May 20, 2020 Board of Adjustment

[Call to Order]

[00:00:10]

BEACH BOARD OF A JUST MAN IS NOW IN SESSION PLEASE BE FORGIVING ON THIS, AND ANYBODY THAT IS HERE YOU HAVE SOME WORDS OF WISDOM THAT WE NEED TO DO BETTER, KELLY, JUST JUMP IN HERE AND GIVE US SOME WORDS OF WISDOM. LET'S DO THE ROLL CALL.

[INAUDIBLE] >> MEMBER DODD. >> HERE.

>> MEMBER POCKY. >> HERE MEMBER COOK. >> MEMBER GLEASON HERE.

>> CHAIR MILLER? HERE. >> FOR ALL OF OUR BOARD MEMBERS, HAS THERE ANY BEEN ANY INDICATION THAT CAME BEFORE THIS BOARD TONIGHT?

>> MEMBER MOCK. >> NO. >> MEMBER HER SLIT.

>> MEMBER PAPKE. >> MEMBER COOK. >> NO.

>> MEMBER GLEASON. >> NO. >> CHAIR MILLER.

>> NO. >> MANY OF YOU KNOW OUR TO CITY STAFF MEMBERS WHO ARE HERE TONIGHT, I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE THEM. WE HAVE THE SECRETARY DOING THE BEST TO KEEP ME STRAIGHT WHICH IS A BIG JOB. MOST OF YOU KNOW JACOB PLATTS.

THERE IS A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT ON THERE THAT, BUT JACOB IS THE ONE THAT IS ASSIGNED IT TO BOARD. HE IS INTERACTING WITH YOU. HE DOES A GREAT JOB WITH THIS BOARD AND HE HAS A GREAT SKILL SET. WE WOULD LIKE TO THANK HIM FOR THAT. EVERYBODY WHO WANTS TO SPEAK TONIGHT IS GOING TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. WHETHER THAT IS YOU ARE HERE IN THIS ROOM OR YOU ARE AT HOME, THE MOST IMPORTANT THING THAT WE WANT IS TO KEEP PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT IN THE CITY BOARDS.

THESE ARE A LITTLE BIT OF TRYING TIMES AND WE MAY HAVE A MISSTEP HERE OR THERE, BUT IF SOMEBODY IN THE COMMUNITY WANTS TO SPEAK, YOU CAN SPEAK. IN FACT, YOU CAN COME MORE THAN ONCE. IF YOU HAVE YOUR SAY IN THEN SOMEONE MENTION SOMETHING ELSE, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A REBUTTAL OR PERHAPS YOU THINK OF SOMETHING ELSE THAT YOU THINK A BOARD SHOULD CONSIDER, WE ARE HAPPY TO HEAR FROM YOU MORE THAN ONCE.

OUR CITY ATTORNEY, MS. TAMMY IS WITH US TONIGHT SHE IS NOT A VOTING MEMBER.

SHE BRINGS A GREAT DEAL OF EXPERIENCE TO THIS BOARD AND WE ARE GRATEFUL TO HAVE HER WISDOM AND GUIDANCE, ESPECIALLY DURING THESE TRYING TIMES. SHE IS GOING TO GO OVER WHY WE HAVE THESE MEETINGS, HOW THEY HAVE TO BE CONDUCTED, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, IF THERE IS AN APPEAL, WHAT RIGHTS TO THOSE APPEAL TIMELINES ARE AND HOW THAT IS GOING TO GO.

SO, SHE IS GOING TO GIVE US SOME IMPORTANT GUIDELINES ON THAT AND IF YOU GOT A QUESTION ON THAT, JUST ASK HER AND I AM SURE SHE WILL BE HAPPY TO CLARIFY ANYTHING.

MS. BACA. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. TONIGHT, WE HAVE ONE CASE, IT IS A VARIANCE REQUEST. IT WILL BE CONDUCTED AS A QUASIJUDICIAL HEARING IN ACCORDANCE WITH FLORIDA STATUTES AND CITY COMMISSION AND ADOPTED PROCEDURES.

WHAT THAT MEANS IS FIRST, MR. PLATT WAS CITY STAFF IS GOING TO MAKE A PRESENTATION AND INTRODUCE EVIDENCE INTO THE RECORD. I DO NOT BELIEVE HE HAS ANY WITNESSES THAT HE IS GOING TO CALL TONIGHT BUT HE COULD IF HE HAD WITNESSES.

NEXT, THE APPLICANT AND/OR THEIR AGENTS WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A PRESENTATION AND INTRODUCE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY INTO THE RECORD. AND THEY MAY ALSO CALL WITNESSES AND TO BOTH PARTIES, THE CITY, AND THE APPLICANT MAY CROSS-EXAMINE EACH OTHER AND EACH OTHER'S WITNESSES. ALSO, WE HAVE AFFECTED PARTIES WHICH MEANS YOUR RESIDENT, JUST

[00:05:02]

THE APPEALS IN THESE CASES ARE TAKEN DIRECTLY TO THE CIRCUIT COURTS AND THAT THEY MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE WRITTEN FINDINGS OF FACT.

THE BOARD CHAIR WILL SIGN A WRITTEN FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSION OF LAW, PAPER THAT IS ABOUT ONE OR TWO PAGES. THAT IS USUALLY READY IN ABOUT THREE BUSINESS DAYS AFTER THE STEERING. AND THEN, THE 30 DAY CLARK'S ARTS AND THAT IS TAKEN DIRECTLY TO THE CIRCUIT COURT. AND SINCE I'M DOING THE OATH TONIGHT, MR. CHAIR, WHENEVER YOU

ARE READY FOR THE OATH, LET ME KNOW. >> I AM READY FOR.

>> OKAY. >> THIS WILL INCLUDE LORD ATTORNEYS THAT ARE OFFICERS OF THE COURT, IT'S A QUIRKY LITTLE THING AND BECAUSE I HEARINGS, YOU HAVE TO STANDS, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND, DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE ORAL AND/OR WRITTEN TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH?

>> I DO. >> I THANK YOU. >> I DID NOTICE THAT THERE WERE A COUPLE OF PEOPLE IN HERE TONIGHT THAT DID NOT GET SWORN IN.

IF YOU CHANGE YOUR MIND DURING THE MEETING AND DECIDE YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, THAT'S NO PROBLEM, JUST RAISE YOUR HAND, WE CAN GET YOU SWORN IN, THAT IS NOT A PROBLEM, YOU ARE WELL WITHIN YOUR RIGHTS TO DO THAT. THE BOARD WANTS TO HEAR FROM YOU ON THAT.

THANK YOU MS. BOCK. >> AFFECTED PARTIES WILL BE SWORN IN RIGHT BEFORE YOU SPEAK.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. >> LET'S APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM OUR LAST MEETING.

[Item 3]

>> THERE WERE SOME MINOR CHANGES, JACOB TOOK CARE OF, BUT THEY ARE FINE.

>> SO, THIS IS AN UPDATED VERSION. >> BARRY MADE SOME COMMENTS AND

THE ITEMS WILL BE BACK ON THE AGENDA NEXT MONTH. >> OKAY, SO WE ARE NOT GOING TO VOTE ON THAT RIGHT NOW THEN. OKAY. WILL MARK THAT OUT AND THEN COME BACK TO THAT NEXT TIME. SO NOW, LET'S JUST DIVE RIGHT IN TO THE MAIN REASON WE ARE HERE

[Item 4]

>> MR. CHAIRMAN TO MIND THAT THE PEOPLE IN THE HALLWAY CAN HEAR EVERYTHING THAT IS BEEN SAID SO

FAR? >> I DON'T MIND THAT, OFFICER DECKER CAN YOU MAKE SURE THAT WE

ARE A LIVE, THANK YOU FOR THAT. >> THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CASE BOA 2020-0006 ON SOUTH FLETCHER AVENUE. TONIGHT REQUEST FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT SECTION 1.305 A WHICH IS -- PROPERTY VALUES AND RESIDENTIAL AREAS, WHEREVER THERE MAY EXIST A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO SWIMMING POOLS OR OTHER IMPROVEMENTS WHICH ARE HERE TO FOR CONSTRUCTION ON PROPERTY CONTAINING ONE OR MORE PLATTED LOTS OR PORTIONS THEREOF, EXCLUDING WALLS OR FENCES, SUCH LOTS SHALL THEREAFTER CONSTITUTE ONE BUILDING SITE AND SHALL BE CONSIDERED THE LOT OF RECORD, NO PERMIT SHALL BE ISSUED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF MORE THAN ONE RESIDENT COME OR FAMILY BUILDING ON THE SITE.

THE PROPERTY AT 1507 SOUTH FLETCHER AVENUE IS ALL ONE ZONE WHICH IS LOW DENSITY FUTURE LAND CURRENTLY CONTAINS SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE. BEFORE WE GET INTO THE SYNOPSIS I WILL NOTE THAT ALL REQUIRED APPLICATION MATERIALS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED.

ALL REQUIRED NOTICES HAVE BEEN MADE. THE NOTICE ORIGINALLY WENT OUT TO REFERENCE AN ADDRESS EXIST, H FLETCHER AVENUE, IT WAS CORRECTED.

SO, UNDER THE SUMMARY IN THE REQUEST OF THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION IT IS TOO SMART

[00:10:04]

WITH THE VARIANCE IS GRANTED ONCE IN THE FAMILY HOME AND ALLOWABLE ANCILLARY STRUCTURES COULD BE CONSTRUCTED ON EACH LOT OF RECORD. THE APPLICANTS HAVE THREE PARCELS OWNED BY RIO LAND AND INVESTMENT COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER CONTRACT.

AS PART OF THE APPLICATION MATERIALS THE APPLICANTS HAVE INDICATED THAT THEY INTEND TO CONSTRUCT FOR SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES WITH A SINGLE DRIVEWAY ACCESS FROM THE SOUTH FLETCHER AENUE. THIS DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO WOULD NOT REQUIRE EXTENSION OF FIRST AVENUE FOR ACCESS TO LOTS 40 AND 40-ONE, PRESERVING THE RIGHT OF WAY WITHIN THE COASTAL UPPER LIMB THE NATURAL STATE. AS PART OF THE APPLICATION THERE IS A SURVEY SHOWING THREE PARCELS AS THEY EXIST TODAY, FOR UNDERLINE LOTS WITH THE SUBJECT PARCEL AND SOUTH FLETCHER HAS AN EXISTING. I LISTED A COUPLE OF SECTIONS FOR CONSISTENCY FOR THE COMPETENCY PLAN AND GOING INTO THE CRITERIA STAFF FOUND THAT SPECIAL CONDITIONS DO EXIST WITH THE LAND STRUCTURE INVOLVED WHICH ARE NOT IN THE SAME ZONING.

WITH THE SUBJECT PARCEL WITH 14E WOULD LIMIT THE SITUATION TO RESTORE LOT WITH.

GRANTING THE VARIANCE. [INAUDIBLE] IT WILL RESTORE TO UNDERLINE LOTS OF RECORD KEEPING WITH THE CHARACTER DESCRIBED FOR INTERPRETATION THE LAND DEVELOPMENT WOULD DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT THE PROPERTIES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT.

IT WOULD BE CONTRARY TO LAND ON GIVEN THE SIZE OF THE STRUCTURE THAT COULD BE BUILT.

IT WOULD NOT PROMOTE. >> YES. >> THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS THE MINIMUM YES, GRANTING THE VARIANCE WITH LAND OWNED WOULD RESTORE LOT SIZE IT WILL NOT CAUSE OTHERWISE THE DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH SAFETY. BASED ON THE CRITERIA THEY FOUND CONSISTENCY WITH ALL SIX CRITERIA DEALING WITH THAT THEY WERE ABLE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL

OF THIS VARIANCE DOES THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME? >> THANK YOU, J.

OFFICER DECKER, ARE ALL OF OUR CITIZENS COMFORTABLE THEY HAVE ENOUGH CHAIRS THEY CAN HEAR US

AND EVERYTHING? >> BARRY, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING? >> THE ONLY THING I WONDERED WAS IF YOU END UP BUILDING FOR HOMES ON THESE TWO PARCELS OF LAND AND IS THIS VARIANCE JUST SPLITTING IT IN HALF, TWO HOMES ON EACH SIDE COME IS THAT WHAT WE ARE DOING?

>> TONIGHT IT'S REQUEST FOR A 150 SOUTH FLETCHER AVENUE IS TO UNDERLINE, EACH OF WHICH WOULD HAVE THEIR OWN SINGLE-FAMILY HOME. THE APPLICANTS HAVE TWO WESTERN PARCELS WHICH ARE UNDERLINE LOTS. EACH ONE OF THE LOTS AND TONIGHT IT'S REQUEST A 1507 WOULD ALLOW FOR SINGLE-FAMILY STRUCTURE AND ANCILLARY STRUCTURES TO BE

CONSTRUCTED. >> SO, THOSE ARE NOT NEW HOMES, THOSE ARE JUST ANCILLARY

STRUCTURES? >> NO. IF VARIANCE WAS GRANTED IT WOULD

[00:15:01]

MONTHS. >> TWO HOMES ON EACH LOT? >> ONE HOME ON EACH LOT.

>> WHAT ARE THE STRUCTURES IN THE BACK? RODGERS?

>> SO, TONIGHT IT'S REQUEST IS JUST FOR SPLITTING OF THE LOTS, RESTORING THE UNDERLINE MONTHS.

THEY PRESENT AS PART OF THE APPLICATION MATERIALS RENDERING, BUT THE REQUEST FOR RESTORING THOSE TWO LOTS.

OR THEY WATCHING IT ON THE TV? >> THEY ARE ON THE MICROPHONE. >> JACOB, YOU NEED TO SPEAK UP.

>> OKAY. SORRY. >> SPEAK WITH AUTHORITY.

>> OKAY. SO, I DON'T KNOW WHAT I SHOULD REPEAT.

I GUESS BARRY'S QUESTION WAS REGARDING THE LOTS. EACH LOT WOULD ALLOW FOR ONE SINGLE-FAMILY STRUCTURE TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON EACH OF THE UNDERLINE LOTS ON THE RECORD.

SO, COME OUR SURVEY THAT I AM LOOKING AT, IT SHOWS ALL FOUR LOTS.

>> IT DOES. >> SO, I AM ASSUMING THEM THAT WE ARE GOING TO ACCESS THAT THROUGH SOUTH FLETCHER AND SO, WHAT WILL WE HAVE? A PRIVATE EASEMENT THROUGH THEIR

THAT WILL COME UP TO ACCESS THE BACK TO LOTS? >> THERE WOULD NEED TO BE AN

EASEMENT FOR CROSS ACCESS TO THE REAR PROPERTY. >> BUT, YOU ARE NOT GOING TO --

[INAUDIBLE] >> WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY THAT IF THE BOARD GRANTED THIS, THAT THEY WOULD ENJOY CERTAIN RIGHTS AND BEING ABLE TO COME BACK TO THE CITY AND SAY WELL, THESE ARE

THE THE LOTS AND WOULD HAVE TO BE GRANTED CERTAIN CONDITIONS? >> THE WESTERN LOTS ARE ALREADY BUILDABLE LOTS. THEY CAN EACH BE BUILT ON TODAY WITH SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES AND AGAIN OUR ANCILLARY STRUCTURES. THOSE LOTS ABOUT THE DRIVEWAY TO THE WEST.

AS FAR AS THIS REQUEST TONIGHT IS MERELY IN RESTORING THE UNDERLINE LOTS OF RECORD

CONFRONTING SOUTH FLETCHER AVENUE. >> NO RATE, I DON'T SEE THE COMPASS ON HERE. MI ON -- WHICH SIDE OF FLETCHER ARE WE ON?

WE ARE ON THE WEST SIDE OF FLETCHER. >> MR. CHAIR MEMBER PAPKE HAS A

QUESTION. >> YES OR. >> IT IF A HOUSE BUILT IN 1937,

IS THERE ANY HISTORICAL ASPECT WE NEED TO CONSIDER? >> WHAT WAS INDICATED ON THE WEBSITE IS THAT THE HOME WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 1937, THE CITY DOESN'T HAVE ANY HISTORICAL OVERLAY OR ANY PROTECTION OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES OR DESIGNATION OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES ON THE BEACH. THERE BE NOTHING IN THE CITIES CODE AS ANY DESIGNATION OR

PROTECTION OF THAT EXISTING HOME. >> THANK YOU.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION. >> SURE. >> ARE THESE GOING TO BE FOUR

DEEDED LOTS, THEN? >> SO, IF THE VARIANCES GRANTED, BOTH LOTS WOULD BECOME INDIVIDUAL, IT WOULD BE RESTORED TO THE UNDERLINE LOTS OF RECORD AND WOULD BE THREE SIMPLE LOTS FOR SALE. SO, YES, THEY WOULD BE DEEDED AS INDIVIDUAL LOTS.

>> FOUR LOTS, OR ARE THEY TO LOTS AND THEY COULD BUILD A SINGLE-FAMILY AND ANCILLARY

BUILDING? >> I WANT TO MAKE SURE I AM CLEAR AGAIN WITH THIS PARTICULAR REQUEST. THE SURVEY AND THE PROPERTY OWNER, THERE ARE THREE PARCELS THEY ARE TODAY CONTAINING FOUR UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD. IT IS A SIMPLE REQUEST TONIGHT IS FOR THE PROPERTIES TO UNDERLINE LOTS OF RECORD ABUTTING SOUTH FLETCHER AVENUE,

[00:20:05]

LOTS WITH THE VARIANCE GRANTED. >> THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS HAVE

QUESTIONS ON THAT? >> YES, MA'AM. >> IF YOU ARE FACING THAT PROPERTY FROM SOUTH FLETCHER, THE TWO LOTS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TEN THE ONES THAT COME UP SOUTH FLETCHER AND YOU SAID YOU COULD ALREADY BUILD ON ONE IN THE REAR.

HOW DO YOU ACCESS THE ONES IN THE REAR? >> ACCESS COULD BE AFFORDED THROUGH THE RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT EXPENDS NORTH OF FLETCHER AVENUE, THERE IS A DRIVEWAY THERE PICK THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS THERE TO HAVE THE RIGHT TO ACCESS THEIR PROPERTY THROUGH THE DRIVEWAY. THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TOPOGRAPHY AND COASTAL DUNE SYSTEM IN THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY. SO, WE WOULD HAVE TO WORK WITH AND THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE CYCLING REVIEW COMMITTEE TO ACCESS THOSE REAR LOTS, UNLESS THEY WORKED WITH

THE PROPERTY OWNER ON SOUTH FLETCHER FOR AN EASEMENT. >> SO, IF THEY WANT TO PUT A

SINGLE DRIVEWAY IN. >> WELL, WE MIGHT HAVE TO GET CLARIFICATION ON THAT WHEN THE APPLICANT SPEAKS. ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS HAVE A QUESTION FOR JACOB BEFORE WE

MOVE ON? >> YES, SIR. >> OKAY, CAN YOU HEAR ME?

>> YES, SIR. >> OKAY, ONE OF THE THINGS I NOTICED AND THIS IS PROBABLY A CLARIFICATION, THERE IS A STRUCTURE IN THE BACK TO PROPERTIES, FIRST AVENUE ONLY HAS TWO PROPERTIES ON IT AND IT STOPS A COUPLE HUNDRED FEET IN. SO, WHAT YOU HIT THERE ARE HIGH DUNES. THE PRACTICALITY OF BRINGING ANY ROAD OR ANY UTILITIES THROUGH THERE IS PROBABLY NO. I AM FAMILIAR WITH THAT BECAUSE I LIVE AROUND THE CORNER FROM THAT. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT MIGHT BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN

THEY ARE WORKING ON THE SITE PLAN. >> YES, SIR.

JACOB, CAN YOU PULL UP THE STREET TO VIEW OF THAT, OR AN AERIAL VIEW AT LET'S BE SURE THAT EVERYBODY IS CONSIDERING THE SAME PIECE OF PROPERTY TH THERE.

>> THIS IS 1507 SOUTH FLETCHER HERE. >> IS THAT FORT CLINCH BEHIND

THAT? >> YOU HAVE A FIRST AVENUE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND A CITY-OWNED PROPERTY WEST OF THAT MAKES SO, THAT IS A NON- OPENED RIGHT-OF-WAY.

>> IT IS THE GREENWAY. >> BUT, THERE IS NO CAR TRAFFIC THROUGH THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY RIGHT

NOW, IS THERE? >> THERE IS NOT. >> OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. >> NOT BEYOND THE EXISTING NORTHERNMOST HOME ON FIRST

AVENUE THERE IS NO TRAFFIC BEYOND THAT. >> ASSURE.

OKAY. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK ALL OF OUR BOARD MEMBERS WHO ARE WATCHING THIS REMOTELY, ARE YOU HAVING ANY TECHNICAL ISSUES ARE EVERYTHING WORKING WELL ON YOUR

END? >> ICS, THUMBS UP, THREE THUMBS UP, FIVE THUMBS UP.

OKAY, GOOD TO GO. >> AND THEN THE LAST QUESTION I WILL BRING UP, WILL THIS HAVE TO

GO BEFORE THE TRC BOARD, JACOB? >> THE SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISIONS THAT TYPICALLY DON'T GO THROUGH THE SITE REVIEW PROCESS. THIS IS NOT A SUBDIVISION, THIS IS A RESTORATION FOR THESE LOTS OF RECORD. GIVEN THE SHARED ACCESS COME I THINK IT WARRANTS DISCUSSION ITEM, BUT I DO NOT ENVISION, THERE IS NO SUBDIVISION, NO FURTHER SITE PLAN WITH THE CITY LIMIT. OUTSIDE A DISCUSSION LIMIT I

DON'T THINK THERE WOULD BE FOR THE TECHNICAL REVIEW. >> YOU KNOW WHERE I'M GOING WITH THAT. AT SOME POINT, NOT JUST WITH THIS, BUT AS THERE IS MORE AND

[00:25:02]

>> I JUST HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION. IN 2017, GUESS WE HEARD -- WERE

THOSE TWO LOTS COME BEFORE US IN 2017? >> IT THERE WAS A VARIANCE GRANTED IN 2017 BECAUSE ON THE REAR OF THE EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY HOME THERE WAS A REMNANT GARAGE FOUNDATION. IT CROSSED ALL FOUR UNDERLYING LOTS.

SO, THE VARIANCE IN 2017 WAS TO RESTORE THE TO UNDERLINE LOTS OF RECORD BECAUSE AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME ALL FOUR LOTS WERE COMBINED FOR DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES.

IT WAS ONE LARGE LOT OF RECORD. IT WAS A REMNANT FOUNDATION THAT WAS CROSSING THE REAR TO

UNDERLINE MATZOH OF RECORD AT THAT TIME. >> AND THAT IS NO LONGER THERE, RIGHT? CORRECT, THE SURVEY HAS BEEN UPDATED SHOWING THE FOUNDATION CROSSES ANY OF THE LOTS TO MAKE ANYTHING FOR MANY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS WHILE WE ARE HEARING

FROM THE APPLICANT? I HAVE A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION. >> OKAY.

>> JUST A FOLLOW-UP, JACOB ON I SEE THEY HAVE A PICTURE OF THE DRIVEWAY AND ASSUMING THEY DO THEN SO, THEY DON'T HAVE TO USE FIRST AVENUE AND I UNDERSTAND YOU SAID THIS VARIANCES JUST TO SUBDIVIDE THE LOTS, DO THEY NEED ANY SPECIAL PERMISSION AT ALL TO DO THAT PRIVATE DRIVEWAY TO ACCESS THE FOUR HOUSES? WILL THEY NEED ANOTHER VARIANCE, OR DO THEY NEED SOMEONE'S

APPROVAL, OR CAN THEY JUST DO THAT ON THEIR OWN? >> THAT IS A GREAT QUESTION.

AS FAR AS ACCESSING THROUGH ADJOINING PROPERTY, THE CITY WOULD LOOK TO HAVE AN ACCESS EASEMENT THROUGH THAT PROPERTY. AS MR. MILLER INDICATED WITH THE SITE PLAN REVIEW, IT WOULD BRING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE AS A DISCUSSION ITEM TO MAKE SURE THEY ARE NOT ANY ISSUES WITH

DISTANCES FOR FIRE ORDINANCE AND OTHER UTILITY ASSOCIATED. >> YOU ARE BREAKING UP.

>> CAN YOU HEAR ME BETTER NOW? >> YOU ARE BREAKING UP AT THE END, THERE.

>> JUST PROJECTED. YOU KIND OF HAVE TO SHOUT, SO SORRY.

>> AS FAR AS WHAT APPLICATION MATERIAL HAS BEEN PROVIDED WITH THE APPLICATION, THE VARIANCE REQUEST OBVIOUSLY IS RESTORING THE UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD. BASED ON AN ACCESS EASEMENT THROUGH THE TWO EASTERNMOST PROPERTY TO THE REAR PROPERTY THERE WOULD NOT BE A NEED FOR

ADDITIONAL VARIANCES OR ANY KIND OF DEVIANCE IS FROM OUR CODE. >> SO, THERE WOULD NOT BE ADDITIONAL VARIANCES OR OTHER STIPULATIONS BEYOND FOR THAT ACCESS OFF OF SOUTH FLETCHER,

THEY SHARED ACCESS OFF OF SOUTH FLETCHER. >> OKAY.

>> MISS MOCK. >> JACOB, WHERE IS THE WATER AND -- WOULD IT ALL GO DOWN THE DRIVEWAY? WILL TO COME UP FROM THE FIRST AVENUE? SO, I WANT TO BE CLEAR AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION REQUEST, I ONLY ANALYZE THE SITE BASED ON RESTORING THE UNDERLINE LOTS OF RECORD. THE APPLICANT HAS MADE MATERIALS AND PRESENTED SHOWING FOUR STRUCTURES ON THAT PARCEL WITH THE SHARED ACCESS.

BUT AS FAR AS SITE ANALYSIS, LOOKING AT UTILITIES AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS, I DO NOT HAVE THAT INFORMATION TONIGHT BECAUSE IT IS OUTSIDE OF THE GENERAL REQUEST TO RESTORE THE

[00:30:03]

UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD. >> THANK YOU. >> YES, MA'AM.

>> AS FAR AS THE PRACTICAL MATTER GOING THROUGH THE FIRST AVENUE, IF YOU LOOK AT THE PACKET, THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT DUNE BACK THERE. THERE IS A RIGHT AWAY FOR THE OLD FIRST AVENUE BUT THERE IS NO IMPROVEMENTS. ANYTHING THAT WENT THROUGH THEIR WOULD BE OF SIGNIFICANT COST TO GO THROUGH AND BASICALLY YOU WOULD HAVE TO TAKE OUT THE DUNE TO GET FULL ACCESS AND EASEMENT. A SO, AS PRACTICAL MATTER WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BRING THE

UTILITIES TO THE FRONT. >> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS? SOME OF OUR QUESTIONS MIGHT BE ANSWERED THROUGH THE APPLICANT WHEN HE COMES, JACOB, WHAT IS ON EITHER SIDE OF THIS? ARE THERE OTHER LOTS LIKE THIS THAT HAD BEEN CUT INTO FOUR AND IN THAT AREA? SO, LOTS AT 78 AND 79 ARE PART OF THE MIRAMAR SUBDIVISION WHICH WAS SUBDIVIDED BACK IN THE 40S. IT GIVE ME ONE MINUTE AS I PULL IT UP TO SHOW THE ADJACENT LOTS AND MENTIONS OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.

>> IT LOOKS LIKE THE LOT RIGHT BESIDE IT HAS GOT FOR ON ITS, IF I AM PLACED RIGHT ON THE

DRAWINGS. >> SO, ADJOINING PROPERTIES BOTH TO THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH, YOU WILL SEE ON 72 BY 1125-FOOT LOTS OF RECORD, THERE ARE NO ADJOINING PARCELS THAT ARE COMPRISED BY MORE THAN ONE RECORD, WITH MORE THAN 72 OF THE FRONTAGE ON SOUTH FLETCHER.

TO THE SOUTHEAST THERE IS A PARTIAL MADE UP OF TWO UNDERLINE 75-FOOT LOTS OF A COMBINATION OF 150 FEET. GENERALLY, YOU CAN SEE THE UNDERLINING LOTS OF RECORD, THE GENERAL CONFIGURATION AND WIDTH OF THE LOTS BOTH TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH.

>> AND THAT'S 1437? >> 1437 IS PART OF THE MIRAMAR SUBDIVISION.

IT IS 72 FEET WIDE AND PART OF THE FRONTAGE ON SOUTH FLETCHER AND IT IS A DOUBLE LOTS.

>> OKAY. SO, IS IT 1469? THEY ARE ACCESSING THAT ON FIRST? PUT IT BACK UP IF YOU DON'T MIND -- THERE YOU GO.

GOOGLE EARTH. >> SO, THE FIRST TWO, 1502, THERE ACCESS ON FIRST-COME ARE

THEY NOT? >> WELL, I JUST LEARNED THE BOARD MEMBERS WERE PROBABLY NOT SEEING WHAT I WAS SHOWING. ARE YOU ABLE TO SEE MY SCREEN NOW?

ARE YOU ABLE TO SEE MY SCREEN WITH THE IMAGERY NOW? >> THAT IS GOOD, I CAN SEE IT

NOW. >> MY APOLOGIES. >> YOU CAN SEE MOST OF THAT IS DUNES AND VERY WILD. THAT RIGHT AWAY FOR FIRST IS ONLY I THINK 1496 AND 1502 ARE

THE ONLY TWO PROPERTIES THAT CAN ACCESS THAT ROAD BECAUSE. >> MR. COOK IS POINTING OUT THAT THE ACCESS EXTENDS TO 1496, BEYOND THAT YOU GET INTO SIGNIFICANT TOPOGRAPHY OF THAT DRIVEWAY WHILE PLOTTED IT DOES EXIST AND IS LEFT IN ITS NATURAL STATE.

ACCESS DOES NOT CONTINUE TO THE NORTH. >> OKAY.

THANK YOU, JACOB. ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM OUR BOARD MEMBERS?

[00:35:01]

READY TO HEAR FROM YOU. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. MY NAME IS RON CONTI.

I AM AN ATTORNEY HERE WITH THE APPLICANTS AND I WOULD LIKE TO JUST START BY ASKING MR. PLATTS A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS IF I COULD, IF THAT IS OKAY WITH THE CHAIR?

>> YES SIR, HOLD THAT THOUGHT JUST ONE SECOND. SO, ALL OF OUR BOARD MEMBERS

WATCHING REMOTELY, ARE YOU ABLE TO HEAR HIM VERY WELL? >> WE GOT GOOD ON THAT?

EVERYTHING IS GOOD. >> YES. >> YES, SIR.

>> I WOULD START BY POINTING OUT FIRST THAT A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS THE BOARD MEMBERS WERE ASKING WILL BE ADDRESSED IN SOME DETAIL MOMENTARILY. SO, WE WILL GET ANSWERS TO THOSE QUESTIONS AND EXPLANATIONS AS TO HOW THOSE ISSUES ARE GOING TO BE ADDRESSED ACCORDING TO THE PLAN THAT THE APPLICANTS ULTIMATELY HAVE, IF THE VARIANCE IS APPROVED.

BUT, I WOULD LIKE TO JUST ASKED MR. PLATT A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. FIRST OF ALL REGARDING THE NOTICES FOR THIS MEETING. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THIS IS ALL OUT IN THE OPEN HERE.

YOUR FIRST NOTICE ABOUT THIS HEARING WENT OUT ON OR ABOUT MA? >> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> OKAY, AND THAT NOTICE CONTAINS A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR AS I RECALL, CORRECT?

>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> AND THAT TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR WAS THAT IT REFERENCED THE PROPERTY LOCATION THAT WAS THE SUBJECT OF THE HEARING AS 1537 SOUTH FLETCHR AVENUE, CORRECT?

>> YES, SIR, THAT IS CORRECT. >> AND, 1537 SOUTH FLETCHER AVENUE DOES NOT EXIST, DOESN'T.

>> IT DOES NOT EXIST. >> OKAY, YOU CAN SEE FROM YOUR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH THAT YOU HAVE ON YOUR SCREEN THAT THERE IS NO DESIGNATION FOR 1537. OKAY, YOU DISCOVER THAT TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR AND SENT OUT AN AMENDED NOTICE OF THE HEARING, CORRECT?

>> I GOT AN E-MAIL FROM AN ADJOINING PROPERTY MEMBER THAT POINTED IT OUT THAT IT HAD THE WRONG ADDRESS AND WE SENT OUT AN AMENDED NOTICE WITH THE CORRECT ADDRESS.

>> WHEN DID THAT AMENDED NOTICE GO OUT? THAT AMENDED NOTICE WENT OUT

THURSDAY OR FRIDAY. >> COULD IT HAVE BEEN WEDNESDAY, MAY 13?

>> I WANT TO PULL IT UP -- WHILE YOU ARE LOOKING FOR THAT. [INAUDIBLE]

>> CAN I ASK YOU TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT? THE VIEW THAT I AM SEEING IS THE BOARD MEMBERS AND CAN THEN VIEW BE CHANGED? CAN WE SEE THE SPEAKER?

>> I THINK IT IS REGULATING THAT. WE ARE CAPTURING SOME LESSONS AS WE GO, OBVIOUSLY THIS IS NOT A PERFECT SITUATION. BUT, NO, FORTUNATELY THE WAY WE ARE SET UP YOU CAN HEAR THEM BUT YOU CANNOT SEE THEM. IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT? EVERYBODY IS SHAKING THEIR HEAD ON THAT. SO, NO.

