Aug 02, 2021 Ponte Vedra Zoning and Adjustment Board

[Call meeting to order]

[00:00:28]

PONTE VEDRA. >>> I WOULD LIKE TO CALL TO ORDER THE AUGUST 2ND MEETING OF THE PONTE VEDRA ADJUSTMENT ZONE.

WE HAVE TWO ABSENCES, JANE ROLLINSON AND JOHN LUNCH.

>> THIS IS A PROPERLY NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING HELD IN CONCURRENCE WITH REQUIREMENTS OF FLORIDA LAW.

THE PUBLIC WILL BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON TOPICS RELEVANT TO THE BOARD'S AREA OF JURISDICTION AND THE PUBLIC WILL BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO OFFER COMMENT AT A DESIGNATED TIME DURING THE HEARING. ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC DESIRING TO SPEAK MUST INDICATE SO BY SUBMITTING A SPEAK RE CARD IN THE FORYER.

SPEAKER CARDS MAY BE TURNED IN TO STAFF.

THE PUBLIC SHALL SPEAK AT A TIME DURING THE MEETING ON EACH ITEM AND FOR A LENGTH OF TIME AS DESIGNATED BY THE CHAIRMAN, WHICH IS 3 MINUTES. SPEAKERS SHOULD IDENTIFY THEMSELVES, WHO THEY REPRESENT. THE FACT THAT TESTIMONY IS NOT SWORN MAY BE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD IN DETERMINING THE WEIGHT OR TRUTHFULNESS OF THE TESTIMONY.

IF A PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THE HEARING SUCH PERSON WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH REPORT INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL ISSING TO BASED. ANY PHYSICAL OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUCH AS DIAGRAMS, CHARTS, PHOTOGRAPHS OR WRITTEN STATEMENTS WILL BE RETAINED BY STAFF AS PART OF THE RECORD.

THE RECORD WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR OTHER BOARDS FOR ANY REVIEW OF APPEAL RELATING TO THE ITEM. BOARD MEMBERS ARE REMINDED THAT AT THE DPINING OF EACH ITEM THEY SHOULD STATE WHETHER R NOT THEY HAD ANY COMMUNICATION WITH THE APPLICANT OR ANY OTHER PERSON

[Public comment (Part 1 of 2)]

CIVILITY CLAUSE. WE WILL BE RESPECTFUL OF ONE ANOTHER EVEN WHEN WE DISAGREE. WE WILL DIRECT ALL COMMENTS TO THE ISSUES. WE WILL AVOID PERSONAL ATTACKS.

>> THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS TODAY OTHER THAN THE TOPICS? APPEARS WE HAVE ONE.

PLEASE COME FORWARD. NAME AND ADDRESS?

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. KITTY SWETKIS, 111 OCEAN COURSE DRIVE. IN LIGHT OF YOUR VERY SMALL AGENDA TODAY, I WANTED TO HOPE THERE WOULD BE DISCUSSION AFTER THIS ITEM ABOUT THINGS THAT HAVE NOT -- THAT HAD BEEN DISCUSSED OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS BUT THERE'S BEEN NO RESOLUTION.

ONE IS FENCES. THERE'S BEEN DISCUSSION ABOUT CHANGING THE HEIGHT OF FENCES IN SOME PARTS OF OUR ZONING DISTRICT. IT'S BEEN GOING ON FOR ABOUT 2 YEARS. PLANNING AND ZONING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT THEY ARE NOT ENFORCING THE FENCE HEIGHT BECAUSE OF THIS DISCUSSION. THERE ARE PROBABLY 10 TO 12, IF NOT MORE, PRIDES OUT ON FENCES THAT ARE OVER THE 4-FEET HEIGHT AND THEY HAVE BEEN LIKE THAT BECAUSE THIS DISCUSSION CONTINUES. THE OTHER ITEM IS HEDGES.

THERE'S BEEN SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT HEDGES.

I HAVE HAD PEOPLE CALL ME ABOUT THE HEIGHT OF HEDGES.

IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WE DON'T ADDRESS HEDGES IN THE PONTE VEDRA ZONE OF REGULATIONS. IT'S DISCUSSED IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THERE'S BEEN CONTROVERSY THAT THAT DOESN'T APPLY TO US, BUT REGARDLESS, I THINK THAT IT'S GOOD THAT THIS BOARD DISCUSSES HEDGE HEIGHT AND WHAT THE FUTURE OF THAT MIGHT BE BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN COMING UP IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS. I'M NOT NECESSARILY SAYING WE SHOULD DO WHAT THE COUNTY DOES , BUT IF WE DON'T HAVE SOMETHING AND THE COUNTY ATTORNEY CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M NOT CORRECT. IF WE DON'T HAVE SOMETHING IN OUR ZONING REGULATION FOR THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, I'M NOT SURE IF THAT COULD BE A WORKSHOP ITEM COMING UP TO PONTE VEDRA

[00:05:04]

I'M NOT REPRESENTING THE MSD AS A WHOLE BUT I WILL TELL YOU THAT FOR THE LAST 2 YEARS WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT PLAN WHERE HE VIEW AND HOW IMPORTANT JACK HOPE WAS TO THIS COMMUNITY WHEN HE WAS OUR PLAN REVIEWERS AND WHEN JACK POPE RETIRED, THE COUNTERGROWTH MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR PULLED THAT OR STOPPED, CEASED THAT POSITION AND PULLED IT IN HOUSE AND SINCE THEN, WE DON'T HAVE BOOTS ON THE GROUND ANYMORE.

WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE UP IN PONTE VEDRA LOOKING AT BUILDING SITES AND PLANS AND DEVELOPMENTS. THE MSD HAS RECOGNIZED THIS AND WE HAVE PUT $50,000 INTO OUR BUDGET THIS YEAR TO WORK WITH THE COUNTY TO HAVE THIS PLAN REVIEWER POSITION BROUGHT BACK UP FOR THE PONTE VEDRA REGULATION.

WE NEED REPRESENTATION AT ALL OUR MEETINGS FOR OUR REGULATIONS. LAST MONTH AT THE BOCC MEETING, WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY REPRESENTATION FOR THAT SELF-STORAGE UNIT AND THAT'S WHERE IT'S CRITICAL.

IT'S ALSO CRITICAL TO HAVE SOMEONE OVERLOOKING THE PLANS BECAUSE DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS HAVE FIGURED OUT THEY GIVE WIN SET OF PLANS TO THE COUNTY AND ANOTHER TO THE HOME OWNER BUT REGARDLESS, THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION HAS RECOGNIZED WE NEED TO HAVE THAT BACK UP IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD TO HELP WITH MAINTAINING OUR REGULATIONS AND WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THIS BOARD OWES SUPPORT AND HELP PUSH THE COUNTY TO GIVE US THAT POSITION BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW JACOB'S VERY OVERWHELMED AND WE NEED TO HAVE REPRESENTATION FOR OUR COMMUNITY AS WELL. THAT'S IT.

THANK YOU. >> OKAY, SOME DISCUSSION ON THAT MAYBE? QUESTION.

EVEN IF WE'RE DISCUSSING CHANGING FENCE HEIGHTS, THE RULES ARE STILL IN PLACE THAT THE FENCE HEIGHTS ARE 4-FEET BETWEEN PROPERTIES. WHY WOULD THEY NOT BE ENFORCING

THE CURRENT RULES? >> THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION FOR THE COUNTY. I DON'T KNOW.

I HAVE LOOKED AT THE PRIDE REPORTS AND THEY HAVE STALLED.

THEY ARE NOT ENFORCING IT UNTIL THIS BOARD DECIDES.

MAYBE IT COULD BE THE POSITION OF THE BOARD TO TELL THEM TO ENFORCE IT UNTIL YOU OTHERWISE CHANGE THE REGULATION.

>> OKAY, ANY QUESTION FROM STAFF?

>> I CAN COMMENT ON THAT AND JACOB CAN SHAME CHIME IN IF HE NEEDS TO BUT CODE ENFORCEMENT CASES ARE HANDLED ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS. IF SOMETHING IS BEING DONE TO TRY TO ADDRESS THE SITUATION, WHETHER IT'S FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER THEMSELVES OR AN APPLICANT THAT'S FILING FOR A VARIANCE OR FILING FOR MY TYPE OF APPLICATION THAT COULD BRING THEM IN TO COMPLIANCE, WE HOLD THOSE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASES UNTIL SOMETHING IS RESOLVED WITH THOSE CASES.

IN THIS CASE, IF WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING IN THE PONTE VEDRA ZONING AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD AND THE PONTE VEDRA RESIDENTS HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING FENCE HEIGHT AND KITTY IS RIGHT, IT'S BEEN ABOUT 2 YEARS OR SO THAT IT'S BEEN UNDER DISCUSSION, THAT THERE ALWAYS SEEMS TO BE SOMETHING IN THE WORKS THAT'S GOING ON WITH IT SO WE HAVEN'T JUST GONE OUT THERE AND SAID NO, YOU CAN'T HAVE THIS FENCE AT THIS HEIGHT AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

SOMETHING IS IN THE WORKS OF CHANGING.

>> AS FAR AS I REMEMBER, WE WERE DISCUSSING TWO DIFFERENT AREAS OF CHANGING THE FENCE HEIGHT REGULATION.

