[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6386596,"mediaKeyId","2117914-4d5d1567f547f370076cd1d1ad0a5f0f","parentId",2117914,"title","Council approves Live Oak annexations, several resolutions and board appointments in consent and public hearings","audioSeconds",1482,"startMs",4375000,"endMs",5857000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2117914-4d5d1567f547f370076cd1d1ad0a5f0f&start=4375&end=5857","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2117914-4d5d1567f547f370076cd1d1ad0a5f0f/thumbnail_4375000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6386596/Crestview/Okaloosa-County/Florida/Council-approves-Live-Oak-annexations-several-resolutions-and-board-appointments-in-consent-and-public-hearings","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6386596-198f8fae318d515318f068d5fbbcf324/orig.mp4?Expires=1770443041&Signature=ZZMPiuCv1zUWFNz-CP~ELYGJdR2yXLUNkWFjXDMxf~Tw5RsVax7Zt02jNNHY9HgvqGUQKAjScEP~jw1HZBMC1NBBtoolqKv3z1fL5X1ljrtAYML1NHiqPO1QygOL2KGUjlpWERyqNIJ3k4CLeZ5KPDascSKoiJmefDOMOiHATMseYTNc3TZEig-hjNHybE98KOOAC05gmT9dgrMhiC2W5WsbEd6XAo~3mSZIZCYJA6FDS6kNLLqAxNNv0b7lF7j9VpGe90yDB-Z7aNRfHwF40VV9FSNsUnyh-5acKvVYPPvhG5wcNMEjr9EDAWaaP2mQp4LzztDnOeN9WlMswG6D0g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Crestview, FL","date","2025-01-13T00:00:00Z","article","The Crestview City Council approved a set of routine land‑use ordinances, resolutions and board appointments during the meeting’s consent and public‑hearing segments, voting 5–0 on each item.

Land‑use items
- Ordinance 1986: Annexation of approximately 0.85 acres on Live Oak Church Road. The staff report said the parcel is currently Okaloosa County mixed use and would be incorporated into the city as mixed use; the Planning and Development Board recommended approval Dec. 2 and first reading was approved Dec. 9. Council approved Ordinance 1986 on second reading by voice vote (motion by Councilman Bullock; second by Councilman Frost).
- Ordinance 1988: Comprehensive plan amendment to change the Live Oak Church Road parcel future land use from Okaloosa County mixed use to City mixed use; council approved Ordinance 1988 on second reading (motion by Mayor Pro Tem Capps; second by Councilman Frost).
- Ordinance 1989: Rezoning of the Live Oak Church Road parcel from Okaloosa County mixed‑use zoning to the City’s mixed‑use zoning district; the council approved the rezoning on second reading (motion by Councilman Frost; second by Councilman Mullen).

Resolutions and policy items
- Resolution 2025‑5: The council adopted a resolution urging support for the Florida League of Cities 2025 legislative platform, which lists priorities including affordable housing, electric vehicles, enterprise fund transfers, property‑tax issues and sovereign immunity changes. The council approved the resolution 5–0 after brief discussion about ongoing legislative proposals to raise sovereign immunity caps.
- Resolution 2025‑6: The council revised the Citizen Advisory Council’s name, term provisions and officer succession; the committee will be renamed the Mayor’s Advisory Council and member terms limited to three years by resolution. The resolution passed 5–0.

Appointments and administrative actions
- Reappointment: Jerry Mohan was reappointed to the General Employees Retirement Board for a four‑year term beginning March 2025 (motion by Councilman Hayes; second by Councilman Frost).
- Transportation planning and EDC representation: The council reallocated Transportation Planning Organization (TPO) and Okaloosa Economic Development Council (EDC) seats among council members: Mayor Pro Tem Capps and Councilman Hayes moved into primary TPO roles; Councilwoman Allison agreed to serve as an alternate. For the EDC, Councilman Bullard was designated primary and Councilman Frost alternate. All were approved 5–0.

The items were presented as recommended in staff reports and carried without substantive amendment. Notices, financial‑impact statements and standard findings of consistency were included in staff reports for the land‑use items.

