Jun 05, 2025 Planning, Zoning, and Appeals Board

[1) CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:06]

I'D LIKE TO CALL A MEETING TO SESSION. WE'LL START WITH ROLL CALL. CHAIR. MILEY. PRESENT.

BOARD MEMBER. WILLIAMS. YES. BOARD MEMBER. WATSON. HERE. BOARD MEMBER. WOODY. BOARD MEMBER. WILLIAMSON. PRESENT. LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT. BOARD MEMBER THOMPSON AND BOARD MEMBER DE MARCELLUS ARE NOT HERE AT THE MOMENT. WE'LL MOVE ON WITH INVOCATION. BY MR. WILLIAMS, PLEASE. APOLOGIZE TO YOU. COME ON. CLOSE TO THE END OF THE DAY. AND THANK YOU, HEAVENLY FATHER, FOR ALLOWING US TO BE IN THIS DAY. WE CAN'T GO DOWN TO STANDBY FOR REASONS THAT SPIRITUAL TO BE IN PLACE UNTIL ANOTHER. TO ASKING SUITABLE APPLICATION, PLEASE, IN THE NAME OF JESUS. WE PRAY THAT THE WORDS, OUR MOUTHS AND MEDITATION, OUR HEARTS BE ACCEPTABLE IN YOUR SIGHT. OH LORD, OUR STRENGTH AND OUR REDEEMER. IN THE MIGHTY NAME OF JESUS WE PRAY. AMEN. AMEN.

PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. OF UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. BEFORE WE MOVE, I WANT TO ASK ALL BOARD MEMBERS TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU ARE SPEAKING INTO THE MICROPHONES FOR AUDIO PURPOSES ONLINE AND TRANSCRIPTION, PLEASE. SO I'LL ENTERTAIN AN APPROVAL OF THE

[5) APPROVAL OF AGENDA]

[6) APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

WOODY. YES. BOARD MEMBER. WILLIAMSON. YES. MOTION PASSES. REGULAR AGENDA ITEM. MISS

[7.1) APPLICATION NO. PLT-24-079 A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF THE SEMINOLE CROSSING PLAT, LOCATED NORTH OF LINCOLN STREET AND EAST OF SW COMMERCE PARK DRIVE, INDIANTON, ON PARCELS TOTALING 4.36-ACRES. ]

AND AS I MENTIONED, THIS ITEM AND THE NEXT TWO ITEMS ARE ALL QUASI JUDICIAL IN NATURE. AS YOU ALL KNOW, THAT MEANS YOU'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING FOR YOUR DECISION TO BE SUPPORTED BY COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND THE APPLICATION OF OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WITH REGARD TO THIS FIRST ITEM, MADAM CLERK, HAS THIS ITEM BEEN PROPERLY ADVERTISED? YES, SIR. THE ITEMS HAVE BEEN PROPERLY ADVERTISED. FANTASTIC. WITH REGARD TO THIS FIRST ITEM, JUST WANTED TO ASK THE BOARD MEMBERS, ARE THERE ANY VOTING CONFLICTS TO DISCLOSE OR ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS TO DISCLOSE? NO NO NO NO NO HEARING NONE. I WILL TURN IT OVER TO DINA TO PROCEED. SO GOOD EVENING EVERYBODY. WE'VE GOT A POWERPOINT PRESENTATION FOR THE OSCEOLA. SORRY, IT'S NOT THE OSCEOLA PINES. IT'S SEMINOLE CROSSING PLAT FOR. SORRY. THAT WAS NUMBER ONE ON THE OSCEOLA. SO THE APPLICATION WHILE WE GET THE POWERPOINT PRESENTATION,

[00:05:02]

THERE'S THE SEMINOLE CROSSING PLAT. THIS IS JUST TO SHOW YOU WHAT THE PLAT LOOKS LIKE. WE'VE DONE THIS BEFORE ON A COUPLE OF OTHER PLATS RECENTLY, AND THIS IS BASICALLY SHOWING YOU THE THERE'S A LOT OF LANGUAGE, LEGAL LANGUAGE. THERE'S A LOT OF SIGNATURES THAT ARE REQUIRED.

