[00:00:03]
>> SEPTEMBER MEETING FOR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.
[1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL / DETERMINATION OF QUORUM]
TIME IS FIVE O'CLOCK ON THE NOSE.WE'LL START WITH THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
CAN WE STAND UP PLEASE? MS. MORGAN, WILL YOU CALL THE ROLL PLEASE?
>> HERE. WE HAVE A QUORUM OF FIVE TODAY SO THERE'S NO NEED TO SEAT IN THE ALTERNATES.
WOULD KELLY BE SEATED AS A REGULAR BOARD MEMBER NOW? YOU'RE GOING TO BE A VOTING MEMBER TONIGHT. GO AHEAD.
>> I CAN'T ADD. BUT KELLY IS ALTERNATE 1.
ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING THIS TOPIC TODAY?
>> BECAUSE I REPRESENT THE BOARD, IT WOULDN'T BE EX PARTE TO TALK TO ME AS I REPRESENTED THE STAFF.
IT'S ALWAYS WISE TO DISCLOSE RATHER THAN NOT DISCLOSE, BUT JUST YOU KNOW, THE PARDONS ARE CITY STAFF, THE APPLICANT OR THEIR AGENT.
>> AS WE NORMALLY DO, WE HAVE THE CITY ATTORNEY GIVE US THE QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEDURES?
>> YES. WE HAVE ONE CASE ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT FOR A VARIANCE.
I KNOW STAFF'S PROBABLY ALREADY LET THE PROPERTY OWNERS KNOW.
IN ORDER TO APPROVE A VARIANCE, THE BOARD HAS TO VOTE AT LEAST FOUR OF YOU APPROVING A VARIANCE.
A SUPERMAJORITY FOUR OUT OF FIVE VOTE TO APPROVE A VARIANCE.
TO DENY A VARIANCE, IT REQUIRES A SIMPLE MAJORITY.
THE MOTION WOULD BE TO DENY THE VARIANCE, THREE OUT OF FIVE WOULD PASS THAT MOTION.
OTHERWISE, THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY THAT YOU'LL BE GATHERING TONIGHT IN THIS QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING.
FIRST, MRS. GIBSON WITH CITY STAFF IS GOING TO MAKE A PRESENTATION, INTRODUCE EVIDENCE INTO THE RECORD.
I KNOW THAT YOU HAVE A STAFF REPORT.
YOU HAVE AN APPLICATION FOR THE VARIANCE AND APPLICATION MATERIALS THERE IN FRONT OF YOU.
THOSE ARE ALREADY PART OF THE RECORD.
TONIGHT, WE ARE KEEPING A VIDEO AND AUDIO RECORDING OF THE MEETING.
THAT IS THE RECORD, ALONG WITH THE EVIDENCE AND THE TESTIMONY THAT WE'RE CAPTURING.
BEFORE ANY TESTIMONY HAPPENS, THE CHAIR IS GOING TO ASK ANYBODY THAT WISHES TO SPEAK.
IF YOU'RE A RESIDENT OF THE CITY, YOU'RE THE PROPERTY OWNER, OBVIOUSLY.
EVEN IF YOU'RE NOT SURE, GO AHEAD AND STAND AND THE RECORDING SECRETARY IS GOING TO ADMINISTER AN OATH BECAUSE WE TAKE THIS TESTIMONY UNDER OATH.
AFTER THE CITY STAFF MAKES THEIR PRESENTATION AND INTRODUCES THEIR EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY, THEN THE PROPERTY OWNER AND OR THEIR AGENT, WILL COME UP, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, AND YOU WILL BE PRESENTING EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY WITH NO TIME LIMITATION.
IF YOU WISH TO RELY ON THE STAFF REPORT, THAT'S APPROPRIATE.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO SAY ANYTHING UNLESS YOU WANT TO.
IF YOU'RE A RESIDENT OF THE CITY, THEN YOU GET TO COME UP, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
YOU'RE NOT LIMITED BY THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT YOU GET TO SPEAK, AND YOU ARE ABLE TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY ALSO.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, THE PARTIES, THE CITY, AND THE PROPERTY OWNER, AND AFFECTED PARTIES ARE ALLOWED TO ASK QUESTIONS OF EACH OTHER.
FOR EXAMPLE, AN AFFECTED PARTY COMES UP, IS INTRODUCING EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY, SAYS, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR CITY STAFF. NO PROBLEM.
CITY STAFF IS GOING TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION AND LIKEWISE, IF THERE ARE WITNESSES OR OTHER PARTIES THAT YOU WISH TO QUESTION, YOU CAN DO THAT.
THAT'S HOW THE QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING GOES.
THE BOARD WILL VOTE TONIGHT AND THEN WE HAVE A VERY SHORT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE APPEAL PERIOD.
THIRTY DAYS AFTER THE CHAIR SIGNS THE FINDINGS OF FACT, WHICH IS ABOUT 35 CALENDAR DAYS FROM NOW, THAT'S THE TIME THAT YOU GET TO APPEAL THIS.
THE APPEAL GETS FILED WITH THE CIRCUIT COURT.
AFTER THAT, IT'S DONE, THERE'S NO RIGHT TO APPEAL.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU.
>> KELLY, ARE YOU READY TO GO AHEAD AND START THE PRESENTATION OR MORGAN, ARE YOU DOING IT?
>> DO WE HAVE MEETING MINUTES?
[3. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES]
>> WE DO HAVE BOARD MINUTE. FORGOT ABOUT THAT.
[00:05:02]
SINCE I WASN'T HERE LAST TIME, CHUCK WAS THE CHAIR.DO WE WANT TO GO THROUGH AND MAKE ANY COMMENTS? DID YOU ALL GET A CHANCE TO REVIEW THESE?
>> YES. THERE'S A CORRECTION IN THE MINUTES AND ONE OF THE TESTIMONIES UNDER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REQUIREMENTS PAGE.
THAT PROBABLY SHOULD BE CORRECTED. OTHER GOOD MAN?
>> MARGARET, YOU SAID YOU HAVE THEM TOO?
>> ANY OTHERS? AM I ALLOWED TO MAKE THE VOTE REQUEST?
>> YES. YOU ARE ALLOWED TO VOTE.
>> EVEN THOUGH I WASN'T IN THE MINUTES?
>> I'VE DONE THAT RESEARCH. YES, SIR.
JUST NO MOTION SINCE YOU'RE THE CHAIR.
>> I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE MINUTES AS CORRECTED.
>> WE HAVE A SECOND. CAN WE GET A CALL VOTE, PLEASE?