Votes at a glance
- Ordinance 1986 (Live Oak annexation): approved 5–0.
- Ordinance 1988 (comp‑plan amendment for Live Oak parcel): approved 5–0.
- Ordinance 1989 (Live Oak rezoning): approved 5–0.
- Resolution 2025‑5 (Florida League of Cities legislative platform): approved 5–0.
- Resolution 2025‑6 (Citizen Advisory Council name and term revisions): approved 5–0.
- Jerry Mohan reappointment to General Employees Retirement Board: approved 5–0.
- TPO/EDC representative appointments: approved 5–0.

Ending
Staff said routine filing and notice steps will follow for the ordinances and resolutions; several council members noted the importance of continued liaison work with regional bodies and the Florida League of Cities on pending state legislation.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City of Crestview City Council Meeting - January 13, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The council approved three smaller land‑use ordinances for a Live Oak Church Road annexation and rezoning, adopted two resolutions including the Florida League of Cities legislative platform and renamed a Citizen Advisory Council, and ratified several board appointments by unanimous votes.","taxTitle","Crestview, Okaloosa County, Florida","taxId",61210,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6386602,"Council asks staff to study school‑zone speed cameras, OKs pilot study and expanded locations",1919,6355000,8274000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2117914-4d5d1567f547f370076cd1d1ad0a5f0f&start=6355&end=8274","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2117914-4d5d1567f547f370076cd1d1ad0a5f0f/thumbnail_6355000.jpg","/articles/6386602/Crestview/Okaloosa-County/Florida/Council-asks-staff-to-study-schoolzone-speed-cameras-OKs-pilot-study-and-expanded-locations","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6386602-90bdbd405436e3d9a2a1e8b88e5eea38/orig.mp4?Expires=1770443041&Signature=DdDYm6NSX~STfxFFAyhZm7erXO3vx~5nA2CKzh0tsqCeVXZgXbEzSdvyUXlEx0DibDNtyXFCQxTjJbg9y-onqPGlgOtBbsKOO8mcpzKYPSgBkCDRNuOPtGnggvuZsOTy4IR5KEC7KJEKu3R5p0sQn9se8SBfLfcA2T~HIAtT8e0XkHMtGKM09CvqmXBG0yz8ZHwUCMb6bPrTn451WOkvNZQ0uTMjVcVUWakC04lPqci8YWCDvllZ57kqsY~EDhGt3~l8nkCJn-ZR57NTa-0LF0ggX0rjveFhnnmaGMWLhxOcct6Wf5U4V7SQiTFJprtf-lPPnWxybnE-~CTkyHyuHQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Crestview City Council gave staff the go‑ahead to begin speed studies and vendor negotiations for school‑zone speed cameras, with a unanimous vote to proceed and an instruction to include east‑west enforcement at the city’s two signalized 85/90 intersections in the analysis.

Chief McCoster of the Crestview Police Department briefed council on state law (House Bill 657, 2023) that authorizes automated speed enforcement in school zones \"when children are traveling to and from school and throughout the school day.\" He described a phased plan that would begin with speed studies, vendor procurement and a public education period before fines are issued.

Chief McCoster said the vendor studies typically use short duration speed counts (radar or hose counters) for two to three days followed by data analysis lasting up to a few weeks. If the council moves forward, staff estimated cameras could be installed and active near the August 2025 school term start. The chief recommended starting where high speeds are most evident: corridors with 35 mph or higher posted limits and limited natural traffic calming.

On fines and revenue the chief said: \"The fine will be a $100,\" and described the statutory distribution: \"$60 is retained by the city,\" $5 for crossing‑guard training and retention, $12 to the school district and $23 retained by the state (the chief noted that a vendor fee will reduce the city share). The department recommended a tolerance threshold of 11 mph over the posted school‑zone speed before a violation is issued, and a 30‑day warning/education period after installation.

Chief McCoster also reviewed where the department proposes collections and studies first: corridors serving Crestview High School (the higher‑speed approaches), Ferdon Boulevard, Industrial Drive and several other approaches where recorded speeds run higher than expected. He said some school sites are naturally congested at drop‑off/pick‑up and thus show lower speeds, so cameras would be prioritized where high through‑traffic produces sustained speeding.

Council members asked about enforcement, officer presence and the effect on points and driver records. The chief said the initial citation is a municipal civil violation and is mailed to the registered owner; if not addressed it can escalate to a uniform traffic citation. \"The registered owner of the car\" receives the notice; the statute provides an affidavit process to identify the actual driver when appropriate, he said. The chief also emphasized the cameras are meant to supplement, not replace, officer presence: councilmembers reiterated that visible enforcement and traffic‑unit patrols remain important.

