[00:00:03]
>> EVERYONE. WELCOME TO THE MAY 2024 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING.
[1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL / DETERMINATION OF QUORUM]
WE HAVE ONE CASE ON THE DOCKET.IT'S BOA 2024-0003. BEFORE WE BEGIN, LET'S AS WE ALWAYS DO, GO AHEAD AND SAY THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
AS WAS MENTIONED, CHAIR PAPKE IS OUT, AND I'LL BE FILLING IN HIS CHAIR, AND WE WILL BE SEATING MEMBER POWERS, ALTERNATE NUMBER 1 TO FILL IN.
FIRST, I'D LIKE TO ASK ANYONE ON THE BOARD IF THEY HAVE HAD ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATION REGARDING THIS CASE THAT WE'LL BE DISCUSSING TONIGHT? [INAUDIBLE].
>> I WALKED BY THE PROPERTIES AND AROUND IT THROUGH THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOOD.
I WAS COPIED ON AN EMAIL EXCHANGE BETWEEN MISS KRISTENER AND MISS BOX REGARDING RESCHEDULING THIS HEARING.
PRIOR TO THE AGENDA PACKETS PUBLICATION, I RECEIVED A COPY OF THE APPLICANT'S SUBMISSION VIA AN EMAIL FROM COMMISSIONER CHIP ROSS.
I ALSO HAD A DISCUSSION WITH COMMISSIONER ROSS REGARDING FLORIDA CASE LAW ON THE LEGAL STANDARD FOR APPROVING VARIANCES.
I TALKED WITH VICTORIA ROBOS THE CURRENT CHAIR OF THE PAB ABOUT THE PAB 2022 DISCUSSIONS ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTIES AT ISSUE.
>> I DID, BUT IT WASN'T QUITE AS INVOLVED.
[LAUGHTER] I DROVE BY AND I TALKED TO A LADY THAT LIVED ACROSS THE STREET FOR, TWO MINUTES.
>> I ALSO HAVE I RECEIVED AN EMAIL FROM [INAUDIBLE] TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEMBERS SAYING THAT THE LOT SHOULD REMAIN IN SINGLE FAMILY LOTS IN HARMONY WITH THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.
THAT ANYTHING THAT GOES BACK ON THE PROPERTY SHOULD BE IN KEEPING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I ALSO RECEIVED AN EMAIL FROM MISS FATINA, CHRISTIAN, CONCERNING POSSIBLE RESCHEDULING OF THE MEETING.
I ALSO HAD AN EX PARTE CONVERSATION WITH COMMISSIONER ROSS WHERE I ASKED A QUESTION ABOUT PROCEDURE THAT I HOPE MR. POOL MAY ANSWER OR MAY NOT ANSWER LATER, CONCERNING WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF WE COULD NOT REACH A SUPER MAJORITY AND NOT HAVE ENOUGH VOTES TO DENY A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS DECISION, THEN WHAT HAPPENS WHEN NOTHING HAPPENS.
I'LL LET HIM ANSWER THAT LATER.
>> WELL, THANKS FOR MENTIONING THAT EMAIL BECAUSE I GOT THAT I RECEIVED THAT AS WELL.
I WAS UNAWARE, I BELIEVE THAT THAT WAS EX PARTE COMMUNICATION SINCE IT WAS ONE WAY.
>> [OVERLAPPING] I ALSO RECEIVED THE EMAIL.
>> VICE CHAIR, IF YOU COULD PLEASE ASK MEMBERS TO SPEAK UP LOUDER SO THAT MEMBERS IN, TIM'S IN THE BACK CAN HEAR YOU. THANK YOU.
>> AS I WAS SAYING I ALSO RECEIVE THE EMAIL.
>> TAMMY PACK HAD HAD ANOTHER MATTER THAT SHE HAD TO ATTEND WITH TONIGHT.
HARRISON POOL WILL BE SITTING IN AS ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD.
CAN WE DISCUSS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES?
[3. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES (Part 1 of 2)]
>> [OVERLAPPING] WE DO THAT BEFORE WE GO INTO THE HEARING?
>> CAN EVERYBODY PULL THEIR MICROPHONES IN THEIR MOUTH POSSIBLE [INAUDIBLE].
>> I HAVE THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES A LITTLE FURTHER DOWN ON MY RUNDOWN, BUT WE COULD DO IT NOW IF WE WANT TO.
MOVING ON TO THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR CORRECTIONS THAT THEY'D LIKE TO MAKE?
>> [OVERLAPPING] THE ACTION TAKEN AT THE END OF THE MINUTES, IT'S ACTION TAKEN ON, DO YOU BELIEVE IT'S CASE 2024-02.
VOTE UPON PASSAGE OF THE MOTION WAS TAKEN BY VOICE VOTE AND ALL BEING EYES CARRIED.
[00:05:05]
IT WAS NOT ALL EYES. I DISSENTED.>> NO. THAT WAS THE SAME COMMENT I WAS GOING TO MAKE.
>> ANYWAY, MR. POOL, WOULD YOU FILL US IN ON THE PROCEDURES FOR TONIGHT'S QUALIFIED JUDICIAL HEARING?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR, OLIVER, HARRISON POOL, FILLING IN FOR TAMMY BACH TO ADVISE THE BOARD THIS EVENING.
FOR THE QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEDURES, THE PROCEEDINGS WILL PROCEED YOU'LL HAVE PRESENTATION BY STAFF PRESENTING THE CASE, AND THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT ANY EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY.
EVIDENCE CAN BE RECEIVED IN THE FORM OF DOCUMENTS, PHOTOS, OR TESTIMONY, AND ANY AFFECTED PARTIES OR ANY OTHER PARTIES OR INDIVIDUALS INTENDING TO GIVE EVIDENCE WILL NEED TO BE SWORN BEFORE THEY TESTIFY THIS EVENING.
THE DECISION BY THE BOARD WILL HAVE TO BE SUPPORTED BY COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, AND OF COURSE, THIS IS A VARIANCE, AND SO TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE, THERE MUST BE A SUPER MAJORITY.
FOUR VOTES IT TAKES TO APPROVE A VARIANCE.
IN THIS CASE, STAFF HAS FOUND AND REPORTED TO YOU THAT THREE OF THE CRITERIA FOR A VARIANCE HAVE NOT BEEN MET.
SO IF THERE IS GOING TO BE A MOTION TO APPROVE IT, I WOULD ASK THAT THE PERSON MAKING THAT MOTION ALSO CITE WHAT COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THEY ARE BASING THAT APPROVAL ON BECAUSE THERE ISN'T SUPPORT FOR IT IN THE STAFF REPORT.
TO ANSWER BOARD MEMBER ROSS'S QUESTION IS, WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU DON'T GET A SUPER MAJORITY OR IN THE CASE OF SAY THERE'S THREE YESES AND TWO NOS, THEN THE VARIANCE FAILS, AND IT IS DEEMED DENIED.
IF YOU DO NOT GET ENOUGH VOTES.
IF YOU FAIL TO GET THAT SUPER MAJORITY, THEN THE VARIANCE WILL BE DENIED.
ANY PARTY THAT DISAGREES WITH THE DECISION WILL HAVE 30 DAYS TO APPEAL IT TO THE CIRCUIT COURT, AND THAT 30 DAYS WILL BEGIN ONCE THE FINAL RULING IS SIGNED BY THE CHAIR, USUALLY WITHIN A DAY OR TWO FOLLOWING THE HEARING.
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEDURES BEING IMPLEMENTED TONIGHT? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. LET'S JUST START WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S PRESENTATION,
[4.1 BOA2024-0003 - COMPASS GROUP INC., AGENT FOR WORTHY INVESTMENT LLC, 119, 123, and 125 S. 4TH STREET]
KELLY. ARE YOU READY?WE HAVE ONE VARIANCE FOR QUEST TONIGHT, AND IT IS CASE NUMBER 2024-0003.
>> CHAIR OLIVER, DO YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND HAVE EVERYONE PLACED UNDER OATH SINCE STAFF IS [OVERLAPPING] PRESENTING THE CASE UNDER OATH. I WOULD JUST SAY.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I GOT KICKED OUT OF THE ORDER HERE BY APPROVING THE MINUTES.
[OVERLAPPING] AS MR. POOL JUST MENTIONED, SINCE IT'S CROSS JUDICIAL HEARING, ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK WILL HAVE TO BE SWORN IN AND WE'LL DO IT TOGETHER NOW.
ANYBODY LIKE TO SPEAK AND STAND UP AND YOU WANT TO SPEAK LATER AND SOMETHING COMES UP AND YOU WANT TO COMMENT ON IT, YOU CAN BE SWORN IN LATER AS WELL.
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?
>> THANKS. AGAIN, OUR VARIANCE CASE IS 2024-0003, MR. RON FLICK OF COMPASS GROUP INCORPORATED, IS SERVING AS AGENT FOR MR. STEVE SIMMONS, WHICH IS THE PROPERTY OWNER.
FOR THE RECORD, ALL REQUIRED APPLICATION MATERIALS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED, ALL FEES HAVE BEEN PAID AND ALL REQUIRED NOTICES HAVE BEEN MADE.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES ARE THREE R-2 ZONED PARCELS WITH A FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.
THEY'RE LOCATED AT 119, 123 AND 125 SOUTH FOURTH STREET.
THE THREE SUBJECT PROPERTIES WERE HOME TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES ORIGINALLY CONSTRUCTED BETWEEN 1940 AND 1953 UNTIL THEIR DEMOLITION IN 2023.
ALTHOUGH THE PARCELS CURRENTLY HAVE AT LEAST 50 FEET OF RIGHT OF WAY FRONTAGE, THEY ARE COMPILED OF 25 BY 100 FOOT LOTS IDENTIFIED ON THE 1857 PLAT OF THE CITY.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM LDC SECTION 1.03.05 TO RESTORE THE NINE UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD IDENTIFIED AS LOTS 15-23.
[00:10:07]
LOT 24 CURRENTLY SHOWN AS PART OF THE PARCEL ADDRESS AS 119, SOUTH 4TH STREET IS NOT HINDERED BY A STRUCTURE, NOR WAS IT REQUIRED TO MAKE THE PREVIOUS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE CONFORMING WITH REGARD TO SETBACKS.WHEREAS LOTS 15 AND 18 ADDRESSED AS 125 SOUTH 4TH STREET ARE NECESSARY TO MAKE THAT PREVIOUS STRUCTURES SETBACK COMPLIANT.
SECTION 1.03.05 OF THE LDC STATES THAT THE DEMOLITION OR REMOVAL OF ANY RESIDENCE OR STRUCTURE, WHETHER VOLUNTARY OR INVOLUNTARY SHALL NOT HAVE THE EFFECT OF CHANGING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE BUILDING SITE.
IF GRANTED THE VARIANCE, THE EFFECT WOULD BE THE SEPARATION OF THE THREE CURRENT PARCELS INTO NINE PLATTED LOTS OF RECORD CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING ONE SINGLE FAMILY UNIT EACH.
THE RESULTING 25 BY 100 FOOT LOTS WOULD HAVE R-2 SETBACKS.
STAFF DOES NOTE THAT OF THE ZONE PROPERTIES WITHIN A 500 FOOT CIRCUMFERENCE, THERE ARE A VARIETY OF FRONTAGES, INCLUDING 25 FEET, 45 FEET, 50, 72, 75 FEET, 78 FEET, AND 100 FEET.
THE FURTHER BREAKDOWN IS DISPLAYED ON THE SCREEN.
>> MAY I INTERRUPT AT THIS POINT AND ASK A QUESTION? ON THE APPLICATION, THERE WERE FIVE PARCELS LISTED.
NOW WE ONLY HAVE THREE IN THE BOARD OF APPEALS CASE.
ALSO, IT WAS THE APPLICATION INCLUDED MU-1 ZONING.
CAN YOU GIVE US WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE APPLICANT TO CHANGE THE APPLICATION THAT WAS ORIGINALLY PUT IN?
>> YES. THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION INCLUDED PARCELS THAT BY THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE DO NOT REQUIRE A VARIANCE IN ORDER TO RESTORE THOSE UNDERLYING COMBINED LOTS.
SO THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION IS ONLY ADDRESSING PROPERTIES ZONED R-2 THAT ARE CONSIDERED COMBINED.
>> SINCE WE'VE STOPPED HERE, I JUST WANTED TO FOLLOW UP ON LOTS 15 AND 18.
THEY WERE NECESSARY FOR THE SETBACKS FOR THE HOME THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY BUILT ON THE PROPERTY, CORRECT?
>> BUT AS I READ THE LDC, ALL THAT IS HOLDING AND REQUIRED TO COMBINE LOTS IS THE STRUCTURE ITSELF AND NOT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT GIVEN ESPECIALLY SINCE THIS PROPERTY IS VACANT NOW, THAT THE ONLY ONES YOU WOULD NEED TO COMBINE IS 16, 17, POSSIBLY 18 BECAUSE OF THE DRIVEWAY, AND IT LOOKS LIKE 15 WOULD ALSO BE UNENCUMBERED AND WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO BE COMBINED IF IT WAS ONLY NEEDED FOR SETBACK AND NOT STRUCTURE.
>> THOSE ARE THINGS THAT I'M GOING TO ADDRESS. IF I CAN JUST FINISH.
>> I'D LIKE TO REMIND THE BOARD THAT THEY'LL BE HERE AFTER THE PRESENTATION TO DIRECT QUESTIONS TO STAFF.
>> THANK YOU. THE REMAINING PARCELS WITHIN THIS GEOGRAPHIC AREA ARE COMPRISED OF C-3 AND ME-1-ZONED PROPERTIES, SOME OF WHICH ALSO HAVE A HISTORIC DISTRICT OVERLAY.
THE RESULT IS DEVELOPMENT WITH A WIDE VARIETY OF DESIGN GUIDELINES, HOUSING TYPES AND LOT SIZES, WHICH ARE ENCOURAGED AND SUPPORTED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, OBJECTIVE 1.06, AS WELL AS POLICY 1.06.04.
FURTHERMORE, IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT LDC SECTION 1.03.05, DOES NOT APPLY TO THE C-3 AND ME-1 ZONING DISTRICTS.
IT ONLY RESTRICTS LOT SEPARATIONS FOR PROPERTIES WITHIN THE R-1, R-2, R-3 AND RLM ZONING DISTRICTS.
HERE IS AN UPDATED BOUNDARY SURVEY IDENTIFYING THOSE 25 BY 100 FOOT UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD.
THEN HERE ARE THE THREE SUBJECT PROPERTIES AS WELL AS ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND THEIR ZONING DISTRICTS WITH THEIR FUTURE LAND USE.
[00:15:04]
WITH REGARD TO THE SIX CRITERIA FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE, STAFF DOES FIND THE FOLLOWING.THAT SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS DO EXIST, WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO THE LAND STRUCTURE OR BUILDING INVOLVED AND THAT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER LANDS STRUCTURES OR BUILDINGS IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT.
THE THREE SUBJECT PARCELS ARE NOT STANDARD LOTS FOUND IN OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY, BUT INSTEAD MADE UP OF 25 BY 100 FOOT LOTS ESTABLISHED ON THE PLAT 1857.
GRANTING THE VARIANCE DOES NOT CONFER UPON THE APPLICANT A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE THAT IS DENIED BY THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
ANY SIMILARLY SITUATED PROPERTY OWNER WITHIN THIS ZONING DISTRICT DOES HAVE THE RIGHT TO REQUEST RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 1.03.05.
LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WOULD NOT DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT OF RIGHTS ENJOYED BY OTHERS IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT.
A LITERAL READING OF THE LDC WOULD NOT PREVENT THE APPLICANT FROM DEVELOPING EACH OF THE THREE PARCELS IN A WAY THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE RT ZONING DISTRICT AND THE SURROUNDING BUILT ENVIRONMENT.
FOR EXAMPLE, PARCEL 125 SOUTH 4TH STREET WOULD SUPPORT ANY HOUSING TYPE ALLOWED IN THE R-2 ZONING DISTRICT, INCLUDING A TRIPLEX, 123 SOUTH 4TH STREET WOULD SUPPORT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, AND 119 SOUTH 4TH STREET WOULD SUPPORT PERMISSIBLE HOUSING TYPES, INCLUDING A DUPLEX.
ALL OF THESE ARE IN KEEPING WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY 1.06.04.
THE VARIANCE REQUESTED IS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NEEDED TO MAKE POSSIBLE THE REASONABLE USE OF THE LAND.
THIS IS THE ONLY VARIANCE NEEDED TO RESTORE THOSE ORIGINAL 25 BY 100 FOOT PLATTED LOTS.
GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
BOTH THE LDC AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EMPHASIZE THE PRESERVATION OF OPEN SPACE, VISUAL CORRIDORS, AND NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER.
HOWEVER, RESTORATION OF THE 25 FOOT WIDE LOTS IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
USING THE 2023 AERIAL IMAGERY FROM THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE, AS WELL AS THE 1909 SANDBORN FIRE MAPS, PARCEL CONFIGURATION AND LOT SIZES REMAIN LARGELY UNCHANGED WITHIN THIS AREA.
GRANTING THE VARIANCE IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, WILL CAUSE INJURY TO THE AREA INVOLVED OR OTHERWISE BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, WELFARE, OR ENVIRONMENT.
TWENTY-FIVE-FOOT WIDE LOTS WOULD SEVERELY LIMIT THE TYPE OF DWELLING ABLE TO BE BUILT, RESULTING IN A MUCH MORE UNIFORM BLOCK FACE THAN WHAT IS CONSISTENT FOR THE SUBJECT NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LDC.
ADDITIONALLY, A NARROWER DWELLING TYPICALLY NECESSITATES A TALLER STRUCTURE WHICH WILL DRASTICALLY REDUCE THE ESTABLISHED VISUAL CORRIDORS.
STAFF FINDS THAT THE REQUESTED ACTION AS PRESENTED DOES NOT MEET ALL SIX CRITERIA FOR GRANTING OF A VARIANCE AND AS SUCH, RECOMMENDS DENIAL.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
>> CAN YOU ADDRESS MY QUESTION EARLIER ABOUT LOT 15 AND ALSO 104 AND 105 BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO ME IT'S ONLY THE STRUCTURE AND NOT THE SETBACKS THAT REQUIRE THE COMBINATION?
>> BUT ALSO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SAYS THAT WE CANNOT CREATE NON-CONFORMING SITUATIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES.
BY BREAKING OFF 15 AND 18, AND I'M HAPPY TO PUT UP THE SURVEY.
BUT THE SEPARATION OF LOTS 15 AND 18 WOULD CREATE A NON CONFORMING STRUCTURE WITH REGARD TO THE SETBACKS, BOTH FOR THE FRONT YARD, FOR THE HOUSE, AND THE REAR YARD WITH REGARD TO THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.
GIVE ME 1 SECOND. I WILL PULL UP THAT SURVEY TO REFERENCE.
>> EVEN THOUGH THE STRUCTURES ARE NO LONGER THERE.
IF THEY WERE THERE, THEY COMBINED THE LOTS.
BUT EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE NO LONGER THERE, YOU'RE STILL GOING TO USE THE PLACEMENT OF THOSE
[00:20:02]
WHERE THEY WERE TO SAY YOU'VE GOT TO KEEP THE FULL COMBINATION.>> THAT THEY ARE HINDERED BY THE STRUCTURE BECAUSE CHAPTER 103 OF FORM 10305 SPECIFY THAT WHETHER THEY ARE DEMOLISHED VOLUNTARILY OR INVOLUNTARILY, THOSE LOTS ARE STILL CONSIDERED COMBINED.
HERE ARE LOT 15 HERE AND THEN LOT 18.
YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE HERE, IT IS RELIANT ON LOT 18 TO MEET THAT FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 25 FEET.
THEN THIS ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN THE REAR YARD, EVEN THOUGH NOT BUILT OVER THE PROPERTY LINE DOES RELY ON LOT 15 TO MAKE THIS A COMPLIANT STRUCTURE TO MEET THAT THREE-FOOT SIDE AND REAR PROPERTY LINE SETBACK.
>> I HAVE MORE QUESTIONS, BUT I DON'T WANT TO [OVERLAPPING].
>> I'M HAPPY TO ASK ONE, AND THEN.
>> THE EXHIBIT A BOUNDARY SURVEY, I DID NOT SEE A DATE ON THAT.
IS THERE A DATE FOR IT? [OVERLAPPING] IN THE PACKET.
>> THE ORIGINAL SURVEY, WHICH IS THIS ONE THAT WAS PROVIDED IN THE AGENDA PACKET IS DONE ON MARCH 29TH OF 2022, OR MAY, I BELIEVE.
THAT IS WHY THE BOARD, WE'VE PROVIDED THERE, THOSE ARE [INAUDIBLE].
YOU HAVE A UPDATED BOUNDARY SURVEY THAT JUST IDENTIFIES THE PARCELS WITHOUT THE STRUCTURES ON IT NOW, AND THAT WAS COMPLETED.
I WAS JUST WONDERING WHAT THE DATE WAS OF THE EXHIBIT A THAT'S IN THE PACKAGE GIVEN US?
>> YES. I WAS MARCH 23RD OF 2022.
>> THE EXHIBIT A DONE IN MARCH OF 2022 SHOWS THE HOUSES THAT WERE THERE.
THEN THE BOUNDARY SURVEY THAT WE JUST RECEIVED 5724 SHOWS THE HOUSE IS NOT THERE?
>> ON YOUR BACKGROUND, YOU DID THIS LITTLE ANALYSIS, WHICH I APPRECIATED ON [INAUDIBLE] PROPERTIES WITHIN A 500-FOOT CIRCUMFERENCE.
I ADDED THAT UP, THAT'S ABOUT 52 PROPERTIES.
WE HAVE ONLY FOUR OF THESE 52 HAVE THE 25-FOOT FRONTAGE.
ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY OF THESE BEING TOWNHOMES?
>> WHAT THE APPLICANT IS SUGGESTING IS THAT IT WOULD CREATE I GUESS, 10 TOWNHOUSES PUT ONE ON EACH [OVERLAPPING] IF THE VARIANCE IS GRANTED, SO WE WOULD GO FROM FOUR TO 14.
THAT WOULD TAKE US FROM 7% OF THE HOMES IN THE AREA BEING 25-FOOT LOTS TO 28.6%, WHICH DOES SEEM LIKE QUITE A CHANGE IN THE CHARACTER.
BUT AS YOU SAID, NONE OF THEM WERE TOWNHOUSES, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE.
THE DENSITY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES IN THEIR LOCATION ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND THE ZONING MAP IS R2.
THE R2 MAXIMUM DENSITY IS EIGHT UNITS?
>> IF THIS VARIANCE WAS GRANTED, HOW MANY UNITS COULD BE PUT ON THOSE THREE PARCELS?
>> DENSITY CALCULATIONS FOR THE, AND I CAN GO BACK, FOR THE PROPERTY ADDRESS 119, WHICH IS THE NORTHERNMOST SUBJECT PROPERTY, WOULD SUPPORT UP TO A DUPLEX,
[00:25:02]
SO YOU WOULD HAVE TWO DWELLING UNITS WITHIN ONE MAIN STRUCTURE.THE MIDDLE PARCEL WHICH IS 123 WOULD ONLY SUPPORT A SINGLE FAMILY AS A 55, 100-FOOT LOT, AND THEN THE CORNER PARCEL WOULD SUPPORT UP TO, INCLUDING A TRIPLEX, SO YOU WOULD HAVE THREE DWELLING UNITS IN A SINGLE STRUCTURE.
>> THAT WOULD BE HOW MANY MORE UNITS PER ACRE?
>> WE STILL WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO GO BEYOND THE EIGHT UNITS PER ACRE, THE INCREASE, BUT THERE ARE THREE SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS NOW.
IF THEY WERE TO DEVELOP OUT AS I JUST SAID WITH A TRIPLEX, A SINGLE FAMILY, AND A DUPLEX, THAT'S SIX, SO YOU WOULD BE LOOKING AT TWICE THE DWELLING UNITS THAT CURRENTLY EXIST.
>> IF THEY COMBINED ALL THREE OF THESE LOTS TOGETHER, THESE PARCELS, THEY WOULD END UP WITH, I THINK, MORE THAN HALF AN ACRE, RIGHT?
>> LET ME SEE. I HAVE THE ACREAGE BREAKDOWN, I CAN DO A QUICK CALCULATION.
