.

If we have a shorter window and if CERP does ever figure out what the heck it’s doing, then this wouldn’t be an impediment down the road in terms of whatever activities you were doing. So that’s the only reason I mentioned that.

MR. BERGERON: Based on what South Florida Water Management has done previously, if there is a need, they will make provisions to accelerate the project to meet their needs like they did at Palm Beach Aggregates.

In today’s market, this housing recession, sales are down across the board. That will change a year from now possibly. This could be 10 years to 15 years, based on what we can project sales will be, but we don’t have a crystal ball.

If we’re going to even attempt to condition, it would have to be the 20-year mark because you just don’t know what’s going to happen in the economy. We can go through two more cycles by then.

Anything shorter than that you just won’t get to the reserves.

98

COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: Mr. Chair, I’m a little confused because usually we’re worried about how, you know, we’re going to -- we’re going to need more of this, and, quite frankly, the only way we’re going to use all of this up that fast would be through lots and lots more development.

And so I’d hate to put a condition on here that would encourage more development, especially when a lot of things I usually hear down there, especially from you, Commissioner Marcus, is less development.

So for you to put something on here to say we need you to take this out faster seems like it would be an encouragement to development, and that would be a new thing to hear from you.

So I’m confused. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Well, I mean if all

of this was all about development, those last couple of mines wouldn’t -- that are huge wouldn’t -- you know, this is a -- in my opinion this is a little bit smaller, and I’m trying to be practical, at least, because I’m hearing DOT and the whole rest of the world.

I’m not thinking home building. I’m thinking roads, really, and CERP, which I understand you also help with whatever they’re doing out there with that.

So those are my thought process, but, again I’m thinking of a timing of if CERP in our lifetime ever gets -- they figure out what it is --

MR. BERGERON: Well, if you take a look at the difference between the other applications, we’re the local supplier, and to put time conditions on the local supplier for the western Palm Beach County region, it may not be practical.

You know, 90 percent of one, I think 100 percent of the other are going out by rail, and the Stuart Mine we know is going out by rail.

We truly are your local supplier for the needs of the community, and I’m not sure that would be real practical.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Lisa, you’ve got on your car here you wish to speak and cross-examine. Would you like to come up here first?

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Or I told her -- I asked her, and she said last. That way she could --

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: You wanted to go last?

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Well, he’s -- are they done yet?

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Yeah. MR. SCHMIDT: Yes. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Lisa, what do you

wish to do? MS. INTERLANDI: We’ll go at the end. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: You’ll go at the end?

Okay. First speaker is Richard Kuepker. We’re going to -- when I become Chair,

99

we’re going to print all the names. We’re going to print in big crayon letters.

Yes, sir. I’m sorry. Just an editorial comment.

MR. KUEPKER: I’m representing the Florida Wildlife Federation --

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Yes. MR. KUEPKER: -- and I’m here to oppose the

mining. I wish to save Lake Okeechobee and

Everglades and Rotenberg tract refuge. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. Thank you. John Marshall, and after that, Alexandria

Larson. Alexandria Larson. MR. MARSHALL: Thank you, Commissioner.

You notice I printed in nice block so you can read it.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Perfect. This is -- MR. MARSHALL: And in green pen, too. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: This is how it gets

done from now on. Staff, public. I could read it without my eyeballs. There we go.

MR. MARSHALL: Yesterday there was -- as Commissioner Marcus has alluded to, there was a task force meeting at the West Palm Beach Airport Hilton.

Commissioner Marcus was present for most of the meeting, but she left early when some of the other stuff got discussed.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers brought in large maps and a plan to reestablish sheet flow to the central Everglades. The maps depict the sheet flow arrows moving south from Lake Okeechobee through the Everglades Agricultural Area to the rest of the system, and this was a reduced version of that map that --

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: I have it. MR. MARSHALL: -- that Commissioner Marcus

has. That actually shows the planned flow to

restore the Everglades, and you notice all the -- all the arrows are between the major canals, and it’s been ascertained there’s not enough conveyance in the canals right now to move all the water that’s needed to move south, south.

And so what we’re asking you to do is to in your -- in your decision-making to incorporate this plan and the plan to reestablish flow in the Everglades because I think that’s been -- that -- this sort of plan has been lacking and the cause for concern about what might happen in the future.

We cannot put rock mines ad infinitum in these arrows that are potential flow ways, and I think that’s the point.

You know, I’ve talked to Mr. Bergeron, and he mentioned that he thinks that it would be a benign situation to let the -- to establish the flow way and just flow right over a rock mine, given that you could get to that scenario.

I’m not qualified to assess whether that’s good or bad, but who is is Colonel Grosskruger, and he’s got significant problems to address in terms

100

of that particular flow path, and one of them is the situation of the dike and the need to flow water south if we get in a -- if we revert to a wet situation, rather than a drought we’re in now, which kind of means we’re not really looking at this real hard right now.

So we ask you to take a serious look at these impacts, the CERP implementation and the multiple burdens they will impose on the taxpayers in Palm Beach County and the water supply.

And we appreciate what Mr. Bergeron is doing for the local supply, but we need to have a Comprehensive Plan that’s comprehensive from the standpoint of Palm Beach County and CERP.

So I’d like to submit these comments for the record, if you will, and will press on.

Thanks. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Motion to receive and

file? COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Move to receive and

file. COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: Second. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Second. All those in favor, aye. Aye. COMMISSIONERS: Aye. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. Drew -- I mean Alex, and then Drew Martin. MS. LARSON: On December 13th, 2007, you

guys met with South Florida Water Management District.

The one thing that became the hottest potato in the room was rock mining. Nobody wanted to take responsibility, and that included Carol Wehle and the gang at the South Florida Water Management District.

And anybody who thinks that we’re going to buy any more holes when I’m alive is insane, ‘cause the Palm Beach Aggregates was one of the biggest frauds that was ever purported when we bought the hole for water retention.

FDOT didn’t want to touch this. It doesn’t go through the DRI process, as Mr. Marshall pointed out.

There’s a flow way -- the original flow from Lake Okeechobee, it looks like a hand, and this -- this is part of the hand, to get water down south, to get water to -- because CERP is a misnomer. It’s to get water to people, also.

The Army Corps guy was really impressed with me four years ago when I figured that out. He’s like how did you figure that out. Oh, it’s a miracle.

It’s our job, it’s your job to protect the water resources of this County. It’s in your charter. I want everybody to read it, 3.3. I mentioned it this morning. I think Mr. Santamaria and Ms. Marcus heard me over and over again. Read it.

You are obligated to protect the water in Palm Beach County. It’s one of the main things -- your charter’s not that long. It’s not a long read. It’s real easy. Go read it. I really want

101

us to read it because it doesn’t follow FDOT. Nobody on that December 13th meeting took

responsibility, FDOT, DEP -- DEP, they even want an excavation to 60 feet. They have to get a variance from DERM or ERM or somebody.

It’s ridiculous, and, you know, God bless Mr. Bergeron. I know, I’m familiar with him from Broward County. He dug a lot of holes down there, too.

He’s a builder. I understand that. Builders -- we need to rethink Palm Beach County, and I really wish that you would start listening to your Comprehensive Plan and really reading your -- your by-laws and what you want for this County.

And if we want water -- you had a thing on the agenda the other day, the regionalization of water utilities. I don’t know what the big plan is for everybody, but we need water, and we’re in a drought situation now. I don’t know about this rock mining. Unless we’re going to be building a million houses in Palm Beach County, we don’t need a whole lot of rock, do we?

I guy told me -- the young man back here told me I should be thankful. My toothpaste is from aggregate. I’m not. I’ll use baking soda. I’ll, you know, I’ll think of something else.

But, please, take this into consideration. It’s not -- your -- your obligation as our Commissioners is to protect us, and this is not part of it.

Rock mining is just a -- you know, the Aggregates, it goes -- like you said, Stuart Mining’s going up the road. It’s not even staying in the State of Florida, and we’re detrimental. It’s a detriment to Florida and to Palm Beach County to let this go on.

Get a Comprehensive Plan on rock mining and then okay it if it’s not in the way of the original sheet flow of Lake Okeechobee.

And I do want to reserve the right to ask questions.

Thank you. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Thank you. Drew, and then Rosa Durando. MR. MARTIN: Yes. Drew Martin. I’m also

representing the Everglades of Florida, for the Everglades Working Group, as well as conservation chair for the Loxahatchee Group of the Sierra Club.

Our members, both statewide, nationally and the Loxahatchee Group, utilize the Everglades ecosystem, Loxahatchee area, Lake Okeechobee, Hungryland and Rotenberg Wildlife Management Areas for birdwatching, hiking, fishing, camping and canoeing.

And so we’re very concerned that these areas are protected. These rock mines are a detriment, and we’ve asked, and I think very fairly asked, that there be a cumulative study, the damage of all these rock mines, before approving them.