>> YES, THOUGH I CAN'T VOTE. I CAN'T VOTE?
>> FAIR ENOUGH. WE'RE GOING TO DO THE OATH TO ANYBODY WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, PLEASE.
ANYBODY WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR NOW, PLEASE STAND UP AND LET SECRETARY ADDRESS YOU FOR THE OATH.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE ORAL AND OR WRITTEN TESTIMONY ARE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH?
>> THANK YOU. GOT ORDER THERE.
CITY STAFF IS READY TO PRESENT.
[5.1 BOA 2024-0004 - MARTY AND TINA SMITH, 0 AMELIA ROAD Variance request from LDC Table 4.02.01(J) Design Standards for Lots to create two (2) R-1 zoned lots totaling less than 75 feet wide at 74.72 feet. (Quasi-Judicial)]
TONIGHT, I AM PRESENTING BOA CASE 2024-0004, AND THIS IS A CASE FOR A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED OFF OF AMELIA ROAD.
I KNOW THIS WAS QUESTIONED EARLIER, BUT THIS PROPERTY HAS RECENTLY BEEN ANNEXED INTO THE CITY IN DECEMBER OF LAST YEAR.
BEFORE I GET TOO MUCH FURTHER, I WANT TO NOTICE THAT ALL REQUIRED APPLICATION MATERIALS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED.
ALL FEES HAVE BEEN PAID AS WELL AS ALL REQUIRED NOTICES HAVE BEEN MADE.
THIS PRESENTATION, ALONG WITH THE STAFF REPORT, AND ALL APPLICATION MATERIALS THAT WERE SUBMITTED AS PART OF THE PUBLISHED AGENDA PACKET, ARE INCORPORATED INTO THE RECORD AS PART OF THIS HEARING.
THE APPLICANT THIS EVENING IS OAKS OF AMELIA, LLC, AS REPRESENTED BY MARTY AND TINA SMITH.
THE PARCEL IS LOCATED OFF OF AMELIA ROAD, AND CONTAINS A LAND USE OF LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WITHIN R1 ZONING DISTRICT.
TONIGHT, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 4.02.01 J, THE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR LOTS WITH THE INTENT TO CREATE TWO LOTS EQUALING 74.42 FEET.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN TOTAL IS 1.34 ACRES OF LAND, AND AGAIN, THE INTENT IS TO CREATE TWO 74.42 LOTS WITH APPROXIMATELY 300 PLUS FEET IN DEPTH FOR RESIDENTIAL USE.
IT'S ACTUALLY A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO 400 FEET IN DEPTH.
THIS IS INTENDED TO BE USED FOR SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS CONSISTENT WITH THE R1 ZONING DESIGNATION.
THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS TO DEVIATE FROM THE MINIMUM REQUIRED TO 75 FEET OF FRONTAGE AND WIDTH ONTO AMELIA ROAD AT 74.72 FEET, WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 3.36 INCHES IS THE VARIANCE THAT THEY'RE REQUESTING TONIGHT.
AGAIN, IF GRANTED THIS REQUEST, THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A MINOR SUBDIVISION OF THIS LOT TO CREATE TWO PARCELS THAT WOULD TOTAL THAT 74.72 FEET.
THE TOTAL LAND AREA, IF APPROVED OF THE RESULTING LOTS, AND SEPARATELY, WOULD BE ROUGHLY 29,888 SQUARE FEET OF EACH LOT.
[00:10:03]
CLEARLY, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO SUPPORT A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNIT ON EACH OF THEM.I HAVE BOTH OF THE INTENDED RESULTING LOTS AS PARCEL 1 AND PARCEL 2.
PROVIDED FOR YOU IS THE SURVEY THAT WAS INCLUDED WITH THE APPLICANT MATERIALS.
IN AN ANALYSIS OF EACH OF THE SIX CRITERIA, STAFF HAS FOUND THAT SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES DO EXIST PECULIAR TO THIS LAND.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS AN UNUSUAL SIZE WITH THE DEPTH OF OVER 300 FEET AND THE AMELIA ROAD FRONTAGE, ALTHOUGH IT APPEARS TO BE ABOUT 150 FEET IN WIDTH ON THE PROPERTY APPRAISER SITE, THE SURVEY DOCUMENTS INDICATED THAT IT'S JUST SHORT OF THAT AT 149.33 FEET, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE HERE THIS EVENING.
STAFF FOUND THAT YES, IT MET CRITERIA 1.
STAFF ALSO FOUND THAT IT MET CRITERIA 2 FOR SPECIAL PRIVILEGE.
THAT GRANTING THE VARIANCE DOES NOT CONFER UPON THE APPLICANT A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE DENIED BY THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO OTHER LANDS OR STRUCTURES WITHIN THE SAME DISTRICT, AS ANY SIMILARLY SITUATED PROPERTY OWNER WITHIN THE ZONING DISTRICT WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO REQUEST RELIEF FROM THE SAME SECTION OF CODE.
STAFF ALSO FOUND THAT IT MET CRITERIA 3, THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THIS CODE, THAT DENYING THIS WOULD DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT RIGHTS ENJOYED BY OTHERS WITHIN THE SAME DISTRICT, SIMILARLY SITUATED PROPERTIES WITHIN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY EXISTS THAT ARE MUCH SMALLER IN SIZE THAN THE RESULTING PARCELS CREATED THROUGH THIS REQUEST.
STAFF FOUND THAT IT MET CRITERIA 4 THAT THE VARIANCE REQUESTED WOULD BE THE MINIMUM POSSIBLE AND NECESSARY TO MEET REASONABLE USE OF THIS, AND THAT RELIEF OF THIS SECTION IS THE ONLY REQUEST NECESSARY TO MAKE USE OF THE PROPERTY.
STAFF FOUND THAT CRITERIA 5 WAS ALSO MET AND THAT IT WOULD BE IN GENERAL HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL INTENT PURPOSE OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
FINDING THAT LOT SIZES WITHIN THE SAME ZONING CATEGORY ARE OFTEN FAR LESS IN TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE, EVEN IF THEIR ROADWAY MINIMUM MEETS THAT 75 FOOT TOTAL, THAT THE RESULTING LOTS WOULD BE MUCH LARGER IN SIZE AND THAT THIS IS IN GENERAL HARMONY WITH THE SURROUNDING LANDS WITHIN THE SAME AREA.
STAFF FOUND THAT IT MET CRITERIA 6 THAT GRANTING THE VARIANCE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND WOULD NOT OTHERWISE CAUSE INJURY TO THE AREA INVOLVED OR BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE ENVIRONMENT.