>> OKAY. >> SORRY ABOUT THAT. >> THE AMENDED NOTICE TO GO OUT

ON MAY 13. >> OKAY. AND, YOU KNOW FOR A FACT THAT MEMBERS, CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC RECEIVE THAT AMENDED NOTICE BECAUSE YOU HAD CORRESPONDENCE WITH CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, CORRECT QUESTIONING.

>> YES, SIR. >> TO KNOW WHO THEY WERE? >> AS I INDICATED, MR. JEFF HAYNES HAD SENT ME AN E-MAIL NOTING THAT THE MAIL NOTICE CONTAINS A WRONG ADDRESS.

>> DID YOU HEAR FROM ANYONE ELSE AFTER THE AMENDED NOTICE WENT OUT? OR, TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE DID KELLY GIBSON RECEIVE ANY CORRESPONDENCE E-MAILS,

TELEPHONE CALLS, ET CETERA? >> THERE WERE OTHER COMMUNICATIONS FOLLOWING THE

AMENDED NOTICE. >> OKAY. OKAY.

YOU DON'T KNOW WHO THOSE COMMUNICATIONS WERE WITH? >> NOT OF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.

>> OKAY. I WANT TO ALSO MAKE SURE THERE WAS A HEARING NOTICE POSTED ON

THE PROPERTY, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> AND, THAT WAS POSTED ON OR

[00:40:01]

ABOUT MAY 8. >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> OKAY.

>> ALRIGHT, AND IT WAS POSTED IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE AT 1507 SOUTH FLETCHER.

>> IT WAS IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE AT 1507 SOUTH FLETCHER. >> OKAY, VERY GOOD.

BY THE WAY, GOING BACK TO THE QUESTION OF WHO YOU MAY HAVE HEARD FROM, DID YOU HEAR FROM A MR. ANDERSON FOLLOWING THE DATE THAT YOU SENT OUT THE AMENDED NOTICE?

>> I DID NOT HAVE DIRECT COMMUNICATION WITH MR. ANDERSON, BUT KELLY GIBSON DID RECEIVE

SOMETHING. >> OKAY, THANK YOU. JUST A COUPLE OF MORE QUESTIONS AND THEN WE WILL MOVE ON FROM HERE. IT IS YOUR OPINION, AND YOU HAVE MADE THE RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD THAT ALL SIX OF THE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE ARE MET IN THIS INSTANCE, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT. BASED ON THE SIX CRITERIA FOR GRANTING VARIANCE, RESTORING TO UNDERLINE LOTS OF RECORD, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, ALL SIX CRITERIA HAVE BEEN MET BASED ON

MY ANALYSIS. >> I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY WITH RESPECT TO ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS, NUMBER THREE, LITERAL INTERPRETATION. IT IS YOUR OPINION, CORRECT? IN YOUR REPORT SHOULD PROPERLY STATES THAT LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WOULD DEPRIVE THE APPLICANTS HAVE RIGHTS ENJOYED BY OTHER PARTIES -- OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT, CORRECT QUESTIONING.

>> CORRECT, INSTEAD OF WOULD NOT DEPRIVE IT SAID WOULD DEPRIVE US.

>> SO, THAT DISTINCTION BASICALLY FULFILLS THAT REQUIREMENT WITH RESPECT WITH THE VARIANCE. THOSE ITEMS THAT ARE REQUIRED FOR VARIANCE.

>> CORRECT. >> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> YES.

>> DO YOU THINK THERE IS AN ISSUE WITH NOTICING OR A PROCEDURAL PROBLEM?

>> KNOW, WE DO NOT BELIEVE THERE IS AN ISSUE WITH NOTICING, MR. CHAIR.

WE JUST -- OUR WHOLE APPROACH THROUGHOUT THIS WHOLE PROCESS IS TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING IS OUT IN THE OPEN, THAT IS ALL. AND, THIS ISSUE WITH THE AMENDED NOTICE WHICH WAS PURELY A SIMPLE TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR WAS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION AND WE JUST FELT LIKE IT NEEDED TO BE PUT

OUT THERE. >> ASSURED. AND THAT IS PERFECTLY FINE.

THE CITY HAS BEEN STRUGGLING AS OF LATE WITH WORKING FROM HOME AND SIT SO, I JUST WANTED TO BE

SURE THAT YOU DID NOT ANTICIPATE ANY ISSUE THERE. >> NO, SIR.

WE DO NOT FEEL THERE IS AN ISSUE. >> MR. CHAIR?

YES. >> I WAS ALSO MADE AWARE BY CITY STAFF AND I DON'T THINK I HAVE HEARD IT SAID MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE DIFFERENCE IS ONE NUMBER, WHICH I THINK IS -- 1507 AT 1537

WHICH WAS ON THE INITIAL NOTICE. >> OKAY. IT'S SO, EVERYONE IS ON THE SAME

PAGE. WE JUST HAD A TYPO ON THAT. >> YES OR.

ALL WE HAVE IS A TYPO BUT WE ARE IN GOOD SHAPE. >> I AGREE.

>> A COUPLE OF MORE QUESTIONS, MR. PLATT. IF THERE IS NO VARIANCE GRANTED, OR IF APPLICATION HAD NOT BEEN MADE, THE OWNER OF LOTS 78 AND 79 WOULD NOT BE PRECLUDED FROM TAKING DOWN THE STRUCTURE THAT IS THERE NOW AND BUILDING A SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER HOME ON THAT PROPERTY. RESPECTING COME OF COURSE ALL REQUIREMENTS AND TO ANY

EASEMENTS THAT MIGHT BE IN PLACE. >> THAT IS CORRECT.

CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME RUNS ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY COULD BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE ARE ONE ZONING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS WHICH WOULD BE A SUBSTANTIALLY LARGER HOME THAN

THE TWO INDIVIDUAL LOTS. >> THAT WOULD BE BECAUSE LOTS 78 AND WHAT WE ARE REFERRING TO AS LOTS AT 70 AND 79, THOSE ARE THE UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD, THEY SPAN A WITHOUT ABOUT 144 FEET ON

SOUTH FLETCHER AVENUE, CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> AND T THOSE LOTS ARE 1125 FET

[00:45:11]

DEEP. >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> SO, SOMEONE COULD MAKE USE OF THAT PROPERTY AS IT IS TO BUILD THE HOME WHICH MIGHT BE CONSIDERED OUT OF CHARACTER FOR THAT NEIGHBORHOOD WITH THE OTHER HOMES THAT ARE BUILT IN THAT PART OF THE MIRAMAR BEACH

SUBDIVISION. >> BASED ON MY ANALYSIS, YES, THAT IS CORRECT.

>> OKAY. AND, YOU DID POINT OUT BY THE WAY YOU DID, THERE WAS REFERENCE MADE IT TO 2017 WHEN IN APPLIAPPLICATION OF A VARIANCE S BROUGHT TO THIS BOARD TO SEPARATE THE UNDERLINE LOTS OF RECORD WHICH ARE NOW KNOWN AS LOTS 40 AND 41 WHICH MY CLIENTS HAVE UNDER CONTRACT AT THE PRESENT TIME. THAT IS APPROVED BY THIS BOARD BASED ALSO AND INCLUDED ALSO YOUR RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL OF THAT APPLICATION FOR

VARIANCE. >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> SO, RIGHT NOW THERE ARE THE PARCEL THAT MY CLIENTS HAVE UNDER CONTRACT, CURRENTLY OWNED BY RIO LAND AND INVESTMENT COMPANY, INCLUDES RIGHT NOW, THREE SEPARATE LOTS. THREE SEPARATE LOTS EXIST TODAY

AND HOW MANY INDIVIDUAL LOTS OF BABY TO BUILD ON THAT? >> I SAY PARCELS, THERE IS ACTUALLY THREE LOTS OF RECORD BASED ON THE ACCOMMODATION BASED TODAY.

TODAY, ONE LARGE STRUCTURE OR ONE STRUCTURE CAN BE BUILT ON A LOTS FRONTING AND ONE COULD BE

BUILT -- >> SO, YOU HAVE THREE BUILDABLE LOTS.

>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> ONE MORE THING, MR. PLATT, COULD YOU BRING UP YOUR AERIAL VIEW THAT YOU SHOWED US EARLIER I WANT TO MAKE SURE ALL OF THE BOARD MEMBERS CAN SEE THAT AERIAL VIEW CAN EVERYBODY SEE THAT? LOT 40 AND 41 ARE THE ONES BEHIND 1507, WHICH, BY THE WAY, THEY ARE NOT THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE,

CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> THEY WOULD BE ENTITLED TO

ACCESS THROUGH THE RIGHT AWAY ON FIRST AVENUE. >> THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

OF THE CITY STANDARDS THAT ACCESS THROUGH FIRST AVENUE. >> BUT, YOU ALSO KNOW THAT BASED UPON YOUR DISCUSSIONS AND DOCUMENTATION THAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU, THAT MY CLIENTS INTENDS IS TO CREATE A PRIVATE EASEMENTS IF THIS VARIANCE REQUEST IS APPROVED, THERE INTENSE WOULD BE TO CREATE A PRIVATE EASEMENT WHICH GRANTS ACCESS TO ALL FOUR LAWS TO SOUTH

FLETCHER AVENUE. >> THAT IS WHAT THE APPLICATION MATERIALS SUBMIT.

>> ALL RIGHT, ONE SECOND PLEASE CEMENTED OFFICER DECKER LEAVE? WHAT IS YOUR NAME.

>> AND I DID ASK THAT THE CITIZENS OUTSIDE ARE BEING TAKEN CARE OF WITH CHAIRS OR WHATEVER WE NEED, IF THERE IS A NEED OUT THERE OR THEY CAN HEAR, JUST LET US KNOW.

THANK YOU, SIR. >> MR. PLATT, WITH THE RESPECT TO LOT 38 AND 80, THERE IS, IT APPEARS THERE IS A PRIVATE EASEMENTS IN PLACE THERE RIGHT NOW, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> I CANNOT SPEAK TO THAT, I DON'T RECALL SEEING A SURVEY. THERE IS ACCESS THERE ALL

THROUGH SOUTH FLETCHER. >> BUT, THERE IS NO ACCESS FROM LOT 38 TO THE FIRST AVENUE RIGHT

[00:50:05]

AWAY. >> THERE IS NOT ACCESS TO FIRST AVENUE.

>> OKAY, VERY GOOD. THANK YOU, MR. PLATT. >> MR. COMMISSIONER, MR. CHAIR, EXCUSE ME, I AM GOING TO MOVE ON AND SIMPLY AT THIS POINT INTRODUCE TO YOU ONE OF THE APPLICANTS, KAREN A FERRETTI, WHO IS GOING TO ADDRESS MANY OF THE ISSUES THAT HAS A DISCUSSED AND DISCUSSED THE PLAN THAT SHE AND HER GROUP HAVE BUT, I WILL START BY HAVING HER TELL A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HERSELF, LET ME BACK UP. I DON'T WANT TO BE DISRESPECTFUL IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM, MS. FERRETTI IS ACTUALLY, JUDGE FERRETTI PEER SHE IS A JUDGE, SHE WILL TELL YOU ABOUT THAT I AM SURE. AS AN ATTORNEY, I OFTEN HAVE DIFFICULTY REFERRING TO A JUDGE AS TO ANYTHING OTHER THEN JUDGE FERRETTI.

BUT, I WILL ASK YOU, DO YOU PREFERRED THAT I REFERRED TO AS THAT JUDGE FERRETTI,

MS. FERRETTI OR KAREN? >> KAREN IS GREAT SUE MCCARRON, OKAY, THANK YOU.

LET'S MOVE FORWARD. KAREN, CAN YOU GIVE THE BOARD MEMBERS SOME BACKGROUND INFORMATION REGARDING YOUR PURCHASE OF 1507 SOUTH FLETCHER AVENUE.

PERHAPS YOU MIGHT WANT TO TELL THEM WHO IS INVOLVED IN YOUR GROUP AND WHERE YOU ARE GOING

FROM HERE. >> SURE. SO AGAIN, MY NAME IS KAREN PERRETTI. I CURRENTLY LIVE IN MERRIMENT, I COME ALONG WITH THE FIVE OTHER HAVE DECIDED, WE HAVE ALL DECIDED TO RETIRE TOGETHER AT THE SME PLACE.

WE ORIGINALLY PUT IN A CONTRACT FOR THE SALE, WHICH WAS A CONTRACT FOR ALL THREE PARCELS AS THEY CURRENTLY EXIST, SO THAT WOULD BE LOTS 40, 40-ONE, AS WELL AS LOTS 78 AND 79.

THE REASON THAT WE ARE HERE IS THAT WE WANTED TO HAVE A VARIANCE TO HAVE 78 AND 79 SUBDIVIDED. AS THOSE THREE PROPERTY STAND NOW, WE COULDN'T CHANGE COULD BUILD THREE HOUSES BUT WE WANTED THE OPPORTUNITY TO BUILD FOR HOUSES AND I WILL TELL YOU ABOUT THAT IN A FEW MINUTES. BEFORE I GET TO THAT COME I JUST WANT TO TALK TO ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE CURRENTLY ON WHERE WE ARE CURRENTLY AGENTS OF THE OWNER WE ARE ALL ON THE CONTRACT. SO, THE FIRST PERSON IS THAT DOUG IS SOUTH, HE IS A CERTIFIED ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL ENGINEER, WHO CURRENTLY WORKS AS AN ELECTRICAL ENGINEER AND MANAGER.

HE HAS DONE THAT FOR OVER 25 YEARS FOR A GENERAL CONTRACTOR. HE HAS BEEN MARRIED FOR MOST OF THAT TIME TO HIS WIFE, JACKIE SOUTH WHO IS HERE TODAY WITH ME, SHE IS SITTING IN THE BACK ROW.

JACKIE HAS BEEN AN EDUCATOR FOR THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY SCHOOLS WHERE WE LIVE AND SHE IS ALSO A PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHER. JACKIE AND DOUG TO LIVE DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE NEXT TWO APPLICANTS WHO COME OF THE FIRST IS THAT CRISTOBAL OR CAROL WHO IS MY BROTHER-IN-LAW, WHO HAS BEEN A POLICE OFFICER FOR OVER 25 YEARS, HE IS ALSO A CERTIFIED EMT.

HE IS MARRIED AS I SAID TO MY TWIN SISTER, WHO IS ALSO HERE WITH ME, OBVIOUSLY I HAVE KNOWN HER LONGER THAN 25 YEARS. MY SISTER, HER NAME IS CHRISTINA BUT SHE GOES BY TINA SHE IS A PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHER AND HAS BEEN A PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHER FOR OVER 25 YEARS AT THE SAME ACTUALLY TWO SCHOOLS COMBINED. THE NEXT PERSON ON THE APPLICATION IS MY HUSBAND, TOM, WHO IS SITTING BEHIND ME. A TOM I HAVE KNOWN EACH OTHER SINCE HIGH SCHOOL.

WE STARTED DATING IN HIGH SCHOOL AND THROUGH COLLEGE ET CETERA. TOM IS THE CHIEF ESTIMATOR FOR A LARGE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY. HE IS MYSELF, AND THEN I HAVE BEEN A LAWYER SINCE 1996.

I PRIMARILY PRACTICED CIVIL LAW, REPRESENTED PLAINTIFFS IN PERSONAL INJURY AND CONTRACT DISPUTES AS WELL AS PHYSICIANS AND HOSPITALS AND MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASES.

[00:55:01]

I HAVE BEEN A JUDGE SINCE JANUARY 2018. I HEAR CASES IT SPECIFICALLY IN AREAS THAT COME BEFORE ME IN CRIMINAL, CIVIL CONTRACT, CIVIL PERSONAL INJURY, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, AND RELEVANT TO CODE ENFORCEMENT. SO, THOSE ARE INFORMATION ABOUT US, THE REASON I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT IS BECAUSE I WANT YOU TO GET A SENSE OF WHY WE WANT TO DO THIS AS I SAID EARLIER, WE STARTED IT, WE'VE KNOWN EACH OTHER OVER 25 YEARS.

AND, TO THIS DAY WE SEE EACH OTHER MULTIPLE TIMES A WEEK. WE HAVE VACATION TOGETHER, WE HAVE DINNER TOGETHER ONCE OR TWICE A WEEK, EXCEPT DURING PANDEMIC TIMES.

WE EACH HAVE TWO SONS WERE BETWEEN 18 AND 22. THEY ALL GREW UP TOGETHER.

WE STARTED LOOKING FOR A RETIREMENT PLACE ABOUT FIVE YEARS AGO.

WHAT WE WERE LOOKING FOR WE CAME UP WITH A LIST OF THE THINGS WE WANT TO.

SO, WE KNEW WE WANTED TO BE CLOSE TO THE BEACH, WE KNEW WHAT WE WANTED IT TO BE A PLACE WHERE CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN COULD COME AND WANT TO COME. WE WERE FORTUNATE THAT MY PARENTS LIVED ON THE OUTER BANKS OF NORTH CAROLINA AND THEY RETIRED THEIR.

SO, WE GOT THE OPPORTUNITY TO RAISE THEIR GRANDKIDS THERE AND I WANT TO COME THERE INSTEAD OF MAKING IT A CHORE. SO, WE NOW LOOK AT THAT THE SAME WAY.

WE ALSO WANT TO HAVE A PLACE WITHIN AN HOUR OF A MAJOR AIRPORT BECAUSE CHRIS AND TINA ARE THE GUARDIANS OF TWO ADULT CHILDREN WITH SPECIAL NEEDS. WE JUST REALLY WANTED A PLACE THAT FELT LIKE FAMILY ATMOSPHERE WITH A SMALL TOWN IN A COMMUNITY WHERE WE COULD WALK AND BECOME INVOLVED IN. JUST TO GIVE YOU SOME HISTORY, WE STARTED LOOKING, WE WENT TO NORTH CAROLINA, WILMINGTON NORTH CAROLINA, CHARLESTON, SOME OTHER BEACHES OF OF CHARLESTON, WE WENT TO SARASOTA, WE WENT TO BRADENTON, WE WENT TO DESTIN, WE WENT TO COCOA BEACH, AND THEN WE CAME HERE. AND LITERALLY, THE FIRST TIME WE CAME HERE, ALL SIX OF US KNEW THAT THIS WAS THE PLACE. WE HAVE BEEN BACK FOUR TIMES SINCE SEPTEMBER BECAUSE WE KNEW THIS WAS THE PLACE. THE REASON THIS PROPERTIES SO IMPORTANT TO US COME IS BECAUSE WE WANT TO LIVE LIKE WE LIVE NOW, IN CLOSE PROXIMITY WHERE WE CAN WALK ACROSS THE STREET AND SPEND TIME WITH EACH OTHER. SO, THAT KIND OF JUST TELLS YOU WHY WE CARE ABOUT THE PROPERTY.

>> AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, ALL SIX OF YOU ARE ON THE CONTRACT TO PURCHASE THIS PARCEL OR PARCELS

I SHOULD SAY. >> YES, ALL SIX OF US ARE ON THE CONTRACT BUT WE ACTUALLY HAVE A FOURTH COUPLE THAT WANTS TO COME, TOO, BUT WE DID NOT KNOW WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN WITH THE VARIANCE. SO, WE WERE NOT SURE WE COULD HAVE THE FOURTH COUPLE JOIN US

OR NOT JOIN US. >> OKAY, THANK YOU. I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO ADDRESS THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE.

MR. PLATT TOUCHED ON THESE HIMSELF QUICKLY, BUT I WOULD LIKE YOU TO PRESENT YOUR TESTIMONY TO THE BOARD REGARDING EACH OF THE REQUIREMENTS. THE FIRST REQUIREMENT IS SPECIAL CONDITIONS. I WOULD ASK YOU, ARE THERE SPECIAL CONDITIONS OR UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ARE PECULIAR TO THIS PARCEL AND NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER PROPERTIES

IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT? >> SO, I WILL ASK ECHO WHAT MR. PLATT SAID.

YES, TWO LOTS AT 78 AND 79 ALTHOUGH THEY ARE ONLY COINED AS ONE LOT NOW, OR 144 FEET WIDE.

THAT IS CONTRARY TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 4.02.02, WHICH DOES NOT WANT PROPERTIES TO BE GREATER THAN 100 FEET IF THEY ARE ALONG SOUTH FLETCHER.

THAT IS THE FIRST WAY THAT IT DOESN'T COMPLY. AND, IT MAKES SENSE THAT IS WHAT THE CITY IS LOOKING FOR, BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT PEOPLES VIEWS TO BE DIRECTLY BEHIND TO BE IMPACTED. SO, IN ADDITION TO 78 AND 79 BEING IN A UNIQUE POSITION, I WOULD SAY THAT LOTS 40 AND 41 WHICH ARE THE TWO ABUTTING LOTS IT TO THE WEST ARE ALSO AFFECTED

[01:00:11]

HAD IT LEFT AND REVERTED BACK TO WHAT THE CITY INTENDED. >> CAN YOU TELL US WITH RESPECT TO THE SECOND REQUIREMENTS, SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, IF THIS BOARD WERE TO GRANT YOUR REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE, WITH THAT CONFER ANY SPECIAL PRIVILEGE UPON YOU THAT IS DENIED IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT?

>> THE ANSWER IS, NO, IT DOES NOT. IF YOU LOOK SPECIFICALLY AT THE PROPERTIES FROM LOOKING AT JACOBS, WHAT HE HAS UP ON THE SCREEN IF IT IS STILL THERE, THE PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH AND TO THE NORTH ARE ALL 72 FEET WIDE. THAT IS WHAT WE ARE SEEKING.

WE ARE NOT SEEKING A -- THEY DON'T ALREADY HAVE. THE OTHER THING WE ARE SEEKING FOR IT TO GO BACK TO WHAT THEY ORIGINALLY WERE AND BASED UPON MY REVIEW OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, THERE IS NO CODE PROVISION WITH RESPECT TO ZONING, SIZE, DENSITY OR DESIGN STANDARDS WHICH WOULD BE VIOLATED BY GRANTING A. I DON'T THINK IT IS GIVING US A

SPECIAL PRIVILEGE. >> WITH LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO DEPRIVE YOU OF RIGHTS THAT ARE ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE ZONING DISTRICT?

>> AS JACOB SAID, YES, BECAUSE THE PEOPLE IN THIS DISTRICT IF YOU LOOK DIRECTLY TO THE SOUTH, THE FOUR LAWS THAT ARE ABUTTING THE ADS 11496, AND 1502, FIRST AVENUE AND, 11 AND 1515 SOUTH FLETCHER, THEY ARE ALL PROPERTIES THAT ARE 72 BY ABOUT 125 PEER AND THEY WERE ABLE TO EACH HAVE THEIR OWN STRUCTURES. AND THAT IS WHAT WE ARE SEEKING TO DO, TOO.

SO LITERAL INTERPRETATION DOES DEPRIVE US OF RIGHTS BECAUSE WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO BUILD A HOUSE

ON EACH OF THOSE LOTS. >> ON EACH OF THE LOTS INCLUDING THE UNDERLINED LOTS OF RECORD

WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPICATION, LOT 78 AND 79. >> YES.

>> AND, ARE YOU ASKING FOR THE MINIMUM VARIANCE THAT IS REQUIRED TO MAKE THAT POSSIBLE?

TO MAKE YOUR PREFERRED USE OF THE LAND POSSIBLE? >> THE MINIMUM VARIANCE THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED IS CAN ONLY BE WHAT WAS IN THE PLAT AS ORIGINALLY INDICATED, OR LARGER.

WE WANTED TO BE THE MINIMUM WHICH WOULD BE THE 72. >> AND AGAIN, THE PLAT SAYS IT WAS ORIGINALLY DRAWN HAD LOT 78 AND 79 SEPARATE, CORRECT? THEY WERE 72 FEET WIDE.

>> YES. >> WOULD GRANTING THE VARIANCE BRING THIS PROPERTY INTO HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL INTENT AND PURPOSE OF LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IN THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE?

>> YES, RETURNING IT TO THE SEPARATED BONDS, WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE LOTS THAT ARE IN THAT AREA. EVEN IF YOU LOOK AT THE LOTS BETTER NORTH FOR EXAMPLE 38 AND LOT 81 WHICH IS WHAT I WILL SAY IS A DOUBLE DECK LOT, ALL OF THOSE LOTS ARE SIMILAR TO WHAT WE ARE ASKING FOR, WHICH IS 72 FEET NORTH AND SOUTH ON FLETCHER.

SO, I THINK THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IN ADDITION, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE HOUSES THAT HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED, YOU CANNOT SEE THIS ON THE PLOTS OF THAT JACOB UP RIGHT NOW, BUT, THE PROPERTIES TO AT 1496, 1511, 1502, 1515, AND EVEN THE ONE AT 1469, THOSE ARE ALL SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES THAT ARE CONSTRUCTED ON LOTS 72. WHICH, THEY ARE SOMEWHERE, THEY RANGE SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 253500 SQUARE FEET. AND THAT IS WHAT WE ARE ASKING FOR. IF IT IS NOT GRANTED, THE HOUSE WOULD BE NOT IN HARMONY WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE, THEY WOULD BE COULD BE AS MUCH AS A 10000 SQUARE-FOOT HOME.

[01:05:03]

BECAUSE FRANKLY, WE WANT TO ACCESS THE BACK TO LOTS, THAT SO, THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO TEAR DOWN THE DUNE STRUCTURE ON FIRST AVENUE AND SO THAT WE CAN PRESERVE THAT.

WE WERE PREFERRED TO ACCESS IT FROM SOUTH FLETCHER, SIMILAR TO THE WAY THAT IS ON THE LOT THAT IS IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF 1507. THAT PROPERTY GOES ACROSS, IT IS STILL TO LOTS OF RECORD.

IN THE DRIVEWAY GOES FROM SOUTH FLETCHER ALL THE WAY TO THE BACK OF THE LOT.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE ARE SEEKING SOMETHING SIMILAR. >> THE LAST REQUIREMENT THAT I THINK YOU HAVE ADDRESSED PARTS OF IT IN YOUR LAST RESPONSE ABOUT HOW YOUR PROPERTY WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING PROPERTIES IF THE BOARD GRANTS THE VARIANCE THAT YOU ARE REQUESTING. MAYBE YOU COULD ADDRESS THE FACT THAT IF THEY GRANTS THE VARIANCE, THIS WILL NOT CAUSE ANY INJURY TO THE AREA. I THINK THAT IS AN IMPORTANT

POINT IF YOU WOULD ADDRESS THAT. >> AND GRANTING THE VARIANCE IT DOES SEVERAL THINGS.

IT CREATES A SITUATION WHERE THE BACK TO LOTS NO LONGER HAVE AN ISSUE WITH OPEN CORE DOORS.

SO, THERE'S VARIANCES ON EITHER SIDE OF LOTS 70 AND 71 SO THE LOTS AT 40 AND 41 BEHIND WILL HAVE THE OPENVIEW, NOT JUST TO THE OUTSIDE OF THE PROPERTY RESPECTIVELY BUT ALSO ON THE INSIDES OF THEIR PROPERTY, IN ADDITION, WE SPECIFICALLY WANTED TO DO THIS BECAUSE WE WANT TO PRESERVE THE DUNE STRUCTURE THAT IS ON THE RIGHT AWAY FOR FIRST AVENUE.

IF YOU LOOK SPECIFICALLY AT THE LOT TO THE SOUTH, JACOB CUMMINS YOU MIND ZONING OUT A LITTLE BIT? IF YOU LOOK AT 1496, YOU CANNOT SEE IT ON HERE BUT YOU CAN PROBABLY SEE IT ON THE STREET VIEW, THERE IS ACTUALLY HOUSE THERE NOW.

FIRST AVENUE HAS BEEN EXTENDED BY GRAVEL. THEY HAD TO CLEAR THAT ENTIRE RIGHT AWAY AND BROUGHT THE UTILITIES TO THE NORTH SIDE OF 1496 FOR THE TWO PROPERTIES THAT ARE STILL THERE. THE MAP, THIS MAP ISN'T AS MISLEADING.

FIRST AVENUE COMES OFF RACHEL BUT ON ANOTHER AERIAL VIEW I SAW THAT'S ANOTHER ROAD THAT ACTUALLY ISN'T THERE. IT IS A CLOSED ROADWAY BETWEEN 40, SORRY, BETWEEN 20 AND 65 IN 1550. SO, FIRST AVENUE THERE ARE FOUR HOUSES, OR THREE HOUSES THERE NOW, AND BAD TO HAS BEEN EXTENDED DOWN TO 1496 SO IT ENDS IN A DEAD END THERE.

>> SO, JUST TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF ACCESS, IF THE BOARD GRANTS YOUR VARIANCE REQUEST AND YOUR PARTY, CLOSES THE CONTRACT AND YOU DECIDE TO GO FORWARD WITH BUILDING FOUR HOUSES, EXPLAIN VERY CLEARLY WHAT THE ACCESS, WHAT YOUR PLAN IS TO ACCESS FOR THE LOT.

>> IN YOUR PACKET OF, WHICH I THINK YOU ALL GOT PAGINATED VERSIONS THAT I SENT TO YOU.

>> YES, BUT I DO NOT DISTRIBUTE THEM. >> TO THE PAGINATED BRIDGE AND

GO OUT? DO YOU KNOW? >> AND HAS PAGE NUMBERS ON IT,

JACOB? >> THAT'S OKAY. IF YOU LOOK IN YOUR PACKET OF MATERIAL, BEHIND IT THE SURVEY YOU WILL SEE WHAT WAS A PROPOSED PLAN FOR 1507 SOUTH FLETCHER.

THAT SHOWS, THIS WAS DONE SOMETIME AGO. SO, THERE'S A FEW THINGS THAT WOULD BE DIFFERENT. IT SHOWS THE PRIVATE DRIVE PATH GOING UP ACCESSING ALL FOUR HOUSES FROM SOUTH FLETCHER, YOU WILL SEE ON THERE AND SAYS A 5-FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT, THAT'S

[01:10:07]

BOTH OF THOSE SHOW IF WE DID NOT GET WHAT WE LIKE, THEY SHOW HOW THE ACCESS WOULD BE FROM FIRST AVENUE. AGAIN, NOT OUR INTENTION BECAUSE WE KNOW THERE ARE SOME SIGNIFICANT DUNES THERE. YOU WILL SEE FOR EXAMPLE ON THE 1507 REDEVELOPMENT SCHEME WERE FIRST AVENUE HAD STOPPED, THAT ACTUALLY AND THERE ARE LINES THROUGH IT.

THAT ACTUALLY EASED ROADWAY NOW BECAUSE THAT IS WHERE 1496 IS. 1496 LITERALLY STOPS AT THE

PROPERTY LINE FOR LOT 40 AND 41. >> SO, YOU CAN DRIVE TO THE CORNER OF YOUR PROPERTY.

>> YES, SIR. YOU CAN DRIVE TO THE CORNER OF THE PROPERTY RIGHT NOW.

IT IS HARD AND GRAVEL SURFACE THAT 1496, THAT HOUSES OWNED BY MR. HAYNES, HE BUILT THAT HOUSE IN 2017. AFTER THIS REDEVELOPMENT PICTURE WAS DRAWN.

THAT HOUSE WHEN HE DID THAT HE CLEARED THE ENTIRE RIGHT AWAY AND AT THE TIME YOU COULD HAVE JUST A GRAVEL ROAD. SO, THAT IS WHAT HE HAS THERE. WHEN HE BUILT THEY REQUIRED HIM TO HAVE THE UTILITIES BROUGHT UP TO THE CORNER OF OUR TWO LOGS. SO, THEY ARE ALREADY THERE.

>> SO,. >> JACOB, YOU THINK YOU COULD DO A GOOGLE ROADSIDE PICTURE OF 1496 SO THE BOARD CAN SEE WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT? COULD YOU DO A STREET VIEW OF

1496? >> SO, THIS IS AS FAR AS THE STREET VIEW WILL ALLOW ME TO DO.

IT IS AN OUTDATED PICTURE. >> THE STREET VIEW THEIR IS WHERE HIS PROPERTY IS, I BELIEVE

NOW. >> YOU CAN SEE ON THE AREA THAT JACOB HAS BROUGHT UP NOW, THE HOUSE IS ACTUALLY THERE AND YOU CAN SEE HIS DRIVEWAY. THE ROAD GOES UP TO THE PROPERTY LINE. SEE THE PROPERTY LINE, HIS PROPERTY WORDED JOINS LOT 40,

THAT IS. THE DEAD ENDS NOW. >> WHERE THE UTILITY STOPS TO MAKE THAT'S WHERE THE AGILITY STOP ACCORDING TO OUR ARCHITECT. YOU CAN SEE THEM WHEN YOU GO ON

THE PROPERTY AS WELL. >> IN FACT, MR. HAYNES ADMITS THAT IN AN E-MAIL

CORRESPONDENCE. >> BUT, YOU ARE AGAIN, IF THE REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IS APPROVED, YOU WOULD CREATE ALSO THE UTILITY EASEMENTS ON THE SIZE, BOTH SIDES LOTS ON BOTH SETBACKS, 10-FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT TO BRING UTILITIES BACK TO LOTS 40 AND 41.

>> WE PREFER TO DO IT THAT WAY BECAUSE THEN WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT DISTURBING THE DUNES, HAVING THE LEAST AMOUNT OF DISTURBANCE TO THE DUNE STRUCTURES ON THE RIGHT AWAY.

