>> GET STARTED. [NOISE] WELCOME TO THE JUNE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING.
[00:00:07]
I'D LIKE TO CALL TO ORDER THE MEETING, AND WE'LL START BY SAYING THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, IF YOU CAN STAND WITH ME.>> THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION, UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
>> WILL WE CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE?
>> HERE. WE'LL GET THIS MEETING STARTED WITH ASKING IF THERE'S BEEN ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATION ON ANY OF THE SUBJECTS FOR TONIGHT'S MEETING. BOARD?
HARRISON, WOULD YOU LIKE TO GIVE AN OUTLINE OF THE PROCEDURES FOR THIS EVENING?
>> SURE. WE HAVE ONE VARIANCE TONIGHT, AND IT'S GOVERNED BY OUR QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEDURES, AND THAT MEANS THAT THE DECISION WILL NEED TO BE SUPPORTED BY COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT WILL BE PRESENTED DURING THE HEARING.
THAT EVIDENCE CAN BE PRESENTED IN THE FORM OF ORAL TESTIMONY OR WRITTEN DOCUMENTS, PHOTOGRAPHS, PLANS, ETC.
ANYONE INTENDING TO GIVE TESTIMONY TONIGHT WILL NEED TO BE SWORN BY THE CLERK, AND THEN THE APPLICANT WILL BE ABLE TO PRESENT THEIR CASE.
FIRST, WE'LL HAVE THE STAFF REPORT.
THE APPLICANT BE ABLE TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF, AS WELL AS THE BOARD, AND THEN THE APPLICANT WILL ALSO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THE BOARD AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AS WELL.
ANYONE THAT DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO APPEAL THAT TO THE NASSAU COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, AND THAT WILL HAVE TO BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE FINAL ORDER BEING SIGNED BY THE CHAIR, USUALLY WITHIN A COUPLE OF DAYS.
BEYOND THAT, THIS IS A VARIANCE, AND SO JUST REMIND YOU THAT IF ANY OF THE MEMBERS ARE GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE, THAT THE MOTION SHOULD INCLUDE THE FACTUAL BASIS FOR THE SIX CRITERIA THAT SATISFY THAT.
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEDURES IN EFFECT THIS EVENING?
>> SYLVIA OR KELLY, CAN YOU ADVISE THE OATH FOR ANYONE WHO WISH TO SPEAK? IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE STAND.
RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. IT SHOULD BE RIGHT.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE ORAL OR WRITTEN TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH?
[3. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES]
THE AMENDED MINUTES FROM THE CORRECTIONS THAT WERE REVIEWED BY MARGARET AND BARRY HERE.I THINK, I DON'T HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON THE MINUTES.
DID YOU GUYS GET A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE MINUTES THAT WERE IN THE PACKET?
>> NO, BUT I'M SURE KELLY TOOK CARE OF MY SMALL COMMENT.
>> EXCELLENT. WELL, I CAN'T MAKE A MOTION.
SOMEBODY NEED TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES.
>> IT'S HARD TO WANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SOMETHING WE HAVEN'T ACTUALLY SEEN.
IT'S GOT YOUR RED COMMENTS ON IT THAT YOU MARKED UP. IT'S PRETTY STRAIGHT.
>> THAT'S THE CLEAN ONE WITH YOUR MARKUPS ON THE BACK OF IT, SUPPORTING IT, AND I WENT BACK TO BACK-CHECK IT.
I DON'T SEE ANY ISSUES WITH IT.
>> I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE THE AMENDED MINUTES.
>> WE DON'T NEED TO VOTE ON THAT, DO WE?
>> I WOULD DO THE VOICE CALL. [OVERLAPPING]
>> JUST VOICE THE [INAUDIBLE].
[4. OLD BUSINESS]
IS THERE ANY OLD BUSINESS THAT WE NEED TO COVER?>> I HAVE SOMETHING I'D LIKE TO RAISE.
>> I'M GOING TO LET STAFF ASK FIRST.
WAS THERE ANYTHING THEY WANTED TO ADDRESS, AND THEN I'LL LET YOU.
>> I WAS GOING TO SAY SHE SHOOK HER HEAD.
>> I DIDN'T SEE THAT. SORRY, I DIDN'T HAVE MY HEAD UP. GO AHEAD, MOLLY.
>> AT THE END OF LAST MEETING UNDER NEW BUSINESS, I THINK IT WAS MEMBER KREGER RAISED THE FACT THAT THE, AND WE DISCUSSED THAT THERE WAS A PROPOSAL FLOATING AROUND TO MERGE OUR BOARD WITH THE PLANNING AND ADVISORY BOARD, AND MORGAN INFORMED US THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE A MEETING, THE PAB WAS GOING TO DISCUSS IT.
IN FACT, THE PAB DID DISCUSS IT AT LAST WEDNESDAY'S MEETING,
[00:05:02]
AND I JUST THOUGHT, IF YOU'RE NOT AWARE THAT THIS IS GOING ON, THEY DID HAVE THE MEETING.I ACTUALLY SPOKE FOR SEVERAL MINUTES GIVING MY VIEW ON WHETHER OR NOT THE TWO BOARDS SHOULD BE MERGED, AND MY VIEW IS THAT THEY SHOULD NOT BECAUSE OF THEIR VERY DIFFERENT FUNCTIONS, AND THAT I DID NOT THINK THAT THERE WOULD BE A LOT OF GAIN AND EFFICIENCY FROM MERGING OUR TWO BOARDS.
HARRISON, WOULD IT BE A VIOLATION OF THE SUNSHINE ACT FOR ME TO SEND A COPY OF MY WRITTEN COMMENTS, BECAUSE I JUST READ INTO THE RECORD? WOULD IT BE A VIOLATION TO SEND IT TO THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BOARD? IT IS IN THE PUBLIC NOW.
>> FOR THE COMMENTS THAT YOU READ TO THE [OVERLAPPING] PAB, NO, THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE A VIOLATION.
>> I'M HAPPY TO SEND THAT SO THAT ALL THE MEMBERS HERE CAN KNOW HOW I FEEL IN WHAT I TOLD THE PAB.
MEMBER KREGER ALSO SPOKE, AS DID COMMISSIONER MINSHEW.
THE PAB ACTUALLY VOTED NOT TO MERGE THE TWO, BUT OF COURSE, WE'LL GO TO THE COMMISSION.
I DON'T KNOW WHEN IT WILL BE RAISED IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSION.
UNFORTUNATELY, I'M GETTING READY TO LEAVE THE COUNTRY AND THEN WHEN I COME BACK I HAVE SURGERY, SO I DON'T THINK I'LL BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON IT, BUT I JUST THOUGHT EVERYONE SHOULD BE AWARE THAT THIS IS CONTINUING TO MOVE FORWARD, IT GOES TO THE COMMISSION.
>> [OVERLAPPING] I'M HAVING SURGERY JULY 10TH, AND PROBABLY, I DON'T KNOW IF I'LL BE RECOVERED ENOUGH.
>> THE VOTE, BECAUSE THEY ARE AN ADVISORY BOARD, BUT THE RECOMMENDATION, BECAUSE THEY WERE CONSIDERING TEXT AMENDMENTS TO LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IN TWO DIFFERENT PORTIONS, AND SO THEY VOTED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ONE, NOT AFFECTING THE TWO BOARDS, AND THEN RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF THE ONE THAT WOULD COMBINE THE PAB AND THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
>> I WAS ALSO AT THE MEETING AND TANYA WAS THERE TOO.
MARGARET'S ANALYSIS WAS OUTSTANDING.
>> I THINK AN INTERESTING POINT IS NOBODY WAS QUITE SURE HOW IT GOT THERE.
COMMISSIONER MINSHEW WAS, ACTUALLY, I THOUGHT A DEFENSIVE POSITION IS SHE WASN'T REALLY FOR IT HOW IT GOT THERE.
