[1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL / DETERMINATION OF QUORUM]
[00:00:02]
>> I CALL TO ORDER THE NOVEMBER MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.
THE DATE TODAY IS THE 20TH OF NOVEMBER.
I'D LIKE TO CALL TO ORDER THAT AND WE'LL STAND UP FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
>> THANK YOU. MAY YOU CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE?
>> TODAY, WE ARE SEATING KELLY AS A PERMANENT MEMBER NOW, AND THAT WILL MOVE MARGARET TO THE ALTERNATE ONE SEAT, CORRECT? WITH US IS MS. FAITH. MS. ROSS WAS A GREAT ADD TO THE TO THE BOARD, SO IT'S GOING TO BE SAD TO LOSE HER, BUT WE'LL KEEP MOVING FORWARD.
BEEN ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS ON THIS CASES TONIGHT? [INAUDIBLE]
>> I HAVE ONE OUT OF AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION.
I HAD AN EMAIL EXCHANGE WITH OUR CITY ATTORNEY AND HER STAFF, SIMPLY, SINCE THIS IS MY FIRST TIME SITTING ON AN APPEAL CASE, ASKING FOR THE STANDARD OF REVIEW.
I HAVE SUBMITTED A COPY OF THAT EMAIL TO MORGAN FOR THE RECORD.
>> THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE? WE CAN CONTINUE.
AT THIS TIME, I'D LIKE TO ASK TAMMY, COME SEE ATTORNEY TO SPEAK, TELL US ON THE QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEDURES OF THIS.
>> YES. TONIGHT, WE HAVE TWO CASES.
THEY'RE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT, BUT THEY WILL BOTH BE CONDUCTED IN A QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING SETTING.
THE BOARD MEMBERS ARE ACTING AS JUDGES.
THAT'S WHY WE CALL IT QUASI JUDICIAL, BUT THIS IS NOT A COURT ROOM, SO THAT'S WHY IT'S QUASI AND NOT JUST JUDICIAL.
THE BOARD MEMBERS, I AM REPRESENTING THE BOARD TONIGHT, SO I HAVE NOT HAD ANY COMMUNICATION, CONTACT, OR ADVICE TO STAFF ON THE APPEAL CASE OR THE VARIANCE CASE.
WHEN WE SEE ANOTHER BOARD ATTORNEY HERE, AND I'M REPRESENTING STAFF, THAT'S USUALLY BECAUSE THERE'S A CONFLICT, AND I'VE ADVISED STAFF PRIOR TO COMING TO THE HEARING.
TONIGHT I AM REPRESENTING THE BOARD ON THESE ITEMS. THE ORDER OF THE PROCEEDINGS WILL BE FIRST, MS. KELLY GIBSON OR MARGARET PEARSON WITH CITY STAFF WILL PROVIDE A STAFF REPORT AND THEIR OPINIONS AND RECOMMENDATION, WHETHER IN THE CASE, THE VARIANCE SHOULD BE APPROVED, AND IN THE APPEAL CASE, WHAT THE DECISION OF STAFF WAS THAT IS ON APPEAL.
AFTER CITY STAFF, THEY MAY CALL WITNESSES, TOO.
I'M NOT SURE THEY HAVE ANY TONIGHT, BUT THEY CAN CALL WITNESSES.
CITY STAFF, NEXT IS THE PROPERTY OWNER AND/OR THEIR AGENT OR THE APPELLANT, WILL COME TO THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, AND YOU'LL BE TESTIFYING ON THE RECORD IN THE VARIANCE CASE, STATING WHY YOU WANT THE VARIANCE, AND IN THE APPEAL CASE, WHY YOU'RE APPEALING THE CASE.
BOTH OF THE HEARINGS ARE, AS MS. DAVIS SAID, THE STANDARD OF REVIEW IS DE NOVO.
THOSE ARE VERY LEGAL TERMS THAT MOSTLY LAWYERS UNDERSTAND, BUT DE NOVO MEANS THAT YOU WILL BE TAKING EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY IN THE HEARING.
IN OTHER APPEALS CASES WITH JUDGES, FOR EXAMPLE, THEY DON'T TAKE NEW EVIDENCE.
THEY LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE FROM THE LOWER COURT THEN THEY DECIDE BASED UPON THAT STANDARD.
YOU ARE GOING TO BE HEARING EVIDENCE, AND WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE, AND MAKING A DECISION, BOTH IN THE VARIANCE CASE AND IN THE APPEAL CASE.
AFTER THE PROPERTY OWNER AND/OR THEIR AGENT SPEAKS, BY THE WAY, NOBODY'S LIMITED BY TIME.
BEFORE YOU GET TO SPEAK TONIGHT, IF YOU WISH, THE CHAIR WILL ASK THE SECRETARY IF ANYBODY WISHES TO SPEAK, EVEN IF YOU'RE NOT SURE.
GO AHEAD AND STAND AND TAKE AN OATH BECAUSE ALL OF THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE IS GIVEN UNDER OATH IN THESE PROCEEDINGS AND THAT INCLUDES AFTER THE PROPERTY OWNER.
WE HAVE AFFECTED PARTIES, WHICH MEANS THAT YOU'RE A RESIDENT OF THE CITY.
YOU'RE JUST LIKE THE OTHER PARTIES.
YOU COME UP HERE, NO TIME LIMITS, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, AND YOU CAN PRESENT EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY ON THE RECORD.
YOU CAN ALSO CALL WITNESSES, AND YOU CAN QUESTION THE PARTIES.
THE PARTIES ARE THE CITY AND THE PROPERTY OWNER.
[00:05:02]
EVERYBODY IS EQUALLY PARTICIPATING IN OUR HEARINGS TODAY.AFTER ALL OF THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE, THE CHAIR WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, WHICH MEANS THAT'S THE END OF THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY, AND THE BOARD WILL DELIBERATE AND MAKE THEIR DECISION.
AFTER THE DECISIONS, THERE'S A VERY SHORT STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR TAKING THEIR DECISION AND APPEALING IT FURTHER TO THE CIRCUIT COURT, AND THAT HAS TO HAPPEN WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE BOARD'S WRITTEN DECISION.
IT TAKES A FEW DAYS FOR THE CHAIR SOMETIMES TO SIGN THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
THOSE ARE THE APPEAL RIGHTS BEYOND THIS BOARD, IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE DECISION.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? REMEMBER, EVEN IF YOU'RE NOT SURE THAT YOU WANT TO SPEAK, GO AHEAD AND STAND AND TAKE THE OATH. THAT'S ALL I HAVE.
>> THANK YOU, TAMMY. APPRECIATE IT.
MORGAN, CAN YOU ISSUE THE OATH TO ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK? PLEASE STAND UP. RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
>> RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. [NOISE] 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?
>> THANK YOU. YOU MAY BE SEATED. LET'S GO OVER THE MEETING MINUTES.
[3. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES]
ANYBODY HAVE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE REVIEW OF THE MEETING MINUTES FROM LAST? I ACTUALLY REVIEWED IT AS WELL, AND I DID NOT HAVE ANY COMMENTS, SO I LIKE TO SEE IF WE CAN GET A MOTION TO BE APPROVED.>> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE MINUTES.
>> CARRIED. WE DON'T NEED TO VOTE ON THAT, DO WE? I'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON WITH THE BUSINESS HERE.
[5.1 BOA 2024-0005 - JOHN AND MARY HAMILTON, 28 NORTH 19TH STREET Variance request from LDC 4.02.03 to reduce the rear setback from 25 feet to 20.8 feet. (Quasi-Judicial).]
NEW BUSINESS. WE'D LIKE TO HEAR THE FIRST CASE.MARGARET, ARE YOU READY TO PREPARE?
>> I AM. PRESENTATION. THANK YOU.
GOOD EVENING, CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
I AM MARGARET PEARSON, THE SENIOR PLANNER FOR THE CITY'S PLANNING DEPARTMENT, AND I'LL BE PRESENTING THIS FIRST CASE, WHICH IS BOA 2424-005.
THE APPLICANT IS JOHN AND MARY HARRIS HAMILTON.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 28 NORTH 19TH STREET.
THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED R1, AND THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN KEEPS IT CONSISTENT WITH LOWER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.
THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS FROM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION, TABLE 4.0203E STANDARDS FOR BUILDING HEIGHT AND SETBACKS TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED SETBACK FROM 25 FEET TO 20.7 FEET.
ALL THE REQUIRED APPLICATION MATERIAL HAS BEEN SUBMITTED AND ALL FEES HAVE BEEN PAID AS REQUIRED, AND ALL THE NOTICES HAVE BEEN MADE.
TO SUMMARIZE THE REQUEST, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CONTAINS A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON 0.22 ACRES THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN APPROXIMATELY 1962, AND ACCORDING TO CURRENT SURVEYS INDICATED IN THE APPLICATION, THE EXISTING HOME IS ALREADY ENCROACHING INTO THE REAR SETBACK BY 4.3 FEET OR IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 20.7 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE.
THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS TO REDUCE THE REAR SETBACK IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SHOWER TO THE CURRENT MASTER HALF BATHROOM.
THIS ADDITION WILL ALLOW THE HOME TO HAVE TWO FULL BATHS ACCORDING TO THE APPLICATION.
DETACH SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ARE PERMISSIBLE IN THIS ZONING DISTRICT, AND BECAUSE THE HOME WAS BUILT PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THE LDC, IT IS RECOGNIZED AS A LEGAL NON-CONFORMITY AND ALLOWED TO REMAIN AS IS WITH NO WORSENING OF THE ENCROACHMENTS INDEFINITELY.
THE INTENT FROM THE APPLICATION IS TO ADD A SHOWER TO THE CURRENT MASTER HALF BATH.
HERE'S THE EXISTING SURVEY, AND AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE LOWER PART OF THE SURVEY, THAT THE CLOSEST POINT TO THE REAR SETBACK IS 20.7.
I THINK YOU CAN SEE A LITTLE BIT BETTER ON YOUR SCREENS.
THEN THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED A PROPOSED SITE PLAN SHOWING THE ADDITION.
AS YOU CAN SEE, IT IS HATCHED.
BECAUSE OF THE PROPERTIES A SKEWED A LITTLE BIT, ONE END WOULD BE 20.8, BUT BECAUSE THE EXISTING ENCROACHMENT IS AT 20.7, IF YOU GRANTED THAT MERGE, IT WOULD MAKE THE WHOLE PROPERTY CONFORMING THEN.
THAT'S WHY IT'S WITH THE 20.7.
UNDER THE LDC, THERE ARE CRITERIAS FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE, AND SO I'LL JUST READ THROUGH THESE FOR THE RECORD.
THE FIRST ONE IS SPECIAL CONDITIONS.
THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS CIRCUMSTANCES THIS, WHICH ARE PARTICULAR TO THE STRUCTURE OR BUILDING INVOLVED AND WHICH ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER LANDS AND STRUCTURES ARE BUILDING IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT.
[00:10:02]
SPECIAL CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT RESULT FROM THE ACTION OF THE APPLICANT AND ARE NOT BASED ON THE DESIRE TO REDUCE DEVELOPMENT COSTS.STAFF DID AN ANALYSIS OF THIS AND ALSO TOOK IN CONSIDERATION WHAT WAS SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATION, AND WE FEEL THAT THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS DO NOT EXIST AS THEY RELATE TO THE LAND STRUCTURE OR BUILDING EVOLVED.
THE EXISTING HOME IS CLASSIFIED AS A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE, WHICH THE CDL WOULD ONLY ALLOW TO BE EXPANDED WHEN MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS SETBACKS.
THEREFORE, THE EXISTING ENCROACHMENT INTO THE REAR SETBACK WOULD NOT BE A SPECIAL CONDITION OR CIRCUMSTANCE THAT WOULD WARRANT THE GRANTING OF A VARIANCE.
THE SECOND ONE IS ABOUT SPECIALS PRIVILEGES.
GRANTING A VARIANCE DOES NOT CONFER UPON THE APPLICANT A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE THAT IS DENIED BY THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO OTHER LAND STRUCTURES OR BUILDINGS IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT.
GRANTING THIS VARIANT DOES NOT CONVEY UPON THE APPLICANT A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE THAT IS DENIED BY THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OR OTHER LANDS.
ANY SIMILAR SITUATION, A PROPERTY OWNER WITHIN THE ZONING DISTRICT HAS A RIGHT TO ASK FOR RELIEF UNDER THIS SECTION.
THE THIRD CRITERIA IS A LITERAL INTERPRETATION.
A LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISION OF THE ORDER WOULD DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT OF THE RIGHTS COMMONLY ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT.
THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WOULD NOT DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT OF THE RIGHTS ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTIES WITHIN THE ZONING DISTRICT.
THE CDL DOES NOT ALLOW FOR THE EXTENSION OF A NONCONFORMITY TO BE EXPANDED.
THEREFORE, SHOULD OTHER PROPERTIES WITHIN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT CONTAIN ENCROACHMENTS INTO THE REQUIRED SETBACK, THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO EXPAND IN SUCH A WAY THAT WOULD INCREASE THE EXTENT OF THEIR SETBACKS AS WELL.
MINIMUM VARIANCE. THE VARIANCE REQUEST A MINIMUM NEEDED THAT WILL MAKE POSSIBLE THE REASONABLE USE OF THE LAND OR STRUCTURE BUILDING.
THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS NOT THE MINIMUM REQUEST NEEDED TO MAKE THE POSSIBLE REASONABLE USE OF THE LAND.
THE SURVEY PROVIDED INDICATES THAT THERE ARE AREAS IN WHICH THE HOUSE COULD BE EXPANDED AND MEET THE SETBACKS, AND THE APPLICATION DOES NOT ADEQUATELY DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PROPOSED ADDITION COULD NOT BE CONSTRUCTED IN THOSE AREAS.
PERHAPS THE APPLICANT MAY HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION HE COULD SHARE ON THAT TONIGHT. GENERAL HARMONY.
GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THE LDC AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BOTH ALLOW FOR LEGAL NON-CONFORMING TO EXIST AND FOR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OF THE STRUCTURE TO TAKE PLACE.
HOWEVER, THE LDC SECTION 10.01, 02(A) PROHIBITS THE EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING UNLESS THE EXPANSION IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CURRENT DEVELOPMENT CODE.
CRITERION NUMBER 6, PUBLIC INTEREST.
GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY WILL NOT CAUSE INJURY TO THE AREA INVOLVED OR OTHERWISE BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY WELFARE ENVIRONMENT.
GRANTING THE VARIANCE IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE SOUNDING PROPERTY, MAY CAUSE INJURY TO THE AREA.
THE APPLICATION DOES NOT ADEQUATELY DEMONSTRATE THAT THE GRANTING OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES IN THAT THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT OTHER PROPERTIES HAVE NOT COMPLIED WITH THE 25 FOOT REAR SETBACK.
STAFF DOES RECOGNIZE THAT THIS IS A MINOR VARIANCE REQUEST.
HOWEVER, LIKE I HAD SAID BEFORE, THE APPLICATION DIDN'T ADEQUATELY DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PROPOSED ADDITION COULD NOT BE CONSTRUCTED IN OTHER PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY THAT HAVE AREA WITHIN THE SETBACKS AND THAT THE REQUEST WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES THAT ALSO HAVE A 25 FOOT SETBACK REQUIREMENT.
THEREFORE, FINDS THAT THE REQUESTS AS PRESENTED, DOES NOT MEET ALL THE CRITERIA AND HAS TO RECOMMEND DENYING.
THESE ARE YOUR MOTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION.
I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION. WHEN I WAS READING THROUGH STAFF ANALYSIS, THIS WORD EXPANDED APPEARS A LOT.
YOU JUST USED THE PHRASE WORSENING OF ENCROACHMENTS.
I GUESS THAT FROM WHAT I'M HEARING, THAT EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT ENCROACHING FURTHER INTO THE SETBACK, JUST BY EXPANDING THE HOUSE UP TO THE LEVEL OF THE CURRENT ENCROACHMENT IS AN EXPANSION, IS THAT TRUE?
>> IT'S MORE OF AN ENCROACHMENT.
THERE'S MORE OF THE STRUCTURE NOW ENCROACHING THAN PREVIOUSLY.
>> I'M THINKING ABOUT ALTERNATIVE WAYS TO DO THIS.
[00:15:01]
>> LIKE YOU SAID, MAYBE THE BETTER PERSON TO SPEAK TO THIS IS THE APPLICANT.
BUT AS FAR AS JUST LOOKING AT THE SURVEY, THERE'S NO REASON THAT THIS PROPERTY, FOR EXAMPLE, THE EXPANSION COULDN'T BE DONE TO THE NORTH, AND STILL HAVE APPROPRIATE SETBACKS.
>> THERE'S NO EVIDENCE IN THE APPLICATION THAT SAYS THEY CAN, BUT PERHAPS THERE ARE SOME REASONING THAT WE'RE NOT AWARE OF THAT MAYBE A STRUCTURE PERSPECTIVE OR WHERE THE EXISTING BATHROOM IS LOCATED, WE WERE NOT PROVIDED A FOOTPRINT OF THE INSIDE OF THE HOME.
>> BUT WE DO KNOW THAT ECONOMICS ALONE DOES NOT JUSTIFY A VARIANCE.
>> DID YOU SAY THAT IF WE GRANT THIS EXTENSION, THEN THAT MAKES THE ENTIRE PROPERTY CONFORMING THEN?
>> BECAUSE THEY HAVE A VARIANCE FOR THE WHOLE WHERE YOU'RE SET BACK.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU, MOLLY.
CAN WE HAVE THE APPLICANTS SPEAK IF THEY'D LIKE? STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.
>> SIR, IF YOU WANT TO TALK MORE ABOUT TALK DOWNS, YOU CAN. WITH MORE INFORMATION.
>> THE CASE OF THE REAL SPEAKING.
>> I AM JOHN HAMILTON, HERE REPRESENTING MYSELF AND MY WIFE, MARY HAMILTON.
I GO BY CHRIS, JUST IN CASE ANYBODY KNOWS ME.
WE LIVE AT 28 NORTH 19TH STREET.
WE'VE BEEN FERNANDINA BEACH RESIDENTS SINCE 1999.
WE'VE RESIDED AT THIS RESIDENCE FOR OVER EIGHT YEARS. WE LOVE OUR COMMUNITY.
WE LOVE OUR HOME. OUR PLAN IS TO BRING IT UP TO DATE.
IT'S CURRENTLY A RELATIVELY SMALL 1,283 SQUARE FEET, THREE BEDROOM 1.5 BATH.
OUR MAIN GOAL IS TO ADD A FULL BATH TO THE MASTER BATHROOM, WHICH DOES RESIDE ON THE NORTHEAST REAR CORNER OF THE PROPERTY.
THE ADDITION THAT WE'RE PROPOSING, WE FEEL IS THE LEAST INTRUSIVE, EVEN THOUGH IT DOES ENCROACH ON THE SETBACK.
THERE ARE NO TREES OR ANYTHING IN THAT AREA.
PART OF THE HOUSE ALREADY DOES GO TO THAT.
THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE HOME ALREADY SITS BACK TO THAT AREA, AND WE JUST WANT TO CONTINUE THAT DOWN THE REMAINDER OF THE HOUSE.
THE MAIN REASONS WE DON'T WANT TO GO OFF THE NORTH END OF THE HOUSE OR WE PREFER NOT TO AS WE DID HAVE AN ARCHITECT LOOK AT IT.
IT'S A VERY LONG, SHALLOW HOME ALREADY, WE WERE TOLD THAT IT WOULD BE DISPROPORTIONATE LOOKING TO DO THAT.
THAT WOULD BE WITHIN THE SETBACKS.
HOWEVER, THERE IS ALSO, AND YOU CAN SEE, BECAUSE I TOOK SOME PICTURES IN WHAT WE HANDED OUT, THERE'S A GROUP OF MAYBE FIVE MATURE OAK TREES IN THAT AREA, THAT IF WE DO GO OFF THE NORTH END OF THE HOUSE, THAT WOULD ENCROACH ON THAT AREA, AND THEY WOULD PROBABLY MORE THAN LIKELY NEED TO BE REMOVED.
WHEREAS, IF WE EXPAND OFF THE BACK OF WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING, THERE WOULD BE NO TREES THAT WOULD BE INVOLVED IN WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.
I THINK I TALKED ABOUT, WE LOOKED AT THE NORTH END.
ONE OTHER OPTION THAT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION IN OUR PRE-APPLICATION MEETING WAS POTENTIALLY CHANGING OUR ADDRESS TO ALACHUA STREET SINCE WE'RE ON THE CORNER.
IF WE DID THAT, WE COULD DO WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING, AND IT WOULD BE WITHIN THE SETBACKS WITH AN ALACHUA STREET ADDRESS.
FURTHER EXPLORING THAT WITH THE FIRE MARSHAL, THAT WASN'T REALLY ADVISED BECAUSE IT COULD CREATE ISSUES WITH EMERGENCY BEING THAT THERE'S NOT AN ENTRANCE TO THE HOME ON ALACHUA STREET.
THERE'S THREE HOMES IN OUR BLOCK BETWEEN ATLANTIC AVENUE, 19TH AND 20TH STREET, IN ALACHUA.
WE'VE TALKED WITH ALL OF OUR NEIGHBORS.
SOME OF OUR NEIGHBORS ARE HERE, REPRESENT EVERYBODY'S IN SUPPORT.
THEY DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.
OUR NEIGHBOR DIRECTLY TO THE EAST OF US, CURRENTLY, WHICH WOULD BE OUR BACK DOOR NEIGHBOR, THEY'RE APPROXIMATELY 17 FEET FROM THE LOT LINE NOW.
EVEN WITH THE ADDITION THAT WE'RE PROPOSING, WE WOULD BE ENCROACHING LESS THAN THAT HOME ALREADY IS.
I'M SURE IT WAS GRANDFATHERED IN, JUST LIKE THE PROPORTIONAL BUMP OUT THAT OUR HOUSE CURRENTLY HAS.
IN A NUTSHELL, THAT'S OUR GOAL, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.
[00:20:01]
WE'RE NOT TRYING TO DO A RENOVATE AND FLIP AND ANYTHING LIKE THAT.WE'RE JUST TRYING TO MAKE IT MEET OUR NEEDS AS WE GROW OLDER AND PLAN TO BE RESIDENTS HERE FOREVER.
I APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION.
I HOPE YOU GUYS WILL SUPPORT THIS AND GIVE US THIS MINOR FAVOR AND LETTING US DO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.
>> THANK YOU. LET THE BOARD ASK IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS. ANY DELIBERATION?
>> BUT WOULD YOU EXTEND A SETBACK THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE BACK OR JUST THE PART YOU NEED FOR YOUR ADDITION?
>> WE WOULD DO IT THE ENTIRE LENGTH AND THERE WOULD BE SOME ADDITIONAL ADVANTAGES TO THAT.
THE BATHROOM, BEDROOM IS ON THE FAR NORTHEAST CORNER.
BUT WHILE WE WERE LOOKING AT THAT ADDITION, WE THOUGHT JUST TYING IT IN AND MAKING IT A FULL RECTANGLE AND SINCE IT WOULD BE A VARIANCE TO GET THAT ADDITIONAL FOOTAGE ANYWAY, OUR PLAN WAS TO DO THE WHOLE BUM DOWN, WHICH IS ABOUT ROUGHLY 160 SQUARE FEET, I THINK ADDITION THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.
>> IS THAT NUMBER 3.8 ON THE SURVEY? IT'S HARD TO SEE.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION, BUT I GUESS, MORE FOR STAFF. THAT'S ALL RIGHT.
TO MARK IT, BUT I CAN WAIT UNTIL AFTER.
I THINK KELLY MENTIONED THIS, CONTEXT-SENSITIVE REVIEWS SURVEY IS WHERE YOU CAN GET THE AVERAGE OF THE FRONT SETBACK.
I'M PROBABLY NOT COMMUNICATING VERY CLEARLY, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WOULD APPLY TO A REAR SETBACK.
>> I'LL QUICKLY ANSWER THE QUESTION.
>> KELLY GIBSON, PLANNING AND CONSERVATION DIRECTOR.
IT'S ONLY APPLIED TO THE FRONT YARD.
THE CONTEXT-SENSITIVE SETBACK REVIEW IS ONLY ALLOWED FOR FRONT YARD SETBACKS.
IT'S NOT ALLOWED TO BE APPLIED IN THE SIDE OR REAR YARD.
UNFORTUNATELY, THAT TYPE OF PROCESS ISN'T APPLICABLE IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE.
>> IF YOU WOULD NOTICE FROM THE SURVEY WITH THE SIZE OF A LOT AND THE CURRENT SETBACKS, THE FRONT OF OUR ALMOST AS FAR FORWARD AS WE CAN GO THE BACK AS ALMOST AS FAR BACK AS WE CAN GO.
THERE'S NOT A WHOLE LOT OF [NOISE] AREA TO GAIN ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE AND TO DO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.
>> THANK YOU TRIZ. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
>> I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION. HOW DOES THE TREE CANOPY OR THE SAVING OF TREES IMPACT OUR DECISION OR THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IN TERMS OF THIS MATTER IF IT DOESN'T FALL.
>> WELL, WITHOUT SEEING, HOW THAT EXPANSION WOULD NOT AFFECT THE TREES, IT'S REALLY HARD TO TO SAY AT THIS TIME, BUT THAT'S NOT ONE OF THE CRITERIA, BUT I'M SURE THAT IS SOMETHING YOU COULD HAVE TOOK IN CONSIDERATION.
IF WE KNEW THAT THAT WAS GOING TO BE A PROBLEM.
>> THERE'S A PHOTO ON THE SECOND PAGE OF THE HANDOFF THAT SHOWS THAT THE TREES JUST BEYOND THE FENCE THERE, THAT'S ON THE NORTH END OF THE HOME IF THAT HELPS.
>> TYPICALLY, IF THEY'RE GOING TO PRESENT SOMETHING TO US, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A ARBORIST TO GIVE US A CERTIFICATION FOR THE REASONING FOR KEEPING THE TREES. WHETHER THEY'RE DISEASED.
THAT CAN BE A JUSTIFICATION FOR IT, BUT YOUR POINT IS WELL-TAKEN.