ON FIRST AVENUE. >> AND, MY LAST QUESTION, YOU'RE AN ATTORNEY, YOUR JUDGE, YOU

[01:15:01]

FOR GRANTING AN EASEMENT HAVE BEEN MET? >> I BELIEVE ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN MET. IN ADDITION, I WOULD SAY THAT IF THE VARIANCE IS GRANTED, GRANTING IT WILL NOT CONTRADICT ANY OF THE OTHER CODE PROVISIONS.

>> SO, THERE IS NO OTHER CODE PROVISION IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT WOULD BE IMPLICATED OR VIOLATED IN THE EVENTS THE APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE IS GRANTED.

>> CORRECT. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER.

>> THANK YOU. >> I THINK YOU DID A GREAT JOB OUTLINING A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS

WERE ANSWERED. >> LET'S GO TO OUR BOARD MEMBERS WERE WATCHING REMOTELY, TELL ME

HOW YOU ARE READING IT, AND WHO HAS GOT A QUESTION. >> THERE WE GO.

>> I THINK IT THEY SAID MR. MORAN DOES IS WORKING ON THE SITE DEVELOPMENT WORK, AND I THINK MOST OF THE CONCERN WOULD BE WITH THE DUNE STRUCTURE IN THE BACK.

I WOULD LIKE JACOB TO REVIEW WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS ARE FOR THAT AND IF MR. MIRANDA HAS ANY SPECIAL LANDSCAPING IDEAS WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF THOSE TO BACK LOTS IS THAT JUNE. I'M SURE HE PROBABLY HAS GOT SOME GOOD IDEAS ON HOW TO HANDLE

IT THAT WOULD ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS. >> WELL, IN ANTICIPATION OF ANSWERING THAT QUESTION, I BELIEVE IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO ASK MR. MIRANDA AT THIS TIME TO COME FORWARD. UNLESS THERE ARE OTHER QUESTIONS COME OF COURSE.

>> TYPICALLY WE FLIP FLOP BACK INTO, ONE QUESTION LEADS TO SOMETHING ELSE SO, IF YOU WILL COME UP TO THIS CHAIR RIGHT IN FRONT OF JACOB, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN CUMMINS YOU MANNING TO IF I JUST STAND ON THAT SIDE.

>> THAT IS FINE. >> YES YOU ARE FINE. >> MR. MIRANDA, YOU ARE ALREADY

UNDER OATH, CAN YOU JUST TELL THE LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. >> MAN, LET ME GET HIS NAME AND

ADDRESS AND EVERYTHING FOR THE RECORD PLEASE. >> THANK YOU, JOSÉ MIRANDA WITH MIRANDA ARCHITECTS. BUSINESS OFFICE AT 309 CENTER STREET SUITE 206 IN FERNANDINA BEACH FLORIDA, MY RESIDENCE IT IS AT ONE OH NINE-MAX MIXER, CAN YOU TELL THAN NUMBERS OF THIS BOARD WHAT YOUR EDUCATION IS AS FAR AS UNDERGRAD AND GRADUATE SCHOOL?

>> I'VE GOT A BACHELORS DEGREE IN ARCHITECTURE FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA AND A

MASTERS DEGREE WITH A FOCUS ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION. >> AND YOU INDICATED THAT YOU WORK AS AN ARCHITECT HERE, CAN YOU TELL THE LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WHERE IS YOUR PRIMARY

PLACE OF BUSINESS? >> HERE IN FERNANDINA IN MOST BUSINESSES ON THE ISLANDS FROM A

QUIET OF YOUR WORK WOULD YOU SAY IS IN FERNANDINA CITY LIMITS? >> I WOULD GUESS 75 TO MAKE 80% OF MY WORK IS WITHIN CITY LIMITS AMERICAN IN THAT WORK, CAN YOU TELL ME IF THAT'S RESIDENTIAL,

COMMERCIAL? >> MOSTLY RESIDENTIAL BUT 80% IS RESIDENTIAL.

>> AND,. >> MR. MIRANDA IS A COMPETENT WITNESS YOUR HONOR.

>> SORRY, IT'S JUST HABIT. >> ALRIGHT, KNOWING THAT LET ME JUST ASK HIM A FEW MORE QUESTIONS BEFORE I ASK IF HE CAN BE CERTIFIED AS AN EXPERT. SPECIFICALLY, ARE YOU FAMILIAR

WITH THE LAMB BUILDING CODE HERE AT FERDINAND BEACH. >> YES, YOU BEEN ON THE ISLAND SINCE 1991, REGISTERED ARCHITECT SINCE 1994, PRACTICING LOCALLY IN EXCESS OF 29 YEARS, VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND HOW TO NEGOTIATE THAT PROCESS.

>> AND DOES THAT INCLUDE BEING FAMILIAR WITH EASEMENT REQUIREMENTS, DENSITY REQUIREMENTS, VARIANCE REQUIREMENTS AND ZONING REQUIREMENTS?

>> YES, ALL OF THE ABOVE. >> REPORTER: HAVE YOU PREVIOUSLY SERVED AS AN EXPERT IN A

[01:20:01]

VARIANCE EXPERT HERE AT THE CITY? >> YES, I BEEN AN EXPERT BOTH WITH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COUNCIL AS WELL AS CIRCUIT COURT INTO BALL

COUNTY AND NASSAU COUNTY. >> AND YOU PROVIDED US WITH A COPY OF YOUR RESUME WHICH WAS

PROVIDED TO THE BOARD WITH AN UPDATED RESUME. >> YES.

>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO OFFER AN EXPERT IN THE EXPERT OF -- FOR THE CITY OF FERNANDINA AS WELL

AS THE QUALIFICATION OF THE HEARING. >> ANY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT HIS QUALIFICATIONS? ALL RIGHT.

FOR PURPOSES OF YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE APPLICANTS, CAN YOU TELL THE BOARD WHAT YOU HAVE REVIEWED FOR PURPOSES OF OUR VARIANCE AND WHAT YOU HAVE DONE TO BECOME

FAMILIAR WITH THE PROCESS? >> SURE, I WAS CONTACTED BY A TOM BEACH INITIALLY AND I SPOKE WITH KAREN IN TIME TO DISCUSS THEIR VARIANCE COMING UP BEFORE YOU AND WITH A VARIANCE APPLICATION MATERIALS DID RESEARCH ON THE LAND BUILDING CODE AND THE FEASIBILITY OF THE DEVELOPMENTS OF THE LOTS OF BOTH DOUBLE WIDE LOT OR TO INDIVIDUAL LOTS.

>> AND, DID YOU SPECIFICALLY REVIEW THE ENTIRE VARIANCE APPLICATION?

>> YES. >> ENDED THAT INCLUDE THE LAND SURVEY?

>> YES. >> DID ALSO INCLUDE THE FEASIBILITY SITES PLANS WHICH

WERE A AND B? >> THAT'S CORRECT. THERE WERE SOME FROM 2007 THAT

SHOWED A POTENTIAL. >> AND DID YOU ALSO LOOK AT THE VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR THE PRIOR VARIANCE THAT WAS APPLIED FOR AND GRANTED ON THE BACK TO LOTS OF 40 AND-ONE?

>> YES. >> AND, DID YOU ALSO, IN ADDITION TO REVIEWING THOSE GO

TO THE PROPERTY ITSELF? >> YES, WE REVIEWED, I DID IN THE OFFICE IT ESSENTIALLY DID A

REVIEW OF THE EXISTING AVAILABLE THROUGH THE CITIES. >> AND SKI DID YOU COME IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE APPLICANTS WERE REFERRED TO FROM THE BUILDER THEY ARE WORKING

WITH? >> YES, THAT'S CORRECT. >> WAS THAT QUESTION MY.

>> CHRIS FERGUSON WAS THE EFFICIENT A LEAD TO. >> BASED UPON YOUR REVIEW DID YOU AND YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE CODE DID YOU PERFORM OPINIONS WITHIN A REASONABLE DEGREE OF PROBABILITY IS AN ARCHITECT OF WHETHER THE RECOMMENDATION FROM MR. PLATTS AND THE APPLICATION

FOR VARIANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED AND OUR COMPLIANCE? >> YES, REVIEWING THE APPLICATION OF THE STAFF REPORT, I FIND THAT THE STAFF HAS MADE A VERY GOOD POINT OF ADDRESSING ALL OF THE CRITERIA IN THE APPLICATION AND THE APPLICATION MEETS ALL OF THE CRITERIA FOR VARIANCE. THIS IS VERY RARE IN A VARIANCE CASE, MOST CANNOT LEAD TO CRITERIA. SO, AGAIN, IT MET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT SMACKS SPECIFICALLY IN LOOKING AT THOSE REQUIREMENTS, I JUST WANT TO TOUCH EACH OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS AND GET YOUR OPINION, WITH RESPECT TO THE FIRST REQUIREMENT, DID YOU FIND CONSISTENT WITH WHAT MR. PLATT RECOMMENDED THAT THERE WERE SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, PARTICULAR TO THIS LAND THAT WOULD BE -- WITH

ANOTHER LAND IN THE ZONING? >> YES I CONCLUDED WITH WHAT MR. >> IN ADDITION, HE INDICATED THAT SPECIFICALLY ONE OF THE UNION COMMISSIONS ARE ONE OF THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONS WAS 144 FEET, DID YOU AGREE THAT WOULD NOT BE IN VIOLATION OF THE CURRENT STATE?

>> YES, WHEN REVIEWING THE ORIGINAL PLATTING OF THIS SUBDIVISION IN THE LOTS BEING 7O HAVE A DOUBLE WIDE LOT WHICH IS COUNTER TO WHAT THE CODE INTENDED.

IT IS RESTORING THE TWO UNDERNEATH LOTS OF RECORD, AGAIN IN KEEPING WITH THE CONTEXT.

>> AND AS YOU HAVE SAID, IT'S IN KEEPING WITH THE CONTEXT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BE BASED UPON THE SIZE, IN LOOKING ANSON SPEAKING WITH THE APPLICANTS ABOUT WHAT THEIR INTENTIONS ARE AS FAR AS THE SIZE OF HOUSE, WITH THAT ALSO, ASSUMING THE VARIANCES WAS GRANTED WITHOUT ALSO BE IN

SIMILAR TO WHAT IS ALREADY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD? >> YES, IN REVIEWING WHAT COULD HAPPEN, LET'S SAY IF YOU THERE IS NO VARIANCE YOU'RE STUCK WITH A 144-FOOT WIDE LOT, YOUR BUILDABLE AREA IS 105 FEET BASICALLY ALONG SOUTH FLETCHER AND 75 FEET OF DEPTH.

[01:25:05]

SO, THAT IS HOW I CAME UP WITH THAT BUILDABLE AREA NUMBER. WHEN YOU SUBDIVIDE THE LOTS, ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH 272-FOOT LOTS. THE IMPACT ON THE SIDE REDUCES 27 AND A HALF FEET AND A DEVELOPED PLAN THAT YOU PROPOSE TO YOU AN EASEMENT SWITCH AT A MINIMUM HAS TO BE 10 FEET WIDE. YOU HAD A LITTLE MORE TO GIVE CUSHION, NOW YOU'RE AT 12 AND A HALF FEET. WHAT I CAME UP WITH WAS A BUILDABLE WIDF THE HOUSE OF ABOUT 44 FEET MAXIMUM. THAT ASSUMES A CENTER RIGHT AWAY EASEMENT OR ACCESS TO THE REAR

LOTS IN THE SIDE YARDS. IT'S ABOUT 35 FEET TALL. >> IS THE VARIANCES GRANTED, YOU TALKED ABOUT HOW IT WOULD BE TWO HOUSES ON THE FRONT WHICH WOULD BE ON EACH INDIVIDUAL LOT NOW, CAN YOU TALK ABOUT IF IT IS NOT GRANTED THE IMPACT ON THE REAR TO LOTS?

>> THE IMPACT IS IF IT IS NOT GRANTED, THE ACCESS FROM THE REAR LOTS, AND 90% CHANCE IT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO COME OFF UNLESS YOU WERE TO GRANT AN ACCESS EASEMENT FOR EACH ONE, BECAUSE, THE LOTS ARE READY HAS A HOUSE ON IT IN THE MIDDLE OF IT YOU GENERALLY BUILD ON THE MIDDLE OF THE LOTS AND KEEP THESE ON THE SIDE. IF YOU WANT TO HAVE AN ACCESS EASE FOR DRIVEWAYS YOU REALLY NEED TO, ONE ON THE NORTH, ONE ON THE SOUTH, FOR EACH ONE OF

THOSE INDIVIDUAL LOTS THAT BACK UP. >> AND THAT, YOU WOULD NEED THOSE TO VISIT YOUR OPINION THAT WOULD ALSO CREATE A SPECIAL CONDITIONS SUCH THAT NOT GRANTING THE VARIANCE HAS A SITUATION WHERE YOU HAVE HAVE TWO DRIVEWAYS WHICH TAKES AWAY

THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE HOUSE CAN BUILD WITH WHAT LENGTH? >> JUST ADDRESSING YOUR PLAN WOULD ESSENTIALLY SUBDIVIDE THE LAW INTO TWO INDIVIDUAL LOTS. THE BEST SCENARIO IS TO SUBDIVIDE INTO JOINING THE ACCESS EASEMENTS DOWN THE CENTER OF THE PROPERTY.

YOU SAVE THE DUNE STRUCTURE, WE ARE LOOKING AT A 10-FOOT HIGH DUNE ON THE REAR PART OF THAT PROPERTY. ALL OF THAT SOON, ALL OF THE TREE COVERAGE WOULD HAVE TO BE REMOVED IN ORDER TO IMPROVE FIRST AVENUE ALL OF THE WAY TO THE NORTHERN EDGE IN ORDER TO GRANT THAT. BY SEPARATING THE LOTS IN CREATING AN ACCESS EASEMENT DOWN THE MIDDLE AND ALSO UTILITIES FROM THE FLETCHER SIDE, YOU THEN GET SMALLER HOUSES WITH MORE VIEW IN BETWEEN THE HOUSES THEN YOU WOULD GET IF YOU ARE TO DEVELOP THAT DOUBLE SIZE LOT.

>> AND THEN VIEW THAT WOULD BE IN BETWEEN THE HOUSES, IS THAT BENEFICIAL TO THE BACK TWO

PROPERTIES THEN? >> DEFINITELY. IT RIGHT NOW YOU COULD POTENTIALLY BUILD A HOUSE THAT IS 100 FEET WIDE BY THE BACK PROPERTIES, AND CONVERSE, THE OTHER LITTLE WRINKLE AND THIS IS, THERE IS ALSO THE POTENTIAL OF BUILDING AND OUTBUILDING, WHICH CAN BE 3 FEET, SO, YOU COULD THEN FURTHER COMPLICATE THIS SO NO ONE COULD GET A VIEW

FROM THAT SIDE, ESPECIALLY ON A DOUBLE WIDE LOT. >> IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU

WANT TO TELL THE BOARD IN RESPECT TO CONDITIONS? >> IT MET ALL THE VARIANCE REQUIREMENTS. I SEE NO REASON THAT THIS SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED.

WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE VARIANCE PROCESS BOTH WITH THE COUNCIL AND BEFORE YOUR BOARD SEVERAL TIMES. AND LIKE I SAID, IT IS VERY RARE TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MEET ALL OF THE CRITERIA. THIS IS THE REASON WHY YOU HAVE A VARIANCE PROCESS, SO THAT YOU CAN START RESTORING SOME OF THE ANOMALIES, THE PLANNING AND ZONING THROUGHOUT THE CITY AND

MAKE IT LOOK MUCH MORE COMPATIBLE WITH THE CONTEXT. >> IN UNDERSTANDING YOUR OPINION THAT ALL OF THE VARIANCE REQUIREMENTS, JUST TO TOUCH ON THE REST OF THE REQUIREMENTS SPECIFICALLY, NUMBER TWO IS THAT YOU AGREE THAT THE VARIANCE DOES NOT CONFER SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, DID YOU AGREE WITH WHAT MR. PLATT HAD SAID AND DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO THAT?

>> I CONCURRED WITH HIS A OPINION, THERE CAN BE A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, THEY'RE NOT ANY OTHER DOUBLE WIDE LOTS OF THIS PARTICULAR SIZE SURROUNDED BY SINGLE WIDE LOTS THAT I WAS AWARE OF IN THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO THERE'S THE SPECIAL

PRIVILEGE. >> IN THE THIRD CONDITION WAS DOES INTERPRETATION DEPRIVE THE APPLICATION OF RIGHTS? DO YOU AGREE ON THAT AS WELL WITH MR. PLATT?

[01:30:02]

>> THAT'S CORRECT TO MAKE IT THAT'S BECAUSE IT DEPRIVES THEM THE RIGHTS IT TO BUILD AN

INDIVIDUAL HOUSE ON EACH OF THE PROPERTIES. >> THAT'S THE DEVELOPMENT

PATTERN FOR THAT NEIGHBORHOOD? >> AND, THE MINIMUM VARIANCE IS ALSO MET?

>> YES, THIS IS THE MINIMUM TO RESTORE THOSE LOTS OF RECORD, AND GET SMALLER HOUSES BUILT.

>> YOU TALK TO SOME DEGREE ABOUT THE GENERAL HARMONY REQUIREMENT, WHY IS IT THAT YOU BELIEVE IN

KEEPING WITH CHARACTER WITH THE COMMUNITY? >> A LOT OF THE ADJOINING PROPERTIES ARE ALL 72-FOOT LONG AT FLETCHER AVENUE. THE IMMEDIATE FOR APOSTLES ABUTTING TO THE SOUTH ARE ALL INDIVIDUAL FOR LOTS THAT ARE 72 BY 125.

THAT IS THE DEVELOPMENT PATTERN. THERE ARE A FEW THAT ARE A FEW 72 BY 250 BUT THE FRONTAGE ALONG

LECHEROUS 72. THAT IS IN KEEPING WITH HARMONY. >> TO THE EXTENT THAT SOME LOTS ARE 72 BY 250, DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION AS TO WHETHER THOSE ARE NONCONFORMING TO LDC AS COMPARED

TO THE LOT WE HAVE NOW? WHY IS THERE A DIFFERENCE? >> IT DEPENDS, THERE ARE SOME LAWS THAT ARE PLOTTED AS TWO SEPARATE LOTS BUT UNDER SINGLE OWNERSHIP.

THERE ARE SOME THAT ACTUALLY ARE ALL PLOTTED SINGLE OWNERSHIP. SO, THE INTENT OF THE CODE IS TO TRY TO GET THE ZONING OUT OF OUR ONE TO MAKE SURE THAT YOUR LOTS ARE NOT GREATER THAN 100 ON THE OCEANFRONT AND TYPICALLY 75 IS THE SWEET SPOT. SO, THOSE 72 BY 250 IS THE

ANOMALY. >> NOW WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED A NONPERFORMING AGAINST ANY OF THE CURRENT OBESITY REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE SOUTH FLETCHER NORTH AND SOUTH.

>> THERE ARE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS IN ADDITION TO THE COMMUNITY, WE ALSO WOULD LIKE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, IN ADDITION TO WHAT WE SET AS FAR AS BEING CONSISTENT WITH THE COMMUNITY AND HELPING THE TWO LOTS IN THE REAR, CAN YOU TELL AN ADDRESS COME I THINK IT WAS MR. COOK'S

QUESTION ABOUT THE DUNE STRUCTURE. >> THAT IS THE BIGGEST AREA OF CONCERN. IF YOU DON'T GET THE VARIANCE AND YOU DECIDE, LET'S JUST SAY THAT SELL ALL THREE LOTS OR YOU DON'T COME UP WITH AN AGREEMENT, THE HARD PART IS, YOU WILL ESSENTIALLY BE MAKING THOSE TWO REAR PIECES OF PROPERTY ONLY HAVE ACCESS TO UTILITIES AND

ACCESS FOR THE SITE ITSELF. >> AND SEE IF YOU CAN JUST REFERENCE THE SITE PLAN, I'M SORRY, THE CERTIFIED SURVEY, AS FAR AS THE DUNE STRUCTURE BACK THERE, WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO PROTECT THE DUNES WERE TALKING ABOUT TRYING TO PROTECT THE DUNES ON THE RIGHT AWAY OF FIRST AVENUE AND THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY REQUIREMENTS FOR EXAMPLE THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER OF THOSE LOTS COULDN'T DISTURB SOME OF THE EXISTING LAND WITHIN THEIR CONFINES OF THEIR PROPERTY.

>> WELL, THERE IS PROVISION OF CODE TO TRY TO MAINTAIN AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, ESPECIALLY IF IT IS NOT WITHIN THE BUILDABLE AREA. YOU DO HAVE LIMITATIONS ON HOW MUCH WILL YOU CAN BRING TO A SITE, HOW MUCH YOU CAN REMOVE, SO, IF YOU HAVE TO ACCESS FROM FIRST AVENUE, THEN YOU HAVE PRETTY MUCH ERADICATED THAT DUNE ALONG THAT PROPERTY. PRIMARILY BECAUSE THE TOPOGRAPHY IS SO HIGH FOR A DRIVEWAY AND UTILITIES TO MAKE AND YOU HAVE AN OPINION?

>> EXCUSE ME A MINUTE, I THINK THAT WAS THE POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE.

YOU'RE TRYING TO SAY THAT IF YOU'RE JUST GOING TO MESS UP FIRST AVENUE, FIRST AVENUE IS PROBABLY NOT A GOOD WAY TO GO OR EVEN A FEASIBLE WAY TO GO. BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO YOU IS TO AVOID SOME OF THE PROBLEMS WITH THE DUNE IS TO REDUCE.

YOU HAVE A COUPLE OF FUNKY PIECES OF PROPERTY IN THE BACK. COULD WE, AND I'M JUST THROWING THIS OUT, IF IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO REDUCE THE FRONT SETBACK, BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO DEFINE WHAT THE FRONT SETBACK OF THOSE TWO BACK PROPERTIES ARE. IF YOU COULD REDUCE THAT A LITTLE BIT SO THAT WOULD KEEP YOU AWAY FROM HAVING TO DO TOO MUCH WORK IN THE BACK.

[01:35:05]

WAY TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS WE CAN MAKE THIS WORK FOR YOU. >> MR. COOK, MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS WE ARE ALREADY GOING THROUGH A VARIANCE TO SUBDIVIDE THE LOT. I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND GOING THROUGH A VARIANCE TO ADJUST THE SETBACKS. THAT JUST COMETH LIKE KICKING THE HORNETS NEST OUT HERE WHEN IT'S NOT NECESSARY. I THINK IF YOU HAVE A FRONT SETBACK 25 FEET IN A REAR THAT IS 25 FEET, YOU HAVE ENOUGH CUSHION TO BE ABLE TO MOVE THAT HOUSE TOWARDS THE FRONT ESPECIALLY IF ACCESS IS COMING FROM FLETCHER.

THEN YOU HAVE AN ISSUE, YOU WANT TO RE- VIEW THE REAR SETBACKS BUT IT'S A DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD.

>> THAT IS MY ORIGINAL QUESTION IN THE FIRST PLACE. ARE YOU OKAY, AND HOW WOULD YOU HANDLE THAT BACK IN THE BACK PART? WHAT YOU ARE TELLING ME IS THAT YOU THINK YOU'RE FINE WITH YOUR SETBACKS AND YOUR SIZES AND YOU WILL HAVE MINIMUM IMPACT TO THE

DUNES BACK THERE. >> YES, GIVEN THE DESIGN GOALS OF THE HOUSE TO KEEP IN SCALE WITH OTHER HOUSES ARE ALREADY DOING, WE ARE LOOKING AT PROBABLY A THREE-STORY HOME, GARAGE PARKING UNDERNEATH, TO LIVABLE AREAS. SO, YOU CREATE A SMALLER FOOTPRINT, THEREBY YOU IMPACT THE GROUND LESS. AND THEN, BY ACCESSING FROM FLETCHER, THEN YOU IMPACT THE DUNE VERY NEGATIVELY BECAUSE ONLY THE BACK PORTION.

>> I HAVE TO INTERRUPT. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THIS IS THE CITY ATTORNEY, I AM ALSO REPRESENTING THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, NOT CITY STAFF IN THIS CASE.

JUST FOR THE FOLKS THAT ARE HERE FROM PUBLIC AFFECTED PARTIES, PLEASE MAKE SURE BOARD MEMBERS, THAT WHEN YOU ASK QUESTIONS WHICH IS TOTALLY FINE HOW I THINK IT HAS BEEN GOING VERY SMOOTH, PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF BY NAME. WE DON'T HAVE, THEY MAY ONLY HAVE AUDIO ACCESS. SO, MR. COOK FOR EXAMPLE WHEN YOU ASK A QUESTION IF YOU WOULD SAY, THIS IS MEMBER COOK OR STEVE COOK. I JUST WANTED TO SAY COME I WANT TO REMIND THE BOARD THAT THE ONLY EVIDENCE THAT IS RELEVANT HIS COMPETENCE IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. I APPRECIATE, AND I HAVE BEEN SILENCE, AS WE TALKED ABOUT THE BIGGER DESIGN AND THE DESIRES OF THESE APPLICANTS COME AND THAT IS FINE.

BUT I THINK WE ARE GOING WAY OFF THE RAILS HERE. I SUBMIT TO ALL OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEMBERS, THAT FOR THE LAST FEW MINUTES THE TESTIMONY IS NOT RELEVANT ABOUT THE DUNES COME ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THE DUNES COME ABOUT WHETHER THERE IS FOR HOUSES, TWO HOUSES, OR ONE HOUSE. YOU HAVE A BIG GIANT HOUSE RIGHT NOW ON ONE MONTHS AND THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS TO SPLIT IT INTO TWO LOTS. I'M GOING COME I'M MAKING THIS COMMENT TO I'M THINKING OF THIS. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC FROM AFFECTED PARTIES TO COME IN HERE TO TESTIFY. I HAVE A STRONG FEELING THEY WILL BE TALKING ABOUT THE DUNES IN THE DEVELOPMENT, AND I'M GOING TO HAVE TO STOP THEM, TOO AND REMIND THE BOARD THAT IT IS IRRELEVANT. I DON'T WANT THEM TO FEEL PICKED ON.

SO, INFORMATION ABOUT THE DUNES, INFORMATION ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENTS IS NOT RELEVANT TO YOUR DECISION, BOARD MEMBERS. IT'S NOT COMPETENCE OF SUBSTANTIAL MEASUREMENT IN MY

OPINION. >> BASED UPON THE, BEFORE IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IF THE VARIANCE IS GRANTED, THAT WOULD BE VIOLATED?

>> NOT AT ALL. >> IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WOULD REQUIRE AN ADDITIONAL VARIANCE TO BE REQUESTED BY THE OWNERS BASED UPON WHAT YOU KNOW ABOUT THE FRONT TWO PROPERTIES

CURRENTLY? >> NO. >> YES, SIR.

>> THAT'S WHAT MY JOB IS. >> WELL, YOU'RE DOING A GREAT JOB.

>> THANK YOU. >> WHILE YOU ARE LOOKING THROUGH THAT I WANT TO PRESS JACOB ONE OR TWO QUESTIONS. ALL OF THE PRIVATE EASEMENT, IS THERE A MINIMUM WITHIN THE CITY?

[01:40:07]

>> WE HAVE A MINIMUM DRIVEWAY WITH AN MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY WITH US IN THE CODE IN CHAPTER SEVEN,

THAT IS WHAT THE ACCESS. >> IS THERE ANYTHING IN LOOKING AT THE REQUEST FOR THE VARIANCE THAT CAUSES YOU TO HAVE CONCERN THAT BASED UPON A PRIOR QUESTION THAT THE POLICE OR FIRE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ACCESS FROM FLETCHER, SIMILAR TO THE WAY THEY DO CURRENTLY HAVE 1469?

>> NO. I DO NOT SEE THAT. >> THE EXTENT TO WHICH THERE IS A CHANGE IN THE SETBACKS BETWEEN ONE LARGE LOT VERSUS TWO SMALL LOTS, AS I HAVE UNDERSTOOD IT, YOU HAVE DESCRIBED IT TO BE IF WE GO ALONG WITH THE PROPOSED HOUSES ON A FRONT TWO LOTS, 12.2

VERSUS 14.4 FEET COME IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG, THERE IS NOTHING IN THE CODE THAT PREVENTS THE OWNERS OF THE HOUSES FROM PLANTING LARGE, TALL, GROWING TREES ALONG THE SETBACKS WHICH ARE POTENTIALLY

COULD IMPACT SOMEONE'S VIEW. >> CORRECT. SO, THAT THE EXTENSION WHICH IS AT 14 FEET VERSUS 12 FEET, DOES THAT COME IS THAT NEGLIGIBLE GIVEN THAT YOU CAN PLANT TREES

WHICH WOULD DO THE SAME THING? >> WELL, I WILL RENDER MY OPINION.

IT IS DIFFICULT FOR ME AS AN ARCHITECT AND A HOMEOWNER TO UNDERSTAND SOMEONE'S VIEW BEING AFFECTED ACROSS A PIECE OF PRIVATE PROPERTY IF YOU COMPLY WITH THE SETBACKS THAT IS THE CURRENT CODE. IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE THE CODE THAT IS THE PROCESS FOR THAT.

BUT I DO NOT SEE A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A 14 FEET AND 12 FEET BETWEEN THE IMPROVED REVIEW WHEN YOU COULD ESSENTIALLY LANDSCAPE AND PUT PUT A BUILDING OUT THERE AND TOTALLY BLACK SOMEONE'S VIEW. I JUST DON'T KNOW THAT IS A RELEVANT QUESTION FOR THE

VARIANCE. >> THAT IS ALL, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE?

TO MAKE THAT IS ALL. >> THANK YOU, SIR. MR. CHAIRMAN, SOMETHING JUST CAME TO MIND, I THINK THEY KNOW THAT WHILE THEIR WITNESSES AND EXPERT WITNESSES YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS ALSO AND I AM ASSUMING YOU WILL JUST AS THE CHAIR YOU WANT TO IF

YOU DID. >> CORRECT, I DO NOT HAVE ANY AT THIS TIME.

>> ARE THE BOARD MEMBERS WATCHING REMOTELY, ARE THERE ANY THOUGHTS OR QUESTIONS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO ASK BEFORE WE OPEN IT UP? DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER WITNESSES?

>> NO, SIR WE DO NOT. >> ANY OTHER QUESTION MY. >> NO, SIR.

>> ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD MEMBERS WATCHING REMOTELY TO THE APPLICANT BEFORE

WE SEE WHAT THEIR THOUGHTS ARE? >> I HAVE A QUESTION. >> IS THERE ANY WAY CAN YOU DO A CONDITION LIMITING OR NOT ALLOWING ACCESS I KNOW IT WILL BE A VERY TOUCHY SUBJECT MATTER

AND A DEAD END RIGHT BEHIND. >> I AM GOING TO GET TAMMY TO SPEAK TO THAT COMMENT.

>> I WOULD SAY THAT, BECAUSE YOU ARE REFERRING TO THE TWO LOTS IN THE BACK, THAT AS I SAID EARLIER, THOSE LOTS, I GUESS WE APPRECIATE THE HISTORY AND WHAT THIS GROUP IS LOOKING FOR, BUT THOSE TWO LOTS IN THE ACCESS TO IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. THEY DID NOT EVEN EXIST.

THIS VARIANCE IS FOR 1507, FOR THE LOTS 78 AND 79. IT IS WHETHER OR NOT YOU WOULD AGREE WITH IT SPLITTING THOSE TWO LOTS INTO. NOT WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE BACK LOTS. AND I WOULD JUST SAY TO SORT OF ANSWER YOUR QUESTION IS THAT, THE CITIES LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE HAS PRETTY STRICT REQUIREMENTS. THE THINGS WE SEE NOW ALONG THE

[01:45:01]

UNDER OUR CODE. SO, I AM SAYING, I THINK THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS, YES, YOU CAN, WITHIN REASON PROVIDE CONDITIONS WITHIN APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE.

BUT IN THIS CASE IF YOU'RE CONSIDERING CONDITIONS THAT WOULD AFFECT THOSE BACK TO LOTS,

I DON'T THINK THAT IS REALLY RELEVANT. >> AND JACOB, I DID NOT MEAN TO CUT YOU OFF ON THAT. WAS THERE SOMETHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD ON THAT?

>> BACK TO WHAT MS. BOCK WAS SAYING, THE ONLY ISSUE WITH THE BACK TO LOTS AND ARE WE GOING TO

DIVIDE THIS. >> RESTORED. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO CLARIFY, RESTORES TO MAKE SURE. IF WE RESTORE THOSE TWO LOTS, THEN, WHAT GOVERNING AUTHORITY HAS THE APPROVAL FOR THE GUIDELINES TO PUT THE EASEMENT IN THEIR?

>> WELL, THE EASEMENT, WE ARE THE CITY IS NOT PARTY TO THE EASEMENT OF THE PRIVATE PROPERTY, THERE IS EASEMENT OF CERTAIN ENTITIES HAVE STEAK OR A MAIN PARTY OF THE EASEMENT.

THIS PARTICULAR TYPE EASEMENT WOULD NOT BE SOMETHING THE CITY WOULD BE PRIVY TO.

IT WOULD BE A PRIVATE ACCESS TO IN EGRESS TO SERVICE THOSE PROPERTIES.

>> SO, IF THE TWO LOTS WERE RESTORED, IT WOULD BE AMONGST THEMSELVES TO PUT THAT IN AND

SIT PUT THAT SAFE. >> IN OTHER INSTANCES WE HAVE REQUESTED TO SEE THAT ACCESS EASEMENT IN PLACE SO THAT WE ARE NOT GRANTING BUILDING PERMITS ACROSS PROPERTY WITHOUT ACCESS EASEMENTS. THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING WE WOULD SEE.

