Mar 17, 2021 Board of Adjustment

[1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL / DETERMINATION OF QUORUM]

[00:00:05]

>>> GOOD EVENING, EVERYBODY, THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR MARCH THE 17TH 2021 IS NOW IN SESSION. JEFF WILL YOU PLEASE LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

>> SURE, WOULD YOU ALL STAND. AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND

JUSTICE FOR ALL.." >> THANK YOU, JEFF.

>> THANK YOU. >>> AS EVERYBODY LOOKED AT THE

[3. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES]

ON THAT? >> BARRY, I KNOW YOU'RE ALWAYS

GOOD AT THAT. >> WELL, THE ONLY THING I NOTICED WAS THAT THE FOUR PEOPLE THAT VOTED OR AT LEAST THE FOUR PUBLIC PEOPLE THAT SAID THERE'S NO PROBLEM WITH THE VARIANCE THEY SAW DIDN'T LIVE NEAR THE REQUESTING VARIANCE. OTHER THAN, I DIDN'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH IT.

>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION THAN THAT?

>> OTHER THAN THAT, NO. >> NO. OKAY. CAN I GET A

MOTION TO APPROVE. >> MOTION TO APPROVE THE

MINUTES. >> I GOT A FIRST.

>> SECOND. >> SECOND. MISS TAYLOR WOULD

YOU CALL THE VOTE. >> BOARD MEMBER HERTSLET?

>> YES. BOARD MEMBER OLIVA? >> YES. BOARD MEMBER MILLER?

>> YES. >> CHUCK, YOU'RE MOVING UP TO A SITTING BOARD MEMBER AND BILL WILL GO TO ALTERNATE NUMBER ONE AND THAT LEAVES ALTERNATE NUMBER TWO IS VACANT BECAUSE WE LOST BECOME MARK GLEESON. SO EVERYBODY MOVES UP ONE RUNG.

>> I'VE BEEN UP HERE EVERY TIME SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE.

>> I WON'T NOTICE THE DIFFERENCE.

>> NO, THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. >> TAYLOR, WHENEVER YOU HAVE A MINUTE NEXT WEEK CAN WE PREPARE A THANK YOU LETTER TO MEMBER

GLEESON PLEASE. >> WE NEED TO DO THE ROLL COLL.

>> MEMBER HERTSLET? >> PRESENT.

>> MEMBER GRANT? >> PRESENT. CHAIR MILLER?

[5.1 BOA 20210002 JOHN GREEVES, 1906 1ST AVE Variance requests from LDC Section 5.01.04 (A1 & A3) to have a structure that is larger than the 625 sf maximum and located in a place other than the rear yard. (QuasiJudicial)]

>> HERE. >> BEFORE THE BOARD TONIGHT?

>> NOT TONIGHT. >> NO, I DID ASK ONE QUESTION IN RESPONSE TO DAPNE'S EMAIL JUST ASKING WHETHER THE STAFF REPORT NEEDED TO BE REVISED BASED UPON THE CHANGE.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU, JEFF. >> ALL RIGHT. IN A FEW MOMENTS WE'RE GOING TO GET EVERYBODY SWORN IN AND WE JUST TRY DO THAT AS A GROUP. THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH GETTING SWORN IN AND DECIDING NOT TO SPEAK BUT WE TRY TO DO EVERYTHING AS A GROUP.

OUR CITY ATTORNEY, MISS TAMMI BACH IS WITH US TONIGHT. SHE'S NOT A MEMBER OF THIS BOARD, SHE DOES NOT VOTE HOWEVER SHE'S GOING TO GO OVER HOW THIS MEETING IS GOING TO BE CONDUCTED, WHY IT'S CONDUCTED LIKE THAT AND MOST IMPORTANTLY HOW THE VOTING HAS TO GO AND IF THERE IS AN APPEAL HOW THAT WOULD WORK. MISS BACH WOULD YOU GO OVER THAT PLEASE.

>> BEFORE I TALK ABOUT QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARINGS, AND THOSE PROCEDURES, EMAIL I RECEIVED TODAY, THAT IS CONSIDERED AN EX-PARTE COMMUNICATION IF IT OCCURS OUTSIDE OF THIS HEARING ROOM. SO, IF MRS. FOREHAND WOULD JUST DISCLOSE OR YOU ALL DISCLOSE THE SUBSTANCE OF THAT EMAIL, SHE CAN HELP YOU RECOLLECT BY STATING IT AND YOU ALL JUST NEED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HAD THAT COMMUNICATION.

>> SO, I SENT OUT AN EMAIL UPDATE THIS AFTERNOON AND THAT INCLUDED THE REQUEST FOR TONIGHT BEING ACTUALLY FOR ONE VARIANCE REQUEST INSTEAD OF TWO. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT IT.

AND I'M GOING TO DETAIL THAT WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT AND

COMMUNICATION AS WELL. >> AND AS FAR AS I KNOW, MISS HARTMAN FOR THE RECORD ALL OF THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE DISCLOSED IF THEY HAVE RECEIVED THAT EMAIL AND READ IT THAT THEY HAVE THAT

[00:05:04]

FIRST, MRS. FOREHAND WILL HER CASE AND PRESENT EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY. YOU WILL ALSO BE PROVIDING TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE FOR THE RECORD. IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVE NOT ALREADY SUBMITTED TO THE CITY IT'S OKAY TO SUBMIT THAT NEW EVIDENCE TONIGHT BUT MAKE SURE THAT MRS. FOREHAND GETS TO SEE A COPY BEFORE THE BOARD DOES IN CASE SHE HAS ANY OBJECTIONS.

THE VOTE TONIGHT IN ALL EFFECTED PARTIES, THERE'S NO TIME LIMIT, IF YOU TAKE AN OATH, IF YOU WANT TO SAY THAT YOU'RE FOR OR AGAINST THE VARIANCE, THEN YOU WILL TAKE THE OATH AND THERES NO LIMIT TO THE AMOUNT OF TIME YOU SPEAK OR PRESENT TESTIMONY. THE BOARD TONIGHT, WHEN YOU VOTE, THERE ARE 5 VOTING MEMBERS HERE TONIGHT. OUT OF THE FIVE, FOR VARIANCES UNDER OUR CODE IT REQUIRES NOT A SIMPLE MAJORITY OF 3 OUT OF 5 TO APPROVE BUT FOUR OUT OF SFIEF, A SUPER MAJORITY TO APPROVE A VARIANCE.

IN ORDER TO DENY A VARIANCE IT REQUIRES THE SIMPLE MAJORITY.

SO IT WOULD SOUND SOMETHING LIKE THIS, I MAKE A MOTION TO DENY VARIANCE NUMBER OR CASE NUMBER AND IN THAT CASE, IF IT GET AS SECOND, IT ONLY REQUIRES THREE MEMBERS TO SAY YES TO THAT MOTION. THE OTHER WHICH, I KNOW THE APPLICANTS WOULD LIKE, AND THAT IS, I MOVE TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE OR THIS CASE. AND IN THAT CASE, IT REQUIRES FOUR MEMBERS TO SAY YES TO THAT MOTION. IF THERE IS AN APPEAL TAKEN OF THE DECISION MADE TONIGHT BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, THAT APPEAL IS FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THIS BOARD'S DECISION. AND THEY DO SIGN A FINDINGS OF FACT, THE CHAIR DOES AND THAT'S USUALLY ISSUED WITHIN 3 TO 5 BUSINESS DAYS. ABOUT 30 DAYS FROM NOW IS THE TIME YOU HAVE TO APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE BOARD THAT APPEAL GOES TO THE CIRCUIT COURT. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS. THAT'S ALL I

HAVE. >> THANK YOU, MISS BACH. AND ONE OR TWO OTHER THINGS, ALL OF THE BOARD MEMBERS HERE TONIGHT ARE VOLUNTEERS. WE'RE ALL APPOINTED AT SOME POINT IN TIME BY THE CITY COMMISSION AND THERE BY YOUR VOTE RUNS ALL OF YOUR CITIZENS BOARD. YOU SEE US WITH COMPUTERS IN FRONT OF US AND YOU'LL SEE US SCROLLING ON THOSE. WE DO NOT HAVE ANY ADDITION INFORMATION OTHER THAN WHAT DAPHNE IS GOING TO PUT. WE DON'T TALK TO EACH OTHER. TAYLOR OUR SECRETARY IS DOING A GREAT JOB FOR US. MOST OF YOU KNOW DAPHNE AND SHE DOES A GREAT JOB FOR US. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. TAYLOR, LET'S IT GET

EVERYBODY SWORN IN. >> ALL PARTIES WISHING TO PRESENT EVIDENCE TONIGHT IF YOU WOULD PLEASE STAND AND RAISE

YOUR RIGHT HAND. >> DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE ORAL OR THE WRITTEN TESTIMONY THAT YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. (CHORUS)

I DO. >> YOU CAN BE SEATED.

>> IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD, JUST RAISE YOUR HAND IT'S NOT A PROBLEM FOR US. THANK YOU.

>> OKAY. DAPHNE. >> AGAIN, THERE HAVE BEEN SOME UPDATES ARE REGARDS TO BOA 202021-02,TY DID SEND AN EMAIL UPDATING THE BOARD EARLIER THIS AFTERNOON. THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION FOR THIS CASE INCLUDED TWO VARIANCE REQUESTS.

