>> [INAUDIBLE] THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
[1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL / DETERMINATION OF QUORUM]
[00:00:09]
INTERIOR REPUBLIC OF WHAT IT SENDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD IN TO THIS WORLD WITH LIBERTY AND WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE ROLL.SYLVIA, WILL YOU CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE?
>> MEMBER JOHNNY MILLER IS ABSENT.
>> THANK YOU. WE HAVE A PRETTY IMPORTANT CASE IN FRONT OF US HERE TODAY.
I'D FIRST LIKE TO START AND ASK OUR BOARD MEMBERS IF THERE'S BEEN ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATION AMONGST THE BOARD OR ANY OTHER PARTIES?
>> I HAVE EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS, MR. CHAIR.
>> ON SEPTEMBER 11, I HAD A BRIEF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH PAB MEMBER MARK BENNETT ABOUT LDC SECTION ONE OH 305 IN THIS APPEAL.
THEN ALSO EARLIER THIS WEEK, I HAD A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH OUR COUNSEL, MR. POOL, REGARDING THE LAWS APPLICABLE TO THIS APPEAL.
>> I SENT AN E MAIL TO THE CITY MANAGER REQUESTING SOME INFORMATION ON ZONING AND BASICALLY TALKED ABOUT THE LIVE LOCAL AND THE TOTAL PROJECT.
I DON'T KNOW HOW RELATES TO THIS, BUT THE CITY ATTORNEY SUGGESTED THAT I BRING THAT UP IN THE EX PARTE.
>> ON SEPTEMBER 23, I HAD TWO TELEPHONE CALLS WITH CAROLINE BEST JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT I HAD RECEIVED AND UNDERSTOOD THE MATERIALS THAT HAD BEEN SUBMITTED TO US.
THOSE WERE THE ONLY CONVERSATIONS.
>> I HAD TWO I HAD ONE PHONE CALL WITH SYLVIA, PERTAINING TO INFORMATION ON THE MEETING AND A CALL WITH MISS PRINCE PERTAINING TO INFORMATION ABOUT THE MEETING.
>> THANK YOU. MISS PRINCE, ARE YOU GOING TO BE THE ONE THAT DOES OUR PRESENTATION OF THE PROCEDURES OR PARISON IS THAT GOING TO BE YOU? I KNOW THIS WILL BE FIRST TIME FOR YOU.
DO YOU WANT TO DO THE FREQUENT 1 AND FREQUENT 2?
>> WHY DON'T WE INTRODUCE OUR NEW CITY ATTORNEY.
I DON'T WANT TO STEAL HER THUNDER, IF YOU'D LIKE TO GO OVER THE QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEDURES IN EFFECT THIS EVENING.
>> NO, I WILL LET HARRISON HANDLE THOSE.
IT'S A PLEASURE MEETING ALL OF YOU.
I DIDN'T EXPECT MY FIRST TIME TO BE IN FRONT OF YOU REPRESENTING STAFF, BUT I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU IN THE FUTURE.
I WILL BE REPRESENTING STAFF TONIGHT.
AS YOU KNOW, MR. POOL IS REPRESENTING THE BOARD.
I'M HAPPY TO BE A REPRESENTATIVE.
>> ACTUALLY, MR. POOL, THE PARTIES AGREED TO AN APPEAL PROCEDURE.
IT DOESN'T HAVE THE QUASI JUDICIAL READING, BUT I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE [INAUDIBLE].
>> TONIGHT'S HEARING IS GOVERNED BY OUR QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEDURES.
THAT MEANS THAT THE DECISION THAT YOU MAKE MUST BE SUPPORTED BY COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD BASED ON THE PROCEEDINGS AND WHAT'S PRESENTED TODAY.
THAT EVIDENCE CAN BE PRESENT IN THE FORM OF DOCUMENTS OR TESTIMONY.
ANYONE THAT'S WISHING TO GIVE TESTIMONY OR HAVE ANY DOCUMENTS ADMITTED, WILL NEED TO BE SWORN BY THE CLERK, WHICH WILL BE DONE IN A FEW MOMENTS.
THEN IF YOU CHANGE YOUR MIND AND YOU WANT TO SPEAK LATER AND YOU WEREN'T SWORN INITIALLY, JUST LET US KNOW AND WE CAN GET YOU SWORN AT THAT TIME.
WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT RELAXED PROCEDURES, BUT WE DO HAVE CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS FOR DUE PROCESS AND PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS.
ANY PERSON THAT DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE DECISION THAT'S MADE HAS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL THAT DECISION TO THE CIRCUIT COURT, AND THAT APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE WRITTEN ORDER SIGNED BY THE CHAIR, WHICH USUALLY IS WITHIN A FEW DAYS FOLLOWING THE MEETING.
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEDURES IN EFFECT THIS EVENING? IN ADDITIONALLY, THE PARTIES, AS MISS PRINCE MENTIONED, ALL FOUR PARTIES, THAT IS THE BOARD, THE CITY, THE APPELLANT, AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS, ATTORNEYS HAVE HAD DISCUSSIONS AND AGREED TO THE PROCEDURES TO USE AS FAR AS TIME LIMITS, ORDER, PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCE, AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.
WE DO HAVE HARD COPIES OF THOSE, AND I BROUGHT AN EXTRA COPY TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CHAIR HAS THEM WITH HIM.
THAT'S WHAT WE'LL BE USING TO GOVERN TONIGHT'S HEARING.
>> THANK YOU, HARRISON. WILL YOU GO AHEAD AND SWEAR IN ANY WITNESS THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, PLEASE.
>> PLEASE STAND UP AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
[00:05:02]
ANYBODY THAT WISHES TO SPEAK TONIGHT? 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?>> JUST AS A REMINDER, WHEN YOU ARE INVITED TO SPEAK IN THE PUBLIC, WHEN WE OPEN THE PUBLIC SPEAKING PORTION, WHEN YOU COME TO THE MIC, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS.
THANK YOU. STAFF PRESENTATION.
ARE WE READY TO GO AHEAD AND PROCEED WITH THAT?
>> WELL, JUST A POINT OF ORDER.
DID YOU WANT TO REVIEW THE MINUTES FROM JUNE?
YES? I'M SKIPPING AROUND HERE.
I GOT THREE DIFFERENT DOCUMENTS I'M LOOKING AT, SO I APOLOGIZE.
[3. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES]
YEAH, WE'LL APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM LAST MEETING AND BACK IN JUNE, WAS THERE ANYBODY WHO HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO READ THROUGH THEM AND HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH THEM?>> I RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
>> SECOND. WE HAVE A FIRST AND THE SECOND. CO-VOTE, PLEASE?
>> VICE CHAIR KRIEGER. CHAIR PAKI?
>> I APPRECIATE THAT. SORRY FOR THE MEETINGS THERE.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND NOW OPEN IT UP FOR THE STAFF PRESENTATION, PLEASE.
[5.1 BOA 2025-0003 APPEAL - TAINA CHRISTNER]
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. MY NAME IS SARAH CAMPBELL, AND I AM THE CITY MANAGER.
I'VE PREPARED THE STAFF REPORT THAT IS IN YOUR PACKET TONIGHT.
I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE OVERVIEW OF THAT REPORT, AND THEN I WILL PAUSE AND ASK QUESTIONS OR TESTIMONY.
THIS APPEAL IS RELATED TO PROPERTY OWNED BY WORTHY INVESTMENT, AND IT'S LOCATED ON 124 THIRD STREET, AND A SERIES OF ADDRESSES ON FOURTH STREET.
ON PARCEL NUMBERS ARE LISTED THEREFORE FOR YOU.
THE APPEAL WAS FILED BY MISS TINA CHRISTNER.
THE APPEAL STATED ON THE FACE OF THE APPEAL IS TO APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS, FOUR TRIPLEX UNITS ON THE SUBJECT PARCELS.
TWO OF THE PARCELS, THE TWO PARCELS ON THE WESTERN SIDE ARE ZONED MU1, AND THE THREE PARCELS ON THE EAST SIDE R2, AND THE SITE IS CURRENTLY VACANT.
OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE DESCRIBES THE PROCESS FOR FILING THE APPEAL.
MY REPORT IS REQUIRED TO SUPPORT YOUR HEARING TONIGHT.
WE'VE INCLUDED SOME ADDITIONAL SUPPORTING MATERIALS THAT ARE EXHIBITS TO THIS REPORT.
SECTION 1107 DESCRIBES 11 POSSIBLE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS THAT CAN BE APPEALED.
DECISIONS OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL ARE LISTED AS ITEM 7.
MR. PARR IS OUR BUILDING OFFICIAL AND IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ISSUING CITY BUILDING PERMITS.
HE BEGAN ISSUING PERMITS FOR THIS SITE AROUND JULY 7.
THEN LATER ON, A SERIES OF SEPARATE PERMITS WERE ISSUED FOR THE INDIVIDUAL DWELLING UNITS INSPECTIONS TRACKED ON THOSE AS INDIVIDUALLY.
WE USE AN INTERNAL PIECE OF SOFTWARE CALLED INTERGOV TO MANAGE THAT.
NOT NECESSARILY PIECES OF PAPER THAT ARE PASSED FROM PERSON TO PERSON FOR APPROVAL, BUT A DIGITAL SYSTEM.
WHEN THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT RECEIVES A DIGITAL PACKET FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, IT HAS DIGITAL APPROVALS IN IT, AND THEN IT'S FORWARDED TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT FOR THEIR ISSUE AS A DEPARTMENT.
MISS CHRISTNER APPEAL ON PAGE 5 GOES ON TO LIST NUMEROUS CONCERNS WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED ON THE SITE.
MOST OF THESE I FIND ARE RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER, WHICH IS ISSUED BY THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE THAT WAS ISSUED ON 12TH.
A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE SITES.
THERE ARE FIVE PARCELS MADE UP OF 20 PLATTED LOTS.
EACH OF THOSE PLATTED LOTS ARE 25 FEET WIDE AND 100 FEET DEEP.
WE HAVE MIXED TWO DIFFERENT MIXED ZONINGS AND EQUALLY 55 PLATTED LOTS AND ONE PARCEL, FIVE PLATTED LOTS, AND ANOTHER PARCEL THAT ARE ZONED MU1.
AND THEN ON THE EASTERN SIDE, WE GOT ANOTHER TEN PLATTED PARCELS THAT ARE ZONED R2.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES PREVIOUSLY CONTAINED SEVERAL RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES THAT SPAN MORE THAN ONE PLATTED LOT ORIGINALLY.
WHERE WE HAVE THE IMAGE THERE, OF PREVIOUS STRUCTURES THAT EXIST ON THE SITE.
[00:10:04]
IN THE STAFF REPORT, I GO ON TO PROVIDE YOU EXAMPLES OF RELEVANT SECTIONS OF OUR CODE THAT YOU MIGHT WANT TO EXAMINE TONIGHT THAT MAY BE APPLICABLE.THE FIRST ONE I WILL CALL OUT IS HOW MR. PARK PERFORMS HIS DUTIES UNDER THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE.
THAT'S THAT SECTION 105.3.1, THAT'S FROM THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE.
HE IS COMPELLED TO ISSUE PERMITS WHEN HE HAS DETERMINED THAT THEY ARE SATISFACTORY.
WE'VE INCLUDED THE TIMELINE FOR FILING ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS, WHICH IS 30 DAYS FROM WHEN A DECISION IS MADE.
THEN SOME SUBSEQUENT SECTIONS IN THE LDCS ABOUT DEFINING VIOLATIONS OF THE LDCS, HOW COMPLIANCE CAN OCCUR WHEN A VIOLATION TAKES PLACE.
THEN I'VE INCLUDED SECTIONS 10305 AND 10304.
ADDITIONALLY, I'VE INCLUDED SECTION 105.01.
WE DON'T OFTEN REFER TO THIS SECTION, BUT THAT SPEAKS TO WHEN THERE IS A CONFLICT IN THE LDCS, HOW WE ARE SUPPOSED TO HANDLE THOSE CONFLICTS.
MY EVALUATION IS THAT MR. PARR ACTED PROPERLY BASED ON THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE AND THAT THE APPEAL OF HIS ACTIONS SHOULD BE DENIED BY THIS BODY.
ISSUES RAISED IN MISS CHRISTNER APPEAL ON THE MATTER OF THE ACTIONS OF THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE DEVELOPMENT ORDER ARE NOT TIMELY AND POTENTIALLY NOT GERMANE TO THIS BODY AS THAT APPEAL WAS SUBMITTED MORE THAN 30 DAYS AFTER ISSUANCE OF THE DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL LETTER.
I'M GOING TO PAUSE THERE AND RESERVE THE RIGHT TO COME BACK TO SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN THE STAFF REPORT IF WE GET FURTHER DOWN A LITTLE UP THERE.
>> MR. CHAIR, IF I MAY AS THE ATTORNEY.
FOUR CITY STAFF TONIGHT, HAVE WITH US HEARD FROM MISS CAMPBELL CITY MANAGER.
I ALSO HAVE THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, MR. PARR IN THE ROOM TO TESTIFY.
MISS MARGARET PEARSON IS HERE AS WELL, WHO IS OUR PLANNER.
AS MISS CAMPBELL HAS PRESENTED TO YOU, WE ARE HERE FOR THE APPEAL OF MISS CHRISTNER.
ON THE ZOOM, YOU MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE REALIZED WE HAVE MR. DOWN IN THAT CORNER IS MISS CHRISTNER'S ATTORNEY.
AS MISS CAMPBELL HAS STATED, WE ARE HERE ON THE FACE OF MISS CHRISTNERS APPEAL.
SHE'S APPEALING THE ISSUANCE OF THE BUILDING PERMITS.
THE REASON WHY THAT IS KEY IS BECAUSE THOSE BUILDING PERMITS WERE ISSUED BETWEEN JULY 7 AND THE 14TH.
HER APPEAL THAT SHE FILED ON JULY 16 WAS TIMELY AS TO THE BUILDING PERMITS AND THE DATE THAT THEY WERE ISSUED.
AS MISS CAMPBELL TESTIFIED TO THE MISS CHRISTNER DOES RAISE THE ISSUE OF THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE LETTER.
THAT TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MET ON MARCH 27, 2025, AND MISS CHRISTNER WAS PRESENT.
THE MINUTES OF THOSE MEETINGS ARE IN YOUR PACKET AS BACKUP AND AS EXHIBITS TO MISS CAMPBELL'S STAFF REPORT.
ON THE MARCH 27, 2025 MEETING, THE STATEMENT WAS MADE BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR THAT AFTER THE LAST COMMENT WAS ADDRESSED, THEN THE PERMITS WOULD BE ISSUED.
THE LETTER WAS THE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER AND I WANTED TO STOP THERE BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR US CALL IT THE TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER, AND YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR US CALL IT THE TRC LETTER, THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE LETTER.
UNDER OUR CODE, THAT'S THE DEFINITION OF A LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER, WOULD BE THIS TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE LETTER THAT WAS ISSUED FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, AND THAT WAS DATED JUNE 12, 2025, WHICH IS IT DOES PUT MISS CHRISTNER APPEAL OUTSIDE OF THE 30 DAY WINDOW OF THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE.
FURTHER, AND I THINK PROBABLY MORE IMPORTANTLY IS THAT THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE DECISIONS ARE NOT ONE OF THE AREAS LISTED FOR APPEAL UNDER SECTION 11.0700 OF THE CITY'S CODE.
IT IS NOT A LISTED ITEM, BUT WAS LISTED, AGAIN, AND WHY THE APPEAL WAS GRANTED WAS NUMBER SEVEN, THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL.
UNDER 11.0701B AS IN BOY, IT SAYS ONLY THE FOLLOWING ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS ARE SUBJECT TO APPEAL AS SET FORTH HERE IN.
[00:15:03]
EACH OF YOU CAN READ, BUT FOR THE RECORD, WE HAVE THE TREE PERMITS.WE HAVE A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT, LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS, MINOR AMENDMENTS TO LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDERS, ADMINISTRATIVE WAIVERS, CONTEXT SENSITIVE SETBACK DETERMINATIONS.
NUMBER SEVEN IS THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, NUMBER EIGHT, DECISION OF THE FIRE MARSHAL, NUMBER NINE, DETERMINATIONS REGARDING CHANGE OF USE.
NUMBER TEN, WRITTEN INTERPRETATIONS REGARDING USE OR ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARIES WHEN SUCH INTERPRETATION ARE NOT CONTAINED WITHIN A COMPLIANCE REPORT, WHICH WOULD BE A TECHNICAL REPORT, AND DETERMINATION OF SUFFICIENCY AND COMPLETENESS AS REQUIRED BY THE LDC.
I'VE READ IT ALOUD, I'M SURE THAT YOU WERE ABLE TO BRING IT UP AS WELL.
IT'S NOT THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE ANY APPEAL OF A LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER WHICH COMES FROM OUR TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE, IN MY OPINION WOULD GO TO CIRCUIT COURT.
THERE'S NOT A PROVISION IN OUR CODE TO HAVE IT HEARD BY THIS BODY.
THE APPEAL CAME IN PRIOR TO, AND NOT THAT THIS MATTERS, BUT JUST PROCEDURALLY SO YOU UNDERSTAND I WASN'T THE CITY ATTORNEY AT THE TIME WHEN IT CAME IN.
I WILL ASK MISS CAMPBELL, SHE CAN STATE IT FOR THE RECORD.
WERE YOU CONSULTED BEFORE THE APPEAL WAS GRANTED AND SET?
>> YES, THAT THE APPEAL HAD BEEN FILED, YES.
>> WHEN IT WAS GRANTED TO GO ON THE FIRST BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS MEETING.
>> MS. PRINCE, YOU KEEP SAYING APPEAL GRANTED, BUT YOU MEAN ALLOWED IT TO BE HEARD OR TO PROCEED.
>> I'M SAYING ALLOWED IT TO BE HEARD IS AT MUCH FOR THE RECORD, THAT IS A CLARIFICATION.
BUT THE APPEAL IT WAS NOT SENT TO LEGAL REVIEW WHERE YOU ASKED, DID YOU HAVE LEGAL REVIEW OF WHEN THE APPEAL CAME IN AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU WERE GOING TO SET THE APPEAL AND ALLOW IT TO GO FORWARD, DID YOU HAVE LEGAL CONSULTATION ON THAT?
>> NO, I DON'T BELIEVE SO. I BELIEVE THAT MS. GIBSON RECEIVED THE APPEAL APPLICATION, REVIEWED IT, AND SCHEDULED IT FOR A HEARING ORIGINALLY IN AUGUST.
WE THOUGHT IT WAS THE PROPER TIMING FOR THAT SO THEN WE RESCHEDULED IT FOR SEPTEMBER.
I DON'T THINK WE HAD ANY LEGAL CONSULTATION IN THAT WINDOW.
>> ONCE I JOINED THE CITY AND LOOKED AT IT AND BROUGHT IT FORWARD THAT THE APPEAL OF THE TRC WAS NOT APPROPRIATE IN THIS JURISDICTION.
WE HAVE SHARED THAT WITH MS. KRISTNER'S ATTORNEY.
WE HAVE SHARED THAT WITH MR. PARR AND WITH MR. WALKER.
THAT IS OUR OPINION THAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL THE APPEAL OF HIS INTERPRETATION.
THE BUILDING OFFICIAL WOULD ARGUE YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE JURISDICTION TO HEAR THAT.
BUT HIS INTERPRETATION IS WHAT IS BEFORE YOU AND NOT THE TRC.
WE ARE GOING TO ARGUE THAT BASED ON PROCEDURAL PROCESS THAT WE SHOULD PRESENT TO YOU THE EVIDENCE THAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL DID HIS JOB WHEN ISSUING THE PERMITS, AND THAT'S I'M GOING TO CALL MR. PARR, UNLESS YOU'D LIKE TO ASK [LAUGHTER] MS. CAMPBELL SOME QUESTIONS.
DES THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. CAMPBELL BEFORE I BRING UP MR. PARR?
>> I DO. I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS.
MS. PRINCE, YOU'RE THE MORE APPROPRIATE PERSON, MAYBE MS. CAMPBELL IN SOME CASES, AND MAYBE MR. PARR WHEN HE IS HERE.
IN THE PACKET, IN THE CITY STAFF REPORT.
WHAT IS ACTUALLY THE CORRECT NUMBER FOR THIS CASE SINCE THE CITY HAS DONE IT? YOUR STAFF REPORT REFERS TO IT AS ADMIN 20205-0001.
THE AGENDA REFERS TO IT AS APPEAL 2025-0003.
I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHICH IS CORRECT BECAUSE IF SOMEBODY MAKES A A MOTION, WE NEED TO REFERENCE THE CORRECT CASE NUMBER.
>> I WOULD DEFER TO THE PLANNING STAFF ON THAT ONE.
I BELIEVED THIS WAS THE FIRST ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OF 2025.
THAT'S WHY I NUMBERED THE STAFF REPORT THAT WAY.
BUT WE CAN GET CLARIFICATION FROM THE PLANNING SF.
THEY HAVE PRIOR APPEALS ON FILE.
>> THE AGENDA IS SECOND ONE IS 03.
>> BUT THIS ONE IS APPEAL 2025-001.
GOOD. JUST INITIAL POINT OF ORDER.