>> FOR THE BACK LOTS. >> THAT ARE NOT RELEVANT TO THIS APPLICATION.

>> FOR THE BACK LOTS. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM OUR BOARD WATCHING REMOTELY? OKAY, SO, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. LET'S OPEN THAT UP. OFFICER THOMAS, I'M GOING TO LET YOU DECIDE WHAT YOU WANT TO BRING THEM IN. JUST BRING THEM IN AT WHATEVER RATE YOU WANT TO BRING THEM IN. I THINK JUST LET THEM BRING THEM AND STAND RIGHT THERE IF YOU WANT. YES OR, IF YOU WOULD JUST COME UP AND STAND RIGHT BEHIND THIS AND CHAIR RIGHT THERE. NO, SIR, I'M SORRY WE HAVE BEEN SET UP AND IT IS LESS THAN

IDEAL. WE ARE WORKING THROUGH THAT. >> LET ME MAKE SURE THAT HE UNDERSTANDS WHY. SIR, IT IS NOT TO MAKE YOU UNCOMFORTABLE.

THIS IS THE ONLY OPTION WE HAVE FOR BROADCASTING YOUR VOICE, SO IF YOU'RE STANDING OVER THERE YOU WILL NOT BE HEARD OVER THERE. IF YOU DON'T MIND WE NEED TO

SWEAR YOU IN, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. >> TO USE SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE ORAL AND ARE WRITTEN TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH,

NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? >> YES. >> AND IF YOU WILL STATE YOUR

NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD PLAY. >> 14961ST AVENUE.

>> 1496, SO YOU ABOUT THIS PROPERTY. >> WE ARE CREATING A RECORD HERE, SIR. IF YOU WOULD PROJECT YOUR VOICE. IF YOU PROJECT YOUR VOICE, WE

HAVE. >> I CAN STAND CLOSER. >> NO, YOU'RE FINE.

, YOU JUST CAN'T SPEAK TO LOVE. >> JUST LET YOU KNOW WHEN I BUILT MY HOUSE THEY DID NOT CLEAR ANY RIGHT-OF-WAY TO MY HOUSE. IT EXISTED.

I BUILT MY HOUSE WITH THE ROAD WHERE MY HOUSES AND OH 1469 FLETCHER THAT KAI DOES NOT HAVE AN EASEMENT HE OWNS BOTH OF THOSE LOTS, SO HE DOES NOT HAVE TO GIVE HIMSELF AN EASEMENT, HE CAN COME ACROSS SOME PROPERTY. I HEARD THAT MENTION. OKAY, SECTION 1002.01, LIMITATIONS ON THE GROUND A VARIANCE. IT SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED IF THE EVIDENCE IS A DEMONSTRATION OF FINANCIAL HARDSHIP OR ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS.

I WOULD SAY THIS IS ABOUT ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS. THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN ON THE MARKET FOR ABOUT FIVE YEARS AND NO BUYERS. SO, WAS ONE HOUSE, ONE LOTS, IT

[01:50:10]

SO, I WOULD SAY THAT IS PART OF THE CONSIDERATION. OKAY, LEC 1.03.05 STATE PERSON MAINTAIN VISUAL ACCORDANCE OF OPEN SPACE. THREE OR FOUR HOMES ON THIS PROPERTY, CURRENTLY YOU CAN FIT THREE HOMES. THE WAY THE SITE PLAN THAT I SAW THAT WAS IN THE PACKAGE, IT WOULD DETECT THE APPLICANTS VISUAL CORNER BUT NOT MINE OR 1469 FLETCHER, OR 15021ST AVENUE. IT WOULD PROTECT THEIR VISUAL

CORRIDOR, BUT NOT MINE. >> NUMBER TWO, NUMBER ONE, SPECIAL CONDITIONS.

SPECIAL CONDITIONS DO NOT EXIST WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO THE LANDS. EXISTING HOME IS AN ALLOWED NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE WHICH COULD BE REMODELED ON AN EXISTING FOOTPRINT.

IT HAS BEEN THERE FOR 83 YEARS, AND NOW BY DOING FOR LOTS IT REDUCES THE COSTS.

THAT IS WHY THE DEVELOPER HAS NOT BOUGHT IT AS ONE LOT. IF YOU WANT FOR LOTS, THEN THE COST IS GOING TO BE A LOT LESS FOR LOTS. A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, THIS DOES CONFER SPECIAL PRIVILEGE BY ALLOWING ACCESS TO THE HOMESITE. I HAVE SEEN THAT THERE WILL BE ACCESS FROM FLETCHER, ANYWHERE FROM FLETCHER NORTH, SOUTH, WHERE THERE ARE FOUR LOTS, IT YOU CAN TELL ME IN THE CITY, ESPECIALLY FOR THIS AREA WHERE THERE ARE FOUR HOMES THAT ARE ACCESSED BY PRIVATE EASEMENT FROM FLETCHER. IF YOU CAN FIND ONE FOR ME I WOULD BE GLAD -- OKAY, AND KEEPING CHARACTERS OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS, COULD

YOU PLEASE PULL UP 1508 FLETCHER? >> THE STREET VIEW PLEASE.

>> OKAY, THAT IS A SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE ON 150-FOOT OCEANFRONT LOT.

IT WAS REMODELED IN 2015. THE ORIGINAL HOUSE THERE ON THE LEFT AND THEY ADDED THAT ON THE SIDE OF IT. SO, THAT IS AN EXAMPLE OF MORE THAN 100 FEET.

IF YOU GO TO 1544 SOUTH FLETCHER. OKAY, THAT PARTICULAR STRUCTURE IS OVER A 120-FOOT OCEAN LOT, THE NEXT IS ON A 60-FOOT LOT, IT'S A GUESTHOUSE, OVER 4000 SQUARE-FOOT. THAT IS COMPARATIVE TO AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD LOOKS LIKE.

OKAY, NUMBER FOUR, THE VARIANCE. THE NUMBER OF VARIANCE THAT COULD HAVE DONE ON THIS, THEY HAVE ALREADY DONE ONE AND NOW WE NEED TO, WE MIGHT END UP WITH THREE, BUT THE TWO LAWNS IF DIVIDED INTO 272 BY 250 LOTS EXISTING LOTS NOW WITH THE FRONT AND THE BACK, THAT WOULD BE JUST LIKE 1425 SOUTH FLETCHER 1427, 1467, 1401 IN 1397, THOSE ARE ALL DIRECTLY NORTH OF THIS

PROPERTY. AND THEY ARE ALL 72 BY 250. >> THIS IS JUST ABOUT THE FRONT

[01:55:14]

[INAUDIBLE] [INAUDIBLE] [INAUDIBLE]

>> BEFORE YOU SIT DOWN, OUR BOARD MEMBERS WATCHING REMOTELY, IS THERE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTION THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO ASK BEFORE HE SITS DOWN? YES, TISH.

>> HE MENTIONED ABOUT THE MINIMUM VARIANCE, I JUST WANT TO HEAR, I CANNOT RECALL THE VARIANCE OF 2017. WAS AT THE SAME OWNER THAT HAD THAT SUBDIVIDING?

>> YES, MA'AM IT WAS THE SAME OWNER AT THE TIME. >> THEY GAVE NO REASON WHY THEY

WANTED THE VARIANCE. >> STAY RIGHT THERE JUST A SECOND.

OFFICER THOMAS, HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE OUTSIDE. >> JUST TWO MORE, SIR.

>> SO, IF IT IS OKAY WITH MS. SPOCK, YOU CAN STAY IN HERE, WE HAVE GOT PLENTY OF ROOM, WE CAN STATE 6 FEET IF THAT IS OKAY WITH YOU AND YOU THINK THE CITY COMMISSION WOULD BE FINE.

>> I THINK THAT IS FINE IF YOU JUST KEEP IT TO THE LAST TWO ROWS IN THE ROOM, THAT WOULD BE

GREAT. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH, SIR. OFFICER THOMAS, IF YOU WOULD

BRING IN. >> GOOD EVENING. >> MY NAME IS BRYN BYRON, I AM

WITH. >> MR. CHAIR, WE DO HAVE QUESTIONS.

>> I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. >> WE JUST GOT OFF THAT. YES SIR COME IF YOU WOULD JUST COME BACK UP AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS ONE MORE TIME FOR THE RECORD.

>> -- JAMES FIRST AVENUE. >> YES, SIR GOOD EVENING, I AM AT RON, AND I REPRESENTED THE

APPLICANTS. >> YOU ARE A REALTOR, CORRECT. >> I AM.

>> WITH RE/MAX? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> YOU ARE NOT A BUILDER, ARE

YOU? >> NO. >> YOU ARE NOT A LICENSED

ARCHITECT, ARE YOU? >> NO. >> A HOPEFULLY FOR YOUR SAKE,

YOU ARE NOT AN ATTORNEY, ARE YOU? >> NO.

BUT I PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE BROUGHT MY. [LAUGHTER]

I DID NOT KNOW IT WAS GOING TO BE A COURT HEARING. >> WELL, I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS.

[02:00:02]

YOU LIVE, BASICALLY KATA CATTY CORNER, FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM, THE PRUDENT THE TWO LOTS

OF LOT 70 AND 79. >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> DID YOU HEAR MR. MORAN DOES

TESTIMONY? >> I COULD HEAR SOME OF IT. >> I AM JUST CURIOUS IF YOU HEARD HIS OPINION THAT ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR GRANTING OF VARIANCE HAVE BEEN MET.

>> THAT IS HIS OPINION. >> YES, SIR. AND HE IS OFFERING COMPETENCE AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO THAT EFFECT. HE IS A LICENSED ARCHITECT AND THAT WAS HIS OPINION PERK WITH RESPECT TO YOUR HOUSE AT 14961ST AVENUE, YOUR LOT IS

ABOUT 72 FEET WIDE? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> IN ABOUT 1125 FEET DEEP,

CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> AND THAT IS APPROXIMATELY THE SAME SIZE THAT ARE NEXT DOOR TO YOU, THAT ARE NOT THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE,

LOT 40 AND 40-ONE. >> CORRECT. >> IT YOU LIVE BEHIND, DIRECTLY

BEHIND 1511 SOUTH FLETCHER AVENUE. >> WRITES.

RIGHT NOW I HAVE A REALLY GOOD TO VIEW. >> OKAY, BUT YOU DO LIVE BEHIND 1511. YOU ALSO LIVE AT CATTY CORNER TO 1515 SOUTH FLETCHER AVENUE.

>> RIGHT. >> AND 1502 IS YOUR NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR.

>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> I LIVE ON FIRST AVENUE I DON'T LIVE ON FLETCHER.

>> AND, EACH OF THOSE UP FOR LOTS IS APPROXIMATELY THE SAME SIZE AS YOURS, 72 FEET WIDE BY

125 FEET. >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> I GET TO MY HOUSE FROM FIRST

AVENUE NOT FLETCHER. >> YES, SIR, I UNDERSTAND. BUT, I AM JUST SAYING, THOSE LOTS ARE THE SAME SIZE AS WHAT MY CLIENTS ARE ASKING THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO APPROVE IN THE VARIANCE APPLICATION. TWO LOTS, 72 FEET BY 125 FEET. 72 FEET WIDE BY 125 FEET DEEP.

>> RIGHT NOW THERE IS ONE HOUSE ON 1507 THAT HAS BEEN THERE FOR 83 YEARS.

>> YES, SIR. I KNOW IT WAS BUILT IN 1937. >> IT COULD BE REMODELED.

>> CERTAINLY, THAT WOULD BE THE PREROGATIVE OF THE OWNER OF THE HOUSE, CORRECT?

>> THAT WOULD BE AN OPTION. >> THAT CERTAINLY WOULD BE AN OPTION.

THERE'S NO QUESTION ABOUT IT. MY POINT THAT I'M GETTING AT, MR. HAYNES, IS THAT IF YOU LOOK AT THOSE FOUR LOTS THAT I HAVE JUST REFERRED TO COME I 1511, 1515, 1502 AND 1496, THERE ARE

FOUR HOUSES LOCATED ON THOSE, AREN'T THERE? >> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> AND, OF MY CLIENTS APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE IS APPROVED, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO BUILD TWO HOUSES ON WHERE 1507 IS CURRENTLY LOCATED IF THEY WERE TO CHOOSE TO TAKE THAT

HOUSE DOWN. >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> AND AGAIN, THE REAR LOTS ARE NOT RELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS APPLICATION, BUT IF THEY WANTED TO BUILD HOUSES ON THOSE TO REAR LOTS, 40 AND 40-ONE, HE WOULD END UP BEING FOUR HOUSES THERE, RIGHT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> IN APPROXIMATELY THE SAME EXACT SIZE AS YOUR QUADRANTS ARE

FOR HOUSES ON 15-MAKE. >> THAT'S TRUE, BUT AGAIN THE WAY IT IS NOW IT DOESN'T AFFECT

MY VIEW OF 1496. IT WILL BLOCK OUR VIEW. >> OKAY, GETTING BACK TO THE LOTS, I UNDERSTAND AND APPRECIATE THAT POINT. GETTING BACK TO LOT 78 AND 79, THE SUBJECT OF A VARIANCE, YOU PROBABLY HAVE HEARD MR. MIRANDA TESTIFIED AND KAREN FREDDIE FERI TESTIFY THAT THEY WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO BUILD A BIG OLD HOUSE ON 1507.

>> CORRECT. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.

>> YOU DON'T. >> KNOW. >> THE SETBACK, IF THEY WERE TO DO THAT, THE CURRENT SETBACK COME IF THEY WERE TO BUILD THAT HOUSE ON 144-FOOT LOT, FORGET

[02:05:06]

>> I REALLY DON'T KNOW. >> THAT WAS MR. MORAN DOES TESTIMONY.

>> I DID NOT HEAR THAT. >> THE SETBACK WOULD BE 14.4, LET'S.

>> THE SETBACK FROM WHERE? >> FROM THE PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN 1507 IN 1511, SIR.

>> IT ACTUALLY DOES DEPEND ON THE HEIGHT OF THE HOUSE BUT FOR THE PURPOSE OF WHAT MR. MIRANDA TESTIFIED, HE MADE CERTAIN ASSUMPTIONS REGARDING THE HEIGHT OF THE HOUSE AND GIVEN THE WIDTH

OF THE LOT, HE ESSENTIALLY IS ESTIMATING A 14.4-FOOT SETBACK. >> SO, YOU ALREADY HAVE HOUSE

PLANS ALREADY? >> I HAVE NO PLANS, SIR. I AM AN ATTORNEY REPRESENTING

THE FAMILIES. SO, YOU WOULD CONCEDE. >> IT COULD BE A LARGE HOUSE, BUT AGAIN THE TWO I JUST SHOWED YOU ACROSS THE STREET WERE THE SAME NEIGHBORHOOD.

>> MY POINT IS MORE IN RESPECT WITH YOUR VIEW, TO BE COMPLETELY HONEST.

MY POINT IS REFERENCING YOUR TESTIMONY THAT YOU'RE OPPOSED TO THIS APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE

BECAUSE IT WOULD AFFECT YOUR VIEW CORRIDOR. >> THAT IS ONE.

>> OKAY, I AM JUST ADDRESSING THAT POINT. >> IF THEY BUILT THAT BIG OLD HOUSE THERE AND THERE IS A 14.4-FOOT SETBACK, AND WE ARE ASSUMING THAT FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT, THAT IS ONE THING. IT IS CERTAINLY IS LARGER THAN THE SETBACK IF THEY WERE TO BUILD TWO HOUSES. MR. MIRANDA TESTIFIED THAT IF THE APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE IS GRANTED AND TO LOT 78 AND 79 ARE RESTORED AS THE UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD, THEN, THE SETBACK, MR. MIRANDA IS HERE, I BELIEVE HE SAID THE SETBACK WOULD BE 12.5 FEET, ASSUMING A 10-FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT WAS CREATED ON THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE THAT WOULD BE ADJACENT TO TO THE

PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1511. >> AT WHAT I SAW SHOWED THE TWO HOUSE BEING PUSHED AS FAR AS

THEY COULD WANT TO THE SOUTH I WANT TO THE NORTH. >> IT AND WHATEVER SITE PLAN YOU SAW, I AM TELLING YOU, I DON'T HAVE IT ON A FILE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, BUT WHAT MR. MORAN DOES TESTIMONY IS, IS THAT SETBACK WOULD BE 12.5 FEET, ASSUMING A 10-FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT AND TO AN 2.5 FEET BEYOND THAT. MY QUESTION IS SIMPLE, WHETHER IT IS 14.4 FEET, OR 12.5 FEET, ASSUMING THAT HOUSES BUILT ALL OF THE WAY TO THE OUTER EDGE OF THE SETBACK, YOUR VIEW CORRIDOR IS AFFECTED BY 2.2 FEET, CORRECT?

>> IT IS PROBABLY GOING TO AFFECT -- AS THE GENTLEMAN SAID. [INAUDIBLE]

>> SURE, WE UNDERSTAND AND APPRECIATE THAT. ALSO, BY THE WAY, DID YOU HEAR MR. MORAN DOES TESTIMONY THAT IT WOULD BE PERFECTLY PERMISSIBLE TO PLANTS AND VEGETATION ALONG,

WITHIN THAT 12-FOOT SETBACK THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT? >> THERE ARE SOME THERE NOW.

>> THAT SEEMS TO BE RELEVANT, YOUR VIEW, BY THE WAY FROM 1496 EASTWARD TO THE SOUTH SIDE OF

1511 IS RESTRICTED, IS IT NOT? IT IS LIMITED. >> IT IS LIMITED.

>> YOUR VIEW CORRIDOR TOWARD THE BEACH EASTWARD ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF YOUR PROPERTY.

>> I HAVE GOT A GOOD CORRIDOR BETWEEN THESE TWO HUGE HOMES. >> 1511 AND 1550.

>> TWO LARGE HOUSES ON THE BEACH, I HAVE A GOOD VIEW BETWEEN THEM.

>> OKAY, I AM ASKING YOU ABOUT -- >> THEY ARE BEAUTIFUL HOMES.

[02:10:05]

>> THEY ARE BEAUTIFUL HOMES COME I KNOW. I'M ASKING ABOUT THE VIEW CORRIDOR FROM YOUR HOUSE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF YOUR PROPERTY AND IN ESSENCE THROUGH 1511 AND 1515. YOU JUST SAID THAT YOU HAVE OF YOU ACROSS FLETCHER.

>> YES, 1508 OF 1544. MY HOUSES 35 FEET HIGH. >> OKAY, VERY GOOD.

AND, SO, AS FAR AS THE VIEW CORRIDOR IS CONCERNED, IT IS RESTRICTED ON THAT SIDE OF THE

PROPERTY, CORRECT? THERE ARE SETBACKS IN PLACE. >> I HAVE A GOOD VIEW.

>> GOOD. >> BUT IT'S JUST ONE PART OF IT. >> MR. HAYNES, BEFORE HE SITS OUT, ARE YOU THROUGH COMBUSTOR? TO MAKE JUST ONE LESS QUESTION AND I WILL LET YOU GO.

>> THIS IS GONE ON AND ON. >> ALL RIGHT, MY LAST QUESTION OF YOU IS, IF THE VARIANCE IS GRANTED DO YOU HAVE ANY OPINION AS TO OTHER SECTIONS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, OTHER THAN

1.3.05, WHICH WOULD BE VIOLATED AS A RESULT. >> I REALLY DON'T.

I WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THEIR SITE PLAN AND LOOK AT BUILDING PERMITS.

>> AND MR. HAYNES, I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH THAT 100%. THANK YOU, MR. HAYNES.

>> MR. HAYNES, BEFORE HE SITS DOWN, LET'S SEE IF ANY OF OUR BOARD MEMBERS THAT ARE WATCHING REMOTELY AFTER WE HAD THAT LITTLE DISCUSSION IF IT'S ANYTHING FURTHER THAT WE WOULD LIKE MR. HAYNES TO CLARIFY. YOU ARE GOOD TO GO, SIR. THANK YOU FOR COMING DOWN.

>> IF YOU PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HANDS AND REPEAT AFTER ME. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE ORAL AND/OR WRITTEN TESTIMONY YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE, WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH,

NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? >> I DO. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF BY NAME AND ADDRESS. >> MY NAME IS BRENT BYRON.

I AM IT 1438 SOUTH FLETCHER. >> MRS. THE BYRON-MIKE'S MAKE I AM TWO HOUSES DOWN BUT I AM ON

THE OCEAN. >> 1438 WAS THAT JUST YOUR TESTIMONY.

THE REASON WE ARE DOING THIS IS UNLIKE WHAT YOU ARE USE TO PICK THESE MICROPHONES, THEY ARE ON BUT THEY ARE NOT ABLE, THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS CANNOT HEAR. SO, THAT BIG SPACESHIP MOVING THING ON THE WOOD, THERE, THAT IS WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE TRYING TO PROJECT YOUR VOICE SO

THAT THEY CAN HEAR YOU AND WE ARE MAKING A RECORDING. >> FIRST OF ALL, I WANTED TO SAY THAT MY HOUSE IS TWO HOUSES NORTH. WHERE I LIVE, THERE IS A SLIGHT DECLINE IN THE STREET. WHENEVER WE GET A HEAVY RAIN, MY STREET COMPLETELY FLOODS.

IF FLOODS ALL OF THE WAY ACROSS THE STREET TO MY NEIGHBORS HOUSE.

KATE USUALLY STAYS THERE FOR A FULL DAY, BECAUSE I GUESS, SOME WHERE WE DON'T HAVE GOOD SEE SURGERY DRAINS COME I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY CALL THEM. APPARENTLY THEY ARE NOT NEAR MY HOUSE. AND, EVEN IF IT ISN'T A HURRICANE, IF IT IS JUST A RAIN, A KIDS, IT FLOODS THAT WHOLE THING. AS I SAID, MY HOUSES AT A SLIGHT DECLINE AND DID ALL POOLS IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE AND DRIVEWAY. WHAT I AM CONCERNED ABOUT IS THE IMPERVIOUSNESS OF THE PLAN YOU ARE PUTTING FORTH HERE, WITH FOUR HOUSES, A ROAD COMING INTO THE FOUR HOUSES WITH FOUR DRIVEWAYS AND FOUR WALKWAYS TO THE FRONT DOORS, OR WHATEVER.

AND FOUR HOUSES. A SO, HOW MUCH OF THIS SURFACE AREA IS GOING TO BE IMPERVIOUS TO ANY SUCKING UP OF THE RING? THE HOUSE THAT EXISTS NOW HAS A HUGE AMOUNT OF GREEN SPACE OR WHATEVER YOU CALL IT AROUND IT. IT DOES SOAK UP THE RAIN IN THE WATER.

NOW, I KNOW THAT MY HOUSE WAS BUILT RIGHT AFTER I THINK IT WAS HURRICANE DOWN A.

I HAVE ONLY LIVED ON THE ISLAND FOR LESS THAN A YEAR. BUT, THIS HOUSE WAS BUILT ON THE

[02:15:06]

ITS HURRICANE DONNA -- >> DOOR. IT WAS DORA IN 1960.

>> OKAY YES, I WASN'T HERE, SO I DIDN'T KNOW I KNOW MY HOUSE WAS BUILT ON A CONCRETE FOUNDATION.

NOW, A GOOD DEAL I WAS TOLD, A GOOD DEAL OF THE BEACH THAT IS BEHIND MY HOUSE WAS ALSO, IT JUST DISAPPEARED INTO THE OCEAN. NOW, WE HAD A HURRICANE MATTHEW ABOUT A YEAR AGO.

I WOULD SAY THAT HALF OF MY DUNES ALSO JUST GOT WIPED AWAY. AND, IT IS THE WATER, THE WATER SURGES, THE HURRICANES, ALL OF THIS THAT REALLY CONCERNS ME. WE HAVE THE GREENWAY AND WE HAVE ALL OF THIS THAT ARE SORT OF HOPING TO PROTECT US, BUT WE DON'T HAVE VERY MUCH OF ITS LEFT. IT IS GOING LEAVES AND BOUNCE. AND THAT IS WHAT CONCERNS ME A GREAT DEAL. I KNOW THAT RIGHT AFTER THIS LAST HURRICANE I LOOKED OUT, I THINK IT WAS OCTOBER OF THIS MONTH AND THERE WAS A VERY HIGH TIDE IN THE BACK OF MY YARD.

IT AND, THE TIDE CAME ALL THE WAY UP TO THE STEPS, THE STEPS TO OUT ON MY DECK ARE 75 FEET FROM MY BACK DOOR. SO, THE OCEAN HAD ACTUALLY COME UP 75 FEET.

I THINK IT WAS I THINK IT WAS OCTOBER, MIDDLE OF OCTOBER. SOMEBODY TOLD ME IT HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE MOONS COME I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS ALL ABOUT.

BUT, I WAS CONCERNED THAT MY OCEAN WAS PRACTICALLY IN MY HOUSE.

SO, AGAIN WHAT I AM WORRIED ABOUT HERE IS ALL OF THIS MILLIONS BEING FILLED IN, BUILT ON, CONCRETE OVER, ET CETERA, ET CETERA. AND WE ALL KNOW WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN FORT LAUDERDALE, IN MIAMI, EVERYTHING THAT CAN BE BUILT ON, IS BUILT ON.

AND THERE IS NOTHING LEFT. THEY ARE SAYING NOW IT IS GOOD TO BE THE NEW VENICE OF THE SOUTH OF FLORIDA. BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE TAKEN LITTLE BOATS INSTEAD OF UP AND DOWN THE STREETS. I JUST DON'T WANT TO SEE THIS HAPPEN TO US.

SO, THAT IS MY LITTLE DRAMA ABOUT WATER AND LAND. I HAVE A LETTER HERE THAT I JUST WANT TO ASK A QUESTION, MAYBE YOU WOULD BE KIND ENOUGH TO HELP ME.

IT WAS SENT MARCH 10, 2022 JACOB PLATT, WHO IS JACOB PLATT? NICE TO MEET YOU.

AND I JUST NEED SOME CLARIFICATION. IT SAYS IN THIS FIRST PARAGRAPH, THE AGENTS, HEREINAFTER BUYERS, RECENTLY PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY ALONG WITH THE TWO ADJOINING WESTERN MONTHS. LOTS 40 AND 41. WHICH, BY DESIGN ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE IN CHRIS'S AND AT EGRESS IS FROM FIRST AVENUE. HAS THIS PROPERTY BEEN BOUGHT BY

YOU OR IS IT UNDER CONTRACT. >> IT IS UNDER CONTRACT TO MAKE BECAUSE IT STATES CLEARLY, PURCHASED AND I DID NOT REALIZE YOU WERE A JUDGE, SO I THINK LEGALLY, MAY BE YOU SHOULD HAVE

CORRECTED THAT. >> OKAY TO MAKE PLACE THE CONTRACT OF THE PURCHASE OF.

>> IT SAYS PURCHASE. >> I APPRECIATE THAT. >> SO, MY NEXT QUESTION, MOST OF MY QUESTION CERTAINLY REGARDING THIS PROPERTY, THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS, I SOMEWHAT AGREE WITH MY NEIGHBOR ACROSS THE STREET. THIS WHOLE THING CHANGES THE COMPLEXION OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. AND QUITE FRANKLY, I WOULD LOVE TO SEE YOU BUILD A LOVELY HOUSE ON THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY, A BIGGER HOUSE, PERHAPS IN SOME BEAUTIFUL GRASS AND GARDEN SURROUNDED ARE LOTS OF GRASS AND GARDENS. I AGREE WITH MR. HAYNES, IT IS REALLY GOING TO LOOK LIKE A TRAP THERE. FOUR HOUSES A OF THE ROAD.

IT'S JUST THE CONTINUITY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, THAT IS AN UGLY HOUSE AND I'LL BE HAPPY TO SAY

[02:20:06]

ON SPECIAL PRIVILEGES, THE ONLY THING I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT IT IS THESE PROPERTIES ARE ZONED FOR 75 AND MOST OF THE HOUSES AROUND THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT YOU HAVE CONTRACT OUT ON OR OUT FOR OUR RATHER LARGE. THE ONES FURTHER DOWN, YES, ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET ARE NARROWER, BUT IT WOULD BE NICE TO KEEP THE HOUSES LOOKING A LITTLE MORE SPECIAL AND A LITTLE MORE ELEGANT RATHER THAN HAVING IT LOOK LIKE YOU'RE JUST THROWING ALL OF THESE HOUSES ONTO ONE PIECE OF PROPERTY. THEN COME I WANTED TO ASK YOU ON THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION, I LOOKED UP IN THE MULTIPLE LISTINGS AND FOUND THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY IS LISTED AS AN ACTIVE RESORTS RENTAL, MS 87703. MY CONCERN, IS THAT YOU ARE GOING TO BUILD HOUSES AND THEY

ARE GOING TO BE RENTED OUT. >> NO, MA'AM. >> SO, WE KIND OF GOT OFF A LITTLE BIT. AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT, MS. SPOCK IT REALLY TAKES GOOD CARE OF ME. I'M A LITTLE OFF OF MY GAME WITH THIS FORMAT TONIGHT.

SO, WE ARE REALLY NOT SET UP TO HAVE A QUESTION AND ANSWER. OPERIOD ON THAT.

>> I WAS LOOKING AT THE QUESTIONS HERE AND I WAS JUST SAYING THAT CONCERNS ME, THAT

MIGHT BE A REASON TO NOT CHECK ALL OF THOSE BOXES. >> EVERYTHING YOU ARE BROUGHT UP YOU ARE WELL WITHIN YOUR RIGHTS TO BRING IT UP BUT YOU CAN JUST BRING IT UP TO THE BOARD AND JUST HAVE A CONVERSATION AND EXPRESS YOUR CONCERNS TO MAKE THE BOARD OF WHO? THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS THE BOARD THAT IS GOING TO DECIDE THIS CASE TONIGHT.

>> THAT IS WHY I'M BRINGING THAT UPS ME. >> SURE, BUT IS NOT A

CONVERSATION. >> I'M SORRY, I DID NOT MEAN TO ADDRESS IT TO HER.

I WAS JUST ADDRESSING THE ISSUE THAT I SAW AND I WANTED TO KNOW YOU KNOW, IT IS AN ACTIVE RESORTS RENTAL PROPERTY AND, I AM CONCERNED THAT WILL BECOME FOUR PIECES OF HOLIDAY RENTING HOUSES OR SOMETHING. LET ME SEE IF I HAVE ANYTHING ELSE HERE.

I THINK MOST OF MY QUESTIONS WERE ALREADY ASKED BY MY NEIGHBOR COME AGAIN, I AM VERY MUCH CONCERNED ABOUT THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACES BEING DESTROYED OR TAKEN AWAY.

OF COURSE WE ARE ALL WORRIED ABOUT THE DUNES, BUT IS IT SAID IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THESE TWO PIECES OF PROPERTY, BUT IN FACT, THEY DO BECAUSE THEY ARE ALL BEING PURCHASED BY THE SAME PEOPLE IN DEVELOPED BY THE SAME PEOPLE. SO, WITH THAT I WOULD LIKE TO

THANK YOU, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. >> ALRIGHT, BEFORE YOU SIT DOWN WE MAY HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR

YOU. >> OKAY TO MAKE SO, ADDRESSING YOUR IMPERVIOUS ISSUE ON THEIR, AND IF JACOB WANTS TO SAY SOMETHING TO THAT COME I AM HAPPY TO HEAR FROM HIM, AS WELL.

WE HAVE GUIDELINES THAT WILL HAVE TO BE MET ONCE THIS SHAKES OUT AND THEY WOULD APPLY.

THERE ARE PERCENTAGES IN A DRIVEWAY IN THIS AND THAT IN THE OTHER.

IT SO, THAT IS A VALID CONCERN. BUT WE DO HAVE EXISTING RULES AND REGULATIONS ON THE BOOKS, FOR EVERYONE THAT HAST TO BE MET TO AUGMENT. OUR BOARD MEMBERS WATCHING REMOTELY, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION FOR HER? ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT? AND I AM GETTING EVERYBODY SHAKING THEIR HEAD THAT NO. WAS THERE SOMETHING YOU WOULD

LIKE TO SAY, SIR? >> KAREN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS.

>> I WILL TELL YOU THAT THAT IS AN INCORRECT STATEMENT IN THE ADVERTISEMENT FOR THE HOUSE.

JACOB CAN CONFIRM THIS, IT IS NO LONGER AND ARE THREE, IT IS IN OUR ONE.

WE PURCHASED THE HOUSE KNOWING THAT WE ARE IN THE CONTRACT FOR THE HOUSE KNOWING THAT IT WAS AN R-ONE THAT COULDN'T NOT HAVE RENTALS BECAUSE THE CURRENT OWNERS DID NOT MAINTAIN THE

[02:25:07]

>> WELCOME I'M JUST QUOTING WHAT WAS ON -- AND YOU OBVIOUSLY KNOW IT IS STILL THERE.

IT IS STILL LISTED THAT WE. >> DO YOU THINK I AM WRONG? >> IT IS A CONCERN FOR ME AS A

NEIGHBOR. >> I DON'T HAVE THE RESORT RENTAL LICENSE UP IN FRONT OF ME, BUT IT HAS LAPSED, IT IS AN R-ONE'S OWN PIECE OF PROPERTY. APPLY TO MAKE IT WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO IN ANY WAY CHECK THAT OUT AND LET ME KNOW I E-MAILED YOU TODAY, YOU HAVE MY E-MAIL ADDRESS. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW FOR CERTAIN.

