[1. PVZVAR21-09 Gold Front Setback Variance. Request for a Zoning Variance to Section III.B of the Ponte Vedra Zoning District Regulations to allow for the expansion of an existing single-family home to allow for a nineteen (19) foot setback in lieu of the forty (40) foot requirement in R-1-B zoning.]

IF SUCH COMMUNICATION HAS JOE CURED THE BOARD MEMBERS SHOULD THEN IDENTIFY THE PERSONS INVOLVED IN THE MATERIAL CONTENT OF THE COMMUNICATION.

CIVIL KWLIT CLAUSE. W WILL BE RESPEBLTHFUL OF ONE ANOTHER EVEN WHEN WE DISAGREE.

WE WILL DIRECT ALL COMMENTS TO THE ISSUES.

WE WILL AVOID PERSONAL ATTACKS.

>> THANK YOU, MEGAN. ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE SCHEDULED AGENDA ITEMS?

>> SEEING NONE, LET'S MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM NO. ONE.

PVZVAR-2-09, COLD FRONT SET BACK VARIANCE.

I WOULD LIKE EACH OF YOU TO ADDRESS AND CHAT WITH ANYBODY. RICHARD?

>> AM I ON? >> YES.

>> I HAVE VISITED THE PROPERTY AND I HAD NO CONVERSATION WITH ANYONE ON THE SITE.

>> ON OCTOBER 28TH I VISITED THE SITE.

I REQUESTED SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM THE STAFF.

AND TREVOR STEVEN WHO IS PLANNER WITH THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY GROWTH AND MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT DID SEND ME SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WHICH I BELIEVE WAS FORWARDED TO

THE REST OF THIS GROUP. >> I VISITED THE FRONT PORTION OF THE PROPERTY. I DID RING THE BELL TO SEE IF I COULD WALK AROUND THE PROPERTY.

BUT DENIED ACCESS. I DID TALK TO JACOB AFTER THE MEETING BECAUSE I HAD ONE QUESTION ABOUT SOME OF THE INFORMATION IN THE PACKET.

>> I DID VISIT THE SITE. LOOKED AT THE SURROUNDING HOUSES ON EITHER SIDE OF THE HOUSE AND DIDN'T SPEAK WITH

ANYONE IN RELATION TO THIS. >> I HAVE HAD NO CONTACT WITH ANYONE ON THIS REQUEST AND AM FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. AND NO CONTACT WITH ANYONE FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. VISITED SIDE AND HAD NO

CONTACT WITH ANYONE. >> OKAY DOES STAFF HAVE ANY

COMMENTS ON THIS? >> YES, SIR.

MISS ROLLINSON ASKED ME TO PROVIDE CLARIFICATION WHICH I CAN DO NOW. OR I CAN D IT AFTER THE APPLICANT HAS PRESENTED TO WHATEVER THE BOARD'S

DISCRETION. >> LET'S DO IT AFTER THE

APPLICANT IS PRESENTED. >> THE APPLICANT, PLEASE.

[00:05:08]

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

>> TOM TROUT THE THIRD. 51 NORTH RACICOT BOULEVARD, PONTE VEDRA BEACH FLORIDA, 32082.

>>> WE ARE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR A SET BACK O ON THE ROADSIDE ADJUSTMENT. THIS PROPERTY AND ONE OTHER PROPERTY ARE ONLY TWO OF ROUGHLY 125 PROPERTIES NORTH AND SOUTH OF THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY THAT HAVE A 40-FOOT SET BACK REQUIREMENT. ALL OF THE OTHER PROPERTIES HAD A 19-FOOT REQUIREMENT. AND WE'RE JUST SIMPLY ASKING TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER PROPERTIES.

>> OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? NOT SURFY SHOULD ASK QUESTIONED. WHAT I ASKED THE STAFF TO PROVIDE IS THE MAP TO SHOW THE OTHER PROPERTIES.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WERE PREPARED TO DO THAT OR IF WE SHOULD HAVE JACOB DO IT. I WILL DEFER TO YOU

MR. CHAIR. >> I GOT COPIES FROM GOOGLE EARTH AND JACOB, WE'LL SEE WHAT YOU HAVE.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. WHAT I HAVE HERE -- LET ME TRY IT LINE IT UP. I TRIED TO DEPICT THIS IN MY STAFF REPORT. HIGHLIGHTED -- ACTUALLY IF WE COULD COME DOWN INTO IT PLEASE.

THE HIGHLIGHTED SECTION IS APPROXIMATELY THE BOUNDARY OF THE RESIDENCE. IF YOU CAN SEE THIS SECTION HERE IS UNPLATED SECTION OF BOULEVARD WHERE EVERYTHING TO THE NORTH AND EVERYTHING TO THE SOUTH AT LEAST ON THESE PARTICULAR PLAT MAPS ARE PLATTED WITH BUILDING RESTRICTION LINES. AND AS YOU CAN SEE THAT BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE -- KNOW IT'S NOT VISIBLE. BUT IT'S 19 FEET GOING TO THE NORTH. IF WE SCOOT OVER ONE HOUSE.

IT'S ALSO 19 FEET TO THE SOUTH.

THAT GOES QUITE A WAYS ON THESE MAPS.

I CANNOT VOUCH THAT ALL OF THE HOMES ALONG PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD HAVE 19-FOOT FRONT.

CERTAINLY IN THIS GENERAL FACILITY AS DEPICTED THEY ARE 19 FEET ON THE FRONT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE HIGHLIGHTED LOT AND 23 PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD.

>> I HAVE A PICTURE FROM GOOGLE EARTH SHOWING THE HOUSES THAT ARE -- COULD YOU PUT THAT ON.

SHOW IMAGE THAT THE HOUSES ARE ACTUALLY PUT OUT TO THE 19-FOOT LINE. AND JUST FOR REFERENCE TO THE BOARD WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING AT -- A LOT OF THE HOUSES YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE'S BASICALLY A BUMP OUT ON THEM. I DON'T KNOW THEY ARE BUILT IN 19 FEET. THAT'S KIND THE INDICATION

THAT LINE IS NOT 40 FEET. >> CORRECT.

>> MEGAN? >> THE QUESTION I HAVE REGARDING THE OCEANSIDE WHAT ARE THE LOTS THAT HAVE THE 19-FOOT SET BACK. WHAT IS THERE REAR YARD SET BACK. WHAT'S THE RATHER YARD SET BACK OF THE APPLICANTS PROPERTY?

>> I CAN TELL YOU ON THE NORTH SIDE, IT IS LISTED AS 30-FOOT REAR SET BACK. ON THE SOUTH SIDE APPEARS TO BE 29 FEET. I DO NOT HAVE THE SET BACK FOR THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY IN FRONT OF ME.

[00:10:02]

>> THE REASON I ASK THE QUESTION WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE GOOGLE MAPS, GOOGLE EARTH OR THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER'S MAP, IT DOES LOOK TO ME AS IF THEIR HOUSE IS CLOSER TO THE OCEAN THAN ALL OF THE OTHERS. THEY ARE I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THEIR BUILDABLE DISTANCE FROM BACK TO FRONT COMPARED THE OTHER LOTS.

SO WE TRY TO GET IT TO BE EQUAL WHAT WOULD -- WHAT WOULD THE FRONT NEED TO BE IF THE BACK IS EXTENDS BEYOND THE BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE OF ALL THE OTHER HOUSES TO THE NORTH AND TO THE SOUTH?

>> MR. TROUT, ARE YOU INTENDING TO BUILD OUT TO

THE 19-FOOT LINE? >> NO.

HOW FAR OUTDO YOU PLAN TO GO.

>> I BELIEVE WE ARE -- WE ARE ABOUT 30 FEET, 7 AND A HALF INCHES IS ABOUT WHERE WE ARE INTENDING TO BUILD.

>> FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. >> YEAH.

THEY NEED TEN FEET. >> WE NEED ABOUT 11 FEET.

I STILL WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THAT THE PROPERTY BE TREATED LIKE THE REST OF THE PROPERTIES.

AND HAVE THE SAME 19-FOOT SET BACK.

THEN I WOULD NEED TO KNOW WHAT THE BACK IS? BECAUSE IF WE WANT TO TREAT THEM THE SAME IN THE FRONT.

TO ME THERE NEEDS TO BE ACCOMMODATION BECAUSE THEY CAN GO FURTHER OUT TO THE EAST?

>> I WILL SHOW YOU -- THIS IS NOT OFFICIAL.

BUT THIS WAS FROM THE SURVEYOR THAT HAD SHOWED THE POSITION OF THE OTHER HOUSES NORTH TO SOUTH.

IF YOU WILL LOOK, THIS IS THE EAST SIDE OF THE HOME AND THIS IS THE HOUSE TO THE SOUTH WHICH IS PRETTY CLOSE.

THE FURTHER POINT HERE LINES UP OR ACTUALLY FURTHER EAST

THAN THIS POINT RIGHT HERE. >> THAT'S THE PATIO.

THE BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE I BELIEVE IS THE ONE TO

THE LEFT OF THAT? >> OKAY.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE ONE TO THE NORTH, THE HOUSE TO THE

NORTH -- >> LOOKING HERE IT LOOKS LIKE I DON'T HAVE A VERY GOOD CLEAR UNDERSTANDING.

THAT'S THE EDGE OF HOUSE. IT DOES APPEAR IT'S PRETTY

FAR -- >> BUT THE BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE IS THAT DASH LINE.

WE CAN SEE THE BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE ON THE BOTTOM AND THEN IT GOES UP TO MAYBE 90 DEGREE TURN.

IF YOU PROJECT THAT DOWN, AT LEAST FIVE FEET OF THIS HOUSE IS BEYOND THE BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE OF THE

HOUSE TO THE NORTH. >> JOHN, I HAVE A QUESTION.

>> OKAY. >> WHEN THE ADDITION IS DONE AND EVERYTHING, THIS IS THE ONLY VARIANCE THAT YOU ARE REQUESTING? IT WILL HAVE THE CORRECT PERCENTAGE ON THE LOT AND ALL THE OTHER REGULATIONS FOR THE PONTE VEDRA ZONING DISTRICT WILL BE FOLLOWED

FOR THIS HOUSE? >> YES, IT WILL BE.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU.

ONE OTHER QUESTION. RIGHT NOW IF YOU WERE TO BUILD THE WHOLE NEW HOUSE, THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY ONLY HAS RESTRICTION ON THES WE BOUNDARY.

IF ONE COULD BUILD IF I GAVE 19 IN THE FRENLT.

THEY COULD BUILD UP THE WAY TO THE BULKHEAD LINE IN THE BLACK. THE TOTAL EXTENT OF THE

PROPERTY. >> YES, MA'AM.

>> AND THROUGH THE CHAIR. IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE, AGAIN WE'RE FOR THE SUBJECT LOT AND THE OTHER ONE PART OF THAT NONPLATED PORTION OF THE BRD.

TECHNICALLY SPEAKING THEY HAVE STANDARD ZONING.

40 FOOT FRONT AND FRONT FOOT REQUIRE SET BACK.

THE SITUATION IS THIS HOW BEING NONCONFORMING.

I DOESN'T SET BACK FROM THE REAR AS APPLICANT DOESN'T INTEND TO INCREASE THE NONCONFORMITY.

IT'S JUST WHAT SIT RIGHT NOW.

[00:15:01]

IF THEY WERE TO DEMO THE HOUSE, THEY WOULD HAVE TO MEET 40-FOOT REAR SET BACK AS WELL.

>> JUST FOR MY OWN EDUCATION.

WHERE IS THAT IN OUR PONT SECRET ZONING LEGLATION.

IT'S STANDARD SET BACKINGS AGAIN 40 FEET FRONT AND

REAR. >> THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> DO I HEAR A MOTION?