THANK YOU. NOW, FOR MY QUESTION, SORRY.
[00:20:03]
IN THE STAFF REPORT, AND THE LAST PARAGRAPH, MS. CAMPBELL, YOU MENTIONED THAT IT'S YOUR EVALUATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE LDC.I'M READING THIS DIRECTLY, IT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE LDC.
IT'S ACTUALLY A DEVELOPMENT ORDER, AND ANYTHING THAT COME SUBSEQUENT TO IT IS IN VIOLATION OF THE LDC.
GIVEN THAT, WHY UNDER YOUR AUTHORITY IN 110802C, WHICH IS INCLUDED IN OUR PACKET, WHERE IT SAYS THE CITY MANAGER AND GOES ON.
MAY ORDER DISCONTINUANCE OF LAND OR BUILDINGS, AND THEN TOWARDS THE END, IT SAYS, REVOCATION OF ANY BUILDING PERMIT OR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY OR ANY OR ALL OTHER ACTION NECESSARY TO CORRECT VIOLATIONS AND OBTAIN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL THE PROVISIONS OF THIS LDC.
WHY HAVE YOU GIVEN THAT IT'S YOUR OPINION THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT ORDER DID VIOLATE THE LDC, WHY HAVE YOU NOT TAKEN ACTION PURSUANT TO THAT CLAUSE?
>> BEFORE MS. CAMPBELL ANSWERS THAT QUESTION, I WANT TO DIRECT YOUR ATTENTION TO THE EVALUATION.
IT WAS OUR POSITION THAT IS THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE, THE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER IS NOT UNDER 11.7. HOWEVER, I AGREE.
MS. CAMPBELL THOUGHT THAT THE BOARD MAY CONSIDER TO NOT I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOUR ATTORNEY IS GOING TO TELL YOU OF WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN CONSIDER THE TRC AND THE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER.
THAT IS WHY SHE PUT THE REMAINDER AND THE CITY CHOSE TO PUT THE REMAINDER OF THE ANALYSIS IN THERE.
I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION, BUT THAT OUR POSITION IS THE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER IS NOT APPROPRIATELY BEFORE YOU.
>> I BECAME AWARE OF THAT PERTINENT SECTION, THE ENFORCEMENT SECTION 110802 AFTER THE APPEAL WAS FILED.
I THINK I BECAME AWARE OF THIS SECTION SOMEWHERE BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 10 AND SEPTEMBER 17, BASED ON THE STAFF REPORT AND DRAFT MODE.
THE APPEAL HAD ALREADY BEEN FILED, AND I THOUGHT IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO LET THE APPEAL PROCESS OUT.
THEN BASED ON THIS BODY'S DECISIONS, I WILL CONSULT WITH LEGAL COUNSEL BEFORE I MAKE ANY MOVE.
>> I SUSPECT THAT HAD YOU TAKEN ACTION UNDER THAT, THE APPEAL MIGHT HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN.
WHO KNOWS? WE WILL NEVER KNOW. WE ARE.
I DO AGREE WITH YOU, MS. PRINCE, THAT AND COUNSEL CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THAT WE DO NOT HAVE ANY AUTHORITY TO HEAR MATTERS.
THE ONLY THING UNDER THAT THE TRC DOES WOULD BE MINOR AMENDMENTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER.
I THINK THERE'S IF IT AFFECTS SOME OF THE USES DENSITY TYPE THING, MAYBE IT COMES OUT OF TRC, BUT CERTAINLY NOT THIS DEVELOPMENT ORDER WOULD NOT.
I DO AGREE WITH YOU, AND IT WAS A LITTLE SURPRISING TO SEE SO MUCH REFERENCE AND RECOMMENDATION THAT WE TAKE ACTION RELATING TO THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER BECAUSE I DO NOT BELIEVE WE HAVE ANY AUTHORITY TO DO THAT, AND THERE WOULDN'T BE ANYTHING THAT WE COULD DO ON THAT.
AM I CORRECT, MS. PRINCE, THAT THE TRC IS NOT A QUASI JUDICIAL ENTITY?
>> YOU'RE CORRECT THAT THE CITY OF FERNANDINA OF BEACH DOES NOT CONDUCT IT AND CONSIDER IT JUDICIAL.
BUT THE FACT OF WHETHER OR NOT WHEN THAT MEETING WAS HELD, THAT IT'S GOING TO BE CONSIDERED JUDICIAL.
UNDER CERTAIN CASE LAW, IF YOU HAVE A BODY THAT MEETS.
THAT'S A DECISION MAKING BODY THAT HAS BEEN NOTICED, AND THERE HAS BEEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD.
THEN A COURT COULD SEE THAT IT'S LIKE, IF IT'S A DUCK, IT'S A DUCK.
IT WALKS LIKE A DUCK AND IT QUACKS LIKE A DUCK, IT'S A DUCK.
WHILE WE DO NOT HOLD THEM AS QUASI JUDICIAL HEARINGS, MS. KRISTNER WAS AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD.
SHE WAS AFFORDED NOTICE AND ATTENDED AND ACCORDING TO THE MINUTES.
I'VE OBVIOUSLY NOT CROSS EXAMINED MS. KRISTNER, BUT SHE WAS THERE AND SPOKE ON THE RECORD WITH THE MINUTES THAT WERE APPROVED.
WE DO NOT HOLD IT AS A QUASI JUDICIAL, AND WHETHER OR NOT A COURT WOULD DETERMINE IT TO BE QUASI JUDICIAL, IS I THINK THERE COULD BE SUPPORT OF THAT.
>> IS IT YOUR VIEW THEN BASED ON WHAT YOU SAID EARLIER,
[00:25:04]
THAT GIVEN THAT AN APPEAL OF A TRC ACTION CANNOT COME BEFORE THIS BOARD, YOU'RE TAKING IS IT YOUR OPINION THAT THE ACTION BECAUSE OF THE TRC, BECAUSE THIS IS ESSENTIALLY ACTING IN A QUASI JUDICIAL MANNER IS A FINAL ORDER, AND THEREFORE, WE GO TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FROM A PETITION OF SOCIAL RALLY OR DOES IT NEEDS TO BE AN ORIGINAL ACTION DE NOVA?>> I HAVE MY OPINIONS ON THAT, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S FOR US TO DECIDE.
I DO THINK IT NEEDS TO GO TO CIRCUIT COURT AND WHICH WAY IT GETS THERE AND HOW IT'S PLED IS UP TO WHICHEVER PLAINTIFF FILES.
BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT IF THE TRC MEETS AND MAKES A DECISION IN THE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER IS ISSUED, THAT THE RELIEF UNDER OUR CODE IS TO GO TO CIRCUIT COURT AND WHAT THEY FILE AND WHAT THEY DECIDE TO FILE, AND HOW THEY DECIDE TO PLEAD IT WOULD BE UP TO THAT PLAINTIFF.
I WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THE LANGUAGE IN 110702.
THE TIME FOR FILING ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL.
AS I UNDERSTAND YOU AND THE STAFF REPORT, YOU'RE TAKING THE POSITION THAT THIS 30 DAYS TO ACT TO FILING WITH THE CITY MANAGER APPLIES TO ANY ACTION OF ANY ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION OF THE CITY.
THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE THAT IN HERE.
>> WE HAVE IT IN HERE BECAUSE IT RELATES TO MS. KRISTNER'S APPEAL BEING TIMELY FOR THE BUILDING OFFICIALS DECISION UNDER 11.0701.
THE 11 ITEMS THAT ARE LISTED, AND THEN 110702 TELLS YOU THAT YOU HAVE TO FILE IT WITHIN 30 DAYS.
>> YOU INCLUDED THIS LANGUAGE FOR 30 DAYS BECAUSE SHE WAS TIMELY IN FILING HER APPEAL ON THE BUILDING.
>> THAT IS THE WAY HER APPEAL IS STYLED.
>> CORRECT. YOU'RE NOT USING THIS TO SAY THAT THIS ISN'T THE LANGUAGE YOU'RE POINTING TO THAT SHE ONLY HAD 30 DAYS TO APPEAL AFTER NOTICE OF THE DEVELOPMENT LETTER HAVING BEEN RENDERED.
>> I THINK THAT WHAT WE DID IN THE STAFF REPORT IS CAUSING SOME CONFUSION.
WE WERE CONCERNED THAT THE BOA MIGHT LET IN EVIDENCE ABOUT THE TRC, SO WE WANTED TO HAVE INFORMATION PREPARED.
BUT YES, THAT 30 DAYS ON THE BUILDING OFFICIAL IS BASED ON 110701.
BUT THEN GENERALLY, APPEALS OF DECISIONS BODIES IS 30 DAYS, JUST LIKE THE APPEAL OF THIS DECISION OF THIS BODY IS 30 DAYS.
>> IN GENERAL, YOU'RE JUST SAYING THAT'S COMING OUT OF FLORIDA APPELLATE LAW. THE 30 DAYS.
>> ANYTHING THAT'S OUTSIDE OF [OVERLAPPING].
>> I MAY JUST INTERJECT FOR JUST MOVEMENT AND DEFERENCE TO MADAM COURT REPORTER HERE.
IF WE COULD HAVE EVERYONE JUST SPEAK ONE AT A TIME AND NOT INTERRUPT EACH OTHER, IT'S GOING TO MAKE HER JOB A LOT EASIER AND MAKE FOR A CLEANER RECORD.
>> YES. MARK, I JUST SAY THAT I'M NOT HERE TO ADVISE THIS BOARD OR MS. KRISTNER HOW IF SHE DECIDES THAT SHE'S TIMELY AND WANTS TO GO TO CIRCUIT COURT, THAT'S HER AND HER ATTORNEY'S DECISION BASED ON WHATEVER HAPPENS TONIGHT.
WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT THE TRC SHOULD NOT BE HERE, AND EVEN IF IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE HERE, SHE'S BEYOND THE 30 DAYS.
BUT YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO HEAR THE TRC APPEALS.
YOU ARE ONE BOARD MEMBER THAT SEEMS TO AGREE WITH THAT.
WE WEREN'T SURE HOW EVERYONE ELSE WOULD SEE IT.
THE APPELLANT'S OPTIONS OF THE LAW WILL BE AT HER AND HER ATTORNEY'S DISCRETION AFTER BOARD MAKES ITS DECISION.
IF IT'S ONE THAT SHE CHOOSES TO EITHER APPEAL THIS BOARD.
NOW FROM TODAY, AS MR. POOL SAID, SHE'LL HAVE 30 DAYS DEPENDING ON HOW THIS BOARD ACTS, EITHER PARTY.
>> I WAS ONLY ASKING ABOUT THE 30 DAYS OFF THE TRC LETTER BECAUSE IT WAS REFERRED TO MANY TIMES IN THE CITY STAFF REPORT, THAT SHE WAS NOT TIMELY.
THAT'S WHY I WAS WHERE UNDER WHAT YOU WERE POINTING TO, AND YOU WERE NOT POINTING TO IT WAS CONFUSING TO ME BECAUSE I THOUGHT MAYBE YOU WERE POINT TO 110702.
I THINK IT'S CONFUSING BECAUSE WE WERE IN A VACUUM WORRIED THAT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE OTHER FOUR WILL CONSIDER. IF MR. POOL IS GOING TO ADVISE YOU HEAR ANYTHING ABOUT THE TRC.
WE WERE PUTTING IN INFORMATION EVEN IF YOU THOUGHT YOU COULD HEAR THE TRC, IT'S UNTIMELY.
WE WERE TRYING TO ANTICIPATE SOME OF YOUR CONCERNS.
[00:30:01]
I THINK IN DOING SO, WE HAVE MAYBE CONFUSED YOU IN THE RECORD.>> I HAVE A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS ON THIS SAME TOPIC.
I CAN DO THEM NOW OR WAIT UNTIL YOU'RE FIST.
>> CAN YOU HELP ME WITH THE TIMING? I THINK YOU SAID THE TRC ISSUED THEIR LETTER, WHICH IS THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER ON 12TH JUNE.
IS IT THE TRC THAT ISSUES THAT LETTER OR IS THAT THE CITY, OR DOES IT MATTER?
SOME RESPECTS IT DOESN'T MATTER.
BUT THE TRC LETTER IS ISSUED BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR AFTER THE TRC MEETS.
THE CHAIR OR WHOEVER IS APPOINTED BY THE CHAIR TO SIGN THE LETTER, SIGNS IT, AND IT IS AN ACTION OF THE CITY.
THERE WOULD NOT BE A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE TRC, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ASKING THE TECH COMMITTEE?
>> IT IS AN ACTION OF THE CITY.
>> WHO DOES THAT LETTER GO TO? WHO GETS IT?
>> THE BUILDING OFFICIAL GETS EVIDENCE THAT IT'S HAPPENED, AND THEN THE PROPERTY OWNER GETS IT, AND I'D HAVE TO ASK MS. PEARSON, IF IT'S SENT TO ANYONE ELSE.
>> IF THERE'S A OWNER AGENTS INVOLVED IN THE PROJECT, THEN IT'S ISSUED TO THEM AS WELL.
IN THIS CASE, I THINK MR. FLICK IS HERE, HE REPRESENTS THE OWNER, IT WOULD HAVE GONE TO HIM AS WELL.
>> IS IT NOTIFIED TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC?
>> MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ARE ON NOTICE BECAUSE AT THE OPEN MEETING, IT WAS STATED THAT THERE WAS ONE MORE ISSUE TO BE RESOLVED, AND THEN THE PERMITS WOULD BE ISSUED.
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ARE ON NOTICE THAT THAT LETTER COULD COME AT ANY TIME.
>> IF THERE'S A TIME PERIOD THAT'S RUNNING, CAN IT RUN FROM A LETTER THAT ISN'T MADE PUBLIC? OR IS THE TIME PERIOD THAT'S RELEVANT GOING TO RUN FROM A PUBLIC NOTICE? [OVERLAPPING] HEAR THE MEETING, PRESUMABLY, OR SOME LATER EVENT?
>> AGAIN, THERE ARE ARGUMENTS ON BOTH SIDES OF THAT.
OUR ARGUMENT IS THAT THERE WAS NOTICE.
SHE WAS AT THE MEETING, ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC THAT ATTENDS THESE MEETINGS KNOWS THAT IT WAS STATED ON THE RECORD IN HER MINUTES IN THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED.
QUOTING FROM THEM, MS. GIBSON CLARIFIED THAT AFTER THE LAST COMMENT IS ADDRESSED, THIS CASE WILL BE READY FOR FINAL SIGN-OFF.
AGAIN, WE DO NOT BELIEVE THE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER IS PROPERLY BEFORE YOU, SO THESE ARE ISSUES THAT WOULD BE FOR A COURT TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT SHE WAS GIVEN PROPER NOTICE SOME TIME. [OVERLAPPING]
>> LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND HOW THAT WORKS.
THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER IS ISSUED, AND THEN A BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION GOES IN AND THE BUILDING OFFICIAL THEN REVIEWS THAT SUBMISSION.
>> IF I MAY, MR. CHAIR, I COULD CALL THE BUILDING OFFICIAL TO GIVE HIS TESTIMONY, AND THAT MAY HELP WITH THAT.
HE COULD AT LEAST ANSWER THAT QUESTION FOR YOU.
>> WELL, IT'LL BE A LEGAL QUESTION FIRST, SO MAYBE FOR YOU, AND THEN WE CAN HEAR FROM THE BUILDING OFFICIAL.
AS I READ THE STAFF REPORT, THERE'S AN EXTRACT, A FEW SCREENSHOTS FROM THE SOFTWARE, WHICH INDICATES WHEN THE BUILDING APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED.
THEN IT HAS A NUMBER OF OTHER ITEMS THAT ARE TICKED OFF AS RECEIVED OR APPROVED, OR WHATEVER THE LANGUAGE IS.
IS THE REFERENCE IN THAT SOFTWARE TO PLANNING THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER IN THIS CASE?
>> THE REFERENCE TO ALL OF THE CHECKED BOXES ARE THE ELEMENT ORDER BECAUSE THE BUILDING OFFICIAL HIS JOB DESCRIPTION DOESN'T HAVE THE EXPERTISE TO REQUIRE HIM TO SIGN OFF ON STORMWATER TO REQUIRE HIM TO SIGN OFF [INAUDIBLE] TO REQUIRE HIM TO SIGN OFF ON CERTAIN ELEMENTS OF FIRE.
THE TRC IS COMPRISED OF THE DEPARTMENTS THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING.
THAT'S WHY HIS BOXES, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, THE WAY THAT'S INDICATED THAT THE REST OF THE DEPARTMENT HEADS AND THE DEPARTMENTS THAT WOULD CONSIST OF THE TRC BEING IMPROVED HAVE ALL CHECKED OFF.
>> THEN HIS AREA OF EXPERTISE IS THE BUILDING CODE.
>> WHEN HE'S SATISFIED WITH COMPLIANCE WITH THE BUILDING CODE, A PERMIT THEN ISSUES?
>> CORRECT. MR. PARR WILL TESTIFY TO THIS AS WELL.
I'M A LITTLE OUT OF LEGAL AT THIS POINT.
HE HAS EXPLAINED. [OVERLAPPING]
>> DON'T WORRY. I'M GOING TO BRING YOU BACK.
>> HE HAS EXPLAINED TO ME THAT, YES WHEN EVERYTHING COMES IN, THAT IS HIS RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING IS COMPLIED WITH.
HE DOESN'T WHAT I CALL PEEL BACK THE LAYERS OF THE ONION.
[00:35:03]
AT THAT POINT, HE IS TO ISSUE THE BUILDING PERMIT.THE STATUTE IS VERY SPECIFIC OF THE TIMELINE THAT HE HAS TO ISSUE A BUILDING PERMIT.
IN THIS CASE, IN PARTICULAR, THERE WAS ALSO AN INDEPENDENT EXAMINER WHICH FURTHER QUICKENED HIS TIME TO ISSUE AND CONTROL OF ANY CERTAIN EVEN LOOKING AT THE BUILDING CODE.
AT THAT POINT, IT'S A PRO FORMA REVIEW WHERE HE'S MAKING SURE THE SEALS OF THE ENGINEERS ARE VALID AND STILL EFFECTIVE AND HAVEN'T EXPIRED, AND HE CAN GO INTO MORE DETAIL ON THAT.
THE CITY DOES NOT TAKE PLANS FROM DEPARTMENT TO DEPARTMENT.
A TRC IS COMPRISED OF THE APPROPRIATE DEPARTMENTS.
THE BUILDING OFFICIALS PROGRAM ALLOWS HIM TO SEE THAT EACH HAS SIGNED OFF, AND THEN THAT'S WHEN THE BUILDING OFFICIAL WOULD MAKE THE DECISION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT TO ISSUE THE PERMITS, AS LONG AS THE BUILDING CODE IS SATISFIED, AND IF THERE'S AN INDEPENDENT EXAMINER, THEN HE HAS EVEN LESS AUTHORITY AT THAT POINT.
>> JUST TO WIND UP THIS LINE OF QUESTIONING, AND THEN I CAN TURN IT BACK.
LET ME BRING YOU TO THE BUILDING CODE PROVISION, I THINK YOU'VE PRESENTED IN THE REPORT IN THE STAFF REPORT, 105.3.1 ACTION ON APPLICATION.
THAT HAS LANGUAGE IN IT ABOUT WHAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL SHALL DO.
IT DOES TALK ABOUT BUILDING CODE COMPLIANCE.
IT SAYS, IF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL IS SATISFIED THAT THE PROPOSED WORK CONFORMS TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS CODE, PRESUMABLY THE BUILDING CODE, AND LAWS AND ORDINANCES APPLICABLE THERE TOO.
HOW DOES THE CITY READ AND LAWS AND ORDINANCES APPLICABLE THERE TOO? [OVERLAPPING] IS THAT LIMITED TO THE BUILDING CODE, OR IS THAT SWEEPING IN OTHER LAWS AND ORDINANCES APPLICABLE TO THE PROPOSED WORK?
>> THANK YOU, BOARD MEMBER MILLER. THE BUILDING OFFICIAL WILL TESTIFY TO HIS INTERPRETATION OF THAT.
IT IS OUR INTERPRETATION THAT IT IS THE BUILDING CODE AND THE TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO THE BUILDING CODE.
EVEN IF YOU WERE TO BROADEN IT TO ANYTHING, LAWS AND ORDINANCES, IF YOU'RE TRYING TO REACH TO THE OTHER AREAS OF THE CITY'S CODE.
THEN AGAIN, HE DOES NOT HAVE THE EXPERTISE, AND HE WOULD RELY ON THE TRC, AND THAT IS WHAT MR. PARR WILL TESTIFY, HIS PROCESS IS TO NOT QUESTION.
HE DOESN'T EVEN HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT.
IF YOU WERE TO EXPAND IT TO LAWS AND ORDINANCES BEYOND JUST THE BUILDING CODE AND THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE, THEN ALL HE IS REQUIRED TO DO IS LOOK AND MAKE SURE THAT THE APPROPRIATE DEPARTMENTS HAVE SIGNED OFF ON IT.
THAT IS THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S JOB.
WE DO PLAN TO HAVE HIM TESTIFY SO THAT HE CAN TELL YOU HOW HE DOES HIS JOB AND THE OTHER SECTIONS OF THE CODE THAT APPLY TO IT.
