Nov 04, 2019 Ponte Vedra Zoning and Adjustment Board

[Call to Order *A portion of this video is without audio*]

[00:00:58]

SPEAKERS SHOULD IDENTIFY THEMSELVES, WHO THEY REPRESENT AND THEN STATE THEIR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. SPEAKERS MAY OFFER SWORN TESTIMONY. IF THEY DO NOT, THE FACT THE TESTIMONY IS NOT SWORN MAY BE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD, AGENCY, COMMITTEE IN DETERMINING THE WEIGHT OR TRUTHFULNESS OF THE TESTIMONY.

IF A PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THE HEARING, SUCH PERSON WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND THEY NEED TO ENSURE A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS MADE; WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED.

ANY PHYSICAL OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRESENTED DURING THE HEARING, SUCH AS DIAGRAMS, CHARTS, PHOTOGRAPHS OR WRITTEN STATEMENTS, WILL BE RETAINED BY STAFF AS PART OF THE RECORD.

THE RECORD WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR OTHER BOARD AGENCIES OR COMMITTEES OR THE COUNTY IN ANY REVIEW OF APPEAL RELATING TO THE ITEM. BOARD MEMBERS ARE REMINDED AT THE BEGINNING OF EACH ITEM THEY SHOULD STATE WHETHER THEY HAD ANY COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE APPLICANT OR ANY OTHER PERSON REGARDING THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ITEM OUTSIDE THE FORMAL HEARING OF THE BOARD. IF SUCH COMMUNICATION HAS OCCURRED, THE BOARD MEMBER SHOULD THEN IDENTIFY THE PERSONS INVOLVED AND THE MATERIAL CONTENT OF THE COMMUNICATION. CIVILITY CLAUSE.

WE WILL BE RESPECTFUL OF ONE ANOTHER EVEN WHEN WE DISAGREE.

FE WILE DIRECT ALL COMMENTS TO THE ISSUES. WE WILL AVOID PERSONAL ATTACKS. CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS OTHER THAN THE AGENDA ITEMS SCHEDULED

[Item 1]

BOARD MEMBER: I'VE OBSERVED THE PROPERTY AND HAVE NOT SPOKEN TO ANYONE. BOARD MEMBER: I'VE WALKED THE PROPERTY AND NOT SPOKEN TO ANYONE. I DID NOT TALK TO ANYONE. BOARD MEMBER: I HAVE NOT VISITED THE PROPERTY AND HAVE NOT SPOKEN WITH ANYONE.

BOARD MEMBER: I OBSERVED THE PROPERTY AND HAVE NOT SPOKEN WITH ANYBODY. SPEAKER: FOR THE RECORD BEVERLY FRAZIER GROWTH MANAGEMENT. YOU I'M 'EM 1 PONTE VEDRA VARIANCE 2019-05 FOR THE POLLOCK RESIDENCE. THIS IS A REQUEST TO SECTION 8D OF THE PONTE VEDRA DISTRICT REGULATIONS TO ALLOW A 20 FOOT ENCROACHMENT OF THE PLATTED REAR BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN ATTACHED SCREEN ROOM LOCATED AT 536 RUTILE DRIVE. THE LOCATION MAP SHOWS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ON THE WEST SIDE OF RUTILE DRIVE AND IT'S LOCATED WITHIN THE R1B ZONING DISTRICT. THE RELIEF IS REQUESTED TO ALLOW AN ENCROACHMENT OF 20 FEET INTO THE PLATTED REAR BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SCREEN ROOM ON AN EXISTING PATIO. THE PROPOSED ADDITION IS 20 FEET WIDE. THE REAR BUILDING BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE IS MEASURED 100 FEET FROM THE FRONT BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE AND THEY HAVE A 10 FOOT SIDE YARD. AS REQUIRED BASED ON THE ZONING DISTRICT TO PROVIDE A DEVELOPMENT AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 8,500 SQUARE FEET. THE GREEN ROOM IS PROPOSED ADJACENT TO THE SWIMMING POOL. 25 FEET FROM THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE AND 63 FEET FROM THE REAR LINE. THE LOCATION AND LAYOUT OF THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS ARE DEPICTED ON THE SUBMITTED SITE PLAN THAT YOU CAN SEE HERE HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW.

FOR THE AREA FOR THE PROPOSED SCREEN ROOM AS WELL AS THE SETBACKS ARE SHOWN FROM THE PROPERTY LINES.

THE HEIGHT IS DEPICTED AS 12 FOOT 6 INCHES. THE APPLICANTS SUBMITTED A BRIEF NARRATIVE FOR THE REQUEST DESCRIBING THE PROPOSED LOCATION TO REPLACE AN EXISTING PERGOLA. STAFF RESEARCH FINDING A PERGOLA WAS NOT INCLUDED ON THE APPROVED

[00:05:04]

AND IS INCLUDED ON THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S RECORDS AS A PATIO.

THE RESPONSE TO STAFF COMMENTS STATES THE PERGOLA WAS BUILT PRIOR TO PURCHASE BY THE CURRENT OWNER WHICH WAS PURCHASED IN 20 A 15. THE APPLICANT ASSERTS ENFORCEMENT OF A SIGNIFICANT BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE. REQUIREMENTS WOULD RECITE AN UNDUE HARDSHIP FOR MINOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE EXISTING HOME. PLANNING AND ZONING REVIEW PROVIDES SECTION 3B OF THE PONTE VEDRA ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS REQUIRES LOTS WITHIN R1B SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO HAVE A MINIMUM LOT OF 17,000 SQUARE FEET, WIDTH OF 100 FEET AND REAR AND FRONT YARDS 40 FEET. BLOCK 30 WAS PLATTED WITH BUILDING RESTRICTION LINES WHICH DETERMINED THE SETBACK SUBJECT TO SECTION 8D. THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AS PROPOSED WOULD CONTINUE TO PROVIDE A SIGNIFICANT REAR YARD SETBACK EXCEEDING THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF THE ZONING DISTRICT OF 40 FEET. THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD INCLUDES SIMILAR SIZED LOTS AND BLOCK 32 OFF LAKE ROAD AS WELL AS BLOCK 26 FROM GRANADA TERRACE ACROSS THE LAGOON WHICH WOULD REQUIRE A 40 FOOT REAR SETBACK PER THE ZONING DISTRICT. SO, JUST A LOOK AT THE AERIAL MAP. YOU CAN SEE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS IMPROVED. I BELIEVE THE HOUSE WAS CONSTRUCTED IN THE '70S. THE LOT ITSELF IS ABOUT HALF-ACRE WITH A WIDTH OF ABOUT 105 FEET AND A DEPTH OF 215 FEET AND IS SURROUNDED BY A SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AS WELL. THIS IS A LOOK AT THE PLAT. AS YOU CAN SEE, IT DOES HAVE A SIGNIFICANT BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE FOR THE REAR YARD. AS COMPARED TO THE OTHER LOCAL PLATS SIMILAR TO OFF GRANADA TERRACE AS WELL AS LAKE ROAD THAT ALSO HAD THESE -- THESE LOTS DO NOT HAVE PLATTED REAR BUILDING RESTRICTION LINES AND THEY ONLY REQUIRE A 40 FOOT SETBACK. SO THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED A LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER TO THE NORTH AT 534 RUTILE DRIVE. THE APPLICANT STATES TO THE NEIGHBOR TO THE SOUTH AT 538 DOES NOT LIVE AT THE PROPERTY FULL-TIME BUT HAS NO COMPLAINTS REGARDING THE EXISTING PERGOLA STRUCTURE.

STAFF RECEIVED ONE PHONE CALL AND EMAIL FROM A COMMUNITY MEMBER WITH GENERAL INQUIRIES ABOUT THE REQUEST AND PHOTOS WERE PROVIDED BY THE NEIGHBOR AND INCLUDED IN THE STAFF PACKETS. STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST MEETS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND MAY MEET THE NECESSARY CRITERIA OUTLINED IN THE PONTE VEDRA ZONING DISTRICT REGULATION. THE REQUEST DOES NOT APPEAR CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. THE SMALL EDITION IS PROPOSED WITH A SIGNIFICANT SETBACK FROM THE RARE PROPERTY LINE AT THE LAGOON AND WILL EXCEED THE SIDE YARD SETBACK.

THE PARCEL IS RECTANGULAR HOWEVER THE PLATTED LINE LIMITS THE AREA OF DEVELOPMENT AT THE REAR. THE PROPOSED ENCROACHMENT WILL SUCCEED THE STANDARD SETBACK AT 40 FEET. AND STAFF HAS PROVIDED FIVE CONDITIONS AND FOUR FINDINGS TO SUPPORT A MOTION. THAT CONCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND THE APPLICANT IS IN ATTENDANCE AS WELL. CHAIRMAN: DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH, WHAT THE DISTANCE IS FROM THE EXISTING REAR TO THE 100 FOOT EXISTING SETBACK? THE SETBACK'S BASED ON IT'S 100 FOOT FROM THE FRONT. BUT DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE MEASUREMENT IS TO THAT SETBACK? SPEAKER: I BELIEVES BASED ON THE SITE PLAN IT WOULD BE ALMOST 80 FEET. CHAIRMAN: CAN YOU SHOW THE SLIDE ONE MORE TIME THAT SHOWS THE WHOLE STREET OF HOW THAT -- SPEAKER: THE PLAT OR -- CHAIRMAN: ALL THE BACKYARDS HOW IT'S DIFFERENT ON THAT SECTION OF HOUSES.

SPEAKER: I WISH IT WAS LARGER BUT YOU CAN SEE. I LOOKED KIND OF LAKE ROAD BECAUSE I FIGURED THE REAR SETBACK WAS THE MOST IMPORTANT OFF THE LAGOON. THESE HAVE THE PLATTED BUILDING RESTRICTION LINES BUT ACROSS THE LAGOON REQUIRE A 40 HERE AS WELL AS HERE REQUIRE A 40. CHAIRMAN: SO THE EXISTING RIGHT NOW IS ABOUT 80 FEET FROM THE REAR? SPEAKER: FOR THIS LOT IT IS. CHAIRMAN: ANY OTHER HOMES ALONG THOSE NEIGHBORS -- HAVE HAD ANY PREVIOUS VARIANCES APPROVED? SPEAKER: NO SIR NOT FROM OUR RECORD SEARCH.

CHAIRMAN: THERE'S ONE MORE SLIDE THAT SHOWS THE ACTUAL LINE.

THAT ONE RIGHT THERE. SPEAKER: YEAH. YOU CAN SEE THIS LOT IS PRETTY EXTENSIVE. IT COMES ACROSS AND IT'S MEASURED FOR THAT STRAIGHT 100 FEET. THESE PROVIDE LESS AND THIS IS PRETTY CONSISTENT WITH THIS ONE HERE. MEGAN DO YOU HAVE A

[00:10:07]

BOARD MEMBER MCKINLEY: AGAIN TO THE POINT I HAVE A DIFFICULT TIME UNDERSTANDING WHY IT WOULD BE A HARDSHIP BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE SAME AMOUNT OF AREA TO BUILD THEIR STRUCTURE IN. AND THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE MORE LAND IN THE BACK WOULD NOT BE, IN MY MIND, A HARDSHIP. SPEAKER: WOULD YOU LIKE TO QUESTION THE APPLICANT ABOUT THEIR STATED HARDSHIP? BOARD MEMBER MCKINLEY: OKAY WE'LL DEFER TILL THEN.

>> IT SAYS THE APPLICANT ASSERTS ENFORCEMENT -- AND THIS IS IN YOUR REPORT. ENFORCEMENT OF -- ASSERTS ENFORCEMENT OF THE SIGNIFICANT BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE REQUIREMENTS WOULD CREATE AN UNDUE HARDSHIP. I HAVE A REAL HARD TIME WITH THAT SENTENCE. BECAUSE BASICALLY YOU ARE SAYING THAT A HARDSHIP'S CREATED BECAUSE OF THE REQUIREMENTS. THAT'S NOT A HARDSHIP. AND SO IF THE APPLICANT WANTS TO GET UP AND ADDRESS IT BUT YOU PUT THAT IN YOUR REPORT. I FIND THAT A LITTLE BIT DIFFICULT TO SWALLOW. SPEAKER: THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A VARIANCE AND BASED A HARDSHIP BASED ON THEIR LOT CONDITIONS AS PROVIDED IN THE NARRATIVE.

BOARD MEMBER: NO, IT SAYS ENFORCEMENT OF THE SIGNIFICANT BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE. YOU ARE BASICALLY JUST SAYING THAT THE PLAT HAS A RESTRICTION LINE AND YOU ARE ENFORCING IT AND THAT'S A HARDSHIP. I HAVE A HARD TIME MAKING THAT CONNECTION. SORRY. SPEAKER: MR. CHAIR, I BELIEVE THAT'S THE APPLICANT'S ASSERTION. I DON'T THINK THAT'S STAFF'S ASUMSEASSERTION. WE'RE PRESENTING THE APPLICANT'S ARGUMENTS AND IT'S UP TO THE BOARD TO DETERMINE IF THE ARGUMENT HAS MET THE CRITERIA THERE IS A SPECIAL CONDITION ON THE PROPERTY SUCH THAT THE LITERAL APPLICATION OF THE RULES CONS SFUTS A HARDSHIP. CHAIRMAN: I AGREE. WE CAN LET THE APPLICANT ADDRESS THAT. ANYMORE COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? THANK YOU. IF NOT, WE'LL LET THE APPLICANT COME UP AND PRESENT PLEASE. IF YOU WOULD JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.

SPEAKER: POLLOCK, 536 RUTILE DRIVE. IN TERMS OF A HARDSHIP, THAT REALLY WASN'T SOMETHING WE PUT INTO THE APPLICATION. I THINK THAT WAS PROBABLY OUR SCREEN COMPANY. THE REASON WHY I WOULD LIKE A SCREEN PATIO IS BASICALLY BEING ON THE LAKE THERE'S JUST A LOT OF MOSQUITOS, A LOT OF JUST -- WE JUST WOULD LIKE AN OUTDOOR AREA WHERE WE CAN ENJOY THE OUTSIDE VERSUS -- WE HAVE A LOT OF MOSQUITOS AND SPIDERS AND MY KIDS WON'T GO

[00:15:05]

CHAIRMAN: BECAUSE MY THOUGHT WOULD BE THE PERGOLA WOULD BE JUST AS NON-CONFORMING AS ADDING A NEW COVERED PATIO.

SPEAKER: SURE. CHAIRMAN: I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAD BEEN CONTACTED BY CODE ENFORCEMENT.

SPEAKER: IT ONLY CAME ABOUT WHEN WE WERE PLANNING ON SCREENING THAT AREA THEN WE LOOKED AT THE SURVEY LINE AND IT WAS BEYOND THAT. SO MY HUSBAND AND I HAVE NO RECORD OF WHEN THAT WAS PUT UP. CHAIRMAN: WHAT WE'RE REQUIRED, AS A BOARD AND LEGAL CAN SAY IF I'M SAYING THIS WRONG, BUT, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO SEE SOME KIND OF HARDSHIP TO GET SOMETHING WE CAN PUT OUR HANDS AROUND TO GRANT VARIANCES. SO, WE'RE JUST TRYING TO GET AN IDEA OF DO YOU HAVE A HARDSHIP SPECIFICALLY OTHER THAN YOU'D LIKE TO BUILD OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE A NEW STRUCTURE? SPEAKER: NO. CHAIRMAN: BECAUSE WHAT WE BASE IT ON IS A HARDSHIP. BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY DIFFERENT LOTS IN PONTE VEDRA THAT HAVE ODD LAGOONS ANDED ON SHAPES. BUT IF YOUR LOT IS JUST LIKE ALL THE OTHER NEIGHBOR'S LOTS AND IT IS A NICE SIZED LOT IT'S HARD FOR US TO JUSTIFY VARIANCES WITHOUT SOME TYPE OF A HARDSHIP. SPEAKER: WELL, I HAVE NOTHING TO ADD. CHAIRMAN: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? BOARD MEMBER: I WOULD JUST LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT. IS THERE A WAY TO PUT A SCREENED IN AREA WITHIN THE BUILDING LINE? SPEAKER: NO. I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THE SURVEY AFTER LOOKING AT IT, I MEAN, IT GOES RIGHT THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF OUR POOL. THERE JUST REALLY IS NO -- THERE'S NO AREA IN OUR BACK TO REALLY DO ANYTHING. IF YOU CAN SEE UP THERE ON THAT PICTURE, THE RESTRICTION LINE GOES RIGHT THROUGH THE POOL THERE. SO I JUST DON'T KNOW WHERE WE WOULD PUT -- I'M NOT SURE HOW WE WOULD SCREEN IT IN ANY OTHER WAY.

BOARD MEMBER: I'M LOOKING AT THE AREA I GUESS TO THE EAST OF THE POOL. I CAN'T READ WHAT THAT IS. THAT DESCRIPTION. BUT IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S AN OVER HANGING ROOF LINE.

SPEAKER: YEAH, I THINK IF WE PUT SOMETHING THERE, IT WOULD BASICALLY BUMP RIGHT UP TO THE EDGE OF THE POOL. I'M JUST NOT EVEN SURE HOW WOULD YOU DO THAT WITHOUT BEING RIGHT AT THE EDGE.