WIN IS ALONG A1A FOR THE PROPERTIES THAT BACK UP TO A1A AND THE OTHER WAS IS VERY LIGHT DISCUSSION OF FENCE HEIGHTS BETWEEN HOUSES. DOES ANYBODY ELSE REMEMBER ANYTHING MORE? MEGAN?

>> I HAPPENED TO BRING MY FENCE FOLDER TO FIGURE OUT WHAT HAPPENED WHEN. WE STARTED DISCUSSING THE FENCE HEIGHT BACK IN JUNE OF 25017 AT AN MSD MEETING AND THEN WE HAD ANOTHER MSD MEETING MARCH 11TH OF 2019.

THE COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION HAS DONE TWO SURVEYS, ONE IN MARCH OF 2019 AND ONE IN MARCH OF 2020 ASKING ABOUT FENCE HEIGHTS ALONG WITH OTHER ISSUES. THERE WAS A MEETING WITH OUR COMMITTEE IN MARCH OF 2019. WE DISCUSSED THE FENCE HEIGHTS IN NOVEMBER OF 2019 AND AT THAT TIME, BEVERLY HAD DONE AN

[00:10:05]

I REMEMBER ONE PERSON I THINK ON PONTE VEDRA CIRCLE WHOSE HOUSE ABITTED A DUVAL PROPERTY LINE AND WE GAVE THEM A VARIANCE FOR THE 6-FOOT FENCE ON THE PROPERTY LINE THAT ABUTSWE GAVE THEM A V 6-FOOT FENCE ON THE PROPERTY LINE THAND WE GAVE THEM A VARIA THE 6-FOOT FENCE ON THE PROPERTY LINE THAT ABUTS DUVAL BUT BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORS ON EACH SIDE IT HAD TO BE 4-FEET SO THEY

CHANGED THEIR FENCES, SO. >> OKAY.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE FENCE HEIGHT ISSUE? OKAY. I'M OF THE OPINION THAT UNTIL WE CHANGE THE RULES, WE SHOULD BE ENFORCING THE EXISTING RULES.

TRACY I DO AGREE WITH YOU THAT IF SOMEBODY IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE WE CAN'T ENFORCE A PENALTY FOR THEM FOR NOT ADHERING TO THE VARIANCE. I AGREE WITH THAT, BUT IN GENERAL, THE CURRENT RULES ARE THE CURRENT RULES.

NOW, ON THE HEDGE HEIGHT. WE DON'T HAVE A REGULATION ON HEDGE HEIGHT. WE TOLD PEOPLE HEDGES CAN BE GROWN AS TALL AS YOU WANT THEM TO GROW AND I DON'T KNOW WHETHER WE FALL BACK TO THE COUNTY RULES OR NOT.

CHRISTINE, CAN YOU CLARIFY THAT FOR US?

>> AS WE'RE TALKING, I'M SEARCHING THROUGH THE CODE AND I'M NOT FINDING THAT AT MY FINGERTIPS BUT JAY CAB MAY BE ABLE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION RIGHT AWAY SINCE HE HAS MUCH

MORE EXPERIENCE. >> OKAY.

THEN ON THE REPLACEMENT FOR JACK POPE, DIDN'T HE RETIRE LIKE 10 YEARS AGO? WHEN DID JACK RETIRE?

DOES ANYBODY KNOW? >> I DON'T KNOW.

>> I THINK IT'S BEEN 8 TO 10 YEARS.

>> [INAUDIBLE] >> YEAH, I KNOW HE WAS IN CHARGE. I ASKED FOR A VARIANCE TO DO SOMETHING ON MY HOUSE AND THAT WAS IN 2012 AN HE WAS STILL

WORKING. >> IN 2008 HE WAS STILL THERE.

HE COMMANDED SOMETHING ON MY HOUSE WHICH WE'LL DISCUSS LATER.

ON REPLACING HIM WHAT WOULD IT TAKE TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT?

>> ACTUALLY, MSD SENT A LETTER TO THE COUNTY TO BEGIN THAT DISCUSSION AGAIN AND EXPRESSED THEIR WILLINGNESS TO PARTIALLY FUND THAT POSITION AS WELL. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE STATUS OF THAT REQUEST IS AT THIS MOMENT BUT I KNOW THAT WAS A SOMEWHAT

RECENT REQUEST. >> HOW WOULD THAT PERSON REPORT

BACK TO US? >> IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT PERSON WOULD BE A COUNTY EMPLOYEE.

I'M NOT SURE HOW MR. POPE INTERACTED WITH THIS BOARD IN THE PAST. PERHAPS YOU CAN EXPLAIN THAT TO ME. DO YOU KNOW?

>> I DON'T KNOW, EITHER. >> BECAUSE HE HAD SO MUCH EXPERIENCE NOT ONLY THIS THAT JOB BUT INVOLVING GOING BACK I WOULD SAY 30 YEARS THAT PEOPLE RESPECTED HIS HISTORICAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE SITUATION AND IF YOU WANTED TO GET A VARIANC, WHAT I DID AT THAT TIME WAS THAT YOU PRETTY MUCH NEEDED JACK POPE

[00:15:04]

HE WOULD SAY THESE ARE THE RULES, WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO? YOU CAN GET WHAT YOU WANT IF YOU DO IT THIS WAY.

I KNOW THAT -- I THINK HE WAS WORKING IN 2015, TOO, BECAUSE ANOTHER FRIEND OF MINE WAS BUILDING A HOUSE.

HE WENT TO JACK POPE AND SAID THESE ARE MY PLANS AND HE WORKED EVERYTHING IS IT CONFORMED TO ALL THE REGULATIONS.

>> YEAH, I KNOW IN MY CASE IT WAS 2008 AND I ENROACHING ON A SET BACK AND IT WAS ABOUT A 300-SQUARE FOOT ENCROACHMENT AND LOOKING AT IT NOW, I SHOULD HAVE COME BEFORE THIS BOARD BUT AT THE TIME, JACK WORKED OUT A RESOLUTION FOR ME ON MY PROPERTY TO ALLOW ME TO BUILD A SWIMMING POOL AND EVEN THOUGH IT WAS A 300 OR 400-FOOT ENCROACHMENT AND LOOKING AT IT NOW, IT WOULD HAVE COME HERE. SO JACK HAD THE ABILITY TO MAKE MINOR ADJUSTMENTS THAT HE FELT WERE APPROPRIATE.

>> I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WOULD HAPPEN TODAY, TO BE HONEST.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE CONSISTENT WITH THE RULES WE HAVE TO FOLLOW. I THINK THEY WOULD STILL COME HERE, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE HE WAS MORE AVAILABLE TO CONSULT WITH THAN PERHAPS STAFF IS AVAILABLE CURRENTLY.

>> HE HAD AN OFFICE RIGHT THERE IN PONTE VEDRA, RIGHT?

>> HE WAS IN PONTE VEDRA. HE WAS OUT IN THE COMMUNITY.

THAT IS CORRECT. AND HE DID HAVE AN OFFICE AT THE MSD BUILDING FOR A WHILE THERE IN PONTE VEDRA.

AND YOU ASKED, MR. CHAIR, IF I MAY ABOUT THE INTERACTION BETWEEN MR. POPE AND THAT MEETING, HE WAS PART OF THE STAFF WHO CAME TO THIS MEETING AN PRESENTED YOU'RE ITEMS TO

YOU. >> I HAVE BEEN ON THE BOARD SINCE 2015 SO I KNOW HE WAS OFF THE BOARD.

>> JACK DIED IN 2015. IT'S BEEN ABOUT 8 YEARS SINCE HE QUIT. THE REASON WE DID THAT, WHEN HE DROPPED OFF THE BOARD, HE WAS SO KNOWLEDGEABLE, WE THOUGHT THAT WOULD BE A GOOD PLAN TO GET MORE INPUT INTO THE COUNTY FOR WHAT A THE REGULATIONS WERE AND TO HELP THE BOARD.

WE CONVINCED THE MSD TO ALLOT $10,000 A YEAR TOO HELP PAY HIM AND THAT WAS HELP PAY HIM AND THAT WAS THE START OF IT BACK ALMOST 20 YEARS AGO AND HE WAS A VALUABLE SUPPORT PERSON AND IT WOULD BE GREAT IF WE COULD FIND SOMEONE LIKE THAT

AGAIN. >> YEAH, VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE.

OKAY. OKAY.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS IN RELATION TO THIS?

MEGAN? >> YOU ASKED ABOUT THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND I WAS GOING T SAY WITH RESPECT TO HEIGHT OF FENCES AND WALLS, I HAVE THE PAPERWORK HERE IF YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SAYS BUT IT DOES BASICALLY TALK ABOUT 6-FOOT HIGH HEDGES. IF ANYBODY WANTS TO LOOK AT

THAT. >> OKAY, THAT'S THE CAN'T LAND

DEVELOPMENT CODE. >> SURE, IS THERE A SECTION YOU

CAN TELL ME ON THERE? >> ARE THERE ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS NOT RELATED TO THE AGENDA ITEMS FOR TODAY.

