[4.1 BOA 2020-0009: EMILY PIERCE, AGENT FOR LEWIS GARDNER, 218 N. 6TH STREET Variance from LDC Section 4.02.03(E) Standards for Building Heights and Setbacks, reducing the 10 foot side yard setback to 7 feet. ]

MS. DAPHNE WHY DON'T WE GET INTO THIS OLD BUSINESS.

>> OKAY FM. >> AND GET THAT SHOW ON THE

ROAD. >> SO THIS IS A CONTINUANCE FOR EMILY PIERCE, AGENT FOR LEWIS GARD INNER FORKING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS CASE 20 WITH 20-0009.

THE REQUESTED ACTION IS A VARIANCE FROM LDS 4.02.03 HEE, ALL APPLICATION MATERIALS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED, ALL FEES HAVE BEEN PAID AND ALL NOTICES HAVE BEEN MADE.

SO THE APPLICANT ADJUSTED THEIR VARIANCE REQUEST.

IT IS NOW A REQUEST FOR A SIDE YARD SET BACK REQUIREMENT FROM 10 FEET TO 7 FEET TO PERMIT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE OVER A TWO CAR GARAGE ON THE PROPERTY.

THIS IS THE REVISED SITE PLAN AND THERE WAS AN ADDITIONAL REVISION THAT WAS BROUGHT IN TONIGHT.

UNFORTUNATELY I DON'T HAVE ONE TO SHOW ON THE SCREEN BUT I DO HAVE IT HERE PRINTED OUT. THE ONLY THING THAT WAS CHANGED ON THIS IS THE CA CANTILEVERED STAIRS.

THERE APPLICANT PROVIDED SOME ADDITIONAL MATERIALS AND THEY HAVE HIGHLIGHTED HERE THE LOT. AND ADDITIONALLY, THE WET LAND LINE. WITH AND HERE YOU'LL SEE THE WET LAND BUFFER AREA AND THE HIGHLIGHTED PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY HOME. AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY

[00:10:06]

QUESTIONS THAT THE BOARD MAY HAVE.

>> DAPHNE, THE PRINTED DOCUMENT THAT YOU HAVE IS THERE ANYTHING SIGNIFICANT THAT WE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT?

>> SO THE PRINTED DOCUMENT IS REVISED TO SHOW THAT THE STAIRS ARE NOT -- THE LANDING AT THE TOP OF THE STAIRS IS NO LONGER CANTILEVERED AND JACOB IS ACTUALLY GOING TO STAND THAT FOR US SO WE CAN VIEW THAT ON THE SCREEN.

>> DAPHNE, CAN YOU GO TO THE NEXT PAGE, THAT IS ACTUALLY THE

CORRECT SITE PLAN. >> HERE IS THE CORRECT SITE

PLAN. >> I APOLOGIZE I DIDN'T GET IT

TO YOU. >> THAT'S OKAY.

THIS IS THE MOST RECENT SITE PLAN.

>> DAPHNE WHAT WOULD BE THE SET BACK UNDER NORMAL?

>> TEN FEET. >> THEY HAVE REVISED THEIR

APPLICATION TO GO TO -- >> SEVEN FEET.

>> WHAT WAS IT BEFORE, FIVE? >> YES, FIVE FEET.

>> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD MEMBERS FOR CITY STAFF BEFORE WE HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT?

>> IS THERE A NEW RETAINING WALL THAT'S BEING SHOWN TO SEPARATE

THE PARKING AREA? >> YES, THIS IS A NEW RETAINING

WALL. >> CAN THAT FOUNDATION --

>> IT WAS ALSO ON THE ORIGINAL PLAN AS WELL.

>> ALL RIGHT, ANYTHING ELSE? >> NOT FROM ME.

>> ALL RIGHT,. >> WHERE DO YOU WANT ME AT THE

PODIUM? >> AND PLEASE GIVE YOUR NAME AND

ADDRESS. >> YES.

EMILY PIERCE, 1301 RIVER PLACE BOULEVARD, JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA. WE ACTUALLY HAVE AN OFFICE HERE THAT I WORK IN A COUPLE OF TIMES A WEEK BUT I'M VERY DYSLEXIC, THE ADDRESS IS VERY LONG AND I ALWAYS GIVE MY JACKSONVILLE ADDRESS. I APOLOGIZE UP FRONT.

I'M GOING TO READ THIS TO YOU. THIS IS ESSENTIALLY A SUMMARY OF THE TESTIMONY THAT THE MEMBERS THAT WERE PRESENT AT THE LAST HEARING HERD AND THEN I'M JUST GOING TO AMEND TO SHOW YOU THE NEW SITE PLAN. SO THE OWNERS, THE GARDNERS HIRED AN ENGINEER, DAN MCRAINY TO DO A SITE PLAN EVALUATION BEFORE THEY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY.

AND HE MET WITH CITY STAFF. HE WENT TO PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

HE WENT ON THE SITE. AND HE PRODUCED A REPORT THAT SAID THERE WERE -- DATA PROPERTY WAS COMPLETELY DEVELOPABLE.

IT IS 100 FEET BY 100 FEET WHICH UNDER THE PLDZ WOULD REQUIRE SIDE YARD SET BACKS OF 10%. SO THAT WOULD REQUIRE SIDE YARD SETTLE BACKS OF TEN FEET ON EACH SCIED.

SIDE. AFTER GETTING THE REPORT FROM MONTH MCRAINY THEY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY, THEY HIRED A BUILDER, THEY GOT PLANS MADE. THEY WERE BUILDING A 3,000 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE ON THIS 100 BY 100 FOOT LOT.

TOOK IT INTO THE CITY AND THEN WERE TOLD, YOU NEED TO CONFIRM THAT THERE IS NO WETLANDS ON SITE.

HAVING GOTTEN AN ENGINEER'S REPORT THEY THOUGHTS NO PROBLEM.

SO THEY WENT ON THE SCIETD AND AS CAN YOU SEE FROM THE MAP -- SITE AND AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE MAP BIG PROBLEM.

THERE IS A VERY BIG SLOT OF WETLANDS THAT ARE KIND OF V SHAPED. AND AS DAPHNE SAID, THIS PROPERTY IS ZONED R-2 SO IF THERE HAD BEEN NO WETLANDS ON THIS SITE, IF LOT COULD HAVE BEEN SPLIT INTO TWO LOTS.

TWO 50 FOOT LOTS. A HOUSE COULD HAVE BEEN BUILT ON EACH ONE UNDERTHE R-2 ZONING AND THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN FIVE FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACKS SO IT WOULD HAVE BEEN FINE.

AND WOES HAVE HAD NO PROBLEM MEETING TEN FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACKS IF THE ENTIRE LOT HAVE BEEN DEVELOPABLE BUT IT'S NOT.

SO DAPHNE IF YOU COULD PUT UP THE SECOND MAP.

SO IN GREEN YOU CAN SEE THESE ARE THE ONSIDE WETLANDS.