WE'D BE WITHIN PROBABLY TWO FEET OF THE EDGE OF THE POOL. WHICH I DON'T KNOW FOR SAFETY FACTORS I'M NOT SURE THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. BOARD MEMBER: WHAT IS THE AREA THAT IS, LIKE, WELL I CAN POINT TO IT. JUST TO THE SOUTH OF THE POOL WHERE THAT PARCEL SQUARE IS.

SPEAKER: THERE'S SOME TREES, SOME PALM TREES THAT'S THERE AND THERE'S OTHER THINGS THAT I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN REMOVE.

BOARD MEMBER: WELL THAT MIGHT BE A POSSIBILITY TO ENCLOSE THAT.

I DON'T KNOW. JUST A SUGGESTION. THANK YOU.

SPEAKER: OKAY

>> THEY HAVE TO BE IN THE BUILDING RESTRICTION LINES. DID MAKE EXCEPTIONS PRIOR YEARS. THERE WAS PRECEDENT.

BOARD MEMBER: WE HAD THAT CASE ON THE GOLF COURSE THAT WE DIDN'T ALLOW. REMEMBER? BOARD MEMBER: A FEW MONTHS AGO.

BOARD MEMBER: THEY WANTED TO DO THAT ENCLOSURE AND WE DENIED THAT. SOMETIMES IF YOU'RE -- YOU'VE GOT A FOOT-AND-A-HALF OR

[00:20:02]

I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS HAVE PICTURES OF THE PROPERTY.

I THINK SOMEBODY SAID THEY'VE BEEN COMING OUT TO DO SOME PICTURES. BUT IF YOU LOOK AT IT, HER POOL AREA AND HER PATIO AREA WHERE SHE WOULD SIT OUT WOULD NOT REALLY -- I MEAN, I WOULDN'T REALLY BE IMPACTING OR OBSTRUCTING ANY OF HER VIEW.

CHAIRMAN: WITH YOURS IT MAY NOT. BUT WHAT WE DO IS SET A PRECEDENT ANYONE WITH A LIKE SITUATION CAN COME AND SAY YOU GRANTED IT FOR THEM AND THE NEIGHBORS ON THE NEXT SITUATION IT MAY BE A TERRIBLE THING FOR THEM BUT WE'VE CREATED A PRECEDENT THAT NOW WE'RE ALLOWING THAT. IT JUST OPENS UP A CAN OF WORMS OR COULD LIKELY. SPEAKER: NO, I UNDERSTAND.

THERE'S NO SPACE TO GO OUT THERE WITHOUT BEING SWARMED. BUT, YOU KNOW, IT IS JUST LIKE A -- THERE'S MOSQUITOS. AND I'M HIGHLY ALLERGIC TO -- WHICH I'M SURE A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE -- TO THE MOSQUITOS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. WE JUST WANTED TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF AN AREA BECAUSE THERE WAS AN EXISTING STRUCTURE THERE -- WE DID NOT PUT IT THERE -- TO JUST SCREEN IT IN AND ENJOY THE FLORIDA WEATHER. BUT IF WE CAN'T DO THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S -- CHAIRMAN: WE CAN CERTAINLY VOTE ON IT. I'M NOT SAYING WHAT THE OUTCOME OF THE VOTE WILL BE.

BUT I'M TRYING TO GIVE YOU HONEST FEEDBACK.

SPEAKER: THAT'S JUST OUR POINT OF VIEW SO WE JUST WANTED TO HAVE A LITTLE AREA WE COULD BE OUTSIDE. SO, CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU. I'D LIKE TO OPEN UP TO PUBLIC COMMENT.

IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

PUBLIC SPEAKER: RON KAISER. I AM THE CONTRACTOR THAT HAS PROPOSED THE BUILD. AND I LIVE AT 229 PUERTO ROSA CIRCLE IN ST. JOHNS COUNTY, SAINT AUGUSTINE. I THINK THE HARDSHIP WOULD BE THAT THE OTHER PROPERTIES THAT ARE ON THE LAGOON, ALTHOUGH BE OUT THE OTHER SIDE, HAVE A 40 FOOT REAR SETBACK AS OPPOSED TO THE LARGER SETBACK ON HER SIDE OF THE LAKE WHERE, AGAIN, THERE'S NO IMPERVIOUS CHANGE TO THE CONCRETE. ALTHOUGH IT'S ALREADY THERE. THE PERGOLA IS NOT IN THE BEST SHAPE. IT'S ROTTING. SO I THINK IT IS A PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT. NO CHANGE TO THE IMPERVIOUS AREA AND IS IN FACT A LARGER SETBACK THAN OTHER PROPERTIES ON THE LAGOON IS WHERE I WOULD CONSIDER POTENTIALLY THERE'S A HARDSHIP AS OPPOSED TO THE OTHER PROPERTIES.

CHAIRMAN: COUNSEL, WOULD BE AN INDICATION FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT OF JUST BECAUSE OTHER NEIGHBORS HAVE LARGER LOTS OR DIFFERENT SETBACKS THAT WOULD JUSTIFY ANY HARDSHIP IN YOUR

OPINION? >> IF YOU GO ON PAGE 6 OF YOUR STAFF REPORT YOU CAN SEE THE DEFINITION OF A HARDSHIP.

STARTS OUT... WITH A CIRCUMSTANCE NEGATIVELY AFFECTING PROPERTY. SO, JUST LIKE DIFFERENT PROPERTIES HAVE DIFFERENT ZONING DISTRICTS AND DIFFERENT LOT SIZES AND DIFFERENT TOPOGRAPHIES, YOU'D HAVE TO HAVE SOME KIND OF APPLES TO APPLES COMPARISON RATHER THAN JUST POINTING ACROSS THE LAGOON AND SAYING THOSERE -- THOSE PLATTED LOTS DO NOT HAVE A BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE. WELL WHAT'S THE BUILDABLE AREA OF THOSE LOTS? ARE THEY BEING -- HOW ARE THOSE LOTS ACROSS THE LAGOON NEGATIVELY AFFECTING THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY SUCH THAT THE BOARD WOULD KIND A HARDSHIP? BECAUSE AS STATED BEFORE I, THEY HAVE TO IDENTIFY A CIRCUMSTANCE THAT IS UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY OR USE OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY SUCH THAT THE APPLICATION OF THE BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE RULE CAUSES A HARDSHIP AND IT'S UP TO THE BOARD TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE LOTS ACROSS THE

[00:25:03]

CHAIRMAN: OKAY. THANK YOU. BOARD MEMBER: LET ME ASK A QUESTION. THE EXISTING PERGOLA. DOES IT ACTUALLY HAVE SOME FORM OF ROOF PANEL ON IT? SPEAKER: WELL IT HAS JUST LIKE THE SLATS ON THE TOP. BUT THE PREVIOUS OWNERS HAD A JASMINE THAT WAS GROWING ON TOP TO ADD THE COVERAGE. BUT WE WERE GETTING INFESTED BY THE BIG BEES. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE CALLED. BUT THE WOOD BEES WERE JUST EVERYWHERE. SO WE HAD TO REMOVE THAT. AND RIGHT NOW I THINK WE JUST HAVE SOME, JUST LIKE A SHEET TYPE OF THING, A SOLAR SHEET. BUT IT'S NOT WEARING VERY WELL. WITH THE WIND AND THE RAIN IT'S JUST KIND OF TEARING OFF. BOARD MEMBER: AND I CERTAINLY AM NOT TRYING TO GIVE DESIGN SOLUTIONS TO THE APPLICANT, BUT IF THE PERGOLA IS THERE, AND IT LOOKS BY THE AERIALS THERE IS SOME TYPE OF ROOF PANEL ON THERE. THAT'S WHAT I WAS ASKING THE QUESTION FOR. IF THE STRUCTURE IS STARTING TO ROT AND IT NEEDS TO BE FROM A STRUCTURAL STANDPOINT REPLACED, YOU HAVE A LITTLE BIT BETTER UNDERLYING HARDSHIP, IF YOU WILL, TO REPLACE THE PERGOLA. IS INSTALLING A SCREEN PANEL, A NON-STRUCTURAL SCREEN PANEL ON AN EXISTING PERGOLA -- WHICH BRINGS IN TO QUESTION WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT IS THAT A PERMITTED STRUCTURE TO BEGIN WITH. IS INSTALLING A NON-STRUCTURAL SCREEN PANEL ON A PERGOLA A -- WOULD THAT REQUIRE

A VARIANCE? >> IF THE PERGOLA IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE THERE, THEN DOING ANY TYPE OF WORK TO IT IS EVEN ALSO REQUIRE VARIANCE. BOARD MEMBER: EVEN REMEDIAL.

I.E. IT'S BECOMING UNSAFE DUE TO ROTTING?

>> YES BECAUSE YOU CAN'T GET OVER THE PORTION WHETHER OR NOT IT'S A LEGAL STRUCTURE. WE HAVE A PROHIBITION OF DOING WORK ON ILLEGAL NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES. NOW IF IT WAS LEGAL AT THE TIME WE DO HAVE PROVISIONS IN THE CODE TO DO SOME RETUNE MAINTENANCE SO THAT PROPERTY OWNER CAN KEEP THE STRUCTURE THAT THEY HAD THAT WAS LEGALLY, YOU KNOW, PERMITTED AND LEGALLY THERE. YES. BOARD MEMBER: PURSUING THAT LINE OF QUESTIONING, IF IN FACT IT WAS DETERMINED THAT AT A POINT AND TIME THAT WAS A LEGAL STRUCTURE, AND THAT THEY WANT TO GO BACK IN AND REHAB IT IN ORDER TO MAKE IT A SAFE STRUCTURE, WOULD INSTALLING A SCREEN PANEL ON THERE TRIGGER ANOTHER LAYER OF REVIEW? OR IF IT IS A NON-STRUCTURAL SCREEN PANEL IT IN ESSENCE SCREENS IN THE PER

PERGOLA, WOULD THAT BE ALLOWED? >> I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE ENTIRE DETAILS OF THAT. IT DEPENDS UPON IF IT'S CONSIDERED AN ENCLOSED STRUCTURE BECAUSE OF THE SCREENING. I'LL HAVE TO DEFER TO THE PLANNING DIVISION ON THAT. WE DO HAVE A GENERAL RULE THAT YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO INCREASE A NON-CONFORMITY OR TAKE ANY ACTIONS THAT WOULD -- BOARD MEMBER: BUT I'M GOING ON ALONG THE LINE THAT IT IS A LEG

LEGALLY -- >> I MEAN, EVEN IF IT WAS A LEGAL -- BOARD MEMBER: I SEE WHAT YOU ARE

SAYING. YOU CAN'T ENHANCE IT. >> YES. I CAN'T ANSWER YOUR QUESTION BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHETHER A SCREENED PERGOLA STRUCTURE, ONE, REQUIRES A BUILDING PERMIT BECAUSE IT'S -- AND SOME SLATS, WHETHER OR NOT THAT COUNTS ENCLOSED. I'LL HAVE TO DEFER TO THE PLANNING DIVISION AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR THAT TYPE OF REQUEST. AND THOSE FURTHER ANALYSIS. BUT THE REQUEST BEFORE THIS BOARD IS THERE'S -- BOARD MEMBER: TO REPLACE IT COMPLETELY WITH A NEW STRUCTURE

>> YES. JUST ASSUME IF IT'S ROTTING YOU ARE APPROVING A SCREEN STRUCTURE WHERE THE PERGOLA IS SUPPOSED TO BE.

CHAIRMAN: ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS? I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION. BOARD MEMBER: I WAS GOING TO

[00:30:30]

CHAIRMAN: SO WE'RE VOTING FOR DENIAL. THE WAY YOU'VE READ IT

>> YES IT WILL DENY THE VARIANCE REQUEST.

CHAIRMAN: IT JUST SAYS VOTED -- OH THERE WE GO. THAT'S AN ANAN MUSS QUESTION TO DENY, UNFORTUNATELY. SO, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TRY AND COMING UP. MOVE TO NUMBER 2. TO ALLOW A 12

[Item 2]

BOARD MEMBER: I HAVE OBSERVED THE PROPERTY AND NOT SPOKEN TO ANYONE. BOARD MEMBER: I OBSERVED THE PROPERTY AND DID NOT SPEAK TO ANYBODY.

BOARD MEMBER: I MADE A SITE VISIT BUT DID NOT SPEAK TO ANYONE. BOARD MEMBER: I OBSERVED THE PROPERTY AND DID NOT SPEAK TO ANYBODY.

BOARD MEMBER: I HAVE OBSERVED IN PASSING AND NOT SPOKEN WITH ANYONE. BOARD MEMBER: I OBSERVED IN PASSING AND NOT SPOKEN TO ANYONE.

SPEAKER: BEVERLY FRIESER. THIS IS AGENDA ITEM 2. PONTE VEDRA VARIANCE 2019-06 FOR THEWALKER RESIDENCE. A REQUEST TO SECTION 3B OF THE PONTE VEDRA ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS TO ALLOW A 12 FOOT 6 INCH ENCROACHMENT OF THE REQUIRED 40 FOOT REAR YARD FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A GAZEBO STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 534 LE MASTER DRIVE. A LOOK AT THE LOCATION MAP SUBJECT PROPERTY ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE MASTER DRIVE. IT'S LOCATED WITHIN R1B ZONING DISTRICT ADJACENT TO A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AS WELL AS R1Z ZONING DISTRICT. THE RELIEF IS REQUESTED TO ALLOW A 27 FOOT 6 INCH REAR YARD SETBACK TO ACCOMMODATE CONSTRUCTION OF THE DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. A PROPOSED GAZEBO WITH OUTDOOR KITCHEN FACILITIES IS PROPOSED FOR A TOTAL OF 256 SQUARE FEET. BASED ON THE APPROVE SITE PLAN FOR ADDITION CONSTRUCTION IN 1997 THE PROPOSED ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE WILL CONTINUE TO MEET THE 40% IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIO. THE LOCATION AND LAYOUT ARE DEPICTED ON THE SUBMITTED SITE PLAN AS WELL AS CONSTRUCTION PLANS WERE PROVIDED WITHIN THE REPORT PACKET. THIS IS A LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN.

SHOWING THE LOCATION REQUESTED FOR A NEW GAZEBO ADJACENT TO THE SWIMMING POOL AND THE REQUIRED SETBACK. THE APPLICANT STATES THE SURVEY THAT WAS GIVEN THEM WHEN PURCHASING THE PROPERTY ONLY INDICATED A FRONT BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE AND IT WAS ASSUMED THE REAR SETBACK WAS 20 FEET DESCRIBED AS PREDOMINANT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS COMPARED TO THE 40 FEET APPLICABLE TO THIS LOT. THEY REGULAR SHAPE OF THE LOT MAKES PLACEMENT OF DETACHED STRUCTURE ADJACENT TO THE SWIMING POOL CHALLENGING. THE APPLICANT PROVIDED THEIR REQUEST IS DESCRIBED AS A REASONABLE USE OF THE LOT GIVEN THE LOCATION, NON-VISIBLE TO THE ADJOINING NEIGHBORS WITH AJACENSY TO THE WOODED AREA. THE APPLICANT INSERTS ENFORCEMENT OF THE SETBACK WOULD CREATE UNDUE HARDSHIP FOR MINOR IMPROVEMENTS OF THE 1970S HOME. LOT 33A WAS PLATTED WITH A FRONT 40 FOOT BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE AND SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING DISTRICT FOR THE REQUIRED REAR YARD OF 40 FEET. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LAYS ADJACENT TO PROPERTIES WITHIN R1C OF WATER BRIDGE PLACE AS WELL AS THE SOUTHWEST LE MASTER DRIVE WHICH PRESCRIBES REQUIRED REAR YARDS AT 25 FEET. ADJACENT TO THE LADY STAR WHICH HAS A REQUIRED 20 FOOT BUFFER AT THE SHARED PROPERTY LINE. THE LOT ACE JACE EENT TO A JA UTILITY PARSE TOLL THE SOUTH. THE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH ON LE MASTER DRIVE AND SOUTH ARE REQUIRED TO MEET A REAR SETBACK OF 40 FEET. A LOOK AT THE

[00:35:01]

STAFF FINDS IT MEETS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND MAY MEET THE NECESSARY CRITERIA OUTLINED IN THE PONTE VEDRA ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS. THE REQUEST DOES NOT APPEAR CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. THE GAZEBO IS PLANNED TO BE CONSTRUCTED ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING SWIMMING POOL. THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORS HAVE STATED THE STRUCTURE WILL NOT BE VISIBLE.

THE PROPERTY IS SLIGHTLY IRREGULAR IN SHAPE WITH CURVED FRONTAGE. THE PROPERTY LIES ADJACENT TO THE PUD TO THE EAST AND JA UTILITY TO THE SOUTH. THE RESIDENTIAL SUB-WAGS TO THE WEST IS AWARDED A 25 FOOT REAR YARD. STAFF HAS PROVIDED FIVE CONDITIONS AND FOUR FINDINGS TO SUPPORT A MOTION. THAT INCLUDES STAFF'S PRESENTATION. I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND THE APPLICANT IS IN ATTENDANCE AS WELL.