>> IF I MAY, I WAS CONSIDERING THATAY, I WAS CONSIDERING THATMAY, I WAS CONSIDERING THAT ISSUE EARLIER TODAY WE'LL HEAR FROM THIS APPLICANT ALL THE WORK THAT COMES IN ON THE FROND END SO THEY GET HERE. WE HAVE ALL THE RESEARCH AND ALL THAT EXPENSE AND I THINK SOMETHING FROM THE COUNTY SAYING, HEY, THIS IS WHAT YOU WOULD NEED TO DO IN CODE OR THIS WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL TO THE CITIZENS OF PONTE VEDRA.

SO I LIKE THAT IDEA VERY MUCH. THE ONLY OTHER CONCEPT I CAME UP WITH WAS THEM COMING EARLY TO US AND THEN YOU'RE GOING TO BE

[00:20:01]

>> AND THAT SCHEDULE WHERE JACK KIND OF CUT THROUGH.

YOU WILL NEVER GET THAT APPROVED OR YOU NIGHT GET THAT APPROVED OR WE COULDIGHT GET THAT APPROVR WE MIGHT GET THAT APPROVED OR WE COULD WORK AROUND THAT. ALL RIGHT.

SEEING NO OTHER COMMENTS -- >> AS WE TALK ABOUT CODE ENFORCEMENT, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS THE RIGHT FOREMAN -- FORUM TO TALK ABOUT THIS BUT THE CONSTRUCTION OF HOMES AND POOLS, I LIVE OFF LE MASTER AND WE HAVE TWO OR THREE HOMES THAT ARE BEING TORN DOWN OR RENOVATED. IS THERE ANY REGULATIONS FOR MAINTAINING PROPERTY. WE HAVE A POOL BEING BUILT AND MATERIAL HAS BEEN OUT FOR ABOUT 3 MONTHS AND OF COURSE WE LOVE THE PORT-A-JOHNS NOW IN PONTE VEDRA.

WHAT WOULD BE THE CORRECT VEHICLE TO PURSUE WHAT CONTRACTORS BEING HELD TO AS IT COMES TO MAINTAINING THE PROPERTY. THAT INCLUDES LAWN CUTTING AND

THINGS OF THAT NATURE. >> DURING CONSTRUCTION?

>> YEAH. >> I GUESS IT WOULD GO BACK TO INSPECTIONS. JACOB?

>> THANK YOU, JACOB SMITH WITH GROWTH MANAGEMENT.

I'M NOT AWARE OF THE PARTICULARITIES OF THE REGULATIONS FOR MAINTAINING A PROPERTY DURING CONSTRUCTION, BUT IF YOU THOUGHT BASED ON WHAT YOUR DESCRIPTION IS OF THE SITE, I WOULD THINK THAT FILING A PRIDE COMPLAINT, A CODE ENFORCEMENT COMPLAINT AND DETAILING THE SITUATION, AT THAT POINT, CODE ENFORCEMENT IS AT LEAST GOING TO TAKE A LOOK AND

[1. PVZVAR21-08 Linville Deck Expansion. PVZVAR21-08 Linville Deck Expansion, Request for a Zoning Variance to Section VIII.L.1 of the Ponte Vedra Zoning District Regulations to allow for the expansion of an existing deck with a fifteen (15) foot setback in lieu of the forty (40) foot requirement, specifically located at 960 Ponte Vedra Blvd.]

CODE. >> OKAY.

SO THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE INITIATED FROM A HOME OWNER IS WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? OR HOA?

>> THAT'S CORRECT. AND KNOWING WHAT'S GOING ON IN CONSTRUCTION RIGHT NOW, IT'S BEEN VERY HARD TO GOING ANYTHING DONE SO GETTING MATERIALS SAT OUT IN YOUR FRONT YARD IS VERY TYPICAL RIGHT NOW. OKAY.

WITH THAT, LET'S PROCEED WITH PONTE VEDRA ZONING ADJUSTMENT BOARD 21-08, LINVILLE DECK EXPANSION.

I WOULD LIKE EACH OF THE MEMBERS TO DISCLOSE WHETHER THEY VISITED THE SITE AND CHATTED WITH ANYONE ABOUT THIS PROJECT.

>> OKAY, I WILL START. I CONTACTED MR. LINVILLE YESTERDAY, SET UP A QUICK TOUR WHICH WE DID 30 MINUTES LATER

AND HAD NO OTHER DISCUSSION. >> I CONTACTED MR. LINVILLE AND HE GAVE ME A TOUR OF THE PROPERTY IN THE AREA OF THE DECK THAT WAS GOING TO HAVE PROPOSED EXPANSION.

>> I HAVE BEEN TO THE SITE SEVERAL TIMES.

I HAVE TO ADMIT THAT I'M FRIENDS WITH THE LINVILLES.

ABOUT TWO-AND-A-HALF YEARS AGO I MET WITH THEM AND DISCUSSED THIS PROJECT. AT THE TIME I HAD NO IDEA IT WAS GOING TO COME BEFORE THE BOARD. WE WERE TALKING ABOUT CONSTRUCTIBILITY ISSUES. LAST WEDNESDAY ABOUT 2:00 I DID MEET AT THE SITE, DID REVIEW THE PROJECT ONE MORE TIME, LOOKED AT THE DECK, DID DISCUSS IT WITH THE LINVILLES INCLUDING HAVING THEM SHOW ME THEIR CURRENT SURVEY.

HARRY? >> I HAVE NOT SPOKEN WITH ANYONE AND I HAVE NOT VISIT LEA THE SITE.

>> I SPOKE WITH MR. LINVILLE, I VISITED THE SITE AND I LOOKED AT

THE DECK IN QUESTION. >> OKAY.

DOES STAFF HAVE ANY COMMENTS PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION?

>> NO, SIR. >> OKAY, I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT STAFF HAS VERIFIED THAT THE SITE IS APPROXIMATELY 105 BY 200-FEET. IT IS A SQUARE SITE.

THE LAYOUT THAT WAS PRESENTED IN THE DOCUMENT BY THE PROPERTY OF APPRAISER'S OFFICE APPEARS TO BE AN ERROR BY IT IS A SQUARE SITE.

WITH THAT, PLEASE GIVE US YOUR PRESENTATION.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS DEAN SCOTT.

MY FIRM IS R. DEAN SCOTT ARCHITECT INK AND OUR ADDRESS IS 126 WEST ADAMS STREET SUITE 602 IN JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA HERE

[00:25:01]

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO ST. JOHN'S COUNTY, THANK YOU TO JACOB FOR HIS ASSISTANCE. DON'T AND PATRICE ARE HERE PRESENT IN THE ROOM TODAY AS IS OUR PROJECT ARCHITECT IN THE SECOND ROW. WE DO HAVE SOME GRAPHICS.IN THE PROJECT ARCHITECT IN THE SECOND ROW.

WE DO HAVE SOME GRAPHICS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LIES WEST OF PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD ON A LOT THAT'S 105-FEET DEEP AND 200-FEET WIDE. THE BLUE LINE YOU SEE THERE, I THINK FAIRLY REPRESENTS THE NORTHERLY, SOUTHERLY AND EASTERLY PROPERTY LINES. THE WESTERLY PROPERTY LINE LOOKS MORE LIKE A HIGH WATER LINE OR A WETLAND LINE.

IT'S REALLY A REGULAR TANG LUHR LOT AS WAS MENTIONED EARLIER.

WE DO HAVE AN OPEN DECK AND IT'S THIS OPEN DECK THAT THE HOME OWNERS WISH TO EXPAND AS PART OF THIS IMPORTANT.

THIS HOUSE WAS BUILT IN 1988 OR THEREABOUTS WHICH I BELIEVE PREDATES THE OVERLAY THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR RELIEF OF TODAY.

THE IMPORTANT DOES RESPECT THE 40-FOOT SET BACK.

THAT TAKES UP 80-FEET OF THE 105-FOOT DEPTH ECHT LOT ONLY LEAVING 25-FEET OF A BUILDABLE AREA.

SO I THINK THAT IN AND OF ITSELF WOULD BE A BIT OF IMPOSSIBILITY TO BUILD THIS STRUCTURE TODAY. THE STRUCTURE DOES RESPECT THE SIDE SETBACKS TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH.

IT IS ABOUT 1300-FEET ACROSS THE GUANNA MARSH TO THE STRUCTURES ON THE OTHER SIDE USING AERIAL MAPPING DISTANCE TECHNOLOGY.

THIS IS THE VIEW FACING SOUTHWEST FROM THE DECK IN QUESTION. THE VIEW STRAIGHT ACROSS MOSTLY TO THE WEST. YOU CAN SEE THERE'S A STRUCTURE FAR IN THE DISTANCE THERE. THIS FACES NORTHWEST FROM THE DECK IN QUESTION. THIS IMAGE ON YOUR LEFT REPRESENTS THE CURRENT DECK WHICH IS ABOUT 6'8" OFF THE FACE OF THE HOUSE AND WE'RE SEEKING -- I'M SORRY.

IT'S APPROXIMATELY 7'5" OFF THE FACE OF THE HOUSE AND WE'RE SEEKING TO ADD ABOUT 6'8" TO IT TO GIVE ROUGHLY 14-FEET OF SPACE FOR OUTDOOR LIVING. IN THE IMAGE ON THE RIGHT, YOU SEE THE DECK STEPS BACK IN TOWARDS THE DOOR THERE BY THE BAY WINDOW. WE'RE ALSO ASKING THAT THAT DECK LINE THAT'S GOING TO BE 6'8" OUT BE EXTENDED PAST THE BAY WINDOW AND RETURNED TO THE HOUSE, ADDING SOME SPACE TO THE DECK TO THE NORTH. THIS IS WHAT THE HOUSE LOOKS LIKE FROM BELOW. YOU CAN SEE WHAT I BELIEVE IS A FAIR EXAMPLE OF THE DAY-TO-DAY OF THE MARSH.

