Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[Call to Order]

[00:00:04]

>> GUIDAGE EVERYBODY. THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FEBRUARN SESSION. EVERYBODY PLEASE RISE FOR PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAGF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND

JUSTICE FOR ALL. >> SAM, WILL YOU CALL THE ROLL PLEASE?

>> WE'VE GOT A FULL HOUSE TONIGHT.

BOARD MEMBERS ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATION ON THIS ANYWHERE IS ANY OF THE CASES OLD OR NEW IS I HAVE SPOKEN ON THE PHONE

[Additional Item]

TODAY TO JACOB JUST IN GENERAL ABOUT THE AGENDA, NOTHING UNUSUAL ABOUT THAT. WE NORMALLY DO IT BEFORE EVERY MEETING. I DID HAVE SEVERAL CITIZENS TO APPROACH ME ABOUT THE WEST ROCK CASE AND I WILL TELL YOU WHAT I TOLD THEM. SOME OF THE PEOPLE THAT SPOKE TO ME ARE HERE TONIGHT. IF YOU'D LIKE YOUR VICE VOICE TO BE HEARD YOU HAVE TO COME TO THE MEETING AND SPEAK DURING HA.

SO THERE WAS THAT. THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE BEEN TO ONE OF OUR MEETINGS BEFORE, WE TRY KEEP THOSE AS USER FRIENDLY AS WE CAN. THE CITY COMMISSION HAS GIVEN US A DEFINITE SET OF GUIDELINES ON THAT AND WE DON'T DEVIATE FROM THAT. WE TRY TO KEEP IT AS USER FRIENDLY AS WE CAN. ALL OF YOUR BOARD MEMBERS ARE VOLUNTEERED. WE'VE ALL BEEN APPOINTED AT SOME TIME IN THE PAST BY THE CITY COMMISSION AND WE SERVE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE CITY COMMISSION. EVERYBODY BEFORE THEM HAS A COMPUTER SCREEN N. A FEW MOMENTS JACOB IS GOING TO GIVE A POWER POINT PRESENTATION ABOUT THE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA.

THE ONLY INFORMATION THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE AVAILABLE ON THE SCREEN IS JACOB'S ENTIRE PACKAGE.

YOU CAN ONLY PUT ONE PIECE OF PAPER ON AT A TIME.

THAT'S WHAT THE BOARD IS DOING. WE'RE NOT COMMUNICATING WITH EACH OTHER. THAT IS THE ONLY INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE TO US. WE'VE GOT TWO MEMBERS OF CITY STAFF. JACOB IS ASSIGNED TO THIS BOARD.

THERE ARE SOME OTHER PEOPLE THAT WORK WITH HIM BUT JACOB IS ASSIGNED TO THIS BOARD. HE'S DOING A GREAT JOB FOR THE CITIZENS AND SOMETIMES HIS JOB IS A TIGHT ROPE BETWEEN TRYING TO WALK WITH THE CITY'S LAWS AND TRYING TO AT THE SAME TIME VALUE INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER'S RIGHTS.

THAT'S A VERY TOUGH JOB AND HE'S DOING A VERY GOOD JOB FOR THIS BOARD AND WE THANK HIM FOR THAT. OUR SECRETARY IS DOING EVERYTHING TO KEEP US ON THE STRAIGHT AND NARROW ON THAT.

SO WE APPRECIATE. THAT IN A FEW MOMENTS SAMANTHA WOULD LIKE TO GET EVERYBODY SWORN IN THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK. WE TRY TO GET EVERYBODY SENATOR AT ONE TIME. THAT HELPS KEEP THE MEETING FLOWING. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG IN GETTING SWORN IN AND NOT SPEAKING, PEOPLE DO IT ALL THE TIME. IF YOU DON'T GET SWORN IN AND AT SOME TIME DURING THE MEETING YOU WANT TO SPEAK, YOU ARE PERFECTLY WITHIN YOUR RIGHTS TO RAISE YOUR HAND AND GET SWORN IN AND WE CAN GO RIGHT ON THE W THE MEETING. EVERYBODY WHO CAME TONIGHT WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, WE WANT TO HEAR EVERYBODY'S VIEWS ON THAT.

EVERYBODY THAT CAME TO SPEAK WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO SPEAK.

YOU CAN SPEAK AS MANY TIMES AS YOU WANT TO SPEAK.

IF YOU HAVE YOUR SAY AND THEN SOMEONE ELSE BRINGS UP SOMETHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON, RAISE YOUR HAND AND WE WILL RECOGNIZE YOU ON THAT. WHILE YOU ARE CONSIDERING IF YOU'D LIKE TO GET SWORN IN, OUR CITY ATTORNEY IS WITH US TONIGHT. SHE'S NOT A MEMBER OF THIS BOARD. SHE DOES NOT VOTE.

SHE'S HERE IN ADVISORY CAPACITY. SHE BRINGS A WEALTH OF KNOWLEDGE TO THIS. IT'S NOT UNUSUAL TO HEAR ONE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS SEEK HER WISDOM OR ONE OF CITY STAFF.

WE DO IT ALL THE TIME. I'M GOING TO ASK HER IF SHE'LL GO OVER WHY THE MEETING IS HELD LIKE IT IS.

HOW THE VOTING HAS TO GO AND MORE IMPORTANTLY IF YOU'D LIKE TO HAVE AN APPEAL , WHAT THE PROCESS FOR THAT WOULD BE.

WILL YOU RUN THROUGH THAT PLEASE.

>> TONIGHT WE HAVE THREE CASES ON THE AGENDA.

THE CASE UNDER OLD BUSINESS IS A CONTINUATION OF A QUASI JUDICIAL

[00:05:04]

HEAR SING THE SAME RULES WILL APPLY.

UNDER NEW BUSINESS HAVE TWO CASES AND THOSE WILL BE CONDUCTED AS QUASI JUDICIAL HEARINGS.

THAT MEANS FIRST CITY STAFF OR IF THEY HAVE AN ATTORNEY FOR ONE OF THEIR CASES MAY SPEAK AND PRESENT EVIDENCE, TESTIMONY, CALL WITNESSES. THE APPLICANT AND OR THEIR AGENT WILL COME TO THE PODIUM, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. AND YOU'LL HAVE YOUR OPPORTUNITY WITHOUT TIME LIMITATION TO PRESENT EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD. YOU MAY ALSO CALL WITNESSES AND YOU MAY CROSS-EXAMINE THE PARTIES' WITNESSES.

ANY AFFECTED PARTY WHICH MEANS YOU ARE A RESIDENT OF THE CITY, YOU MAY ALSO PRESENT EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY INTO THE RECORD.

YOU ARE NOT LIMITED BY THE AMOUNT OF TIME YOU GET TO SPEAK.

YOU'LL COME TO THE PODIUM AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND YOU WILL GET TO PRESENT EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY.

YOU CAN ALSO CALL WITNESSES IF YOU WISH AND I BELIEVE YOU CAN CROSS-EXAMINE OTHER WITNESSES. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS SO FAR ON THOSE PROCEDURES? ANYBODY THAT WISHES TO SPEAK WHETHER YOU ARE JUST GOING TO STAND UP AND SAY I'M AGAINST OR I'M FOR IT, YOU DO WANT TO GET SWORN IN IF YOU WANT YOUR STATEMENTS ON THE RECORD. YOU NEED TO BE SWORN IN.

IF THERE IS AN APPEAL, THAT WOULD BE TAKEN OF ANY OF THE THREE DECISIONS TONIGHT MADE BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, THAT APPEAL IS TAKEN TO THE CIRCUIT COURT.

IT MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THIS BOARD'S ISSUANCE OF THE WRITTEN FINDINGS OF FACT. YOU'LL KNOW HOW WE'RE GOING TO VOTE. WITHIN A FEW DAYS, THREE TO FIVE DAYS THE CHAIR IS GOING TO SIGN WRITTEN FINDING OF FACT THAT WE HAVE A SET FORM AND THEN THE STAFF WILL FILL IN WHAT THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS ARE AS THEY ARE STATE BID BOARD TONIGHT. THAT GETS SIGNED.

THEN THE 30 DAYS STARTS TICKING. IT'S APPROXIMATELY 35 DAYS FROM NOW. THAT HAVE TIME PERIOD THERE NO OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL THESE DECISIONS.

THAT BEING SAID, THE VOTE REQUIRED TONIGHT IS A SUPER MAJORITY VOTE. THERE ARE 7 MEMBERS SITTING HERE. TONIGHT I'M TAKING A LITTLE EXTRA TIME BECAUSE WE DO HAVE A CONTINUATION OF A HEARING THAT WON'T TAKE THAT LONG. UNDER OLD BUSINESS WE HAVE 4.1 AND THIS IS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CASE THAT IS A CONTINUATION OF A HEARING. AND WE'RE GOING TO BE HEARING IF YOU WERE NOT HERE THE LAST TIME , THE BOARD IS GOING TO HEAR SOME MORE EVIDENCE. THE MEMBERS THAT WERE HERE AT THE LAST MEETING, THERE WERE FIVE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, TWO OF THEM ARE NORMALLY ALTERNATES. SO THOSE MEMBERS AND IF YOU'LL RAISE YOUR HAND ALTERNATE NUMBERS LAST TIME THAT WERE HERE TO THEY'RE CASE YOU WILL BE VOTING TO NIGHT WITH THE REGULAR MEMBERS. THE MEMBERS THAT WERE ABSENT, YOU WILL SIT HERE AND YOU CAN HEAR THE EVIDENE BUT YOU ARE NOT GOING TO VOTE ON THE WEST ROCK CASE.

I THINK THAT'S THE FAIREST WAY TO DO IT.

OUR RULES ARE SILENT ABOUT THAT. IF YOU HEARD THE FIRST PART OF THE HEARING. I DID SPEAK WITH MR. DAVIS ABOUT THAT AND MR. POOLE BRIEFLY. IF THERE ARE ANY OKAYS, PLEASE STATE YOUR OBJECTIONS NOW TO THAT THOSE MEMBERS HEARING AND VOTENING TO CASE. NO OBJECTIONS.

THE OTHER TWO CASES, THE FIVE REGULAR VOTING MEMBERS WILL AND THIS WILL BE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF MR. COOK ON THE END AND MR. GLEESEN, THEY WILL NOT BE VOTING.

THEY WILL HEAR THE CASE AND THEY CAN DISCUSS THEIR OPINIONS OF WHAT THEY HEAR WITH THE REST OF THE BOARD MEMBERS, EVEN CONVINCE THEM ON HOW THE VOTE. THOSE ARE STATE OF FLORIDA RULES. ANY OF THE VARIANCES IF THEY ARE GRANTED REQUIRES FOUR OUT OF THE FIVE MEMBERS.

YOU NEED FOUR VOTES OUT OF FIVE VOTING MEMBERS IN ORDER TO GRANT A VARIANCE. IN ORDER TO APPROVE A DENIAL OF A VARIANCE SO YOU'LL HEAR I MAKE A MOTION TO DENY AND IF THEY SAY THAT IT ONLY TAKES THREE OUT OF THE FIVE VOTING MEMBERS AIM SIMPLE MAJORITY TO PASS THAT AND THAT MEANS THAT THE VARIANCE IS DENIED. AND THEN IT IS HOW LONG BEFORE SOMEBODY CAN REQUEST THE SAME VARIANCE, ONE YEAR.

ANY QUESTIONS? THAT'S IT.

THANK YOU. >> LET'S GET EVERYBODY SENATOR.

SWORN IN.WILL YOU DO THAT. >>

[00:10:07]

>> RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, WHOLE TRUTH

AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

[Item 3.1]

HAS ANYBODY LOOKED AT THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING, IS THERE ANY CORRECTIONS OR ANYTHING WE NEED TO NOTE ON

THAT? >> I LOOKED AT THEM.

I THOUGHT THEY WERE KIND OF SPARSE.

LISTED PEOPLE THAT WERE HERE AND WHO THEY WERE.

THERE WAS NOT MUCH BEEF TO THE MINUTES.

>> OUR MINUTES OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS HAVE GOTTEN SHORTER. THERE HAS BEEN A SHIFT IN WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MINUTES. WE WERE DIRECTED TO SHORTEN THEM

DOWN AND GET THEM COMPLETE. >> OK.

>> I AGREE WE COULD PROVIDE MORE DETAIL.

I'LL TRY TO PROVIDE A LITTLE MORE DETAIL.

>> AND JUST TO ADD TO TO THE THAT, IN CASE ANYBODY INCLUDING MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT DON'T KNOW.

ALL OF OUR CITY MEETINGS NOW ARE NOT ONLY AUDIO RECORDED BUT THEY ARE ALSO VIDEO RECORDED AN THEY ARE AVAILABLE ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE. IF YOU HAVE ANY TROUBLE INCLUDING MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ACCESSING ANY OF THE MEETING VIDEOS, NOW THESE WILL ONLY GO BACK A COUPLE OF YEARS WE STARTED VIDEO RECORDING ALL OF THEM, ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS CONTACT ANYBODY IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, LEGAL DEPARTMENT AND WE'LL SHOW YOU HOW THE NAVIGATE TO GET TO AN OLD MEETING.

YOU WANT A MEETING FROM 2018, WE CAN HELP YOU GET THERE.

YOU CAN DO THAT TO AS BOARD MEMBERS.

>> Y IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE CITY CHANNEL YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH

CITY WEBSITE. >> IF THERE IS NO CORRECTIONS THEN CAN I GET A MOTION TO APPROVE THESE MINUTES?

>> MOTION TO APPROVE. >> I GOT A FIRST.

>> SECOND. >> WILL YOU CALL THE VOTE ON THAT?

>> APPROVE,. >> YES.

>> YES. >> YES.

>> YES. >> THOSE ARE APPROVED.

NORMALLY LADIES AND GENTLEMEN WE WOULD PICK UP WITH OLD BUSINESS AS THEY WOULD HAVE PRIORITY IN THAT IN THE MEETING IT BEING THE OLDEST. MR. DAVIS AND I SPOKE BEFORE THE MEETING. MR. DAVIS WOULD IT BE FINE WITH YOU BECAUSE YOURS MAY BE A LITTLE BIT LONGER IF WE LET

THESE TWO OTHER CASES GO EVER. >> WE WILL NOT STAND IN THE WAY

OF PROGRESS. >> THANK YOU.

>> WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO ITEM 5.1 UNDER NEW BUSINESS OF

[Item 5.1]

ADJUSTMENT CASE 2020-0. OUR FIRST CASE IN 2020.

I'LL PULL UP THE STAFF REPORT HERE.

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CASE 2020-01 IS LOCATED AT 3036 SOUTH FLETCHER AVENUE. TONIGHT'S REQUEST IS FROM A VARIANCE FROM LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 4.02.03 WITH REGARD TO BUILDING HEIGHTS AN SETBACKS. THE PROPERTY IS R3 ZONE WITH HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND CURRENTLY A DUPLEX ON THE SITE.

JUST FOR THE RECORD ALL THE REQUIRED APPLICATION MATERIALS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED. ALL THE FEES HAVE BEEN PAID AND REQUIRED NOTICES HAVE BEEN MADE. LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ABOUT THE REQUEST. THEY BEGAN SEEKING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR I'D YARD STAIR ENCROACHMENT ON THE SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE. IT'S A BED AND BREAKFAST.

THOSE DESIGNED PARAMETERS PROCESS WHICH ALLOW FOR THE STRUCTURE TO BE PERMITTED ARE NO LONGER IN PLACE TODAY AND THE STAIR ENCROACHMENT IN THE SIDE YARD REPRESENTS AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING SITUATION AND THEREFORE ALLOWING THE ADDITIONAL STAIR WOULD BE EXTENDING FURTHER IN THAT NONCONFORMING SITUATION AND THEREFORE IS NOT PERMITTED.

IN THE STAFF REPORT THERE IS A SURVEY AND I'VE GOT ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS. I FOUND OUT TODAY THROUGH APPLICANT THERE WERE TWO SHEETS THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE PACKET THAT I WILL ALSO SHOW AT THE END THAT I THINK BETTER REPRESENT AND REALLY SHOW THE REQUEST.

ACTUALLY BEFORE I GET INTO THE STANDARD CRITERIA WHY DON'T I DO THAT SINCE IT NOT PART OF YOUR PACKET.

[00:15:05]

JUST TO KIND OF WALK YOU THROUGH AND SHOW YOU EXACTLY THAT.

THIS IS A DETAIL OF THE STAIR. THIS STAIR WOULD COME FROM THE THIRD FLOOR AND CONNECT TO AN EXISTING STAIR FROM THE SECOND TO THE FIRST FLOOR. SAME FOOTPRINT.

AND THIS ELEVATION DEPICTED ON THE BUILDING.

SO THIS IS THE EXISTING STAIR FROM THE SECOND TO THE THIRD FLOOR. FROM THE SECOND TO THE FIRST FLOOR ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING.

THE PROPOSAL IS THIS CONNECTION FROM THE SECOND TO THE THIRD FLOOR LINING ONE THAT SAME STAIR.

NO FURTHER ENCROACHMENT. IT'S JUST THAT ADDITIONAL ENCROACHMENT. THE POINT BEING THE ISSUE WITH THE CODE IS WE'VE GOT AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING SITUATION. THE CODE DOESN'T ALLOW US TO FURTHER THOSE ENCROACHMENTS AND THAT'S WHY THE REQUEST IS BEING MADE. IT'S WHERE Y THE REQUEST HAS TO GO BEFORE THE BOARD EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT FURTHERING OUTSIDE THAT EXISTING FOOTPRINT, IT IS AN EXPANSION.

WITH REGARD TO THE CRITERIA FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE YES THERE ARE SPECIAL CONDITIONS, ORIGINALLY CONSTRUCTED AS A BED AND BREAKFAST LATER TURNED INTO A DUPLEX.

THE THIRD FLOOR UNIT DOESN'T HAVE AN EXTERIOR EXIT WHICH THE PROPOSED STAIR WOULD PROVIDE. EXISTING STRUCTURES AND SHOULD NOT BE EXPANDND EXCEPT WITHIN CURRENT COMPLIANCE OF THE CODE.

NO LITERAL INTERPRETATION. THE NATURE IS AN EXPANSION OF APP EXISTING NONCONFORMING SITUATION.

MINIMUM I HAVE. NO WHILE THE PROPOSED AIR APPEARS TO BE CONNECT EXISTING STAIR.

IT WOULD FURTHER ENCROACHMENT INTO A VIEW CORRIDOR.

STAFF RECOGNIZES WE CAN SHOW FROM THE STREET VIEW THAT CORRIDOR IS HEAVILY SHIELDED THROUGH EXISTING VEGETATION.

THE ACTUAL VISUAL IMPACTS ON THE SITUATION MIGHT BE MINOR.

GENERAL HARM NO. THE CODE STATES EXISTING STRUCTURES SHOULD NOT BE EXPANDED.

STAIRS ARE NOT AN ALLOWABLE ENCROACHMENT IN SIDE YARDS.

PUBLIC INTEREST. YES IT APPEARS THERE WILL BE AN EXTERIOR STAIR WHILE IT APPEARS -- TO HAVE AN EXTERIOR STAIR AND A MEANS OF EGRESS FROM THE THIRD FLOOR UNIT.

BASEND TO CRITERIA STAFF HAS TO LOOK AT FOR ANALYZING THE VARIANCE THE APPLICANT APPEARS TO MEET CRITERIAS 1 AND 6 BUT DOES NOT MEET 2, 3, 4 AND 5 AND I HAVE A MISTAKE IN MY ANALYSIS.

BECAUSE I'M NOT ABLE TO RECOMMEND YES ON ALL SIX I HAVE TO RECOMMEND DENIAL. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS TO THE BOARD OR LOOK AT ANY SPECIFIC DOCUMENTS IF YOU

HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF ME. >> ANY QUESTIONS?

>> BE SURE THAT JACOB YOU SAID THERE WAS TWO SHEETS THAT WERE

NOT PART OF THE ORIGINAL PACKET. >> YES, SIR.

>> BE SURE THOSE ARE PART OF THE PERMANENT RECORD ON THAT FILE

PLEASE. >> SO WE'RE NOT GOING OUT ANY FURTHER? WE'RE ONLY ON TOP OF THAT EXISTING STAIRCASE IS THAT WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IN A NUTSHELL?

>> YES. >> AND GOING UP ONE LEVEL.

>> UP ONE LEVEL AND FARTHER TO THE WEST.

>> DOESN'T IT PROVIDE A SAFETY HAZARD IF THERE IS NO EXIT FROM

THE THIRD. >> A VERY GOOD POINT.

I'M NOT SURE WHY AN EXTERIOR STAIR IF THERE WAS NOT A REQUIREMENT OF THE BUILDING CODE AT THE TIME.

IT SEEMS TO BE A REASONABLE THING TO HAVE AN EXTERIOR STAIR.

>> SEEMS VERY REASONABLE. >> IT WAS CITY REQUESTED TO LOOK

[00:20:01]

INTO THAT? IT'S NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE

RIGHT? >> WITH REGARD TO THE ZONING

ASPECT, YES, SIR. >> BECAUSE I THINK IN THAT TYPE OF A STRUCTURE THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE ASKED THE CITY MANAGE TORE DECLARE A SAFETY SITUATION THAT WOULD HAVE

BEEN THE END OF IT. >> IT WOULD BE NICE IF WE COULD HANDLE ALL SITUATIONS LIKE THAT. BUT.

>> THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS FOR GRANTING A NONCONFORMING VARIANCE LIKE THIS ONE. THERE ARE FIVE OR SIX AND THAT

IS ONE OF THEM. >> IT WAS NOT A DUPLEX INITIALLY. IT WAS JUST A BED AND BREAKFAST.

>> I JUST THOUGHT THAT MIGHT BE AN EASIER WAY TO HANDLE THIS IF

THEY HAD KNOWN ABOUT THAT. >> I'M NOT SURE WHICH SECTION

YOU ARE REFERRING TO. >> THE SECTION IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT TALKS ABOUT NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES.

>> WHICH SAYS THEY ARE NOT TO BE EXPANDED AND OUR METHOD FOR

ALLEVIATING THOSE IS -- >> THAT'S ONE METHOD TO GET THE CITY MANAGER TO DECLARE A SAFETY HAZARD.

>> ANYTHING FURTHER FOR CITY STAFF?

>> I'M SAYING THAT BECAUSE I SEE IN THE DESCRIPTION THEY TALK ABOUT IT BEING A SAFETY SITUATION.

THAT'S WHY THEY WANT TO DO IT. I JUST WONDER WHY THEY HAVEN'T

HANDLE IT. >> I THINK IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHERE WE DON'T HAVE A ONE SIZE FIT ALL FOR EVERYTHING.

ALTHOUGH IT SEEMS LIKE AT TIMES WE PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE AN ABILITY TO HANDLE THINGS LIKE. THIS I AGREE WITH YOU THERE.

WAS ANYTHING ELSE FROM CITY STAFF? WE'LL HEAR WHERE FROM THE APPLICANT IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO

SPEAK. >> JUST TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT MORE. IF YOU DON'T MIND.

IF YOU'LL GIVE THOSE TO HER AND LET HER LOOK AT THOSE AND THEN

WE CAN PASS THOSE OUT. >> SURE.

>> I'LL TAKE A QUICK LOOK. IF HE HAS OKAYS HE'LL STATE THEM BEFORE I PASS THEM OUT. NO OBJECTIONS.

THAT WILL BE YOUR COPY. >> I'LL GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF WACK GROUND. THE PROPERTY WAS A BED AND BREAKFAST. I BOUGHT IT AND CONVERTED INTO A DUPLEX. I UTILIZED THE WHOLE PROPERTY AT THIS TIME. NOW I'M RENTING THE DOWNSTAIRS.

I DON'T HAVE ACCUSED STOWS THAT EXIT THAT EXIST.

THE STAIRCASE INSIDE THE COMPLEX ENTIRE STAIRCASE IS ONLY ACCESSED FROM THE TOP FLOOR. IT'S ON THE NORTH SIDE SO IF THERE IS A HURRICANE OR FIRE OR ANYTHING, YOU'VE GOT A CHALLENGE WITH THAT AREA. THE ELEVATOR CAN'T ACCESS IT.

I'VE GOT CHILDREN THAT COME TO THE PROMPT.

I'VE GOT A SISTER WITH SOME DISABILITIES.

IF THERE IS ANY ISSUES, THEY HAVE NO WAY TO EXIT.

ALL GLASS WINDOWS ARE IMPACT. IMPACT WINDOWS.

THE SHE SAID BASEND TO PARAMETER SHE COULD GET TO A

20-FOOT INCH DOOR -- >> ENCROACHMENT.

>> SHE SAID WE NEED A VARIANCE. TO BE IN CONSISTENCY WITH THE PROPERTY THE WINDOWS ARE FLOOR TO CEILING 36-INCH AND ALL THE DOORS THAT ARE AFFILIATED WITH IT ARE GLASS PANEL DOORS.

KAYLE THEM FRENCH DOORS WOOD PANEL WITH THE GLASS.

THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO DO VERSUS GOING BACK THROUGH AND SAYING I HAVE A TWO FOOT ACCESS AND TWO FOOT STAIRCASE THIS RUNS DOWN TO AN EXISTING STAIRCASE THAT WOULD THEN WAY DIFFERENT DOOR AND DIFFERENT FRAMEWORK. THE HANDOUTS THAT I GAVE YOU ARE JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA FOR EXAMPLE THIS IS THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING. THAT WOULD BE IF YOU ARE TO LOOK AT THE PROPERTY GOING DOWN THAT IS YOUR VIEW.

[00:25:06]

IF YOU CAN SEE FROM THE FIRST PICTURE THERE IS A HANDRAIL.

THAT'S THE EXISTING EXIT FOR THE SECOND FLOOR.

SO THE SECOND FLOOR UNIT 3036. WHICH IS NOW RENTED.

AND THAT IS THEIR EXIT. I CAN NO LONGER GO THROUGH THERE TO EXIT. I HAVE TWO DOGS.

THAT IS THEIR DOG RUN. FOR ME TO GET DOWN THERE, I GO DOWN SIX STAIRCASES, GO THROUGH THE GARAGE AROUND POOL EQUIPMENT AND TO THE YARD F. A HEALTH AND SAFETY, IF YOU WERE TO EXIT THAT BUILDING THERE IS NO RAPID WAY OF GETTING OUT.

THERE IS MULTIPLE STAIRS GOING THROUGH IT.

I HAVE SEVERAL PEOPLE THAT SAY I HAVE TO TAKE THE ELEVATOR BECAUSE IT'S TOO MANY STAIRS. THAT IS THAT PICTURE.

THE SECOND PICTURE I WANTED TO SHARE WITH YOU IS THE WINDOW THAT IT WOULD BECOME A DOOR ON THAT TOP FLOOR.

AND IT WOULD CONNECT TO THE STAIRCASE ON THE SECOND FLOOR.

THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO ACHIEVE IS A CON FORMING LOOK.

SIMILAR STAIRCASE, SIMILAR DOOR. THE THIRD PICTURE WOULD BE THE ACTUAL TYPE OF DOOR WHICH WOULD CONFORM.

SO YOU'D HAVE THAT TYPE OF DOOR TO LOOK AT THE STRUCTURE VERSUS A 24-INCH DOOR. JUST TO HAVE A CONFORMING LOOK.

THE NEXT PICTURE IS LOOKING DOWN FROM THE ROOFTOP.

IF YOU LOOK DOWN I CIRCLED THE WINDOW THAT WOULD BECOME A DOOR.

AND DOWN BELOW IT ARE NOTHING MORE THAN AIR CONDITIONING UNIT.

THE ARCHITECT DESIGNED THIS NOT TO GET INTO THE FOOTPRINT OR BE ANCHORED INTO THE GROUND. THERE WOULDN'T ANYTHING ON THE GROUND LEVEL. IT WOULD JUST BE IN THE AIR SPACE. AND THEN THE NEXT PICTURE IS THE SAME THICK THAT JACOB WAS ABLE TO SHARE AND THAT IS HOW IT WOULD LOOK TO ACCESS AND GET DOWN TO THAT LEVEL.

THE LAST PICTURE IS JUST NOTHING EXCEPT THE DRAWING OF HOW IT WILL LOOK. ANY QUESTIONS?

>> IS THE EXISTING STAIR HAVE ANY REDUCTION TAKE THE LOAD?

>> NO. THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN TOLD.

THEY WOULD JUST CONNECT INTO IT. >> MAYBE YOU ARE MORE UP TO DATE ON THIS WITH THE RESIDENTIAL BUT THE STAIR GOING PAST THOSE WINDOWS, YOU HAVE TALKED TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT ABOUT THIS?

>> I'M JUST CURIOUS. IN THE BACK OF MY MIND THERE IS SOMETHING ABOUT HAVING THE EXIT STAIRS NEAR A WINDOW.

>> WHAT I DID IS I WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS WITH -- HE SAID EVERYTHING LOOKS GOOD. JUST COME BACK AND GET SOME ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION. WHEN I WENT BACK IT WAS THE DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS. HE SAID IT WENT THROUGH THE NEXT STAGE AND THEY SAID NO BECAUSE OF THE VARIANCE ISSUE.

ALL THOSE -- AS FAR AS THE WINDOW IS CONCERNED.

IT'S AN IMPACT WINDOW. THEY DON'T OPEN AT ALL.

THE PERIMETER AROUND THAT WINDOW IS JUST A PIECE OF FOAM.

WHEN THEY BRING THE STAIRCASE DOWN AND IT COMES IN FRONT OF THAT SHALE SHAVE THE FOAM OR BRING IT OUT A LITTLE BIT.

IT WOULD BE THE -- IT WOULD FALL IN LINE WITH THE CURRENT

STAIRCASE. >> IF YOU GOT AN APPROVAL FOR IT AND WENT TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND SAID COULDN'T DO IT WE DID IT IN VAIN. AND I DON'T KNOW.

I'M NOT UP TO DATE ON THE CODE THAT IS APPLICABLE TO THAT.

>> DON DIDN'T ACTUALLY APPROVE IT.

HE WAS IN THE PROCESS OF SAYING THIS ALL LOOKS GOOD, WE NEED THE GET THE DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS.

I'M SURE IT WAS A COLLECTION OF INFORMATION TO THEN SUBMIT.

I DON'T KNOW HOW YOUR PROCESS WORKS.

>> THIS CAME ABOUT THROUGH THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS.

HE SUBMITTED A BUILDING PERMIT. IN OUR REVIEW NOTICED WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT THIS IS AFTERS ENCROACHMENT AND WENT THROUGH DOING RESEARCH ON THE BACK END LOOKING AT PREVIOUS APPROVALS AND TRYING TO GAIN A STORY ON IT.

AND THAT'S HOW WE ENDED UP HERE BEFORE YOU TODAY.

IT CAME TO LIGHT THROUGH BUILDING DEPARTMENT.

>> YOU DID A NICE JOB OF PUTTING THIS PACKET TOGETHER.

IT CLEARLY SHOW WHAT IS IRTRYING TO DO AND THAT IS VERY HELPFUL

[00:30:02]

FOR US. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS

FOR HIM? >> AND YOU WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO MAKE A FINAL REMARK IF YOU SO CHOOSE.

WE'RE GOING TO HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC NOW.

