Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[00:00:01]

>> YES, MA'AM, GOOD EVENING, EVERYBODY.

[Call to Order]

THE JUNE 17TH, 2020, CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS IS NOW IN SESSION. WILL YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL?

>> MEMBER MOCK. >> HERE.

>> MEMBER THAD. >> MEMBER PATKY.

>> HERE. >> MEMBER H HERTSLET.

>> MEMBER GLEASON. MEMBER COOK.

>> HERE. >> CHAIR MILLER? HERE. EVERYBODY IS UP AND ONLINE?

>> MR. GLEASON IS NOT HERE, BUT ALL --

>> GOOD. >> -- VOTING MEMBERS ARE.

>> FOR ALL THE BOARD MEMBERS HERE OR VIRTUALLY, HAS THERE BEEN ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS ON ANY OF THESE MATTERS?

>> NO. >> NO.

>> NONE. >> ALL RIGHT.

WE'LL LET THAT GO INTO THE RECORD THAT THERE HAS BEEN NONE.

THERE ARE SOME E-MAILS THAT HAVE BEEN SENT INTO THE BOARD AND JUST IN CASE YOU'RE LISTENING AT HOME, AND YOU ARE THE AUTHOR OF

ONE OF THOSE E-MAILS -- >> WE'RE GETTING THE MICS -- THEY'RE NOT ON YET. NONOW THEY ARE.

>> ARE WE STILL US USING THE BIG MIC IN THE MIDDLE?

>> YES. >> OKAY.

RECAPPING THE E-MAILS THAT HAVE BEEN SENT IN AND THAT'S NOT UNUSUAL FOR US TO SEE SOME E-MAILS ON VARIOUS TOPICS.

HOWEVER, IF YOU'RE THE AUTHOR OF ONE OF THOSE E-MAILS AS JACOB HAS RESPONDED OR I HAVE RESPONDED TO YOU, WE CANNOT READ THOSE E-MAILS INTO THE RECORD. THE ONLY WAY THOSE E-MAILS OR YOUR THOUGHTS OR IDEAS CAN BE HEARD IS IF YOU ARE EITHER PRESENT OR YOU CALL IN. SO IF YOU WOULD LIKE FOR THOSE THOUGHTS AND IDEAS TO BE HEARD AND YOU'RE NOT HERE, PLEASE MAKE ARRANGEMENTS TO GET ONLINE WITH THAT.

THE OTHER ISSUE IS THAT THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME CONTENTION BETWEEN SOME OF THE PARTIES TONIGHT ABOUT EVERYBODY GETTING IN HERE. THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE BOARD'S RUNNING LIKE THIS AS THEY WERE SET UP BY OUR CITY COMMISSION IS SO EVERYONE CAN HAVE A FREE AND OPEN EXCHANGE OF THOUGHTS AND IDEAS AND CRITICISM. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHICH SIDE OF ANY ISSUE YOU'RE ON, EVERYBODY'S GOING TO BE HEARD.

YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A CHANCE TO SPEAK MULTIPLE TIMES ON THAT.

SO IT'S A FAIR PLAYING FIELD. WE LOOK FORWARD TO EVERYONE'S CONVERSATIONS ON THAT. WE ARE JUGGLING OUR ORDER TONIGHT SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE NEW BUSINESS TO COME FIRST, JUST A FEW THINGS. WE'VE GOT A NEW MEMBER TONIGHT, WE'VE GOT A NEW SECRETARY, MS. SHELLY, SO WE'RE GOING TO BAPTIZE HER BY FIRE TONIGHT. THANK YOU FOR THAT.

JACOB PLATT, MANY OF YOU KNOW HIM.

JACOB IS THE POINT PERSON FOR THIS BOARD FROM THE CITY.

IN A FEW MOMENTS HE'S GOING TO GO THROUGH EACH APPLICATION AND PUT THEM ON THE SCREEN AND HE'LL GO THROUGH IT POINT BY POINT AND THEN WE'LL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT AND THEN WE'LL HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC AND THEN THE BOARD WILL SHARE THEIR THOUGHTS ON THAT. ALL OF THE BOARD MEMBERS TONIGHT ARE ALL VOLUNTEERS. WE ARE ALL APPOINTED AT SOME TIME ABOUT THE CITY COMMISSION AND WE SHARE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE CITY COMMISSION. WHEN YOU SPEAK TONIGHT WE'RE GOING TO ASK YOU TO GIVE US YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS.

WE ARE BROADCASTING THIS AND IT'S ALSO BEING RECORDED.

THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE COMPUTERS THAT YOU SEE IN FRONT OF US.

THE ONLY INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE IS WHAT JACOB HAS THAT HE'S GOING TO SHARE WITH YOU. OUR ONLY DIFFERENCE IS WHERE JACOB CAN ONLY PUT ONE SHEET ON THE SCREEN AT A TIME WE CAN SCROLL BACK AND FORTH. IN A FEW MINUTES MS. SHELLY IS GOING TO TRY TO GET EVERYONE SWORN IN THAT WANTS TO SPEAK TONIGHT. WE MAY HAVE TO DO THAT IN A COUPLE OF TURNS. BUT IF THERE'S ANYBODY HERE FOR OUR FIRST CASE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, WE'D LIKE TO GET EVERYBODY SWORN IN AT ONE TIME. IF YOU DON'T GET SWORN IN AND YOU CHANGE YOUR MIND AND DECIDE YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK YOU'RE PERFECTLY WITHIN YOUR RIGHTS TO CHANGE YOUR MIND.

WE DO IT ALL THE TIME, JUST RAISE YOUR HAND AND SHELLY WILL GET YOU SWORN IN AND WE'LL MOVE FORWARD ON THAT.

TONIGHT WE'VE GOT OUR CITY ATTORNEY WITH US, AS ALWAYS.

SHE DOES A GREAT JOB FOR US AND HER KNOWLEDGE AND FAIRNESS SPEAKS TO ITSELF ON THAT. SHE IS NOT A MEMBER OF THIS

[00:05:01]

BOARD. SHE DOES NOT VOTE.

SHE IS HERE IN AN ADVISORY CAPACITY.

I'D LIKE TO GET HER TO GO OVER WHY THIS MEETING IS HELD LIKE IT IS, HOW THE VOTING HAS TO GO. BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, IF THERE IS AN APPEAL, HOW THAT WILL HAVE TO UNFOLD.

WILLIWILL YOU RUN US THROUGH TH? >> TONIGHT WE'LL HAVE TWO CASES THAT WILL BE HEARD. I'LL TALK ABOUT THE NEW BUSINESS CASE THAT WE'RE GOING TO HEAR FIRST.

THAT IS GOING TO BE A START TO FINISH CASE WITH A RULING BY THE BOARD. AND FIRST MR. PLATT WITH CITY STAFF IS GOING TO GIVE A STAFF REPORT, INTRODUCE EVIDENCE INTO THE RECORD AND MAY CALL ANY WITNESWITNESWITNESSES.

I DON'T THINK HE HAS ANY FOR THIS CASE.

THEN THE APPLICANT AND/OR THEIR AGENT WILL COME TO THE PODIUM AND YOU'LL ALSO BE TESTIFYING AND SUBMITTING ANY DOCUMENTS OR PHOTOGRAPHS YOU MIGHT HAVE. ANY AFFECTED PARTIES MAY THEN COME TO THE PODIUM, IDENTIFY YOURSELF AS AFFECTED PARTIES AND GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. AN AFFECTED PARTY IN THE CITY IS A RESIDENT OF THE CITY. YOU'RE NOT AN AFFECTED PARTY IF YOU DON'T LIVE IN THE CITY AND YOU'RE LIMITED TODAY THREE MINUTES. LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES.

IF YOU ARE AN AFFECTED PARTY, THERE'S NO TIME LIMIT ON YOUR TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE YOU SUBMIT INTO THE RECORD.

>> HOLD ON JUST A MINUTE. MA'AM, MA'AM? MA'AM? WHEN YOU WERE HERE LAST MONTH, EVERYBODY GAVE YOU THE COURTESY OF LISTENING TO YOU AND IT WOULD ONLY BE FAIR AND RIGHT THAT WE WOULD EXTEND THAT SAME COURTESY TO EVERYONE ELSE'S BUSINESS. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A CHANCE TO SPEAK AND SPEAK AS MUCH AS YOU WOULD WANT TO, BUT JUST PLEASE EXTEND THAT COURTESY TO OTHERS, PLEASE.

THANK YOU. GO AHEAD, MA'AM.

>> AND SO AFFECTED PARTIES ARE -- AND THE PARTIES THEMSELVES WHICH INCLUDE THE CITY AND APPLICANT, THOSE ARE THE MAIN PARTIES. AFFECTED PARTIES ARE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY. ANYBODY ELSE IS JUST A PERSON THAT CAN MAKE A STATEMENT IN THE RECORD.

IF YOU'RE NOT -- IF YOU CAME TO THE HARIN HEARING LAST TIME WE D FEWER SPEAKERS AND WE DID NOT LIMIT TIME.

WE ARE PERMITTED TO DO THAT FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT AFFECTED PARTIES ANYTIME. IF THE BOARD DECIDES YOU WANT TO LET PEOPLE GO ON LONGER THAN THREE MINUTES YOU CAN IF THEY'RE NOT AFFECTED PARTIES. FIRST MR. PLATT, THEN THE APPLICANT AND THEN AFFECTED PARTIES.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT? OKAY. THE BOARD MAKES THEIR DECISIONS AND THIS IS PURSUANT TO FLORIDA LAW BASED ON COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. GENERALLY WHAT THAT MEANS IS KEEP YOUR EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY RELEVANT AND FOCUSED UPON THE APPLICATION FOR THE VARIANCE. AND ANYTHING ELSE IS GOING TO BE CONSIDERED IRRELEVANT. THE BOARD WILL WAY THAT EVIDENCE, I MAY CALL TO THE CHAIR AND SAY YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE THE AFFECTED PARTY OR PARTIES STAY ON TASK AND PROVIDE ONLY RELEVANT EVIDENCE. THE CHAIR OR ANY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS MAY SAY IS THIS RELEVANT AND ASK ME THAT QUESTION.

THAT'S WHY THEY'RE ASKING IT. BECAUSE COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS THE ONLY EVIDENCE THIS BOARD IS ALLOWED TO CONSIDER IN ITS DECISION. THE BOARD AS I SAID IS GOING TO RENDER A DECISION TONIGHT. IF THEY DO APPROVE A VARIANCE, IT WILL REQUIRE FOUR OUT OF THE FIVE VOTING MEMBERS TO VOTE IN FAVOR TO APPROVE A VARIANCE. THAT'S UNDER OUR CITY CODE.

TO DENY A VARIANCE, IF THERE IS A MOTION TO DENY THE VARIANCE, THAT REQUIRES A SIMPLE THREE MEMBERS TO PASS THAT MOTION.

ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT? OKAY.

IF THERE'S AN APPEAL OF EITHER OF THE DECISIONS TONIGHT, THAT APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE CIRCUIT COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THIS BOARD'S WRITTEN FINDINGS OF FACT.

THE CHAIR WILL SIGN A WRITTEN ORDER WITHIN ABOUT THREE TO FIVE BUSINESS DAYS OF THIS HEARING. ABOUT 35 DAYS FROM NOW WOULD BE THE TIME LIMIT FOR FILING ANY TYPE OF APPEAL IN THE CIRCUIT COURT. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY. I AM GOING TO SAY SOME OTHER -- WHEN THE OTHER CASE COMES UP, THAT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT BECAUSE IT'S A CONTINUATION. I'D LIKE TO SAY A FEW WORDS

ABOUT THAT. >> ABSOLUTELY, YES, MA'AM.

THANK YOU. BEFORE WE GET SWORN IN AND START ON THE FIRST ONE THERE FOR MR. COTNER, LET'S LOOK AT THE MINUTES THAT WE NEED TO APPROVE. MARY, I KNOW YOU ALWAYS LOOK AT

[Item 3]

THOSE WITH AN EAGLE EYE. ANYTHING ON THERE WE NEED TO

CHANGE OR UPDATE? >> JUST TWO THINGS THAT I SAW.

>> OKAY. >> THE FIRST SENTENCE OF IT TALKS ABOUT A WRONG ADDRESS, BUT THE ADDRESS IS WRONG THAT IT GIVES. SO IT SHOULD BE LIKE, 1537, BUT

[00:10:02]

I THINK IT SAYS 1937. AND THEN THE OTHER THING IS WHEN YOU WERE PASSING THE GAVEL BACK AND FORTH TO ME, I'M NOT SURE THAT MEANS THAT I'M THE CHAIR, BUT I'M IDENTIFIED AS THE CHAIR IN THE VOTES THAT TOOK PLACE AT THE END OF THE MINUTES.

SO YOU MIGHT WANT TO PUT YOUR NAME WHERE IT BELONGS.

>> I LIKE YOUR NAME ON IT BETTER.

IS THAT SOMETHING WE -- >> PASS THE GAVEL --

>> YOU'RE EFFECTIVELY THE CHAIR FOR THAT --

>> FOR THE VOTE AS WELL? >> FOR THAT VOTE, YES.

>> OKAY D. >> THERE YOU GO.

>> I LIKE THAT. >> DO WE NEED TO ENTER IN FOR

THAT ADDRESS? >> IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN 1537,

WE'LL GET IT CORRECTED. >> OKAY.

THE BOARD MEMBERS THAT ARE WITH US ONLINE, WERE THERE ANY THOUGHTS THAT ANYBODY HAD BEFORE WE GET A MOTION ON THIS?

>> NONE HERE, I WAS GOING TO MENTION THE ADDRESS AS WELL.

BARRY BEAT ME TO IT. >> OKAY.

I KNEW THAT YOU WERE CHECKING. EAGLE EYE THERE.

OKAY. ANYBODY ELSE? ALL RIGHT. I NEED A MOTION AND A SECOND TO

APPROVE THOSE MINUTES. >> MOTION THEY BE APPROVED.

>> SECOND. >> SHELLY, WILL YOU CALL THE

VOTE, PLEASE? >> MEMBER MOCK?

>> YES. >> MEMBER DADD?

>> YES. >> MEMBER PATKY.

>> YES. >> MEMBER HERTSLET.

>> YES. >> CHAIR MILLER.

>> YES. SO THAT MOTION PASSES.

ALL RIGHT. SO NOW WE'LL GET RIGHT INTO THIS FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA, BUT WE NEED TO GET EVERYBODY SWORN IN.

MR. COTNER, IS THERE ANYBODY WITH YOU?

>> NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE. >> JACOB, HOW ABOUT STICK YOUR HEAD OUTSIDE THERE AND SEE IF THERE'S ANYBODY WE NEED TO GET SWORN IN ON THIS FIRST ONE. THANK YOU, KELLY.

JUST GET EVERYBODY SWORN IN AT ONE TINA TIME AND GET EVERYBODYN THE SAME ROOM. JACOB, WHILE SHE'S OUTSIDE I THOUGHT LAST TIME I COULD LOOK AND SEE THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS.

IS THAT -- IT'S NOT CRITICAL THAT I HAVE THAT, BUT --

>> YEAH. >> I THOUGHT I COULD SEE IT.

>> OUR VIDEO IS BLOCKED. >> YOUR VIDEO IS BLOCKED?

YOU'RE ONLY ON AUDIO? >> WE CAN SEE YOU, BUT YOU CAN'T SEE US. OUR ABILITY TO POST OUR VIDEO IS

BLOCKED. >> OKAY.

>> KELLY'S GOING TO TRY TO FIX THAT.

THAT'S NOT A PERMANENT CONDITION.

>> OKAY. SO WE'RE WOR WORKING ON THAT BUT WE'RE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD IF EVERYBODY CAN HEAR WELL.

EVERYBODY THAT CAN HEAR ME THAT'S ONLINE JUST GIVE ME A

YES. >> YES.

>> YES. >> OKAY.

EVERYBODY'S GOOD ON THAT. OKAY.

THEN, MS. SHELLY, WILL YOU SWEAR IN MR. COTNER, PLEASE?

>> IF YOU'LL RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

DO YOU SOLEMNLY SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE ORAL TESTIMONY WRITTEN OR ORAL -- LET ME START OVER, HOW ABOUT THAT? DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE ORAL AND/OR WRITTEN TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND

NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? >> I DO.

>> I DO. >> ALL RIGHT.

SO NOW WE'LL GET JACOB, WILL YOU RUN US THROUGH THIS?

>> SURE WILL. SHELLY'S TRYING TO HELP ME OUT

WITH THE SCREENS. >> WE DO APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S PATIENCE DURING THESE TRYING FEW MONTHS THAT WE'VE HAD.

IT'S BEEN SORT OF A BAPTIZE BY FIRE ON SEVERAL FRONTS.

IT'S NOT -- CERTAINLY NOT A PERFECT WORLD.

[00:15:16]

>> THE BOARD MEMBERS NEED TO SELECT THE VIDEO ICON TO SHOW

THEIR VIDEO. >> DID YOU GUYS HEAR THAT? YEAH. I GOT STEVE.

>> ALREADY BACK ON, THANK YOU. >> YEP.

GREAT. >> SORRY ABOUT THAT.

>> THAT'S ALL RIGHT. >> TONIGHT'S BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

[Item 5]

CASE 2020-07 IS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2674 WEST 3RD STREET, PROPERTY THAT'S OWNED BY MR. CORBETT, REPRESENTED TONIGHT BY COTNER ASSOCIATES. THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS A REQUEST FROM LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 4 .02 .03E WITH REGARD TO BUILDING SETBACKS. THIS PROPERTY IS R3, HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. JUST FOR THE RECORD, ALL APPLICATION MATERIALS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED.

ALL FEES HAVE BEEN PAID. ALL REQUIRED NOTICES HAVE BEEN MADE. JUST A QUICK SUMMARY BACKGROUND AND REQUEST, THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A FRONTYARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR AN OPEN DECK. SAID DECK WOULD REST ON A RESISTING RETAINING WALL, 9 FEET FROM THE WEST 3RD STREET RIGHT OF WAY. GETTING INTO THE SIX CRITERIA FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE, KIND OF HIGHLIGHTING BACK THE MATERIALS THAT WERE PROVIDED SHOW THAT THE DECK HASHED IN RED.

AS FAR AS THE SIX CRITERIA, SPECIAL CONDITIONS.

YES, SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES DO EXIST WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO THE LAND STRUCTURE BUILDING INVOLVED WHICH ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER LAND STRUCTURES OR BUILDINGS IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT. THE WEST 3RD STREET RIGHT OF WAY EXTENDS BEYOND THE DRIVEWAY OF SUBJECT PROPERTY, TERMINATING AT THE EASTERN BOUNDARY OF FORT CLINCH.

CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THAT SECTION OF RIGHT OF WAY DOES NOT SEEM PRACTICAL OR LIKELY. GRANTING THE VARIANCE DOES CONFER UPON THE APPLICANT A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE THAT'S DENIED BY THE CODE TO OTHER LAND STRUCTURES OR BUILDINGS IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT. ADJOINING PROPERTIES DIRECTLY TO THE EAST MUST MAINTAIN A 25 FRONT YARD SETBACK AS REQUIRED.

HOWEVER, I WANT TO NOTE THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES DIRECTLY TO THE SOUTH, OCEAN GALLERY, THAT SUBDIVISION IS IN A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY WITH REDUCED FRONT YARD SETBACKS.

LITERAL INTERPRETATION. NO LITERAL INTERPRETATION WOULD NOT DEPRIVE THE RIGHTS. THERE ARE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES CONCERNING THE WEST 3RD STREET RIGHT OFWAY, NOT BEING ABLE TO BUILD A DECK WOULD NOT DERIVE THE APPLICANT COMMONLY ENJOYED RIGHTS. MINIMUM VARIANCE.

NO, THE R REQUESTED VARIANCE IS NOT NEEDED TO MAKE REASONABLE USE OF THE LAND STRUCTURE OR BUILDINGS.

REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY WILL NOT BE DEPRIVED AS THERE'S A RECENTLY BUILT BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY.

GENERAL HARMONY. GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL BE IN GENERAL HARMONY WITH THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE CODE AND PLAN. THE PARKING AREA WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.

GRANTING THE VARIANCE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND IT WILL NOT CAUSE INJURY TO THE AREA INVOLVED OR BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY WELFARE OR ENVIRONMENT. THE LOCATION OVER THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY SURFACE WILL NOT ADD IMPERVIOUS AREA TO THE SITE.

THE WEST 3RD STREET RIGHT OFWAY ALONG WITH THE ORIENTATION OF THE STRUCTURE CREATES AN ADDITIONAL SIDE YARD FEEL FOR THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. BASED ON THE ANALYSIS OF THE SIX CRITERIA FOR GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE, THE APPLICANT APPEARS TO MEET CRITERIA 1, 5, AND 6 BUT DOES NOT MEET 2, 3 OR 4.

[00:20:02]

I'M HAPPY TO HAVE THE BOARD ASK ME ANY QUESTIONS, WE'LL PASS IT ALONG TO THE APPLICANT, WHICHEVER YOU CHOOSE.

>> THANK YOU, JACOB. CAN YOU PULL THAT UP ON THE MAP AND SHOW US EXACTLY WHERE WE'RE AT?

>> I WAS HAVING PROBLEMS WITH THE PROPERTY APPRAISER, IT'S

BEING FUNNY. >> CAN YOU ZOOM THAT OUT JUST A LITTLE BIT? OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. STEVEN, CAN YOU GUYS SEE THAT SCREEN?

>> I CAN. >> TISH, CAN YOU SEE IT?

>> YES. >> OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS RIGHT

NOW FOR JAKE? >> IS THERE ANY POSSIBILITY THE CITY WOULD EXTEND THAT RIGHT OF WAY TOWARD FORT CLINCH?

>> I HATE TO NEVER SAY NEVER, BUT NO I DO NOT BELIEVE THERE'S ANY PRACTICALITY IN CONNECTING THAT RIGHT OF WAY INTO FORTH CLINCH GIVEN THE EXISTING ACCESS.

NO, I DO NOT EVER SEE THAT HAPPENING.

>> STEVEN OR TISH? YOU GOT ANYTHING BEFORE WE HEAR

FROM MR. COTNER? >> NOT AT THIS MOMENT.

>> NO NOT AT THIS MOMENT. >> ALL RIGHT, MR. COTNER.

THANK YOU, SIR. >> THANK YOU, JOHN COTTAGER, 1627 ATLANTIC AVENUE. ARCHITECT FOR THE CORBETTS.

I UNDERSTAND JAKE'S POSITION. CAN YOU LITERALLY ANSWER ALL THESE QUESTIONS YES, YOU NEVER CAN.

THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE. IT'S NOT BLACK AND WHITE.

IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, MY FIRST RESPONSE TO THE CLIENT WAS NO, YOU CAN'T DO THIS. THIS IS GOING TO REQUIRE A VARIANCE, AS USUAL. BUT THEN WE GOT INTO IT, I SAID, WELL, HERE'S THE CHOICES. WE CAN BUILD A 625-FOOT ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY AND CREATE 625 MORE SQUARE FEET OF IMPERVIOUS AREA AND FILL UP WHAT IS NOW A PRETTY GOOD RETENTION AREA AND NATURAL HAB THABITAT FOR TURTLES AND OTHER CREATURES THAT IS OUT THERE.

OR WE CAN COVER THE IMPOSIIMPERVIOUSAREA THAT'S OUT.

IT IS A UNIQUE CASE IN THAT IT DOESN'T SET A PRECEDENT FOR PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR ZONING DISTRICT IN THAT WE DON'T HAVE THAT MANY OF THESE KIND OF CASES WHERE WE HAVE A DEAD END RIRIGHT OF WAY. AND PARTICULARLY FRONTING WHERE -- OR TERMINATING INTO A STATE PARK WHICH THE CHANCES OF THAT CONTINUING THROUGH IS PROBABLY SLIM TO NONE IN OUR LIFETIME, ANYWAYS. SO WHEN I START ADDING UP EVERYTHING, I SAID, OKAY, THIS IS A CONCEPT THAT MAKES SENSE.

IT CREATES A COVERED PARKING. WHICH IS DESIRABLE.

WITHOUT PUTTING IN ANOTHER STRUCTURE.

IT WASN'T ECONOMICALLY DRIVEN. IT WAS REALLY JUST A CASE OF CONVENIENCE THAT HERE IT IS, THERE'S A RETAINING WALL HERE.

THERE'S CONCRETE HERE. AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PUTTING A DECK OVER IT. SO IT LITERALLY --

>> DO YOU HAVE A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE -- DID YOU HAVE THE

PHOTOGRAPH IN THERE, JAKE? >> I DO.

>> OF THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE? >> IT'S A FULL HEIGHT RETAING RG WALL ON THE NORTH SIDE. THE STRUCTURE IS ALREADY THERE.

SO YOU SEE THE PHOTOGRAPH, IT WILL REALLY JUMP OUT AT YOU.

IT'S HERE SOMEWHERE. THERE IT IS.

THE AREA WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS RIGHT HERE.

SO IT'S GOT THIS FULL HEIGHT -- REALLY ABOUT A NINE FOOT RETAING RETAINING WALL ON THIS AREA HERE.

HAD DECK WOULD RUN ACROSS HERE. THIS DECK WOULD EXTEND OVER HERE. SO ESTHETICALLY, IT WAS A GOOD SOLUTION. ENVIRONMENTALLY, IT WAS A GOOD SOLUTION. AND THE FACT THAT IT'S A UNIQUE SITUATION THAT WOULD NOT SET A PRECEDENT, I FELT IT HAD CREDIBILITY. SO THAT'S HOW WE GOT HERE.

A RATIONAL WAY TO GET HERE. SO FROM THERE, I'LL BE AVAILABLE

FOR ANY QUESTIONS. >> THERE IS --

>> JUST TO BE CLEAR -- >> GO AHEAD, STEVEN.

>> SORRY, JUST TO ASK A QUICK QUESTION, WE CAN'T SEE WHERE YOU POINTED UNFORTUNATELY ON MINE. IS IT TO THE LEFT OF THE

IMAGINE? >> TO THE RIGHT.

>> THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. >> TO THE LEFT IS A POOL, TO THE RIGHT IS THE CURRENT PARKING AREA.

IT'S CURRENTLY USED AS A PARKING AREA ANYWAY.

SO IT'S LITERALLY EXTENDING THE DECK TO THE NORTH BEARING ON

[00:25:04]

THAT RETAINING WALL THAT'S ALREADY FULL HEIGHT.

>> UNDERSTOOD. >> THERE IS A FAIR AMOUNT -- I WILL SAY IN THE RIGHT OF WAY, THE UNIMPROVED RIGHT OF WAY, THERE'S A FAIRLY GOOD STAND OF LAUREL OAKS, SCRUB OAKS IN THERE. IT'S HEAVILY VEGETATED YOU CAN SEE FR FROM THE AERIAL. I DON'T SUSPECT THAT'S GOING ANYWHERE. I DON'T KNOW THAT ANYBODY IS GOING TO SEE IT UNLESS THEY COME DOWN TO THE DEAD END.

THAT'S THE ONLY WAY IT'S GOING TO BE VISIBLY REALLY NOTICED.

