[Call meeting to order]
          [00:00:18]
          >>> HI, WE ARE GOING TO START THE MEETING. PLEASE STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. 
          . >> DR. HILSENBECK CAN YOU PLEASE 
          READ ARE THE PUBLIC STATEMENT. >> . 
          >> THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING HELD IN REQUIREMENTS FOR FLORIDA LAW. 
          THE PUBLIC WILL BE ALLOWED TO GIVE ON THE AGENCIES OF JURISDICTION AND GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO OFFER COMMENT AT A DESIGNATED TIME DURING THE HEARING. THE PUBLIC SHALL SPEAK AT A TIME DURING THE MEETING ON EACH ITEM FOR A LENGTH OF TIME AS DESIGNATED BY THE CHAIRMAN, THAT SHOULD BE THREE MINUTES, SPEAKERS SHOULD IDENTIFY THEMSELVES, WHO THEY REPRESENT AND STATE THE ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. SPEAKERS MAY OFFER SWORN TESTIMONY, IF THEY DO NOT, THE FACT THAT THE IT IS NOT SWORN MAY BE CONSIDERED BY THE AGENCY IN DETERMINING THE WEIGHT OR TRUTHFULNESS OF THE TESTIMONY. IF A PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE TO RESPECT WITH ANY MATTER AT THE HEARING SUCH PERSON WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND MAY NEED TO BE SURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING IS MADE AND IT INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND THE EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ANY PHYSICAL OR DOCUMENT EVIDENCE, PHOTOGRAPHS OR WRITTEN STATEMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE CLERK FOR INCLUSION IN THE RECORD. THE RECORD WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR OTHER BOARD AGENCY OR COUNTY IN REVIEW OF THE APPEAL RELATING TO THEM. AGENCY MEMBERS ARE REMINDED THAT AT THE BEGINNING OF EACH ITEM THEY SHOULD STATE IF THEY HAD ANY COMMUNICATION WITH THE APPLICANT OR ANY OTHER PERSON REGARDING THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ITEM OUTSIDE OF THE FORM OR HEARING OF THE AGENCY. IF SUCH COMMUNICATION HAS OCCURRED THE AGENCY MEMBER SHOULD IDENTIFY THE PERSONSINVOLVES AND THE MATERIAL CONTENT OF THE COMMUNICATION. CIVILITY CLAUSE. 
          WE WILL BE RESPECTFUL OF ONE ANOTHER EVEN WHEN WE DISAGREE. 
          WE WILL DIRECT ALL COMMENTS TO THE ISSUE. WE WILL AVOID 
          [PZA Meeting Minutes for Agency Approval: 09/04/25 and 09/18/25]
          PERSONAL ATTACKS. >> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU, DR. 
          HILSENBECK. >> WE HAVE MINUTES OF APPROVAL FROM SEPTEMBER 4TH AND 18TH, 2025. CAN I GET A MOTION? ALL RIGHT, A SECOND? ANY PROFESSION. NONE, ALL IN FAVOR? THE MOTION 
          [Public Comments]
PASSES. ON TO PUBLIC COMMENT, IS THERE ANYONE IN AUDIENCE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA ? 
          >> I WOULD THINK THAT I WOULD OF HOPED THAT AFTER 24 YEARS OF BEING A SURVIVOR THERE WOULD NOT BE A NEED TO STAND AT A PODIUM AND ASK OUR COMMUNITY'S ASSISTANCE, HOWEVER, HERE WE ARE. OCTOBER IS DESIGNATED AS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS NOT A ONE-MONTH EVENT. THIS MONSTER REARS ITS UGLY HEAD 24/7, 365. I WAS PROVIDED WITH STATISTICS FROM BETTY GRIFFIN CENTER REGARDING THE NUMBER OF CALLS THAT THEY RECEIVE. AND JUST SINCE JANUARY OF THIS YEAR THEY RECEIVED 1,503 CALLS FOR SERVICE ON THEIR HELP LINE. THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE NUMBER THAT HAVE BEEN RECEIVED THROUGH OUR SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT. COUNTLESS WOMAN AND CHILDREN'S LIVES ARE IN PARREL EVERY DAY AS A COMMUNITY WE NEED TO TAKE A STAND. HOW CAN YOU HELP? BY DONATING TO AND SHOPPING IN THE THRIFT STORES OR BECOMING A VICTIM'S ADVOCATE TO NAME A FEW. FIRST AND FOREMOST, DON'T STAND IN THE SHADOWS. HELP SPREAD THE INFORMATION ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND HOW THOSE IN CRISIS CAN OBTAIN ASSISTANCE. I CAN SPEAK ON THIS ALL DAY. 
          SINCE I AM LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES I WILL CLOSE BY STATING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU TO THOSE IN THE COMMUNITY WHO CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THE BETTY GRIFFIN CENTER. IT IS BECAUSE OF PROGRAMS LIKE THIS THAT I CAN ASSISTANT BEFORE YOU 
          [00:05:02]
TODAY. AND PLEASE REMEMBER THAT IT TAKES A COMMUNITY TO END DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, I ASK YOU TO CONSIDER THIS AND REMAIN PART OF THE SOLUTION. FINALLY, IF YOU OR SOMEONE YOU KNOW MAY BE IN CRISIS, PLEASE KNOW THE BETTY GRIFFIN CENTER HAS A 24-HOUR CONFIDENTIAL HOT LINE AVAILABLE. SOMEONE WILL ALWAYS BE ON THE OTHER END OF THE LINE TO LISTEN AND PROVIDE ASSISTANCE. 
          REMEMBER, YOU ARE NOT ALONE. THAT NUMBER IS 904-824-1555. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >> THANK YOU FOR SHARING. 
          [1. ZVAR 2025-18 4700 Avenue C. Request for a Zoning Variance to Section 6.01.03.E.3 of the Land Development Code to allow for a reduced second Front Yard setback of ten (10) feet in lieu of the required fifteen (15) feet for a Non-Confirming Lot of Record located in Residential, Single Family (RS-3) zoning]
          >> ANYONE ELSE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT? 
          >> ALL RIGHT. ON TO ITEM NUMBER 5. 
          >> MADAM CHAIR DID I SAY 1? I SAID 4? 
          >> I SAID 5? MADAM CHAIR, STAFF TOLD ME THEY DO NOT BELIEVE THE APPLICANT HAS 
          ARRIVED. >> OKAY. ARE YOU THE APPLICANT 
          FOR NUMBER 1? >> OKAY. GO AHEAD, SIR. WILL YOU 
          PLEASE COME FORWARD. >> WHILE HE IS GETTING READY 
          DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY EXPARTE. >> I VISITED THE SITE. 
          >> I VISITED THE SITE AS WELL. >> MR. OLSON? 
          >> MR. OLSON. >> I VISITED THE SITE ON THE 
          7TH. >> WE ARE TRYING TO GET A VARIANCE ON THE SECOND FRONT SET BACK FOR THE LOT THAT YOU GUYS SEE RIGHT HERE. THE WAY THE LOTS ARE, I GUESS WHEN THEY PLOTTED THEY WERE 50-FOOT LOTS, HAVING THE SET BACK, HAVING THE SECOND SET BACK AT 20 FEET RENDERS THE LOT NOT BUILDABLE. SO, WE WERE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE SECOND FRONT ALONG 5TH 
          STREET THERE. >> CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND 
          ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. >> IT IS RYAN DEGRANDE, -- YOU ARE REPRESENTING THE HOMEOWNER, CORRECT? 
          >> YES. WE PUNCHED IT. IT SHOULD BE IN THE LLC MARKER 83. I AM 
          THE OWNER OF THAT. >> YOU ARE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE BASED OFF OF THE DOUBLE FRONTAGE? 
          >> YES, MA'AM, JUST A DOUBLE FRONTAGE, YES, MA'AM. 
          >> DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? >> MRS. SPIEGEL. 
          >> I WAS OUT THERE, YOU OWN THE PROPERTY NEXT DOOR, TOO? IT IS 
          BEING RENOVATED. >> YES. THE GUY THAT WORKS FOR MY HIS MOM'S PLACE, WE WERE ABLE TO PURCHASE ALL OF THE 
          LOTS. >> ALL FOUR OF THE LOTS? 
          >> YES, MA'AM. >> MY THOUGHT WAS, I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW IT WOULD WORK BUT IN THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S WEBSITE IT IS ONE LOT INSTEAD OF THE TWO BROKEN LOTS 
          >> YES, IF THERE IS A WAY TO SCOOT IT BACK? 
          >> I DON'T KNOW. >> WE WENT THROUGH A BUNCH OF STUFF. WHAT WE CAME TO IS TO APPLY FOR THE VARIANCE. THE EXISTING HOME THAT IS THERE IS FORWARD QUITE TOWARDS IT. 
          >> YES, IT IS. >> I BELIEVE WE ASKED FOR A 10 FOOT SET BACK ON THE 5TH STREET SIDE. WE WOULD TRY TO PUSH THE HOUSE BACK TOWARDS THE OTHER SIDE OF THE LOT SO THAT I DON'T THINK IT WOULD APPEAR OUT OF PLACE OR OUT OF LINE. I BELIEVE IF I AM NOT MISTAKEN IT WOULD NOT SIT ANY FURTHER TOWARDS 5TH STREET THAN THE EXISTING HOUSE DOES. WE TALKED TO THE NEIGHBORS, THE BIG HOUSE WITH THE POOL IN THE BACK YOU CAN SEE, TOLD THEM WHAT THEY ARE DOING, THEY ARE CUTTING DOWN A TREE FOR THEM THERE, EVERYONE SEEMS TO BE ON BOARD WITH IT. I DON'T SEE WHERE IT WOULD BOTHER MUCH, WE NEED THE EXTRA COUPLE 
          OF FEET. >> I DO UNDERSTAND THAT. I THINK IT WOULD BE AN IMPROVEMENT FOR THE AREA. 
          >> YES. >> IT WAS REALLY ROUGH RIGHT THERE. THERE ARE PEOPLE STOPPING ALL DAY LONG THERE, THEY ARE EXCITED. ALL OF THE NEIGHBORS. WE ARE TRYING TO CLEAN IT UP. IT 
          WAS A MESS. >> AND THEN ARE YOU GOING TO BE BUILD ANOTHER HOUSE ON THE AVENUE B NEXT TO IT? 
          >> YES, MA'AM, WE HAVE A PERMIT FOR THAT ONE, THAT IS THE IDEA, 
          YES, MA'AM. >> FOUR SMALL HOMES. 
          >> YES, YES FOUR SMALL HOMES TRYING TO GET SOMETHING THAT IS NICE BUT AFFORDABLE FOR THE AREA. WE ARE GOING TO TRY TO 
          [00:10:01]
LEAVE THE BIG OAK TREES THERE, IF WE CAN GET THE SET BACK WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IT WILL BE ABLE TO STAY ALONG WITH ANOTHER LIVE OAK. WE NEED MORE GROUND ON THE 5TH STREET SIDE 
          >> IT MAKES SENSE. THE 50 FOOT LOTS ARE NARROW. 
          >> YES, MA'AM, THERE ARE A BUNCH OF OTHER ONES THROUGHOUT THAT AREA. THE WAY IT WAS PLOTTED. 
          >> OKAY, THANK YOU? >> MR. OLSON? 
          >> YES, I, I AGREE WITH DISCUSSION JUST, WE JUST HAD, I THINK THIS WOULD BE A REALLY NICE ADDITION TO THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. NEW CONSTRUCTION GOING IN YOU SAY THERE MIGHT BE OTHER HOUSES THAT ARE CONSTRUCTED? THEN THE OLD HOUSE IF IS THE SAME 50 FOOT LOT, AND THE EXISTING ONE AND THE ONE 
          THAT IS GETTING RENOVATED. >> I DON'T KNOW THAT NEIGHBORHOOD WELL, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE ARE DRAINAGE PROBLEMS ON SOME OF THE PROPERTIES THERE. IS THAT A BIG ISSUE? 
          >> I NOTICED -- SO OUR LOTS ESPECIALLY THE ONE HIGHLIGHTED SEEM TO BE PRETTY DRY. ACROSS THE STREET THAT BIG HOME WHICH I NOTICED WATER STANDS IN HER DRIVEWAY, I THINK IT IS JUST THE WAY THAT IT WAS, YOU KNOW, I GUESS BECAUSE IT IS OFF OF THE ROAD BUT IT SO HER PROPERTY. THAT IS THE ONLY PLACE THAT I 
          NOTICED IT. >> ALONG AVENUE C. 
          >> AVENUE C IS PRETTY GOOD. >> REALLY? 
          >> I MIGHT HAVE BEEN THERE RIGHT AFTER A HEAVY RAIN. 
          >> YES, SIR, IT HAS BEEN RAINING, YES. IT RAINS EVERY 
          DAY. >> MY OTHER QUESTION ABOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IT HAS SANITARY SEWER? 
          >> THE SEWER IS A BLOCK FROM US, THERE IS WATER BUT NO SEWER, THERE IS A WAY TO CORRECT IT BUT NO WAY TO GET SEWAGE. YOU HAVE TO PUT A SEPTIC SYSTEM IN FOR ALL OFF HOUR OF THE HOUSES. 
          >> WILL IT BE A CLOSED SYSTEM? >> YES, YES. 
          >> THANK YOU. >> YES, SIR. 
          >> MR. LABANOWSKI? >> YOU SAID THERE ARE TWO LOTS THERE? THE ONE IN YELLOW AND THE ONE BE SIDE IT? 
          >> YES, SIR, ONE IN THE YELLOW AND THEN ANOTHER 50 FOOT LOT. 
          THEY ARE JOINED AS ONE. WE ARE GOING TO GET TWO SEPARATE PARCEL NUMBERS IF WE CAN GET THE SET BACK. 
          >> I WAS GOING TO SAY ON THE COUNTY SITE RIGHT NOW IT SHOWING THE WHOLE THING AVENUE C AND 5TH IS ONE BIG LOT. 
          >> YES, SIR, THAT IS THE WAY IT SLOWED IT. WHEN THE CLEARANCE DEPARTMENT WITH THE COUNTY GOING THROUGH THAT, THEY SAID IT WAS ORIGINALLY PLOTTED 50 FOOT LOTS THE WHOLE WAY AND NO ISSUE WITH 
          . >> DIVIDING THE LOTS. 
          >> YES, JUST A MATTER IF IT IS DIVIDED DOES NOT DO US ANY GOOD WITH THE CURRENT SET BACK WITH THE DOUBLE FRONTAGE, THE ONE IS 
          FINE IT IS THE SECOND ONE. >> HOW MANY OF THE OAKS DO YOU 
          HOPE TO PLAN. >> THERE ARE REALLY TWO BIG ONES, CORNER OF C AND 5TH AND THE OTHER ONE WOULD BE ON THE SECOND INTERIOR LOT, DOWN -- WE WANT TO KEEP BOTH OF THEM. THEY 
          ARE BIG PRETTY LIVE OAKS. >> THERE WERE THREE OF THEM CLUSTERED TOGETHER THERE ON THE CORNER? 
          >> YES, I THINK THAT IS THE ONE I AM REFERRING TO IT. A BIG PINE 
          THERE ACROSS IT. >> THE PINE TREE IS HALF DEAD AND THE AHEAD ACROSS THE STREET IS WORRIED ABOUT IT FALLING. AND ASSUMING WE ARE ABLE TO GET THE VARIANCE, THAT TREE WILL COME DOWN, CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE AND WE WILL TAKE IT DOWN WHICH 
          EVERYBODY LIKES THAT IDEA. >> OKAY, ALL RIGHT, THAT IS ALL 
          I HAD, THANK YOU. >> POINT OFINFORMATION FOR THE BOARD, A LOT OF TIMES THE PROPERTY APPRAISER WILL COMBINE LOTS FOR ONLY HAVING TO SEND ONE NOTICE OF TAXES ON THE PROPERTIES. THESE ARE INDIVIDUALLY PLOTTED AS THREE LOTS THAT THEY OWN THERE BUT SHOW UP AS TWO LOTS, ONE BEING A 
          DOUBLE LOT. >> OKAY. 
          >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> ALL RIGHT. ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE HERE TO SPEAK TO AUDIENCE NUMBER 1? WE MIGHT HAVE 
          ONE MORE QUESTION, MR. GREEN? >> NO ONE IN THE AUDIENCE, BACK 
          IN THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION. >> MR. GREEN? 
          >> IT IS A HARDSHIP, TWO FRONT YARDS, I CERTAINLY DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH MAKING A MOTION TO APPROVE THE ZONING VARIANCE 2025-184700 AVENUE C BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACTS AND THE SIX CONDITIONS IN THE STAFF REPORT. 
          [00:15:02]
          >> A MOTION OF APPROVAL BY MR. GREEN AND A SECOND BY MR. LABANOWSKI. ANY DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, LET'S REGISTER THE 
          VOTE. >> YOU DON'T HAVE A VOTE 
          SCREEN? >> IT IS THERE, TAP YOUR NAME AT 
          THE BOTTOM AND IT WILL POP UP. >> ALL RIGHT. 
          >> GENIUS. I JUST SAW MY NAME DOWN THERE, GO, WELL, I WILL 
          PUSH IT AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS. >> THAT MOTION PASSES, THANK YOU 
          [2. CPA(SS) 2025-05 McHone Property. Request for a Small-Scale Comprehensive Plan Amendment to change the Future Land Use Map designation of approximately five (5) acres of land from Rural/Silviculture to Residential-A (RES-A) with a text amendment limiting the property to a maximum of one (1) single-family dwelling unit; located at an unaddressed parcel south of County Road 208.]
VERY MUCH. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. 
          >> THANK YOU, WE APPRECIATE IT. >> ON TO ITEM NUMBER TWO. WILL THE APPLICANT PLEASE COME FORWARD AND ANY -- WE DON'T NEED 
          TO DO EXPARTE. >> GOOD MORNING, MY NAME IS KAYLEE MCHONE: I AM HERE REQUESTING A SMALL SCALE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP FROM RURAL CIVICAL TO RESIDENTIAL A FOR A FIVE-ACRE PARCEL I OWN OFF OF COUNTY 208. IF APPROVED IT WOULD BE THE VIEW FROM MY FRONT YARD. HERE IS WHERE THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED. 
          IT IS SO THE WEST END OF COUNTY ROAD 208. YOU CAN SEE 13 THERE ON THE LEFT SIDE. HERE IS A LITTLE BETTER AERIAL VIEW, THE STARS ARE THAT IS MY FIVE-ACRE PARCEL. THAT IS JUST A LEGAL DISRUPTION BUT I WANT TO NOTE IT INCLUDES AN EASEMENT. THE PROPERTY OWNER AND I ARE FRIENDS AND WE BOTH MAINTAIN THE EASEMENT. THE ZONING IS OPEN RURAL. THE LAND USE DESIGNATION IS RURAL CIVIC CULTURE. THAT IS WHY I AM HERE WITH THE REQUEST. 
          MY PROPERTY IS ONLY FIVE ACRES IN SIZE. IT WAS NOT GRANDFATHERED IN. SO IT DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE RURAL CIVIC CULTURE. BEFORE I GET INTO THE AREA CHARACTERISTICS I WANT TO GIVE A BACKGROUND ON MYSELF. I WAS BORN AND RAISED HERE. SORRY, I AM A LITTLE NERVOUS. I WAS BORN AND RAISED HERE. MY FAMILY HAS OWNED A NUMBERS TOWN FOR 25 YEARS, WHEN I PURCHASED THE PROPERTY I LIVED DOWN THE ROAD. I STARTED MY FAMILY. AND I KNEW I WANTED TO STAY IN THE AREA. I AM SORRY. 
          NOTHING IS WRONG WITH ME. >> YOU ARE FINE. 
          >> IT IS JUST US. >> I STARTED MY FAMILY AND I KNEW I WANTED TO STAY IN THE AREA BUT WE WERE LIVING ON THE RIVER AND I WANTED TO BE SAFER. I PURCHASED THE PROPERTY WITHOUT A REALTOR OR BACKGROUND KNOWLEDGE AND IT WAS NOT DISCLOSED TO ME THAT THINGS REGARDING THIS PROPERTY AND BEING ABLE TO BUILD ON IT. SO, I JOKINGLY REFER TO THIS PROPERTY AS THE TEACHER. BECAUSE I LEARNED SO MUCH SINCE I STARTED THIS. I LEARNED ABOUT THIS BOARD, I LEARNED ABOUT LAND USE. 
          SO, I AM GLAD IT HAPPENED BECAUSE I LEARNED SO MUCH, BUT I HOPE TO KEEP MOVING FORWARD AND ONE DAY BE ABLE TO BUILD ON IT. 
          THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AREA ARE, IT IS MAINLY FAMILIES, LIKE I SAID I STARTED A FAMILY. I HAVE TWO SMALL CHILDREN, THEY WERE BORN IN THIS AREA LESS THAN FIVE MINUTES DOWN THE ROAD AND I WANT TO CONTINUE RAISING THEM IN THIS AREA. THE LOTS ARE LARGE LOTS WITH A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME. AND I DID PLACE THE AMENDMENT FOR ONLY ONE HOME TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON THIS LOT. I WANT TO KEEP IT MAINLY WOODS. THE AREA DOES HAVE A STRONG EMPHASIS ON NATURE AND RECREATION WITH THE BOAT RAMPS, CONSERVATION AREAS, HIKING TRAILS AND THOSE ARE ALL THINGS THAT WE VALUE AND WANT TO STAY IN THE AREA. THAT IS MY PARCEL THERE IN THE PURPLE SQUARE. AND THOSE ARE OTHER AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED CLOSE TO MINE. CHANGES TO RESIDENTIAL A. LIKE I SAID THIS PROPERTY I CALL IT THE TEACHER, I LEARNED SO MUCH RESEARCHING THIS PROPERTY. I AM NOT SURE IF ANY OF YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH -- [INAUDIBLE] -- BUT BETWEEN 1961 AND 1985 THEY HAD 200 DEEDS IN THIS AREA. AT ONE POINT THEY OWNED FROM HERE ALL OF THE WAY DOWN PICKLE PRODUCE, WESLEY FARMS TO BUDDY BOYS DOWN 13. SO, THEY BASICALLY SHAPED THIS AREA. CH ARNOLD YOU 
          [00:20:01]
MIGHT BE FAMILIAR WITH THAT ROAD, HE WAS ACTUALLY A COUNTY COMMISSIONER 1929 AND ARNOLD SERVED ON THE ZONING BOARD IN 1968. HE GAVE THE PROPERTY TO HIS GRANDDAUGHTER AND I PURCHASED THE PROPERTY FROM HER. FROM ADA. BEFORE I PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IT WAS DIVIDED. LIKE I SAID THEY OWNED A GOOD MAJORITY OF THIS AREA AND THEY DIVIDED THE AREA AND FORMED THE LOTS IN THIS AREA. SO I DO HAVE A PENDING NONZONING VARIANCE THAT I AM SEEKING BECAUSE IT WAS NOT PLOTTED CORRECTLY, ALSO. SO, I WILL IF THIS IS APPROVED THIS AND THAT WILL BE HEARD NEXT MONTH AT THE COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S MEETING. THIS IS A SITE SURVEY. AS YOU CAN SEE UP THERE, COUNTY ROAD 208 IS WHERE IT STARTS AND COMES DOWN THE EASEMENT AND THEN THE FIVE ACRES STARTS THERE AT THE BACK. THIS IS JUST A LITTLE BETTER VIEW. 
          THAT IS WHERE IT STARTS, COUNTY ROAD 208, YOU COME DOWN THE EASEMENT AND IT CONTINUES. ACTUALLY ALL OF THE WAY AROUND. 
          IT WAS ALREADY LIKE THAT. THIS IS WHERE YOU COME DOWN THE EASEMENT AND THE PROPERTY STARTS IN THE BACK. I DO WANT TO NOTE THERE IS KIND OF A CLEARED AREA THERE. THERE IS NO RECORD OF ANY HOUSES OR ANYTHING BEING ON THE SITE BEFORE BUT THAT IS, IF APPROVED THAT IS THE AREA WHERE WE ARE GOING TO KIND OF WORK OFF OF SINCE IT IS A CLEARING THERE. THIS IS A ROUGH SITE PLAN THAT I DREW. I DO NOT HAVE ANY PLANS, BUILDING PLANS. THIS IS MY FIRST STEP TO GET THE PROPERTY CHANGED WITH THE AMENDMENT TO BE ABLE TO BUILD. THIS IS JUST A ROUGH DRAWING, LIKE I SAID, THE AREA THAT IS CLEARED IS WHERE THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTS WOULD BE OUT OF THE FLOOD ZONES FACING THE FIELDS AND THREE ACRES OF WOODS WOULD REMAIN FOR THE WILDLIFE. THERE IS ALL KINDS OF WILDLIFE OUT THERE AND WE WANT THEM TO REMAIN. THERE IS JUST A BETTER VIEW OF THAT AREA THAT WAS WIDE OPEN. STANDING, LOOKING, THAT WOULD BE THE RIVER BEHIND IT. THIS IS JUST LOOKING INTO THE LOT. THESE ARE THE HOUSES ON EACH SIDE OF MY LOT, THE CLOSEST. I AM NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT TYPE OF HOUSE WE WOULD BE CONSTRUCTING BUT IT WOULD BLEND INTO THE AREA. AND THESE ARE THINGS THAT I JUST WANT TO HIGHLIGHT, AGAIN, MY DIRECT NEIGHBOR, HIS NAME IS CHRIS FOOT, HE PROVIDED A LETTER OF SUPPORT. WE DOMAIN TAIN THE EASEMENT TOGETHER AND HE IS AWARE OF MY INTENTIONS WITH THE PROPERTY. LIKE I SAID I WAS BORN AND RAISED HERE, I KNOW A THIRD OF THE PEOPLE IN THE AREA, SOMETIMES I FEEL LIKE I KNOW A THIRD OF THE PEOPLE FROM THE TOWN, MY PARENTS ARE HERE THEY OWN A LOCAL BUSINESS. I MYSELF AM RESTRICTING THE DWELLING TO ONE, IF DOWN THE ROAD SOMETHING CHANGES I ONLY WANT THERE TO BE ONE HOUSE THERE, LIKE I MENTIONED I WILL BE PRESERVING A GREATER MAJORITY OF THE WOODED AREA FOR PLANTS AND WILDLIFE TO LESSEN THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND, AGAIN, TO KEEP THEM COMING TO THE PROPERTY BECAUSE ME AND MY CHILDREN DO ENJOY SEEING THEM. I APOLOGIZE FOR BEING A LITTLE EMOTIONAL IN THE BEGINNING BUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU AND I AM AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. 
          >> I THINK WE MIGHT JUST HAVE A FEW. MR. OLSON? 
          >> YEAH, MRS. MCHONE, YOUR PLANS, YOUR PLANS SOUND IDEALIC FOR MANY WAYS FOR PEOPLE WHO WANT TO LIVE IN A NICE, 
          SEPARATED AREA. >> YES. 
          >> A COUPLE THINGS, THIS -- I SEE OUR CODE WOULD REQUIRE THAT ACCESS EASEMENT THAT IS .3 MILES HAS TO BE PAVED IN ORDER FOR YOU TO, SO YOU ARE AWARE OF THAT? THAT CAN BE AN EXPENSIVE PART OF 
          YOUR PROJECT. >> YES, SIR. I AM NOT SURE IF IT IS PAVED I BELIEVE THERE IS SOME TYPE OF LIKE CRUSHED MIX ALMOST, BUT, YES, SIR, I AM AWARE IT HAS TO BE SAFE ENOUGH FOR A FIRE 
          TRUCK TO GET BACK IN THERE. >> IT SAYS PAVED CONNECTIONS 
          [00:25:07]
          MAYBE THAT WILL . >> JUST TO CLARIFY, THE CONNECTION TO 208 WOULD NEED TO BE PAVED THE REST OF THE EASEMENT ONLY NEEDS TO BE UPGRADED TO EASEMENT STANDARDS. 
          >> SO THE CONNECT. >> ARE YOU SAYING THE CONNECTION 
          FROM WHAT TO 208 >> FROM THE EASEMENT LIKE A 
          DRIVEWAY. >> OH, OKAY. NOT THE .3 MILES. 
          >> IF YOU ARE OWNING THE PROPERTY AND IMPROVING THAT YOU 
          WOULD WANT THAT RECORDED. >> I BELIEVE IT IS RECORDED. 
          LISTED IN THE LEGAL  DISCRIPTION I BELIEVE IT IS -- DESCRIPTION, 
          I BELIEVE IT IS. >> THE NEXT QUESTION MIGHT BE EXTREME TRIVIA AND NONE OF MY BUSINESS. I DON'T KNOW THE TYPES OF CROPS THAT ARE GROWN ON THE IMMEDIATE A ADJACENT THERE ARE LIKELY SPRAYING OF INSECTICIDES. 
          >> I AM NOT THERE EVERY DAY THEY COULD GROW CABBAGE. WE PICKED THIS PROPERTY ON PURPOSE, I WANT TO LIVE THERE AND I WANT TO SEE THE FARM EVERY DAY, I DO KNOW THERE WILL BE EXTRA DIRT, EXTRA VIBRATIONS SOMETIMES, BUT, EVERYTHING IS A PLUS AND MINUS I FEEL LIKE IN LIFE, AND WE DO PLAN TO LEAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A TREE BARRIER, ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO SEE THROUGH AND OUR HOUSE WILL BE SET BACK A GOOD AMOUNT. BUT, YES, SIR, WE ARE AWARE OF 
          WHAT WE ARE . >> I AM JUST ASKING AS SOMEONE WHO BICYCLES THROUGH THAT AREA AND ENJOYS THAT, SOMETIMES YOU ARE BICYCLING THROUGH SORT OF A CLOUD HANGING THEREOF SOMETHING 
          HAS BEEN SPRAYED. >> YES, SIR. RIGHT NOW WE CURRENTLY LIVE, WE MOVED FROM 13 BY 208 BY 13 BY THE CHURCH, SO WE SEE ALL OF THE POTATO FARMERS AND WE GET BEHIND THEM AND WE KNOW WHETHER IT IS POTATO SEASON YOU CAN SMELL IT FROM OUR HOUSE 
          THERE. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. 
          >> YES, SIR. >> AND I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. AND THEN I WILL BE DONE. WE ARE BEING ASKED TO RECOMMEND A COMP PLAN SMALL SCALE AMENDMENT CHANGE. THE LAND USE. 
          BASED ON WHAT THE COUNTY RECEIVED BACK FROM THE STATE RECENTLY, WHAT ARE WE WORKING ON? DO WE HAVE AN OFFICIAL COMP PLAN? AND HOW LONG WILL WE BE WORKING OFF OF IT? I BELIEVE IT 
          IS THE 2025 PLAN? >> YES, SIR, FOR THE RECORD, JACOB SMITH, GROWTH MANAGEMENT, YOU ARE WORKING WITH THE 2025 PLAN AND HIGHLY LIKELY IF THIS APPLICATION GOES FORWARD THAT IS WHAT IT WILL BE AMENDING, AN AMENDMENT TO THE CURRENT PLAN. 
          >> OUT OF CURIOSITY, WILL THE COMP PLAN REMAIN IN EFFECT UNTIL 
          WHEREVER? >> YES, SIR. 
          >> OKAY. >> THANK YOU. 
          >> I HAVE A QUESTION. I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE EASEMENT 
          BEING RECORDED. >> I DID, I LOOKED AT THE PROPERTY RECORDS, THE EASEMENT IS PART OF THE DEED, IT IS VERY 
          CLEAR >> VERY GOOD, THANK YOU. 
          >> DR. HILSENBECK. >> A QUESTION MORE FOR STAFF. 
          THERE ARE FIVE SUBDIVISIONS FROM THE PARENT PARCEL, FIRST IS ONE OF THEM. ARE THE OTHERS CONTIGUOUS? 
          >> I BELIEVE THEY ARE NOTED ON MY SURVEY HERE. 
          >> SO TWO LARGE, TWO SMALLER AND YOURS. 
          >> YES, THE ONE UP FRONT HAVE HOUSES AND THE SMALLER BOX I BELIEVE IT IS ONE ALL TOGETHER. THE TWO BIGGER LOTS ARE OWNED BY THE SAME PERSON. THE TWO THAT SURROUND MINE ARE OWNED BY THE 
          SAME FAMILY. >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I AM CONCERNED, AS THE STAFF NOTES, THE PROPERTY IS NOT CURRENTLY 
          [00:30:03]
LOCATED WITHIN AN ESTABLISHED DEVELOPMENT AREA BOUNDARY. WHICH IT IS CLOSE IF THERE ARE HOUSES ON THE OTHER ONES. GRANTING SUCH AN AMENDMENT WOULD EXTEND THAT INTO A RURAL PART OF THE COUNTY. 
          CONSISTENT OF POLICY 8.1.2.7 OF THE COUNTY PLAN AND DESIGNATED DEVELOPMENT AREAS IT IS ENCOURAGED, THE LAND USE AMENDMENTS THAT IMPACT RURAL, SUBCULTURE LANDS ARE DISCOURAGED UNLESS THE APPLICANT PROVIDES SIGNIFICANT ECONOMIC BENEFITS, PROMOTES JOB CREATION, PRESERVES THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT OR OFFERS OTHER PUBLIC ADVANTAGES, I KNOW YOU ARE GOING TO RETAIN THREE ACRES OF THE FORESTED LAND THERE. BUT EXTENDING THE DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY INTO THAT RURAL PART OF THE COUNTY. 
          ALTHOUGH IT SEEMS TO BE JUST A LITTLE BIT. AND THE OTHER LOTS APPEAR TO HAVE 208 FRONTAGE. SO, THAT IS A CONCERN OF MINE. I AM JUST GOING TO NOTE THAT. I MAY HAVE SOMETHING ELSE TO SAY IN A 
          MINUTE, BUT, THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. 
          >> YOU ARE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT A FARM. YOU NEED TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE FARM. GOING TO DO AGRICULTURE? 
          >> I PLAN TO HAVE ANIMALS. >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. 
          >> YES, I JUST, I DID APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS IN THE APPLICATION ABOUT EVERYBODY ASKED ME IF I KNOW WHAT I AM GETTING INTO, I KNOW, I WANT TO LIVE THERE, THERE IS WHAT I WANT. I THINK THAT IS HONORABLE. I SHARE THE SAME CONCERNS WITH DR. 
          HILSENBECK ABOUT PLOPPING A RESIDENCE RIGHT IN THAT AREA. I THINK GIVEN THE NUANCE OF THIS APPLICATION, THERE IS THE IDEAL THING TO PUT IN THAT SPOT. YOU OWN THIS LAND, YOU JUST WANT ONE HOME, YOU DON'T MIND THAT YOU ARE NEXT TO FARMLAND THAT, YOU KNOW, MIGHT BE A PROBLEM FOR OTHER PEOPLE IF THEY DID NOT REALIZE WHAT THEY WERE GETTING THEMSELVES INTO. IT IS A USE FOR THAT PARCEL, OTHERWISE THAT PARCEL IS ONLY USEFUL FOR RURAL. 
          >> YES, NICE TO LOOK AT RIGHT NOW 92 IT IS. AND ALL OF THE TREES WOULD GO IF IT WAS FOR A CROP, I UNDERSTAND THAT. SO, ANY WAY -- AND YOU DID A FINE JOB, EMOTIONS ARE FINE. IT IS OKAY. 
          YOU DID A GREAT JOB. >> THANK YOU. 
          >> THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 2? ALL RIGHT, WE ARE BACK INTO THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION. MRS. SPIEGEL. JUST SAW 
          YOUR NAME UP THERE. >> OKAY. YES, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF CPA SMALL SCALE 202-05 MCHONE PROPERTY WITH FINDINGS OF FACT AND TEXT 
          AMENDMENT. >> WE HAVE A MOTION FOR 
          APPROVAL. >> I WILL SECOND IT. 
          >> SECOND BY MR. OLSON. ANY DISCUSSION, SEEING NONE, LET'S 
          REGISTER THE VOTE. >> THAT MOTION PASSES. 
          [3. ZVAR 2025-17 106 Surfside Avenue. Request a Zoning Variance to Sections 2.02.04.B.5 and Table 6.01 of the Land Development Code to allow for a Front Yard setback of ten (10) feet in lieu of the required twenty-five (25) feet, a Side Yard setback of one (1) foot in lieu of the required eight (8) feet, and a one (1) foot setback for Mechanical Equipment in lieu of the required five (5) feet to bring the existing single family home into conformance with Residential, Single Family (RS-3) zoning.]
          >> THANK YOU, THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR COMMENTS. 
          >> APPRECIATE YOU. >>> ON TO ITEM NUMBER 3, MR. BROWN WILL YOU COME FORWARD. ANY WITH EXPART E. 
          >> I DID VISIT THE SITE. >> MR. HILSENBECK. 
          >> I SAW MR. BROWN ABOUT THE PROJECT AND TOLD HIM I DID NOT HAVE MANY QUESTIONS AT THAT TIME. I JUST READ THE ITEM ONCE BUT READ IT A COUPLE TIMES SINCE. THAT WAS THE 
          CONVERSATION. >> I HAD A PHONE CONVERSATION WITH MR. BROWN ON MONDAY, SITE VISIT TODAY AND I SPOKE TO TWO OF THE NEIGHBORS WHO WERE BOTH OKAY WITH THIS. 
          >> MR. MATOVINA? >> I HAD A PHONE CONVERSATION MONDAY WITH MR. BROWN AND HE ANSWERED A FEW QUESTIONS THAT I HAD AND WE DISCUSSED THE MERITS OF -- [INDISCERNIBLE] 
          >> MR. OLSON? [INAUDIBLE] >> VISITED THE SITE ON SEPTEMBER 26TH AND THREE LETTERS IN THE MEETING FILE. 
          >> OKAY. >> AND I SPOKE WITH MR. BROWN LAST WEEK, I BELIEVE IT WAS THURSDAY OR FRIDAY AND TALKED 
          ABOUT THE APPLICATION. GO AHEAD. >> ALL RIGHT, WONDERFUL. GOOD AFTERNOON, IAN BROWN. 245 RIVERSIDE AVENUE, JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA, ON BEHALF OF THE OWNERS OF 106 SURFSIDE. WE HAVE ONE EVER THE MEMBERS OF THE LLC HERE AND THE BUILDER IN AA TENDANCE SHOULD WE ATTENDANCE SHOULD THERE BE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THEM. 
          [00:35:01]
WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS AN APPLICATION SUBMITTED TO MIRROR AND APPROVAL FROM 2019. THE 2019 EXPIRED THEY DID NOT COMMENCE ON IT. I AM BRINGING THIS NEW APPLICATION WITH, I WILL GET TO IT, TRACKING ON TOP OF HOW THE LAST 2019 APPROVAL WAS STRUCTURED WHAT WE HAVE, THIS IMAGE IS THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY FROM SURFSIDE. YOU MIGHT NOT KNOW THE AGE BUT IT IS A 1935 STRUCTURE. RIGHT AT 90 YEARS OLD. YOU KNOW, ARCHITECTURALLY CONSISTENT WITH A LOT OF THE ORIGINAL HOMES TO THE AREA. WHAT ARE WE SEEK SOMETHING WE ARE SEEKING RELIEF. 
          THE OWNERS WOULD PREFER NOT TO DEMOLISH THE PROPERTY AND TO RATHER RENOVATE AND DO AN ADDITION. THIS 1935 STRUCTURE IS IN NEED OF RENOVATION. IT IS THE HARDSHIP IS WHERE IT IS CURRENTLY LOCATED. THESE OWNERS DID NOT CREATE THE HARDSHIP, IT HAS BEEN IN THIS LOCATION FOR 90 YEARS THIS PROPERTY PREDATES THE L D.C. PGH THE SPECIFIC REQUEST, FRONT YARD SET BACK AT 10 AND 25. I WILL MENTION THAT 10, I WILL GO BACK TO THE FRONT. IT IS LARGELY THE STAIRS. SO, THE FRONT PROFILE OF THE HOME IT IS CLOSER TO 20 FEET BACK. TO COMPLY WITH THE HEIGHT OF THE ENTRY STAIRS, THEY START AT 10. THE SIDE SET BACK, 1 IN LIEU OF 8 AND THE MECHANICAL, 1 IN LIEU OF 5. THIS NOTE HERE, THIS IS FOR EXISTING NONCONFORMING IMPROVEMENTS, ANY ADDITIONING TO THIS PROJECT, WE WILL GET TO THE SITE PLAN IT WILL BE FULLY CONFORMING, NO RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR NEW ADDITIONS OR IMPROVEMENTS. WHY RENOVATE IT? IT IS A LITTLE REDUNDANT BUT WE WILL. 90-YEAR-OLD DWELLING, WARRANTING RENOVATION, CODE, MOST OF YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE 50% RURAL, MODEST RENOVATION BASED ON THE ASSESSED VALUE OF THE IMPROVEMENTS OF 130, YOU WOULD EXCEED HALF OF THAT RENOVATING THAT AND COME TO CODE THERE. JUST TRYING TO MAKE IT EFFICIENT IN CONFIGURATION, MODERNIZATION. IT IS 1429 HEATED. IT IS OWNED BY MULTIPLE FAMILIES, NONCONFORMITY, LIKE I SAID, 1938, THAT IS A TYPO, 1935 PREDATES THE L D.C. PGH SAFETY, ELECTRIC, HVAC, PLUMBING, ALL MAJOR SIMPLES WILL BE UPDATED AND 40 TO THE FLORIDA CODE. 
          BEAUTIFICATION AND VALUE, I BELIEVE THEY GO HAND IN HAND. 
          WORKING FOR THE AESTHETICS FOR THE OWNERS AND THE NEIGHBORS. IT WILL INCREASE THE TAX BASE. IT WILL ENHANCE THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          HERE IS AN AERIAL EXHIBIT FROM THE STAFF REPORT. THE ADDITIONS WILL BE CONFORMING. SO, THEY GO TO THE EAST AND TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. AND THAT FAR EAST LOT IS PRIMARILY THE POOL. SO, THERE IS NOT A LOT OF IMPROVEMENTS ON THAT FAR EAST LOT. HERE IS A SURVEY AS IS. AS YOU CAN SEE, AS WE TALKED ABOUT, THE EXISTING 90-YEAR-OLD DWELLING IS RIGHT UP AGAINST THE WESTERLY LOT LINE. THIS IS THE SIGHT PLAN AS PROPOSED. THE WHITE ENVELOPE WITH THE CIRCLE THAT IS THE EXISTING BUILDING ENVELOPE, THE CIRCLES ARE THE AREAS WHERE RELIEF IS SOUGHT. 