BUT IN THE END, THEY RECOMMENDED DISAPPROVAL, AND A POINT WAS MADE AND A COUPLE OTHER COMMISSIONERS MADE THIS POINT PREVIOUSLY THAT ANY THOUGHT OF DOING THAT IN THE PROCESS OF RYAN'S LEGAL CHALLENGE WOULD BE NOT A SMART MOVE.
I DON'T THINK THE COMMISSION WILL MOVE FORWARD ON THAT AT THIS TIME.
>> COMMISSIONER MINSHEW CLARIFIED HOW IT CAME UP.
IT WAS NOT ON HER INITIAL LIST OF SUGGESTIONS AS FAR AS COMBINING OR ABOLISHING CERTAIN BOARDS, BUT IT WAS ACTUALLY ADDED ON, I BELIEVE, BY THE VICE MAYOR, ADDED ON AS TO HAVING STAFF TAKE A LOOK AT IT.
I THINK THAT'S HOW IT CAME ABOUT.
OF COURSE, WE'LL BE ON THE 15TH.
IF ANY OF YOU ARE INTERESTED ALSO WATCH THE VIDEO OF IT BECAUSE THERE WAS A PRETTY HEALTHY DISCUSSION, NOT ONLY WITH MEMBERS KREGER AND DAVIS, BUT ALSO COMMISSIONER MINSHEW AND THE PAB BOARD AS WELL.
I THINK IT WAS ALMOST IN THE ROOM UNIVERSALLY OPPOSED.
BUT IT IS, I THINK, EITHER SHARE THE WRITTEN STATEMENT, AND I THINK ACTUALLY WATCHING IT WOULD BE OF MORE BENEFIT TO THE BOARD JUST TO SEE WHAT THE DISCUSSION WAS.
>> EXCELLENT. THANK YOU. GO WITH YOUR STAFF REPORT, MS. KELLY.
[5.1 BOA2025-0002 - CATHERINE DREW, 2747 OCEAN DRIVE]
>> GOOD EVENING. TONIGHT, THE CASE IN FRONT OF YOU IS REGARDING A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2747 OCEAN DRIVE, WITH A REQUEST TO CHANGE FROM STANDARDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, OR ADU, SLASH GARAGE, TO BE ABLE TO DEVIATE FROM LDC SECTION 50103(H) IN PLACING THAT STRUCTURE FORWARD OF THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE FACADE.
ALL REQUIRED APPLICATION MATERIALS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED.
ALL FEES HAVE BEEN PAID AND ALL REQUIRED NOTICES HAVE BEEN MADE.
THIS STAFF REPORT, ALONG WITH THE TESTIMONY THIS EVENING AND ALL THE BACKUP MATERIALS ARE SUBMITTED INTO THE RECORD.
SHOULD THIS BE CHALLENGED, I'D LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE INCORPORATED.
I APOLOGIZE, I DID NOT PROVIDE A SEPARATE FORMAL PRESENTATION,
[00:10:03]
SO I'M GOING TO BRIEFLY GO THROUGH MY STAFF REPORT AND PROVIDE SOME ANALYSIS FOR YOU AND FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION THIS EVENING, JUST RELYING ON THAT STAFF REPORT.THEN WE CAN ALSO UTILIZE THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S MAP TO ZOOM INTO THE PROPERTY AND LOOK AT ANY SPECIFIC FEATURES ALONG WITH THOSE ADDITIONAL BACKUP MATERIALS.
THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN A MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE CATEGORY IN R2 ZONING DISTRICT, MEANING THAT IT IS RESIDENTIAL AND SUBJECT TO THE RESIDENTIAL PROVISIONS FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.
THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY FEATURES AN 1,800 SQUARE FOOT DUPLEX CONSTRUCTED IN 1981.
AS SUCH, IT REPRESENTS A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE AS A RESULT OF THE CURRENT LOT DIMENSIONS FOR THAT PROPERTY.
THE PROPERTY OWNER IS LOOKING TO CONVERT THE STRUCTURE FROM A DUPLEX INTO A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME AS PART OF THE RANGE OF IMPROVEMENTS THAT THEY'RE MAKING TO THE PROPERTY, INCLUDING THE REQUEST FOR A NEW GARAGE WITH AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, AND AS PROVIDED IN THE BACKUP MATERIALS, THEY INTEND TO ALSO ADD A REAR YARD OPEN DECK, A NON-CONDITIONED BREEZEWAY CONNECTION BETWEEN THE ACCESSORY AND PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE, ALL OF IT WHICH ARE PROPOSED TO COMPLY WITH THE STANDARDS FOR THOSE CONNECTION FEATURES AND THAT PARTICULAR IMPROVEMENT.
IN MY VIEW IN LOOKING AT THIS PROPERTY, I WAS ABLE TO DRIVE THROUGH THAT AREA.
THIS IS A RELATIVELY NEW AREA FOR ME.
WE DON'T SEE A LOT OF ACTIVITY WITHIN THIS AREA.
WE HAVEN'T SEEN A LOT OF CHANGES HERE RECENTLY.
BUT WHAT I DID LEARN IN TAKING A LOOK AT IT IS THAT A LOT OF THE PROPERTIES WERE BUILT WITHIN ROUGHLY THE EARLY TO MID 1980S INTO THE EARLY 1990S.
THAT WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE MAY START TO SEE A DESIRE TO CONVERT WHAT IS LARGELY DUPLEXES AND MULTIFAMILY IN THAT AREA THAT ARE NON-CONFORMING.
IT MAY ALSO MEAN THAT WE'LL START TO SEE SOME LARGER REINVESTMENT INTO THOSE STRUCTURES, JUST SIMPLY GIVEN THEIR AGE AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT I NOTICED ABOUT THIS AREA IS THAT, WITH RESPECT TO GARAGES, THERE'S EITHER NO GARAGE WITHIN MANY OF THESE PROPERTIES OR THOSE GARAGES ARE ATTACHED TO THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE.
IT WAS PART OF THAT CONSTRUCTION WITH THE ORIGINAL HOME DESIGN.
OFTEN, THE PROPERTIES RELY ON THAT FRONTAGE THERE TO PROVIDE FOR THE PARKING, ALL OF WHICH IS FULLY ON THEIR PROPERTY, BUT RIGHT ALONG THAT ROADWAY.
AS YOU'RE DRIVING THAT AREA, THAT BECAME VERY EVIDENT TO ME THAT THAT SEEMED TO BE THE STANDARD.
I'M GOING TO USE THE PROPERTY APPRAISER HERE.
ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF OCEAN DRIVE THERE, WHAT'S REALLY INTERESTING IS THAT MOST OF THOSE PROPERTIES AS THEY CONSTRUCTED, THEY SEEM TO SHIFT THAT PRIMARY STRUCTURE MUCH FURTHER INTO THE SITE, FURTHER WEST.
I THINK, REALLY BE ABLE TO PROTECT WHAT IS, AND YOU CAN SEE HERE FROM THE AERIAL, THE DUNE SYSTEM AND THE TOPOGRAPHY THAT WAS THROUGH THERE.
YOU'LL SEE, EVEN ON THIS PROPERTY, RETAINING WALL, AND SEVERAL OTHERS ALSO CONTAIN RETAINING WALLS IN ORDER TO PROTECT THAT AREA.
THIS PARTICULAR HOME SITE APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN REALLY THOUGHTFULLY CONSIDERED, AS IT WAS DESIGNED TO BE ABLE TO PROTECT SOME OF THE TREES THAT ARE THERE AS WELL AS THAT TOPOGRAPHY, AND EVEN WITHIN THAT AERIAL, YOU CAN SEE THAT YOU CAN'T EVEN SEE THE HOUSE BACK THERE.