WE'VE ACTUALLY GOT THE PLAT READY TO GO FOR SIGNATURES WITH THE VILLAGE CLERK, AND THE VILLAGE ENGINEERS SIGNED IT. AND IT WILL THEN BE THE MAYOR WILL ALSO SIGN IT IF IT GETS APPROVED AT THE VILLAGE COUNCIL. SO IT'S READY TO GO ON A MYLAR. BUT THIS IS JUST TO SHOW YOU THE ACTUAL IMAGING OF THE ACTUAL PLAT. AND WHAT STAFF DO IS LOOK AT THIS IN RELATION TO THE APPROVED SITE PLAN AND THEN IN RELATION TO THE FLORIDA STATE STATUTES FOR THE SURVEYOR WITH THE, YOU KNOW, METES AND BOUNDS AND SETTING THE CORNERS AND ALL OF THE OTHER LEGAL ELEMENTS THAT ARE REQUIRED, INDIVIDUAL LOT DIMENSIONS IN RELATION TO ANY INFRASTRUCTURE, EASEMENTS, ETC.

AND THIS IS THE LDR, THE PLAT REVIEW CRITERIA AND THE LDR IS ACTUALLY QUITE SHORT IN OUR CODE IN OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS RIGHT NOW. BUT IT'S SUBSECTION 1276. AND THAT BASICALLY THE CRITERIA IS THERE IN THAT IT REQUIRES THE PCAOB TO LOOK AT THIS AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO VILLAGE COUNCIL UNDER THE CHAPTER 12 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES.

AS WE ALREADY SAID, IT WAS CORRECTLY ADVERTISED AND NOTICED THERE WAS A SIGN ON THE SITE AND MAIL OUTS WENT OUT WITHIN 300FT. AND THERE WAS ALSO A NEWSPAPER ADVERTISING. SO WE DID ALL OF THAT, AND WE ALSO LOOKED AT IT IN RELATION TO THE APPROVED SITE PLAN. THIS THING'S A LITTLE BIT STICKY. THANK YOU. IT'S NOT REALLY WORKING. AND PLAT RECOMMENDATIONS. IT WAS CORRECTLY ADVERTISED. THE PLOT IS SATISFIED ALL THE CRITERIA IN SECTION 12 SEVEN AND VILLAGE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL TO THE PLT DASH 2407 NINE SEMINOLE CROSSING. SO THAT'S THE END OF STAFF PRESENTATION. I'D ALSO LIKE TO NOTE THAT THERE'S A RECENT STATE STATUTE THAT'S GOING TO. THIS WILL PROBABLY BE THE LAST PLAT THAT WE SEE COMING BEFORE PCAB AND VILLAGE COUNCIL, BECAUSE THEY'VE CHANGED THE RULES AT THE STATE LEVEL, AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO AMEND OUR CODES AND PROCEDURES. BUT IN THE MEANTIME, THAT AT THIS POINT WILL BE PROCESSING PLANTS MORE LIKE A MINOR SITE PLAN, AND THEY NO LONGER BE REQUIRED TO COME TO TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS. SO JUST TO LET YOU KNOW, THIS IS PROBABLY THE LAST PLAT THAT YOU'LL SEE AT THIS LEVEL BECAUSE THEY'VE CHANGED THE LEGISLATION. SO THAT'S THE END OF MY PRESENTATION. AS STAFF. WE DO HAVE OUR VILLAGE ENGINEER HERE AS WELL, MORE SO FOR THE NEXT COUPLE OF ITEMS. BUT IF YOU GOT ANY QUESTIONS, HAPPY TO ANSWER. THANK YOU. CHAIR. ANY DISCUSSION, ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? NO MA'AM. I ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I WOULD MOVE FOR STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. I

[00:10:01]

BOARD MEMBER. WOODY. YES. BOARD MEMBER. WILLIAMSON. YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, MADAM

[7.2) APPLICATION NO. PD-24-055 A RESOLUTION OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE OF INDIANTOWN, FLORIDA, TO APPROVE THE “OSCEOLA PINES” FIRST AMENDMENT TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONING AGREEMENT” FOR AN APPROXIMATELY 61.04-ACRE +/- PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF SW 150TH STREET AND WEST OF SW SHAWNEE AVENUE, INDIANTOWN; AND PROVIDING FOR FINDINGS, CONFLICTS, SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE.]

