BCC - CDMP & ZONING - Sep 24, 2026

All right, sir, commissioner, good morning. We are going to, can we quiet down, please? We're going to get our meeting started very shortly. We normally don't do presentations prior to zoning CDMP meetings, but tomorrow we have a very special person that's been with the county under my leadership at this time. I think she was there also under Oliver Gilbert and some priors, who is retiring after 33 years. Laura Moria. Laura, come on up here. Laura, I don't know. Please, yes, please. 33 years, 33 years. And I just asked her, I said, Laura, are you, like, really, because you're young. Like, you're still young. Are you actually going to retire? Are you going to go to something? And she said, no, no, I'm retiring. I'm moving out of Miami. Not far, but I'm leaving Miami. I'm doing it the right way. So very well deserved. I'm not going to pass this around for everyone to say something because I know you have a lot to say. And I, ah, damn it, why do you have to look at me? Hi, Commissioner Orbis worked under Laura, right? So I think I have to, I have to allow Commissioner Orbis. Did you work with her, though? All right. I'm going to have to allow at least those to speak. And if Gilbert, I know Gilbert, um, also was the chair. So, Commissioner. Okay, great. Good morning, everyone. Good morning. Laura, I know your favorite thing in the world is to be embarrassed by everybody. So, congratulations. Yes, congratulations. She hates this. She once freaked out when I got her a birthday cake to celebrate her birthday. So this is, like, on another level for her. Laura, you've been in community advocacy how many years? Thirty-five. Thirty-five. Thirty-three years. But, you know, you've been with the Commission for Women since the beginning. And you have seen the Office of Community Advocacy go all sorts of ways. You've done, you know, what it took to keep the office afloat. You've taken the reins. And you always believed in being a leader for our community. So I'm very appreciative for all the years that I served alongside you, with you. I worked in community advocacy for 12 years. And Laura, for half of that time, was my director. And she was an amazing director and amazing leader and always saw, you know, made sure that we were putting our community first and our tasks first. So congratulations. I wish you all the best. I will probably be visiting you because I know where you're retiring, and it's one of my favorite places to go. So congratulations. Thank you for all the work that you've done. You've been a true public servant for over 30 years and a true community advocate. So congratulations. And we love you. Thank you, Commissioner. And, yes, I hope you have a spare bedroom over there because we're all coming. Where is she going? She's not going too far at Delray Beach. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, you never know. They don't have those video games. What am I? Sorry, sorry. But my story goes back, and I know, Commissioner Orbis, obviously it's a great office. You were there. My story goes back to when I had hair. We were freshmen at the University of Miami, and we both worked at the University of Miami Law Library. And later on, obviously, I would go on to law school. So with Laura at UPenn, very good friends that were close, we visited her in UPenn. And she made – I take credit for the reason she's here. She doesn't know that. Because one day she asked me, should I stay in big law or should I go work for the county? I said the county. Okay? And I think she made the right decision, and she's been a great asset to the county. In fact, a lot of people – and I'm glad Commissioner Orbis mentioned correctly that the Commission on the Status of Women, which has done great, great work for the community, was really her baby, and she's been a great advocate. I mean, she moved on from that. But she is a great community activist, but she's always cared about this community, even when she was a freshman at the University of Miami. And she's always cared about where this community goes. So there was no better fit than Laura in the years that she was working with Xiomara and all that whole crew in the early days of that office. So I know she's looking forward to retirement. She's not going that far. And she is not going – she's going to fight any of those – what do we call the video game thing? So – Delray Beach. Whatever. So – but – whatever. Yeah. So she's – and we haven't always seen eye-to-eye, for those of you who know what I mean. We haven't seen always eye-to-eye politically, but we always have gotten along well. She's my favorite Democrat. All right. It's got – ever since – ever since you came back from your health issue, I mean, you're a different man. But with that, Commissioner Orbis, since you did work under her leadership prior to being a commissioner, I think it's fitting for you to join me in the presentation if you want to – we have a proclamation for you, Laura. And we also have – Lorena, if you could bring her her beautiful orchid. And Commissioner Gilbert has the plaque. So on behalf of all of us here, be it resolved that the mayor of the county, Daniela Levin Cava, as mayor, myself as chair, Anthony Rodriguez, and all of us on the Board of County Commissioners, on behalf of 2.8-plus million – plus-minus million people, proclaim today – or really tomorrow is your last day – tomorrow, Friday, September 25th, as Lora Murilla Day in Miami-Dade County. So congratulations. Did you ever have your day in 33 years? There you go. It took you only 33 years. Let's take a picture. And then we'll get – after we do one, we'll get all her staff in communityadvocacy.com. If you want to – Good morning. Commissioner Bastian. Commissioner Bermudez. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Quiet. Senator Garcia. Commissioner Gilbert. Commissioner Gonzalez. Commissioner Hardiman. Commissioner Lopez. Commissioner Milian Orbis. Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Steinberg. Vice Chairman McGee. Chairman Rodriguez. Present. 11 members present. You have a quorum. All right. Let's please stand for the prayer this morning, the invocation led by Commissioner Gilbert and followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. Bowing your heads today on this day that we've never seen before, we'll never see again. We come first just saying thank you. Thank you for allowing us to borrow a little bit of your air in our lungs, a little bit of our sun in your skin. We petitioned the throne of grace, wisdom, patience, the ability to see the needs of the people, to meet the needs of the people, the ability to be the stewards of your land. Allow us to speak well and act well for this, your community, in your county, in your state, in your country. Amen. Amen. I pledge allegiance to the public for which it stands. Amen. All right. You may be seated. All right. Mr. Attorney or Madam Attorney, whoever's going to, is it proper to set the agenda at this time? Yes, Mr. Chair. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. All right. Do I have a motion to set the agenda? Second. It's been moved. It's been seconded. Are there any changes to the agenda at this very time? No. No idea. All right. All in favor, signify by say an aye. Aye. All oppose, nay. Show the agenda hereby set. Mr. Attorney, let's go ahead and have our zoning director read his opening statements and swear in any necessary speakers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In accordance with the code of Miami-Dade County, all items to be heard today have been legally advertised in the newspaper, notes that have been mailed, and the properties have been posted. Additional copies of the agenda are available here in the chambers. Items will be called up to be heard by agenda number and name of applicant. Please note, board action at any item in today's meeting may be reconsidered, and additional action may be taken on such an item at the same meeting. Applicants and members of the public may wish to govern themselves accordingly. The record in the file for the hearing on each application will include documents from the public, agencies, the Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources, and where there's an appeal from the community zoning appeals board, we also have the transcript from those hearings. All documents are physically present today, available to all interested parties, and available to all members of the Board of County Commissioners who may examine these items from the record during the hearing. Parties have the right to cross-examination. This statement along with the fact that all witnesses have been sworn in shall be included in any transcript of these proceedings. In addition, there's an official translator present in the chambers for those individuals requiring such assistance. Will the clerk please swear on the witnesses? All parties given testimony, please stand and raise your right hands. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So help you God. The interpreters, if present, do you solemnly swear or affirm that you will make a true interpretation of the questions asked and the interpretation of the testimony given? Thank you. Mr. Director, it is my understanding that 8C-4 is requesting a deferral? That's correct. Commissioner from District 8, you're recognized. I want to say this is District 8. Yes, Mr. Chair. It's my understanding that it needs to be re-advertised, so I move to defer 8C-4. 8C-4. All right. It's been moved. It's been seconded by Commissioner Steinberg. All in favor of the deferral signify by saying aye. All opposed nay. Mr. Attorney or Director, I understand that there's another deferral request by the Vice Chair. Vice Chairman, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I'm actually requesting a deferral on 7A and 8C-3, set it for October 22nd agenda. This would give us time to finally have that community meeting and also have a meeting with the principal on the CDMP application. So there's a motion by the Vice Chair to move 7A and 8C-3 to October 22nd. Is that our very next meeting? That's our very next meeting? Okay. There's a motion to defer. Is there a second? There's a second by Commissioner Regalado. Any discussion on the deferral? Seeing none. No discussion on the deferral. All in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed nay. No. All right. Show the item deferred. No. Like, what do we know? Like, no on the deferral? Okay. I was just voting no on the deferral. Oh, okay. All right. Show the item deferred to October 22nd. All right. Mr. Attorney, can we take up item A? Hold on a second. I'm going to jump out of order here because some of my colleagues may need to leave. 8C1. Can we take 8C1 at this time? Yes, Mr. Chairman. 8C1. Northeast 6th Avenue, application number Z2023000350. We've had no protests and no way of support for this application. All right. Well, now go ahead and open up public hearing. I have no speakers registered to speak on this item, so public hearing is now closed. Is the applicant present? You can approach the well. But before you start, I'll recognize the Commissioner from District 2 to be recognized as this is in your district. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning. All right. And welcome. I only have a few questions, Mr. Chair. I don't need a presentation. I have a few questions for the record. I'd like to start with the department. Can you please share if the residents were directly notified of this development and then how, when and how? And then how many homes were targeted for this notification? Yes, Commissioner. In addition to the signposting and the newspaper ads and the ads on our website, we sent out mail notice to 1,566 people. They were received letters? Received letters, correct. Thank you. To the applicant, can you please share some details about the planned commercial use? What exactly are you going to be developing there? Microphone might not be on. It's green. It's green. Okay, here we go. Good morning. Cesar Mestre with Law Offices at 8000 Governor Square Boulevard Suite 101, Miami Lakes, Florida. It's going to be a retail commercial. What they have talked about is service-oriented businesses, such as a possible store, a restaurant, maybe a laundry. It's not concrete yet, but those are the thoughts that they have. And just, Commissioner, just so you know, we did have a meeting with some of the residents from the area, some of the homeowners associations. We had a meeting. There was probably about 35 people that showed up during the process, and we explained it to them, and they had no objections. All right. Thank you. You're welcome. And as you know, I know the area very well, by the way. There are a lot of residents living right next to the plans, the site, right? What I'd like to know is how you will, what kind of buffer will you put to mitigate the noise, to separate the residents from the commercial site? What are some of the changes you will make to make sure that the privacy of the residents who are so close, like I said, I know the area very well, they are close, to make sure that their privacy is respected? And then also, what exactly will you be doing to beautify the area? If you look at the plans, the actual building, the 4,900-square-foot shopping center, is going to be placed as close to the avenue and the street as possible to get it away from the west side is where there's a single-story residential apartment complex. To the south, it's actually multi-story, multi-family, but as part of the proffered declaration that we have, there will be a six-foot wall plus lush landscaping that will be put between the residential areas and our lot. All right. Thank you. I don't have any more questions. If my colleagues do not have any, I'd like to move for approval consistent with staff recommendations. Second. So it moved and seconded by the vice chairman. Seeing no further discussion by this body, clerk, please call the roll. Commissioner Bastian. Commissioner Bermudez. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Senator Garcia. Commissioner Gilbert. Yes. Commissioner Gonzalez. Four. Commissioner Hardiman. Commissioner Lopez. Commissioner Milian Orbis. Yes. Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Steinberg. Yes. Vice Chairman McGee. Yes. Chairman Rodriguez. I vote yes. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Congratulations. All right, Mr. Attorney, let's take item 383 supplement number one and 381 and its companion item in zoning 8C6. And if the director needs to read anything into the record, now's the time. Thank you. The first item is a small-scale application before you today for final action along with a concurrent zoning application. A single public hearing will be held in accordance with quasi-judicial principles and incorporated into the record as to both the CDMP and zoning items. I will now read the ordinance title and reference a companion resolution in the event the board wishes to convert the item to a standard application and transmit. However, if the board takes final action today, the companion resolution is deemed withdrawn. Separate vote shall be taken on the CDMP and zoning items. 3A is an ordinance relating to Miami-Dade County Conference of Development Master Plan, providing disposition of application number CDMP 2025-0021, located between Southwest 272 Street and Southwest 278 Street, and between Southwest 157 Avenue and Southwest 159 Avenue, followed by Lennar Homes, LLC, in the October 2025 cycle to amend the county's Conference of Development Master Plan, providing severability exclusion from the code and effective date. That is item 3A, 3A Supplement, 3A1 is the companion resolution, and the director can now read the zoning item. The zoning item is 8C6, Dunnigan's Fruit Groves, application number Z, 2025-000256. We've had five protests and 12 waivers of support for this application. All right. Thank you, Mr. Director. I'm going to go ahead and open up public hearing for both items at this time. I'm going to call your name. Please come up to the well. State your name and address. And you have two minutes to speak. I have Magali Fernandez-Gabrera, Melissa Ortega, Benoit Junkier, Fiorella Candelosi, and Rosemary Giuseppe. You're welcome to wave and support our opposition as well. Let's get to the well, guys, if you're speaking. All right. Hi. Good morning. Good morning. My name is Magali Fernandez. I live at 15880 Southwest 301st Terrace. I am a mother of five children. I have five grandchildren. And I've had my own home for 26 years. And this is a type of project that fits the community and would help family to have the same like we did. So I am for the project. Thank you. Thank you so much, Magali. Thank you for being here. Sir. Hi. Good morning. My name is Benoit Junkier, 16208 Southwest 274th Street. I'm opposed of the project. When I look at the map, when I registered to talk, the map was 2024. And since then, you see a lot of change in my area. Since then, 162 Avenue, 120 Houseway built on 280 Street and 157 Avenue West. It's in progress building townhouse, 188 townhouse, 280 Street and 157 Avenue East. It's almost done for 270 townhouse. A little west on 288 Street and 177, 162 townhouse is going to be built. If you go on US-1 and 280, there's Amber Station. If you look online, there's two eight-story, two three-story house for 576 units. But when you go, I count five eight-story, so let's say 1,200 units. If you go east of US-1, there's another complex build. I don't know how many housing. And then I think there's one project south of 280 Street that they are going to talk about today. So school, fire station, medical, et cetera. I hope they are up-to-date when you discuss another big housing like that. And, of course, traffic. Traffic is a nightmare. I don't know why you guys didn't vote for a metro rail. At least it will have been a little easier to cross US-1 who can take some time for light. Thank you so much. Thank you. Ma'am? Hi. Good morning. My name is Serena Ortega. I live at 180 Southeast 36th Avenue, Homeswood, Florida, 33033. I just wanted to share that the Lenar has been a great partner to me and to the community I live in. They have done a lot of the projects in our area and improved our infrastructure. I can always call them and they answer. I appreciate that they meet with the neighbors so we understand what is going on in our neighborhood. When there is a problem, they handle it and they're available to listen. Thank you. Thank you, Melissa. Ma'am? My name is Fiorella Cangellosi and I live in 25892 Sahuas 144 Avenue, which is five minutes away from this new construction. And I've grown up seeing how hard my parents work to be able to purchase our home. And I have also noticed the really big impact that this has made in our family. So as I start thinking about my own future ahead and what I want for my life, I've realized that I want to be able to build a life here with the people and, like, with my family and with the community that I already know. So, what really stands out to me most about this new project is the opportunity to create, like, new places and new opportunities for families to be able to live and grow. And I would also like for people and families like me to be able to have the opportunity to put down roots in this part of Miami-Dade and be able, for the people who have already invested in this, to be able to see it grow and thrive. I love it. Thank you so much for being here. Are you skipping school today? Excuse me? Are you skipping school today? Yeah. This is that important to you, right? Yeah. This is a different type of education. All right. I like that you're thinking of your future roots. Thank you. Thank you for being here. Thank you. Very brave of you. Buenos dias. Mi nombre es Rosemary Giuseppi. Good morning. My name is Rosemary Giuseppi. Okay, vivo actualmente en la ciudad de Homestead, en el 25892 Agüez, 144 Avenue 33032. I live currently in Homestead at 25892 Southwest, 144th Avenue, Homestead 33032. Desde hace cuatro años, comprar una vivienda en este país después de emigrar, hacernos ciudadanos, ha sido una de las mejores decisiones que mi familia y yo hemos tomado. I've been living here for the past four years, and buying a home here after emigrating to this country has been one of the best decisions my family and I have made. Con mucho trabajo y esfuerzo lo logramos, para nuestra estabilidad y el futuro de nuestra hija. We managed to buy our home with a lot of work and effort for the benefit of our stability and our daughter's future. Es por ello que es tan importante que nuestra comunidad crezca y continúe fortaleciéndose. That's why it's so important for our community to grow and continue getting stronger. Así nuestra propiedad con el tiempo puede ir aumentando su valor. That way our property will grow in value over time. De esta manera queremos proteger lo que tanto nos ha costado. This way we can protect what has costed us so much. Y ojalá en un futuro mi hija también pueda invertir en