WE'LL OPEN IT UP TO THE PUBLIC IF THERE IS ANYBODY THAT IS GOING TO BE IMPACTED BY THIS OR ANYBODY WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THAT AS LONG AS YOU ARE A RESIDENT WE WOULD LOVE TO HEAR FROM YOU. AND NO ONE RAISED THEIR HAND TO SPEAK ON THAT. I'M SORRY.

>> YOU'LL NEED TO COME TO THE PODIUM IF YOU DON'T MIND.

GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THAT.

I APOLOGIZE I OVERLOOKED YOU. >> I WAS A LITTLE BIT SLOW.

I'M LYNN SHOTTON. I ELEVEN AT 513 DAVID.

I WANT TO ON BEHALF OF THE GENTLEMAN THAT IS APPLYING, THEY DO EXCELLENT WORK WITH EVERYTHING THEY DO.

I KNOW THIS WOULD NOT BE SOMETHING ANYBODY DRIVING BY WOULD SAY WHEN HAPPENED WITH THAT STAIRCASE GOING UP.

THEY DO EXCELLENT WORK WITH EVERY SINGLE THING THEY DO.

I THINK THAT IT WOULD BE AN AWESOME THING TO ADD.

I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT STATEMENT GOT RECORDED.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU FOR COMING DOWN TONIGHT. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE BEFORE WE

CLOSE THAT OUT? >> THIS TIME YOU CAN NOTE THAT THERE IS NO ONE ELSE. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT SIR IF YOU'D LIKE TO SAY ANYTHING ELSE. YOU DON'T HAVE TO.

IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT HAS COME TO MIND THAT YOU'D LIKE TO

SAY? >> NO, SIR.

>> WE'RE GOOD ON THAT. WE'LL CLOSE OUT THAT PORTION.

IS THERE ANY BOARD DISCUSSION ON THAT?

WHAT ARE WE THINKING ON THIS? >> WHY ARE THE DESIGN PERIMETERS WHICH ALLOW THE STRUCTURE TO BE PERMITTED ORIGINALLY, WHY ARE THEY NOT IN PLACE NOW SPARTANBURG.

>> BEFORE THE CITY'S CURRENT CODE THERE WERE DIFFERENT PROCESSES, CONDITIONAL USE REQUIREMENTS THAT ALLOWED FOR MORE SITE SPECIFIC ZONING DEVIATIONS.

THAT'S JUST NOT THE PROCESS THE CITY HAS TODAY.

THERE IS NO PARTICULAR REASON. JUST NOT HOW IT IS TODAY.

>> WANTING TO KEEP SOMEBODY FROM COMING BACK.

>> NO. >> ANY OTHER BOARD COMMENTS?

>> I DON'T SEE WHY THIS WOULD CONSTITUTE A PROBLEM.

THERE IS A LOT OF VEGETATION PALMS ALONG THE SIDE OF YOUR BUILDING AND NO ONE IS GOING TO REALLY SEE THIS EXTRA SET OF STEPS HERE. IT IS A SAFETY ISSUE AND I JUST THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT NEED TO BE DONE.

I KNOW CITY STAFF HAS A FEW PROBLEMS WITH IT.

BUT I DON'T SEE WHY WE SHOULD OBJECT TO IT.

>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? >> BOARD?

>> I WOULD SAY THAT I THINK THIS IS EXACTLY WHY THE CITY COMMISSION CREATED THIS BOARD. IT'S A REASONABLE REQUEST.

I DON'T SEE ANY REASON THAT WE WOULD DENY IT IF ANYBODY WOULD

LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION.

>> ARE YOU READY? >> I MOVE TO APPROVE CASE NUMBER 2020-01 AND I MOVE THAT BOA MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS AS PART OF THE RECORDS.

BOA CASE 2020-1 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 2020-01 MEETS THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE SPECIAL CONDITIONS SPECIAL PRIVILEGE LITERAL INTERPRETATIONS MINIMUM VARIANCE AND THE REASONS FOR MY FINDINGS ARE THERE ARE NOT ENCROACHING ANY FURTHER, IT'S GOING RIGHT OVER THE EXISTING STAIRS AND I DEFINITELY THINK THERE COULD BE A SAFETY ISSUE IF

HE DOESN'T HAVE STAIRS. >> AGREED.

>> DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THAT? >> SECOND.

>> WHEN WE VOTE ON THAT, DO YOU WANT EACH OF US AS WE VOTE TO

SAY OUR REASONS? >> NO , THE MOTION AS LONG AS THE MOTION STATES THE CONCLUSIONS OF ALL FINDINGS OF

[00:35:02]

FACT, YES. AND IS ABLE TO SAY REMEMBER WHEN YOU ARE DENYING A VARIANCE THAT JACOB HAS RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF, YOU CAN SAY YOU HAVE THE EVIDENCE OF THE STAFF REPORT, YOU CAN GO AS SIMPLE AS THAT. WHEN YOU ARE DISAGREEING WITH CITY STAFF YOU HAVE TO TAKE THE UNITE THAT MR. PLAT SAYS HAVE NOT BEEN MET AND EXPLAINS WHY YOU THINK THEY HAVE BEEN MET.

>> WE'VE GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND.

WILL YOU PLEASE CALL THE VOTE ON THAT.

>> APPROVE. >> APPROVE.

>> APPROVE. >> YES.

>> APPROVE SO YOU ARE GOOD TO GO ON THAT.

IF YOU'LL GIVE JACOB A FEW DAYS TO GIVE HIM A CHANCE TO GET ALL OF YOUR PAPERWORK IN ORDER. REACH OUT THE HIM AND HE'LL GET YOU FIXED UP. THANK YOU SIR AND THANK YOU FOR COMING DOWN TO SPEAK TONIGHT. THE BOARD ONLY KNOWS WHEN OUR CITIZENS COME DOWN TO TELL US. WE APPRECIATE YOU COMING DOWN AND SPEAKING. WE READY TO GO TO NUMBER 2.

[Item 5.2]

>> ITEM 5.2. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CASE 2020-02. MR. JAMES, MRS. TINA SMITH TONE PROPERTY AT 45 5: 10 DADE STREET.

THEY ARE SEEKING A COUPLE OF DEVICE FROM 0.0111 FOR SWIMMING POOLS AND POOL ENCLOSE YOURS AND POOL EQUIPMENT.

THIS PROPERTY IS ZONED R2 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE THERE. IS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE THAT WAS RECENTLY CONSTRUCTED ON THE PROPERTY.

APPLICANT IS SEEKING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN INGROUND SWIMMING POOL AND 3508 ENCLOSURE IN THE FRONT YARD. CODE SECTION 5.01.11F1 MINIMUM SETBACK SHALL BEENB THE SAME AS THE RESIDENCE WHERE THE POOL IS TO BE CONSTRUCTED. IN TO NO CASE IS THE POOL TO BE LOCATED CLOSER TO THE FRONT LINE THAN THE BUILDING.

THE MINIMUM SETBACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE WATER'S SEDGE IS NO LESS THAN 9 FEET. PROPOSED POOL WOULD BE LOCATED WITHIN THE FRONT YARD WITH AN EIGHT AND A HALF FOOT SETBACK FROM DADE STREET WITH A SCREEN ENCLOSURE HAVING A 7-FOOT SETBACK. THIS RESIDENCE IS CONSTRUCTED IN 2017-18. YOU'LL SEE IN PART IN ALL OF THE BACKUP MATERIAL AND SHOWING SOME OF THIS IN A LOT OF THE CRITERIA EVOLVES AROUND A LARGE OAK TREE IN THE CENTER OF THE PROPERTY WHICH WAS INCORPORATED IN THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION WORK AROUND THAT TREE. WE'VE GOT A SITE PLAN AND THIS LARGE TREE ALMOST IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LOT.

IN AN EFFORT TO WORK AROUND NOT ONLY THE TREE WITH THE HOME CONSTRUCTION , THE CITY WOULD HAVE TO PERMIT -- TREE TO BE REMOVED AND THIS EFFORT IS TO RECOGNIZE THE EXISTING CONDITIONS THAT WERE BUILT AROUND AND LOOK AT A REQUEST FOR A POOL IN THE FRONT YARD. GETTING INTO THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOR GRANTING A VETERANS.

YES HERITAGE TREE LIVE OAK IS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SITE WHICH THE HOUSE WAS DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED AROUND.

THE POOL COULD BE LOCATED IN THE EAST SIDE YARD HOWEVER THE TREE WOULD HAVE TO BE REMOVED. SO NO POOLS ARE NOT PERMISSIBLE IN THE FRONT YARD OF PRINCIPLE STRUCTURES IN ANY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS AND THEREFORE NEGOTIATOR ARE POOL SCREEN ENCLOSURES. THE BOARD MAY WISH TO CONSIDER THE LARGE LIVE OAK IN THE CENTER OF THE LOT AND RELATIVELY HIGH ELEVATION OF THE FRONT YARD IN RELATIVE TO DADE STREET.

IT WOULD FORCE REMOVAL OF A LARGE LIVE OAK TREE THAT WAS INCORPORATED IN THE HOME DESIGN. THEREFORE STAFF REQUEST BOARD TAKE THE SITE FEATURES INTO THE APPLICANTS REQUEST.

MINIMUM VARIANCE, NO. POOLS ARE ALLOWED IN ALL RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES HOWEVER A NEWLY CONSTRUCTED PRIMARY DWELLING RECENTLY DESIGNED AND BUILT.

[00:40:01]

GENERAL HARM. ALLOWING THE POOL TO BE CONSTRUCTED UNTIL THE FRONT YARD WILL SAVE THE LARGE LIVE OAK TREE IN THE CENTER OF THE PROPERTY AND ALLOW THE OWNERS TO HAVE A PERMISSIBLE ACCESSORY USE WITH THE POOL.

PUBLIC INTEREST. THE 50 BY 100 CORNER LOT IS UNIQUE WITH IT HIGH ELEVATION ABOVE THE STREET.

EXISTING VEGETATION ON THE PROPERTY WHICH YOU'LL SEE IN THE EVIDENCE PROVIDED ALONG THE PROPERTY AND WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY PROVIDE A SCREEN FOR THOSE IMPROVEMENTS.

ALLOWING THE POOL ENCLOSURE IN THE FRONT YARD WILL PRESERVE A LARGE TREE THAT THE OWNER HAS DESIGNED THE HOME AROUND.

LOOKING AT THOSE SIX UNITE CRITERIA THERE ARE THREE THAT STAFF HA H TO FIND INCONSISTENT WITH THE CRITERIA AND HAD TO RECOMMEND DENIAL. I WANTED TO PULL UP THE PICTURES AND LOOK AT THE REQUEST AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE

BOARD HAD OF ME AT THIS TIME. >> ARE YOU PULLING UP THE GIS ON

THAT? >> I'LL ZOOM TO THE AERIAL ON

THE PROPERTY. >> THINKABLE STREET VIEW IS UP TO DATE SO WE CAN FOR THE MOST PART GET AN IDEA OF THE STREET AND I KNOW THE APPLICANT HAS A LOT OF GOOD MATERIALS TO PRESENT AS WELL. DOES BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF ME OR SHOULD WE LET THE APPLICANT MAKE THEIR

PRESENTATION. >> SINCE IT'S A CORNER LOT IS THERE ANY WAY THE ADDRESS CAN BE CHANGED INSTEAD OF THE DADE

STREET ADDRESS AND MOVE IT OVER? >> THAT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION.

SO THE PLAT OF RECORD HAS AN ORIENTATION NORTH SOUTH ORIENTATION. THAT'S HOW THE LOTS WERE ORIGINALLY CONSTRUCTED. WE LOOKED AT THAT AVENUE.

THAT WOULD CREATE A NONCONFORMING SITUATION OUT OF A NEWLY CONSTRUCTED HOME. IF THAT WAS PERMITTED OFF OF NORTH 6 STREET. WHEN YOU APPLY SETBACKS YOU COULDN'T BUILD ON THE LOT. IT WAS OUR RECOMMENDATION THAT YES WHILE YOU COULD MAKE A REQUEST AND THERE WAS A REQUEST MADE FOR AN ADDRESS CHANGE, WE WERE NOT GOING THE IGNORE FACT THAT THE HOME WAS PERMITTED WITH THAT NORTH SOUTH ORIENTATION.

>> THANK YOU. >> IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS

FOR CITY STAFF? >> THE TREE, DOES HA MEAN THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH SOMETHING TO TAKE IT DOWN IF THEY ARE GOING

TO BUILD THE POOL. >> IT'S NOT A DESIGNATED HERITAGE TREE. IT IS NOT ONE AT THE TIME.

SO THEY ARE WELCOME TO TAKE IT DOWN AND PLANT A FEW MORE TREES.

>> THE STATE OF FLORIDA IS KIND OF USURPED US ON A LOT OF TREE REMOVAL. SO THAT'S A WHOLE OTHER BALL OF

WAX. >> A SAFETY RISK TO PERSONS OR PROPERTY. THERE IS NO PERMIT OR FEE REQUIRED. YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO TO THE

CITY. >> THEY DID WORK WITH THE CITY TO KEEP IT. THEY CLEARLY DESIGNED THEIR HOUSE AROUND THE PROPERTY WORKED WITH LOCAL ARCHITECT AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LOT. AND THE CONTRACTOR CONVINCED THEM TO TAKE IT DOWN EVEN THOUGH THEY WORKED AROUND THE TREE.

WENT BACK AND FORTH ON IT AND THEY DECIDED TO KEEP THEIR DESIGN AND KEEP THE TRY. IT WAS NOT FUN FOR THE CONTRACTOR AND PROVIDE A LOT OF OBSTACLES BUT THEY DID WORK WITH

THE CITY ON IT. >> THIS IS THE NORTH SIXTH STREET SIDE AND PROPOSED PROPOSAL WOULD BE TO HAVE THE POOL LOCATED OFF OF THE DADE STREET SIDE.

[00:45:05]

>> IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD FOR THE CITY

STAFF? >> I WENT BY THERE AND LOOKED AT IT AND THE HILL IS YOU CAN'T REALLY APPRECIATE HOW STEEP IT IS. IT LOOKS STEEP.

BUT IT REALLY STEEP. YOU DON'T SEE THEIR FRONT BEYOND

REASONABLE DOUBT YARD HAD YOU F. >> IT SEEMS LIKE IT IS THE SIDE

YARD ON THAT. >> IT DOES.

AND THE OTHER FRONT LOOKS LIKE THE FRONT.

>> YES, IT DOES ON THAT. >> THAT'S THE LONG SIDE OF THE

LOT. >> THAT WAS A GOOD THOUGHT.

ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE WE HEAR FROM MR. AND MRS. SMITH? ALL RIGHT EITHER ONE OF YOU LIKE TO SPEAK?

>> MARTY SMITH, 5:10 DADE STREET.

LET ME SAY I APPRECIATE YOU GUYS ALL OF YOUR SERVICE.

AND ESPECIALLY THANK YOU FOR LETTING US COME BEFORE YOU TONIGHT. JUST TO GO A LITTLE BACKGROUND ON THE PROPERTY. OBVIOUSLY FROM LOOKING AT THE PICTURE, EVERY ONE USES SIXTH STREET AS THE ENTRANCE TO THE HOUSE. NOBODY COMES TO OUR HOUSE AND GOES TO DADE STREET. SO WE'RE BUILDING UP THE VEGETATION ON THAT SIDE THERE WITH TREES BECAUSE THAT IS ALSO THE SIDE THAT FACES WEST ROCK. AND A GOOD BIT OF NOISE AND LIGHT FROM THE MILL. SO WE'RE TRYING TO PUT UP A BIGGER BUFFER ON THAT SIDE. GOING BACK TO THE STRUCTURE AND BUILDING THE HOUSE, ORIGINALLY THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE 5:10 DADE STREET. BUT WITH THE OAK TREE AND NOT ONLY WAS A LOT OF EFFORT PUT INTO THAT BUT A LOT OF MONEY TO SAVE THAT TREE. WE WANTED TO SAVE THE TREE.

FOLKS THAT WERE INVOLVED WITH THE CITY PLANNING WANTED US TO SAVE THE TREE SO WE DID EVERYTHING WE COULD TO NOT CUT THE TREE DOWN. IT WAS IN THE BUILDING ENVELOPE SO WE COULD HAVE CUT THE TREE DOWN.

WE'RE GLAD WE KEPT IT. IT'S ATTRACTIVE TO THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE. WE ARE GLAD WE KEPT IT.

BUT AS YOU ALLSTATEED, IT'S IN MY OPINION IT'S VERY COMMON SENSE CAL THAT THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE IS SIXTH STREET AND THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE IS DADE STREET.

THAT IS THE GIST OF IT. I DO WANT TO RECOGNIZE WE DID HAVE NEIGHBORS COME OUT AND SUPPORT IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO ASK THEM. I THINK THEY ARE IN SUPPORT OF

THE PROJECT. >> WE'LL OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT SHORTLY. JUST SO SERVE CLEAR ON THAT, WHERE YOU HAVE GOT YOUR PATIO OUT THERE NOW AND YOUR FURNITURE, THAT IS WHERE YOU ARE PUTTING YOUR POOL?

>> CORRECT. LET ME ADD.

THIS IS A SMALL HOT TUB POOL. IT NOT A LARGE POOL.

IT'S 10 BY 16. IT'S ACTUALLY ALMOST THE SIZE OF THAT PATIO THAT IS ALREADY THERE.

WE'RE NOT REALLY ENCROACHING THAT MUCH FURTHER OUT ON TO THE

PROPERTY EDGE. >> OK.

>> ARE YOU GUYS GOING TO HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE ROOTS OF THE

TREES? >> THE GENTLEMAN THAT LOOKED AT PUTTING IN THE POOL DOESN'T THINK SO.

>> >> THANK YOU FOR SAVING THE TREE

ON THAT. >> WE'LL OPEN IT UP FOR THE PUBLIC COMMENTS IF THERE IS ANYBODY WHO IS A NEIGHBOR OR A.F.C.KED IN ANY WAY AS LONG AS YOU ARE A REPS DENT OF THE CITY

WE'D LOVE TO HEAR FROM YOU. >> LYNN SHUTTLE.

I LIVE RIGHT ACROSS WELL -- I LIVE OFF OF DADE.

I LIVE RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM THEM.

MY BREAKFAST WINDOW FACES WHERE THIS POOL IS GOING.

THERE IS ALL KIND OF FOLIAGE THERE NOW.

I CAN HARDLY EVEN SEE UP WHERE THEY HAVE THEIR PORCH AND ALL OF THEIR PATIO FURNITURE. AGAIN I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEM WITH HAVING THAT POOL THERE. AND I'M THE ONE THAT IS DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THEM. THAT'S JUST MY COMMENT ON THIS SITUATION. THANK YOU.

>> YES, MA'AM THANK YOU. >> DID YOU WANT TO SPEAK?

[00:50:08]

>> 331 NORTH CIRQUE. YOU CAN SEE THE PICTURE OF OUR HOUSE. ONE OF THOSE SHOTS THAT WAS SHOWN EARLIER. I THINK THAT I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OF YOU HAVE BEEN DOWN OUR DIRT ROAD ON SIXTH STREET AT THE END. EVERYTHING THAT THE SMITHS HAVE DONE HAS MADE AN INCREDIBLE DIFFERENCE IN THAT WHOLE AREA ON THAT WHOLE BLOCK. THE PICTURES UP HERE DON'T REALLY DO IT JUSTICE TODAY. THEY PUT IN A LOT OF VEGETATION.

A LOT OF PALMS AND SO ON. AND I'VE LOOKED AT THEIR PLANS WITH THEM. I'M EXCITED ABOUT THEM.

WE'RE HERE TO SUPPORT THEM AS WELL AS NEIGHBORS.

BECAUSE I CERTAINLY WANT TO REN FORCE THE FACT THAT WE WOULD NEVER WANT ANYTHING TO BE DONE THERE THAT WASN'T GOING TO BE GREAT FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND STREET.

THEIR PLANS ARE AGREEMENT I GRE. I REQUEST YOU APPROVE THIS.

BECAUSE I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A BEAUTIFUL STRUCTURE AND

BEAUTIFUL THING TO DO. >> BEFORE YOU SIT DOWN SIR.

WHAT WAS YOUR ADDRESS. 331 NORTH SIXTH.

>> CAN YOU SPIN THAT AROUND SO WE CAN SEE WHERE HIS HOUSE IS

JUST FOR THE RECORD? >> IT WAS IN ONE OF THE EARLIER PHOTOS. BEAUTIFUL SHOT OF MY FRONT

PORCH. >> WE'RE ON THE OTHER SIDE OBVIOUSLY SO WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT IT DIRECTLY.

BUT WE SPEND A LOT OF TIME OUT ON THEIR PATIO.

>> SO YOU ARE TRYING TO GET A POOL?

>> WE HAVE A POOL IN THE BACKYARD SO THAT'S NOT MY PURPOSE. ONE OTHER THING I WANTED TO REENFORCE THE IDEA OF FRONT YARD KEEPS COMING U. NO ONE WOULD EVER THINK WHERE THEY ARE PUTTING THIS POOL IS THEIR FRONT YARD. IT'S THAT SIMPLE.

>> THANK YOU SIR. >> WAS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO

WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? >> I'M LINDA TAYLOR AT 508 DADE STREET. I THINK LYNN WHO SPOKE EARLIER AND I ARE PROBABLY THE ONES THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE MOST AFFECTED BY THE POOL. WE ARE DIRECTLY NEXT DOOR TO THIS. WITH A HOME UNDER CONSTRUCTION.

WE HAVE WALKED UP THERE, LOOKED AT WHERE IT'S GOING TO BE.

WE HAVE LOOKED AT THE PLANS. WE ARE TOTALLY IN FAVOR OF THE VARIANCE AND LETTING THEM PUT THE POOL IN.

IT WILL ENHANCE THEIR PROPERTY, OUR PROPERTY BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH IT IS NEXT TO OUR FRONT YARD, IT IS OBVIOUSLY THEIR BACKYARD SO TO SPEAK. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? AND IT'S GOING TO LOOK GREAT. WE'VE LOOKED AT IT FROM THE STREET AND FROM EVERY ANGLE. WE ARE IN COMPLETELY IN FAVOR OF

IT. >> THANK YOU MA'AM.

>> WAS THERE -- >> TAMMY 322 NORTH THIRD TWO BLOCKS BACK. I WATCHED THAT HOUSE GO UP.

THEY DID AN IMPECCABLE JOB WORKING AROUND THAT TREE.

THEY KEEP THE PROPERTY UP REALLY NICELY.

I APPLAUD YOUR EFFORTS THERE. I LOVE WHAT YOU ARE DOING.

WE BOARD TER HISTORIC DISTRICT. EVEN WHEN I MOVED IN AND STARTED TAKING CARE OF MY HOUSE THERE GOES THE NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE WE'RE IMPROVING IT SO MUCH. HAVING A SCREENED POOL AS YOU COME INTO THE DISTRICT IS UNUSUAL.

YOU ARE NOT IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT WE'RE IN THE BORDER.

I ENCOURAGE MORE VEGETATION TO SHIELD IT FROM DADE STREET BECAUSE THAT IS THE ENTRANCE SO INTO THE HISTORIC DISTRICT.

SECONDLY IS IT'S THAT A VERY STEEP HILL AND WE GET A LOT OF RUNOFF. THAT MIGHT BE THROUGH TRC BUT FIGURING OUT WHERE IS THE WATER RUNNING BUT THEY DO A GREAT JOB.

>> THANKS. >> WAS THERE --

>> ANYONE ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? IF FROM THERE IS NO ONE ELSE WE'LL CLOSE OUT THE PUBLIC PORTION. MR. SMITH MAYBE IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE CLOSING REMARKS, YOU DON'T HAVE TO BUT PERHAPS

[00:55:01]

YOU COULD ADDRESS ONE OR TWO OF THE ITEMS SHE'S TALKING ABOUT.

>> IN ANSWERING HER QUESTION ABOUT THE VEGETATION, OUR GOAL IS TO HAVE A WALL OF VEGETATION ACROSS THAT SIDE.

SO YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SEE THE POOL FOR SEVERAL REASONS.

THE NOISE FROM WEST ROCK AND ALSO TO CLOSE UP THE POOL AREA.

WE'RE NOT IN THE HISTORIC AREA. AS DICK COUPLE'S HIS POOL IS RIGHT BEHIND HERE, THERE ARE OTHER POOLS AND ENCLOSURES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THERE CLOSER THAN WE ARE.

BUT OUR GOAL IS TO DO AS SHE REQUESTED.

>> YES, SIR. >>

>> I'M TINA SMITH. ANYBODY THAT KNOWS ME KNOWS THAT I LOVE PLANT. I LOVE TREES.

AND THE ONLY REASON THIS WHOLE SIDE I'VE ALREADY ADDED VEGETATION, I'VE ADDED PALM TREES AND ON THE FRONT SIDE I CAN'T DO ANYTHING TO THAT BECAUSE THAT IS WHERE THEY WILL ENTER IT AND I CAN'T MESS WITH MY TREES.

SOMEBODY ASKED IF I WAS GOING TO MESS WITH THE ROOT SYSTEM.

WHERE THAT PAD IS RIGHT NOW, IT'S ONLY 10 BY 16.

IT ONLY GOES 40 INCHES DEEP. IT'S NOT A TRUE POOL.

IT IS A HOT TUB IN THE GROUND. BUT ON THAT FRONT SIDE TO BE ABLE TO GET TO THAT PIECE OF DIRT TO BE ABLE TO DIG THAT HOLE, I HAVE TO KEEP THAT FRONT SECTION CLEARED OUT BECAUSE THAT IS THE EASIEST SLOPE INTO THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY WHICH IS ON SIXTH STREET. SO WHAT I'M DOING IS I'M GOING IN BETWEEN TWO TREES AND THEN THEY ARE GOING TO DIG THEY ARE GOING TO TAKE THAT PATIO UP AND DIG RIGHT THERE WHERE THE PATIO IS. AND THEN I'M GOING TO FILL THAT WHOLE SECTION TO THE RIGHT OF THE PARKING OVER TO THE CORNER I'M GOING TO NAIL WHOLE I'D. MY HUSBAND DOESN'T KNOW IT YET WITH AZALEAS. I LOOK THAT BUFFER AND I THINK IT LOOKS NICE. THAT'S WHERE I'M GOING.

>> THANK YOU. >> IS THERE ANYONE ELSE BEFORE

WE CLOSE OUT THAT PORTION? >> WE'LL CLOSE OUT ALL OF THAT.

BOARD DISCUSSION? HOW DO WE READ THIS?

WHAT ARE WE THINKING? >> I THINK IT'S NOT GOING TO BOTH TER -- WHEN THE NEIGHBORS TELL YOU THEY LIKE IT.

IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT'S GOING TO BE OBNOXIOUS AT ALL.

TO ME WE'RE NOT GIVING A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE.

>> I WAS GLAD TO SEE THEM SAVE THE TREE.

AND IT DID PERK MY EARS UP WHEN THEY TALKED ABOUT PUTTING A POOL IN THE FRONT YARD. ANY OTHER BOARD DISCUSSION? ANYBODY GOT A THOUGHT ON THERE? ANYBODY GOT A THOUGHT?

>> SEEMS LIKE A GOOD IDEA TO ME. >> WOULD SOMEBODY LIKE TO MAKE A

MOTION ON THAT? >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION.

THE BOA MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW THAT BOA CASE 2020-02 AS PRESENTED IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO WARRANT APPROVAL AT THIS TIME.

AND THAT BOA CASE NUMBER 2020-02 NEATS FOLLOWING CRITERIA FOR GRANTING THE VARIANCE. SPECIAL CONDITIONS, SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, LITERAL INTERPRETATION.

MINIMUM VARIANCE, GENERAL HARMONY AND PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE REASONS FOR MY FINDINGS ARE I BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE DOING A VERY NICE JOB IMPROVING THAT AREA AND I THINK IT'S THE SIDE

YARD. >> IT LOOKS LIKE THE SIDE YARD.

>> I SECOND. >> I GOT A FIRST AND A SECOND.

ARE YOU HAPPY WITH HER EXPLANATION ON THAT?

>> YES. >> WILL YOU CALL THE VOTE?

[01:00:02]

>> YES. >> APPROVE.

>> YES. >> YES.

>> YES. >> SO YOUR MOTION PASSES.

JUST GIVE JACOB A FEW DAYS AND LET HIM CATCH HIS BREATH AND GET OUT FROM UNDER ALL OF THIS TONIGHT AND HE'LL HAVE YOUR

PAPERWORK FOR YOU. >> YOU ARE ALL WELCOME TO COME

SWIM. >> THAT'S GREAT.

>> FROM YOUR LIPS. >> THAT PUTS US BACK TO

[Items 4.1 & 9]

MR. DAVIS WHO WAS GRACIOUS AND KIND ENOUGH TO EXTEND SOUTHERN HOSPITALITY ON THAT. THE BOARD APPRECIATES THAT.

THANK YOU SIR. >> GOOD EVENING.

I'M COLLIDE DAVIS. A A RESIDENT.

I LIVE AT 2040 OAK FORREST DRIVE.

BASICALLY I'M GOING TO PASS THE BALL TO MRS. DANA , THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER. YOU HAVE MATERIALS THAT WERE SUBMITTED SUBSEQUENT TO THE LAST HEARING IN RESPONE TO QUESTIONS AND REQUESTS FROM MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

AND SO BASICALLY WE'RE HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE BASED ON THE MATERIALS YOU HAVE RECEIVED.

I BELIEVE THAT OUR CITY STAFF HAS ALSO GIVEN YOU AN ADDITIONAL SHEET OF INFORMATION ON MATERIAL FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

AND I'M SURE Y'ALL DON'T WANT TO LISTEN TO ME.

>> THANK YOU MR. DAVIS. >> DO YOU WANT TO GO THROUGH

THAT PLEASE? >> YES.

I'D LIKE TO -- I APOLOGIZE. >> FOR THE RECORD WE WANT TO BE SURE THAT THE BOARD THIS TIME IS EXACTLY WHAT MRS. BACK SAID.

IT'S ME, STEPHEN, MR. GLEESEN, TISSUE AND BARRY.

>> YES THAT'S RIGHT. >>

>> JUST TO REMIND THE BOARD THERE ARE NO RULES THAT WOULD PREVENT YOU -- KNOWING YOU HAVE SOME MEMORY THAT SOMEBODY SAID SOMETHING AND THAT WAS THE CASE THEN, IT'S OK TO DO THAT.

>> THANK YOU. >> OK SORRY ABOUT THAT.

>> AND JUST REITERATING AS MR. DAVIS STATED THERE WAS SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION PROVIDED WHICH ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS THAT THE BOARD WAS LOOKING FOR.

I DID PROVIDE JUST A BRIEF ADDITION WHICH I'D LIKE TO READ INTO THE RECORD. AS PROVIDED IN THE CLOSING STATEMENT OF THE JANUARY 15 REPORT STAFF SUGGEST THE BOARD CONSIDER THE PLAN DEFINITION OF BUFFER IN THEIR FINDINGS OF FACT. QUESTIONS AND INTERPRETATIONS ARISE GUIDANCE SHOULD BE SOUTH THROUGH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

INTENT IS TO PROVIDE A BUFFER OF NATIVE VEGETATION.

