[00:00:01] >> SINCE WE'RE ALL HERE, CALL TO ORDER THE MAY, [1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL / DETERMINATION OF QUORUM] 2025, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS MEETING. WELCOME, EVERYBODY. SORRY I WAS A FEW MINUTES LATE. CALL TO THE ORDER. IS THERE ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS UP FRONT? I KNOW WE HAVE SOME NEW BOARD MEMBERS SITTING HERE TODAY, BUT BEFORE WE GET GOING WITH THAT, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND DO THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. IF YOU CAN STAY WITH ME, PLEASE. >> >> THANK YOU. CAN YOU CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE? >> MEMBER WOLFORD. >> HERE. >> MEMBER THOMAS. >> HERE. >> MEMBER CHRISTNER. >> HERE. >> MEMBER KREGER. >> HERE. >> MEMBER DAVIS. >> HERE. >> MEMBER HERTSLET. >> HERE. >> CHAIR PAPKE. >> HERE. CAN WE GO AHEAD AND SEAT THE ALTERNATES? WE HAVE EVERYBODY, SO WE DON'T EVEN NEED TO SEAT THE ALTERNATES TODAY.1, 02, 3, 4, 5. NO, WE DON'T. OUR ALTERNATES, WELCOME TO THE BOARD. YOU'RE KIM? >> NO, I', ANNE. >> KIM IS DOWN THERE. >> KIM, I'M SORRY. I'M BACKWARD. APOLOGIES. HAS THERE BEEN ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS ON THIS CASE? >> NO. >> ANYTHING FROM THAT SIDE. HEARING NONE, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND KEEP PROCEEDING. HARRISON, WILL YOU GIVE US THE LAY OF THE LAND HERE, PLEASE, SIR? >> SURE. WE HAVE ONE ITEM ON THE AGENDA FOR DETERMINATION BE GOVERNED BY OUR QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEDURES. THAT MEANS THAT THE DECISION TO BE SUPPORTED BY CONFIDENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, AND THAT EVIDENCE CAN BE PRESENTED IN THE FORM OF TESTIMONY OR OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, SUCH AS, PLANS, PHOTOGRAPHS, THINGS OF THAT NATURE. ANY PARTY THAT DISAGREES WITH THE OUTCOME WILL HAVE A RIGHT TO APPEAL THAT, AND THAT APPEAL WILL BE FILED TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR NASSAU COUNTY, AND THAT MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE ORDER OF THE BOARD, AND THAT BECOMES EFFECTIVE UPON IT BEING SIGNED BY THE CHAIR. I WILL JUST REMIND THE BOARD THAT BECAUSE IT IS A VARIANCE THAT IS BEING HEARD THIS EVENING, THAT ANY MOTION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE SHOULD INCLUDE SOME FACTUAL SUPPORT ON HOW IT MEETS THE SIX CRITERIA FOR A VARIANCE. A MOTION TO DENY, ON THE OTHER HAND, CAN RELY ON OTHER ITEMS. YOU CAN SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFY THOSE. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE FOR ALL SIX CRITERIA. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE EX PARTE PROCEDURES IN EFFECT FOR TONIGHT'S HEARING? SEEING NONE. >> THANK YOU. LET'S GO OVER THE OLD BUSINESS MEETING MINUTES. [3. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES] DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY REVIEW OF THE COMMENTS? BARRY, YOU'RE ALWAYS GET AT PICKING UP SPELLING ERRORS. >> SINCE I HAD FIVE MONTHS TO DO IT, I DIDN'T FIND ANY. >> I DID. >> GREAT. >> THE MEETINGS FOR DECEMBER 24, NOT 25. >> I SAW THAT ONE. >> A FORMER COURT REPORTER. I WILL FIND EVERY ERROR THERE. >> WE GOT ANOTHER ONE.. >> [OVERLAPPING] UNBELIEVABLE. I MISSED THAT ONE MYSELF. >> I THOUGHT IT WAS JUST ON THE AGENDA. I DIDN'T REALIZE IT WAS ON THE MINUTES TOO. >> [OVERLAPPING] I NOTICE EVERYTHING. >> THAT'S A GOOD THING. EXCELLENT. WELCOME. THAT'S A GOOD THING. >> I WAS GOING TO SAY I'LL MOVE TO ADOPT THE MINUTES WITH THAT CHANGE. >> WHERE IS THAT IN THERE? I DON'T EVEN SEE IT. GOT IT. >> I SECOND IT. >> WE HAVE A FIRST AND A SECOND. NO NEED TO VOTE ON THAT. >> DO WHAT? >> DO WE NEED A VOTE ON THAT. >> I THINK YOU CAN ALL JUST TAKE A COLLECTIVE VOICE VOTE IF YOU-ALL AGREE. .> ALL IN FAVOR? >> AYE. >> ANY OBJECTIONS? HEARING NONE, IT PASSES. BEGIN WITH A NEW BUSINESS. LET'S SEE HERE. STAFF, ARE YOU READY TO GO AHEAD AND PRESENT? >> I THINK WE NEED TO SWEAR IN. >> I APOLOGIZE. I SKIPPED RIGHT OVER THAT. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK? IF YOU DO, THEN PLEASE STAND. TAKE THE OATH. >> RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. 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. COOL. >> JUST FOR MY OWN CLARIFICATION, THIS IS A NEW FORM. I HAVE YET TO SEE ANYBODY FILL THIS OUT PREVIOUSLY. THIS IS A CITIZENS THREE-MINUTE TIME LIMIT. >> THAT'S UP TO YOU IF YOU WANT TO FOLLOW THAT? >> I HAVE NOT SEEN THAT BEFORE IN THE PAST. ARE WE GOING TO ENFORCE THIS? [00:05:03] >> WE DON'T HAVE TO, NO. >> I DON'T KNOW HOW TO WORK [INAUDIBLE]. >> FAIR ENOUGH. >> I CAN GET THAT CHANGED BY THE MEETING. >> I THOUGHT PEOPLE HAD UNLIMITED TIME. >> I THOUGHT SO TOO. >> EXACTLY. I'VE NEVER SEEN THIS BEFORE. >> [OVERLAPPING] IT MIGHT HAVE JUST BEEN A TEMPLATE. >> BUT THIS IS QUASI-JUDICIAL. >> THERE'S NO LIMITS, NOT UNLESS WE FIND A REASON TO IMPOSE ONE NOW. >> [OVERLAPPING] I'M PRETTY SURE THE