ANOTHER INTERESTING FACET ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY IS THAT IT ABUTS THE EGAN'S LANDING COMMON AREA.
THIS TRACT OF LAND THAT RUNS ALL THE WAY BEHIND IT.
WITHIN THAT AREA, IF WE ZOOM IN YOU CAN START TO SEE A VERY STEEP SHIFT IN TOPOGRAPHY, DOWNWARD, IT'S CREATED A RAVINE IN-BETWEEN THERE.
FOR THAT REASON, I DID VISIT THAT SUBJECT PROPERTY JUST SO THAT YOU COULD GET A BETTER SENSE OF THAT PROPERTY CONDITION.
I PROVIDED SOME PHOTOS WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT TO REVEAL THAT BACK SIDE, HERE, AND YOU REALLY GET A SENSE OF THE TOPOGRAPHY SHIFTING DOWNWARD.
THE REASON I THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO POINT THAT OUT IS THAT BEING ABLE TO PLACE A NEW ACCESSORY STRUCTURE OR GARAGE IN THE REAR OF THE YARD IS PRACTICALLY INFEASIBLE AS A RESULT OF THAT CHANGING TOPOGRAPHY AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY OF THAT AREA AS IT GOES FURTHER WEST.
>> ADDITIONALLY, AS WE LOOK AT THE PROPERTY ON THE SOUTHEAST FACING SIDE,
[00:15:01]
YOU CAN SEE THE TOPOGRAPHY WITHIN THAT AREA IS RAISED.IT'S ELEVATED, ESPECIALLY COMPARED TO THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE ITSELF.
I KNOW IT'S DIFFICULT TO SEE THAT FROM THE PHOTOS.
WHERE THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE IS LOOKING TO LOCATE IS ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY, IN AN EFFORT TO REALLY BE ABLE TO PROTECT THOSE MATURE TREES ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER.
AS A RESULT OF ITS CURRENT LOCATION WITH THE SITE PLAN PROVIDED HERE, GIVEN THAT PRINCIPAL FACADE ITSELF IS A LINE OF DEMARCATION, IF YOU WILL, FOR WHERE YOU CAN PLACE A NEW ACCESSORY STRUCTURE FROM A PRACTICALITY STANDPOINT, THAT'S WHAT REALLY SUBSTANTIATED THE NEED FOR HAVING A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE.
IN EVALUATING THE REQUEST ITSELF, OF COURSE, WE LOOK AT ALL OF THE CRITERIA TO ESTABLISH A HARDSHIP.
IN PROVIDING FOR THAT EVALUATION, STAFF HAS FOUND THAT IT MEETS ALL SIX OF THE ESTABLISHED CRITERIA.
I'VE PROVIDED A LOT OF BACKUP ABOUT THAT, INCLUDING SEVERAL PROVISIONS OF BOTH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO SUPPORT THE ANALYSIS ASSOCIATED WITH EACH OF THE CRITERIA AND FINDING FAVORABLY FOR IT.
REALLY RELYING ON THE EXISTING CONDITIONS OF THE PROPERTY AND THE SENSITIVITY OF THAT LAND, PARTICULARLY TO THE WEST OF IT.
IT'S SIMPLY NOT FEASIBLE TO CONSTRUCT ANOTHER STRUCTURE OR ACCESS GARAGE WITHIN THAT AREA THAT WOULD BE COMPLIANT.
FOR THOSE REASONS, BEING ABLE TO FIND FAVORABLY ON ALL SIX CRITERIA, STOCK HAS ISSUED A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL FINDING THAT IT IS SUBSTANTIALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN ORDER TO RECOMMEND THAT.
THAT WE FOUND THAT THIS IS TRULY THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NECESSARY TO ALLEVIATE THE HARDSHIP WHICH EXISTS ON THAT PROPERTY.
WITH THAT, I'M OPEN TO ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE.
IS THE FACT THAT IT'S A DUPLEX ON THIS SIZED LOT THE ONLY THING THAT MAKES IT NON CONFORMING?
>> EVEN AFTER IT'S CONVERTED TO SINGLE FAMILY, IT WILL STILL BE A NON CONFORMING STRUCTURE.
>> CORRECT. IT WILL NO LONGER BE A NON CONFORMING USE.
>> IT WON'T BE A NON CONFORMING USE, BUT IT IS STILL A NON CONFORMING PROPERTY UNDER THE CODE.
IT WAS A LITTLE UNCLEAR TO ME IN READING THE REPORT ABOUT THAT.
BUT THEN LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN, IT DOES SEEM LIKE WE HAVE ENCROACHMENTS ON THE SIDE SETBACKS.
LET'S SEE. IS THE REAR YARD ITSELF BECAUSE WE TALK A LOT ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENTAL NEED TO PROTECT IT AND IT BEING, IS IT TECHNICALLY AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE LAND AS DEFINED UNDER OUR CODE?
>> IT IS NOT. BUT IT IS OF YOUR EXPERT OPINION AS SOMEONE IN THE PLANNING FIELD THAT IT IS ENVIRONMENTALLY IMPORTANT LAND TO PROTECT?
>> I AGREE THAT IT SHOULD BE PROTECTED PROPERTY.
THAT FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THAT AREA WOULD REQUIRE FILL AND FILL WITHIN THAT AREA WOULD NEGATIVELY IMPACT ADJOINING PROPERTIES.
>> I THINK YOU SAID IT LOOKS LIKE THAT REALLY THERE'S NOT ENOUGH ROOM BACK THERE TO PUT THE TYPE OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURE THAT THEY WOULD WANT.
>> DRIVE VEHICLE BACK TO GET THERE.
>> EXACTLY. I KNOW THAT IN THE TREE REPORT, WHICH WE HAVEN'T DISCUSSED, BUT IN THE MATERIALS WE WERE PROVIDED THAT EXPERT SAID YOU WOULD GO UP THE SOUTH SIDE.
IS THAT THE SOUTH SIDE AND GET TO IT, BUT I DON'T EVEN THINK YOU COULD GET ANYTHING DESIGN SOMETHING.
>> THE SLOPE OFF OF THE WAY IT IS.
>> GETTING TO THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS, HOW MANY OTHER PROPERTIES THERE ALONG OCEAN DRIVE ARE SIMILARLY SITUATED? APPROXIMATELY.
[00:20:02]
>> IS REALLY THOSE PROPERTIES ON THE WESTERN SIDE OF OCEAN DRIVE, SOME OF WHICH ARE SINGLE FAMILY, OTHERS ARE ALSO DUPLEXES.
IN JUST VIEWING THIS, YOU DO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEE WHERE AS A RESULT OF NOT HAVING AS MUCH TREE COVERAGE, THOSE PROPERTIES ARE SHIFTED MUCH FURTHER BACK THAN WOULD BE REQUIRED UNDER THE CITY'S FRONT YARD SETBACK STANDARD ESTABLISHED TODAY.
>> BUT IF AS YOU SAID, GIVEN THEIR AGE, WE MIGHT HAVE SOME OTHER REQUESTS SIMILAR TO THAT, THAT WE COULD HAVE SEVERAL SIMILAR TYPE REQUESTS IF THEY WANT TO MAINTAINING THIS STRUCTURE.
>> IT IS POSSIBLE, AND NOT ALL OF THEM HAVE GARAGES.
SOME OF THEM DO, BUT MOST OF THEM DO NOT.
>> THEN FINALLY, WHEN I READ THE MATERIALS, THE ONLY VARIANCE BEING REQUESTED WAS IN 50103H.
I THINK THAT IN ADDITION, IF THE BOARD GRANTS THIS VARIANCE, THAT IN ADDITION TO A VARIANCE OF THAT PROVISION, THAT DON'T WE NEED TO ALSO GRANT A VARIANCE OF 50104, WHAT IS IT? A3, WHICH SAYS UNDER THE ADU CODE THAT FOR A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, IT HAS TO BE BEHIND THE FRONT FACADE.