>> I THINK I CAN STOP THERE FOR NOW.
>> MAY I ASK ONE QUESTION BEFORE WE CONTINUE TO MR. MILLER?
>> OF COURSE. WELL, I MEAN, IT'S A LITTLE PREMATURE FOR BOARD DISCUSSION NOW.
I DON'T LIKE CHASING COWS AROUND THE BARN.
BUT DOES THIS BOARD HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DISCUSS OR FIND FACT OR NON-FACT WITH THE TRC? YES OR NO, IF IT DOESN'T, THEN WHY ARE WE DISCUSSING TRC THEN?
>> I'LL RESPOND. MY QUESTIONS ARE EXACTLY ABOUT WHAT WE ARE DOING.
DO WE HAVE JURISDICTION TO HEAR WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US? I'M INTERESTED IN THIS QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT, IN THIS APPEAL, THERE'S A DECISION THAT IS APPEALABLE.
I'M NOT AS PERSUADED THAT THE DECISION OF THE TRC IS WHAT WE'RE HERE LOOKING AT.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY DOUBT ABOUT THAT.
BUT I'M CURIOUS ABOUT HOW TO READ THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AGAINST THE PROVISION THAT DOES ALLOW FOR AN APPEAL OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S DECISION.
MY CURIOSITY IS WHETHER OR NOT SUBSUMED IN THE BUILDING OFFICIALS DECISION ARE ALL THE TICK MARKS.
I AGREE THE BUILDING OFFICIAL MAY NOT HAVE EXPERTISE IN ALL THOSE AREAS.
BUT IF THEY'RE TICKED, THAT SHOULD SATISFY HIM OR HER.
IF THEY'RE NOT TICKED, I ASSUME THAT WOULD PROBABLY PREVENT THE BUILDING PERMIT FROM BEING ISSUED UNTIL THEY WERE TICKED.
IT'S NOT HIS JOB TO LOOK AT IT, BUT IT'S HIS JOB TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE SATISFIED BEFORE FINALLY ISSUING THE PERMIT.
I'M FOCUSED REALLY ON THE APPEAL AND WHETHER THE 30 DAYS RAN OR DIDN'T RUN, FROM WHICH DECISION TO DETERMINE WHETHER WE HAVE JURISDICTION AT ALL.
[00:40:04]
>> THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT BECAUSE WE WERE GOING FOUR WAYS HERE, AND I'M GOING. [OVERLAPPING]
>> YEAH, AND OUR POSITION IS THAT IT IS A TIMELY APPEAL OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S DECISION, AND THEN MR. PARR WOULD HAVE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT.
IT IS OUR OPINION THAT THIS BOARD DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO HEAR ANY ISSUES ON THE DEPARTMENT.
YOU CAN LISTEN TO ME NEXT TIME.
[OVERLAPPING] MR. PARR WOULD HAVE TO ADVISE YOU ON THAT.
MR. PARR IS WILLING TO COME UP AND HE IS ONE OF OUR WITNESSES THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE TESTIFY AS TO HIS DUTIES FOR THE RECORD.
MY CONCERN IS THE CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION THAT THIS DID NOT MEET THE LDC.
WHAT YOU'RE ALL SAYING NOW, THE CITY IS SAYING, AND WE'LL SEE WHAT THE ATTORNEY SAYS, IS SO WHAT? IT WASN'T IN TIME.
NOW, IT DOESN'T QUITE MAKE SENSE TO ME.
WE'LL GO THROUGH ALL THE TESTIMONY AND WE CAN ADDRESS THAT AT THE FINAL ISSUE.
>> I WOULD LIKE FOR THE RECORD TO HAVE MR. PARR, TESTIFY AND THEN I'M SURE WE'VE EXCEEDED HER [INAUDIBLE] BY KEEPING TRACK, BUT IF WE MAY HAVE MR. PARR TESTIFY, AND THEN WE CAN CONCLUDE OUR PRESENTATION.
I LIKE TO HAVE MR. PARR ON RECORD.
>> BEFORE WE DO THAT, I WANT TO ASK MARGARET IF SHE HAS ANY ADDITIONAL.
>> THE REMAINING QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE ALREADY I THINK ARE MORE APPROPRIATE AFTER HEARING MR. PARR AND RELATE TO WHAT HE MAY TELL US.
>> WE DO HAVE TO GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY, BOTH MR. [INAUDIBLE] AND MR. BROOKS TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS OF MISS CAMPBELL.
THIS IS GOING TO CONCLUDE HER TESTIMONY.
>> DO YOU WANT TO DO THAT NOW? I CERTAINLY CAN.
>> MR. BROOKS, I KNOW YOU HAVEN'T SPOKEN YET.
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MISS CAMPBELL BEFORE I BRING UP MR. PARR? MISS CHRISTIE, I KNOW YOU'RE HERE.
[OVERLAPPING] YOU CAN SIT. I'M SORRY.
NOBODY TOLD YOU THAT. [OVERLAPPING] I REALIZE YOU WERE NOT HERE.
>> I HAD A QUESTION FOR MISS CAMPBELL.
MISS CAMPBELL, DO YOU KNOW WHAT DATE OF THE TRC MEETING WAS HELD?
>> ONLY IN RETROSPECT, I BELIEVE IT WAS MARCH 25TH.
>> MARCH 25TH. DO YOU KNOW WHAT DAY THE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER WAS ISSUED?
>> ARE YOU AWARE THAT IN NOVEMBER OF LAST YEAR, I PUT IN TWO REQUESTS TO THE OFFICIAL RECORD SYSTEM, FOR THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH, ASKING FOR ANY AND ALL APPLICATIONS OR PERMITS THAT HAD BEEN RECEIVED OR ISSUED ON THIS PROPERTY, AND TWO DIFFERENT TIMES I WAS RETURNED NOTHING, ALTHOUGH APPLICATIONS HAD BEEN RECEIVED?
>> ARE YOU AWARE AND IT WAS INCLUDED IN THE PACKET THAT RIGHT AFTER THAT, I WROTE ACTING CITY MANAGER JEREMIAH GLISSON AND ASKED IF HE WANTED ME TO CALL THE CITY EVERY DAY OR IF THE CITY WANTED TO AGREE TO SEND ME ANYTIME SOMETHING HAD BEEN ISSUED OR RECEIVED ON THIS PROPERTY, AND HE AGREED, AS WELL AS KELLY GIBSON, THAT THEY WOULD SEND ME EVERYTHING?
>> NO, I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT.
>> ARE YOU AWARE THAT THEY DID CONTACT ME EVERY TIME, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE LDO BEING ISSUED?
>> WHO WAS THE LDO SENT TO WHEN IT WAS SENT OUT?
>> I BELIEVE IT WAS SENT TO MR. GILLETTE AS AGENT FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER.
>> IT WAS ALSO CCD, ALL THE TRC MEMBERS, CORRECT?
>> ON WHAT DATE DID YOU FIND OUT THAT THE LDO HAD BEEN ISSUED? DID YOU FIND OUT IN JUNE OR JULY?
>> NOT EVEN YOU, AS CITY MANAGER, WAS AWARE THAT AN LDO HAD BEEN ISSUED ON SOMETHING THAT WAS UNDER AN ACTIVE COURT ORDER?
>> JUST A FEW MORE QUESTIONS FOR YOU, MISS CAMPBELL, ARE YOU NOTIFIED OF EVERY LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER WHEN IT IS TRANSMITTED?
>> NO. I CANNOT THINK OF ANY LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER THAT I'VE BEEN NOTIFIED OF.
>> FOR THE RECORD, IT WAS MARCH 27TH.
>> BUT LOOKING AT THE MINUTES, IT WAS MARCH 27TH.
I WILL CALL UP MR. PARR AT THIS TIME IF THAT.
[00:45:05]
[OVERLAPPING] WAIT. I'M SORRY.MR. BACKER, YOU'LL HAVE TO GO TO THE CENTER AND INTRODUCE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS [INAUDIBLE].
>> SURE. SITONS BACKER, COUNSEL FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER.
MY ADDRESS IS 780 NORTH PONST LEON BOULEVARD, ST. AUGUSTINE, FLORIDA.
MISS CAMPBELL, NOT ASKING YOU AS A LAWYER, ASKING YOU IN YOUR POSITION AS A CITY MANAGER.
YOU ALREADY TESTIFIED AT LENGTH ABOUT YOUR REVIEW OF THE PROCEDURES HERE.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS TO BE A REVIEW ON THE RECORD?
>> DID YOU COMPILE THE RECORD FOR THIS PARTICULAR PACKAGE?
I BELIEVE THE EXHIBITS WERE COMPILED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT.
>> BUT YOU REVIEWED THE PACKAGE BEFORE COMING HERE?
>> DO YOU KNOW OF ANY CORRESPONDENCE OF ANY KIND IN THE PACKAGE HERE CONCERNING NOTICE AND REQUEST FOR NOTICE OF THE TRC DOCUMENT?
>> MISS CESAR, YOU CAN STAY UP HERE.
>> [INAUDIBLE] UNLESS YOU WANT ME UP THERE. I JUST DON'T WANT TO KEEP FORGETTING TO REFER TO YOU.
THEN, IS YOUR ATTORNEY, MR. BROOKS, YOUR QUESTIONING WAS ENOUGH FOR HIM? IF SO, THEN WE WOULD LIKE TO CALL MR. PARR.
>> THANK YOU. WOULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD AND WHAT YOUR POSITION IS?
>> JAMES PARK CITY BUILDING OFFICIAL.
>> WE'VE BEEN ASKED PARTICULAR SPECIFICALLY ABOUT 1,105.3 0.1 ACTION ON APPLICATION.
I'M GOING TO PUT THAT IN FRONT OF YOU BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE HAVE IN YOUR PACKET.
WHAT ARE YOUR DUTIES AS THE BUILDING OFFICIAL?
>> DIFFERENT TO MANAGE ALL BUILDING PERMIT ACTIVITY, PERFORM ALL INSPECTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BUILDING CODE AND STATE LAW AND LOCAL.
>> PRIOR TO THIS SECTION THAT'S BEEN PASSED, HOW DO YOU PERFORM YOUR DUTIES? WHEN DO YOU ISSUE A BUILDING PERMIT?
>> ONCE ALL THE OTHER REGULATING AUTHORITIES SIGN OFF ON IT.
PERMITS ARE DIFFERENT BECAUSE THEY'RE IN DIFFERENT PLACES.
IF IT'S IN THERE, WE HAVE TO GET DP SIGN OFF ON IT.
>> COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE, DEP DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. GO AHEAD.
>> FMA, WE DEAL WITH SEVERAL MATTERS, BUT IF YOU ALL HAVE SEEN THE SCAN OF THE BOXES FOR ALL OUR DEPARTMENTS THE SIGN OFF ON IT DOESN'T EVEN COME TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT UNTIL ALL THOSE BOXES ARE CHECKED.
THEN IT SENDS UP TO US FOR OUR CLOCK TO START ON THE ISSUANCE.
WE'RE THE ONLY DEPARTMENT UNDER A TIME FRAME.
>> IS IT YOUR TESTIMONY THAT YOU'RE SAYING THAT IT DOESN'T EVEN COME TO YOU UNTIL EVERYBODY?
>> HAVE TO BE CHECKED OR IT NEVER GETS IN OUR OFFICE.
>> THAT IS BASED ON HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS?
>> THEN WHEN WE GET TO 105.3. QUSTION 1.
THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT THAT IF IT DOESN'T CONFORM WITH ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF PERTINENT LAWS, AND THEN THAT YOU HAVE TO BE SATISFIED THAT THE PROPOSED WORK CONFORMS TO THE REQUIREMENT OF THIS CODE.
THE LAWS AND ORDINANCES APPLICABLE THERE TOO.
WHAT IS YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THAT FOR YOUR DUTIES?
>> I WOULD CONSIDER THAT A TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO THE BUILDING CODE.
BECAUSE I'M NOT AN EXPERT IN SEVERAL OTHER FIELDS.
WE RELY ON OTHER PEOPLE TO DO THAT, THAT IS WITHIN THEIR EXPERTISE.
OTHER SECTIONS OF THE CODE ALWAYS PERTAIN TO THE BUILDING CODE AND TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO.
[00:50:06]
>> YOU PROVIDED ME PRIOR TO THIS HEARING WITH YOUR JOB DESCRIPTION.
I CAN HAND IT OUT TO EVERYONE.
IF WE JUST WANT TO BRING IT HOME WHAT YOUR JOB DESCRIPTION IS, ARE ANY OF THE ESSENTIAL FUNCTIONS OF YOUR JOB JOB DESCRIPTION TO REVIEW PLANNING, ZONING, OR ANY ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE BUILDING CODE?
>> I WILL PASS OUT A COPY OF THAT RECORD.
>> THIS IS KATIE NEWTON, MY LEGAL ASSISTANT, SO SHE'S GOING TO HELP PASS IT OUT AND MAKE SURE THAT [INAUDIBLE].
THEN, IN OUR DISCUSSIONS OF PREPARING FOR THIS, YOU'VE ALSO BROUGHT MY ATTENTION TO 46864, I GUESS WE'LL DO I'M SORRY.
I'M MOVING ON IF WE'VE COVERED IT.
I THINK EVERYBODY NOW HAS A COPY OF YOUR DUTIES, AND DO YOUR DUTIES INCLUDE ANYTHING THAT HAS TO DO WITH PLANNING, ZONING, OR ANYTHING OTHER THAN YOUR BUILDING CODE?
>> WELL, THE ONLY OTHER ITEM IS IS ITEM 6, WHICH IS HEIGHT AND SETBACKS, AND THAT IS ALSO THE HEIGHT THAT'S REGULATED BY THE CODE.
WELL, WE GET ALL OF THAT ALL OUR ZONING INFORMATION DEPENDING UPON THE LOT, WHERE YOU'RE AT, WHETHER YOU HAVE 05 FOOT SIDE LINES, FRONT SET BACK.
WE BASICALLY LOOK AT THE STRUCTURE AND WHERE THE STRUCTURE SITS ON THE LOT.
WE DON'T GET INTO THIS IS M1 AND WE WANT TO CHANGE IT TO B3 OUTSIDE OF OUR REALM.
>> YOU ALSO PROVIDED ME WITH 468604, WHICH WE WILL HAND OUT AS WELL.
THAT'S A SECTION OF THE FLORIDA STATUTE 6,468.6 004, AND IT'S A RESPONSIBILITY OF THE BUILDING CODE ADMINISTRATOR.
WOULD YOU READ THE PERTINENT SECTIONS OF THAT? WELL, GIVE ME A SECOND READ IT.
THIS SECTION OF THE CODE IS BEING PRESENTED TO SHOW WHAT MR. PARR'S DUTIES ARE AND THE LIMITATIONS DOCUMENTS.
MR. PARR, 468.604 SUB 1, IS WHERE I WAS READING FROM AND WHAT YOU POINTED OUT TO ME PRIOR TO THIS HEARING.
WHAT ARE YOUR DUTIES UNDER THIS SECTION OF THE STATE STATUTE?
>> IS TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, APPLICABLE TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA BUILDING.
>> THEN FURTHER, THAT NEXT SENTENCE THAT I'VE UNDERLINED FOR YOU.
>> IT SAYS THE BUILDING CODE ADMINISTRATOR OR BUILDING OFFICIAL SHALL FAITHFULLY PERFORM THESE RESPONSIBILITIES WITHOUT INTERFERENCE FROM ANY PERSON.
>> THEN FINALLY, WE'VE HAD SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THE TIME WHEN THE BUILDING PERMITS WERE ISSUED, AND I DO HAVE IT HERE IN CASE YOU NEED TO REFER TO IT.
THE TRC LETTER IS DATED THE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER IS DATED JUNE 12, 2025.
IT HAS BEEN PUT INTO THE RECORD THAT YOUR BUILDING PERMITS WERE ISSUED BETWEEN JULY 7, I BELIEVE JULY 14.
WHAT IS YOUR PROCESS? HOW DO YOU EVEN NOTE TO SEE IF EVERYBODY SIGNED OFF.
>> LIKE I SAID, IT TRIGGERS IN OUR OFFICE, OUR PERMIT TAKES GET IT.
WE ALSO USE AN OUTSIDE REVIEWER. IT GOES TO HIM.
IN THIS CASE, THE PRIVATE PROVIDER REVIEWER, WHICH PROHIBITS US FROM REVIEWING THE PLANS.
WE VET THE ENGINEERS, THE ARCHITECTS, TO MAKE SURE THEIR LICENSE IS UP TO DATE THEY'VE HAD
[00:55:01]
THEIR ARCHITECTS FROM DIFFERENT ENGINEERS ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE EIGHTH EDITION CLASSES BEFORE THEY CAN STAMP A SET OF DRAWINGS UNDER THE NEW BUILDING CODE.WE WAS BASICALLY JUST THE VETTING OF EVERYTHING, THE VETTING OF THE CONTRACTORS, VETTING OF THE SUBCONTRACTORS.
IT ALSO PUTS US UNDER A PRETTY STRENUOUS TIME CLOCK.
I THINK NOW WE'RE AT [INAUDIBLE].
>> WHEN YOU SAY HE USED AN INDEPENDENT EXAMINER, ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE PROPERTY OWNER?
>> I'M REFERRING TO THE CONTRACTOR THAT SUBMITTED THE PERMIT.
>> THEY SUBMITTED THAT ON BEHALF OF THE OWNER?
>> I DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR YOU, BUT THE BOARD MAY.
UNLESS YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING ELSE?
>> ANYONE ON THE BOARD HAVE A QUESTION? I HAVE SOME.
>> I WANT TO FOCUS THEM ON MR. PARR.
EXACTLY. MR. PARR, GIVEN THAT NO ONE FROM THE LEGAL WAS AT THE TRC MEETING WHERE THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER WAS ISSUED, DID YOU HAPPEN TO SEEK OR RECEIVE ANY LEGAL GUIDANCE OR LEGAL OPINION AS TO WHETHER THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT COMPLIED WITH SECTION 1035.
>> FOLLOW UP WITH THAT, WOULD YOU EVER?
>> NO. I'VE NEVER INFORMATION WHETHER IT APPLIES OR NOT?
>> NO. I MEAN, WHENEVER YOU'RE ISSUING A BUILDING PERMIT, DO YOU EVER STOP AND ASK.
>> SEVERAL TIMES. IT DEPENDS ON THE SITUATION.
BUILDING PERMITS AND PLAN REVIEW IS SO BROAD OF A SPECTRUM, IT'S HARD TO NARROW IT DOWN, EVEN IN SOME INSTANCES THE CODE ARGUES WHAT IT.
HERE, BECAUSE THIS WERE YOU AWARE THAT THIS PROPERTY WAS IN THE BUILDING PLANS ON THIS PROPERTY HAD BEEN PRETTY CONTROVERSIAL ON THIS CITY FOR MANY YEARS.
I TRY TO AVOID THE CONTROVERSY AT ALL COSTS.
BUT I DID NOT KNOW THERE WAS ANYTHING LEGAL PENDING ON THE BILL WELL AFTER DEPARTMENTS OKAY.
I NOTE THAT FLORIDA BUILDING CODE 1,053.1, WHICH WAS IN OUR PACKET, AND HAS BEEN EXTENSIVELY REFERENCED HERE IS ACTUALLY CODIFIED IN OUR CODE OF ORDINANCES.
>> AS CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 0F ROMAN NUMERAL 22229 SUBSECTION 105.5.3.1.
I JUST ALWAYS PREFER TO REFER TO OUR OWN CODES RATHER THAN THE FLORIDA ONE.
I'M JUST WONDERING AND THIS IS A FOLLOW UP TO THE QUESTION THAT MEMBER MILLER ASKED EARLIER.
THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LDC, FOR EXAMPLE, MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHTS.
>> YES. THAT WOULD BE AND OF COURSE, THAT IS NOT IN THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE.
>> IT IS IN THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE.
>> NO. IT'S THE BUILDING CODE.
>> THERE'S LIMITATIONS ON THE BUILDING CODE THAT SETS ALL THOSE.
>> THEN IN SUBSECTION 105.4, THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE ACTUALLY DOES MAKE A REFERENCE ABOUT THE ISSUANCE OR GRANTING OF A PERMIT WILL NOT BE CONSTRUED TO BE A PERMIT FOR APPROVAL OF ANY VIOLATION OF ANY PROVISIONS OF THIS CODE OR ANY OTHER ORDINANCE OF THE JURISDICTION.
THERE, IT'S VERY SPECIFIC ORDINANCE OF THE JURISDICTION.
WOULD PERTINENT LAWS AND THE REFERENCE TO ORDINANCES IN 105.3.1 ALSO RELATE TO ORDINANCES OF THE JURISDICTION, NOT JUST THE BUILDING CODE.
>> IT DEPENDS ON WHICH ORDINANCE IT IS.
SOME OF THEM WOULD BE PLANNING AND ZONINGS PURVIEW AND SOME WOULD BE BUILDING DEPARTMENT ISSUES.
>> WELL, THE THING ABOUT 10305, OF COURSE, IS THAT IT ACTUALLY DOES SPECIFIC REFERENCE WHEN A BUILDING PERMIT CAN BE ISSUED.
