[1. CALL TO ORDER / ROLL CALL / DETERMINATION OF QUORUM]
[00:00:08]
MARCH 2026, SORRY ABOUT THAT, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS MEETING, AND I'LL CALL THE ORDER OF THE MEETING.
CAN WE STAND AND SAY THE PLEDGE, PLEASE? I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION, UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
I KNOW, ISN'T IT? CAN WE DO THE ROLL CALL? MEMBER FRANK MILLER? OH, HE'S NOT HERE.
VICE CHAIR LYNN KRIEGER? HERE.
ALL RIGHT, AND FRANK IS NOT HERE THIS WEEK, SO HE'S THE ALTERNATE.
REVIEW, ARE THERE ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS WE NEED TO DISCUSS? I HAD A BRIEF DISCUSSION WITH MARGARET YESTERDAY.
ANY CONTENT THAT WE CAN APPLY AND PICK IT? ANYBODY ELSE? ALL RIGHT, PERFECT.
THERE'S NOBODY IN THE PUBLIC IN THIS, SO WE DON'T HAVE TO ADMINISTER ANY OATHS.
[3. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES]
THROUGH THE OLD BUSINESS, I GUESS.WE HAVE A SERIES OF MINUTES THAT WE CAN APPROVE.
IS THAT CORRECT FROM LAST MONTH'S MEETING? MOVE TO APPROVE.
I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO VOTE ON THAT, DO WE? THERE'S NO VOTE FOR A MEETING MINUTE.
WHEN YOU HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, YOU HAVE A VOTE.
WE HAVE A CASE ON THE DOCKET TODAY, BUT I UNDERSTAND THE APPLICANT HAS NOT BEEN AVAILABLE.
YEAH, WE ATTEMPTED TO CONTACT HIM JUST NOW AND WE WERE UNSUCCESSFUL.
SO COLLEGE TRIAL OF 15 MINUTES.
AND THROUGH THE CHAIR, IS THERE ANY OTHER INFORMATION WITHOUT VIOLATING TOO MANY MEDICAL THINGS? IS THERE SOME EMERGENCY POTENTIALLY? HE LET ME KNOW LAST WEEK HE WAS ASSISTING HIS MOTHER WHO HAD A FALL.
I WENT BY THE HOUSE A WHILE AGO.
IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE REFURBISHING IT AND NO ONE'S LIVING IN IT RIGHT NOW.
IS IT APPROPRIATE TO DO THE STAFF REPORT? NO, WE SHOULDN'T.
BECAUSE IT'S A QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING AND IT'S DENIAL BY THIS BOARD WOULD BE AN APPEAL TO CIRCUIT COURT AND THE APPLICANT WOULDN'T HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR THE STAFF REPORT, CROSS-EXAMINE, WHICH I KNOW NOT EVERYBODY DOES THAT, BUT THOSE ARE ALL THEIR RIGHTS.
I THINK THAT IF THE BOARD HAS OPTED TO GIVE 15 MINUTES, IF THAT PASSES AND HE'S NOT ABLE TO ATTEND, THEN I WOULD ASK YOU TO CONTINUE IT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION.
DIDN'T THE STAFF SAY EVERYTHING WAS ALL RIGHT AS FAR AS THE VARIANCES? I BELIEVE THAT THE STAFF REPORT SHOWS A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL, BUT THAT DOESN'T GUARANTEE THAT FOUR OF YOU ARE GOING TO AGREE WITH THAT, AND I JUST DON'T THINK YOU HAVE A HEARING WHERE THE APPLICANT'S NOT PRESENT.
AND IT QUAES A JUDICIAL PROCEDURE, AND THEY HAVEN'T WAIVED THEIR NOTICE, THEY HAVEN'T WAIVED THEIR RIGHT TO BE HERE.
REALLY THE ONLY OUTSTANDING ITEM IS THIS IS THE 8 FOOT IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.
I'M GOING TO SHOOT HIM AN EMAIL.
WE TRIED TO REACH HIM BY PHONE.
AND WAS THERE ANY OTHER BOARD BUSINESS? YEAH, I WAS GOING TO SAY WE COULD MAKE UP ANY OTHER BOARD BUSINESS THAT WAS NECESSARY.
NOTHING, I CAN'T GET MY AGENDA TO COME UP SO I'M A LITTLE BLIND.
THERE'S NOT EVEN 6, IT'S BOARD BUSINESS.
STAFF REPORTS ARE THE ONLY THING ON HERE BESIDES THAT.
IS IT POSSIBLE TO DO A CONTINUANCE AND THEN JUST BRING IT BACK UP IF THEY DO SHOW UP? IF WE MOVE TO CONTINUE AND GET A SECOND, INSTEAD OF WAITING 15 MINUTES, CAN WE GO AHEAD AND CONTINUE? IF THEY SHOW, WE CAN REOPEN IT? WELL, MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU'VE OPTED TO GIVE THEM 15.
IF YOU DECIDED NOT TO DO THAT AND THERE'S NOTHING ELSE ON THE AGENDA, I THINK WE'RE GOING HOME.
OH, I THOUGHT YOU HAD ANOTHER THING.
YOU DON'T HAVE A STAFF REPORT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? WELL, THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE ASKING.
THERE'S NOTHING ELSE ON THE AGENDA.
[7. STAFF REPORT (Part 1 of 2)]
OH, OKAY.SO IF THERE WAS ANY BOARD BUSINESS, ANY STAFF REPORT.
[00:05:02]
YOU MEAN NUMBER.THERE'S A NUMBER SEVEN STAFF REPORT LIKE ANY KIND OF REPORTS TO THEM.
I GUESS THAT'S WHAT WE HAD LIKE A STRAW VOTE AND EVERYONE SAID THEY'RE GONNA ACCEPT THIS NO TERESA SINCE SINCE WE GOT TIME COULD YOU IS THERE ANOTHER UPDATE ON TRINGALI? UPDATE ON TRINGALI CERTAINLY MR. CHAIRMAN.
DO YOU MIND IF I ADDRESS? THE UPDATE ON TRINGALI IS THAT THE NOTICE, THE FACT THAT THERE'S A 7051 CASE FILED WITH THE CITY, THAT NOTICE WENT OUT YESTERDAY BECAUSE IT'S TAKEN SOME TIME TO GET THINGS ORGANIZED.
AND WE DO HAVE A MEDIATION SCHEDULED UNDER THE SECTION 7051 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES, WHICH IS WHAT THE OWNER AVAILED THEMSELVES OF, THE REMEDY THEY AVAILED THEMSELVES OF.
IF THAT MEDIATION DOES NOT RESULT IN A SETTLEMENT THAT WOULD BE SENT TO THE COMMISSION TO APPROVE THEN WE HAVE TO HAVE A HEARING THE MEDIATION TURNS INTO A HEARING THAT HEARING DATE WOULD BE SET AND THE PUBLIC WOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD AT THAT HEARING THEY CANNOT INTERVENE THEY CANNOT BECOME PARTICIPANTS, BUT THEY ARE ALLOWED TO SPEAK IF THERE IS A SETTLEMENT THAT'S NEGOTIATED IN THAT MEDIATION AND THAT WOULD GO TO THE CITY COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL.
UNLIKE A BURT HARRIS CLAIM, UNDER BURT HARRIS, WHICH SOME OF YOU MAY BE FAMILIAR WITH, THERE ARE, I BELIEVE, 11 REMEDIES, ONE OF WHICH ALLOWS YOU TO COME UP WITH CREATIVE SOLUTIONS THAT VIOLATE YOUR OWN CODE, BASICALLY.