AND THE APPLICATION IS ONE VARIANCE REQUEST. AND, THAT VARIANCE REQUEST IS TO HAVE AN ATTACHED ACCESSARY DWELLING OUTSIDE THE REAR YARD. I WILL GIVE MORE DETAILS OF THAT REQUEST WITHIN THIS PRESENTATION. THE APPLICANT IS JOHN GRIEVES, THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED 19061ST AVENUE AND ZONED

[00:10:03]

THE EXISTED USE OF THE SITE IS A SINGLE FAMILY SITE, ALL FEES HAVE BEEN PAID AND ALL REQUIRED NOTICES HAVE BEEN MADE. SO, TO SUMMARIZE THIS REQUEST, THE APPLICANT IS WANTING TO CONSTRUCT AN ACCESSARY DWELLING WITHIN THE FRONT YARD. CHAPTER ONE OF THE LDC DEFINES THE FRONT YARD A YARD ACROSS THE FULL WIDTH OF THE LOT EXTENDING FROM THE FRONT LINE OF THE BUILDING TO THE FRONT LINE OF THE LOT. THIS HOME WAS ORIGINALLY CONSTRUCTED IN 1955 AND IT WAS PREVIOUSLY ADDRESSED AS 1905 SOUTH FLETCHER AVENUE. AND IF YOU TAKE A LOOK HERE AT THIS PICTURE PROVIDED, BASED ON DEED INFORMATION THAT I WAS ABLE TO LOCATE, THIS LOT AND THE LOT TO THE EAST WERE PREVIOUSLY UNDER SHARED OWNERSHIP AND THEY WERE LIKELY COMBINED AS A SINGLE PARCEL WITH SHARED ACCESS. AT A LATER DATE, THE PROPERTY WAS READDRESSED TO WHAT IT IS CURRENTLY AS 1ST AVENUE. THIS RESULTED IN AN ABNORMAL CONFIGURATION OF THE HOME. SO THE FRONT AND THE REAR OF THE STRUCTURE HAVE BEEN REVERSED.

AND THEN, THE PROPOSAL OF THE ACCESSARY DWELLING WOULD UTILIZE ON EXISTING STRUCTURE OF WHAT IS DESCRIBED AS THE FRONT YARD AND YOU COULD SEE THE PICTURE OF THE ACCESSARY STRUCTURE THAT EXISTS THERE CURRENTLY ALONG WITH A SURVEY SHOWING THIS AS WELL. SO THE ACCESSARY STRUCTURE WOULD MEET ALL OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 5 ACCESSARY STRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS, OTHER THAN BEING WITHIN THE YARD. SO. GETTING INTO THE CONSISTENCY WITH THE SIX CRITERIA. SO THE SIX CRITERIA FOR THIS APPLICATION.

THE STAFF ANALYSIS HAS CHANGED FROM WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED AND PROVIDED TO THE BOARD AND APPLICANT. SO, I WILL GO INTO DETAIL WITH THAT, AS WELL. SO, SPECIAL CONDITIONS, YES, SPECIAL CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES DO EXIST AS IT RELATES TO THE LAND, STRUCTURE OR THE FEATURES OF THIS PARCEL.

AGAIN, SINCE THIS PROPERTY WAS ADDRESSED ON SOUTH FLETCHER AND READDRESSED. THE STRUCTURE WAS NOT A RESULT OF THE APPLICANT AND THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES DON'T RESULT FROM THEIR ACTIONS AND ARE NOT BASED ON THE DESIRE TO REDUCE COST.

SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, SO ORIGINALLY STAFF HAD OR DIFFERENT ANSWER FOR THIS, IT WAS NO. BUT GIVEN THE FACT THAT THERE'S ONLY ONE REQUEST TONIGHT, AND THAT IS FOR THE ACCESSARY STRUCTURE TO BE LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE REAR. THE SPECIAL PRIVILEGE ANALYSIS IS YES, GRANTED THE VARIANCE DOES NOT GO OUTSIDE THE LAND DEVELOPMENT. ZONES DISTRICT. THIS IS BECAUSE THE STRUCTURE IS NOT GOING TO EXCEED THE 625 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING REQUIREMENT AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, WILL MEET ALL OTHER MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHED WITHIN CHAPTER 5 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. FOR LITERAL INTERPRETATION, YES, THAT WOULD DEPRIVE THE RIGHTS COMMONLY ENJOYED BY PROPERTIES IN THE SAME ZONES DISTRICT. YEAR YARD AS REQUIRED, THE RESULT BEING AN UNNECESSARY INCREASE TO USE SURFACE AS WELL AS TO. AND MINIMUM VARIANCE, YES THE VARIANCE REQUESTED IS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NEEDED TO MAKE POSSIBLE THE REASONABLE USE OF THE LAND. AGAIN, THE PROPOSED LOCATION WILL UTILIZE AN EXISTING FOOT PRINT AND ALLOW FOR ACCESS TO THE DWELLING SLASH GARAGE WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT INCREASE TO THE TOTAL AREA.

GENERAL HARMONY, YES, GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. IT PRESERVE PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS AND KEEPING WITH POLICY 1.17 PLANS. THEREFORE

[00:15:02]

>> I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS FOR YOU. ONE, SPECIAL CONDITIONS.

YOU SAID, YES. BUT WHAT WAS THE ADDRESS WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS

PURCHASED? >> THE ADDRESS WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED WAS 19061ST AVENUE.

>> SO THEN THE SPECIAL CONDITION WOULD HAVE GONE AWAY,

RIGHT? >> I AM BASING THIS OFF OF WHAT THE APPLICANT. THE INFORMATION THE APPLICANT HAS.

>> RIGHT. BUT GIVEN THAT THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED IN THAT LOCATION THE SPECIAL DID NOT EXIST.

>> THEY MAY NOT HAVE KNOWN WHAT THE SITUATION WAS WITH REGARDS TO THE SET BACKS OF THE FRONT AND BACKYARD. SO THE SPECIAL CONDITION WOULD RELATE TO THE LAND IS THE WAY THAT THE HOUSE

IS ALREADY ENTERED. >> ALL RIGHT. SECOND QUESTION I HAVE, YOU SAID SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, IT'S CONSISTENT SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, SO THAT MEANS ANYONE COULD PUT AN ACCESSARY

SHED IN THE FRONT YARD? >> NO. YOU COULD PUT ACCESSARY STRUCTURE IN THE FRONT YARD, IT CANNOT GO IN THE 25 FOOT FRONT SET BACK. HOWEVER, IT CAN ONLY BE IN THE REAR YARD IT'S A DWELLING THAT CAN ONLY BE IN THE REAR YARD. AND PBEING THAT THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS EXIST WITH HOW THE HOUSE IS ORIENTED WITH THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE BEING THE REAR AND VICE VERSA, THE REQUEST FOR PLACING IT IN THIS AREA DOES NOT ALLOW FOR ANY ADDITIONAL SPECIAL PRIVILEGE THAT'S DENIED BY ANYONE ELSE IN THIS DISTRICT.

>> OKAY. >> I DON'T AGREE WITH THE INTERPRETATIONS BUT I'LL DROP IT.

>> OKAY. YOU ORIGINALLY SAID NO?

>> RIGHT. >> WHAT CHANGED? BECAUSE IT'S STILL GOING TO BE AN ACCESSARY DWELLING

>> WHAT CHANGED WAS THE APPLICATION WHEN SUBMITTED, THE LETTER OF INTENT ALL DETAILED FOR AN ADDITIONAL 200 SQUARE FEET IN THE FOOT PRINT, HOWEVER, THERE WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING.

THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE IS ACTUALLY UNDER THAT REQUIREMENT.

SO, THAT IS WHAT CHANGED MY ANALYSIS FOR THIS SECTION, NUMBER TWO, WAS BASED ON THE FACT THAT THEY WERE REQUESTING ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE WHEN IN FACT THEY'RE NOT REQUESTING

THAT AT ALL. >> SO THE SPECIAL PRIVILEGE THAT YOU HAD SAID NO TO, WAS JUST ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE?

>> EXACTLY ONLY RELATED TO THE SQUARE FOOTAGE.

>> SO, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR ME GOING FORWARD, SO, MAYBE NOT FOR THIS CASE, BUT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR ME GOING FORWARD TO GET A CLEAR DEFINITION OF WHAT SPECIAL PRIVILEGE MEANS.

BECAUSE, IF YOU PURCHASE A PIECE OF PROPERTY, KNOWING WHAT'S THERE, THAT SHOULD NEGATE ANY SPECIAL PRIVILEGE. IT MAY COME TO KNUANCES. SPECIAL PRIVILEGE IS NOT IT'S NOT A HARDSHIP. YOU BOUGHT IT KNOWING WHAT'S THERE SO IT'S NOT A HARDSHIP. SO TO

[00:20:03]