>> YOU GO TO CALCULATE LIKE 5.58 ACRES?
>> YES, 119 IS 0.23 ACRES, 123 IS 0.11, AND 125 IS 0.24, SO WE'VE GOT 2, 4, 5, 0.58 ACRES.
>> THEN THE LOT LINES WOULD DISAPPEAR, IT WOULD BE ALL ONE PARCEL.
>> CORRECT. YOU COULD STILL ONLY HAVE ONE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE FOR THAT PARCEL.
>> BUT I WOULD JUST LIKE TO NOTE THAT R2 DOES NOT ALLOW MULTIFAMILY DWELLINGS, THE LARGEST HOUSING TYPE OR THE MOST NUMBER OF DWELLINGS YOU COULD HAVE IS A TRIPLEX IN R2.
WHEN YOU CAME UP WITH THE SIX UNITS, WHEN YOU MENTIONED A SINGLE FAMILY, A DUPLEX, AND A TRIPLEX WITHOUT THE VARIANCE, THAT IS EXCLUSIVE OF LOT 24? BECAUSE THEY CAN ON THEIR OWN, PULL OFF LOT 24 AND TURN THAT INTO 25, SO THEY COULD ALSO HAVE A HOME ON THAT.
>> YES, LOT 24, AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW, IS NOT NECESSARY FOR THE FOR THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE FOR ANY SETBACKS, SO IT COULD BE BROKEN OFF AT WILL TODAY.
>> IT'S NOT REQUIRED FOR THE [OVERLAPPING].
>> BUT I'M SAYING WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT'S CURRENTLY 119, 123, AND 125, WITHOUT THE VARIANT, YOU COULD ACTUALLY GET SIX UNITS BECAUSE YOU COULD PUT ONE ON LOT 24 AS WELL.
THIS PROPERTY, I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO BRING UP THAT ZONING MAP OR NOT, IT IS ACROSS THE STREET FROM DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT PROPERTIES, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YES, MA'AM, IT IS. [INAUDIBLE]
>> AS A RESULT, I WAS WONDERING, DID YOU LOOK AT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1106 AS WELL, WHICH TALKS ABOUT CHARACTER AND DEVELOPMENT BEING CONSISTENT FOR ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS STORY DISTRICT?
>> YES, THERE DOES NEED TO BE CONSIDERATION FOR THAT.
>> I'M THINKING THAT THAT'S PERHAPS ANOTHER ONE.
THE ANALYSIS SINCE YOU DIDN'T LOOK AT IT, BUT I WAS JUST THINKING ABOUT FOR THE GENERAL HARMONY SECTION OR PUBLIC INTEREST COULD BE OF CONCERN.
IF THIS IS GRANTED, THEN WE WOULD BE INCREASING THE DENSITY BEYOND EIGHT UNITS PER ACRE.
[00:30:02]
>> I'M SORRY. IF WE GRANTED THIS, WE WOULD BE GRANTING A DENSITY GREATER THAN EIGHT UNITS PER ACRE.
>> THE DENSITY WILL NOT CHANGE TO THE ZONING DISTRICT DICTATES HOW MANY DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.
DWELLING UNITS, BUT IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT POPULATION DENSITY, YES, THERE WOULD BE 10 HOMES ON IT VERSUS THREE POTENTIALLY?
>> WELL, MY QUESTIONS ARE A LITTLE MORE RUDIMENTARY AND THEY HAVE TO DO WITH THE NATURE OF THE CRITERIA THEMSELVES.
FOR CRITERIA 1, I WANTED TO KNOW IF THE PHRASE SPECIAL CONDITION CONNOTES, TRUE UNIQUENESS.
THAT WHEN WE SAY A SPECIAL CONDITION EXISTS, DOES IT MEAN THAT A CONDITION DOES NOT EXIST ELSEWHERE OR IS IT AS IN THIS CASE, WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT UNDERLYING LOTS OF 25 FEET, A CONDITION THAT EXISTS IN MANY LOCATIONS THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
>> WELL, WITHIN THIS ZONING DISTRICT AND WITHIN THIS GENERAL GEOGRAPHIC AREA.
PROPERTIES ACROSS THE STREET DO NOT HAVE THE 25 FOOT UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD.
I'M PULLING UP THE ZONING MAP NOW SO THAT IT CAN BE REFERENCED.
WHILE THEY ARE BOTH ZONED R2, THEY AREN'T EQUAL IN THEIR AS FAR AS LOT COMBINATION OR A HOUSE BEING BUILT OVER UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD, THEY ARE PLATTED AT 50 FEET.
I CAN TAKE OFF THE AERIAL SEE YOU CAN SEE HERE ACROSS THE STREET, THESE WERE PLOTTED AT 50 FEET VERSUS ON THE WEST SIDE OF FOURTH STREET.
THEY'RE BOTH R2, BUT THEY HAVE DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ARE APPLIED TO THEM WITH HOW THEY'RE VIEWED BY THE CONVENSIVE PLAN.
>> BUT WHAT IF YOU GO DOWN TO SAY, 227 SOUTH FOURTH STREET, WHICH IS JUST THE NEXT BLOCK DOWN.
I THINK THAT ONE'S VERY SIMILAR SITUATED.
IN FACT, IN THE 1857 EXCERPT THAT WE GOT SHOWS THAT THAT IS 25-FOOT LOTS?
>> HAS BEEN COMBINED IN THE HOME WAS BUILT IN 1948, AND IT'S COMBINED OF LOTS 19 AND 20 THAT WERE 25-FOOT LOTS.
SO THAT'S JUST ONE I VERY QUICKLY FOUND.
I THINK THAT IF YOU KEEP GOING DOWN, LIKE 3301 SOUTH FORTH HAS THE SAME SITUATION.
SO VERY CLOSE NEARBY, YOU HAVE R2 ORIGINALLY PLOTTED 25, AND THEY'RE BEING HELD BY STRUCTURE.
>> WELL, I DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT THEY NEED TO BE VERY CLOSE NEAR.
BUT MY POINT WAS THAT IF THE FACT THAT THESE PARCELS ARE COMPRISED OF UNDERLYING 25-FOOT LOTS WHICH WOULD BE PLATTED LOTS, THEN IF THAT, BY DEFINITION, IS A SPECIAL CONDITION, IT MEANS THAT EVERY TIME SOMEBODY WANTS TO BREAK APART THOSE UNDERLYING LOTS, THIS CONDITION WILL BE MET AUTOMATICALLY.
IT WON'T EVEN HAVE TO BE DISCUSSED, IS THAT RIGHT? I MEAN, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. I'M NOT SAYING IS IT RIGHT TO DO THAT.
>> I WOULD CAUTION TO SAY THAT IT WOULD AUTOMATICALLY APPLY REGARDLESS OF THE APPLICATION.
EVERY APPLICATION IS LOOKED AT INDEPENDENTLY AND ANALYZED ON ITS OWN.
I WOULD NOT FEEL COMFORTABLE SAYING IT WOULD AUTOMATICALLY BE MET.
BUT YOU'VE INDICATED THAT THE SPECIAL CONDITION BEING DISCUSSED HERE IS THE UNDERLYING 25-FOOT LOSS.
>> DOESN'T THAT SUGGEST THAT EVERY TIME THAT OCCURS, THIS CONDITION WILL BE MET?
>> I WOULD NOT AGREE WITH THAT.
>> WOULD YOU CARE TO TELL ME WHY?
>> I'M THINKING THIS CASE, THESE CIRCUMSTANCES.
I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
BUT WITH LOOKING AT R2 ZONING AS A WHOLE, THERE ARE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THESE UNDERLYING LOTS AREN'T MET.
PERHAPS THERE ARE OTHER PARCELS THAT HAVE THOSE SPECIAL CONDITIONS AS WELL, BUT SOME OF THEM MIGHT NOT.
IF FOR EXAMPLE, SAY, WE COME BACK UP HERE, AND,
[00:35:04]
THERE'S A 100 BY 100 FOOT LOT AND THE QUESTION WAS TO DEVIATE UP INTO A 50 BY 100 FOOT LOT, THAT WOULD BE A DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCE.>> FOR THE SECOND CRITERIA, THE WORDING OF THE CRITERION ITSELF SAYS GRANTING THE VARIANCE DOES NOT CONFER A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE.
BUT IN THE STEP COMMENTS, IT SUGGESTED THAT GRANTING THE VARIANCE DOES NOT CONFER AN APPLICANT A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE BECAUSE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE THE RIGHT TO APPLY FOR THIS VARIANCE.
YOU'RE CONFLATING THE RECEIVING THE VARIANCE WITH APPLYING FOR IT.
I DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND WHY.
YOU'RE SAYING THAT IT'S IT'S NOT A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE BECAUSE ANYBODY COULD ASK FOR THIS VARIANCE.
BUT DOESN'T THE CRITERIA ACTUALLY TALK ABOUT GRANTING THE VARIANCE WOULD CONFER A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, NOT APPLYING FOR THE VARIANCE.
I MEAN, ANYBODY WITH $2,500 COULD APPLY FOR THIS VARIANCE?
>> ANY SIMILARLY SITUATED PROPERTY OWNER THAT WAS REQUESTING RELIEF FROM THIS SECTION OF CODE? YES. THAT IS WHY STAFF DOES NOT DEEM THIS THAT I WOULDN'T BE CONFERRING A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE.
>> ALL RIGHT. I'M NOT SATISFIED WITH THAT EITHER.
CRITERIA 4 ASKS IF THE VARIANCE IS THE MINIMUM NEEDED TO MAKE POSSIBLE THE REASONABLE USE OF LAND AND I SAY, LAND INSTEAD OF LAND STRUCTURE OR BUILDING BECAUSE WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT STRUCTURE STRUCTURES OR BUILDINGS HERE.
BUT IF THE VARIANCE IS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE, AND IN THE STAFF COMMENTS, YOU STATE THAT THE CRITERIA OR I SHOULD JUST SAY THAT THE STAFF COMMENTS SEEM TO EQUATE REASONABLE USE WITH RESTORING THE 25-FOOT UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD.
IS IT THE OPINION OF STAFF THAT ANYTHING SHORT OF THAT WOULD NOT ENTAIL A REASONABLE USE?
>> NO. BUT THE REQUEST IS TO RESTORE THOSE LOTS.
IS THIS THE ONLY VARIANCE NECESSARY TO MEET WHAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING?
>> OTHER USES WOULDN'T NEED A VARIANCE.
>> YES. WOULD IT REQUIRE MULTIPLE VARIANCES THAT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY NECESSITY BE NEEDED?
>> I'D LIKE TO GO BACK TO THE SPECIAL PRIVILEGE.
SINCE IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT IF THIS IS APPROVED, THE UNITS THE STRUCTURES WOULD GO FROM THREE TO SIX.
OBVIOUSLY, THE PROPERTIES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET DON'T GET TO APPLY FOR THIS VARIANCE BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE LOTS PLATTED UNDERNEATH THEM.
SO WE ARE GRANTING A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE IF WE DO GRANT THIS VARIANCE.
>> I WOULD JUST LIKE TO CLARIFY IF THE VARIANCE IS GRANTED, IT'S NOT GOING FROM 3-6 PROPERTY OR SIX UNITS.
THE SIX DWELLING UNITS IS ONLY ONE CONFIGURATION THAT COULD BE BUILT TODAY AS THE PROPERTIES EXIST.
IF THE VARIANCE IS GRANTED, THE RESULT WOULD BE NINE ADDITIONAL UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD RESTORED, EACH CAPABLE OF HOUSING ONE SINGLE-FAMILY UNIT.
YOU COULD POTENTIALLY BE LOOKING AT 10 UNITS.
NOT THE THREE THAT EXISTS TODAY OR THE SIX DWELLING UNITS POTENTIALLY.
>> BUT THESE PROPERTIES CAN HAVE THIS AND THE PROPERTIES ACROSS THE STREET CANNOT PUT THEM BACK INTO 10 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
>> IT DEPENDS ON WHICH PROPERTY, THE PROPERTIES ON.
>> NOT 25, BUT THEY DO HAVE UNDERLYING LOTS AT 50.
FOR EXAMPLE, 116 HERE OR LET ME SEE WHAT IS THIS LOT 407 HERE.
THEY HAVE TWO UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD, BUT THEY YES, THEY ARE AT 50 FEET WIDE EACH.
[00:40:03]
BUT THEY COULD APPLY.LET ME SEE IF A STRUCTURE IS BUILT OVER.
THERE IS A HOME HERE AND IF THIS HOME WAS IN ANY WAY RELIANT ON THIS SECOND PARCEL, THEN THEY WOULD BE A SIMILARLY SITUATED PROPERTY WHERE IF THEY WANTED TO RESTORE THOSE TWO UNDERLYING 50-FOOT LOTS, THEY WOULD ALSO HAVE TO APPLY FOR A VARIANCE AND SEEK RELIEF FROM 10305.
>> I GUESS IT'S TIME TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT.
I WOULD INVITE THE APPLICANT TO PRESENT YOUR CASE.
>> HE SAID HE'S NOT GOING TO SPEAK.
>> IN THE ABSENCE OF THAT, LET'S OPEN THE MEETING UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS.
PLEASE REMEMBER THAT CITIZENS WHO WISH TO SPEAK MUST STATE THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS AT THE START OF THEIR COMMENTS FOR THE RECORD.
BEFORE WE DO THAT, DOES ANYONE NOW WISH TO SPEAK WHO WAS NOT PREVIOUSLY SWORN IN? THEN LET'S OPEN THIS UP.
>> THERE IS ONE OF THEM THERE.
>> RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. 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? THANK YOU.
>> ORDINARILY, I'M USED TO THIS AT THE COMMISSIONER'S READING WHERE I'M READING NAMES, BUT I'M BEING TOLD THAT PEOPLE SHOULD JUST RAISE THEIR HAND IF THEY WISH TO SPEAK. MISS SANTR?
>> MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, MY NAME IS FRANK SANTR.
THAT'S APPROXIMATELY ONE BLOCK FROM THE SITUS OF THE PROPOSED VARIANCE.
I'VE BEEN A RESIDENT OF THE CITY FOR NINE YEARS, A MEMBER OF THE FLORIDA BAR FOR 49 YEARS, PRACTICING IN GOVERNMENT AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW.
I'M A FORMER CHAIR AND MEMBER OF THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND A FORMER MEMBER AND VICE CHAIR OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA ADVISORY BOARD.
YOU'RE BEING ASKED WITHIN YOUR LIMITED AUTHORITY TO SUSPEND THE APPLICATION OF A VERY SPECIFIC PART OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, THE CITY ORDINANCES OF THE CITY, ADOPTED NEARLY 20 YEARS AGO, BY THE COMMISSION ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND IN FORCE EVER SINCE.
THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED WITHIN THE LAST FEW YEARS.
IT IS ONE OF THE ONLY PARTS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WITH WHICH I'M FAIRLY FAMILIAR, WHICH WAS CONSIDERED SO IMPORTANT, IT WAS ADOPTED WITH ITS OWN SEPARATE STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND A NUMBER OF OTHER PROVISIONS ESTABLISHING IT AS A PRIORITY CONSIDERATION IN LAND USE PLANNING IN THE CITY.
COULD WE PUT THE 1.03 0.5 UP? IT'S UP.
LET ME CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO SPECIFIC PORTIONS OF THIS, WHICH I THINK IS VERY IMPORTANT TO YOUR CONSIDERATION TODAY.
THE FIRST IS IN A, WHEREIN I REFERRED TO THE SPECIFIC FINDING, I'M NOT SURE THIS APPEARS ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE EXCEPT FOR THIS PROVISION WHICH YOU'RE BEING ASKED TO VARY FROM.
IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN OPEN SPACE, VISUAL CORRIDORS, NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER, PROPERTY VALUES, AND VISUAL ATTRACTIVENESS OF RESIDENTIAL AREAS, THIS PROVISION IS ADOPTED.
THAT'S A BIG DEAL, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
IT GOES ON TO SAY THAT WHENEVER THERE MAY EXIST A SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENT UNIT, DUPLEX STRUCTURE OR OTHER AUXIARY BUILDING OR STRUCTURE, WHICH HERETOFORE WAS CONSTRUCTED ON PROPERTY CONTAINING ONE OR MORE, AND I'M PARAPHRASING HERE, PLOTS OF RECORD.
SUCH LOTS THEREAFTER CONSTITUTE A BUILDING SITE AND MUST BE CONSIDERED THE LOT OF RECORD, AND NO PERMIT WILL BE ISSUED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL UNIT.
THAT PROVISION WAS ADOPTED IN 2006,
[00:45:04]
FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF FULFILLING THE PROVISION STATED IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN OPEN SPACE VISUAL CARDORS ETC.IT GOES ON TO SAY THAT SUCH LOTS CONSTITUTE BUILDING IT MUST BE CONSIDERED A LOT OF RECORD.
THE REFERRING BACK IN THIS PROCEEDING TO THE UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THAT'S THE STATUS QUO WITH REGARD TO THESE PROPERTIES.
THE UNDERLYING LOT OF RECORD ARE THE THREE LOTS.
FOR EVERY PURPOSE OF EXAMINATION OF THE CRITERIA, THAT AND ONLY THAT CAN BE CONSIDERED AS THE STATUS QUO FROM WHICH THE VARIANCE IS BEING REQUESTED.
THEN THERE'S THE B PROVISION ALSO UNUSUAL THAT A CONTINUES TO APPLY EVEN IF THE BUILDINGS ARE SUBSEQUENTLY TORN DOWN, AND IT DOESN'T EVEN MATTER HOW LONG AGO.
LEAVING AND FALLOW FOR YEARS OR DECADES AFTER THERE WAS SOMETHING THERE STILL DOESN'T OBVIATE THIS PROVISION.
ONCE AGAIN, AN UTTERLY UNIQUE PRONOUNCEMENT IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, EMPHASIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS PROVISION.
THEN THE C SECTION GOES ON TO SAY, CAN ONLY BE DONE BY A VARIANCE APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, WHICH YOU ARE AUTHORIZED TO DO, BUT ONLY BY EXTRAORDINARY MAJORITY.
ANOTHER PROVISION THAT DOESN'T APPEAR ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
PLEASE DO NOT IN YOUR DELIBERATIONS LOSE SIGHT OF THOSE THREE UNIQUE PROVISIONS OF 1.03 0.05, WHICH IS THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE PROVISION FROM WHICH YOU'RE BEING ASKED TO PROVIDE AN EXEMPTION FROM WHAT FOR THE LAST 19 YEARS HAS APPLIED TO EVERY OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED LAND OWNER AND DEVELOPER IN THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH, WITHOUT ANY REFERENCE BACK TO THE UNDERLYING PRINCIPLES HERE.
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, I CAN TELL YOU AS I HAVE, WITH CONSIDERABLE CERTAINTY THAT THIS IS UNIQUE IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
I KNOW YOU WORK WITH IT ROUTINELY, AND I THINK YOU PROBABLY KNOW THIS FROM YOUR OWN PRIOR REVIEW AND DETERMINATION.
THE ROLE OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS EXTREMELY LIMITED AND CIRCUMSPECT.
IT'S UNDERSTANDABLE WHY BECAUSE THE PROVISION THAT YOU'RE BEING ASKED TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION TO WAS ONE THAT WAS LAWFULLY ADOPTED BY THE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES TO THE CITY COMMISSION AND HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED FOR GENERAL APPLICATION.
THAT'S WHY YOU ARE LIMITED IN YOUR OBLIGATIONS OF REVIEW ONLY TO THE SIX CRITERIA THAT ARE ESTABLISHED IN THE VARIANCE PROVISIONS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
YOU DON'T GET TO DECIDE WHETHER YOU THINK THIS IS A GOOD CHANGE ON GENERAL PRINCIPLES.
YOU DON'T GET TO DECIDE WHETHER YOU THINK THIS IS THE PROPER USE OF THE LAND BASED ON YOUR PRIOR EXPERIENCE IN EDUCATION.
NONE OF THAT COMES INTO PLAY HERE.
YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING WHETHER THE APPLICANT MET HIS OR HER SOLE OBLIGATION TO PROVE BY A PREPONDERANCE OF FACTS UNDERLYING FACTS SUPPORTING YES TO EACH OF THOSE CRITERIA WITHOUT ACCEPTANCE.
IT'S A VERY LIMITED ROLE, AS WELL, IT SHOULD BE.
I'D LIKE TO TAKE THE CRITERIA ONE AT A TIME BECAUSE I THINK THERE ARE SOME ERRORS, FRANKLY, IN THE STAFF ANALYSIS, AND SEVERAL OF YOU HAVE ALREADY REFERRED TO A COUPLE OF THESE THINGS.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO THE LAND AND WHICH ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER LANDS, STRUCTURES, OR BUILDINGS IN THE SAME DISTRICT.
THE STAFF DETERMINED THAT THAT WAS A YES.
THERE ARE SPECIAL CONDITIONS. THAT'S NOT SO.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, AND IN FACT, I BELIEVE IT WAS MISS DAVIS, WHO ALREADY POINTED OUT ANOTHER NEARBY PARCEL, WHICH IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS THIS.
THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT'S ONE OF DOZENS, IF NOT MORE, PERHAPS HUNDREDS.
WELL, IT HASN'T CLOSED YET, BUT I OWN A HOUSE TWO BLOCKS AWAY FROM THIS.
I HAVE TWO STRUCTURES BUILT ON 250 BY 100 FOOT LOTS THAT WERE COMBINED.
A GARAGE IS ATTACHED BY A COVERED WALK TO MY HOUSE.
I BUILT IT SEVEN YEARS AGO, BEING FULLY AWARE OF THIS PROVISION OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, APPRECIATING THAT IF I EVER WANTED TO TAKE THAT CANOPY OFF AND A SIDE PORCH,
[00:50:06]
I HAD 250 BY 100 LOTS, WHICH ARE STANDARD, NOT SUBSTANDARD LOTS, BUT IT WOULD STILL REQUIRE THAT I GET A VARIANCE BECAUSE I HAD COMBINED THOSE LOTS INTO A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING.I KNEW IT THEN, I KNOW IT NOW.
SO DOES ANYBODY ELSE WHO MEETS THEIR OBLIGATION AS A CITIZEN TO BE AWARE OF THE VALID AND SUBSISTING LAND CODE PROVISIONS IN THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH IF THEY WANT TO BUILD.
EVERY STANDARD OR SUBSTANDARD LOT IN THE HISTORY OF THE CITY SINCE THE 1800S THAT WAS COMBINED INTO A SINGLE UNIT HAS, BY REASON OF THE ADOPTION OF THIS LAW IN 2006 FROM THAT DATE FORWARD BEEN INDIVISIBLE AND MUST BE TREATED AS A SINGLE DWELLING UNIT AND CAN ONLY BE REPLACED BY A SINGLE DWELLING UNIT.
EVERY OTHER R2 PROPERTY IS IN EXACTLY THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCE AS THE ONE OWNED BY THE APPLICANT IN THIS PROVISION.
I THINK I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU REJECT THE FINDING OF THE STAFF WITH RESPECT TO THIS PART AND DETERMINE THAT THE APPLICATION IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE.
SECTION 2, SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, GRANTING THE VARIANCE DOES NOT CONFER UPON THE APPLICANT A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE THAT IS DENIED BY THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO OTHER LANDS, STRUCTURES, OR BUILDINGS IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT.
STAFF SAID IT COMPLIED, IT CLEARLY AND POSITIVELY, AS A MATTER OF UNDISPUTED FACT DOES NOT COMPLY.
THE STAFF ANALYSIS IS THAT THE CRITERIA IS MET, BECAUSE LIKE THE APPLICANT HERE, ALL OTHERS IN THE SAME DISTRICT COULD APPLY FOR A VARIANCE.
THAT'S NOT THE STANDARD, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
THE STANDARD IS TO CONTRAST THE GRANT OF THE VARIANCE IN THIS CASE, TO THE LACK BY EVERY OTHER PERSON IN THE R2 RESIDENTIAL CODE TO BE ABLE TO DO THE SAME THING, WHICH WOULD BE THE EXACT STATUS IF THIS WAS GRANTED AND NO ONE ELSE HAD APPLIED BECAUSE HERE, THIS GUY GETS A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, AND HERE, EVERYBODY ELSE DOESN'T.
