[1. PVZVAR 2026-01 Brunner Wall. Request for a Zoning Variance to Section VIII.N.2 of the Ponte Vedra Zoning District Regulations (PVZDR) to allow for a six (6) foot retaining wall in lieu of the required maximum of four (4) feet, specifically along the north and south property lines at 407 Ponte Vedra Blvd.]

FOR BOARD APPROVAL TO AFTER THE PRESENTATIONS SO LET'S START WITH PRESENTATION NUMBER ONE, PVZVAR 202601.

THE BRUNNER WALL. WHILE YOU ARE COMING UP, I WILL START ON THE LEFT. IF YOU HAVE VISITED THE SITE AND

BEEN CONTACTED BY ANYBODY. >> I HAVE NOT.

>> SITE VISIT TODAY. NO OTHER FURTHER CONTACT.

>> SITE VISIT TODAY BUT I DO NOT SPEAK TO ANYONE.

>> I DID A SITE VISIT LAST WEEK. I HAVE NOT SPOKEN TO ANYONE.

>> I HAVE ALSO DONE A SITE VISIT.

I HAVE NOT SPOKEN WITH ANYONE. IF YOU'LL START WITH YOUR NAME

AND ADDRESS PLEASE. >> I AM STEPHANIE GALLAGHER WITH STARR SANFORD DESIGN. MY ADDRESS IS 289 SIENA PALM DRIVE. PONTE VEDRA.

32081. CAN I START? WHERE THE ARCHITECTURE FIRM DESIGNING THIS RESIDENCE FOR THE BRUNNER FAMILY AT. IT'S UNDER CONSTRUCTION.

IT IS NEARING THE END OF CONSTRUCTION.

407 PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD. IT IS NORTH OF A BEACH ACCESS LAW. TO THE NORTH OF THERE, THREE LOTS, THERE'S ANOTHER BEACH ACCESS WALK AT 401 PONTE VEDRA AVENUE THAT WE WERE HERE TWO YEARS AGO FOR A VARIANCE FOR THAT WALL AS WELL. SOME HISTORY ON THE SITE, THERE WAS A 1930S HOUSE ON THIS SITE AND THE ADJACENT SITE.

AT 405. THEY WERE TORN DOWN ABOUT THE SAME TIME AND CONSTRUCTION ON OUR SIDE STARTED A LITTLE CERNER. SOONER THAN THE ONE NEXT DOOR BABY HOUSES HAS TO BE RAISED UP SO THE OLDER HOUSES WERE AT ABOUT 12 FEET IN AVD AND THE NEW HOUSE HAS BEEN RAISED UP TO ABOUT 15 FEET. IT WAS DEMOLISHED I THINK LATE 2024. WE STARTED CONSTRUCTION ABOUT DECEMBER OF 2024. IT'S BEEN UNDER CONSTRUCTION FOR ALMOST TWO YEARS. SO JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF THE PROFILE ON THE SITE, I'M SURE YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE COASTAL LOTS. THEY START AT THE STREET.

NINE, 10 FEET. THEY PEEK UP AND THEN DROP BACK DOWN WITHIN THE NATURAL DUNES SYSTEM.

YOU ARE DEALING WITH A LOT OF ISSUES OF THE SITES, YOU'RE

[00:05:01]

TRYING TO LIFT THE HOUSE UP AND I'LL ADMIT I AM A PLANNER, I LIKE THE LOW WALL SO THE ONE PLACE LORI REALLY HAVE A CONFLICT IS THE PLANNING RELATIONS WANT TO KEEP EVERYTHING LOW. DEP IS CONSTANTLY TRYING TO LIFT EVERYTHING UP. IT'S USUALLY ONE OF THE AREAS WHERE WE DO HAVE SOME ISSUES. IF THERE IS AN ELEVATION CHANGE, IT KIND OF MAKES THE FENCING ON THE WALLS CHALLENGE.

THESE WALLS SERVE MULTIPLE PURPOSES.