>> WAS THAT RETAINING WALL BUILT TO ANTICIPATE PUTTING A LOAD ON

IT LIKE A ROOF? >> THE SIZE OF THE FOOTING, BECAUSE THE EIGHT FEET, THOSE FOOTINGS -- I THINK MY RECOLLECTION TELLS ME THEY'RE FIVE FEET WIDE BY A FOOT DEEP AND THE WALL IS ONE FOOT THICK. IT'S LIKE A BOMB SHELTER, BASICALLY. IT WILL HOLD ANYTHING.

THEY COULD LOWER A TANK DOWN ON THAT IF THEY WANTED TO.

>> JUST PARKING UNDERNEATH? >> JUST PARKING AND A DECK.

IT BRINGS THAT DECK, THAT RETAINING WALL AT THE CORNER OF THAT DECK WOULD BE ABOUT AS YOU CAN SEE TELL FROM THE SURVEY IT'S APPROXIMATELY N NINE FEET F THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE.

IT'S ABOUT 225 SQUARE FEET OF DECK.

AND IT WOULD BE WATERPROOF. SO THEY HAVE BASICALLY A WATERPROOF GARAGE, CARPORT KIND OF THING.

IT DOESN'T HAVE DOORS, IT'S JUST A CARPORT.

>> BASICALLY YOU HAVE A RETAINING WALL ON THE BACK SIDE THAT BASICALLY HANDLES THE DUNE AREA?

>> CORRECT. >> SO YOU BUILT INTO THE DUNE AND THEN OFF TO THE NORTH IT'S A DEAD END STREET?

>> CORRECT. >> OKAY.

>> CORRECT. >> SIMILAR TO OUR NEXT CASE.

>> IT'S A FAIRLY SEVERE DUNE THERE.

IT WAS A TRICKY PLACE TO BUILD ON BUT WE GOT IT DONE.

TOOK A LOT OF CONCREE, I WILL TELL YOU THAT.

I THINK IT TURNED OUT PRETTY ATTRACTIVE MYSELF.

THAT'S BIASED. >> YOU SHOULD BE.

ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING? STEVEN OR TISH?

YOU GOT ANYTHING ELSE? >> I HAVE A QUESTION.

I SEE ON THE ONE PLANS THERE IS NO PLANS FOR THAT ACCESSORY, YOU KNOW, GARAGE. IS THE PURPOSE TO HAVE THE GARAGE OR COVERED PARKING OR A DECK OR JUST ALL THREE? COULD THEY HAVE A DECK ON TOP OF THAT GARAGE IF THEY WANTED?

>> THE IDEA HERE TISH, WAS TO KILL SEVERAL BIRDS WITH ONE STONE. NUMBER ONE WE ALREADY HAVE A STRUCTURE THERE. IT WILL SUPPORT THE DECK.

SO IT CREATES MORE OUTDOOR DECK LIVING AREA ON THE LIVING LEVEL OF THE HOUSE, WHICH IS A POSITIVE.

BUT IT ALSO CREATES THE COVERED PARKING, WHICH IS DESIRABLE.

AND IT ALSO LEAVES THAT SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY VACANT FOR RETENTION AND FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PURPOSES.

SO IT WAS A WAY TO KILL A LOT OF BIRDS WITH ONE STONE.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT'S A BETTER SOLUTION THAN THE ORIGINAL SOLUTION. SO THAT'S HOW WE ENDED UP HERE.

>> THE DECK WOULD GO OVER THE EXISTING PARKING, DRIVEWAY,

REALLY? >> EXACTLY.

THEY STILL PARK IN THE SAME PLACE, THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THEY HAVE A COVER OVER IT WHICH ACTUALLY IS A SECONDARY USE AS A DECK. BUT IT'S COVERING WHAT'S ALREADY

PARKING AND CONCRETE. >> IT'S NOT GOING TO EXTEND ANY FURTHER NORTH OF THE PROPERTY LINE?

>> NO. IT'S WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT OF THE DEVELOPED AREA RIGHT NOW. IT WOULD TERMINATE AT THE EDGE OF THAT NORTHERN RETENTION WALL OKAY, THANK YOU. ELSE.

ALL RIGHT, MR. COTNER, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU. >> YES, SIR.

WE'LL OPEN IT UP TO THE PUBLIC FOR JUST A MOMENT.

IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS MATTER FOR OR AGAINST? AND MS. SHELLY WILL ENTER INTO THE MINUTES THAT NOBODY SPOKE UP ABOUT THAT.

MR. COTNER, WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO SAY BEFORE WE

CLOSE THAT OUT? >> NO, I'M FINE, THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. WHAT'S OUR BOARD DISCUSSION ON THAT? HOW ARE YOU GUYS READING THIS.

>> I LIKE IT. >> I THINK IT'S A GOOD USE OF THE EXISTING PERMEABLE AREA OR THE IMPERMEABLE AREAS INSTEAD OF

CREATING MORE. >> YEAH.

>> I AGREE. >> YEAH, I CAN SEE WHY THEY WOULD WANT THAT. I THINK THIS IS A GOOD

[00:30:03]

COMPROMISE BETWEEN DOING SOMETHING ELSE.

IT'S ALREADY PAVED. >> AND SEEING THE ROADWAY ON GOOGLE MAPS, Y IF YOU'RE LOOKING STRAIGHT AT THE DUNE, THE DUNE LOOKS LIKE IT'S EASILY TEN FEET TALL.

THEY WOULD HAVE TO EXCAVATE A SERIOUS AREA IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THAT ROADWAY CONTINUE. I TEND TO AGREE THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S GOING TO TAKE

THAT AND TURN THAT ROADWAY. >> NO.

IT'S THE FORT. >> YEAH.

>> ALL RIGHT. >> ARE THERE --

>> JOHN, IS IT GOING TO REQUIRE ANY MORE DRIVEWAY?

>> NO, ALL THE -- EVERYTHING IS IDENTICAL.

LITERALLY THE ONLY THING THAT HAPPENS IS EXTENDING THAT DECK TO THE NORTH. BUT NO NEW FOUNDATIONS, NO NEW CONCRETE. IT DOESN'T AFFECT LANDSCAPING, DOESN'T AFFECT TREES, DOESN'T AFFECT ANY VEGETATION.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE WE VOTE ON THIS?

ANYBODY WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION.

>> ALL RIGHT, BARRY. >> I MOVE TO APPROVE THE BOA CASE NUMBER 2020-07. BOA CASE 2020-07 IS PRESENTED IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO WARRANT APPROVAL AT THIS TIME AND THE BOA CASE 2020-07 MEETS THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA FOR TBRANTING A VARIANCE, SPECIAL CONDITIONS, SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, LITERAL INTERPRETATIONS, GENERAL HARMONY AND PUBLIC INTEREST. THE REASONS FOR MY FINDINGS ARE -- THIS IS BEING BUILT OVER AN EXI EXISTING STRUCTURE AND ALONGSIDE THE ROADWAY THAT GOES S INTO THE FORT THAT'S NEVER GOING TO GET BUILT. AND THEY'RE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE OF ONE CORNER OF THIS ROOF.

IN ORDER TO DO THIS, IT'S GOING TO BE VERY SIMPLE.

THEY DON'T HAVE TO IMPACT THE REST OF THEIR PROPERTY AND COSRUNCAUSERUN OFF ON THE SOUTHE PROPERTY.

>> I'LL SECOND. >> OKAY.

>> DID YOU GET THAT, SHELLY? >> UH-HUH.

>> OKAY. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE WE VOTE? SHELLY, WILL YOU CALL THE VOTE,

PLEASE. >> I WILL SIR, YES, SIR.

MEMBER PAPKE? >> APPROVE.

>> MEMBER HERTSLET? >> APPROVE.

>> MEMBER MOCK? >> YES.

>> MEMBER DADD? >> YES.

>> CHAIR MILLER? >> YES.

THERE YOU GO, THANK YOU, SIR. ALL RIGHT.

SO NOW WE'RE GOING TO MOVE RIGHT INTO OLD BUSINESS.

[Item 4]

CAN WE GET THEM BACK IN HERE? KELLY, WILL YOU GET THEM IN HERE? WILL YOU JUST BE SURE THAT THEY CAN HEAR OUTSIDE?

>> WHY WOULD IT BE -- HE WOULD GO BEFORE OTHER CITIZENS?

>> NO, BEFORE US. >> YEAH.

SURE. SURE.

YEAH, SURE. WE DON'T -- THE BOARD DOESN'T

CARE ABOUT THAT. >> THERE'S SIX APPLICANTS.

>> HOW SHOULD WE HANDLE THAT? >> THAT'S WHY I GAVE YOU THE LIST OF PRIORITIES THE COMMISSION APPROVED FOR OUR RULES FOR THESE TYPES OF MEETINGS.

THE GENERAL PUBLIC IS ON THAT LIST, BUT THE PRIORITY IS GIVEN TO STAFF, BOARD MEMBERS, WITNESSES, PARTIES, AND THEN THE

PUBLIC. >> OKAY.

>> IT'S NOT THAT THEY DON'T GET TO SPEAK, IT'S JUST SITTING IN

THE HEARING ROOM. >> OKAY.

>> THIS IS NOT GOING TO WORK.

[00:35:07]

>> ALL RIGHT, SO GUYS, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PRIORITIZE --

>> THAT'S RIGHT, THIS IS BEING BROADCAST?

>> YES, THROUGH -- >> I'LL BE THE BAD GUY.

OKAY. FOLKS, SO THIS WAS BOUND TO COME UP AT SOME POINT WHEN WE HAD A LOT OF INTEREST.

EVERYBODY THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IS GOING TO GET TO SPEAK.

IF YOU'RE A PARTY IN THIS CASE, NOT ANB A AN AFFECTED PARTY, BUT THE PARTY, MEANING THE CITY, THE APPLICANT AND THEIR AGENT, THOSE FOLKS ARE -- WE HAVE A LIST OF CITY COMMISSION APPROVED OUR RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR USING THIS MEDIA TECHNOLOGY.

AND THEY PROVIDED A PRIORITY LIST OF WHO COULD BE IN THE HEARING ROOM WHEN WE'RE HAVING THESE SPACE RESTRICTIONS.

AND SO CAN YOU READ THAT LIST, PLEASE? THTHIS IS RIGHT FROM THE RESOLUTION THAT THE CITY COMMISSION PASSED ABOUT A MONTH AGO OR TWO MONTHS AGO.

>> OUR BOARD MEMBERS ARE NUMBER ONE, CITY ATTORNEY, THE CITY STAFF, CITY CLERK, OUR RECORDING SECRETARY, THE APPLICANT AND/OR THE APPLICANT'S LEGAL AGENT ON THERE.

BUT I UNDERSTAND WE'VE GOT SIX PEOPLE.

>> YEP. >> SO DO WE NEED TO HAVE ALL SIX

OR CAN WE ROTATE? >> THAT'S NOT A QUESTION FOR ME.

>> THOSE SIX IN OR OUT? >> I MEAN, YOU CAN.

THAT'S NOT THE REASON. IT'S BECAUSE OF THE SPACE HERE AND HOW THE PRIORITY WORKS. SO I MEAN, THEY CAN DECIDE AMONG THEIR GROUP. -- HOWHOW MANY OF YOU ARE HERE? THAT'S UP TO YOU IF ANY OF -- BECAUSE WHAT THE CHAIR IS TRYING TO DO IS THAT -- WHEN YOU GO DOWN THE LIST, THE ROOM WE HAVE LEFT IS FOR THE PUBLIC TO BE IN THE HEARING ROOM. THE PUBLIC GETS TO SPEAK. BUT YOU HAVE TO COME IN AND SPEAK AT THE PODIUM AND TAKE YOUR TURN AND THEN LISTEN ON THE SPEAKERS OUT THERE IN THE ROOM. SO WITH THAT I'M GOING TO LET EVERYBODY BE ADULTS. IF THERE'S A CHAIR ON THE FLOOR, NOT STACKED, YOU CAN'T SIT ON THE STACKED FLOOR -- MA'AM? SO WE'RE GOING TO NEED -- IF I COULD, IF YOU ALL ARE COMFORTABLE TO SIT AT THIS FRONT TABLE, YOU CAN GRAB A CHAIR FROM THE STACK THERE AND PUT IT AT THE FRONT TABLE.

AND IF YOU'RE NOT OKAY ALL SITTING AT THE FRONT TABLE, WE HAVE ANOTHER TABLE OVER HERE YOU CAN PULL UP A CHAIR, TOO.

THERE IS AN EMPTY CHAIR HERE NEAR THE PODIUM, THAT MIGHT BE A

GOOD SPOT. >> OKAY.

THERE'S APPLICANT AND APPLICANT'S COUNSEL.

ARE THERE ANY WITNESSES YOU'RE CALLING? MR. MIRANDA, OKAY. OKAY.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER CHAIRS THAT ARE ON THE FLOOR THAT ARE NOT TAKEN? ALL RIGHT.

BUT THERE'S MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WANT TO COME IN, TOO. SO THEY'RE OUT THERE NOW WAITING. SEVERAL MEMBERS THAT WERE -- OKAY, GOOD. SO THE APPLICANT IS SAYING THEY WANT TO RELINQUISH MOST OF THE MEMBERS OF THEIR GROUP FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. THERE ARE ONE, TWO T THREE FOUR -- I DON'T KNOW IF Y'ALL CAN HEAR ME OUT THERE, BUT THERE IS ROOM FOR FOUR MORE PEOPLE HERE IN THE CHAMBERS.

IF YOU WANT TO COME IN. COME ON IN, FOUR PEOPLE IF YOU WANT TO -- ONE -- Q -- YOU'RE AN APPLICANT? SORRY. OKAY.

>> AT LEAST WE KNOW EVERYBODY OUTSIDE CAN HEAR US.

>> THEY CAN ALL HEAR US, YEAH. GREAT.

>> EVERYBODY CAN HEAR US. >> GOOD.

IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A COUPLE MORE.

THESE OPEN SEATS ON THE FLOOR, ONE, TWO, THREE.

[00:40:02]

YEP. YOU CAN USE THOSE IF YOU WANT TO AND JUST KIND OF SEPARATE THEM. THERE'S ONE OVER HERE, MA'AM.

YOU'RE HOL HOLDING -- NO, THERES A -- YOU CAN MOVE ONE OF THESE SEATS FORWARD A LITTLE IF YOU WISH.

OKAY. THERE'S ONE MORE.

THERE YOU GO. PLEASE.

OKAY. >> YOU DID A GREAT JOB.

LET'S GET EVERYBODY SWORN IN. CAN WE -- HOW CAN WE DO THAT? CAN WEE WE GET THOSE PEOPLE OUTE COME IN FRONT OF THE W WINDOW --

>> IF PEOPLE COME IN, I'LL WATCH.

IF THEY COME IN TO SPEAK I'LL MAKE SURE THEY'RE SWORN, THEY'RE RIGHT HERE. IF THEY'RE NOT WE'LL GO AHEAD

AND SWEAR THEM IN. >> WE WANT TO SWEAR IPEVERYBODYY

THAT'S IN HERE NOW? >> YES.

>> MS. SHELLY WILL YOU DO THAT? >> ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO SPEAK NEEDS TO STAND AND BE SWORN. IF YOU'RE GOING TO SPEAK AND

PROVIDE EVIDENCE -- >> EVEN NON-APPLICANT?

>> YES, AFFECTED PARTIES, RESIDENTS OF THE CITY STAND AND

BE SWORN. >> RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE ORAL AND/OR WRITTEN TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE WILL BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND

NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? >> I DO.

>> THTHANK YOU. >> SO I SEE SOME NEW PHASES THAT WEREN'T WITH US LAST MONTH. SO THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF A CASE FROM LAST MONTH. JACOB, HOW DO YOU WANT TO HANDLE

YOUR PART OF THIS? >> I WAS GOING TO SUMMARIZE THE REQUEST AND REITERATE MY REVIEW OF THE SIX CRITERIA.

NOT READING VERBATIM. JUST A QUICK SUMMARY.

>> OKAY, YOU READY TO DO THAT NOW?

>> READY WHEN YOU ARE. >> GO AHEAD, PLEASE.

>> AS I SAID I'M GOING TO GIVE A BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF THE BACKGROUND OF THE CASE. PROPERTY IN QUESTION TONIGHT IS PARCEL AT 1507 SOUTH FLETCHER AVENUE.

THE SPECIFIC REQUEST IS THAT BOARD IS ASKING TO HEAR TONIGHT IS A VARIANCE FROM LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 3 .0 # A . 05A, WHICH STATES IN ORDER O MAINTAIN OPEN SPACE, PROPERTY VALUE AND VISUAL ATTRACTIVENESS A RESIDENTIAL AREA WHEREVER THERE MAY EXIST A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE OR ANY AUXILIARY BUILDING OR STRUCTURES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO SWIMMING POOLS OR ANY IMPROVEMENTS CONTAINING ONE OR MORE PLATTED LOTS OF RECORD OR PORTIONS THEREOF, SHALL THEREFORE CONSTITUTE ONE BUILDING SITE.

NO PERMIT SHALL BE THE ISSUED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF MORE THAN ONE RESIDENCE ON THE SITE. SO THE REQUEST TONIGHT IS FOR TWO -- TO RESTORE TWO UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD, LOTS OF RECORD WHICH ARE 72X125 FEET AS PART OF THE MIRAMAR SUBDIVISION.

THERE'S AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE LOCATED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PROPERTY. BASED ON THE SIX CRITERIA AND ANALYSIS, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST.

BECAUSE RESTORING THE UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD WOULD -- WHILE LESS THAN 75 FEET, THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT FOR AN R1 ZONED PIECE OF PROPERTY TODAY YOU'D BE RESTORING TWO 70-FOOT WIDE PARCELS BRINGING A NONCONFORMITY BACK INTO COMPLIANCE WITH OUR CODE. WE HAVE PROVISIONS, STAFF PROVISIONS -- YOU HEAR ME ALL RIGHT? OKAY. STRICT PROVISIONS IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WHICH PROHIBIT LOT FRONTAGE TO NO MORE THAN 10.

RESTORING THOSE -- WOULD BE ELIMINATING THAT NONCONFORMING SITUATION TODAY. LIKE I SAID, BASED ON THE SIX CRITERIA AND I'LL REENTER IT ON THE RECORD FOR THIS CONTINUATION. STAFF FOUND ALL SIX CRITERIA WERE MET AND RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE RESTORATION OF THE UNDERLYING LOTS. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY

QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE. >> ANYBODY GOT ANYTHING?

STEVEN OR TISH? >> I'M HERE.

>> NO. >> OKAY.

ANYBODY THAT'S HERE? OKAY.

[00:45:04]

>> LET ME -- ACTUALLY DO HAVE SOMETHING.

THE TRAFFIC THAT CAME THROUGH VIA E-MAIL, WHETHER THEY WERE COMMENTS OR PHOTOGRAPHS AND SUCH THAT WERE SENT, THAT IS NOT OF RECORD, RIGHT? WE DON'T CONSIDER THAT?

>> OKAY. SO LET ME GET INTO THAT.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HEARD THE FIRST PART OF THAT.

SO WE DID ENTER INTO THE RECORD THAT THEY DID TRY TO SEND AN E-MAIL AND THAT'S FAIRLY COMMON. WE DO GET A LOT OF FEEDBACK ON THOSE. JACOB ANSWERED THOSE IN ACCORDANCE WITH MS. BOX'S GUIDELINES THAT THEY HAVE TO BE HERE AND AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING I HOPE THAT THEY HEARD ME THAT IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THEIR COMMENTS HEARD, THEY'D EITHER HAVE TO BE HERE OR PERHAPS GIVE THEM A CHANCE TO GET ONLINE SO THAT THEY COULD SPEAK.

WE DON'T WANT TOON GET INTO ANYTHING THAT WAS SAID.

>> THAT WAS NOT EX PARTE COMMUNICATION AS E-MAILS?

>> YES, THANK YOU. >> MAY I JUST ADD TO THAT?

IT'S NOT MS. BOX'S RULES. >> I MISSPOKE.

I MISSPOKE. YOU'RE RIGHT.

>> I DON'T MAKE THEM I FOLLOW THEM AND INTERPRET THEM.

IT'S IN CHAPTER 10 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

SPECIFICALLY WITH QUASI JUDICIAL HEARINGS, ALL THE TESTIMONY HAS TO BE HERE AND IT INCLUDES WRITTEN TESTIMONY, E-MAILS.

THEY HAVE TO BE HERE AND AVAILABLE FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION.

THAT'S WHY WE CAN'T INCLUDE THEM IN THE RECORD.

IF THEY'RE HERE, AVAILABLE FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION, WE WOULD LOVE

TO READ IT OR HAVE THEM READ IT. >> I WILL AMEND THAT TO

MS. BOX'S GUIDELINES. >> IT'S NOT MY GUIDELINES, OUR,

THE CITY'S RULES FOR QUAS >> I'LL START OUT.

IF THAT'S OKAY WITH YOU. >> THAT'S PERFECTLY FINE WITH

ME, SIR. >> ONCE AGAIN, MY NAME IS RON CONTE. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF SIX INDIVIDUALS. I REPRESENT KAREN FERRETTI, TOM BEACH, CHRISTINA CARROLL, JOSEPH CARROLL, DOUG SOUTH AND JACQUELINE SOUTH. MY CLIENTS, AS YOU KNOW FROM OUR PREVIOUS HEARING IN MAY, ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT TO PURCHASE 1507 SOUTH FLETCHER AVENUE AND THE TWO SEPARATE LOTS WHICH ARE ADJACENT TO 1507 SOUTH FLETCHER AVENUE TO THE REAR OR TO THE WEST. THEY ARE HERE AND WE FILED THIS APPLICATION AS AGENTS OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY.

THE OWNER IS RIO LAND AND INVESTMENT COMPANY.

WE'RE HERE PURSUANT TO THE OWNER'S AUTHORIZATION FOR AGENT REPRESENTATION EXECUTED BY MR. WALTER DAW DAVIS ON BEHALF F THE RIO LAND AND INVESTMENT COMPANY.

JOHN LASERRE IS HERE ON BEHALF OF THE COMPANY.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS I REPRESENT THE SUCCINDIVIDSIXINDIVIDUALS WHO HT THAT HAS NOT BEEN CLOSED.

IT'S A PENDING CONTRACT RIGHT NOW.

ALL SIX OF MY CLIENTS ARE HERE TONIGHT.

KAREN FERRETTI IS HERE IN THE ROOM WITH US.

WE MAY HAVE OTHERS IN THE BACK, BUT SOME MAY ALSO BE OUTSIDE.

SO WE'RE ALL HERE TONIGHT AND, AS I SAID, THIS MATTER, THIS APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE DEALS WITH A VERY NARROW ISSUE.

WE DISCUSSED THIS AT LENGTH AT THE MAY 20 HEARING.

THE NARROW ISSUE IS SIMPLE, AS JJAKE PLATT POINTED OUT A FEW MINUTES AGO. THAT IS A REQUEST TO SEPARATE OR RESTORE THE UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD WHICH ARE LOTS 78 AND 79 IN THE MIRAMAR BEACH SUBDIVISION.

THAT IS THE ISSUE. AND THAT'S THE ONLY ISSUE THAT'S RELEVANT FOR DISCUSSION BEFORE THIS BOARD.

WE ACKNOWLEDGE THE FACT THAT AT THE LAST HEARING WE KIND OF GOT

[00:50:03]

OFF ONTO A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT SUBJECTS.

AND SOMETIMES LOST -- I'M CONCERNED SOME PEOPLE LOST SIGHT OF WHAT THE REAL OBJECTIVE WAS OF OUR APPLICATION AND THAT'S FOR THE RESTORATION OF THESE TWO UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD, LOTS 78 AND 79. SO THAT'S THE ONLY ISSUE THAT IS RELEVANT. WE MUST ACKNOWLEDGE, WE POINT OUT THAT RIO LAND AND INVESTMENT COMPANY OWNS THE TWO LOTS THAT ARE ADJACENT TO LOTS 78 AND 79 TO THE REAR, THOSE ARE LOTS 40 AND 40-1. THEY'RE LOTS THAT RIGHT NOW WOULD FRONT FIRST AVENUE. THEY ARE NOT THE SUBJECT OF THE -- OF OUR APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE.

THOSE LOTS WERE SEPARATED IN 2017 IN A DIFFERENT APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE. ACTUALLY MR. LESARRE WAS BEFORE THIS BOARD THREE YEARS AGO ON BEHALF OF THE OWNER WITH RESPECT TO THAT APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE.

THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THOSE ARE SEPARATE LOTS.

MY CLIENTS HAVE ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT TO PURCHASE THREE LOTS.

RIGHT NOW WE SEEK TO HAVE THE TWO UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD SEPARATED OR RESTORED INTO TWO 72-FOOT WIDE BY 125-FOOT LONG LOTS. THIS ESSENTIALLY MIRRORING THE TWO LOTS THAT ARE ADJACENT TO LOTS 78 AND 79 TO THE REAR.

THAT IS THE ISSUE THAT'S IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD.

YOU HEARD FROM JACOB ALREADY, YOU HEARD FROM HIM A MONTH AGO.

THE STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE.

MR. PLATT BRIEFLY STATED TONIGHT THAT ONCE AGAIN THE SIX CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE THAT ARE SET FORTH IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE HAVE BEEN MET. YOU HEARD ABOUT THAT AT LENGTH IN MAY. KAREN FERRETTI, MY CLIENT, TESTIFIED TO THAT. JOSE MIRANDA TESTIFIED AS WELL IN MAY ABOUT HOW IT IS THAT THE SIX CRITERIA THAT IS SET FORTH IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE HAVE BEEN FULFILLED IN THIS APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE. IT REMAINS OUR CONTENTION THOSE SIX CRITERIA HAVE BEEN MET. NOTHING HAS CHANGED FROM MAY TO JUNE, THE SIX CRITERIA HAVE BEEN MET FOR APPROVAL. I'LL LET MR. MIRANDA COMMENT ON THOSE CRITERIA AMONG OTHER THINGS, BUT IT'S IMPORTANT TO KEEP UNMIND THAT THOSE CRITERIA HAVE BEEN MET. THEY'VE BEEN MET AND ESTABLISHED AS FULFILLED AS A RESULT OF COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT WAS PRESENTED TO THIS BOARD IN MAY.

WE'LL PRESENT MORE COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TONIGHT.

MR. MIRANDA HAS DONE SOME ADDITIONAL RESEARCH.

HE HAS DONE SOME ADDITIONAL WORK.

WHICH WE FEEL IS IMPORTANT FOR THIS BOARD TO HEAR AGAIN HE'S AN EXPERT IN THE FIELD. THIS BOARD ACKNOWLEDGED THAT IN MAY. AND HE'S HERE AGAIN TONIGHT TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL EXPERT TESTIMONY WHICH BY DEFINITION CONSTITUTES COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

WHICH IS SOMEWHAT OF AN AMORPHOUS TERM, A LITTLE BIT DIFFICULT TO GET YOUR HANDS ON. BUT NONETHELESS IT'S THE REQUIREMENT IN THE LAW. THE REQUIREMENT IS VERY, VERY CLEAR. WE HAVE THE BURDEN OF PROVING THAT THE SIX CRITERIA HAVE BEEN MET THROUGH THE PRESENTATION OF COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. WE FEEL WE HAVE DONE THAT.