OUR POLICY STATES WHERE NEW VEGETATION IS REQUIRED PLANTS OR GROUND COVER APPROPRIATE TO A TRANSITION AREA SHALL BE USE.

WEST ROCK PROPOSED REPLANNING THE DISTURBED AREA WITH NATIVE VEGETATION TO MEET THE 2020 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

PROTECT THE WETLAND FROM ADVERSE IMPACTS SUCH AS STORMWATER RUNOFF AND EROSION WHICH WOULD OCCUR IF THE WALL WAS NOT IN PLACE. I PUT THOSE TWO DEFINITIONS UNTIL THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH YOU CAN SEE THE DEFINITION IN THE COMP PLAN IS MORE BROAD RANGING AND SPECIFICALLY SPEAKS TO ALLOWING WALLS WITHIN BUFFERS AND THAT THEY ARE LAND AREA AND LANDSCAPING PROVIDED TO SEPARATE A USE WHICH MAY HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON ADJACENT USE OR NATURAL RESOURCE.

BUFFERS MAY INCLUDE PHYSICAL BARRIERS, WE WERES, HEDGES, LANDSCAPE, COVER, WALLS, FENCES AND LAND AREA OF DENSE VEGETATION. AND THAT'S WHAT I'D LIKE TO ADD AND TURN IT OVER TO THE BOARD AND THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. >> SORTING THROUGH ALL OF THIS

[01:05:04]

STUFF THEY'VE GIVEN US. I DON'T SEE ANYTHING ABOUT THAT IN THERE. DID THEY SEND ANYTHING TO THAT

EFFECT? >> THERE IS MORE DETAILED PLANS IN THERE AND ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE PLAN WITH MORE SPECIFIC INFORMATION. I LET THE APPLICANT SPEAK TO.

THAT. >> IT'S ONE OF THE EMAILS THAT WAS SUBMITTED WITH THE SUPPLEMENTAL PACKAGE?

>> THE DRAWING DATED MARCH 1 OF 18.

BE THE SAME DRAWINGS. I'VE SUBMITTED IT TWICE.

THIS WAS BEFORE IT WAS SEALED AND HAD THE AS BUILT.

>> I DON'T SEE ANY AS BUILT THERE.

I DON'T SEE THE DEPTHS. I DON'T SEE THAT.

I DON'T SEE DESIGN. >> MORE DETAIL ON THE

CONSTRUCTION OF THE WALL. >> THERE WAS THE INITIAL PLAN AND THEN THERE WAS REVISED PLAN THAT WAS NEVER SUBMITTED AND NEVER CAME TO US. IT DEPENDING ON WHAT THE DATE ON THIS IS. WHERE DID THIS COME FROM?

>> THESE ARE THE PLANS. >> THAT IS WHAT WE SUBMITTED WITH THE COMPLETION PACKAGE WITH THE BILLING PERMIT.

>> OK. >> THE CITY HAS THESE DRAWINGS.

THAT IS OUR AS BILL. >> THE QUESTION WAS HOW DEEP

WHERE R THE PILINGS. >> THE DESIGN AS FAR AS THE DESIGN GOES, DO YOU HAVE THE DESIGN?

>> THIS SHOWS THE DESIGN. >> WE HAVE PICTURES.

>> WHO DESIGNED IT TO TAKE THE FORCE OF -- ENTER THE EVENING NEARING FIRM THAT DID THE PROJECT.

>> >> DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY OTHR QUESTIONS?

>> WOULD IT HELP TO YOU SEE THE PICTURE OF IT?

>> NO. >> IT APPEARS LIKE WE'VE GOT MAJORITY OF THE PLANT TYPES IDENTIFIED.

THERE WAS NO PLANTING PLAN THAT IDENTIFIED WHERE THINGS WERE

GOING TO GO. >> WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT COMPLETED IN TIME WHEN HE SUBMITTED THE AGENDA.

WE CREATED IT. I HAVE A PRESENTATION TO SHOW YOU THOSE PICTURES WITH THOSE DRAWINGS.

>> OBVIOUSLY THAT TYPE CAN BE INTRODUCED.

>> YES HE HAS IT. >> WOULD YOU LIKE TO GO THROUGH

THAT NOW IF. NOW? >> LET'S GET BACK TO RUNNING

[01:10:07]

THIS LIKE WE NORMALLY DO JACOB. CAN YOU PULL UP THE ORIGINAL PACKET FROM LAST MONTH THAT SHOWS EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE ASKING FOR? LET'S REFRESH EVERYBODY'S MEMORY ON THAT. AND THEN LET'S GO OUT FROM THERE ONCE WE GET BACK TO EXACTLY WHAT THEIR VARIANCE REQUEST IS.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? >> SURE.

>> CAN I ASK A QUESTION? WHEN I'M LOOKING AT THE PLAN HERE, I SEE I THINK IT SAYS YOU'VE GOT 15-FOOT BUFFER BETWEEN YOUR SHEET PILING AND THE WETLAND LINE.

>> YES, SIR. >> IN ADDITION TO THAT WHEN YOU PUT IN THE CONSTRUCTION JUST THE CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGY YOU'D HAVE TO TEAR UP THE CONSERVATION BUFFER AND IT'S GOT A NOTE HERE WETLAND BUFFER SHOULD BE GRADED BACK TO DEVELOPED ELEVATIONS

CORRECT? >> IN ORDER TO INSTALL, WE OF COURSE HAD TO DISTURB IT AND WE DISTURBED IT WHILE WE WERE BUILDING THE RETAINING WALL. IT HAS SINCE BEEN PUT BACK TO

GRADE. >> THE BUFFER THAT WAS THERE IS NOT THERE BUT YOU ARE GOING TO RE-ESTABLISH A BUFFER IN THAT

WHOLE AREA. >> THE BUFFER IS THERE AND THE BUFFER IS DONE. IT'S BEING A BUFFER.

IT'S A BUFFER RIGHT NOW. IT JUST DOESN'T HAVE SUBSTANTIAL PLANTING AND WE WANT TO PUT IN THERE.

WE WANT TO MAKE IT NICER. >> THAT WAS THE IDEA.

>> TECHNICALLY IT'S DONE. IT'S A BUFFER.

IT'S GOT NATIVE GLASSES AND WHAT WE PLANTED IS GONE WHICH IT'S

ALL NATURAL NOW. >> I WANTED TO ASK YOU, I THINK WE WERE LOOKING FOR THE MEASUREMENTS ALONG THE BORDER THERE BECAUSE THERE IS AN AVERAGE OR THERE WAS.

THERE IS MENTION OF TAKING AN AVERAGE FOR THE ACTUAL BUFFER.

AND I THINK WE WERE LOOKING FOR THE ACTUAL FOOTAGE AND DIMENSION FOR ALL ALONG. NOT THE AVERAGE BUT FROM THE

WHOLE -- >> THERE WAS A DRAWING THAT HAD

SQUARE FOOTAGE. >> I DON'T KNOW IF IT SOMETHING

NEW BECAUSE I HAVEN'T SEEN THAT. >> THE ONE I HIGHLIGHTED ON THE

WALL. >> BRING THAT UP AS WELL.

TO GO BACK TO AS BUILT. ENGINEERING AS BUILT REQUIREMENTS. I WAS THINKING WHAT WE'VE GOT MERE AS FAR AS EVIDENCE IS ATTACHMENT ONE WHICH WAS SUBMITTED LAST TIME IS AN AS BUILT SURVEY LOCATION AS BUILT.

IT NOT AN AS BUILT ENGINEERING PILES THEMSELVES BUT SHOWS THE LOCATION OF THE WALL AND SOME SPOT ELEVATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH

THE WORK. >> BUT IT DOESN'T LOOKING AT THAT, I CAN'T TELL THE DEPOSITION OF THAT WALL.

>> ABSOLUTELY NOT. IT'S NOT GOING THE GET TO THE

DEPTH OF THE WALL. >> I CAN'T TELL WHETHER IT WAS DESIGNED TO DO WHAT IT SUPPOSED TO.

>>. I RECOGNIZE THOSE ARE GREAT AND PERTINENT QUESTIONS RELATED TO THIS PROJECT.

THE BOARD AND THAT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THAT WALL THAT'S NOT REALLY IN OUR SCOPE AS TO THAT.

>> WAS THAT ALL REVIEWED BY THE ST. JOHN'S WATER DISTRICT? DID THEY SEE THE WALL AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WALL?

>> WE DIDN'T HAVE TO GET A PERMIT BECAUSE WE MET ALL THEIR REQUIREMENTS. WE HAVE A STORMWATER PERMIT.

WE NEVER HAD TO GET A WET LAND OR BUILDING OR DO ANY OF THAT BECAUSE WE MET ALL OF THE CRITERIA.

>> BUT THEY KNEW YOU WERE BUILDING A WALL?

>> YES. >> THEY DIDN'T GET SPECIFIC AS

TO CONSTRUCTION OF THE WALL? >> THEY WERE OUT ON SITE FOR THE WETLAND DELINEATION. WE DISCUSSED OUR PLANS WITH THEM. AT THE LAST MEETING HE WROTE A MEETING AND APPROVED THE WALL AND SAID WHAT A GREAT BUFFER SYSTEM WE BUILT. AND IN THAT SITUATION IT'S A VERY GOOD DESIGN AND IT'S DOING WHAT IT WAS DESIGNED TO DO.

>> I GUESS THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.

I WOULDN'T THINK THEY WOULD JUST APPROVE A WALL WITHOUT KNOWING

WHAT IT WAS. >> THE CITY HAS MORE STRICT --

>> RIGHT. I'M JUST TRYING TO -- ENTER AND AGAIN WITH RELATIONSHIP BUFFER, I DON'T KNOW THAT THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT IS GOING TO GET INTO THE ENGINEERING DESIGN OF THE WALL. THERE IS DOCUMENTATION THEY KNEW ABOUT THE WALL AND APPROVED OF THE WALL.

IN MY SIDE PLANNING AND ZONING WE'RE NOT LOOK AT THE

[01:15:01]

CONSTRUCTION. THIS REQUEST IS RELATED TO THE BUFFER. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DESIGN OR ANYTHING RELATED TO. THAT.

>> SO LET ME ASK A QUESTION. YOU HAVE 15 FEET THERE SO SWIFT MUD AND ALL THOSE DIFFERENT AGENCIES ALLOW YOU TO DO AN AVERAGE WITH A 15-FOOT MINIMUM. AND THE CITY DOESN'T.

THE POSITION THE CITY HAS TAKEN. IF YOU ARE AVERAGING IT, WHERE ARE YOU PICKING UP THE ADDITIONAL BUFF TORE MAKE THAT A

15-FOOT? >> THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDES

HAVE A LOT MORE AREA. >> AND THIS IS SHOWN SOMEWHERE?

>> WE MAINTAINED A 35-FOOT AVERAGE WHEN WE PULLED UP THE

SQUARE FOOTAGE. >> CAN YOU PULL THAT UP?

>> YES, SIR. >> WHILE HE'S DOING HA LET ME ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. WHAT WAS SUBMITTED WAS AN EMAIL FROM FLORIDA DEP FROM MATTHEW TO DANA AND I'LL PARAPHRASE.

IT SAYS MORE SIGNIFICANTLY FACILITIES IS DESIGNED TO NOT DISCHARGE STORMWATER ACROSS THE BUFFER NOR TO THE WETLAND AS RETAINING WALL PREVENT THIS. THE INCLUSION OF LENGTH OF RETAINING WALL WITHIN THE BUFFER OR WITHIN 25 FEET OF THE WETLAND ALSO APPEARS TO BE CONSISTENT THE INTENT OF THE RULE WHICH ALLOWS FOR DRAINAGE STRUCTURES WITHIN A BUFFER.

TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION I THINK THE DEP DID APPROVE THE WALL AND THE DESIGN OF IT. AND THAT'S IN THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS WE HAD LAST TIME. THE DATE IS OCTOBER 17 OF 2019.

SQUARE FOOTAGE IS OVER THERE. YOU ZOOM IN AND THE HIGHLIGHT IS

WHAT IS ON THE RETAINING WALL. >> ARE YOU INDICATING THAT YOUR

NINE FOOT IN SURPLUS FROM THE 2? >> THAT IS THE --

>> BECAUSE IT'S FLAIRING. >> THAT IS THE 25-FOOT LINE FROM

THE WETLAND LINE. >> AND YOU ARE SAYING YOU ARE

FOUR FEET FROM THAT ONE FOOT. >> THAT IS YOUR 25-FOOT LINE.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? >> WE'RE NOT PAST IT.

THAT IS THE LINE. >> SO THE LINE IS ON THE RETAINING WALL. IT'S ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE

FENCE. >> WHAT IS THE ORANGE LINE WITH THE DIMENSIONS, WHAT IS THAT REFERRING TO?

GO ON DOWN PLEASE. >> THAT IS THE HIGHLIGHTED PART.

THE HIGHLIGHTED PART, MY ORANGE LINE IS THAT HIGHLIGHTED PART.

>> TELLING YOU HOW MUCH IT'S MEASURING FROM THE CONCRETE CAP TO THE 25-FOOT. THE 25-FOOT AVERAGE WHEN YOU GO TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH OF THE AVERAGE THERE, IS A LOT MORE A WHOLE LOT MORE THAN 25 FEET FROM THE WETLAND MARK TO OUR PROJECT.

ALL OF THAT AREA GETS ADDED INTO YOUR AVERAGE.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE 25-FOOT AVERAGE.

YOU ARE TAKING AND THE LINE IS THE 25-FOOT MINIMUM.

>> WHAT IS THE MINIMUM AND THE MAXIMUM I GUESS ALONG THAT WHOLE AREA? AVERAGING, SO WHAT IS THE

MINIMUM AND THE MAX? >> THAT IS WHO THIS IS ABOUT.

THE CRITERIA IS MORE STRINGENT FOR THE CITY.

THE STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ARE 15-FOOT MINIMUM.

CITY IS A 15-FOOT MINIMUM -- 25-FOOT MINIMUM.

IS. >> WHAT ARE THESE PLANS

INDICATING? >> THAT LINE IS THE 25-FOOT

MINIMUM. >> IT LOOKS LIKE SOME ARE MORE

NARROW. >> YOU HAVE TO GO OUT TO WHERE THE SILT FENCE IS. THAT THE S THE WETLAND LINE.

WE'VE NEVER BEEN IN THE WETLAND. 15-FOOT IS WHERE THE CONCRETE IN SOME AREAS. WE HAVE MORE THAN 15 FEET IN MOST OF THEM. THIS ORANGE LINE IS 15 FEET FROM

THE WETLAND LINE. >> THE WETLAND IS NOT A PERFECT CIRCLE. IT VARIOUS.

[01:20:01]

SO THE 25-FOOT. THIS ORANGE LINE IS THE 25-FOOT DISTANCE FROM WETLANDS DELINEATION LINE THAT WAS APPROVED BY FLORIDA DEP AND ST. JOHN'S RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. THAT'S THE 25-FOOT LINE FROM THE WETLAND DELINEATION. YOU CAN SEE THE WALL IS JUST INSIDE OF. THAT IF THE WALL HAD BEEN HERE WE'D BE 25 FEET FIN MUM. BECAUSE THE WALL IS HERE, IT'S WITHIN THE 25-FOOT MINUTE MATCHUP.

IT'S NEVER LESS THAN 15 FEET. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? IT'S JUST A SMALL SLIVER OF AREA THAT IS 25-FOOT LINE BETWEEN THE WETLAND DELINEATION THAT VARIOUS LIKE THIS AND THE 25-FOOT.

THERE IS A BETTER PICTURE THAT SHOWS.

>> ARE YOU GOING TO PLANT ON BOTH SIDE OF THE WALL?

>> YES. >> IN THOSE AREAS?

>> YES. >> SO WHEN YOU REPLANT IT WILL BE 25 FEET BUT A WALL IN THE MIDDLE OF IT BASICALLY?

>> YES. >> THAT'S WHAT JACOB SAID.

WALLS ANTED FENCES, ALL OF THESE ARE ALLOWED TO BE IN THE BUFFER.

TO HOLD YOUR BUFFER SYSTEM AND MAKE IT BE SUBSTANTIAL TO FLORIDA WEATHER. ALL OF THIS IS YOU ARE ALLOWED TO DO THIS IN A BUFFER. AND THAT'S ALL WE'VE DONE IS ENHANCE AID BUFFER SYSTEM THAT WILL PROVIDE PROTECTION TO THE AMELIA RIVER. I THINK IT WILL HELP TO PUT UP OUR VEGETATION PLAN AND YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THIS.

>> I WANT TO MAKE SURE MR. MILLER YOU REQUESTED THAT WE GO BACK. WHERE DID I GO OFF TRACK?

HOW DO I RIGHT THIS? >> EVERYBODY IS FINE.

LET'S TAP THE BRAKES ON WHAT YOU GUYS HAVE FOR A SECOND.

LET'S GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION.

I THINK WE'RE GETTING OFF ON SOME THINGS THIS BOARD HAS NO AUTHORITY OVER. MAYBE WE'RE GETTING TOO BROAD.

>> I DIDN'T GET A GOOD ENOUGH RECAP ON THE I HAVE OF WHAT YOU WANTED ME TO GO BACK TO. I'M SORRY I'VE BEEN CLICKING THROUGH AND NOW I HAVE 25 MILLION TABS OPEN.

I'VE GOT ONE SCREEN. I'M USED TO WORKING OFF OF TWO.

I'M SCATTERED HERE TO SAY THE LEAST.

>> NOW YOU KNOW HOW US OLD FOLKS FEEL ALL THE TIME.

>> YOU DON'T FORGET PASSWORD THOUGH.

>> WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT IS THE CITY'S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION THAT HAS A STRICT 25-FOOT BUFFER REQUIREMENT. I WANT TO RECAP, WE ALL KNOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WEST ROCK. VARIANCE REQUEST IS FROM LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 3.03B BUFFERING REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO WETLAND AND SPECIFICALLY THE SECTION THAT REFERS TO ALL NEW DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO WETLAND SURFACE BODY WATER NATIVE VEGETATION 25 FEET AROUND WETLAND AND AROUND NATURAL WATER BODIES TO PREVENT EROSION, RUNOFF IN AREAS OF HABITAT.

AS WE ALL KNOW WEST ROCK'S INDUSTRIAL FACILITY I2 ZONED.

INDUSTRIAL LAND USE. AND THE DISCREPANCY COMES IN WHAT WAS ALLOWED AND WHERE THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT ALLOWS FOR AN AVERAGE WITH CITY'S STRICT 25 FEET, KEY COMPONENT TO THAT IS THIS WALL AND THE DISTURBANCE OF THAT BUFFER WITHIN THE 25 FEET OF THE BUFFER.

AND KIND OF THE ORANGE LINE THAT WAS REFERRED TO IN THE PICTURE IS THE FURTHER EXTENT OF WHERE THE 25-FOOT WOULD BE IN THAT ENCROACHMENT. AND IT MATCHES ITS INTENDED TO DEPICT WHERE IT'S UNEVEN. GOT OFF TRACK AND NOW I WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M GIVING YOU WHAT YOU WANT.

A REDUCTION IN THE 25 FEET FROM LAND TO BUILDING ãSPECIFICALLY TO ALLOW FOR THIS WALL AND AREA

[01:25:09]

CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THAT AREA TO BE REPLANTED WITH NATIVE VEGETATION ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT WAS THERE AND CONSISTENT WITH OUR CODE REQUIREMENT TO ALLOW FOR BUFFERS TO BE

RESTORED WITH BUFFER VEGETATION. >> DIMENSION AS WELL AS TO

ALLOW THE RETAINING WALL TO BE WITHIN THE BUFFER. >> IT WILL ALLOW FOR THE 15 FOOT AVERAGE THAT IT APPLIES. IT'S NOT AS STRICT AND THAT'S WHY THAT LINE AND DIMENSION VARIES. I THINK WE'VE GOT THE DOCUMENTATION THAT SHOWS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE IN THE AREA OF DISTURBANCE. I SEE IT AS A REDUCTION TO ALLOW FOR THAT 15 FOOT AVERAGE. THAT DIMENSION, THE GIVEN NUMBER IS NOT THE DIMENSION TO ALLOW FOR THE AVERAGING OF THAT BUFFER CONSISTENT WITH THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

PROVISION. >> ALL RIGHT, SO, RECAP WHERE WE WERE.

WERE NOT SUPPOSED TO DO ANYTHING. AS I REMEMBER THE LDC HAS A SENTENCE OR 2 DESCRIBING THAT. CAN YOU READ THAT FOR THE RECORD WEEK.

>> THERE'S ADDRESS DISCREPANCY IT DEFINED BUFFER THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE BUFFER DEFINITION WITHIN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS MORE IN DEPTH. SPECIFICALLY IT SPEAKS TO BUFFERS FOR NOT ONLY, YOU'VE GOT 2 TYPES OF BUFFERS. YOU'VE GOT BUFFERS FOR NATURAL RESOURCE AND BUFFERS BETWEEN VARYING USES OF INTENSITY AND TYPE THROUGH ZONING AND SUCH. BUFFER DEFINITION AND LANDFILL MCLEOD BREEDS, A LANDSCAPED AREA WHICH MAY INCLUDE WALLS, FENCES, PER, GROUNDCOVER AND OTHER PLANT MATERIAL. BUFFER AND THE PLAN TO PROVIDE A USE THAT MAY HAVE A NEGATIVE USE FOR NATURAL USE OR RESOURCE. IT GOES ON TO SAY BUT MAY BE ALLOWED WITHIN THOSE BUFFERS. SECTION 3 POINT 03. THE SECTION WERE SEEKING VARIANCE ON GOING BACK TO THESE TOWNS. DOESN'T SAY, IT SAYS PROVIDE A BUFFER ZONE OF NATIVE VEGETATION. IT DOES NOT SAY A WETLAND PROTECTION ZONE, THAT'S WHERE THERE IS THE DISCREPANCY. AND NON-SPECIFIC.

LOOKING AT THIS AND MOVING FORWARD WITH CODE REVISIONS, WHAT WE WANT TO DO TO MAKE SURE IT'S ABSOLUTELY CLEAR AS TO PROVIDE A WETLAND TIVE VEGETATI IS WHAT WE DEFINED.

TO ME THAT WOULD BE CRYSTAL CLEAR. THIS WHILE THE INTENT AND WHAT WE ARE APPLYING IS A 25 FOOT OFFER BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE BELIEVE THE INTENT IS HERE.

SO WE HAVE THESE 2 DEFINITION OF BUFFER IN THE LAND TO FILMIC CODE.

SADIE MAY HAVE PHYSICAL BARRIERS WITHIN THOSE BUFFERS. AND THAT THEY ARE ALSO INTENDED TO PROVIDE SEPARATION FROM NATURAL OR TO PROVIDE REDUCED NEGATIVE IMPACT ON NATURAL RESOURCES. WITH THIS PERFORMER AND WALL ARE DOING WITH THE REPLANTED WITH IT NATIVE VEGETATION AND RESTORING THE BUFFER. TO ME IT'S MEANING IT'S GETTING TOWARDS TO ATTEND THE BUFFER AND THAT'S THAT'S THE 3 DEFINITIONS OF BUFFER AND YOUR

CONSIDERATION. >> DO WE HAVE A PERMIT? >> AS PART OF THE APPLICATION MATERIALS, YES THAT WAS NOT THE ORIGINAL PACKET. THIS MORNING'S PROVED THROUGH AN OUTSIDE THIRD PARTY REVIEW AND DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED. THE REVIEWED FOR BILLING CODE OR VIOLENCE THERE WAS A PERMIT SUBMITTED AND THERE'S CHECKS THAT HAVE BEEN ON THE BUILDING PERMIT SITE. THROUGH THIRD-PARTY REVIEW OF THE ANSWER IS YES THERE IS A

PERMIT FOR THIS PACKER. >> WAS AT PERMIT CLOSED OUT AND INSPECTED BY THE CITY?

>> THE PERMIT HAS EVERYTHING THAT'S NEEDED TO CLOSE THE BUILDING PERMIT MELT.

[01:30:02]

ALL THE BIT TO BUILDING MATERIALS AND INSPECTION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED AND TAKEN CARE

OF ON THE BUILDING PERMIT SIDE. >> SO HAS IT BEEN INSPECTED AND THAT BUILDING PERMIT CLOSED

OUT? >> IS BEEN EXPECTED BY III PARTY PROVIDER.

PERMIT IS WAITING TO BE CLOSED OUT AS PART OF THIS REQUEST. THE PERMIT FOR THAT STACKER

ITSELF IS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. >> SOON NOBODY FROM THE CITY

HAS BEEN OUT TO SEE WHAT'S GOING ON? >> THERE HAVE BEEN CITY

REPRESENTATIVES OUT TO THE SITE. >> BUT RECENTLY TO SEE THE

BUFFER? >> YES. >> I'M HAVING A DIFFICULT TIME WITH THIS ONE SECTION IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THE ALL NEW DEVELOPMENT IN THE REDEVELOPMENT AND THEN THERE'S A NUMBER OF 50 FEET FROM THE NATURAL WATER BODIES.

I KNOW THAT THOSE DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN ST. JOHN'S AND THE CITY.

IT'S A BIG FACILITY. IT'S A CONCERN. HAVING THE RUNOFF.

>> WE'VE HAD ãOUT FOR THE STORM WATER AND MICHELLE AND JACOB AND WHO ELSE?

WE'VE HAD QUITE A FEW PEOPLE FROM THE CITY, TO OUR FACILITY. >> THE 50 FEET IS FROM THE WATER BODY NOT THE DASH. WERE WAY MORE THAN 50 FEET FROM THE WATER BODY.

THAT'S WHAT THE 50 FEET IS REFERRING TO I BELIEVE. >> THERE IS ACTUAL RAILROAD TRACKS AND MUCH FARTHER THAN THE RIVER FROM THESE WETLANDS. WERE VERY FAR AWAY FROM THE

RIVER. >> I THINK WE ASKED THAT THE BOARD MEMBERS COULD SEE WHAT WAS GOING ON OUT THERE AND YOUR RESPONSE WAS WELL THERE'S A BIG SAFETY ISSUE TO GET PERMISSION.

AND THEN THE THING JUST KIND OF DIED. HAS THE CITY BEEN OUT SINCE THEN? WHO AT THE CITY IS LOOKING AT IT?

>> AGAIN THIS WAS ALL PERMITTED AND DESIGNED. >> SINCE THE LAST MEETING?

>> NO SIR NOT SINCE THE LAST MEETING. I'VE NOT BEEN OUT THERE.

I AN AUTHOR WITH ON DURING DESOLATE AND OTHER OFFICIALS AND WALKED THAT WALL AND SAW WHAT WAS BUILT THERE. NOT SINCE THE LAST MEETING. NO SIR.

>> ANDRE HAS BEEN THERE AND JAKE HAS BEEN THERE, MICHELLE FORSTER THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER HAS BEEN THERE AND TOOK PICTURES. THIS IS THE PERMIT RIGHT HERE FOR THE CITY FROM THE CITY. WE HAVE A PERMIT. THAT IS THE SIZE OF THE PACKET.

ALTHOUGH THERE WERE MORE DIAGRAMS SUBMITTED. >> GOING BACK TO THE PICTURE YOU SAID YOU WERE GONNA PLAN ON BOTH SIDES OF THE WALL. YOU KNOW HOW FAR?O YOU HAVE DIMENSIONS?'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS MAY BE A DUMB QUESTION BUT IT SEEMS TO ME IF THEY PLAN ON BOTH SIDES OF THE WALL THEY MAY HAVE THE 25 FEET.

SO THEN THE VARIANCE ARE JUST ASKING TO HAVE A WALL IN THE MIDDLE.

IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES SIR. THERE RESTORING A LANDSCAPE BUFFER MADE OF VEGETATION AND TO 25 FEET WHICH WILL GO ON BOTH SIDES, BE RESTORED ON BOTH SIDES OF THE WALL. THEY'VE GOT VEGETATION TO SHOW THAT.

THE ORANGE LINE IS REPRESENTING WHAT IS HIGHLIGHTED. THEN WHERE THE 25 FEET IS APPLIED. BUT YES, THERE'S A PLAN TO RESTORE THE VEGETATION AND THAT

DOES INCLUDE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE WALL. >> IT MAY HELP TO SEE THE

VEGETATED PRESENTATION. >> I CAN ANSWER A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VEGETATION

OF WHERE THE WALL IS. >> JACOB WHILE YOU'RE OUT HERE, THANK YOU SIR.

IN LINEAR NUMBERS WHAT PERCENTAGE IS OF THAT WALL IS WITHIN THAT 25 FEET SETBACK,

ABOUT? >> IS IT 10 PERCENT? I CAN'T SEE THE NUMBERS.

>> LINEAR PROBABLY ABOUT HALF. >> AND LOOKS LIKE IT'S A GREAT DEAL.

WHAT'S THE MAXIMUM ENCROACHMENT? >> 10 FEET.

>> SIR? >> 10. >> 9 FEET 10 INCHES.

[01:35:02]

>> THAT'S NOW OR AFTER YOU REPLANT? >> AFTER WE REPLANT NONE.

>> WHEN THEY REPLANT THEY WON'T BE ENCROACHING AT ALL 25 FEET. IS THAT RIGHT?

>> CORRECT. THERE WILL BE A WALL WITHIN THAT 25 FEET THAT THEY WILL BE

REPLANTING BACK. >> GOT THIS AERIAL SO YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE BALL IS IN THE

VEGETATION. >> SURE, SURE. >> ON THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.

THE INTENT IS TO RESTORE 25 FEET FROM THE EXISTING LINE. CAN I CONTROL IT FROM HERE?

>> ALL HAVE TO CONTROL IT FROM HERE. >> CYCLE THROUGH.

THE EXISTING CONDITIONS YOU'VE SEEN THESE PICTURES. THERE IS THE WALL WHERE THE CONSTRUCTION CAME AND A NUMBER OF PLANTS WERE DISTURBED. SINCE THEN IT'S BEEN STABILIZED BUT IT'S LARGELY SEED PLANTS THAT HAVE BEEN THERE. YOU'RE LOOKING AT HYDRO SEED.

A PORTION OF THE BUFFER, I'LL SHOW YOU THAT IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.

AND KEEP ON GOING. >> SO YOU CAN SEE ROUGHLY WHERE THE BUFFER IS ON THIS.

I'LL SHOW YOU EXACTLY IF WE CAN FLIP TO THE NEXT ONE. IF YOU KEEP ON GOING.

WE'VE GOT THE 3 LINES, WITH GOT THE LIGHT BLUE LINE WHICH IS YOUR WETLAND LINE.

THEN YOU'VE GOT THE DARK YELLOW LAND THAT'S EXISTING WALL. THEN THE 25 FOOT BUFFER WHICH YOU CAN SEE APPOINTS WELL OUTSIDE THE 25 FEET. IT POINTS WITHIN THE 25 FEET.

THE MAXIMUM ENCROACHMENT IS 10 FEET BOARDS THAT SOUTH END. IN ORDER FOR US TO REESTABLISH THE NATIVE BUFFER FROM THE 25 FOOT LINE ALL THE WAY TO THE WET LINE WE WILL HAVE TO PLAN ABOVE AND BELOW THE WALL. SO IF YOU GO TO THE PLEASE.