IF IT'S NOT A PART OF THE SCOPE, THEN IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE SHOULD CONSIDER.
ANY OTHER PEOPLE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS APPLICANT?
>> I'M NOT SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
YOU'RE INAUDIBLE TO THE AUDIENCE.
>> THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT. I'LL EMPHASIZE MY VOICE.
I APOLOGIZE. I HAVE A SOFT VOICE.
I'VE ALWAYS BEEN TOLD THAT. THANK YOU FOR THAT FEEDBACK. I APPRECIATE IT.
>> ANYBODY ELSE WHO WANT TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
I'LL CLOSE THIS PORTION [NOISE] PUBLIC SIDE.
ANYBODY HAVE ANY COMMENTS OF CONSIDERATIONS?
>> IT'S UNUSUAL TO SEE THE STAFF NOT RECOMMEND THIS IN FOUR OUT OF FIVE CASES.
I JUST WONDER A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT.
WHETHER IT REALLY LOOKED OUT OF VARIANCE, I DON'T KNOW.
[00:25:02]
SOUNDS LIKE IT IS, BUT IT'S UNUSUAL TO SEE THAT IT'S USUALLY MORE SPLIT.>> WELL, CRITERIA 2 IS LIKE A BOMB CRITERIA, IT'S JUST NO GOOD BECAUSE THE IDEA THAT ANY SIMILARLY SITUATED PROPERTY OWNER WITHIN THIS DISTRICT HAS A RIGHT TO REQUEST RELIEF IS MEANINGLESS.
IT JUST MEANS THAT YOU CAN COME AND GUESS FOR A VARIANCE.
I DON'T EVEN NOTICE, BUT THAT'S ALMOST ALWAYS YES BECAUSE IT'S JUST A THING.
I'M NOT EVEN SURE WHY WE NEED TO REALLY EVEN CONSIDER THAT.
WHEN STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED DENIAL, HAVING A YES THERE MAKES IT LOOK LIKE MAYBE IT'S A LITTLE MORE POSSIBLE.
BUT THE ANSWER TO THAT IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE YES, AS FAR AS I CAN TELL.
I CAN'T IMAGINE WHETHER QUESTION THAT WOULDN'T BE.
>> THEY'RE ALL AGAINST IT BASICALLY.
>> I WAS THINKING, THAT THIS IS LIKE ONE OF THOSE INSTANCES WHERE, YOU CAN MAYBE JUST NOT CARE THAT MUCH, BECAUSE INITIALLY UNTIL I ASKED ABOUT IT.
I WAS THINKING, WELL, IT'S NOT REALLY FURTHER ENCROACHING.
IT'S NOT REALLY EXPANDING AN ENCROACHMENT.
IT'S NOT ANY CLOSER TO THE PROPERTY LINE.
EVEN THOUGH I'M BEING TOLD THAT IT EXPANDS THE SIZE OF THE ENCROACHMENT, IT REALLY WASN'T THE WAY I WAS LOOKING AT IT.
IT'S HARD FOR ME TO JUST TO FLIP OVER SO QUICKLY BECAUSE I MOVE AWAY FROM MY NOT CARING POSITION AND SAYING, WELL, IT DOESN'T REALLY ENCROACH IT FURTHER TO SET BACK. BUT YOU KNOW ALL WORK ON.
>> I THINK THERE'S VALUE IN THE FACT THAT THEY'RE EXPANDING ON THE EXISTING SIDE THAT THE ENCROACHMENT IS ALREADY ON AND THEN NOT IMPACTING THE TREES THAT ARE ON THEIR PROPERTY.
I THINK THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT ASPECT OF THIS CONSIDERATION.
>> [NOISE] 3.8 FEET IS NOT A WHOLE LOT OF SPACE.
BUT I ALSO CAN APPRECIATE A HOME WITH 1.5 BATHS.
WE WANT OUR MEMBERS OF THIS COMMUNITY TO ENJOY THIS COMMUNITY ON ALL LEVELS.
HAVING A MASTER BATH COULD BE ONE OF THOSE LEVELS.
>> I THINK THERE'S SOMETHING TO BE SAID FOR THAT.
I THINK THAT THE APPLICANT USED THE WORD, UPDATING IT OR MODERNIZING IT, OR WHATEVER.
I THINK THAT'S EXACTLY THE RIGHT WORD BECAUSE I GREW UP IN BROOKLYN.
WE HAD ONE BATHROOM FOR FOUR PEOPLE.
IN NEW YORK, ESPECIALLY THE IDEA OF A MASTER SUITE UNLESS YOU HAVE A PARK AVENUE APARTMENT.
PEOPLE DON'T HAVE ON-SITE BATHROOMS IN NEW YORK.
BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY'RE A GOOD THING.
[LAUGHTER] I UNDERSTAND WANTING ONE.
I DON'T KNOW HOW BAD IT IS. I AGREE WITH YOU.
>> I THINK YOU TAKE VALUE WITH THE FACT THAT THEY'VE LIVED HERE FOR A LONG TIME, AND INTENDS NOT TO FLIP THE HOUSE, AND INTENDS TO CONTINUE LIVING THERE.
>> WE ARE A COMMUNITY ABOUT OUR PEOPLE, AND WE WANT OUR PEOPLE TO BE HAPPY AND ENJOY THEIR LIFE HERE ON THE ISLAND.
>> THANK YOU. MARGARET, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING?
>> IF WE HAD ANYONE THAT WAS HERE ARGUING AGAINST THIS TAKING ISSUE, AND SO THAT I WOULD BEGIN GETTING CONCERNED ABOUT A POSSIBLE SUIT.
LIKE I SAID, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT ONE OF THE MAJOR REASONS FOR THIS IS FOR ECONOMIC REASONS.
OF COURSE, THE COURT SAY THAT'S NOT A REASON TO GRANT A VARIANCE.
BUT WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE THAT IS SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION TO THIS.
IN ADDITION, TO PROTECT THE TREES, BEING A REASON TO NOT EXTEND TOWARDS THE NORTH, I THINK IS QUITE SIGNIFICANT.
EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE PICTURES HERE SHOWING THAT THE TREES ARE JUST OUTSIDE THE FENCE,
[00:30:06]
BUT, THE SURVEY DOESN'T SHOW WHERE THEY ARE.IT IS NOT QUITE CLEAR HOW FAR AWAY THEY ARE, THEIR DIAMETER AND STUFF.
BUT I AM CERTAINLY VERY SENSITIVE TO WANTING TO PROTECT THE TREES AND THAT COULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE BEYOND JUST ECONOMIC REASONS.
>> FOR DOING THE EXPANSION THIS WAY.
>> WELL, I DIDN'T REALLY NOTICE ECONOMIC REASONS BEING STRESSED IN THE APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION.
LIKE I SAID, NOW THAT I HAVE AN UNSWEPT BATHROOM IN MY BEDROOM, I TOTALLY GET WHY THEY WOULD WANT IT, BUT I GUESS IT WILL ADD TO THE VALUE OF THE HOUSE, BUT IF THEY'RE NOT GOING TO FLIP IT AS JAGS MENTIONED, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO FLIP IT AND THEY'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO LIVE HERE.
THEN IT'S SOMETHING THAT THEY WON'T BE HAPPY AND HAVE AN UPSWEEP BATHROOM.
BUT THE TREE ISSUE IS A BIG ISSUE BECAUSE IT WOULD BE DIFFERENT IF THERE WAS SOME LARGE TREE THERE AND THAT WAS THE REASON WHY THEY DIDN'T ORIGINALLY JUST CONTINUE THE WHOLE BUMP OUT.
BUT THE PLAN DOESN'T REALLY SHOW ANYTHING THERE.
>> DOES A GENERATOR RIGHT OUTSIDE THAT AREA TOO?
>> YEAH, THAT WAS EASILY MOVED.
>> WITH THE ELECTRICAL SIDE. [NOISE]
>> IS IT POSSIBLE TO POSTPONE A VOTING UNTIL THE APPLICANT WANTED TO PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE TREES OR I DON'T KNOW. THAT'S UP TO YOU GUYS.
>> SOMEBODY'S GOING TO MAKE A MOTION.
>> [INAUDIBLE] JUST SO YOU KNOW THAT.
>> YOU DON'T SPEAK FROM THERE YOU GOT IT.
>> I STOPPED JUST TO HAVE YOU COME BACK UP, BUT WE CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. CAN YOU RESPOND TO HER?
>> JUST REGARDING THE LOCATION OF THE TREES, THE FENCE GOES OUT EIGHT FEET FROM THE END OF THE HOUSE, IF WE HAD TO DO AN ADDITION ON THAT END OF THE HOME, INSTEAD OF ON THE REAR, IT WOULD GO OUT TO APPROXIMATELY WHERE THE FENCE ENDS, IF NOT A LITTLE BIT FARTHER, SO IT WOULD BE ENCROACHING ON THOSE TREES THAT YOU CAN SEE THAT ARE RIGHT UP AGAINST THAT FENCE.
SORRY. JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY.
>> I THINK THAT THE WORST PART OF MOST OF US AGREE ON THIS IS FINDING SOMEONE THAT'S GOING TO BE ABLE TO STATE THE APPROVAL FOR THE REASONS WHY WE'RE OVERDOING OR OVERGOING CONSIDERATIONS THAT THE BOARD HAD, SO WE DON'T HAVE SHIP'S WIFE FAITH HERE ANYMORE.
[LAUGHTER] I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE OUR BOARD CAN DO IT.
>> I THINK THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S GIVEN US THE LANGUAGE HERE IN THE AGENDA THAT WE CAN FULFILL, AND WE CAN STATE OUR REASONINGS.
IT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN. WE'VE DONE IT THE ENTIRE EVERY OTHER TIME.
>> WE SOUGHT TO REFUTE SP'S ANALYSIS ON THESE CRITERIA TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. NO?
>> YOU DON'T HAVE TO AGREE WITH THEM.
>> I'LL SAY THIS TO HELP YOU BECAUSE I SEE WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH THIS.
>> I THINK, AS MS. DAVIS STATED, IN HER. CAN YOU HEAR ME BETTER NOW?
>> OKAY. I THINK ANNE STEPPED OUT.
BUT JUST LIKE MEMBER DAVIS SAID, IN WEIGHING HOW I'M ABOUT TO ADVISE YOU HAS A LOT TO DO WITH THE APPEAL THAT COULD HAPPEN FROM HERE IF SOMEBODY'S NOT HAPPY WITH THE DECISION.
THE FACT IS THAT IN FLORIDA, NO AFFECTED PARTIES HAVE SPOKEN.
NOW YOU HAVE SO IF ANYBODY HERE IS NOT OKAY WITH THE BOARD GRANTING THE VARIANCE, I'M NOT SURE THEY'RE GOING TO DO THAT, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE THEY MIGHT BE LEANING THERE.
THEN YOU NEED TO GET UP AND SAY YOUR PIECE NOW.
BECAUSE APPEALS IN CIRCUIT COURT CAN ONLY HAPPEN BY THOSE THAT APPEARED AT THE HEARING.
YOU CAN'T JUST SAY, HEY, I HEAR THEY MADE THIS DECISION. I DON'T LIKE IT.
I'M GOING TO APPEAL. YOU HAVE TO HAVE STATED YOUR OBJECTIONS HERE ON THE RECORD IN ORDER TO APPEAL.
IF WE DON'T HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS HERE, THEN MY ADVICE TO YOU IS DO THE BEST YOU CAN IN STATING YOUR REASONS.
OTHERWISE, I WOULD BE UP HERE HELPING YOU.
WHICH IS TECHNICALLY WHAT YOU SHOULD DO.
I DO WANT YOU TO MENTION EACH CRITERIA AND WHY YOU THINK THAT THEY MET IT IN THE BEST WAY THAT YOU CAN.
[00:35:02]
>> MISS GIBSON AND MISS PEARSON AS A PARTY, THE CITY.
>> DO YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS TO THAT? THERE YOU GO.
>> ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS AS YOU'RE COMING ACROSS THIS? GO AHEAD. IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING. SPEAK UP.
>> I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING. I'M WRITING NOTES FROM WHAT BOG JUST TOLD US.
>> IT TAKES SO MANY OF US TO APPROVE IT.
>> FOUR. MAYBE WE COULD HAVE AN UNOFFICIAL VOTE AND SEE IF WE GOT FOUR PEOPLE TO MAKE A MOTION.
[LAUGHTER] TROUBLE MAKING A MOTION.
>> YOU CAN SAY WHAT WE FEEL ABOUT IT.
>> WELL, I WOULD VOTE TO APPROVE.
BUT, EVEN I HESITATE BECAUSE THE ALAIN VOTE CODE IS CRYSTAL CLEAR ON THE SUBJECT.
I CAN'T REFUTE EXCEPT FOR THE ABSURD SPECIAL PRIVILEGE CRITERIA.
I CAN'T REALLY REFUTE WHAT STAFF HAS SAID HERE.
I JUST FEEL LIKE I WOULD BE APPROVING IT OVER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WITHOUT ADDRESSING STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
>> HOW COULD YOU FRAME IT IN A WAY THAT WOULD ADDRESS? [LAUGHTER] I MEAN, THAT'S THE POINT THAT WE'RE TRYING TO COME UP WITH A WAY SO THAT HAVE THE LANGUAGE IN THE OPINION.
>> YOU'VE ALREADY STATED YOUR REASONS. YOU JUST DON'T KNOW IT.
[LAUGHTER] WHEN YOU WENT THROUGH YOUR DISCUSSIONS, MANY OF YOU SAID YOU MENTIONED TREES.
YOU MENTIONED, CHANGING THE ADDRESS AND EXPANDING TO THE NORTH COULD AFFECT TREES.
THE PROPERTY OWNER TESTIFIED AND STAFFED IT ESSENTIALLY TO THAT THIS PARTICULAR PROPOSED EXPANSION DOES NOT AFFECT ANY TREES.
THOSE ARE REASONS THAT I'M SURE YOU CAN TIE TO AT LEAST ONE, IF NOT ALL OF THOSE CRITERIA.
>> YEAH. THAT'S HOW WE DID IT.
>> NO, YOU CAN'T MAKE THE MOTION.
>> I THINK I'M LOOKING TO THE MEMBERS, JUST GO TO STAND UP AND SPEAK TO THIS.
>> THE STAFF IS NOT LIVING IN THIS HOME, AND THEY'RE NOT EXPERIENCING THE PERSONAL HARDSHIP OF A 1.5-BATH HOME.
A HOME THAT PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE 2.5 BATHS.
AGAIN, I HAVE TO SAY, IT'S ABOUT OUR COMMUNITY AND OUR PEOPLE AND WHAT MAKES OUR PEOPLE HAPPY WITHOUT INFRINGING ON ANYBODY ELSE.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.
>> TO APPROVE THE 5.1 TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE REQUESTS FROM LDC 4.02.03 TO REDUCE THE REAR SETBACK FROM 25 FEET TO 20.8 FEET.
>> YOU JUST HITTING YOUR STRIKE.
>> YEAH. KEEP GOING. YOU'RE GOING TO ADDRESS THE POINTS THAT STAFF HAS MADE.
BASED ON THE THINGS THAT YOU'VE SAID AND THE THINGS THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED, SUPPLEMENT DISCUSSION AND YOUR MOTION, PLEASE.
>> THERE'S A TECHNICAL ISSUE MAYBE HARRISON JUST SHE WANTS TO CLARIFY SOMETHING AT THE THAT'S YOUR POINT.
>> IF YOU REDUCE THE SETBACK TO 20.7, THEN IT MAKES THE WHOLE BACK THEN CONFORMING BECAUSE YOU GRANTED 20.8 IS ONLY GOING TO MAKE JUST THE SPANS AND CONFORMING.
IT'S STILL GOING TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE NONCONFORMITY.
JUST TO CHANGE THE MOTION TO 20.7 VERSUS 20.8.
>> YOU'RE GOING TO ADDRESS HOW THE LITTLE INTERPRETATION GO THROUGH THE SIX POINTS THAT THE STAFF MAKES.
[00:40:06]
>> I MOVE TO APPROVE BOA CASE NUMBER 2024-005.
I MOVE THAT THE BOA MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PART OF THE RECORD.
AT THE BOA CASE 204-005 AS PRESENTED.
IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLEMENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO WARRANT APPROVAL AT THIS TIME.
THE BOA CASE 2024-005 MEETS THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE.
>> LET ME SAY THE OTHER STUFF WHY IT DOES.
>> THIS IS IN FOR HARMONY WITH THE NEIGHBORS.
WHO HAVE NOT COME FORTH TO OBJECT TO THE ADDITION?
>> THAT'S THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NEEDED.
>> THAT'S IT.[LAUGHTER] [OVERLAPPING]
>> I SECOND. CALL ROLL, PLEASE.
>> GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO THE NEXT.
>> I WAS TRYING TO FIND THE PLAN REFERENCE TO THE TREE CANOPY INSERT IN THERE I WAS TO SLOW.
[NOISE] [OVERLAPPING][BACKGROUND]
[NOISE] [OVERLAPPING] [BACKGROUND]
>> KELLY GO AHEAD AND YOU CAN PRESENT, PLEASE.
[5.2 *ADMIN2024-0018 - MICHAEL S. MARTIN, 311 ELM STREET Appeal of an Administration Action LDC Section 11.07.00 by applicants Kevin Hamm, 315 Elm Street, and Thomas Budd, 307 Elm Street, regarding an Administrative Appeal from LDC Section 10.03.01(C) setback reduction (for tree protection). (Quasi-Judicial)]
>> GOOD EVENING. THE BOARD THIS EVENING AND THIS NEXT CASE IS CONSIDERING AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL.
[00:45:02]
MY NAME IS KELLY GIBSON.I'M DIRECTOR OF THE PLANNING CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT.
I'M REPRESENTING STAFF ON BEHALF OF THIS APPEAL.
THIS IS A LITTLE UNIQUE THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL THIS EVENING IS BETWEEN TWO PARTIES STAFF, AND THE [INAUDIBLE], WHICH ARE NEIGHBORS OF AN ADJOINING SITE FOR WHICH ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL WAS GRANTED.
THE PROPERTY OWNER, ALTHOUGH NOT A PARTY OF THE REQUEST, IS CERTAINLY PART OF THE HEARING THIS EVENING.
I KNOW THAT THEY ARE PRESENT HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AS WELL.
WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND SAY THAT ALL THE REQUIRED APPLICATION MATERIALS HAVE BEEN MADE AND RECEIVED, ALL FEES HAVE BEEN PAID, AND REQUIRED NOTICES HAVE BEEN MADE.
THIS PRESENTATION, ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE, WILL SERVE TO BE PART OF THE RECORD FOR THIS CASE, AND I DO ENTER THEM INTO EVIDENCE AS PART OF THIS CASE.
BOTH THE PRESENTATION, IT'S THE TESTIMONY THIS EVENING, AS WELL AS THE BACKUP MATERIALS CONTAINED ON THE WEBSITE.
THIS EVENING, UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL, JUST 2024-001, THE APPLICANTS ARE MR. KEVIN HAMM AND MR. THOMAS BUDD, NEIGHBORS OF THE LOCATION UNDER CONSIDERATION TONIGHT, WHICH IS AT 311 ELM STREET.
THIS PROPERTY DOES CONTAIN MIXED LAND USE AND ZONING, BUT PREDOMINANTLY, IT HAS THE R-2 AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING AND LAND USE ASSIGNED TO IT.
ON THE PROPERTY, IT'S CURRENTLY VACANT, BUT THERE IS A DESIGNATED HERITAGE TREE.
AGAIN, BE CLEAR, THE APPLICANT IS APPEALING AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION CONTAINED UNDER ADMIN 2024-0018 FOR A TREE PROTECTION SETBACK ADJUSTMENT THAT WAS ISSUED AND APPROVED ON SEPTEMBER 29TH OF 2024.
TO ARTICULATE THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES HIGHLIGHTED IN RED AND NOTED HERE WITH SPLIT LAND USE IN ZONING, WHERE THE PREDOMINANT ZONING IS R-2.
THAT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT HAS AN IMPACT ON THE APPLIED SETBACKS FOR THE PROPERTY.
>> WHAT IS A TREE PROTECTION SETBACK ADJUSTMENT? THERE'S ACTUALLY A RELATIVELY NEW COMPONENT OF OUR CODE.
WE'VE HAD VERY FEW OF THEM APPLIED, AND IT DID NOT COME INTO PLACE UNTIL 2021.
IT'S A MEASURE THAT HELPS TO SUPPORT PROTECTION OF HEALTHY, MATURE SHADE TREES ON A PROPERTY.
IT IS EXCLUSIVELY FOR THAT PURPOSE.
IT CAN ONLY BE USED TO DO THAT.
IT IS A COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY PROCESS.
A PROPERTY OWNER DOES NOT NEED TO SEEK THIS IF THEY DO IN FACT HAVE A HEALTHY MATURE SHADE TREE, WHICH QUALIFIES FOR IT, BUT IF THEY WISH TO, THEY COULD LOOK AT THIS PARTICULAR PROCESS.
QUALIFYING TREES MUST BE AT LEAST 25 INCHES IN DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THIS TYPE OF REVIEW.
A REDUCTION CAN BE REQUESTED FROM ANY OF THE SETBACKS.
THAT INCLUDES THE FRONT YARD, THE SIDE YARDS, AND THE REAR YARDS, BUT IT CANNOT BE ANY CLOSER THAN FIVE FEET TO ANY PROPERTY LINE.
IT ALSO REQUIRES THAT THE PROTECTED TREE CANNOT RECEIVE ANY GREATER THAN 20% PRUNING CUTS.
THOSE PRUNING CUTS MUST BE COMPLETED CONSISTENT WITH ISA STANDARDS AND PRACTICES, AND THAT'S INCLUDED WITHIN THE CONSTRUCTION OR TWO YEARS FOLLOWING CONSTRUCTION.
JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE THIS IN PLACE, AND LATER YOU DECIDE YOU WANT TO LIFT THAT CANOPY FURTHER, WITHIN THAT TWO YEAR TIME FRAME WHILE IT'S WORKING TO RECOVER, YOU CANNOT PRUNE IT AGAIN.
ALSO THE PROCESS ITSELF REQUIRES A HEALTH ASSESSMENT COMPLETED BY A CERTIFIED ARBORIST, AND IT ALSO REQUIRES THAT THAT SAME CERTIFIED ARBORIST PROVIDE PRE, DURING, AND POST CONSTRUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROTECTING THE TREE ON THAT PROPERTY.
FINALLY, IT REQUIRES A RECORDED AGREEMENT WITH THE OWNER AND THE CITY IN THE EVENT THAT THE TREE DOES DIE, THAT THEY WILL PAY FOR MITIGATION OF ALL INCHES OF THAT TREE LOSS.
IT'S A SERIOUS PROCESS THAT PEOPLE WOULD GO THROUGH IF THEY DECIDE TO DO THIS.
TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF SUMMARY HERE, AND I KNOW THIS IS EXTENSIVE, I'VE BROKEN IT DOWN INTO THREE DIFFERENT AREAS.
THE TREE LOCATED AT 311 ELM STREET WAS DESIGNATED A HERITAGE TREE BY RESOLUTION 2017-213 IN DECEMBER OF 2017.
THAT SAME PROPERTY SOLD IN NOVEMBER OF 2020,
[00:50:05]
AND IN MAY OF 2021, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTED A VARIANCE TO SEPARATE LOTS, CREATING THREE DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENT SITES FOR THE OVERALL PROPERTIES.ACTUALLY, TO CORRECT THAT IT CREATED TWO SEPARATE DEVELOPMENT SITES.
IN DECEMBER OF 2021, THE LOT WAS SOLD TO THE NOW CURRENT OWNER.
AN INITIAL REQUEST WITH STAFF WAS MADE IN NOVEMBER OF 2022 TO THINK ABOUT DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PROPERTY IN A WAY THAT WOULD SERVE TO PROTECT THE TREE ON THE SITE.
DURING A PERIOD BETWEEN APPROXIMATELY SEPTEMBER OF 2023 TO AUGUST OF 2024, STAFF MET WITH THE ARBORIST, THE ARCHITECT, AS WELL AS THE PROPERTY OWNER, AND REVIEWED VARIOUS DRAFT DESIGNS IN AN EFFORT TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY.
IN AUGUST OF THIS YEAR, A BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION WAS RECEIVED BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT TO CONSTRUCT ON THE PROPERTY, AND ALMOST IMMEDIATELY A DAY OR TWO LATER, IT WAS PLACED INTO A REQUIRED RESUBMITTAL STATUS BECAUSE THIS VERY PROCESS HAD NOT BEEN ACHIEVED AT THAT POINT IN TIME.
WE COULD NOT REVIEW THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL BECAUSE IT HAD NOT ACTUALLY RECEIVED THE SETBACK ADJUSTMENT.
WHICH BRINGS US TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY, IN THAT FOLLOWING THAT, THE PROPERTY OWNER MADE APPLICATION FOR THE TREE PROTECTION SETBACK ADJUSTMENT.
STAFF ISSUED A STAFF REPORT AND POSTED NOTICE 10 DAYS FOLLOWING IT AND IT WAS APPROVED.
THAT'S BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 19TH AND SEPTEMBER 29TH OF 2024.
OCTOBER 25TH, THE NEIGHBORS FILED AN APPEAL OF THE STAFF DECISION AND AMENDED THAT APPEAL SHORTLY THEREAFTER AND THEN THAT DOES FINALLY BRING US HERE TO OUR HEARING TONIGHT, ALL CONSISTENT WITH THE PROCESS OUTLINED FOR AN APPEAL OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION AT THIS LEVEL.
LET'S TALK ABOUT THE REQUESTED SETBACK REDUCTION.
STAFF REPORT ISSUED WITH THE SETBACK CHANGE INDICATED AN ALLOWANCE TO MOVE FROM A REQUIRED 7.5 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK ON THE WESTERN SIDE TO FIVE FEET, THE MINIMUM THAT'S ALLOWED, FIVE FEET AND ON THE FRONT YARD, MOVING FROM THE REQUIRED 25 FEET TO 10 FEET.
THESE ARE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED AS PART OF THE R2 ZONING DISTRICT BECAUSE THE TWO THIRDS OF THE PROPERTY IS ACTUALLY CONTAINED IN THAT R2 ZONING DISTRICT.