[00:15:06]

THE DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR THE CITY REQUIRES A 25 FOOT BUFFER BETWEEN THOSE WETLANDS AND ANY DEVELOPMENT.

SO IF YOU COULD PUT UP THE NEXT PICTURE.

SO BETWEEN THE RED LINE WHICH IS OUR PROPERTY LINE AND THE EDGE OF THE BLUE LINE, THAT'S THE DEVELOPABLE PROPERTY THAT IS LEFT ON THIS SITE. AND STAFF IS REQUIRING THAT THERE BE A -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU CALL IT.

A PHYSICAL BARRIER BETWEEN THE UPLAND BUFFER AND THE DEVELOPABLE SITE. YOU CAN SEE IT, IT EVEN TAKES UP A LITTLE BIT MORE. WE ALSO HAVE IF LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES THAT THE GARAGES BE SIDE ENTRY.

IF IT'S FRONT ENTRY IT HAS TO BE SET BACK 25 FEET WHICH WOULD PUT THE HOUSE IN THE WETLANDS. NOT EVEN IN THE BUFFER BUT IN THE WETLANDS. SO WE HAVE A TEN FOOT SIDE YARD SET BACK. WE ARE ASKING FOR A CONTEXTURAL FRONT YARD SET BACK. THE AVERAGE SET BACK FOR THE HOUSES IS TEN FEET. WE HAVE SUBMITTED THAT AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER, THAT DOESN'T COME BEFORE THIS BOARD BUT WE HAVE SUBMITTED THAT. THE TEN FOOT BY TEN FOOT IF WE HAD A TEN FOOT SIDE AND TEN FOOT FRONT, THAT IS NOT ENOUGH PROPERTY. WE HAVE TO PROVIDE PARKING AND WE ALSO HAVE TO HAVE AN ACTUAL LIVABLE HOUSE.

SO WHAT WE CAME UP WITH AND WHAT OUR FANCY BUILDERS CAME UP WITH IS A TWO CAR GARAGE WITH THE HOUSE OVER THE TOP OF IT.

THE GARAGE OBVIOUSLY HAS TO BE LONG ENOUGH AND WIDE ENOUGH TO FIT TWO CARS. BUT THAT TAKES CARE OF OUR PARKING REQUIREMENT. AND THEN, THE HOUSING AT THE TOP HAS TO HAVE A KITCHEN AND IT HAS TO HAVE A RESTROOM.

SO WE'VE G GOT 416 SQUARE FEET O WORK WITH, IT MAKES FOR A TINY HOME BUT VERY LIVABLE HOME O. THE ONLY THING WE COULDN'T DO IS FIT IT WITHIN THE TEN FOOT SIDE YARD SET BACK.

ORIGINALLY WE CAME TO YOU WITH A VARIANCE REQUEST TO REDUCE THE SIDE YARD SET IMAR BACK FROM 10. I BELIEVE IT WAS BOARD MEMBER PAPKE WHO SAID I REALLY BELIEVE YOU CAN DO SOMETHING WITH THE STAIRS AND MOVE IT FURTHER SOUTH, TAKE IT AWAY FROM THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY. SO MR. BISCANO WENT BACK AND THE FIRST THING WE ACTUALLY SUBMITTED TO THE CITY EGOT IT FROM FIVE FEET TO SEVEN FEET. SO WE WERE ABILITY TO MOVE IT TWO MORE FEET SOUTH AWAY FROM THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY.

THE ORIGINAL STAIRS WERE CANTILEVERED OVER THE UPLAND BUFFER. WE WERE TOLD WE COULD NOT DO THAT, WE'VE REDONE THE PLAN AND GOTTEN THE STAIRS WHERE THEY COME RIGHT TO THE EDGE OF THE UPLAND BUFFER BUT THEY DO NOT ENCROACH. WE CANNOT UNDER CITY REGULATIONS DO ANYTHING IN A WET LAND. IT IS ALSO HIGHLY DISCOURAGED TO DO ANYTHING IN THAT UPLAND BUFFER.

SO THE ONLY THING WE REALLY HAVE TO WORK WITH WAS THE SIDE YARD SET BACK. WE HAVE PULLED IT IN AS FAR AS POSSIBLE. AND STILL MAKING IT A USABLE HOME. THE THING THAT WE TALKED ABOUT LAST MONTH WAS DOES THIS GIVE SOME SORT OF A SPECIAL ADVANTAGE TO OUR CLIENT? AND THE ANSWER IS NO.

EVERY OTHER LOT ON THIS BLOCK IS 50 FEET WIDE.

EVERYBODY ELSE HAS FIVE FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACKS.

THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH OF US HAS A FIVE FOOT SIDE YARD SET BACK. THE TWO PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH OOF US FIVE FOOT YARD SETBACKS AND THOSE HOUSES ARE ACTUALLY BUILT FIVE FEET FROM THE SIDE YARDS.

SO WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR SOMETHING SPECIAL OR DIFFERENT.

WE'RE ASKING THAT WE BE TREATED THE SAME.

WE'RE ASKING TO BE ABLE TO USE OUR PROPERTY.

WE CANNOT TAKE THAT HOUSE AND MOVE IT TO THE OTHER SIDE.

OUR CLIENT OWNS THE HOUSE TO THE OTHER SIDE.

WE WOULD LOVE TO BE ABLE TO BUT YOU CAN SEE FROM THIS BUMP HERE, THERE IS SIMPLY NOT ROOM WITHOUT ENCROACHING INTO THE UPLAND BUFFER TO PUT HABITABLE SPACE AND THE PARKING AND THE DRIVEWAY ACCESS. SO WE'VE PUT IT IN THE ONLY PLACE WE CAN PUT IT. WE'VE MADE IT AS SMALL AS POSSIBLE AND WE'VE LIMITED THE LET ME TAKE A QUICK LOOK -- OKAY

[00:20:11]

GOING DO SAY WAS THE SIDE PLANNINGPLANYOU SAW EARLIER DIDE STEPS CANTILEVERED, THIS MAP I COLORED ON ACTUALLY SHOWS THE CURRENT SITE PLAN. SO WE WOULD REQUEST THAT YOU GRANT THIS VARIANCE. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE NEIGHBOR WOULD FRE PREFER IT TO BE TEN F. BUT WE HAVE DONE THE BEST THAT WE CAN WITH THE CIRCUMSTANCES, GIVEN ALL OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND REQUIREMENTS, THIS IS THE BEST THAT WE CAN DO AND STILL ACTUALLY USE OUR PROPERTY.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MA'AM.

ANY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS SO FAR?

>> DID YOU MOVE THE STEPS NORTH OR SOUTH?

>> WE MOVED IT SOUTH. >> SO INSTEAD OF BEING -- WE ORIGINALLY HAD A REQUEST FOR FIVE FOOT.

>> LET ME GET YOU TO COME BACK UP.

WE NEED TO GET IT OFTEN TAPE. I'M SORRY.