BUT, NOT ALL OF THE PLANTINGS WITHIN THAT BUFFER HAVE BEEN DISTURBED.

YOU CAN SEE THERE IS THAT HATCH THAT IS IN THERE. THAT'S THE ENTIRETY OF THE PLANTING BUFFER. THE DARK GRAY PORTION THAT'S THE PART THAT'S BEEN STABILIZED WITH THE SEED. THAT'S WHERE WE NEED TO COME IN WITH ADDITIONAL PLANTINGS TO KICKSTART WHAT MOTHER NATURE HAS ALREADY GOING TO DEAL. YOU COULD GO THE NEXT SLIDE.

WE HAVE A DETAILED PLANTING PLAN. EVERY PLANT HAS BEEN LOCATED ON SITE. IT'S A WIDE VARIETY OF PLANTINGS.

THIS BALANCES OUT ON SITE. WE LOOKED AT NEIGHBORING SITES IN THE WETLAND COMMUNITIES AND FOUND PLANTS THAT ARE THRIVING AND THINGS THAT ARE ALREADY GROWING THERE.

WHICH IS CAN ADD TO THAT. I KNOW THERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT SIZE PLANTS ARE GOING IN. THE INTENTION FOR THAT IS BECAUSE THE INTENT IS THEY CAN SURVIVE ON THEIR OWN YOU WANT IT GO TO SMALL PLANTS THAT GROW FASTER AND ESTABLISH FASTER.

THE SITE WILL BE STRAIGHT OUT AND CLEARED. IT SHOULD BE A FAIRLY RAPID REPLACEMENT. WE ARE PUTTING 50 HACKBERRY TREES.

YOU CAN SEE WE HAVE THESE OUT HERE NEXT TO THE PARK. THERE IT BETWEEN THE BOARDWALK AND THE TREES.HERE ARE 50 OF THOSE. THESE ARE ALL SEE SHADE TREES THAT ARE GOING IN. WE HAVE VINES ARE BEING PLANTED ON TOP OF THE WALL.

THEY ARE ALL NATIVE. THAT WILL BECOME DEEPER TALLER BUFFER APPEARED THE ME OF SHRUBS ABOVE AND BELOW. HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE SPECIES ARE FLORIDA NATIVE.

THESE ARE ALL THINGS THAT ARE FOUND IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IN THE ECOSYSTEM THAT ARE GROWN AND USING TO FINISH THIS BUFFER OUT. IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT LINE.

THE PALLET, HAPPY TO GO THROUGH INDIVIDUAL SPECIES. PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF YOU LIKE ME TO SLOW DOWN. I'LL GO TO THESE RELATIVELY QUICKLY.

THE HALF BARRY IS A SHADE TREE, 50 GOING IN. WE HAVE LOTS OF THESE ON SITE.

WAX MYRTLE. THIS IS GREAT BUFFER PLANT. HE LOVES THE WET.

IT GROWS QUICKLY. IT WILL FILL IN RELATIVELY SOON.

[01:40:04]

YOU CAN SEE HAVE GOT SHOTS OF THE VARIOUS BERRIES THAT ARE GOING ON.

THESE ARE WILDLIFE SPECIES. PLANTS ARE GREAT FOR THE WILDLIFE.

TOP OF MELIA.HE FIRST TIME I CAME AROUND A PROCESS IT LOVES IT HERE ON THE COAST.

WE ARE PROBABLY ALSO WHICH IS A NICE DAY PLANT. IT'S FLOWERING NOW AND BIRDS

LOVE IT. >> ORAL THESE PANTS GOING IN ON EACH SIDE OF THE WALL?

>> CORRECT. >> TREES AND PLANTS AND A LITTLE BIT ON EITHER SIDE?

>> A LITTLE BIT ON EITHER SIDE. WHEN YOU LOOK AT NATURE, SOMETHING WORKS AND IT SEEDS AND YOU WILL HAVE AMASSING OF ONE KIND OF PLANT AND ANOTHER. THEY ARE SMALL AMASSING'S BUT THERE SCATTERED THROUGHOUT. LARGELY WITH THE LARGER SPECIES SPECIFICALLY THE WAX MYRTLE, THE QUALITY AND THE HACKBERRY. THOSE WILL SPREAD MORE EVENLY BECAUSE WE TRY TO GET THE LARGER SPECIES SPREAD THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE BUFFER APPEARED.

>> WHEN A DEPUTY BEAR TO SEE THE HACKBERRIES WOULD BE ON THE LOWER LEVEL IN THE THICKNESS OF

THE BUFFER ON THE HIGH. >> WE WANT TO PUT THOSE DOWN WHERE THEY HAVE PLENTY OF AREA WHERE THE ROOTS WILL SPREAD. THEY WILL BE WEAK ON ONE SIDE. THE LARGER SPECIES WILL BE ON THE BOTTOM. YOU WILL SEE ONLY THE FINES ARE ALL PLANTED ON THE TOP.

USING THAT FENCE AS MUCH OR LESS. IF YOU COULD GO TO THE NEXT

SLIDE. >> DO WE HAVE ANYTHING TO WORRY ABOUT THE DUST FROM THE CHIPPER THAT WILL DRY OUT THE PLAN SINCE WE DON'T HAVE ANY IRRIGATION FROM THE UPPER RING?

>> NUMBER IT'S A FLORIDA CLIMATE. THEY GET SANDY ANYWAYS.

THEY SHOULD BE FINE. IT WILL TAKE A LOT OF DUST IN ORDER TO SHADE THE PLANT OUT.

>> THIS IS ON THE LOWER EDGE AND THIS IS A LOWER TRANSITION SPECIES.

IF IT'S PLANTED HIGHER WE THINK IT'S FINE. PALMETTO THIS IS ON THE DRIVER SIDE BUT MORE OF A FOUNDATION PLANT IN THE FLOOR SPECIES. THIS MORNING HAS BERRIES AND IT'S HEDGE ANSWER WILDLIFE. PLEASE.

USE OF THE 2 VINES THAT ARE GOING ON.T'S GOING TO BE A VERY ATTRACTIVE FENCE.

AS FAR AS THE BUFFER GOES IT SHOULD BE REALLY ATTRACTIVE. WE'VE GOT THE TRUMPET VINE AND THEY FLOWER DURING DIFFERENT SEASONS. REPLANTING THOSE RELATIVELY CLOSE. WE HAVE 100 OF THEM OR 200 TOTAL PLANT ALONG THE LENGTH OF THE FENCE IN CLUMPS OF 10. IT SHOULD FILL IN THAT FENCE RELATIVELY QUICKLY.

BUT, AT THE END OF THE DAY WHICH YOU WILL SEE IS NATIVE PLANTINGS FROM WETLAND TO 25 FOOT BACK. TOTALLY FILLED IN WITH THE WALL IN THE MIDDLE.

AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND IT THAT MEETS CODE. I'M NOT SURE OF THE VARIANCE NEEDED AT ALL FOR THE INTERPRETATION. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE

LANDSCAPE SIDE OF THINGS? >> THANK YOU SIR. >> THANK YOU.

>> I'LL GO BACK IF I MAY TO THE 50 PERCENT OF THE FENCE. THAT IS WITHIN THE 25 FEET SETBACK. ABOUT WHAT IS THE LINEAR NUMBER FOR THAT? YOU SAID 50 PERCENT ABOUT IN ROUND NUMBERS. 50 PERCENT THE BUFFER FENCE IS

INSIDE THE 25 FOOT? >> THE FENCE OR THE WALL? >> WELL, THE WALL.

>> HE WANTED OF THE LENGTH OF THE WALL. >> ABOUT?

IS IT 5 FEET, 10 FEET, 20 FEET? >> IT'S 200 FEET. WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY DURING THE CONSTRUCTION THERE WAS A LOT OF HEAVY EQUIPMENT IN THAT 25 FEET TO BUILD THAT WALL?

>> YES. >> AM I CORRECT IN ASSUMING THE WALL WAS BUILT TO PROTECT YOUR FACILITIES THAT YOU WERE BUILDING? FROM ANY KIND OF MOVEMENT?

>> NUMBER I WAS A PART OF THIS PROJECT. AND THIS WAS AN ADDED EXPENDITURE TO THE PROJECT TO MAKE SURE COME INTO THE WETLAND DISCUSSIONS WE HOSTED WHAT I

[01:45:09]

MENTIONED MAKE IN THE DEP ON-SITE TO ASSESS THE AIR YET THEY GAVE US THEIR PARTNERS OF WHAT THEY THOUGHT WOULD BE THE BEST TO PROTECT THE RIVER. THE WALL WAS AN ADDED THING THAT IS NOT THE PILINGS. THE PILINGS FOR THE PROJECT OR HUNDRED FEET INTO THE GROUND.

THE SHEET PILING IS 48. IT'S JUST FOR SOIL STABILIZATION IMPLANTS.

IT'S NOT FOR HEAVY MACHINERY OR ANYTHING TO BE ON IT. >> BUT, IS OF THE WALL TO PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY FROM SETTLING WHERE YOUR FACILITIES ARE?

>> NO SIR. NO, IS PUT IN THERE TO RETAIN THE GRADE OF THE SOIL TO

COLLECT THE STORMWATER. >> BUT YOU COULD'VE MOVED IT BACK IF YOU HAD KNOWN WAY AHEAD AND YOU HAD A MAGIC CRYSTAL BALL. IS THERE A REASON WHY IT NEEDED TO BE WHERE IT IS ON A TECHNICAL STANDPOINT? COULD YOU HAVE MOVED IT BACK A LITTLE BIT? WAS THERE ANY TECHNICAL REASON WHY YOU COULDN'T?

>> NO. WAIT, WE COULD HAVE NOT HAD THE WALL AND JUST HAD A BIG BERM OF DIRT. WE DIDN'T HAVE TO HAVE A WALL. THE STRUCTURE THE SIZE THAT IT'S AT HAS TO BE THERE BECAUSE THEY GAVE CLEARANCE AT THE OTHER CLARIFIER THAT'S JUST EAST OF IT. IT HAD TO GO THERE.THERWISE WE WOULD'VE HAD TO CHANGE SIZING, I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF IT COMES A DIFFERENT SIZE. IT HAS TO GO INTO THAT LOCATION

BECAUSE THAT'S, BETTER CONTROL THE TRUCKS. >> THE CREDIT GETS US TO OUR SPECULATION BUT IF WE DID NOT APPROVE THIS VARIANCE THEN THE STAFF, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN? NOT IN COMPLIANCE. I GUESS IT WOULD BE JUST WITH THE CITY.

THEY COULD JUST TEAR THE WALL OUT AND REPLANT, RIGHT? AND THEN THEY WOULD BE OKAY.

IF WE DO NOT APPROVE THIS. WHAT YOU THINK WOULD HAPPEN? >> THE WALL AND AREA WITHIN THAT 25 FEET IS NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE ANY DEVELOPMENT WITHIN IT. THEY WOULD BE NOT IN COMPLIANCE

FOR THAT SECTION. >> SO TAKE THE WALL OUT? >> THE PORTION OF THE WALL

THAT'S ON THE COMPLIANCE. >> IF THEY'RE GOING TO REMOVE THE BALL THERE CAN HAVE TO ADD FRUIT VARIANCE WITH HEAVY EQUIPMENT TO GET THE WALL OUT OF THERE.

>> THEY WOULD BE DISTURBING THAT AREA THAT WERE TRYING TO PRESERVE AND PROVIDE A NATURAL

BUFFER. >> SO, WAS THERE SOMETHING ELSE?

>> NUM NO. >> THERE WAS A BUILDING PERMIT

FOR WHAT THEY BUILT. >> STILL BE APPROVED IT? >> YES.

>> IT HAS TO HAVE PERMITS. >> THE OTHER JURISDICTIONS HAD 15 FEET.

ONE OF THOSE JURISDICTIONS IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, ONE OF THOSE APPROVALS WAS BASED ON PICTURES. ONE OF THOSE LETTERS THEY HAD WRITTEN AND THEY LOOK TO THE

PICTURES THAT YOU HAD SUBMITTED. >> HE WAS THE REPRESENTATIVE WITH 2 OTHER GENTLEMEN FROM THE DEP. HE WAS ON SITE AND DISCUSS THAT LINK WITH US AND GAVE US POINTERS AND DECIDING ORDER. HE WAS PART OF THE WETLAND.

HE DID SEND THAT LETTER AT THE REQUEST OF OTHER CITY STAFF AFTER THE FACT IN OCTOBER.

OR JUST GOT THAT. IT WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE THEIR APPROVAL AS WELL.

SQUIRE CALLED THEM AND I SENT THEM PICTURES. THERE WERE SIMILAR PICTURES TO

WHAT WE USE FOR THE VISITATION PLAN. >> THE LET'S COME BACK AND WILL

PUT HER THINKING CAP ON. >> WILL BE GAVE THEM A PERMIT FOR WAS TO PUT MCDONALD'S OVER

THERE OR NOT? IT DOESN'T MATTER. >> I HAVE NOT STUDIED THE

[01:50:26]

PLANS. TO EVALUATE IT FOR WHETHER OR NOT THE CITY IS TRYING TO NOW.

I THANK YOU TO TAKE IT TO CONSIDERATION. THE FIRST MEETING WOULD HAVE THAT QUESTION ANSWERED. RIGHT? THAT WAS ONE OF THE QUESTIONS.

NOW THAT WE HAVE THAT ANSWERED THANK YOU ALL HAVE TO CONDUCT YOURSELF THE WAY THAT YOU DO BASED ON AT THE COMPETENCE OF SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT YOU HEARD AND WHAT I DECIDE TO DO OUTSIDE OF THIS. IF FOR SOME REASON THE BOARD OF DENIES THE VARIANCE THAT YOU HAVE TO MAKE YOUR DECISION BASED ON HOW YOU AVAIL AND RATE THE CASES.

THAT EXTRA BIT OF INFORMATION IS SOMETHING YOU MIGHT TAKE NOTE OF TONIGHT AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU ISSUE A VARIANCE THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MY DECISION WOULD BE LEGALLY FOR THE CITY IF YOU DENY THE VARIANCE. IF YOU DENY IT IT MEANS I HAVE

TO LOOK AT THIS. YES. >> JACOB IN THAT BUILDING PERMIT PACKAGE. I KNOW THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION AT THE LAST MEETING ABOUT DOCUMENTS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE SURVIVED THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE COPIES OF.

GIVE A CLEAR PICTURE OF IF, IF WE HAVE THAT SET OF DRAWINGS IN OUR PACKAGE THAT STAMPED

APPROVED IN WRITING? >> YOU HAVE IN YOUR PACKAGE WITH THE CITY ISSUED A BUILDING PERMIT FOR. THERE IS A REFERENCE TO THAT WALL WITHIN THOSE PLANS.YES.

WE CAN GO THROUGH THE BUILDING PERMIT PLANS. THAT IS PART OF WHAT WAS PROVIDED TO YOU. THE DOCUMENTATION WAS PROVIDED FROM THE APPLICANT FOR THEIR

BUILDING. >> DO YOU HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE FACT THAT THE BUILDING INSPECTOR OR THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AT THE TIME WAS AN INTERIM?

>> I CAN PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF REFERENCE OF WHERE WERE AT WITH THE CITY GOING BACK TO THIS ERA. THIS PERMIT ISSUANCE TIME THERE WAS MULTIPLE, WE HAD A BUILDING OFFICIAL THAT PASSED AWAY. WE HAD INTERIM BUILDING OFFICIALS.

AND SO YES, THERE WAS REVOLVING DOOR AT THIS TIME FRAME. >> SO ãISN'T THE BUILDING OFFICIAL CURRENTLY. MEANING WE CAN GO BACK AND QUESTION HIM BECAUSE HE IS

GONE. >> IS THAT TRUE? >> NOT NECESSARILY.

I HAVE NOT EVALUATED THAT. AT THE TIME TOO I WILL TELL YOU I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS THE SAME. I HAVE ANOTHER PROJECT IN THE CITY THAT JUST ABOUT YOU KNOW HOW CRAZY THOSE TIMES WERE. IN THE CITY PRETTY MUCH DESPERATE TO GET INSPECTIONS DURING BOOMING. DONE. I HAVE A PRIVATE PROVIDER THAT WAS HIRED BY A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPER AND CONTRACTOR TO DO THEIR PROVIDER WORK WHICH THEY ALLOWED. THAT PERSON ACTED THE SAME TIME WHICH IS THE TERM OFFICIAL.

WHICH I DON'T THINK IS APPROPRIATE. THAT'S JUST ME.

IT WASN'T ON THIS PROJECT THAT I KNOW OF. BUT THAT WAS PRETTY CRAZY THEN.

>> MIKE THE MASCO QUESTION. WHEN HE TALKED ABOUT THE PERMIT.

AND MAYBE THIS IS A LEGAL QUESTION. BUT I UNDERSTAND FROM MY PAST EXPERIENCE WHEN THE INSPECTOR FLIES SOMETHING DURING CONSTRUCTION THAT'S NOT COMPLIANCE WITH CODE EVEN IF IT WAS APPROVED THEY MAKE YOU GO AHEAD AND MEET THE STANDARD

. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> JACOB LET ME ASK ABOUT THIS BUFFER. WE DON'T HAVE A CLEAR-CUT DEFINITION ON THEIR.

SO, WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY PICK WHATEVER KIND OF BUFFER YOU WANT.

[01:55:03]

IF WANT TO GO IN THERE WITH THE POSTAL DICKERSON PUT UP A FENCE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT VERSUS A BUFFER WHEN WE HAVE THE EQUIPMENT IN THERE. DO YOU FEEL LIKE THAT IS PART OF THE INTENT OF WHAT THOSE 2 MAY HAVE BEEN LEANING TOWARDS ON THAT?

>> MR. DAVIS, I CAN SEE YOU, SAY SOMETHING. >> I THINK THE CODE ACTUALLY, YOU MAY REMEMBER I BORED YOU WITH THE SILLY STORY ABOUT TWO MEN AND A MULE.

AND PEOPLE FORGETTING THE PURPOSE WHY THEY BOUGHT THE MULE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

BECAUSE YOUR CODE ACTUALLY SAYS WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THE BUFFER IS.

IF YOU REMEMBER WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THE BUFFER IS, THE DECISION MAKING BECOMES VERY EASY.

IF I MAY, I WILL TELL YOU WHAT YOUR CODE SAYS AND IT'S IN 3.03. LOCATION OF BUFFER ZONES OF NATIVE VEGETATION AROUND WETLANDS AND SURFACE WATERS TO PREVENT EROSION, RUN OFF AND

[02:00:06]

PROVIDE HABITAT. THOSE ARE THREE PURPOSES. IT DOESN'T SAY UNDISTURBED.

IT SAYS A BUFFER. WHOSE PURPOSE IS TO PERFORM THESE FUNCTIONS.

AND THAT IS WHY THE RETAINING WALL IS CONSTRUCTED AT THIS LOCATION.

IT'S NOT CONSTRUCTED THERE TO RETURN TO MAKE MORE MONEY FOR RESTAURANT.

IT IS CONSTRUCTED FOR A PURPOSE. AND THAT IS TO STOP THE EROSION OF THE SLOPE IN TO THE MARSH.

IT DOESN'T MAKE MONEY FOR RESTAURANT. IT STOPS STORM WATER AND EROSION FROM GOING IN TO THE MARSH. AND THEY SPENT OVER $800,000 TO DO WHAT THAT POLICY SAYS THEY'RE

SUPPOSED TO DO. >> HOW CLOSE IS YOUR STRUCTURE TO THAT RETAINING WALL?

>> THE STRUCTURE. >> THE CURB? >> YEAH.

WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THERE. >> I WOULD REFER TO THE ENGINEER.

SUGGEST 15 OR MORE FEET AWAY FROM THE RETAINING WALL. >> NOW IS THAT A SUBSTANTIAL

FOUNDATION? >> THE? >> THE CIRCLE.

>> THE CIRCLE THAT IT RESTS UPON. PILINGS I THINK 60 FEET.

>> 90. >> 90 TO 100 FEET. SO THE SUPPORT OF THE FACILITY

IS NOT DEPENDENT ON THIS RETAINING WALL. >> OKAY.

THE RETAINING WALL IS PUT IN AT A MUCH SHALLOWER DEPTH BECAUSE ITS PURPOSE IS DIFFERENT.

ITS PURPOSE IS TO -- THIS IS ON A SMALL BLUFF. THAT DROPS DOWN.

>> ITS PURPOSE IS AGAIN TO DO WHAT? >> PREVENT EROSION AND STORM WATER GOING IN TO THE MARSH. IF YOU DON'T HAVE THAT RETAINING WALL, YOU WILL HAVE THAT SLOPE

IS GOING TO ERODE IN TO THE MARSH. >> AND IT'S GOING TO THREATEN

YOUR STRUCTURE UP THERE, TOO. >> BECAUSE THE STRUCTURE HAS SIGNIFICANTLY DEEPER PILINGS

THAN THE DEPTH OF THIS SLOPE. >> IS THERE A ROAD AROUND THE STRUCTURE BETWEEN THE WALL AND

THE -- >> OH YEAH. >> YOU DON'T WANT THE ROAD TO GO

AWAY. >> THE ROAD GOES AROUND IT. BUT IT'S NOT A PAVED ROAD.

>> IT JUST SPINS ON THAT RING. >> IT'S THIS AREA. >> THE ROAD IS NOT NECESSARY TO THE PURPOSE OF THE RING. YOU DO HAVE TWO SAFETY FEATURES THAT ARE SITUATED.

I THINK WE'VE GOT IT. YOU'VE GOT ONE SET HERE. AND ANOTHER ON THIS HORSESHOE.

AND HAVING ACCESS TO THOSE SAFETY FEATURES FIRE EQUIPMENT. I THINK YOU WANT TO HAVE TWO ACCESSES TO THOSE. BUT OTHER THAN HAVING ACCESS TO THOSE FEATURES, DOES IT DO

ANYTHING ELSE? >> INSPECTION. >> OKAY.

>> SO I'LL COME BACK TO YOUR POLICIES. THE POLICY AS YOU CAN FIND IT IN YOUR CITY CODE, DOESN'T SAY THAT BUFFER IS UNDISTURBED. I APPRECIATE MR. PLATT SAYING WE'VE GOT TO HAVE AN UNDISTURBED BUFFER. BUT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT BUFFERS AND DEFINITIONS AS FOUND IN YOUR CODE, IT LITERALLY SPEAKS TO FEATURES THAT REQUIRE DISTURBANCE. IN YOUR LDC DEFINITION, A BUFFER MEANS A LANDSCAPED AREA.

LANDSCAPING. JUST THE CONCEPT OF LANDSCAPING SPEAKS TO THE FEATURE OF DISTURBANCE. IT MAY INCLUDE WALLS, FENCES, BERMS, ALL OF THOSE WILL RESULT IN SOME DISTURBANCE OF THE AREA IN THE BUFFER. THE BUFFER -- WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A SETBACK. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A DESIGN FEATURE THAT'S INTENDED TO PERFORM A FUNCTION. AND THIS IS WHERE I THINK THAT OUR DISAGREEMENT COMES.

THAT THIS DESIGN FEATURE IS TO BE UNDISTURBED VEGETATION. WHEREAS IF YOU READ THAT

[02:05:03]

PARTICULAR SECTION, IT SAYS, AGAIN, SPEAKS TO PURPOSE. IT DOESN'T SAY THAT THE BUFFER WILL BE UNDISTURBED. IT SAYS THAT THE BUFFER WILL INSURANCE EXISTING VEGETATION IS NOT DISTURBED. IT DOESN'T SAY THE CITY WILL ENSURE THAT THE BUFFER IS UNDISTURBED. IT'S TALKING ABOUT THE WETLANDS NOT BEING DISTURBED.

THE BUFFER'S FUNCTION IS TO MAKE SURE THE VEGETATION IN THE WETLANDS IS NOT DISTURBED.

SWITCHING IT AROUND MEANS THAT WE PROTECT THE BUFFER AT THE RISK OF THE WETLANDS.

AND THAT MAKES NO SENSE. IF YOU NEED A WALL TO PREVENT EROSION AND STORM WATER FROM GOING IN TO THE WETLANDS, THAT'S WHAT YOU DO. IT'S JUST COMMON SENSE.

THAT'S ALL WE CAN ASK. IS APPLY SOME COMMON SENSE. YES, SIR.

>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELPFUL COMMENTS THERE. I'VE GOT A QUESTION ON A TECHNICAL DRAWING HERE. JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND IT CORRECTLY, MAYBE ONE OF YOUR TECHNICAL STAFF. YOU HAVE ON THIS A 35-FOOT WETLANDS BUFFER SHOWN ON THE DIAGRAM. AND ON THIS DIAGRAM, THAT 35-FOOT WETLANDS BUFFER IS ON THE WETLANDS SIDE OF YOUR SHEET PILING. NOW DID SOMETHING CHANGE IN

THAT? >> THERE SHOULD BE A REFERENCE TO THE PARTICULAR DRAWING.

>> YES, SIR. >> I'M GOING TO FLIP THAT OVER. WE'RE LOOKING AT DRAWING NUMBER 4. THAT WAS IN THE PACKAGE THAT WAS SUBMITTED THE FIRST PREVIOUS

HEARING. >> OKAY. >> IT SAYS 35-FOOT WETLAND

BUFFER LINE, WHICH IS THIS DOTTED LINE, CORRECT? >> YES.

>> THIS DOTTED LINE GOES ALONG THIS PORTION RIGHT HERE. >> RIGHT.

>> YOU CAN SEE THE WALL IS INSIDE OF THAT LINE. >> THIS IS YOUR WALL RIGHT THERE, CORRECT? THIS IS YOUR INDICATION, AM I RIGHT?

>> MM-HMM. >> SO IN THIS DRAWING, YOU'RE SHOWING 35 FOOT TO THE WETLAND

SIDE OF THAT BIG WALL. >> NO. >> NOW MY QUESTION IS IT DIDN'T

SEEM THAT'S THE WAY IT GOT DONE. SEE YOUR LINE HERE? >> YES, SIR.

>> YOU SEE WHERE IT GOES RIGHT ALONG THERE. THAT'S YOUR SHEET PILE, RIGHT?

>> MM-HMM. >> THAT'S YOUR NOTED 35 FOOT. >> RIGHT.

THIS IS A 35-FOOT AVERAGE. THIS IS ACTUALLY FOLLOWING THE 15-FOOT MINIMUM.

SO IF YOU TAKE -- >> AVERAGE IS FOLLOWING THE MINIMUM.

>> CORRECT. >> 35. >> AVERAGE.

SEE HOW IT COMES OUT ON ALL THIS SPACE UP HERE? THAT AVERAGE INCLUDING THIS AREA AND ALL THIS AREA DOWN HERE. WE WERE MEETING THE 15-FOOT MINIMUM, 25-FOOT AVERAGE FOR THAT 35 FEET. NOT THE 25-FOOT MINIMUM. THIS IS CALLING OUT TO THE

CRITERIA. >> JUST TRYING TO CLARIFY THAT IN MY HEAD THERE.

>> YEAH. >> OKAY. SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT'S YOUR AVERAGE. THAT'S NOT YOUR AVERAGE 35. THAT'S A LINE THAT INDICATES WHERE IT IS. AND WHEN YOU TAKE THAT LINE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS BIGGER AREA DOWN THERE THAT BASICALLY THAT GIVES YOU YOUR 35-FOOT AVERAGE, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> CORRECT. >> I UNDERSTAND YOU NOW. I'M WITH YOU.

>> IT'S GOT THE WETLAND LINE THERE. >> YEAH, I GOT IT.

HERE, CAN WE HAVE IT BACK? >> YES, SIR. >> THANK YOU.

THE INDICATION ON THAT WAS THAT THE LINE THAT I WAS LOOKING AT WAS A LINE THAT WHEN TAKEN IN TOTAL, BASICALLY WAS A 35-FOOT SETBACK. THAT IT WASN'T A 35.

IT'S AVERAGE LINE. IT'S KIND OF MISLEADING. >> AND IF I MAY, AND I'LL CONCLUDE WITH THIS. IN THIS SENTENCE THAT IS BEING CONSTRUED TO SAY THAT THE WETLANDS BUFFER MUST BE UNDISTURBED, IT DOESN'T END WITH THAT LANGUAGE WITH A PERIOD.

IT ENDS THAT PHRASE WITH A SEMI-COLON WHICH THEN CONTINUES THE SENTENCE.

AND THE CONTINUATION OF THE SENTENCE SPEAKS TO MY POINT. WHICH IS THAT WHERE NEW VEGETATION IS REQUIRED, SPEAKING OF THE BUFFER, WHERE NEW VEGETATION IS REQUIRED, PLANTS

[02:10:03]

OR GROUND COVER NATIVE TO WETLANDS AREAS SHALL BE USED. >> THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT MY CLIENT IS PROPOSING. THEY HAVE CONSTRUCTED A BUFFER THAT PREVENTS THE EROSION AND STORM WATER FROM GOING IN TO THE MARSHES OF THE AMELIA RIVER. AND THEY ARE PROPOSING TO COME IN AND PLANT NATIVE VEGETATION SO THAT YOU HAVE A 25-FOOT MINIMUM BUFFER OF NATIVE VEGETATION. IT'S GOING TO INCLUDE A WALL TO HOLD BACK THE SLOPE TO KEEP IT FROM ERODING IN TO THE MARSH. BUT YOU'LL HAVE A 25-FOOT BUFFER.

AND THAT'S THE VARIANCE THAT THEY SEEK. >> WHAT'S TO KEEP THE VEGETATION THAT YOU'RE GOING TO PLANT ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE WALL FROM ERODING DOWN AND WASHING IN TO

THE WETLANDS? >> WELL IF YOU WILL, I THINK PROBABLY THE EASIEST WAY TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION IS LOOK AT THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT ARE PART OF THE PACKET THAT WERE PROVIDED TO YOU TODAY. AND WHAT YOU'LL SEE IS THE AREA BETWEEN THE WALL AND THE EDGE OF THE MARSH IS NOT DENUDED OF VEGETATION. THERE IS ALREADY A STRIP THERE.

SO WHAT YOU'VE GOT IS IN EFFECT, YOU'VE GOT YOUR BLUFF IS HELD BACK BY THE WALL.

AND THEN YOU'VE GOT AN AREA GENTLY SLOPING FROM THE FOOT OF THE WALL DOWN TO THE MARSH, ALONG THE EDGE OF THE MARSH YOU HAVE ALREADY, YOU'VE GOT SABO PALMS, MYRTLE, YOU'VE WILL HAVE

TO HELP WITH SOME OF THE OTHER VEGETATION. >> IT'S THE SAME SPECIES.

>> THE SAME SPECIES THEY'RE GOING TO PLANT IN THERE. AND SO BECAUSE YOU HAVE A WALL, YOU DON'T HAVE THE WATER RUNNING DOWN THE SLOPE. THE WATER ON THE INDUSTRIAL SIDE, INTERIOR, IS KEPT ON SITE. WHICH IS ITS PURPOSE. IT'S SUPPOSED TO HOLD BACK STORM WATER RUNOFF FROM THE INDUSTRIAL SITE FROM COMING IN TO THE MARSH.