>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION. I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE PVZ-VAR21-09 COLD FRONT SET BACK VARIANCE REQUEST FOR ZONING VARIANCE TO SECTION 3-B OF THE PONTE VEDRA ZONING REGULATION TO ALLOW FOR EXPANSION OF EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME TO ALLOW FOR 19-FOOT SET BACK IN LIEU OF THE 40-FOOT REQUIREMENT. BASED ON FOUR FINDING OF FACT AND SUBJECT TO FIVE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE

STAFF REPORT. >> SECONDED.

>> MR. CHAIR, FOR THE -- BEFORE THE BOARD VOTES. I KNOW YOU OFFERED UP GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT. THIS PARTICULAR ITEM UNLESS I MISSED IT. I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS OPENED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE

WOULD BE IN. >> WOULD -- WE DIDN'T I HAVE

CARDS, DO WE? >> THERE WERE NO CARDS.

>> ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM RELATION TO THIS BEFORE WE

VOTE? >> NONE.

>> THANK YOU. ANY DISCUSSION AMONGST THE

BOARD MEMBERS. >> READY TO VOTE?

>> UNANIMOUS. IT'S APPROVED.

>> THANK YOU. >> I HAVE ONE OTHER REQUEST.

>> I SEE THAT IN THE DFGS THAT I RECEIVE FROM JAKE ON WE HAVE A PERIOD TIME THAT IS LIMITED TO I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST TWO YEARS, MY CLIENT IS CONCERNED ABOUT THE PRICE OF LUMBER TODAY. WHICH I'M SURE WE'RE ALL CONCERNED ABOUT. AND HAS POSTPONED THEIR START DATE AND WE WOULD LIKE TO ASK FOR A LITTLE BIT MORE

TIME IF THAT'S POSSIBLE. >> ON THE ONE YEAR FOR

PERMITTING? >> YES, SIR.

ONE YEAR WOULD BE THE COMMENCEMENT WOULD BE EQUIVALENT TO SEEING A ZONE CLEARANCE.

>> IT'S AT THE START OF CURB? IS COULD WE HAVE TWO YEARS FOR THE CLEARANCE SHEET?

>> WE WOULD HAVE TO REVOTE. WE NEED AN AMENDMENT TO GIVE IT TWO YEARS. DO WHERE HAVE AN TEMPT FOR

TWO YEARS. >> OKAY.

DID I HAVE A MOTION TO GIVE YOU TWO YEARS.

ONE YEAR TO GET YOUR PERMIT. >> OKAY.

VERY GOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> YOU CAN REQUEST CONTINUE YOUNS.

IT'S TRYING TRAINED TO FIND IN THE REGULATION WHY YOU WERE STANTDING HER. IF IT'S NOT TODAY THE APPLICANT COULD COME BACK AND ASK TO REINQUIRY THE MATTER. ANY MEMBER COULD DO A MOTION TO RECONSIDER. IT WOULD BE RECONSIDERED.

MY SENSE ON THAT IS SEEING HOW THAT IS A VERY I THINK DISCRETE OF THE OF THING. THE WHOLE MATTER WOULDN'T NEED TO BE RENOTICED. THAT'S MY HENCE HOW TO GO

[2. PVZVAR21-11 Cohen Swimming Pool. Request for a Zoning Variance to Section VIII.M of the PVZDR to allow the maximum lot coverage to exceed the 40% requirement for Single Family Residential, to accommodate construction of a swimming pool in R-1-C zoning.]

FORWARD. IF THE GENTLEMAN SITE PLAN THAT YOU DISPLACED TO THE BORE.

HAVE A COPY OF THAT AND PUT INTO THE RECORD.

>> JUST THE ONE PAGE. I DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THE

WHOLE SET. >> WE DO HAVE THAT ON

[00:20:01]

RECORD, SIR. >> THANK YOU.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >> LET'S MOVE ON ITEM 2PVZVAR21-11 THE COHEN SWIMMING POOL.

THAT STAFF DO YOUSY I HAVE COMMENTS RELATE TO THIS.

I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE.

I HAVE NOT SPOKEN TO ANYONE. >> I DID DRIVE-THRU THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND DROVE PAST AND PARKED AND VIEWED THE SITE. I ALSO ASKED STAFF FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE LOT MATERIALS AND ABOUT WHETHER THE DRIVEWAY WAS PERVIOUS OR IMPERVIOUS.

AND I BELIEVE THAT WAS ALL SENT TO THE BOARD AS WELL.

>> I DIDN'T GET THAT INFORMATION BUT THAT'S OKAY.

I DROVE AROUND AND WALKED AROUND THE SITE.

>> I CALLED BRAD SKOLT. HE DID MENTION HE REPRESENTING THIS MEETING TODAY.

LAST FRIDAY I TALKED TO MR. COHEN ASKING PERMISSION TO GO INTO BACKYARD. I TOURED THE BACKYARD.

AND ACTUALLY TOURED THE ENTIRE SITE.

>> I AM FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE.

I HAVE PROVIDED BRAD SCOTT A COPY OF THE PRESENTATION.

THAT'S THE LIMIT OF MY CONDUCT.

>> I AM NOT TO TALK TO ANYONE REGARDING THIS SIDE AND HAVE NOT IS VISITING THE THIS SIGH.

I VISITED BUT HAVEN'T SEEN IT.

>> YOU ARE ALL DOING A GREAT JOB.

I'VE BEEN WATCHING MEETINGS. >> BRAD.

YOU NEED MORE OF A LIFE THAN WATCHING OUR MEETINGS.

>> IT'S FUN. I ENJOY IT.

BAR YOU LONELY AND HAD TO SEE?

>> IT'S AN INTERESTING -- WHEN THE COUNTY STOPPED PRESENTING FOR THE APPLICANT IT'S BEEN TOUGH ON SOME APPLICANTS. I'M A FRIEND OF CASEY COHEN I'M NOT INVOLVED WITH THE POOL BUILD.

I'M HERE FOR HER SON BODIE MORE THAN ANYTHIN.

SHE'S RIGHT AT 40% NOWED. SHE IS ASKING 4% OVER THERE ON THE ISR FOR 44% TOTAL. TO ADD THE POOL.

AND HER PURPOSE OF THIS POOL NOT TO HAVE POOL PARTIES.

CASEY A SINGLE MOM. SHE HAS DAUGHTER RECOVERED FROM CLUE CREMATORY AND SON WITH AUTISM.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU KNOW ANYONE WITH SEVERE AUTISM.

THEY ARE LIMITED AND CHALLENGES WHAT MOTIVATES THEM AND AS YOU SEE ON YOUR REPORT FROM THE DOCTOR, IS SWIMMING IS ONE OF THOSE FEW THINGS THAT BODIE IS STIMULATED BY AND VERY IMPORTANT FOR HIS DEVELOP.

NOW AND MOVE FORWARD. THAT'S THE MAIN REASON TO THE POOR. WHILE THAT'S NOT A HARD SHELL I UNDERSTAND FOR VARIANCE THERE'S A CLEAR HARD SHELL. THERE'S SEVERAL POCKETS OF HOMES IN PONTE VEDRA THAT HAVE THESE OLDER SMALL LOTS THAT WERE PLATTED YEARS AGO BEFORE THE LIKE EXPECTS OF A HOME. THERE'S A POCKET BEHIND CHRIST CHURCH THAT WHEN I WAS IN THE BOARD, WE GRANTED MANY VARIANCES BECAUSE THOSE WERE PLATTED A LONG TIME LIKE WATERBRIDGE AND SMALL LOTS.

AND TO PUT A NEW HOME A SWIMMING POOL AND CURL WEBT LIFE SIELG AS WITH THIS LOTTED IT'S SMALL.

A PONTE VEDRA HOME OF TODAY'S STANDARD JUST -- THAT LOT ISN'T LARGE ENOUGH.

WE GRANTED IN OF THOSE VARIANCES BEHIND CHRIST CHURCH. I DON'T RECALL SPECIFICALLY IN WATER BRIDGE OTHER THAN THE ONE IN THE CORNER.

BUT IT WASN'T FOR A POOL. I FORGET THE EXACT REASONING

BEHIND IT. >> THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE VARIANCE BEHIND CHRIST CHURCH AND CASEY HOME.

CASEY DIDN'T BUILD THE NEW HOME.

THIS ORIGINAL HOME. THE ORIGINAL DRIVEWAY.

SHE'S NOT COMING IN WITH EXPECTATIONS OF BUILDING SOMETHING NEW. NOTHING HAS CHANGE TENSE IS HOMES FIRST BUILD. SHE'S ACTING IN GOOD FAITH AND COMPROMISING BY NOT ASKING FOR A POOL TAX.

SHE COULD HAVE COME IN I POOL DECK AND ALL THE WORK.

SHE ASKED ONLY FOR THE POOL ITSELF NOT A BOAL DECK.

[00:25:01]

BOTH OF THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS HAVE WRITTEN LETTERS IN YOUR PACKET THAT HAVE GIVEN THEIR POSITIVE APPROVAL. THEY HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH IT. I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S IN OPPOSITION. TWO IMMEDIATE NEXT-DOOR NEIGHBORS AGREED TO IT. IF YOU LOOK AT GOOGLE MAPS THERE'S OUR OR FIVE EXISTING PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

CLEARLY ONE OF THEM IS ALL HOUSE, ALL DRIVEWAY.

ALL POOL, ALL POOL DECK THE OTHERS VARIATION.

CLEARLY BY LOOKING AT THIS IT SHOWS THIS IS NOT AGAINST THE PUBLIC INTEREST BY ADDING THE POOL TO HAVE HOUSE. IT'S PRECEDENT IN THE NEIGHBOR. YOU MAY ASK ABOUT HOW ABOUT DRAINING A. WE WATCHED THE ENTIRE SUMMER SEASON OF RAIN HIT THAT LOT AND THERE'S BEEN SOME REALLY GULLY WASHERS. NEVER ONCE HAS THERE BEEN PUDDLING OR PONDING, ANY RUN OFF FROM THE LOT NEAR THE STREET. THERE'S NOT ANY KIND OF DRAINAGE PROBLEM ON THE -- WE WITNESSED IT ALL

SUMMER. >> AS JOHN HAS POINTED OUT MANY TIMES WHEN WE HAD THE PAST VARIANCES, WE'RE NOT SURE WHY SWIMMING POOL IS COUNTED AGAINST THE IMPERVIOUS RATIO. IF YOU GO TO THE HOUSE AND WE HAD FOUR INCH OF RAIN AND THE POOL ALL OF THE WATER WOULD HAVE TO SOAK IN OR RUN OFF IF VEHICLES -- KNOW THERE'S A POOL SITTING THERE.

THAT POOL WILL HOLD THE 4 INCHES OF RAIN.

IT WON'T RUN OFF OR GO ANYWHERE.

THAT'S ARE LIKE A RETENTION POND.

THEY ARE COUNTED AGAINST IT. I'M NOT SURE SNFRMTH IF YOU THINKLOGICALLY THAT WILL BECOME A RETENTION POND AND REDUCE THE FOLLOW OF WATER ON THAT LOT.

I THINK THAT BASED ON PRECEDENT WE APPROVED MANY OF THESE. THERE'S DEFINITELY A HARDSHIP THERE. I'M ASKING FOR AN APPROVAL OF THIS VARIANCE FOR CASEY COHEN.

>> ANY QUESTIONS? >> WHEN WAS THE HOUSE BUILT?

>> I DON'T KNOW THE DATE. >> I THINK MID 80S.

. >> 83 OR '87 OR '89.

>> I WAS THINKING '86 -- MID 80S WE WILL SAY.

>> QUESTIONS? >> RICHARD?

>> OKAY. I LIVE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND AM VERY, VERY FAMILIAR. THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF ABOUT 28 HOMES HAS A SOLID BLOCK WALL THAT GOES AROUND THE WEST SIDE AND THEN TAKES A CUT BACK TOWARD THE EAST AND COMES BACK ALL ON THE EAST SIDE.

