Apr 21, 2021 Board of Adjustment

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

[00:00:05]

>> GOOD EVENING EVERYONE, THE APRIL 21ST, 2021 FERNANDINA BEACH BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS NOW IN SESSION.

THE BOARD WOULD LIKE TO THANK ALL OF OUR VETERANS BUT ESPECIALLY THE ONE THAT IS ON OUR BOARD TONIGHT JEFF BRANT IS A NAVY VETERAN. ALSO A GRADUATE OF THE NAVAL ACADEMY WHERE OUR REVOLUTIONARY HERO JOHN PAUL JONES IS ON THE

FLOOR OF THE CHAPEL. >> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> JEFF IF I COULD ASK YOU TO LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, THANK YOU SIR.

>> WOULD YOU CALL THE ROLL PLEASE.

>> SURE. MEMBER HERTSLET.

HERE. MEMBER PAPKE, HERE.

MEMBER EXPLUMS, HERE. MEMBER OLIVA.

HERE. >> GOOD EVENING EVERYBODY.

JUST A LITTLE HOUSEKEEPING HERE, JUST FOR A SECOND.

ALL OF THE BOARD MEMBERS HERE TONIGHT ARE ALL VOLUNTEERS, AT SOME POINT IN THE PAST, WE'VE ALL BEEN APPOINTED BY THE CITY COMMISSION AND WE ALL SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE CITY COMMISSION. THEREBY, THE VOTING PUBLIC RUNNING THROUGH WHAT OUR COMMISSIONERS ARE, IS RUNNING ALL OF YOUR LOCAL BOARDS. WE'VE GOT TWO STAFF MEMBERS WITH UNITED STATES TONIGHT, TAYLOR IS OUR SECRETARY, SHE'S DOING A GREAT JOB KEEPING ALL OF OUR RECORDS STRAIGHT AND NUDGING ME WHEN I GET OFF TRACK. THANK YOU TAYLOR.

NEXT TO HER, MS. DAPHNE FOREHAND, SHE HAS A BIT OF A TOUGH JOB TO TRY TO BALANCE INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS RIGHTS AND OUR LBC. SO SOMETIMES THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A TIGHT ROPE TO WALK. AND WHEN THAT DOESN'T ALWAYS MATCH UP THAT'S WHY THE LDC PROVIDES FOR THE VARIANCE AND WHY WE ARE HERE TONIGHT. EVERYBODY WHO CAME TO SPEAK IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO SPEAK. IN A TOOU MOMENTS WE WOULD LIKE TO GET EVERYBODY SWORN IN. WE'D LIKE TO DO THAT IN A GROUP IF WE CAN. IT JUST HELPS TO KEEP THE MEETING FLOWING. IF FOR SOME REASON YOU CHANGE IN YOUR MIND AND YOU DIDN'T GET SWORN IN BUT YOU DO WANT TO SPEAK THAT'S ABSOLUTELY NOT A PROBLEM.

YOU CAN RAISE YOUR HAND AND TAYLOR WILL GET YOU SWORN IN AND THAT'S NOT AN ISSUE. FLORIDA HAS A SUNSHINE LAW SO WE ARE RECORDING THIS TONIGHT. SO EVERYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK WILL HAVE TO COME UP TO THE PODE UP, GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. EVERY TIME YOU COME UP YOU HAVE TO GIVE US THAT. IT'S NOT THAT THE BOARD MEMBERS DON'T REMEMBER WHO YOU ARE, IT IS JUST FOR THE RECORD.

WE HAVE OUR CITY ATTORNEY MS. TAMI BACH, WITH US TONIGHT.

SHE IS NOT A BOARD MEMBER, DOES NOT VOTE.

SHE IS HERE TO OFFER WISDOM AND GUIDANCE.

SHE DOES A GREAT JOB. IT IS NOT UNUSUAL FOR ONE OF OUR BOARD MEMBERS TO SEEK SOME WISDOM FROM HER.

I'M GOING TO ASK HER TO GO THROUGH THREE THINGS.

WHY WE HAVE THE FORMAT THE WAY IT IS, HOW THE VOTING MUST GO AND MOST IMPORTANTLY IF THERE IS AN APPEAL THERE IS GOING TO BE SPECIFIC GUIDELINES FOR THAT. MS. BACH WOULD YOU GO OVER THAT

FOR US PLEASE. >> YES, TONIGHT ON THE AGENDA WE HAVE TWO CASES AND BOTH OF THOSE WILL BE HEARD IN QUASI JUDICIAL HEARINGS. AND WHAT THAT MEANS IS FIRST DAPHNE FOREHAND WITH CITY STAFF IS GOING TO GIVE EVIDENCE INTO THE RECORD, SHE WILL HAVE TESTIMONY OF COURSE VERBAL TESTIMONY. AFTER MS. FOREHAND SPEAKS THEN THE APPLICANT AND OR THEIR AGENT WILL COME TO THE PODIUM PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND YOU WILL BE TESTIFYING AND PRESENTING EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY INTO THE RECORD, TRAVIS, WHATEVER WRITINGS, MAPS THAT YOU HAVE.

IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING NEW THAT YOU HAVE NOT TURNED INTO THE CITY WE DON'T HAVE A RULE THAT YOU HAVE TO TURN IN A CERTAIN NUMBER OF DAYS. YOU ARE PERMITTED TO COMMIT THAT TONIGHT AS NEW EVIDENCE BUT WHAT I ASK THAT DO YOU IS PLEASE SHOW TO IT MS. FOREHAND FIRST MAKE SURE SHE DOESN'T HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS AND THEN WE'LL BE HAPPY TO HAVE THE BOARD LOOK AT

[00:05:01]

THE CITY'S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES THAT FOUR OUT OF THE 75, SO A SUPERMAJORITY HAS TO VOTE TO APPROVE A VARIANCE.

IF YOU WISH TO DENY A VARIANCE, BOARD MEMBERS, AND THERE IS A MOTION MADE TO DENY THE VARIANCE THAT ONLY HE REQUIRES THREE OUT OF THE FIVE. A SIMPLE MAJORITY THE VOTE TO DENY. SO MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE YOU'LL HEAR MOTION TO DENY CASE NUMBER AND THREE OUTS OF FIVE HAVE TO VOTE YES AND THAT VARIANCE IS DENIED.

IF A VARIANCE IS DENIED TONIGHT, ANOTHER VARIANCE FROM THE SAME CODE SECTIONS CANNOT BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE CITY OR REQUESTED FOR ONE YEAR. IF THERE'S AN PEOPLE TO BE TAKEN OF ANY OF THE DECISIONS MADE IN THE CASES COME EITHER OF THE CASES, GET DENIED OR APPROVED AND SOMEBODY HAS STANDING, YOU WILL APPEAL THAT TO THE CIRCUIT COURT.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR DID I MISS ANYTHING?

OKAY. >> THANK YOU MS. BACH.

TAYLOR WOULD YOU GET EVERYONE SWORN IN PLEASE?

>> WOULD ALL PARTIES WISHING TO PRESENT TESTIMONY TONIGHT PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND? DO YOU SWEAR OR FIRM THAT THE ORAL AND OR WRITTEN TESTIMONY WILL BE THE TRUTH THE WHOLE

TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? >> THANK YOU MS. TAYLOR.

I DID FORGET TO MENTION ONE THING ABOUT THE COMPUTER MONITORS. WHEREAS SATISFY CAN ONLY PUT ONE SHEET OF PAPER ON THE SCREEN AT ONE TIME, WE CAN ZOOM IN AND ZOOM OUT. WE DON'T HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OTHER THAN WHAT IS GOING TO BE PRESENTED TONIGHT.

WE DON'T COMMUNICATE WITH EACH OTHER.

ANYTHING THAT IS SAID BETWEEN ANY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.

[3. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES]

BARRY, DID YOU LOOK AT THOSE? >> I DIDN'T REALLY SEE ANYTHING WRONG WITH THEM. THERE IS A QUESTION --

>> WHAT IS YOUR THING? >> WE HAD THIS APPLICANT LAST MONTH WHO WE THOUGHT HE WAS GOING TO COME BACK THIS WEEK.

SO THE MINUTES SAID SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SAID SOMETHING HE WOULD BE BACK. BUT I THINK HE'S CHOSEN NOT TO

COME BACK AT ALL, RIGHT? >> YES.

>> I MEAN THE MINUTES FLICK WHAT WAS SAID BUT THAT CASE IS DONE

NOW. >> THE APPLICATION WAS

WITHDRAWN. >> OKAY BUT THE REST OF THE

MINUTES LOOK FINE. >> THEY LOOK GOOD.

>> DAPHNE DID HE TURN THAT IN IN WRITING THAT HE WITHDREW THAT?

>> YES. >> I BELIEVE YOU TOLD ME EARLIER THAT HIS FUNDS WERE REFUNDED TO HIM?

>> THEY WERE. >> THAT'S EXACTLY HOW THAT SHOULD BE. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ANYBODY ON IF MINUTES GET ANYTHING? LET'S GET A MOTION AND ENTERED INTO HISTORY.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE. >> SECOND.

S TAYLOR THAT'S YOU. >> MEMBER HERTSLET, APPROVED.

MEMBER GRANT, MEMBER PAPKE, CHAIR MILLER.

>> APPROVED AND IT WILL BE SO. DAPHNE ARE YOU READY?

[5.1 BOA 2021-0001 - DAN MCCRANIE, 3474 1ST AVE]

>> OKAY, SO THE FIRST ITEM IS DOA 2020-01, APPLICATION IS FOR DAN MCCRANIE, IT'S ON FIRST AVENUE, HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL

[00:10:07]

THE PROPERTY IS VACANT, ALL FEES HAVE BEEN PAID AND ALL REQUIRED NOTICES HAVE BEEN MADE. SO THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A VARIANCE FROM FOUR SECTIONS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT COID.

CODE.ALL ARE DEVIATIONS FROM THE REQUIREMENTS.

THE APPLICANT EXPECTS TO CONSTRUCT TOWN HOMES.

THE PROPERTY CONSISTS OF NINE OVEN DEVELOPED OF RECORD.

1911 AS PART OF THE SEA VIEW SUBDIVISION.

DUE TO THE HEAVY VEGETATION TREES AND VARYING TOPOGRAPHY OF THE SITE, STEMMING WALLS FOR THE SIDE AND REAR YARDS AND PARKING IS OVERSIZED AMOUNT LOCATED AT THE FRONT OF THE APPROACHED STRUCTURES. NATURAL PRECAP BY AND ALLOWS FOR THE RETENTION OF OTHER 50% OF THE EXISTING HEALTHY TREES.

MULTIPLE VARIANCES ARE NEEDED FOR THE PROPOSED DESIGN.

4.02.05C REQUIRES PARKING BE IN THE REAR, PARKING IS PERMISSIBLE IN THE FRONT YARD FOR THE APPLICANT TO MEET THE IRMTS ROOL OF THIS SECTION OF CODE IT WOULD REQUIRE LOTS TO BE FILLED WHICH WOULD RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT TREE LOSS AT THE REQUIRE OF THE LOTS.

SIDE PARKING IS NOT AN OPTION DUE TO THE WIDTH OF THE LOTS.

APPROACHED 20 FEET LEAVING ONLY FIVE FEET FROM THE SIDE YARD.

IN ADDITION, FRONT PARKING REQUIRES THE STRUCTURES TO SHIFT TO THE REAR WHICH WOULD ALSO RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT LOSS OF TREES. 7.01.01EA REQUIRES DRIVEWAYS TO BE A MINIMUM OF 12 FEET AND A MAXIMUM OF 20 FEET IN WIDTH.

THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A 36 FOOT WIDE PARKING AREA AND DRIVEWAY FOR THE TWO UNIT TOWN HOME WHICH ACCOMMODATES FOUR CARDS IN A 54 FEET WIDE FOR A THREE UNIT TOWN HOME ACCOMMODATING SIX CARS. THIS DOES NOT ALLOW FOR EACH UNIT TO BE ADJACENT TO EACH OTHER.

THIS HAS BEEN DONE IN AN EFFORT TO RETAIN TWO LARGE 28 INCH AND 21 INCH OAK TREES LOCATED AT THE FRONT OF LOT 25.

AND FOR LOTS 25 AND 28 SPECIFICALLY, THEY REQUIRE A VARIANCE FROM 7.01.04A AND B WHICH REQUIRES TWO PARKING SPACES PER UNIT AND ONE PARKING SPACE FOR EACH TWO UP FENCE.

THE APPLICANT IS NOT REQUESTING A REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED SPACES PER UNIT ONLY A SHIFT IN LOCATION.

AGAIN THE SHIFT ONTO THE ADJOINING PROPERTY HAS BEEN LOCATED AT THE FRONT OF LOT 25. THE APPLICANT'S VARIANCE REQUEST IS SPLIP TO ALLOW FOR THE PARKING OF THE TOWN HOMES TO BE LOCATED ON THE ADJOINING PROPERTY.

AND THE APPLICANT HAS WORKED WITH STAFF TO ADJUST THE SITE CREATED A DESIGNING THAT IS ENVIRONMENTAL REPLY SENSITIVE AND SERVES TO PROTECT AS MUCH OF THE NATIVE VEGETATION AND TOPOGRAPHY AS POSSIBLE. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LIST BELOW AND THE CITY COMMISSION'S GOAL TO SERVICE OF TREE CANOPY.

AND HERE IS A SITE PLAN, PROPOSED SITE PLAN AND AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, THE PARKING LOCATED AT THE FRONT AND ON LOT 25, THE TWO OAK TREES, WHERE YOU CAN SEE THE SHIFT IN PARKING ONTO THE ADJOINING PROPERTY AND WHY THAT WAS DONE AND THEN IN ADDITION THE TREES AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY, I'VE HIGHLIGHTED ALL OF THEM IN YELLOW JUST TO HAVE A CLEAR VISUAL OF WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. AND GETTING INTO THE CONSISTENCY FOR THE SIX CRITERIA OF GRANTING A VARIANCE.

SPECIAL CONDITIONS, SPECIAL CONDITIONS DO EXIST AS IT RELATES TO LAND FEATURES OF THIS PARCEL.

THE PARKING COULD BE CONFIGURED, HOWEVER STAFF IS AWARE OF THE MEETING OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS. TOTALLY ELIMINATE THE NATURAL FEATURES OF THIS SITE. MATURE CANOPY.

SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, YES, GRANTING THE VARIANCE DOES NOT CONFER UPON THE APPLICANT A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, ALL NEW ZONING

[00:15:08]

MANY WERE CONSTRUCTED WELL BEFORE THE CURRENT REGULATIONS FOR PARKING WERE ADOPTED AND CONTINUE TO OPERATE WITH FRONT LOADED PARKING TYPICAL OF A TRADITIONAL SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

LITERALLY INTERPRETATION. NO LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WOULD DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT OF RIGHTS, ALL NEW DEVELOPMENT REDEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE R-3 ZONING DISTRICT MUST COMPLY TO THE LDC.

CURRENT DESIGN REGULATIONS BUT RECOGNIZES THE VALLEY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES CONTAINED ON THE PROPERTY AND WISHES TO PRESERVE THIS. MINIMUM VARIANCE.

YES, THE VARIANCE REQUESTED IS THE MINIMUM NEEDED TO MAKE POSSIBLE THE REASONABLE USE OF THE LAND.

GENERAL HARMONY. YES, VARIANCE WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL INTENT OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. HEALTHY TREES CONSISTENT WITH FIVE.11.9 C OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LDC 4.05.04, STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS TO ENSURE A MINIMUM NUMBER OF TREES ON ANY LOT OR PARCEL PROTECT AND PRESERVE THE NATURAL LANDSCAPE FOSTER ENCOURAGE MAINTENANCE AND NATURAL VEGETATION AND MINIMIZE THE LOSS OF TREES TO DEVELOPMENT.

PUBLIC INTEREST, YES, GRANTING THE VARIANCE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES WILL NOT CAUSE INJURY TO THE AREA OR OTHERWISE BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY WELFARE OR ENVIRONMENT. THE PROJECT CAN PROCEED ABSENT THE APPROVAL OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT FOR A DESIGN THAT IS ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE.

DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS. AND I BELIEVE ON NUMBER 3, YES, OKAY, I'M JUST LOOKING BACK TO MAKE SURE THAT I READ THAT ONE CORRECTLY. SO FOR THE ANALYSIS SPECIAL CONDITIONS IS CONSISTENT, SPECIAL PRIVILEGE CONSISTENT AND CONSISTENT IN LITERALLY INTERPRETATION, MINIMUM VARIANCE IS CONSISTENT, GENERAL HARMONY CONSISTENT, PUBLIC INTEREST CONSISTENT. SO STAFF FINDS THAT IT DOES NOT MEET CRITERIA 3 FOR LITERAL INTERPRETATION AS SUCH MUST RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THIS VARIANCE.

>> NICE JOB DAPHNE, THANK YOU. >> COULD YOU EXPLAIN 3 TO US?

THAT IS ALWAYS CONFUSING THE ME. >> YES, I THINK I READ IT IN A WEIRD WAY. SO LITE LITERAL INTERPRETATION,L DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT WITHIN R-3 AND SIMILAR ZONING DISTRICTS HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

SO NO, WE'RE NOT DEPRIVING THE APPLICANT OF RIGHTS THAT OTHER PROPERTIES IN R-3 WOULD TYPICALLY HAVE.

>> THAT SOUNDS LIKE THAT WOULD BE A GOOD THINGS NOT A BAD

THING. >> WELL, IT'S JUST NOT -- IT'S

JUST NOT -- >> IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE LAND

DEVELOPMENT. >> SOMEONE IN R-3 COULD DO THE SAME THING BUT THE ANSWER IS NO, IT DOES NOT MEET THAT CRITERIA FOR LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THIS CODE.

EVERY SINGLE PROPERTY THAT WOULD HAVE NEW CONSTRUCTION HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THAT BUT THE PROPERTY OWNER IS RECOGNIZING THE ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES ON THE PROPERTY AND THEY'RE WORKING WITH THOSE ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES TO PRESERVE THEM.

>> DAPHNE WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY THAT THIS PROJECT MEETS, IF IT CAME UP WITH A DIFFERENT DESIGN, THAT THE PROJECT COULD

MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT THIS BOARD? >> IT COULD MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT

MEANS OF THIS VARIANCE, YES. >> YES SO REALLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS NOT WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THIS PROJECT, BUT HOW WE CAN BEST WORK TOGETHER TO WHETHER WE CAN COME UP WITH THE BEST THING FOR THE ENVIRONMENT IN THAT

LOCATION. >> YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

S YES. >> YES.GALLO I HAVE A COUPLE OFL QUESTIONS. IT SAYS 50% OF THE TREES ARE GOING TO BE RETAIFNED. I SHOULD KNOW THIS BUT WHAT IS

THE REQUIREMENT? >> A PROTECTED TREE IS ANY TREE THAT IS FIVE INCHES OR IN BREADTH, HEIGHT, DIAMETER, FIVE

[00:20:05]

BUT YES THAT'S HOW OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

>> SO FOR AN UNDEVELOPED SITE LIKE THIS IS, THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT FOR AN OVERALL PERCENTAGE JUST FOR TREES OF A

CERTAIN SIZE? >> SO THE REQUIREMENT IS TO --

IT'S A 50-50 MITIGATION RATIO. >> I'M SORRY WOULD YOU REPEAT

THAT? >> SO THE REQUIREMENT IS THAT THE TREES ARE MITIGATED AT A 50-50 RATIO MEANING THAT ANY TREES THAT ARE REMOVED MUST BE REPLACED ON SITE.

IF THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO DO THAT THEN THEY HAVE TO PAY IN TO DO SO. BUT HOWEVER, ON THIS SITE YOU CAN SEE IT'S HEAVILY HEAVILY WOODED AND I'LL BRING THIS --

>> YES, THAT'S WHAT I WAS WONDERING.

>> THEY HAVE TO MEET THAT MITIGATION RATIO AT 50 TO 50.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE REQUIRE FOR ALL RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.

>> 50-50 OR IT GETS MITIGATED? >> SO 50% PLANTED ONSITE.

IF THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO MEET THAT 50% ONSITE PLANTING THEY HAVE TO

PAY IN. >> YOU CAN GO LESS THAN 50

BUT -- >> CORRECT.

>> OKAY GOTCHA. >> AND THE FIVE FOOT SETBACKS THAT ARE IN THE PACKET IS THAT STANDARD FOR R-3? THAT SEEMS LIKE A VERY SMALL SET BACK TO ME, I'M NOT REALLY AWARE OF WHETHER HIGH DENSITY ALLOWS FOR -- IS THAT STANDARD?

>> ARE YOING REFERRING TO THE SIDE SAID BACKS?

>> SIDE SETBACKS YES. >> WOULD DETERMINE THE WIDTH OF THE LOT. IT WOULD DEPEND ON THE WIDTH OF THE LOT AS TO WHAT THOSE SIDE SETBACKS ARE.

IT'S 10% OF THE FOR THE WIDTH E LOT.

AND 25 FOOT LOTS IS WHAT THE WIDTH IS CURRENTLY.

>> OKAY, I THINK IT'S LIKE -- I THINK WHEN WE START THINKING ABOUT SOME OF THESE REQUIREMENTS LIKE THE PARKING AREA BEING ON THE SIDE FOR EXAMPLE, AND YOU KNOW WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT WHETHER THERE WAS AN ALTER I DON'T REMEMBER MOTIVE TO THAT, WHY THAT IS IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WHETHER IT IS TO KEEP FROM HAVING BUILDINGS TOO CLOSELY CROWDED TOQUE OR IT MIGHT NOT HAVE TO DO WITH PARKING AT ALL, MIGHT HAVE TO DO WITH OTHER ASPECTS. I WONDER IF THAT IS THE CASE HERE, WONDER IF IT IS A THING THAT IS KNOWABLE.

>> AND SO WHY THAT IS IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE? I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHY THAT'S IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

>> IT DOES SERVE THAT FUNCTION TO KEEP BUILDINGS FROM BEING TOO

CROWDED TOGETHER. >> SURE BUT NOT EVERY SITE IS

THE SAME. >> NO, OF COURSE.

OKAY. >> YOU GOT SOMETHING JEFF?