LET ME BACK UP. THIS IS UNDER THE DECK.

INSIDE THE PILING LINE IS UNDER THE HOUSE.

YOU CAN SEE THE WET GROUND THERE THAT VARIES A LITTLE BIT WITH RAIN FALL. WHAT WE'RE HOPING TO DO IS TO CONSTRUCT THIS DECK WITHOUT ANY IMPACTS TO THE GROUND WHATSOEVER, SO NO ADDITIONAL PILINGS.

WE WILL CANILEVER BACK OFF THE EXISTING PILINGS TO MAKE THE EXPANSION. WE HAVE REVIEWED THIS CONCEPT WITH THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION.

THEY GRANTED US APPROVAL. THEY RECK MEANTED WE PRESENT TO UNITED STATES ARMY CORPSE OF ENGINEERS WHICH WE DID AND THEY SAID NO PERMIT WAS NECESSARY, SO BEING HERE IS STEP THREE OF OUR PREAPPROVAL PROCESS. THIS IMAGE HERE REPRESENTS THE DECK IN LIGHT BLUE AS IT EXISTS AND THE PROPOSED DECK IN LIME GREEN. YOU CAN SEE THE PROPERTY LINE IS THE DASHED LINE AT THE TOP AND THAT IS SHOWING YOU THE PROXIMITY OF THE PROPOSE TEA DECK TO THE PROPERTY LINE WHICH WOULD BE ABOUT 16'5". WE ARE ASKING FOR RELIEF OF THE SET BACK TO 15-FEET. THAT GIVES US A LITTLE BIT OF

[00:30:02]

WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST RELIEF FROM THE YEAR YARD SETBACK FOR THIS PROPERTY. WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO TAKE ANY

QUESTIONS. >> RICHARD?

>> YES, ONE THING I FOUND INTERESTING WAS MR. LINVILLE TOLD ME THEY WERE GOING TO DO AN ENCLOSURE WITH A ROOF AND AS WE USUALLY SPEAK ABOUT THINGS IN TWO DIMENSIONS, I GUESS AS THE NEW GUY, I WAS JUST CURIOUS HOW WE TREAT ROOFS AND OVERHANGS

WHEN IT COMES TO THE ZONING. >> IT WOULD BE TREATED THE SAME AS THE DECK. THE DECK, SINCE IT'S RAISED UP OFF THE PROPERTY, IS NOT JUST A PAVED AREA LIKE THAT, IT'S A STREAKTURE. BOTH THE DECK EXPANSION AND THE DECKUCTURE. BOTH THE DECK EXPANSION AND THE DECK EXPANSION WITH THE SCREEN TO CLOSURE WITH THE ROOF OFF OF IT IS THE SAME. IT'S A STRUCTURE.

>> THERE'S NO, LIKE WE TALKED ABOUT HEDGES AND FENCES, THERE'S NO RESTRICTIONS AS FAR AS WHEN YOU PUT A ROOF ABOVE A DECK UNLESS THE ROOF GOES BEYOND THE DECK?

>> IT'S ALLOWED A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF OVERHANG ON THE DECK.

IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE SHOWING ABOUT A FOOT, MAYBE 18-INCHES

OVERHANG. >> YES, SIR, THAT WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT OUR PLANS ARE.

THIS IS JUST A SKREMATIC DESIGN AT THIS SCHEMATIC DESIGN

AT THIS TIME. >> THE INTENT OF THE SCREENED ENCLOSURE IS THAT IT'S GOING TO CONTINUE TO BE SCREENED.

IT WILL NOT BE EVENTUALLY ENCLOSED AND MADE INTO AN

INHABITABLE SPACE. >> THAT'S CORRECT.

WE'RE LOOKING AT A 2 STORY STRUCTURE NOW.

THIS IS ON THE FIRST LEVEL, THE LOWER LEVEL.

THE BAY WINDOW AREA WE LOOKED AT BEFORE, THAT'S THEIR KITCHEN DINING ROOM SO THE INTENT IS TO COME OUT INTO A SCREENED AREA JUST FOR BUGS AND OTHER CONTROL LIKE THAT SO YOU CAN SERVE FOOD IN THAT AREA AND NOT COMPLETELY OUTSIDE SO IT'S A TRANSITIONAL SPACE, IF YOU WILL, BUT THERE'S NO INTENT TO HAVE THAT CLOSED OR CONDITIONED. WE'RE NOT SCRAGGEDING IT OR GOING TO DESIGN IT WITH A FLOOR THATCONSTRUCTING IT OR GOING TO DESIGN IT WITH A FLOOR THAT WILL ALLOW FOR THAT.

WE'RE LOOKING TO HAVE A DECK FLOORBOARD LIKE YOU MIGHT

EXPECT. >> YOU ADDRESSED THE VIEW OF THE PEOPLE FROM ACROSS THE SWAMP. OR MARSH LAND.

OH MY GOSH. WE DON'T HAVE SWAMPS IN FLORIDA, WE HAVE MARSH LAND. WHAT ABOUT THE VIEW OF THE PEOPLE TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH. WOULD THIS HAVE ANY ADVERSE

EFFECT ON THAT? >> LET ME BACK UP HERE.

THE RESIDENTS TO THE SOUTH, IT'S NOT VISIBILITY FROM THE DECK.

AND THERE'S NO RESIDENT TO THE NORTH THAT'S VISIBLE FROM THE DECK, EITHER. IN MY VIEW, IN MY EXPERIENCE, YOU CAN'T EVEN SEE THE ADJACENT RESIDENTS IN THE SOUTH.

I UNDERSTAND THIS IMAGE IS CROPPED A LITTLE BIT AND YOU CAN SEE NO RESIDENTS IN THE IMAGE TO THE NORTH.

IN MY OPINION, THERE WOULD BE NO VISIBILITY IMPACT ON ANY

NEIGHBOR. >> OKAY, AND YOU'RE REQUESTING THE CHANGE IN THE SET BACK FOR THIS IMPORTANT AND THE PROJECT

ONLY? >> CORRECT.

>> IF THEY EXPAND THEIR HOUSE DRASTICALLY, THEY COULD NOT USE

THIS VARIANCE TO RATIONALIZE IT? >> YES, WE HAVE NOT BEEN ASKED TO STUDY ANYTHING REGARDING ANY FUTURE CONSTRUCTION OTHER THAN THIS DECK AND I HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF FUTURE CONSTRUCTION, SO. IN MY OPINION, WE'RE HERE TODAY TO TALK ABOUT THE DECK AND ONLY THE DECK THAT'S INDICATED IN THE

COLORED AREAS ON THE GRAPHIC. >> ALSO, THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS

ONLY GOOD FOR 1 YEAR? >> UH-HUH.

>> IS THAT ADEQUATE WITH THE CURRENT STATUS OF CONSTRUCTION WHERE YOU CAN'T SEEM TO GET A PLUMBER TO COME TO YOUR HOUSE?

>> I THINK WE'RE HERE BY DESIGN. IT TOOK A WHILE TO GET THROUGH THE DEP WITH PEOPLE WORKING REMOTELY, THE COMMUNICATION WAS MUCH DELAYED. THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS WAS FAIRLY RESPONSIVE BUT WE COULDN'T GET THEIR APPROVAL WITHOUT THE DEP APPROVAL AND WE HAD FRESH WATER MITIGATION CREDIT DUE TO THE IMPACTS ON THE WETLAND AND THAT IMPACT BEING

[00:35:03]

CHAITING OF THE EXPANDED DECK. >> AND THEY HAD NO CONCERN ABOUT

THAT? >> THEY ASKED US TO PROVIDE THE CREDIT AS MITIGATION OFFSET, WHICH WAS DONE.

>> OKAY. >> AND HAD WE YET TO DO THOSE THINGS, I WOULD BE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE 1 YEAR TIME LINE BY SINCE THOSE THINGS ARE BEHIND US NOW, I THINK THE HOME OWNER IS READY TO PROCEED WITH THE COMPLETION OF THE DESIGN AND ENGINEERING AND WE HAVE BEEN TALKING CONTRACTORS.

>> OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> WE HAVE NO COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON THIS VARIANCE, IS THAT

CORRECT? >> WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN THERE YET BUT THERE'S NO PUBLIC OUT THERE TO HAVE COMMENTS OTHER THAN KITTY. DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS? OKAY. WE'LL GET TO THAT IN A MINUTE.

>> AREN'T WE STILL ONLINE? >> WE'RE STILL TALKING TO THE

APPLICANT. >> OKAY.

>> ANY COMMENTS FROM THE HOME OWNERS?

SAM? >> I LIKE THIS VERY MUCH.

MY QUESTION IS, AND OF COURSE THEY CAN'T SPEAK TO THIS BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE ANY PLANS OF EXPANSION TO MY KNOWLEDGE, BUT I TOURED ANOTHER HOUSE, THIS ONE IS QUITE UNIQUE.

