[00:00:03]
WELCOME TO THE JANUARY 2024 ORDER ADJUSTMENT MEETING.
WE HAVE ONE CASE ON THE DOCKET TONIGHT.
BUT BEFORE WE BEGIN, I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND SAY THE PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE.
TODAY, JANET YOU'RE GOING TO RECUSE YOURSELF AT THE END OF THIS VOTE.
HAS THERE BEEN ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS AMONG THE BOARD MEMBERS?
>> HARRIS, CAN YOU GO OVER THE PROCEDURES, PLEASE FOR TONIGHT'S CASE?
>> WE'RE GOING TO APPROVE THE MINUTES?
>> HARRISON POOLE HERE, ACTING AS THE ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
FOR THIS IT IS A A QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEDURE SIMPLY MEANING THAT WE WILL HAVE EVIDENCE.
WE'LL HEAR FROM BOTH THE CITY STAFF FIRST.
ALTHOUGH THIS IS AN APPEAL, THEY'LL PRESENT THEIR REPORT OF IT AND THEN THE APPELLANT WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT ANY TESTIMONY OR EVIDENCE.
TESTIMONY CAN BE IN THE FORM OF LIVE TESTIMONY, ORAL TESTIMONY, DOCUMENTS, AND THAT NATURE.
THE RULES OF EVIDENCE AREN'T STRICTLY FOLLOWED, BUT ANY EVIDENCE RECEIVED DOES HAVE TO HAVE SOME RELEVANCE TO THE PROCEEDINGS HERE.
WE CAN HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE SCIENTIFIC OR EXPERT WITNESSES BASED ON THEIR QUALIFICATIONS, TRAINING, AND EXPERIENCE.
ALTHOUGH LAYPERSONS, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC GENERALLY, UNLESS THEY HAVE THAT EXPERTISE, WILL NOT BE ABLE TO TESTIFY AS EXPERTS.
ANY PARTY THAT'S AGGRIEVED OR DOESN'T AGREE WITH THE DECISION REACHED WILL HAVE 30 DAYS TO APPEAL THAT TO THE NASSAU COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, AND THAT APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE ORDER SIGNED BY THE CHAIR IN THIS CASE.
IT'S A LITTLE BIT PROCEDURALLY SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT JUST BECAUSE THIS IS AN APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION.
UNDER CHAPTER 11, THERE ARE SOME CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS ON HOW THAT IS TO BE CONDUCTED, AND THE BOARD WILL HAVE BASICALLY THREE DIFFERENT OPTIONS.
YOU CAN REVERSE WHOLLY OR PARTLY THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION, YOU CAN AFFIRM WHOLLY OR PARTLY THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION, OR YOU MAY MODIFY THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION.
IN ANY EVENT, IF THERE IS A REVERSAL OF THAT DECISION, THAT'S GOING TO TAKE A UNANIMOUS DECISION.
FINALLY, THAT DECISION WILL HAVE TO BE IN WRITING AND SHALL CONTAIN ANY FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
BASED ON HOW THE HEARING GOES, IF I CAN ASSIST WITH STRUCTURING ANY MOTIONS.
BUT WE WILL NEED TO BE PREPARED TO SUPPORT WHATEVER DECISION YOU MAKE BASED ON THE FACTS PRESENTED AND THE LAWS INSTRUCTED.
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROCEDURES TO BE EMPLOYED TONIGHT?
>> MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, WE WILL ENCOURAGE YOU TO SPEAK IF YOU WANT TO, BUT BEFORE YOU SPEAK, WE HAVE TO HAVE YOU TAKE AN OATH.
SYLVIA, CAN YOU ADMINISTER THE OATH FOR ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO SPEAK TONIGHT. EVERYBODY STAND UP.
>> PLEASE STAND UP AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, PLEASE.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE ORAL AND/OR WRITTEN TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH?
[3. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES]
>> THE NEXT ORDER BUSINESS IS THE APPROVAL OF THE NOTES FROM THE LAST MEETING BACK IN SEPTEMBER.
HAS THERE BEEN ANYBODY A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE NOTES? IS THERE ANYTHING YOU FOUND?
>> I'VE LOOKED AT THEM AND THERE'S ONE SMALL CHANGE UNDER NEW BUSINESS.
WHEN YOU FIRST TALK ABOUT THE 30 AND 80% AMI, YOU DON'T MENTION IN HERE THAT IT'S NASSAU COUNTY AMI.
I JUST PUT THE COUNTY IN THERE, SO PEOPLE ARE CLEAR. THAT'S ALL.
>> ANYBODY ELSE? CAN WE GET A VOTE ON THAT MOTION, PLEASE?
[4.1 BOA 2023-0001 -STEVE CIBOR, 1133 OCEAN AVENUE Administrative Appeal from Law Offices of Matthew N.L. Roach, PC]
[00:05:03]
>> TAYLOR, I THINK YOU'RE PREPARED TO PRESENT THE CASE.
>> MR. CHAIR BEFORE MS. BURTON DOES THAT, I JUST WANTED TO QUALIFY AS AN EXPERT FOR THE RECORD.
>> I'LL JUST USE THIS INSTEAD OF GOING BACK AND FORTH.
I'M THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH.
TONIGHT I'M REPRESENTING CITY STAFF IN THE APPEAL CITY STAFF, MS. TAYLOR HARTMAN.
I'LL JUST ASK HER A FEW QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD AND SHE'LL ANSWER.
MS. HARTMAN, WHO IS YOUR EMPLOYER?
>> HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN EMPLOYED BY THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH?
>> IN THOSE THREE YEARS, WHAT HAS YOUR PHYSICIAN OR PHYSICIANS BEEN?
>> INITIALLY, A PLANNING TECH FOR ONE YEAR AND NOW A PLANNER FOR TWO YEARS.
>> HAVE YOU FOR THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH, ONLY SERVED IN THE ROLE OF PLANNERS IN YOUR TENURE HERE?
>> GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU, CHAIR.
TONIGHT'S CASE IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL CASE NUMBER 2023-0001.
FOR THE RECORD, ALL REQUIRED APPLICATION MATERIALS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED.
ALL FEES HAVE BEEN PAID, AND ALL REQUIRED NOTICES HAVE BEEN MADE.
THE APPLICANTS FOR TONIGHT'S APPEAL ARE IDENTIFIED AS MATTHEW ROACH, CHUCK REIMEL, HULIN REEVES JR, JANET MANN, AND STEVE HALLORAN.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OF THE APPEAL IS LOCATED AT 1133 OCEAN AVENUE.
IT IS AN R-2 ZONED PARCEL, WHICH IS OUR MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.
CURRENTLY, THERE IS A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING.
THE APPLICANTS TONIGHT ARE APPEALING AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION BY STAFF ADMIN CASE 2023-0070 FOR A CONTEXT SENSITIVE SETBACK REVIEW THAT WAS ISSUED ON SEPTEMBER 28TH, 2023.
A CONTEXT SENSITIVE SETBACK DETERMINATION IS LIMITED IN SCOPE TO FRONT YARD SETBACKS ONLY.
THERE ARE NO PROVISIONS FOR SIDE OR REAR YARDS, AND THE CRITERIA THAT A PROPERTY MUST MEET IS THAT AT LEAST 50% OF PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE CURRENT MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK AS IDENTIFIED IN SECTION 4.02.03 (F)(A) OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
STAFF DID FIND THAT BASED ON THE SUBMITTED DOCUMENTATION, THAT 1133 OCEAN AVENUE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR THIS REVIEW.
BRIEF SUMMARY, A TIMELINE OF HOW WE'VE GOTTEN TO THIS POINT.
AUGUST 30TH, THE PROPERTY OWNER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, 1133 OCEAN AVENUE, STEVE CIBOR, REQUESTED A CONTEXT SENSITIVE SETBACK DETERMINATION TO CONSTRUCT A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO THE EXISTING HOME, KEEPING THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE IN PLACE.
ON SEPTEMBER 18TH OF LAST YEAR, THE STAFF REPORT WAS PREPARED AND THE PROPERTY WAS POSTED WITH A NOTICE OF INTENT TO APPROVE.
TEN DAYS LATER ON SEPTEMBER 28TH, THE REQUEST WAS APPROVED AND A FORMAL LETTER WAS ISSUED TO THE PROPERTY OWNER BY THE CITY.
ON OCTOBER 10, THE APPEAL APPLICATION WAS FILED BY ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS.
OCTOBER 28TH, THERE WAS A REQUEST FOR A CONTINUANCE TO POSTPONE UNTIL AFTER THE HOLIDAY SEASON, AND TONIGHT IS OUR SCHEDULED HEARING.
STAFF USED BOTH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE POLICIES TO DETERMINE THE APPROVAL OF THE CONTEXT SENSITIVE SETBACK DETERMINATION AND THIS IS BASED ON THE LETTER OF INTENT PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT THAT THE ORIGINAL STRUCTURE WOULD STAY AND THIS WOULD STRICTLY BE FOR AN ADDITION.
HERE WE HAVE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY 1.06.08 THAT STATES THE CITY SHALL ENCOURAGE CONTEXT SENSITIVE AND REASONABLE HOME ADDITIONS THAT ALLOW FOR NORMAL UPGRADES TO RETAIN VITALITY AND DISCOURAGE DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE.
THE INTENT OF THIS POLICY IS TO DEVELOP REGULATIONS THAT DISCOURAGE TEARDOWNS AND PROVIDE FOR EXPANSIONS OF EXISTING STRUCTURES THAT ARE APPROPRIATE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
[00:10:07]
HERE WE HAVE THE LDC SECTION OF THE CODE THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GUIDED SECTION 4.02.03 (F), AND AS WELL AS THE TEXT OF THE SECTION THERE IS A GRAPHIC WITH A DEFINITION OR RATHER AN EXPLANATION OF HOW ONE CAN GO ABOUT CALCULATING OR DETERMINING QUALIFICATIONS FOR THIS PARTICULAR REVIEW.IN THIS HIGHLIGHTED, YOU'LL SEE WHERE THE CODE IDENTIFIES THAT ALL PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES ON THE SAME BLOCK FACE ARE TO BE INCLUDED IN THAT CALCULATION.
BECAUSE OF BOTH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY AS WELL AS THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS REFERENCED, STAFF DOES RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE APPEAL BECAUSE STAFF DETERMINED THAT IT IS CONSISTENT, AGAIN WITH THAT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY 1.06.08 AND IT ALSO COMPLIES WITH LDC SECTION 4.02.03 (F) (A) (II).
SINCE THE MEASUREMENT INCLUDES ALL PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES ON THE EXISTING BLOCK FACE.
>> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS? I'LL OPEN IT UP FOR THE PUBLIC TO TALK.
DOES ANYBODY WISH TO SPEAK? GO AHEAD, JANE. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS IN THE RECORD, PLEASE.
>> JANET MANN, 1128 NORTH FLETCHER.
TAYLOR, DO YOU HAVE THOSE PICTURES I SENT TO YOU?
>> CAN YOU POP THOSE UP? THIS IS AN INTERESTING PIECE OF PROPERTY, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OF YOU HAVE BEEN OUT THERE, BUT IT'S THE ONE RIGHT AT THE END OF OCEAN, BY NORTH BEACH.
VERY PRETTY LITTLE PIECE OF PROPERTY.
BUT THE THING THAT I'M STRUGGLING WITH AS I READ THE CODE IS THE DEFINITION OF BLOCK FACE.
TAYLOR, I BROUGHT SOME PICTURES.
AS I READ THE CODE, IT TALKS ABOUT THE BLOCK FACE SHALL BE DEFINED AS ONE SIDE OF A STREET BETWEEN TWO INTERSECTING STREETS, AND THE ORIENTATION OF STRUCTURES ON CORNER LOTS DETERMINES THE APPLICABLE BLOCK FACE.
THIS HOUSE DOES NOT HAVE A DOOR ON OCEAN.
THE DOOR TO THE HOUSE IS ON 9TH STREET.
>> I WOULD SUBMIT THAT ALL OF THIS CALCULATIONS WE'VE DONE WITH THE HOUSES THAT SIT ON OCEAN IS IRRELEVANT BECAUSE THE HOUSE IS ORIENTED ON 9TH.
I BROUGHT PICTURES IF YOU [OVERLAPPING]
>> I'M SO SORRY. REMEMBER, MA'AM, THE EMAIL DIDN'T COME THROUGH, BUT I AM PULLING UP A STREET VIEW OF IT AT LEAST FOR REFERENCE.
>> ANYWAY, I CAN SHOW YOU ON THE PHONE.
>> YES, IT'S THE BOX HIGHLIGHTED RED AND IT COMES TO THE STREET. YEAH.
THIS IS WHAT FACES OCEAN. THERE'S NO DOOR.
TO ME, STATUTORY INTERPRETATION WOULD TELL ME IT'S NOT ON THAT BLOCK.
EVEN THOUGH THE ADDRESS IS 1133 OCEAN, THE DOOR SITS ON 9TH STREET.
I THINK ANY COMPARISON WOULD HAVE TO BE WITH ANY, WHAT'S IT CALLED? STRUCTURES.
THERE'S A TERM IN HERE THAT I'M MISSING, ON 9TH STREET AND THERE AREN'T ANY.
[LAUGHTER] I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT LEAVES US, BUT TO ME, THAT'S THE BIGGEST ISSUE HERE IS THAT WE'RE MAKING A COMPARISON OF APPLES AND ORANGES.
I THINK MY SECOND QUESTION, AND MAYBE MR. CIBOR AND HIS REPRESENTATIVE COULD TALK TO THIS, IS THIS HOUSE IS SITTING, IS SIX FEET FROM THE ROOF.
WHY DO YOU NEED A 16 FOOT SETBACK IF YOU'VE ALREADY GOT, IT MAKES NO SENSE TO ME.
IF YOU CONSIDER THIS YOUR BLOCK FACE, WHICH APPARENTLY THEY DON'T BECAUSE THEY'RE ALREADY SITTING SIX FEET FROM THE ROAD.
SO WHY WOULD THEY WANT A 16.7 FOOT SETBACK? [LAUGHTER] THEY'RE ALREADY THERE AND THEY'RE NOT GOING TO TOUCH THE STRUCTURE.
>> THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE WISH TO SPEAK?
>> AGAIN, FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
[00:15:02]
MY PROPERTY ADDRESS IS 1131 OCEAN AVENUE.MY HOUSE IS ACTUALLY RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO THIS HOUSE HERE.
THERE'S A COUPLE OF ISSUES I JUST WANT TO SET FOR THE RECORD FIRST SO WE CAN CLARIFY SOME THINGS.
THERE WAS A LETTER THAT MR. CIBOR SENT AND WITH HIS APPLICATION.
THE APPLICATION ITSELF IS DEFECTIVE AND SHOULD BE DENIED BASED OFF OF THAT ALONE.
MR. CIBOR HIS LETTER STATES THAT HE IS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH IN FACT IS NOT CORRECT.
THE OTHER DOCUMENTATION THAT IS SUBMITTED WITH THAT APPLICATION SHOWS THAT THE PROPERTY IS OWNED BY A TRUST.
I'M SORRY, THE APPLICATION DOES NOT STATE WHO HAS CONTROL OF THAT TRUST, WHO ARE THE TRUSTEES, WHO ARE THE BENEFICIARIES OF THAT TRUST.
ON THAT POINT ALONE, THE APPLICATION IS DEFECTIVE AND SHOULD BE DENIED.
THEN IT GOES ON TO DETAILED LETTER.
THE APPLICATION REQUIRES A DETAILED PLANS.
THE LETTER THAT HE SUBMITTED JUST TELLS YOU THAT IF HE GETS THIS APPROVAL, HE WILL THEN START WORKING WITH HIS ARCHITECT TO CONSTRUCT WHATEVER IT IS THAT HE'S GOING TO CONSTRUCT THERE.
HE DOES NOT STATE ANYTHING AS TO WHAT HE'S GOING TO BUILD THERE OR WHAT HE WANTS TO DO WITH THE PROPERTY ONCE HE GETS THIS VARIANCE.
THE OTHER THING IS, THIS PROPERTY ALSO FALLS UNDER 11.01.03.
THAT REQUIRES WITH THE APPLICATION THAT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS FILED WITH THE APPLICATION.
NO LEGAL DESCRIPTION WAS EVER FILED WITH THE APPLICATION, AGAIN, WHICH CREATES A DEFECTIVE APPLICATION IN ITSELF.
[NOISE] I THINK MISS MANN ALSO STATED, WHY IS HE GOING FOR A VARIANCE ON THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY? IT MAKES NO SENSE.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE SIDE YARD, THE DECKING RIGHT THERE IS ON CITY PROPERTY.
THE QUESTION THEN BECOMES IS WHAT'S THE NEXT STEP? IS THERE AN ADVERSE POSSESSION LAWSUIT AGAINST THE CITY THAT'S COMING NEXT? THAT'S SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE KEPT IN MIND.
THE OTHER THING THAT WE NEED TO KEEP IN MIND ALSO IS THIS SENSITIVITY SETBACK IS NOT A RIGHT.
YOU'RE NOT AUTOMATICALLY ENTITLED TO THIS.
YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH AND YOU HAVE TO PROVE THAT YOU ARE ENTITLED TO IT, AND THE APPLICANT HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO PROVE THIS.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT, ALSO YOU LOOK AT THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF 2030, GOAL NUMBER 1 OF THAT PLAN IS THAT TO WORK WITH 1.06 COMMUNITY CHARACTER, THE CITY SHALL INITIATE A NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN SERVICE WHICH SHALL WORK WITH OTHER RESIDENTS.
HERE YOU HAVE AN OUTSTANDING NUMBER OF NEIGHBORS SAYING, WE DON'T WANT THIS, THIS DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, IT SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED.
IF YOU LOOK AT YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, YES, IT SAYS WE WANT TO PRESERVE STRUCTURES THAT ARE OLD AND THEY FIT WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
YOU LOOK AT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, THAT STRUCTURE DOESN'T FIT IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.
ALL THE OTHER HOUSES ARE SIMILAR TO THE TWO NEXT TO IT.
I BELIEVE IF YOU GO DOWN FURTHER, YOU HAVE ONE HOUSE THAT'S SIMILAR TO THIS.
IF YOU KEEP GOING DOWN FURTHER, YOU HAVE ONE HOUSE THAT'S SIMILAR TO THAT.
ALSO IN 1.06.01 OF THAT SAME COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IT SAYS THAT WHEN DETERMINING THESE THINGS, YOU NEED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION SIDEWALKS AND RIGHT OF WAYS HERE.
THAT HOUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SITS RIGHT ON THE ROAD.
THERE'S NO PEDESTRIAN RIGHT OF WAY.
THE OTHER THING IS YOU HAVE GARBAGE TRUCKS THAT COME DOWN THIS ROAD EVERY MONDAY THE WRONG WAY.
YOU HAVE KIDS GOING UP AND DOWN THIS ROAD.
YOU HAVE PEOPLE THAT ARE ON HOLIDAY, THAT AREN'T PAYING ATTENTION.
THEY GO UP AND DOWN THAT ROAD AND THEY THEY COME AROUND THAT.
IF A SECOND STORY IS PUT ON THAT HOUSE, THEY COME AROUND THAT CORNER, THEY DON'T SEE A GARBAGE TRUCK AND THEY GET HIT BY IT, THAT'S A BIG LIABILITY.
THESE ARE A LOT OF THE THINGS THAT NEED TO BE KEPT.
ACTUALLY, I WAS TALKING WITH MY NEIGHBOR JUST YESTERDAY AND THERE WAS AN OLDER COUPLE THAT CAME DOWN THE STREET THE WRONG WAY IN THEIR CAR, HAPPENS ALL THE TIME ON THIS ROAD.
BY ALLOWING THIS, YOU'RE CREATING A LARGER HAZARD THAN WHAT'S ALREADY THERE.
[00:20:10]
AGAIN, THE APPLICANT HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF THAT THEY COMPLIED WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 10.02.02 WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT A, YOU LOOK AT IT, IT SAYS SPECIAL CONDITIONS.ARE THERE SPECIAL CONDITIONS HERE THAT SHOULD ALLOW THAT? THERE'S NO SPECIAL CONDITION.
THERE'S NOTHING THERE THAT SAYS THAT THIS HOUSE HAS SOME SORT OF SPECIAL CONDITION THAT A VARIANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED.
THREE, LITERAL INTERPRETATIONS.
IF YOU DO NOT GRANT THAT OR YOU REVERSE THE VARIANCE, IT DOES NOT DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT OF ANY OF HIS RIGHTS THAT ARE ENJOYED BY ANYBODY ELSE ON THAT BLOCK.
EVERYBODY HAS THE SAME RIGHTS AS HE WOULD IF THIS VARIANCE IS DENIED.
THEN IT GOES ON, GENERAL HARMONY.
THAT HOUSE IS NOT GENERAL HARMONY IN THE BLOCK.
TOTALLY DIFFERENT THAN ALL THE OTHER HOUSES THERE.