CHAIRMAN: DO HAVE YOU A DIAGRAM THAT SHOWS THE ACTUAL SETBACK LINE ON THIS PROPERTY AND THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES? THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. SPEAKER: I JUST HAVE THEIR SITE PLAN THAT THEY SUBMITTED. CHAIRMAN: SO WE DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT 40 FOOT EVEN HITS. IS IT ALL OF THE STRUCTURE? SPEAKER: I I A ASSUMED IT WAS ALL OF THE STRUCTURE.

CHAIRMAN: WELL THE -- THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE HOUSE--

>> I DON'T IT WAS. SPEAKER: THAT IS 26 FEET. IT'S HARD TO TELL. MOST OF THE STRUCTURE WOULD BE WITHIN THE SETBACK. CHAIRMAN: WITHIN OR OUTSIDE THE SETBACK? SPEAKER: IT WOULD BE ENCROACHING WITHIN THE SETBACK. CHAIRMAN: THE MAJORITY OF IT? SPEAKER: IF IT'S 16X16 I BELIEVE IS WHAT THEY ARE REQUESTING FOR THE SIZE. BOARD MEMBER: HOW MUCH OF A VARIANCE ARE THEY ASKING FOR? 12 FEET. THE STRUCTURE IS 21 FEET.

SO, 12 FEET OF THAT IS SO -- IT'S 9 FEET. IT CUTS THROUGH THERE 9 FEET. PROBABLY LINES UP WITH THE OTHER SIDE OF THE HOUSE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. IF YOU COULD THAT BACK BUILDING LOT AND TOOK IT STRAIGHT ACROSS, THAT'S PROBABLY RIGHT ABOUT WHERE IT IS. CHAIRMAN: THERE SEEMS TO BE A STRUCTURE EITHER RECENTLY BUILT OR IN THIS NEW LOCATION. IS THAT CORRECT? SPEAKER: I DON'T KNOW OF ANY STRUCTURE THAT'S BEEN CONSTRUCTED AT THIS LOCATION.

WOULD YOU LIKE THE APPLICANT TO COME UP AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS? BOARD MEMBER: YEAH. IMMEDIATE ADJACENT TO THE WEST IS WATER BRIDGE. AND THOSE ARE 20 FOOT REAR SETBACKS. JUST SOUTH OF THE CHURCH PROPERTY.

CHAIRMAN: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THANK YOU. IF THE APPLICANT COULD COME UP AND ANSWER QUESTIONS. JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD PLEASE. AND ANYTHING YOU USED TO SHOW US WILL NEED TO BE LEFT REMAINING FOR THE RECORD.

[00:40:06]

CHAIRMAN: SURE. SPEAKER: THANK YOU.

CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU. SPEAKER: I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE EASIER THIS AFTERNOON TO SHOW YOU THE PLAN LOCATION OF THE STRUCTURE. IF YOU LOOK JUST TO THE SOUTH OF THE POOL, WHAT I AM TRYING TO BUILD IS A 16 BY 16 GAZEBO OPEN AIR FOUR COLUMNS WITH A BARBECUE GRILL THAT LINES UP ADJACENT TO THE POOL. TO MY KNOWLEDGE THE POOL WAS BUILT IN 1970. WE ASSUMED THE SETBACK STRUCTURE WAS THE NORMAL 20 OR 25 FEET. WE'VE DONE THE RESEARCH AND WE NOW UNDERSTAND IT IS A 40 FOOT STRUCTURE. I'M ASKING FOR A 12 FEET VARIANCE TO GO CLOSER TO THE BRL. I HAVE LETTERS FROM BOTH OF MY NEIGHBORS -- I SHOULD SAY MY HUMAN NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH, MR. LUG WHERE I HAVE THE ERA ARROW. I HAVE A LETTER OF ENDORSEMENT INCLUDED IN THE PACKET. HE IS COMPLETELY BLOCKED FROM SEEING THE STRUCTURE DUE TO SHRUBBERY. MR. ISLIN WHO SITS ON THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER IS NOTED ALSO HAS ENDORSED THE STRUCTURE STRUCTURALLY. HE COMPLETE -- COMPLETELY. YOU SEE THE OPEN AIR PATCH OF GRASS AND CAN SEE WHY IT'S SUCH AN OPTIMAL LOCATION FOR THE STRUCTURE. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH BEHIND ME THERE THAT'S COMPLETED WOODED. I'VE BEEN TOLD UNBUILDABLE LAND. TO THE WEST OF THAT WOOD STRUCTURE IS THEIR PARKING LOT WITH A RETENTION POND. SO THE STRUCTURE WOULD BE COMPLETELY SHIELDED FROM ANY HUMAN VISIBILITY AND BOTH MY NEIGHBORS HAVE ENDORSED THE STRUCTURE COMPLETELY. THE HARDSHIP IS THE 40 FOOT SETBACK REQUIREMENT WOULD MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO BUILD A SIMPLE 16 BY 16 OPEN AIR GAZEBO STRUCTURE ADJACENT TO MY POOL ON THAT SOUTH OPEN CORNER WHERE YOU SO SEE THE GRASS WHERE I'VE MARKED WHERE THE STRUCTURE IS TO BE BUILT. I ALSO HAVE PICTURES IF I COULD SUBMIT TO THE BOARD FROM MY NEIGHBOR THAT SHOWS THE BLOCKAGE BASED ON SHRUBS. IF YOU WANT TO SEE A LIVE VIEW ON IT. CHAIRMAN: IS THERE A STRUCTURE THERE NOW? I COULD SWORN I CAN SEE SOMETHING BACK THERE WITH STRAPS AND TIES SPEAKER: YES MR. DSCOTT. WE STARTED THE BUILDING ASSUMING IT WAS A 20 FOOT STRUCTURE. SO, THERE ARE FOUR POLES WITH A ROOF STRUCTURE THERE. AS SOON AS WE LEARNED OF THE VIOLATION, THE CONSTRUCTION WAS IMMEDIATELY STOPPED. AND I SUBMITTED TO THE ZONING BOARD APPROXIMATELY TWO-AND-A-HALF MONTHS AGO. SO IT'S BEEN SITTING THERE WITH FOUR POLES FOR TWO-AND-A-HALF MONTHS. AND THAT IS COMPLETELY MY ERROR. BOARD MEMBER: ON DESCRIBING YOUR HARDSHIP AGAIN, THE HARDSHIP IS JUST THE FACT YOUR 40 FOOT SETBACK DOESN'T ALLOW YOU TO BUILD IT? SPEAKER: I FEEL LIKE I HAVE TWO HARDSHIPS. THREE. THE FIRST ONE IS THE ORIGINAL MAP I WAS GIVEN ZONING -- AND I CAN SHOW IT TO YOU -- IN 2012 DID NOT INCLUDE THE REAR BRL. THAT'S WHAT I WAS USING WHEN MY PLANNED MY STRUCTURE. THE SECOND HARDSHIP IS I HAVE A VERY UNUSUALLY SHAPED LOT, OBVIOUSLY, WITH A JEA TO THE SOUTH, THE CHURCH TO THE BACK, AND REALLY ONLY TWO NEIGHBORS. THE THIRD HARDSHIP IS I AM TRYING TO AESTHETICALLY MAINTAIN THE '70S VINTAGE OF THE HOME BY PUTTING A SIMPLE GAZEBO OPEN AIR STRUCTURE ADJACENT TO MY POOL WHICH IS COMPLETELY HIDDEN FROM LE MASTER DRIVE UNLESS YOU LOOK AROUND THE CORNER AT MY HOUSE THAT APPARENTLY YOU DID, MR. SCOTT.

BOARD MEMBER: CAN YOU HELP US WITH HOW YOUR LOT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE LOT NEXT DOOR AND THE OTHER LOT NEXT DOOR TO THAT TO THE NORTH? SPEAKER: YES, SIR. AS YOU CAN SEE I AM COMPLETELY ON THE CURVATURE OF THE ROAD ON LE MASTER. BASICALLY MY FRONT YARD IS A CURVATURE OF THE ROAD WITH POINT SIENNA GOING TO THE FRONT. AS YOU GO NORTH AND SOUTH BEYOND THE JEA TO THE SOUTH AND THE LUG RESIDENCE TO THE NORTH THEY BECOME MUCH MORE RECTANGULAR IN SHAPE AND NATURE. IT IS A VERY

[00:45:05]

BOARD MEMBER: I DIDN'T EXPECT TO HAVE. THERE IS A CHANCE SOMEBODY MIGHT HAVE IT. I WOULD HAVE BEEN CURIOUS THE ANSWER TO THAT. I DON'T KNOW IF YOUR LOT IS LARGER THAN THOSE OTHERS TO COMPENSATE FOR THAT OR NOT. SPEAKER: I ASSUMED IT WAS LARGER UNTIL I LATER LEARNED OF THE 40 FOOT REAR SETBACK.

BOARD MEMBER: I DON'T MEAN THIS TO SOUND ARGUMENTIVE BUT IF YOU LOOK -- YOU ARE PROPOSING TO PUT THE STRUCTURE ON THE SIDE OF THE LOT THAT IS PRETTY NORMAL. IF YOU LOOK AT YOUR NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE IT'S 189 FEET. LOOK AT THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE NORTH OF YOU, IT'S 178 FEET. TO THE NORTH OF THAT IS 192 FEET.

AND IT DOES POP UP BECAUSE OF THE CURVATURE OF THE ROAD TO 211. THEN LOOKS LIKE 217. THEN IT STARTS DROPPING DOWN TO 209, 190, 190, BACK TO 205. THOSE ARE ALL THE LOTS GOING UP LE MASTER. SO, IN ESSENCE YOU ARE BUILDING ON THE SIDE OF YOUR LOT THAT IS RELATIVELY NORMAL. THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE IS THE ONE THAT'S A LOT SHORTER. BECAUSE OF THE CURVATURE OF THE ROAD. AND ALSO I CAN'T SAY THIS FOR SURE, YOUR LOT BECAUSE OF THE CURVATURE OF THE ROAD, I DON'T KNOW, IT'S REALLY DEBATABLE WHETHER IT'S SMALLER OR LARGER OR THE SAME AS THE REST OF THE LOTS GOING UP THE STREET. THIS IS A VERY AWKWARD SITUATION BECAUSE OF THE CASE WE JUST HEARD. THE FACT THAT YOU DID NOT KNOW THERE WAS A REAR YARD BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE, YOU KNOW, THIS IS ONE OF THE LARGEST PURCHASES WE ALL MAKE IN OUR LIVES. AND THE FACT YOU DIDN'T KNOW THAT IS -- I DO THIS AS A BUSINESS IN ANOTHER COUNTY, OKAY. I HAVE TO FILE VARIANCES.

SO I COME IN FRONT OF BOARDS LIKE THIS DOWN IN HILLSBORO COUNTY. THOSE ARE TOUGH REASONS TO GIVE THAT THAT'S A HARDSHIP.

IT'S LIKE WELL I DIDN'T DO MY HOMEWORK WHEN I BOUGHT THE HOUSE. I DIDN'T LOOK AT THE SURVEY. I DIDN'T KNOW THE ENCUMBRANCES. THERE'S A TITLE REPORT WHEN YOU BUY A HOUSE OF ALL THE ENCUMBRANCES ON IT. IT WAS IN THAT TITLE REPORT. IF IT'S NOT, YOU CAN SUE THE TITLE COMPANY. BUT THE FACT THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO USE IT AS A HARDSHIP, I'M JUST ONE MEMBER AND I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW THE OTHER MEMBERS ARE GOING TO VOTE, BUT IT CAUSES ME -- MY STOMACH TO CONSTRICT. BECAUSE IF I WAS YOUR REPRESENTATIVE I WOULDN'T HAVE USED IT AS THE CASE.

BECAUSE THAT'S KIND OF A WEAK HARDSHIP. IT'S NOT REALLY A HARDSHIP. SPEAKER: SIR, MAY I APPROACH THE BOARD AND SHOW YOU THE EVIDENCE? BOARD MEMBER: WE'D LIKE TO SEE ANYTHING YOU HAVE. WE'RE TRYING TO HELP YOU. WE'D LOVE TO SEE

IT. >> MR. CHAIR, THERE'S KIND OF A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PLATTED BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE AND THE SETBACKS APPLICABLE TO EVERY SINGLE ZONING DISTRICT. USUALLY ON THESE TITLE COMMITMENTS THERE'S AN EXCEPTION FOR, YOU KNOW, GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES, WHICH INCLUDE ZONING AND SETBACKS VERSUS A PLATTED BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE WHICH IS OF RECORD WHEN YOU PURCHASE IN REFERENCE TO A PLAT THAT'S A GRAPHICAL DEPICTION OF YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR LOT LOOKS LIKE AND HOPEFULLY IT SHOWS ALL THE EASEMENTS AND ALL THE AFTER THE FACT ENCUMBRANCES THAT COME ALONG WITH THE PLAT.

SPEAKER: [MICROPHONE].

ON THE SOUTH SIDE YOU CAN SEE THE GAZEBO AND LOOK AT THE HOUSE

[00:50:02]

ONE IS THAT I KNOW IN THE PAST WHEN WE'VE HAD HOUSES ON CURVES LIKE AT PONTE VEDRA CIRCLE WE ALLOWED THE HOME PLACEMENT TO ENCROACH ON THE 40 FOOT CURVE. IN THE PAST. TO ALLOW FOR -- I CAN'T REMEMBER ALL THE EXACT REASONS BUT, YOU KNOW, TO SAVE TREES AND DIFFERENT KINDS OF THINGS. SO, IN THAT CASE, THIS PARTICULAR HOME DOES HAVE A HARDSHIP IN TERMS OF BEING ON THE CURVE. THAT IF IT HADN'T BEEN, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN -- WE MIGHT HAVE ALLOWED IT TO MOVE CLOSER TO THE CURVE THEN IT WOULD HAVE HAD MORE SPACE IN THE BACK. SO, I'M JUST PUTTING THAT OUT THERE. SECONDLY, I HEAR YOUR REFERENCE FOR BUILDING ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER AS OPPOSED TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER. AND LIKE ONE OF MY COLLEAGUES, WE AREN'T SUPPOSED TO BE SUGGESTING DESIGNS, BUT ONE COULD PUT THE PERGOLA ON THAT CORNER, MAYBE ENCROACHING ON THAT BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE AND PLANTING SHRUBS TO BLOCK IT FROM LE MASTER. I REALIZE THERE HAS BEEN SOME EXPENSE ALREADY IN PLACE IN THE CURRENT LOCATION, BUT THOSE ARE MY TWO THOUGHTS. SPEAKER: YES, MA'AM IF I COULD ADDRESS THAT. IF I WERE TO MOVE THAT TO THE SOUTH SIDE -- FIRST OF ALL I'M NOT ENCROACHING ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.

THAT'S CLEARLY WITHIN THE 10 FOOT VARIANCE. THE ENCROACHMENT IS ON THE REAR TO THE CHURCH. IF I MOVE IT TO THE SOUTH SIDE IT WOULD BE VISIBLE TO LE MASTER DRIVE AND ALSO VISIBLE TO THE PROPERTY BEHIND ME THAT YOU CAN SEE THERE. SO THE PRACTICAL PLACEMENT, IN MY OPINION, WAS TO PUT IT ON THE NORTH SIDE WHICH IS COMPLETELY SHIELDED FROM ALL HU HUMANS. AND IT SEEMED LIKE A PRACTICAL USE OF THE PROPERTY TO MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF THE PROPERTY.

BOARD MEMBER: AS A PLANNER WITH ARCHITECTURAL BACKGROUND, I'M NOT GOING TO DISAGREE WITH YOU ABOUT THE PLACEMENT OF IT AND THE LOCATION AND STUFF LIKE THAT. IT'S THE UNDERLYING PROBLEM WITH THE HARDSHIP. I MEAN, AGAIN, YOU COME IN FRONT OF US AT AN AWKWARD SITUATION BECAUSE YOU JUST SAW THE OTHER CASE. I JUST HAVE A HARD TIME WITH YOUR READ OF A HARDSHIP. I DON'T HAVE A HARD TIME WITH THE PLACEMENT. I DON'T HAVE A HARD TIME WITH ANY OF THE OTHER REASONS THAT YOU WENT THROUGH.

IT'S JUST IT'S THIS PRECEDENT ABOUT THE FACT THAT YOU WANT AN ENCROACHMENT INTO THAT PLATTED SETBACK LINE. WHICH, BY THE WAY, IS A NOTORIOUS THING AS OUR ATTORNEY HAS SAID. PLAT SETBACK LINES HAVE A TENDENCY TO CAUSE A LOT OF PROBLEMS. BECAUSE THEY DON'T POP UP A LOT OF TIMES IN THE -- WELL THEY'RE NOT REFERENCED IN THE ZONING CODE HARDLY AT ALL BECAUSE THEY'RE AN

OLD PLATTED SETBACK LINE. >> MR. CHAIR, JUST TO CLARIFY.

WHAT THEY'RE SEEKING A VARIANCE TO IS THE REAR 40 FOOT -- I MEAN, THE REAR 40 FOOT SETBACK. BEVERLY, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. THERE IS NO REAR PLATTED BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE.