>> WE WERE ORIGINALLY REQUESTING THAT THE SIDE YARD SETTLE BACK BE FIVE FEET. WE WERE ABLE TO REDUCE IT, IT WOULD BE SEVEN FEET. WE ARE ONLY REQUESTING A THREE FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE TEN FEET THAT'S REQUIRED.

>> AND YOU GOT THAT FROM MOVING THE STEPS?

>> WE MOVED THE HOUSE AND THE STEPS.

SO WE WERE ABLE TO ACTUALLY MOVE THE HOUSE TWO FEET AND

RECONFIGURE THE STAIRS. >> DOESN'T PLAN GO NORTH ON THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE? PLAN NORTH?

>> YES, CORRECT. ANYTHING ELSE? I BELIEVE MR. GARDNER WAS SUPPOSED TO BE ON THE CALL, THE PROPERTY OWNER. HOPEFULLY IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER

QUESTIONS. >> SURE.

>> DAPHNE IS THE PROPERTY OWNER ONLINE?

>> SHE'S ACTUALLY HERE, SHE'S PRESENT.

>> WITH MR. GARDNER? >> YES, MR. GARDNER, HE'S

PRESENT. >> LET'S START WITH HIM.

>> SOMEBODY ELSE ONLINE TOO, NO I GUESS THEY JUST DROPPED OFF.

NO, MOVED. >> THERE WE GO.

MR. GARDNER CAN YOU HEAR US ALL RIGHT?

>> HE IS ON NOOUT. >> DAPHNE YOU HAVE TO UNMUTE.

>> HELLO, CAN YOU HEAR ME? >> YES.

YES. >> OKAY SORRY.

THAT'S NOT THE MOST TECHNOLOGICALLY CAPABLE.

>> THAT'S OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO WORK THROUGH THIS.

>> OKAY. >> WAS THERE SOME --

>> DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR ME?

I HAD NOTHING TO ADD. >> OKAY, ALL RIGHT.

I JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY ANYTHING THAT YOU WANTED TO. OR IF YOU CHANGE YOUR MIND AS THIS GOES ON WE'RE HAPPY TO COME BACK TO YOU.

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. >> OKAY.

>> THANK YOU SIR. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING

SIR? >> I'M GOOD RIGHT NOW UNLESS YOU

HAVE A QUESTION. >> OKAY, DOES THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ANYBODY SO FAR BEFORE WE OPEN IT UP TO THE PUBLIC? ALL RIGHT AND IS THERE ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC FLI TONIGHT WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THAT? COME UP TO THE PODIUM, YES, MA'AM, GIVE IS YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND GIVE US WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS ARE.

>> HAVE A QUIET VOICE. I'M ANN HENSON.

I LIVE AT 212 NORTH 6TH STREET ON THE PROPERTY JUST SOUTH IS OF THE ADJOINING NEIGHBOR. I HAVE A QUESTION TO THE BUILDER OR A COUPLE OF THINGS. I SEE A DRY POND THAT APPEARS ON THIS PLAN THAT DIDN'T APPEAR ON THE PREVIOUS PLAN.

AND I KNOW WHAT A DRY POND IS. BUT HOW WILL THAT AFFECT THIS?

>> THE CITY REQUIRES US TO -- SORRY.

>> SAY YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS REAL QUICK.

>> VICK PASCONO, 2425 SOUTHER ROAD.

TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, THE CITY REQUIRES US TO MAINTAINED THE WATER ON OUR PROPERTY. SO I HAD THE ENGINEER DEVELOP THE DRAINAGE PLAN WITH THE DRY POND WHICH IS NOT REALLY MUCH OF A POND BUT IT CAN HOLD THE WATER.

SO IT DOESN'T FLOW ONTO YOUR PROPERTY, FOR INSTANCE.

[00:25:02]

SO ODOES THAT ANSWER YOUR DOES R QUESTION?

>> LET ME ASK, SO WHAT IS THE OPENING ON THE BACK, ANN HENSON, 212 NORTH 6TH STREET AGAIN. WHAT IS THE OPENING ON IF BACK OF THE BUILDING NOW ON THE SOUTH SIDE THAT WAS NOT THERE BEFORE?

>> WHAT WE HAD TO DO TO ACCESS THE BUILDING, I HAD TO PROVIDE AN ACCESS TO THE BACK OF THE STAIRS.

>> WE'RE GOING TO WORK OUR WAY INFLUENCE THIS.

>> PARK THEIR VEHICLE? >> IF THEY WANT TO GO UP THE

STAIRS, PARK THEIR VEHICLE. >> OKAY.

>> THANK YOU SIR. IN THE PREVIOUS MEETING IT WAS STATED THAT THERE WOULD BE LANDSCAPING ALL AROUND.

AND SO IF THE SET BACK IS SO CLOSE, I'M NOT SURE HOW THE -- THERE WOULD BE ENOUGH LANDSCAPING THAT WILL -- WOULD KIND OF HIDE THE PROPERTY, IF YOU WILL, NOT HIDE IT BUT YOU KNOW I'M NOT SURE THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE OROOM FOR LANDSCAPING AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW -- SO THAT'S THE POINT THERE. AND ALSO IT WAS PREVIOUSLY STATED, LAST MEETING, THAT THERE WOULD BE PARKING ON THE ROAD, ALL OF US HAVE OFF STREET PARKING AND THERE IS THE OCCASION OVEAL OVERFLOW OF VISIS THAT MIGHT PARK IN THE STREET SO THAT WAS KIND OF MISLEADING THERE.

ALSO, IT WAS STATED THAT THE OWNER WOULD SAY THAT IT WOULD NEVER BE USED FOR AN AIRBNB. WELL, WE KNOW THAT BECAUSE IT IS A SEPARATE LOT, THAT COULD BE SOLD, AT ANY POINT IN TIME, AND

SORRY, I'M NERVOUS. >> THAT'S OKAY.

>> THAT PROPERTY CAN BE SOLD INDEPENDENT OF THE OTHER LOT AND IT WOULD BECOME THE IDEAL AIRBNB BECAUSE IT IS ESSENTIALLY A GARAGE APARTMENT IF YOU WILL. A NICE RENTAL PROPERTY.

YOU KNOW FOR VISITORS. SO THAT'S A POINT THERE.

ALSO IN THE SECTION 4.02.RO 03 PART 4, LDS, IT STATES THAT CERTAIN EAVES WOULD BE ALLOWED TO INTRUDE INTO THE SET BACK ENCROACHING FURTHER INTO THE SETBACKS, THUS NEARER MY HOUSE.

I THINK ONE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS DID MENTION THIS LAST TIME.

THERE WAS ONLY ONE ITEM IN IF THESIX PROVISIONS THAT HAD A NO, AND THAT WAS SPECIAL CONDITIONS. AND IT SAID THAT A VARIANCE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED IF THE EVIDENCE IS IN DEMONSTRATION OF FINANCIAL HARDSHIP OR ECONOMIC CONSIDERATION.