ALL OF THIS IN AN EFFORT TO PROTECT THE 48 INCH HERITAGE TREE LOCATED ON THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS CONTAINED IN LOT 16, AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE SURVEY PROVIDED.
WITHIN THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION, AND I WILL NOTE THAT OFTEN YOU DON'T HAVE THE BENEFIT AS PART OF A REVIEW OF THIS TYPE FOR THE SETBACK ADJUSTMENT OF AN ACTUAL BUILDING PLAN, YOU'RE SIMPLY LOOKING AT ADJUSTING SETBACK SO THAT THEY CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH DEVELOPING THEIR PLANS.
IN THIS CASE, THINGS ARE A LITTLE BACKWARDS SO WE DID HAVE BENEFIT OF THAT PLAN TO LOOK AT.
THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION THAT CAME IN WENT A LITTLE FURTHER THAN WHAT WAS ALLOWED BY THE STAFF.
THE STAFF ALLOWED UP TO FIVE FEET ON THE SIDE YARD AND UP TO 10 FEET ON THE FRONT YARD.
THE REQUESTED BUILDING PERMIT ACTUALLY SETS THE HOME AT APPROXIMATELY SEVEN FEET FROM THE SIDE YARD AND AT 17 FEET 11.5 INCHES FROM THE FRONT YARD.
THEY'VE SHIFTED IT FURTHER BACK THAN WHAT WAS APPROVED.
BUT AGAIN, THOSE ARE MINIMUMS THAT WERE ESTABLISHED.
THIS DOES ALLOW FOR THAT LEVEL OF FLEXIBILITY IN THE BUILDING PERMIT PLAN.
ADDITIONALLY, IN AN EFFORT TO PROTECT THE HERITAGE TREE ON THE SITE, THE APPLICANT INCORPORATED PIER FOUNDATION FOR THE PORCH THAT'S LOCATED ON THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
IT'S HIGHLIGHTED HERE. IT'S DIFFICULT TO SEE WITH THE YELLOW CIRCLES.
THOSE PIER FOUNDATION SUPPORTS FOR THAT AREA IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU DIDN'T HAVE SLAB ON GRADE OR BACKFILLED STEM WALL THAT COULD POTENTIALLY IMPACT THE ROOT SYSTEM OF THE TREE.
THIS NEXT GRAPHIC SHOWS A LITTLE BIT CLOSER IN DETAIL THE LOCATION OF THE PROTECTED TREE IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE EDGE OF THE PORCH LINE AT APPROXIMATELY NINE FEET AT ITS CLOSEST POINT.
THEN THEY'VE ALSO PROVIDED THAT TREE BARRICADE DETAIL THAT WAS CONSISTENT WITH
[00:55:05]
THE ARBORIST ASSESSMENT PROVIDED. HERE'S THE TREE.IT IS THE BEAUTIFUL TREE LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY.
THIS IS JUST THE CLOSEST SHOT I COULD FIND TO IT USING GOOGLE EARTH IMAGES TODAY.
A HEALTH ASSESSMENT WAS PROVIDED BY EARLY MCCALL, A CERTIFIED ARBORIST THAT DID SPEAK TO THE VARIOUS CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF THIS TYPE OF REVIEW.
THAT IS AN EXAMPLE OF THIS IS, THE COPY OF THAT PROVIDED.
IN THAT, THEY ALSO SPOKE TO THE NATURE OF THE PRUNING THAT WOULD NEED TO BE DONE AND STATED THAT THE TRIMMING OF THAT LARGE OAK SPECIFIED IN THE PHOTO SHOULD BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE THE HOUSE WITHOUT TAKING MORE THAN 20% OF THE CROWN AND BRANCHES OFF.
AGAIN, THIS IS FROM THEIR ASSESSMENT.
ADDITIONALLY, PROTECTIVE MEASURES WERE OUTLINED FOR DURING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY AND IN THE EVENT THAT HE IS THERE, IF SOMETHING SHOULD HAVE TO HAPPEN WHERE THEY NEED TO GO INTO THE PROTECTED ROOT ZONE, THAT SHOULD HAPPEN ONLY WITH THEIR APPROVAL, BUT THEY DO PROVIDE SOME MEASURES FOR THAT.
STAFF ISSUES A RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL FOR THE APPEAL REQUEST.
STAFF HAS FOUND THAT THE DETERMINATION THAT BOARD IS CONSISTENT WITH AND COMPLIES WITH ALL TERMS FOR APPROVAL IN THE REQUESTED ACTION UNDER LDC SECTION 10.03.01.
THE ESTABLISHED MINIMUM SETBACKS OF FIVE FEET ON THE WESTERN SIDE YARD AND AT 10 FEET IN THE FRONT YARD DO SERVE TO SUPPORT THE LONG TERM PROTECTION OF THIS HERITAGE TREE.
ALTHOUGH THE OWNERS COULD BUILD CONSISTENT WITH R2 ZONING REQUIREMENTS, WE FIND THAT IT WOULD NOT BE IN THE BEST INTEREST FOR PRESERVING THE HERITAGE TREE, AND THAT WE DO RECOMMEND THE ADJUSTMENT TO SUPPORT THE TREE'S LONG TERM HEALTH BY BRINGING THE STRUCTURE FURTHER FORWARD AND CLOSER TO THE WESTERN EDGE.
I DO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I NOTE THAT BECAUSE THIS IS UNDER AN APPEAL, THE RECORDED AGREEMENT HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED, BUT ALL OTHER TERMS OF THE REQUEST HAVE BEEN FULFILLED THAT WOULD GET COMPLETED FOLLOWING THIS ACTION.
AS PART OF THE HEARING TONIGHT, I DO HAVE THE SECTION OF CODE THAT APPLIES SPECIFICALLY TO ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS, AND THE BOARD'S DECISION.
I CAN PULL THIS UP AT A LATER POINT.
IT'S THERE FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES SO THAT YOU KNOW THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS FOR MOVING FORWARD.
I DO HAVE TWO WITNESSES I WOULD LIKE TO CALL THIS EVENING.
I DON'T KNOW IF NOW IS THE APPROPRIATE TIME TO DO THAT OR IF WE WAIT UNTIL THE APPELLEE MAKES THEIR CASE.
>> IT'S UP TO YOU. IT'S YOUR CASE, YOU'RE PRESENTING IT.
>> I'M JUST GOING TO PUT IN THE BACKGROUND THE TREE AND THEN I'M GOING TO CALL ALL MY QUESTIONS HERE.
MY FIRST WITNESS I WOULD LIKE TO CALL IS DAVE NEVILLE.
IF YOU WOULD MIND GOING TO THE PODIUM, PLEASE.
>> STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE?
>> SURE. DAVID NEVILLE CITY ARBORIST.
GIVING MY ADDRESS TOO, 85325 CHAMPLAIN DRIVE.
>> THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE THIS EVENING.
CAN YOU PROVIDE AGAIN, YOUR NAME AND YOUR TITLE?
>> I'M DAVID NEVILLE. I'M THE CITY ARBORIST.
>> HOW LONG HAVE YOU WORKED FOR THE CITY?
>> I BEGAN WORKING IN MAY OF 2021.
>> DO YOU HAVE ANY FORMAL EDUCATION OR TRAINING THAT SUPPORTS YOUR WORKING FOR THE CITY IN THIS CAPACITY?
>> YES. I GRADUATED WITH THE BACHELOR'S IN BIOLOGY AND HAVE YEARS OF EXPERIENCE DOING NURSERY WORK.
THEN WHEN I GOT EMPLOYED HERE, I RECEIVED MY CERTIFIED ARBORIST LICENSE OR CERTIFICATE IN DECEMBER OF 2021 FROM THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF ARBORICULTURE.
>> HAVE YOU COMPLETED ANY OTHER TRAINING SINCE BEING EMPLOYED AT THE CITY?
>> I DID. IN FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR, I RECEIVED MY TREE RISK ASSESSMENT QUALIFICATION.
>> DID YOU REVIEW THE APPLICATION FOR THE TREE PROTECTION SETBACK ADJUSTMENT?
>> DID YOU FIND THAT THE APPLICATION MET ALL CRITERIA FOR THIS TYPE OF ADJUSTMENT?
>> DID YOU MEET WITH THE APPLICANT OR THEIR AGENT TO DISCUSS THE APPLICATION?
>> APPROXIMATELY, HOW MANY TIMES DID YOU SAY YOU MET WITH THEM?
>> I'VE MET WITH EARLY MCCALL ON SITE TO LOOK AT THE TREE AND TO DISCUSS WHAT THE PLANS WERE.
[01:00:03]
I'VE MET WITH THE APPLICANT, MR. MARTIN SEVERAL TIMES HERE IN THE OFFICE TO GO OVER PLANS THAT HE HAD DRAWN UP, AND I'VE ALSO MET WITH THE ARCHITECT WHO HAD DRAWN UP THOSE PLANS.>> OF THOSE DRAFT PLANS, HOW MANY ITERATIONS WOULD YOU SAY SERVE TO SUPPORT PRESERVATION OF THE HERITAGE TREE?
>> THEY ALL DID. THEY ARE ALL PULLED AWAY FROM THE THE HERITAGE TREE.
>> WAS THERE ANY OTHER REASON PROVIDED FOR DIFFERENT DRAFT PLANS?
>> YES. DIFFERENT DRAFT PLANS AT ONE TIME, MR. MARTIN SAID THAT HE HAD FLIPPED THE HOUSE TO ACCOMMODATE SOME NEIGHBORS REQUESTS FOR THE PORCH TO BE ON THE OTHER SIDE.
ALSO, JUST MOVING IT DIFFERENT DIRECTIONS, TRYING TO GET IT AWAY FROM THE TREE AND ALSO MAKE THE NEIGHBORS HAPPY.
>> ARE YOU AWARE OF THE REQUEST FOR A POOL ON THE SAME PROPERTY?
>> BASED ON YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED POOL AND IN YOUR PROFESSIONAL EXPERTISE, WOULD ITS LOCATION UNDERMINE THE STABILITY OF THE HERITAGE TREE?
>> THERE'S NO PERMIT FOR THE POOL AS OF RIGHT NOW, BUT THE POOL IS DRAWN ON THE PLANS THAT WERE SUBMITTED FOR THE HOME, AND THE POOL IS ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE HERITAGE TREE AND TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY, THEREFORE, IT'S FURTHER AWAY FROM THE TREE THAN IT COULD BE.
>> DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS YOU'D LIKE TO OFFER FOR THE RECORD?
>> THANK YOU. DO YOU DO THE CROSS EXAMINATION NOW?
>> YES. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY COMMENTS, QUESTIONS?
THIS IS A HERITAGE TREE, AND I JUST WANTED TO KNOW WHILE THERE'S ONE PROVISION FOR THIS ADMINISTRATIVE WAIVER THAT SAYS NO MORE THAN 20% OF PRUNING.
BUT IN ADDITION, LDC 4.05.15 2(A)3 SAYS THAT YOU CAN'T DO ANY PRUNING OF A HERITAGE TREE THAT REDUCES THE TREE'S HEIGHT OR CROWN DIAMETER, SUCH THAT IT ALTERS THE TREE APPEARANCE.
ON THAT PICTURE THAT YOU SHOWED EARLIER FROM GOOGLE.
>> OR WE COULD ALSO MAYBE PULL UP WHERE THE CUTS WILL [OVERLAPPING]
>> THE ONE FROM GOOGLE. I'M INTERESTED IN THE ONE WHERE HE'S MAKING THE CUTS.
I'M INTERESTED IN THAT VERY BOTTOM BRANCH THAT'S BELOW AND LOOKS LIKE IT GOES QUITE WIDE.
>> YES. WOULD REMOVING THAT GIVEN THAT THAT REALLY SEEMS TO BE AFFECTING THE CROWN'S DIAMETER, GIVEN HOW WIDE IT IS?
>> IT IS THE LOWEST LIMB ON THE TREE AND REMOVAL OF IT WILL BRING IT IN BY A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE IT IS THE LOWEST, THEREFORE, THE FARTHEST OUT.
BUT REDUCTION OF THAT WOULD BE LESS THAN 20% OF THE OVERALL CANOPY.
>> BUT THE 4.05.15 2(A)3 IS IN MATERIAL OF THE 20%.
IT'S ANY PRUNING OF A HERITAGE TREE, CAN'T BE DONE THAT REDUCES THE TREE'S HEIGHT OR CROWN DIAMETER SO THAT IT ALTERS THE TREE'S APPEARANCE AND THAT'S WHY I'M CURIOUS ABOUT THIS.
I DON'T WANT TO VIOLATE THAT SECTION.
>> WITH ANY PRUNING OF ANY TREE, YOU WILL BE REDUCING THE CANOPY SIZE.
THAT'S WHY YOU'RE TRIMMING IT TO EITHER BRING IT IN A LITTLE BIT, IN CASES LOWERING IT.
SO ANY CUT WILL NOT EVER EXTEND A TREE, IT WILL ALWAYS BRING IT IN.
>> BUT WOULD TAKING THAT ONE OUT AND REDUCING THE CROWN'S DIAMETER ALTER THE APPEARANCE OF THE TREE? I'M QUOTING STRAIGHT FROM OUR LDC.
>> IT WILL ALTER IT BECAUSE THAT BRANCH WILL NOT BE THERE, AND THAT IS CORRECT.
REDUCING THAT BRANCH OR CUTTING THAT BRANCH, PRUNING THAT BRANCH OFF, WILL CHANGE THE APPEARANCE OF THE TREE, JUST LIKE IT DID ON THE OTHER SIDE WHEN THE NEIGHBOR BUILT THEIR HOUSE AND REDUCED A LARGE LIMB ON THAT SIDE AS WELL.
>> WE ONLY INTERESTED IN THIS ONE.
>> WHAT I'M SAYING IS IT WILL REDUCE THE VIEW OF THAT TREE BECAUSE THAT BRANCH WILL NOT BE THERE.
IF WE CAN PULL UP THE OTHER PICTURE TOO SHOWING THOSE CUTS.
THIS BRANCH AND THIS BRANCH WILL NOT EITHER BECAUSE THE HOUSE WILL BE
[01:05:01]
A TWO-STOREY HOUSE AND CAN ACCOMMODATE THE BRANCH GOING ACROSS THERE.YES, IT WOULD CHANGE THE APPEARANCE OF THE TREE BECAUSE THERE WOULD BE A HOUSE IN PLACE OF THAT BRANCH.
>> ON THE SITE PLANTS SINCE YOU'RE OUR EXPERT ARBORIST, THE PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE LOCATION, IN THIS SITE PLAN, THEY'VE BEEN ABLE TO MOVE IT BACK BEYOND THE 10 FEET AND STILL THE TREE IS PROTECTED, CORRECT?
>> COULD THEY MOVE IT ANOTHER FIVE FEET BACK AND PROTECT THE TREE?
>> FURTHER AWAY FROM THE TREE IS BETTER, AND I WOULD LIKE THE HOUSE ACTUALLY TO BE FURTHER AWAY FROM THE TREE.
ANY DISTANCE FURTHER AWAY FROM THAT TREE WOULD BE BETTER.
MOVING IT CLOSER WOULD INCREASE THE RISK TO THAT TREE.
>> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE FRONT SETBACK AND THE TREE IS OVER ON THE SIDE.
>> SHIFTING IT BACK, HOW DOES THAT?
>> BECAUSE IT WOULD BRING THE BACK OF THE HOUSE CLOSER TO THE TREE.
IF WE WERE TO SHIFT THE FRONT [OVERLAPPING]
>> ISN'T THE BACK OF IT ALREADY BEYOND THE TREE?
>> I'D HAVE TO PULL UP THE PLANS. I DON'T HAVE THE PLANS.
ISN'T THE BACK OF THE HOME ALREADY BEYOND THE TREE.
SO IF YOU SHIFTED IT ANOTHER FIVE FEET BACK.
>> THE PROBLEM WITH THAT WOULD BE THE GARAGE.
THE GARAGE CANNOT BE BUILT ON THE POLES OR THE PILLARS.
IT WOULD NEED TO BE CONCRETE SLAB.
THEREFORE, YOU WOULD BE PULLING THAT GARAGE CLOSER TO THE TREE, WHICH IS ON THE TREE'S SIDE, THEREFORE AFFECTING THOSE ROOTS GREATER.
THIS IS THE CEMENT. WHERE'S THE GARAGE? RIGHT HERE'S THE GARAGE.
THEREFORE, IF YOU WERE TO MOVE IT ANOTHER FIVE FEET, YOU WILL BE FIVE FEET CLOSER TO THE TREE.
>> WHICH WOULD GREATLY IMPACT THE ROOT SYSTEM.
>> IT WOULD COVER THE ROOT SYSTEM?
>> YES. CEMENT WOULD COVER THAT.
INSTEAD OF THE PILLARS THAT ARE OVER HERE, THE PORCH IS PROPOSED TO BE BUILT ON PILLARS TO ACCOMMODATE THE ROOTS UNDERNEATH.
IF YOU WERE TO PULL THE CEMENT FURTHER BACK, IT'S CLOSER TO THAT TREE, WHICH THE GARAGE HAS TO BE BUILT ON CEMENT.
>> I GUESS WE COULDN'T AGAIN, FLIP THE DESIGN OF THE HOUSE AGAIN TO PUT THE GARAGE ON THE OTHER SIDE?
>> IT'S NOT MY STRUCTURE. [LAUGHTER] IN A PERFECT WORLD, THAT WOULD BE THE BEST SCENARIO BECAUSE THE CEMENT WOULD BE ON THE OTHER SIDE.
BUT THIS IS MULTIPLE RENDITIONS OF THIS HOUSE, AND I THINK THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS DONE EVERYTHING HE CAN AND HE SAYING, THIS IS THE BEST I CAN DO TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROPERTY.
>> IF THE ISSUE FOR MOVING THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE FURTHER BACK, THE PROBLEM BECOMES SIMPLY THE GARAGE AND NOT THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE ITSELF, COULDN'T WE REVERSE, THAT WOULD SOLVE THAT PROBLEM?
>> THEN FINALLY, KELLY, YOU DID NOT MENTION, BUT IT'S IN OUR PACKET, BUT YOU DIDN'T MENTION OUT LOUD ABOUT REDUCING THE REAR SETBACK.
IS THAT BEING PART OF THIS WAIVER REQUEST?
>> I THINK THE REAR SETBACK IS COMPLIED WITH AT 20 FEET. YOU CAN DOUBLE CHECK.
>> BECAUSE AS I READ THE WAIVER, I THOUGHT THAT THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE PACKET.
I THOUGHT THAT THAT WAS ALSO BEING REDUCED.
>> LOOKS LIKE THE BACK OF THE HOUSE IS 26'11.5".
>> MAYBE THIS IS NO LONGER ACCURATE.
SAID THE STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED 7.5 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK TO FIVE FEET.
REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED 7.5 REAR YARD SETBACK TO FIVE FEET, AND REDUCTION IN THE 25 FOOT REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK TO 10 FEET TO RETAIN THE HERITAGE TREE.
ARE WE SAYING WE NO LONGER NEED TO REDUCE THE SETBACK FOR REAR YARD?
>> THERE IS NO REAR YARD SETBACK.
>> I THINK THAT FIVE FOOT IS ACTUALLY SHOWN TO THE BEAM OF THE POOL, WHICH IS BY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE EIGHT FEET MINIMUM TO THE EDGE OF THE WATER.
[01:10:05]
THERE'S A DIMENSION ON THE SITE PLAN THAT YOU GAVE US THAT WAS AMENDED?>> YES, AND I CAN GO AHEAD AND PULL THAT UP.
AS PART OF THE REQUEST, THE REQUESTED ACTION WOULD HAVE INCLUDED THAT, I BELIEVE THAT IS CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT FOR PURPOSES OF PLACEMENT OF THE POOL SO THAT IT WOULD BE FURTHER BACK.
THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFYING POINT.
>> I GUESS I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED.
I'M SORRY FOR NOT FOLLOWING THE DISCUSSION.
IN ORDER FOR THE POOL TO BE WHERE IT'S PROPOSED HERE, DOES IT NEED TO HAVE A REDUCTION IN THE SETBACK?
>> BUT JUST TO BE CLEAR, THAT'S NOT A PART OF THIS VARIANCE.
>> THE APPEAL COVERS ALL OF THE ALLOWED COMPONENTS OF WHAT WAS APPROVED, WHICH DID INCLUDE THE FIVE FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK [OVERLAPPING]
>> THIS SETBACK FOR THE REAR WAS TO ACCOMMODATE THE POOL? HOW DOES THAT RELATE TO PROTECTING THE TREE? THAT'S MY QUESTION TOO.
>> IT'D BE FURTHER AWAY FROM THE TREE.
>> THAT'S NICE, BUT IF THE POOL WAS 2.5 FEET CLOSER IS THE TREE AT RISK?
>> JUDGING BY WHERE THAT POOL IS, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW THE DIMENSIONS OF THAT POOL OR ANYTHING RIGHT NOW, BUT 2.5 FEET I DON'T THINK WOULD ALTER IT AT ALL.
>> THE DIAMETER OF THE TREE THAT'S SHOWN THERE IS PROBABLY NOT THE 44 INCH DIAMETER CALIPER THAT IT'S INDICATED.
A RULE OF THUMB IS THE SAME DIAMETER OF THE TREE IS THE SAME DIAMETER IN FEET FOR THE PERIMETER OF THE DRIP LINE?
>> SO 44 FEET WOULD GO INTO THAT POOL.
THERE ARE ROOT STRUCTURE THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED BY THAT POOL, ABSOLUTELY.
>> YEAH. THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING IF IT WAS 2.5 FEET CLOSER, THOSE ROOTS ARE STILL GOING TO BE CUT TO BUILD THAT POOL.
>> BUT THAT'S CERTAINLY A LOT CLOSE.
THAT'S STILL A LOT FURTHER AWAY EVEN IF YOU MOVE IT 2.5 FEET THAN THE PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE ITSELF.
>> I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING. CAN YOU SAY THAT AGAIN, PLEASE?
>> I'M JUST SAYING THERE MAY BE ROOTS THAT EXTEND THAT FAR, AND WE'RE ALREADY PRUNING THE TREE, AND WE ARE DOING OTHER THINGS TO PROTECT ROOTS AND THERE ARE ROOTS THAT ARE GOING TO BE A LOT CLOSER TO A PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE THAN THAT POOL.
I'M NOT THINKING THAT THE ONES THAT ARE GOING OUT THERE AFFECTED BY 2.5 FEET ARE VERY MUCH PROTECTED.
YOU'RE MUCH MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE?
>> WE WANT TO LET THE APPLICANT SPEAK TO THE REST OF IT OR IS THERE ANY OTHER ARBORIST QUESTIONS SPECIFICALLY?
>> LET'S SEE, LET ME LOOK AT THIS.
>> IF WE HYPOTHETICALLY FLIPPING MY THE HOUSE AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU KNOW THIS, THE BOTTOM LIMB WOULD STILL IMPEDE THE STRUCTURE I IMAGINE?
>> FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, THE ORIGINAL PLANS WERE A SINGLE-STOREY HOME, AND NOW IT'S GONE TO A TWO-STOREY HOME TO MAKE THE FOOTPRINT SMALLER AROUND THAT TREE.
WELL, THE LIMB WOULD HAVE TO BE MOVED FOR A SINGLE-STOREY HOME AS WELL.
BUT THAT'S WHY THOSE OTHER LIMBS ARE ALSO BEING REMOVED TO ACCOMMODATE FOR A TWO-STOREY HOME TO FIT A SMALLER FOOTPRINT.
>> IS THE POOL PART THAT WOULD BE A SEPARATE PERMIT AND SEPARATE [OVERLAPPING].
>> IT WOULD FALL UNDER THIS CASE FOR THE ENCROACHMENT INTO THE SETBACK, BUT IT WOULD BE A SEPARATE PERMIT THROUGH THE CITY.
>> SEPARATE EVALUATION FOR THE TREE ASPECT OR NOT?
>> TREES ARE LOOKED AT FOR POOL PERMITS BECAUSE A HOME MAY ALREADY EXIST, AND THEN PEOPLE PUT IN A POOL, SO IT WOULD ALSO BE LOOKED AT, BUT IT WOULD BE THE SAME CRITERIA AS THE HOME BECAUSE IT WOULD FALL UNDER THIS AS THE SETBACKS AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
>> JUST TO CLARIFY, THIS ADMINISTRATIVE WAIVER IS BEING DONE SOLELY UNDER THE TREE ADMINISTRATIVE WAIVE FOR A TREE PROTECTION PURPOSES ONLY?
>> CORRECT. THAT'S THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN USE THIS PART OF THE CODE.
[01:15:04]
JUST FOR TREE PROTECTION.IT'S BEEN DONE IN TWO OTHER LOTS THAT I COULD THINK OF OR OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.
IT'S A NEWER PART OF THE CODE, BUT THIS IS THE THIRD TIME THAT I COULD THINK OF THAT IT'S BEEN USED.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? LET'S LET THE APPLICANTS LEAVE. THANK YOU.
>> APPRECIATE IT. [OVERLAPPING].
>> I HAD ONE WITNESS I WANTED TO CALL.
>> I'M SORRY, KELLY. I APOLOGIZE.
>> MR. MICHAEL MARTIN, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND.
>> PLEASE REMEMBER TO STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS.
>> MICHAEL MARTIN. MY ADDRESS IS HERE, 311 ELM STREET, FERNANDINA BEACH, FLORIDA.
>> MR. MARTIN, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE THIS EVENING.
YOU ARE THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AT 311 ELM STREET?
>> HOW LONG HAVE YOU OWNED THAT PROPERTY?
>> APPROXIMATELY HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN WORKING ON PLANS TO CONSTRUCT A HOME AT THIS PROPERTY?
>> ARE YOU WORKING WITH A PROFESSIONAL ARCHITECT OR ENGINEER?
>> HAS IT BEEN THE SAME ARCHITECT THROUGH THE ENTIRE PROCESS?
>> DID YOU HIRE A CERTIFIED ARBORIST TO REVIEW YOUR DESIGN PLAN?
>> I DID. I HIRED A CERTIFIED ARBORIST BEFORE I CLOSED ON THE PROPERTY.