THE FILL IS VERY SANDY SO YOU ARE TRYING TO RETAIN THE FILL, PROVIDE DRAINAGE IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, YOU'VE GOT A POOL SO YOU NEED THE 4-FOOT FENCE. YOU ARE TRYING TO SCREEN FOR PRIVACY. TRYING TO BALANCE ALL OF THESE THINGS GETS A LITTLE HARD. MOSTLY BECAUSE WHEN YOUR MINIMUM HEIGHT IS FOR FEET AND YOUR MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS 4 FEET, YOU DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY R WIGGLE ROOM.

THE PLANNER WAS RECOMMENDING WE ARE GOING TO NEED TO APPLY FOR A VARIANCE SO WE DECIDED TO WAIT NOT REALLY KNOWING WHAT WAS GOING ON WITH THE HOUSE NEXT-DOOR.

NOW THAT IT'S BEEN DESIGNED AND WE CAN SEE ITS GRADE, IT'S REALLY JUST GOING TO PROBABLY BE AT THE FRONT OF THE LOT.

IF YOU'VE BEEN OUT THERE, THIS IS THE SITUATION WE RAN INTO WITH THE WALL AT 401 PONTE VEDRA AND I THINK YOU MAY HAVE BEEN ON THE BOARD BACK THEN. IT'S WHERE THE GRADE KIND OF CHANGES. THE ONLY WAY TO QUICKLY MEET IT IS TO STEP IT WHICH DOESN'T LOOK VERY NICE AND ISN'T THIS SAFEST TYPE OF WALL. IF WE CAN HAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY TO GENTLY SLOPING, THERE'S A FEW AREAS THAT WOULD PROBABLY EXCEED 4 FEET AND I'M NOT SURE WE WOULD NEED 6 FEET.

I THINK AT MOST IT MIGHT BE 5.5. SOME VERY SMALL AREAS, PROBABLY CLOSER TO THE FRONT OF THE LOT. THE HOUSE THAT'S UNDER CONSTRUCTION RIGHT NOW, WE WENT AHEAD AND PUT IN THE LOWER PART OF THE RETAINING WALLS TO GET THE-FOOTERS IN.

THEY ARE ANCHORED REALLY DEEPLY, ABOUT TWO AND A HALF FEET.

KIND OF PUT THEM IN. WE ARE STILL GRADING THE SITE.

THE NORTH WALL IS ADJACENT TO THE OTHER HOUSE THAT'S UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND HAVE ALSO NOT GRADED THE SITE.

WE TYPICALLY GO AHEAD AND GET THE BOTTOM PART OF THE WALL IN, DO THE FINAL GRADE AND THEN KIND OF MEASURE FROM THERE.

WE ARE ANTICIPATING A FEW PLACES MIGHT EXCEED 4 FEET.

THE VARIANCE REQUEST, LIKE I SAID, IT'S REALLY JUST ASKING FOR SOME SLIGHT INCREASE IN HEIGHT AND PROPERLY THE FRONT 20, 25 FEET OF THE LOT. IT WILL HELP US RETAIN SOIL ON SITE, PROVIDES DRAINAGE, PRIVACY.

WILL HELP US MEET THE POOL SAFETY ISSUE.

ANOTHER ISSUE IS WHEN THE INSIDE OF THE LOT IS A LITTLE HIGHER, IF YOU'RE KEEPING KIDS OUT FROM THE OUTSIDE BUT IF YOU HAVE KIDS ON THE INSIDE OR PETS INSIDE, THAT INCREASED HEIGHT KIND OF MAKES IT EASIER FOR THEM TO ESCAPE.

WE KIND OF LOOK FOR A BALANCE. WE CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO CREATE A WALL THAT'S TALL AND UNNEIGHBORLY.

THEY ARE HOPING WE CAN DESIGN SOMETHING SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DID THE OTHER PROPERTY, JUST HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF VARIANCE FOR A SLIGHT INCREASE IN A FEW LOCATIONS.