SHOULD WASH. >> THE DEFINITION OF SPECIAL PRIVILEGE IS THERE IN THE BROWN. THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF SPECIAL PRIVILEGE UNDER OUR CODE. AND THE REASON, REALLY, THAT PRETTY MUCH ALL ACROSS THE UNITED STATES, BUT CERTAINLY, I KNOW FLORIDA LAW, THE REASON THAT YOU ALAW FOR VARIANCES IS SO THAT THE CITY AND WE CAN POLICE OURSELVES IN TERMS OF DEVIATIONS FROM THE CODE. IT IS INTENDED FOR A VARIANCE TO GIVE YOU, IF YOU RECEIVE AND GET A VARIANCE APPROVED, TO GIVE YOU A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE IF YOU WILL, BECAUSE YOU'RE DEVIATING FROM THE CODE. THE REASONS FOR ALLOWING IT ARE PROVIDED UNDER ALL THE SIX CRITERIA, YOU MEET THOSE, YOU GET A VARIANCE, RIGHT. IF YOU DON'T MEET THOSE, YOU DON'T GET A VARIANCE. THE WHOLE IDEA OF HAVING A VARIANCE IS SO THAT YOU GET TO DEVIATE FROM THE CODE FOR YOUR APPLICATION. AND WE DO HAVE, IN THIS CASE, DAPHNE BELIEVES IT, THIS IS ONE OF THESE SITUATIONS WHERE A DEVIATION FROM THE CODE IS WARRANTED. WE'RE TELLING CITIZENS, PROPERTY OWNERS THAT THIS IS WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO TO DEVIATE THE CODE FROM OUR APPLICATION AND THE BOARD HAS TO AGREE WITH IT AND STAFF DOESN'T, OFTEN, AS YOU KNOW, SHE ALMOST NEVER AGREES WITH THE SIX CRITERIA. BUT THAT'S THE PURPOSE. AND FRANKLY AS A BOARD MEMBER WHEN YOU COME INTO THESE HEARINGS IF YOU BELIEVE THAT NOBODY SHOULD BE ABLE TO DEVIATE FROM THE CODE IF YOU BUY A PIECE OF PROPERTY AND THE STATUS OF THE CONFIGURATION WHATEVER IT WAS, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DO THIS AND HAVE TO APPLY FOR A VARIANCE AND YOU CAN'T EVER AGREE THAT A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE IS MET, AND I'M JUST BEING COMPLETELY HONEST, THEN YOU SHOULD NOT VOTE. YOU SHOULD SAY I HAVE A BIAS AND I'M NOT GOING TO VOTE.

>> WELL, I DON'T HAVE A BIAS, BUT I DO WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT SPECIAL PRIVILEGE MEANS. I WANT A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT SPECIAL PRIVILEGE MEANS, NOT A BIAS, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, VARIANCES ARE SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE TREATED WITH KID

GLOVES, RIGHT? >> YES. RIGHT.

>> AND WE HAVE ONLY HEARD ONE SIDE. I MEAN.

>> YEAH, THAT'S WHY I SAID, I'LL DROP IT.

>> THIS TYPE OF, IF YOU WILL, IS A BROAD DEFINITION IT'S INTENDED TO BE THAT WAY BECAUSE EACH ONE OF THESE HEARINGS AND CASES IS SPECIAL BASED ON THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED HERE. SO THAT'S WHY WE CAN'T MAKE IT SO SPECIFIC THAT IT'S MEANT FOR YOU TO HEAR THE TESTIMONY HERE AND THESE AREPERAMETERS FOR THIS.

>> AND YOU'RE NOT THE FIRST PERSON TO ASK THAT QUESTION. IT

IS SOMEWHAT GRAY THERE. >> YES.

>> AND IT'S UP TO EACH ONE OF YOU, AND OBVIOUSLY, YOU NEED FOUR TO APPROVE A VARIANCE. HOLDING ANY TYPE OF BELIEFS WE ALL HAVE THEM. WHEN WE COME TO DO ANY TYPE OF JOB, EVEN THIS THAT YOU'RE VOLUNTEERING FOR. AND I'VE HEARD IN THE PAST, WE'VE HAD COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS, JUST GENERAL THINGS LIKE I DON'T BELIEVE, I THINK WE HAVE TOO MUCH TRAFFIC IN TOWN, I THINK WE HAVE TOO MUCH DEVELOPMENT. WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT MAKING THOSE STATEMENTS ABOUT WHAT OUR BELIEFS ARE, BECAUSE IF SOMEBODY GETS DENIED A VARIANCE AND TAKES IT TO COURT AND APPEALS IT, THAT'S GOING TO BE USED AS

EXHIBIT NUMBER ONE. >> OKAY. THANK YOU MISS BACH.

>> YOU FEEL GOOD WITH THAT? ARE WE READY TO MOVE ON.

>> DAPHNE, DID YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING?

>> NO, I HAVE NOTHING TO ADD. >> A COUPLE OF THINGS FOR THE STAFF. MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR ON THIS BECAUSE IT CHANGED. THIS IS STILL AN APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE FOR AN ACCESSARY

DWELLING UNIT? >> CORRECT.

>> OKAY. BECAUSE EVEN IN THE ORIGINAL, IT TALKED ABOUT A MAXIMUM FOOTPRINT OF 625 SQUARE FEET, I DON'T THINK THAT'S

[00:25:05]

THE TOTAL IS 625 SQUARE FEET? >> SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THE APPLICANT AND I WERE DISCUSSING TODAY BECAUSE THERE WAS SOME MISUNDERSTANDING WITH REGARDS TO WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT FOR WHAT HE HAD IN THE SIDE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED WAS VERY, IT WAS A PROPOSED SITE PLAN, IT WASN'T VERY DETAILED. SO, I BELIEVE MR. REEVES HAVE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION THAT SPEAKS TO WHAT HIS ACTUAL REQUEST IS AND HE CAN EXPLAIN

THAT A LITTLE FURTHER. >> BUT IT'S STILL AN ADU?

>> IT IS AN ADU. >> AND THE TOTAL FLOOR PLAN, WHETHER IT'S GOING TO BE? DO I HAVE THAT CORRECT? THE FLOOR PLAN IS TWO STORIES, IT'S THE FOOTPRINT TIMES TWO?

>> WHAT I DISCUSSED WITH MR. REEVES ORIGINALLY WAS THE 625 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING FOOTPRINT AND IN 5.01.04, THE ACCESSARY DWELLING UNIT CAN NORTH EXCEED 625, THE TOTAL FLOOR AREA SHALL NOT EXCEED 625 SQUARE FEET. SO, I BELIEVE THAT'S WHERE THE MISUNDERSTANDING LIES IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ACCESSARY DWELLING AND THE ACCESSARY STRUCTURE, SO WHAT WOULD BE REQUESTED FROM MY UNDERSTANDING WOULD BE NOT EXCEEDING THE 625 SQUARE FEET.

>> FLOOR PLAN? >> CORRECT. THAT'S WHAT I AM UNDERSTANDING NOW. I THINK THERE'S SOME MISUNDERSTANDING THAT OCCURRED AT THE BOARD MEETING. SO, WHEN WE HAD DISCUSSED THIS INITIALLY, IT WAS FOR THE FOOTPRINT. AND THEN JUST GOING OVER THIS AGAIN, THROUGH IN THE MEETING, THE ACCESSARY DWELLING UNIT CANNOT EXCEED, THAT'S CORRECT, THE TOTAL FLOOR AREA, WHICH WE CAN DISCUSS FURTHER. YES. I APOLOGIZE, THERE'S SO MUCH MISCOMMUNICATION AND CONFUSION WITH THIS, AND I WILL ALLOW MER REEVES TO PRESENT WHATEVER HE HAS AS FAR AS HIS INTENT WITH THIS.

>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND IT.

>> I WANT TO UNDERSTAND IT AS WELL AND CONVEYING IT IN THE

CORRECT WAY AS WELL. >> OKAY. WELL...

>> I'M GOOD. >> PERHAPS WHEN WE GO TO VOTE, WE SHOULD JUST HAVE ONE OR TWO LINES AND SIMPLIFY THAT.

>> I APOLOGIZE, I MAY HAVE PRESENTED THIS IN A WAY THAT WAS MISUNDERSTOOD WITH MR. GRIEVES AND WITH YOU ALL WITH REGARDS FOR WHAT'S REQUIRED FOR ADUS, HAVE IT HERE THAT THE TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF THE DETACHED ACCESSARY DWELLING UNIT SHALL NOT EXCEED 625 SQUARE FEET WHICH WAS NOT WHAT WE ORIGINALLY

DISCUSSED. >> SO THE WAY THE STAFF IS LOOKING AT THIS IS THE ONLY VARIANCE BEING ASKING IS TO HAVE A DETACHED STRUCTURE IN THE FRONT YARD AS OPPOSED TO THE BACKYARD? THAT'S THE WHOLE THING?

>> THAT WAS THE WHOLE THING. I BELIEVE THAT NOW, THERE MAYBE, I HAVE TO SEE WHAT MR. GRIEVES HAS PLANNED BECAUSE WE HAD SOME DISCUSSION BEFORE THE MEETING REGARDS TO WHAT THE INTENT WAS HERE AND THAT OUR CODE REQUIREMENTS WERE. BUT ORIGINALLY IT WAS FOR AN ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENT. AND FOR THE ACCESSARY STRUCTURE TO BE LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE REQUIRED YARD. BUT, AGAIN, I WILL HAVE THE APPLICANT PRESENT WHATEVER INFORMATION HE HAS. SO WE HAVE A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IS BEING REQUESTED AND WHAT IS

REQUIRED OF THE CODE. >> OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR ANYTHING BEFORE WE

HEAR FROM MR. GRIEVES? >> COME UP TO THE PODIUM AND GIVE US OUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND SAY WHATEVER YOU HAVE TO SAY.

>> MY NAME IS JOHN GRIEVES, 19061ST AVENUE. THANKS FOR HAVING ME HERE. THE CONVERSATION THAT ADDRESSED IS TO YOU, IT DAPHNE THAT WE HAD EARLIER WAS ABOUT THE FOOTPRINT.

>> CORRECT. >> SO THAT'S THE ONLY REASON THAT WE DROPPED THE SECOND REQUEST IS THAT IT BECAME NULL

[00:30:02]

>> YES. >> SO, I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED, IF I'M NOW ASKING FOR THE RIGHT THING OR NOT.