STAFF HAS FOUND THAT ALL SIX CRITERIA HAVE BEEN MET SUFFICIENT TO GRANT APPROVAL AND HAS RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST.
THERE'S A MOTION FOR YOU TO CONSIDER AT THAT TIME.
I'LL BE ABLE TO BRING THAT UP FOR YOU IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO.
BUT I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.
>> ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE WE OPEN THE PUBLIC?
>> I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR THE PROPERTY OWNERS.
NOTHING FOR KELLY? NO? GO AHEAD.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION ALTHOUGH, IT COULD BE FOR THE PROPERTY OWNERS AS WELL.
BUT IN THE STAFF REPORT, TALKS LIKE THE VARIANCE THAT'S NEEDED IS FOR 3.36 INCHES.
IF THE APPLICANT'S LOOKING TO CREATE TWO LOTS THAT ARE 74 POINT FOR TWO FEET WIDE, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE DIFFERENCE IS ONLY 0.56, NOT 3.36 INCHES.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE 3.36 INCHES IS COMING FROM.
>> IT'S PROBABLY THAT TIMES 2.
>> WELL, NO, 74.42 IS ONLY WHAT?
IT'S CLOSE TO THREE AND WE HAVE, THREE THREE EIGHTHS.
>> THANK YOU. I WAS HAVING PROBLEMS WITH THE MATH. [LAUGHTER]
>> ANYBODY ELSE FOR KELLY? WE'LL OPEN IT UP FOR THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK.
DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK FIRST? GO AHEAD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE?
>> TINA SMITH, 2996 SOUTH FLETCHER, WHERE I LIVED.
I'M THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND I'M BASICALLY RELYING ON THE STAFF REPORT.
[00:15:10]
>> IS THE INTENT FOR THE PROPERTY TO HAVE MULTIPLE HOUSES? WHAT'S YOUR INTENT?
>> BASICALLY THEY SPLIT IT RIGHT DOWN THE MIDDLE AND A HOUSE WILL GO ON.
I'M SELLING THE TWO LOTS AND IF THEY DECIDE TO PUT A HOUSE ON IT, FINE, IF THEY DON'T, AND THEY JUST WANT THE LOT, IT'S UP TO THE BUYER.
>> SURE. THERE'S SOME SERIOUS OAK TREES ON THAT LOT.
>> HONESTLY, THIS IS THE REASON YOU WANT TO SPLIT THIS IN TWO LOTS BECAUSE THEN YOU CAN SAVE THOSE OAK TREES.
IF YOU GO BACK AND YOU SPLIT THEM INTO FOUR LOTS, YOU GO TO LOSE SOME OAK TREES.
>> JUST FOR LEGAL CLARIFICATION.
THE ACTUAL OWNER OF RECORD IS OAKS OF AMELIA, LLC, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> ACCORDING TO SUNBIZ, AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE HAS NOTICED THAT THEY MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE STANDING.
THE MANAGING PARTNER IS TODD BATES.
>> I GUESS HE IS, BUT I OWN IT.
>> BUT ACCORDING TO SUNBIZ, HE IS THE MANAGING FIRM?
>> YES, MA'AM. BECAUSE I SET IT UP THAT WAY.
>> GOOD. ANOTHER ASSISTANT MANAGER IS JIM BELL?
>> THEN THERE'S MARTY SMITH AND YOU?
>> I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS REALLY CLEAR.
THE 25 FOOT EASEMENT THAT I SAW ON THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S WEBSITE.
>> THE 25 FOOT EASEMENT ON THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY?
>> ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THIS LOT RIGHT HERE?
>> THAT ACTUALLY CANNOT BE RECORDED.
WE WERE GOING TO SPLIT THIS ORIGINALLY INTO FOUR LOTS AND WE DECIDED NOT TO DO THAT BECAUSE I HAVE TO HAVE ROAD FRONTAGE, AND IT WOULD TAKE DOWN A BUNCH OF THE TREES AND SO FORTH.
WE HAD DRAWN THAT UP, BUT TECHNICALLY, IT'S NOT DEEDED AT THIS POINT.
THAT EASEMENT CANNOT BE RECORDED AND I FORGOT EXACTLY WHY IT IS, BUT THAT EASEMENT WILL GO AWAY, ACCORDING TO NICK SMITH.
>> NO. IT'S NOT YOU CAN'T DO IT.
YOU JUST CAN'T DO IT THE WAY IT'S DONE RIGHT NOW.
IT'S IRRELEVANT ANYWAY BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE TWO LOTS.
YOU CAN CALL NICK SMITH AND ASK HIM.
>> HAVE YOU BROUGHT THIS TO THE ATTENTION OF THE AIRPORT IN THEIR GLARE OR FLYOVER ZONE INFORMATION?
>> WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH IT?
>> OFTEN THE AIRPORT HAS SOME, SAY INTO WHAT GETS BUILT.
>> THEY'RE NOT IN THE [INAUDIBLE].
>> THANK YOU. I COULD THINK THE WORD. IT'S AN ACRONYM FOR IT.
BUT IT GOES AT THE END OF THE RUNWAY AND THEY'RE NOT IN THAT PLANE.
>> GOOD. THOSE ARE MY QUESTION.
>> TELL ANYTHING? JACK, ANYTHING? QUESTIONS? MARGARET.
>> I HAVE NO OTHER QUESTIONS EITHER.
DOES ANYBODY ELSE WISH TO SPEAK?
>> PLEASE COME UP, STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. YOUR ADDRESS.
>> HI. I'M SHARON PETA JOHN HILL.
I LIVE AT 2972, FERDINAND COURT, WHICH IS DIRECTLY BEHIND THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION.
>> PARCEL 2. MY GREAT CONCERN IS ABOUT AFTER THIS GETS DIVIDED INTO TWO LOTS, WILL FUTURE PROPERTY OWNERS BE ABLE TO AGAIN, DIVIDE THE PROPERTY? IT'S A GORGEOUS PIECE.
[00:20:02]
>> I CAN SPEAK TO THAT. IF THIS WERE TO BE DIVIDED, YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SUBDIVIDE IT FROM THE FRONT TO BACK ANY FURTHER BECAUSE THERE WOULD BE NO ROADWAY FRONTAGE FOR THAT DIVISION, AND YOU HAVE TO HAVE A PUBLIC STREET THAT YOU RELY ON FOR PUBLIC FRONTAGE OR A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY FOR YOUR FRONTAGE.
