[Call meeting to order] [00:00:11] >> IT IS 3:00 AND WE WILL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER FOR THE ST. JOHNS COUNTY PONTE VEDRA ZONING AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD FOR OCTOBER 6, 2025. WE WILL START WITH THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. >> READ THE PUBLIC NOTICE STATEMENT. THIS IS A PROPERLY NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING HELD IN ACCORDANCE WITH FLORIDA LAW AND THE PUBLIC WILL BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON TOPICS AND GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO OFFER COMMENTS AT A DESIGNATED TIME DURING THE HEARING. ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC DESIRE TO SPEAK? PLEASE FILL OUT THE SIGN IN SHEET. SHALL SPEAK AT A TIME DURING THE MEETING ON EACH ITEM DESIGNATED BY THE CHAIRMAN, WHICH SHALL BE THREE MINUTES. SPEAKERS SHOULD IDENTIFY THEMSELVES, WHO THEY REPRESENT AND STATE THEIR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. SPEAKERS MAY OFFER SWORN TESTIMONY. IF THEY DO NOT, THE FACT THAT IT IS NOT SWORN AND DETERMINE THE WEIGHT OF THE TRUTHFULNESS. IF A PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER, SUCH PERSON WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND ENSURE THAT VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING IS MADE, WHICH INCLUDES TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE DEAL IS TO BE BASED. ANY PHYSICAL OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRESENTED DURING THE HEARINGS, SUCH AS DIAGRAMS, CHARTS, PHOTOGRAPHS OR STATEMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR THE INCLUSION INTO THE RECORD. THE RECORD WILL THEN BE AVAILABLE FOR OTHER BOARD AGENCY OR COUNTY AND REVIEW THE APPEAL REMAINED IN RELATED TO THE ITEM. REMINDED THAT THE BEGINNING OF EACH ITEM, STATE WHETHER THEY HAD ANY COMMUNICATION WITH THE APPLICANT OR PERSON REGARDING THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ITEM OUTSIDE OF THE FORMAL HEARING OF THE AGENCY. IF SUCH COMMUNICATION OCCURRED, SHALL IDENTIFY THE PERSONS INVOLVED AND CONTENT OF THE COMMUNICATION. WE WILL BE RESPECTFUL OF ONE ANOTHER, EVEN IF WE DISAGREE. WE WILL DIRECT ALL COMMENTS TO THE ISSUES AND AVOID PERSONAL ATTACKS. >> I MOVE THE MINUTES FOR BOARD APPROVAL TO AFTER THE AGENCY ITEMS, SO WE CAN KEEP GOING. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ANY ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA TODAY? IF YOU WILL STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. KITTY, 111 OCEAN CORSE DRIVE AND I'M HERE TO SPEAK ABOUT A NON-AGENDA ITEM CONCERNING RECREATIONAL COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AND I'D BE HAPPY TO SPEAK TO THE BOARD AFTER THE AGENDA ITEM IF THAT'S OKAY. IT MIGHT TAKE MORE THAN THREE MINUTES. >> THAT'S FINE. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ANY ITEM NOT CURRENTLY ON THE [1. PVZVAR 2025-06 Racioppi Family Pool (502 Morning Side). Request for a Zoning Variance to Section VIII.M of the Ponte Vedra Zoning District Regulations (PVZDR) to allow for a maximum Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR) of 44% in lieu of the required 40% to accommodate placement of a proposed swimming pool.] AGENDA? SEEING NONE. I WILL MOVE ON TO THE FIRST AGENDA ITEM, WHICH IS PVZVAR 2025-06. IF WE CAN HAVE EVERYONE STATE WHETHER THEY HAVE VISITED THE SITE. >> I RECEIVED TWO EMAILS FROM PEOPLE CONCERNED ABOUT DRAINAGE AND FLOODING. I DID MEET WITH STEPHEN AND VERY BRIEFLY WITH ERICA TODAY. STEPHEN WALKED ME AROUND THE BACK OF THE SITE AND SHOWED ME WHERE THE POOL WAS AND I OBSERVED THE DRAINAGE FOR THE LOT AND A FEW OTHER THINGS, WHICH I WILL DISCUSS AND GET INTO OUR COMMENTS. >> I HAVE NOT SPOKEN WITH THE APPLICANT DIRECTLY, HOWEVER I HAVE VISITED THE SITE WHEN THE NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH HAD REQUESTED A VERY FURTHER POOL. I DID WALK THE LOT AND I DON'T BELIEVE THE RESIDENTS WERE HOME AND DID NOT GO TOWARDS ANYWHERE NEAR THE HOME, BUT I HAVE SEEN THE AREA AND I HAVE SPOKEN TO SOME RESIDENTS ON THE MASTER REGARDING THE DRAINAGE AND I RECEIVED MULTIPLE EMAILS REGARDING THE DRAINAGE FROM THOSE FOLKS. >> I JUST RECEIVED SEVERAL [00:05:06] EMAILS, AS WELL. I DID A SITE VISIT AND SPOKE WITH THE NEIGHBORS ON THE MASTER. >> I HAVE NOT VISITED OR SPOKEN WITH THE APPLICANT. >> I DID VISIT THE FRONT OF THE SITE AND HAVE RECEIVED THE SAME EMAILS AS EVERYONE ELSE AND I HAVE NOT SPOKEN WITH ANYONE ELSE. >> JAMES? >> THANK YOU. JAMES WHITEHOUSE, 104 HERE IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY , FLORIDA. I AM HERE ON BEHALF OF THE FAMILY AND ALLOW THE SMALL FAMILY POOL FOR THEIR CHILDREN PVZVAR 2025-06. AS YOU KNOW, THIS IS LOCATED OFF OF MORNINGSIDE DRIVE SOUTH OF 542 MORNINGSIDE DRIVE. AGAIN, THIS IS A RESIDENCY FROM YOUR STAFF REPORT IN R 1 D. THIS IS THE PLOT MAP THAT I KNOW MANY OF YOU HAVE SEEN BEFORE, BUT IT IS FOR THE AREA AND THESE ARE ALL THE SMALL PLATTED LOTS AND SOME OF THE SMALLEST WITHIN PONTE VEDRA, WHAT YOU SEE IN THE STAFF REPORT IS NOTED. THEY ARE SOME SIZED LOTS IN THE AREA. ALL THE AREA AND I THINK I'VE SHOWN YOU, BUT THESE ARE POOLS THAT WERE EITHER APPROVED OR PERMITTED AND CURRENTLY EXIST WITHIN THE AREA. THIS IS MORNINGSIDE DRIVE. AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS IS THE LOT ITSELF SOUTH AND A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A CLOSE-UP OF THE CURRENT LOT AND YOU CAN SEE THE OTHER POOLS AND HOW THEY HAVE A LARGE AREA PARTICULARLY THE ONES THAT HAVE POOLS AND JUST THE SOUTH OF ONE AND THIS IS THE ONE THAT WAS APPROVED NOT TOO LONG AGO THAT WE TALKED ABOUT. THERE ARE MANY APPROVED POOLS ON SIMILAR LOTS ON THE SAME STREET THAT WE TALKED ABOUT, HENCE THE REQUEST FOR VARIANCE, SO WE CAN HAVE THE SMALL POOL FOR THE CHILDREN AND I FAILED TO MENTION THAT THE FAMILY IS HERE WITH ME WITH THEIR CHILDREN AND THEIR SITTING IN THE FRONT ROW. AS YOU SEE FROM THE STAFF REPORT, THE APPLICATION SUMMARY, THIS IS FOR INCREASE TO 43.6. TO BE SAFE, THEY PUT IT AT 44 TO ACCOMMODATE THE PLACEMENT OF THE SMALL SWIMMING POOL, AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE STAFF REPORT WERE ALL IS REQUIRED AND BEING MET. THIS RESEARCH WAS ABLE TO IDENTIFY SEVERAL APPROVED ZONING VARIANCE REQUESTS IN THE RECENT YEARS. AS WE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE, THIS IS A STAFF REQUEST, BECAUSE IT IS BASED ON STAFF INTERPRETATION AND THEY PUT THE PART OF THE CODE THAT TALKS ABOUT IMPERVIOUS SERVICE, WHICH INCLUDES POOLS, AS WELL AS WHAT RETENTION DETENTION AREAS. IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS EXCLUDING SURFACE AREA OF WHAT RETENTION. THE WATER AREA OF THE POOR. EVEN THOUGH THE PERVIOUS PAVERS ARE CLEARLY NOT INCLUDED. THE APPLICANT HAS COMMITTED AS TO OTHER APPLICANTS TO USING PERVIOUS PAVERS OVER PERMEABLE OVER ALL PAVED SURFACES. THE ONLY AREA THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE VARIANCE FOR IS THE SMALL BLUE AREA FOR THE WATER OF THE POOL. AGAIN, HE SAW THE DEPICTION OF THIS IS THEIR BACKYARD THAT YOU SAW FROM THE AERIALS. THIS IS THE SMALL REA WHERE THEY WANT TO PUT THE SMALL POOL FOR THEIR CHILDREN. YOU CAN SEE IN THE STAFF REPORT AND CALCULATIONS. THE CALCULATION FOR THE POOL AREA BRINGS US TO 43.63, SO THEY NEED THE VARIANCE FOR 3.63 FOR THE WATER AREA OF THE POOL TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THE SMALL POOL FOR THEIR FAMILY. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE THIS REQUEST FOR VERY MINOR VARIANCE ON THIS BLOCK THAT HAS A NUMBER OF OTHER POOLS. YOU SEE THE REFERENCE IN STAFF REPORTS THAT SAY IT MUST BE APPROVED, HOWEVER WE CAN'T FIND ORDER FOR THOSE. THEY WERE CLEARLY PERMITTED AND EXIST ON THE SAME BLOCK HERE AND WE KNOW THAT THE ONE TO THE NORTH WAS APPROVED, BECAUSE I DID IT AND YOU APPROVED IT JUST LAST YEAR. 502 IS THE ONE WE ARE ASKING FOR. 506 HAS A POOL. 508 HAS A POOL. I THINK 512, THE ONE DOWN HERE HAS A POOL, AS WELL. THEY ALL HAVE THE SAME LOT AREA, AS YOU SEE. 7200 SQUARE FEET IS THE SMALLEST AREA WITHIN THE ZONING DISTRICT, IN FACT THEY ARE NONCONFORMING, EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE PREVIOUSLY PLATTED LOTS. [00:10:02] THE DEFINITION FOR VARIANCE, AS WELL AS THE REQUIREMENTS IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, YOU SEE IT LAID OUT IN THE APPLICATION AND STAFF REPORT. THIS IS DUE TO THE REGULARLY SMALL LOTS IN THIS PLATTED SUBDIVISION AND SOME OF THE SMALLEST LOTS WITH ANY LOUD AREAS. ALL OF THE OTHER POOLS HAVE BEEN GRANTED SOME TYPE OF VARIANCE OR PERMITTED UNDER COUNTY REGULATIONS. IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, THEY RETAIN OVER 55% PERVIOUS AREA. THE VARIOUS PERIODS IS ONLY 2.5%. IF NOT FOR THE WATER, IT WOULD BE BELOW THE 40% REQUIREMENT. AS YOU SEE, THEY HAVE USED PAVERS. ALL PAVERS AREAS FOR ANY IMPERVIOUS SURFACE LOT COVERAGE. VARIANCE REQUEST NOT BASED EXCLUSIVELY ON DESIRE TO REDUCE COST OF DEVELOPING THE ANGLE OF THE LOT ITSELF. AS STATED, IT IS DEVELOPED IN THE SAME MANNER WITH THE SAME SIZED HOUSE WITH SIMILAR POOL ON THE SAME BLOCK IN THE SAME LEGALLY PLATTED SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION THAT HAS BEEN PERMITTED WITH SIMILAR HOUSES HAVE BEEN GRANTED VARIANCES. CHALLENGED PARCELS IN ACCORDANCE AND THIS INFRINGEMENT FOR VARIANCE WILL NOT BE REQUIRED IF NOT FOR THEIR REGULAR SMALL SIZE OF THE PLATTED SUBDIVISION, BECAUSE THEY MATCH THE OTHER DEVELOPMENT ON THE BLOCK IN THIS AREA. THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE CONGESTION, DANGER, FIRE OR OTHER HAZARD TO THE PUBLIC. PROPERTY VALUES IN ORDER AFTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER AND SURROUNDING THE SITE, AS YOU SEE. THIS IS SIMILAR TO OTHER LOTS AND PARCELS THAT HAVE POOLS. FINALLY, NOTICEABLE 2.5% SLIGHT INFRINGEMENT IS CLEARLY AT HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL INTENT AND SPECIFIC INTENT OF OUR CODE SPECIFICALLY WITNESSED BY MANY OTHER SIMILAR REQUESTS IN THE SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION. THIS FAMILIES REASONABLE REQUEST IN NO WAY VIOLATES THE PURPOSE OF THE CODE, BUT INSTEAD OF PROMOTES THE SPIRIT OF OUR CODE WERE FOR SUCH REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT EXACTLY SIMILAR TO HOUSES AND PULLS TO THE SOUTH, AS WELL AS OTHER FAMILIES AND POOLS THAT GRACED AREA AND LAWFULLY PLATTED SOME DIVISION. BEING DEVELOPED IN THE SAME MANNER, SAME SIZED HOUSE AND SIMILAR POOL TO OTHER HOUSES AND SOME BASED UPON THE FACTS, ESPECIALLY THE LACK OF VISIBILITY AND SIMILARITY TO THE DEVELOPMENT. THIS DEVIATION WILL NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THIS REASONABLE WITHIN THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF OUR CODE. TO OUR ATTENTION, MANY POLLS IN THIS SUBDIVISION EITHER APPROVED HERE OR HAVE BEEN PERMITTED BY THE COUNTY ITSELF, AGAIN, SIMILAR SIZED LOTS ON THE SAME BLOCK WITH PERMITTED OR APPROVED VARIANCES FOR POOLS. YOU LOOK HERE AND YOU SEE THE GREEN AREA OF THIS LOT IS PERVIOUS. THE WHOLE GREEN AREA AND THE ONLY PARTS THAT ARE IMPERVIOUS ARE THE HOUSE AND THE WATER AREA OF THE POOL. AS WE HAVE NOTED PREVIOUSLY ON THIS BLOCK, THERE IS COUNTY DESIGN, STORM WATER RETENTION SYSTEM IN THE FRONT WHERE THERE IS STORM WATER RETENTION, AS WELL AS THE DRAIN THAT YOU CAN SEE FROM THE OVERHEAD WHERE THIS WAS TESTIFIED AT THE HEARING MOST RECENTLY THAT WE HAD ON OTHER VARIANCE AT THE COUNTY TALKED ABOUT THIS WATER RETENTION AREA AND DIRECT WATER TOWARDS THE THAT. THE COUNTY STAFF POINTS OUT OTHER VARIANCES THAT WERE GRANTED RECENTLY IN THE LAST FEW YEARS BY THIS BOARD FOR THIS TYPE OF APPROVAL AND ALL OF THOSE WERE AROUND 44% OR 45% AND ARE ASKING FOR 42.6 OR 44. ON THE LAST ONE WE DID, WE HAD A CONDITION THAT TALKED ABOUT THE WATER AND ROOFED AREA CAPTURED BY LETTERS DIRECTED BY PIPES TO THE STREET AND A MINIMUM OF TWO HE AREA DRAINS IN THE BACK CORNER. THIS APPLICANT AND FAMILY IS NOT OBJECTING AND BE ADDING THAT CONDITION TO THIS REQUEST, AS WELL. AS WE TALKED ABOUT LAST TIME, THERE ARE NUMEROUS VARIANCE IS THAT HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THE PAST FEW YEARS BY THIS PARTICULAR BOARD FOR VERY SIMILAR REQUESTS. ONE OF THEM BEING ON PHILLIPS, WHICH WAS THIS ONE AT 40 PHILLIPS, WHICH WAS FOR A FAMILY POOL. THIS IS FROM 44%, SIMILAR TYPE LOT AND IT WAS A LITTLE LARGER AND THE POOL WAS A LITTLE BIT BIGGER. AS YOU CAN SEE -- I HAVE THE OVERHEAD HERE. YOU CAN SEE [00:15:05] HOW CLOSE IN PROXIMITY, GOING UPHILL AND THIS IS WHERE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR VARIANCE IN THE SAME LAND USE, AS WELL AS THE R-1-D ZONING. THAT WAS A BIGGER POOL, IT WAS LIKE 16 BY 30. THAT WAS MUCH LARGER THAN THIS ONE. AS YOU CAN SEE, IT WAS GRANTED BY THIS BOARD IN MAY LAST YEAR. THE PROX ABILITY PROXIMITY IS VERY UNCANNY, AS WAS THIS ONE. YOU CAN SEE FROM YOUR STAFF REPORT AS STAFF RECEIVED RESPONSE REGARDING THE APPLICATION AND ROUTED TO ALL DEPARTMENTS. NO OPEN COMMENTS OR PROBLEMS WITH THIS PARTICULAR REQUEST. THEY PROVIDED A SUGGESTED MOTION FOR APPROVAL FOR SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND FIVE CONDITIONS. WE WOULDN'T BE OBJECTING TO HAVING CONDITION WITHOUT BETTERING OF THE HOUSE AND DIRECTING. AS STATED, THE PARCELS ON THE STREET HAVE BEEN PERMITTED SIMILAR POOLS FURTHER AND COUNTY DESIGNED OUTFALL AND A PARTICULAR NOTE, THE ONLY IMPERMEABLE AREA OF THE LOT FOR QUIETING REQUIRING THE VARIANCE OF ALL OF THESE FACTS WITH SUPPORT TO THE VARIOUS REQUEST UNDER CERTAIN CODE AND WHEN DEVELOPING CODE AND OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WE ASK YOU TO MOVE TO APPROVE THIS VARIANCE AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC REGARDING PVZVAR 2025-06? WHEN YOU COME FORWARD, SAY YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE. >> CRAIG, 500 LEE MASTER DRIVE. I WILL SHOW PICTURES AND I MIGHT TAKE A FEW SECONDS LONGER IF THAT'S OKAY. THIS REQUEST IS MADE ON BEHALF OF CONVENIENCE AND LUXURY. IT IS BASED ON PREFERENCE AND NOT HARDSHIP. NOTHING STATED IN THE REQUEST THAT THERE WAS ANY TYPE OF SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES. THE OWNER HAS REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES TO STAY WITHIN THE CODE GRID WANTING A POOL IS A PREFERENCE AND NOT A HARDSHIP. THE PROPERTY CAN ACCOMMODATE A POOL WITH 40% PERMEABILITY GUIDELINES. WHY DO THEY HAVE GUIDELINES AND RULES? JUST BECAUSE IT'S GRANTED DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY HAVE TO PUT THE NEIGHBORS IN THE COMMUNITY AT RISK FOR CONSEQUENCES, SUCH AS FLOODING. LARGER POOLS INCREASE IMPERVIOUS AREA, WHICH DO RESOLVE AND RUN OFF AND YOU NEIGHBORS YARDS. THE CURRENT RESTRICTION ARE THERE FOR A REASON TO PROTECT COMMUNITIES FROM DRAINAGE AND FLOODING AND MAINTAINING NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER. GRANTING