>> AND THE WALL HAS NO WEAK HOLES IN IT? >> SHEET PILING.

>> YOU CAN STILL PUT A HOLE IN IT, THOUGH. >> IT'S SLOPED TO HAVE ALL THE WATER FLOW BACK ON TO THE SITE. AND THERE'S A U-DRAIN IN BETWEEN WITH A COLLECTION SYSTEM THAT

TRANSMITS IT TO OUR GRIT CHAMBER. >> CHAIRMAN, YOU ASKED A QUESTION OVER HERE TO JACOB AND IRA NOT ON THE RECORDING. SO IF YOU WILL ASK THAT QUESTION

AGAIN, WE WILL ANSWER IT. >> THAT'S WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DETERMINE WHAT YOU WERE SAYING, MR. DAVIS. JACOB, WHAT'S THE LANGUAGE IN THERE ABOUT IT BEING

UNDISTURBED? >> SO IT DOESN'T SPECIFICALLY SAY UNDISTURBED IN CHAPTER 3.

THERE IS A POLICY REFERENCE IN CHAPTER 5 THAT SPEAKS TO BUFFERS ARE TO ENSURE THAT EXISTING

VEGETATION IS NOT DISTURBED. >> POLICY 5.0808. >> WHAT HAS JURISDICTION?

>> LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. >> COMP PLAN IS THE CONTROLLING DOCUMENT.

MEANING IT IS THE ONE IF THERE'S A CONFLICT, THE COMP PLAN IS THE ONE WE GO TO.

>> POLICY IS WHAT CONTROLS, NOT THE CODE SECTION OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

>> WE WOULD SAY THAT THE DEFINITION IN THE COMP PLAN CONTROLS.

AND THE DEFINITION IN THE COMP PLAN SAYS IT INCLUDES BERMS, WALLS, FENCES AND OTHER STRUCTURES. THEY'VE TOLD YOU. SO WHEN YOU READ THE POLICY AND IT SAYS BUFFER, YOU READ WALLS, FENCES, AND ALL OF THE THINGS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THAT DEFINITION. YOU DON'T READ -- AND I'LL GET IN TO LEGAL CONSTRUCTION IF Y'ALL WANT ME TO. IT WILL BORE YOU. BUT WHEN YOU HAVE A LAW, RULE, OR REGULATION THAT GIVES YOU A DEFINITION, YOU DON'T REDEFINE IT TO ELIMINATE OR EVISCERATE, GUT, WHAT THEY'VE TOLD YOU IT SAYS IT MEANS. IT MEANS WHAT IT SAYS.

THAT'S HOW YOU CONSTRUE THE LAW. I DON'T WANT TO FIGHT WITH JACOB.

BUT THE LAW IS WHAT THE LAW IS. THE LEGAL THEORY -- THIS IS SOUTHERN REDNECK BUTCHERING

[02:15:16]

LATIN. >> THAT'S HOW WE SAY IT IN MIAMI, TOO.

JUST SAYING. >> SO IT MEANS THAT YOU READ THIS STUFF NOT IN ISOLATION, BUT YOU READ IT TOGETHER. AND SO WHEN YOUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SAYS BUFFER INCLUDES THESE THINGS, AND WHEN YOUR COMP PLAN DEFINES A BUFFER AND SAYS YOU INCLUDE THESE THINGS. GUESS WHAT? THEY'VE TOLD YOU IT INCLUDES THESE THINGS. AND SO YOU TAKE ONE PHRASE AND ONE POLICY, YOU DON'T THROW EVERYTHING ELSE OUT. YOU READ THAT ONE PHRASE IN THE POLICY IN CONJUNCTION WITH THOSE DEFINITIONS. MAKE SENSE OUT OF IT. THAT'S MY LEGAL OPINION.

>> I WOULDN'T HAVE TO SAY IT. I BASICALLY -- I DON'T KNOW ANYBODY ELSE.

I AGREE WITH THAT BASIC CONCEPT. I MEAN, WE TALKED ABOUT THAT A LITTLE BIT LAST TIME.

THE SECTION 3.03, IF YOU READ IT CAREFULLY, IT SAYS NATIVE VEGETATION AT LEAST 25 FEET SHALL BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A BUFFER ZONE OF NATIVE VEGETATION AT LEAST 25 FEET.

IT DOESN'T SAY YOU CAN HAVE A WALL. IT DOESN'T SAY YOU CANNOT HAVE A WALL. IT JUST DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING. SO THEN YOU GO TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DEFINITION SAYS YOU CAN HAVE A WALL. SO IT JUST SEEMS TO ME THAT'S HOW I WOULD INTERPRET THIS.

>> GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND LEGAL COUNSEL AT THE BASE, TRF. IF I WAS SITTING IN MY OFFICE READING OVER THIS OR SOMEONE CALLED ME OR I HAD TO WRITE A MEMO, THAT'S WHAT I WOULD SAY.

>> WELL LET'S PICK UP ON HIS POINT OF VIEW, THEN. BACK TO YOU, JACOB.

WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY WE'VE GOT A 25-FEET BUILDING SETBACK? >> THE SET SECTION, THE 303 B 1, IF YOU LOOK AT B 2, IT ACTUALLY SAYS THIS SETBACK SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR ANY DEVELOPMENT.

SO IT GETS A LITTLE BIT MORE CONVOLUTED BECAUSE YOU START TALKING ABOUT SETBACKS.

AND SETBACKS DEFINES STRUCTURES AS INCLUDING WALLS IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

BUT WE ALSO HAVE OTHER PORTIONS OF THE CODE THAT ALLOW CERTAIN ENCOACHMENTS IN THE SETBACKS.

WE KIND OF GET DEEPER IN TO THE WEEDS. BUT THE SAME CODE DOES REFERENCE THIS AS A SETBACK FOR DEVELOPMENT. AND THE CODE DOES DEFINE STRUCTURES AS BEING EXCLUDED IN THOSE SETBACKS. AND STRUCTURES INCLUDING WALLS.

>> I SEE HIS WHEELS TURNING DOWN THERE ON THAT. WAS THERE SOMETHING ELSE, MR.

DAVIS? >> UNLESS SOMEBODY HAS A QUESTION, I'LL KEEP MY MOUTH

SHUT. >> ANYBODY GOT ANYTHING FOR ANY OF MR. DAVIS' STAFF?

>> I JUST WANT TO CONCLUDE. I'M SITTING SILENT AS ALL THE OTHER LAWYERS ARE SAYING SOMETHING. THE ONLY THING THAT'S CLEAR WITH ALL OF THE DEFINITIONS IS THAT THEY'RE NOT CLEAR. I'M SAYING MR. DAVIS CAME TO MY OFFICE WHEN HE FIRST DISCOVERED THIS AND WAS PUT ON THIS ISSUE. AND I READ IT AND SAID, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT JUST MR. DAVIS ADVOCATING EXTREMELY WELL FOR HIS CLIENT. I FELT LIKE I HAD TO SAY THAT TO TAKE DEFINITIONS TO USE THEM JUST FOR HIS CLIENT. I MEAN, IF ANYBODY LOOKED AT THESE DEFINITIONS AND SECTIONS,YOU COULD SEE HOW IT WOULD BE CONFUSING.

SO IF I WAS ASKED BEFORE A BUILDING PERMIT WAS ISSUED, NOT THAT THAT'S THE USUAL CUSTOM IN THIS CITY. BUT IF I WAS, I WOULD SAY HOLD OFF ON ISSUING THE BUILDING PERMIT. OUR PRACTICE IS -- BUT I AM CONCERNED THAT WE ISSUED A BUILDING PERMIT. ALTHOUGH WHEN OUR PRACTICE HAS BEEN THE BUFFER IS UNDISTURBED.

[02:20:05]

IN FACT, THIS BOARD, I THINK MRS. MOCK WAS ON IT. MAYBE MS. DADD.

IT WASN'T A HOUSE OR A POOL. I THINK IT WAS A FENCE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

SO NOT MANY OF THEM HAVE COME BUT THEY HAVE. BUT WE DON'T SET PRECEDENT WITH THIS BOARD. I'M JUST SAYING, I THINK ALL THE LAWYERS AGREE THESE SECTIONS ARE CONFUSING IN HOW THEY WOULD BE APPLIED. STAFF KNOWS.

THE PLANNING STAFF. THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT DIDN'T. >> ANYTHING FURTHER, MR. DAVIS?

>> NOTHING FOR THE APPLICANT. >> THANK YOU, SIR. WE'LL HEAR IF THERE'S ANYBODY HERE FROM THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK. AND THEN MR. DAVIS, OF COURSE YOU CAN MAKE A CLOSING REMARK, SIR. YES, MA'AM.

THANK YOU FOR PATIENTLY WAITING. I APOLOGIZE. SOMETIMES THESE THINGS SORT OF TAKE ON A LIFE OF THEIR OWN WHILE WE TRY TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF A PILE THAT WE DON'T

SEEM LIKE WE CAN GET TO THE BOTTOM OF. >> A LAW IS A LAW, A FENCE IS A FENCE. I'VE JUST GOT FIVE THINGS TONIGHT AND THREE OF THEM ARE SUPER BRIEF. THE FIRST I JUST WANTED TO RESPOND TO LAST MONTH'S MEETING WHEN I DID A LITTLE BIT OF A PRESENTATION. I HAD SOME SLIDES THAT I PUT UP.

AND I DON'T RECALL WHICH WESTRAW REPRESENTATIVE RESPONDED TO MY SLIDE SAYING THEY WERE OF UNRELATED ISSUES. I WANTED TO CLARIFY. APPARENTLY I DIDN'T DO ENOUGH JOB WHEN I PRESENTED. I WAS SHOWING A TIMELINE. AND I WAS ANSWERING THE QUESTION ON HOW DID THIS COME TO LIGHT. HOW DID WE FIND OUT ABOUT THIS STACKER SITUATION THAT WASN'T PERMITTED WHILE CONSTRUCTION WAS HAPPENING. SO I WAS ESTABLISHING THE TIMELINE OF OTHER ENCROACHING ISSUES THAT WESTROCK WAS PERFORMING AND SHOWING A PATTERN OF WHAT THEY WERE DOING AT THE TIME. I KNEW THAT TWO OF THE ISSUES THAT I BROUGHT UP WERE OTHER CONSTRUCTION JOBS RELATED TO THIS.

AND THE LAST EXAMPLE I BROUGHT UP WAS THIS STACKER. JUST A LITTLE BIT OF

CLARIFICATION. >> ARE WE UP AND RUNNING HERE? >> YOU SHOULD BE.

>> ONE THING I THINK MIGHT BE HELPFUL, TOO, WHEN YOU GUYS WERE ASKING ABOUT THE BUILDING PERMIT AND WHY WASN'T THIS CAUGHT WHEN THE PERMIT WAS APPROVED, IF WE GO BACK TO SOME OF THOSE

TIMELINES -- WHERE'S MY -- ARE WE UP IN HERE, JAKE? >> I DIDN'T UP -- IT'S YOUR USB.

>> IT'S NOT COMING UP. IF THOSE OF YOU MIGHT RECALL THAT THE TIMELINES FOR THE PERMIT -- THE PERMIT WAS NOT APPLIED FOR UNTIL APRIL 18TH, OF 2018.

AND THEY STARTED CONSTRUCTION ALMOST A YEAR PRIOR TO THAT. SO THEY STARTED CONSTRUCTION BEFORE A PERMIT WAS EVEN APPLIED FOR. SO THERE COULDN'T HAVE BEEN INSPECTIONS THAT SAID, HEY, THIS WALL IS IN THE WRONG PLACE. THEY WERE ALREADY WELL UNDERWAY WITH CONSTRUCTION. AND I'VE GOT -- SO WE KNOW THE WETLANDS DELINEATIONS.

THIS IMAGE WAS TAKEN OCTOBER 30TH OF 2017. THE BUILDING APPLICATION FOR THE PERMIT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY ON APRIL 9TH OF 2018. SO CLEARLY THEY'VE ALREADY BEEN

DOING WORK. >> SAY THOSE DATES ONE MORE TIME NOW.

>> SO THIS IMAGERY IS OCTOBER 30, 2017. THE PERMIT THAT WAS PROVIDED IN THEIR PACKET TONIGHT, THE NEW INFORMATION, THE NEW PACKET, THE DATE ON THAT PERMIT IS 11/9/18.

AND IT'S ALSO IN THE CITY MATRIX OF WHEN THEY RECEIVED PERMIT APPLICATIONS.

[02:25:01]

AND THERE'S A NOTE FROM KELLY GIBSON SAYING THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT ARE DEFICIENT.

THERE'S A CITY MATRIX THAT SHOWS WHEN THE PERMITS WERE APPLIED FOR.

ANY NOTES, ANY DEFICIENCIES, AND WHEN THEY'RE GRANTED. APPLICATION DATE IS 11/9/2018.

SO WE'RE JUST SEEING A PATTERN HERE. I THINK AT THE VERY BEST, IF WE SAY OKAY, WEST ROCK MADE A MISTAKE, THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE DOING THE RIGHT THING.

THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE FOLLOWING ST. JOHN'S WATER MANAGEMENT. THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE DOING EVERYTHING RIGHT. ONCE THIS WHOLE PERMIT ISSUE COMES IN, I THINK THAT'S ERODES THAT ARGUMENT. IT ERODES THE FACT THAT THEY WERE TRYING TO FOLLOW WHAT THEY WERE SAYING, A HIGHER STANDARD. AND IF WE FOLLOW THAT TO THE WORST SITUATION, THERE'S THE POSSIBILITY THAT IT WAS DONE KNOWINGLY IN ORDER TO AVOID THE CITY INVOLVEMENT AND IN ORDER TO AVOID HAVING TO SET IN THESE SETBACK AREAS. THE FACT THAT THEY SAID TONIGHT THAT THERE'S NO TECHNICAL REASON THAT THAT WALL COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MOVED, ALL OF THIS COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED IF THAT WALL WAS PUT IN -- IF THEY WENT THROUGH OUR PROCESS PROPERLY.

IF THEY WENT THROUGH THE PERMIT. IF THEY PUT THE WALL WHERE IT NEEDED TO GO.

I KNOW THEY PUT OUT THE INVITATION TO COME SEE THIS PROPERTY.

I DON'T THINK ANYBODY HERE HAS BEEN THERE. I'VE BEEN TO THE PROPERTY AS CLOSE AS I CAN GET. WHEN IT'S LOW TIDE, YOU CAN GET TO THE STACKER.

YOU HAVE TO GO IN LOW TIDE AND YOU HAVE TO GO IN BOOTS. THIS THING IS MASSIVE.

I DON'T THINK WE CAN UNDERSTAND THE SCALE OF IT. THIS DIAMETER, IT'S 400 FEET.

IT'S BIGGER THAN A FOOTBALL FIELD PLUS THE END ZONES. AND THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE THE 20-FOOT RING OF THE WALL, OF THE ROAD THAT'S AROUND IT. SO YOU CAN WALK ALL BACK UP IN HERE AND GET IN TO THE AREA AND THEN THIS THING IS BUILT. AND IT'S WHERE WE ARE NOW.

IT'S DONE. WE KNOW WE HAVE LAND DEVELOPMENT AND COMP PLAN DISCREPANCIES.

I THINK WE GET THAT. I THINK WHAT WE HAVE TO DO IS WHERE DO WE PUSH THIS FORWARD TO? WHAT DO WE DO NEXT? LET THE LAWYERS FIGURE OUT THE TECHNICALITIES ON IT. I THINK JACOB DID A GREAT JOB WITH THE STAFF ANALYSIS.

HOWEVER, I WOULD ARGUE THAT IT'S NOT JUST THREE CRITERIA THAT'S MET AND THREE CRITERIA THAT'S NOT MET. I WOULD ARGUE THAT THE FIRST CRITERIA IS NOT MET EITHER.

SPECIAL CONDITIONS. BECAUSE I THINK IT'S A VERY FLIMSY ARGUMENT THAT'S MADE WHERE THEY'RE SAYING THAT THE MILL IS CONSTRUCTED IN 1938 AND THE STACKER SUPPORTS MODERN DAY OPERATION SO THEY HAVE TO PUT IT THERE. I KNOW THERE HAS TO BE A CERTAIN DISTANCE FROM THE CLARIFIER. BUT AGAIN, IT'S THIS WALL THAT THEY PUT IN THE WRONG PLACE.

THEY'VE ALREADY DISTURBED THE VEGETATION AND THAT'S DONE. I THINK WHEN THE BOARD WAS SO THOUGHTFUL LAST MONTH WITH GOING THROUGH THE LANDSCAPE PLAN AND REQUIRING THEM TO COME BACK WITH MORE INFORMATION, THAT WAS EXCELLENT. AND I THINK THEY DID HIT SOME OF THOSE FEATURES. THEY ANSWERED A FEW MORE OF MY QUESTIONS THAT I HAD TONIGHT THAT WASN'T IN THE PACKET AS FAR AS PLANT MATERIAL SIZES. THEY'RE PUTTING A OF PLANTS IN .

THEY'RE PUTTING A GALLON OR TWO GALLON HALF BERRIES. BY THE TIME THAT GETS IN THE GROUND, WE'VE GOT MAYBE 8 INCHES THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE MAJOR HARDWOOD TREE FOR PROTECTION THAT THEY'RE REPLACING. WHAT WE LOST HERE IS THIS. WE LOST THIS CANOPY.

LOOK AT THE SIZE OF THESE TREES. WE LOST THIS. AND WE LOST THIS.

THIS IS PRIOR. THIS IS PRE-DISTURBANCE. SO AT THE VERY LEAST, WE DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW MANY TREES WERE TAKEN DOWN. THAT'S HUGE.

I'M NOT GOING TO GET OFF TRACK. I QUESTION, I THINK SOMEBODY HAD A VERY VALID POINT ABOUT WHERE THEY'RE PUTTING THEIR BUFFER ZONE BACK. IT'S REALLY WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT, THERE'S NO NEED TO PUT ANYTHING BACK IN THAT LITTLE DRIVE THROUGH WHERE THE STACKER ARM COMES IN AND OUT AND ABOUT. THAT'S NOT DOING ANYTHING. THEY'RE ALREADY TAKING CARE OF STORM WATER AND MANAGING IT THAT WAY. AND THEN WE HAVE A QUESTION OF WHAT'S THE EXECUTION OF THIS PLAN. HOW WILL THESE THINGS BE PUT IN TO THE GROUND. SO ARE WE FURTHER DISTURBING WHAT WE SHOULDN'T DISTURB ANY WAY? ARE THEY GOING TO WALK IN THERE AND HAND PLANT 800 SPECIMENS? OR ARE THEY GOING TO DO A TRACTOR PLANT WHERE THEY COME IN WITH A BACKHOE AND THEY DO A COMMERCIAL TRUDGE AND PLANT THE PLANTS IN. IF WE DO THAT, WE'VE COMPLETELY

[02:30:03]

DESTROYED THE ECOSYSTEM AGAIN. SO WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL THAT WE'RE NOT FURTHER DESTROYING WHAT'S BEEN DISTURBED BY TRYING TO MAKE IT RIGHT OR BETTER. SO MY THOUGHT IS IN TRYING TO COME UP WITH A WIN-WIN, WE DON'T KNOW HOW MANY TREES WERE TAKEN OUT AND WE DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH VEGETATION WAS LOST. BUT WE DO HAVE A VERY CLEAR CODE OF UNPERMITED TREE REMOVAL.

AND IF WE DON'T KNOW THE DIAMETER OF THE BREAST HEIGHT, WE CAN DO IT BY SQUARE FOOTAGE.

AND WE CAN FIGURE OUT HOW MUCH SQUARE FOOTAGE WAS DESTROYED AND REMOVED WITHOUT A PERMIT.

AND WE HAVE FINES OF $250 PER INCH. WE CAN FIGURE OUT A GOOD MITIGATION PLAN. I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE PENALTIES AND FINES THAT ARE MEANINGFUL AND MAKE A DIFFERENCE AND RESTITUTION IN A MITIGATION PLAN NOT JUST IN THIS AREA BUT ALSO THE RESIDENTS THAT ARE ON EITHER SIDE OF IT. WHEN YOU COME TO OLD TOWN.

SO THIS LITTLE ROAD. THIS GOES RIGHT OUT TO ESTRADA AND GARDEN STREET IN OLD TOWN.

IF YOU GUYS HAVEN'T BEEN THERE LATELY, COME AROUND RIGHT FROM THE BACK AND SOUTH AT THE PIPI HOUSE. YOU DRIVE NEXT TO THE PIPI HOUSE AND THERE'S THE RECLAIMER CHIP.

IT'S LIKE SPACE MOUNTAIN. YOU CAN'T SEE THE SIZE OF IT. IT'S HAPPENING AT MY HOUSE.

I'M ON THE OTHER SIDE. WE'RE GETTING SO MUCH NOISE NOW BECAUSE TREES HAVE BEEN TAKEN DOWN. AND WE'RE GETTING THE SAWDUST. I HAVE A COATING OF SAWDUST ON MY CAR WHEN I HAVE A WIND THAT COMES THAT WAY. SO WE REALLY NEED TO BE THOUGHTFUL. SAY THEY'RE GOING TO PUT IN $100,000 WORTH OF SOMETHING.

WELL MAYBE YES WITH IT THEY COULD DO A FEW SELECTIVE PLANTINGS HERE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE MARSH IS PROTECTED. BUT MAYBE WE ALSO ADD SOMETHING FOR THE RESIDENTS AT OLD TOWN TO CREATE A BUFFER. A SELECTIVE BUFFER. MAYBE THERE'S A BUFFER ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. I THINK THERE'S WAYS TO BE CREATIVE WITH WHAT WE GRANT IF IT'S IN YOUR JURISDICTION TO SAY, WE'LL GRANT THIS VARIANCE IF THESE OTHER GUIDELINES ARE MET. AND ALSO, WHO DETERMINED THE NUMBER AND THE SIZE OF PLANTS? THE CITY SHOULD DETERMINE THAT. THE CITY SHOULD SAY HERE'S WHERE THE PLANTS SHOULD GO.

HERE'S WHERE THEY SHOULDN'T GO AND HERE'S HOW THEY SHOULD BE INSTALLED.

WE SHOULDN'T LET THE APPLICANT. I THINK THIS COULD BE A PIVOTAL MOMENT.

THERE'S A LOT OF BAD RP. WE DON'T WANT WEST ROCK TO GO AWAY.

WE DON'T WANT THIS TO BE AN AD HOMNEM ATTACK ON YOU GUYS. I THINK IT CAN BE TURNED AROUND AND USED HOPEFULLY TO YOUR GUYS' ADVANTAGE. THE LAST THING I'LL SHOW YOU IS ON THE BUILDING PERMIT. DO I HAVE A FLIPPER REEL HERE? YOU'LL HAVE TO TURN YOUR HEAD

SLIGHTLY TO THE LEFT. >> TREE REMOVAL. >> HOW MANY TREES ARE PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED AS PART OF THIS PLAN? NONE.

I THINK WE SAW THE EVIDENCE THAT THAT DID NOT ACTUALLY HAPPEN. THIS IS OUR SPECIFIC PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION OF TREE REMOVAL. I THINK EVERYBODY SHOULD BE SUPER FAMILIAR WITH THAT.

THERE ARE SPECIFIC THINGS THAT CAN BE LEVIED. AND I THINK WE SHOULD STICK TO THAT. WE HAVE THE PRE STACKER SITUATION WITH ALL THE TREES AND THE CANOPY THAT WAS THERE. AND THEN, EXEMPTION. THIS IS THE LAST SLIDE.

IT'S THE PRE ACTIVITY. AND THAT WAS BEFORE THE PERMIT WAS ISSUED.

THAT'S BEFORE THE NOC WAS ISSUED. THE NOC WASN'T ISSUED UNTIL JANUARY 31, 2019. NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT. THIS IS 2017.

SO YOU KNOW, WE GOTTA MOVE FORWARD SOMEHOW. BUT I THINK THE FINE NEEDS TO BE AGGRESSIVE AND NEEDS TO SET A PRECEDENT. AND I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE CREATIVE MITIGATION AND ALSO A VERY LARGE AWARENESS TO LET'S NOT DO MORE DAMAGE AND TRYING TO MAKE THINGS BETTER. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL

ANSWER. >> DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

>> I DO HAVE SOME INFORMATION. >> SURE. >> SO I GUESS A QUESTION.

[02:35:04]

JUST TO CLARIFY FOR MS. COSACK. SO WHAT IS YOUR PERMISSION ON GRANTING VARIANCE?

>> I CAN'T GET IN TO THE LEGAL ASPECTS. >> NO.

SO NO GRANTING THE VARIANCE OUTSIDE OF ANY LEGAL CHALLENGES ALREADY ISSUED BUILDING PERMIT.

IF THIS BOARD DOESN'T GRANT A VARIANCE, WHAT HAPPENS IS ANYTHING THAT IS DONE WITHOUT A

PERMIT IS TAKEN OUT. SO DO THEY TAKE THE WALL OUT? >> NO.

I DON'T THINK -- THE WALL IS THERE. THE WALL IS THERE.

I DON'T THINK THE ISSUE IS -- IT'S A BEAUTIFULLY BUILT WALL. IT'S WELL CONSTRUCTED.

THERE'S NOTHING SHODDY ABOUT IT. IT'S SERVING ITS PURPOSE. THE ISSUE IS MUCH PRIOR TO THAT.

IT WAS THE PROCESS. AND I THINK WE CAN'T JUST SAY OKAY, THE WALL IS GREAT.

IT'S DOING A GREAT JOB, LET'S GRANT A VARIANCE AND MOVE ON. I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE AN EXAMPLE. AND THIS PROCESS AND THIS PATTERN HAS TO STOP.

>> RIGHT. SO WITH REGARD TO THE CITY'S TREE ORDINANCE, UNFORTUNATELY,

THE ONLY EXEMPT PROPERTIES ARE IN I2. >> THAT'S NOT IN THERE.

>> I KNOW. >> IT'S NOT EVEN IN THERE. >> IT IS IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. I'M SORRY. 4.0 THROUGH C-5.

>> HERE'S MY REBUTTAL. >> I KNOW YOU HAVE A REBUTTAL. LET ME JUST OFFER TO MY BOARD AS ADVICE. THAT WE KNOW WE CAN CONDITION VARIANCES.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ARE GOING TO SAY.

I KNOW THERE ISN'T ANYBODY ELSE HERE BESIDES. SO THE BOARD JUST HAS TO TAKE THIS AND WHATEVER THEY HEARD LAST TIME. WE CAN CONDITION A VARIANCE.

AND I'VE WORKED WITH MR. DAVIS AND WEST ROCK BEFORE. I'M SURE THAT THIS BOARD, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT REQUIRED UNDER THE CODE, IF THE ISSUE IS GRANTING THE VARIANCE MEANS THAT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A COMPLETE ABOMINATION BY HAVING TO RIP THE WALL OUT OR GIANT LAWSUITS OR WHATEVER, IS TO PROPERLY MANAGE AND HAVE THE CITY SOMEHOW OTHER THAN SAY GOOD PLAN CHECK FROM THIS HEARING. INSTEAD HAVE THE CITY WORK WITH THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND YOU ALL MORE CLOSELY NOT TO BE ABLE TO IMPOSE THINGS BUT TO SAY WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT --

>> SIZES. >> RIGHT. WE'VE DONE THAT BEFORE.

SO I'M SAYING THAT A CONDITION LIKE THAT IS SOMETHING THAT YOU ARE LEGALLY ALLOWED TO DO.

>> AND LOCATIONS. NOT JUST IN THIS BUFFER. >> YEAH.

>> AND I THINK THE OTHER THING IS SOME SORT OF RENURMATION. GOOD FAITH.

WE DON'T WANT A BENCH SOMEWHERE THAT SAYS HERE'S FROM WEST ROCK. PUT MONEY IN A TREE FUND OR

CONSERVATION FUND OR SOMETHING. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR HER? THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING AND STAYING AROUND UNTIL THE END. YOU'RE VERY WELL SPOKEN AND THE

BOARD VALUES YOUR COMING DOWN TONIGHT >> I VALUE YOU GUYS.

>> YES, MA'AM. YES, MA'AM, YOU CERTAINLY MAY. >> DEBBIE WIFEN.

WHAT SHE SAID, ALL OF WHAT SHE SAID. I DO REMEMBER A FINE AS WELL THAT WOULD ALSO BE GOOD FOR THE TREE FUND WITH THEM TAKING OUT THE TREES.

AND THE CITY HAS A STRICT WETLAND BUFFER ZONE OF 25 NATURAL, NOT MAN-MADE FEET.

YES, THEY'RE GOING TO PUT LANDSCAPE IN. BUT WE GOTTA DRAW THE LINE ALSO SOMEWHERE, WHERE WE CAN'T JUST HAVE EVERYBODY WHO IS GOING TO BUILD A HOUSE OR HAVE SOMETHING SNEAK IN TO THE WETLAND AND DO THEIR OWN THING. AND THEN AFTER THE FACT SAY I'M SORRY, I'LL PUT SOMETHING BACK. THE THING THAT BOTHERS ME THE MOST IS THE TIMELINE FOR THE PERMIT AND THE TIMELINE WHEN THEY STARTED. AND THEY SHOULD NOT GET AWAY WITH JUST AFTER THE FACT. AGAIN, I DON'T WANT YOU TO SET A PRECEDENCE OF FORGIVE AND NOT GIVE PERMISSION. WE WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW THEY'VE GOT TO GO THROUGH THE CITY THE PROPER WAY AND NOT JUST START PROJECTS WITHOUT PERMISSION. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, MA'AM. THANK YOU FOR COMING TONIGHT. >> MY NAME IS MIKE WHIFFEN, 108

[02:40:15]

OCEAN RIDGE DRIVE IN FERNANDINA. THEY BASICALLY STARTED CONSTRUCTION.

I UNDERSTAND THE BUSINESS SIDE OF THINGS. I SEE THEIR PERSPECTIVE.

AND I APPRECIATE THAT THEY SPENT A LOT OF MONEY BUILDING THIS RETAINING WALL.

BUT THEY DID IT WITHOUT PERMITS. IT WAS A LITTLE ARROGANT AND IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A PATTERN THAT I'M SEEING WITH WEST ROCK. AND I UNDERSTAND THEY MAKE -- THEY EMPLOY A LOT OF PEOPLE HERE IN TOWN. I UNDERSTAND THEY NEED TO MAKE MONEY.

BUT I ALSO THINK THEY HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE SAME PROCESS THAT THE REST OF US DO. WE HAVE TO ASK PERMISSION. AND THEN DO WHEN PERMISSION IS GRANTED. THEY WEREN'T IN COMPLIANCE ON THEIR TIMELINE.

THEY DIDN'T ASK FOR PERMITS. AND THEY'VE DONE THIS ON OTHER OCCASIONS.

I KNOW IT'S NOT PART OF THIS CASE. THEY'VE BEEN VERY GOOD AT DISTRACTING US ON A FEW NUANCES. HOW THINGS ARE WRITTEN. BUT I THINK WE SHOULD CONDITIONALLY, OBVIOUSLY THE WALL IS NOT COMING OUT. IT IS GOING TO FUNCTION, I IMAGINE. BUT PERHAPS WE CAN DO A CONDITIONAL -- WHAT DO WE CALL

IT? >> APPROVAL. >> APPROVAL.