UNFORTUNATELY THERE'S NO PLACES FOR WATER TO EXIT OUT OF THE BACKYARDS. WE HAVE THE DRAINS OUT FRONT ON THE GUTTERS, BUT THERE'S NO WATER TO ACCESS OUT THE BACK. AND AS A MATTER OF FACT I AM THE LAST HOME ON THE EAST WALL AND THE WATER RUNS FROM WEST TO EAST. WHEN WE HAVE THE HEAVY DOWNPOURS I SEE A NICE STREAM RUNNING ALONG THE BACK INSIDE OF THE WALL DOWN TO THE END OF THE WALL WHICH THEN DUMBS INTO MY YARD AND INTO A YARD ON LA MASTER BOULEVARD. I DON'T WANT TO GIVE THE IMPRESSION I'M GOING TO DENY THIS.

I JUST WANT TO GIVE SOME BAKGROUND MATERIAL.

SO BEAR WITH ME. I DID SPEAK TO ONE OF THE OWNERS THERE. AND POSSIBLY YOU HAVE NOT HAD ANY WATER PROBLEMS ON YOUR LOT.

BUT THE LOT TO THE EAST OF YOU HAS TOLD ME SHE'S HAD A LOT OF WATER SITTING ON HER PROPERTY, THAT WOULD BE HOUSE 35 HEADING TOWARD THE EAST.

AND I GUESS SHE'S HAD SOME CONVERSATIONS WITH MR. COHEN AND HE'S PROMISED TO WORK SOME THINGS OUT.

I THINK THE REAL BOTTOM LINE HERE IS WE'RE TRYING TO DISPLACE WATER IN A COMMUNITY THAT'S VERY SMALL.

VERY TIGHT. IF WE GIVE SOMEONE EXCESS SOMEONE IN THE NEIGHBOHOOD HAS TO TAKE ON THAT 5%.

[00:30:04]

THAT HAS TO DISAPPEAR SOMEWHERE ELSE.

AS THAT GOES DOWN THE LINE. REALLY SPINNING OFF EXCESS OF 2%. IT ADDS UP.

BY THE TIME YOU MOVE FIVE HOMES.

YOU MIGHT HAVE 10% OF EXCESS WATER THAT'S NOW FOLLOWING FROM PROPERTY TO THE LAST PIECE OF PROPERTY.

THAT'S INDEED WHAT'S HAPPENING.

I THINK FOR THIS SITUATION, THEY REALLY NEED TO LOOK AT PERVIOUS MATERIAL. AND I KNOW YOU CAN'T GET A PERVIOUS POOL. I HEARD YOU MENTION IT WOULD OBVIOUSLY BE A POOL. ONE OF MY FIRST QUESTIONS,

WHAT IS THE ACTUAL SIZE? >> AGAIN I'M NOT INVOLVED IN THE BUILDING OF THE POOL. I'M NOT PRIVY TO INFORMATION ON THE POOL. 14 BY 28.

[INAUDIBLE] THE OTHER THINGS THAT'S HAPPENED IN THE LAST 15 MONTHS, I'VE PUT A POOL WITHIN THE VARIANCES. IT'S VERY TIGHT BACK THERE.

WE HAVE 25-FEET. WE HAVE #-FOOT SET BACK FROM THE BACK WALL YOU HAVE TO BE FIVE FEET FROM ANY GLASS ON THE HOUSE TO NOT TO THE EDGE BUT WATER.

YOU WORK WITH THEM. THERE'S 7 AND FIVE FOOT.

AND I WAS ONLY ABLE TO GET A 12 -- PROBABLY 12 BY 28 IN

THERE. >> TWO HOMES TO THE WEST OF ME THEY JUST COMPLETED A HOUSE.

THEY PUT IN A VERY NARROW POOL.

GUESSING THAT ONE IS PROBABLY 12 BY 25, MAYBE.

I WOULD FIRST LIKE TO RECOMMEND RATHER THAN APPROVE A VARIANCE, THAT THE POOL SIZE MAYBE BE CUT BACK A LITTLE BIT. AND THAT THE COHEN'S LOOK AT USING PERVIOUS MATERIAL. THE DRIVEWAY WHEREVER THEY ARE GOING TO GET IT FROM. ONLY OTHER PLACE LIT COME FROM IS THE DRIVEWAY. AND YOU COULD PROBABLY DO HALF OF IT YOU KNOW JUST TAKE IT TO WHAT YOUR 40% DRIVEWAY IT. I MADE STYLE OUT OF IT.

I USED PAYER ACROSS IT WITHOUT REPLACING THE WHOLE DRIVEWAY. AND I THINK THE STRATEGY SHOULD BE MORE HOW DO WE GET TO 40%.

AND WHETHER OR NOT MEANS I CAN CUT OFF THE WIDTH.

PUT SOME PAVERS ON THE DRIVEWAY.

THAT'S REALLY THE SOLUTION WHICH WE LOOK FOR.

BECAUSE AS I MENTIONED, IN THE BEGINNING WE'RE JUST PASSING ANOTHER PROBLEM TO A NEIGHBOR.

THEY ARE -- WE ARE ALL JUST PASSING IT ON.

I'M NOT SURE THE PRESIDENT IS AWARE WE HAVE A WATER PROM BACK THERE. BUT I CAN TELL YOU WE DO.

THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD YOU MENTIONED VERY SPECIFICALLY THAT THIS HOUSE HASN'T CHANGED.

WE DO NEED TO MENTION THERE WAS A WHOLE SECOND FLOOR PUT

ON TO THAT HOUSE. >> WE ADDED TWO BEDROOMS

UPSTAIRS. >> IF THE MADAM WILL ADDRESS THE BOARD, YOU MIGHT WANT TO COME UP.

>> APPLICANT, CAN YOU PLEASE COME UP AND STATE YOUR NAME

AND ADDRESS. >> YOU CAN TALK.

>> >> YOU ARE SAY?

>> THE HOUSE IS LEFT VACANT. HOUSING PROBLEMS TO OTHER PEOPLE'S YARDS, I THINK THAT INCREASE PROMPT VALUE FOR EVERYONE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

I CAN'T ACKNOWLEDGIC IN -- ACKNOWLEDGE ANYTHING

[00:35:02]

THAT HAS TO DO WITH PROPERTY VALUE.

I'M STICKILY LOOKING AT REGULATION.

UNLESS THE BOARD DISAGREES WITH ME, I THINK BECAUSE THE HOUSE TWO DOORS DOWN FROM YOU HAS PUT A POOL IN WITH PAYERS. THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE AS BIG OF FRONT YARD AS YOURS. I'M HOPING HE GOT A PERMIT.

BUT I THINK YOUR STRATEGY SHOULD BE TO TRY TO NAIL

THAT 40%. >> OTHER QUESTIONS?

. >> DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER

QUESTIONS? >> I HAVE COMMENTS WHEN IT'S TIME FOR COMMENTS AFTER THE TIME FOR ASKING QUESTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS IS FINISHED.

>> I DO TOO. >> ONE QUESTION THAT I HAVE REGARDING POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS TO OBTAIN THE 40% PERMABILITY. AND ONE -- WHY YOU DON'T THINK THAT THESE WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE.

ONE WOULD BE AS MY FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS SPOKE TO RADJ.

IT LOOKS LIKE THE 4% OF THE ACTUAL AREA WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE APPROXIMATELY 350 SQUARE FEET.

THE DRIVEWAY IS AROUND 700-PLUS SQUARE FEET.

HALF OF THE DRIVEWAY COULD BE MADE INTO PERMEABLE SERVICE. EITHER PAVERS OR I KNOW MY NEIGHBOR ACROSS THE STREET USES GRAVEL.

THEY CAN COLLECT DRAIN WATER FROM THE ROOF AND OFF SET ANY RAINWATER THAT WOULD BE FOLLOWING.

WE HAVE SANDY SOIL HERE. TO ME SEEMS LIKE AN OPPORTUNITY THAT WOULD BE LESS EXPENSIVE THAN CHANGING HALF THE DRIVEWAY OUT. I HAVE A FEW COMMENTS.

I WONDER WHY VARIANCES TO OTHER UNUSUAL UNIQUE LOTS.

WE'RE HAVING A HARD TIME WITH THIS ONE.

THAT BEING SAID, HOW ABOUT THE COMPROMISE? HOW ABOUT IF WE GET CLOSER TO 40%.

AND YOU KNOW WE'VE DONE THAT WITH MANY OTHER APPLY

CONTACTS. >> COULD YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION ABOUT DRY WELL? I'M JUST CURIOUS IF YOU

LOOKED AT THAT? >> DO DRY WELLS COUNT? FOR IMPERVIOUS AREA? IF YOU TAKE ALL THE WATER OFF OF THE ROOF, IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS WHAT THEY DO IS BASICALLY THE RAINWATER THAT'S FALLING ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE ROOF, GOES THROUGH GUTTER AND DRAIN SPOUTS DOWN TO THE DRYWALL AND GIVES YOU YOUR PERVIOUS.

>> WHAT DOES IT GO WHEN YOU BRING IT DOWN THE DOWN SPOTS

>> THERE'S A PHYSICAL STRUCTURE.

THERE'S A CONCRETE SIDE AND THE BOTTOM FILLED WITH STONES. AND THE WATER GOES IN THERE.

IT PERCOLATES INTO THE SOIL. >> THESE ARE AWFULLY SMALL LOTS. YOU DON'T HAVE A LOT OF ROOM TO NEGOTIATE DIGGING AND PUTTING THOSE -- THERE'S NOT

A LOT OF ROOM ON THE LOTS. >> I WAS THINKING -- I DOESN'T TAKE UP THAT MUCH SPACE.

I HAVE HAD THEM IN OTHER PLACES.

MAYBE AROUND 6 FEET IN DIAMETER.

THE OTHER QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT YOU CONSIDERED REPLACING THE PORTION OF THE DRIVEWAY LIKE 350 SQUARE FEET HALF OF THE DRIVEWAY WITH PERMEABLE

MATERIALS? >> WHAT I WAS GOING TO PROPOSE. THE FRONT WALKWAY IS BADLY CRACKED. IT'S BEEN REMOVED.

THAT'S 165 SQUARE FOOTAGE YOU CAN SEE ON YOUR NOTE.

IF THAT IS REMOVED I RAN THE CALCULATION OF 42%.

WE COULD AGREE TO JUST HAVE GRAVEL WALKWAY AND THAT GETS YOU TO 42%. THAT'S NOT ASKING FOR TOO

MUCH. >> THIS THE PROBABLY BOTH OF YOU. CAN YOU TELL -- WHERE IS

WATER GOING ON THE LOT? >> I BELIEVE IT RUNS TOWARD THE STREET. BUT WE NEVER SEEN ANY RUN OFF FROM THE LOT. IT HAS TO MOVE OUT TOWARD THE STREET IN THE ENTIRE SUMMER SEASON WE NEVER SEEN ANY PONDS ANY WATER STANDING AND ANY FLOW OF WATER DURING THE HEAVY RAIN. DRAINS EVENLY OFF THE CURB

[00:40:06]

AND WITHOUT A PROBLEM. >> YOU'VE HAD NO ISSUE FROM

THE NEIGHBORS. >> THIS IS MY SECOND HOUSE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I LIVED IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD FOR HOW MANY YEARS SOLD THAT HOUSE.

THIS MY SECOND HOUSE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

I DIDN'T HAVE ANY PROBLEMS. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU TALK ABOUT LOCATION IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

I LOVE THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. >> THERE'S NO OPPOSITION.

>> NO ISSUE WITH FLOODING IN THE BACKYARD.

>> ONE OF THEM THE PRESIDENT OF THE HOA.

>> AND IF I READ MY MAP CORRECTLY 65-FOOT WIDE LOT;

IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I STILL STICK MY CONCEPT THE SWIMMING POOL RETENTION POND.