PROVIDE A VARIANCE TO YOUR OWN CODE IN THE SETTLEMENT OF A HARRIS CLAIM.
THIS 7051 CLAIM DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR THAT.
SO ANY SETTLEMENT IN MEDIATION, WHILE IT WOULD BE CONFIDENTIAL, THE MEDIATION, THE SETTLEMENT THAT COMES OUT OF IT WILL BE WRITTEN, WOULD BE PUBLISHED AND SENT TO THE COMMISSION.
AND IT WOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW THE CITY'S COMP PLAN AND THE CITY'S ORDINANCES.
BUT THE MEDIATION IS SCHEDULED.
AND BY YOUR NEXT MEETING, WE WON'T KNOW ANYTHING, BUT WE MIGHT KNOW SOMETHING BY.
SO THEY DID NOT FILE A BURT HARRIS? NO, NO, NO, NO.
CAN'T THEY FILE A BURT HARRIS? THEY CAN EVENTUALLY.
THE 7051 STATUTE THAT THEY FILED UNDER, IT STAYS ALL OF THEIR TIME PERIODS.
SO RIGHT NOW IT'S AS IF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS JUST HEARD IT AND IT'S THE DAY AFTER.
AND IT IS JUST HOLDING THAT DATE IN PLACE AND IF WE, IF THERE'S A SETTLEMENT AND IT GOES TO THE COMMISSION AND IT'S NOT APPROVED OR SOMETHING THEN THEY HAVE PRESERVED ALL THOSE REMEDIES.
THEY COULD FILE A BURT HARRIS THAT HAS BEEN THREATENED IN ONE OF THE NUMEROUS LETTERS WE RECEIVED BUT THAT HAS NOT BEEN FILED.
THEY COULD APPEAL THE ACTUAL DECISION OF THE BOA AND SAY IT WAS OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION AND THAT WOULD GO TO CIRCUIT COURT.
THAT WOULD BE A DIFFERENT REMEDY.
THEY HAVE VARIOUS REMEDIES THAT THEY COULD THEN EXERCISE.
THE BEST EXAMPLE I HAVE IS THE PORT.
THERE WAS A TENT THAT WAS BUILT WITHOUT A PERMIT AND THAT WENT TO MEDIATION.
THERE WAS A SETTLEMENT AND THE PORT DID NOT ACCEPT THE SETTLEMENT.
SO THEN WE HAVE TO GO TO OTHER REMEDIES.
SO THAT'S WHAT WOULD HAPPEN HERE UNDER THE 7051 STATUTE.
DID THEY ELECT TO NOT USE THE LOCAL PROVISION THAT THEY HAVE TO INCREASE THE DENSITY? THEY HAVEN'T MADE THAT DECISION YET BECAUSE WE ARE WAITING UNTIL THE MEDIATION.
SO WE SHOULDN'T TALK ABOUT IT.
I MEAN, THERE'S NOTHING TO TALK ABOUT AT THIS POINT.
MY THING IS IF THERE'S A SETTLEMENT AND YOU CAN'T MAKE A SETTLEMENT THAT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH YOUR CODE, THERE'S ALREADY TWO COURT CASES THAT PROHIBIT IT.
WELL, WE'LL DEAL WITH ALL THAT.
SO TO YOUR POINT, YOUR QUESTION IS SHOULD WE TALK ABOUT IT OUTSIDE OF JUST GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WHAT'S HAPPENING? NO, YOU'RE RIGHT, BECAUSE IT'S PENDING LITIGATION.
THE LEGISLATURE JUST PASSED A WHOLE HOST OF BILLS THAT ARE GOING TO IMPACT THE CITY.
AND, MR. CHAIRMAN, I COULD REVIEW A FEW OF THOSE IF YOU'D LIKE TO CONTINUE TO.
ONE PARTICULAR BILL IS GOING TO REQUIRE US TO ESTABLISH CERTAIN CRITERIA BEFORE WE CAN DENY A REZONING, DENY A SITE PLAN.
DENY A PLAT AND SO NOW DENIALS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE VERY SPECIFIC TYPES OF INFORMATION
[00:10:01]
IN THEM IF THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE APPROVED AS WE KNOW THE PLAT AND THE SITE PLAN APPROVALS ARE BOTH AT A TRC LEVEL SO THAT WILL ALSO BE ON THE TRC WAS ANOTHER ONE BUT THEY ALREADY HAVE SPECIFIC THINK OF WHAT REQUIREMENTS TO FULFILL ON THE SITE PLAN THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE.SO WHAT WOULD THE NOT DENIAL BE BASED OFF OF? WELL, WITH THIS, YES, AND THAT'S WHERE, YOU KNOW, IT IS A LEGISLATURE THAT PASSES BILLS THAT THEY HAVEN'T ALWAYS BEEN PRACTICING IN THESE AREAS, RIGHT? AND NEVER, PROBABLY NEVER, MAYBE NEVER DONE A SITE PLAN WHEN THEY VOTED ON THIS.
WHAT IT TALKS ABOUT IS THAT WE CAN'T USE THE BASIS IS THAT IT DOESN'T MEET THE CONFORM TO THE COMMUNITY, LIKE THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I'D HAVE TO BRING THE BILL UP.
SO IT SEEMED TO BE TARGETED TO SOME BAD ACTOR THAT MAYBE WAS, AND ESPECIALLY WITH A REZONING.
NOW, ALL OF THOSE, TO YOUR POINT, A SITE PLAN, THE PLAT, VERY SPECIFIC.
A REZONING, IT'S A QUASI-JUDICIAL ALREADY, SO YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE DENYING IT FOR NO REASON OTHER THAN COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WILL HAVE TO ABIDE BY.
I CAN'T THINK OF ANY OTHER THAT SPECIFICALLY IMPACT PLANNING.
DO YOU KNOW OF ANY, MARGARET? WELL, THERE'S JUST PENDING LEGISLATION ON REVIEWS.
SO THE THIRD-PARTY REVIEW DID PASS.
WE ARE GOING TO LIKELY HAVE TO GO OUT FOR AN RFP.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO KEEP THIRD-PARTY REVIEWERS, A LIST OF THEM THAT PEOPLE CAN OPT TO USE INSTEAD OF OUR BUILDING OFFICIAL TO REVIEW THEIR PLANS.
AS MARGARET IS, MS. PEARSON IS SAYING, THESE ARE ALL JUST HAVE BEEN SENT TO THE GOVERNOR.
BUT, I MEAN, THE ONES THAT I'M LOOKING AT, I FEEL CERTAIN THAT THEY WON'T BE VETOED, THAT THEY'LL ACTUALLY BECOME LAW.
THAT ONE SEEMED TO HAVE SOME VERY GOOD SUPPORT OF BOTH THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE.
BUT THEY WANT THAT TO BE CITY MANAGED? MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE WOULD HAVE TO KEEP A LIST OF PRIVATE PROVIDERS.
INSTEAD OF THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REVIEWING IT.
NOW, WHEN I READ IT YESTERDAY, I DIDN'T CATCH THAT NUANCE.
I REMEMBER THEM TALKING ABOUT IT WHEN IT WAS GOING THROUGH.
I JUST STARTED READING THEM ALL TWO DAYS AGO.
SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD GENERATE A LOT OF CONFLICT.
BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT ONE PERSON'S OPINION VERSUS A PROFESSIONAL'S OPINION.
NOW, THIS PERSON COULD ALSO BE A PROFESSIONAL, AND YOU'D HAVE TWO PROFESSIONALS.