DON'T WE NEED A VARIANCE FOR BOTH PROVISIONS OF THE LDC? BECAUSE IF WE ONLY GO AGAINST 50103H, THAT WOULD ALLOW HIM TO PUT A GARAGE.
>> BUT THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DO THE ADU.
>> WE NEED TO IF THE BOARD GOES THAT WAY, I THINK THE MOTION NEEDS TO MAKE CLEAR WE'RE AMENDING BOTH BECAUSE THE CASE ITSELF IS ONLY ASKING FOR THE ONE.
THE NON CONFORMING DUPLEX USE.
I UNDERSTAND THEY'RE GOING TO DO A CONVERSION TO A SINGLE FAMILY HOME OR A SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN THAT.
IS THIS VARIANCE GOING TO BE IN ANY WAY CONTINGENT UPON THAT SINGLE FAMILY HOME CONVERSION?
>> ALSO ABOUT FRONT YARD PLACEMENT OF AN ADU, ARE THERE ANY OTHER EXAMPLES IN OUR CITY WHERE WE HAVE FRONT YARD ADUS RIGHT NOW?
>> PROBABLY THAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED PRIOR TO THE, I BELIEVE IT WAS 2022 TIME FRAME WHEN WE PUT THIS CODE IN PLACE TO REALLY PROVIDE THAT YOU NEEDED TO HAVE IT IN LINE WITH THE FRONT FACADE OF THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE.
IT IS POSSIBLE. I DON'T KNOW SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT IT IS POSSIBLE THAT WE HAVE OTHERS THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
>> THIS COULD POSSIBLY SET PRECEDENT JUST LIKE SOMEONE WAS BRINGING UP WITH.
>> NO, ALL OF YOUR CASES ARE INDIVIDUALLY CONSIDERED AND NOT PRECEDENT SETTING.
>> HAS THE APPLICATION BEEN REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE FOR SECTION 50103G, WHICH INCLUDES THE SQUARE FOOTAGE CAPS, ET CETERA FOR ADUS?
>> THEY DID MENTION IN THIS APPLICATION TOO THAT THEY ARE GOING TO NEED TO REMOVE SOME TREES.
I DID SEE THE ARBOR'S REPORT, BUT HAS IT BEEN REVIEWED BY THE CITY, THE TREE MITIGATION PLAN?
>> THAT'S ALL FINE. THANK YOU.
>> ARE MOST OF THESE PROPERTIES, RENTALS OR HOME OWNERS, PEOPLE LIVE IN?
>> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I'M NOT SURE.
THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT I'VE EVALUATED.
>> YOU'D HAVE TO BE AN OWNER TO APPLY FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS.
>> YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE THE PROPERTY OWNER TO MAKE APPLICATION, YES.
>> ONE THING THAT I NOTICED IS THAT THE APPLICANT IS IN SOME PLACES, KATHERINE HARDY, IN OTHER PLACES, KATHERINE H, THE LAST NAME.
THE DEED IS KATHERINE H P. BUT THE APPLICATION WAS FILED BY KATHERINE HARDY.
[00:25:06]
IF SOME ASTERISK OR FOOTNOTE OR SOMETHING COULD APPEAR THAT CONNECTS ALL OF THOSE NAMES AS BEING THE SAME PERSON.MAYBE SHE CAN ADDRESS IT TO IT.
ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS BEFORE WE OPEN UP TO PUBLIC. GO AHEAD.
>> I'VE BEEN OFF TO THE SITE, AND I'M FAMILIAR WITH IT.
IT'S AN INTERESTING STREET IN A WAY.
BUT IT DOES BACK UP ON THE WEST SIDE TO THAT RAVINE AREA BECAUSE BEHIND THE HOUSING AND BEHIND IT.
OVERALL, I CONCUR WITH THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR A VARIANCE.
THE ONLY THING I HAVE IS A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, WHICH WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS LATER ON ANYWAY. I DON'T KNOW.
>> ANYBODY ELSE? WE'LL OPEN IT UP TO YOU IF YOU'D LIKE TO COME UP HERE, STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS, PLEASE.
>> MY NAME IS KATHERINE HARDY DREW, AND I LIVE AT 2747 OCEAN DRIVE. I'M HERE.
I'M GRATEFUL FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO APPLY FOR THIS VARIANCE.
I DON'T HAVE A PRESENTATION PREPARED.
I JUST WANTED TO BE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.
I'M IN THE PROCESS OF LEGALLY CHANGING MY NAME BACK TO MY MAIDEN NAME, WHICH IS KATHERINE HARDY.
IT'S BEEN PROCESSED BY THE COURT, BUT I HAVEN'T DONE IT ON MY DRIVER'S LICENSE AND MY SOCIAL SECURITY CARD YET, WHICH IS WHY THE DEED WOULD HAVE MY FORMER NAME AND MY DRIVER'S LICENSE AND SUCH STILL DOES.
>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?
>> I DID READ THE ARBORIST REPORT.
ONE THING I WAS JUST WONDERING, DO YOU KNOW ARE ANY TREES BEING REMOVED FOR THE PORCH ADDITION?
>> WHICH ONE FOR THE GARAGE OR FOR THE HOUSE?
>> NO TREES. I DID SEE SOME THAT LOOKED LIKE THEY WERE RED.
SO MAYBE HE THINKS THEY'RE JUST IN POOR CONDITION.
I DON'T KNOW IF THOSE ARE COMING OUT.
>> I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY PLANS TO MOVE TREES, AND I DON'T THINK WE WOULD NEED TO.
>> BUT IN HIS REPORT, HE TALKED ABOUT NINE TREES THAT ARE COMING OUT IN THE FRONT.
I GUESS SIX ARE FOR THE ADU, AND THE OTHERS MAYBE ARE FOR HEALTH AND OTHER REASONS, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THE ONLY REASON THAT WE NEED TO REMOVE TREES IS FOR THE ADU.
THE POSITION ON THE PROPERTY THAT I'VE APPLIED FOR THE VARIANCE FOR WILL IMPACT THE LEAST AMOUNT OF TREES.
>> BUT IT IS NINE. HE SAYS NINE ARE COMING OUT.
EIGHT THAT ARE A HEALTHY AND ONE IS IN POOR CONDITION.
>> I CHOSE HIM BECAUSE HE WAS HIGHLY RECOMMENDED AS AN AND THEN TRUSTED THAT HE ASSESSED THAT CORRECTLY.
>> I'M TRYING TO SEE IF I CAN SEE WHAT IT MIGHT SAY.
THERE'S SOME THAT ARE IN POOR HEALTH.
THE RED ONES ARE IN POOR HEALTH, WHICH MEANS THEY ARE SUBJECT TO EITHER DISEASE OR THEY'RE ALREADY DYING.
>> OF THE NINE IN THE FRONT YARD THAT ARE COMING OUT, HE MENTIONED THAT JUST ONE OF THEM WAS POOR.
EIGHT WERE PROTECTED AND ONE WAS POOR.
I JUST DIDN'T KNOW. IT LOOKED TO ME.
I COULD UNDERSTAND SIX OF THEM FOR THE ADU, BUT I WASN'T SURE WHY THE OTHER THREE WERE COMING OUT, BUT MAYBE IT ROOT STRUCTURE OR SOMETHING.
>> THAT'S BRINGS UP A QUESTION THAT I WAS GOING TO ASK.
THERE IS LETTERS OF SUPPORT FOR THIS IN THE PACKAGE THAT WAS SENT TO US FROM DIFFERENT NEIGHBORS.
BUT IF MEMORY SERVES ME, WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO ACCEPT ANY OF THAT AS TESTIMONY.