EXEMPTION UNDERMINES THE ZONING CODE. THE APPLICANT HAS NOT SHOWN UNIQUE HARDSHIP UNDER OTHER THAN CONVENIENCE AND LUXURY. IN SUMMARY, FIRST, THE APPLICATION IS NOT DEMONSTRATING A UNIQUE HARDSHIP TIED TO THE PROPERTY. WANTING A LARGER POOL IS A PREFERENCE AND NOT HARDSHIP. THE PROPERTY CAN ACCOMMODATE A POOL WITHOUT A VARIANCE. IT WILL NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE NEIGHBORS. THE LARGER POOL WILL INCREASE DRAINAGE RUNOFF CONCERNS. AVOIDABLE MAINTENANCE ISSUES. AND, THE CHARACTER OF THE COMMUNITY. THE OWNER HAS REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES THAT STAY WITHIN THE CODE. FOR THESE REASONS, I RESPECTABLY ASKED THE BOARD TO DENY APPLICATION. COMMUNITY AND AT THE SAME TIME, THE COUNTY GUIDELINES OF 40%. IT WAS APPROVED AND THEY WANT TO SHOW YOU THE DRAINAGE ISSUES. HOOKED UP AND DRAINED TO THE ROAD. THESE ARE ISSUES HERE IN THE BACKYARD WHERE THERE IS FLOODING FROM THE EXCESSIVE AND PERMEABILITY. I WILL SHOW YOU SOMETHING HERE. THAT IS HERE AND YOU CAN SEE IT HAS BEEN DECREASED, LIKE 2.5 FEET. BEFORE HE, YOU CAN SEE GREATER SPACE. ONCE THEY PUT A PULL UP, ALL OF THAT LAND IS GONE. [00:20:02] >> MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, THE PRIMARY CONCERN IS THE DRAINAGE AND RUNOFF? IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY. DO WE HAVE FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT? >> GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYBODY. I ALSO RESIDE AT 500. I'M NOT GOING TO REPEAT WHAT MY HUSBAND SAID, WHICH IS WHAT I HAVE WRITTEN, AS WELL. TWO POINTS. THE FIRST IS, MR. WHITEHOUSE TALKED ABOUT THE POOLS ALONG MORNINGSIDE. THOSE EMAILS THAT YOU RECEIVE FROM PEOPLE ARE THOSE ADDRESSES HE IS REFERRING TO. YOU KNOW WHAT KIND OF DAMAGE THOSE PEOPLE HAVE WITH WATER RETENTION IN THEIR BACKYARDS AND THE GARAGES. I JUST WANT TO POINT THAT OUT. THE OTHER THING IS UNDERSTANDABLY WE HAVE A VERY NICE FAMILY THAT LIVES BEHIND US AND LIKE THEM A LOT. THEY DO HAVE PERMISSION TO HAVE A POOL IN THEIR BACKYARD THAT WOULD BE OKAY FOR THE 40%. I DID LEARN THAT A POOL BUILDER, WHICH WAS NEW TO ME, HAS A MINIMUM COST. THAT COMES AT A CERTAIN SIZE POOL, WHICH IS SMALLER THAN WHAT IT WOULD BE -- I'M SORRY. IT'S LARGER THAN WHAT THEY COULD HAVE IN THEIR YARD. I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S THE REASON WHY, BUT AS A CONSUMER MYSELF, I WOULDN'T WANT TO BE PAYING FOR SOMETHING THAT WASN'T -- THAT I COULD GET. I HAD NO IDEA THAT THE POOL WAS GOING TO TAKE UP THAT MUCH ROOM IN THE BACKYARD. THERE IS NO GREEN SPACE AT ALL. I DON'T SEE IT. I DON'T SEE THAT KIND OF SPACE BACK THERE FOR THE SIZED POOL THAT THEY WANT. GIVE THEM THE POOL AND WHAT IS ALLOWED, BUT I'M ASKING YOU NOT TO GO FURTHER THAN THAT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> ANY FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT? >> KITTY ONCE AGAIN. I HAVE BEEN TO A LOT OF THESE MEETINGS. I JUST WANT TO REMIND THE BOARD THAT EACH LOT IS CONSIDERED A VARIANCE AND YOU DON'T REALLY -- SUPPOSED TO LOOK AT OTHER VARIANCES AND THE STORY IS VERY COMPELLING, HOWEVER 40% IS 40%. THE LAST TIME THE ATTORNEY WAS HERE, THEY HAD SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES. I DON'T SEE IT HERE. MY NEIGHBORHOOD IS FULL OF SMALL LOTS AND ALL OF THOSE NEIGHBORS WERE ABLE TO PUT IN POOLS, NO VARIANCES. NONE. I THINK IT CAN BE DONE. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MA'AM. DO WE HAVE ANY FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT? MR. WHITEHOUSE? >> THANK YOU, SIR. IN BRIEF RESPONSE TO SOME COMMENTS. NUMBER ONE, THOSE WEREN'T THE BACKYARDS OF THIS PARTICULAR LOT YOU SAW, NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO, YOU CAN SAY WHATEVER YOU WANT, ÚBUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT THIS BACKYARD IS MUCH LARGER THAN ANY BACKYARD. PARTICULARLY THE ONE THEY ARE SHOWING US THE PICTURES FROM, WHICH YOU GRANTED A VARIANCE FOR. THIS PARTICULAR LOT, YOU SEE THE OTHER ONES. WE CAN'T BIND THE VARIANCE, BUT CLEARLY THEY ARE THERE. ANYBODY CAN MAKE COMMENTS OR GENERAL VAGUE COMMENTS ABOUT ALL OF THIS FLOODING AND YOU'VE SEEN IT. THAT'S NOTHING. THERE'S NO PROOF ON THE RECORD SHOWING THAT THERE IS FLOODING FROM THESE POOLS THAT WERE EITHER GRANTED VARIANCE THAT WE DON'T HAVE OR PERMITTED BY THE COUNTY. AS I SHOWED YOU, THERE IS EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT THEY ARE THE SAME EXACT SIZE. THERE IS EVIDENCE FROM THE PROPERTY APPRAISER THAT THE LOT COVERAGE AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE HOUSE IS VERY. THIS HOUSE IS A LITTLE SMALLER THAN THE OTHER ON THIS BLOCK AND [00:25:03] WE GRANTED THOSE OR HAVE BEEN PERMITTED BY THE COUNTY. ANOTHER IMPORTANT NOTE IS THE FACT THAT WE LOOK AT THE AREA AND WE SEE ALL OF THE POOLS IN THIS AREA. WE DON'T HAVE VARIANCES FOR ALL OF THESE, BUT THE FACT IS THAT WE ALLOWED THEM AS A COUNTY. TO SAY THAT THIS PARTICULR CASE OF ITS OWN IS EXACTLY RIGHT, BUT THE FACT IS THAT IT IS APPROPRIATE TO LOOK AT OTHER ONES THAT WE GRANTED, ESPECIALLY REASONABLY THAT HAVE THE SAME EXACT FACTS. YOU HAVE TO HAVE SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ON THE RECORD SHOWING THAT THIS IS DIFFERENT AND THIS ONE FLOODS DIFFERENT AND THIS WILL CAUSE DIFFERENT. YOU DON'T HAVE ANY OF THAT ON THE RECORD OR STAFF REPORT. THIS IS SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR TO OTHERS GRANTED AND IT'S APPROPRIATE TO PUT THE CONDITION WE TALKED ABOUT, BECAUSE OF ITS ABOUT THE DRAINAGE REFUND BEFORE THAT IT WILL HELP TO ADDRESS DRAINAGE. THIS ONE IS A SMALL POOL AND IT'S ONLY THE WATER THAT WE TALKED ABOUT MANY TIMES BEFORE. WATER AREA AND RETENTION AREAS ARE OKAY TO BE TAKEN OUT OF THE ISR, THEN THIS SEEMS TO BE OKAY ITSELF AND PARTICULARLY BECAUSE IT'S A VERY SMALL POOL SIMILAR IN CIRCUMSTANCES TO OTHERS WE GRANTED. IT NEEDS THE FACT THAT THESE LOTS ARE NONCONFORMING WITHIN THE ZONING DISTRICT AND SMALLER THAN WHAT IS ALLOWED TO BE PLANTED TODAY AND WE ASK THAT YOU REASONABLY CONSIDER THIS. WE ARE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. >> THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS ON THE BOARD? YOU FIRST. >> ON THE SIZE OF THE HOUSE, IT APPEARS THE FIRST SIX HOUSES ON THE STREET, THIS IS PROBABLY THE SECOND SMALLEST HOUSE 2630 SQUARE FEET IN THE NEXT IS 3000 SQUARE FEET WITH THE SMALLEST IS 2030 SQUARE IN THE HOUSE WITH THE POOL IS 2650 SQUARE FEET. >> THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. >> ANY SORT OF POOL DECK WOULD BE PERVIOUS. WHAT TYPE OF PAPER ARE YOU PROPOSING? HEAVY SPECIFIED? >> MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE PERVIOUS TURF THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE COUNTY BEFORE TO BE IN THIS AREAS AND IS CONSIDERED PERVIOUS AND DOES NOT COUNT TOWARDS IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIO. AS FAR AS THE PERVIOUS PAVERS, ANYTHING USED WOULD BE PERVIOUS, NUMBER ONE UNDER THE COUNTY CODE. EVERYTHING THAT IS ALREADY ON THE PROPERTY IS PERVIOUS. THAT IS WHY I SHOULD YOU THE DRAFT GRAPHIC THAT SHOWS THE ONLY THINGS COMING INTO THIS ARE THE HOUSE, WHICH IS THE SECOND SMALLEST ON THE BLOCK, AS HE POINTED OUT AND THE WATER AREA OF THE POOL. >> I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE TURF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. >> THERE WAS A REFERENCE. PERVIOUS. SOME KIND OF PERVIOUS TURF MATERIAL THAT THEY ALREADY ADDRESSED AND THAT IS WHY YOU SEE COMMON IN STAFF REPORT AND I CAN POINT YOU TO THE STAFF REPORT, BUT IT SAYS -- BY THE WAY, THEY WILL BE HELD TO THAT WHEN THEY SUBMIT THE SITE PLAN, WHETHER THEY PUT PERVIOUS OR PUT THE TURF. THEY CAN ALSO PUT DRAINS AND THAT CAN BE PART OF THE CONDITION. >> THE DRIVEWAY IS PERVIOUS PAVERS. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> ANNA? >> A COUPLE OF PARTS. FIRST, ATTORNEY WEST. WE DON'T CONSIDER CURRENT APPLICATIONS, CORRECT? >> FOR THE CHAIR, TOO. VARIANCES ARE FACT SPECIFIC WAIVERS OF THE RULE AND NOT CONTINGENT UPON OR PRECEDENT BY PREVIOUSLY AWARDED OR DENIED VARIANCE IS. >> THEN, IS IT 200 SQUARE FEET? R-1-D ZONING, WHAT THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE? IT'S NOT IRREGULARLY SHAPED AND BELOW THE LOT SIZE, CORRECT >> THIS SUBDIVISION ITSELF IS THE SMALLEST LOT AND I THINK THAT'S -- I DON'T KNOW. THE STAFF REPORT REFERENCES THAT THIS IS A NONCONFORMING LOT, SO THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING. [00:30:02] >> IS THAT CORRECT? >> JUST ONE MOMENT. I WILL FOLLOW UP ON THAT ONE. >> THANK YOU. >> JUST TO CLARIFY WHAT MY COLLEAGUES ASKED, THE LAST TIME YOU WERE HERE IN FRONT OF THE BOARD AND NOT THAT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT ANOTHER VARIANCE REQUEST, BUT 500 MORNINGSIDE , IT WAS IRREGULARLY SHAPED LOT AND IT WASN'T COUNTING THE LAND AS PART OF THE RATIO. THAT DOES NOT EXIST HERE, CORRECT? >> EXCEPT FOR THE COUNTY DESIGN STORMWATER VARIANT IN THE FRONT SITS IN THE RIGHT OF WAY, WHICH IS THE SAME PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCE. THE FRONT OF THE DRAIN, WHICH WAS DESIGNED BY THE COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY. THAT IS WHY I POINTED OUT EARLIER THAT IT ALSO DOES PROVIDE SOME CONSIDERATION AS FAR AS THE RUNOFF ITSELF AND PART OF THE CONDITION FOR THE LAST ONE AND THE RUNOFF 500 TO THOSE INSIDE AREAS RUN TOWARDS THE FRONT, WHICH IS THE STORMWATER CONTAINMENT AREA. >> IF YOU TAKE MORNINGSIDE DOWN TOWARDS REFERENCING OR OTHER POOLS ON THE EAST SIDE OR MORNINGSIDE, OTHER OTHER CATCH BASINS THAT YOU HAVE BEEN ABLE TO IDENTIFY? >> THIS IS THE MAIN ONE. >> YOU CAN SEE IT ON THIS PARTICULAR LOT ITSELF. ON THE BLOCK ITSELF, THERE IS ONE DOWN HERE. THERE IS ONE HERE ON THE SIDE AND THIS ONE RIGHT HERE, AS YOU SAW FROM THE SURVEY. IT SHOWS THAT STRUCTURE BUILT RIGHT HERE IN FRONT, WHICH IS NOT SOMEWHERE TO THE OTHER AREAS. >> THAT IS THE ONLY CATCH BASIN? >> THIS IS FURTHER DOWN IN THE PARTICULAR AREA AND IT CATCHES A FEW LOT COMING OFF IN THE FRONT, BUT IT WAS DESIGNED TO CATCH THE RUNOFF FROM THOSE, WHICH IF THE COMPLAINT ARE AND WE TALKED ABOUT THE OTHER LOT, BECAUSE WE REFERENCED THE FACT THAT THE OTHER WAS IRREGULAR IN SIZE. THAT IS TRUE, BUT A NUMBER OF THE OTHER ONES WE APPROVED WITHIN THIS AREA ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY FOR A FAMILY POOL ON A BIGGER LOT AND WE GRANTED THAT, SO IT SEEMS THERE ARE CONDITIONS THAT CAN BE APPLIED TO THIS PARTICULAR REQUEST THAT WOULD GOVERN CONCERNS THAT WE HEARD TODAY AS FAR AS FLOODING IF THE BOARD FINDS THOSE TO BE APPROPRIATE. >> THANK YOU. >> YES, SIR. >> TO GO BACK TO THE REQUEST ASKED EARLIER, THIS IS 7200 SQUARE FEET AND IT DOESN'T MEET THE MINIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS IN OUR ZONING. >> JAMES, CAN YOU TELL IS THE CURRENT ISR? WHAT'S THE RATIO? >> IT LOOKS LIKE THE POOL ITSELF -- THE POOL AND SPA TOGETHER 390 TWO DO THE MATH . IF WE TAKE OFF THE 390 . >> I TRIED SOME QUICK MATH APPEAR. >> I THINK IT'S PRETTY CLOSE. IT MAY BE 39%. 1% -- THIS IS THE SECOND SMALLEST HOUSE ON THE BLOCK AND THE OTHERS HAVE POOLS, WHICH IS WHY IT SEEMS APPROPRIATE. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THESE VARIANCES PARTICULARLY IN THE COUNTY, WE TALK ABOUT THE LOTS THAT ARE OVERBUILT AND THIS IS CLEARLY NOT. THIS IS UNDER BUILT. IN FACT, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU REMEMBER, BUT WHEN I WAS HERE FOR 500, WE TALKED ABOUT IT. I THINK I MAY EVEN STATED, BECAUSE WE WEREN'T GOING TO NEED TO GET A VARIANCE IF THEY NEEDED A POOL. AT THE TIME, THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT, BUT APPARENTLY I WAS MISTAKEN. I DIDN'T TRY TO MISLEAD, BUT THEY [00:35:02] DO NEED IT. THEY'RE NOT TRYING TO BUILD A HUGE POOL. AT 40 PHILLIPS WAS LIKE 17 BY 15. A HUGE POOL. THIS IS NO DIFFERENT AND WE ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO SAY, WE HAVE TO GIVE IT TO YOU, BECAUSE WE GAVE IT TO THEM. CIRCUMSTANCES ARE APPROPRIATE AND MAY CONSIDER CIRCUMSTANCES AS TO THE ONE WE GAVE IT. WE DON'T HAVE TO GIVE IT, BUT CIRCUMSTANCES ARE APPROPRIATE TO CONSIDER. THIS IS NOT AN OVERBUILDING OF THE LOT AND A SMALL FAMILY POOL. IT IS SIMILAR TO OTHER ONES. IT DOES APPEAR THAT THERE ARE WAYS AND IF THERE IS NO WAY TO ADDRESS ANY CONCERNS, IT SEEMS THAT THERE ARE WAYS AND WE'RE ALWAYS DOING THAT IN THE PAST. >> WHAT YEAR WAS THE CO ISSUED? >> YOU HAVE THE CATCH BASIN IN THE FRONT YARD. WAS THERE VARIATION FOR THE SETBACK MORNINGSIDE BETWEEN THE LOTS GOING UP THE STREET? >> I DON'T THINK SO, BUT SAYING THAT THESE ARE ALL RESIZED AND THEY DO CLEARLY HAVE A LARGER AREA OF SURFACE FOR PERMEABILITY. I DIDN'T GO OUT AND MEASURE THEM ALL, BUT THE ARIEL TELLS A STORY. YOU SAW THE PICTURES FROM SOME OF THE PUBLIC SPEAKERS AND LIKE I SAID, ONE, TWO OR THREE OF THEM, WE HAVE POOLS AND I THINK IT IS APPROPRIATE TO CONSIDER -- IT'S NOT BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO GIVE IT TO THEM, BUT IT'S IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE AREA. THAT IS APPLICABLE TO THE GRANT AND VARIANCE IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, WHICH -- I'M NOT MAKING IT UP AND I'M NOT TELLING YOU THAT ARE POOLS HERE. YOU CAN SEE IT. SORRY. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. >> THANK YOU, JAMES. JACOB, DO WE HAVE A MASTER DRAINAGE STUDY OR MODEL FOR THIS AREA? >> MR. CHAIR, I WILL HAVE OUR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT SPEAK TO THE DRAINAGE ISSUE. WHILE YOU WERE CONVERSING ABOUT THE TOPIC OF THE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE FOR THE HOUSE, I DID DO THOSE CALCULATIONS WHILE YOU WERE TALKING IN HERE WITH QUITE A STRAIGHT ANSWER. BASED ON THE SITE PLAN, IT LOOKS LIKE THE HOUSE IS SITTING AT ABOUT 38%. THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL WAS ABOUT LOWER, ABOUT 36.5%. MAYBE SOME HAVE CHANGED, BUT IT'S ABOUT 38%. >> THANK YOU. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR GROWTH MANAGEMENT. THERE IS A MASTER COLLECTION SYSTEM THROUGHOUT THE AREA TO SAY IS DESIGNED IS TOUGH FOR ME TO SAY. IT IS REALLY AN AFTER-THE-FACT ADDITION, SO AS MR. WHITEHOUSE POINTED OUT, DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THE LOT WITH SIX MORE ADDITIONAL ONES AS YOU LOOK ON THE EAST SIDE OF MORNINGSIDE GOING ALL THE WAY TO THE SOUTH WITH SLIGHTLY HIGHER NUMBER ON THE WEST SIDE, WHICH ALL THE A CASCADING EFFECT SOME OF THE SURROUNDING BODIES OF WATER, THEN OUT TO THE LIVING SYSTEM. >> SORRY. THINKING ABOUT SOME STUDIES THAT I KNOW. HAVE WE DONE THAT FOR THIS AREA IN THE LAST TWO YEARS? >> STORMWATER MODEL. LET ME START OVER. WE DO HAVE PARTS OF PONTE VEDRA IN OUR STORMWATER MODEL, BUT WE DIDN'T INCLUDE THIS PORTION, BECAUSE IT PREDOMINATELY. THE LEVEL OF DETAIL WE HAVE OF THE STORMWATER MODEL OF THE COUNTY IS NOT MEETING THE THRESHOLD OF THE SMALLER ONES AND IT GENERALLY FLOWS OUT TO THE SYSTEM AND INTERCOASTAL. THERE WASN'T A NEED TO GO INTO AN EXTREME MODEL REFINEMENT FOR A BULK OF THIS. WE WOULD HAVE A KEY LEVEL MODEL OR OURS IS MORE FINE AND WE DON'T HAVE THIS ONE MODEL TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. >> WHAT WOULD NECESSITATE THAT BEING INITIATED? WE HAVE FULLY DEVELOPED LOT AND WE ARE CLEARLY BUMPING UP AGAINST THE EDGE OF ISR ON EVERY LOT. WILL THAT CHANGE SUBSTANTIALLY THE MODEL FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD? [00:40:07] >> WITH STREETS FRONTING ON LOTS, IT COMES TO THE IDEA OF THE SYSTEM, SO THE PIPE THAT RUNS UNDERNEATH FROM THAT TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ROAD IS A 20 INCH PIPE. IS THAT THE APPROPRIATE SIZE? ARE THERE SWALES ON THE ROADWAYS? THAT KIND OF RUNS INTO THE AREA WHERE PEOPLE HAVE NICELY LANDSCAPED FRONT YARD AND THEY PUT THIS EFFORT INTO THE DRIVEWAYS, THEN THE COUNTY TO COME AND SAY, WE ARE GOING TO. THAT MIGHT RUB SOME PEOPLE THE WRONG WAY. IT REALLY BECOMES A QUESTION OF CONVEYANCE AND GENERALLY SPEAKING THERE ARE SOME LARGE CONVEYANCES OUT THERE. IT'S A MATTER OF HOW QUICKLY YOU CAN GET IT OUT THERE. I DON'T THINK WE ROUTINELY HEAR ANY DRAINAGE COMPLAINTS FROM THIS AREA, BUT IT'S ALL GETTING UP QUICKLY AND IN THE INSTANCE WHEN THE STORM IS AT PEAK INTENSITY, WHAT IS GOING ON OUT THERE AND THAT IS A SIMILAR CASE FOR EVERYWHERE ELSE. STORMWATER MODEL EFFORTS ARE LOOKING AT ELEVATIONS AND WHAT WE NEED TO BE DONE ON A LARGE SCALE IN THIS INSTANCE WITH NOT MUCH MORE TO DO OTHER THAN UPSIZING PIPES IF WE KNEW THERE WAS A SPOT THAT WAS EXPERIENCING ISSUES. >> SO THAT I UNDERSTAND, WHERE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT TREATMENT SO MUCH AS FLOW? IS THAT CORRECT? >> THERE IS NO TREATMENT GOING ON OUT THERE. SOMETHING NEW CAME IN AND THE DISTRICT WOULD SAY THAT YOU NEED TO TREAT FOR TREATMENT, WHICH WOULD BE THE CASE UNDER THE NEW STORMWATER RULES ROLLING OUT. OLDER ALREADY ESTABLISHED LOCATION UNLESS THERE IS A MASSIVE REDEVELOPMENT AND RAISE ALL THE LAND AND BUILT SOMETHING BRAND-NEW THERE, WHICH WASN'T SIMILAR, THEN WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT WATER QUALITY ASPECT, OTHERWISE THE QUANTITY AND GETTING IT OUT. >> OTHER THAN OUTSIDE THE 24 HOUR, YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY COMPLAINTS? >> I'M NOT PERSONALLY RECEIVED ANY DAY NOT WITH MY STEP RECEIVING ANY EITHER. THAT DOESN'T MEAN PEOPLE COULD HAVE COMPLAINTS, BUT I HAVEN'T HEARD ANY. >> THANKS FOR THE THICK WE HAVE MORE QUESTIONS. I HAVE JOHN FIRST. >> WESTERN FOR STAFF. WHAT IS THE AVERAGE SIZE IN PONTE VEDRA? DO WE KNOW? I HAVE A GUESS. >> JACOB SMITH FOR THE RECORD. DIFFICULT TO GET AVERAGE LOT SIZE, BUT THERE IS QUITE A BIG DELTA BETWEEN THE TWO, BECAUSE WE HAVE LOTS AND THESE ARE TYPICALLY 7200 SQUARE FEET. MANY TIMES CAN BE MUCH MORE LARGER AND 2 TO 3 TIMES AS LARGE AND OFTENTIMES OR SOMETIMES EVEN BIGGER. HAVING AN AVERAGE WILL BE DIFFICULT, BUT THERE ARE MANY LOTS IN THE R-1-D SIDE. >> A LOT ARE VERY LARGE. >> A LOT ARE VERY LARGE AND THE SAME SIZE THAT WE ARE DISCUSSING RIGHT NOW. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> I WAS GOING TO ASK ABOUT YOUR NOTIFICATION SYSTEM REGARDING DRAINAGE OVERALL AND NOT JUST SPECIFIC LOCATION. IF YOU HAVE SOMEONE IN THE OLD AREA THAT CONSTANTLY DRAINS. LET'S JUST PICK ON TRENT THE BOULEVARD OR BETWEEN SOLANO THAT IS DRAINING QUITE A. IS IT COMMON TO GET THE SAME RESIDENTS REPORTING FLOODING TO YOUR OFFICE? >> I WOULD SAY IT IS MOST OFTEN GOING TO BE A REPEAT CUSTOMER. THEY WAY THEY COME THROUGH STAFF IS THE ENFORCEMENT PROCESS, PART SYSTEM AND WE RECEIVED DIRECT COMMUNICATION THAT MIGHT GO TO ADMINISTRATION OR THE BOARD. THOSE WOULD TYPICALLY GET PASSED THROUGH DOWN TO STAFF, WHETHER IT BE PUBLIC WORK OR MY OWN. IF SOMEONE IS COMPLAINING, IT'S PROBABLY A FREQUENT COMPLAINT, BECAUSE THERE IS LIKELY A REAL ISSUE. >> JUST TALK ABOUT HOW YOU ADDRESS THOSE. WOULD YOU GO OUT TO THE LOCATION OR LOOK AT THE FLOODING? >> STAFF WOULD GO OUT THERE , WHETHER IT BE AN ACTUAL ENGINEER OR INSPECTOR. SOMEONE WOULD GO OUT AND MAKE AN ASSESSMENT. FOR WHERE THE MODEL IS IN EXISTENCE, WE USE IT AS VALIDATION. WE ALSO HAVE THE ABILITY TO LOOK AT [00:45:03] WHERE THE FLOOD ZONES ARE AND WE HAVE A MAP THAT WE ALSO USE, WHICH GIVES ELEVATION, SO WE CAN SAY THAT THIS IS MUCH LOWER IN THIS AREA IS MUCH HIGHER REVIEW FROM THAT TO SAY WHERE WOULD WATER TYPICALLY BEHELD? WE DO REVIEWS WITH ENGINEERING STAFF AND ITS TYPICALLY AN INSPECTOR OR INSPECTOR AND ENGINEER TO GO OUT ON SITE OR EITHER DO AN ASSESSMENT AND OFFER ADVICE OR GO BACK TO THE OFFICE AND SEE IF IT IS ACTIVE CONSTRUCTION, WHAT WOULD WE DO TO MODIFY? PUBLIC WORKS STAFF TO SEE IF THERE IS A SOLUTION THAT CAN BE REACHED. >> THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE IT. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE PUBLIC? OTHERWISE, I WILL CLOSE IT FOR BOARD OF DISCUSSION. >> TWO THINGS. ONE THAT HE MENTIONED, THERE WAS REALLY NO CONCERN AND IT IS REALLY A DIRECTION OF CONDITION AND I WANT TO GO BACK AND ADDRESS THE THINGS ABOUT LOT SIZE. I KNOW THEY HAD SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT AND THE LOTS BEHIND THIS. THEY ARE MUCH BIGGER DURING ZONING CATEGORY. THAT IS SOMETHING YOU CAN CONSIDER THAT IS DIFFERENT COMPARED TO ALL OF THESE THAT HAVE POOLS, TOO. IF THERE'S A WAY TO DO ADDRESS IT THAT HAS BEEN DESIGNED BY THE COUNTY EVEN THOUGH IT WAS AFTER THE FACT, DESIGNED TO ADDRESS SOME THINGS, THE CONCERNS ARE OUT HERE AND FURTHER DOWN INTO ADULT OR CLUB AREA. ANOTHER AREA THAT YOU JUST HEARD FROM STAFF. THANK YOU. >> OPENING FOR BOARD DISCUSSION. >> ONE, IN MY WALK, I NOTED THAT ONLY THE BACK PROBABLY FIVE FEET AND MAYBE NOT EVEN THAT, SLOPES AWAY FROM THE HOUSE. MOST OF THE ART SLOPES TOWARDS THE FRONT STREET, SO I THINK A LOT OF CONCERN ABOUT ADDITIONAL FLOODING MASTERS WITH THIS OPPOSED VARIANCE WOULD NOT BE VALID. TWO, NOTED THAT THE BE APPROVED FOR 500 AND THEY ARE DOING THE RIGHT THING AS FAR AS INSTALLING FROM THE CATCH BASIN. IT'S NOT COMPLETED, BUT THEY ARE INSTALLING. THE LAST, I ALWAYS HAD A WARM SPOT IN MY HEART FOR THE SIZE OF THESE LOTS, 7200 SQUARE FEET AND THAT GOES BACK ABOUT NINE OR 10 YEARS AGO AND THE TICKET WAS JUST A COMMENT THAT MAYBE WE SHOULD LOOK AT CHANGING THE ISR VERSUS LARGE LOTS. 1% ON THESE LOTS IS A LOT DIFFERENT THAN 1% ON ONE ACRE LOT AND THE LOT OF LOTS UNDER ONE ACRE. WE HAVE GRANTED A FAIR NUMBER OF FRAGRANCES AND WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO USE THAT IN JUDGING WHAT WE WOULD DO ON THIS, BUT IT THE SAME SITUATION THE HOUSE IS NOT THAT BIG AND IT'S SMALL COMPARED TO MOST HOUSES. THEY HAVE DONE THE RIGHT THING AS TERMS OF IMPERVIOUS FAVORS OF THE DRIVEWAY AND THEY HAVE DONE EVERYTHING. I WILL GO WITH THE CONCEPT THAT I WOULD APPROVE THIS. >> THANK YOU. >> I CERTAINLY AGREE WITH YOU, ESPECIALLY THIS AREA OF LOOKING AT MR. WHITE HOUSES. HE HAS HIGHLIGHTED ALL OF THE POOLS IN THIS AREA. I THINK THE ISR, ESPECIALLY FOR THIS PLAT NEEDS TO CHANGE. NOT AS FAR AS HOW SIZE, BUT HOW SIZE AND POOL IF WE CREATED A SECONDARY ISR FOR ACCESSORIES. TO THAT, I WOULD AGREE. I HAVE A HARD TIME GETTING PAST. THIS IS A STANDARD LOT FOR THE PLAT. THAT IS WHERE I START IS IT LOOKS LIKE A STANDARD LOT TO ME. THAT IS FOR THE PLAT. I'M WITH YOU WHERE THE AREA IS SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT. >> I