BOARD IN THE LDC IT'S NOT LIMITED FOR QUASI-JUDICIAL. >> IN QUASI-JUDICIAL? >> WITHIN REASON. >> IF THEY'RE AN AFFECTED PARTY, YEAH. >> IT'S UP TO THE CHAIR TO DETERMINE WHAT INSTRUCTIONS TO PUT IN. >> FAIR ENOUGH. WE'LL JUST PROCEED AS NORMAL. >> READY? >> GO AHEAD. [5.1 BOA2025-0001 - STEPHANIE LAGOS, MCG HOMES, AGENT FOR SAMUEL ALEXANDER, 323 S. 5TH STREET] >> CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. MARGARET PEARSON, SENIOR PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THE CASE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS BOA 2025-0001. THE APPLICANT IS SAMUEL ALEXANDER, AND THE OWNER'S AGENT IS STEPHANIE LAOS. I HOPE I SAID IT RIGHT. MCG HOMES. SHE'S WITH US TONIGHT. THE LOCATION FOR THIS VARIANCE IS 323 SOUTH 5TH STREET. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONE R, WHICH IS A MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. THE EXISTING USE ON THE SITE IS A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE. THE REQUEST IS THE VARIANCE FROM THE LDC SECTION 10.01.02, AN EXPANSION OR A MODIFICATION OF A NON-CONFORMING USE OR STRUCTURE IN ORDER. THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO REPLACE THE FRONT STEPS WITH A BUILDING CODE COMPLIANT STRUCTURE WITHIN THE 25-FOOT FRONT SETBACK. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, LIKE I MENTIONED, CONTAINS A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 1971. ACCORDING TO THE CURRENT SURVEY INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION, THE EXISTING HOME IS ALREADY ENCROACHING INTO THE FRONT SETBACK BY 3.5 FEET OR IS LOCATED 21.5 FEET FROM THE FRONT SETBACK. THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS TO INSTALL A BUILDING CODE COMPLIANT LANDING WITH NEW STEPS TO REPLACE THE OLD STEPS AT THE FRONT EXTERIOR DOOR. THE CURRENT STEPS ARE LOCATED 17.1 FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. THE NEW FRONT STEPS WOULD LOCATE APPROXIMATELY 16.6 FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE, WHICH WOULD MAKE IT ENCROACHING MORE INTO THE FRONT SETBACK THAN IS ALLOWED BY 0.5 FEET CLOSER. IT IS CONSISTENT. THE DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ARE PERMISSIBLE BECAUSE THE HOME WAS BUILT PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THE LDC, AND SO IT'S RECOGNIZED AS A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING AND ALLOWED TO REMAIN WITH NO WORSENING OF THE ENCROACHMENT INDEFINITELY. AGAIN, THE INTENT IS TO REPLACE THE FRONT STEPS WITH NEW STEPS AND A LANDING. AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE CURRENT SURVEY, IF YOU LOOK TOWARDS SOUTH 5TH STREET, YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE EXISTING STEPS ARE NOW, AND THE MEASUREMENT THERE IS THAT 21.5. THIS IS THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED, AND I'VE CIRCLED WHERE THE NEW STEPS WOULD GO. THEY'RE BASICALLY IN THE SAME LOCATION EXCEPT FOR A WIDER LANDING AT THE TOP AND THEN A 0.5 FEET LONGER INTO THE SETBACK. THERE ARE SOME OTHER ADDITIONS ON THIS SITE PLAN THAT ARE IN THE REAR, BUT THEY'RE ALL COMPLIANT WITH THE CURRENT ORDINANCE. THIS WOULD BE THE ONLY IMPROVEMENT THAT WOULD BE AN EXPANSION OF THE NONCONFORMITY. WITH THAT BEING SAID, I'LL GO THROUGH JUST FOR THE RECORD, THE CRITERIA. OF COURSE SPECIAL CONDITIONS IS CRITERIA NUMBER 1, AND THAT SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST, WHICH ARE PARTICULAR TO THE PROPERTY STRUCTURE OR BUILDING INVOLVED AND WHICH ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER LANDS, STRUCTURES OR BUILDINGS IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT. SPECIAL CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT RESULT FROM THE ACTION OF THE APPLICANT AND ARE NOT BASED ON THE DESIRE TO REDUCE THE DEVELOPMENT COST. STAFF'S ANALYSIS IS THAT, YES, SPECIAL CONDITIONS EXIST AS IT RELATES TO THIS LAND STRUCTURE OR BUILDING INVOLVED. WHILE THE EXISTING HOME IS CLASSIFIED AS A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE, ACCORDING TO THE LDC, 10.01.02 ALLOWS THE NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE TO BE EXPANDED TO SECURE SAFETY OF THE BUILDING. THE PROPOSED EXTENSION WOULD ONLY AUTHORIZE THE REPLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING FRONT ENTRY STEPS WITH A LANDING AND NEW STEPS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING SAFE ENTRY INTO THE HOME. STAFF ANALYSIS IS THAT IT MEETS THE CRITERIA. [00:10:01] THE SECOND CRITERIA IS SPECIAL PRIVILEGE. GRANTING THE VARIANCE DOES NOT CONVEY 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. WE'RE SAYING, YES, GRANTING THE VARIANCE DOES NOT CONVEY UPON THE APPLICANT A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, THAT IS DENIED BY THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OR OTHER LAND STRUCTURES OR BUILDINGS IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT. ANY SIMILAR SITUATED PROPERTY OWNER WITHIN THE ZONING DISTRICT