ANY WATER THAT FALLS IN THE SWIMMING POOL UP UNTIL RUSHLY 3-4 INCH OF WATER STAYS IN THE SWIMMING POOL.

THAT'S A PERSONAL THING. BRAD, YOUR REVISED PROPOSAL IS TO REPLACE THE SIDEWALK WITH THE IMPERVIOUS MATERIAL. REDUCE THE OVERERAGE TO APPROXIMATELY 2% VERSES 3.9% OR 4%.

>> IT'S EXACTLY THE NUMBERS. IT GIVIOUS THE BREAKDOWN OF SQUARE FOOTAGE WRITTEN IN THE WRONG SIDE OF THE EXAMPLE. IF YOU WALK OUT THE FRONT WALK 160 SQUARE FEET. YOU DIVIDE THAT AND RECALCULATE COMES OUT TO 42% COVERAGE.

THAT'S A STRONG COMPROMISE FOR EVERYBODY.

>> I WAS GOING TO SAY I AGREE WITH THE COMPROMISE

BRAD IS PROPOSING. >> I AGREE.

>> ANOTHER QUESTION CAME UP BEFORE YOU.

>> THERE'S BEEN A LOT SAID THAT THIS IS AN UNUSUALLY SMALL LOT FOR PONTE VEDRA. HOW MANY LOTS ARE -- THERE'S 65 BY 115 LOTS IN PONTE VEDRA.

THERE'S SEVERAL OF THEM. 65 BY 115.

>> YOU'VE GOT THIS. YOU'VE GOT THIS AREA.

YOU'VE GOT -- IT'S NOT THAT UNUSUAL; REALLY?

>> COMPARED WITH THE AVERAGE LOT SIZE IT'S UNUSUAL TO

HAVE A LOT THIS SMALL. >> THE POINT I TRY TO MAKE IS AND LIKE I SAID I'M ALL FOR GETTING POOL, BUT THERE'S A HOUSE TWO DOORS DOWN, THREE FROM HERE THAT WOULD BE 1, 2, 3, MAYBE 4 HOUSES DOWN.

HE JUST FILLED A POOL. I ASSUME HE HAD PERMIT.

AND THERE WAS NO PROBLEM WITH THE 40%.

YOU ALREADY HAVE A HOUSE THAT'S COMPLETED POOL LIKE A MONTH AGO AND HE DID NOT HAVE AS MUCH FRONT YARD AS YOU DO. BUT THE POOL WAS SMALLER.

THE POOL WAS PROBABLY 12 BY 25.

DID YOU DO ANY CALCULATIONS ON TAKING FEET OFF LENGTH

AND THE WIDTH? >> NO I HAD NOT.

ARE YOU SURE YOU CAN GET A 14 IN BETWEEN THE 7 FOOT AND

THE FIVE -- >> HERE'S THE THING.

THEY STILL HAVE TO MEET ALL THE COUNTY PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS. IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT YOU MENTION EARLIER. IT PERMITS THEM FROM BUILDING A POOL THAT SIDE. THEY WILL MEET ALL THE CRITERIA DURING THE PERMITTING PROCESS.

>> THAT'S WHERE IT WILL BE. IT WILL BE 7 FEET FROM THAT WALL. IT WILL BE FIVE FOOT FROM GLASS TO WATER. IT'S WATER TO CLASSES.

>> I THINK THAT'S A HURRICANE.

>> I'VE BEEN AT ALL THE BUILDING WITH MY BUILDER.

HE'S BEEN DOING THIS FOR A REALLY LONG TIME.

WE'VE HAD IN CASE WHERE IT WAS MADE TOO LARGE AND IT

WAS MISTAKE. >> ANY PUBLIC COMMENT?

>> MY PUBLIC COMMENT OR -- MAYBE WE SHOULD ASK

FOR PUBLIC COMMENT FIRST. >> WE DID.

THERE WASN'T ANY. >> WHEN I READ THROUGH THIS AND TALKING TO YOU IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THAT BODIE WOULD BENEFIT BY HAVING A SWIMMING POOL.

14 BY 28 I MATTER SHRUMMED OFF IN MY HOUSE.

IT'S NOT VERY BIG. IT'S IT'S A LAP POOL.

IT WOULD BE A LAP POOL. YOU KNOW I THINK IT'S

[00:45:02]

INCUMBENT UPON THE ZONING BOARD TO FIND A WAY TO ALLOW THIS POOL TO BUILT FOR YOUR SON.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME UPHOLD THE ZONING REGULATIONS IF THAT'S POSSIBLE. THAT'S REALLY OUR JOB.

AND THIS THE HEART WRENCHING.

IT'S CLEAR BODIE WOULD BENEFIT FROM THIS.

AND I HOPE THAT HE DID. THE HOME CURRENTLY COVERS THE ALLOWED IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIO.

THE HOMES COVER PRETTY MUCH ALL THE LOTS.

I DID DISCUSS THIS WITH TREVOR STEPHEN OF GROWTH MANAGE. YOU ALSO SAID 700 SQUARE FEET I THINK THE DRIVEWAY. 400 IS POOL.

I CAN'T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHAT IT IS.

HE DID SAY THAT IF THE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY OR PART OF IT WAS TAKEN OUT,THAT YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO MEET THE 40% AND SO I GUESS MY MAKE BODIE GETS HIS AOL. - I KNOW FINANCIALLY MORE EXPENSIVE.

I DON'T BELIEVE FINANCIAL HARDSHIP IS SOMETHING WE CAN CONSIDER. THAT'S JUST MY COMMENT THAT THERE'S A WAY TO DO THIS TO MAKE SURE BODIE GETS HIS POOL AND MAKE SURE WE UPHOLD THE REGULATIONS.

MR. CHAIR. >> I RECALL AT LEAST TWO INSTANCES IN THE PAST TWO YEARS WHERE WE HAVE APPROVED THIS SORT OF VARIANCE. I THINK IF THEY WANTED TO APPEAL THIS THEY WOULD WIN. I JUST WANT TO SAY WE DID DENY APPLY KANT RECENTLY ON SAN JUAN WHO WANTED TO MORE THAN 40% AND THEY WOULD HAVE HAD TO REPLACE THEIR DRIVEWAY. AND WE DENIED THE

APPLICATION TO GO OVER 40%. >> SAT ON THE BOARD FOR THAT. THAT WAS HUGE LOT.

THEY WANT POOL, DECK, THEY WANTED CONCRETE PATIO.

TOTALLY DIFFERENT SITUATION. >> ITS A BIG LOT.

ALMOST AN ACRE LOT. >> SAM?

>> LOOKING OUTSIDE OF PONTE VEDRA AT WE WOULD CALL THIS 60 WIDE LOT, 40% IS VAR AGGRESSIVE LOT COVERAGE RATIO. IF I UNDERSTOOD AND I FELT BOARD MEMBERS ABOUT WATER. MORE TO DO WITH DRAINAGE THAN TREATMENT. 4% COMPROMISE I THINK IS AN

EXCELLENT SUGGESTION. >> AND I CAN ACTUALLY THINK OF THREE DIFFERENT TIMES WE APPROVE AND BUILDING ADDITIONS CROSSING OVER THE 40% ON SMALLER LOTS.

IT'S NOT REALLY A PRECEDENT. BUT THERE'S BEEN A LITTLE BIT OF FLEXIBILITY ON THE 40%.

>> OKAY. THE OTHER THING I WAS THINKING WE COULD BE INVESTIGATED IS IF YOU ARE ALLOWED TO TAKE THAT GUTTER WATER OUT TO THE FRONT STREET. WHERE IT'S NOT JUST DUMPED INTO THE SIDE YARDS. SIDE YARDS ARE PROBABLY TEN FEET BETWEEN HOMES. THERE'S NOT A LOT OF DRAINAGE WHERE A LOT OF THE DOWN SPOUTS COME DOWN.

THAT'S WHERE YOU GET THE COOLING OF THE WATER.

I DON'T KNOW IF WE WILL GET AN OPPORTUNITY.

>> IT'S INTERESTING YOU BROUGHT THAT UP.

MY GUTTER GUY CAME BY TODAY WE WERE GOING TO CAPTURE THE FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR. IT WILL COME AROUND GARAGE AND DUMP ON THE DRIVEWAY WHICH WILL GO TO THE STREET.

>> THIS IS WHERE? YOUR HOUSE?

>> I'M THE CONTRACTOR. NOT FOR THE POOL FOR RENOVATIONS. WE'RE PUTTING GUTERS ON THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE. THAT GUTTER RUNS FROM THE FRONT DOOR ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE DRIVEWAY CORNER OF THE GARAGE. A LOT OF THAT WATER IS WILL PUT ON THE DRIVEWAY WE WILL GO STRAIGHT TO THE STREET.

>> THAT'S ENCOURAGING. >> IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S ABOUT 20 FEET. 25 FEET BETWEEN THE HOUSES.

I GUESS IT'S 7 AND A HALF FOOT SET BACK.

[00:50:02]

>> MAYBE THE PICTURE IS NOT CLEAR.

MR. CHAIR, MAY I ASK OUR ATTORNEY A QUESTION.

THERE'S A LOT SAID ABOUT WHAT'S APPROVED IN THE PAST.

DOES THAT HAVE A BEARING ON THIS DECISION? PAST DECISION? OR DOES EACH ONE OF THESE

APPLICATION STAND ALONE? >> RIGHT.

I THINK IF THERE ARE OTHER NONCOMPLIANCE SITUATIONS THOSE ARE NOT JUSTIFICATION TO GRANT AN APPROVAL.

HOWEVER IF THERE'S OTHER APPROVALS OF A REQUEST BASED ON SOME SET OF RATIONALE I THINK THE BOARD COULD CONSIDER THAT. IF I MAKE COMMENT HERE TO CONTINUE TO CONTINUE THROUGH THE CHAIR, FOR THE POOL AND THE ISR, ST. JOHNS COUNTY IS NOT UNIQUE IN THAT.

I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY THE GENERAL RULE.

THERE MAY BE EXCEPTIONS IN PLACES BUT CERTAINLY MANY OTHER JURISDICTIONS COUNT POOLS AS ONE OF THE THINGS TO CONSIDER FOR THE ISR. ON THE OTHER HAND, I THINK THAT SOME OF THE PRACTICAL SENSE HERE.

WHEN IT RAINS 2 INCHES, 3 INCHES IT'S PROBABLY CAPTURED BY THE POOL. I THINK ONE REASON IT'S STILL IN THE ISR IS THAT IF THERE WAS A LOT OF RAIN AND ALSO THAT YOU KNOW PERVIOUS NOT JUST FOR THINGS FALLING ON BUT FALLING ELSEWHERE IN THE YARD TO GO INTO.

BUT HAVING SAID THAT YOU KNOW, IF THE BOARD CONSIDERED SOME DISCOUNT I SUPPOSE IN THAT.

AS PART OF THE RATIONALE. AND GIVEN THE FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE COMMUNITY I THINK MR. ENSSLEN DESCRIBED. I DO THINK JUST AS YOUR COUNCIL I THINK THIS OFFER OF THE FRONT WALKWAY THING.

I THINK THAT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT THE BOARD COULD CONSIDER. THANK YOU.

BACK TO THE CHAIR. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? DO I HEAR A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VARIANTS BASED ON THE REMOVAL OF THE REPLACEMENT OF THE SIDEWALK

WITH WITH PERVIOUS MATERIAL. >> WE WOULD BE A 1% VARIANCE

THEN. >> APPROXIMATELY 2%.

>> 2%. OKAY.

AND THE GUTERS GOING INTO THE DRIVEWAY.

>> WHATEVER SOMEONE WANTS TO PUT IN MOTION.

>> I WOULD MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE ORDER FOR PVZVAR2021-11 WITH THE AMENDMENT OF MINIMUM COVERAGE OF 42 FEET. INCLUDING THE FINDINGS.