          YOU CAN SEE THE BUILDING ENVELOPE IS CLOSE, THE NEXT CIRCLE IN THE MIDDLE IS OVER THAT MECHANICAL, I KNOW IT IS SMALL BUT THERE IS AN HVAC AND THEN THE LAST, THE THIRD ONE T IS FOR THE FRONT SET BACK. AS I MENTIONED A LOT OF THAT IS THE STAIRS, SINCE WE ARE ON THIS SLIDE, I BELIEVE IT IS FAIRLY CLEAR, BUT THE GRAY THAT IS NOT HATCHED LIKE PAVERS, SHOW SOME OF THE LOCATION OF NEW EDITION AND ALL OF THAT IS COMPLYING IN LOCATION, NO RELIEF FOR THE ADDITION. AND THEN THE POOL TO THE REAR EASTERLY SIDE. A LOT OF, THERE IS NO, THEY ARE NOT TRYING TO OVERDUE THE OVER -- OVER DO THE SITE. NOW, I CAN GO BACK. THE WESTERLY SIDE, TO OUR LEFT, THAT IS THE MOST 
          [00:40:04]
NONCONFORMING SPOT THERE. A BUMP OUT IS WHERE IT GETS TO THE ONE FOOT, BEHIND THE PORTION, IT IS HARD TO SEE, THAT IS WHERE THE CURRENT MECHANICAL IS LOCATED AND THAT IS ALSO NONCONFORMING. 
          EASTERLY SIDE, YOU CAN SEE A LOT OF GREEN SPACE. THEY ARE NOT CROWDING THIS. ALL OF THE ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION WILL BE CONFORMING AND THEY HAVE LAND HERE FOR THE RENOVATION AND POOL AND EXPANSION AND THE FAR RIGHT PHOTO IS THE REAR FACING PHOTO. 
          AGAIN, FAIR AMOUNT OF PROPERTY BEHIND THE SUBJECT. AND EVERYTHING BEYOND THAT REAR ELEVATION WILL BE CONFORMING. 
          THIS IS AN EXHIBIT FROM THE 2019 APPROVAL. I WANTED TO POINT OUT, I BELIEVE IT IS PRETTY CLEAR. IN 2019 IT WAS TO CONTINUE THE NONCONFORMITY, TO KEEP CONTINUING THE WALL THAT APPROACHES AT A FOOT. IT WAS APPROVED BUT THE BIG X APPLIES TO EXISTING HOUSE ONLY. WHEN WE BROUGHT THE NEW APPLICATION, WE DID JUST THAT. SO, TOOK THE ADVICE FROM 2019 OR THE RECOMMENDATION THE BOARD'S CONCLUSION FROM 2019 AND AMENDED THIS NEW APPLICATION TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE 2019 APPROVAL. JUST APPROVING THE EXISTING NONCONFORMITY. NOT EXPANDING. THERE IS SUPPORT FROM THE MOST A PROXIMATE NEIGHBORS, THIS IS TO THE WEST. I WILL SAY I DID NOT PUT IT IN MY SLIDE, THE TWO CORRESPONDENTS THAT I SAW LABELED OPPOSITION AS I REREAD THEM, THEY REALLY IN MY OPINION READ IF YOU APPLY THE WAY WE APPLY THEY WOULD BE IN SUPPORT. THEY DID NOT WANT TO SEE A LOT SPLIT. WE ARE NOT DOING THAT. DID NOT WANT TO SEE AN EXPANSION ALONG THE NONCONFORMITY AND WE ARE NOT DOING THAT. I KNOW THEY WERE LABELED OPPOSITION BUT I THINK YOU CAN CONCLUDE THEY ARE NEUTRAL OR SUPPORTING. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL. I BELIEVE WE SATISFIED THEM. NUMBER 1, NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. THE IDEA IS TO IMPROVE THE STRUCTURE AND UPDATE THE HOME AND INCREASE THE VALUE. WE ARE NOT SPLITTING OR ADDING DENSITY, NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST, IT IS A BEAUTIFICATION ON A MUCH-NEEDED 90-YEAR-OLD PROPERTY. THE EXTRAORDINARY SITUATION ON NUMBER 2 IS YOU HAVE A NONCONFORMING 90-YEAR-OLD STRUCTURE IN A LOCATION THAT PREDATES THE CODE. PREDATES LDC AND THE GOAL HERE IS TO NOT TEAR IT DOWN. NUMBER THREE, THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT, THE EXISTING BUILDING ENCROACHES INTO THE FRONT AND SIDE SETBACKS WHAT CAN YOU DO ABOUT IT? YOU WOULD HAVE TO TEAR IT DOWN. SO, WE BELIEVE THAT IS BURDENSOME TO HAVE THEM TEAR IT DOWN AND NOT IN THE SPIRIT AND PURCHASE. THIS RELIEF IS THE ONLY MEANS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS TO IMPROVE THE PROPERTY. ANY OTHER IMPROVEMENT BEYOND 50% WOULD WARRANT DEMOLITION TO BE COMPLIANT OR A VARIATION. WITH THAT, I WILL PAUSE. 
          >> OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS? >> MR. OLSON YOU WERE FIRST. 
          >> OKAY. YES. I DON'T KNOW IF THESE ARE QUESTIONS, I JUST HAVE TO SAY I REALLY LIKE THE SOLUTION THAT YOU HAVE DONE. I THINK A LOT OF THE PEOPLE OR SOME OF THE PEOPLE THAT EXPRESSED THE CONCERN DID NOT UNDERSTAND OR CAPTURE THAT YOU WERE, ALL OF THE NEW CONSTRUCTION WAS GOING TO BE COMPLIANT WITH THE SETBACKS. I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT, THIS, THESE OLDER EARLY PERIOD HOMES ARE DISAPPEARING. AND TO HAVE SOME OF THEM RETAINED AS A CONNECTION WITH THE HISTORY OF THAT AREA I THINK IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT. AND OTHER PEOPLE DO, TO AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION. A HOUSE JUST DOWN THE STREET ON SURFSIDE WAS OCCUPIED BY SINCLAIR LEWIS WHO IS THE FIRST NOBLE PRIZE RECIPIENT IN THE U.S. FOR LITERATURE AND HE, HE LIVED THERE IN THE '20S AND INTO THE '30S. I THINK ONLY WINTERS THERE. SO, I THINK YOUR SOLUTION RESPECTS THE ORIGINAL 
          [00:45:07]
ARCHITECTURE OF THE 1935 COTTAGE IN A WAY YOU ARE ADDING THE ADDICTIONS OR STEP BACK. AND I HOPE THE WAY YOU BRING THROUGH THE ACTUAL FINAL DESIGN OR THE OWNER DOES, KEEPS THE DETAILING AND CHARACTER OF THE 1935 STRUCTURE. SO THAT IS ALL OF MY COMMENTS. I REALLY DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS BEYOND THAT. 
          >> THANK YOU >> AND WE DO HAVE THE BUILDER AND ONE MEMBER OF OWNERSHIP HERE AND THAT MEMBER IS AN ARCHITECT. 
          I THINK THERE IS SOME VALUING OF WHAT YOU JUST SPOKE OF TRYING TO CARRY SOME OF THE AESTHETICS OF THE 90-YEAR-OLD DWELLING INTO 
          THE FUTURE. >> MRS. SPIEGEL. 
          >> YES, WHEN I PULLED UP THE NEIGHBORS JUST HAPPENED TO BE OUT TALKING, SO I JUST SAID WHAT DO YOU THINK? AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK YOU ARE CORRECT. THE ASSUMPTION THAT YOU HAD ABOUT THE OPPOSITION LETTERS I BELIEVE FROM WHAT WAS REPORTED TO ME THEY REALLY NOT SURE, THEY JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THIS DID NOT HAPPEN. I EXPLAINED AND THEY -- THEY AGREED WITH CARRYING OVER THE ARCHITECTURE. AND IT IS A LOVELY HOME. IT DOES NEED A LITTLE BIT OF TLC, BUT I THINK THAT THIS, TO ME, IT SEEMS LIKE YOU ARE BEING A GOOD NEIGHBOR AND TRYING TO IMPROVE THE AREA AS WELL AS IMPROVING HIS PLACE. AND I THINK THAT IS JUST A BIG PART OF COMMUNITY. I JUST LIKE THE IDEA HE HAS BEEN OUT REACHING THE NEIGHBORS AND KNEW THEM PRETTY WELL AND THEY INTERACTED AND HE WAS IN FAVOR OF THIS. I THINK IT IS A GOOD 
          IDEA AS WELL, THANK YOU, SIR. >> MR. LABANOWSKI. 
          >> NOW, THE ADDITION YOU PLAN TO PUT ON WILL IT BE ON THE SAME FOOTING AS THE EXISTING BUILDING? IT WILL BE DIFFERENT? 
          >> I DO HAVE THE BUILDER HERE, I PRESUME IT WILL BE OFF GRADE. 
          >> RIGHT NOW, . >> YES, SO, HE IS HERE IN THE AUDIENCE. YOU CAN SWEAR HIM IN IF YOU NEED TO BUT IT WILL MATCH. IT IS OFF GRADE. NOW, I THINK -- ALL OF THESE PHOTOS YOU 
          CAN SEE, IT IS UP. 3-4 FEET. >> YOU WILL NOT HAVE TO CHANGE THE GRADE OF THE GROUND ITSELF IT WILL PRETTY MUCH STAY THE 
          SAME OR SLIGHTLY VARIED? >> THE GRADING PLAN, WE DOUBLE-CHECKED IT. IT IS NOT BELOW THE COUNTY FEMA STANDARD. 
          SO, NO THAT COMES UP. >> OKAY. 
          >> NONE OF THAT COMES UP. >> THE FRONT OF THE STEP THAT IS WHAT IS IN THE FRONT, THE SET BACK, CORRECT? 
          >> THE MAJORITY OF THE STEPS ITSELF? 
          >> CORRECT. AND THEY ARE SIGNIFICANT. LET PLEA GET TO THAT PHOTO: WELL, THAT IS THE PHOTO I HAVE, BUT, YES, MASONRY AND THEY ELEVATE QUICKLY THEY HAVE TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE VARIANCE, YES. SO THE FRONT PROFILE, I DON'T WANT TO MISREAD, THE FRONT PROFILE IF YOU DON'T LOOK AT THE STEPS IT IS 20. APOLOGIZES. APOLOGIES, I BELIEVE IT IS 20. 
          >> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 3? 
          >> ALL RIGHT, WE ARE BACK INTO THE AGENCY FOR A MOTION. 
          >> OH, I DID NOT SEE YOU MR. HUNT. 
          >> A LOT OF PEOPLE TELL ME THAT. CHARLIE HUNT, MILL CREEK ESTATES, MY QUESTION IS, IS IT FOR A SINGLE RESIDENTIAL HOME OR HOW THEY DO IT NOWADAYS OF, PUTTING A SPIN ON IT, SINGLE RESIDENTIAL AND IT TURNS INTO AN AIR B&B AND THE NEIGHBORS START REALIZING WE JUST APPROVED THIS HOUSE, CONSTRUCTION OR RECONSTRUCTION DONE TO IT AND NOW WE HAVE 10 VEHICLES OR HOWEVER MANY VEHICLES THEY CAN PUT ON THE PARKING AREA? THAT IS MY CONCERN, MY QUESTION, IS IT FOR THAT OR WILL IT TURN INTO AN AIR B&B OR WHATEVER THE TERMS THEY USE TODAY. 
          >> THANK YOU. >> I CAN SPEAK TO THAT. 
          >> SURE. >> THE APPLICATION IS FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME. THE PROPERTY IS OWNED BY MULTIPLE FAMILIES. 
          SO, -- MR. MATOVINA BROUGHT IT UP, THEY ARE NOT PLANNING TO USE 
          [00:50:04]
IT AS A AIR B&B. I CONSULTED WITH THE OWNERS BEFORE FORMALLY RESPONDING. IT IS MULTIPLE FAMILIES THAT OWN THE PROPERTY. 
          THAT IS WHY IT IS IN AN LLC. IT HAS BEEN OWNED FOR SEVEN YEARS AND NEVER BEEN AN AIR B&B, NO INTENT OF DOING THAT AND THEY 
          HAVE NOT BEEN DOING IT? >> THANK YOU. 
          >> WE ARE BACK INTO THE AGENCY. MR. OLSON? 
          >> YES, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ZONING VARIANCE, 2025-17 AT 106 SURFSIDE AVENUE. BASED ON FIVE FINDINGS OF FACT AND EIGHT CONDITIONS AS PROVIDED IN THE 
          STAFF REPORT. >> ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION 
          FOR APPROVAL. IS THERE A SECOND? >> SEEING NONE. LET'S REGISTER YOUR VOTE. ALL RIGHT, MOTION PASSES, THANK YOU, MR. BROWN. 
          [4. ZVAR 2025-02 Lowe Residence. Request for Zoning Variance to Table 6.01 of the Land Development Code to allow for a Rear Yard setback of two (2) feet in lieu of the required ten (10) feet to accommodate the construction of a barndominium, located at 109 W Fox Street, Hastings.]
          >> THANK YOU, ALL. >> ITEM NUMBER 5. DOES ANYONE 
          HAVE ANY EXPA ARE RTE. >> I MEAN 4, I GUESS I AM GOING 
          TO SAY 5 ALL DAY LONG, EXPRATE. >> MRS. SPIEGEL. 
          >> I HAD TWO CONVERSATIONS WITH JAMES WHITEHOUSE, I DID A SITE VISIT WITH PERMISSION, PHONE CONVERSATION AND A COUPLE EMAIL CORRESPONDENTS THAT I BELIEVE HAVE BEEN, AND THE CONTENT SHARED AND I BELIEVE YOU GOT A COPY OF THE EMAIL, DENNIS ON HASTINGS MAIN STREET AND I HAD A PHONE CONVERSATION WITH SALLY 
          OHARA. >> MR. GREEN? 
          >> YES, I ALSO HAD A CONVERSATION WITH MR. 
          WHITEHOUSE. >> MR. OLSON. 
          >> I VISITED THE SITE ON SEPTEMBER 29TH. 
          >> OKAY. MR. LABANOWSKI. >> I VISITED THE SITE AS WELL. 
          >> MR. WHITEHOUSE, ALL YOURS. >> THANK YOU, MA'AM, JAMES WHITEHOUSE, I AM HERE ON BEHALF OF THE LOWE FAMILY FOR THIS ZONING VARIATION 2025-02 AT WEST FOX STREET, THERE IS A REQUEST FROM YOUR STAFF REPORT, TABLE 6.0 OF LAND CODE TO RATIFY A REAR YARD SET BACK IN LIEU OF THE 10 FEET TO ALLOW THE LONG STANDING STRUCTURE AT 109 WEST FOX STREET THAT IS A USE ALLOWED BY RIGHT IN THE ZONING RG-2. HERE YOU CAN SEE A COPY OF THE SURVEY AS WELL AS THE ZONING. THIS ISSUE WAS CREATED YEARS AGO AFTER THE STRUCTURE WAS BUILT AND IT REALLY APPLIES TO THIS AREA THAT I OUT LINED IN YELLOW AS YOU SEE FROM THE STAFF REPORT WHERE THE BUILDING HAS BEEN FOR MANY YEARS. AGAIN, LOCATED IN THE HASTINGS AREA ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WEST FOX STREET RIGHT HERE AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE MIDDLE OF OLD TOWN OF HASTINGS. 
          HERE YOU CAN SEE ON THE, ON OUR IMAP HOW THE PARCELS HAVE BEEN SPLIT UP IN THIS AREA, I WILL SHOW YOU THE PICTURE OF THE PLOT HERE IN A MINUTE. THIS IS THE AERIAL OF IT. THIS IS THE PLOT WITHOUT THE HOUSES AND THIS IS HOW THE PLOTS HAD BEEN PARCELED OFF OVER TIME. WE ARE WITHIN RESIDENTIAL D., AS YOU CAN SEE THERE IS A NUMBER OF LAND USES IN THIS AREA. THEN IN RG-2, AGAIN, A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT ZONINGS IN THIS AREA AS WELL. ON THIS, A LARGE MIX USED AREA, YOU CAN SEE FROM SOME OF THE USES GOING ON ALL AROUND WHERE THIS SITE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS. AS YOU CAN SEE, A COMMENT FROM STAFF THERE ARE ADJACENT PROPERTIES EXISTING NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES JUST SIT HERE AND THIS WAS PRIOR TO THE LDC AND COMP PLAN. AGAIN, HERE IS A PICTURE OF HOW THE LOTS WERE PETITIONS OFF OVER THE YEARS WITHOUT THE COLORS, THIS WAS THE ORIGINAL PLOT APPROVED TO THE COMP PLAN. THERE IS HOW THE LOTS ARE PARTITIONED OFF AND THE ONE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS IN GREEN AND THERE IS WHERE THE STRUCTURE IS. TALKING ABOUT IT, SITTING HERE FOR MULTIPLE DECADES WITHIN TWO FEET OF THE BACK FOOT PROPERTY LINE. IT MEETS THE SET BACK ON THE SIDE, THAT IS EIGHT FEET AND TWO FEET ON THE BACK IS THE PART IT DOES NOT MEET. THE PICTURE IS OF THE BACK AREA THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THAT THE VARIANCE WILL BE GRANTED AND THE EFFECT ON IT. ALL VEGETATED. AND MR. LOWE HAS SPOKEN WITH THAT NEIGHBOR AND THEY HAVE NO OBJECTION. AGAIN, A USE THAT IS ALLOWED BY RIGHT WITHIN THIS RG-2 ZONING. THIS IS TO RATIFY THE CURRENT POSITIONING OF THAT PARTICULAR 
          [00:55:04]
STRUCTURE. THIS STRUCTURE HAD BEEN USED, IT HAS STORAGE FOR YEARS, THEY BOUGHT THE PROPERTY IN 2011. NOW THAT THEY WANT, ACTUALLY, THERE IS WHAT HAPPENED. THEY CAME IN AND IN THE LAST YEAR OR SO WITHOUT MY ASSISTANCE AND WE ARE STARTING TO CLEANUP THE PROPERTY AS THOSE OF YOU WHO WENT OUT THERE DID NOT. THEY HAVE A STORAGE CONTAINER, PART OF IT WAS TO MOVE THE STORAGE INSIDE AND THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT IN RG2. NOT IN USE FOR THE STORAGE. THERE WAS A CODE ENFORCEMENT COMPLAINT THAT WAS PUT IN, MR. STANZ IS HERE, HE IS THE NEIGHBOR THAT IS TO THE NORTH. I THINK IT IS NORTH -- NORTH, AND, SO, AS THEY STARTED TO DO THAT, WHEN HE PUT THE STORAGE CONTAINER THERE, WHICH IS IS ALOWED AS LONG AS YOU HAVE A RESIDENTIAL USE ON THE PROPERTY. THEY TOLD HIM HE HAD TO HAVE RESIDENTIAL USE, HE DID NOT. THAT IS WHY HE WAS TOLD AND YOU WILL SEE WITHIN YOUR STAFF REPORT THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE RESIDENTIAL USE AND DO IT UNDER THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE WITH -- THERE IS THE TERMINOLOGY THAT IS USED IN THE FLORIDA BUILDING LAW. BARN DOMINIUM. THAT IS THE TERM THAT IS USED IN THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE AND UNDER THE LAW THAT IS WHY THEY TOLD HIM YOU NEED TO APPLY FOR THAT. THE WAY IT WORKS UNDER THE BUILDING CODE IS YOU CAN CONVERT PART OF IT, COMES WITHIN THE WORD ITSELF, A BARN OR A SHED OR A BUILDING PARTIALLY TO RESIDENTIAL USE YOU HAVE TO BRING THAT SECTION UP TO RESIDENTIAL STANDARDS UNDER THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE. THAT IS WHY HE WAS TOLD TO USE THAT TERM IN THIS APPLICATION, THE REASON WHY HE WANTS TO, HE AND HIS BROTHER, THEY OWN THIS PROPERTY TOGETHER UNDER THE TRUST AND THEY BOTH LIVE OUT OF TOWN, ONE UP IN ATLANTIC BEACH AND ONE CRESCENT CITY. THEY WANT TO COME HERE AND VISIT. THEY NEVER LIVED ON THE PROPERTY BEFORE EVEN THOUGH THEY OWNED IT SINCE 20EE11. IT GIVES THEM A CHANCE TO CLEAN UP THE PROPERTY. 
          A NUMBER OF PROPERTIES AS YOU SEE FROM YOUR STAFF REPORT, EVEN, THEY ARE NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES, PROPERTY THAT IS STORED, OUTDOOR STORAGE THAT IS NOT ALLOWED THAT WAS OVERLAID THIS AREA. PRIOR TO, SUBSEQUENT TO A LOT OF THE USES. THAT IS WHAT THEY REALLY WANT TO DO THAT, SO, REALLY, THAT IS WHAT THIS APPLICATION IS FOR TO CONVERT PART OF THIS BUILDING. 
          THE ONLY REASON, IF THAT BUILDING WAS A FEW MORE FEET AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE OR IF THEY WANTED TO TEAR DOWN THE BUILDING AND BUILD ANOTHER STRUCTURE THEY CAN DO THAT WITHOUT COMING TO YOU. THAT IS NOT THE REASON THEY ARE HERE. 