THERE'S ONLY A FRONT PLATTED RESTRICTION LINE. BRIMS I'M SORRY. I APOLOGIZE. I GOT CONFUSED

>> AND NOT TO SPEAK FOR THE BOARD, BUT LOOKING AT THE SURVEY AND WHERE THAT FRONT PLATTED RESTRICTION LINE IS AND WHERE THE EXISTING 1970S HOUSE IS, THERE'S A LOT OF SPACE BETWEEN WHERE SOMEONE POTENTIALLY COULD BUILD AND WHERE THE EXISTING HOUSE WAS -- I MEAN, IS BUILT. THE BOARD CAN FIND THAT THAT'S A QUIRK OF THIS PARTICULAR LOT BECAUSE THEY CAN'T BUILD THE

[00:55:01]

BOARD MEMBER: I SORT OF SHARE MEGAN'S VIEW THAT THERE'S SOME CONSTRAINTS DUE TO THE CIRCULAR ROAD ON LE MASTER THAT RESTRICTS THE ABILITY TO DO MUCH OF ANYTHING IN THE BACK AND IT APPEARS FROM THE PICTURES WE'VE RECEIVED THAT THE BUILDING IS GOING TO BE BASICALLY WELL HIDDEN BY THE GROWTH ON THE RESPECTIVE AREAS. AND I THINK WE OUGHT TO WEIGH IN PARTICULARLY ON THE MOST NORTHERN PERSON WHO WOULD BE MOST IMPACTED BY AND THEY DON'T SEEM TO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT.

I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THAT IT COULD BE SELF-SERVING THAT WE COULD SEE THEM COME IN AND WANT TO PUT A BUILDING IN. BUT I THINK WITH THE FOLIAGE TO THE BACK ON THE CHURCH PROPERTY AND WITH THE FOLIAGE ON THE INSLIN'S PROPERTY, I UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM. BUT WHEN YOU START GETTING IN TO NON-SQUARE OR NON-RECTANGULAR PROPERTIES, THE INDI INDIVIDUALS ARE LIMITED IN WHAT THEY CAN DO. AND THIS IS A 1970S PROPERTY. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WAS BUILT IN THE LATE '80S AND '90S WHERE THEY TOOK IT -- ARE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF SOME OF THE FRONTAGE AND THEY SO CHOSE TO KEEP THE HOUSE THAT WAS THERE. SPEAKER: I'LL LOOK AT AN AERIAL AND DRAW A LIKE DOWN THE REAR -- LINE DOWN THE REAR OF ALL YOUR NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH. THE BACKS LOOK PRETTY SIMILAR WITH OF YOUR HOUSE TO THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY LINE AS FAR AS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE IN THE BACKYARD. THE FIRST HOUSE NORTH IT LOOKS LIKE IT SIT AS LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO THE STREET. I MEAN, IT IS A TOUGH ONE. THE FACT THE VEGETATION IS GOING TO COVER UP PEOPLE SEEING IT REALLY HAS NOTHING DO TO DO WITH THE HARDSHIP TO ME. BOARD MEMBER: IF I COULD MUDDY THE WATERS AGAIN. IF HE WOULD -- LET'S PRETEND HE CAME AND HE WAS KNOCKING DOWN THAT HOUSE. HE WAS GOING TO BUILD A BRAND-NEW HOUSE. WE WOULD MORE THAN LIKELY HAVE ALLOWED HIM TO MOVE THE HOUSE EASTWARD TO THE POINT THAT YOU WERE THAT MOST OF THE HOUSES TO THE NORTH OF HIM ARE CLOSER TO LE MASTER THAN HE IS. HE'S PRECLUDED FROM SHIFTING EASTWARD FROM THE RADIUS OF CURVATURE OF THAT ROAD AND THE MIRRORING OF THE 40 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE ROAD. SO, IF HE HAD BEEN ALLOWED TO -- IF THAT ORIGINAL OWNER HAD BEEN ALLOWED TO HAVE THE HOUSE PLACED FURTHER EASTWARD, HE WOULDN'T HAVE THE PROBLEM IN THE BACKYARD. DOES THAT MAKE ANY SENSE? BOARD MEMBER: YEAH IT DOES A LITTLE BIT TO AN EXTENT. LIKE I SAID, IT IS A TOUGH ONE. IN LIGHT OF WHAT WE JUST MADE A DECISION ON SOMETHING SIMILAR.

YOUR LOT BECAUSE OF THE CURVATURE DOES CHANGE IT SOMEWHAT. THE QUESTION IS, IS IT ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY IT.

BOARD MEMBER: NOT TO SOUND LIKE A BROKEN RECORD. THE JUSTIFICATIONS TO ME ARE ON THE SOUTH 150ID. IF YOU WERE DOING THIS ON THE SOUTH SIDE YOU IMMEDIATELY HAVE A HARDSHIP BECAUSE YOU HAVE A VERY SHORT PROPERTY LINE AT DEPTH. AND THERE'S SOMEWHAT OF A JUSTIFICATION THAT THAT'S THE ONLY PLACE YOU COULD -- YOU KNOW YOU HAVE A HARDSHIP CREATED BY A

[01:00:02]

BOARD MEMBER: THE POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE, TIM, WAS THAT THE -- BECAUSE OF THE CURVATURE ON THE SOUTH SIDE, IT PUSHES THE HOUSE EASTWARD. BECAUSE THE HOUSE -- AND IF YOU LOOK AT GOING UP THE STREET THERE YOU CAN SEE THAT THE OTHER HOMES ARE THE FRONT OF THE HOMES IS FURTHER EASTWARD. SO THIS HOUSE WAS FURTHER EAST W5RD, AND IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IF IT DIDN'T HAVE THE CURVED LINE, ITS BACKYARD WOULD HAVE BEEN DEEPER BOARD MEMBER: I THINK YOU ARE MEANING TO PUSH THE HOUSE WESTWARD. HE COULD HAVE BUILT IT FURTHER EASTWARD.

BOARD MEMBER: AND, THEREFORE, THE BACKYARD WOULD BE BIGGER.

YEAH. BOARD MEMBER: YES, YOU ARE CORRECT. BOARD MEMBER: THAT WAS THE POINT. CHAIRMAN: IF NO OTHER QUESTIONS, I'D LIKE TO OPEN IT UP TO PUBLIC COMMENT. ALL RIGHT. NO PUBLIC COMMENT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BY THE BOARD OF THE APPLICANT? BOARD MEMBER: WE WERE SAYING THAT BY PUTTING THE GAZEBO IF YOU DID PUT THE GAZEBO TO THE SOUTH OF THE HOUSE IT WOULD STILL BE IN THE SETBACK. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YES IT WOULD BE IN THE REAR SETBACK. I DON'T KNOW IF IT WOULD BE ON THE SIDE SETBACK. DEPENDING ON HOW IT CONFLICTS WITH THE POOL AND THE PROPOSALS. WE DON'T HAVE A SITE PLAN IN FRONT OF US. BOARD MEMBER: SHOWING THE

SETBACK. >> YEAH SHOWING EXACTLY THE LOCATION IF YOU DO MOVE IT. IF THE 3W50RD DOES APPROVE IT, BUT SAY YOU CAN ONLY BE ON THE SOUTH SIDE, YOU KNOW, SOUTH OF THE POOL, THEN A NEW PLAN WOULD HAVE TO ACCOMMODATE AND MEET ALL THE CRITERIA OF THIS BOARD IN CNDITION OF A ZONING VARIANCE.

BOARD MEMBER: JUST DOING SOME ROUGH SKETCHING, THERE IS ADEQUATE ROOM WITHIN THE SETBACKS TO PUT THE STRUCTURE ON THE SOUTH SIDE. IT WOULD GO ON THE EASTERN EDGE OF THE POOL TOWARD THE HOUSE. JUST AS I SAY VERY ROUGH SKETCHES.

CHAIRMAN: IF NO OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION. BOARD MEMBER: I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE PVZVAR-2019-06, WALKER RESIDENCE. REQUEST FOR ZONING VARIANCE TO SECTION 3.B OF THE PONTE VEDRA ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS TO ALLOW A 12 FOOT AND SIX INCH ENCROACHMENT ON THE REQUIRED 40 FOOT REAR YARD FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A GAZEBO STRUCTURE SPECIFICALLY LOCATED

AT 534 LE MASTER DRIVE. >> MR. CHAIR, THAT'S ALWAYS SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS AND FINDINGS IN THE STAFF REPORT.

CHAIRMAN: POINT OF ORDER. CAN I ASK THE APPLICANT TO POSSIBLY

[01:05:01]

>> YES YOU CAN. THERE'S NO SECOND TO THE -- YOU CAN ASK THE CHAIR FOR A CLARIFICATION ON THAT PARTICULAR ASPECT.

BOARD MEMBER: I WOULD ASK THE APPLICANT TO CLARIFY THE FACT THAT HIS REASON FOR HARDSHIP IS THAT THE FACT THAT THE HOUSE COULD -- THE HARDSHIP IS THAT THE HOUSE HAS BEEN PUSHED FURTHER TO THE WEST BECAUSE OF THE CURVATURE OF THE ROAD AND THAT OTHERWISE YOU WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN -- YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO HAVE MUCH BETTER RELIEF ON THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE IF IT HAD NOT BEEN FOR THAT CURVATURE SETBACK AND USE THAT AS A BASIS FOR HARDSHIP. SPEAKER: YES, SIR. THE IRREGULAR SHAPE OF THE LOT MASS FORCED THE HOME TO BE PUSHED TO THE WEST WHICH LIMITS THE REAR FLEXIBILITY IF YOU WILL AGAINST THE 40 FOOT SETBACK TO BUILD A REASONABLE STRUCTURE CONSISTENT WITH THE '70S VINTAGE OF THE HOME.

BOARD MEMBER: I'LL SECOND THE MOTION BASED ON THAT ADDITIONAL REASON FOR HARDSHIP. BOARD MEMBER: ONE MORE CLARIFICATION FROM COUNSEL. BECAUSE OF THE UNUSUALNESS OF THIS LOT, HAVING A CHURCH ON THE SIDE, HAVING AN EASEMENT, UTILITY EASEMENT, THIS WOULD MAKE THIS, I AM ASSUMING, A VERY UNUSUAL LOT THAT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO HAVE A SET

PRECEDENT? >> YES. WITHIN THE SURROUNDING AREA YOU WOULD HAVE TO FIND KIND OF THE SAME LOT WITH THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES. AND IF YOU MAKE THAT PART OF THE ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OF THE UNUSUAL NATURE OF THE SURROUNDING USE IS NOT KNOW RESIDENTIAL IN NATURE BECAUSE OF THAT JEA TRACT AND THE CHURCH USES TO THE REAR AND THE KIND OF WETLANDS TO THE EAR AS WELL. THAT CAN ALL BE PART OF THE CONSIDERATION OF THIS BOARD. BOARD MEMBER: I JUST WANT TO FEEL COMFORTABLE WE'RE NOT SETTING PRECEDENT. BECAUSE THIS IS SUCH AN UNUSUAL LOT IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO FIND THIS EXACT CIRCUMSTANCE AGAIN THAT SOMEONE COULD CLAIM A PRECEDENT. I AM ASSUMING THAT IS WHICH WHAT YOU ARE AGREEING WITH.

BOARD MEMBER: IN LINE WITH THAT, ALSO IF WE COULD AS A FINDING OF FACT, ECHO HIS REASON THAT HE JUST GAVE FOR HIS HARDSHIP IS THAT THE HOUSE HAS -- BECAUSE OF THE SETBACKS HAS IN ESSENCE BEEN PUSHED FURTHER BACK THAN THE NORMAL LINE OF BUILDING AND, THEREFORE, THAT IS A JUSTIFICATION.

CHAIRMAN: I THINK THAT'S THE MOST LOGICAL.

>> MR. CHAIR, I THINK MR. POWELL'S REQUEST IS TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL FINDING REFERENCING THAT PARTICULAR ASPECT. SO, WHEN SOMEONE PULLS UP THE ORDER, IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT THAT IS THE HARDSHIP IDENTIFIED BY THE BOARD IN APPROVING THE VARIANCE. CHAIRMAN: BY ADDING THIS ADDITIONAL WHICH I THINK IS YOUR STRONGEST HARDSHIP OF THE FRONT 40 FOOT ON THE CURVATURE PUSHING THE HOUSE FURTHER WEST TO BEGIN WITH CREATES AN ADDITIONAL HARDSHIP -- SPEAKER: I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO RESUBMIT THAT IMMEDIATELY

>> IT'S NOT A RESUBMITTAL. WE JUST AMEND THE ORDER FOR YOUR SIGNATURE. CHAIRMAN: FOR THE RECORD.

SPEAKER: THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN: ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A SECOND. WE'LL TAKE A VOTE. THAT'S A UNANIMOUS YES IT IS APPROVED. CONGRATULATIONS. SPEAKER: THANK YOU, BOARD.

CHAIRMAN: THAT WAS A TOUGH ONE. THE THIRD ITEM IS ON THE AGENDA

[Item 3]

SPEAKER: AGAIN BEVERLY FRAZIER GROWTH MANAGEMENT. THIS IS ITEM NUMBER 3 ON A WORKSHOP LOOKING AT FENCE HEIGHTS IN PONTE VEDRA.

WANTED TO DISCUSS ADDITIONAL EXCEPTIONS TO SECTION 8N TO ALLOW A 6 FOOT FENCE HEIGHT AND SIDE AND REAR YARDS IN R1A AND R1B RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS AS REQUESTED BY THE COMMUNITY AND BOARD BASED ON THE WORKSHOP DISCUSSION STAFF WILL DRAFT LANGUAGE TO PRESENT TO THE BOARD AND COMMUNITY FOR FURTHER INPUT AND POSSIBLE AMENDMENT FOR THE REGULATIONS. THIS IS A LOOK I WANTED TO DO A MAP TO SHOW YOU WHAT PROPERTIES WE WERE LOOKING AT. THIS IS AN OUTLINE OF THE PROPERTIES WITHIN R1A AND R1B ZONING DISTRICT. THEY'RE SUBJECT TO THE 4 FOOT LIMITATION FOR THE FENCE HEIGHT. AND WE'LL GO TO CLOSER PHOTOS AS WELL.

JUST WANTED TO GIVE AN IDEA OF THE AREAS WE'RE LOOKING AT. AND THE CURRENT REGULATIONS OF COURSE IN ALL DISTRICTS UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED FENCES OR WALLS OUTSIDED THE BUILDING

[01:10:01]

THEY'RE CURRENTLY BEING HELD IN OUR PRIDE SYSTEM PENDING OUR DISCUSSION HERE AND POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS. A LOOK AT THE FENCE. THIS WOULD BE A FENCE THAT IS LOCATED WITHIN THE REQUIRED SIDE YARD. AS YOU CAN SEE -- WHOOPS. DIDN'T MEAN TO DO THAT. AS WE GET BACK FURTHER, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU CAN SEE THE LAGOON BEHIND US. BUT THERE IS A SHORTER FENCE. AND IT DOESN'T PASS THE FRONT OF THE HOME. THIS IS AN AERIAL OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. WE WOULD NOT CONSIDER THIS A THROUGH LOT.

THE LOT LINE ITSELF IS ADJACENT TO OTHER LOTS. IF WE CHANGE THE REGULATION AND ALLOWED RESIDENTIAL LOTS TO PROVID A YARD -- A 6 FOOT FENCE WITHIN THE SIDE YARDS THEY WOULD NOT ALLOW TO BE WITHIN THE REQUIRED FRONT OR REAR YARDS BUT COULD BE IN THE SIDE YARDS. ANOTHER LOOK AT 135 PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD HAS A SITUATION. THEY HAVE OF COURSE AN INCREASED HEIGHT FENCE. YOU CAN SEE IT STEPS UP. IT IS LOWER AT THE FRONT. IT STEPS UP BETWEEN THE HOMES. AND IT DOES NOT APPEAR TO GO ALL THE WAY TO THE REAR BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE. IT SEEMS TO BE JUST IN BETWEEN THE HOMES AT THE SIDES AS WELL. AS WE'VE PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED. THIS WOULD BE CONSIDERED A THROUGH LOT BECAUSE IT HAS FRONTAGE ON THE OCEAN AS WELL AS FOR PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD. AS WELL AS LOT 75 PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD.

WE'VE COME TO HAVE SITUATIONS WHERE THERE IS A RETAINING WALL ON THE PROPERTY. AND THEY PUT A FENCE ON TOP OF THAT RETAINING WALL. WE PROVIDE AND LOOK AT THE TOTAL HEIGHT TO DETERMINE THE LIMITATION. THIS ONE LOOKS LIKE AS WELL THAT IT HAS A LOWER FENCE HEIGHT AT THE FRONT AND THEN INCREASES AS IT GOES BACK.

YOU CAN SEE IT HERE. MAYBE A TWO FOOT RETAINING WALL, A TWO FOOT FENCE THAT STEPS UP AS IT GOES BACK BETWEEN THE HOMES.

THIS IS A THROUGH LOT AS WELL ON THE OCEAN. THAT IF WE DID LOOK AT REGULATIONS TO ALLOW JUST IN THE SIDE YARDS WOULD HAVE SOME ABILITY TO HAVE A SIX FOOT FENCE THERE. SO, LOOKING AT THROUGH LOTS, THE PONTE VEDRA ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS DOES DEFINE A THROUGH LOT AS AN INTERIOR LOT HAVING FRONTAGE ON TWO STREETS.