WHAT YOU GOT? >> A COUPLE KIND OF ALONG THE SAME LINES. I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT PARKING. DRIVEWAYS ARE DIFFERENT FROM PARKING. MINIMUM DRIVEWAY 12 AND A MAXIMUM 20. AND THEN WE TALK ABOUT PROPOSING 36 FOOT WIDE PARKING AREA DRIVEWAY SO SAME THING?

>> YES, SO THE AREA THAT IS WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IS WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT, WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT THE AREA THAT IS WITHIN THEIR PRIVATE PROPERTY. IT CANNOT EXCEED 20 FEET IS WHAT OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR THAT SPECIFIC AREA THAT IS

WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. >> BUT IT HAS A MINIMUM OF 12

FEET. >> MINIMUM OF 12 FEET, CORRECT.

>> OKAY, SO THAT'S NOT 12 FEET PER PARKING AREA?

>> THAT'S 12 FEET FOR THE DRIVEWAY.

>> ARE WE TALKING PARKING OR DRIVEWAY?

>> TALKING DRIVEWAY SPECIFICALLY.

>> THERE IS NO DRIVEWAY REALLY, IT'S JUST A BIG PARKING AREA.

>> RIGHT. >> SO IS THAT REQUIRED TO BE 12 FEET MINIMUM FOR EACH PARKING SPACE?

>> NO. I BELIEVE THE STANDARD IS NINE

FEET. >> NINE FEET.

>> TYPICAL FOR A PARKING SPEED. >> AND THE --

>> I'LL HAVE TO GO BACK AND SEE WHAT THE REQUIREMENT IS FOR

THAT. >> THE OTHER PARK WAS A LITTLE BIT FURTHER DOWN, TWO PARKING SPACES PER UNIT AND ONE PARKING

SPACE PER EACH TWO OCCUPANTS. >> FIRE MARSHAL WAS SOMETHING

WITHIN THAT SAME PIECE. >> I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW MANY PARKING SPACES THAT COMES OUT, AT LEAST FOUR.

>> IT WOULD DEPEND ON WHAT WOULD BE THE OCCUPANCY OF THAT SITE

[00:25:02]

>> OKAY BUT IT IS MORE THAN FOUR.

FOUR IS THE PRELIMINARY. TWO PER UNIT.

>> SO TWO PER UNIT IS WHAT OUR CODE IS READING, YES.

>> YOU SHOW 18 HERE. YOU SHOW 18.

>> I'M SORRY? >> I BELIEVE YOU SHOW 18.

>> TOTAL? >> YES.

>> YES. >> THAT WORKS OUT, I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED BY AND ONE PARKING SPACE FOR EACH TWO OCCUPANTS.

I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU FIGURE THAT OUT, YOU SAY IT'S THE FIRE MARSHAL. BUT DOES THAT MEAN THAT THEY

NEED TO HAVE MORE THAN 18? >> NOT NECESSARILY.

HOW WE MAY HAVE BEEN REVIEWING THEM AND HOW THEY HAVE BEEN

REVIEWED IS FOR THE TWO -- >> JUST THE TWO?

>> THAT IS TYPICAL. >> THAT'S BUILDING CODE NOT FIRE CODE. IT'S BUILDING CODE AND IT IS TWO

PER. >> IT'S AN AND-STATEMENT WHICH MEANS IT'S TWO AND. YOU KNOW?

>> MAYBE NOTE THAT DOWN FOR CLARIFICATION IN THE FUTURE.

>> I THINK THE POINT THAT JEFF IS TRYING TO GET AT HERE OR GOT AT I SHOULD SAY IS AT A CERTAIN WIDTH A DRIVEWAY IMKS A PARKING AREA, IT'S NOT REALLY A DRIVEWAY ANYMORE.

AND CERTAINLY AS IT APPEARS IN THESE DURATION THEY ARE PARKING LOTS, NOT THAT WIDE. FOR OUR PURPOSES AS FAR AS INTERPRETING THE BUILDING CODE WE'RE CALLING THEM THE SAME

THING? >> PRETTY MUCH.

>> TO SUPPLEMENT THAT, ONE OF THE QUESTIONS WOULD BE, ARE WE EXCEEDING THE PERVIOUS AREA WE'RE ALLOWED ON THAT LOT, BASED ON THAT WIDER AREA AND NOT HAVING A DRIVEWAY?

>> THE IMPERVIOUS AREAS WERE PROVIDED, NOT EXCEEDING THE LBC'S REQUIREMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

>> IS THAT BASED ON THE OVERALL USE OR BY LOT?

>> THAT IS BASED OVERALL. >> WHAT IS IT, DO YOU KNOW THAT

NUMBER OFFHAND DAPHNE? >> I CAN PULL UP THE SITE PLAN.

>> IS IT A PERCENTAGE OF THE LOT SIZE?

>> SO THE TOTAL FOR ANY DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE -- FOR RESIDENTIAL IS 60%, NOT MORE THAN 60%.

>> AND THAT IS SHOULD THE PER LOT APPLIED.

>> JUST A COUPLE MORE. THE 50%, THE 50% OF THE EXISTING HEALTHY TREES, THAT'S 50% OF THE CURRENTLY EXISTING HEALTHY

TREES? >> CORRECT.

>> IT MAY BE ONE OF THE APPLICANTS CAN ADDRESS THIS BUT JUST ON THE DRAWING I CAME UP WITH 70 TO 75 TREES AND THE APPLICATION LEAVES ABOUT 30 TO 35.

>> THIS RIGHT HERE ARE THE TREES THAT ARE BEING RETAINED CURRENTLY. AND THEN IN ADDITION TO THAT, IF YOU REFER BACK TO THE TREE SURVEY THAT WAS PROVIDED SEE THAT ALL OF THE TREES THAT ARE ON THIS SITE TO COMPARE AND KIND OF SEE WHERE THAT 50% IS ACTUALLY COMING FROM IN

COMPARING TO THE SITE PLAN. >> YES, JUST MY MATH CAME UP WITH LEAVING LESS THAN 50%. BUT I'LL TAKE YOUR WORD FOR IT.

>> DAPHNE, DO YOU KNOW THAT YOU HAVE EVERYTHING THAT YOU HAVE PROVIDED, MEANING A CROSS SECTION OR A SECTION ACROSS THE

TOPOGRAPHY? >> WE HAVE EVERYTHING THAT WE NEED FROM HIM AND HE ALSO HAS PREPARED A PRESENTATION WITH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO PROVIDE TO THE BOARD TONIGHT AS

WELL. >> ANYTHING ELSE, BILL YOU GOT

ANYTHING? >> NO.

>> ANYTHING ELSE FROM THE BOARD? LET'S HEAR FROM MR. MCCRANIE.

LET ME GET YOU TO STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND THEN I'LL STOP YOU RIGHT THERE. SO I WON'T HAVE TO INTERRUPT

YOU. >> VERY GOOD.

>> IF YOU ARE GOING TO GIVE THE BOARD SOMETHING GIVE THAT TO MS. BACH AND BE SURE SHE IS HAPPY WITH THAT AND WE CAN GO TO THE BOARD WITH THAT. THANK YOU SIR.

>> SO DAN MCCRANIE, ARBOR LANE FERNANDINA BEACH FLORIDA.

[00:30:02]

SO OUR REQUEST IS BASED UPON SAVING TWO TREES UP FRONT.

AGAIN WE'VE WORKED WITH CITY STAFF TO DESIGN A PRODUCT THAT'S IN CHARACTER WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THAT WORKS WITH THE EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY. IF YOU WILL CHANGE THE ONE.

YOU HAD TALKED ABOUT THE TOPOGRAPHY.

SO THE EXISTING ROAD WILL LIKE IN FRONT WILL VARY FROM ELEVATION 19 DOWN TO 16. SO IT HAS A PRETTY STRONG VARIANCE ALONG 1ST AVENUE AND THEN FROM THERE IT WILL DROP DOWN TO ELEVATION 8 AND A HALF AND THEN COME BACK.

SO IT IS IN THIS DUNAL SYSTEM OF UPS AND DOWNS.

NUMBER 3 PLEASE. THAT'S WHY WE DISIEFNED ON STEM WALLS. ON THE SIDES AND THE REARS WE HAVE BUILT A DESIGN WITH STEM WALLS SO WE CAN SAVE AS MANY TREES ON THE SIDE AND KEEP THE . AND ALSO BE ABLE TO SAVE THE TREES IN THE BACK. SO WE HAVE AUTOGRAPHED THE PARKING SPACES TOGETHER WHICH ALLOW FOR LARGER LANDSCAPE ISLANDS. SO THAT'S WHY WE DON'T MEET NUMBER 3. IT IS POSSIBLE TO BUILD ALL OF THIS AND BUILD TWO PARKING SPACES AND HAVE FIVE FEET IN BETWEEN THEM, OR PROBABLY THREE AND A HALF FEET IN BETWEEN THEM.

AND SO WE WOULD HAVE 18 FEET AND FIVE FOOT STRIP OF GRASS, LIKE THREE AND A HALF AND 18 FEET AND THEN ANOTHER LITTLE STRIP OF GRASS. IT IS POSSIBLE TO DO THAT BUT IF WE DID THAT I CANNOT SAVE THE 21 AND THE 28 INCH OAK.

BECAUSE WHAT I'VE DONE I'VE GROUPED THEM TOGETHER, SHIFTED THINGS AWAY WHILE STILL KEEPING THE LOT LINE FOR 24 AND 25 RUNS RIGHT HERE. SO I NEED FOR THAT GROUPING OF THE ONE TOWN OR ONE DUPLEX ONE TWO-UNIT TOWN HOME I NEED FOUR PARKING SPACES ON THAT GROUP OF LOTS, THAT TWO GROUP OF LOTS.

SO I SHIFTED TO TRY TO MAKE THAT SPACE AS LARGE AS POSSIBLE.

WHAT WE'VE ALSO SHOWN IS WE'RE GOING TO BE PLANTING STREET TREES IN ADDITION TO OUR TREE MITIGATION OF SAVING TREES WE'RE PLANTING OAK TREES IN THESE OTHER AREAS AND GIVEN LARGER AREAS TO BE ABLE TO PLANT THOSE OAK TREES.

BUT IT'S BECAUSE OF SHIFTING AND IT'S REALLY KIND OF SHIFTING AND PLACING TOGETHER AND DOING THAT IN WHICH WE REQUIRE THE VARIANCE. IF YOU GO TO NUMBER 4 PLEASE.

SO STAFF HAS REVIEWED AND SAID THAT THE APPLICATION MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENT CAN EXCEPT LITERALLY, SUPPORTING EVERYTHING EXCEPT FOR THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION.

THAT'S WHY THEY CAN'T RECOMMEND APPROVAL.

THEY CAN'T OUTRIGHT SAY WE WANT YOU TO APPROVE IT BUT EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE DONE BACK ANT FORTH AND FORTHIS TO TRY TO WORK WITHE ENVIRONMENT AND AGAIN TRY TO SAVE THOSE TREES SO IT IS POSSIBLE BUT THE TWO OAKS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE MOVED.

THE FOLLOWING FIVE SLIDES SHOW EXAMPLES OF RESORT RENTAL PROPERTIES WITH PARKING IN THE FRONT.

THEY VARY THROUGHOUT THE COUNTIES.

COUNTY. I THINK ONE MORE.

SO ALL OF THOSE JUST SHOW EXAMPLES OF PARKING WITH PARKING IN THE FRONT FOR RESORT RENTAL. THE NEXT WILL SHOW PARKING WIDER THAN 24 FEET. AGAIN DRIVEWAY AND PARKING IN THIS SENSE IS CONSIDERED THE SAME.

OKAY, YES. SO IN SOME AREAS THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE IT PAVED, IN OTHER AREAS THEY HAVE GOT I WIDE BUT THEN BRINGING EVERYTHING TOGETHER BUT THERE'S NO GRASS STRIP IN BETWEEN THERE. SO IF YOU APPROVE THIS YOU WOULDN'T BE APPROVING ANYTHING THAT HASN'T GONE IN THE PAST.

SLIDE 12, SO THESE ARE THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.

THE TOP LEFT IS THE PROPERTY DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET IN WHICH THEY HAVE PROBABLY A 20 FOOT WIDE DRIVEWAY.

THE ONE UP TOP AND LARGER IS THE PROPERTY TO THE LEFT IN WHICH THEY HAVE THEIR DRIVEWAY BUT THEY ALSO HAVE PARKING SPACES,

[00:35:02]

FINALLY THESE ARE THOSE TWO TREES, REALLY CLOSE TOGETHER.

THEY CREATE A NICE CANOPY AND IT'S WORTH SAVING THOSE TREES SO I WOULD PLEASE ASK THAT YOU GRANT OUR REQUEST.

I THINK THERE ARE A COUPLE OF OTHER QUESTIONS.

YOU WERE WONDERING ABOUT TREES. IT'S NOT THE NUMBER OF TREES BUT IT'S THE NUMBER OF TREE INCHES. SO CAV SAVING A LARGER TREE IS BETTER AND GIFTS YOU MORE CREDIT THAN A SMALLER TREE.

WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS CALCULATED ALL OF THE TREE INCHES FOR THE OVERALL PROJECT AND ARE SAVING I THINK 51% AND IN ADDITION WE ARE GOING TO BE PLANTING OTHER OAK TREES AS STREET TREES AGAIN TO KIND OF MEET THE CRITERIA. I GREW UP HERE, I WANT THIS PLACE TO BE BEAUTIFUL AND 1ST AVENUE IS A GORGEOUS LOCATION, ANYBODY WHO'S WALKED UP AND DOWN.

I BELIEVE OUR PRODUCT WILL MEET THE CHARACTER.

WE HAVE SPOKEN TO THE NEIGHBOR ACROSS THE STREET AND KEPT HER INFORMED EVERYTHING THAT'S GOING ON.

I THINK IT'S NICE. I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY IS IN OPPOSITION IF THEY ARE WE'LL CERTAINLY ANSWER ANY KIND OF QUESTIONS. MR. OLIVA.

YOU HAD ASKED ABOUT SIDE YARD SETBACKS.

THE MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETTLE BACK FOR THIS PRODUCT IS TWO AND A HALF FEET SO WE HAVE INCREASED THAT TO FIVE FEET.

BUT THAT'S THE ABSOLUTE MINIMUM. SO WITH THAT THAT'S MY

PRESENTATION. >> ALL RIGHT JUST STAY UP THERE IF YOU DON'T MIND SIR. WHAT YOU GOT?

>> I'D LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION ABOUT THE TREES BECAUSE I KNOW THE PROPERTY PRETTY WELL. WITH THE PARKING, THE DRIVE OUT, WHAT IS THE PLAN ARE YOU GOING DOWN WITH THE TOPOGRAPHY, ARE YOU GOING TO GO UNDER AND PARK UNDER?

WHAT LEVEL? >> GO TO SLIDE I THINK 3.

YES, OKAY. THE GRADING FOR THIS EFFECTIVELY IS GOING TO -- WE'RE KEEPING THE FINISHED FLOORS ABOUT ELEVATION OF THE ROAD BUT PROBABLY A HALF A FOOT TO A FOOT LOWER.

AND SO I CAN RUN A 2% SLOPE, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN HEAR ME, WE ARE RUNNING A 2% SLOPE DOWJ WARDS, THEN I HAVE TO COLLECT THE WATER AND ROUTE IT TO THE SIDE YARDS.

THAT'S WHERE EVERYTHING IS GOING TO DRAIN.

I'M NOT TOO STEEP BUT I'M DMOMGG IN, GRASS AREA THAT ALSO HELPS COLLECTTHE STEPS. SO MY FRONT OF THE BUILDING IS WITHIN A FOOT TO FOOT AND A HALF OF THE ELEVATION OF THE ROAD.

BUT MY SIDE, IF YOU SEE IN BETWEEN, WE'RE GOING TO BUILD RETAINING WALLS THERE SO FROM THERE AND BEHIND IT, IT DROPS DOWN TO KIND OF NATURAL GRADE WHICH COULD BE TWO FEET, THREE FEET, FOUR FEET DOWN. BUT THEN EVERYTHING FROM THERE

BACK STAYS NATURAL. >> I RECOGNIZE YOUR EFFORTS, I APPRECIATE IT, I'M AN ARCHITECT AND I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE AFTER. I WOULD ASK IF YOU DON'T DO A RETAINING WALL AROUND THOSE TREES IF YOU DO FILLER AROUND THOSE TREES YOU'RE GOING TO KILL THEM.

>> I'M ALSO A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, I DON'T KNOW IF I STATED THAT BUT SO AND THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO DISTURB ANYTHING AROUND THAT AREA. THIS AREA RIGHT THROUGH HERE IS ALL AT GRADE AND WE'RE GOING TO BE WORKING AROUND THAT AND NOT

DOING THAT. >> IT SEEMS FROM THOSE -- I WAS JUST OUT THERE TODAY. IT SEEMS LIKE ALMOST A SEVEN FOOT DROP. YOU KNOW, JUST BEHIND THOSE TREES, JUST FURTHER INTO THE LOT.

>> IT DOES. AND COMES RIGHT BACK UP.

IT WILL GO FROM THAT ELEVATION SAY 16 OR 17, DOWN TO AN ELEVATION OF EIGHT AND A HALF TO 9 AND THEN RIGHT BACK UP TO 17 AND THEN BY THE REAR OF THE YARD I'M AT 18.

SO IT GOES UP AND DOWN BUT EVEN AT -- THOSE TROUGHS DON'T GO THROUGH THE ENTIRE PART OF IT, IT GOES UP.

IT IS VERY DUNAL. >> ARE YOU FILLING THAT?

[00:40:02]

BACK UP AGAIN. >> CORRECT.

SO FOR THIS FRONT PARKING AREA 20 FEET OF THE DEPTH OF PARKING ONCE I GET ONTO PRIVATE PROPERTY OFF THE COUNTY OR CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY YES THAT HAS TO GET FILLED.

AND IN SOME INSTANCES THAT WOULD BE TWO TO THREE FEET.

BUT IT HAS TO GET FILLED AND THE GRADING WILL COME UP TO THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE. AND THEN THESE BARRIER WALLS AND EVERYTHING ELSE ALLOWS EVERYTHING, THE NATURAL TOPOGRAPHY TO GO BACK DOWN AND THEN THE HOUSES THEMSELVES STAY ON STEM WALLS SO THEY CAN HAVE VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION AND THEN INSIDE OF THE HOUSE YOU KNOW GETS FILLED OR HOWEVER.

I'M NOT AN ARCHITECT. >> ARE THESE GARAGES?

>> NO, NO GARAGES. >> A LOT OF PICTURES YOU SHOWED US HAD THAT FRONT PARKING AND DRIVEWAY BUT THEY HAD GARAGES

TOO. >> YES.

>> PEOPLE DON'T HAVE TO PARK IN THEIR GARAGE BUT IT WAS BUILT THAT WAY. THIS IS NOT EVEN GOING TO HAVE THE ABILITY FOR SOMEBODY TO DO THAT.

>> NO. >> GIVEN THE LARGE SWALE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DID YOU GIVE ANY THOUGHT AT ALL TO PUTTING SOME OF THOSE HOUSES ON BOWS OR STEM WALLS MIGHT WORK AND

PARKING UNDER THE STRUCTURES? >> THERE WAS JUST NO -- WE DID.

AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE FIRST CONCEPTS.

IS TO PUT IT ON PILES. BUT IF I RAISE THE HOUSE UP HIGH ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO GET UNDERNEATH AND PARK, THEN I EXCEED MY HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS, BECAUSE IT'S NOT BASED -- THE HEIGHT OF THE HOUSE IS NOT BASED UPON WHERE YOU START THE FLOOR AND GO UP TO THE ROOF. IT IS BASED UPON YOUR AVERAGE LOT GRADE. AND THAT'S WHERE YOU START.

SO I'M AT A CEILING THAT I CAN'T MOVE UP.

SO IT WASN'T POSSIBLE TO BE ON STILTS AND PARK UNDERNEATH.

WE DID LOOK INTO THAT. >> WHAT IS YOUR HEIGHT THERE?

>> THE PROPOSED HEIGHT, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS 35.

THE PROPOSED HEIGHT IS 30 FROM AVERAGE LOT GRADE TO PEAK OF ROOF. THE ACTUAL STRUCTURE IF I RECALL IS ABOUT 27 TO 27 AND A HALF FEET FROM FINISHED FLOOR, YOU KNOW, YOUR STANDING FLOOR TO PEAK OF ROOF.

>> I WANT TO PIGGYBACK WITH JEFF.

ALL OF THE PAVEMENT THAT IS OUT FRONT IS THOSE PAVERS OR

CONCRETE? >> I DON'T KNOW IF THAT CAME UP.

IT'S EITHER GOING TO BE CONCRETE OR PAVERS.

I DON'T THINK WE HAVE GONE INTO THAT DESIGN ELEMENT.

I'M HOPING WE CAN DO PAVERS BUT I DON'T HAVE THAT FINAL SAY.

IT WILL BE EITHER A SOLID CONCRETE, SOLID SURFACE SO IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE MAINTAINED BECAUSE IT WILL BE RENTAL PROPERTY PROBABLY. IT'S SORT OF 50-50 WITH HAD IT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO BE RESORT RECOMMEND.

IT WILL BE SOLID, EITHER CONCRETE OR PAVERS BUT I DON'T

KNOW THE ACTUAL MATERIALS. >> ALL RIGHT.

>> SO THE LDC IF I READ THIS RIGHT DOESN'T ALLOW FRONT

PARKING FOR THIS PROPERTY. >> WELL, THE LDC DOESN'T ALLOW FRONT PARKING FOR RESORT RENTAL. TO BE ABLE TO ASK FOR A RESORT RENTAL PERMIT. WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO -- AND WE'VE CHECKED, WE FOUND 25 TO 30 RESORT RENTAL PERMITS ISSUED SINCE 2006 WHEN THAT WAS WRITTEN.

I DON'T BELIEVE ANYBODY HAS EVER PAID ATTENTION TO THAT PART OF THE CODE AND I READ THE CODE ENTIRELY AND WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE COME AND ASK FOR APPROVAL RATHER THAN FORGIVENESS.

