[00:00:02]
OPEN UP THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING FOR MARCH 15TH HERE AT 5:00 IN CITY COMMISSION CHAMBERS.
[1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL / DETERMINATION OF QUORUM]
FIRST THING I'D LIKE TO DO IS A QUICK ROLL CALL.HERE, AND MEMBER PAGNUCCO IS ABSENT.
IF EVERYBODY WOULD STAND JOIN ME FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DEFER THAT UNTIL OUR NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING IN APRIL.
WITH THAT, WE'LL START OFF WITH NEW BUSINESS.
[4.1 BOA 2023-0020 - GILLETTE & ASSOCIATES, AGENTS FOR HIGGS FAMILY JOINT REV TRUST, MARY JO HIGGS TRUSTEE, 701 S. 6TH STREET Variance from LDC Section 1.03.05 to restore underlying lots of records. (Quasi-Judicial)]
BOA 2023-0020 GILLETTE AND ASSOCIATES AGENTS FOR HIGGS FAMILY AND VARIANCE TO 1.03.05 TO RESTORE THE UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD, AND I'LL START WITH YOU, TAYLOR.OH, LET'S DO THE SWEAR IN AND MAYBE WE CAN START WITH YOU GOING THROUGH THE QUASI JUDICIAL ELEMENTS OF THE BOARD MEETING.
YOU ARE SEATED. OKAY, OF COURSE.
HARRISON POOLE FILLING IN FOR TAMMI BACH FOR THIS MEETING.
I KNOW THE BOARD JUST GOT A TRAINING DURING THE WORKSHOP THAT PRECEDED THIS ON QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEDURES, BUT THE HEARING TONIGHT WILL BE A QUASI JUDICIAL EVIDENTIARY HEARING. THAT MEANS EVIDENCE WILL BE RECEIVED AND CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD.
THAT EVIDENCE CAN COME IN THE FORM OF TESTIMONY AND ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE.
THE STAFF WILL FIRST PRESENT THEIR REPORT AND THEN THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THEIR CASE AND THEN CAN BE QUESTIONED BY EITHER SIDE, AND ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK, AND THEN AT THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING, IT DOES REQUIRE A SUPERMAJORITY FOR THIS PARTICULAR TYPE OF ACTION, APPROVING A VARIANCE, AND ANY AGGRIEVED PARTY CAN APPEAL WITHIN 30 DAYS TO THE CIRCUIT COURT.
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY, THANK YOU. I JUMPED TOO FAR AHEAD.
I'LL NOW ASK THE BOARD IF THEY HAD ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS.
[INAUDIBLE] YES, GO AHEAD, FAITH.
I DID RECEIVE AN EMAIL FROM THE APPLICANT ABOUT A MONTH AND A HALF BEFORE THEY FILED THE APPLICATION, SO I'M NOT SURE HOW THAT WORKS, BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT I LET YOU KNOW AND ALSO THAT I WAS INVITED TO LOOK AT THE PROPERTY AND I DECLINED AT THAT TIME.
OKAY, I DID DRIVE BY THE PROPERTY A FEW DAYS AGO.
OKAY, AT THIS POINT, ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO PRESENT TESTIMONY OR HAVE THEIR VOICE HEARD TODAY, WE WOULD ASK THAT YOU STAND TAKE AN OATH ADMINISTERED BY OUR SECRETARY.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE ORAL OR WRITTEN TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? I DO. THANK YOU.
OKAY, NOW I THINK I CAN OPEN UP THE CASE AND HAVE THE CITY GO AHEAD AND PRESENT THEIR INFORMATION.
THIS VARIANCE REQUEST TONIGHT IS CASE NUMBER 2023-0020.
MR. NICK GILLETTE OF GILLETTE AND ASSOCIATES IS SERVING AS THE AGENT FOR BROOKE JOHNSON AND MARY JO HIGGS, WHO IS THE TRUSTEE, AND THEY ARE THE PROPERTY OWNERS. FOR THE RECORD, ALL APPLICATION MATERIALS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED, ALL FEES HAVE BEEN PAID AND ALL REQUIRED NOTICES HAVE BEEN MADE.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY HOME TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND WHEN SECTION 1.03.05 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WAS ADOPTED IN 2006, THE ACCOMPANYING CARPORT AND WOODEN SHED IN THE REAR YARD COMBINED TWO UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORDS CREATING THE
[00:05:05]
200 BY 100 FOOT PARCEL THAT EXISTS TODAY.ADDITIONALLY, BASED ON THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S RECORDS, THOSE LOTS WERE DEEDED TOGETHER IN 1987.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM LDC SECTION 1.03.05 TO RESTORE THE TWO 100 BY 100 FOOT UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD LOTS ONE AND EIGHT IDENTIFIED HERE IN THE PHOTO.
LOTS ONE AND EIGHT WERE ORIGINALLY PLATTED IN 1857, AS THE NASSAU COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S WEBSITE INDICATES THAT THE ORIGINAL HOUSE WAS BUILT IN ABOUT 1900, WITH ADDITIONS OCCURRING IN 1993 AND 2002.
AS PART OF THE APPLICATION MATERIALS, THE APPLICANT HAS INDICATED THAT THEY INTEND TO KEEP AND RESTORE THE EXISTING HOME ON THE NORTH EASTERN PORTION OF LOT EIGHT, WHICH IS IN KEEPING WITH THE CITY'S LDC AND COMPREHENSIVE PLANS GOAL TO PRESERVE EXISTING STRUCTURES WHENEVER POSSIBLE.
THE APPLICANT HAS STATED THAT THEY INTEND TO HAVE THREE FEE SIMPLE LOTS.
IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THIS, AND ONLY IF THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS GRANTED, THEY WILL MOVE FORWARD WITH A MINOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATION TO THEN SPLIT LOT EIGHT INTO 250 BY 100 FOOT LOTS OF RECORD.
ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND PERMISSIBLE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES COULD BE BUILT ON EACH NEWLY CREATED LOT, AND THEN STAFF DOES NOTE THAT IN THE VARIANCE LETTER OF INTENT, THE APPLICANT STATES THAT BLOCK 288 LOT THREE WILL BE DONATED TO THE CITY.
HOWEVER, THIS SHOULD NOT BE A FACTOR FOR CONSIDERATION IN GRANTING OR DENYING THE VARIANCE.
HERE IS AN OLDER SURVEY AND THE YELLOW HIGHLIGHTED PORTION IS IDENTIFYING WHERE THE CARPORT AND THE PREVIOUS SHED STRUCTURE WAS BUILT OVER THAT PROPERTY LINE, EFFECTIVELY COMBINING LOTS ONE AND EIGHT , AND HERE IS JUST THE PROPOSED RESULT AND WHAT THE APPLICANT IS LOOKING TO DO AND SEE LOT EIGHT WOULD BE DIVIDED WITH THE SECOND FEE SIMPLE LOT OR LOT NUMBER THREE FRONTING SOUTH 6TH STREET, AND THEN HERE IS THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY AS WELL AS THEIR RESPECTIVE ZONING DISTRICTS.
AND EVEN THOUGH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS A SMALL SOUTHWESTERN CORNER THAT IS ZONED INDUSTRIAL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, OUR LDC REQUIRES THAT THE LARGER AREA OF THE LOT DOMINATES THE ZONING DISTRICT GUIDELINES.
SO IN THIS CASE IT IS RESIDENTIALLY ZONED, MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, AND SO WITH REGARD TO THE SIX CRITERIA FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE, STAFF NOTES THE FOLLOWING THAT SPECIAL CONDITIONS DO EXIST AS THEY RELATE TO THE LAND. A NOVEMBER 2022 SURVEY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IDENTIFIED THAT THERE ARE WETLANDS OCCUPYING APPROXIMATELY 50% OF LOT ONE.
SPECIFICALLY SECTION 1.03.05 AND THE PRIOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES PREVENT THE APPLICANT FROM USING LOTS ONE AND EIGHT AS INDEPENDENT PARCELS RECOGNIZED BY THE ORIGINAL PLAT OF THE CITY.
THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NEEDED TO MAKE REASONABLE USE OF THE LAND POSSIBLE.
THE RESULTING 50 BY 100 FOOT LOTS WOULD EACH SUPPORT ONE DWELLING UNIT, AND FOR THE LAST CRITERIA,
[00:10:03]
GRANTING THE VARIANCE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES WILL NOT CAUSE INJURY TO THE AREA INVOLVED OR OTHERWISE BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC.THE WESTERN PORTION OF LOT ONE THAT CONTAINS WETLANDS ARE PROTECTED BY THE LDC AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND ADDITIONALLY, THE APPLICANT HAS STATED THAT THEY WILL RESTORE THE EXISTING HOUSE ON LOT EIGHT.
SO STAFF FINDS THAT THE REQUESTED ACTION AS PRESENTED DOES MEET ALL SIX CRITERIA FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE AND AS SUCH MUST RECOMMEND APPROVAL. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
I'M HAVING CONCERNS WITH THE ACTUAL NUMBER ONE SPECIAL CONDITION.
DO WE HAVE ANY R-2 LOTS IN THE CITY WITH WETLANDS ON THEM? THERE ARE, I CAN'T IMMEDIATELY IDENTIFY ONE OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT I KNOW THERE ARE SOME OTHER LOTS IN THE CITY WITH WETLANDS ON THEM. ABSOLUTELY IN RESIDENTIALLY ZONED DISTRICTS.
I HAD REAL QUESTIONS WITH THAT AS BEING A SPECIAL CONDITION BECAUSE I CAN THINK OF AT LEAST EIGHT RIGHT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD OR TWO THAT HAVE WETLANDS, AND QUITE A FEW IN FACT, I THINK THE ONES ON ALLIGATOR CREEK ARE JUST TOTALLY WETLANDS.
SO I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED WITH THAT ONE.
THAT'S ALL I HAVE ABOUT THE STAFF REPORT.
THANK YOU. WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT WETLANDS, DOES THAT INCLUDE, LIKE, THE GREENWAY THAT'S UNDER A STATE LIKE GROUP? YES. THE GREENWAY IS CONSIDERED ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LAND.
SO THAT WOULD BE WETLANDS, RIGHT? NOT ALL OF IT. SOME OF IT IS CERTAINLY HIGHER.
IT WOULD TAKE AN ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEYOR TO REALLY IDENTIFY, BUT LARGE PORTIONS OF IT ARE WETLANDS.
YOU CAN'T USE IT. SO THERE'S A LOT OF THEM.
THERE ARE A LOT OF THEM, YEAH.
OTHER QUESTIONS. I HAVE A FEW TAYLOR.
I WANT TO NOTE THAT THIS PROPERTY IS RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET, 6TH STREET FROM A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT A SIMILAR 1.03.05 CASE CAME BEFORE US A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO , AND I KNOW HARRISON WILL REMEMBER THAT IN THAT THE STAFF REACHED A CONCLUSION OF FIVE OF THE CRITERIA AS NOT HAVING BEEN MET.
I'M TRYING TO RECONCILE WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS PROPERTY AND LOOKING AT 1.03.05 AND WHAT THE INTENT OF PARAGRAPH A IS, AND THEN WHAT C TELLS YOU TO GO DO, HOW YOU REACH THE CONCLUSION THAT EVERYTHING WAS A YES IN THE CRITERIA, AND YET TWO YEARS AGO A PROPERTY LITERALLY ACROSS THE STREET DID NOT .