THAT THE EVIDENCE WE PRESENTED IN MAY AND THAT WE'LL PRESENT AGAIN THIS EVENING CONSTITUTES COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THROUGH MR. MIRANDA. I'LL COMMENT AT THE END ABOUT WHAT COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS BUT I WANT TO POINT OUT AT LEAST ONE FACT. IT'S REALLY WHAT IT BOILS DOWN TO IS IT'S RELIABLE, CREDIBLE EVIDENCE THAT IS SUPPORTED BY

[00:55:06]

FACT. NOT GENERALIZATIONS.

IT MUST BE SOMETHING OF SUBSTANCE, IT MUST BE RELEVANT TO THE A AT HAND. WITH THAT IN MIND, I'M GOING TO ASK MR. MIRANDA TO OFFER SOME ADDITIONAL OPINIONS.

I WANT TO THANK THE BOARD AGAIN FOR YOUR PATIENCE AND YOUR TIME IN CONSIDERING THIS APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE.

I CAN'T STRESS ENOUGH THAT THE APPLICATION IS SOLELY LIMITED TO THE RESTORATION OF THE TWO UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD AT 1507 SOUTH FLETCHER AVENUE. THOSE BEING DESIGNATED ON THE PLAT OF THE MIRAMAR BEACH SUBDIVISION AS LOTS 78 AND 79.

THAT IS THE FOCUS, THAT'S THE ISSUE.

SO, MR. MIRANDA, ARE YOU -- WOULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS AND TELL THE BOARD ABOUT YOUR EXPERIENCE?

>> SURE. JOSE MIRANDA WITH MIRANDA ARCHITECTS -- AS A RESULT OF OUR MEETING IN MAY THAT TOOK LONGER THAN EVERYONE EXPECTED. WE DID RESEARCH TO BACK UP THE FACT THAT WE HAD MET ALL SIX CRITERIA.

AS I MENTIONED IN MAY, IT'S A RARITY FOR ANY VARIANCE TO MEET ALL SIX CRITERIA. WE CONCUR WITH STAFF'S REVIEW AND OPINION ON THAT. WE DID DO SOME MORE RESEARCH IN TERMS OF THE CONTEXT OF THE MIRAMAR SUBDIVISION.

PLATTED IN 1942 1942. IT WAS COMPOSED OF 94 LOTS.

83 OF THOSE LOTS WERE ANYWHERE FROM 72 TO 75 FEET WIDE.

11 OF THOSE LOTS WERE EITHER 120 OR SLIGHTLY LARGER THAN 120.

AS TIME MARCHED FORWARD, THERE ARE ONLY THREE REMAINING 120-FOOT WIDE LOTS IN THE MIRAMAR SUBDIVISION.

ALL OF WHICH ARE NON-CONFORMING. LOTS 17 AT 1544 SOUTH FLETCHER AND LOTS 72 AND 73. BOTH ARE VACANT.

THE FERRETTI SITE IS THE ONLY SITE THAT ENCOMPASSES TWO ORIGINALLY PLATTED LOTS OF RECORD IN 72 FEET WIDE FOR A TOTAL OF 144 FEET OF FRONTAGE. THE ONLY SITE.

IF THERE ISN'T ANY MORE CRITERIA THAN SPECIAL CONDITIONS, THAT'S THE SPECIAL CONDITION. IT IS -- STAFF HAS ALREADY SAID THE IDEA IS TO TRY TO ELIMINATE NON-CONFORMITIES, BRING THESE LOTS BACK INTO COMPLIANCE. TWO 72-FOOT WIDE LOTS AS ORIGINALLY PLATTED IN THE MIRAMAR SUBDIVISION, THESE ARE WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO RESTORE. I DON'T SEE IT -- I FIND IT DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND HOW YOU CAN SAY NO WHEN WE MET ALL THE CRITERIA. WE'VE GOT SUBSTANTIAL COMPETENT EVIDENCE AND WE'VE DONE OUR RESEARCH IN TERMS OF THE CONTEXT WITH THAT PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE ORIGINAL

SUBDIVISION. >> SO YOUR RESEARCH DEMONSTRATED OR SHOWS THAT ALL BUT THREE OF THE LAWTSZ LOTS IN THE MIRAMAR H SUBDIVISION ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE?

>> THE ORIGINAL -- WHAT'S LEFT OF THE LARGER LOTS IS ONLY THREE OF THEM, WHICH ARE STILL 120. ALL THOSE THREE ARE NON-CONFORMING, BASED ON THE CURRENT LBC'S.

THE FERRETTI SITE IS THE ONLY ONE THAT'S A COMBINATION OF TWO 72-FOOT LOTS, FOR A TOTAL OF 144.

IT'S THE ONLY ONE OF 94 LOTS FROM THE ORIGINAL SUBDIVISION.

>> IS IT YOUR OPINION, IS IT YOUR CONCLUSION THAT IF THE UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD ARE RESTORED, THEN ESSENTIALLY WHAT THIS BOARD WOULD BE DOING WOULD BE BRINGING THOSE LOTS BACK INTO

COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW? >> THAT'S CORRECT.

THAT'S SPECIFICALLY WHY THE LANGUAGE ALLOWS FOR THAT THROUGH THE VARIANCE PROCESS. BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO ELIMINATE NON-CONFORMITIES AS WE PROGRESSIVE IN TIME AND THE LDCS CHANGE AND THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS NEEDS TO BE MODIFIED IN ORDER TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE.

>> OKAY. HAVE YOU DONE ADDITIONAL WORK, MR. MIRANDA, PERTAINING TO OTHER ISSUES THAT WERE DISCUSSED IN

MAY AT LENGTH BEFORE THIS BOARD? >> YES, WE -- I KNOW THERE WERE A LOT OF PERIPHERAL ISSUES RELATED TO SIGN ACCESS, WHERE UTILITIES ARE COMING FROM OR DRAINAGE IS GOING.

WE'VE DONE MORE RESEARCH INTO THAT.

[01:00:03]

THE CONCERN I HAVE IS THAT THIS IS NOT THE VENUE IN WHICH TO DISCUSS THIS. YOU GUYS DON'T GET TO DECIDE WHERE THE DRIVEWAYS ARE. YOU DON'T GET TO DECIDE WHERE THE DRAINAGE HAPPENS. YOU DON'T GET TO DECIDE WHERE THE UTILITIES HAPPEN. WE HAVE SEPARATE EITHER CITY DEPARTMENTS OR FPU OR -- WE HAVE SEVERAL ENTITIES THAT GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS. IF WE WERE TO RESTORE THESE TWO LOTS, THEN WE'RE LOOKING AT TWO HOME SITES.

WHERE ARE THOSE GOING TO BE ACCESSED FROM? ARE THERE TWO INDIVIDUAL DRIVEWAY ? IS THERE A COMBINED DRIVEWAY? WE ALSO DID SOME MORE RESEARCH INTO THE ISSUE OF DRIVEWAYS ALONG A1A, A STATE HIGHWAY.

THE FDOT GUIDELINES FOR DRIVEWAYS STRONGLY RECOMMENDS COMBINED DRIVEWAYS FOR MULTIPLE LOTS VERSUS AN INDIVIDUAL

DRIVEWAY FOR EACH ONE. >> AND WHY WOULD THAT BE?

>> TO MINIMIZE THE AMOUNT OF IN AND OUT ESSENTIALLY FROM MULTIPLE DRIVEWAYS ALONG A JER OHIO.

SO WHAT YOU SEE OUT THERE CURRENTLY, WE SEE A LOT OF DRIVEWAYS THAT, NUMBER ONE, VIOLATE THE WIDTHS THAT ARE RECOMMENDED. SOME THAT ARE PAVED FOR LOT LINE TO LOT LINE. ALL THOSE VIOLATE D.O.T.

REQUIREMENT AND CITY REQUIREMENTS ON DRIVEWAYS, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT RELEVANT BECAUSE IT'S A1A.

THE RECOMMENDATION FROM FDOT AND THE RESEARCH THAT WE DID SAYS A COMBINED DRIVEWAY IS MUCH BETTER.

YOU HAVE ONE INTERFACE WHERE TRAFFIC INGRESS AND EGRESS FROM A SITE VERSUS MULTIPLE MEANS OF GETTING IN AND OUT OF A SITE.

>> MR. MIRANDA, WHAT ROLE WOULD PEPERMITTING PLAY IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THESE LOTS? AND WHAT ISSUES WOULD BASICALLY COME BEFORE THE CITY FROM A PERMITTING STANDPOINT THAT WOULD

BE RELEVANT? >> WHEN WE LOOK AT THE TWO SIDES THAT ARE FRONTING FLETCHER, OBVIOUSLY THE FIRST STEP IS FOR US TO ACTUALLY DESIGN A HOUSE. BUT WE CAN'T START DESIGNING UNTIL WE KNOW HOW BIG THE PROBLEM IS.

DOTHAT HELPS US ESTABLISH WHAT E BUILDING FOOTPRINT IS, WHAT WE RECOMMEND THE DRIVEWAY BE. WE HAVE STUDIED SIGHT CONDITIONS. ONCE WE V HAVE A CONCEPT, WE SIT DOWN WITH CITY STAFF AND AND SAY THIS IS HOW WE'RE HANDLING STORMWATER RETENTION ON SITE. THAT GETS REVIEWED BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENTS, WATER AND SEWER GETS REVIEWED BY THE WATER DEPARTMENT. STREETS GETS REVIEWED BY THAT DEPARTMENT AS WELL. PLUS ELECTRICAL SUPPLY IS FPU BY THE CITY. SO THERE'S MULTIPLE REVIEWS THAT HAPPEN ONCE YOU START TO DEVELOP A PLAN.

WE STILL HAVE A LOT OF LEGWORK TO DO.

THAT'S PART OF THE PROCESS. AGAIN, THAT PROCESS HAPPENS AFTER WE'RE ABLE TO KNOW HOW BIG OUR DESIGN ISSUE IS IN TERMS OF SINGLE LOT OR TWO INDIVIDUAL LOTS.

>> AND THAT PROCESS WOULD BE GOVERNED ESSENTIALLY BY THOSE CITY DEPARTMENTS THAT YOU JUST MENTIONED?

>> YES. ALL IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CRITERIA AND ALSO WITH THE BUILDING CODE.

>> HAVE YOU LOOKED AT THE IMPLICATION OF THESE LOTS FROM AN ENVIRONMENTAL STANDPOINT AS WELL?

>> YEAH, WE STUDIED THE ROUGH TERRAIN.

OBVIOUSLY BECAUSE WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO TALK ABOUT THOSE TWO LOTS IN THE BACK, BUT THAT'S THE CHALLENGE WE HAVE BECAUSE THERE IS A DUNE STRUCTURE AND UNIMPROVED FIRST AVENUE.

BUT ALL OF THOSE ISSUES, AGAIN, ARE REVIEWED AT THE LOCAL LEVEL.

THEY'RE NOT DEAL BREAKERS. WE'RE REQUIRED TO KEEP STORMWATER ON OUR SITE FOR OUR SITE.

DRAINAGE ALONG FLETCHER AVENUE FOR RESIDENTIAL LOTS, THAT'S AN FDOT ISSUE. THAT'S NOT AN INDIVIDUAL RESIDENTIAL LOT ISSUE. WE'RE REQUIRED TO MEET THE CODE AS DESCRIBED ON THE LECS AND THE BUILDING CODE FOR ALL THAT

PROCESS. >> IS THERE A ROLE TO PLAY FOR THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION IN

THIS? >> NO, THERE IS NOT.

DEP STEPS IN WHEN YOU'RE BUILD OVER THE COASTAL LINE.

WHETHER IT'S DRAINAGE OR DUNE OR STORMWATER, ALL THAT IS DONE AT THE LOCAL LEVEL. THIS HAS BEEN A CHANGE, A SEE CHANGE WITH THE STATE. THE STATE USED TO REVIEW QUITE A LOT MORE. BUT WHEN THE BUILDING CODE STARTED TO GET REWORKED AND IMPROVED, THEY GAVE A LOT MORE

[01:05:01]

POWER TO LOCAL M MU MUNICIPALIT. >> ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH MY CLIENT'S OBJECTIVES RELATIVE TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT THEY

MAY HAVE? >> YES, THE STUDY INVOLVED ALL FOUR LOTS, THE TWO THAT FRONT FLETCHER AND THE TWO THAT FRONT FIRST AVENUE. AND THE DIFFICULTY AS YOU KNOW, YOU'RE TRYING TO DO FOUR INDIVIDUAL HOUSES.

WE'RE TRYING TO SEE WHAT'S THE BEST WAY IN TERMS OF ACCESS POINTS. DO WE COME FROM FIRST AVENUE AND HAVE TO CUT THROUGH A PORTION OF THE DUNE? DO WE COME FROM FLETCHER IN A JOINT DRIVEWAY AND THEN ACCESS THE LOTS FROM THAT SIDE? WE STUDIED A HALF DOZEN SITE PLANS TO SEE WHAT MAKES SENSE. WE'RE NOT PRESENTING IT AS EVIDENCE HERE. THIS IS FOR INTERNAL FOR US TO DISCUSS WHAT THE PROS AND CONS ARE.

THESE ALL STILL HAVE TO BE REVIEWED BY THE CITY STAFF TO SEE WHAT IS A VIABLE OPTION, WHAT ISN'T.

WE STILL HAVE SEVERAL DEPARTMENTS TO REVIEW THOSE

DESIGN CONCEPTS. >> IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT THE APPLICANT GROUP IS VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT HERE? >> DEFINITELY.

BECAUSE THEY KNOW THE CHALLENGES, ESPECIALLY ON THE FIRST AVENUE SITE. WE STILL HAVE TO CONFER WITH THE CITY WHETHER ACCESS WILL BE REQUIRED FROM FIRST AVENUE OR WHETHER THEY'RE BETTER OFF COMING FROM FLETCHER SO WE CAN NOT IMPACT THE DUNE. SO THEY ARE CONCERNED WITH TRYING TO LOCATE THE HOUSES IN AN IDEAL SITUATION THAT THEY CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF BT US WITHOUT DOING HARM TO THE DUNE STRUCTURE IN THE BACK LOTS. ENVIRONMENTALLY IT'S MORE RELATED TO THE BACK TWO LOTS THAN IT IS TO THE FRONT TWO

LOTS. >> HAVE YOU HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT NEIGHBORING LOTS, PARTICULARLY LOTS WITH -- TO THE

SOUTH OF 1507 SOUTH FLETCHER? >> YEAH, THE FOUR LOTS IMMEDIATELY ABUT ARE IDENTICAL IN TERMS OF WHAT WE PROPOSE, IN TERMS OF SIZES, BUILDING SIZE FOR THOSE.

WE'RE MATCHING WHAT THE ALREADY BIT CBIT CONTEXT IN IN THAT ARE.

I KNOW PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED THIS IS A DEVELOPMENT, IT'S NOT A DEVELOPMENT. IT'S FOUR INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS, FOUR DIFFERENT HOME SITES.

THERE IS NO B PLAN TO BUILD THEM ALL AT ONE TIME.

IT MAY BE BUILT ALL AT ONE TIME. WE CAN'T BUILD UNTIL WE KNOW

WHAT DESIGN PROBLEM WE HAVE. >> I WANT TO MAKE SURE THE BOARD MEMBERS UNDERSTAND, EVEN AS CLOSE AS IMMEDIATELY TO THE SOUTH OF 1507 BORDERED BY SOUTH FLETCHER AVENUE TO THE EAST AND FIRST AVENUE TO THE WEST, THERE ARE FOUR LOTS IN THAT QUADRANT OF ESSENTIALLY THE SAME EXACT SIZE AS WOULD EXIST IF THIS BOARD APPROVES THE VARIANCE AND THE UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD

ARE RESTORED, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> THE FOUR LOTS IMMEDIATELY TO THE SOUTH IS THE SAME SIZE?

>> YES. >> HOW MANY OF THOSE LOTS HAVE

HOUSES ON THEM RIGHT NOW? >> ALL FOUR.

>> THEIR LOT SIZES ARE ESSENTIALLY 75 FEET OR 72 FEET

WIDE AND 125 FEET IN DEPTH? >> YES.

>> DO YOU WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE PICTURE THAT I BELIEVE MR. PLATT HAS PUT UP? MAYBE YOU COULD WALK UP AND DEMONSTRATE FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD WHO ARE HERE, JUST KIND OF ILLUSTRATE WHERE WE ARE AND HOW THIS PROJECT WOULD WORK.

>> THE RED BOUNDARY INDICATES THE 144-FOOT WIDE ESSENTIALLY DOUBLE LOT WE'RE TRYING TO RESTORE.

THEN THERE'S TWO MORE, OBVIOUSLY, THAT BACK UP AGAINST FIRST AVENUE. THIS ASSEMBLAGE OF FOUR BUILDINGS IS IDENTICAL TO WHAT WE CONCEPTIONACEPTIONLY WANT TOR ON OUR SITE. THE DIFFERENCE BEING WHERE WE WANT TO ACCESS. THE SIZE OF THE BUILDINGS, THE RELEVANT LOCATION WOULD BE IDENTICAL IN TERMS OF SETBACKS, SIDE YARD, ALL OF THAT. AGAIN, IT'S KEEPING WITH THE CONTEXT OF THAT NEIGHBORHOOD BY SUBDIVIDING OR RESTORING THAT

144 TO TWO 72 LOTS. >> HAVE MY CLIENTS GIVEN YOU ANY

[01:10:03]

INDICATION AS TO THE SIZE OF THE HOUSES --

>> THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT 3,500 SQUARE FEET.

SIMILAR IN SIZE TO THOSE FOUR HOUSES IN THAT AREA.

THEY VARY IN SHAPE AND SIZE BUT ROUGHLY THEY'RE IN THAT BALLPARK OF SQUARE FOOTAGE. YOU GET LARGER HOUSES, YOU HAVE LARGER LOTS ON THE OCEAN. THEY START TO GET INTO THE 4,000

TO 5,000 SQUARE FOOTAGE. >> OKAY.

SO I'LL ASK YOU IS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT GRANTING THIS REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE AND RESTORING THE UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD WHICH IS CONTRAINDICATED IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE? LIKE I SAID IT'S A RARITY TO MEET ALL SIX CRITERIA.

STAFF HAS DONE A GOOD JOB OF REFERENCING THE CRITERIA AND WHY THIS IS ALLOWABLE THROUGH THIS VARIANCE PROCESS.

THERE IS NOTHING ON HERE THAT WOULD PREVENT SOMEONE FROM

PROCEEDING WITH THIS. >> YOU LI LIVED AND WORKED HERER

29 YEARS? >> CORRECT.

>> AS AN ARCHITECT? YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE LAND

DEVELOPMENT CODE? >> YES.

AND ITS EVER EINV EVOLVING FORM. >> THOSE SIX CRITERIA THAT

MR. PLATT REFERRED TO EARLY ON? >> YES.

>> IS IT YOUR EXPERT OPINION THAT EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THOSE SIX REQUIREMENTS HAS BEEN FULFILLED IN THIS INCIDENCE?

>> YES, I DO. >> EVERY ONE OF THEM?

>> EVERYTHING ONE OF THEM. >> OKAY.

AND IS IT ALSO YOUR OPINION, AGAIN, YOU STUDIED THE MIRAMAR BEACH SUBDIVISION. YOU STUDIED THE AREA AS A WHOLE.

THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. YOU'VE LIVED HERE FOR 29 YEARS.

IS IT YOUR EXPERT OPINION FROM A DESIGN AND ARCHITECTURAL AND LEGAL STANDPOINT, ALL RIGHT, THAT BY GRANTING THIS VARIANCE AND RESTORING THE UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD INTO TWO 72-FOOT WIDE LOTS BY 125 FEET DEEP, THAT THAT WOULD BE KEEPING WITHIN THE CHARACTECHARACTER OF THE COMMUNA WHOLE?

>> DIFFERENT. DEFINITELY. BECAUSE SOME OF OUR WORK IS IN HISTORIC PRESERVATION WHERE THE CONTEXT IS VERY SPECIFIC, THIS IS ALSO VERY SIMILAR.

THESE ARE LOTS THAT WERE PLATTED AS 72 BY 125.

IT'S AN ANOMALY TO HAVE THAT DOUBLE WIDE LOT.

IT'S MORE KEEPING WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE NAW NEIGHBORHOY RESTORING THOSE TWO LOTS AND DOING TWO HOUSES ON THEM VERSUS ONE LARGE HOUSE THAT SPANS BOTH LOTS.

>> OKAY. MR. MIRANDA, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING MORE FOR YOU RIGHT NOW. PERHAPS MEMBERS OF THE BOARD

MIGHT OR MR. PLATT OR ANYONE. >> MR. CONTE WHY DON'T YOU FINISH WITH EVERYTHING YOU WANT TO SAY AND THEN WE'LL GET INTO

THAT, IS THAT OKAY? >> THAT'S FINE, MR. CHAIRMAN.

I PROBABLY WOULD LIKE TO RESERVE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME FOR THE END

IF I COULD. >> YES, SIR.

>> I'M WILLING TO DEFER NOW. I DON'T HAVE MUCH MORE TO SAY.

BUT IF I COULD DEFER UNTIL THE END OF THE HEARING ONCE WE'VE TAKEN ADDITIONAL COMMENTS AND -- AGAIN, I WILL STRESS, THOUGH, I WANT TO STRESS, WE'VE GOT EXPERT TESTIMONY HERE THAT ALL SIX CRITERIA HAVE BEEN MET. THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT -- THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LOTS THAT MY CLIENTS HAVE PROPOSED IS IN KEEPING WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE.

IN FACT, IT'S IDENTICAL TO WHAT'S ALREADY THERE NEXT DOOR TO THE SOUTH. AND SO I'LL JUST HOLD OFF WITH THE REMAINDER OF MY COMMENTS. I THINK MR. LASERRE MIGHT HAVE

COMMENTS TO MAKE. >> YES, SIR.

JOHN LASERRE. CAN YOU HEAR ME?

>> YES. >> I'M USED TO STANDING.

WE REPRESENT THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY.

SO THEY COULD NOT BE HERE TODAY AND THEY ASKED ME TO BE PRESENT.

AND TO OFFER THEIR SUPPORT FOR THE TESTIMONY THAT MR. MIRANDA HAS GIVEN AND THE OPENING COMMENTS THAT MR. CONTE HAS PROVIDED AND ALSO THE RELIANCE ON STAFF'S MEETING THE SIX CRITERIA. YOU JUST HEARD ONE OF THE

[01:15:01]

LONG-STANDING MEMBER OF OUR COMMUNITIES WHO HAS BEEN HERE 100,000 TIME. YOU ALWAYS FIND SOMETHING TO SAY NO TO. YOU HAVE WHAT I CALLED A UNICORN, ALL SIX CRITERIA BEING MET.

SOMETIMES YOU SEE UNICORNS TWICE.

WE HAVE OTHER THOUGHTS ON THE MATTER.

I WOULD PREFER TO RESERVE THOSE THOUGHTS TO THE END IF THAT'S OKAY. I JUST WANT TO REITERATE THE OWNER'S SUPPORT OF RESTORATION OF THE LOT BACK TO THE 72X120 AS

THEY WERE ORIGINALLY PLATTED. >> ALL RIGHT, SIR.

IMANYTHING ELSE? >> I'M GOOD NOW.

>> TELL THE END? >> YES.

>> DO YOU WANT TO SEE IF ANY OF YOUR APPLICANTS WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK OR ANYONE WOULD HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY BEFORE WE OPEN IT UP TO THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK?

>> IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT GREAT BOARD.

NONE OF US ARE MIND READERS. IF THERE'S SOMETHING OUT THERE

YOU WANT TO SAY, SAY IT. >> WE'RE GOOD.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU FOR THAT. WE'RE GOING TO OPEN THIS UP TO THE PUBLIC. MS. BOX, WHAT ARE WE -- DO YOU HAVE A THOUGHT OF HOW WE SHOULD DO THIS AS FAR AS PEOPLE BEING SWORN IN? WE WANT TO TAKE THE PEOPLE THAT'S IN THE ROOM AND GET THEM TO LEAVE --

>> GET THEM SWORN AND LET THEM SPEAK AND THEN WE'LL HAVE OTHER FOLKS COME IN. AND THEY CAN -- ONE AT A TIME.

>> ARE YOU GOING TO DO THEM ONE AT A TIME?

>> YES. BUT THOSE IN THE ROOM HERE AFFECTED PARTIES, JUST THOSE THAT WANT TO MAKE COMMENTS THAT ARE NOT AFFECTED PARTIES, PLEASE STAND AND BE SWORN.

IF YOU'RE NOT AFFECTED, YOU DON'T NEED TO BE SWORN BECAUSE YOU'RE JUST MAKING A COMMENT. AFFECTED PARTIES, IF YOU'RE NOT A RESIDENT OF THE CITY THEN YOU'LL BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES WITH AS MANY SPEAKERS AS WE HAVE AND YOU DON'T NEED TO BE SWORN BECAUSE YOUR TESTIMONY IS NOT UNDER OATH.

ANYBODY THAT WISHES TO SPEAK IN THIS ROOM.

OKAY. >> WE ALL --

>> YOU DID. OH, GREAT.

>> WE GOT EVERYBODY IN HERE EXCEPT THE PEOPLE THAT ARE IN

THE HALL. >> THAT SOUNDS RIGHT.

>> AS LONG AS NOBODY ENTERS OR EXITS WE'RE GOOD WITH THIS ONE

ROOM. >> WE ASWE SHOULD LET THESE FOLS SPEAK AND WE'LL LET OTHERS COME IN.

>> I AGREE. WE'LL OPEN IT UP TO THE PUBLIC.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, JUST RAISE YOUR HAND.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO COME FORWARD. >> I'D TO IF I COULD.

>> HOW IS THAT -- >> WE'VE GOT --

>> THAT'S FINE. YOU'VE GOT TO SHOW IT TO THE PARTIES FIRST TO MAKE SURE THERE'S NO OBJECTIONS.

AND LET THE PARTIES -- LET THE CITY AND THE PARTIES CHECK IT OUT. MAKE SURE THERE'S NO OBJECTIONS TO IT. IF THERE ARE, PLEASE STATE THOSE FOR THE RECORD.

>> MR. CHAIR, I WOULD JUST NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THIS WAS NOT PRODUCED I BELIEVE THREE DAYS IN ADVANCE OF THIS HEARING AS WOULD BE REQUIRED.

IS THAT NOT CORRECT? IF HE'S OFFERING THIS AS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, TECHNICALLY WE WOULD BE ALLOWED TO OBJECT BECAUSE WE WEREN'T GIVEN THIS IN ADVAVANCE.

THAT BEING SAID, I DON'T SEE ANY REASON TO FORMALLY OBJECT.

I JUST THINK WE HAVE A RIGHT TO SEE THINGS AT LEAST THREE DAYS IN ADVANCE. BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO FORMALLY

OBJECT. >> I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT IT IS ALL ON THE COUNTY -- NASSAU COUNTY PROPERTY MAPS.

>> THANK YOU. >> OKAY, SO IN ORDER TO PICK YOU UP AND THAT'S WHAT THE CHAIR IS -- NORMALLY WHEN YOU COME TO COMMISSION MEETINGS YOU SPEAK HERE AND IT GETS BROADCAST.

UNFORTUNATELY -- WELL -- YOU HAVE -- IF YOU COULD, SORT OF IN BETWEEN MR. LASSERE AND WHERE THE STAFF IS SITTING, IF YOU SEE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE TABLE HERE IN FRONT OF THE CHAIR RIGHT UP HERHERE -- THAT'S THE SPEAKER THERE.