I PUT THE CONTRACT ON THE PROPERTY, I THINK THE FIRST WEEK OF JANUARY 2022.
I THINK WE CLOSED, LIKE THE THIRD WEEK.
I DON'T EXACTLY REMEMBER THE DATES.
BUT I ASKED MY REALTOR NICK BURKE, IF HE KNEW ANYBODY LOCAL, HE SAID, YES, WE'RE GOING TO GIVE HIM A CALL.
I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE ABLE TO BUILD A HOUSE IN THIS LOT.
JUST TO STATE REALLY QUICKLY BECAUSE I'VE SEEN A LOT OF THINGS ABOUT THIS TREE IN THIS LOT, AND I'M NOT SURE IF WE'RE DEBATING THE CUTTING OF THE TREE OR BUILDING OF THE HOUSE OR WHAT.
BUT I WILL LET YOU ALL KNOW THAT I BOUGHT THE LOT SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE THIS TREE WAS ON THAT LOT.
I FELL IN LOVE WITH THE TREE BECAUSE I WAS DRIVING BY, AND I SAW IT, AND I WENT AND PICKED UP MY WIFE OFF THE ISLAND BECAUSE WE LIVED IN NORTHAMPTON AT THE TIME, AND I SAID, YOU GOT TO COME SEE THIS PLACE.
WE DROVE BY, WE SAT THERE AND STOOD.
OUR NEIGHBORS HAD JUST BUILT THE MOST BEAUTIFUL HOME PRACTICALLY ON THE ISLAND RIGHT NEXT TO IT.
I LOVED IT, AND I SAID, I WANT TO BUILD MY HOUSE RIGHT HERE, AND WE'RE GOING TO BUILD IT, WE'RE GOING TO ACCOMMODATE THIS TREE.
>> WELL, THAT, I THINK ANSWERS MY NEXT QUESTION.
DID YOU CONSULT WITH THE ARBORIST ABOUT VARIOUS DESIGN TECHNIQUES TO SUPPORT THE HEALTH OF THE TREE?
>> YES. WE ORIGINALLY HAD PUT A FOOTPRINT.
WE DIDN'T WANT IT TO BE TWO-STOREY.
WE KNEW THAT IT WOULD BE GETTING UP MORE INTO THE CANOPY OF THE TREE, AND WE WERE LIKE, NO, LET'S BUILD ONE-STOREY.
AFTER HIRING AN ARCHITECT AND PAYING ALL THE MONEY TO AN ARCHITECT, WHICH WAS NOT INEXPENSIVE, WHEN WE FINALLY HAD A SURVEYOR COME OUT AND MARK UP THE PROPERTY, WE HEARD FROM OUR NEIGHBORS, AND THEY WEREN'T REALLY HAPPY ABOUT A SURVEY, AND WHERE EVERYTHING WAS MARKED UP.
WE WERE LIVING BACK AND FORTH.
WE WERE AT OUR HOUSE IN NORTH CAROLINA A LOT, AND SO WE WERE JUST COMING BACK AND FORTH AND I CAME TO THE PROPERTY.
I SAW WHERE IT WAS LAID OUT, AND I WAS LIKE, WELL, NO WONDER THEY DON'T LIKE IT.
IT WAS REALLY STICKING OUT ALMOST TO, I THINK, FIVE FEET VARIANCE IS WHAT WE HAD GONE TO BECAUSE THEY HAD GONE TO A SEPARATE ONE IN THIS VARIANCE TO PULL IT REALLY FAR AWAY FROM THE TREE, BUT IT WAS TAKING UP A TON OF FOOTPRINT.
WE ALSO HAD THIS GRAND IDEA OF PUTTING, LIKE A POOL HOUSE BECAUSE ALL THESE HOMES THAT HAVE GARAGES WITH THE POOL HOUSE ABOVE, AND THE BACK WAS A BAD IDEA.
WE EXNATE THAT ARCHITECT AT THE SAME TIME, GOT OTHER PLANS, HIRED OTHER DEVELOPERS, AND WENT FOR A MORE NARROW FOOTPRINT THAT ALLOWED THE TREE TO GROW BOTH FORWARD AND BACKWARDS.
IF YOU GO WALK THE PROPERTY AND YOU LOOK AT THE ROOT SYSTEM COMPARED TO WHAT WE HAD BEFORE THAT STRETCHED AROUND THE FRONT, THE OTHER ONE WAS AROUND THE BACK, THIS ALLOWED IT A LOT MORE ROOM TO GO BOTH DIRECTIONS WITH THE ROOT SYSTEM AND SO THAT'S WHY WE DID IT THAT WAY.
WE WERE NOT ABLE TO FLIP THE HOME, AND FLIPPING THE HOME IS JUST NOT AN OPTION.
IF YOU LOOK AT IT AND I WAS ABLE TO THROW IT UP THERE, IT WOULD PUT THE HOME WAY CLOSER TO THE TREE.
[01:20:03]
THE TWO-STOREY PART OF THE HOME IS ON THE WEST SIDE, AND THE OVERHANG IN THE GARAGE IS ONLY ONE-STOREY AND SO THAT'S THE CLOSER PART.IT'S NOT AS SIMPLE AS JUST FLIPPING THE HOME, AND I DON'T EXPECT DAVID TO BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN THAT ALL.
I'VE LOOKED AT THESE PLANS A MILLION TIMES.
THE OTHER THING THAT WASN'T NOTED ON THERE IS THAT THE PANTRY IS ALSO WHICH YOU DON'T THINK IT'S MUCH, BUT BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE HOME IS BUILT AND IT CUTS IN LIKE THIS, WE ALSO DID THE PANTRY AS A POST AND PIER FOUNDATION.
THAT IS ON THERE ALONG WITH THE BACK PORCH.
WHILE THAT PANTRY IS 10 FEET OR 9 FEET FROM THE TREE, THE ACTUAL STRUCTURE OR THE CONCRETE, WHATEVER, IS ALMOST 19 FEET AWAY FROM THE TREE, WHICH IS JUST ABOUT AS FAR, MAYBE A LITTLE FARTHER THAN THE HOME ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE TREE IS.
WE ARE TRYING TO KEEP THAT WHERE WE WERE BUILDING IT AS FAR FROM THE TREE AS POSSIBLE.
WE ALSO HAD TO PULL THE TREE FORWARD AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.
WE CAN MOVE THE POOL FARTHER FROM THE BACK IF WE NEED TO.
BUT IF WE DO, I'M NOT GOING TO STEP OFF MY BACK PORCH AND STEP INTO A POOL, SO THAT MEANS I JUST GOT TO PULL THE HOUSE FORWARD.
WE TRIED TO PUSH THE HOUSE BACK AS FAR AS POSSIBLE, KNOWING THAT WE DIDN'T WANT TO UPSET THE SIGHT LINE OF THE HOMES, SO WE ENDED UP BEING LIKE YOU HAD STATED BEFORE, BUT ABOUT 7 FEET IN FRONT OF THE TWO HOMES ON EITHER SIDE.
>> WELL, YOU ANSWERED A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS THAT I HAD.
HAVE YOU MET WITH YOUR NEIGHBORS AT ALL TO DISCUSS DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR THIS PROPERTY?
>> WE DID. WE'VE MET SEVERAL TIMES, AND WE HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO MEET SINCE THIS WAS DONE AND A COUPLE OF REASONS WHY MY WIFE WAS AWAY FOR SOME MEDICAL REASONS, AND THEN WE WERE IN NORTH CAROLINA.
I DO WANT TO STATE SOMETHING ELSE ABOUT THE TREE.
WE LOVE THIS TREE MORE THAN ANY OF OUR NEIGHBORS LOVE THIS TREE, I CAN PROMISE YOU BECAUSE IT'S MINE.
I BOUGHT IT. I BOUGHT A LOT BECAUSE OF THE TREE.
IT WASN'T INEXPENSIVE, EITHER FOR THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY.
THERE'S NO WAY TO BUILD ANY TYPE OF STRUCTURE ON THIS HOME WITHOUT TAKING THAT ONE BRANCH OFF.
THE ONLY WAY THAT'S POSSIBLE IS THAT THE CITY WOULD HAVE NEVER SPLIT UP ALL THESE LOTS LIKE THEY DID.
THEY DID NOT DO IT IN A PURPOSEFUL WAY, THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE.
THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN THREE LOTS, MAYBE, BUT FOUR LOTS ACROSS THAT CORNER, WITH THAT TREE, WAS NOT A GOOD IDEA. I'LL ADMIT TO THAT.
I DON'T THINK THE CITY WANTS TO ADMIT TO IT, I'LL ADMIT TO IT. IT'S VERY CRAMPED.
MY NEIGHBORS ONLY HAVE A 50 FOOT LOT WIDE, MINE IS 75 FEET, BUT I GOT A TREE RIGHT IN THE STINK IN MIDDLE PRACTICALLY UP IT.
UNLESS YOU'RE GOING TO SAY, HEY, THIS NEEDS TO BE A PARK, WHICH IS FINE.
SOMEBODY CAN BUY IT, MAKE IT INTO A PARK.
I DON'T HAVE THE FINANCES TO DO THAT.
I WOULD DO IT MYSELF AND MAKE IT A REALLY PRETTY PARK.
BUT THERE'S NO WAY TO PUT A TREE ON THIS PROPERTY WITHOUT TAKING THAT ONE BRANCH OFF.
THERE'S NO ONE THAT COULD TELL YOU ANY DIFFERENT.
WE LOOKED IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN, AND THIS IS JUST THE BEST WE COULD COME UP WITH.
>> DID YOU MAKE ANY ADJUSTMENTS TO YOUR PLANS BASED ON THE FEEDBACK YOU DID RECEIVE FROM YOUR NEIGHBORS AT ANY OF THE DESIGN ITERATIONS?
>> YEAH. I THREW OUT $20,000 WORTH OF ARCHITECTURAL PLANS AND STARTED FROM SCRATCH. SO YEAH.
>> ALTHOUGH NOT PART OF THIS, I DO WANT TO ASK FOR THE RECORD, WAS THIS PROPERTY EVER OFFERED TO THE CITY FOR SALE?
>> IT WAS NOT. I DID PUT IT ON THE RANSOM RAY'S PAGE ON FACEBOOK, BUT EVERYBODY IN THE LITTLE ARTICLE IN THE NEWSPAPER, THEY'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT US AND TELL US HOW TERRIBLE PEOPLE WE ARE BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO KILL THIS TREE AND SAID, IF ANYBODY WANTED TO COME AND MAKE A REASONABLE OFFER, THEY'RE WELCOME TO, AND IT'S STILL OPEN, I'M A REASONABLE GUY.
I REALLY LOOKED AT JOHN AND MARY'S HOUSE WHEN WE FIRST MOVED HERE BACK IN 2000 AND I SHOULD HAVE BOUGHT IT.
BECAUSE IT LOOKED LIKE THEIR APPROVAL PROCESS WAS A LITTLE EASIER.
BUT SO NO, IT'S I HAVE NOT FORMALLY APPROACHED THE CITY, OTHER THAN MAKING A JOKE WITH YOU AND DAVID A COUPLE OF TIMES ABOUT IT.
>> THAT'S ALL QUESTIONS I HAVE.
>> THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD?
>> I HAVE ONE. IN ADDITION TO SAVING THIS TREE, YOU'RE REMOVING FOUR OTHERS, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> I THINK THAT'S RIGHT, MEMBER, MA'AM.
>> OF WHICH, SOME OF THEM ARE OVER 25 FEET OR GREATER IN DIAMETER AS WELL.
>> ONE OF THE TREES IS AN INVASIVE TREE UP FRONT THAT NEEDS TO BE REMOVED.
[01:25:01]
THE OTHER TREE IS A TREE THAT'S RIGHT ON THE CORNER, AND IT'S GOT A BAD, LIGHTNING BOLT STRIKE TO IT THAT NEEDS TO BE REMOVED, IT'S BAD.THERE'S A PINE TREE IN THE VERY BACK OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH WOULD BE IN THE MIDDLE OF MY POOL, FIRST OF ALL, AND I DON'T LIKE REALLY TALL PINE TREES RIGHT NEXT TO MY HOUSE, AND IT'S ONLY MAYBE 10 FEET AWAY FROM THE HOUSE.
THEN THERE'S A CON TREE AT THE VERY BACK CORNER OF THE PROPERTY.
IT WAS RECOMMENDED JUST BECAUSE OF THE PROXIMITY OF IT AS CLOSE TO IT IS TO THE POOL PAVERS OR WHATEVER, THAT THE ROOT SYSTEM OF IT WOULD JUST CAUSE PROBLEMS OVER TIME AND TO REMOVE IT.
THE HERITAGE TREE, THE CANOPY OF IT, EVEN WITH THAT BRANCH IS TAKEN OFF, TAKES UP OVER 60% OF THE ENTIRE LAWN.
IT'S MASSIVE. WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THE TREES AND SAID, HEY, WELL, WE NEED TO REMOVE OR WHATEVER, THEY WERE IN AGREEMENT AND SAID, HEY, WE CAN REMOVE THESE TREES AND NOT HAVE TO PLANT ANY OTHERS BECAUSE WE'RE LEAVING THIS HUGE TREE ON THIS PROPERTY.
>> IS THAT HOW THE TREE PROTECTION STATUTE WORKS?
>> THE MITIGATION PIECE OF IT, YES.
GIVEN THAT THERE WAS INVASIVE TREE.
>> THE INVASIVE ONE, I UNDERSTAND THE DAMAGE ONE GONE, BUT FOR THE OTHER TWO.
EVEN THOUGH BECAUSE HERITAGE TREES ALREADY THERE, BUT YOU CAN STILL REMOVE THOSE TWO, AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO ANY MITIGATION?
>> YOU CAN. YOU STILL HAVE TO MEET YOUR MINIMUM REQUIREMENT FOR LANDSCAPING, HOWEVER, WHICH DOES REQUIRE THAT YOU HAVE MORE THAN ONE TREE ON THE PROPERTY.
>> THE THREE INCH CALIBER. THERE'S NOTHING.
>> WELL, I UNDERSTAND. I JUST DON'T SEE ANY TREES BESIDES THE HERITAGE TREE ON THE SITE PLAN.
>> YOU'RE NOT LOOKING AT THE LANDSCAPE. THAT'S NOT A REASON AT ALL.
>> WE HAVEN'T FIGURED OUT FIRST OF ALL IF WE'RE GOING TO PLANT UP FRONT OR ANYTHING YET. WE HAVEN'T GOT THAT FAR.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT.
>> KELLY, BEFORE I STICK MY FEET IN MY MOUTH AGAIN.
DO I HAVE ANY OTHER WITNESSES YOU WANT TO CALL?
>> SORRY ABOUT THAT. I'LL OPEN THIS UP TO THE PUBLIC COMMENT.
ANYBODY WHO WOULD WISH TO THE APPELLANT? I'M SORRY.
I HAD THAT IN MY HEAD. SAID THE WRONG THING.
HAVE THE APPELLANT SPEAK, PLEASE.
>> CAN I ASK THE QUESTION BEFORE [INAUDIBLE]
>> SURE JUST COME UP AND STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS, PLEASE.
>> THANK YOU. MY NAME IS KEVIN HAMM.
WE LIVE AT 3:15 ELM STREET, AT THE CORNER OF FOURTH AND E. WE'RE IMMEDIATE ADJACENT OWNERS TO THE MARTIN'S PROPERTY.
WE TOO LOVE THE HERITAGE TREE.
I JUST WANT TO GET THAT ON THE RECORD.
I DO WANT TO ASK KELLY A QUESTION.
IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE WAIVER, THERE IS A GRANTING OF A TEN FOOT SETBACK.
MICHAEL, I THINK IT WAS 17, WHICH IS IN THE APPLICATION ITSELF.
THERE'S NO MENTION OF ANY OTHER SETBACKS IN THE APPLICATION FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE WAIVER.
I WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHY FIRST OFF, A TEN FOOT SETBACK WAS APPROVED WHEN IT WASN'T REQUESTED, AND WHY THE OTHER SETBACKS WERE GIVEN WHEN THEY WERE NOT EVEN IN THE APPLICATION.
I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT, AND I'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND IT BEFORE I GET INTO MY TESTIMONY.
>> SURE. SO THE APPLICATION FOR THE SETBACK DID CONTAIN A REQUEST FOR THOSE SETBACKS AT TEN FEET, FIVE FEET, FIVE FEET ON THE SIDE AND REAR.
BUT THE BUILDING PERMIT ITSELF DOES REFLECT THAT IT'S LARGER THAN THE MINIMUM THAT WAS ESTABLISHED AS PART OF THE REQUEST.
SO THAT'S THE REASON WHY YOU'RE SEEING DIFFERENCES.
THE BUILDING PLANS THAT HAVE BEEN PROVIDED DON'T LOOK THE SAME AS WHAT WAS REQUESTED IN AN APPLICATION.
>> BUT THE APPLICATION ONLY REQUESTED THE 17. IS THAT NOT TRUE?
I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT IT STATES.
THIS IS THE APPLICATION ITSELF.
I DO YOU SEE IN THE DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST, WHERE YOU'RE CITING THAT?
THEN IN LOOKING AT NOT THE SURVEY,
[01:30:06]
BUT THE STAFF REPORT, I KNOW THAT'S WHERE WE INDICATE THE VARIOUS SETBACKS.THAT'S WHERE WE GET INTO THE APPLICATION FOR REDUCTION IN THE SIDE YARD, AS WELL AS THE FRONT.
MAYBE IF WE WANT TO CALL DAVE, YOU MAY HAVE INDICATED THAT AS PART OF THE CONVERSATION OR WHERE THAT WAS COMING FROM AND REVIEW OF IT.
YOU HAVE TO GO RIGHT TO THE FRONT, SORRY AND IF THERE'S ANY OTHER DOCUMENT, YOU'D LIKE ME TO PULL IF I CAN?
>> IT MAY HAVE COME FROM ACTUAL THE PLANS THAT WERE SUBMITTED LOOKING AT IT TO SEE WHAT THOSE SETBACKS WERE NEEDED TO BE.
>> IN THE ORIGINAL SUBMISSION?
>> CORRECT. WHATEVER WAS SUBMITTED PRIOR TO THIS. YES.
>> BUT IT IS ONLY 17 FEET IN THE APPLICATION ITSELF.
>> A LOT OF THINGS HAVE BEEN SAID ABOUT PROTECTING THE TREE.
WE ARE VERY SENSITIVE TO THE TREE.
WE PURCHASED OUR BUILDING SITE ALMOST FIVE YEARS AGO TO THE DAY.
WHEN WE BOUGHT OUR PROPERTY, THE WHOLE BLOCK WAS VACANT AND UNDEVELOPED.
THERE WERE 925 FOOT LOTS, AND WE KNEW THAT THE REMAINING LOTS WOULD EVENTUALLY BE DEVELOPED.
THIS IS A GROWING COMMUNITY, AND WE KNEW THAT.
BUT WE WENT AHEAD AND BOUGHT OUR PROPERTY.
WE CHOSE THE LOCATION SPECIFIC BECAUSE FOR SEVERAL REASONS, BUT SOME OF THE CENTRAL REASONS WERE THE FRIENDLY FRIENDLINESS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THERE WAS A GOOD MIX OF OLD NEW HOMES.
THEY ALL SEEMED TO BLEND WELL TOGETHER.
IF YOU WALK DOWN ANY OF THE STREETS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, EVERYTHING'S LINED UP NICE, NEAT. IT'S PERFECT.
IT JUST EXUDES A SMALL TOWN VIBE AND THAT'S WHAT WE WERE LOOKING FOR.
DURING THE PURCHASE OF OUR LOT, WE DID OUR DUE DILIGENCE AND EXAMINED THE ZONING NOT ONLY OF OUR LOTS, BUT OF ALL THE LOTS DOWN THE ROAD FROM US THAT WERE GOING TO BE DEVELOPED AND SAW THAT THE TWO LOTS NEXT TO US WERE OUR TWO ZONED.
WE GATHERED SOME COMFORT IN THAT KNOWING THAT THAT ZONING WOULD PROVIDE CONSISTENT SITE LINES DOWN THE ROAD, AT LEAST ADJACENT TO OUR PROPERTIES.
WE DIDN'T WANT TO LIVE OR HAVE OUR HOUSE SET IN FRONT OF A HOUSE NEXT TO US OR BEHIND IT.
WE DIDN'T WANT A STAGGERED ENVIRONMENT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
DURING THE I GUESS THE DESIGN PHASE WHEN WE WERE ACTUALLY DESIGNING OUR HOME.
WE HAD A REALLY STRONG DESIRE, AND WE HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS THE TWO OF US ABOUT WHAT TYPE OF HOME WE WANTED TO BUILD.
WE WANTED A HOME THAT MAINTAINED THE CHARACTER IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE COULD HAVE BUILT A BIGGER HOME.
WE COULD HAVE REQUESTED A SETBACK VARIANCE AND POSSIBLY BUILD A BIGGER HOME, BUILD UP, BUT WE DIDN'T.
WE WANTED TO MAINTAIN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND FIT INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO OUR ELEVATION DESIGN INCORPORATED THAT, AS WELL AS THE FOOTPRINT OF OUR PROPERTY.
OUR PROPERTY RECOGNIZED THE SETBACKS THAT ARE ESTABLISHED, AND WE WENT WITH THOSE, OPTING NOT TO BUILD A LARGER HOUSE.
WE WERE VERY, VERY SENSITIVE TO HOW OUR HOME PRESENTED IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
SHORTLY AFTER WE PURCHASED OUR HOMES, THE REMAINING LOTS WERE SUBSEQUENTLY SOLD TO AN INVESTOR WHO WAS WANTING TO FLIP THE PROPERTIES FOR PROFIT, OBVIOUSLY.
BUT HE QUICKLY RECOGNIZED THE INHERENT DIFFICULTY IN DEVELOPING THE HERITAGE TREE LOT WHILE TRYING TO SAVE THAT HERITAGE TREE.
HE KNEW THAT WAS GOING TO BE DIFFICULT.
SO WHAT DID HE DO? HE PETITIONED THIS BOARD TO COMBINE THE HERITAGE TREE LOT AND THE TWO CONTIGUOUS LOTS NEXT TO IT TO PRESERVE THE HERITAGE TREE.
[01:35:08]
IN FACT AND I'VE ALREADY STATED, WE LOVE THE TREE AS WELL, AND MICHAEL KNOWS THAT.WE INCORPORATE DESIGN ELEMENTS IN OUR SITE PLAN OR IN OUR ELEVATION PLAN THAT ACTUALLY SHOWCASES THAT TREE IN OUR HOUSE.
YOU CAN GO UP OUR STAIRWAY, AND WE HAVE PLACED WINDOWS UP OUR STAIRWAY SO YOU CAN SEE THE TREE. IT'S GORGEOUS.
SO WE SUPPORTED THE RECONFIGURATION OF THESE LOTS BECAUSE IT PROTECTED THE HERITAGE JOKE.
IT PROVIDED AN ADEQUATE SIZED BUILDING LOT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE HERITAGE TREE FOR A HOME.
IT FURTHER SOLIDIFIED NEIGHBORHOOD SITES, ADHERING TO THE ESTABLISHED SIT LINES IN THE LDC.
FURTHER, IT ENCOURAGED MORE CONTINUITY IN THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE REMAINING LOTS ON THE BLOCK.
WE, GLYNN AND I BOTH STOOD BEFORE THIS BOARD AND SPOKE HIGHLY IN FAVOR OF THIS RECONFIGURATION, AND THE BOARD APPROVED IT.
THE TREE MAY NOT BE THERE TODAY.
STEPPING BACK FOR A SECOND, TALKING ABOUT THIS CONTINUITY IN FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.
I JUST WANT TO SPEAK AND I THINK MR. BUDD WHEN HE GETS UP AND PRESENTS HIS CASE, WE'LL TALK ABOUT THIS.
BUT THE LOTS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE MARTIN'S BUILDING SITE ARE M ONE DESIGNATED.
THE BUDS HAVE GONE ABOVE AND BEYOND.
I MEAN, THEY COULD HAVE BUILT RIGHT UP TO THE ROAD, BUT THEY DECIDED THAT THEY DIDN'T WANT TO DO THAT.
THEY WANTED TO MAINTAIN THE CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
I THINK TOM WILL ADDRESS THAT A LITTLE FURTHER.
I'M A FIRM BELIEVER. I THINK BOTH GLYNN AND I ARE FIRM BELIEVERS IN PROPERTY OWNERS RIGHTS.
BUT THESE RIGHTS SHOULDN'T INFRINGE ON THE RIGHTS OF OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS WHO HAVE MADE A CONCERTED EFFORT TO FOLLOW THE INTENT OF THE LDC AND ADHERE TO ITS REQUIREMENTS.
WE EFFECTIVELY UTILIZED OUR PROPERTY THROUGH THE EFFICIENT DESIGN AND LAYOUT OF IT.
I'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT HOW WE WANTED TO CONFORM, WHERE OUR PROPERTY WAS WHERE OUR HOUSE IS SITTING ON OUR PROPERTY AND WE WENT TO GREAT LENGTHS TO ENSURE THAT.
>> MY FEELING IS THAT THE SCALE OF THE PROJECT IS OVERLY EXTENSIVE FOR THE BUILDING SITE.
I THINK THE MARTINS ARE TRYING TO DO WAY TOO MUCH ON THIS SITE FOR THE SIZE OF WHAT THEY HAVE WHILE TRYING TO PROTECT THE TREE.
WE BELIEVE THAT BY APPLYING THE ADMINISTRATIVE WAIVER, IT'S CONTRARY TO ITS INTENT, WHICH IS NOT TO PROVIDE FOR THE OVERDEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE, IS TO PROTECT THE TREE.
IT'S NOT TO ALLOW FOR A BIGGER, BETTER HOME.
THE RECONFIGURATION OF THE LOTS ALREADY PROTECTS THE HERITAGE OAK.
IT PROVIDES AN ADEQUATE BUILDING SITE FOR A REASONABLY SIZED HOME AND WAS AGREED TO BY THIS BOARD.
IT RAISES OTHER CONCERNS AS WELL.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN THIS AUDIENCE RIGHT NOW THAT ARE CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT TRANSPIRES AFTER THIS.