PUBLIC INTEREST, AGAIN, WE JUST TALKED ABOUT THE GARBAGE TRUCKS.
PUBLIC INTEREST, THIS WOULD BE A COMPLETE HAZARD TO ALLOW THAT TO HAVE A SECOND STORY ON IT.
NEEDLESS TO SAY, LOOK AT THE HOUSE, I DON'T EVEN THINK THE HOUSE COULD SUPPORT A SECOND STORY WITHOUT MAJOR RENOVATIONS OF THE FOUNDATION AND EVERYTHING ELSE WHICH WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED UNDER THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
THEN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ITSELF.
WELL, ACTUALLY, LET'S GET TO THE SURVEYS THAT'S PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.
THE MEASUREMENTS FOR THESE ALL INDICATE THAT IT'S FROM THE STREET TO THE ROOF LINE, NOT TO THE VERTICAL ELEMENT OF ALL THE OTHER PROPERTIES.
THE SURVEY THAT IS PROVIDED, I BELIEVE, IS INACCURATE.
AND I BELIEVE THAT MY HOUSE, MY NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE, AND PROBABLY THE HOUSE ON THE CORNER ALL FIT WITHIN THE SETBACK IF A SURVEY WAS PROPERLY DONE.
THEN LET'S LOOK AT THE CODE THAT, I'M SORRY, TAYLOR, CAN YOU PUT UP THE ONE CODE THAT YOU HAD THERE BEFORE?
>> PERFECT. IF YOU READ THIS CODE, THEY'VE HIGHLIGHTED SOME ASPECTS OF THIS CODE, BUT THEY DIDN'T HIGHLIGHT THE IMPORTANT PARTS HERE.
LET ME SEE WHAT I WANT TO GO TO.
IT SAYS AT LEAST 50% OF THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE MINIMUM SETBACK, THE PROPERTY OWNER MAY ELECT TO APPLY FOR THE TERMINATION.
THEN IT SAYS I, THE FRONT SETBACK OF OTHER PRINCIPAL RESIDENTS, IT'S EXCLUDING PROPERTY IN QUESTION.
IT'S SAYING, LET'S TAKE ALL OF THE OTHER PROPERTIES ON THE BLOCK AND FIGURE OUT WHAT THE ACTUAL SETBACK IS, EXCLUDE THE PROPERTY THAT'S IN QUESTION.
I'M SORRY, NUMBER 1, THAT'S HOW YOU FIGURE OUT WHAT THE ACTUAL SETBACK SHOULD BE, IS YOU TAKE ALL THE OTHER HOUSES ON THE PROPERTY.
IF YOU LOOK HERE, EVEN IN THEIR EXAMPLES, THEY HAVE 2, 3, 4, 5 AND 6.
A IS THERE. THE WHOLE REASON FOR THE SENSITIVITY SETBACK IS NOT TO DEMOLISH A HOUSE THAT'S ALREADY THERE, AND THERE ARE THINGS THEY HAVE THE HOUSE THERE AND IT'S EXCLUDED.
IT SAYS, I KEEP LOSING THAT, IN NUMBER ONE, I'M SORRY, THE OTHER PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE.
IT'S CONFIRMED IN THE DRAWINGS THAT IT'S THE OTHER RESIDENCE, NOT THE HOUSE THAT'S IN QUESTION.
THEN YOU GO TO, I'M SORRY, NUMBER 2.
THEY HIGHLIGHTED ALL THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES ON THE SAME BLOCK FACE.
BUT WHAT THEY DID NOT HIGHLIGHT, IT SAYS USING THE MEASUREMENTS OBTAINED IN I, THE ONE BEFORE IT.
YOU DO NOT INCLUDE THIS HOUSE IN THE MEASUREMENTS.
[00:25:01]
AGAIN, EVERY SINGLE EXAMPLE EXCLUDES THE PROPERTY.I JUST WANT TO GET BACK TO MR. CIBOR'S LETTER FOR ONE MORE TIME.
IN IT HE SAYS THAT HE LOVES THE STRUCTURE.
HE DOESN'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING WITH THE STRUCTURE, IT'S BEAUTIFUL, BUT HE CAN'T PUT A SECONDARY STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER BECAUSE IT WON'T FIT IN THE BACKYARD.
CAN WE GO BACK TO THE PHOTO OF THE HOUSE? I'M SORRY.
CAN YOU GO DOWN NINTH STREET, PLEASE? A LITTLE BIT FURTHER? A LITTLE BIT FURTHER DOWN LAND STREET. RIGHT THERE.
>> THAT'S ALL RIGHT. YOU COULD FIT A SECONDARY STRUCTURE IN THE BACK.
UNDER YOUR CODE IT SAYS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE IS WHAT WOULD BE ALLOWED.
YOU DON'T NEED A VARIANCE, YOU COULD PUT A SECOND STRUCTURE RIGHT THERE AND ACTUALLY DOWN THE BLOCK.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THEY DID WITH THEIR HOUSE.
THEY KEPT THE HOUSE THAT WAS SIMILAR TO THIS ONE, ONLY ONE ON THE BLOCK THAT'S SIMILAR TO THAT ONE.
THEY PUT A SECONDARY STRUCTURE IN THE BACK, WHICH IS ALLOWED UNDER THE CODE WITHOUT A VARIANCE.
ACTUALLY, FOR ALL THOSE REASONS, I BELIEVE THAT THIS VARIANCE SHOULD BE DENIED. ANY QUESTIONS?
>> JUST CURIOUS FOR IT'S ALL OUT LAW.
>> ANYBODY ON THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? GO AHEAD.
>> I DO I'M NOT SURE THEY'RE ADDRESSED TO MR. ROACH.
>> THEN I HAVE ONE. YOUR PROFESSION, SIR.
>> ATTORNEY. YOUR QUALIFICATIONS OF WHETHER THE SURVEYS ARE ACCURATE OR NOT ARE NOT REALLY QUALIFIED AS AN EXPERT, THAT'S A COMMENT.
>> THAT'S WHY I SAID, I BELIEVE.
>> JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE. THANK YOU.
ANYBODY ELSE? WE CAN MOVE OUT TO ANYBODY, THE APPLICANT OR ANYBODY ELSE IN THE PUBLIC WANT TO SPEAK?
>> HI, GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS JOHN LISA 960185 GAYLE BOULEVARD WITH FIRM ROGERS TOWERS.
WE REPRESENT THE APPLICANT, STEVE CIBOR, THEIR TRUSTS, AND THEN AS INDIVIDUALLY AND JENNIFER CIBOR.
I THINK IT'S VERY APPROPRIATE TO STATE THAT THIS IS AN INTERESTING PROPERTY.
IT'S ALSO A VERY INTERESTING PORTION OF YOUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT HAS UNFORTUNATELY SOME AMBIGUITY TO IT.
I THINK WE CAN ALL ACKNOWLEDGE THAT.
BUT BEFORE I GET INTO THAT, THERE WERE SOME ARGUMENTS MADE THAT WEREN'T PART OF THE APPEAL THAT SHOULDN'T BE CONSIDERED AND ALSO THERE WERE A NUMBER OF REFERENCES TO THIS BEING A VARIANCE HEARING.
THIS IS NOT A VARIANCE HEARING.
I'VE BEEN BEFORE YOUR MANY VARIANCE HEARINGS BEFORE AND THIS IS NOT ONE OF THEM.
THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL SO T'S MUCH DIFFERENT.
BEEN BEFORE HERE ON THOSE AS WELL.
WE'RE NOT GOING THROUGH THE CRITERIA THAT WE GO THROUGH FOR VARIANCE.
THIS IS REALLY STRICTLY TO DETERMINE ABOUT THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION THAT WAS MADE.
BUT I DO WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT SOME OF THE POINTS THAT ARE, I THINK, MOST RELEVANT HERE AND THEN ADDRESS SOME OF THE AMBIGUITY THAT EXISTS IN SECTION 4.023 SUBSECTION F OF YOUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
ONE OF THE FIRST QUESTIONS, AND THIS IS THE MAIN QUESTION OF THE APPELLANT, IS, IS THE STRUCTURE INCLUDED OR NOT? REALLY, WE CAN GO BOTH WAYS, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT REFERENCING THE DIAGRAM THAT'S INCLUDED IN THE CODE IS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE WE CAN'T GET INTO THE MIND OF THE DRAFTER OF THAT, UNFORTUNATELY AND SO WE ALL WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THIS COMPANY HERE.
BUT I THINK THAT IT'S NOT WRITTEN WHETHER OR NOT THE STRUCTURE IS INCLUDED OR NOT.
IN MY PERSONAL OPINION IS, WHY WOULDN'T IT? I THINK THAT ADDS TO THE BLOCK FACE AS IT STANDS AND IT SHOULD BE INCLUDED.
ON THE OTHER HAND, IT CAN BE EXCLUDED BUT IT'S NOT CLEAR IN THE CODE THE FACT THAT THERE'S A DRAWING ON THERE, THAT COULD BE THE APPLICATION ON A VACANT LOT.
WE JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DRAFTER OF THAT DIAGRAM WAS INTENDING AND SO WE CAN'T REALLY SPEAK TO THAT.
THAT'S AN AMBIGUITY IN THE CODE WHETHER OR NOT IT'S VACANT OR NOT OR PRESUMED TO BE VACANT OR NOT.
SECOND IS, WHERE DO WE MEASURE TO? DO WE MEASURE TO THE ROOF STRUCTURE OR DO WE MEASURE TO THE PORCH OR FIRST VERTICAL ELEMENT OF THE STRUCTURE? ONE QUESTION IS, WHAT IF YOU HAVE A PARTIALLY ROOFED PORCH? HALF THE PORCHES, AND THIS IS NOT UNCOMMON ALONG SOUTH FLETCHER.
SO, THAT'S CERTAINLY A QUESTION THAT COULD BE MADE MORE CLEAR.
[00:30:05]
THE APPLICANT HAS A DISCREPANCY PERHAPS WITH WHAT THE STAFF HAS DECIDED.IT DID NOT DECIDE TO APPEAL IT BASED ON THAT BUT JUST TO PRESERVE FOR THE RECORD THAT THE OPINION OF THE APPLICANT IS TO THE CLOSEST VERTICAL STRUCTURE FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.
THAT GETS TO MY THIRD POINT, IS THAT THE MEASUREMENT SHOULD BE FROM THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE CLOSEST VERTICAL ELEMENT, NOT AN AVERAGE OF THE TWO FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL STRUCTURE.
JUST GOING BACK TO MY FIRST ONE ABOUT INCLUDING THE STRUCTURE, NOW, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ALL RECALL, SOME OF YOU WEREN'T ON THE BOARD, BUT THERE WAS A VARIANCE APPLICATION THAT WE HAD TO GO DO ON BEACH STREET.