FRONTAGE ADJACENT TO WATER BODIES SUCH AS LAKES, LAGOONS, CANALS AND A STREET OR FRONTAGE ADJACENT TO OTHER RECREATIONAL FACILITIES SUCH AS GOLF COURSES OR SIMILAR PASSIVE RECREATIONAL USES AND A STREET. THE LIMIT IS 6 FOOT ALLOWANCE TO SIDE YARDS ONLY FOR THROUGH LOTS AND R1A AND R1B ZONING DISTRICTS. THE FOUR FOOT FENCE HIGH LIMITATION WOULD STILL APPLY IN REQUIRED FRONT AND REAR YARDS. LOOKING AT THIS AREA, THESE THROUGH LOTS WOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE 6 FOOT FENCES IN THE SIDE YARDS AS WELL AS HERE ON ALL OF THESE. LOOK AT ALSO INTERIOR FENCE OR INTERIOR LOTS. ON LOT OTHER THAN A CORNER LOT THAT IS NOT A TRUE LOT. WE COULD LIMIT THE SIX FOOT ALLOWANCE TO THE SIDE AND REAR FOR THE LOT LINES THAT ARE INTERIOR OR ADJACENT TO ZONING DISTRICTS THAT ALLOW AN INCREASED FENCE HEIGHT BECAUSE WE'VE SEEN SOME OF THOSE ADJACENT TO R1C OR D. R2, R3 OR 4 AS WELL AS THE CITY OF JACKSONVILLE BEACH. THE FOUR FOOT HEIGHT LIMITATION WOULD STILL APPLY IN FRONT YARDS. AND THIS IS A LOOK AT SOME WE'VE SEEN RECENTLY WHERE A VARIANCE WAS ALLOWED ON JUST THE LOT LINE THAT WAS ADJACENT TO THAT ZONING DISTRICT BASED ON THE ADJOINING ALLOWANCE FOR SIX FOOT. SO,

[01:15:02]

BUT COULD POSSIBLY HAVE AN INCREASED HEIGHT ON THE INTERIOR AND CONSIDERED THEIR SIDE YARDS. ALSO TALKED ABOUT RETAINING WALLS. LIKE WE SAID, THE WALL AND FENCE ARE COMBINED FOR A MEASUREMENT OF THE OVERALL HEIGHT. MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF A RETAINING WALL IN PONTE VEDRA IS LIMITED TO FOUR FEET. IT IS A POSSIBILITY TO PROVIDE A MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN THE RETAINING WALL AND FENCE TO ESTABLISH GRADE FOR MEASUREMENT OF HEIGHT.

WE DO THAT IN OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ESTABLISH GRADE IF THEY HAVE A RESTRAINING WALL AND THEY WANT TO PUT UP A FENCE TO HAVE A MINIMUM DISTANCE AS WELL AS TO ALLOW INCREASED FENCE HEIGHT FOR PROPERTY LINES THAT HAVE A MINIMUM CHANGE IN GRADE WITHIN A CERTAIN DISTANCE WHICH IS SIMILAR TO OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THAT COULD BE AN OPTION. I'LL JUST TAKE DIRECTION FROM THE BOARD AND ANY DISCUSSION.

BOARD MEMBER: DO YOU HAVE ANY HANDOUTS OF WHAT YOU GAVE? BECAUSE THERE WAS A LOT OF MATERIAL AND I AM AFRAID THE FIRST SLIDE I'VE PROBABLY FORGOTTEN BY NOW.

SPEAKER: I DO NOT HAVE ANY HANDOUTS BUT I CAN DEFINITELY PROVIDE THOSE FOR YOU. BOARD MEMBER: OKAY. I HAVE A QUESTION. FOR HOUSES ON THE BOULEVARD, ON THE OCEANSIDE THAT ARE NOW REQUIRED TO BUILD AT A HIGHER ELEVATION, AND SO THEY BRING IN DIRT AND THE LOT IS HIGHER THAN, LET'S SAY, THEIR NEIGHBOR WHO HAS AN OLDER HOME AND THEY'VE BASICALLY PUT A RETAINING WALL BECAUSE THEIR HOUSE LET'S SAY IS TWO FEET ABOVE THE GRADE OF THEIR NEIGHBOR. THE FENCE, IF YOU WERE STANDING ON THEIR SIDE, IF THEY PUT ON TOP OF THE RETAINING WALL, WOULD BE FOUR FEET. IF YOU STAND ON THE NEIGHBOR'S SIDE, IT'S SIX FEET. SO WHAT WERE YOU TRYING TO SAY? THAT IT WOULD BE DISALLOWED BECAUSE ON THE LOWER PROPERTY IT APPEARS TO BE SIX FEET? BUT ONCE THAT LOWER PROPERTY GETS RAISED WITH A NEW HOUSE THAT FENCE COULD BE HIGHER? SPEAKER: WE MEASURE FROM THE OUTSIDE OF THE FENCE.

BOARD MEMBER: MEANING THE OTHER PROPERTY SIDE. OKAY.

SPEAKER: YEAH. >> MR. CHAIR, I CAN POINT OUT THIS POWER POINT PRESENTATION. IF YOU JUST -- PRINT OUT THIS POWER POINT PRESENTATION. I CAN RUN UPSTAIRS AND PRINT IT OUT AND HAND IT TO THE BOARD FOR YOU TO KIND OF REFERENCE.

CHAIRMAN: DOES ANYONE ELSE WANT A COPY BESIDES MEGAN? BOARD MEMBER: ARE ASKING YOU US TO VOTE ON THESE RECOMMENDATIONS? SPEAKER: NO I'M JUST OPENING DISCUSSION. I JUST PUT SOME POINTS UP. I'M OPENING DISCUSSION AND REQUESTING ANY DISCUSSION FROM THE BOARD FOR WHICH DIRECTION WE SHOULD GO. BOARD MEMBER: SO WE'LL HAVE ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITIES TO COMMENT.

SPEAKER: OF COURSE. BOARD MEMBER: JUST IF WE -- IT WAS VERY DETAILED AND A GREAT PRESENTATION. IF WE LOOKED AT IT PHILOSOPHICALLY, ARE WE TALKING ABOUT FENCES BEING ALLOWED BETWEEN BUILDINGS PRIMARILY? SPEAKER: YES. BOARD MEMBER: AND WHETHER OR NOT THE FENCE -- AND THE FENCE WOULD BE RUNNING FROM THE ADJACENT FRONT AND BACK OF THE BUILDINGS? SPEAKER: IT WOULDN'T BE BASED ON THE BUILDINGS IT WOULD BE BASED ON THE REQUIRED BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE OR SETBACK. BOARD MEMBER: SO IF, FOR EXAMPLE, IN MY SITUATION, IF MY NEIGHBOR WANTED TO BUILD A FENCE, HE COULD GO ALL THE WAY OUT TO THE BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE BY THE LAGOON AND, THEREFORE, MY CURRENT VIEW TO

[01:20:05]

BOARD MEMBER: THAT POINT HAS TO DROP BACK TO THE FOUR FEET.

THAT'S WHAT WE THOUGHT WE EXPRESSED IN THE LAST DISCUSSION. BOARD MEMBER: OKAY. YOU KNOW, PRIMARILY CURRENT NEW HOMES ARE CONSTRUCTED FROM SETBACK TO SETBACK. SOME EXISTING HOMES ARE SMALLER THAN THAT. THERE ARE SOME OF THOSE. IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE, I GUESS WE COULD HAVE IT BE LIMITED TO JUST THE BUILDING. AND IF THEY CAN CONSTRUCT AN ADDITION THEN THEY COULD PUT AN ADDITIONAL FENCE UP. I MEAN, THIS IS, YOU KNOW -- BOARD MEMBER: I DON'T THINK IT'S THAT HARD OF ENFORCEMENT. BUT IT'S DEFINITELY CAUSES PROBLEMS IN THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS.

WHEN YOU HAVE HOUSES THAT AREN'T EVEN CLOSE TO THE BUILDING SETBACK LINE AS WE HAVE SEEN HERE TODAY. TO SUDDENLY TAKE A SIX FOOT FENCE ALL THE WAY OUT TO THE FRONT SETBACK LINE AND CREATE A WHOLE NEW VISUAL BARRIER THAT NEVER EXISTED.

BOARD MEMBER: AND IT'S WORSE THAN THE BUILDING BECAUSE IT'S MOVING CLOSER TO YOU. SO THE BUILDING HAS -- IF A LARGER HOME GETS BUILT ADJACENT TO A SMALLER HOME, THE BIGGER HOME GOES FURTHER IN THE FRONT AND THE BACK. AND SO THE VIEW IS NARROWED. AND THEN IF YOU PUT A FENCE ON THE PROPERTY LINE, THAT VIEW GETS EVEN NARROWER. SO THE QUESTION IN MY MIND WOULD BE WOULD IT BE LIMITED TO THE LENGTH OF THE SHORTEST BUILDING ON EITHER SIDE OF THE PROPERTY? SO, THAT IF YOU HAVE A SMALLER -- YOU'VE BEEN LIVING IN YOUR HOUSE SINCE 1950 AND YOUR HOUSE IS SMALL, THAT IF A LARGER HOUSE GETS BUILT NEXT TO YOU, THEY ONLY CAN HAVE A FENCE AS DEEP AS YOUR HOUSE. THE SMALLER OF THE TWO HOUSES. BOARD MEMBER: MOSTLY WE WERE TALKING ABOUT TWO SIDED FENCES. THEN ONE SUGGESTION WAS THE TOP TWO FEET WOULD BE OPEN WEAVE RATHER THAN SOLID. THAT SOME OF

THE THOUGHTS THAT WE HAD. >> AND JUST FURTHER QUESTIONS.

WHICH HOUSE ARE YOU MEASURING THE BUILDING ENVELOPE TO? CAN BE YOUR NEIGHBORS? BOARD MEMBER: WHICHEVER IS THE SMALLER ENVELOPE. IF YOU LOOK AT TWO ADJACENT HOUSES, IF YOUR HOUSE IS 100 FEET DEEP AND MY HOUSE IS ONLY 20 FEET DEEP THEN YOU ONLY CAN HAVE A 20 FOOT FENCE.

>> OKAY. BEVERLY, CAN YOU BRING UP A CORNER LOT. BECAUSE THIS IS -- BOARD MEMBER: THAT'S GETS EVEN

MORE CONFUSING >> YEAH THE CORNER LOTS GET KIND OF STRANGE. IT'S GOOD WE'RE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION BECAUSE WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE UNDERSTAND THE BOARD'S EXPECTATIONS. OUR EXPECTATION IS FOR BUILDING TRENDS. SOME PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BUILD SETBACK TO SETBACK, BUT UNDERSTAND FOR EXISTING COMMUNITIES THAT CAN BE A CONCERN. BOARD MEMBER: IT'S TRYING TO BALANCE THE NEEDS OF ALL THE RESIDENTS.

BOARD MEMBER: THIS IS THE BEST EXAMPLE. THESE ARE THE TWO SIDES YOU CAN DO IT ON. SO, YOU KNOW, DO YOU START HERE AND STOP

THERE? >> A BETTER EXAMPLE IS THE ONE IMMEDIATELY NORTH. THAT IS TECHNICALLY A CORNER LOT. BUT BEHIND IT IS A LAGOON. SO THAT'S A SIDE YARD.

BOARD MEMBER: SO THIS WOULD BE THE ONLY SECTION--

>> WELL WE WOULD HAVE TO WRITE IT NOT ONLY WHERE THE SIDE YARD IS BUT THERE HAS TO BE AN AEXISTING BUILDING ADJACENT.

[01:25:03]

BOARD MEMBER: YOU WOULD BE MEASURED ON 336. OR IS THAT 336 I GUESS IT IS, THAT WESTERN BOUNDARY WOULD DRIVE THE LENGTH

OF THE FENCE. >> ARE YOU PROPOSING A 6 FOOT FENCE ON THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY? SO, THAT'S CLEAR THAT THERE COULD BE A SIX FOOT FENCE BETWEEN THOSE TWO HOUSES.

BOARD MEMBER: HERE IS ANOTHER CORNER LOT AND YOU GOT THE SAME SITUATION HERE. BOARD MEMBER: WHAT HE IS TALKING IS ABOUT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE LOT YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE -- BOARD MEMBER: THERE'S NOT A STRUCTURE

>> EXACTLY. >> IT IS A THROUGH LOT. SO, YOU WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO HAVE A SIX FOOT ON THE GOLF COURSE OR

THE OCEAN OR THE LAGOON >> IS THAT A THROUGH LOT? BOARD MEMBER: IT WOULD JUST BE ADJACENT STRUCTURE.

>> OKAY. IF THERE'S NOTHING THERE. LIKE IT IS A JEA TRACT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. BOARD MEMBER: LET'S USE THIS -- THESE TWO FOR EXAMPLES. THIS IS A PRETTY LONG RUN HERE FROM FRONT TO BACK. WHEREAS THIS OLDER HOME IS VERY SHORT. SO, I'M ASKING THE BOARD, WHAT ARE WE LIMITING THIS FENCE TO? JUST FROM FRONT TO BACK OF THIS PROPERTY? THE SIDE OF HIS HOUSE THAT THIS GUY DOESN'T WANT TO LOOK AT?

>> WELL, I KIND OF -- I'M JUST ASKING QUESTIONS. I AGREE WITH YOU FROM THE STANDPOINT PHILOSOPHICALLY IF YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE A ONE OR TWO-STORY HOUSE NEXT TO YOU, HAVING A 6 FOOT FENCE IS NOT THAT MUCH GREATER. AT THE SAME TIME, YOU GET THIS TRANSITION PROBLEM BETWEEN THE OLDER HOUSES AND THE NEWER HOUSES. AND LIKE MEGAN SAYS, YOU ARE JUST EXACERBATING THE IMPACT. WHEN YOU THEN ALLOW THE NEW HOUSE TO DO A 6 FOOT HIGH FENCE ALL ALONG THE SIDE OF HIS NEW HOUSE. BUT, AT THE SAME TIME, IT IS A GRAY AREA BECAUSE YOU ARE ALREADY GETTING A ONE OR TWO-STORYHOUSE THERE TO BEGIN WITH. AND SO A SIX FOOT FENCE COVERS UP AIR CONDITIONING UNITS, SIDE TRASH CANS. IT COVERS UP ALL THAT. BUT, AT THE SAME TIME, IT DOES EXACERBATE THE IMPACT, THE VISUAL IMPACT OF THE HOUSE SUDDENLY ON TOP OF THIS OLDER, MUCH SMALLER HOUSE. IT CAN GO BOTH WAYS. FROM THE STANDPOINT -- TO ME, IT'S LIKE, OKAY, YOU ARE GOING GET THE HOUSE ANYHOW, LET THEM DO A SIX FOOT HIGH FENCE. AT THE SAME TIME, AND IT COVERS UP A LOT OF STUFF. BECAUSE THAT NEW HOUSE IS GOING TO HAVE A BUNCH OF STUFF ON THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE.

YOU ARE GOING TO POSSIBLY REGRET ONLY HAVING A FOUR FOOT FENCE THERE. BOARD MEMBER: DO YOU ALL HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT'S PER YOUR HOUSE. THIS GUY COULD GO FROM HERE TO HERE AND THIS GUY COULD GO FROM HERE TO HERE. IT IS THE FENCE IS ON YOUR SIDE OF THE - PROPERTY LINE, WHY CAN'T YOU DO IT ON YOUR SIDE OF THE PROPERTY LINE FROM THE FRONT CORNER TO THE REAR CORNER? SPEAKER: WELL YOU COULD ALSO THINK OF IT IN A DIFFERENT WAY. IF YOU LOOK AT THE BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE AND YOU SAY, YOU CAN DO AS A PROPERTY OWNER WHATEVER YOU WANT WITHIN THE BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE. SO, IF YOU KNOW THAT YOU REALLY LIKE FENCES AND YOU REALLY WANT TO HAVE PRIVACY, YOU CAN RUN A FENCE ON THE BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE AND YOUR BUILDING CAN JUST BE INBOARD OF THAT. BUT IF YOU CHOOSE TO WANT THE HOUSE TO BE LARGER AND BUILD IT TO THE BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE, THEN YOU HAVE TO GIVE UP ON HAVING THAT FENCE. SO, THERE'S CHOICES THAT CAN BE MADE. AND THE OWNER OF THE LOT WHO IS BUILDING THE LARGE HOUSE CAN MAKE INFORMED CHOICES AS TO WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT TO THEM AND THE AESTHETIC OF HOW THEY WANT THEIR HOUSE TO FUNCTION.