AND TO ME, BUYING A PROPERTY, EVEN THOUGH YOU GOT ALL OF THESE SUPPOSED OKAYS WITH IT, BUYING A PROPERTY THAT IS DIFFICULT TO BUILD ON HAS BEEN STATED OVER AND OVER BY THE APPLICANT, THE BUILDER AND THE ATTORNEY, IS A BURDEN THAT IS SELF IMPOSED BY THE BUYER, EVEN THOUGH HE DIDN'T MEAN FOR IT TO BE THAT WAY.

AND I JUST -- I JUST DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT MEETS THE CRITERIA, A TEST FOR THE VARIANCE EXCEPTION.

AND ITEM NUMBER 3, ON THOSE PROVISIONS, LITERALLY LITERAL INTERPRETATION THAT IT WOULD DEPRIVE THE RIGHTS OF APPLICANT ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME ZONING.

AND I'M -- IT'S CONFUSING AS TO WHAT ALL OF THESE THINGS EXACTLY MEAN. BUT THERE IS NO OTHER STREET, NO OTHER PROPERTY ON THIS STREET, THAT HAS WETLANDS OR WETLAND BUFFER THAT WHEN THERE WERE THREE NEW, FOUR NEW HOUSES BUILT, AND NO ONE HAD WETLANDS OR WETLAND BUFFER.

[00:30:02]

ALSO, THERE ARE NO OTHER PROPERTIES ON THE STREET THAT HAVE A SEPARATE GARAGE. THERE IS ONE ADC, ACCESSORY WHY DWELLING BUILDING THAT IS BUILT TO THE REAR OF THAT PROPERTY, WITH NEXT TO THE HOUSE. SO ESSENTIALLY, REGARDLESS OF DEFINITION, AS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, THIS IS A VERY SMALL SINGLE SYSTEM HOME GARAGE TYPE APARTMENT THAT SITS TWO LOTS, ALMOST TWO LOTS AWAY FROM THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE WHICH SHOULD BE ANCILLARY TO ME, TO THE PROPERTY.

ITEM NUMBER 6, PUBLIC INTEREST. SAYING THAT IT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, AND WILL NOT CAUSE INJURY TO THE AREA INVOLVED OR OTHERWISE TO BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, WELFARE OR ENVIRONMENT.

THE APPLICANT SAYS IN THEIR DOCUMENTS THAT THE PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOME IS IN KEEPING WITH THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. THAT IS NOT TRUE.

THE APPROACHED HOUSE IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE SIZE OR PLACEMENT OF THE LOT, THE MATERIALS ARE VERY MUCH IN KEEPING, LOOKS TO BE A NICE STRUCTURE.

HOWEVER, IT'S JUST 416 SQUARE FEET.

IT IS A SMALL STRUCTURE. ABOUT THE SET BACKS, I AND MY NEIGHBORS AND I MEASURED ALL THE DISTANCES BETWEEN THE HOMES.

AND THOSE DISTANCES VARY FROM ABOUT -- AND I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT PROPERTY LINES. I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT HOMES.

FROM 14 AND A HALF FEET TO 18, 10, 19, 6 AND 27, 10.

AND THIS MAY BE AND THIS IS, BECAUSE A HOME IS SHIFTED LITTLE BIT THIS WAY, LITTLE BIT THAT WAY.

IN FACT, THE SPACE BETWEEN THE APPLICANT'S CURRENT HOME AND THE NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH IS 20.6 FEET.

SO THIS NEIGHBOR DOES NOT CURRENTLY UNDERSTAND WHAT IT'S LIKE TO BE JAMMED UP NEXT TO A NEIGHBOR.

SO THERE WILL BE NO HOMES ON THE STREET WITH A STRUCTURE AS CLOSE AS MINE WILL BE IF THIS IS BUILT.

ALSO, OH, ANOTHER THING IS, THAT I BELIEVE THAT THE DESIGN OF THE BUILDING IS INCONGRUENT WITH ME, THE NEWEST NEIGHBOR -- NEAREST NEIGHBOR WHO HAS A ONE-STORY LITTLE RANCH HOUSE.

AND SO IT WILL SET UP HERE AND I'M DOWN HERE.

ALSO, I SUGGEST THAT IT WILL -- THAT I WILL SUFFER A FINANCIAL INJURY WHEN MY PROPERTY IS RESOLD, OR I MIGHT HAVE A TOUGHER TIME IN RESELLING IT. BECAUSE THIS STRUCTURE SITS THE WAY IT WILL. I ALSO REALIZE THAT SO MANY OF THOSE RESIDENCES DOWNTOWN DEAL WITH NOISE IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. BUT THIS STRUCTURE, THE WAY IT WILL SIT, IS RIGHT ADJACENT TO MY BEDROOM'S ON THE END OF THE HOUSE. SO ESPECIALLY WHERE AN OUTSIDE, YOU KNOW ALL THIS KIND OF COMING AND GOING AROUND THE BACK AND COMING UP THE STAIRS AND YOU HAVE THE LIGHT THAT'S GOING TO BE ON, BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO NEED LIGHT TO SEE TO GET IN AND OUT, BECAUSE IT'S DARK RIGHT THERE.

SO THAT'S SOMETHING I'M CONCERNED ABOUT.

AND FINALLY, THE ENTIRE BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT MAY BE ARGUED THAT IT IS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC, WHILE THERE IS A DRY POND NOTED, THERE WOULD BE WATER RUNOFF, PERCOLATION TO THE WET LAND AREA BECAUSE OF THE IMPERV IMPERVIAB.

AS YOU KNOW THE COMMUNITY IS VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE WETLANDS. BUT EVEN IF YOU ONLY TAKE PROVISION NUMBER 2, WHICH IS SPECIAL PRIVILEGE, ESSENTIALLY

[00:35:06]

WITHOUT THE VARIANCES FOR THE FRONT AND THE SIDE, THERE'S NO ROOM TO BUILD THIS STRUCTURE. SO ALTHOUGH I REALLY STRONGLY BELIEVE ABOUT THE -- WITHOUT HAVING THE WETLANDS AND PROTECTING THE WETLANDS, IT SEEMS LIKE THIS REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IS -- IS MORE CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO THE WETLANDS AND THE APPLICANT, THAN IT IS TO THE NEIGHBOR.

AND IN CLOSING, I JUST WANTED TO POINT THIS OUT.

EVEN THOUGH I WAS TOLD WHEN I BOUGHT MY HOUSE BACK IN 2011 THAT THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH COULD NOT BE DEVELOPED, I THOUGHT THAT I WAS MISINFORMED WHEN I SAW THE TWO LOTS FOR SALE, AND ULTIMATELY PURCHASED. ALSO FOR THE FACT THAT THE CURRENT APPLICANT'S HOUSE WAS SET ON A 50 FOOT LOT WHICH NEIGHBORS THOUGHT WAS UNBUILDABLE AS WELL.