AGREE. I HAVE APPROVED AND [00:50:02] HAVE BEEN ON THE BOARD FOR EASILY FOUR OR FIVE OTHER LOTS. NOT ONLY SWIMMING POOLS, BUT ALSO ONE FOR SOMETHING BUILT THAT GOT ABOUT 42% OR 43%. OUT OF LIQUID EVER APPROVED ANYTHING OVER 44%, BUT THE AREA IS SO SMALL. >> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? >> THE TESTIMONY. I'M CURIOUS ABOUT THE TESTIMONY FROM THE GENTLEMAN AND HIS WIFE. I'M NOT QUITE CERTAIN THAT THE ADDITIONAL PERCENTAGE THAT THEY'RE REQUESTING ONE WAY OR THE OTHER WILL AFFECT THEIR PARTICULAR PROPERTY. I'M NOT SURE. DO WE HAVE DATA? IS IT JUST IN GENERAL THE AREA? >> COME UP AND SPEAK TO THE QUESTION. >> DEMONSTRATES WHAT HAPPENED RECENTLY IN THE RUNOFF IN THE BACKYARD. >> WILL YOU SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE? >> CAN YOU HEAR ME? >> GO AHEAD. >> THE PICTURE RIGHT THERE BETWEEN THE FENCE AND RETAINING WALL, THERE IS A GOOD FOOT BETWEEN THERE. BECAUSE OF THE RUNOFF FROM THE BACK OF 500, THAT AREA IS NOW COMPLETELY FILLED WITH DIRT AND NO LONGER EXISTS. WE SEE THE RUNOFF COMING INTO OUR BACKYARD. TO CLARIFY MY 508 AND 506 ARE THE EMAILS THAT YOU GOT. IT WASN'T THE NEXT-DOOR NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE. THE AREAS THAT HAVE HOLES BEHIND THEM THE ONES THAT MADE COMPLAINTS TO YOU ABOUT WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THEIR HOUSE. WE DID GET A HUGE FLAG IN THE NEXT-DOOR NEIGHBOR'S BACKYARD WHEN THEY PUT IN A POOL AND IT FLOODED THEIR BACKYARD SIX INCHES OF RAIN AND IT CAME INTO OUR BACKYARD. >> THEIR PROPERTY IS ABOUT 2.5 FEET OR 3.5 FEET -- THREE FEET HIGHER. THE WATER GOES DOWNHILL, SEE YOU CAN SEE THE RETENTION WALLS HERE. IF YOU GO UP, IT'S GONE. >> WHAT IS NEAR THE RETENTION WALL IS ALMOST UP TO THE POOL AREA OR WHATEVER THAT THING IS. >> TO MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR, THE PICTURE ON THE SCREEN, THIS IS YOUR BACKYARD? >> 500. NOT 502. 500. THIS IS WHY WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT MORE SPACE BEING TAKEN UP. >> CAN ADDRESS SOMETHING ELSE? >> DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? >> RIGHT NOW, YOU ARE NOT GETTING FLOODING? >> NO. WE ARE NOT. >> YOU BELIEVE YOU MIGHT GET ADDITIONAL FLOODING, WHICH WOULD ADD TO WHAT YOU ARE GETTING NOW? >> YES. >> THEY ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE A 1% OR 2% STAFF WAS SAYING SWIMMING POOL, WHICH MY CALCULATION SAID IT'S ONLY ABOUT 150 SQUARE FEET. COULD THAT OR WOULD THAT IF THEY DECIDE TO DO SOMETHING, LIKE A LAP POOL OR SOMETHING, WOULD THAT -- DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY IDEA IF THAT WOULD WORSEN YOUR FLOODING SITUATION? THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TO GO TO US FOR APPROVAL. >> WE ARE FINE WITH THE POOL THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN ALLOWED. THAT IS FINE. IT'S A TREND THAT WE ARE SEEING EVERYWHERE. THE VARIANCES ARE BEING ALLOWED, BUT THERE'S NOTHING BEING DONE TO ALLEVIATE ANY POTENTIAL PROBLEMS AND THE ONES THAT DO EXIST. 508 AND 506 HAVE CLEARLY STATED [00:55:04] WHAT'S HAPPENED IN THEIR HOMES. ONE OF THEM HAS A FLOODED GARAGE QUITE OFTEN. WHEN YOU HAVE LOST, IT'S BECAUSE THEY HAVE ALL BEEN FILLED IN AND THERE'S NOTHING TO REPLACE THAT. >> I JUST WANT TO ASK A QUESTION ON THE 508 AND 506 MORNINGSTAR. DO WE HAVE ANY DOCUMENTATION OF WHEN THOSE VARIANCES WERE OR POOLS OVER 40% WERE PROVED? >> WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED AS FAR AS -- THEY ARE GOING TO ADD AREA DRAINS AND ALSO PIPE THE DOWNSPOUTS TO THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, SO THAT CAN ACTUALLY APPROVE YOUR DRAINAGE. >> THAT IS WHAT THEY SAID ABOUT 500, TOO. MA'AM. THEY HAVE NOT COMPLETED CONSTRUCTION. THEY'RE NOT COMPLETED, BUT THEY WERE IN THE PIPE IT WOULD BE DONE DURING THE TIME THAT THE POOL IS BEING JUST CONSTRUCTED. >> THAT IS NOT MY RECOLLECTION. >> IT WOULD ALL BE CONSTRUCTED AT THE SAME TIME. THEY ARE NOT DONE WITH IT. >> THEY ARE GOING TO NEED TO REDIRECT SOME OF THOSE PIPES. >> THERE IS NO WAY. >> THEY WILL HAVE TO GET IT FROM THE STRAIN RIGHT HERE. >> THE AREA DRAIN PROBABLY ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE IS GOING TO GO STRAIGHT TO THE STREET IN FRONT OF IT. >> THAT'S WHAT -- IT WAS THE WORDING. >> THAT WAS NOT THE WORDING. >> THAT'S WHAT YOU JUST SAID. THE DRAINAGE. >> OKAY. THEY HAVE NOT COMPLETED IT YET. >> THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO ASK . >> PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD HAS ENDED. >> DID ANYONE HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? COME BACK TO THE BOARD FOR ANY FURTHER BOARD DISCUSSION. GO AHEAD. >> MEMBER GREEN HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THE POOLS BILLED AT 506 AND 508. 506 ACCORDING TO THE CLEARANCE SHEET WAS AT 38% BUILT IN 2007. 508 IS OLD ENOUGH TO NOT HAVE A RECORD. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DO WE HAVE ANY FURTHER BOARD DISCUSSION? DOES ANYONE WANT TO MAKE MOTION? JOHN? >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR PVZVAR 2025-6 FOR THE REQUEST FOR VARIANCE SECTION 8M ON ZONING RELATIONS TO ALLOW MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIO OF 44% AND IN LIEU OF 40% TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE PROPOSED POOL. ACCORDING TO STAFF FINDINGS, ALL STIPULATIONS AND WATER ON ROOF AREAS BE CAPTURED BY GUTTERS DIRECTED AND PIPED TO THE STREET. ALSO, A MINIMUM OF TWO AREA DRAINS, ONE ON THE SOUTHEAST SECTION AND THE OTHER IN THE EASTERN LOT ABOVE THOSE DRAINS. >> MOTION AND SECOND. >> ALL SECOND THE MOTION. >> MOTION AND SECOND. VOTE. >> 3-2, THE MOTION IS DEFEATED. YES? >> THROUGH THE CHAIR, THE MOTION [01:00:03] IS DEFEATED, BECAUSE UNDER YOUR RULES YOU REQUIRE MAJORITY OF THOSE MEMBERS YOU WOULD NEED FOUR TO CARRY THE VOTE. BY DEFAULT, IT DOES FAIL. >> I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHERE WE WANT TO GO FROM HERE. IT MIGHT BE AN APPLICANT QUESTION. WE ARE MISSING ONE MEMBER OF THE BOARD. I CAN SPEAK FOR MYSELF THAT IF WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH CHANGING THE ISR FOR THIS PLAT, I AM 100% IN FAVOR MOVING FORWARD. DO WE HAVE ANY FURTHER COMMENT? >> YOUR SUGGESTION WOULD BE THAT FOR LOTS OF UNDER 8000 SQUARE FEET THE CHANGING THE ISR RATIO? >> I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT REMAIN AT 40% AND WE SEEM TO HIT 40 FOR AN ADDITIONAL 4% UP TO AN ADDITIONAL 4% FOR POOLS AND EXTERIOR STRUCTURE. >> IF WE DID THAT, HOW WOULD THIS -- HOW LONG WOULD IT TAKE STAFF? >> THROUGH THE CHAIR, THE PROCESS COULD TAKE SOME TIME AND IT WOULD CERTAINLY TAKE SEVERAL MONTHS AT THEIR MINIMUM. FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, WE TYPICALLY WORKSHOP THE IDEAS AND THAT CAN TAKE SEVERAL MEETINGS ITSELF AND WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE BOARD AND ULTIMATELY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR A FINAL CHANGE. >> YOU ANSWERED MY QUESTION ALREADY. >> IF I CAN, THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF DISCUSSION FOR THE APPLICANT AND FAMILY HERE AS IN FOR IT. WAS THERE ANY CONDITIONS THAT THE PEOPLE WHO DIDN'T FEEL 100% COMFORTABLE WITH THIS WOULD BE WILLING TO PUT ON IT AND PREPARED TO MEET ANY CONDITIONS OR NEIGHBORS TO YOU GUYS THAT LIVE WOULD WANT TO PUT ON IT AND THEY WOULD BE GLAD TO MEET HIM. IT SEEMS LIKE SOME CIRCUMSTANCES, BECAUSE 500 WAS APPROVED AND THAT'S WHAT'S CAUSING THE FLOODING. HE