DIFFERENCING ON WHAT THEY THINK IS LEGIT? I THINK MR. CHAIRMAN IT HAS THE PRIVATE PROVIDER IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE A QUALIFIED PROFESSIONAL SO THAT'S WHY I WAS THINKING WE WOULD GO OUT FOR AN RFP I MEAN CERTAINLY THE CITY IS GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE THE DECISION WITH CRITERIA OF QUALIFIED PROFESSIONALS EITHER YOU KNOW LIKE BUILDING OFFICIALS THAT AREN'T PRACTICING ANYMORE YOU KNOW I DON'T KNOW WHAT DIFFERENT PROFESSIONALS COULD BE ON THIS LIST IT'S PROBABLY SPECIFIC IN BILL OF LIST QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE BIKE PLANNERS.
DOES THE BILL LIST WHAT THE QUALIFICATIONS FOR THIS PERSON WOULD BE? CORRECT.
BUT ACTUALLY, THERE ARE A LOT OF...
IN A LOT OF MAJOR CITIES, THEY USE THAT AS A RESOURCE AS WORKFLOW GOES UP AND DOWN.
AND SO THERE ARE COMPANIES THAT ALREADY HAVE...
A LOT OF THEM ARE BUILDING OFFICIALS AND SITE PLAN REVIEWERS.
SO THE PEOPLE THAT ARE REVIEWING THE BUILDING PERMITS ARE REVIEWING THE SITE...
VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE JURISDICTIONS STANDARDS, SO IT'S NOT UNUSUAL.
WE HAVEN'T EXPERIENCED THAT IN THIS TOWN, AND I THINK THAT WILL BE A DIFFERENT PROCESS.
SOME MAJOR CITIES USE THAT, AND THEY'RE USED TO IT, RIGHT? I MEAN, IT'S JUST A...
SO AND TO, SORRY, MEMBER CRAKER, BUT TO THE CHAIR'S POINT, IF THEY'RE BUILDING PLANS, SOMEBODY, A BUILDING OFFICIAL, SOMEONE THAT HAS THAT EXPERTISE IS GOING TO HAVE TO REVIEW IT.
YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT LIKE AN ARCHITECT OR, I MEAN, IT'S NOT LIKE I COULD REVIEW IT AND SIGN OFF ON IT.
SO THERE IS A STATE QUALIFICATION THAT YOU HAVE TO MEET A CRITERIA AND HAVE TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION.
AND THEN WE HAVE A LIABILITY INSURANCE.
OUR BUILDING OFFICIAL HERE FOR THE CITY, HE WAS AN INTERIM.
SO THEY'RE GOING TO REVIEW THE STATE PLAN FOR CODE ISSUES.
WHAT'S THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE? THAT WOULD BE THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BECAUSE IT'S TRC.
SO THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO INTERPRET.
[00:15:01]
IT'S GOING TO BE INTERESTING.I MEAN IT'S ALREADY INTERESTING.
IT'S GOING TO BE MORE INTERESTING NOW.
THAT'S WHY I MADE THAT STATEMENT.
DIFFERENCE OF OPINIONS WHICH ARE GOING TO BE SUBJECTIVE TO YOU.
ANOTHER REASON FOR AN UPDATED LDC.
ALRIGHT, SO WE MADE THE COLLEGE TRY 515.
YOU WANT TO TRY THEM ONE MORE TIME? I'LL CALL HIM AGAIN.
TERESA, DID THERE HAVE ANY CHANGES TO 180? VERY GOOD QUESTION, MEMBER KRIEGER.
THE SENATE HAD A VERY GOOD FIX FOR SB 180.
THE HOUSE HAD A LEGISLATION THAT WAS GOING TO MAKE IT WORSE.
NEITHER PICKED UP THE OTHER, SO EVERYTHING DIED.
THEY WILL BE RECONVENING BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO PASS A BUDGET.
UNLIKE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THEY'RE MANDATED TO PASS A BUDGET.
SO THEY'LL BE GOING BACK INTO SESSION, AND WE EXPECT THE AD VALOREM TAXATION MATTER TO BE RAISED AND OBVIOUSLY THE BUDGET POTENTIALLY SB-1 COULD BE BROUGHT BACK UP.
AND I AM LOOKING AT THE BILL REGARDING THE ONE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT WITH THE PRIVATE PROVIDERS, AND IT DOES HAVE VERY— IN ORDER TO EXPLAIN...
THEY HAVE HELD A LICENSE FOR SUCH WORK IN ANY STATE FOR FIVE YEARS IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE DATE.
BUILDING CODE INSPECTOR, COASTAL CONSTRUCTOR INSPECTOR, COMMERCIAL ELECTRIC INSPECTOR.
SO, YOU KNOW, THERE IS A REQUIREMENT.
THEY'RE NOT JUST GOING TO LET SOMEBODY LIKE ME PICK THEM UP AND START REVIEWING THEM.
I MEAN, IT'S ACCOUNTABILITY FOR IT AS ANYTHING ELSE.
THERE IS ALSO, THE LEGISLATION ALSO REQUIRES US...
ONE BILL WE'RE NO LONGER ALLOWED TO DENY WHICH I DON'T KNOW THAT WE DO PREFABRICATED HOMES IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA SO IF A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME IS ALLOWED IN A ZONING DISTRICT AND THE ONES THAT ARE BUILT OFF-SITE AND BROUGHT IN HAVE TO BE ALLOWED THEY CALL IT A BUILT OFF-SITE YEAH, SO AND YOU CAN'T ZONE THAT OUT.
PEOPLE REALLY TRIED TO DO THAT AND WE WERE EXPLAINED BY MS. GIBSON WHY THAT WAS NOT SUCH A GOOD IDEA TO DO.
BUT IT'S TAUGHT TO ME HURRICANES TOO.
AND IT WAS, YES, AND IT WAS DONE UNDER THE GUISE AND I DON'T THINK IT WAS.INTENTIONAL, BUT THE BELIEF THAT IT WOULD BE MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND THAT IS THE WAY THE BILL IS STRUCTURED, YOU KNOW, TO ALLOW FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN ZONING DISTRICTS.
BUT FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, JUST TALKING TO SOMEONE THIS MORNING IN THE INDUSTRY, YOU KNOW, THOSE PREFABBED HOMES CAN BE JUST AS EXPENSIVE.
YOU KNOW, IT'S ALL ABOUT LOCATION AND LAND COST AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
HAVE THEM STACKED ON EACH OTHER AND END-TO-END, AND THEY CAN BE 60 FEET LONG, 20 FEET WIDE.
INDEED THERE'S A LOT OF OPTIONS FOR THOSE.
THE APPLICANT DID EMAIL ME BACK AND SAID THEY'RE ON THE WAY.
AND I RESPONDED AND ASKED HOW FAR OUT.
OH WELL, WE'LL SEE THE COLLEGE EFFORT.
I TURNED OFF ON 295 BEFORE I CAME THIS WAY.
IT TRIED TO SEND ME BACK AROUND TO GO GET 95 ON PECAN PARK TO AVOID IT ALL.
I GUESS SOMETHING HAPPENED ON 95 AND IT DIVERTED BY 17.
OH SURE YOU COULD RECESS AND RECONVENE AT 530 IF YOU WANT TO WALK AROUND AND HAVE A DRINK OR COFFEE OR WHATEVER.
[5. NEW BUSINESS]
BACK TO ORDER.STAFF, WE HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE, SO CAN YOU GO AHEAD AND DO THE STAFF REPORT PLEASE? YES, MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I MAY, COULD WE SWEAR IN ANYONE THAT'S GOING TO TESTIFY AT THIS TIME? I KNOW WE'VE ALREADY DONE THE EX PARTE DISCLOSURES, AND THEN WE CAN READ THE QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEDURES.
DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE ORAL AND OR WRITTEN TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? YES.
YES, IS THAT RECORDED OR DO YOU WANT ME TO REPEAT IT? THE MEETING HAS RESTARTED AT 521.
MS. PRINCE, DO YOU WANT TO GO OVER THE QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEDURES, PLEASE? YES, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
PRIOR TO THE APPLICANT ARRIVING, WE DID HAVE THE EX PARTE DISCLOSURES.
WE HAD ONE BOARD MEMBER WHO DISCLOSED . . .
MEMBER KRIEGER DISCLOSED THAT HE SPOKE WITH STAFF ABOUT THE APPLICATION.
[00:20:02]
THIS IS A QUASI-JUDICIAL HEARING SO APPLICANTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.EVIDENCE THAT'S ENTERED INTO THE RECORD HAS TO BE COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
EVIDENCE THAT IS BASED ON OPINION ALONE IS NOT ALLOWABLE TESTIMONY AND IS NOT ALLOWED TO BE RELIED UPON FOR GRANTING OR DENYING THE VARIANCE.
FOR A VARIANCE UNDER THE CITY'S CODE YOU NEED FOUR OUT OF FIVE VOTES OF THE MEMBERS OF THIS BOARD.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO APPEAL ANY DECISION OF THIS BOARD THAT ADVERSELY AFFECTS YOUR APPLICATION IT'S AN APPEAL TO THE CIRCUIT COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS.
YOU DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
WOULD THE APPLICANT AT THIS TIME LIKE TO CONTINUE AND BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL OR MOVE FORWARD WITH THE APPLICATION? OKAY FOR THE RECORD MR. CHAIRMAN THE APPLICANT IN THE AUDIENCE HAS STATED HE WOULD LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD.
AND WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT BACK OVER TO YOU.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND START? YES, I WILL.
WE'VE GOT ONE CASE ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT.
OH, MY NAME IS MIA SADLER, PLANNER 2.
THIS IS MY FIRST BOA STAFF REPORT, SO VERY HONORED TO BE HERE.
SO THIS IS BOA CASE 2026-0001.
THE APPLICANTS ARE HAYWARD AND VIRGINIA BURNETT.
THEY OWN A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 104 NORTH WOLF STREET.
THIS IS THE PROPERTY DIRECTLY NORTH OF EGAN'S CREEK PARK.
AND YOU CAN SEE IN THE AERIAL SHOT, THE PARK IS, THEY SHARE A BOUNDARY WITH THE PARK THERE.
THAT'S OWNED BY THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH.
THE ZONING OF THIS PROPERTY IS R1, AND THE ZONING OF THE PARK IS RECREATION.
THE REQUESTED ACTION TONIGHT IS A VARIANCE REQUEST FROM LDC SECTION 501.
TABLE SPECIFICALLY 50110A WHICH DELINEATES THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT FOR FENCES AND WALLS IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS.
SO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS I MENTIONED IS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME BUILT IN 1995.
THE PROPERTY IS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE PARK AND IT IS WEST OF EAGANS CREEK CONSERVATION AREAS.
THE PROPOSED PROJECT THAT REQUIRED THE VARIANCE IS A CHAIN LINK FENCE ON THE SOUTHERN.
THE FIRST HALF OF WHAT GOING FROM WOLF STREET TOWARDS THE MIDDLE OF THE PROPERTY IS PROPOSED TO BE A FOUR FOOT TALL BLACK CHAIN LINK FENCE.
I BELIEVE IT'S ABOUT 180 FEET OF FOUR FEET TALL FENCE AND THEN ABOUT HALFWAY THROUGH THE PROPERTY IT WOULD TRANSITION TO AN EIGHT FOOT TALL CHAIN LINK FENCE.
THE LDC SPECIFIES THAT FENCES IN THE R1 ZONING DISTRICT MAY NOT EXCEED SIX FEET IN HEIGHT IN THE REAR AND THE SIDE YARD SO THIS IS WHY THE VARIANCE IS REQUIRED TO HAVE AN EIGHT FOOT TALL FENCE IN TERMS OF CONSISTENCY SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ARE PERMISSIBLE USE IN THE R1 ZONING DISTRICT THE LOW DENSITY FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION IS INTENDED TO PRESERVE PRIVACY AND OPEN SPACE FOR HOMEOWNERS AFTER A SITE VISIT WE DISCOVERED THAT THERE ARE MULTIPLE OTHER CHAIN LINK FENCES IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD SO IT WOULDN'T BE ANYTHING KIND OF OUT OF THE ORDINARY IN THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT THIS IS THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS PROVIDED AT TIME OF PERMIT APPLICATION WHEN THE PERMIT WAS RECEIVED I REACHED OUT TO THE APPLICANT AND THE CONTRACTOR TO LET THEM KNOW THAT THE FENCE REQUESTED WAS TOO TALL FOR THAT ZONING DISTRICT AND THEN HE MOVED FORWARD WITH A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION THAT WAS FILED ON TIME AND ALL FEES HAVE BEEN PAID AND THERE YOU CAN SEE THERE'S A LITTLE TICK MARK WHERE THE FOUR FOOT TALL BLACK CHAIN LINK FENCE WOULD TRANSITION TO AN EIGHT FOOT TALL BLACK CHAIN LINK FENCE.
I HAVE SOME EXAMPLES OF THE PROPOSED FENCE THAT I JUST PULLED FROM THE INTERNET.
AND THEN ON THE BOTTOM OF THIS SLIDE IS A STREET VIEW OF THAT PROPERTY LINE.
AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S HEAVILY WOODED.
SO RIGHT THERE, THE MORE MANICURED LAWN SIDE IS MR. BURNETT'S PROPERTY.
AND THEN TO THE RIGHT IS EGAN'S CREEK PARK, WHICH...
IS BLOCKED BY THE VEGETATION, SHRUBS, AND TREES THERE.
SO IT'S THE BELIEF OF STAFF THAT THE FENCE WOULD BE SHIELDED BY THE VEGETATION AND NOT DRAW UNDUE ATTENTION TO ITSELF.
SO GETTING INTO THE CONSISTENCY WITH THE SIX CRITERIA REQUIRED TO BE REVIEWED FOR A VARIANCE, STAFF DID CONFIRM THAT SPECIAL CONDITIONS EXIST IN RELATION TO THE LAND, STRUCTURE, AND BUILDING INVOLVED.
THE PROPERTY HERE SHARES A BOUNDARY WITH EAGANS CREEK PARK, WHICH IS PUBLIC PROPERTY.
THE APPLICANT INCLUDED IN THEIR APPLICATION THAT PATRONS OF THE PARK WERE CROSSING OVER INTO HIS PROPERTY AND CAUSING A PRIVACY AND SECURITY ISSUE.
THEY WOULD GO THROUGH THE WOODS AND MAYBE KNOWINGLY OR UNKNOWINGLY CROSS ONTO PRIVATE PROPERTY, LEADING TO ENCOUNTERS WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT AND OTHER CONFRONTATIONAL SITUATIONS.