WE DO KNOW SEVERAL NEIGHBORS OUT THERE.

ONE SENT IN EMAIL AND SUPPORT. I THINK ONE NEIGHBOR WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE HEIGHT. TO BE HONEST, I THINK SOMETIMES WHEN THE VARIANCE OF LETTERS GO OUT, THEY SOUND A LOT WORSE THAN THEY ACTUALLY ARE. THE WHOLE WALL IS NOT GOING TO BE 6 FEET. WE WOULD CERTAINLY WORK TO DESIGN SOMETHING THAT AESTHETICALLY PLEASING.

I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN PUT AN OVERHEAD OVER HERE.

WILL THAT WORK? THAT KIND OF SHOWS.

I WENT OUT AND LOOKED AT THE TOPOGRAPHY AGAIN.

I THINK THE ONLY PLACE IT'S GOING TO EXCEED 4 FEET IS UP AT THE STREET WHERE IT'S SLOPING UP THE DRIVEWAY.

I THINK WE'LL PROBABLY BE FINE THE 4 FEET.

IF I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD?

MR. PATTON? >> A QUESTION ON THE NORTH SIDE.

ARE YOU ACTUALLY GOING TO NEED A RETAINING WALL? LOOKS LIKE THE OTHER HOUSE IS ALMOST THE SAME AS ELEVATION AS

YOUR HOUSE. >> IT DOES AT THE BACK.

TO BE HONEST, WE USE THE RETAINING WALLS FOR MULTIPLE REASONS. IT'S FOR DRAINAGE AND SAFETY AND PRIVACY. IT'S KIND OF A SHARED WALL.

WE ARE BUILDING IT, THOUGH. SO THEIR HOUSE AT THE FRONT,

[00:10:10]

THEIR GARAGES A LITTLE LOWER BUT IN THE BACK, THE SPACE IS RAISED

AT THE SAME LEVEL. >> APPEARS TO BE THE SAME ELEVATION. AT THE SOUTH SIDE, ACTUALLY IN THE POOL AREA, ARE YOU GOING TO NEED TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL FENCE

AROUND THE POOL? >> WE ARE HOPING THIS WILL MEET IT. WE KIND OF CHARGE IT AT THE END.

THERE IS GOING TO BE A FENCE ALONG THE BACK.

WE WENT THROUGH DEP PERMITTING FOR THIS SO IT WILL BE INSPECTED

BY DEP AND THE COUNTY. >> OKAY.

BY THE POOL, THE WALL WILL BE 4 FEET HIGH?

>> YES. >> THANK YOU.

>> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD FOR THE APPLICANT? DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM? ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE, I'M GOING TO CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND OPENED IT UP FOR BOARD DISCUSSION.

MR. PATTON? >> IT'S INTERESTING.

THERE'S A COUPLE THINGS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT OVER THE YEARS.

ONE IS THE FACT THAT THEY ARE CONTINUING TO RAISE THE ELEVATION THAT'S REQUIRED FOR OCEANFRONT HOMES.

IT'S GOING TO CREATE PROBLEMS LIKE THIS AND AS YOU POINTED OUT, THE ISSUE, WE DON'T ALLOW ANYTHING HIGHER THAN A 4-FOOT FENCE AND IF YOU HAVE A POOL YOU HAVE TO HAVE A FENCE TALLER THAN 4 FEET. SOMEDAY WE HAVE TO ADDRESS THAT BECAUSE WE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO HAVE THIS COME UP.

>> WITH THE SITE VISIT I MADE TODAY, I THINK WHEN YOU HEAR THE SOUND "6-FOOT RETAINING WALL," IT SOUNDS LARGE BUT WHEN YOU ARE STANDING AT THE STREET VIEW, IT DOESN'T APPEAR 6 FEET AT ALL.