SO I WOULD THINK THAT BECAUSE IT DOES SPECIFY A PERMIT, THAT THAT MIGHT MAKE IT A LITTLE MORE PERTINENT THAN SOME OF THE OTHERS.
THAT IT MIGHT BE APPLICABLE THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO CONSIDER IT CONFIRMS WITH.
[01:00:05]
IS THERE EVER A CASE WHERE AN OWNER DEVELOPER RECEIVES A DEVELOPMENT ORDER AND THEN FAILS TO APPLY FOR A BUILDING PERMIT, ESPECIALLY ONE THAT HAS A CONDITION ON IT LIKE THIS DEVELOPMENT ORDER DID?>> I WOULD NOT HAVE INFORMATION ON THAT.
IF SOMEBODY NEVER COMES IN AND APPLIES, I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY'RE NEVER APPLIED.
>> DOES ANYONE ELSE FROM THE CITY KNOW?
>> THEY ISSUE THE ORDER AND THEN THEY GO ON HOME.
>> A DEVELOPER OR AN OWNER REALIZES THAT THERE'S TOO MUCH INVESTMENT IN IT TO GO FORWARD WITH IT AS AN INITIATIVE.
IT COULD BE SETBACKS, OR COULD BE HEIGHT ISSUES.
THERE'S ALWAYS THINGS LIKE THAT.
>> WELL, AS A RESULT, THAT ESPECIALLY IN THIS CASE WHERE THERE WERE CONTINGENCIES.
THAT'S WHY I WAS JUST WONDERING THAT SINCE THE APPELLANT'S BASING HER APPEAL ON PERMITS, THE ISSUANCE OF A PERMIT BEING A DIRECT VIOLATION OF SECTION 10305, WHICH SAYS, NO PERMIT WILL BE ISSUED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT ON THIS SITE.
MISS PRINCE, WOULDN'T AN APPEAL FILED BEFORE ANY PERMITS WERE ISSUED, POSSIBLY NOT BE RIPE BECAUSE MAYBE EVEN AFTER THE ORDER WAS ISSUED, THEY NEVER MET THE CONTINGENCY OR AS MR. AS MY CHAIR JUST SAID, THEY MAY CHOOSE NOT TO APPLY.
>> LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER, IT'S MY POSITION, WOULD NOT BE APPEALED TO THIS BOARD ANYWAY.
WHAT THAT PERSON DOES AND GOES TO COURT OVER IS THEIR DECISION.
BUT AGAIN, MR. PARR HAS TESTIFIED, IF IF THE TR IF THIS BOA WAS TO EXPAND AND SAY THAT IT WAS YOUR DUTY TO THEN CHECK THE ORDINANCES, HOW WOULD YOU DO THAT?
>> I HAVE A BUNCH OF PEOPLE IN FACE DEPARTMENT PROS.
>> BUT IS THAT WHAT YOUR PROCESS OF I MEAN APPROVES IT IS RELY ON STAFF OR ANY?
YOU HAVE TO KNOW IF IT MEETS PLANNING OR ANY OTHER PART PART OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OR THE CODE OF ORDINANCES THAT DOESN'T FALL WITHIN YOUR PURVIEW.
YOU MAKE THAT DETERMINATION OR WOULD YOU RELY ON SOMEONE ELSE I WOULD RELY ON SOMEONE ELSE.
>> IN MY EYES, THIS WAS ALL REVIEWED.
IT WAS ALL OF REVIEWED AND THAT WAS ALL APPROVED.
>> YOUR POSITION, DO YOU HAVE ANY RELATIONSHIP WITH MICHELLE FORTSON, THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER? SOMEWHAT.
THEY WE CALL THEM WHEN PEOPLE HAVE TRASH CANS IN THE ROAD AND ISSUES LIKE THAT, BUT SHE'S IN A DIFFERENT OFFICE BUILDING.
>> BUT ONCE YOU APPROVE SOMETHING, THAT'S IT.
>> YOU DON'T HAVE TO RELATE TO HER ABOUT ABOUT THE PROBLEM WHEN THERE ISN'T WHEN DO THEY START BUILDING HER?
>> SHE'LL CALL ME FROM TIME TO TIME.
IF SOMEBODY'S GOT DART RUNNING IN A ROAD OR A SILK FIN ON THEM, WE'LL GO.
WE DO THAT WHEN ANYBODY CALLS.
>> CODE ENFORCEMENT. IT SOUNDS TO ME THAT THE CITY'S POSITION IS SAYING ONCE A DEVELOPMENT ORDER IS ISSUED, AND IT COMES TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, THAT YOU'RE REALLY OBLIGATED PROVIDING A MEATS TO FLORIDA BUILDING CODES, ET CETERA TO ISSUE THAT PERMIT.
>> IN THIS CASE, WE'RE DEALING WITH A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT ACTUALLY HAD SOME DEMOLITION WHICH WASN'T PERMIT OR VARIOUS DIFFERENT THINGS WERE GOING ON.
IT WAS LIKE A HIGH VISIBILITY THING.
HAD YOU IDENTIFIED THAT, COULD YOU STOP THE PERMIT?
>> COULD I HAVE STOPPED THE PERMIT? IF I WOULD HAVE KNOWN?
>> I DON'T THINK IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MY EXPERTISE TO DO THAT.
>> WHO COULD HAVE STOPPED THE PERMIT AT THAT POINT? THE CITY MANAGER, CORRECT?
>> I'M NOT SURE IF IT IS THE CITY MANAGER'S PURVIEW OR NOT.
THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR [INAUDIBLE].
>> INTERESTING QUESTION. FAIR.
>> BUT TO PUT IT ANOTHER WAY, IF SOMEONE CAME TO YOU AND SAID THAT THEY THOUGHT THE PERMIT WAS ISSUED AND VIOLATED SOME OTHER PROVISION OF THE CODE THAT WASN'T IN THE BUILDING CODE OR ITS AMENDMENTS AND REGULATIONS RELATED THERE TOO, WOULD YOU TAKE ACTION?
>> I WOULD GO TALK TO THE PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR IS WHAT I WOULD DO BECAUSE THAT'S IN HER EXPERTISE.
>> WHILE YOU'RE SITTING HERE, BUT IT'S NOT DIRECTED TO YOU, MR. PARK, IF YOU HAVE AN ANSWER, GREAT.
IT'S REALLY FOR THE CITY. I GOT YOU.
WHO IS MAKING THE DECISION ABOUT WHETHER THE PROVISION THAT MEMBER DAVIS READ FROM 1.0305 A? NO PERMIT WILL BE ISSUED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF ONE OR MORE SORRY,
[01:05:03]
OF MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT ON THE SITE.WHO IN THE CITY DETERMINES WHETHER THAT PROHIBITION, NO PERMIT APPLIES IN ANY CASE, IN THIS CASE OR ANY OTHER CASE.
AT WHAT POINT IS THAT DECISION REFLECTED IN THE SERIES OF DECISION POINTS, EVERYTHING FROM THE TRC'S MEETING TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER TO WHEN IT LANDS ON YOUR SYSTEM TO WHEN YOU ISSUE THE PERMIT? WHO IN THE CITY MAKES THAT DECISION AND WHEN?
>> IT'S THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE THAT BRING FORTH UNDER OUR CODE IS REVIEWED NOTICE AND EACH DEPARTMENT GIVES INPUT, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S RESPONSIBILITY TO ISSUE THAT LETTER.
THEN MR. PARK, YOU CAN ANSWER THEM FULLY, BUT AS AN APPLICANT, YOU COME TO THE TRC, YOU SUBMIT YOUR INFORMATION, YOU RECEIVE FEEDBACK, YOU GET SETS OF COMMENTS THAT YOU RESPOND TO UNTIL YOU GET TO A POINT WHERE THE TRC SIGNS OFF.
THAT IS A RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT THAT HEADS THAT TRC, AND THEN COORDINATES WITH ALL THE OTHER OFFICES OF THE CITY THAT ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR GIVING INPUT.
MR. PARK YOU HAVE AN ANSWER FOR HIM?
>> NO. I WOULD BE IN AGREEANCE WITH HER.
IT'S THE PLANNINGS DEPARTMENT, THEY LOOK AT THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS.
WHETHER THIS BUILDING CAN GO ON THIS LOT? IF THAT IS DONE WITH THE PLANS.
WHEN I RECEIVED THE CHECK OFF IN MY BOX, TO ME, IT HAS BEEN REVIEWED, AND IT HAS BEEN APPROVED.
THERE'S AN ACCIDENT, IT NEVER EVEN COMES TO OUR DEPARTMENT.
IT'S ALL HANDLED IN THE HOUSE THERE UNTIL THEY GET SETTLE. I UNDERSTAND.
>> YOUR QUESTION OF SPECIFICALLY 10305, THAT ONCE THAT TRC LETTER, THAT TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE LETTER IS ISSUED, THAT WOULD BE WHAT THE PERSON WOULD INDICATE.
THEY THEY DON'T IDENTIFY EVERY SINGLE THING THAT IS BEING COMPLIED WITH.
THAT IS JUST THAT YOU COMPLY WITH THE CODE.
THAT'S THE WAY THE PROCESS WORKS WHEN YOU GO THROUGH THE TECHNICAL REMIT.
IS MR. PARK SITTING ON ANYTHING.
JUST TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THE CITY'S ARGUMENT, AND THEN WE CAN CONTINUE.
THE CITY SEEMS TO BE SAYING THAT[OVERLAPPING]
>> CAN I HAVE ONE QUESTION [INAUDIBLE].
>> SIR, YOU'RE BREAKING UP PRETTY BAD.
IF YOU CAN TYPE IT IN THE CHAT, WE MAY BE ABLE TO READ ALOUD IF THAT'S ACCEPTABLE TO.
I'M GOING TO HAVE TO BE [INAUDIBLE].
>> WE CAN CALL HIM, MS. KRISTNER, IF THAT'S EASIER AND JUST PUT HIM ON SPEAKER.
>> JUST ON MY CELL PHONE. IF THAT WORKS FOR YOU, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE SURE THE COURT REPORTER CAN HEAR IT.
>> IT JUST NEEDS TO BE RIGHT THERE BESIDE THE MICROPHONE.
I'M GOING TO HAVE TO ACTUALLY GO TO DO ANOTHER CITY MEETING, SO YOU'LL HAVE TO WORK WITH TINA THERE.
I'LL SEND MY QUESTION BY CHEF BEFORE LEAP HERE AND NOW I'M GOING TO HAVE TO SIGN OFF. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, SIR. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THE CITY'S POSITION.
IT SEEMS TO BE THAT THE PROVISION OF 1.0305 A THAT PROHIBITS A PERMIT FROM BEING ISSUED IS A DECISION IMPLIED BY THE TRC'S ACTION IN APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT ORDER.
THAT'S NOT AN APPEALABLE DECISION TO THIS BOARD.
IT'S ALSO A DECISION THAT HAS LIMITED EXPOSURE WHEN IT'S PUBLISHED IN THE LETTER TO THE PUBLIC.
THE PUBLIC HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO TO THE MEETING AND HERE THAT IT WILL BE ISSUED, THEY MAY NOT GET TO SEE IT ACTUALLY ISSUED.
IF THE PROJECT PROPONENT NEVER CHOOSES TO GO FOR A PERMIT FOR ANY REASON, IT WOULD BE A DEVELOPMENT ORDER THAT IT ISSUED AND GONE AWAY.
BUT IF THE DEVELOPER CHOOSES TO APPLY FOR A PERMIT, THAT PART OF THE PROCESS IS NOT TO DO WITH 1.0305 A.
ANY APPEAL FROM THAT PART OF THE PROCESS DOESN'T ALLOW US TO LOOK AT 1.0305 AND WHETHER IT WAS APPLIED CORRECTLY OR INCORRECTLY.
>> IT'S A LONG HYPOTHETICAL, BUT IF YOU'RE SAYING YOU CANNOT CONSIDER 1.
0305 A AND WHETHER OR NOT THE PERMIT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ISSUED HERE BEFORE THIS BOARD TONIGHT, I AGREE.
>> LET ME ASK IT IN A SHORTER AND MAYBE SIMPLER WAY.
UNLESS A VARIANCE REQUEST IS BROUGHT TO US UNDER 1.0305, IT SEEMS TO US ON YOUR ARGUMENT, WE DON'T HAVE JURISDICTION TO HEAR AN APPEAL BECAUSE WE CAN'T HEAR AN APPEAL FROM A TRC DECISION,
[01:10:01]
AND WE CAN'T HEAR AN APPEAL ON 1.0305 IN THE CONTEXT OF A BUILDING OFFICER DECISION. IS THAT CORRECT?>> THAT IS A SIMPLER WAY OF SAYING, YES, IT IS CORRECT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. YES. MR. RANS, DO YOU WANT THAT QUESTION FOR THE OFFICIAL?
>> MR. PARK, JUST TO CLARIFY ONE POINT.
ONE QUESTION WAS ASKED BY BOARD MEMBER KREGER ABOUT DEMOLITION.
DID YOU RECEIVE ANY APPLICATION FOR DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES ON THIS PROPERTY?
THERE WAS A COUPLE THAT I HAVE THEM WHEN WE POSTED HERE.
>> AS FAR AS YOU'RE CONCERNED, THEY WERE EITHER OBTAINED BEFOREHAND OR RECEIVED AFTER THE FACT.
>> HOW COMMON IS THAT TO ISSUE AN AFTER THE FACT PERMIT IN YOUR JOB?
>> UNFORTUNATELY, VERY COMMON.
I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY ANOTHER POINT.
ARE YOU LICENSED BY THE STATE IN ANY WAY?
>> I BUILDING CODE ADMINISTRATOR'S LICENSE.
I KNOW THAT WE WERE DISCUSSING 468604 AND THE BUILDING CODE AS A WHOLE.
>> AGAIN, AS I ASKED OF THE CITY MANAGER, I'M NOT ASKING YOU AS A LAWYER.
I'M ASKING YOU AS SOMEONE WHO INTERPRETS STATUTE RULE ORDINANCE EVERY DAY.
DOES THE BUILDING CODE OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA CIRCUMSCRIBE, THAT IS DEFINE HOW YOU DO YOUR JOB>.
>> IF THERE WERE ANY PERCEIVED DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN YOUR CONTRACT OR THE ORDINANCE AND YOUR LICENSED POSITION UNDER THE BUILDING CODE, WHICH WOULD YOU DEFER TO? I WOULD DEFER TO THE STATE FIRST.
BUILDING CODE AND THE STATE STATUTES.
THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE HAS, I'M SURE YOU'RE AWARE THOUSANDS OF STATE STATUTES AT THAT TIME.
>> ACCORDING TO SECTION 1053.1 OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE.
DOESN'T IT SAY THAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL NEEDS TO BE SATISFIED THAT IT CONFORMS TO THE REQUIREMENT OF PERTINENT LAWS.
DO YOU CONSIDER A PERTINENT LAW TO BE THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE?
>> THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IS A PERTINENT LAW, AND I BELIEVE IT WAS APPROVED.
>> IF YOU READ SECTION 10305 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, DO YOU AGREE THAT IT SAYS THAT NO PERMIT SHALL BE ISSUED?
>> YEAH. THAT IS OF WHAT CODE?
>> THE CITY'S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 10305.
I GOT IT UP ON MY SCREEN THAT WAY.
>> IT SAYS, AND NO PERMIT WILL BE ISSUED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT ON THE SITE.
WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PERMITS, MR. PARK?
>> I'M RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FINAL BUILDING PERMIT.
I THINK THAT WAS REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
>> WHEN IT SAYS THAT NO PERMIT WILL BE ISSUED, SUCH AS A BUILDING PERMIT FOR MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT ON THE SITE,
[01:15:04]
WHAT UNITS DID YOU APPROVE? WHAT TYPE OF BUILDING IS IT?>> LIKE I SAID, WE COULD NOT REVIEW THE PLANS.
I BELIEVE THEY WERE THREE UNIT BUILDINGS, A BUILDING, BUT THREE UNITS IN EACH BUILDING.
>> IS A TRIPLEX A SINGLE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT?
>> YES. IT IS CONSIDERED A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
>> A TRIPLEX IS CONSIDERED? I WILL SHOW PARTS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
THAT'S THE FIRST I'VE EVER HEARD ANYBODY SAY THAT.
THERE'S THREE FAMILIES LIVING THERE, BUT IT'S A SINGLE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT.
I THINK THAT LDC HAS A DIFFERENT OPINION THAN YOU DO.
IF WE PULL UP CITY EXHIBIT 4 PLEASE, WOULD YOU MIND PULLING THAT UP, MS. PEARSON? THIS IS THE SCREENSHOTS FROM THE SYSTEM THAT YOU USE TO APPROVE.
HERE WE GO. IF WE GO TO THE FIRST PAGE, IT SHOWS THE DATES THAT EACH GROUP SIGNED OFF ON THE APPLICATION, CORRECT?
>> ON THE FIRST PAGE, WHAT DATE DID PLANNING SIGN OFF ON THIS?
>> JUNE 23. IS JUNE 23 WITHIN 30 DAYS OF JULY 16, THE DAY I FILED MY ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL?
>> IF YOU LOOK AT ALL THE PAGES, AREN'T ALL THE DATES WHEN PLANNING APPROVED THIS WITHIN THE RANGE OF WHEN I FILED MY APPEAL ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN INTERNAL SYSTEM?
>> THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU SO MUCH, MR. PARK.
>> JUST TO REDIRECT THE SORTS, MR. PARK, DO YOU THINK IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO INTERPRET 45 BEFORE YOU ISSUE A BUILDING PERMIT?
>> AGAIN, OUR POSITION IS, THERE'S NO JURISDICTION. CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION?
>> FOR CLARITY, WERE THERE ANY STRUCTURES ON THE LOTS PRIOR TO ISSUING THE BUILDING PERMIT? ANY STRUCTURES ON THE EXISTING LOTS.
>> THE ONES THAT WERE DEMOED, ONCE THEY WERE GONE, NO, THERE WAS NOTHING ON WITH THE LOT.
>> DID THAT OCCUR BEFORE THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION?
>> YES. THEY WERE GONE WHEN THE PERMIT.
IT WAS UNDER SEPARATE APPLICATION COMPLETELY.
IT ACTUALLY COULD EVEN HAVE BEEN A SEPARATE DEVELOPER THAT COULD HAVE ISSUED A DEMOLITION PERMIT.
THOSE STRUCTURES WOULD HAVE BEEN GONE.
YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THAT IS AS IS WHEN IT'S DELIVERED TO YOU FROM THE ZONING DEPARTMENT AS A CLEAN GREEN FIELD?
>> ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, MR. POWER, MR. PRINCE, MS. KRISTNER.
DO Y'ALL HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ADDRESS? BOUNDS BACKER? SORRY, I DIDN'T WANT TO MISINCLUDE YOU THERE.
>> AT THIS TIME, WE'VE CONCLUDED OUR SIDE OF THE PRESENTATION, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S KRISTNER.
PRESENT IS AND WE NEED TO [INAUDIBLE].
>> SIR. BEFORE MS. KRISTNER BEGINS HER PRESENTATION, CAN I JUST ASK THE CITY ONE FINAL QUESTION.
IF YOU COUNT THE 30 DAYS FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER LETTER, JUNE 12.
IF YOU COUNT THE 30 DAYS, WHAT DATE DID TIME RUN OUT?
>> IT'S CALENDAR DAYS. I THINK THERE'S A PROVISION THAT LETS YOU GO TO THE NEXT BUSINESS DAY IF THAT THE DAY FALLS ON A SUNDAY OR?
>> THERE'S A SECTION OF THE CITY'S CODE THAT TALKS ABOUT IF THE DAY FALLS ON A HOLIDAY OR A WEEKEND OR A LEGALLY I CAN'T REMEMBER THE EXACT TERMS, A NATIONAL ON HOLIDAY, THAT WOULD BE THE NEXT DAY.
>> BY APPLYING THAT, MY COUNT WAS THAT IF WE WERE TO LOOK, I KNOW YOU'RE NOT ARGUING WE SHOULD, BUT IF WE WERE TO LOOK AT THE DATE OF THAT LETTER AS AN APPEAL THAT WE COULD HEAR AND COUNT 30 DAYS, MS. KRISTNER'S APPEAL, IF YOU COUNTED THAT WAY, WOULD BE TWO DAYS LATE? DO YOU AGREE?
>> DOES THE CITY HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT ANY PREJUDICE SUFFERED BY ANY PARTY?
[01:20:05]
WE'LL ASK THE PROJECT PROPONENT AS WELL, BUT DOES THE CITY SUFFER ANY PREJUDICE IF WE WERE TO FIND THAT THE APPEAL WAS TIMELY IN SPITE OF BEING TWO DAYS LATE?>> I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO DO THAT.
YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING UNDER THE LAW THAT ALLOWS YOU TO EXPAND THE TIME AS IT IS CALCULATED UNDER THE CODE.
THE FLORIDA STATUTES ALREADY ALSO HAVE A COMPUTATION OF TIME AND CERTAINLY IN A COURT OF LAW, THE CIVIL RULES OF PROCEDURE, WE HAVE A COMPUTATION OF TIME.
I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO IT.