THE FACT THAT THEY CAN ASK FOR IT DOESN'T MAKE THOSE EQUIVALENT.
THIS LOGICAL ANALYSIS OF THIS PROVISION, WHICH DOESN'T SEEM TO HAVE BEEN MET BY THE STAFF ANALYSIS IS RENDERED EVEN CLEAR BY THE FACT SINCE IT IS OF A STANDARD RULE OF LEGISLATIVE CONSTRUCTION.
THAT LANGUAGE HAS TO BE CONSTRUED IN A FASHION THAT GIVES IT MEANING.
I THINK VICE CHAIRMAN OLIVA REFERRED TO THIS IN A QUESTION HE HAD.
IF THE COMPARISON WAS TO THE GRANTING OF THE APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE WITH EVERYBODY ELSE, AND THAT DIDN'T ESTABLISH SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, THEN THAT PROVISION HAS NO MEANING AT ALL, BECAUSE EVERYBODY ELSE CAN ALWAYS REQUEST A VARIANCE.
THAT'S NOT THE BASIS OF THE ANALYSIS.
IF YOU GIVE IT THAT MEANING, WHICH IS WHAT THE STAFF SUGGESTED, YOU RENDER THE PROVISION USELESS.
IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY EFFECT WHATSOEVER, AND THAT DOESN'T MEET WELL UNDERSTOOD AND REGARDED STANDARDS OF LEGISLATIVE CONSTRUCTION.
ITEM NUMBER 3, LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISION OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WOULD DEPRIVE THE APPLICANTS OF RIGHTS COMMONLY ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME AREA.
I CONCUR WITH THE STAFF ANALYSIS IN THIS AREA, THIS PROVISION IS NOT MET.
I ADOPT THEIR ANALYSIS AS PART OF MY PRESENTATION, AND BELIEVE IT IS A LEGITIMATE BASIS TO DENY THE APPLICATION.
THE MINIMUM VARIANCE REQUIREMENT, NUMBER 4.
THE VARIANCE REQUESTED IS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NEEDED THAT WILL MAKE POSSIBLE, NOT GOING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL LOTS OF RECORD, WHICH IS WHAT THE STAFF COMPARED THIS TO, BUT MAKE POSSIBLE REASONABLE USE OF THE LAND, STRUCTURES, AND BUILDINGS.
NO VARIANCE STILL LEAVES REASONABLE USE OF THE LAND.
YOU CAN BUILD THREE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON THE COMBINED LOTS,
[00:55:03]
WHICH IS WHAT THE CURRENT CODE UNVARIED CALLS FOR, AND THE LAND IS WORTH MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.I CAN TELL YOU THAT BY REASON OF HAVING JUST SOLD SOME LAND A FEW BLOCKS AWAY.
SO THAT STANDARD IS NOT MET EITHER, AND THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON THAT PROVISION SHOULD BE REJECTED.
I'M GOING TO MOVE QUICKLY PAST FIVE AND SIX.
I CONCUR WITH THE DEPARTMENT'S DETERMINATION THAT THESE STANDARDS ARE NOT MET, BUT I ONLY MAKE ONE COMMENT WITH RESPECT TO THOSE.
HOW IMPORTANT I THINK IT IS FOR YOU TO REFER BACK IN YOUR DELIBERATION TO KNOW THAT THE LANGUAGE IN THOSE PROVISIONS, VARIANCE WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
NEIGHBORHOOD PROTECTION, SITE CORRIDORS, DENSITY REQUIREMENTS, THE WHOLE RANGE OF THINGS THAT ARE PART OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND IN FACT, IN SEVERAL CASES, PART OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH IS THE OVERARCHING CONSIDERATION IN ALL OF THIS.
INCLUDING THE PROVISION THAT MS. DAVIS, REFERRED TO ONCE AGAIN ABOUT THE REQUIREMENT FOR SPECIFIC TRANSITIONAL CONSISTENCY WITH AREAS ADJACENT TO THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, WHICH IS A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REQUIREMENT, NOT A LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIREMENT, ALTHOUGH IT'S ALSO THERE.
BUT ONCE AGAIN, THE STRIKING CONTRAST OR COMPARISON AND CONSISTENCY OF THE PREAMBLE TO THIS PROVISION IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN OPEN SPACE VISUAL CORRIDORS, NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER, PROPERTY VALUES, AND VISUAL ATTRACTIVENESS OF RESIDENTIAL AREAS WERE THE REASON THIS STATUTE WAS ADOPTED 19 YEARS AGO.
IT IS SUPPORTIVE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROVISIONS AND THE SIX CRITERIA FOR YOU TO EVALUATE IN CONSIDERING WHETHER THIS VARIANT SHOULD BE GRANTED.
IN SUMMARY, I THINK EVERY ONE OF YOU SHOULD MAKE A FINDING THAT EACH OF THE REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT MET AND THAT THIS VARIANT SHOULD BE DECLINED.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? I'D BE HAPPY TO TAKE.
YOU TALK ABOUT THAT PHRASE THAT YOU READ IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN OPEN SPACE, ETC., AT THE BEGINNING OF 10305, IS THE REASON THIS WAS ADOPTED.
ARE YOU BASING THAT SIMPLY ON THE FACT THAT THAT LANGUAGE IS INCLUDED IN HERE, OR DID YOU SERVE ON THE PAB OR THE COMMISSION AT THE TIME?
>> I DIDN'T SERVE ON THE PAB YET IN 2006.
IN FACT, ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS FOLLOWING GENERAL RULES OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION, AND I'VE DRAFTED STATUTES FOR THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE, AND FOR CLIENTS, I'VE DRAFTED PROVISIONS FOR SUBDIVISION GOVERNMENT ENTITIES IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA.
THE ONLY REASON YOU PUT A PREAMBLE OF THAT SORT IN SPECIFIC PROVISION IN YOUR CODE OR STATUTES, IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING EXACTLY WHAT YOUR LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE WAS IS AND IS.
ANYTHING ELSE? I THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION.
>> THANK YOU. MY NAME IS BRAD CLARK.
I HAVE THE HOUSE AT 312 ASH STREET, IT'S RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER. THE BACK OF MY HOUSE.
I CAN SEE THE TRINGALI PROPERTIES.
I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS MATTER SINCE IT CAME BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSION, AND I'VE BEEN FOLLOWING IT CLOSELY.
I CONCUR WITH THE EXCELLENT PRESENTATION THAT THE FIRST SPEAKER GAVE ON THE SIX CRITERIA, AND I DON'T THINK ANY OF THEM ARE MET.
NOW, I JUST WANTED TO EMPHASIZE A COUPLE OF POINTS.
ACCORDING TO THE STATUTE TO GRANT A VARIANCE, YOU WOULD HAVE TO FIND AND THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO PROVE, AND THEY HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROOF THAT ALL SIX ARE MET.
IF EVEN ONE OF THE SIX CRITERIA IS A NO, THEN YOU MUST VOTE TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE.
EVEN ON THE STAFF REPORT, THAT'S WHY THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING IT BE DENIED BECAUSE EVEN UNDER THEIR ANALYSIS, IT'S ONLY THREE YES CRITERIA, AND THREE NO.
THAT'S A NO. BUT I THINK ALL SIX ARE NOT MET.
[01:00:04]
BUT THE APPLICANT HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF.I ALSO JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT, THERE WERE A COUPLE OF MISTAKES IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT GO TO THE STATUS OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION.
IN PARTICULAR, WITH RESPECT, IF YOU COULD PUT UP THE MAP OF THE PROPERTIES AND SHOW THAT 119 PROPERTY SOUTH 4TH STREET.
THAT CURRENTLY CONSISTS OF FOUR 25*100 FOOT LOTS, AND THEY'RE SAYING THAT LOT 24 IS EXEMPT.
THAT'S WHY THEY'RE NOT INCLUDING IT IN THIS APPLICATION OR INCLUDING IT IN THE CRITERIA.
THAT'S ACTUALLY NOT TRUE UNDER THE COURT ORDER IN EFFECT IN THIS VERY CASE.
AFTER THE CITY COMMISSION ATTEMPTED TO GRANT THIS WITHOUT SENDING IT TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS, THE COLSONS AND TINA KRISTENER WHO COULDN'T BE HERE TONIGHT, FILED A LAWSUIT AND SEEKING A WRIT OF CARCIARI TO OVERTURN THE COMMISSION'S DECISION, AND THEIR REQUEST WAS GRANTED.
NOW, THIS ORDER IS ON APPEAL, AND IT'S PENDING APPEAL, BUT AS OF RIGHT NOW, THIS COURT ORDER IS IN EFFECT.
WHAT THIS COURT ORDER SAYS IS THAT ON EACH OF THE TRINGALI PROPERTIES, ONCE THEY WERE COMBINED AND A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE WAS BUILT, WHICH IS TRUE AT 119 SOUTH 4TH STREET, THEN ANY REQUEST TO BUILD MORE THAN ONE PLOT HAS TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S INCORRECT.
WE ALL HAVE TO FOLLOW THIS COURT ORDER UNLESS AND UNTIL IT'S OVERTURNED.
THOSE PROPERTIES ARE SUBJECT OF A PENDING COURT CASE.
THAT IS ALSO TRUE OF THE PROPERTIES ON SOUTH 3RD STREET.
NOW, THEY'RE NOT BEFORE YOU TONIGHT, BECAUSE THE APPLICANT DIDN'T BRING THEM.
BUT THAT'S PROBABLY BECAUSE THE STAFF ERRONEOUSLY STATE IN THEIR REPORT THAT THOSE PROPERTIES ARE NOT SUBJECT TO 10305.
BUT THE COURT ORDER SAYS THEY ARE, AND THEY MUST GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AS WELL.
I JUST POINT THAT OUT BECAUSE IT MAY BE THAT, AND THIS IS ALMOST LIKE A LITTLE BIT OF A OLIVE BRANCH OR A COMPROMISE TO THE DEVELOPER.
IT MAY BE THAT THE ANALYSIS IS SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT WERE THE DEVELOPER TO COME TO YOU WITH THE SOUTH 3RD STREET PROPERTY, BECAUSE IT DOES HAVE A DIFFERENT ZONING, BECAUSE IT'S NOT ACROSS FROM THE HISTORIC DISTRICT HOMES.
IT'S ACROSS FROM TOWN HOMES ALREADY.
THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD FACTORS WOULD BE DIFFERENT, SO I JUST POINT THAT OUT.
BUT AS TO SOUTH 4TH STREET, ALL 10 OF THESE LOTS THAT HAVE BEEN COMBINED INTO THREE PARCELS, ARE SUBJECT TO THE CRITERIA AND THE BURDEN IS ON THE APPLICANT, AND THEY CANNOT, IN MY OPINION, MEET THE CRITERIA FOR ANY OF THEM, LET ALONE ALL SIX, SO YOU REALLY SHOULD DENY. THANK YOU.
>> YES. PLEASE. WHAT IS THE WIDTH OF THE LOT OF YOUR HOME?
>> I HAVE 50*100, WHICH IS TWO ORIGINAL.
YOU CAN SEE IT ON THE MAP, 312 ASH, 29 AND 30.
I HAVE TWO OF THOSE UNDERLYING LOTS, BUT I COMBINE THEM AND BUILT ONE HOUSE.
>> WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO PUT THAT CASE MATERIAL INTO THE RECORD?
>> ABSOLUTELY. I ONLY HAVE ONE COPY, BUT I WOULD BE HAPPY TO SUBMIT IT FOR THE RECORD.
IT'S THE ORDER IN THE CASE, MARY COLSON, DAVID COLSON, AND TINA KRISTENER PETITIONERS VERSUS CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH AND THE TRINGALI TRUST, WHO OWNED THE PROPERTY AT THE TIME.
>> I'VE BEEN NOTIFIED THAT THE APPLICANT'S AGENT, MR. FLECK HAS ARRIVED, AND I'M GOING TO SQUEEZE HIM IN HERE SO THAT PUBLIC COMMENTS CAN CONTINUE AFTERWARDS.
>> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS RON FLICK.
WE ARE OFFICES AT 714 BEACH STREET.
ON BEHALF OF WORTHY INVESTMENTS.
[01:05:03]
TIME AND TRAFFIC THROW A FEW MARVELS UNDER OUR FEET.HOWEVER, BETTER LATE THAN EVER.
THIS APPLICANT IN AN EFFORT IS HERE TO SEEK A REQUEST TO AFFIRM THE ABILITY TO HAVE USE OF THE RESIDENTIAL R2 UNDERLYING PLATTED LOTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LDC AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
FIRST OF ALL, I THINK YOU'RE OBVIOUSLY AWARE, AS WAS MENTIONED BY MR. CLARK.
I THINK WE'D HAVE TO REFER TO THE CITY ATTORNEY TO TELL US WHETHER WE SHOULD CONSIDER THAT WHILE IT'S STILL UNDER APPEAL AND IN LITIGATION AS A DECISION.
I ONLY SAY THAT I'M NOT REALLY SURE WHETHER YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO USE IT YET UNTIL IT IS DECIDED BY THE COURTS AND THE APPELLATE COURT HAS RULED.
WHICH SHOULDN'T BE TOO FAR AWAY.
SECOND THING OF IT IS AS MR. CLARK HAS NOTED, I FILED FOR BOTH SIDES OF THE ROAD.
I FILED FOR THIRD STREET AND FOURTH STREET.
THERE'S JUST TOO MANY AMBIGUITIES, I WOULD SAY, IN THE LDC AND ROOM FOR INTERPRETATION.
WE FILE FOR BOTH SIDES OF THE UNDERLYING LOT, EVEN THOUGH STAFF HAS ADVISED AND AMENDED OR MAKE CORRECTIONS TO OUR APPLICATION STATING THAT BECAUSE IT IS NOT IN THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, IT DID NOT REQUIRE TO APPEAR BEFORE THIS BOARD.
THAT WOULD BE CONTROLLED BY OTHER ELEMENTS WITHIN THE MU DISTRICT SECOND OF ALL, WE DID APPLY FOR TEN ON THAT SIDE.
WE DID 24, 2019 AND 15 THROUGH 18.
WE APPLIED FOR ALL OF THOSE FOR UNDERLYING LOTS.
NOT LONG AGO YOU KNOW THAT WE APPLIED FOR THREE DUPLEX UNITS ON ON FOURTH STREET SIDE.
ESSENTIALLY, YOU TAKE ALL OF THOSE PLATTED LOTS THAT FULL RUN OF 200 PLUS FEET.
WE WERE TRYING TO RE PLOT BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE WERE ADVISED THAT WE COULD DO UNDER WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO PRODUCE.
HOWEVER, THE PLANNING BOARD DIDN'T SEE IT THAT WAY.
THEIR RECOMMENDATION TO US WAS SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT.
OUR FOCUS WAS, AS IT IS TODAY, ANYTHING WE PRODUCE, WE WOULD LOVE TO BE ABLE TO PRODUCE SOMETHING THAT WE CALL TO US, IT'S GOT TO BE LIKE AN AWARD WINNING THING.
BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO CREATE SOMETHING THAT'S OF HIGHER VALUE WHEN WE WERE TRYING TO CREATE THE DUPLEX SIX UNITS ON FOURTH STREET.
THAT ALLOWED US TO HAVE MORE CORRIDOR SPACE AND ALL THOSE THINGS THAT WE ALL LOOK FOR GREEN SPACE PROVISIONS TO DO CITY STREET IMPROVEMENTS ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY OR WITHIN THE DISTRICT OF OUR IMPROVEMENT AREA.
CAN WE JUST SHOW MY SURVEY THAT'S IN MY APPLICATION, PLEASE? I MAY HAVE TO SHRINK IT UP JUST A LITTLE BIT. THERE YOU GO.
YOU CAN BASICALLY SEE FROM THE STRUCTURE UP HERE JUST ABOVE THAT, THERE'S A LOT RIGHT THERE AT THE TOP OF THE SCREEN FROM LOT 24 SOUTH DOWN TO BEACH.
THAT'S THE LIST OF UNDERLYING FLATTED LOTS THAT'S BEFORE YOU TONIGHT TO SEEK RELEASE OF THOSE 25 FOOT LOTS.
THOSE SHOW YOU THE SURVEY DATA OF THE ORIGINAL HOMES.
[01:10:01]
THAT'S NOT THE ORIGINAL SURVEY.THE UPDATED SURVEY OBVIOUSLY SHOWS THOSE HOMES NO LONGER THERE.
I THINK PROBABLY IN YOUR STAFF REPORT, IF YOU READ IT, OR THEY PROVIDED IT TO YOU.
THOSE ELEMENTS WERE REMOVED, AND THEY WERE REMOVED, NOT BECAUSE OF AN ELEMENT OF 1.0305.
THEY WERE REMOVED BECAUSE THE STATUTE ALLOWS YOU TO IMMEDIATELY BE ABLE TO REMOVE SOMETHING THAT'S BELOW THE FLOODPLAIN LEVEL.
IF IT'S NOT IN KEEPING BECAUSE YOU'RE TAKING ON RISK OF INSURANCE AND LIABILITY OF A HOME THAT DOESN'T FALL WITHIN THAT CRITERIA, THEREFORE DRIVING UP RATES AND RISK TO THE PUBLIC AS WELL BECAUSE IT'S A HOME IN THE FLOODPLAIN THAT'S LOWER THAN IT SHOULD BE ACCORDING TO THE FLOODPLAIN MANAGER, THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAPPENED AND THERE YOU GO.
THAT'S A BETTER SHOT OF ALL THE PARCELS STARTING RIGHT HERE TOP.
RIGHT THERE COMES ALL THE WAY DOWN AND OBVIOUSLY ON THE FOURTH STREET SIDE.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE WERE LECTURED ON AND NOT ONLY BY THE PLANNING BOARD, BUT BY THE PUBLIC WHO'S BEFORE YOU TONIGHT WAS THE FACT THAT WE DID NOT CONSIDER THE USE AND BLENDING INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF USING THE 25 FOOT LOT RULE, BECAUSE WE WERE INSIDE THE ORIGINAL PLATTING, WHICH INCLUDE UNDERLYING LOTS OF 25 FOOT LOT.
IT WAS NOT OUR INTENT TO DO THAT.
ORIGINALLY, WITH 25 FOOT LOTS, OUR ORIGINAL INTENT WAS TO USE LARGER LOTS AND THINGS THAT MET ALL THE CRITERIA, THEREFORE, NOT REQUIRING US TO COME BEFORE THIS BOARD.
WE FORGOT TO SWEAR YOU IN WHEN YOU CAME IN. ARE YOU OKAY.
>> YOU SWEAR THAT THE ORAL AND WRITTEN TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.
>> [BACKGROUND] JUST YOU AFFIRM EVERYTHING YOU SAY.
>> I AFFIRM EVERYTHING IN FRONT OF THIS TO BE PART OF THE RECORD.
>> NO PROBLEM. SEE, I'M NOT SO HARD TO GET ALONG WITH.
[LAUGHTER] UNFORTUNATELY, THE BOARD VOTED UNANIMOUSLY DISAPPROVED BECAUSE THEY FELT WE DIDN'T MAKE THE EFFORT ON THE 25 FOOT UNDERLYING LOT AND TO BETTER INTEGRATE INTO THIS PART OF THE COMMUNITY BECAUSE THOSE UNDERLYING LOTS, THIS IS ONE OF THE LAST SEGMENTS OF RIGHT AWAY.
EVERYTHING ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET.
CAN YOU BRING UP THE OTHER I BELIEVE IT'S YOUR ZONING.
UNDER EXHIBIT B, ONE OF THE THINGS YOU'LL NOTICE OUR SIDE OF THE STREET HAS UNDERLYING LOTS.
THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET DOES NOT AND FOURTH.
THERE ARE 50 FOOT LOTS IN GREATER, AND THERE ARE 25 FOOT LOTS, WHICH ARE ON THE WESTERN SIDE OF FOURTH STREET.
SO TO SAY THAT THERE'S SOME ELEMENTS IN HERE, WE'LL REFER BACK TO WHEN WE LOOK AT THE CRITERIA.
WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO SEE IS IN THE AREA OF WHICH THOSE ENTITLEMENTS WERE ORIGINALLY THERE, WE'RE THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT COULD GO SEEK OUT THAT 25 FOOT UNDERLYING LOT, NOT THE GUYS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET.
THAT'S WHY YOU DON'T SEE A LOT OF UNDERLYING LOTS THERE.
ANOTHER THING YOU'LL NOTE IS LIKE TO THE SOUTH OF ACROSS BEACH STREET.
ALL OF THOSE LOTS THERE ARE ADJACENT, THEY'RE ALL 25 FOOT UNDERLYING LOTS, AND THEY HAVE NO DEVELOPMENT ON THEM.
UNDER YOUR GUIDELINES IN CHAPTER 4, A 25 FOOT LOT PRIOR TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LDC IS AUTHORIZED BY ENTITLEMENT IN THE ZONING CODE OR IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
LAST WEEK, I DID HAVE A COUPLE OF FOLKS COME BY AND MR. CLARK BEING ONE OF THOSE AND TRY TO ENCOURAGE US TO FIND A COMPROMISE IN THE MIDDLE.
FOR THAT, I APPRECIATE AND I ENJOY THE DISCUSSION, NO MATTER HOW MANY VISITORS I HAD AND GREAT IDEAS THAT WE HAVE FROM FOLKS IN THE COMMUNITY, BECAUSE EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE YOU GET SOME GOOD IDEAS OUT OF IT.
I THOUGHT THEY CAME UP WITH SOME PRETTY GOOD IDEAS WHEN THEY PROPOSED THAT WE SHOULD HAVE THREE LARGE LOTS THAT WOULD PRODUCE THREE LARGE SIZE HOMES.
[01:15:08]
TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE RULE OF BEING ABLE TO PROTECT VIEW CORRIDORS AND THE MASSING OF THINGS IN THE COMMUNITY.WELL, IF YOU WERE TO REFER TO THE PLAT PROPOSAL THAT WE GAVE, EXACTLY WHAT THEY ASKED FOR, SO A LARGE HOME, TYPICALLY, A GROUND FOOTPRINT IS ABOUT 3,000 SQUARE FEET.
THEREFORE, MOST OF THOSE WOULD BE TWO-STOREY HOMES.
IT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S A 6,000 SQUARE FOOT HOME.
IT PROBABLY MEANS IT'S SOMEWHERE 4,000-5,000 SQUARE FOOT HOME.
BUT IT'S THE SAME EXACT FOOTPRINT AND STRUCTURE THAT OUR DUPLEXES WERE.
WE ONLY HAD THREE DUPLEXES, THREE LARGE STRUCTURES THAT WERE 3,000 SQUARE FOOT IN FOOTPRINT AND THREE LOCATIONS ALONG FOURTH STREET.
WHILE WE'RE ALL THINKING THE SAME THING FOR THE SAME REASON, I GUESS IT WAS HARD TO VISUALIZE AND THE POLITICS OF IT ALL, THERE WAS A PERCEPTION THAT WE WERE FAR APART FROM THE COMMUNITY WHEN, IN FACT, IT TURNS OUT WE WEREN'T BECAUSE THAT WAS THEIR PROPOSAL, AND I LISTENED TO IT.
I LIKED PART OF IT, EXCEPT I WOULD PUT A DUPLEX THERE SO THAT IT MATCHES THE MARKET AND THE MARKET SIZE FOR THIS COMMUNITY.
SO HAVING THE THREE LARGE SINGLE STRUCTURES, AS THEY PROPOSE, WE WERE NOT QUITE A MIRROR IMAGE, OBVIOUSLY, BUT THE FOOTPRINT AND THE CONCEPT OF IT WAS THE SAME.
IT PROTECTED THE SAME AMOUNT OF GREEN SPACE.
IN FACT, BECAUSE IT WAS A SINGLE ACCESS ON THE BEECH STREET SIDE THAT WAS DRAWN IN, WHAT IT DID IS IT DID NOT HAVE A LOT OF DRIVEWAY SPACE IN FRONT, SO THEREFORE, I HAVE A LOT MORE GREEN SPACE.
HAVE MORE PERVIOUS SPACE, GREEN, AND ABILITY TO PRESERVE TREES, WHICH WE WORKED VERY HARD TO DO.
AS I DISCUSSED EARLIER, THE BIG THING ABOUT 103.5 REQUIRING THE FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION, THE STATUTE PUBLISHED THAT IN, I BELIEVE IT WAS 2019, I MAY BE WRONG, BUT SO THAT STATE LAW EXISTED.