[01:30:05]

BOARD MEMBER: BUT WE KNOW YOU CAN BUILD A 35 FOOT HIGH WALL IF YOU WANT TO WITHIN YOUR BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE. WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS ON THE PROPERTY LINE OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE. BOARD MEMBER: BUT THAT'S SORT OF LIKE COMMUNAL SPACE. BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH YOU SAY IT'S ON THE PROPERTY LINE IT DOES IMPACT YOUR ADJACENT NEIGHBOR. SO, IF YOU REALLY WANT TO HAVE BIG FENCES OR A LOT OF PRIVACY, YOU CAN ACCOMPLISH THAT WITHIN THE BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE FOOTPRINT. AND THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS COMPLETE FLEXIBILITY TO DO WHATEVER HE OR SHE MAY WANT TO DO

>> I THINK THAT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT DISCUSSION. WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ESTABLISH IS WHEN YOU HAVE SMALLER LOTS -- A LOT OF TIMES THESE LOTS, YOU HAVE A 10 FOOT SIDE SETBACK. BY THE TIME YOU HAVE AN AIR CONDITIONING UNIT AND A WALKWAY, THERE'S NOWHERE TO PLANT A HEDGE. SO NOW YOU ARE STUCK WITH LOOKING AT YOUR NEIGHBOR'S AIR CONDITIONING UNIT, TRASH CANS AND ALL THAT. IN MY OPINION THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO CORRECT IS IS THAT SECTION FROM THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE TO THE BACK CORNER TO NOT SEE THAT OF YOUR NEIGHBORS. OR TO PROTECT HIM NOT TO SEE YOURS ON THAT SIDE. THAT'S KIND OF DIFFERENT THAN BUILDING INSIDE THE BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE BECAUSE BETWEEN YOU CAN BUILD WHATEVER SIZE WALL YOU WANT.

WE'RE JUST WALK ON THE PROPERTY LINE OR -- WALKING ABOUT ON THE PROPERTY LINE OR JUST INSIDE THE PROPERTY LINE.

BOARD MEMBER: WELL, I MEAN, I KEEP MY GARBAGE CANS INSIDE MY GARAGE. AND AN AIR CONDITIONING UNIT ISN'T SO BIG THAT YOU CAN HAVE IT ON THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE WITHOUT IT BEING A PROBLEM.

BOARD MEMBER: YOU CAN. BUT BY THE TIME YOU WALK AROUND THAT SIDEWALK DOWN THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE IN ADDITION TO YOUR OUTDOOR A. C. UNIT, THAT OFTEN DOESN'T LEAVE ENOUGH ROOM TO PUT HEDGES AND VEGETATION IN. BOARD MEMBER: IF YOU DON'T HAVE A FENCE THERE YOU CAN JUST WALK RIGHT BY IT. YOU DON'T HAVE TO -- BOARD MEMBER: BUT, AGAIN, I THINK THERE'S CERTAIN VALUES TO BEING ABLE TO PUT THE SIX FOOT HIGH FENCE ALONG YOUR HOUSE. I FLINCH WHEN YOU SAY THE COMMUNAL SPACES. THE SIDE YARDS -- FRONT AND REAR YARDS ARE DEFINITELY SOMEWHAT COMMUNAL IN NATURE. SIDE YARDS, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU HAVE STRUCTURE ON BOTH SIDES, ARE USUALLY FUNCTIONAL SPACES TO PUT MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT, ET CETERA, SIDEWALKS, PEDESTRIAN ACCESS FOR THE HOMEOWNER BACK AND FORTH. I WOULDN'T REALLY CALL THE SIDE YARDS COMMUNAL SPACES. NEARLY AS MUCH AS THE FRONT AND REAR YARD. THE FRONT AND REAR I WOULD TOTE LOCAL I AGREE WITH. GOING BACK TO THE OTHER THING. IS THE EXTREME EXAMPLE OF WHEN YOU HAVE A MUCH SMALLER OLDER HOUSE AND A MUCH BIGGER NEWER HOUSE AND THE NEWER HOUSE IS RESTRICTED TO PUT A 6 FOOT HIGH FENCE. BOARD MEMBER: IT WAS PABLO TERRACE. BOARD MEMBER: BECAUSE AN IDEAL EXAMPLE -- THERE. BETWEEN THOSE TWO -- THAT HOUSE ON THE RIGHT.

I MEAN LOOK AT THE SHEER SIZE OF THAT. HE IS ONLY ALLOWED TO PUT A SIX FOOT HIGH FENCE IN THAT ONE TINY SECTION THERE.

BOARD MEMBER: BUT THE ARGUMENT FOR THIS GUY USED TO BE WELL IF THEY PUT A FENCE ALONG HERE THEN IT BLOCKS MY VIEW. WELL HE'S NOT SEEING PAST THAT HOUSE. SO IT'S NOT GOING TO BLOCK HIS VIEW AS LONG AS THAT FENCE STOPS AT THAT CORNER. HE IS NOT OBSTRUCTING ANYBODY'S VIEW FROM HERE. BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SEE THROUGH THE HOUSE. SO, IF THAT FENCE STOPS THERE THEN I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM WHY WE WOULD HAVE IT LIMITED TO JUST RIGHT HERE.

[01:35:03]

BOARD MEMBER: LET ME TOSS SOMETHING ELSE OUT. WHEN YOU BUILD A WOOD FENCE, A WOOD FENCE HAS A LIMITED LIFESPAN OF IT LOOKING NICE THEN IT STARTS LOOKING GRAY AND UNATTRACTIVE RATHER QUICKLY. IF YOU ARE THE HOUSE, THE SMALLER HOUSE, AND NOW YOU HAVE THIS HUGE FENCE THAT'S STARTING TO AGE OUT. IT ALMOST REQUIRES YOU TO PUT SHRUBBERY TO OBSCURE THE VIEW OF THAT FENCE. BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT LONG TERM THEY'RE NOT ATTRACTIVE FEATURES. BOARD MEMBER: BUT THAT'S NOT A MATTER OF SETBACK THAT'S A MATTER OF BUILDING CONSTRUCTION AND AESTHETICS OF THE FENCE ITSELF. IT'S NOT THE FACT THAT THE FENCE IS BLOCKING THE VIEW. IT IS THE FACT THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO LOOK AT AN AGING WOODEN FENCE. WHICH I ■COULDN'TAGREE WITH YOU MORE. BOARD MEMBER: SO THAT'S ANOTHER REASON WHY, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF LARGER, BIGGER, MORE FENCES. BECAUSE THEY DON'T ENHANCE THE VISUAL APPEARANCE OF THE SPACE BETWEEN THE TWO HOUSES.

BOARD MEMBER: I CERTAINLY WOULDN'T USE THAT AS THE REASON NOT TO ALLOW IT. AND THE INDIVIDUAL MAY NOT CHOOSE TO PAINT THEIR HOUSE. THE HOUSE COULD LOOK PRETTY BAD AS WELL.

HOPEFULLY YOU WILL HAVE A NEIGHBOR THAT'S GOING TO KEEP THE FENCE UP. I THINK WE SHOULD ALSO REQUIRE HAVING BOTH SIDES BE DECORATIVE. YOU CAN'T PUT THE PRETTY SIDE ON YOUR SIDE.

IF YOU ARE GOING TO BUILD A FENCE EVEN IF IT'S ON YOUR PROPERTY LINE I THINK IT SHOULD HAVE -- BOTH SIDES SHOULD BE DECORATIVE. ONE OF THE BIGGEST PROBLEMS WE'RE HAVING AND THAT'S WHAT IS UNDER PRIDE RIGHT NOW. YOU HAVE A LOT OF HOUSES LIKE -- JUST THE STANDARD HOUSE. THERE'S NOTHING SPECIAL. IN BETWEEN EXISTING HOUSES WHERE BOTH NEIGHBORS ARE IN AGREEMENT THERE'S SIX FOOT FENCES. THEY STOP AT THE BACK OF THE HOUSE.

THEY STOP AT THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE. CODE ENFORCEMENT IS TELLING MULTIPLE HOMES AROUND PONTE VEDRA TO TEAR DOWN A FOUR FEET WHEN THEY'VE HAD EXISTING MUTUALLY AGREED UPON SIX FOOT FENCE FOR 15, 20 YEARS. OUT OF THE BLUE SOMEBODY LOOKS IN THEIR YARD AND THEY'RE TRYING TO MAKE THEM TEAR IT DOWN. I THINK THAT'S COMPLETELY WRONG. I THINK IF YOU HAVE TWO NEIGHBORS HERE WITH A FENCE THAT ONLY AFFECTS THEM, IT DOESN'T COME ANY FARTHER FORWARD THAN THE FRONT OR REAR CORNER OF THEIR HOUSE, HOW THAT IS NEGATIVE TO ANYBODY AND TO MAKE THEM TAKE THOSE DOWN TO FOUR FOOT I THINK IS MORALLY WRONG.

BOARD MEMBER: ARE THEY ENFORCING IT AND TRYING TO GET PEOPLE TO TEAR THE FENCES DOWN? BOARD MEMBER: YES BOARD MEMBER: IS THERE A WAY WE CAN MAKE UNTIL WE GET THIS ISSUE RESOLVED MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO PUT ALL THOSE ON HOLD UNTIL WE COME UP WITH A SOLUTION. BOARD MEMBER: THEY HAVE.

BOARD MEMBER: BUT SOME HOMEOWNERS ACTUALLY WHEN THEY GOT THE COMPLAINT HAVE REDUCED THEIR FENCES. THEY COMPLIED.

THEY TOOK DOWN THEIR SIX FOOT FENCES.

BOARD MEMBER: YEAH I COULD UNDERSTAND. CODE ENFORCEMENT AROUND HERE. IF YOU ARE AN AVERAGE LAYPERSON, YOU DON'T WANT TO MESS WITH THEM. BOARD MEMBER: BUT MANY OF THOSE WERE THE FENCE WAS SIX FOOT ALL THE WAY OUT TO THE FRONT AND ALL THE WAY TO THE REAR. IT WASN'T JUST AT THE FRONT TO THE REAR CORNER. BOARD MEMBER: TO THE SUGGESTION OF HAVING THAT EXTRA TWO FEET NOT BE JUST COMPLETE BARRIER AND HAVE IT SORT OF LIKE LATTICE WORK OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WHAT'S THE OPINION THERE? BOARD MEMBER: I JUST THINK YOU CAN LOOK OUT YOUR WINDOW AND A LOT OF NEIGHBORS HAVE JUST A LOT OF JUNKY STUFF ON THE SIDE OF THEIR HOUSE. I JUST THINK IT SHOULD BE OUR RIGHT TO PUT UP IN THAT SECTION OF -- SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO LOOK AT THE NEIGHBOR'S CANS AND DEBRIS AND STUFF. IT'S VERY UNSIGHTLY. AGAIN, THERE ARE MANY HOUSES WITH A 10 FOOT SETBACK. BY THE TIME YOU PUT A A. C. UNIT AND A WALKWAY, YOU HAVE ONE FOOT TO BUILD A HEDGE WHICH IS UNREALISTIC. AND THE

[01:40:02]

BOARD MEMBER: BUT I WOULD SAY THE ONES THAT WERE AGAINST THE FENCE WERE AGAINST IT GOING ALL THE WAY DOWN THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE BACK CORNER THAT WOULD TAKE THEIR VIEW AWAY. AND WE'RE NOT AGREEING ON THAT. WE'RE JUST SAYING IT HAS TO STOP AT THE BACK CORNER OF THE HOUSE WHICH WON'T AFFECT THEIR VIEW.

BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SEE THROUGH THE HOUSE.

SPEAKER: SOME OF THOSE PEOPLE DIDN'T WANT FENCES AT ALL.

BOARD MEMBER: WELL YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE SOMEBODY ON ALL SIDES.

BUT I'M TRYING BE LOGICAL HERE ON WHAT'S BEST FOR THE COMMUNITY. KITTY, YOU CAN JUMP IN ANY TIME YOU WANT, BECAUSE I'M SURE SHE'S GOT A FEW IDEAS [LAUGHTER] SPEAKER: KITTY SIT CUSS. 111 OCEAN COURSE DRIVE. I GET ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF AGO WHEN CODE ENFORCEMENT DESIGNATED THE LAGOONS AS A DRAINAGE POND WE TALKED ABOUT FENCES THEN.

BECAUSE I DON'T KNOWS THERE PROBABLY 250-300 HOMES IN OUR DISTRICT THAT BORDER ON THE LAGOONS AND THEY WERE CONSIDERING THEM DRAINAGE PONDS. AND THERE USED TO BE AN EXCEPTION FOR DRAINAGE PONDS WHICH IS NOW ELIMINATED. AT THAT TIME THE BOARD'S VIEW WAS THEY DIDN'T WANT TO SEE THE 6 FOOT FENCES IN THE R1A/R1B RIGHT RIGHT NOW WE'RE LIMITED TO FOUR.

I WAS AT THE WORKSHOP IN PONTE VEDRA AND LISTEN TOED THE PEOPLE. ONE OF THE SPEAKERS WAS BOB METCALF WHO WAS ON THIS BOARD FOR 8 YEARS. I THINK THE CHAIRMAN FOR THE MAJORITY OF THAT TIME. AND HE SAID THAT FOUR FOOT FENCE MAXIMUM WAS BECAUSE IT GAVE PEOPLE THE ABILITY TO ENCLOSE THEIR PETS AND ALSO TO HAVE THE REQUIRED 4 FOOT FENCE AROUND THEIR POOL IF THEY HAD A POOL. AND HE SAID THAT WAS THE REASON WHY THE MAXIMUM AT THAT TIME WAS FOUR INSTEAD OF NO FENCING. FENCES ARE VISUAL CLUTTER. AND UNLESS YOU HAVE GUIDELINES TO SAY WHAT KIND OF FENCE AND WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE, WHICH I DON'T THINK THIS BOARD HAS THAT CAPABILITY, THE FIRST FENCE THAT WAS ON HERE IS AN EYESORE. IT'S AN ABSOLUTE EYESORE. AND IT DOES GO FORWARD OF BOTH HOUSES AND IT'S BETWEEN TWO GARAGES. I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU NEED PRIVACY BETWEEN TWO GARAGES. I CAN UNDERSTAND HAVING PRIVACY BETWEEN HOMES WHERE THERE'S BEDROOMS AND LIVING SPACE. BUT I THINK YOU NEED TO BE REALLY CAREFUL AND TAKE IT BACK TO THE COMMUNITY FOR A WORKSHOP. BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S RULES -- TRASH CANS ARE SUPPOSED TOE BE CONCEALED FROM VIEW. I DON'T SEE A LOT OF TRASH CANS ON THE SIDE OF HOUSES. YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE ANY VISIBLE DEBRIS, TRASH, STUFF LIKE THAT. BUT WE DO HAVE TO FIND PLACES FOR ALL THOSE THINGS. AND I JUST DON'T WANT THIS BOARD TO COME TO CONCLUSION THAT WE NEED SIX FOOT FENCES BECAUSE THEY DON'T LOOK GOOD. NO ONE IS GOING TO BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THEY PUT UP. JUST THE WOOD FENCE THAT WAS PUT IN FRONT OF MY NEIGHBORHOOD FIVE YEARS AGO IS ALREADY DETERIORATING OUT IN FRONT OF A1A. AND THAT THAT IS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY AND PART OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. SO IT'S UP TO EACH INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNER TO TAKE CARE OF THAT A1A FRONTAGE FENCE. WHICH IT WILL NEVER BE CONSENSUS BETWEEN THOSE HOMEOWNERS TO DO WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO THOSE FENCES. I JUST WORRY ABOUT THE VISUAL CLUTTER.

I UNDERSTAND THE PRIVACY. MOST PEOPLE HAVE DONE IT THROUGH SHRUBBERY. WE ARE GETTING TO THE POINT A BEVERLY SAID AND BRAD CONCURRED, PEOPLE ARE BUILDING OUT TO THEIR BUILDING RESTRICTION LINES. AND IN R1A AND R1B IT'S 10 FEET AND YOUR AIR CONDITIONING CAN GO OUT FIVE FEET FROM THAT. SO, YOU ARE LIMITED ON THAT SIDE IF YOU DO USE ALL OF THAT SPACE WHICH A LOT OF THE NEW HOMES ARE. BUT WE STILL HAVE A LOT OF EXISTING RESIDENTS HERE AND OLDER STRUCTURES. WHEN I MEAN OLDER, I THINK 20, 30, 40 YEARS, THAT DON'T TAKE UP THE WHOLE PROPERTY

[01:45:05]

ESPECIALLY FOR SOMEONE THAT HAS -- LIKE THE ONE PICTURE YOU SHOWED, I THINK IT WAS GINA'S HOUSE ON -- THAT'S GINA'S HOUSE RIGHT THERE. THE SMALLER ONE. IT'S BEEN THERE FOR, I DON'T KNOW, SINCE THE '50S. SO IT WOULDN'T BE FAIR TO HER TO HAVE ALL THAT FENCING ON EITHER SIDE I DON'T THINK SO. BUT IF YOU CAN GET BOTH PROPERTY OWNERS TO AGREE ON A FENCE, A SIX FOOT FENCE, THAT MIGHT WORK. BUT I'VE TALKED TO PEOPLE WHERE THEY WENT TO WORK ONE DAY AND THEY CAME BACK AND THEIR NEIGHBOR PUT UP A FENCE ON THE PROPERTY LINE THAT HE DIDN'T EVE -- THEY DIDN'T EVEN AGREE UPON. BECAUSE THE PROPERTY LINE IS SHARED BY TWO PEOPLE. IT'S JUST LIKE PUTTING SHRUBS ON A PROPERTY LINE. THERE'S TWO SIDES TO A PROPERTY LINE. AND, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DELINEATION OF A PROPERTY LINE IS, AN INCH, A FOOT, WHATEVER, BUT THERE'S TWO SIDES. SO, YOU HAVE TO -- YOU JUST CAN'T LET ONE PROPERTY OWNER PUT UP A FENCE WITHOUT THE INPUT FROM THE OTHER ONE. I WORRY ABOUT THE CLUTTER.