SO THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS CAN HEAR.

>> OKAY. MY NAME IS FRANK HA HOFF.

[01:20:06]

I'M A -- I HAVE A PH.D. IN COASTAL GEOMORPHOLOGY.

I WAS ASKED BY THE NEIGHBORS OF THIS PROPERTY TO COMMENT ON THE PROJECT FROM A GEOLOGICAL STANDPOINT.

AND THE PROBLEM I SEE THERE IS TWO BASIC PROBLEMS. NOT SO MUCH WITH THE FRONT LOT. I REALIZE WHEN WE WERE FIRST TALKING ABOUT THE VARIANCE TO THE FRONT LOT, I WAS GOING TO SIT DOWN AND SAY NOTHING. BUT WHEN WE BROUGHT UP THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE BACK LOT, THERE ARE A FEW THINGS I'VE GOT TO COMMENT UPON. FIRST OF ALL, THE BASIC PART OF THE PROPERTY IN THE TWO BACK LOTS, THE FRONT HALF OR THE EAST SIDE OF THE HALF OF IT IS IN WHAT WE CALL BASIN.

THERE'S NO WAY OUT FOR WATER THAT FALLS IN THAT AREA.

IT'S HEMMED IN. IT DRAINS PROBABLY TWO OR THREE ACRES. AND I'VE CALLED A LAKE -- WHEUT

WHATDO THEY CALL IT? >> RIO.

>> I WOULD HAVE CALLED IT LAKE MIRANDA IF I HAD KNOWN THE PARTIES INVOLVED. IT'S AN AREA WHERE THERE'S NO NATURAL DRAINAGE OUT EXCEPT FOR THE FACT WE'RE ON A SAND DUNE HERE. SO THE REASON WHY THERE'S NO PONDING LIKE THERE IS ON FLETCHER IS BECAUSE THE RAINFALL -- RON RAINWATER GOES STRAIGHT GOO INTO THE SOIL.

THERE'S NO WAY YOU CAN DEVELOP THAT PROPERTY WITH BUILD SCWGZID DRIVEWAYS WITHOUT CREATING A CONSTANT FLOOD.

EITHER FOR THE PROPERTY OWNERS THERE OR IF YOU PUT IN ADDITIONAL FILL IT WOULD FLOW NORTH AND SOUTH AND CREATE PROBLEMS FOR THE NEIGHBORS. SO IT'S -- THAT'S A PROBLEM.

AS LONG AS IT'S LEFT VACANT, AS LONG AS THE FIRST TWO LOTS ARE JUST OPEN FOR DEVELOPMENT AND THAT AREA IS LEFT BLANK FOR DRAINAGE WE'RE FINE. SECOND PROBLEM IS THE OPPOSITE EFFECT. YOU'VE GOT A VEGETATED DUNE BEHIND IT. AND CONTRARY TO THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE HERE, THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY OR PROTECTION RATHER HAS AUTHORITY 150 FEET WEST OF THE CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE IF DUNES ARE INVOLVED.

AND BECAUSE WE'RE ON A BARRIER ISLAND, BY STATUTE THAT ACTUALLY GOES 5,000 FEET WEST OF THE CCCL.

SO THERE IS NO WAY YOU COULD DEVELOP THE BACK HALF OF THOSE LOTS WITHOUT DESTROYING THAT DUNE, THAT VEGETATED DUNE.

SO THAT'S -- AND THERE'S NO YOU COULD EVER BUILD FIRST AVENUE FORWARD BECAUSE OF THE DUNE THERE, HAD THE CITY OWNS THE BAK HALF OF. THE FRONT HALF AND COASTAL SIDE IS OWNED BY THE OWNERS. THERE'S NO WAY YOU COULD DEVELOP THE BACK PART WITHOUT DESTROYING THE DUNE.

RIGHT BEHIND THE PROPERTY, OF COURSE, IS CITY OWNED CONSERVATION LAND. PART OF THE EGANS CREEK GREENWAY. THANK YOU.

SO IT'S -- THAT LITTLE DUNE BACK THERE IS KIND OF A MICROCOSM OF THE WHOLE ISLAND. IT'S A SAND DUNE, A PILE OF SAND. PUT THERE BY WAVES AND THE WIND.

TRAPPED BY VEGETATION AND ELD HELDTOGETHER BY VEGETATION, JUST LIKE THE WHOLE ISLAND IS. IT'S A PROTOTYPE OF THE ISLAND ITSELF. SO FROM A GEOLOGIC STANDPOINT I CAN THINK OF NO WORSE PLACE TO TRY TO DEVELOP.

I WOULD KIND OF LIKE -- YOU MAY NOT WANT TO CONSIDER MY ACADEMIC CREDENTIALS. BUT BEFORE I WENT BACK AND GOT THE PH.D. I WORKED FOR 35 YEARS FOR SHELL OIL.

AND SO I WAS KNOWN AS AN OIL COMPANY EXECUTIVE.

ONE OF MY FRIENDS IN TOWN WROTE AN E-MAIL TO YOU ALL.

WHO IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE SIERRA CLUB.

ANYTIME AN RETIRED OIL COMPANY EXECUTIVE AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL SIERRA CLUB WOULD READ WORD FOR WORD, YOU MIGHT WANT TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE FACT. WITH THAT, I'LL TAKE ANY

QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE

[01:25:02]

TONIGHT. THANK YOU FOR COMING DOWN AND YOUR EXPERT THOUGHTS. THERE'S ONE OR TWO THINGS I WOULD LIKE TO SAY TO YOU AND TO SOME OTHER PEOPLE, NO DOUBT THIS IS GOING TO COME UP. JACOB JUMP IN ON THIS IF YOU FEEL LIKE YOU WANT TO. THESE ARE PLATTED LOTS OF RECORD. THEY ARE WITHIN THEIR RIGHTS TODAY TO APPLY WITHIN THE LDC AND BUILD SOMETHING ON THERE.

YOU UNDERSTAND THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE -- WHAT THE AUTHORITY THAT

THIS BOARD HAS, CORRECT? >> I UNDERSTAND THAT.

>> YES, SIR. >> THAT'S WHAT I SAID I WAS

GOING TO SIT DOWN. >> YES, SIR.

AND I WAS NOT SPEAKING SO MUCH TO YOU, BUT TO EVERYONE ELSE WHO MAY BE LISTENING. YES, SIR.

ANYTHING THAT THE BOARD WOULD LIKE TO ASK?

STEVEN OR TISH? >> IS THAT A SITE SECTION THAT GOES ACROSS AND SHOWS THE TOPOGRAPHY OR OTHER THAN A TOPO

MAP? >> HE'S ASKING FOR A CROSS SECTION OF THE PROPERTY THAT I DON'T THINK THAT'S THERE.

>> I COULD GET YOU ONE OFF OF GOOGLE EARTH, THAT WOULD BE AS CLOSE AS I COULD GET REAL QUICK. WHICH WOULD BE EASY.

I COULD GO HOME AND SEND IT TO YOU BEFORE THE MEETING IS OVER.

>> I THINK THERE MIGHT BE ONE IN THAT PACKET SOMEWHERE.

>> THERE'S NOT A SITE SECTION TO SHOW THE PROFILE OF THE DUNE,

JUST THE CONTOURS. >> JUST THE T TOPOS.

>> IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT ELEVATION IT'S ON THIS MAP THAT HE PASSED OUT TO US. IT SHOWS WHAT HE SAID, THE LOT

SLOPES BACK TO THE WEST. >> I THINK THOSE CONTOURS ARE ALSO SHOWN IN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION ON THE SITE PLAN IT

HAS CONTOURS SHOWN ON THAT. >> UNFORTUNATELY IT DOESN'T GO ONTO THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES. JUST DIDN'T GO FAR ENOUGH TO

SHOW. >> ALL RIGHT, SIR, THANK YOU.

>> COULD I JUST ASK? I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE CLEAR THAT WE'RE TALKING ONLY ABOUT LOTS 78 AND 79.

THE FRONT FLETCHER AVENUE, THAT'S THE OBJECT, THAT'S THE SUBJECT OF THE APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE, YOU UNDERSTAND THAT?

>> I UNDERSTAND THAT. LIKE I SAID I WOULD HAVE STOPPED

COMMENTING IMMEDIATELY -- >> ALL RIGHT.

I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT I ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE CLEAR. YOU DON'T HAVE ANY OBJECTION WHATSOEVER TO THE RESTORATION OF THESE UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD, LOTS 78 AND 79? NARROWLY VIEWED, YOU HAVE NO

OBJECTION TO THAT, DO YOU? >> NO, I DO NOT.

>> THANK YOU SIR. >> THANK YOU.

WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK NEXT? ALL RIGHT.

>> YES, SIR. >> FIRST I'D LIKE TO GIVE --

>> GEOFF HAINES, 1 1496 FIRST AVENUE, FERNANDINA.

>> THANK YOU SIR. >> FIRST I WANT TO RESPOND ABOUT THE -- THIS INVOLVES THE FRONT TWO LOTS.

BUT THE FACT THERE'S BEEN A VARIANCE ALREADY GIVEN FOR THE TWO BACK LOTS AND THEY'RE ALL PART OF ONE PARCEL, I WILL SAY THAT ONE THING LEADS TO ANOTHER. SO I WOULD SAY THAT IT IS A PART OF IT. YOU MIGHT NOT WANT IT TO BE BUT

IT IS A PART OF IT. >> CAN YOU SPEAK UP TOMICROPHON?

>> THE CITY ATTORNEY AT THE LAST ONE -- I WANT TO CLEAR UP SOMETHING SHE SAID AT THE LAST MEETING THAT SECTION 103 .0 # AS INTENDED SO THAT PEOPLE DRIVING DOWN SOUTH FLETCHER COULD SEE THE BEACH. PEOPLE FROM OUTSIDE THE COUNTY OR NASSAU COUNTY RESIDENT ARE ENTITLED TO AN OCEAN VIEW.

I WANT TO KNOW WHERE IN THAT COMP PLAN IS THAT SPECIFIED?

>> I DON'T THINK IS. THE COMP PLAN ISN'T THAT

SPECIFIC. >> I WANTED TO RESPOND TO THAT.

I DIDN'T AT THE LAST MEETING, BUT I DID WANT TO MAKE THAT POINT. SECTION 4 .0202.

NO VARIANCE GRANTED COMBINED TWO OR MORE LOTS RESULTING IN LOT

[01:30:04]

WIDTH OF 100 FEET OR MORE ON SOUTH FLETCHER.

WHY WAS THIS RULE PASSED AND NOW YOU USE IT AS A REASON TO GRANT VARIANCES AND INCREASE DENSITY ON THE ISLAND? IT HAS UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THIS WAS ORIGINALLY PASSED ALONG WITH 35, 45-FOOT HEIGHT RULE TO PREVENT OVERRUN WITH HIGH RISE CONDOS LIKE AMILIKE AMELIA SOUTH AND AY THE SEA. IT WAS A GOOD REASON AT THE TIME BUT NOW IT'S BEING USED TO ALLOW MORE HOMES ON SMALLER LOTS, HIGHER DENSITY AND LESS OPEN SPACE.

JACOB WOULD YOU MIND PULLING UP A STREET VIEW OF 2262 SOUTH FLETCHER? 2262 SOUTH FLETCHER.

>> THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S HAS BEEN WONKY.

JUST GIVE ME A MINUTECH SORRY. >> DO YOU HAVE SOME OTHER THOUGHTS YOU MIGHT COULD GO ON TO?

>> LDC 4 .00 .01. SITE DESIGN.

SECTION D. TO PREVENT OVERCROWDING OF LAND IN AN UNDUE CONGESTION, PROVIDE FOR OPEN SPACES. I THINK THAT'S WHAT'S BEING ACCOMPLISHED HERE. IN THE COMP PLAN, 1 .02 .10, PROTECT PRIVACY, ACCESS TO AIR AND OPEN SPACE.

>> I'M WORKING ONTOP. >> ON IT.

>> OKAY. JUST GOING BACK TO A COUPLE THINGS THAT WERE SAID EARLIER, SPECIAL CONDITIONS.

I THINK BACK TO 2017 WHEN THEY ORIGINALLY RESTORED THE TWO LOTS. WHAT WAS THE REASON FOR THAT? I WOULD SAY THAT THE REASON WAS SO THEY COULD POSSIBLY SELL THE LOTS ON FIRST AVENUE SEPARATE FROM THE TWO LOTS ON FLETCHER.

AND I'D SAY THAT WAS AN ECONOMIC CONSIDERATION SO THEY COULD REALIZE MORE FOR THOSE TWO PROPERTIES AND THE PROPERTY ON THE FRONT THEN THEY COULD GET WHAT THEY WANT FOR THE PROPERTY.

THIS IS THE SAME CASE WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE.

MINIMUM VARIANCE. I'M CONCERNED THAT IT WAS ALREADY A VARIANCE GIVEN IN 2017.

AND I WOULD CONTEND THAT WAS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE THEY NEEDED AT THE TIME. WHY DIDN'T THEY ASK FOR A VARIANCE AT THAT TIME FOR THE TWO FRONT LOTS? I WOULD CONSIDER THAT A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE TO ALLOW TWO VARIANCES ON THE SAME PROPERTY WITHIN THREE YEARS.

TO ME, THE MINIMUM VARIANCE -- WENT BACK OVER THIS AGAIN -- BUT SINCE THEY BROUGHT UP THE OTHER I'LL DO THIS.

THE TWO LOTS OF 72 BY 250 WOULD BE IN KEEPING WITH THE HOMES TO THE NORTH. TALKING ABOUT THE HOUSES TO THE SOUTH. THE HOMES TO THE NORTH, 1425, 1437, 1467, 1401, 1487, ALL 72 BY 250 LOTS.

OKAY. THIS IS AN EXAMPLE.

100-FOOT RULE WAS DESIGNED TO SUPPOSEDLY WHERE YOU PEOPLE WOULD HAVE DUE COURSE. IF YOU LOOK AT THIS, THERE'S THREE HOMES ON 50-FOOT LOTS, AND OBVIOUSLY THERE'S NO VIEW CORRIDOR RIGHT THERE. SO AN UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE STHAT WE'RE ALLOWING PEOPLE TO BUILD IN THIS CASE TO RESTORE THESE LOTS. IT'S BETTER TO HAVE TWO HOUSES ON THAT PROPERTY RATHER THAN ONE.

BUT IN THIS CASE, YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE -- YOU DON'T HAVE YOUR VIEW THERE. THE VEGETATION.

IT'S LIKE THE BORDER WALL WITH THE PEOPLE ACROSS THE STREET, THEY HAVE NO VIEW AT ALL OF THE OCEAN.

I THOUGHT THAT WAS ONE OF THE ORIGINAL INTENTIONS OF THE 100-FOOT RULE. SO WE'LL KEEP -- WE KEEP USING

[01:35:04]

THAT RULE TO RESTORE BLIND LOTS. IT'S GOING ALL UP AND DOWN FLETCHER, DOWNTOWN, YOU KNOW, SO WE'RE JUST INCREASING DENSITY BY DOING THAT. THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

>> DO YOU MIND? >> LET ME SAY ONE THING BEFORE YOU SAY THAT MR. HAYNES. THANK YOU FOR COMING DOWN HERE

TWICE. >> OKAY, I HOPE WE'RE NOT HERE

ANOTHER FIVE HOURS. >> WE DON'T KNOW HOW IT'S GOING TO WORK OUT. IT'S ONE THING TO TALK ABOUT ISSUES AND IT'S ANOTHER THING TO COME DOWN AND ACTUALLY HAVE YOUR VOICE HEARD.

SO THE BOARD APPRECIATES THAT. YOU SAID SOMETHING EARLIER ABOUT ECONOMIC. AND THE DIRECTION THAT THIS BOARD HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE CITY COMMISSIONER IS THAT THE ECONOMICS IS SOMETHING THIS BOARD DOES NOT CONSIDER.

>> WELL, IT'S IN THE -- >> AM I WRONG ABOUT THAT,

MS. BOX? >> NO, CORRECT, YOU ARE CORRECT.

>> SPECIAL CONDITIONS UNDER THE CRITERIA, NOT BASED ON THE DESIRE TO REDUCE THE DEVELOPMENT COST.

IN THIS CASE, IT'S OBVIOUSLY WHAT THE REASON IS.

THE -- ONE MORE THING. YOU KNOW, NUMBER SIX UNDER THE COMP PLAN, VARIANCE NOT GRANTED, EVIDENCE SUBMITTED IS A DEMONSTRATION OF FINANCIAL HARDSHIP OR ECONOMIC

CONSIDERATIONS. >> MR. HAYNES, HOW FAR DO YOU LIVE FROM THIS? AREN'T YOU RIGHT NEXT DOOR?

>> NEXT DOOR TO IT. >> WHAT IS THE SIZE OF YOUR LOT?

>> 72 BY 125. GLCH MY WHOLE THING IS, YOU KNO, WE'VE GONE FROM ONE LOT THEN FOR SOME REASON WE WENT TO THREE LOTS. I DID NOT -- WASN'T INVOLVED IN THAT. NOW WE'RE GOING TO FOUR.

YOU KNOW, IT JUST DOESN'T -- >> YES, SIR.

>> DOES ANY OF THE BOARD HAVE ANYTHING THEY WOULD LIKE TO SAY? ALL RIGHT. MR. CONTE, DID YOU HAVE

SOMETHING? >> MR. HAYNES, I JUST WANT TO -- YOU WOULD AGREE WITH ME THAT YOUR LOT IS 72X125 AND YOU HEARD MR. MIRANDA TESTIFY EARLIER THAT NEXT DOOR TO 1507 SOUTH FLETCHER AVENUE THERE ARE ESSENTIALLY FOUR LOTS THAT ARE 72 BY 125?

>> NO, THERE WAS ONE LOT. >> RIGHT NOW.

>> THEN THERE WAS THREE. NOW WE HAVE FOUR.

>> NO. NO.

>> THAT'S WHAT I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH.

>> I UNDERSTAND THAT, SIR. I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND.

I'M JUST ASKING YOU THAT BASICALLY YOU'RE AWARE OF THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE A LOT AND YOUR NEIGHBOR NEXT DOOR TO THE SOUTH I BELIEVE AND THEN THERE ARE TWO LOTS ON SOUTH FLETCHER,

ALL OF WHICH ARE ESSENTIALLY -- >> SAME THING.

I JUST SHOWED YOU'D THE LOTS TO THE NORTH ARE 72X250.

>> OKAY. COULD I ASK MR. PLATT A QUESTION IN RELATION TO SOMETHING THAT MR. HAYNES BROUGHT UP? WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 72X125-FOOT LOTS.

DOES THAT PROVIDE ADEQUATE AREA WITHIN THE RS1 ZONING DISTRICT? WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BASICALLY 9,000 SQUARE FEET.

>> SO, YES, THERE'S SUFFICIENT LAND AREA THERE TO SUPPORT THE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT A 72X125-FOOT LOT OF RECORD.

EVEN IF THERE WAS NOT THE LAND AREA, THE CODE WOULD STILL HONOR IT AS AN UNDERLYING LOT OF RECORD.

BUT, YES, THERE'S SUFFICIENT LAND AREA BASED ON THE R1 ZONING CODE AND AS A LOT OF RECORD IT'S A BUILDABLE LOT.

>> EVEN BEYOND THAT THE FACT THESE WOULD BE UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD WOULD JUSTIFY THIS AS WELL, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT. >> OKAY.

>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

ARE YOU DONE? >> CAN I ASK A QUESTION?

>> DOES IT PERTAIN TO MR. HAYNES?

>> YES, IT'S THE DENSITY QUESTION.

BECAUSE EVERYBODY SEEMS TO BRING IT UP BUT THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW IT'S CALCULATCULATED. JAKE, CAN YOU GIVE US AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL EDUCATION ON HOW DENSITY IS CALCULATED IN THE CITY TO DETERMINE HOW MANY DWELLING UNITS YOU'RE PERMITTED TO HAVE IN A PARTICULAR ZONING CLASSIFICATION?

>> DENSITY IS BASED ON SQUARE FOOTAGE PER ACRE.

[01:40:10]

ACRE. THE ZONING DISTRICT ALLOWS FOR FOUR DWELLING UNITS FOR ACRE. THAT'S 10,890 SQUARE FEET.

WHICH WOULD BE THE A LAND AREA F THE LOT, PLUS THE RIGHT OF WAY.

>> BECAUSE THE ADDITION OF THE RIGHT OF WAY, WHICH PEOPLE AREN'T AWARE OF THAT'S PART OF THE CALCULATION.

THE FOUR UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD IF WE WERE TO BUILD FOUR HOUSES ON -- TO MATCH WHAT'S IMMEDIATELY SOUTH, WE ARE NOT

INCREASING DENSITY? >> YOU'RE NOT INCREASING

DENSITY >> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, MR. HAYNES. WHO WOULD LIKE TO GO NEXT?

>> I'M GW MCKINNEY I LIVE AT 1508 SOUTH FLETCHER.

WE PURCHASED OUR PROPERTY IN FEBRUARY OF 2015.

WE CA CALL IT THE MONROE COTTAGE WHICH EXISTED ON TWO 75-FOOT LOTS. TEN FEET ENCROACHED ON THE SOUTHERN LOT. AND BECAUSE OF THAT, WE HAD TO GO THROUGH A LOT OF HOOPS TO EVEN BUILD WHAT WE DID.

YOU REMEMBER. A HALF DOZEN OR SO.

THE FIRST MEETING WE TOLD THEM WHAT OUR INTENT WAS.

WE WANTED TO KEEP THE COTTAGE. WE WA WANTED TO BUILD AN ADDITIN TO THE COTTAGE TO INCREASE SQUARE FOOTAGE ON THAT 150-FOOT LOT. AT THAT MEETING, I THINK YOU WERE THERE AND TONY WAS THERE. AFTER THEY STARTED TELLING ME ALL THE RULES ABOUT HOW MUCH WE COULD BUILD, HOW MUCH MONEY WE COULD SPEND. I KIND OF GOT UP AND I SAID I GUESS I'LL HAVE TO TEAR THE OLD COTTAGE DOWN.

I'LL BUILD ON ONE 75-FOOT LOT AND SELL OTHER 75-FOOT LOT AND I GOT TOLD I COULDN'T DO THAT. THE REASON I COULDN'T DO THAT WAS EXACTLY 1 .03 .0 05 THAT WEE TALKING ABOUT TODAY.

MAYBE I SHOULD HAVE BEEN SMARTER AND GONE AND HIRED AN ATTORNEY AND SOUGHT A VARIANCE. ON THE 1 $.27 MILLION PURCHASE WE JUST MADE. BUT WE DIDN'T. WE WORKED WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS OF THIS PARTICULAR SECTION. WE WORK THROED THROUGH A LOT OF ISSUES THROUGH A YEAR OF PERMITTING.

AND YOU CAN PULL UP OUR PROPERTY.

WE THINK WE DID THE RIGHT THING. WE DIDN'T BLOCK ANYBODY'S VIEW FROM ACROSS THE STREET. MY ONLY COMPLAINT WAS WE COULD ONLY BUILD A CERTAIN SQUARE FOOTAGE ADDITION.

WE TRIED TO GET IT PERMITTED TO BUILD A DETACHED GUEST HOUSE.

SO WE ATTACHED IT. BUT WE ATTACHED IT, WE WERE LIMITED TO THE SQUARE FOOTAGE. ALONG WITH THE COST.

I THINK TONY, THEY LET US GET A DIFFERENT APPRAISAL WHICH MADE US ABLE TO BUILD THE PROPERTY. BUT WE STILL COULDN'T BUILD THE SQUARE FOOTAGE WE WANTED. THAT'S WHERE I'M COMING FROM.

WE'VE GOT A 2 2 2870 SQUARE FOOT HEATED AREA ON A 150-FOOT LOT BY A VERY DEEP LOT. BUT YOU KNOW, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BUILDING FOUR 3,000 SQUARE FEET HOUSES ACROSS THE STREET.

I KEEP HEARING SUBDIVIDING, IT SOUNDS LIKE A SUBDIVISION WITH

[01:45:01]

ONE ACCESS. THAT'S MY COMPLAINT.

>> ALL RIGHT. JUST ONE MOMENT, SIR, BEFORE YOU SIT DOWN. THANK YOUING FOR COMING AND THANK YOU FOR COMING.IS THERE AD WOULD LIKE TO SAY OR ASK ANYTHING FROM HIM BEFORE WE LET HIM SIT DOWN?

STEVEN OR TISH? >> YOU'RE ACROSS THE STREET FROM

THE FOUR SOUTH OF THIS PROPERTY? >> I'M JUST SOUTH OF IT.

IF YOU'LL SEE HE'S GOT MY PROPERTY IN RED AND THE OTHER PROPERTY IS THERE. WE HAD TO DEAL WITH ENVIRONMENTAL, OF COURSE THE CITY, THE D.O.T.

AND IF YOU LOOK AT OUR DRIVEWAYS, THEY COMPLY.

I DON'T HII DON'T KNOW THAT MANS DO.

BUT THE GUY THAT WAS OUT THERE, WE HAD TO.

>> YES, SIR. >> I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY.

YOU DID NOT -- >> I HAVE A QUESTION --

>> DID NOT. WE NEVER HAD AN INTENT TO TEAR THE CAUG COTTAGE DOWN, DIDN'T WO TEAR IT DOWN.

ONCE WE GOT INTO A WHOLE DISCUSSION INTO WHAT WE COULD AND COULDN'T DO, I THOUGHT ABOUT IT.

BUT I -- >> CAN YOU HEAR ME?

>> YES. >> CAN THE BOARD HEAR ME SNE.

>> YES. >> I HAVE A QUESTION IF I COULD ASK FOR A MINUTE. ARE WE -- I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT WE CLARIFY THERE WAS DISCUSSION OF THIS LAST MEETING.

AND I THINK WE NEED TO CLARIFY. ARE MEB MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, N THEY SPEAK, ARE THEY SUBJECT TO QUESTIONS BY THE APPLICANT AND BY THE APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY? WE HAVEN'T SEEN THAT MUCH OF THAT. SO I THINK WE NEED TO -- BEFORE WE PROCEED WITH THIS SPEAKER AND THE NEXT ONE, IS THAT

AUTHORIZED? >> YES.

>> WHAT IS THE RULE ON THAT? >> IT IS AUTHORIZED AS CROSS-EXAMINATION. IF THE PARTIES THAT ARE SPEAKING ARE AFFECTED PARTIES, MEANING THAT THEY'RE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY WHICH WHAT WE'VE HEARD FROM SO FAR.

THEN THEY CAN AS AFFECTED PARTIES ASK QUESTIONS OF PARTIES AND OTHER AFFECTED PARTIES AND THE PARTIES CAN ASK QUESTIONS OF THE AFFECTED PARTIES. SO THE ANSWER IS YES.

>> SO BOARD MEMBERS CAN ASK QUESTIONS AT THE SAME TIME.