THEY'RE NOT HERE PRESENT TO PROVIDE THAT.
I THINK THAT MORE GOES TOWARDS THE WEIGHT TO BE GIVEN TO IT.
I MEAN, IT'S STILL OUR RULES OF EVIDENCE ARE RELAXED IN THIS PROCEEDING.
[00:30:06]
IT'S NOT NECESSARILY ABOUT AUTHENTICATION OR RELEVANCE, BUT MORE SO, I THINK ABOUT THE WEIGHT TO BE GIVEN TO IT.>> FAIR ENOUGH. THANK YOU. ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? ANYBODY ELSE DONE HERE?
WE'LL CLOSE THIS PORTION OF THE PUBLIC AND, MA'AM, YOU DON'T WISH TO SPEAK?
>> THANK YOU. JUST WANT TO CONFIRM BEFORE I CLOSE IT.
BOARD DISCUSSION. HOW DO WE FEEL ABOUT THIS?
>> LIKE I SAID, I CONCUR WITH THE SELF-CIRCUMSTANTIA.
I'VE BEEN OUT THERE AND AND YOU REALLY CAN'T DO ANYTHING ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THAT PROPERTY.
IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE THEY'RE LOCATING AS BEST THEY CAN.
I WILL REMIND THAT WITH AN ADU, THEY HAVE TO SIGN AN AFFIDAVIT THAT SAYS, IF YOU SHOULD RENT THAT, IT HAS TO BE RENTED AS AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
>> MY CONCERN WITH THE PLANTS IS THE SIDE SETBACK, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT IT'S A REDUCED SETBACK FOR ADU.
HOWEVER, THAT'S BECAUSE THEY'RE BEHIND THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE.
I'M FAMILIAR WITH THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, TOO.
I ONLY LIVE LESS THAN HALF A MILE FROM IT.
NOW THAT IS GOING TO BE BASICALLY SIDED LIKE A PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE, AND THAT IS REALLY WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO SEE FROM THE ROAD.
I FEEL THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW AN ADU IN THE FRONT, THAT IT NEEDS NOW, ESPECIALLY ONE OF THE SIZE THAT IT NEEDS TO BE FOLLOW THE SETBACKS, BOTH FRONT AND SIDE SETBACKS, AS A PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE WOULD, BECAUSE YOU DO NEED THAT SIGHT LINE DOWN ON THE SETBACK.
YOU DON'T HAVE A PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE HIDING THAT ADU.
INSTEAD, YOU DRIVE DOWN THE ROAD, YOU'RE GOING TO BE SEEING THIS.
I'M SURE WE DON'T SEE PICTURES OF WHAT THE EXTERIOR WILL LOOK LIKE.
I'M SURE IT WILL BE VERY ATTRACTIVE AND LOOK AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT I JUST FEEL THAT, AND LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN, WITH THE TREES ON IT, SHIFTING IN ANOTHER 2.8 FEET TO COMPLY WITH THE PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE SIDE SETBACKS, WOULD NOT CAUSE NEED THE REMOVAL OF ANY ADDITIONAL TREES.
THAT IS WHAT I FEEL THAT WHEN YOU DRIVE BY, THAT'S REALLY GOING TO BE ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THIS WHOLE PROPERTY DOES SLOPE DOWNWARDS AWAY FROM THE STREET.
I THINK WHEN PEOPLE ARE DRIVING, THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO SEE, IT'S GOING TO BE LOVELY, BUT I THINK IT SHOULD BE.
ANY TIME WE HAVE SOMETHING LIKE THIS IN THE FRONT, IT SHOULD FOLLOW, SHOULD NOT HAVE A REDUCED SETBACK LIKE IT WOULD IF IT WERE LOCATED BEHIND THE FRONT FACADE.
OBVIOUSLY, I AGREE THAT THIS IS SOME VERY SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES WITH THE NATURE OF THE TREES AND THE TERTIARY DUNES ON THE PROPERTY AND THE SITING.
I KNOW OUR COMP PLAN IS VERY CLEAR ON WANTING TO MINIMIZE DEMOLITIONS OF EXISTING STRUCTURES.
AGAIN, I APPLAUD THE OWNER APPLICANT FOR WANTING TO RETAIN THIS HOME, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY IN THE FUTURE, SOMEONE COULD BUY THIS PROPERTY, TEAR DOWN THIS AND PUT A BIG MUCH BIGGER STRUCTURE OR SOMETHING ON IT.
I THINK THAT FROM THAT, MY ONLY CONCERN IS, AGAIN, THAT I REALLY FEEL THAT AN ADU IN THE FRONT SHOULD FOLLOW THE SETBACKS LIKE A PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE WOULD, GIVEN IT'S BASICALLY LOCATED WHERE A PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE WOULD BE.
>> THAT'S GREAT FEEDBACK. ANYBODY ELSE?
>> OF COURSE, I ALREADY SAID MY OTHER ONE, WE JUST GOT TO INCLUDE THAT OTHER PART OF THE CODE WHEN WE DO THE FAIR.
>> SURE. I AGREE WITH THAT ONE.
ABSOLUTELY. ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS?
>> I'LL BE HAPPY TO MAKE A MOTION. IF THERE ARE NO MORE COMMENTS.
>> READY? THIS WILL TAKE TO CONSIDERATION OF COMMENTS MADE.
I MOVE TO APPROVE BOA CASE NUMBER 2020 5-0002,
[00:35:05]
GRANTING A VARIANCE FROM THE FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENT OF BOTH LDC SECTION 5.01.03 AND SECTION 5.01.04A3.I MOVE THAT THE BOA MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, PART OF THE RECORD.
THAT BOA CASE 2025-0002, AS PRESENTED, IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO WARRANT APPROVAL AT THIS TIME, AND THAT BOA CASE NUMBER 2025-0002 MEETS THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE.
ONE, SPECIAL CONDITIONS EXIST THAT ARE PECULIAR TO THE LAND.
SPECIFICALLY, THE PRESENCE OF SIGNIFICANT TERTIARY DUNES AND A MATURE TREE CANOPY IN THE REAR YARD, WHICH WERE NOT CREATED BY THE APPLICANT AND CREATE HARDSHIP.
TWO, GRANTING THE VARIANCE DOES NOT CONFER A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE AS THE RELIEF IS TIED DIRECTLY TO THE UNIQUE ENVIRONMENTAL HARDSHIP, AND THE PROPOSAL IMPROVES A PROPERTY'S OVERALL CONFORMITY WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
THREE, A LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE WOULD DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT OF THE RIGHT TO THE REASONABLE USE OF THEIR PROPERTY, A RIGHT COMMONLY ENJOYED BY OTHERS, BY FORCING THE DESTRUCTION OF VALUABLE NATURAL FEATURES.
FOUR, THE VARIANCE REQUESTED IS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NEEDED TO MAKE POSSIBLE REASONABLE USE OF THE LAND, AS IT SEEKS RELIEF ONLY FROM THE LOCATION REQUIREMENT WHILE COMPLYING WITH ALL OTHER DIMENSIONAL STANDARDS.
FIVE, GRANTING THE VARIANCE IS IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL INTENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BY PROMOTING ENVIRONMENTAL PRESERVATION, THE REDUCTION OF NONCONFORMITIES, AND THE ENCOURAGEMENT OF THE REUSE OF EXISTING STRUCTURES RATHER THAN DEMOLITION.
SIX, THE VARIANCE IS NOT DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, RATHER, IT SERVES THE PUBLIC WELFARE BY PRESERVING NATURAL FEATURES THAT CONTRIBUTE TO COASTAL RESILIENCE IN THE COMMUNITY'S AESTHETIC CHARACTER.