          THEY WANT TO CONVERT PART OF AN EXISTING STRUCTURE THAT IS THERE INTO RESIDENTIAL USE. IT IS NOT IN QUESTION TODAY T IS IS ALOWED BY RIGHT, IT IS THE POSITIONING OF THE BUILDING -- IT IS ALLOWED BY RIGHT. IT IS THE POSITION EVER THE BUILDING. THE PART OF IT, PARCELS WERE SECTIONED OFF SUBSEQUENT TO THE BUILDING OF THE BUILDING. MR. STANZ SAYS IT HAS BEEN DECADES, BOTH OF THEM PRIOR TO THE COMP PLAN AND THE WAY THAT THIS PARCEL WAS PARTITIONED OFF. LIKE I SAID, ALLOWED BY RIGHT TO HAVE A RESIDENTIAL USE HOWEVER THE WAY THE LOTS WERE PARCELED OFF IS WHY THIS BUILDING INFRINGED ON THE REAR SET BACK. YOU KNOW, STANDARDS UNDER VARIANCE, I WILL GO THROUGH THEM QUICK. ONE, IT IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE INTEREST. AND THAT IS WHY THIS BUILDING INFRINGED ON THE REAR SET BACK. THE LOT WAS BROKEN OFF AND WANT TO USE IT FOR RESIDENTIAL USE. THEY HAVE TO HAVE THE VARIATION EVER THE TWO FEET. WHERE THE BUILDING HAS BEEN FUR 40 YEARS NOW. IT IS AN UNUSUAL SHAPE THAT CAUSES THE HARDSHIP NOT SELF-IMPOSED HARDSHIP THEY CREATED. THIS REQUOAFT ON THE UNUSUALLY SHAPED PARCEL YOU WILL SEE FROM THE PICTURES AND WHAT I HAVE SHOWN YOU, NOT VISIBLE AND THE RESIDENTIAL CHANGE WILL NOT MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN THE CURRENT LONG STANDING LOCATION OF THE BUILDING. IT IS THE UNUSUAL SHAPE OF THE PARCEL AS TO WHY IT 
          [01:00:01]
WAS STATED. THIS REQUEST, THE SET BACK, THE REQUEST FOR THE VARIANCE TO SET BACK HAS NO EFFECT ON THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, WE WILL TALK ABOUT THE PROPERTY ITSELF. IT LENDS FOR SUPPORT. AND, THIS UNUSUAL SHAPE OF THE PROPERTY AND ITS LOCATION LENDS TO THE VARIANCE UNDER THE PLAN BASED ON THE FACT IT WAS PARCELED OFF. IT WAS ROUTED TO ALL OF KROWR DEPARTMENTS AND NO OPEN COMMENTS, YOU DID SEE COMMENTS THAT TALKED ABOUT AN INITIAL PRIOR COMPLAINT THAT HAD TO DO WITH THE STORAGE ON THE PROPERTY MADE. ALL OF THAT WAS CLEARED UP. THE THINGS ON THE PROPERTY ARE NOW LEGAL. I KNOW THERE IS CONCERN WITH THE WAY THE PROPERTY LOOKS FROM THIS POINT, THAT WAS THE INTENT HOW HE STARTED THIS TO START TO CLEANUP THE PROPERTY AND THEN PLACED INTO LIMBO WHETHER HE WAS TOLD HE COULD NOT DO THE BUILDING AND THEN HE GOT ME INVOLVED. I WAS NOT INVOLVED BEFORE THAT. SO, ANY WAY, THE ONLY ISSUE IS THE FACT THAT HE CAN'T HAVE JUST STORAGE ON THE PROPERTY WITHOUT RESIDENTIAL USE SO HE WANTS RESIDENTIAL USE THAT IS WHY WE ARE HERE FOR THE VARIANCE, HE WAS TOLD TO DO THAT BECAUSE THAT WAS THE LINGO YOU USE TO CONVERT PART OF THAT BUILDING TO RESIDENTIAL USE AND LIKE I SAID, THAT RESIDENTIAL USE IS ALLOWED BY RIGHT UNDER RG-2. THERE ARE MANY OTHER AS I SAID EARLIER, NOT MANY OTHER STRUCTURES WITHIN FEET OF PROPERTY LINES, IF THEY WANTED TO DO SOMETHING THERE THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BEFORE YOU AS WELLMENT UNDER THE CODE THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO SHOW YOU THE REQUEST FOR THE SET BACK VARIANCE MEETS THE CODE, REQUIRED TO SHOW YOU THAT THE REQUEST IS NOT IN COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA, THE EVIDENCE CLEARLY SHOWS THE REQUEST FOR THE SET BACK VARIANCE IS COMPATIBLE TO THE SURROUNDING AREA AND THAT IS WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, THE STWO FEET IN THE BACK OF THE DECADES OLD EXISTING BUILDING, REQUEST CLEARLY SLOWS THE MINOR DEVIATION FOR THAT TWO FOOT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA, HE SPOKE WITH THE NEIGHBOR TO THE SOUTH AND NO OBJECTION AS WELL AS THE NEIGHBOR TO THE WEST. AND BASED UPON ALL OF THAT WE ASK YOU TO LOOK AT THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE TWO FEET SET BACK VARIANCE. YOU HAVE THE RECOMMENDED MOTION, I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, THE ONLY THING THAT I WANT TO ADDRESS AND MR. STANZ WILL TALK TO YOU, TOO, I HAD A CHANCE TO T■ALK O IM AND THE INTENT OF THIS OWNER, I TALKED TO THE OWNER, HE IS FROM OUT OF TOWN, NOT HERE WITH ME, BUT I WAS TOLD TO IMPART TO THIS AGENCY THAT HIS INTENT IS TO CLEANUP THE PROPERTY TO HAVE NOTHING THAT IS AGAINST THE CODE ON THE PROPERTY TO NOT HAVE IT LOOK, IN FACT, MOWING GOING ON AND CLEANUP STARTED BECAUSE I GOT ON HIM YESTERDAY ABOUT IT. 
          AGAIN, NONE OF THAT IS IN VIOLATION AS YOU SEE FROM THE CODE ENFORCEMENT REPORT WITHIN YOUR STAFF PACKET. BUT, HIS INTENT IS TO CLEAN IT UP, HIS INTENT IS NOT TO HAVE OUTDOOR STORAGE BUT TO HAVE A PROPERTY THAT DOES NOT HAVE THE LOOK OF WHAT IT IS EVEN IF IT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE  CODE.THANK 
          YOU, I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS. >> DR. HILSENBECK? 
          >> SO, JAMES, THE OWNER CAN'T CLEAN THE PROPERTY UP WITHOUT 
          THE VARIANCE? >> THE STORAGE -- WELL, CLEANING UP THE PROPERTY BRINGING IT WITHIN CODE IS NOT NECESSARILY THE EXTENT OF WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE OUT THERE. HE BROUGHT IT, AS YOU SEE FROM THE REPORT, HE BROUGHT IT WITHIN CODE, HIS INTEND IS TO BRING IT BEYOND THAT TO PUT SOME OF THE STUFF INSIDE THE ALLOWED STORAGE SHED THAT IS THERE NOW. HE CAN'T HAVE THAT. THAT IS REALLY WHAT IT CAME DOWN TO, WHEN ALL OF THE OTHER STUFF SORTED OUT AND MADE EVERYTHING ELSE LEGAL ON THE PROPERTY IT CAME DOWN TO HAVING A STORAGE SHED, THAT IS SOMETHING HE CAN PUT, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER IS OUTDOOR THERE IN IT. 
          HE SORT OF WHEN HE RAN INTO THE BRINGING IT INTO COMPLIANCE, THAT IS WHEN HE STOPPED. I WAS NOT INVOLVED THEN. HE GOT ME INVOLVED AFTER THAT. IT IS JUST LIKE IF I CAME TO YOU TO GET A REZONING I WOULD NOT GET THE WHOLE SITE ENGINEERS BEFORE ASKING IF IT IS OKAY IF HE DOES IT HE WILL GET AN ENGINEER AND MOVE FORWARD. THAT IS HIS INTENT. BY THE WAY IF HE 
          [01:05:01]
DOESN'T THEY ARE NOT GOING TO GIVE HIM A BUILDING PERMIT. AN AMENDMENT TO THE ORDER. WE TALKED ABOUT THIS WITH MR. SMITH THAT IS AS THIS IS ALL CONTINGENT ONGOING AND GETTING THE BUILDING PERMIT TO DEVELOP THE AREA AND THAT BUILDING AND ALL OF THAT WILL COME BACK FOR A ZONING CLEARANCE LATER, IF THERE ARE THINGS ON THE PROPERTY THAT ARE NOT APPROPRIATE THEY WILL STOP HIM. I THINK THERE IS BUILT IN CONTINGENCIES AND MEMBERS ADD CONDITIONS, TOO, AS LONG AS THEY MEET THE SPIRIT AND INTENT AND 
          ABOUT CLEANING UP THE PROPERTY. >> SO, IS THERE ROOM IN THE CURRENT LARGE STEEL SHED THAT IS THERE TO STORE THOSE CARS THAT 
          ARE OUT THERE? >> I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS FOR THE CARS. THE CARS THEMSELVES BECAUSE THEY ARE ALL REGISTERED ARE LEGAL TO BE ON THE PROPERTY IF THEY ARE IN THE RIGHT SPOT. 
          IT WAS OVERGROWN, A LOT OF IT IS BECAUSE OF THE LOOK OF THE PROPERTY. IT SHOULD NOT BE -- I DON'T THINK IT IS A JUNKYARD. 
          DO THEY NEED TO BE THERE? I TALKED TO HIM ABOUT THAT. 
          LISTEN, YOU KNOW, THERE IS SOMETHING IF THAT IS YOUR REAL INTENT THAT IS IT. YOU WILL BE HELD TO THAT. YOU WILL COME BEFORE A ZONING CLEARANCE LETTER WHETHER YOU COME TO DO THAT RENOVATION OF THE BUILDING IF YOU DON'T MEET IT THEY WILL STOP YOU AND YOU WILL HAVE TO CLEAN IT UP OR CALL YOU TO TASK FOR THE CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD. I DON'T KNOW THE SPECIFICS OF WHERE THE CARS WILL GO OR WHAT WILL BE DONE ON THE PROPERTY EVERYTHING THAT IS REQUIRED UNDER CODE HE ALLEGES HE IS GOING TO DO AND HELD TO THAT BY OUR CODE. 
          >> AND SOMETIME TO DO THIS AND HE HAS IN THE DONE IT YET. 
          >> HE WAS TRYING TO DO IT HIMSELF, THEY ARE FROM OUT OF TOWN. WHEN HE RAN INTO THE ROADBLOCKS SAYING YOU CAN'T DO THIS, THAT IS WHEN THEY MOVED THE STORAGE THING THAT, THEY STOPPED. AND TOLD THEM YOU CAN NOT DO THAT. THAT HAS BEEN FOR THE LAST I DON'T KNOW, YEAR OR SO. 
          >> YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE LARGE YELLOW STORAGE CONTAINER. 
          >> IT IS LEGAL AS LONG AS YOU HAVE A RESIDENTIAL USE ON THE PROPERTY WHICH IS WHAT HE IS TRY TOKING TO AND PUT HIS STUFF INSIDE. OTHER THINGS, TOO, I DID NOT TAKE INVENTORY OF WHAT IS SOT PROPERTY. I WAS TOLD THERE MIGHT BE A BOAT OUT THERE. 
          AGAIN, LEGAL TO BE THERE BUT NOT REALLY SIGHTLY, SO, HIS INTENT IS TO CLEAN IT UP. AND COME WITHIN CODE. 
          >> SO WHAT IS THERE RIGHT NOW A LOT OF CARS AND STORAGE SHEDS 
          AND THINGS LIKE THAT. >> THAT IS RIGHT 
          >> RIGHT IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA. >> TYPICAL OF HASTINGS, NO OFFENSE, THERE ARE A LOT OF PLACES THAT HAVE STORAGE THAT WERE PRECODE. UNDER THE TOWN OF HASTINGS SO THE ENFORCEMENT WOULD OF COME IN THE TOWN OF HASTINGS, IF THEY DID IT OR DID NOT. THEY OWNED IT SINCE 2011, HAVE THEY CARED FOR THE PROPERTY? I DON'T KNOW, I HAVE NOT LOOKED AT IT. HIS STATED INTENT IS TO CLEAN IT UP AND AS PART OF, YOU KNOW, REALLY, THIS IS A CONSIDERATION OF, YOU KNOW, WHETHER OR NOT IT IS APPROPRIATE TO HAVE A BUILDING THAT IS WITHIN TWO FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINE, NOT THE LOOK OVER THE PROPERTY, BUT I TALKED TO HIM AND I WAS, YOU KNOW, PERMITTED TO SAY TO THIS AGENCY THAT IF THERE IS A CONDITION, NOT APPLICABLE UNDER THE LAW BUT HE DOES NOT MIND A CONDITION BECAUSE THAT IS HIS INTENT ANY 
          WAY. >> OKAY, I REALLY -- BECAUSE OF THE LENGTH OF THE LOT PARTICULARLY, I DON'T SEE ANY UNUSUAL FEATURES OR ASPECTS OF THIS LOT THAT CREATE A HARDSHIP. 
          I REALLY DON'T SEE THE HARDSHIP HERE. THE BACK OF THE STORAGE, THE LARGE STORAGE UNIT IS WITHIN TWO FEET OF THE BACK PROPERTY LINE, BUT THE CLIENTS LOT IS MUCH LONGER QUITE A BIT LONGER THAN THE LOT NEXT DOOR THAT THEY OWN. OTHER LOTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD? YOU WOULD THINK WITH THAT EXTRA ROOM IN THE BACK THAT WHOEVER BUILT THAT, THIS IS IRRELEVANT AT THIS POINT, WHOEVER BUILT IT WOULD OF HAD PLENTY OF ROOM TO NOT PUT IT WITHIN TWO FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINE. I DON'T SEE A HARDSHIP 
          HERE. >> I THINK PART OF IT IS BECAUSE UNDER THE LAW IT WAS PARCELED OFF AFTER THE FACT. THE BUILDING WAS ALREADY THERE FOR MANY YEARS, THIS IS PRE-ZONING CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. NO SET BACK ENFORCEMENT BACK IN THOSE DAYS, HARD TO SAY. HE WOULD LIKE TO NOT TEAR IT DOWN WHICH HE COULD DO, HE WOULD LIKE TO UTILIZE PART OF IT. THAT IS WHY WHEN I DID THE APPLICATION I EMPHASIZED HE JUST WANTED TO DO IT IN THE FRONT CORNER YOU ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE RESIDENTIAL. YOU CAN PUT A SHED WITHIN A CERTAIN NUMBER OF FEET BUT NOT THE RESIDENTIAL. WE WILL PUT IT UP HERE IN THE FRONT CORNER AND THAT BACKFIRED. YOU ONLY WANT TO USE PART OF IT IS NOT A RESIDENCE. AGAIN, NONE OF THAT IS REALLY RELEVANT. IF YOU 
          [01:10:02]
MAKE PART OF IT RESIDENTIAL YOU HAVE TO COME WITHIN THE SET BACK AND THAT IS WHY WE ARE HERE TO ASK THE TWO FEET, THE HARD SHIP IS THAT IT HAS BEEN THERE FOR 40 YEARS APPARENTLY AND PARCELED OFF AFTER THE FACT. THEY DID NOT CREATE THAT. LONG LOTS BEFORE I 
          SHOWED IT TO YOU. >> SO THE SHED WAS ALREADY THERE BEFORE THE CURRENT PROPERTY LINES WERE DRAWN? 
          >> THAT IS WHAT APPEARS NOT THAT IT WAS PLOTTED. THEY WERE PLOTTED LONG, WHEN I SHOWED YOU THE HIGHLIGHTED PART ON THE -- 
          SORRY, SORRY. >> I SHOWED YOU THIS HIGHLIGHTED PART HERE, THE PINK, THE YELLOW, THOSE WERE LAID OVER IT. 
          >> I SAW IT. >> THESE ARE THE LONG ONES ARE THE PLOTTED LOTS, THIS IS HOW THEY WERE PARTITIONED OFF OVER TIME AFTER IT WAS, THE PROPERTIES WERE DEVELOPED. 
          SOMEBODY BROKE OFF THIS PIECE HERE AND SOLD IT. I THINK HER NAME IS SHELLY OR SHARE ONTHAT LIVES DOWN SHARRON, BUT YOU CAN SEE THE LEGALLY PLOTTED LOTS. THE WHOLE LOT WAS THE PLOTTED LOT. SOMEBODY PUT THE SHED HERE IN THE MIDDLE OF IT. AT SOME POINT THERE AFTER BROKE IT OFF. THAT IS WHY IT IS WITHIN IT, THAT IS WHY THEY DID NOT CREATE THAT HARDSHIP. 
          >> OKAY. IT STATES HERE LD C-SECTION 10.04.02. ST. JOHNS COUNTY, ZONING NOR NOT CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS, LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE CODE WOULD RESULT IN UNNECESSARY AND UNDUE HARDSHIP. PLANNING AND ZONING AGENCY MAY PROVIDE SUCH CONDITIONS AND SAFE GUARDS AS MAY BE APPROPRIATE AND IN HARMONY OF THE PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THE VARIANCE. GIVEN IT IS A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, A PRIDE COMPLAINT OUT THERE. ONE, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY MAY OBJECT BUT IT DOES NOT SEEM TO BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO GRANT AN AUTO STORAGE YARD AND BIG STORAGE SHED THERE ON THAT PROPERTY WHEN THERE IS A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD SURROUNDING THE REST OF THE USE, EVEN THOUGH THE INTENT IS TO PUT A 10X18 FOOT UNIT LIVING UNIT IN THE CORNER OF THAT STORAGE SHED. 
          IS THAT A VALID LIVING QUARTERS? >> I WOULD RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE. WE ARE ASKING FOR RESIDENTIAL USE. I COULD OF CONVERTED ALL OF IT BY RIGHT. THE REASON I SAID FRONT CORNER, I WAS TRYING TO USE THAT TO SAY HE DOES NOT HAVE THE INTENT TO MAKE IT A HUGE RESIDENCE IN THE BUILDING USED THIS WAY. BUT WHETHER YOU SAY IT IS INAPPROPRIATE TO CREATE A STORAGE YARD WE ARE NOT DOING THAT AT ALL. 
          >> THAT IS WHAT IS THERE CURRENTLY 
          >> THAT IS WHAT IS THERE CURRENTLY. 
          >> RIGHT. BUT THAT IS BECAUSE THAT WAS THERE SINCE THE '70S 
          OR '80S OR WHATEVER. >> ALL OF THE CARS WERE STORED 
          THERE? >> I DON'T KNOW, THE CARS, IF 
          YOU LOOK AT YOUR STAFF REPORT. >> I KNOW THEY ARE ALL 
          REGISTERED. >> IF HE SHOULD DO IT OR NOT IS A DIFFERENT STORY. IF YOU WANT TO PUT IT ON THE CONDITION AND TALKED ABOUT IT, OKAY, YOU CAN PUT IN CONDITIONS AND SAFE GUARDS, I MEAN, PUT IN CONDITIONS OR TALK ABOUT THE CONDITIONS AND SAFE GUARDS SO I CAN SEE IF THEY MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE. LIKE I SAID RG-2 HE CAN DO THAT. HE CAN DO THE RESIDENTIAL USE. THE ONLY THING WE ARE HERE FOR IS THE TWO FOOT IN THE BACK APPROPRIATE OR NOT APPROPRIATE NOT IF ANYTHING ELSE HE IS DOING ON THE PROPERTY IS. MY POINT IS NOT TO COME HERE AND ARGUE AGAINST ANYTHING THAT IS LEGAL AND HE CAN DO IT. HE WANTS TO AGREE WITH THE CONDITIONS BUT HE NEEDS TO GET IT APPROVED FOR THE TWO FEET IN THE BACK AND THAT IS ALL WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, THE TWO FOOT IN THE BACK. TWO FOOT IN THE BACK. 
          >> I AM NOT HERE TO ARGUE AND NOT ARGUING, POINTING OFF THINGS 
          IN THE STAFF REPORT. >> YES, SIR. 
          >> STATEMENTS IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT I AM READING. LDC ARTICLE 12, DEFINITION, ZONING VARIANCE. ONE, SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. I THINK IT IS. 
          [01:15:02]
THAT IS MY INTERPRETATION OF THIS. BY REASON OF EXCEPTIONAL NARROWNESS, SHALLOWNESS OR UNUSUAL SHAPE OF A SPECIFIC PIECE OF PROPERTY OR BY REASON OF EXCEPTIONAL CONDITIONS OR CONDITION SUCH PIECE OF PROPERTY OR REASON OF USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY JOINING THE PIECE OF PROPERTY IN QUESTION. THREE, LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS CAUSING AN UNDUE HARDSHIP TO CARRY OUT THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE CODE. I WILL COME BACK TO THAT. AND THEN FOUR, THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THIS CODE. IN THIS CONTEXT, PERSONAL FAMILY OR FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES, LOSS OF PERSPECTIVE, PROFITS, NEIGHBORING VIOLATIONS OR HARDSHIP CREATED BY ACT ARE NOT CONSIDERED HARDSHIPS, WHAT IS AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE? IT IS BY DEFINITION IT IS A USE OR STRUCTURE OF A NATURE, CUST CUSTOM -- IT WILL BE 10-18, THAT IS 180 SQUARE FEET, THE 
          RESIDENTIAL UNSIT NOT 10-18. >> YOU KEEP SAYING THAT BUT NO 
          PLANS IN THAT. >> THAT IS WHAT IS IN THE ITEM? 
          >> HE IS ASKING FOR A RESIDENTIAL USE, A USE ALLOWED BY RIGHT IN RG-2 WITHIN THAT BUILDING THAT IS 2 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. HE NEEDS THE VARIANCE TO DESIGN IT . 