[00:25:03]
SPECIAL PRIVILEGE GRANTING A VARIANCE IN THIS CASE DOES NOT CONFER UPON THE APPLICANT A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE THAT IS DENIED BY OTHERS WHO HAVE SIMILAR PROPERTIES IN A SIMILAR SITUATION WITH A PROPERTY THAT IS ZONED ARE ONE WITH SHARING A BOUNDARY WITH A PARK WE WOULD CONSIDER THE SAME APPLICATION AND MAKE THE SAME RECOMMENDATION.SO IT IS NOT INCURRING CONFERRING A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE AND DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY LIMITATIONS SET FORTH BY LDC SECTION 10-0201 IN TERMS OF THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE DENYING THIS VARIANCE WOULD DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT OF RIGHTS ENJOYED BY OTHERS IN THE ZONING DISTRICT SPECIFICALLY THE PRIVACY AND FAIR USE OF THE PROPERTY AS CURRENTLY A SIX FOOT TALL FENCE DOES NOT ADEQUATELY SECURE THE PROPERTY FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE USING THE PARK AND AN EIGHT FOOT TALL FENCE IS TYPICAL OF A SECURITY FENCE THAT WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY DETER PEOPLE USING THE PARK FROM ENTERING THE PRIVATE PROPERTY.
IN TERMS OF THE MINIMUM VARIANCE, STAFF CONFIRMED THAT THIS IS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NEEDED TO MAKE REASONABLE USE OF THE LAND.
AN EIGHT FOOT TALL FENCE IS ONLY A TWO FOOT TALL FENCE.
TWO FEET DEPARTURE OF WHAT IS ALREADY PERMITTED BY THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THROUGH TABLE 501 10A I ALSO NOTED THAT THE PROPERTY IS OWNED TO THE SOUTH IN RECREATION ALLOWS FOR A 12 FOOT TALL FENCE AND IN CONTRARY THE APPLICANT HAS ONLY REQUESTED AN 8 FOOT TALL FENCE TO REMAIN CONSISTENT WITH THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD IN TERMS OF GENERAL HARMONY AS I STATED AFTER A SITE VISIT WE SAW OTHER CHAIN LINK FENCES IN THE AREA AND THOSE WERE ALSO SHIELDED BY VEGETATION.
IT'S A VERY GREEN AND OPEN NEIGHBORHOOD.
FURTHER, THE SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED HOMES THAT ARE ALLOWED IN THIS AREA ENJOY PRIVATE ENJOYMENT OF THEIR YARD AND THEIR PROPERTY.
BOTH USES, THE PRIVATE PROPERTY, SINGLE FAMILY HOME, AND THE PUBLIC PARK ARE VITAL TO THE HARMONY OF THE CITY AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT SHOULD BE SEPARATED.
THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS DESCRIBED UNWELCOME INTRUSIONS FROM THE PARK, AND THIS APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE WOULD ALLOW A TALLER FENCE SHOULD EXCLUDE MEMBERS FROM THE PUBLIC FROM TRESPASSING ONTO PRIVATE PROPERTY.
AND THEN FINALLY, PUBLIC INTEREST, A FOUR FOOT TALL.
FENCE WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND HALFWAY THROUGH THE PROPERTY IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST OF SEPARATING THE PUBLIC USE FROM THE PRIVATE USE AND THE EIGHT FOOT TALL FENCE WOULD FURTHER CEMENT THAT BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LAND AND ALLOW DISALLOW PEOPLE FROM INADVERTENTLY TRESPASSING ONTO PRIVATE PROPERTY AND MAYBE THEY ARE HURT ARE SUBJECT TO POTENTIAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTION OR OTHER UNKNOWN HAZARDS OF THE PROPERTY.
SO IT IS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO EXCLUDE PUBLIC PATRONS OF THE PARK FROM A PRIVATE RESIDENCE.
AND THIS IS OUR MATRIX THAT SHOWS THAT THE APPLICATION IS CONSISTENT WITH ALL SIX CRITERIA.
AND I HAVE A SAMPLE MOTION HERE, AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
WELL, I'LL MAKE SOME COMMENTS AND SOME QUESTIONS.
GENERALLY SPEAKING IN THE CITY, ALMOST BUFFERS BETWEEN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE.
HICKORY STREET IS SIX FEET OR FOUR FEET.
EIGHT-FOOT FENCES ARE RARE IN THIS CITY.
THE ONLY PLACE YOU MAY FIND THEM, A COUPLE OF UNIQUE, IS AROUND THE MILL.
SO, YOU KNOW, I ACTUALLY WALKED THIS PROPERTY.
AND DID NOT SEE ANY SPECIFIC PATHS THROUGH THAT THAT WENT INTO THAT PROPERTY.
AND I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE LDC IS APPROPRIATE THAT A SIX-FOOT FENCE IS WHAT'S REQUIRED.
AND AS FAR AS YOUR DETERMINATION AND LITERAL INTERPRETATION, NOT ALLOWING AN EIGHT-FOOT FENCE IS NOT TAKING AWAY ANY PROPERTY RIGHTS IN THAT AREA.
SO, YOU KNOW, I'M OPPOSED TO A VARIANCE ON THIS, OBVIOUSLY.
AS YOU LOOK AROUND THE CITY, YOU KNOW, ALMOST A SIX-FOOT FENCE PROTECTS ALMOST EVERYTHING, INVARIABLY ALMOST PUBLIC-PRIVATE.
ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY COMMENTS? YES.
IN THE REPORT, YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE'S ALREADY BEEN ENCOURAGEMENTS ON THAT PROPERTY THAT POLICE INVOLVEMENT HAD TO BE DONE.
SOMEBODY DID MAKE IT OVER THE SIX-FOOT FENCE ONTO THE
[00:30:01]
PROPERTY.DID THEY GO THROUGH THAT SIX? LIKE THROUGH OR OVER THIS THING AND IF WE'RE GONNA IF WE'RE GONNA ACTIVATE HIM WE NEED TO HAVE LET HIM SPEAK FIRST OKAY YOU'RE GONNA GO DIRECTLY TO HIS STAFF RIGHT NOW THAT'S GROSS YES THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THERE HAVE BEEN MULTIPLE TRESPASSING AND POLICE CALLS FOR INTRUSIONS ONTO THE PROPERTY THERE'S NO FENCE THERE CURRENTLY NO NO OH THERE'S NO FENCE HERE OKAY ALL RIGHT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK SIR YES ALL RIGHT.
YOU'VE GOT TO COME TO THE PODIUM AND THEN STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS, PLEASE.
HEY, WE'RE VERNON, 104 NORTH WOLF STREET.
YES, I'VE HAD MULTIPLE PEOPLE WIND UP ON MY DOCK COMING THROUGH THERE.
THAT HAPPENS ONCE A MONTH, EVEN THOUGH THERE'S A DOCK FOR THEM TO FISH ON RIGHT THERE IN EGAN'S CREEK.
AND THEN I'VE HAD PEOPLE JUST LIKE A FULL FAMILY JUST SET UP DOWN ON MY YOU KNOW THING JUST SITTING AROUND UM BUT BUT THE BIGGEST UH PART AS FAR AS THE SECURITY WAS ONE NIGHT I SAW SOMEBODY SAW A FLASHLIGHT CALLED THE POLICE UM HAD UH YOU KNOW MET HIM OUT ON THE ROAD AND I WAS LIKE HE'S RIGHT DOWN THERE BY THE SHED BECAUSE IT'S YOU KNOW IT'S A LARGE THING AND SO UM I KNEW I KNEW THE POLICE CALLED THE POLICE WOMAN AND UM SHE SAID YEAH HEY WE'LL GO DOWN THERE AND SEE IF WE CAN FIND THEM THEY CAME BACK AND THEY SAID WE CAN'T FIND THEM SO TWO WEEKS LATER AT THE COFFEE SHOP, SHE CAME AND SHE SAID, HAYWARD, SHE GOES, WE WENT BACK LIKE AROUND THREE WITH ANYTHING TO DO, SO I JUST WENT AND FOUND HIM.
HE WAS THE MOST SCARIEST GUY I'VE EVER SEEN IN MY LIFE.