EVERYBODY WOULD BE PREJUDICED SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU WOULD, IN MY OPINION, BE ACTING OUTSIDE?
>> I UNDERSTAND THE JURISDICTIONAL POINT, BUT IF WE WERE TO FIND THAT THE APPEAL SHOULD BE HEARD, WAS THERE ANYTHING PREJUDICIAL THAT OCCURRED TO ANY PARTY THAT YOU KNOW OF BY THE FILING BEING TWO DAYS AFTER THAT 30 DAY DEADLINE HAD EXPIRED?
>> THERE ARE TIMELINES FOR FINALITY OF DECISIONS IN EVERY AREA OF THE LAW, WHETHER IT'S COURT, WHETHER IT'S BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS HEARING, WHETHER IT'S AN APPEAL OF THIS DECISION, APPEAL OF THE CITY COMMISSION.
I DON'T KNOW OF ANY LEGAL REASON TO EXPAND THOSE.
IT IS CALCULATED THE WAY IT IS, AND IT IS UNTIMELY.
WHETHER YOU CONSIDER THAT UNFORTUNATE OR NOT, I DON'T THINK IT'S WITHIN YOUR JURISDICTION TO EXPAND THAT TIME BEYOND THE DAY.
>> MR. COLE DIFFERENTLY. I'M SORRY.
>> I'M SORRY. MS. KRISTNER, GO AHEAD, PLEASE.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. CHAIR PAKI, THAT LAST QUESTION THAT YOU HAD ASKED, I JUST WANTED TO REMIND YOU THAT SECTION 10305 SAYS THE DEMOLITION OR REMOVAL OF ANY RESIDENCE OR STRUCTURE, WHETHER VOLUNTARY OR INVOLUNTARY, DOES NOT HAVE THE EFFECT OF CHANGING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE BUILDING SITE, SO 10303 IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT.
THERE'S NO CONSIDERED GREEN FIELD ON
>> RECOGNIZE, AND THEN THAT WOULD HAVE COME FOR A VARIANCE TO HAVE THAT SETS A LOT SEPARATED.
I UNDERSTAND ALL OF THAT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. GOOD EVENING, CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
MY NAME IS TINA CHRISTNER, AND I LIVE AT 46TH STREET, DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY AT ISSUE.
I'M NOT HERE TO OPPOSE DEVELOPMENT, BUT I'M HERE TO MAKE SURE THE CITY FOLLOWS ITS OWN LAWS, COURT ORDERS, AND DUE PROCESS PROCEDURES.
TONIGHT, I'LL SHOW YOU WHY THIS PROJECT VIOLATES THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, AND A STANDING COURT ORDER, AND WHY THESE BUILDING PERMITS WERE ISSUED IN CLEAR ERROR BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL.
BACKGROUND. MARGARET, IF YOU COULD PLEASE PULL UP MISS TUTIN'S PRESENTATION THAT WE DISCUSSED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING, AND IT WAS IN THE PACKET, AND IT'S GOT SCREEN.
IF YOU JUST GO TO SLIDE TWO WHENEVER YOU GET A CHANCE.
THE NEXT ONE, THAT YOU TALKING ABOUT THE NEXT ONE HERE ON THIS ONE.
PRIOR. PRIOR. PERFECT. THE SITE CONSISTS OF FIVE PLATTED PARCELS, FOUR HISTORICALLY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND ONE ONCE HELD A DETACHED GARAGE ABOUT 20 YEARS AGO.
THE THIRD STREET SIDE IS ZONED MIXED USE, AND THE FOUR STREET SIDE FACING MY HOME AND SEVERAL HISTORIC HOMES IS R TWO RESIDENTIAL.
IN 2023, THE DEVELOPER PURCHASED ALL FIVE PARCELS AND A YEAR LATER DEMOLISHED THE REMAINING HOMES, SOME MORE THAN A CENTURY OLD.
THAT SAME YEAR IN 2023, THEY PROPOSED 12 TOWN HOMES, AND THE CITY APPROVED IT BY BYPASSING THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IN VIOLATION OF LDC 103105.
NEIGHBORS APPEALED TO COURT AND WE WON.
JUDGE ROBERSON'S DECEMBER 2023 ORDER HELD THAT ONE OH 305 CONTROLS.
ONCE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME EXISTS ACROSS MULTIPLE PLATTED LOTS, THOSE LOTS BECOME ONE BUILDING SITE.
NO VARIANCES CAN BE APPROVED WITHOUT BOA AUTHORIZATION.
THAT ORDER BECAME FINAL WHEN THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL DECLINED REVIEW EARLIER THIS YEAR.
YET DESPITE THAT, IN JULY 2025, THE CITY'S BUILDING OFFICIAL ISSUED NEW BUILDING PERMITS, ADMINISTRATIVELY FOR MULTIFAMILY CONSTRUCTION ON THE SAME COMBINED LOSS WITH NO BOA HEARING AND NO NOTICE TO NEIGHBORS.
THAT'S WHY I'M HERE TONIGHT TO ASK THE BOARD TO ENFORCE THE LAW, UPHOLD THE COURT'S RULING, AND RESTORE DUE PROCESS FOR THE COMMUNITY.
TONIGHT, I'M GOING TO COVER FOUR KEY POINTS.
FIRST, HOW THIS VIOLATES JUDGE ROBERSON'S ORDER IN SECTION 10305.
SECOND, HOW IT CONFLICTS WITH OTHER LDC SECTIONS.
THIRD, WHY THIS BOARD HAS CLEAR JURISDICTION TO HEAR THIS APPEAL IN MY OPINION, AND FOUR, WHY THE DEVELOPER'S SUPPOSED THREATS ACCORDING TO THE FERNANDAN OBSERVER OF OVERSIZED DEVELOPMENT OR LEGAL CLAIMS MAY HAVE NO MERIT.
[01:25:02]
PART 1, VIOLATION OF THE COURT ORDER IN LDC 10305.MARGARET, IF YOU COULD GO TO SLIDE FOUR THAT SLIDE.
PERFECT. JUDGE ROBERSON'S RULING WAS EXPLICIT.
ANY EXCEPTION TO ONE OH 305 MUST COME BEFORE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, NOT BE HANDLED BY STAFF.
DESPITE THIS, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL ISSUED NEW PERMITS FOR MULTI FAMILY STRUCTURES, THE EXACT ACTION THE COURT PROHIBITED.
BY DOING SO, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL ACTED IN DIRECT DEFIANCE OF A STANDING COURT ORDER, NULLIFYING THE VERY SAFEGUARD THAT ENSURES COMMUNITY OVERSIGHT.
UNDER 10305, THESE LOTS ONCE USED FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, THEREAFTER, CONSTITUTE ONE BUILDING SITE, AND NO PERMIT MAY BE ISSUED FOR MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT ON THE SITE WITHOUT BOA APPROVAL.
MARGARET, IF YOU COULD GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, AND YOU CAN SEE THE LANGUAGE THERE.
IF YOU COULD GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.
IF YOU COULD GO TO THE NEXT SIDE, PLEASE? DWELLING UNIT MEANS A SINGLE HOUSING UNIT.
IT DOES NOT MEAN THREE HOUSING UNITS WITHIN ONE BUILDING, AND IT'S DEFINED RIGHT IN OUR LDC.
NOW THE DEVELOPER IS TRYING TO CLAIM ALL THE BENEFITS OF COMBINING THE LOTS, GREATER DENSITY, SHARED STORMWATER, MULTI FAMILY USE WITHOUT EVER GOING THROUGH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PROCESS THAT THE LAW REQUIRES.
WHAT WAS APPROVED AND WHY IT WAS UNLAWFUL.
THE CITY APPROVED FOUR TRIPLEXES, 12 UNITS, SPREAD ACROSS THOSE FIVE LOTS.
NUMBER 1, TRIPLEXES ARE NOT ALLOWED WITHOUT BOA APPROVAL.
TRUE, R2 ZONING DOES ALLOW FOR TRIPLEXES.
HOWEVER, 10305 ONLY ALLOWS FOR ONE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT AND NO PERMIT SHALL BE ISSUED FOR ONE WITHOUT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPROVAL.THEREFORE, THE CITY BUILDING OFFICIAL VIOLATED ONE OH 305.
TWO, BUILDING ACROSS THE LOT LINES.
MARGARET, IF YOU COULD GO TO ANOTHER SLIDE, KEEP FLIPPING THROUGH FLIPPING THROUGH.
FLIPPING THROUGH, MORE, MISS KRISHER, CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION?
>> DID YOU JUST STATE THAT R TWO WAS NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE TRIPLE STRUCTURES?
>> NO, IT IS. KEEP FLIPPING THROUGH.
SORRY, I WAS SUPPOSED TO BE IN THE SECOND. ONE MORE.
PERFECT. YOU CAN SEE THAT THE BUILDINGS, IF YOU LOOK AT 1:19 UP THERE, IT ACTUALLY CROSSES A LOT LINE.
THAT IS UNLAWFUL ACCORDING TO OUR LDC, SHARED STORMWATER FACILITIES.
ACCORDING TO LDC SECTION 7030, EACH DEVELOPMENT SITE HAS TO MANAGE ITS OWN RUNOFF.
THEY'RE TAKING ALL THE RUNOFF FROM ALL OF THESE AND PUTTING THEM ON ONE LOT.
YOU' AREN'T ALLOWED TO DO THAT ACCORDING TO OUR LDC.
MIXED MISSING BUFFER BETWEEN MU 1 AND R2.
THE THIRD STREET SIDE IS MU ONE, THE FOURTH STREET SIDE IS R TWO.
THERE'S NO 15 FOOT TYPE B BUFFER IS REQUIRED BY SECTION FOUR OH 505 AND THE LDC.
SIDE YARD SETBACKS, R TWO DISTRICT REQUIRES SIDE SETBACKS EQUAL TO 10% OF LOT WIDTH.
IF YOU COULD POINT OUT WHERE THE SETBACK IS ON 119 FOR ME BECAUSE IT ACTUALLY GOES OVER A LOT LINE, THERE'S NO SETBACK.
STAFF CALCULATED THE DENSITY AS IF ALL FIVE LOTS WERE ONE PARCEL.
SOME OF THESE LOTS, THE DENSITY IS TOO HIGH FOR THE LOT, BUT THEY USED ALL THE SHARED SPACES BETWEEN ALL OF THE LOTS IN ORDER TO MAKE IT SO IT WOULD FIT IN.
PART 3, WHY THIS BOARD? YOU MAY HEAR THAT THIS APPEAL CANNOT BE HEARD BECAUSE PERMITS WERE MINISTERIAL, BUT BOTH OUR LDC AND THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE SAY OTHERWISE.
LDC SECTION 110307 A SAYS, BUILDING PERMITS ARE ISSUED, SUBJECT TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE.
A SAYS ALL CONSTRUCTION MUST COMPLY WITH THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE.
FLORIDA BUILDING CODE MAKES THE BUILDING OFFICIAL RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING COMPLIANCE, NOT ONLY WITH THE FBC ITSELF, BUT WITH ALL LOCAL LAWS AND ORDINANCES.
SPECIFICALLY, SECTION ONE OH 531 SAYS, IF CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS DO NOT CONFORM TO THE CODE AND LAW AND ORDINANCES, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL SHALL REJECT THE APPLICATION.
SECTION ONE OH 410 SAYS THE BUILDING OFFICIAL SHALL ENFORCE THE PROVISIONS OF THE CODE.
SO BOTH THE CITIES, LDC AND THE STATE BUILDING CODE REQUIRES THE BUILDING OFFICIAL TO ENSURE THAT PERMITS COMPLY WITH ALL LAWS AND ORDINANCES,
[01:30:04]
WHICH INCLUDE THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.FROM MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW, IGNORANCE OF THE LAW DOESN'T MEAN IT'S OKAY.
IF I'M SPEEDING AND I GO 50 MILES PER HOUR AND THE POLICE STOP ME AND I SAY, WELL, I DIDN'T REALIZE IT WAS 35.
THAT DOESN'T EXEMPT ME FROM NOT OBEYING THE LAW.
PART 4, DUE PROCESS AND TRANSPARENCY.
WE'VE TALKED A LOT ABOUT WHEN THE CLOCK STARTED ON MY ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO APPEAL THIS CASE.
THE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER WAS ISSUED ON JUNE 12, 2025 AND SENT ONLY TO THE APPLICANT.
THERE WAS NO NOTICE GIVEN TO THE CITY MANAGER, THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, TO NEIGHBORS OR THE COMMISSION, EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS AN ACTIVE LEGAL CASE ON THIS AT THE TIME.
I RECEIVED A COPY OF THIS LDO ONLY ON SEPTEMBER 9 AFTER MAKING SEVERAL REQUESTS TO THE CITY TO BE ABLE TO SEE A COPY.
YET, WHEN I FILED MY APPEAL ON JULY 16, I WASN'T TOLD UNTIL ACTUALLY SEPTEMBER THAT I MISSED THE 30 DAY DEADLINE.
IT WAS A DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS.
THE TRC MEETING WAS IN MARCH 27.
I WAS ASSURED BY THE CITY MANAGER AS WELL AS THE PLANNING DIRECTOR THAT I WOULD BE SENT ANY AND ALL INFORMATION ON THIS PROJECT AND ON THESE PARCELS, AND I DID NOT RECEIVE IT, EVEN THOUGH I'D RECEIVED OTHER THINGS.
IT'S NOT NOTICE, IT'S DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS.
CITIZENS ARE ENTITLED TO NOTICE AND A FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD BEFORE GOVERNMENT ACTIONS THAT AFFECT THEIR PROPERTY RIGHTS.
THE CLOCK SHOULD HAVE STARTED TICKING ON JULY 12, AND OR JUNE 12, AND I SHOULD HAVE BEEN TOLD ON JUNE 12.
THE DEVELOPER'S ATTORNEY CLAIM THAT IF THIS PROJECT IS OVERTURNED, ACCORDING TO THE FERNANDINO OBSERVER, THEY'LL BUILD A 58 UNIT LV LOCAL PROJECT.
ONLY THE THIRD STREET SIDE QUALIFIES FOR LIVE LOCAL, BY WHICH ACREAGE COULD ALLOW 27 UNITS AT MOST, AND PROBABLY REALISTICALLY, 24 UNITS ONCE STORMWATER AND PARKING ARE APPLIED.
THAT MIGHT BE A GOOD THING FOR OUR THIRD STREET SIDE.
WE DO NEED AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR OUR WORKERS DOWNTOWN AND OUR WHITE STAFF AND OUR SHOP WORKERS.
I THINK THAT WOULD ACTUALLY BE A GOOD PROJECT ON THE THIRD STREET SIDE, AND I WOULD SUPPORT THAT.
THEY ALSO MENTIONED A BERT HARRIS AT CLAIM.
BUT THEY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IN JULY 2023, LONG AFTER 10305 WAS ADOPTED IN 2006, AND AFTER LITIGATION ON THIS RULE HAD ALREADY BEGUN.
FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, YOU CAN'T LOSE A RIGHT YOU'VE NEVER OWNED.
IN CLOSING, THIS CASE IS NOT JUST ABOUT OPPOSING DEVELOPMENT, I DON'T OPPOSE DEVELOPMENT.
IT'S ABOUT ENFORCING THE LAW EQUALLY.
HOMEOWNERS MUST FOLLOW THE CODE, AND CITY DEVELOPERS AND CITY HALL MUST TOO.
THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE SAYS PERMITS MAY ISSUE ONLY WORK WHEN WORK CONFORMS TO THIS CODE AND LAWS AND ORDINANCES.
THE BUILDING OFFICIAL ISSUED PERMITS IN VIOLATION OF 10305.
2.0302 DENSITY CALCULATIONS, 4.05 05 ZONING BUFFERS, 6.0213 SETBACKS, 7.0 300 STORM MANAGEMENT, SECTIONS 11 0105 AND SECTIONS 11 0302 SUBDIVISION PROCEDURES, AND SECTION 11 0501 A COMPLIANCE WITH THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE.
UNDER SECTION 1107 01B7, THIS BOARD HAS BOTH THE JURISDICTION AND THE RESPONSIBILITY TO CORRECT THESE ERRORS.
ONE THING I JUST WANTED TO ADD AT THE END IS THE NEIGHBORS ARE NOT UNREASONABLE.
WE KNOW THAT THE CITY NEEDS HOUSING.
WE APPROACHED THE DEVELOPER SEVERAL TIMES OVER A YEAR AGO, AND WE SAID, YOU KNOW WHAT? WE ARE FINE.
IF YOU PUT TOWN HOUSES ON THE THIRD STREET SIDE, AND YOU BUILD FOUR UP TO FOUR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON THE FOURTH STREET SIDE.
WE KNOW IT WASN'T OUR DECISION.
THAT WOULD BE THE BOAS DECISION, BUT WE SAID, IF YOU GO TO THE BOA WITH THAT, WE WILL TURN OUT IN NUMBERS.
WE WILL SAY, WE ARE ALL FOR THIS.
WE WERE TURNED DOWN BOTH TIMES.
SO I URGE YOU TO UPHOLD THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, THE COURT'S RULING, AND THE RULE OF LAW THAT PROTECTS FERNANDINA BEACHES, NEIGHBORHOODS AND INTEGRITY.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND LISTENING TO ME.
>> BEFORE YOU SIT, LET ME JUST ASK THE BOARD IF THERE'S ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS?
DID YOU SAY MISS KRISHNER, THAT YOU DID NOT RECEIVE NOTICE OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER UNTIL SEPTEMBER 9.
IS THAT WHAT YOU JUST TESTIFIED? THE WAY I FOUND OUT ABOUT THE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER WAS A NEIGHBOR CALLED ME AND SAID AND THAT WAS PROBABLY ON JULY 8 OR SO AND SAID, THEY'RE PUTTING UP STAKES ON THE TRINGALI PROPERTY, WHAT'S GOING ON? I CONTACTED MISS KELLY GIBSON, AND SHE SAID,
[01:35:03]
WE ISSUED BUILDING PERMITS ON JULY 5, I BELIEVE IT WAS.AT THAT POINT, I ASKED HER FOR ANY INFORMATION AND I RECEIVED NOTHING.
IT WAS ONLY WHEN I WAS TALKING TO MISS PRINCE, THE FIRST TIME SHE TOLD ME THAT SHE WOULDN'T ALLOW MY CASE TO BE HEARD BY THE BOARD OF APPEAL ADJUSTMENT THAT SHE SENT ME A COPY OF THE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER.
THAT'S THE ONLY TIME I'VE EVER SEEN IT.
I DID GET COPIES OF THE BUILDING PERMITS BECAUSE I LOGGED INTO THE BUILDING PERMIT SYSTEM AFTER SPEAKING TO MISS GIBSON SINCE SHE DIDN'T SEND ME ANYTHING.
I LOGGED IN AND I LOCATED THE BUILDING PERMITS, AND THAT'S ALL I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW AN LDO EXISTED.
I THOUGHT THE BUILDING PERMIT WAS THE THING.
>> WHAT DATE DID YOU SAY JULY 5?
>> I BELIEVE MY NEIGHBOR CALLED ME AROUND JULY 8, AND THAT'S WHEN I FOUND THEM.
IF THEY WOULD HAVE TOLD ME THAT DAY THAT, YES, WE DID AN LDO ON JUNE 12, THAT DAY I WOULD HAVE HAD THAT APPEAL IN.
BUT I WAS ONLY TOLD THAT BUILDING PERMITS HAD BEEN ISSUED.
I THINK MY DUE PROCESS RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED.
I THINK THE WHOLE COMMUNITY, EVERYONE HERE'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED BECAUSE A 30 DAY CLOCK STARTED TICKING ON A DATE WE WERE NEVER INFORMED OF.
I ALSO SUBMITTED LAST YEAR LEGAL RECORDS REQUEST TO THE CITY, SAYING, ANYTIME AN APPLICATION OR PERMIT IS ISSUED ON THIS PROPERTY, I NEED TO SEE IT, AND I KEPT AND I WAS RETURNED NOTHING, EVEN THOUGH APPLICATIONS HAD BEEN SUBMITTED.
AT THAT TIME, THE ACTING CITY MANAGER, AS WELL AS THE HEAD OF PLANNING ASSURED ME THEY WOULD SEND ME EVERYTHING THAT WAS ON THIS PROPERTY PROACTIVELY.
I WAS SHOCKED WHEN A NEIGHBOR CALLED ME.
IN FACT, I SAID TO THE NEIGHBOR, THAT COULDN'T BE HAPPENING BECAUSE THEY PROMISED THEY WOULD TELL ME ANYTIME SOMETHING WAS HAPPENING.
WHY IN YOUR SUBMISSION, YOUR PACKET, YOUR APPLICATION THAT WE RECEIVED AS PART OF OUR PACKET? THERE WERE SEVERAL AFFIDAVITS OF OWNERS OF, I GUESS, NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES REGARDING RECEIPT OF NO NOTICE ABOUT REGARDING THOSE TRIPLEX, PROPOSED TRIPLEXES, WHY DID YOU INCLUDE THOSE IN THE MATERIALS?
>> TO SHOW THAT IT WASN'T JUST ME WHO WASN'T INFORMED OF THE LDO.
IT WAS NO NEIGHBORS WERE INFORMED OF THE LDO.