Now, the people that propose these rock mines are very clever, and they do things like say well, we’re only going to mine 100 acres a year,

102

and they’re going to do all these things ‘cause they’re trying to get in under the law.

They don’t want a cumulative impact study, and why do they not want a cumulative impact study? Because everybody knows if you did a cumulative impact study, you would find out that this is going to cause a lot of long-term damage.

Now, first of all, rock mining uses dynamiting which -- you wouldn’t want anybody dynamiting next to your house because it causes a lot of damage.

Dynamiting leaves toxic residues. Dynamiting disturbs wildlife, and even though these areas have been heavily impacted over recent times, although they were at one time the Everglades natural sheet flow which all went through this area, this was the heart of the Everglades ecosystem where we have the EAA today before it was drained.

We know that we -- if we restore the Everglades correctly and we truly do what was promised in the Everglades restoration, that this area will need to be restored.

Rock mines are too deep. The water is too deep. It opens up the different levels of the soil and rock strata to different types of toxic chemicals that are harmful to the water quality. It brings salinity to the surface.

Dr. Tom Van Lent from Everglades Foundation has already stated these are not going to be good reservoirs for Everglades restoration.

So you’re basically making it very difficult to protect and restore the Everglades.

Now, Commissioner Marcus, and I really appreciate her efforts. She’s made -- she’s read the book, The Swamp. She’s attended meetings, really made an effort to educate herself, and I really appreciate that.

She borrowed the book from Commissioner Koons. I wish he would have read it before he gave it to her.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: He’s reading it now. MR. MARTIN: Well, good, good. Then you

should put off the vote -- Commissioner, put off the vote until you finish the book. I really think that you need to really get yourself educated. You’re making decisions that are going to impact our -- the future of your children and grandchildren.

So I appreciate your time, and I hope that we can get you to vote no on this mine today.

Thank you very much. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Rosa, then Cynthia

Plockelman, please. MS. DURANDO: Rosa Durando. In this fact sheet, and I use quotes around

“fact,” over and over again I see the phrase, you do not anticipate significant environmental impacts.

If this is a scientific study, you presented a hypothesis and you’ve drawn conclusions before you know what anything is, and that’s in

103

direct opposition to scientific research. You shouldn’t be anticipating the results of a hypothesis.

And there is a sentence in here that says that DEP doesn’t have enough information. They need more information.

I do not know what more they want, but I’m sure they’ll need a hell of a lot more information, that we have still not determined why from the south of Lake Okeechobee down to Florida Bay we’re getting dosed with mercury, soluble mercury, in our water.

There was a theory advanced some years ago that it was a disturbance on the EAA soil management situation that put the sulphur that’s there in contact with the mercury that’s in the muck, making it methylated and soluble and, therefore, polluting all our waters as you go south.

Very little research was done because the one person who had the courage and could get some money and manage the Refuge at that time, Burkett Neely, funded his own research and determined the amount of mercury coming through the L-8 canal down towards the Refuge in the canals and Everglades National Park.

From then on the whole thing was pretty well squelched, and I would say that explosives and heavy duty digging -- and I know, maybe not dewatering off site, but certainly dewatering in the dig spots, you’re much more profoundly affecting the muck than farming ever did.

And if farming in a couple of generations could accomplish the mercury pollution we’re seeing now, it’s already documented to have killed a panther, raccoons, fish, and women of childbearing age are urged not to eat the fish.

I’m saying you don’t have the remotest idea whether you want to have as one of your goals to restore the Everglades or not.

One of your goals certainly should be water quality preservation and not endangering your constituents with high levels of mercury in the drinking water.

So I would see that this is the same problem. They admit they want to do less than 100 acres a year to avoid expensive study, which would mandate a DRI, but to go on year after year after year and continue to excavate without really knowing what the full impacts of 100 acres per year ‘til you get to 550-some acres would be.

But this isn’t the only one. You will be piecemealing the whole EAA for, oh, three or four other rock miners to come in here and look for permits, and how can you turn them down if you don’t turn this down?

This should be based on the final CERP footprint from Lake Okeechobee through the EAA, and I don’t see that happening soon.

So instead of continuing to fragment all these noble proposals, let’s learn something.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Thank you.

104

Kay Gates is after Cynthia. MS. PLOCKELMAN: Good afternoon,

Commissioners. I’m not going to take a lot of time because

you pretty much heard everything, I think, already, and they are -- the other speakers are reiterating those points.

If you have a feeling of déjà vu, so do I. There’s not a lot here that lends to credibility or a good public image because you aren’t listening. I wish you really were listening.

It’s discouraging. I’ve been here in Palm Beach County all my

life, and I see us sliding downhill, and just the mention of the words “inland port” the other day sent -- I’m feeling -- not good feelings up and down my back, if you want the truth.

We’re destroying the Everglades Agricultural Area. Please think of it in those terms.

By the time you get through, you have no Comp Plan. It’s all done in advance of any final CERP plan. There isn’t going to be one heck of a lot left to save.

And if you’re looking for books that might describe things realistically, you might want to look at Mirage by Cynthia Barnett ‘cause she did a super job on that, too. But please listen to us.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Kay Gates, and then Sheila Calderon.

MS. GATES: Good afternoon, Commissioners. Thank you for being here.

I am concerned that we are addressing such a big issue with four commissioners.

I would think that the whole County Commission would want to be here to make such a monumental decision.

The Sierra Club wants to affirm our request as part of the Everglades Coalition to give the Everglades Agricultural Area that -- a listing of Area of Critical Concern.

At the Everglades Coalition meeting this past January, Bob Graham, Senator Bob Graham, former Senator Bob Graham, gave us some homework to do, and on his list of homework assignments one of them was to -- an effort should be launched that protects the Everglades Agricultural Area from inappropriate post-agricultural development that will interfere with Everglades restoration.

Further on in that talk Senator Graham also spoke about the fact that right now the State is in a pinch for money, and the -- we’re having difficulty getting the federal government to come up with their share, and so it’s going to become the responsibility of, the right of the local communities, cities and counties, to do their part to see that there is going to be a place where we can have Everglades restoration.

If we dig holes in this whole area, we are going to prevent that from happening.

These holes, among other things that people much more adept in science than I am will tell you,

105

are not going to be good for any Everglades restoration.

I want to remind you also the comments that Dr. Sydney Bacchus left you with about the dewatering of the whole area with all of these mines.

The last thing I want to share with you is that Sierra Club and its members spend much of their recreational time in the Everglades National Park and these areas. We feel that this is an infringement upon whatever rights we have.

Thank you. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Thank you. Next speaker after this is Lisa Interlandi. MS. CALDERON: Good afternoon. Sheila

Calderon of Greenacres. I’m back again to let you know how

disappointed I am that you are permitting the rezoning of the Everglades Agricultural Area for rock mining.

It’s beyond my comprehension to permit mining in this area without first obtaining a comprehensive EIS. It’s like putting the cart before the horse. I just don’t understand this whole flow of work, and I never will. There’s just no common sense to it.

Early in April I came before you to ask why we’re declaring war on the treasure in our county, the Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee Wildlife Refuge, and I just don’t understand why we continue to allow this invasion to move forward.

Rezoning this area, as far as I’m concerned, is exactly what we’re doing. We’re on the brink of a CERP plan which will reestablish sheet flow as discussed here to the Everglades through the EAA from Lake Okeechobee.

I just recently was driving through -- down to Kendall past the rock mines along the Turnpike, and I actually at one point told my husband, ‘cause it was safe, he was driving, but I said to him just glance over.

As far as the eye could see all that we saw were big derricks, pits. It was horrible. It’s horrible.

Now, I know that there has to be rock mining. I understand that, but we’ve got to find a place to do it where it’s not going to destroy the land and destroy the Everglades.

As I’ve also mentioned to you before, I chair a youth group from the Sierra Club known as the ICO, Inner City Outings group. We take children to the Everglades. We take children to the Wildlife Refuge to teach them about the ecology of our beautiful State.

How are we going to explain the destruction of this area?

How are we going to explain replacing agricultural areas, which we should be using to provide us with local vegetables and fruit so desperately needed now before we have to import everything, and replace it with rock mines?

Bravo to Drew, Rosa, John, Kay, everyone

106

who spoken here today, who has said you should be protecting the needs of the citizens who have voted for you.

Please don’t continue down this path. Thank you. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. Before Lisa

comes up, can we have disclosure by the commission. COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: Met with the

applicant months ago, whenever this came up originally.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. I’ve met with the applicant and some of the people speaking against it.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: I think I’ve done both sides, at least talked on the phone and then talked to -- yeah. I’ve talked to them, yeah, both sides.

COMMISSIONER SANTAMARIA: Ditto with me. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. Lisa. MS. INTERLANDI: Lisa Interlandi, with the

Everglades Law Center. I’m representing the Florida Wildlife

Federation, the Sierra Club and 1,000 Friends of Florida today.

Since you guys just did the disclosures, I just want to make a point for the record and just maybe even for your guys’ information.