un inmueble en esta ciudad. And hopefully in the future my daughter will also be able to invest in a property in our city. Por eso estoy a favor del proyecto. Gracias. That's why I'm in favor of the project. Thank you. Gracias. Muchas gracias. All right. With that, public hearing concludes. Those are all the public speakers I had registered to speak. The applicant may approach the well, but as I've been changing it up lately, I'll recognize the commissioner from District 8 and she can recognize you for a presentation or questions or as she so chooses. Commissioner from District 8, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. How long is your presentation on this application? Good morning, Commissioner. About seven minutes. Can you cut it down to three? Sure. I can hit the highlights. Thank you. Yep. Let's do that. Three minutes. Hugo Arza, 701 Brickle Avenue, representing Lennar Homes here this evening, this morning. Application site is 40 acres, a site that's familiar, I think, in an area that's familiar to the commissioner for the district and as well as the rest of you. And I'm going to get into a little bit of the pattern of development here. But half of our property still is within the half-mile radius of the transit zone. And I want us to keep that in mind because the request we have this morning is for low-density residential. That's up to six dwelling units an acre, further capped by a declaration of restriction of 185 single-family homes. No townhomes in this community. All single-family homes, 185, capped by a declaration of restrictions, which yields approximately 4.6 units to the acre. So despite the fact that half of our property would be eligible for development at up to 36 units to the acre, we are a fraction of that, and what we're proposing is a fraction of that. And really it speaks to the story of this area. I've been fortunate to work on a number of the applications here. As you can see, the pattern, the migration pattern from the busway as you move northwest in this case, is the more intense products closer to the busway. And then as you move to the north and west, you see lower and lower density. So in fact, directly to our west are single-family homes. Our project will be all single-family homes to our south. There's a mix with townhomes. As you move on the other side of the avenue, you end up with townhomes. And then up against the busway, you even have some multifamily projects. And so that's the trajectory. And the request respects, I think, the conversation we've had, both with the commissioner for the district and with all of you, that the development needs to be smart and progress in an area and in a community in an orderly fashion. And that is what we're doing here today. Again, our proposed zoning is to EUM for a portion. This will have a portion of estate homes as well as RU1MA homes. And again, the idea is to buffer, as you can see here, the larger EUM homes on the west, the north, and the east side of the property, buffering to the roadways and the rest of the community. I've touched on this point, but graphically, you can see here our subject property on the top. Half of that crosshatch line, approximately half of our property, is inside that busway transit corridor. However, we are not seeking to exercise that full density at this time. Further depiction now with the site plans, and again, you see towards the south and east, the townhome communities, this project, which is the one in the middle, in the pink and yellow, single-family homes. And then to the further west, the pink is the established residential estate community. As always, all departments have reviewed, and I do want to note a couple of points. Impact fees, roadway impact fees. For all those projects that I worked on that I showed, we calculated quickly that $4.3 million have been paid so far. Just in that immediate area, those projects I noted, another $2 million, nearly $2 million, would be slated to be paid. That's over $6 million in roadway impact fees, just from these three or four developments in this area. Our declaration of restrictions, which again, caps our density, our neighborhood outreach efforts, and you heard from some of them today. And finally, let's skip that, but I am going to talk a little bit about the recommendations, recommendation of approval from staff. And I think most importantly, a CDMP item, we went to community council, no opposition, unanimous approval. Went to PAB, no opposition, unanimous approval. Staff's recommendation, we would urge you to follow staff's recommendation today, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Sorry, Chairman, I went over a little bit. You did, but you're fine. Commissioner, you have the floor. Thank you, Mr. Arzon. I have a few questions for the administration on this occasion. When I look at the roadway concurrency analysis, and I look at this project, help me understand why, typically when we do roadway concurrency analyses, we are analyzing the roads that are directly abutting the project. And here, there are four roadways that are analyzed, but only two of the roads are roads that abut the project. I'm trying to understand why aren't we analyzing the roads that directly abut the project when we're communicating to the board that these projects meet traffic concurrency. Yes, through the Chair, Jerry Bell, Planning Director. So I believe that the roadways that are analyzed in the traffic study are the roadways that would be impacted. So whether or not they are abutting or, you know, proximate. Okay, so that's what I'm trying to understand. This is a 40-acre parcel that, as you, you know, I mean, you're familiar with the application. It abuts 274, 276, 278, and 157th Avenue. But there's no analysis on 278th, and there's a large portion of this project that directly abuts 278th. So I'm trying to understand why wouldn't we analyze that? Yes, Commissioner, we have a Vinod Sandin-Asami, who's our transportation planner, so he can address. So, Commissioner, good morning. Vinod Sandin-Asami, transportation planner. So for concurrency analysis, we just analyze the immediate roads that are impacted. So that's why you see north-south, east-west, four roads are analyzed for concurrency. Whereas for CDMP, you see a wider range of roads are analyzed. So if you see, I think we have around 10 roadway segments which are analyzed for the CDMP. I'm looking at the paperwork, and I see four roadway analyzed. That's what the zoning is saying, right? But for the CDMP, we analyze a larger area, surrounding roads. So if you see, we have analyzed 10 roads, and we find that all the roads are within the capacity. Including 278th? Yes. What is your analysis on 278th? So for 278th, we don't have a traffic count station there, so we don't have counts for that road. Okay, that's exactly what I'm asking. Why not? The largest portion of this application abuts 278th. Why wasn't 278th analyzed? So the thing is, we do have traffic counts. You know, the county does for around 500 stations around the county. And we only analyze the most important stations. We don't have funds to analyze more roads. Okay, but 278th is a large east-westbound roadway in South Dade. Are you saying that 278th is never analyzed for traffic concurrency? It's not, it's not like a small, it's a very large, 278th is a major roadway. Why aren't we analyzing 278th? So I do have Rick Hellyer who can... What is your position again? What's it? What is your position again? I'm a strategic transportation planner for planning department. Okay. Who does he report to? So the concurrency, the traffic counts, they decide how many traffic stations they analyze. Totally, we have like, I think, 400 for the county, and FDOT does around 400. So we have limited funds. With those limited funds, we try to do the maximum number of stations. And I'll let her answer why 278th was not analyzed. Okay, thank you. Good morning, Commissioner. So we have a database, and we collect traffic data along section line, half section line, major roadways in the area. So this particular project was distributed into areas where we collect the current traffic data. And so it was analyzed in that way. If you would like us to analyze a particular roadway, we could have probably data collected at that location and analyze it. But since our locations where we collect traffic data yearly are set locations throughout the county, and they're based on major roadways, this particular location where you were asking about was probably not analyzed particularly for this application. It may have been analyzed if there was a traffic impact study done through traffic engineering, and they would have assessed any roadways adjacent to the project. But traffic concurrency looks at the overall pattern in the area. So we analyze on major roadways. Okay. This project is also about 276th Street. Did you analyze 276th Street? Right. So the locations that were analyzed are part of the memo. So we have 157th Avenue, and then we have US 1, 280th Street, and US 1 again. Again, like I mentioned, the adjacent roadways may have not particularly been analyzed in the concurrency analysis since we collect data on major roadways in the area. So if you would like further clarification or the impacts on the adjacent roadways, then we can look into something like that. Okay. Is 278th a section line or a half-section line road? 278th. I don't believe in this area it is, but I would have to – no, it's not. No, it's not. Okay. So we generally, when we do these traffic analysis, and I think everybody would agree that the traffic analysis is of great import to our residents in Miami-Dade County, we don't analyze the actual roadways that are abutting the actual project. We just analyze wherever we have markers or stations placed as close to the project as possible. May I clarify? So if a traffic impact study was requested through traffic engineering, then the adjacent roadways are analyzed for their impact, whether or not they'll need a traffic signal or something other. Now, for traffic concurrency, we look at the major impact on a broader level outside of the actual adjacent roadways. Okay. And a traffic impact study is not required for our CDMP and zoning applications? So it may not have met the threshold for a traffic impact study. It may not have or it did not. Was a traffic impact study done on this application? One second, please. Sure. Public works. To the applicant. Do you know if there was a traffic impact study? Yes. I'd be happy to answer a few of the commissioner's questions. No, no, no, no. I don't want to go on a tangent. I just want to know the question that's currently pending. Was a traffic impact study required and or done on this application? It was? Mm-hmm. Okay. Were the adjacent roadways analyzed? Yes. Okay. Is it in our materials? Yes. We have it here. The traffic impact study? Yeah. We reviewed it. Yes. Is it in our materials? It's in the files on the zoning application. Okay. What are the impacts of 276 and 278? So basically, 278 is not a section line road. The intersections that were reviewed were 272nd at 162nd, 272nd at 157th Avenue, 272nd at US 1, 280th at 162nd, and 280th at 157th Avenue, and 280th at US 1. Yeah, but that's exactly what was repeated earlier, and that is not- So 278 within this section, it's not fully developed. It doesn't really, if you look at the map, it only goes from 157, and it kind of ends in their site. It's not constructed west of, it's about like 162nd, I would say. 276. So we take a look at the adjacent roadways. They did commit to build half of the right-of-way for those adjacent roadways, but the actual intersection of 278 does not go all the way to 157th in their development. So we mainly requested main intersections, and obviously any intersection that would be considered a section or half-section line road. Okay, so the concurrency, I was told, is the macro analysis of the geographic area, and I was asking about two streets that are abutting this project directly, and I was told, if you want the analysis to those, you would need the traffic impact study, and then I asked, do we have a traffic impact study? We were told, yes, we have a traffic impact study, but in the traffic impact study, there's still no analysis on 276 or 278. I'm just following what you all are telling us. So the analysis was done on 272nd, which is the major road that connects east-west. We went from about 162nd Avenue all the way to US 1. So we analyzed intersections that are going to bring the most traffic based on the distribution that's done under traffic study. And 278, it's only going to be constructed within their section. It doesn't go all the way to 157th. If you look at their site plan, only a small portion of 278 is going to be constructed. And what about 276th? 276th, it's going to be within their site limit, and also it's a small portion. So the biggest portion, I would say, would be along 157th Avenue, and we analyzed the intersection of 272nd and 157th Avenue. Okay. I think that was a rather long-winded way of saying we did not study the traffic impacts along 278th and 276th. But the thing is, 278th doesn't connect. But 276th? So we analyzed intersections and key intersections that are going to have the most traffic based on the distribution. Okay. So most of the traffic to this site is going to come on 272nd, which is a section-line road that connects from US 1 all the way to this site. Where to the applicant? Where is the ingress in? It's single-family homes, so it's not like you have a main access point. Several points. So then how do you know that all the traffic is coming in from 272? Well, that's the major section-line road that connects all the way. All the other roads within, you know, the actual development do not connect to the east, to US 1, which is where most of the traffic is coming from. So we have to analyze the key intersections that we know that are going to have the most traffic. I understand the position, and I understand the explanation. But the simple answer to my question of whether 276 and 278 were analyzed, the answer is no. They're analyzed in terms of they're going to be constructed because they're adjacent to the site. But since they do not connect east-west operationally, we did not analyze them. It's only a portion of 278 which is going to be constructed. So if you're coming to the site, then you would go on to 276 or 278 to connect to 157. Okay, so we only analyze roadways that connect to US 1? If they don't connect to US 1, we do not do traffic concurrency analyses on those roads? This is not traffic concurrency. Traffic concurrency is segment analysis. This is operational at key intersections. Whether you call it traffic concurrency or traffic impact study, the spirit of my question remains exactly the same. So we analyze it in terms of... If the roadway doesn't connect to US 1, it's not studied by Miami-Dade County? Can you repeat that again? If the roadway is not connected to US 1? No, no, no. It's nothing connecting to US 1 or not. It's mainly section-line roads, half-section-line roads, signalized intersections or unsignalized intersections. And we analyze it in terms of what type of traffic control is going to be required at the new intersections that they're doing along 278, 276, 272. But in terms of operational analysis, we pick the main intersections that are going to hold the most traffic. And obviously, those are typically the ones on section or half-section-line roads. Okay, thank you for answering my questions. On page 31, our Miami-Dade Sheriff's Office stated, and I quote, Based on the current data for police staffing, population, and crime calls for service trends, the projected increase in calls for service cannot be supported by current staffing levels at the affected police district. To maintain adequate service, an increase of three additional sworn deputies is required, with an estimated cost of $370,000. This estimate may change, depending on further information from the developer, regarding the number and type of dwelling units. To the administration, when our Sheriff's Office indicates that they do not have enough sworn deputies on staff at our Southern District to support a new development, how do we recommend approval of the application? Or what do we do to address the concerns stated by our Sheriff's Office, that they need a minimum of three additional deputies to support the population that would be incoming to this area? Commissioner, we do not have in the CDMP an adopted level of service standard for police service. We do consider their comments as part of the overall evaluation, but we do not have that, you know, as we do with some of the other services. But we do present the, you know, we do seek their input on the applications and do present the information in the package. But in this case, it was not a factor in our recommendation. Why do we seek it? I'm sorry, you have the floor. No, it's okay, Mr. Chair. I don't mind yielding. Go ahead and ask your question. No, it's why do we seek it from them and then do nothing with the information? We do try to do something with the information. We put it on a piece of paper? So, I mean, the information is out there that, you know, they do need the additional staffing. So, it did not become part of the recommendation in this case. She still, I mean, she yielded to me unless you want to yield to Commissioner Gilbert. Yeah, I think that probably we should look at it in context, though. We are actually funding an additional 300 positions. And when they build it, if they build it, that's the property tax is actually what goes to fund it. So, the reason why they don't do anything to do it is because we traditionally haven't charged back builders for direct police impact like an impact fee. We don't have that for law enforcement because it's already built into the general tax revenue levy. So, that's why we don't, we do do something, it's information purposes. So, but when she brings forth her to us as a commission, not as in quasi-judicial, her recommendation, it should, in theory, be built into that. Correct. And so, that's going to be in the number of officers that she's asking for. That's how we calculate for it. All right. She's now yielded to both of us. Commissioner Galato. Yeah, just quickly, because when the sheriff was a department, the zoning recommendation included it because we had a short-term and long-term plan. We don't have the ability to tell the sheriff where to put more officers, to Commissioner Gilbert's point. All we can do is hope, you know, fund and request, right? Before, it was a department, so we could say, we're adding density here, this is the projection, this is how many officers. So, once the constitutionals kind of separate from us, it can only be an informational item and a conversation that we each have independently with the sheriff in terms of allocation of resources in our districts. Thank you for that, Commissioner Galato. I'm not sure that it boils down to us having a conversation independently because when applications come to us for approval and there's language included in the application like this, it becomes a point, it's our job to approve or deny. And so, when the sheriff says, I don't have enough deputies to staff, the incoming population, to the administration or to the attorneys, what do we do to address this concern? Because what's happening in the South is we have a number of developments. I mean, Lennar is one of them, for example. We know that we have a housing crisis that we need to address, but are we meeting those needs across all spectrums, including making sure that we have adequate public safety in the area? According to what's written in this application, there's concerns that are addressed. So, I'm asking to the administration or to the attorneys, what can we do as a board, absent having conversations individually and separately with the sheriff and making requests? Can we send an urging? I understand our authority limitations because they're a separate department, but I look to our lawyers to give some guidance on how to address the concern that was raised. Is it something that we can do now here at the CDMP and zoning application? I'm looking for some sort of guidance. Point of order. Point of order. I would just say maybe it's best for us to have that conversation not in quasi-judicial. And maybe we have it as the county commission and not as a part of this record on their zoning item. I want the issue addressed. I want the issue addressed. It's very simple. I mean, you either give me guidance on how to address the issue or not. I want the issue addressed. Mr. Chair, if I may? No, hold on. All right. Sorry, guys. Yes. I know you haven't spoken, but we need to kind of real estate. It's not your fault. You're asking all the right questions. This is important in your district. But we need to real in, not the meeting, but the answers are not being answered correctly. And I understand what kind of line of question you're going down. So you have the floor. I need you to finish your, not expedited, but finish your line of question. And then we'll go and I'll open the floor to the rest of the commission like we normally do. Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's my last question. Okay. Commissioner. Oh, that's your last question. Sorry. There's no answer. All right. An answer to the commissioner's question? Abby? Commissioner, if you could give us just a couple minutes. I would like to confer with some of our colleagues who work more directly with the- Okay. So I'll go to another commissioner and then Commissioner Gonzalez, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I happen to agree with Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. I think that if we're going down this line of questioning and we haven't identified or had a conversation with the sheriff concerning the public safety in the area, and it is already a concern, perhaps it seems like this could be premature. And I think that that's what she's getting at. And I think you hit it on the head when you said that we need answers to these questions. Agree with Commissioner Gilbert that perhaps we need to have this conversation outside of a CDMP application. But at the same time, I don't see it viable, to Commissioner Cohen-Higgins' point, for her to have to make a decision right now when, A, we haven't had a conversation with the sheriff. B, we can't even identify whether these concerns are valid. And C, what is going to be done to address the concerns in the first place. It's kind of putting her in a really bad position to approve an application where these concerns have been raised. Mr. Chair. Commissioner Regalado, you recognize. Thank you. To the attorneys, we actually did a deep dive into this when we were first dealing with the constitutional officers. So for those of you who are here, you remember that when we were talking about the separation, one of the things that we discussed at length was our limits in terms of mandating things that we did when the sheriff was a member, when the mayor was the sheriff and the police was under Miami-Dade County. Pursuant to Florida law, pursuant to Florida law, and I'll ask the attorneys to consider this, the sheriff can move within sub-line items. And the sheriff has a lot of flexibility as to how she can determine where to provide coverage. So even if the board were to make a request, her authority is that she could change that at any point. And I remember us talking at length about case law that allows the sheriff to move within sub-headings of the budget, which would be, in this case, HR, you know, or placement. I know that when the sheriff was here, she spoke specifically at our budget hearing about the Eureka station. But at the end of the day, it really is the sheriff's ability. I don't think that we can tie this application or any application to that matter based on a representation unless the sheriff decides to tether herself to, you know, to that. But she could change her mind, is my understanding legally. So if you guys, when you answer her question, if you can confirm that, because we have an MOU with the sheriff. We can discuss different things. But she would have to decide how many officers she placed in what part of Miami-Dade County and what they would be doing there. We really have no authority, even with our budgetary involvement, we have no authority to tell her how to spend money within those subheadings. All right. So, Abby, do you have an answer at this point or no? Do you have an answer for the commissioner? This is for Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Commissioner, I think my impression, I think my initial impression is that these, you know, public safety as a matter, you know, can be a policy matter for this board. And in terms of questions about the exact number of officers that the sheriff may have in a particular location may be best addressed, you know, through potentially other legislation. And we'd be happy to prepare legislation for you for a subsequent meeting. And we'd be happy to also meet with you separately on this. Can she answer my question now? I didn't realize there was a question in there. You can answer the commissioner's question. As to Commissioner Regalado's question, I mean, I do think that that might be best answered by one of my colleagues who works on sheriff matters. I'm not saying that I, just in terms of the exact. Abby, are they here? They're not here. Abby, the colleague that you're saying is better suited to respond is not in this room? No, they're not. In terms of the question of what exactly can we order the sheriff to do or can the sheriff move things on the line item, I can try to get them or get the answer. We're getting, we're getting, I now see Commissioner Bermudez raising his hand. We're not doing this because we're not now going into what the sheriff, we're not going into what we can tell the sheriff at this time. This is a zoning CDMP meeting on a specific application that's being brought forward. And I see the intention already, Commissioner Bermudez, that your response is to the sheriff and what we could tell them to do or not. If it's to the application, that's one thing. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You have the floor. I hope that my line of questioning is not being interpreted as belaboring a point. I find it, I find, you know, we have an obligation. We know what our obligations are as commissioners. And I know what your responsibilities are as the applicant. You're here to build homes. I'm not confused about that. But when we pass an application, it's 185. And then another one comes at the next hearing. That one's 300. And we keep piling it on. And the sheriff keeps telling us the same thing. I don't have enough officers. At some point, the burden becomes heavy. How many homes are we going to build when the sheriff keeps telling us, I don't have enough officers at my southern district unit to answer the calls for service? We just had a budget hearing where everybody agreed that public safety is priority number one. But we're building homes where we're being warned time after time that I don't have enough officers to answer the calls of service of the beautiful families that are going to be moving into these beautiful homes. And I'm asking a simple question. How do we bridge that gap? How do we remedy that concern? And the answer I'm getting is, I don't know, or we're going to talk about it at a later time. And I completely agree with Commissioner Gilbert. Your tax base that would be created here will help remedy the situation. But that doesn't give me an answer now. And so I don't feel comfortable approving it. I'm supportive of the project. I do need some guidance on how to address this concern. And so to answer the call of our chairman to move the meeting along, I would like to defer this to one meeting to work with the applicant and the administration and the sheriff's office to try and figure out a way to remedy the concerns addressed in the application. Thank you, Mr. Chair. There's a motion to defer to October 22nd. Is that the next one? Seconded by Commissioner Gonzalez. On the deferral. We have a motion on the deferral. So on the deferral? Well, yeah, the deferral, I'm probably going to support it because the commissioner has requested that as long as the applicant is fine with that for one period. But I want to be clear, these things are tied into each other. Number one, we cannot legally at this point, the answer, they're just dodging the question, okay? You can bring whoever the attorney is. He's going to tell you the answer that you cannot deny the application based on that because there's no process for it right now. Now, what Commissioner Cohen-Higgins has done, which I agree with her, it's a public policy issue, I don't understand why the administration doesn't have some sort of liaison with the sheriff's office to certainly discuss these things. This is going to continue to be an issue. Commissioner Regalado is 100% correct. And this is going to continue to be an issue. And the solution is there are five constitutional officers, there are 13 of us, and a mayor. Whoever's the mayor or whoever's the chair can figure out. I don't believe any legislation we pass is going to have an impact on the sheriff. That's my opinion. We can do an urging. That's wonderful. But what I would suggest you guys would tell the administration as attorneys is, hey, this has come up in front of the commission. I think it's a smart thing if there was some sort of liaison between the sheriff's office and the administration or to figure out or with staff what the issues are when we approve projects as far as any issues with the sheriff's office. But truthfully, I'm not sure. I'm going to support her because she's the commissioner of the district for the deferral for one month. But I don't believe that technically we can deny a project just based on that. Mr. Chair? Yes. On the deferral, we're not denying a project. On a deferral. Yeah, just on the deferral. I'm going to support the deferral, and this is why I'm going to support the deferral. I don't feel, with all due respect, that the administration or the attorneys are ready for this application. I think Commissioner Colwood-Higgins is absolutely right, and I concur with exactly what Commissioner Bermudez is saying. We obviously cannot and will not ever tell the sheriff what she has to do. However, how do we have an application that is citing to a lack of public safety and then asking a commissioner to not even contemplate the public safety aspect because that ain't our job? That makes absolutely no sense. Could perhaps the administration, could the county attorneys perhaps recommend that she maybe go into an MOU with the sheriff as a district? Wouldn't that be a proper recommendation? Here's something else. Why didn't we contemplate this in the first place rather than just keep pushing the private sector to try to bring in more projects without even contemplating that public safety is an issue? We can chew gum and walk at the same time. We can do those things. Without telling the sheriff what the sheriff needs to do. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right. I got a motion to defer. I got a second. All in favor of the deferral signified by saying aye. All opposed nay. Show the item deferred to October 22nd. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Next up. Mr. Chair, as a point of order. Yes. When this comes back, I mean, because I remember all of our applications. I know that we're deep diving into this right now, but we have approved in the past many applications where when the sheriff's office was under the county, there was a concern about staffing. The difference was that it was written differently, right? Because the department would say currently we do not have enough staffing, but we believe that after this development, there'll be more money and we can get more staffing. So if you guys, when you come back to us, can bring us some of that language and do a comparison, because I think it would be very helpful for everyone to understand. I've talked about MOUs with county commissioners in the past. I think that it can be done. And the issue would be the reallocation of existing resources for that area, Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. When the sheriff was under us, we did that. We just didn't do an MOU. So if we had like a hotspot, we would just ask the department to move humans into that hotspot. The issue with this is going to be when is the development going to be built and how do you answer that in that moment? But I think we should really be careful in terms of denying applications or restructuring applications. I'm going to move on to the next. Based on that. Now we're repeating what? All right. So no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Hold on. We're going to the next. We're going in circles. Commissioner, we're going in circles. Because my hand was up like four people ago. I know, but Commissioner, we're going in circles. This isn't a circle, but this isn't a circle, Mr. Chairman. I just think that it probably needs to be noted that this number is included in the number that we did contemplate at budget meeting. It doesn't say that. When we budget. It doesn't say that. That is, that's what we do on our end. That's what we do on our end. It doesn't say that. It doesn't say that, though. That's the thing. So, all right. Can I take up item 8A1 and then 8B1 after that? 8A1. Mr. Chair, was there a vote on the deferral of both those items? On one of them. I was going to ask, but I was interrupted multiple times. Do we need a separate deferral on 8C6? Yes. Second motion? Yes, let's make it. All right. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins on the companion. It's moved. It's seconded by Gonzalez. All in favor of that deferral signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed nay. Show that item deferred. Nay. Show two nays recorded. All right. 8A1, please, Mr. Chairman. Application 8A1, Miami-Dade SNF holding. Application number Z2025000106. We've had one protest and no waivers of support for this application. All right. I got public hearing is now open. I have no public hearing people registered to speak. So, public hearing is now closed. Is the applicant present? All right. Come on up. And I'm going to continue the same order that I've been doing. So, Commissioner Gonzalez, this is in your district. The floor is yours. You could recognize him for a brief presentation. Or if you just have questions and want to do a motion. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Last time you folks were here, we talked about why I wasn't in favor of the application in the sense of the traffic. I believe that this went to community council and community council cited to the exact same issues. I believe there's people that showed up at community council and they cited to the same issues, which was traffic. We deferred it to give you folks a chance to try to see if you can alleviate the traffic concerns. So, in the interest of time, have you alleviated the traffic concerns? And if so, do you need to make a presentation on that? Not on the entire project, but specifically on the traffic. Through the Chair, Alessandra, Senator Maui Law Office is located at 701 Brickell Avenue. Yes, Commissioner. Since the June BCC meeting, you gave us a bit of homework. And I trust that you're going to be very pleased with our results. So, I can keep it just to the traffic results. And I do also want to highlight, aside from traffic, we did make a change to the site plan. So, and this relates to traffic. When you are exiting the site, and if we can pull up the presentation as well so you can visualize it. Through the Chair. Yep. Here's the site. Here we go. So, the first change since the June BCC meeting is, and we heard neighbors in the area, we are now changing the site. When you are exiting from the site on the east, you will only be able to make a right turn. So, that was a concern that neighbors had brought over to us. The left turn movement will bring traffic to the north in the existing residential area. So, in working with neighbors, we made that change. Additionally, and for the record also, Commissioner, I just do want to state that we did withdraw our rezoning request since the last June BCC meeting. So, at the last meeting, you asked us to go back and look at traffic at a more regional basis. You recall that our experts and the professional staff had concluded that the 57 townhome community would have a very modest impact on the area study. But, nonetheless, we went back and looked to see how we can make real change for neighbors in this area. So, in addition to the proposed traffic improvements, as you recall, we'll have now a left turn lane on to 88th. We also looked at capacity improvements. We did a corridor-wide operational study to evaluate Kendall Drive from southwest 157th Avenue to Chrome for any potential operational capacity improvements within the vicinity. We have our traffic engineers present, but I'll give you a very brief overview of our findings. But we were able to identify signalization operational improvements that are going to provide a very significant impact to the area. So, on average, delays are expected to be reduced by 27% during the a.m. peak hours and 31% during the p.m. peak. The most pronounced benefits, Commissioner, occur at key corridor entry points. So, you're looking at reductions up to 76% at Chrome Avenue, which is a very heavily traveled area, and up to 87% at southwest 172nd Avenue during the p.m. peak. So, with the implementation of these signal timing improvements, individuals traveling along this corridor are going to have fewer stops and less delays. And, more importantly, there's going to be a broader benefit to commuters in this area, and the implementation of this will be fairly quick. So, neighbors in this area can see a fairly quick response. We've continued conversations, again, as I mentioned, Commissioner, with the community. We worked with DTPW. We were actually able to install signs at southwest 164th Court before southwest 84th Street to help notify drivers of a dangerous intersection in that area that's been causing problems for neighbors in that area. You know, our commitment to Sun Lakes Park for a splash pad. And, again, we commit to implementing these findings for the area, and that's pretty much it. I do want to highlight we had one of the neighbors who came at the last meeting. She's here, and we really want to thank her, Ms. Paula Beltran, and the neighbors who have met with us to get to where we are today. So, thank you. I have some questions for DTPW, and I don't want to get ahead of myself because I have some serious concerns, but I do have to say this. You are incredibly prepared, and I appreciate that. Thank you. And I think that many people here should take note. You're incredibly prepared. That doesn't mean I'm going to approve this item. I understand. But I can't tell you enough how pleased I am that I've taken the time to prepare, and you've taken the time to prepare as well. Thank you. If I could get DTPW. To DTPW, the applicant has cited to synchronizations of the traffic signals. Can you give me a brief synopsis, explanation, how the synchronization works, and how this will alleviate traffic in layman's terms? I think your mic is off, ma'am. Okay. Good morning. This is an emergency with Traffic Engineering. So, basically, currently, there has not been any signal retiming along the segment between Chrome Avenue and 157th Avenue on Kendall Drive. This is an FTOT road. However, as you probably know, all of our signals are maintained by traffic signals and science division. So, basically, those signals currently do not have the same cycle length, which is basically the number of seconds that each signal works on. So, what the study did was program those signals in a way that they would all have the same cycle length and synchronize them. So, that depending on the traffic flow, the signals are coordinated. So, that if you go from one intersection to the other, you get the green lights, you know, at a certain time. Kind of like a green tunnel. Hmm? Kind of like a green tunnel. Yes. So, basically, when you go from Chrome Avenue to 172nd, which is the next intersection, once you get to that intersection, you should also get the green on time and so on. And that segment between 157th and Chrome has never been retimed previously. So, they had different cycle length. So, the progression along the segment was not very well. So, this is analyzing the current traffic flow that exists today, but it's not analyzing future traffic flow because it can't. Is that correct? No, it's analyzing future build-out year compared to existing. So, what's there today plus whatever new developments are in the area plus the growth of traffic in two years when this is going to be built. Can you explain how we get to that? So, you apply a growth rate factor to the existing traffic and then you add the number of trips generated by committed developments, which are developments in the area. How does this apply regionally? When you mean regionally? I'm hearing that this is going to alleviate or improve the flow from 162nd to Chrome? From Chrome, which is 177th, to 157th Avenue. 