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, ONE, THAT THE EXISTING PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE ON THE LOT IS CONVERTED TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE, AND TWO, THAT THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT IS SET BACK FROM BOTH THE FRONT AND THE NORTH SIDE LOT LINES, THE SAME MINIMUM DISTANCE AS REQUIRED FOR A PRINCIPAL BUILDING ON THE LOT UNDER LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 4.02.03D.
>> WE'D LIKE TO HAVE A MOTION. CALL THE VOTE, PLEASE.
>> THAT PASSES. THANK YOU FOR THAT.
>> THE FIRST TWO-THIRDS OF IT WAS MS. GIBSON IN OUR PACKET.
WHAT ELSE DO WE HAVE ON THE AGENDA HERE?
[6. BOARD BUSINESS]
>> BOARD BUSINESS IS THE ELECTION OF A CHAIR AND A VICE CHAIR.
DO WE HAVE ANY BOARD DISCUSSION, WHO WOULD LIKE TO BE THE CHAIR?
>> I WOULD LIKE TO NOMINATE OUR CURRENT CHAIR, MEMBER PAPKE, JUST TO CONTINUE ON.
>> CALL THAT VOTE. GET A CHANCE TO SAY ANYTHING.
I DON'T GET TO VOTE IN THAT ONE.
>> DO WE NEED A VOICE VOTE WITH THIS?
>> I DON'T GET TO VOTE. I GET TO RECUSE MYSELF.
ANYBODY WISH TO NOMINATE ANYONE?
>> I'LL NOMINATE CAN NOMINATE LEN KREGER. ANYONE ELSE?
>> WE HAVE A SECOND. WE CALL THE VOTE FOR THAT.
ANYTHING ELSE ON THE STAFF SIDE? WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS SPECIAL PRIVILEGES.
KELLY, ARE YOU GOING TO DO THAT,
[00:40:02]
OR IS HARRISON YOU HANDLING THE SPECIAL PRIVILEGE DISCUSSION?>> I DON'T MIND COVERING, JUST AT LEAST GET ASSERTED.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE BOARD HAS MADE THE REQUEST TO SPEAK TO THIS CRITERIA SPECIFICALLY IN CONSIDERATION OF A FUTURE CODE AMENDMENT, WHETHER TO AMEND IT IN SOME WAY OR ELIMINATE IT ENTIRELY.
THIS PARTICULAR CRITERIA DOES COME FROM A SERIES OF CRITERIA THAT WE HAVE RESEARCHED.
IT IS A COMMON CRITERIA FOUND WITHIN CONSIDERATION OF THE FINDINGS OF A HARDSHIP.
THAT BEING SAID, IT IS THE MOST DIFFICULT CRITERIA TO APPLY.
LARGELY BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT IT ONE OF TWO WAYS, THAT NO MATTER WHAT, IT IS CONFERRING A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR LITERALLY.
>> THAT IS THE POINT OF VARIANCE.
>> THE INTENT OF THE VARIANCE IS TO CONFER A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE.
THEREFORE, YOU COULD LOOK AT IT IN ONE OF TWO WAYS.
YOU'D ALWAYS HAVE TO RECOMMEND NOW, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT'S ASKING FOR.
OR YOU WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT IT, HOW WOULD THIS APPLY IN OTHER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES? THE WAY THAT WE'VE VIEWED THAT MOST RECENTLY IS, CAN SOMEONE ELSE IN A SIMILAR POSITION MAKE THE SAME REQUEST FOR THE VARIANCE? OFTEN, THE ANSWER IS ALWAYS YES, THEY CAN.
IS IT A MEANINGFUL CRITERIA AT THIS POINT IN TIME? NO, NOT REALLY.
BUT IT THE BOARD, HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO PROCEED WITH IT? BECAUSE AT STAFF, IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE STRUGGLE WITH ON A REGULAR BASIS, AND GET THIS.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION. KELLY, THE WAY THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY INTERPRETING IT, WOULD THE ANSWER EVER BE NO?
>> I DID JUST SOME VERY BRIEF RESEARCH ON THIS.
I NO LONGER HAVE FULL LEGAL ACCESS TO THINGS.
HARRISON, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS UP UNTIL 1985 WITH THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT.
WHEN THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE ENACTED THAT, BUT UP UNTIL THAT, WHICH STRENGTHENED WHAT MUNICIPALS COULD DO ON THEIR OWN IN THE ZONING WORLD, THAT BEFORE THAT, LET ME GET MY NOTES HERE, THAT THE FLORIDA STATUTES, AND IT WAS 163.160.315, AUTHORIZED MUNICIPALITIES AT THAT TIME TO ADOPT AND ENFORCE ZONING REQUIREMENTS.
IF A MUNICIPAL CHOSE TO OPT INTO THAT, THEY HAD TO COMPLY WITH ALL OF THE PROVISIONS OF THOSE THAT PART OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES.
THAT INCLUDED THEY WERE REQUIRED TO CREATE A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
FLORIDA STATUTE 163.2253A ACTUALLY LISTED WHAT HAD TO BE FOUND.
THIS IS THE FLORIDA STATE STATUTE, SO IT APPLIED TO EVERYWHERE.
SPECIAL PRIVILEGE WAS EXACTLY THE WORDING THAT WE HAVE WAS LISTED AS ONE OF THE REQUIRED REQUIREMENTS.
I'M SURE THAT IS HOW IT THEN GETS TRANSLATED, THEN ONCE IN 1985, WHEN THE MUNICIPALS COULD DO THEIR OWN, DIDN'T HAVE TO ONLY DO WITH THE STATUTE.
FLORIDA STATUTE SAID THAT MOST MUNICIPALS PROBABLY.
THEIR GUIDANCE FROM WHAT HAD ALREADY BEEN APPROVED THROUGH THE STATE.
MY QUESTION TO HARRISON IS, BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THIS POLICE, IS, WOULDN'T THERE HAVE BEEN SINCE THIS WAS A FLORIDA STATUTE, SOME CASE LAW INTERPRETING EITHER 163.253A WITH THE SPECIAL PRIVILEGES, OR I MEAN, I LOOKED AT MORE THAN THREE DOZEN MUNICIPAL SIMILAR TYPE PIER CITIES AND COUNTIES EVEN NASSAU COUNTY HAS THIS PROVISION, AND IN THEIR VARIANCE REQUIREMENTS.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT, SINCE I COULDN'T FIND A FLORIDA CITY YET THAT DIDN'T HAVE IT, THAT THIS IS TRULY A WIDELY USED PROVISION THROUGHOUT FLORIDA.
I WOULD THINK THAT MUST BE SOME CASE LAW HELPING TO INTERPRET IT, AND GIVE EXAMPLE OF WHAT THEY REALLY DO CONSIDER A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE SEPARATE FROM THE FACT THEY'RE JUST ASKING FOR A VARIANCE, BECAUSE I DO AGREE IN SOME WAYS YOU WOULD ALWAYS SAY, YES.
[00:45:01]
OF PUBLISHED APPELLATE FLORIDA CASES THAT HAVE BOTH THE PHRASE SPECIAL PRIVILEGE AND VARIANCE IN THEM, THERE ARE SEVEN CASES, SPANNING OVER 70 YEARS.JUST A CURSORY LOOK, ALL OF THEM ARE CITING TO THE CRITERIA THAT THE GOVERNMENT ENTITIES IMPOSE RATHER THAN ANALYZING THEM.
I HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO GO THROUGH ALL SEVEN CASES, BUT THAT SEEMS TO BE THE THEME, AND THERE AREN'T VERY MANY CURRENT ONES.
THE MOST RECENT ONE I SAW WAS 2013, AND IT DIDN'T HAVE ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT BEING THAT CRITERIA, JUST THAT THEY WERE RECITING IT AS ONE OF THE CRITERIA.
I DON'T THINK THAT REALLY ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION.