THEN IN ORDER TO DIVIDE IT LENGTHWISE ANY FURTHER, IT WOULD HAVE TO RETURN TO THIS BOARD IN ORDER TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT, AND IT WOULD CREATE HALF OF THE AMOUNT THAT YOU HAVE HERE, WHICH WOULD ONLY BE LIKE 30 SOMETHING FEET IN WIDTH AND THEN BE VERY LONG.
I'M NOT SURE THAT YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DO THAT WITHOUT BENEFIT OF ANOTHER VARIANCE.
>> CAN YOU HAVE MULTIPLE VARIANTS ON THE SAME PROPERTY? I THOUGHT THERE WAS A LIMIT.
>> THEN TRY TO GET IT SUBDIVIDED INTO FOUR?
>> THE ONLY WAY TO HAVE SUFFICIENT LAND AREA WOULD BE LENGTH WISE TO GIVE UP ALL THAT LENGTH AS PART OF IT.
IT WOULD BE VERY LONG AND 32 FOOT WIDE LOT AT THAT POINT.
IT WOULDN'T MAKE SENSE, BUT IT IS POSSIBLE.
>> I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY GUARANTEE PER SE.
>> BY THE BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, IT'S POSSIBLE TO DIVIDE IT AGAIN.
>> BUT I WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH A VARIANCE, WHICH COMES IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD AGAIN.
>> IT MAY OR MAY NOT BE THIS CAST OF CHARACTERS THAT VOTE ON IT AGAIN.
THERE'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE'VE HAD IN THE PAST THAT WE WOULD VOTE ON AND SAY, WELL, WE DID IT THIS WAY BEFORE, WE'LL DO IT THIS WAY AGAIN.
WE HEAR THE FACTS THAT ARE PRESENTED TO US AT THAT TIME, AND THEN WE MAKE A JUDGMENT OFF OF THAT.
>> I'M SORRY. I HAVE A QUESTION. WHAT I UNDERSTOOD WAS THAT YOU COULDN'T DIVIDE IT FRONT TO BACK, BUT YOU CAN'T EVEN DO THAT WITH THE SHARED DRIVEWAY?
>> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT DIVIDING IT AGAIN ALONG THE PATH WOULDN'T IT BE?
>> YES. SLIVERS. FOUR SLIVERS.
>> IT WOULD HAVE TO BACK AGAIN.
>> [NOISE] THE APPEAL TO THAT TO OTHER PEOPLE WOULD BE, I HAVE A 400 FOOT LONG LOT THAT I CAN'T REALLY DO ANYTHING IN THE BACKYARD WITH.
>> THEN WHAT ABOUT GUARANTEES FOR THE BEAUTIFUL TREES?
>> WE CAN PUT CONDITIONS ON THE ACTUAL APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL.
NO, DISAPPROVAL, BUT IF WE DO APPROVE IT YOU CAN PUT CONDITIONS.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION REGARDING THAT.
>> KELLY YOU MAY BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THIS.
WE PUT PROVISIONS ON THE VARIANCE TO GET IT APPROVED, WE SELL A LOT.
DO THOSE VARIANCE APPROVALS TRANSFER TO THE NEW OWNERS?
>> WHO'S THE WATCHDOG FOR WHATEVER INFORMATION YOU ATTACH TO THIS APPROVAL?
[LAUGHTER] I HAVE NO OBJECTIONS TO TWO LOTS.
I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT RETAINING THE BEAUTY OF THE ATMOSPHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
>> I'M JOHN HILL. LIVE THE SAME ADDRESS.
ONLY QUESTION I HAD, YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE EASEMENT.
MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT EASEMENT WAS ON THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY, SO ADJACENT TO OUR PROPERTY, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT THERE IS AN EASEMENT THERE NOW?
>> THERE IS ON THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S WEBSITE.
IF YOU GO ON THERE AND I DON'T KNOW IF MRS., KELLY CAN YOU, MRS. GIBSON, CAN YOU BRING IT UP?
>> YES. JUST GIVE ME A MOMENT.
>> THAT MIGHT EXPLAIN IT A LITTLE BETTER.
THERE IS A 25 FOOT EASEMENT, NOT OFF THE BACKLINE, BUT ON THE BOTTOM SOUTHERN LINE OF THE PROPERTY AT THE BACK.
IT DOES NOT GO INTO YOUR SUB, IT'S [INAUDIBLE].
>> IT DOES NOT GO INTO YOUR SUBDIVISION.
IT GOES INTO THE LOT THAT'S SOUTH OF THAT AT THE BACK.
MRS. GIBSON WILL TRY TO BRING IT UP SO YOU CAN SEE IT IN A MINUTE.
>> MY REAL QUESTION REALLY IS, IF THERE'S AN EASEMENT THERE, THEN THAT WOULD HAVE ANSWERED MY QUESTION,
[00:25:02]
BUT THERE'S A LINE OF BARRIER TREES THERE THAT GIVES US SOME PRIVACY.I'M JUST WONDERING ABOUT THE STATUS OF THOSE TREES, AND, I ASSUME IF IT GETS APPROVED, CAN I ASK THE OWNER? DO YOU ALREADY HAVE PLANS TO BUILD THE HOUSES OR ARE YOU JUST GOING TO SELL LOTS, AND THEN THEY'LL DEVELOP THE PLAN?
>> LET ME EXPLAIN WHAT THAT EASEMENT-.
>> GOT TO COME UP, SORRY YOU GOT TO SWITCH.
>> LET ME EXPLAIN WHERE THAT EASEMENT CAME FROM.
ORIGINALLY, WHEN I BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY, I WAS GOING TO DIVIDE IT INTO FOUR LOTS.
MY HOUSE WAS GOING TO GO THERE.
THAT EASEMENT WAS TO ACCOMMODATE MY HOUSE.
I AM NOT GOING TO BUILD THAT HOUSE.
I'M DIVIDING THIS PROPERTY INTO TWO LOTS.
NICK SMITH TOLD ME HE SAID, TINA, WHEN YOU SELL IT, WE'LL CLEAN IT ALL UP AT ONE TIME.
THAT WAS THE EASEMENT TO GET TO MY PERSONAL HOUSE.
BECAUSE I NEEDED ROAD FRONTAGE IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE.
>> THAT WILL GO AWAY ONCE I SELL THESE TWO LOTS.
THERE WAS NO SENSE IN HIM DOING THAT WORK AND THEN TURNING AROUND AND DOING IT AGAIN.
>> THE SURVEY FROM THE ORIGINAL PROPERTY.
>> I ONLY HAVE THE DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED.