SO TECHNICALLY YOU COULD BUILD THIS AND DON'T SAY IT'S A RESORT RENTAL. IT'S JUST A TOWN HOME.

AND THEN COME A MONTH LATER AND COME ASK FOR RESORT RENTAL AND TECHNICALLY COULD YOU GET IT. I DON'T WANT TO GO THROUGH THAT.

I WANT TO BE UP FRONT. I WANT TO TELL THE YOU WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO AND ASK FOR APPROVAL.

>> OKAY. SEEMS LIKE YOU COULD DO SIDE PARKING BUT WITH A REDUCED NUMBER OF UNITS.

DID YOU LOOK AT THAT AT ALL? >> SO I DON'T HAVE ANY ROOM TO PUT SIDE PARKING -- YEAH, WITHOUT LOSING UNITS.

THE ONLY WAY TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THE PROJECT FEASIBLE, YOU KNOW HOW HARD IT IS TO FIND A LOT ON AMELIA ISLAND.

TO DO SIDE PARKING EFFECTIVELY THEN I'M TRYING TO ACTUALLY -- I

[00:45:02]

I EVEN LOOKED AT TRYING TO GET BACK TO THE BARK YARD AND DO SOME LITTLE DRAW AND SHARED DRIVE AND COME OUT BUT THEN THAT WIPED OUT EVERY SINGLE TREE BACK THERE AND IT WAS GOING TO BE

HORRIBLE LOOKING. >> I WAS JUST LOOKING AT IT AND IT'S NOT MY DESIRE TO DESIGN BUT IF YOU HAVE THE THREE UNITS AGAIN, IT SEEMS LIKE YOU WOULD HAVE PARKING OUT IN THE SIDE WHICH WOULD BETTER CONFORM I THINK WITH THE LDC.

>> YES. >> WHETHER IT'S FEASIBLE OR NOT

FROM -- >> IT WOULDN'T BEING FEASIBLE WITH THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT WE ARE ASKING, KIND OF HAVE AS FAR

AS LOTS. >> RIGHT, OKAY.

>> ONE OTHER QUICK QUESTION. KNOWING THE LOTS PRETTY WELL, THAT OAK TREE LITERALLY SPREAD OUT IN EVERY DIRECTION.

HOW ARE YOU GOING TO BE GETTING THE VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION AROUND

THOSE TREES? >> I DON'T HAVE A GOOD VIEW OF ACTUAL TRUNKS BUT MOST OF THE TRUNKS ACTUALLY COME OVER 1ST AVENUE. A FEW OF THEM DO GO BACK AND GO TOWARD, IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT GOOGLE MAPS VIEW, WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO TRIM BUT WE'LL BE DOING IT WITH AN ARBORIST, WE'LL PROBABLY NEED TO MANY TRIM ONE OR TWO THAT PROBABLY GO BACK IN TOWARDS THE HOUSE. UNDERSTANDING WE'RE GOING TO PAY ATTENTION TO THE AMOUNT OF WEIGHT BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT TO LOSE TOO MUCH WEIGHT, WE WILL BE USING A CERTIFIED ARBORIST TO CHECK EVERY SINGLE TREE HEALTH, IF WE DO TRIM IT IT WILL BE

HEALTHY FOR THAT TREE. >> OKAY.

>> MR. MCCRANIE THE AREA BEHIND YOUR PROJECT DOES THAT REMAIN A NATURAL DUNE OR IS THAT LANDSCAPED AND IRRIGATED?

>> NO, IT STAYS NATURAL. THEY MAY BUILD BACK DECKS.

THOSE DECKS WOULD BE PROBABLY THREE OR FOUR FEET, IF YOU HAD A SLIDING GLASS DOOR AND WALKED OUT YOU WOULD BE THREE OR FOUR FEET ABOVE NATURAL GRADE. THOSE DECKS WOULD BE ON PILINGS.

SAY THERE'S AN 18 INCH OAK UP THERE, IF THEIR DECK WENT AROUND IT, THEY'RE GOING TO WORK THE DECK AROUND THE TREE AND PROTECT THE TREE SO THAT THEY KEEP ALL THE NATURALNESS.

SO THERE'S NO -- THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ANY ST. AUGUSTINE GRASS ON THIS PROPERTY EXEMENTD FOR RIGHT UP FRONT AND EVEN THEN I THINK WE WILL, IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE XERASCAPEED.

ISCAPSCAPES. >> WHAT IS THE MEASUREMENT FROM THE FRONT TO THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY LINE?

>> APPROXIMATELY 30 FEET, CAN'T BE CERTAIN RIGHT NOW.

IF I RECALL THE REAR YARD SET BACK IS 25 FEET.

IF IT'S 25 FEET THEN I THINK WE HAVE 27.

BECAUSE THEY BUILT THE BUILDING AS NOT QUITE AS BIG AS IT CAN,

AS DEEP AS IT CAN BUT CLOSE. >> BUT YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO FUTT

A DECK BACK IN THERE. >> YES, CAN YOU PUT A DECK INTO THE REAR YARD SET BACK, THEY HAVE TO STAY FIVE FEET.

>> BUT WE CAN'T POUR CONCRETE. >> CORRECT.

ONLY BE A WOODEN DECK, NATURAL, WOODEN.

>> YES, SIR. YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, I WAS WRONG. BILL YOU GOT ANYTHING?

>> NO. >> ANYTHING ELSE?

>> COUPLE I JUST WANT TO GO BACK TO THE --

>> TAKE YOUR TIME. >> PARKING IN THE FRONT.

AND MAYBE IT IS A QUESTION FOR THE STAFF TOO, AFTER OCTOBER 1ST, 2006, PARKING IS PROHIBITED IN THE FRONT YARDS, WEST SIDE OF FLETCHER. NOT WEST OF FLETCHER BUT WEST SIDE OF FLETCHER. WAS THAT LITTLE SENTENCE THERE UNIQUE TO JUST THE WEST SIDES OF FLETCHER OR IS THAT PLI APPLICAE

TO -- >> WEST OF FLETCHER.

>> EVERYWHERE WEST OF FLETCHER DO WE KNOW?

>> IT WOULD BE EVERYWHERE WEST OF FLETCHER WOULD BE MY

UNDERSTANDING. >> I THINK THE ISSUE ABOUT WHAT THE INTIJT WAS TO PUT THE SIDE PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN THE LDC IS COMPELLING. BECAUSE THE APPLICANT HAS BASICALLY SAID HASN'T CONSIDERED THE SIDE PARKING BECAUSE IT WOULD REDUCE THE DENSITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

[00:50:08]

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S KNOWN. I THINK THERE IS A LOT OF THINGS IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT ARE DESIGNED TO HAVE AN IMPACT BEYOND THE ACTUAL TOPIC THAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT AND THIS POTENTIALLY IS ONE OF THEM. SIDE PARKING IS BY DEFINITION GOING TO DECREASE THE DENSITY OF A SERIES OF STRUCTURES LIKE THIS. SITE LINES, ALL OF IT.

AND WITH THE INTENT OF THAT INCLUDING THAT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, THEN IT'S KIND MUCH THE INTENT THAT MAYBE YOU

WOULD CONSIDER HONORING. >> IF I MAY.

>> YES, SIR. >> I WOULD ARGUE THAT IT'S THE ONLY TIME THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT PARKING IN THE FRONT OR THE SIDE, IS TALKING ABOUT ASKING SPECIFICALLY FOR A RESORT PERMIT. AT NO OTHER TIME IN THE COUNTY OR THE CITY CODE DO THEY REQUIRE IT REQUEST IT SUGGEST IT.

IT IS ONLY TO BE ABLE TO REQUEST A RESORT RENTAL PERMIT IN WHICH THEY EVEN MENTION WHERE YOU'RE R PARKING SHOULD OR WOULD BE IN

THIS ZONE. >> INTERESTING.

PARKING SPACE FROM THE GRIPS OF OUT OF TOWNERS.

>> I THINK MOSTLY IT WAS A REACTION IN 05 OR 06 TO, BEFORE THERE WAS A RESORT RENTAL PERMIT, PEOPLE WERE RENTING OUT THEIR BEACH HOUSES THROUGH YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS AND THEN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTS WHO LIVE NEXT TO THAT HATED THE FACT THAT THERE WAS PARKING EVERYWHERE AND PEOPLE WERE JUST --

>> LAWNS AND WHATNOT. >> YES.

YOUR RESORT RENTAL PERMIT REQUIRES TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU KEEP EVERYTHING CLEAN SO IT IS A PROCESS.

SO A LOT OF THOSE CONCERNS THAT HAPPENED IN '06 I BELIEVE HAVE BEEN TAKEN CARE OF BECAUSE EVERY YEAR YOU HAVE TO REAPPLY FOR THAT RESORT RENTAL PERMIT. WE HAVE TO SHOW THAT WE HAVE A PLACE FOR GARBAGE, WE HAVE TO SHOW THAT WE HAVE A PLACE SPECIFIC NOW PLACES PER UNIT, SO I REALLY -- I FEEL I DON'T BELIEVE THE CODE SINCE IT IS ONLY SHOWN IN THAT ONE SECTION THAT TALKS ABOUT RESORT RENTAL, I DON'T THINK IT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH REDUCED DENSITY OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

>> DARDAPHNE, IF THIS WERE NINE INDIVIDUAL LOTS AS OPPOSED TO A DEVELOPMENT, WHAT WOULD BE THE SIDE SET BACK REQUIREMENTS ON -- IF THEY WERE TREATED AS NINE INDEPENDENT LOTS, RIGHT, JUST PLEASE NINE LOTS? NINE INDEPENDENT LOTS HOW WOULD THAT BE CONFIGURED? WHERE WOULD THE PARKING BE

AROUND HOW WOULD THAT FIGURE? >> FOR THE SIDE YARD SET BACK AGAIN IT WOULD BE 10% OF THE LOT WIDTH.

>> SO TWO AND A HALF FEET ON EACH SIDE RIGHT?

>> YES. MINIMUM.

AND IN ADDITION TO THAT IF THEY ARE DOING RESORT RENTAL AGAIN THEY CANNOT HAVE PARKING IN THE FRONT.

>> SO BASICALLY THAT, IF IT WERE NINE INDIVIDUAL LOTS IT COULD

NOT BE A RESORT RENTAL? >> IT COULD BE A RESORT RENTAL BUT THEY CANNOT HAVE -- THEY WOULD HAVE TO GET A VARIANCE IF THEY WANTED THE PARKING IN THE FRONT IF THAT IS THE INTENDED USE OF IT. IF IT IS NOT A RESORT RENTAL THAT IS NOT IN THE PICTURE AT ALL, THEN THEY COULD HAVE PARKING IN THE FRONT IF THEY WANTED TO.

BUT THIS IS SPECIFIC TO THE RESORT RENTAL ASPECT.

FTC. >> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> ANYBODY ELSE?

>> I APPRECIATE YOU SAYING HEY WE JUST WANT TO BE UP FRONT AND SAY THAT. SO WHAT I FEEL LIKE IS THAT IN ESSENCE, YOU'RE ASKING FOR THE BOARD TO GRANT OVARIANCE TO A VO ALLOW FRONT PARKING IN A FUTURE POTENTIAL RESORT RENTAL.

AND I'M A L LITTLE CONCERNED THT THAT'S NOT THE INTENT OF THE LDC. THAT PARAGRAPH IN PARTICULAR, TO ALLOW THAT. AND I DON'T KNOW HOW IT WOULD BE LOOKED AT OR VIEWED, YOU SAID THERE WERE 33 THAT YOU LOOKED

AT. >> THERE ARE AT LEAST 33 THAT ARE EAST OF AND THAT'S WHERE I HAD THAT DOCUMENTATION BECAUSE WE DID A PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST TO SEE ALL THAT WERE GRANTED AFTER 2006, THAT'S WHEN THE WHY REGULATION WAS WRITTEN, TO TAKE A PICTORIAL INVENTORY THERE WERE 33 OF THEM.

I DON'T BELIEVE THAT ONE SECTION IN THE CODE HAS EVER BEEN

[00:55:03]

APPLIED TO ANYONE. >> MY QUESTION WOULD BE THOSE

ARE ALL PREEXISTING? >> NO, A LOT OF THEM WERE NEW.

IT DENT MATTER IF THEY WERE PREEXISTING OR NOT.

THE ONES WE LOOKED UP WERE NEW APPLICATIONS NOT RENEWALS.

>> YOU MENTIONED PLANTING STREET TREES.

>> YES. >> CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE TYPE AND NUMBER AND LOCATION OF THOSE TREES? YES. HERE WE EXPECT, IT SAYS TWO INCH, IT'S EITHER BETWEEN TWO AND THREE INCH OAK HERE HERE HERE AND HERE. SO THE WHOLE PLACE COMES BACK.

SO EVERY ISLAND AREA, THIS ALREADY HAVE MASSIVE TREES SO EVERY ISLAND AREA THAT WE WOULD HAVE WE WOULD BE PLANTING NEW TREES, IN ADDITION TO OUR MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS.

>> AND YOU WOULD BE RETAINING THE BUFFER IN THE BACK, THERE WOULD BE A NICE BUFFER IN THE FRONT AS WELL?

>> YES,. >> THANK YOU BECAUSE I COULDN'T

SEE ANY. >> ANYTHIN ELSE? MR. MCCRANIE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

YOU WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO SPEAK ONCE THE PUBLIC HAS HAD A CHANCE

TO WEIGH IN. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU FOR COMING DOWN. IS THERE ANYBODY IN THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS MATTER, FOR OR AGAINST, IT

DOESN'T MATTER. >> HENRY ORATTO, FERNANDINA BEACH. I JUST WANT TO SAY I'M FOR THE

VARIANCE. >> AND WHERE DO YOU LIVE SIR?

>> (INAUDIBLE) ESTATES. >> HOW FAR ARE YOU FROM THIS?

>> THREE, THREE AND A HALF MILES, FROM THE GOLF COURSE

NORTH OFF OF FLETCHER. >> YOU ARE NOT IN THAT

NEIGHBORHOOD? >> NO.

>> THANK YOU SIR. ANYONE ELSE?

>> THIS IS GENERAL FOBERTZ. I'M ON YOUR ZOOM CALL.

MY WIFE IS KATHERINE WELCH AND WE LIVE DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET AT 34531ST AVENUE. A POINT OF CLARIFICATION.

NO ONE HAS EVER COME AND TALKED TO US ABOUT THIS DEVELOPMENT.

NOBODY HAS EVER ASKED US WHAT WE WERE FOR OR AGAINST IT.

SO IS I HAVE TO MAKE THAT VERY, VERY CLEAR.

WHEN MS. DAPHNE SHOWED SOME SLIDES, I CAN'T RECALL IF IT WAS FOUR OR FIVE, WHEN YOU LISTED FIVE IMPACTS I THINK IT WAS, I KNOW IT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE IT WAS COMPARING THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TO RESORT STRUCTURES IN THE SIMILAR ZONING.

BUT JUST A POINT TO MAKE IS DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET YOU HAVE TWO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT ARE NOT RESORT RENTALS.

AND THIS WILL DEFINITELY ALTER AND ALSO THAT HOME THAT WAS SHOWN ON THE NORTH SIDE IS NOT A RESORT RENTAL, IT'S A SINGLE FAMILY HOME. SO WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE THREE TOWN HOMES THAT ARE ALREADY ON THE STREET YOU ARE SURROUNDED BY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND THAT WILL DEFINITELY ALTER THAT CHARACTER OF THAT PORTION OF THE STREET, NEITHER HERE NOR THERE. I KNOW IT'S COMPARED WITH LIKE RESORT AREAS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD BUT IGNORES THE FACT THAT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ARE ACROSS THE STREET.

THOSE ARE MY ONLY POINTS. BUT WE WERE NEVER CONTACTED.

WE WERE NEVER ASKED. WE'VE NEVER HAD ANY CONTACT WITH

MR. MCCRANIE. >> SIR, THANK YOU FOR CALLING IN. I WANT TO BE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT YOUR CONCERN ABOU IS, IS IT ANY PROJT

THAT WOULD BE ACROSS THE STREET? >> NO, IT'S NOT ANY PROJECT.

I APPRECIATE THE LINE OF QUESTIONING FROM THE BOARD MEMBERS. YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT FROM ALL THE ANGLES THAT I WOULD PROBABLY LOOK AT IT.

BUT JUST BE AWARE THAT FROM A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ACROSS DID STREET AND MY NEIGHBOR WHO IS ALSO A SINGLE FAMILY HOME MEMBER, VETERAN, WE'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT 18 CARS ACROSS THE STREET FROM OUR TWO HOMES. PARKED ON THE STREET.

AND IF IT'S RESORT FAMILY, RESORT RENTAL AND THERE ARE TWO PARKING SPOTS I CAN GIVE YOU EXAMPLES UP AND DOWN THE STREET WHERE THERE ARE DAYS WHERE THERE IS GOING TO BE PARKING ON THE STREET. I'VE HAD RENTAL PROPERTIES BEFORE AND PEOPLE SAY THEY'RE GOING TO COME WITH FOUR PEOPLE AND THEY SHOW ONE EIGHT AND FOUR CARS.

IT WILL ALTER THE NEIGHBORHOOD PARTICULARLY ON HOLIDAYS, THAT'S MY ONLY POINT. THERE THERE WERE A WAY TO WORK THAT WITH SIDE PARKING OR DOWN SLOPE IS I JUST THINK IT WOULD

[01:00:03]

DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION SIR?

>> YES, IT DOES. >> THANK YOU.

>> AND THE BOARD ALWAYS PLACES A HIGH VALUE ON THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE CLOSEST TO THE ITEM THAT IS BEFORE US.

BUT I JUST WANTS YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT SOMETHING IS

GOING TO HAPPEN OVER THERE. >> NO, I UNDERSTAND.

>> THE BOARD HAS NO AUTHORITY BEYOND TRYING TO REGULATE IT TO SOME DEGREE. BUT SOMETHING IS GOING TO

HAPPEN. >> WE UNDERSTAND THAT.

AND WE'VE HAD THE DISCUSSIONS HERE AT HOME THAT WE CAN'T OVERTURN THE -- THE ZONING NATURE OF THE PROPERTY.

THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. BUT I UNDERSTAND THE ISSUES WITH

PARKING. >> ALL RIGHT SO OTHER THAN THE PARKING ISSUE AND KEEPING CARS FROM PARKING ON THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, UP AND DOWN THERE, WHAT OTHER CONCERNS DO YOU HAVE

SIR? >> THAT'S MY BIGGEST CONCERN.

AND I KNOW ALL THE DISCUSSION ABOUT TREES AND I APPRECIATE KEEPING TREES. I THINK WHAT DRIVES IT MORE THAN JUST THE TREES THOUGH IS THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE LOT.

THERE ARE NOT MANY WAYS YOU CAN BUILD THAT LOT.

THAT'S A PERSONAL COMMENT. THANK YOU.

>> ALL RIGHT JEST YES, SIR THAN. YES, SIR.

>> IMIMREGHT MANGI HERVETIM BRE. I'M ALL ABOUT TREES AND I THINK THIS IS A GREAT DESIGN. BUT ALSO TO THE MAN ON THE PHONE'S POINTS, WHETHER THEY'RE RESORT RENTAL OR NOT THEY'RE STILL GOING TO BE TOWN HOMES AND THEY WOULD STILL HAVE THE SAME NUMBER OF PARKING. SO THE CARS AND PARKING WOULD BE ROUGHLY THE SAME. ANYWAY THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.

>> HOW FAR DO YOU LIVE FROM THIS PROJECT SIR ABOUT JUST AN

ESTIMAT? >> FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT MILES, I DON'T KNOW, I HAVEN'T CLOCKED IT.

>> THANK YOU SIR. ANYBODY ELSE ON THE PHONE DARCH?

>> THERE IS ONE OTHER PERSON BRIAN MITCHELL, HE WOULD LIKE TO

SPEAK, CAN YO YOU CAN UNMUTE YO. >> I'M BRIAN MITCHELL, I HAVE PROPERTY AT 3433 SOUTH FLETCHER. THE REAR OF MY PROPERTY BACKS ONTO THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. I HAVE TWO CONCERNS.

FIRST CONCERN RETENTION OF THE TREES AND THE COVER.

AND THE NATURE OF MY PROPERTY, THE LIVING AREA IS DIRECTLY FACING THAT AREA. I HAVE A POOL THAT IS AT THE BACK OF MY PROPERTY AND I'M CONCERNED ABOUT PRIVACY.

THE SECOND POINT THAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS THAT I BELIEVE THE METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION, IT IS PROPOSED THAT THERE WOULD BE CONSIDERABLE EARTH FILL IN ORDER TO BRING THE PROPERTY UP TO STREET LEVEL. THE CONCERN THERE IS THE NEED FOR IMPACTING THE DIRT THAT GOEO THAT.

THERE WAS A DEVELOPMENT WHICH IS NEXT TO LOT 26, YES, LOT 28 AND 29 WITH WHERE A LOT WAS BUILT AND THERE WAS A NEED TO IMPACT THE EARTH IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE BECAUSE OF THE DEPTH OF GROUND LEVEL HALF WAY THROUGH THE PROPERTY HAD TO BE FILLED.

THE RESULT WAS I HAVE CRACKS IN MY FOUNDATION AS A RESULT OF THAT IMPACTING. SO THERE ARE MY TWO CONCERNS.

THE FIRST IS PRIVACY, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THE TREES ARE BEING RETAINED THERE. BUT IF THERE'S GOING TO BE DECKS BUILT ON THE BACK OF THESE HOUSES IT'S GOING TO LOOK DIRECTLY INTO MY PROPERTY. AND PRIVACY THAT I HAVE AT THE MOMENT IS GOING TO BE DESTROYED. AND THE SECOND ISSUE IS THE NEED TO IMPACT THE SOIL WHICH IS SO CLOSE TO MY HOUSE THAT IT WOULD

[01:05:02]

THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU FOR CALLING IN SIR. THE PRIVACY ISSUE, THAT'S REALLY NOT SOMETHING THAT THIS BOARD WOULD HAVE AUTHORITY OVER.

HE IS WITHIN THE LETTER OF THE LDC TO DO WHAT HE'S DOING.