HAS THE RIGHT TO REQUEST RELIEF FROM THE SECTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE TO SECURE THE SAFETY OF THE NON-CONFORMING BUILDING. CRITERION NUMBER 3 IS LITERARY INTERPRETATION. THE LITERARY INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WOULD DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT OF THE RIGHT COMMONLY ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT. STAFF'S ANALYSIS IS, YES, LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WOULD DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT OF THE RIGHT ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTIES WITHIN THE ZONING DISTRICT AS IT WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE TO CONSTRUCT A SAFE ENTRANCE INTO THE FRONT OF THE HOME THAT WOULD MEET THE MINIMUM BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS. IN ADDITION, OTHER PROPERTIES WOULD ALLOW AN EXPANSION OF NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE WHEN SECURING THE SAFETY OF THE BUILDING AND THE FRONT ENTRY STEPS COULD ALREADY BE ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED TO ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT YARD UP TO 42 INCHES IF THIS HAD NOT ALREADY ENCROACHED INTO THE FRONT SET BACK. I THINK THAT'S A TYPO. IT DOES MEET THE CRITERIA THERE, SO THAT SHOULD BE A YES, INSTEAD OF A NO. CRITERIA NUMBER 4, MINIMUM VARIANCE. THE VARIANCE REQUESTED IS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NEEDED THAT WILL MAKE POSSIBLE THE REASONABLE USE OF THE LAND, STRUCTURE, OR BUILDING. STAFF'S ANALYSIS IS YES. THE VARIANCE REQUESTED IS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NEEDED TO CONSTRUCT THE FRONT LANDING AND THE STEPS THAT WILL COMPLY WITH THE STANDARDS FROM THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, WHICH WOULD MAKE POSSIBLE THE REASONABLE USE OF THE BUILDING BY IMPROVING THE SAFETY OF THE FRONT ENTRANCE INTO THE RESIDENCE. CRITERIA NUMBER 5, GENERAL HARMONY. GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL INTENT AND PURPOSES OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. STAFF'S ANALYSIS IS YES, GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE LDC AND THE COMP PLAN BOTH ALLOW FOR LEGAL NON-CONFORMITIES TO EXIST AND FOR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS OF THE STRUCTURE TO TAKE PLACE. THE LDC SECTION 10.01.02(D) PROVIDES FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE TO SECURE THE SAFETY OF THE BUILDING AND THE REQUEST IS MINIMAL ONE NEEDED TO COMPLY WITH THE MINIMAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE TO PROVIDE A SAFE ENTRANCE INTO THE RESIDENCE. THE LAST CRITERIA IS PUBLIC INTEREST. GRANTING THE VARIANCE IS COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, WILL NOT CAUSE INJURY TO THE AREA INVOLVED AND OTHERWISE BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, WELFARE OR ENVIRONMENT. STAFF'S ANALYSIS IS YES, GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL BE COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, WILL NOT CAUSE INJURY TO THE AREA INVOLVED OR OTHERWISE BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, WELFARE OR ENVIRONMENT. THE APPLICATION ADEQUATELY DEMONSTRATES THAT THE GRANTING OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. THE ANALYSIS IS THAT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CRITERIAS AND HAVE MET THEM. STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE VARIANCE REQUEST AND FINDS THAT THE REQUEST WOULD BE A MINOR VARIANCE NEEDED FOR THE PURPOSES OF MEETING THE REQUIRED STANDARDS FROM THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A SAFE FRONT ENTRY INTO THE RESIDENCE AND THAT THE APPLICATION ADEQUATELY DEMONSTRATES THAT THE PURPOSE FOR THE FRONT ENTRIES COULD NOT BE CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT A REQUESTED VARIANCE, AND THAT THE FRONT ENTRY AS PROPOSED WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING PROPERTY IN THE ZONING DISTRICT. THEREFORE, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE. THEN THIS IS A MOTION FOR YOU TO CONSIDER. I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR GO BACK TO ANY SLIDES THAT YOU MAY WANT TO LOOK AT CLOSER? >>> I WOULD LIKE YOU TO EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THIS DOESN'T PROVIDE SPECIAL PRIVILEGE. TO ME, THIS HAS BEEN A CONFUSING ISSUE SINCE WAY BACK. ANY VARIANCE IS A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE IN MY MIND BASICALLY. WHEN YOU SAY THAT IT'S AVAILABLE TO EVERYBODY OR SOMEBODY ELSE, THAT'S NOT TRUE BECAUSE VARIANCES ARE REJECTED. [00:15:04] >> I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, BUT I REMEMBER WHEN I WAS ON THE COMMISSION, THAT SPECIAL PRIVILEGE ISSUE WAS ALWAYS BROUGHT UP. IT'S JUST A CONFUSING THING. A GOOD EXAMPLE IS THE OLD GREENHOUSE WHERE THE VARIANCE WAS GRANTED TO BUILD 425-FOOT HOUSES. THEY DIDN'T HAVE SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, BUT