IN FACT, DOESN'T EVEN CHANGE THE SIGHT LINE DOWN TOWARDS THE BEACH BECAUSE THE HEIGHT OF THE WALL IS ALREADY HIGHER IN THE MIDDLE PART. WHEN YOU LEAVE IT AT THE HEIGHT THEY HAVE IT, MEANING THAT FOR FOOT, IT BECOMES A SAFETY ISSUE BECAUSE THERE'S ONLY A SMALL GAP FROM THE BOTTOM OF THEIR PROPERTY ELEVATION. SO A CHILD, A DOG COULD FALL OFF OF IT SO EASILY. I WOULD LEAN TOWARDS OF PROVING THIS. I WOULD LEAN TOWARDS IMPROVING

THIS. >> DURING YOUR PRESENTATION, SORRY, I WILL LET YOU SIT DOWN AND THEN COME BACK UP.

IF I HEARD IT CORRECTLY, YOU ACTUALLY ONLY NEED THE EXTRA VARIANC FOR THE FRONT 22 AND A HALF FEET?

>> I THINK SO. I MEASURED IT ANYWHERE FROM 20 TO 30 FEET. WE CAN WORK WITH THAT SO IF YOU WANTED TO PUT A CONDITION THAT THE FIRST 25 FEET OF THE WALL AND MAY BE THE LAST 10 FEET. LIKE I SAID, IT'S -- THAT'S WHAT WE ARE ANTICIPATING. TO BE HONEST --

>> SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 25 AND 30 FEET AND THEN THE LATTER

10 FEET. >> LAST 10 FEET I THINK.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'M NOT SURE HOW TO CODIFY THAT EXACTLY. BUT I LIKE THE IDEA OF NOT GIVING A BLANK CHECK, NOT SO MUCH FOR THIS ONE, BECAUSE IT'S VERY CLEAR. BUT CERTAINLY MORE DIRECTION TO THE FUTURE BEING ABLE TO EXPLAIN, HERE'S WHAT WE DID AND HERE'S WHY WE DO IT. I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT CAVEAT THAT WE ARE APPROVING THIS VARIANCE FOR THE FRONT, CALL 83.

CALL IT 30 FEET AND THE BACK 10 FEET WHICH IS WHAT IS NEEDED.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? DOES SOMEBODY WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? DO I HAVE TO MAKE THE MOTION?

MARK? >> TO MOVE.

THE QUESTION. >> I HEAR A MOTION.

WE NEED TO CLARIFY IT? >> THROUGH THE CHAIR, I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO MOVE TO APPROVE THE SIGNS OF FACTS THAT YOU'RE ADDING A CONDITION REGARDING LIMITING THE REQUEST TO THE FRONT 30 FEET IN THE REAR 10 FEET.

IS THAT SPECIFIC? I SEE THE GENTLEMAN SHAKING THEIR HEADS. IS THAT LIMITED TO A SIDE?

>> THAT WOULD BE ON EACH SIDE. >> SO YOU'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND MAKE YOUR MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE NECESSARY FINDINGS OF FACT, ADDING THE CONDITION THAT IT'S APPLICABLE TO THE FRONT 30 FEET, NOT TO EXCEED THE FRONT 30 FEET IN THE REAR 10 FEET ON

EACH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. >> EXACTLY 30 FEET AND 10 FEET?

[00:15:05]

A PERCENTAGE? I DON'T KNOW.

IF IT'S 31 FEET, I WOULD HATE TO GET TROUBLE.

>> THAT'S WHY I WENT WITH 30. SHE SAID 22.5 AND THEN 25 SO I SAID 30 TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T HAVE TO COME BACK.

IS THE 10 FEET IN THE REAR SUFFICIENT?

>> I'LL AGREE. >> WAS THAT A SECOND?

>> WE STILL NEED A SECOND. >> SECOND.

>> THE MOTION CARRIES. 6-0.

[Public comment]

FORGIVE ME. I SHOULD HAVE ASKED IF THERE WERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS REGARDING ANY ITEMS THAT ARE NOT ON THE AGENDA TODAY? IF WE HAVE ANYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON AN ITEM THAT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA, SORRY.