WHAT'S THE POTENTIAL EFFECT ON PROPERTY VALUES IF YOU ALLOW THESE TYPES OF VARIANCES TO CONTINUE, AND HOW FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH IN THIS TOWN, WHICH WE ALL KNOW IS A REALLY HOT ISSUE RIGHT NOW, HOW THAT'S GOING TO PROGRESS IN THE FUTURE.
I DIDN'T WANT TO TAKE A LOT OF YOUR TIME, BUT IN SUMMARY, WE BELIEVE THAT SETBACK ADJUSTMENTS ARE NOT NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE HERITAGE OAK.
THAT THE LOT RECONFIGURATION ALREADY DOES THIS.
THE SCALE OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING PLAN IS EXCESSIVE FOR THE LOT SIZE.
THAT THE WAIVER, IF GRANTED, COULD POTENTIALLY ADVERSELY IMPACT PROPERTY VALUES, OURS AND MY NEIGHBORS.
THAT THE SETBACK VARIANCE IS CONTRARY TO THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE LDC, AS STATED IN LDC 4.00.01, PARAGRAPH CNE, AS IT DENIES THE LIGHT AIR AND PRIVACY OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND DOES NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE OPEN SPACES THROUGH EFFICIENT DESIGN AND LAYOUT.
THE ADJUSTED SETBACKS DO NOT CONFORM TO THOSE OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES AND WILL ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
AS APPROVED, THE SETBACK WILL PRESENT A NON UNFAIR BURDEN ON
[01:40:04]
NEARBY PROPERTY OWNERS WHO HAVE GONE TO EXTENSIVE MEASURES TO STAY WITH THE ESTABLISHED GUIDELINES, I GUESS, FOR LACK OF BETTER WAYS OF SAYING IT.THE SETBACK WAIVERS ARE EXCESSIVE AND GO BEYOND WHAT WAS REQUESTED IN THE ORIGINAL SETBACK WAIVER REQUEST.
I THINK THAT'S ALL I GOT. I DON'T KNOW.
>> YOUR PROPERTY ABUTS THIS ONE?
>> YES. WE'RE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT.
WE'RE ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
OUR PROPERTIES ARE RIGHT ON THE CORNER OF 4TH AND ELM, THE MARTINS ARE THE NEXT PROPERTIES RIGHT NEXT TOWARD US.
>> IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD RIGHT THERE, ARE THERE ANY OTHER HOMES BECAUSE I KNOW IT'S QUITE DIVERSE NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE HOME? ANY OTHER HOMES WITH SETBACKS LESS THAN?
>> NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF MA'AM.
>> WELL, I DIDN'T SEE WHAT NUMBER I SAID.
>> I DON'T THINK SO, BUT I THINK TOM WILL HAVE SOME PICTURES THAT WILL SHOW OUR IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AGAIN, IF YOU WALK AROUND, YOU CAN WALK DOWN EACH STREET AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THEY'RE ABOVE THE SYSTEM.
>> DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE SETBACK OF YOUR RESIDENCE IS?
>> IT'S 25 FEET. YOU BELIEVE THE OTHERS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ARE ALSO 25 FEET?
>> ANYBODY ELSE? NO? THANK YOU.
I RESIDE AT 307 ELM STREET HERE IN FERNANDINA BEACH.
WE'RE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE MARTINS LOT.
LET ME SEE IF I CAN FIGURE THIS THING OUT.
YOU'RE PROBABLY GOT TO SIGN IN.
>> IT JUST DIDN'T GO OVER VERY GOOD. THERE IT IS.
THE ISSUE TO ME, MY WIFE AND I, IS NOT SOMEONE BUILDING ON THE LOT.
WE HAD A CHANCE TO BUY THAT LOT AND DECIDED TO BUY THE ONE WE DID AND NOT HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE TREE ISSUE.
WE PUT OUR WHOLE HOUSE FAVORS THAT WAY SO THAT WE CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT.
WE SPENT MANY TIMES TALKING WITH MIKE A COUPLE OF TIMES FINANCIALLY AND MOSTLY WITH MIKE ABOUT HOW WE'RE ALL GOING TO LIVE HERE.
THE PROBLEM IS, FOR ME, IS THE FRONT YARD VARIANCE OR ADMINISTRATIVE WAIVER, I THINK THEY'RE CALLED, EXACTLY.
THE PROBLEM, I THINK, IS THE WAY IT WAS GRANTED AS MUCH AS THE WAY IT WAS REQUESTED.
THE ONLY THING THAT WAS REQUESTED IN THE APPLICATION FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE WAIVER WAS A REDUCTION OF THE FRONT YARD FROM 25 FEET TO 17 FEET, AN EIGHT FOOT REDUCTION, AND A 15 FOOT REDUCTION WAS GRANTED.
WHICH MEANS A CHANGE IN PLAN, THE HOUSE GOES TO 10 FOOT FRONT YARD.
IS THERE A WAY FOR ME TO MAKE THIS BIGGER?
>> LET ME DO THAT. THAT'S BETTER.
IF YOU LOOK RIGHT HERE, THAT'S THE FRONT OF THEIR HOUSE, THE PORCH SUPPORTS.
THAT'S WHAT 25 FEET FROM FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.
I'M STANDING ON MINE JUST ADJACENT TO THAT LINE.
OUR HOUSE IS IN THE MU ZONE, AND WE PUSHED THE HOUSE BACK.
I DIDN'T REALLY KNOW ABOUT THE 25 OVER THERE BECAUSE WE WERE DEALING WITH A DIFFERENT ZONING.
BUT I ASKED THE BUILDER, I SAID, FIGURE OUT HOW FAR BACK THEY ARE.
[01:45:02]
WE WANT TO BE CONSISTENT, AND THAT'S WHAT WE DID.IT TURNS OUT WE'RE A COUPLE FEET SHORT OF IT EXACTLY CONSISTENT.
BUT IT IS VERY CONSISTENT IN THE WAY IT LOOKS.
IF THE MARTINS WERE TO BUILD ON THE 10 FOOT WHICH HAS BEEN APPROVED, THE 10 FOOT SETBACK, I HOPE I'M NOT CONFUSING YOU THERE, BUT THEY WENT FROM 25 FEET DOWN TO 10 IS WHAT HAS BEEN GRANTED OR THEY'RE ATTEMPTING TO GRANT WITH THIS ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE, THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, IF IT WAS BUILT TO 10 FOOT, WOULD BE HERE.
THERE'S A STAKE RIGHT THERE NOW FROM THE ORIGINAL LOT PREPARATION THAT MIKE WAS TALKING ABOUT, THE ONE THAT THEY DECIDED NOT TO GO FORWARD WITH BECAUSE IT WENT RIGHT OUT TO 10 FOOT.
STANDING ON OUR PORCH, WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SEE ANYTHING.
IT WOULD JET RIGHT OUT ALMOST 10 FEET FROM THE STREET.
WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHY IS THAT FAIR? I DON'T THINK IT IS.
IT'S CERTAINLY NOT NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE TREE, AND AND THAT IS REALLY THE ISSUE.
ONE OTHER TACT, IF THAT'S THE RIGHT PHRASE TO TRY AND EXPLAIN OUR POSITION, IN THE APPROVAL LETTER FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE, IT MENTIONS, IN FACT, KELLY MENTIONED IT WHEN SHE EXPLAINED IT, THE 10.03.01.
IT'S THE AUTHORITY FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE WAIVER.
IF FOLKS ARE PROBABLY SO MUCH MORE FAMILIAR WITH THIS THAN I AM, BUT IT SAYS THE CITY MANAGER IS AUTHORIZED TO REDUCE SPECIFIC SITE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF THIS LDC WHERE THE INTENT OF THE LDC CAN BE ACHIEVED AND EQUAL PERFORMANCE OBTAINED BY GRANTING A WAIVER.
I SUBMIT TO YOU THAT NEITHER OF THOSE THINGS ARE TRUE IN THIS CASE.
THE EQUAL PERFORMANCE IS BASICALLY ENJOYING THE FRONT YARDS THAT OTHER PEOPLE GET TO ENJOY THAT WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ENJOY IF THIS WAS PERMITTED TO BUILD THAT FAR OUT.
SECONDLY, IT SAYS THE INTENT OF THE LDC.
WELL, TO UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU'D HAVE TO READ THE WHOLE THING.
I'VE READ A LOT OF IT, BUT NOT ALL OF IT.
IF YOU GO TO, AND I'M SURE YOU FOLKS ARE VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIS PART OF IT,10.02.02 REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR A GRANT OF VARIANCE.
IN FACT, KELLY HAD THEM UP THERE IN YOUR FIRST CASE, THE SIX POINTS.
I SUBMIT THAT THIS ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE DOESN'T MEET ANY OF THOSE SIX.
I DON'T KNOW THAT IT HAS TO LEGALLY.
BUT IN FAIRNESS SUGGESTS IT SHOULD.
IF IT SAYS IN THE AUTHORIZATION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE, THAT IT MUST BE WHERE THE INTENT OF THE LDC CAN BE ACHIEVED, WELL, CERTAINLY THOSE POINTS ARE THE INTENT OF THE LDC WHEN IT COMES TO GRANTING OF A VARIANCE.
I THINK I'VE COVERED EVERYTHING THAT I WANTED TO SAY.
JUST LET ME LOOK AT MY NOTES, PLEASE. I THINK I DID.
>> TOM, SHOW US SOME PICTURES.
>> OH, YEAH, I FORGET MY PICTURES. THAT'S WHY I TOOK THEM.
GENTLEMAN WHO LIVES IN THAT HOUSE RIGHT THERE IS HERE TODAY.
YOU CAN SEE THEY'RE VERY LINED UP.
THERE MAY BE A FEW INCHES OFF HERE AND THERE, BUT IT'S SO CONSISTENT.
NOW, JUST SO THAT YOU CAN SEE THERE'S FOUR HOUSES THERE, THERE'S A SHOT WHERE YOU CAN LOOK AT IT.
NOW, LET ME GO BACK HERE FOR A MINUTE.
I CALLED MR. SLOAN, WHO GOT HIS PERMISSION TO GO OVER THERE WITH MY MEASURE TODAY AND STARTED MEASURING THINGS.
IF THIS HOUSE WERE TO BUMP OUT TO 10 FEET, LIKE IT IS BEING APPROVED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE, IT WOULD BE RIGHT HERE.
THAT'S NOT THE CONSISTENCY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT THE LDC PROMOTES.
THEN THIS IS THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET DIRECTLY ACROSS ELM STREET FROM THE FIRST PICTURES THAT I SHOWED YOU, OLDER HOMES, BUT STILL LINED UP.
YOU CAN SEE THE SECOND ONE DOWN THERE.
[01:50:01]
I DIDN'T GO OTHER DIRECTIONS, BUT YOU CAN GO OTHER DIRECTIONS AND GET THE SAME EFFECT.IT'S VERY CONSISTENT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER.
IF THE WAIVER WAS GRANTED AT 17 FEET, WOULD YOU STILL HAVE THE SAME OBJECTIONS REGARDING CONSISTENCY?
>> I KNEW YOU WERE GOING TO ASK THAT.
>> THANK YOU FOR READING MY MIND.
I DIDN'T KNOW I WAS UNTIL ABOUT A FEW MINUTES AGO.
>> NO, BUT IT'S A NATURAL QUESTION THAT I'VE ASKED MYSELF. I DON'T KNOW.
I REALLY OBJECT TO LOSING OUR FRONT YARD SIGHT LINES AND I DON'T THINK THAT THEY NEED TO BE LOST TO ACHIEVE THE GOAL OF A REASONABLE BUILD.
CAN IT BE PUSHED BACK A LITTLE BIT? THE OTHER PART OF THAT IS THERE WAS NO REQUEST FOR A SIDE YARD.
IT'S 7.5 FEET BY CODE, BUT MOVING IT TO FIVE FEET, WHICH IS THE MINIMUM YOU'RE PERMITTED TO CHANGE IT TO IS OKAY BECAUSE THAT'S MOVING THE STRUCTURE AWAY FROM THE TREE, AND I UNDERSTAND THE BENEFIT OF THAT.
IT IS FIVE FOOT, BY THE WAY, EVEN THOUGH KELLY SAID IT'S ONLY SEVEN.
THERE'S A BUMP OUT WHERE THE STAIRS GO UP, WHICH IS FIVE FEET.
THEN IN THE BACK, THE APPLICATION SAYS, REDUCE IT FROM 7.5 TO FIVE.
WELL, THE BACK YARD, THE WAY I READ THE CODE IS 20 FOOT IN R2.
I DON'T THINK THE MARTINS ARE PLANNING TO MAKE THEIR HOUSE AS CLOSE AS 20 FEET.
THE WAY I READ IT IS AROUND 26 FEET FROM THE BACK YARD.
BUT I THINK THAT ONCE THAT ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCE IS GRANTED, IT'S DONE.
YOU CAN DO ANYTHING WITHIN THAT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
>> YES. YOU JUST USED THE PHRASE A REASONABLE BUILD, AND I'M WONDERING LIKE, EVEN VERY BROADLY HOW YOU WOULD DESCRIBE AN INADEQUATE SITE PLAN FOR THIS PROPERTY.
THERE'S 325 FOOT LOTS ON THIS SITE.
ONE OF THEM IS TAKEN UP BY THE TREE EFFECTIVELY BECAUSE OF TRYING TO STAY AWAY FROM IT.
THE OTHER TWO IS A 50 FOOT LOT.
MY WIFE AND I BUILT A HOUSE ON A 50 FOOT LOT.
THE HAMS BUILT A HOUSE ON THE 50 FOOT LOT, AND WE MAINTAINED THE FRONT YARD SETBACK.
THAT IS OUR ISSUE EXACTLY. ANYTHING ELSE?
>> YOU HAVE THE MU1 LOT, THAT'S THE ZONING, SO THERE'S NO MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. I THINK I JUST ANSWERED MY OWN QUESTION. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, SIR. APPRECIATE IT.
>> THIS MAYBE THAT IT HAVE ALREADY BEEN ASKED, AND I'D GO TO ASK KELLY AGAIN.
>> SORRY, MR. HAM, YOU GOT TO SAY YOUR NAME.
>> PEOPLE FORGET. I UNDERSTAND. MY NAME IS KEVIN HAMM, 315 ELM STREET.
GETTING BACK TO THE SETBACK AGAIN, BEING AT 10 FEET VERSUS THE 17 THAT WAS REQUESTED.
GIVEN THAT THE VARIANCE WAS GRANTED SINCE IT BEEN PART OF THE CONVERSATION, DO THE MARTINS HAVE THE ABILITY NOW TO PULL THEIR PLANS AND RESUBMIT A NEW PLAN THAT REFLECTS A 10 FOOT SETBACK?
>> ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WOULD WISH TO SPEAK?
I AM A BROKER WITH THE MASSEY REAL ESTATE GROUP, AND MY WIFE AND I, WE HAVE THE GOOD FORTUNE OF LIVING A COUPLE OF HOUSES FROM THIS PROPERTY.
WHAT I'M HEARING TONIGHT IS WE HAVE THREE PARTIES.
I WAS SITTING BACK THERE AND I'M SAYING, I REALLY FEEL BAD FOR THE THREE PARTIES THAT WE'RE LISTENING TO.
BUT THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN, IT DAWNED ON ME THERE WAS A FOURTH PARTY, WHICH IS THE TREE.
THE TWO HOUSES THAT ARE ALREADY BUILT THERE, THEY WERE BUILT RECENTLY,
[01:55:01]
AND THEY WERE BUILT CONFORMING TO THE CODE OF THE CITY.NOW WE HAVE A THIRD HOUSE COMING IN, AND SO WHAT I'M HEARING IS, IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE FOURTH PARTY, WHICH IS THAT MAJESTIC TREE, WE HAVE TO BRING THE HOUSE TO WITHIN 10 FEET OFF THE HIGHWAY OF ELM STREET.
I'M LISTENING TO THAT, BUT THEN I SEE THAT WE GOT TO CUT HALF OF THAT TREE DOWN.
>> WE'RE NOT PROTECTING THAT TREE, WE'RE NOT PROTECTING THE FOURTH PARTY, WE'RE PROTECTING HALF OF THAT TREE. COME ON.
TO PUSH IT TO 10 FEET FROM THE HIGHWAY.
THE PROBLEM WE HAVE IS THIS COMMUNITY IS A FRONT PORCH COMMUNITY.
WE SIT ON OUR FRONT PORCHES, AND WE SAY HELLO TO EVERYBODY ELSE THEY'RE WALKING DOWN THE STREET.
ALL OF A SUDDEN, THE HOUSE ON THE EAST SIDE AND THE HOUSE ON THE WEST SIDE WITH A HOUSE THAT STICKS OUT NOW 15 FEET PAST THEIR HOUSE IS IMPEDING THE VIEW.
IT'S NO MORE OF A FRONT PORCH STREET.
WE'RE PROTECTING NOT THAT WHOLE TREE, WE'RE PROTECTING, LET'S BE HONEST, HALF OF THAT TREE.
WE ARE CUTTING DOWN THE WHOLE WEST SIDE, IS THAT NOT CORRECT? OF THAT TREE.
I'M NOT A TREE HUGGER, BUT MAYBE IN THIS CASE I AM, BECAUSE WHEN IT COMES TO HALF A TREE OR A WHOLE TREE, I WANT A WHOLE TREE, I DON'T WANT HALF A TREE.
IF WE'RE GOING TO CALL OURSELVES, IF WE'RE GOING TO SAY THAT WE AND THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH, WE PROTECT OUR TREES.
THE PROBLEM WE HAVE TODAY IS, WITH THE FEW LOTS REMAINING IN FERNANDINA BEACH, MANY OF THEM HAVE TREES LIKE THIS.
BELIEVE ME GUYS, THIS IS NOT THE LAST TIME YOU'RE GOING TO BE SITTING HERE LISTENING TO A STORY LIKE THIS, THIS IS THE BEGINNING.
LET'S ALL GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD.
LET'S TRY TO PROTECT FOUR PARTIES, INCLUDING THAT TREE, PROTECT THE TWO NEIGHBORS, AND IF IT'S POSSIBLE, PROTECT THE FUTURE BUILDER THAT'S GOING TO BUILD A PRODUCT ON THAT PROPERTY.
IS THERE A PRODUCT THAT FITS? THAT IS THE REAL QUESTION.
>> CAN YOU STATE YOUR ADDRESS? SORRY, WE DIDN'T HEAR IT.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANYBODY ELSE WISH TO SPEAK? GO AHEAD THEN.
>> I AM NOT GOING TO FOLLOW THE SEQUENCE OF [INAUDIBLE].
>> TO A POINT OF ORDER, AND MARGARET KNOWS ME LONG ENOUGH TO KNOW THIS IS NOT AGAINST MARGARET.
MARGARET, ARE YOU SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF CONSERVE NASSAU? BECAUSE THIS IS A TECHNICAL ISSUE.
IS CONSERVE NASSAU IN THE CITY LIMITS? IS YOUR ADDRESS IN THE CITY?
>> GOOD. IF YOU'RE NOT IN THE CITY, YOU GET THREE MINUTES.
>> I'M MARGARET KIRKLAND, 1377 PLANTATION POINT DRIVE, SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF CONSERVE NASSAU.
THE ADDRESS IS ACTUALLY 1417 SADLER ROAD.
[02:00:09]
I'M NOT GOING TO FOLLOW THE SEQUENCE, AS I SAID, BUT WE HAVE A VERY DIFFERENT VIEW FROM AN ARBORIST.WE CONSULTED WITH CHRISTOPHER HASTINGS FROM ARBORMEDICS, WHO IS AN ISA BOARD-CERTIFIED MASTER ARBORIST, AND HE DID VISIT THE SITE.
HIS VIEW IS THAT THE ROOTS OF THIS TREE EXTEND UNDER THE ADJACENT BUILDINGS AND UNDER THE STREETS AROUND HERE, AND THEREFORE IN THE BUILDING OF THE HOUSES ON THIS PART OF THE BLOCK, THEY HAVE BEEN DAMAGED TO SOME EXTENT.
FURTHER INJURY MAY ACTUALLY KILL THE TREE, IT'S HARD TO TELL.
SECOND POINT, PRUNING CUTS OF LARGE LIMBS AT THE TRUNK AS WE SAW ON EARLY MCCALL'S PICTURE, ARE FAR MORE DAMAGING THAN CUTS THAT ARE FURTHER OUT.
MR. HASTINGS THIRD POINT IS THE HOUSE IS TOO CLOSE TO THE TREE TO AVOID DAMAGE, AND THE SUBSEQUENT POOL WILL SIMPLY MAKE MATTERS WORSE.
HIS LAST POINT IS THAT THE EXTENSIVE FRENCH DRAIN THAT WE SEE AROUND THE LOT WILL SEVER ROOTS AND INTRODUCE A CONSTANT CHANGE IN THE HYDROLOGY OF THE TREE.
NOBODY HAS MENTIONED THIS, BUT WE HAVE, AROUND THIS LOT, AROUND THE BACK PART OF THE LOT AND ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE LOT, A FRENCH DRAIN, WHICH IS RATHER STRANGE.
WE HAVE ENGINEERS IN OUR GROUP, CIVIL ENGINEERS.
I HAVE INPUT FROM ROBERT PRAGER, FRANK HOFF, AND RICHARD POLK, ALL OF WHOM HAVE EXTENSIVE BACKGROUND ALSO WITH WATER-RELATED ISSUES.
>> SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU. BUT IF THEY'RE NOT HERE, THEIR TESTIMONY ISN'T RELEVANT, UNFORTUNATELY.
YOU CAN SAY IT FOR YOUR OPINION AND UNDERSTAND IT AS SUCH, BUT IT'S NOT TESTIMONY WE CAN ACCEPT.
>> PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW THIS BECAUSE IT'S A PROBLEM FOR BUILDING, INCLUDING FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER.
THE FRENCH DRAIN RUNS ADJACENT TO THE EXTERIOR WALL ON THE WEST AND WILL PROBABLY SATURATE THE GROUND UNDER THE FOOTING AND MAY CAUSE SETTLEMENT OF THE FOOTING.
ANOTHER ISSUE RELATED TO THAT IS THAT THESE DRAINS HAVE A LIMITED LIFE.
HOW IS THIS FRENCH DRAIN AS IT IS DESIGNED TO COME DOWN FROM THE DOWNSPOUT INTO THE GROUND? HOW IS THAT GOING TO BE REPLACED WHEN IT CLOGS? THEN FRANK HOFF DID SOME CALCULATIONS AND CAME UP WITH, THE FRENCH DRAIN COULD HANDLE POSSIBLY 3.64 INCHES OF RAINFALL BEFORE CONTRIBUTING TO FLOODING IN THE STREET AND THE ADJACENT LOT.
I THINK IT'S DIFFICULT TO IMAGINE THAT IN THE FUTURE WITH OUR RAINFALL DENSITY THAT THAT WILL BE ADEQUATE.
ALL OF THESE THINGS COULD LEAD TO CIVIL LIABILITIES AND SO ON.
NOW, OUR GROUP HAS BEEN LOOKING AT FLOODING IN THE CITY AND IN THE COUNTY ON THE ISLAND FOR THE PAST YEAR, THERE'S A LOT OF IT.
WE HAVE SEVERAL CONCLUSIONS THUS FAR.
ONE IS A DRAMATIC INCREASE IN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, AND THE ASSOCIATED REMOVAL OF TREES OVER THE PAST DECADE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR A LOT OF THE FLOODING.
POOR PASS PRACTICES CONTINUE TO CAUSE FLOODING,
[02:05:01]
WHETHER IT IS IN OLD TOWN, OR IT IS DOWNTOWN, OR IT IS IN MID-ISLAND.OUR EXISTING STORM WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IS INADEQUATE TO MEET CURRENT NEEDS.
OUR CURRENT PRACTICES OF RETAINING STORM WATER ON THE PROPERTY ARE ONLY EFFECTIVE WHEN WE HAVE SUFFICIENT PROPERTY DEVOTED TO THAT.
THEY'RE BECOMING EFFECTIVE AS WE HAVE MORE INTENSE RAINFALL, AND THE GROUNDWATER IS AT HIGHER LEVELS AND STAYS AT HIGHER LEVELS LONGER.
WE DO HAVE FLOODING IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD EVERY TIME IT RAINS, WE HAVE RUSHES OF WATER DOWN THE STREET ACROSS THE LOT, A GOOD REASON NOT TO BUILD THERE, FRANKLY.
OTHER NEIGHBORS HAVE BEEN TELLING ME ABOUT ALL THE FLOODING IN THIS AREA.
THIS IS A HUGE COMPLICATION FOR THIS LOT.
WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN FRUSTRATED BY THE FAILURE OF THE CITY TO PROTECT ITS TREES, AND WE HOPE THAT THIS ADJUSTMENT THAT CAN BE MADE ADMINISTRATIVELY WOULD HELP THAT.
BUT UNFORTUNATELY WE ALL WANT HOUSES THAT ARE TOO BIG FOR THE PARCEL.
WHEN OUR HOUSE IS TOO BIG, WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH PERVIOUS SURFACE, WE'VE GOT TOO MUCH IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, AND IT JUST CREATES FLOODING.
WE ALSO AGREE WITH THE VISUAL, THE LIFESTYLE CHANGE, THE PROPERTY VALUE IMPACTS FOR THE NEIGHBORS, THAT'S GREAT.
BUT WE FEEL THAT THIS APPEAL SHOULD BE GRANTED, AND THAT NO HOUSE OF THIS SIZE SHOULD BE PERMITTED ON THIS PARCEL, AND THAT'S IN LINE WITH THE PREVIOUS STATEMENT.
IF ANYBODY HAS A QUESTION, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER.
>> WITH THE PIER CONSTRUCTION, I KNOW THERE'S SLAB IN THE GARAGE AREA, I WOULD THINK THAT WOULD HELP NOT INCREASE THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ON THAT LOT.
NOT THAT I'M AN EXPERT BY ANY MEANS OR THAT MAY NOT BE DIRECTED AT YOU.
>> YOU STILL HAVE WATER RUNNING OFF THE ROOFS, OFF OF EVERYTHING THERE, OFF OF THE CONCRETE SURFACE AND SO ON.
WE HAVE SOME MAPS OF PARTS OF THE ISLAND, WELL, THE WHOLE ISLAND ACTUALLY IN THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE IN THE ISLAND BEFORE AND AFTER 10 YEARS AGO AND NOW, AND IT'S REALLY ALARMING, FRANKLY.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION.