FOR [INAUDIBLE] THEY DID, SO IT GETS REALLY CONFUSING TO ME. I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHY THAT'S THERE; THAT'S MY POINT. >> WELL, THAT IS ONE OF THE CRITERIAS THAT DETERMINES IF YOU MEET THE CRITERIA FOR GRANTING OF A VARIANCE. BUT I WILL SAY THAT THE ANALYSIS AND THE WAY IT HAS BEEN INTERPRETED FROM PLANNING STAFF PERSPECTIVE IS THAT A PERSON HAS A RIGHT TO ASK FOR THE VARIANCE, AND YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO GRANT OR DENY IT. IT'S NOT A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE IF YOU GRANT A VARIANCE OR NOT. >> BUT IF YOU DON'T? >> OR DENY IT. >> I JUST THINK IT'S AN ISSUE THAT IF IT'S IN THE ODC, YOU CAN TAKE IT OUT OF THE ODC. >> WELL, THE COMMISSION COULD [LAUGHTER] >> THERE'S A PROCESS TO DO THAT, AND THIS CONFUSES ME, AND IT CONFUSED ME WHEN I WAS IN THE COMMISSION. >> I DO THINK IT'S CONFUSING, AND THEIR CURRENT ANALYSIS IN SAYING ANYBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO ASK FOR A VARIANCE MEANS THAT ANSWER IS ALWAYS YES. >> YES. >> THAT'S CORRECT, AND IT'S NOT. >> WHEN THEY'RE DOING THAT ANALYSIS, AND YOU SETTLE. >> THAT'S A DISCUSSION, LIKE I SAID, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THIS, AND I'LL GO ALONG WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. >> SHOULD YOU LIKE FOR US TO LOOK INTO THAT CRITERIA? >> I'D LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT IN THE FUTURE. >> IT'S BEEN ASKED FOR YEARS, AND WE HAVE YET TO GET ANYTHING FROM THE ATTRACTION [LAUGHTER] THAT'S BEEN A STICKING POINT FOR YEARS. >> I HAVE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF REGARDING THIS PROJECT, IF NO ONE ELSE DOES. YOU HAVE REFERENCED IN YOUR ANALYSIS 10.01.02D SEVERAL TIMES, AND THROUGHOUT THE ANALYSIS, TALK ABOUT SAFETY. WHEN I READ 10.010.02 D, THE SAFETY EXCEPTION FOR NON-CONFORMING PROPERTIES RELATES TO IF THE CITY MANAGER HAS ORDERED THAT THE BUILDING NEEDS TO BE MADE SAFE. HOWEVER, THE FIRST PART OF 10.01.02D SAYS THAT AN EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IS PERMISSIBLE, THAT IS OTHERWISE REQUIRED BY LAW. I THINK THAT THAT'S REALLY WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE, AND I THINK THE CORRECT ANALYSIS IS THE BUILDING CODE SAYS THIS LANDING HAS TO BE THIS CERTAIN SIZE, AND WE SHOULD REALLY BE FOCUSING ON THIS REAL REQUEST SO THEY CAN COMPLY WITH THE BUILDING CODE. >> THAT'S REASONABLE. >> WHEN YOU GO THROUGH, IT EVEN MADE ME AT FIRST SAY, WHY IS THIS VARIANCE EVEN NEEDED UNDER 10.01.02D? IS IT TRULY JUST BECAUSE THE EXPANSION IS FURTHER INTO THE SETBACK? YET, IF THE CODE REQUIRES THAT, LAW REQUIRES THAT, I'M NOT SURE WE NEED THAT. I'M HAPPY TO GO THROUGH THIS, BUT I JUST WAS WONDERING WHY IT WAS FELT THAT WE NEEDED A VARIANCE GIVEN 10.01.02D. >> BECAUSE THE WAY THE STEPS ARE NOW, THEY CAN REMAIN. THE APPLICANT IS CHOOSING TO REPLACE THEM. IF YOU CHOOSE TO REPLACE THEM, BECAUSE, OF COURSE, THEY'RE OLDER, AND SO THEY DON'T FUNCTION IN A SAFE MANNER, IN OTHER WORDS, YOU HAVE TO STEP BACK DOWN THE STEPS TO OPEN THE DOOR, AND SO THERE'S NO LANDING AT THE TOP. IN ORDER FOR THEM TO REPLACE THE STEPS, EVEN IF IT WAS IN THE SAME FOOTPRINT, WOULD HAVE TO MEET THE CODE WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THE ADDITIONAL LANDING AND THE STUFF WITH THE STEPS. THAT'S THE REASON WHY, BECAUSE IF THEY COULD LEAVE THEM LIKE THEY ARE, THEY'RE FINE, BUT THEY CAN'T REBUILD THEM IN THE STATE THAT THEY ARE, BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT TO CODE. >> THANK YOU. >> I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT ABSOLUTELY. [00:20:03] I THINK IT HAS TO DO WITH THE LANDING AND THE WIDTH. [OVERLAPPING] >> IT'S THE LANDING BECAUSE THEY HAVE FOUR STEPS INSTEAD OF A WIDE LANDING AND TWO STEPS THAT LOOK LIKE FROM THE PAPER. WE'LL GET TO YOU. >> IF IT WASN'T THE ELEMENT THAT THEY COULD LEAD THE STEPS, NOBODY IS MAKING THEM TAKE THEM DOWN. THAT'S WHY [INAUDIBLE] >> WELL, I STILL THINK THAT WE OUGHT TO FOCUS ON THE LAW REQUIREMENT. [OVERLAPPING] >> WE REALIZE THAT THEY HAVE TO COMPLY WITH WHEN THEY GET A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE CHANGES. >> EXACTLY. >> THAT'S REALLY NOT OUR PURVIEW. THIS IS TO HEAR THE VARIANCE FOR THE EXPANSION INTO THE SETBACK POINT. THE BUILDING CODE SCOPE, I AGREE COMPLETELY, BUT THAT'S REALLY NOT FOR US TO JUDGE; THAT'S FOR THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT TO COVER. >> THEN WITH THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, WE TALK ABOUT IT BEING IN GENERAL HARMONY. ARE ANY OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES ALSO HAVE REDUCED SETBACKS? >> YES. I REMEMBER THE LAST VARIANCE THAT WE HAD SOMETHING SIMILAR, BUT IT WAS INTO A SIDE OR REAR SETBACK. WE WERE SAYING, LET'S JUST GO AHEAD AND REDUCE THE FRONT SETBACK, BUT THAT TAKES A LOT MORE ANALYSIS. WE JUST DIDN'T FEEL LIKE THAT WAS AN APPROPRIATE REQUEST TO REDUCE IT TOTALLY BECAUSE WE WOULD NEED