>> AT THIS POINT, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HOUSES ARE GOING TO BE BUILT THERE.
YOU'RE NOT DEVELOPING AND YOU'RE GOING TO SELL A HOUSE, YOU'RE SELLING THE LOTS.
>> WE OBVIOUSLY WOULD PREFER TO KEEP THAT TREE LINE BEHIND OUR PROPERTY, BUT I SUPPOSE THAT'S REALLY GOING TO BE AT THE DISCRETION WHO BUYS THE LOTS, CORRECT?
>> THERE ARE SETBACKS AND THOSE SETBACKS CAN BE ADJUSTED TO PROTECT THOSE TREES.
I WOULD IMAGINE THAT THE SETBACK ALLOWANCE FOR THE BACKYARD WOULD BE MORE THAN ENOUGH TO COVER THE TREES AT THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY.
>> THE SETBACKS FOR R1 ZONING ARE 25 FEET, IN THE BACKYARD 25 FEET IN THE FIVE YARD.
>> I REALIZE IT FROM THE PROPERTY, BUT AGAIN, THEY COULD TAKE ALL THE TREES OUT.
THESE ARE JUST LITTLE SCRUB TREES, BUT THEY DO CREATE A BARRIER.
>> FROM BETWEEN OUR POOL AND THEIR PROPERTY.
THAT'S IF THAT HAPPENS, THEN WE CAN BE ABLE WITH FENCING, I SUPPOSE IF WE HAVE TO. THANK YOU.
>> OH, SORRY. I JUST HAD A QUESTION.
>> IS THERE A BUFFER ZONE? I KNOW, LIKE IN BETWEEN CERTAIN ZONES?
>> ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WANT TO SPEAK? WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING.
[NOISE] WE TURN THIS OVER TO THE BOARD. WHAT WAS EVERYBODY THINKING?
>> I THINK WE DON'T SEEM TO HAVE ANY OPPOSITION.
WE DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS FROM THE NEIGHBORS.
I'M GOING TO OFFER A MOTION AND WITH SOME CONDITIONS ON IT THAT MIGHT MAKE YOU FEEL A LOT BETTER, AND I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S GOING TO AFFECT ANYTHING THAT YOU WANT TO DO WITH THE PROPERTY.
>> PLEASE. WE CAN DISCUSS CONDITIONS.
>> WE HAVE TO HAVE GLASSES OF WATER.
>> I GUESS I DO. WHY ARE WE THINKING ABOUT PUTTING SPECIAL CONDITIONS ON THESE LOTS SPECIFICALLY VERSUS OTHER LOTS DON'T HAVE THEM IN TERMS OF LIKE TREE CANOPY.
>> I'M CURIOUS ABOUT THAT TOO, BECAUSE THERE ARE LIKE, BERT HARRIS WOULD DICTATE THAT PERSON COULD MAKE A PUTTING GREEN OUT OF THE WHOLE THING IF THEY WANTED,.
>> NOT NECESSARILY THOUGH. THOSE TREES ARE SCRUB.
>> DEPENDING ON THE SCALE OF THOSE TREES, THEY COULD BE PROTECTED.
>> MY UNDERSTANDING WITH TREES IS THAT YOU CAN ONLY REMOVE THEM IF IT'S FOR, LIKE TO PUT A STRUCTURE THERE.
THEN IF YOU REMOVE OTHER TREES, YOU'D HAVE TO PAY LIKE A FINE BASED ON THIS YOUR COMFORT OR LIKE A FINE, BUT LIKE REPLACE.
>> THE CITY'S[OVERLAPPING] FOR DEVELOPMENT, THE CITY'S TREE.
>> THAT'S A LOT OF MONEY TO REMOVE A TREE.
>> IF YOU JUST WANT. SORRY. WHAT WERE YOU SAYING?
>> MAYBE I CAN HELP BY READING YOU THE CONDITIONS THAT I CAME UP WITH AND YOU TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK.
[00:30:01]
ONE OF THE CONDITIONS WAS THAT ALL THE SETBACKS AND PERVIOUS SURFACES REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE FULLY MET IN THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.THAT MEANS THEY WOULDN'T BE COMING BACK HERE UNLESS FOR SETBACK CHANGE.
AND THAT THIS VARIANCE IS CONTINGENT UPON THE PARCEL REMAINING DIVIDED INTO TWO LOTS FOR R1 DEVELOPMENT, AS NOTED IN THE APPLICATION AND TESTIMONY.
>> WOULD YOU ADD TO IN PERPETUITY?
>> ARE WE ALLOWED TO ADD IN PERPETUITY? I WAS GOING TO ADD THAT AND I DON'T THINK WE CAN. I DON'T KNOW.
>> NO. BECAUSE THAT HAS TO BE REQUIRED AS A DEED RESTRICTION.
>> THE VERY FIRST CONDITION, IT'S ALREADY UNDERSTOOD THAT.
>> THERE IT SAYS THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW THE LAW.
THEY DO ANYWAY WHEN THEY DEVELOP.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT MORE WHAT YOU WERE GOING TO SAY, IF YOU DON'T MIND THROUGH THE CHAIR TO KELLY JUST ABOUT THE TREE ORDINANCE? HOW THOSE TREES IN THE BACK, REALLY, NO MATTER WHAT THEY ARE.
FROM LOOKING AT THE AREA OF VIEW, KELLY PROBABLY HAS A GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THEY ARE.
THEY'RE GROUPED TOGETHER, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE TREES ON A LOT LINE.
I WAS JUST SITTING BACK THERE THINKING, AND IS THE PROPERTY OWNER THAT DOES SOMETHING WITH THIS PROPERTY IS GOING TO WANT THE PRIVACY TOO, AND NOT WANT TO SEE YOUR HOUSE AND POOL, WOULD BE MY THOUGHT.
>> GENERALLY, BUT THE TREE ORDINANCE IS VERY PROTECTIVE.
I HAVE A LOT LIKE YOURS IN ANOTHER SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY, AND I WANTED TO TAKE OUT ONE TREE IN THE BACKYARD THAT WAS DEAD AND THROWING BRANCHES OFF, AND I HAD TO CALL THE CITY ARBORIST OUT.
IT'S ONE TREE, SO KELLY, IF YOU WOULD EXPLAIN.
>> WHEN A PROPERTY IS GOING TO DEVELOP IN THE CITY, I SHOULD TAKE A STEP BACK, ALL TREES MEASURING AT LEAST FOUR INCHES IN DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT THAT ARE HEALTHY NATIVE TREES ARE PROTECTED TREES IN THE CITY.