SO CONSIDERING THAT I SAW THAT HOUSE BUILT, I THOUGHT OKAY, THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD, YOU KNOW, A NEW HOUSE.

I WAS TOTALLY HAPPY WITH THAT. I WAS FINE WITH THAT.

WHEN I SAW THAT, YOU KNOW, THE HOUSE WOULD BE SOMEWHAT CENTERED IN TWO, TWO LOTS. SO I HAD NO PROBLEM WITH A HOUSE BEING BUILT ON THAT PROPERTY. AND I ALSO WANTED TO POINT OUT, I DON'T KNOW IF JACOB IF HE COULD --

>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO PULL UP THE PHOTOS?

>> SHOW THE PICTURE? HAVE SURE.

>> I'M NOT SURE WHICH ONE YOU WOULD LIKE VISIBLE.

HERE IS ONE THAT WAS SENT. >> WELL, THIS JUST SHOWS, YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE CARS PARKED THERE IN THE DRIVEWAY OF THE APPLICANT'S HOUSE. AND THEN HERE'S THE TWO LOTS AND THEN THERE'S MY LITTLE SMALL HOUSE.

AND THEN IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT ONE, AND THIS IS GOING SOUTH.

>> I APOLOGIZE, I HAVE TO RE-SHARE THE SCREEN EACH TIME.

>> OKAY, AND THIS MOVES IT A LITTLE CLOSER, AS YOU CAN SEE YOU KNOW IT WILL IT IS A TREED LOT.

IF YOU COULD GO TO -- I HAVE TWO REMAINING.

OKAY. THE GRASSY AREA THAT YOU SEE, I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT THAT IS PART OF THE TWO LOTS O, FOFOR THE MOST PART, ABOUT TEN FEET OVER HERE.

I JUST OF JUST WANT TO CLARIFYI DID NOT IN ANY WAY REMOVE ANY WOODLAND OR ANYTHING ON THAT PROPERTY.

THAT IS THE WAY IT EXISTED WHEN I BOUGHT MY HOUSE IN 2011.

SO IT WOULD BE KIND OF IN THIS AREA, WHICH WHERE THE BACK WALL OF THIS PROPERTY BEGINS. SO I GUESS THAT'S IT.

IF THIS IS A LITTLE BIT MISLEADING, THIS IS NOT MY PROPERTY. YOU KNOW, FOR THE MOST PART, WHERE THE GRASSY AREA IS. BUT I JUST SIMPLY MAINTAINED IT AS IT WAS BY TRIMMING GRASS AND PULLING THE VINES AWAY.

EVERYBODY THINKS IT'S MY PROPERTY, SO IT LOOKS UNKEMP AND I'M NOT KEEPING UP MY PROPERTY IF I DON'T DO THAT.

THE PICTURES ARE A BIT MISLEADING.

THAT IS NOT MY PROPERTY AND I'VE ALWAYS KNOWN IT'S NOT MY PROPERTY. SO I DON'T HAVE ANY AVERSION TO SOMETHING BEING BUILT THERE BECAUSE TECHNICALLY I HAVE ASSUMED THIS, TO THAT EFFECT. I'VE ALWAYS KNOWN IT'S NOT MINE AND I'VE KNOWN WHERE THE PROPERTY LINE WAS.

AND SO ANYWAY THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE.

>> LET ME GET TO YOU STAY RIGHT THERE JUST A MINUTE.

[00:40:04]

MS. HENSON. YOU ARE VERY WELL SPOKEN.

SO THE BOARD APPRECIATES THAT. >> SHAKY AT TIMES.

>> I GET THAT SOMETIMES SO DON'T EVEN WORRY ABOUT THAT.

HOW LONG HAVE YOU LIVED THERE? >> SINCE -- WELL, I BOUGHT MY HOUSE IN 2011 AND PERMANENTLY FOR THREE YEARS.

I WAS COMING AND GOING BEFORE THAT, THEN I RETIRED.

>> AND DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW WHAT YOUR SET BACK IS FROM YOUR

PROPERTY LINE ON THIS SIDE? >> MY HOUSE, AND IT IS TRUE, MY HOUSE SITS JUST FIVE YARDS FROM MY PROPERTY LINE.

IT'S AN OLD HOUSE THAT WAS -- >> FIVE FEET?

>> YES, I KNOW, FIVE FEET. AND THEN AS IT WAS, WITH THE TEN FEET, JUST TEN FEET FROM MY HOUSE, AND NOW WITH THE SEVEN, IT'S 12 FEET FROM MY HOUSE. WHICH AS I'VE KIND OF SHOWN THE REST OF THE HOUSES UP AND DOWN THE STREET IF WE'RE CONSISTENT, I MEAN THERE'S AS MUCH AS 20 FEET OR SO.

>> SURE. >> SO NOT THAT THIS HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING, I SUPPOSE, BUT THIS BUILDING WILL BE JAMMED UP NEXT TO ME. AND ALL THE REST OF THE HOUSES HAVE A GOOD BIT OF SPACE IN BETWEEN THEM.

>> OKAY. YOU HAD SAID SOMETHING EARLIER AND I'M PARAPHRASING WHAT YOU'D SAID.

BUT I'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THAT FOR JUST A MINUTE.

YOU HAD SAID THAT IT SEEMED LIKE THAT MORE WEIGHT WAS GIVEN TO PRESERVING WETLANDS THAN TO THE ADJOINING NEIGHBOR'S FEELINGS.

AND I WOULD JUST TELL YOU THAT I CAN SEE WHERE YOU WOULD DRAW THAT CONCLUSION ON THAT. BUT IT ONLY SEEMS THAT WAY.

>> AND I DO. I'M A PROPONENT OF WETLANDS.

>> YES, MA'AM. >> AND NOT OVERREDEVELOPING.

I FEEL THAT STRONGLY. AND TREES, CUTTING DOWN TREES.

BUT IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THE APPLICATION KEPT SAYING OVER AND OVER, YOU KNOW, WE'RE DOING THIS TO PROTECT THE WETLANDS.

WE'RE DOING THIS TO PROTECT THE WETLANDS.

BUT NO MENTION WAS EVER MADE WHERE WHAT IT DOES TO THE ADJOINING NEIGHBOR AND THAT PROPERTY.

>> SURE, SO THE APPLICANT CAN FILL OUT THAT PAPERWORK IN ANY WAY THEY WOULD LIKE TO. THE BOARD DOESN'T REGULATE THAT.

BUT THE BOARD'S DECISION IS BASED CONCE EQUALLY ON THAT.

THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE LDS IS EQUAL ON THAT.

SO I WOULD SEE WHERE YOU WOULD DRAW THAT BUT IT ONLY SEEMS THAT

WAY. >> YES, I GUESS IT WAS -- NOT DIRECTED AT THE BOARD BUT MORE DIRECTED AT THE RECURRING WAY IT WAS STATED IN MOST OF THE PROVISIONS IN THE REBUTTAL TO THE PROVISIONS THAT I KEPT READING THAT.