THE ROOTS OF THE TREE WILL GO UNDER THE HOUSE, BUT THEY'RE STILL NOT GETTING THE SAME WATER SUPPLY, IT'S STILL CHANGING THEIR DYNAMICS, THEIR NUTRITIONAL NEEDS, AND SO ON.
>> I'M JUST THROWING OUT SOME WRINKLES.
>> MARGARET, CAN YOU STATE SIMPLY WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE DONE? I ASSUME THAT YOU THINK THE HOUSE IS LARGER THAN IT NEEDS TO BE IN THE LOT SIZE.
ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS, I'M NOT SURE WHO IT WAS, SAID EARLIER THAT THEIR HOUSE COULD BE BUILT ON THAT LOT AND STILL MAINTAIN THE 25-FOOT SETBACK.
REALLY, IT'S A MATTER OF JUST BUILDING OUT TOO FAR.
>> EITHER BUILDING A HOUSE THAT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE SIZE OF THE LOT OR NOT BUILDING ONE AT ALL.
I'D BE HAPPY TO HAVE IT GO FOR CONSERVATION LAND, BUT THAT'S DOWN THE ROAD IF IT HAPPENS AT ALL.
BUT IT IS JUST NOT APPROPRIATE AND IT CONTRIBUTES TO THE MASSIVE PROBLEM THAT WE ALREADY HAVE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD OF FLOODING.
I'D LIKE FOR THE APPEAL TO BE GRANTED.
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT NOTHING OF THIS SIZE IS PERMITTED,
[02:10:01]
THAT IS NOT PART OF WHAT THIS GROUP IS DOING, I DON'T THINK.>> WOULD GRANTING THAT APPEAL BE NECESSARY IF THE HOUSE ON THE CORNER OF 4TH AND ELM WAS BUILT ON THIS LOT? YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU THINK THE APPEAL SHOULD BE GRANTED, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE APPEAL ALLOWS FOR A LARGER HOUSE.
>> POSSIBLY NOT. DID YOU LOOK AT THE PLANTS? BUT YES, PROBABLY NOT.
>> THEN WHY ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU THINK THE APPEAL SHOULD BE GRANTED BECAUSE YOU FEEL LIKE IT'S MORE LIKELY TO SAVE THE TREE?
>> IT'S ABOUT THE SETBACK, THE DISTANCE.
>> I THINK THERE'S A MISUNDERSTANDING.
>> WELL, I HAVE A MISUNDERSTANDING.
>> PROCEEDINGS AND THE NOMENCLATURE.
>> THIS APPEAL IS, AND I UNDERSTAND THE APPEAL AS WRITTEN, IS APPEALING THE, JUST FOR EASE OF UNDERSTANDING, STAFF'S DECISION.
>> YEAH. THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION.
>> TO REDUCE THE FRONT SETBACKS.
AT LEAST THAT'S MOST WHAT I HEARD.
THERE'S SOME REDUCTION IN THE SIDES AND THE REAR SETBACKS AS WELL.
THAT WAS DONE AFTER STAFF SITS WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER, ETC, AND FIGURES OUT WHAT'S THE BEST THING AND OBVIOUSLY OUR ARBORIST.
THE APPEAL IS TO SAY THAT STAFF'S DECISION TO GRANT THIS WAIVER AND ALLOW THE HOUSE TO BE FORWARD INTO THE SETBACK, IF YOU GRANT THE APPEAL, IT MEANS YOU'RE SAYING THAT STAFF DECISION WAS NOT CORRECT, AND YOU DON'T AGREE WITH IT.
BY THE WAY, JUST SO EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS, TO REMIND YOU, IT TAKES ALL FIVE, A UNANIMOUS VOTE TO OVERTURN STAFF'S DECISION.
>> WHY ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THAT? BUT WE'RE ALLOWED TO MODIFY.
>> DOES THAT ONLY TAKE OUR USUAL SUPERMAJORITY?
>> I WILL CHECK REAL QUICK, BUT I ONLY SEE THE UNANIMOUS, SO I THINK IT'S A UNANIMOUS VOTE NO MATTER WHAT.
>> AS I READ THE LAW, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S ONLY UNANIMOUS FOR REVERSAL.
>> THAT MAY BE. I WILL CHECK REAL QUICK.
>> YES. I'LL TAKE A QUICK LOOK TOO.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE VOTE IS.
I DON'T RECALL THERE BEING A DIFFERENT VOTE FOR THAT.
THE APPEAL IS TO SAY STAFF WAS WRONG, TO BE TO PUT IT VERY SIMPLE.
STAFF WAS SAYING, PART OF THIS PROCESS OF TREE PROTECTION IS STAFF CAN MAKE A DECISION ON ITS OWN WITHOUT THERE BEING A HEARING TO ALLOW THIS, AND THAT'S WHAT THEY DID.
OBVIOUSLY NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS ARE NOTIFIED AND THEY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL. IS EVERYBODY CLEAR?
>> ANY NEXT PERSON ABOUT TO SPEAK? GO AHEAD, MA'AM.
>> MY NAME IS LYNN PANNONE, AND I'M HERE SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF AMELIA TREE CONSERVANCY.
I'M ALSO SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE HERITAGE TREE, WHICH IS OLDER THAN ANYONE HERE AND MAYBE OLDER THAN FERNANDINA BEACH CITY ITSELF, WHICH IS CELEBRATING, AS WE ALL KNOW, IT'S 200TH ANNIVERSARY.
BY THE WAY, IN 2017, WHEN THIS TREE WAS AWARDED THE HERITAGE TREE DESIGNATION, IT WAS 53 INCHES DBH DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT, AND THAT WAS, OF COURSE, YEARS BEFORE THE CURRENT OWNERS PURCHASED THE PROPERTY.
IT HAS GROWN SOME SINCE THEN, WE CAN ASSUME.
THEREFORE, THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THE REQUIREMENTS REGARDING CONSTRUCTION ON THE PROPERTY PRIOR TO PURCHASE.
DUE DILIGENCE WOULD HAVE MADE THAT CLEAR.
FOR THAT REASON ALONE, THE TREE SHOULD BE GIVEN SPECIAL CONSIDERATION.
TO CUT OFF OR SEVER LARGE LIMBS AND DIG DEEPLY IN THE GROUND ADJACENT TO THE TREE IS CONTRARY TO WHAT THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE STATES AS IT PERTAINS TO HERITAGE TREES AND CONSTRUCTION AROUND THEM.
THIS PROJECT IS A CLEAR VIOLATION OF SECTION 4.05.15 OF THE LDC.
IT DOES NOT SEEM POSSIBLE THAT ANYONE CAN UNEQUIVOCALLY STATE THAT THE SIGHTING OF A TWO-STOREY HOUSE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A POOL ON A NARROW LOT WOULD NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE ROOT SYSTEM OF THE HERITAGE TREE.
NOT TO MENTION THE EGREGIOUS PRUNING, WHICH RUINS THE BEAUTY OF THE TREE, ONE OF THE CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION AS A HERITAGE TREE.
OAKS ARE CONSIDERED TO HAVE SOME OF THE MORE SENSITIVE ROOT SYSTEMS,
[02:15:04]
SO DAMAGING THE OAKS ROOTS CAN WREAK ON THE TREE.LATERAL ROOTS ARE THE PRIMARY SUPPORT OF A MATURE TREE, AND THEY CAN GROW UP TO 90 FEET FROM THE TRUNK OF A LARGE TREE.
A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF LIVE OAK ROOTS EXIST IN THE UPPER 12 INCHES OF THE SOIL.
THIS IS CRUCIAL FOR THE TREES ACCESS TO OXYGEN THAT'S VITAL FOR RESPIRATION.
COVERING THE UNDER-STOREY WITH DENSE LAYERS OF SOIL OR SYNTHETIC BARRIERS CAN POSE SIGNIFICANT HARM TO THE LIVE OAK.
I WILL CONCLUDE BY SAYING THIS PROJECT VIOLATES THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND ALL OF THIS WAS KNOWN OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN KNOWN AT THE TIME THE LOT WAS PURCHASED. THANK YOU.
>> LYNN, EXCUSE ME. I HAVE A QUESTION.
IS IT YOUR OPINION THAT NO STRUCTURE SHOULD BE BUILT ON THAT PROPERTY?
>> A DIFFERENT STRUCTURE, A SMALLER STRUCTURE.
>> BECAUSE I SAW IT SAY NO STRUCTURE, THEN WE'D BE TALKING ABOUT TAKINGS, AND I DO NOT THINK THAT WE CAN GO DOWN THAT ROUTE.
>> YOU'RE SAYING IT SHOULD BE A SMALLER STRUCTURE?
>> SMALLER MEANING WHERE YOU DON'T CUT THAT BOTTOM LIMB.
>> WELL, TO THE POINT YOU JUST MADE, IF THE ROOT STRUCTURE IS 90 FEET FROM THE CENTER OF THE TREE, THE LOT IS ONLY 75 FEET WIDE.
YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY SAYING IT'S NOT BUILDABLE.
>> NO, I'M JUST SAYING THAT IT IS TRUE THAT THAT ROOTS WILL GO OUT AS FAR AS 90 FEET, BUT IF YOU'RE MORE CAUTIOUS AND NOT DAMAGING THEM AS MUCH, IT'S NOT A BIG PROBLEM.
>> BECAUSE THOSE ROOTS MOST LIKELY EXTEND UNDER NEIGHBORING HOMES AS WELL.
>> I'M SURE THEY GO BEYOND THE LOT LINE.
>> FROM THE GOOGLE IMAGE, IT LOOKS LIKE THAT BOTTOM LIMB ALMOST BASICALLY GOES ALONG THE WHOLE WIDTH OF THE LOT.
>> MEANING THAT A STRUCTURE WOULD HAVE TO BE BEHIND THE TREE OR IN FRONT OF THE TREE.
I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE KNOWS THE DIMENSIONS OF THE STRUCTURE THAT COULD BE BUILT BASED ON THAT.
>> I'M NOT QUALIFIED TO SPEAK TO THAT.
>> THAT'S SPECULATING. I THINK WE HAVE TO GO ON THE ONLY CERTIFIED ARBORIST OPINION WE HAVE IS MR. MCCALL'S THAT PRUNING THAT LIMB WILL NOT HARM THE TREE.
>> ANYBODY ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? COME UP, SIR. PLEASE REMEMBER TO STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE.
>> MY NAME IS WILLIAM BINIARIS.
I LIVE AT 216 SOUTH 4TH STREET.
I'M A LITTLE BIT CONCERNED THAT THE BOARD HERE IS NOT QUESTIONING WHY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS ALLOWED A 15 FOOT SETBACK, AND ONLY 8 FOOT SETBACK WAS REQUESTED.
HAS THAT BEEN COVERED OR IT WAS MENTIONED SEVERAL TIMES, BUT NO ANSWER WAS EVER GIVEN. THAT'S JUST ONE THING.
BUT THE MAIN REASON I'M HERE IS THAT I BUILT A HOUSE ON 4TH STREET TWO YEARS AGO.
DOES THIS GENTLEMAN KNOW THAT HE HAS TO PUT A DETENTION POND IN HIS YARD TO MANAGE ALL THE RUNOFF IN THIS ENTIRE PIECE OF PROPERTY? THAT'S A BIT HE'S ALREADY SPENT, PAID MONEY FOR TWO SETS OF PLANS, AND HE SHOULD KNOW THAT HE HAS TO MAINTAIN ALL THE RUNOFF ON ALL HIS PROPERTY?
>> THAT'S THE INTENT OF THE FRENCH DRAIN.
>> FRENCH DRAIN DOESN'T COVER IT.
I'VE GOT A 400 SQUARE FOOT HOLE IN MY FRONT YARD, THAT'S A DETENTION POND.
IT'S GOT TO BE COLLECTED AND THEN SLOWLY DRAIN OUT.
A FRENCH STRAIN WILL BACK UP AND FLOOD THE YARD.
>> JUST HAVEN'T SHOT PAST STORMWATER APPROVAL YET. I CAN GUARANTEE YOU THAT.
>> HE SHOULD KNOW THAT BEFORE HE SPENDS ANY MORE MONEY.
THAT SHOULD BE COVERED. THAT'S ALL I WANT TO SAY.
YOU'RE NEAR THIS PROPERTY, CORRECT?
>> TWO BLOCKS. WHAT'S THE SIZE OF YOUR LOT?
>> WOULD BASICALLY BE THE SIZE OF THIS ONE TAKING OUT THE PIECE THAT HAS THE TREE.
>> TWO IN THE BACK LOT, TWO IN THE FRONT, 20 FROM THE BACK, 7.5 ON EACH SIDE.
>> WHEN YOU BUILT IT TWO YEARS AGO.
THANK YOU. THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD?
>> IT WAS A REQUIREMENT WHEN I BUILT. THAT'S ALL I MEANT TO SAY.
ALL THE HOMES TEND TO BE IN THE SAME BLOCK OR STREET.
[02:20:01]
>> YOU CAN CERTAINLY COME BACK.
>> THERE'S ANOTHER HANDS UP THERE TOO.
>> IT'S MICHAEL MARTIN, 311 ELM STREET.
MOST OF THE ARGUMENT HERE IS ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE HOUSE.
IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S THE CLEAR ARGUMENT.
HOW MANY OF YOU ALL KNOW HOW BIG THE HOUSE IS? CAN YOU TELL ME HOW BIG THE HOUSE IS? ANYBODY HERE? WITHOUT EVEN LOOKING.
DO WE HAVE AN IDEA HOW BIG THE HOUSE IS?
>> YOU TOLD US IS GOING TO 200 SQUARE FEET.
NOW, HOW MANY OF YOU ALL LIVE IN A HOUSE SMALLER THAN 227 SQUARE FEET? HOW MANY OF YOU LIVE IN A HOUSE LARGER THAN 227 SQUARE FEET? THANKS LYNN FOR YOUR HONESTY.
I'M ASKING THAT BECAUSE I DID NOT BUILD SOME EXCESSIVELY HUMONGOUS HOME.
LET'S JUST GET THAT OFF THE TABLE THAT WE BUILT SOMETHING SO TRUCE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
ALSO, AND YOU WROTE AN ARTICLE THAT WAS PUBLISHED IN THE PAPER TALKING ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF ARBORISTS THAT WE HIRED TO LOOK AT THIS PROPERTY BEFORE WE BUILT.
IT'S NOT TRUE. WE'VE TALKED TO TWO ARBORISTS IN THIS TIME.
WE'VE TALKED TO DAVID FROM THE CITY, AND WE'VE TALKED TO EARLY MCCALL, WHO WAS HIGHLY RECOMMENDED, WHO WORKS A LOT WITH THE CITY AND IN THIS AREA.
KNOWS YOU PERSONALLY, I BELIEVE.
HE'S BEEN WHO HAS GUIDED US THROUGH THIS WHOLE PROCESS.
I DON'T KNOW NOTHING ABOUT BIG TREES, EXCEPT FOR I WORKED FOR MY BROTHER OWNED A LANDSCAPING COMPANY FOR YEARS AND YEARS, AND I CUT TREES AND CLEANED UP TREES AND DID EVERYTHING.
WHAT I DO KNOW IS THAT TO BUILD A HOME ON THIS PROPERTY, IF YOU DO NOT TAKE OFF THAT ONE BRANCH THAT WE'RE ALL ARGUING ABOUT, IT'S IMPOSSIBLE.
UNLESS YOU WANT TO GIVE ME A ZERO SETBACK, I'LL PUT A HOUSE WAY UP IN THE FRONT OF IT AND I LOOK RIDICULOUS OR IF I BUILD A LITTLE POOL HOUSE IN THE BACK OF IT.
THERE IS NO WAY TO BUILD A HOME IN THIS PROPERTY WITHOUT TAKING OFF THAT ONE BRIDGE.
THE MOMENT I LOOKED AT THE LOT, THE FIRST TIME I SAW IT, I KNEW THAT, WHICH IS WHY I WASN'T GOING TO BUY A LOT WITHOUT GETTING AN ARBORIST TO COME OUT AND I HIRED HIM AND I PAID 100 BUCKS, BEFORE I EVEN BOUGHT A LOT.
I'M NOT AN IDIOT. TO THINK THAT WE BUILT THIS A TRUCE HUGE HOME.
NOW, IF YOU WANT US TO BUILD A LITTLE BIT SMALLER OF A HOME, THAT'S AN ARGUMENT WE CAN HAVE.
THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE COULD PUSH THIS HOUSE BACK FARTHER, BY THE WAY, BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE HOUSE IS BUILT AND THE WAY THE GARAGE IS, AND I'VE LOOKED AT 1,000 PLANS FOUR DAYS.
MY WIFE SAYS, STOP LOOKING AT HOUSE PLANS AND DO YOUR JOB AND MAKE SOME MONEY, BECAUSE I SPENT SO MUCH TIME LOOKING HOUSE PLANS.
THERE AREN'T HOUSE PLANS THAT ARE THAT SCHEME.
LOOK AT THIS. THIS IS ESSENTIALLY THE BIG PART OF THE HOME, THE TWO-STOREY PART OF THE HOME.
ALL OF THIS IS SMALLER AND LOWER.
TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO TAKE THAT, BE THIS FAR AWAY FROM THE TREE, AND PUT A GARAGE IN THERE AND PUT ANY BEDROOMS IN THERE OR ANYTHING.
I'M TELLING YOU IT'S PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.
WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WE'RE ARGUING ABOUT.
IF WE'RE ARGUING ABOUT CUTTING THE ONE BRANCH OFF, WELL, THEN I DON'T KNOW.
I JUST CAN'T BUILD THE HOUSE A LOT.
IF WE'RE GOING FROM THERE, 7 FEET IS MORE PROTECTING AND THE TREE AND ENABLING A GARAGE, AND THERE'S JUST NO HOME PLANS WITH THE GARAGE ON THE OTHER SIDE.
I LOOKED. THAT WAS MY INITIAL WANT, WAS A GARAGE THAT WAS CLOSER TO TOM'S HOUSE.
WE ALSO MADE THE HOUSE AND LOOKED AT THAT HOUSE AND SAID, HEY, IT'S 7 FEET AWAY, BUT WE HAD TO HAVE A LITTLE BUMP OUT BECAUSE IT WOULDN'T ACCOMMODATE THE STAIRS.
THEY JUST WEREN'T GOING TO GET TO THE SECOND FLOOR.
WE HAD THIS LITTLE TINY BUMP OUT THAT MADE IT TO 5 FEET.
MY GOSH, WE'VE GONE ROUND AND ROUND ON FIGURING THIS OUT.
I DON'T KNOW ABOUT FRENCH DRAINS.
I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT FRENCH DRAINS. I REALLY DON'T.
I KNOW HOW TO INSTALL ONE BY DIGGING A HOLE, PUT THEM IN, PLUG IN SOME HOLES INTO IT.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY ACCOMPLISH, EXCEPT FOR TO HOLD WATER AND TO DISPERSE WATER INTO SOMETHING.
BUT I DO KNOW THAT THIS IS WHAT WAS REQUIRED FOR US TO HOLD OUR WATER ON THE PROPERTY.
THE SAME WAY THERE, THERE'S NOT A WHOLE LOT OF LOT LEFT ON ANY OF OUR PROPERTIES WHEN ONCE YOU'RE DONE THE BUILDING.
THERE'S JUST A LITTLE BIT OF YARD LEFT.
WE ACTUALLY HAVE A DECENT AMOUNT OF YARD LEFT.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE BACK AREA OF THIS AND ALL OF THIS FRONT SECTION ACROSS, IT'S WAY MORE YARD THAN OUR NEIGHBORS HAVE ON EITHER SIDE, SQUARE FOOTAGE WISE.
I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU'RE GOING TO VOTE.
I WISH I WAS TOM AND MARY, THAT WERE HERE EARLIER AND THEY WERE ALREADY DONE.
[02:25:02]
BUT I WILL SAY THAT WE'VE WORKED THE BUTTS OFF TO TRY TO ACCOMMODATE THIS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE AND TO ACCOMMODATE THE TREE. QUESTION.>> I DON'T MEAN TO HARP ON THIS.
>> I'M NOT SURE THAT YOU KNOW WHAT THE ANSWER IS TO THIS, BUT DO YOU AGREE WITH YOUR NEIGHBOR'S ASSESSMENT, I'M REFERRING TO THE NEIGHBOR AT CORNER 4TH AT ELM, HIS ASSESSMENT THAT HIS HOUSE WOULD FIT IN FRONT OF THAT TREE WITHOUT A 25 FOOT SETBACK.
[OVERLAPPING] OH, THAT WASN'T SAID?
>> IF THE LOT WAS THE SAME SIZE, GIVE THE TREE ONE LOT, AND THEN TAKE THE OTHER TWO LOTS, EITHER ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS HOUSES WOULD FIT WITHIN THE SETBACKS OF THE CITY AND LDC ON THOSE TWO LOTS.
>> THERE IS AN ARGUMENT FOR THAT, AND YOU'RE RIGHT BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HAVE A GARAGE THEIR PROPERTY.
BECAUSE THEY DO NOT HAVE A GARAGE ON YOUR PROPERTY, AND THEY ALSO HAVE MULTIPLE ENTRANCES, SO THEY COULD HAVE PUT AN ENTRANCE TO THE FRONT, THEY PUT THEIR ENTRANCE ON THE SIDE.
WE DON'T HAVE THAT CAPABILITY.
WE FIGURED OUT EVERY WAY POSSIBLE TO PUT THE GARAGE WAY IN THE BACK AND HIDE IT.
WE WEREN'T EVEN GOING TO HAVE A POOL.
A LOT OF HOMES HAVE THE GARAGE IN THE BACK HERE.
WOULD TOM'S HOME FIT ON OUR PROPERTY? WOULD THAT SETBACK AND EVERYTHING ELSE? I DON'T KNOW.
I DIDN'T LOOK AT IT. I HAVE NO IDEA.
I WASN'T LOOKING TO BUILD TOM'S HOME.
WE WERE LOOKING FOR LESS THAN 2500 SQUARE FEET.
I DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW I GOT TO BE THIS BIG, AND I WANTED TO POOL, BECAUSE I LIKE TO SURF, AND WHEN I GET HOME FROM THE BEACH AND GOING SURFING, I LIKE TO JUMP IN MY POOL AND SWIM.
SO WE WANT TO POOL. WE PUT IT AS FAR AWAY FROM THE TREE.
IF WE'RE DAMAGING THIS TREE BECAUSE OF THE POOL, IT'S A DIFFERENT ARGUMENT. I DON'T KNOW.
THERE SHOULDN'T BE A HOUSE THERE.
BUT YOUR HOUSE SHOULDN'T BE THERE EITHER, BECAUSE IT'S WAY CLOSE TO THIS TREE, BECAUSE IT'S LIKE, RIGHT HERE.
IT'S SUPER CLOSE TO THE TREE AS WELL.
ALL OF THESE ROOTS AND EVERYTHING ELSE ARE GETTING AFFECTED BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE DO AS HUMANS, WE BUILD HOMES ALL AROUND TREES.
I'M HAPPY TO ACCOMMODATE IT ANY WAY POSSIBLE, BUT BUILDING A LITTLE TINY SMALLER HOUSE ISN'T GOING TO WORK.
IF WE'RE GOING TO GET BOUND TO WHERE I BUILD A TINY HOUSE, I DON'T WANT TO LIVE IN A TINY HOUSE.
I ALREADY HAVE ONE OF THOSE IN NORTH CAROLINA.
IT'S 400 SQUARE FEET, AND I LOVE IT.
BUT I DON'T WANT TO KNOW THAT ONE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
>> WELL, WOULD YOU BE WELL AND I DON'T KNOW IF THE LDC ALLOWS IN R2, THAT'S WHY I WAS GOING TO ASK KELLY TO ADD A THIRD FLOOR.
>> FIRST OF ALL, THERE'S A LIMIT TO THE HEIGHT FROM 32 FEET OR WHATEVER, SO I DON'T SEE HOW THE POSSIBLE TO PUT A THIRD FLOOR.
BUT IN ADDITION TO THAT, THE HIGHER IT GETS, THE MORE IT'S AFFECTING THE TREE CANOPY AT THE TOP.
SOME OF THE CUTS IN THE WAY THAT LOOKS ON THAT PICTURE LOOKS WAY WORSE THAN IT ACTUALLY IS.
THE BIG BRANCH IN THE BOTTOM IS GOING OFF.
MOST OF THE OTHER ONE IS LIKE TRIMMING, AND THERE'S A COUPLE OF DEAD ONES ALREADY THAT THEY'RE CLEANING UP.
BUT IT'S KEEPING THE CANOPY OF THE OVERALL TREE, THE EXACT WAY IT IS ALMOST TODAY, WHICH IS THE HIGHEST TOP PART OF THE HOUSE.
>> I WAS JUST THINKING MAYBE IN THE FRONT PART OF THE HOUSE OVER THE ENTRANCE TO ADD AN EXTRA ROOM ON THE THIRD FLOOR TYPE THING.
>> I DON'T KNOW. I REALLY WISH ALL OF THE PEOPLE THAT HAD THESE GREAT IDEAS OF SAVING THESE TREES WOULD HAVE SENT ME SOME LETTERS AND SOME IDEAS BEFORE WE GOT TO THIS POINT, BECAUSE MY ADDRESS HAS BEEN ON THE WEBSITE FOR THE PROPER COUNTY FOR THE LAST ALMOST THREE YEARS AND I DIDN'T GET ANY OF THESE IDEAS, NOTHING.
>> IT LOOKS LIKE THAT HUGE BRANCH THAT YOU NEED TO CUT DOWN MAYBE OVER YOUR POOL.
>> NO. IT'S ACTUALLY RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PROPERTY.
>> RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE HOUSE WITH IT?
>> FRONT TO BACK, IT'S ALMOST THE MIDDLE OF THE PROPERTY.
>> I WONDER IF A SURVIVAL WOULD BUILD THINGS UNDER A BRANCH LIKE THAT, LIKE FAR LOW ONE FLOOR.