THE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY IS THE END OF THE ACTUAL LAND, EVEN THEIR

DRIVEWAY IS UP IN THE AIR. >> YEAH, IF YOU HAVEN'T BEEN THERE, IT'S HARD TO PICTURE THEY HAVE A WOODEN DRIVEWAY.

>> YES, SIR, AND THIS PARTICULAR SIDE YOU HAVE TO HAVE A 100-FOOT WIDE LOT BUT IN THEORY YOU HAVE A 200-FOOT WIDE LOT THAT YOU COULD COME BACK AND PUT IN TWO HOUSES AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE. I UNDERSTAND THIS IS NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT. THIS IS PURELY ABOUT THE DECK BUT WHAT DOES THAT RAISE TO THE FUTURE AS FAR AS US APPROVING

THIS? >> I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN SUBDIVIDE THIS LOT. JACOB, ANY OPINION ON THAT?

>> OF COURSE I HAVE NOT PARTICULARLY STUDIED THE POSSIBILITIES OF SUBDIVIDING IT. TECHNICALLY SPEAKING IF SOMEONE MET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS THEY COULD, BUT AS FAR AS THIS VARIANCE THAT WE'RE SEEING RIGHT NOW, WE ARE APPROVING VERY SPECIFICALLY THE REQUEST. IT'S NOT DRAWING THAT LINE BACK THERE IN PERPETUITY OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

IT'S VERY MUCH SPECIFIC TO THIS DECK, SO IF THAT EVER WAS TO HAPPEN, A NEW HOME OWNER OR NEW PROPERTY OWNER WOULD BE REQUIRED TO COME TO THIS BOARD FOR ANY RELIEF.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> YEAH, AND THAT'S WHY I ASKED EARLIER ABOUT THE EXPANSION OF THE HOUSE, YOU TOOK A DIFFERENT APPROACH, COULD ANOTHER HOUSE BE BUILT? I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE TALKED TO THE PERSON WHO BUILT THE HOUSE IN 1988 AS TO WHAT? WHY? THAT WAS BEFORE WE HAD THE REQUIREMENT THAT YOU COULDN'T FILL THAT LOT SO THEY CUFF FILLED THE LOT AND THIS COULD HAVE BEEN DONE ON A GRADE. OKAY.

OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY.

ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? KITTY? NONE? OKAY.

ANY DISCUSSION AMONGST THE BOARD MEMBERS? PERSONALLY THIS IS A VERY GOOD SOLUTION ADDS IT SEEMS TO ME TO HAVE VERYS IT SEEMS TO ME TO HAVE VERY LITTLE IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY. IT'S VERY POSITIVE FOR THE SITE.

IT'S A VERY CREATIVE SOLUTION. A LOT BETTER THAN PULLING PILES OUT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SWAMP. SO WITH THAT, DO I HEAR A

MOTION? >> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE PVZVAR21-08, THE LINVILLE DECK EXPANSION BASED ON THE EXPANSION REQUEST TO SECTION 8.11.1 OF THE PONTE VEDRA ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS TO ALLOW FOR THE EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING DECK BASED ON FOUR FINDINGS OF FACT AND SUBJECT TO THE FIVE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

>> SECOND IT. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS AMONG THE BOARD MEMBERS BEFORE WE VOTE? ERIC? OKAY. EVERYBODY READY TO VOTE? OKAY. IT'S 5-0 APPROVAL.

CONGRATULATIONS. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

>> GOOD JOB. >> MR. CHAIRMAN.

[00:40:01]

>> I'M GETTING READY TO SHIFT GEARS HERE, LET ME FIND MY PAPERWORK. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A DISCUSSION NOW ABOUT OUR WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH THE COUNTY.

DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT? >> SURE.

I WANTED TO GO BACK TO THE COMMENT ABOUT FENCES BUT WE CAN

WAIT FOR THAT IF YOU WOULD LIKE. >> LET'S DO THE FENCE DISCUSSION

FIRST. >> OKAY.

I WANTED TO LET THE BOARD KNOW THAT YOU MAY RECALL IN MARCH OF THIS YEAR MR. STEVE DEMEONOW PRESENTED A PROPOSAL TO THE BOARD TO CHANGE SOME OF THE REGULATIONS INCLUDING SOME FENCE REGULATIONS AND THAT ITEM WILL BE ON YOUR AGENDA AT THE NEXT MEETING, SEPTEMBER 13TH, SO THAT MAY BE A GOOD TIME TO HAVE THE BIGGER DISCUSSION ABOUT OTHER FENCE ISSUES THAT MAY BE OUTSIDE

OF WHAT IS BEING SUGGESTED. >> AND WHY IS HE ON THE AGENDA?

>> HE WAS ASKED TO BE PROCESSED FOR CONSIDERATION SO HE'S GOING TO THE PONTE VEDRA ART COMMITTEE AND THEN THIS BOARD FOR REVIEW AND THEN TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR REVIEW.

>> HE CAME TO US ONCE BEFORE ADD YO -- ADVOCATING FOR CHANGES TO THE ZONING REGULATIONS BUT I HAVEN'T BEEN AWARE OF ANYBODYAD ZONING REGULATIONS BUT I HAVEN'T BEEN AWARE OF ANYBODY ELSE WHO WOULD COME FORWARD, AS AN INDIVIDUAL, SAYING I WANT THIS

[Additional Item]

THIS IS JUST MORE OF A CIRCUMSTANCE.

I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. >> HE'S COMING BEFORE YOU FOR

DISCUSSION IN SEPTEMBER. >> EVEN THOUGH HE CAME BEFORE US

BEFORE? >> I THINK THAT WAS JUST PUBLIC COMMENT. I DON'T THINK THERE WAS ANY

DISCUSSION ON THAT ITEM. >> ALL RIGHT.

>> OKAY. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A DISCUSSION AMONGST THE BOARD MEMBERS ABOUT OUR WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.

THIS RELATES TO -- I WOULD LIKE TO EDUCATE THE BOARD MEMBERS AS TO WHAT'S HAPPENED OVER THE LAST MONTH AS IT RELATES TO THE A1A SELF-STORAGE FACILITY. WE HAD OUR MEETING ON JUNE 7TH WHERE THE APPLICANT PRESENTED THEIR CASE AND THEY REQUESTED THAT THEY COULD COME BACK TO OUR NEXT MEETING WITH CHANGES.

AT THAT TIME, THEY WERE SURE THEY WERE NOT GOING TO GET APPROVED WITH WHAT THEY PRESENTED.

SO THEY DID COME BACK ON JULY 12TH AND WE VOTED TO NOT APPROVE THE REZONING. WHAT WAS INTERESTING WAS THAT THE COUNTY COMMISSIONER AGENDA FOR THEIR JULY MEETING WAS SET AS OF JUNE 28TH. THIS IS APPROXIMATELY 2 WEEKS PRIOR TO OUR MEETING ON JULY 12TH.

AT THAT TIME, THE HEARING FOR THE ZONING FOR THE A1A STORAGE FACILITY WAS PLACED ON THE AGENDA AS ITEM NUMBER FIVE.

THE COUNTY COMMISSION MET ON JULY 20TH AND APPROVED, WITH NO RECOGNITION OF OUR DISAPPROVAL. IT'S KIND OF INTERESTING THAT JANE ROLLISON E-MAILED COMMISSIONER BLOCKARD ON JULY 17TH THAT WE HAD NOT APPROVED IT.

THE APPLICANT ACKNOWLEDGED TWICE DURING THEIR PRESENTATION THAT IT HAD NOT BEEN APPROVED. IT WAS APPROVED BY THE COUNTY COMMISSION 5-0 AND NOBODY SAID ANYTHING ABOUT OUR DISAPPROVAL, WHICH LEADS ME TO QUESTION IF, NUMBER ONE, WHY DID WE DISAPPROVE IT IF THEY'RE GOING TO AUTOMATICALLY OVERRIDE IT.

THEY COMMENTED THAT THERE WAS NOBODY IN THE AUDIENCE TO LISTEN TO IT AND IT WAS SO QUICK AFTER OUR DISAPPROVAL THAT I DON'T THINK ANYBODY KNEW IT COULD BE HEARD BY THEM.

DOES THE COUNTY COMMISSION HAVE THE RIGHT TO -- LET'S TAKE SOMETHING ELSE ON OUR JULY 12TH AGENDA.

THIS RETAINING WALL AND 730 TOOK THE CHICKEN LITTLE SKY IS FALLING APPROACH. THEY HAD AN ENGINEERING REPORT WITH NO ENGINEERING. COULD THEY THEN APPEAL TO THE COUNTY COMMISSION AND HAVE THE COUNTY COMMISSION OVERTURN OUR RULING WITHOUT US EVER EVEN KNOWING ABOUT IT? THAT'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO THROW OPEN FOR DISCUSSION AND I

THINK MEGAN HAS A COMMENT. >> I WAS SORT OF STUNNED WHEN I

[00:45:06]

I KNOW THAT JAY COBE WAS OUT OF TOJACOB WAS OUT OF TOWN, SO HE WASN'T THERE TO PRESENT ANYTHING AND SO I WAS WONDERING ABOUT PROCESS AND I DID GO TO ONE OF THE THESE EXCITING THINGS WE HAVE, THE RULES AND POLICIES OF THE ST.