I WANT TO GUARANTEE THERE IS NOT RENAL PROPERTIES. >> ABSOLUTELY.

I RESPONDED TO YOUR E-MAIL LATE THIS AFTERNOON. BUT I CAN CONFIRM THAT RESORTS RENTAL LICENSE HAS LAPSED AND BY RIGHT THEY CANNOT BE GRANTED IS CONNECTED EVERYBODY HERE WHAT JACOB, JUST GOING TO REPEAT, IT'S OKAY, I'LL JUST REPEAT IT. THE PROPERTY TODAY LOCATED AT 1507, THE STRUCTURE, AND WHETHER IT IS THREE LOTS FOR THE VARIANCE IS APPROVED WITH FOUR LOTS, IT IS OUR-ONE WHICH IS THE LOWEST DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT IN THE CITY.

I THINK WE HAVE AN ESTATE, WE HAVE LIKE AN R-E WHICH IS A LITTLE LOWER.

ANYWAY, THAT IS THE LOWEST DENSITY AND TO BECAUSE THE OWNERS, THEY ONLY HAVE SIX MONTHS THAT A RESORT RENTAL PERMIT CAN LAPSE. IF THEY DO NOT RENEW IT AND THAT SIX MONTHS IT IS GONE FOREVER. THIS ONE IS GONE FOREVER. WE'RE SEEING IT ON THE RECORD, NIGHT COURT HERE MR. HAYNES, THAT THERE ARE NO RESORT RENTALS THERE AND THERE CANNOT BE AT ANY

POINT IN THE FUTURE. >> THAT'S NICE. ANYTHING ELSE?

>> I'M NOT SURE IF YOU HEARD WHAT I TOLD MR. HAYNES, WE HAVE AGGREGATE SPACE IN HERE IF YOU WANT TO STAY IN HERE AND MAINTAIN 6 FEET, YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE BANISHED TO THE CORRIDOR

ANYMORE. >> IT IS HARD TO HEAR OUT THERE. >> IF YOU LIKE TO STAY OR GO TO THE ONE. OFFICER THOMAS IS THERE ANYONE ELSE OUT THERE?

>> ONE MORE. >> CAN YOU HOLD YOUR MICROPHONE BETTER?

IS THAT FOR ME? >> MR. COOK, ARE YOU ASKING US TO RAISE THE VOLUME IN HERE?

>> YES, SOMETIMES THAT JACOB IS NOT EXACTLY TALKING I GUESS INTO HIS MICROPHONE SO IT IS A LITTLE HARD, MY CONNECTION ANYWAY SOMETIMES I MISS HIM WHAT HE IS SAYING.

>> I APOLOGIZE I APOLOGIZE, I NEED TO GET MY HEARING CHECKED IN PROJECT MORE.

>> IT'S HARD TO HEAR SOMETIMES. >> MA'AM DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE ORAL AND/OR WRITTEN TESTIMONY THAT YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE IT WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, NOTHING BUT THE

TRUTH? >> I DO, SO HELP ME GOD. >> OF COURSE.

WOULD YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. >> I AM CHERYL, MATT 1511 SOUTH FLETCHER AVENUE. I WILL BE THE LITTLE NEIGHBOR THAT WILL BE BUTTING UP AGAINST.

>> AND YOU MAY NOT HAVE SEEN EARLIER, RIGHT THERE THE SPACESHIP LOOKING THING, RIGHT

IN FRONT OF THE CHAIR, SAPIR. >> THAT, YOU NEED TO BE SPEAKING AND PROJECTING TOWARDS THAT.

AND YOU MAY SIT IF YOU LIKE OR STANDS, OR LIEN WHICHEVER YOU WOULD LIKE.

>> OKAY. >> OKAY, WELL I HAVE A SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM.

THE LOT NEXT DOOR TO WHAT YOU WANT TO BUY JUST ONE ON THE MARKET YESTERDAY.

SO, YOU CAN BUY THAT LOT NEXT DOOR, AND THE LOT THAT YOU WANT TO BUY, AND YOU WILL HAVE THREE BEAUTIFUL LOTS RIGHT ALTOGETHER. AND THEN YOU WON'T HAVE TO FOOL AROUND WITH ALL OF THIS MESS.

JUST A SUGGESTION. AND, YOU COULDN'T KEEP HIS SAYING IT IS ABOUT THESE TWO FRONT LOTS, 78 AND 79, AND I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THOSE TWO LOTS, BUT, THE BACK LOTS ARE RELEVANT IF YOU GRANT THE VARIANCE. SO, YOU KEEP SAYING THE BACK TWO

[02:30:01]

IT'S A LITTLE NEIGHBORHOOD AND IT WILL THE TRACT THE INTEGRITY OF MY NEIGHBORHOOD AND I AM HERE TO PROTECT THE INTEGRITY OF MY NEIGHBORHOOD. IF THESE TWO LOTS ARE GRANTED THE VARIANCE, THEN THAT WHOLE BIG PIECE OF LAND SET NEXT TO ME IS GOING TO BE TORN UP, IT IS GOING TO BE REBUILT, IT IS GOING TO HAVE MORE CONCRETE THAN GRASS.

I JUST DON'T THINK THAT IS APPROPRIATE. THAT IS UNPRECEDENTED ON FLETCHER TO HAVE A SUBDIVISION. THERE IS NO SUBDIVISION UP ALONG FLETCHER.

ALSO, THERE ARE A LOT OF LOTS SOUTH OF ME THAT ARE LIKE THIS WITH A DEEP LOT, THE 72 BY 250 DEEP, THERE IS A LOT OF THOSE LOTS AND NOBODY HAS BUILT ON THE BACK OF THOSE LOTS.

MAINLY BECAUSE THEY CANNOT GET TO THEM. IF YOU WANT TO GO UP ON FIRST AVENUE AND BUILD TWO HOUSES BACK THERE I DON'T HAVE TOO MUCH OF A PROBLEM WITH THAT.

BUT I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE DRIVEWAY GOING UP THE MIDDLE OF MAKING A LITTLE CONCRETE SUBDIVISION. THEIR VERBIAGE-MICHAEL, BY THE WAY DID NOT IDENTIFY MYSELF.

EVERYBODY WAS IDENTIFIED THEMSELVES. I HAVE A BACHELORS DEGREE AND A MASTERS DEGREE IN ENGLISH. I TAUGHT 42 YEARS, 13 YEARS HERE AT FERNANDINA BEACH HIGH SCHOOL.

I JUST WANTED TO ESTABLISH MY CREDENTIALS LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE. AND I LOVE THIS TOWN.

I HAVE BEEN HERE 22 YEARS. ANYWAY, THE LANGUAGE OF THE VARIANCE IT SAYS IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN OPEN SPACE, VISUAL CORE DOORS, NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER, PROPERTY VALUES AND VISUAL ATTRACTIONS, REALLY. IS THAT WHAT WE ARE GOING TO MAINTAIN WHEN WE BUILD FOR HOUSES WITH MORE CONCRETE THAN GRASS? I DON'T THINK SO.

AND AGAIN, IT IS UNPRECEDENTED WHAT THEY WANT TO DO AND I DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD ALLOW IT.

I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM OF SEPARATING THOSE TWO LOTS, 78 AND 79, BUILDING TWO NICE HOUSES, SETTING THEM BACK IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PROPERTY LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE DOES COME I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. BUT I THINK THE IDEA OF BUILDING FOUR HOUSES ARE GOING TO BE UP AGAINST MY HOUSE. I HAVE A THREE STORY HOUSE, THERE IS A SUNPORCH I SIT ON EVERY MORNING AND EVERY EVENING. AND NOW I'M GOING TO BE LOOKING INTO THEIR WINDOW.

THEY ARE GOING TO BE LOOKING INTO MY WINDOW, WE ARE GOING TO BE WAVING TO EACH OTHER.

THEY ARE GOING TO BE RIGHT ON TOP OF ME BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE TO PUT THAT DRIVEWAY IN BETWEEN THE HOUSES, IT IS GOING TO SHOP THOSE FRONT HOUSES OVER CLOSER TO MY HOUSE.

AND THEN, THEY ARE PROBABLY TAKING DOWN THOSE BEAUTIFUL -- THAT SEPARATE THE TWO LOTS AND I DON'T LIKE THAT. ANYWAY, MY ARGUMENTS ARE ALL VERY EMOTIONAL.

I KNOW YOU HAVE ALL DONE YOUR HOMEWORK AND ARE CLEVER, AND IT SOUNDS GREAT.

BUT, I AM FROM AN EMOTIONAL STANDPOINT AS A NEIGHBOR. I JUST DON'T LIKE THE PLAN FOR THE DRIVEWAY. GO AROUND FIRST AVENUE AND COME IN THAT WAY.

WHY WOULD ANYBODY BUY A LOT THAT BACKS UP TO A DUNE? THE TURTLES ARE UP THERE, I HAVE TURTLES LIVING IN MY BACKYARD. SOMEONE JUST KILL THE TURTLE YESTERDAY OR A FEW DAYS AGO, RIGHT OUT IN FRONT. ANYWAY, SO, THAT IS ALL I HAVE TO SAY.

SORRY. THANK YOU. >> OKAY, BEFORE YOU SIT DOWN, OUR BOARD MEMBERS WATCHING REMOTELY COME IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION FOR HER BEFORE SHE SITS DOWN? ANYTHING WE WOULD LIKE TO ASK HER? AND NONE FROM THE BOARD AT HOME? ESSER COME IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY.

>> I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU FOR COMING IN. WE WE HAVE NO QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. AND THEN COME OFFICER THOMAS THERE'S NO ONE ELSE LEFT OUTSIDE AS LONG AS WE DON'T HAVE ANY CROWD HERE YOU DON'T HAVE TO HANG AROUND WITH US, IF YOU WANT TO SEE THE OUTCOME THAT'S GREAT, IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE TO DO THIS WEEK WE HAVE TWO SPEAKERS

THAT HAVE CALLED IN [INAUDIBLE] >> ALL YOU HAVE TO SAY THAT YOU

ARE RECOGNIZED IN YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. >> GOOD EVENING, YOU'RE HERE

[02:35:05]

[INAUDIBLE] >> I'M ASKING THEM TO TURN ON THEIR AUDIO.

>> WHOEVER HAS CALLED AND IS MUTED, THAT IS ALL. >> OR HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO HEAR

THE AUDIO. >> AND THEN THE OTHER, I WILL ON ME ONE MORE TIME.

CURIOUS. THERE WE GO. >> IF YOU ARE LISTENING IN, COLLAR, THAT IS IDENTIFIED, SAYS CARL'S GALAXY, YOU NEED TO ENABLE THE AUDIO ON YOUR COMPUTER IN ORDER FOR US TO HEAR YOUR QUESTIONS. OH GREAT.

VICKI HE IS ONLY LISTENING, NO COMMENTS. >> OKAY, NO COMMAS FROM THAT

SPEAKER, HE IS JUST LISTENING TO THE MEETING ONLY. >> TO WE KNOW WHAT HIS NAME WAS?

>> NO. HE IS AN OBSERVER. WE DO HAVE ANOTHER COME OF THIS PERSON MAY BE DOING THE SAME THING THIS IS MATTHEW MILLER, THE CHAIR OF THE BOARD OF

ADJUSTMENT, CAN YOU HEAR ME? >> AND IT HAS STRUCK OUT ON THEIR.

INTO WE KNOW THEIR PHONE NUMBER? CAN WE INITIATE THE CALL? >>> I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM

WITH THAT, ABSOLUTELY. >> THEY ARE ON THE ZOOM CALL. >> WE DO THESE EVERY DAY.

>> I KNOW. LUCKILY OURS OUR CONFERENCE CALL WITH SUMI DON'T HAVE TO SEE ANYBODY. SO, A GUESS THAT IS FORTUNATE FOR ME.

SO, WE ARE JUST GOING TO TAP THE BRAKES FOR A SECOND, WE ONLY UP TO CITIZENS OUT THERE, BUT I WANT TO BE SURE THAT ANYBODY WHO HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO SAY IT.

YOUR SISTER, SANDY IS LISTENING WITH THE BACKGROUND NOW IS, WE ARE HERE TO TAKE HER COMMENTS

[02:40:07]

AFTER THAT WE HAVE TO HANG UP. >> IT WAS A GENTLEMAN JUST OBSERVING.

>> SO, IN THE INTEREST OF KEEPING THINGS MOVING, CAN WE GO AHEAD AND HEAR FROM HIM THAT IF THEY WANT TO MAKE A REBUTTAL? YOU ARE WELL WITHIN YOUR RIGHTS IF YOU WANT TO WAIT AND HEAR

WHAT THEIR COMMENTS ARE I THINK WE CAN KEEP GOING. >> WE ARE OKAY WITH THAT.

>> AS LONG AS WE GIVE SANDY AN OPPORTUNITY BEFORE THE VOTES KICK IN THAT IS FINE.

>> BEFORE I SAY ANYTHING, I JUST WANTED TO HAVE MR. MARANDA JUST A FEW OF THE ISSUES THAT WERE MADE BY THE ADVOCATES. THERE'S THREE ISSUES WOULD BE TWO OR THREE MINUTES.

>> OKAY. MR. MARANDA, WHEN YOU AND MR. HAYES HE HAD SOME OF THE

OTHER PEOPLE COMMENTS ABOUT THE VISUAL. >> LET'S GET HIS SMAC.

[INAUDIBLE] >> IT MR. MARANDA YOU ARE IN HERE WHEN SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS COMMENTED ABOUT THE VISUAL CORRIDOR. IN PART, YOU TALKED ABOUT THAT PREVIOUSLY WHEN YOU ARE TESTIFYING, CAN YOU ADDRESS THAT ISSUE AGAIN AS FAR AS THE PROPERTY OWNERS RIGHTS TO PROTECT A VISUAL CORRIDOR AND DOOR TO MAINTAIN ITS IF THEY OWN

THE PROPERTY? >> YES, THE VISUAL CORRIDOR IS BASICALLY LANGUAGE IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, THAT TRIES TO MAINTAIN OR ESTABLISH HOW CLOSE YOU CAN BUILD YOUR PROPERTY LINE IN ORDER TO HAVE A GAP IN BETWEEN BUILDINGS. THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ESTABLISHES WHAT THAT SETBACK IS. YOU CANNOT BUILD A BUILDING AND THERE EXCEPT FOR PERHAPS A BUILDING TO COME WITHIN 3 FEET OF THE BUILDING LINE BUT NO OTHER RESTRICTIONS IN TERMS OF LANDSCAPING, OFFENSE COULD BE PUT IN THERE, YOU ARE NOT

REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN THAT BETWEEN A BUILDING. >> IN YOUR OPINION DOES GRANTING OR DENYING THE REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IN ANYWAY IMPACTED THE VISUAL CORRIDOR SMAC IT DEPENDS ON WHOSE CORRIDOR IT IS SMAC FOR SPECIFICALLY MR. HAYNES IS FROM A SMAC MR. HAYNES CORRIDOR FOR THE SCENARIO, THE BUILDING CAN GO WITHIN 14.4 FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINE.

IF WE WERE TO SUBDIVIDE THE LOTS, PLUS WE CREATE THE FOODS THEN WE ARE LOOKING AT 12.2,

DIFFERENCE OF 2.2 FEET. >> AND EVEN WITHIN THE 12 OR 14 FEET, THERE IS NOTHING THAT PRECLUDES THE HOMEOWNER FROM PUTTING UP 30-FOOT TALL TREES OR A ACCESSORY BUILDING KIND OF LIKE THEY HAD OVER AT 1508, OR 1544 SOUTH FLETCHER ON THE BEACH.

>> THAT IS CORRECT. >>> AND, SPECIFICALLY WITH RESPECT TO THE TWO PROPERTIES YOU CITED MR. HAYNES AT 1544 AND 1508, 1508, THE HOUSE, ALTHOUGH THE WITH IS WIDER THAN THE 100, THE HOUSE IS STILL CONSISTENT WITH THE TYPE SIZE HOUSE THAT WE ARE PROPOSING ON THE TWO LOTS THAT THEY ARE GRANTED. THE ONE AT 1544 IS LARGER, BUT IT INCLUDES BOTH THE MAIN HOUSE

AND A GUESTHOUSE. >> YES. >> IT THERE WAS SOME QUESTION ABOUT DENSITY. YOU HEARD MR. HAYNES SAY HE DOESN'T THINK IT IS IN KEEPING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WE TALK SPECIFICALLY IN FOUR QUARTERS.

SO, HIS HOUSE, THE ONE IN FRONT OF IT, THE ONE AT 1550 AND THE ONE AT 1502, THAT IS ESSENTIALLY

SIMILAR TO WHAT WE COULD DO ON 1507 IS SPLIT. >> YES, THE CALCULATION FOR DENSITY IS SPELLED OUT IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IS SPECIFIC TO THE ZONING

[02:45:04]

THERE IS ABOUT THE REQUEST THAT WAS VIOLATED. >> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> AND JUST TO REITERATE, THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT IMPERVIOUS, EVEN IF THE LOT IS SUBDIVIDED, FOR WHAT, OR RESTORED, WHOEVER BUILD WOULD HAVE TO STILL COMPLY WITH THE REST TO BE IMPERVIOUS TO MAKE THAT'S CORRECT, YOU WOULD STILL NEED TO MEET THE LAND OF ALL MICHAEL FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AS OF TE DRIVEWAY, THAT IS APARTMENT EASEMENTS, AS IT STANDS NOW, WITH ALL FOUR PROPERTIES BEING OWNED BY THE SAME PEOPLE, CORRECT?

SMAC THAT IS CORRECT. >> SO, THE CITY HAS NO SAY, AND I DON'T MEAN THAT IN A NEGATIVE WAY, ABOUT YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO GET BORED PROOF BOWLER CITY APPROVAL TO GET THAT DRIVEWAY END, SO LONG AS THE DRIVEWAY COMPLIES WITH THE SIZE AS SET FORTH IN THE LDCS.

>> AT THAT IS CORRECT. THE ONLY CAVEAT IS BECAUSE YOU HAVE SOUTH FLETCHER IT DOES NOT TO REQUIRE AN F DOT PERMIT BUT NOW YOU'RE LOOKING AT ONE INSTEAD OF TWO FOR INDIVIDUAL

HOUSES. >> JUST ONE QUESTION, MR. MARANDA, AGAIN, I THINK YOU TOUCHED ON THIS AND I BELIEVE MR. PLATT TOUCHED ON THIS, IF THE VARIANCE IS GRANTED AND TWO HOUSES WERE BUILT ON 78 AND 79, THIS WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE A SUBDIVISION, WOULD IT?

>> CORRECT. >> THAT'S ALL. >> THAT'S IT.

>> AND, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE FROM THE PUBLIC EITHER ONLINE OR OUTSIDE WHO WOULD LIKE

TO SPEAK, YES OR. >> SIR. >> THE ACCESS FROM FLETCHER, THE CITY JUST PAST THE PAVING ORDINANCE, I'M NOT SURE WHEN IT WAS, THE ACCESS.

>> THE CITY JUST PAST A ROADWAY DESIGN STANDARD ORDINANCE IN THE BEGINNING OF 2020 WHICH IS PEACE

JOHN IMPROVED HIS CITY RIGHTS. >> SO, WHAT THAT MEANS TO ME IS MY HOME ON FIRST AVENUE, THAT YEARS AND YEARS AGO THEY LET PEOPLE JUST CLEAR 20-FOOT DRIVEWAY.

THERE ARE STILL A LOT OF LOTS IN THAT SITUATION. [INAUDIBLE]

>> THAT IS ONE REASON THERE IS NO DESIRE TO GO PAST MY PROPERTY TO FIRST AVENUE.

WHY THEY WON'T COME OFF OF FLETCHER, WHICH BECAUSE YOU HAVE THAT RIGHT AWAY WOULD HAVE TO BE IMPROVED. TO THEIR SPECIFICATIONS OF THE ROUNDABOUT.

MY PROBLEM IS, JUST BECAUSE THAT'S ISSUE DOESN'T MEAN YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO COME AND

DEVELOP THEIR OWN FLETCHER FOR THAT ACCESS. >> YES, SIR.

>> IT'S NOT FAIR TO PEOPLE, PEOPLE WITH PROPERTY THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY TO GET

THERE LOTS, IT'S ALMOST ECONOMICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. >> SO, SMAC I DO WANT TO ADDRESS

THAT IF I CAN. >> I BELIEVE THAT THE FINAL READING OF THE ROADWAY STANDARDS ORDINANCE WAS IN FEBRUARY OR MARCH. SO, JUST TO MAKE CLEAR WITH ANYBODY LISTENING HERE TONIGHT IT'S NOT LIKE IT WAS PLASTIC LAST WEEK AND IS SOMETHING NEW.

IT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS. IT, AS JACOB SAID, IT ONLY AFFECTS WHAT YOU DO WITHIN A RIGHT AWAY. SO, YOUR HOME IS ON FIRST AVENUE AND ANY OTHER PRIVATE PROPERTY LOTS ON THE UNIMPROVED. THEIR FIRST AVENUE, AND IT SORTA GOES, I'M JUST GUESSING, WHY THESE FOLKS UNDERSTAND PROBABLY FOR MR. MARANDA, WHY THEY ARE GOING TO WANT TO COME IN FROM FLETCHER, BECAUSE THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO WHAT YOU DESCRIBE.

[02:50:02]

PRIVATE PROPERTY. >> SMAC IT'S A SUBDIVISION BUT YOU CAN CALL IT THE SUBDIVISION.

>> THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

TO MAKE ANYTHING ELSE FROM ANYBODY BEFORE WE CLOSE THAT PART OUT? SUE MCCANN, THERE IS NO. SO, WE WILL GET INTO SOME BOARD DISCUSSION.

>> BEFORE YOU GIVE THAT COME INTO MIND IF WE TAKE A QUICK RECESS FOR JUST A MINUTE SMAC I DO NOT. SO, LET'S TAKE FIVE OR TEN MINUTES.

>> THANK YOU

[02:58:00]

>> MAY JUST AS THE APPLICANTS A QUESTION, THERE IS SOMETHING I NORMALLY DO, ARE YOU ALL AWARE THAT OUR CODE FOR APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUIRES WE HAVE SEVEN MEMBERS ON OUR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, TO OUR ALTERNATES, FIVE OUR VOTING MEMBERS AND IT REQUIRES A VOTE OF FOUR TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE, BUT A SIMPLE 3 - 2 VOTE OR SIMPLE THREE MAJORITY TO DENY A VARIANCE. SO, YOU WILL HEAR EITHER A MOTION TO DENY AND THEN YOU ARE LOOKING FOR THREE VOTES TO ADOPT THAT, OR FOR OUT OF THE FIVE VOTES DO YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTION

CONTINUING I SHOULD'VE TOLD YOU THAT AT THE BEGINNING. >> NO, WE DO NOT.

>> IN OUR BOARD MEMBERS WATCHING REMOTELY, WE HAVE A THUMBS UP, EVERYONE HAS AUDIO, EVERYBODY IS GOOD. OKAY. WELL, LET'S GET INTO THIS.

WHO WANTS TO GO FIRST, WHO HAS GOT A THOUGHTS AND WANTS TO START OFF WITH A DISCUSSION ON

THAT? >> I HAVE A QUESTION OF JACOB. WHAT HAPPENS IF DOWN THE ROAD THEY WANT TO CHANGE IT FROM THAT SINGLE DRIVEWAY BACK TO THE DOUBLE DRIVEWAY.

DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT THE CITY, OR CAN THEY JUST DO IT?

>> THE DRIVEWAY ACCESS OFF OF SOUTH FLESHER AS MR. MARANDA INDICATED WOULD BE PERMITTED.

>> I CANNOT HEAR HIM. >> OKAY, I'M GOING TO GET HIM TO SPEAK UP.

>> SMAC I AM SORRY, I HAVE BEEN TALKING INTO THIS OTHER MIKE. >> FINALLY.

[03:00:11]

>> SO, DRIVEWAY ACCESS ACROSS THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, THIS VARIANCE REQUEST IS ONLY FOR THE RESTORATION OF THOSE TWO LOTS. IT IS NOT CONTINGENT.

>> I JUST WONDERED IF YOU CAN GO BACK AND FORTH LIKE THAT? >> THEY COULD CHANGE THAT, IT

DOES NOT LIKE THEM INTO THAT ONE ACCESS. >> THANK YOU.

>> THIS IS STEPHEN PAPKE, I'M CURIOUS, CAN THEY EVER GO BACK THROUGH INTO A CHANGE OF USE AND CHANGE OF ZONING TO GET BACK TO THIS RENTAL PROPERTY THAT ONE OF THE HOMEOWNERS IS CONCERNED

ABOUT. >> NO, THE HOUSES ARE DEMOLISHED AND THE LOT IS RESTORED, THEY CANNOT COMBINE THE LOTS IN EXCESS OF 100 FEET AND A TIME MOVING FORWARD AS THAT CODE IS

STILL IN PLACE. >> THANK YOU. >> I WILL ASK THE APPLICANT QUESTION. IN THE EVENT THE BOARD WAS INCLINED TO APPROVE, BUT MAKE IT CONTINGENT THAT THE BACK TO LOTS WERE TO JOIN COME IS THAT SOMETHING YOU WOULD CONSIDER? WHERE YOU WOULD HAVE TWO LOTS, YOU WOULD JUST HAVE LONG, NARROW LOTS.

>> IT IS NOT SOMETHING WE WOULD CONSIDER BECAUSE IT IS NOT PART OF OUR APPLICATION.

OUR APPLICATION IS JUST TO SPLIT THIS INTO. BECAUSE THE OTHER TWO WERE

ALREADY SEPARATED. >> SURE. SMAC I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE DRAINAGE. I GUESS THIS IS A QUESTION FOR JACOB.

AS WE ALL KNOW, THERE IS NO STORM DRAIN. SO, THE WATER THAT COMES OFF OF THIS, WHERE IS THAT GOING TO GO? THERE IS NOT ROOM TO PUT A RETENTION POND IS.

>> THE INDIVIDUAL BUILDING PERMITS, IT WOULD BE PERMITTED INDIVIDUALLY AND WE HAVE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIREMENTS THAT REQUIRE STORMWATER TREATMENTS AND RETENTION ON SITES AND THE BUILDING PERMITS ARE REVIEWED BY THE CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AT THE

TIME OF THE BUILDING PERMITS. >> IS CONSIDER THE INCREASE IN DRAINAGE OF WHAT YOU

HAVE THERE NOW? >> I AM NOT AN EXPERT IN DRAINAGE BY ANY MEANS, WE HAVE A BUILDING CODE SECTIONS THAT THE STORMWATER DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT WILL REVIEW AT THE TIME OF THE

PERMITS, THOSE ARE REQUIREMENTS. >> NO MATTER WHAT, IT IS GOING TO BE A PROBLEM FOR YOU GUYS.

AFTER PEOPLE ACROSS THE STREET. >> I BELIEVE THEY MAY HAVE INSTALLED SOME SORT OF DRAINAGE SYSTEM THERE. LIKE ON INDIVIDUAL BUILDING SITES, THAT WILL BE REVIEWED AT

THE TIME OF BUILDING. >> SINCE THE REST OF OUR BOARD IS QUIET, AND TELL YOU HOW I READ IT. MANY PEOPLE HAVE HEARD ME SAY THIS MANY TIMES, FOR GENERATIONS AND MY FAMILY GREW UP ON CENTER STREET. AND IT LOOKS THE SAME, BASICALLY THE SAME AS IT DID WHEN I WAS A KID. WE HAVE GOT A POP-UP COURSE AND WE LOST A LUMBERYARD AND A TRAIN CAR IS GONE, BUT BY AND LARGE THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE WENT FORWARD MAKING DECISION SO IT DOESN'T MAKE LOOK LIKE PANAMA CITY.

NOW I HAVE TREPIDATION ABOUT HOW THAT IS GOING TO LOOK OUT THERE. I WOULD BE INCLINED TO SUPPORT THE DIVISION OF THE PLOTS IN A JOINT THE BACK TO COME I THINK THAT FITS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

I DON'T KNOW, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR WHAT THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS HAVE TO SAY.

I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S A GOOD, LONG TERM FIT FOR WE ARE GOING LONG TERM.

AND COME I WOULD SAY AS THERE IS MORE AND MORE PRESSURE ON THE CITY, WE CONTINUALLY WRESTLE WITH THIS TYPE ALL OF THE TIME. AND JACOB, HE HAS GOT A REALLY GOOD SKILL SET BECAUSE IT IS NOT THE DESIRE OF THE CITY OR THIS BOARD TO BE UNNECESSARILY INJURIOUS TO ANY PARTY.

HE IS WALKING THE LINES BETWEEN TRYING TO UPHOLD THE LAWS OF THE CITY THAT IS ON THE BOOK AND STILL KEEP THE PROPERTY OWNERS RIGHTS AT THE SAME TIME. AND SOMETIMES THAT IS HARD TO

[03:05:04]

AND KIND OF SEE WHAT WE ARE GOING ON. >> MR. CHAIR, I BELIEVE THE PERSON THAT WAS ON THE PHONE IS NOW HERE IN PERSON AND WE MAY HAVE HAD TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES.

SO, I THINK DO YOU WANT TO TESTIFY? DO YOU WANT TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY? WE DON'T WANT TO PREVENT YOU FROM DOING THAT.

>> IS THAT OKAY MR. CHAIR? >> I COULD HEAR EVERYTHING YOU'RE SAYING, YOU CANNOT HEAR

ME. >> WE ARE GOING TO GET YOU TO STAY IN PRETTY MUCH WHERE YOU

ARE AT F AND THEN WE ARE GOING TO SWEAR YOU IN. >> IT PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HANDS, IS THE TESTIMONY AND/OR EVIDENCE YOU ARE ABOUT TO GIVE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND

NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? >> YES. >> THANK YOU.

PLEASE JUST STAY YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORDS MY CASSANDRA.

[INAUDIBLE] >> AND YOU NEED TO PROJECT YOUR VOICE BECAUSE THERE IS A MICROPHONE IN FRONT OF THE CHAIR THERE THAT IT'S PICKING UP THE SO WE CAN DO THIS VIRTUALLY.

>> I HEARD EVERYTHING THAT WAS SAID AND EVERYTHING HAS BEEN PRETTY WELL EXHAUSTIVELY COVERED SO I DON'T WANT TO REITERATE BUT THE FEW POINTS I WROTE DOWN WAS THAT ABOUT THE LOT SIZE, I KNOW IT IS BRINGING IT BACK TO THE 7S SAY WHEN YOU HAVE TWO LOTS SEPARATED.

[INAUDIBLE] I UNDERSTAND THEY ARE BRINGING IT BACK TO THAT BUT BIG CONTROLS OF A HOUSE BEING DEVELOPED WITH A 75-FOOT REQUIREMENT. I'M JUST A DON'T NEED TO DO IT.

THE BIG PROBLEM I HAVE IS WITH THE PROCEDURAL, MY SISTER INCLUDED IN OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS WERE NOT GIVEN A TEN DAY NOTICE. THE FIRST NOTICE THAT WAS SENT OUT HAS ALREADY BEEN STATED WITH THE ADDRESS PICKED THE SECOND NOTICE WAS SENT OUT ON THE 14TH OF MAY WHICH WAS NOT TEN, IT WAS ONLY SEVEN. ALSO THE INCORRECT PROPERTY INTEREST WAS NEVER CORRECTED. I FEEL LIKE THIS IS A VARIANCE THAT HAVE BEEN RESUBMITTED TO REZONING AND MORE DENSITY LEVEL. GIVEN WHAT WE HAVE ALL BEEN THROUGH WITH THE PANDEMIC COMMITTED TO SEEMS LIKE REALLY BAD TIME TO BE TRYING TO DO SOMETHING OF THIS NATURE THAT IS GOING TO IMPACT TRAFFIC, DENSITY AND ANYTHING LIKE THAT WITHOUT THE MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS TO KNOW ABOUT IT. THE OTHER THING I AM WANTING TO MENTION IS MORE THAN A YEAR HAS ELAPSED SINCE THOSE TWO LOTS, 40 AND 40-ONE WHICH WERE NEVER SHOWN ON THE MIRAMAR SUBDIVISION BY YOUR OFFICE, I MAY REALIZE IT CREATED 78 AND 79, BUT THOSE WERE NEVER ON THERE.

NO ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN ON THAT SINCE THAT WAS GRANTED IN 2017. IF I READ THE LB SEE CORRECTLY IT SAID THAT ANY ACTION TAKEN THAT WAS NOT ACTED UPON BY THE DECISION OF THIS BOARD WITHIN A YEAR WOULD BE CONSIDERED ABANDONED OR EXPIRED. SO, THOSE ARE JUST SOME OF THE CONCERNS I HAVE PROCEDURALLY I THINK IT'S A BIG BIG PROBLEM. IF PROPERTY OWNERS ARE NOT AWARE OF WHAT IS GOING ON AROUND THEM. YOU HAVE A PANDEMIC IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS WHOLE THING.

IT'S JUST WRONG TO PROCEED ON THIS UNTIL THERE CAN BE MORE INFORMATION BROUGHT FORTH.

THE OTHER THING WITH THE LETTER THAT WAS SENT TO MR. PLATT SAID THAT THE APPLICANTS ARE THE OWNERS OR THEY HAD PURCHASED THE PROPERTY. THAT IS INCORRECT, IT IS JUST UNDER CONTRACT. THAT IS NOT WHAT THEY SAID IN THE LETTER.