>> YOU KNOW THOSE COOL HOUSES YOU SEE IN CALIFORNIA WHERE THEY GO UNDER AND YOU CAN WALK ON AND YOU GET THIS BRANCH OVER IT? YES. MULTIMILLIONAIRES BUILD HOUSES LIKE THAT ALL THE TIME, AND WHEN THE BRANCH FALLS ON IT, THEY DON'T CARE.
I DON'T HAVE MULTIPLE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO BUILD A HOUSE LIKE THAT.
I'D LOVE TO, I WISH, BUT IT'S JUST NOT POSSIBLE, SIR.
[02:30:01]
>> YES, SIR. WAS THERE ONE MORE PERSON WHO WANTED TO SPEAK? COME UP, SIR.
I OWN A PIECE OF PROPERTY AT 421 SOUTH FIR STREET.
IT IS ALSO 225 FOOT LOTS, SAME SIZE AS THE HAMS, SAME SIZE AS THEIR OTHER NEIGHBOR ACROSS THE STREET.
I'M GOING TO HAVE TO BUILD SOMETHING ON THOSE TWO LOTS, BUT I'M GOING TO BE HAMMERED BY THE LDC, LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE IS. I'VE BEEN A BUILDER.
I MOVED UP HERE IN '79, AND I'VE BEEN A BUILDER SINCE 1983, STATE CERTIFIED BUILDING CONTRACT.
NOT ONE TIME IN 45 YEARS HAVE I GONE TO GET A VARIANCE TO BUILD SOMETHING.
WE'VE ALWAYS MANIPULATED THE PLAN TO FIT WITHIN THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS HEIGHT, ALL THAT.
SOMETIMES I COULD SEE THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO GET A VARIANCE.
THESE PEOPLE HERE WITH THEIR 3'8'' VARIANCE THAT YOU ALL GAVE EARLIER TODAY, PERFECT SCENARIO FOR PUSHING OUTSIDE THE ENVELOPE JUST A LITTLE BIT.
DIDN'T REALLY GET ANY CLOSER TO THE STREET IN REAL TIME.
YOU WEREN'T ADDING A FULL BATHROOM INTO THAT SETBACK.
THAT'S THE GREAT TIME TO USE THOSE THINGS.
I'VE GOT 50 FEET OF WIDTH BETWEEN THE TWO LOTS, AND I'M GOING TO BE FIVE FEET OFF OF EACH SIDE, 20 FEET FROM THE REAR AND 25 FEET FROM THE FRONT.
I KNOW THAT GOING IN, IT'S PART OF THE LDC.
I KNOW THAT GOING IN, AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BUILD SOMETHING WITHIN EACH ONE OF THOSE AS WELL AS A HIGH RESTRICTION.
EVERYBODY THAT BUILDS HAS TO DO THE SAME THING.
I BOUGHT A PIECE OF PROPERTY ONCE AND ONE SIDE WAS STRAIGHT AND THE OTHER SIDE CAME IN AT AN ANGLE.
THE PERSON BUILDING THE HOUSE OR DESIGNING THE HOUSE WANTED TO ENCROACH OVER ONE CORNER ABOUT THREE FEET TO MAKE HIS ROOM SQUARE, EVEN THOUGH THIS SIDE YARD CAME IN AT AN ANGLE.
I WAS TOLD BY THE HOA, YOU HAD TO HAVE KNOWN WHEN YOU BOUGHT THAT PROPERTY THAT THAT SIDE YARD WAS NOT 90 DEGREES TO THE OTHER ONE OR PARALLEL WITH THE OTHER ONE AND THEN YOU HAVE TO DESIGN WITHIN THAT.
WHEN THEY TOLD HIM THAT, IT AGGRAVATED HIM, BUT IT'S A REAL ESTATE.
WHEN YOU BUY SOMETHING, YOU HAVE TO BE AWARE OF.
YOU DON'T GO BUY A CAR WITHOUT DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD AND FINDING OUT HOW IT'S GOING TO TREAT YOU, AND REAL ESTATE IS THE SAME WAY.
WHEN THESE LOTS WHERE THE TREE IS, WHEN THEY RECONFIGURED THOSE LOTS, THEY RECONFIGURED THREE LOTS TO BE ALLOCATED TO THAT ONE PARCEL.
HAMS HAVE TWO, THE NEIGHBORS HAVE TWO, AND THEN THERE'S TWO ON THE CORNER THAT WERE BOUGHT AND SOLD.
EVERYBODY HAS GOT TWO LOTS EXCEPT WHERE THE TREE IS.
THE TREE HAS A LOT OF ITS OWN.
I THINK THAT WAS WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO DO WAS LEAVE ROOM FOR THE TREE AND HAVE TWO LOTS TO BUILD A HOUSE ON.
THE TREE IS ACTUALLY CLOSER TO THE HAMS HOUSE, THAN IT IS TO THE MARTINS TWO LOTS.
THEY CAN STILL BUILD A HOUSE ON THE 50 FEET, THE TWO LOTS, AND IT WOULD BE FURTHER AWAY FROM THE TREE THAN THE HAMS HOUSE IS NOW AND THE HAMS HOUSE ISN'T AFFECTING IT.
IT'S NEVER GOOD TO CUT ROOTS OFF OF A TREE, IN ANY CASE, THAT BIG UP CLOSE.
BUT EVEN IF THEY CAME OVER CLOSER TO THE TREE, THEY WOULD HAVE PLENTY OF ROOM TO BUILD ON THOSE TWO LOTS.
I'VE BEEN HERE A LONG TIME, AND I BOUGHT THESE LOTS A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, AND I'VE NEVER SEEN WATER ON THEM.
DURING ALL THAT RAIN THAT WE HAD A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO, THEY'RE BUILDING A HOUSE RIGHT BEHIND IT THAT'S MU1 SO THEY'RE ALL OVER THE LOT LINES, AND THE BACK OF MY LOT HAD ABOUT 16 INCHES OF STANDING WATER FOR DAYS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LOT.
IT WAS A FROG POND FOR A WEEK.
THE MORE HOUSES THAT WE BUILT, THAT'S WHY THE CITY'S WANT US TO RETAIN OUR WATER ON OUR PROPERTIES.
BUT I'M GOING TO BUILD SOMETHING THERE AT SOME POINT.
I'LL HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT MYSELF AS WELL.
I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.
[02:35:05]
MY LOT ACTUALLY GOES THE DEPTH OR THE WIDTH OF THE HAMS, AND THEN HALF OF IT IS BEHIND THIS PARCEL SO IT EXTENDS TWO LOTS GOING FROM THIRD TO FOURTH STREET THIS WAY WHERE THERE'S SIX OR EIGHT GOING THIS WAY.I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SEE A HOUSE BUILT THAT IS MORE CONDUCIVE TO THE EXISTING SETBACKS THAN I'VE NEVER SEEN A HOME BUILT THAT HAD RELIEF ON FOUR SIDES OF IT.
I THINK PART OF THAT, IT GOES BACK TO THE PERSON THAT BOUGHT THE LOT.
THE MARTINS HAD KNOWN OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT THERE WERE SETBACKS ON THE FRONT IN THE REAR THEY WOULD HAVE TO LIVE WITH.
IF THEY WANTED A HOUSE AND A POOL AND A BOAT HOUSE AND ALL THAT STUFF ON THEIR POOL HOUSE, THEN THEY SHOULD HAVE REALIZED THAT IT JUST WASN'T GOING TO WORK ON THAT LOT AND MAYBE LOOK SOMEWHERE ELSE TO BUY A LOT THAT IT WOULD. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK? COME ON UP.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. MATTHEW MILLER 416 FIR STREET.
I WAS SITTING ON THE BACK ROAD BACK THERE AND I HAVE A FEW BULLET POINTS AND I'D LIKE TO MENTION.
BUT TWO THINGS CAME TO MIND AND THE FIRST ONE IS THAT EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM IS TRYING TO DO THE SAME THING.
WE'RE TRYING TO PROTECT THE TREE.
WE MIGHT BE A LITTLE PRICKLY HERE OR THERE OF HOW WE'RE GOING TO DO IT, BUT WHAT A GREAT TOWN THAT WE'RE ALL TRYING TO GET TO THE SAME RESULT.
I KNOW THAT MS. GIBSON SAID THAT THIS WAS A RELATIVELY NEW PROCEDURE, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF HEARTBURN HERE IN THE ROOM, AND IF WE COULD HAVE GOT EVERYBODY TOGETHER, MAYBE, WE COULD HAVE MAYBE TALK THIS THROUGH OR AT LEAST THE MARTINS WOULD HAVE KNOWN MORE AND MAYBE SAVE THEM SOME MONEY ON THAT.
BUT I KNOW THAT THE CITY IS STILL WORKING THROUGH SOME OF THOSE ISSUES.
I FOUND OUT ABOUT IT AFTER IT WAS GRANTED AND WE WERE GOING TO HAVE THIS HEARING BY THE SIGN THAT WAS ON THE ROAD, SO I KNEW NOTHING ABOUT IT.
I'M ON FIR STREET, THERE ON ELM STREET, SO I'M ONE BLOCK OF WHERE THEY ARE AND ALMOST PERFECTLY ALIGNED EAST AND WEST.
I'M IN FAVOR OF DOING EVERYTHING THAT WE CAN TO PROTECT THAT TREE.
THAT'S MY ROUTE TO COME TO TOWN.
WE WALK BY THERE EVERY DAY, WE RIDE BIKES BY THERE EVERY DAY, AND I WANT THAT TREE TO TELL ME A STORY EVERY TIME THAT I GO BY.
I THINK MR. MARTIN AND I MIGHT BE MORE KINDRED SPIRITS, MAYBE THAN WE KNOW.
WHEN I BOUGHT MY PROPERTY ONE BLOCK FROM AWAY, MY PROPERTY WAS OWNED INDUSTRIAL.
LET YOUR MIND WONDER OVER WHAT MY POSSIBILITIES WOULD HAVE BEEN WITH WHAT I COULD HAVE DONE, BUT IT DIDN'T FIT THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE WANTED A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
I HAD THIS IDEA OF WHAT I WANTED THERE AND WE WERE SO EXCITED.
I REMEMBER THAT MY WIFE AND I WERE OVER THERE.
WE WERE SCRATCHING AROUND AND DRAWING LINES AND SHE LOOKED AT ME AND SHE SAID, NOW, "MATTHEW, YOU CAN'T TOUCH ANY OF THESE TREES." I LOOKED AT HER AND SHE SAYS, "NOT ONE LEAF." THAT'S WHEN I REALIZED THAT I HAD FLOOR OF THINKING.
I WANTED THE HOUSE THAT I WANTED TO PUT ON THE LOT, WHEN THE THINKING SHOULD HAVE BEEN TO LET THE LOT TELL ME WHAT I COULD HAVE.
JUST LIKE THE MARTINS, I WANTED A SWIMMING POOL, AND I GOT A SWIMMING POOL.
IT'S A SMALLER POOL, AND I WANTED THIS AND I WANTED THAT.
I THINK MY HOUSE IS ABOUT 1,500 SQUARE FEET.
EVEN TODAY, EVERY TIME THAT I GET OUT OF THE CAR IN THE GARAGE AND I'M A BIG GUY, AND I CAN'T QUITE GET OUT OF THE DOOR, AND I'M LIKE, MAN, I WANT FOUR MORE FEET.
EVERYBODY THAT'S IN DOWNTOWN WANTS FOUR MORE FEET.
IT'S ONLY SO BIG AND I'M ON A 50 FOOT LOT.
BUT THROUGH THE SPIRIT OF COMPROMISING AND CREATIVITY, I WAS ABLE TO MASSAGE AND GET A LITTLE BIT OF WHAT I WANTED.
THE UPSIDE TO THAT IS THAT WHEN I WALK OUT OF MY HOUSE, THE TREES STILL STANDING THERE, AND I GET TO WALK TO DOWNTOWN.
IT'S LIKE HAVING YOUR CAKE AND EATING IT, TOO, AND IT'S NOT ALWAYS A PERFECT WORLD WHERE WE'RE AT SOMETIMES.
BUT WE ABSOLUTELY CAN DO THAT.
IT'S NOT A SITUATION, IN MY VIEW, WHERE IT'S EITHER WE DO THIS WITH THE TREE OR WE DO THE HOUSE, WE CAN ABSOLUTELY DO BOTH.
[02:40:03]
IT WOULD SEEM LOGICAL THAT IT WAS SET UP SO THAT THE TREE WAS PROTECTED, BUT IT WAS STILL OWNED BY SOMEONE, AND THEN YOU HAD THE TWO LOTS THAT YOU COULD BUILD WITHIN EVERY CAVEAT OF THE LDC AND HAVE A NICE HOME THERE.FOUR GENERATIONS OF MY FAMILY HAVE HAVE WALKED DOWN CENTER STREET.
MY VIEWS OF WHAT THE PAST OF FERNANDINA BEACH IS AND THE PRESENT AND THE FUTURE ARE ABSOLUTE.
WHEN YOU WALK OUTSIDE OF THE DOORS HERE, IF YOU WONDER HOW GREAT THAT THE LDC IS WORKING, YOU DON'T WALK INTO PANAMA CITY BEACH OR DAYTON BEACH, YOU WALK OUT INTO FERNANDINA BEACH.
IT'S A SMALL TOWN, AND IT'S BECAUSE PEOPLE THAT HAVE GONE BEFORE US HAVE SHOWN US THROUGH THE LDC HOW TO PROTECT AND HOW TO BUILD AND WE HAVE GREAT PEOPLE THAT WERE STANDING ON THEIR SHOULDERS.
THE PEOPLE THAT WHEN THEY TORE DOWN THE KEYSTONE HOTEL AND THEY STARTED THE HISTORICAL DISTRICT, WHEN THEY PRESERVED EGANS CREEK, WHEN THEY PROTECTED FORT CLINCH.
I AM ABSOLUTELY SURE THAT WE CAN COME UP WITH A WAY THAT THE MARTINS CAN GET WHAT THEY WANT.
SURELY, IF THEY CAN PROTECT ALL OF EGANS CREEK, WE CAN PROTECT ONE TREE.
WE'RE CAPABLE OF THAT AND GETTING A NICE HOUSE THAT FITS WITHIN THE GUIDELINES OF THE LDC, THAT DOES NOT PENALIZE THEM, BUT DOES NOT PENALIZE THE NEIGHBORS OR THE NEIGHBORHOOD IF THAT MAKES SENSE. MR. CHAIR, THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, MATT. YOU ALWAYS BE OF THOSE WONDERFUL STORY.
[LAUGHTER] YOU'RE VERY GIFTED IN THAT.
>> GETTING OUT OF THE WEBINAR.
>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION FROM THE PUBLIC? ANYONE ELSE? HEARING NONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT.
[NOISE] LET'S TALK AMONGST THE BOARD HERE. WHAT ARE WE THINKING?
>> WELL, I'M VERY ENCOURAGED THAT THIS GENERAL FEELING THAT THE TREE NEEDS TO BE PROTECTED AND IT'S A BEAUTIFUL OLD TREE.
NOTHING BOTHERS ME MORE THAN TO SEE THOSE OLD BLACK AND WHITE PHOTOGRAPHS OF 19TH CENTURY LUMBERJACKS LIKE 10 PEOPLE ACROSS ON A STUMP FOR PROBABLY 1,000-YEAR-OLD TREE, WHICH WAS IDIOT GRINS ON THEIR FACES BECAUSE THEY DON'T KNOW HOW THEY'RE DOING.
THEY'VE BEEN THERE FOR 1,000 YEARS AND SOME 18-YEAR-OLD LUMBERJACK CUTS IT DOWN, IT IS WRONG.
I AGREE WITH MATT IN THAT IT WOULD BE NICE IF EVERYBODY CAN GET SOMETHING LIKE WHAT THEY WANT AND THE TREE COULD BE PROTECTED.
BUT I HAVEN'T HEARD HOW THAT HAPPENS.
>> THAT'S FOR US TO FIGURE OUT.
>> NO. UNDERSTOOD. BUT I MEANT AS FAR AS THE ULTIMATE SOLUTION TO THAT LOT.
IT'S HARD TO ESCAPE THE NOTION THAT IT IS LIKE BARELY A BUILDABLE LOT, REALLY.
>> THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY TRUE.
>> I'VE SAT ON THIS BOARD FOR ALMOST SEVEN YEARS AND I WAS A PART OF THAT PREVIOUS DECISION WHERE WE SPLIT THE LOTS AND WE KEPT THE THREE LOTS THERE INTENTIONALLY, JUST LIKE EVERYBODY HAS DISCUSSED.
WE KEPT A LOT FOR THE TREE, AND WE SAID 50/50, PROBABLY 50, AND THEN 50.
THAT PLAN SEEMS TO HAVE WORKED, BUT NOW WE'RE COMING TO SEE A 75 FOOT LOT WITH ROUGHLY 55 OR 60 FEET BEING BUILT ON IT AND THAT'S A LITTLE BIT CONCERNING.
IS IT POSSIBLE TO BUILD ON THE 50 FOOT? ABSOLUTELY. EVERYBODY ELSE IS DOING IT.
>> IT'S SO MOVING TO SIT ON THE BOARD AND HEAR DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES, AND I RESPECT EVERYONE'S.
IT'S ALL YOUR PERSONAL HOME AND YOUR LIFE.
I LIVE ON A STREET WHERE THERE'S MU1, AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE R2 OR R1, BUT LOOKING AT THE MAP, IT LOOKS LIKE, AND FORGIVE ME THE NAME.
THE MU1 LOTS, THERE'S NO FRONT SETBACK.
I THINK IT'S AMAZING THAT NEIGHBORS HAVE THOUGHT OF KEEPING CONSISTENCY THROUGHOUT THE STREET.
BUT I THINK THAT THERE'S ALSO FOR ME, AT LEAST, THAT EXPECTATION THAT IT COULD ALSO NOT BE CONSISTENT, AND I THINK THAT'S THE BEAUTY OF LIVING IN A COMMUNITY WHERE THERE'S NO HOA PER SE.
[02:45:02]
THERE'S PROS AND CONS, OF COURSE. I DON'T KNOW.PERSONALLY, I THINK WITH THE CONSTRAINTS, WITH THE TREE, AND THE MULTIPLE PLANS AND I THINK WITH THE LOCATION, I DON'T KNOW.
FOR ME, I WOULD HAVE FELT ON PIERS JUST BEING CLOSE IN PROXIMITY TO THE TO THE WATER AND STUFF.
I PERSONALLY THINK THAT MOVING THE HOUSE FORWARD, IT SEEMS LIKE A SOLUTION IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THE TREE.
PART OF THE LOT IS ON MU1 SO IT'S NOT OUT OF THE QUESTION, I GUESS, FOR ME.
>> I DON'T THINK MOVING THE HOUSE IS A SOLUTION.
IF YOU LISTENED, IT'S REALLY GOING TO CHANGE THE PERSONALITY OF THAT STREET.
>> AS I SAID, THE TREE IS ON ONE LOT.
NOW YOU HAVE TWO LOTS, TOTAL 50 BY 100 THAT YOU CAN BUILD ON.
IN FACT IF YOU WANT TO POOL, THAT'S NO HARDSHIP.
HARDSHIP IS YOUR HOUSE IS TOO BIG TO FIT ON A LOT, TO DO EVERYTHING THAT YOU WANT TO DO.
>> YOU'RE IMPOSING ON TWO OF YOUR NEIGHBORS BY PUSHING THE HOUSE UP ONTO ELM STREET, CLOSER TO ELM STREET.
IT DOESN'T WORK, THAT'S MY THINKING.
>> BUT I GUESS, DON'T YOU THINK REGARDLESS, IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT BOTTOM LIMB NEED SWEEP CUT IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE ANY STRUCTURE?
>> IT DOES, BUT I THINK THE ONLY COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT WE HAVE IS MR. MCCALL'S LETTER, WHO SAYS THAT DOES NOT HARM THE TREE, AND SO THAT LYNN'S GOING TO GO TO DO ANYTHING ON THIS PROPERTY.
BUT YOU DON'T NEED TO HAVE IT PUSHED FAR FORWARD, YOU COULD MAKE IT A SMALLER HOME.
MY VIEW, BECAUSE WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO MODIFY THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION.
AND AGAIN, I'M JUST AN ALTERNATE MEMBER AND IT DOES NOT, BECAUSE AS YOU CAN SEE HERE IN G, IT'S ONLY NECESSARY TO TAKE UNANIMOUS TO REVERSE, SO WE ONLY TAKE THE SUPERMAJORITY TO MODIFY.
>> A SIMPLE MAJORITY [OVERLAPPING]
>> SIMPLE. EVEN THAT WOULD BE TO ALLOW THE REDUCTION AND SETBACK ON THE WESTERN EDGE, BECAUSE THAT MOVES THE WHOLE HOME AND GIVES THEM AWAY FROM THE TREE, AND YOU PRETTY MUCH DO NEED TO HAVE ROOM OVER THERE.
BUT TO MODIFY THAT, TO FIND THAT THERE'S THE NEED TO GIVE THE SETBACK REDUCTION TO THE FRONT AND THE REAR IS NOT SUPPORTED BECAUSE THEY COULD.
OBVIOUSLY, WITH THIS PARTICULAR DESIGN, IT MAY BE NEEDED BUT JUST WE CAN.
DESPITE ALL THE EFFORTS THAT HE'S ALREADY WORKED WITH ARCHITECTS, I'M SURE AN ARCHITECT COULD COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT COULD GIVE THEM MOST, IF NOT ALL THE FEATURES THAT THEY WANT WITH KEEPING THE FRONT AND REAR SETBACKS.
AND THAT WAY, WE'RE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMP PLAN ABOUT PRESERVING CHARACTER OF NEIGHBORHOOD, CONSISTENCY OF NEIGHBORHOOD AND SIDE LINES, AS WELL AS PROTECTING TREES.
>> AND THE SETBACK, THE ONE NEIGHBOR SAID HE COULD HAVE MORE OF, AND HE COULD HAVE LESS OF A SETBACK AND GIVE THEM MORE PROPERTY.
DID I HEAR THAT RIGHT? ONE OF THE TWO NEIGHBORS SAID THAT THEY WOULD GIVE HIM
[02:50:04]
A LITTLE MORE PROPERTY WITH THE SETBACK THAT THEY HAD REDUCED THE SETBACK? I THINK WE HAD GIVEN, SIR.I SAID THAT WE DIDN'T ARGUE WITH THE FIVE FOOT ON THE WEST SIDE BECAUSE IT THE WHOLE STRUCTURE THE TREE.
AS MS. DAVIS SAID [OVERLAPPING]
>> SO THAT'S WHY WE, AGAIN, MODIFY IT SO THEY DO THAT AFFIRM THAT PART OF THE STAFF DECISION.
BUT MODIFY IT SO THAT THE STAFF DECISION THAT GRANTED A REDUCTION IN THE SETBACK FOR THE REAR AND THE FRONT IS NOT GIVEN.
IN FACT, IN MY VIEW, I FEEL LIKE ESPECIALLY WITH THE REAR, WE'RE USING THE TREATY ADMINISTRATIVE WAIVER PROCESS TO BOOTSTRAP INTO ADDITIONAL VARIANCES BECAUSE EVEN MR. NEVILLE SAID, THAT REALLY DIDN'T MAKE MUCH DIFFERENCE.
AND I DON'T LIKE USING ONE PART OF THE LDC TO BOOTSTRAP AND DO MORE.
I THINK THAT ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU'RE TALKING WAIVERS AND VARIANCES, THEY SHOULD BE AS NARROW AS POSSIBLE.
>> WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE REALLY LESS OF THAT HUGE LIN CUT OFF.
I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH YOU COULD LEAVE AND STILL BUILD WHAT YOU WANT TO, BUT IT JUST SEEMS TAKING THAT THING OFF IS GOING TO KILL THE TREE BECAUSE THAT'S ALMOST AS BIG AS THE TREE. YOU LOOK AT IT.
I THINK IF SOMETHING COULD BE DONE ABOUT THAT AND YOU COULD SOMEHOW MODIFY YOUR NEIGHBORS BY NOT BRINGING IT SO MUCH UP TO ELM STREET, AND GOING BACK A LITTLE BIT.
SO THEY'D STILL HAVE SOME KIND OF SITE VIEW THAT THOSE TWO THINGS WOULD SEEM TO MAKE IT POSSIBLE TO BUILD A HOUSE AND HAVE HAPPY HOOK, ANYTHING?
>> WELL, YOU KNOW, IT'S CONFUSING, IT'S COMPLICATED BECAUSE REVERSING STAFF'S DECISION TO ALLOW THE TEN FOOT SETBACK DOESN'T REALLY PROTECT THE TREE.
ESPECIALLY AS THE SIZE OF THE FOOTPRINT OF THE HOUSE GETS BIGGER, THE TREE IS STILL IMPERILED.
I SHOULDN'T SAY I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE GARAGE, BUT I DON'T THINK THE GARAGE IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THAT TREE.
I THINK THAT THE SETBACK IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THAT TREE.
SO WE'RE LIKE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SETBACK, BUT AND I KNOW THAT'S THE ISSUE THAT'S AT HAND, SO IT'S NO POINT IN COMPLAINING ABOUT IT, BUT I'LL DO IT ANYWAY.
IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE LIKE WHAT EVERYBODY CARES ABOUT IN THIS ROOM IS WHAT TO DO ABOUT TAKING CARE OF THAT TREE, AND THAT'S THE TASK THAT WE THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US.
I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A PROBLEM WITH THAT.
I THINK THAT THE OWNER CERTAINLY WAS AWARE OF THE FACT THAT HE WAS HE WAS WALKING INTO A HARNET'S NEST.
MAYBE NOT AS BIG AS ONE AS HE HE'S SITTING IN TODAY.
BUT IT'S ALSO ON THE OWNER [INAUDIBLE] CAME UP BEFORE AND I FORGET WHO IT WAS, AND SAID THAT HE BUILT THEY BOUGHT MANY LOTS OVER THE YEARS AND NEVER ASKED FOR A VARIANCE AND BECAUSE YOU GO IN AND YOU SAY, THIS IS THE A LOT.
THIS IS WHAT I'M GOING TO DO WITH IT. IS IT ALLOWED? YES. LET'S MOVE FORWARD.