ON THE SURVEY PROVIDED, THEY HAVE PROVIDED ANYTHING THAT MEETS THAT MINIMUM REQUIREMENT SO THAT YOU COULD SEE THAT AS PART OF THE APPLICATION MATERIAL.
THEY'VE PICKED UP ANYTHING AT LEAST FOUR INCHES IN SIZE SO THAT YOU'VE GOT THAT ON THE SURVEY.
WHEN THE PROPERTIES GO TO DEVELOP.
ANYTHING WITHIN THE CONSTRUCTION FOOTPRINT OR FIVE FEET SURROUNDING IT MAY BE REMOVED, BUT ARE SUBJECT TO MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS.
THE MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS ARE THAT 50% OF THE INCHES REMOVED AS PART OF THAT DEVELOPMENT MUST BE MITIGATED ON THE SAME PROPERTY.
MITIGATION CAN BE ACHIEVED THROUGH EITHER WHAT REMAINS ON THE PROPERTY AND THOSE INCHES THAT REMAIN ON THE PROPERTY OR THROUGH NEW PLANTING ON THE PROPERTY THAT MEET THE STANDARD SIZE FOR REPLACEMENT PLANTING.
>> DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION?
>> THE FIRST CONDITION, THAT'S UP TO YOU.
IT'S ALREADY UNDERSTOOD, SO IT DOESN'T REALLY HAVE AN EFFECT EITHER WAY.
>> I UNDERSTAND YOUR STANCE ON THAT.
WE'VE HAD AN AWFUL LOT OF FLOODING LATELY, AND IT IS JUST THE CALLS ARE JUST AMAZING ABOUT THE FLOODING.
THE PREVIOUS SURFACE ISSUE IS JUST REALLY BECOMING CRITICAL.
FOR ME, IT JUST MEANT THAT YOU COULD BE THE WATCHDOG, AND MAKE SURE THAT THE SET BACKS AND THERE'S NO DISCUSSION OF COMING BACK FOR A PERVIOUS SURFACE CHANGE.
>> WITH THAT CONDITION, WE CAN'T TELL SOMEBODY YOU CAN'T COME BACK FOR ANOTHER VARIANCE.
>> I KNOW THAT. BUT THIS GOES AWAY THEN.
THIS LOT DIVISION GOES AWAY IF THEY DON'T MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS.
>> BUT IT'LL PROBABLY ALREADY BE DEVELOPED.
>> YOU CAN'T HAVE AN IMPERVIOUS AREAS WITHOUT HAVING A DEVELOPMENT.
THAT'S THE ONE WHO RECEIVES THE OTHERS.
>> THAT'S THE BOARDS. I'M JUST SAYING SOME OF THOSE ARE PROBLEMATIC BECAUSE WE DO COVER ALREADY IN THE CODE, YOU CAN ONLY COVER 60% OF YOUR LOT WITH IMPERVIOUS SURFACE.
>> BUT THEY CAN COME BACK FOR A VARIANCE.
>> WHAT ABOUT ON THE SECOND CONDITION ABOUT THERE'S ALWAYS ONLY TWO LOTS? ARE WE ALLOWED TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT? WHAT I'M JUST THINKING ABOUT IS, LIKE THAT ORDINANCE THAT WAS BEFORE THE CITY LAST NIGHT THAT'S BEEN SENT BACK
[00:35:03]
DOWN TO THE PAB THAT WOULD ALLOW PAB ON ANY SIDE.PROPERTY. THIS WOULD BE A GREAT PROPERTY FOR DEVELOPING A PAB, WHICH WOULD RESULT IN MORE THAN TWO [OVERLAPPING].
>> PROBABLY ABOUT THE CONDITION OF THE TWO LOTS AT R-1 DEVELOPMENT.
BUT WE CAN'T PUT THAT REQUIREMENT IN FOR IN PERPETUITY.
>> NO, SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE CAN SAY RELATING TO THAT.
>> THE VARIANCE BECOMES MODE IF THEY CAN'T MEET THIS CONDITION.
>> I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT THE PROPERTY OWNER SAYS THEY WANT TO DO, AND THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE OKAY WITH. I THINK IT'S FAIR.
>> I DO THINK IT'S FAIR. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S LEGAL FOR US TO DO THAT.
>> OTHER THAN THE PERPETUITY, IT'S NOTHING ILLEGAL ABOUT THE CONDITIONS.
>> BUT I'LL BE INTERESTED TO HEAR IT ARTICULATE IT AGAIN.
I MOVED TO APPROVE CASE NUMBER 2024-0004.
AND THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT WITH THE INCORPORATION OF THE FOLLOWING LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ORDINANCE.
I'M ONLY DOING THIS BECAUSE MRS. GIBSON MADE THE STATEMENT THAT IN HER STAFF REPORT, THAT IT COULD BE DEVELOPED INTO FOUR LOTS, AND A JUDGE WOULD WANT THE STATUTE THAT WOULD BACK THAT UP.
IF FOR SOME STRING REASON IT GOES TO COURT.
IT'S LDC 2.01 03, AND LDC 40101, CONCERNING THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.
UPON REVIEW OF THE EVIDENCE, THE BOARD ALSO MAKES THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSIONS OF LAW THAT THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE ALLOWS THE UNIQUE SHAPE OF THE PARCEL SIZE TO BECOME HARMONIOUS WITH ADJACENT PARCEL DEVELOPMENT.
HOWEVER, TO FURTHER PROMOTE THE HEALTH SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS FOR THE VARIANCE SHALL BE MET.
ONE, ALL SETBACKS AND PERVIOUS SURFACE REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE FULLY MET IN THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.
AND TWO, THAT THIS VARIANCE IS CONTINGENT UPON PARCEL 000030044 80030-0020 REMAIN DIVIDED INTO TWO LOTS FOR R-1 DEVELOPMENT AS NOTED IN THE APPLICATION.
>> SECOND. CAN I CALL A VOTING PLEASE?
SORRY. PUBLIC SECTION IS CLOSED. SORRY.
>> DOES THE BOARD WANT TO ENTERTAIN A QUESTION?
>> I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM NOW.
NO CATCHES IN THE MIDDLE OF PROBABLY NOT [OVERLAPPING].
>> COME UP UNFORTUNATELY [OVERLAPPING].
>> EXPLAIN THE SECOND PART OF YOUR.
IT JUST SAYS THAT THE VARIANCE IS CONTINGENT.
UPON THE PARCEL REMAINING DIVIDED INTO TWO LOTS, AS LONG AS YOU KEEP IT TWO LOTS FOR R-1 DEVELOPMENT.