I DON'T SEE A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM OTHER THAN THE ONE ACROSS AND WE DON'T SET PRECEDENT BUT I'M LOOKING REALLY FOR WHAT THE STAFF'S THINKING IS IN A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE TWO SITUATIONS.
SO FOR THIS ONE, I CAN TELL YOU I'M NOT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, I DON'T RECALL WHAT PROPERTY IT WAS A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, BUT I CAN TELL YOU WHEN ANALYZING THIS PARCEL IN PARTICULAR, IT IS ABNORMAL TO HAVE A 200 BY 100 FOOT LOT.
IT IS IN THIS AREA, IN THE IMMEDIATE SURROUNDING AREA.
AT MOST YOU HAVE A 100 BY 100 FOOT LOT.
SO THIS IS AN OVERSIZE PARCEL FOR THE IMMEDIATE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND AS WELL AS THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE. YES, THE NATURE OF THE ISLAND IS SUCH THAT WE DO HAVE A LARGE AMOUNT OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS, AND THAT WOULD BE BASED ON MY ANALYSIS, A SPECIAL CONDITION FOR ALL OF THOSE PROPERTIES, BECAUSE THEY DO LIMIT YOUR ABILITY TO DO CERTAIN THINGS WITH THAT PROPERTY AND HOW YOU CAN USE THAT PROPERTY, BUT IN THIS CASE, THE
[00:15:04]
WETLANDS AREN'T GOING TO CHANGE.SO SUBDIVIDING THE LOT DOESN'T CHANGE THAT.
DOESN'T CHANGE. YOU CAN'T BUILD.
WHETHER YOU SUBDIVIDE IT OR NOT YOU STILL CAN'T BUILD IN THE WETLANDS PORTION.
CORRECT. YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING IN IT, I DON'T BELIEVE.
CORRECT? NO. IN THE WETLANDS THEMSELVES YOU CANNOT.
SO AGAIN, I'M STUCK WITH, YOU KNOW, WHY IS THIS A SPECIAL CONDITION? I UNDERSTAND THE WETLAND IS THERE, BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER ROOM ON THAT LOT THAT YOU CAN TEAR DOWN THAT ONE AND BUILD SOMETHING ELSE.
I MEAN, IT'S NOT RESTRICTING BUILDING ON THAT LOT OTHER THAN THE WETLANDS AREA, WHICH IS GOING TO REMAIN IN THE NUMBERED LOT, NUMBER ONE, I THINK, ANYWAY.
RIGHT, AND AS FAR AS THAT GOES, I'M JUST GETTING THE EXACT WORDING.
SO FOR SPECIAL CONDITION, BECAUSE WETLANDS OR ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS, THOUGH THEY ARE MORE COMMON IN THIS AREA, IT'S NOT THE NORM IN THIS AREA.
IT'S NOT THE NORM FOR YOUR AVERAGE PARCEL.
SO THIS ISN'T JUST A STANDARD BASED ON STAFF ANALYSIS.
THAT IS SOMETHING PECULIAR TO THIS LOT THAT NEEDS TO BE BROUGHT, YOU KNOW, FOR CONSIDERATION AND JUST NEEDS TO BE UNDERSTOOD, BUT WHAT DOES WHAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING CHANGE IN THAT OTHER THAN SUBDIVIDING THE LOT AND STILL RETAINING ONE LOT THAT HAS NOW; I GUESS AT LEAST 50% WETLANDS.
COULD I SUGGEST SOMETHING? THAT TO ME, AS YOU DESCRIBED IT EARLIER, THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS SEEM TO BE THE FACT THAT THIS LOT IS A LOT BIGGER THAN EVERYTHING ELSE AROUND IT, AND SO SUBDIVIDING IT INTO THE THREE WOULD SEEM LIKE THE SPECIAL CONDITION IS THE SIZE OF IT RATHER THAN THE WETLANDS, AND I KNOW YOU SAID THE WETLANDS HERE, BUT I THINK PERHAPS THE ANALYSIS MIGHT ALSO RELATE TO.
THE ONLY THING I WOULD SAY WE'LL HAVE MORE DISCUSSION.
I REALLY WANT TO FOCUS ON THE STAFF'S ANALYSIS HERE, BECAUSE SO.
PERHAPS I CAN RESTATE THAT AS TO WHAT THE SPECIAL CONDITION IS SUPPOSED TO BE.
IT'S PECULIAR TO THE LAND WHICH IS NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER LANDS IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT.
SO THAT'S WHY MY CONCERN CAME UP WITH A SPECIAL CONDITION AS BEING A WETLAND, BECAUSE ACCORDING TO WHAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO JUDGE IT BY, IT'S WHAT'S IN THE ZONING DISTRICT, AND THAT MEANS R-2.
SO R-2 IS WHAT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE JUDGING IT BY.
THAT'S JUST MY YOU KNOW, WHAT I READ.
WELL, I'LL JUST SAY AGAIN, I DON'T SEE WHERE YOU'VE MADE THE CASE ON THAT ONE FOR ME ANYWAY, AND THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF 1.03.05 IS THAT THERE ARE COMBINED LOTS THAT ARE BIGGER AS A RESULT OF THINGS THAT WERE DONE IN THE DISTANT PAST, AND 1.03.05 IS PUSHING TO RETAIN THAT LOT SIZE.
SO AND THAT'S HOW I INTERPRET IT ANYWAY.
CAN WE GO ON TO SPECIAL PRIVILEGE? YOU SAID NO OR YOU SAID YES.
GRANTING IT DOES NOT CONFER, BUT I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND YOUR LOGIC THERE BY SAYING ANY CITIZEN WITHIN THE ZONING DISTRICT AND IN THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCE HAS THE RIGHT TO REQUEST A VARIANCE.