>> RIGHT, SO THAT'S GOING TO DEPEND IF YOU ARE DOING THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT OR JUST AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. FOR THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, THE REQUEST FOR THE ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR THE FLOOR WOULD HAVE BEEN ACCURATE.

HOWEVER IF IT IS JUST AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, WOULD NOT HAVE THAT ADDITIONAL 200 SQUARE BUILDING FOOTPRINT REQUIREMENT.

AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THE MISCOMMUNICATION AND MISUNDERSTANDING, BUT THAT'S RIGHT.

>> THAT LEAVES ME IN AN ODD POSITION BECAUSE BASED ON OUR CONVERSATION WE DROPPED THA SECOND VARIANCE AND WE DIDN'T

EVEN SUBMIT THAT SITE PLAN. >> IT'S VAGUE AS FAR AS WHAT

THE REQUEST WAS. >> WELL, IT BECAME A MOOT POINT BECAUSE WE DECIDED WE WERE TALKING ABOUT FOOT THERE WILL PRINT AND THERE WAS NO WAY THAT WE WERE GOING TO APPROACH THAT, WITH WHAT WE WEREN'T GOING TO BE APPROACHING THE 625 SQUARE FOOT PRINT. NOT SQUARE FOOTAGE. AND I CONFIRMED THAT, I THOUGHT I CONFIRMED THAT WITH YOU TWO OR THREE TIMES BEFORE YOU REMOVED

IT. >> AND I WAS UNDER THE UNDERSTANDING AS WELL THAT WE HAD THAT SAME UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE REQUIREMENT WAS. I DID NOT HAVE A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING NOW, AS TO WHAT YOUR OVER ALL INTENT FOR THE STRUCTURE IS WHETHER IT'S A DWELLING OR A STRUCTURE. I DID NOT CONVEY THAT TO YOU IN A CLEAR MANNER SO I APOLOGIZE FOR

THE MISCOMMUNICATION. >> THIS HAS NEVER BEEN ABOUT AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. SO, I MEAN, I THINK THAT WE WOULD NEED TO GO. AND IF THAT IS THE CASE, IF THE INTERPRETATION OF THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, AND I'VE READ THROUGH EVERYTHING TO TRY AND UNDERSTAND IT THE BEST I COULD. IF THAT IS THE CASE THEN IT'S A SQUARE FOOTAGE TOTAL THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE FLOORS AND THEN WE WOULD BE ASKING FOR THE SECOND VARIANCE. THAT WOULD BE 100% WHAT WE WERE ASKING FOR. WE'VE NEVER BEEN INTERESTED IN ASKING FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, BECAUSE THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE A FRONT OR BACKYARD ISSUE. SO WE WOULDN'T

HAVE NEEDED THE VARIANCE. >> ALL RIGHT. SO, LET'S JUST

UNWIND THIS FOR A SECOND. >> OKAY.

>> THIS BUILDING THAT YOU WANT TO BUILD, WHAT ARE YOU GOING DO

WITH IT? >> SO, FIRST OF ALL, I DON'T THINK I'M SPECIAL, I HAVE LOW SELF-ESTEEM.

>> YOU'RE IN THE RIGHT PLACE. >> SO, THE BUILDING THAT WE ORIGINALLY WHEN WE BOUGHT THE HOUSE WE WERE VERY EXCITED ABOUT THE HOUSE, WE REHABILITATED THIS WHOSE HOUSE. WE HAD THE UNIT THERE AND WE DIDN'T WANT TO KNOCK IT DOWN SO WE WERE GOING TO REFERBISH IT. IT LOOKS LIKE A CHICKEN COOP FROM THE 60S.

WHAT WE'RE INTERESTED IN DOING, I WOULD LIKE TO I LIKE BICYCLES A LOT AND I WOULD LIKE TO WORK ON BICYCLES. THE SQUARE FOOTAGE

WAS VERY IMPORTANT. SO >> WHAT'S THE FIRST FLOOR FOOT

DLNT PRINT? >> IT'S 370 SQUARE FEET, I THINK. ACTUALLY, I THINK IT'S 385.

>> THAT'S FINE. AND WHAT ABOUT YOUR SETBACKS?

>> PART OF MINIMIZING THAT VARIANCE, WHEN WE TURNED IN THE SITE PLAN WE WERE TURNING IT IN AS IT WAS. AND I'M HAPPY TO GO BACK TO THAT. I CHANGED EVERYTHING I WAS GOING TO SAY.

I CAN ADOPT ON THAT AND EXPLAIN AND GO BACK TO WHAT WE WERE

[00:35:03]

THAT FOOTPRINT. >> SO YOU'RE NOT CHANGING THAT?

>> NO, IF WE WERE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING JUST BEING OUTSIDE OF THE BACKYARD AND TCHS ACCESSORY UNIT, THEN I MIGHT MOVE IT OVER, WE MAY ADD SOME SQUARE FOOTAGE, THERE'S A LOT OF WAYS THAT WE WOULDN'T GO OVER 625 SQUARE FEET BUT MADE IT A LOT EASIER, IF WE WERE GOING TO BUILD, AND BE ABLE TO PUT A STAIRWELL INSIDE NOT

OUTSIDE. >> SO, I'VE GOT 370 SQUARE FEET ABOUT, UNTIL WE GET TO THAT POINT.

>> OKAY. >> AND WHAT WILL BE MY FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS ON THAT.

>> WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE? >> WE WOULD JUST KEEP IT UNDER, WE WOULD DO THE SAME THING THAT AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT WOULD BE WHICH IS UNDER 625 SQUARE FEET. SO WE WOULD PROBABLY

INCREASE THE FOOTPRINT. >> IF YOU INCREASE THE

FOOTPRINT, WHAT'S THE SETBACK? >> WE'RE BACK FROM THE FRONT OF IT ANYWAY, SO YOU CAN'T SEE IT FROM THE ROAD, ONE OF THE REASONS YOU CAN'T SEE IT FROM THE ROAD IS BECAUSE IT GOES STRAIGHT UP. YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO IT WITHIN 10 FEET OR SO, ANYWAY. YOU COULD SEE. IT WENT AWAY.

>> SO, WHAT ARE THE SETBACKS THEN?

>> THE SETBACKS OF THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT.

>> OF WHAT YOU WANT TO BUILD? WHAT WOULD BE THE SETBACK?

>> IT WOULD BE PROBABLY, TO THE -- I DON'T KNOW BECAUSE I WASN'T PREPARED TO ANSWER THAT, IT WOULD BE MAYBE WHERE THE FENCE LINE IS BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE IT STARTS TO GO DOWN HILL.

SEE THAT FENCE LINE. THE SET BACK IS FROM THE PROPERTY LINES,

NOT FENCE LINES, RIGHT? >> RIGHT.

>> SO, FOR THE FOOTPRINT THAT YOU WANT TO PUT DOWN, HOW FAR IS THAT FROM THE STREET SIDE PROPERTY LINE?

>> YOU COULD SAY, YOU MEAN FROM THE ACTUAL PROPERTY LINE WHICH IS PROBABLY 7 FEET FROM THE FENCE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

SO, WE COULD GO, THIS IS 13.5 FEET WHERE IT EXISTS CURRENTLY TO GET TO THE SHED BECAUSE IT GOES STRAIGHT DOWN. SO IT WAS STRUCTURALLY SOUND SO IT WOULDN'T BE.

>> ALL RIGHT. MISS BACH, WOULD YOU LIKE TO JUMP IN FOR A

SECOND. >> PROCEEDURALLY. I NEED TO HEAR WHAT WE HAVE HEARD SO FAR IS THAT STAFF MADE A MISTAKE. I JUST LOOKED AT THE CODE SECTION. IT'S AS SIMPLE AS THIS, FLOOR AREA, ALL OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF YOUR FLOOR AREA COUNTS IF YOU'RE GOING TO RENT IT OUT OR HAVE IT AS AN ACCESSORY DWELLING. 625 FEET AS THE FOOTPRINT WHICH MEANS YOU CAN GO UP TO 25 FEET IF IT'S JUST A STRUCTURE, IF YOU'RE JUST USING IT FOR A STRUCTURE, OR A STUDIO, WHERE YOU DON'T HAVE A BATHROOM OR KITCHEN, THE THINGS THAT MAKE IT A DWELLING. I WOULD IMAGINE YOU WOULD LIKE TO RENT IT OUT, I WOULD. IF IT'S THAT AND YOU'RE SAYING ON THE RECORD. THEN IT IS. AND IF DAPHNE IS READY TO GO FORWARD. WE SHOULD CONSIDER CONTINUING THE CASE.

>> TO BE SURE THAT HE'S GOT HIS MIND AROUND EXACTLY WHAT YOU

WANT OVER THERE. >> AND JUST TO BE HEARD ON THIS. WE WERE VERY PREPARED UP UNTIL THREE HOURS AGO TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS. SO, I COULD GO BACK TO EXACTLY WHAT WE WERE ASKING FOR BECAUSE IT'S A LITTLE CONFUSING ASKING WHAT I WANTED.

BUT IF WE GO BACK TO EXACTLY WHAT WE WERE ASKING FOR, WE WOULD BE GETTING HAVING ALL OF IT ON THE SITE PLAN, THE EXACT SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 824 SQUARE FEET SO IT WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL 199 SQUARE FEET ABOVE AND BEYOND THE 625. IT WOULD BE A 28 FOOT BY 13.75 STRUCTURE AND UTILIZE THE EXACT SAME

[00:40:02]

SO, I'M HAPPY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH WHAT WE WERE ORIGINALLY

TALKING ABOUT. >> THEN YOU WOULD GO BACK TO

ASKING FOR THE TWO VARIANCES? >> IS THAT ALLOWED?