AND THE ABILITY TO TAKE WITH PRIORITY TO DO THAT AND REMOVE THOSE, THAT'S WHAT WE BASED IT ON.
WE WEREN'T IN ANY CONTEST AND WE WEREN'T CHALLENGED BY ANYONE IN THE CITY ON IT.
WE SIMPLY FILED UNDER THAT STATUTORY LISTING AND THAT'S HOW WE REMOVED THE HOMES THAT WERE THERE.
WE HAD PEOPLE OFFER TO WANT TO MOVE THEM, AND WHEN IT REALLY CAME DOWN TO IT, NOBODY WANTED TO PAY TO MOVE THEM.
SO IT'S MORE CHALLENGING THAN A LOT OF PEOPLE THINK JUST BECAUSE OF POWER LINE RESTRICTIONS, RIGHT OF WAY LIMITATIONS INSIDE THE CITY AND WHATNOT.
THE PART THAT I REFER TO IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND WHY WE'RE ASKING TO EXERCISE THIS RIGHT TO USE THE UNDERLYING LOTS IS FIRST A DERIVATIVE OF THE DEVELOPMENTAL REGULATION STATING THAT DEVELOPMENT IS PERMISSIBLE ON LOTS WHICH ARE PLATTED BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS LDC AND HAVE A MINIMUM WIDTH OF 25 FEET.
TABLE 4.0 201, AND I'M SURE YOU'VE PROBABLY SEEN IT A MULTITUDE OF TIMES.
SO OUR FOCUS IS TO BE ABLE TO USE THAT.
IF I'M ABLE TO PERSUADE YOU TO CONSIDER ALLOWING US UNDER YOUR THOUGHTFUL RULING THAT WE CAN USE THESE 10 25-FOOT LOTS, IT ALLOWS US TO ORIENT PRODUCT THERE.
WE'RE STILL LIMITED BY CODE OR DENSITY CONTROLLED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE LDC.
IT DOESN'T CHANGE ANY OF THAT.
THE STRUCTURES ARE STILL GOING TO BE SOMEWHAT THE SAME SIZE.
WHAT IT ALLOWS US TO DO IS TO BE ABLE TO STRUCTURE AND MATCH BOTH DENSITY AND DO THAT BY BEING ABLE TO MANEUVER ON THE ABILITY OF THE 25-FOOT UNDERLYING PLATTED LOTS OF RECORD.
THEY'RE CALLED LOTS OF RECORD.
I'VE TOLD YOU ABOUT THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP.
[01:20:06]
SOME REBUTTAL TO THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION.MY REVIEW OF THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION, AND I RECOGNIZE THAT SOME OTHERS MAY AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THAT, IS THAT WE HAVE 25-FOOT LOTS WHICH ARE NOT BEING GIVEN CONSIDERATION.
I HAVE A PART OF THE LDC THAT TELLS ME THAT I CAN DO THAT AND USE IT AND BUILD SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
ALL I HAVE TO DO IS BUTT THEM, WHICH IS PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
TO THAT PRINCIPLE, I HAVE ADJACENT PROPERTIES, OUR PROPERTY TO THE NORTH.
ACTUALLY, THE PEOPLE WHO WERE PART OF FILING THE CLAIM AGAINST THE CITY, AND THEN US.
THEY'RE ON A 25-FOOT PARCEL AND A 25-FOOT HOME.
>> I'M SORRY. IT SHOWS IN THE CITY RECORD 25-FOOT LOT.
I DON'T KNOW THAT. I'M JUST TELLING YOU WHAT'S IN THE RECORD.
I CAN'T SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBE THAT.
>> YOU CAN BRING THAT UP TO PUBLIC COMMENTS.
>> THE OTHER IS ON BEECH STREET, WITHIN 100 FEET OF US, TWO MORE 25-FOOT LOTS.
MATTER OF FACT, THEY'RE IN THE ORIGINAL PLATTED PARCELS THAT WERE ALL 50-FOOT UNDERLYING LOTS, AND SOME WAY THAT GOT THROUGH THE SYSTEM AND SOMEBODY WAS ABLE TO SPLIT THAT 50-FOOT LOT INTO TWO 25-FOOT LOTS, AND THEY JUST HAPPENED TO BE THE OTHER PARTY WHO FILED THE CLAIM AGAINST US.
IT APPEARS THAT THEIR DESIRE, APPEARED TO US AS THE PLANNING BOARD, WAS TO EXERCISE THE 25-FOOT LOT RULE AND USE THE UNDERLYING LOTS AND COME BEFORE THIS BOARD SEEKING THAT CONSENT, OF WHICH HAS BEEN THERE SINCE THE LATE 1800S, EARLY 1900S.
THE OTHER ITEM OF WHICH WAS CHECK NO ON GENERAL HARMONY.
I DRAW A NOTE TO THAT IN THE STAFF'S REPORT.
WHILE WE'VE ALL HAD DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THIS, RESTORATION OF A 25-FOOT LOT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE'VE GOT A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IT'S PERMISSIBLE TO BUILD 25-FOOT LOTS, HAVE A SPECIFIC BUILDING HEIGHT, SPECIFIC SETBACKS, BUT YET NOW WE'RE SAYING IT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING RULES? I DON'T KNOW. THAT SEEMS TO BE INCONSISTENT TO ME, NOT THE FACT THAT I HAVE A 25-FOOT UNDERLYING LOT.
I ASK THAT YOU RECONSIDER THAT.
WE THINK THAT BLOCK CHECKS YES.
ITEM 6, OF WHICH WAS ALSO LISTED AS NO.
THE STATEMENT MADE, GRANTING A VARIANCE IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, WHICH ALSO CAUSE THE AREA TO BE INVOLVED, OTHERWISE, DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, WELFARE, OR ENVIRONMENT.
I'M STILL TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW IT MAKES SOMETHING A DETRIMENT TO HEALTH, A DETRIMENT TO SAFETY OR TO WELFARE IF I FOLLOW THE ZONING RULES OF WHICH ONLY ASKED ME TO COME HERE TO GET PERMISSION FOR THE 25-FOOT RULE, BUT THEY ALLOW ME TO BUILD ON A 25-FOOT LOT.
I JUST HAVE TO MEET YOUR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, OBVIOUSLY, WITHIN CONSIDERATION OF THAT 25-FOOT LOT LIMITS OF 25 BY 100 IN THIS CASE.
TO SAY THAT IT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS PUZZLING TO ME BECAUSE MY NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR IS A 25-FOOT LOT.
WE'RE GOING TO DO ANOTHER 25-FOOT LOT OR AT LEAST HAVE THAT IN OUR TOOLBOX.
WELL, I'M NOT SAYING I'M GOING TO BUILD A HOUSE JUST LIKE THAT OR I'M NOT SAYING IT'LL BE A ONE-STORY OR TWO-STORY, I DON'T KNOW THAT.
I'M JUST LOOKING TO YOU TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THAT IN MY TOOLBOX SO WHEN WE MAKE A PRUDENT DECISION AND SUBMIT TO SITE PLAN, WE'RE COMPLIANT USING THE 25-FOOT UNDERLYING LOTS.
I DO AGREE, IT DOES MAKE THINGS TIGHTER AND HARDER TO ADJUST TO, BUT WE CAN BE PRETTY CREATIVE, AND IT'S BEEN SHOWN IN THE COMMUNITY THAT THAT CREATIVITY HAS BEEN ADAPTED.
WHEN PEOPLE SAY, I'M IN AN AREA THAT I'M NOT CONSISTENT WITH, I WOULD AGREE WITH IT IF YOU JUST TAKE A BIG CIRCLE AND SAY WITHIN 500 FEET.
[01:25:03]
SURE. BECAUSE GUESS WHAT? UP ON ASH STREET, THERE'S FIVE IN A ROW, 30-FOOT LOTS.I REALIZE THEY'RE ALL COMMERCIAL, BUT THEY COULD BE OTHERS.
SOMEONE COULD GET PERMISSION TO DO THAT AND PUT RESIDENTIAL IN THERE.
EVERYTHING WEST OF US WHO HAS UNDERLYING LOTS HAS THE ABILITY TO DO THE UNDERLYING LOTS AND HAS EXERCISED THAT ABILITY.
EVERYTHING SOUTH OF US, NOT DEVELOPED YET BECAUSE I THINK EVERYBODY IS STANDING AROUND WAITING FOR WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN HERE.
THEY HAVE 25-FOOT LOTS OF WHICH HAVE NO PROPERTY ON IT, HAVE NO IMPROVEMENT ON IT, SO OBVIOUSLY, IT'S NOT A CONTEST FOR THEM.
THEY JUST HAVE TO SEEK, I ASSUME, TO GET YOUR CONSENT TO EXERCISE THE LDC ENTITLEMENT OF YOU HAVE THE RIGHT IF IT WAS DONE BEFORE THE LDC WAS WRITTEN.
THAT'S THE KEY. JUST AS OUR PROPERTY OWNERS AND THE FOLKS THAT WE ACQUIRED THIS PROPERTY FROM THEY HAD NO CLUE THAT THIS RULE WAS GOING TO BE IMPOSED IN 2006.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR YOU TO PLEASE RECOGNIZE.
WE WOULD LIKE TO ENTERTAIN ANY DISCUSSION YOU HAVE IN CONSIDERATION OF RELEASING THESE UNDERLYING 25-FOOT LOTS. YES, MA'AM.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION. IF WE DON'T GRANT THIS VARIANCE, AND I'M NOT SAYING IT'S GOING TO GO EITHER WAY, CAN YOU STILL USE THOSE PROPERTIES? CAN YOU STILL CONSTRUCT HOUSES ON THEM?
>> YES, MA'AM. THERE'S A LOT OF VARIETIES OF WHAT I CAN DO TO MEET AND STAY WITHIN THE DENSITY, WHICH ALMOST IS EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR.
CAN YOU BACK UP TO THE LAST SLIDE WE WERE ON, WHICH SHOWED THE SURVEY THAT HAD THE BUILDING FOOTPRINTS ON IT? THERE YOU GO. THAT'S GOOD.
YOU SEE THE CENTER PARCEL RIGHT HERE? THOSE TWO PARCELS? THAT'S A 50-FOOT WIDE LOT.
IF I HAD UNDERLYING LOT FLEXIBILITY, I WOULD TRY TO CREATE SOMETHING A LITTLE BIT MORE UNIFORM SO I DIDN'T HAVE TO SQUEEZE.
I HAVE THE ABILITY TO EXERCISE.
MY DENSITY IS STILL CONTAINED, WHICH IS PART OF THE COMP PLAN THAT WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE STAY WITHIN.
IT GIVES US MORE MARGIN TO CREATE MORE GREEN SPACE, NOT HAVE A FRONT DRIVE.
I DON'T WANT TO PUT A FRONT DRIVE ON IT IF I CAN.
I'D LOVE EVERYTHING BE REAR AND SINGLE DRIVE SO IT'S ALL IN GREENSPACE.
>> OKAY. I NEED TO GET SOME CLARIFICATION.
>> YOUR UNDERSTANDING IN THIS, YOUR APPLICATION WAS AMENDED SO THAT YOU COULD ONLY DEAL WITH THE THREE PARCELS THAT ARE R2?
>> THERE ARE CURRENTLY THREE PARCELS.
>> YES. UNDER R2, AND THAT'S YOUR UNDERSTANDING?
>> THAT'S THE DIRECTION FROM THE STAFF, AND ON THEIR ADVICE, I HAVE TO FOLLOW THAT BECAUSE I DID SUBMIT FOR BOTH SIDES, MY APPLICATIONS FOR BOTH AND MY APPLICATIONS FOR ALL 10.
>> BUT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE AMENDING THAT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE ONLY DEALING WITH THE [INAUDIBLE].
>> FOURTH STREET PARCELS, WHICH ARE 10 PARCELS IN MY BOOK.
>> OKAY. GIVEN YOUR PREFERENCE, HOW WOULD YOU PUT ON THOSE 10 LOTS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEPARATE OUT.
>> WELL I CAN ONLY PUT SO MUCH THERE BASED ON DENSITY AND MY DISCUSSIONS OVER DENSITY.
YOU'VE GOT A SPECIFIC AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE AND IT LIMITS THE DENSITY, AND IT COULD BE SEVEN UNITS OR SIX UNITS.
WHATEVER THAT WORKS OUT TO BE, I HAVEN'T DONE THE FULL MATH ON THAT YET.
>> BUT I HAVE THREE PARCELS RIGHT NOW TO WORK WITH.
I'M JUST ASKING TO MAKE IT MORE FLEXIBLE AND LET ME WORK ON THE 10 UNDERLYING LOTS.
>> WHEN YOU SAY CREATE A HIGHER VALUE PRODUCT, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT?
>> ORIGINALLY, WHEN WE PROPOSED THIS THING, THE IDEA WAS TO GENERATE SOMETHING THAT'S
[01:30:01]
TARGETING A HIGHER VALUE PER SQUARE FOOT IN PRODUCT, COMPATIBLE WITH THE LAND VALUES, WHICH DRIVES UP LAND AND OTHER VALUES OF ALL THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES.THAT'S OUR TARGET. THAT'S WHAT WE SHOULD DO.
WE HAVE THAT IN EVERY THOUGHT OF EVERYTHING WE DO, BECAUSE IT ONLY BENEFITS US TO MAKE THE COMMUNITY LOOK BETTER.
>> YES, MA'AM. OTHER QUESTIONS. YES, MA'AM.
>> IF I MAY ASK, SOMEONE FOLLOWING UP ON THAT.
IF THE VARIANCE IS DENIED, AGAIN, NOT SAYING THAT IT WILL BE, OR IF IT'S NOT APPROVED UNDER 10305 A, THEN YOU CONTINUE TO ONLY HAVE THREE PARCELS, THE THREE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT SIZES.
YOU INDICATED THAT YOU TALKED TO MR. CLARK AND Y'ALL HAD TALKED ABOUT POSSIBILITY OF BUILDING THREE HOMES.
THAT WOULD BE FEASIBLE ON THOSE PARCELS, RIGHT?
>> THEY WOULD STILL BE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND FEE SIMPLE, BUT THEY WOULD BE THREE STRUCTURES, WHICH WOULD SOMEWHAT EMULATE WHAT WAS THERE IN CONCEPT BEFORE.
BUT OBVIOUSLY, MUCH MORE IMPROVED IN QUALITY AND SIZE.
>> DO YOU AGREE WITH THE STAFF IN THEIR ANALYSIS THAT SAID ON THOSE, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU COULD HAVE A TRIPLEX ON ONE, A DUPLEX ON THE OTHER AND A SINGLE FAMILY ON THE OTHER?
>> THAT IS FEASIBLE. I DON'T LIKE THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE SIZE OF THE LOTS RIGHT NOW BECAUSE IT MAKES IT A BIT DISJOINTED, BUT IT'S POSSIBLE.
>> THERE SEEMS TO BE A PERCEPTION OUT THERE, AND I'LL DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS.
THE SOUTH PARCELS, LOTS 15-18, THEY WERE ORIGINALLY ORIENTED AND PLANNED BY OUR FATHERS OF FERNANDINA FOR THAT TO BE ORIENTED ON BEACH STREET.
TO ME, THAT IS A OPPORTUNITY THERE, AND CHANGE AND BALANCE THE COMMUNITY BECAUSE EVERYTHING I DO TO THE WEST OF THAT WILL MAKE IT MORE COMPATIBLE, ANOTHER REASON I'M ASKING FOR THAT RELEASE OF THE 25-FOOT LOT.
IT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE DENSITY.
DENSITY IS LIMITED TO A SPECIFIC AMOUNT, AND THAT'S WHAT I HAVE TO STAY WITHIN.
IT DOESN'T MEAN I CAN PRODUCE 25 OF ANYTHING.
IT MEANS I AM LIMITED BY DENSITY BASED ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE.
>> I THINK YOU SAID THAT THE THREE BUILDINGS THAT WERE THERE WERE TAKEN DOWN BECAUSE OF CONCERN WITH THE FLOOD ELEVATION?
>> THEY WERE TAKEN DOWN UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE STATUTE BECAUSE THEY ARE BELOW.
>> [INAUDIBLE] THE FLOOD ELEVATION WITH WHATEVER YOU WOULD BE BUILDING IN THE FUTURE THERE?
>> IT HAS TO BE AT 13.6 AND HIGHER.
THAT'S BASICALLY THE LAW OF FERNANDINA.
YOU WANT TO ABATE THAT BECAUSE IF YOU'RE BELOW THAT FLOODPLAIN, IF I WERE BUILT BEFORE, I'M TAKING A LOT OF RISK AND I'M IMPOSING RISK ON THIS AREA IN THIS REGION AND INSURANCE RATES.
IF I TAKE IT AND EVERYTHING I BUILD THERE IS AT 13.6 AND HIGHER, FIRST OF ALL, THAT'S WHAT FERNANDINA IS GOING TO REQUIRE ME TO DO, AND THAT'S WHAT I SHOULD DO.
THEREFORE, THAT REDUCES RISK IN THE COMMUNITY AND BRINGS MORE HOME, MODERNIZES OUR FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT ORDERS THAT HAVE BEEN ISSUED.
YES, SIR, 13.6 AND HIGHER, HAS TO BE.
>> BUT FOLLOWING UP ON THAT, THE ELEVATION OF THE PROPERTIES THEMSELVES, THEY'RE NOT SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER THAN NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, ARE THEY?
>> THEY PROBABLY APPEAR TO BE THAT RIGHT NOW BECAUSE WE'VE REMOVED THE THREE HOMES THAT ARE THERE. BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER.
I HAVE TO GRADE AND CONTAIN DRAINAGE.
ANY IMPERVIOUS DRAINAGE ON THIS SITE UNDER THE JURISDICTIONAL RULES, WHICH IS AN IMPROVEMENT, IN MY VIEW.
IT'S TOUGH IN THE CITY, BUT IT'S AN IMPORTANT RULE BECAUSE THERE'S SO MUCH IMPERVIOUS SPACE.
YOU GOT TO BE ABLE TO COLLECT STORM-WATER, PRE-TREAT IT, BEFORE YOU PUT IT BACK IN THE SYSTEM.
THE EITHER WAY I DO THIS DEVELOPMENT, NO MATTER WHAT I PUT THERE, I HAVE TO DO THAT.
>. NO MATTER WHAT. WE'VE ALREADY PROPOSED THAT ONCE,
[01:35:03]
AND WE'LL DO THE SAME THING AGAIN.>> WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS THERE'S NOTHING UNIQUE, UNUSUAL ABOUT THESE PROPERTIES TOPOGRAPHICALLY, RELATIVE TO THOSE ACROSS THE STREET OR SOMETHING LIKE [OVERLAPPING].
>> NO, MA'AM. I HAVE TO GRADE, AND I'LL PROBABLY STEM WALL UP THINGS LIKE THAT, SO IT'S THE LEAST AMOUNT OF IMPACT.
BUT I HAVE TO RAISE THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY MORE BECAUSE WE WILL HAVE A VAULT STORAGE SYSTEM THERE TO BE ABLE TO STORE FOR WATER'S RETENTION FOR STORM-WATER RUNOFF.
ALL NEW DEVELOPMENTS WILL HAVE TO DO THAT IN THE CITY.
ONCE THAT RULE WAS CHANGED ON THE FLOODPLAIN, WHICH IS A WISER RULING BECAUSE OF [INAUDIBLE] OR NOT, AND THE FLOODPLAIN MAPS, THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN ANYWHERE THERE'S A MORE INTENSE DEVELOPMENT LIKE A SMALL CITY OR A BIG CITY.
EVERYTHING WILL COME UP JUST A LITTLE BIT BY A FOOT OR SO, ALMOST TWO FEET.
BUT NOTHING ELSE IS UNIQUE ABOUT IT.
EVERYBODY HAS THAT SAME REQUIREMENT.
>> THE RATIONALE BEHIND THE LAW ALLOWING VARIANCES IS THAT A LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE ZONING CODE WOULD CREATE A HARDSHIP.
BASED ON WHAT YOU JUST SAID ABOUT THE VALUE PER SQUARE FOOT, ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOUR PARTICULAR HARDSHIP IS ECONOMIC IN NATURE?
>> NO, SIR, IT'S NOT. IT'S SO THAT I CAN PROVIDE A BETTER PRODUCT WITH MORE CONTROL OF HOW I CREATE GREEN SPACE AND PUT BACK INTO THE INVENTORY.
EVERYTHING IS DRIVEN BY ECONOMICS, BUT YOU CAN'T USE THAT AS A CRITERIA.
THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO PRODUCE.
I GOT TO BE ABLE TO CREATE SOMETHING THAT MEETS ALL THE CRITERIA OF THE CITY, AND FRANKLY, THE 25-FOOT UNDERLYING LOT RULE ALLOWS US TO MAKE SURE WE APPORTION AND LAY BUILDINGS IN A MORE UNIFORM, CONTROLLED AND SCIENCE THAT ALLOWS US TO PRESERVE OUR IMPERVIOUS SPACE RATIOS.
>> ANYTHING ELSE? THAT'S IT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> YES, SIR. SUBJECT TO ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL BE AVAILABLE.
>> I'D LIKE TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC COMMENTS.
>> MY NAME IS JOHN CASCON ALONG WITH MY WIFE, JENNIFER, I LIVE AT 116 SOUTH FOURTH STREET.
WE'VE BEEN THERE FOUR MONTHS SHY OF 34 YEARS.
WE LIVE ON THE PROPERTY 116, WHICH HAS BEEN SAID IS A 50 FOOT LOT.
IT'S A 75 FOOT LOT BECAUSE THERE WERE TWO 25S IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF US.
THE OWNERS PREVIOUS TO US, EITHER ONE OR TWO OWNERS PREVIOUS TO US BOUGHT THERE WAS A HOUSE ON THE SUBSEQUENT PART THAT WAS DESTROYED AND THEY BOUGHT THAT LOT AND EXPANDED ONTO HAVE A 75 FOOT LOT THAT WE'RE BOUND TO BY THIS CODE.
WE ALSO OWN THE 50 FOOT LOT RIGHT HERE, NUMBER FIVE THAT WE'RE BOUND TO.
I BELIEVE THERE'S BEEN A MISREADING OF 10305 A IN THE 2023 VERSION, AUGUST 1 REVISION, IT SAYS THAT ON SUCH LOTS THEREAFTER CONSTITUTE ONE BUILDING SITE AND MUST BE CONSIDERED THE LOT OF RECORD, AND NO PERMIT WILL BE ISSUED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT ON THE SITE.
NOT A TRIPLEX, NOT A DUPLEX, ONE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT.
SO THERE'S THREE HOUSES THAT CAN BE BUILT THERE, WHEREVER THAT MAP HAS NOW GONE.
THREE HOUSES THAT CAN BE BUILT THERE, NOT SIX.
MR. FLICK REFERRED TO A RULE AND IT WAS FOUR SOMETHING, WHATEVER, SAYS THAT ALL THE LOTS WEST OF HIM WERE 25S THAT THEY ALLOWED.
WELL, THERE WAS NEVER A RESIDENTIAL UNIT BUILT ON THOSE 25 FOOT LOTS.
IT WAS A LUMBER YARD FOR THOSE OF YOU ALL THAT DON'T KNOW AND THAT LUMBER YARD WAS ONE HUGE SITE.
ONCE THAT WENT AWAY, THEY WERE ABLE TO DO WHAT THEY DID.
[01:40:01]
THEY AREN'T TRYING TO TAKE FORMER RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND MAKE THEM INTO 25 FOOT LOTS.THEIR REQUEST, BASICALLY, LET ME JUST SAY THIS.
HIS REFERENCE TO THE PRIOR OWNERS, I KNEW ANGELO, TONY, NO JOSIE, KNEW THE OTHER BROTHER, JOHN.
THEY UNDERSTOOD WHAT THE RULES WERE, HE BOUGHT KNOWING WHAT THE RULES WERE.
HE'S NOT ENTITLED TO THE PRIVILEGES THAT THEY ENJOYED AS THE ORIGINAL OWNERS 50 OR 100 YEARS BEFORE THIS RULE CAME INTO PLAY.
HE BOUGHT KNOWING WHAT THIS RULE WAS.
THIS RULE APPLIES TO HIM AND ALWAYS TO ANY SUBSEQUENT OWNER.