IN FACT, I WAS SURPRISED TO FIND THE CITY MANAGER WASN'T EVEN INFORMED OF THE LDO SINCE THIS WAS SUCH A HIGH PROFILE SITUATION AND THERE WAS AN ACTIVE COURT ORDER ON THIS PROPERTY.
>> MAYBE THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN, I GUESS, A QUESTION IF YOUR ATTORNEY WAS STILL AROUND.
I WAS JUST WONDERING, IS IT HIS VIEW, YOUR VIEW THAT JUDGE ROBERSON'S HOLDING MEANS THAT SECTION 103-05 APPLIES TO ALL THE PARCELS THAT ARE AT ISSUE HERE, INCLUDING THE MIXED USE?
>> THAT'S AN INTERESTING QUESTION, AND I'VE TALKED TO THE LAWYER QUITE A BIT ABOUT IT.
IT'S MY PERSONAL OPINION THAT IT SHOULD NOT APPLY TO THE MIXED USE.
HOWEVER, OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE DOESN'T SAY THAT.
THAT'S REALLY UP FOR INTERPRETATION.
>> THAT'S WHY I WAS WONDERING IF YOUR ATTORNEYS WAS HERE, BUT OKAY.
>> I'M GOING TO COMMIT CRIMES IF I DON'T ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.
I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO YOU.
>> I'M DIRECTING IT TOWARDS COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
>> YOU'VE TESTIFIED TONIGHT TO ITEMS REGARDING STORMWATER, WHETHER OR NOT IT'S ALLOWED TO CROSS LINES AND TESTIFIED A LOT TO THE ITEMS THAT WE SAY AREN'T EVEN BEFORE THIS BOARD.
BUT DO YOU HAVE DENSITY CALCULATIONS, WHETHER OR NOT STORMWATER SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO CROSS LINES, PROPER SETBACKS.
I DO NOT BELIEVE YOU ARE CONSIDERED COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
WHAT IN YOUR BACKGROUND HAS ANY PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE OR ANYTHING THAT WOULD MAKE YOU SOMETHING THIS BOARD SHOULD RELY ON OR STATEMENTS THAT THEY CAN RELY ON?
>> I DON'T HAVE ANY PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS ON IT.
HOWEVER, WHAT I DO HAVE IS THE INTERPRETATION OF JUDGE ROBERSON, AND I RELY ON JUDGE ROBERSON'S EXPERT KNOWLEDGE, AND THAT'S WHAT I'VE RELIED ON.
>> DID JUDGE ROBERSON'S ORDER DISCUSS THE DENSITY?
>> JUDGE ROBERSON'S ORDER JUST VERY SPECIFICALLY SAID THAT ANYTHING IN VARIANCE OF FIVE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES NEEDED TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
[01:40:02]
>> DID IT ADDRESS STORMWATER OR DID NOT?
>> I JUST MAKING SURE THAT SOME OF THE STATEMENTS THAT WERE MADE INTO THE RECORD, WHAT THIS BOARD HAS TO RELY ON.
THE OTHER THING THAT I CAN ASK MS. CAMPBELL TO TESTIFY TO AS WELL, BUT FIRST AND FOREMOST, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT YOU CAN MAKE A STANDING RECORDS REQUEST THAT HAS TO JUST BE AT ANY TIME COMPLIED WITH.
THAT IS NOT THE CLERK'S ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITY.
UNDER THE CODE, I WOULD ADVISE, FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, THAT NO INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN GETS NOTICE OF A LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER.
MS KRISTNER, DO YOU GET NOTICES OF ANY LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDERS IN THIS TOWN?
>> NO, I DO NOT. BUT CAN I EXPAND ON WHAT YOU HAD ASKED THERE? WHEN I PUT IN THE RECORDS REQUEST, I WAS DOING IT BI-WEEKLY BECAUSE I KNEW THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO TELL ME PROACTIVELY.
I WAS RETURNED AT NOTHING WHEN THINGS HAD BEEN RECEIVED.
>> DID YOU PUT IN THE RECORDS REQUEST IN MARCH OF 2025?
>> NO. BECAUSE I HAD DONE THIS IN NOVEMBER OF 2024.
AFTER I WASN'T RETURNED ANYTHING, I CONTACTED ACTING CITY MANAGER JEREMIAH GLISSON, AND I ALSO CC KELLY GIBSON.
I SAID, I'M PUTTING IN THESE RECORD REQUESTS EVERY OTHER WEEK, AND THESE RECORD REQUESTS ARE NOT GIVING ME WHAT HAS BEEN SENT, SO YOU HAVE TWO CHOICES.
I CAN EITHER CALL YOU EVERY DAY AND ASK YOU TO GIVE ME EVERYTHING OR YOU CAN GIVE IT TO ME PROACTIVELY.
MR. GLISSON WROTE ME BACK AND SAID HE WOULD GIVE IT TO ME PROACTIVELY.
MS. GIBSON ACTED UPON THAT BY GIVING ME THINGS PROACTIVELY, SO I THOUGHT THAT WAS THE AGREEMENT.
>> MS. KRISTNER, CAN I ASK YOU SOMETHING? THIS MAY BE OUT OF YOUR PURVIEW.
DURING THE TECHNICAL REVIEW, THE FIRST HEARING, ISN'T THAT NOTICED?
>> WELL, AFTER THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE THAT SHE ATTENDED WAS NOTICED.
AT THAT TIME, I BELIEVE THERE WAS A FIRST STEP, AND I DON'T THINK THOSE WERE NOTICED.
BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS EVENING, THE TRC MEETINGS WHERE THE FULL STAFF MEETS THAT ARE APPLICABLE TO THE COMMITTEE IS NOTICED THAT I BELIEVE IT'S HELD IN HERE MY MEMORY.
MARGARET PEARSON'S OVER THERE SHAKING HER HEAD.
COMMENTS ARE GIVEN, AND THAT IS WHEN AGAIN, MS. GIBSON STATED FOR THE RECORD THAT BASED ON ONCE ONE CONDITION WAS MET, THEY WOULD BE ISSUING THE TRC LETTER.
I DIDN'T OBJECT BECAUSE I KNEW MS. KRISTNER WANTED TO BE HEARD, BUT WE DO OBJECT TO ALL OF THAT EVIDENCE BECAUSE THE CITY'S POSITION, IT'S NOT RELEVANT TO WHETHER OR NOT MR. PARR DID HIS JOB.
HE HAS TESTIFIED THAT IT IS NOT WITHIN HIS PURVIEW TO ENFORCE 10305.
IT IS THE CITY'S POSITION, AND I BELIEVE THE LEGALLY ACCURATE POSITION THAT IT IS PLANNING STAFF.
WHETHER OR NOT PLANNING STAFF DID THAT CORRECTLY, BUT THAT IS WHERE 10305 IS DECIDED, IF THERE IS A CONDITION, THE TRC CAN ISSUE A LETTER, APPROVING IT WITH CONDITIONS.
PURSUANT TO THE CODE. IF THERE WERE CONDITIONS OF A VARIANCE, THAT WOULD BE INDICATED.
THAT HAPPENS IF SOMEONE'S COMING THROUGH AND NEEDS A VARIANCE FOR A SIDE YARD SETBACK.
IT IS THE CITY'S POSITION THAT WHEN THAT TRC LETTER WAS ISSUED, THAT THE PLANNING ANALYSIS WAS THAT 10305 DID NOT APPLY.
AGAIN, IF WE ARE GOING TO LOOK AT THE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER AND THE TRC PROCESS, I BELIEVE THAT THIS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS DOES NOT HAVE THE JURISDICTION FOR THAT.
I ALSO BELIEVE IT'S NOT MR. PARR'S PURVIEW TO GO BEHIND THE PLANNING STAFF AND BEHIND THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE TO SEE IF THEY DID THEIR JOB.
HE HAS TO DO HIS JOB UNDER THE STATE STATUTE AND UNDER THE BUILDING CODE.
>> AS A THIRD PARTY REVIEWER, SUBMITTING PLANS, YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO LOOK AT IT.
>> NOW, MR. PARR IS SITTING ON THE SECOND ROW FOR THE COURT REPORTER, AND HE IS SAYING FOR THE RECORD THAT, UP TO THE SO THEY CAN HEAR YOU.
>> WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE THE JUDGE'S ORDER APPLIES TO THEN?
[01:45:01]
>> MY INTERPRETATION OF THE JUDGE'S ORDER IS THAT IF YOU ARE GOING TO BUILD SOMETHING THAT WOULD MAKE 10305 APPLY TO THE PROPERTY, THEN YOU SHOULD GO GET A VARIANCE.
THAT IS WHAT THE JUDGE'S ORDER SAYS.
THAT CASE WAS ABOUT PLATTING LAND AND NOT GETTING A VARIANCE.
IT WAS DECIDED THAT IF YOU WERE GOING TO CROSS A LOT LINES, THAT 10305 WOULD REQUIRE YOU TO GET A VARIANCE AND THAT YOU COULD NOT PLAT LAND TO GET AROUND THAT.
THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING OF IT.
AGAIN, THAT'S NOT MR. PARR'S RESPONSE.
THAT IS THE PLANNING STAFF'S RESPONSIBILITY AND MR. TIMS? THAT WAS MS. GIBSON.
THAT READ THAT DECISION, AND LETTER IS SIGNED BY MS. PEARSON, BUT THAT WAS AT THE DIRECTION.
HER SUPERVISOR AT THE TIME WAS MS. GIBSON.
THAT PLANNING MINDS CAN DIFFER ON HOW THINGS ARE APPLIED, AND IT WOULD HAVE BEEN MS. GIBSON'S RESPONSIBILITY AS STAFF TO MAKE THAT DECISION.
>> JUST QUICKLY. MS. KRISTNER, CAN YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND AFTER THE MARCH MEETING, WHICH YOU DID ATTEND?
>> YES. I DID ATTEND THE MEETING, AND I TOLD THEM THAT MY INTENT WAS TO APPEAL IT AT THE TIME.
>> WHY DID YOU NOT EITHER APPEAL AT THAT TIME OR SHORTLY AFTER THAT MEETING OR IF YOU BELIEVED THAT IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO SEEK RELIEF FROM THE COURT ORDER, IF YOU BELIEVED THE CITY WAS OUT OF COMPLIANCE.
>> THERE WAS NOTHING TO APPEAL.
NOT EVERYTHING THAT GOES TO THE TRC RESULTS IN A PERMIT.
THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT GO TO THE TRC THAT NEVER GET APPROVED, SO THERE WAS NOTHING TO APPEAL AT THAT TIME.
ALSO, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU NEED TO EXHAUST EVERY AVENUE WITH THE CITY BEFORE YOU SHOULD GO TO THE COURTS.
IT WAS MY FULL INTENT FROM DAY ONE TO APPEAL THIS TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
I WAS JUST WAITING UNTIL THE ACTION HAD BEEN MADE AND THE PERMITS WERE ISSUED.
I WAS NOT INFORMED OF IT, NOR WAS ANYONE ELSE GIVEN NOTICE.
A CLOCK STARTED TICKING ON SOMETHING THAT WAS NOT GIVEN NOTICE.
THE MEETING WAS ON MARCH, AND THE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER DIDN'T GET SENT OUT UNTIL JUNE TO JUST THE APPLICANT ON THAT.
THE ONE THING I WAS ASSURED OF WAS THAT I WOULD BE SENT THINGS PROACTIVELY SINCE MY AVENUE OF TRYING RECORD REQUESTS HADN'T WORKED.
I WAS WAITING FOR THE CITY TO INFORM ME, AND THE ONLY WAY I FOUND OUT IS A NEIGHBOR CALLED ME AND SAID, "WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE STAKES?" I CALLED KELLY GIBSON AND SHE SAID BUILDING PERMITS WERE ISSUED A FEW DAYS AGO. THAT'S WHAT I APPEALED.
>> ONE LAST QUESTION. I READ YOUR APPEAL TO REALLY BE DIRECTED AT 10305 AND THE COURT ORDER.
I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING IN YOUR DESCRIPTION IN THE APPEAL ABOUT BUILDING CODES OR SETBACKS OR DENSITY OR STORMWATER, ETC, THE THINGS YOU'VE COVERED TONIGHT.
HAVE I READ YOUR APPEAL CORRECTLY? IT DID NOT COVER THOSE THINGS?
>> I WAS TRYING TO GET IT IN AS SOON AS I POSSIBLY COULD.
>> ANY REMAINING? DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING?
>> THE ONLY THING THAT I WOULD ADD IS THAT THE CITY DOESN'T NOTIFY ANY CITIZENS WHEN BUILDING PERMITS ARE ISSUED.
MR. PARR, DO YOU GIVE NOTICE TO CITIZENS WHEN BUILDING PERMITS ARE ISSUED?
>> JUST IT SENDS A BEACON OUT TO AN EMAIL TO THE APPLICANT.
THAT IS IT, JUST TO LET THEM KNOW THEIR PERMITS ARE READY.
>> THAT WOULD BE THE SAME FOR ANY BOARD?
>> ANY CITY BOARD DOES NOT GET NOTICE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC.
IT'S AVAILABLE FOR ANYBODY TO COME AND ATTEND, BUT THIS IS NOT SENT TO ANY INDIVIDUAL.
>> MY FINAL QUESTION TO MS. KRISTNER AGAIN WAS AFTER MARCH, DID YOU MAKE ANY OFFICIAL RECORD REQUESTS? I KNOW YOU'VE STATED THAT YOU'VE SPOKEN TO MS. GIBSON AND YOU SAID INTERESTING THINGS.
BUT DID YOU MAKE ANY OFFICIAL RECORDS REQUESTS.
>> [LAUGHTER] I WASN'T ME FOR THE RECORD.
I DID NOT BECAUSE I HAD AN AGREEMENT WITH.
>> ARE YOU GOING TO CHECK ON ZOOM 'CAUSE I NEED THE AUDIO.
>> MR. BROOKS. HE'S LOGGED OFF.
>> THERE'S NO ONE ELSE. NO ONE ELSE PARTICIPATING BY ZOOM. [LAUGHTER].
[01:50:01]
>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WAS WORKING.
>> BUT I WAS ASSURED BY ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER JEREMIAH GLISSON, AND MS. GIBSON THAT I WOULD BE SENT ANYTHING THAT HAD TO DO WITH THAT PROPERTY, AND THEY HAD BEEN DOING IT TO THAT DATE. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.
>> WAS THAT A VERBAL OR WAS THAT IN WRITING?
>> IT WAS IN WRITING? IS IT THE CITY'S POLICY TO COMMIT ITSELF TO DO THAT IN ANY WAY OR SHAPE OR FORM?
>> IT'S NOT OUR POLICY. MS. CAMPBELL CAN SPEAK TO THAT AS YOUR POLICY. THEY MAKE PROMISES.
>> I'M REFERRING TO THE EMAIL THAT'S IN THE PACKET THAT WAS AN EMAIL FROM CLERK BEST TO MS. KRISTNER ON NOVEMBER 8, SAYING STAFF IS HAPPY TO GIVE YOU A CALL WHEN THE CITY RECEIVES A LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER APPLICATION FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
AGAIN, I WOULD REFER TO THE FLORIDA STATUTES THAT GOVERN PUBLIC RECORDS THAT YOU CAN'T MAKE A PROACTIVE REQUEST, A STANDING REQUEST FOR A FUTURE DOCUMENT.
>> I HAVE NOT SPOKEN WITH CLERK BEST ABOUT IT.
STAFF INTENDED TO SUPPLY THE APPLICATION FOR THE PROPERTY.
I DON'T KNOW THAT WAS DONE, BUT I DON'T SEE ANYTHING AFTER NOVEMBER 8 DATE.
I WASN'T GUARANTEEING THE PROVISION OF SOME RECORDS.
IT WOULD BE OUR POSITION THAT MS. KRISTNER DID SHOW UP MARCH 27, 2025.
SHE IN THE RECORDS AS BEING AT THE MEETING.
MS. KRISTNER, I THINK YOU TESTIFIED TONIGHT, BUT CAN YOU CLARIFY FOR US, WERE YOU AT THE MARCH 27 TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE?
>> YES, I WAS. THERE'S ALSO FROM MY UNDERSTANDING TAPE RECORDINGS OF THOSE MEETINGS.
THERE AREN'T VIDEO, BUT THERE'S TAPE RECORDINGS, SO IF ANYBODY WANTED TO LISTEN TO IT.
I THINK THAT THE RECORDS WAS AN UNUSUAL REQUEST, AND THE ONLY REASON THE CITY TOLD ME THEY WOULD DO THAT IS BECAUSE MY OFFICIAL RECORDS REQUESTS HAD FAILED.
THE CITY HAD NOT RETURNED INFORMATION THAT THEY HAD. THAT'S WHY THEY.
>> ON THE RECORD, BUT I KNOW THIS ISN'T PROPER FORM.
>> AS PART OF THE EMAIL THAT MS. CAMPBELL IS REFERRING TO.
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, IT'S NOT MY PLACE, BUT I DON'T THINK WE ALLOWED MR. ORBUCKNER TO QUESTION MS. KRISTNER.
I DON'T KNOW IF THE BOARD, HE'S ALLOWED TO, IS THAT CORRECT?
MS. KRISTNER, MR. ONTWAKA, MS. PRINCE?
>> MY CONCLUSION IS SIMPLY THAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL DID HIS JOB AND THE JURISDICTION OF THIS BOARD IS WHETHER OR NOT MR. BARD DID HIS JOB DID AND HIS DECISION TO ISSUE THOSE BUILDING PERMITS.
>> HEARING THAT, I WILL OPEN IT UP TO THE PUBLIC. I DIDN'T EVEN SEE.
>> WHILE MR. ORBUCKNER MAKES IT TO THE FLOOR, I DO BELIEVE TOO THAT IN THE APPEAL PROCEDURES, WE AGREE THE CITIZENS CAN COME, BUT THEY'RE NOT EVIDENCE.
THEY CAN COME AND SPEAK BUT THAT WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED EVIDENCE.
>> I ONLY HAVE A FEW COMMENTS BECAUSE I THINK THAT THE ISSUES HAVE BEEN PRETTY WELL ADDRESSED, BUT I WANT TO DISCUSS A COUPLE OF POINTS WHERE THE PROPERTY OWNER TAKES SLIGHT VARIANCE FROM THE CITY'S POSITION.
ONE QUESTION MR. MILLER RAISED WAS WHETHER THE CITY TAKES THE POSITION THAT TRC IS QUASI JUDICIAL.
I WOULD POINT OUT THAT A CASE THAT ACTUALLY, I BELIEVE MR. BROOKS WAS INVOLVED WITH EVERGREEN, THE TREE TREASURES VERSUS CHARLOTTE COUNTY, WHICH IS FOUND AT 8:10 SOUTHERN SECOND PAGE 526, SECOND DCA.
>> HELD THAT A TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING THAT WAS PUBLICLY NOTICED AND CONSISTED OF THE APPLICATION OF CODE TO THE FACTS OF A CASE BY A TRC OF CHARLOTTE COUNTY CONSTITUTED A QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDING.
IT IS OUR POSITION THAT SIMILARLY, HOWEVER LABELED, IT'S ALREADY BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED TONIGHT THAT THERE WAS PUBLIC NOTICE OF THAT MEETING.
ONE KEY FACTOR IN THE EVERGREEN THE TREE CASE THAT
[01:55:07]
THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL POINTED TO AS A DUE PROCESS PROBLEM WAS A THIRD PARTY OPPONENT WAS NOT ALLOWED TO SPEAK TO THE TRC UNTIL AFTER THE TRC HAD MADE ITS DECISION.AS YOU HAVE HEARD TONIGHT, MS. KRISNER APPEARED.
SHE WAS GIVEN FULL OPPORTUNITY.
THERE IS AMPLE CASE LAW WITHIN OUR APPELLATE JURISDICTION, THE 5TH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, THAT SAYS THAT A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC IS AUTHORIZED DUE PROCESS NOTICE AT A HEARING OR RATHER DUE PROCESS ABILITY TO SPEAK AT A HEARING, AND SHE WAS.
IT IS ALSO OUR VIEW THAT BECAUSE SHE SAID THAT SHE WOULD APPEAL, SHE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL, DID NOT.
AS FAR AS WHAT THE JURISDICTION IS OF THIS BODY.
I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT, AND MR. MILLER ASKED THE QUESTION, WHAT ABOUT EQUITABLE ISSUES EXTENDING THE 30 DAYS? IF IT IS INDEED QUASI-JUDICIAL, AS MS. PRINCE SAID, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO CIRCUIT COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS.
THIRTY DAYS IS JURISDICTIONAL.
THERE IS NO EQUITABLE TOLLING.
THERE IS NO MOTION FOR REHEARING EXTENSION.
9100 FLORIDA APPELLATE PROCEDURE, THE CASE LAW INTERPRETING IT.
WHICH THEN BACKS ME INTO THE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION.
110701 LISTS THE APPELLATE OR REMEDIES FROM CERTAIN ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS.
AS HAS BEEN STATED MULTIPLE TIMES TONIGHT, TRC AND SITE PLAN IS NOWHERE TO BE FOUND THERE.
YOU CANNOT CONFER JURISDICTION ON A BOARD OR A QUASI-JUDICIAL BODY BY CONSENT.