I THINK THE ANALYSIS IS PROBABLY ON POINT THAT IT WAS REQUIRED AT ONE POINT, SO GOVERNMENT ENTITIES MODELED THEIR CODE AFTER THE STATUTE, AND IT REALLY HASN'T BEEN UPDATED, BUT I DON'T KNOW OF A REQUIREMENT.
I AGREE WITH KELLY'S INTERPRETATION THAT IF IT WAS A VERY STRICT AND LITERAL INTERPRETATION, THERE'D BE NO NEED FOR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO EVER HEAR A VARIANCE BECAUSE IT WAS A CRITERIA THAT COULD NEVER BE MET.
I THINK THAT ADOPTING AN INTERPRETATION THAT GIVES FORCE TO THE ACTUAL VARIANCE PROCESS IS WHAT IS INTENDED HERE.
BUT IT IS PROBLEMATIC AS THE ATTORNEY TO LOOK AT AND SAY, WELL, THE WORDS WE USE HAVE MEANING AND GIVING IT A PLAIN MEANING, IT SEEMS LIKE EVERY VARIANCE WOULD BE A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE.
>> AS EVERYBODY SAID, THE POINT I BROUGHT IT UP LAST TIME, ANY VARIANCE IS ASKING FOR A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE.
TO MANIPULATE THE WORD AND SAY, WELL, YOU'RE NOT GETTING IT BECAUSE SOMEBODY ELSE COULD ASK FOR IT TOO, BUT THEY HAVE NO ASSURANCE OF GETTING IT, SO IT'S ALL SPECIAL PRIVILEGE.
IF WE COULD RESEARCH, NOT ME, BUT SOMEBODY, [LAUGHTER] AND FIND OUT WHAT MARGARET'S SAYING, IF WE ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE IT IN, OTHERWISE I'D JUST TAKE IT OUT. WE'RE NOT REQUIRED?
>> WE DID AMEND OUR CODE, I WANT TO SAY 2014 TIME FRAME.
IT MAY HAVE BEEN A LITTLE EARLIER THAN THAT.
AT ONE POINT IN 2006 WHEN THE CURRENT CODE WAS ADOPTED, WE HAD NINE CRITERIA, AND THREE OF THEM WERE REALLY REDUNDANT IN WHAT YOU WERE AIMING AT AND TRYING TO DISCERN WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A HARDSHIP.
WHEN WE WENT TO THE SIX, THERE WAS A LOT OF ANALYSIS DONE TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THIS WAS CONSISTENT WITH HOW IT'S BEEN APPLIED THROUGHOUT THE STATE.
THEN THERE WAS BLENDING OF THOSE THREE ADDITIONAL CRITERIA INTO WHAT WE SEE WITHIN THE SIX HERE TODAY.
BECAUSE WE DID THE ANALYSIS AT THAT TIME, SPECIAL PRIVILEGE CONTINUED TO BE SOMETHING THAT WAS WIDELY USED.
IF I THINK THROUGH ALMOST 18 YEARS OF STAFF REPORTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS, IT'S RUN THE GAMUT.
IN SOME CASES, YOU HAVE STAFF MEMBERS WHO WILL HOLD THIS VERY STRONGLY AND INFER THAT ANY DEVIATION WOULD CONVEY A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, AND THEREFORE, YOU CANNOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL.
FOR THAT REASON FOR A VERY LONG TIME, EVERY STAFF REPORT HAD TO RECOMMEND DENIAL BECAUSE WE CANNOT FIND CONSISTENT WITH ALL SIX CRITERIA.
SO ANYONE THAT WALKS THROUGH THE DOOR TO MAKE THIS REQUEST, WE WOULD THEN TELL THEM, WE UNDERSTAND THIS DIFFICULT POSITION THAT YOU'RE IN.
THERE IS THIS AVENUE TO PURSUE IT, HOWEVER WE MUST RECOMMEND DENIAL, NO MATTER WHAT.
THAT WAS A STANDING POSITION FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME, DEPENDING ON THAT PERSON WHO WAS REVIEWING IT AT THAT POINT.
IT'S A DIFFICULT THING TO SAY THAT TO SOMEONE WHEN THEY'RE GOING TO GREAT LENGTHS TYPICALLY TO OTHERWISE ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE ON THEIR PROPERTY FOR THAT PARTICULAR IMPROVEMENT.
BUT THEY'RE RUNNING INTO THIS ONE CHALLENGE THAT THEY CANNOT OVERCOME.
WE DO A REALLY GOOD JOB, IN MY OPINION, IN VETTING EVERY VARIANCE THAT COMES BEFORE YOU TO THE EXTENT THAT WE CAN.
WE TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT IT REALLY IS THE VERY MINIMUM TO MAKE THAT REQUEST THAT IT IS IN GENERAL HARMONY WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA, THAT IT REALLY DOES TAKE THESE SIX CRITERIA INTO CONSIDERATION BEFORE MOVING IT FORWARD.
FOR THAT REASON, YOU DO NOT SEE A LOT OF CASES BECAUSE IT'S STILL A VERY HIGH THRESHOLD TO OVERCOME.
[00:50:01]
WE VIEW THIS VERY SERIOUSLY WITH EACH APPLICANT BEFORE THEY EVER GET TO TO THIS POSITION.THAT BEING SAID, YOU WILL SOMETIMES HAVE THAT ONE APPLICANT THAT SAYS, I DON'T REALLY CARE.
I WANT WHAT I WANT, AND I DON'T CARE THAT IT'S NOT IN HARMONY, AND I DON'T CARE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO FIND THAT IT'S NOT IN KEEPING WITH WHAT YOU COULD APPROVE.
THIS IS WHAT I WANT TO DO, AND THEY ROLL THE DICE WITH IT.
BUT WHEN IT'S COMING FORWARD TO YOU, PLEASE KNOW THAT WE REALLY ARE WORKING HARD TO VET THESE AND WEED OUT ANYTHING THAT WOULD NOT OTHERWISE MEET THE GENERAL STANDARDS OF THIS COMMUNITY.
BUT THIS SPECIAL PRIVILEGE CRITERIA DEFINITELY CREATES A PROBLEM FOR US.
IN TERMS OF CONSISTENCY AND REVIEW, YOU'LL SEE THROUGH THE YEARS, IT RUNS A LARGE SPECTRUM, AND IT'S USUALLY ONE OR THE OTHER.
YOU'RE ALWAYS FINDING DENIAL OR YOU'RE ALWAYS FINDING APPROVAL.
>> AS A LOCAL PRACTITIONER, I CAN TELL YOU, HAVING WORKED THROUGH SOME OF THOSE TIME FRAMES, THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE WAS THOUGHT OF LIKE A UNICORN DURING SOME TIME FRAMES, JUST BECAUSE IT WAS SO HARD TO PROVE THOSE CRITERIA, AND PARTICULARLY THAT SPECIAL PRIVILEGE WAS ONE THAT SOMETIMES TOOK A LOT OF CREATIVITY TRYING TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT YOU COULD SAY WITH A STRAIGHT FACE THAT MET IT.
I WOULD AGREE THAT A VERY LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF IT IS PROBLEMATIC, AND IT RENDERS THE WHOLE REST OF THE VARIANCE PROCESS MEANINGLESS.
SO I THINK IT IS SOMETHING THAT COULD USE SOME ATTENTION.
>> WHAT DO OTHER COMMUNITIES DO? I KNOW, MARGARET, YOU SAID THAT YOU RESEARCHED A COUPLE OF OTHERS. [OVERLAPPING]
>> YEAH, MUNICODE, IN THEIR STATUTES OR GOING TO THEIR WEBSITE WHERE THEY'RE LOOKING AT THEIR APPLICATIONS.
ONE THING I DIDN'T DO WAS GO INSIDE THEIR PROGRAMS AND SEE IF THEIR BOARD SEE THEIR STAFF ANALYSIS AND SEE HOW THEIR STAFF WAS TREATING IT.