THIS WILL BE A FIRST AMENDMENT AND PLANNING ZONING APPEALS BOARD IS REQUESTED TO CONSIDER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS, MAKE THEIR OWN, AND THEY WILL BE FORWARDED TO THE VILLAGE COUNCIL. SO KENDALL INDUSTRIAL LLC, THE APPLICANTS ARE IN THE ROOM TODAY, ARE SEEKING APPROVAL FOR THE FIRST AMENDMENT FOR THE OSCEOLA PINES PUD AGREEMENT. THIS IS A ZONING AGREEMENT THAT WAS IT'S BEEN PROCESSED PRIOR TO INCORPORATION IN THE VILLAGE OF INDIAN TOWN. AND WE'LL GET INTO THAT IN A LITTLE WHILE. BUT A PUD OR PLANNING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT IS A ZONING AGREEMENT THAT INCLUDES SPECIAL CONDITIONS, TIMETABLE OF DEVELOPMENT AND OTHER DETAILS THAT OFTEN REPLACE OR IN ADDITION TO LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION AND UNDERLYING ZONING CODES. SO THIS IS THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE PUD. THERE WAS A PUD THAT WAS APPROVED WHEN IT WAS WITHIN MARTIN COUNTY. THE APPLICATION NUMBER IS PD 24 055. AND IT'S THE OSCEOLA PINES PD AMENDMENT. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO THIS IS A PROPERTY LOCATION IN RELATION TO SHAWNEE AVENUE AND SOUTHWEST 150TH. AND IT'S A VACANT SITE RIGHT NOW. SO THIS IS THE PROPERTY LOCATION. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AND THIS IS THE ZONING SORRY. THE LAND USE IS SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL WHICH IS DEPICTED WITH THE BLUE LINE AND THE ORANGE COLOR ON THE MAP. SO THAT'S THE FUTURE LAND USE. AND THEN THE NEXT SLIDE IS GOING TO SHOW YOU THAT INSTEAD OF IT BEING A COLORED MAP FOR ZONING, THERE'S ACTUALLY A ZONING DESIGNATION, WHICH IS THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PUD.

AND THAT SHOWS YOU THE AREA THERE IN THE IN THE BRIGHT BLUE IN TERMS OF PUD ZONING AGREEMENT. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AND THIS IS SOME OF THE BACKGROUND. SO IT WAS APPROVED IN JUNE OF 2008, IN MARTIN COUNTY AS A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONING AGREEMENT.

AND SINCE THAT TIME THERE'S BEEN A MULTITUDE OF TIMETABLE EXTENSIONS TO KEEP THE PUD TIMETABLE OF DEVELOPMENT ACTIVE. AND THE APPLICANT, WHEN THEY BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, THEY OBVIOUSLY BOUGHT WHAT WAS RUNNING WITH THE LAND, WHICH IS THE PUD ZONING AGREEMENT. THEY SUBMITTED A MAJOR SITE PLAN APPLICATION. IT WAS IDENTIFIED THAT THERE NEEDED TO BE AN UPDATE IN THE PUD WITH IN THE PUD. ONE OF THE EXHIBITS IS A PUD MASTER SITE PLAN WHICH INCLUDES SOME OF THE DEVELOPMENT THRESHOLDS, THE PHASING, THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PER SE AS AN OVERALL BUBBLE FOR DEVELOPMENT. AND SO WHEN A MAJOR SITE PLAN CAME IN, THERE'S A FEW THINGS I'M GOING TO LIST AS SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT ARE IDENTIFIED. AND SO IT OPENED UP THE 2008 PUD, AND THEY HAD TO CREATE A FIRST AMENDMENT TO THAT OLD PUD. AND WHEN THEY DID THAT, THEY ALSO BROUGHT IT INTO SOME OF THE INDIAN TOWN LANGUAGE AND SOME OF, YOU KNOW, APPLICABLE TO INDIAN TOWN. SO IT'S MORE OF A TIDY UP ON THE PUD. AND I'LL GET ON TO THE NEXT PAGE. THE CRITERIA YOU USE FOR PUD IS THE SAME AS A MAJOR SITE PLAN. SO THAT WAS ALL INCLUDED IN THE STAFF REPORT IN THE AGENDA PACKET. AND THERE WAS RESPONSES FROM STAFF TO EACH OF THOSE.