HAS CONCERNS ABOUT THAT, BECAUSE IT'S NOT AND IT LOOKS LIKE THE EVIDENCE IS SHOWING FLOODING, BUT THAT'S REALLY AS THE MEMBER SAID, IT'S NOT DONE YET. IF THERE ARE ANY CONDITIONS PUT ON AND WOULD BE GLAD TO DO THEM, OTHER THAN THAT WE ACCEPT THE BOARD, SO DECISION. >> ANY CONDITIONS THAT WOULD REFLECT OR CHANGE ANYONE'S VOTE? >> PERSONALLY, I CAN'T GET TO THE CONDITIONS. CERTAINLY, I WOULD AGREE THAT SENDING THE WATER TO THE STREET AND YOU'VE GOT EVERYTHING TO IT. THAT WOULD ABSOLUTELY SATIATE THE CONCERN, BUT THE HARDSHIP IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET OVER AND THAT'S THE HURDLE THAT I CAN'T FIND. A LOT OF THE NEIGHBORS HAVE POOLS. IF I'M LIVING IN THIS HOUSE, I'M UNBELIEVABLY FRUSTRATED AT THE CHAIR. EVERYONE HAS TO STAND ON THEIR OWN AND THEY CANNOT FIND THE HARDSHIP IN THIS ONE. ALTHOUGH, I WILL AGREE WITH THE HARDSHIP WITH THEM ALL. I WANT TO CHANGE JUST FOR EVERYBODY AND NOT THIS PARTICULAR. >> WE NEED TO MAKE A SECOND MOTION? >> OBVIOUSLY, IT'S BEEN TURNED DOWN, BUT WHAT IS THE APPLICANT'S RIGHTS? >> THEY CAN APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. >> THEY CAN DO THAT AT ANYTIME? >> HAS TO BE DONE WITHIN 60 DAYS? >> 30. >> DO WE NEED TO TURN IT DOWN FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO APPEAL IT? >> YOU ALREADY HAVE A DENIAL. >> OKAY. WE COMPLETED OUR [01:05:11] BUSINESS FOR PVZVAR 25 06. WE HAD KITTY COME UP EARLIER TO TALK ABOUT PICKUP AND DELIVERY AND RVS . >> KITTY, 111 COURSE DRIVE, I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT AND PROHIBITED USES FOR ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS. I HAVE COPIES HERE AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN SEE THIS. THIS PARTICULAR REGULATION HAS BEEN IN REGULATION SINCE 1965. I HAVE A LOT OF COPIES AND I CLEANED OUT JACK'S OFFICE AFTER HE PASSED AWAY, SO I HAVE SOME INFORMATION. I WENT THROUGH A LOT OF THEM FROM 1965 TO 2011, THE REGULATION RED PRETTY MUCH LIKE THIS ONE, EXCEPT CONTINUOUS HOURS WASN'T THERE. FOR SOME REASON UNTIL 2011. IT SHOWED UP IN THE REGULATION. I HAVE ANY FEEDBACK AND I CAN FIND OUT WHY THAT WAS THERE. THE ISSUE IS THAT THE WAY THE REGULATION IS WRITTEN TODAY CAUSES MANY LOOPHOLES. IN 24 HOURS CAN BE 24 HOURS AND CAN BE THERE FOR ANOTHER 24 -- 22 HOURS. THE MOST IMPOSSIBLE TO ENFORCE THIS REGULATION. IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT REGULATION, BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN THERE SINCE DAY ONE, 1965. THE ORIGINAL INTENT ANSWERING THAT WE DIDN'T WANT COMMERCIAL VEHICLES OR RVS IN OUR COMMUNITY. IT'S CURRENTLY IN OUR ZONING REGULATIONS TODAY. EXCEPT DURING TIME NECESSARY FOR PICKUP AND DELIVERY. THAT HAS IN THERE SINCE DAY ONE. WHEN IT COMES TO PICK IT UP, SOLD IT AND DELIVERED BECAUSE YOU BOUGHT IT. OTHER THAN THAT, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CLAUSE REALLY MEANS. NOW, WE CAN GO TO SOMETHING. IF YOU HAVE AN RV AND GOING ON A TRIP, YOU NEED TO PACK IT UP. THAT CAN BE DONE IN A DAY. WHAT I'M ASKING OR PROPOSING AND ASKING FOR CONSIDERATION IS WE NEED TO TWEAK THE CONSIDERATION. I SEE TOO MANY FLAWS AND LOOPHOLES. I CAN GIVE YOU EXAMPLES IN THE COMMUNITY. ONE GENTLEMAN HAS A CHARTER BOAT BUSINESS WHO RUNS OUT OF HIS DRIVEWAY ON ONE OF THE SMALLER LOTS IN THE COMMUNITY AND IT'S A LARGE VOTE AND YOU CAN'T HIDE IT. IT'S IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOUR DAYS A WEEK. NOT NECESSARILY 24 HOURS -- OVER 24 HOURS. THERE'S NO WAY TO MONITOR THAT 24 HOURS, BECAUSE THEY DON'T WORK ON THE WEEKENDS. I WOULD LIKE TO ELIMINATE NOT TO EXCEED 24 HOURS, BECAUSE CONTINUOUS 24 HOURS. I WOULD LIKE TO DELETE PICKUP AND DELIVERY. MY PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE REGULATION, AGAIN, JUST INTERPRETATION , EXCEPT FOR NO MORE THAN ONE DAY A WEEK AND A WEEK TO FIND A SUNDAY THROUGH THURSDAY, RECREATIONAL VEHICLES, COMMERCIAL VEHICLES, UTILITY TRAILERS SHALL NOT BE PARKED OR ALLOWED TO OCCUPY ANY LAND UNLESS THEY ARE CLOSED IN A GARAGE, CARPORT OR OTHER PARKING AREA. IT'S BEEN THE VERBIAGE SINCE DAY ONE. I DON'T KNOW IF THE DAY IS A GOOD ENOUGH DEFINITION. THEY WILL SAY, TODAY'S SATURDAY AND TOMORROW IS SUNDAY, SO I CAN HAVE IT BOTH DAYS OF THE WEEKEND, BECAUSE IT'S TWO DIFFERENT WEEKS. ALL I'M SAYING IS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A CHANGE TO ADDRESS WITH FOOD TRUCKS, BOATS, RVS THAT COME IN FOR THREE OR FOUR DAYS AT A TIME AND IT'S VERY HARD TO FOLLOW UP ON THOSE ISSUES. I'M [01:10:02] OPEN FOR ANY SUGGESTION FROM STAFF AND THE BOARD. IF YOU GO BACK AND LOOK FOR THIS PARTICULAR CHARTER BUSINESS RESIDENTS, THEY HAVE IT GOING IN SINCE 2014. THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN, YOU CAN ENFORCE REGULATION. >> THANKS. >> I APPLAUD THE SPIRIT AND I AM IN TOTAL AGREEMENT. THERE ARE MANY EXAMPLES OF RVS IN OUR COMMUNITY AND EVEN IN THE MSD AREA. I SEE SPECIFICALLY, BECAUSE I WALK ALL THE TIME. I WILL TELL YOU THAT I HAVE THREE CHILDREN AND HAVE RENTED AN RV AND IT TAKES LONGER THAN A DAY TO PACK THAT THING UP. >> OKAY. >> IT TOOK ME LITERALLY TWO DAYS TO GET LUGGAGE -- FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, IT TAKES LONGER THAN A DAY. >> AS IT SITS IN THE BOOKS RIGHT NOW. >> I WOULD BE VIOLATING CODIFY BROUGHT IN AN RV AND LEFT IT IN MY DRIVEWAY AND TOOK 2 TO 3 DAYS TO PULL IT UP AND SOMEONE FILES A COMPLAINT AND IT'S INSPECTED AND I'M IN VIOLATION OF CODE. FROM PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE, IT TAKES LONGER. >> I'M OPEN, BUT I'M TRYING TO WEED OUT THE CONSTANT. >> I GET IT. I DON'T LIKE SEEING THE ONE I SEE EVERY DAY. >> I KNOW WHERE THEY ARE. >> I CITIZEN ONE EVERYDAY AND IT'S ANNOYING TO LOOK AT. FOR PRACTICAL PURPOSES. >> I'M NOT AN RV OWNER, SO I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG IT TAKES. >> I'M A RENTER AND DON'T OWN ONE. >> THAT'S WHY I SAID A WEEK, BECAUSE I FIGURE PEOPLE MAY COME AND GO AND THEY CAN ONLY GO FOR A WEEK. I'M JUST TRYING TO COME HAPPY TO COME NEXT MONTH AND WE CAN HASH IT OUT AND HAVE TIME TO THINK ABOUT THE WORDING. THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN AND UNFORTUNATELY WHAT HAS HAPPENED IS THE INTENT WAS NOT TO HAPPEN. THE WAY IT'S BEEN ENFORCED BY CODE ENFORCEMENT, IT'S NOT PICKUP AND DELIVERY. IT MEANS NOTHING. THEY LOOK AT THE CONTINUOUS 24 HOURS AND EVERY WEEK AND WEEK OUT OR SOME OF THEM ARE THERE FOUR DAYS A WEEK AND THE CHARTER BUSINESS, HE PACKS IT UP AND GOES OUT FOR A FEW HOURS, COMES BACK AND IT'S RIGHT BACK IN THE DRIVEWAY UNTIL THE NEXT DAY AND THE NEXT DAY. IT NEEDS TO BE CLEANED UP. >> UNDERSTOOD. >> CAN I ADDRESS THIS? TALKED ABOUT IN THE LAST MEETING. JACOB DRAFTED SOMETHING TO TAKE UP THE CURRENT CODE AND REMOVED NOT TO EXCEED 24 CONTINUOUS HOURS. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT SOLVES IT AND IT DOESN'T PUT A DAY ON IT, BUT I WILL LET YOU ADDRESS IT. >> THANK YOU. I PUT THIS ON THE SCREEN HERE. TREVOR WAS JUST LOOKING RIGHT NOW. QT MENTIONED THIS. WHEN THE LANGUAGE WAS ADDED, IT WAS 2011. WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF BACK STORY ABOUT WHY THAT ENDED UP BEING THE CASE. IN MY MIND -- I'VE TALKED TO ROGER AND HE IS THE CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER. THIS IS ONE OF THE REASONS WE SEE OUR INABILITY TO ENFORCE ON THESE, BECAUSE WHEN WE ADD THE 24 HOURS OF CONTINUOUS HOURS, IT BUILDS THIS BUFFER FOR SOMEBODY TO KEEP THE VEHICLE IN THE SAME LOCATION VERSUS IF WE JUST REMOVE IT, THEN THEY CAN GO AND SAY, YOU HAVE A VOTE AND I NEED TO LET YOU KNOW YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PARK ANY BOATS HERE. IF I COME BACK AND IT'S HERE, YOU ARE IN VIOLATION AND IT'S VERY CLEAR AT THAT POINT. TO ME, WE PUT THIS LANGUAGE IN HERE AT SOME POINT AND MAYBE IT LOST ITS TEETH. AGAIN, I'M NOT AWARE HOW THIS PARTICULAR LANGUAGE ENDED UP, BUT I FEEL THAT CODE ENFORCEMENT WOULD HAVE MORE FLEXIBILITY BY TAKING THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE OUT. AGAIN, TAKING INTENT THAT YOU CAN'T PARK THESE THINGS HERE. YES, WE RECOGNIZE WE MIGHT HAVE TO LOAD, UNLOAD, DROP OFF ET CETERA, BUT IF WE DON'T FIND YOU DOING THOSE THINGS, IT'S IN VIOLATION. >> JACOB, THE CODE ENFORCEMENT [01:15:04] COMMUNICATION WOULD PROBABLY BE THE RIGHT WORD AND MY SUGGESTION IS WE HAD A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAD AN RV PARKING AND SIMILAR COMPLAINT WITH RVS IN THE DRIVEWAY AND THE SOLUTION THAT WE FINALLY STRUCK ON WAS HAVING A CERTAINNUMBER OF DAYS PER MONTH TO SOLVE EXACTLY WHAT CHIP WAS TALKING ABOUT. TO THE POINT THAT THE BOW IS IN THE DRIVEWAY, THEN THE NEXT DAY THERE IS NO WAY TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENED IN BETWEEN AND HOW WELL CAN CODE ENFORCEMENT AND FOR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES OF YOU ARE ALLOWED FIVE DAYS A MONTH OR THIS NUMBER OF DAYS PER MONTH FOR THIS TO BE PARKED? >> TRACKING SOMETHING LIKE THAT IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE DIFFICULTY I WOULD SAY. FOR OTHER SIMILAR TYPE ITEMS, WE DO TEMPORARY USE PERMITS FOR CERTAIN USES AND I WON'T GET INTO THE LIST OF THINGS, BUT YOU CAN GET TEMPORARY USE FOR CERTAIN ACTIVITIES THAT GETS ROUTED. THAT CREATES A CHECKS AND BALANCES WITH HOW MANY TIMES YOU HAVE DONE IT SO ON AND SO FORTH. >> THANK YOU. >> EXCUSE YOU. JOHN, DO YOU WANT TO TRADE? >> I DO HAVE TO GO. I'M SORRY, BUT HOW DO YOU WANT TO ASK STAFF TO GO ABOUT THE 40% ISR FOR THE SMALL LOTS? DO YOU WANT TO DIRECT THEM ON A QUEST? >> TO START THE JOURNEY? >> I LEAVE THAT UP TO YOU. >> FOR BOTH THAT AND THE ONE WE ARE DISCUSSING, HAS THERE ANY BEEN PUBLIC INPUT ON CHANGING THE WORDING? IS THE REQUIREMENT? THERE IS 10 OF US IN HERE AND THOUSANDS OF TAXPAYERS. >> ABSOLUTELY. THIS WILL REQUIRE AN UPDATE TO YOUR ORDINANCE. WHATEVER CODE DOES REQUIRE TWO PRESENTATIONS, BUT IT WOULD ALSO REQUIRE INPUT IN A PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS BOARD, AS WELL. THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR ANY CHANGES. >> GOOD QUESTION. ANYMORE QUESTIONS FOR JACOB? >> MR. CHAIR, IF I CONTAINMENT YOU REAL QUICK? I TALKED EARLIER WHEN THIS ORIGINALLY CAME UP. I HAD TO BRING IT BACK UP HERE, BUT I WAS JUST GOING TO SEE IF THIS ITEM WAS GOING TO END UP BEFORE THE MSD ON THEIR REGULAR AGENDA? >> I'M ACTUALLY HOLDING THE AGENDA FOR NEXT WEEK. THIS IS REALLY COMPLETING COMING FOR ME AS A RESIDENT, SOMEONE WHO HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN COMMUNITY APPEARANCE . I DID MENTION IT TO THE BOARD A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO AND I WILL BE HAPPY TO PUT IT ON OUR AGENDA MONDAY. THEY RESPECT THIS BOARD. THEY FEEL LIKE YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING AND HAS ME FEEL LIKE THE MSD KNOWS WHAT WE ARE DOING. I'M NOT SURE IF THEY WANT TO GET INTO THE BUSINESS OF THE PONTE VEDRA ZONING REGULATIONS. ALWAYS THE ONES THAT BROUGHT THINGS TO YOUR ATTENTION. I WAS HERE ALL THE TIME AND WE DID A LOT OF GOOD THINGS WITH REGULATIONS WITH BRINGING THINGS TO YOUR ATTENTION, TWEAKING SOME THINGS AND SOME OF THE BOARD MEMBERS BEFORE ME, LIKE BOB, WHO HAS SERVED FOR FOUR YEARS. HE ALSO CAME AND WAS ABLE TO ADDRESS THINGS BECAUSE OF HIS PRIOR KNOWLEDGE. I CAN PUT IT ON OUR AGENDA NEXT MONDAY, BRING THE FEEDBACK TO YOU AND IF THEY WANT TO PUT A SAY IN, IT'S NOT PART OF OUR CHARTER AS A BOARD, BUT I KNOW THERE ARE PEOPLE ON THE BOARD WHO SERVED ON THE BOARD FOR EIGHT YEARS WHO THINKS LIKE I DO. IT MIGHT BE A MIXED BAG AND PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO GET INVOLVED AND WOULD RATHER DO IT ON THE CHARTER, BUT I WOULD BE HAPPY TO PUT ON THE AGENDA. IT WILL BE ON THE AGENDA NEXT MONDAY, BUT I THINK GETTING STAFF INVOLVED IN THE BOARD INVOLVED. I'M HAPPY TO DO IT IF WE HAVE TO, A WORKSHOP ADDRESSING A CHANGE AND WE NORMALLY HAVE WORKSHOPS TO ADDRESS CHANGES AND I'M HAPPY [01:20:04] TO PUT THAT TOGETHER, AS WELL. >> JACOB, FOR ARGUMENTS SAKE, I HAVE MY RV IN THE DRIVEWAY AND IT HAS BEEN SITTING THERE FOR A WEEK. IS THIS A FINE? WHAT IS THE RESULT FOR BREAKING THIS ORDINANCE? >> GENERALLY, A CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER -- YOU HAVE TO HAVE A CODE ENFORCEMENT CASE AND SOMEBODY HAS TO CALL OR EMAIL AND INDICATE THAT THERE WAS A VIOLATION AND CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WOULD GO AND SEE THE VIOLATION IF THEY FOUND IT TO BE SO, THEN THEY WOULD PRESENT A WARNING TO THE OFFENDING RV PARKER, WHICH WOULD KICKSTART THE PROCESS IF THE VIOLATION WAS NOT REMEDIED AND ULTIMATELY -- I'M PROBABLY GOING TO USE THE WRONG WORDS, BUT THEY WOULD GET AN OFFICIAL ALERT . THEY WOULD ULTIMATELY END UP IN FRONT OF A MAGISTRATE IF THEY DIDN'T COMPLY. A MAGISTRATE WOULD HANDLE EVERYTHING. >> KEEP IN MIND, YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE THEM A TIME TO CURE THE VIOLATION AND BEFORE IT PROCEEDS AND WHEN IT GETS TO THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, THEY ARE GENERALLY STUFFED WITH COMPLAINTS AND NOT PUNITIVE, SO IT WOULD GO THROUGH THE PROCESS. >> DO WE HAVE AN IDEA OF THE KIND OF FIND THAT IT WOULD BE. THAT WOULD BE DETERMINED? >> THEY ARE BY OUR ORDINANCE CODE, SO IT CAN BE UP TO $50 A DAY AT 500 AND I DON'T HAVE IT AT THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT THERE IS A FINE. >> AGAIN, THE MAGISTRATE WOULD GENERALLY ALLOW A TIME AT THAT POINT, AS WELL. >> MY QUESTION COMES FROM, IF IT'S CHEAPER FOR ME TO KEEP TO PAY TO KEEP MY RV IN MY DRIVEWAY THAN IT IS TO PAY FOR THE BOAT LOT, THEN ARE WE NOT CREATING A DIFFERENT PROBLEM? I'M CERTAINLY NOT SUGGESTING THAT IT'S A GOOD IDEA AND I WAS JUST WONDERING THE PROBABILITY. I THINK THE ANSWER IS THAT IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE ARE INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE WORD. PROBABLY SENDING YOU WITH TWO ITEMS AND I GUESS WE COULD MAKE THEM RUNNING BUDDIES TO PUT TOGETHER. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE -- JOHN PROBABLY SAID IT BEST AND THE LOT IS UNDER A CERTAIN SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT ALLOWS A BONUS ISR SPECIFICALLY FOR POOLS AND CHANGING THE PARTICULAR LANGUAGE. >> UNDERSTOOD. THAT IS SOMETHING WE CAN WORK WITH. [Minutes for Board Approval: 08/04/25] >> THANK YOU, SIR. >> NEXT, WE NEED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR THE BOARD MEETING FROM AUGUST 4TH. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY COMMENTS? YOU HAVE SOMETHING? >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE FIVE VOICE BOAT VOTE FOR THE MINUTES FOR AUGUST 4TH. 40, THE VOTE CARRIES. DO WE HAVE ANYTHING FROM STAFF? >> NO, SIR, WE WENT OVER ALL OF THAT. >> ANY REPORTS OR QUESTION FROM THE BOARD OR ILLEGAL? SEEING NONE. I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE TODAY'S MEETING. >> SECOND. >> MOTION * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.