I DON'T KNOW THAT I WOULD HAVE, ESPECIALLY IF AND I RESPECT THE FACT THAT YOU FELL IN LOVE WITH THE TREE, AND THAT'S WHY IN PART, WHY OR MAYBE THE REASON THAT YOU BOUGHT THAT LOT, BUT YOU HAD TO KNOW THAT YOU'RE WALKING INTO A BUNCH OF TROUBLE AND HERE IT IS.
I THINK THAT STAFF DID A GOOD JOB OF TRYING TO MODERATE THAT TROUBLE A LITTLE BIT OR REMEDIATE OR AMELIORATED SOMETHING.
APPARENTLY I UNDERSTAND YOU DON'T THINK A 2,000 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE IS PARTICULARLY LARGE.
BUT IF THE BUILDING SITE IS LARGER THAN THE OTHER HOMES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND IT'S ON A SITE WHERE'S THERE'S A HERITAGE TREE THAT ABSOLUTELY SHOULD BE PROTECTED, THEN THAT JUST MAKES IT HARDER TO WORK THE WHOLE THING OUT.
I KNOW I'M ONLY DETAILING WHAT WE'RE ALL LOOKING AT HERE, BUT THAT'S ALL I HAD TO SAY.
>> I DO HAVE A QUESTION WITH THE WESTERNS NUMBER 14 THAT WAS COMBINED WITH THE 15 AND 16,
[02:55:07]
THAT ONE HAS IF IT WAS JUST THAT LOT BEING MU1.I KNOW IT'S R2 ZONING BECAUSE IT'S BEEN COMBINED.
BUT I GUESS WHAT I'M WONDERING IS, WHY THAT ONE DOESN'T HAVE A SIDE SETBACK.
IT'S A ZERO. THERE'S NO SIDE SETBACK AND MU1, I BELIEVE.
>> I KNOW. I'M JUST SAYING LIKE JUST ISOLATING THAT LOT, I WONDER WHY [OVERLAPPING].
>> NO, I KNOW. I'M JUST TRYING [OVERLAPPING].
>> CORRECT. I'M JUST TRYING TO EXPLAIN.
>> ON MU LOTS JUST GENERALLY, YOU CAN BUILD AT A ZERO SIDE YARD SETBACK SO LONG AS YOU HAVE A 10 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK ON THE OTHER SIDE, OR YOU HAVE ACCESS FROM AN ALLEY TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY.
IN THAT CASE, YOU COULD BUILD TO ZERO SETBACKS IN MU1 IF THERE IS AN ALLEY ACCESS TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY.
BUT OTHERWISE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A SET 10 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK ON ONE SIDE.
THE PROPERTY LOCATED JUST TO THE REAR OF THIS SITE IS MU1.
YOU'LL NOTICE THAT THEY HAVE A VERY NARROW SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR THAT VERY REASON.
>> I GUESS ALL I WAS JUST TRYING TO SAY IS IF THE IDEA IS TO SAVE THE TREE AND NOT CUT AS MUCH, BACK IS WHY WASN'T IT MOVED EVEN FURTHER WEST AND NOT AS FAR TO THE FRONT OF THE LOT BECAUSE IT WOULD BE YOU HAVE THE TEN FOOT AND I GUESS IT'S JUST A QUESTION OF THE FOOT STATE.
I KNOW IT'S R2 BECAUSE OF THE TWO LOTS SUPERSEDING.
>> THE LIMITATION OF THIS ADMINISTRATIVE WAIVER DAVIDVILL IS IT CAN'T GO CLOSER THAN FIVE FEET.
THAT'S PART OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE WAIVER.
YOU CAN'T BUILD TO THE LOT LINE.
FOR ONE THING, BECAUSE IT'S R2.
IT REDUCES THE SETBACK TO FIVE FEET, NO CLOSER BECAUSE OF THE WAY THIS ADMINISTRATIVE WAIVER IS WRITTEN.
>> TAMMY, AS AN ALTERNATE MEMBER INSTEAD OF A VOTING MEMBER, AM I ALLOWED TO MAKE MOTIONS?
THAT'S WHY I DIDN'T SPEAK UP EARLIER.
>> WE HAVE ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO MAKE A MOTION? IS THERE ANY MORE BOARD DISCUSSION?
>> DO WE FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO CALL ANY MORE WITNESSES BACK TO HAVE ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION?
>> TAMMY, LET ME ASK A QUESTION.
IF WE WERE TO VOTE TO AGREE WITH THE APPEAL.
WHAT WOULD BE THEIR NEXT STEP? COULD THEY COME BACK WITH A DIFFERENT PLAN?
>> STAFF IS ALWAYS READY AND WAITING TO ACCEPT APPLICATIONS AND ANALYZE THEM, SO YES.
>> IF THEY COULD SOMEHOW HAVE MORE CONCERN FOR THE TREE AND I GUESS LESS FOR THEIR NEIGHBORS ON EITHER SIDE IN THE VIEW LINE, THAT MAYBE WE WOULD NOT HAVE A UNANIMOUS VOTE AGAINST OR FOR THE APPEAL, ANOTHER ONE.
>> IF YOU'RE GRANTING THE APPEAL, FIVE OUT OF FIVE UNANIMOUS VOTES REQUIRED.
FOR MODIFYING IT, IN OTHER WORDS, ALLOWING FOR SOME WAIVER FROM THE CODE REQUIREMENTS.
BUT I DON'T SORT OF AN IN BETWEEN OR WHATEVER.
THE MODIFICATION IS GOING TO REQUIRE THREE OF YOU.
>> I'M NOT SURE WE KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THE DIFFERENT SITES.
ONE'S A COMMERCIAL SITE, THERE'S SO MANY THINGS INVOLVED IN THIS.
>> THE WHOLE THING ABOUT THIS BUILDING SITE AND THESE THE THREE LOTS THAT WERE OUT THERE BEFORE, THE 325 FOOT LOTS, THEY ARE ALL GOING TO BE TREATED AS R2 ZONED.
DON'T WORRY ABOUT, I THINK THAT THE THAT MISS POWERS WAS MAKING IS MAYBE ON THE OTHER SIDE ON THE WEST SIDE, THOSE LOTS ARE ZONED MU1 AND THAT THOSE WILL HAVE ALTERNATE SETBACKS FROM THE R2 THAT'S DOWN THE STREET.
IF YOU'RE STANDING ON THIRD STREET, LOOKING TO THE EAST, YOU'RE GOING TO SEE POTENTIALLY WHEN THOSE MU1 PROPERTIES DEVELOP,
[03:00:03]
THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE SETBACK 25 FEET NECESSARILY.>> THE PROPERTIES EITHER SIDE COULD HAVE BUILT RIGHT UP TO THE SAME FRONT LINE.
CAN YOU PUT THAT PICTURE BACK UP? I'M SORRY OF THIS.
>> THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, THE MARS PROPERTY.
BUT BECAUSE THIS IS R2 IS THE YELLOW, M1 ZONING IS THE PEAK.
BECAUSE WHENEVER WE HAVE A PROVISION IN OUR CODE THAT SAYS THAT IF YOU OWN A PARCEL LIKE THIS AND AND YOU GOT MORE THAN ONE ZONING CATEGORY, WHICHEVER IS MORE IS WHAT IS GOING TO BE APPLIED TO RES FIVE.
SO ON THIS ENTIRE BUILDING SITE, INCLUDING WITH REGARD TO SETBACKS R2 ZONING AND [INAUDIBLE] I THINK WHAT MISS POWERS WAS SAYING, SHE CAN YELL AT ME IF NOT, IS THAT WHEN THESE DEVELOP, THEY DO NOT HAVE TO DEVELOP NECESSARILY AT A 25 FOOT SETBACK.
I THINK SHE WAS JUST TRYING TO MAKE THE POINT THAT ISN'T HAVE A SETBACK.
THESE MAY MATCH THAT AND THEN THE ARGUMENT ABOUT 15 LINES [OVERLAPPING]
>> THERE'S ALREADY PROPERTY ON 12 AND 13.
>> I'M NOT ARGUING. I'M NOT ADVOCATING ANY POSITION.
>> I'M JUST SAYING THAT THERE'S ALREADY HOMES ON THOSE PROPERTIES, AND THEY DO HAVE ZERO [OVERLAPPING] I'M JUST SAYING [INAUDIBLE] OTHERWISE, DIFFERENT WAS TRYING TO MAKE A POINT.
I WAS JUST ARTICULATING MIRRORING WHAT THAT IS.
THAT'S IT. I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE PROPERTIES BUILT THERE.
>> THERE'S PROPERTIES BUILT ON 13 [OVERLAPPING] 10 I STILL [OVERLAPPING]
>> THANK YOU. YES. FOR THE REMAINDER, IF WE'RE GOING TO TALK.
LET'S TALK INTO THE MICROPHONE.
POOR ANNE THOMAS SHE COULDN'T HEAR A THING.
I CAN'T HEAR REALLY THAT MUCH EITHER, AND IT'S NOBODY'S FAULT.
WE DON'T HAVE THE GREATEST SOUND SYSTEM, BUT IF YOU GET CLOSE TO YOUR MICROPHONE.
BUT YOU GUYS MAY NEED ONE. CHAIR PAPKE.
IF YOU GET CLOSE WITHIN ABOUT 6" OF THE MICROPHONE, IT REALLY WORKS WELL.
MAYBE WHAT WE NEED IS TO EXTEND THE MICROPHONE, SO YOU GUYS DON'T FEEL LIKE YOU'RE [OVERLAPPING]
>> IF I MAY, ON THE POINT OF SETBACKS IN CONTROLLING SETBACKS FOR MU1.
THERE IS THAT CORNER LOT, WHICH DOES REMAIN OPEN THAT HAS THAT POTENTIAL.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY DECIDE TO DO, OR THE OWNERS DECIDE TO DO OF DEVELOPING CONSISTENT WITH THE MU1 ALLOWANCE THAT COULD ALLOW THEM TO MOVE FURTHER FORWARD.
ADDITIONALLY, ON THE LOT 307, ALTHOUGH CURRENTLY CONSTRUCTED AT 23 FEET, A FUTURE OWNER COULD MAKE REQUESTS TO HAVE AN ADDITION TO THE STRUCTURE THAT WOULD GO FURTHER FORWARD AS WELL.
IT'S JUST THEY HAVE A SMALLER FOOTPRINT RIGHT NOW.
IT DOESN'T PREVENT IT FROM MAKING THE REQUEST IN THE FUTURE.
>> I KNOW DAVE WANTED TO MAKE ONE MORE POINT.
I DON'T KNOW IF THE BOARD WISHES TO HEAR FROM HIM.
>> MR. BARRY BROUGHT UP WHAT COULD HAPPEN IF THIS IS NOT GRANTED.
THIS WAS ALL VOLUNTARY FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER TO GO FORWARD WITH THIS ADMINISTRATIVE WAIVER TO MOVE INTO THE SETBACKS.
HE COULD ACTUALLY BUILD CLOSE TO THAT HERITAGE TREE.
THIS WAS A VOLUNTARY THING FOR HIM TO TRY AND MOVE AWAY FROM THAT.
HE COULD ACTUALLY WITHOUT DAMAGING THE TREE, BUILD STILL, JUST NOT INTO THE SETBACKS AND REMOVE THAT LIMB AND BUILD HIS POOL AS LONG AS IT ALL FIT ON THERE.
BUT THIS WOULD ALLOW HIM TO MOVE AWAY FROM THE TREE.
BUT IT'S STILL HIS PROPERTY, HE'S STILL ALLOWED TO BUILD.
THE HERITAGE TREE IS STILL PROTECTED BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT BECAUSE THAT LIMB IS REMOVED, THE HERITAGE TREE IS NO LONGER PROTECTED.
I'M NOT AN ARCHITECT OR ANYTHING, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU WOULD BUILD EVEN ON THE FAR SIDE WITHOUT REMOVING THAT LIMB.
LIMBS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE REMOVED NEAR A JUNCTURE THEREFORE, YOU WOULD HAVE TO REMOVE IT CLOSE TO THE TRUNK OF THE TREE, NOT ON THE TRUNK OF THE TREE, IF THAT WAS BROUGHT UP EARLIER, IT'S NOT ON THE TRUNK OF THE TREE, IT'S ACTUALLY OUT A BIT.
BUT YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO REMOVE LIMBS AT A JUNCTURE.
YOU DON'T WANT TO JUST KNOB IT OFF 10 FEET OFF OR 20 FEET OFF OF THE TREE.
I DON'T KNOW IF ANY OTHER JUNCTURE ON THAT BRANCH THAT SO THAT BRANCH WOULD
[03:05:03]
BE REMOVED POTENTIALLY REGARDLESS.>> I'M LOOKING AT THE JUNCTURE.
DID YOU SAY BEFORE THOUGH THAT RIGHT NOW THEY CAN JUST GO UP TO FIVE FEET AROUND THE TREE, AND THAT'S PERMISSIBLE? DID YOU THINK THAT'S GOING TO KEEP THE TREE ALIVE?
>> THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO PROTECT THE HERITAGE TREE?
>> HOW ARE THEY GOING TO KEEP IT ALIVE IF THEY BUILD RIGHT UP TO FIVE FEET FROM IT?
>> CORRECT. BUT THEY WOULD CROSS THAT BRIDGE WHEN THEY GET THERE.
>> CORRECT. THEY COULD POTENTIALLY KILL THE TREE IF THEY WENT WITHIN FIVE FEET, THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO STAY OFF AND GO BY MR. EARLY MCCALL'S RECOMMENDATIONS, BUT MR. EARLY MCCALL'S RECOMMENDATIONS DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT SETBACKS.
IT SAID TO STAY WHERE TO PUT THE HOUSE, IT WAS WRITTEN ACTUALLY BEFORE THEY HAD THESE SET OF PLANS ON HOW TO DO IT.
THE HOMEOWNER OR THE PROPERTY OWNER WENT WITH WHAT EARLY MCCALL SAID AND CAME UP WITH THESE PLANTS.
WITHOUT THIS ADMINISTRATIVE WAIVER IT'S FINE, BUT THEN THERE'S STILL GOING TO BE DEVELOPMENT ON THAT LAND EITHER BY THESE OR IF THEY SELL IT IN THE FUTURE, IT IS POTENTIAL.
>> BUT THERE ARE EXTENSIVE PROVISIONS IN THE LDC CODE FOR TREE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS, AND SPECIFICALLY FOR HERITAGE TREE.
I DON'T WANT TO BE SCARING ANYONE.
>> I DON'T WANT TO SCARE ANYBODY EITHER.
>> THEY'RE GOING RIGHT THERE AND THEY'RE GOING TO KILL THE TREE. THEY CAN'T.
THAT'S IN VIOLATION OF A BUNCH OF PROVISIONS OF LDC.
>> THAT IS CORRECT. IT'S JUST THE QUESTION WAS BROUGHT UP IF THIS WASN'T ALLOWED, WHAT COULD HAPPEN? THEY COULD ACTUALLY CONTINUE TO BUILD AND REMOVE THAT LIMB.
THIS WAS THEIR VOLUNTARY TO TRY AND MOVE THE HOUSE OR I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEIR IDEAS WERE, BUT THAT'S WHAT THEY USED TO DO THAT WITH PUTTING IT AWAY FROM THE TREE.
BUT REGARDLESS, THAT THE LIMB IS A LARGE LIMB AND IT WOULD BE SAD TO SEE THAT LIMB BE REMOVED BECAUSE IT WOULD CHANGE THE BEAUTY OF THAT TREE.
ABOVE THE LIMBS THAT ARE BEING REMOVED, THERE'S STILL CANOPY AND I THINK THAT WAS NOT BROUGHT UP EARLIER WITH THE HOUSE BEING UNDERNEATH THE CANOPY.
I THINK IT WAS BROUGHT UP WHY CAN'T YOU BUILD UNDERNEATH THAT LARGE LIMB.
ONE DAY, IF A HOUSE IS BUILT ON UNDER THAT LIMB, MOST LIKELY WOULD BE REMOVED JUST TO ACCOMMODATE A HOUSE ON THAT PLOT.
I'M NOT TRYING TO SWAY YOU EITHER WAY, I'M JUST LETTING YOU KNOW THAT THE QUESTION WAS BROUGHT UP, WHAT COULD HAPPEN.
>> ANY OTHER DELIBERATION? DO WE HAVE A MOTION FROM SOMEBODY?
>> I WOULD MAKE ONE, BUT I'M NOT ALLOWED.
>> YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO MAKE ONE EITHER.
>> YOU CAN SUGGEST ONE, MARGARET, AND THEN SOMEBODY ELSE HAS TO ARTICULATE IT.
BUT YOU CAN SAY THIS IS WHAT I WOULD DO.
THAT'S PART OF YOUR DISCUSSION.
>> WELL I THINK THERE ARE TWO WAYS TO GO HERE, AND WE CAN FIRST MAKE FINDINGS OF FACT REGARDING TO THE COMP PLAN PROVISIONS THAT DEAL WITH AIR AND LIGHT AND COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND PRESERVING TREES, AS WELL AS THE RELATIVE LDC PROVISIONS, SO YOU CAN EITHER MOVE TO REVERSE THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION.
THE OTHER WAY TO GO AS I SAID EARLIER, IS TO MODIFY STILL MAKING THOSE FINDINGS OF FACT AND SAY SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF A MOVE TO MODIFY THE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION TO APPROVE ONLY THE REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED WEST SIDE YARD SETBACK TO FIVE FEET TO RETAIN THE HERITAGE TREE.
BUT DENY ANY REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED SET BACK FOR REAR AND FRONT YARDS BASED ON THE COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE BECAUSE WE WOULD FIND THAT THE STAFF PROPERLY APPLIED LDC 100301C WITH RESPECT TO GRANTING THE SETBACK REDUCTION FOR THE WEST SIDE, BUT ALSO FIND THAT THE REDUCTION IN THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR THE FRONT AND REAR YARDS IS UNNECESSARY TO PROTECT THE TREE.
THAT WOULD BE WHAT WOULD BE MY SUGGESTION IF I WERE A MEMBER.
>> IF SOMEBODY DOESN'T WANT TO REPEAT THAT, YOU CAN SAY SO MOVED.
>> WELL, I SAID FIRST, YOU COULD GO FOR A FULL REJECTION, AND THEN I GAVE MORE DETAIL ON GOING WITH A MODIFICATION.
[03:10:03]
>> I WOULD NOT ALLOW THE REAR SETBACK OR THE FRONT SETBACK.
ONLY THE WEST SIDE SO THAT THEY COULD MOVE THE HOUSE FURTHER AWAY FROM THE TREE.
BUT AS FAR AS THE FRONT AND THE BACK GOES THEY NEED TO STAY WITHIN THAT AND JUST HAVE A SMALLER FOOTPRINT.
>> I THINK THAT KELLY'S QUESTION IS WHY WOULD YOU INCLUDE THE REAR SETBACK SINCE THERE IS [OVERLAPPING]
>> BECAUSE THE ADMINISTRATIVE WAIVER THAT WAS APPROVED GRANTED A REDUCTION IN THE REAR SETBACK.
>> BUT WHY ARE YOU OPPOSED TO THAT CHANGING TOO, IN ADDITION TO THE FRONT SETBACK, THAT WAS MY QUESTION.
>> WELL, ON THAT ONE, I THINK THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE TREE AND IT IS IN LEGAL TALK, ACTUALLY, AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN APPLYING THE ADMINISTRATIVE WAIVER PROVISION FOR IT.
>> I WOULD BE REDUCING IT FROM 25-5 SO IT'S PRETTY SIGNIFICANT.
>> TWENTY FIVE IN THE FRONT, 20 BACK.
>> TWENTY FROM THE REAR DOWN TO FIVE FEET.
>> I WANT TO CLARIFY SOMETHING.
MAY I OFFER THE BOARD BECAUSE THIS HAS BEEN ON MY MIND.
YOU MAY ALL BE CLEAR ON IT, BUT I DON'T THINK EVERYBODY ELSE IS.
WITH REGARD TO THE POOL IN THE BACK AND SETBACKS, A POOL, THE EDGE OF THE POOL, OBVIOUSLY, DOES NOT HAVE TO BE 20 FEET AWAY FROM SETBACK IS FOR THE HOME ITSELF.
POOLS ARE WITHIN THE SETBACK FROM THE MAIN BUILDING.
WE HAVE A SEPARATE SETBACK FROM THE EDGE OF THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE WATER.
>> THAT'S A LITTLE LESS THAN THAT NOW TO KEEP IN LINE.
WE JUST MODIFIED THAT RECENTLY, BUT DOES EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE?
>> THAT'S WHY WE WENT FROM 7.5-5.
>> THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO MAKE CLEAR, IS THAT THE 20 FOOT SETBACK WAS NOT REDUCED MAJORLY DOWN TO FIVE, THE SETBACK FOR WHERE THE POOL IS PLANNED WAS REDUCED BY 2.5 FEET.
>> THAT'S WHY I HAD THE DISCUSSION WITH MR. NEVILLE ABOUT THAT 2.5 FEET AND YOU SAID THAT REALLY DIDN'T ADD MUCH PROTECTION.
I DON'T THINK IT'S A GOOD POLICY TO USE THE ADMINISTRATIVE WAIVER TO BE BROADER THAN IS NECESSARY SO THAT'S WHY.
WOULD MODIFY SO THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE WAIVER ONLY GRANTED THE WEST SIDE REDUCTION.
>> JUST TO SUPPORT WHAT MISS BOX SAID EARLIER.
SHE REPHRASES IT IN A WAY THAT MAKES A MOTION, YOU'RE WILLING TO ACCEPT THAT, YOU CAN SAY SO MOVED, AND YOU CAN INITIATE THE MOTION THAT WAY.
SHE HAS TO STATE IT IN A WAY WHERE IT'S NOT COMPLICATED AND IT'S NOT [LAUGHTER].
>> OH, I DON'T KNOW IF WHAT I'M DOING IS NOT COMPLICATED.
>> BUT IF NO ONE IS ELSE IS VOLUNTEERING A MOTION, THEN OUR NON VOTING MEMBER IS MAKING A MOTION.
>> WELL, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO STAY THE ENTIRE MATTER, EXCEPT THAT I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE WOULD LEARN IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS, WHATEVER INTERVAL WOULD PASS BEFORE IT CAME BEFORE US AGAIN.
I'M NOT SURE WHAT WE WOULD LEARN THAT WOULD REALLY DRAMATICALLY CHANGE THE SITUATION SO I WON'T DO IT.
>> BASICALLY TO PUT THE PROPERTY OWNER TO DEMONSTRATE. YOU WANT TO TAKE ANOTHER SWIPE?
>> I WILL TRY AND LET ME BE CLEAR, ONE OF THE REASONS I WANTED TO SPECIFY SOME OF THE PARTICULAR PROVISIONS OF THE COMP PLAN IN THE LDC IS IN CASE THIS IS APPEALED.
IF I WERE A VOTING MEMBER, I WOULD MOVE TO MODIFY THE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT HAS A NUMBER. I'M SORRY.
AFTER ALL, I DIDN'T THINK I COULD MAKE A MOTION, BUT ANYWAY.
I WOULD MOVE TO MODIFY THE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION TO APPROVE ONLY THE REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED 7.5 FOOT WEST SIDE YARD SETBACK TO FIVE FEET IN ORDER TO RETAIN A CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH
[03:15:06]
HERITAGE TREE AND FURTHER DENY ANY REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED SETBACK FOR THE REAR AND FRONT YARDS.FURTHERMORE, I MOVE THAT WE MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PART OF THE RECORD.
THAT WE INCORPORATE REFERENCES TO COMP PLAN 1.02.10, 103.01 AND 5.11.03, 5.1109, 51110 AND LDC PROVISIONS 1.00.01, 4.00.01, 4.00.03.
THAT'S THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
4.05.14 ON TREE PROTECTION, 4.05.15 ON HERITAGE TREE PROVISIONS AND 10.03.01C.
THE BOARD FINDS THAT BASED ON COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, THE STAFF PROPERLY APPLIED LDC 10.03.01C WITH RESPECT TO GRANTING THE SETBACK REDUCTION FOR THE WEST SIDE YARD.
IN ADDITION, THE BOA FINDS THAT A REDUCTION IN THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR THE FRONT AND REAR YARDS IS UNNECESSARY TO PROTECT THE TREE.
>> CAN I SUPPLEMENT THAT, KELLY? IS IT 2024-18 OR IS IT WHAT THAT SAYS, WHICH IS 001? THE AGENDA PACKAGE SAYS 18.
>> THE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION IS 01, THE CONTEXT SENSITIVE OR THE TREE PROTECTION SETBACK ADJUSTMENT IS UNDER 18.
>> WE JUST GOT SUBMISSION 14883.
IT'S WHAT THE SUBMISSION YOU HAVE ON THIS.
>> IF WE'RE MODIFYING THE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION.
>> YOU SAID YOU'RE MODIFYING 2024-0018.
>> OKAY. NOW, SOMEONE NEEDS TO MAKE A MOTION.
>> SHE MADE A SUGGESTION MOTION.
SOMEBODY CAN SAY SO MOVED AND WE CAN START THE VOTING PROCESS. ONLY A SECOND, THOUGH.
>> WE HAVE ACTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> WE HAVE A SECOND. CAN WE CALL THE VOTE.
>> YES. WE HAVE PASSED UNANIMOUSLY TO MODIFY THE ACTION TO REDUCE DOWN TO FIVE FEET ON THE LEFT SIDE AND NOTHING ON THE FRONT AND THE BACK OF THE SETBACKS.
IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE HERITAGE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.
ANY FURTHER ACTIONS FROM THE BOARD? ANY ADDITIONAL BOARD BUSINESS?
[6. BOARD BUSINESS]
THANK YOU ALL FOR EVERYBODY'S CONTRIBUTIONS.WE HAVE A FEW MORE THINGS HERE ON THE BOARD TO HANDLE.
THERE'S A STAFF REPORT. IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO?
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD?
>> JUST THAT BARRY AND I ATTENDED A PLANNING SEMINAR AND WE LEARNED QUITE A BIT ABOUT VARIANCES AND BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS IN THE FLORIDA LAW FOR ADJUSTING THEM SO IT WAS VERY BENEFICIAL.
>> VERY GOOD SO WE WANT TO RAISES.
>> WITH THAT, KELLY, THERE IS STILL ACTIONS? MISS BACH, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD?
>> ALL RIGHT. WE'LL ADJOURN.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.