SO THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT THIS BOARD WOULD NOT GOVERN ON THAT BUT THANK YOU FOR CALLING IN SIR.

THANK YOU FOR LETTING US KNOW WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS ARE.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS FOR OR AGAINST? YES, SIR.

>> HELLO, I'M ERIC CORBETT. I LIVE AT 2674 WEST 3RD STREET, WEST OF MAIN BEACH, I JUST CAME TO EXPRESS MY SUPPORT

FOR THE VARIANCE. >> OKAY, ABOUT HOW FAR DO YOU

LIVE FROM THIS SIR? >> I WOULD ASSUME THAT WOULD

BE -- >> JUST ESTIMATE.

>> FIVE OR SIX MILES I GUESS. LIKE I SAID, I'M THREE BLOCKS

NORTH OF MAIN BEACH. >> I'M SORRY CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT COMPELLED YOU TO COME AND LIND YOUR SUPPORT SINCE YOU LIVE

SO FAR AWAY? >> WELL I'VE KNOWN DAN MCCRANIE FOR A VERY LONG TIME. HE'S TOLD ME ABOUT THE PROJECT

AND I'M INVOLVED IN THE PROJECT. >> YOU ARE INVOLVED IN THE

PROJECT? >> YES.

>> THANK YOU SIR. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE? SO WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE OUT THE PUBLIC FORCE OF THAT.

AND NOW MR. MCCRANIE YOU CAN GIVE YOUR CLOSING THOUGHTS OR WHATEVER YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY IF THERE'S ANYTHING YOU FEEL YOU

LEFT OUT. >> YES, I THINK I DIDN'T GET THE FIRST GENTLEMAN'S NAME THAT IS THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR.

>> HIS LAST NAME IS WELSH. >> MR. WELSH I SPOKE WITH KATHY MCILLHANEN. I MET HER ONSITE AND I E-MAILED HER EVERYTHING AND I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION OR I THOUGHT THAT SHE WAS ALSO SPEAKING WITH THE NEIGHBORS.

BECAUSE AT ONE POINT SHE SID SAD THAT SHE WAS TALKING TO THE NEIGHBORS. SO IF YOU DID NOT GET THAT INFORMATION, I'M SORRY BUT CERTAINLY THE INTENT WAS TO KEEP EVERYONE INFORMED. MR. MITCHELL, THE PRIVACY, WE DO PLAN ON KEEPING THOSE TREES IN THE BACK SO AS MUCH PRIVACY AS THEY'RE GOING TO WANT IN THEIR BACKYARD YOU WILL ALSO RECEIVE FROM THEIR BACKYARD TREES. ONE OF THE CONCERNS IS THE FACT THAT IT IS RESORT RENTAL. THAT IS THE NATURE OF THE ZONING, THE R-3 ZONING. THERE ARE VERY FEW AREAS IN THIS CITY THAT ALLOW FOR IT. I WOULD ASK IF THAT IS A MAJOR CONCERN ABOUT PARKING IN THE FRONT, THEN -- AND YOU'RE HEADED TOWARD POTENTIALLY NOT ALLOWING THAT ONE THING, NOT TO APPROVE THAT VARIANCE BUT TO APPROVE ALL THE OTHER VARIANCES.

BECAUSE THE RESORT RENTAL CODE IS THE ONLY ONE THAT SAYS YOU HAVE TO HAVE PARKING IN THE FRONT.

BECAUSE IF WE DON'T PARK IN THE FRONT THEN WILL WE HAVE TO PARK IN THE FRONT. SO WE COULD EITHER AT THIS POINT EITHER SAVE THE TREES OR NOT SAVE THE TREES BY SHIFTING AND KEEPING MORE SPACE. SO IT REALLY IS -- AND ANOTHER CONCERN ABOUT PARKING UP AND DOWN THE STREET, THE CITY REVIEWS THESE THINGS. AND IF YOU DO GET AN ACTUAL RESORT RENTAL PERMIT AND GET IT YOU ARE POLICED BY THAT AND IF YOU HAVE TH TOO MANY COMPLAINTSU WON'T GET YOUR RESORT RENTAL PERMIT THE NEXT YEAR. SO IT GETS POLICED, IT IS GOING TO BE A CHANGE FROM THE FACT THAT NEXT DOOR ACROSS THE STREET IS R-2 INSTEAD OF R-3 BUT THAT'S THE EXISTING ZONING WE'RE IN.

WE REALLY WORKED HARD TO SAVE THE TREES AND WOULD REALLY LIKE

THE SUPPORT OF APPROVAL. >> BEFORE YOU SIT DOWN SIR, PARKING IS GOING TO BE MORE OF AN ISSUE NOT JUST FOR REVIEW BUT FOR EVERYBODY. PEOPLE WILL COME TWO OR THREE FAMILY TWO OR THREE CARS, FROM DIFFERENT LOCATION AND NEXT THING WE KNOW WE'VE GOT FIVE CARS THERE.

WHEN I LOOK AT THIS IN FRONT IN FRONT OF EACH ONE, I CAN ONLY PUT ONE CAR OR CAN I GET TWO BACK IN EACH SPOT?

>> EACH SPOT YOU CAN PLACE ONE CAR.

IT'S ONLY NINE FEET WIDE SO YOU COULD ONLY PUT ONE CAR.

[01:10:02]

AND AGAIN THEY'RE NOT -- >> AND HOW LONG?

>> IT IS 20 FEET DEEP, NINE FOOT WIDE.

SO YOUR DRIVEWAY LINE, THAT THE CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE IS HERE, SO NOBODY'S PARKING ON THE STREET.

ALL OF THIS FROM THIS LINE UP, IS PRIVATE PROPERTY.

AND THE PARKING IS THERE ON THE PRIVATE PROPERTY NOT ON ANY KIND OF -- NOT ON STREETS IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.

>> SO A SECOND CAR PULLED IN ALL THE WAY UP WOULD NOT ALLOW FOR -- I MEAN A CAR PULLED IN ALL THE WAY UP WOULD NOT ALLOW

FOR A SECOND CAR BEHIND IT? >> NO.

>> THAT'S WHERE I WAS GOING WITH THAT COULD WE POSSIBLY SQUEEZE A COUPLE OF SMALL CARS IN THERE. BECAUSE IT'S JUST GOING TO BE

HUGE DOWN IN THERE WITH THAT. >> WELL, THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THESE UNITS IS ALSO BETWEEN 1600 AND 1700 SQUARE FEET SO WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT LARGE UNITS. WE'RE NOT -- IT'S PROBABLY BETWEEN TWO BEDROOM AND THREE BEDROOM.

THE INTEND IS CERTAINLY NOT TO HAVE IT LARGE ENOUGH TO HAVE LARGE GROUPS COME IN. AND I DO STILL BELIEVE THE RESORT RENTAL IF THEY GET THAT THERE'S MORE POLICING THAT GOES ON WITH THAT, THAT PROTECTS THE NEIGHBORHOOD, SO IT -- IT CANNOT MAKE IT PERFECT BUT IT CAN MAKE IT POLICABLE AND MAKING SURE

IT'S NOT A NUISANCE. >> OKAY, ALL RIGHT.

SO I THINK IT'S CLEAR THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD PREFERENCE WOULD BE TO HAVE THAT BE A NICE PRISTINE LOT WITH A BUNCH OF TREES ON IT.

BUT THAT'S NOT REALLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.

SO THE CALLER'S CONCERN FOR LOOKING OUT THE FRONT OF HIS HOUSE AND SEEING THE BACK OF A BUNCH OF CARS.

THE BACK OF YOU KNOW 17 CARS OR 15 CARS OR WHATEVER THAT IS, IS A REAL CONCERN. BUT DID -- WAS THERE SOMETHING THAT I READ THAT INDICATED THAT IF YOU HAD SIDE DRIVEWAYS WE WOULD BE LOSING TREES IN THE BACK?

>> CORRECT. >> COULD YOU SPEAK TO THAT

RELATIONSHIP? >> WE TALKED ABOUT ONE POSSIBILITY OF DRIVING BACK HERE AND TRYING TO GET PARKING BACK

IN THE BACK. >> LIKE A PARKING LOT?

>> YES. THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY WAY.

>> DID YOU GET THAT IN AND STILL HAVE THE PERMITTABLE SURFACE

ALLOWANCE? >> I DIDN'T EVEN TRY.

ONCE I LAID IT OUT -- >> I WAS WONDERING WAS IT AN

OPTION? >> I COULD POTENTIALLY CHANGE THE IMPERVIOUS SERVICE, IMPERVIOUS AREA YOU COULD GET AROUND. ONCE I HAD TO FILL WOULD I HAVE TO WIPE OUT EVERYTHING. BECAUSE LITERALLY WE HAVE UPS AND DOWNS. AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A BUNCH OF COMPACTION, ESPECIALLY NEAR MR. MITCHELL'S LOT.

THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BRING IN HEAVY MACHINERY IN TO MAKE

COMPACTION. >> IS MR. M MITCHELL THE ONE WIH

THE POOL? >> THEN IT DROPS DOWN, YES.

>> ANYTHING ELSE? >> JUST AND MAYBE IT'S MORE FOR OUR DISCUSSION BUT RECOGNIZING THAT THIS IS R-3, HIGHER DENSITY BUT THAT WHOLE AREA THERE IS, YOU REALLY DON'T GET INTO WHAT I CALL A LOT OF THE DENSITY UNTIL YOU GET FURTHER NORTH ON 1ST AVENUE RIGHT? WHAT THAT IS, WITH THE GOLF CLUB INTEREST IS GOING NORTH THAT'S ALL PRETTY MUCH SINGLE FAMILY

HOMES IN THERE. >> YOU GO ONE BLOCK TO THE NORTH AND YOU GET INTO A WHOLE NEW DEVELOPMENT WHICH IS SO YOU GOT ANDREA LINEN'S OFFICE AND RIGHT NEXT TO HER IS ALL OF THAT SMALLER TOWN HOMES RESORT RENTAL BASS IT IS ALSO R-3.

THIS IS THE VERY FIRST BLOCK OF R-3.

THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE RIGHT, IS RESORT, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S RESORT RENTAL BUT CERTAINLY A TOWN HOME UNIT.

>> BUT THAT AREA NORTH OF THERE, THAT IS THE TOWN HOME DEVELOPMENT WHERE IS THEIR PARKING?

>> THEIR PARKING THEY WERE ABLE TO BUILD A PARKING LOT.

THEY DID NOT HAVE PLATTED LOTS OF RECORD.

WE WEREN'T ABLE TO MOVE OUR UNITS BECAUSE YOU CAN'T BUILD OVER LOT LINES. SO I COULDN'T CLUSTER UNITS OR ANYTHING. I HAD TO STAY WITHIN -- EACH UNIT HAD TO STAY WITHIN ITS OWN LOT.

SO SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT. >> ABOUGO BACK TO ONE OF MY EARR QUESTIONS THEN. IF YOU DROP SOME UNITS YOU CAN'T STRADDLE ANY LOT LINES, YOU ALREADY ARE --

>> WE ARE NOT. THE SHARED WALL IS ON THE

PROPERTY LINE. >> OKAY.

>> WE CAN'T. SAY I WANTED TO BUILD SOME

[01:15:03]

>> OKAY, IT IS A SINGLE BUILDING BUT IT HAS WHATEVER YOU CALLED

THAT -- >> THERE IS A FIRE -- SO FOR THIS DESIGN, RIGHT DOWN THE CENTER IS A FIRE WALL THAT SEPARATES OWNERSHIP AND SAFETY BETWEEN THE --

>> IS AND THAT'S CONSIDERED NOT ONE BUILDING ON TWO LOTS, IT'S CONSIDERED A BUILDING ON EACH LOT?

>> CORRECT. LIKE UNDER TOWN HOMES, YES.

>> ANYBODY ELSE YAM ALL RIGHT THAT'S IT, THANK YOU MR. MCCRANIE. DAPHNE, ANYBODY ON THE LINE?

>> NO. >> LET'S ENTER INTO SOME BOARD DISCUSSION. IT WOULD SEEM LOGICAL STEPHEN WE WOULD START WITH YOU, YOU'RE OUR RESIDENT ARCHITECT AND EXPERT.

WE GOT SOME WAY TO BREAK THESE DOWN INTO FOUR CRITERIA IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT EACH ONE COLLECTIVELY OR WHAT DO YOU THINK -- HOW DO YOU THINK WE SHOULD DO THAT?

>> I WOULD SAY, I THINK I'LL JUST STATE WHAT I'M THINKING

FIRST. >> OKAY, YEAH, LET'S THROW THAT OUT THERE, SEE WHICH WAY THE WIND'S BLOWING.

>> I THINK THE EFFORT PROPOSED TO MAKE TREES THE PRIORITY WHICH IS WHAT OUR CANOPY IS ON 1ST AV IS REGARDED HIGHER THAN THE PARKING IN THE FRONT. AT LEAST I WOULD CONSIDER IT REGARDED HIGHER, ESPECIALLY THE OAK TREES THAT THEY ARE TRYING TO SALVAGE. I UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF GANGING THE PARKING TOGETHER. TRYING TO MAXIMIZE ONE THING BY MINIMIZING THE OTHER ASPECT AND I ALSO RECOGNIZE THE GRADING HE'S DEALING WITH. I KNOW THIS LOT PRETTY WELL.

I THINK THE EFFORT SHOULD BE APPROVED IN MY OPINION.

I THINK THAT THE EFFORT IS APPLAUDABLE.

I THINK THAT HAVING PARKING IN AN R-3 LIKE THE GENTLEMAN SAID IN THE BACK IT'S GOING TO BE THERE REGARDLESS.

>> IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, YES. >> IF WE'RE TRYING TO MINIMIZE IT WITH TREES AND PLANTING MORE TREES TO KEEP THE CANOPY THERE ON 1ST AVENUE IT IS NEGLIGIBLE.

THE SAME LOT TO THE SOUTH HAS THE EXACT SAME THING.

>> STEPHEN HOW SHORT ARE WE IN THE FRONT TO BE ABLE TO HAVE TWO

CARS BACK TO BACK? >> 20 FEET.

>> BIG NUMBER. >> WHOLE CAR, YOU COULD PROBABLY PUT TWO PRE PRIUSES THERE, BUT NOBODY HAS TWO PRIUSES.

>> 20 FEET WOULD BE TWO CARS? >> TWO CARS WOULD BE -- A PARKING SPACE IS 18 BY 9, THAT'S A TYPICAL PARKING SPACE.

MOST CARS ARE WITHIN THAT RANGE. SUBURBANS, TAHOES THEY GET IN THE 20 FOOT RANGE. IF HE'S GOT NINE BY 20 TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, THAT'S PROBABLY MORE THAN ENOUGH TO GET A CAR

WITHOUT ANY ISSUES. >> RIGHT.

>> HE WOULDN'T BE BACK -- THE BACK END OF THE CAR WOULD NOT BE

DRIFTED INTO THE 1ST AVENUE. >> HOW MUCH DRIVEWAY WOULD THERE

BE? >> SIX TO EIGHT FEET.

>> NOT MUCH. WHO'S NEXT WHAT YOU GOT?

JEFF WHAT DO YOU THINK? >> I KIND OF AIRED MY ISSUES.

>> OKAY BILL WHAT YOU GOT? BARRY YOU'VE BEEN SITTING THERE

AAWFULLY QUIET. >> THAT TWO TO FOUR FEET IS THAT SOMETHING WE SHOULD BE JUDGING, IT IS A SEPARATELY MATTER ISN'T

IT? >> HE'S BEING UP FRONT IN LETTING US KNOW THAT IS OFFICIALLY THE INTENT AHEAD OF

TIME. >> IS THAT OUR SITUATION TO

JUDGE ON? >> I THINK IT IS

RECOGNIZABILITY. >> CAN WE GRANT A VARIANCE ON THAT EVEN? SOUNDS TO ME THAT'S A SEPARATE MATTER GOES UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT.

>> ONCE WE GET TO THE END HERE WE CAN GET SOME INPUT FROM MS. BACH ON THAT. LET'S SEE WHERE THIS GOES.

>> OTHER THAN THAT I DON'T LIKE IT.

>> AND NOT PLEASED, BUT APPRECIATIVE OF THE EFFORT TO SAVE THE, AS MANY OF THOSE TREES IN THE BACK, TRAINED TO PUT

[01:20:07]

THE ANSWER TO BE NO. >> CORRECTLY.

>> I CAN'T DO THAT. >> UNLESS HE CHANGES AND COMBINES HIS LOTS SEPARATELY, TOTALLY ISOLATED FROM WHAT WE'RE

CHASING. >> BUT POSSIBLE, NO? AND IT'S NOT FOR US BUT THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN ASKING IS, IF YOU REDUCE THE NUMBER COULD YOU SIDE LOAD YOU GET RID OF ALL THE FRONT YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THE TREES IN THE BACK, YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE TOUCHING THEM OR ANYTHING.

YOU COULD MAYBE MOVE SOMETHING FORWARD AND MAYBE SAVE A FEW MORE TREES, I DON'T KNOW. BUT IT'S NOT SO MUCH BEFORE US BUT THAT WAS MY CONCERN IS, WHETHER DE FACTO, WE'RE GRANTING A VARIANCE TO THE RESORT RENTAL BY APPROVING IT.

AND IT'S NOT OUR CALL, IT'S THE CITY'S AND IT'S UP TO THE CITY

TO ENFORCE THAT. >> EXACTLY.

>> BUT INDEPENDENT OF THE FORTHRIGHTNESS WITH WHICH IT WAS PRESENTED, THAT IS A POSSIBILITY, AN ASSUMPTION ALMOST ON MY PART THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

AND IT DOES I THINK STE STEVEN S A CONSIDERATION, TO BE ENTERTAINED, MAY NOT BE A DRIVING FACTOR.

THOSE ARE MY CONCERNS. >> IF WE WERE TO CRUNCH ALL OF THOSE TOWN HOUSES TOGETHER, RIGHT, SO THERE'S LET'S JUST SAY THERE'S FIVE FOOT OF SIDE, THE BUFFER ON EACH SIDE OF THE BUILDING YOU'RE ONLY GOING TO GET FIVE FEET WHICH ISN'T ENOUGH TO -- YOU KNOW, LET'S ASSUME YOU WEREN'T BOUND BY NINE INDIVIDUAL LOTS THAT YOU COULD COMBINE IT. YOU KNOW, IF YOU COULD SAVE WITH THAT PARTICULAR FI CONFIGURATIO, YOU WOULD ONLY BE ABLE TO PUT THE NUMBER OF CARS YOU NEED TO PUT.

>> MY THOUGHT WAS YOU WOULD REDUCE THE NUMBER OF UNITS IN ORDER TO GET THE SPACE. IT WOULDN'T BEING NINE UNITS IT

WOULD BE SIX UNIT. >> THANK YOU.

MY THOUGHT JUST LIKE STEVEN'S THERE'S A LOT OF ENERGY AND THOUGHT PROCESS THAT WENT ABOUT BRINGING IT THIS FAR.

HE IS CERTAINLY WITHIN HIS RIGHTS TO ALREADY HAVE A BULLDOZER DOWN THERE AND BUM BULLDOZED EVERYTHING DOWN.

SO THIS IS A PRACTICE IN WORKING TOGETHER AND TRYING TO COME UP WITH THE BEST PROJECT. AND I DO AS 7 SAID STEVEN SAID,D HIM FOR THAT. WE KNOW THE RESORT RENTAL GETS AWAY FROM YOU REALLY QUICK. WE GET ONE PERSON AND I KNOW IN MY FAMILY HOW IT WORKS. WE GET ONE PERSON THAT RENTS SOMETHING AND NEXT THING YOU KNOW EVERYBODY IS THERE AND KIDS AND NIECES AND NEPHEWS AND EVERYBODY IS BRINGING A CAR AND IT JUST GETS OUT OF HAND PRETTY QUICKLY.

SO IS THERE A WAY OR WOULD THE BOARD CONSIDER DOING SOMETHING WITH THAT LAST RESORT RENTAL APPLICATION OR LIMITING IT IN SOME WAY? DAPHNE, THE LETTER OF THAT ORDINANCE WHERE WE'VE GOT ONE PARKING SPACE FOR EACH TWO OCCUPANTS. HOW DO WE DETERMINE NUMBER OF

OCCUPANTS IN A UNIT? >> THE OCCUPANCY IS DETERMINED

BY THE FIRE MARSHAL. >> IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT'S MY WIFE AND I OR THE WHOLE FAMILY, IT IS THE MAXIMUM NUMBER THAT COSH IN THE BUILDING AT ANY TIME?

>> YES, THAT IS DETERMINED BY THE FIRE MARSHAL.

>> WHAT IS OUR MAXIMUM NUMBER OF OCCUPANTS IN ONE OF THOSE UNITS?

>> I DO NOT HAVE THE ANSWER TO THAT.

>> HOW ARE WE EVEN TALKING ABOUT THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES?

>> BECAUSE IT'S BASED ON BEDROOM.

FIRE MARSHAL COULD CONTROL THE NUMBER -- THEY DON'T RULE ON A RESIDENTIAL STANDPOINT. IT'S THE BUILDING CODE, IT'S BY

THE NUMBER OF BEDROOMS. >> THAT SECTION OF THE CODE

[01:25:02]

>> IT IS STANDARD R-3 MULTIFAMILY.

THREE BEDROOMS HAS TWO AND A HALF, TWO BEDROOMS HAVE TWO AND ONE BEDROOM HAS ONE. THOSE ARE YOUR PARKING COUNTS THAT ARE MEASURED OFF OF. SOMETIMES IT'S TWO ACROSS THE BOARD BUT MULTIFAMILY DOESN'T COME THAT WAY.

I.T. CONTROLLED FROM THE BUILDING --

>> YOU MEAN FROM A DESIGN STANDPOINT YOU'RE TALKING OUR

CITY'S BUILDING CODE? >> CORRECT, STATE'S BUILDING

CODE. >> NOT THE CITY.

>> SO A THREE BEDROOM UNIT WOULD BE 30 IS WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME?

>> THEY COUNT TWO AND A HALF AND ROUND UP.

>> TWO AND A HALF MARKING SPOTS AND I'VE GOT TWO.