157th, okay. How does this affect 147th, 137th, and so on? From 157th all the way to Turnpike, there has been previously signal retiming done. Got it. So, those signals are already coordinated. So, if we coordinate also from 157th to Chrome, the whole segment kind of between Turnpike and Chrome should now be coordinated as well. So, what you're saying is we've already done so from 157th all the way to Turnpike, 117th Avenue approximately. It's just never been done from- From 157th to Chrome. From 157th to Chrome. Mm-hm. Because a lot of new developments have come now in that area, so for some reason that segment was never taken a look at previously. How would the capacity, how would the increase in vehicles affect the traffic flow even with the synchronization? I mean, we all know that currently Kendall is at capacity at most of the intersections. What this does is better improve the traffic flow from one intersection to the other based on the timing that you program each intersection. Got it. So, we don't have right-of-way to add additional lanes, unfortunately. So, all we could do at this point is try to time the signals in a way that you get a progression all the way from Chrome to Turnpike, which is typically the segment that everyone's coming from the west all the way to the east. And let me tell you, I appreciate the fact that you're being candid, because that's the way I was looking at it, too. And that's my worry, right? My worry here is that this is almost like a Band-Aid, because it's not going to alleviate the- I mean, it is going to alleviate the traffic, it's going to alleviate the flow. But to your point, and I mean, you just made the point on the record, to your point, the congestion is going to get worse, because it's going to be more cars on the road. I mean, I agree with you that the solution here would be to add more roads, right? But we don't have the roads. So, we're being asked to add more cars, but we don't have more roads. And that's not on the applicant. I mean, I'm sure if the applicant could add roads, they would. But this is more of a, I guess, trying to make the traffic flow more enjoyable. A little bit more. Yet adding more traffic at the same time. And I just want to clarify that, obviously, this development is 57 townhomes. So, when we look at it in terms of traffic itself, it's not going to, like, this development itself, it's not going to, I mean, when we look at it in peak hours, what, it generates 30 more vehicle trips in an hour. So, approximately, you know, it's not really, typically, we need to have more than 100 vehicle trips, so that we could affect an intersection in a way that the level of service is going to deteriorate. But we're talking about 57 units, right? So, 57 units, I mean, this is Miami, let's be real, right? Every single unit is going to have minimum two, three, or even four cars, right? So, if we multiply at two, we're looking at 114 units. That's not the way, I mean, that's not the way that trips are calculated. We go based off of a manual that does surveys at various locations. So, you guess, with data? We collect data at existing locations, and we say, you know, at other locations, even though you have 57 townhomes, it doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to have three trips per each of those townhomes, because they could go, I don't know, at a different time. They could be students that don't drive, or elderly, so it's not that we multiply each townhome times two persons. We have a formula based on previous surveys that have collected data at surrogate sites, basically. Right, and we're taking that data, and we're guessing that perhaps this is going to happen in this area. Typically, based on the trip generation at max, it's supposed to generate about 30 a.m. peak hour trips, so that means within an hour. Got it, so 30 more trips. It's considered significant, basically. Okay, so when this item first came, I requested a deferral, mostly because the proposal needed a broader examination of the traffic already affecting West Kendall, particularly alongside Kendall Drive. And, I mean, the traffic on, I mean, you grew up in Miami. The traffic on Kendall Drive is horrendous. I mean, our expert has said this. I live in the area, too, so I live right there. You live there? I live on 162nd and Kendall Drive. And you're recommending I pass this? Yes. Really? As a resident or as an employee? We have the Kendall Town Center right in front of where I live, which is going to bring a lot of trips as well. I couldn't agree more, and I'm actually going to get to that, right? Because, you know, earlier this month, right, we learned that the smart plan, which includes Kendall, isn't moving. I really appreciate the candor and the hard work with the residents. I have heard that there are some residents that are now on board as far as, you know, you said it a few seconds ago. The revised turning restrictions and the proposed traffic signal synchronization, I think that that's a good try. It's a way to move existing traffic like we just discussed, but it doesn't address adding more traffic, and that's where my concern really lies. It doesn't address the wider congestion created when more cars have to travel east, even if it's only 30 more trips. Kendall Drive's already subject to heavy peak hour volumes and bumper-to-bumper traffic. And so West Kendall, like I've said, it needs development that strengthens the community and fits the capacity of its roads. I want to see more housing, but I don't feel like the infrastructure is there. The synchronization is good, but it doesn't solve the problem. The infrastructure is necessary. And, you know, to our expert's point, we can't put more roads. And so that brings me to the analysis of the live-work-play, and the property has already been designated for business or commercial development in the past. And what we don't have enough of in West Kendall, even though we have the town center, we're seeing the bringing of these town centers into West Kendall. But the majority of West Kendall is residential. And so although I know we need residential because we need it, we can't afford more residential because we have an urban development boundary. And the land in West Kendall is scarce. And so what we need to bring is more jobs to try to minimize the amount of traffic flow that is on the streets at all times. And so for that reason, although you gave an amazing presentation, and although I think that you guys have gone above and beyond, I'm not going to be able to support this item. So I move to deny the item. Thank you, Commissioner. Do we have a second? Second. All right. All in favor of denials? Roll call, Mr. Chair. Roll call. The reasons for denying is traffic? That's what it sounds like. Level of service? The district commissioner has made a representation on the record of his position of why he's pushing for a denial of the application. Secondly, I do believe the district commissioner's position is what he's actually basing his foundation upon for this motion. So do you have any questions? Just to the attorney, we're still in quasi judicial? Yes, Commissioner. Is traffic level of service something we can base the denial on? Traffic is something that can be substantial, competent evidence and can be the basis for a denial for zoning. Thank you for clarifying, though, Commissioner Gilbert. I appreciate it. Mr. I got a question. Commissioner Bermudez, you're recognized. Just to Abby and maybe to the commissioner of the district. This denial, the CZAB denied without prejudice. Is that correct? Yes, that's correct. Okay, so what does that entail, that at some point they're able to bring this back up in front of the community council within six months, or what's the, enlighten me on the, whatever the rules are? Of course, Commissioner, even with the denial without prejudice, if the applicant changes their application to make it less intense, they could bring it back at any time. The, the without prejudice, is it, give me one second, I believe it's six, is it six, I believe it's six months, so if the applicant wanted to bring it back within, they would need to wait six months to bring back the same application. Back in front of us, wouldn't have to go in front of the community council? It, it would go back before the community council. Okay, it would, okay. Commissioner, Commissioner Bermudez, that answers your question? Thank you. Commissioner Regalado? Thank you. I mentioned this last time this item came up, and again, I'm going to support the district commissioner, but I think for the applicant, it's important, as I mentioned last time, to consider that while there are concerns with the smart plan, there is an F-dot plan for Kendall Drive. The reason that I put a pin in that plan is because we didn't want to take up a lane in order to provide the rapid bus service. If developers were to provide an easement to F-dot, we could do transit on Kendall Drive. The issue is the easement being provided by developers along the corridor. I am working with developers along my piece of Kendall Drive to effectuate that, but that is an F-dot priority project that does have funding and is viable. The issue is we don't want to buy the easement. F-dot doesn't want to buy the easement. It would have to be donated by developers in order to effectuate that plan. So I said that last time, I think you should meet with F-dot because there is a path forward there that would provide some relief. I'm doing it in my district. It's just Kendall Drive is represented by three different people. So we all have to kind of decide if we're going to do that. My only concern, you know, in terms of the district commissioner, I understand wanting commercial, but I think if we deny it on transit, if they come back with commercial, we're probably going to have a denial because you're going to have the same congestion. So that would be my only caveat there that we may find ourselves in a very similar position if we are solely denying based on traffic. But happy to support. Call the question. Point of order. Does commercial generate more traffic count? I want relative to, I don't know. Commissioner, I can ask public works to come up again, but it usually depends on the size of the project. This project was approved for a nursing home, and that was going to generate 39 trips on 176 beds. So it depends on the size of the commercial. They could do a... And Commissioner Gilbert, if I may, so when you live in West Kendall, because, you know, we all have different areas. But when you live in West Kendall, the issue with West Kendall is that it was never planned. It wasn't planned properly in the sense that we don't have the infrastructure for the amount of cars that we have within West Kendall. We don't have jobs out there. That's the biggest problem. And since we don't have jobs, the conundrum that we find ourselves, and, you know, I'm sure that the young lady that lives in West Kendall that works for the administration can attest to, is that we are in traffic for hours every day going to work, which is usually in the north and in the east, and coming back home. That creates an insane congestion, not to mention during school drop-offs, not to mention during school pick-ups. It creates a terrible issue where it's just bumper-to-bumper traffic. So conceptually, you are absolutely correct, my friend. Conceptually, bringing jobs would create more traffic, except that in West Kendall, because we don't have jobs there, people can't work there. They either work in the east, or they work in the north, or if they're lucky, they work in J.C. Bermuda's district in Doral. And that's like the best-case scenario when you're a West Kendall resident. And so for that reason, it's not just the traffic, it's the aspect of the lack of planning that has happened here. This is not because of the applicants. So I want to be clear, this is not you guys. This is just urban sprawl has, right now, West Kendall's nothing but single-family homes. And I love it, okay? But if we're going to solve the traffic problem, we need to bring jobs so that folks stay there. This is part of the reason why we're working on bringing jobs to the airport and bringing as many jobs as possible. So in a world where usually you would create more traffic with commercial, in West Kendall, you'd actually be able to alleviate the traffic. But at this point, I call the question. Hold on. I was actually in the middle of speaking when Commissioner Gonzalez interrupted me. And so calling the question after you interrupt me in the middle of my remarks is probably inappropriate. Right, but okay. I thought you were done. I apologize. I thought you were done also. Yeah, it seemed because you paused for a long time, but please. It wasn't that long of a pause. You wanted to respond to something I said, and I appreciate it. It's just, look, I get that the traffic is an issue. I'm not going to ignore that traffic is an issue. Traffic does not just exist for people in Kendall. It exists for people in Miami Gardens also. The work centers in this county were developed in a way that people from Miami Gardens and Opalaka also have to come south. And so we're stuck in traffic also. So when I look at these things, I don't look at them as though we don't have traffic. We have the same traffic just going different directions at the same time because that's where the stuff was built. But the answer clearly, and my neighbor here, Commissioner Steinberg, said it is mass transit. It is. The question is how we actually get there. We can't get there based on the current state and federal formulas without actually investing in high FAR and high density along those corridors first. And when we say we should build commercial and we'd have job centers, you would create jobs, but that wouldn't change it for the folks who actually have houses in those areas right now because their jobs probably still wouldn't be there because the employment centers in the county are all where people don't live. And so if I thought that what we were saying would actually solve the problem, then I'd be like, okay, yeah, let's do it. But assuming everything that was said is true, it still doesn't actually solve the problem of the congestion at those peak traffic times. And so it's just, it's something that sounds great, but from a logistical perspective, it's not going to work that way. And I just need us to understand that. And also, as we look at housing, remember, it is the discrete decisions that we make in these hearings that affect housing costs in 20 years. So where these might not be affordable, adding capacity has to bring down prices eventually. So the housing concerns in this county exist primarily because commissions before us make the same decisions we're making. They did not want to add capacity because people want to live in the neighborhood that they bought in. And so they don't want anything to change. And that's cool. But if nothing changes, just remember that we have no real lever to pull to control costs. And that's the challenge. And so I know it's a difficult challenge for us as a body. But as a general rule, that's why I tend to favor density along commercial corridors so that we can protect single-family neighborhoods. So when I see us turning down townhomes and single-family homes, which is not necessarily against something that I would want. I understand the ramifications of those decisions in the future. And so I'll support you on this vote. I just need you to know that that logic will not change the fundamental problems that you're trying to address. Are you, can I answer? You're done? I just want to make sure I don't interrupt, and I appreciate the conversation, and I appreciate the input. I don't necessarily disagree with you. I think where I have an issue, and we can agree to disagree, but where I have an issue is we're putting the chicken before the egg, or the egg before the chicken. In the sense that because we don't have these job centers, we don't have connectivity, at least in my district, I understand that Opelaka is different. As a matter of fact, what you've done with Opelaka Airport is extraordinary, extraordinary. And the amount of jobs that you've created there is something that I'm trying to emulate in my district, because that allows for the help of bringing that connectivity. See, the biggest issue is that even if we were to go down the mass transit road, we would need mass transit that goes from West Kendall all the way to downtown. At least in my district, not all throughout, what we need is connectivity. The beautiful thing about a place like Boston, New York, Chicago, is you get on a train, you get off. As soon as you get off, you can live, work, play in that area. For too much time, to your point, Commissioner, because I think you're absolutely right, I feel like the commission has been kicking the can down the road on planning. And rather than taking an assertive position and saying, hey, this is what Miami-Dade County should look like. This is how we're going to get to the transit solutions. We just keep approving housing for the sake of approving housing. Let me say something else. I'm not against density. You are absolutely correct. Density is something that's going to be necessary at some point. But again, it needs to be done responsibly and we need to make sure that the infrastructure is in place. The connectivity is in place for the transit to even be viable. That's all I'm saying. But with that, yeah, I call the question. Thank you. Mr. Attorney, can you get us in right posture as to what we're voting on right now, please? Yes, my understanding of the motion is to deny the application and a roll call would be appropriate. Thank you. A roll call, Madam Clare. Commissioner Bermudez. I'm supporting the denial, so that's a yes, right? Yes. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Four. Senator Garcia. Commissioner Gilbert. Commissioner Gonzalez. Commissioner Hardiman. Commissioner Lopez. Yes. Commissioner Milian Orbis. Commissioner Regalado. Yes, supporting the district commissioner. Commissioner Steinberg. Commissioner Bastien. Vice Chairman McGee. Yes. Chairman Rodriguez. Motion passes 9-0. Thank you. I believe the next item up is 8B1, District 11. Mr. Attorney, let's take, is there a statement that needs to be read by the director at this time on the record? Yes. Thank you. Go ahead. Application 8B1, Valamere Holding. Application number Z, 2023-000-505. Mr. Chairman, this is an application that was approved by the community council and appealed by residents. So we have 546 people that are supporting the residents appeal and nobody that is supporting the CESAB decision. Thank you. When I open up the public hearing, I will start with the public first. When I call your name, please line up and say your name and address on the record from the podium. And you will have one minute. David Winker, Javier Sotomayor, Erica Garcia, Delia Perez-Ordes, Jose Rojo, Jasminia Ramirez, George Reyes, and Jeanette Moore. And as it relates to the attorney, David Winker, do me a favor if you want to wait until they speak, and then that way you'll have your opportunity to represent the appellate. Yes, sir. That works for you, sir? Thank you. Commissioner Gonzalez, you have a statement you would like to read on the record? Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I'd like to make a statement. For the record, I need to make a Jennings disclosure. Prior to today's hearing, I came across social media posts related to this project. Notwithstanding, I am able to be fair in considering this application, and I will base my decision only upon the evidence presented during this public hearing today. Thank you. No, thank you so much. Steven Marquez. Vice Chairman, just a question, maybe you could have the attorneys or you can answer to someone. What's the standard of review here for us? Are we, is it the record that was outlined before CSAB? Is it the testimony here? Is it abuse of discretion? I just need to know, before we start hearing information, what's the standard of review that we have to actually make the decision? Give me one second. Thank you so much. Marjay Gonzalez and also Caradat Treina also line up. Mr. Attorney, can you give us some clarity as it relates to the standard? Yes, Mr. Chair, the standard of review here is de novo. You are conducting a new public hearing and basing your decision on the evidence presented and the record. Okay. That's that as far as you, Commissioner Gilbert? Thank you. All right, ma'am, please state your name and address for the record and good morning, actually. Good morning, my name is Erica Garcia. I live on 14605 Southwest 31st Street. May I ask how much time I have? One minute, ma'am. Okay, I live within 500 feet of the property. Do I get enough more time or just a minute? Keep reading, please. Okay. Good morning, Chairman and Commissioners. I haven't been a resident of this neighborhood since 2005. Thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to speak today. I support responsible growth. I understand that our community needs additional housing but growth must be balanced, safe, and respectful of the homeowners who have invested in this neighborhood for many years. My participation in this process started as a civics lesson for my ten-year-old daughter. She attended the February CCAB hearing with my husband and me because I wanted to teach her an important lesson. Make your voice be heard and participate in your community. Today, I am speaking as a resident within 500 feet of this property and as the leader of the 147 Avenue Neighbors United, which now has approximately 280 members. I am also thankful to be speaking alongside concerned citizens of West Dade, subdivision one. An organization that has been advocating for responsible development in West Kendall since the 80s. As of yesterday, our neighbors had collectively submitted 546 objections. With additional objections, it's still been entered into the record. Yesterday, I got CC'd about ten more objections. Our concerns involve land use, traffic, and access, density, compatibility, and notice. May I ask the panel or the board, do you have the material that we prepare? Thank you so much. Thank you. Did you provide that information to the clerk's office? Yes, we did, 17 copies. Thank you so much, I appreciate you. Mr. Chair, can the clerk confirm that they have the information? I have more to take. If you have it, just give us one second. Let me just confirm something with the clerk, and we'll get back with you. Clerk, can you work with this young lady to make sure we get that information? Does that work for you, Ms. Garcia? Well, I have a whole presentation based on the package. Right, but you understand if what we're doing here is because we have rules as a relates to the time. But give that information to the clerk, just meet with her back there, and we should be fine. Thank you so much. Next. Good morning. Good morning. How are you? I'm blessed. Thank you. My name is Jeanette Moore, and I lived at 25265 Southwest 134th Avenue, Homestead, Florida. I work as an administrative assistant at Baptist Hospital for 25 years. The best part of my job was watching how fast our small hospital grew because of all the people who wanted to move to the area. It's important to me that people like me can find homes here because our area is special. Owning a single-family home represents the American dream, and new residents allows businesses to continue to grow and a community to thrive. Thank you. Thank you so much. Sir, good morning. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I apologize. I do. I am terribly confused. My name is George Reyes. I'm the appellant, and I haven't been before this board in any kind of capacity. Would you like to put your address on the record for me, please? Oh, sure. I apologize. No problem. Thank you. Okay. My name is George Reyes. I reside at 2804 Southwest 142nd Place, 33175. I am the appellant. I'm the officer of the appellant organization. Now, I'm terribly confused with what I said. I haven't been here in a long time. Back in the day, before we had all these electronics, we had easels. We'd put them up, et cetera. And the way it would work is the appellant or the applicant would present their case. Whoever was the attorney representing, whoever opposed, so then they spoke. Apparently, we're out of complete order, as I can understand it now. So what I would ask for you to do, if you'll be so kind, is after our attorney speaks, and I have to tell you, I'm technically challenged. I have no idea. I don't have a clue how to operate in this stuff. So if you don't mind, this young lady here, Erica Garcia, if you would allow her to assist me as I speak, and maybe we can get things in order, and maybe I don't have to fumble through my papers. Because if not, I'm going to fumble. I'm going to have kind of like a static. And as it is now, this is, for me, challenging because it makes me nervous. So I don't know if you can help me. No, I think we're going to be able to help you. Thank you so much. I do believe you also have your attorney here, Mr. Winker, who represents the appellant, right? So to make, I know, I got it. I do believe you have your attorney here also who represents. I do, we hired the attorney. No, I understand that, and he intends to speak on your behalf. So that's number one. All right, fine. And number two, Abby, I do believe you have a question that you would like to, or statement you would like to put out on the record. Thank you, Mr. First Chair. Our understanding was that Mr. Winker was going to be doing the presentation for the appellants, but I think we would, I mean, I think it's more of a question just to confirm. And then, of course, Mr. Winker can, if you will, will be testifying as part of his presentation. But I think that's, perhaps the appellant could just clarify with your attorney. Yes, and Mr. Winker, can you walk now to the podium, please? Sure. Thank you so much. David, please help me. As it relates to the, as it relates, is it fair to say, sir, on the record, that you're going to be the one doing a presentation for the appellant? Yes. And the gentleman who just spoke on the microphone is part of the team that you represent? Correct. Along with Ms. Erica Garcia, who spoke earlier, she's also a part of the team that you represent? Exactly. I'm going to be doing a short presentation, and then they're going to be doing a short presentation. It would probably be a total of about seven minutes total for all of us. No, no, so maybe, Abby, does that? Commissioner, they are the appellant. They're the ones bringing the appeal. So I think, yes. Okay, all right. Thank you. Thank you so much. Next. Good morning. My name is Stephen Marquez. I'm president of the Millennium Townhomes. I'm the development that is right behind the proposed development. Address. Oh, sorry. No problem. Yes, 2806 Southwest 145th Court. So I represent 20 families in the community, and obviously we're not on board with this. We're not alone. As of July, the county's own agenda clerk has recorded, we saw an updated number, but about 358 written objections to this application from residents of the area, and more have been filed since. I guess we can start with the first point. The building height, we reviewed some of the documentation that was presented by the applicant, and we saw that the letter of intent says 28 feet. Applicant's own elevation drawings, sheet A2.1, shows stair tower parapets at 37 feet and 8 inches. That's nearly 10 feet tall, and that's nearly 10 feet tall, and that's nearly 10 feet taller than the number in their letter. The LOI omits the parapets entirely. For fire access on our second point, the applicant site plan states, and I quote, aerial apparatus set up on the east side of the building is not feasible. The east side faces our community, 33 units served by a single 24-foot. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. All right, thank you. Thank you. Good morning, my name is Maruja Gonzalez. I live at 14972 Southwest 29 Terrace. I'm a special education teacher at Braddock Senior, and I also live three blocks away from the stated property. I feel so adamant about the detrimental impact of the zoning change that I took one of my limited personal days as a school teacher to be here today. Although the builder has stated that they conducted a traffic study, I proffer that the school transportation provided by MDCPS buses will cause chaos to the traffic on 147th Avenue if this is approved. As I said, I teach special education students, and I can tell you by timing the school buses of my students that are in wheelchairs that the school buses will be stopped on 147th Avenue anywhere from three to five minutes. If there's a student in that development that is required to be on a school on a lift. If they will, even for our typical students, those buses will have to stop on 147th Avenue because this development will only have one narrow entrance into the development. Thank you so much. Good morning, sir. Good morning. My name is Javier Sotomayor. My address is 3143 Southwest 150th Court. I also reside within 500 feet of the planned project. I come before you appealing the approval of the proposed three-story multifamily rental development on 1.4-acre panel parcel located within our established single-family community. This approval constitutes the descriptions of unlawful spot zoning because it grants a special and inconsistent land-use designation to a small parcel to build a three-story rental complex, which is surrounded by single-family residences. This is incompatible with the existence character of the neighborhood. The re-zoning only benefits a particular property owner rather than advancing the comprehensive interests of the impacted community. It is also contrary to the intent and purpose of Miami-Dade's zoning regulations, which require compatibility with surrounding uses and the protection of establishments. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning. Good morning. My name is Dalia Perez-Ordaz. I'm here speaking in opposition to the Valemar holding application that has been supported and now filing the appeal with concerned citizens of West State. And I'll be direct, this application to me doesn't just turn on traffic, adequate police, sheriff, infrastructure, although all of those are key and important in planning our communities. I believe it's a binding promise in this exact building that's not allowed on this parcel of land. And for background, in 2002, you all, I believe, have packets. If you refer to page 74 on 12-9, 12-9 of 2002, there's a declaration of restriction that in plain words specifies apartments and duplexes shall not be permitted on this property. Then, if you refer to page 69 in May of 2003, apartments and duplexes shall not be permitted on this property, whether the property is developed with residential office or mixed use. Then, in 2007- Thank you so much. Would you like to put your, can you please put your address on the record for me, please? Yes, sir. The address. What is your address? 9-5-4, Southwest 143rd Court, 331-8-4. Thank you so much. Are there any other persons would like to speak on this item, part of public hearing at this time? Good morning. Please state your name and address for the record, please. Moraima Lugo Morales for 240 Southwest, 153rd place. And you are our commissioner, Mr. Gonzalez. I do oppose this particular project as it is not compatible with the area. So, simply put, not compatible. I thank you for your time. God bless. Thank you. Thank you so much. Abby, at this time, are we going to close public hearing or do we leave it open for the appealing attorney to step forth and testify? You could leave it open for the appellant's testimony, if you like, and then you could close the public hearing after that. Thank you. Attorney Winker, would you like to approach the podium, please? Attorney Winker, how much time do you need? Seven minutes for all three of us, so I'll make it very quick on my side. David Winker, offices at 4720 South Lejeune Road. I represent concerned citizens of West Dade Subdivision 1 and neighboring property owners opposed to this project, including Erica Garcia, who lives within 500 feet. I'm going to turn it over to them, but our main concerns are the deletion of the existing recorded restrictions. We've been here before on cases like this where there was an agreement, restrictions put on, and then, you know, here we go again, right? They come with a different plan, and in order to do that, they need to show what's wrong with the original plan. Why are we changing this? There's no justification. There's no reasons given for that. You heard about incompatibility. The intensity is incompatibility. The type is incompatible with the single-family neighborhood that surrounds this. It's 33 units on one acre, and it further provides a deficiency in common space. It's required to have 40 of open space, 40% open space. It delivers 33% open space. Again, just not acceptable. We should demand more. Last thing, there was a lot of talk earlier about traffic plans, and the traffic plan has not been updated. For the new plans, and so I think that's just something that you guys should require. And with that, I'd like to turn it over to try to save our time here, and I appreciate you guys listening. Thank you. Good morning. Do I need to state my name again? Yes. I do? Okay. For the record, yes. Sure. My name is George Reyes. I reside at 2804 Southwest 142nd Place. I am a director and treasurer of conservative citizens of West Dade. First and foremost, let me tell you why we're appealing the application, and I'll be brief. Let's state why we're here and why we think 446 people also approve of our appeal. By the way, it's been a grassroots effort. There's others who have helped. It's not only us three who decided, hey, let's go appeal something. No, no. There's been a lot. Like I said, there's 546 protesters. First thing we should do is acquaint you with the site. This is the site. It is a rectangular site. 330 feet, face 147th. It's 140 feet deep. It abuts townhouses, which originally were the plan. Now, this application is unique in itself in that it allows for two type of developments. It allows for townhouses, which are the back. And in order to allow for a transitional use back in the day when this was done in 2000, when this was zoned, because there's a shopping center to the north, it was agreed and allowed that an office building would be allowed to go in there, and it would be sensitive to the community. Apparently, that's not what the applicants want. As a matter of fact, in our appeal of the Zoning Appeals Board, which we believe erred, and we believe they erred because they were not presented the complete information, first and foremost, what is approved there is not a three-story building. They can have, like I said, the townhouse component, but that was never the focus of the Zoning Appeals Board hearing. Instead, the focus was, is an apartment building preferable or a commercial, a small commercial building preferable? And the conclusion, obviously, we know what it is. But we disagree. We think that there's a two-story commercial building that is what's allowed. Intent, what they say is that it's a three-story apartment, I'm sorry, three-story commercial building. That's not the case. What was approved was a two-story commercial building with parking underneath. What was there before, what is there now allowed under the current plan is 77 parking spaces. They desire to replace that with a building that is going to allow only 57 parking spaces for 33 apartments. We already know what the math could work out, and they say that they're going to, overflow is going to be prevented because they're going to have two additional spaces. We don't know that two additional spaces work, especially on something that's funding 137th. Now, if I direct you once more, I'm sorry, I apologize. I think besides that, they're constrained to what they have. They have 330 feet, climbing on 147th, and it's a shallow site. That in and by itself speaks to commercial development. Why? Because you wouldn't want to put all these apartment buildings to the front of 147th. Their contention is, well, we don't want to back up to the townhouse either, so we're going to put it up to 147th. We respectfully disagree. We think that that's perfect for a commercial building. The apartment building that they propose on the set of plans has one entrance for egress and ingress. The commercial building has two. Now, as far as the contention, their argument is also that there's a lot of medical uses, that this office building would be completely used by medical uses. Well, your zoning code allows for that. Now, normally most office buildings that are at, if you have normal offices, one per 300 square feet. Medical is one every 200 square feet. So if you presume that you're going to use 77 parking spaces, you have 15,000 feet of office use that you can use. Now, going back, and I'm going to refer to the, and I'm going to slow down because I speak in a lot of numbers. The office building is basically 13,000 square feet each floor. That's a total of 26,000 square feet. The land is approximately 48,000 square feet. The math is what it is. There's something known as the FAR. That's Florida area ratio. And what that means is if you have a lot, I'm cognizant of the time, I'm sorry. If you have a lot that's 50 by 100, that's 5,000 square feet. If you, in turn, put a building for getting front and rear setbacks and all that, that's 25 by 100, you now have a 2,500 square foot building and a 5,000 square foot lot. The Florida area ratio is now 50%. And their new proposed enhanced site is 71%. But the office building only occupies 52%, or 57%. So for that reason, we feel, oh, then there's also the issue of traffic. I'm at a certain age now where I'm a baby boomer. I go to see a lot of doctors. I go to see doctors that are ologists, and you all can figure out what all that means. I need to go to Kendall Drive to see my doctor. I have my dentist on A Street. Some of you that are, for example, in Westchester, there's a lot of doctors that border Coral Way. None of those houses that I've seen have ever been a problem. As a matter of fact, I've seen additional doctors on the frontage road. That allows the area to be serviced by those particular people who have needs. In my view, this office building will be welcome. We would have professionals, which we don't need. When this plan was originally considered in 2006, I don't believe that 147th was all the way to 8th Street. So in my view. Thank you so much. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Winker. Is the applicant here, Commissioner Gonzalez, I know this is your item. We haven't closed public hearing, but would you like to hear a presentation from the applicant? Yes, please. Thank you. Thank you. How much time do you need? Five minutes. Sounds good. Thank you. Good morning. Once again, Hugo Arza, 701 Brickell Avenue. It is a pleasure to be before you. I'm joined today by the owners of the property from Valimar Holding. I will be honest with you in light of the previous hearing and what I'm about to say. I feel like I'm walking into the lion's den because the reality is what we're trying to do is rely on your plan and the levels of service and what we're doing. I also am going to make a point to say that I think we need to give voice to the Communities Zoning Appeals Board. This application was approved at CSAB when the project was reduced in scope and height. And if we're going to do that and recognize that and reward that, or we should, as opposed to projects that get denied and appeal to you. But one last point that I feel important to put on the record is in my long practice, and I know you, Commissioner Gonzalez, and all of you know me, we reached out to the appellant on numerous occasions and sent emails to no response and no avail. And then when I saw Mr. Reyes today, who I recognized from previous studies, he said it's because they had nothing to talk about. I don't think we should reward that. I need to say that on behalf of my client. I think that a conversation, maybe we could have talked about some of these things. I'm going to move forward with a presentation that does propose 33 residential units on three stories instead of an approved office building that is the same three stories in height and 52,000 square feet. That's approved. That could be built tomorrow. Again, in light of the conversation and the comments you make, Commissioner Gonzalez, I suspect that that might be a preferable option for you. But it is not one that generates more traffic. In fact, we know for a fact that the residential will generate less traffic, and we make a point of that. It is not incompatible. I mean, to the north of us, it's a shopping center. To the west of us, it's going to be a charter school. Caddy Corner to us is a neighborhood Walmart. 