AND I JUST -- >> YES, MA'AM.

OKAY. >> YOU KNOW.

>> IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD FOR

MS. HENSON BEFORE SHE SITS DOWN? >> MS. HENSON YOU'RE IN A SINGLE

FAMILY HOUSE. >> YES.

>> ON AN R-2 ZONING IS THAT WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING?

>> YES. YES.

>> ON A DU PLEX ZONING. >> R-2.

>> AND THAT'S WHY OUR SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE HAS A FIVE FOOT SET BACK. SO IF SHE'S GOT BACK, AND THEY GET THE VARIANCE, THERE WOULD BE 12 FEET BETWEEN THE PROPERTY?

>> YES, BETWEEN THE WALLS, THE WALLS.

>> SO THEY WOULD HAVE A SEVEN FEET AND SHE WOULD HAVE A FIVE

FEET. >> CORRECT.

I DID WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT ON WIN OF THE ONE OF THE OCCURRENCE REGARDING THE AIRBNB. SINCE THIS PROPERTY IS ZONED R-2 THAT WOULD ACTUALLY NOT BE ALLOWABLE SO YOU WOULDN'T HAVE

TO WORRY ABOUT THAT. >> OKAY BUT IT COULD BECOME A

RENTAL PROPERTY INDEPENDENT. >> YES BUT NOT A SHORT TERM

RENTAL SUCH AS AIRBNB. >> OKAY.

>> AND TELL ME WHERE YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE LANDSCAPE THAT YOU WERE WORRIED ABOUT THEM NOT BEING ABLE TO PUT THE LANDSCAPE?

>> WELL, PREVIOUSLY, LAST MONTH, IT WAS SAID THAT LANDSCAPING, APPROPRIATE LANDSCAPING WOULD BE PUT AROUND THE STRUCTURE.

AND WITH THE -- AT THE TIME ESPECIALLY WHEN IT WAS FIVE FEET, I MEAN TO GET A PIECE OF SHRUBBERY THAT MAYBE PERHAPS GRL IS GOING TO ENCROACH FURTHER AND SMALL STUFF ISN'T GOING TO MATTER AND EVEN SMALL STUFF GETS BIG.

YOU KNOW I'M NOT THE LANDSCAPINE THITITHINKING THAT THAT'S SOMEWT GOING TO BUFFER BETTER THE APPEARANCE OF A TWO STORY THERE IT'S NOT. BECAUSE THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ENOUGH ROOM FOR -- UNLESS IT IS A VERY NARROW TALL SOMETHING.

WE ALL KNOW HOW PLANTS OVERGROW. SO.

>> ALL RIGHT MS. HENSON THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU FOR COMING DOWN.

WAS THERE ANYONE ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC HERE OR ONLINE DAPHNE

[00:45:02]

THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? >> THERE'S NOT CURRENTLY ANYONE

HELESS ONLINE. >> CHAIRMAN CAN I RESPOND?

>> YES YOU CAN, ABSOLUTELY. >> I'LL BE SHORT.

JUST IN RESPONSE TO A COUPLE OF THINGS.

>> YES, STATE YOUR NAME. >> EMILY PIERCE, 1301 RIVER PLACE BOULEVARD. I ACTUALLY HAVE THE REPORT THAT WE GOT FROM OUR ENGINEER, IT'S DATED MAY 15TH, 2018.

AND I'D BE HAPPY TO SUBMIT A COPY IF YOU WANT IT.

BUT IT CLEARLY SAYS THERE ARE NO IMPEDIMENTS TO DEVELOPMENT.

WE WOULD LOVE TO PUT A BIGGER HOUSE ON HERE.

WE WOULD LOVE TO PUT A ONE-STORY, 3,000 SQUARE FEET.

IT'S GOING TO OEND END UP IN THE WETLANDS WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY PROHIBITED BY THE COMP PLAN OR IN THE BUFFER, ALSO HIGHLY DISCOURAGED. SO WE ARE LEFT WITH THE SPACE THAT I SHOWED YOU ON THAT MAP. THAT IS THE SPACE THAT WE HAVE TO WORK WITH. AND WE THINK THAT WE CAN -- WE'D LIKE TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO USE OUR PROPERTY.

AGAIN WE BOUGHT IT DOING ALL THE DUE DILIGENCE, THINKING WE HAD A DEVELOPABLE PROPERTY. WHAT WE HAVE WITH LEFT IS WHAT WE HAVE AND WE'RE WILLING TO WORK WITHIN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITY. AS BOARD MEMBER MOCK POINTED OUT, THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE TWO HOUSES IS NOW NOT GOING TO BE 17 COMPETE, IT'S GOING TO BE 12.

15TH FEET, IT'S GOING TO BE 12.

IT MAKES IT A USABLE STRUCTURE. WE CAN PARK TWO CARS IN IT WITHOUT THEM HANGING OUT THE BACK OF THE GARAGE AND WE HAVE USABLE SPACE UPSTAIRS. AGAIN, WE WOULD LOVE TO DESIGN SOMETHING BIGGER BUT THAT IS NOT IN THE CARDS.

WITH THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THIS DEVELOPMENT CODE.

OTHERWISE WE HAVE NO USE OF OUR PROPERTY.

THE TWO PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH, BOTH OF THOSE PROPERTIES ARE SET, THE HOMES BUILT ON THEM ARE FIVE FEET FROM EACH SIDE YARD SET BACK. SO THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH AND THE PROPERTY NORTH OF THAT, THERE'S TEN FEET BETWEEN THOSE PROPERTIES. THERE'S A FIVE-YARD SET BACK NORTH OF THAT. I DON'T KNOW HOW FAR THE HOUSE THERE IS. BUT IF YOU CAN -- I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN LOOK. BUT IF YOU CAN LOOK AT THE AERIAL OF THE SITE, THOSE HOUSES ARE SET RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER. BECAUSE AGAIN, EVERYBODY ELSE WITH A 50 FOOT WIDE LOT HAS A FIVE FOOT SIDE YARD SET BACK.

SO WE RESPECT MS. HENSON'S DESIRE.

WE WOULD LOVE TO HAVE A TEN FOOT SIDE YARD SET BACK BUT IT'S NOT IN THE CARDS WITH THIS PROPERTY. THANK YOU.

>> DAY THERE STAY THERE JUST FOE MOMENT.

>> YES. >> ANY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS THEY WOULD LIKE TO SAY?

>> I AGREE WITH THE PERSON THAT JUST SPOKE.

I WAS LOOKING ONLINE ON GOOGLE EARTH AND LOOKING AT THE STRAIGHT VIEW AND I SEE IT IS AN ATTACHED GARAGE ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER. YOU KNOW IT'S CLEAR THAT THIS ISN'T A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT RELATIVE TO THE CONTEXT OF THE

NEIGHBORHOOD. >> OKAY, ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> DAPHNE, IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE

ONLINE THAT IS COME ON? >> NO.

>> WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE OUT THAT PART OF THE MEETING THEN.

AND LET'S HAVE SOME BOARD DISCUSSION.

LET'S JUST GO AROUND THE ROOM AND LET'S TALK THIS OUT.

TELL ME WHAT YOUR THOUGHTS ARE, CONCERNS, HOW YOU READ IT.

AND I'LL GO LAST, AS ALWAYS. I LIKE BEING LAST.

>> YOU WANT ME TO BE FIRST? >> YOU CAN BE FIRST, GO AHEADING

BARRY. >> THE NEIGHBOR HAD SOME GOOD POINTS, BUT MOST OF THEM ARE NOT RELEVANT TO WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE. WE HAVE TO DECIDE IF WE ARE GOING TO LET THE SEVEN FOOT IN PLACE OF THE TEN FOOT SET BACK.

THAT'S WHAT BOILS DOWN TO ME, THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT WHETHER THAT IS ACCEPTABLE TO A VARIATION.

>> ALL RIGHT. >> IT'S CONSISTENT WITH SETBACKS, MORE SO. WHAT ELSE COULD THEY DO? IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THEY COULD DO, AND HAVE A USABLE

PROPERTY? >> IT IS A VERY SMALL PIECE OF PROPERTY. STEVEN, WHAT ARE YOU THINKING?

[00:50:03]

>> I THINK THAT THE APPLICANT HAS MADE THE EFFORT TO LISTEN TO OUR REQUEST. THEY HAVE MODIFIED THEIR PLAN ACCORDINGLY, TO COMPLY WITH THE BUILDING AND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT, AND SETBACKS. I HONESTLY DON'T THINK IT'S A BAD THING TO GO AHEAD AND APPROVE THIS.

I THINK IT'S -- IF THEY MADE THE EFFORT, AND AGAIN, JUST LOOKING AROUND THE CONTEXT OF THE REST OF THE SITES, WHILE I UNDERSTAND THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS OTHERWISE, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T PROHIBIT A PERSON TO DEVELOP THEIR OWN PROPERTY BY SOMEBODY ELSE'S OPINIONS. YOU KNOW, I RECOGNIZE THAT THAT'S AN IMPORTANT ASPECT OF IT.

BUT AS LONG AS THEY'RE MEETING THE ASPECTS OF THE BUILDING CODE THAT THE LIMITATIONS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, THEY'RE MEETING THE SET BACK REQUIREMENTS, THEY'RE MEETING THE WETLANDS SETBACKS, THEY'RE DOING EVERYTHING RIGHT.

HOW ABOUT THAT? >> OKAY.

MR. GASOLINE GLEASON, WHAT ARE R THOUGHTS SIR?

>> YES, I GUESS THE PRIMARY THING I'M THINKING ABOUT IS THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBOR, HER HOUSE IS ONLY FIVE FEET FROM THE SET BACK. AND FROM WHAT I'M HEARING, COMMENTS AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD, PART OF THE SPEECH OF THE NEIGHBOR THAT WAS SPEAKING WAS GARBLED THEY MEASURED SOME OF THEM. IF ANYBODY HAS ANY MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD I'D BE INTERESTED IN HEARING THAT. BUT IN GENERAL IT SOUNDS LIKE THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBOR AND PEOPLE ACROSS THE STREET AND SEVERAL OTHERS ARE LESS THAN SEVEN FEET.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I WOULD PROBABLY SUPPORT IT.

I ALSO THINK THAT THEY THE -- YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE A LOT OF WETLANDS THERE, AND I GUESS ECONOMICS ARE NOT PART OF THE CONSIDERATION. BUT THEY DID BUY THIS PROPERTY, AND IF THEY BUILD THAT HOUSE THERE, THOSE WETLANDS, THEY PROBABLY WOULD NEVER BE TOUCHED ANYWAY IN THIS DAY AND AGE.

BUT YOU KNOW, YOU NEVER KNOW, THINGS CHANGE, THE FLOCKS CHANGE, COMMISSIONS -- THE POLITICIAN CHANGE, COMMISSIONS CHANGE. THIS PROPERTY HAD SET THERE FOR FIVE OR TEN YEARS, SOMEBODY ELSE MIGHT SOMEHOW GET APPROVAL TO DO SOMETHING TO THOSE WETLANDS AND BUILD A HUGE STRUCTURE THERE.

SO WITH WHAT THEY'RE DOING NOW, IF YOU THINK 25, 50 YEARS AHEAD, THERE'S GOING TO BE THIS STRUCTURE THERE, SO ALL NOTICESE WETLANDS ARE PROBABLY GOING TO BE PRESERVED.

THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING AT. >> GOOD POINT.

>> THAT IS A GOOD POINT. I'M SURE THAT THERE WERE QUITE A FEW SPIRITED DISCUSSION WHES DISCUSSIONS WHENTHEY WERE FRAMI.

A LOT OF INPUT FROM A LOT OF PEOPLE.

YOU CAN NEVER SPEAK WITH ANY SERCERTAINTY WHEN SOMEBODY ELSES SPEAKING, THEY GAVE THE BEST ADVICE THEY COULD COME UP WITH BECAUSE THEY SAW WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE, THEY COULD SEE THE VISION THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE MORE AND MORE PRESSURE ON THE ISLAND. AND WE SEE THIS ALL THE TIME.

AND THAT'S WHAT CONCERNS ME. THE WORLD THAT WE LIVE IN IN IPHFERNANDINA BEACH, TODAY, IS A WORLD MADE 40, 50 YEARS AGO, BY FACELESS, NAMELESS PEOPLE THAT GAVE US THIS CITY.

AND THAT'S WHAT CONCERNS ME GREATLY ABOUT APPROVING THIS ON THAT LOT AND ALLOWING IT TO BE A VARIANCE FROM THE LDS AND GIVING THAT TO THE FUTURE GENERATIONS, THAT THIS WAS ACCEPTABLE.

AND I DON'T KNOW THAT DOING THAT IS SETTING THE FUTURE GENERATIONS OF FERNANDINA BEACH UP THE WAY THAT THE PREVIOUS PEOPLE WORKED SO HARD TO GIVE US THE CITY THAT WE HAVE TODAY.

I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS IS A GOOD FIT THAT IT IS IN DEFENSE OF WHERE WE ARE GOING TO BE 50 YEARS FROM NOW.

THAT'S MY CONCERN WITH IT. I'M HAPPY TO DISCUSS IT OR BAT AROUND SOME OTHER IDEAS IF SOMEBODY THINKS THAT THERE'S OTHER VIEWPOINTS ON THAT. IT'S NOT REALLY -- IT'S NOT

[00:55:06]

REALLY DEFEAT THAT'S THE PROBLEM, IT'S THAT WE MAKE A

VARIANCE TO ALLOW THAT. >> IN ORDER TO SAVE THE WETLANDS OAR IN ORDER TO FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO BUILD THE HOUSE.