JOHNS BOARD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THERE'S A RULE 2.20M AND IT SAYS IF A DECISION IS APPEALED BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, A MEMBER OF THE BOARD WILL BE PRESENT AT SUCH HEARING, REFERRING TO US AS A BOARD SO THAT LEAD ME TO THE QUESTION, WELL, WHO IS SUPPOSED TO LET US KNOW THAT AN ITEM IS COMING BEFORE THE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SO THAT WE CAN DO OUR JOB BEING PRESENT AT THE MEETING AS WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE? WE DON'T GET ANY NOTICES OF THE AGENDAS AND I THINK IT WOULD BE MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD IF SOMETHING WERE PUT ON THE COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S AGENDA THAT THE CHAIR OR ALL THE BOARD MEMBERS WOULD BE NOTIFIED SO THAT WE COULD ATTEND THE MEETING OR PROVIDE SOME DISCUSSION FOR THE MEETING BECAUSE I KNOW THE APPLICANT TALKED TO EACH ONE OF THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BEFORE THE MEETING. SO IT WAS VERY DISAPPOINTING IN TERMS OF THE PROCESS AND ALSO I WAS SURPRISED THAT THE APPLICANT WAS ALLOWED TOO GET ON AN AGENDA PRIOR TO A RULING FROM THIS BOARD. IT SEEMS LIKE PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE. THERE SHOULD BE A TIMELY

PROCESS. >> I FOUND IT INTERESTING THAT EACH OF THE COAPT COMMISSIONERS TALKED TO THE ARCHITECT AND ALSO THE OWNER AND NOBODY EVER CALLED US AND SAID WHY DID YOU NOT

APPROVE IT? >> SURE.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? >> THE PROBLEM I SEE WITH HAVING MAYBE ONE REPRESENTATIVE OR THE CHAIR, THAT WAS A SPLIT VOTE, 4-3, SO WE ALSO HAVE TO BE CAREFUL ON WHO WE SEND FORWARD BECAUSE IF WE SEND FORTH SOMEONE WHO IS A NO VOTE, THE OUTCOME IS GOING TO BE DIFFERENT UNLESS WE SEND THE YES FIRST AND THAT

REPRESENTS THE OTHER SIDE. >> IF I WERE TO GO FORWARD, I VOTED TO APPROVE IT AND IT GOT DENIED.

I WOULD PRESENT A VERY EVEN ARGUMENT AS TO WHY MY BOARD DENIED IT. THE TRUTH IS THE BOARD DENIED IT. EVEN THOUGH I VOTED IN THE OTHER DIRECTION, I THINK THE PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION SHOULD BE AS TO WHY THE BOARD DID WHAT IT DID AND VOTED THE WAY IT VOTED. I UNDERSTAND WHY IT GOT DENIED.

I CAN SEE YOUR POINT, DO YOU HAVE TWO MEMBERS, A PRO AND A CON, AND WE HAVE TO PRESENT AN ARGUMENT AS TO WHY WE VOTED IN

THAT DIRECTION. >> I WOULD HIKE TO TAKE IT UP TO THE TOP LEVEL. THE MAIN THING IS THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE COMMISSIONERS OR STAFF THAT WORKS WITH THE COMMISSIONERS IN LIGHT OF JUST THE COUNTY'S POLICIES OF HAVING A MEMBER OF THIS BOARD PRESENT AT A MINIMUM WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED AND WE COULD DECIDE AS ANOTIFIED AN A BOARD THAT, OKAY, WHEN WE HAVE THIS SITUATION HAPPEN, WE COULD

[00:50:01]

HAPPENED. >> YEAH, AS THE NEW MEMBER, I WAS ONLY WAITING TO HEAR WHAT HAPPENED TO THE PROPERTY UP BY THE SPA WHERE THEY WERE WORRIED ABOUT THE BLIND SPOT AND I THOUGHT IF THAT COMES BACK AND THEY RULED THAT ONE IN FAVOR, THEN I'M GOING TO HAVE TO ASK MYSELF WHY AM I EVEN SITTING ON

THIS BOARD? >> I FELT A LITTLE BIT LIKE THAT WHEN I HEARD THEY ARBITRARILY OVERTURNED IT.

OH, OKAY. CHRISTINE?

>> YEAH, WE'RE BASICALLY TALKING ABOUT TWO SEPARATE DECISION MAKING OPPORTUNITIES. THE APPLICATION FOR THE SELF-STORAGE, IT WAS A REZONING TO PUD ZONING.

THIS BOARD MAKES A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ON THOSE ITEMS. THAT'S SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN THE FINAL DECISIONS THAT YOU ALL MAKE REGARDING VARIANCES, NONZONING VARIANCES, THAT COULD BE APPEALED. SO IT'S TWO SEPARATE TYPES OF DECISIONS. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, THE OTHER ITEM YOU MENTIONED ON THAT AGENDA, THE FOLKS REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO EXTEND THE RETAINING WALL FURTHER INTO THE SETBACK AND ELEVATE IT, THAT WAS A FINAL DECISION.

SO THOSE HOME OWNERS DECIDED TO FILE AN APPEAL, WHICH THEY WOULD NEED TO FILE WITHIN 30 DAYSWOUL 30 DAYS OF THAT DECISION BEING MADE, THAT'S WHERE THE POLICY WOULD COME IN THAT YOU MENTIONED REGARDING THE LOWER BOARD BEING NOTICED THAT AN APPEAL WAS REQUESTED AND HAVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THAT HEARING. THAT'S NOT WHAT THE APPLICATION FOR THE PONTE VEDRA SMALL STORAGE ITEM WAS AT ALL.

SO THAT POLICY DOESN'T APPLY. >> SO I HAVE A QUESTION.

WHEN THEPU DIRKS MADE ITS PRESEN MADE ITS PRESENTATION, THEY PUD MADE ITS PRESENTATION, THEY TALKED ABOUT BASICALLY THEY WANTED TO TAKE A PORTION OF LAND IN THE PONTE VEDRA ZONING DISTRICT AND CREATE A PUD THAT WOULDN'T HAVE TO COMPLY WITH ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS BECAUSE IT WAS A PUD AND WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME IS THAT THAT WAS LIKE A GRATUITOUS PRESENTATION TO US? THAT WE REALLY HAVE NO AUTHORITY TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE THE CREATION OF A PUD?

>> THE ROLE IS FOR THIS BOARD TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AS TO WHETHER THAT SHOULD BE APPROVED OR NOT. SO THIS BOARD IS NOT THE FINAL DECISION MAKING BODY ON REZONING QUESTIONS.

>> EVEN IN VARIANCES, PEOPLE CAN APPEAL TO THE COUNTY

COMMISSIONERS? >> RIGHT, BUT A VARIANCE IS SEPARATE FROM A REZONING REQUEST.

SO IN A PUD ZONING AND THEY HAVE AN TINT TO ASK FOR CERTAIN PAVERS AND THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THEAND THERE W DISCUSSION ABOUT THE WAIVERS TWAVERS AND THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THE WAIVERS TIVERS AND THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THE WAIVERS THEY WERE ASKING FOR THE FIRST AND TECHED SYMES THEY WERE HERE BUT THAT'S PART OF THE PUD PROCESS. IT WAS NOT A VARIANCE

APPLICATION. >> SO WHERE ARE THE RULES DELINEATING WHAT THE PUD PROCESS IS FOR US TO LOOK AT?

>> ARTICLE FIVE OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

AND ARTICLE THREE, WHICH IS THE ARTICLE THAT CREATES THE OVER LAY DISTRICT AND THE PONTE VEDRA ADVISORY BOARD, TA SETS FORTH THE DECISION MAKING THEAUTHORITE DECISION MAKH SETS FORTH THE DECISION MAT SETS FORTH THE DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY YOU HAVE YOU CAN MAKE FULL FULLF RECOMMENDATIONS REZONING REQUESTS.

STAFF ADVERTISES THE PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR BOTH TO ADVISORY BOARD, THIS BOARD, AND THE BART OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING AT THE SAME TIME. IT HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY ADVERTISED AT THAT TIME. INFORMATION ON -- I LOOKED AT THE AGENDA PACKAGE FOR THAT ITEM AND FOR FUTURE REFERENCE, THE

[00:55:06]

IT'S ADVERTISED AND A NEIGHBORHOOD BILL OF RIGHTS LETTER GETS SENT OUT WITH INFORMATION ON WHEN THE HEARING DATE IS. IT WAS ADVERTISED AND MADE KNOWN. IT HASN'T BEEN THE PRACTICE TO WAIT UNTIL A DECISION IS MADE AT THE ADVISORY BOARD LEVEL BEFORE THE ITEM WILL BE SCHEDULED FOR THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. THAT'S NOT HOW I HAVE SEEN IT HAPPEN. THEY'RE ON A SET SCHEDULE.

SOMETIMES THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING IS 4 WEEKS LATER. SOMETIMES IT'S HEARD BY AN ADVISORY BOARD A FEW TIMES AS IT WAS IN THAT CASE.