YOU SAID FEET. IT'S PERCENT.

>> I'M SORRY. 42%.

INCLUDING THE FINDINGS DOCUMENTED IN THE STAFF

RECOMMENDATION. >> DO I HEAR A SECOND?

>> SECOND. >> WITH THE MAKE AND THE POST AND THE SECOND, THE SIDEWALK DOESN'T HAVE TO BE EXPRESSLY MENTIONED. I THINK THE 42% I THINK COVERS THAT. HOWEVER, THE REVISION OF THE SIDEWALK WITH PERVIOUS THAT COULD BE MENTIONED IN THE MOTION. I JUST WANT TO OFFER THAT UP. IT CAN BE BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE. IF WE APPROVE AT 42%, AND THE CONTRACTOR KNOWS THEY HAVE TO -- FINAL PLAN HAVE

[3. PVZVAR 2021-12 507 Ponte Vedra Blvd.. Request for a Zoning Variance to Section VIII.L of the Ponte Vedra Zoning Regulations to allow for an existing fireplace to be located outside of the Building Restriction Line.]

TO HAVE THE SIDE WAY REMOVES, IT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE. [INAUDIBLE]

ANY DISCUSSION? >> READY TO VOTE?

>> UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. CONGRATULATIONS.

YOU HAVE A SWIMMING POOL. WITH THAT I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM NO. 3PVZVAR2021-12, 507 PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD. REQUEST FOR BOARD MEMBERS STATE IF THEY VISITED SITE AND DISCUSSED WITH ANYONE.

>> I HAVE VISITED THE SITE. WALKED AROUND THE BACK AND HAVEN'T DISCUSSED WITH ANYONE.

>> I DROVE BY THE SITE. I LOOKED AT THE PHOTOGRAPHS.

I CONTACTED OUR STAFF MEMBERS TO ASK WHO THE

[00:55:05]

BUILDER WAS AND WE SENSE HAVE RECEIVED A LETTER FROM GA MEL CONSTRUCTION SAYING THAT BUILDER AND THEY BAR RESPONSIBLE FOR PUTTING THE FIREPLACE IN WITHOUT HAVING THE PROPER PERMIT. I VISITED THE SITE.

I DIDN'T SPEAK TO ANYONE. >> I DROVE BE THE SITE AND LOOKED IN BACKYARD. WAS UNABLE TO GO TO BACKYARD AND HAVEN'T TALKED WITH ANYONE.

>> I AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH SITE.

I HAVEN'T SPOKEN WITH ANYONE.

>> NOT SPOKEN TO ANYONE AND I DROVE BY THE SITE.

>> I DROVE BY THE SITE AND HAVEN'T SPOKEN WITH ANYONE.

>> STAFF, ANY COMMENTS IN RELATION TO THIS?

>> OKAY. WILL BE APPLICANT PROCEED?

>> THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON.

I'M DAVID OTERO. MY WIFE GAIL AND I ARE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY 507 PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD.

WE HAVE BEEN THERE SINCE WE GOT OUR CO LAST JULY.

JULY 2020. WE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY ALMOST EXACTLY NINE YEARS BEFORE THAT AND ENJOYED THE NICE HOUSE THAT WAS THERE BEFORE.

DECIDED TO MAKE THE PROPERTY A PERMANENT RESIDENT.

CLEARED IT OUT AND BUILD THIS HOUSE AND INTEND TO LIVE HERE FOR THE REST OF OUR LIVES.

THIS THE ON APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE FILED IN RESPONSE TO A WARNING THAT WE RECEIVED FROM SANLT JOHN'S COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT. CITING US FOR HAVING A STRUCTURE OUTSIDE THE BUILDING, RESTRICTION LINES HIGHER THAN THREE FEET. SO THE ISSUE IS THE HEIGHT AND THE LOCATION OF THE STRUCTURE.

I WILL PUT THE FIREPLACE YOU'VE GOT -- OKAY GREAT.

I THOUGHT I WOULD GO THROUGH THIS FIRST SINCE THIS IS REALLY THE MOST PERTINENT THING IN THIS REVIEW.

YOU CAN SEE THE FIREPLACE. IT'S STONE.

HARTH OUTDOOR FIESH PLACE. NO GAS OR ELECTRIC.

YOU PUT IN A LOG AND YOU START IT UP.

AND YOU CAN ALSO SEE IT'S PRETTY CLEAN.

BECAUSE HONESTRY, WE HAVEN'T USED IT A LOT.

IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO US BECAUSE IT PROVIDES KIND OF A SEATING AREA AROUND THE POOL AS WELL AS PROTECTIONS TO VARIOUS ELEMENTS AND WE FIND ITS A THEORE ASTHETICA PLEASING. WITHOUT THE FIREPLACE OUR POOL DECK IS KIND OF LOOMING OVER THEIR BACKYARD.

I THINK PROBABLY HAD THE OCCASION TO SEE THE SUPPORTING E-MAIL FROM SCOTT MARTIN AND 509.

I WROTE OUT THERE'S TECHNICAL DESCRIPTIONS OF THE FIREPLACE THAT WERE ATTACHED TO APPLICATION WITH EXACT INCHES AND EVERYTHING. BUT I THOUGHT FORSAKE OF OUR REVIEW, IT MIGHT BE HANDY TO DESCRIBE THE PART AND HOW TALL THEY ARE, ET CETERA. THIS BASE PART DOWN HERE THAT'S CALLED THE FIRE BOX. THAT'S ACTUALLY WHERE THE FIRE IS. THAT'S ABOUT 4 AND A HALF FEET WIDE. AND IT'S ABOUT 3 AND 3/4 FEET TALL. THAT FIRST STAGE IS JUST UNDER FOUR FEET. AND THEN THERE'S AN EXTENDED HARTH RIGHT ABOVE THAT. THAT'S ANOTHER FOOT 3/4.

THIS FIRST STAGE OF THE FIRE BOX AND THE HARTH IS 5 AND A HALF FEET TALL. THEN YOU HAVE SKINNY FLU ABOVE THERE THAT'S I THINK IT'S 34 INCHES OR SO.

FORSAKE OF THIS IT'S ABOUT 3 FEET.

AND THEN ON TOP OF THAT; THERE'S A REMOVABLE MEDAL SPARKER ARRESTER THAT'S BASICALLY A FOOT.

THE FIRST THING I WANT TO SAY WE WOULD BE WILLING TO REMOVE THE SPARKER. I WILL LEAVE THAT UP THERE.

THE FIRST THING I WANT TO DO IS SINCERELY APOLOGIZE FOR THE TIMING OF THE REQUEST. I WISH WE WEREN'T COMING IN HERE AFTER THE FACT. I WISH WE WERE COMING IN

[01:00:01]

HERE IN ADVANCE. AND I SUN SINCERELY APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. THAT'S NOT AN ATTEMPT PLAYING A GAME OR GETTING A WAY WITH ANYTHING.

IT'S JUST FRANKLY HONEST MISTAKE.

WE AGREE WITH WHAT MR. SMITH SAID IN HIS PLANNING DIVISION RORLT WHEN HE SAID THAT THE FIREPLACE WAS INADVERTENTLY APPROVED DUE TO LACK OF THE CLARITY ON THE CLEARANCE SHEET PERMIT FOR THE POOL.

WE'RE NOT -- I'M NOT TRYING TO SAY YOU APPROVED ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF. I POINT THIS OUT REALLY MAINLY SO THAT YOU REALIZE AND HERE'S THE CLEARANCE SHEET. THAT WE WEREN'T -- WERE WERE ALWAYS PLANNING ON DOING THIS.

THIS IS NOT AN AFTER THE FACT.

IN OUR EYES AS HOMEOWNERS THIS WAS ALL BEING DONE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE HOUSE. IT WASN'T DONE DIFFERENT THAN ANYTHING ELSE. I REALIZE WE'RE ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT AND I APOLOGIZE.

>> RATHER THAN, DID EVERYBODY GET THIS LETTER? HE'S THE BUILDER THAT WAS JUST BEING DISCUSSED.

HE'S BASICALLY JUST CONFIRMING WHAT WE JUST SAID THAT THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE PART OF THE HOME.

THAT IT WAS HIS RESPONSIBILITY FOR DOING.

AND UNFORTUNATELY, HE DIDN'T.

AND MAYBE I SHOULD MOVE OVER THERE.

I DON'T KNOW. >> LET'S TALK ABOUT THE SUBSTANCE OF THE APPLICATION.

AS FAR AS THE PUBLIC INTEREST GOES, I THINK YOU CAN SEE FROM LOOKING AT THIS FIREPLACE IT'S FAR FROM AN EYESORE. ANY FEEDBACK WE GOT FROM ANYONE WAS POSITIVE NATURE ABOUT THE FIREPLACE AND IT'S -- I DON'T MEAN TO OVERSTATE THE IMPORTANCE OF IT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IF ANYTHING THIS IS AN ENHANCING FEATURE RATHER THAN DISTRACTING FEATURE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND VALUES AND IN CONCERT WITH THE HOME. AND THE REST AND THE REST OF THE PROPERTY. MR. MARRIN IN HIS E-MAIL THAT'S PART OF THE APPLICATION SAYS THAT HE LOVES THE APPEARANCE AND THE PRIVACY AND PROTECTION FROM THE ELEMENTS. THAT IT OFFERS HIM.

AND I THINK -- LET ME SHOW YOU SOME SPECIFIC PHOTOS BECAUSE A LOT OF US HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO GET BACK THERE AND SEE EXACTLY WHAT EVERYTHING LOOKS LIKE.

I HAVE SOME PICTURES HERE. THIS IS A PICTURE OF THE FIREPLACE FROM THE BACK OF THE HOUSE, THE HOUSE IS TEN FEET FROM THE BEGINNING OF THAT FIREPLACE.

AND 15 FEET FROM THE FAR END.

AND THE BUILDING RESTRICTION LINES MAY BE A FOOT IN FRONT OF THE BACK OF THE HOUSE. IT'S ABOUT -- IT BEGAN ABOUT NINE FEET FROM THE BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE.

HERE'S A PICTURE OF WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE FROM THE OTHER SIDE FROM BEHIND THE FIREPLACE SO YOU CAN SEE WHERE IT IS. IT'S LOCATED ON THE SOUTH PART OF THE PROPERTY. IN OTHER WORDS, RIGHT NEXT TO 509. THE PERSON WHO HAS PUT IN THE COMMENT IN FAVOR OF THE FIREPLACE, IS REALLY THE ONLY PERSON THAT HAS ANY KIND OF DIRECT IMPACT FROM THE FIREPLACE. YOU CAN'T VIEW THE FIREPLACE FROM THE STREET UNLESS YOU WERE GOING TO I GUESS IF YOU WALKED IN BETWEEN THE HOUSES YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO SEE THE EDGE OF IT. FROM THE BEACH.

OF COURSE, YOU CAN SEE THE FIREPLACE.

[01:05:01]

AND I ALSO WOULD OFFER AS AN ADDITIONAL CONDITION THAT IT MAKES MATERIAL DIFFERENCE WE WOULD ADD SCREENING TO -- IN FRONT OF THE FIREPLACE. IN OTHER WORDS WE PUT TREES THAT WOULD VIRTUALLY ELIMINATE THE FIREPLACE FROM PLANE VIEW. FROM THE OCEAN WOULDN'T BE VERY DIFFICULT TO DO IT ALL AS A MATTER OF FACT.

IT MIGHT BE QUITE ATTRACTIVE.

THIS WILL GIVE YOU AN INDICATION OF WHAT THE VIEW IS FROM PIE NEIGHBOR. THIS IS FROM MY NEIGHBOR'S PORCH. YOU CAN SEE EL THIS THE EVEN TILTED LOOKING -- LOOKING TO THE NORTH AND YOU CAN'T EVEN SEE THE FIREPLACE IN THERE. THAT'S THE TREE THAT'S NEAR.