ANYWAY, IT WAS UP ON NORTH OF A SMALL HOME.
THERE WERE ONLY TWO HOMES ON THE BLOCK.
THERE WERE FOUR LOTS ON THE BLOCK, AND THE INTENT WAS TO DEMO THAT STRUCTURE.
STAFF HAD DETERMINED THAT THAT MEANS THAT THERE'S NO LESS THAN 50% OF THE BLOCK FACE, AND SO WE HAD TO COME TO YOU FOR A VARIANCE.
IT WAS GRANTED AND IT WAS APPROPRIATE AND IT INCLUDED THAT ORIGINAL STRUCTURE.
BUT IT WAS PROCEDURE THAT WAS PROBABLY MORE THAN THAT, IT WAS NECESSARY BECAUSE IT WAS, VARIANCES AREN'T GRANTED EASILY.
THE COMMENTS ABOUT THE DOOR BEING ON NINTH STREET, THAT IS CORRECT AND YOU SAW A PICTURE, PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE OF THAT.
HOWEVER, THIS HOUSE IS, 70, 80 YEARS OLD.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE DOOR WAS ORIGINALLY.
THAT'S WHEN IT WAS BUILT. I DON'T KNOW WHERE IT WAS.
THERE WAS A WINDOW REFLECTED, MAYBE IT WAS A DOORWAY AT ONE POINT, WE DON'T KNOW AND NOBODY CAN REALLY TESTIFY THAT. LET'S SEE.
IN FACT, THE ADDRESS IS 1133 OCEAN AVENUE.
I WOULD SUBMIT THAT THE SURVEY THAT HAS BEEN CERTIFIED BY A LICENSED FLORIDA SURVEYOR WHO IS AN EXPERT.
I WOULD ALSO SUBMIT THAT THERE'S BEEN NON-COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED TONIGHT AND THAT SHOULDN'T BE CONSIDERED, THAT THE APPLICANT SUPPORTS THE STAFF'S DECISION AND WILL RELY ON THEIR EXPERT TESTIMONY AS WELL.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.
AGAIN, THE APPLICANTS HERE WITH ME TONIGHT.
THE BOARD [OVERLAPPING] RAISE YOUR RIGHT ARM. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE ORAL AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? YES.
BEFORE YOU COME UP, SIR, JUST FOR STATEMENT OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, THERE'S NO PRECEDENT FOR PREVIOUS CASES SO WE DON'T GO BASED ON WHAT WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST.
WE'VE SAID THAT IN ALMOST EVERY INSTANCE WE HAVE THIS MEETING.
WILLIAM T. KATIE B N , 1131 NORTH FLETCHER.
MY PARENTS, MY GRANDFATHER, THAT WAS THEIR HOUSE BACK IN THE '60S WHEN THE DOOR CAME THROUGH.
THAT WAS THREE HOUSES PUT TOGETHER AFTER THE HURRICANE CAME THROUGH TO MAKE ONE HOUSE.
I WAS BORN IN '64 THROUGH, FROM THEN ON WAS NEVER HAD A FRONT DOOR.
THAT'S THE ONLY STATEMENT I CAN SAY.
YOU MEAN IT HAD NO DOOR? YEAH. NO, THE DOOR IS JUST LIKE IT IS DOWN.
NEVER HAD A DOOR ON OCEAN AVENUE FROM '60S AND THAT WAS THAT'S THE ONLY STATEMENT I CAN GIVE AT THIS TIME.
THANK YOU. ANY CIRCUM? LUCA, THANK YOU.
>> I'M STEVE CIBOR. I'M THE OWNER.
I DON'T HAVE ALL OF MY NOTES, THEY'RE STUCK IN MEMPHIS RIGHT NOW.
>> PLEASE SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE.
>> SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE SO I CAN HEAR YOU.
>> MY NAME'S STEVE CIBOR, I'M THE HOMEOWNER.
I WASN'T REALLY PREPARED TO SPEAK BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE MY NOTES, THEY'RE STUCK IN MEMPHIS.
BUT I THINK IT'S BEEN SAID THIS IS A VERY UNIQUE PIECE OF PROPERTY.
I CURRENTLY LIVE AT 1127 OCEAN AVENUE, SO I LIVE THREE HOUSES DOWN.
I'VE LIVED THERE FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS.
WE PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY TO BUILD A PLACE THAT WE COULD RETIRE IN A FEW YEARS WHEN MY KIDS GRADUATE HIGH SCHOOL.
I GO BACK AND FORTH RIGHT NOW BETWEEN OUR CURRENT HOUSE AND THIS HOUSE.
BEFORE I PURCHASED THE PROPERTY,
[00:35:03]
I TOOK A NUMBER OF TRIPS DOWN HERE TO ASK A LOT OF QUESTIONS.WE TALKED ABOUT WHAT WE COULD AND COULD NOT BUILD ON IT, HOW TO PROCEED WITH THAT.
I'VE CONSULTED A NUMBER OF ARCHITECTS AND DESIGNERS, AND NOBODY WILL DO ANYTHING FOR US UNTIL WE CAN AT LEAST DETERMINE WHAT WE CAN DO THERE.
IT'S A UNIQUE PROPERTY WHERE IF YOU'RE USING THE OCEAN AVENUE ADDRESS AND SAY WE WANT TO BUILD 35 FEET, IT WILL BE 10 FEET TO THE LEFT, AND THEN 15 FEET TO THE RIGHT, I THINK IT'S 9TH STREET, IS RIGHT THERE.
THAT'S A 15 FOOT SETBACK AUTOMATICALLY, SO WE COULD BUILD A 25 FOOT WIDE HOUSE IF WE TORE DOWN.
ORIGINALLY, WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT IT, I WAS TRYING EVERYTHING TO HAVE THAT BE THE SECONDARY STRUCTURE BECAUSE IT'S ONLY ABOUT 700 SQUARE FEET.
WE ALSO DISCUSSED IN LENGTH AND THE FACT OF WHERE THE FRONT YARD REALLY IS.
IS IT OCEAN AVENUE OR IS IT 9TH STREET? CAN WE GO TO THE DIAGRAM, THE FIGURE THAT SHOWS THE SKETCH OF WHERE THE HOUSES ARE, WHERE IT SHOWS.
SO WE ALSO WENT BACK AND FORTH.
I MET WITH EVERYBODY DOWN HERE AT THE CITY.
I MET WITH TAMMY, TAYLOR, KELLY, EVERYBODY, NUMEROUS TIMES TO FIND OUT WHAT THE PERSPECTIVE IS.
I DID NOT FILE FOR THE SETBACK TO THE LEVEL I WANTED TO.
I BELIEVE THAT THE SETBACK SHOULD BE ABOUT 14 FEET.
I CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH A NUMBER OF COPIES, I'VE GOT AT LEAST 10, OF WHAT I THINK THE SETBACK SHOULD BE, WHICH IS 13 FEET, 8''.
PER THE DIAGRAM, WHICH IS WHAT I WENT BY, IS WHAT THAT SETBACK SHOULD BE.
IF YOU WANT, I CAN GIVE ANYBODY COPIES IF YOU WANT TO SEE COPIES OF THESE.
THESE ARE ALL THE MEASUREMENTS.
THIS WAS SURVEYED, THIS WAS SURVEYED BY A LOCAL SURVEY COMPANY.
THEY CAME OUT AT LEAST A HALF A DOZEN TIMES TO SURVEY THE STREET.
MY CONTENTION ON THIS IS IF YOU LOOK AT THIS DIAGRAM, IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT A IS NOT BUILT YET, IT'S A VACANT LOT.
YOU CAN INTERPRET IT THAT MAYBE IT'S NOT.
ON THAT SHEET I GAVE YOU, THAT INCLUDES WITH OR WITHOUT THE SUBJECT HOUSE, WHICH IS MY HOUSE, BUT WHAT'S CONSISTENT IS IT'S NOT GOING FROM THE HOUSE, IT'S GOING TO THE PORCH OR THE BALCONY OF EVERY STRUCTURE ON THAT STREET.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE CODE, IT SAYS ALL THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES AND THEN IT GOES UP AT THE TOP, THE CLOSEST VERTICAL ELEMENT, AND THEN IT STATES VERY CLEARLY THAT IT TALKS ABOUT THE PORCH SUPPORTS.
PORCH SUPPORT IS NOT ABOVE THE PORCH, IT'S BENEATH THE PORCH.
IF YOU TAKE THE CLOSEST VERTICAL ELEMENT ON EACH ONE OF THOSE HOUSES AND YOU TAKE IT TO THE PORCH SUPPORTS, THAT'S THE NUMBER THAT YOU'RE GETTING THAT I'VE GIVEN YOU, WHICH IS, IT WOULD BE A SETBACK OF 13 FEET 8", BECAUSE THAT'S GOING FROM THE CLOSEST VERTICAL ELEMENT.
NOW IF YOU DON'T USE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, LETS SAY THE HOUSE IS GONE, THEN THE DECK'S INCLUDED BUT NOT 1133, THE SETBACK SHOULD BE 15 FEET 1.5".
IT'S NOT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ROOF.
IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE SURVEY ITSELF, CAN YOU BRING UP THE SURVEY OF THE STREET? THAT'S THE HOUSE, I NEED THE SURVEY OF THE WHOLE BLOCK FACE IF I COULD, PLEASE.
YOU'LL NOTICE THAT IT'S TAKING THE HOUSE ITSELF,
[00:40:06]
IT'S NOT TAKING THE CLOSEST VERTICAL ELEMENT WHICH IS THE PORT SUPPORTS, IT'S NOT TAKING THE DECK AND IT'S NOT TAKING THE ROOF LINE.BECAUSE IN THIS HOUSE DOWN HERE, IF YOU SCROLL DOWN, WE'RE USING THE MEASUREMENT IN OUR CALCULATION OF 23 FEET 1".
BUT THE ROOF IS OUT HERE, SO I SHOULD ADD ANOTHER FIVE FEET BECAUSE THE ROOF GOES ALL THE WAY AND THE CLOSEST VERTICAL ELEMENT IS RIGHT HERE, SO I SHOULD ACTUALLY GO 10 FEET, BUT WE'RE GOING 23 FEET STRETCH.
IF WE SCROLL DOWN, IF WE TAKE THE HOUSE TO THE LEFT OF MY HOUSE, 1129, THEIR ROOF LINE COMES TO HERE.