147th is a major arterial section line road. We're within 660 feet of a transit corridor on Coral Way, which is how we get our density. This is not incompatible. Remember that the testimony given by appellants is often more in the light of argument, not testimony. They're not presenting evidence that's incompatible. They are telling you that what is before you is incompatible. We are telling you your professional staff and the findings show that it is compatible. In fact, that is the testimony that you have in front of you. That is the evidence that you have in front of you, which you should weigh in these circumstances. Here are all, again, current and staff approvals. Your staff is recommending the appeal be denied because they actually recommended approval at 40, and certainly when we reduced it to 33, they remained consistent. No, we did not submit a revised traffic study when our project was reduced in density, as Mr. Winker claims as some sort of failure of the application, because I think the Traffic Engineering Division is plenty busy reviewing things that might generate a change, but if we're going from 40 to 33 units, what are they going to show, that it's even better? We didn't think that that was appropriate. We met the levels of service. The traffic study worked for us at the time that it was submitted for 40. Here is the comparison, 25% reduction in height from four to three stories. This was all done at CSAB. The unit, 17.5% reduction. We actually eliminated that front setback variance that they continue to show there, so the only one is a modest open space variance. And, again, we can disagree whether the building placement of the office building being closer to the street versus the residential building being closer is compatible or incompatible. That is argument that is not violative of your code. Here are the current approvals. Again, that office building, and I won't belabor the point because I haven't really taken the time. My client may end up building this, and then I'll walk through it more closely, but it's a choice between those two elements. But it's a choice between those two projects framed by the evidence that's been presented, by what this client has done, by what they were unable to do, by not having a meaningful opportunity to meet with neighbors, by seeing a presentation for the first time today. This is a quasi-judicial proceeding. All of you that practice law would know that you probably wouldn't walk into court, Commissioner, you're an attorney, and, you know, be told, well, you know, it's okay that they're just bringing this up now for the first time, and you've never seen it. The particular arguments, their opposition, we understand generally. Permitted uses under RU5, the current zoning category, obviously much more extensive and can create a lot more intensity than we think 33 other families that need housing, and to, I guess, Commissioner Gilbert's point from before, like every little incremental benefit that is given to affordability concerns whenever you can build any incremental use. I touched on the compatibility issues. Parking and traffic concerns, again, we have staff's recommendation. You know, you may have additional questions for staff. I know that we went through some of those in the prior. If we thought that it made a difference, it did not seem to in the prior application, we would be happy to do signal timing and some other elements of perhaps your district. I completely agree. Your district might benefit from all of that, but here are the numbers, and here are the reductions in traffic, all the evidence here. This project, if approved, and if this appeal is denied, will generate less traffic. The impact fees, and, again, I've stated my point. Thank you so much. I would appreciate you denying this appeal today and honoring the C-ZAB vote. Thank you so much. Seeing no one else to speak, public hearing is officially closed at this time. Commissioner Gonzalez, this is your district. How would you like for us to handle this? Mr. Chair, if I may, Mr. Arger, did you finish your point? Yeah, yeah, yeah. I was just asking the closing line, please deny the appeal that's been made and uphold the C-ZAB decision. I was just getting that point out. Sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Through you. Please. So, I actually live five minutes away from here. Yeah. So, I mean, I want to start by recognizing you, Mr. Arza, and the great work that you folks have done, okay? It's not taken lightly that I do see and I've read that you went from 40 units to 33. And, you know, it seems like you've been working seriously to address the traffic concerns. It does seem that way. I also, I know that you say that they didn't meet with you and I wish that they would have, but I have to commend that presentation. I've never seen residents give a presentation like that. I mean, I really wish you guys would have talked to them before we got here, but I do want to commend the fact, one, I want to thank you for coming, okay? Especially the young lady that took time off of work to be here. Really appreciate you being here. I'm not saying I'm going to vote with you, but I'm saying I really appreciate you being here. I really appreciate everybody that came out, and I really commend the presentation because it shows that you folks were prepared. The attorney that represented the residents, I feel like he was prepared, but I feel like you guys were even more prepared. Now, the issue is not simply the traffic from these apartments. The issue here is everything that is converging simultaneously along the short section of 147th, right? So I want everyone here to just appreciate what is already in place at this location. So you all can understand where I'm coming from, not only as the county commissioner of this area, but also as a resident that sits in traffic. There's a preschool, K-8 center already operating nearby. This caused traffic lines that spill onto Southwest 147th Avenue, which is that very roadway. A third school for up to 1,600 students in grades 6 through 12 is planned for construction. And I think that they already started constructing, even though there's probably one of the most, one of the few full high schools that we have in Miami-Dade County right now, which is Braddock Senior High. So that's four schools, if you count the preschool center, all within blocks, which creates a perfect storm for congestion. And all these schools concentrate arrival and dismissal traffic along that same road. I believe that there was a teacher that came up here and spoke and explained the issues. I mean, look, I used to take the bus to school every day, and buses need to stop, right? The problem with this area is that it's a toon lane road. So I can only imagine 7 a.m., 7.30 a.m., 8 a.m., 2.30, 3 p.m. And the problem here is that you have K-8 center that goes in a little bit later, but gets out a little bit earlier. Then you have a high school across the street, which comes in earlier, but gets out earlier. And then you have a 6 through 12 center that's going to be built, I guess, in a few months. All these schools concentrate arrival and dismissal, like I said. And a standard traffic study for 33 apartments, it doesn't capture the full effect of adding housing besides the growing school cluster. And I think you addressed that. The concern is the adding pressure on Southwest 147th Avenue, and the neighborhood streets feeding into it. I just want to make something clear. I'm not anti-development, I'm not, but we need to be mindful of how this development affects the surrounding existing neighborhoods. These decisions can't be made in a vacuum, not in isolation, it all has, it has ripple effects. When we concentrate schools in one area, for example, there's a ripple effect on traffic. This raises serious quality of life concerns for the families already living there. And I believe that's why we have over 500 people, and you can correct me on the number, but somewhere to about 500 people that have been in protest of this project. That brings us to how this property can serve West Kendall without adding more homes to an already congested area. This property was, as you stated, counselor, previously approved for a three-story office building. I believe, and I don't know if this is true, but I believe that it was one of the residents that pointed out that it could be a medical facility, which is very interesting, considering we don't have a lot of those within the district. West Kendall needs a better balance between housing and places where residents can work. Now, I want to reiterate that I think you've done a phenomenal job here. I know you want to hear it, man, but I think you've done a phenomenal job here. I really wish, respectfully to the residents, I really wish that you guys would have had a conversation. Because if you're saying that you reached out to them, because they're saying no. But if you're saying you reached out to them, what I said on the record stands, we sent the emails that went unrespondent. And when I saw Mr. Reyes earlier and expressed that, he basically told me that there had been no reason to meet. So, I mean, that's all I said. I made my efforts, and we have emails that we could show. But we don't need to belabor that point. Also, Mr. Winker, once hired, is well aware that I'm the counsel. So, Mr. Winker also. I don't mean to throw him under the bus, but if you get hired to work on an application, it's not uncourteous to reach out to opposing counsel and say, hey, I'm working on this application now. Just a little point. And sometimes conversations are important, and I know they're important to you, Commissioner. And so I just wanted to note that whatever the vote is today, whatever the decision is today, maybe for the next time, someone will say, hey, we really probably should sit down. By the way, as I know they've done in the past, this is not the first time I've done with a concerned citizens of West State. My firm and my former and my partners have done it a long time. So it's just a point that I made because it was a little frustrating. But continue. I don't disagree with you. I got it out of my system, so I'm good. I don't disagree with you. I find that a little bit disappointing. I'm sure Mr. Winker has an excuse as to why he didn't do it. But especially given that you are counsel as well, Mr. Winker, I would have appreciated just having a conversation. And I was inclined to defer this because of that. But it's just, it's, we're at a place with all of these things that are piling up. It's just not, it's not feasible for the area. And so for that, I'm going to move to deny the item. Do we have a second? Or just a second? Through the chair? Yes. I just want to clarify the commissioner's motion. Commissioner, is your intention to... Wait, this is an appeal. Right. Okay, so I'm moving to approve the appeal. I support the resident's appeal, so I'm moving to support the resident's appeal. Thank you, thank you, commissioner. So, Abby, put that in proper posture and posture in the words. Of course. So it would be to approve the appeal, which would be to overturn the CSAP's decision and deny the application. Thank you. Do we have a second? Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, second. Do we have discussion? Commissioner Gilbert. Incorporate my comments from the last one to this one. We're good. Thank you. I have a question. Commissioner Bermudez. Maybe you, Abby. The Publix that is right by there, when was that approved? It's right next door. Yeah. It's right by there. You're recognized, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner, I'm not sure. I mean, it's right to the north of it. It's right there. We're not sure when it's approved, but we can check that for you. Do you remember if anybody objected to that rather large facility right by them? Yeah. I don't remember that hearing application. I may have not been here for that. Yeah. And, Abby, I don't know if this is the proper place and tell me if I'm out of line, but can you let us know legally? I know there's a separate scenario here, and I assume that whatever happens today, either side has a right to then appeal this decision. Is that correct? Yes, Commissioner. But there's already an existing appeal. Is that correct? That decision. Right. Today's decision, to the extent that a party has standing and meets the appropriate legal requirements, there are procedures for appeal of this board's decision here. And then my final question would be, staff, and I think Commissioner Gilbert asked this before, what actually brings more traffic, commercial or residential? Commissioner, before I answer that question, staff looked it up quick for the publics. It was built in 2003, 2004, okay? So for the traffic for this application, the office building that's approved on the property would generate 56 PMP power trips, and this proposal for the apartments was on 35 PMP power trips. So that would mean residential would have less traffic than commercial in this case? In this case, correct. Thank you. Commissioner Regalado? Thank you. You know, as in the item before, I'm happy to support the commissioner of the district. I'm a little concerned about the reasons that we're doing this. And first of all, I'm glad that you made the point about opposing counsel and not reaching out. That's actually one of his things. And I think it's important that we recognize that, that there are certain people that over and over just aren't collaborative. That being said, you know, to the neighbors, first of all, thank you for coming, and I'm happy to support the commissioner of the district. But I think if the idea is to routinely say that we don't want residential in this area, you have to understand that the property owners may not do commercial, right? So my concern is that there is an impact here to the market and what's happening. Because when people buy a certain piece of land, it's not easy for them to switch from residential to commercial. They can move within residential, but to switch to commercial, they would have to sell that property and do something else. That being said, if that's what you want for your neighborhood, then maybe the appropriate step is to create some sort of moratorium on residential, as opposed to kind of pick, you know, applications and pick winners and losers, right? And say, no residential for you, yes residential for you, because there's not a lot of consistency here. But if there is a mindset to make a change to the comp plan that prefers commercial to residential, then there's a better vehicle to do that, right? And I think that vehicle would be a moratorium, right? But then that would give everybody notice that don't even bother bringing an application for a residential, don't even bother, you know, putting in the time and the effort to bring that application, because that's not the vision for that area. So I would tell the commissioner of the district to consider that, because this, I mean, these things will be appealed. And the concern is, as we always discuss, these applications cost time and money. These are property owners. They have property rights also. And while we're here to support the neighbors, we also have a balance, right? And what we don't want is for the state to preempt us. You know, that's why we have things like Live Local. There's a lot of unintended consequences that result from decisions being made in this manner. Thank you so much. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Mr. Cohen-Higgins. Senator Garcia. What are we voting on? Abby, please clear it up again for the record for me. Thank you. Of course, the motion would be to approve the appeal, overturn the CSAB's decision, which would result in a denial and deny the application. And I would defer to the clerk of how, you know, they prefer the. So a yes on the Commissioner's motion would be a denial of the application. And a denial of the application and approving the appeal. Everybody's clear? Thank you. Madam Clerk, can we try that roll call again, please? Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Senator Garcia. Commissioner Gilbert. Commissioner Gonzalez. Four. Commissioner Hardiman. Four. Commissioner Lopez. Commissioner Milian Orbis. Commissioner Regalado. Orr. Commissioner Steinberg. Commissioner Bastion. Commissioner Bermudez. Yes. Vice Chairman McGee. Yes. Chairman Rodriguez. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you so much. Thank you all. Have a good afternoon. Thank you to everyone. Madam, Mr. Attorney, let's take item 4B, 4B supplement, and 4B1. Does the director need to read anything into the record at this time? Please exit quietly. Thank you so much. Yes, Mr. Chair. So this CDMP item is a standard application before you today for first reading, public hearing, and transmittal. I will reference the resolution for transmittal and also read the ordinance title for first reading. The board can vote on the resolution and ordinance together by roll call for each item. Item 4B, the resolution pertaining to out-of-cycle application number CDMP 2026-0010, filed by Miami-Dade County Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources. This is directing the transmittal, and then the ordinance is 4B1, ordinance relating to Miami-Dade County Comprehensive Development Master Plan, providing disposition of application number CDMP 2026-0010, filed by Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources, as an out-of-cycle application to amend the interpretive text of the agriculture and open land use categories and the land use element of the county CDMP, to allow cargo container storage and stacking and designated areas foreign in conjunction with commercial vehicle storage and clarify the agriculture text pertaining to temporary parking and storage of passenger automobiles that serve commercial vehicle storage uses, providing severability exclusion from the code and effective date. That's item 4B, 4B supplement, 4B1. This is a public hearing. Thank you so much. Now public hearing is open. I have no names that have signed up for public hearing. Are there any persons out there who would like to speak on this item during this public hearing at this particular moment? Seeing none coming to the podium. Public hearing is officially closed. Well, yeah, no. What about the applicant? Do we have the applicant here? The applicant in this case, Mr. Chair, is the department. This is filed at the direction of this board. Thank you. So seeing, hearing that, the public hearing is now closed. Commissioner Gilbert, I believe this has been brought by you also? Yes, yes, Mr. Chair, I have a motion on the item. Would you read the motion, the amendment? Yes, Mr. Commissioner, I understand is that you would like to approve the application, but with a change. The change would be with respect to the open land category. The height of the stacking would be changed from 4 to 6 high. Yeah. Thank you. So, yes, thank you. That's your motion plus the amendment, right? All right, do we, Commissioner Hardiman, are you seconding this or are you questioning? I have a question. Okay, question. So, I'm not, well, I want to know what areas this generally affects because there are certain areas, because I don't have the use map in front of me, and as I understand, it's not attached to this item where I can see where it affects all of our districts. And so, I'm not particularly a fan of having stacked storage in certain parts of the district because we want to develop certain parts of our district. And so, in some places, there's a desire, there's a need for that stacked storage. In other places, there's a need for additional housing and other development, and people are using certain plots of land for trucks and such. And so, I want to sort of alleviate that from the particular district that I represent because we don't have that necessary, that need that other places have. And so, do you know if this legislation would create that sort of use in the area that I represent? Through the, through the, through the, through the, through the, through the Chair Commissioner, Jerry Bell, Planning Director. So, this particular item addresses basically two areas that are designated for truck parking. There are areas that are outside of the urban development boundary. The first area is the open land one sub area. That's about a, that's about 6,560 acre area. That's part of that open land sub area up in the northwestern part of the county where this would pertain to. And then also, there's an area down south in the agricultural area, a smaller, I think it's 240 acres, designated agriculture. So, this item would address, would be specific to those areas. Which does not include District 3. Does not, does not include, yes. Thank you very much. That's it, Commissioner? All right. Commissioner Steinberg. Followed by Commissioner Regalato. No, I just, I guess, just so I better understand, I know we always hear about truck shortage areas that are needed. Like, we always have this debate up here. And so now, how much of the area would be designated from the truck parking to storage? And would that storage be allowed to be rented out? Is it part of an, like, can you give us just a little bit of clarity as to why it's needed? And how much of the area would be then designated for storage? So, Commissioner, in the, in the, in the, in the open land one sub area, that's the area in the northwest, 25% of the truck parking designated could be used for container storage. And the southern area, the area in the agriculture, it's 20% of the area could be used for, for container storage. Okay, that's, okay, so I guess to the, to the sponsor, what, what is the vision for this? Because that seems like a lot of space for, for storage. And then, again, the four to six, anywhere else in the county, do we have six feet high stacking? And, oh, and by the way, and when you, can you repeat again where this would affect? Yes. And that's, and those are my questions. Thank you. Yes, again, it would affect the, the areas outside the urban development boundary. The first is open land one, open land one sub area, which is in the northwestern part of the county. Where are you, and then these? Commissioner, to, to, if I may, to the chair, Gary Terrell, chief of the metropolitan planning section, specifically located the open land sub area one, the area to the northwest of the county, west of the turnpike, north of Okeechobee Road, right? And the other area, down south, it's east of the turnpike, north of southwest 248th Street, and just north of 240th Street. So those are the two specific areas that would