          >> I UNDERSTAND THE VARIANCE IS IN THE BACK. BUT, IT STATES IN OUR ITEMS HERE ALL OF THE MATERIAL PUT TOGETHER BY STAFF THAT CONSTITUTES COMPETENCE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS THAT A 10X18 FOOT UNIT IN THE FRONT CORNER OF THAT SHED, LARGE SHED. 
          IS THAT NOT CORRECT? >> MAY I ASK -- I WILL PUT IT UP HERE. THIS IS THE SECTION YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. IT WAS PUT IN AT THE END. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU KNOW BUT WE GO THROUGH MONTHS AND MONTHS AND MONTHS OF COMMENTS WITH STAFF BEFORE WE GET PUT IN FRONT OF YOU. IT IS NOT JUST A PIECE OF PART. THESE COMMENTS WERE ENTERED IN THE LAST TWO WEEKS, I HAD NO IDEA THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT ANYTHING UNTIL MR. STANTON HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A RESPONSE. I TALKED TO HIM TODAY. 
          I DID NOT SEE HIS COMMENTS UNTIL TWO DAYS AGO. 
          >> I SAW IT A WEEK AGO. >> WHEREVER THE STAFF REPORT CAME OUT ON FRIDAY. THE POINT IS I SAW THE COMMENTS AND NOW YOU SAY THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO, THE STAFF IS SAYING WE HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE INTENT. THE INTENT OF WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN. I AM TELLING YOU UNDER OUR CODE FROM LEGAL PERSPECTIVE, WE DON'T REGULATE IT. MR. SMITH WILL GO IT. WE DON'T REGULATE IF SOMEONE LIVES IN A HOUSE OR NOT. 
          OR HOW BIG OF A STRUCTURE THEY USE IS. WHAT THE CONCERN WAS IS IT GOING TO BE A STORAGE YARD WHICH, AGAIN, A STORAGE YARD IS NOT ALLOWED WITHIN RG-2? ALL OF THAT HAS TO DO WITH OUR CODE AND CODE ENFORCEMENT THAT IS WHY I POINTED OUT THE FACT THAT HE HAS MET ALL OF THE ISSUES THAT WERE BROUGHT UP IN THE PRIDE CONTENT THAT YOU ALLUDE TO A PRIDE COMPLAINT THAT IS OUTSTANDING. 
          THE REASON IT IS, THE FACT THAT THERE IS A STORAGE SHED THERE AND YOU HAVE TO HAVE A RESIDENTIAL USE ON IT BEFORE YOU CAN HAVE A STORAGE SHED. THAT IS WHY WE ARE HERE TRYING TO GET 
          THE RESIDENTIAL USE. >> SO HOW LARGE IS THE 
          RESIDENTIAL UNIT GOING TO BE? >> WITHIN THAT BUILDING AND HE IS GOING TO DESIGN IT BASED ON WHAT IS ALLOWED UNDER THE 
          BUILDING CODE. >> BUT WHAT I HAVE BEEN GIVEN AND READ FROM THE STAFF, IN THIS ITEM WAS THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE A 10X18 FOOT AND SHOWED A DIAGRAM OF IT. SAID THERE WAS AN EXISTING SINK AND TOILET IN ONE CORNER AND IT WAS A 10X18 AND HERE AGAIN, THE 180-SQUARE-FOOT LIVING AREA. DOES NOT COMPARE TO 
          BE TYPICAL OR CONVENTIONAL? >> HOW BIG IS THE UNIT GOING TO BE? WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE LIVING QUARTERS IN THE LARGER 
          SHED. >> LET'S GO BACK TO THIS. THE REASON WHY WITH ALL DUE RESPECT THE REASON WHY IT STATED AND THE DIAGRAMS WITHIN THE APPLICATION THAT IS WHAT HE WAS TOLD TO DO. 
          YOU SEE, THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT ADVISED THE PROPERTY OWNER TO CONVERT A PORTION OF THE EXISTING METAL BUILDING INTO AN APARTMENT SO THE BUILDING WOULD BE SEEN AS PRIMARY. HE WAS TOLD, 
          [01:20:04]
I WAS NOT INVOLVED. HE WAS TOLD TO DO THAT. IF I HAD COME I WOULD OF SAID LISTEN, WE JUST WANT TO ASK FOR RESIDENTIAL USE WITHIN THE BUILD THAT IS ALLOWED BY RIGHT AND GET IT. DOES NOT MATTER HOW MUCH OF THE BUILDING HE USES OR DOESN'T USE HE HAS TO GET THE VARIANCE BECAUSE PART OF THE BUILDING, ANY RESIDENTIAL USE IN ANY OF THE BUILDING IT HAS TO MEET THE SET BACK AND IT DOES NOT MEET IT BECAUSE OF WHERE IT HAS BEEN FOR 40 YEARS. 
          >> WELL, THE SIZE OF THE LIVING QUARTERS DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE WHEN YOU READ WHAT -- HE WANTS TO KEEP THE STORAGE UNIT, I ASSUME IT IS THE YELLOW STORAGE UNIT, LOOKS LIKE IT CAME OFF OF A SHIP OR A RAILROAD CAR OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 
          >> WHICH IS ALLOWED. >> HERE IS THE DEFINITION OF THE USE OF STRUCTURE. I READ IT BEHAVIOR, USE OR STRUCTURE OF A NATURE CUST CUSTOMARILY TO IT. THAT STORAGE UNIT, THE YELLOW ONE OUT THERE. IT IS 320 SQUARE FEET. TO BE SUBON SUBORDINANT 180, I DON'T SEE 320-SQUARE-FOOT STRUCTURE SUBORDINATE. 
          >> WE ARE TALKING MIXED TERMS WITH DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS, FLORIDA BUILDING CODE AND HOW YOU DEFINE HOW TO RENOVATE THE BUILDING. I COULD OF SAID WE WILL USE ALL OF IT -- MAYBE YOU 
          SHOULD HAVE. >> AGAIN HE WAS TOLD TO APPLY THIS WAY. IF I CAME IN AND SAID THAT TO YOU, I WANT TO USE THERE WHOLE BUILDING FOR RESIDENTIAL USE, THE ZONING DEPARTMENT DOES NOT GET INVOLVED IN WHAT YOU DO INSIDE THAT BUILDING IT IS THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT THAT GETS INVOLVED WITH THAT. THEY GET INVOLVED IF THE USE IS OKAY. THE USE IS A USE ALLOWED BY RIGHT. 
          THE ONLY REASON IT WAS TAGGED BECAUSE IT IS WITHIN TWO FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINE. NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW MUCH OF THAT BUILDING YOU ARE USING AS RESIDENTIAL USE. I COULD BUILD A HOUSE AND ONLY BUILD THIS ONE HALF OF THE HOUSE FOR WHERE I AM GOING TO LIVE AND THE OTHER HALF ALL STORAGE AND IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED RESIDENTIAL UNDER ZONING. I WOULD HAVE TO MEET THE SETBACKS, UNDER THE BUILDING CODE, IT WOULD BE DIFFERENT. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT APPLES AND ORANGES, BUILDING CODE YOU HAVE TO MEET THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, WHICH IS LAW, THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE FOR RESIDENTIAL USE FOR THE PART YOU ARE GOING TO USE, AGAIN THAT IS WHY THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF A ACCOMPLICE CONCEPTION HERE AS TO WHAT IS GOING ON. HE COULD OF EASILY SAID I AM GOING TO USE IT FOR RESIDENTIAL. HE IS NOT TRYING TO HIDE THE FACT OF WHAT HE IS TRYING TO DO. IF HE IS GOING TO CONVERT A BUILDING HE MEADES TO MEET THE BUILDING CODE. HE WILL DO A SECTION LIKE HE WAS ADVISED BY YOUR BUILDING DEPARTMENT JUST DO THIS SECTION UP HERE, YOU HAVE A SINK AND TOILET AND BATHROOM YOU CAN PUT A KITCHEN YOU CAN DO FACILITIES IN THERE, DON'T HAVE TO CONVERT IT AND SPEND A BUNCH OF MONEY ON THE PROPERTY. THEN YOU CAN COME IN AND CLEAN THE PROPERTY AND HAVE THE STORAGE UNIT BECAUSE IT IS ALLOWED BY RIGHT AND STORE STUFF THERE. AGAIN, I DON'T, YOU KNOW, I HEAR WHAT YOU ARE SAYING AND LOOKING AT THE PACKET BUT THE PACKET IS NOT ANYTHING OTHER THAN SAYING WHAT HE -- I DID NOT SUBMIT THAT. THAT IS WHAT HE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO HAVING ME COME IN AND HELP HIM GET IT DONE. I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP, IT IS WITHIN YOUR PACKET, THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT ADVISED HIM OF THAT. 
          >> I UNDERSTAND THAT, I READ IT IN -- I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO REPEAT THAT ASPECT. DID THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT ACTUALLY TELL HIM WHAT SIZE BUILDING? LIVING QUARTERS, RESIDENTIAL AREA SHOULD BE ON THERE? OR DID THE COUNTY JUST MAKE UP 180 SQUARE FEET? WHERE DID THE FIGURE COME 
          IN. >> THE STAFF DID NOT DO THE DRAWING, HE DID THE DRAWING, HE IS A LAYPERSON WHO CAME IN AND OWNED THIS PROPERTY AND WANTED TO GET IT FIXED UP. HE MOVED THE STORAGE CONTAINER ON THERE. GOT THE PRIDE COMPLAINT, BROUGHT EVERYTHING ELSE IN COMPLIANCE. THE LAST THING, YEAH YOU CAN NOT HAVE IT BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE A RESIDENTIAL USE. HE SAID OKAY, HOW DO I DO THAT, THEY SAID CONVERT A SMALL PART OF THAT BUILDING. THAT IS WHAT THEY SAID. AGAIN, WHAT THAT IS, HE HAS NOT DECIDED THAT. HAS NOT HAD IT ENGINEERED YET OR ANYTHING SAY LISTEN CONVERT HALF OF IT, HE MAY DO THAT. ALL OF THAT IS A USE BY RIGHT. HE CAN DO THAT. THE ISSUE WE ARE 
          [01:25:01]
TALKING ABOUT IS THE 2 FOOT IN THE BACK. IF THIS WAS 10 FOOT OFF OF THE BACK PROPERTY HE WOULD NOT HAVE TO COME TO YOU. 
          >> I UNDERSTAND THAT. >> ALL OF IT TO CLEANUP THE PROPERTY HE WOULD NOT HAVE TO COME TO YOU. WE ARE PREPARED TO AGREE TO CONDITIONS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE ON A ZONING VARIANCE FOR A TWO FOOT SET BACK BUT PREPARE TO AGREE TO THOSE TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE ISSUES YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT SO HE CAN MOVE FORWARD IN FIXING THE PROPERTY UP. I THINK THAT IS 
          WHAT MR. STANTON WANTS. >> WE HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE WITH 
          QUESTIONS. OKAY. MAYBE MOVE ON. >> OKAY. FINE, SURE. 
          >> IF THAT IS OKAY. >> WELL OLSON, BY THE WAY, WE HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT IF YOU HAVE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS WE CAN ASK MR. ADAMS, MR. OLSON YOU ARE UP 
          ON THE QUEUE. >> OKAY. I AM SORT OF GETTING CONFUSED. IT MAY HAVE BEEN MY CONJECTURE THAT THOSE HALF-DOZEN SPORTS CARS ON THE SITE THAT ARE SITTING THERE THEY WERE THE BASIS FOR THE PARTIAL BASIS FOR THE COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE SITE, 
          IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING. 
          >> YEAH. >> MY THOUGHT WAS IN VISITING THE SITE, THAT IS AN IMPRESSIVE COLLECTION. I ASSUME THAT SOMEWHERE ALONG THE WAY SOMEONE WAS COLLECTING THESE AND THE PURPOSE OF THE STORAGE PORTION OF THE METAL BUILDING WAS A PLACE TO HOUSE THOSE AND GET THEM OUT OF THE OPEN AIR AND 
          RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINTS. >> YES, SIR. 
          >> IS THAT CLEAR? IS THAT IT? >> I THINK THAT IS PART OF HIS 
          INTENT. >> OKAY. OKAY. 
          >> AND, BUT, THAT TERM DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THIS WOULD COME UNDER LDC2.02.01B4 IS WHAT I AM READING. AND THAT IS, WHAT MR. HILSENBECK WAS ASKING ABOUT. 
          UNDER THAT CODE. WE DON'T HAVE THAT UNDER OUR L D.C.  PGH LDC. 
          THAT IS WHAT IS THE ANSWER TO WHAT SIZE OF THE RESIDENTIAL UNIT GOING TO BE VERSUS THE STORAGE AREA. AND MY OTHER THOUGHT, NOT THOUGHT UP YET, CERTAINLY ALL OF THIS IN ORDER TO BE A LEGITIMATE USE AND TO SEE THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IT WOULD HAVE TO COME UNDER CURRENT BUILDING CODES THE RESIDENTIAL UNIT AND LIKELY THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE. 
          >> THAT IS RIGHT. >> WOULD BE REQUIRED TO COME 
          UNDER CURRENT BUILDING CODES. >> THAT IS RIGHT. 
          >> THAT METAL STRUCTURE LOOKS VERY OLD STRUCTURE. I AM NOT SURE IT IS PRACTICAL. OR TO CREATE A LIVING UNIT TO CODE IN THAT REQUIRES MODERN UTILITY SERVICES, WINDOWS TO ALL OF THE OCCUPIABLE OCCUPIED ROOMS, I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT WOULD ALL BE ACCOMPLISHED, ISN'T THAT PART OF WHAT WE NEED TO CONSIDER? THE WHOLE BASIS FOR THIS IS TO APPROVING THESE VARIANCES IS TO ALLOW THE RENOVATION OF THE BUILDING TO PROCEED UNDER THE USE UNDER THE LD DC SECTION. WHICH IS WHY I THINK HE WAS ADVISED TO DO A SECTION OF IT. AND THE TERM, IT IS A LITTLE CONFUSING BUT IT IS A TERM UNDER THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE. AND THAT MEANS YOU CAN CONVERT, REALLY, USE THE WORD ITSELF, BARN, YOU CONVERT PART OF A BARN INTO A RESIDENTIAL USE AND BRING UP THAT SECTION OF THE STRUCTURE UP TO RESIDENTIAL REGULATIONS UNDER THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE. THAT IS WHAT HIS WHOLE INTENT WAS WHEN HE CAME TO DO THIS. THAT IS 
          [01:30:03]
WHY HE WAS TOLD TO DO THAT. THE ONLY THING THAT HELD IT UP, CLEARING SHEET TO DO THAT, YOU NEED TO GET A VARIANCE. EVEN 
          THOUGH YOU ARE NOT DOING THAT . >> YEAH, YEAH, THE TWO-FEET STEP 
          RULE. >> YES, IT HAS TO MEET ALL OF THE REGULATIONS AND PART OF IT IS TO CLEAN UP THE PROPERTY. 
          KIND OF IN A CATCH-22, THAT IS WHAT HE IS TRYING TO DO. 
          >> WELL, JUST, IT SEEMS LIKE STARTING OVER ON THAT SITE WITH A TRUE WHATEVER, NEW CONSTRUCTION WILL LIKELY BE THE END SOLUTION TO THIS. DOES NOT SEEM PRACTICAL TO ME TO DEPEND ON THIS IF 50-YEAR-OLD PLUS METAL STORAGE BUILDING TO CREATE A RESIDENTIAL UNIT TO BRING THE ENTIRE STRUCTURE AND UNIT UP TO CURRENT BUILDING CODE. I DON'T KNOW IF I HAVE ANYMORE QUESTIONS 
          OTHER THAN THAT. >> ALL RIGHT. [INAUDIBLE] 
          >> NO, NO, JUST A BUILDING DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL WHO CAN 
          ANSWER QUESTIONS. >> OKAY. MR. LABANOWSKI. 
          >> LOOKING AT THE CONDITION OF THAT BARN, THE METAL STRUCTURE, IF LIVING QUARTERS ARE GOING TO BE PUT IN THERE THAT WOULD REQUIRE EXTERIOR WORK AS WELL, CORRECT? 
          >> PROBABLY SO. >> YOU ARE GOING TO CHANGE THE, A LOT OF THE OUTSIDE AND THEN GOING TO PUT THE LIVING QUARTERS INSIDE. IT SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD BE BEST IF THE UNIT WAS JUST TAKEN OUT. THERE WOULD BE A LOT OF WORK TO PUT INTO IT AND MEET ALL OF THE CODES ON THE EXTERIOR WORK. 
          >> THAT IS CORRECT AND PUT A NEW STRUCTURE ON THERE, ANOTHER RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE AND HAVE ALL OF THE STUFF GOING ON THERE. 
          THIS WAS HIS ATTEMPT AT A COMPROMISE FOR NOT TEARING DOWN THE STRUCTURE. ALL OF THE VEHICLES ON THE PROPERTY RIGHT NOW, 13 CARS, ONE TRAILER AND A BOX HE BROUGHT IN. ALL 13 OF THOSE VEHICLES HAVE CURRENT STICKERS ON THEM NOW? 
          >> YES. >> THAT IS RIGHT. 
          >> CURRENT STICKERS, NOT TAGS. >> THAT IS WHY THE CODE ENFORCEMENT SIGNED OFF ON ALL OF THAT. 
          >> I WAS OUT THERE ON SUNDAY, I AM WATCHING BIRDS FLY IN AND OUT OF THE CARS, THE TARPS, IT LOOKS MORE LIKE A JUNKYARD THAN A RESIDENCE OR SOMEONE WHO IS TRYING TO COLLECT CARS. I AM SORRY. I MEAN, THE TRAILER THAT IS THERE, IT HAS, DOES NOT LOOK GOOD AT ALL. IT PROBABLY LEAKS, HOPEFULLY NOT. MY CONCERN IS, CAN THE CURRENT USE OF THAT PROPERTY DOES NOT FIT WITHIN THE COMMUNITY. I DON'T MIND APPROVING THE SET BACK VARIANCE BUT AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED, FENCE WOULD HAVE TO BE CONTINUED AROUND THE ENTIRE PROPERTY AND THE CARS IN THE TRAILER. THE TRAILER CAN BE SET BACK BY THE STORAGE BUILDING. BUT THE REST OF THE STARS, THEY GO INSIDE OR SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE WITH IT. RIGHT NOW IT LOOKS LIKE A JUNKYARD. 
          >> YES, SIR. [INDISCERNIBLE] >> MADAM CHAIR, CAN I FINISH. 
          >> OH, I AM SORRY, I THOUGHT YOU WERE DONE. 
          >> NO, NO. I WANTED TO FIND OUT THE BARN ITSELF, IS IT USED FOR 
          STORAGE OR A MECHANIC'S SHOP? >> I DON'T THINK HE HAD CAN 
          HAVE A MECHANIC'S SHOP. >> THAT IS WHY I AM ASKING. 
          >> RG-2 HE WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK FOR ZONING. 
          >> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> MRS. SPIEGEL. 
          >> MR. LABANOWSKI WAS NOT DONE, MY MIKE WAS BEING POLITE. IT IS HARD TO COME LATE IN THE GAME AND ALL OF THE DETAILS ARE COMING IN THAT ARE NOT REALLY CLEAR AT ALL. MY, FIRST OF ALL, THE COMPLAINT IS NOT CLOSED AND THERE ARE OPEN ISSUES ON THERE AS WELL. I DID TRY TO GET A RECORD OF COMPLAINTS TODAY BUT I GUESS I CALLED TOO LATE. I DID NOT HAVE ALL OF THAT 
          [01:35:02]
INFORMATION, MY CONCERN IS REALLY ABOUT COMMUNITY AND NEIGHBORS AND NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE SPOKE ABOUT THIS ON THE PHONE. I DID HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH MAIN STREET, FROM THE PROPERTY YOU CAN SEE MAIN STREET, YOU CAN SEE THIS PROPERTY RIGHT THERE AND YOU CAN SEE THE CARS AND YOU CAN SEE THE YELLOW STRUCTURE AND THE BARN. AND THAT WAS THE CONCERN TO ME. 
          HASTINGS MAIN STREET WORKING SO HARD TO RENOVATE THIS AREA, THINK ABOUT THIS, AND THEY ARE VERY GOOD, SHE IS GRACIOUS. SHE WANTS THE PROPERTY OWNER TO HAVE HIS RIGHTS AND HE HAS SOME RIGHTS HERE, BUT, TO ME, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. AND I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE HOUSING PERSON COME UP HERE, THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT PERSON COME UP IF YOU COULD. WHAT COULD THEY DO NOW WITHOUT GETTING THAT SET BACK VARIANCE? COULD THEY PUT ANOTHER STRUCTURE THERE? CAN THEY PUT A MOBILE HOME? WOULD THEY NEED TO COME FOR THAT? WHAT CAN THEY DO TO MAKE IT A RESIDENCE WITHOUT GETTING THERE VARIANCE? SOMETHING THEY CAN DO? 
          >> YES, MA'AM. AGAIN, JACOB SMITH FOR THE RECORD. THIS PROPERTY ZONING ALLOWS FOR RESIDENTIAL USES, SO, THEY COULD BUILD ANY NUMBER OF HOUSES, I DON'T BELIEVE YOU CAN GET A MOBILE HOME BY RIGHT, THAT MIGHT BE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT BUT I 
          WILL VERIFY IT >> THEY CAN BUILD A TINY HOUSE ON THE PROPERTY NOT INSIDE OF THE BARN? 