THIS IS THE APPROVED PUD MASTER PLAN FROM 2008. JUST TO GIVE YOU AN A VISUAL ON THIS. AND THEN I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU THE NEXT SLIDE IS THE REVISED PUD MASTER SITE PLAN OR PROPOSED PUD, WHICH WILL BE INCLUDED AS AN EXHIBIT TO THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE PUD ZONING AGREEMENT. SOME OF THE SITE DATA HAS CHANGED, AND I'VE GOT A LIST THAT COMES NEXT THAT SHOWS YOU SOME OF THE MINOR AREAS OF CHANGE THAT'S BEEN MADE, BUT STILL NEEDED TO BLESS AS A FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE PUD, BECAUSE LEGALLY IT'S A BINDING DOCUMENT THAT IS REQUIRED TO. THEN IF YOU DO A FINAL SITE PLAN, IT HAS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE MASTER PLAN. SO THAT'S WHY IT'S OPENED UP THE PUD. AND IN DOING SO, THEY'VE ALSO LOOKED AT THEIR TIMETABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT AND A FEW OTHER THINGS. SO THE NEXT SLIDE WILL HELP WITH THE SUMMARY. SO THEY'RE REQUESTING ONE ADDITIONAL UNIT WHERE THERE WAS 157 APPROVED IN THE 2007 2008 PUD. THERE'S NOW 158 UNITS THAT

[00:15:07]

THEIR REQUESTED SIDEWALK WIDTH REDUCTION FROM 6FT TO 5FT AND ONE SIDE OF THE STREET ONLY.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S MORE CONSISTENT WITH THE VILLAGE OF INDIAN TOWN ELDERS. WHEREAS MARTIN COUNTY DID REQUIRE A MINIMUM OF SIX FEET SIDEWALKS. AND THEY ALSO REQUESTED SOME MODIFICATIONS TO SOME NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS. AND THEY'VE ADDED THAT INFORMATION TO THE MASTER PLAN. AND IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE FINAL YOU'RE GOING TO SEE NEXT. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

OWNERSHIP CHANGES. AS WE REFLECTED IT'S GONE FROM OSCEOLA PINES LLC TO KENDALL INDUSTRIAL LLC. AND MR. KENDALL IS HERE TODAY. AND HE'S ALSO KENDALL INDUSTRIAL IN THE VENTURE PARK.

AND SO THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF SYNERGY BETWEEN COMING INTO INDIAN TOWN AND PROVIDING JOBS AND LOOKING FOR HOUSING SITES. AND THERE'S DEFINITELY SOME SYNERGY THERE. AND THEN THE TIMETABLE OF THE DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN AMENDED, AS IT SHOULD BE. IF YOU'RE OPENING UP THE PUD, YOU WOULD LOOK TO EXTEND SOME OF THOSE TIMELINES. AND THIS IS A PHASED PROJECT. IT WAS A PHASED PROJECT UNDER THE ORIGINAL PD ZONING AGREEMENT. IT WAS TWO PHASES AND IT CONTINUES TO BE THAT. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO THE PUD HAS BEEN REVIEWED AGAINST THE SECTION 12 EIGHT MAJOR SITE PLAN LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. THEY'VE ALSO THERE'S ALSO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ADVERTISING NOTICING AND MAIL OUTS SIGNS ON SITE. THAT'S ALL BEEN ACHIEVED. AND THEY'VE FOUND IT'S BEEN CONSISTENT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. THIS IS OUR PD RECOMMENDATIONS. AT THE TIME THIS WAS WRITTEN THERE WAS ONE OUTSTANDING ISSUE WHICH WE DON'T NORMALLY BRING TO PCB AND SCHEDULE IF THERE'S ANYTHING OUTSTANDING. BUT IT WAS SOMETHING WHERE THE APPLICANT AND THE VILLAGE ENGINEER AND THE FIRE MARSHAL WERE ALL LOOKING AT VERY CLOSELY AT FIRE SUPPRESSION. IT'S A VERY WELL KNOWN FACT THAT WE'VE GOT WE'RE AT CAPACITY WITH REGARDS TO WATER. THIS IS ACTUALLY ONE OF THE LAST SITES THAT WE HAVE A COMMITMENT THAT WE CAN ACCOMMODATE A RESERVATION OF 40 ERC UNITS. THEY CAME IN PRIOR TO AND AROUND THE TIME WHEN THE VILLAGE ENGINEER WAS LOOKING AT EVERY ELEMENT OF THE CAPACITY THAT'S AVAILABLE. AND ALTHOUGH THEY HAVE THE TOTAL OF 158 UNITS, THEY'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO ONLY BUILD 40 UNITS BECAUSE THAT'S THE AVAILABILITY OF ERCS IN PHASE ONE. THE REMAINDER OF THOSE 19 AND THE REMAINDER OF THE TOTAL OF 158 WILL ONLY BE AVAILABLE TO BE BUILT ONCE THE WATER IS AVAILABLE. THE FIRE SUPPRESSION ISSUE. AND THAT'S WHY OUR VILLAGE ENGINEER IS HERE IN CASE THERE ARE ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS. BUT I'M CONFIDENT TO REPORT THAT PRIOR TO THE PCAB, WE HAVE IDENTIFIED THE SOLUTIONS AND THE INFORMATION IN THE PD ZONING AGREEMENT INCLUDES CONDITIONS FROM THE FIRE MARSHAL REGARDING MAKING SURE THAT THEY DO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR FIRE SUPPRESSION. SO THERE'S NO LIFE SAFETY ISSUE, AND THAT MAY BE THROUGH FIRE SPRINKLING OR SOME ALTERNATIVE. BUT AS OF RIGHT NOW, THEY CANNOT GET TO THE LEVELS THAT ARE REQUIRED UNDER THE NORMAL TRADITIONAL ROUTE OF JUST TAPPING INTO THE