TO REALLY ANALYZE HOW CLOSE EACH HOUSE IS AND THEY'RE STAGGERED, BUT A LOT OF THEM ARE CLOSER. BUT JUST VISUALLY LOOKING AT IT, THAT'S WHY WE'RE NOT. >> I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THE BLOCK, A LOT OF THE HOMES THERE ARE FURTHER INTO THE SETBACK THAN THIS ONE BECAUSE OF THE FUTURE OF THE CODE IN THE IN THE BACK WHERE THEY FOLLOW, BUT THIS FITS IN WITH THE HARMONY OF THAT, AND IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT'S GOING TO MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE IN WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. IT'S JUST GOING TO BE A SAFER ENVIRONMENT, WHICH I THINK IS A GOOD IDEA. >> I THINK THAT THAT HOUSE WILL FIT IN AS OF NOW, BUT IT'S RIGHT NEXT TO A HOUSE THAT'S REALLY ON DATE. THE ONLY OTHER HOUSE, THE ONE AT CEDAR AND FIFTH, ACTUALLY THE AUXILIARY HOUSE, WHICH IS ON THE CEDAR, IS A LITTLE BIT FURTHER. THIS IS REALLY NO PROBLEM THERE AESTHETICALLY AT ALL. >> BUT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, YES, THERE ARE A FEW OTHER HOUSES. >> MICHAEL LIVES THERE, SO I GUESS HE HAS NO PROBLEM. >> I'LL SPEAK AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME [LAUGHTER] BUT HE'S RIGHT. >> THEN THIS IS A GENERAL PLANNING QUESTION. THIS GOES TO 4.02.03 A3, WHICH YOU ALSO REFERENCE, THAT ALLOWS STEPS TO ENCROACH UP TO 42 INCHES. GIVEN THAT THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE SAYS IT'S GOT TO BE 36 INCHES FOR THE LANDING, AND THEN APPARENTLY STEPS ARE IN ADDITION TO THE LANDING, MAYBE THAT PART OF THE LDC SHOULD BE CHANGED. I'M JUST SAYING, DOWN THE ROAD, IT JUST SEEMS THAT IT'S NOT A VERY FULSOME PROVISION IF YOU CAN'T COUNT THE STEPS IN TRYING TO COMPLY WITH THAT SECTION WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE WAIVER. >> YOU CAN, IN THE SENSE THAT WHEN PEOPLE WERE BUILDING NEW HOMES THEN THEY SET THAT UP, WHERE THE FRONT ENTRY STEPS, AND I THINK THE LANDING IS CONSIDERED THAT. THAT, THAT COULD ENCROACH INTO IT, BUT THEN IT'S THE ANALYSIS OF IS IT A FRONT PORCH, OR IS IT ACTUALLY A LANDING PART OF THE STEPS? BUT WE CAN DEFINITELY LOOK AT THAT AND HOW THAT'S APPLIED IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE WITH NEW CONSTRUCTION, BUT THIS ONE, PARTICULARLY BECAUSE IT WAS ALREADY ENCROACHING IN THE FRONT SETBACK. THERE WASN'T ANY MEASURING OF THE 42 INCHES. >> SURE, I UNDERSTAND. [OVERLAPPING] >> BUT I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. >> I WAS THINKING THAT THE CODE SAYS 36 INCHES, 42 INCHES, THE EXCEPTION. THE BUILDING CODE SAYS THAT 42 INCHES FOR A WAIVER UNDER OUR LDC DOESN'T REALLY GET THEM A WHOLE LOT, NECESSARILY. >> CORRECT. >> THAT'S IT FOR ME. THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN IT UP FOR THE PUBLIC. WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO SPEAK? IF YOU DO, PLEASE COME UP TO THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS, AND YOU WILL HAVE UNLIMITED TIME [LAUGHTER] >> YOU SAID UNLIMITED? [LAUGHTER] >> WITH A SNARK. >> MY NAME IS STEPHANIE LAGOS. YOU SAID THE ADDRESS? >> YES. >> I WORK FOR MCG 1750 SOUTH 14TH STREET, STREET 150. I JUST WANTED TO ADD A LITTLE BIT MORE INTO THE QUESTION ABOUT THE SAFETY, [00:25:04] AND I HAVE A PICTURE OF THE EXISTING STEPS AND HOW THEY ARE JUST A SAFETY HAZARD. CAN I PASS THIS OR JUST SHOW IT FROM HERE? >> YES. YOU CAN JUST BRING IT, AND WE'LL PASS IT IN. >> THEY HAVE DIFFERENT HEIGHTS, DIFFERENT STEPS, AND JUST FOLLOWING WHAT THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE SAYS, A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF THE 36 INCHES FOR THE LANDING AND THEN A THREAD OF 11 AND 11 INCHES, AND THAT'S WHY WE ARE GOING JUST THE EIGHT LITTLE BIT, EIGHT INCHES, PASSING WHAT THE CURRENT STEPS ARE. THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OF WHAT I WANTED TO ADD MORE, BUT I FEEL ALL THE INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN RELAYED IS CORRECT. >> ARE THESE GOING TO BE CONCRETE STEPS? >> NO. THOSE ARE THE EXISTING ONES. >> YOU'RE WITH MCG HOMES, SO YOU ARE INVOLVED WITH THIS PROJECT AND THE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS? >> YES. >> ARE YOU OPEN NOW FOR QUESTIONS, OR DID YOU HAVE MORE TO PRESENT? >> YES. >> GIVEN THAT THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE R3113 THAT YOU CITED IN THE APPLICATION ONLY REQUIRES THE LANDING BE AS WIDE AS THE EXTERIOR DOOR, AND UNDER THE PLANS THAT WE HAVE HERE, IT LOOKS LIKE THE DOOR IS TWO FEET 10 INCHES, 34 INCHES. WHY IS THE PROPOSED LANDING SHOWN ON DRAWING PAGE A9 TWICE THAT WIDTH? >> I USED THE MINIMUM 36-INCH REQUIREMENT FOR THE LANDING. THEY DO HAVE AN EXTERIOR STORM DOOR, SO IT WILL GIVE A LITTLE BIT MORE OF SPACE TO LEAVE THE PACKAGES, TO STEP UP BEFORE OPENING THE DOOR. >> THE 36 INCHES DEPTH REQUIREMENT IS THE DEPTH IN THE DIRECTION YOU'RE TRAVELING. I'M TALKING ABOUT THE WIDTH. >> THE WIDTH IS THE SAME AS THE EXISTING STEPS. >> YOU NEED EXTRA SPACE ON THE HINGE SIDE