          >> THEY MOST CERTAINLY COULD BUILD A HOUSE THAT MEETS FLORIDA BUILDING CODE STANDARDS ON THE SITE. 
          >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO, HOW WOULD WE GO ABOUT -- THIS IS A DIRT FOUNDATION CORRUGATED METAL AND WOOD FRAME IT APPEARED TO ME, HOW DO THEY TURN IT INTO A RESIDENCE? 
          >> JOHN ADAMS, BUILDING DEPARTMENT, THE FIRST STEP THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER GO OUT AND PROVE TO US THAT THE BUILDING, NOT JUST A PORTION, THE ENTIRE BUILDING WOULD HAVE TO BE PASSING THE CODES AND COVER THE WIND CODES, 130 MILE-AN-HOUR WIND CODES. IF THEY DO THAT, THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE AN ARCHITECT OR DESIGN PROFESSIONAL DESIGN THE HOUSE PART INSIDE TO MEET ALL OF THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODES. 
          >> JUST THE HOUSE CODE. >> IT HAS TO MEET THE STRUCTURAL WIND CODES. WHICH, YOU KNOW, -- AND SO, IF YOU HAVE THE BARN STRUCTURE ON A DIRT FOUNDATION WOULD THEY NEED TO POUR 
          FOUNDATION? >> WHATEVER THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER WOULD REQUIRE TO MAKE IT. 
          >> I KNOW THERE IS BUILDING AND THAT IS NOT WHY WE ARE HERE, SIR, SO MANY QUESTIONS AROUND THERE THAT WE NEED TO BE PLANNING AND FORWARD LOOKING ALLOWING A VARIANCE OPENS THE DOORS TO A LOT OF OTHER THINGS WE WANT TO BE CAREFUL. 
          >> THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF BARNIMIUMS COMING THROUGH LATELY BUT ALL BRAND-NEW BUILDING, STEEL BUILDINGS. 
          >> THERE IS UNUSUAL. >> AND A PORTION OF THEM AND USE THEM AS THEIR HOMES IS WHAT THEY ARE DOING. 
          >> I THINK IT IS A GREAT IDEA >> THIS IS DIFFERENT. THERE IS AN OLDER BUILDING THEY ARE TRYING TO CONVERT. IT CAN BE DONE IT JUST HAVE TO MEET THE CODE. 
          >> ALL RIGHT, OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SIR. APPRECIATE YOU 
          TAKING THE TIME. >> SO, IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THIS LANDOWNER IS NOT HERE, NOT LOCAL. HI HAD A HARD TIME GETTING HERE AND CONTRACTORS AND KEEPING UP WITH IT? HE IS GETTING A HANDLE ON IT, IS THAT RIGHT, SIR? FROM YOUR UNDERSTANDING? HIS INTENTION IS TO HAVE THE PROPERTY LOOKING BETTER ORDER, CONSIDERING THE FACT IT IS RIGHT IN THE VIEW OF THE NEWLY UPGRADED HASTINGS MAIN STREET PART. THAT CONCERNS ME. 
          ONE OF THE SUGGESTIONS THAT MRS. DENNIS PLAYED MAYBE IF THEY HAD A TALL -- MADE MAYBE IF THEY HAD A TALLER FENCE, THAT WAS A SUGGESTION . ANY WAY, I THINK WE HAVE SOMEONE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. 
          >> YES, THANK YOU, SIR. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? 
          [INAUDIBLE] >> SO, THIS IS A QUESTION FOR STAFF. INITIALLY, SO, WE HAVE RESTRICTIONS ON ACCESSORY BUILDINGS OR ACCESSORY USES, A HEIGHT RESTRICTION, RIGHT? AND 
          [01:40:05]
IS THERE A-SQUARE-FOOTAGE RESTRICTION? BUILDING A SEPARATE BUILDING CAN THE SEPARATE BUILDING BE BIGGER THAN THE MAIN 
          STRUCTURE? >> IT CAN NOT BE WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT IF YOU HAVE A VERY LARGE LOT AND YOU ARE ABLE TO NOT HAVE THE ACCESSORY BUILDING BE SEEN FROM THE FRONT RIGHT-OF-WAY, YOU CAN HAVE A BIGGER BARN OR A GARAGE OR WHATEVER BUT IT IS THAT SPECIFIC EXCEPTION IT CAN NOT BE VISIBLE. 
          >> OKAY. >> SO, NOW I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. SO, A RESTRICTION THAT IS AS THAT THE HEIGHT OF THE RESIDENTIAL USE OF THE EXISTING BUILDING WILL NOT BE LOWER THAN THE HEIGHT OF THE USE THAT IS OUTSIDE OF THE AREA THAT IS CONVERTED FOR RESIDENTIAL USE AND RESTRICTION THAT SAYS THAT THE-SQUARE-FOOTAGE OF THE RESIDENTIAL USE WILL BE GREATER THAN THE-SQUARE-FOOTAGE OF THE REMAINDER OF THE USE IS IT 
          ACCEPTABLE TO THE APPLICANT? >> A FEW THINGS THERE TO UNPACK. 
          I THINK THE ACCESSORY USE THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS NOT THE USE IN THAT BUILDING UNDER OUR CODE. WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS THE STORAGE SHED OR THE STORAGE CONTAINER. THAT IS ON THE SITE. THAT IS THE REASON THAT THE COMPLAINT IS OPEN. 
          THERE IS A STORAGE CONTAINER ON THE SITE AND NO RESIDENTIAL USE. 
          AS SOON AS IT IS EMPLOYED IN THE BUILDING THE WHOLE BUILDING IS CONSIDERED THE PRIMARY USE. SO, THEREFORE, THE RESIDENTIAL USE BECOMES THE PRIMARY USE. THAT IS WHAT I WAS TRYING TO EXPLAIN EARLIER, CONFUSION BETWEEN FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, SAINT JOHN'S CODE ZONING, ZONING TALKS ABOUT THE USE, BUILDING TALKS ABOUT THE REGULATION OF THE PORTION EVER THE BUILDING. 
          THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION, THE WHOLE BUILDING WILL HAVE TO BE INSPECTED TO MEET FLORIDA BUILDING CODE. ONLY THE PORTION THAT IS THE RESIDENTIAL OF THAT WILL HAVE TO MEET THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE FOR RESIDENTIAL USE. SO, TRYING TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION THE HEIGHT OF THIS BUILDING THAT HAS THE RESIDENTIAL USE IN IT, IS CLEARLY HIGHER, THAT BUILDING IS CLEARLY BIGGER THAN THE STORAGE CONTAINER THAT IS THE REASON WHY, WHICH IS THE ACCESSORY USE ON THE PROPERTY. PART OF A BUILDING THAT WHERE THE RESIDENTIAL USE IS ON OUR CODE IT IS NOT A STRUCTURE, ALL PART OF THE STATEMENT STRUCTURE. THAT WOULD NOT BE ACCESSORY. SO TO SAY THAT THEY WOULD AGREE THAT THE-SQUARE-FOOTAGE OF THE RESIDENTIAL WOULD BE LARGER TO TRY TO MEET THE PART ABOUT THE ACCESSORY USE, I MEAN, I GUESS WE CAN SAY IT HAS TO BE PRIMARY TO THAT STORAGE CONTAINER BUT IT IS NOT NECESSARILY PRIMARY TO WHATEVER ELSE IS IN THAT BUILDING BECAUSE LIKE YOU HEARD FROM THE BUILDING INSPECTOR, THERE IS A LOT OF THEM THAT ARE BUILT AND ONLY A PORTION OF IT ARE THE RESIDENTIAL PART. IN FACT, THOSE PORTIONS ARE MUCH SMALLER THAN THE BARN PART, HENCE THE REASON WHY BARNDIMIUM WAS PUT IN THERE SO YOU CAN DO THAT LEGALLY IN OUR STATE. I CAN HEAR WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, BUT I THINK THE WHOLE POINT OF WHY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT SAID CONVERT PART OF THAT, YOU COULD CONVERT PART OF THAT TO THE RESIDENTIAL USE AND THEN YOU CAN HAVE THIS CONTAINER AS THE ACCESSORY USE ON THE PROPERTY AND THEN THAT SOLVES THE ONLY OUTSTANDING COMPLAINT WITHIN THE PRIDE. 
          [INAUDIBLE] 
          . >> DO WE WANT TO AGREE TO CONVERT THE WHOLE BUILDING? HE DOES NOT WANT TO DO THAT. HE DOES NOT WANT TO BUILD OUT THE WHOLE BUILDING. HE WANTS TO USE PART OF THAT TO HAVE, THE CARS OR SOME OTHER STORAGE. THAT HAS BEEN GOING ON IN THAT BUILDING FOR OVER 40 YEARS. HE CAN COME AND BUILD A SEPARATE SMALL TINY HOUSE ON THE PROPERTY AND STILL HAVE THIS STORAGE CONTAINER AND THIS OTHER BUILDING AND THAT IS NOT WHAT HE WANTS TO DO AND THAT IS PART OF THE REQUEST. HARD TO AGREE TO BUILD IT OUT. THAT WOULD BE EXPENSIVE AS YOU HEARD 
          [01:45:02]
FROM OTHER BOARD MEMBER THAT SAW IT. HE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE PART RESIDENTIAL USE WITHIN THE BUILDING AND MOVE FORWARD WITH CLEANING UP THE PROPERTY AS MANY OF THE PROPERTIES. 
          >> I DID NOT SAY 100%, 51%. I DID NOT WANT TO DEBATE. I PREFER NOT TO GET INTO A DEBATE WITH YOU. I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION OR 
          TWO WITH STAFF. >> OUR DEFINITION ACCESSORY USE IS UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED ON THE SAME PREMISES. SO, I BUILD A 2400-SQUARE-FOOT HOUSE WITH A 400-SQUARE-FOOT GARAGE. AND MY BOOK THIS DEFINITION SAYS THAT THE 400-SQUARE-FOOT IS ACCESSORY USE NOT STRUCTURE. WHAT DOES STAFF SAY? 
          >> DEPENDING ON THE PURPOSE OF THE GARAGE. IT MIGHT BE CONSIDERED A SPECIFIC USE. IF IF A GARAGE IS COMPONENT OF A HOME, ALL CONNECTED THE PRIMARY USE IS THE HOME AND YES, THERE IS AN ACCESSORY COMPONENT OF IT. IT IS ALL TREATED AS ONE UNLESS THEY ARE SEPARATED. WHEN THEY ARE SEPARATED YOU MIGHT HAVE A GARAGE ACCESSORY USE FOR STORING VEHICLES OR YOU MIGHT HAVE A BARN THAT IS FOR AGRICULTURE AND SO FORTH. 
          >> SO, IF I BUILT A GARAGE ATTACHED TO THAT HOUSE AND -- 
          NEVER MIND. OKAY. THANK YOU. >> DR. HILSENBECK? 
          >> SO, IF THE OWNER CAN BUILD A SMALL COTTAGE ON THERE INSTEAD OF CONVERTING PART OF THE METAL BUILDING TO A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE WHAT IS THE HARDSHIP? WHERE IS THE HARDSHIP? 
          >> NOW WE ARE TALKING ABOUT MULTIPLE THINGS. I COULD BUILD AN ATTACHMENT TO THAT BUILDING TO THE BIG BUILDING, RIGHT? BUILD SOMETHING ON WHATEVER SIDE THE NORTHSIDE OF THAT, BUT THAT WAS YOUR RESIDENTIAL BUT WE ARE STILL DOING THE SAME THING, I WOULD STILL HAVE TO MEET, I WOULD STILL HAVE TO COME BACK TO YOU AND ASK FOR THE TWO FOOT SET BACK. THEY ARE ALL PART OF SAME BUILDING. TRYING TO MAKE THE BIG BUILDING ACCESSORY, WE HAVE DONE THAT IN OTHER PARTS OF THE COUNTY A MUCH BIGGER GARAGE THAT IS ATTACHED TO A BUILDING AND PEOPLE ARE LIKE THAT IS CLEARLY AN ACCESSORY USE NOT PRIMARY AND WE FOUND IN OUR COUNTY THAT IS NOT. MULTIPLE TIMES BEFORE. SO, THE FACT IS THAT IS ALL -- AND AGAIN, IT ALL ANDS BACK TO THE FACT THAT HE TRIED TO DO IT HIMSELF AND CLEAN UP THE PROPERTY AND HAVE STORAGE AND THEY TOLD HIM YOU HAVE TO HAVE A RESIDENTIAL USE. HOW TO DO THAT, CONVERT PART OF IT THAT IS WHY YOU ARE SEEING IT. HE DREW THOSE, HAND DRAWN, NOT A SPECIALIST. HE STILL HAS TO TAKE ALL OF THESE STEPS, HIGHER A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER, MEET THE BUILDING CODE, ALL OF THESE ISSUES THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TODAY THAT ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ZONING GRANT OF TWO FEET ALL WILL HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED OR HE WILL NOT GET HIS BUILDING PERMIT. A LOT OF CHECKS AND BALANCES THAT ARE GOING TO OCCUR THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO PUT CONDITIONS ON BUT YOU CAN PUT THEM IN IF YOU WANT BECAUSE HE IS WILLING TO AGREE TO THEM. NOT BUILDING OUT THE WHOLE BUILDING BUT REASONABLE ONES OF TALKING ABOUT CLEANING UP THE PROPERTY. THAT IS THE PLAIN FOCUS. 
          >> CAN YOU OR JACOB TELL ME WHERE THE 180 FOOT-SQUARE-FOOT 
          RESIDENTIAL NUMBER CAME FROM? >> THAT WAS THE FRONT CORNER. 
          AGAIN, I DIDN'T DO IT. HE DREW IT. WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT OR WITHOUT THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, I ASSUMED IT WAS WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT OR TOLD HIM TO HE COULD DO NOT TOLD HIM TO DO. OKAY, 18X10 AREA THAT HAS THE SINK AND MAYBE THEY WENT INSIDE -- AGAIN I WAS NOT THERE. MAYBE THEY LOOKED AT IT. THIS IS AN AREA YOU CAN CONVERT THAT. HAVE A ROOM, KITCHEN, A SINK AND TOILET THAT ARE ALREADY HERE. AGAIN, THAT DRAWING THAT IS LABELED I DID NOT LABEL THAT. THAT IS WHAT HE TURNED IN WITH HIS APPLICATION BASED ON SORT OF THE GUIDANCE HE WAS GIVEN. 
          >> JUST ASKING WHERE IT CAME FROM. 
          >> I THINK THAT IS WHERE IT IS. THAT IS MY BEST ANSWER. 
          >> AND JACOB? >> SIR, SUBMITTED AS PART OF THE ORIGINAL VARIANCE APPLICATION, A ASSUME BY THE APPLICANT. 
          >> SO THERE WAS A BASIS FOR YOU PUTTING IN THE STAFF REPORT 180 
          [01:50:01]
          FOOT? >> IT WAS INCLUDED IN THE 
          PACKET. SUBMITTED. >> DID THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT ADVISE THE OWNER TO HAVE 180-SQUARE-FOOT CORNER AS A RESIDENTIAL AREA? WHAT WAS THE ADVICE YOU GAVE ON TERMS OF SIZE? IF ANY. THE REASON ALL OF THIS IS RELEVANT. IT GETS TO 
          ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. >> CORRECT. 
          >> THE THING IS, THE BUILDING CODE DOES NOT REQUIRE SQUARE FOOTAGE. FULL WORKING BATHROOM, TOILET, SINK, AND A FULLY WORKING KITCHEN WITH A SINK, STOVE AND REFRIGERATOR AND AT LEAST ONE ROOM, 70 SQUARE FEET. AND THE REASON THEY COME UP WITH THAT SIZE -- [INAUDIBLE] -- SINCE YOU ARE UP THERE, ARE THERE ANY PERMITTED RECENTLY PERMITTED RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES IN ST. JOHN'S COUNTY THAT HAVE A DIRT FLOOR? 
          >> NO. >> ALL RIGHT, THANKS. 
          >> ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT, MR. WHITEHOUSE, WE ARE TALKING IN CIRCLES, GOING OVER THINGS IN MY OPINION THAT ARE NOT RELEVANT. 
          FOR ME, YOU WILL HAVE AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE RIGHT NOW, THE STORAGE UNIT TO BRING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE. YOU HAVE A STORAGE SHED IN ADDITION TO THAT STORAGE UNIT THAT IT IS SUGGESTED TO BRING, YOU KNOW, AS A RESIDENTIAL USE, RIGHT? 
          >> YES, MA'AM. >> I DON'T CARE HOW SMALL THE PORTION OF IT IS BUT THE WHOLE BUILDING AS ITSELF IS CONSIDERED A RESIDENTIAL USE IF YOU WANT TO HAVE THAT ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. 
          SO, THEREFORE IT IS OUT OF COMPLIANCE BECAUSE OF TWO FEET 
          FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. >> THAT IS RIGHT. 
          >> LOOKING AT A VARIANCE, WHAT IS THE HARDSHIP, I KNOW YOU HAVE BEEN ASKED TWICE I DON'T UNDERSTAND. IN MY MIND, IF THERE IS A HARDSHIP THEN THAT MEANS THERE IS NO OTHER PLACE ON THE PROPERTY THAT HE COULD PUT RESIDENTIAL USE TO ALLOW HIM TO HAVE THE STORAGE STRUCTURE OR SHED. AND I DON'T MIND HIM BRINGING THE SHED INTO A RESIDENTIAL USE I JUST DON'T SEE THE HARDSHIP. OTHER THAN THE FACT IT WAS THERE WHETHER HE 
          BOUGHT THE PROPERTY. >> YES, THE HARDSHIP IS THE FACT THAT THESE WERE PLOTTED IN FULL LOTS, PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT, OR PRIOR TO THE INSTITUTION, THIS BUILDING WAS PUT HERE VIOLATING SETBACKS JUST LIKE WE HEARD IN THE PREVIOUS, A BUILDING THAT HAD OPINION THERE SINCE 1930, WHATEVER HE SAID AND THEN IT WAS BUILT WITHIN THE PROPERTY LINE, HE WAS ASKING TO BUILD AN ADDITION ON ONE END OF IT AND I THINK -- HE WAS DOING THE SAME THING. IT IS REALLY, IT IS DIFFERENT BECAUSE WE HAVE A PROPERTY WITH A BUNCH OF STUFF ON IT THAT IS MAKING IT LOOK LIKE AN EYESORE, IF THIS PROPERTY WAS NOT AN EYESORE, MET ALL OF THE CODES WHICH IT DOES OTHER THAN STORAGE UNIT, IF IT MET ALL OF THEM AND CAME TO YOU WITH THIS BUILDING AND HE WANTS TO DO THIS, THERE BUILDING HAS BEEN HERE FOR 40 PLUS YEARS AND WANTS TO DO PART OF THERE BUILDING, WHATEVER, THIS SECTION, PART OF IT, AS A RESIDENTIAL USE TO CONTINUE TO CLEANUP THE PROPERTY AND DOES NOT WANT TO HAVE TO BUILD ANOTHER HOUSE AND HE HAS A STORAGE UNIT. THE REASON WE ARE HERE BECAUSE OF THE STORAGE UNIT, SHED, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO HAVE IT HERE, HE CAN NOT HAVE IT WITHOUT RESIDENTIAL USE. HE CAN'T. LIKE I SAID THE HARDSHIP IS THE FACT THAT THESE LOTS WERE FULL LOTS BEFORE. YOU CAN SEE CLEARLY BY THE AREA, IT DOES NOT SHOW ON ALL OF THESE BUT I CAN GO ON THE PLAN. THE HARDSHIP IS THE FACT THAT JUST LIKE THE OTHER ONE, THESE BUILDINGS WERE HERE, THEY ARE NOT BECAUSE THIS GUY DID IT, IT IS BECAUSE WE DID NOT HAVE ZONING CODE THEN. BECAUSE WE DID NOT HAVE ZONING CODE, HE WOULD HAVE TO TEAR IT DOWN, NOT FINANCIAL HARDSHIP, IT WAS PLOTTED AS A LONG LOT AND SPLIT UP AFTER AND THEREFORE, DR. HILSENBECK WENT OVER THE CODE BUT WHETHER WE TALK ABOUT THE REASONS AND BY REASON OF, UNUSUAL SHAPE OR SPECIFIC PIECE OF PROPERTY. UNUSUAL SHAPE, PARCELED OFF PRIOR TO ZONING CODE. ALSO, BY REASON OF THE USE OR DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY ADJOINING. IT WAS SPLIT TO BE MUCH SMALLER THAN ALLOWED UNDER OUR CODE RIGHT NOW. THAT IS THE HARDSHIP. 