AS NOTED IN THE APPLICATION, SO YOU WOULD GET WHAT YOU ASKED FOR.
>> MY QUESTION NOW IS, WHAT HAPPENS IF I HAVE SOMEBODY THAT WANTS TO BUY BOTH OF THE LOTS AND BRING THEM BACK TOGETHER?
>> THEN THEY'RE ALLOWED TO COMBINE LOTS.
>> OH NO THEY HAVE TO COME BACK BEFORE US AND PRESENT A REASON GET A VARIANCE FOR THEM TO COMBINE THE LOTS, BECAUSE COMBINING LOTS IS IN THE LDC.
>> OKAY. JUST AS LONG AS IT CAN BE DONE.
[00:40:02]
>> CLOSE OF NEW BOARD BUSINESS.
[6. BOARD BUSINESS]
SIR, ARE YOU PRESENTING SOMETHING ON THE HARDSHIPS?>> I SENT A WHITE PAPER OUT AND I'M SORRY IT WAS SEPARATE.
WHAT I WANT YOU TO DO WAS I DON'T WANT TO OVERCOMPLICATE THIS.
BUT I THINK THAT THE PAPER GIVES A GOOD EXPLANATION, PROBABLY SELF EXPLANATORY BETTER THAN I COULD EXPLAIN IT.
I WOULD HAVE WORKED FROM THAT ANYWAY, OR OTHER LAWYERS HAVE WRITTEN PAPERS LIKE THAT, THE IDEA IS TO REMIND THE BOARD THAT NOT THAT YOU ALL HAVE DONE A BAD JOB OR THAT YOU HAVEN'T BEEN MINDFUL OF THIS.
WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SHOW ULTIMATELY TO GET A VARIANCE? I WAS HERE TO ASK QUESTIONS OR ANSWER QUESTIONS.
NO, I DIDN'T WANT TO STAFF, DID YOU HAVE ANY EXPECTATIONS OTHER THAN THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY ON THE BOARD UNDERSTANDS.
I THINK I'VE SENT THIS TO YOU ALL ONCE BEFORE TO READ IT AND UNDERSTAND, AND WE HAVE NEW MEMBERS WHAT A HARDSHIP RELIEF REALLY IS.
IT ALREADY STATES IN OUR CODE.
IT CAN'T BE A FINANCIAL HARDSHIP.
IT CAN'T BE ONE CREATED BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS, AND WE'VE SEEN THAT A BUNCH COME THROUGH THE CHAMBERS IN FRONT OF YOU.
WHERE THE PROPERTY OWNER IS I HAVE A HARDSHIP BECAUSE I'M NOT GETTING EXACTLY WHAT I WANT.
NOW, HAVING SAID THAT, YOU ALL HAVE GREAT DEFERENCE, ALL THE DEFERENCE IN APPROVING OR NOT APPROVING BASED ON THE CRITERIA, VARIANCES.
IF IT'S NOT QUITE A HARDSHIP, YOU ALL HAVE APPROVED THOSE BEFORE, TOO, OR I'M SITTING THERE THINKING, THIS IS NOT A HARDSHIP JUST MYSELF, LEGALLY, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S UNDONE UNLESS IT'S CHALLENGED, AND THAT COULD BE THE BASIS OF A CHALLENGE IN COURT.
AGAIN, THAT SHORT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, 30 DAY WINDOW, BUT IT COULD BE.
SO I JUST REALLY WANTED YOU ALL TO BE MINDFUL OF THAT, AND I'M HERE FOR QUESTIONS, PROCEDURE QUESTION, ANYTHING THAT YOU HAVE TONIGHT.
>> IN THE VERY FIRST PAGE OF THE WHITE PAPER THAT YOU DISTRIBUTED.
SEVERAL TIMES HE TALKS ABOUT WHAT A HARDSHIP IS AND THAT IT BASICALLY IS ALLOWED ONLY IF NECESSARY TO PREVENT A TAKING, THAT IS NO AUTHORIZED USE IS REASONABLY POSSIBLE.
IT SEEMS TO ME SAYING THAT A HARDSHIP, A VARIANCE IS ONLY GRANTED IF THE ZONING CODE CREATES THIS HARDSHIP, BUT THAT THE HARDSHIP MEANS NO REASONABLE USE AND THEY TALKED ABOUT HOW THAT'S DIFFERENT, THE HARDSHIP VERSUS A VARIANCE VERSUS A SPECIAL EXCEPTION OR CONDITIONAL USE.
FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT THE BOARD JUST DID, SEEMED TO ME REALLY NOT TO BE A HARDSHIP CASE BECAUSE THEY COULD BUILD ONE HOUSE.
THAT IS A REASONABLE USE OF THE LARGE LOT.
>> IT SEEMS LIKE HE'S SAYING, WE'RE REALLY NOT SUPPOSED TO BE GRANTING ANY VARIANCE UNLESS THERE'S NO REASONABLE USE.
BUT WHAT WE'RE REALLY AND HE SAYS, BOARD THIS 1,2,3,4,5,6 PARAGRAPH DOWN.
HE SAYS, BOARDS OF ADJUSTMENTS ARE OFTEN UNCLEAR ON THIS DISTINCTION, GRANTING VARIANCES AS A CONVENIENT EXPEDIENT TO AVOIDING THE ZONING AND LAND ABOUT REGULATION AND IT DOES SEEM TO BE MORE WHAT WE GET ASKED TO DO.
DOES THAT LEAD US INTO LEGAL ISSUES CHALLENGES OR NOT? AT LEAST LIKE HERE, WE DID NOT HAVE ANYONE THAT SEEMED TO BE STRONGLY OBJECTIONABLE AT ALL.
>> I WATCH WHEN WE'RE IN THE CHAMBER, SURE.
THAT IS THE WAY THAT A COURT IS GOING TO LOOK AT THIS.
I MEAN, HE'S GOT CASE LAW CITED IN THERE AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
I MEAN, THAT IS THE PUREST FORM OF HOW AND WHY YOU APPROVE VARIANCES, BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE'VE BEEN DOING IT WRONG OR ILLEGAL.
IT'S A BOARD OF RESIDENTS OF THE CITY.
YOUR NEIGHBORS ARE COMING IN TO ASK YOU FOR A VARIANCE, AND YES, YOU CAN HOLD THEM TO THAT STANDARD IF THAT'S WHAT YOU CHOOSE, AND YOU HAVE BECAUSE WE'VE DENIED MANY VARIANCES AND HAVE HELD THEM TO THAT STANDARD.