AND THEN I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF MORE PICTURES TO SHOW YOU HERE AS IT TILTS. AS I TILT THE ANGLE OF THE CAMERA FURTHER NORTH. THESE ARE ALL FROM HIS PORCH. WHICH IS KIND ENOUGH TO LET ME SIT UPON. I ASKED FOR PERMISSION.

WE COULD PUT IN SOME PALMS WITH MORE BROAD BRANCHES.

IF IT'S A CONCERN, THE VIEW FROM THE OCEAN, I THINK WE COULD VIRTUALLY OBSCURE OR SCREEN THAT VIEW AS PELL.

WE WOULD MAKE THAT AS 7TH CONDITION.

THERE WERE FIVE CONDITIONS THAT WERE IN MR. SMITH'S REPORT. WE WOULD ADD THAT WE WOULD REMOVE THAT SPARK ARRESTER AND WE WOULD ADD WE WOULD BE HAPPY THE PROVIDE AMPLE COVERAGE FOR THE FIREPLACE.

I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE REASON FOR THE OUTDOOR FIREPLACE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

WHEN WE THOUGHT ABOUT BUILDING THE HOME PCHLT THOUGHT CONVENTIONAL FIREPLACE WITH THE CHIMNEY, ET CETERA. AND WHEN WE MET WITH THE PROFESSIONALS IT BECOME CLEAR TO US EARLY ON THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE ABSOLUTELY PARAMOUNT AT THIS LOCATION ON THE BEACH WITH THE NOR'EASTER, THAT ARE SUBJECT WITH THE RAIN COMING SIDEWAYS.

THAT THE HOUSE WOULD BE COMPLETELY WATER SEALED AS MUCH AS IS POSSIBLE. THINKING ABOUT EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE POINT OF INTRUSION. EVEN THOUGH WE LIVED IN PONTE VEDRA FOR 30 YEARS WE LIVED IN A LITTLE BIT IN SAWGRASS. DIDN'T QUITE HAVE THAT SAME EXPOSURE. THAT -- IT BECOME OBVIOUS TO IT WAS NOT PRUDENT IN OUR OPINION IN VIEW OF WHAT OKNOW AND THE WATER SEALING TO CUT A HOLE IN OUR ROOF AND CREATE A POSSIBLE SOURCE OF LEAKING FOR US.

THAT WAS WHEN THE IDEA OF HAVING THE OUTDOOR FIREPLAE PUTTING IT CLOSE TO CORNER. WE HAD GAS FIREPLACE WITH NO CUT ON THE ROOF. LOCATION OF THE FIREPLACE DESIGNED TO BE THE LEAST INDRESSIVE POSSIBLE PLACE WITH CONJUNCTION WITH CONSULTING WITH OUR NEIGHBOR. HE FOUND IT DESIRABLE.

NOW ONLY WHERE WE TRYING TO AVOID THE LEAKAGE.

WE ALSO PLACED IT THERE RATHER THAN FURTHER IN THE

[01:10:04]

PROPERTY BECAUSE THE LOT -- THE LOT IS OBVIOUSLY AMPLE. IT'S 100 FEET WIDE.

IF YOU WILL BUILD THE BIG BIG BIGGEST DECENT SIZE HOUSE.

JUST UNDER 6,000 SQUARE FEET YOU NEED TO BUILD BACK TO THE BUILDING LINE, LITERALLY IF WE PUT THIS FIREPLACE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BUILDING LINE, YOU WOULD HAVE TO KNOCK OUT BETWEEN THE TWO STORIES AND THE CUT A GOOD AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE AND UNFORTUNATELY, WE NEVER EVEN GOT TO MAKE THAT DECISION.

BECAUSE WE DIDN'T KNOW WE HAD AN ISSUE AS WELL.

THAT'S THE GENESIS OF LOCATION AND THE FIREPLACE ITSELF. HE THOUGHT IT WOULD ADD SOME AMOUNT OF PROTECTION ON THAT SIDE OF THE HOUSE.

WE BUILT A SCREEN ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE HOUSE TO PROTECT THAT FROM GETTING STRAIGHT ACROSS.

THAT WAS ANOTHER ONE OF OUR GOALS.

I THINK THAT YOU CAN SEE IT WILL BE LAST ONE OVER HERE.

THAT'S THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.

THAT'S 505. AND THOSE ARE THE SHRUBS THAT WE HAVE IN THOSE ARE THE SHRUBS ALONG THE WALL THAT HAVE BEEN THERE FOR NOW 1 1/2.

THEY DON'T HAVE PROTECTION FROM THE ELEMENTS.

YOU CAN SEE WHAT KIND OF GROWTH YOU HAVE.

AND THEN HERE IS RIGHT BEHIND THE FIREPLACE BETWEEN 507 AND 509. AND YOU CAN SEE THE RADICAL DIFFERENCE IN THE AMOUNT OF PROTECTION FROM THE ELEMENTS THAT FIREPLACE BLOCKING WIND AND RAIN, ET CETERA, PROVIDES. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE ZONING RULE ARE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT.

AND WE CAN'T GO AROUND YOU KNOW VIOLATING THE RULES AND HAVING VARIANCES ON EVERY LITTLE THING THAT PEOPLE WANT. BUT I THINK IT'S INTERESTING WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS PARTICULAR VARIANCE REQUEST AND NARROWNESS OF IT. YOU LOOK AT WHAT THE SECTION 8-L-1 EXPRESSLY PERMIT. STRUCTURINGS SUCH AS DETACHED GUEST HOUSES, GARAGES, STORAGE BUILDINGS, GAZEBOS. THESE THINGS ARE NOT LIKE THIS FIREPLACE. THEN LATER ON IT SAYS THESE STRUCTURES ARE OKAY TO BE HIGHER THAN THREE FEET.

SWING SETS, FLAG POLES. POOL SLIDES.

I THINK YOU SHOULD GET COMFORT IN KNOWING THAT THIS PARTICULAR THING THAT WE ASK FOR A VARIANCE ON IS NOT ON THE LAUNDRIE LIST OF SOMETHINGS THAT WE'RE LOOKING PROTECT AND I WOULD SAY IT'S MORE LIKE THE LIST OF THINGS THAT ARE PERMITTED TO BE ABOVE THREE FEET.

IN ANY EVENT, I THINK THAT YOU CAN COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THIS REQUESTED VARIANCE IS A SMALL INTRUSION, COMPARED TO THIS LAUNDRIE LIST OF THINGS. I WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESSLY OFFER IN ADDITION TO AGREEING TO FIVE SUGGESTED CONDITIONS, THAT WERE IN MR. SMITH'S REPORT, THAT WE WOULD ADD THAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO SCREEN THE VIEW FROM THE OCEAN WITH AMPLE SCREENAGE.

I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT JUST PUTTING UP ONE LITTLE SKINNY PALM TREE. I'M TALKING ABOUT GOING OVER AND SEEING WHAT I NEED PUT THERE SUCH THAT YOU PROBABLY

[01:15:03]

CAN'T SEE THE FIRE POLICE AT ALL YOU WOULD HAVE TO STRIEN TO BE ABLE TO FIND. AND REMOVE THE TOP SPARK ARRESTER AND AS THE THIRD CONDITION WE WOULD REFRAIN IN ANY NIGHT TIME USE DURING TURTLE SEASON.

DURING THE ENTIRE TURTLE SEASON WE WOULD AGREE NOT TO FIREPLACE OVER DARK. FRANKLY PROBABLY DURING DO IT DURING THE DAY. I CAN'T IMAGINE WHY YOU WAND TO BUILD A FIRE DURING THE SUMMER DURING THE DAY.

WE WOULD OFFER THOSE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS AS THE FURTHER COMPROMISE. THAT'S IT.

>> QUESTIONS? >> YOU WANT TO GO FIRST OR

ME? >> I WILL GO FIRST.

I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. I'M LOOKING AT THE AERIAL VIEW OF THE BACK DECK AND THE FIREPLACE AND WHERE THE FIREPLACE SITS. IF IT NEEDED TO BE, COULD THE FIREPLACE BE MOVED TOWARD THE POOL THREE FEET TO BE IN COMPLIANCE. UNFORTUNATELY IT'S INTEGRATED WITH THE BACK OF THE DECK SUCH THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO DESTROY THE EXISTING ONE AND REBUILD.

>> I COULD BE MOVED, THOUGH, WITHOUT DAMAGING THE HOUSE.

IT WOULD BE THE POOL DECKS; RIGHT?

>> EXPENSIVE PROPOSITION BUT IT COULD BE MOVED.

>> I GUESS IT'S A BEAUTIFUL FIREPLACE.

I SEE YOU WHY YOU LOVE IT. IT'S PLACEMENT MORE THAN THE FIREPLACE IN TERMS OF THE TURTLE NIGHTS.

DOESN'T THE SPARK ARRESTER HELP NOT START FIRING.

CONTAINED THE SPARK? >> I WOULD LIKE TO SCHEME

THE SPARK ARRESTER. >> IF YOU WANTED ME TO KNOCK

A TFOOT OFF OF IT. >> YOU KNOW, I SEE TWO ISSUES AND I DO HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION FOR YOU.

AFTER I SAY TWO ISSUES. WE'VE HAD OTHER RESIDENT DID THINGS CONTRARY TO THE CODE AND THE COUNTY MAY THEM TEAR THEM OUT. AND COMPLY WITH THE CODE.

THAT WOULDN'T BE THE FIRST TIME THAT THIS HAPPENED.

WE ALSO HAVE A WORKSHOP COMING UP ON WEDNESDAY.

WHERE I BELIEVE THERE'S A CONSIDERATION OF BUILDING THREE FEET INTO THE BUILDING SET BACK; RIGHT? ISN'T THAT ONE OF THE CONDITIONS TO ALLOW 3 AND A HALF FEET INSTEAD OF BUILDING TEN FEET FROM THE

PROPERTY LINE? >> NO.

I I DON'T THINK SO.

>> IT'S A SIDE VIOLATION AND REAR VIOLATION.

>> WE'RE LOOKING AT SIDES. THEN I DON'T HAVE A QUESTION. I WAS GOING ASK YOU IF YOU WANTED TO WITHDRAWAL THE MOTION UNTIL THAT WHOLE ISSUE IS DECIDED. BECAUSE THEN IT WOULD BE A VIOLATION I WITHDRAWAL THAT. THANK YOU FOR THE ESPECIALLY CAN THIRD FLOOR RAILING YOU HAVE ON THE TOP AND SEEMS LIKE YOU DEFINITELY CREATE IT.

IN YOUR HOME. AND THAT'S NOT TO BE A NEGATIVE OR A POSITIVE. JUST AN OBSERVATION.

IT'S INTERESTING THAT -- WHEN YOU LOOK DOWN THE BOULEVARD YOU SEE FIREPLACES PROBABLY 2-3 IN SOME OF THE BIGGER HOMES, AND WERE YOU TELLING ME THAT YOUR BUILDER DOES NOT PUT INTERIOR FIREPLACES

BECAUSE -- >> NO, SIR.

I SAID THAT IT WASN'T RECOMMENDED IN VIEW OF THE LEAKAGE ISSUE. I WOULD ALSO ADMIT THAT, THAT WAS PROBABLY EXACERBATED BY MY WIFE AND MYSELF BOTH SAYING, WHATEVER WE NEED TO DO TO MAKE SURE

[01:20:01]

THIS HOUSE DOESN'T LEAK, LET'S DO IT.

LET'S SPEND EXTRA MONEY DOING YOU KNOW THREE TIMES OVER WATER PROTECTION BECAUSE WHEN WE BUILD IT, IT'S SO MUCH EASIER TO BUILD IT TO NOT LEAK THAN TO FIGURE OUT LATER ON WHAT IS THE COURT OF THE LEAKAGE.