THAT I DID NOT DO, I ONLY HAVE SO MUCH TIME.
[LAUGHTER] WELL, I ALSO THOUGHT THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOME CASE LAW THAT COULD HELP US, AND I THOUGHT THAT'D BE THE BEST RATHER THAN TO SEE WHAT ARE OTHER MUNICIPALS DOING.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S BEEN ANY HINT, UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA LAW ARTICLES ABOUT IT OR ANYTHING.
[LAUGHTER] THERE'S SO MUCH ON THE HARDSHIP ISSUE.
>> IT'S BEEN A CONDITION AROUND OBVIOUSLY A LONG TIME, HAVING BEEN IN THE FLORIDA STATUTES FOR SO LONG, SO IT'S SURPRISING.
THERE ISN'T MORE CASE LAW, BUT THEN MAYBE BECAUSE USUALLY THERE WAS ANOTHER CRITERION THAT WASN'T MET OR SOMETHING, AND THAT'S REALLY WHAT THE COURT FOCUSED ON BECAUSE IT'S EASIER TO BE DISPOSITIVE.
>> I DON'T REMEMBER THAT KIND OF LANGUAGE BEING IN THE CITY OF CAMBRIDGE AND CITY OF SOMERVILLE, MASSACHUSETTS, ZONING ORDINANCES, OR WHICH WERE THE TWO THAT I PRACTICED WITH.
I THINK I'M GOING TO LOOK IT UP AND SEE WHAT THEY SAY.
>> IT'S JUST THAT SOMEHOW IT GOT INTO THE FLORIDA STATUTES AND BEEN HANGING AROUND [LAUGHTER] IN YEARS.
>> THE COUNTY OF FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA, PROBABLY POPULATION MILLION-AND-A-HALF WITH A BUDGET OF GOD KNOWS HOW MUCH, THEY HAVE SPECIAL PRIVILEGE IN THEIR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
I THINK IT JUST DEPENDS UPON THE PLACE.
>> WELL, I'M THINKING WE SHOULD ABOLISH IT, AND IN THAT PROCESS OR CONSIDER IT IF WE CAN HAVE THE CITY ATTORNEY LOOK AT THE CASE LAW AND SEE WHERE WE'RE REALLY AT.
TO ME, IT SERVES NO PURPOSE AT ALL.
TO ME, IT'S DISCRIMINATORY IN THE VERY END OF YOU'RE MAKING DECISIONS THAT MAY NOT BE PRECEDENT, BUT YOU'RE MAKING DIFFERENT DECISIONS BASED ON DIFFERENT ISSUES.
IF YOU REJECT ON SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM FAIR TO ME.
[00:55:01]
CAN WE EFFECTIVELY DO AWAY WITH IT AND MAKE IT EASIER FOR EVERYBODY? BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MEET THE REST OF THE CRITERIA AND BE VERY STRINGENT, WHICH WE ARE, ON THAT.>> I WOULD ONLY SUPPLEMENT THAT WITH THE OTHER FIVE CRITERIA, I THINK ARE QUITE WELL VERSED.
I THINK THEY'RE ARTICULATE ENOUGH.
I THINK THEY DEFINE AND GIVE US GOOD FRAMEWORK TO BE ABLE TO APPROVE AND DENY.
THAT ONE, I'VE ALWAYS QUESTION MYSELF.
WE'VE ALWAYS HEARD THAT, AND IT'S JUST BEEN THE SAME THING.
THE ONLY THING I COULD LOOK AT IS OTHER MUNICIPALITIES AND SEE HOW THEY HANDLE IT, BUT THAT'S ABOUT AS FAR AS MY TECHNICAL EXPERTISE ON THAT AREA GOES.
>> WE COULD DO THAT. WE COULD LOOK AT SOME OF THEIR PRESENTATIONS, THEIR ANALYSIS THAT THEIR STAFF DOES FOR THEIR SIMILAR BOARD MEETINGS.
LIKE I SAID, I FOCUSED JUST ON SEEING IF THEY COULD GET A CASE LAW.
THEN I GUESS THE NEXT STEP, IF WE WANTED TO MOVE FORWARD, WOULD IT BE ASKING THE PAB TO CONSIDER THIS? [OVERLAPPING] BECAUSE IT'S A LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT.
>> IT'S AN AMENDMENT TO THE LDC, AND SO WE COULD PROBABLY DO THAT.
IT'S A STAFF-DRIVEN DURING THE PERIODIC CHANGES.
ANYONE COULD COME IN AND FILE FOR IT, BUT THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE THE SIMPLEST WAY AND HAVE IT GO THROUGH THAT ROUTE BEFORE THE PAB AND THEN TO THE COMMISSION.
>> I THINK THAT'S BEST. LET'S GET OUR HOMEWORK TOGETHER FIRST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT ELIMINATING SOMETHING FOR SOMETHING WE HAVEN'T SEEN, [OVERLAPPING] ESPECIALLY IF OTHER MUNICIPALITIES STARTED DOING IT.
>> MAYBE A CHARITY STAFF COULD DO JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE LEGAL RESEARCH INTO THE HISTORY.
>> CASE LAW WOULDN'T TAKE LONG.
I DON'T KNOW HOW OTHERS VET IT.
WE COULD CERTAINLY DO RESEARCH OF OTHER MUNICIPALITIES TO UNDERSTAND HOW THEIR STAFF HANDLES THAT, GIVEN THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF FLORIDA CITIES HAVE THE STANDARD. HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH IT?
>> DON'T YOU HAVE CONTACTS WITH DIFFERENT MUNICIPALITIES? [OVERLAPPING]
>> BECAUSE YOU'RE TIED IN ACROSS THE STATE AS A PLAN.
>> BUT I WOULD ALSO SAY, IF WE'RE NOT REQUIRED BY LAW TO DO IT, WE COULD BE NUMBER 1.
>> GETTING RID OF IT? [LAUGHTER] LEAD THE WAY IN GETTING RID OF IT?
>> MEMBER KREGER, ALWAYS THE TRAIL BLAZER.
>> ANYTHING ELSE? ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL COMMENTS?
>> THAT JUST LOOKING AT HOW IT'S WRITTEN, I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS TO CONSIDER IS MAYBE EVEN MASSAGING THE SPECIAL PRIVILEGE THERE BECAUSE YOU LOOK AT ONE WAY IS IT DOES NOT CONFER UPON THE APPLICANT, A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE DENIED TO OTHER LAND STRUCTURES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT.
SO SOMEBODY COULDN'T ASK FOR A VARIANCE TO SAY, WELL, CELL TOWERS AREN'T PERMITTED IN CERTAIN DISTRICTS, BUT I WANT A CELL TOWER AND I WANT A VARIANCE FOR IT, SO I WANT AN AMENDMENT OR A VARIANCE FROM THE LDC.
THAT IS SOMETHING THAT OTHER LAND STRUCTURES AND BUILDINGS IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO DO.
MAYBE IF IT'S JUST A MASSAGING AS FAR AS A USE OR A TYPE OF STRUCTURE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT THAT'S NOT OTHERWISE ALLOWED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT, I THINK MAYBE JUST A LITTLE BIT OF CLARIFICATION COULD BE HELPFUL AS WELL.
>> USES ARE NOT SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN SEEK A VARIANCE FROM, JUST KEEP THAT IN MIND.
[OVERLAPPING] THAT'S WHY IT'S THE STRUCTURE OR THE BUILDING, IN THAT REGARD, CANNOT SEEK A VARIANCE ON USE.
IF IT'S PROHIBITED, YOU WON'T HAVE IT HERE.
THEY'D HAVE TO AMEND THE LDC TO MAKE THAT POSSIBLE.
>> ANYTHING ELSE? I'LL CLOSE THIS.
>> YEAH, SIX O'CLOCK.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.