YEAH. I THINK THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE'RE STUCK.

UNLESS SOMEBODY ELSE KNOWS A GOOD WIN-WIN. SO THAT THEY CAN COMPLY WITH THE

RULES IN THE FUTURE. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU FOR COMING DOWN TONIGHT, SIR. THE BOARD VALUES EVERYBODY'S INPUT ON THAT.

IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE HERE FROM THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK BEFORE WE CLOSE THAT PORTION OUT? WHILE WE'RE CLOSING THAT OUT, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT EVERYBODY SPEAKING OUT, EXPRESSING THEIR VIEWS BUT DOING IT IN A POSITIVE AND PRODUCTIVE MANNER AS A WAY TO SOLVE AN IMPERFECT PROBLEM, I LIKE LIVING IN A TOWN THAT'S HOW WE TREAT EACH OTHER WHEN WE DISAGREE. MR. DAVIS MADE THE COMMENT EARLIER ABOUT HE DIDN'T WANT TO FIGHT WITH JACOB. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY IS THERE YET.

WE CAN BE PASSIONATE AND DISAGREE, BUT I THINK WE'RE DOING IT IN THE RIGHT FORMAT.

CONTRARY TO POPULAR OPINION ON THE INTERNET OR ON TV. SO I APPRECIATE THAT VERY MUCH.

MR. DAVIS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A FEW CLOSING REMARKS? >> I WILL MAKE A FEW.

FIRST OF ALL, WE PROVIDED YOU WITH SOME ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THIS MEETING THAT HAD NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO YOU AT THE LAST MEETING BECAUSE THERE HAD BEEN COMMENTS MADE THAT WEST ROCK DID NOT ENGAGE WITH THE CITY AND THAT IT JUMPED THE GUN AND IT DID THESE THINGS.

SO WHAT WE'VE PROVIDED TO YOU ARE THE INTERNAL EMAILS WITH WEST ROCK THAT SHOWS THAT IN FACT THEY ARE HAVING THE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CITY ABOUT PLANNING AND GOING THROUGH THE PLANNING PROCESS ON THESE PROJECTS BEFORE THEY WERE INITIATED.

AND YOU'VE GOT THE EMAILS AND YOU'VE GOT THE DATES AND YOU'VE GOT THE TIMES.

AND SO WHILE PEOPLE WHO WERE NOT INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS MAY THINK THAT THE PROCESS WAS IGNORED, THAT IS SIMPLY NOT THE CASE. THEY WENT THROUGH A PROCESS AND THEY WERE ISSUED PERMITS. THEY DIDN'T TAKE OUT TREES. AND SO I HAVE TO DISAGREE PERSONALLY THAT YOU PUNISH SOMEBODY FOR THINGS BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE WITH HOW THEY CONDUCT THEIR BUSINESS. THEY'RE NOT VIOLATING THE LAW. I WANT TO COME BACK TO WHY WE'RE HERE. REALLY AND TRULY, IT'S FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE IT'S BASICALLY WE'RE GOING THE SHORTEST DISTANCE BETWEEN TWO POINTS. WE DON'T HAVE TO BE ADVERSARIAL WITH THE CITY. WE DON'T HAVE TO BE DISAGREEABLE WITH CITY STAFF BECAUSE THEY WORK REALLY HARD. IT'S JUST WE HAVE A CITY CODE THAT I DISAGREE WITH MY

[02:45:06]

COLLEAGUE MS. MOCK WHO SHE SAYS IT'S CONFUSING. IT'S NOT CONFUSING WHEN YOU READ THE DEFINITION OF BUFFER IN BOTH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

AND BOTH OF THEM SAY THAT A BUFFER INCLUDES THESE COMPONENTS.

THE CONFUSION IS WHEN THE CITY SAYS, WE DON'T CARE HOW OUR ELECTED CITY COMMISSIONERS HAVE DEFINED BUFFER TO INCLUDE THESE COMPONENTS. WE'RE GOING TO INTERPRET IT THAT IT DOESN'T. THAT'S REALLY WHY WE'RE HERE. WE'RE NOT HERE TO FIGHT WITH THE CITY. WE'RE SIMPLY HERE TO SAY A PROJECT TOOK PLACE.

A PERMIT WAS ISSUED AND NOW MY CLIENT IS BEING TOLD AFTER THE FACT YOU NEED TO GET A VARIANCE BECAUSE WE HAVE THIS DEFINITION OF BUFFER. AND SO WE'RE HERE ASKING FOR THAT VARIANCE RATHER THAN FIGHT. THAT'S WHAT WE'VE ASKED YOU TO DO.

WE HAVE A PLAN TO HAVE THAT LANDSCAPE BUFFER WITH NATIVE VEGETATION.

AND WHEN IT'S FINISHED, YOU WILL HAVE A BUFFER THAT AVERAGES MORE THAN 35 FEET IN WIDTH BETWEEN THIS PROJECT. THIS INDUSTRIAL SITE IN THE ADJOINING WETLANDS.

AND IT WILL HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED AT A COST OF MY CLIENT OF MORE THAN $800,000.

THAT'S WHAT WE'VE GOT. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR. AND I DON'T THINK IT IS UNREASONABLE TO SAY THIS IS THE BEST WAY TO DO THINGS. IT IS TO HAVE THEM BE RESPONSIBLE AND SAY THE PURPOSES OF A BUFFER IS TO PROTECT AN ADJOINING WETLAND.

THE PURPOSE OF A BUFFER IS NOT TO PROTECT THE BUFFER. THE PURPOSE OF A BUFFER IS TO, AS THE CODE SAYS, PREVENT EROSION, AND STORM WATER FROM GOING IN TO THE WETLAND.

AND THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE DOING. AND IT'S JUST THAT SIMPLE. IT'S NOT A DEEP, DARK CONSPIRACY. THAT'S WHAT IT'S THERE FOR. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. WE'VE GOT A COUPLE OF NEW PEOPLE THAT CAME IN.

DID YOU GUYS WANT TO SPEAK TONIGHT? NO.

ALL RIGHT. SO I'M JUST GOING TO GIVE YOU THAT OPPORTUNITY THERE.

>> IF YOU'RE READY, MR. CHERRY, YOU SHOULD CLOSE THE HEARING ALTOGETHER.

JUST SO THAT YOU ALL CAN HAVE YOUR DELIBERATIONS AND IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION OF ANY OF THE

PARTIES OR AFFECTED PARTIES, YOU CAN BRING THEM BACK. >> WE'LL GO AHEAD AND DO THAT.

WE'LL CLOSE OUT THE HEARING. AND RESERVE THE RIGHT TO BRING SOMEONE BACK.

>> WOULD IT BE -- SHOULD WE TAKE FIVE MINUTES? WE'VE BEEN HERE THREE HOURS.

>> SOMEBODY PROBABLY HAS TO TAKE A LEG STRETCH BEFORE WE GET BLOOD CLOTS HERE.

>> LET'S JUST TAKE 10 MINUTES AND WE'LL COME BACK AT 8:00 AND THAT WILL GIVE EVERYBODY A CHANCE TO GO TO THE BATHROOM, IF THAT'S OKAY. WE'LL MEET BACK HERE AND START BACK UP.

>> ALL RIGHT, GUYS. I HOPE EVERYBODY HAD A BREAK. I APOLOGIZE THAT IT'S RUNNING LATE LIKE THAT. I SPOKE JUST A MINUTE AGO WITH OUR CITY ATTORNEY MS. TAMMY BACH. I WAS ASKING HER, WE DON'T WANT TO BE NEEDLESSLY INJUROUS TO ANY PARTY, FUTURE PARTIES, APPLICANTS, IN ANY WAY. EVERY DECISION THEY MAKE IS IN

[02:50:03]

REGARDS TO THE FUTURE. ARE WE SETTING OUR FUTURE GENERATIONS UP FOR SUCCESS AND LEAVING THEM THE WORLD THAT WE GOT. AND SO I WAS JUST TALKING WITH MS. BACH ABOUT MAYBE SOME DIFFERENT IDEAS TO SOLVE AN ADMITTEDLY IMPERFECT PROBLEM IN A PRODUCTIVE MANNER. MAYBE JUST SOME OPTIONS. SHE HAS SO MUCH MORE IDEAS AND EXPERIENCE THAN I HAVE. I'M NOT A VERY ACCOMPLISHED THAT.ER AND I APOLOGIZE FOR - SO LET'S HAVE SOME BOARD DISCUSSIONS. TELL ME HOW YOU READ IT.

WHAT YOU THINK. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHICH SIDE OF THE ARGUMENT THAT YOU'RE ON.

LET'S TAKE IT ONE SIDE AND CIRCLE IT 360 DEGREES AND JUST TALK ABOUT IT.

>> WELL THIS IS PROBABLY THE MOST DIFFICULT CASE THAT I HAVE EXPERIENCED.

I MEAN, IT'S AFTER THE FACT. THERE HAS BEEN SOME MENTION WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? AND EVEN IF WE HAVE DONE CONDITIONS, APPROVALS WITH CONDITIONS.

BUT MYSELF, I WOULD WANT TO TAKE SOME TIME TO EVEN THINK ABOUT THESE CONDITIONS.

>> I WOULD SUPPORT THAT. I WOULD THINK CONDITIONAL APPROVAL.

WE HEARD TAMMY EXPLAIN AND ONE OF THE SPEAKERS MENTIONED. WE COULD WORK SOMETHING AROUND THAT. BECAUSE I THINK, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF CONCERNS HERE.

WE TALKED ABOUT IT EARLIER. OUR BASIC LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IS NOT CLEAR.

IT JUST SAYS 25 FOOT BUFFER OF NATIVE VEGETATION. BUT THEN OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAYS YOU CAN HAVE A WALL IN A BUFFER ZONE. I THINK WE'VE GOT A HUGE CONFLICT THERE. AND I THINK THIS IS GOING TO BE A CONTINUING DISPUTE THAT COULD GET WORSE IN BOTH THE CITY AND WEST ROCK, CONTINUE TO WASTE THEIR TIME AND ARGUE ABOUT THIS.

I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF WE DO NOT GRANT THE VARIANCE.

BUT I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A WASTE OF EVERYBODY'S TIME. AS ALL THE STAFF AND THE ATTORNEYS HERE HAVE HAD SEEN THESE DISPUTES OVER THE YEARS. AND I THINK IF WE CAN DRIVE TOWARDS A MEDIATED DISPUTE OR CONDITIONAL APPROVAL ON HOW WE GRANT THE VARIANCE AND IT WOULD STATE EXACTLY HOW THIS PLAN IS GOING TO PROCEED AND WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

IF WE CAN WORK SOMETHING LIKE THAT OUT, THAT WOULD BE MY SUGGESTION.

>> TELL ME IN THE PAST I THOUGHT YOU TOLD THE BOARD WE CAN'T PUT CONDITIONS ON APPROVALS OR DISAPPROVALS. HOW DOES THAT WORK? BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THAT WOULD BE

A GOOD SOLUTION. >> IT DEPENDS ON THE CONDITION. SO YOU CAN PUT CONDITIONS ON VARIANCES. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I DISCUSSED WITH MR. MILLER IS BECAUSE WE HEARD IT TONIGHT IS MAKE THEM PAY SOMETHING TO THE CITY.

MY POSITION IS AND IN MY EXPERIENCE, YOU CAN'T SELL VARIANCES.

SO IF YOU WANT CONDITIONS, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A CHECK. SO IT NEEDS TO BE SOMETHING MORE ALONG THE LINES OF WHAT MS. COZAK SAID ABOUT FIXING WHAT THE ISSUE IS.

THE FUNCTIONS, I DON'T THINK ANYBODY HAS DISPUTED THAT, OR ITS INTENDED FUNCTION.

IT'S WELL BUILT. SO NOW HOW DO WE FIX AND REPLACE.

TO ME, THAT'S THE LAST ISSUE. IS HOW DO WE FIX AND REPLACE THE VEGETATION, THE TREES THAT HAVE BEEN REMOVED. AND WE CAN'T FINE FOR THE TREES BECAUSE INDUSTRIAL USERS ARE ALLOWED TO TAKE WHATEVER TREES THEY WANT. I'M NOT SAYING THAT'S RIGHT.

THAT MAY BE SOMETHING THAT OUR POLICYMAKERS CHANGE IN THE FUTURE.

TO ME, THE CONDITIONS HAVE TO DO WITH WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO TO REPLACE OR HAVE WEST ROCK

REPLACE THAT VEGETATION AND THOSE TREES. >> IS THAT SOMETHING THAT THEY

COULD VOLUNTARILY OFFER BEFORE WE MAKE A DECISION? >> SO WHAT WE COULD DO -- AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE BY A HEAD NOD AND I'LL STATE IT FOR THE RECORD AND THE COURT REPORTER.

MR. DAVIS, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOUR CLIENT IS, OTHER THAN THIS HANGING OVER ITS HEAD, THIS ISSUE, IF THE BOARD WANTED TO TONIGHT SAY YOU AND I WORK TOGETHER, MR. POOLE AND I WORK

[02:55:03]

TOGETHER TO PROPOSE SOMETHING TO THE BOARD IN TERMS OF CONDITION. I DON'T THINK THEY'RE GOING TO BE AVAILABLE TONIGHT BEFORE TOMORROW AT 12:01, BE ABLE TO GIVE US.

THAT'S MY SENSE, OF WHAT THEY'RE THINKING RIGHT NOW. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO GIVE ME THE CONDITIONS. IN A WAY THAT'S GOING TO SATISFY THEM.

CONDITIONS MEANING CONDITIONS ON THE APPROVAL. WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE WITH THE VEGETATION. AND I DON'T KNOW. MR. MILLER, YOU'RE WILLING TO ASK THE OTHER MEMBERS. I MEAN, IS THERE ANYBODY HERE THAT'S TOTALLY AGAINST GRANTING A VARIANCE AND WANTS THE WALL REMOVED? YOU CAN START THERE.

MY SENSE IS AND I'M OUT ON A LIMB HERE IS THAT I THINK THERE'S PROBABLY THE WILL TO GRANT THE VARIANCE, BUT JUST NOT OUTRIGHT. THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE SOMETHING MORE THAN -- AND I'M SURE, WE DIDN'T GET TO SEE ALL OF THE DETAILS OF THE PLAN, OR AT LEAST I WASN'T WATCHING ALL OF IT. IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE THE GAP.

MR. MILLER, APPROACH. >> GO AHEAD, SIR. >> WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO RESPOND?

>> WE'RE THINKING OUT LOUD RIGHT NOW. >> I'LL TELL YOU WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO, IF YOU DON'T MIND. LET'S TAP THE BRAKES ON THAT. I'M GOING TO LET YOU SPEAK

AGAIN. >> IF I MAY INTERJECT THE FIGHTING WHICH IS THIS IS AN INDUSTRIAL FACILITY AND THERE'S A MORATORIUM ON THEIR ABILITY TO ENGAGE IN CONSTRUCTION AT THAT

FACILITY WHILE WE ARE WAITING FOR THIS DECISION. >> SO NOTED, SIR.

>> SO IT'S COSTING THEM A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF MONEY IN THE SENSE THAT THEY ARE NOT

MOVING FORWARD. >> SO NOTED. AND AS I SAID EARLIER, IT IS NOT OUR INTENTION TO BE NEEDLESSLY INJUROUS. WE WANT TO BE SURE WE'RE MAKING GOOD LONG TERM DECISIONS. BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE ON THAT.

AND IT'S NOT OUR POSITION THAT WE WILL DRAG THIS OUT. I WOULD LOVED TO SETTLED IT LAST

MONTH. >> WHAT'S THE CONSTRUCTION MORATORIUM SITUATION?

>> WHENEVER THERE IS A VIOLATION OF OUR CODE, OF OUR CITY CODE, OUR POLICY HAS BEEN AND WE ENFORCE IT IS NO OTHER BUILDING PERMITS ON ANY PROJECT ON THE PROPERTY WILL BE ISSUED.

IF THEY HAVE BEEN APPLIED FOR, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE GRANTED. EVERYTHING STOPS.

>> HERE'S A POSSIBLE SOLUTION. MAYBE WE DON'T MAKE -- AND I'M TALKING OUT OF CONTEXT BECAUSE I CAN'T -- I'M JUST DISCUSSING THINGS HERE. MAYBE YOU DON'T MAKE A DECISION TONIGHT AND YOU LET TAMMY AND THE COUNCIL AND EVERYBODY TALK, DISCUSS, COME UP WITH SOME SORT OF SOLUTION SO THAT MAYBE WHEN WE GOT BACK TOGETHER OR HAVE A SPECIAL MEETING IF TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE, THEN YOU BUY SOME TIME TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE SOME SORT OF AGREEMENT THAT WE COULD BOOM. AND THEN WE COULD GO. INSTEAD OF BEING IN A CONUNDRUM.

>> I THINK THAT'S A GOOD THOUGHT, SIR. >> I AM OF THE SAME OPINION AS MARK. I SEE THAT WE -- IF WE CONDITIONALIZE IT BASED ON WHAT THEY WERE JUST SAYING, WE ADD FLEXIBILITY FOR OURSELVES TO GIVE A SOLUTION THAT IS

BENEFICIAL FOR EVERYBODY. >> SO THIS IS JUST AN IDEA. AND YOU KNOW I LIKE TO TALK, RIGHT? AND HELP US ALONG. AN IDEA IS IF YOU DECIDE THAT YOU THINK YOU COULD CONDITION THIS VARIANCE ON THE VEGETATIVE PLAN THAT THEY HAVE, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS AND WEST ROCK EMPLOYEES HAVE TO WORK WITH CITY STAFF.

SEE, NORMALLY THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO BECAUSE THEY'RE EXEMPT FROM, YOU KNOW, IF THEY CUT DOWN A TREE, THEY DON'T HAVE TO DO A TREE MITIGATION PLAN. IN THIS CASE, THEY HAVE ENCROACHED UPON A BUFFER, IN OUR OPINION, AND TAKEN OUT PLANTS AND VEGETATION THAT THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE REMOVED. THAT'S BEEN THE CITY'S POSITION WHEN I SAY OURS.

BUT PERHAPS WORKING WITH CITY STAFF. BECAUSE THEY PROVIDED A PLAN THAT IS NOT ANYTHING UNDER OUR CODE HAS TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY.

RIGHT. SO IF THEY WERE MADE TO WORK WITH THE CITY, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE

[03:00:05]

PLANNING AND CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT, WE HAVE ANN ARBORIST -- AN ARBORIST.

IF YOU'RE WILLING TO LEAVE THAT OPEN, THAT'S A POSSIBILITY. YOU CAN CONDITION A VARIANCE TONIGHT ON THAT. IF YOU WANT TO WAIT, I MEAN, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THEM WITH SAYING THAT AS THIS BOARD YOU'RE SAYING WE NEED MORE TIME. BUT WE THINK THEY SHOULD BE ABLE

TO DO THE OTHER WORK. >> WELL BACK TO WHAT MR. DAVIS WAS SAYING.

TISH, DID I CUT YOU OFF? >> WELL I THINK THAT MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA.

AND MAYBE WITH THEM WORKING WITH THE CITY AND THEIR PEOPLE HERE TONIGHT, MAYBE JUST THERE'S A PERMITTING. OR MAYBE IT CAN GET SIGNED OFF BY THE CITY.

AND THEN EVERYBODY IS IN APPROVAL. >> THAT CAN BE A CONDITION.

I'M FINE WITH THAT. CONDITION. >> HOW ARE YOU?

>> WELL I DON'T BUY THE REASON FOR THE WALL FOR ONE THING. BUT I DON'T SEE ANY HOPE FOR EVER REMOVING IT. THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. IF IT'S TRUE THAT THEY STARTED THE WORK A YEAR BEFORE A PERMIT WAS ISSUED, THEN I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU DO TO GET AFTER THEM ON THAT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IT'S TOO LATE. BUT AS FAR AS A VARIANCE, IF THAT'S WHAT IT'S GOING TO TAKE, I THINK MAYBE A BOARD NEEDS AN ISSUE WITH CONDITIONS.

>> NOW IF WE DID -- LET'S GO BACK TO THAT FOR A SECOND. SO WE HAD A CITIZEN TO SAY TO

THE BOARD THAT THEY STARTED A YEAR BEFORE. >> MM-HMM.

>> IS THAT THE CITY'S POSITION? OR AM I PUTTING YOU ON THE SPOT. IS THAT SOMETHING YOU WANT TO

LOOK BACK IN TO BEFORE YOU SAY ANYTHING? >> I THINK EVIDENCE WAS PROVIDED. WE DIDN'T GET IN TO NAILING DOWN TIMES AND DATES OF THE WORK.

THAT'S NOT SOMETHING I CAN SPEAK TO. >> I DO WANT TO SPEAK TO SOMETHING, THOUGH, AND I'M CERTAINLY NOT AN EXPERT. THERE WERE A LOT OF MARKS THAT WERE SHOWING. I THINK DIFFERENT PLANTS AND THINGS THAT WERE REMOVED.

AND I'M CERTAINLY NOT AN EXPERT. BUT THINGS LIKE CLEARING THE SITE, THAT'S DONE ALL THE TIME

BEFORE BUILDING PERMITS ARE ISSUED. >> NOT IN THE CITY.

NOT IN THIS COUNTY. YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE A SEPARATE PERMIT FOR DEMOLITION.

>> THAT IS NOT TRUE. >> FOR NORMAL RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION.

INDUSTRIAL FACILITY IS EXEMPT FROM OUR TREE REMOVAL REQUIREMENT EXCEPT FOR AREAS

WITHIN 75 FEET OF RESIDENTIALLY USED ZONE -- >> --

>> THIS IS AN INDUSTRIAL SITE. BECAUSE THEY'RE EXEMPT FROM THE TREE ORDINANCE --

>> THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO ASK. >> WHICH MEANS IF THEY'RE DUE SITE CLEARING. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT DEMOLITION.

>> THAT'S WHY I DON'T THINK THE TIMING OF THAT IS VIABLE ANYMORE.

NOW THAT YOU BROUGHT UP THE FACT THAT IT'S I2. >> JUST FROM THE AERIAL, YOUR INDUSTRY. I'M A LAWYER. I DON'T KNOW FROM THE AERIAL WORK WHAT WAS DONE. I SAW SITE CLEARING. BUT WAS THERE CONSTRUCTION BEING DONE? I COULDN'T TELL FROM THE AERIAL JUST MYSELF.

I DON'T KNOW. >> I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THAT INITIALLY UNTIL WE RECEIVED THE INPUT TODAY. AND THAT PERMIT WAS 127 PAGES, AND THERE WERE EMAILS, MEETINGS, ENDLESS. SO IT LOOKED TO ME LIKE -- I MEAN, THERE'S EVEN SOME NOTES THERE WHERE WEST ROCK SAID HEY, ONLY CONCERNS HERE WERE, YOU KNOW, ELEVATIONS OR A FEW MINOR THINGS. SO I MEAN, STAFF, YOU MAY SPEAK TO THAT.

IT SEEMED LIKE THEY HAD ALL THESE MEETINGS AND THEY SUBMITTED THE PERMIT.

MAYBE THEY STARTED BEFORE THEY GOT THE FINAL APPROVAL. BUT IT SEEMED TO ME THEY HAD, YOU KNOW, THEY WEREN'T TRYING TO PUT ANYTHING PAST THE CITY. THERE'S ALL KINDS OF STUFF.

EMAILS, DISCUSSIONS. IT ALMOST LOOKED LIKE MAYBE THEY HAD A TENTATIVE APPROVAL.

AND HEY, THEY JUST DIDN'T GET THE FINAL. STAMPED APPROVAL.

>> OR YOU COULD ARGUE THE OTHER WAY THAT THEY'RE NOT GETTING ANYTHING RESOLVED IS PART OF THE PROCESS. SO YOU COULD ARGUE THAT BOTH WAYS.

BUT THEY DID DO A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF WORK WITH, YOU KNOW, THE STATE AND WATER MANAGEMENT AND ALL THAT SORT OF STUFF. JUST GO THROUGH THE FILES. I FELT SORRY FOR SOME OF THE

STUFF YOU GOTTA GO THROUGH THESE DAYS. >> MS. BACH, YES.

[03:05:17]

WHAT WOULD BE YOUR THOUGHTS IF I WERE TO ASK THE BOARD -- WELL LET'S DO IF I WAS YOU.

IF THE BOARD WOULD CONSIDER APPROVING THE VARIANCE IF WE WERE ABLE TO NEGOTIATE SOMETHING WITH MR. DAVIS THAT MIGHT BE ACCEPTABLE TO THE BOARD AND DO THAT REMOTELY WITH AN EMAIL OR SOMETHING, BOARD MEMBERS WITHOUT GETTING EVERYBODY BACK TOGETHER SO THEY CAN MOVE ON WITH THEIR PROJECT. WOULD WE HAVE TO MEET? I KNOW IN THE PAST YOU SAID WE

HAVE TO WAIT 30 DAYS BECAUSE THIS ROOM IS FULL. >> IT'S NOT ALWAYS.

I MEAN, THE PROBLEM SOMETIMES I CAN'T SAY THAT, I MEAN, IT'S GENERALLY ABOUT 30 DAYS.

WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO FIT A MEETING IN. ARE YOU THINKING THAT THIS BOARD

NEEDS TO HEAR WHAT THE PARTIES HAVE COME UP WITH AS A SOLUTION? >> THAT MIGHT BE GOOD.

>> I THINK SO. I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE. I DON'T THINK I WOULD VOTE TO APPROVE A VARIANCE SUBJECT TO SOMETHING WE MAY NEGOTIATE LATER.

I THINK IT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT -- >> WHAT I WAS SUGGESTING THAT YOU COULD CONSIDER IS NOT JUST SOMETHING NEGOTIATED LATER. IT WON'T BE THAT VAGUE.

IS THAT A VEGETATION REPLANTING PLAN THAT IS APPROVED BY THE CITY, BY THE PLANNING AND

CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT. >> SO WE HAVE A VEGETATION RESTORATION PLAN THAT WAS PRESENTED. AND I THINK THAT THERE'S OPPORTUNITY THROUGH OTHER EXPERTS, YOU KNOW, MS. COSACK POINTED OUT SOME GOOD POINTS. IF WE DO HAVE A RESTORATION PLAN IN FRONT OF US THAT IT COULD BE APPROVED WITH ADDITIONAL REVIEW AND HELP FROM CITY STAFF AND

OTHER PEOPLE TO ENHANCE THE PLAN THAT WAS PRESENTED TONIGHT. >> THE ONLY THING THAT I WAS GOING TO ASK WAS IF WE COULD SEE THOSE ENLARGED VERSIONS. BECAUSE YOU HAD SEGMENTED AREAS

FOR YOUR SHEETS THAT WERE GOING TO BE BLOWN UP. >> I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED THEM RIGHT NOW. BUT IF HE HAD ENLARGED PLANS WHERE YOU COULD SEE WHERE THE

PLANS WERE GOING. >> RIGHT. THOSE WERE NOT SUBMITTED.

HE SHOWED US THE OVERALL. >> I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE OF HOW WORKING -- NOW THIS IS RESIDENTIAL. THIS IS THE AMELIA BLUFFS SUBDIVISION.

THERE, THEY TOOK DOWN TREES. THAT WAS A VIOLATION OF A TREE ORDINANCE.

WHAT'S REQUIRED IS A TREE MITIGATION PLAN SHOWING THE TYPES OF TREES, HOW BIG THEY ARE BEFORE PLANTING. AND WHAT OUR CITY MANAGER DID, HE ULTIMATELY HAS TO APPROVE THAT TYPE OF PLAN IS HE HAD SOME ADVICE FROM THE CITY'S ARBORIST. HE DECIDED TO GO OUT TO TWO OTHER EXPERT ARBORISTS THAT ARE NOT EVEN IN NASSAU COUNTY. YEAH, THESE PUT BACK A LOT OF THE INCHES THAT WERE LOST. BUT YOU'RE PLANTING THREE OAK TREES IN THIS ISLAND ON A LITTLE CUL-DE-SAC. THAT'S NOT GOING TO WORK. SO THAT TYPE OF INPUT WAS HELPFUL. WE'RE NOT DEALING WITH LIVE OAK TREES HERE.

BUT THAT'S EVENTUALLY HOW WE SIGNED OFF ON THAT PLAN. >> FOLLOWING UP, TAMMY AND MIKE, IS IF YOU'RE GOING WITH A VEGETATION PLAN, MAYBE IN THAT PLAN, ADDITIONAL TREES WILL BE

DONATED QUOTE TO THE CITY OR SOMETHING TO KIND OF -- >> OH, TO BE PLANTED SOME --

>> TO USE -- I GET A FEEL EVERYBODY SAYING WELL YEAH, YOU PERHAPS DIDN'T DO THINGS EXACTLY THE RIGHT WAY AND THERE OUGHT TO BE SOME SORT OF COMPENSATION OR WHAT WITH THAT.

AND I'M JUST WONDERING IF MAYBE IN YOUR VEGETATION PLAN YOU SAY, YEAH, WE'VE GOT 50 EXTRA OAKS AND WE'LL LET THE CITY DECIDE WHERE THEY WANT TO GO OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

THEN YOU'RE KEEPING SOME PEOPLE HAPPY. >> I WOULD BE VERY CAREFUL.

I MEAN, ANYTHING THAT CAN BE CONSTRUED AS BEING PUNITIVE. THIS ISN'T THE ENFORCEMENT BOARD. I DON'T HAVE TO REMIND YOU. WE'RE NOT SELLING VARIANCES.

OUR PURPOSE HERE IS TO DO SOMETHING GOOD FOR THE COMMUNITY THE BEST WE CAN WITH WHAT WE

[03:10:05]

HAVE. AS A CITIZEN THAT LIVES THERE, HAS SEEN THIS, WHAT WOULD YOU

RECOMMEND? >> MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE KEEP IT AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE.

WHAT YOU WERE SAYING, TAMMY, THOSE KEY WORDS. IF WE SAY THE CITY, STAFF, AND ARBORIST HAS TO APPROVE IT, THEN WE CAN JUST STAY OUT OF IT. THEY WOULD HAVE TO APPROVE WHAT HAPPENS. OTHERWISE THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT BE APPROVED BECAUSE IT'S CONDITIONED ON THAT. SO WE WOULD NOT ALL NEED TO MICROMANAGE THAT.

IF THEY CAN'T REACH AN AGREEMENT AFTER THEY DISCUSS IT AND SAY THIS IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO.

IF THEY CAN'T GET THE APPROVAL OF THE CITY STAFF AND THE ARBORIST, THEN THEY DON'T HAVE A

VARIANCE. >> MR. MILLER, MR. DAVIS IS STANDING THERE.

HE DOESN'T HAVE TO RECOGNIZE YOU YET. >> I DON'T WANT TO WASTE

ANYBODY'S TIME. >> I WASN'T BEING RUDE TO YOU, SIR.

I WAS BEING SURE HE HAD A CHANCE TO FINISH UP WHAT HIS THOUGHTS. I KNOW SOMETIMES -- THIS OBVIOUSLY ISN'T OUR PRIMARY LINE OF WORK SO IT TAKES A WHILE FOR EVERYBODY TO GET THEIR THOUGHT

OUT THERE. YES, SIR, WHAT'S YOUR THOUGHT? >> HERE'S MY THOUGHT.