The quasi-judicial rules require the County, when you have met with someone in an ex parte situation, to disclose the substance of the communications and the person with which whom the communications took place. That’s a State law, and that’s what’s in the County’s rules.

So disclosures that do less than that, I think that --

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: We -- we do that. We have the adjacent records of everybody that meets with us as part of the condition. We said verbally we’ve met with people.

MR. BANKS: You have the -- you have the right to cross-examine the commissioners regarding their ex parte communications.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: And -- and -- MR. BANKS: If you wish to, you can ask

each commissioner who they spoke to and -- COMMISSIONER MARCUS: We have forms. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: We have forms that

fill out. They’re attached to the record. It describes date, time and who was there.

MS. INTERLANDI: Okay. Good. They’re not -- yeah, they’re not made available to the public, so that’s good to know that they are available --

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: They -- they are available.

MS. INTERLANDI: -- upon request, yeah. That’s fine. I understand. Thank you very much.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: I’m not -- I just wanted to make sure that people know that we disclose who we meet with, and it is part of the public record.

107

MS. INTERLANDI: Okay. Yeah, right. That’s good.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. MS. INTERLANDI: That’s good to know. Okay. Let me just say this at the outset

the organizations here -- that are here today are concerned for several reasons about this project and about the other mining projects that have been proposed and approved in the EAA.

As you heard from Ms. Durando, the fragmentation of land that may at some point in the future be necessary to achieve restoration of the Everglades.

The lack of a comprehensive plan for the restoration of this area adds to that and adds to our uncertainty about whether or not projects such as this one are going to have an impact on our ability to achieve restoration.

We are concerned about the lack of a cumulative impact analysis.

Looking at these projects individually can tend to fail to demonstrate the impacts of all the projects taken together would have.

So we believe that is a necessary step that should have been done before these projects were approved, and we’re also concerned about the lack of technical analysis that has been done in terms of the environmental criteria and ensuring that these projects -- this project and all the mining projects that have been approved in the last month -- to ensure that they don’t have unforeseen negative environmental impacts.

That’s it. I had just a couple questions for County

staff, and I don’t know if now’s the time or however you want to do -- however --

MR. BANKS: I think when you’re done -- is she the last witness?

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Yes, she’s the last. MR. BANKS: Okay. So I mean there’s cross

examination, but it’s only cross-examination of people who have spoken at the hearing. So if --

MS. INTERLANDI: Okay. Well, I need to be able to -- I mean I should be able to ask questions to County staff of the --

MR. BANKS: Well, you can ask the question of the County staff people that presented the staff report.

MS. INTERLANDI: Right, the staff report, the --

MR. BANKS: Right, so I mean only one County staff person, I think, spoke, so --

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Rob. MS. INTERLANDI: Okay. Well, I have

questions about the staff report, which is in evidence --

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. MS. INTERLANDI: -- and for Ms.

Rechenmacher. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. Go ahead. MS. INTERLANDI: Okay. Thank you very

much.

108

You’re familiar with the letter from the Water Management District from September of last year that talks about the need for -- to --

MR. BANKS: Okay. Are you done making your presentation, and now you’re in cross-examination?

MS. INTERLANDI: Oh, yes. I’m sorry. That’s what I was trying to -- yes, that’s what I would like to do. I wanted to ask --

MR. BANKS: And I think then we have the applicant reserved the right to cross-examination, and then also Ms. Larson reserved the right to cross-examine.

Okay. MS. INTERLANDI: Okay. Thank you. Okay.

Thank you. So, Ms. Rechenmacher, you’re familiar with

the letter from the Water Management District from last year which discusses the fact that the potential impacts from mining has to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis and the technical analysis of geologic and the hydrogeologic criteria in order to determine -- are you familiar with the letter that I’m talking about?

I’m not asking you to like -- MS. RECHENMACHER: Right. There are three

letters. MS. INTERLANDI: Okay. MS. RECHENMACHER: Okay. MS. INTERLANDI: And that was -- that was

one of the points that they were trying to make; right?

MS. RECHENMACHER: That was one -- that was one of the points.

MS. INTERLANDI: Okay. So one of the points was that it needed to do an analysis on a case-by-case basis of technical, hydrogeologic and geologic information; right?

MS. RECHENMACHER: Correct. MS. INTERLANDI: Okay. So has that

analysis been done yet for this project? MS. RECHENMACHER: And -- and that is a

question that I would defer to ERM because Zoning coordinates all these comments from these different agencies.

And so we really -- Zoning doesn’t really look at the hydro -- hydrology, and so we --

MS. INTERLANDI: Okay. MS. RECHENMACHER: -- defer that to

Environmental Resources Management. MS. INTERLANDI: Okay. Should -- okay.

Well, do you want to -- she’s deferring to you, to ERM.

I would then ask that ERM come and answer the question.

MR. BANKS: I mean ERM -- the environmental part of the staff report, I guess ERM coordinates.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: And he testified. He answered questions for us.

MS. INTERLANDI: Has the technical analysis that the Water Management District referred to in their letter of last year, of September of last year, been done yet for this project?

109

MR. ROBBINS: I can’t specifically recall the words of the Water Management District’s letter, but if you’re asking me if ERM has done a technical analysis, the hydrogeography of the site, the answer is no.

MS. INTERLANDI: Okay. That was basically deferred to the environment -- the DEP permitting process or --

MR. ROBBINS: We do not actively defer to anyone, no.

MS. INTERLANDI: Okay. With the other -- with the other projects that came through a few weeks ago I believe that you testified that the -- that there was -- that additional information had been provided to DEP, and that analysis would be done as part of their review; is that correct?

MR. ROBBINS: Yes. MS. INTERLANDI: Okay. Has ERM looked at

or has the County looked at or analyzed the cumulative effect of the -- of this mine with the other proposed or permitting -- permitted mines in the County?

MR. ROBBINS: No. MS. INTERLANDI: Do you believe that there

is a potential for there to be a cumulative impact associated with these -- this mine and the other mines?

MR. ROBBINS: Certainly, yes. MS. INTERLANDI: So the potential exists

then that there could be cumulative impacts associated with all the mines together?

MR. ROBBINS: Yes. MS. INTERLANDI: And you -- at this point

you’re not aware of what those might be? MR. ROBBINS: At this point, no. MS. INTERLANDI: Okay. I had one other

question for you since you’re up here. You had mentioned that DEP had done an

analysis or looked at the project and concluded that there were no fatal flaws in the project?

MR. ROBBINS: Yes. MS. INTERLANDI: And I was wondering what

was the basis for their determination that -- of that?

MR. ROBBINS: I can’t testify to DEP’s basis.

MS. INTERLANDI: Was that -- okay. Well, did they put in a letter that there were no fatal flaws? Was that their words or yours?

MR. ROBBINS: Those are my words in my communication with DEP.

MS. INTERLANDI: Okay. And they -- they -- DEP stated that there -- was that -- what were you interpreting when you said that there was no fatal flaws?

MR. ROBBINS: My conversations with Howard Hays and Rick Cantrell, in addition to the request for additional information that DEP issued on the project.

MS. INTERLANDI: Okay. Okay. That’s -- I don’t have any other questions, I don’t think, from -- for you.

110

Actually, I’m sorry, one -- one more. One more. I’m sorry.

Do you -- I know that one of the issues that has been concerned with mining generally, not necessarily particularly this project, is the impacts of blasting and the potential to result in benzene or other harmful chemicals.

Do you know whether the blasting agents that this project is -- do you know anything about the blasting agents that this project is utilizing or the impact, the potential for benzene creation?

Do you know anything about that at all? MR. ROBBINS: I’m advised by the applicant

that they will not use benzene in the blasting of this project.

MS. INTERLANDI: Do you know whether they would use products that would have an end result of the creation of benzene?

MR. ROBBINS: No, I do not. MS. INTERLANDI: So they might, you don’t

know? MR. ROBBINS: I do not know. MS. INTERLANDI: Okay. All right. That’s

it. Thank you. Thank you, Rob. MR. ROBBINS: Okay. MS. INTERLANDI: Okay. I just have a couple

more questions. That’s it. Regarding the use of the aggregate, in your

staff report -- I don’t have it right here, but it’s in the first paragraph, the introductory section, it says that the aggregate’s going to be used for road building and construction.

What is your understanding of that, of construction? Is that just for roads, or are you aware that they might use it for other projects -- other purposes, as well?

MS. RECHENMACHER: I’m not certain. I know that it’s for road building. That’s the main -- the applicant represented the main substance they’re providing is for road -- for road building.

MS. INTERLANDI: Okay. Does the -- MS. RECHENMACHER: I’m sure it’d be for

other items, too. MS. INTERLANDI: Okay. It could be for --

it could be for just general construction? MS. RECHENMACHER: I’m sure some of it

would be. MS. INTERLANDI: Okay. And the development

order doesn’t limit the use of the aggregate? MS. RECHENMACHER: No, it does not. MS. INTERLANDI: Okay. That’s all I have.