BOARD MEMBER: NOT ON THE PROPERTY LINE BUT THREE OR FOUR INCHES INSIDE YOUR PROPERTY LIKE YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

IT'S YOUR PROPERTY. YOU CAN'T ERECT OUT THE PROPERTY LINE BECAUSE THAT'S JOINT PROPERTY. BUT MOVE IT IN ON FEW INCHES ON YOUR PROPERTY LINE THEN THAT'S YOUR PROPERTY.

SPEAKER: YES. BUT MOST OF THEM THAT I'VE SEEN ARE RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY LINE PRETTY MUCH. BOARD MEMBER: IF BOTH NEIGHBORS AGREE THAT'S OKAY. BUT ONE NEIGHBOR CAN'T DO IT WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE OTHER NEIGHBOR ON THE PROPERTY LINE.

SPEAKER: BUT IT'S BEEN DONE. AND WOULD GINA HAVE SAY IF THEY PUT IT ON OR -- SO YOU ARE SAYING THEY CAN HAVE THE FENCE BUT IT CAN'T BE ON THE PROPERTY LINE IT CAN BE A COUPLE OF INCHES. BOARD MEMBER: YEAH. WHEN I BUILT MY HOUSE I MADE SURE AND PUT THE BUSHES THREE FEET IN MY PROPERTY LINE SO I WOULDN'T HAVE THE NEIGHBOR COMING OUT AND CUTTING MY HEDGES DOWN. SO, YES IT ATE UP FIVE FEET OF MY PROPERTY BUT I CONTROL THE SHRUB HEDGE NOW.

SPEAKER: BUT THAT HASN'T ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE. THERE'S BEEN INCIDENTS ON SAN JUAN WHERE A NEW HOUSE WAS BUILT AND THEY CUT DOWN HALF OF A 8 FOOT LA GUST RUM HEDGE BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T LIKE IT AND IT AFFECTED THE PEOPLE NEXT TO THEM WITHOUT ANY COMMUNICATION. BUT I'M HERE AS KITTY SIT CUSS. I'M NOT HERE FOR THE PVCA OR PSD. I WORRY ABOUT THE VISUAL CLUTTER. AND I WORRY ABOUT -- I REALLY HOPE THIS GOES BACK TO THE COMMUNITY FOR A WORKSHOP BECAUSE THIS IS GOING TO BE -- THIS IS CHANGING VISUALLY CHANGING OUR COMMUNTY TO START TO LOOK LIKE, YOU KNOW, SOME PARTS OFJACKSONVILLE BEACH. THERE'S A REASON WHY PONTE VEDRA LOOKS SO GOOD AND IT IS THE ZONING RULES IN PLACE FOR SO LONG. AND I JUST DON'T WANT TO MOVE AWAY FROM THAT UNTIL WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT IT ENOUGH. AND FROM WHAT -- FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND ON THE SLIDES, MOST OF THOSE HOUSES THAT BEVERLY SHOWED, THEY'RE ON HOLD, EVERYTHING'S ON HOLD UNTIL THERE'S DISCUSSION WITH THIS BOARD. NO ONE'S REALLY BEING ASKED TO REDUCE THE SIZE OF THE FENCE AT THIS TIME.

>> I THINK THERE ARE STILL COMPLAINTS. THEY'RE STILL ACTIVE PRIDE COMPLAINTS AND WE TRY TO KEEP TRACK OF THEM. THE SITUATION IS THAT, IF YOU TRY TO SELL YOUR PROPERTY AND YOU DON'T DISCLOSE YOU HAVE AN ACTIVE PRIDE COMPLAINT UNDER THE STATUTE THAT'S KIND OF CONSIDERED FRAUD. BECAUSE THERE'S SOMETHING -- THERE'S KIND OF A CLOUD ON THE PROPERTY RIGHT NOW. SO WE HAVE A LOT OF THESE PROPERTIES AND WE DON'T WANT TO ENCOURAGE THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR WHILE THE BOARD IS DOING IT'S KIND OF LEGISLATIVE ANALYSIS OF WHAT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE COMMUNITY. BOARD MEMBER: WELL AGREE TO DO IT RIGHT. I DON'T WANT TO JUST RAM THIS THROUGH WITHOUT A LOT OF THOUGHT. BUT I AM GOING TO PUSH HARD FOR THIS IN BETWEEN TWO HOMES. BECAUSE I BOUGHT A HOUSE ON SAN JUAN YEARS AGO AND IT HAD AN EXISTING SIX OR 7 FOOT FENCE THERE. I'M NOT GOING TO TELL YOU WHICH ONE IT IS BECAUSE I DON'T WANT IT REPORTED [LAUGHTER] MY NEIGHBOR AND I, IT WAS THERE

[01:50:02]

GOLF CARTS, CARS, WATER BARRELS GETTING RAIN OFF THE ROOF, HOSES, FLOWER POTS. I MEAN, I SEE IT EVERY DAY. SO, IF YOU CHOOSE NOT TO LOOK AT THAT AND YOU HAVE TWO NEIGHBORS THAT AGREE, LET'S JUST PUT A MUTUAL WALL IN BETWEEN OUR HOUSE, IT IS A FENCE NOT A WALL, I'M GOING PUSH HARD FOR THAT IN MY OPINION. AND I DON'T WANT TO SEE THE PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAVE THAT THAT IT'S NOT HURTING ANYBODY HAVE TO TEAR IT DOWN WHEN IT'S BEEN THERE 15 AND 20 YEARS AND BOTH NEIGHBORS LIKE IT AND IT'S NOT BERATEDING ANYBODY.

SPEAKER: SO WOULD YOU TAKE THAT TO OTHER CODE INFRACTIONS TOO? IF IT'S NOT BOTHERING ANYBODY AND IT'S BEEN FOR 15 YEARS IT SHOULD BE OKAY? CHAIRMAN: NO I'M TRYING TO CHANGE THE CODE. SPEAKER: I MEAN FOR OTHER THINGS IN THE CODE. BOARD MEMBER: I THINK THAT IS AN FAIR. WHAT YOU ARE SAYING TO SAY IS IF YOU DO THIS YOU ARE OPENING PANDORA'S BOX AND THAT'S NOT FAIR.

SPEAKER: WHAT I AM SAYING IS POSSIBLY JUST KEEP IT AND IF SOMEBODY WANTS IT LET THEM COME IN FRONT OF IT AS A VARIANCE WITH THEIR NEIGHBOR. IF YOU CAN GET BOTH NEIGHBORS UP HERE AND AGREE ON IT AND YOU LIKE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE AND WHAT THEIR PROPOSING AND THEY'RE GOING TO PUT IT -- BECAUSE LIKE PABLO SAID IN THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT SAID. THERE'S NO PERMITTING FOR FENCES. YOU GO OUT AND -- YOU DON'T NEED A PERMIT. SO THE COUNTY IS NOT AWARE WHEN YOU ARE PUTTING A FENCE AND WHEN YOU ARE

NOT. >> MR. CHAIR, AS YOU KNOW WITH THE VARIANCE EVEN WITH THOSE MUTUAL FENCE HEIGHTS THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO IDENTIFY A HARDSHIP AND JUST THE SHEER DESIRE TO PEOPLE. BOARD MEMBER: AND THE COST AND EXPENSE TO DO ALL THAT. I THINK THAT'S ASKING A LOT.

SPEAKER: WELL ITS ASKING A LOT FOR THE COMMUNITY TO CROSS THE BOARD CHANGE IT TO SIX FEET. AND UNLESS YOU GET THAT OVERWHELMING RESPONSE FROM THE COMMUNITY THAT THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT. CHAIRMAN: WE'RE STAYING IN VERY SPECIFIC SPOTS, IN BETWEEN TWO HOUSES.

BOARD MEMBER: AND YOUR STATEMENT THAT IF IT IS A BURDEN TON THE COMMUNITY IS THAT YOUR PERSONAL STATEMENT? YOU SAID YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTING ANY COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION. SO, PLEASE CLARIFY THAT. SPEAKER: I JUST DID. I SAID I'M HERE AS KITTY NOT THE PVCA. BLOM BUT MAKING THE STATEMENT AS IT IS A BURDEN TON THE COMMUNITY. YOU DON'T KNOW THAT.

BOARD MEMBER: I KNOW THAT THE PONTE VEDRA COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION UNDER JANE, IS IT RAWLINS SPEAKER: ROLISON. BOARD MEMBER: TOOK A SURVEY OF ITS MEMBERSHIP ASKING ABOUT FENCES. AND I DON'T HAVE THE DATA AT MY FINGERTIPS. BUT MY RECOLLECTION WAS THAT THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WERE NOT INTERESTED IN HAVING SIX FOOT FENCES. SO I REALIZE THAT ISN'T EVERYBODY WAS IN THE PONTE VEDRA COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION GOT AN EMAIL AND THEY COULD ANSWER THE SURVEY AND GIVE THEIR OPINION. SO I DO INCLUDE THAT AS PART OF MY DECISION MAKING PROCESS IS TO MOST PEOPLE LIKE FENCES BOARD MEMBER: YOU CAN FASHION A QUESTION TO COME OUT WITH ANY RESULT YOU WANT. BOARD MEMBER: DO YOU LIKE SIX FOOT FENCES? NO. BUT DO YOU LIKE A PRIVACY FENCE? THAT'S A DIFFERENT QUESTION. WE DIDN'T ASK THAT QUESTION.

BOARD MEMBER: I TOTALLY AGREE. SAYING YOU DON'T LIKE SIX FOOT FENCES AND THAT'S IT. THAT WAS THE QUESTION? SPEAKER: WE DIDN'T SAY THAT WAS THE QUESTION. Y'ALL THE QUESTION BUT I -- I DON'T RECALL THE QUESTION BUT I KNOW THEY MADE A SURVEY. BOARD MEMBER: I'D HAVE TO BRING IT. OBVIOUSLY, EVEN ON THIS BOARD, THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE HAD SIX FOOT FENCES ON THEIR PROPERTY AND LIKED THEM, ENJOYED THEM AND THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE ON THE BOARD WHO DON'T LIKE SIX FOOT FENCES AND WOULDN'T WANT THEM. AND ONE OF THE ISSUES IN THE COMMUNITY ALWAYS IS HOW TO BALANCE THOSE TWO DIFFERING POINTS OF VIEW. IF YOU HAVE TWO PEOPLE WHO LIKE SIX FOOT FENCES LIVING BESIDE EACH OTHER THAT'S FINE AND DANDY. IF YOU HAVE ONE PERSON WHO DOES LIKE A SIX FOOT AND THE OTHER DOESN'T, IT BECOMES PROBLEMATIC BECAUSE THE PERSON HAS TO DECIDE WHICH NEIGHBOR DO YOU WANT TO, YOU KNOW, AGGRAVATE YOUR NEIGHBOR BY NOT AGREEING TO THE FENCE. YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT ALWAYS SO SIMPLE AS SAYING THERE'S GOING TO BE A CONSENSUS.

[01:55:03]

YOU PUT OUT YOUR SIDE OF THE PROPERTY YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THIS. YOU CAN'T DO IT ON THEIR SIDE.

BOARD MEMBER: THAT'S WHY I WENT BACK TO THE BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE. IF YOU ARE BUILDING AND YOU WANT TO PUT -- YOU WANT A FENCE BECAUSE YOU KNOWS THAT WHAT YOU LIKE, IF YOU PUT IT WITHIN THE BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE, THAT SOLVES THE PROBLEM.

BOARD MEMBER: NO IT DOESN'T. BECAUSE IT BASICALLY DECLARES ANYTHING OUTSIDE THE BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE AS COMMUNITY PROPERTY. BOARD MEMBER: YOU CAN USE IT.

YOU CAN PUT A SWIMMING POOL THERE. YOU CAN HAVE A PATIO THERE. ANYTHING UNDER THREE FEET.

BOARD MEMBER: WELL THAT'S INTERESTING YOU CAN PUT A SWIMMING POOL THERE? BUT YOU GOT TO PUT A BARRIER AROUND THE SWIMMING POOL. BOARD MEMBER: RIGHT. WHICH IS A FOUR FOOT FENCE BOARD MEMBER: I THINK IT IS A LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT RESTRICTION. IF WE CAN SO RESTRICT IT BY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT YOU PUT VERY SPECIFIC CRITERIA ON IT, THEN YOU'VE CREATED A PURPOSE FOR IT. AND YOU CAN MAKE IT CONSISTENT.

I DON'T AGREE WITH YOU RESPECTFULLY. I DISAGREE WITH YOU. THAT IT'S VISUAL CLUTTER. FENCES ARE A COMMON ELEMENT IN ANY COMMUNITY. SAYING IT IS VISUAL CLUTTER AND YOU DON'T WANT IT AT ALL, IT WON'T HOLD UP. IT JUST IS NOT A PLANNING PRINCIPAL THAT IS APPLIED UNIVERSALLY THAT IT IS VISUAL CLUTTER AND YOU JUST DON'T HAVE THEM.

BOARD MEMBER: BUT, TIM, FROM AN ARCHITECT TOURNAMENT STANDPOINT, FENCES IN ARC TOURNAMENT JOURNALS ARE DISCUSSED AS VISUAL CLUTTER BASED ON THE FACT THEY ARE OPAQUE, THEY OBSCURE FEWVIEWS. THAT YOU CAN MAKE FENCES THAT ARE VISUALLY TRANSPARENT. THAT'S ONE REASON WHY THE BLACK FOUR FOOT RAILED FENCE IS SO POPULAR. BECAUSE WHEN YOU LOOK AT A DISTANCE IT'S NON-REFLECTIVE AND, THEREFORE, YOUR EYE PASSES RIGHT THROUGH IT AND YOU CAN SEE THE VISTA THROUGH THE FENCE. IT DOES PROVIDE SAFETY FOR, YOU KNOW, POOLS AND FOR RESTRAINING PETS.

AND TO BRAD'S POINT, IT WOULD NOT OBSCURE THE VIEW OF YOUR NEIGHBORS, LET'S SAY, GARBAGE CANS. BUT IF YOU DID DECIDE TO PLANT A VINE ON THAT FENCE, WHICH WOULD BE VERY NARROW, OR SHRUB, YOU COULD OBSCURE THE VIEW OF THE POTS OR THE RAKES OR THE BROKEN BIKE OR WHATEVER, WHEEL WHEELBARROW, WHATEVER IT IS ON THE OTHER SIDE. THAT'S WHAT I AM TRYING TO COME TO. I REALIZE THERE'S A NEED TO HAVE WHEN YOU HAVE A NEIGHBOR WHO HAS UNSIGHTLY STUFF TO OBSCURE IT.

BOARD MEMBER: YOU CAN DO A 15 FOOT HEDGE. I DON'T HAVE A FENCE SO I'M NOT ARGUING WITH MYSELF

>> THIS IS INTERESTING. YOU ARE ALLOWED TO PUT A 6 FOOT HEDGE

BETWEEN HOUSES >> 10 FOOT. 15 FOOT. WHATEVER YOU WANT. BOARD MEMBER: NO.

BOARD MEMBER: ARE YOU? BOARD MEMBER: YOU GOT TO BE

KIDDING >> THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE COUNTY AND PONTE VEDRA. THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITS HEDGES.

WE CAN TREAT THEM THE SAME AS HAVE THAT RESTRICTION. SO WE DO HAVE TALL HEDGES THAT WE DON'T WHITE AS VIOLATION OF THE FENCE HEIGHT PROVISION. BUT IN THE COUNTY YOU ARE RESTRICTED TO FOUR FEET IN YOUR FRONT YARD FOR A HEAD, WALL OR FENCE.

BOARD MEMBER: SO YOU ARE ALLOWED TO PUT A SIX FOOT HEDGE IN YOUR

SIDE YARD IN PONTE VEDRA? >> YES.

BOARD MEMBER: YOU TELL ME THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SIX FOOT HIGH HEDGE AND SIX FOOT FENCE AS A VISUAL OBSTRUCTION BETWEEN HOUSES. SORRY FOLKS YOU JUST LOST YOUR ARGUMENT.

BOARD MEMBER: JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, I THOUGHT THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WAS COVERED PONTE VEDRA WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THOSE PARTS OF THE PONTE VEDRA ZONING CODE WHICH ARE A LAYER ON TOP. IF THE PONTE VEDRA ZONING CODE IS SILENT ON HEDGES THIN WE LOOK TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

>> THE SPECIFIC PROVISION ON THE FENCE LIMITS, YOU KNOW, FENCES AND SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBES THE, YOU KNOW, THE LANGUAGE IS HEY YOU CAN'T HAVE A SIX FOOT TALL FENCE OR EVERY FENCE IS LIMITED TO FOUR FEET IN ALL OF PONTE VEDRA WITH CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS. IT ONLY APPLIES TO FENCES AND WALLS. BECAUSE THAT'S THE SPECIFIC PROVISION IN PONTE VEDRA AND, YOU KNOW -- BOARD MEMBER: BUT IN THE PONTE VEDRA CODE IT DOESN'T TALK

[02:00:03]

WHAT COULD BE ALLOWED. >> NO. IT'S IN THE SAME SECTION AS FENCES AND WALLS. WE DON'T REGULATE HEDGES EXCEPT FOR WHERE THEY ARE IN TERMS OF HOW FENCES ARE TREATED IN KIND OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. AND WHEN YOU READ THE LDC IN THE PONTE VEDRA CODE TOGETHER, YOU DO HAVE THAT IRRECONCILABLE CONFLICT BETWEEN, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S ALLOWED IN PONTE VEDRA AND WHAT'S ALLOWED IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IN TERMS OF HEDGES. THE LDC, YOU KNOW, REGULATES HEDGES. SURVEILLANCE VIDEO CODE EXPLICITLY HAS CHOSEN NOT TO. BOARD MEMBER: IS SILENT ON IT.