IT'S EITHER THERE OR IT ISN'T, AND THAT'S BLACK AND WHITE.
IF THIS WERE AN ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION, AGAIN, I THINK THE POSITION OF THE PROPERTY OWNER IS SHOULD HAVE BEEN FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS UNDER 110702, BUT IT'S NOT.
IF IT WERE TO BE FILED, ONLY IF THAT ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION IS SUBJECT TO 110701.
YOU HAVE TO READ IT IN PARAMETERIA.
IT'S ONE RIGHT AFTER THE OTHER.
THAT 30 DAYS APPLIES TO THOSE LISTED ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS AND ONLY.
MR. PARR TESTIFIED REPEATEDLY.
THERE ARE TWO SIDES OF THE HOUSE.
I KNOW A COUPLE OF PEOPLE ON THIS BOARD ALREADY, AND I KNOW THEM TO BE EXPERIENCED IN THE DICHOTOMY.
THERE ARE TWO SIDES OF THE HOUSE.
THE PLANNING SIDE LOOKS AT LAND USE AND ZONING.
MR. PARR'S SIDE IS, DOES IT MEET THE BUILDING CODE? IF THERE'S AD DAMNUM LANGUAGE, IT SAYS, OR WHATEVER THE REMAINDER OF THE LAW IS, IT IS OUR CONTENTION, THAT IS NOT WITHIN HIS SIDE OF THE HOUSE.
AS THE CITY HAS STATED, THAT WOULD BE FOR THE PLANNING STAFF, AND HE WOULD BE RELYING UPON IT AS HE HAS STATED.
[02:00:07]
MY NOTES HERE, THAT WHICH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CANNOT CONSIDER DIRECTLY, IT CANNOT BE BOOTSTRAPPED BY AN APPEAL OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL.IN FACT, IF ANYTHING, THERE'S AN OLD MARK TWAIN STATEMENT, "USE THE RIGHT WORD, NOT ITS SECOND COUSIN." IF YOU DON'T HAVE DIRECT AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER THE TRC, THEN BOOTSTRAPPING IT TO THAT WHICH YOU WOULD HAVE JURISDICTION WOULD BE ONCE REMOVED FROM NOT HAVING JURISDICTION.
I WILL POINT OUT WHEN MS. KRISNER WAS GOING THROUGH HER LAUNDRY LIST OF THINGS THAT MR. PARR HAD AUTHORITY OVER, SHE MENTIONED A KEY PHRASE, CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS.
OUR SUMMED UP POSITION IS THE BUILDING PERMIT IS A MINISTERIAL TASK, AND NO ONE HAS SAID THAT HE DID NOT REVIEW IT CONSISTENT WITH HIS JURISDICTION.
THE FACT THAT HE MAY NOT HAVE CONSIDERED THE LOT DETERMINATIONS DOESN'T MAKE HIS DECISION WRONG UNDER THE BUILDING CODE.
THERE'S NOTHING IN THE BUILDING CODE ABOUT LOT JURISDICTION.
I WILL SAVE OUR SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES ABOUT THE CONDO DETERMINATION AND SO ON AND SO FORTH FOR ANOTHER DAY AND APPROPRIATE JURISDICTION, BUT WE WOULD SIMPLY ASK THAT YOU APPROVE WHAT YOU DO HAVE JURISDICTION TO REVIEW TONIGHT.
I WOULD SAY ONE THING THAT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT, I THINK BY AT LEAST TWO PEOPLE TONIGHT.
WE DO HAVE TO RESERVE THE CONTENTION THAT UNDER 55379 FLORIDA STATUTES, THE REVIEW OF MR. PARR'S TECHNICAL PROCESSING MIGHT PROPERLY BE BEFORE THE STATE BUILDING COMMISSION.
WITH THAT, HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.
>> WHAT WAS THAT LAST STATUTE YOU REFERENCED?
I CANNOT REMEMBER WHICH SUBSECTION IT IS TODAY.
I WOULD FAIL THAT POP QUIZ, BUT I KNOW IT'S BURIED IN THERE.
>> THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.
>> I HAVE JUST A QUICK QUESTION.
IN MAY OF LAST YEAR, THE OWNER APPLIED FOR A VARIANCE FOR THIS BOARD WHICH SEEMED TO INDICATE THAT HE DID THINK THAT 10305 APPLIED TO THESE PROPERTIES.
I'M JUST WONDERING, DID YOU ADVISE YOUR CLIENT WITH RESPECT TO THIS PROPOSAL, EVEN IF CITY STAFF INDICATED THEY COULD APPROVE THESE MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS DESPITE 10305? DID YOU ADVISE YOUR CLIENT THAT THE STAFF WAS CORRECT? DID YOUR CLIENT SEEK YOUR OPINION ON THAT?
>> MA'AM, AS YOU KNOW, I CANNOT SPEAK TO ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE COMMUNICATION.
I CAN TELL YOU AS I AM STANDING HERE I DO NOT RECALL GIVING THAT ADVICE.
[02:05:03]
>> CHAIR, WITH OUR AGREED UPON PROCEDURES, WE DO HAVE THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND THEN A FINAL ARGUMENT FROM THE PARTIES IF THEY SO CHOOSE TO TAKE THAT.
>> I'D LIKE TO MOVE THIS A LITTLE BIT FORWARD.
FOR THIS PORTION, I'M GOING TO GIVE EVERYBODY THREE MINUTES, SO LEE IS GOING TO KEEP THE TIME ON YOU.
I WILL CALL YOU UP TO THE PODIUM.
STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS, PLEASE.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK NOW, AGAIN, THE PUBLIC SECTION WILL BE OPEN, RAISE YOUR HAND, AND I WILL CALL YOU INDIVIDUALLY.
>> JACK EMBER, 1003 BROOM STREET HERE IN FERNANDINA.
USE THE RIGHT WORD, NOT A SECOND COUSIN. I LOVE MARK TWAIN.
WE REALLY COULD HAVE USED THIS A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO WHILE THE CITY WAS FIGHTING AGAINST THE CITIZENS TO GET THIS PROJECT THROUGH IN AN UNLAWFUL MANNER.
THEY WERE TRYING TO CHANGE DEFINITIONS IN EFFECT, CHANGING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WITHOUT COMING TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
THIS IS ON RECORD. IT'S A KNOWN FACT.
ALSO, I WANT TO ADDRESS THAT WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WORDS THAT MATTER, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS DOES ANY CHANGES TO THE LDC, ANY VARIANCE.
IT'S ANOTHER WORD THAT WE SHOULD BE VERY CAREFUL OF AND PAY ATTENTION TO.
THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS SHOULD HAVE HEARD ANY CONTROVERSY THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER OR THE DEVELOPER EVER HAD, BUT THEY'VE REFUSED TO COME IN FRONT OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.
WHY? BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO ASK THEM.
MAYBE THEY KNEW THEY WERE WRONG.
BUT UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE, DID THEY WANT TO COME IN FRONT OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND SEEK A VARIANCE.
FOR ONE THING, THEY KNEW THE RESIDENTS WERE AGAINST IT.
I'D ALSO LIKE TO ADDRESS SOMETHING THAT MS. PRINCE SAID, THAT TINA IS NOT A CITY PLANNER.
BY THE WAY, SHE'S NOT A LAWYER.
BUT SHE DOESN'T KNOW HOW TO OPERATE A COMPUTER. I'M PRETTY SURE.
SHE FINDS THE FACTS THAT SHE NEEDS, AND SHE BRINGS THEM IN FRONT OF YOU.
UNDER OATH, SHE'S BRINGING THEM IN FRONT OF YOU.
I FIND IT WRONG AND UNETHICAL TO BANTER A WITNESS IN SUCH A WAY.
I HOPE IT NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN. THANK YOU.
>> WHO ELSE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? MA'AM.
>> JULIE FERRERO, 501 DATE STREET.
IN MY OPINION, REGARDING THE APPLICATION OF CODE DURING THE TRC MEETING, THAT CAN BE QUESTIONED BECAUSE THIS PROPERTY WAS UNDER COURT ORDERS THAT THE CITY AND THE CITY STAFF JUST IGNORED AND CONTINUED TO IGNORE.
TRINGALI HAS BEEN A HOT BUTTON ISSUE, SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY AFTER THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER WAS APPROVED, WHY, SUPPOSEDLY, THE CITY MANAGER DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT, THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT, THE PUBLIC DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT IT.
GILLETTE ASSOCIATES, THEY KNEW ABOUT IT, THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT KNEW, BUT WHY NOBODY ELSE? BECAUSE THIS HAS BEEN A VERY CONTENTIOUS ISSUE IN THE CITY.
10305 WORKS FOR THE BETTERMENT OF THE CITY, AND IT'S BEEN ON THE BOOKS SINCE 2006.
THE TRINGALI PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED WITH THE CURRENT RULES AND LAWS IN PLACE AND THAT'S A SUBSTANTIAL THING.
WE'VE BEEN TOLD TWICE BY A COURT SYSTEM THAT 10305 IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CLEARLY APPLIES TO TRINGALI PARCELS.
THAT TRANSLATES INTO MULTIPLE DWELLING UNITS CANNOT BE BUILT ON COMBINED LOTS WITHOUT SECURING A VARIANCE FROM THE BOA.
IT SEEMS LIKE STAFF OBVIOUSLY DOES NOT COMMUNICATE OR COORDINATE WELL WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS.
ALL THE WHILE, THE LEAD PERSON OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT KEPT CITING HER POSITION,
[02:10:03]
EVEN THOUGH THE COURTS HAD RULED THAT HER POSITION WAS VALID.WE WENT AHEAD AND ISSUED BUILDING PERMITS.
WHO DOES THAT MAKE ANY SENSE TO? THIS WHOLE THING IN THE CITY IS LIKE THE CIRCULAR ARGUMENT THAT MAKES NO SENSE.
WHY IS IT THE CITY RESPONSIBLE WHEN STAFF DOESN'T DO THEIR JOB? WHY DOES CITIZENS HAVE TO FIND OUT ABOUT THINGS WHEN THERE'S LAND MOVING EQUIPMENT ALREADY ON THE PROPERTY? THIS HAS BEEN SCREWED UP FROM THE BEGINNING.
THIS HAS BEEN A LONG AND WINDING ROAD.
THIS CASE HAS A HUGE AMOUNT OF PAPERWORK THIS THICK ASSOCIATED WITH IT.
I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS SINCE THE BEGINNING.
IT SEEMS THE BUILDING OFFICIAL WHO ISSUED THESE PERMITS.
IT COULD BE SAID THAT THEY VIOLATED THE EXISTING LAW OF DENSITY, THE SETBACK LOGS, 10305.
IF STORM WATER IS REALLY BEING CONSOLIDATED ON THIS SIDE OF MULTIPLE, WHATEVER, HOW MANY ACRES? IT'S NOT LAWFUL.
ALL OF THE CITY'S ARGUMENTS ARE JUST GOING AROUND IN CIRCLES.
PLEASE TELL ME WHEN A TRIPLEX IS EVER CONSIDERED A SINGLE FAMILY UNIT.
I LOOKED UP ON MY PHONE SITTING BACK OVER THERE, AND A DUPLEX IS NOT A SINGLE FAMILY UNIT SO HOW CAN A TRIPLEX BE ONE?
>> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS VICTORIA ROBAS, 2161 SOUTH FLETCHER, FERNANDINA BEACH.
I WAS CHAIR OF THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD, ONE OF THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH'S ADVISORY BOARDS, FOR THE DECEMBER 14TH, 2022, PAB MEETING.
THE STAFF'S REPORT, WHICH I HAVE HERE, WAS LENGTHY AND VERY DETAILED, BUT THE THING THAT I NOTICED AS I WAS REVIEWING IT IS THAT NOWHERE IN HERE IS A REFERENCE TO 10305, ALL OF THE CASE, THEIR RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT WAS BASED ON OTHER AREAS OF THE CITY'S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, NOT 10305.
IT BECAME EVIDENT DURING THIS MEETING, DECEMBER 14TH, 2022, THAT THE BOARD HAD A DIFFERENT OPINION OF THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
EVENTUALLY, AFTER A LONG MEETING, THAT RECOMMENDATION WAS TO CONSIDER DENIAL OF THE CASE THAT CAME BEFORE US, AND I WILL READ THIS TO YOU.
THE MOTION FOR THIS CASE WAS MADE TO SAY, I MOVE TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF PAB CASE 2022-0026 TO THE CITY COMMISSION, REQUESTING THAT A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR ISLAND VIEW BE DENIED AND THAT PAB CASE 2022-0026, AS PRESENTED, IS NOT SUFFICIENTLY COMPLIANT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO BE APPROVED AT THIS TIME.
THERE WAS AN ADDENDUM MADE BY ONE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS TO SAY, TO REFER THIS CASE TO THE BOA.
THERE WAS THEN A UNANIMOUS VOTE TAKEN TO THE PAB, AND THE PAB UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THAT ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION.
ONCE THIS IS APPROVED BY THE PAB, AS AN ADVISORY BOARD, IT GOES TO THE CITY COMMISSION, AND THEN THEY TAKE IT UP FURTHER.
AS AN INTEREST, THOUGH, THIS CASE CAME BEFORE US AGAIN IN APRIL 12TH, 2023, A MERE FOUR MONTHS, THREE MONTHS LATER, AND WE WERE A LITTLE CONFUSED BY THAT.
THERE WERE WHAT I WOULD CONSIDER MINOR ISSUES, MINOR ADDITIONS THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY WANTED TO PRESENT TO THE PAB, HOPING TO ALLOW US TO REHEAR THIS CASE.
AFTER SOME DISCUSSION, WE SAID, NO, THAT WE WOULD NOT HEAR THIS CASE.
THE CASE HAD ALREADY BEEN DECIDED, AND WE MOVED ON TO OTHER ITEMS ON OUR AGENDA. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK, MA'AM?
[02:15:09]
>> SANDY CAREY, 1255 FOREST DRIVE.
I'D JUST LIKE TO STATE FOR THE RECORD THAT THE PLANNING DIRECTOR, KELLY GIBSON, WAS FIRED JUST A FEW DAYS AFTER COMMISSIONER TUTEN BROUGHT THIS ENTIRE CASE TO LIGHT AT THE COMMISSION MEETING ON JULY 15TH.
NO ONE SEEMS TO BE MENTIONING THAT FACTOR, AND THERE WAS A REASON FOR THAT HAPPENING, AND IT HAD VERY MUCH TO DO WITH HER OVERSTEPPING AUTHORITY.
THE PHONE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE WORKING.
WELL, THE BOTTOM LINE IS THE CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE ISSUED AN ORDER SAYING THAT THIS WAS DISALLOWED.
THAT TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER ANY LOCAL MUNICIPAL ORDER OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT'S UNDER FLORIDA STATUTE.
I DON'T HAVE IT RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME, BUT I THINK MOST PEOPLE WOULD AGREE WITH THAT.
THAT ORDER WAS IN EXISTENCE, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO KNEW WHAT OR WHO WAS SUPPOSED TO WHAT OR WHO RELAYED WHAT.
IT TAKES PRECEDENCE, AND IT APPLIES, AND TO NOT LOOK AT THAT IS JUST WRONG. THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER MEMBERS WISH TO SPEAK? ONCE I CLOSE THIS, WE'RE GOING TO OPEN IT UP BACK TO THE FINAL ARGUMENTS.
ANYBODY GOING ONCE? I CLOSE THE PUBLIC SESSION.
FINAL ARGUMENTS? YOU CAN GO FIRST.
>> DO YOU WANT TO LET MS. CHRISTNER TO GO FIRST?
>> CHRISTNER, DO YOU WANT TO GO FIRST?
>> TINA CHRISTNER, 406 BEECH STREET.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR LISTENING TO ME THIS EVENING AND LISTENING TO EVERYONE ELSE.
I JUST WANTED TO SAY, IT WAS JUST ABOUT A MONTH AFTER THIS LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER WAS ISSUED THAT THE HEAD OF PLANNING WAS PUT ON ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT HER SITUATION IS NOW.
I DON'T KNOW THE FULL REASONS OF IT, BUT THE TIMING SEEMS STRANGE.
I ALSO JUST WANTED TO STATE THAT EVEN THE CITY MANAGER SAYS THAT THIS APPLICATION VIOLATES MANY SECTIONS OF THE LDC.
I DON'T HAVE TO BE A PLANNER, I AM RELYING ON HER EXPERTISE TO SAY THAT.
I'LL ALSO SAY THAT THE DEVELOPER, MR. FLICK, HE WAS INVOLVED IN BOTH COURT CASES, OR HIS COMPANY-WORTHY INVESTMENTS WAS INVOLVED IN THE FIRST COURT CASE, AS WELL AS THE APPEAL.
IT ISN'T NEWS TO THEM, UNLESS THEY DIDN'T READ THE COURT ORDERS THAT SECTION 10305 APPLIED TO THIS PROPERTY.
THAT'S ALL I REALLY HAVE TO SAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> CLOSING THE ARGUMENTS MADE TONIGHT MIGHT BE PROPER IN THAT JURISDICTION.
IT'S NOT PROPER BEFORE THIS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.
>> WE CAN'T HEAR, USE A MICROPHONE.
>> I CAN GET UP AND GO TO THE MICROPHONE.
>> IT IS, AGAIN, THE CITY'S POSITION THAT A LOT OF THE ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED HERE TONIGHT, WHETHER YOU FIND THEM VALID OR NOT, ARE JUST NOT APPROPRIATELY BEFORE THIS BOARD AND NOT A DECISION FOR THIS BOARD TO MAKE, AND THAT THE CONCEPT OF WHETHER 10305 APPLIES IS NOT WITHIN THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S PURVIEW.
HIS RESPONSIBILITY IS TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY HAS SIGNED OFF AND THEN ISSUE THE PERMITS PURSUANT TO THE STATUTE, AND NOTHING BEYOND THAT.
WHILE MS. TYNER MAY HAVE SOME OBJECTIONS TO THIS DEVELOPMENT, SHE MAY HAVE SOME ARGUMENTS AS TO WHY IT SHOULD OR SHOULDN'T BE OVERTURNED, IT IS NOT FOR THIS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS TO DETERMINE.
THAT WOULD BE FOR HER TO BRING IN ANOTHER JURISDICTION, WHICH I BELIEVE A CIRCUIT COURT, OR AN ATTORNEY CAN ADVISE HER WHERE THAT NEEDS TO BE.
WE WOULD ASK YOU TO UPHOLD THE BUILDING OFFICIAL'S DECISION, WHICH, ACCORDING TO YOUR CODE, MEANS AFFIRM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND NOT OVERTURN THESE PERMITS, AND THAT WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY EQUAL A DENIAL OF AN APPEAL.
DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT? THIS CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION.
[02:20:01]
>> VERY QUICKLY. WE ASK YOU TO LOOK AT 1.0701 REGARDING THE LIST OF WHAT IS PROPERLY BEFORE YOU, NOTE THAT TRC IS NOT.
WE WOULD NOTE AGAIN THAT WHAT IS HERE IS THE REVIEW OF SOMETHING THAT IS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF A BUILDING OFFICIAL REVIEWING A BUILDING PERMIT, REVIEWING CONSTRUCTION.
WE WOULD ALSO NOTE THAT VIRTUALLY, PLENARY AUTHORITY ON THE SUBSTANCE OF THAT REVIEW, AS MR. PARR ALREADY SAID, LIES BEFORE THE BUILDING COMMISSION BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ONES WHO ACTUALLY ARE VESTED WITH REVIEW OF THE SUBSTANCE OF A CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW. THANK YOU.
>> ANY FURTHER ARGUMENTS? WE WILL CLOSE THAT AND LEAVE THIS UP IN THE BOARD DISCUSSION. GO AHEAD.
>> I JUST REALLY DON'T KNOW HOW TO ADDRESS THIS.
IT'S JUST CRAZY TO ME THAT WE HAVE A CITY MANAGER WHO HAS MADE A RECOMMENDATION THAT IT DOESN'T COMPLY WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND THAT ACTUALLY SAYS THEY SHOULD GO TO A VARIANCE.
THEY ACTUALLY DID GO TO VARIANCE ON THE FOREST STREET SIDE, AND IT WAS DENIED BY THIS BOARD.
ALL THE LAWYERS ARE TELLING US, AND WE HAVEN'T HEARD FROM MR. POOL YET, BUT I'M SURE WE WILL, THAT THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO, WE CAN'T HEAR THIS.
WHY ARE WE EVEN BROUGHT HERE, AND THE CITY WASTED NOT ONLY THIS BOARD'S TIME, YOU WASTED THE DEVELOPER'S TIME AND THE APPLICANT BECAUSE WHATEVER'S GOING TO HAPPEN IS LATER.
IT SEEMS THAT WE HAVE NO REMEDY TO FIX WHAT'S WRONG.
TO ME, IT GOES BACK, AND THIS IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE.
IT GOES BACK TO HOW THIS THING WENT THROUGH, AND THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER GOT THROUGH WITH NOBODY QUESTIONING ON A PROPERTY THAT WE HAD LAWSUITS SITTING ON.
THAT'S NOT A QUESTION, THAT'S JUST A STATEMENT.