IT'S JUST LIKE IF YOU BUY A BUILDING DOWNTOWN AND YOU'RE GOING TO RENOVATE IT, YOU'RE BOUND TO RENOVATE TO THE CURRENT CODE.
THERE ARE SOME VARIANCES THAT YOU'RE ALLOWED BECAUSE OF HISTORICAL STRUCTURE IN DESTROYING THE HISTORICAL NATURE OF THE BUILDING BY MAKING THAT ADJUSTMENT, BUT YOU'RE NOT EXEMPT.
YOU DON'T GET TO JUST SAY, I'M GOING BACK TO THE 1880 BUILDING CODE.
CAN I GO BACK TO THE 1879 CODE? DO YOU ALL BELIEVE THAT? THOSE PEOPLE AREN'T GOING TO LET ME DO THAT.
THE IDEA THAT THEY MEET ANY OF THE SIX IN WHICH IS IT 102.02.
I DON'T SEE THEM MEETING ANY OF THEM. I'M SORRY.
I'M NOT HERE TO CRITICIZE ANY OF THE CITY STAFF OR ANYTHING ELSE.
I'M NOT SAYING THAT THEY'RE RIGHT OR THEY'RE WRONG.
I'M TELLING YOU I DISAGREE WITH THEM.
LIKE MR. SANTRI, I'VE BEEN A LONG TIME MEMBER OF THE FLORIDA BAR.
I HAVE PARTICIPATED IN NUMEROUS HEARINGS AND PROBLEMS HERE IN THIS CITY AND I'VE ALWAYS STOOD UP FOR WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE THE RIGHT THING.
I BELIEVE THAT'S WHY YOU ALL SERVE AS PUBLIC SERVANTS.
THE RIGHT THING IS, HE'S ENTITLED TO THREE BUILDING UNITS ON FOURTH STREET AND IF YOU GO SOUTH ON FOURTH STREET, SOUTH OF BEACH STREET, THERE'S MORE 25 FOOT LOTS.
IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF HIM ON FOURTH STREET, THERE'S ABOUT SAY 4-6 25 FOOT LOTS THAT THEY COULD GO AND DO THE SAME THING.
IF YOU'LL OPEN THAT DOOR, THEY'RE GOING TO FLOOD IN AND I'VE HEARD THE NEW CHECKS IN THE MAIL ADAGE.
I'M A DEVELOPER AND I'M PROBABLY GOING TO DO IT. I DON'T BUY IT.
THESE ARE THE SAME PEOPLE THAT ON NOVEMBER 11, VETERANS DAY, CHOSE TO DESTROY OR REMOVE ASBESTOS WITHOUT A PERMIT AND IN VIOLATION OF THE EPA RULES.
WHY DID THEY CHOOSE VETERANS DAY? BECAUSE EVERY CALL I MADE TO THE CITY WENT TO A VOICEMAIL BECAUSE THE CITY WAS CLOSED.
THEY CONTRACTED WITH A COMPANY OUT OF JACKSONVILLE TO DO THAT, AND THEIR MANAGER ON SITE LIED TO ME AND TOLD ME THEY HAD A PERMIT.
MR. COULSON, MY NEIGHBOR WAS MY WITNESS BECAUSE HE SAW ME WALK OVER THERE.
THESE ARE WHO Y'ALL ARE DEALING WITH.
THE RULES DON'T APPLY TO THEM.
THEY'VE MADE THAT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR AND IT WAS ME AND MY FAMILY AND MY NEIGHBORS, MR. TOPOLISS, WHO SERVED ON THE COMMISSION OF THIS CITY FOR SEVERAL YEARS, THAT WERE EXPOSED TO THAT ASBESTOS, NOT MR. FLICK, AND NOT MR. SIMMONS, BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T OVER THERE.
I WAS BECAUSE I WAS IN MY YARD.
THAT'S WHAT Y'ALL ARE DEALING WITH.
Y'ALL ARE DEALING WITH PEOPLE THAT DON'T THINK RULES APPLY TO THEM, AND THEY'RE DOING IT AMAZINGLY FOR THE BETTERMENT AND THE BETTER LOOK OF FERNANDINA.
THEY BOUGHT KNOWING WHAT THE RULES WERE, THEY SHOULD BE BOUND BY THOSE RULES.
IF YOU'LL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'D BE GLAD TO ANSWER THEM, BUT I UNDERSTAND IF YOU DON'T.
>> CAN I ADD ONE THING. MY HOME IS ROUGHLY A 25 TO 3,000 FOOT STRUCTURE.
IT WAS BUILT BY THE RAILROAD CAR BOX FACTORY IN 1879.
MY NEIGHBOR TO THE SOUTH CAROLYN FELDER, A LONG TIME RETIRED CITY EMPLOYEE IS THE FOURTH GENERATION OF HER FAMILY TO LIVE IN THAT HOME.
THAT HOME IS HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE IT STILL HAS THE SECOND STORY SLEEPING PORCHES THAT MOST PEOPLE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THEY ARE.
THERE ARE NO OTHER 25 FOOT STRUCTURES ON OUR BLOCK,
[01:45:03]
OTHER THAN MISS FELDER'S.THE TWO OTHERS ON BEACH STREET.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE FOURTH ONE MISS HARTMAN WAS REPLYING TO INDICATING I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT FOURTH ONE IS, BUT I KNOW THAT THE THREE ARE RIGHT IN THAT AREA.
THE OTHER TWO BESIDES MISS FELDER'S ARE ONE STORY STRUCTURES.
THEY'RE NOT TWO STORY STRUCTURES TO MAXIMIZE SQUARE FOOTAGE.
THEY WERE BUILT BECAUSE THEY WERE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AT THE TIME, WHICH WAS SENATOR EULES DESIRE FOR THE AREA.
THAT'S NOT WHAT MR. FLICK IS TALKING ABOUT.
HE'S NOT TALKING ABOUT RETURNING TO THE ORIGINAL IDEA OF BUILDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR PEOPLE.
WE'RE NOT DEALING WITH NORMAL THINGS.
OUR HOMES ARE ALL DIFFERENT IN APPEARANCE.
SOME SINGLE, SOME DOUBLE, MINE I GUESS, WOULD BE A SPLIT LEVEL.
MR. COULSON'S IS A SINGLE LEVEL.
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT BRINGING IN ROW HOUSING, LIKE, DOWNTOWN, PHILADELPHIA, NEW YORK, BOSTON, WHATEVER.
THAT'S NOT WHAT FERNANDINA IS.
AND YOU'RE ASKING TO CHANGE THE ENTIRE NATURE OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, NOT JUST THE VISUAL ABILITY, VISUAL CORRIDOR, BUT WHAT YOU WILL SEE.
IF YOU RIDE DOWN THAT STREET AND THE PERFECT EXAMPLE IS, AS OF RECENT, PEOPLE HAVE DECIDED THEY'RE GOING TO PARK ON FOURTH STREET A COUPLE NIGHTS A WEEK, INCLUDING THE WEEKEND, IN ADDITION TO THE WEEKENDS.
AND YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT SAFETY IS.
SAFETY IS WONDERING IF YOUR NEIGHBOR THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE IN THEIR 80S OR IS IN ILL HEALTH IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET AN EMERGENCY VEHICLE TO THEIR HOME.
THAT'S WHAT Y'ALL ARE GOING TO DO IF YOU VOTE TO ALLOW THIS VARIANCE.
THERE ARE MANY OTHER THINGS THEY CAN DO WITH THAT PROPERTY.
THEY KNEW WHAT THE RULES WERE.
THEY BOUGHT. THEY'VE CHOSEN NOT TO FOLLOW THOSE RULES.
THEIR GOAL FROM THE BEGINNING WAS TO CHANGE THE RULES FOR THEM.
INSTEAD OF FOLLOW THE RULES FOR ALL OF US.
YOU KNOW THE OLD ADAGE ABOUT WE'RE A NATIONAL OF LAWS, NOT OF PEOPLE? THAT APPLIES HERE. I WOULD ASK YOU ALL TO FOLLOW THE LDC AND DENY THIS REQUEST FOR VARIANCE.
ANYBODY ELSE? PLEASE RIGHT HERE.
>> JACK EMBER, 1003 BROOM STREET FOR INDIANA BEACH.
I LIVE ON A 100 BY 100 FOOT LOT UNDERLYING 25 FOOT SPANISH LOTS, 25 BY 100.
WHEN WE GOT THERE, WE WERE TOLD SOME TIME BACK THERE WAS ONE STRUCTURE ON THERE.
WE WERE FINE WITH THAT. WE BUILT A 900 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE AND A CARPORT.
MY PROPERTY IS MORE DESIRABLE BECAUSE IT'S GOT 10 MATURE OAKS AND MANY OTHER SMALLER TREES ON IT.
IT ABSORBS RAIN. IT CAN'T FLOOD.
I JUST WANT TO GIVE YOU GUYS A QUICK ANALOGY, TRYING TO BREAK UP THE ROUTINE HERE.
THIS FARMER HAD HIS HORSE DIE IN THE HARNESS AND HE'S OUT THERE KICKING THAT HORSE.
THIS LITTLE BOY WALKS BY, SAYS, "MR, THAT HORSE IS DEAD." THE GUY SAYS, "NO, IT'S STILL MOVING.
IT'S ALIVE." THE LITTLE BOY SAID, "MR, IT'S ONLY MOVING BECAUSE YOU'RE STILL KICKING IT." THAT'S WHAT THIS IS.
THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE SEEN THIS PROPERTY COME BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.
IT SHOULD HAVE COME HERE ORIGINALLY WHEN THEY WERE CHALLENGING THE LDC THEN.
THIS IS JUST KICKING THE DEAD HORSE AGAIN, I THINK.
I JUST WANT TO REINSTATE ABOUT WHAT EVERYBODY SAYS ABOUT THE 25 FOOT LOTS.
THE OTHER PLACES WHERE 25 FOOT LOTS ARE DEVELOPED, THERE'S ALMOST NO SETBACKS.
YOU'RE TAKING SOMETHING THAT'S NOT PERMEABLE BECAUSE YOU'RE BUILDING ON ALL OF IT.
IF YOU WANT TO SEE WHAT A RETENTION VAULT LOOKS LIKE, THERE'S MY NEIGHBOR DOWN THE STREET AT 909, IT'S A BIG MANSION.
[01:50:04]
HE PUT A RETENTION VAULT IN THE BACK, IT'S NOT WORKING.I'M JUST VERY IMPRESSED BY EVERYBODY'S CORDIALITY, THE AUDIENCE, AND EVERYTHING THROUGH ALL THIS.
I WAS JUST VERY IMPRESSED WITH THE WHOLE THING.
IMPRESSED BY THE TENACITY OF LAWYERS TO SAY, ALL WE HAVE TO DO IS PUT A PERIOD OR A COMA AND IT'S GOING TO CHANGE IT, AND YOU'LL SEE.
WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE THIS WHOLE LDC.
BUT THE PEOPLE HAVE STOOD STRONG, THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS STOOD STRONG.
IF NOT FOR THIS PROCESS, WE WOULD HAVE BEEN NORTHERN JACKSON VILLA ALREADY.
>> AERIAL PHOTO SHOT, DRILL DOWN ON IT.
WE'RE THERE YET? MY NAME IS MONTEITH STEWART, AND I LIVE AT 121 NORTH 6TH STREET.
WE'RE THERE ON 4TH STREET, YEAH.
THIS IS MY MOTHER WHO'S IN THE AUDIENCE AT 126 SOUTH 4TH STREET.
SHE'S GOING TO GET A FRONT ROW VIEW OF WHATEVER'S COMING.
I'M JUST COMING TO TOWN, SHE'S GOING TO SEE WHAT'S COMING.
SHE'S BEEN HERE 40 PLUS YEARS AND I'VE BEEN HERE WITH HER ALL THOSE YEARS.
EXCEPT FOR 25 YEARS, I WAS IN THE US ARMY WITH A GENTLEMAN THAT I HAVE ALL THE RESPECT FOR IN THE WORLD AND THAT'S RON FLICK.
RON FLICK WAS AN AVIATOR IN THE ARMY.
FOR A GUY ON THE GROUND WITH AN M16, AND YOU GOT APACHE GUNSHIPS COMING IN, YOU WANT TO SEE RON FLICK.
WHEN I MET WITH HIM THE OTHER DAY WITH BRAD, WE WANTED TO COME WITH SOME AGREEMENT, AND HE CHARACTERIZED IT IN THE MANNER EARLIER.
I'D LIKE TO CHARACTERIZE WHAT I THOUGHT WE SAID TO RON AND THAT IS THIS.
WE SAID, "HEY, RON, THIS IS A COTNER HOME MY MOTHER LIVES IN." YOU GUYS KNOW COTNER? I DON'T KNOW. YOU KNOW MIRANDA COTNER? THIS IS A COTNER HOME.
IF YOU PUT A STICKER ON COTNER ON THAT HOME, IT'S WORTH A MILLION DOLLARS RIGHT AWAY.
WHAT THE DEVELOPER WANTS TO DO IS MAXIMIZE HERE BECAUSE TWO THINGS IN FERNANDINA YOU ASK FOR BEFORE YOU ASKED FOR THE PRICE OF SOMETHING.
THAT IS LOCATION AND SQUARE FOOTAGE.
THIS DEVELOPER WANTS TO MAXIMIZE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE IN A BRILLIANT LOCATION.
THAT'S WHAT YOU ASK FOR BEFORE YOU ASK FOR THE PRICE.
WHERE'S THE LOCATION? HOW MUCH SQUARE FOOTAGE? THEY SELL IT ON ZILLOW EVERY DAY.
SUMMER HOUSE SELLS IT WITHOUT PEOPLE EVEN COMING TO THIS TOWN.
THEY SOLD IT IN THE OLD LUMBER YARD, WHICH THOSE ARE GOING FROM A MILLION DOLLARS A PIECE.
GUYS KNOW THE LUMBER YARD PROJECT ACROSS THE STREET FROM WORTHY INVESTMENTS? 4TH STREET PROPERTY.
THERE USED TO BE A BIG LUMBER YARD THERE WHEN I WAS A KID.
NOW IT'S MILLION DOLLAR HOMES.
IT'S NOT A QUESTION OF RESTRICTING THESE GUYS TO ACHIEVE THE AMERICAN DREAM TO EXERCISE THEIR PROPERTY RIGHTS, TO MAKE MONEY.
THERE'S PLENTY OF MONEY TO BE MADE.
YOU GUYS EVEN SEE WHAT THEY PAID FOR THAT PROPERTY.
IT WILL SHOCK YOU WHAT THEY PAID FOR THAT.
I WOULD'VE LOVED TO HAVE BOUGHT IT.
IT DIDN'T COME ON THE MARKET. THEY GOT IT.
I DIDN'T GET A SHOT AT IT, AND PLENTY OF PEOPLE IN HERE WOULD LIKE TO GET A SHOT OF WHAT THEY PAID FOR IT.
GOOD FOR THEM. THIS IS AMERICA.
THEY GOT IT. I GOT THE CONCRETE YARD ON 8TH STREET.
THAT BIG LONG WHITE WALL, I BOUGHT IT FOR A STEEL.
WHAT DID THEY TELL ME, JUST LIKE CASCON WAS TELLING YOU EARLIER, IF YOU BUY IT BUDDY, YOU GET IT.
IF IT'S AN ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM ON THAT PROPERTY, YOU HAVE TO EAT IT.
I WENT IN THERE, WE CLEANED IT UP ENVIRONMENTALLY, AND I'M GOING TO DO OKAY WITH THAT YARD, JUST HERE.
WE ASKED MR. FLICK, "COLONEL FLICK, AVIATOR, I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT GUN." I'M ON THE GROUND WITH AN M16.
RON'S FLYING OVERHEAD, CLEARING IT OUT FOR ME.
IN KOSOVO, BOSNIA, IRAQ, YOU WANT TO SEE RON FLICK.
I WANT TO SEE RON FLICK IN HERE.
[LAUGHTER] BUT OVER THERE, I WANT TO SEE.
MAIN BOX, PLUS SLAP A COLONEL STICKER ON THAT THING.
I KNOW COLONEL PASSED AWAY, BUT THEY'RE STILL AROUND.
NEXT TO THAT, YOU BUILD A NICE LITTLE HOUSE.
IF THEY HAD DONE THAT, WE ASKED THEM TO BUILD A HOUSE HERE,
[01:55:01]
A HOUSE HERE, AND A HOUSE THERE, JUST LIKE IT IS.MAKE YOUR FORTUNE OVER THERE AND DO WHAT YOU WANT WITH 4TH STREET.
BRAD AND I SAID, IF YOU WANT TO, YEAH 3RD STREET.
MIRROR THOSE CONDOS OVER THERE.
BUT LEAVE THIS SIDE OPEN, SO MY MOTHER DOESN'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE TORTURE THE NEXT 50 YEARS OF HER LIFE ACROSS THE STREET HERE.
THEN YOU GOT MY FAVORITE LAWYER CASCO ON UP HERE, AND YOU HEARD ABOUT THE PORCHES IN THIS HOUSE, AND THIS IS CASCO RIGHT HERE ALSO.
I SAID I DON'T KNOW VARIANCES. I DON'T KNOW CODES.
I DON'T KNOW CON PLANS, BUT I'LL TELL YOU A STORY THAT HAPPENED LAST DECEMBER.
THIS LADY NAMED CARRIE COX, PUT A PHONE CALL INTO OUR VISITOR CENTER. THAT'S A CVB.
LANGLEY WASN'T THERE, LANGLEY RUNS THE PLACE, BUT A GUY NAMED PAUL BURNS IS THERE.
PAUL BURNS IS THE VICE UP THERE AND HE'S A BONA FIDE.
HE'S THE REAL DEAL IN FLORIDA TOURISM.
HE CAME FROM MARCO ISLAND, MARCO ISLAND, WHAT ELSE IS DOWN THERE? NAPLES, AVA MARIE HE CAME IN DECEMBER OF THIS YEAR. NOW IT'S MAY.
CARRIE COX IS CALLED INTO THE OFFICE, AND BURNS HAS JUST COME FROM MARCO.
YOU DON'T KNOW CARRIE COX IS? I DON'T KNOW WHO CARRIE COX IS.
CARRIE COX IS A SENIOR WRITER FOR A MAGAZINE CALLED GLOBAL TRAVELER, AND SHE SAYS, "HEY, PAUL, I'M COMING TO FERNANDINA.
HAVEN'T BEEN THERE IN 17 YEARS.
I WAS THERE 17 YEARS AGO AND WE'RE GETTING READY TO SPIN UP AN ARTICLE FOR THE BEST OF ISLANDS IN THE COUNTRY, THE TOP ISLANDS IN THE COUNTRY." PAUL KNOWS THIS WOMAN BECAUSE HE'S IN THE BUSINESS.
I TOLD YOU HE WAS WITH HILTON, AS WELL AS DISNEY.
JUST 35 YEARS OF THE TOURISM INDUSTRY, SO YOU HAVE THESE TWO POWER HEADS OF THE TOURISM INDUSTRY TALKING, A CHIEF WRITER AT GLOBAL TRAVELER MAGAZINE AND PAUL BURNS.
COME ON TO TOWN. THIS IS WHAT SHE SAYS.
I HAVEN'T BEEN THERE IN 17 YEARS.
I SURE HOPE IT HASN'T CHANGED.
I REMEMBER THE CHARM OF FERNANDINA.
I REMEMBER WALKING AROUND. I REMEMBER DRIVING ON SOUTH FLETCHER AND SEEING THE OCEAN.
DRIVING DOWN SOUTH FLETCHER AND BEING ABLE TO SEE THE OCEAN.
I REMEMBER FORT CLINCH AND I REMEMBER HAVING A PIRATES PUNCH.
SHE REMEMBERS THAT FROM 17 YEARS AGO.
SHE GOES, "HEY, PAUL, I HOPE IT HASN'T CHANGED." PAUL BURNS STICKS HIS NECK OUT AND SAYS, I GUARANTEE YOU, IT HASN'T CHANGED IN 17 YEARS.
STICKS HIS NECK OUT, 17 YEARS GO BY.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT WINDOW RIGHT NOW, AND I USED TO GET A FILTER FOR AN EVINRUDE ENGINE TO GO DOWN AND HUNT AND FISH.
NOW IT'S THE COOLEST PLACE TO LISTEN TO MUSIC.
THAT IS WHAT RIGHT LOOKS LIKE.
JUST LOOKING OUT THAT WINDOW RIGHT THERE.
SUMMER HOUSE IS THE COOLEST REAL ESTATE VENUE IN TOWN.
JUST KEEP GOING UP THAT STREET, 28 SOUTH, IT'S NOT THERE, BUT THERE'S A COUPLE OF OTHER PLACES YOU CAN SMOKE A CIGAR IN TOMASETI'S OFFICE.
[LAUGHTER] WHY WOULD A WOMAN SAY THAT 17 YEARS LATER THAT'S NOTHING CHANGED? IS IT BECAUSE WE'VE HAD GREAT CITY MANAGERS? I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT ONE. YOU GUYS BE THE JUDGE IN THAT.
NEWSLEADER MIGHT NOT AGREE WITH YOU? IS IT BECAUSE WE HAVE GREAT DEVELOPERS? ALL OUR DEVELOPERS ARE GREAT? NO, THEY'RE DOING GOOD STUFF IN WILDLIGHT, DOWN BLACK ROCK ROAD.
THIS ISN'T DEVELOPERS PARADISE HERE.
SEE WHAT ELSE COULD IT BE? IT COULD BE CITIZENS BUILDING THINGS.
LINDY ASKING TO PUT BLACK BIRDS ON THE SIDE OF THE WALL.
IF YOU HEAR IT, YOU THINK IT'S CRAZY, BUT YOU LOOK AT IT AND IT'S BEAUTIFUL.
IT'S NOT THAT, SO YOU GOT TO THINK OF WHAT IT CAN BE.
IS THERE A GREAT CITY COMMISSIONERS? I KNOW WHY IT IS.
IT'S BECAUSE OF THIS QUIET EXCELLENT BOARD.
FOR 42 YEARS, THIS BOARD HAS BEEN HOLDING THE LINE ON CRAZINESS.
NINE HOUSES ACROSS THE STREET FROM MY MOTHER.
IN MY 42 YEARS, IT'S THE QUIET WORK THAT YOU GUYS DO, AND IT'S REAL QUIET.
WHEN I'M EXTREMELY BORED, I WILL FLIP THIS ON A WEDNESDAY NIGHT AND WATCH IT ON TV.
[LAUGHTER] THAT'S ULTIMATE BOREDOM I HAVE TO BE IN.
[02:00:02]
I DO THAT. SOMETHING WILL COME UP LIKE WE'RE GOING TO THE ONE I WATCHED WAS HIGHER DENSITY ON CENTER STREET.YOU'RE GOING TO LET APARTMENTS BE UPSTAIRS ON CENTER STREET, AND YOU TALKED ABOUT DENSITY.
THIS IS WHERE THE LINE IS ON THE NUTS, THE CRAZINESS OF MAKING THAT THING NOT TRUE THAT TWO PROFESSIONALS WHO'VE SEEN EVERYTHING IN FLORIDA HAVE SEEN IN 30 YEARS.
I DIDN'T TALK ABOUT ANY CODES OR VARIANCES, DID I? SORRY. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO ME.
>> DO I NEED TO STATE MY NAME?
>> SANDY CARRIE, FERNANDINA BEACH.
I LOST MY BATTERY AT THIS POINT. HERE WE ARE AGAIN.
>> I'M SORRY. YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
>> SANDY CARRIE, 1255 FOREST DRIVE, FERNANDINA BEACH.
AS HAS ALREADY BEEN STATED, I WON'T REITERATE WHAT'S ALREADY BEEN SAID THAT THE SIX CRITERIA UNDER THE CITY LDC FOR 10.0202A HAVE NOT BEEN MET.
I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO STATE THAT UNDER THAT SAME PORTION OF THE LDC, SECTION B SAYS THE APPLICANT, FOR A VARIANCE HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF OF DEMONSTRATING THAT THE APPLICATION COMPLIES WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 10.0202A, AND IT ALSO STATES THAT ALL OF THEM MUST BE MET.
NO ONE, NOT TWO, SO REALLY, IT DOESN'T MATTER.
MY CONCERN HERE IS THAT THE APPLICANT HASN'T MET THAT BURDEN.