I SHOULD HAVE SAID SOMETHING EARLIER.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. 111 OCEAN COURSE DRIVE.

I AM HERE AS CHAIRMAN OF THE PONTE VEDRA SERVICES DISTRICT TO TALK ABOUT SOMETHING THAT OUR BOARD DISCUSSED IN OUR LAST MEETING. I WAS APPROVED TO COME HERE FROM THE BOARD TO DISCUSS THE SIZE OF CAMPAIGN SIGNS IN THE PONTE VEDRA ZONING DISTRICT. WE HAVE AN ELECTION YEAR.

SO I WENT TO REVIEW THE SIGNS AND THEIR SIZES.

IN THE PONTE VEDRA ZONING DISTRICT, THEY CAN BE 12 SQUARE FEET. RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL.

IN THE REST OF THE COUNTY, THEY CAN ONLY BE 6 FEET IN RESIDENTIAL AND 32 AND COMMERCIAL.

SO I'M HERE TO ASK THE BOARD TO PUT THIS ON THEIR AGENDA FOR THE NEXT TIME YOU MEET AND WE CAN LOOK AT THE 12 SQUARE FEET, ONE PER CANDIDATE, ON A RESIDENTIAL LOT AND EVEN THOUGH THAT'S NOT COMMONLY DONE, AND THEY COMMONLY USE THE 24 BY 18 SQUARE-FOOT SIGN SIZE. IF YOU LIKE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS AS A BOARD AND A COMMUNITY AND GET IT DOWN. ALL OUR OTHER SIGNS IN THE COMMUNITY ARE AT ONE SQUAR SQUARE-FOOT.

THERE IS NOTHING THAT THIS, 12 TIMES BIGGER THAN THAT.

IT'S NOT A COMMENT. SOMEBODY'S KNOCKING TO PUT THAT MUCH MONEY TO PUT IT BUT IT CAN BE DONE.

AS I SAID, IN THE COUNTY ITSELF EXCEPT FOR ST. AUGUSTINE BEACH AND THE CITY OF SEEN AUGUSTINE, YOU CAN HAVE A 6-FOOT SQUARE SIGN FOR A CANDIDATE. I STILL FEEL LIKE THAT'S NOT SOMETHING, IT'S STILL SIX TIMES BIGGER THAN ANY OTHER SIGN IN OUR COMMUNITY. SO I JUST WANTED TO BRING UP TO YOUR ATTENTION. SECTION 10, UNDER E, EXEMPT SIGNS. THAT'S WHERE CAMPAIGN SIGNS ARE

ADDRESSED FOR THE ZONING BOARD. >> A QUESTION FOR MR. GREENE.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION. THE LAST MAJOR CAMPAIGN WE HAD, WAS THERE A LOCATION OR RESIDENCE OR COMMERCIAL PROPERTY

THAT HAVE THESE SIGNS? >> THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES HAVE THEM. THE ACTUAL -- AT ONE POINT NOT IN THE LAST CYCLE BUT AT ONE POINT A RESIDENT, RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ON THE 400 BLOCK OF A1 A NORTH DID HAVE A LARGER SIGN. THEN THERE WAS ONE ON PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD. IT'S NOT A COMMON PRACTICE MODIFICATION GET AHEAD OF THIS. AND I DON'T THINK IT'S EVER BEEN DISCUSSED IN HERE. TO REMIND THE BOARD A LOT OF YOU WERE HERE. MAYBE JOHN WAS HERE.

BUT BACK WHEN PAUL WAS HERE, BEFORE COVA, WE WERE ADDRESSING SIGNS AT THAT TIME TRYING TO MAKE A ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL.

AND THEN WITH COVID AND PAOLO LEAVING, IT NEVER WAS BROUGHT UP AGAIN. IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT HASN'T BEEN BROUGHT UP TO THE BOARD BEFORE BUT IT'S BEEN A WHILE AND THIS IS JUST A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING THAT'S KIND OF OUT

OF THE ORDINARY. >> THANK YOU.