WE'RE USING THE DECK, BUT THIS IS ALSO DECK AND THE ROOF LINE GOES OVER ANOTHER ADDITIONAL 2.5 FEET TO THIS PART RIGHT HERE, BUT WE'RE USING THIS PART RIGHT HERE.
IF WE TAKE THE ROOF ITSELF, YOU HAVE TO ADD ANOTHER 3 FEET, BUT WE'RE USING THE STRUCTURE.
I WOULD LIKE IT TO BE CONSIDERED THAT WE INCLUDE THE DECKS BECAUSE IF WE GO BACK TO THE DIAGRAM AND I'M TALKING TO A COUPLE DIFFERENT SURVEY COMPANIES, THEY WOULD INCLUDE THAT DECK.
IT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT EVERY ONE OF THESE MEASUREMENTS IS GOING FROM THE DECK OR THE BALCONY, DOES NOT GO FROM THE HOUSE.
THE SURVEY, AND THIS IS WHAT I PRESENTED TO THE CITY AND THEY SAID WE WOULD LIKE IF WE USE THE FIGURES THAT I SUBMITTED, WHICH I DID.
I PERSONALLY WANTED TO FILE FOR THE PORCH.
I ALSO I'M NOT OPPOSED AT ALL IF WE GO BACK TO NINTH STREET, IF WE USE THE HOUSE, WHICH I BELIEVE THE ARGUMENT IS, IS THAT THIS HOUSE IS NOT ON OCEAN AVENUE, BUT YOU HAVE TO INCLUDE ALL HOUSES ON THAT BLOCK FACE.
SO IF WE GO BACK TO THE CONTEXT SENSITIVE SURVEY THAT HAS ALL THE HOUSES, IT WAS POINTED OUT AND IT'S CORRECT, THE HOUSE IS NOT ON CITY PROPERTY BUT THE GARAGE IS, THE GARAGE GOES OVER ONE FOOT.
I'VE DISCUSSED AND I'VE SPOKEN WITH JOHN IN DETAIL AT THE BEGINNING OF EMINENT DOMAIN AND THAT'S NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.
I WAS ADVISED THAT THERE'S JUST THERE'S NO WAY BECAUSE THE CITY CAN COME DOWN ANYTIME THEY WANT TO TELL ME TO TEAR DOWN THE GARAGE.
BUT WHAT'S INTERESTING IS THE HOUSE DOES SIT, IF YOU TAKE THAT CORNER, ABOUT A FOOT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.
LET'S TAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT THEY WANT ME TO USE NINTH STREET, FINE.
I TALKED TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT BELIEVES, AND I CAN HAVE THE ADDRESS CHANGED TO NINTH STREET, BUT THEN WE'RE TALKING THAT I HAVE A ONE FOOT SETBACK BECAUSE AT LEAST 50% OF THE HOUSES IS ONLY HOUSE, SO THAT'S 100% OF THE HOUSES ON THAT BLOCK FACE, WHICH WOULD BE MY HOUSE.
I HAVE A ONE FOOT SETBACK, BUT THEN ON OCEAN AVENUE, I HAVE A 15-FOOT SETBACK.
IF I TOOK NINTH STREET AS THE FRONT DOOR, WHICH I'M FINE WITH, I COULD TEAR DOWN THE HOUSE [OVERLAPPING] WHAT'S THAT?
>> YOU JUST SAID YOU HAD A 15-FOOT SETBACK ON OCEAN. [OVERLAPPING].
>> CORRECT. IF MY BLOCK FACE IS NINTH STREET, ON ANY STREET, YOU HAVE A 15-FOOT SETBACK.
RIGHT NOW MY HOUSE, IF I HAD BUILT THE HOUSE HERE, IF I GO UP 35, DOESN'T MATTER THE HEIGHT OF THE HOUSE ON NINTH STREET, I HAVE A 15-FOOT SETBACK RIGHT THERE.
I CANNOT GO 15 FEET THAT WAY ON ANY NEW STRUCTURE BECAUSE THAT'S A STREET.
IF I GO UP 35 FEET, I HAVE A 10-FOOT SETBACK HERE.
NOW, IF NINTH STREET IS THE FRONT YARD, I HAVE A 15-FOOT SETBACK HERE, AND I COULD BUILD ONE FOOT TO NINTH STREET.
IF THAT'S THE WAY THE BOARD WANTS IT, I'M PERFECTLY HAPPY HAVING THAT ONE AS WELL.
EITHER WAY, AT THE END OF THE DAY, I'M RIGHT AROUND THAT 15-FOOT MARK.
I PERSONALLY DID NOT AGREE WITH THE 16 FEET, EIGHT INCHES, BUT I WAS WILLING TO ACCEPT IT BECAUSE I'M GOING TO BE LIVING IN THIS TOWN A LONG TIME AND I DIDN'T WANT TO MAKE ANY WAYS.
THAT'S WHAT THEY FELT COMFORTABLE WITH.
LIKE I SAID, I MET WITH THEM OVER AND OVER AGAIN, AND SO THAT'S THE WAY I SUBMITTED IT,
[00:45:01]
BUT I'M PERFECTLY HAPPY.IT SOUNDS LIKE ALL MY NEIGHBORS FEEL THAT MY ADDRESS IS NINTH STREET, SO THE FIRE MARSHAL, FIRE DEPARTMENT ALREADY SAID, YEAH, WE'LL CHANGE THE ADDRESS TO NINTH STREET IF YOU WANT IT, BECAUSE THE DOOR FACES NINTH STREET.
THEN I GO WITH A 15-FOOT SETBACK HERE, ONE FOOT SETBACK THERE, AND I'M PLANNING ON COMING FOR A SETBACK.
I WASN'T EXPECTING TO DO THIS, THAT'S WHY I DIDN'T ARGUE THIS IS BECAUSE I WILL BE COMING AND ASKING FOR AN EASEMENT ON THAT SIDE.
ORIGINALLY, I DIDN'T WANT TO BUILD BACK HERE.
ORIGINALLY, I WANTED TO KEEP THE HOUSE.
BUT TO ME, I WAS IN THE NAVY, I'M DISABLED THAT.
THE HOUSE WAS USED IN WORLD WAR II, MY UNDERSTANDING, AS A PUB, I THOUGHT THAT WAS KIND OF NEAT.
I WAS LIKE, WELL, WHY DON'T I TAKE THAT AT 700 SQUARE FEET BUT THE PLUMBING DOESN'T WORK ANYMORE, IT'S CLOGGING UP.
I'M LIKE TAKE THAT AS A SECONDARY STRUCTURE AND I WILL BUILD IN THAT AREA.
BUT THE ONLY WAY I COULD BUILD IN THIS AREA IS IF I RIPPED DOWN THE HOUSE.
NOW, I BELIEVE IT WAS MENTIONED THAT SOMEBODY ON THE BLOCK DID BUILD ANOTHER HOUSE. THEY DID.
THEY HAVE A PRIMARY HOUSE THAT HAS THREE BEDROOMS, TWO OR THREE BEDROOMS IN THE FRONT, AND THEN THEY BUILT A SECONDARY STRUCTURE THAT HAD 700 SQUARE FEET.
WELL, I'VE GOT THREE BOYS MY SIZE AND MY WIFE, AND WE UNFORTUNATELY WILL NOT FIT IN A HOUSE 700 SQUARE FEET.
LIKE I SAID, WE CURRENTLY LIVE AT 1127.
WHAT WE'RE HOPING FOR IS TO BUILD SOMETHING THAT WILL BE IN ADDITION TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'LL LOOK NICE.
I APOLOGIZE, I KNOW THAT 1131 HAS AN AMAZING VIEW OVER THE HOUSE RIGHT NOW AND THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE THERE WHEN WE BUILD.
BUT I DO KNOW THAT I CAN GO UP, I CAN PUT THIS ON PYLONS, I'VE GOTTEN QUOTES.
I CAN KEEP GOING ALL THE WAY UP.
I CAN GO UP 35 FEET WITH THAT HOUSE, I BELIEVE, I CAN GO UP 35 FEET WHERE THAT HOUSE CURRENTLY EXISTS.
I COULD PIECEMEAL THIS TOGETHER OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS AND JUST DO 30% EVERY YEAR OF WHAT THE VALUE OF THAT HOUSE IS.
IF THAT'S THE WAY I HAVE TO GO, THEN I'LL JUST LIVE IN THE PINK HOUSE FOR THE NEXT 10 YEARS UNTIL WE SLOWLY BUILD THIS HOUSE.
WHAT I'M HOPING IS THAT WE CAN COME IN, MAKE A REALLY NICE HOUSE, REALLY GOOD ADDITION TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO BUILD SOMETHING OVER THE TOP THAT'S HUGE.
THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR.
WE'RE LOOKING AT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN LIVE IN AND THAT CONFORMS TO CODE.
IF I HAVE TO KEEP RAISING THAT, I WILL.
AT THE END OF THE DAY THOUGH, IF WE DO AN ADDITION AND THEN WE BUILD BEHIND IT, WHICH WE'RE GOING TO DO, WE'RE GOING TO EVENTUALLY ENLARGE THE FOOTPRINT AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR THE CONTEXT SENSE REVIEW.
I BELIEVE THAT WAS ASKED. WE'D LIKE TO BUILD AROUND IT.
I'D LIKE TO TAKE DOWN THE GARAGE AND COME BACK IN, BUT IF I CAN, I'LL LEAVE THE GARAGE WHERE IT IS.
BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE NEAT IF I CAN MOVE THE GARAGE, TAKE IT OFF CITY PROPERTY AND THEN BUILD SOMETHING WHERE I CAN DRIVE UP UNDERNEATH.
BUT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO, MY WIFE AND I, IS JUST WORK WITH THE CITY, COME UP WITH A DESIGN THAT'S GOING TO LOOK GOOD TO BE THE AREA.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
>> I HAVE ONE. JUST FROM THE INTERPRETATION OF WHAT YOU MEAN BY BLOCK FACE, IT'S VERY CLEAR WHAT IT SAYS OF A ROOFED PORTION OF THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE, SO THE HOUSE MR. ROACH LIVES IN, I BELIEVE IT'S NEXT DOOR, IT'S GOT A COVERED PORCH, WHICH IS THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE.
THE HOUSE NEXT TO IT TO THE SOUTH, THE BLUE HOUSE, BETWEEN YOU AND THE PINK HOUSE AND MR. ROACH'S HOUSE HAS A STAIR THAT IS OUTBOARD OF A COVERED ROOF AREA.
THAT IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE BLOCK FACE.
IT IS MEASURED TO THE FACE OF THE COLUMN THAT SUPPORTS THAT PORCH WHERE IT'S COVERED.
>> IT WOULD BE NICE IF IT DID. IT DOES NOT.