IT'S SAD AND DISCOURAGING THAT WE CAN'T FIX SOMETHING THAT BROKE.
THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DEVELOPER.
THE DEVELOPER HAS OPTIONS HE COULD HAVE DONE ON THAT PROPERTY, AND HE STILL HAS OPTIONS.
>> I MUST SAY, I'M VERY PUZZLED.
I'M SURE I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE.
I THINK THERE ARE SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT OUR JURISDICTION.
I HEAR THE APPEAL AS BEING FOUNDED ON TWO GROUNDS.
ONE IS THE COURT ORDER, AND I WOULD SAY, IF NOTHING ELSE, AS A MATTER OF COMEDY, BUT ALSO, WE JUST DON'T HAVE THE EXPERTISE TO DEAL WITH THAT.
IF THE PARTIES WISH TO ENFORCE A COURT ORDER, THEY CAN GO TO THE COURT, NOT TO US.
I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD GET INTO THE BUSINESS OF ADDRESSING THAT.
BUT THE CORE OF THE APPEAL, TO ME, IS 1.0305.
WHAT I'M PUZZLED ABOUT IS WE SEEM TO BE IN A POSITION WHERE IT NEVER GETS ADDRESSED, OR IT'S UNCLEAR HOW IT GETS ADDRESSED.
IT'S UNCLEAR HOW PEOPLE GET NOTICE.
IT'S UNCLEAR AT WHAT POINT IN THE PROCESS, NOT JUST MS. CHRISTNER, BUT ANYONE WHO MIGHT BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED, KNOWS THAT SOMETHING HAS HAPPENED THAT THEY MAY WANT TO CRITICIZE, OR MAYBE THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE THAT RIGHT.
I'M PUZZLED BY ALL THAT, BUT I'M EVEN MORE DEEPLY PUZZLED BY THE FOLLOWING.
THE CITY HAS SAID IN THEIR REPORT THEY RECOMMEND THAT WE, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, FIND THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER WAS IMPROPERLY ISSUED AS IT RELATES TO SECTION 1.0305, AND THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OWNER SUBMIT A VARIANCE APPLICATION TO US, WHICH WOULD BE WITHIN OUR COMPETENCE.
WELL, I'M STRUGGLING TO FIND A WAY TO GET THERE, CERTAINLY NOT THIS PROCEEDING.
IT'S NOT BY WAY OF AN APPEAL, WE DIDN'T HEAR ANYONE ADDRESS WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WHEN WE ADJOURN TODAY, WHATEVER THE RESULT.
THE CITY IS SAYING THAT THE BUILDING PERMITS PROBABLY SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ISSUED BECAUSE THERE'S A VIOLATION OF 1.0305.
WE HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING FROM THE DEVELOPER ON WHETHER THEY WOULD SEEK A VARIANCE.
DO THEY HAVE A REASONABLE PROSPECT OF GETTING ONE? I'M PUZZLED AT WHAT WE'RE REALLY BEING ASKED TO DECIDE,
[02:25:03]
AND DISTURBED THAT THERE'S NO PATH FOR THE PARTIES, THE CITY, THE PUBLIC, MS. CHRISTNER, BEING THE COMPLAINING PARTY, TO PUT SQUARELY BEFORE SOMEONE THE QUESTION OF WHETHER 1.0305 APPLIES OR NOT.I JUST DON'T KNOW WHERE WE GO, GIVEN THE POSTURE IT'S BEEN PRESENTED TO US.
>> CONFUSED, YES, BEFUDDLED, YES.
MY FATHER'S ALWAYS TOLD ME, WHEN THE TRAIN'S OFF THE TRACK, YOU HAVE TO GO BACK TO WHERE IT CAME OFF THE TRACK AND PUT IT ON, AND THEN BRING IT FORWARD.
IT SEEMS LIKE THIS TRAIN IS GOING OFF THE TRACK AND EVERYBODY'S DRAGGING IT FORWARD, AND NOBODY WANTS TO GO BACK AND PUT IT ON BACK ON THE TRACK.
WHEN I WAS ASKED TO BE ON THIS COMMISSION, LIKE YOU, THIS IS MY FIRST MEETING.
IF MY GRANDMOTHER WAS HERE, SHE'D SAY, YOU JUST STEPPED OFF A HORSE INTO A PILE OF SHIFTING SAND, IS WHAT SHE'D TELL ME, AND I AGREE.
THERE ARE 16 WAYS TO SANDY ON THIS THING, AND I DON'T SEE HOW YOU RESOLVE IT.
I DON'T SEE ANY CLEAR PATH OF WHAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO DO.
>> MY FIRST THOUGHT IS, WELL, HERE WE ARE AGAIN.
I'VE ONLY SERVED ON THIS BOARD 21 MONTHS, NOT EVEN TWO YEARS, AND THIS IS THE THIRD TIME THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN BEFORE US, AND DEALING WITH IT.
IT'S CLEARLY ONE THAT HAS BEEN CONTROVERSIAL.
I APPRECIATE THAT IN THE STAFF REPORT, THE CITY MANAGER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THESE PROPERTIES ARE, IN FACT, GOVERNED BY SECTION 10305, AND THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF 10305 INDICATES THAT.
IT'S REINFORCED BY JOB ROGERSON'S OPINION, SO 10305, CLEARLY, IS THE GOVERNING LANGUAGE HERE, AND ISSUING PERMITS TO BUILD TRIPLEXES ON THESE PROPERTIES IS A CLEAR VIOLATION OF OUR LDC OF SECTION 10305.
NOW, I APPRECIATE THAT THE CITY'S POSITION IS THAT THE BUILDING OFFICER, MR. PARR, ALL HE DOES IS LOOK AND SEE THAT THE OTHER DEPARTMENTS HAVE SIGNED OFF, SO THAT TAKES CARE OF ALL THE PERTINENT LAWS, EXCEPT FOR MAYBE JUST THE BUILDING CODE LAWS, WHICH COMES IN HIS PURVIEW, BUT HE ADMITS THAT THE LDC IS CLEARLY A PERTINENT LAW UNDER THE LANGUAGE OF, IS THAT 105.3.1?
>> THAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL MUST CONSIDER.
NOW, HE MAY RELY ON OTHERS TO SHOW THAT THE APPLICATION CONFORMS TO THAT.
BUT IT'S STILL AT THE END, 105.3.1 SAYS, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL HAS TO BE SATISFIED, AND IF IT DOESN'T CONFORM TO THOSE REQUIREMENTS OF ALL THOSE PERTINENT LAWS, THEN HE HAS TO REJECT IT.
EVEN IF HE'S RELYING, AN ERROR WAS MADE HERE.
WHAT WE CAN RULE IN THE APPEAL THAT'S BEFORE US IS THAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL WAS WRONG IN ISSUING THESE PERMITS.
IF 103.05 DID NOT USE THE WORDS, NO PERMIT SHALL BE A DIFFERENT POSITION, BUT BECAUSE IT SPECIFICALLY TALKS ABOUT ISSUING A PERMIT, I THINK IT IS A PERTINENT LAW.
I THINK IT IS APPROPRIATE TO BE BEFORE US.
I AM SYMPATHETIC HE RELIED ON THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT THAT THEY MADE AN ERROR.
I'M SYMPATHETIC, IF BASED ON WHAT'S IN OUR PACKET, THAT THE OWNER SEEMS TO HAVE RELIED ON STAFF WHO MADE AN ERROR HERE.
BUT MY VIEW IS THAT IT IS A PERTINENT LAW UNDER 105.3.1, AND AS SUCH, NEEDS TO BE INVALIDATED UNDER 105.4 OF THE BUILDING CODE,
[02:30:06]
THAT'S THE ONLY WAY I SEE THAT WE CAN FIX THIS MESS AND BRING IT INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE LDC.JUST AS COURTS HAVE SAID THAT, ESTOPPEL DOESN'T NECESSARILY STOP A GOVERNMENT, IF THEY MAKE A MISTAKE, THAT THEY LATER REVOKE A PERMIT.
I THINK IT'S BECAUSE YOU CAN'T OVERRIDE WHAT THE LEGISLATIVE BODY HAVE DONE IS THE SAME HERE.
THE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION. THEY MADE AN ERROR, THEY CAN'T BE OVERRIDING WHAT THE LAW IS.
WE NEED TO CORRECT THE MISTAKE.
>> I HAD JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION, AND IT'S VERY SIMPLE.
DOES THE JUDGE'S ORDER HAVE PRECEDENCE OVER THIS CASE?
>> IT WOULD ONLY IN THE CONTEXT IF IT WAS ONE OF THE ITEMIZED AREAS THAT COULD BE APPEALED.
IS THAT CONNECTED TO A DECISION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL? WOULD BE THE KEY QUESTION THERE. I DON'T THINK IT'D HELP.
>> I DON'T SEE HOW IT CORRESPONDS WITH TODAY'S HEARING RIGHT HERE IN THIS ROOM.
COULD AND WILL JUDGE ROBERSON'S DECISION BE RELEVANT IN OTHER PROCEEDINGS? I THINK, WITHOUT A DOUBT.
BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S RELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE LIMITED SCOPE OF REVIEW AND REVIEWING THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL.
>> I JUST THINK THAT THIS PARTICULAR QUESTION THAT'S BEEN BROUGHT UP IN HERE IS PROBABLY GOING TO GET RESOLVED IN A COURT OF LAW, NOT A QUASI JUDICIAL COURT.
THAT'S WHAT I THINK. I'M SAYING.
>> ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM ANYBODY.
>> I WANTED TO ENDORSE MEMBER DAVIS' VIEW.
IF I HAD A VOTE, I DON'T KNOW IF I DO. BUT IF I DID HAVE A VOTE.
I'D BE INCLINED TO INTERPRET THE VARIOUS PROVISIONS THE WAY YOU'VE SUGGESTED.
IT SEEMS DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THAT THERE'S SIMPLY NO PATH TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT SPECIFICALLY IN THE LIST, IT'S IMPORTED INTO THE BUILDING PERMITTING DECISION THROUGH THE LANGUAGE WE'VE TALKED ABOUT.
BUT THAT WOULD LEAVE US THE QUESTION OF WHETHER TO AFFIRM OR OVERTURN THE BUILDING OFFICIALS DECISION TO ISSUE THE PERMITS.
AS WE BEGAN, WE ASKED THE CITY, WELL, DON'T YOU HAVE THE POWER TO DO THIS YOURSELF? WHY DO YOU NEED US IF THAT'S THE SCOPE OF OUR DECISION MAKING TONIGHT? WHY DO YOU NEED US TO DO THAT? YOU'VE SAID IN WRITING THAT THE CITY BELIEVES LDC 103.05 NEEDS TO BE COMPLIED WITH.
IT WOULD BE MY EXPECTATION THAT YOU WOULD WITHDRAW THE PERMITS OR SUSPEND THE PROJECT IN SOME WAY AND DISCUSS WITH THE DEVELOPER GOING FORWARD WITH A VARIANCE OR SOME OTHER VERSION OF THE PROJECT.
I'M NOT SURE WHY WE'RE BEING ASKED TO MAKE A RULING IF THAT'S THE INEVITABILITY OF WHAT YOU'VE PUT IN FRONT OF THE BOARD.
>> I DON'T SEE WHY THE JUDGE'S OPINION DOES NOT, I COULD SAY IT DOES APPLY HERE.
IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, HE SAID THE CITY WAS WRONG, AND THAT HE DIDN'T SAY IT.
WHEN HE SAID THEY'RE WRONG, THEY'RE WRONG, AND THEY'RE WRONG, IN THIS CASE, TOO, AS THE CITY MANAGER SAID.
>> IT APPLIES, I THINK, TO THE PROJECT AS A WHOLE.
IT'S REALLY A NARROWER QUESTION ABOUT THE SCOPE OF THE APPEAL AS IT'S LAID OUT IN LAND [INAUDIBLE].
>> I THINK THE ONLY WAY, APPEAL APPLIES IS BASICALLY THE ORDER IS SAYING 103.05 APPLIES TO THESE PROPERTIES AND SO THEREFORE, A PERMIT ISSUED FOR MULTIFAMILY UNITS WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF 103.05 BUT IT'S NOT SAYING IT'S A VIOLATION OF THIS ORDER THAT'S A VIOLATION OF.
>> THERE'S A COUPLE OF OTHER PLACES IN THE STATE STATUTES WHERE
[02:35:02]
THE BUILDING OFFICIALS RESPONSIBILITIES ARE LISTED.I KNOW I HAD LOOKED AT THIS EARLIER TODAY.
MISS PRINCE HAD PRESENTED YOU ALL WITH 468.604 AND THAT'S WHERE SOME OF THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND IT'S TO ADMINISTER, SUPERVISE, DIRECT, AND ENFORCE OR PERFORM THE PERMITTING AND INSPECTION OF CONSTRUCTION, AND WHEN PERMITTING IS REQUIRED TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE AND ANY APPLICABLE LOCAL TECHNICAL AMENDMENT TO THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE.
WHEN IT SAYS THOSE OTHER PERMANENT LAWS, IT SEEMS THAT THE STATE LAW AND THAT SAME INTERPRETATION OR STATEMENT IS ALSO IN 553.792 A1, WHERE THERE IT SAYS THAT AN ENFORCING AGENCY MAY NOT ISSUE ANY PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION ERECTION, ALTERATION, MODIFICATION, REPAIR, DEMOLITION OF ANY BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL THE LOCAL BUILDING CODE ADMINISTRATOR OR INSPECTOR HAS REVIEWED THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE OR A LOCAL AMENDMENT THERE TOO FOR SUCH PROPOSAL AND FOUND THE PLANS TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE.
WHERE I SAY, I DON'T THINK THAT THE 103.05 COMES INTO PLAY IS BECAUSE THAT'S NOT A FLORIDA BUILDING CODE PROVISION, AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE HEARD FROM MR. PARR TESTIFIED HIS SCOPE WAS HE LOOKS AT THE PLANS, AND SOMETIMES WITH THE PRIVATE PROVIDER, HE'S NOT EVEN ABLE TO DO THAT, EXCEPT FOR TO VET AND VERIFY THEM.
IT'S BECAUSE CHAPTER 11 HAS SUCH A LIMITED SCOPE AND ONLY CERTAIN IDENTIFIED THINGS THAT CAN BE APPEALED AND REVIEWED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
THAT'S WHERE MY OPINION WOULD BE, IS IT REALLY IS A JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE WHERE YOU CAN'T GO TO THE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT ORDER OR LOOK AT THAT.
NOT TO SAY THAT THERE AREN'T OTHER REMEDIES, AS WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED, AVAILABLE TO THE PARTIES, BUT IT'S JUST NOT IN YOUR PURVIEW.
JUST TO MOVE. SEE WHAT HAPPENS.
>> DO YOU WANT TO GO OVER WHAT YOU TOLD US AT THE VERY BEGINNING WITH THE MAJORITY AND THEN IF IT DOESN'T GET A SECOND?
>> ANY MOTION TONIGHT TO GRANT THE APPEAL AND REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL HAS TO BE A UNANIMOUS FIVE VOTES.
THERE CAN BE A MOTION TO DENY THE APPEAL, WHICH WOULD BE OUR CODE USES LANGUAGE, AFFIRM THE DECISION, THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION, WOULD BE A SIMPLE MAJORITY.
BUT IF THERE IS A MOTION OR A LACK OF A MOTION, A FAILURE TO GET A SECOND OR EVEN A TIE, THEN THAT WOULD HAVE THE EFFECT OF DENYING THE APPEAL.
>> JUST FOR CLARITY, FRANK, YOU ARE A SECOND.
JOHNNY MILLER IS ALTERNATE 1, YOU ARE ALTERNATE 2.
WE HAVE A BOARD QUORUM OF FIVE.
YOU DON'T GET DEVELOPED FORTUNE.
I'M GOING TO MAKE SURE I GOT THOSE PROCEDURES OUT FIRST.
>> I MOVE THAT THIS BOARD FINDS THAT BASED ON THE PLAIN READING OF FERNANDINA BEACH CODE OF ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 2, SECTION 22.29, SUBSECTION 105.3.1 AND SUBSECTION 105.4, AND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 103.05, THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL TO ISSUE THE 16 PERMITS AT ISSUE, AND THIS BOA APPEAL CASE 2025-001 WAS ERRONEOUS, AND THAT THE BOARD MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AS PART OF THE RECORD.
NUMBER 1, LDC SECTION 103.05, WHICH SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITS THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT FOR MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT ON A SITE UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, IS A PERTINENT LAW OF FERNANDINA BEACH CODE, SECTION 22.29, SUBSECTION 105.3.1, FOR WHICH THE BUILDING OFFICIAL MUST ENSURE A PERMIT APPLICATION CONFORMS TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF.
TWO, UNDER THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF SECTION 103.05 AS REINFORCED BY THE RULING OF JUDGE ROBERSON IN FLORIDA CIRCUIT COURT ORDER CASE NUMBER 23-CA-404, DECEMBER 27TH, 2023,
[02:40:01]
DENIED FLORIDA FIFTH DCA JULY 14TH, 2025, AND THE CITY STAFF REPORT, THE PROPERTIES AT ISSUE IN THIS CASE ARE GOVERNED BY LDC SECTION 103.05 FOR ANY SITE DEVELOPMENT OR CONSTRUCTION THEREON.THREE, THE APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE BY A SUPERMAJORITY OF THIS BOARD IS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 103.05C, PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMITS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THESE PROPERTIES OF ANY TRIPLEXES, EACH OF WHICH CONSISTS OF THREE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS, AND NO SUCH APPROVAL HAS BEEN GRANTED.
FOUR, THE ISSUANCE OF 16 BUILDING PERMITS TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF 12 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS CONTAINED IN FOUR BUILDINGS ON THE PROPERTIES AT ISSUE IN THIS CASE, VIOLATES LDC SECTION 103.05, AND THUS, FERNANDINA BEACH CODE SECTION 22.29, SUBSECTION 105.3.1 REQUIRED THE BUILDING OFFICIAL TO REJECT THE PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FOUR TRIPLEXUS ON THESE PARCELS.
THEREFORE, THE BOARD REVERSES THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL TO ISSUE THE 16 BUILDING PERMITS THAT ARE THE SUBJECT OF THIS BOA APPEAL CASE, 2025-0001 AND DETERMINES THAT PURSUANT TO FERNANDINA BEACH CODE, SECTION 22.29, SUBSECTION 105.4, THE 16 PERMITS ARE NOT VALID.
>> EVEN IF YOU COULD I DON'T THINK AS AN ALTERNATE, YOU CAN ACTUALLY OFFER AN AMENDMENT.
>> CAN I SAY A SENTENCE AND THEN THE VOTING MEMBERS CAN DECIDE IT'S VALID?
>> I WOULD JUST SAY INSTEAD OF THAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL OUGHT TO HAVE REJECTED, I WOULD FOLLOW THE LANGUAGE THAT ON THE EVIDENCE THAT WE HAVE, HE COULD NOT HAVE REASONABLY BEEN SATISFIED AND THEREFORE, IT WAS ERROR TO ISSUE THE PERMITS.
>> I THINK 105.3.1 SAYS, IF THEY DO NOT CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENT OF PERTINENT LAWS, THE BUILDING OFFICIALS SHALL REJECT SUCH APPLICATION, WHICH IS WHY AYE IS REJECT.
>> WE HAVE A FIRST AND THE SECOND. SILLY. CAN YOU CALL THE VOTE?
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS HERE, MARGARET, CAN YOU GIVE SYLVIA THE WRITTEN?
>> THANK YOU. I THINK WE WILL BE ABLE TO DOCUMENT THAT.
>> SYLVIA AND I HAVE A SYSTEM.
>> MY PAST MOTION, SO WE'LL TAKE CARE OF THAT QUICK.
>> ANY ADDITIONAL BUSINESS BY THE BOARD?
[4. OLD BUSINESS]
>> AT THE LAST MEETING, IT WAS SO LONG AGO, WHICH WAS IN JUNE, I MENTIONED THAT THE CITY COMMISSION WAS HAD COMING BEFORE THEM A PROPOSAL TO MERGE BOTH US WITH THE PAB AND WE DISCUSSED THAT.
JUST AS FOLLOW UP, WANTED TO NOTE THAT ON JULY 15TH THE COMMISSION VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO TABLE THAT PROPOSAL.
IT'S BEEN TABLED, SO IT COULD COME UP AGAIN, BUT FOR THE TIME BEING, THAT'S BEEN TABLED.
THEN, ALSO AT THE LAST MEETING, VICE CHAIR KRIEGER SUGGESTED THAT, CITY STAFF DO LEGAL RESEARCH ON THE ISSUE OF THE SPECIAL PRIVILEGE CRITERIA FOR A VARIANCE AND I WAS JUST WONDERING IF ANY SUCH WHAT THE STATUS OF THAT REQUEST WAS.
>> WE'RE STILL LOOKING WITH THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT TO DETERMINE EXACTLY IF THAT CRITERIA SHOULD CHANGE OR IF IT WAS A STATE REQUIREMENT.
HOPEFULLY WE'LL HAVE SOMETHING FOR YOU BY YOUR NEXT MEETING.
>> ANYONE ELSE? WE WILL CLOSE THIS MEETING. THANK YOU ALL.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.