AS TO WHAT THE BOARD WAS TOLD IN THAT MEETING, I CAN TELL YOU IN THE BEREAVINGS THE COMMISSIONER HAS BEFORE STAFF TELLS THEM, THEY WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE VOTE IS AND THEY WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE CONCERNS WERE AT THIS LEVEL, SO STAFF ADVISES THEM ON THOSE ISSUES SO THEY WERE MADE AWARE BEFORE THE MEETING AND, OF COURSE, ANY MEMBER CAN ATTEND IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO BUT THERE'S NO SET PROCESS WHEN DEALING WITH RECK MEN DAYINGS ON REZONING REQUESTS TO NOTICE THE BOARD, THIS BOARD, THAT IT'S GOING TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND ASK THAT A MEMBER BE PRESENT. THAT'S ONLY PART OF THE APPEAL

PROCESS. >> BUT THERE WOULD BE ON A VARIANCE? SO, AGAIN, BACK TO 730.

IF 730 APPEALS IT, THERE WOULD BE A NOTIFICATION OF PROCESS TO

US. >> CORRECT.

>> SO ONE IS WE'RE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION, THE OTHER IS WE'RE APPROVING OR DENYING A VARIANCE.

>> RIGHT, A FINAL DECISION, SO THAT'S THE LINE OF DEMARCATION.

>> CORRECT. >> OKAY.

>> SO JUST TO CLARIFY, THE PROPERTY OWNER WHO IS PLANNING ON DEVELOPING THE PROPERTY JUST SOUTH OF WHERE THE STORAGE UNIT IS PRESENTED AT THE ARC MEETING THIS PAST WEEK, THEY'RE ASKING FOR A PUD AND THEY'RE BASING THEIR NEW DESIGN ON THE APPROVAL THAT WAS DONE FOR THIS STORAGE UNIT.

OUR INPUT WOULD BE INTERESTING BUT IT'S NOT REALLY --

>> IT'S NOT BINDING, NO. >> I CAN PROBABLY SPEAK TO THIS HAVING STOOD AT THOSE LECTERNS, NEVER IN FRONT OF THIS BODY, YOU GUYS ARE INTIMIDATING, BUT I HAVE NEVER GOTTEN A RESIDENTIAL ZONING CHANGED WITHOUT PZA RECOMMENDATION.

THAT'S ME PERSONALLY. IT HAD HAPPENED AND IT WILL CONTINUE TO HAPPEN, BUT CERTAINLY THE RECOMMENDATION OF THIS BOARD CARRIES A LOT OF WEIGHT WITH THE COMMISSIONERS, SO I THINK SOME OF WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT THEY DIDN'T HEAR WHAT WE SAID AND FROM MY EXPERIENCE, THEY WILL HAVE HEARD EVERYTHING WE SAID AND THOSE STAFF MEETINGS WILL HAVE EITHER THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE TO HAVE DONE WHAT THEY CAN SO SOOTHE THAT OR PUSH FORWARD, WHICH THEY DID IN THIS CASE, BUT FROM THE DEVELOPER'S PERSPECTIVE, HAVING COME TO THIS BOARD TWICE, GOING ON THE COUNTY COMMISSION AGENDA WOULD HAVE BEEN A RISK BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHETHER YOU WERE GOING TO PASS PZA OR NOT SO THEY WERE WILLING TO TAKE THAT RISK AND THAT'S WHAT THAT ULTIMATELY

SHOWS. >> IF I CAN COMMENT, AGAIN, AS I'M TRYING TO LEARN AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE ABOUT THIS POSITION, AFTER I HEARD THE RESULTS OF THAT VOTE, I SIT HERE NOW AND WONDER AM I MISSING THE BIG PICTURE? I SPECIFICALLY REJECTED THE REQUEST BECAUSE OF THE SQUARE FOOT GE BEING FIVE TIMES THE AMOUNTA BEING FIVE TIMES THE AMG BEING FIVE TIMES THE AME BEING FIVE TIMES THE AMOUNT AND SO NOW AS WE TALK ABOUT THE PROPERTY SOUTH, DO I

[01:00:02]

DOING FOR THE COUNTY. >> I THINK WE ALL HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO EDUCATE OURSELVES AS WELL AS WE CAN ABOUT ANYTHING THAT COMES BEFORE THIS BOARD. AND, AGAIN, I THINK IT'S HELPFUL NOW TO KNOW THAT WE ARE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION BUT NOT OFFICIALLY DISAPPROVING IT. I THINK THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION FROM MY PERSPECTIVE.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? >> I GUESS JUST ANOTHER THING FROM A PRAGMATIC STANDPOINT IS THAT I UNDERSTAND HISTORICALLY THAT PUBLIC BOARDS HAVE TO PROPERLY NOTICE MEETINGS AND THAT I BELIEVE THAT THE VEHICLE OF NOTIFICATION FOR ST. I DON'T KNOWS COUNTY IS THE ST. AUGUSTINE PAPER, IS THAT

CORRECT? >> I BELIEVE THE PAPER AND THE WEBSITE ON THE MEETING CALENDAR WHERE ALL YOUR MEETINGS AND AGENDAS ARE AVAILABLE. SO IT'S BOTH.

>> SO IT REQUIRES SOME PROACTIVE ACTION ON THE PART OF RESIDENTS BECAUSE FROM A PRAGMATIC ASSISTANT POINT, MOST PEOPLE DON'T SUBSCRIBE TO THE ST. AUGUSTINE PAPER.

I WAS WONDERING IF THERE WAS ANY WAY TO DO SOMETHING THAT WAS MORE KEEPING WITH THE MODERN TECHNOLOGY SO THAT IF PEOPLE WANTED TOO HEAR ABOUT THINGS COMING BEFORE THE COUNTY COMMISSIONER, THAT IT HAD TO DO WITH PONTE VEDRA, THEY COULD FIND OUT AS OPPOSED TO BE CONSTANTLY LOOKING FOR SOMETHING

THAT MAY OR MAY NOT APPEAR. >> THE AGENDA IS POSTED ABOUT 2 WEEKS AHEAD OF TIME. CORRECT?

FOR THE COUNTY COMMISSION? >> I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT --

>> YOU SAID JUNE 23RDRD. >> LOOKS LIKE THE AGENDA AS SET AS OF JUNE 28TH AND THE MEETING WAS JULY 12TH.

SO 2 WEEKS. >> IT'S NORMALLY POSTED ABOUT A WEEK BEFORE THE MEETING, A WEEK BEFORE THAT TUESDAY MEETING.

2 WEEKS COULD HAVE JUST BEEN SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED AT THAT

POINT IN TIME. >> OKAY.

>> MR. PATTON, IF I COULD ALSO ADD THERE WAS MENTION THAT THE APPLICANT HAD TALKED WITH THE COMMISSIONERS AND ANY MEMBER OF THIS BOARD IS PICK UP THE PHONE AND E-MAIL OR SCHEDULE A TIME TO TALK WITH COMMISSIONERS SO THAT OPTION IS AVAILABLE TO YOU AND I ALSO WANTED TO MENTION. I UNDERSTOOD AND I HEARD THAT THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH WENT TO THE ART COMMITTEE THE OTHER DAY AND THAT APPLICATION WILL STAND ON ITS OWN, WHATEVER WAS APPROVED REGARDING THE SELF-STORAGE UNIT IS NOT BINDING ON THE APPROVAL OF THE PROPERTY, THE REQUEST FOR THE PROPERTY TO

THE SOUTH. >> MY QUESTION ABOUT COMMUNICATION WAS THAT I NORMALLY THINK THE COMMISSIONERS ARE VERY PEOPLE AND DOING A LOT OF WORK IN A VERY DIFFERENT AREA SO I WOULDN'T NORMALLY REACH OUT TO TALK TO THEM ABOUT A DECISION WE MADE UNLESS I KNEW IT WAS IMMINENT AND I WOULD AVAIL MYSELF OF THAT TINT. I KNOW I SENT SOMETHING TO JACOB PRIOR TO THAT MEETING CURING. HE WAS OUT OF TOWN.

I HAVE TO TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR NOT LOOKING AT THEIR AGENDAS BUT I WAS JUST WONDERING, YOU KNOW, IF WE COULD HAVE A BETTER PROCESS SO THAT WE COULD PROVIDE INPUT ON A TIMELY MATTER THAT MIGHT BE OF INTEREST TO THE COMMISSIONERS.

WE DID ALL THIS WORK AND IT MIGHT HAVE SOME VALUE.

IT MIGHT NOT, BUT AT LEAST IF WE DID THE WORK, SHOULD WE PROVIDE WHEN WE MAKE A VOTE, SHOULD WE WRITE SOMETHING TO THE COMMISSIONERS THAT WOULD SAY WHY WE DENIED IT SO THEY HAD THAT IN

[01:05:07]

THERE AS INFORMATION? >> THAT CAN BE DONE.

I BELIEVE THE VIDEOS FOR THESE MEETINGS ARE AVAILABLE PRETTY PROMPTLY AND SOMETIMES PEOPLE WILL GO TO THAT VIDEO, COPY THE LINK AND FORWARD THAT TO MAKE IT EASY TO VIEW.

AGAIN, YOU CAN ALWAYS REFER TO THE AGENDA PACKAGE FOR THIS MEETING THAT WILL HAVE INFORMATION IF THE ITEM IS TRAVELING ON TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING, THAT MEETING DATE WILL BE IN YOUR AGENDA PACKAGE.