>> NO, THREE BEDROOMS IN ONE UNIT WOULD REQUIRE THREE SPACES

THIGTHEORETICALLY. >> BUT EACH HAS GOT THREE

PARPARKING SPACES. >> AND EACH ARE THREE BEDROOM

TOWN HOMES. >> RIGHT NOW I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE A FINAL DESIGN AS TO HOW MANY BEDROOMS BUT WE WILL FOLLOW

THE BUILDING -- >> 1600 FEET?

THAT WOULD BE PRETTY CLOSE. >> THIS LOOKS BIGGER.

THE MIDDLE OF THE THREE -- >> IT'S 25 FEET WIDE YES, INSTEAD OF 20. YES.

>> ALL RIGHT, IT DOES SEEM TO BE AN AREA THAT SOMEONE OUTSIDE OF OUR AREA LIKE YOU WERE SAYING BECAUSE YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE LIKE A COUPLE OF, TWO ADULT CHILDREN OR FRIEND OF THE FAMILY AND SUDDENLY YOU'VE GOT FOUR CARS FINTHE DRIVEWAY EASILY.

>> AND EVERYBODY COMES NOR THE DAY.

WOULD WE CONSIDER OR SHOULD WE CONSIDER TAKING OFF THAT RESORT REGISTER? OR NOT APPROVING THAT PARTICULAR ONE? MS. BACH DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING

TO SAY ABOUT THAT? >> AS I'M LISTENING HERE I JUST NEED TO BE CLEAR FOR MYSELF SO IT'S A QUESTION.

THE I RECALL MR. MCCRANIE AND MS. FOREHAND THERE ARE FOUR SECTION HE OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT REQUEST FOR VARIANE FOR EACH OF THOSE. AND I'M NOT ASSUMING BUT ONE OF THOSE IS PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR RESORT RENTAL?

>> CORRECT. >> OKAY, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE WEREN'T GOING OUTSIDE THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND GET INTO OUR RESORT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.

NO, THAT IS ALL WITHIN YOUR PURVIEW AND THE ONLY THING I'D WANT TO SAY TOO, LIKE WE DO IN OTHER CASES WE DO WRITTEN FINDINGS OF FACT I KNOW MR. MCCRANIE STATED THAT MS. FOREHAND COULDN'T FIND FAVORABLY FOR THE CRITERIA LITERAL INTERPRETATION. BUT I SUBMIT TO YOU THAT TO APPROVE A VARIANCE YOU HAVE TO FIND WHERE THAT CRITERIA HAS BEEN MET. AND ARTICULATE IT.

>> THANK YOU. TO GO TO YOUR POINT THOUGH, I UNDERSTAND FIRE MARSHAL AND STUFF LIKE THAT.

>> I APOLOGIZE FOR -- >> I'M SORRY MR. GRANT THIS MIGHT BE HELPFUL. JUST SO THERE'S NO CONFUSION.

I REPRESENT THIS BOARD. I'M YOUR ATTORNEY.

IF YOU NEED HELP, LET'S SAY YOU WANT TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE, AND FIND WHERE THE CRITERIA LITERAL INTERPRETATION HAS BEEN MET, I'M HAPPY TO TALK THAT THROUGH WITH YOU.

I DON'T DISCUSS ANY OF THESE CASES WITH STAFF OR THERE WOULD BE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST OR WITH THE PARTIES.

SO IF YOU MAKE ANY HELP MAKING MOTIONS, I'M HERE.

>> AND I THINK WE WILL.

>> OKAY. >> MAY I SAY ONE?

ONE QUICKLY. >> YES, SIR.

>> IF YOU'RE STUCK ON THAT 4.02, WHATEVER THE NUMBER IS --

>> 4.02.05 BUILDING RENTS. >> IF WE WOULD LIKE TO GET IT IF THAT'S THE ONE STICKING POINT I'D RATHER YOU THROW THAT ONE

AWAY AND GRANT THE OTHER THREE. >> HEAR HEAR.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION THAT WAS PROBABLY A QUESTION FOR 20 MINUTES AK, I JUST NOTICED IT AT NOW.

IT LOOKS LIKE UNDER8 IS LOT LINE TO LOT LINE ON LOT 27 SOME IS

, IS THATTRUE? >> BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HAVE THE

SET BACK. >> IT HAS TO GO THE WHOLE WIDTH

OF THE LOT SO IT'S 25 FEET WIDE. >> PRESUMABLY THERE IS NO

[01:30:02]

>> THERE IS NONE. ANY SHARED WALL YOU'RE NOT

REQUIRED. >> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE FIRE WALL AND THAT EXISTS BETWEEN 7 AND 8 AND 8 AND 9.

>> YES, FIRE WALL HERE FIRE WALL THERE AND IN THE CITY'S CODE NO SET BACK IS REQUIRED ON SHARED WALL TOWN HOMES.

>> OKAY. >> WHAT I WAS GOING DO SAY I APPRECIATE THE DISCUSSION ABOUT FIRE MA MARSHALS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. IT WOULD BE SOME BUILDING CODE OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW BUT FOR SOME REASON IT'S IN HERE.

>> BUILDING CODE WILL SUPERSEDE THAT.

IF BUILDING OTHE BUILDING OFFICE TO RULE THAT BEFORE HE GRANTED A

PERMIT. >> YOU HAVE TO READ THIS AND SA-

>> I DON'T KNOW ABOUT -- >> IT'S OKAY?

>> I WOULD HAVE TO RECOMMEND, THE GENTLEMAN SUBMITTING HAS TO PROVIDE FULL SET OF PLANS FULL INTENT FULL DISCLOSURE AND EXPLAIN WHAT HE'S DOING THEN THEY WOULD BE FACT-CHECKING THE

CODE. >> WELL, I THINK POINT OF ME WOULD SAY THAT THIS IS PROBABLY OTHER THAN NATURE CONSERVANCY BUYING IT, PROBABLY AS GOOD A COMPROMISE AS WE WOULD HOPE TO GET ESPECIALLY TRYING TO SAVE AS MANY TREES AND THE EFFORT THAT'S BEEN PUT FORTH. I'M HUNG UP ON THIS PARK ISSUE.

IF WE CAN SIZE THIS PARKING ISSUE THEN I'M GOOD WITH IT.

I CAN JUST SEE THAT THIS PARKING GETS OUT OF CONTROL.

STEVEN BACK TO WHAT YOU WERE SAYING.

SO IF THOSE WERE TWO BEDROOM UNITS WHAT IS THE NUMBER OF OCCUPANCY IN EACH BEDROOM? THAT IS A LOADED QUESTION BUT GO

AHEAD. >> CAN'T EVEN TOUCH THAT.

THAT IS PRESUMPTIVE. I HAVE NO IDEA.

>> WELL IF I'VE GOT -- >> IT IS NOT MEASURED BY THE NUMBER OF OCCUPANTS. IT IS MEASURED BY THE NUMBER OF

BEDROOMS. >> IF I'VE GOT TWO BEDROOMS THEN

IT QUALIFIES. >> UH-HUH.

AND THAT DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE

YOU CAN PUT IN THAT PLACE. >> DOESN'T MATTER.

SO I'M SORRY GO AHEAD. >> I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST THAT I MEAN, IF WE HAVE EXCESS SPACE IN THE BACK WHICH HE'S GOT A DIMENSION BACK HERE, A 20 FOOT SET BACK AND FIVE FEET ON THE ENLARGED PORTION OF THE PLAN. IF HE TOOK THAT EXTRA FIVE FEET AND TOOK THE RIGHT-OF-WAY HE MAY GET CLOSE TO BEING ABLE TO PARK TWO CARS BUT THE TAIL END OF THE CAR WOULD PROBABLY BUTT INTO FIRST HALF. BUT HAVING DOUBLE LOADED CARS WOULD MAKE IT MORE UNATTRACTIVE NOT LESS, NOT LESS UNATTRACTIVE, IT WOULD BE WORSE BECAUSE YOU WOULD HAVE MORE CARS STACKED THERE THAN YOU WOULD BY THIS PLAN.

>> WELL, MORE TOWARDS JEFF'S POINT, 4.02.05B DWELLING UNITS SHAM PROVIDE ONE PARKING SPACE FOR EACH TWO OCCUPANTS.

SO THAT MEANS A TWO BROOM I'VE E GOT TO HAVE TWO PARKING SPOTS.

WHY DOES HE NEED A VARIANCE FOR THAT DAPHNE?

>> THAT'S WHY OUR CODE IS STATING AND I INCLUDED IT IN HERE SORT OF A REDUNDANT THING BUT IT IS A VARIANCE THAT WOULD BE NEEDED TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT HE'S TRYING TO DO.

>> BUT HIS PROJECT HAS THAT. >> IT DOESN'T SAY THE NUMBER OF BROOMTION, THAT IS MY GUESSING A 1600 SQUARE FEET TOWN HOME WHICH MEANS LIVING SPACE, BEDROOMS. THAT'S A FAIRLY DECENT

EXPERIENCE -- >> SAYS TWO SPOTS PER UNIT.

OKAY? SO IF IT'S TWO UNITS THEN YOU GOT TO HAVE A MINIMUM FOR SPOTS OR GET STUCK BY THE NEXT PART OF THE SENTENCE, AND ONE PARKING SPOT FOR EACH TWO OWPTS.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS AN AND OR, TRYING TO MODIFY THAT OR IS IT IN ADDITION TO CPT TWO PER UNIT?

>> YES, SINCE THE APPLICANT HERE IS WILLING TO TAKE THAT OUT I DON'T KNOW WHY WE DON'T JUST COME UP WITH A MOTION AND APPROVE THE THREE VARIANCES OR VOTE ON APPROVING THEM AND TAKE THIS OUT. WHY ARE WE CONTINUALING TO BEAT CONTINUING TO BEATTHIS TO DEATH? I'M GOING TO NEED A BEDROOM

[01:35:06]

PRETTY SOON IF THIS KEEPS UP. >> WOULD THAT BE ONE OR TWO

OOCCUPANTS THOUGH? >> IT JUST CONSTANTLY PAUSES AS TO WHY THAT WAS IN THERE. IT WAS ASKED FOR A RESIGN AND I

DON'T KNOW WHAT THE REASON WAS. >> I DIDN'T ASK FOR IT.

I THINK DAPHNE SAID FOR PROTECTION.

>> HE DID NOT REQUEST THAT IN HIS APPLICATION.

THAT WAS SOMETHING STAFF FOUND THAT WOULD BE NEEDED IN ADDITION

TO WHAT WAS REQUESTED. >> THAT'S WHAT YOU THOUGHT?

>> YES. >> OKAY, ALL RIGHT.

SO BACK TO BARRY'S POINT, IF WE TAKE THAT OUT AND WE DON'T REGULATE THE ZONING THEN WE'RE SAVING THE TREES.

WHO'S GOT AN ISSUE WITH IT AFTER THAT?

>> SO IF YOU'RE SAYING IT, SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT -- I'M JUST READING THE APPLICANT'S LETTER AND WHAT HE WROTE W UNDER 205C.

HE SAYS THAT CODE REQUIRES THE PARKING BE LOCATED IN THE SIDE OR REAR OF THIS PROPERTY. I THINK THAT'S ONLY IF IT'S

RESORT RENTAL. >> CORRECT.

>> OKAY. >> OTHERWISE WOULD THIS PLAN BE CONFORMING TO OTHER REQUIREMENTS THEN?

IF YOU JUST DROPPED THAT OUT. >> THAT'S THE POINT I'M LOOKING

FOR THERE. >> I DON'T SEE HOW WE CAN SPEAK TO 205B BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW THE NUMBER OF OCCUPANTS.

THAT'S THE NUMBER WE DON'T HAVE. >> HE CAN'T HAVE RESORT RENTAL

IS THAT RIGHT JEFF? >> YES, IF THEY ARE USING IT AS A RESORT RENTAL DWELLING UNIT THE PARKING CANNOT BE LOCATED IN THE FRONT. THAT'S WHAT OUR CODE STATES.

>> THAT SOLVES THE PARKING PROBLEM RIGHT THERE.

>> HOW SO? >> YES, HOW SO?

>> IF HE'S GAP PARKING IN THE FRONT THEY WON'T LET HIM HAVE A PERMIT TO HAVE A RESORT RENTAL. IS THAT TRUE?

>> IN A PERFECT WORLD. BUT I THINK WHAT I WAS HEARING WAS AT LEAST 33 IN ROUGH COUNT HAVE BEEN GRANTED THERE WHERE

WITHFRONT PARKING. >> I THINK OUR ISSUE IS THAT IT MIGHT GIVE OTHER REGULATORY AGENCIES IN THE CITY IF THIS GETS GOING AND GETS OUT OF HAND THIS GIVES THEM A LITTLE BIT OF

A BITE TO SLOW THAT DOWN. >> IF WHAT?

>> WELL HE CAN'T HAVE AND DAPHNE STOP ME ON THIS.

HE CAN'T HAVE RESORT RENTALS WITH PARKING IN FRONT.

>> WITHOUT A PERMIT. >> WITHOUT A PERMIT.

>> RIGHT. >> AND THE CITY CONTROLS THE PERMIT. SO IF THREE YEARS FROM NOW WE GET DOWN THERE AND CAN'T GET DOWN THE STREET BECAUSE OF SO MANY CARS IN THERE, WE'VE GOT ANOTHER AVENUE TO SLOW THAT

DOWN. >> TO CONTROL IT.

>> IS THAT TRUE DAPHNE? >> YES, THAT'S TRUE.

BUT HE'S SAYING THAT THEY MAY BE USED AS A RESORT RENTAL.

>> BUT THE RESORT RENTAL IS NOT THE AUTHORITY OF THIS BOARD.

HE'D HAVE TO GO TO ANOTHER GOVERNING AUTHORITY TO GET THAT

PERMIT. >> HE'D HAVE TO GET A PERMIT FOR RESORT RENTAL BUT HE WOULD NEED TO GET APPROVAL FROM THIS BOARD FOR THAT PARKING. THAT IS THE AUTHORITY OF THIS BOARD IS TO APPROVE A DIFFERENT DESIGN THAT IS RECORDED IN THAT SECTION FOR REQUIREMENTS FOR RESORT RENTAL PARKING.

>> IF THIS BOARD APPROVED THE PARK IN THE FRONT THAT IS HIS GATEWAY TO GET PERMIT FOR RESORT RENTALS.

>> CORRECT. >> WHICH CAN HAPPEN EITHER WAY

FOR R-3 ZONING. >> YES, I DO, I DON'T THINK THIS BOARD'S GOT THE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THAT.

I THINK WE CAN SAVE THE TREES AND AS BARRY WAS SAYING, I DON'T KNOW, I THINK THAT WAS A GOOD POINT BARRY.

ALL RIGHT. >> SO IF I CAN JUST ADD ONE

THING. >> YES, PLEASE.

>> GOING BACK TO CHAPTER 10 ON THE REQUIREMENTS FOR NOT BEING ABLE TO GRANT VARIANCE, IF YOU GO BACK TO THOSE REQUIREMENTS THERE, THERE IS NOTHING IN THERE THAT SAYS THAT THIS IS NOT WITHIN YOUR PURVIEW. FOR THIS SPECIFIC REQUEST.

SO NOTHING IN THERE PREVENTS THIS REQUEST FROM COMING TO THE

BOARD FOR APPROVAL. >> ALL RIGHT.

>> I MEAN NOTHING PREVENTS IT FROM ALL THOSE THINGS BEING

CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD. >> YES.

[01:40:04]

>> TAMMI, CAN I ASK YOU TO SPLAIRCH THE LITERAL TOEXPLAIN THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION?

>> YES. IS THIS A LAND USE QUESTION?

>> THAT'S WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO GET BACK TO.

WE'VE GOT WAY TOO BROAD ON WHERE WE'RE GOING.

TRYING TO REGULATE THE WHOLE THING.

>> AS I RECALL, WE DON'T -- >> YOU CANNOT REQUEST, WE HAVE A LIST OF THINGS YOU CANNOT REQUEST A VARIANCE FOR AND ONE

OF THEM IS FOR A USE. >> THAT'S WHAT THIS IS.

>> THIS IS R-3 RESORT RENTALS ARE ALLOWED AND TO THERE'S NO DISPUTE OVER HOW THEY USE IT. OR WHETHER IT'S RESORT RENTAL.

THE MECHANICS OF HOW THAT'S USED, IT SOUNDS LIKE TONIGHT, ON THAT FOURTH ISSUE, YOU WANT TO CONSIDER IT AND MR. MCCRANIE SAID HE WOULD, YOU HAVE TWO CHOICES.

YOU CAN EITHER ASSUME HE'S WITHDRAWING THAT REQUEST, WHICH THAT'S MOST FAVORABLE TO YOUR CLIENT, OR THE BOARD CAN DENY THAT ONE. AND THEN IT'S DONE FOR A YEAR.

BUT HE'S OFFERED TO SAY DON'T WOISH AWORRY ABOUT IT, YOU CAN R IT WITHDRAWN AND JUST WORRY ABOUT THE OTHER THREE.

>> IT'S JUST A NONISSUE. HOW ABOUT THIS, IF THE BOARD WOULD LIKE, COULD THEY AGREE TO THE PLAN MOVING THE PARKING TO THE FRONT, BUT ELIMINATE RESORT RENTALS?

AS A CONDITION? >> NO.

NO AND I THINK HE WAS VERY CLEAR TONIGHT, MY CLIENT WARCHGHTS TO

WANTS TO USEIT AS RESORT RENTAL. >> IT'S NOT A DEFINITE.

>> YOU DON'T KNOW. >> HE WAS VERY FORTHRIGHT IN SAYING IT. HE CAN GO WITH THE ZONING R-3 AND 30 DAYS LATER AFTER HE GETS APPROVAL HE CAN CHANGE THAT AND

SUBMIT IT AS A RESORT RENTAL. >> AGREED.

>> SO THIS IS A MOOT POINT. >> I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT.

I ANY WE'VE GOTTEN TOO BROAD ON THIS AND HE STILL IS WITHIN HIS CURRENT ZONING, HE COULD STILL COME BACK AND TOTALLY DEVELOP THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY WITHOUT US.

>> OH YEAH. I'M SURE.

>> OKAY ALL RIGHT. SO I THINK WE'VE DONE OUR DUE DILIGENCE, WE'VE TALKED THIS OUT, WE TRIED TO DO THE BEST WE

CAN. >> JUST ANOTHER POINT THAT WAS MADE, TOWN HOMES ARE NOT CONSIDERED MULTISYSTEM SUMMARY

CONSIDERED SINGLE FAMILY. >> OKAY, ALL RIGHT.

>> SO THEY'RE PUTTING LESS, FEWER NUMBER OF UNITS THAN ARE ALLOWED ON THERE. I DON'T KNOW THE SIZE OF ALL -- THE NUMBER OF UNITS. AGAIN THESE ARE NOT ISSUES.

HOW CAN I HIP MR. PAPKE? >> SO I JUST WANTED YOU TO PERHAPS GIVE CREDENCE TO THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION, AS DAPHNE'S DEFINED IT HOW WE FLIP IT SO IT'S ACCURATE.

>> TREES, 1ST S 1ST AVENUE. TAKE A LOOK AT 1ST AVENUE.

WE ALL ENJOY THE ISSUE, IT'S THE ENVIRONMENT, AS EASY AS THAT.

I ALREADY CONSIDERED IT PRETTY MUCH WHILE YOU WERE DELIBERATING. I LOOKED AT THE CODE AND SAID HOW COULD IF THEY WANTED TO HOW COULD I HELP YOU FIND THAT -- I MEAN THERE WAS TESTIMONY TONIGHT, IT'S OBVIOUS FROM THE PICTURES, THERE'S LOTS OF TREES. YOU CLEAR CUT THAT LOT, THAT MAKES THAT PART OF 1ST AVENUE LOOK REALLY DIFFERENT.

>> ABSOLUTELY. >> WHAT THEY DID ON THE CORNER.

>> SO THEN -- >> APPRECIATE IT.

>> SUPERMCCRANIE THEN WOULD IT BE MY UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO ROOFNG THAT LAST CONDITION?

>> IF THAT IS THE POINT OF CONCERN THEN YES WE WILL WITHDRAW THE REQUEST FOR THE WHATEVER SPECIFIC NUMBER, THE

ONE ABOUT RESORT RENTAL. >> IT IS 4.02.05B.

>> YES. >> ALL RIGHT SIR.

>> THEN 7, THEY NEED THAT EXCEPT WE STILL NEED TO APPROVE A VARIANCE BECAUSE IT'S NOW GOING TO BE RIGHT IN FRONT.

BECAUSE THEY SAVE THE TWO BIG OAK TREES.

>> THEY ARE MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MINIMUM

SPACES. >> BARRY.

>> WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE WHOLE THING.

>> YES. >> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.

TO APPROVE BOA CASE 2021-01 AND I MOVE THAT THE BOA MAKE THE

[01:45:06]

THE ITEM AS PRESENTED IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT WITH THE PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO WARRANT APPROVAL AND THE REASON ITEM 3 IS BEING OVERLOOKED, TAMMI IS GOING TO HELP US WITH THAT LANGUAGE BUT BASICALLY SAVING TRIES IS THE REASON WE'RE ALLOWING THE OTHER VARIANCES HERE.

>> I -- IT IS TOTALLY MY UNDERSTANDING YES, SIR.

>> I'LL SECOND. >> AND I THINK MS. BACH IS GOOD WITH THAT. I'VE GOT A FIRST AND SECOND.

TAMMI WOULD YOU CAUGHT THE VOTE PLEASE.

>> MEMBER HERTSLET, YES, MEMBER GRANT, MEMBER OLIVA, YES, MEMBER

PAPKE, CHAIR MILLER. >> IF YOU WAIT A FEW DAYS YOUR APPROVAL WILL BE E-MAILED TO YOU.

WE APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE I KNOW YOU HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THAT A LONG TIME. WE'VE ONLY BEEN LOOKING AT IT

FOR A SHORT TIME. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>> YES HAVE A GOOD NIGHT, THANK YOU.

[5.2 BOA 2021-0004 - POOLE & POOLE, PA., AGENT FOR MANGANARO FAMILY TRUST, 604 GUM STREET]

>> THERE IS MS. DAPHNE THE SHOW IS YOURS WHEN YOU'RE READY.