>> THAT IS THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BUILDING [OVERLAPPING]
>> I AGREE WITH THAT. I 100% AGREE WITH WHAT YOU JUST SAID.
IT'S THE POST UNDERNEATH AND THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE USING.
>> YOURS GOES TO THE PINK FACE OF THE WALL, NOT TO THE DECK.
[OVERLAPPING] WELL, THE PHOTO THAT I HAD.
>> WHAT I SUBMITTED, WENT TO THE HOUSE.
>> THE PINK HOUSE. THAT WAS THE ONE HOUSE THAT I THOUGHT WAS, AND AGAIN, I DID NOT SUBMIT IT, AND I RESPECTED THE CITY'S OPINION ON THAT.
[00:50:02]
IT'S WATER TIGHT UNDERNEATH.>> YOU'RE MORE THAN WELCOME TO GO IN, BUT IT IS A DUPLEX.
>> ONE PERSON TO TALK AT A TIME, PLEASE?
>> IF YOU LOOK AT THE TAX RECORDS, IT WAS CONVERTED BACK TO A DUPLEX AFTER WE PURCHASED IT.
THERE'S A UNIT A AND UNIT B, IT HAS TWO METERS.
WE CAME DOWN, I BELIEVE THEY VERIFIED THAT, WE GOT THE PERMIT.
THERE'S TWO METERS THERE. THERE'S A UNIT A AND A UNIT B.
IF YOU TAKE UNIT A AT 1127, THIS IS A VERY OLD PICTURE.
THIS HOUSE DOES NOT LOOK LIKE IT DOES NOW.
THERE'S A CROW'S NEST UP THERE.
I CAN PULL UP A MORE RECENT PICTURE.
BUT THE HOUSES DO NOT LOOK LIKE THIS.
DRIVEWAY HERE, THIS FENCE IS HERE NOW, BUT THERE'S A 2.5 FOOT ROTATING WALL HERE.
THERE'S THE DECK. THERE'S A CROW'S NEST THAT GOES UP ABOVE IT.
THIS RIGHT HERE IS WATER TIGHT, SO BECAUSE THIS IS ATTACHED TO THE HOUSE, SO THE CLOSEST VERTICAL STRUCTURE OF THE ROOF.
THIS IS THE ROOF, IS ROOFED FOR THAT DECK. IT'S COVERED.
I THINK IT'S NOT INCLUDED AS A ROOF.
IT'S NOT INCLUDED IN THE ROOF AND THAT'S WHY IT WASN'T SUBMITTED.
BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE DIAGRAM, ON THE DIAGRAM, ALL THE HOUSES ON THAT DIAGRAM HAD DECKS.
IT DOES NOT SHOW ON THE DIAGRAM IF IT'S ROOFED OR NOT.
I'VE TALKED TO SOME PROFESSIONALS THAT ARE NOT HERE, SO IT'S HEARSAY.
MY OPINION THEIR OPINION THAT SINCE EVERY DECK IN EVERY BALCONY WAS INCLUDED, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE GOING FROM THE BALCONY.
BUT THEN IF YOU LOOK AT THE WORDS, IT'S SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT.
SO THAT'S WHEN WE CAME BACK AND SAID FINE, YOU KNOW WHAT? IT CAN BE ARGUED.
I SUBMITTED FOR THE SETBACK THE WAY IT WAS SUGGESTED AND THAT'S WHY WE DID THAT.
BUT LIKE I SAID, I'LL GO BACK.
I BELIEVE THAT IT SHOULD BE FROM THE PORCHES BECAUSE THE DIAGRAM CLEARLY SHOWS THE PORCHES.
>> THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE? ANYBODY ON THE BOARD? ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC WANT TO SPEAK OR WE CAN'T? HAVE YOU BEEN SWORN IN, MA'AM? NO, I HAVEN'T BEEN SWORN IN.
>> DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE ORAL AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH?
>> AS WITH ALL OTHERS, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS WHEN YOU GET UP HERE, PLEASE.
>> MY NAME IS KAREN BYRNE. I LIVE AT 28 78 WEST NINTH STREET AND I JUST HAVE A QUESTION.
WERE YOU LOOKING FOR A VARIANCE? BECAUSE HE DISCUSSED BUILDING ONTO THIS BUILDING, BUT HE ALSO DISCUSSED TEARING IT DOWN.
I'M CONFUSED HERE. WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON? THAT'S ALL I HAVE.
>> THANK YOU, PLEASE. YOU'RE WELCOME TO.
WE DON'T HAVE ANY LIMITATIONS AT THIS POINT HERE.
>> HIS ATTORNEY STEPPED UP AND SAID, THIS ISN'T A VARIANCE.
IT MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED A VARIANCE, BUT UNDER THE CODE IT FOLLOWS ALL THE VARIANCE RULES AND WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO WITH THAT.
THE OTHER THING THAT WAS INTERESTING HERE IS MR. CIBOR CAME IN AND HE SAID THAT THIS IS WHERE HE WANTS TO RETIRE TO WITH HIS WIFE.
ONCE HIS KIDS GO AWAY, THEN HE TOLD YOU, I CAN'T LIVE IN THIS HOUSE WITH MY WIFE AND THREE BIG BOYS.
WHAT IS IT? ARE THEY GOING AWAY? ARE THEY STAYING? WHAT ARE WE DOING HERE? ARE WE TEARING THE HOUSE DOWN OR ARE WE TRYING TO GET A VARIANCE SO THEN WE CAN BUILD SOMETHING EVEN BIGGER AND BIGGER AND BIGGER? THAT IS WHAT'S GOING ON HERE IS LET'S GET A LITTLE VARIANCE HERE FOR THIS.
THEN LET'S TEAR THE HOUSE DOWN, AND HOPEFULLY NOBODY REALIZES THAT THIS SETBACK SHOULD GO AWAY.
IT'LL BE IN THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT'S RECORDS AND THEN I CAN BUILD A BIG HOUSE.
I CAN TAKE A HOUSE THAT DOESN'T FIT RIGHT NOW WITH THE OTHER HOUSES ON THIS BLOCK.
LET ME TEAR IT DOWN, AND LET ME PUT SOMETHING EVEN MORE THAT EVEN SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T FIT WITHIN THAT BLOCK.
HE'S TRYING TO TALK TO YOU BOTH WAYS.
[00:55:02]
I'M THIS POOR GUY WHO'S JUST TRYING TO FIND A PLACE TO RETIRE, BUT I'M GOING TO BUILD A BIG HOUSE BEFORE YOU KNOW IT. THANK YOU.>> ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO SPEAK ON THE PUBLIC SIDE?
>> I'M JUST GOING TO SAY ONE MORE THING.
>> DO I NEED TO SAY MY NAME AGAIN?
>> ACTUALLY, YEAH. I THINK YOU DO.
I LIVE IN THIS BLOCK BUT NOT ON THE OCEAN.
I THINK THAT I WOULD URGE THE BOARD NOT TO LOSE SIGHT OF WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE.
THIS IS AN APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION, IT'S NOT A VARIANCE.
BASICALLY WHAT I ASK YOU TO FOCUS ON IS DID STAFF MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION WHEN THEY GRANTED THIS ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL? I THINK THAT WHAT WE'VE SEEN IS THERE'S A LOT OF CONFUSION AND A LOT OF PERHAPS INTERPRETATIONS WITHIN THE STATUTE THAT CALL FOR THE GRANT OF THIS APPEAL TO BE REVERSED.
>> THANK YOU. ONE LAST CHANCE.
ANYBODY WANT TO SPEAK FROM THE PUBLIC SIDE BEFORE I CLOSE UP THE PUBLIC SIDE?
>> JUST CHAIR. BEFORE YOU CLOSE IT, DID YOU WANT TO RECEIVE ANY OF THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE INTO THE RECORD? DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T JUST STAFF REPORT TO BE ADMITTED AND ALL THE DOCUMENTS AFFILIATED WITH THE APPLICATION.
I JUST FORMALLY WOULD ASK THAT YOU RECEIVE THOSE INTO THE RECORD SO WE HAVE A COMPLETE RECORD?
I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION OF THIS SESSION.
OPEN IT UP FOR THE BOARD TO TALK.
IS THERE ANY CONVERSATION? ANYBODY WANT TO START ANYTHING? QUESTIONS?
>> I'D LIKE TO HEAR TAMING TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT THE CITY DID ABOUT APPROVING THIS BECAUSE I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED AS ABOUT WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE MYSELF.
MAYBE YOU COULD EXPLAIN A LITTLE BETTER THAN I'VE HEARD.
>> FOR TONIGHT, I'LL BE ADVISING THE BOARD FOR ANY INTERPRETATIONS OR ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE ABOUT THE CODE.
CERTAINLY ARE FREE TO ASK MISS BACH ABOUT STAFF'S POSITION AND HOW THEY ARRIVED AT THAT.
BUT FOR TODAY'S PURPOSES, SHE'S NOT REPRESENTING YOU, I AM.
>> I DID. I DID HAVE SOMETHING.
WHAT I THINK THAT THE CODE IS CONFUSING THE CASES LIKE THIS BRING YOU DOWN TO WORD BY WORD.
IT SAYS OTHER PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES AND THEN IT SAYS ALL PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES.
I ASKED STAFF EARLIER TODAY, HAVE WE EVER HAD IN THE 20 YEARS THAT WE'VE BEEN HERE, HAVE WE HAD A CONTEXT SENSITIVE AND THIS CODE HAS BEEN IN PLACE SINCE 2012, BY THE WAY.
SO IT'S NOT BEEN 20 YEARS, IT'S BEEN 12 YEARS.
HAVE WE HAD AN APPLICATION FOR A CONTEXT SENSITIVE SETBACK DETERMINATION FOR AN EXISTING STRUCTURE LOOKING DOWN THE BLOCK FACE AND THE ANSWER IS NO.
THIS IS A CASE OF FIRST IMPRESSION APPEALS FOR YOU.
FOR STAFF, JUST LIKE THE PUBLIC, DEPENDING ON WHAT YOU WANT THE CONCLUSION TO BE.
STAFF LOOKS AT IT FRESH AND SAYS, WHAT DO WE DO? DO WE LOOK AT THE EXISTING STRUCTURE? WE DON'T LOOK AT THE EXISTING STRUCTURE WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT A BLOCK FACE AND THE INTENT CITY STAFF THINKS THAT I'M HERE TO SUPPORT THAT IS THE HOUSE THAT IS EXISTING.
IN THIS CASE OF FIRST IMPRESSION, THE HOUSE IS THERE.
AND LOOKING AT BLOCK FACE, WHETHER YOU LIKE WHERE IT SITS OR YOU DON'T LIKE WHERE IT SITS, IT'S THERE.