THE LETTER SAID THEY HAD ALREADY PURCHASED ALL OF THE LOTS. THAT IS NOT CORRECT.

>> BEFORE YOU SIT DOWN THERE, JUST ONE MOMENT. SO, I WILL ADDRESS SOME OF THE ISSUES AND I SAID EARLIER, THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF CONCERN, A LOT OF ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE TRUE, BUT THEY ARE NOT NECESSARILY RELEVANT TO DIVIDING UP THOSE SLOTS. BACK TO THE PANDEMIC ISSUE, YES, IT IS AN IMPERFECT SITUATION AND YES, I HAVE NOT DONE VERY WELL TONIGHT WITH MY PART OF IT. BUT, THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN PENDING A WILD, HASN'T IT? SEVERAL MONTHS. AND SO, THE BUSINESS OF THE

[03:10:04]

DOING? >> SO, THERE IS A LEGAL REQUIREMENT THERE BE A TEN DAY NOTICE IN THE CODE THAT WE GIVE A TEN DAY NOTICE TO BE A LETTER TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN A 300-FOOT RADIUS OF THE PROJECTS OR THE PROPOSED VARIANCE REQUEST AND ALSO THERE IS A POSTING ON THE PROPERTY, SIGNED THAT IS POSTED ON THE PROPERTY COME IN THIS CASE AT 1507, THAT THERE IS A VARIANCE REQUEST AND WITH THE INFORMATION WE ARE HEARING. SO, NO, THAT IS NOT A PERFECT SITUATION. BUT, WHAT YOU LOOK FOR IS WHETHER WE HAVE AFFORDED DUE PROCESS. AND, WHENEVER AND I HAVE LOOKED AT THESE CASES BEFORE AND I DO UNDERSTAND THAT MS. CAREY SAYS THAT SHE DID NOT RECEIVE NOTICE, BUT SHE IS HERE, SHE IS ABLE TO

PROTECT TWO. >> I AM JUST GOING TO MAKE A SIMPLE STATEMENT, AS YOUR ATTORNEY, I DON'T HEAR ANYBODY HERE THAT SAID THEY DID NOT HAVE TIME TO WRITE THE LEGAL BRIEF OR

SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THAT IS WHAT IT'S ABOUT. >> NO, THIS IS YOU HAVE TEN

DAYS. >> I AM NOT GOING TO ARGUE WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER.

>> I FEEL LIKE DUE PROCESS WAS SERVED AND YES, I UNDERSTAND THERE IS TEN DAYS, BUT IN THE LONG, THE WAY THAT IT WORKS AND MR. CONTI MAY WANT TO ANSWER HIMSELF TO, BUT IN THE WAY THE LAW WORKS IS TO PROVIDE AN UP OR DUE PROCESS AND BE ABLE TO GIVE PEOPLE ENOUGH NOTICE TO MAKE IT HERE TO THE HEARING IN PERSON, OR THROUGH ANY OTHER MEANS. COURTS DO NOT SAY IT WAS NINE DAYS, I'M SORRY, YOUR APPEAL IS GRANTED AND PROPERTY, WELL, TO MAKE THAT PROPERTY STILL HAS THE

WRONG ADDRESS TO MAKE WE UNDERSTAND. >> THAT WAS YOUR TESTIMONY.

>> IT'S RIGHT HERE. >> I DON'T MAKE THE DECISION. I GET IT.

WE ACCEPT THAT THE TRUCE TRUTH IS THE SIGN SITTING AT 1507 SAYS 1537.

>> WHY DID IT NOT GET CORRECTED IF YOU CORRECTED THE NOTICE. >> REPORTER: SANDY, I'M NOT

GOING TO ARGUE WITH YOU. >> WELL THAT IS JUST. SLOPPY.

YOU DID NOT DO DUDE DILIGENCE BECAUSE IT IMPOSTER PROPERTY AND YOU DID NOT SEND IT TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE TIMEFRAME IT SAYS IT HAS TO BE SENT. THIS IS RIGHT ON -- AND YES, BUT SINCE THE LAST HEARING WAS MID FEBRUARY WHEN THEY FIRST BROUGHT THE APPLICATION FORWARD, NOW THEY ARE ON THE HEELS OF THIS THING AND IT COMES DOWN AND WERE DOING IT VIRTUALLY BASICALLY, IT'S MORE IMPORTANT THAN EVER FOR COMMUNICATION TO BE CORRECT AND TIMELY.

BECAUSE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE STILL AWAY FROM THIS AREA THAT ARE IMPACTED BY THIS.

AND THEY CAN'T BE HERE BECAUSE THEY ARE JUST NOT ABLE TO BE HERE BECAUSE OF EVERYTHING GOING ON. SO, I THINK IN AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION, YOU WOULD REPOST IT, RESEND IT, DO IT RIGHT THE WAY IT SAYS ACCORDING TO THE LDC WITH TEN DAYS NOTICE, CORRECT THE ADDRESS ON THE SIGN POSTED, SO IT SHOWS A VALID ADDRESS, AND JUST WHAT IS THE BIG DEAL? WHAT'S THE RUSH, TWO WEEKS. AND THEN YOU WOULD HAVE PEOPLE BACK.

>> ALL I CAN DO IS TELL YOU, MRY EXPERIENCE HOW A JUDGE WOULD HANDLE THIS IF THERE WERE AN APPEAL BASED ON LACK OF NOTICE OR IMPROPER NOTICE. I THINK THE JUDGE WOULD FIND THAT DUE PROCESS HAS BEEN REPORTED HERE AND THAT THESE FOLKS ARE HERE TO TESTIFY.

AND THAT IS IT. >> SO THOSE ACROSS THE STREET, JASON ARE NOT HERE, THEY FOUND

ABOUT IT THEY DID NOT EVEN GET THE NOTICE. >> REPORTER: THEN THEY SHOULD FILE AN APPEAL TO MAKE IT PEOPLE SHOULD NOT HAVE TO FILE AN APPEAL BECAUSE THE CITY

DEFAULTED ON WHAT IT SAYS TO MAKE THANK YOU, VERY MUCH. >> OKAY, BEFORE YOU SIT DOWN, JUST A SECOND BECAUSE SOME OF OUR BOARD MEMBERS SO WATCHING MAY HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY OR SOMETHING TO ASK YOU. ULTIMATELY, EVERYTHING THAT GOES ON HERE AT THIS BOARD IS MY RESPONSIBILITY. IF THERE IS A MISTAKE MAY COME IT'S MY MISTAKE.

SO, ANYTHING THAT IS WRONG, I AM THE PERSON WHO TAKES THE BLAME FOR THAT.

SO, I BELIEVE THAT YOU ARE RIGHT THAT WE DO HAVE A CLERICAL ERROR ON THAT AND, WE CAN STRIVE TO

[03:15:01]

>> AS I SAID IN THE BEGINNING, WE ACKNOWLEDGE THE YEAR, THE TYPOGRAPHICAL LAYER.

>> SO, IT'S NOT A PERFECT WORLD BUT ULTIMATELY IT IS MY RESPONSIBILITY.

SAUMICO YOU CONCURRED THAT IT IS MORE THAN A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR? THEY DID NOT GET IT OUT WITHIN

THE TEN DAY. >> I COULDN'T SPEAK TO THAT, BUT I WILL LOOK INTO THAT.

>> WILL THE POSTMARKED ON THE 13TH. >> LEGAL NOTICES NEED TO BE PUBLISHED AND YOU HAVE TO BE VERY ON TIME. I JUST TOTALLY DISAGREE ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE TIME THAT WE ARE IN RIGHT NOW. IT CANNOT BE MORE IMPORTANT TO

HAVE THE PROPERTY LISTED. >> GAME, THAT IS THE DULY NOTED. >> EXACTLY, THAT IS YOUR TESTIMONY, BUT WE DID HAVE COME IF I RECALL AND CAN BE CORRECTED, THERE WAS TESTIMONY EARLIER THAT IT WAS NOT JUST A ONE NUMBER DIFFERENCE, THAT IT WAS SENT OUT COME OF THE ORIGINAL NOTICE WAS MAY 8 AND THE AMENDED NOTICE WAS MAY THE 13TH.

MAY THE 13TH, TODAY IS MAY THE 20TH, THAT IS NOT TEN DAYS. >> YOU DID MAKE ANOTHER COMMENT ABOUT AN EXPIRATION. IF I AM UNDERSTANDING WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, THERE IS NO TIME FOR THAT TO EXPIRE ONCE IT HAS GRANTED. IS THAT CORRECT MR. PLATT?

>> A VARIANCE IS GRANTED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND WE DO HAVE EXPIRATIONS.

THIS PARTICULAR CASE THEY ACTED ON A VARIANCE IN A TIMEFRAME NEEDED THERE'S NO EXPIRATION

THAT OCCURRED. >> THERE WAS A FOUNDATION THAT CROSSED ALL FOUR UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD. THAT WAS DEMOLISHED AND THE PARCELS WERE RESTORED.

THE CONFIGURATION-MAKES TWO OF THE TWO HOUSES SENT APPROVAL FOR THE TWO HOUSES IT CREATED TWO

NEW LAWS TO MAKE MR. CHAIR, THIS IS NOT RELEVANT TO OUR HEARING. >> SMITH THANK YOU FOR THAT.

>> SO, YOUR VARIANCES NOTED IN THE RECORD. WE TAKE THAT VERY SERIOUSLY AND WE STRIVE TO IMPROVE ON THE. HOWEVER, MS. SPOCK HAS GIVEN US GOOD GUIDANCE FOR THIS BOARD AND THAT IS WHAT SHE DOES. SO, THAT IS THAT. OUR BOARD MEMBERS WATCHING REMOTELY COME AS YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY?

>> ALRIGHT. I DON'T SEE ANYTHING FROM ANYBODY, BECAUSE WE OPENED IT BACK UP, MS. BACA, BECAUSE WE OPENED IT BACK UP WE HAVE TO ASK IF THERE'S ANYBODY ELSE ONLINE

OR ANYBODY ELSE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? >> JUST A MOMENT.

WE ARE TALKING WITH HER PERSON THAT WAS LISTENING IN. >> AND INTO THE PEOPLE THAT PROBABLY HAVE NOT HEARD ME SAY THIS BEFORE, THIS BOARD, EVERY BOARD MEMBER HERE IS A VOLUNTEER. THESE CITIZENS BOARD, THEY ARE DESIGNED BY THE CITY COMMISSION TO HAVE A FREE AND OPEN EXCHANGE OF THOUGHTS AND IDEAS AND CRITICISMS. SO, THE BOARD IS WORKING EXACTLY LIKE IT IS SUPPOSED TO, BUT WE ARE STRUGGLING WITH THIS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MA'AM. AND, WE WILL CLOSE THAT BACKGROUND.

BOARD MEMBERS. >> I'M SORRY, MR. CHAIRMAN, I JUST WANT TO ADDRESS SHE MADE A

COMMENT THAT IT HAD TO BE 75, THAT'S INCORRECT. >> THEY MADE A COMMENT THAT IF IT'S ONLY GOING TO 72 IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE LDC, THAT IS NOT, THE LDC IS, THERE IS AN EXCEPTION OF GOING BACK TO THE ORIGINALLY PLATTED PROPERTY AS LONG AS IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THAT IT CAN BE LESS THAN 75 TO MAKE YES, I THINK JACOB ALREADY WENT OVER THAT EARLIER.

>> HE SAID EARLIER BUT SHE SAID IT AGAIN SO I JUST WANTED TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT.

>> YES, MA'AM. BOARD MEMBERS THAT ARE WITH ME REMOTELY, LET'S HAVE SOME CONVERSATION. I THINK I HAVE HAD MY SAY ON THAT.

[03:20:06]

>> MS. MONICA, GO AHEAD. >> I LIKE THE IDEA OF THE TWO. I KNOW WERE NOT DEALING WITH THE BACK LOTS, BUT THE TWO PIECES OF PROPERTY WOULD PROBABLY BE A LOT BETTER.

I'M WITH YOU, I AM STRUGGLING A LITTLE BIT WITH IT AND WE USUALLY HAVE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE, WE HAVE NOTHING BUT NEGATIVE TONIGHT. IT'S HARD BECAUSE, IT IS GOING TO CHANGE, IT'S DEFINITELY GOING TO CHANGE THE LANDSCAPE IN THAT AREA.

>> YES, GO AHEAD. >> I JUST WANTED TO REMIND THE BOARD MEMBERS THAT WHEN YOU ARE READY TO ARTICULATE ANY TYPE OF MOTION, AND I AM NOT RUSHING YOU THERE, BUT EVEN IN SOME OF YOUR COMMENTS, YOU MAY WANT TO ADDRESS THE SIX CRITERIA, BECAUSE IN THIS CASE, MOST OF THE TIME AS YOU KNOW, JACOB PROVIDES US WITH THE SIX CRITERIA AND WHICH ONES HAS NOT BEEN MET. AND WHEN YOU WANT TO GRANTED VARIANCE, THEN YOU ARTICULATE ON YOUR OWN WHY YOU THINK THEY WERE MEANT TO AND SAID THAT YOU DISAGREE WITH JACOB.

SO, I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU, IF YOU ARE EITHER GOING TO MAKE A MOTION OR BEFORE THAT IN YOUR DISCUSSION, WHEN YOU SAY THAT YOU HAVE A CERTAIN OPINION ABOUT THE VARIANCE REQUEST, PLEASE REFER TO THE CRITERIA. JACOB FOUND THAT ALL SIX HAVE BEEN MET.

AND THAT IS WHAT IS REQUIRED FOR VARIANCE. BUDS, YOU ALL HAVE TO RULE ON THOSE SIX CRITERIA. IF THEY HAVE ALL BEEN MET, THE CHOICE IS EASY, IT HAS TO BE AN APPROVAL. IF ALL OF THEM HAVE NOT BEEN MET, THEN YOUR MOTION WOULD BE TO DENY THE VARIANCE BASED UPON THE CRITERIA THAT WERE NOT MET TEN WHY YOU DISAGREE WITH JACOB.

>> I AM READY TO MAKE A MOTION. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, JUST BEFORE ANYBODY MAKES A MOTION, WE ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE CLOSING ARGUMENTS BEFORE THAT HAPPENS. AND SO, I DON'T WANT TO -- BEFORE YOU MAKE YOUR DECISION COME I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ARE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION AND THEN

WE WOULD MAKE CLOSING? >> THAT WAS MY MISTAKE. I DID NOT OUTLINE THAT VERY WELL. I THOUGHT I WOULD ASK IF THERE IS ANYTHING FURTHER.

SO, TISH, BEFORE WE DO ANYTHING, LET'S LET THEM MAKE A CLOSING ARGUMENTS ON THAT COME OKAY.

>> FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE BOARD AND ITS MEMBERS FOR HANGING WITH US FOR THREE AND HALF HOURS TONIGHT. YOU HAVE GIVEN YOUR TIME AND THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE THAT IS BEFORE THE BOARD. I THINK THAT IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE AT THE OUTSET THAT THE COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED TONIGHT ESTABLISHES VERY CLEARLY THAT THE REQUIREMENTS FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE, WHICH MS. BACA REFERENCED A FEW MINUTES AGO, HAVE BEEN MET AND HAVE BEEN MET RESOUNDINGLY BY BY SHANNON AND MR. MARANDA AND HIS TESTIMONY, MR. PLATTS AGREES THAT EACH OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN FULFILLED THAT METS AND IN FACT, MR. PLATT AND HIS BOARD HAS RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE. I THINK FROM OUR STANDPOINT, THE TESTIMONY THAT MR. MARANDA HAS PROVIDED AT LENGTH THROUGHOUT THE HEARING TONIGHT HAS BEEN PARTICULARLY PERSUASIVE.

HE HAS INDICATED ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION TONIGHT THAT IN HIS OPINION THIS APPLICATION DOES NOT CONTRAVENE ANY OTHER ASPECT OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. I THINK WE WOULD ALL AGREE THAT MR. MARANDA IS A RECOGNIZED EXPERT AS AN ARCHITECT AND HAS 29 YEARS COME I BELIEVE HE SAID

[03:25:03]

I DO NOT MEAN TO BEAT THAT DEAD HORSE ANY FURTHER. AGAIN, THOSE REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN MET. I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO KEEP IN MIND THAT THE APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE APPLIES SOLELY TO LOT 78 AND 79. WE HAVE VEERED OFF AND TRACKED , WHAT THIS GROUP HAS ASKED FOR AND WHAT WE HAVE DEMONSTRATED IS THAT THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR RESTORING THE UNDERLYING LOSS OF RECORD, LOT 78 AND 79, WHICH CONSTITUTE 1507 SOUTH FLETCHER HAVE BEEN MEDS AND I BELIEVE THEY ARE SUFFICIENT, THERE IS A SIP SUFFICIENT ARGUMENT FROM THE ARCHITECTS STANDPOINT THAT THIS CAN BE COMPLETED IN A FASHION THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS A WHOLE, AND MEDS IT CAN BE DONE IN A FASHION THAT MINIMIZES AND IN MANY SENSE, IT MINIMIZES THE IMPACT ON A FEW CORE DOORS AND IT IS CONSISTENT WITH DENSITY REQUIREMENTS. WE UNDERSTAND IT WILL BE NECESSARY DURING THE PERMITTING PROCESS FOR ISSUES RELATIVE TO DRAINAGE, WATER RETENTION BE ADDRESSED, AND WE FULLY ANTICIPATE THAT WILL HAPPEN. IF THE VARIANCE IS COMPLETED AND APPROVED. ULTIMATELY, WE BELIEVE VERY STRONGLY THE CHARACTER OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WILL BE ENHANCED. NOT DESTROY.

IT WILL BE ENHANCED BY THE PLAN THAT KAREN AND HER GROUP HAVE, THAT HOPEFULLY THEY CAN EXECUTE, AND IT IS CLEARLY, WE UNDERSTAND IT IS A SPECIAL PARTS OF THE CHARACTER OF THE CITY.

WE KNOW THIS BOARD IS CHARGED WITH MAINTAINING A FIRM HANDLE ON CHANGES THAT PEOPLE COME BEFORE THE BOARD AND REQUEST, BUT THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WILL BE ENHANCED WHEN LOT 78 AND 79 ARE SEPARATED AND AGAIN, LEAVING LOTS 40 AND 40-ONE OUT OF THE OCCASION, TO NEWER, NICER, BETTER LANDSCAPES, COMPLIANT HOMES ARE BUILT ON THOSE LAWS THAT WILL ENHANCE THE NEIGHBORHOODS VALUE, IT WILL ENHANCE OF THE ARCHITECTURE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IT WILL ENHANCE THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN EVERY WAY. SO, RESPECTFULLY, WE REQUEST THAT THE BOARD APPROVE THE APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE. IT MEETS ALL OF THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS. IT WILL ENHANCE THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND I WOULD JUST DIFFER A LITTLE BIT OF TIME COME IF I MIGHT, TO KAREN FOR FINAL COMMENTS BEFORE THE BOARD TO MAKE MR. PLATT WOULD YOU MIND BRINGING UP BUT YOU HAD A FEW

MINUTES AGO. >> I JUST WANT TO SAY ONE LAST THING.

IF YOU LOOK SPECIFICALLY AT THE FOUR LOTS ON THE FRONT AND BACK GOING SOUTH, THEY ARE EXACTLY CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO. 1495, 1511, 1502, 1550, 2801, 2865, SOUTH OF RACHEL, 2800, 2844. IF YOU GO NORTH, 1469 IS AN INDIVIDUAL LOT. THAT ACTUALLY IS ON THE MARKET NOW AS TO LOTS.

THE BACK LOCK IN THE FRONT LOT BUT IT IS STILL TOO PLATTED LOTS, JUST NORTH OF THAT, TOO CLOUDED LOTS. WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU HAVE TWO, FOUR, SIX, EIGHT, TEN, 12 LOTS THAT ARE EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO IN

[03:30:10]

THE WAY IT IS. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

THAT WAS VERY WELL PUT. ALRIGHT, SO NOW WE ARE GO BACK TO THE DISCUSSION.

>> I WOULD RECOMMEND MR. CHAIR THAT WE MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE DONE WITH ANY OTHER COMMENTED GO ON TOUR DISCUSSION AND THERE IS NO REBUTTAL, TESTIMONY, OR ANYTHING ELSE, IT IS NOT JUST

DISCUSSION. >> I THINK THAT IS A GREAT IDEA COME IS THERE ANY OBJECTION OR ANYTHING ELSE ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO SAY. ONCE ONCE WE STOP THIS IT STOPPED UNLESS THAT IN THE RECORD WILL REFLECT THAT NOBODY SAID ANYTHING.

BACK TO BOARD DISCUSSION. AND WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT ANYTHING OR DO WE WANT TO GO

BACK TO TISH MAKING A MOTION. >> I WILL START WITH MAKING A COMMENT.

I AM NOT MAKING AN OPINION BECAUSE I DO NOT HAVE A BOAT. BUTTS, THE ATTORNEY SAID THAT BASICALLY WE HAVE TO ANALYZE THIS ON THE BASIS OF THE CITIES RECOMMENDATION ON THE DIFFERENT CONSISTENCIES WITH THE CONDITIONS AND, YOU HAVE A REALLY TOUGH SITUATION WHERE YOU HAVE GOT A ROAD IN THE BACK THAT NEVER GOT COMPLETED WITH PLATTED LOTS THAT NEVER GOT DONE, I UNDERSTAND A BUNCH OF FRUSTRATIONS THAT WITH THIS. BUT FROM A TECHNICAL STANDPOINT THE ONLY TWO QUESTIONS THAT I THINK SHOULD BE ANSWERED AND DISCUSSED BY THE BOARD ARE ONE, BASICALLY, IS THE GENERAL HARMONY AND CONSISTENT, AND IS THE PUBLIC INTEREST CONSISTENT.

THOSE ARE THE TWO AREAS THAT I SEE THAT NEED DISCUSSION AND I HAVE NO OPINION ON THAT PARK I'M JUST BRINGING THAT UP. I THINK THE REST OF THE CRITERIA HAPPEN.

BASED ON THE TESTIMONY COME I THINK THAT IS WHAT THE BOARD NEEDS TO DO.

THAT IS MY COMMENT. THANK YOU. >> I THINK THAT IS A GOOD.

, WHAT YOU GOT? >> WILL COME I KIND IS AGREE WITH THE CITY POSITION AND STAFF THAT ALL OF THESE CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN MET. THE PROBLEMS I HAVE WITH THE SITE GO BEYOND WHAT WE ARE VOTING ON HERE TODAY, AND THAT IS WHERE YOU CAN DIVIDE THIS BACK TO WHERE IT WAS. MY OPINION IS, THEY HAVE MADE A GOOD CASE FOR AND WE OUGHT TO GO

AHEAD INTO THE VARIANCE. [INAUDIBLE] >> WE ARE INCONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC INTEREST, NOT CONSISTENT I DON'T THINK SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND THERE IS A POSSIBILITY FOR IT INJURING THE ENVIRONMENT. AND ALSO, THE SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, THE DRIVEWAY THE ACCESS TO THE PROPERTIES THAT IS A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE.

>> THAT IS THE ISSUE I HAVE WITH IT AS WELL. DOES DIVIDING IT INTO FOUR IS NOT AN ISSUE TO ME. I THINK THAT HAVING A SINGULAR ACCESS TO FOR HOUSES PORTRAYS IT, WHETHER IT IS CLASSIFIED AS A NEIGHBORHOOD ARE NOT, SINGULAR ACCESS OFF OF FLETCHER.

THE REASON WHY I DISAGREE WITH THE JUDGE IN ALL DUE RESPECT, I AM AN ARCHITECT AND I DO RESPECT THE ENVIRONMENT. I THINK THE FOUR TO THE SOUTH OF THE FOURTH TO THE NORTH, THE DIFFERENCES THEY HAVE ALL INDIVIDUAL ACCESS. TO STEVE COOK'S POINT, FIRST OFF THEY WOULD NEVER CONTINUE THAT FAR NORTH. IF YOU ARE GOING TO DEVELOP

[03:35:03]

I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE SUPPORTED FROM A SINGLE DRIVE ACCESS OFF THE BEACH LOT TO THE MOST CONSISTENT ROADWAY THAT IS CLOSEST TO IT INSTEAD OF GOING TO A SINGLE OR SPACE.

AND I THINK THAT WILL SOLVE YOUR NEIGHBORS ISSUES WITH THE LOTS AS WELL.

>> OKAY, I THINK THAT IS A GOOD POINT TO START. IF WE COME BACK TO WHAT REALLY THE VARIANCE WAS, ARE WE GOING TO ALLOW THE FRONT TWO LOTS TO BE RESTORED.

NOW, MS. BOCK, WE CAN'T PUT CONDITIONS. >> I'M INCOME A REASONABLE MAKE IT SURE, WOULD THE BOARD CONSIDER, WITH THE BOARD CONSIDER DIVIDING THOSE FRONT TWO LOTS? WE HAVE DONE THAT, AND I DON'T SEE AN ISSUE WITH THAT.

BUT, MAKING THE CONDITION THEY CANNOT HAVE A SHARED DRIVEWAY. THEY ALL HAVE TO HAVE THEIR INDIVIDUAL ACCESS. THOSE ARE UNDERLINED LOTS OF RECORD.

>> I AM A TRAFFIC ENGINEER, I DO NOT THINK IT IS A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE TWO DRIVEWAYS COMING UP THAT CLOSE TO EACH OTHER ON A MAIN ROAD LIKE FLETCHER. I THINK IT WOULD BE A BIG

MISTAKE TO REQUIRE THEM TO HAVE THEIR OWN DRIVEWAYS. >> SO, WOULD WE CONSIDER THEM, DEPENDING ON WHAT THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS THOUGHT ABOUT YOUR IDEA, WOULD BE CONSIDERED THEN, THE FRONT TWO IF WE DIVIDED THOSE TWO, THEY COULD SHARE ONE DRIVEWAY BUT THE BACK TO

COULDN'T? >> I THINK IF THEY DO THE BACK TO, THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO

EXTEND FIRST AND BRING THEM IN. >> WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE BACK TO, WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE FRONT OF FLETCHER AND THEY ARE GOING TO SHARE DRIVEWAY.

>> AND THAT, I THINK I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE DEPENDING ON WHAT THE BOARD THOUGHT OF DIVIDING THE FRONT TO IF THEY WERE ATTACHED TO THE BACK, SO WE JUST HAD LONG, NARROW LOTS.

JUST TOO NICE LOTS. >> THAT IS THE OTHER THING, TO. IS NOT REALLY A MINIMUM

VARIANCE, THEY HAVE ALREADY DONE ONE VARIANCE WITH THE BACK LOTS. >> RIGHT.

SO, THAT MAKES IT CONSISTENT AS WELL. >> AND THIS IS THE SECOND GO

AROUND. >> YES, ABSOLUTELY YOU ARE RI RIGHT.

>> I GUESS I WOULD ADD, IN THIS CASE, I'M SYMPATHETIC TO THE CURRENT PROPERTY OWNERS BECAUSE, I AM JUST NOT SURE CHANGING THIS OR RESTORING THIS, HOW IT WAS ORIGINALLY PLATTED MANY, MANY YEARS AGO IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHANGED OVER TIME. AND SO, THESE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS, THEY BROUGHT THEIR HOUSES, THEY IMPROVE THEM, THEY ENJOY THEM, ALL THE TIME THEY DID THAT COME OF THIS COMBINED.

THIS WAS ONE BIG LOTS. SO, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY TECHNICALLY KNEW THAT, BUT THEY MIGHT HAVE COME AND SO, THEY ARE LIVING BACK THERE AND THERE ARE THE REAR LOTS WITH THE EXPECTATIONS THAT THERE IS ONE HOUSE IN FRONT OF THEM IN ONE BIG LOT.

SO, WHEN WE SAY WE ARE RESTORING IT, AND JACOB WAS BREAKING UP INITIALLY I CANNOT HEAR, HOW LONG AGO WAS THAT THAT THEY ORIGINALLY BOUGHT IT AS TO LOTS AND THEN IT WAS COMBINED WITH

ONE HOUSE? I CANNOT HEAR THAT PART. >> THE MIRAMAR SUBDIVISION WAS PLATTED IN 1941. THE PROPERTY APPRAISER CARD HAS THE ACTUAL YEAR BUILT OF THE STRUCTURE 1937. WHICH IS BEFORE THE SUBDIVISION. THE ACTUAL YEAR BUILD DATE ON THE PROPERTY APPRAISER IS ACCURATE, BUT I DON'T KNOW, THAT SEEMS ODD.

YOU COULD AT A HOUSE THERE IF THEY PLATTED A SUBDIVISION, A LOT LINE DOWN THE MIDDLE.

THE ORIGINAL MIRAMAR SUBDIVISION ON 78 AND 79 PLATTED IN 1941. >> DO YOU KNOW WHAT YEAR THEY WERE COMBINED? WHAT'D HAVE BEEN AROUND THE TIME THE HOUSE WAS BUILT THAT SONIC?

>> WELL, WHEN I MENTION THE PROPERTY APPRAISER LIST THE ACTUAL BUILT OF THE HOUSES 1937, PRIOR TO THE SUBDIVISION. SO, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS 100% ACCURATE OR IF THE STRUCTURE GOT

[03:40:07]

DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES. >> WELL, I GUESS I WOULD ADD, VERY HAPPY THE ALTERNATE AND I'M NOT VOTING ON THIS ONE. A VERY EMPATHETIC, BOTH THE PERSPECTIVES VOTERS HERE AND ALSO, TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT WE HAVE NOW. THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, TO ME IS A LOT MORE WHAT IT IS NOW, NOT WHAT IT WAS MANY YEARS AGO.

SO, AND I THINK IT IS GOING TO CHANGE. >> AM I ALLOWED TO JUST ADD

SOMETHING MORE ABOUT THE DRIVEWAY? >> IT'S UP TO THE BOARD.

>> ABSOLUTELY. >> SO, THEY MENTIONED THAT ACCESS, I DON'T RECALL OR DRIVEWAY FOR SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES, BUT WE DO HAVE DIRECTION OF OTHER AREAS IN TOWN WHERE WE TRY TO LIMIT DRIVEWAY CUTS, ESPECIALLY ON BUSIER ROADS ARE HIGH CLASSIFICATION ROADWAYS.

FIRST AVENUE IF THERE WAS NOT A SHARED ACCESS PROVIDED, I THINK I HAD THE TOPOGRAPHY UP AND I CAN TURN IT BACK ON, IF ACCESS IS REQUIRED TO BE PROVIDED THROUGH FIRST AVENUE WHICH PROPERTY OWNERS WILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THAT, THEY WILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH NEW ROADWAYS AND STANDARDS WHICH LAYOUTS ENGINEERING STANDARDS. WITH ONLY DEVIATIONS GOING TO THE CITY COMMISSION AND PROVIDE INDIVIDUAL DRIVEWAYS TO THOSE WESTERN LOTS.

IS GOING TO IF NOT COMPLETELY DESTROYED, SUBSTANTIALLY ALTERED THE ENCOURAGED TO BE PROTECTED AND THE OTHER AREAS OF THE PLANNING CODE SPECIFICALLY BEING WITHIN THE COASTAL PROTECTION ZONE. SO, YES, THEY DO HAVE ACCESS OF A FIRST AVENUE, YES, THEY COULD DESIGN A ROAD AFTER OF A FIRST AVENUE BUT IT ALSO GOES AGAINST THE IDEA AND THE CONCEPT OF THE

PERSONAL PROTECTION ZONE. >> I TRY TO WEIGH IN THE SYNOPSIS OF THAT YES, THEY DO HAVE THAT ACCESS BUT THERE ARE GIVEN TAKES IN OTHER SECTIONS OF OUR CODE THAT WOULD APPLY.

AND, WE WOULD HAVE TO PERMIT ACCESS OF A FIRST AVENUE. AGAIN, THERE'S REALLY NO WAY TO DO THAT WITHOUT SUBSTANTIALLY ALTERING THAT AREA WITHIN THE FIRST AVENUE, AND OTHER SECTIONS OF OUR CODE DIRECTLY LOOK TO LIMITS CHANGES OF THE TOPOGRAPHY.

I KIND OF SEE THE PRESERVATION AND NOT IMPROVING FIRST AVENUE IN MEETING SOME OF OUR OTHER

CODES AND CONFERENCE PLANS AND THE PROTECTION ZONE. >> I THINK THAT IS VERY WELL STATED. WE ARE ALWAYS TRYING TO PROTECT THAT ENVIRONMENTS COME IN THIS BOARD DOES DO SOME THINGS THAT PROBABLY WE WOULDN'T NORMALLY DO IN AN EFFORT TO THROW IT AWAY TO PRESERVE THAT ENVIRONMENT AND TO BE SET UP WITH SUCCESS THE WAY WE HAVE BEEN, COMES BACK TO ME LIKE IT LENDS ITSELF TO TO LOTS. THAT WOULD BE THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF IT.