>> HOW MANY RESIDENTS HAVE BROUGHT THIS ISSUE UP AND REQUESTED THAT THIS CHANGE BE MADE?

>> NO ONE HAS BROUGHT IT OUT. I BROUGHT IT UP TO OUR MSD BOARD AT OUR LAST MEETING AND THOUGHT THAT IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO BRING

IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD. >> ALSO WE'VE HAD ISSUES WITH

MULTIPLE SIGNS AND YARNS, RIGHT? >> WELL, TO MULTIPLE CANDIDATE SIGNS? YOU CAN HAVE ONE PER CANDIDATE, ACCORDING TO OUR ZONING REGULATIONS.

SO YES, IN THIS ELECTION CYCLE, YOU HAVE TWO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND YOU ALSO HAVE ACTUALLY A HANDFUL OF MSD SEATS

[00:20:03]

OPEN. SO YOU COULD HAVE MULTIPLE -- THE REGULATION ADDRESSES ONE PER CANDIDATE.

>> THANK YOU. >> THAT REGULATION ALLOWS 12-FOOT PER CANDIDATE? IN THEORY MY YARD COULD JUST BE

A GIANT BILLBOARD. >> THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN TODAY, YES. THANK YOU.

>> IS THERE ANY FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE

[2. PVZVAR 2026-02 945 Ponte Vedra Blvd. Request for a Zoning Variance to Section VIII.D of the Ponte Vedra Zoning District Regulations (PVZDR) to allow for a home to be constructed seaward of the Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) on a lot that does not have a platted Building Restriction Line (BRL), specifically located at 945 Ponte Vedra Blvd.]

AGENDA? HEARING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THAT AND WE WILL MOVE ON TO PVZVAR 2026 -- 02, THE SECOND ITEM.

MR. SOLOMON. I WILL START AGAIN.

IF YOU WOULD SAY IF YOU VISITED THE SITE AND HAD CONTACT.

>> I HAVE NOT VISITED THE SITE. >> SAME.

>> I DID A SITE VISIT TODAY. NO FURTHER COMMUNICATION.

>> I HAVE NOT VISITED THE SITE. I HAVE NOT SPOKEN TO ANYONE.

>> TWO AND A HALF YEARS AGO I ROAMED THE SITE IN GREAT DETAIL I HAVE NOT BEEN BACK SINCE BUT I DRIVE PAST IT FREQUENTLY.

>> I HAVE ALSO NOT SPOKEN WITH ANYONE.

I HAVE DRIVEN PAST THE SITE. >> GOOD AFTERNOON MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. MY NAME IS KEVIN SOLOMON WITH KTS ARCHITECTS. I LIVE AT 6784 WILLIAM DRIVE IN ST. JOHN'S. I AM THE ARCHITECT OF THE PROJECT AND I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY.

THIS PROJECT IS A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 945 PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD. WE ARE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 8 DOT 30 OF THE PONTE VEDRA ZONING ORDINANCE WITH DICTATES OCEANFRONT PROPERTY SHOULD USE THE CCC L AS THE PROPERTY RESTRICTION. IT WOULD RELOCATE THE OCEANSIDE BUILDING RESTRICTION LIGHT TURQUOISE NINE TO 40 FEET EAST OF THE CCC L. THIS WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED OF OVER YEARS AGO BY THE BOARD FOR THIS VARIANCE.

EXPIRED ON GENERATE OF THIS YEAR.

WE WENT IN FOR A CLEARANCE SHEET ON JANUARY 6TH OF THIS YEAR SO WE JUST MISSED IT. I'M HERE AGAIN TODAY TO KIND OF PRESENT WHAT WAS ALREADY APPROVED.

WE ALSO HAVE A DEP PERMIT FOR THIS PROJECT WHICH WAS APPROVED, LOCATING IT 40 FEET EAST OF THE CCCL.