THOSE WHO KNOW ME KNOW I LIKE TO PLAY WITH PLANTS. THIS IS THE TIME WE NEED TO PUT THE PLANTS IN THE GROUND. A MONTH'S DELAY IS GOING TO AFFECT THEIR SURVIVAL FOR ANYTHING YOU'RE PUTTING IN THE GROUND. A SUGGESTION.

AND IF I DON'T SAY IT CORRECTLY, TELL ME. SOMEBODY COME UP AND KICK ME.

BUT WE NEED TO REALLY GET A DECISION TONIGHT IF WE ARE GOING TO BE SUCCESSFUL THIS YEAR IN HAVING A VEGETATIVE BLUFF. MY CLIENT IS GETTING READY TO SPEND ABOUT $30,000 THIS TIME AROUND. LET ME SUGGEST TO YOU THAT IT IS A GOOD PLAN.

I DON'T THINK WE'VE HEARD FROM ANYBODY SAYING ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE PLAN THAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED IS ANYTHING BUT A GOOD PLAN AND USE OF GOOD PLANTS. LET THE CITY ARBORIST COME SUPERVISE INSTALLATION. LET HIM COME BACK AND CHECK SURVIVAL AND CONDITION TO SAY I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SURVIVAL RATE OR PERHAPS OUR EXPERTS CAN TELL US.

I FEEL LIKE I'M DOING GOOD IF I GET A 60% SURVIVAL RATE. >> WOULD YOU AND YOUR CLIENT, THERE'S SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN ADDRESSED RECENTLY THAT WE HAVEN'T INSTITUTED IN THE CITY BUT I THINK WE MIGHT. THE ASSURANCE THAT THE VEGETATION IS GOING TO SURVIVE AND THRIVE IS GOOD. WOULD YOUR CLIENT BE WILLING TO PUT A MAINTENANCE BOND UP TO

ENSURE THAT THOSE PLANTINGS SURVIVE AND THEY DO WELL? >> IT'S KIND OF ALONG THE LINES OF DISCUSSION THAT WE WERE HAVING. IF WE DIDN'T HAVE SURVIVAL, THEY WOULD BASICALLY GO BACK IN AND REINSTALL IN THE NEXT SEASON UP TO SOME BUDGET AMOUNT.

>> I CAN SEE YOUR POINT ABOUT WANTING A DECISION TONIGHT. WE'VE ALREADY DELAYED IT 30

DAYS. >> I'LL PUT IT THIS WAY, I'VE ALREADY FERTILIZED MY YARD AND

MY PLANTS. >> WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU HAVE FRUITS?

>> I'M ALREADY SETTING BUDS.

>> ON BUFFERS, I GUESS, ON NATIVE PLANTINGS, THEY'RE ALMOST ENTIRELY DEPENDENT ON RAINFALL FOR IRRIGATION. BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GOING TO PUT IN A FULLY IRRIGATION SYSTEM.

AS WE COME IN TO SPRING, IT'S FINE. THEY'LL HAVE A CHANCE TO GROW ROOTS. WHEN THE HEAT COMES, IT ALLOWS THAT ROOT SYSTEM TO BE ABLE TO PULL IN WATER. IF WE GET IN APRIL AND MAY, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE TIME TO DEVELOP THAT SYSTEM. HALF OR 30% SURVIVAL RATE AT THAT POINT.

SO WE'RE LIKE RIGHT AT THE CUSP OF WHEN IT'S OKAY TO PLANT UNIRRIGATED, BUFFER MATERIAL

LIKE THIS. >> CAN YOU PLANT IN THE FALL? >> FALL IS OKAY.

>> I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT FALL. I KILL THEM ALL.

>> I LIKE TO SAY I'VE KILLED ONE OF EVERYTHING ONCE. I'VE GOTTEN BETTER.

FALL IS OKAY. AND THERE'S AN ISSUE WITH FREEZE.

[03:15:04]

BUT I THINK WE'RE PAST THE FREEZING POINT AT THIS POINT. ESPECIALLY THIS CLOSE TO THE

INTRACOASTAL. >> YOUR ROAD IS ON THE INSIDE OF THE WALL, CORRECT?

>> YES. >> SO YOU COULD HAVE A WATERING TRUCK GO THROUGH THERE, TOO,

WATER IF YOU WANTED TO ASSURE THE SURVIVABILITY. >> YES.

THEY'LL GET SPRAYED. BUT IT'S NOT THE SAME. >> FOR A PERIOD OF TIME WITH

TEMPORARY TRUCK. >> YEAH. THAT HAS TO HAPPEN.

WE'LL ALSO PUT DOWN MULCH SO THAT WILL HELP THE SOIL AND MOISTURE LEVELS STAY WHERE THEY NEED TO BE. BUT IT'S NOT THE SAME AS HAVING A SYSTEM ON A TIMER WHERE YOU

CAN SAY COME ON TWICE A WEEK. >> MY NAME IS PETE JOHNSON. WE DID PUT IN THE PLAN TO HAVE

TWO ROUNDS OF SPRAY IRRIGATION FROM ABOVE THE WALL. >> JUST TWO?

>> YEAH. ESPECIALLY BECAUSE IT WAS A COOLER TIME OF THE YEAR AND THE

PLANTS ARE -- NATIVE PLANTS ESTABLISH PRETTY EASILY. >> WHAT ABOUT TAMMY'S IDEA OF

PUTTING THE BOND IN THERE TO MAKE SURE IT STAYS AND GROWS. >> I CAN'T ANSWER THAT.

>> THEY'RE GOING TO SPEND $30,000 ON THIS PROJECT, THEY WOULD DO A BOND OF ONE-THIRD

WOULD BE $10,000. >> IF YOU'RE ASKING ME, THE WAY THAT I -- I AM NOT ANNDING.

THE WAY I'VE SEEN IT HAPPEN IS FOR ROADS. BUT THE CITY IS CONSIDERING IT FOR LANDSCAPING AND THINGS LIKE THAT. AND IT'S BASED ON THE TIME PERIOD. WE DO TWO YEAR MAINTENANCE BONDS IS WHAT WE DO.

AND THE WAY THAT YOU BOND IT, IT'S BETWEEN YOU ALL AND THE SURETY, WHAT THE COST IS.

YOU'RE BONDING THE WHOLE PROJECT. BUT WHAT THE COST IS AND HOW

MUCH, THAT'S BETWEEN YOU AND THE SURETY. >> WHAT WE WOULD NEED IS TO HAVE

A STANDARD. >> WOULDN'T YOU LIKE ALL THE PLANTS TO LIVE?

>> I KNOW WHEN I PLANT PINE TREES, I DON'T GET 100% SURVIVAL.

>> COULDN'T WE JUST MAKE THAT ONE OF THE CONDITIONS. AS PART OF THE STAFF OF ARBORIST APPROVAL, THE PLANT HAS SURVIVABILITY. WOULDN'T THAT BE A LOT EASIER

THAN DOING A BOND? >> IT WOULD MEET YOUR NEEDS. >> BECAUSE THEN IF THIS PLAN

FAILS, THEN WE'RE BACK HERE. THEY DON'T HAVE A VARIANCE. >> YES, YOU COULD MAKE IT THAT BROAD. AND CITY STAFF IS QUITE GOOD AT MAKING SURE THAT.

REMEMBER, WHAT YOU'RE PUTTING ON WEST ROCK IS A CONDITION THAT THEY DO NOT ALREADY -- THEY'RE NOT ALREADY SUBJECTED TO. SO THESE PLANTINGS AND ALL OF THAT, BECAUSE IT'S AN INDUSTRIAL ZONING, THEY'RE NOT SUBJECT TO ANY OF THOSE. SO THIS WOULD BE NEW FOR THEM AND IT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE ASKING THEM TO DO THAT'S GOING TO COST THEM TIME AND MONEY. THEY WOULDN'T OTHERWISE HAVE TO SPEND.

>> AS A LAWYER, YOU CAN TRUST ME WHEN I SAY YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET 100% SURVIVAL ON THIS SCALE PLAN. BUT YOU WANT TO HAVE A GOAL OF 80 OR 90% BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT TO

GROW AND FILL IN. BUT YOU'VE GOT A CITY ARBORIST? >> YES.

>> THIS PERSON I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE SHOULD COME IN AND WATCH THE INSTALLATION.

ENSURE PROPER PLANTS, PROPER NUMBER REPRESENTATIVE COMES IN. THEY CAN CALL THE CITY IF IT'S

NOT RIGHT. >> WHEN YOU SAY APPROVAL OF THE CITY, SURVIVABILITY, THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT'S AS SPECIFIC I THINK YOU WOULD NEED TO GET IN ORDER TO GET WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR.

>> WOULD SOMEBODY FROM THE CITY GO THERE PERIODICALLY OR TWICE A YEAR?

>> I THINK WE CAN COORDINATE THAT WITH WEST ROCK. I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE AN

ISSUE AT ALL. >> LET THE CITY ARBORIST BE THE INSPECTOR.

I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE PAYING THE CITY ARBORIST I GUESS TO DO.

>> YOU'RE RIGHT. THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS. >> I WOULD JUST TELL YOU THAT

[03:20:12]

THE SURVIVABILITY OF PLANTS, THE BOND, WHATEVER THEY WANTED TO DO, THAT WOULD BE FINE.

BUT ENCROACHING IN TO THE WETLANDS BUFFER IN SUCH AN EGREGIOUS MANNER IS, FOR ME, IT'S A BIG DEAL. WE KNOW THAT THEY WERE SPIRITED CONVERSATIONS WHEN THE COMMITTEE WAS WRITING THE LDC AND THE CITY COMMISSION THAT PASSED THAT IN TO LAW.

WE DON'T KNOW ANY OF THOSE PEOPLE'S NAMES. BUT THEY THOUGHT THAT THE WETLANDS WERE PRETTY IMPORTANT TO PROTECT. THAT'S WHY THEY GAVE US A 25-FOOT SETBACK. WHICH IS MORE THAN OTHER JURISDICTIONS.

AND THEY GAVE US A PARAGRAPH THAT SAID STAY OUT OF THEM. SO NOW WE'VE GOT THIS WALL IN THERE ADMITTEDLY IMPERFECT. WHERE TAKING IT OUT IS GOING TO BE A WHOLE LOT WORSE THAN LEAVING IT IN THERE. IS WEST ROCK STOPPED ON ALL OF THEIR CONSTRUCTION OR JUST THIS

PROJECT? >> ALL. IT COULD BE SOMETHING INSIDE THE

PLANT AND THEY CAN'T GET THE PERMIT RIGHT NOW. >> WELL OUR INDECISION, AND I WOULDN'T REALLY -- THAT'S PROBABLY A POOR CHOICE OF WORDS, OUR INDECISION SHOULD NOT BE HOLDING THEM UP. WE SHOULD BE ABLE ALL OF US GET TOGETHER AND TO RESOLVE THAT.

NOW IF WE CAME BACK TO THE BOARD MEMBERS THAT ARE GOING TO VOTE ON THIS, IF EVERYBODY WAS IN AGREEMENT, THERE MAY BE BOARD MEMBERS THAT WOULD JUST VOTE NO. WE DON'T KNOW THAT.

BUT HOW COULD WE STRUCTURE THAT IMMEDIATELY ALL OF US CAN GET TOGETHER IN SOME MANNER.

>> A SPECIAL MEETING. >> WITHOUT COMING BACK IN ANOTHER 30 DAYS.

>> WE'D HAVE TO HAVE A SPECIAL MEETING IF MORE THAN ONE OF YOU BOARD MEMBERS WANTED TO SIT DOWN

AND WORK OUT SOME SOLUTION. >> ARE WE ABLE AS BOARD MEMBERS TO MEET --

>> IT HAS TO BE HERE. >> I WOULD BE INCLINED TO DO THAT BECAUSE I FEEL PRETTY RUSHED. I MEAN, THERE'S A LOT TO CONSIDER, MYSELF, PERSONALLY.

AND AGAIN, IT'S AFTER THE FACT. SO I MEAN, I THINK THE WALL IS GREAT GIVEN THE SITUATION FOR

THIS. I MEAN. >> I CAN UNDERSTAND IF SOMEBODY NEEDED MORE TIME. PERSONALLY, I WOULD. WE HAVE EVERYBODY HERE RIGHT NOW. TAMMY GAVE A GREAT OUTLINE. I THINK WE COULD DRAFT WHAT IT WOULD BE. I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH A FEW DAYS WOULD CHANGE THE PROCESS WHERE YOU HAVE ONGOING. I DON'T WANT TO PUSH ANYBODY IF THEY NEED MORE TIME.

BUT YOU ALREADY GAVE A GREAT OUTLINE. >> THAT'S UP TO YOU ALL.

>> STAFF HAS THEIR COUNSEL. AND WEST ROCK IS HERE. HOW LONG WOULD IT TAKE?

JUST WRITE IT RIGHT NOW. >> YOU'RE SAYING WHAT THE CONDITION WOULD BE?

>> RIGHT. RIGHT. CONDITIONAL APPROVAL.

>> AND AGAIN, KIND OF REITERATING, WE HAVE A RESTORATION PLAN IN FRONT OF US.

THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IS HERE. THINK IT'S A GOOD PLAN WITH FLORIDA NATIVE VEGETATION.

IS IT SOMETHING CITY STAFF CAN WORK WITH THEM TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS ON? IS THAT SOMETHING THE BOARD, YOU KNOW, FEELS COMFORTABLE WITH. AS PART OF THOSE CONDITIONS, WE HAVE A PLAN HERE IN FRONT OF US WITH THE RESTORATION OF THAT BUFFER.

SURE THERE MAY BE OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE IT IN VARIOUS WAYS. BUT THAT GIVES US A BASIS.

>> I HAVE NO DOUBT. >> CAN I MAKE ONE SUGGESTION? WITH THAT, ECHOING WHAT STAFF

[03:25:12]

JAKE IS SAYING. YOU'VE GOT A PLAN. YOU'VE IDENTIFIED SPECIES.

YOU'VE IDENTIFIED NUMBERS OF PLANTS. WHAT IF THE CONDITION WAS THAT WEST ROCK WORKS WITH THE CITY ARBORIST AS TO THE EXACT LOCATION, THE SIZE, AND THE METHOD OF PLANTING? SO YOU'VE GOT THAT INPUT. THERE COULD BE SOME TWEAKING OF IT. MAYBE IT'S BETTER HERE. MAYBE IT PROVIDES MORE SHIELDING OR SCREENING TO OLD TOWN. IF YOU HAVE SOME PARTS FOCUSED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF IT.

MAYBE THERE ARE THINGS THAT THE CITY ARBORIST CAN IMPROVE UPON. BUT AT ITS CORE, YOU'VE GOT THE PLAN, YOU'VE GOT THE GENERAL LOCATION, YOU'VE GOT PLANTS, YOU'VE GOT SPECIES.

IF THAT GIVES THE BOARD COMFORT, I'M SURE STAFF CAN WORK WITH WITH THE ARBORIST AND THAT'S GOING TO GIVE AWAY WITHOUT HAVING TO COME BACK FOR ANOTHER MEETING

>> DOES IT LEAVE IT TOO OPEN ENDED FOR THE ARBORIST TO SAY -- DO THEY HAVE THAT PURVIEW?

>> IT DEPENDS ON THE CONDITIONS I THINK YOU WOULD PUT ON IT. YOU COULD PUT A PLAN NOT TO EXCEED A COST OF, AND IF IT'S $30,000. THEN THE ARBORIST WOULD WANT TO

WORK WITHIN THOSE PARAMETERS. IT'S JUST A SUGGESTION. >> I THINK THAT'S A GOOD SUGGESTION. I'M COMING BACK TO -- AND I THINK ALL OF THAT COULD BE IRONED OUT BETWEEN EVERYBODY. I'M JUST BACK TO THE FACT THAT AT LEAST SINCE I'VE BEEN ON THIS BOARD, WE'VE NEVER ALLOWED ONE SHOVEL FULL OF DIRT TO BE DISTURBED IN WETLANDS.

>> NO WETLANDS WERE DISTURBED. >> HE WAS IN THE 25-FOOT WETLANDS.

>> JUST THE BUFFER. >> I MISSPOKE ON THAT. SO NOW WE'VE HAD QUITE AN EGREGIOUS IMPACT ON THAT. MR. DAVIS, I KNOW YOU'RE TALKING TO THE CITY ABOUT SOME OTHER ISSUES AS WELL. BUT HAVE YOU THOUGHT ABOUT OR GIVEN ANY ROUND ABOUT THOUGHT TO IF THE BOARD WOULD COME TO SOME VERBIAGE TONIGHT ABOUT THE PLANTINGS WITHIN THE WETLANDS OF A DONATION OF SOME OTHER LAND TO THE CITY OR SETTING ASIDE CONSERVATION EASEMENT TO MAKE SOME SORT OF GOOD FAITH EFFORT TOWARDS THIS WALL GOING IN THERE?

>> LET ME GIVE YOU -- >> I DON'T MEAN TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT.

>> WELL YOU'RE PUTTING ME ON THE SPOT. LET ME GIVE YOU AN ANSWER.

WE HAVE PUT A CONSERVATION WITHIN THE LAST 10 YEARS. I'M NOT ADVERSE TO CONSERVATION EASTMENTS. I CONTINUE TO SERVE ON ITS BOARD.

I'M VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF WETLANDS PROTECTION. I LIVE ON THE WATER.

I GREW UP HERE ON THE WATER. I INTEND, IF I COULD GET AWAY WITH IT, TO HAVE MY ASHES SCATTERED ON THE WATER. BUT AS FAR AS MY PLAN GOES, I THINK THEY'RE COMMITTED AND I AM TAKING MY OPPORTUNITY AS THEIR ATTORNEY TO WORK ON THEM TO BE MORE ENGAGED IN VERY PUBLIC MANNER IN WETLANDS PROTECTION AROUND HERE. BUT AS FAR AS COMMITTING TO DONATIONS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, THAT'S ALMOST LIKE PUTTING A PRICE TAG ON GETTING A VARIANCE, AND THAT'S PROBABLY NOT AN AREA WHERE WE SHOULD TREAD. BUT IF YOU THINK -- HOPEFULLY YOU FIND SUCCESSFUL THEY'RE GOING TO BE ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN THE NEXT ST. MARY'S RIVER CLEAN UP AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. IF I'M SUCCESSFUL, THEY WILL CONTINUE TO HELP SUPPORT US ON OUR LIVING SHORELINE PROJECT WHICH IS ADJACENT TO THIS MILL, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE IN OUR COMMUNITY ARE NOT DOING AS FAR AS COMBATING ISSUES OF SEA RISE.

THEY ARE SUPPORTING US IN THAT ENDEAVOR. AND I HOPE THEY WILL CONTINUE TO

[03:30:04]

DO THOSE THINGS. SO IF WE WANT TO PUT THIS IN SOME CONTEXT, THEY'RE DOING THEIR PART TO TRY TO PROTECT THE WETLANDS AND THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANYBODY TO PIN A MEDAL ON THEM. I WILL ENCOURAGE YOU TO ENCOURAGE THEM TO CONTINUE.

I DON'T KNOW IF I'VE ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION OR NOT. >> I THINK YOU HAVE.

AND I'M IN NO WAY TRYING TO LEAD YOU ON THAT. I WAS TRYING TO COME BACK TO THE POINT THAT IF WE ALLOW THAT ENCROACHMENT, COULD WE SET ASIDE SOMETHING SOMEWHERE ELSE.

MORE LESS LIKE A MITIGATION ON THAT. >> WELL I THINK THEY ARE VERY, VERY, VERY WILLING TO WORK TO MAKE SURE THIS IS A VEGETATED BUFFER REQUIRED BY THE CODE.

I WILL AGAIN SAY, YOU KNOW, AND I'VE REPRESENTED, AND YOU REALLY DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE IN THIS RECORD TO CONTRADICT WHAT I'VE REPRESENTED WHICH IS THIS THING IS DESIGNED FOR ONE PURPOSE AND THAT'S TO KEEP STORM WATER RUN OFF OUT OF A WETLAND. WHICH IS WHAT YOUR PURPOSE IS SUPPOSED TO BE. IT'S NOT AN ENCROACHMENT. I DISAGREE WITH CITY STAFF'S INTERPRETATION. BUT I BELIEVE -- I'M GLAD TO DISCUSS THE LAW ON THAT ISSUE.

BUT THE CITY'S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND COMP PLAN SAY THAT A BUFFER INCLUDES THESE COMPONENTS. AND SO WE HAVE THESE COMPONENTS. IT'S THERE.

IT FUNCTIONS. WE HAVE A STORM EVENT END OF DECEMBER, IF Y'ALL REMEMBER.

I REMEMBER BECAUSE MY ROOF LEAKED AT MY OFFICE. THIS WALL FUNCTIONS.

YOU DID NOT HAVE STORM WATER AND EROSION DEPOSITED IN TO THE WETLANDS WHEN THAT EVENT OCCURRED. IT DOES WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO DO.

AND THAT'S REALLY SHOULD BE WHEN YOU JUDGE IT UPON. DOES IT DO WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO DO WHICH IS STOP EROSION AND FLOOD WATER IN TO THE AMELIA RIVER.

>> BUT IF THIS BOARD DID NOT MAKE A DECISION TONIGHT, THEN BASICALLY YOU'RE STILL IN THE

SITUATION WHERE YOU GUYS CAN'T DO ANY CONSTRUCTION. >> EXACTLY.

>> TIME IS MONEY. >> RIGHT. >> AND WE'RE ALL INTERESTED IN WORKING TOGETHER TO GET THIS THING SOLVED SO THAT I'M NOT HEARING ANYTHING FROM THE OTHER

SIDE HELPING US SOLVE OUR PROBLEM THERE. >> WHAT I AM IS SAYING LET'S LOOK -- WE'VE GOT A PLAN TO VEGETATE THIS. NOT NATURALLY.

WE'RE GOING TO GO IN AND SPEND OUR MONEY. SPEND $30,000 TO PUT IN THESE PLANTINGS. WE'RE GIVING YOU THE PLAN AND THE QUANTITIES OF THE PLANTS THAT ARE GOING IN AND WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO BE LOCATED. AND THIS IS THE MONEY WE'RE GOING TO SPEND. AND WE'RE GOING TO BE WATERING THESE PLANTS.

WE NEED TO GET THEM IN THE GROUND SO THEY HAVE THE BEST OPPORTUNITY TO SURVIVE AND BE SUCCESSFUL AS A BUFFER. WE'RE HAPPY FOR THE CITY'S ARBORIST TO COME IN AND SERVICE AND MAKE SURE IT'S DONE THE WAY IT'S DONE. THEY DON'T HAVE ANY INCENTIVE TO DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN MAKE IT WORK. AND IF THERE'S A NEED --

>> LET ME SAY ONE THING. YOU'VE GOT A PLANT THAT'S GOING IN THAT HIGH THAT'S SUPPOSEDLY A

TREE. >> IT WILL BE A TREE. >> 20 YEARS FROM NOW, RIGHT? SO I'M JUST SAYING THERE SHOULD BE -- MAYBE THERE SHOULD BE SOME BACK AND FORTH WITH THE ARBORIST AS FAR AS WHAT'S GOING IN THERE. I LIKE THE FLORIDA PLANTS AND EVERYTHING.

BUT MAYBE THAT'S NOT GOING WITH DUE RESPECT TO THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS.

IT COULD BE DONE BETTER. AND MAYBE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HAVING AN OPPORTUNITY WHERE THE ARBORIST AND YOUR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS CAN TAKE A LOOK AT IT.

>> VERY HAPPY TO WORK WITH THE CITY'S ARBORISTS. HAVE THE CITY ARBORISTS

SUPERVISE. >> YOU KEEP SAYING SUPERVISE. >> WELL HE'S NOT GOING TO GET OUT AND DIG THE HOLES HIMSELF AND PUT THE PLANTS IN THE GROUND.

HE CAN BE WATCHING AND SAYING IF IT WAS PROPERLY DONE AS WELL. >> IT WILL INPUT IN SIZES AND

LOCATIONS AND STUFF. >> WELL THAT DOESN'T GIVE US A DECISION TONIGHT.

>> RIGHT. >> WELL THEN TELL US YOUR THOUGHTS ON A BUDGET.

[03:35:03]

I'VE TOLD YOU WHAT MY CLIENT IS SPENDING WHAT IS THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT'S ESTIMATE OF THE IN PLACE MATERIALS THAT YOU'VE GOT ON YOUR PLAN RIGHT NOW? JUST BALLPARK.

I'M SURE YOU'VE HAD DISCUSSIONS. >> WHAT WE BUDGETED FOR THE PLANT MATERIALS ON HERE TONIGHT?

>> YEAH. IN PLACE. >> INSTALL.

>> OH, INSTALL. CLOSE TO $30,000. >> CLOSE TO $30,000.

AND THEN WE'LL HAVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF THOSE WILL DIE, RIGHT? YOU SAID.

SO MAYBE 20% DIES. THAT'S 36,000. MAYBE YOU LIMIT IT TO $40,000 OR

SOMETHING AND LET THE GUYS WORK EVERYTHING OUT. >> I THINK THIS IS A GOOD DISCUSSION. SO DO YOU SAY WE WANT TO ADD ANOTHER $6,000 TO $10,000 FOR BUDGET FOR ADDITIONAL PLANTS OR DO YOU WANT TO BUDGET ADDITIONAL $6,000 TO REPLACE ANY NEXT FALL

THAT MAY NOT YET SURVIVE THROUGH THE SUMMER? >> I WAS THINKING JUST A LIMIT SO THAT YOUR GUYS ARE SATISFIED THAT YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR DOWN SIDE IS.

AND LET THE ARBORIST WORK IT OUT AS FAR AS WITH THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS KNOWING YOU'VE GOT A CERTAIN BUDGET FIGURE YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH SO YOU CAN GET ON THE PROCESS AND NOT COST

ANYBODY MONEY. >> I THINK THAT'S A GOOD APPROACH.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THIS BOARD IS GOING TO BE AGREEABLE WITH.

I DON'T MIND GOING BACK TO MY CLIENT. >> I THINK SOMETHING LIKE THAT WOULD WORK. WE'VE HEARD TWO PRETTY GOOD OUTLINES.

WE HAVE EXCELLENT STAFF HERE. IT'S HARD TO DO IT IN AN OPEN FORUM.

EXCEPT MAYBE ANOTHER 10-MINUTE BREAK. MR. POOLE AND MR. DAVIS, IF THEY SAT DOWN WITH A LEGAL PAD, THEY COULD PROBABLY WRITE THIS OUT. ALL THE THOUGHTS WE'VE EXPRESSED

IN THIS CONDITIONAL APPROVAL. >> WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THAT? >> I'M HAPPY TO DO THAT.

REMEMBER SHE SAID SHE FEELS RUSHED. I DON'T WANT TO GO THROUGH THAT EXERCISE AND I'M NOT SAYING, YOU KNOW, MAYBE IT WILL DEPEND IF THERE ARE NOT FOUR VOTES TO APPROVE A VARIANCE TONIGHT WITH CONDITIONS LIKE THIS. IF WE DON'T HAVE THOSE THEN

THERE'S NO SENSE IN GOING THROUGH THAT. >> THEY'RE THROWING OUT NUMBERS AND PLANTS AND I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT PLANTS AND I KNOW HOW MUCH ANY OF THIS STUFF COSTS.

SO I DON'T KNOW. MAYBE $30,000 IS FINE. AND MAYBE ALL THE VEGETATION THAT THEY ALREADY HAVE IN PLACE IS FINE. I MEAN, I CAN'T MAKE THAT.

>> NO, BUT I MEAN -- >> EDUCATIONAL DECISION. >> IF YOU'RE FEELING RUSHED AND YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE WILLING TO BASED ON WHATEVER WE COME UP WITH TONIGHT, VOTE FOR THE VARIANCE AND ONE OTHER MEMBER IS NOT WILLING TO VOTE FOR THE VARIANCE, THEN WE WILL HAVE

WASTED 10 MINUTES OR 15 MINUTES DRAFTING CONDITIONS. >> I MEAN, IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE, LIKE, THE PLANS WITH THE CITY ARBORIST LOOK THAT OVER BEFORE WE MAKE A DECISION?

>> THE ACTUAL PLAN? >> NOT HERE TONIGHT. >> RIGHT.

I KNOW. WHAT IS THE TIME FRAME? I DON'T KNOW ABOUT EVERYBODY ELSE. BUT WHAT IS THE TIME FRAME FOR US TO DO MAYBE A SPECIAL? I DON'T THINK IT WOULD HAVE TO LAST THIS LONG. JUST A SPECIAL SO WE CAN MAYBE

HAVE THE CITY ARBORIST REVIEW. >> I DON'T KNOW THAT WE WOULD HAVE ACCESS TO THE CHAMBER

SCHEDULE ON YOUR COMPUTER. >> SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO WAIT ANOTHER 30 DAYS.

>> IT'S CONDITIONED ON CITY APPROVAL. THEY WOULD APPROVE IT.

THEY'D HAVE TO COME BACK. >> USUALLY CONDITIONS ARE PRETTY MUCH SPELLED OUT.

>> LET'S GET EVERYBODY BACK HERE. WE'RE KIND OF BREAKING OFF IN

LITTLE GROUPS. LET'S NOT DO THAT. >> YES, SIR.

>> LET'S DON'T BREAK UP IN LITTLE GROUPS. >> I'M WILLING TO DO WHATEVER WORK YOU ALL WANT. I GUESS I'M JUST PUTTING OUT THERE THAT I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT WORK FOR ANY OF US TONIGHT. IT'S ALREADY LATE. MOST OF US ATE MORE THAN 12 HOURS AGO. I GUESS I NEED TO KNOW IF WHAT WE COME UP WITH TONIGHT IS NOT

[03:40:04]

GOING TO BE SPECIFIC. THE ONLY SPECIFICS ARE GOING TO BE WHAT'S ALREADY IN THE PLAN THAT'S BEFORE YOU. AND WHAT WE CAN SAY IS THAT CITY STAFF CAN, FROM LOOKING AT THE PLAN. I MEAN, THESE ARE CITY CONDITIONS YOU CAN SET.

CITY STAFF BEING ARBORIST AND CONSERVATION STAFF. LOOK AT THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT'S PLAN. MAYBE MAKE SOME SUGGESTIONS. YOU CAN SET A BUDGET CAP, IF YOU WISH. THOSE ARE THE TYPES OF THINGS. THAT MAY NOT BE ENOUGH SPECIFICS FOR SOME OF THE MEMBERS HERE TONIGHT. I GUESS MR. CHAIR, I'M SAYING YOU GOTTA GET A FEEL FROM THE MEMBERS WHAT THEY'RE WILLING TO DO.

BECAUSE THERE'S NO SENSE IN DOING THAT WORK RIGHT NOW. >> I AGREE.

AND I'M GOING TO TAKE SOME OF THE PRESSURE OFF OF HER. BECAUSE I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE. I'M NOT IN A POSITION TO HAVE SUCH AN EGREGIOUS ACT AND PUT SOME PLANTS IN IT AND JUST BE DONE WITH IT. I MEAN, I'M NOT.