Thank you. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. Any -- any

more -- any questions of the petitioner? MS. INTERLANDI: Well, I was done with

County staff. I -- I -- no, that’s fine. I’m done. I’m done.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. MS. INTERLANDI: Alex probably will. Thank

you. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Alex. MS. LARSON: No, Lisa covered everything.

111

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Lisa got it for your record. Okay.

Anybody else wish to -- the petitioner wish to add copious knowledge of information?

MS. HALPERIN: Just a couple of questions, and I don’t know, do we have an opportunity to summarize at the end or just cross-examination?

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: You’re re-re, and you’re in summary right now.

MS. HALPERIN: Okay. Could I ask Mr. Marshall to come up, please?

Mr. Marshall, the flow-ways that you presented, is this something that has gone any further than somebody’s just thought process? Has it gone through any approval process? Has it gone through any analysis?

Is there any way to know that this is where it will or won’t be, or is this just in a very preliminary stage?

MR. MARSHALL: It’s preliminary. There was an additional matrix that I presented for the record, said -- that said reestablishment of sheet flow to the central Everglades, and, admittedly, as Lisa referred to the lack of a comprehensive plan, the area between the lake and -- Lake Okeechobee and Water Conservation Area 3 is probably the most -- the least planned area in the entire CERP evolution.

And one of the problems is every region -- MS. HALPERIN: I think -- I think you’ve

answered the question. MR. MARSHALL: Okay. MS. HALPERIN: Thank you MR. MARSHALL: Okay. MS. HALPERIN: And -- MR. MARSHALL: But it is a -- it is a plan. MS. HALPERIN: And are you aware that some

of the restoration projects that have already occurred have incorporated mines?

The Flint mine has been incorporated into a pretreatment area, and the Griffin mine has already been incorporated in the reservoir so that some of the mines, existing mines, older mines, are being incorporated into the restoration?

MR. MARSHALL: I haven’t done a large survey of all the mines out there.

MS. HALPERIN: Okay. Thank you. Carrie, just to clarify, the 100-acre a

year is a County standard, it’s a maximum, and it depends on demand as far as whether or not you can mine up to 100 acres a year?

There’s no requirement that it be less than that or that there is a minimum that has to be mined a year?

MS. HALPERIN: No, there’s not. The 100-acre is a DRI requirement, it -- it’s a maximum; otherwise, it’d be reviewed as a DRI.

MS. HALPERIN: Is the maximum. Okay. I think that’s all the questions we have.

Thank you. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. MS. INTERLANDI: I’m sorry. Can I have

112

your indulgence? I just need a motion to receive and file. I just have a couple documents that I --

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Move to receive and file.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Second. COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: Second. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Discussion. (No response) VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: All’s in favor, aye.

Aye. COMMISSIONERS: Aye. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. Kanjian, second, Marcus first. MS. HALPERIN: Just one comment. If you’re

going to receive and file all the expert testimony that was presented last time, we just would like the record to show that all the scientific data that has been submitted with the application contradicts that expert testimony since this mine is an existing mine.

Scientific study has -- it’s an expansion of an adjacent -- the same quarry, and so there has been scientific data submitted that contradicts that regarding chlorides and a lot of the other things that have arisen.

MR. BANKS: Is there -- MS. INTERLANDI: I will just clarify that

the expert testimony that was provided was with regard to the other applications and not specifically with regard to this project, so --.

MR. BANKS: So what are you receiving and filing?

MS. INTERLANDI: I have -- I have a -- I have a -- oh, I’m sorry.

I have some handouts here, which were similar to my handouts from our last proceeding, which are basically like some letters and correspondence of some Plan 6 flow way information and some letters from 1,000 Friends of Florida and the Florida Wildlife Federation regarding my representation and the transcripts from the hearing from the last time and --

MR. BANKS: I mean I don’t -- I guess -- MS. INTERLANDI: And a -- MR. BANKS: I don’t believe the transcript

from the other hearing is appropriately entered into this hearing.

Everyone can make their record based on the hearing --

COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: Mr. Chair, why don’t we have Bob take a look at what’s there while we’re hearing the other questions. Let’s make sure whatever we put in is adequate, and then I’ll withdraw my second --

MR. BANKS: I mean that was only because -- COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: -- ‘til we do that. MR. BANKS: -- you know, for purposes of

time at the last hearing one applicant essentially agreed to incorporate --

MS. HALPERIN: Right, and I can’t because it’s not applicable --

MR. BANKS: Right.

113

MS. HALPERIN: -- to a lot of the scientific data that was submitted with this application.

MR. BANKS: That didn’t go for this hearing, right, so --

MS. INTERLANDI: No, I mean there’s some additional information in there generally about the group’s concerns about mining in the EAA generally and testimony with regard to that.

I realize that as far as the expert -- VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: I’ll tell you what.

Why don’t you give him -- COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: Just go over there

and -- VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: -- right now. MS. INTERLANDI: Okay. Fine. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: We won’t do anything

until you’re done. MS. INTERLANDI: May I ask, though, that

these other two items which are basically, I think, non-controversial, could they be admitted into the record right now?

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Just go to him and -- COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Do it all -- okay. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: You can come to him.

Okay. So the motion -- Rosa, what do you wish? MS. DURANDO: Yes, I have a couple of

questions. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Rosa, now, you --

let’s make it quick. You didn’t ask to re-examine, but as a courtesy I’m going to give you that. Okay.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Just in the future if you want to do cross-examination, you’re supposed to say it before you step away.

MS. DURANDO: Oh, I’m sorry. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: That’s okay. MS. DURANDO: I’m sorry. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: So the Chair is going

to indulge you. Yes, ma’am. MS. DURANDO: There’s a sentence in the

staff report I would like clarified. It says, “DEP has requested additional and

more detailed information from the applicant.” Do we know what the problem was? Do we

know what was requested? VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Rob, can you

describe -- is that normal process? MR. ROBBINS: Yeah. Rosa, I can probably

best answer that question by giving you a copy of the DEP’s request, all the questions.

MS. DURANDO: Were they addressed by the applicant?

MR. ROBBINS: Not yet, no. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Can you tell -- MS. DURANDO: So in other words, they’re

asking for a permit without a complete report yet that has been given to the Commissioners?

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: No, there’s -- ours is the land use.

114

The permitting is a separate decision-making process that they continue to request more information on. Are you clear about that?

MS. DURANDO: I would think, though, that your land use decision would be dependent on the answer to some of these questions.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Our land use decision -- we’ve had sufficient information to cover the environmental issues that we’ve had specifically, and then we defer to DEP and the Water Management District, Army Corps, on their particular expertise.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: But in this particular case this was a letter sent to ERM about this project; correct?

MR. ROBBINS: This was a letter sent to the applicant, copied to ERM, yes.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Okay. So do you have a copy of that so we can see --

MR. ROBBINS: I sure do. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: -- what their

concerns are? MR. ROBBINS: Right after I give Rosa a

copy right now, yes. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Yeah. MS. DURANDO: Okay. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: And I would actually

like to see. MR. ROBBINS: Okay. MS. DURANDO: I would thinks this is like

the cart before the horse, that you should have been apprised of this before you make a decision.

But being as it is, there’s a statement in there that air quality on the rock processing would be controlled by water.

Suppose we’re in a drought with water restrictions. Are you setting up a competition between existing agricultural uses on any property in the EAA and air quality problems that will occur on rock mining?

Are you setting up a situation here which will be very difficult to sit in judgment?

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Well, they’re going to use the water out of the existing mines to be able to treat it coming forward so it wouldn’t be from an outside source. It’d be covered by their existing stormwater --

MS. DURANDO: There will be no water as they’re rock mining. There will be no significant water in the bottom of these holes.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Well, I don’t think the water table’s going to substantially empty out these mines. If that happens, we’re all in deep trouble.

MS. DURANDO: But as they dig, they dewater, not off property, but they’ll be dewatering from one hole to another.

I don’t see that there can be an arrangement made to attain air quality without competing for water.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Rob, can we let the expert answer.

115

MR. ROBBINS: Certainly. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Thank you. MR. SEARCY: My name is Howard Searcy,

consulting engineer on the project. We responded to the questions of the DEP,

and that response has been forwarded to DEP. We expect a second response in about two weeks so we will be into our second phase of that.

And with regard to the mining, dewatering does not take place. It’s all done at the existing water table.

It does not -- we do not dewater to excavate the rock.

MS. DURANDO: Well, you will excuse me. I have my doubts.

The last question. Do think that they will -- the statement that they will continue farming where they’re not rock mining will give them the agricultural tax exemption?

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: I don’t know that one.

MS. DURANDO: I’m sure it will, and I’m sure that’s what’s behind it.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: I don’t know. I’m -- I don’t know how it ends up. I don’t know what it is on the tax roll. Maybe you could -- I -- we don’t know that answer.

MS. HALPERIN: Right now it’s an agricultural use so I can’t answer that question.

MS. DURANDO: Which allows them a substantial tax reduction from what other people pay.