>> OKAY SO WE HAVE TONIGHT NUMBER 2, FOR MANGANARO IMHOS REPRESENTATIVED TONIGHT BY HARRISON POOLE.

ZONING IS R-2 WITH A MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

>> MS. BACH WOULD YOU ASK THEM TO GO OUTSIDE PLEASE? THANK YOU. I'M SORRY DAPHNE.

>> THE REQUESTED ACTION TONIGHT 1.03.05A AND EXISTING USES ON THIS SITE ARE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE AND GARAGE.

AND FOR THE RECORD ALL REQUIRED APPLICATION MATERIALS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED,.ALL FEES HAVE BEEN PAID AND ALL REQUIRED NOTICES HAVE BEEN MADE. SO GETTING INTO THE SUMMARY OF THE REQUEST AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION.

604 GUM STREET IS COMPRISE OF 425 BY 100 FOOT UNDERLYING PLATTED LOTS OF RECORD. ACCORDING TO THE PROPERTY APPRAISER, A SINGLE STORY AND ONE FOOT CONCRETE GARAGE HAVE EXISTED SINCE 1945. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A VARIANCE TO SEPARATE LOTS 3 AND 4 FROM LOTS 1 AND 2 TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DEVELOP 3 AND 4 INDIVIDUALLY.

SINCE THE CONCRETE GARAGE CROSSES THE PLOTTED LOT LINE OF 2 AND 3 THE LOTS ARE CONSIDERED ONE BUILDING LOOT.

THE PROPERTY OWNER DOES NOT HAVE THE OPTION OF GOING TO THE NASSAU PROPERTY COUNTY APPRAISER TO SEPARATE THESE LOTS AS OTHERWISE WOULD BE THE CASE. LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION SPECIFICALLY REQUIRES THAT THE REQUESTED LOT SEPARATION BE REVIEWED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR APPROVAL AND LVA READS AS FOLLOWS, NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER PROPERTY VALUES AND ATTRACTIVENESS OF RESIDENTIAL AREAS WHERE MAY EXIST A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE TWO FAMILY BUILDING OR ANY AUXILIARY BUILDING OR STRUCTURE, INCLUDING NOT LIMITED TO SWIMMING POOLS OR ANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT WHICH WAS CONSTRUCT ID ON THE PROPERTY CONTAINING ONE OR MORE PLOTTED LOTS OF RECORDS, EXCLUDING EXAMINE FENCES, NO BUILDING PERMIT SHALL BE ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL OR TWO FAMILY BUILDINGS ON THE SITE. ALL CONSTRUCTION MUST ON THE BUILDING SITE MUST COMPLY WITH THE ZONING AND DENSITY REQUIREMENTS AND ANY CHANGE FROM THE FOREGOING PROVISIONS FOR THE PURPLE OF ESTABLISHING NEW BUILDING SITES OR SEPARATION OF BUILDING SITES SHALL REQUIRE APPROVAL BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AT WHICH ALL INTERESTED PARTIES SHALL BE AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD.

SO LDC SECTION 1.03.05 SEQUENTIALLY PLACES IN THE HANDS OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. THEREFORE IT'S BEEN DIRECTED

[01:50:02]

SO THE PROPERTY IS ZONED R-2 WHICH HAS A MINIMUM LOT WIDTH OF 50 FEET AND A MAXIMUM DENSITY OF EIGHT DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.

THE COMPREHENSIVE LARND DEVELOPMENT AND ZONING CODE, 25 FOOT BY 100 FOOT LOT NOT MEET THE DENSITY AND MINIMUM LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENTS. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING APPROVAL TO DEMOLISH THE EXISTING GARAGE ON LOT 3 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

IF GRANTED THE VARIANCE THE RESULTING EFFECTIVE APPROVAL IS SEPARATION FOR BOTH LOT 3 AND 4 FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNIT ON EACH PROPERTY.

THE REQUESTED ACTION INTRODUCES A UNIQUE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN WHICH IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER.

DENIAL WOULD NOT PREVENT CAN CITY'S DESIGN STANDARDS.

HERE YOU SEE A SURVEY SHOWING THE GARAGE ENCROACHMENT OVER THE PLOTTED LOT SIGNS AND HERE IS AN IMAGE SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE GARAGE. AND THEN THIS IS THE PARCEL CONFIGURATION FROM THE MAPPING WEBSITE WHERE YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE ARE NOT MANY 25 BY 100 FOOT LOTS IN THIS AREA.

IS MOVING ON TO THE SIX CRITERIA.

SPECIAL CONDITIONS DO NOT EXIST WHICH ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER LAND STRUCTURES OR BUILDINGS IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT. THERE ARE NUMEROUS EXAMPLES OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND STRUCTURES THAT WERE BUILT OVER UNDERLYING PLOT OF RECORD, IF THE VARIANCE IS GRANTED THE PROPOSED LOT WILL HAVE -- WILL BE CAPABLE OF SATISFYING DESIGN FEATURES FOR THE DISTRICT AS DESIGNED BY THE SECTION 1.03.03.

SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, NO GRANTING THE VARIANCE DOES CONFER PHENOMENON THE APPLICANT A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE TO OTHER LAND STRUCTURES OR BUILDINGS IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT.

IF THIS WERE A PREVIOUSLY UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY, THEY COULD RESTORE THE PLOTTED LINES, HOWEVER ANY IMPROVEMENT STATED ESTABLISHES NEW LOTS OF RECORD, LOTS 1 AND 2 COMBINED LOT 3 AND LOT 4. ÚLITERAL INTERPRETATION, NO LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE LAND COMMENT CODE WOULD NOT DE45 THE APPLICANT OF RIGHTS, WHICH REFERENCE BOTH HONORING UNDERLYING PLOTS OF RECORD AND SECTIONS WHICH RESTRICT, INCLUDING PROJECTS THAT EXIST OVER MULTIPLE LOTS, CONTAIN IT'S HISTORIC STRUCTURES IN THEIR ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT FORM.

DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE CLIENT DEVELOPMENT ON THE REMAINING 25 BY 100 FOOT ORIGINALLY PLATTED LOT OF RECORD.

MIM VARIANCE, YES THE MINIMUM VARIANCE IS, RESTORE TWO, 25 FOOT BY 100 FOOT LOTS AND CONSTRUCT TWO SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED STRUCTURES WHILE MAINTAINING A SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE ON A 50 FOOT BY 100 FOOT LOT.

GENERAL HARMONY, NO, GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE GENERAL PLAN AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE REQUEST UNDERLYING, THE ULTIMATE RG DEVELOPMENT PATTERN WITH TWO 25 BY 100 FOOT LOTS OF RECORD IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT SURROUNDING THIS PROPERTY. , THE RIMENTING LOTS HAVE SUFFICIENT LAND AREA TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. PUBLIC INTEREST, NO GRANTING THE INTEREST IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, LOT CONFIGURATION AND PATTERN OF DEVELOPMENT.

AND THE APPLICANT IS INCONSISTENT WITH ALL CRITERIA EXCEPT FOR CRITERIA NUMBER 4 STAFF FINDS GOES NOT MEET CRITERIA ONE TWO THREE FIVE AND SIX AND AS SUCH MUST RECOMMEND DENIAL. DOES THE BOARD HAVE ANY

[01:55:07]

QUESTIONS? >> YOU MAY HAVE SAID THIS BUT EVERYBODY HAS GOT A NOTICE ON THAT, NOTICE HAS BEEN IN THE

PAPER AROUND EVERYTHING? >> YES.

>> ALL HAS BEEN DONE. I'M SORRY JEFF.

I DIDN'T MEAN TO GO AHEAD. >> JUST START TALKING.

>> THAT'S FINE. >> YOU SAID THE GARAGES GARAGE IS ON THE PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN 2 AND 3.

WHAT FORCES THEM TO BE ONE AND TWO COMBINED AND THREE AND FOUR SEPARATE AS OPPOSED TO THREE AND FOUR COMBINED?

>> SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE SITE SO OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE READS ANY AREA THAT IS CONSTRUCTED ANY STRUCTURE THAT IS OVER THE COMMON PLATTED LOT LINES, THAT IS CONSIDERED ONE BUILDING ASSORT. AND YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING BEFORE SEPARATING THAT EVEN IF YOU -- IT'S VOLUNTARILY DEMOLISHED OR IT WAS IN ACT OF GOD DEMOLISHED IT DOES NOT MATTER IT'S STILL ONE BUILDING SITE. IN ORDER TO SEPARATE THAT OUT YOU HAVE TO GET APPROVAL FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO DO SO. LOT 4 IS FOLT CONSIDERED A LOT OF RECORD. THEY WOULD STILL BE ABLE TO DO WHAT IF THEY WANTED TO CONSTRUCT A HOUSE ON THAT 25 BY WHEUNG LOT

BY 100 IT ISNOT CONSIDERED A LO. >> THE LOT OF RECORD IS 1

THROUGH THREE. >> CORRECT.

>> FOUR SEPARATE. >> FOUR SEPARATE CORRECT.

>> FOUR DOESN'T MEET THE CRITERIA OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BY HAVING A MINIMUM OF 50 FEET.

>> HONORS LOT OF RECORD. THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO DEVELOP THAT LOT AS A 25 BY 100 FOOT LOT, OUR CODE DOES HONOR THAT.

>> IS THAT AWMENTS? WHEN YOU SAY HONOR IT WAS IT A

SPECIFIC -- >> BECAUSE IT IS A PLATTED LOT OF RECORD THAT WAS PLATTED BEFORE THE DATE OF THE LDC THE

CODE HONORS THE CODE. >> THAT IT IS A BUILDING LOT.

>> YES. >> GRANDFATHERED IN?

>> YES RIGHT. >> ANYTHING ELSE, CHUCK YOU GOT

ANYTHING? >> VERY NICE TO SEE YOU.

GOOD EVENING, HARRISON POOLE FROM POOLE AND POOLE I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. AND JUST TO REALLY BOIL THIS REQUEST DOWN TO ITS CORE WHAT WE'RE SEEKING IS TO REPLACE THIS GARAGES WITH A HOME. AND BECAUSE THIS GARAGE ENCROACHES A THIRD OF A FOOT AND JUST OVER HALF A FOOT ONTO THAT LOT, I SUBMIT TO YOU THAT IS THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE WITH THIS ONE. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING LIKE LOTS 1 AND 2 WHERE YOU HAVE INTENTIONALLY A HOME THAT CROSSES BOTH LOTS RIGHT THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF IT BUT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WAS PLACED WHO KNOWS IT WAS BUILT IN 1945, WELL BEFORE THE CAN CODE AS WRITTEN THAT WOULD HAVE PROHIBITED THIS.

NOBODY BACK THEN COULD HAVE THE FORESITEFORESIGHT.

WE DO SUBMITTAL THAT IT IS COMPATIBLE.

ONE THING I WANTED TO POINT OUT, IF YOU EXPAND PROPERTIES, WITHIN TWO BLOCKS YOU SEE ON SEVENTH STREET YOU SEE 809, 917, 919, 921, 923 AND LOOKS LIKE A PORTION OF 806 ARE ALL 25 FOOT WIDTH BUILDABLE LOTS. I BELIEVE THOSE WERE THIS LOTS,

[02:00:44]

I BELIEVE THAT'S NOW OWNED BY OUR FORMER CITY MANAGER JOE GARRITY AND HIS WIFE. THERE IS EVEN A PRPBTD FOR ALLOWING THIS IN THIS VERY NEIGHBORHOOD.

AGAIN, THIS IS -- IN THE APPLICATION WE DO SPEND SOME TIME BECAUSE I HAVE A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION OF 1.03.05 PARTICULARLY SUBSECTION C THAN MS. FOREHAND DOES WHERE THIS HAS TO BE A VARIANCE. THAT SECTION SAYS THAT IT REQUIRES APPROVAL BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

DOESN'T SAY APPROVAL BY A VARIANCE.

AND THAT'S SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO GIVE MEANING TO WHAT THE CITY COMMISSION ADOPTED THIS AND THE DECISION TO PUT THAT IN THERE. IF THEY INTENDED THAT TO BE DONE BY A VARIANCE AND FOR THOSE SIX CRITERIA TO BE SATISFIED, THAT SUBSECTION C IS ENTIRELY UNNECESSARY.

BECAUSE THE WHOLE NATURE OF THE A VARIANCE IS SEEKING RELIEF FROM THE CODE. IF THERE IS AN APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE, YOU WOULD BE RELIEF FROM SUBSECTION A AND B.

IT IS COMPLETELY SUPERFLUOUS AND UNNECESSARY IF IT HAD TO BE A VARIANCE. THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS WILL LEGAL INTERPRETATION YOU HAVE TO GIVE MEANING TO WHAT IS PUT IN THERE AND THEY DID SO WITH A PURPOSE.

IF THEY WANTED IT TO BE A VARIANCE, THEY SWO SAY IT SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BY A VARIANCE.

IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO MEET THOSE SIX CRITERIA ALTHOUGH WE ALSO SUBMIT THAT IT DOES. THAT THROUGH THAT EXPLANATION THAT IT -- IT DOES HAVE THOSE SPECIAL CONDITIONS.

THAT GARAGE BEING LESS THAN A FOOT OVER, THE NEXT LINE IS A SPECIAL CONDITION FOR IT. AND IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT, IF THIS WASN'T SOMETHING THAT COULD BE A CONDITION THAT WOULD ALLOW A VARIANCE, IT'S HARD TO IMAGINE A CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE ANY VARIANCE WOULD BE LEGAL AND ALLOWED UNDER THIS CODE.

BECAUSE WHAT OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE YOU HAVE AN IMPROVEMENT THAT SPANS MULTIPLE PROPERTY LINES WOULD THERE BE GLOOUND SAY THAT THAT ISN'T -- IF STAFF'S POSITION IS CORRECT THERE COULDN'T BE A SCENARIO WHERE A SPECIAL CONDITION COULD EXIST.

SO WE WOULD SUBMIT THAT THAT EXISTENCE WHICH ASK BUILT IN 1945 WELL BEFORE THIS CODE WAS ENVISIONED OR EVEN THOUGHT OF OR DREAMT OF IS THAT SPECIAL CONDITION FOR IT.

THIS ISN'T A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE FOR THIS OWNER.

ANY OWNER THAT HAS PLATTED LOTS OF RECORD CAN MAKE THIS REQUEST TO SEPARATE THEM OUT. AND SO AS MS. FOREHAND POINTS OUT OUR CODE EXPLICITLY HONORS THOSE PLATS OF RECORD, THIS ONE HAS A GARAGE .7 FEET OVER IN ONE CORNER.

AND BY THE SAME TOKEN A LITERAL INTERPRETATION WOULD DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT OF THE SAME RIGHTS AS OTHERS IN THE EXACT SAME ZONING DISTRICT WOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE THOSE BUILTABLE LOTS BUT FOR THAT SPECIAL CONDITION AND THEN THE GENERAL HARMONY AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST ARE I THINK POINT OUT JUST BY SLIGHTLY EXPANDING YOUR SCOPE AND YOUR SEARCH, THAT YOU SEE THAT THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT AREA OF DEVELOPMENT WHERE THIS IS THE SNARND THAT PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO IT IS CONSISTENT. IT WILL I MEAN THERE IS A DEMAND FOR HOUSING HERE, PARTICULARLY THAT SMALLER HOUSING THAT WOULD BE PERMITTED ON 25 FOOT LOT OF RECORD.

IT WILL BEAUTIFY THE NEIGHBORHOOD BY REPLACING THAT GARAGE WITH NEW DEVELOPMENT THAT WILL HAVE TO BE COMPLIANT WITH OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE INCLUDING OUR SETBACKS AND LANDSCAPING AND IT WILL EXPAND VALUES, NEW RESALE PROPERTY IS GOING TO HELP ALL THOSE PROPERTY VALUES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD SO IT IS CONSISTENT WITH 92 PUBLIC THC INTEREST.

I DON'T SEE ANYONE ELSE HERE SO I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY OPPOSITION TO THIS OR IF WE HAVE ANYONE ON THE LINE THAT'S OPPOSED TO IT BUT I THINK THAT ALSO SPEAKS VOLUMES THAT YOU DON'T HAVE

[02:05:01]

>> BOARD MEMBERS GOT ANY COMMENTS?

>> SO SPECIAL CONDITIONS. WHAT ABOUT THE LAND? NOT THE BUILDING, RIGHT? THE BUILDING WAS PREEXISTING.

WHAT ABOUT THE LAND MAKES IT A SPECIAL CONDITION?

>> IT REALLY IS -- IT GOES BACK TO YOU MEAN THE GARAGE, THE

BUILDING OF THE GARAGE? >> YOU SAID THE SPECIAL CONDITION IS THAT THE GARAGE EXISTS.

RIGHT? SPECIAL CONDITION ISN'T THE PROPERTY. SPECIAL CONDITION IS ABOUT THE LAND. IS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT THE LAND THAT MAKES IT A SPECIAL CONDITION?

>> JUST THAT IT WOULD OTHER WISE BE RECOGNIZED AS A BUILDABLE

PLATTED LOT OF RECORD. >> SO THE ANSWER IS NO?

>> RIGHT. >> AND I DID DRIVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD TODAY. AND IT WOULD NOT BE IN HARMONY, WHAT'S THERE, I'M NOT SURE HOW THAT RELATES TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BUT CLEARLY NOT IN HARMONY WITH WHAT'S THERE.

>> ALL RIGHT MR. POOLE BEFORE YOU SIT DOWN AND I THINK ANOTHER BOARD MEMBER MAY HAVE A COMMENT FOR YOU.

I THINK TOWARDS DAPHNE'S POINT IF WE TAKE THE PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT YOU ARE HERE FOR AND IF WE GO THE NEXT BLOCK OVER AND PUT YOU IN

>> I'M SORRY, JEFF, I BELIEVE I OVERSPOKE.

>> YOU TOUCHED ON THAT. >> SO SOME OF THE LOTS THAT YOU ENUMERATED THAT ARE BLOCKS AWAY FROM THIS, DO THOSE HAVE

STRUCTURES ON THEM? >> BUT THEY MAY NOT HAVE THE

STRUCTURE ON THAT? >> AND I LOOKED AT THE STREET, AND THE STREET WE MENTIONED ON SIXTH STREET, 812, 816 AND I BELIEVE 816 HAS A TWO-STORY RESIDENCE AND THE TWO ARE VACANT AND ALL UNDER THE SAME PROPOSAL. I CAN SHARE WITH YOU A PORTION OF THAT PLAN THAT WAS PROVIDED TO ME THAT WAS SUBMITTED WITH SOME OF THE PROPOSED RESIDENCES ON HOW THEY WERE SPLIT.

>> THAT'S INTERESTING, BECAUSE THAT PICTURE WOULD SHOW THERE'S A STRUCTURE THAT STRADDLES 14 AND 16.

>> 812 DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING. THEY JUST FINISHED 814.

I DID DRIVE AROUND THE AREA TO GET A SENSE OF IT AND I WOULD SAY THE IMMEDIATE AREA IS PRETTY MUCH STRUCTURES ON 54 BLOCKS.

I DIDN'T DRIVE ALL THE WAY DOWN ON SIXTH STREET, THOUGH.

BUT THAT LOOKS SOMETHING VERY SIMILAR AND YOU ENUMERATED THAT'S A STRUCTURE THAT STRADDLES 14 AND 16.

>> IT'S SOMETIMES DIFFICULT TO SAY WITH A PROPERTY APPRAISAL BECAUSE THEIR LINES DON'T ALWAYS MATCH UP WITH THE PROPERTY LINES AND THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT A TWO STORY RESIDENCE THERE WITH THE VACANT LOT NEXT TO IT.

>> OK. >> YES, IN FACT, THEY RARELY

LIGHTEN UP. >> IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE FROM THE BOARD? YOU CAN COME UP AND HAVE YOUR

FINAL THOUGHT. >> WE HAVE THE PROPERTY OWNER, AS WELL AS THE CONTRACTOR, IF IT WOULD BE ANY BENEFIT TO THE

[02:10:06]

COME BACK UP. >> THANK YOU.

>> AND IF EITHER ONE OF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, YOU CERTAINLY CAN, BUT YOUDA HAVE T HAVE TO.

>> I USED TO HAVE AN ITALIAN RESTAURANT FOR 25 YEARS.

AND I RETIRE ABOUT NINE YEARS AGO AND RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET, AND I'M ON SOUTH SIXTH STREET. EVERYTHING CAME UP WHEN THE PEOPLE ALMOST ACROSS THE STREET FROM ME, THEY HAVE THE SAME SITUATION. THEY PUT A TWO-STORY BUILDING, THEY HAD A BUILDING THAT HAD TO KNOCK THEM DOWN AND THE FIRST ONE, THEY PUT A TWO-STORY BUILDING ON THE 25 LOTS.

I HAVE THE SAME THING AND I THINK I CAN DO THE SAME THING AND NOW, THEY CAN BUILD TWO MORE BUILDINGS ON THE OTHER TWO LOTS.

THEY HAVE EVERYBODY APPROVED, ANYWAY.

SO I DON'T SEE ANYTHING DIFFERENT AND THIS IS EXACTLY

WHAT I WANT TO DO. >> OK, THANK YOU, SIR.

WAS THERE ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY, SIR? YOU HAVE TO COME UP AND JUST GIVE ME YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE. DID YOU GET SWORN IN, SIR?

>> I DID NOT. TAYLOR, THAT'S YOU.

>> DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE ORAL AND/OR TESTIMONY WILL BE THE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH?

>> YES. >> JUST GIVE US YOUR NAME AND

ADDRESS, SIR. >> I'M AT 732 KING FISHER WAY.

AND I OWN THE LOT DESIGNATED AS 814 SOUTH SIX STREET WHICH IS ONE OF THREE LOTS THAT WERE CREATED WHEN THIS BOARD WAS TO CREATE A SEPARATION BETWEEN THE LOTS DEPICTED ON YOUR SUR VETERAN'S DAY SURVEY AD YOU LOOK CAREFUL, YOU'LL SEE THERE WAS A SURVEY STRADDLING AND YOU SAY YOU DON'T SET

PRECEDENCE? >> THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I SAID.