[00:20:03]

ALL RIGHT. SO MY FIRST QUESTION IS IN REGARDS TO THE ELIMINATION OF FUTURE ACCESS POINTS, YOU ADDRESS ONE OF THE QUESTIONS WHICH WAS PERTAINING TO THE BASIS OF ELIMINATING THE TWO POSSIBLE FUTURE ROADWAY AND PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW, COULD WE MOVE IN? THESE CONNECTIONS NEGATIVELY AFFECT FUTURE CONNECTIVITY TO ANY ADJACENT DEVELOPMENTS OR BROADER TRANSPORTATION NETWORKS? THE CONNECTIONS THAT ARE BEING ELIMINATED ARE ACTUALLY THEY THEY DO NOT CONNECT TO ANYWHERE. THEY WERE THEY WERE DESIGNED IN 2007, 2008. IT WAS APPROVED IN 2008. AND THERE IS NO WHERE THEY'RE DESIGNED TO GO. THERE IS NO OPPORTUNITY BECAUSE THEY'RE BEING DEVELOPED AS LOTS ADJACENT TO. SO IT'S LIKE YOU'D BE CREATING A ROADWAY TO GO INTO IN AN AREA THAT IS JUST NOT ABLE TO CONNECT. OKAY. ANOTHER QUESTION THAT I HAVE IS PERTAINING TO THE SIDEWALK REDUCTIONS. CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE RATIONALE BEHIND REDUCING THE SIDEWALK WIDTH FROM FIVE FEET TO FROM 6FT TO 5FT AND ELIMINATING ONE SIDE ENTIRELY? WELL, THE MINIMUM SIDEWALK WIDTH IN INDIAN TOWN IS FIVE FEET, WHEREAS IN MARTIN COUNTY IT'S SIX. SO THEY CAN ASK FOR THAT. IT WAS REVIEWED IN THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TEAM. THE IT'S A IT'S A MODEL DECISION ON WHETHER YOU DO IT ON ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER. AGAIN, OUR CODE DOES NOT REQUIRE IT. SO YOU KNOW, WE REVIEWED IT. IT STILL HAD A SIDEWALK PER SE. SO IT WAS NOT A CODE REQUIREMENT. AND IT WASN'T. IT WAS REVIEWED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AS WELL.

AND BY PLANNING THERE WAS NOT SEEN TO BE ANY ADVERSITY IN DOING THAT. OKAY. THANK YOU.

ANOTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS REGARDING TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK MODIFICATION. I GUESS YOU KIND OF TOUCHED ON THAT AS WELL. BUT ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT I HAD WAS. WERE THERE ANY ALTERNATIVE AMENITIES OR ENHANCEMENTS THAT WERE SPOKE ABOUT THAT COULD BE PROVIDED TO MAINTAIN THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE PARK SPACE? WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE PARK SPACE AND THE CHANGES IN THAT AND THE APPLICANT TEAM ARE HERE IF YOU WANT TO ADD IN, BUT FROM FROM AN OVERALL DEVELOPMENT POINT OF VIEW, THE SITE DOES INCLUDE SOME SUBSTANTIAL AREA OF PLUM PRESERVE AND LANDSCAPING AND VEGETATION. SO WHEN YOU ADD THAT IN AND IT'S ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT YOU WOULD ORDINARILY DELIVER IN INDIAN TOWN UNDER OUR CURRENT LANDSCAPE CODE THAT'S ADOPTED, IT WOULD SEEM TO BE THERE WAS A LOT OF POSITIVES IN THE WAY THAT THEY DIDN'T TAKE AWAY QUITE A BIG CHUNK OF OPEN SPACE THAT ISN'T AMENITY THAT PEOPLE CAN ENJOY IN THAT SITE.

SO WHEN THEY WERE LOOKING AT THIS, IT WAS SEEN AS QUITE FAIR IN THE BALANCE OF THINGS BECAUSE IT'S A LOT MORE. THEY COULD HAVE DONE A LOT MORE LIKE THEY'RE NOT EVEN THREE UNITS PER ACRE IN TERMS OF DENSITY. SO WE SAW THAT AND BALANCED THAT OUT IN TERMS OF THE REVIEW. AND IT IS A PUD.

IT IS A ZONING AGREEMENT WITH NEGOTIATION AND COMPROMISE. AND I JUST FROM A PLANNING AND ENGINEERING AND FUNCTIONALITY POINT OF VIEW, IT JUST SEEMED TO MAKE SENSE. OKAY. AND ONE OTHER THE LAST QUESTION I GUESS WOULD BE IN REGARDS TO THE OPEN SPACE ADJUSTMENTS, WHICH YOU KIND OF HINTED ON, THE OPEN SPACE THERE WERE ALLOWING MORE PRESERVATION SPACE. THE QUESTION I WAS GOING TO ASK WAS OPEN SPACE ACREAGE WAS INCREASED, AND IF THE APPLICANT COULD CLARIFY THE TYPE OF OPEN SPACE THAT THAT WOULD THAT REPRESENTS. SO IS IT ONLY AN INCREASE IN THE PRESERVATION SPACE OR IS IT ACTIVE USE PASSIVE. DO YOU WANT TO ANSWER THAT? YEAH, I THINK WE OVERLAP WITH THE MARTIN COUNTY OPEN SPACE DEFINITION. IT'S BECAUSE IT'S AN OLD PUD AS WELL. SO THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF MARTIN COUNTY CODE THAT CARRIED OVER. BUT I'LL LET YOU IF YOU WANT TO

[00:25:04]

BASICALLY. THAT'S EVERYTHING OPEN EXCEPT ANYTHING ON THE LOTS. SO THAT WOULD BE THE PRESERVE, THE GREEN SPACES, THE GREEN DRY DETENTION AREAS, THE TREE LAWNS, ANYTHING OPEN OTHER THAN WHAT IS THE PRIVATE OWNED BY PRIVATE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS. OKAY, OKAY. THAT SATISFIED? IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE? THAT'S IT. ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS? NO, MA'AM. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I'LL MOVE FOR APPROVAL OF STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. WITH THAT MAKES SENSE. SECOND. ROLL CALL. CHAIR. MILEY. YES. BOARD MEMBER. WATSON. YES. BOARD MEMBER. WILLIAMS. YES. BOARD MEMBER. WOODY. YES. AND BOARD MEMBER. WILLIAMSON. YES. THANK YOU. MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU.

[7.3) APPLICATION NO. SP-24-055 A RESOLUTION OF THE VILLAGE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE OF INDIANTOWN, FLORIDA, APPROVING APPLICATION NO. SP-25-055 FOR THE MAJOR SITE PLAN FOR AN APPROXIMATELY 61.04-ACRE +/-  RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT COMPRISING OF 158 SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS, LOCATED NORTH OF SW 150TH STREET AND WEST OF SW SHAWNEE AVENUE, INDIANTOWN;AND PROVIDING FOR FINDINGS, CONFLICTS, SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE.]