After questions the council voted (motion by Councilman Hayes; second by Councilman Frost) to authorize staff to proceed with speed studies and vendor evaluation, including estimating costs with and without additional east‑west enforcement at the signalized intersections on U.S. 85/90. The motion passed 5–0.

Clarifying details
- Statutory basis: House Bill 657 (2023) allows automated enforcement in school zones \"throughout the school day.\"
- Proposed pilot timing: speed studies now; installation and activation aimed for about August 2025 (subject to vendor schedule and DOT approvals).
- Tolerance and fines: recommended enforcement threshold 11 mph over posted limit; fine set at $100 by statute.
- Revenue split (statutory outline provided by chief): $60 retained by city (less vendor fee), $5 for crossing‑guard training/retention, $12 to the school district, $23 to the state.
- Public‑education period: 30 days of warning after activation before violations are issued.

Ending
The council’s authorization starts the technical work — speed counts, vendor proposals, DOT permissions and draft contracts — and asks staff to return with cost estimates and recommended enforcement locations. Council members said they expect a follow‑up report before any contract or ordinance adoption that would finalize enforcement details.","After a presentation from the police chief, the council agreed 5–0 to begin speed studies and vendor evaluations for school‑zone speed cameras, including proposed east‑west enforcement at two major intersections; chief outlined fines, revenue split and a 30‑day warning period.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6386605,"Crestview council annexes 20-acre parcel, approves rezoning with conditions after neighborhood concerns",3843,530000,4373000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2117914-4d5d1567f547f370076cd1d1ad0a5f0f&start=530&end=4373","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2117914-4d5d1567f547f370076cd1d1ad0a5f0f/thumbnail_530000.jpg","/articles/6386605/Crestview/Okaloosa-County/Florida/Crestview-council-annexes-20-acre-parcel-approves-rezoning-with-conditions-after-neighborhood-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6386605-cfb2cd7b80fa01d423719dfd0acb8c0e/orig.mp4?Expires=1770443041&Signature=Cj3qcVjGmNe4nuFgcBJ0VxBImnDyS5ZDa-g0OenHIqAkU1vTGFJrkxTdpoa3VE5F825v2n2kB3uuWDScGxmdpKOnA3MB2~BF8uTKrLTBsQlwpwzoK9-mSsuf52gWyympa-SdAVfS5FjP0iEoU2RH6q9XFvfsX2T~34oo0GItugIgtqHi35WICtoHLS-87fgiLNcyRqAxB7-ku3zYZUWpzOThpGPhiIbMcldT6AASVoyJ9AVYlwvdlF7~h31-9aowJxXSLE1vNYikU5s-iqTz8OnvnEo3qBmW0qQ2WryrsjT5~5Ask0Cp6wdTwsm36iUOchbSPkSO4F5mp6HqUdZb2g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Crestview City Council voted unanimously Tuesday to annex about 20 acres north of Fox Valley, amend the comprehensive plan and rezone the property after staff and the developer added a conceptual exhibit limiting initial development to 16 single‑family lots and an emergency access route.

The council approved Ordinance 1983 (annexation), Ordinance 1984 (future‑land‑use amendment) and Ordinance 1985 (rezoning) on second reading, each by a 5–0 vote. The adoption included a staff exhibit showing the split between an R‑2 single‑family area along the Fox Valley boundary and mixed‑use designation farther north.

The record shows the paperwork began with an application filed July 18, 2024; the Planning and Development Board recommended approval Dec. 2 and council approved first readings Dec. 9. Staff told the council the exhibit will be entered into the record and used as the basis for future development review, which staff said will limit the density and uses allowed adjacent to the existing subdivision.

Developer Greg Matovina, identified in the meeting as the proposed acquirer and developer, told council the 16‑lot configuration and lot sizes are intended to match Fox Valley. \"The lot size and the general configuration is gonna be as you see in that plan, and cannot be changed unless we come back before this board again,\" Matovina said during the quasi‑judicial rezoning portion of the hearing.

Neighbors who addressed the council pressed for additional protections. Chad Rumchick, a Fox Valley resident, asked the council to require “single story, single family homes” and a buffer of about 30 feet between the new lots and existing yards to preserve the neighborhood character. Jeff Gerlach, a Fox Valley resident who spoke later, asked the council to delay action until a sale of the parcel closes; he told the council the parcel’s owner previously sued the city and the homeowners association in 2014 and the litigation ended without resolution in 2016.