IT SHOULD BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE LOOKING AT THE BLOCK FACE, AND WHAT IS YOUR CONTEXT? YOUR CONTEXT SHOULD INCLUDE THAT EXISTING STRUCTURE AND IT IS THE DRAWINGS CONFUSING, MR. ROACH? I MEAN, YOU MADE EXCELLENT POINTS AND MR. LASER AND STAFF, IT'S CONFUSING.
AND IT'S FOR YOU ALL TO WADE THROUGH THAT AND DECIDE.
AND I HAVE THIS HERE TOO AND I'D LIKE TO SUBMIT IT INTO EVIDENCE.
YOU'RE WELCOME TO HAVE A COPY.
IT'S NOTHING SHOCKING, EARTH SHATTERING, OR BRILLIANT, BUT SOMETIMES IT'S, YOU HAVE TO MAKE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, PART OF THE RECORD AND YOU HAVE TO MAKE THEM HERE WHEN YOU VOTE, NO MATTER WHAT YOUR VOTE IS GOING TO BE.
THESE ARE THE THE FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, I THINK YOU SHOULD MAKE THAT CITY STAFF'S DETERMINATION OF CONTEXT SENSITIVE SETBACK TO BE APPLIED TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 11:33 OCEAN AVENUE WAS MEASURED IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
USING THE, AS YOU STATED, CHAIR VERTICAL STRUCTURE AND STAFF.
[01:00:01]
WE DON'T AGREE WITH MR. CIBOR.OBVIOUSLY, USING DECKS, JUST BECAUSE YOU MIGHT NOT GET RAINED ON UNDER A DECK DOESN'T MEAN IT'S A ROOF AND THAT WE'VE MAINTAINED THAT.
SECONDLY, I THINK YOU SHOULD FIND THAT CITY STAFF'S DETERMINATION OF THE CONTEXT SENSITIVE SETBACK TO BE APPLIED TO THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE AT 11:33 OCEAN AVENUE IS CONSISTENT WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY 1.06 0.08 BY ALLOWING EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING NON CONFORMING STRUCTURE CONSISTENT WITH THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY.
NUMBER 3, CITY STAFF'S DETERMINATION OF CONTEXT SENSITIVE SETBACK FOR THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE AT 11:33 OCEAN AVENUE IS CORRECT AND COMPLIES WITH THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 4.02 0.3 F OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
BOTH LITTLE I AND DOUBLE, OR LITTLE ONE AND LITTLE TWO OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH PROVIDES THAT ALL PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES ON THE SAME BLOCK FACE MUST BE MEASURED TO DETERMINE THE AVERAGE SETBACK DEPTH.
THE EXISTING PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 11:33 OCEAN AVENUE, AS I SAID EARLIER, CAN'T BE IGNORED BECAUSE IT'S PART OF THE CONTEXT OF THE SAME BLOCK FACE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE TO DETERMINE THE AVERAGE SETBACK AND THEREFORE THE APPEAL MUST BE DENIED.
>> WELL, YOU'RE SAYING THERE'S THERE'S NO WAY WE CAN TAKE THAT HOUSE TO BE CONSIDERED BEING A NINTH OR 11.
>> YES, THERE IS. ALL THOSE ARE POSSIBILITIES.
>> I'M PART OF THE BLOCK FACE IF IT'S IN A DIFFERENT STREET.
FIRST OF ALL, THERE WOULDN'T BE THIS APPLICATION.
IF TONIGHT THIS BOARD FEELS LIKE THIS.
MY EXPERT OPINION IS IF THE BOARD FEELS LIKE YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT NINTH STREET AS THE ADDRESS, THIS IT'S REALLY MOOT.
I MEAN, THIS APPLICATION ISN'T THE STAFF'S DETERMINATION DOESN'T MATTER.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION ALSO, BECAUSE THE PROPERTY IS OBVIOUSLY NOT UP TO CODE PRESENTLY.
SINCE THE COASTAL FLOOD LINE GOES DOWN, CONTROL LINE GOES DOWN THROUGH IT.
CAN'T THEY PUT 50-30% MORE MONEY INTO THE STRUCTURE LEGALLY TO [OVERLAPPING]
I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU MEAN. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO.
THE CCCL THAT MISS ROSS IS REFERRING TO IS THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE.
THERE ARE EXTRA REGULATIONS AND IT DOES AFFECT THIS PROPERTY AT 1133.
IT HAS TO DO WITH CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SETBACKS.
THE 30% AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IT IS PART OF THE CITY'S LOCAL TWEAKS, IF YOU WILL, TO THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE.
IF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE PROVIDES THAT IF YOU MAKE IMPROVEMENTS THAT EXCEED 50% OF THE VALUE OF THE STRUCTURE, THAT'S WHAT THE CODE SAYS, R SAYS 30%, IF YOU MAKE IMPROVEMENTS THAT EXCEED 30% OF THE VALUE, THEN YOU HAVE TO BRING EVERYTHING UP TO CODE.
THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE IS NOT FLOODPLAIN, BUT SIMILARLY, YOU HAVE TO COME UP TO THOSE STANDARDS.
CERTAINLY A HOUSE THAT WAS BUILT, I'LL TAKE JOHN WORD FOR IT, 70-80 YEARS AGO, TO LIFT THAT BLOCK HOUSE UP IS IMPOSSIBLE.
MR. SIBORNT, THAT'S WHAT I HEARD, HE TESTIFIED THAT HE JUST HAS NO INTEREST IN DOING THAT.
HE WANTS TO UTILIZE THE FOOTPRINT THAT'S THERE.
IT'S UP TO YOU ALL, I THINK, TO DECIDE HOW HE CAN DO THAT, AND IF HE CAN DO THAT.
I'M HERE TO ADVOCATE FOR STAFF.
IT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE'RE USED TO.
>> IMPROVEMENTS CAN BE MADE TO THE PROPERTY.
BUT WHAT DO YOU MEAN? DO YOU MEAN WITH OR WITHOUT THIS?
>> OH, YEAH. YOU CAN MAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO PROPERTY. SURE.
>> AS LONG AS THEY DON'T EXPAND THE NONCONFORMING USE OF IT.
SO IF YOU'RE EXPANDING BASICALLY VIOLATION OF THE SETBACK, THEN YOU COULDN'T DO THAT.
>> BUT THERE CAN BE IMPROVEMENTS TO IT, ABSOLUTELY.
>> WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO STAY UP AND AROUND? I'LL SIT CLOSE BY.
[OVERLAPPING] I'M COLD, BY THE WAY. I'M NOT HIDING.
[LAUGHTER] [OVERLAPPING] BUT I MIGHT COME EASY TONIGHT.
>> THERE HAS BEEN DISCUSSION AS TO WHETHER THIS IS A CO-VARIANCE OR NOT, AND WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE SAME CRITERIA.
[01:05:03]
WHEN LOOKING AT THIS, I DID GO BACK TO SECTION 11 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.IT SAYS THAT OUR ONLY JOB IN THIS CASE IS TO REVERSE WHOLLY OR PARTLY, THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION, OR WE CAN AFFIRM IT WHOLLY OR PARTLY.
ALL FIVE OF US HAVE TO AGREE IF WE'RE GOING TO REVERSE THE DECISION THAT THE STAFF MADE. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. THIS IS NOT A VARIANCE.
WE ARE NOT CONFINED BY THE SIX CRITERIA OR THE SUPER MAJORITY VOTE THAT'S REQUIRED FOR A VARIANCE.
THERE IS ONE OTHER OPTION FOR THE BOARD AND IT FALLS INTO THE SAME CATEGORY.
I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU AFFIRM PARTLY OR REJECT PARTLY WITHOUT MODIFYING IT, BUT YOU ALSO HAVE THE OPTION TO MODIFY THE DECISION.
I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE.
BUT IF YOU'RE REVERSING THE DECISION, SAYING YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO THIS ADMINISTRATIVE SETBACK OUTRIGHT, THEN THAT WOULD TAKE A UNANIMOUS FIVE VOTES OF THE BOARD.
>> ONE OTHER COMMENT. THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT ADVERSE POSSESSION AND ENCROACHMENTS.
THERE CAN BE NO ADVERSE POSSESSION OF PUBLIC LANDS, AND SO THERE IS NO RISK THERE.
THERE'S NO SEVEN YEAR TIME LIMIT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
>> ADDITIONAL BOARD DISCUSSION. WHERE DO WE SIT? WHAT ARE WE THINKING? I ENCOURAGE ANYBODY TO SPEAK UP THEIR MIND.
>> WELL, I THINK IT'S A LITTLE CONFUSING, BUT IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE THE CITY DID THE BEST THEY COULD WITH INTERPRETING WHAT THEY HAD TO LOOK AT.
I WOULD VOTE TO HOLD UP THE CITY'S END OF THIS THING AT THIS POINT.
IF IT TAKES FIVE PEOPLE TO TURN THE THING DOWN, I MEAN, IT'S GOING TO BE HARD, I WOULD THINK IN OUR BOARD.
>> IT MIGHT BE. I LOOK AT IT FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF WE HAVE TWO PARTIES HERE WITH ATTORNEYS WHO ARE IN DISAGREEMENT, AND HOW A COURT MIGHT VIEW OUR DECISION, IF YOU'RE GOING TO BASE IT ON FACTS.
THE FRONT DOOR IS ON NINTH STREET.
I MEAN, NO ONE IS DISAGREEING.
>> I AGREE IT'S CONFUSING, BUT IT DOES SAY OTHER STRUCTURES.
I HAVE SEEN THIS APPLIED TO OTHER PROPERTIES THAT HAVE AN EMPTY LOT, AND IT MAKES SENSE THAT YOU GIVE THE A LOTS EMPTY.
OF COURSE, YOU DON'T INCLUDE IT.
I'D LIKE TO HEAR WHAT THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS HAVE TO SAY.
PERSONALLY, I WOULD BE HAPPY IF THEY TOOK THIS BACK TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND REWROTE THIS SO THAT IT MADE A WHOLE LOT OF SENSE.
BUT WE DON'T HAVE THAT OPTION AT THIS POINT.
>> I THINK IT'S VERY CONFUSING.
I'M COMPLETELY WITH YOU AND LARGELY BECAUSE IT'S A COMPLETELY UNIQUE SITUATION.
THIS BUILDING IS PRACTICALLY IN THE ROAD AND ALL THE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT WHETHER IT'S ON OCEAN AVENUE OR NINTH STREET, I DON'T KNOW EVEN WE COULD ASK OF THIS BUT WHAT MAKES AN ADDRESS AT 1133 OCEAN? HOW DID IT GET THAT ADDRESS? DOES ANYBODY KNOW THAT?