WE WOULD HAVE PUSHED THEM IN THAT DIRECTION.

HE WOULD HAVE BUILT IT. I'VE BEEN IN THE BUILDING INDUSTRY FOR 45 YEARS. AND HONESTLY HAVE NEVER HEARD OF A WOOD FIREPLACE LEAKING BUT NOT A GAS FIREPLACE. THEY BOTH HAVE TO USE THE FLU. I UNDERSTAND YOU CAN HAVE

GAGS BUT NOT WOOD BURNING. >> THE GAS ONE DOESN'T HAVE A FLU. IT'S REALLY MORE OF LIKE -- IT'S REALLY JUST KIND OF A DECORATIVE THINGS YOU TURN IT ON AND YOU'VE GOT THE FLAME IN IT.

IT LOOKS SCHOOL. THE POINT I'M MAKING I DIDN'T FIND ANYTHING REALLY CONVINCING IN THIS STATEMENT BY GAMEL CONSTRUCTION AS REGARDS TO FIREPLACE LEAKINGS. WE ALL HAVE FIREPLACES.

I HAVEN'T HEARD THAT BEING A PROBLEM.

YOU TALKED ABOUT YOUR NEIGHBORS.

TO YOU HAVE NEIGHBORS THAT HAVE OPPOSED THIS FIREPLACE?

>> NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF. MY NEIGHBOR SENT DETAILED SUPPORTED. 505 DOESN'TLY THERE OFTEN.

I DON'T HAVE CONTACT WITH THEM OFTEN.

503 SAID THEY THINK THE FIREPLACE IS BEAUTIFUL.

511 IS A RENTAL PLACE. 513 UNDER CONSTRUCTION.

>> ALL RIGHT. SO WOULDN'T YOU SAY THERE'S A POSSIBILITY THAT OTHER PEOPLE ALONG THE BOULEVARD WOULD LAKE TO HAVE SUCH FIREPLACE?

>> I WOULD NOT KNOW. IT'S CERTAINLY POSSIBLE.

SEEING THE VALUE OF THE HOME, AND THE SIZE OF THE HOMES, I WOULD THINK THAT WOULD BECOME A VERY POPULAR THING TO HAVE IF IT WAS GIVEN TO ONE HOME.

AND THEN YOU POSSIBLY GET THE OUTDOOR KITCHENS AND EVERYTHING ELSE. THE OTHER CONCERN I HAVE THE THERE A COUNTY GUIDELINES FOR OUTDOOR FIREPLACES? YOU'RE TELLING ME THERE'S THREE-FOOT RESTRICTION FOR THE HEIGHTH. WHICH IS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FIRE SAFETY. JUST HAS TO DO WITH THE APPEARANCE. THAT'S FOR YOU CAN HAVE SOMETHING ONLY THREE FEET HIGH.

OUTSIDE THE BUILDING STATION LINE.

IT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE FIREPLACE.

>> OKAY. >> ALL RIGHT.

>> AND I'M ASSUMING YOU HAVE A FIRE SPARK ARRESTER ON THE TOP. THAT PROBABLIES SOME TYPE OF CODE. ACE I HEAR YOU TALK MORE AND MORE ABOUT MORE ABOUT MORE PLANTS AND EVERYTHING, TO ME IT SEEMED TO BUILDING MORE OF THE CASE THIS WOULD BE A FIRE HAZARD. YOU SAID YOU WOULD PUT A SCREEN IN THE FRONT. BUT WIND COME BLOWING IN.

MAYBE THERE'S NO RAIN. THEN WITH HAVE UNEXPECT HIGH WIND. IT WOULD BE SURPRISED IF THE COUNTY WOULD ALLOW HOMEOWNERS TO NOW HAVE OUTDOOR FIREPLACES. I DON'T THINK THERE'S RESTRICTION ON PLACE. HAVING OUTDOOR FIRE PIT OR OUTDIRE BARBECUE. ALONG AS IT'S WITHIN THE

VARIANCE. >> AS LONG AS IT'S WITHIN THE VARIANT. THE RESTRICTION IS THE FACT THAT IN THAT AREA YOU CAN ONLY HAVE SOMETHING OVER THREE FEET TALL. NOT MORE THAN THREE FEET TALL. FOUR? PATIOS, DECKS, HIGHER THAN THREE FEET ABOVE THE GRADE.

YOU CAN FOUR FOOT FENCE BUT NOTHING MORE THAN THREE-FOOT STRUCTURE. YOU HAVE FIRE PIT OR YOU HAVE FIREPLACE ONLY THREE FEET TALL.

[01:25:03]

MY QUESTION IS, IS THIS CLASSIFIED INCIDENTAL STRUCTURE? YES THE PHRASE SIMILAR INCIDENTAL STRUCTURES, VERY VAGUE.

THERE IS AND I HAVE IT HERE ON MY STAFF REPORT ON PAGE 6 THERE'S A LITTLE AWKWARDNESS WITH LOCATIONS EXCEPTIONS WHICH INCLUDE HEAT AIR AND POOL EQUIPMENT.

OBVIOUSLY NOT INTENDED TO BE FIREPLACES IN MY MIND.

IT'S LABELLED THERE. THAT SORT OF TALKS TO THE SIDE YARD LOCATION. HEAT AIR AND POOL EQUIPMENT

ARE ALLOWED TO BE HALFWAY. >> WE HAD A DISCUSSION PROBABLY TWO YEARS AGO TO HAVE POOL EQUIPMENT LOCATIONED IN THE BUILDING RESTRICTION AREA AND I THINK WE DETERMINE AS LONG AS IT WASN'T ENCLOSED WITH THE ROOF OVER IT, IT WAS ILLEGAL.

YOU CAN HAVE HEATING EQUIPMENT AND FIREPLACES NOT HEATING. YU'RE RIGHT.

IT'S VAGUE. >> THAT REFERENCE IS LIKE YOUR HEAT PUMPS, YOUR AIR CONDITIONERS AND THAT WHAT THEY WANT TO PUT YOUR SINK BETWEEN BUILDINGS.

>> I CONCUR. NONETHELESS IT DOES SAY HEAT

EQUIPMENT. >> SOMEONE PUT A FIREPLACE BETWEEN THEIR HOUSE AND ANOTHER HOUSE.

>> THAT'S ALL I REALLY HAD. I JUST DIDN'T SEE A HARDSHIP IN, IN WAY AND I SAW MORE OF A CONCERN FOR SAFETY AND SETTING PRECEDENTS THAT ALL YOUR NEIGHBORHOODS WILL HAVE OUTDOOR FIREPLACE. GIVEN YOU KNOW, THE COMMUNITY, NICE EASY THING FOR PEOPLE TO DO.

I'M NOT SURE WE WANT TO HAVE THAT LOOK WHEN WE COME THROUGH THE CROSSWALKS AND SEE A BUNCH OF CHIMNEY STACKS STICKING UP BEHIND THE BACK OF PEOPLE'S HOMES.

THAT'S MY ONLY PROBLEM WITH IT.

>> OKAY. >> I JUST WANTED TO SAY I DO HAVE FRIENDS THATLY ON THE BOULEVARD THAT DO HAVE FIREPLACES, BUT THEY ARE WITHIN BUILDING CODE OF THREE-FEET HIGH. YOU DON'T HAVE CHIMNEY STACK. THEY DO HAVE THEM AND THEY

ARE COMPLIANT. >> LOOKS LIKE YOU HAVE A

QUESTION? >> I DO, THANK YOU.

APPLICANT, THE CONSTRUCTION LETTER THAT SHE GAVE US FROMMENT EX- -- WHAT'S THE DAYLIGHT ON THE BOTTOM OF

THAT? >> IT'S THIS LAST WEEK.

THAT HE GAVE THAT LETTER. DID HE REVERES THE YEAR?

WONDERING WHY IT WAS 2012? >> YOU READ IT MORE CLOSELY

THAN ID IT. >> I'M GLAD I DIDN'T SEE THAT. I WOULD HAVE PANICKED.

>> ON THE APPROVED CLEARS SHEET JACON HIGHLIGHTED THAT THE STRUCTURE OF THE OWNED H OWNED OF POOL IT'S NOT JUST

LABELS; IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES, SIR.

>> YES, ITS. FRANK AND I THINK CAN

MR. CAMPBELL CONFIRMED THAT. >> THANK YOU.

I HAVE A QUESTION. AS FAR AS THE ERROR GOES AND BEING LOCATED IN THE SET BACK AREA.

WAS IT THE ARCHITECT OR THE CONTRACTOR? HOW DOES THIS THING GET DEVE

DEVELOPED TO A FIREPLACE. >>

>> ON THE ORIGINAL PLAN THAT BLOCK THING THERE INTENDED TO BE THE FIREPLACE. I'M NOT FOR A SECOND SAYING THIS WAS ADEQUATELY DISCLOSED AND THEREFORE YOU KNOW THAT I THINK IT'S JUST A PARENT THAT THIS OBTAINS AN AFTERTHOUGHT. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE FOR SOMEONE TO SAY, WHAT ARE YOU EXACTLY DOING THERE IF IT THERE COULD BE AN ISSUE WITH IT.

THE GENESIS OF THE LOCATION PRIOR TO THIS DRAWING, WAS YOU KNOW A MEETING WITH TOGETHER.ND THE ARCHITECT - LET'S BE TIGHT AS WE REGARD TO LEAKAGE.

I WILL DO DOUBLE WRAPS HERE AND EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD TO DO IT SFLOOER. I'M GLAD WE WERE VERY

[01:30:11]

CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. AND SO WE DECIDED TO PUT IT AS CLOSE TO THE HOME AS WE COULD.

RIGHT THERE. AND THAT'S WHY IT'S DRAWN THERE. THAT'S BASICALLY THE EXACT

LOCATION WHERE IT ENDED UP. >> AGAIN YOU WENT FROM THE SEATING AREA TO FIREPLACE TO DID THE THING JUST -- LET'S

DO THIS AND THAT? >> YOU HAVE FIREPLACE WITHOUT A CHIMNEY. THE SEATING AREA ORIGINALLY THOUGHT WE WOULD PUT IN PERMANENT SEATING AREA.

THEN WE DECIDED LET'S JUST BUY SOME CHAIRS.

THAT'S WHAT AERIAL, I THINK THAT MR. SMITH SENT AROUND.

THERE'S A GOOD AERIAL THAT SHOWS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.

LET ME PUT THAT UP. >> THIS TOP PICTURE UP HERE.

>> QUESTION FOR STAFF. IF THIS FIREPLACE WERE THREE FEET TALL, WOULD IT STILL BE IN VIOLATION?

>> I WOULD NOT BE, SIR. >> EVEN THOUGH IT'S

LOCATED -- >> AGAIN, IN THAT STAND WOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE WHICH WOULD BE FOR THE REAR AND SIDE

YARD. >> THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT.

THANK YOU. HI.

ONE OF THE INTERESTING THINGS ABOUT YOUR HOUSE IS THAT I WAS I WALK PAST IT FREQUENTLY WHEN I TAKE MY DOG TO THE BEACH. PEOPLE GENERALLY KNOW I'M ON THE ZONING BOARD. DURING THE CONSTRUCTION THIS FOR PURPOSE OF DISCLOSURE PEOPLE ARE COMPLAINING IT LOOKED LIKE IT HAD THREE STORIES.

AND AT THE TIME I ACTUALLY CALLED BEVERLY FRAGSER AND I'M WE ARE NOT ALLOWING A THREE STORY HOUSE TO BE BE BUILD HERE. IT'S NOT THREE STORIES.

THAT'S POINT NUMBER ONE. POINT NUMBER 2 IS I DID HAVE ALSO PEOPLE COMMENT TO ME ABOUT THE FIREPLACE.