OKAY, BUT WHY IS THAT A SPECIAL PURPOSE? EVERYBODY HAS THAT, RIGHT.
YEAH. SO BY THE VERY NATURE, IT WOULDN'T BE A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE FOR THIS ONE INDIVIDUAL TO BE GRANTED OR DENIED, BECAUSE IN MY.
GRANTING IS SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, IS IT NOT? BRINGING A VARIANCE OR REQUESTING A VARIANCE IS EVERYBODY'S RIGHT.
IT WOULD IF WE GRANT A VARIANCE, IT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO DO SOMETHING THAT OTHERS CAN'T, AND SPECIAL PRIVILEGE BY NATURE IS SOMETHING THAT IS GIVEN GRANTED, ADMINISTERED TO SOMEONE THAT NO ONE ELSE IS GOING TO BE ABLE
[00:20:02]
TO HAVE RECEIVE POTENTIALLY APPLIED FOR.IT'S NOT ONLY FOR ONE PERSON EXCLUSIVELY AND DONE.
ALL RIGHT, LITERAL INTERPRETATION.
WHY DOES IT DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT? IT'S THEIR EXISTING LOT STRUCTURE IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AS IT IS TODAY.
CORRECT, AND IT RIGHT NOW THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IS IN CONFLICT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
I [INAUDIBLE] KNOW. I'M SMART ENOUGH TO FIGURE THAT OUT.
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
YES. OKAY, AND MY LAST ONE IS GENERAL HARMONY, AND I GET THE NEIGHBORHOOD FLAVOR THERE, BUT I THINK WHAT YOU SAID WAS GRANTED WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE LDC AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. YET THE LDC SPECIFICALLY PUT INTO IT 1.03.05 TO ADDRESS THESE SORTS OF ISSUES, AND THE INTENT WAS NOT TO REPLAT OR INCREASE THE NUMBER OF PLATS WITHIN A LOT THAT'S BEEN BUILT UPON.
THE INTENT OF THE LDC WAS NOT TO NOT INCREASE.
IT IS TO RECOGNIZE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER FIRST AND FOREMOST AND PRESERVE THAT, AND THIS IS NOT CURRENTLY IN COMPLIANCE OR NOT COMPLIANCE, BUT IN HARMONY WITH THE SURROUNDING THE IMMEDIATELY SURROUNDING AREA.
YOU'LL SEE IMMEDIATELY ACROSS THE STREET THERE ARE SOME 25 BY 100S.
SO THIS IS ACTUALLY GETTING CLOSER TO WHAT THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT LOOKS LIKE, AND TO SPEAKING TO YOUR POINT, THERE IS A LOT OF DIVERSITY, ESPECIALLY AS YOU GET FURTHER DOWN BEHIND RAYONIER THERE ARE SOME HUGE PARCELS DOWN THERE THAT HAVE HOUSES ON ONE SINGLE DWELLING AND THERE IS A SWALE OF WETLANDS BEHIND THEM. YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU RECONCILE THAT EITHER, [LAUGHTER] YOU KNOW, UNLESS THEY'RE WILLING TO PUT PART OF THE PROPERTY INTO CONSERVATION.
BUT, YOU KNOW, IT'S A DIVERSE COMMUNITY THAT WE HAVE, AND THERE ARE PARCELS NOT FAR FROM THERE THAT ARE LARGER EVEN THAN WHAT IS AVAILABLE HERE.
SO, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT GOING TO DISAGREE WITH YOU ON THAT ONE, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THERE IS SOME EVIDENCE THAT THERE ARE SOME PARCELS THAT ARE LARGER EVEN.
WELL, I DON'T I'M NOT SURE I WOULD CALL IT EVIDENCE.
IT'S YOUR OPINION. YOU'RE RIGHT.
I GUESS WE COULD PROBABLY [INAUDIBLE].
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
I HAVE ONE ABOUT THE MINIMUM VARIANCE REQUESTED SINCE THEY ARE ABLE TO USE THE PROPERTY AS IT IS AND THEIR USE IS NOT LIMITED.
WHY DO THEY NEED THREE LOTS VERSUS TWO LOTS? THERE'S SOME MENTION OF THREE LOTS IN HERE, BUT THERE'S ALSO JUST DIVIDING IT IN HALF.
[00:25:06]
SO I WOULD YOU KNOW.MAYBE THAT'S A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. YES, THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT AS WE WENT ALONG.
THERE COULD BE SOME DISCUSSION AS TO HOW THAT'S ALL GOING TO WORK OUT OR WHY THAT'S REQUIRED.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR TAYLOR FROM THE BOARD? NO. OKAY, I'LL ASK THE APPLICANT TO JOIN US.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
NICK GILLETTE, 20 SOUTH 4TH STREET, FERNANDINA BEACH.
I'LL START OFF WITH A COUPLE OF, I GUESS MAYBE IN ORDER WHICH SOME ITEMS WERE BROUGHT UP.
THE WETLANDS WERE WILLING TO OR THE APPLICANT OR THE OWNER IS WILLING UPON APPROVAL TO PUT A CONSERVATION EASEMENT OVER ALL THE WETLANDS JUST TO ENSURE THAT NO ONE'S GOING TO BE IMPACTING ANY ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LANDS.
AND STAFF WILL MAKE US PUT THE REQUIRED BUFFER IN ADDITION TO THAT.
NUMBER TWO, I THINK ONE OF THE BIGGEST PARTS THAT SEPARATES THIS PARCEL IS, I THINK, CHAIR GRANT YOU TALKED ABOUT THE PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET, I BELIEVE, AND I DON'T I HAVEN'T SEEN THAT APPLICATION.
WE DIDN'T DO IT AND IT COULD HAVE BEEN INCOMPLETE.
I DON'T KNOW WHY IT WAS DENIED, BUT I THINK THOSE ARE 25 FOOT WIDE LOTS.
WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO TEAR ANYTHING DOWN.
THE CODE CREATED US TO COME HERE, FORCED IT.
IT WAS BEYOND OUR CONTROL BECAUSE IT WAS ALREADY GONE.
WE WILL MEET ALL THE SETBACKS FOR THE EXISTING STRUCTURE.
SO WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANYTHING MORE THAN WHAT A NORMAL APPLICANT WOULD ASK FOR.
SO I THINK THAT'S WHAT SEPARATES US.
WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR 25 FOOT LOTS.
WE'RE LOOKING TO GET A VARIANCE TO OFFSET AN IMPACT THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN DEMOLISHED, OFFSET AN IMPROVEMENT THAT'S BEEN DEMOLISHED. THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE.
OKAY, THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR [INAUDIBLE].
R-2 LOTS, YOU SAID? YES, MA'AM. ARE THERE 100 FOOT LOTS IN R-2? THERE ARE 100 FOOT LOTS.
ALL RIGHT, AND OTHER QUESTIONS, TOO.
ONCE LOT ONE IS DIVIDED OFF HOW MUCH OF THAT PROPERTY IS GOING TO BE AVAILABLE FOR BUILDING? WE DON'T KNOW BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE WE'VE HAD A WETLAND SURVEY DONE, BUT UNTIL WE SUBMIT A PLAN TO THE AGENCY, WE DON'T KNOW IF THAT LINE WILL BE APPROVED. WE THINK IT WILL BE, BUT IF IT MOVES, THEN WE WILL PUT A CONSERVATION EASEMENT OVER WHEREVER THAT LINE IS APPROVED.
ALL RIGHT, IS IT A BUILDABLE LOT WHEN YOU MAKE IT? IT WOULD MEET CODE TO BE BUILDABLE AS WE THINK IT IS TODAY.
YES. ALL RIGHT, WHICH PART OF IT? I LOST TRACK THERE.
WHICH PART? SHE'S TALKING ABOUT LOT ONE.
THERE'S SOME WETLANDS ON THAT BACK PART.
IT IS, BUT WE'RE JUST TRYING TO USE IT IN ACCORDANCE WITH R-2.
THE ONLY THING THAT MAKES US BE HERE IS THE STRUCTURE THAT'S BEEN DEMOLISHED.
HAD THAT NOT HAPPENED, WE COULD SUBDIVIDE TOMORROW AND NOT COME TO THIS BOARD.
SO WE'RE JUST TRYING TO CLEAR THE RECORD FOR THAT STRUCTURE THAT DOESN'T EXIST.
IS THAT OKAY? ALL RIGHT, THERE WAS A DEED OF THE REPRESENTATIVE THAT HAD IN THE APPLICATION THE LOTS OF RECORD AS BEING ONE EIGHT, SEVEN TWO AND THREE.
YES, MA'AM. THOSE WERE WHAT WAS IN THE DEED AS THE LOTS OF RECORD.
SO MY QUESTION IS, THE MINIMUM AMOUNT TO MAKE YOU WHOLE WOULD BE LOTS ONE, EIGHT, TWO, THREE, AND SEVEN.
[00:30:06]
I DON'T KNOW WHAT WHOLE MEANS.WELL, WHAT'S GIVEN IN THE DEED? WE HAVE FIVE PARCEL ID NUMBERS TODAY.
WE'RE LOOKING TO HAVE AT THE END OF THE DAY, THEY WOULD LIKE TO BE WHOLE WITH FIVE BUILDABLE UNITS.
I MEAN, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU MEAN WHOLE FIVE AND FIVE OVERALL, BECAUSE THREE IS GOING TO GET DEDICATED TO THE CITY IF IT'S APPROVED, WHICH YOU MAY OR MAY NOT WANT IT, AND THAT'S FINE, BUT WE'VE MADE A COMMITMENT TONIGHT THAT WE'LL PUT A CONSERVATION EASEMENT OVER THE WETLANDS ON THREE, TWO AND ONE IF APPROVED. SO I THINK THAT SHOULD HELP THE CITY'S FLOOD MAPPING OR WETLAND INVENTORY OR HOWEVER YOU MIGHT SEE IT.
SO I THINK THERE'S A BENEFIT THERE, TOO.
NOW, YOU MENTIONED YOU HAVE FIVE PARCEL IDS.
YES, MA'AM. I DID GO BACK TO THE PROPERTY APPRAISER AND PRESENTLY THERE IT SAYS IN THE DEED AND ALSO ON HIS SITE THAT IT'S BEEN COMBINED.
WE WENT IN BECAUSE WE KNEW THAT THERE WAS ONE PARCEL ID NUMBER FOR ALL FIVE OF THESE.
WE KNEW THAT THERE WERE FIVE LOTS OF RECORD ONE, TWO, THREE, SEVEN AND EIGHT.
WE THOUGHT, WELL, WE WANT TO DEDICATE POSSIBLY LOT THREE TO THE CITY, AND INSTEAD OF GOING THROUGH A METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION, WE WENT AHEAD AND HAD A PARCEL ID NUMBER FOR ALL THE LOTS THAT WERE THERE, WENT TO THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE.
THEY HONORED THAT AND THEY ISSUED THEM.
THAT WAY WE CAN SEPARATE EIGHT AND ONE AS PART OF A VARIANCE BECAUSE SEVEN HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE STRUCTURE ON THE BACK THAT WAS DEMOLISHED AND NEITHER DID 1, 2 OR 3 OR I'M SORRY, NEITHER DID 2 OR 3.
OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY, I'LL JUST POINT OUT, I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WAS A PREEXISTING STRUCTURE THAT IS NO LONGER THERE, BUT THAT IS ANTICIPATED BY 1.03.05 BECAUSE IT SAYS BASICALLY DEMOLISHING ANYTHING DOESN'T CHANGE THE LOT OF RECORD.