GANG, YEAH, I MEAN, NOT, NOT, I MEAN, I MEAN, LIKE, I'M SORRY, I MEAN, I FOUND THESE.
BUT IT WAS, BUT SHE SAID, SHE IMMEDIATELY GRABBED HER GUN AND WAS LIKE, YOU KNOW, FREEZE, YOU KNOW, AND RAN THEM OUT OF THERE.
SO, AND THEY'RE CONSISTENTLY, THAT'S A BAD PLACE FOR HOMELESS PEOPLE TO BE THERE.
WE'RE BUILDING A BIG DECK OUTSIDE THAT PEOPLE CAN COME ON TO.
AND I JUST FEEL LIKE THAT A SIX-FOOT FENCE IS EASIER JUMPED OVER THAN AN EIGHT.
AND SO THAT'S MY REASON FOR THE EIGHT FOOT.
IT'S JUST A TRUE SECURITY ISSUE.
AND WE'VE HAD MULTIPLE, MULTIPLE PEOPLE.
ANYBODY WANT TO ADDRESS? I SAY MULTIPLE PEOPLE, BUT THERE HASN'T BEEN A SIX-FOOT FENCE THERE.
THERE'S NOT A SIX-FOOT FENCE THERE, BUT IT'S, BUT AGAIN, A SIX-FOOT FENCE IS A LOT EASIER TO CLIMB THAN EIGHT.
YEAH, THE, I WENT LOOKING FOR SIX-FOOT FENCES JUST TO SEE, BECAUSE THAT'S ABOUT SIX INCHES TALLER THAN I AM, AND I FOUND ONE BETWEEN...
THE FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH ON THE BACKSIDE EXIT IN THE APARTMENT PROJECT AND IT'S IT'S IT'S UH I WOULD SAY IF SOMEONE'S GOING TO CLIMB THAT FENCE I DOUBT IT BUT IF THEY'RE GOING TO COME THERE NO FENCE IS GOING TO STOP THEM AND YOU KNOW FENCES ARE DETERRENT IN MY OPINION MY QUESTION IS HOW FAR DOWN TO THE WATER DOES THIS SO IT'S A, IF I CAN STILL ADDRESS Y'ALL, SO IT'S A WOODED AREA.
I MEAN, IT'S LIKE NOBODY WILL SEE, THERE'S NO WAY THAT BETWEEN THE TREE CONSERVANCY THAT ANYBODY'S GOING TO BE ABLE TO GO IN THERE AND MESS WITH THAT WOODLAND.
HOW CLOSE TO THE WATER? SO IT'LL GO DOWN ALL THE WAY TO THE MARSH, LIKE RIGHT WHERE THE MARSH STARTS AND MY YARD STARTS.
IS THERE A BULKHEAD THERE? NO.
ISN'T THERE A BULKHEAD THERE OR NO? NO.
I WANT TO STATE, I WILL TOUCH ON THE FACT THAT IN TABLE 50110, RECREATIONALLY ZONED LAND COULD HAVE UP TO A 12 FOOT TALL FENCE, SO IT WOULDN'T BE OUT OF THE ORDINARY ON THAT PROPERTY LINE TO SEE A 12 FOOT TALL FENCE.
BUT THE POINT IS THAT WE DON'T HAVE 12 FOOT FENCES, WE HAVE 6 FOOT FENCES.
IF THE CITY WANTS TO PUT UP A 12-FOOT FENCE, THEN YOU CAN PETITION FOR THAT.
I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN, YOUR SECURITY CONCERN.
I THINK THE POINT IS THERE IS NOT A FENCE THERE.
SO, AND I AGREE WITH THAT, YOU KNOW, IF PEOPLE WANT TO GET IN THERE, THEY'RE GOING TO CLIMB AN EIGHT-FOOT FENCE, OR MORE LIKELY, THEY'RE GOING TO GO TO THE FOUR-FOOT FENCE AND JUMP OVER.SO I THINK THE FENCE ITSELF THAT IN FACT ISN'T THERE,
[00:35:02]
IF YOU COMPLY WITH THE LDC, THAT WILL MEET YOUR REQUIREMENTS.DOWN BY THE WATER, I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO.
THAT'S ACTUALLY THE EASIEST PLACE TO ACCESS THE PROPERTY IF IT TIES OUT.
YEAH, DID YOU GO DOWN THERE? YEAH, I DID GO DOWN THERE.
AND WHAT I DIDN'T SEE WAS I MENTIONED THAT THERE ARE NO REALLY PATHS THROUGH THERE.
I SPENT A LOT OF TIME ALL OVER IN THE CITY.
YOU GENERALLY, WHERE THE HOMELESS ARE OR WHERE PEOPLE HANG OUT, THERE'S DEBRIS.
THERE'S NO PATHS GOING THROUGH.
I THINK, I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERNS, BUT I THINK COMPLIANCE WITH THE LDC OF A FOUR- TO SIX-FOOT FENCE WOULD GET YOU AS GOOD A SECURITY AS AN EIGHT-FOOT FENCE AND WOULD SAVE YOU SOME MONEY ON THE SITE.
MY QUESTION IS, WHY DO FOUR FEET THEN GO TO EIGHT FEET? WELL, BECAUSE I'M TAKING IT ALL THE WAY TO, SO WE'VE HAD ISSUES ALL THE WAY, YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD HOMELESS PEOPLE SLEEPING IN THAT AREA ALL THE WAY FROM LIKE HALFWAY UP MY YARD.
PEOPLE GO DOWN, GET DOWN, PARK AND TRY TO HIDE, WHATEVER.
AND SO THAT'S, I FEEL LIKE THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT IS WHERE THE...
I MEAN, WE'VE GOT PLENTY OF HOMELESS PEOPLE HERE.
I MEAN, I DON'T, YOU KNOW, I MAY SAY THERE'S NOT MANY, BUT THERE'S A...
THE REASON I ASK THAT QUESTION IS BECAUSE IF I WAS GOING TO GO, I WOULD WALK UP THE SIX FOOT, PAST THE SIX FOOT, AND A WOMAN WOULD COME OVER AND I'M GOING TO HOP ON THE FLOOR AND COME ON IN.
WELL, IT'S NOT LIKE, SO THE WOODS, IF YOU CAN SEE, YOU KNOW, IF YOU CAN SEE THERE, IT'S...
IT'S PRETTY THICK ALL THE WAY THROUGH.
SO, BUT WHAT THEY DON'T, WE'VE NOT HAD ANY PROBLEMS WITH HOMELESS PEOPLE STARTING FROM LIKE WHERE I'M PROPOSING WHERE THE EIGHT FEET FENCES.
SO THEY'RE NOT GOING TO LIKE GET IN THE WOODS AND THEN TRY.
I MEAN, WHAT I'M, WHAT WE'VE SEEN IS PEOPLE SETTING UP CAMP AND DOWN TOWARDS, YOU KNOW, DOWN THE BOTTOM PART AND THEN JUST COMING ON UP.
YOU KNOW, I JUST, YOU KNOW, I JUST DON'T KNOW WHO'S OUT THERE.
AND THE FOUR FOOT TALL FENCE IN ANY ZONING DISTRICT IS REQUIRED WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK.
SO UP TO 25 FEET INTO THE PROPERTY, THE FOUR FOOT TALL IS REQUIRED IN RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTIES.
BUT YOU SAID THAT BECAUSE IT'S LINES APART.
THE FENCE ON THE RECREATIONALLY ZONED PROPERTY COULD BE UP TO 12 FEET.
THE CITY COULD PUT A 12-FOOT FENCE UP.