>> YES. SURE. YOU CAN APPLY FOR A VARIANCE TO SHOOT ROCKETS

OFF OVER THERE IF YOU WANTED TO. >> I DON'T WANT TO SHOOT

ROCKETS OVER OVER THERE. >> OKAY.

>> BUT, IS IT, THE QUESTION ABOUT SETBACK IS, IF THAT'S THE FRONT OF THE YARD, WHAT'S THE SETBACK.

>> SO, FOR THE ACCESSORY AS DEFINED IN CHAPTER 5, 3 FEET WOULD APPLY IF THIS WAS THE REAR YARD TO THE PROPERTY LINES.

>> IF THIS IS THE FRONT YARD? >> RIGHT.

>> SO WHAT IS THE SETBACK. >> SO THE STANDARD SETBACK FOR THE FRONT YARD HAS TO BE SET BACK 25 FEET.

>> SO IF WE ALLOWED THAT PLACEMENT THERE, FLIPPING REAR TO FRONT, DO THEY NEED ANOTHER VARIANCE REQUEST TO THE FRONT

YARD PROPERTY LINE? >> NO, THE VARIANCE REQUEST WOULD JUST BE TO ALLOW FOR THE DWELLING TO BE OUTSIDE OF THE REQUIREMENT OF THE REAR YARD AND FROM WHAT HE HAS HERE, THAT'S ALREADY MEETING THE GENERAL REQUIREMENTS, THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN CHAPTER FIVE FOR AT LEAST THREE FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINES.

>> BUT THAT'S A FRONT YARD. >> AND YOU'RE ALSO SAYING

ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, >> THIS IS AN ADU.

>> ACCESSORY DWELLING. >> BUT THE SET BACK, ISN'T IT GRAND FATHERED IN BY THE FACT IT'S THERE AND HE'S BUILDING

BACK. >> HE'S TAKING OUT THE STRUCTURE COMPLETELY THAT EXISTING.

>> UNDERSTOOD, BUT THAT'S A REPLACEMENT, IT'S NOT A COMPLETE NEW CONSTRUCTION, SO HE HAS SOMETHING THERE THAT HE'S

REPLACING. >> RIGHT. THAT WAS NOT MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE REQUIREMENT WOULD BE.

>> IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT BECAUSE, IDEALLY, WE WOULD LIKE TO, IF WE WERE TAKING IT THREE FEET, WE WOULD TAKE IT THREE FEET AND THREE FEET, BUT WE WANTED TO MINIMIZE WHAT WE WERE ASKING FOR AND AGREE TO UTILIZE THE EXACT SAME FOOTPRINT THAT WAS THERE BECAUSE IT WOULD MAKE IT MUCH LESS LIKELY THAT ANYBODY WOULD SEE IT FROM THE ROAD, AND WE HAVE NOBODY BEHIND US. THERE IS NOBODY BEHIND US, THERE IS CITY OWNED PROPERTY BEHIND US.

SO, AND WE WERE MINIMIZING, WE WERE ORIGINALLY THINKING IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE A TWO-CAR GARAGE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

AND WE ALSO WANTED TO MINIMIZE THE VARIANCE TO UTILIZE IT FOR WHAT WE NEEDED TO BE ABLE TO STORE ONE CAR, TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A POTTERY, BIKE ROOM OR A STUDIO ABOVE IT, BUT IT'S NEVER

BEEN AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. >> LEGALLY, THE FRONT OF THE YARD IS WHAT FACES 1ST AVENUE AND THE SETBACK IS 25 FEET.

>> CORRECT. >> SO DO THEY NEED A VARIANCE TO THAT TOO, IN ADDITION TO ALLOWING AN ADU IN THE FRONT?

>> I DO NOT BELIEVE SO, I THINK THIS REQUEST WOULD STAND ALONE.

I DO NOT THINK IT WOULD NEED AN ADDITIONAL VARIANCE.

>> THE WAY IT WAS EXPLAINED TO ME IS THAT IF THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, THE TWO VARIANCES POSTED ONE IS TO NOT HAVE IT IN THE REAR YARD, IT'S IN THE FRONT YARD, IT WOULD HAVE A THREE FOOT SETBACK. SINCE WE WERE INCREASING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ON IT, WE WANTED TO MINIMIZE WHAT WE WERE ASKING FOR TO ONLY WHAT WE NEEDED OR TO LITERALLY LIVE WITH. SO WE DIDN'T WANT TO ASK

FOR MORE. >> AND TO YOUR POINT, THE BOARD ALWAYS LOOKS FAVORABLE ON THAT. BUT, I AM NOT SURE THAT WE'RE

CLEAR ON WHAT HE WANTS. AND... >> WILL IT HAVE A BATHROOM?

>> IT WOULD, IT'S AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT YES.

>> WOULD IT HAVE A KITCHEN? >> ANY PLUMBING, OR

[00:45:02]

>> THERE WOULD BE A KITCHENETTE, OR SOMETHING LIKE A

REFRIGERATOR. >> AND IT WOULD BE THE FULL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE CURRENT STRUCTURE BUT TWO LEVELS?

>> WELL, IT WOULD BE 824 SQUARE FEET, THE SITE PLAN SUBMITTED HAS THE EXACT SQUARE FOOTAGES, AND I WANTED TO HAVE A FRONT PORCH SO, I PUT A 9 BY 6 FRONT PORCH BECAUSE TO MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE PUT IN THERE AND I TOOK THAT OUT. DO YOU HAVE THE ORIGINAL SITE PLAN? BECAUSE I'M NOT CONFUSED ABOUT WHAT WE WERE ASKING FOR AT ALL UNTIL EARLIER

TODAY. >> I'M GOOD WITH THAT, I THINK THERE'S, I DON'T NECESSARILY AGREE THAT IF THE LEGAL FRONT OF

THE HOUSE IS. >> NEITHER DO I, AND I DON'T THINK WE'RE GETTING A CLEAR OPINION ABOUT THAT. IF WE GRANT A VARIANCE THAT IT COULD GO IN THE FRONT YARD, WE CAN'T MAKE IT

THE BACKYARD. >> I THINK IF YOU SHOW THE PICTURES AND THEY CAN SEE WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

>> ALL RIGHT. >> I'M NOT FORCING AN OPINION ABOUT THE VARIANCE. I'M JUST QUESTIONING, WHAT DAPHNE IS SAYING ABOUT IT NOT BEING THREE VARIANCES. IT SEEMS LIKE IT IS.

>> I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THAT. AS I TURNED IT IN, IT WAS EXPLAINED TO ME AND IT WAS POSTED IN YARD THAT THESE ARE THE TWO VARIANCES THAT I'M ASKING FOR.

>> AND DAPHNE, I'M ONLY WONDERING, BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T

SOUND 100% SURE. >> AND THAT'S HOW I HAVE INTERPRETED THIS. THIS VARIANCE WOULD STAND FOR ITSELF. THE APPLICATION TO PLACE IT IN AN AREA OTHER THAN THAN THE REAR YARD THAT WOULD STAND FOR ITSELF. AND THEN THERE ARE OTHER FACTORS THAT GO INTO PLAY WITH HOW ELEVATE THIS HAD LOT IS AND HOW THE LOT IS SHIELDED FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY AS WELL THAT FACTOR INTO MY INTERPRETATION OF THIS.

>> AND IF WE'RE LOOKING AT THAT, PERHAPS, I TOOK 17 DIFFERENT PHOTOS THAT CAN EXPLAIN AND SHOW WHY I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE. I CAN GO THROUGH THOSE BRIEFLY, MAYBE THAT HELPS ORIENT YOU TO THE PROPERTY.

BUT, IF THERE IS A PRINCIPAL ISSUE.

>> YOU WOULD NEED TO KNOW THAT, RIGHT.

>> I'M HAPPY TO GO THROUGH THE PHOTOS, IF YOU FEEL LIKE IT WOULD HELP MAKE THINGS CLEAR. I CAN DO IT QUICKLY.

>> WELL, DOING IT VERY QUICKLY DOESN'T MATTER. THIS IS YOUR PROPERTY AND WE'RE GOING TO HELP YOU WORK THROUGH IT. SO, DO YOU WANT TO GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION? IS THAT WHAT I'M

HEARING YOU SAY, MR. GRIEVES? >> BASED ON WHAT I'M HEARING,

ABSOLUTELY. >> AND THEN THERE'S AN EXACT SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR THAT WE GOT ESTIMATES ON, I DIDN'T DO RENDERINGS, OR NOTHING THAT COSTED ME MONEY BUT I WENT THROUGH AND CHECKED ON WATER, MAKING SURE THAT THE IMPERVIOUS THINGS WERE OKAY ON THE PROPERTY. I DID A LOT OF WORK ON THAT RESPECT. ABSOLUTELY. BECAUSE THEN IT'S VERY CLEAR.

>> YES, MA'AM, MISS BACH? >> I'M LOOKING AT UNDER 5.01.03, THERE ARE REGULATIONS OR STANDARDS HERE FOR ALL ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. AND WHAT IT SAYS IS IT DOES NOT REFER TO A REAR YARD OR REAR PROPERTY LINE OR FRONT, IT SAYS WITH REGARD TO THE SETBACK, IT SAYS A DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDING IN A RESIDENT SHILEY ZONING. I'M NOT RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT. I ADVISE THIS BOARD, I DO NOT THINK THAT THIS CASE IS READY FOR YOUR DECISION TONIGHT AND THE REASON I SAY THAT IS THAT WE HAD TWO MEMBERS THAT ARE QUESTIONING STAFF'S INTERPRETATION WHICH IS FINE. AND THEY CAN DO THAT, OF THE CODE AND IT COULD HAPPEN. IF YOU GET A VARIANCE, ANY PART OF THIS DENIED, YOU CAN NOT COME BACK FOR A YEAR. MY

[00:50:01]

>> WHICH WE THOUGHT WAS MINIMIZING IT BY 10 FEET.