>> ABSOLUTELY. >> SO, MARK, IT SEEMS A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN WHAT YOU'RE USED TO BECAUSE OF HOW WE'RE DOING THESE MEETINGS AND WITH SOME PEOPLE BEING OUTSIDE, TYPICALLY THERE'S -- WITH EVERYBODY BEING IN THE SAME ROOM AND IT BEING A SMALLER AUDIENCE, IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT'S QUITE AS SEPARATED AS IT IS NOW. IT'S SOMEWHAT DIFFICULT TO GET PEOPLE BACK ONCE WE CLEAR THIS ROOM OUT.

SO IT PROBABLY DOES SEEM A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN WE'RE USED TO ON THAT. WAS THERE SOMETHING YOU WANTED

TO ASK HIM? >> NO, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE I

UNDERSTOOD THAT. >> YEAH.

>> WE HAVEN'T REALLY SEEN THAT MUCH AT ALL.

>> YOU'RE RIGHT. YOU'RE RIGHT.

OKAY. MR. CONTE, WERE YOU IN THE

MIDDLE OF ASKING SOMETHING? >> NO, I'M FINE, THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR COMING DOWN, SIR.

IS THERE SOMEONE ELSE WHEN HE WHO WOULDLIKE TO SPEAK?

>> HELLO. >> HEY.

>> MY NAME IS SHARON B BAR LOW D I LIVE AT 1511 SOUTH FLETCHER.

I'M THE PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY TO THE SOUTH OF THIS PARCEL BEING DISCUSSED. MY HUSBAND AND I BOUGHT OUR LOT IN 1998 AND FINISHED BUILDING OUR HOUSE IN 2002.

I'VE BEEN COMING TO THIS ISLAND SINCE THE 70S.

I'M A RETIRED TEACHER OF 42 Q42YEARS WITH THE LAST 13 AT FERNANDINA BEACH HIGH SCHOOL. I'M GOOD FRIENDS WITH RON SAPP A FORMER MAYOR WHO WAS INSTRUMENTAL IN CURBING EXCESSIVE DEVELOPMENT AT THE BEACH IN THE 70 70S AND THE 80S. THE OVERDEVELOPMENT OF FLETCHER HAS BEEN A CONCERN OF OUR COMMUNITY FOR MANY YEARS.

THUS, THE CODES. LET ME SAY BEFORE I BEGIN THAT I'M SURE THAT THESE ARE VERY NICE PEOPLE.

AND GOOD CITIZENS AND NONE OF THIS IS MEANT TO BE PERSONAL.

IT'S JUST THAT I DISAGREE WITH WHAT THAT YOU WANT TO DO FOR ALL THE FOLLOWING REASONS. I'M OPPOSED TO THE GRANTING OF

[01:50:03]

THIS PARTICULAR VARIANCE PRIMARILY BECAUSE IT WILL AFFECT THE VALUE OF MY PROPERTY. BECAUSE THE INTENT OF IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE PROTECTIONS SET FORTH IN THE CITY CODE. AND BECAUSE THESE PEOPLE WANT TO USE THIS VARIANCE TO MAXIMIZE VALUE OF THIS PROPERTY.

IT IS JUST WRONG. CITY CODES RULES AND REGULATIONS EXIST FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COMMUNITY AND FOR THE PRESERVATION OF THE LAND. VARIANCES SEEK TO NEGATE OR IGNORE THE CODES IN THIS CASE FOR PERSONAL GAIN.

MY BUILDER, MARK BEAN, TOLD ME THAT VARIANCES ARE MAINLY FOR HARDSHIP CASES. NOT FOR THE WISHES OF ONE PERSON. MY HUSBAND AND I HAD TO OBEY THE CODES WHEN WE BUILT OUR HOUSE. MANY TIMES NOT TO OUR LIKING BUT WE DID. IF THIS VARIANCE IS GRANTED IT WILL CAUSE HAWIV HAVOC WITH FLOG AND TRAFFIC CONGESTION.

WE PURCHASED OUR PROPERTY KNOWING THIS WAS ONE PARCEL OF LAND UNTIL ONE SATURDAY IN 20177 SOMEONE CAME IN AND TORE UP THE FOUNDATION OF THE OLD BARN THAT ORIGINALLY EXISTED ON THE LOT.

REMOVING THAT FOUNDATION MADE THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY TWO LOTS. THESE TWO LOTS WERE USELESS, EXCEPT AS A BACKYARD TO THE FRONT PROPERTY. BECAUSE THERE WAS NO ACCESS TO THESE LOTS EXCEPT BY FIRST AVENUE WHICH DIDN'T EXIST.

TO COMPLETE THIS PART OF FIRST AVENUE WOULD INVOLVE DISRUPTING THE DUNE THAT SITS THERE AND UPSET THE ECOLOGICAL BALANCE OF THE LAND. WHICH IS WHY THE SUBDIVIDING OF THESE LOTS HAS NEVER BEEN CONSIDERED BEFORE.

IF THIS HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AND REQUESTED BEFORE, IT MUST HAVE BEEN DENIED BECAUSE THIS HAS BEEN ONE PIECE OF LAND SINCE 1937. BUT THESE APPLICANTS WANT TO CHANGE ALL THIS AND SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY.

SO NOW BECAUSE OF THIS SITUATION INVOLVING THE DUNE AND THE GREENWAY THEY WANT TO ACCESS THE WESTERLY LOTS FROM FLESHER BY CONSTRUCTING A LARGE DRIVEWAY BETWEEN THE FOUR HOUSES THAT YOU WANT TO BUILD THERE. ON THEIR APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE THEY STATE THEY WANT TO SUBDIVIDE THE LOT, THAT'S THEIR WORD. I DO NOT WANT TO LIVE NEXT DOOR TO A SUBDIVISION.

THERE IS NO PRESIDENT FOR THE . I DON'T WANT TO SHARE A DRIVEWAY WITH FOUR FAMILIES. LOOK AT THAT PROPERTY.

THEY KEEP TALKING ABOUT THE FOUR HOUSES SOUTH.

YOU SEE HOW CLOSE THOSE HOUSES ARE? THEY'RE GOING TO DO FOUR HOUSES LIKE THAT ON THOSE FOUR LOTS AND THAT YOU WANT TO PUT A COMMUNAL DRIVEWAY OR ROAD UP THE MIDDLE.

IF YOU DO THAT ON OUR FOUR HOUSES, LOOK HOW CROWDED IT'S GOING TO BE. WE'RE ALL CLOSE TO THE -- OUR SIDE SETBACKS ARE UP TO WHERE THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE.

HOW ARE THEY TB GOING TO PUT A DRIVEWAY AND CONNECT FOUR HOUSES WITHOUT IT LOOKING LIKE A DEVELOPMENT.

THERE'S ENOUGH TRAFFIC ON FLETCHER AS IT IS.

I DON'T WANT TO DEAL WITH FOUR FAMILIES ZIPPING IN AND OUT OF ONE DRIVEWAY RIGHT NEXT TO MY DRIVEWAY.

THERE'S ENOUGH WATER ON FLETCHER WHEN IT RAINS AND I DON'T WANT MORE. WE CALL TU IT LAKE BARLOW IN FRT OF MY HOUSE WHEN IT RAINS. THE WATER WILL BUILD UP ON FLETCHER. REMEMBER A VARIANCE SEEKS TO OVERRIDE THE LAW AND THE CODES. THERE IS NO REASON TO APPROVE THIS OTHER THAN FOR THE PERSONAL GAIN OF THE APPLICANTS.

IF THIS PARCEL IS SUPPOSED TO BE FOUR LOTS, WHY IS THE PROPERTY LISTED AS ONE PARCEL OF LAND? WHY IS THERE NOT A PRICE TAG ON EACH LOT? I'LL TELL YOU WHY, IT'S BECAUSE THIS PARCEL ONE PIECE OF LAND, NOT FOUR PIECES, AND THAT'S HOW IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE. ONE LOT, ONE PRICE, ONE HOUSE.

LET'S LOOK AT ITEM 5 F 5 OF THEX PROVISIONS THAT MUST BE SATISFIED BY THE APPLICANTS. I'M DREA ADDRESSING EACH ONE OFR POINTS MADE ON THEIR APPLICATION.

ITEM 5 DEALS WITH GENERAL HARMONY.

THIS IS A JOKE BECAUSE THE ONLY HARMALLY WHARMONY WILL BE AMONGR APPLICANTS WHO WANT TO SUBDIVIDE THE PIECE OF LAND. THE CODE SAYS IF A PROPERTY HAS A HOUSE BUILT ON ONE OR MORE PLATTED LOTS, IT IS CONSIDERED THE LOT OF RECORD AND THAT A PERMIT WOULD NOT BE GRANTED FOR THE BUILDING OF MORE THAN ONE HOUSE

[01:55:01]

ON THAT LOT. PERIOD.

THAT'S THE CODE. MOST OF THE LOTS NORTH OF THIS PROPERTY ARE ALSO DOUBLE LOTS. DEEP LOTS OF 250 FEET AND LENGTH LIKE THIS ONE. THEY BACK UP TO THE GLEANWAY AND HAS NO ACCESS. NO ONE HAS MADE A SEPARATE COMMUNITY OUT OF THEIR DEEP LOTS. THE DEEP LOTS PROVIDE SPACE, VISUAL CORRIDORS, NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER, PROPERTY VALUES, AND VISUAL ATTRACTIVENESS OF RESIDENTIAL AREAS. SO PRESCRIBED IN THE LDC SECTION 1 .03 . 05A. THE INTENT OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IS TO PROTECT THE GREENWAY AND DUNES NOT TO COMPROMISE THEM. SUBDIVIDING THIS PROPERTY WOULD BE OUT OF HARMONY WITH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS.

THERE ARE NO OTHER SUBDIVISIONS NEARBY.

THEY SAY THEY WANT TO LIVE IN A RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY.

THERE ARE PLENTY OF COMMUNITIES ALL OR OVER THE ISLAND AND LOTSN BE PURCHASED WITHOUT A VARIANCE. THERE IS BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT EVERYWHERE MUCH TO OUR CHUGRIN.

CHAGRIN. WHY RISK CREATING ENCROACHMENT ON MY HOME WHEN OTHER PROPERTIES ARE AVAILABLE? THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL BE SO OUT OF HARMONY WITH THE ONE DRIVEWAY SERVICING IF FOUR HOMES. CRAMMING A DRIVEWAY BETWEEN FOUR HOUSES IS GOING TO PUSH THE HOUSE NEXT TO MINE SO CLOSE TO ME THAT I'LL LOSE ALL THE PRIVACY ON MY TH THIRD FLOOR.

NO OTHER HOUSES ON FLETCHER SHARE ONE DRIVEWAY.

LOOKING NORTH I CAN SEE THE NEXT FOUR HOUSES DOWN FROM ME ON FLESHEFLETCHER BECAUSE THEY'RE L STAGGERED R.

IT'S REFRESHING TO SEE THESE STAGGERED HOMES BECAUSE IT GIVES A SENSE OF SPACE AND INDIVIDUALITY.

WHEN THESE PEOPLE PUT UP TEN HOUSES PROBABLY NOT TEN FEET FROM MY HOUSE I'LL SEE INTO THEIR WINDOW, RUINING MY VIEW AND DEMEANING THE VALUE OF MY PROPERTY.

IN ADDITION, THEY ARGUE THAT THEY DON'T GET THE VARIANCE THE CURRENT HOME WILL BE DEMOLISHED AND AN EXTRAORDINARILY LARGE HOME FOR THAT AREA CAN BE CONSTRUCTED.

REALLY? BUILDING A LARGE HOME NEXT TO ME ON A BEAUTIFUL SPACIOUS LOT IS GOING TO BE A DEALTR DETRIMENT D TO MY PROPERTY? I THINK NOT.

THEY CLAIM TO BE BUILDING 2500 TO 3500 SQUARE FEET HOMES.

MOST OF THE O HOMES IN OUR AREAS AT LEAST THAT OR MORE. MY HOME HAS 3600 SQUARE FEET OF LIVING SPACE.

THE TWO HOMES NORTH OF 1507 ARE LARGE AND IMPRESSIVE AS ARE THE FFOUR ACROSS THE STREET. SEVERAL HOMES ARE SO SPECTACULAR THAT HAY THEY HAVE BEEN FEATUREN OUR ANNUAL CHRISTMAS HOME TOUR.

ADDITIONALLY THEY EXPLAIN THAT THE SMALLER LOTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE SIZE OF THOSE CURRENTLY IN THE COMMUNITY.

HAVE THEY LOOKED ACROSS THE STREET? TWO OF THOSE HOUSES SIT ON TWO LOTS ALSO.

BOTH BUILT WITHIN THE LAST TWO YEARS.

THESE HOMES ADD TO THE SERENITY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

ON THE WEST SIDE OF FLETCHER AND TO THE NORTH MANY SIT ON DOUBLE LOTS LIKE THE CURRENT HOUSE AT 1507 AND THEY HAVEN'T SUBDIVIDE DIVIDEDTHOSE LOTS. THIS WOULD K LIKE A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.

IT'S MENTIONED THAT LARGER HOUSE WOULD LIMIT THE SIGHT LINE OF THE REAR HOUSES. I WOULD THINK THAT TWO HOUSES WHICH WOULD BE TWO OR THREE STORIES WOULD PREVENT THE REAR PROPERTIES JUST AS MUCH OR EVEN MORE.

THIS ISLAND OFFERS ENOUGH REAL ESTATE THAT IF THESE LIFELONG FRIENDS WANT TO BE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD TOGETHER THEY COULD FIND A NEIGHBORHOOD AND NOT DEVELOP ONE IN OUR COMMUNITY WITH ALL THE PROBLEMS ATTACHED. GRANTING THIS VARIANCE WOULD CONVEY SPECIAL PRIVILEGES UPON THESE APPLICANTS THAT OTHERS HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO DO. HISTORICALLY IF A HOME STRADDLED TWO LOTS, THE LOTS CANNOT BE SEPARATED.

THAT'S WHAT MR. MCKINNEY FOUND. HIS HOUSE SAT ON TWO LOTS, THE HOUSE OVERLAPPED TEN FEET ON THE SECOND LOT AND MR. PLATT WOULD NOT LET THEM DIVIDE OR SEPARATE THOSE LOTS.

HE SAID IT COULD NOT HAPPEN. THAT WAS THE RULE.

I ASK THE BOARD TO GIVE SERIOUS THOUGHT TO THIS REQUEST AND DENY IT. I CAN SEE MAYBE GRANTING THIS REQUEST IF THIS WERE THE LAST PIECE OF PROPERTY ON AMELIA ISLAND. BUT CLEARLY, IT IS NOT.

[02:00:02]

THERE ARE SO MANY NEIGHBORHOODS ON AMELIA ISLAND TO CHOOSE FROM.

IF THEY NEED TO BE NEAR THE BEACH, THERE IS MUCH PROPERTY FOR SALE ON FLETCHER TO CHOOSE FROM.

THEY COULD STILL BE NEIGHBORS. PLEASE USE YOUR VISION FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR ISLAND TO GUIDE YOUR DECISION.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION AND YOUR

CONSIDERATION. >> THANK YOU FOR COMING DOWN TONIGHT. DO I UNDERSTAND YOU LIVE

ADJACENT TO THIS PROPERTY? >> UH-HUH.

>> OKAY. >> ON THE FIRST PROPERTY THAT

WOULD BE -- >> SOUTH.

>> ON FLETCHER. >> OKAY.

SO I THOUGHT THAT, AND THAT'S WHY I LET YOU CONTINUE.

THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS YOU MENTIONED THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE TRUE THAT DON'T REALLY PERTAIN TO WHAT WE'RE DOING.

>> LIKE WHAT? >> WELL, LET'S JUST TAP THE BRAKES ON THIS JUST A SECOND. YOU DO LIVE ADJACENT TO THAT AND YOU'RE VERY PASSIONATE ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON ON THE ISLAND.

I RESPECT THAT. BUT THE TRAFFIC OR THE FLOODING OR WHAT YOUR VIEW IS OUT OF YOUR WINDOW, YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T REALLY SIDESTEP PROPERTY LINES AND TELL OTHER PEOPLE THAT PERHAPS THAT'S NOT A GOOD LOT YOU SHOULD GO SOMEWHERE ELSE.

>> WELL, I DID CONSULT AN ATTORNEY.

AND SHE SAID THAT IN A VARIANCE YOU ARE ALLOWED TO MAKE IT DETRIMENTAL TO YOUR PROPERTY. THAT'S A CONSIDERATION.

>> SURE. >> THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED.

>> YES, MA'AM. >> MY RULE CONCERNS PUTTING THAT DRIVEWAY UP THE MIDDLE AND IT'S GOING TO PUSH THAT FIRST HOUSE SO CLOSE TO MINE. I'M SURE THERE ARE GOING TO BE TWO OR 3 STORY HOUSES, MINE'S A THREE STORY.

I HAVE A BEAUTIFUL SUN PORCH ACROSS THE FRONT OF MY HOUSE.

MY WINDOWS CAME FROM MR. LASERRE, HE KNOWS MY BEAUTIFUL PORCH. I DON'T WANT TO LOOK OUT MY WINDOW AND BE LOOKING RIGHT INTO THEIR WINDOWS. YOU KNOW?

THAT'S GOING TO BE THE REALITY. >> SURE.

>> SO, I MEAN, I WOULD LOVE FOR THEM TO BUY THE PROPERTY, YOU KNOW, JUST USING THE THREE LOTS. BUT WHEN MR. MCKINNEY WASN'T ALLOWED TO SEVER HIS PROPERTY, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHY WE SHOULD ALLOW THEM TO DO THAT. YOU KNOW? BUILDING A NICE BIG HOUSE THERE, I THINK IT WOULD BE GREAT.

IT INCREASES MY PROPERTY. >> SURE.

JUST SO EVERYONE IS CLEAR IT IS NEVER THE POSITION OF THIS BOARD OR THE CITY TO BE UNFAIR OR UNNECESSARILY INJURIOUS TO ANY PERSON. THERE'S ALWAYS BEEN A VARIANCE PROCESS YOU COULD APPLY FOR. WHETHER THAT WAS DISCUSSED OR MADE CLEAR OR WHATNOT, WE CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT.

BUT THEY HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG.

>> I'M NOT SAYING THEY HAVE. I WAS JUST ARGUING ALL THE POINTS. I MEAN, A VARIANCE GOES AGAINST THE CODE. RIGHT?

>> IT DOES, YES, IT DOES. >> OKAY, SO THAT'S MY POINT.

>> OKAY, YES, MA'AM. THANK YOU FOR COMING.

>> YOU WANT TO GO AGAINST THE CODE --

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. WAS THERE ANY COMMENT FROM THE BOARD MEMBERS BEFORE SHE SITS DOWN?

>> I WANT TO KNOW IF I COULD CLARIFY AS FAR AS SURVEILLANCE .

THERE'S A SECTION OF CODE THAT REFERS TO NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER AND WHERE YOU HAVE THESE LOTS, UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD.

DOWNTOWN WE HAVE LOTS OF 25 BY 100-FOOT LOTS OF RECORD.

THEY DIDN'T DEVELOP AS SUCH. SOME DEVELOPED AS 50, 75 OR 100.

IF YOU TORE DOWN A HOUSE AND RESTORED EIGHT LOTS OF RECORD, THAT WOULD BE DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT THAN GOING FROM ONE HOME TO EIGHT VERSUS ONE TO TWO THAT'S MORE IN KEEPING WITH THE BLOCK AND THE SURROUNDING HOME. THIS SPECIFIC SECTION OF CODE HAS A PROVISION THAT SAYS, IT OUTLINED A VARIANCE REQUEST, AS ALL VARIANCES DO, BUT IT'S MORE OF A NOTICE AND A PROCEDURE TO GOING BACK TO THIS UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD.

TO MR. MCKINNEY'S PROPERTY -- WE DID HAVE MANY DISCUSSIONS -- IT'S NOT AN IMAGINARY LINE, IT'S A REAL LINE THAT RUNS UP AND DOWN THE EAST SIDE OF FLETCHER THAT CROSSES FLETCHER IN SOME INSTANCES. IT'S THE CONTROL LINE, WHICH IS A DEP LINE WHICH BRINGS IN A WHOLE OTHER PARAMETER AND WHERE WE WOUND UP WITH MR. MCKINNEY'S PROJECT IN FITTING WHERE HE WANTED TO GO. THERE'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENCE IN SCENARIO THERE. JUST TO CLARIFY.

>> YOU'RE VERY PASSIONATE ABOUT YOUR CITY AND NEIGHBORHOOD.

>> I LOVE THIS CITY. >> THE BOARD RESPECTS THAT AND WE REFLECT ON EVERYONE THAT YOU SAID.

[02:05:01]

>> IF YOU APPROVE THE VARIANCE, I'LL BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR.

>> WAS THERE ANYTHING YOU WANTED TO SAY, MR. CONTE?

>> MS. BARLOW, YOUR LOT IS 72 FEET WIDE BY 125 FEET AS

WELL? >> YES.

>> OKAY. AND YOU DO UNDERSTAND, DON'T YOU, THAT THERE RIGHT NOW ARE THREE LOTS THAT COMPRISE THE

PROPERTY TO THE NORTH? >> UH-HUH.

>> THREE SEPARATE LOTS WITH SEPARATE ID NUMBERS.

IT'S NOT ONE PARCEL, THERE ARE THREE?

>> WHY IS IT LISTED AS ONE PIECE OF LAND?

>> AGAIN, I'M NOT A REALTOR. ALL I CAN SAY --

>> ALL MY POINT IS WHEN WE BOUGHT THAT LOT, THAT WAS ONE

PIECE OF LAND. >> YES, MA'AM.

>> IT'S QUITE NICE. >> YES, MA'AM.

>> NOW WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE IT. BUT I GUESS IT'S HAPPENING ALL

OVER THE ISLAND. >> AND MS. BARLOW, I AGREE WITH CHAIR MILLER, YOUR PASSION IS OBVIOUS AND IT'S WELL-INTENTIONED AND I RESPECT IT.

THE ISSUE OF ANY DRIVEWAYS, HOWEVER, IS NOT RELEVANT TO THIS DISCUSSION. AGAIN, IT'S NOT.

I COULD LET -- I CAN LET JOSE ADDRESS THAT ISSUE BRIEFLY, BUT REALLY ALL, AS MR. PLATT SAID, ALL MY CLIENTS ARE TRYING TO DO IS SEEK THE RESTORATION OF THE UNDERLYING LOTS, TWO UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO YOUR HOUSE TO THE NORTH. LOTS 78 AND 79.

THAT'S ALL WE'RE HERE TO TALK ABOUT.

AND THAT'S ALL THAT'S RELEVANT FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER.

CERTAINLY NOT DRIVEWAYS. THERE ARE ALSO ARE SETBACKS, YOU'RE AWARE OF THE FACT THAT THERE ARE SETBACKS THAT MUST BE ADHERED TO AND WILL BE MET NO MATTER WHAT GOES IN NEXT DOOR TO YOU. IF IT'S A BIG OLD HOUSE LIKE YOU SUGGESTED OR IF IT'S TWO SMALLER HOUSES, THERE ARE SETBACKS THAT

WOULD APPLY. >> THE DRIVEWAY IS REL RELEVANTO ME BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO PUSH THAT HOUSE CLOSER TOOR ME.

TO ME. >> THERE STILL ARE SETBACKS.

IF THE VARIANCE IS GRANTED AND THE UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD ARE RESTORED, THERE'S STILL GOING TO HAVE TO ABIDE BY

SETBACKS. >> IT WILL BE THE MINIMUM SETBACK, WHEREAS A BIGGER HOUSE THERE WOULD BE MORE SPACE.

>> I'LL LET -- >> JUST MAKES COMMONSENSE, IF YOU PUT FOUR HOUSES IN YOU HAVE TO HAVE A DRIVEWAY IN BETWEEN THEM. WHEN YOU LOOK AT OUR LITTLE PLAT THERE, THERE'S NO ROOM FOR A DRIVEWAY.

>> LET ME JUST ADDRESS THE DRIVEWAY ISSUE.

BECAUSE IT'S OBVIOUSLY THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM.

WE HAVE STEADIED THE DRIVEWAY ISSUE, LIKE I SAID IT'S NOT PART OF WHAT THIS BOARD IS SUPPOSED --

>> I KNOW, I KNOW. >> THE LOCATION -- BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT -- HOW TO I PUT THIS AS TACTFULLY AS POSSIBLE.

YOU CAN COMPLAIN ABOUT WHERE THE DRIVEWAY IS LOCATED, BUT YOU'RE NOT THE AUTHORITY FROM WHICH WE GET A DRIVEWAY --

>> I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE PLACEMENT OF THE HOUSE IN

CONTEXT WITH MY HOUSE. >> IT'S ALL SPELLED OUT -- SO

YES. >> AWAY FROM MY HOUSE.

>> OKAY, YA I'M NOT GOING TO TK ANYMORE WE HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE

TO TALK. >> THANK YOU FOR COMING DOWN AND YOUR PATIENCE. TWO MONTHS IN A ROW I THINK.

WHO WOULD LIKE TO BE NEXT? YES, MA'AM.

>> GOOD EVENING. I HOPE EVERYBODY'S STARVING LIKE I AM AND WE CAN GET ON WITH THIS.

AT ANY RATE. I WANT TO ADDRESS PROVISION 6, WHICH STATES GRANTING THE VARIANCE -- OH, I'M SORRY.

I THOUGHT EVERYBODY KNEW ME BY NOW.

I'M LIKE BAD NEWS HERE. BRNN BYRON, I WOULD BE ACROSS THE STREET. I'M ADDRESSING PROVISION 6, WHICH STATES GRANTING THE VARIANCE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. WILL NOT CAUSE SAPT INJURY TO VERY TO THE AREAINVOLVED OR OTHY DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, WELFARE OR ENVIRONMENT.

[02:10:03]

MY RESPONSE. GRANTING THIS VARIANCE IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH ALL THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.

AND IT WILL CAUSE INJURY TO THE AREAS INVOLVED AS CLEARLY STATED BY BOTH FRANK HOFF AND UNFORTUNATELY WE HAVEN'T READ, BUT WE DID SEND TO THE BOARD JULIE FERRERA'S LETTER FROM THE SIERRA CLUB. BESIDES CAUSING FLOODING INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD PROPERTIES, ROADS -- AND THE ROADS ON SOUTH FLETCHER, AND THE ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS INCLUDED THE DUNES. I MIND LIKE MR. PLATT TO PLEASE SHOW THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF MY HOUSE, THE LAST RAINFALL TWO WEEKS AGO. THIS IS WITH ONE HOUSE AND ALL KINDS OF PERVIOUS LAND AROUND ABSORBING THE WATER.

THIS WAS NOT A HURRICANE. THIS WAS JUST AN AFTERNOON RAIN.

THIS IS THE FOOT OF MY DRIVEWAY. DO YOU HAVE THE VIDEO AS WELL? I THINK I HAVE THREE PHOTOS AND ONE VIDEO.

>> THE VIDEO IS DOWNLOADING. >> OKAY.

I MADE IT VERY SHORT. >> IT'S FINE.

IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY, THE BOARD WANTS TO HEAR IT.

DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ONLINE? ANYBODY THAT'S CALLED IN?

>> NO, WE DO NOT. >> ARE YOU DOING THAT, KELLY? NOBODY IS ON ? OKAY.

>> HAVING TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES HERE.

>> WAS THERE SOMETHING ELSE YOU WANTED TO SAY WHY HE WAS TRYING

TO PULL THAT UP MA'AM? >> YES, AND WE CAN GO TO THE

NEXT SET OF FIVE HOUSES. >> ONE SECOND.