THE CITY STAFF PLANNING OFFICE SEEMS TO THINK THAT THEIR OPINION IS WHAT IS NEEDED HERE WHEN IT IS ACTUALLY THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVE THAT, SO THERE'S A PROBLEM THERE.
JUST UNDER THE CITY LDC, YOU'LL HAVE NO CHOICE, BUT TO FOLLOW WHAT THAT SAYS.
ALSO, WHAT WAS STATED EARLIER WAS THAT WE KNOW THIS IS CURRENTLY IN LITIGATION, BUT A CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE HAS RULED THAT THE LDC IS WHAT IT SAYS AND THAT IT SHOULD BE FOLLOWED.
THAT ORDER STANDS AS IT IS NOW.
I BELIEVE THAT APPLIES TO YOU ALSO ON THAT LEVEL.
LASTLY, STATE LAW UNDER SECTION 163, STATES CONSISTENCY WITH A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS REQUIRED.
THE COMMUNITY PLANNING ACT, CHAPTER 163, PART 2, FLORIDA, MANDATES THAT ALL LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ADOPT AND MAINTAIN A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH GUIDES FUTURE LAND DEVELOPMENT.
IT IS THE EXPRESS INTENT OF THAT ACT THAT ADOPTED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SHALL HAVE THE LEGAL STATUS SET OUT IN THIS ACT AND THAT NO PUBLIC OR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE PERMITTED EXCEPT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR ELEMENTS OR PORTIONS THEREOF.
AGAIN, UNDER STATE LAW, YOU'RE ALSO BOUND TO FOLLOW THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
ONCE THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT HAS ADOPTED A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS MANDATED BY THE ACT, ALL SUBSEQUENT ACTIONS TAKEN BY IT WITH REGARD TO AUTHORIZING DEVELOPMENT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THAT PLAN.
WE HAVE A JUDGE ON THE CIRCUIT COURT LEVEL HAS SAID WHAT CONSISTENCY WITH THAT ACT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IS, AND IT IS AS IT STANDS TODAY, NOT WHAT OTHERS WANT TO INTERPRET OR MAKE IT TO BE.
THE ACT ALSO STRICTLY PROHIBITS THE APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT ORDER THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH AN ADOPTED PLAN UNDER FLORIDA STATUTE SECTION 163.3165.
A DEVELOPMENT ORDER IS ANY ORDER GRANTING, DENYING OR GRANTING WITH CONDITIONS, AN APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.
A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IS DEFINED TO INCLUDE ANY BUILDING PERMIT, ZONING PERMIT, SUBDIVISION APPROVAL, REZONING, CERTIFICATION, SPECIAL EXCEPTION, VARIANCE, WHICH IS WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING AT TONIGHT.
THIS IS COMING UNDER A DEVELOPMENT ORDER.
[02:05:02]
VARIANCE OR ANY OTHER OFFICIAL ACT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT HAVING THE EFFECT OF PERMITTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF LAND.FROM WHAT I CAN SEE, AND THIS IS GOING ON AS HAS BEEN STATED, THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN BEFORE THIS BOARD AS THE FIRST COURSE OF ACTION, WOULDN'T WASTE THE TAX DOLLARS, AND THE TIME, AND THE MONEY THAT HAS GONE OUT IN THIS WHOLE THING.
I WAS AT THE VERY MEETING WHEN THIS CAME BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND WAS PULLED AT THE LAST MINUTE, I BELIEVE, VIOLATING CITY CODE AS TO PROCEDURE BECAUSE NO NOTICE WAS GIVEN THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE WITHDRAWN FROM THE HEARING.
THAT WAS THE FIRST ACT THAT WAS USED TO TRY AND GET AROUND THE CODE.
WHEN THAT DIDN'T WORK, THEN WE ENDED UP IN COURT IN LITIGATION.
NOW WE HAVE A JUDGE RULING SAYING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IS WHAT IT SAYS, AND YOU MUST FOLLOW IT UNTIL IT'S APPEALED OR OVERTURNED AND IT HAS NOT HAPPENED.
YOU'RE BOUND AS FAR AS I CAN SEE ON EVERY LEVEL, CITY STATE, ALL OF IT.
I THINK JUST CITIZENS IN THIS COMMUNITY ARE TIRED OF HAVING TO FIGHT THEIR ELECTED OFFICIALS AND PLANNING STAFF, WHICH IS UNFORTUNATE THAT WE DON'T HAVE A NORMAL PERSON THAT WAS HERE THROUGHOUT THE PERIOD OR THE CITY ATTORNEY.
I UNDERSTAND THINGS COME UP, BUT THIS IS DRAGGED ON AND THERE IS ALSO AN ELEMENT OF THE CODE THAT SAYS IF ACTION ISN'T TAKEN ON AN APPLICATION WITHIN 12 MONTHS, IT SHOULD BE PRECLUDED FROM EVER COMING BACK AGAIN.
THIS IS GOING ON FOR WELL BEYOND 12 MONTHS, AND IT'S TIME TO JUST DO THE RIGHT THING. ANY QUESTIONS?
YOU SAID THAT THE APPLICATION HAS SOMETHING ABOUT 12 MONTHS.
>> THERE'S A PROCEDURE ON THE LDC THAT USUALLY WHEN AN APPLICANT COMES IN FOR ANYTHING UNDER THE CITY CODE, THEY HAVE TO TAKE ACTION ON IT WITHIN 12 MONTHS, OTHERWISE.
>> THE CITY. MY POINT JUST BEING THAT THIS STARTED MORE THAN 12 MONTHS AGO AND IT'S GONE THROUGH VARIOUS PROCEDURES TO TRY AND DO WHATEVER, BUT IT HAS BEEN LONG AFTER 12 MONTHS.
>> THANK YOU, MISS KERRY. MR. CLICK, WHY DON'T WE HOLD OFF AND CLOSE OUT PUBLIC COMMENTS BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY ADDRESSED THAT ONCE, BUT ALSO, YOU MIGHT GET ANOTHER ISSUE THAT YOU WANT TO ADDRESS.
LET'S JUST HOLD ON THAT. SURE. ANYONE ELSE? PLEASE.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS MARK BENNETT.
I LIVE AT 815 SOUTH FLETCHER AVENUE, AND I'VE BEEN IN THE CITY FOR OVER 27 YEARS.
I WAS ON THE PLANNING BOARD WHEN 2006 WAS WRITTEN, AND I'M PROUD TO SAY I WAS THERE IN 2004 WHEN WE STARTED IT.
IT TOOK US MONTHS OF PUBLIC COMMENT ROOMS FILLED WITH PEOPLE JUST LIKE THIS, TELLING US THEIR PASSION, THEIR CONCERNS ABOUT OVER-DEVELOPMENT OF THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS PICTURE HERE.
COULD YOU PULL THAT OUT A LITTLE BIT? BECAUSE THE IDEA IS, THAT A NEIGHBOR ON THAT STREET, BE IT SOUTH FORTH OR THIRD COULD WALK OUT ON YOUR PORCH AND KNOW THAT THERE WERE SIX HOUSES ON THAT STREET THAT THEY WALK BY EVERY DAY, NOT 12, NOT SEVEN, NOT WHATEVER, JUST THE THREE HOUSES.
THAT WAS THE IMPETUS FOR PUTTING IN 10305 WAS TO GIVE, ONE HOUSE ONE PARCEL CONTROL NUMBER WITH THE NASSAU COUNTY PARCEL ID NUMBER, WHICH IS VERY IMPORTANT, AND I WILL TELL YOU NOW, ANOTHER CHANGE IS TRYING TO BE MADE IN THE CITY TO DO AWAY WITH THAT.
THAT PARCEL ID NUMBER EXPLAINS WHO THE OWNER IS, WHAT'S ON THE PROPERTY.
WHAT IS THE COMPOSITION OF THAT PROPERTY.
THREE HOUSES CAN ONLY BE BUILT THERE.
NOT 12. I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO EXPRESS THIS ANY FURTHER.
YOU'RE BEING ASKED TO DO SOMETHING THAT TOTALLY AGAINST WHAT WE SPENT MONTHS AND MONTHS DOING.
YOU'VE HEARD THE PASSION, YOU'VE HEARD THE SPEAKERS HERE, THEY'RE CONCERNED.
THIS IS THE SAME STORY I'VE HEARD WHEN WE STARTED THIS.
YOU'RE GOING TO KILL THE CITY. I'M TELLING YOU.
[02:10:01]
IT WAS NOT DESIGNED FOR NEW YORK CITY.MAYBE THAT WAS THE VISION 1858 OR WHATEVER CAME TO TOWN, BUT THAT'S NO LONGER THE VISION HERE. WE'RE NOT THERE.
THIS NEIGHBORHOOD HAS BEEN DEVELOPED SINCE THESE PEOPLE MOVED IN, THEIR GRANDPARENTS MOVED IN.
THEY DIDN'T LOOK FOR TOWNHOUSES.
THEY WANTED SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES WITH NEIGHBORS THEY COULD TALK TO.
NOT ANOTHER 30 PEOPLE WALKING UP THE STREET WITH THEIR DOGS, ANOTHER 60 CARS, ANOTHER ALL OF THE OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS, CUTTING DOWN TREES, MAKING SMALLER HOUSES.
THAT'S NOT WHERE THIS PLACE WAS AT AND IT'S NEVER BEEN THERE.
>> MISS SANDY [INAUDIBLE] I CAN HEAR YOU.
MR. SANDY WAS ON THE PLANNING BOARD IN 2007.
>> YOU DON'T EVEN [INAUDIBLE].
BUT A LOT OF THESE PEOPLE I'VE SEEN MULTIPLE TIMES, AND IT'S THE SAME STORY JUST A DIFFERENT DAY. DIFFERENT HOUR.
>> OKAY. ANYBODY ELSE? I'M SORRY MISS KIRKLAND I'LL GET YOU NEXT.
>> THANK YOU. I'M MARGARET KIRKLAND, 1377 PLANTATION POINT DRIVE.
I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF CONSERVE NASSAU.
I JUST WANT TO REMIND US I WHOLEHEARTEDLY BASED ON ALL OF MY STUDIES OVER THE LAST DECADE.
I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE WITH EVERYTHING MR. SANDY HAS SAID AND I'M FAMILIAR WITH SOME OF THAT BACKGROUND.
I JUST WANTED TO REMIND YOU OF SOME OF THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF THIS.
THESE HOUSES ON THIS SIDE OF FOREST STREET MAY NOT BE IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, BUT THEY ARE IN THE VIEW SHED OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, WHICH HAS THE SAME IMPACT OUR PERCEPTIONS OF WHAT IS OUR HISTORIC DISTRICT, ARE FORMED BASED ON WHAT IS IN THE VIEW SHED.
IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE REMEMBER SOME OF THESE CONSIDERATIONS.
THE SMALL TOWN CHARACTER, WHICH ONE OF THE PRESENTERS MENTIONED.
THAT IS A HIGH PRIORITY FOR ALL THE CITIZENS. HOW DO WE KNOW? BECAUSE IT WAS ONE OF THE TWO TOP PRIORITIES IN THE VISION PLAN 2045 AND ALSO A VERY HIGH PRIORITY IN THE PREVIOUS 2019 EAR.
THAT'S WHAT THE CITIZENS WANT.
THE SMALL TOWN CHARACTER IS ONE OF THE MAJOR ATTRACTIONS ON THE ISLAND, AND THEREFORE, IT IS FUNDAMENTAL NOT ONLY FOR THE ECONOMY OF THE CITY BUT ALSO FOR THE ECONOMY OF THE COUNTY.
THERE IS NO TAX REVENUE THAT CAN COMPENSATE FOR THAT.
WHEN YOU LOSE YOUR SENSE OF PLACE IN A LOCATION, THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF STUDIES BY PLANNERS ABOUT THIS, INCLUDING ED MCMAHON AND OTHERS.
BUT WHEN YOU LOSE THE SENSE OF PLACE OF A PARTICULAR LOCATION, THE ECONOMY TENDS TO GO DOWN, AND THAT IS RESEARCH-BASED.
CHANGING THE VIEW SHED OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT IS CHANGING THE HISTORIC DISTRICT ITSELF.
IF WE WERE STRATEGIC IN HOW WE BUILD IN THAT AREA AROUND THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, OUR PERCEPTIONS AND THE PERCEPTIONS OF OTHERS OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT WOULD EXPAND IT.
BUT INSTEAD, OVER THE YEARS, WE HAVE APPROVED THINGS THAT HAVE SHRUNKEN OUR PERCEPTION OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
SO WHAT WE DO AROUND THE HISTORIC DISTRICT IS IMPORTANT, AND THE HISTORIC DISTRICT IS PART OF THE SUCCESS OF OUR DOWNTOWN BUSINESS DISTRICT AS WELL.
QUALITY VIEW SHED IN LINE WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE CITY IS CLEARLY A VALUE THAT EVERYBODY HAS POINTED OUT, THE LDC IS FULL OF REMINDERS OF THIS.
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS FULL OF REMINDERS OF THIS, FOR EXAMPLE, OBJECTIVE 106 COMMUNITY CHARACTER,
[02:15:04]
WHICH YOU'VE ALL SEEN.I ALSO WANT TO REMIND PEOPLE THAT INCOMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT, AND I DO AGREE WITH THE ANALYSIS ON 0.5 AND SIX AND THE CRITERIA.
INCOMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT OF THESE PARCELS WILL HAVE AN IMPACT ON PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THE AREA.
IN THE PAB, THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL OCCASIONS WHERE PEOPLE HAVE COME FORTH ABOUT DEVELOPMENT IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS DOWNTOWN THAT HAVE COMPLETELY CHANGED THE NEIGHBORHOODS AND LOWERED THEIR PROPERTY VALUES, IMPACTED THEIR QUALITY OF LIFE AND SO ON.
THOSE ARE THINGS WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT.
SOMEONE MENTIONED THE FLOODING ISSUE.
WHAT WE HAVE LEARNED ABOUT THE PROBLEMS MID ISLAND.
MID ISLAND, WE'VE HAD MORE FLOODING RECENTLY, AND WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO GET THE CITY AND THE COUNTY TO COLLABORATE ON ADDRESSING THOSE ISSUES.
BUT IN THAT AREA, WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS WE HAVE OVERDEVELOPED.
WE HAVE TOO MUCH IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, AND WE HAVE REMOVED WHAT WAS OUR TRADITIONAL STORMWATER PROCESSING SYSTEM, WHICH WAS OUR TREE CANOPY.
THAT CAN HAPPEN IN THE CITY AS WELL, AND IT WILL HAPPEN IN THE CITY IF WE CONTINUE TO TRY TO DEVELOP EVERY PARCEL.
THAT IS NOT GOING TO RAISE THE TAX REVENUE.
MAYBE FOR A LITTLE WHILE, AND THEN IT WILL GO DOWN.
WE REALLY NEED TO BE QUITE CAREFUL ABOUT THIS.
WE NEED TO REMEMBER THAT THE PROPERTY OWNERS OTHER THAN THE APPLICANT HAVE RIGHTS ALSO.
THE IMPACTS ON THOSE PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY ARE REAL, AND THEY ARE IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO DEFEND, AS WELL AS FOR ALL OF THE REST OF US TO DEFEND. THANK YOU.
I'M GOING TO KEEP IT SHORT AND SIMPLE.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE TWO POINTS.
ONE IS THAT OPEN SPACE AND GREEN SPACE IS LISTED FIRST.
WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE LDC LISTED FIRST AND A LOT OF PLACES THERE, AND IT'S BECAUSE IT'S PROBABLY ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS TO US HERE.
IT HELPS CREATE THAT SENSE OF SPACE.
I LIVE IN A 940 SQUARE FOOT COTTAGE, AND I HAVE LOTS OF SPACE.
EVERYONE THAT HAS COME OVER AND ENJOYED ONE OF OUR OYSTER ROWS OR OUR LOW COUNTRY BOILS HAS LEFT SAYING HOW PEACEFUL THEY FEEL.
THEY LOVE COMING OVER, AND IT FEELS LIKE GOING TO GRANDMOTHER'S HOUSE IN THE COUNTRY.
PART OF THAT IS BECAUSE WE HAVE CREATED A SENSE OF PLACE WITH OUR GREEN SPACE.
WE'VE GOT A LITTLE BIT OF PRIVACY.
WE HAVE TONS OF SHADE BECAUSE WE DO HAVE THOSE MATURE TREES THAT THE ESTATE OWNERS BEFORE US PROTECTED.
WE APPRECIATE THAT AND WE RESPECT THAT, AND WE HOPE TO PASS THAT ON TO OUR CHILDREN.
MR. FLICK'S PLAN REALLY JUST IGNORES ALL THAT.
I MEAN, IT SAYS IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THE HOMES WERE DEMOLISHED, YOU CAN'T RESTORE THAT, AND YOU CAN ONLY BUILD ONE HOME ON THOSE TWO LOTS.
I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER.
ALSO, I WANT TO GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF A VARIANCE THAT WAS GRANTED FOR ME AT MY PROPERTY.
ALTHOUGH IT'S A COUNTY, IT'S STILL THE SAME CONCEPT, TRADITIONALLY, A VARIANCE IS GRANTED WHEN THERE IS NO OTHER POSSIBLE WAY TO MEET, THE LDC OR WHATEVER THAT CURRENT CRITERIA IS.
I WAS GIVEN A VARIANCE BECAUSE MY WELL WENT OUT.
TODAY'S STANDARD, WHERE IT'S AT RIGHT NOW, IT WASN'T MET BECAUSE IT WASN'T X AMOUNT OF FEET AWAY FROM OUR SEPTIC TANK, AND I COULDN'T PUT IT ANYWHERE ELSE ON THAT PROPERTY BECAUSE IT WOULD EITHER POSE A SAFETY HAZARD BECAUSE OF THE POWER LINES OR EXISTING MATURE TREES, OR IT WOULD BE TOO CLOSE TO SOMEBODY ELSE'S SEPTIC TANK.
THEY GAVE ME A VARIANCE, AND IT'S A NO BRAINER.
A VARIANCE, AGAIN, IT'S GIVEN WHEN THERE'S JUST NO OTHER POSSIBLE WAY TO MEET IT.
[02:20:03]
IT IS NOT HANDED OUT FOR DEVELOPERS TO CAPITALIZE ON THEIR PROPERTY TO MAKE THE MOST PROFIT OR BUILD THE MOST HOMES THERE.THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO SAY. QUESTIONS?
>> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS JULIE FERRERA, FERRERA 501 DATE STREET.
WHAT I WANTED TO SAY TONIGHT WAS THAT I WAS IN THE ROOM IN 2006 WHEN 10305 WAS ADOPTED.
I ATTENDED MANY MEETINGS IN THIS ROOM WHERE THE PUBLIC CAME AND PROVIDED INPUT INTO THE RESTRUCTURING OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AT THAT POINT.
IN 2006, WE HAD A DIFFERENT PLANNING OBJECTIVE, I GUESS, I'LL CALL IT.
WE HAD A BROAD VISION OF GROWTH, AND IT WAS NOT TO OVERWHELM THE AUTHENTICITY OF HISTORIC SURROUNDINGS.
THE INTENT WAS TO KEEP THE UNIQUENESS AND THE QUALITY OF LIFE WITHIN THE CITY.
I PROPOSED THAT THERE WERE DISCUSSIONS AND AGREED UPON POLICIES AT THAT POINT IN TIME TO MOVE AWAY FROM INTENSIVE DEVELOPMENT.
I WOULD PROPOSE THAT THESE ARE STILL VALID.
ONE OH THREE OH FIVE WAS ESTABLISHED, THE CITY WAS CONCERNED WITH ALL OF THOSE WORDS UNDER 10305, OPEN SPACE.
VISUAL CORRIDORS, NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER, ESPECIALLY NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER AND VISUAL ATTRACTIVENESS.
WHAT WOULD NOT DECREASE FROM THE VALUE OF THE HOMES.
IF YOU'RE COMING IN WITH A NEW HOME, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO DECREASE THE VALUE OF YOUR NEIGHBORS.
I WAS UP TILL 4:00 O'CLOCK LAST NIGHT.
I WAS RESEARCHING AN AGENDA PACKET THAT WAS INCLUDED IN A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PAB AND THE CITY COMMISSION.
IT WAS WHEN I WAS NOT IN TOWN.
I DON'T KNOW WHY THIS AGENDA PACKET ISN'T IN THE INFORMATION.
I WENT ONLINE. I LOOKED AT THE BOA, I LOOKED AT WHAT YOU'D BE GIVEN.
THE AGENDA PACKET THAT COMES FROM THAT SPECIAL MEETING ON 927/23.
IT TALKS ABOUT THE HISTORY OF 10305, WHICH TO ME IS CRUCIAL IN THIS DECISION THAT YOU'RE MAKING.
WHY THAT INFORMATION WASN'T INCLUDED, I DON'T KNOW.
BUT WITHIN THAT, IT'S 409 PAGES LONG.
BUT PART OF THAT AGENDA PACKET.
THERE WAS A MEMORANDUM THAT WAS WRITTEN ON JANUARY 26, 2006 BY DEVA BRAGA, THE CURRENT CITY ATTORNEY.
IT SAYS, AS WE BEGIN THE FINAL PROCESS TOWARDS ADOPTION OF THE NEW LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, THE PLANNING STAFF AND I HAVE REVIEWED THE LATEST DRAFT AND WE'RE OFFERING THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS, PROPOSED CHANGES.
NUMBER 1. SHE'S REFERRING TO 10503.
THIS IS A NEW SECTION, WHICH WILL REQUIRE THAT THE PROPERTY WHICH HAS BEEN USED TOGETHER IN THE PAST NOT BE DIVIDED.
FOR EXAMPLE, IF A HOUSE OR OTHER ACCESSORY USE IS BUILT ON 250 FOOT LOTS EXTENDING OVER BOTH LOTS.
THAT WOULD BECOME THE BUILDING SITE FOR ALL PURPOSES AND WOULD PREVENT A NEW OWNER FROM COMING IN LATER AND BUILDING TWO NEW DWELLINGS ON INDIVIDUAL LOTS.
THEN IT GOES AND IT STARTS TALKING ABOUT THE VERBIAGE FOR 10305.
I'M GOING TO PASS THIS OUT TO YOU GUYS.
>> MISS FERERRA, ARE YOU INCORPORATING THIS IN THE RECORD?
>> THANK YOU. THEN YOU MAY WANT TO GIVE A COPY.
>> I DON'T HAVE A COPY OF THE CITY.
>> YOU CAN GIVE MINE TO. [INAUDIBLE]
[02:25:10]
>> I JUST OFFER THAT AS SOME INFORMATION OF THE INTENT BACK IN 2006.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT COMMUNITY CHARACTER IS REFLECTED IN THIS CURRENT REQUEST.
AS WE ALL KNOW, IT'S ACROSS FROM THE HISTORIC DISTRICT ON FOURTH STREET.
I BELIEVE THIS IS A TRUE STATEMENT THAT, IF I CAN FIND IT, THAT MAYBE, YEAH, SO ACCORDING TO SUN BIZ, WORTHY INVESTMENT, LLC WAS CREATED IN NOVEMBER OF 2022.
I BELIEVE THIS WAS AFTER THE FIRST PAB MEETING DISCUSSING THIS PROPERTY IN 10305.
TO MY MIND, THAT MEANS THAT THE PURCHASER WHO WAS WORTHY INVESTMENT, RICHARD SIMMONS, MR. FLICK, THEY KNEW FULL WELL THAT THIS PROPERTY HAD SPECIAL ENCUMBERMENTS ON IT.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE'RE HERE AS A CITY TO GUARANTEE PROFITS TO INVESTORS, I THINK WE'RE HERE TO PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF OUR CITY AND OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.
THIS PROPOSED PROJECT IS GOING TO START, TO MY UNDERSTANDING, 13.6 FEET ABOVE STREET LEVEL.
I WOULD PROPOSE THAT THAT'S OUT OF SCALE HEIGHT-WISE WITH SURROUNDING HOUSES IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
LET'S SAY THEY BUILD A 35-FOOT HOUSE, IF YOU ADD 13.6 TO THAT, THAT'S 48.6 FEET.
A BUILDING, 48.6, A HOUSING UNIT, DWELLING UNIT, 48.6, POTENTIALLY, COULD BE BUILT ACROSS THE STREET FROM MS. [INAUDIBLE] HOUSE WHICH IS A ONE-STORY HOUSE.