>> I UNDERSTAND. AND I DON'T WANT YOU TO GET DENIED TONIGHT OR THE BOARD TO NOT VOTE FOUR OUT OF FIVE OF THEM TO APPROVE YOUR VARIANCE. IF IT DOES NOT GET APPROVED, THEN YOU'RE OUT OF LUCK FOR A YEAR FOR WHAT YOU WANT TO DO. SO, I WOULD GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD AND MAKE SURE. THAT'S JUST MY RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD. YOU'RE WELCOMED TO DO WHATEVER YOU WANT TO DO, I DON'T DIRECT ANYBODY. I THINK THE PROPERTY OWNER, AS MUCH AS YOU WANT THIS TO BE DONE AND TO GET YOUR VARIANCE AND MOVE ON IF IT'S DENIED, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A DIFFICULT TIME DOING WHAT YOU WANT TO DO.

>> THAT'S HOW I WOULD FEEL. I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT I'M LOOKING AT AND WHAT I'M DOING. AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, THAT'S YOUR HOME. SO, I KNOW THAT THIS IS GOING TO POSTPONE YOU 30 DAYS. BUT I THINK IF WE ALL GET TOGETHER, AND DECIDE WHAT IT IS YOU WANT AND HOW WE CAN MINIMIZE IT AND WORK WITHIN THE LDC, I THINK WE MAY HAVE A BETTER OUTCOME ON THAT. WOULD YOU LIKE A MINUTE FOR YOU AND YOUR WIFE TO SPEAK ABOUT THAT?

>> NO, I MEAN, WE'RE CLEARLY DISAPPOINTED BECAUSE WE WERE, UP UNTIL THREE HOURS AGO WE WERE ABSOLUTELY PREPARED TO.

>> IT'S YOUR CHOICE, IF YOU WANT TO GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION WOULD THAT BE HIS CHOICE, MISS BACH?

>> IT IS UP TO YOU. YOU ALL CAN DO WHAT YOU WANT, I JUST WANTED EVERYBODY TO KNOW THAT THE SETBACK ISSUE IS OUT THERE AND IT'S NOT CLEAR AND I THINK THAT'S A PROBLEM FOR THIS CASE.

NOT LEGALLY FOR THE APPEALS COURT IF THAT'S WHERE IT WOULD GO, BUT I THINK FOR SOME OF THE MEMBERS. AND AS THE CHAIR SAID, IT MAY NOT TURN OUT THE WAY YOU WOULD EXPECT BECAUSE OF THAT.

>> SO, YOU TALK ABOUT A THREE FOOT SETBACK AS OPPOSED TO THE 13.7. WHAT COULD HE POSSIBLE BUILD IN THERE, IT'S A SLOPE, A 12 FOOT HIGH SLOPE BEHIND THAT SHACK?

>> WELL, IT'S NOT, IT GOES TO WHERE THAT FENCE IS AND STARTS GOING DOWN SO YOU COULD ACTUALLY BACK IT UP AND NOT HAVE A BOWLING ALLEY BEHIND IT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. YOU COULD BETTER TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE SPACE BY MOVING IT BACK AND IT WOULDN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE FROM THE STREET AND YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO CUT DOWN TREES AND MAKE A BETTER UTILIZATION OF THE SPACE.

IF THAT'S NOT WORKING, BECAUSE OF AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE SETBACK IS LEGALLY, THEN, I UNDERSTAND.

>> WELL, I LOOKED AT IT AND I JUST DIDN'T SEE WHERE YOU COULD GET MUCH FURTHER FROM THE SHACK NOW.

>> WELL, WHERE THE FENCE IS, MAYBE SIX FEET THAT IS STILL FLAT. BUT YOU WOULDN'T WANT TO DO THAT ANYWAY.

>> RIGHT. YEAH. >> OKAY. SO, IF YOU GUYS WANT

A MINUTE TO TALK ABOUT THAT? >> YEAH. I MEAN, AGAIN WE'RE CLEARLY DISAPPOINTED BECAUSE WE HAVE A BUNCH OF NEIGHBORS THAT

HAVE COME HERE. >> I'M GOING TO GET TO THAT WHILE YOU TWO TALK IF YOU WANT FOR JUST A SECOND. MISS BACH, ANOTHER WORD OF WISDOM AND GUIDANCE IF I MAY. BECAUSE WE HAVE SOME CITIZENS TONIGHT, I'M NOT SURE QUITE WHERE THIS IS GOING TO GO, BUT OBVIOUSLY THEY HAVE A THOUGHT, CAN WE STILL HEAR FROM THEM, SO MAYBE THEY CAN HAVE THEIR SAY?

>> WELL, I'M SORRY, WHAT YOU DO IS RECESS THE HEARING, THEN YOU CAN TAKE IT BACK UP LATER. THE PROBLEM, PARDON ME, THE PROBLEM IS THAT I DON'T THINK THIS IS ACTUALLY, GOSH, I CAN'T REMEMBER ANOTHER TIME SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE THAT THIS HAS HAPPENED.

THE APPLICATION IS NOT COMPLETE, THE STAFF ANALYSIS IS NOT COMPLETE BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A CONFUSION OF SETBACKS HERE. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S IN YOUR HEADS, BUT I THINK IT'S A LITTLE MESSY FOR. AND IF YOU HEAR FROM THE RESIDENTS, THEY

[00:55:01]

REALLY STICKY. >> DO I HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO

CONTINUE THIS? >> YES.

>> CAN I BRING IT BEFORE THE BOARD TO VOTE?

>> YES. >> OKAY.

>> I WOULD MUCH RATHER THAT COME FROM YOU, SIR, BECAUSE

THAT'S YOUR PROPERTY. >> I'M SORRY?

>> I WOULD MUCH RATHER YOU ASK TO HAVE THIS COULDN'TED UNTIL NEXT MONTH AND TO HAVE SOME TIME TO WORK ALL OF THIS OUT.

>> YEAH, I MEAN, I GUESS, I DON'T REALLY HAVE -- I FEEL LIKE I DON'T HAVE A CHOICE, I MEAN, I HAVE A CHOICE, BUT IT DOESN'T FEEL LIKE IT. I'M DISAPPOINTED THAT I HAD NEIGHBORS COME AND IT MIGHT BE NICE TO HEAR FROM THEM ANYWAY IF

IT'S GOING TO BE CONTINUED. >> WHEN I WAS ASKING YOU WHAT YOU WANTED AND I WASN'T GETTING ANSWERS FROM YOU, TO DEVELOP A CLEAR PICTURE OF WHAT YOU WANT AND THEN TRY TO MARRY THAT WITHIN THE LDC AND DETERMINE EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE DOING AND

THEN MOVE FORWARD WITH IT. >> UP UNTIL THREE HOURS AGO, I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT I WANT AND WHAT I WAS APPLYING FOR. IT IT SEEMS LIKE, NOW, IT'S A SEPARATE ISSUE. THE SETBACK ISSUE, WHICH, I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT I WANT.

>> IF WE EXCEED THE SETBACKS IN ANY CASE ON ANY PROPERTY, THAT'S A GOOD THING. IF IT SAYS, CLEARLY, AS TAMMI INDICATED ATTACH ACCESSORY BUILDING WITH A MINIMUM OF THREE FEET THEN IN THE FOLLOWING LINE IT SAYS AN ACCESSORY BUILDING SHOULD NOT BE CLOSER TO THE REAR LOT LINE EXCEPT IN C 3. IF HE'S EXCEEDING THE SETBACKS IN BOTH CASES.

>> BUT IT'S NOT BECAUSE THAT'S THE FRONT YARD. WE CAN'T CHANGE WHAT THAT IS. WE CAN GRANT THE VARIANCE THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING.

I HAVEN'T SAID WHICH WAY I THINK ABOUT IT, I THINK IT'S A

VARIANCE REQUEST, IS ALL. >> I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THAT.

>> SO, I THINK THE TWO OF YOU ARE PROBABLY TALKING ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. I THINK THAT MR. PAPKE IS TALKING ABOUT THEY'RE EXCEEDING THE THREE FOOT SIDE LOT SETBACK. HE'S NOT SPEAKING TO THE FRONT. YOU'RE INTERESTED IN THE FRONT YARD

SETBACK. >> YEAH.

>> AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT IF THAT IS SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE GOING TO CONSIDER NEEDING A VARIANCE, IT'S POSSIBLE THAT IT DOES. IT'S POSSIBLE THAT KELLY GIBSON, THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT WILL FEEL LIKE IN LOOKING AT IT AGAIN, IT DOES NEED A VARIANCE. AND IT'S POSSIBLE THAT IF LET'S SAY YOU GOT GRANTED BOTH OF THE VARIANCES ON THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION. IF CITY STAFF, BECAUSE MRS. GIBSON WILL LOOK AT THIS, THE DIRECTOR, AND SHE FEELS LIKE, OH, SHOOT T DAPHNE, YOU PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE REQUIRED A THIRD VARIANCE BECAUSE WE NEED THE 25 FEET IN FRONT THEN YOU HAVE TO COME BACK AGAIN AND PAY THE FEE AGAIN BECAUSE STAFF DOES NOT HAVE IN ANY CASES THE AUTHORITY TO DEVIATE FROM THE CODE. THEY COULD RECOMMEND IT, AND FIND THIS, BUT THEY CAN'T SAY, NO,

YOU DON'T NEED THE 25 FEET. >> AND IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU MET WITH KELLY EARLIER AND TALKED ABOUT, BECAUSE WHEN WE DROPPED IT TO THE ONE VARIANCE AND WE WERE TALKING ABOUT IF THE ONE VARIANCE WOULD MAKE IT CLEARER ABOUT THE FRONT LOT LINE SETBACK THAT THE THREE FEET WOULD APPLY.