>> MY OBJECTION IS THE HOUSES IN OUR PARTICULAR AREA ARE PRETTY MUCH HIGH END HOUSES. THEY'RE NOT RUN DOWN OLD HOUSES.

THEY'RE PRETTY LUXURIOUS. IT WOULD NOT BE IN KEEPING WITH THE COMPLEXION OF THE HOUSES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

I DID WANT TO SHOW THE FIVE SURROUNDING HOUSES WHICH HAVE BEAUTIFUL LANDSCAPES AND LOTS OF SPACE.

IS THAT IT? NO.

THAT'S THE DUNE YOU JUST SHOWED THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE DESTROYED.

>> THESE ARE THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.

>> OKAY. SO CAN YOU MAKE THOSE HOUSES -- THOSE PHOTOS A LITTLE LARGER SO THAT OUR BOARD MEMBERS CAN TAKE

A PEAK AT THOSE? >> THESE SIT DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM ME. COULD YOU SHOW THAT HOUSE? WHEN IT RAINS THE RAINWATER COVERS THE STREET AND GOES

HALFWAY UP THEIR DRIVEWAY. >> SORRY I'M NOT MAKING IT ANY

BIGGER. >> YOU CANNOT?

>> TRY HOLDING THE CONTROL BUTTON WHILE YOU SCROLL.

>> THT WORKS. >> A FREE COMPUTER LESSON

TONIGHT. >> THAT'S THE ONLY THING I KNOW

ABOUT THE TECHNOLOGY. >> I DIDN'T KNOW THAT.

>> CAN YOU MAKE THAT HOUSE LARGER SO THEY CAN SEE IT? AS YOU NOTICE, IF YOU CAN SEE IT, THE REAR OF THAT HOUSE BACKS ONTO THE DUNES. THEY HAVE NOT DESTROYED THE DUNES. INSTEAD, THEY PUT A FENCE AT THE BACK OF THEIR HOUSE AND THEY LEFT THE DUNES INTACT.

THESE PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO CUT THROUGH THE DUNES AND BUILD THE SECOND HOUSE. WOULD YOU TAKE THE SECOND -- THE OTHER HOUSE, THE YELLOW ONE? THAT'S MY NEIGHBOR.

A LITTLE BIT NORTH OF ME. AS I COME OUT MY DRIVEWAY I CAN SCOOT INTO HERS. SHE HAS THE SAME THING, SHE HAS A LARGE HOUSE, BEAUTIFULLY LANDSCAPED. THE BACK OF HER HOUSE BACKS UP ONTO THE DUNE. AND SHE HAS NOT DESTROYED THE DUNE OR BUILT ANOTHER HOUSE OR SOLD THAT LOT.

SHE LEFT THE PROPERTY TO WAY IT WAS, PUT A LITTLE FENCE IN THE BACKYARD. COULD YOU SHOW ME ANOTHER HOUSE? THESE, BY THE WAY, ARE ALL 75-FOOT PROPERTIES.

NOT 72 OR 3. NOT -- WHAT IS IT?

[02:15:04]

2. NOT 72.

THIS IS RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO MY HOUSE, ANOTHER HOUSE, BUT IT'S ON THE BEACH SIDE. IT HAS PLENTY OF SPACE ON EITHER SIDE. YOU'RE NOT REACHING OUT THE WINDOW AND TOUCHING YOUR NEIGHBOR.

I THINK WE HAVE MR. MCKINNEY'S HOUSE AND A FEW MORE.

AGAIN, ALL THESE HOUSES ARE LARGE HOUSES.

THEY'RE NOT SMALL HOUSES. THIS MY NEIGHBOR TO THE SOUTH.

AND COULD YOU GIVE ME ONE MORE? NOT VERY HAPPY WITH OUR DRIVEWAY, BUT THAT'S ALL RIGHT. THIS IS MR. MCKINNEY'S HOUSE WHO WAS UNABLE TO DIVIDE HIS PROPERTY.

THIS IS THE HOUSE HE HAS TODAY. ANOTHER HOUSE, PLEASE.

WE DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH THESE VERY QUICKLY.

THESE ARE ALL IN THE SURROUNDING AREA.

AS YOU CAN SEE, THESE HOUSES ARE AMPLE HOUSES. THESE ARE NOT LITTLE SUBDIVISION HOUSES. THIS ONE IS ANOTHER NEXT DOOR AND I THINK I HAVE ONE MORE. WE DO NOT -- THAT'S A RELATIVELY LARGE HOUSE. SO THE ONLY OTHER THING I CAN SAY IS OF COURSE WE'VE ALL -- WE ALL FEEL THAT WHATEVER YOU'RE WANTING TO DO HERE IS GOING TO DECREASE OUR PROPERTY VALUES.

THAT'S MY CONCERN AS WELL. IT'S ALSO GOING TO CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. IN OUR IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD, THERE ARE NO SUBDIVISIONS WITH FOUR HOUSES BUILT ON ONE PROPERTY UNDER THE R1 ZONING NOWHERE ON SOUTH FLETCHER THAT I KNOW OF. MR. PLATT, CAN YOU ADDRESS THAT BECAUSE I HAVE NOT GOTTEN A RESPONSE ON THAT.

>> ON THE BEACH HAMMOCK SUBDIVISION OF RACHEL AVENUE WAS PLATTED IN 1980. THOSE ARE A LOT SMALLER LOTS UP AND DOWN NORTH AND SOUTH FLETCHER.

>> THERE ARE FOUR HOUSES ON THAT?

>> RACHEL IS A ROAD, IT'S NOT A DRIVEWAY.

>> CORRECT, IT'S A SUBDIVISION, YES, MA'AM.

>> MR. CHAIR? WE PROBABLY NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE KEEPING EVERYTHING RELEVANT.

>> AGREED. >> OKAY, IN CONCLUSION, I JUST WANT TO REMIND YOU THAT YOU'RE ASKING TO GO AGAINST THE 72-FOOT RULE. AND WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY THESE PEOPLE FEEL IT'S SUCH A HARDSHIP PUTTING A HARDSHIP ON THEM. AND WE ALL ALSO WANT TO KNOW WHY THEY SHOULD BE GIVEN SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS THAT WERE NOT GIVEN TO MR. MCKINNEY. WE HAVE NOT ANY OF US IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD RECEIVED SPECIAL VARIANCES.

AND FOR THAT, I THANK THE BOARD. I HOPE YOU WILL TAKE OUR FEELINGS AND OUR THOUGHTS, NOT TO BE EMOTIONAL, BUT WE WOULD LOVE TO KEEP OUR NEIGHBORHOOD THE WAY IT IS, LOOKING BEAUTIFUL. WE WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE LOVELY LADY BUILD A HOUSE ON THAT PROPERTY IN THE FRONT.

IT WOULD BE A BEAUTIFUL HOME AND WE HOPE IT WOULD BE IN KEEPING WITH OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. WE WOULD HOPE SHE WOULD LEAVE THE DUNES ALONE SO WE CAN PROTECT OUR ISLAND.

I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF I COULD REQUEST SOMEBODY TO READ JULIA -- I'M SORRY, NOT JULIA. JULIE'S LETTER FROM THE SIERRA

CLUB? >> SHE'S NOT HERE.

>> NO. BUT YOU DID RECEIVE IT, I HOPE?

>> WE DID RECEIVE IT. AND THAT'S THE END OF THAT

DISCUSSION. >> OKAY.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> MA'AM, BEFORE YOU SIT DOWN, WAS THERE ANY COMMENTS BY THE BOARD BEFORE SHE SITS DOWN? MR. CONTE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY

ANYTHING? >> MS. BYRON, I TOTALLY RESPECT WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM. I DO.

BUT I HAVE TO ASK, DO YOU HAVE ANY DATA -- YOU'RE NOT THE FIRST PERSON WHO HAS SAID THIS TONIGHT, THAT WHATEVER IT IS THAT MY CLIENTS WILL DO IS GOING TO RESULT IN A DECREASE IN YOUR PROPERTY VALUES. FIRST OF ALL YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT MY CLIENTS ARE GOING TO DO ON THIS PROPERTY, DO YOU?

NO, -- >> THIS IS WHAT YOU SUBMITTED.

THIS IS THE MATERIAL YOU GAVE US TO WORK WITH.

THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE COMMENTING ON.

>> YOU CAN COMMENT ON THAT, I UNDERSTAND.

BUT THAT WAS A -- ONE OF SEVERAL OPTIONS AS TO WHAT MY CLIENTS

[02:20:09]

ARE CONSIDERING FOR THIS PROPERTY.

THAT BEING SAID, I WANT TO ASK AGAIN, DO YOU HAVE ANY DATA, ANY ANALYSIS THAT'S BEEN PERFORMED THAT DEMONSTRATES THAT WHATEVER IT IS THAT MY CLIENTS WOULD PUT ON THOSE FOUR DISTINCT SEPARATE LOTS, IF THIS VARIANCE IS APPROVED, WOULD DECREASE YOUR PROPERTY VALUES? OR --

>> COMMONSENSE -- >> IF -- THAT'S FINE.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO READ TO YOU JUST ONE SENTENCE OUT OF THE LETTER SENT TO MR. PLATT MARCH 10.

ONCE TORN DOWN, THE BUYERS WOULD LIKE TO BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON EACH OF THESE FOUR LOTS. SO THE DIAGRAM SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. WE TOOK THEM AT THEIR FACE

VALUE. >> OKAY.

AGAIN, SO YOU DON'T HAVE ANY DATA OTHER THAN YOUR OPINION THAT YOUR PROPERTY VALUE WOULD DECREASE IF THIS VARIANCE IS

APPROVED? >> NO, I DID NOT DO A STUDY.

>> OKAY. AND YOU DO UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE RIGHT NOW -- YOU MADE THE COMMENT AND YOU'RE NOT THE ONLY PERSON THAT'S MADE THIS COMMENT TONIGHT AGAIN -- YOU SAID THERE ARE NO SUBDIVISIONS OF FOUR HOUSES BUILT ON --

>> I SAID NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE. >> RIGHT.

>> I ASKED MR. PLATT. I HAVE NOT SEEN ANY OF MY OWN.

>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE CLEAR.

YOU DO UNDERSTAND WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT ONE PROPERTY HERE.

IF THIS VARIANCE IS APPROVED, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FOUR SEPARATE LOTS. I JUST WANT -- WE'RE CLEAR ON

THAT, CORRECT? >> UH-HUH.

>> THANK YOU, THAT'S ALL I HAVE. >> THANK YOU, MA'AM FOR COMING DOWN TONIGHT. WAS THERE SOMEONE ELSE IN HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? YES, MA'AM.

IT'S YOUR TURN. >> ALL RIGHT.

I'M PATTY BIRCH, I LIVED HERE MY ADDRESS 2215 BROOKLYN COURT, FFERNANDINA. I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS.

I WILL TELL YOU THAT THERE'S A LOT OF MISUNDERSTANDINGS.

IT'S PRETTY SIMPLE IN MY MIND. IT'S TA TAKING ONE LOT, DIVIDINT IN HALF. PUTTING TWO -- ACTUALLY REALLY NICE HOMES ON IT. IT IS GOING TO KEEP IN -- IT WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL THE OTHER NEIGHBORS.

AS A NEIGHBOR, I TOO, WOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN BUILT BY ME. I WOULD WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S NICE. I WOULD WANT MY PROPERTY VALUE TO STAY GOOD. AND I UNDERSTAND WHERE THE NEIGHBORS ARE COMING FROM. THEIR INTENTION IS WHEN THEY GOT HERE, THEY KIND OF FELL IN LOVE WITH JUST JEFF'S HOUSE, SHARON'S HOUSE, THE NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE AND THEY SAID THIS IS WHAT WE WANT.

WE LOVE THAT. THEY CAME IN, THEY SAID THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WE LOVE ABOUT FERNANDINA.

THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BUILD A SUBDIVISION.

THAT'S A MISCONCEPTION. I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT STARTED, IT'S NO SUBDIVISION IT'S TAKING THAT FRONT LOT, DIVIDING IT IN HALF. THE TWO LOTS THAT ARE IN THE BACK, THERE ARE ALREADY TWO LOTS THERE.

WE'RE TALKING TAKING THE FRONT LOT, DIVIDING IT IN HALF, PUTTING TWO REALLY NICE HOMES. THE HOMES ARE GOING TO BE JUST LIKE THE NEIGHBORS' HOMES. THEY LOVE THE NEIGHBORS' HOMES.

THEY HAVE NO INTENTIONS, AS SOMEONE SAID, LITTLE SMALL LITTLE SUBDIVISION HOUSES THAT ARE -- TO LOOK LIKE A SUBDIVISION. THAT'S NOT THEIR INTENTION.

IT'S STRICTLY TO PUT THAT LOT AND PUT TWO REALLY NICE HOMES TO KEEP IT CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

I'M PASSIONATE ABOUT MY CITY. I'M PASSIONATE ABOUT THE ISLAND.

I WANT TO KEEP IT LOOKING NICE. I THINK IT WILL IMPROVE THE VALUES. IT'S TWO REALLY PRETTY HOMES

[02:25:03]

THAT ARE GOING TO GO THERE. AND IT'S -- DOES INCREASE YOUR VALUE. IT DOES HELP YOU.

YOU WILL ENJOY THESE PEOPLE. THEY'RE NICE FOLKS.

THEY ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT KEEPING THE DUNES IN THE BACK.

THEY'RE WILLING TO DO WHATEVER PEOPLE WANT TO MAKE IT LOOK GOOD, TO KEEP IT CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THERE IS NO NEED FOR -- IT'S JUST SIMPLE TO ME.

IT'S TAKING THE ONE LOT, DIVIDING IT IN HALF, AND LOOKING JUST LIKE IT IS, JUST BEHIND TO THE LEFT.

I HAPPEN TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON THE RIGHT, SAME THING.

IT IS ALL GOING TO BE ALL ALONG THERE.

IT'S THE SAME THING. THERE'S NOTHING DIFFERENT.

AND I DON'T CARE WHERE THE DRIVEWAY GOES.

THEY'RE DOING WHATEVER IS GOING TO HELP KEEP IT CONSISTENT WITH KEEPING THE ENVIRONMENT GOOD. THAT'S MY TWO CENTS.

>> ALL RIGHT. >> THANK YOU

>> HOLD ON JUST A MINUTE, MA'AM. WAS THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE

BOARD MEMBERS? >> ARE YOU A REALTOR?

>> I'M THEIR REALTOR, YES >> OKAY.

>> I KNOW PROPERTY VALUES, I KNOW -- I'VE LOOKED.

I WORK WITH THEM, GOTTEN TO KNOW THEM VERY CLOSELY.

I KNOW THEIR INTENTIONS. I'VE SEEN THEIR DESIRES.

THEY WANT TO LOOK LIKE YOUR HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THEY LOVE YOUR HOUSES. THEY WANT TO BE LIKE THAT.

THEY WANT TO KEEP IT IN THAT SAME CONSISTENT THEME.

THEY HAVE NO INTENTIONS OF A NEIGHBORHOOD.

I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT CAME FROM.

THERE'S A LOT OF MISINFORMATION OUT THERE.

AND IT'S LIKE THINGS GET STARTED AND THEY GET BLOWN UP.

I THINK THAT'S WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE CASE

>> THEY USED THE WORD SUBDIVIDE IN THE APPLICATION AND THE --

>> MA'AM, MA'AM -- >> MAYBE THAT'S --

>> MAYBE THEY SHOULD HAVE SAID WE'RE GOING TO JUST SEVER THE LOT IN HALF. BUT SOMETIMES IT'S JUST A TECHNICALITY THAT GETS BLOWN OUT OF PROPORTION.

THEY DON'T WANT A SUBDIVISION EITHER

>> WOULDN'T TWO HOUSES LOOK BETTER THAN THE ONE THAT'S

THERE? >> THAT'S YOUR OPINION.

THAT'S WHY I SAY THAT THEIR PROPERTY WILL IMPROVE.

RIGHT? SO IT WILL.

I MEAN, IT'S -- WE ALL KNOW AND WE WANT THIS AREA TO BE NICE AND WE WANT TO KEEP IT CONSISTENT. WE WANT IT TO LOOK LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE. WE WANT IT TO BE NICE.

SO IT'S -- THAT'S THE INTENT OF IT.

THEY'VE MADE NUMEROUS OF TRIPS DOWN HERE MAKING SURE THAT THEY SATISFIED EVERYTHING, MADE SURE EVERYTHING WAS BY THE RULES.

THEY DON'T WANT TO BREAK ANY RULES AT ALL.

THEY'RE VERY CONSCIENCE ABOUT IT.

CONSCIOUS SPENT A LOT OF TIME.

THEY'RE WORKING HARD TO MEET EVERYONE'S EXPECTATIONS.

THAT'S MY PART >> MR. CONTE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO

SAY ANYTHING? >> NO, SIR

>> I THOUGHT NOT. THANK YOU.

WHO IS NEXT? YES, MA'AM.

>> HELLO. I WASN'T EXPECTING TO SPEAK --

I'M SORRY. >> THAT'S OKAY

>> I'M DEB COTTLE. MY HUSBAND AND I MOVED HERE FROM CHICAGO TO CREATE A WONDERFUL LIFESTYLE LIVING ON THE ISLAND AND RAISE OUR SON IN A SMALL COMMUNITY.

MY HUSBAND GREW UP HERE >> LET ME INTERRUPT YOU, WHAT'S

YOUR ADDRESS? >> 118 SEA MARSH, THE PLANTATION. AND TO BE HONEST WITH YOU THE ONLY COMMENT I REALLY WANT TO MAKE IS A FACT OF I KNOW HOW HARD IT IS COMING IN FROM THE OUTSIDE.

ESPECIALLY COMING FROM CHICAGO. AND COMING TO A SMALL COMMUNITY, I THINK PEOPLE GET THE IMPRESSION THAT WE'RE GOING TO WE WANT OUR OWN WAY. HONESTLY WO DO WHEN WE COME INTO AN AREA LIKE THIS AND CREATE A FRIENDLY ATMOSPHERE AND BE WITH FAMILY LIKE THESE WOMEN WANT TO DO, THEY WANT TO HAVE THEIR FAMILY CLOSE TOGETHER. THEY LOVE THE COMMUNITY.

I'M JUST A BYSTANDER HEARING THE COMMENTS AND ALSO I'VE WITNESSED PATTY WORKING WITH THESE INDIVIDUALS.

I KNOW HOW HARD IT'S BEEN FOR HER TO FIND SOMETHING PERFECT FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO LIVE NEAR EACH OTHER AND TO NURTURE EACH OTHER. SO I FEEL AS A BYSTANDER AND A PERSON IN THIS COMMUNITY THAT CARES ABOUT IT, AND I AM ALSO IN REAL ESTATE AND I UNDERSTAND -- I DON'T SEE HOW THIS WOULD AFFECT VALUES NEGATIVELY IF IT'S DONE RIGHT.

I THINK IT WOULD IMPROVE DRASTICALLY -- ANYWAY, I WANT TO

[02:30:02]

MAKE SURE THEY GET A FAIR SHAKE. THAT'S ALL I WANT TO SAY.

THEY'RE BEING TREATED FAIRLY, STICK TO THE FACTS.

TOO MANY THINGS SEEM TO BE BLOWN OUT OF PROPORTION.

I UNDERSTAND THE SUBDIVISION ITEM CAME UP.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO DO.

THEY JUST WANT TO BE TOGETHER AND LIVE IN OUR COMMUNITY AND HAVE A NICE HOME OR HOMES. THAT'S ALL I REALLY WANTED TO

SAY. >> THANK YOU.

>> ANY QUESTION ? >> COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD?

STEVEN YOU OR TISH GOT ANYTHING? >> NO.

>> NO. >> MR. CONTE?

>> NO, SIR. >> THANK YOU, MA'AM.

THANK YOU FOR COMING DOWN. TONIGHT.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THIS ROOM THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK OR DID WE GET EVERYBODY? YES, MA'AM.

>> SANDRA CARRIE 1254 FOREST DRIVE.

MY SISTER IS BRYNN BYRON WHO SPOKE JUST A MOMENT AGO.

I DON'T HAVE VERY MUCH TIME BECAUSE I'M NOT A CITY RESIDENT, BUT I AM LIVING HERE ON THE ISLAND.

I AM IMPACTED BY ALL DEVELOPDEVELOPMENTON ISLAND.

THE APPLICANT DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF THE PROPERTY. A VARY SURVEIL VARIANCE IS SUPPE USED IN A HARDSHIP SITUATION. THEY WERE NOT ALLOWED TO DO THE VERY THING YOU'RE ASKING TO DO. YOU CAME IN THREE YEARS AGO AND SUBDIVIDED THE BACK TWO LOTS. AND NOW YOU WANT TO DO THE SAME ON THE FRONT, ON THE BACK. YOU'RE CLEARLY TAKING ONE LOT OF RECORD AND TRYING TO MAKE IT FOUR SO THAT YOU CAN PUT FOUR HOMES UP. THAT IS NOT THE INTENT OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO PUT FOUR HOUSES ON ONE PIECE OF PROPERTY. IT'S JUST THE GET AROUND TO CREATE FOUR LOTS. EVERYBODY HERE KNOWS THAT.

ANYONE WITH COMMONSENSE, INCLUDING A REALTOR I WOULD THINK, WOULD KNOW THAT SMALLER HOMES CRAMMED INTO A ONE ACRE OR LESS LOT IS NOT GOING TO BE WORTH THE SAME VALUE.

YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO PUT A FOUR OR 5,000 SQUARE FOOT HOME ON THERE. IT'S GOING TO DECREASE THE HOME VALUES. YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A REAL ESTATE ANALYSIS TO DO THAT. IT'S GOING TO INCREASE TRAFFIC ON FLETCHER. WHY THE BACK TWO PROPERTIES WEREN'T ADDRESSED ABOUT FRONT NL, IAGEI DON'T KNOW, MAYBE BECF THE ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVITY OF IT.

NOBODY WANTS TO SEE THE DUNES DESTROYED.

BUT TO TRY TO CRAM FOUR HOUSES WITH ONE DRIVEWAY, INCONVENIENCING EVERYONE ELSE LIVING IN THE AREA IS SIMPLY NOT RIGHT. I GUARANTEE YOU THERE WILL PROBABLY BE WHO KNOWS HOW MANY ACCIDENTS FROM CARS COMING IN AND OUT. PROBABLY EIGHT CARS WITH FOUR HOUSES THERE. IT'S JUST NOT RIGHT.

THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO MENTION WAS THE LOT 78, 79 HAS ALWAYS BEEN ONE COMBINED LOT. IT PREDATED THE MIRAMAR PLAT.

THE HOUSE WAS BUILT ON IT. ALL THIS TALK ABOUT RESTORING IT TO THE ORIGINAL PLAT IS JUST NOT RELEVANT. THE HOUSE PREDATED THE PLAT. THE PLAT WAS NOT CREATED UNTIL 1941. THE HOUSE WAS BUILT IN THE LATE 1930S. SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, WHY WHEN YOU CAME -- IF YOU WANT TO TAKE IT -- YOU'RE SAYING ONE OF THE REASONS WE SHOULD DIVIDE IT IS TO BRING THEM INTO COMPLIANCE. BECAUSE THE CURRENT LDC SAYS YOU CAN ONLY HAVE UP TO 100 FEET FRONTAGE.

BRINGING IT DOWN TO 72 FEET, RESTORING IT BACK TO ITS ORIGINAL, YES, IT WILL BRING IT DOWN UNDER 100 BUT IT WILL NOT BE COMPLIANCE BECAUSE THE LDC SAYS IT HAS TO BE A MINIMUM OF 75 FEET. YOU'RE CONTINUING A CONCONNON-CONFORMING USE. IT'S NOT CURING EVERYTHING.

THERE'S OTHER STATEMENTS IN YOUR LETTERS WHICH COMBINE BOTH SECTIONS OF THE PROPERTY SO YOU CAN'T SAY THAT PEOPLE CAN'T ADDRESS THAT BECAUSE YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT AS A WHOLE.

WHY THAT WASN'T DONE BACK IN 2017, I DON'T THINK MOST PEOPLE EVEN KNOW THAT WAS DIVIDED. LOTS 40 WAS ONE LOT AND THEY SUBDIVIDED IT THE EXACT SAME WAY THEY'RE DOING IT HERE TONIGHT.

SO THEIR WHOLE INTENT HAS BEEN TO TAKE ONE PROPERTY AND MAKE IT FOUR LOTS TO GET AROUND THE R1 LOW DENSITY ZONING THAT ONLY ALLOWS ONE HOUSE PER ACRE. SO EVERYBODY CAN SEE IT.

YOU CAN SHAKE YOUR HEAD ALL YUYOUWANT AND MR. PLATT DIDN'T R THE QUESTION BECAUSE I HEARD FOUR HOUSES ON RACHEL DRIVE, BUT I DIDN'T HEAR ABOUT IT ON ONE LOT.

NONE OF THOSE FOUR HOUSES WERE ON ONE LOT?

>> NO, THE CITY WOULD NEVER ALLOW FOUR HOMES ON ANY ONE LOT

>> THAT'S RIGHT >> THERE ARE FOUR HOMES ON THE

EXACT SIZE PARCEL >> ON SEPARATE LOTS?

[02:35:01]

>> SEPARATE LOTS. JUST AS THEY'RE TRYING TO DO, FOUR SEPARATE LOTS ON EXACTLY THE SAME SIZE

>> TAKING ONE ACRE, TURNING INTO FOUR LOTS INSTEAD OF ONE USING THE PLAT THAT WAS SUBSEQUENT TO THE HOUSE THAT EXISTS ON IT NOW IS IRRELEVANT. YOU CAN'T RESTORE IT BACK TO WHAT OCCURRED AFTER THE HOUSE WAS BUILT.

TAKING THE BACK TWO LOTS, WHICH WERE ONE LOT AND DIVIDING IT -- RESTORING IT TO A RECORD. I DON'T KNOW WHAT RECORD YOU'RE ON. BECAUSE THAT'S NOT PART OF MIRAMAR PLAT ANYWHERE, LOT 40. IT'S ALL PART OF THE RECORD IN YOUR LETTERS AND YOUR APPLICATION.

I ALSO JUST WANT TO TAKE THIS MOMENT TO SAY IN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION, QUESTIONS 4 AND 5 WERE NOT ANSWERED NO WERE THEY SUBMITTED. AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED IT'S AN INCOMPLETE APPLICATION THAT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN APPROVED.

AND I HAVE IT HERE IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT IT.

I DON'T KNOW HOW QUESTIONS CAN BE APPROVED OR SUPPORTED WHENWHENTHERE WAS NO ANSWER GIV. IT HAS NO VERBIAGE ON IT T.

NUMBER FIVE ISN'T ON THE APPLICATION.

I DON'T KNOW HOW THOSE THINGS GET OVERLOOKED. I DON'T KNOW HOW THERE'S UNEQUAL REPRESENTATION OF WHAT ONE PROPERTY OWNER WANTS TO DO ACROSS THE STREET, EXACT SAME THING THEY'RE SAYING HERE AND HE'S TOLD THEY CAN'T DO IT AND THESE PEOPLE COME ALONG AND IT'S SPECIAL PRIVILEGE.