BUT WHEN YOU DON'T, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU VIOLATED THE LAW.
IT JUST MEANS THAT IT MAY NOT PASS THE PORT MUSTER WHEN IT GETS THERE, BUT THAT'S NOT THE SAME THING AS VIOLATING THE LAW.
THIS IS A GRAY AREA, AND THERE'S SOME THINGS IN MR. BROOK'S WHITE PAPER THAT I DON'T EXACTLY AGREE WITH,
[00:45:02]
BECAUSE IT'S NOT JUST FERNANDINA, IT'S EVERYWHERE.THIS IS HOW VARIANCE WORKS EVERYWHERE.
WE'RE ALWAYS EVERYWHERE [OVERLAPPING].
THERE'S NO CASE OUTS BUT FLORIDA [OVERLAPPING].
>> PLUS HAD TO BE AN ISSUE IF SOMEBODY OBJECTED AND [OVERLAPPING].
>> YEAH, THEY CAN OBJECT AND THEN THEY MAKE AN ISSUE, AND THEY SAY, WHAT IS THIS? THEY DON'T MEET THE CRITERIA.
STAFF SAID THEY DID, AND THERE'S SO MUCH THAT GOES INTO BECAUSE AN APPEAL FROM THIS BOARD IS A WRITE OF SOCIAL WORRY, A UNIQUE TYPE OF LAWSUIT.
JUDGE [INAUDIBLE], THAT WE HAVE NOW HERE, SHE WAS A LAND USE LAWYER.
SHE IS VERY SKILLED AND SCHOOLED IN LAND USE LAW, INCLUDING VARIANCE LAW, BUT IT IS SOMETHING TO KEEP IN MIND.
WHEN I FIRST CAME TO THE CITY AND ALMOST EVERY VARIANCE WAS APPROVED.
WELL, YOU'RE APPLYING THE CRITERIA, AND NOT ONLY THAT, THEY DIDN'T ARTICULATE THAT IN THE MOTION, IF THEY DISAGREED WITH STAFF OR THEY DISAGREED WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER. WE'VE GOTTEN BETTER.
>> WELL, I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT IF YOU DO GRANT ONE OR YOU DENY ONE, THAT WE PUT THE ORDINANCES AND THE STATUTES IN THERE BECAUSE A JUDGE DOES NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO GO OUTSIDE THE RECORD TO GO GET THOSE THINGS.
IF IT'S NOT ON THE RECORD, PROHIBIT OR SHE, IT DOESN'T EXIST.
>> THAT'S TRUE. NOW, I WILL SAY THIS.
THAT STATUTES AND OTHER TYPES OF BOOKS ARE, I FORGET THE TERM NOW BECAUSE I'M NOT A LITIGATOR, BUT THERE IS A LEGAL TERM THAT LAWYERS USE AND JUDGES USE, THAT THOSE ARE AUTOMATIC, WHETHER THEY'RE ON THE RECORD OR NOT.
YOU CAN GO, FOR EXAMPLE, TO THE BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, EVEN THOUGH IT WASN'T PART OF YOUR RECORD TO FIND A DEFINITION. THE JUDGE CAN DO THAT.
IF THEY'RE IN PLACE, THEY CAN ACTUALLY GO TO THE AND CERTAINLY WE BOTH OF THOSE SECTIONS, IF THEY'RE CITED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
>> YOU GOT CITED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
>> NOT OUR COUNTER, BUT [OVERLAPPING].
>> IT DOES NOT HURT TO DO THAT.
>> MY CONCERN IS WHEN WE GET SUED THE CITY HAS TO DEFEND ITSELF, THAT WE PUT THE NECESSARY THINGS IN THERE THAT DEFEND OUR POSITION.
>> IT DOESN'T HURT. THE MORE SPECIFIC YOU CAN BE, THE BETTER.
>> IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE I HEAR THE COMMENTS.
OH, WE LOST AGAIN, MUST BE THE JUDGE.
IF YOU DON'T PUT THE NECESSARY THINGS IN THERE TO DEFEND IT, IT'S ALL UNSUBSTANTIALLY COMPETENT EVIDENCE AND ORDINANCES AND IF THEY'RE NOT THERE AND THEY'RE NOT ON THE RECORD, IT'S REALLY HARD TO DEFEND IT.
I'D LIKE TO MAKE HER JOB PRETTY EASY [OVERLAPPING].
>> IT'S FUN IF IT'S EASY, THOUGH.
>> YOU GUYS ARE DOING A GOOD JOB, AND I'M SORRY TO BE INFORMAL, YOU GUYS.
THESE BOARD MEMBERS ARE DOING A REALLY GOOD JOB.
THAT'S MY JOB IS TO SIT HERE AND LISTEN EVEN IF IT SEEMS LIKE I'M NOT PAYING ATTENTION, I HEAR EVERY SINGLE WORD.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT SKILL YOU OWN AFTER YEARS.
>> IT'S THAT, TOO. THAT AND DROWNING OUT.
AFTER 20 YEARS, THE OFFICE NEEDED A NEW PAINT JOB AND STUFF, THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT.
THE MAINTENANCE PEOPLE CAME IN AND SAID, "DO YOU MIND IF WE PUT TOGETHER?" THERE IS A NEW DESK FOR LAURI JACOBS, IS GOING TO GRANTS IS GOING TO MOVE AND LEGISLATIVE UNDER THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT.
HER DESK IS GETTING PUT TOGETHER.
MAINTENANCE COMES BY AND SAYS, "IS THAT GOING TO BE BOTHERSOME FOR YOU IN THE MORNING?" I SAID, "I HAVE TWO,10-YEAR OLDS AT HOME.
WHAT ARE YOU KIDDING ME?" BOYS. THEY'RE VERY LOUD.
I'VE ACTUALLY HAD TO PUT EARBUDS IN FOR A SHORT TIME BECAUSE IT WAS JUST OUT OF HAND.
NOT THAT SAFE. I SHOULDN'T HAVE ADMITTED THAT.
>> FROM THE LAST MEETING, I WANTED APOLOGIZE FOR PUTTING ALL THAT LONG MOTIONS STUFF IN, BUT I FIGURED SOMEONE WAS LIKELY TO CHALLENGE THAT DECISION.
I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING THAT WE GOT IN THERE [OVERLAPPING]
THESE 30 DAY WINDOWS GO BY THE TIME YOU HAVE YOUR NEXT, NOBODY'S FILED.
[00:50:05]
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? WE'LL CLOSE THIS ONE OUT. TEN TILL SIX. THANK YOU.
>> COULD ASSIGN THIS TO THE.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.