MS. HALPERIN: The property that’s in agricultural use.

MR. MARSHALL: Could I exercise just a quick suggestion, same as Rosa?

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Yes, real quick. MR. MARSHALL: No matter what the Board

decides probably somebody on the Commission should pick up the phone and call Colonel Grosskruger, ‘cause he’s going to have to wrestle this alligator, and ask him where he’s going with this because both he and the South Florida Water Management District have said that Plan 6 is not off the table. It’s still -- it’s still in consideration to get this thing moving.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: There’s a couple of Commissioners that have been very active dealing --

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: I e-mail him regularly.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Yes, we’re -- we’re connected.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: Mr. Chair, I just

want to make sure on the agriculture exception for taxes, that doesn’t have anything to do with the underlying zoning. It has to do with the use that the property is going through at that time.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Correct. COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: So you -- you can

have a condominium building zoned on it, but if they got a couple cows out there, I know a lot of

116

people who rent the cows, it would -- it would qualify.

So I -- that’s the rules. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. Any staff

comment? Does the petitioner wish to summarize? MS. HALPERIN: We don’t want to keep you

here any longer. The application meets all the requirements of both the Comprehensive Plan, the goals and objectives and the uniform -- Unified Land Development Code.

The scientific data has been submitted and is part of the record showing --

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: It’s raining. MS. HALPERIN: Ah, rain. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Raise that water

table. MS. HALPERIN: Showing that the chlorides

and other regulations are satisfied with the adjacent property and will be continued on to this property, and we would hope we would get an approval.

And thank you for your time. MR. BANKS: All right. Regarding the

documents, I think the County Attorney’s Office and the applicant’s attorney and Ms. Interlandi have agreed that they can introduce this document entitled “Florida Wildlife Federation Exhibits to Quasi-Judicial Hearing April 24, 2008” and then this report, “Recommendations on Investigations to Determine Effect of Rock Mining in the EAA,” by Thomas Van Lent, May 8th, 2008.

And then there was a third document that we’ve -- that they’ve agreed not to submit, which is the transcript of a prior hearing.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Move to receive and file what was read into the record by the County Attorney.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Second, Commissioner --

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: He doesn’t want to. COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: I’ll second it for

discussion. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Motion and a second. Discussion -- Marcus, Kanjian. Discussion. (No response) VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: All those in favor,

aye. COMMISSIONERS: Aye. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. MR. BANKS: And I did point out that, you

know, we have four commissioners here, and it’s a quasi-judicial proceeding.

If we have a tie vote, the item will be continued to your next month’s public hearing.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: I thought we were going to do it June 3rd. I thought Mr. Weisman said --

MR. BANKS: Okay. Well, whenever -- COMMISSIONER MARCUS: -- something about

June 3rd. MR. BANKS: If -- okay. It just has to be

117

continued to another -- to another date so you can -- so what’s June 3rd?

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: That Tuesday. MR. Mac GILLIS: It’s a Tuesday meeting. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Not next Tuesday, the

Tuesday after. MS. ALTERMAN: That’s correct. We had

cleared it with the County Administrator, and we can either continue it to the next Zoning meeting or to the June 3rd regular BCC meeting at the Board’s desire, if that is necessary.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. There’s a -- Karen Marcus and then Santamaria.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Just a couple questions for the staff first.

In -- it was represented to us by the applicant that they were going to design this based on the CERP criteria to become a CERP, you know, reservoir or whatever.

Is that a condition in here? MS. RECHENMACHER: They showed a -- for the

660-foot setback they -- on the plan they’re showing that 660-foot as a final phase, but they haven’t made the commit -- there was no commitment at this time.

And it’s kind of what he was -- COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Can we make it a

condition? MS. RECHENMACHER: -- indicating to -- COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Could we make it a

condition? MS. RECHENMACHER: No, we didn’t. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: I said, could we? MS. RECHENMACHER: We could. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Yeah. I would like

to do that. If that’s what you’re planning on doing,

and I think that if you make it -- VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: So you’ve agreed to

conditions that you’ve heard from the Water Management District to allow your property, when it’s mined out, to be able to make the 660 right now?

MS. HALPERIN: We can agree to a condition if they want it, you know, we’ll give it to them.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: No, I understand that, but if you design it -- correct.

MS. HALPERIN: Yeah. I mean if they don’t want it, then the last phase will be --

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: I understand that, but --

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Correct. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: -- at least if we

condition it, we make sure that down the road if things change, that, you know, they actually have to do it that way, so.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: So right now you’re agreeing to a condition.

Right now the existing standard for Water Management District area is 660.

MS. HALPERIN: Only if CERP -- if they don’t want it, then we’ll --

118

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: No, I understand that. I just would like to make sure it’s designed that way.

I’m not saying that they take it, but if they do decide they want it, then if you put a condition on there that talks about the CERP -- they meet the CERP requirements --

MS. RECHENMACHER: They meet -- well, what would the condition say, that they meet with --

MS. HALPERIN: I’ll let Mr. Bergeron, respond to his own property requirements.

MR. BERGERON: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name’s Ron Bergeron, Sr.

Thank you for allowing me to come up here and speak.

We don’t have a problem if Everglades Restoration, the U.S. Corps, South Florida Water Management comes to us in the time frame -- this is the last phase, and we actually designed our mining plan to where through this time frame that was quite a few years that if they needed this for a component of Everglades restoration, that it would be available to them.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Uh-huh. MR. BERGERON: But we would certainly

cooperate. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. Right now

that’s just the standard. MR. BERGERON: We don’t want to have to

come back to mine this if they don’t want it, but if --

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Well, I think -- I think that at some point in time you can add in the condition, Maryann, that if they produce a letter from the District saying we don’t want this for CERP --

MS. RECHENMACHER: Right, exactly. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: -- then you can do

whatever is, you know, available there, but up -- but right now you’ll design it based on the CERP requirements?

MR. BERGERON: Yes. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Okay. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: The existing CERP

requirements. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: That -- that’s what

the condition should read and then allow them to bring in a letter from Water Management District or the Corps saying we do not use -- need this for CERP.

MR. Mac GILLIS: Because we’ll actually need that prior to DRO certification of the first phase because if there’s requirements that they’re going to require, we’re going to need that before they start going ahead and not complying with the standards.

So we’ll need that letter prior to DRO approval.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: No, the -- no. The letter I’m talking about is down the road because the Water Management District doesn’t have a clue right now what CERP is going to be or look like or

119

whether these folks will be in that path. The point I’m making is that they should

plan on designing it and building it out to be a CERP project, but when they get close to that period of time, if they come in with a letter from South Florida saying you’re not in our -- you’re not in our flow way, you can do whatever you want, then they’re relieved of that particular condition.

But planning ahead and thinking that if they are in that flow path, that they would be acceptable for it.

MS. ALTERMAN: Let me -- if I may, there is a condition as part of the annual report that they document the status of the eligibility of a particular area to be utilized for water management or ecosystem restoration, and along with it they have to have a letter from each agency discussing the eligibility of that phase to be used for those purposes.

I don’t know if that satisfies what you’re looking for.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: That’s helpful, but the applicant represented to us that that 600 feet that you showed was --

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Six sixty. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: -- was going to fit

for CERP, and I’m just trying to make that a condition for us and trying to give them an option that if for some reason they decide not to do something here, that they won’t -- they are relieved of that design responsibility.

That’s helpful in there, but I would like a little more --

MR. BERGERON: I can respond to that. This is the last phase of the mining, this

660 feet. If we provide you a letter that they do want it or they don’t want it, we would want to be able, if they don’t want it, to mine the last phase.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: That’s why I’m asking.

MR. BERGERON: So maybe we could provide you a letter within one year before we get to that last phase --

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: That’s -- that’s fine.

MR. BERGERON: -- to give them the opportunity if it’s a benefit to the Everglades.

But I’d like to say just one other thing without repeating a lot of things that y’all have heard.

The rock pit that have been incorporated in your pre-treatment areas of Everglades restoration, I actually built the restoration area. I just finished and completed it with the Flint pit inside of it --

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Uh-huh. MR. BERGERON: -- as a component of it. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Uh-huh. MR. BERGERON: The Griffin pit, it was out

there for 20-some odd years, was incorporated into a reservoir.

120

So there’s obviously no negative impact to incorporate a lake body into a reservoir or a pretreatment area.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: As long as it’s designed right. You’ll have to show us where those were, too, by the way.

Are they in one of the STAs? MR. BERGERON: Yes. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Okay. MR. BERGERON: Yes, they are. MS. KWOK: Yeah, we -- actually, we got a

condition drafted -- COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Okay. MS. KWOK: -- and Carrie’s going to read

it. We can incorporate it in -- under one of

those ERM condition, No. 7.b. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. MS. RECHENMACHER: This is pretty close to

what we’re looking for, also based on what Mr. Bergeron was saying is, one year prior to the final phase which begins at the 660-foot setback of the subject project, the -- subject property, the property owner shall meet with the applicable agencies and provide a written confirmation if this project will or will not be part of the CERP.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Okay. But do we say something in there about it being designed for CERP up ‘til then?