>> AND ACTUALLY, IN THIS CASE, JANE DID DO A VERY NICE SUMMARY OF OUR MEETING, INCLUDING ALL THREE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THAT MEETING INCLUDING THE FACT THAT THE SELF-STORAGE HAD BEEN DENIED, BUT IT STATED SEVERAL REASONS WHY IT WAS DENIED. THERE WAS SOME COMMUNICATION BUT IT WAS IGNORED, SO, OKAY. I THINK WE'RE BEATING A DEAD HORSE NOW. ANY OTHER COMMENTS?

>> YEAH, ONE FINAL COMMENT. I THINK THE BIGGEST VEHICLE USED RIGHT NOW FOR COMMUNICATING WITH THE PUBLIC IS NEXTDOOR AND THAT'S WHERE YOU WILL SEE UNFORTUNATELY AFTER THE FACTS.

THERE WILL BE SOMETHING COMING OUT, PERHAPS KITTY KNOWS, HAS SOMETHING ALREADY COME OUT THAT THIS STORAGE UNIT WILL BE PUT ON THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY AND WILL IT BE STATED THAT WE VOTED AGAINST IT SO I DON'T HAVE TO GO OUT WITH A BAG OVER MY HEAD OR

ANYTHING? >> I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY WAY TO CONTROL NEXTDOOR OR HAVE ANY INPUT AS TO WHAT IS SAID ON

NEXTDOOR. >> YEAH, I THINK THAT'S THE VEINING OF CHOICE FOR THE PUBLIC.

>> ANDHICLE OF CHOICE FOR THE PUBLIC.

>> AND I'M SURE ONCE THE PUBLIC IS AWARE OF IT, THEY WON'T BE

HAPPY. >> WE HAVE HAD THESE SITUATIONS BEFORE IN THE PUDS. THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO RESTRICT IT TO ONE USE BECAUSE AS IT STANDS, IF THEY GOT IT THROUGH WITH THE SUGGESTED ORDINANCE, THEY CAN PUT ANYTHING ON THAT

PROPERTY. >> HARRY, THEY DID, IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONER MEETING, STATE IT WOULD ONLY BE USED FOR SELF-STORAGE, WHICH WAS YOUR REQUEST.

IT WAS VERY CLEAR, THAT'S THE ONLY USE THE PUD CAN BE USED FOR AS THEY MODIFIED IT, WHICH I WAS HAPPY TO SEE THAT, SO THAT WAS

GOOD. >> GOOD.

THAT INTERSECTION OF SALANA AND A1A, ACROSS FROM WINN DIXIE, THAT WAS A LONG TIME AGO, BUT ONCE THE PUD WAS CHANGED, WE WERE REALLY UNHAPPY TO BY RESTRICTING IT AS MUCH AS

[Public comment (Part 2 of 2)]

>> THEY DID DO THAT. >> CHRISTINE, GOING TO COMMISSIONERS AS A MEMBER OF THE BOARD VERSUS VOTER, A ST. JOHNS COUNTY VOTER, IS THERE ANY LEGAL ISSUE THERE?

>> NO, THERE'S NO SUNSHINE ISSUE THAT WOULD ONLY APPLY TO YOUR FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS. YOU CAN TALK TO OTHER BOARDS

INDIVIDUALLY. >> OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> OKAY. WITH THAT, KIDTY, DO YOU HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT? STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS SO

WE KNOW WHO YOU ARE. >> KITTY, 111 OCEAN COURSE DRIVE. I'M ON THE LIST FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD BILL OF RIGHTS FOR EVERYTHING IN THE COUNTY AND MY E-MAIL IS ON THE LIST FOR THIS NEIGHBORHOOD BILL OF RIGHTS BUT I DID NOT RECEIVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD BILL OF RIGHTS.

THE ONLY ONE I PROBABLY HAVEN'T RECEIVED WHICH I FIND KIND OF FUNNY BECAUSE I WAS THE ONLY ONE HERE THE LAST TWO MEETINGS THAT OPPOSED IT. COINCIDENCE? MAYBE, I'M NOT SURE, BUT IF I GOT THAT NEIGHBORHOOD BILL OF RIGHTS SENT OUT ON JUNE 23RD, I WOULD HAVE DEFINITELY REACHED OUT TO THE COMMISSIONERS AHEAD OF TIME OR AT LEAST MAYBE EVEN AT THAT ZONING MEETING, THE LAST ZONING MEETING AND MADE SURE THE BOARD KNEW THEY WERE ON THAT AGENDA.

I THINK STAFF TOLD YOU, YES, THIS WAS ON THE AGENDA BECAUSE IT WAS ALREADY ON THE AGENDA FOR THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1 WEEK LATER. I THINK AS A COURTESY I WOULD

[Staff Report]

[01:10:02]

>> ANY STAFF REPORTS? >> NO, SIR, BUT I HAVE SOME COMMENTS FROM MS. MCKINLEY. IT'S ALL ABOUT BEATING A DEAD HORSE AT THIS POINT SO I WON'T GO OVER IT.

>> I DON'T CARE. >> MS. MCKINLEY, THIS GOES BACK TO THE PONTE VEDRA SELF-STORAGE PUD, IT'S PART OF THAT CONVERSATION BUT SHE HAD INDICATED TO STAFF SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE SPECIAL USE ALLOWANCE FOR WAREHOUSE FACILITIES, SPECIFICALLY THERE'S A PHRASE IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT ROADS NO PORTION OF A PERSONAL PROPERTY MINI WAREHOUSE FACILITY SHALL BE USED WITHIN 600-FEET OF A SCENIC HIGHWAY. I REPLIED TO HER GENERALLY SPEAKING THAT THIS IS A PUD, IT'S NOT A SPECIAL USE, AND SO THOSE SPECIAL USE REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT APPLICABLE.

AND SHE HAD QUESTIONED A LITTLE BIT MORE AND SO MEGAN, SOME OF THE INFORMATION THAT I HAD PUT IN HERE TALKS ABOUT ARTICLE FIVE, WHICH CHRISTINE MENTIONED EARLIER, AND SO I'M JUST GOING TO READ A QUICK CLARIFICATION FOR SOME OF THE LANGUAGE IN ARTICLE 5 THAT DRIVES THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PIT.

I WILL BE VERY BRIEF. THE OBJECTIVE OF A PUD IN PART IS TO PRODUCE DEVELOPMENTS WHICH MAY DEPART FROM THE STRICT REQUIREMENTS OF TRADITIONAL ZONING DISTRICTS.

THROUGH THE UTILIZATION OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MAY, AMONG OTHER THINGS, ALLOW STRUCTURES, USES AND FACILITIES FOR APPROPRIATE RELATIONSHIPS OF SPACE INSIDE AND OUTSIDE A BUILDING AND INTENDED USES. FURTHER, WITH APPROPRIATE JUSTIFICATION PROVIDED IN THE PUD, USES AS PROADVISED IN ARTICLE TWO, THE REFERENCED SPECIAL USE, SHALL BE ALLOWED IN PUDS WITH CRITERIA AND STANDARDS THAT DIFFER FROM THE STANDARDS ESTABLISHED IN ARTICLE TWO WHEN APPROVED WITH A PUD ORDINANCE.

A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT THEY ALLOW ANY LAND USE UNDER THIS CODE AND THAT HAPPENS TO BE THE CASE AND THE CIRCUMSTANCE THAT EVERYTHING WOULD BE ALLOWED UNDER BOTH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE COME MRE HENCE I HAVE PLAN.

SO I KNOW I SPOKE WITH YOU AND I DID HAVE SOME LANGUAGE AND I WILL GIVE YOU A COPY OF THIS, MEGAN.

>> [INAUDIBLE] WHICH IS GINORMOUS.

[Board Report]

>> THIS IS NEW NEWS FOR ME. THE PUD BASICALLY ALLOWS THE APPLICANT TO CREATE THEIR OWN LITTLE ZONING UNIVERSE.

>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> THAT'S A GOOD WAY TO PUT IT.

>> AS LONG AS IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE COMP PLAN SO THERE'S A LIMIT THERE. [LAUGHTER]

>> SO IT'S NOT AN UNLIMITED UNIVERSE, IT'S A LIMITED UNIVERSE. OKAY.

ANY BOARD REPORTS? WITH THAT, DO I HEAR A MOTION TO ADJOURN? ALMOST RECORD TIME.

>> ONE OTHER ITEM. GOING FORWARD, SHOULD WE BE SENDING REPRESENTATIVES TO THESE MEETINGS BECAUSE WE SHOULD BE

THERE? >> I THINK WE SHOULD ALL BE MONITORING THE AGENDA TO FIGURE OUT IF THERE'S A NEED FOR US TO BE THERE. THE TYPICAL COUNTY COMMISSIONER MEETING LASTS ABOUT 8 HOURS AND THIS AGENDA ITEM, NUMBER FIVE, CAME IN AT 3 HOURS AND 45 MINUTES INTO THE MEETING.

SO, YEAH, AS OUR MEETINGS STRETCH ONTO 1 HOUR AND

14 MINUTES. >> WE COULD EACH TAKE AN HOUR.

[LAUGHTER] >> OKAY.

I THINK I WILL START PAYING MORE ATTENTION TO THE AGENDA AND EVEN THE ANNUGENDA IS 13 PAGES LONG THAT MEETING SO IT TAKES A LITTLE QUALITY READING ALONG THE WAY.

>> NOW DO I HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN?

>> SO MOVED. >> WHAT?

>> I WAS JUST GOING TO OFFER THAT BECAUSE YOU MENTIONED

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.