>> EXACTLY. WE DID HAVE A CONVERSATION EARLIER BUT THERE WAS SO MUCH BACK AND FORTH THAT I THINK THERE'S A MISUNDERSTANDING WITH REGARDS TO WHAT IS NEEDED AND THAT CONSIDERATION OF THE FRONT YARD HAD NOT BEEN ANYTHING THAT I HAD LOOKED INTO OR EVEN CONSIDERED IN ALL MY DISCUSSION WITH STAFF, COLLEAGUES, AND DIRECTOR, THE ONLY THING THAT WAS BEING CONSIDERED WAS FOR THE REQUEST AS IT WAS SUBMITTED WITH THE STAFF REPORT. THERE WAS NOTHING ADDITIONAL THAT I HAD BEEN MADE AWARE OF EVEN THROUGH DISCUSSION WITH MY DIRECTOR AND STAFF.

>> ALL RIGHT. SO. >> I MEAN, IT STANDS. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WE WERE ASKING FOR IS THE SITE PLAN WE TURNED IN.

>> I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT YOU'RE A LITTLE FRUSTRATED ON THAT.

[01:00:04]

YOU CAN BE MAD AT ME. >> I'M NOT GOING TO BE MAD AT

ANYBODY. >> THAT'S OKAY. YOU COULD BE

FRUSTRATED. >> I'M FRUSTRATED, BUT THAT'S

ALL RIGHT. >> IS THERE ANYWAY THAT WE CAN

HEAR FROM THE CITIZENS. >> YOU'RE WELCOMED TO, BUT THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK AND TESTIFY AT A FUTURE HEARING IF

THEY WANTED TO SUPPORT IT. >> BUT, SINCE THEY CAME, IF IT'S JUST A SHORT THEN IT MIGHT BE NICE FOR.

>> ARE YOU ALL RIGHT WITH THAT MISS BACH?

>> YEAH. >> SO THE FIRST THING THEN, IS THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS, ARE YOU GUYS OKAY WITH MOVING THIS TO

NEXT MONTH? >> I WAS OKAY AWHILE AGO.

>> YES, SO WAS I. >> I THINK HAVING THE

APPLICATION. >> EVERYBODY'S GOOD WITH THAT?

>> I WOULD LIKE TO SAY. >> YOU WERE OKAY WITH HAVING

THE APPLICATION. >> NO, I'M JUST SAYING, WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US, I WANT TO SEE THE APPLICATION. I DON'T WANT JUST TALK ABOUT IT, AND KIND OF AMEND IT ON THE FLY, I WOULD

LIKE TO SEE. >> TYPICALLY, WHEN IT COMES BEFORE THIS BOARD, WE'RE GOING TO PUT A MAILBOX DOWN RIGHT THERE AND IT'S A CLEAR CUT DECISION. IT'S NOT A LITTLE MURKY ON THAT, AND BECAUSE IT IS YOUR HOUSE AND YOU'RE THE ONE PAYING THE FEES FOR THIS, WHEN YOU WALK OUT YOUR DOOR YOU WANT TO LOOK AT IT AND SAY, OKAY, THAT WAS WHAT I WANTED OR THAT WAS A GOOD COMPROMISE, YOU WANT TO BE HAPPY WITH IT. ALL RIGHT.

SO YOU COULD BE FRUSTRATED WITH ME.

>> NO, I'M NOT FRUSTRATED. >> SO, MISS BACH, DO I NEED TO GET A MOTION ON THAT TO CONTINUE IT.

>> OKAY. I NEED A MOTION. AND WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IS WE WON'T HAVE TO READVERTISE THIS, BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE IT TO A DATE, PLACE, AND TIME CERTAIN. AND TAYLOR, WHAT IS

THAT? >> APRIL 21ST IS THE NEXT

MEETING. >> APRIL 21ST. SO WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE THIS TO APRIL 21ST BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING. I

NEED A MOTION. >> I MAKE A MOTION.

>> I GOT A FIRST. >> SECOND.

>> MEMBER HERTSLET? >> CONTINUE?

>> MEMBER GRANT? >> CONTINUE.

>> MEMBER OLIVA? >> YES.

>> CHAIR MILLER? >> YES.

>> VICE CHAIR? YES. >> I KNOW YOUR FRUSTRATED AND I CAN FEEL THAT, BUT IN THE END I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE WOULD LIKE TO BE. SO, NOW, I CAN OPEN THAT UP TO PUBLIC COMMENT. SO IF THERE IS ANYONE. IS THERE ANYTHING FURTHER THAT YOU WANTED

TO SAY, MR. REEVES? >> NO, BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE I WOULD BE GOING THROUGH THE EXACT SAME PICTURES FOR YOU NEXT TIME AND MAKING THE SAME ARGUMENT THAT I WAS GOING TO MAKE THREE

HOURS AGO. >> SO, IF THERE'S ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS, IT DOESN'T MATTER, IF YOU'VE GOT ANY THOUGHTS ON THIS, WE WOULD

LOVE TO HEAR FROM YOU. >> YES, SIR, IF YOU WOULD COME UP TO THE PODIUM AND GIVE US OUR NAME AND ADDRESS, SIR.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MY NAME IS CLAUD WE LEAVE AT 1903 SOUTH FLETCHER, AND WE LEAVE BETWEEN HIS HOUSE, AND SOUTH FLETCHER AVENUE. AND APPARENTLY, THE HOUSE HE LIVES IN WAS ON THE ORIGINAL LOT WHICH WAS A LARGER LOT AND AT SOME POINT, THE LOTS GOT DIVIDED. AND WHEN THEY GOT DIVIDED, OUR HOUSE WAS BUILT. WE HAVE LIVED THERE SINCE 2006 FOR 15 YEARS NOW. WE LOOK OUT EVERY MORNING AT WHAT WE'VE ALWAYS CONSIDERED THE FRONT OF HIS HOUSE. IT LOOKS LIKE THE FRONT OF A HOUSE.

AND WE WERE TOLD HIS ACCESS WAS THROUGH 1ST AVENUE, I THINK.

AND SO, OUT OF CURIOSITY, WE DROVE BACK ON 1ST AVENUE AND IT

[01:05:01]

HORRIBLE. >> OKAY.

>> AND, I DON'T KNOW SOMETIMES THEY SAY YOU NEED TO JUST TAKE ACTION AND THEN ASK FOR PERMISSION, NOT ASK FOR PERMISSION, BUT ASK FOR FORGIVENESS. I'M AFRAID IF I HAD LIVED THERE, THAT'S PROBABLY WHAT I WOULD HAVE DONE.

BUT WALLY'S TRYING TO FOLLOW THE RULES. I HAVEN'T KNOWN HIM BUT FOR TWO OR THREE WEEKS, THEY INVESTED IN THAT HOUSE AND IMPROVED THAT HOUSE AND AS FAR AS MY WIFE AND I ARE CONCERNED LOOKING OUT IN HIS PROPERTY, IF IT LOOKS LIKE A DUCK, SWIMS LIKE A DUCK AND QUACKS LIKE A DUCK IS A DUCK. THE PORT OF HIS PROPERTY THAT IS NOW BEING CALLED THE BACKYARD, WILL ALWAYS BE THE FRONT YARD OF HIS PROPERTY AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED. AND IT WOULD BE ASHAMED THAT HE WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE THE FRONT THOUGHT BACK AND 1ST STREET NEVER GET BUILT.

AND WE RESPECTFULLY SUPPORT YOU GRANTING THE VARIANCE FOR HIM AT

HIS NEW HOME. ALL RIGHT. >> THANK YOU.

>> BEFORE YOU SIT DOWN, SIR, WAS THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD MEMBERS, BEFORE HE SITS DOWN.

>> NO. >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, SIR.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. YES, SIR? >> WHILE WE'RE HERE MY NAME IS WILLIAM BRADSHAW AND I LIVE AT 17621ST AVENUE, AND I'VE KNOWN WALLY AND SONIA NOR ABOUT THREE MONTHS NOW, I KNOW HE'S WORKED HARD TO PUT THIS PACKAGE TOGETHER AND TO BRING TO THE BOARD. IT'S ASHAME THAT THINGS GOT PUSHED TODAY AND PUT TO THE SIDE BECAUSE IT WAS ALL PUT TOGETHER PROFESSIONALLY, WELL DONE, EVERYTHING SET. TO TELL YOU THE TRUTH, I'VE LIVED ON 1ST AVENUE OVER FOUR YEARS, I WALK MY DOG PASSED HIS HOUSE, ALL THE TIME. YOU CAN'T EVEN SEE THE SHED THAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT.

ONCE I MET THIS COUPLE AND WENT UP TO THEIR HOUSE TO SEE ALL THE NEW CONSTRUCTION THEY HAD DONE INSIDE, I SAW THE SHED AND I SAID, A STRONG WIND WOULD BLOW THAT DOWN, IT'S A GOOD THING YOU'RE TRYING TO GET RID OF IT AND DO SOMETHING RIGHT. IT'S JUST KIND OF CRAZY, THAT THIS IS HAPPENED THE WAY IT IS. BUT, AGAIN, EVEN WITH A TWO-STORY PIECE THERE, YOU COULD NOT SEE THAT FROM THE ROAD. AND AGAIN, AS THE GENTLEMAN JUST STATED, THE ROAD ENDS AT HIS DRIVEWAY. AND THE RAMP UP FROM THE DRIVEWAY IS ABOUT A FOUR FOOT VARIATION. NOTHING BUT WOODS

THAT HIDE THE SHED. >> 17 FEET.