IT'S NOT RIGHT. SO WE HAVE A CODE, WE HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WE HAVE ZONING LAWS TO UPHOLD AND YET WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO COME IN AND WANT TO DO THESE KIND OF THINGS, OH, IT'S JUST FINE. IT'S GOING TO BE GREAT.

IT'S NOT. >> THEARVETHANK YOU MA'AM.

AM I WRONG ON THAT, SHE'S NOT A --

>> RIGHT. >> OKAY.

THANK YOU ON THAT. JACOB, YOU GOT TO ADDRESS THOSE TWO ITEMS, IS THAT WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH THIS?

YOU'RE NOT -- >> THE APPLICATION IS COMPLETE.

>> OKAY. >> SHE HAD MENTIONED THERE WAS SSOMETHING ONTHR ON THERE THAT S INCOMPLETE AND HE DIDN'T FEEL THAT WAY. ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO

SPEAK? >> CAN I SPEAK AGAIN ?

>> YES, YOU CAN >> LITERAL --

>> YOU'LL HAVE TO STEP UP HERE SO I CAN GET YOUR NAME AND

ADDRESS AGAIN, SIR >> 1508.

SECTION 103 .05A, THE LANGUAGE IN IT IS REPEAT IN SEVERAL OTHER PLACES. OKAY.

ABOUT DEMOLITION, SUBSTANDARD LOTS, WHICH IS IN THE SECTION THAT PRECEDES THIS ONE. THAT HAD TO BE DONE FOR A REASON. SOMEBODY THOUGHT LONG AND HARD ABOUT THE WORDING OF IT. WE CAN READ IT AGAIN.

AS THE STATUTE HAS PLAIN AND STRAIGHTFORWARD MEANING.

IT DEFINES SOME OF ITS TERMS OTHERWISE.

IT'S NOT CRUEL, IT'S NOT ABSURD. IT WAS WRITTEN WITH A LOT OF THOUGHT. THAT'S ALL I WANT TO SAY.

READ IT. IT SAYS FOR SURE, IF YOU'VE GOT A HOUSE EXISTING WHICH INFRINGES, JUST LIKE MINE DID, ON TWO LOTS, ONLY ONE HOUSE CAN REMAIN.

IF YOU TEAR IT DOWN, YOU CAN ONLY BUILD ONE HOUSE BACK.

THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE THIS THOUGHT LONG ABOUT IT ABOUT THE CHARACTER OF OUR ISLAND. I WAS HAPPY I WAS HELD TO THAT

STANDARD. >> THANK YOU, SIR, YES, MA'AM.

>> I'M SORRY >> YOU HAVE TO STATE YOUR NAME

AND ADDRESS AGAIN PLEASE >> BRYNN BYRON.

I DON'T HAVE COPIES SO I'M PRESENTING THIS TO YOU.

THIS WAS THE 2017 INCOMPLETED APPLICATION.

AS YOU CAN SEE -- >> 2017

>> THE PLATS IN THE BACK THAT THEY PURCHASED IN 2017 --

>> MA'AM, THAT -- WE'RE GETTING A LITTLE STRAYED OFF

[02:40:04]

>> YES, BUT IF YOU HAVE TO COMPLETE AN APPLICATION TO GET A VARIANCE, HOW MR. PLATT CAN THE VARIANCE BE PASSED IF YOU HAVEN'T COMPLETED ALL SIX ANSWERS? THAT'S ALL I'M ASKING. SO IN 2017, YOU GAVE THESE IF HE PEOPLE THE TWO PLOTS IN THE BACK, NOW THEY'RE COMING BACK FOR THE OTHER TWO PLATS. I THINK IT'S APPALLING WHAT

YOU'RE DOING TO OUR CITY. >> SO LET'S STOP ALL THE TALKING JUST FOR A SECOND. ONE THING, IT KIND OF GETS OUT OF HAND. HER 2017 APPLICATION WAS --

>> THEY MADE AN APPLICATION IN 2017 FOR THE BACK LOTS.

NOT THEN >> BACK TWO LOTS.

IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM. TOTALLY SEPARATE OWNER, SEPARATE EVERYTHING. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. MA'AM --

>> RIO IS HERE IN THE ROOM. THEY DON'T OWN THIS PROPERTY, HE

OWNS THE PROPERTY. >> YES, MA'AM.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO DIG UP THE PAST.

BECAUSE WE'RE NOT MOVING FORWARD BY THAT.

WAS THERE SOMETHING -- >> WELL, IT'S LIKE HISTORY, IF YOU DON'T LOOK AT THE PAST YOU DON'T LEARN FROM IT.

>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING?

>> I WOULD, GOING BACK THREE YEARS, JOHN LASSERE, REPRESENTING RIO. IS THAT THE OWNER, WALTER DAVIS, SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION ON HIDES HISOWN.

I BELIEVE WE MODIFIED THAT. THAT'S MY RECOLLECTION.

I CAN'T -- >> SURE

>> CERTAINLY IS NOTHING RELEVANT HERE.

I WOULD ADDRESS ONE OTHER THING THAT WAS ASKED WHY WE DIDN'T ADDRESS THIS ISSUE AT THAT TIME. WE CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE HAD WE KNOWN ABOUT THIS COMBINATION LOT.

THE ORDINANCE HAD BEEN ON THE BOOKS SINCE '06 BUT NEVER ENFORCED. WE WERE COMPLETELY UNAWARE THIS HAD BEEN COMBINED INTO ONE LOT. IF IT HAD BEEN WE WOULD HAVE MADE IT PART OF THE APPLICATION AS WELL.

WE THOUGHT -- THE LOTS AT THE BACK ALWAYS HAD THE SUFFICIENT ROAD FRONTAGE AND SUFFICIENT AREA TO BE TWO R1 LOTS.

THAT WAS -- WE WERE COMPLETING THAT.

SO WE DIDN'T THINK WE'D HAVE TO COME BACK BUT APPARENTLY WE DID

>> THAT'S A DEAD ISSUE. IT'S IN THE PAST.

THAT DOESN'T PERTAIN TO THIS APPLICANT

>> EXCUSE ME -- >> MA'AM --

>> I'M SORRY, MR. LASSERE, YOU'RE INCORRECT

>> WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO THAT ANYMORE.

YOU'VE HAD YOUR CHANCE TO SPEAK AND EVERYONE GAVE YOU EVERY

COURTESY OF THAT -- >> AND HE SPOKE AND I'M ANSWERING HIS -- WHAT HE'S SAYING.

IT'S INCORRECT. >> MA'AM, I'M TRYING TO BE AS POLITE TO YOU AS I CAN, BUT WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS AND FOR COMING DOWN HERE ON THAT.

WAS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? OR SPEAK AGAIN? OKAY.

SO DID I SEE YOU GO OUTSIDE? >> THERE ARE NO OTHER MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO SPEAK AT THIS HEARING

>> OKAY. >> I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WHAT YOU DO SO THAT WE CAN LET EVERYBODY ELSE KNOW THAT'S HERE WITNESSING THE NEXT PART IS IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS THAT THE

BOARD HAS -- >> MA'AM?

>> IF T THERE ARE QUESTIONS THAT THE BOARD HAS OF THE PARTIES, THE CITY, THE APPLICANTS OR AFFECTED PARTIES, YOU MAY CALL THEM FORWARD TO ASK THOSE QUESTIONS.

IF THERE'S A CLOSING STATEMENT THAT I THINK THE APPLICANTS SAID THEY HAD CLOSING STATEMENTS, THEY CAN MAKE A CLOSING STATEMENT. THE CITY STAFF CAN MAKE A CLOSING STATEMENT. BUT THEN IF YOU WANT TO CLOSE THE HEARING NOW INDICATING THAT NOBODY CAN JUST WALK IN THE DOOR AND ASK TO SPEAK AND IT'S REALLY QUESTIONS OF DELIBERATION NOW, THAT'S PROBABLY A GOOD IDEA. BUT THAT'S HOW WE'RE GOING TO DO IT. UNLESS THE BOARD HAS QUESTIONS OF AFFECTED PARTIES, THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WILL JUST WAIT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS. BUT THE APPLICANT AND STAFF MAY BE ENGAGED IN ANSWERING SOME QUESTIONS.

>> ALL RIGHT, KELLY, IS THERE ANYBODY ONLINE? DO YOU FEEL LIKE WE DROPPED ANYBODY OR ANYBODY TRIED TO CALL? YOU FEEL GOOD ABOUT THAT? OKAY. SO WHAT IF WE JUST OFFICIALLY

CLOSED OUT THE PUBLIC PART? >> THAT'S FINE

>> ALL RIGHT. SO IF THERE'S ANYBODY ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, SPEAK NOW OR WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC PART OUT AND THAT'S GOING TO BE THAT.

THERE WILL BE NO GOING BACK. ALL RIGHT.

[02:45:03]

SO WE'VE CLOSED OUT THE PUBLIC PART ON THAT.

SO WHY DON'T WE TAKE FIVE MINUTES AND JUST COMPOSE OURSELVES AND STAND UP FOR A MINUTE AND THEN WHEN WE COME BACK THEN THE APPLICANT CAN MAKE HIS CLOSING REMARKS --

>> I'VE GOT SOME QUESTIONS, TOO. >> YEAH.

YEAH. WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THAT?

>> THAT SOUNDS GREAT, THANK YOU >> ALL RIGHT, GOOD, WE'RE GOING TO STOP FOR FIVE OR TEN MINUTES AND THEN WE'LL WIND THISOPE THAA MINUTE TO RELAX AND REFRESH. LET'S CALL THE MEETING BACK TO ORDER. SO WE ARE DONE WITH THE HEARING.

WE'VE GOT IT BACK TO OUR APPLICANT FOR HIM TO MAKE HIS FINAL THOUGHTS OR TO HANDLE THAT --

>> I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS. I KNOW YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO GET THE LAST WORD ANYWAY. WE MIGHT AS WELL GO THROUGH A

DCOUPLE QUESTIONS I HAVE >> IS TISH ONLINE ?

>> SHE IS. >> JAKE?

>> YES, SIR >> DON'T RUN OFF I GOT A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR YOU. DO YOU KNOW OF ANY PLANS TO DO ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS AND DO A ROAD ON FIRST AVENUE AT THE

PRESENT TIME? >> THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE ANY

PLANS TO IMPROVE FIRST AVENUE >> IF THEY DID IT WOULD HAVE TO BE IN A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS BUDGET? IT WOULD BE A LONG, DRAWN OUT PROCESS?

>> IT WOULD GO INTO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND

>> ANOTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS ARE THERE ANY OTHER LOTS ALONG IN THE SAME VICINITY ON FLETCHER THAT HAVE AN EASEMENT TO THE BACK TO ALLOW THE BACK PROPERTIES TO HAVE A RIGHT OF

WAY TO FLETCHER? >> I CAN'T RECALL COMING ACROSS ANY EASEMENTS. THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH ARE TWO SEPARATE PARCELS WHERE THERE'S A DRIVEWAY ACCESS TO THE WESTERN PARCEL WHERE THE EXISTING HOME IS.

THE CITY WOULDN'T BE PARTY NECESSARILY TO ANY EASEMENTS.

BUT LIKE I SAID I'M NOT REALLY AWARE IF THERE IS UP AND DOWN THE SECTION OF NORTH FLETCHER. I WOULD THINK IF THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST OF THE NORTHWEST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY SELLS OR SELLS THE LOTS SEPARATELY THAT THEY WOULD SECURE AN EASEMENT FOR

THEIR ACCESS >> OKAY.

JOSE, I GOT A QUESTION FOR YOU. ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR ON SITE RETENTION APPLIES TO SINGLE

FAMILY RESIDENTS? >> WE'RE REQUIRED TO COLLECT OUR RAINWATER AND KEEP IT ON OUR SITE

>> FOR >> SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTS?

>> YES >> OKAY.

THEN I NOTICED -- ALSO WE WERE TALKTALKING TO THE PREVENT APPLICANT, WE'VE GOT A POLICY IN THE COMP PLAN THAT IT SAYS IT PROVIDES FOR CONTROL AND PERMITTING ON SITE CHANGES AND LAND CONTOURSHIP, YEP, YEP, YEP. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THERE IS NO ACTUAL ORDINANCE. THAT'S COMP P PLAN DIRECTION BUT NEVER HAD AN ORDINANCE THAT SAID YOU CAN'T CUT INTO THE BACK

DUNES, CORRECT? >> THERE'S LANGUAGE IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE UNDER THE COASTAL PROTECTION ZONE.

CHAPTER 3 WHERE WE -- THAT SAME LANGUAGE IS WRAPPED IN AND PROVIDES GUIDANCE AND DIRECTION TO THE CITY TO MAINTAIN EXISTING AND NATURAL TOPOGRAPHY AND PRESERVE THOSE FEATURES AS MUCH

AS POSSIBLE. >> AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.

MR. COTNER AND HIS PROJECT BEFORE THIS HE CUT INTO THE

DUNES WITH HIS PROJECT >> HE DID.

THAT WAS A SIMILAR SITE IN THAT REGARD, YES, SIR

>> I GUESS WHERE I'M GOING IS MAYBE THE CITY NEEDS TO TIGHTEN UP THE REGULATIONS HERE. YOU'VE GOT A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE A VESTED INTEREST IN NOT DOING THAT, BUT IT SEEMS THAT -- I THINK YOU AND I HAD CONVERSATIONS THAT YOU DON'T FEEL THAT THE CITY HAD ENOUGH TEETH TO REALLY PULL OUT SOMETHING. SO, I MEAN, THEY'RE DOING EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE ALLOWED TO DO WHAT WE'RE SEEING HERE.

OKAY. MY OTHER COMMENT WOULD BE THAT I DON'T NECESSARILY AGREE THAT, SAY, IN THIS SITUATION IN A LOT OF OUR VARIANCE SITUATIONS THAT IT'S LIKE WE'LL TAKE CARE OF ALL THE PROJECTS, THE PROBLEMS LATER.

I THINK YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THIS THING IN A HOLISTIC MANNER.

I KNOW THAT COUNSEL KEPT SAYING OH, WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO IT ON 1 FIRST AVENUE. BUT THE ACTUAL CHANCES OF THAT EVER HAPPENING ARE VERY, VERY SLIM.

I MEAN, THESE -- YOURCLINOUS YOS WILL BE WAITING PROBABLY FOREVER. I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE PART OF THE WHOLE CONTEXT WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THIS THING.

[02:50:03]

YOU'RE NOT GOING TO DO THAT. YOU'RE GOING TO GO OUT TO FLETCHER AND YOU JUST HAVE TO -- GOT TO BE REASONABLE AS FAR AS HOW YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT. AND SO THEREFORE, I THINK YOU DO HAVE SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND I AGREE WITH YOU THAT'S WHAT YOU GOT IN THERE. FIRST AVENUE IS NOT BUILT, SO YOU'VE GOT ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS AT THE BACK AND YOU'VE GOT TO WORRY ABOUT HOW YOU'RE GOING TO HANDLE THAT.

I THINK YOU DO HAVE THAT. BUT SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, I WOULD ALMOST ARGUE THAT IF YOU DON'T ACCESS THE PROPERTY FROM FIRST AVENUE, THAT IS A SPECIAL CONDITION THAT YOU HAVE TO GO OFF OF FLETCHER AND MAKE AN EASEMENT THROUGH THERE SO YOU CAN UTILIZE THOSE TWO PROPERTIES IN THE BACK.

THAT'S JUST MY COMMENT. MY OTHER COMMENT -- I'M NOT GOING TO VOTE BECAUSE I'M AN ALTERNATE BUT I WANTED TO PUT MY INPUT INTO THE BOARD -- YOU'VE HEARD A LOT OF GENERAL QUESTIONS ON THE GENERAL HARMONY, WHETHER THIS IS OR IS NOT.

IF IT'S IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST, THAT'S THE TESTIMONY YOU'VE HAD AND THAT THE BOARD IS GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION ON.

BUT I THINK YOU HAVE AN IMPRESSIVE GROUP OF PEOPLE COMING IN. IT'S A TOUGH SITUATION WHEN WE GET SOMETHING LIKE THIS WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH.

IT'S FRAUGHT WITH A WHOLE BUNCH OF PROBLEMS. ANYWAY. SO THAT'S MY COMMENTS.

THANK YOU. >> YES, SIR.

THANK YOU. SO IF YOU WOULD LIKE, MR. CONTE, LETS GET YOUR CLOSING THOUGHTS FROM EVERYONE AND THEN THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS MAY HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR YOU ONCE WE HEAR

WHAT YOUR CLOSING ARGUMENTS ARE. >> I'LL TRY TO KEEP MY CLOSING POINTS BRIEF AFTER EIGHT, ALMOST EIGHT HOURS OF HEARING ON THIS MATTER. I DON'T WANT TO BELABOR THE POINTS TOO GREATLY. BUT I JUST WANT TO START BY SAYING THAT THIS WHOLE SITUATION IS FRAUGHT WITH MISUNDERSTANDINGS I BELIEVE. AND MISCONCEPTIONS AS TO WHAT MY CLIENTS SEEK TO DO HERE. THIS IS NOT ONE PROPERTY THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. AND I HAVE ALL THE RESPECT IN THE WORLD FOR THE PEOPLE WHO CAME FORWARD AND PUT THEIR THOUGHTS OUT THERE FOR EVERYONE TO HEAR.

I RESPECT THEM AND I RESPECT THEIR OPINIONS.

HOWEVER, WE ARE DEALING WITH A SITUATION WHERE THERE ARE TWO UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD THAT WE SEEK TO BE RESTORED TO TWO LOTS. THE TWO BACK LOTS, 40 AND 40-1 ARE SEPARATE LOTS AND SEPARATE PARCEL ID NUMBERS.

SO TO COME FORWARD AND TO SAY THAT THESE PEOPLE WANT TO COME IN AND BUILD FOUR HOUSES ON ONE PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT'S LESS THAN AN ACRE IN SIZE, I BELIEVE IS A MISUNDERSTANDING OF WHAT MY CLIENTS SEEK TO DO. WE HAD TESTIMONY FROM -- AND IT CERTAINLY IS COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT MR. PLATT PUT FORWARD ON THE ISSUE OF RESTORING THE UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD AND THE AUTHORITY FOR DOING THAT.

WE ALSO HAD TESTIMONY FROM MR. PLATT AND FROM MR. MIRANDA THAT WHAT MY CLIENTS SEEK TO DO IS CONSISTENT WITH THE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS FOR LOTS OF THIS SIZE.

ABOVE ALL, I THINK WE HAVE PRESENTED FROM THE START COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT EVERY ONE OF THOSE SIX CRITERIA HAVE BEEN MET. MR. LASSERE EARLY ON REFERRED TO THE UNICORN WHERE YOU DON'T OFTENTIMES HAVE ALL SIX OF THESE CRITERIA BEING MET. WELL, WE HAPPEN TO HAVE IT AGAIN WE FEEL VERY STRONGLY ABOUT IT AND WE FEEL THAT THE EVIDENCE WE PRESENTED ESTABLISHES WITHOUT QUESTION THAT SIX CRITERIA HAVE BEEN MET. THE TWO UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD SHOULD BE RESTORED. THE VARIANCE SHOULD BE GRANTED.

I WANT TO ADD ONE MORE THING. I GUESS THIS FALLS INTO THE CATEGORY OF M MISUNDERSTANDINGS. THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF TALK ABOUT

[02:55:06]

PROPERTY VALUES. WE'VE HAD NO COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE REGARDING THE IMPACT OF WHAT MY CLIENTS SEEK TO DO OWN PROPERTY VALUES. WE'VE GOTTEN OPINION AND I RESPECT THOSE OPINIONS. NO ONE HAS COME FORWARD WITH COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT WHAT MY CLIENTS SEEK TO DO WOULD ULTIMATE IN A DEMUNITION OF THEIR PROPERTY VALUES.

IT'S INTERESTING BECAUSE WHEN I ASKED ONE PERSON IF -- HOW SHE KNEW WHAT MY CLIENTS' INTEND TO DO SHE HELD UP A DRAWING THAT WAS PART OF THE APPLICATION -- GRANTED.

WE PRESENTED THAT BUT THAT DOES NOT IN ANY WAY ADDRESS WHAT MY CLIENTS SEEK TO DO. IN REALITY, THEY'RE SEEKING TO BUILD HOMES ON THESE PROPERTIES FOR THE HOMES THEMSELVES THAT WILL RUN BETWEEN $700,000 AND A MILLION DOLLARS FOR THE HOMES.

THAT'S PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL. THOSE ARE NOT SUBDIVISION TRACK HOMES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BEAUTIFUL WONDERFUL CUSTOM HOMES THAT WILL ENHANCE THE COMMUNITY AND ENHANCE THE NATURE AND THE CHARACTER OF THE COMMUNITY.

AGAIN, I'M NOT A REALTOR, I'M NOT A PROPERTY APPRAISER OR A REAL ESTATE APPRAISER, BUT WHEN YOU BRING IN FOUR HOMES IF THIS PROJECT GOES FORWARD AND THEY ARE SUBSTANTIAL HOMES, I FIND IT DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THAT THAT WOULD RESULT IN NEIGHBORING PROPERTY VALUES BEING DIMINISHED.

IN CONCLUSION, I THANK THE BOARD FOR ITS TIME.

ON BEHALF OF ALL SIX OF MY CLIENTS, THEY'RE GOOD PEOPLE.

THEY ALREADY LOVE THIS COMMUNITY DEEPLY, THEY WANT TO MAKE THIS THEIR HOME. AND I BELIEVE THE COMMUNITY HAS A WHOLE WILL BE ENHANCED BY THEIR PRESENCE AND I THINK THEY'LL MAKE THIS COMMUNITY PROUD.

SO I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE BOARD APPROVE THEIR APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE ALLOWING FOR THE RESTORATION OF THE TWO UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR

YOUR TIME. >> THANK YOU, SIR.

>> I JUST LOOK AT THIS, YOU KNOW, FROM SOMEONE ON THE GROUND. THESE ARE NOT DEVELOPERS COMING IN AND BUYING THIS AND SUBDIVIDING IT INTO FOUR LOTS LIKE IT'S BEEN PROTRAYED. PORTRAYED.THE NONCONFORMING CANE THAN THE RESTORATION. THERE'S LOTS OF THIP THINGS IN E CODE TO PROVIDE AGAINST THAT. I THINK IF ANY OF US HAVE TWO LOTS IN A HOUSE AND TOLD IF WE TEAR DOWN THE HOUSE WE DON'T HAVE TWO LOTS ANYMORE, WE ONLY HAVE ONE, WE'D FEEL SLIGHTED.

PARTICULARLY WHEN THIS PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED IN 2000, THE ZONING CODE WAS PURCHASED IN 2006.

SUBSEQUENT TO THAT, HE LEARNS THAT IT'S ONE LOT.

I CAN TEM YOU IN TELL YOU IN 20E WOULDN'T HAVE WAITED TILL NOW.

THEY WERE MADE AWARE ON THAT. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SOMETHING THE BOARD WANTS TO CONSIDER AS WELL.

BUT THOSE ARE SOME IMPLICATIONS THAT HAVEN'T BEEN DISCUSSED.

I OFFER THEM FOR YOUR CONVERSATION.

OTHERWISE WE RELY ON EVERYBODY ELSE'S TESTIMONY.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. >> NOTHING TO ADD UNLESS YOU'VE

GOT QUESTIONS OF ME >> OKAY.

IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD, STEVEN OR TISH?

ANYBODY? >> MR. GLEASON IS THERE, TOO

>> IS HE BACK UP? >> HE'S THERE FOR SOME REASON, I

CAN ONLY GET THREE DIALS >> THERE WE CAN.

OKAY. SORRY ABOUT THAT.

DIDN'T MEAN TO LEAVE YOU OUT, I DIDN'T SEE YOU ON THE SCREEN.

DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT BEFORE WE CLOSE OUT THAT PART OF IT AND HAVE SOME BOARD DISCUSSION?

>> I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. >> NONE

>> NONE? ALL RIGHT.

WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THAT PORTION OF IT OUT.

THE BOARD DISCUSSION. GIVE ME SOME WISDOM ON THIS.

[03:00:04]

WHAT IF WE -- BECAUSE WE DIVIDED BEFORE, WHAT IF WE GO THROUGH AND EACH BOARD MEMBER SPEAK WHAT THEIR MIND IS AND SORT OF HOW THEY CAME WITHOUT THAT, MUCH LIKE ON A INJURY JURY.

LET'S GO THROUGH. THERE MAY BE SOME DISCUSSION FROM THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS THAT MAY SWAY SOME OF THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS SO PERHAPS WE CAN AVOID BEING WHERE WE WERE LAST

MONTH. >> INSTEAD OF JUST THROWING OUT

MOTIONS, YOU MEAN? >> YEAH

>> THAT'S FINE, YEAH, SURE. THAT SOUNDS FINE

>> I'M GOING TO RESERVE MY COMMENTS FOR LAST.

IS THERE ANYBODY WHO WOULD LIKE TO START?

>> I'LL START. I DO HAVE A QUESTION ALSO MAYBE FOR JACOB. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED R1 AND IT ALSO SAYS FOR FUTURE LAND USE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.

ON THE SITE THERE'S TWO OTHER CATEGORIES UNDER THE LAND USE REPORT. THERE'S ONE THAT IS THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, AND I WOULD LIKE IF YOU COULD MAYBE TELL ME -- DEFINE THAT FOR ME.

THAT AND THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA.

THEY'RE BOTH NOTED AS NO, THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, IT SAYS NO. AND COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA, NO. I JUST DON'T -- CLARIFICATION AS

TO WHAT THOSE TWO LAND USES ARE >> SO THE CRA IS THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA. IT'S DOWNTOWN.

I'M NOT SURE ON THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO. BUT THIS PROPERTY IS R1, ZONED WITH LOW DENSITY FUTURE LAND USE.

THERE ARE NO OTHER OVERLAYS OR ANY KIND OF CATEGORIES THAT THIS

PROPERTY FALLS WITHIN. >> SEE IF I UNDERSTAND, THE DISTRICT IS A -- IT'S A SPECIAL TAXING DISTRICT, TOO.

SO WE DON'T HAVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS AT ALL IN THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH. SO I THINK WHAT YOU'RE SEEING WHEN YOU GO TO THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S WEBSITE, WE ALL SHARE -- I SAY WE ALL, MEANING COUNTY WIDE NO MATTER WHAT TOWN YOU'RE IN OR UNINCORPORATED. WE SHARE THE SAME LISTS.

WHEN YOU CHOOSE FROM SOME OF THOSE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND USE LISTS TO SHOW LAYERS, YOU CHOSE AND IT WAS CHECKED OFF PROBABLY CDD, SCW AND IT SHOWED THIS PROY IS NOT AT ALL COVERED BY A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. DOES THAT HELP, TISHA?

OKAY. >> THANK YOU.

>> WHO ELSE HAS GOT SOMETHING? LET'S HEAR WHAT YOU'RE THINKING.

HOW YOU READ IT. >> I HAVE ANOTHER LITTLE ISSUE, TOO WITH THIS. I JUST -- SORT OF TOUCHED ON IT ABOUT WHEN IT WAS DIVIDED PREVIOUSLY.

I MEAN, THIS WILL ACTUALLY BE THE SECOND VARIANCE FOR THE PARCEL HERE. IT'S NOT, IN MY OPINION, I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S THE MINIMUM VARIANCE.