          [01:55:01]
          >> OKAY. I SEE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. I THINK IT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION BUT I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. THE ONLY OTHER QUESTION THAT I WOULD HAVE, LET'S SAY THIS IS APPROVED AND HE GOES FORWARD AND HE GETS TO THE BUILDING PERMIT STAGE WHETHER HE IS UNABLE TO CONVERT PART OF THAT STORAGE SLED AS A RESIDENTIAL USE THEN AT SOME POINT HE WILL STILL BE OUT OF COMPLIANCE. I GUESS WHETHER IS THAT CAUGHT? IF HE GETS TO THAT POINT AND HE CAN NOT DO A BUILDING PERMIT ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE TO COME BACK HERE? WHAT -- 
          IS THAT A CONDITION? >> WELL. AS THE APPROVAL ORDER IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN IT ADD OR MODIFIED A CONDITION WHERE THE ONE-YEAR TIME PERIOD TO RECEIVE APPROVAL OF BOTH ZONE AND CLEARANCE SHEET AND BUILDING PERMIT. SEEMINGLY THERE IS SOME FLOAT TIME IN THERE, RIGHT, YOU HAVE UP TO A YEAR TO DO THAT COMMENCEMENT OR IT EXPIRES. AGAIN, THE CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE ON THIS PROPERTY IT IS STILL OPEN AND SO, ANY OF THE OUTSTANDING VIOLATIONS THAT MIGHT BE THERE, ONCE THIS IS THROUGH SEEMINGLY, THEY STILL HAVE TO BE HANDLED. THE ACCESSORY BUILDING AND ALL OF THAT GETS A LITTLE BIT OF EXTRA WIGGLE ROOM OVER TIME. MAINTENANCE ISSUES AND SO ON AND 
          SO FORTH. >> A QUICK QUESTION. HE CAN, CURRENTLY, HE CAN BUILD A LIVING UNITED IN OF THE BARN WITHOUT 
          THE VARIANCE? >> NO, SIR. 
          >> OKAY. SO IF HE HAS TO REDO THE OUTSIDE IN ORDER TO GET THE LIVING QUARTERS UP TO SPEED, THAT IS BASICALLY REDOING AN ENTIRE BUILDING, CORRECT? IT WOULD BE SUBSTANTIAL. 
          >> OKAY. >> ALL RIGHT. AND, MR. WHITEHOUSE, QUICK QUESTION, WHY HAS HE NOT BEEN USING THAT BARN RIGHT NOW FOR STORAGE OF THE VEHICLES? 
          >> TECHNICALLY, UNDER OUR BUILDING CODE RIGHT NOW, YOU CAN'T HAVE ANY STORAGE BUILDINGS IN RG-2 WITHOUT HAVING A RESIDENCE ON THE PROPERTY WHICH IS WHY HE HAS TO HAVE A RESIDENCE ON THE PROPERTY TO HAVE THE STORAGE. CHICKEN BEFORE THE EGG. BECAUSE IT WAS HISTORICALLY USED THAT WAY NOBODY SAID ANYTHING ABOUT IT FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS. 
          NOW THAT IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP YOU CAN NOT JUST USE AN RG-2 PROPERTY FOR STORAGE. NO RESIDENTIAL UNIT ON THAT PROPERTY AT ALL. HE HAS TO HAVE ONE. THAT IS WHY HE WANTS PART 
          OF IT THAT WAY. >> OKAY, DR. HILSENBECK? 
          >> SO, JAMES, IS THE SHAPE OF THE PROPERTY A RECTANGLE? 
          >> A CONVERTED RECTANGLE. >> A CONVERTED RECTANGLE. 
          >> I NEVER HEARD THAT. >> IT WAS A DIFFERENTLY SHAPED TRIANGLE, SOMEWHERE OVER TIME IT WAS CHOPPED IN HALF. NOT IN 
          HALF. >> BUT IT IS A RECTANGLE IF YOU LOOKED AT IT ON A MAP OR A DRAWING IT IS A RECTANGLE? I JUST WANT TO KNOW IF IT IS A RECTANGLE. 
          >> IT LOOKS TO BE A RECTANGLE. YES. SO, IN ALL OF THE ISSUES THAT WE HAVE HAD HERE AND LOOKING AT UNUSUALLY SHAPED LOTS OR CONDITIONS OR THINGS LIKE THAT CAUSING A HARDSHIP, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE EVER CITED JUST SOMETHING AS A RECTANGLE AS AN UNUSUAL SHAPE OR UNUSUAL CONDITIONS OR TOPGRAPHICAL DIFFERENCES, I DON'T SEE THE HARDSHIP HERE. WHICH, IT SAYS, HERE, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY REVIEW, NUMBER 3, THE APPLICANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING BY COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE, SPECIAL CONDITION OR UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE PROPERTY. SUCH OF THE LITERAL APPLICATION OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE CONSTITUTES A HARDSHIP. THE AGENCY MAY CONSIDER THE QUALITY AND THAT IS CHARACTER CONVINCING POWER. PROBATIVE VALUE OR WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY IN THE STAFF REPORT AS WELL AS BY STAFF WHICH MEANS STAFF CAN 
          [02:00:06]
PROVIDE IN THIS REPORT AND OF EVIDENCE AND STAFF EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT AND EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY PUBLIC COMMENT AS WELL AS EVIDENCE PRESENTED OR DISCLOSED DURING THE HEARING. AGENCY MAY GRANT RELIEF TO THIS EXTENT ONLY TO ALLEVIATE THE HARDSHIP. AND, I WILL READ SOMETHING ELSE LATER DURING THE COMMENT SECTION THAT THE STAFF PUT FORWARD THAT I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT. THIS BEING CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. 
          >> I WILL BE VERY BRIEF, JUST ONE SECOND IN RESPONSE. 
          >> SURE. >> TO ANSWER THAT, THIS IS THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S SITE, RIGHT. I SHOWED YOU THE PLOT MAP THIS LOT IS CLEARLY DIFFERENT SHAPE THAN THE OTHER LOT. NO COMMENTS FROM STAFF SAYING THIS PROPERTY IS NOT AN IRREGULAR SHAPE AT ALL IN THE STAFF REPORT. THEY HAVE CONCERNS WITH WHAT THE USE IS ON THE PROPERTY, WHICH, AGAIN, I WOULD PAUSE IT TO YOU THAT IS NOT REALLY WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE TWO FEET IS APPROPRIATE. 
          >> OKAY. >> WE ARE GOING TO MOVE ON TO PUBLIC COMMENT. ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 4, PLEASE? YES, SIR. CAN WE GET THE NEIGHBOR? 
          >> GOOD AFTERNOON, CHARLIE HUNT, LITTLE CREEK ESTATES. THROUGHOUT MY WHOLE TIME I WORKED WITH A LOT OF SHIPPING CONTAINERS AND THEY ARE EASY TO MOVE. IF THIS COMES DOWN TO SHIPPING CONTAINER GETTING PLACED AND IT IS NEEDS TO GET MOVED, EIGHT FEET, OR YOU ARE JUST TRYING TO CUT THE TWO FEET OFF, IT SEEMS LIKE THIS IS COSTING SO MUCH MONEY FOR THE OWNER OF THAT PROPERTY TO DO THAT, I WAS JUST LOOKING AT PICTURES OF IT. IT DOES SEEM LIKE A VERY OPEN PROPERTY. RIGHT? AND IT JUST DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. IT MUST BE SOMETHING WELL DEEP INTO THE PLANS OF THE WHOLE RECONFIGURING ON WHAT IS GOING ON THAT PROPERTY IF HE WANTS A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE PLACEMENT OF THAT SHIPPING CONTAINER. SO, IT IS. IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE -- IT SEEMS TOO EASY. JUST TO GO IN AND COME IN HERE JUST TO GET A SPECIAL ADJUSTMENT OR A RULING TO SAY YOU CAN HAVE IT THERE. AND, YES, THAT BARN, OH, GEE WIZZ IF IT IS THAT OLD YOU MIGHT AS WELL BUILD IT NEW BECAUSE REALLY, TO GO TO THOSE, I HAVE BEEN TO ONE OF THOSE BARNDIMIUM THINGS NOTHING NEW ABOUT THEM, NOTHING OLD ABOUT THEM. THEY ARE NEW, UPDATED. THEY HAVE TO HAVE STRUCTURE IN IT. TO BE RESIDENTIAL. RIGHT. BUT THAT, THAT IS MY QUESTION, THIS IS ALL ABOUT THE EIGHT FEET IT WOULD SAVE HIM A LOT OF MONEY JUST TO GET THAT SHIPPING CONTAINER SHIFTED OVER AND THAT IS IT. 
          SOMETHING HAS TO BE FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD, MAYBE THAT IS WHY I AM THINKING TOO FAR DOWN THE ROAD OF WHAT WOULD BE THE REAL REASON NOT WANTING TO JUST MOVE THAT CONTAINER OVER. THANK YOU. 
          >> THANK YOU. >> YES, SIR. 
          >> I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR A LITTLE MORE TIME THAN THREE 
          MINUTES, MAYBE FIVE. >> I WILL GIVE YOU FIVE, YOU HAVE BEEN PATIENT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          >> I AM CHRIS STANTON, THIRD GENERATION AT 111 WEST LATON STREET THAT IS ADJACENT TO THIS PROPERTY. I SENT A LETTER TO EVERYBODY AND HOPEFULLY YOU HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE LETTER. I WOULD LIKE TO JUST ADDRESS WHAT IN THE PACKAGE WHICH I DID NOT HAVE THAT PACKAGE AT THE TIME, SOME DISCREPANCIES THAT I SEE IN THAT PACKAGE. STARTING WITH THE APPLICATION SUMMARY. THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT ADVISED TO CREATE AN A APARTMENT BARNDIMIUM. I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THAT. IS IT THE ROLE OF THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT TO LOOK FOR WAYS TO GET AROUND THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE? THAT IS REALLY CONCERNING TO ME WHEN I SEE A 
          [02:05:04]
STATEMENT LIKE THAT. I MEAN WHY HAVE THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AT THAT POINT IF IT IS JUST WHATEVER THEY WANT TO DO. AND THEN, IT WAS BROUGHT UP EARLIER, WITHY DON'T NEED -- I TOO QUESTION WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF THE BARNDIMIUM. I DON'T SEE IT REFERENCED. MOVING ON TO THE PLANNING AND CODE REVIEW SECTION IT CONFIRMED THE OPEN STORAGE IS NOT ALLOWED. I AM HEARING IN THE DISCUSSION THEY ARE SAYING IT IS ALLOWED. I AM CONFUSED. BECAUSE WHEN I LOOK AT THE CHART OF THE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT ARE ALLOWED UNDER THE RG-2, OPEN STORAGE IS NOT ALLOWED. MOVING TO THE VARIANCE CRITERIA, IT STATES THE BUILDING CLEARLY HAS BEEN ON THE PROPERTY FOR OVER 50 YEARS, THE BUILDING ACCORDING TO THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S OFFICE WAS PLACED THERE IN 1986. THAT IS WHETHER IT WAS BUILT. THAT STATEMENT IS NOT CORRECT. 50 YEARS IS NOT CORRECT. THE OWNERSHIP F YOU WANT TO LOOK AT THE OWNERSHIP. THE LOWE'S BOUGHT IT FROM ROBERT TAYLOR ON JUNE 8TH, 2011 OTHERS ROBERT TAYLOR PURCHASED IT IN AUGUST 31ST OF 1988. THE CHANGE OF USE HAPPENED IN THE LAST YEAR OR SO. 
          HERE ARE TWO PICTURES, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WILL SLOW UP, BUT, THE PLOT PICTURE WAS MARCH 24TH, MARCH OF 2024, THE UPPER PICTURE, AND AS YOU CAN SEE RIGHT HERE, THAT IS THE PROPERTY. THERE IS NO OPEN STORAGE. THIS WAS SUNDAY. WHICH I MEAN I GUESS SOME OF YOU VISITED THAT IS HOW YOU SHOULD OF SEEN IT ON SUNDAY. THAT IS AN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH THAT I TOOK ON SUNDAY FROM MY PROPERTY. SO THE CHANGE OF USE HAS HAPPENED IN THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF. MOVING TO THE FINDINGS OF FACT TO APPROVE. NUMBER TWO, TALKS TO THE HARDSHIP. IN MY OPINION THE ONLY HARDSHIP IS ON THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS. ALL OF THE PROPERTY SURROUNDING THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY ARE ALL SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES, THERE ARE NO OPEN STORAGE IN ANY OF THE OTHER PROPERTIES AROUND IT. OF COURSE, MY PROPERTY IS THE LARGEST. THERE IS MY PROPERTY RIGHT HERE. AND, YOU KNOW, I HAVE NO OPEN STORAGE. NUMBER THREE, IN THE FINDINGS OF FACT TO APPROVE THE REQUEST IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST AND NOT IN CONFLICT. I JUST DON'T SEE THE HARDSHIP FROM THE PUBLIC INTEREST IS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT IS FOR US AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND LASTLY I JUST SAY, I DON'T KNOW WHY THIS VARIANCE REQUEST IS COMING. THERE SHOULD BE A VARIANCE REQUEST ON THE ALLOWABLE USE AND WHY, TO ME, THEY SHOULD BE ONE AND THE SAME. IT ALL SHOULD BE TOGETHER ASKING FOR VARIANCE ON BOTH ITEMS IF THAT IS WHAT THE INTENDED USE IS. I JUST ASK YOU TO PUT YOURSELF IN OUR POSITION, THE NEIGHBORS. I MEAN, IF, YOU KNOW, IF THIS IS THE WAY IT LOOKED IN 2024 AND ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU WAKE UP ONE DAY AND THAT IS WHAT IS RIGHT NEXT TO YOUR PROPERTY, AND THE FENCE WAS NOT THERE IN 2024. THE FENCE IS A RECENT ADD TO THE PROPERTY, TOO. WOULD YOU REALLY WANT THAT, YOU KNOW, RIGHT NEXT TO YOUR PROPERTY? I FEEL LIKE THAT, YOU KNOW, IT DEVALUES OUR PROPERTY. TO HAVE A USE LIKE THAT. SO, ANY WAY, THAT IS, I WOULD ASK RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU DECLINE THE VARIANCE REQUEST ON THE SET BACK UNTIL THE WHOLE PICTURE IS UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU. 
          >> THANK YOU, SIR. >> JUST TO ADDRESS A COUPLE COMMENTS I WILL BE BRIEF. I THINK THE BIGGEST THE CLEAREST ISSUE, LIKE I SAID, NONE OF THIS, NONE OF THIS CAME UP FOR THE MONTHS AND MONTHS AND MONTHS THAT I WAS BRINGING THERE APPLICATION FORWARD FOR A TWO-FOOT VARIANCE IN THE BACK SO HE CAN PROCEED WITH WHAT HE TRIED TO DO BY LYMS INITIALLY 
          [02:10:02]
WHICH WAS WAS TO CLEAR UP THE ISSUES THAT THEY HAVE COMPLAINED ABOUT WITH THE STORAGE. THEY OWNED THIS PROPERTY SINCE 2011. 
          WOE ARE NOT HERE. THE OUTDOOR STORAGE HAS HAPPENED IN THE LAST YEAR AND THE REASON IT DID WAS BECAUSE HE WANTED TO COME ON THE PROPERTY AND FIND A WAY TO USE IT FOR STORING THESE CARS, MOST LIKELY INDOORS THAT IS NOT A PROBLEM ON THIS PROPERTY. HE WAS TOLD IN THE PROGRESS OF DOING SO, YOU HAVE TO HAVE RESIDENTIAL USE. HE KNEW NONE OF THAT. THE FACT THAT NOW THAT HE CAME TO THE COUNTY AND SAID HOW DO I DO THAT? AND WAS, AGAIN, NOT TOLD TO DO IT BUT ADVISED YOU COULD DO THIS, THAT WENT TO ZONING FOR A CLEARANCE LETTER. WHETHER IT WENT TO ZONING, ZONING SAID IF YOU CONVERT THAT FRONT SECTION INTO RESIDENTIAL, YOU HAVE TO BRING THE WHOLE THING IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SETBACKS NOT TO MENTION ALL OF THE BUILDING CODES, TOO. YOU HAVE TO BRING THE WHOLE BUILDING, THE BUILDING, AFTER SURVEY WAS DONE, SHOWN, TWO FOOT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. HENCE, THE APPLICATION SAYING THAT I NEED TO GET THIS VARIANCE. HE THOUGHT, BASED ON THE ADVICE HE WAS GIVEN BY WHOEVER HE TALKED TO, YOU WILL HAVE TO BRING IT YOURSELF. HE CAME TO ME AND TALKED TO ME AND SAID I HAVE ALL OF THESE COMMENTS NOW CAN YOU HELP ME? I BROUGHT IT BACK, REVISED THE APPLICATION TALKING ABOUT WHAT HE REALLY ACTUALLY NEEDED TO DO, HAVE TRIED TO SPOUSE THE THINGS HE WANTS TO DO TO BRING IT BACK TO WHAT MR. STANTON SAYS IT LOOKED LIKE AND CLEAN UP ALL OF THE PROPERTY. 
          ALL OF THE FACTORS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, I GET IT. 
          EVERYONE HAS FEELINGS AND EMOTION. IT IS NOT ABOUT IF HE HAS CARS ON THE PROPERTY, OR STORAGE ON THE PROPERTY, NOT IF HE HAS A FENCE ON THE PROPERTY. IS THAT, IS THAT BUILDING WHERE IT IS, INAPPROPRIATE UNDER OUR CODE. DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT HAS BOTHERED ANYBODY FOR 40 YEARS AND SO, THE FACT IS IT DOES NOT SEEM IT IS IN AN INAPPROPRIATE SPOT ESPECIALLY IF HE IS GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO BRING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE OF ALL OF THE CODES IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE VARIANCE, THE VARIANCE IS, DOES HE MEET THE REQUIREMENTS TO HAVE THIS TO USE THIS BUILDING FOR RESIDENTIAL USE WHICH IS ALLOWED BY RIGHT IN RG-2. OR DOES THAT TWO FOOT PLACEMENT NOT BEING 10 FOOT, UNDUELY EFFECT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT DOES. I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, THANK YOU. 
          >> MR. MATOVINA. >> I AM PREPARED TO MAKE A 
          MOTION >> YES, SIR, GO AHEAD. 
          >> I AM GOING TO SAY A FEW THINGS, FIRST. I AM NOT CONVINCED THAT A BARNDIMIUM IS ALLOWED BY OUR CODE IN RG-2 ZONING DISTRICT. BECAUSE AND THIS REALLY IS A SIDEBAR, BECAUSE IN MY MIND IT WOULD INVOLVE ANIMALS ON THE PART OF THE INSTRUCTOR AND I AM NOT SURE HORSES OR COWS ARE ALLOWED IN RG-2. DEPENDING WHAT THE REST OF THE STRUCTURE WAS GOING TO BE USED FOR. AND A TINY HOME WOULD NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM HERE BECAUSE THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE PRESUMABLY WOULD THEN NEED A VARIANCE BECAUSE IT IS TOO TALL AND TOO BIG. SO, A TINY HOME OES NOT RESOLVE THE ISSUE HERE. AND THEN I WOULD ALSO SAY, THOUGH, WE ARE NOT VOTING ON THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY, THE VEHICLES ON THERE, OR THOSE SORTS OF THINGS. OUR JOB IS NOT TO POLICE WEEDS ON LOTS AND THAT SORT OF THING. OUR JOB IS TO DECIDE IF IT COMPLIES WITH THE CODE. AND, AS MUCH AS I WOULD LIKE TO SAY IN THIS PARTICULAR INCIDENCE THAT THE AMOUNT OF THAT BUILDING THAT IS CONVERTED TO RESIDENTIAL USE NEEDS TO MEET THE SPIRIT OF THE INTENT EVER THE CODE, I ACTUALLY WENT INTO SECTION 2.02.04.A 1 AND .82 AND THE DETERMINING FACTOR IS REALLY 
          [02:15:06]
IN 2 WHERE IT SAYS WHERE A BUILDING SUCH BUILDING AND PORTION WILL BE CONSIDERED AS PART AS A PRINCIPAL BUILDING AND NOT ACCESSORY BUILDING, I NEED TO READ THE PART BEFORE THAT, BUT THE PART BEFORE THAT IS AS REVIEW OF ACCESSORY USES SHALL BE THE SAME FOR THE PRINCIPAL USE. ALL REQUIRED ACCESSORY USES FOR PRINCAL FOR PRINCIPAL USE AND THE ZONING DISTRICT ON THE ZONING USES AND ALL OF THOSE ARE MET. IN NO CASE SHALL THE PRINCIPAL OR ACCESSORY USE BE LOCATED IN A ZONING DISTRICT WHERE THE USE IS NOT A PERMITTED USE OR A SPECIAL USE. ACCESSORY USE IS NOT. THEN GOES ON IN 2, THAT WAS IN 1, WHERE A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE CONTAINING SUCH PRINCIPAL USE, SUCH BUILDING OR PORTIONS WILL BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF A PRINCIPAL BUILDING AND NOT AN ACCESSORY BUILDING. I HAD A THEORY EARLIER, A GARAGE ON NORMAL SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE IS AN ACCESSORY USE, I BELIEVE WHAT THIS IS INTENDED TO SAY THAT IS NOT CORRECT. AS LONG AS THE TWO OF THE THEM CORRECT AND I BELIEVE JACOB'S ANSWER TO ME IS CORRECT. AS LONG AS HE IS NOT PUTTING COWS IN THE REST OF THE BUILDING HE CAN PUT CARS IN THERE, HE CAN STORE WHATEVER HE WANTS TO FOR RESIDENTIAL USE. I AM MAKING A MOTION TO APPROVE Z VARIANCE 2025 LIFE 02, 6 FACTS AND CONDITIONS IN STAFF REPORT UNFORTUNATELY I THINK OUR CODE SAYS THAT WHAT THEY WANT TO DO IS ALLOW IT. DOES NOT MATTER WHERE THE RESIDENTIAL USE IS 180 SQUARE FEET OR THE ENTIRE BUILDING. 
          >> ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL. IS THERE A SECOND? 
          >> I WILL SECOND THE MOTION. >> OKAY. 
          >> MRS. SPIEGEL DID YOU HAVE DISCUSSION? 