JUST PUTTING THE FOUR HOUSES AND THERE ON THE ROADWAY AND THEIR, WHILE THAT MAY NOT LEGALLY BE A SUBDIVISION, IT SURE LOOKS LIKE ONE. SMIT CANOPY SUGGESTED THAT THE LOTS ARE SPLIT IN THE WRONG DIRECTION AS SOMEBODY MENTIONED EARLIER IN THE TWO HOUSES SHARE A SINGULAR DRIVEWAY ON EACH NORTH AND SOUTH PERIMETER EDGE? SO, A HOUSE ON LOT 40 AND LOT 79 SHARED DRIVEWAY THAT ABUTS THE NORTHERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY LINE THAT GIVES ENOUGH DISTANCE OF A FLETCHER TO ONE THAT IS SHARED WITH THE HOUSE ON LOT 40 40-1 AND 78 AND THEY SURE

DRIVEWAY TO THE SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY LINE. >> IF YOU PUT THE DRIVEWAY ON

[03:45:04]

EACH SIDE VERSUS DOWN THE CENTER. >> YES, THAT GIVES YOU BUFFERING TO YOUR NEIGHBORS, IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY PROVIDE A GOOD VIEW CORRIDOR DOWN THE CENTER BUT IT

MAKES THE HOUSE PARALLEL. >> I'M THROWING IT OUT THERE IS ANOTHER SUGGESTED TO MAKE SURE.

THANK YOU FOR THAT. HOLD THAT THOUGHT JUST A MINUTE, MS. SPOCK WOULD LIKE TO WEIGH IN

ON SOMETHING HERE. >> I DON'T THINK THAT AS A CONDITION OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU CAN DO THAT TONIGHT. BECAUSE, THAT WOULD BE A RE- PLAT IS WHAT IT WOULD BE.

KNOW, JACOB, I MEAN THIS IS UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD, WOULD WE BE CHANGING, LET'S SAY THE BOARD SAID YES, THAT IS WHAT WE WANT AND SOMEHOW THE APPLICANT WOULD BE IN THAT POSITION AND THE APPLICANT SAID THAT'S A GOOD IDEA, WE NEVER THOUGHT OF BEFORE.

HOW CAN WE MAKE TO LOTS THAT ARE 72 BY 250 OUT OF FOUR UNDERLINED LOTS OF RECORD.

>> MAYBE I MISUNDERSTOOD BY WHAT THEY STATED. I THOUGHT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT RESTORING LOT 78 AND 79, INSTEAD OF HAVING ONE SINGULAR CENTRAL DRIVEWAY ACCESS TO PROVIDE ONE ACCESS ON THE NORTH SIDE CONNECTING LOT 79 AND 40 BOTH WITH NOTABLE LOTS AND ONE SINGULAR ACCESS ON THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF 78 AND 40-1 PROVIDING ACCESS TO SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ON

EACH ONE OF THOSE SLOTS. >> OKAY, I DID NOT UNDERSTAND. I THOUGHT IT WAS INSTEAD MAKE

TOO LONG LOTS IS WHAT I THOUGHT I HEARD. >> JACOB SAID THAT CORRECTLY.

>> IT WOULD PROVIDE A BUFFER TO THE TWO ADJACENT NEIGHBORS AS WELL.

>> I AM NOT HERE TO SUGGEST A DESIGN DECISION. I'M SIMPLY JUST SAYING WE CANNOT TELL A LAND USE THAT IS PERFECTLY LEGIT, IF WE GRANT THIS VARIANCE AND THEY BREAK 79 AND 78 UP, IT IS ON THE APPLICANT TO FOLLOW PERMITS BUT THE JOINTS AT THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT APPROVES AND IT GOES THROUGH ZONING AND IT GOES THROUGH STORM WATER, ALL OF THOSE THINGS STILL HAVE TO BE MET. ALL I AM SUGGESTING IS THERE ARE WAYS TO DO THIS, TO OUR BOARD THAT WOULD ALLOW THIS TO STILL MEET THE CRITERIA AND TO MAKE THE NEIGHBORS CONTENT ON TRYING TO MAKE THIS STORMWATER RESOLVE IN THE IMPERVIOUS AREAS RESOLVE

IN ALL THE THINGS THAT WERE CONCERNS BY THE NEIGHBORS. >> AT POINTS.

MS. SPOCK, WE HAVE DONE THIS IN THE PAST, THERE'S NO GOOD WAY TO DO THIS, BUT, I CAN APPRECIATE WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO DO. I CAN APPRECIATE THE END RESULT OF WHERE THEY WANT TO BE FIVE YEARS FROM NOW. , BUT, I THINK IT WOULD BE A LOT DIFFERENT IF WE DO WHAT WE APPROVE. BUT, ALL WE ARE DOING IS SAYING YES OR NO IS SPLITTING THAT FRONT LOT UP, WHAT HAPPENS BEYOND THAT DOES NOT PERTAIN TO THIS BOARD.

>> YES, THAT IS TRUE. >> BUT, THROUGH THEIR OWN ADMISSION, WE KNOW WHAT IS

COMING, WHAT THEIR END RESULT IS. >> BEFORE YOU MAKE A MOTION, TISH, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT ANY OF THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS WOULD LIKE TO SAY BEFORE

TISH MAKES A MOTION? OKAY, TISH, GO AHEAD. >> I MOVED TO DENY THE L.A. CASE NUMBER 2020-ZERO ZERO SIX AND MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF THE CONCLUSION PART OF THE RECORD, THAT DOA CASE 202020-ZEO ZERO SIX DOES NOT SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLY WITH THE PLANS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA I BELIEVE, THE SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, MEANING BECAUSE OF THE SINGLE DRIVEWAY TO ACCESS THE PROPERTY.

THE MINIMUM VARIANCE, I UNDERSTAND THIS WAS THE SECOND TIME WITH THE VARIANCE OF WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO DO. AND NUMBER THREE, THE PUBLIC INTEREST, I JUST DON'T FEEL IT

[03:50:04]

SOUTH AND TO THE NORTH AND THEIR OWN ACCESS TO THESE PROPERTIES. >> OKAY.

THANK YOU. AND, I JUST WANT TO GO BACK FOR THE RECORD JUST A SECOND ON WHAT

SHE SAID, THE PREVIOUS VARIANCE THAT THEY GOT, JACOB. >> WE HAVE TO GET THE SECOND IN ORDER TO CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION. DID SOMEBODY SECOND IT?

>> NO. >> WE NEED TO DO THAT. BECAUSE THEN WE START GOING OFF.

>> I NEED A SECOND ON THAT. >> I GOT A MOTION ON THE TABLE AND I NEED A SECOND.

>> THE MOTION DIES FOR LACK OF A SECOND. YOU CAN PASS THE GAVEL, WHO IS

THE VICE CHAIR, OR YOU WILL HAVE TO PASS. >> YES.

>> I HAVE NEVER DONE THAT. >> YOU CAN DO THAT, THAT IS ONLY THE WAY YOU CAN SECOND THE

MOTION UNDER ROBERTS RULES. >> YOU KNOW IT ALWAYS MY INTENTION TO STAY OUT AND I

DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S A GOOD POSITION. >> REMEMBER THIS, IF YOU SECOND TO MOTION, MR. CHAIR, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BOAT FOR THAT MOTION. YOU CAN SECOND TO ITS FOR.

>> I SECOND IT FOR DISCUSSION THE AND I PASSED THE GAVEL. YOU ARE IN CHARGE.

>> FOREVER. I AM AM OUT. >> SO THE VARIANCE THAT TISH WAS TALKING ABOUT, SO, JUST TO CLARIFY WHAT THE VARIANCE WAS FOR.

>> IT WAS A VARIANCE FROM THE EXACT SAME SECTION OF THE CODE, SECTION 1.03.05, LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. GIVE ME ONE SECOND, I WILL PULL UP THE OLD SURVEY TO SHOW WHY

THAT VARIANCE. >> I JUST WANT TO BE SURE THERE'S NO MISCOMMUNICATION ON

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

THAT IS WHAT THE VARIANCE WAS FOR. BECAUSE, MINUS THE VARIANCE COME OF THIS PARCEL, FOUR UNDERLINED LOTS OF RECORD COME AS ONE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT.

ONE LOT OF RECORD, WHICH WAS THE LARGEST LOT OF RECORD ON SOUTH FLETCHER AVENUE.

WHICH WOULD HAVE COME A MR. MARANDA INDICATED THE SIZE OF THE STRUCTURE THAT COULD BE BUILT ON 1507 AS IT EXISTS TODAY, TWICE THAT PREVIOUSLY EXISTED.

>> WAS THERE A REASON THEY DID NOT TO THE FRONT AT THE SAME TIME?

IT WOULD NOT COST ANY MORE. >> I NOT REMEMBER THE DETAILS. THEY WERE RESERVING THEIR RIGHTS TO SELL THE PROPERTY AS IT EXISTS TODAY. I DON'T RECALL EXACTLY.

>> SURE. OKAY. OKAY COME IS THERE ANY OTHER

BOARD DISCUSSION BEFORE WE WANT -- YES, MA'AM. >> JACOB, IT WAS PROBABLY DIVIDED WITH THE IDEA THAT PERSEPHONE WAS GOING TO BE COMPLETED.

THERE WAS LOTS OF TALKBACK THEM ABOUT IT. SO, HOW WOULD THEY HAVE ACCESS TO SOUTH FLETCHER? IF THEY WERE WITH DIFFERENT PARTIES.

>> YOU ARE CORRECT. I HAVE BEEN PART OF CONVERSATIONS WITH OUR STREETS

[03:55:04]

>> THANK YOU, MS. MONICA. IS THERE ANY OTHER BOARD DISCUSSION ON THAT?

ANYBODY WATCHING REMOTELY, BURIED YOU HAVE ANYTHING. >> WAS THAT MOTION MADE WITH THE

QUALIFICATION? >> NO. TISH, I WILL GET YOU TO VERIFY THAT, BUT THERE WAS NO QUALIFICATION ON THE COMBOS JUST A MOTION TO DENY, CORRECT?

>> NO. WHICH CRITERIA? THAT THERE IS JUST NO CONDITIONS

PUT ON IT, JUST A MOTION TO DENY THIS APPLICATION, CORRECT? >> CORRECT.

>> IS THERE ANY OTHER BOARD DISCUSSION? ANYBODY WATCHING REMOTELY BEFORE

WE CALL A BOAT? >> SYLVIA, WILL YOU CALL THE VOTE PLEASE.

>> NO, YOU CLOSE ALREADY. >> CAN TAMMY CLARIFY THE MOTIONS BEING VOTED ON.

>> WE ARE GETTING SOME TECHNICAL STATIC IN HERE, TO. >> ALRIGHT, CAN CAN YOU GUYS

HEAR ME JUST FINE? >> REPORTER: I CAN HEAR YOU. I AM JUST SITTING RIGHT ON TOP OF THE MICROPHONE. I HAVE IT HERE ON MY BREAST POCKET.

SO, THE MOTION CLARIFIED. >> YES, AND HOW THE VOTES ARE SUPPOSED TO GO.

SO, RIGHT NOW THERE IS A MOTION TO DENY THE VARIANCE WITHOUT ANY CONDITIONS THAT MADE BY TISHA AND SECONDED BY CHAIR MILLER, WHO PASSED THE GAVEL TO MR. HERTSLET.

A MOTION TO DENY REQUIRES THREE OUT OF FIVE OF YOU TO VOTE YES, WHICH MEANS YOU CAN DENY THE VARIANCE REQUESTS. AND JUST TO GO ONE STEP FURTHER AND I'M SURE THE APPLICANTS KNOW, IF A VARIANCE REQUEST IS DENIED, THAT SAME REQUEST CANNOT BE MADE AGAIN FOR AT LEAST ONE YEAR. IF THERE IS A MOTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE AND THAT IS SECONDED, THEN THERE NEEDS TO BE FOUR OUT OF FIVE OF YOU VOTE IN FAVOR OR VOTE YES ON A MOTION TO APPROVE.

IS THAT CLEAR TO EVERYBODY? >> YES, MA'AM. ANYTHING ELSE?

>> NO, SIR. OKAY, THEN LET'S MOVE TO THE VOTES.

SYLVIE, WILL YOU CALL THE VOTES, PLEASE. >> MEMBER GLEASON.

>> HE DOES NOT VOTE. >> I'M SORRY. >> MEMBER PAPKE.

>> NO. >> MEMBER HERTSLET. >> NO.

>> MEMBER DODD. >> YES. >> MEMBER MARK.

>> YES. >> CHAIR MILLER. >> NO.

>> THE MOTION FAILS. SO, NOW MR. CHAIR, YOU CAN ENTERTAIN THERE ARE NO OTHER MOTIONS ON THE FLOOR, YOU CAN ENTERTAIN DISCUSSION OR ANOTHER MOTION.

>> ALL RIGHT, SO KEEP ME FROM PUTTING MY FOOT IN MY MOUTH AS YOU OFTEN DO, IS THERE ANOTHER

WAY TO GET AROUND THIS? IS THERE SOME WAY WE CAN. >> OKAY, SO, ONE OF THE THINGS YOU CAN DO IS, NORMALLY WE HAVE A MOTION THAT FAILS AND DOESN'T GET THE REQUIRED NUMBERS OF VOTES, WE NEED SOMETHING ELSE, RIGHT? OTHER THAN THE SAME INFORMATION IN THE SAME TESTIMONY. YOU CAN REOPEN THE HEARING, YOU CAN CONTINUE THE HEARING, YOU CAN ASK, BUT I WILL SAY, THAT AFFECTED PARTIES ARE TO BE GIVEN THE SAME, THE TIME TO SPEAK

[04:00:03]

TESTIMONY. >> I WILL MAKE ANOTHE MOTION. SAUMICO AHEAD, SIR.

>> OKAY. >> I MOVED TO APPROVE THE CASE NUMBER BOA 2020-0006.

I MOVE THAT THEY MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS AS PART OF THE RECORD. THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT CASE TWO OH TWO OH-OH SIX ITEM IS PRESENTED, THE SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIED WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DEVELOPMENT CODE TO WARRANT APPROVAL AT THIS TIME. AS I SAID BEFORE, I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITIES CONDITION ON ALL SIX OF THE CRITERIA IS BEING CONSISTENT WITH THE CODE.

>> I WILL SECOND. >> I GOT A FIRST AND A SECOND. ON THAT.

>> IS SYLVIE, WE ARE BACK TO YOU. >> MEMBER MOCK.

>> TO BE NEED TO GET CLARIFICATION ON THE BOAT? >> YES.

>> I CAN HEAR YOU. >> ALL RIGHT, MOM BERM MOCK WANTS CLARIFICATION ON THE VOTES. AND THERE IS A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE AS REQUESTED AND THE REASON, THE CONCLUSIONS OF LAW UNDER THE CRITERIA BASED ON THE TESTIMONY IS THAT MR. HERTSLET FOUND ALL SIX OF THE CRITERIA WERE MEANT TO BASED UPON THE TESTIMONY HERE TONIGHT THEN ALSO JACOB'S FINDINGS AND HIS STAFF REPORTS. AT THIS REQUIRES FOUR OUT OF FIVE OF YOU VOTING MEMBERS TO SAY YES TO THIS MOTION, TO PASS IT.

>> THANK YOU. I HAVE GOT TO A MOTION AND MS. MOTT, YOU ARE SECONDING THAT

MOTION? >> NO, STEPHEN. >> I'M SORRY, STEPHEN.

>> YOU ARE THE SECOND, STEPHEN? >> YES, SIR. >> MISS MOTT.

>> YES. >> MEMBER DODD. >> YOU ARE STILL MUTED, TEACH

US. >> I'M SORRY, NO. >> MEMBER PAPKE.

>> YES. >> MEMBER HERTSLET. >> YES.

>> CHAIR MILLER. >> NO. >> SO, WHAT WE DO? I THINK YOU BE MORE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE TO GET WHERE YOU NEED TO GO.

>> ALL RIGHT, LET'S TALK ABOUT THIS WITH THE BOARD JUST A SECOND.

AND STOP ME, AGAIN. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH DIVIDING THE LOTS.

IF THEY WOULD HAVE NEVER MENTION THEIR INTENTION OF PUTTING THE ROAD IN THEIR AND THE EASEMENT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN FINE AND THEN THEY PROBABLY COULD HAVE BROUGHT THAT IN AND IT WOULD'VE BEEN TOO LATE, TO THEIR MORALS AND CHARACTERS THEY WERE FORTHRIGHT AND COMING ON THAT.

I WOULD BE HAPPY WITH DIVIDING THOSE TWO LOTS BY GIVING THE CONDITION THAT THERE WAS NO ACCESS TO THEIR AND MAKING IT INTO A SMALL SUBDIVISION HOW DOES THE BOARD FEEL ABOUT THAT?

>> MATT, WE WOULD BE LOCKING THEM IN TO HAVING THEM GO FIRST AVENUE, RIGHT, FROM THE BACK

LOT, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? >> I GIVE THEM AN ALTERNATE PROCESS, YOU CAN GO SOUTH TO

NORTH. >> I LIKE THAT IDEA. >> YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO FIRST OF

THERE ARE WAYS AROUND THIS. BUT IT IS NOT FOR US TO DECIDE. >> IT IS LEGITIMATE TO STIPULATE YOU DO NOT WANT A SINGULAR CENTRAL SINGULAR ACCESS. THAT WHEN I THINK WE CAN JUSTIFY. BUT THE REST YOU'RE GOING TO TIE ANY ARCHITECTS HANDS BETWEEN THIS EPIC THE CITY REQUIREMENTS, ZONING REQUIREMENTS, STORM WATER MANAGEMENT IN PERVIOUS, ALL OF

THOSE ARE GOING TO DESIGN THAT TO WHERE YOU ALMOST GET BILLED. >> AND I SEE THAT, THIS IS THE

[04:05:13]

KEEPING WITH KEEPING WITH THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. >> OKAY, TISH.

>> I'M SORRY. >> OKAY, YOU JUST WAVING AT ME. OKAY.

>> BARRY, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING? >> I'M NOT SURE WE ARE VOTING ON THE RIGHT THING.

WHICH IS DIVIDED TO SPLIT THE LOT. WERE TALKING ABOUT DRIVEWAYS ON

EITHER SIDE OF MATZOH IN THE BACK AGAIN. >> I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THAT.

>> I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THAT. >> BOARD MEMBERS LET'S HOLD THAT THOUGHT IN A SECOND.

I'M GONNA OPEN THIS UP. >> I THINK YOU CAN ACTUALLY SAY THAT WE HAVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF

TIME TO GET THROUGH THE REST OF THIS. >> YES, SIR.

JUST REMEMBER. >> I DON'T THINK I HAVE EVER SEEN JOSÉ SO EXCITED.

>> WE HAVE BEEN TALKING THIS THING TO DEATH. CENTER STREET 206.

WHAT I WANT YOU TO DO IS, THIS PAGE 23 THAT WAS SUBMITTED AS PART OF THE APPLICATION, THIS WAS NOT PREPARED BY ME, THIS WAS NOT PREPARED BY THE APPLICANTS, THIS WAS SOMEBODY'S IDEA ON THE DEVELOPMENT SCHEME WITH THE CENTRAL DRIVEWAY. THE VARIANCE OF THIS EVENING HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DRIVEWAY. THE VARIANCES TO SUBDIVIDE OR TO RESTORE THE TO UNDERNEATH LOTS OF RECORD. LET US, AS THE ARCHITECTS AND THE OWNER DECIDE WHERE THE ACCESS SHOULD BE BASED ON WHAT THE CITY REQUIRES. IF IT IS TO DRIVEWAYS FROM FLETCHER, GREAT. IF IT IS TO DRIVEWAYS FROM FIRST AVENUE, FINE.

BUT, THE DRIVEWAY ACCESS IS NOT PART OF THIS VARIANCE REQUEST. WE CAN CERTAINLY ACCOMMODATE ACCESS WITH TWO SEPARATE DRIVEWAYS. AND, WE COULD DO FOR DRIVEWAYS, THE ISSUE AT HAND IS SUBDIVIDING OR RESTORING IT TO UNDERNEATH LOTS OF RECORD.

WE HAVE MET 100% OF YOUR CRITERIA. DON'T GET CAUGHT UP IN A 2007 SKETCH OF SOMEBODY'S BRIGHT IDEA THAT HAS NO BASIS IN REALITY. MY CONCERN IS THAT PERHAPS THE APPLICANTS THAT GAVE IT TOO MUCH INFORMATION AND I WANT TO TO THROW THAT AWAY.

IT IS IRRELEVANT TO THE DISCUSSION. WE WANT TO RESTORE THE TWO LOTS OF RECORD SO THAT THE FOUR LOTS WILL BE IDENTICAL IN TERMS OF WHERE THE BUILDING PLACEMENT AND ACCESS TO THE FOUR LOTS TO THE SOUTH. LET US HANDLE THE DETAILS WITH THE CITY AND THE BUILDING DESIGN PROCESS AND PERMIT PROCESS AND A SITE PLAN.

THAT IS NOT IN YOUR WHEELHOUSE. I WANT YOU TO STAY IN YOUR LINK I'M I KNOW IT'S DIFFICULT COME I HAVE BEEN ON THESE BOARDS BEFORE AND I HAVE CERTAINLY BEEN SWAYED BY ARGUMENTS.

BUTTS, I WANT YOU TO FOCUS ON THE ARGUMENTS AT HANDS. A WE MET ALL OF THE CRITERIA, WE WOULD LIKE TO RESTORE THE LOTS OF RECORD COME OF THE DISCUSSION OF DRIVEWAY IN EXCESS OF THE DUNE AND ALL OF THAT IS SEO RELEVANT TO YOUR DECISION. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. AND WHILE WE OPEN THAT OUTCOME IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD

LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING. >> IT LOTS OF DIFFERENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR DIFFERENT DRIVEWAYS, FOR DRIVEWAYS, TO DRIVEWAYS, ONE DRIVEWAY, WE WILL DO WITH THAT WHAT WE GET TO THE

[04:10:03]

BUILDING. >> YES MA'AM COME IS THERE SOMETHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY?

>> IS THE WHOLE PROBLEM OF 40 OF 41 TO BE APPEAR TO BE DIVIDED IS TO SAY THEY WANT TO PUT POORHOUSES AND YET THE PLAN TO ADDRESS THE DRIVEWAY ISSUE AT THAT TIME, SO NOW IT HAS COME DOWN TO THE QUESTION -- ON THE CITIES MANY OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTED IT.

ONE CASE NUMBER IN 2017 SECTION ONE OH 3.5 TO RESTORE LOTS 40 AND 41, THE TWO LOTS OF RECORD AT THAT TIME A BUILDING FOUNDATION AS A SINGLE -- IF THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS GRANTED ONE SINGLE-FAMILY HOME COULD BE CONSTRUCTED ON EACH LOT. THE APPLICANTS HAVE THREE PARCELS AND INVESTMENT UNDER CONTRACT. AS PART OF THE APPLICATION MATERIALS, APPLICANTS INDICATED THEY INTEND TO CONSTRUCT FOR SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES WITH A SINGLE DRIVEWAY FROM SOUTH FLETCHER AVENUE. I'M NOT SURE HOW YOU CAN SAY .

THE PROBLEM IS, SUBDIVIDING 78 AND 79 AND 40 AND 40-1 KNOWING THEY WANT TO PUT HOMES THERE AND NOBODY BROUGHT UP WITHOUT ACCESS TO THE DRIVEWAY ISSUE. NOW IT'S A MAJOR ISSUE BECAUSE YOU HAVE POORHOUSES. AND WITH ALL DUE RESPECT I THINK IT'S JUST COMMON SENSE TO KNOW THAT IF YOU HAVE FOUR HOUSEHOLDS STOPPING ON FLETCHER AVENUE TRYING TO GET IN AND OUT ALL THROUGH THE DAY, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A GREAT THING. AND SO, I THINK DIVIDING THE STRIVING AT LEAST HAVING TO WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TRAFFIC BACKED UP IN NUMBERS OF PEOPLE TRYING TO GET FOUR HOUSEHOLDS TRYING TO GET IN AND OUT.

BUT THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED. THE WHOLE REASON THEY SEPARATED THAT PROPERTY WAS TO GET AROUND THE ZONING CODE SO THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO GO BEFORE THE CITY COMMISSIONERS TO DO IT UNDER A VARIANCE. THEY HAVE ALWAYS SAID THEY WANTED TO DO POORHOUSES BUT NOBODY WANTED TO TALK TO THEM ABOUT HOW THEY'RE GOING TO DO IT. THEY COME IN ON FIRST AVENUE IS GOING TO BE -- SO, THEY ARE

TRYING TO GET AROUND AT ALL, DO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO. >> YES, MA'AM.

>> I JUST WANTED JUST TO BE SURE, BECAUSE IS THAT MRS. TERRY, YOU DON'T LIVE IN

THE CITY. >> THIS CARRIE. >> KNOW, BUT MY SISTER DOES AND

I VISIT HER. >> I HAVE TO MAKE A DISTINCTION ON THE RECORD BECAUSE YOU GAVE YOUR ADDRESS THAT YOU'RE A NON- CITY RESIDENT IS NOT AN AFFECTED PARTY.

SO, EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS, AND I DID NOT KNOW THAT WHEN I SWORE HURRY AND COME I'M JUST SAYING, BECAUSE IF THIS GOES TO APPEAL OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, HER TESTIMONY IS NOT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, SHE IS NOT AN AFFECTED PARTY, SHE IS GIVING HER OPINION.

YOU HAVE TO LIVE WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS TO DO THAT. AND I AM NOT SAYING THAT.

>> I TESTIFY TO MAKE CITY COMMISSION, YOU ARE WELCOME TO SPEAK AT ANY PUBLIC MEETING.

>> YOU ARE NOT AN AFFECTED PARTY UNDER THE RULES OF COURT OR UNDER THE CITIES RULES.

I'M JUST SAYING FOR THE RECORD TO MAKE LIKE SOMEONE TO ADDRESS THE QUESTION WHY THE DRIVEWAYS TO MAKE THE DRIVEWAY, AND I'M TRYING NOT TO BE RUDE AT THIS POINT.

THE DRIVEWAYS ARE NOT RELEVANT. THEY ARE NOT RELEVANT TO THE. >> ALL WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS ARE WE GOING TO DIVIDE THE LACK, YES OR NO. WE ARE GOING TO RESTORE THE

UNDERLINED LOTS OF RECORD. >> WE DON'T CARE WHAT COLOR THE HOUSES.

IT DOESN'T MATTER. >> I THINK THAT'S THE FIRST TIME I HAVE SEEN IN MAKE THANK YOU.

IT IS MOVED, KNOW THAT THERE IS NOT BEEN AN APPEALS FILE. THERE IS A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM. IF THERE IS AN APPEAL FILE I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S ON THE

RECORD. >> SO,. >> I HAVE A QUESTION.

>> GO AHEAD. >> AND ASK A QUESTION? IF WE WERE TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE, CAN WE MAKE IT A CONDITION? CAN WE INCREASE THE SIZE OF THIS SIDE SETBACK ON THOSE FRONT TWO LOTS? SO, THEY WOULD HAVE TO BUILD COME IF THEY WANTED TO BUILD THE DRIVEWAY IN BETWEEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO BUILD THE TWO VERY NARROW HOUSES, WE COULD DO THE MATH, SO THAT THE SETBACKS WOULD BE BIGGER, SO IT WOULD NOT, MY CONCERN IS FOR THE CURRENT PROPERTY OWNERS THAT BOUGHT THE HOUSE AND BUILT THEM AND ARE

[04:15:05]

>> I THINK I BROUGHT UP IN AN EARLY STAGE, COULD YOU HAVE A VARIANCE IN THE BACK TO PROPERTIES AND I BELIEVE AT THE TIME YOU TOLD ME WAS NOT SUBJECT TO DISCUSSION.

SO, THAT WAS ONE. >> OKAY. >> WHAT WE ARE VOTING ON, TO SUBDIVIDE THOSE SOUTH FLETCHER PROPERTIES, I DON'T THINK THAT IT IS COMPATIBLE.

IT IS NOT CONSISTENT, LOOK ACROSS THE STREET, YOU HAVE NICE, GORGEOUS HOMES ON BIG LOTS. I JUST DON'T THINK WERE GOING BACKWARDS IN THE UNDERLINING.

>> I ALSO THINK THERE MIGHT BE SOME SENTIMENTAL ENVIRONMENTS. >> OKAY.

>> CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT PART OF IT? JUST TO CLARIFY? YOU CANNOT MAKE BETTER CONDITION. WE CANNOT INCREASE THE SETBACKS?

>> WHAT WOULD YOU BE INCREASING THE SETBACKS BASED UPON? I MEAN, YOU DON'T HAVE A SITE PLAN WITH THE BUILDING. HOW DO WE KNOW, BECAUSE THE SETBACKS COME AS MANY OF YOU KNOW IN THIS AREA, THE HEIGHT, THERE IS A FORMULA BETWEEN HOW HIGH YOU GO AND HOW FAR YOU HAVE ON THE SIDE SETBACKS, I'M ASSUMING YOU MEAN SIDE SETBACKS AND I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU DO THAT

WITHOUT BEING ARBITRARY. >> THAT'S WHAT HER CONDITION IS, ISN'T IT? IT'S SOMEWHAT ARBITRARY, BECAUSE I AM SUGGESTING WE PROTECT THOSE REAR PROPERTY OWNERS, THEIR VIEWS. AND SO, IF WE DID THE MATH, ROUGHLY IN MY HEAD, WANTED IF THE LOTS WERE 60 WHY, THAT'S 14Y HAD A NARROW DRIVEWAY, 20 FEET, THAT WOULD LEAVE THEM 1124 FEET, SO AS LONG AS THE HOUSES WERE NARROW YOU COULD BUILD A DECENT HOUSE 40-FOOT WIDE, THAT WOULD INCREASE THE SETBACK FROM WHATEVER WE SAID WAS 12 OR 14, WE INCREASE IT TO 20.

THAT'S ALL I WAS THINKING IS IF WE DID THAT THEY COULD TO GO TO PROTECT THE REAR PROPERTY OWNERS

AND NOT GO DOWN FIRST AVENUE. >> OKAY. >> TISHA, IF I COULD ASK YOU A COUNTER POINT. THE LAWS THAT ARE SOUTH OF THE SCUM OF THE FOR THEM, THOSE ARE PRETTY NICE HOUSES, AND NOT NECESSARILY NEW. WE RIDE OUR BIKES UP AND DOWN FLETCHER ALL THE TIME. THE SUGGESTION IS FOR NEW HOUSES ECHO HERE WOULD BE LESSER QUALITY DEGRADATION IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I CAN'T SUGGEST THAT IS THE CASE. THE HOUSES ACROSS THE STREET ON THE OCEAN ARE BEAUTIFUL.

HOUSES TO THE NORTH, NOT SO MUCH. THE HOUSES TO THE SOUTH ARE QUITE NICE AND THE ONES RIGHT THERE ON RACHEL, THOSE ARE SOME OF THE NICER HOUSES IN THE AREA.

>> I JUST THINK, WHAT THEY WANT TO DO, FINE, BUT LOOKING DOWN THE ROAD SAME 20 YEARS FROM NOW OR WHATEVER, THEN THERE IS JUST GOING TO BE A SMALL LOTS. I THINK IT JUST LOOKS NICER WITH

THE LARGER LOTS. >> NO QUESTION. >> IT'S NOT JUST, IT IS THE HERE AND NOW RIGHT NOW. I UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY WANT TO DO AND THAT'S GREAT, BUT MAYBE THIS ISN'T THE RIGHT FIT FOR THEM, I DON'T KNOW. I THINK THAT LOT GOES WITH THE

AREA, THE SIZE IT IS CURRENTLY. >> OKAY, TISH, JACOB HAS SOMETHING HE WANTS TO SPEAK

ABOUT. >> I HAVE TO GET BACK TO ANSWERING MEMBER GLEASON'S QUESTION. I HAVE A FEELING THAT JACOB IS GOING TO HELP.

>> I CAN HELP WITH THAT, NOW SO WANT TO CLARIFY AS FAR AS THE REAL STRONG EMPHASIS THAT SHOULD HAVE DONE A BETTER JOB EMPHASIZING AND MY STAFF REPORT IS, THOSE TWO PROPERTIES THAT ARE REFERENCED ACROSS THE STREET AT 150 FEET AND 1120 FEET OR NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES WE HAVE VERY STRICT POLICIES THAT PROHIBIT VARIANCES FROM COMBINING LOTS ON THE BEACH, IN

[04:20:03]

>> JUST TRYING TO PROTECT THE VIEWS OF THE ADJACENT REAR PROPERTY OWNERS.

SO, IF THE SETBACK IS BIGGER AND THE HOUSES WERE MORE NARROW WE WOULD PROTECT THEM.

>> MS. SPOCK HAS SOMETHING SHE WOULD LIKE TO SAY. >> IT JACOB, I CAN CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG, SO, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN INDIVIDUAL OR A FEW PROPERTY OWNERS VIEW OF THE OCEAN, OR THE DUNES EAST OF FLETCHER AND BUTTE CORE DOORS THAT WERE DISCUSSED IN THE

CITIES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. >> THAT SOUNDS LIKE MY HOUSE. >> STEVE, CALM DOWN.

ANYWAY, SO, THAT IS SOMETHING I HEARD TONIGHT AND I DID NOT SPEAK UP, I DON'T LIKE TO TESTIFY, AND SO I WANTED TO WAIT FOR SOMEBODY TO BRING THAT UP, BUT JUST AS WE ARE CLOSING HERE, VIEW CORE DOORS UNDER OUR COMP PLAN AND CODE ARE MEANT FOR THOSE OF US WHO ARE DRIVING UP AND DOWN FLETCHER TO SEE IN BETWEEN HOMES, TO SEE THE WATER COME IN TO SEE THE DUNES.