BECAUSE THIS WILL ACTUALLY BE NUMBER TWO.

AND WHO KNOWS IF IT WOULD BE -- WOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED IF THE INITIAL VARIANCE WAS TO BE FOUR SEPARATE PARCELS?

>> OKAY >> GRANTI AGREE WITH THAT.

I ALSO KIND OF CONSIDER THE DEMOLITION OF ONE STRUCTURE ON TWO LOTS AND HAVING ONLY BEING ABLE TO PLACE BACK ONE STRUCTURE. I MEAN, IF THAT'S IN OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, IT'S PRETTY CLEAR.

>> THAT WOULDN'T BE -- IT WOULD FALL INTO THE CATEGORY OF BEING

LOW DENSITY. >> I ALSO RECOGNIZE WHAT STEVE POINTED OUT, MR. COOK HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE BACK TWO LOTS, WHETHER WE CAN CONSIDER THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENT OF THAT IN THIS VARIANCE APPROVAL.

IT IS IMPACTFUL. FIRST AVENUE IS NOT GOING TO BE THEIR AVENUE. NO MATTER WHAT, AN EASEMENT ON THE FRONT PROPERTY IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE OBTAINED.

WHILE I RECOGNIZE AS AN ARCHITECT THAT ALL THE COMPLIANCE HAS TO BE MET IN ORDER TO GET THE BUILDING PERMITS, THAT INCLUDES STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, THAT THE RESIDENTS HAVE NOTED. ANDRE WILL BE A BIRDDOG ON

[03:05:07]

MAKING SURE THOSE ITEMS ARE ADDRESSED.

THEN THE OTHER ITEMS ABOUT SETBACKS AND OTHER ASPECTS OF THE THING THAT JOSE WILL BE CHALLENGED WITH, THOSE ALL HAVE TO BE MET. ALONG WITH THE BUILDING CODE TO BE IN COMPLIANCE BEFORE ANYTHING ACTUALLY EVEN GETS DONE.

I'M ON BOTH SIDES ON THIS ONE. >> OKAY.

>> IT IS HARD. IT IS HARD.

BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW -- I KNOW THEY'E REFERENCED THE PLAN WITH THE DRIVEWAY IN THE MIDDLE AND EVERYTHING.

WE DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THAT WOULD BE -- WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT. WE DON'T KNOW IF THEY WOULD EVEN APPROVE THAT. SO AS FAR AS JACOB TOLD US TO CONCENTRATE ON THE FIRST PARCEL RIGHT HERE.

AND THEY'VE MET ALL THE CRITERIA.

>> OKAY. WHAT YOU GOT?

>> I THINK WE HAVE TO CONSIDER THE FRONT PARCEL, REALLY.

BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT.

AND SPLITTING IT IN HALF I DON'T THINK IS NOTHING OUT OF THE ORDINARY OF WHAT THAT ENTAILS. BUILDING TWO NICE HOMES ON IS GOING TO IMPROVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK WE CAN REALLY LOOK AT WHAT'S GOING ON BEHIND IN OUR DECISION. WE GOT TO LOOK AT WHAT'S BEEN ASKED FOR. THEY MADE A MISTAKE BY COMING IN HERE THE LAST TIME AND BRINGING THIS OTHER STUFF UP, WHICH LOOKED TO ME LIKE A SUBDIVISION. BUT I THINK THEY BACKED AWAY FROM THAT AND THEY GOT TO DO THIS DEVELOPMENT ONE STEP AT A TIME AND THE CITY IS GOING TO BE RIGHT ON THEM.

SO I THINK WE NEED TO APPROVE IT.

>> YOU GOT ANYTHING ELSE? >> NOT ME.

NO, SIR. >> STEVEN OR TISH OR MARK, WE HADN'T HEARD FROM YOU. HOW DO YOU READ IT?

>> YOU'RE ON MUTE, MARK. YOU'RE STILL MUTED

>> CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? >> WE GOT YOU

>> SO THE -- I GUESS THE THING I WOULD ADD IS AS LONG AS I'VE BEEN ON THE BOARD THE APPLICANTS, I'VE BEEN IMPRESSED WITH THE APPLICANTS AND THE FACT THAT THEY'RE IN A GROUP AND WORKING TOGETHER. I'M MINDFUL FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN BECAUSE I THINK THEY'LL DO THEIR BEST AS FAR AS THE CONSTRUCTION, THE IMPACTS ON THE ENVIRONMENTS, HOW THEY ACT WITH EVERYTHING BESIDES THE HOMES. IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY WANT TO BE PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO I WOULD GIVE THAT A LOT OF CREDIT. BECAUSE IF WE DENY THIS VARIANCE, SOMETHING IS GOING TO HAPPEN ON THAT PROPERTY.

SO I'M NOT SURE WE'RE DOING ANYBODY ANY FAVORS BY DENYING IT. BECAUSE THE CURRENT OWNER, HE MAY SELL THE BACK TWO PROPERTIES SEPARATELY.

HE MIGHT DO SOMETHING, GRANT THEM AN EASEMENT AND IT MIGHT BE A DRIVEWAY ON ONE SIDE THAT ADVERSELY AFFECTS ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS. SO I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE WIDE OPEN IF WE DENY IT. SOMETHING'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

WE'VE HAD MIXED COMMENTS ABOUT ONE BIG HOUSE BEING IN THE MIDDLE. BUT AT THE FIRST HEARING WE HEARD SOME OF THE REAR PROPERTY OWNERS YOU KNOW HAVING THEIR VIEW BLOCKED. SO IF HE SEPARATES THIS INTO THREE DIFFERENT PARCELS AND THERE'S T THREE DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS BUILDING, I THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF HAVOC IN THE NAWSHED. NEIGHBORH. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY IS GOING TO BE HAPPY WITH WHAT RESULTS. SO I THINK IF WE WERE TO GRANT THIS, YOU KNOW, IT MAY BE THE BEST OF BOTH WORLDS.

I GUESS I WOULD ALSO ADD THAT THE COMMENTS AT THE END BY MR. LASERRE, YOU KNOW, THIS WAS AT ONE TIME -- I GUESS WE'RE RESTORING IT TO TWO LOTS. IT WAS TWO LOTS AT ONE TIME.

AND THE OWNER DIDN'T REALLY DO ANYTHING TO MAKE IT ONE LOT.

SO THEY WOULD HAVE ASSUMED ALL ALONG THEY STILL OWNED TWO LOTS AND THEN EVENTUALLY IF THEY SOLD IT, YOU KNOW, THE BUYER HAD THE RIGHT TO THINK THE SAME WAY. AND I GUESS IT WAS BY CODE THAT THE REQUIREM REQUIRED THEM TO GE VARIANCE.

[03:10:03]

THERE'S CONFLICTING RIGHTS INVOLVED, THE CURRENT PROPERTY OWNERS THE APPLICANT. I GUESS I WOULD SLIGHTLY LAY IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICANTS. I THINK THE END RESULT IS GOING TO BE BETTER THAN WHAT WE'RE GOING TO SEE IF IT'S DENIED AND

THE PARS PARCELS ARE ALL BROKEN. >> OKAY.

GOOD THOUGHTS. >> CURRENTLY THREE PARCELS RIGHT

NOW AS IT STANDS. >> YES.

THERE'S THREE BUILDABLE LOTS RIGHT THERE RIGHT NOW.

THEY DON'T NEED A VARIANCE, THEY CAN PURSUE THOSE RIGHT NOW.

>> RIGHT. I UNDERSTAND.

BUT IF THIS GROUP -- IF WE DENY IT IF THIS GROUP BACKS OUT THEN I THINK YOU KNOW, IT'S A GOOD CHANCE THEY'RE GOING TO BE BROKEN UP. HOW OFTEN ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE A GROUP COME IN TO BUY THE WHOLE PARCEL AND WANT TO BE NEIGHBORS

AND WORK TOGETHER? >> HE'S GOT A POINT GL

>> HE DOES HAVE A POINT >> JACOB, I'VE GOT A QUESTION.

>> YES, MA'AM >> IF THEY DIDN'T GET THE VARIANCE AND GOT THIS BIG PIECE OF PROPERTY IN THE FRONT, SOMEBODY TORE THAT HOUSE DOWN AND THEY WERE GOING TO BUILD A SMALL HOUSE, DIDN'T NEED A LOT OF SETBACKS, CAN THEY PUT IT ON EITHER SIDE LOT IF THEY WANT? THANK YOU?

THEY CAN? >> THE POTENTIAL THERE IS THEY

MAX IT OUT FRONT, REAR, SIDE -- >> OR THEY CAN DO --

>> SMALL ONE WAY OR THE OTHER >> AND SAVE THE LOT.

OKAY. I WOULDN'T WANT THAT.

>> ANYBODY GOT ANYMORE THOUGHTS BEFORE I GIVE MINE?

>> OKAY. YOU CAN NEVER SPEAK WITH ANY CERTAINTY AS TO WHAT SOMEONE WAS THINKING IN THE PAST.

HOWEVER, IT WOULD SEEM REASONABLE THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF SPIRITED DISCUSSIONS AROUND THE LBC WHEN THEY WERE GIVERRING GIVING USA ROAD MAP TO THE FUTU. AS OUR APPLICANT SAID, BETTER THAN I CAN ALL THE OTHER CITIES AND TOWNS THAT SHE LOOKED AT THAT ALL THE APPLICANTS LOOKED AT BEFORE THEY CHOSE FERNANDINA BEACH. AND AS THE BOARD HAS HEARD ME SAY MANY TIMES, FOUR GENERATIONS OF MY FAMILY HAVE WALKED DOWN CENTER STREET. IN THE WORLD THAT WE INHABIT, THE COMMUNITY WE INHABIT RIGHT OUTSIDE THOSE DOORS, I DIDN'T DO ANYTHING FOR. IT WAS GIVEN TO ME AS A GIFT.

IT WAS GIVEN TO ME BY SOME NAMELESS FACELESS PEOPLE THAT MADE SOME HARD DECISIONS 30 OR 40 YEARS AGO.

IT WASN'T HARD TO SEE THE FUTURE COMING.

IT DIDN'T TAKE MUCH DEPTH OF VISION TO SEE IT COMING.

JUST LOOK AROUND. AND AS TIME GOES ON, WE'RE GOING TO SEE MORE AND MORE PRESSURE ON THESE LOTS.

TYPICALLY THEY WOULDN'T GET SOLD AND NOW THERE THERE'S JUST MORED MORE PRESSURE ON THEM. I CAN RESPECT WHAT OUR APPLICANTS ARE TRYING TO DO. BUT IF I WALKED DOWN FLETCHER FIVE YEARS FROM NOW AND I SAW THAT ROAD AND FOUR HOUSES IN THERE THAT WOULD CONCERN ME GREATLY.

THAT WE HAVE NOT SET OUR NEXT GENERATION UP FOR SUCCESS THE WAY WE WERE SET UP FOR SUCCESS. THAT CONCERNS ME GREATLY.

THAT WE'RE TURNING THE CORNER AND WE HAVE -- THE BOARD HAS APPROVED THESE IN THE PAST WHERE WE WOULD DIVIDE THE LOTS, BUT I THINK THAT THE LDC, THE FOUNDERS AND FRAMERS OF THAT PROBABLY GOT IT RIGHT THAT WE SHOULDN'T DO THAT.

BUT THEY STILL GIVE US A VARIANCE PROCESS FOR THAT TRYING TO UPHOLD INDIVIDUALS' RIGHTS. I WOULD CERTAINLY TALK ABOUT VOTING FOR SOME OTHER CONFIGURATIONS OF THAT LOT.

BUT I THINK THAT THIS GOING DOWN THE ROAD THAT IT'S GOING DOWN -- AND IT MAY NOT TECHNICALLY BE A SUBDIVISION, BUT IT'S GOING TO CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THAT STREET FOREVER.

THAT'S HOWI HOW I READ IT. >> I JUST WANT TO REMIND THE BOARD MEMBERS THAT WHATEVER MOTION THAT YOU MAKE, THAT THE -- YOU NEED TO ARTICULATE YOUR REASONS FOR MAKING THE MOTION. SO IN THIS CASE, CITY STAFF HAS

[03:15:01]

FOUND THAT ALL SIX CRITERIA HAVE BEEN MET.

SO IF YOU'RE MAKING A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE, YOU CAN RELY ON THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY AND NOT REALLY GO THROUGH EACH OF THE SIX CRITERIA.

BECAUSE OF THE STAFF REPORT AND STAFF FINDS ALL SIX CRITERIA WERE MET, IF YOU'RE MAKING A MOTION TO DENY THE VARIANCE, THEN YOU NEED TO STATE THE CRITERIA THAT HAVE NOT B BEEN MT

AND WHY >> THANK YOU.

I WILL SAY THE BOARD IS WORKING EXACTLY LIKE IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE. ALL THE BOARD MEMBERS ARE BRINGING A UNIQUE THOUGHT TO IT. EVERYONE IS CONCERNED ABOUT THE CITY. AND THAT'S EXACTLY HOW THE BOARD IS SUPPOSED TO BE WORKING, NO MATTER HOW THE VOTE TURNS OUT.

WHO HAS GOT SOME MORE DISCUSSION OR DOES ANYBODY WANT TO MAKE A

MOTION? >> WE DON'T GET TO LEAVE UNTIL

YOU MAKE A MOTION. >> I ALREADY MADE MY MOTION.

>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION >> TISH, GO AHEAD

>> I MOVE TO DENY CASE NUMBER 020-06 AND MAKE THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF FACT AND PART OF THE RECORD THAT THE ITEM AS PRESPRESENTED IS NOT COMPLIANT H THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO APPROVE AT THIS TIME. AND MY CONCERN IS BECAUSE OF NUMBER 4. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS

A MINIMUM VARIANCE. >> OKAY.

I'VE GOT A MOTION ON THE FLOOR, DOES SOMEBODY WANT TO SECOND IT

>> I'LL SECOND IT >> I GOT A 1ST FIRST AND A SECO.

BEFORE WE VOTE, MS. BOX, ARE YOU HAPPY WITH THE WAY TISH ARTICULATED WHERE SHE CAME WITH THAT?

>> THAT'S A WAY TO ARTICULATE IT, YEAH

>> OKAY. OKAY.

GOOD JOSH, TI JOB TISH, SHELLY U CALL THE VOTE, PLEASE?

>> MEMBER MOCK? >> NO.

>> HERTSLET? >> NO.

>> DADD? >> YES

>> SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME, TISH >> YES

>> PAPKE? >> YES

>> CHAIR MILLER? >> SO VOTING YES IS IN FAVOR OF

WHAT TISH'S MOTION TO DENY? >> YES.

>> YES >> YES.

>> THE VARIANCE HAS BEEN DENIED. >> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR COMING. AND SOMEONE TONIGHT DID SAY THAT SHE WOULD MAKE A GOOD NEIGHBOR IN THE VARIANCE WAS GRANTED.

AND I THINK THAT'S A GREAT SENTIMENT AND A GOOD STRONG LEADERSHIP POSITION. NO MATTER WHAT WE DECIDE TONIGHT THERE'S BIGGER ISSUES COMING RIGHT OUTSIDE THOSE DOORS FOR US AND WE JUST HAVE TO WORK TOGETHER AS A COMMUNITY, EVEN WHEN WE DISAGREE WE'VE GOT TO FIND SOME WAY TO UNITE OVER THE BIG ISSUES. A LOT OF PRESSURE ON OUR SMALL TOWN. THANK YOU ALL FOR COMING.

WAIT JUST ONE SECOND. IS THERE ANY BUSINESS --

[Items 6 & 9]

>> WE HAVE -- >> PROVIDE AN UPDATE.

KELLY'S GOING TO INTRODUCE OUR NEW STAFF MEMBER.

>> FOR BOARD MEMBERS WHO ARE PRESENT AND FOR THOSE WHO ARE WITH US VIRTUALLY, WE HAVE A NEW STAFF MEMBER AND HER NAME IS MSE ROOM WITH US. SHE'S WITNESSED TONIGHT'S HEARING. I HOPE YOU'LL WELCOME HER AND OVER TIME SHE'LL BECOME YOUR STAFF LIAISON.

YOU DIDN'T PICK A VERY GOOD MEETING FOR HER TO GET STARTED ON. SHE MAY NOT COME TO WORK.

[03:20:02]

WELCOME. >> THANK YOU

>> WELCOME. WE'VE GOT MS. SHELLY

>> SHE WAS HERE LAST MONTH, TOO, I BELIEVE.

OKAY. SO YES, SHELLY IS HERE AS OUR PLANNING TECHNICIAN AND SHE'LL BE SERVING AS THE SECRETARY.

>> TONIGHT'S MY LAST NIGHT >> YEAH, I DON'T BLAME YOU FOR

THAT. >> SHE'S THE PLANNER AND SHELLY

IS THE -- >> IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE WE ADJOURN, KELLY? YOU GOT ANYTHING?

>> FORGOT THE PLEDGE >> OH,

>> I KNEW IT, I KNEW IT >> I WAS TRYING TO SL STREAM LIE THINGS. WE CAN SAY IT NOW IF YOU WANT

>> TAMMY, IF THEY COME BACK, THANK YOUTHANK YOU COME BACK IN?

>> A YEAR IT'S OVER >> THEY CAN APPEAL?

>> THEY CAN APPEAL IT TO THE COURT

>> YEAH. >> LOOK, THOSE TYPES OF APPEALS -- I'M NOT SAYING THEY'VE NEVER HAPPENED HERE, BUT

I'VE BEEN HERE 13 -- >> I REMEMBER ONE --

>> APPEAL TO COURT, THEY DON'T HAPPEN T THAT OFTEN.

TWO MINUTES. WHEN THOSE APPEALS OCCUR, SO IF YOU CAN IMAGINE PROPERTY OWNERS GO TO AN ATTORNEY, HOPEFULLY A LAND USE ATTORNEY THAT KNOWS -- BECAUSE IT'S SUCH A SPECIALIZED AREA OF LAW. THEY FILE A PETITION AND IT'S GOT TO BE DONE QUICKLY, OBVIOUSLY, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THIS BOARD'S DECISION. AND THE BAR IS SO HIGH, THE STANDARD FOR PROVING YOUR CASE AND THE BURDEN IS ON THE PERSON THAT'S APPEALING, AND WHEN THEY FILE THESE, THEY HAVE TO SHOW THAT EITHER THERE WAS NOT DUE PROCESS S AND THAT'S NOT GOING O HAPPEN SL AS LONG AS I'M YOUR ATTORNEY.

DID YOU FOLLOW THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW.

DID YOU CONSIDER THE COMP PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODISM CODE.I WILL TELL YOU TONIGHT --H A LOT OF OUR VARIANCES -- YOU KNOW A LOT OF THIS STUFF THAT YOU HEAR IS NOT RELEVANT AND IT'S NOT COMPETENT AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

I ALSO WANT YOU TO KNOW AS AN EXAMPLE, THE SISTERS BRYNN AND SANDRA, THEY CALLED ME FROM THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE THE OTHER DAY. I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT I TREAT EVERYBODY THE SAME WAY. AND THE APPLICANTS HAVE CALLED ME A NUMBER OF TIMES AS THEY HAVE JACOB.

BUT THESE AFFECTED PARTIES CALLED ME, SANDY IS NOT AFFECTED BECAUSE SHE'S NOT IN THE CITY BUT HER SISTER, BRYNN IS, ACROSS THE STREET. THEY CALLED FROM THE CITY CLERK AND SAID THE APPLICATION FROM 2017 ISN'T COMPLETE.

AND I LISTENED FOR A MOMENT AND BE POLITE BUT I LET THEM KNOW THAT'S NOT RELEVANT TO THIS. I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN AND YOU CAN TAKE THE APPLICATION THAT DIDN'T HAVE PARTS COMPLETED AND IT'S OVER IN TERMS OF THIS CASE.

BUT THEY WERE ASKING ME SOMETHING ELSE, AND I SAID -- THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT THE DUNE IN THE BACK.

IT'S NOT RELEVANT BUT I WILL TELL YOU THAT IF YOU LADIES COME UP AND TALK ABOUT HOW IT'S GOING GOING -- DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO DAMAGE THE DUNES THE BOARD CAN NOT WEIGH THAT BECAUSE IT'S NOT FROM AN EXPERT. HENCE THE EXPERT THEY BROUGHT.

I SHOULD DO THAT TO ANSWER THEIR QUESTIONS, LET THEM KNOW, GIVE THEM A LITTLE BIT OF ADVICE IN TERMS OF HOW THE HEARINGS GO AND WHAT'S COMPETENT AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE JUST LIKE I DID THE APPLICANTS. THAT'S HOW BEHIND THE SCENES WE WORK THESE THINGS TO COME TO YOU.

THE COURT WOULD FINDTOP SO FINDO DIFFICULT TO TO OVERTURN YOUR DECISION. YOU DID NAU NOT HAVE TO TAKE EVIDENCE AGAIN. YOU VD COULD HAVE SAID IF YOU E AT THE LAST HEARING IT'S DONE AND THEY WOULDN'T HAVE HAD A CLAIM AGAINST THE BOARD. WE GUV GIVE THEM OVER -- JUST LT THEM SPEAK. PEOPLE FEEL BETTER WHEN THEY GET TO BE HEARD. I WAS THINK PG TING TONIGHT THAT IS HAPPENING IN TERMS OF GROWTH IN THE TOWN AND DEVELOPMENT PRESSURES, YOU KNOW, DO -- NOT THAT I'M ASKING, BUT DO WE NEED A VARIANCE BOARD AND THE ANSWER IS WE ALWAYS NEED A VARIANCE BOARD. THE REASON WHY IS WHETHER YOU'RE GOING TO APPROVE OR DENY MORE VARIANCES DEPENDING ON WHAT THEY ARE, WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR. WE HAVE TO HAVE A VARIANCE BOARD BECAUSE I BELIEVE IT IS THE REASON THE CITY HASN'T BEEN SUED A BUNCH OF TIME WHEN THE PLANNING STAFF AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT SAY NO, WE CAN'T GIVE YOU A PERMIT, IT VIOLATES THE CODE. IF YOU DON'T HAVE VARIANCES, THE

[03:25:01]

NEXT SPOT THEY STOP AT IS THE COURTHOUSE TO FILE A LAWSUIT.

SO WHEN THEY GET TO BE HEARD HERE, EVEN WHEN THEY'RE NOT GRANTED, THEY FEEL LIKE THEY'VE BEEN HEARD AND THEY'VE HAD THEIR CHANCE AND THEIR DUE PROCESS. THAT'S WHY HAVE THE BOARD AND THAT'S WHY WE'LL CONTINUE HAVING THE BOARD

>> CLARIFY SOMETHING FOR ME. THE HOUSE ON THE FRONT IS IT SITTING ON TWO ACTUAL LOTS? IF THEY TORE IT DOWN YOU'D HAVE

TWO LOTS IN THE FRONT ? >> ONE LOT.

>> SO IT GOT COMBINED SOME TIME IN THE PAST, THOSE TWO IN THE

FRONT? >> THE LOT --

>> WHEN THAT HOUSE WAS BUILT, I WASN'T BORN THEN.

I CAN TELL YOU I GREW UP PLAYING IN THAT HOUSE.

BILL MELTON WAS THE ONE THAT HAD THE HOUSE.

WITH THE NIECE THAT WAS ONE OF THE DANCERS FROM NEW YORK REAK ROCKEFELLER CENTER. THERE'S A LOT OF HISTORY IN THE HOUSE. BUT HE JUST -- BACK THEN, YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANYBODY WANTING TO BUILD.

EVERYBODY WANT TO BUILD THEIR HOUSE WHEREVER.

HE PROBABLY OWNED TWO LOTS. IT'S NOT DEAD CENTER, YOU NOTICE. SO IF THEY BUILT A THIRD HOUSE AND MOVED IT OVER TO ONE SIDE, I BET YOU THEY'LL GET THEIR WAY BEFORE IT'S OVER WITH. MAYBE NOT NOW, BUT -- YOU KNOW, I WOULD WANT TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING IN THERE.

AND THE FOUR HOUSES NEXT DOOR, THOSE ARE OWNED THE IDENTICAL LOT. THAT TELLS ME THAT SOMEBODY WENT BACK AND DID THE -- QU BECAUSE THEY'RE 72 FEET.

IF THEY WEREN'T, THEY'D BE 75. >> SOMEBODY WENT --

>> I THOUGHT THAT COULD HAVE AVOIDED A LOT OF THE STUFF WITH THE DUNE IF THEY HAD SPLIT THE FRONT INTO TWO AND MADE THE BACK

TWO INTO ONE >> THEY CAN'T SPLIT THE FRONT ONE INTO TWO THAT WAS WHAT THE WHOLE VARIANCE REQUEST WAS

>> OKAY. >> YEAH.

>> THAT'S WHAT WE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE CONCENTRATING ON GLN IF WE

>> IF WE GET INTO ANOTHER TIE BREAKER HOW ARE YOU GUYS GOING TO VOTE? I'M CURIOUS

>> OH, GEEZ. >> ARE WE STILL BEING RECORDED?

>> YES. >> ARE WE STILL BEING RECORDED?

>> YES >> WE'RE STILL BEING RECORDED

>> THAT'S LIKE, PLAYING POKER AND YOU GET CALLED AND YOU DON'T GET CALLED YOU STILL WANT TO SEE THE HAND.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT IT IS. WOULD BE FORCED TO MAKE A DECISION. I WAS VERY COMPLICATED AND, YOU KNOW, IT COULD HAVE WENT EITHER WAY.

I THINK IT'S A GOOD DECISION HOPEFULLY WHATEVER GOES IN THERE

THEY'LL BE HAPPY WITH EVENTUALLY >> I RESPECT MR. COOK'S PERSPECTIVE OF THE BACK DUNE. TO BE ABLE TO SUCCESS THOSE LOTS FROM FLETCHER IS GOING TO BE A NIGHTMARE.

IT'S IN THE -- YOU'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE BUILDING CODES. I CAN'T THINK THAT JOSE'S EFFORTS AREN'T GOING TO BE CHALLENGED IN GETTING IT THROUGH

THE BUILDING REVIEW >> WE NEED TO TIGHTEN UP.

IF THE CITY WANTS TO PROTECT THE DUNES, THE SECONDARY DUNES, THEY NEED TO PUT SOME SORT OF ORDINANCE TOGETHER TO HANDLE THAT. I DON'T THINK WE'VE GOT MEAT IN

THE CODE RIGHT NOW TO DO THAT. >> I'M CONCERNED NOW AS THAT PARCEL BEING ONE PARCEL ON SOUTH FLETCHER THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO ACCESS FIRST AVENUE. SO THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO PUT A ROAD IN AND DESIGN A ROAD TO COME THROUGH THERE.

I KNOW THEY'VE LOOKED AT IT AND I KNOW THEY ABSOLUTELY HAVE THAT

RIGHT TOMORROW. >> I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THAT

>> THEY'D HAVE TO PAY FOR IT? >> THE EXPENSE AS WELL

>> YEAH. WE SHALL SEE

>> IT WOULD BE DEDICATED TO THE CITY? BECAUSE WE DID THAT A LOT IN THE COUNTY

>> YEAH, SO THE DUNE IS NOT SAFE JUST YET.

>> NO. NO.

NO HELP. >> KELLY GOT ANYTHING ELSE? THAT'S

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.