AND SOME OF THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS MAY JUST SAY, YOU ENCROACHED IN THAT, TAKE YOUR WALLET OUT. GET IT OUT. WHICH THAT DOESN'T MOVE US FORWARD IN ANY WAY. BUT I'LL TAKE THE PRESSURE OFF OF HER.

AND I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE. VOTING FOR THAT NO MATTER HOW WE DRAFTED IT.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I FEEL LIKE WE OWE THEM THEIR DUE DILIGENCE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH IT IN SOME MEANINGFUL AND PRODUCTIVE MANNER. WHAT YOU GOT?

>> I JUST WANT TO OFFER THE SUPPORT THAT, YOU KNOW, IF THE BOARD'S WILLING TO RECOGNIZE WHAT WE'VE GOT AS FAR AS THE DEFINITIONS OF BUFFERS AND THE SITUATION AT HAND.

AND RECOGNIZING THAT WE HAVE EVERY INTENT TO RESTORE THAT VEGETATION THROUGH THIS PLANTING PLAN, I'M CONFIDENT THAT CITY ARBORISTS AND THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND WEST ROCK CAN WORK THROUGH THOSE NITTY-GRITTY DETAILS. AND I UNDERSTAND THE WANTING TO SEE A LITTLE BIT MORE SPECIFICS. I MEAN, WE HAVE VERY SPECIFIC THINGS IN THIS PLAN.

QUANTITIES. TYPES OF PLANTS. ALL BEING NATIVE FLORIDA VEGETATION. AGAIN, THINK THAT WE GOT TO A POINT WHERE WE'RE RESTORING THAT BUFFER. AND IF THE BOARD FEELS THAT THERE'S, YOU KNOW, THAT'S SUFFICIENT, CITY STAFF IS MORE THAN HAPPY AND CAPABLE TO WORK WITH WEST ROCK TO TWEAK THE PLAN AND MAKE THE PLAN BETTER. AND TO MAKE SURE THE PLAN GETS FILLED AND COMPLETE.

>> MAY I MAKE A SUGGESTION? >> SURE. >> I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THIS WORKS FOR YOU, BUT IT'S A SUGGESTION. THAT A MOTION BE MADE TO GRANT MY CLIENT A CONDITIONAL VARIANCE CONDITIONED ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A LANDSCAPE PLAN AS APPROVED BY THE CITY ARBORIST STARTING WITH THE PLAN THAT'S IN PLACE, BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO HAVE A STARTING POINT SOMEWHERE. AND AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF MONEY. I WOULD SUGGEST $6,000 TO $10,000 IN ADDITION TO THE $30,000 THAT GOT COMMITTED TO THE PLAN THAT'S ON THE BOARD. AND LET THE CITY ARBORIST DECIDE IF THE QUANTITIES AND THE SIZES AND THE INSTALLATION ARE APPROPRIATE.

TO ACCOMPLISH THE PURPOSE OF THE VEGETATED BUFFER. I DON'T HAVE A DOG IN THE FIGHT WHEN IT COMES TO WHETHER WE'RE PUTTING IN ONE GALLON OR FIVE GALLON OR FULL SIZE TREES.

I KNOW THAT SMALLER PLANTS, YOU GET MORE FOR THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY.

BUT IF THE CITY ARBORIST SAYS NO, I WANT BIGGER, YOU'VE GOT A BUDGET.

YOU'VE GOT A DOLLAR AMOUNT. BUT IT LETS YOU ATTACH A DOLLAR SIGN TO VEGETATED BUFFER.

THE BUFFER IS VEGETATED. THE CITY'S ARBORIST IS IN CHARGE, AT LEAST OVERSEEING THE IMPLEMENTATION. BUT YOU GET TO A DECISION POINT TONIGHT.

>> AND I'LL GO BACK TO TISH'S CORNER ON THAT. I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE DOING

[03:45:04]

THAT. NOW THE BOARD CERTAINLY MAY FEEL DIFFERENTLY THAN I DO.

THAT'S WHY THERE ARE SO MANY OF US SITTING UP HERE. >> OF THE FIVE THAT CAN VOTE, WHAT'S THE MAJORITY IN THIS ROOM? IS IT FOUR?

>> IT REQUIRES FOUR TO APPROVE A VARIANCE. THREE TO DENY A VARIANCE.

SO THE VOTING MEMBERS FOR THIS ARE MR. -- >> WELL I DON'T -- I THINK TAKING THE WALL DOWN IS GOING TO DO MORE DAMAGE THAN WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO PROTECT.

I GUESS I WOULD SUPPORT THAT 100% IF WE HAD NOT ALREADY DELAYED THIS ONCE.

I WOULD RATHER BE PART OF A BOARD THAT HAS THESE MEETINGS AND DISCUSSES THINGS AND RESOLVES THEM, PERSONALLY. I DON'T WANT TO BE ON THE BOARD THAT WE ALREADY MET ONCE AND NOW WE MET TWICE. I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO MEET A THIRD TIME.

I DON'T SEE WHAT'S GOING TO CHANGE BETWEEN NOW AND THEN. >> THAT'S A VERY VALID POINT.

AND IT'S VERY UNUSUAL FOR US NOT TO RENDER A DECISION THAT NIGHT. VERY UNUSUAL.

AND TYPICALLY WHAT WE'RE DOING AS ALL OF US KNOW, AFFECTS TWO OR THREE PEOPLE.

PERHAPS A SUBDIVISION. THIS AFFECTS EVERYBODY IN THE CITY AND ALL OF OUR FUTURE GENERATION OF JUST WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE. AND I WOULD JUST TELL YOU THAT SPEAKING PERSONALLY FOR ME THAT TO HAVE SOMETHING THAT APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN QUESTIONABLE AND THEN, YOU KNOW, GIVE US A FEW MORE PLANTS AND LET'S CALL IT EVEN, I THINK THAT IS -- I DON'T THINK THAT THAT IS THE RIGHT WAY TO LIGHT THE FUTURE FOR OUR FUTURE GENERATIONS.

WE ALL KNOW HOW VALUABLE THAT THE WETLANDS ARE. AND WE JUST DON'T RUN BULLDOSERS THROUGH THE BUFFERS. BUT I AGREE WITH YOU THAT THERE'S SOME SORT OF SOLUTION HERE. AND WE HAVE TO FIND SOME SORT OF SOLUTION AND MOVE FORWARD WITH IT. NOW THAT'S HOW READ IT. WHAT DO YOU THINK? YOU'VE BEEN AWFUL QUIET DOWN THERE. I'M GOING TO PUT YOU ON THE HOT

SEAT FOR A WHILE. >> I'M TENDING TO THINK WE OUGHT TO DENY IT TONIGHT.

IF I HAD TO VOTE RIGHT NOW, I WOULD VOTE -- I FEEL LIKE, I MEAN, I LISTEN TO THE REST OF THE BOARD AND MANY TIMES I'VE HAD A FEELING OF WHAT I WOULD DO.

AND THEN SOMEONE SAYS SOMETHING AND I THINK WELL THAT'S A VALID ARGUMENT AND THAT CHANGED MY MIND. BUT BASED ON WHAT I'M SEEING RIGHT NOW I'D PROBABLY VOTE NO.

>> IS THERE IS A LOOPHOLE WHERE THE CITY CAN WORK WITH THE WEST ROCK PEOPLE ON SOME WAY TO MOVE

FORWARD WITH THEIR PROJECTS? >> THEIR PENDING PROJECTS? >> YES.

>> IT STILL DOESN'T SOLVE WHAT WE'RE HERE DISCUSSING TONIGHT. THAT'S WHERE I'M KIND OF JUST HEARING THAT IT'S THE WALL THE ISSUE AND GOING AWAY. OR IS IT THE PLAN, WANTING TO

SEE MORE DETAIL? IF THE WALL -- >> THE WALL'S NOT GOING AWAY.

>> NO, THE WALL IS NOT GOING ANYWHERE. >> THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE.

>> IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THAT'S THE ISSUE. THAT'S WHY I'M KIND OF LIKE WITH THE OPTION FOR PROVIDING CONDITIONS, I THINK WE HAVE A BASE DOCUMENT THAT THE CITY CAN WORK WITH AND MOVE FORWARD. BECAUSE IT DOESN'T -- I THINK WE'VE GOT A BASE DOCUMENT WITH A HIGHLY RESPECTED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT THAT WEST ROCK IS WILLING TO MAKE SURE WE DO

WHAT'S RIGHT HERE GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES. >> SOME OF THESE CONCERNS, I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA. BUT AREN'T SOME OF THESE CONCERNS BEFORE THE CODE OF

BOARD ENFORCEMENT? >> SO THERE WAS AN ISSUE -- THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS REFERRED TO THE DPPR WITH ONE OF THE CONTRACTORS AND THAT GOT SENT BACK AS A NONISSUE.

[03:50:07]

>> I CAN ANSWER THAT. IT WAS SOME OTHER PROJECT A FEW YEARS AGO.

THERE WAS NO PERMIT PULLED OR PERMITS PULLED WHEN, AND OF COURSE WE SAT DOWN WITH THE CITY LEADERS HAVE GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH WEST ROCK AND THEIR LEADERSHIP, TOO.

SO WE SAT DOWN AND SAID, OH-OH, THERE WAS NO PERMIT PULLED AND YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO PULL PERMITS.

THE VERY FIRST THING THAT WEST ROCK PULLED OUT WAS WE DIDN'T KNOW.

AND SO I'M JUST BEING HONEST. I THOUGHT, RIGHT. BUT THEY SHOWED A RESOLUTION FROM THE 1990S THAT SAID THE MILLS ARE EXEMPT FROM THE CITY'S BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS.

AND THEY NEVER CAME TO THE CITY FOR PERMITS. AND THEN THAT CHANGED, YOU KNOW, SOMEWHERE IN I DON'T KNOW THE MID 2000S OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

WE EXPECTED WITHOUT REALLY COMMUNICATING THAT WE EXPECT THEM TO COME FOR BUILDING PERMITS. ALTHOUGH INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY OWNERS GENERALLY USE PRIVATE PROVIDERS BECAUSE WE DON'T ALWAYS HAVE THE STAFF OR INSPECTORS THAT HAVE THE SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE TO INSPECT THOSE PROJECTS ON THAT SCALE. SO THAT'S -- AND HOW WE RESOLVED IT WAS WE HAD THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD. IT WAS AN APPEAL OF THE BUILDING OFFICIALS DECISION TO CHARGE AN AFTER THE FACT PERMIT FEE. AND THE AFTER THE FACT PERMIT FEE IS A QUADRUPLE FEE. IT WAS OVER $300,000 THAT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO PAY FOR THE PERMITS. AND WHAT HAPPENED WAS THEY APPEALED THAT DECISION TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD. AND OUR BUILDING OFFICIAL, OR DEPUTY BUILDING OFFICIAL WHO WAS ACTING AS THE BUILDING OFFICIAL CAME TO THAT HEARING. I DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING AND I DON'T THINK ANYBODY ELSE AND HE SAID I'M NOT HOLDING THE PROPERTY OWNER RESPONSIBLE.

THIS WAS THE FAULT OF THE CONTRACTOR. THE CONTRACTOR, I'M TURNING THE CONTRACTOR IN TO THE STATE LICENSING BOARD AND THEY CAN DEAL WITH THE CONTRACTOR.

SO I REMEMBER STATING AT THE MEETINGS, ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER DOESN'T HAVE TO PAY THE AFTER THE FACT PERMIT FEE. AND HE SAID YES, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. THAT'S HOW IT WAS RESOLVED. IT STILL ENDED UP GETTING PERMITS. STILL ENDED UP BEING INSPECTED AND PASSING INSPECTIONS.

BUT THAT'S HOW WE DEALT WITH THAT. >> BUT IT WAS A DIFFERENT

PROJECT. IT WASN'T THIS. >> IT WAS AN AFTER THE FACT

MANNER AND THE CITY JUST DEALT WITH IT. >> YEAH.

>> WE SAY NO, WHERE DOES IT GO FROM HERE? THE CITY WOULD JUST BE ABLE TO

WORK SOMETHING OUT. >> WELL WE CAN'T VIOLATE OUR OWN CODE AND OUR OWN ORDINANCES.

THAT'S WHY THIS BOARD IS HERE. SO IF YOU ALL DENY A VARIANCE, I DON'T THINK I'VE EVER SEEN HERE OR ANYWHERE ELSEWHERE I GUESS IT'S HAPPENED. BUT NOT WITH MY ADVICE WHERE THE CITY MANAGER SAYS, YEAH, YOU KNOW, TOO BAD YOU DIDN'T GET YOUR VARIANCE.

GO AHEAD. I LIKE YOUR VEGETATION PLAN TO REPLANT THE BUFFER.

THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. YOUR DECISION IS GOING TO BE THE FINAL DECISION.

>> TAMMY, WOULD IT BE CORRECT THAT IF BOARD VOTES NO AND DENIES IT, THEY'D BE PROHIBITED FROM REAPPLYING FOR ONE YEAR. WOULD THAT MORATORIUM THEN BE IN PLACE FOR ONE YEAR?

>> I WAS ASKING JACOB ON THE SIDE HERE, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S IN THE CODE WHERE WE DON'T ISSUE ANY FURTHER BUILDING PERMITS. IF IT'S A POLICY.

IT'S NOT IN THE BUILDING CODE. DO YOU REMEMBER, JACOB? >> I DON'T OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. I BELIEVE THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE ENFORCEMENT SECTION, WHICH SPEAKS TO WHERE THERE'S VIOLATIONS. BUT NOT PULLING IT OUT AT THE

TOP OF MY HEAD. >> I THINK WE COULD PROBABLY WORK AROUND THAT ISSUE.

THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE STOPPED FROM DOING WORK FOR THEIR OTHER PROJECTS.

I MEAN, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO RESOLVE THAT. IF YOU ALL DENY IT, CONTINUE IT, WHATEVER, WE WILL HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE OTHER PROJECTS BECAUSE --

>> COULD WE CONTINUE IT. WHAT'S THE LEAST AMOUNT OF TIME WE CAN CONTINUE IT? COULD IT BE LIKE A COUPLE OF DAYS? SO WE CAN -- I MEAN, I THINK JUST TO IRON OUT WHAT WE WANT IT TO BE CONDITIONED UPON. I'M JUST SPEAKING FOR MYSELF.

I MEAN, I DON'T WANT THE WALL REMOVED. >> NONE OF US ON THIS BOARD ARE LANDSCAPE EXPERTS. AND THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO RELY ON THE CITY ARBORIST FOR.

THAT'S HIS JOB. THAT'S HIS ROLE. THAT'S HIS PROFESSION.

FOR US TO MAKE AN ASSESSMENT THAT WE DON'T HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE LANDSCAPE.

THAT'S WHAT THE CONDITIONALIZATION IS. THAT GIVES THE AUTHORITY AND

[03:55:02]

RESPONSIBILITY TO THE CITY. >> AND TO MARK'S POINT, TO RENDER A DECISION AFTER TWO MEETINGS IS TO CONDITIONALIZE IT, PUT THE PLANNINGS, THE TYPE, THE SCALE, AND WE SET A BUDGET CAP. WHAT ELSE IS THERE TO BE QUESTIONING? WE'RE ALREADY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE WALL IS NOT THE ISSUE. SO IS IT THE LANDSCAPING THAT'S THE ISSUE? OR IT'S THE FACT THAT IT'S AN EGREGIOUS PUSH IN TO THE WETLAND

THAT'S THE ISSUE? >> THAT'S MY ISSUE. >> I RECOGNIZE THAT YOUR POSITION IS THAT AND I RESPECT THAT AND I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH IT.

BUT I ALSO RESPECT WHAT MARK'S SAYING ABOUT BEING RESPONSIBLE TO THE CITY AND HAVING A DECISION RENDERED IN TWO MEETINGS AND NOT PUSHING IT TO A THIRD MONTH.

>> I AGREE. BACK TO TISH'S POINT. WHEN IS THE NEXT TIME THAT WE

COULD. >> RIGHT NOW WE DON'T HAVE THE SCHEDULE FOR THE CHAMBERS.

SAMANTHA TRIED TO. >> MARCH 19TH IS THE NEXT MEETING FOR US.

AND THEY'VE ALREADY SAID, YOU KNOW, IF THAT'S WHEN YOU GET THE GREEN LIGHT, SHOULD THEY GET THE GREEN LIGHT, YOU'RE NOW PASSED THE TIME FOR PLANTING. YOU'RE GETTING CLOSE TO IT.

>> PEOPLE PUT PLANTS IN THE GROUND ALL YEAR LONG. SOMETIMES THEY DIE.

YES. BUT THEY PLANT ALL YEAR LONG. WE'RE IN FLORIDA.

WE GET RAIN. I DON'T SUPPORT THAT ARGUMENT TOO TERRIBLY MUCH.

>> YOU GUYS CERTAINLY KNOW MORE THAN ME. I JUST KNOW I GOT MY PLANTINGS

IN ALREADY. >> SO THERE IS A SECTION THAT SPEAKS TO CITY PERMITS,

VIOLATIONS. >> SO IT SAYS NO, WE DO HAVE A SECTION IN 11.83 THAT SAYS NO FURTHER CITY PERMIT SHALL BE ISSUED AND INSPECTS PROVIDED UNTIL ALL VIOLATIONS OF THIS LIEN VIOLATED CODE -- THERE IT IS. PRETTY CLEAR.

>> IS IT CONDITIONAL? >> YEAH. >> YOU CAN HOLD THE CARROT OVER THEIR HEAD TO DO WHAT THEY HAVE TO DO BECAUSE THEY CANNOT DO A SINGLE THING IN THE CITY UNTIL THAT IS LIFTED. WHICH MEANS THEY HAVE TO MEET WHATEVER WE CONDITIONALIZE THIS TO BE. AND AGAIN, IF YOU PUT IT ON THE CITY TO HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR IT, WE AS A BOARD DON'T HAVE THE JURISDICTION -- OR THE EXPERTISE TO JUDGE THAT.

>> WE AS A BOARD TYPICALLY DON'T GET IN TO THE NITTY-GRITTY. THIS IS FOCUSING ON LANDSCAPE BUFFER. BUT WE DON'T NECESSARILY GET IN TO THE TYPE OF MATERIAL.

IT'S MORE DIMENSIONS, YOU KNOW, THE WHOLE SCHEME OF THINGS. SO THAT'S WHY I AGAIN THINK THAT THERE'S REAL GOOD BASIS FOR UTILIZING THAT LANDSCAPE PLAN AND HOLDING THAT CONDITION THAT IT BE VALIDATED AND APPROVED THROUGH THE CITY ARBORIST AND CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT.

UNTIL THAT'S DONE, NO FURTHER PERMIT SHOULD BE ISSUED. AGAIN, WE AS A BOARD, I'M NOT A LANDSCAPE EXPERT OR PLANT EXPERT. WE'RE NOT HERE TO CALL ON WHICH PLANTS ARE APPROPRIATE.

>> THE AMOUNT. SAY THEY CAN'T EXCEED $40,000. IF THE PLANTS HAVE TO BE BIGGER.

>> $10,000. IF THEY'RE ADDING TREES TO THIS, $10,000.

IS PROBABLY NOTHING. >> I DON'T KNOW. SEE.

>> DO YOU AGREE? WE'RE TALKING 20 GALLON TREES >> NO.

THAT'S NOTHING. >> THAT'S NOTHING. >> RIGHT.

>> SO IF YOU PLANT A TRAY, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO EQUATE THE COST OF GETTING MULTIPLE TREES.

YOU MAY GET ONE OR TWO TREES. IT'S A TRADE OFF BECAUSE THEN YOU LOSE THE QUANTITY.

I DON'T KNOW THAT $10,000 IS ENOUGH. >> YOU THINK MAYBE $20,000?

>> YEAH, I'M THINKING $20,000 IS PROBABLY MORE PRACTICAL. >> SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT

LIMITING $50,000 ON IT? SOMETHING LIKE THAT. >> MAYBE JUST NOT TO EXCEED $50,000. TO LIMIT. A BUDGET CAP IS NECESSARY.

I THINK THAT'S A REASONABLE GESTURE BY THE OWNER. THAT THEY SUGGEST IT.

>> THAT GIVES THE CITY SOME FLEXIBILITY IN DOING WHAT THEY WANT TO DO.

[04:00:02]

MAYBE COST THEM MORE THAN THEY WANT TO DO. BUT THEY HAVE TO GO -- I MEAN,

TIME IS MONEY. SO YOU KNOW, IF YOU GUYS CAN -- >> WHAT'S $20,000 VERSUS TIME.

>> YEAH. >> I KEEP LOOKING OVER. YOU'RE GETTING SHORTER AND

SHORTER AND SHORTER. HOW DO YOU READ THAT? >> WELL YOU WANT TO GO BACK TO THE ATTORNEY'S IDEA? ISSUE A CONDITIONAL VARIANCE BASED ON THEM FOLLOWING UP WITH THE CITY AND THE ARBORIST AND COMING UP WITH A PLAN THAT'S ACCEPTABLE AND UP TO $50,000.

IF YOU WANT TO AGREE TO THAT, MAYBE YOU CAN SEE YOUR WAY TO GET OVER THIS EGREGIOUSNESS.

>> DO YOU THINK THAT'S UNREASONABLE? >> NO.

I THINK IT'S TOO LATE TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT NOW. THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT? >> IS THERE ANYTHING YOU CAN DO

BESIDES LANDSCAPE? >> WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT AM I BEING UNREASONABLE ON THAT.

CERTAINLY WE CAN'T TAKE THE WALL OUT. THE WALL IS NOT THE PROBLEM WHETHER IT WAS A GOOD IDEA OR NOT. IT CERTAINLY SEEMS LIKE IT WAS.

IT CERTAINLY SEEMS LIKE THEY HAD A DECENT LANDSCAPE PLAN TO IT. IT'S THE FACT THAT WE'RE IN THE

SETBACK. >> THE CITY DOESN'T HAVE A GOOD POSITION WITHOUT IT LOOKING PUNITIVE. WHICH MEANS YOU'RE BUYING THE VARIANCE.

THIS IS JUST NOT A GOOD POSITION FOR US TO HAVE. YOU CAN SUGGEST IT AS A DONATION. YOU CAN PUT IT IN A MONETARY TRUST.

EITHER WAY, IT STILL SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY. >> I THINK IT'S A SLIPPERY SLOPE FOR THE FUTURE. I REALLY DO. BUT I'M ONLY ONE VOTE.

>> I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU. >> I DON'T THINK THAT PUTTING IN SOME PLANTS -- I THINK THOSE ARE

GREAT IDEAS AND I SEE EVERYBODY IS TRYING TO SOLVE -- >> THAT SOLVES THE PROBLEM IN FRONT OF US. IT DOESN'T RESOLVE WHAT THEY DID.

IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? >> MY RECOMMENDATION IS TO MAKE A MOTION BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT GOING TO -- MAKE A MOTION WITH CONDITIONS YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HARM THE APPLICANT IF IT DOESN'T

PASS. >> I CAN'T GET IT TO LOAD AGAIN. I'M TRYING.

>> AND REMEMBER, THE FINDINGS OF STAFF TO GO BACK TO, I KNOW IT'S LATE.

YOU NEED TO GO BACK TO THE CRITERIA AND BE ABLE TO ARTI

ARTICULATE THAT STAFF FOUND -- >> WHAT ARE YOU SAYING? IT DOES NOT HARM THE APPLICANT?

>> APPROVE THE VARIANCE AND THEN ARTICULATE CONDITIONS. IF THAT DOESN'T GET FOUR VOTES, THEN IT'S NOT -- WE'RE IN THE SAME SPOT THAT WE ARE RIGHT NOW. BUT WE MIGHT NOT BE.

WE MIGHT GET FOUR VOTES. I DON'T KNOW. IT DEPENDS ON WHAT THE CONDITIONS ARE IS WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GRAPPLING THIS. SO IT LEAVES SOME OF YOU THAT FEEL LIKE IT SHOULD BE APPROVED.

I WOULD SAY YOU MAKE A MOTION. IF YOU DENY A VARIANCE, THAT'S IT.

THE CAN'T COME BACK FOR A YEAR. >> DO THEY HAVE TO TEAR THE WALL DOWN?

>> THAT'S THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF DENYING A VARIANCE. DO THEY HAVE TO LEAVE HERE TOMORROW AND HIRE THE DEMO CONTRACTOR? NO.

AT THAT POINT THE CITY'S LEGAL OPTIONS ARE GO TO COURT. CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD.

THAT KIND OF THING. >> SO WE'VE ONLY HAD A FEW SPLIT VOTES SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE.

I THINK I UNDERSTAND. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE. IF SOMEONE MAKES A MOTION AND IT'S NOT APPROVED, WE'RE JUST BACK TO WHERE WE ARE. TO DENY IT, SOMEONE HAS TO MAKE

A MOTION TO DENY IT. >> YES. >> WHATEVER IS AGREED TO PUT IN, I'D LIKE TO MAKE SURE YOU SAY THERE'S A FINAL INSPECTION IN THAT SITE.

I'LL VOLUNTEER. >> IF THERE'S A MOTION MADE TO APPROVE AND ONE OF YOU ARE --

[04:05:01]

MIGHT BE OKAY VOTING FOR THAT MOTION TO APPROVE BUT YOU NEED ANOTHER MOTION ARTICULATED, OF

COURSE YOU CAN ALWAYS ASK THE MOTION BE AMENDED. >> YOU CAN SAY ALL YOU WANT ABOUT THE PLANTS BUT IF THEY DON'T GROW AND IT'S NOT TAKING CARE OF THE SITUATION OUT THERE, WE CAN TALK ABOUT SIZES AND EVERYTHING. YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING

THAT GROWS OUT THERE GROWS. >> IN OTHER WORDS, THAT -- >> A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS IS WHAT WE USE FOR CERTAIN INFRASTRUCTURE LIKE ROADS. USUALLY WITHIN THAT TIME.

CERTAINLY WITH PLANTS, WITHIN THAT TIME YOU KNOW WHETHER THEY'RE GOING TO BE GOOD OR NOT.

>> THEN YOU'VE GOT THE FEET HELD TO THE FIRE BECAUSE THEY'VE GOT THAT OUT THERE.

>> YOU COULD CALL IT LIKE A VEGETATION MAINTENANCE BOND OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

BUT IT'S ISSUED BY SURETY OF INSURANCE COMPANY. >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE 219-12. AND I MOVE THEY MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS -- SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT WITH A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN -- IS THAT THE RIGHT WAY TO SAY THAT?

>> IS COMPLIANT. >> IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT. 219-12 MEETS THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE, SPECIAL CONDITIONS, SPECIAL PRIVILEGES, LITERAL INTERPRETATIONS, GENERAL HARMONY AND PUBLIC INTERESTS. AND THE REASON FOR MY FINDINGS ARE -- CAN YOU GO BACK UP TO THE OTHER ONE. I WANT TO SEE WHAT CONDITION

IT'S ON. >> YOU ONLY REALLY NEED TO SPEAK TO THE ONES FOR APPROVAL FOR

JACOB. >> THAT'S WHY I'M TRYING TO GET TO THE LIST.

SO SPECIAL CONDITIONS, I THINK WE PRESENTED A CASE. WE'RE DOING THE INCONSISTENT ONES. SPECIAL PRIVILEGE. THAT THE SPECIAL PRIVILEGE

THAT'S AFFORDED IS THEY'RE ENACTING IN RESPONSIBLE -- >> JUST TAKE YOUR TIME IN

ARTICULATING. >> I WOULD SAY SPECIAL PRIVILEGES, LITERAL INTERPRETATIONS AND HARMONY ARE CONSISTENT. THEY PRESENTED A PRETTY DECENT CASE AGAINST THE STAFF'S OPINION TO ENACT IN A WAY THAT IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THIS PROJECT.

AND IN SO, I'LL CONDITION THAT APPROVAL BASED ON HAVING THE PLANNINGS PLAN, THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS PLANS, BASED ON THE TYPE, SCALE, AND LOCATION WITH AN ARBORIST REVIEW AND APPROVAL, BUDGET CAP OF $50,000 AND FINAL INSPECTION WITH A SURETY BOND OF 2 YEARS.

IS THAT EVERYTHING WE DISCUSSED? >> THAT WORKS FOR ME. >> THERE'S THE APPROVAL.

>> I'M SORRY. >> AND WE'LL AMEND IT WITH NO PERMITTING UNTIL THERE IS FINAL

APPROVAL WITH THE CITY ARBORIST. >> ALL RIGHT. I'VE GOT A MOTION.

HAVE I GOT A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> THIRD?

>> SECOND. >> SAMANTHA, WILL YOU CALL THE VOTE.

>> MEMBER DADD. >> YES. >> YES.

>> YES. >> NO. >> SO THE VARIANCES GRANTED WITH THOSE CONDITIONS. IS THERE NOW THAT THE VOTES BEEN TAKEN, FEEL FREE TO ASK FOR

CLARIFICATION OR ANYTHING IF YOU NEED IT. >> I'M GOING TO MAKE SOME ASSUMPTIONS. YOU NEED TO TELL ME IF MY ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOT CORRECT.

YOU CAN SPECIFY -- YOU COULDN'T SPECIFY AN AMOUNT OF THE BOND. >> NOPE.

>> HE SAID $50,000 BUDGET. >> THE BUDGET. SO THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO

[04:10:06]

ASSUME THE BOND WAS GOING TO BE. SO WE CAN BUDGET FOR A BOND PREMIUM BASED UPON THAT AMOUNT.

THERE WERE NO STANDARDS ARTICULATED. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU PUT IN

EXCEPTIONS FOR ACTS OF GOD. WE HAVE HURRICANES. >> CLYDE, THE MOTION HAS BEEN

MADE AND APPROVED. >> I UNDERSTAND. >> THIS IS WHY I'M ASKING FOR

SOME CLARIFICATION. >> WITHIN REASON, ANYWAYS. >> TAKE YOUR WIN AND GO.

>> I'M NOT TRYING TO SHUT IT. I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING ARE THERE BASED ON THE MOTION THEY MADE, THE REST OF IT WE CAN WORK OUT REASONABLY. WE'RE SUPPOSED TO WORK TOGETHER.

>> SO WE DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH ARBORIST SUPERVISING. >> SURETY BOND, $50,000 CAP.

THAT ALL IS AGREEABLE. THE REST OF IT BETWEEN JACOB, MYSELF, WE'LL WORK IT OUT.

>> ALL RIGHT. >> I'M CONFIDENT. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND

COOPERATION. I KNOW IT HAS NOT BEEN EASY. >> THANK YOU.

DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER BUSINESS? >> I WANTED TO SAY TO MS. COZAK BECAUSE I KNOW SHE HAD -- SHE HAS EXPERTISE IN LANDSCAPING. I ALREADY HEARD JACOB SAY TAKE COMFORT AS PART OF THE COMMUNITY. I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO REACH OUT TO YOU AND ASK FOR YOUR INPUT. OKAY. I WOULD SUGGEST IT.

SO THERE WE GO. THANK YOU. >> YUP.

>> NOTHING ELSE TO REPORT. WE DO HAVE A COUPLE OF CASES OF THE HEARINGS NEXT MONTH.

>> SO WE ARE DEFINITELY HAVING A MEETING. >> ANY OTHER

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.