City planning staff and City Manager Tim Baldock told the council they had worked with the developer to secure a conceptual plan amendment and exhibit that staff will treat as part of the application record. Baldock said the drawing is intended to \"lock in\" the maximum density adjacent to the existing subdivision and to ensure single‑family lots where the new development touches Fox Valley. He summarized the staff approach: the exhibit constrains future development review and gives planning staff grounds to require conformance when a formal development plan is submitted.

Council discussion centered on emergency access and whether the new entrance should be gated for emergency use only or open to general traffic. Supporters of opening the road said it would provide a needed second entrance to relieve traffic and ensure safer ingress/egress; others said a gated emergency access is a compromise to protect the neighborhood while addressing the fire marshal’s requirement for a second means of access. City staff said the portion of the road to serve the 16 lots will be built to city standards and will provide at minimum emergency access; whether it would become an open public connector will be decided later during development review.

Council members said they were voting specifically on the annexation, land‑use amendment and rezoning as presented, not on final construction details. The council adopted the annexation (Ordinance 1983) by motion (mover: Councilman Bullard; seconder: Councilman Hayes) and a 5–0 vote. The comprehensive plan amendment (Ordinance 1984) and rezoning (Ordinance 1985) were also approved 5–0 on second reading.

The council and staff repeatedly noted that a formal development plan has not yet been submitted for the mixed‑use portion to the north; the approved exhibit constrains density for the area adjoining Fox Valley but does not fix the exact location of roads or retention ponds. Staff said the developer told them a sale could close in mid‑2025 and that closing is a separate private step; if ownership does not transfer, the city’s approvals forward the land‑use and zoning but do not guarantee a particular developer will build.

Votes at a glance
Ordinance 1983 (annexation, ~20 acres): Motion to approve (mover: Councilman Bullard; seconder: Councilman Hayes). Outcome: approved 5–0.
Ordinance 1984 (comprehensive plan amendment to mixed use/residential): Motion to approve (mover: Mayor Pro Tem Capps; seconder: Councilman Frost). Outcome: approved 5–0.
Ordinance 1985 (rezoning to R‑2 and mixed‑use with accompanying conceptual exhibit limiting adjacent development to up to 16 single‑family lots): Motion to approve (mover/second not specified in record). Outcome: approved 5–0.

The council directed staff that the exhibit will be part of the administrative record for future development review; conditions such as setbacks, buffers and whether the new road remains gated will be addressed during that subsequent review and any development order process.

Clarifying details and next steps
- Parcel size: approximately 20 acres (staff report).
- Initial constrained development: up to 16 single‑family lots adjacent to Fox Valley; typical lot sizes cited in the hearing around 0.24 acres (about a quarter acre).
- Zoning split: south half to R‑2 (single‑family medium density) adjacent to Fox Valley; north half designated mixed use.
- Application history: received July 18, 2024; Planning and Development Board recommended approval Dec. 2, 2024; first readings approved Dec. 9, 2024.
- Developer comments: Greg Matovina said financing is in place and he expected to clear a title issue and close (he referenced a potential February closing).
- Resident requests: mandated HOA buffer strip (suggested ~30 feet), single‑story housing request, and a suggestion to table the rezoning until sale closes.
- Implementation risks: final buildout depends on developer financing, closing, development order review, fire‑marshal and public‑works approvals; the conceptual plan fixes density but allows minor alignment changes for roads and drainage during engineering review.

Ending
The council’s approvals set zoning and future‑land‑use designations for the parcel and placed the developer’s conceptual plan into the record as a constraint on future applications. Residents and the developer said they would continue negotiating details during the development‑review stage; staff said it will review subsequent submissions for conformity with the adopted exhibit and city standards.","The City Council approved annexation, a comprehensive-plan amendment and rezoning for roughly 20 acres near Fox Valley, locking a conceptual plan that limits immediate development to 16 single‑family lots and an emergency access; residents pressed for buffers and urged delaying action until ownership closes.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council approves Live Oak annexations, several resolutions and board appointments in consent and public hearings

Council asks staff to study school‑zone speed cameras, OKs pilot study and expanded locations

Crestview council annexes 20-acre parcel, approves rezoning with conditions after neighborhood concerns