AND THEY HAVEN'T PUT 12-FOOT FENCES UP ANYWHERE.
BASEBALL FIELDS AND STUFF, MAYBE.
AND WHY IS THAT? TO KEEP PEOPLE OUT? WELL, I WOULD ASSUME, LIKE I SAY, IF YOU GO ALL OVER THE CITY AND YOU LOOK AT THE FENCES, HE SAYS SIX FOOT FENCES.
AND A GOOD EXAMPLE IS GO TO HICKORY PARK.
THERE'S SIX FOOT FENCES, PRIVATE PROPERTY, THERE'S SOME FOUR FOOT FENCES.
YOU GO ON THE ACCESS WAY ON HICKORY STREET TO THE GREENWAY, AMELIA BLUFF, SIX FOOT FENCES.
ON THE OTHER SIDE, SIX FOOT FENCES.
YOU GO ACROSS TO LAPERE, THERE'S A WALK-ON.
HAVE THOSE PLACES HAD ISSUES WITH HOMELESS PEOPLE? I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY HOMELESS PEOPLE ARE THERE.
I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN A POLICE REPORT, BUT THERE'S HOMELESS PEOPLE.
THE GREENWAY IS REALLY WHERE THEY HAVE BEEN.
SO ALL I'M SAYING IS YOU DON'T HAVE A FENCE THERE.
SO IF THE 640, COMPLYING WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, SHOULD TAKE CARE OF THAT.
AND, YOU KNOW, PUTTING TWO MORE FEET OF FENCE UP, THAT'S NOT CONSISTENT, DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME THAT WE SHOULD GIVE A VARIANCE ON THE LDC WHEN YOU HAVE TO PUT THE 640.
I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND YOUR SECURITY, YOUR CONCERN.
YEAH, AND IT'S A, YOU KNOW, I WOULD UNDERSTAND IF I WAS GOING TO THE NEIGHBORS, YOU KNOW, ON THE OTHER SIDE AND THERE WAS A NEIGHBOR.
I'D UNDERSTAND THAT, THAT POINT.
THERE'S SIX-FOOT FENCES ALL OVER IN THE SAME SITUATION.
YOU GO BEHIND THE VINTAGE APARTMENTS OVER HERE, IT'S A SIX-FOOT FENCE.
AND THERE ARE HOMELESS PEOPLE LIVING BACK THERE.
AND THEY DON'T INFRINGE ON THAT.
HOW FAR SET BACK IS THIS FENCE GOING TO GO FROM THE PROPERTY LINE OF THE PARK? IS IT RIGHT WHERE THE PARK SEPARATES YOUR PROPERTY OR ARE YOU GOING TO GO BACK ONTO YOUR
[00:40:01]
PROPERTY SOME? IT'S GOING TO BE BACK ON MY PROPERTY SOME.BRUSH AND TREE REMOVAL WON'T AFFECT ANYTHING THAT'S INSIDE THE PARK? BECAUSE I KNOW THAT AREA IS A BIG BIRD WATCHING AREA.
YOU'RE IN A GREAT SPOT FOR BIRDS, BY THE WAY.
I SEE A LOT OF PEOPLE OUT HERE TAKING PICTURES OF ALL THE WRENS AND STUFF THAT NEST IN THAT AREA.
SO YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE DOING ANYTHING WITH ANY FOLIAGE OR ANY GROWTH ON THE PARK SIDE? WOULD A TALLER FENCE REQUIRE MORE? I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY, JUST TO GET BACK IN THERE WITH THOSE BIG ROLLS OF FENCING, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO SOME KIND OF PATHWAY.
I'M WONDERING IF IT MAYBE WOULD BE LESS INVASIVE OR LESS.
BUT IT'S YOUR PROPERTY, SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO ANY TREE REMOVAL.
IT'S NOTHING BIGGER THAN THE DIE-IN.
AND THEN SINCE THE FENCE EXCEEDS SIX FEET TALL, IT WILL REQUIRE A BUILDING PERMIT AS WELL.
SO IT WILL BE UP TO THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE.
IT'S $1,500 JUST TO STAND HERE.
ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT, YOU MAY SIT.
WHAT ARE YOU GUYS THINKING? I'M KIND OF LEANING WITH LYNN ON THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.
IT SEEMS, I MEAN, A SIX-FOOT TALL FENCE IS, I'M ASSUMING THAT PEOPLE MAY NOT EVEN REALIZE THEY'RE ENCROACHING ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.
I THOUGHT THERE WAS, I READ IT WRONG, I THOUGHT THERE WAS ALREADY A FOUR-FOOT FENCE THERE AND YOU WANTED TO GO UP TO A SIX.
SO, YEAH, I DON'T KNOW, AN EIGHT-FOOT FENCE THERE.
WHO'S GOING TO SEE THE EIGHT-FOOT FENCE ANYWAY? WHAT DO WE DO? MAKE A MOTION? YEAH, ONE OF YOU WILL MAKE A MOTION BASED ON THE CONTENT THAT SHE HAD.
MIA, CAN YOU PUT THAT BACK ON THE SCREEN? YES.
MS. PEARSON IS ADVISING US IF YOU'RE READY TO MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
I DON'T KNOW THAT WE EVEN OPENED IT, BUT YOU CAN CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
THERE'S NOBODY HERE TO SPEAK ON IT.
BASED ON, YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN ALL OVER THE CITY AND SO HAVE YOU.
HOW MANY RESIDENTIAL AREAS HAVE COME IN AND ASKED FOR AN EIGHT-FOOT FENCE? WELL, I KNOW IN THE C3 ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH IS OUR DOWNTOWN, C3, MU1, MU8 ALL PERMIT 8 FOOT TALL FENCES.
SO I KNOW SOME EXAMPLES RECENTLY ON SOUTH 10TH STREET THAT HAVE 8 FOOT TALL FENCES AROUND THEIR PERIMETER.
DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER? RESIDENTIAL.
YOU'RE NOT GOING TO FIND THAT IN THAT ZONING.
WHY DO YOU HAVE THE SOUR MIDGES? EXCUSE ME MARGARET IF YOU ARE GOING TO TESTIFY WE'LL HAVE TO GET YOU OVER HERE.
DID YOU SWEAR? MARGARET PEARSON, PLANNING MANAGER, CITY OF FERNANDINA.
YES SO WE DO SEE THE EIGHT-FOOT FENCES WHENEVER THEIR USE IS LIKE WITH A C3 SO IN THE DOWNTOWN HERE AND THEN YOU HAVE A RESIDENT ABUTTING IT.
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
SO THAT WAS WHY THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY IS UNIQUE IN THAT IT ADJOINS, I'M NOT SAYING EITHER WAY, I'M JUST SAYING.
THAT IS WHAT IS UNIQUE ABOUT THE PROPERTY IS THAT IT IS A DIFFERENT USE AND WHENEVER WE HAVE THAT MIXTURE OF USES THERE USUALLY IS ALLOWED A TALLER FENCE NOT IN THE NORM AND THE SPECIAL SITUATIONS.
I'VE GOT TO STAND UP AND READ IT, THOUGH.
CAN YOU TURN AROUND AND SEE IT? I'M GOING TO BRING MY GLASSES.
[00:45:02]
DO YOU RECOGNIZE HIM NOW? I MOVE THAT WE DENY THE BOA CASE NUMBER 20260001.AND I MOVE THAT THE BOA MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, PART OF THE RECORD.
CASE BOA 2026001 AS PRESENTED IS NOT SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO WARRANT APPROVAL AT THIS TIME.
AND THAT THE BOA CASE 2026001 MEETS, DOES NOT MEET THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA GRANTED FOR VARIANCE SPECIAL CONDITIONS.