be impacted. Mr. Chair? Let her finish up, and, and once Raquel is done, it will come to you, because he's answering her now. Oh, she asked a question to the sponsor. Yeah. Okay. I think the question about, I have not addressed the question about the stacking six. Where we see six is in the, is in more than like a logistics hub. For example, the Terra application, which was, which was adopted a few years ago, and it's, as a terminal. It's meant to be more logistics, so you do have six that's allowed there. Generally, if you look at areas through the county, for example, areas inside the urban development boundary that are industrial and office, those are generally permitted up to four. You okay? You want to? First stacking actually frees up spaces for trucks. So it, it sounds counterintuitive, but if you're able to stack, it actually frees up spaces for trucks. We're a logistics center. We're bringing in more and more goods. We're, we're, and we need to create capacity for that. And, and so we, a lot of times we get into decisions we, we might, and criteria we might not ought to. The difference between four and six, from my perspective, and difference between, you know, moving stuff in and out in stores, from my perspective, is, is going to be the business model decision, what they make more money doing. And so we know we don't want these things parked in our interior neighborhoods. Uh, so we know we want to create capacity outside. This doesn't affect any place where anybody lives. So why we wouldn't be allowing them to actually maximize the use of their property, uh, especially when their ability to maximize that endures to our benefit because the goods are primarily coming in through our airport and our seaport. Um, it, it seems like a common, common sense type of economic decision for me. Thank you. Commissioner Regalato. Thank you. I want to thank the maker of the motion. Um, so just to explain. We had an issue with truck parking, so we endeavored on this whole thing to find truck parking. Um, we have an issue with containers. Um, they're popping up everywhere because we have no place to put them. We stack them in, at the port, and we stack them at the airport, and they actually take up a lot of space. Um, and they're very difficult to move. They're showing up in industrial sites. So this is a way to contain them into certain locations in the same way that we did it with truck parking. Um, so I want to thank the maker, um, for adding this, and it is a component of the same industry. The same folks that are doing, you know, um, the trucking are also doing the container part. My question, um, is in, I, I, I understand that wherever there is truck parking, now we can have container stacking, right? That's pretty much the premise of the thing. Um, but I know that staff is also working on inland ports. So does this also include the ability of inland ports to do this stacking? Because I think we might save a little bit of time there because there are currently two different locations being considered for inland ports. So as like a friendly amendment, if we could also apply this to an area that the county has designated for an inland port. Uh, thank you to the maker. Through the chair, I would accept that. Okay. Thank you. Madam attorney, you, you, you, you got that. Thank you. Are there any questions, any more discussions on this item? Commissioner Bermudez. Yeah. Um, I'm going to support it because of, uh, and it does in part impact my district. Um, because I understand it's an issue that, uh, and I do agree with Commissioner Regalado that the Sinlin port discussion has to take place at some point to really, uh, clarify this. It's, it's something that everybody mentions, but, uh, somehow it gets lost in the maelstrom because if we are going to continue to be, uh, a hub for, uh, you know, business in the rest of Florida and the rest of the East coast, it's not just the port or the airport. It's getting these things moved along rail other ways. So I'm going to support it. Um, and, uh, uh, I don't, Commissioner Goodwin's convinced me that that two, the two difference from four to six is definitely not going to be, uh, something that is so drastic that would make it, uh, even, uh, it would have a positive impact in clearing more space, uh, precisely. If in fact there was truck parking in the area, so I'm going to support it. Um, but I want to make sure that we do have that discussion on inland ports at some point, again, instead of kicking the can on the road. Thank you, Commissioner. Um, so what we're going to do, we do need a second on the, so Mr. Commission. I had a second for, um, Commissioner Lopez. Um, Madam Clerk, please call the roll on the item as amended. Senator Garcia. Commissioner Gilbert. Commissioner Gonzalez. Commissioner Hardiman. Commissioner Lopez. Yes. Commissioner Melian Norbis. Commissioner Regalado. Yes. Commissioner Steinberg. Commissioner Bastien. Commissioner Bermudez. Yes. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Four. Vice Chairman McGee. Yes. Chairman Rodriguez. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Um, Mr. Attorney, let's take item 4C, 4C supplement and 4C1. Does, does the director need to read anything into the record? Um, I will just, uh, reference the, the resolution, um, for transmittal, um, is item 4C and then the ordinance is, ordinance relating to Miami-Dade County Conference of Development Master Plan, providing, disposition of application number CDMP 2026-0011 filed by the Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources as an out-of-cycle application to amend the water, sewer, and solid waste element in various policies in the water and sewer sub-element of the Conference of Development Master Plan and to adopt by reference the Miami-Dade County Water Supply Facilities Work Plan dated May 2026, providing severability exclusion from the code and an effective date. This is item 4C, 4C supplement, 4C1, and it's a public hearing. Thank you very much. Uh, public hearing is currently open. Are there any, uh, persons out there who wish to speak on this item at this time? Seeing none, seeing I don't have a list at this particular moment, public hearing is closed. Um, Commissioner Regulato, would you like to open us up with this item? Yes. Um, we've been working on this for some time. As many of you know, we've been working very hard to update all of our water and sewer plants. Um, and this is a necessary component to that. So, um, I move the item. With the item seconded by Commissioner Gilbert. Um, Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Commissioner Gilbert. Commissioner Hardiman. Commissioner Lopez. Commissioner Milian Orbis. Commissioner Regulato. Commissioner Steinberg. Commissioner Bermudez. Yes. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. For. Senator Garcia. Vice Chairman McGee. Yes. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. All right, we're almost there, ladies and gentlemen, we're almost there. Mr. Attorney, let's take item 4A, 4A Supplement, 4A Supplement 2, and 4A1. Does the director need to read anything into the record? Again, I'll just reference the transmittal resolution as item 4A. There are the two supplements. And then 4A1 is the ordinance relating to Miami-Dade County Conference of Development Master Plan, providing disposition of application number CDMP 2025-0022, followed by Midwest REO 5 LLC in the October 2025 cycle to amend the county CDMP, providing severability exclusion from the code and effective date. These items are for public hearing. Thank you so much. Public hearing is currently open. I don't have a list. Are there any persons out there who would like to speak at this particular moment on this particular item? Seeing none, public hearing is closed. Let's see here. We have, yeah, it's a countywide, it's a countywide item. Do we have the appellant? Do we have the applicant here? Yes, sir. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. James Williams with Gunster Law. This is located at 600 Brickwell Avenue, Miami, Florida, 33131. I'm here representing the applicant Midwest REO V LLC in connection to the CDMP application before you. How much time do you need, sir? I could, if 10 minutes would suffice. You're going to lose calm pretty much. All right, so then I'm- Does three minutes work for you? I'll make it work. I appreciate that. Thank you so much. Thank you, thank you, thank you. So, let me just go right into the request. What you have before you is a unique opportunity to amend the CDMP, the business and office category, of the land use element to permit vertical development that will be a mixed use of industrial and office and commercial space. One of the main things is, what is a business support center? It's a vertical mixed use development with industrial and office and commercial, something that you're unable to really do right now with the CDMP. And so, what we've done is we've created this category where if you have a minimum of five acres, no more than ten acres, you have direct access to a major roadway. You're within one mile of a terminal that is designated on the land use plan, and you're not within 660 feet of any residential designation, you can have a vertical mixed use building that consists of no more than 90% light industrial uses with at least 10% commercial and office uses. Two points, three points I just want to quickly raise. With such a project, because they're close to terminals, which are your airports and seaports, you have FAA regulations that we still have to adhere to. You have Miami-Dade County regulations, airport regulations that we have to adhere to. One of the provisions and safeguards that have been implemented into the text is that whatever developments come through as part of this are designed to avoid detrimental impacts to adjacent and adjoining uses through buffering and other means. I also want to point out that with this text, it does not permit data centers or telecommunication hubs. Really, what you're used to seeing in Miami-Dade County is on the left-hand side of your screen. All of these renderings are conceptual images. Just for illustrative purposes, developments may completely vary, right? But the concept is the same. You're typically seeing 10-acre sites that you need for industrial parks, the horizontal on the left-hand side of the screen. What we're proposing is a more efficient type of industrial project that has ground floor retail commercial, is the intent really to incorporate at least 10% commercial office space for the surrounding areas. Because we want to do a vertical industrial building in half of the amount of acreage that's typically needed. So that's why we have the minimum of five acres, maximum of 10. We can take now a 10-acre industrial park, it's the intent of it, and put it on five acres vertically and have neighborhood services for that area. The way that we've implemented it is, as I said, through these terminals. And so I put the requirements again on the left-hand side. You can see the terminals. Some of the terminals are on the screen. Opa-Laka, Miami International, Port of Miami, Miami Executive. Here's just an example. This is a very tailored approach, right? So if you're looking at Miami International, you see the within-one-mile lines. You have to have a business and office designation. That's the area in red, right? There's very few areas. This is not a crazy request that opens the floodgates. It should be looked at as more of a pilot program because we're trying to bring in uses that have not been really brought in, developments, in the United States through this implementation of the text. Thank you so much. Are there any questions to the presenter at this point? Commissioner Regalado, you're recognized. Yeah. So I get it. I understand what you're trying to do. In terms of the parking, what is your change to the parking? Are you changing anything in the parking? Are you leaving the comp plan parking the same? The comp plan will remain the same. That will be addressed as part of the zoning text amendment that would have to end up following this. Right, but one of the issues that we have in these industrial parcels is the surface parking, right? So I just, if you're, if the idea is to kind of shrink the footprint, I would assume that you would want a parking lot. Well, you would have, so it's all conceptual, right, until you get to the design phase. But the idea is because you're going to be going vertical, you'll have parking spaces as you go up to those units. So the parking will be addressed. Within the actual site, you can have surface parking also mixed in with the actual vertical floor. Because what you'll have, the intent is to have these trucks, instead of just going to the ground floor, they can actually go up. There's enough space on those, whether it's in the back or on the side, depending on how you design it. You'll have the ramp system that takes those trucks up to the actual unit. The unit size is going to be addressed as part of zoning, right, because the intent is to have smaller 3,000, 5,000 square foot units. It's not your typical. It's more for logistics, warehouses, fulfillment centers. That was going to be my next question. So are you, I mean, because I didn't see a limitation on the uses. So you're tying the location to the terminals, but you're not tying the uses. So we have light industrial uses or commercial and office. But that's not what I'm talking about. Yeah. Because you're talking about logistics, import, export, tied to the terminals. So why aren't we tying the uses to the terminals? Well, it would be within one mile of the terminals. And the reason we did it that way is really just the intent behind it. We want to have these centers in business and office areas and in industrial areas that are typically within one mile of those major airports for transportation purposes. And the way we've done it with the major roadways is that you have to be along a major roadway. So if your property is at that point. But what you're not understanding is by saying light industrial, that actually encompasses more than the uses that would be tethered to the terminals that you're using to anchor the exception. So I'm saying that if you're going to have you're going to create an exception, right? You should mirror the uses to the terminals because what you don't want is for any light industrial, right? So I can think of 10 different light industrial that have absolutely nothing to do with the airport and seaport. And we kind of wouldn't want it there because we would want, from an economic perspective, right, to really emphasize the connection between the terminal and the site. So, I mean, would you be open to an amendment that ties the industrial activity to the terminal somehow? So the intent was to have it close proximity, but not to tie the actual uses specifically only to the logistics fulfillment. It's primary intent, but if there is other. I'm not saying the logistic fulfillment. I'm saying the industry. It's different. I think that we could look into it in the zoning text when that amendment comes through, but I think that would be a bit of a problem for the developer because the idea was to have a certain range of, like, for instance, if you wanted to have just warehouses, right, or simply a different type of light industrial use, that it's still compatible with the retail in the site, but it has some flexibility in terms of the uses so that we don't have to go forward with a special use every time if it doesn't comply with one of the listed industrial. I understand. I'm just saying consider, you know, you mentioned data centers, right, and that it wouldn't be a data center. Correct. But it could be a fiber hub, right? Like, it could be, like, there's a million other things that I can think of that are not necessarily tied to the terminals or to the business done at those terminals. So even if it's broader, I mean, I think you should consider some broader uses that really call to the synchronicity between the terminal. I'm not saying that it has to be limited to that, but tether it somehow so that it's not a free-for-all. Light industrial is a lot of different things. Yeah, and that's a great point. There is a lot that could be adhered to, and certainly if you're doing light industrial, you have uses that wouldn't be compatible with a neighborhood surrounding area. So absolutely, I think we'll work with staff to tailor those specific types of uses. Thank you. Thank you. Does that satisfy your concern, Commissioner Regalado? Yes. Thank you. Commissioner Emiliano Orbis. Thank you. Yeah, I had a question to the staff. I know that you recommended, and this might be to Commissioner Regalado's concern, there was a change from industrial to focusing in on just business support center. Does that address the concern? Because I agree with the commissioner. So does that address what she's asking about, if we were to adopt it with the change? So the change from industrial to business does not exactly address the tying the use to the terminals. It does not. Expound on that, please, to the administration. Yes, Mr. Chair. So the text as proposed with changes, right, allows for the integration of light industrial uses into these commercial areas, but the uses allowed under this proposal are not specifically linked to the airport or to the port facilities that it would be located, proximate to, right, right, it's going to be uses that are compatible with and generally support the existing businesses that are within the area. But I thought that's what Commissioner Regalado was getting at to make sure there's a tethering. So my understanding, Mr. Chair, is that the, of the tethering is that the industrial uses that would be allowed would be more oriented to support the port facilities, but the text as proposed does not make that specific link. Get it. Give me one second. Commissioner Millian Orbis, are you? Well, I believe, given the conversation, are, this is coming back, right? This is a transmittal? Correct. So in that time, can the applicant work with staff to make sure that we hone in on the use or tether it to the use? Yes, that could be done. Okay. That's okay with you, Commissioner. Okay. Commissioner Stomper, did you have a question? No, I just, I guess I wanted a clarification as to exactly what would be, I guess just to have an understanding exactly what would be allowed, because we're changing this and this is affecting more than one location. So this is a broader kind of, you know, impact. You're recognized. Through the Chair, yes, Commissioner, the application allows for locations within one mile of terminal designated properties. So all the airport support and the Terra truck parking terminal area that was, that is west of 137th Avenue. So, yeah, all these locations would be eligible if they have the business and office designation. And if there are eligible parcels with the business and office designation, then light industrial would be allowed on those properties if they meet the criteria outline. Does that satisfy you, Commissioner? I didn't hear her question, Commissioner. I just wanted clarification on exactly where this would, because it's a broader reach, so where would this impact? And what exactly under light industrial would those uses actually detail? Because you brought up some points, Commissioner Regalado, and I just want clarification with what is in front of us right now, amended or not amended. What would the uses under light industrial allow for to ensure that we're not opening up the door to something that we're not thinking of at this current moment? That's all. Commissioner Regalado. Yeah, and just to give you some examples, because I think it should be tied to the industry. When I talk about the terminals, I'm talking about, like, what's happening in the industry. So, for example, under our code, you know, under light industrial, you could have a car showroom, right, that has nothing to do with the airport or the seaport, right? It's very broad. You could do biomedical that has nothing, you know, maybe it has something to do. I don't know. You would have to make the argument. It could have light manufacturing. I think we would be fine with light manufacturing if it was in the area of aeronomics, right? It could be warehouse, you know, and if it's warehousing goods that are coming from the airport and the seaport, you know, that makes perfect sense, right? Or that have some sort of nexus to the airport and the seaport. I just, I think it's a very, light industrial is very, very broad under our comp plan. So, I think if you could just tailor it more to, like, the business that is occurring or the industry, maybe you don't want to tether it to the activity that's happening at the terminal because you may be doing something that's not related specifically to the terminal, but maybe the better option is to kind of the industry. I think the industry is the broadest one, like, somehow in service of the industry that's conducted at the terminal. So, you could be near the port, but you could be doing aeronautics, right? I mean, you could be near the airport and doing something that's, like, port-related as long as it's somehow tethered, right, to the industry and what's happening there in terms of cargo or passenger or support services for those terminals. Thank you. So, we're going to move this thing along. Was that a question to him or it was just a statement for the record, Commissioner? No, I'm just trying to clarify, you know, because I don't want – I understand if I were a developer, I wouldn't want to be limited to the activity that is currently happening at the terminal because that activity could change, right? But I think if it's – if the limit to the uses is tied to the industry, I think that's a little bit broader, but not as broad as what's currently before us, which I think is what's causing us concern. So, you hear her concerns, and I take it before it gets back, you're going to have all those issues addressed? Yes, sir. Okay. Madam Attorney, for the record, can you clear up exactly what it is we're going to make a motion to pass today on this item? Of course, and I'm not sure. I don't know if there is a motion on that. There's a recommendation. What is the recommendation of the administration? The recommendation from the administration would be to transmit and adopt with change per staff's recommendation. And I know – I think Commissioner Millian Orbis recommended, I think, an additional change to ask the applicant to work with staff on revisions related to tethering this to the use. I wasn't sure if the commissioner wanted to incorporate that into a motion. Commissioner? Yes. All right. So, if that's the case, do we have a motion to – a motion to move this as amended based on Commissioner Millian Orbis' addition to the recommendation? Yeah. I mean, I would say to the industry, but, yeah. Okay. So, it was moved by Commissioner Lopez, seconded by Commissioner Millian Orbis. I have another question. Sure. I know it's going to come up, so I wanted to clarify that. We have several ports, right? We have several airports, and one of them being the TAM Miami Airport is near the UDB. Is there a possibility for this type of use to be done near or out – you know, touching near the UDB or anything like that? Because I know we – this is a very specific type of parcel that's needed to have this. Administration? Yes. Through the chair. So, for properties that are located inside the UDB, there is a possibility that they could take advantage of this. Of course, applications can request redesignation to business and office and then become eligible if they meet the other criteria. But for properties outside the UDB, there would have to be an application to expand the UDB to then make it, you know, ultimately eligible. So, you know, I don't have – inside the UDB, there's a possibility. But, of course, for areas outside, then that's a whole nother process. Okay. So, right now, this – it would not be a possibility to have this type of center or application that we are considering outside as of right now. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Senate motion has been made. Senate have a second. Madam Attorney – I mean, not Madam Attorney. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Commissioner Hardiman. Commissioner Lopez. Yes. Commissioner Melian Orbis. Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Steinberg. Commissioner Bermitas. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Senator Garcia. Senator Garcia. Commissioner Gilbert. Vice Chairman McGee. Yes. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. Mr. Attorney, let's take item 7B and 7B supplement and its companion item in zoning AC2. Does it directly need to read anything into the record? In just a moment, yes. This CDMP item is a standard application before your – for public hearing and final adoption. This item includes a concurrent zoning application. A single public hearing will be held in accordance with quasi-editial principles and incorporated into the record as to both the CDMP and zoning items. I'll now read the ordinance title for the item, and separate votes shall be taken on the CDMP and zoning items. Once I conclude reading the title, the zoning director can read the concurrent zoning application number. This is item 7B, an ordinance relating to the Comprehensive Development Master Plan, providing disposition of application number CDMP 2025-0006, located between Biscayne Boulevard and Northeast 14th Avenue, and between Northeast 114 Terrace and Northeast 115 Street, abutting on the south side of Biscayne Shores and Gardens Park, filed by Biscayne Shores Development Group, LLC, as an out-of-cycle application to amend the county CDMP, providing severability, exclusion from the code, and an effective date. That's item 7B, 7B Supplement, and the companion zoning item is 8C2. The zoning director can now read that. Thank you. Okay. You're right, sir. Application 8C2, Biscayne Shores Development Group, application number Z2025000097. We've had no protests and no way to support this application. Mr. Chairman, we recently received a condition from Durham, a new condition to add to this. If you'd like, I can read into the record now. Please. Okay. This will be condition 10, that the applicant submit a separate Durham covenant to the Department of Regulatory and Economic Resources within 30 days of the approval of this application, unless the director grants a time extension for a good cause shown. A phase 1 study shall be completed, and any necessary action taken prior to the conditions of a building permit. Thank you. And, Mr. Chair, if I can just read the condition that the applicant provided. Please. Of course. So this would be for the separate Durham covenant, and further, the language would be subject to minor clarifying edits to the extent approved by the director and would provide for administrative modification by the director. And this is the language from the applicant. Durham site assessment. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Including all supporting documentation based on the report, the PRS, EMES, or EMRD may require additional environmental site assessments in support of the site development. All construction plans, drainage, stormwater management plans, dewatering plans, environmental site assessments, soil improvement plans, or equivalent development plans that allow site development, shall require the prior approval from the PRS, EMES, and or EMRD as it relates to environmental contamination issues. And again, this was proffered by the developer to be a separate Durham Covenant. Thank you. And for the record, at this particular time, public hearing is open for both items, for both 7B and AC2. Seeing no one coming to the podium, I don't want to see no one coming to the podium. I'll also have Tracy Salvin, please come to the podium as part of public hearing at this particular moment to make your remarks. Good afternoon, everyone. Tracy Slavin's address at 3800 Northeast 1st Avenue, Suite 200. I'm here to speak in support of this application. My clients, our PBVI Biscayne, own the property next door and are fully in support of the growth of this area. We feel that this helps to redevelop a long vacant corridor on Biscayne Boulevard. It provides additional housing units that will be supported by the transit corridor adjacent to this property. My client's building a Publix grocery store that will help promote walkability here, and this is an excellent project to help revitalize this portion of Biscayne Boulevard. Thank you. Thank you so much. And to the applicant, how much time would you need, Commissioner Hardiman? Thank you. Hold on. Hold on to the applicant. Commissioner Hardiman, this is in your district. Yeah, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Considering the fact that what's provided in the record is sufficient, as long as there's also a declaration of restriction that was offered by council to be included with this item that includes public benefits, which are inclusive of endowment scholarships, I would move to approve item 7B and its supplements and item 8C2. Thank you. Before we do that, let me go ahead and close public hearing. Public hearing is officially closed. Would you have anything to say? Through the chair. Listen, you're going to lose quorum. He's already put it on the record. I'm going to be very quick. Just to clarify, the zoning condition and covenant replaces the condition in Durham's recommendation on the comprehensive plan amendment that there be a comprehensive plan covenant. We've replaced it with a zoning covenant. I just want to get confirmation from staff on that. Is that correct? Yes, it is. Does that change anything for you, Commissioner Hardiman, as your position on this? I don't think so. Okay. Public hearing is the first. For Cal 200 South Biscayne Boulevard. Thank you. Mr. Chair, can I just clarify the motions? And this would need to be separate votes, one on the CDMP, one on the zoning. For the CDMP, my understanding is that the motion, subject to the Commissioner confirming, would be to adopt as transmitted with changes in acceptance of the proffered declaration of restriction. I believe the covenant was distributed, the most recent covenant was distributed this morning, and with the standard 10-day condition. And then the separate vote on the zoning would be to adopt per staff recommendation with acceptance of the proffered declaration of restriction with the 10-day condition, and also with the revised condition as read by the director and myself. Thank you. So, again, let me officially close public hearing. Motion that was made. That is correct. So moved. Yeah. And second by Commissioner Gilbert. And we're on item 7B at this particular moment. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Oh, okay. Oh, no, give me one second. Commissioner. Thank you. I was just going to make a comment that why I will not be supporting the item, and it's because uniquely we are just abutting my district, and there will be impact in my district. But I just wanted to let you, without going into all the details as to why, because I see the support is there, I do want you to know that I do have concerns about the impact to my district. And at the right time, I'd like to just have a policy conversation in the future about, you know, the type of when we have RTZ zoning and we have the development along the RTZ, and then we're going above that, that there should be maybe more justifications. Thank you. Thank you. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. 7B. Commissioner Lopez. Commissioner Milian Orbis. Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Steinberg. Commissioner Bermudez. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Commissioner Gilbert. Commissioner Hardiman. Four. Vice Chairman McGee. Yes. Motion passes 7 to 1. Thank you. Now let's go to 8C2. Thank you, everyone. 8C2. Madam Clerk. Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Steinberg. Commissioner Bermudez. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Commissioner Gilbert. Commissioner Hardiman. Commissioner Lopez. Vice Chairman McGee. Yes. Motion passes 7 to 1. And Mr. Chairman, just to be clear, because there was like a delay in time, I'm just going to say this, because this is a, well, I move to approve item AC2 with the recommendations that have been made on the record. We went to the vote, but we didn't separate the, I don't want any issues. Yeah. So that's my motion. So that's your motion, seconded by Commissioner Lopez. Madam Attorney, do we have to vote again? I think in abundance of cautions, we should. Commissioner, I mean, it's at the will of the board. I did read the zoning, or restated the zoning motion. That's what I thought. At some point before the vote, but, so I don't think a re-vote is necessary. It would make me sleep comfortable? No problem. Madam Clerk, let's recall the vote on the AC2. Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Steinberg. Commissioner Bermudez. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Commissioner Gilbert. Commissioner Hardiman. Commissioner Lopez. Vice Chairman McGee. Yes. Motion passes 7 to 1. Thank you. Any other, anything else, Commissioner Hardiman? That's okay. Thank you. All right, Mr. Attorney, or Madam Attorney, let's take Item 8C5. Does the director need to read anything into the record? Yes. Okay. Application 8C5, Senate Beyond Incorporated, application number Z2025000193. We've had no protests and no way to support this application. Thank you so much. Public hearing is officially open at this time. No speakers have been provided at this particular moment. Commissioner from District 12, this is your district, your item. How would you like to- Like to move it. Move it. Approval conditions. Let me, okay. Let me go ahead and close public hearing. Public hearing is officially closed. Item has been moved by the Commissioner of the District, Commissioner Bermuda. Second by Commissioner Gilbert. Roll call. Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Seinberg. Yes. Commissioner Bermudez. Yes. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Commissioner Gilbert. Commissioner Hardiman. Commissioner Lopez. Commissioner Melian Orbis. Vice Chairman McGee. Yes. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Attorney, we're coming. We're bringing this thing in for landing. Mr. Attorney, let's take Item 8C7. Does the director need to read anything into the record? Yes. Application 8C7, Gray A Porus Alfaro. Application number Z, 2025-000271. We've had no protest and no waiver support for this application. Thank you so much. I do not have a list of those wishing to speak on public hearing. Public hearing is officially open, but I do not have anyone on this list here. Is there anyone out there who would like to speak on this item 8C7? Sir, I see you standing at the podium. Is this an item you would like to speak on? I'm sorry? I'm gray. Okay. Thank you. All right. Public hearing is closed. Public hearing is open. Now public hearing is closed. I see this is District 3. This is your item in your district. How would you like to handle it, Commissioner Hardiman? Is there a presentation you wanted to make on the item? Okay. Seeing that there's no presentation on the item, I see that it was recommended for approval with conditions on this item. However, upon my review of this item, I don't see conditions worthy of approval. So, for instance, when I'm looking at page two of this request, there's a 7.5-foot required setback, an interior west setback. Well, request number one, none use variance to permit an existing detached cabana to setback three feet, where five feet is required. On the rear south property line, they want to move the setback to 3.25 feet, where 7.5 feet is required. From the interior west property line, request number two is for a non-use variance to permit an existing detached pergola setback to 2 feet, where five feet is required, from the rear south of the property line. And to setback to 2 feet, where 7.5 feet is required, from the interior west property line. Also, request number three is a non-use variance to permit an existing attached storage shed to 3 feet, where five feet is required, from the interior west property line. Request number four is to permit an existing portable hot tub to a minimum of 3 feet, where 10 feet is required, from the interior east property line. And number five is to permit a rear yard lot coverage of 36.6%, where 30% is required. Board members, if you go through and you look at the exhibits regarding these, these items are all, when you look at a pergola, outdoor seating, dining, hot tub, and things like that, and some pieces of it, for instance, I'm looking at page, well, it looks like I'm evidencing page 43 of the item, 43 or 54. You see the distance between what is this property and the next property, and you can barely walk through that side if you were doing so. So, same thing on page 44, which is another setback, you'll see that it's impeding into the setback requirement. If you look at page 46, it shows you what the pergola looks like, and on page 47, it is nearly attached to the adjacent property on this fence line. Page 49 also shows the exact same thing on the other side of the pergola. And so, although we don't have anyone here that is, that is objecting to this, I find this application to be objectionable. The last page of page 54 shows a hot tub that is, I mean, even with the concrete floor that is just near the fence, that is certainly, they're requesting two and a half feet, and there's a 10-foot setback requirement there. If this were my neighbor, I wouldn't be happy with this circumstance, because we're pushing all of the entertainment aspects to this home towards the interior setbacks of this property requirement. This property is over 7,000 square feet, so it's larger than the average single-family home, and, well, the property size is larger than the average single-family home. And I don't see a reason why this board should be supportive of this item. So, I will move to deny the recommendation of the administration and disallow this application. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second by Commissioner Lopez. Any discussion? Seeing none, Madam Clerk. Commissioner Bermudez. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Commissioner Gilbert. Commissioner Hardiman. Commissioner Lopez. Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Steinberg. Vice Chairman McGee. Yes. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. All right, Madam Clerk. No, not Madam Clerk. Mr. Attorney, let's take item 8C8. Does the director need to read anything into the record? Yes. Did we do this one already? No. Okay, go ahead. Application 8C8, TAFFSDGC, application number Z20260090. We've had no protest and nobody's support. Thank you so much. Public hearing is now open. I don't see anyone here on this list. Are there any other persons out there who would like to speak on this matter? All right, and I take it that you are the applicant? Yes, I'm the applicant's representative. All right, and your name? Vanessa Madrid with the law firm of Holland at Night at 701 Brickell Avenue, Miami, Florida 33131. Thank you. And Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, I see this is in your district before we close public hearing. Is there anything you would like to? No, Mr. Vice Chair. Thank you. No, we have six. Thank you so much. Public hearing is closed at this particular moment. You don't have to do a pre- Do you want to do a presentation, yes or no? Only if you'd like to hear one. Happy to answer questions. We do have some recommended minor modifications to the conditions. But, Mr. Vice Chair, I don't need a presentation. I'm familiar with the application, and I don't know what your recommended modifications are. Is this an issue, a first- We've discussed it with staff, and staff is supportive of the modification. I'm more than happy to read it into the record, or Abby, provide it to you if you'd like to read it on the record. It's up to the Chair. I don't think I have the paper, but I'm happy to read it if the, Mr. Chair, if you'd like me to read it, or Ms. Madrid could read it. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, how would you like to handle this? I'm assuming you haven't. This is your first time hearing about the changes, the proposed changes also. Abby, you going to go ahead and read it into the record? Mr. Chairman, is it okay if I read it? Hold on. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins, are you okay? Sure, I mean, illuminate us. Okay, on Condition 3, this is related to the publicly accessible canal walkway. The applicant has requested to add the phrase, a future phase. It's going to be constructed as part of a future phase, because this general development plan includes two phases. I'm aware. Okay, that's the clarification there. And then in Condition 13, this is the condition related to the affordable housing requirement. They're not changing the affordable housing requirement. They're just striking the phrase, consisting of 724 dwelling units. And I assume that's just in case they don't build exactly 724. Correct. Yeah. And the administration is agreeable to those proposed modifications? Correct. Okay, so I move it consistent with staff's recommendations and the stated amendment to those recommendations. Thank you. Been moved, seconded by Commissioner Lopez. Seeing that we also close public hearing, Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Commissioner Gilbert. Commissioner Hardiman. Commissioner Lopez. Commissioner Regalado. Commissioner Steinberg. Commissioner Bermudez. Vice Chairman McGee. No. Motion passes, 7 to 1. Thank you all. Thank you. Was that the last item? Motion for adjourn? Motion adjourned. Moved. Oh, and happy birthday, Claudius. This is Claudius of Happy Birthday, Chief of Staff behind us. He's actually turning 22 again.