BUT JUST FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE RECORD, MADAM CLERK, IF YOU COULD CONFIRM THAT THIS ITEM AS WELL WAS PROPERLY ADVERTISED. YES, SIR. THIS ITEM WAS PROPERLY ADVERTISED. AND BOARD MEMBERS, I WOULD IMAGINE THE ANSWER WOULD BE THE SAME ON THIS ONE. BUT ANY VOTING CONFLICTS OR EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS DISCLOSE ON THIS ITEM. NO. NO HEARING NONE. I'LL TURN IT OVER TO THE NEXT. SO YEAH. DEENA FREEMAN WITH THE COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, THIS IS THE MAJOR SITE PLAN. SO WE JUST DID THE PUD AMENDMENT, FIRST AMENDMENT, WHICH INCLUDED THE MASTER PLAN, AS ONE OF THE EXHIBITS. SO AN APPLICATION FOR A MAJOR SITE PLAN IS ANYTHING OVER 50 UNITS, WHICH IS WHY IT'S BEEN PRESENTED. AND ALSO IT'S A PUD. SO THE CODE PROVISION HERE IS LDR. THE SAME SECTION OF CODE IS USED TO REVIEW THE MAJOR SITE PLAN AS WHAT WAS USED FOR THE PUD. SO IT'S SP 24 055 OSCEOLA PINES PUD MAJOR SITE PLAN. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. SO WE CAN RUN THROUGH THIS. OBVIOUSLY IT'S THE SAME SITE, SAME LOCATION DEPICTED IN RED, SAME LAND USE.

RENEE NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AND THE LAND USE PROVIDES THE MAXIMUM THRESHOLDS AND YOU KNOW TYPES OF OVERRIDING SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL USE THAT'S ALLOWED WITH THIS COLOR ON THE MAP. SO NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AND THIS CONFIRMS THE PUD ZONING. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AND THIS IS THE BACKGROUND.

THAT'S THE SAME BACKGROUND THAT WAS JUST PROVIDED. SO I'LL SPEED THROUGH IT PRETTY QUICKLY. BUT THIS WAS THE MASTER PLAN APPROVED IN 2008. ONCE YOU GET APPROVAL FOR A MASTER SITE PLAN, THE PHASES THAT COME IN, WHETHER YOU DO THEM TOGETHER OR NOT, THERE HAS TO BE A FINAL SITE PLAN THAT HAS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH WHATEVER WAS COMMITTED TO IN THE PUD ZONING AGREEMENT. SO A REVIEW OF THE MAJOR SITE PLAN. WE DID LOOK AT THE PUD ZONING AGREEMENT, AND THEY HAVE MADE THE CHANGES IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT THAT NOW MAKE THE MASTER AND THE FINAL CONSISTENT.

SO THE APPROVAL CRITERIA AND ALL OF THE DETAILED ANALYSIS WAS INCLUDED IN THE AGENDA PACKET AND THE APPLICATION MATERIALS, WHICH INCLUDED RESPONSES FROM STAFF AND SOME NARRATIVE AND INFORMATION FROM THE APPLICANT. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AND THIS IS THE APPROVED PUD MASTER. THE NEXT SLIDE WILL SHOW YOU THE PROPOSED THAT'S JUST BEEN APPROVED. SO THERE WE SEE. AND THEN THIS IS THE SUMMARY I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH THEM AGAIN. BUT IT WAS THE SAME PD AMENDMENTS. THE REASON THEY'RE RELEVANT FOR THE MAJOR SITE PLAN IS BECAUSE WE OBVIOUSLY HAVE TO SEE THOSE ON THE ACTUAL FINAL SITE PLAN DOCUMENT AND IN ANY OF THE APPROVAL AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. SO THAT'S THE SUMMARY OF THE PD AMENDMENTS WITH THE OWNERS HERE AND THE APPLICANTS IN THE ROOM. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AND THIS IS THE MAJOR SITE PLAN. AS YOU CAN SEE IT'S BASICALLY ALMOST THE SAME AS THE PED MASTER PLAN. AND THAT BEING BECAUSE IN MARTIN COUNTY THEY DO REQUIRE A LOT OF DETAIL. AND THE MASTER PLANS, ESPECIALLY BACK IN THE DAY. SO WE STAFF HAVE REVIEWED THIS AND WE'VE REVIEWED THIS, REVIEWED THIS AGAINST THE CIVIL PLANS AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. AND IT'S BEEN REVIEWED BY THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COLLEAGUES. IT'S BEEN BACK AND FORTH TO GET TO A POINT WHERE IT QUALIFIES TO BE HEARD TODAY AS A COMPLY ACROSS THE BOARD FROM ALL OF THE REVIEWERS, THAT IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE PED ZONE AGREEMENT, FIRST AMENDMENT, AND ALSO CONSISTENT WITH ANY OTHER APPLICABLE LDR AND COMP PLAN POLICIES. NEXT SLIDE PLEASE. AND THE APPROVAL CRITERIA JUST MENTIONED, SECTION 12 EIGHT MAJOR SITE PLAN LDR.