Or I guess you’re just using the 660 feet as they should save that --

MS. RECHENMACHER: That portion where they said they make --

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Okay. MS. RECHENMACHER: -- the determination. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Okay. MS. KWOK: Because all the phases, 5.a and

6, are right against that 660-foot setback. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Okay. MS. KWOK: So they cannot commence Phase

5 -- COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Until they get this

letter. MS. KWOK: -- until they get us the letter. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Okay. Okay. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. You okay with

those -- that condition? MS. HALPERIN: The only concern I have is

the we haven’t made a decision yet. I mean I think at that point --

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Who hasn’t made a decision yet?

MS. HALPERIN: Water Management District. MS. RECHENMACHER: But, Ellie -- MS. HALPERIN: If the year before they

haven’t made a decision a vague answer shouldn’t prevent them from mining the last phase.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: No, the burden is on them, not on you.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Well, they just need to say yes or no.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Yeah, that’s all.

121

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Either you need it or you don’t.

MS. HALPERIN: If we can get a yes or no answer.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Yes. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: By then -- VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: We’re clear about

that. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: -- let’s hope. MS. HALPERIN: Thank you. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: You’re agreeing to be

able to keep the 660 -- MS. HALPERIN: Yes, we’ll keep that -- VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: -- which is just the

guidelines. MS. HALPERIN: Absolutely. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: And then when you get

close to the end of it, they got to give you some correspondence to say yea or nay.

MS. HALPERIN: Yes. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: And they -- it’s

their action steps, not yours. MS. HALPERIN: Okay. Good. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: And the only other

thing I wanted to say, I’m a little concerned about the time frame. I -- it’s a little longer than I -- I’m -- I heard a mixture of years. I heard nine, and I heard 20, and I’m hoping that in nine years CERP will at least be designed. Okay. I’m hoping.

But I’m just concerned that 20 years, if you become part of CERP, might make it more difficult or time line -- so I don’t know if there’s a -- you say there’s a review or a status report that is due in there, but I don’t know there’s an ability to say to you all, sorry, you know, just keep doing your thing because we’ll just have to wait -- out wait you. It’s just sort of a review, if you will.

MS. HALPERIN: Commissioner, the Bergerons would like nothing better than to mine 100 acres a year. I mean that’s in their best business interest.

They’re not going to do anything to slow down that process. It’s in their best interest to mine the maximum.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: No, I understand that. I understand that.

And I don’t -- I just don’t know we can bring back at least a condition of review after 10 years so that it gives us the opportunity to give you an extension if you aren’t done, but --

MR. BERGERON: You know, that’s pretty difficult because of the capital investment that you amortize over a minimum of 20 years. You’re talking major aggregate plants, major draglines, heavy equipment, and you amortize that over a time frame.

We would be tickled to death that this could be mined in 10 years. I don’t think the market’s there to do that. Truthfully, we supply the local market, and I would be ecstatic if we

122

could do it in 10 years, but we don’t have a crystal ball to say what -- what is the market.

What we do is supply the -- the market and the demand.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Right. MR. BERGERON: And -- COMMISSIONER MARCUS: I appreciate that. MR. BERGERON: And we make projections and

capital investments that have to be amortized over the resource.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. We’re okay. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Just -- Commissioner Santamaria. Are you done? COMMISSIONER MARCUS: No. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: I’m sorry. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Just one other point

to John Marshall’s comments ‘cause I went to that meeting yesterday, and I brought my own map down because I was surprised to see it.

But I also went out there on Monday to look at the Okeelanta plants, and that’s six miles just -- I guess, you’d consider that east of what you’re doing, of where you are down 27.

And I’m, you know, because I -- I’m -- I don’t see the agencies yet coming to grips with the fact that they haven’t designed CERP.

They -- yesterday all I could see, John, was that they were talking about projects and priortization of projects that most of them they know aren’t going to work, and so -- and then the part about -- one of the other things is let’s try these things out and see how they work, and if they don’t work, then we’ll try something else.

Well, an $850 million above-ground reservoir, you want to try out and see if it works? Doesn’t make any sense.

So it was very clear to me yesterday that the urgency still isn’t there in terms of designing this appropriately and correctly.

But let me -- let me say this. So we’re going to have to keep pushing, but we’re a long time away.

We had before talked about doing a moratorium on rock mines, and one of the exceptions that we had made to that moratorium was existing and expanded mines.

So when we’re done with this item, I want to talk about what we do with any other mines coming in.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. Commissioner Santamaria, Barbara wants to

talk. Do you want to go first, or you want -- MS. ALTERMAN: Yeah. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Do you -- MS. ALTERMAN: Mine will be real quick. I just wanted to point out that there is

also a condition in here that requires that in five years we bring back a status report to the Board as an administrative inquiry.

So that may -- COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Okay. MS. ALTERMAN: -- give you an opportunity

123

at least to look at it and see what’s going on, and that is part of the staff report and the conditions.

MS. RECHENMACHER: Right, it’s on page 452. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Thank you. MS. RECHENMACHER: Under Monitoring. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. Commissioner Santamaria. COMMISSIONER SANTAMARIA: Some of you might

remember at last month’s deliberation on the two larger rock mining applicants I stated that I neither opposed nor supported rock mining expansion.

But I did strongly support proceeding with what we -- I thought we had concluded at the summit, which was to do a comprehensive cumulative evaluation of rock mining as a whole, and I said let’s hold off voting, proceeding, until we could get this comprehensive cumulative study.

And as you all know, the vote was 4-2 to proceed, and I was one of the two who did not want to proceed until we had this cumulative study done, and that’s still my feeling today, you know.

However, I’m looking now at the applicant, the applicant compared to the other two that were allowed to proceed last month, I guess it’s what, less than five percent of the -- combining the three applications for rock mining.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: And he’s existing. COMMISSIONER SANTAMARIA: Today’s

application is less than five percent; is that correct?

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Uh-huh. COMMISSIONER SANTAMARIA: I have a question

for Ms. Interlandi, Lisa, if you would. What do you -- what would be your comment

and what would be the -- what would be the logic to say not to allow the applicant today to proceed when in fact this Commission has already opened the door to two much larger rock mining operations?

This one compared to the other two, of course, is quite minute. What would be the logic in saying no to them now when the Commission has already allowed two much larger ones to proceed?

MS. INTERLANDI: Well, that was one of the concerns that we raised at the last hearing, was that it was certainly going to set a precedent for the approval of these large-scale projects when the environmental impacts are not yet known. Okay.

That is the thing. Your staff’s acknowledged we don’t know whether they’re going to have a cumulative impact. We don’t know whether -- whether they are going to cause environmental harm at this point because that analysis is still waiting to be done. Okay.

We believe that that does not meet the criteria for issuance of a conditional use approval. We believe that you have to know the answers to those questions at the time of the project coming before you.

So certainly every project has to be evaluated on its own merits, on its own -- based on

124

the criteria and the Comprehensive Plan and the code.

We also believe that the Comprehensive Plan limits the use of mining, limits mining in the EAA to uses that are to support agriculture, to support Everglades restoration or for public roadway projects.

Your Comprehensive Plan contains language “is limited to” these uses, “may only be allowed to support these uses.”

The use of the word “only,” the use of the term “limited to” means that it cannot be for any other use. It limits the use of the aggregate that is -- that is -- comes from these mines.

Now, I know that your County Attorney’s had questions about the enforceability of that long term, but the fact of the matter is, is that it’s in your Comprehensive Plan and it’s in your code, and it’s your duty and obligation to enforce it.

So I agree with what you said, Commissioner, in terms of this being a much smaller project, and certainly the commission has opened the door extremely wide with the previous approvals over quite a bit of objection, but I think you got to look at it on its merits. You have to look at it in terms of whether or not it complies with the criteria. We submit to you that it has -- that it doesn’t and that it has not.

So that’s my thinking. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. And that’s

that. Commissioner Santamaria. COMMISSIONER SANTAMARIA: I don’t know if

you’ve really answered my question because I’m really in a predicament.

You know, I had voted on the two prior projects not to proceed, but I was outvoted by four other commissioners, and I find it very difficult for me to justify today to close the door, you know, on the small one when the two much larger applications have already been allowed to proceed.

So I -- it really puts me in a quandary, but I think I’ll have to do what I have to do.

But what I really still insist, there is absolutely no reason why we can’t proceed with the study. I mean does any commissioner that’s here today -- is there any reason why we could not proceed with a cumulative comprehensive study, regardless of whether we approve moving forward on this application today?

COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: I don’t think we’ve gotten an opinion on what that would cost and what it would entail, and we probably would spend three years figuring out what we’re supposed to study, but we have -- I don’t think we have any of that stuff yet, Commissioner.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Well, just to make a comment.