WHY IS THERE A FIREPLACE THERE? AGAIN, THINKING IT SHOULD IMMEDIATELY DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE FIREPLACE. I DID -- WHEN PREPARE FOR THE MEETING I TYPICALLY GO ON TO PROPERTY APPRAISER'S WEB SITE AND LOOK AT THEIR PICTURES AND DIMENSIONS.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I SAW ON THAT WEB SITE WAS THAT THEY TAXING FOR UPPER THIRD STORY.

WE'RE ONLY SUPPOSED TO HAVE TWO STORIES AND THERE'S FINISH UPPER FLOOR WHICH BEVERLY AT ONE POINT SAID ITS NOT GOING TO BE FINISH, I WOULD HAVE EQUIPMENT IN IT. THEN I GO TO LOOK AT THE FIREPLACE ISSUE. I HAVE SOMEWHAT OF THE BIAS NOW. BECAUSE OF THE THIRD FLOOR VIOLATION. I ALSO WANT TO SAY THAT I KNOW THAT WHEN YOU BUILDING THE WALL, ON THE NORTH SIDE OF YOUR PROPERTY, THAT ONE TIME IT WAS BEING BUILT HIGHER THAN FOUR FEAT. I WALK BY WITH MY DOG.

I SEE THE CONCRETE BLOCKS GOING UP.

I TOLD THE GUY LOOK. I THINK YOU SHOULD TALK TO THE CONTRACTOR AND TALK TO THE COUNTY HOW HIGH THAT WALL COULD BE. THERE JUST SEEMS TO BE PATTERN HERE. SORT OF PUSHING THE ENVELOPE. WITH RESPECT TO THE BUILDING. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. BUT I WANTED TO BE CANDID WITH YOU AND LET YOU KNOW WHAT MY VIEWPOINTS ARE AT THIS TIME. YOU COULD CONVERT THIS INTO A FIREPLACE OF LOWER FEATURE AND FIRE PIT AND THEN YOU

[01:35:02]

COULD KEEP IT AS OUTDOOR YOU KNOW THAT'S WHEN THEY P ITS UNOBSTRUCTED BY OUTDOOR FIRE MACES.

>> LET ME RESPOND TO SOME OF THOSE COMMENTS.

FIRST OF ALL THERE'S NOT A THIRD FLOOR ON THE HOME.

THE PLANS WERE WORKED THROUGH VERY CLOSELY WITH BEVERLY. THERE'S A BALCONY ON THE THIRD FLOOR. WHICH IS PERMITTED.

AND IN CONJUNCTION -- IN THE SAME SPIRIT OF PLENTY OF OTHER WIDOWS, WALKS AND OTHERS ON THE ROOF TIGHT VIEWS. THERE WAS A WALKWAY FROM THE ELEVATOR TO THE BALCONY. THERE'S NO FINISHED ROOM OR ANYTHING. THE HOUSES BUILT TO LAST FOREVER. WE PLAN TO LIVE THERE UNTIL WE LIVE NO MORE. NERS

>> THERE'S AN ELEVATOR TO ACCESS.

LOOKS I THINK THEY HAVE A THIRD FLOOR.

ST. JOHNS COUNTY SENT SOMEONE RIGHT.

THE INSPECTOR IN ONE PURPOSE GOING UP THERE AND SEE IF THEY BUILT A THIRD FLOOR. AND THE ANSWER WAS NO THEY DIDN'T. THEY BUILD IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANS. IF THE PROMPT APPRAISER IS APPRAISING US FOR THIRD FLOOR, I SHOULD GET THAT REAPRAISED. I WOULD APPRECIATE YOU LETTING ME EL KNOW ABOUT THAT.

AS FAR AS THE WALL GOES, I WAS TOLD OUR EXISTING WALL WHICH OVER THERE WAS OVER FOUR FEET.

WOULD BE GRANDFATHERED THEN I GOT THE FEEDBACK PROBABLY FROM YOU, THAT IT NEEDED TO COMPLY ON FOUR FEET.

BUTTIST TOLD IT WOULD LIKE. TEAR IT DOWN BUILD TO FOUR FEET. THAT'S WHAT WE DID.

WE HAD IT UP FOUR TWO DAYS OR FIVE DAYS OR A WEEK.

AT THE HEIGHT THAT WAS OVER FOUR AND THEN NOT A SMALL EXPENSE. I IMMEDIATELY TORE IT DOWN.

I WOULD DISAGREE WITH ANY SUGGESTION OF LAST OF VERACITY. THIS CLEARANCE SHEET PROVES AS WELL AS MR. GAPPEL, AS WELL AS MY COMMENTS THAT WE INTENDED FROM THE BEGINNING HAVE THIS OUTDOOR FIREPLACE IN IT'S CURRENT LOCATION. THANKS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY

TO RESPOND. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> ANY PUBLIC COMMENT? >> IN DISCUSSION AMONGST THE

BOARD MEMBERS? >> DO I HEAR THE MOTION?

>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO DENY PVZVAR2021-12 PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD REQUEST FOR ZONING VARIANCE TO SECTION 8-11 TO ALLOW FOR EXISTING FIREPLACE TO BE LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE BASED ON FOUR FINDINGS OF FACT.

>> MAY I INTERRUPT JUST O SECOND.

AND MAKE A NEW REQUEST? I WOULD REDUCE THE TAKE OFF THE FLU, AND UPWARD THAT THE MANUFACTURER INFORMED US THAT THE FIREPLACE IS PERFECTLY COMPLIANT.

IF IT HAS JUST THE FIRE BOX AND THE RAYS MIRANDA.

I BASICALLY CUT IT DOWN TO 5 AND A HALF FEET AS COMPROMISE AS WELL AS THE OTHER COMPROMISE I PROPOSED.

>> CAN YOU PUT YOUR DRAWING BACK UP.

>> IT WOULD BE 3 FEET. >> 5 AND A HALF TOTAL.

>> I WOULD TAKE THE FLU AND THE SPARK ARRESTER OFF.

WHAT YOU MAKE IT 3 AND THE QUARTER FEET.

AND JUST HAVE THE FIRE BOX. >> THAT'S BETTER THAN

TEARING IT DOWN. >> YES.

>> I'M WILLING TO DO THAT. >> YOUR WILLING TO DO THAT AND ASK FOR VARIANCE OF THREE FEET, THREE-QUARTER INCH SO YOU CAN KEEP YOUR FIRE BOX?

>> IT'S ONLY THREE-QUARTERS. >> HE KEEPS THE FIRE BOX,

[01:40:06]

LOSE THE EXTENDED. USE THE FLU AND THE SPARK ARRESTER. COULD I AMEND MY MOTION NOW.

>> YOU CAN WITHDRAWAL IT. >> I WITHDRAWAL MY MOTION.

>> DO YOU WANT ME TO MAKE A NEW ONE?

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE PVZAR2020-12507 PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD WITH THE AMENDMENT THAT WE ONLY APPROVE 3 QUARTER INCH VARIANCE TO THE EXISTING

STRUCTURE. >> THAT THE STRUCTURE WOULD BE 3 AND THREE-QUARTER FEET TALL.

THREE QUARTERS OF THE FOOT. THE STRUCTURE WOULD BE THREE

FEET 3/4 OF A FOOT TALL. >>

>> STIPULATE THE REMOVAL OF THE RAISED HEARD AND FLU AND

SPARK BOX. >> YES.

>> DO I HEAR A SECOND. >> SECOND.

>> OKAY. DOES EVERYONE UNDERSTAND WHAT WE ARE DOING? BUT THE DRAWING BACK UP.

WE'RE JUST ADDING THREE-QUARTERS OF AN INCH.

>> THREE-QUARTERS OF A FOOT. >> THE FIRE BOX POINT TO THE FIRE BOX. THE TOP OF THE FIRE BOX WILL REMAIN. THE EXTENDED RAISED HEARD WOULD BE TAKEN DOWN. 3-FOOT FLU WOULD BE TAKEN DOWN AND THE SPARK ARREST WOULD BE TAKEN DOWN.

YOU HAVE EFFECTIVE I WILL ALMOST CALL IT A FIRE PIT

WITH A LITTLE COVER ON IT. >> THAT'S WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE. YEAH.

>> OKAY. FROM THE STREET IT WOULD BE BARELY VISIBLE. FROM THE BEACH BARELY VISIBLE. I THINK YOUR INVESTIGATION ABOUT PUTTING ADDITIONAL VEGETATION WOULDN'T BE NEEDED. THAT'S THE COMPROMISE THAT THIS THING ALMOST DOWN TO THREE FEET HEIGHT BUT IT'S

STAYING WHERE IT IS AT. >> IS HE GOING TO NEED SOME SORT OF LIP ABOVE THAT FOR CHIMNEY FLU WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT. IF IT'S COMING OUT FLAT -- I DON'T KNOW. AGAIN I ALMOST PICTURE A FIRE PIT WITH A THREE SIDES ON IT AND A LITTLE BIT OF THE TOP ON IT. I WOULD LOOK ATTRACTIVE.

DOESN'T HAVE REMOVE THE FIRE BOX ITSELF.

AND MAE HAVE A MINOR PROBLEM.

>> THIS WAY WE KEEPS WHERE IT AT.

COMPROMISE. THE FACT THAT HE -- GETS

SAVE HIS PATIO. >> I THINK IT'S A GOOD COMPROMISE. DO WE HAVE A SECOND.

>> I THINK MEGAN SECONDED. >> I MISSED THAT.

ANY MORE DISCUSSION? >> CAN I MAKE FURTHER COMMENT? IF YOU JUST PUT HEAVY DUTY GRILL ABOVE THERE YOU COULD THEN BE COOKING WHOLE HOGS ON THERE. THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT A WHOLE HOG FIREPLACE LOOKS LIKE.

>> THAT'S NOT PART OF THE MOTION.

>> I THINK WE'RE READY TO VOTE.

>> YOU'RE REVISED SUGGESTIONS THAT BEEN APPROVED. CONGRATULATIONS.

VERY WELL DONE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I APPRECIATE YOU'RE TIME. I THINK YOU PROVIDED SOME PHOTOS IN YOUR PRESENTATION. IF YOU COULD MAKE THOSE PART OF THE FILE, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT.

IF YOU HAD ONE OF YOUR PHONE IF YOU COULD E-MAIL TO

[Open discussion amongst the Board. Topics to include, but not limited to, best board practices, PVZAB's relationship with the BCC, and the need for new board members.]

JACOB. THAT WILL JUST BE PART OF

THE RECORD. >> THE ONE ON THE PHONE IS UPLOADED ALREADY AND I WILL SEND IT -- IS IT OKAY IF I

E-MAIL ALL THESE? >> THEY COULD BE EMAILED.

>> OKAY. THAT COMPLETES THE THREE AGENDA ITEMS. NEXT ITEM ON THE OUR AGENDA IS KIND OF OPEN DISCUSSION AMONGST THE BOARD MEMBERS.

AND AT THE END OF THIS. I WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THE COMMUNITY WORKSHOP ON WEDNESDAY.

YOU KNOW IT'S ALMOST SUPPLEMENTAL THING.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CAME UP IS THE ISSUES THAT WE

[01:45:02]

HAVE MADE RECOMMENDATIONS WE'VE JUST APPROVED VARIANCES AND THEY HAVE GONE TO COUNTY COMMISSION AND THEY HAVE NOT GONE THE WAY WE RECOMMENDED IT.

I WANT TO APPROVE DIRECT ACCESS.

IN THIS 6 AND A HALF YEARS THAT'S THE ONLY TIME THE COUNTY COMMISSIONER HAVE OVERTURNED US IN MY RECOLLECTION. IN THE LAST TWO MONTHS, THEY'VE OVERTURNED TWO RECOMMENDATION ON ZONING.

ON BOTH THE STORAGE FACILITY AND THE SLATER PROPERTY AND OVERTURNED ONE OF OUR DENIALS OF INVARIANCE ON 306 PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD. WE VOTED 7-0 TO DENY.