I FEEL HARD-PRESSED TO SEE HOW THIS PROPOSAL STABILIZES OR PROTECTS THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
WE HAVE A POLICY, IT'S 1.0210, IT STATES [NOISE] THAT THERE SHOULD BE SOME PROTECTION TO ACCESS TO LIGHT, AIR, AND OPEN SPACE.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT A 35-FOOT HOME.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PLAN IS.
YOU'RE BEING ASKED TO MAKE A DECISION ON SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT'S COMING DOWN THE PIKE.
ANYWAY, I WOULD SAY THAT A 35-FOOT HOME BUILT UP TO 1.6, I THINK IT'S OUT OF SCALE.
THERE'S OBJECTIVE 106 OF THE LDC, SPEAKS OF COMMUNITY CHARACTER.
I DON'T THINK THIS REPRESENTS COMMUNITY CHARACTER.
I'D JUST LIKE TO ASK THE QUESTION, WHAT DOES A PLAT IN 1857 MEAN IN THIS DAY AND AGE? I WROTE A LETTER TO THE [INAUDIBLE] LAST FRIDAY'S PAPER.
I TRY TO EXPLAIN THE HISTORY OF DAVID YULEE AND WHAT HIS INTENTIONS WERE.
HE VISUALIZED THE METROPOLIS, HE VISUALIZED BRINGING NEW YORK CITY SOUTH, AND HE CREATED 25-FOOT LOTS TO RECORD FOR RAILROAD WORKERS STARTING TO BUILD THE RAILROAD AND HE WANTED AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
IN 1857, WE HAD CARTS AND HORSES AND OXEN, I DON'T THINK THERE WERE ANY CARS.
RIGHT NOW, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IMPOSING A PLAT FROM 1857 ON CURRENT-DAY FERNANDINA BEACH, FLORIDA.
THERE'S NO MORE CARTS, THERE'S NO MORE HORSES, THERE'S NO MORE OXEN.
WHEN I WAS A CHILD, THERE WAS A MAN WHO WENT DOWN THE ROAD PICKING UP TRASH IN AN OXEN AND CART.
WE DON'T HAVE THAT ANYMORE, BUT WE HAVE A LOT OF CARS.
I AM GOING TO SAY THAT WE CAN'T BASE
[02:30:02]
OUR DECISIONS ON THE HIGHEST DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL.THIS 409-PAGE PACKET THAT I READ LAST NIGHT UP TO FOUR O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING, [NOISE] THERE WAS INFORMATION PREPARED FOR THE CITY FROM 2020, FROM THE BUREAU OF ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS RESEARCH FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA.
THAT TALKS ABOUT THE FUTURE OF FERNANDINA.
IT USES INCREDIBLE TERMINOLOGY THAT'S LIKE GREEK.
I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT.
THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT POPULATION PROJECTIONS BASED ON LINEAR METHODS, EXPONENTIAL METHODS, CONSTANT SHARE.
WHAT THE HELL IS CONSTANT SHARE? SHARE OF GROWTH AND SHARE SHIFT.
I KNOW WHAT SHAPESHIFT IS, I DON'T KNOW WHAT SHARE SHIFT IS.
IT'S ALL GREEK, THIS IS ALL GREEK.
BUT IN PLANNING SPEAK, IT MUST MEAN SOMETHING.
BUT WHAT'S NOT GREEK IS THE BLACK-AND-WHITE LANGUAGE OF 10305, AND TO NOT UPHOLD IT MEANS THAT THAT PARCEL TO THE SOUTH ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE TRINGALI PROPERTY ON BEACH STREET IS GOING TO FOLLOW A PRECEDENT.
THE SAD REALITY OF DAVID YULEE AND THE 1857 PLAT IS THAT THERE ARE 25-FOOT LOTS TO GO ALL THE WAY TO 14TH STREET IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES.
THERE'S A NEW URBANISM KIND OF PLANNER SPEAK THAT SAYS, BUILD IT AND THEY WILL COME, AND THAT'S THE PHILOSOPHY.
WELL, THOSE OF US WHO LIVE IN THIS COMMUNITY, WE'RE NOT INTERESTED IN BUILDING IT SO THEY WILL COME, WE'RE INTERESTED IN PROTECTING THE AMBIANCE, THE AESTHETIC, THE UNIQUENESS OF OUR COMMUNITY.
I DON'T BELIEVE THE PHILOSOPHY OF CHANGING HOUSING PATTERNS FROM INFILL AND REDEVELOPMENT, I THINK IT'S INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE SPECIALNESS THAT WE HAVE HERE.
I URGE YOU TO UPHOLD 10305 TONIGHT, I URGE YOU TO UPHOLD THE SPIRIT AND THE FORWARD-THINKING THAT THE PAB AND THE COMMISSION, AND CITIZENS WHO ATTENDED ALL OF THOSE MEETINGS, AND THE REWRITE OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, THE FORWARD-THINKING OF 2006 HAS A MEANING TODAY.
I HOPE YOU CONSIDER THAT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, MS. [INAUDIBLE].
>> IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE? [INAUDIBLE].
>> DO YOU WANT TO [INAUDIBLE]?
DO YOU SWEAR AND AFFIRM THAT THE ORAL OR WRITTEN TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, BUT NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH?
>> PAUL LAURIE, 11 SOUTH 7TH STREET FERNANDINA BEACH.
ONE, I THANK YOU FOR THE TIME TO SPEAK HERE, AND IT'S GOING TO BE REALLY QUICK BECAUSE YOU HAVE HEARD A LOT.
I REALLY CAME HERE WITH THE INTENT TO LISTEN TODAY BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE THERE'S A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF INFORMATION THAT I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO BASE A VERY GOOD DECISION ON AND YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE A VERY GOOD DECISION ON, BUT I AM NOW A PROPERTY OWNER.
EVEN WHEN I WAS A PROPERTY OWNER OVER NEAR SADLER, I STILL ALWAYS THOUGHT ABOUT WHAT IMPACTS HERE DOWNTOWN BECAUSE I COME DOWNTOWN A LOT, BUT NOW AS A PROPERTY OWNER ALSO IN DOWNTOWN, FOR ME, LATELY, I'VE BEEN USING THE WORD INTIMATE AND INTIMATE SPACES BECAUSE FERNANDINA IS CREATED WITH A LOT OF SPACES THAT ARE JUST VERY INTIMATE, AND THEY'RE STARTING TO DISAPPEAR.
JUST LIKE ANY ANIMAL THAT YOU WOULD SAY IS ON THE EXTINCTION LIST, INTIMATE SPACES WILL BECOME HARD TO COME BY.
WHEN THOSE SPACES ARE GONE, YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO RECAPTURE THEM, AND WE REALLY DO.
I WAS REALLY KIND OF MOVED TO COME UP HERE AND SPEAK OR NOT SPEAK, BUT MARGARET, JUST TO ME, REALLY BROUGHT UP A VERY CRITICAL POINT, THOSE SPACES WILL GO AWAY.
THEY WILL NEVER COME BACK AND WILL BE JUST ANOTHER TYPICAL CITY.
[02:35:04]
I'M GOING TO END WITH THIS AS A PROPERTY OWNER, ON 11 SOUTH 7TH STREET, I ORIGINALLY BOUGHT THAT PARCEL TO OPEN UP A SMALL BUSINESS.MY INTENT WAS TO DO A SMALL BOUTIQUE B&B.
WHEN I FOUND OUT HOW I HAD TO CONSTRUCT THE PARKING FOR THAT PARTICULAR BUSINESS, WITH AN ORDINANCE THAT WAS HERE DEVELOPED IN OUR CITY, I CHOSE AS THE OWNER, AND AGAIN, THIS IS MY DECISION, BUT IT'S MY LOVE ALSO FOR THIS TOWN, I COULD NOT SEE MYSELF CREATING A PARKING LOT IN THAT OPEN SPACE THAT'S THERE BY WHERE LULU'S BARN REALLY USED TO BE.
NOW, PARKING IS A PREMIUM HERE IN OUR CITY.
DO I JUST TAKE THAT, PAVE IT, MAKE A LOT, AND CHARGE A LOT? SOMETIMES I THINK AS RESIDENTS, WE BECOME STEWARDS OF HOW WE WANT TO LIVE, AND AS A RESIDENT HERE NOW IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, DON'T WANT TO TAKE AWAY THOSE INTIMATE SPACES.
WE TOOK FOREVER TO PICK A COLOR OF THAT HOUSE THAT WOULD BLEND WITH THE LUCY HOUSE.
WE WANTED TO PICK A COLOR THAT WE LOVED, BUT WE ALSO WANTED IT TO COMPLEMENT THE HOUSE THAT WAS NEXT TO US.
I JUST PLANTED BUSHES AND I MADE SURE THAT I TALKED TO MS. DEBORAH THAT SHE COULD OPEN HER CAR DOOR SO THAT SHE HAS SPACE.
THEY'RE GOING TO COME OUT, EVEN THOUGH I LIKED WHAT THEY DID, BUT THEY'RE GOING TO COME OUT.
I GUESS WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS BEYOND THE ORDINANCES, BEYOND THE LAND CODE, BEYOND THE LOT, THERE'S A SENSE OF BEING A STEWARD IN A PARTICULAR PLACE IN YOUR PARTICULAR ONE-TIME LIFE THAT YOU CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE. THANK YOU.
>> MR. LAURIE, I HAVE A QUESTION.
>> I'M SORRY, MA'AM, I WAS NOT PREPARED TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.
>> THE SIZE OF YOUR LAWN, HOW MUCH FRONTAGE DO YOU HAVE?
>> WOW, THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.
IT'S GOT TO BE 50, 75, 100, SOMETHING.
IT'S A DOUBLE LOT. I BELIEVE IT'S A DOUBLE LOT.
I EVEN KNOW WE GOT A LITTLE PIECE THAT GOES ONTO LUCY PROPERTY, WHICH IS REALLY COOL.
>> YOU ARE LOCATED IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT?
>> WE ARE LOCATED IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, WE HAVE A HISTORIC HOME, AND WE ARE METICULOUSLY TRYING TO BRING IT BACK. THANK YOU.
>> HELLO. MY NAME IS CHRISTIAN SAUXE [PHONETIC].
NOW, I DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT THIS TOPIC, BUT I AM ON THE YOUTH ADVISORY COUNCIL, AND PRETTY MUCH WHAT WE DO IS WE THINK OF BEST HOW TO HELP THE YOUTH BECAUSE THAT'S THE ISLAND'S FUTURE GENERATION THAT'S GOING TO BE HERE AND DWELL.
THE ONE THING WE TALK ABOUT A LOT IS ISLAND VIBE, AND THAT'S REALLY TO US, WHAT MAKES THE ISLAND FEEL LIKE HOME.
A LOT OF THE TIME WE SAY IT'S THE HISTORIC AND SOFT FEELING.
NOW, I DON'T KNOW WHAT A BIG INVESTMENT OR WHATEVER IS, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT IT REALLY WOULD KEEP THE HISTORIC FEEL OF OUR ISLAND OR THE SOFT FEEL OF OUR ISLAND, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY WAY THAT IT CAN.
WITH THAT BEING SAID, I FEEL IT'S REALLY NOT MY PLACE TO TALK BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW A LOT ABOUT IT, BUT AS A MEMBER OF THE YOUTH, I FEEL I ALSO DO HAVE A RIGHT TO JUST SAY, THINK CAREFULLY ABOUT OR AT LEAST CONSIDER WHAT THE FUTURE GENERATIONS MIGHT WANT IN TERMS OF FEELING FOR THE ISLAND.
THAT'S ALL I HAD TO SAY. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION.
IT'S NICE TO SEE YOUNG PEOPLE OUT SPEAKING.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE? RETURN TO MS. CARRIE. YEAH.
[02:40:03]
>> I'M SORRY. I WAS JUST GOING TO ADDRESS MS. WALLS.
>> THE SECTION OF THE CODE THAT I WAS REFERRING TO ABOUT THE 1255 FORREST DRIVE FERNANDINA IS 11.0304, WITHDRAWAL OF PENDING APPLICATIONS.
A, AN APPLICANT MAY WITHDRAW AN APPLICATION AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER.
THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE WITHDRAWAL TO THE CITY MANAGER.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WAS DONE IN THIS INSTANCE WHEN IT WAS PULLED FROM THE AGENDA.
B, IF THE CITY MANAGER RECEIVES AN APPLICANT'S WRITTEN NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL, LESS THAN SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING, WHICH SINCE HE DID NOT RECEIVE IT, THIS APPLIES.
AT WHICH THE APPLICATION IS SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD, WHICH WAS LAST YEAR, THE APPLICANT SHALL BE PRECLUDED FROM SUBMITTING THE SAME OR SUBSTANTIALLY SAME APPLICATION FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR A PERIOD OF 12 MONTHS.
SO THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE APPLICATION, WHICH WAS THE REASON THAT WAS GIVEN WHY IT WAS PULLED FROM THE AGENDA AFTER EVERYBODY INCLUDING THE ATTORNEYS FOR ALL PARTIES INVOLVED WERE THERE TO TESTIFY AT THE QUASI PUBLIC HEARING, WAS BECAUSE THE CITY ATTORNEY PULLED IT FROM THE AGENDA BECAUSE SHE HAD ALL OF A SUDDEN FOUND THAT IT WAS INSUFFICIENT.
THE DETERMINATION OF SUFFICIENCY OF AN APPLICATION IS SUPPOSED TO TAKE PLACE WITHIN THE FIRST 30 DAYS THAT IT IS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY.
SO I JUST, AGAIN, ONCE I BELIEVE THERE WAS A RUN AROUND THERE TO GET AROUND THE PROCEDURE.
>> OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? PLEASE, YEAH.
I LIVE AT 409 SOUTH FOURTH STREET, AND I'M VERY CONCERNED IF YOU SET A PRECEDENT THAT MY NEIGHBORHOOD WILL BECOME THE VILLAS OF FERNANDINA BEACH OR WHAT HAVE YOU.
WITH MY PROPERTY AND THE ONE NEXT TO ME, THERE COULD BE FOUR LOTS INSTEAD OF ONE.
IF WE GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL PLATS, NOW I'M CONCERNED.
BECAUSE IF I SELL MY PROPERTY, SOMEONE MIGHT DECIDE TO COME TO YOU AND ASK FOR MORE. THANKS.
>> THANK YOU, MS. MCKEE. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. MR. POL, DO I CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENTS AND THEN HAVE MR. FLICK COME BACK UP?
>> NO. YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND HAVE MR. FLICK COME BACK UP.
IT'S NOT TECHNICALLY PUBLIC COMMENTS DURING THE AS QUASI-JUDICIAL BECAUSE WE'RE HEARING FROM AFFECTED PARTIES TESTIFIED, [INAUDIBLE] PART OF THE HEARING.
AND I'LL TRY TO BE AS DIRECT AND BRIEF AS I CAN.
FIRST OF ALL, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THE WITHDRAWAL THAT TOOK PLACE OF AN APPLICATION IS NOT AS THE PAPER REPORTED IT AND BEING A FAIR STEWARD OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, IT'S NOT FAIR TO HER.
ACTUALLY, WE ASKED FOR A DELAY BECAUSE THE PERSON THAT WAS GOING TO AUTHENTICATE A DOCUMENT FELL ILL FRIDAY BEFORE, BEFORE WE COULD HAVE WITHDRAWN THE APPLICATION BECAUSE I THINK IT'S FIVE OR SEVEN DAYS PRIOR.
I THINK YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE NOTICE TO WITHDRAW THE APPLICATION FIVE BUSINESS DAYS PRIOR.
BUT ANYWAY, THE POINT OF IT WAS HEALTH EVENT OCCURRED.
WE ASK, AND IT CALLS AN UPDATE ON A PIECE OF PAPER NOT TO BE SIGNED.
SHE WAS, IN MY VIEW, RIGHTFUL IN DOING THAT, AND PLUS WE DIDN'T HAVE THE DOCUMENT BECAUSE UNFORTUNATELY, SHE DIED THE DAY AFTER THAT, THE LADY THAT WENT INTO THE HOSPITAL, ONE OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE PROPERTY OWNERSHIP.
PLEASE DON'T WALK OUT OF HERE THINKING SOMEBODY TRIED TO CROOK SOMETHING.
NOBODY TRIED TO CROOK ANYTHING.
THE MEETING, AS MANY MEETINGS DO, HAVE A TENDENCY GET OUT OF HAND AND THE RUMORS FLY OFF THE HANDLE.
>> THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE APPLICATION THAT WAS PLACED FOR [INAUDIBLE].
[02:45:01]
I AM JUST REBUTTING WHAT YOU'VE ALLOWED TO OCCUR IN PUBLIC COMMENT.>> SECOND ITEM. WE ARE NOT IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.
THAT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT SET OF RULES THAT WE ALL HAVE TO GO BY, SO I'M GAME FOR THAT.
I APPRECIATE PLAIN ZONING CHAIR FOR A WHILE.
WHEN I USED TO COME BEFORE THE PLAIN ZONING BOARD MANY YEARS AGO, HE HAS BEEN A GREAT STEWARD OF THE BUSINESS OF PARTICIPATING ON PLAIN ZONING BOARD, AND WE ALL THANK HIM FOR HIS SERVICE AND MANY OTHERS WHO SERVE TODAY AS HE STILL DOES.
HOWEVER, IN 2006, WHEN THIS AMENDMENT WAS WRITTEN, THERE WAS NO CHANGE TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
AS WE'VE ALL STATED AND HEARD, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS THE CONTROLLING DOCUMENT, AND THE LDC MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH IT.
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HAS SEVERAL ITEMS IN IT.
MATTER OF FACT, IT EVEN HAS A SECTION DEDICATED TO LANDOWNERS' PROPERTY RIGHTS.
I'VE NOTICED THAT'S NOT BEEN MENTIONED BECAUSE IT WAS ACTUALLY SAID THAT OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DOESN'T TAKE THAT.
WE DON'T HAVE A DUTY TO THE LANDOWNER AND THEIR ENTITLEMENT RIGHTS, AND THAT IS NOT CORRECT.
IN YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IN EVERY JURISDICTION'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THAT IS BEING COMPLIANT WITH FLORIDA LAW.
THAT WAS REQUIRED ABOUT I THINK FOUR YEARS AGO OR SIX YEARS AGO.
IT WAS ADDED INTO FLORIDA LAW TO BE REQUIRED IN YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
MONTY, THAT WAS A ENTERTAINING CONVERSATION.
THANK YOU. THE RELEVANCE OF THAT I'LL SPEAK TO IN A MINUTE WITH OTHER PEOPLE'S COMMENTS.
MR. CARSON, I BELIEVE IT IS? YOU STILL HERE ON THE END?
MR. CASCONE, WHO MADE THE ACCUSATION THAT WE WILLFULLY VIOLATED THE EPA GUIDELINES WITHOUT A PERMIT TO DO A TEAR DOWN IS NOT TRUE.
SIMPLY SAID. IN FACT, WHILE HE TRESPASSED TO THE PROPERTY WHICH IS FLAGGED BECAUSE DURING THOSE OPERATIONS, IT'S ACTUALLY ON A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, WHICH WAS A LARGER SCALE PROPERTY.
THIS WOULD FALL UNDER THAT BECAUSE IT'S MULTI.
THE ISSUE WAS, I WILL EXPLAIN.
WHEN YOU FILE FOR A DEMOLITION PERMIT IN THIS CITY, YOUR DEMOLITION PERMIT CANNOT BE RELEASED ACCORDING TO CITY POLICY UNTIL THE ASBESTOS ABATEMENT IS COMPLETED.
I THINK IT'S A BAD RULE, BUT THAT'S THEIR RULE.
IT IS, AND IT'S A POLICY LETTER.
YOU HAVE TO SIGN AN AFFIDAVIT THAT YOU HAVE REMOVED ALL ASBESTOS AND ALL ABATEMENT HAS OCCURRED BEFORE THEY WILL ALLOW YOU TO CONTINUE TO DEMO THE REST OF THE BUILDING.
ONCE AGAIN, A LITTLE BIT FOR A MAN OF THE COURT, I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT YOU'D BE ABOVE THAT.
THE COMMENT WAS MADE ABOUT ROW HOUSING.
I WOULD HAVE TO SAY THE FIRST TIME THE TERM WAS EVER USED ABOUT ROW HOUSING WAS WHEN ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING ZONING BOARD, SHE MADE A COMMENT, AND YOU CAN GO BACK AND LOOK AT IT.
SOMETHING I THINK THAT REFERRED TO HOUSING, AS WAS SAID EARLIER, AFFORDABLE, SMALLER LOTS PRODUCED SO THAT THE FISHING INDUSTRY AND ALL COULD BE SUPPLIED WITH GOOD HOUSING.
AS YOU'LL NOTICE, THAT'S HOW THE UNDERLYING PLATTED LOTS ARE.
THEY ALL START AT FOURTH STREET AND GO TO THE WATER.
THAT'S WHERE ALL THE UNDERLYING 25 FOOT LOTS.
EVERYTHING ELSE ON THE EAST SIDE, FOURTH STREET, ARE ALL 50-FOOT UNDERLYING PLATTED LOTS.
HOW ANYBODY EVER GOT A 25 FOOT LOT OVER THERE? I DON'T KNOW, BECAUSE IT WOULD BE CONTRARY TO OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
WE'RE NOT CHALLENGING THAT WHATSOEVER.
WE CAME TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND VARIANCE.
[02:50:08]
WE CAME HERE UNDER THE GUIDANCE AND WITH THE INTENT AND THE ADVICE OF THOSE WHO PUSHED BACK ON OUR INITIAL PLAN OF THE RE-PLAT.ALL OF THOSE THINGS, IN FACT, THEY WERE ADVISED TO US BY CITY, CITY ATTORNEY, AND ALL CITY STAFF.
NO ONE HAS SOME UNETHICAL INTENT AT ALL, DESPITE WHAT WE MAY HAVE BEEN ACCUSED OF, WHICH ARE SIMPLY UNTRUE.
HOWEVER, WE ARE BEFORE YOU TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CREATE A OPPORTUNITY BY BEING ABLE TO ACCESS THE UNDERLYING LOTS.
IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE LIMIT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAYS YOU CAN ONLY DO SO EIGHT UNITS PER ACRE, [INAUDIBLE], RIGHT?
>> FOR THIS DISTRICT. I GOT TOO MANY IN MY HEAD.
WE FALL WITHIN THAT CRITERIA BASED ON HOW THE DENSITIES CALCULATION.
THAT MEANS WE CANNOT PRODUCE MORE THAN SIX OR SEVEN, JUST AS THE STAFF REPORTED IN THIS DEAL.
WE'VE NEVER ASKED FOR MORE THAN THAT, PERIOD.
I THINK SOMEONE MADE A COMMENT ABOUT A VAULT.
IN MODERN TIMES WHERE THERE'S NEVER BEEN STORMWATER MANAGEMENT INSIDE THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT OR WITHIN THE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES THAT ARE AROUND IT, NOBODY'S EVER HAD TO HAVE PONDS BEFORE.
BUT NOW AFTER THE CITY WISELY PUT INTO PLACE THE STORMWATER, A VERY VIABLE, CRITICAL, AND IMPORTANT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM INTO THEIR OVERALL PLANNING RULES FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY, IT'S A GOOD IDEA, BECAUSE IT WILL PREVENT A LOT OF EXCESS WATER GOING DIRECTLY INTO YOUR CURRENT HIGHWAY DRAINAGE OR STREET DRAINAGE SYSTEM AND PUSHING TO THE MARSH BEFORE IT'S PRE-TREATED.
THIS ALLOWS THE CITY ENGINEER AND THE LEADERS OF THE COMMUNITY WHO CAME UP WITH THAT, IT'S GOOD, AND IT'S BEEN PASSED DUE.
NOW I HAVE DONE A LOT OF VAULTS, AND I'VE DONE THEM IN VERY CONSTRAINED AREA, MOSTLY IN HISTORIC DISTRICTS.
KNOCK ON WOOD, NEVER HAD ONE FAIL, NEVER HAD A PROBLEM WITH ONE.
I DON'T KNOW WHO PUT IN THE OTHER ONE, BUT THEY ARE NOT THAT COMPLICATED.