YES, SIR. I JUST WANT TO SAY ABOUT THE CRITERIA.
THE FIVE CRITERIA, THAT'S WHAT SEPARATES US IS USUALLY PEOPLE WANT TO TEAR IT DOWN.
USUALLY PEOPLE WANT TO TEAR DOWN THE HOUSE AND THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.
WE DIDN'T TEAR THE OTHER ONE DOWN.
DOESN'T SURPRISE ME. OKAY, AND WE'RE REMEDYING THAT, TOO.
THAT'S PART OF THIS WHOLE EFFORT IS TO RENOVATE AND BRING IT UP TO CODE.
THAT'S WHAT WOULD ADDRESS THAT ISSUE? YES, SIR. THE RENOVATION, BUT IT REALLY DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
CAN I ASK A QUICK QUESTION? YOU MENTIONED FIVE LOTS THAT WOULD COME AS AN OUTCOME OF THIS.
OR MAYBE I MISUNDERSTOOD THAT.
ARE YOU SAYING THAT SEVEN IS GETTING SUBDIVIDED? NO. SHE JUST SAID WHOLE AND WHOLE.
7 MAY COME IN FOR A MINOR SUBDIVISION AS WELL, AND SO THE INTENT IS THAT ONE HOUSE, ONE OVERALL LOT WILL TURN INTO FIVE HOUSES ON FIVE LOTS? IN THE BIG PICTURE. IN THE BIG PICTURE, THERE WOULD BE NO MORE THAN FIVE HOUSES, BUT WITHIN THE CHARACTER OF THE 50 FOOT LOT? WITHIN THE CHARACTER OF THE 50 FOOT LOT, AND THEY WOULD ALL MEET R-2 ZONING.
ON THE BUILDABLE PORTION OF ONE LOT? ON A BUILDABLE AND ONE IS UP IN THE AIR.
RIGHT. BASED ON THE WETLANDS DELINEATION? YES. I HAVE ONE MAJOR CONCERN.
ALL RIGHT, I HAVE ONE MAJOR CONCERN.
YES, MA'AM. IF WE DIVIDE OFF LOT ONE SEPARATELY, LOT ONE AND A MAJOR PORTION OF THAT IS LOOKS TO BE WETLANDS, IT WOULD BE UPON THIS BOARD TO CREATE A POSSIBLE SITUATION WHERE THERE COULD BE A TAKING WHERE YOU COULDN'T BUILD ON IT. NO, WE'RE NOT.
I MEAN WE'RE WE'LL BUILD WHEREVER THE WETLAND LINES ALLOW US TO BUILD.
WE'LL PUT ALL THAT UNDER CONSERVATION EASEMENT AS PART OF THIS APPROVAL.
SO WE HAVE NOTHING TO ASK FOR RELIEF FROM.
OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU. OKAY, THANK YOU, MR. GILLETTE. ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WANT TO SPEAK.
[00:35:08]
GOOD EVENING. TAYLOR, COULD YOU START LOOKING FOR A PICTURE OF THE HOUSE THAT YOU COULD PUT UP FOR US, PLEASE? IF YOU COULD. I WILL.I WILL. MY NAME IS MIKE SPINO.
I THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH YOU TONIGHT.
I LIVE AT 317 SOUTH 5TH STREET, NOT TOO FAR FROM THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION.
I'M ALSO THE CHAIR OF THE FERNANDINA BEACH HISTORIC DISTRICT COUNCIL, AND THE COUNCIL WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO APPROVE THIS VARIANCE IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THIS IMPORTANT HISTORIC PROPERTY ON SOUTH 6TH STREET.
THIS VARIANCE WILL ALLOW THE HOME TO BE PRESERVED BECAUSE IT GIVES THESE FOLKS THE FLEXIBILITY TO DEVELOP THE REST OF THE PROPERTY, AND THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISIONS WOULD BRING THE EXISTING LOTS INTO CONSISTENCY WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I LIVE ON A 50 BY 100 FOOT LOT.
WE'VE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT TOWNHOMES.
YOU CAN PUT TWO TOWNHOMES ON AN R-2 LOT.
THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT SMALL HOMES ON 50 BY 100 FOOT LOTS.
THAT'S COMPLETELY CONSISTENT WITH WHAT'S GOING ON ON 6TH, 5TH AND 7TH STREETS.
THERE YOU GO. I SENT YOU A PRETTIER PICTURE TODAY.
I'M NOT SURE YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO OPEN IT FROM THE 1970S.
WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF HISTORY ON IT.
THIS IS THE HOUSE THAT ANNOUNCES THAT YOU'RE COMING TO SOMEPLACE SPECIAL.
THIS IS THE HOUSE THAT SAYS, HEY, YOU KNOW WHAT? THERE'S SOME HISTORIC STUFF AROUND HERE.
THERE'S NOT THAT MUCH THAT'S MORE HISTORIC ON SIXTH STREET UNTIL YOU GET MUCH CLOSER TO US HERE.
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? NO, THANK YOU. BY THE WAY, UNICORN, THAT'S WHAT YOU CALL A VARIANCE WHERE THEY MEET ALL SIX CRITERIA.
WHEN I SAT ON THIS BOARD, NEVER SAW ONE.
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC? IF NOT, THEN APPLICANT, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY? ALL RIGHT, BOARD DISCUSSION.
JUMP IN. I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEM.
WHAT ARE YOUR CONCERNS? [INAUDIBLE] CONCERNS? THE SPECIAL CONDITION OF THE WETLANDS.
WE HAVE THEM ALL OVER THE PLACE.
WELL, OUR VARIANCE IS ONLY FOR THE TWO ONE DIVIDED INTO TWO.