>> YOU FILE FOR IT. YOU FILE WITH THE CITY.
>> GOES TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT MAKES AN ADDRESS.
>> SOMEBODY AT SOME POINT DID THAT FOR SOME REASON THAT WE DON'T KNOW?
>> THE ONE THING WE DON'T KNOW AND I'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT FIRE INSURANCE MAPS, WHETHER OCEAN AVENUE EVEN EXISTED.
ALL THOSE ROADS COULD HAVE JUST RUN TO THE BEACH,
[01:10:02]
AND OCEAN AVENUE WAS ADDED AT A LATER TIME, WHICH MADE THEM ALL ON THAT BLOCK FACE.THERE ARE NO OTHER HOUSES ON NINTH AS A REGULATORY BASIS, SO YOU'RE 50% YOU'RE BASICALLY OBLIGATED BY THAT.
ANYBODY WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? JUST FOR THE RECORD, DID YOU ADD A MOTION IN THIS BECAUSE I HAVEN'T SEEN IT.
FOR HARRISON, YOU WANT TO DEFINE WHAT THE MOTION NEEDS TO INCLUDE? TAMMY ALWAYS HAS A NICE LITTLE SEGMENT THAT SHE HAS FOR US.
>> WITH THE MOTION, IT IS REQUIRED TO BE IN WRITING, CONTAIN YOUR FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
IN THIS CASE, DEPENDING ON WHAT IS THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD, IF YOU WANT TO DENY THE APPEAL AS IT STANDS, IT WOULD BE FINDING THAT THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION AND STAFF'S INTERPRETATION WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND BASED ON THE FACTS SUBMITTED, THAT THAT WAS SUPPORTED AND IT AS A MATTER OF LAW SHOULD BE APPROVED OR THE APPEAL REJECTED.
IF YOU'RE SEEKING TO MODIFY IT, THEN WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO GET A LOT MORE DETAIL WITH THE FACTS AND THE BASIS OF THAT MODIFICATION AND MAKE SURE THAT IT IS SUPPORTED BY COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE PRESENTED HERE TODAY AND IF YOU'RE GOING TO REJECT IT, THEN WE'RE GOING TO BE EVEN MORE SPECIFIC ON THE REASONS WHY.
>> I'LL GO AHEAD AND PROPOSE SOMETHING.
PERSONALLY, I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE THIS ALL WORKED OUT WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, BUT WE HAVE NOT BEEN GIVEN THAT OPTION.
I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION AND WE'LL SEE WHERE THIS GOES AND WE CAN WORK ON CHANGING WHATEVER THIS BOARD FINDS BASED ON THE PLAIN READING OF 4.0203F OF THE FERNITY OF BEACH LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT THE CONTEXT-SENSITIVE SETBACK IN THIS CASE WAS ERRONEOUS.
FINDINGS OF FACT, THE ORIENTATION OF THE STRUCTURES ON CORNER LOTS DETERMINES THE APPLICABLE BLOCK FACE.
THE BLOCK FACE HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE NOT ON OCEAN AVENUE.
ALSO 4.0203F1A1 AND 2 STATE IN PART THE FRONT SETBACK OF OTHER PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES ON THE BLOCK FACE MUST BE MEASURED FROM THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE CLOSEST VERTICAL ELEMENT OF THE ROOF PORTION OF THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE.
IN SECTION I I, WE ARE TO BE USING THE MEASUREMENTS OBTAINED IN 40203F1AI, WHICH IS MENTIONING OR STATING THAT THE FRONT SETBACK OF OTHER PRINCIPAL STRUCTURES ON THE BLOCK FACE MUST BE MEASURED FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.
THEREFORE, THE BOARD REVERSES THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL.
>> I HAVE A SECOND. DISCUSSION.
>> SORRY. CAN YOU CLARIFY WHAT WE'RE YES-ING AND NO-ING?
>> THE MOTION IS TO REVERSE THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION BY STAFF.
DO YOU GRANT THE CONTEXT-SENSITIVE SETBACK? SO A YES VOTE IS REVERSING THAT DECISION.
>> JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU ALL HAVE IT BEFORE SHE GETS THE VOTES IN.
SORRY I INTERRUPTED, GO AHEAD.
>> I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING YES TO AND NO TO.
LET'S FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET TO THE CONSENSUS HEARINGS.
>> FIVE ON ANYTHING THOUGH, WASN'T IT?
THE CODE IS VERY CLEAR THAT IT TAKES FIVE VOTES TO REVERSE THE DECISION.
[01:15:04]
>> OF COURSE, YOU CAN. DO YOU WANT TO HAVE ANY DISCUSSION TO SEE WHERE EVERYBODY IS FIRST?
>> I THINK YOU CAN PROBABLY GET THIS. WHAT DO YOU THINK? [LAUGHTER] THE BOARD FINDS, BASED ON THE PLAIN READING OF 40203F FOR THE FERNANDINA BEACH LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, THAT THE APPLICATION OF THE CODE WAS CORRECT AND THE BOARD WHOLLY AFFIRMS THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL.
>> I'LL GET THAT ONE. [LAUGHTER]
>> SHE'S STAYING OKAY TO EVERYTHING.
>> YEAH. GO AHEAD AND CALL IT UP.
>> THAT MOTION CARRIED. THANK YOU.
[5. BOARD BUSINESS]
WE HAVE BOARD BUSINESS APPARENTLY STILL.>> NOW I WILL COME AND SERVE YOU.
>> AS BOARD BUSINESS, HOWEVER, DID WE NOT DO THIS ALREADY? DID WE NOT ELECT THE CHAIR, THE VICE CHAIR? WE'VE ALREADY DONE THIS A COUPLE OF TIMES.
>> THE FIRST OF EVERY YEAR OUR CODE REQUIRES A RE-ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR.
>> ABOUT AFTER TODAY. [OVERLAPPING] [LAUGHTER].
>> I'M JUST STANDING BECAUSE I'VE BEEN SITTING ALL DAY.
>> ADVICE SOMETHING. I'M GOING TO GET NEED ANOTHER ADVICE.
>> DO WE NEED TO HAVE A VOTE NOMINATION FOR THE ELECTION OF THE CHAIRS?
>> YES, PLEASE. I'D LIKE TO NOMINATE CHAIR CATHY AND VICE CHAIR?
>> YOU COULD DO A VOICE VOTE ON THAT, MR. CHAIR FOR BOTH POSITIONS IF NOBODY OBJECTS.
>> IS THERE ANY OBJECTIONS TO CARRYING ME AS THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR OLIVIA?
>> I MIGHT HAVE NOW BUT DIDN'T HALF AN HOUR AGO.
>> DID WE RUIN IT? [LAUGHTER].
>> THAT'S DONE. FAIR ENOUGH SO WE'RE GOING TO MAINTAIN OUR SPOTS.
WHY IS THERE A SECOND STAFF REPORT? JUST CURIOUS.
IT'S JUST PART OF THE PROCESS.
>> IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE ANYBODY ELSE?
>> CAN WE SEND SOME SUPPORT OF MESSAGE?
>> THANK YOU. WHENEVER THERE'S SOMETHING IF YOU MEAN ABOUT THE CASE, I DIDN'T MEAN TO CUT YOU OFF [OVERLAPPING] I DIDN'T MEAN TO CUT YOU OFF AND IT IS RUDE AND I'M SORRY, BUT I THINK WE WERE TRACKING IS ANYTIME THERE'S STUFF LIKE THIS, WHEN YOU'VE GOT THREE LAWYERS, SMART PEOPLE IN THE ROOM THAT ARE DISAGREEING ON, THERE'S THREE INTERPRETATIONS, IT'S TIME TO ADDRESS THAT SECTION OF THE CODE. AGREE?
>> BUT IT'S BEEN INTERPRETED AT LEAST MY EXPERIENCE A COUPLE OF TIMES THE WAY I'VE ANTICIPATED IT.
IT'S NOT SUBJECT TO UNDERSTAND BUT IT'S EXACTLY WHAT SHE SAID.
>> WHAT IS THE WOKLET LIKE? IN THIS CASE THAT YOU JUST HEARD, LIKE YOU SAID, HOUSES SITTING ON THE STREET, IT'S OFFENSIVE JUST LOOKING AT IT AND WHAT DO YOU DO?
>> WHY NOT TELL THAT AFTER 35?
>> I GOT ONE QUESTION WITH TAMMY AGAIN.
THESE ARTICLES IN THE PAPER ABOUT THE JUNE AL CASE, HOW WOULD THAT COME BEFORE US AND WHAT DO WE HAVE TO KNOW ABOUT THAT?
>> IF THAT IS THE PROPERTY OWNER DRIVES THE PROCESS.
IF THE PROPERTY OWNER WISHES TO COME BACK TO THE BOARD, FOR EXAMPLE, IF THE APPLICATION FOR 12 TOWNHOMES, THEY WANT THAT TO CONTINUE, THEY HAVE TO COME BACK HERE.
IF THEY DON'T, THEN THEY CAN JUST WALK AWAY FROM THAT APPLICATION AND SUBMIT ANOTHER APPLICATION LATER FOR SOMETHING ELSE BUT IF IT'S FOR THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT, WHAT THEY'VE SUBMITTED, THEY HAVE TO COME BACK HERE.
>> IS THERE A TIME LIMIT ON THAT?
>> BUT YOU HAVEN'T HEARD THAT THEY'RE GOING TO PURSUE IT, IT SOUNDS LIKE.
[01:20:05]
>> I DON'T KNOW. I HAVE NOT HEARD.
>> THEY STARTED TEARING DOWN THE OTHER HOUSES.
>> BUT THAT THEY CAN DO ANYWAY.
THEY'RE NOT HISTORICALLY PROTECTED HOMES.
I KNOW PEOPLE ARE OUTRAGED BY THAT SOME FOLKS ARE BECAUSE THEY ARE OLD HOMES, BUT THEY WEREN'T PROTECTED.
A PROPERTY OWNER BUYS PROPERTY LIKE THAT, THEY CAN TEAR DOWN WHAT'S THERE.
WHEN THEY DO THAT, BY THE WAY, IF THERE'S THE UNDERLYING HISTORICAL PLOTTED LOTS, STAFF GOES BACK AND LOOKS AT AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS FROM THE PAST, SO WE USUALLY KNOW IF SOMETHING WAS THERE OR NOT.
WE'LL EVEN GO TO THOSE SANDBORN FIRE INSURANCE MAPS.
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? CLOSES UP.
GOING ONCE. THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.