SPECIAL PRIVILEGE INTERPRETATION, MINIMUM VARIANCE, GENERAL HARMONY, AND PUBLIC INTEREST.
DO YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL STIPULATIONS? PARDON ME? DO YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL STIPULATIONS? NO, JUST SPECIFICALLY ON THAT ITEM THREE, THAT THIS DOES NOT TAKE AWAY RIGHTS.
I COULDN'T HEAR THE BEGINNING OF THAT.
DID YOU SAY MOVE TO DENY OR MOVE TO APPROVE? DENY.
AND THEN IN THE BOTTOM PARAGRAPH YOU SAID YOU READ THE ENTIRE MEETS OR DOES NOT MEET.
DID YOU WANT TO JUST PICK ONE OF THOSE TWO? I THINK THE WAY YOU READ IT IN WAS YOU SAID MEETS OR DOES NOT MEET.
SPECIFICALLY, YOU KNOW, DOESN'T IT, SIX FEET, AND SPECIFICALLY ON...
THIS DOES NOT TAKE AWAY ANY PROPERTY RIGHTS OF THE PATRON.
PATRONS FROM THE PARK, IT DOESN'T TAKE AWAY HIS PROPERTY RIGHTS.
DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? QUESTION.
SO HE'S ASKING IT TO BE DENIED.
DENIED JUST TO SIX FEET? NO, IT CAN GO TO SIX FEET'S COMPLIANCE.
YOU CAN DO IT BEFORE FEET TO SIX FEET.
THIS IS JUST SAYING YOU CAN'T.
THE VARIANCE IS TO DO TWO MORE FEET.
AND THEN WE CAN KEEP MOVING, JUST BAITING.
SECOND? OKAY, SO IT DIES FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
THE CONCERN AT ALL WITH THE EIGHT FOOT HIGH FENCE BEING WITHIN THE TREE CANOPY, UNFORESEEN, IS THAT AN ISSUE FOR THE PUBLIC AT ALL? LIKELY NO? I DON'T THINK SO.
WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE STAFF'S FINDING? YEAH.
THE ONLY REASON I, DO I LIKE TO HAVE AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE THERE? NO.
BUT WITH THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE THAT'S IN THE CANOPY CANNOT BE SEEN.
AND IT DOESN'T DISTURB EITHER THE PARK OR ANYONE ELSE.
YOU KNOW, I REALLY DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT.
YEAH, MY CONCERN WAS THAT THERE'S ALREADY BEEN DOCUMENTED POLICE INVOLVEMENT IN THAT AREA.
THERE HASN'T BEEN A FENCE THERE BEFORE, SO IT COULD BE ASSUMED THAT THAT IS NOT, THAT IT'S ACCESSIBLE.
I THINK THE SIX PROBABLY WILL STOP IT, BUT MY CONCERN WAS IF THE SIX-FOOT FENCE DOES NOT STOP IT, GOING BACK AND ADDING TWO FEET MEANS REMOVING THE ENTIRE FENCE, I WOULD ASSUME, INSTEAD OF ADDING TWO MORE FEET ON.
I THINK THAT PLACES A BURDEN ON THE APPLICANT.
WE'RE BASICALLY, I'M LEANING MORE TOWARDS ERROR ON THIS SIDE OF PREVENTION THAN HAVING TO GO BACK AND ASK HIM TO COME BACK LATER ON AND SAY THAT DIDN'T WORK, NOW WE NEED TO DO IT AGAIN.
AND AS A POINT OF ORDER, YOU'VE ALREADY ENDED DISCUSSION, SO ONE MOTION HAS FAILED, SO THE NEXT...
PROCEDURE WOULD BE TO OFFER ANOTHER MOTION.
AND THEN YOU CAN HAVE YOUR DISCUSSION AFTER YOU GET US, IF YOU HAPPEN TO GET A SECOND ON THAT ONE.
I WOULD MOVE TO APPROVE BOA CASE NUMBER 26-001, AND I MOVE THAT THE BO MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS, IN FACT, IN CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND PART OF THE RECORD, THAT THE BO CASE 26-001, AS PRESENTED.
IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO WARRANT APPROVAL AT THIS TIME, AND THAT THE BOA CASE NUMBER 2026-001 MEETS THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA FOR GRANTING VARIANCE IN SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS, SPECIAL PRIVILEGES, LITERAL INTERPRETATIONS, MINIMUM VARIANCE, GENERAL HARMONY, AND PUBLIC INTEREST.
DO YOU HAVE ANY STIPULATIONS ON THAT? I DO NOT.
WILL YOU CALL THE VOTE? MEMBER JOHNNY MILLER? YES.
SO THAT PASSES ON A VOTE OF FOUR.
[00:50:02]
WE DON'T MAKE IT TOO EASY FOR YOU.LET US KNOW IF YOU SEE HIM IN THE WOODS ANYMORE.
NOW HE'S DEFINITELY GOING TO BE THERE.
I'LL CALL YOU TOMORROW, AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT NEXT STEPS.
[7. STAFF REPORT (Part 2 of 2)]
ANY ADDITIONAL BUSINESS, BOARD BUSINESS? THERE'S NO NEW BUSINESS.WE'VE ALREADY KIND OF GONE OVER THAT.
YEAH, I'M SORRY ABOUT THAT STAFF REPORT.
I THOUGHT STAFF REPORT, MY EXPERIENCE WITH STAFF REPORT WAS LIKE WHAT HAPPENED LAST WEEK.
RIGHT, I WASN'T LOOKING AT AN AGENDA.
YEAH, I THOUGHT I NEVER EVEN SAW THE STAFF REPORT.
I WAS GOING TO ASK, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT THE BOARD WOULD LIKE FOR US TO PREPARE FOR THE NEXT MEETING? I MEAN, IS THERE ANY INFORMATION THAT YOU'RE WANTING OR ANY REQUESTS OR ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR YOU? MAYBE SOME LIGHT FINGER FOOD AND SOME COCKTAILS.
IS THERE STILL A PROBLEM WITH THE AUGUST MEETING? I SAW SOMETHING ABOUT THE AUGUST MEETING.
OH YEAH, THANK YOU, MEMBER HARSLAND.
I KNEW THE VOICE, I JUST WASN'T GETTING THERE.
YES, THERE IS A CONFLICT, AND I THOUGHT WE ADDRESSED THAT LAST TIME, AND WE SET THE NEW DATE.
I HAD THAT WE WERE JUST GOING TO MOVE IT TO THE 26TH, AUGUST 26TH.
I THINK SOME OF THE NOTES SAID THAT WE WOULD ADDRESS IT AS CLOSE AS WE GOT TO THE MEETING.
I HAVE A HOLD ON MY CALENDAR, MR. CHAIRMAN, FOR AUGUST 26TH AT 5 P.M.
SO ARE WE MEETING NEXT MONTH? DO WE KNOW THAT YET? I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ONE.
AND THE CONFLICT IS THE ELECTION. THAT'S GOOD, BECAUSE I'LL BE IN LONDON, SO.
WE DO HAVE A CASE THAT WE THINK IS COMING.
ARE YOU GOING TO BE HERE IN MAY? I'LL BE BACK IN MAY.
I'M SUPPOSED TO BE ON A SAILBOAT RACING FROM...
WELL, YOU'RE GOING ON A SAILBOAT.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE UP TO.
YEAH, BUT SO AS LONG AS WELL, I'LL BE UP TO FACE FORWARD.
HEARING NOTHING ELSE, WE'LL CLOSE THIS MEETING.
YOU'RE WELCOME.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.