YEAH, BUT THE SUBSEQUENT DIVISION HAS A DEVELOPMENT ISSUE.
WE AREN'T CREATING THAT HERE TODAY.
[INAUDIBLE] THAT'S IT. OTHER DISCUSSION.
I'LL GO BACK. I'LL JUST JUMP IN.
I DON'T THINK THAT THE STAFF MADE THEIR CASE IN THEIR ANALYSIS, AND I DO BASE THAT TO SOME DEGREE ON THE ANALYSIS THAT WAS DONE JUST A COUPLE OF YEARS PRIOR, AND SOME OF THE PARTICULARS MAY DIFFER, BUT THE CONCEPT DOESN'T [INAUDIBLE] 1.03.05.
WHAT WAS PUT INTO PLACE TO DO AND WHAT'S INTENT WAS TO DO NOW, THAT DOESN'T MEAN IN MY MIND THAT THE CASE CAN'T BE MADE, THAT THE APPLICANT HASN'T MADE IT, BUT I JUST HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE STAFF REPORT AS WRITTEN BECAUSE I THINK SEVERAL OF THOSE CRITERIA SHOULD BE KNOWN.
AGAIN, THAT DOESN'T STOP US FROM GRANTING A VARIANCE BUT THAT'S JUST I DON'T THINK IT'S CORRECT.
[00:40:04]
[INAUDIBLE] THE STAFF OPINION? IT'S MY CONCLUSION THAT BASED ON WHAT'S WRITTEN AND WHAT WAS EXPLAINED, THAT THEY DO NOT MEET SOME OF THOSE.I MEAN, WHAT MISS BACH SAYS IS THAT AND ACCORDING TO EVERYTHING I'VE READ, THAT THE MERE ECONOMIC DISADVANTAGE DUE TO THE OWNER'S PREFERENCE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE A HARDSHIP ENTITLING THE OWNER TO A VARIANCE.
I DON'T THINK THEY'RE ASKING FOR THAT.
THEY'RE ASKING TO SPLIT INTO A LOT OF RECORD FOR A STRUCTURE THAT THEY PURCHASED THAT HAPPENS TO BYPASS A LOT LINE TO SUBDIVIDE THAT BACK INTO TWO LOTS OF RECORDS THAT ARE THERE AND THE SUBSEQUENT DIVISIONS ARE NOT FOR US TO CONSIDER.
RIGHT. RIGHT, FOUNDATION AND JUST FOR RECOLLECTION.
YEAH, WELL, THE OTHER ONE WAS SIX INCHES OF GARAGE.
YEAH, IT WAS SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
NEVERTHELESS, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS ENVISIONED BY THAT SECTION OF THE LDC WITH THE INTENT TO, I GUESS, RESIST FURTHER SUBDIVISIONS OF THOSE LOTS.
IF WE DON'T SET PRECEDENT, WHICH WE LEARNED, THEN RELYING ON A PREVIOUS DECISION, IS THAT APPROPRIATE? I'M NOT RELYING. I'M QUESTIONING THE STAFF AS TO HOW THEY CAME TO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CONCLUSIONS ON SOMETHING THAT'S PRETTY MUCH THE SAME.
DIFFERENT STAFF. I WAS GOING TO SAY DIFFERENT STAFF.
DIFFERENT PEOPLE INTERPRET THINGS DIFFERENTLY.
WELL, I'M LOOKING FOR CONSISTENCY IN INTERPRETATION, I GUESS.
THAT'S FAIR, BUT NOBODY BUT YOU REMEMBERS IT.
[CHUCKLING] YOU DON'T. WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT LATER.
IT'S NOT GERMANE TO THIS OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER.
I KNOW THE STAFF DID, AND IT'S EASY FOR THE BOARD TO SAY, HEY, I AGREE WITH THE STAFF; I THINK YOU REALLY DO NEED TO AT LEAST SPEND A MOMENT QUESTIONING SOME OF THE CONCLUSIONS AND WHAT THE BASIS OF IT WAS, AND AGAIN, I'M NOT SAYING THAT YOU CAN'T REACH A YES. I JUST DIDN'T SEE THE LOGIC AS PRESENTED BY THE STAFF.
I DON'T SEE IT BEING SO EASY BECAUSE TO GRANT THE VARIANCE, YOU HAVE TO--I MEAN, TO DENY THE VARIANCE, YOU HAVE TO STATE WHY YOU DON'T AGREE WITH THESE CONCLUSIONS, AND I DON'T THINK IT'S SO EASY TO DO THAT.
I MEAN, I THINK IT'S EASY TO SEE THAT IN MY MIND THAT A COUPLE OF THESE YESES, THERE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE A REASON FOR THEM TO BE YESES, BUT I THINK THAT IF YOU MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THAT, YOU NEED TO ARTICULATE THOSE A LITTLE BETTER THAN JUST SAYING THEY DON'T SIT RIGHT WITH YOU.
OKAY, WELL, GOOD. I'M NOT AT THAT POINT.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? WELL, DO I HEAR A MOTION, THEN? I'LL MAKE A MOTION. OKAY, YOU GOT THE GIFT WRAPPED.
I'M GOING TO GIFT WRAP. I MOVED TO APPROVE BOA CASE NUMBER 2023-0020, AND I MOVE THAT THE BOA MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PART OF THE RECORD.
THE BOA CASE 2023-0020 AS PRESENTED IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO WARRANT APPROVAL AT THIS TIME. THE BOA CASE NUMBER 2023-0020 MEETS THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE.
NOW, THE STAFF OF THE CITY HAS RECOMMENDED WE GRANT THE VARIANCE.
THE WAY THEY PUT IT IN THEIR DISCUSSION OF IT MAY NOT BE WHAT WE ALL LIKE TO SEE, BUT I THINK OVERALL IT NEEDS TO BE APPROVED, SO I RECOMMEND APPROVING IT.