IF THEY'RE DONE RIGHT AND INSTALLED RIGHT AND PROPERLY INSPECTED, YOUR PROBABILITY OF SUCCESS IS PROBABLY NEAR THE 100% MARK.
THAT'S WHAT YOU WOULD GET OUT OF US, AND ENGINEERING AND DESIGN AND THE SCIENCE TO DO IT WOULD BE DONE.
GLAD YOU MENTIONED THE CHAPTER 163 THAT WE WERE NOT COMPLIANT.
ONE OF THE YOUNG LADIES WHO STOOD UP HERE MADE MENTION OF THAT.
LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING. WE'RE NOT VIOLATING 163.
ONE SIXTY-THREE PROTECTS ALL RIGHTS OF THE COMMUNITY, THE PROPERTY OWNER, AND IT DOES REQUIRE YOU TO CHANNEL THINGS IN STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THERE'S NO REASON FOR ME TO COME IN HERE IF I KNOW I'M VIOLATING A COMP PLAN.
I'M NOT GOING TO DO THAT, AND I HAVE NEVER DONE THAT.
FURTHERMORE, TO BE A DEVELOPER, I'M USED TO BEING ACCUSED OF A LOT OF THINGS, BUT TO SAY THAT I NEVER PRODUCE WHAT I PRODUCE, I CHALLENGE YOU TO FIND ME ONE, IN THIS CITY EVEN.
I WORK IN A LOT OF CITIES AND A LOT OF STATES, AND A LOT OF COUNTIES AND JURISDICTIONS, AND SOME VERY MUCH LIKE THIS TOWN BECAUSE WORKING IN SMALL BEACH TOWNS IS TOUGH.
IT'S A VERY CONSTRAINED, EVERYBODY WANTS A LITTLE PIECE OF IT, AND WHENEVER YOU DO WORK THERE, YOU'VE JUST GOT TO BE VERY DILIGENT AND EVERYTHING YOU PROMISE HAS TO BE DELIVERED.
THAT'S WHAT WE DO. CALL ANY OTHER JURISDICTION THAT I'VE EVER BEEN IN AND DEVELOPED IN, HOSPITALITY, WHATEVER, WE HONOR OUR COMMITMENT, AND WE SHOULD.
THAT STAFF IS GOING TO HOLD ME ACCOUNTABLE, I GUARANTEE YOU, AND THEY SHOULD.
STAFF WHO FACILITATES THE DETAILS AND APPROVALS FOR OUR FIRST SUBMISSION AND OUR SECOND SUBMISSIONS, ANY SUBMISSION THEREAFTER.
I'M NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT COST TO PARTIES, THE COST TO THE CITY, BECAUSE BELIEVE ME, IT'S COSTING THE PRIVATE PARTIES,
[02:55:03]
IN THIS CASE, A LOT MORE.IT IS A FALSE STATEMENT THAT WE WITHDREW, AND TRYING TO PLACE SOME SHENANIGANS, I THINK, WAS THE STATEMENT USED.
IT HAD TO DO WITH AN EMERGENCY CONDITION OF HEALTH WITH SOMEONE WHO PASSED AWAY FOUR OR FIVE DAYS LATER.
IT ALSO HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A LAWSUIT.
I'M NOT SURE WHY THAT CAME UP, BUT THE LAWSUIT IS STILL IN THE LITIGATION PROCESS AND FINAL RULING WILL BE ISSUED WHEN THE APPELLATE COURT MAKES A RULING.
OUR DEVELOPMENT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS ALWAYS BEEN SUBMITTED.
MY FIRST TIME I EVER COME TO MEET WITH THE CITY STAFF, IT WASN'T TAYLOR, BUT IT WAS OTHER MEMBERS OF THAT STAFF.
VERY FIRST THING WE ASK, WE MAKE SURE WE GO DOWN THE CHECKLIST, EVERYTHING BY THE COMP PLAN, EVERYTHING BY THE LDC, WHAT'S YOUR GUIDELINES FOR US TO GET THERE? ARE WE CONSISTENT WITH IT? EVERYBODY CHECKS IT, EVERYBODY WORKS IT.
WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT TREE CANOPY AND GREEN SPACE, BIG DEAL, I AGREE.
THIS YOUNG LADY, I SEE HER AT THE TREE COMMISSION, WHICH I SET ON FOR AMELIA ISLAND.
I'M THE PLANNING ZONE REP FOR AMELIA ISLAND ON THAT COMMISSION, AND I AGREE.
BUT YOU KNOW HOW YOU ACHIEVE THAT? YOU DON'T ACHIEVE THAT BY SPREADING THINGS OUT.
YOU ACHIEVE THAT [NOISE] BY INTENSIFYING YOUR IMPACT INTO TIGHTER SPACES.
TO TAKE SOMETHING FROM TWO LARGER PARCELS SPREAD APART, YOU PUT THEM TOGETHER, THE MORE DENSE YOU CAN CREATE AND STILL KEEP OPEN ARDORS IS EXACTLY HOW YOU DO IT.
IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME, GO TO THE SIERRA CLUB AND READ THEIR REPORTS.
THAT'S WHO I GOT THAT DATA FROM.
THAT'S EXACTLY HOW PLANNERS PLAN.
WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE SOMETHING IN AN INTENSE AREA OR A DENSE AREA, THAT'S WHAT YOU DO, YOU TRY TO BE CREATIVE IN WAYS TO REDUCE THE DEMAND ON INFRASTRUCTURE AND STILL PRESERVE GREEN SPACE TREES AND ALL THOSE OTHER ELEMENTS.
I THINK YOU'LL SEE THAT IN OUR HISTORY AND IN MY HISTORY, I HAVE ALWAYS DONE THAT AND ALWAYS EXCEEDED WHAT THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS ARE.
I CHALLENGE YOU TO FIND ANYTHING OTHER.
I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE YOUNG LADY ON OUR VARIANCE ON THE WELL.
I'M GLAD YOU HAD LUCK WITH IT.
IT HAVEN'T GOT REALLY ANYTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING ELSE, IT'S A HEALTH CODE ISSUE.
HOPEFULLY, THE CITY AND THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT HELPED YOU THERE.
I'M NOT SURE WHAT RELEVANCE THAT HAS TO US.
EVERYTHING WE'RE DOING IS TO IMPROVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT ABUTS US OR WRAPS AROUND THIS AREA WHICH WE ARE DEVELOPING.
I ASSUME THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT SOME OF THE REBUTTALS, BUT IT'S BACK TO YOU.
>> YES. ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU, MR. FLICK.
>> THAT'S THE END OF PUBLIC COMMENTS.
>> MR. VICE CHAIRMAN, I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I'M SITTING IN THE AUDIENCE AND I'M VERY CONFUSED.
>> MISS FERRERA, COULD YOU JUST [OVERLAPPING] STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AGAIN?
>> JULIE FERRERA, 501 DATE STREET.
>> I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I'M SITTING IN THE AUDIENCE AND I'M EXTREMELY CONFUSED AFTER LISTENING TO MR. FLICK'S STATEMENTS.
I WAS NOT IN TOWN WHEN THE THREE OR FOUR HOUSES ON THAT PARCEL WERE DEMOED.
BUT MY UNDERSTANDING OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS ARE THAT WHEN YOU ARE DEALING WITH ASBESTOS THAT YOU HAVE TO TINT THE ITEM.
LET'S SAY, IN THIS CASE, IT WOULD BE HOUSES AND THE SIDING BEING REMOVED, THAT FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU HAVE TO TINT A HOUSE.
MY UNDERSTANDING FROM AFAR WAS THAT THOSE HOUSES WERE NOT TINTED.
I'M NOT GOING TO SAY THAT THE COMPLETE PERMIT WASN'T FINISHED.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT I REMEMBER, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO STATE THAT AS FACT.
BUT WHEN YOU ARE REMOVING ASBESTOS AND YOU ARE IMPACTING YOUR NEIGHBORS AND AIR QUALITY,
[03:00:04]
I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU CAN SAY THAT YOU WERE FOLLOWING PROPER PROCEDURE.I'M CONFUSED BECAUSE I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT HE WAS SAYING, [NOISE] BECAUSE FROM MY REMEMBRANCE THINKING BACK, I THINK THAT THE ABATEMENT FOR THE ASBESTOS SIDING WAS NOT FOLLOWED. THANK YOU.
>> YEAH, THESE DETAILS DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY BEARING ON THE VARIANCE OUTCOME, AND I THINK THAT MR. FLICK WAS JUST DEFENDING HIS REPUTATION, AND THAT'S WHY HE WANTED TO COME BACK UP. I THINK WE COULD MOVE ON.
>> THERE WAS ABATEMENT AND THERE WAS PROPER SAFETY PRECAUTIONS FOLLOWED BY LAW.
>> I'M NOT GOING TO BANG THE GAVEL AGAIN BECAUSE I'LL WAKE EVERYONE UP.
[LAUGHTER] WE MOVE ON TO BOARD DISCUSSIONS.
>> WHEN WAS THE PUBLIC HEARING?
>> ARE WE CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING?
>> LET'S HAVE THE HEARING CLOSED.
>> THE PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN CLOSED.
[NOISE] [LAUGHTER] THAT CLOSES THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION.
>> DOES ANYONE WANT TO SAY ANYTHING PRIOR TO THAT?
>> I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE AUDIENCE AND THOSE WHO PRESENTED FOR THEIR INFORMATION AND THEIR EVIDENCE WHICH THEY PRESENTED.
IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT FOR THIS BOARD TO MAKE SURE THAT EVIDENCE IS PLACED IN THE RECORD, AND THAT THAT EVIDENCE IS BASED NOT ON WHAT PEOPLE ACTUALLY THINK, BUT IT HAS TO BE BASED ON SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
IN THAT VEIN, WE HAVE TO CONSIDER THE FACT THAT THERE ARE LEVELS OF EXPERTISE, AND THIS IS WHAT A QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING IS ABOUT IN WHICH TESTIMONY IS TAKEN AND THOSE WHO HAVE SPECIAL EXPERTISE, A JUDGE WILL LOOK AT MORE FAVORABLY AND WILL WEIGH MORE WITH THOSE WITH EXPERTISE.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE AND MR. PULMY CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT THAT EVIDENCE IS CRUCIAL TO WHAT WE HAVE TO PUT NOT JUST VOTE TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE SOMETHING, BUT TO ACTUALLY PUT THE EVIDENCE IN THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
>> AM I HEARING THAT YOU TOO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION?
I'M SURE WE CAN ALL CONTRIBUTE TO THAT.
>> BUT I THINK THE ONLY THING THAT NEEDS TO BE SAID IS THAT THEY DIDN'T MEET THE VARIANCE REQUIREMENTS, THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO GIVE AN EXPLANATION OF EVERY ONE THEY DIDN'T MEET.
>> THAT'S TRUE, BUT THERE ARE OTHER STATE CONSIDERATIONS.
>> YOU MAY WANT TO CHANGE WHAT I HAVE TO SAY, AND I'M GOING TO MAKE THIS A DRAFT, AND I WOULD LIKE YOUR INPUT, HOW'S THAT?
>> [LAUGHTER] ALL RIGHT. I MOVE TO DENY BOA CASE NUMBER 2024 003, AS AMENDED BY THE STAFF AND APPLICANT AND MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW A PART OF THIS RECORD.
BASED UPON THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY PRESENTED BY STAFF AND ALL PARTIES DURING THIS HEARING, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS FINDS THAT THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED WOULD NOT BE SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE FERNANDINA BEACH LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OR STATE LAW.
THE BOARD FINDS THAT THE APPLICANTS FINANCIAL OR ECONOMIC CONCERNS OR A PREFERENCE OF HOW TO USE THE PARCELS IN A DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO BE INSUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE A HARDSHIP AS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW FOR THE GRANTING OF A VARIANCE.
THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OBJECTIVE 1.06.
COMMUNITY CHARACTER STATES, ''COMMUNITY CHARACTER IS REFLECTED IN LOT SIZES, HOUSE SIZES, SITE PLACEMENT, HEIGHT, ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES, AND EXISTING VEGETATION.
THE CITY SHALL TO STABILIZE AND PRESERVE NEIGHBORHOODS AND ESTABLISH URBAN DESIGN STANDARDS THAT PROTECT AND PROMOTE
[03:05:03]
QUALITY OF LIFE IN ORDER TO PREVENT TEAR DOWNS.ENCOURAGE REUSE, INFILL AND NEW DEVELOPMENT.'' SECTION 103.05 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IN PART STATES,'' THE DEMOLITION OR REMOVAL OF ANY RESISTANCE RESIDENCE OR STRUCTURE, WHETHER VOLUNTARY OR INVOLUNTARY SHALL NOT HAVE THE EFFECT OF CHANGING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE BUILDING SITE.'' NOR IN THIS CASE IS PRESENTED WITH THE REQUESTED VARIANCE BE COMPLIANT WITH THE CITY'S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
THE LDC 10001, WHICH SUPPORTS 106 IN THE COMP PLAN.
THE PURPOSE AND INTENT STATES THAT THE CITY'S LDC IS TO QUOTE D, PROTECT THE CHARACTER AND MAINTAIN THE STABILITY OF RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS, INDUSTRIAL RECREATION AND BUSINESS CENTERS, AND INCREASE THE ECONOMIC BENEFIT TO THE CITY ARISING OUT OF ITS CULTURAL RESOURCES, AND, ''G, BALANCE THE INTERESTS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC WITH THAT OF THE INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS,'' AS OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
LDC 40201 STANDARDS FOR LOT DESIGN STATES, THE MINIMUM LOT AREA MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE DENSITY STANDARDS SET FORTH IN TABLE 401 OH ONE.
TABLE 401 OH ONE ALLOWS FOR A MAXIMUM EIGHT UNITS PER ACRE IN THE R2 ZONING DISTRICT.
RESTORING THE ANTIQUATED USING THE STATE LAW TERM, PLATTED LOTS OF 1857 TO ALLOW LOT WIDTH OF 25 FEET WITHIN THE R2 ZONING DISTRICT BY EVIDENCE GIVEN BY THE APPLICANT WOULD ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF POSSIBLY FROM 3-6-7 UNITS IN LESS THAN HALF AN ACRE.
LDC 40002 APPLICABLY STATES WHERE THERE'S A CONFLICT THAT ARISES BETWEEN STANDARDS REQUIRED IN A ZONING DISTRICT IN AN OVERLAY DISTRICT, BY SUPPLEMENTAL STANDARDS OR OTHER LEGALLY BINDING DOCUMENT, THE FOLLOWING RULES SHALL BE USED IN THE APPLICATION OF THE STANDARDS.
WELL, NUMBER 1,'' WHERE A CITY APPROVED SITE PLAN, CITY APPROVED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, COURT ORDER, OR OTHER LEGALLY BINDING DOCUMENT WHICH AUTHORIZES DEVELOPMENT APPLIES TO THE SITE, THE STANDARDS IN THE LEGALLY BINDING DOCUMENT SHALL APPLY.
NUMBER 2, IN ALL OTHER SITUATION, THE STRICTER STANDARD APPLIES.
THE BOARD'S APPROVAL OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WOULD ALLOW ONE PROPERTY OWNER A SUBSTANTIAL DENSITY INCREASE, WHICH WOULD CONVEY A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE NOT GIVEN TO OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS AS TESTIFIED TO BY THE APPLICANT IN THE R2 ZONING DISTRICT.
THE BOARD FURTHER FINDS THAT EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY PRESENTED IN THE BOA CASE NUMBER 2024 003 DOES NOT MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA FOR THE GRANTING OF A VARIANCE WITHIN THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH.
FROM TESTIMONY OF THE APPLICANT, ALL THE LAND PLOTTED IN 1857 IS WIDESPREAD.
NO SPECIAL CONDITION IS UNIQUE TO THE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LAND AS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW.
TWO, SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, THE APPLICANT ADMITS THAT THE R2 PROPERTIES ACROSS THE STREET DO NOT HAVE UNDERLYING LOTS TO BE SPLIT, AND THEREFORE, GRANTING THE VARIANCE WOULD GIVE A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE OF A DENSITY AND ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNITS.
NUMBER 3, THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF
[03:10:02]
THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WILL BE ADOPTED FROM THE STAFF ANALYSIS REPORT.GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
BOTH THE LDC AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EMPHASIZED THE PRESERVATION OF, ''OPEN SPACE VISUAL CORRIDORS, AND NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER.'' NUMBER 6, PUBLIC INTEREST, WHICH IS CRITERIA NUMBER 6, GRANTING THE VARIANCE IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND THE LANGUAGE OF THE STAFF REPORT ANALYSIS WILL BE INCORPORATED.
>> I'D LIKE TO ASK EITHER ATTORNEY OR THE CITY STAFF, IF THAT'S A PROPER WAY TO MAKE A MOTION TO CONSIDER.
>> MEMBER ROSE DO YOU MIND REPEATING THAT MOTION?
>> THAT MIGHT BE THE LENGTHIEST MOTION.
I HAVE EXPERIENCED BEFORE ANY OF THE BOARDS HERE.
I CAN MAKE A SUGGESTION WITH IT.
TO STATE THAT A MORE SUCCINCT MOTION, WHICH WOULD BE EASIER FOR STAFF TO PREPARE FOR THE CHAIR TO SIGN WOULD BE TO STATE THAT THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED TO MEET THE SIX CRITERIA AND THAT THE EVIDENCE, THE COMPETENCE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTED TODAY SUPPORTS THE DENIAL BASED ON ALL SIX OF THE CRITERIA.
>> I WOULD ALSO ENTER THE FACT THAT A HARDSHIP HAS NOT BEEN.
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT, AND IT'S ONE OF THE CRITERIA OF THOSE SIX FACTORS.
>> NO HARDSHIP IS MENTIONED IN THE CRITERIA.
>> NUMBER 1, SPECIAL CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT RESULT FROM ACTIONS OF THE APPLICANT AND ARE NOT BASED ON A DESIRE TO REDUCE DEVELOPMENT COSTS.
YOU DO HAVE A FINANCIAL ASPECT OF THAT SPECIAL CONDITION.
>> HOWEVER, WE NEED TO PLACE THAT EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD.
>> THAT EVIDENCE ABSOLUTELY IS IN THE RECORD TO SUPPORT IT AS SUBSTANTIAL AND COMPETENT EVIDENCE.
MY POINT BEING IS IF THAT MOTION WERE TO PASS AND IT WERE TO BE APPEALED BY THE APPLICANT, THE COURT WOULD NOT BE RE WEIGHING ANY EVIDENCE, THEY WOULD JUST BE LOOKING, IS THERE COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, NOT UNCONTRADICTED, NOT THE ONLY EVIDENCE, BUT IS THERE EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS THE FINDINGS OF THIS BOARD? YOU WOULD BE RELYING ON ALL OF THE TESTIMONY, THE TESTIMONY FROM STAFF AND THE STAFF REPORT, EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN ENTERED INTO THE RECORD TO LOOK FOR THAT SUBSTANTIAL COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
FOR THE SAKE OF PRIVITY AND SUCCINCTNESS, I WOULD RECOMMEND DRAFTING A MOTION THAT SAYS BASED ON ALL OF THAT, AND YOU CAN ALSO ADD THE PROVISION ABOUT IT BEING FINANCIALLY BASED.
>> YOU WANT TO MAKE ANOTHER ONE? A SHORTER ONE.
>> A SHORTER ONE. WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADD ANY INFORMATION OR SOMETHING TO THE MOTION?
>> YOU GOT IT. I THINK YOU GET IT NOW.
>> SHOULD I DO IT FROM THE ORIGINAL OR DOES THE BOARD WISH TO DISCUSS A BREVITY?
>> I THINK YOU SHOULD DO IT FROM THE ORIGINAL AND HAD THE HARDSHIP AT THE END.
>> WELL, I THINK ACTUALLY FROM THE LITTLE NOTES I WAS TAKING ON THE ORIGINAL, YOU WENT THROUGH THE HARDSHIP, AND THEN YOU STARTED GETTING INTO MORE DETAILS AND SO MAYBE AFTER YOU MENTIONED THAT THE FINANCIAL ECONOMIC CONCERNS OR PREFERENCE HOW TO USE THE PARCEL'S INSUFFICIENT, THAT'S THE HARDSHIP COMPONENT.
THEN SAY WHAT HE WAS SAYING ABOUT MOVING INTO THAT WE FIND IT FAILS ALL SIX CONDITIONS.
>> BY ORIGINAL, I MEANT READ WHAT IT SAYS.
MOTION TO CONSIDER IN FRONT OF YOU AND THEN ADD THAT TO THE END OF IT.
>> PICK UP MR. POL RECOMMENDED AND ADD HARDSHIP TO THE END.
>> WELL, AS A POINT OF ORDER, THOUGH, YOU DO HAVE A PENDING MOTION.
IF YOU WERE GOING TO EITHER WITHDRAW THAT MOTION AND REPLACE IT WITH A NEW MOTION.
THAT WAS A LOT OF HARD WORK IN THAT MOTION. I HATE TO ABANDON.
I'M JUST GOING TO LEAVE THIS MOTION ON THE TABLE AND YOU DECIDE WHETHER YOU WANT TO MAKE A SECOND ON IT AND VOTE ON
[03:15:01]
IT OR WHETHER WE NEED TO GO THROUGH THIS AGAIN, AND I WILL REVISE IT.>> I'M NOT GOING TO SECOND ON THE ADVICE OF OUR COUNSEL.
YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO SAY THAT. I HEAR NO SECOND.
I MOVED TO DENY BOA CASE NUMBER 2024-003, AS AMENDED BY THE APPLICANT AND STAFF, AND MOVE THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW IN PART OF THE RECORD.
THAT WE INCORPORATE BY REFERENCE, THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OBJECTIVE 106, SECTION 10305 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 10001, LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 40201, LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TABLE 40101, LDC 40002.
THE BOARD FINDS THAT BASED ON SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, THE APPLICANT HAS FAILED TO MEET THE SIX CRITERIA AFFORDED TO VARIANCES IN THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH AND FURTHER BASED ON EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY PRESENTED BY STAFF AND ALL PARTIES DURING THE HEARING, THE BOARD FINDS THAT THE APPLICANT'S FINANCIAL OR ECONOMIC CONCERNS OR A PREFERENCE OF USE OF THE PARCELS TO BE INSUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE A HARDSHIP AS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW FOR THE GRANTING OF A VARIANCE.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
LYNN, WOULD YOU CALL THE BOTH?
>> VARIANCE JUST BE VARIANCE 2024-0003 IS DENIED.
>> YES. AT THE NEXT MEETING, I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS OUR REQUIREMENTS FROM STATE LAW FOR A VARIANCE, MAKING IT VERY CLEAR THAT THEY FIRST HAVE TO GET OVER THE HURDLE OF PROVING A HARDSHIP.
THAT'S THE FIRST THING A JUDGE LOOKS AT USUALLY.
WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S RIGHT UP FRONT.
>> THE ENTIRE RATIONALE OF VARIANCE.
>> MEMBER ROSS, CAN WE JUST WAIT FOR CITIZENS TO MOVE OUT? IT'S DIFFICULT TO HEAR. THANK YOU.
>> THAT'S SOMETHING MAYBE THE ATTORNEYS ON UP.
>> I THINK THAT'S A GREAT ANSWER BECAUSE THAT'S A PERSON YOU.
[3. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES (Part 2 of 2)]
>> I JUST WANTED TO ASK DURING THE CORRECTION, THE AMENDED MINUTES, I DON'T THINK THAT WE VOTED.
I REMEMBER PUT PUT THE FIRST MOTION ASIDE.
>> FOR THE AMENDMENT OF THE MINUTES.
>> I BELIEVE THAT WE DIDN'T DO IT.
>> I DON'T REMEMBER THE VOTES.
>> DOES ANYONE MAKE A MOTION TO.
>> MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES.
>> CORRECTION WAS ON THE ACTION TAKEN ON I DID NOT VOTE FOR THIS. WE GOT THAT?
>> MEMBER HERTSLET. THEN WHO SECOND?
>> I SECOND. YOU CAN'T SECOND YOU'RE THE VICE CHAIR.
>> I'M JUST TRYING TO TRY TO GET OUT OF HERE.
[03:20:02]
>> IF WE COULD ON THE NEXT MEETING IN THE AGENDA PACKET, JUST PUT AN ITEM THERE DISCUSSING HARDSHIP.
>> NOW AT 8:20, THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED. THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.