>> AND THAT THE FINDINGS OF FACTS SUPPORTED THAT INSTANCE AND AND NOTHING AND HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS INSTANCE?

>> YES. AND SO I WILL GIVE YOU WHAT SHE WOULD SAY IF SHE WERE TO COME UP AND NOT SPEAKING ON YOUR BEHALF.

SO WE JUST DO OUR BEST TO LOOK AT EACH ONE INDIVIDUALLY AND NOT HAVE ONE COOKIE-CUTTER THAT EVERYBODY WILL HAVE A BLUE CHEVROLET PICK-UP TRUCK THROUGH THE CITY.

AND SO THAT WE'RE TRYING TO STOP AND AND SOMETIMES THE CASES ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT. SO I CAN NEVER GO BACK TO SPEAK ABOUT WHAT THIS WAS AND I DON'T REMEMBER IT AND NOT THAT IT MATTERS OR THAT WE WOULD GO BACK TO DISCUSS IT.

BUT WE DON'T SET ANY TYPE OF PRECEDENCE.

EACH CASE IS INDIVIDUAL. >> WELL, I GUESS FROM A LAYMAN'S

POINT OF VIEW -- . >> I'M A LAYMAN, SIR.

I'M A PLUMMER. >> I'M A CONTRACTOR.

>> YOU AND I SHOULD ABLE TO WORK THIS OUT, SIR.

>> WE NEED PLUMBERS, NO DOUBT. >> YOU KNOW, JUST SEVERAL THINGS I'VE HEARD TONIGHT THAT THIS REQUEST DOESN'T FIT THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I AM AWARE OF FOUR HOUSES BEING BUILT IN THE LAST YEAR, COMPLETED HOUSES AND HOUSES UNDER CONSTRUCTION IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, A BLACK BLOCK E BLOCK OVER. ADDITIONALLY, THERE ARE HOUSES THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, NOT IN GOOD REPAIR SO THAT, FRANKLY, THIS TYPE OF ACTIVITY IS GOING TO ELEVATE THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

[02:15:01]

I BUILD HOUSES FOR A LIVING AND BUILT HOUSES SINCE 1985.

A LOT OF CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED AND EVERYBODY HAS AN OPINION ON THAT. AND IT DOES SEEM TO ME THAT THE PREVAILING TREND IN THAT AREA IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUEST THAT MR. MAGENARO IS MAKING HERE AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

THANK YOU. >> YES, SIR.

>> AND I WILL RESPOND JUST WITH A FEW THOUGHTS ON THAT.

TO YOUR POINT, YES, AND SOME OF THE LOTS THAT ARE BEING BUILT ON DOWN THERE, THE 25-FOOT LOTS, WE CALL THOSE SPANISH LOTS AND SOME OF THOSE NEVER HAD ANYTHING ON THEM.

IN THE PAST, SOME OF THE STRUCTURES WERE TAKEN DOWN AND IN THE PAST, I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE HOW THIS MAY WEIGH IN ON THAT AND MAYBE THE LAST FIVE OR EIGHT YEARS, THE DEMOLITION PERMITS HAVE GOTTEN STRINGENT ST AND SOME MAY HAVE WANTED TO TAKE HOUSES DOWN AND WANTED TO DO SOMETHING WITH THE LAND AND COULD NOT. IT'S JUST BECAUSE THERE'S MORE AND MORE PRESSURE ON THE CITY THAT WE BEGIN TO SEE ALL OF THE SMALLER PARCELS COMING MORE AND MORE INTO THE SPOTLIGHT ON THAT.

BUT YES, YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT, THERE ARE HOUSES BEING BUILT RIGHT NOW ON THOSE 25-FOOT SPAN INITIAL LOTS.

SPANISH LOTS. JUST FOR THE RECORD, ANYBODY FOR THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS? MR. POOL, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A FINAL STATEMENT? AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO IF YOU DOOR DON'T WANT TO AND ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD AND WE CAN

ADDRESS THOSE. >> THANK YOU, AND I KNOW IT'S GETTING LATE, SO I'LL BE BRIEF, WHICH IS NOT IN MY NATURE AS AN ATTORNEY.

>> TO WE CHARGE BY THE WORDS. >> ASIDE FROM OBJECTING A LITTLE BIT OF LEVITY, YOU HAVE THE ABILITY RIGHT NOW AS IT STANDS TO BUILD ON A 25-FOOT LOT RIGHT HERE.

AGAIN, WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS ESSENTIALLY TO REPLACE THIS UNATTRACTIVE EVER SO SLIGHTLY ENCROACHING GARAGE, TAKE IT DOWN AND TO PUT SOMETHING NEW THAT WILL BE ATTRACTIVE AND IT IS GOING TO BRING OUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

I THINK IT'S SIGNIFICANT TO NOTE THAT YOU HAVE, ESSENTIALLY, A 25-FOOT LOT OF RECORD RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO THIS PROPERTY AND WE'RE SEEKING TO HAVE ONE MORE. SO THAT CAN GO UP AS A MATTER OF RIGHT. THEY CAN SEPARATE THAT TOMORROW WITH THE PROPERTY APPRAISER, APPLY FOR A BUILDING PERMIT AND THAT COULD GO IN IMMEDIATELY. SO I DON'T THINK THIS WILL BE A DRASTIC CHANGE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD IF ANYTHING IS A CONTINUING TREND OF WHAT WE'RE SEEING IN THAT AREA.

I THINK THAT EVIDENCE STRONGLY SUPPORTS THAT.

I THINK THAT SPEAKS VOLUMES THAT IF THIS WAS SOMETHING TRULY OUT OF CHARACTER FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU WOULD HAVE THE NEIGHBORS IN HERE COMPLAINING AGAINST THIS.

IT'S BEEN PROPERLY NOTICED AND IT WAS POSTED, THE PROPERTY, AND NOT ONE PEEP IN OPPOSITION. THAT'S SIGNIFICANT AS FAR E HARMONY IN THE NEIGHBORING COMMUNITY.

WITH THAT, WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU GRANT THE VARIANCE AND ALLOW THIS 1945 BLOCK GARAGE BE REPLACED WITH SOMETHING FOR CONTRIBUTING AND BETTER FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THANK YOU. >> BEFORE YOU SIT DOWN --

>> YOU WOULD REQUEST TWO THINGS IN.

I THINK REPLACING THAT GARAGE, A STRUCTURE WITH AN ANOTHER

STRUCTURE. >> ARE WE DIVIDING THIS INTO TWY

COMBINED SOME. >> ONE AND TWO ARE COVERED BY THE RESIDENTS ON GUM STREET. THAT'S NOT A PART OF OUR REQUEST TO SEPARATE THAT OUT. THAT HOUSE WILL REMAIN.

IT'S CLEAR THAT THAT SPANS THOSE AND TO ME, THE GARAGE IS VERY UNIQUE, BECAUSE THAT IS EVER SO SLIGHT ENCROACHMENT AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT LESS THAN HALF A FOOT,.7 --

>> IT'S LIKELY BECAUSE THEY COULD NOT MEASURE THAT

ACCURATELY. >> THE SURVEY BACK THEN AND HAVE

[02:20:01]

BUT I THINK THERE IS A LOT OF WISDOM THAT IT WAS UNINTENTIONAL AND INTENNED TO BE ON LOT 3 AND NOBODY REALLY REALIZED IT UNTIL

FASTFORWARD UNTIL 2021. >> THANK YOU, MR. POOL.

>> THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE IT. >> JEFF.

>> I DIDN'T REALIZE SOME OF THE PLATTED AND HONORING THE PLATTED. HOW MUCH IS PLATTED IN 25-FOOT?

IS THE ENTIRE CITY? >> NOT THE ENTIRE CITY, BUT

THERE ARE PORTIONS. >> OK, THANK YOU.

>> THERE IS A MAP SOMEWHERE. >> SO, JEFF, MORE TO YOUR POINT AND WE'VE DEALT WITH THIS SOME IN THE PAST MAYBE BEFORE YOU WERE ON THE BOARD. THE LOT THAT IS ON THE BACKSIDE IS A PLATTED LOT OF RECORD AND NEVER HAD ANYTHING PUT ONTO IT AND WE HAD NO AUTHORITY. HE CAN WALK IN HERE TODAY.

>> NUMBER 4, RIGHT. >> ONCE YOU PUT THAT STRUCTURE ON THERE, IT'S ONE LOT. WE'VE SEEN MANY OF THESE AND WE'LL SEE MANY, MANY MORE. WHAT'S THE PATHWAY FORWARD?

WHAT YOU GOT, CHUCK? >> WELL, I DON'T FIND MR. POOL'S CONTENTION THAT THE DATED GARAGE SUBJECTLY LESS ATTRACTIVE THAN THE OPEN SPACE THAT WOULD BE FORFEITED ON TWO

25 SQUARE FOOT LOTS. >> THEY'RE NOT 25-FOOT SQUARE

FOOT LOTS. >> WIDE.

>> YES. IT'S NOT AN ATTRACTIVE GARAGE, CERTAINLY TRUE, AND NOTHING PRETTIER THAN OPEN SPACE, IN MY BOOK. BUT I DON'T THINK ANY OTHER

FEELINGS ABOUT THAT. >> MY ARGUMENT IS THERE'S NO TREES HE'S TAKING DOWN. THERE'S A CYPRESS ON THE CORNER.

BUT THERE'S AN ALREADY-EXISTING LOT AND HE DOESN'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THAT. I DON'T SEE IT AS A BIG DEAL.

AND KNOWING THAT THE COMMUNITY WILL BENEFIT FROM ENHANCED PROPERTY, WHILE I SUGGEST THAT, I KNOW IT'S SPECULATIVE AND ANYONE HA WHO BUILDS WILL INCE THE VALUE OF THAT LOGICALLY.

>> OK. BARRY, WHAT HAVE YOU GOT?

>> IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE CITY STAFF IS PRETTY OPPOSED AND EVERYTHING THEY'VE PUT IN THERE IS A CONTRADICTION TO THE CODE, BUT TO ME, WE'RE JUST A FOOT OR SO OF THAT GARAGE UNDER THAT OTHER LOT AND IT DOESN'T SEEM TO ME LIKE THAT WOULD BE ENOUGH TO TEAR THIS WHOLE THING DOWN. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER WHAT'S BEING DONE WILL BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBOR AND THERE'S BEEN MIXED VIEWS ABOUT THAT. I CAN'T QUITE SAY BECAUSE I DON'T THERE LIVE THERE AND IS LOOKING AT THE WRONG SIDE OF THE

STREET THIS AFTERNOON. >> LET'S SEE IF JEFF WILL GIVE

US CLARITY. >> PROBABLY MORE CONFUSION.

THIS COULD BE BUILT ON 25-FOOT AND IS ONE, TWO AND THREE -- TWO AND THREE IS CONSIDERED ITS OWN LOT AND I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND HOW ONE AND TWO BECOME A COMBINED LOT.

>> SO IS TODAY ONE ON ITS OWN LOT AND THE GARAGE IS ON TWO AND THREE OR IS IT ONE, TWO AND THREE?

>> THE HOUSE IS ON ONE AND TWO. >> THE HOUSE IS ON TWO AND IN THEORY, IT COULD BE ARGUED THAT, THAT STRUCTURE IS A PART OF ONE,

TWO IS THREE. >> RIGHT.

AND THREE. >> RIGHT.

>> SO YOU COULD END UP WITH THREE HOMES THERE.

>> THAT'S THE INTENT, YES. >> AND ONE EXISTING AND NUMBER TWO AND LOT NUMBER FOUR COULD BE PUT IN TOMORROW WITH NO PROBLEM.

>> IN ALL LIKELIHOOD, A 25-LOT WIDTH COULD DO A ONE-STORY OR TWO-STORY AND NONE IN THAT AREA ARE TWO-STORIES, BUT I KNOW THE

[02:25:03]

BUT THERE ARE PRECEDENT AND WE DON'T HOLD THAT AND THERE ARE OTHER LOTS THAT HAVE 25-FOOT HOUSES THAT ARE BUILT ON THAT ARE ONE STORY THAT ARE JUST LITERALLY ONE STREET OVER.

AND THEY'RE FAIRLY RECENT. >> MR. POOL, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING, THE BOARD WILL HEAR FROM YOU.

>> NO, WE'RE LOOKING FOR A CLARIFYING POINT AND I THINK IT'S SUFFICIENT. SO I GUESS THAT COMES BACK TO

ME. >> WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS?

>> TO PROVIDE CLARITY.

>> NO, NOT FOR THAT, NO, SIR, I STIR THE POT.

>> THAT SHOWS TWO STORIES IN THE DOCUMENT THAT WAS PROVIDED IN THE PACKET, SO JUST BE CONSCIOUS OF THAT.

>> SO THE BOARD HAS SAID MANY TIMES FOUR GENERATIONS IN MY FAMILY HAVE WALKED DOWN CENTER STREET.

SO MY PICTURE OF THE FUTURE IS QUITE CLEAR.

AND THERE'S GOING TO BE MORE AND MORE AND MORE PRESSURE ON OUR CITY IN THE LAST YEAR TO LOOK AT WHAT WE'VE GOT.

WE HAVE A BIG COMMERCIAL PROJECT ENCROACHING THE WETLANDS AND ANOTHER HOUSE THAT WE SQUEEZE SOMETHING IN ON A LOT THAT WAS 80% WETLANDS NOW WE'RE TRYING TO SHOEHORN STUFF IN AND THIS IS WHERE WE'LL TRY TO SHOEHORN STUFF EVERYWHERE.

AND STEVEN IS A VERY SMART GUY. AND I ALWAYS LOOKED AT HIM FOR HIS GUIDANCE AND HE SAID, WELL, I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT.

AND I THINK THAT'S VERY WISE. I DON'T THINK HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT. MY ISSUE IS THE AGGREGATE TOTAL OF WHAT WE'RE DOING AND WHAT WE'RE GOING TO GIVE BACK OF WHAT WE DO THIS AND THIS AND PUT THIS OVER THERE.

AT SOME POINT, IT'S GOING TO COME WHERE WE HAVE THREE AND FOUR APPLICATIONS A MONTH COMING BEFORE THERE BOARD AS THERE'S MORE AND MORE PRESSURE ON THAT. AND IF YOU LOOK TOWARDS THE REAL ESTATE FORECAST, THEY DON'T SEE MUCH OF A DECLINE.

IT MAY SLOW DOWN JUST A LITTLE BIT, BUT JUST STEADY GROWTH.

AND SO, THERE'S ALWAYS LOTS LIKE THE ONE THAT'S SITTING THERE BY ITSELF THAT WE DON'T CONTROL THAT SOMEONE WILL PUT A 25 -- THEY COULD PUT A 15-FOOT WIDE HOUSE ON THAT 15-FOOT WIDE LOT.

>> TWENTY. >> AND THEN WHERE DO WE PARK AND WHAT DO WE DO? AND NOW WE HAVE PEOPLE PARKING IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. MY CONCERN IS JUST THAT WE GO AGAINST PEOPLE WHO WERE SO SMART.

THE PEOPLE THAT ROAD THE LDC GIVE US WHAT IS RIGHT OUTSIDE OF THE DOOR AND WE'RE GOING TO SAY, NO, WE DON'T THINK YOU DID A GOOD JOB AND WE'RE GOING TO SAY THAT IT'S IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF OUR EXPECT AND IN OUR CHILDREN TO COME IN HERE AND SLIDE ANOTHER HOUSE IN ON ALL OF THESE LITTLE LOTS.

AND I JUST THINK AT SOME POINT, WE'RE JUST GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE A HARD LINE ON THIS OR WE'RE NOT GOING TO LIKE WHAT WE SEE WHEN WE LOOK BACK WITH MORE GREY HAIR ON OUR HEADS.

AND NOT TALKING TO YOU, BARRY.

>> LENITY OF LENITY OF . >> ONCE IT'S A PLATTED LOT OF

RECORD. >> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ONGOING GROWTH OF DENSITY. AND IT'S NOT GOING TO BE SOME ODD SITUATION WHERE A STRUCTURE IS THE OVER A LOT LENGTH.

WHAT WE WOULD BE DOING, TAKING AN UNFORTUNATE SITUATION AND USING THAT TO ACHIEVE A GOAL OF DECREASING DENSITY.

BUT IF IT ALLOWS BUILDING ON A 25-FOOT LOT, THEN IT'S ALMOST LIKE THIS WOULD BE A WAY TO STOP BUILDING ON ONE 25-FOOT LOT.

FOR, LIKE, AN UNFORTUNATE REASON IN MY MIND. AND I CAN -- I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT THE GENERAL TREND.

BUT WE'RE REALLY TAKING A SITUATION WHERE THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF ENCROACHMENT BETWEEN THE TWO LOTS AND THAT MAKES IT --

[02:30:05]

MANY, MANY 25-FOOT LOTS. >> IF THEY HAVE A -- IF THEY'RE ALREADY IN PLAY AND ARE VACANT, THERE CAN BE ISSUED A BUILDING PERMIT RATE AWAY. RIGHT WAY AWAY.

>> I UNDERSTAND. >> THAT'S KIND OF WHAT MAKES THESE NEIGHBORHOODS EC LICK ECL, YOU WALK DOWN THROUGH THERE AND YOU HAVE A 50-FOOT LOT AND SOMEBODY WITH THREE OR FOUR AND THERE ARE DIFFERENT TYPES OF HOUSES AND NOT A SUBDIVISION WHERE ALL OF THE LOTS ARE PRETTY MUCH THE SAME.

BUT IF WE BEGIN TO ALLOW THIS, IN TEN YEARS, YOU'RE GOING TO LOOK THROUGH THERE IN THERE AND YOU WON'T EVEN RECOLLECT IT H

A PICTURE. >> MY CONTENTION IS NOT ALLOWING 25-FOOT LOTSES IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND NOT SELECTING ONE ISSUE -- ONE LOT WITH AN ISSUE TO DENY IT.

>> IT DOESN'T. THE MINIMUM LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIREMENT IS AND THE OWN REASON ONLY RT BACK TO THAT BECAUSE OF A HISTORICAL THING DONE 100 YEARS

AGO. >> THESE DOWN ON SIX STREET BETWEEN HICKORY AND INDIGO, 812, THE 25-FOOT WIDE LOT TO BE BUILT ON THERE, RIGHT? AND 814 AND 816 SEEM TO HAVE AN OVERLAPPING STRUCTURE AND 812 WAS EMPTY.

>> AND 812 WAS EMPTY. >> IT APPEARS THAT WAY, DOESN'T

IT? >> YES.

>> I THINK THERE'S A BUILDING ON THE ONE.

>> I'M ONLY MENTIONING THIS BECAUSE YOU SAY IT'S THE UNDERLYING PLAN THAT IT DOES NOT ALLOW ON THE BUILDING OF 25-FOOT

WIDE LOT. >> CORRECT.

>> SO YET, SOMEBOY COULD BID D ON 812 IF THEY WANTED TO.

>> BECAUSE IT WAS UNDEVELOPED. IF THERE'S A BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY, IT BECOMES COMPOUNDED AND IT COMBINED.

WHAT THEY'RE SEEKING A VARIANCE FOR IS THAT REASON, BECAUSE THERE'S SOMETHING THAT IS ENCROACHING TWO LOTS.

I RECOGNIZE YOUR POINT. I MEAN, I FEEL THE EXACT SAME WAY. I'M ARCHITECT, BUT I RECOGNIZE THAT I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP THIS PRISTINE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THIS PRISTINE CITY THAT I GET TO LIVE IN AS MUCH AS I POSSIBLY CAN.

BUT THE RIGHT TO DENY SOMETHING SO MINISCULE IS TOUGH TO

SWALLOW. >> THE DENSITY WILL BE THE FINAL

FRONTIER OF THE CITY. >> AND I'M SENSITIVE TO THIS BUT THIS SEEMS LIKE AN UNFORTUNATE LOOPHOLE, I'M NOT SURE I WOULD BE COMFORTABLE, YOU KNOW, SAYING, OH, TO ACHIEVE THIS END, WE'LL JUMP ON THIS ONE THING THAT IS UNFORTUNATE ABOUT THIS SITUATION, SIX INCHES OVER AND THERE IT IS, A FOOT OVER.

>> GOOD POINTS AND YOU DON'T LIKE TO DO WHAT IF'S.

BUT LOOK SOUTH OF THE STREET AT 712, 716 AND SO IF THOSE LOTS WHICH APPEAR TO BE 50-FOOT LOTS, TO THEY HAVE AN UNDERLYING PLATTED 25-FOOT LOT, SOMEBODY COULD COME IN AND SAY,, WHY NOT?

>> SHE CAN'T DEMO THE BUILDING AND GET THE TWO ORIGINAL LOTS OF RECORD. IT'S BEEN COMBINED.

>> THAT'S WHAT WE'LL DO. THAT'S WHAT THIS VARIANCE IS

REQUESTING. >> COULDN'T SOMEBODY SAW I WANT TO DIVIDE THE LOTS INTO TWO 25-FOOT LOTS?

>> THREAT WOULD HAVE TO SEEK A VARIANCE.

[02:35:01]

>> TO YOUR POINT, YES, AND THAT'S ALL DOABLE TODAY AND WOULD ALL TAKE VARIANCES EVER TIME.

VARIANCES EVERY TIME.

>> THAT MIGHT BE A TOUGH VARIANCE.

>> YEAH, I THINK IT'S CONSIDERED DIFFERENT, VERSUS SIX INCHES IN A STRUCTURE THAT'S A GARAGE? I MEAN, I RECOGNIZE THE POINT, BUT THEY CAN BUILD ON LOT 4 RIGHT NOW.

SO THAT 25-FOOT IS THERE, REGARDLESS.

>> BUT IT'S NOT TWO 25-FOOT LOTS.

>> SO IF THEY CAN BUILD ON ONE LOT, THEN WE WOULD JUST SAY, WELL, LET'S DOUBLE IT IF WE GRANTED THE VARIANCE.

>> INCREASED DENSITY, YES. >> WE'VE DOUBLED IT, BUT THEY'RE WELL WITHIN THEIR RIGHTS RIGHT NOW TO PROCEED WITH THE ONE LOT.

ULTIMATE IT JUST CONCERNS MEY WHERE THIS IS GOING.