Here’s the issue. We have this mine in front of us now. We have a cumulative -- how many years you guys been mining out there -- 18 years. That’s a pretty cumulative effect. There’s been

125

little or no water issues. Matter of fact, the water’s probably gotten cleaner, and we know exactly where this rock goes, for roads and Everglades restoration.

So I’ve got a tough time trying to add a cumulative effect for this one project sitting here in front of us today when we can look at the history of the water in this particular area, and it hasn’t been an effect, and here’s the adjacent system coming back, and we know where that rock goes.

So I have a tough time cutting our nose off for this particular mine --

COMMISSIONER SANTAMARIA: No, no. No, I think you misunderstood me.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: I mean I’m just -- COMMISSIONER SANTAMARIA: No, you

misunderstood me. I didn’t say not to -- not to approve them proceeding. I didn’t say that.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Yeah, yeah. COMMISSIONER SANTAMARIA: On the contrary,

I said I would be ready to allow them to proceed, but in the mean -- but to go ahead with the other.

I thought we did have a consensus at the summit that we would proceed with a comprehensive cumulative study as proposed by Dr. Van Lent, and in fact he -- Bob Weisman has already gotten a response from Dr. Van Lent on the parameters for that study.

So there is one in place. Have you gotten a copy of it?

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Yeah, we saw that. COMMISSIONER SANTAMARIA: So there is

already a proposed -- a proposal to proceed with a comprehensive study, and I would like our staff to further investigate both the cost and the time frame involved in proceeding with what I felt was the right thing to do.

But even if we are going to go ahead with this application today and the other two that’s already been allowed, I really strongly urge this Commission to proceed with a comprehensive study, and I’d like staff to move along those lines.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. I’ve got to leave soon ‘cause I’ve got to go to the Children’s Services Council, so --

COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: I just want to ask you a quick question, which is 700,000 acres there, are you saying we should study all 700,000, or which acres should we study?

COMMISSIONER SANTAMARIA: I am saying read the proposal of Dr. Van Lent and allow our staff to continue looking into moving forward with the study as far as finding out the cost and the time frame involved.

COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: And I would support taking a look at that.

The one thing that continues to be at that summit and here is there’s 700,000 acres, apparently is not that much, quite frankly, that is eligible for mining, but the question becomes do you do 700,000 acres, or do you do just the ones

126

that are eligible for mining? What do you do to do a whole impact? COMMISSIONER SANTAMARIA: That’s not -- COMMISSIONER MARCUS: That’s not our scope. COMMISSIONER SANTAMARIA: That’s not a

topic for today. That’s another -- that’s another topic for later on.

I am saying let’s continue pursuing the comprehensive study. That’s what I’m saying, and let’s -- let’s move on.

Let’s -- I don’t want this to shift now. I would like our staff to continue pursuing the comprehensive study, and I believe our administrator, Mr. Weisman, is here.

Would you comment on that, please? VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Wait, wait, wait.

Hold it. I’m going to take charge. We have heard testimony on a specific

petition in front of us here. I’d like to see if we could act on that.

Like I said I’ve got -- I’ve -- COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Well, but there --

for some of us who are going to have to vote for this or vote against it or however we want to vote today, I think what Commissioner Santamaria, and I would agree, is looking for is this is a small one. It is an existing one.

If you’re -- you know, if you and I voted against the two big ones, this one might be something that we could say, since it’s a local supply, we could support.

But there are two things I think we have to do. I think we have to look at a -- what the comprehensive study would cost and the scope of it, and I think we also need to implement another moratorium, and have this one work, on any future mining applications until we have some kind of information back on the study.

So if I were to know that kind of information, then I would be able to probably say okay, let’s go ahead and just approve this little one and knowing that we’re going to look at this bigger picture again.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Mr. Weisman, can you enlighten us at all?

MR. WEISMAN: As Commissioner Santamaria said, we received the proposed study. We copied it to the entire Board.

Staff is currently evaluating what it calls for and will come in with a cost estimate as to what it will cost to do and what the results might be expected.

As you know, staff did not originally recommend doing the report, but we’ll see what we can do with what his proposal is.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: So do you have any idea when you’re going to be ready with that?

MR. WEISMAN: A couple of weeks. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Okay. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. And are you

going to take a look at a peered look at this and make sure -- I know there’s Everglades groups that

127

meet. Are you going to go outside, take a look and here’s what we got and what do you think, make sure everybody’s okay with that?

I mean everybody is like the working groups for the Everglades.

MR. WEISMAN: I think that’s the next step after we do our initial staff evaluation.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. MR. WEISMAN: The problem with all of these

type studies is is that the conclusions are very controversial, no matter what they are, and that’s going to be part of what we’re going to look at, what will be the results of the study and how we’ll translate it to a result you can use.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: And the USGS was there yesterday, and I think they would be interested in assisting us in terms of that cumulative effect.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: And one of our mining aggregate task force was to do a cumulative issue and study where it is and when we’re going to get to it and what are the repercussions afterwards, this --

MR. WEISMAN: But actually Dr. Van Lent’s --

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: -- 50 year -- MR. WEISMAN: -- issues I think were that

he thought a more site-specific study was required, and he was not looking actually in the overall effect as much as site-specific effect, is why he wanted a lot of research done on individual points --

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Uh-huh. MR. WEISMAN: -- to find out what those

individual effects were. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: And some people have

said that a lot of the data in the EAA has been gathered both publicly and privately, and we offered some mechanisms to be able to capture the private data and keep it confidential and were able to go in and make bigger decisions.

That was one of the unanimous agreements that came through, but then when it went through Tallahassee, some of the mining people go, “I’m not sure I support that anymore.”

So this is this larger cumulative, where’s it going to be, the 50-year aggregate study.

Okay. Could we come back to this ‘cause like I said, I’ve got to run.

So is there going to be a motion? COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Look to one of your

yes votes. COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: Well, you had some

suggestions for changes, Commissioner Marcus, so I assumed you would make the motion.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: No, they -- yeah, they put them in there --

MS. HALPERIN: Commissioner -- COMMISSIONER MARCUS: -- but I’m going to

let you make the motion. MS. HALPERIN: I’m sorry. You know, when

you do conditions last minute in a public hearing,

128

sometimes you don’t think them all the way through, and I’m sorry, but this does put this property on a detrimental position of going to the Corps and saying, “Do you want my property” --

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: This doesn’t affect you.

MS. HALPERIN: No. We’re talking about the condition of getting the letter before you make the motion.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: You -- COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Look, I -- VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Wait, wait, hold it.

One second. You said -- MS. HALPERIN: Yes. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: -- that we are

designing this mine so it could be. MS. HALPERIN: And we will keep that -- we

will keep that footprint. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: And then we asked you

if you get into your Phase 5.a, 6 -- MS. HALPERIN: Oh, before the last phase,

the last year. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Yeah, and they come

up with a letter to you, and they say we may or may not --

MS. HALPERIN: If they come up with a letter to us --

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: -- want it, you can mine.

MS. HALPERIN: As long as the letter is initiated by them, not by us.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Correct. MS. HALPERIN: Okay. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Well, you need the

letter. You’re going to -- whether you initiate it or they initiate it, you’re going to have to have the letter to be able to develop the last part.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: And in -- MS. HALPERIN: But if we have to -- VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: And in five years

you’ll be coming back to us and giving us -- MS. HALPERIN: To give you a status report,

absolutely. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: -- the report,

anyway. MS. HALPERIN: But to ask this property

owner different than any other property owner to go to the Corps and say, “Do you want my property” --

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: You -- MS. HALPERIN: -- that doesn’t put them in

a positive position for negotiating anything. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: No, you -- look, I’m

sorry. But y’all got up here and represented that you were designing it that way, and I’m just putting the condition --

MS. HALPERIN: It is being designed -- COMMISSIONER MARCUS: -- in there to make

sure that it gets designed that way, and that we release the design after they -- whether you write them a letter and say, “I have this condition, do you want this or not,” and they say yes or no,

129

but -- VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: We’re -- hey, we’re

happy with that condition right now. I’ll just leave it like that.

COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: Well, with that I was just looking -- I was -- I was relishing this moment.

I’ll make a motion to approve the staff recommendations for a Class A conditional to allow a Type III-B excavation.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: As amended. COMMISSIONER SANTAMARIA: I’ll second it. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: With the amended

condition? VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: With the amended

conditions. COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: You know, just

remember this day that I’m going to be nice to you today and say yes, how about that. Remember this day.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: I’ll remember this day.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Clerk, put that on the record. We’ll get the --

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: I remember -- I remember this morning. It’s okay.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. There’s a motion and a second.

Discussion. (No response) VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: I’ve got some lights

on, but I didn’t turn them off. You guys okay? COMMISSIONER MARCUS: I’m done. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. Motion and

second, discussion. All those in favor, Aye. COMMISSIONERS: Aye. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: All -- all those

opposed. (No response) VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: 4-0. Thank you.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Mr. Chairman, real quickly. I know you want to go.