>> IT'S LIKE 12 FEET. >> IT'S QUITE A STEEP CLIP OR

[01:10:05]

CONSTRUCTION AND THE VARIANCE. >> THANK YOU FOR COMING

TONIGHT, SIR. >> ANYBODY ELSE WANT WOULD LIKE

TO SPEAK? >> YES, MA'AM.

>> MY NAME'S DONNA HAINS AND I LIVE AT 1929 SOUTH FLETCHER RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO CLAUD AND BARBARA, LIKE EVERYONE ELSE, WE ALWAYS ASSUMED THAT THEIR CURRENT BACKYARD WAS THEIR FRONT YARD. BUT THE CITY CHANGED IT AT SOME POINT BUT THAT'S THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE SO FOR THEM TO EVEN ADD A STRUCTURE, THERE'S SO LITTLE ROOM THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO, I DON'T THINK, DO IT IN THEIR CURRENT BACKYARD. SO, ANYWAY. BUT THEY'VE BEEN VERY OPEN AND CONSCIENTIOUS ABOUT LETTING NEIGHBORS KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING, THEY HAVEN'T TRIED TO HIDE ANYTHING, AND WANTED INPUT, WE'VE HAD FAMILY THAT RENTED THE HOUSE, I'VE SEEN IT, IT'S DEFINITELY BEEN IMPROVED. THEY'VE CERTAINLY DONE A LOT TO MAKE FERNANDINA BEACH A NICER PLACE. ANYWAY, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE AND GIVING US THE OPPORTUNITY TO

SPEAK UP. >> THANK YOU, MA'AM.

>> ANYTHING ELSE? >> NO, I JUST ADD THAT I SPOKE WITH DAPHNE AND SHE SAID THAT AFTER THIS SEND OUT THE NOTICES AND THE POSTED THE THING AT THE END OF OUR DRIVEWAY SO THAT EVERYBODY CAN SEE IT, AND, WELL, SHE SAID NOT ONE PERSON HAS CALLED TO ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT IT AND THAT USUALLY HAPPENS A LOT.

AND I THINK PART OF THE REASON IS BECAUSE WE WENT AROUND AND TALKED TO EVERYBODY. I MADE A PACT OF OUR EXACT PLANS, OF THE EXACT STRUCTURE THAT WE WERE ASKING FOR AND GAVE IT TO EVERYBODY IN GREAT DETAIL SO THAT EVERYBODY KNEW.

>> DID YOU HAVE A SIGN POSTED ON SOUTH FLETCHER?

>> I DIDN'T POST A SIGN, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WAS OR NOT

>> NO THERE WAS NOT. >> OKAY. BECAUSE NO ONE WOULD EVER SEE THE ONE YOU PUT BACK THERE ON 1ST. LIKE YOU SAY

THERE'S A DEAD END. >> EVERYBODY ON THE STREET SAW

IT. >> ACTUALLY, A LOT OF PEOPLE SEE IT BECAUSE AT THE END OF THAT STREET THERE'S A CUT THROUGH THE WOODS THAT CUTS THROUGH THE COAST MOTEL SO THERE'S A TON OF WALKING TRAFFIC THAT COMES THROUGH THERE.

>> SO, TO EXTEND 1ST, WOULD THEY HAVE TO BUY PROPERTY FROM

THE COAST HOTEL. >> I'VE HEARD SO MANY STORIES,

I THINK IT'S ALL CITY PROPERTY. >> IT LOOKS LIKE YOU GO

THROUGH THEIR PARKING LOT. >> I DON'T KNOW.

>> BUT IT'S, ANYWAY. AGAIN, AND I ALSO WANT TO APOLOGIZE FOR ANY AMBIGUITY THAT WAS THERE. I HAD EVERYTHING THAT YOU WERE ASKING FOR ALL READY EVEN ASK MY WIFE, I WAS DRIVING HER CRAZY.

IT WAS THE CONVERSATION, THE DISCREPANCY IN OUR CONVERSATION THAT MADE ME ABANDON THE VARIANCE BECAUSE IT WAS FOOT

PRINT NOT SQUARE FOOTAGE. >> WELL, THE WORLD'S NOT A PERFECT PLACE. AND IT MAY SEEM LIKE, THE CITY, THIS BOARD, THAT YOU HAVE I DON'T SAY A SHACK BUT A STRUCTURE THAT CERTAINLY NEEDS IMPROVING. AND I DON'T WANT IT TO SEEM LIKE THIS BOARD IS

[01:15:02]

>> WHEN I SEE MISS BACH TAPPING ON THE BRAKES, I WANT TO SLOW

DOWN TOO. >> IT DOESN'T HAPPEN OFTEN, BUT WE DE CONTINUE THINGS, SO IF YOU'RE FRUSTRATED, YOU COULD BE FRUSTRATED AT ME. LET'S EVERYBODY GET TOGETHER AND WE'LL TRY TO RUN THIS UP THE FLAG POLE NEXT MONTH. OKAY.

>> DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT? >> I AGREE WITH THAT.

>> THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR YOUR TIME.

>> SO, THAT'S THAT. >> WHAT ELSE DO WE HAVE ON THE AGENDA FOR TONIGHT, GUYS? ANY NEW BUSINESS?

>> TAYLOR? DAPHNE? >> NO, SIR.

>> I KNOW WHAT WE'VE GOT COMING UP NEXT MONTH. WE GOT ANYTHING

ELSE COMING UP NEXT MONTH? >> THERE ARE A COUPLE.

>> A COUPLE NEXT MONTH. >> OKAY.

>> IT WILL BE A FULL AGENDA. >> A FULL AGENDA NEXT MONTH.

>> OKAY. THEY'RE FIRST IN LINE, THOUGH, BECAUSE WE'RE

CONTINUING, RIGHT? >> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE BOARD TONIGHT AND HEARING NONE, WE'LL CLOSE THAT PORTION OUT. ANYTHING ELSE FOR THE BOARD MEMBER?

[6. BOARD BUSINESS]

>> I WOULD LIKE TO JUST SAY, WHEN SOMETHING LIKE THIS GETS CHANGED, YOU KNOW, THIS WAS SENT OUT BY YOU AT 3:30 THIS AFTERNOON, TO COME OUT HERE AND NOT SEE IT, A LOT OF US DON'T STAY ON OUR COMPUTERS AN HOUR AND-A-HALF BEFORE THE MEETING.

IF YOU DON'T MIND, TRY TO GET THINGS OUT AHEAD OF TIME, OR MAYBE JUST CANCEL THE MEETING RATHER THAN GET INTO AN HOUR AND-A-HALF DISCUSSION AND HALF OF US DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT'S

GOING ON. >> I THINK SO TOO. I THINK THAT'S A JUSTIFIABLE CRITICISM AND A PLACE THAT WE CAN

DEFINITELY IMPROVE. >> CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM.

>> I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE BEFORE US WHAT THE

APPLICATION IS. >> CORRECT.

>> AND SO IF IT GETS AMENDED, AT ANY POINT, THAT'S WHAT WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT INSTEAD OF TRYING TO VERBALLY UNDERSTAND

IT. >> ABSOLUTELY.

>> AND I THINK WE ALL DID, BUT WE HAD QUESTIONS TOO.

>> AND THAT'S COMPLETELY UNDERSTANDABLE. AND THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF CONFUSION, THERE WAS JUST A LOT OF CONVERSATION AND BACK AND FORT BETWEEN MYSELF AND THE APPLICANT THIS AFTERNOON. AND THAT'S WHEN I WANTED TO GET EVERYONE UP TO SPEED AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE AS TO WHAT WAS DISCUSSED. AND THAT WAS WHEN THE EMAIL WENT OUT. BUT I AGREE HAVING A COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT IS BEING ASKED IS VERY IMPORTANT. AND I APOLOGIZE AGAIN TO MR. REEVES AND TO THE BOARD FOR THE

CONFUSION THAT THIS HAS CAUSED. >> YEAH, IT ISN'T FAIR TO THE APPLICANT BECAUSE IF THE APPLICANT GETS DENIED BECAUSE SOME OF THE MEMBER ARE HESITANT TO VOTE BECAUSE OF THE ABSENCE OF A CLEAR PICTURE. IF THAT CLEAR PICTURE IS AVAILABLE NEXT MONTH, THEY CAN POTENTIALLY GET THE VARIANCE.

>> AND AS TO WHAT HE WAS SAYING ABOUT DOES HE NEED A VARIANCE AS TO OTHER ASPECTS OF IT, WE DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DISCUSS THAT. I MEAN, THEY'RE ANALYZING THIS AND SAYING THIS IS WHAT YOU NEED A VARIANCE FOR, AND WE SAY NAY. I DON'T KNOW OF TIME THAT

THAT'S EVER HAPPENED. >> I DON'T EITHER.

>> I DON'T KNOW ANYTIME IN THE PASSED WHERE WE APPROVED SOMETHING AND IF OH GOT TO ANY OTHER CITY DEPARTMENT AND THEY SAID THAT YOU GOT TO GET A VARIANCE FOR THIS TOO. I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S EVER HAPPENED. ALL RIGHT. IF

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.