OF THE DOOR, AND THEN YOU NEED THE EXTRA SPACE ON THE LATCH SIDE OF THE DOOR SO THAT WHEN SOMEBODY COMES IN. [OVERLAPPING] >> THEY ARE THE SAME EXACT? >> YES, AND I HAVE IT HERE. >> THEY ARE THE SAME EXACT WIDTH BECAUSE I COULD NOT TELL FROM THE SURVEY THE WIDTH OF THE STEPS THAT ARE CURRENTLY THERE, BUT I COULD TELL THE WIDTH YOU'RE PLANNING. >> YES. I HAVE IT HERE IN THIS. IT'S A SURVEY, JUST IN THE BIGGER PAPER, AND I HAVE IT JUST THE SAME WIDTH AS THE ORIGINAL STEPS. >> THEY ARE THE SAME WIDTH? >> YES. NOT BIGGER, NOT SMALLER, JUST THE SAME. >> THEN YOU DID START ANSWERING MY NEXT QUESTION, WHICH IS 36 INCHES IS THE MINIMUM REQUIRED DEPTH, AND ONE OF OUR CRITERIONS FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE IS THAT IT'S THE MINIMUM THAT WE'RE ABLE TO DO TO ACHIEVE THE GOAL, WHICH HERE IS SAFETY AND COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE. THE MINIMUM IS 36 INCHES, BUT YOUR DEPTH IS GOING TO BE THREE FEET, AND THEN HAS AN EXTRA THREE AND A QUARTER INCHES. YOU'RE TELLING ME THOSE THREE AND A QUARTER INCHES ARE NECESSARY? >> FOR THE DOOR OPENING TO NOT BE JUST RIGHT THERE WHEN THE STEPS FINISH, SO WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF SPACE IN FRONT OF THE OPENING OF THE DOOR. >> THAT IS WIDE, BECAUSE EVERY LITTLE BIT INCH COUNTS IN GRANTING THESE. >> I KNOW. >> THEN ONE THING THAT WAS CONFUSING TO ME IN THE APPLICATION WAS PAGE A5 SHOWS THE DEPTH OF THE LANDING PLUS THE STAIRS TO BE FIVE FEET, TWO INCHES AND A QUARTER, BUT THEN PAGE A10 SHOWS THE DEPTH TO BE FIVE FOOT, ONE INCH AND A QUARTER. >> THE ELEVATION. >> ON PAGE? >> A5. I HAVE IT AS FIVE FEET, ONE INCH, AND ONE QUARTER. THAT'S CORRECT? [00:30:01] >> ON A5? >> YES. >> IN THE PLAN, IT'S SHOWN 5'2". IT'S PROBABLY JUST AN ERROR BETWEEN WHAT THEY SNAPPED THE DIMENSION. >> YOU KNOW WHAT THAT IS? I CAN SEE RIGHT THERE, IT'S THE NOSING. THEY DID SNAP IT TO THE NOSING. THE DIMENSION IS PULLED TO THE STRINGER FACE AND NOT THE NOSING FACE, WHICH IS ACTUALLY AN INCH PROJECTION. >> 5, 2, 1/4 IS THE CORRECT. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE. >> 5'2 1/4. >> THE RIGHT DIMENSION WHEN WE GRANT THE VARIANCE. INCONSISTENCY ISN'T GOOD [LAUGHTER]. >> I UNDERSTAND. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FAR? MIKE, YOU WANT TO SPEAK? >> YEAH. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> THANK YOU. YOU KNOW THE DRILL? >. I DO. MIKE SPINO, 317 SOUTH STREET. THIS IS A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION FOR A PROBLEM THAT THE OWNERS AND THE BUILDERS DID NOT CREATE? THEY INHERITED, AND I STRONGLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO PASS IT. MR. KREGER'S POINT ABOUT INCONSISTENCIES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. MY GOODNESS. THE 6 INCHES WILL BE THE LEAST OF THE INCONSISTENCIES ON THESE STREETS. CAN PROBABLY TELL YOU WE HAVE HOMES THAT ARE MUCH CLOSER TO THE STREET, ALL INCURSIONS, FRONT YARD, BACK YARD, SIDE YARD. I STRONGLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO APPROVE THIS 6 INCH VARIANCE. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, SIR. ANYBODY ELSE WISHED TO SPEAK? WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THIS MEETING. BOARD DISCUSSION. ANYBODY HAVE ANY THOUGHTS? >> I THINK IT'S REASONABLE REQUEST. I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THAT PRIVILEGE AT A FUTURE DATE. >> I DO THINK THAT THIS IS THE TYPE OF REQUEST THAT IS WHY WE'RE HERE. IT IS REASONABLE. I ALSO THINK THAT IN APPROVING IT IN ADDITION TO WHAT'S REFERENCED IN THE LDC SECTIONS AND COMP PLAN SECTIONS REFERENCED IN THE STAFF REPORT, WHICH GET INCORPORATED INTO THE RECORD. I THINK WE SHOULD ALSO INCLUDE A COUPLE FROM THE COMP PLAN AND I'LL CITE THEM THAT DEAL WITH THE COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW, BECAUSE I THINK THAT IS A KEY COMPONENT OF WHY THEY'RE DOING WHAT THEY'RE DOING ON TOP OF SAFETY. THAT WOULD BE COMP PLAN 3.0201, THAT SAYS THAT WE'RE TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSING CODES AND ALSO COMP PLAN POLICY 3.02 0.06, THAT ENCOURAGES HOUSING REHABILITATION, BECAUSE I'M VERY PLEASED THAT THE HOMEOWNERS HERE ARE WANTING TO REHABILITATE THIS HOME, MAKE IT MORE SAFE, AND NOT JUST DO LIKE WE'RE SEEING A LOT THROUGHOUT THE AREA, WHICH IS RAISE IT AND START FROM SCRATCH. ANYWAY, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE FOR THE RECORD, THOSE ALSO, I THINK ARE IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS IN GRANTING THIS VARIANT. IF WE CHOOSE TO DO GRANT IT. >> WAS THAT REASONABLE. ANYBODY ELSE? >> I THINK IT'S A VERY REASONABLE REQUEST AND SAFETY FIRST IS WHAT I SAY. >> AGREE. >> I AGREE TOO. IT'S A SAFETY ISSUE, BUT I THINK IT'S A SHAME THAT HOMEOWNERS HAVE TO PAY LIKE $1,500 TO PUT ON A VARIANCE FOR THIS AND BE IT NICE IF THE CITY HAD SOME WAY TO APPROVE SUCH A SMALL ITEM SUCH AS THIS. >> WELL, IF THAT ONE PROVISION WAS A LITTLE BIT DEEPER THAN 42 INCHES, THAT'S WHY