          >> YES, OKAY. FIRST OF ALL. I BELIEVE MR. WHITEHOUSE DID YOU SAY THAT THIS BARN CAN'T BE USED FOR STORAGE RIGHT NOW AS IT IS? BECAUSE THERE IS NO RESIDENTIAL? I MISSED THAT IN 
          THIS WHOLE THING. >> I REFERENCE THE USE OF THE BARN OR THE POTENTIAL USE OF THE BARN. SO, THE BARN AS IT SITS RIGHT NOW. IT IS NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. IT IS ALLOWED TO SIT 
          THERE AND BE A BARN. >> AND IT BE USED FOR STORAGE? 
          >> WHEN WE TAKE THAT BARN AND TRY TO INTENSIFY IT IN SOME WAY IN THIS CASE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A BARNDIMIUM ALL OF A SUDDEN IT HAS TO MEET THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. 
          >> A PART FROM RESIDENTIAL. IF WE DON'T DO RESIDENTIAL AT ALL AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW CAN THE BARN BE USED FOR STORAGE? 
          >> THAT RIGHT NOW IS THE NONCONFORMING USE OF THE 
          PROPERTY. >> THAT WOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM. 
          COULD THAT BARN BE USED TO STORE A SHIPPING CONTAINER? 
          CONCEIVABLY. >> I AM SORRY, I TOTALLY MISSED THAT. I THOUGHT YOU SAID THAT THE BARN COULD NOT BE USED AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW FOR STORAGE. I GUESS I NEEDED TO CLARIFY THAT. 
          >> I AM NOT GOING TO TAKE A LONG TIME. TO CLARIFY THAT. YOU CAN'T HAVE JUST STORAGE ON A PIECE OF STORAGE. WHETHER HE SAYS NONCONFORMING, YOU CAN CONTINUE TO USE IT FOR THAT, THAT DOES NOT CLEAN UP THE PROPERTY SO IT DOES NOT EFFECT WHAT HE WANTS TO DO WHICH IS CLEAN UP THE PROPERTY AND YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE RESIDENTIAL USE. COULD HE MOVE IT ALL IN THE BUILDING THAT MIGHT FALL OVER TOMORROW, I GUESS IT COULD. 
          >> OKAY. THEN, ON THE CONDITIONS NUMBER THREE, SAYS, DEVELOPMENT SLAL BE CONSISTENT WITH HOW IT IS DEPICTED ON THE SITE PLAN LABELED EXHIBIT B. SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT AND MADE PART OF THE ORDER. I THOUGHT I HEARD YOU SAY THAT THIS WAS JUST A SCRIBBLE DRAWING OF THE APPLICANT DID NOT REALLY KNOW. 
          CAN WE HOLD THEM TO THAT 180 FEET? 
          >> THIS, THAT IS THE DRAWING. >> THERE IS, WHAT IT IS SAYING IS I CAN NOT COME OUT AND BUILD ANOTHER OR MOVE THE BUILD THAT IS WHERE THE BUILDING IS. IT IS THERE. THAT IS WHAT, THE BUILDING HAS TO BE THERE. IF WE RENOVATE IT THERE, IT HAS TO BE THERE. I CAN NOT MOVE IT AROUND. CONSISTENT WITH THAT. 
          >> I JUST WANTED TO KNOW WHAT I AM WAS VOTING ON. I APOLOGIZE FOR TAKING EVERYONE'S TIME, THANK YOU. 
          >> OKAY. MR. LABANOWSKI. >> MY QUESTION HAS BEEN 
          ANSWERED. >> ALL RIGHT, DR. HILSENBECK. -- 
          [02:20:01]
          [INAUDIBLE] >> SECTION 10.04.02 FOR ZONING VARIANCES IT SAYS THE ST. JOHN'S PLANNING AND ZONING AGENCY PLAY GRANT ZONING VARIANCES WHICH ARE FOUND NOT TO BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. AND SPECIAL CONDITIONS A LITERAL ENFORCEMENT WOULD HAVE UNNECESSARY AND UNDUE HARDSHIP. 
          I AGREE WITH THE GENTLEMAN THAT SPOKE THAT THE, I THINK THIS GRANTING THIS IS CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST. AND TO ME AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP HAS NOT BEEN DEMONSTRATED. I CAN NOT 
          SUPPORT THE MOTION. >> WE HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL AND SECOND, LET'S REGISTER OUR VOTE. OH, SORRY, YES, SIR? 
          >> WE EARLIER IN THIS MEETING ALL VOTED FOR A HARDSHIP FOR AN EXISTING STRUCTURE THAT WAS ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY LINE. 
          >> I THINK IT TOOK ME AWHILE TO RELATE THOSE TWO. WHETHER MR. WHITEHOUSE POINTED IT OUT. IT BECAME MORE CLEAR TO ME. 
          >> LET'S REGISTER THE VOTE. >> ALL RIGHT. THAT MOTION IS DENIED. 3-4. THAT IS GOING TO GO -- DO WE NEED TO VOTE IN THE 
          NEGATIVE? >> AT THIS TIME, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO SEE IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER MOTIONS THAT ANYBODY WANTS TO MAKE OTHERWISE THAT WOULD BE THE RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD. BECAUSE IT IS AN ADVISORY BOARD YOU COULD POTENTIALLY INTERACT WITH THE APPLICANT AND -- JUST THE 
          VARIANCE? >> OH, IT WILL BE DENIAL UNLESS -- YOU CAN INTERACT WITH THE APPLICANT HERE, TODAY, AND SEE IF THERE IS COMPROMISE THAT WOULD MAKE THE BOARD HAPPY. 
          >> AGAIN, MY CONCERN AGAIN WITH DR. HILSENBECK, IS THE COMMUNITY. THE INTENTION EVER THE APPLICANT TO CLEANUP, I DO UNDERSTAND WE ARE NOT THE BOARD THAT DOES THAT. I DON'T SEE ANYTHING IN HERE THAT HOLDS HIM TO ACCOUNT. TO CLEANING UP THE PROPERTY OR AT LEAST SHIELDING THE PROPERTY FROM VIEW OF MAIN STREET. AND THOSE WERE THINGS THAT WE SPOKE ABOUT, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT DENNIS SPOKE ABOUT, AS A CONCERN, SHE WANTS THE PROPERTY OWNTORY HAVE HIS PROPERTY RIGHTS BUT ALSO -- PROPERTY OWNER TO HAVE HIS PROPERTY RIGHTS BUT AT THE SAME TIME THIS PROPERTY OWNER HAS NOT -- HE WANTS TO, I UNDERSTAND THAT. I DON'T WANT TO DISPARAGE HIS COMMUNICATION WITH YOU. THAT IS MY CONCERN. THE COMMUNITY, MY CONCERN IS THE NEIGHBORS AND I BELIEVE THAT THIS VARIANCE OPENS THE DOOR TO, MAYBE NOT OPENS THE DOOR BUT I JUST DON'T SEE -- NO, I THINK IT OPENS THE DOOR. 
          >> IF IT IS THE FENCE, HE WOULD BE WILLING TO AGREE TO A CONDITION, IF YOU WOULD LIKE CONDITIONS TO PUT ON HERE, HE WOULD BE GLAD TO. THAT IS WHAT IS HOLDING ME UP. I REALLY AM CONCERNED. I WANT HASTINGS TO SUCCEED. ANY TINY PIECE, YOU KNOW, MAKES A DIFFERENCE, PEOPLE WALK RIGHT DOWN THE STREET. I JUST THINK TO ME, IN MY OPINION, NOT TO DISPARAGE HIM, I UNDERSTAND THOSE ARE COOL CARS, REALLY COOL BUT THEY ARE RIPPED UP TARPS IT IS A MESS, EASY TO SAY THAT. MY CONCERN IS, REALLY, HONESTLY THE APPEARANCE FROM MAIN STREET AND HASTINGS AND I WOULD LOVE TO SEE A TALLER FENCE. 
          >> IF THE CONDITION IS TALLER FENCE AND THE PROPERTY CLEANED UP, THERE IS LEEWAY WITHIN THE YEAR WITHIN 60 DAYS OR 90 DAYS OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT BE GLAD TO ACCEPT THOSE CONDITIONS ON THIS VARIANCE IF THAT WOULD MAKE YOU COMFORTABLE. WE COULD WRITE THAT LANGUAGE DOWNRIGHT NOW. THOSE ARE THE TWO MAIN 
          THINGS THAT YOU HAVE SAID. >> YES, THE FENCE ON WHICH SIDE 
          OF THE PROPERTY? >> THE FENCE THAT IS ALONG THE MAIN STREET SIDE, NO, NOT THE MAIN STREET SIDE THE, I AM SORRY, FOX STREET SIDE. THE FRONT WITH THE GATE. RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET. YOU SEE THE BIG PARK THERE. THE BIG OPEN AREA RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET. MAIN STREET IS RIGHT THERE TO THE RIGHT. YOU CAN SEE FROM MAIN STREET THERE IS NO TREES OR COMING YOU CAN SEE RIGHT INTO THAT PROPERTY 
          >> THIS IS MAIN STREET OVER HERE. 
          >> YES, MA'AM. EVEN, YOU KNOW, I KNOW THERE IS A FENCE ALONG 
          [02:25:02]
THE SIDE. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS A PROBLEM BECAUSE IT IS A TREE AREA AND RESIDENTS THERE. THE FRONT AREA, THE FRONT FENCE, I THINK THAT WAS THE IMPRESSION THAT MRS. DENNIS GAVE ME, A TALLER FENCE ALONG THE FRONT. THEN AS THEY TAKE THE TIME AND WORKS THROUGH ALL OF THIS. THERE IS NOT SOMETHING TO BE DONE OVERNIGHT AND HE DOES NOT LIVE HERE, LIKE YOU SAID, THAT WOULD MAKE ME COMFORTABLE IN APPROVING THIS. 
          >> IT IS OFFICIALLY RESTRICTED FROM THIS SIDE, THE FRONT, CONSIDERED THE FRONT SIDE TO FOUR FEET. I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS ALLOWED TO THE CODE TO HAVE A HIGHER THAN A FOUR FOOT FENCE ON THIS SIDE. MAYBE THE CONDITIONS AS FAR AS HOW FAST HE GETS IT CLEANED UP IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN HAVING AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE, I DON'T KNOW IF MR. STANTON WANTS AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE. I THINK SAYING WE COULD HAVE, HE WILL HAVE THE. IT IS HARD TO USE THE STORAGE. AND TO GET IT APPROVED. HE HAS TO DO THESE THINGS ANY WAY. GLAD TO PUT IT, SPECIFIC LANGUAGE OR I CAN SUGGEST LANGUAGE, YOU KNOW, THAT THE PROPERTY WILL BE CLEANED UP AND MAINTAINED. IF THERE IS ANYTHING ELSE I CAN ADD THAT AS 
          WELL. >> I THINK THE 60 DAYS IS A LITTLE BIT AMBITIOUS GIVEN THE HISTORY OF THIS. SO, 90 TO 120. 
          YOU KNOW, IT HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR A WHILE. I WANT ACCOUNTABLITY FOR THE SAKE OF HIS COMMUNITY. 
          >> AND I THINK THAT IS THE COMMUNITY AS WELL. 
          >> THAT IS TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR. YES, MA'AM. 
          >> THEN, WE CAN COME UP WITH LANGUAGE THAT WILL SAY THAT THE PROPERTY WILL BE CLEANED UP AND MAINTAINED WITHIN 90 DAYS OF THE ENTRY OF THIS ORDER. PENDING THE FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THAT 
          BUILDING. >> IN THE MEANTIME 
          >> YES, MA'AM. >> YES. AS THE PROCESS 
          PROGRESSES. >> HOW IS THE BOARD FEELING 
          ABOUT THAT? >> SHE CAN MAKE A MOTION IF SHE WANTS IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD AGREE TO ADD THAT CONDITION AND WOULD IT CHANGE YOUR PREVIOUS VOTE? MR. 
          LABANOWSKI? >> WHAT I WOULD LOVE TO SEE IS THAT BOX MOVED TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY AND NOT UP FRONT WHERE IT IS VISIBLE. IT CAN GO DOWN ALONGSIDE THE BARNDIMIUM AND THE CARS CLEANED UP. THAT IS SAN ISSUE. WITH CODE. YOU CAN HAVE A SIX FOOT FENCE ON THE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. 
          >> I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE FENCE DOWN THE ENTIRE SIZE R SIDE. PROTECTS THE NEIGHBORS AS WELL. 
          >> SO, YOU ARE SAYING IF, IF MRS. SPIEGEL MADE A MOTION WITH HER CONDITION AND YOU ADD THE CONDITION OF SIX FOOT FENCE ALONG BOTH SIDES OF THE PROPERTY AND THE BACK, I AM ASSUMING, YOU WOULD -- AND THE COMICS BOX, THE STORAGE CONTAINER MOVED TO 
          WHERE? >> TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY? 
          >> TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. >> I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT IS IS 
          OVER THERE. >> OLD BOATS. 
          >> CAN WE MAYBE DEFINE REAR OF THE PROPERTY BETTER. LIKE FARTHER THAN -- WE CAN DO A MEASUREMENT OR SOMETHING TO PUT 
          IT IN? >> ADJACENT TO THE BARN? 
          >> IS IT VEGETATED OVER HERE? >> IS THIS, YOU WENT OUT THERE, 
          IS IT VEGETATED? >> THERE ARE BOATS, TWO BOATS 
          OVERWHELMED WITH VINES. >> HE COULD MOVE IT DOWN HERE. I DON'T HAVE A MEMORY OF WHAT IT IS 
          >> THEY CAN CLEAR IT OUT AND GET THE BOATS OUT OF THERE, THEY ARE BOTH ON TRAILERS AND IT WOULD FIT BACK THERE. 
          >> I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON OVER ON THIS PART OF THE 
          [02:30:05]
          PROPERTY. >> DO YOU WANT TO CONFIRM WITH YOUR CLIENT AND COME BACK NEXT WEEK? NOT NEXT WEEK BUT THE NEXT HEARING DATE TO SEE IF WE WERE TO ADD THE CONDITIONS? 
          >> WHY DON'T WE PUT THOSE CONDITIONS IF THAT IS THE MAJORITY AND UPDATE IT OR CHANGE IF WE ARE DONE IF WE ARE DONE. 
          WE ARE NOT, THE MAJORITY SEEMS COMFORTABLE WITH THAT AND THEN WE CAN COME BACK TO HAVE IT AMENDED IF WE HAVE TO. 
          >> OKAY. I THINK THAT IS THE BEST WAY TO GO IF POSSIBLE. 
          >> ARE YOU OKAY IF MRS. SPIEGEL MAKE THAT MOTION WITH THE 
          CONDITIONS. >> YES, MA'AM, SHALL I TRY? 
          >> YES. I AM GOING TO TRY TO SAVE MOTION TO APPROVE ZONING VARIANCE 2025-02 BASED ON SIX FINDINGS OF FACTS AND SIX CONDITIONS IN THE STAFF REPORT INCLUDING THE CONDITION THAT THE SHIPPING CONTAINER BE MOVED LATERAL TO THE NORTH OF THE -- ADJACENT TO THE BARN. AFTER THAT AREA IS CLEARED OUT. THAT THE FENCE BE CONTINUED AROUND THE PROPERTY, AND THAT THE PLACE BE CLEANED UP, ORGANIZED, STRAIGHTENED UP WITHIN 90 DAYS. 
          >> YES, MA'AM. >> ALL RIGHT, DO WE HAVE A 
          SECOND? >> I WILL SECOND. 
          >> MADAM CHAIR. >> 90 DAY CLEANUP TIME. GOING TO MOVE THE BOX TO THE EXISTING BARN ON THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY AND GOING TO DO A SIX FOOT FENCE WHERE IT IS ALLOWED ON THE 
          PROPERTY? >> CORRECT. 
          >> OKAY. >> WE HAVE A SECOND? 
          >> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? [INAUDIBLE] 
          >> IN RESPONSE TO WHAT MR. MATOVINA ABOUT ITEM NUMBER THREE, I FOUND THERE WAS A LEGITIMATE HARDSHIP IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE. IN THIS CASE, I DO NOT SEE AN UNDUE AND UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. OR DEMONSTRATED TO US. SO, I STILL 
          CAN'T SUPPORT THIS. >> OKAY. 
          >> MR. GREEN? >> JUST REAL QUICK, I HAVE NOT SAID ANYTHING I HAVE BEEN LISTENING. JAMES, THEY JUST WANT THE PLACE CLEANED UP. THAT IS WHAT THE NEIGHBOR SAYS AND I MEAN HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET THERE. I DON'T BLAME THE NEIGHBOR FOR BEING UPSET OVER IT. THAT IS JUST MY 10 CENTS. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM VOTING FOR THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, THE LOT IS NOT A STANDARD CONFORMING LOT THAT IS THERE. SO I CAN SEE THE HARDSHIP. I JUST WANT IT LOOKING NICE FOR THE NEIGHBORS. I DON'T BLAME THEM FOR BEING UPSET. I WOULD BE, TOO, IF I LIVED NEXT DOOR TO THIS PLACE. HOPEFULLY THIS WILL HELP. 
          >> REGISTER THE VOTE. OH, MR. MATOVINA. 
          >> THE FENCE REQUIREMENT IS FOR THE FENCE TO BE PLACED WHEREVER ON THE BOUNDARIES WHEREVER A SIX FOOT FENCE WOULD BE ALLOWED. NOT A REQUIREMENT TO BE ACROSS THE LOT AT THE FRONT YARD SET BACK. 
          IT WOULD JUST BE TO THE FRONT YARD SET BACK. [INAUDIBLE] 
          >> OKAY, I WANT TO BE SURE. THERE HAVE BEEN TWO DIFFERENT THINGS ABOUT WHERE THE FENCE WAS GOING TO BE LOCATED AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE KNOW WHAT WE ARE VOTING ON. 
          >> LET'S REGISTER TO VOTE. >> ALL RIGHT, THE MOTION PASSES, 
          5-2. THANK YOU MR. WHITEHOUSE. >> OKAY. TWO CLARIFICATIONS BEFORE WE MOVE ON. ONE THERE IS AN ADJACENT PARCEL EAST TO THE ONE IN QUESTION AND IS THE FENCE TO PROVISIONS TO BE INCLUDED ON THAT PARCEL AS WELL AS THAT PARCEL? I WOULD ASSUME SO? AND JUST CLARIFYNG WITH THE APPLICANT, TOO, THE UNDERSTANDING IT WILL BE THAT PARCEL THAT IS NOT ASKING FOR THE VARIANCE INCLUDED IN THE FENCE REQUIREMENT. 
          >> DOES HE OWN THE PARCEL? >> THERE IS AN ISSUE. THE APPLICATION IS SPECIFICALLY FOR THE LOT THAT THE BARN IS ON. 
          >> THE CONDITIONS NEED TO CLARIFY. I DON'T THINK HE WILL WANT TO PUT A FENCE DOWN THE MIDDLE OF THE PROPERTY. BETWEEN THE TWO PARCELS? THAT IS THE FENCE. THAT IS ALREADY THERE. 
          THIS IS THE OTHER PARCEL HERE. OKAY. WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE IS 
          [02:35:08]
NOT A REQUIREMENT TO PUT THE FENCE IN BETWEEN. 
          >> I WAS THINKING IT WAS JUST THAT ONE PARCEL THAT IS WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. SECOND, IS IF THERE IS ANY CHANCE IT WILL COME BACK AT THE NEXT MEETING, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT EVEN THROW WE PASSED SOMETHING TODAY THAT -- THOUGH WE PASSED SOMETHING TODAY WE CONTINUE IT TO COME BACK FOR A MEETING IN THE FUTURE SO IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE READVERTISED IF IT COMES BACK. 
          >> OKAY. DO YOU THINK WE WILL HAVE TO COME BACK? 
          >> THAT IS UP TO THE APPLICANT. >> I DON'T THINK SO BUT WE CAN AGREE TO THAT. YOU CAN JUST SAY WE ARE RELYING UPON THE ADVICE OF THE DEPUTY COUNTY ATTORNEY OR WHATEVER. AND IF WE HAVE TO COME BACK. HE IS JUST SAYING WE DON'T HAVE TO READVERTISE. 
          >> I GET THAT. >> THAT PUTS THE AUDIENCE TODAY ON NOTICE IT POTENTIALLY WILL COME BACK IF WE DO IT DATE CERTAIN TODAY, SAYING WHEN IT COMES BACK AND WE CAN NOT HAVE 
          TO READVERTISE IT. >> WE DON'T NEED TO BRING IT 
          BACK. >> ALL RIGHT. OKAY, WE ARE ALL 
          GOOD. >> WE ARE GOOD. 
          >> ALL RIGHT. >> ALL RIGHT. STAFF REPORT. 
          >> NO STAFF REPORT, MADAM CHAIR. >> NO, GO AHEAD, DR. HILSENBECK. 
          >> MY COMMENT WAS TO FOLLOW UP ON WHAT WAS SAID ABOUT THE PROPERTY NEXT DOOR. LOOKING AT THE AERIAL PHOTO. THERE ARE NUMEROUS CARS ON THE LOT TO THE SAME OWNER, MAY NOT BE RELEVANT TO THE ZONING VARIANCE AND HARDSHIP AND SO FORTH BUT, IT GOES TO INTENT AND USE OF THE PROPERTY THAT THERE ARE ALREADY A LOT OF CARS STORED ON THE OTHER PROPERTY. AND OPEN STORAGE LIKE THAT IS NOT ALLOWED IN THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING. THAT IS AN ISSUE ALSO THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED AT SOME POINT. 
          >> OKAY. >> ALL RIGHT. DO WE
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.