BOARD MEMBER: THEREFORE, SO YOU DO HAVE A VISUAL BARRIER NOW ALLOWED BETWEEN HOUSES. WE'RE JUST TALK ABOUT THE FACT IF YOU ARE ALLOWED TO DO IT WITH A HEDGE WE'RE JUST SIMPLY SAYING OKAY INCLUDE FENCES IN THERE. BOARD MEMBER: NO.

BOARD MEMBER: WHAT ABOUT A SOUND BARRIER. IS THERE A SOUND BARRIER RULE? AS FAR AS A FENCE IS CONCERNED, THAT CAN BE A SOUND BARRIER AS WELL AS A VISUAL BARRIER.

BOARD MEMBER: IS THAT GOOD OR BAD? BOARD MEMBER: WELL IN SOME CASES IT'S VERY GOOD.

BOARD MEMBER: THE AIR CONDITIONER. YEP BOARD MEMBER: SOME CASES IT'S VERY GOOD. FOR EXAMPLE, MY PROPERTY IS AN EMPTY LOT NEXT TO ME AND THE KIDS COME OUT AND THERE FOOTBALL ALL THE TIME. SO I THINK I'M GOING TO PUT UP A FENCE AS A SOUND BARRIER [LAUGHTER] BOARD MEMBER: GOOD POINT. IF IT'S AN EMPTY LOT YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO PUT A FENCE AT ALL USING THE OTHER STANDARD.

BOARD MEMBER: A FOUR FOOT FENCE. BOARD MEMBER: BUT THAT'S NOT GOING TO STOP ANYTHING. BOARD MEMBER: FOR THE SAKE OF THE COUNTY JUST ON THIS BOARD, CAN I SEE HANDS OF THOSE WHO HAVE SOME INTEREST IN A SIX FOOT FENCE JUST ON YOUR SIDE LOT FOR PROTECTION? FIVE OUT OF SIX. OR SIX OUT OF 7.

BOARD MEMBER: YOU ARE TALK JUST WITHIN THE SOMETHING BOARD MEMBER: THE FRONT CORNER TO THE REAR CORNER ONLY.

BOARD MEMBER: NOT THE SETBACK. AGAIN WE'RE NOT VOTING ON ANYTHING THIS IS ALL DISCUSSION. BOARD MEMBER: I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY. WHAT YOU JUST KIND OF VOTED ON WAS THE DISTANCE FOR THE HOUSE ON YOUR PROPERTY. SO, IT'S NOT THE SMALLER OF THE TWO.

ITS BASED ON YOUR HOUSE? I WANTED TO MAKE SURE.

BOARD MEMBER: YES. SPEAKER: OKAY.

BOARD MEMBER: AND, IF YOU ARE DOING A PROPOSAL, LET'S PUT SOME VISUAL REQUIREMENTS. A TWO SIDED FENCE. DO YOU WANT TO DO A LATTICE WORK UP TO TWO FEET OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? NO, JUST A REGULAR TWO SIDED FENCE. BOARD MEMBER: WHAT ABOUT -- IF YOU WANT TO GO THAT FAR THEN WHAT ABOUT COMPOSITION OF THE FENCE. YOU WANT TO ALLOW WOODEN FENCES? BOARD MEMBER: YOU HAVE TO. THEY'RE MORE ATTRACTIVE THAN PLASTIC. BOARD MEMBER: CAN YOU PUT THE

TERM "ADEQUATELY MAINTAINED"? >> I'D HAVE TO DEFINE IT BUT ADEQUATELY MAINTAINED MEANS -- BOARD MEMBER: BECAUSE I AGREE TO THE FACT THAT WOODEN FENCES USUALLY DETERIORATE. AND IT WOULD BE -- THEY HAVE TO BE -- EITHER THE COMPOSITION OR THE MAINTENANCE OF IT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

BECAUSE, OTHERWISE, YOU ARE GETTING BACK TO THE VISUAL

CLUTTER >> I JUST WANT TO MAKE CLEAR THE WAY IT'S GOING BE DRAFTED IS IT'S GOING TO BE AN EXCEPTION TO THE NORMAL RULE. THE NORMAL RULE IS FOUR FEET ACROSS THE BO BOARD. THAT'S THE WAY THE PONTE VEDRA CODE IS WRITTEN. BECAUSE YOU ARE MAKING AN EXCEPTION TO THE NORMAL RULE, YOU CAN PUT IN SOME ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS SUCH AS SIX FOOT TALL FENCE AS LONG AS FENCE IS X.

THAT'S KIND OF LEGALLY DEFENSIBLE AS LONG AS THERE'S A RATIONAL BASIS FOR DOING IT. BOARD MEMBER: VINYL FENCES TO ME LOOK WORSE THAN A WOODEN FENCE. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU START PINNING DOWN YOU'VE GOT TO USE THIS, THAT MATERIAL.

BOARD MEMBER: WHO WOULD WANT A SIX FOOT VINYL FENCE? BOARD MEMBER: YOU GOT PICTURES OF A VINYL FENCE.

BOARD MEMBER: WELL BUT, YOU KNOW, ARTIFICIAL WOOD, THE PROBLEM IS THAT'S PRETTY EXPENSIVE. BUT, AT THE SAME

[02:05:04]

BOARD MEMBER: THE EXAMPLE YOU GAVE, YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE SUBDIVISION RIGHT THERE ON THE EAST SIDE OF A1A.

SPEAKER: YES. BUT AFTER -- BOARD MEMBER: AS SOON AS THAT THING WENT UP I KNEW THAT IT WAS A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE IT LOOKS TERRIBLE. SPEAKER: ALSO AFTER ONE OF THE HEADACHES SOME OF THE FENCING -- HURRICANES SOME OF THE FENCING WAS DAMAGE. WE DON'T HAVE ANY RULES AGAINST THAT DO WE? BECAUSE I REMEMBER ASKING. WE DON'T REALLY HAVE ANYTHING WRITTEN TO MAKE THEM FIX THEIR FENCE. SO, THERE WERE SOME PRETTY UGLY FENCES THERE FOR OVER A YEAR AFTER THE HURRICANE.

BUT THE FENCING IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD WAS -- THEY WERE OFFERED TO GO 8 FEET IF THEY WOULD PROVIDE A LANDSCAPING PLAN. BUT THEY WANTED -- THEY WERE IN A RUSH TO GET SOMETHING UP SO THEY DIDN'T WANT TO COME BACK TO THE BOARD AND GET APPROVED LANDSCAPING. SO THEY QUICKLY PUT UP THAT SIX FOOT FENCE. AS I SAID, IT'S NOT IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. IT'S ON INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY. SO IT'S UP TO WHATEVER BOUGHT THAT LOT TO MAINTAIN THAT. BOARD MEMBER: EVEN PARTS OF IT -- SPEAKER: AND SOME OF IT IS IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. AND I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THE COUNTY -- EVENTUALLY THE COUNTY WILL HAVE TO ADDRESS THAT. BECAUSE IT IS IN COUNTY RIGHT-OF-WAY AT THE CUL-DE-SAC OF ONE OF THE ROADS.

BOARD MEMBER: THEY DON'T HAVE FENCE PERMITS BECAUSE THEY -- IT'S NOT STRUCTURAL. BOARD MEMBER: NO WONDER WE HAVE SO MANY PROBLEMS. BOARD MEMBER: REMIND ME WHY WE CAN'T HAVE FENCE PERMITS FROM A DESIGN STANDPOINT. I MEAN, THAT WOULD SOLVE SOME PROBLEMS. I REMEMBER YOU DIDN'T WANT TO BE ON THE HOBBLING FOR SAYING IT -- HOOK FOR SAYING IT WAS STRUCTURALLY SOUND. MAYBE I REMEMBER INCORRECTLY WHY WE COULDN'T HAVE PERMITS FOR FENCES.

>> SOMETHING TO DO WITH HURRICANE, LIKE THE WIND LOAD OF THE FENCES. BUT THAT'S JUST ME RECALLING A VAGUE CONVERSATION WITH SOMEONE. IT WOULD HAVE TO SHOW UP ON THE CLEARANCE SHEET WITH -- OR PART OF THE CLEARANCE SHEET. THAT JUST GETS ODD.

BOARD MEMBER: I'M SORRY. YOU ARE SAYING THERE IS A WIND LOAD

REQUIREMENT ON THE FENCES? >> NO I DON'T KNOW. THAT'S WHAT I'VE HEARD. THE COUNTY DOESN'T WANT TO SAY OKAY YOUR FENCE IS GOOD IN AN AREA WHERE IT'S KIND OF LIKE A WIND FUNNEL. AND THEN -- BOARD MEMBER: IT WOULD BE INTERESTING IF THAT'S A REQUIREMENT. BECAUSE I KNOW OTHER COUNTIES, HILLSBORO FOR INSTANCE, HAS [INAUDIBLE] AND THEY DO GET HURRICANES. NOT AS CLOSE TO THE OCEAN AS HERE, BUT, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE FENCE PERMITS. IT CAUSED A TREMENDOUS PROBLEM WHEN THEY CREATED IT BACK IN THE '70S OR 80S. AND STARTED REQUIRING ALL THESE FENCE PERMITS BECAUSE OF VIOLATIONS THEY HAD. BUT I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE WIND LOAD AND ALL THAT STUFF. I SINCERELY DOUBT WHETHER THEY HAVE THAT BUILT INTO THEM. BECAUSE THAT'S A WHOLE OTHER BALL GAME

>> THEY'RE NOT SUBJECT TO BUILDING PERMITS AS LONG AS IT'S NOT STRUCTURAL OR REQUIRE A FOOTER OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

BOARD MEMBER: QUESTION. IF WE GO WITH THIS TWO SIDED FENCE AND APPROVE IT, WHAT ABOUT THE EXISTING NON-CONFORMING ONE-SIDED DECORATIVE FENCE? WOULD THEY BE GRAND FATHERED IN OR WOULD THAT PUT THEM IN THE POSITION THEY'RE NON-CONFORMING

>> I THINK THEY WOULD BE NON-CONFORMING AND THEY WOULD HAVE TO MAKE IT A TWO SIDED DECORATIVE FENCE. THE MORE SPECIFIC YOU GET ABOUT DESIGN CRITERIA, UNLESS YOU CARVE IN INTO THE LEGISLATION, WHICH YOU CAN DO, THAT EXISTING SIX FOOT TALL FENCES, WHETHER ONE OR TWO SIDED, BETWEEN TWO EXISTING BUILDINGS, THAT PREDATE THIS CODE PROVISION CAN REMAIN AS A NON-CONFORMING USE. BUT ANY CHANGE TO THE FENCE THEY HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE NEW STANDARD. WE'VE SEEN THAT AND I'VE WRITTEN SIMILAR PROVISIONS TO ACCOUNT FOR OLD, YOU KNOW, OLD THINGS THAT THERE'S A NEW RULE IN PLACE TO KIND OF KEEP THEM IN PLACE UNTIL THEY'RE TOUCHED OR MAINTAINED. IN WHICH CASE YOU

[02:10:03]

BOARD MEMBER: EITHER THAT OR YOU HAVE A TERM THAT--

>> AN ABATEMENT PERIOD. BOARD MEMBER: FIVE YEARS TO

COMPLY. >> RIGHT. YOU CAN ALSO APPLY AN ABATEMENT PERIOD. WE'VE DONE THAT BEFORE AS WELL.

BOARD MEMBER: YEAH. THAT WAY YOU KIND OF PICK A NUMBER OF YEARS THAT YOU KNOW THEY'RE PROBABLY GOING TO LOOK BACK AND IN THAT PERIOD YOU GOT TO REPLACE.

BOARD MEMBER: WHAT OCCURRED TO ME IF THERE WAS A ONE SIDED FENCE AND WE CHANGE THIS AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THE UGLY SIDE AND IT'S COVERED WITH NICE VEGETATION, ARE WE GOING TO BE DUMB ENOUGH TO SAY YOU GOT TO TEAR THAT OFF TO COMPLY.

BOARD MEMBER: NO ONE IS GOING TO SEE THAT IT'S UGLY IF YOU HAVE TO CRAWL THROUGH BUSHES. BOARD MEMBER: BUT ANOTHER EXCEPTION. EXCEPT IN CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ALREADY CREATE THE AMBIENCE OR THE IMPRESSION OF A TWO SIDED -- IT'S ALREADY COVERED. VEGETATION OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT HAS SOLVED THAT PROBLEM. BECAUSE THAT HAS HAPPENED.

WHERE PEOPLE, MY DAUGHTER FOR INSTANCE IN TAMPA HAS A SITUATION WHERE THEY HAVE TO CUT A WHOLE HEDGE IN ORDER TO REPLACE A ROTTEN FENCE. IT'S LIKE THIS IS STUPID.

BOARD MEMBER: THAT MIGHT BE A C CAVEAT TO PUT IN THERE. IF THE VEGETATION CREATE AS NICE SIDE, THAT WOULD SUFFICE AS THE ATTRACTIVE SIDE OF THE FENCE.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER MAJOR FENCING ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION OR SHOULD WE MOVE ON? DOES THE COUNTY HAVE ENOUGH TO GO BY NOW

WITH WHAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT? >> WHAT'S GOING TO BE INTERESTING IS IF YOU ARE -- THIS IS ACTUALLY A PERFECT EXAMPLE. THIS HOUSE IS KIND OF ODDLY BALANCED. SO, I DON'T KNOW IF THE FENCE GOES FROM HERE TO THERE OR HERE TO THERE.

BOARD MEMBER: CAN WE STATE THAT IT'S THE LENGTH OF THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE THAT'S ON THAT PROPERTY SIDE? IT CAN'T BE THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE HOUSE YOU BASE IT ON. YOU BASE IT ON THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE THAT'S CLOSEST TO THE PROPERTY LINE.

BOARD MEMBER: THAT WOULD DO IT RIGHT THERE.

BOARD MEMBER: THE ADJACENT PROPERTY.

BOARD MEMBER: YEAH BECAUSE, OTERWISE, YOU ARE RIGHT, OTHERWISE THEY WOULD EXTEND THE FENCE ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE FRONT OF THE GARAGE ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE.

BOARD MEMBER: THEN IF YOU HAVE SOME HOMES THESE DAYS HAVE OFFSET GARAGES. SO, LET'S SAY IN THE FRONT THEY HAVE THEIR HOUSE THEN THEY HAVE A MINI-GARAGE THAT'S MAYBE 10 FEET AWAY FROM THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE.

BOARD MEMBER: THERE'S SOME ALONG THE BOULEVARD.

BOARD MEMBER: WHY COULDN'T WE CLARIFY THE OTHER EXCEPTION IS THAT SIDE OF THE HOUSE HAS TO BE WITHIN 15 FEET OF--

>> THAT'S WHAT I WAS THINKING. SOMETHING MORE OBJECTIVE THAN JUST LOOKING AT IT FROM THE AERIAL. SO, IF THERE'S A STRUCTURAL COMPONENT OF THE HOUSE BETWEEN 15 FEET THAT'S WHERE YOU CAN -- BOARD MEMBER: AND PART OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE. THAT WAY YOU SOLVE HAVING A SEPARATE GARAGE THAT'S SET COMPLETELY LIKE SOME ALONG THE BOULEVARD.

BOARD MEMBER: THEY CAN BE IN THE MIDDLE.

BOARD MEMBER: SO ANY STRUCTURE CONFIG USE.

BOARD MEMBER: PART OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE.

BOARD MEMBER: THE GARAGE IS A PRIMARY STRUCTURE.

BOARD MEMBER: WELL IF IT'S ATTACHED YEAH. WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SOME OF THE BIG HOUSES ARE LITERALLY DOING SEPARATE GARAGES. THEY'RE USUALLY GOLF CART GARAGES AND THEY'RE SET 10, 15, 20 FEET IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE JUST SITTING OUT THERE. CONNECTED BY SOME BREEZEWAY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. BOARD MEMBER: THEY WANT TO HAVE WINDOWS. THEY DON'T WANT TO HAVE GARAGES.

BOARD MEMBER: SO WE DIDN'T REALLY ADDRESS THE COMPOSITION.

THE MATERIAL. BOARD MEMBER: I THINK THAT -- I HEARD NO VINYL. I LIKE THE EXPENSIVE IDEA BECAUSE THAT'S AT LEAST SOMETHING THAT LASTS LONG AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORRY

ABOUT IT AND IT'S GOING-- >> THE ARTIFICIAL WOOD? BOARD MEMBER: VERY FEW PEOPLE ARE GOING TO WANT TO PUT IT UP.

BOARD MEMBER: ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER STAFF INFORMATION WE NEED TO GO OVER TODAY? ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN? BOARD MEMBER: SO MOVED

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.