I RAISE THAT EARLIER, BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE TO HAVE AT LEAST A LANDING OF 36 INCHES AND THEN SOME STEPS TO GET TO IT, THAT 42 INCHES ISN'T GOING TO BUY A LOT, NECESSARILY. >> SOUNDS LIKE EVERYBODY'S IN FAVOR. DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY COMMENTS? >> READY FOR A MOTION. >> SURE. >> CHAIRMAN. I MOVED TO APPROVE BOA CASE 2025-0001, AND I MOVED THAT THE BOA MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT AS PART OF THE RECORD, ALONG WITH THE INCORPORATION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES 3.02 0.01, ENSURING COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSING CODES AND 3.02 0.06, ENCOURAGING HOUSING REHABILITATION. LDC ORDINANCE 10.01 0.02D, THAT SUBSTANTIALLY COMPETENT EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATES THAT THE VARIANCE IS BEING SOUGHT SOLELY TO CONSTRUCT A LANDING THAT INCREASES SAFETY AND SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENTS OF FLORIDA BUILDING CODE R311.3, [00:35:10] AND THAT BOA CASE 2025-0001 AS PRESENTED IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO WARRANT APPROVAL AT THIS TIME, AND THAT THE BOA AGREES WITH THE STAFF ANALYSIS THAT BOA CASE 2025-0001 MEETS ALL SIX OF THE REQUIRED CRITERIA FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION THAT AS CONSTRUCTED, THE DIMENSIONS OF THE LANDING AND STEPS LEADING TO IT WILL NOT EXCEED THE DIMENSION SHOWN IN THE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWING SUBMITTED WITH THIS APPLICATION. >> DO YOU WANT TO CLARIFY THAT IS THE 5"2 AND 1/4 DIMENSION VERSUS THE FENCE? >> YES. THAT IS THE 5.2 AND 1/4 INCH DIMENSION. WHICH YOU WANT, I CAN SPECIFY SHOWN ON PAGE A5. >> A1. I THINK. >> NO. I SECOND. >> WE HAVE FIRST AND SECOND. CAN WE CALL VOTE? >> MEMBER HERTSLET? >> YES. >> MEMBER DAVIS? >> YES. >> MEMBER CHRISTNER? >> YES. >> MEMBER KREGER? >> YES. >> CHAIR PAPKE? >> YES. THAT PASSED. >> PRETTY EASY. >> THANK YOU. ANY ADDITIONAL BUSINESS THAT WE WOULD WANT TO DISCUSS? [6. BOARD BUSINESS] I RECOGNIZE THAT I'VE GOT THE MEETING MINUTES THAT I NEED TO SIGN FOR STAFF. >> I HAVE AN ISSUE. I BELIEVE THAT THERE IS BEING AN EFFORT TO COMBINE THE BOA WITH THE PAB. I UNDERSTAND THAT'S GOING TO BE BROUGHT UP IN JUNE. THE PAB, PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD, I BELIEVE HAS DISCUSSED IT, BUT I AS A MEMBER OF THE BOA HAVEN'T BEEN CONTACTED AT ALL. I THINK THAT IF THAT'S HAPPENING, THEY SHOULD AT LEAST GET OUR OPINION. I DON'T KNOW WHAT MY OPINION IS, BUT. >> I ASKED THE QUESTION WHEN THIS WAS RAISED IN THE CITY COMMISSION MEETING, THEY HAD HAPPENED. I WAS TOLD BY MRS. MENCHU THAT THIS WAS NOT A BOARD THAT WAS CONSIDERED FOR CONSOLIDATION? THAT'S THE FIRST I'VE HEARD ABOUT IT FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING AND THE MIX OF THE BOARD ADJUSTMENTS, BUT STAFF MAY NO MORE. >> WELL, AT FIRST I WENT AND REWATCHED AND LISTENED THE MARCH 18TH COMMISSION MEETING. WHILE MISS MENCHU'S FIRST PRESENTATION DID NOT INCLUDE MUCH OF THE BOA AND THE PAB, THE VICE MAYOR, ASK YOU RAISED IT. IT WAS SUPPORTED BY MISS MENCHU, AND THEY DID DIRECT THE STAFF TO LOOK INTO IT. NOW, I BELIEVE IT WAS COMMISSIONER TOUTON WHO INDICATED SHE DID NOT FEEL THAT TWO SHOULD BE THAT IT WAS HER OPINION THAT IF IT WAS DECIDED TO MOVE WITH IT, SHE DID NOT THINK IT SHOULD BE DONE UNTIL AFTER THE LEGAL CASES INVOLVING THE BIOETHANOL PLANT WERE RESOLVED. BUT THAT BEING SAID, IT WAS CLEARLY WAS DISCUSSED TOMORROW JUST THE TWO. >> MY POINT IS I THINK IT'S BEEN MORE THAN DISCUSSED IS THAT WOULD BE NICE IF THEY ASK US. LIKE I SAID I'VE THOUGHT ABOUT IT AND I WAS CONTACTED BY TWO PAB MEMBERS, AND WE SHOULD BE INVOLVED AND HAVE INPUT. THAT'S MY POINT. >> AGREE. >> STAFF. >> I MEAN, WE DON'T WE HAVE. >> BECAUSE I HEARD THIS AFTERNOON IT WAS GOING TO BE DISCUSSION OR WHAT WAS GOING TO THE COMMISSION IN JUNE, OR THAT MAY BE CORRECT OR MAYBE IT'S GOING TO PAB AGAIN. I DON'T KNOW. >> I DON'T KNOW. I HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING, BUT AS SOON AS I DO, I'LL LET YOU GUYS KNOW. I MEAN, STAFF IS USUALLY GOOD ABOUT TELLING US THINGS LIKE THAT AS SOON AS IT COMES UP, BUT I THINK THAT THERE WAS A E-MAIL GOING BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN KELLY, MISS MENCHU, AND SOMEBODY WHO EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT THE COMBINATION OF CONSOLIDATION. >> I CAN TELL YOU THAT THERE IS AN ITEM THAT IS BEING ADVERTISED FOR THE PAB TO LOOK AT JUST THAT, BUT OTHER ITEMS WITHIN THE BOARDS AS HOW ALTERNATES FUNCTION, DO YOU NEED ALTERNATES? I MEAN, THERE'S BEEN A REQUEST FROM THE ADC TO ELIMINATE ALTERNATES AND MAKE ALL THEIR MEMBERS NET REGULAR. THERE WILL BE IN THE PAPER AN ADVERTISEMENT FOR CHANGES FOR CONSIDERATION FOR THE PAB, AND THEN IT WILL GO UP TO THE COMMISSION, [00:40:01] BUT ONE OF THE ITEMS IS TO CONSIDER IT. THAT WAS A DIRECTION TO STAFF IS TO BRING IT FORWARD. >> I WOULD SUGGEST. >> I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE COMMISSION WILL DO, BUT THERE'S AN ITEM THAT'S COMING FORWARD. >> IF THE DISCUSSION OF MERGING TWO BOARDS OR TWO COMMISSIONS, IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE A JOINT MEETING TO DISCUSS THAT, NOT JUST THE PAB, BUT THE BOA AND THE PAB. >> BUT THE REASON WHY IT WOULD GO TO THE PAB IS BECAUSE IT IS IN THE LDC, THE STRUCTURE OF THE BOARDS. ANY CHANGES TO THE STRUCTURE OF THE BOARDS WOULD GO TO PAB WITH A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COMMISSION. >> BUT YOU UNDERSTAND? >> ABSOLUTELY. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. ABSOLUTELY. I WAS JUST EXPLAINING WHY IT WOULD NOT COME BEFORE THIS. >> I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THIS ETHANOL BUSINESS WITH REINER. AT ONE POINT, IT LOOKED LIKE THEY MIGHT WANT TO BRING THIS TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. IS THERE ANY POSSIBILITY THAT'S EVER GOING TO HAPPEN? I MEAN, YOU PROBABLY KNOW BETTER THAN I DO, BUT IT JUST SOUNDED STRANGE WHEN THEY ASKED IF WE'D HAD ANY RELATIONS WITH REINER AND THIS THING WE HAD TO ATTEST TO IT. ARE THEY STILL THINKING ABOUT DOING THAT? >> THEY DID FILE AN APPLICATION OR A REQUEST TO HAVE THE TWO DETERMINATIONS BY THE CITY REVIEWED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AS AN APPEAL OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION. THEN THEY ALSO FILED THE LITIGATION. NOW, UNDERSTANDING THAT THE LITIGATION IS GOING TO CONTINUE REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENS BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, THE PARTIES AGREED TO STAY THAT PROCESS WHILE THE LITIGATION TOOK ITS COURSE, RATHER THAN TO GO THROUGH ALL THE EFFORT OF HAVING A HEARING AND ENDING UP IN COURT ANYWAY. >> THEY EVENTUALLY GET IT. >> IT MAY EVENTUALLY. BUT REALLY, THE THOUGHT PROCESS IS THAT JUDGE AHO OR HER SUCCESSOR, BECAUSE SHE'LL BE GOING BACK TO ROTATING BACK TO DUVAL IN JANUARY. WE'LL BE MAKING THE FINAL DETERMINATION ON WHAT THE INTERPRETATION BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT'S A DIFFERENCE IN INTERPRETATION ON WHAT OUR CODE ALLOWS. THEY HAVE FILED A DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, WHICH IS ASKING THE COURT TO SAY, THERE'S A CONTROVERSY, PARTIES CAN'T AGREE ON WHAT THIS MEANS, AND WE NEED YOUR HELP. WE WOULD UNDERSTAND THAT THAT DETERMINATION WOULD LIKELY BE DISPOSITIVE. MEANING THAT IT WOULD RENDER AN APPEAL MOOT BECAUSE IT'S BEEN SETTLED BY THE COURT. >> BUT I READ THE LAWSUIT AND I BELIEVE THEY'RE ASKING THAT THE PAB CANNOT MAKE A VALID FAIR JUDGMENT. >> THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. >> BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. >> THEY HAVE MADE THOSE ALLEGATIONS. >> BECAUSE I'M A PART OF THE NO ETHANOL. I ACTUALLY RECUSED MYSELF BACK IN FEBRUARY, SO I WOULD NOT SIT ON THE BOARD. I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. >> BY AGREEING TO STAY THAT PROCEEDINGS, IT LARGELY RENDERS MOOT TO ANY OF THOSE ARGUMENTS BECAUSE IT'S NOT GOING BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WHILE IT'S BEING DETERMINED. THAT WAS PART OF THE REASON FOR AGREEING TO THAT WAS TO SAY, WE'RE GOING TO KIND OF CUT OUT THAT WHOLE ARGUMENT FROM THE CASE AND JUST ALLOW THE JUDGE TO FOCUS ON THE DETERMINATION ON WHAT IS THE LEGAL INTERPRETATION. >> THANK YOU, HARRISON. ANYBODY ELSE? >> I WAS WONDERING, DO WE NEED TO APPOINT A VICE CHAIR NOW? >> YES. >> I WAS GOING TO SAME THING I SAW. >> TECHNICALLY, AND WE CAN ASK HARRISON, UNDER THE LDC, THE CHAIR ONLY SERVES ONE YEAR. WE'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A NEW CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR IN OUR JANUARY MEETING, BUT OF COURSE, THIS IS OUR FIRST MEETING IN 2025. DO WE NEED TO ALSO REAPPOINT OUR CHAIR OR CHOOSE SOMEBODY ELSE? I'M SAYING, DO WE HAVE TO VOTE ON A CHAIR AND A VICE CHAIR OR JUST A VICE CHAIR? >> READY TO KICK ME OUT ALREADY. >> WE DID NOT EVER IN THE AGENDA, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S. >> I'M SORRY. >> WE DID NOT ADVERTISE FOR THE ELECTIONS. TYPICALLY, WE PUT THAT ON THE AGENDA AS PART OF, AND WE WERE GOING TO DO THAT NEXT MONTH. >> PROBABLY BEST TO JUST GO AHEAD AND ADVERTISE IT THAT THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, THE CHAIR AND THE VICE CHAIR WILL BE AT THE NEXT MEETING. >> THAT'S FINE. >> AS LONG AS YOU'RE AGREEING TO STAY ON FOR AT LEAST ANOTHER MONTH AS CHAIR. >> WE GOT HIM RIGHT HERE, CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR. >> THAT'S WHAT YOU VOLUNTEER FOR. >> I'M JUST WANTING PROCESS. I DON'T WANT US TO GET IN TROUBLE UNDER THE LDC WE'RE HAVING A VARIANCE. [00:45:05] WE JUST GET GRANTED OURSELVES A VARIANCE FROM THE LDC. NEXT MEETING. >> I THINK NEXT MONTH IS FINE. ANY ADDITIONAL BUSINESS, STAFF? ANYBODY ON THE BOARD? ANY COMMENTS? WE WILL CLOSE TODAY. THANK YOU ALL. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.