IT WAS NEVER INTENDED, MR. HAYNES, YOU ARE INTENDED IT WAS NEVER INTENDED FOR YOU WHO LIVES BACK ON FIRST AVENUE TO HAVE A VIEW OF THE OCEAN AND NEVER BE ABSTRACTED AND I RESPECT YOUR TESTIMONY, BUT THAT COME I THINK WAS A LITTLE BIT DISTORTED TONIGHT.

VIEW CORE DOORS WHICH IS WHAT OU CODE SAYS THAT OUR COMP PLAN SAID IS TO PROTECT ALL OF US NOT JUST EVEN ME WHO LIVES OVER IN LITTLE WEIGHT LIKELY. WHEN I DRIVE ON FLETCHER I CAN SAY LOOK, BOYS, IT'S HIGH TIDE. IT'S NOT JUST FOR MR. HAYNES AND YOUR FORTUNATE NEIGHBORS WHO GET TO LIVE SO CLOSE TO THE BEACH. I'M JUST SAYING, THAT WAS INCORRECT AND THAT IS NOT WHAT WE ARE PROTECTING UNDER OUR CODE. SOME PLACES DO THAT, THEY PRESERVE VIEWS FOR COASTAL PROPERTY OWNERS, BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT OUR CODE DOES.

>> THANK YOU. >> IF I COULD EXPAND COME IT'S NOT REALLY JUST THE VIEW OF THE OCEAN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BLUE SKY AND GRASS.

SO, LIVING BACK THERE WITH JUST ONE HOUSE IN THE MIDDLE AND SO, I DON'T KNOW.

I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A WAY TO DO THAT. >> I AM SEARCHING FOR A WAY OUT OF A DECISION WHERE THEY COULD DO THAT AND NOT AFFECT THE CURRENT PROPERTY OWNERS.

>> OKAY. JACOB CAN WE -- [INAUDIBLE] IF WE WANTED TO DO SOMETHING -- THE PERMITTING PROCESS. [INAUDIBLE]

>> MY QUESTION WAS, AND THEN I WILL ASK THE APPLICANT, STEPHEN, THIS IS MORE TOWARDS YOUR AREA

[04:25:08]

>> IF WE COULD ADJUST OR YOU COULD PROPOSE THAT FRONT LOT AND THEN THE FRONT LOT MIGHT CHANGE A LITTLE BIT AND THEN WE HAD ONE DRIVEWAY ON THE SIDE THAT SERVICE THE BACK TWO LOTS EVENING WE MAKE THE BACK TO LOTS A LITTLE LARGER JUST TRY TO GET BACK TO ONE DRIVEWAY, IS THAT SOMETHING YOU MIGHT ENTERTAIN. HOW YOU MADE THE BACK LOTS LARGER. I DON'T THINK IT MAKES. THE ISSUE IS CAN WE DIVIDE THE LOT AND RESORT HOW IT WAS, THE DRIVEWAY ISSUES ARE FOR A LATER ISSUE.

I WILL JUST SAY THIS, AS IT STANDS NOW, WE CAN BUILD THREE HOUSES WITH THE FRONT HOUSE BEING 10000 SQUARE FEET. THAT TO ME IS NOT WHAT IT IS DESIGNED IT, WHAT YOU WILL ULTIMATELY SEE IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS. AND WE CAN DO IT, BECAUSE WE ARE RELATED. THERE IS NOTHING COME IT'S NOT LIKE WERE GOING TO HAVE TWO FAMILIES ON RELATED. THAT'S NOT WHAT WE WANT TO DO, AND WHEN YOU SAY WE HAVE THREE LOTS, WE ALREADY HAVE THREE LOTS, WE DON'T NEED A VARIANCE FOR THAT.

WE ONLY NEED A VARIANCE FOR THE FOURTH LOT. AND IT DOESN'T MAKE -- SO, WE ARE IN THE SAME POSITION THEY YOU JUST SUGGESTED EVEN IF WE DON'T GET THE VARIANCE AT ALL.

>> WITH THE STATUS QUO TO MAKE THE STATUS QUO IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE SUGGESTING.

>> NO SIR. >> I DON'T UNDERSTAND. >> SO, BACK TO IT JACOB IS SAYING, OUR INTENTION IS TO PRESERVE THE ENVIRONMENT. SO, IF WE STAY OUT OF THE DUNES, WHAT WE ALLOWED TO HAVE ONE DRIVEWAY OFF OF FLETCHER THAT WAS SERVICE THE BACK TO LOTS OF MEN HAVE WON LOTS ON THE FRONT, THAT IN FRONT OF FLETCHER, WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD BE INTERESTED IN? YOU NEED THE THREE, WE WOULD STOP WHAT WE WOULD DETERMINE AS MAY BE OVERBILLED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD SO WE GO FROM FOUR HOUSE AT 23 HOUSES EVERY

PRESERVE THE DUNES AND THE FACT. >> WE CAN DO THE SAME THING RIGHT NOW AND HAVE TWO DRIVEWAYS, ONE ON EACH SIDE OF THE HOUSE, OR, WE CAN HAVE TWO DRIVEWAYS, IF THE LOT IN THE FRONT IS SPLIT, THERE IS NOTHING THAT PRECLUDES US AS MARANDA WAS SAYING TO HAVING DRIVER USE THAT GO UP THE NORTH AND SOUTH ENDS OF THE PROPERTY. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

>> I'M TRYING TO HELP YOU. >> I HEAR WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW WE ALREADY HAVE THE THREE LOTS AND THE ABILITY TO PUT THE DRIVEWAY WHERE WE WANT TO MAKE SURE.

OKAY. DOES ANY OF THE BOARD HAVE ANOTHER THOUGHT, IS THERE

SOMEBODY WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION ON THE BOARD? >> WE CLOSED IT OUT MIKE I'M SORRY. HE CLOSED IT. I DID NOT HEAR THAT.

>> I'M SORRY, WE HAVE ALREADY CLOSED IT OUT ON THAT. AND, IT WOULD JUST GO ON AND ON

FOREVER ON THAT. SO, I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. >> SO, WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT DRIVEWAYS, BUT WHAT IF YOU MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH ACCESS INTO THE TWO LOTS HAVE TO BE

DIVIDED BE NORTH OR SOUTH OF THE LOTS. >> CAN WE SAY THAT AS PART OF

THIS? >> DO YOU HAVE A THOUGHT ON THAT?

THAT IS YOUR AREA OF EXPERTISE? >> AGAIN, I THINK THIS STIPULATION, IF WE NEVER SAW THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS A HAND SKETCH THAT WAS MENTIONED COME I DON'T THINK ANY OF US WOULD HAVE BLINKED TO NOT APPROVE THIS. I HONESTLY DON'T. IT HAS FOUR LOTS TO THE SOUTH IT IS FOR LOTS TO THE NORTH, THEREFORE LOTS HERE. IT IS SIMPLE.

[04:30:01]

I THINK WE HAVE ALL KIND OF DISCUSS THOSE TONIGHT. IF THE STICKING POINTS, AGAIN, TO GET THE LOTS DIVIDED, THE STICKING POINT IS THE DRIVEWAYS COME AGAIN, IT IS NOT IN OUR WHEELHOUSE. IT IS NOT IN OUR PURVIEW TO MAKE THE JUDGMENT PICK THAT'S UP THE ARCHITECT FOR RECORD FOR EACH OF THE INDIVIDUAL LOTS TO FIGURE OUT, RESOLVE, RECONCILE AND GET APPROVAL FROM THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. IT IS NOT OUR SPIRIT WE ARE DECIDING ON WHETHER THE LOTS TO BE DIVIDED. IF THAT IMPACT THE NEIGHBORHOOD A STATIC, THAT COULD BE SOMETHING WE ASK CONSIDERATION OF ULTIMATELY OUR DECISION IS BASED ON WHETHER THAT VARIANCE IS TO DIVIDE THE LOTS FOR WHATEVER HAPPENS IN THE FUTURE.

THAT IS UP TO THE ARCHITECTS OF RECORD. >> IS THERE ANY OTHER BOARD DISCUSSION ON THAT? I'M SORRY, STEPHEN, DID I CUT YOU OFF ON THAT?

>> NO, SIR. >> OKAY, ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS GOT ANYTHING TO SAY ON THAT?

>> I TOTALLY AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT DIVIDING THE LOT. IT JUST GETS AWAY AND THE SITE

PLAN IS THE WORRY SOME ABOUT WHERE IT COULD GO ON THAT. >> BUT YOU COULD SUGGEST THAT

ABOUT ANY NEIGHBORHOOD THAT GETS DEVELOPED. >> ABSOLUTELY.

>> THAT IS NOT OUR WHEELHOUSE, AGAIN, THIS IS SOMETHING THE ARCHITECTS ARE GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR IN THE CONTRACTORS GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING IT BEAUTIFUL AND FIT IN THE CONTEXT OF BASICS. THIS CITY HAS TO PROVE THAT, THERE'S NO HOA THAT HAS TO GOVERN WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. IT COULD BE THREE IN THE FRONT AND THREE IN THE BACK IT COULD BE THE OTHER WAY. AND ARCHITECT NEEDS TO STUDY THIS FROM AN URBAN PLANNING STANDPOINT AND BE ABLE TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS.

THIS IS NOT THIS BOARDS PURVIEW AT ALL IN MY OPINION. >> I THINK THAT IS A WORTHY OF DISCUSSION POINT. IF I HAD A SITE PLAN OF WHAT WAS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE BUILT THAT WOULD BE MUCH BETTER FOR ME, JUST FOR IT TO BE APPROVED AND THAT IS JUST VERY CONCERNING FOR

THAT. >> BUT YOU ARE ALMOST ASKING FOR THE CARD TO BE AHEAD OF THE

HORSE. >> ALMOST. >> YOU'RE ASKING TO HAVE PLANS DEVELOPED IN THEM BRINGING THEM TO US ALREADY FIGURED OUT, ALREADY DETERMINED WITHOUT ALL

THE UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THEY CAN ACTUALLY DO. >> AGREED.

>> WE DID SEE A PLAN OF WHAT THEY WANT TO DO, WE HAVE GOT THAT.

>> WE CAN'T REALLY CONTROL. >> IT'S HARD TO CONTROL WITH TWO LOTS IN THE BACK AND THIS NOT BEING ABLE TO CONSIDER THAT. ALL WE ARE CONSIDERING IS THE FRONT TO, EITHER DIVIDE OR NOT TO BUY SOME MECHANICAL BACK TO SOMETHING? SORRY.

CAN THEY ACTUALLY PUT A DRIVEWAY AND WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE SECOND, SINGLE DRIVEWAY FOR FOUR

HAUSA. >> A SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION, SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS ARE NOT UNDER TECHNICAL REVIEW AS PART OF BUILDING PERMITS MAKE THIS IS A UNIQUE CONDITION COME

IS IT NOT? >> IT IS. IT IS ALSO A DOT DRIVEWAY WHICH WE HAVE NO JURISDICTION OVER. IT IS A UNIQUE SITUATION AS FAR AS UTILITIES AND EVERYTHING ELSE, DISCUSSING IT WITH OUR TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE. ULTIMATELY THE JURISDICTION

ITSELF IS WITH THE STATE OF FLORIDA. >> I WOULD JUST STILL MAINTAIN MY ORIGINAL THOUGHT OF THAT, TO PUT THE SINGLE DRIVEWAY IN THE IN THE FOUR HOUSES IS JUST NOT

[04:35:01]

I DON'T MIND IF THEY HAVE IT TOO NICE, NARROW LONG LOTS, BUT I THINK PUTTING THAT, I KNOW IT'S NOT A SUBDIVISION, BUT IT WILL LOOK LIKE ONE WHEN YOU GO DOWN FLETCHER.

THAT IS MY THOUGHT ON IT. >> JACOB, HOW CAN WE WORK THAT OUT TO HAVE SOME SORT OF OVERSIGHT IF WE PUT A CONDITION? IT WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH SOME OTHER CITY BOARD TO REGULATE THAT. IS THERE A WAY THAT WE CAN DO THAT?

>> I WANT TO FIRST RESPECTFULLY ASK MY BOARD TO REALLY, WE ARE ALL OVER THE PLACE TONIGHT.

WE ARE HERE TO HEAR A VARIANCE REQUEST FROM A LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE 1.03.05 WHICH IS THE RESTORATION OF LOT 78 AND 79. THEY HAVE COME AS PART OF THEIR APPLICATION SUBMITTED, THERE IS A SITE PLAN THAT SHOWS DRIVEWAY ACCESS. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT IS WHAT THEY WILL BE PERMITTED TO DO. IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT IS WHAT THEY WILL ULTIMATELY PERMIT.

THIS BOARDS PURVIEW IS THAT RESTORATION OF LOTS ONE POINT OH 3.05, IS THERE A WAY THAT WE CAN CONDITION THAT? I FEEL LIKE IT'S ON STAFF WHO HAS PROVIDED ANALYSIS BASED ON THE APPLICATION REQUEST AND TO CRAFT AT THIS MEETING SOME SORT OF PROVISION, BUT I JUST WANT TO AGAIN RESPECTFULLY ASK MY BOARD THAT 1.03.05 RESTORATION THESE UNDERLINED LOTS OF RECORDS IS WHAT WE ARE CONSIDERING TONIGHT. THERE ARE OTHER HURDLES, WHETHER THESE PROPERTY OWNERS HOLD THE PROPERTY FOR FIVE YEARS OF DECIDE TO SELL IT IN THE NEXT PROPERTY OWNERS TRY OR WANT TO IMPROVE FIRST AVENUE. THEN THEY HAVE TO GO TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN.

BUT, WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT AND WHAT I AM BASING MY STAFF ANALYSIS ON IS THE RESTORATION OF THE UNDERLINED LOTS OF RECORD. I GUESS THAT IS WHERE I'M

RESTING. >> SURE. >> MR. CHAIR, SO FAR, I HAVE NOT HEARD DISCUSSION OF ANY POTENTIAL CONDITIONS THAT I THINK THAT WE COULD PURSUE

TONIGHT. >> AGREED. AGREED.

WE ARE JUST ALL OVER THE PLACE AND TRYING TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT FIT WITHIN THE CITY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH THEIR GOAL OF WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO DO.

IF THEY WOULD'VE COME IN HERE ONE OWNER AND WANTED TO DIVIDE THAT, STEPHEN SAID, I WOULD NOT HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT. IT IS JUST WHEN THEY BRING IN WHAT THEY REALLY WOULD LIKE TO DO, AS JACOB SAID IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT IS WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN.

BUT, WE KNOW IT THEY ARE HEADING, I DON'T THINK THAT IS IN KEEPING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. NOT THAT THAT IS NECESSARY RELEVANT TO THE BOARD ABOUT WHETHER WE ARE GOING TO DIVIDE THAT POT, THAT HOUSE THAT IS THERE IS OVER THE LOT LINE.

SO, WE WOULD BE WITHIN OUR AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD TO DENY IT BASED ON --

>> BASED ON YES I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THE STAFF ANALYSIS ON THE SIX CRITERIA AND THAT CONTRARY

TO THAT SECTION CODE. ABSOLUTELY. >> SO, WE MAY HAVE TO GET SOME WISDOM FROM MS. BOCK, I HAVE NOT HEARD ANYTHING THAT WOULD CHANGE MY MIND ON WHERE WE ARE HEADING ON THE MAY BE THE BOARD MEMBER HEARD SOMETHING THAT SWAYED THERE VOTE, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION WITH THE BOARD MEMBERS THAT IS RECONSIDERING THEIR POSITION.

>> KID NONVOTING MEMBERS MAKE MOTIONS? JUST CURIOUS.

>> NO. AND, IF YOU ARE AT IMPASSE, MEANING, YOU CAN NOT GET THE

[04:40:06]

THAT IS THE SAME THING AS A DENIAL. FOR THIS THE SAME THING AS IF YOU HAVE HAD AN EVEN NUMBER OF BOARD MEMBERS AND IS TO MAKE - 2 VOTE.

THE OTHER OPTION BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO PROVIDE ALL OF THE OPTIONS.

IF THEY CANNOT MAKE A MOTION THAT CAN PASS, AND REQUEST WHICH MEANS THERE IS NO MOTION, YOU CAN WITHDRAW YOUR APPLICATION, YOU CAN AMEND IT, YOU CAN BRING IT BACK WITH SOMETHING DIFFERENT, WE CAN CONTINUE THE HEARING AND TAKE MORE TESTIMONY LATER.

>> THAT WOULD ALSO PRESERVE THEIR 800-DOLLAR -- CORRECT. >> IS THAT SOMETHING?

>> AN APPLICATION TO WITHDRAW THE SITE PLANS? >> YES.

>> IT WAS JUST AN IDEA. WE ARE GOING TO DO WHATEVER AS FAR AS PRESERVING, COMPLYING

WITH THE CODE AND PRESERVING AS MUCH AS THE SURROUNDING HABITAT. >> I THINK, THAT IF I CAN BE HELPFUL, I THINK WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A CHANCE COME IN THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS, PLEASE, INTERRUPT ME IF YOU DON'T FEEL THIS WAY BUT WE ARE NOT SEEN A WAY TO GET TO EITHER DENIAL OR AN APPROVAL TONIGHT. WHAT YOU COULD DO, AND I THINK IT COULD BE RELEVANT, MAYBE YOU NEED TO ASK FOR A CONTINUANCE AND COME BACK AND GIVE SOME MORE TESTIMONY THROUGH YOUR ARCHITECT. IT THAT MIGHT BE ABLE TO PROPOSE A SITE PLAN BASED ON THE COMMENTS THAT YOU HAVE HEARD TONIGHT.

EVEN THOUGH THAT GOES BEYOND, I'M JUST THINKING. PROPOSED SOME TYPE OF SITE PLAN

THAT. >> PARDON? >> PROVIDE A SOLUTION.

>> PROVIDE A SOLUTION OR TRY TO PROVIDE A SOLUTION TO SOME OF THE COMMENTS TONIGHT AND THE

CONCERNS. >> HOW DOES THE BOARD FEEL ABOUT THAT?

>> A GOOD IDEA. >> THAT MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA. >> HOLD ON, JUST A SECOND.

WE HAVE THE APPLICANT. >> MR. SHARE, COULD WE HAVE A MINUTE?

>> COULD WE HAVE A FIVE MINUTE RECESS? >> WE ARE GOING TO TAKE FIVE MINUTES IF YOU'RE WATCHING AT HOME, WE'RE ARE GOING TO GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO GO LET THE DOG OUT.

>> Y

[04:53:35]

>> FOLKS, WE ARE GOING TO COME TO ORDER. THE CHAIR IS ABOUT TO RECONVENE

[04:53:38]

THE MEETING. >> ARE YOU OKAY, JACOB? >> THE MEETING OF THE FERNANDINA BEACH BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS BACK. I AM GOING TO OPEN THIS BACKUP FOR A VERY FEW MINUTES TO BE SURE EVERYBODY HERE THAT WANTED TO HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY, THIS WILL ABSOLUTELY BE THE LAST TIME. IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FROM THE PUBLIC YOU CAN SPEAK VERY QUICKLY. YES, MA'AM.

>> JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS PLEASE. >> 1438 SOUTH FLETCHER.

BACK TO OUR ORIGINAL DISCUSSION ABOUT THE FOUR HOUSES BEING BUILT, THE TWO IN FRONT AND POSSIBLY TWO IN THE BACK, ANOTHER CONCERN THAT I REALLY SHOULD'VE BROUGHT UP EARLIER WAS, THE WAY IT IS GOING TO AFFECT OUR PROPERTY VALUES FOR THE HOUSES IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA. ON THAT IS A CONCERN. WANT TO GET THIS TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION, BUILDING PUT IN ON THESE KIND OF ROADS AND HIGHWAYS, YOU ARE REDUCING OUR PROPERTY VALUES SUBSTANTIALLY. THE OTHER THING THAT I WANTED TO KNOW IS, WHERE DOES IT SAY IN THE LDC RESTORATION OF LOTS TO THEIR ORIGINAL PLOT IS ALLOWED. AND IF SO, WHO GOVERNS IT.

[04:55:05]

THE OLD PLOT, THE OLD RULES OR THE NEW? >> AND, WHY DOES THIS GENTLEMAN KEEP TELLING US THAT THE LANDS CAN BE 72 -- THEY ARE 75, NOT 72, THAT'S NOT SO, THOSE ARE THE OLD RULES. TODAY, WE HAVE NEW LAWS. WE MADE NEW LAWS FOR REASONS, TO FOLLOW NOT TO GO BACK TO ANCIENT. IT'S VERY FRUSTRATING TO BE

BOUNCED AROUND LIKE THIS. >> THANK YOU MA'AM. >> THAT MAYBE JACOB HAS SOMETHING HE WOULD LIKE TO SAY WE ALWAYS HAVE A WAY TO FOR PEOPLE TO BE HERE.

THAT'S WHY WE HAVE A VARIANCE THAT'S WHY THINGS CHANGE, AND THE SITUATION ALMOST ANYTHING YOU WANT TO DO IF YOU THINK SOMETHING IS WRONG OR THERE IS AN AVENUE FOR YOU TO PURSUE THAT AND THIS IS THE CORRECT AVENUE FOR YOU TO PURSUE THAT ON THERE. IT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY

SOMETHING IN ADDITION TO THAT? >> YES SIR, I WANT TO LOOK AT THE POLICY AND SECTIONS AND SPEAK TO CITY HONORING UNDERLINED LOTS OF RECORD. AS WITH ANY LAND DEVELOPMENT COATS, SPECIFICALLY TALKING TONIGHT ABOUT OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THERE ARE MULTIPLE SECTIONS TO SPEAK TO AND A VERY AND DEGREES. WE ALL HAVE PROPERTIES TODAY TO HAVE A MINIMUM OF 75 FEET AND A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF LAND AREAS REQUIRED.

WE ALSO HAVE A POLICY IN THE CODE SAID WE HONORED UNDERLYING RECORD.

WE HAVE RECORDS FROM 1911 LAKE. [INAUDIBLE] >> THOSE LOTS OF RECORD CAN BE BUILT ON JUST AS THE 72 BY 1125-FOOT LOT. SECTION 1.03.03 SPEAKS TO LOTS OF RECORD, IT MAY BE ON A PLOT GIVEN THAT IT'S LESS THAN 75 FEET, SUBSTANDARD, THIS SECTION SPECIFICALLY SAYS WE HONOR THAT. -- SPECIFICALLY STATES IN THIS INSTANCE WE HAVE MULTIPLE LOTS OF RECORD CREATED IN 1941 BY THE CITY OF MIRAMAR SUBDIVISION, 72 BY 1125 FEET, THOSE ARE LOTS OF RECORD UNTIL HE BUILT A HOUSE, THAT CREATED THE NEW LOT OF RECORD OF 144 BY 125. THE PROVISION DOESN'T SPECIFICALLY SAY, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY RESTORE BECAUSE WE ARE RETURNING BACK TO THE SUBDIVISION COME OF THAT SAME SECTION OF 1.03.05 SAYS NO PERMIT SHALL BE ISSUED WITH CONSTRUCTION OF MORE THAN ONE RESIDENCE SHALL BE CONSIDERED THE LOT OF RECORD. ANY CHANGE WITH THE PURPOSE OF THE SITES FOR SEPARATION OF BUILDING SITES, THE CODE SPECIFICALLY SPEAKS TO SEPARATION A BUILDING SITE SHALL BE REQUIRED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

THAT'S WHY THIS BOARD, HEARING THIS CASE AND HOW WE DO HONOR UNDERLINED PLOTS OF RECORD EVEN

THOUGH THEY DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE CURRENT ZONING. >> THANK YOU, JACOB.

IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC WOULD LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING? KELLY IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE ONLINE? I CANNOT IMAGINE THERE IS NOT

ANYBODY ON MY. >> THERE'S NOBODY ELSE ONLINE ANYMORE.

>> THERE IS NOT ANYBODY ONLINE ANYWHERE. >> WILL CLOSE THAT OUT TO THE PUBLIC AND THAT IS THE END OF THAT. AND SO, WHO WOULD YOU LIKE TO

HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY? >> I THINK SO. AT THIS TIME MR. CHAIRMAN, WE WOULD JUST LIKE TO RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS THIS HEARING BE CONTINUED UNTIL THE BOARDS NEXT

HEARING DATE IN JUNE. >> OKAY. SO, I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT, I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE FORMAT WOULD BECOME IF IT WOULD BE LIKE THIS WHERE WE WILL BE DOING SOMETHING, BUT YES, WE WILL GET YOU ON THE CALENDAR FOR OUR NEXT TIME.

>> PROCEDURALLY COME I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF THAT CONTINUANCE WOULD BE -- IN OTHER WORDS, EVERYBODY THAT TESTIFY TONIGHT ARE THEY GOING TO BE ABLE TO COME BACK?

[05:00:02]

>> SO BASICALLY IS NOT A CONTINUATION. THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING.

IF EVERYBODY'S GOING TO COME AND SAY THE EXACT SAME THING, WE WOULD LIKE IT TO BE A

CONTINUATION FOR NEW INFOR INFORMATION. >> WE CAN DO IT THAT WAY.

>> IT SEEMS TO ME WE HAVE ALREADY TESTIFIED. SO,.

>> AND I WILL TELL YOU, WE ARE WITHDRAWING ANY SITE PLAN FROM OUR APPLICATION RIGHT NOW.

>> YOU HAVE TIME TO DO WHATEVER YOU WANT TO DO BEFORE YOU SUBMIT IT.

IT IS ALSO GOING TO PRESERVE YOUR FEE BY ASKING FOR A CONTINUANCE.

IT ALSO PRESERVES THAT 12 MONTH WINDOW WITH THE BOARD DID TONIGHT THAT YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO COME BACK FOR YOU, SO THAT JUST GIVES YOU SOME MORE CHIPS ON THE TABLE.

TYPICALLY, AND, MS. BOCK IT CAN WEIGH IN ON THIS, AND SOMETIMES WE CONTINUE THERE IS A SLIGHT RECAP, BUT IT IS NEVER TO THIS DEGREE. I MEAN, WE WOULD NOT START AGAIN IN JUNE AND IT BE 10:00 AND WE WOULD BE IN THE SAME PLACE. SO, TYPICALLY THAT IS NOT HOW IT

WORKS. >> THE ONE THING THAT WE GENERALLY DO, IS WE DO ALLOW MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK IT, EVEN ONES THAT WERE HERE, AND IF THEY MAKE THE SAME STATEMENT AGAIN. JUST, WE DID NOT HAVE A LOT OF THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT

SPOKE AND I WAS NOT THE BULK OF THE TIME WE SPENT HERE. >> I WOULD RATHER DO THAT AND

GET THEM TICKED OFF NEXT TIME IT'S NOT WORTH IT. >> I BELIEVE AND YOU CAN SPEAK WITH THIS, I BELIEVE THE CITY COMMISSION WOULD RATHER US ALLOW THE PUBLIC TO SPEAKS MAKE WHEN WE ARE DOING A QUASIJUDICIAL HEARINGS, WE HAVE RULES IN PLACE ALREADY.

WE DO CONTINUANCES LIKE THIS WITH OTHER BOARDS. I HAVE DONE THIS WITH THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COUNCIL, AND WE CONTINUE AT TEN WE DO IT JUST LIKE YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN COURT.

YOU ARE GOING TO REPEAT YOURSELF, WE DON'T WANT TO HEAR IT.

IT IS ALREADY ON THE RECORD. THE RECORD STATES OPEN FOR PURPOSES OF THIS.

WE DO NOT CREATE A NEW RECORD AND FORGET THIS ONE. >> BUT WE ARE GOING TO ALLOW THE

SAME PERSON TO SPEAK, OR NEW PEOPLE. >> OR NEW PEOPLE.

>> WE LET MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC COME IF WE HAVE 100 PEOPLE HERE, MOST OF THEM ARE GOING TO BE NEW. AND YES, WE WOULD LET THEM SPEAK IN.

>> AND THAT IS ALSO GOING TO GO BACK TO HER POINT OF THE NOTICE. ARE WE GOING TO RENOTICE THAT?

>> NO. >> THE NOTICE THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN HERE, OR ARE WATCHING,

WE DO NOT RENOTICE IT. >> WE WILL CORRECT THE POSTING ON THE PROPERTY WITH THE RIGHT

NUMBER. >> MAKE IT OUR YOU SAY PEOPLE CAN SPEAKER SPOKE?

OR WE JUST CAN'T BRING UP THE SAME THING. >> YOU CAN SAY WHATEVER YOU WANT TEN THE ONLY, AT THAT CONTINUANCE, WHAT I WAS SAYING WAS THAT, WE GENERALLY LET MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC JUST COME BACK AND SAY THE SAME THING. AND BECAUSE THAT'S USUALLY WHAT HAPPENS. YOU CAN SAY WHATEVER YOU WANT TO TALK AS LONG AS YOU WANT.

BUT WHAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO DO, WE ARE NOT GOING TO REHASH TESTIMONY FROM THE APPLICANT

WERE WITNESSES THAT WE HAVE ALREADY HEARD. >> ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT?

>> I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY CHOICE RIGHT NOW. >> YOU DON'T HAVE TO CONTINUANCE MIMIC WELL, RIGHT. WE UNDERSTAND THAT. YES, WE ARE FINE WITH THAT.

>> SO, WE ARE CONTINUING THAT TO A DATE, PLACE, TIME, WHEN IT'S OUR NEXT MEETING?

>> JUNE 17. THANK YOU, SYLVIA. SO, DO WE NEED TO VOTE ON THEN?

>> YES, YOU NEED TO POSTPONE TO A DATE CERTAIN. >> SO, I NEED A MOTION FROM OUR BOARD THAT WE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE THIS UNTIL NEXT MONTH'S MEETING WHICH IS WHAT DAY IS

THAT? >> THE 17TH OF JUNE. >> THE 17TH OF JUNE AT 5:00,

HERE. DO I HAVE A MOTION FOR THAT? >> I MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE

THE BOA 2020-0006 CASE UNTIL JUNE 17, WAS A? >> JUNE 17.

>> OKAY, THAT IS MY MOTION. >> I HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR, DO I HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECOND. >> I HAVE A SECOND BY STEPHEN. AND THEN, SYLVIE WILL YOU CALL

THE BOAT, PLEASE. >> MEMBER MARK. >> YES.

[05:05:02]

>> MEMBERED JOB. >> YES. >> MEMBER PAPKE.

>> YES. >> MEMBER EIGHT. >> YES.

>> CHAIR MILLER. >> YES. >> THAT MOTION PASSES.

I AM SORRY THIS WAS AN IMPERFECT MEETING WITH OUR SITUATION GOING ON.

[Item 5]

>> IS THERE ANY OTHER BOARD BUSINESS? DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER BOARD?

ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING? >> IT WE NEVER DID THE PLAGUE. >> WE WILL DO IT NEXT TIME.

>> I WILL DO IT TWICE NEXT TIME. >> THAT IS NOT YOUR FILE, THAT IT'S OUR FAULT.

[Item 6]

>> I DID WANT TO GIVE THE BOARD AN UPDATE AS FAR AS STAFFING WORK IS REQUIRED, PLANNER ONE POSITION IS GOING TO BE TRANSITIONING HER INTO TAKING OVER AS A STAFF LIAISON.

I'M NOT GOING TO DROP YOU IN THIS CASE TO CONTINUE. I JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU AN UPDATE. I WILL BE WORKING WITH HER IN WORKING WITH YOU GUYS TO TRANSITION HER INTO THAT POSITION. IT IS KIND OF FUNNY, IT HAS BEEN FIVE YEARS OF MY FIRST VARIANCE CASE FIVE YEARS AGO WAS FOR A PRE-PROPERTY ALONG THE CORNER OF NORTH FLETCHER AND LISETTE AVENUE. TRYING TO WORK WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS, A REAL SMALL, SKINNY LOT AND OCEAN EIGHT SUBDIVISION IS A PROPERTY THAT HAS COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL I'M LOOKING THROUGH IT. LOOK AT THE AERIAL AND YOU CAN SEE THE HOUSE AND BUILT RIGHT UP THE PATROL LINE. NOBODY COULD AFFORD IT BECAUSE YOU TRIP ALL BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS. WELCOME OF THE PROPERTY OWNER WASN'T WAS WITHIN HIS RIGHTS THAT I WANT TO BUILD THE HOUSE THAT HAS A REAL COME A LONG SKINNY SO HE REQUESTS A VARIANCE TO BUILD MORE OF A TRADITIONAL RECTANGULAR SIZE LOT DROPPED THE CROWD, PACKED THE CHAMBERS COME ABOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD COME ULTIMATELY COME I THINK I ENDED UP RECOMMENDED DENIAL OF IT, THE BOARD RECOMMENDED THAT DENIAL AND HE SAID AT THE HEARING HE SAID I'M GOING TO BUILD A LONG, SKINNY HOUSE AND THAT IS WHAT HE DID.

YOU LOOK AT IT TODAY, AND USA, THE DECK I GET A VARIANCE TO BUILD THAT HOUSE, HE DIDN'T.

HE GOT DENIED THE VARIANCE BUT HE BUILT WHAT HE COULD. I ENJOYED MY TIME WORKING WITH

YOU GUYS BUT IT'S A TOUGH POSITION. >> THANKS, JACOB.

>> YOU HAVE ALWAYS BEEN THERE FOR US AND I'LL BE SHOOTING OFF SOME E-MAILS WHEN I GET HOME JUST TO SEE IF I CAN'T DO SOMETHING ABOUT THIS. AND, MEETING IS ADJOURNED.

>> THANK YOU VERY

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.