YOU CAN'T RULE AGAINST THAT. THEY'VE DONE EVERYTHING THEY CAN TO -- I MEAN THEY LISTENED TO WHAT THE BOARD SAID.

AND THEY HAVE COME BACK WITH A SOLUTION.

>> I DON'T DISAGREE. >> AND WE'RE NOT -- WE'RE NOT GOING TO ENCROACH THE WETLANDS WHICH I THINK IS IMPORTANT.

>> I AGREE. >> TO SAVE THOSE WETLANDS.

>> I WOULD THINK A SMALLER HOUSE THAN THIS ONE WOULD BE MUCH LESS INTRUSIVE THAN A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT ONE IF SOMEBODY HAS A

CHANCE TO BUILD LATER. >> WHAT HE SAID, 50 YEARS FROM NOW THERE COULD BE A ROT OF CHANGE.

SOMETIMES IT IS BETTER TO DO WHAT YOU KNOW IS DOABLE, VERSUS TAKING THE CHANCE. THEY MAY NOT DO ANYTHING.

AND SOMETHING LIKE THAT COULD HAPPEN, BECAUSE I'VE SEEN IT

HAPPEN OVER THE YEARS. >> YES.

>> YOU KNOW MITIGATING WETLANDS AND THAT KIND OF STUFF I WOULD RATHER KEEP THEM FROM DOING THAT.

>> STEVEN, YOU GOT ANYTHING ELSE?

>> NO, SIR. >> MR. GASOLIN GLEASON YOU GOT Y CLOSING REMARKS BEFORE WE GET A MOTION FROM SOMEBODY?

>> NO, ALL I CAN ADD. >> OKAY.

ANYBODY WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? EVERYBODY IS TRYING TO GET THEIR

PAPERWORK TOGETHER. >> I'LL MAKE.

>> GO AHEAD BARRY. >> I MOVE TO APPROVE THE CASE 2020-09, AND MAKE THE FIND THINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW PART OF THE RECORD, THAT THE CASE AS PRESENTED IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIANT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND WARRANT APPROVAL AT THIS TIME, THAT BOA CASE 2020-09 MEETS THE IF CRITERIA LITERAL INTERPRETATION AND MINIMUM VARIANCE, GENERAL HARMONY AND THE REASONS ONE THAT THE STAFF DID NOT AGREE WITH, BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT MOST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS 50 FOOT LOTS AND THEY HAVE FIVE FOOT SIDE VARIANCES, THEY OUGHT TO GO AHEAD AND CONSIDER THIS ONE TO HAVE A FIVE 7 FOOT ONE, BUT THEY'VE GONE BEYOND THAT AND GIVEN US A SEVEN FOOT SIDE LOT NOW, SO I THINK IT SHOULD BE

APPROVED. >> OKAY.

I'VE GOT A MOTION. DO I HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECOND. >> I'LL SECOND.

>> MS. MOCK SECONDED THAT, STEVEN.

MS. SILVIE -- THAT'S OKAY SIR. MS. SILVIE WOULD YOU CALL THE

ROLL PLEASE? >> MEMBER MOCK, YES.

MEMBER HERTSLET, YES, MEMBER PAPKE, YES, CHAIR MILLER, NO.

SO THAT MOTION CARRIES SO YOUR VARIANCE WAS APPROVED.

YES, MA'AM, AND IF YOU'LL JUST GIVE US A FEW DAYS WE'LL GET ALL OF YOUR PAPERWORK TOGETHER AND YOU'LL BE OFF AND RUNNING.

>> I APPRECIATE IT, THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> HAVE A GOOD REST OF YOUR EVENING.

>> AND NOW WE'LL GO TO THE NEXT ONE, DAPHNE ARE WE READY TO DO

THAT? >> GET THIS PULLED UP.

[5.1 BOA 2020-0010 - JOHN F. & COLEEN P. BEACH, 861 PARK VIEW PLACE EAST Variance to LDC section 4.02.03(E) to reduce the rear yard setback to 13 feet for the construction of an unconditioned, under roofed sun room. (Quasi-Judicial) ]

[01:00:02]

OKAY SO THE SECOND CASE IS FOR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS CASE 2020-10 FOR MR. JOHN AND COLLEEN BEACH.

THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 861 PARK VIEW PLACE EAST AND IS ZONED R-1 WITH LOW DENSITY LAND USE, THERE IS CURRENTLY A SINGLE FAMILY HOME TON PROPERTY AND THE REQUESTED ACTION TONIGHT IS A VARIANCE FROM LSDZ SECTION 4.02.IS 03E STANDARDS FOR BUILDING HEIGHTS AND SETBACKS. FOR THE RECORD ALL APPLICATION MATERIALS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED, ALL FEES HAVE BEEN PAID AND ALL REQUIRED NOTICES HAVE BEEN MADE. SO FOR THE SM SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND OF THE REQUEST. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE 25 FOOTS REAR YARD SET BACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SCREENING ENCLOSURE.

THE 12 FOOT EXTENSION WOULD REDUCE THE REAR YARD SET BACK TO 13 FEET. AND IF ADDED SOME INFORMATION HERE ON THE PROPERTY, THERE IS A LARGE RETENTION POND THAT'S AT THE BORDER OF THE PROPERTY, APPROXIMATELY.97 ACRES, THEIR REDENSE POND LOUSE 190 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE TO THE NEIGHBOR AING HOME DIRECTLY BEHIND THE PROPERTY.

SO I'VE ADDED THE AERIAL AS WELL AS A PICTURE THAT WAS SUBMITTED WHERE YOU CAN SEE THE POND. AND HERE IS THE WE.

WITH THSURVEY WITH THE REARADDI. AND GETTING INTO THE CONSISTENCY WITH THE SIX CRITERIA TO GRANT A VARIANCE.

SPECIAL CONDITIONS. YES, SPECIAL CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES DO EXIST AS IT RELATES TO THE LAND STRUCTURE OR BUILDINGS INVOLVED WHICH ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER LAND STRUCTURES OR BUILDING IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT.

THE PRESENCE OF A LARGE RETENTION POND AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY ALLOWS FOR ADDITIONAL PRIVACY, OPEN SPACE AND MINIMAL IMPACT ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.

SPECIAL PRIVILEGE. NO.

GRANTING THE VARIANCE DOES CONFER SPECIAL PRIVILEGE THAT IS DENIED TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO OTHER BUILDINGS IN THE DISTRICT, THE 25 FOOT REAR SET BACK APPLIES TO ALL R-1 ZONED PROPERTIES. LITERAL INTERPRETATION, NO.

WOULD NOT DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT OF RIGHTS COMMONLY ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT.

MINIMUM VARIANCE. YES, THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE NEEDED THAT WILL MAKE REASONABLE USE OF THE LAND STRUCTURE OR BUILDING. THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST WILL UTILIZE A SPACE DHAS CURRENTLY AN IMPERVIOUS CONCRETE PATIO.