WE'VE WRESTLED WITH THIS IN THE PAST AND HAVE HAD FRANK DISCUSSIONS WITH IT AND IT'S ONLY GOING TO BE MORE AND MORE AND MORE. I'M NOT SAYING THIS IS A HARD LINE OR WHERE THIS IS WHERE WE STOP.

YOU DIDN'T DO A LOT TO DOE CERTAINLY DESERVE TO LIVE HERE AND WHEN I'M GONE, I WANT TO MAKE SURE I'VE DONE EVERYTHING I COULD TO PASS IT ON IN A BETTER CONDITION THAN WHEN

I GOT IT. >> THEY ARE AROUND.

>> LET'S MAKE A MOTION. >> I'VE DONE MY MOTION FOR THE

NIGHT. >> OK.

>> I DON'T MAKE MOTIONS. MOTION YOUR HEART, WHATEVER IT IS.

>> I MOVE TO DENY 20012-4 AND MAKE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW THAT THAT THE CASE IS NOT SUBSTANTIAL TO THE PLAN, LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OR APPROVAL AT THIS TIME.

>> JUST GIVE ME A SENTENCE OR TWO OF WHY.

>> I BELIEVE THAT IT IS NOT IN KEEPING.

ALTHOUGH, IT'S POSSIBLY --ED --S ALLOWABLE TO BUILD ON ONE OF THOSE LOTS AND MAINTAIN AND THE CASUAL CHARACTER OF THE IMMEDIATELY NEIGHBORHOOD AND NOT WARRANTED

TO PUT ANOTHER STRUCTURE ON IT. >> OK, A SECOND?

>> THE MOTION FAILS. >> OK, CAN I GET ANOTHER MOTION? OR DO WE WANT TO HAVE SOME MORE DISCUSSION ON THAT OR ARE WE NOD

[02:40:01]

THEIR PEACE? >> I THINK THAT WE ALL CERTAINLY AGREE THAT WE DON'T WANT TO SEE THIS NEIGHBORHOOD OVERRUN WITH 25-FOOT LOTS BLOCK AFTER LOTS AND HOUSE AFTER HOUSE OF SMALL HOUSES AND MAKE MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE HERE TO DISCUSS. YOU I THINK THE DIFFICULTY LIEN YOU HAVE TO, LIKE, DRAW THE LINE SOMEWHERE.

IF THAT'S THE WAY YOU FEEL, YOU DO, IN FACT, HAVE TO DRAW THE LINE SOMEWHERE. THIS IS PARTICULARLY A ADULT DIT CASE TO DRAW THAT LINE ON BECAUSE OF THE FIGURES OF THE SITUATION. NOT VERY HELPFUL, I UNDERSTAND.

>> NO, YOU'RE SPEAKING WHERE YOUR MIND IS.

>> YES. >> I WANTED TO REMIND ALL OF YOU, BECAUSE WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE.

WE TALKED ABOUT BIASED AND HISTORY AND THINGS LIKE THAT. L.

I DON'T THINK ANY OF US ARE HAPPY THERE'S MORE TRAFFIC AND I THINK THEY NEED TO REDUCE THE SPEED EVERYWHERE TO 35 AND THAT'S JUST ME. AND I AM DIRECTING THAT AT THE CHAIR. I'M NOT CHASTISING YOU.

THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M DOING. I'M TRYING TO HELP YOU THROUGH.

WE WILL BE HERE FOR AWHILE AS WE TRY TO WORK UP A MOTION AND A DECISION IN THIS CASE. THE GROWTH IS AND THE BUILDINN ONE 25-FOOT LOTS IS NOT SOMETHING THIS BOARD IS SOMETHING THIS BOARD IS SUPPOSED TO BE PREVENTING UNLESS YOU SAY WE LOOK AT THE CRITERIA AND IT'S AS SIMPLE AS THAT.

WE'VE LOOKED AT THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THAT COMES INTO IT AND LOOKING AT OTHER HOUSES NEARBY IS FINE.

BUT TALKING ABOUT THE GROWTH AND ITS GOT TO STOP AND IT'S TOO MUCH. I'M NOT JUST SAYING YOU, BECAUSE WE'VE ALL SAID THIS IN HERE, CLEAR , CHAIR MILLER. THIS IS NOT A BIASED TO APPLY.

YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THIS CASE AND I SAW MR. OLEVA IN THE BEGINNING. I WAS TRYING TO READ YOUR MINE AND I'M NOT MIND, AND I'M NOT GOOD AT IT.

>> ESPECIALLY WITH THE MASK. >> RIGHT.

BUT YOU THINK HE'S SEEING THE NUMBER OF SMALL INCHES THAT IS CAUSING THE PROPERTY OWNER TO NOT BE ABLE TO JUST GO AHEAD AND BUILD WHAT THEY WANT AND THAT BEING SUCH A SMALL DEVIATION FROM WHAT WOULD BE ALLOWED DOESN'T SEEM QUITE RIGHT TO BE ABLE TO AND CERTAINLY -- I'M BE BOLD ENOUGH TO SAY THAT'S HOW WE'LL CONTROL GROWTH. SO I'VE HEARD COMMENTS UP HERE -- AND WHAT I WORRY ABOUT IS THAT WHAT HAPPENS ON APPEAL OF THIS CASE. THAT'S WHY I GOT UP TO SPEED.

BECAUSE IF THIS CASE IS APPEALED AND THERE IS ANY BIASED, ANYTHING OTHER THAN WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THE FACTS OF THIS CASE AND TESTIMONY, IT WILL BE BACK IN YOUR LAP AND THE JUDGE WILL SAY, YOU CAN'T THINK ABOUT THE TRAFFIC.

YOU CAN'T THINK ABOUT PROPERTY VALUES AND WE CAN ONLY THINK ABOUT, REALLY, WHAT I BELIEVE, MR. OLEVA SAID, WHICH IS A FEW

INCHES OF ENCROACHMENT. >> IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'LL HAVE TO CARRY WITH US AND MAYBE WE CAN'T BE SPEAKING SO OPENLY, BUT I'M SURE EVERYBODY HAS A VISION OF THE FUTURE THEY DON'T

WANT TO SEE HAPPEN. >> THAT'S RIGHT, AND WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT THAT? WE DO TO OUR CITY COMMISSIONERS AND THIS BOARD CAN COLLECTIVELY MAKE A DECISION, SEND A LETTER THROUGH THE CHAIR AND WE NEED SOMETHING TO BE DONE.

ONE OF THE THINGS WE'RE STARTING TO FACE, WE PROTECT OUR WETLANDS HERE. I KNOW WE HAVE A PUD AT 14TH 14TH AND LIME DOING IT RIGHT NOW.

BUT THAT WAS THEN AND AS WE ARE STARTING TO BUY PROPERTIES, I

[02:45:02]

BY HAVE TO BUY THEM. SO IT'S POSSIBLE THAT IF THE CITY COMMISSION TAKES SOME STEPS TO MAKE CHANGES AND THERE'S AND KINDS OF THINGS YOU CAN DO. YOU CAN SAY MINIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE. AND I KNOW STEVEN KNOWS ABOUT A AS AND ARCHITECT AND A MINIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE HOUSE AND THERE'S HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS AND YOU CAN'T SQUEEZE TINY HOUSES IF ANYWHERE AND THAT GOES AGAINST AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

THERE ARE SO MANY ISSUES. I HAVE HEARD IT ENOUGH TIMES AND IF YOU THINK IT'S COMING IN A WAVE HERE, THREE AND FOUR CASES A MONTH, SEND A MESSAGE TO THE CITY COMMISSION AS CITIZENS THAT YOU WANT SOMETHING. YOU ARE SEAING THESE CASES MONTH AFTER MONTH AND YOU WANT TO STOP SEES THREE CASES.

YOU CAN TAKE THAT OUT AND HOW THAT IS POSSIBLE.

YOU SAY CAN'T DO IT. IF IT'S BUILT ON, IT'S BUILT ON.

>> AND THE POINT I WAS MAKING IS THAT SEEMS LIKE THE MECK MECM FOR THAT. HERE IS ONE LAST EXAMPLE.

YOU ARE ALL JUDGES AND ANY JUDGE IN A COURT OF LAW, CRIMINAL COURT, CIVIL COURT, YOU'RE MORE RIGHT ON THE CIVIL SIDE, BUT I GUARANTEES YOU THAT JUDGES SIT UP AND THERE MAKE DECISIONS EVERYDAY THAT GO AGAINST THEIR RELIGION, AND THEY HAVE TO, BECAUSE THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE IMPARTIAL.

JUST SEARCH YOURSELVES FOR THAT IMPARTIALITY AND APPLY IT SO WE

CAN GET TO A DECISION TONIGHT. >> VERY WELL PUT.

THANK YOU. >> SO, PERHAPS, FOR THE RECORD, I'M GOING TO CLARIFY THOSE. PAIR (LOST AUDIO).

[02:50:32]

>> IF YOU GO BACK TO THE STAFF'S ANAL LIST, FIVE ANALYSIS, FIVE OF THE SIX CRITERIA WERE NOT MET AND I WOULD CONFER WITH A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE AND THERE'S LITERAL INTERPRETATION VIOLATION AND SO IT'S NOT IN GENERAL HARMONY WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND IT'S NOT PUBLIC INTEREST.

AND SO, IF YOU VOTE TO APPROVE, YOU HAVE TO JUSTIFY EACH ONE OF THOSE. AND THEN, THE SECOND COMMENT I HAVE -- AND I THINK CHAIR MILLER, THERE IS MORE TO YOUR POINT, IT'S ALL ABOUT URBAN RENEWAL.

THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT IS UMPOLICE IMPLICITLY GOING ON HERE. YOU'RE TAKING A NEIGHBORHOOD AND CHANGING ITS CHARACTER BY DEVELOPING THESE 25-FOOT LOTS.

IT'S A FORM OF URBAN RENEWAL. WHETHER THAT LEADS TO AFFORDABLE OUTSIDE ORGANIZE E HOUSING OR WHATEVER IT LEADS

TO -- >> I'M JUST LISTENING INTENTLY.

>> THE FLIP SIDE OF THAT, THE NEXT TIME THIS COMES UP, THERE MIGHT NOT BE A SPECIAL SITUATION.

>> FAIR ENOUGH, DID YOU THIS IS UNPRECEDENTED AND LET'S GO BACK TO CONVERSATION WAS THAT, THIS IS AN UNPRECEDENTED SETTING.

>> MR. CHAIR, TO THAT POINT, TWO MORE COMMENTS?

>> YOU CERTAINLY MAY, IF YOU'LL COME UP TO THE PODIUM,

MR. POOL. >> I'M HARRISON POOL, AND MY OFFICE HAS BEEN HERE SINCE 1981 AND I'M A RESIDENT AT 1603 HIGHLAND ASPCA DUNES WAY. THIS IS A PLACE THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN HOME FOR ME AND IT'S VERY IMPORTANT AND IF IT WASN'T SOMETHING I DIDN'T BELIEVE IN, I WOULDN'T STAND UP HERE, IF IT WASN'T SOMETHING I COULDN'T GET BEHIND, I WOULD NOT BE HERE.

I'M IN SUPPORT BECAUSE IT MEETS THE CRITERIA.

BUT THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO NOTE IS GOING BACK TO YOU MENTIONED OTHER OPTIONS, OTHER CASES AND MR. CHAIR, YOU WERE VERY CORRECT TO POINT OUT THAT THIS BOARD DOES NOT ESTABLISH PRECEDENT. IT IS TO DETERMINE EACH CASE ON ITS OWN, ON ITS MERITS. THAT BRINGS THE CONCERN WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE AGGREGATE IMPACT OF THESE.

BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE YOU'RE GOING BEYOND THE MERITS OF THIS INDIVIDUAL CASE AND IN CONSIDERING THOSE.

AND FOR THOSE REASONS, I WOULD IMPLORE YOU TO CONSIDER THIS ONE OF THE MAYOR RITES. MERITS. IT'S A SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE TALKING ABOUT .7 FEET AND THIS IS DIFFERENT THAN A 50-FOOT WIDE LOT WHERE THEY WANT TO TEAR THAT DOWN AND PUT IN TWO HOUSES.

THAT'S FAR CRY, DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCE BETWEEN THIS ONE WHICH IS DE MINIMIS AND PROBABLY AS THE VICE CHAIR POINTED OUT WAS A PRODUCT OF THE TECHNOLOGY AND THE TOOLS THEY HAD AND NEVER INTENDED TO SPAN THOSE LINES AND ONLY THROUGH MODERN METHODS DO WE DETERMINE THAT AND WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU CONSIDER THAT AS A SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE CIRT THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION ON THE MERITS, UNDERSTANDING IT WON'T REQUIRE YOU TO ALLOW A HOUSE TO BE TORN DOWN TO PUT IN TWO NEW HOUSES OR OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES OR SPLIT OR 75-FOOT LOT INTO LEE.

THREE. I WOULD ASK THAT YOU TAKE THAT IN CONSIDERATION IN SUPPORTING THIS APPLICATION.

>> THANK YOU, MR. POOL. >> I'LL JUST STATE FOR THE

[02:55:02]

IT'S THAT WIDE AND I WON'T SPILL IT.

IT'S MARGINAL, AT BEST. I RECOGNIZE THE INTENT TO DO THIS THROUGH THE MAYOR MERITE EFFORT TO PROTECT US.

AND I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS.

THAT 2021-04 IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT AND 2021-04 MEETS THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA, SPECIAL CONDITIONS, I RECOGNIZE THAT THIS IS A MINOR INFRACTION, SPECIAL PRIVILEGE AND IDA I DONT REMEMBER WHAT THAT IS FOR, THE LITERAL INTERPRETATIONS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND I THINK THAT WE CAN RECOGNIZE THAT THE TECHNOLOGY AT THE TIME AND THE DIFFERENCE OF WHEN THIS WAS CONSTRUCTED AND I THINK THAT'S A MARGINAL THING.

IT IS CONSISTENT WITH GENERAL HARMONY, THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND A TWO-STORY HOUSE DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET AND PUBLIC INTERESTS AND, AGAIN, NO PUBLIC OUTFALL FROM THIS AND NOBODY IS HERE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THE PUBLIC AGAINST IT. AND THOSE ARE MY REASONS.

POUT. >> I WANTED TO HELP WITH SPECIAL PRIVILEGE. SPECIAL PRIVILEGE SAYS THAT DOES GRANTING THIS VARIANCE CONFER A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE NOT AFORRED D TO OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED PROPERTIES AND PROPERTY OWNERS.

>> SO IF WE GRANT THIS, IT WOULD GIVE THEM SPECIAL PRIVILEGE BY

THE FACT IT'S REDUCING -- >> WEAR NOT SUPPOSED WEE GRANTING SPECIAL PRIVILEGES SO IN ORDER TO GRANT THE VARIANCE AND GO WITH YOUR MOTION, THAT GRANTING THIS VARIANCE DOES NOT CONFER A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE ON THE PROPERTY OWNER OR ARTICULATE THAT. YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE

GRANTING SPECIAL PRIVILEGES. >> I THOUGHT WE WERE MAKING PROGRESS FOR A MINUTES A M.

>> YOU WANT TO GIVE ONE OR TWO LINES TO CLARIFY YOUR POINT

THERE. >> BASED ON WHAT YOU JUST SAID,

I DON'T THINK IT'S POSSIBLE. >> THIS DOES NOT CONFER A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE DENIED BY THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO OTHER LANDS, STRUCTURES OR BUILDINGS IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT.

>> SO OTHER SIMILAR STRUCTURES THAT HAVE A SIX-INCH GARAGE OVER

A PLAT LOT LINE? >> YOU CAN INTERPRET THAT A NUMBER OF WAYS AND THAT IS, DO WE ALLOW BUILDINGS ON 25-FOOT LOTS? THERE ARE A NUMBER OF WAYS YOU

CAN FIND IT. >> THIS IS CLEARLY A SPECIAL SITUATION. SO WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE IDEA OF SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, YOU'RE BASICALLY -- TO DEFINE IT THAT WAY IS TO SAY THAT THERE IS NO SPECIAL SITUATION HERE.

>> SO HERE IT FOCUSES ON THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT R2 AND I'M TRYING TO HELP STEVEN MAKE A MOTION.

>> I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE BEST WAY TO REPHRASE THIS.

>> CAN WE BUILD HOMES ON 25-FOOT LOTS? IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ENCROACHMENT BUT THE ZONING DISTRICT. DAPHNE, I DON'T REPRESENT DAPHNE. DAPHNE REPRESENTS THE CITY AND SHE CAN SAY I'M COMPLETELY WRONG AND SO CAN MR. HARRISON.

>> I'M AGREEING WITH YOU.

>> IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT. SO IT'S SAYING -- GIVING THEM ANY SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, WHICH WE WOULD BE DOING IF THE VARIANCE ALLOWING THE BUILDING ON A 2500-FOOT LOT.

>> SO THAT SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, WHICH IS DIFFERENT THAN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE PLATTED LOT --

>> WHAT I'M SAYING, I'M FILLING IN THE BLANKERS FOR YOU. BLANKE.

>> JUST LIKE TWO AND THREE ARE AND ONE, THEY'RE IN R2 AND YOU CAN BUILD A RESIDENCE OR A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE ON LOT 4.

>> THAT DOES NOT REQUIRE SPECIAL PRIVILEGE.

MY ARGUMENT TO YOU, WHEN I HAVE TO JUSTIFY SPECIAL PRIVILEGE,

[03:00:03]

WE'RE GIVING SPECIAL PRIVILEGE. >> YOU'RE GRANTING A VARIANCE AND A VARIANCE IS NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH SPECIAL PRIVILEGE.

>> THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY SPECIAL PRIVILEGE.

>> IF YOU GRANT THE VARIANCE, ANOTHER WAY LOOK AT IT, IF YOU GRANT THE VARIANCE, ARE YOU ALLOWING SOMETHING IN THAT ZONING DISTRICT NOT CURRENTLY ALLOWED?

>> NO. >> NO.

>> THAT'S ONE WAY TO LOOK AT IT. DAPHNE?

(INAUDIBLE). >> SO THEN HOW DO WE MODIFY THE MOTION? I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT

STATEMENT. >> YOU JUST ARTICULATE THE SPECIAL PRIVILEGE PART. LET ME GET MY VOICE ON THE TAPE.

ARE WE GRANTING A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE IF YOU GRANT THE VARIANCE AND ALLOW BUILDING A STRUCTURE ON A 25 BY 100-FOOT LOT? SO YOU'RE NOT GRANTING THE SPECIAL PRIVILEGE. DAPHNE, AND YOU MAY WANT TO LOOK AT HER WORDS. SHE SAID THAT GRANTING IT DOES CONFER A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE. YOU HAVE TO DISAGREE WITH THAT AND ARTICULATE THAT IT DOES CONFER A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE THAT'S DENIED. IF THIS WERE PREVIOUSLY UNDEVELOPED AND THEY COULD RESTORE THE UNDERLYING, BUT WHENEVER YOU GO AGAINST, YOU'RE DISAGREEING WITH WHAT THEY SAID AND YOU HAVE TO BASE IT ON THE EVIDENCE YOU HEARD TONIGHT.

>> SO I THOUGHT I COULD CLARIFY THAT.

SO YOU'RE SAYING THE SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, IT DOES -- IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BECAUSE YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND BUILD A 25 BY 100-FOOT LOT RIGHT NOW?

>> THAT'S ONE WAY TO LOOK AT IT. >> MAYBE I DIDN'T SAY IT THAT WAY. I APOLOGIZE.

>> ARE YOU HAPPY WITH THAT VERBIAGE?

>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE -- I WANTED TO FILL FILL FILL .

>> ARE YOU HAPPY WITH THAT EXACTLY AS HE STATED IT?

>> YES, SPECIAL PRIVILEGE. >> SO I NEED A SECOND.

>> SECOND. >> AND I HAVE A SECOND.

>> TAYLOR, IT'S TO YOU. CALL THE VOTE.

(ROLE CALL). >> IT FAILS.

>> THERE WE ARE, MR. POOL. YOU CAN'T -- OUR BOARD IS WORKING EXACTLY AS IT'S SUPPOSED TO AND WE REALLY WRESTLE WITH EVERY DECISION. YOU SAT HERE FOR AN HOUR AND A HALF WHILE WE TRIED TO GET OUR HEAD AROUND EVERYTHING.

AND SO IT DOESN'T ALWAYS WORK OUT THAT EVERYONE IS HAPPY.

I'M SELDOM HAPPY WHEN I LEAVE HERE.

THERE'S ALWAYS A BETTER WAY I COULD HAVE SAID SOMETHING OR SOM WAY I COULD HAVE HANDLED THAT.

BUT WE LOVE FERNANDINA BEACH AND EVERYBODY IS CONCERNED ABOUT IT.

>> THANK YOU ALL. >> WHY DID YOU NOT SECOND THE

MOTION TO DENY IT? >> AND YOU MAY WEIGH IN.

>> AS A CHAIRMAN, I MAKE SURE I'M FAIR.

JEFF? >> GOOD ENOUGH.

>> I DO WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT TO THANK YOU FOR ALL OF YOUR CAREFUL DELIBERATIONS AND I THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.

I KNOW YOU'RE WELL COMPENSATED FOR IT.

>> I THINK THE LAST TIME I SAW YOU WERE THE BARRED.

BOARD. >> IT'S EASIER ON THAT SIDE, SOMETIMES, NOT ALWAYS. BUT I THANK YOU FOR YOUR THOUGHTFULNESS AND CONSIDERATION.

>> YOU DID NOT REALIZE YOUR FAMILY HAD BEEN HERE FOR SO

LONG. >> WE ALL ARE, YES, SUR.

SIR. >> THANK YOU FOR COMING UP TO

SAY THAT. >> THANK YOU FOR BEING A

GENTLEMAN. >> THANK YOU.

>> VERY MUCH SO, A GENTLEMAN. >> THANK YOU AND HAVE A GREAT

EVENING. >> MISS BACH, ANYTHING FOR THE

BOARD? >> GOOD JOB.

>> I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THAT, BUT WE'RE WORKING ON IT.

>> AND ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC? SEEING THERE IS NONE, THE

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.