I do want to, though, ask the Board if they would consider asking the staff again to looking at bringing back another moratorium on any further mining applications in the EAA until we have either done this cumulative study or we’ve heard from CERP or the Water Management District that they are in

130

fact going to design CERP finally. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: You mean you want to

bring that back to the next Zoning meeting? COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Well, I want to make

a motion to do that right now and ask the staff to bring it back to the next Zoning meeting, yes.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: I’ve run out of

seconds. So I’m not going to second this one. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Okay. You want to

second the moratorium? COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: I’ve used a lot

today. COMMISSIONER SANTAMARIA: Second. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: The moratorium --

yeah, to bring it back to the next Zoning meeting, an implementation of a moratorium.

COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: And I would suggest that -- oh, for discussion.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. There’s discussion.

MR. BANKS: For discussion at the next meeting or --

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Yes. Yes. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: As an ordinance. COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: I would -- COMMISSIONER MARCUS: For us to vote up or

down. COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: I would -- MR. BANKS: You want an -- you want an

advertised -- VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: You can’t do that

that quick. MR. BANKS: -- ordinance at you -- in one

month? VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Let’s just bring it

back for discussion. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Okay. Bring it --

well -- COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: Mr. Chairman. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. There’s a

motion and a second to bring it back to the next meeting for discussion.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Okay. COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: Mr. Chairman. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Yes. COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: And I appreciate the

speed that we worked through today, but I think that this kind of discussion and this kind of vote is really, really important for us to have seven members here.

So I don’t think anything today with four -- we already had enough difficulties with four today. I think we should have this discussion when we have seven.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: No, we can’t implement it today --

COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: Right. It doesn’t make any difference --

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: You know what. I’m going to -- I -- I agree with that.

COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: -- I think we should

131

have the discussions, though. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: That’s not fair for

us to be able to do that, and I -- I’m in favor of doing it, but I think it’s fairness to have seven people here on something like this would be -- I agree with you. I think we need a larger discussion on the implication, but I’m --

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: This is a pretty large issue, but I agree. Bring it back for discussion at the next Zoning meeting.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. We’ll just bring it back for discussion.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Okay. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: There’s no motion.

We’ll bring it back. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: No, no. There’s --

yeah, I think you have to have a motion to give staff that direction.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: No. We can -- it’s a sense of it to bring it back at the next meeting for discussion. We can -- staff heard what we wanted to take a look at next meeting.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: I’m looking at the staff.

Do you want a motion or do you want consensus?

MR. Mac GILLIS: What do you want prepared so when we come back --

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Possibility. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: No. How you would

implement a moratorium, what you have to do to implement a moratorium.

MR. Mac GILLIS: Creating an ordinance and --

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Yeah. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. MS. KWOK: Yes. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. Let’s move on. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: I had also under my

comments I sent out to all you all for the May’s -- today’s Zoning meeting.

We’ve got these documents in the mail. We get them. These are updates for -- they have to do annual reports for the Land Development Regulation Advisory Board and all that stuff.

And since we’re starting to cut costs and save staff time, I’d like to ask the Board if they would be willing to allow the staff to change the code and not have to tear down so many trees and do these reports.

And I guess you have to amend the code to do that?

MR. Mac GILLIS: Yes. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Okay. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Are you okay with

that? MR. Mac GILLIS: Yes. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: I asked them first if

they wanted to do it. MS. KWOK: Right, we -- we -- COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: Is it the printing

of it or the preparing of it that you have a

132

problem with? COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Both, both. COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: Just I was going to

say -- MS. KWOK: All. COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: It’s both? MS. KWOK: Yes, it’s both. COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: Okay. ‘Cause we can

always do it electronically. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: No, it’s both. It’s

just the preparation. MS. ALTERMAN: And what we’d like to do is

look at all of the reports -- COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Right. MS. ALTERMAN: -- and all of our codes and

look at them. I mean some we might say to you we think we need to continue doing, and others we could eliminate.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Okay. That’s fine. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. You’re going

to bring us back a more comprehensive look than just besides these two then.

MS. ALTERMAN: Correct.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. We still have one more -- receive the -- MR. Mac GILLIS: The annual TDR report. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: The annual TDR. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Move to receive and

file. MR. Mac GILLIS: I’ll just do this

extremely quickly. MS. KWOK: Yes. MR. Mac GILLIS: Once -- oh. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Move to receive and

file. Second? MR. Mac GILLIS: Well, I was just trying to

update. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Commissioner

Santamaria. MR. Mac GILLIS: Generally we bring this to

you every year. It’s just to show you how many units there

are in the TDR bank, and right now currently -- COMMISSIONER KANJIAN: We’ve got copies. MR. Mac GILLIS: -- there’s 7,334, and last

year we sold 364. Typically this is the time when the Board

would direct staff if you wanted to increase the number.

133

Planning Division would normally have a recommendation to increase that number higher than 50,000, and Lorenzo did not recommend we change that number, increase it --

MS. KWOK: Right. MR. Mac GILLIS: -- to higher than 50,000. So the other -- the other stuff is just

backup information for you for receive and file. It just shows you the projects that came in

because actually, Commissioner Santamaria, you raised that question earlier today, which projects we approve.

So this is good background information. It gives you all the projects we approved last year and which ones got TDR units.

We just need a motion to receive and file. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Move to receive and

file. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Second, Commissioner

Santamaria? COMMISSIONER SANTAMARIA: Second. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Second. Discussion. (No response) VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: All those in favor,

aye. Aye. COMMISSIONERS: Aye. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. Staff

comments. (No response) VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Board comments.

George? (No response) VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: I lost my agenda.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. County -- I’ll go through it. I’ll be formal.

Director comments. MS. ALTERMAN: George has a comment. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: George. MR. WEBB: Passed out to you this morning a

request that the Board make a motion to direct staff to initiate amendment to policy -- Transportation Element 1.1.n regarding car or master plans.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: What is it? VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Can -- can we -- COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Can we do that

Tuesday? VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Can we spend a little

time on this? I’m -- I know what you want to do.

134

I’d just like some more backup on that. We discussed that --

MR. WEBB: This starts the process -- COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Yeah, but I don’t

even know what it is. I haven’t seen it. I -- it was somewhere in my pile, but I didn’t read it ‘cause I didn’t know you wanted to do it today, so I can’t do this today.

MR. WEBB: Okay. Just if I have 10 seconds, it’s simply to -- you have your list. It’s currently adopted. You have a schedule --

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: But we didn’t get a copy of that list.

MR. WEBB: This is in your Comp Plan. I’m just saying --

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Yeah, but we didn’t even on your memo we didn’t --

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: June 3rd. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: June 3rd. MR. WEBB: May be too late as far as --

we’re trying to get it in this round so it will allow you to consider it as part of the 08-02 --

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: We don’t know what we’re considering. What’s the crisis?

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: That’s too late to -- you can’t come in, George --

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: No, you can’t do that.

MR. WEBB: The crisis is that we’ve gone through a budget review, and we have proposed hiring consultants to help us meet the Comp Plan.

Your administrator’s budget will not include those dollars; therefore, we don’t think we can make the schedule here, so we wanted to provide the Board the option, either to in the budget process or the Comp Plan process to try and do that.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: I don’t know why June 3rd is too late.

MS. ALTERMAN: Well, because we are starting our -- the Land Use Advisory Board, the Planning Commission meetings, and we would have to prepare a staff report to bring to them.

VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: After all the whining and complaining I’ve done about these corridor studies, to bring this at the last minute to catch this loop coming back is not good staff work.

MR. BANKS: There’s time for the Board to hear this.

COMMISSIONER MARCUS: I’m not doing it today.

MR. WEBB: On the 3rd? That’s fine. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Just send us more of

a comprehensive look at this thing. MR. WEBB: We’ll -- we’ll have -- we’ll

have that -- VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: And then also what

the repercussions are and what happens with 2035. MR. WEBB: We’ll have that to you next

week, yes. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Okay. Zoning

Director.

135

MR. Mac GILLIS: Nothing. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Annual TDR, Planning

Director, commissioner comments. Adjournment. COMMISSIONER MARCUS: Yea. VICE CHAIRMAN KOONS: Yea.

(Whereupon, the meeting was concluded at

3:45 p.m.) * * * * *

136

C E R T I F I C A T E

THE STATE OF FLORIDA )

COUNTY OF PALM BEACH )

I, Sophie M. (Bunny) Springer, Notary

Public, State of Florida at Large,

DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the above-entitled

and numbered cause was heard as hereinabove set

out; that I was authorized to and did report the

proceedings and evidence adduced and offered in

said hearing and that the foregoing and annexed

pages, numbered 5 through 135, inclusive, comprise

a true and correct transcription of the Board of

County Commissioners hearing.

I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am not related to

or employed by any of the parties or their counsel,

nor have I any financial interest in the outcome of

this action.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my

hand and seal this 19th day of June, 2008.

____________________________________

Sophie M. Springer, Notary Public.