[00:45:25]
MOTION CARRIES. IS THERE ANY OTHER BUSINESS BEFORE US? OLD BUSINESS?[5. BOARD BUSINESS]
NEW BUSINESS.DO YOU HAVE A NEW BUSINESS? THANK YOU.
OKAY, GO AHEAD. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A REQUEST OF STAFF WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A STATUTE, AND MAYBE THIS IS BECAUSE I'M NEW AND I DON'T KNOW, BUT I'D LIKE THE STATUTE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE MATERIALS SO I CAN SEE THE STATUTE.
I MEAN, I CAN GO LOOK IT UP, BUT I'M LAZY, SO.
[CHUCKLING] YOU MEAN THE LDC? YEAH, THE 1.03.05 WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT. IF YOU TYPE IN GOOGLE, IT POPS UP.
ME TOO. YEAH, I'M RIGHT THERE.
I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO ASK, THEY KEPT TALKING ABOUT DEMOLISHED STRUCTURE, THAT WAS NEWS TO ME.
THANK YOU. SURE, AND I HAVE A QUESTION.
WHEN CAN YOU AMEND A MOTION? NOT WHEN THE VOTE'S BEEN CALLED.
OKAY, AND IF IT GETS DENIED, THEN SOMEBODY ELSE HAS TO MAKE A SECONDARY MOTION.
YEAH. SO THE TIME TO JUMP IN IS BEFORE THE VOTE IS CALLED.
I'M CORRECT, RIGHT? RIGHT. OKAY, ALL RIGHT, YOU CAN ALWAYS.
BECAUSE WE PUT NO LANGUAGE IN THERE TO SAVE THE HOUSE.
[INAUDIBLE] YOU CAN'T [INAUDIBLE]. WE CAN'T HAVE A CONDITION IN THERE TO MAINTAIN THE HOUSE? YES, YOU COULD IF THE MOTION WAS SO MADE.
THEY HAVE TO COME INTO YOUR JURISDICTION BEFORE THEY CAN DO ANYTHING TO THE HOUSE.
[INAUDIBLE] THEY REQUIRE A [INAUDIBLE] PROVISION.
YOU KNOW, YOU CAN PUT REASONABLE CONDITIONS ON THESE VARIANCES.
THAT'S MORE OF A FACTUAL QUESTION, WHETHER YOU CAN KEEP THE HOUSE AND REALLY STICK THAT TO THEM.
I MEAN, THERE'S CONDITIONS IN THE FUTURE THAT MAKE THAT IMPOSSIBLE.
SO I WOULD HAVE SOME TROUBLE AS FAR AS THE ENFORCEABILITY, BUT I WOULD IMAGINE THE APPLICANT WOULD VOLUNTEER IT IF THEY THOUGHT IT WOULD GIVE THEM THE HOPES OF GETTING IT PASSED. SO I JUST YOU KNOW, IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT MIGHT BE A LONG TERM SORT OF RULE AGAINST THE ALIENATION OF PROPERTY TO REQUIRE A CERTAIN CONDITION IN PERPETUITY, ESPECIALLY IF THEY'RE KIND ENOUGH TO BE DONATING LAND TO THE CITY.
I MEAN, THEY'RE ALREADY IN THE UPPITY, THEY'RE TRYING TO GIVE UP SOMETHING TO GET SOMETHING.
YEAH, BUT [INAUDIBLE] IS A BENEFIT FOR THE CITY [INAUDIBLE].
YEAH. SO THAT WAS A GOOD QUESTION THOUGH.
I KIND OF LIKE TO SEE THAT TOO, AND I WAS ACTUALLY READING OFF OF THE LAST ONE.
[INAUDIBLE]. I THOUGHT WE ALL HAD THAT PROVISION MEMORIZED BY NOW.
THAT PROVISION IN PARTICULAR WAS AMENDED TO CLARIFY THAT IT HAD TO GO THROUGH THE VARIANCE PROCESS BECAUSE THE CODE BEFORE JUST SAID IT HAD TO BE APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND IN THAT MEETING, THE VOTE WAS 3 TO 2 IN FAVOR OF APPROVING IT, AND SO IT WAS A PROCEDURAL ISSUE.
DID IT REQUIRE FOUR VOTES OR THREE VOTES? AND SO THE JUDGE SAID YOU'RE RIGHT AND THE CODE WAS CHANGED AND IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN.
[CHUCKLING] OKAY, THANKS, HARRISON. SURE.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS FOR US? OKAY, I'LL CLOSE THE MEETING THEN.
[6. STAFF REPORT]
CITY ATTORNEY BACH IS GOING TO BE PUTTING ON HER ANNUAL ETHICS TRAINING SESSION.IT IS NOT MANDATORY FOR BOARD MEMBERS TO ATTEND.
[00:50:06]
YOU CAN CERTAINLY REACH OUT TO MS. BACH'S LEGAL ASSISTANT KATIE.HERE'S HER PHONE NUMBER AND CONTACT INFORMATION.
YOU CAN GIVE ME A CALL IF YOU'D LIKE.
I CAN CERTAINLY PASS ON IF YOU'D LIKE TO ATTEND.
IT IS MARCH 24TH HERE IN CHAMBERS, AND IT IS A FOUR HOUR SESSION FROM--ARE YOU SERVING LUNCH DURING THIS? IT'S A BRING YOUR OWN LUNCH.
IT'S FOUR HOURS? IT USUALLY DOES END A BIT BEFORE THAT, BUT YES, IT'S THE [INAUDIBLE].
DO WE GET A CONTINUING EDUCATION UNIT CREDIT OR ANYTHING FOR THAT? [CHUCKLING] ALL RIGHT, THANKS.
ANYTHING ELSE IN THE STAFF REPORT? ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.