AND WE'VE FOUND IT TO BE CONSISTENT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THAT WITH THE ELDERS AND WITH THE PED ZONING AGREEMENT. FIRST AMENDMENT, NEXT SECTION PLEASE. AND SO IT'S BEEN CORRECTLY ADVERTISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CODE. IT'S BEEN IT MEETS ALL OF THE CRITERIA PURSUANT TO

[00:30:04]

SP 24 ZERO 55 OSCEOLA PINES PUD SITE PLAN. AND IT WAS AT THE TIME WRITTEN SUBJECT TO A FIRE SUPPRESSION MATTER HAVING BEEN RESOLVED, THAT, AS WE CONFIRMED EARLIER, HAS BEEN RESOLVED AND WE'RE VERY CONFIDENT WE'VE HAD SIGN OFF FROM THE FIRE MARSHAL FROM OUR VILLAGE ENGINEER, AND HE IS IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. BUT WE'RE CONFIDENT THAT THEY'VE MET EVERYTHING, AND THE APPLICANT AND AGENT ARE ALL IN. THE ENGINEERS AND EVERYBODY ARE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE IN TERMS OF AGREEING WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE MOVING FORWARD. SO THAT'S THE END OF MY PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS? ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? NO, MA'AM. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. I WOULD MOVE FOR STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. THANK YOU. SECOND ROLL CALL. CHAIR. MILEY. YES. BOARD MEMBER. WATSON. YES. BOARD MEMBER. WILLIAMS. YES. BOARD MEMBER. WOODY. YES. BOARD MEMBER. WILLIAMSON. YES. MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU. EVERYBODY BE GOOD. OKAY, IF I COULD JUST ADD IN TERMS OF A REQUEST FOR THE ELDERS WE'VE HAD, WE ARE PREPARING THOSE FOLDERS. WE'RE NOT IGNORING. WE ARE. I THINK LUCY'S BEEN COMMUNICATING WITH YOU ALL. SO WE'RE GETTING THOSE PRINTED OUT. AND WE ARE ACTIVELY NOW WORKING ON AMENDMENTS TO THOSE. I'D BE LOOKING TO SIT DOWN AND MEET WITH YOU ALL INDIVIDUALLY. SO YOU'VE GOT SOME HOMEWORK WITH THOSE ELDERS ONCE YOU GET THEM, BECAUSE IT'D BE GOOD TO GET SOME INPUT FROM YOU ALL AS WE MOVE FORWARD. AND I APPRECIATE YOU ALL. THANKS FOR COMING TODAY. THANK YOU. I DO HAVE AN ANNOUNCEMENT AS WELL. I SENT OUT AN EMAIL REGARDING YOUR REQUIREMENT FOR THE ETHICS FOR YOUR FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF INTEREST. SO IF ANY OF YOU NEED ASSISTANCE WITH THAT, THEY ARE DUE JULY 1ST FOR ALL BOARD MEMBERS. IF YOU NEED PASSWORD RESETS OR ASSISTANCE WITH ACCESSING THE COMPUTER TO SATISFY THAT REQUIREMENT BY THE STATE, PLEASE LET ME KNOW AND I CAN SCHEDULE TO MAKE SURE THE ROOM IS AVAILABLE FOR YOU. YES MA'AM, YES MA'AM AND IF ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS ON ANYTHING CONFUSING OR WONKY ON THOSE FORMS, YOU'RE ALWAYS WELCOME TO GIVE ME A CALL. THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE? I HAVE NOTHING ELSE HERE. THANK YOU. MEETING'S ADJOURNED. ALL RIGHT.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.