APPROVED DECEMBER 16, 2025. BUT TO GIVE A LITTLE MORE HISTORY OF THIS PROJECT, PRIOR TO HURRICANE MATTHEW GOING BACK ALL THE WAY TO 2016, THERE WAS A HOUSE ON THE LOT THAT WAS APPROXIMATELY 89.5 FEET EAST OF THE CCCL.

FROM DAMAGE TO THAT STORM, THE HOUSE WAS TAKEN DOWN SHORTLY AFTER AND IT LEFT BEHIND IS NATURAL BUILDING PAD CLEAR OF TREES, DISTURBED SOIL, IT WAS A SPOT FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.

THIS IS THAT LOT TODAY. THIS IS THE CURRENT VIEW AFTER THE BEACH DUNE EARLY NOURISHMENT PROJECT COMPLETED IN 2024 WHICH ADDED APPROXIMATELY 100 FEET OF NEW DUNE.

THE REQUEST TO LOCATE THE DRL 4S PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FOR THE VARIANCE TO THE NORTH AT 955 AND 2022.

I'M NOT SURE IF THAT'S STILL APPLICABLE.

BUT IT WAS APPROVED FOR THIS SITE TWO YEARS AGO.

ON THIS ALSO THE ELEVATION, THE 1792, THE LEVEL BUILDING PAD RIGHT NOW AS IT IS IS 17.5 FEET SO I AM ADDING JUST SOME GRADE BASED ON WHAT IS ALLOWED BY CODE FOR DRIVEWAYS AND DRAINAGE.

AS OPPOSED TO WHAT'S NORTH, THE ELEVATION IS 20 FEET.

SOUTH AT 941, 24.5 FEET. THESE NEXT, THIS EXHIBIT 3A3B, 3C, WHAT WOULD BE LIKE IF WE WERE TO PUT THIS HOUSE BEHIND LANDLORD OF THE CCCL. IN USING THE INTEGRATED AVERAGE, THE BUILDING PAD GRADE WOULD BE 15.33 FEET.

IT'S APPROXIMATELY 2.5 FEET LOWER THAN THE NATURAL BUILDING PAD TO THE EAST AS WELL AS 4.5 FEET LOWER THAN THE GRADE TO THE SOUTH AND ABOUT 10 FEET LOWER THAN THE GRADE TO THE NORTH. WHAT ALSO IS MORE, IN MY

[00:25:04]

OPINION, LITTLE MORE IMPORTANT IS CITING THAT IN THIS LOCATION, YOU WOULD BE REMOVING 43% OF THE CANOPY TREES THAT ARE LOCATED IN THAT AREA. SO, YEAH.

SO, AND THAT OLD-GROWTH IS WHAT IS PREVALENT IN THAT AREA OF PONTE VEDRA AND THAT'S SOMETHING I WANT TO KIND OF PRESERVE.

AND THESE ARE THE SECTIONS SHOWING IF IT WE DID DO IT BACK BEHIND PER CODE, THIS HATCHED AREA, THESE AREAS HERE ARE WHERE ALL OF THAT OLD-GROWTH IS. WE ARE ESSENTIALLY PLACING THAT WHOLE STRUCTURE IN THAT AREA. SO THOSE TREES -- IT WOULD NOT BE GOOD IN MY OPINION.

SO FOR, 4B, FORESEE, THIS IS PUTTING IT WHERE I AM REQU REQUESTING, 40 FEET EAST OF THE CCCL.

THE NATURAL BUILDING PAD WHERE IT'S BEEN DISTURBED AND TREES CLEARED. IDA THIS TREE SURVEY SHOWS THAT WE WOULD ONLY BE REMOVING 1% OF THE EXISTING CANOPY TREES BY STATING IT HERE. AND THIS ALSO SHOWS THE SITE SECTIONS WITH IT MOVED 40 FEET. WE ARE KIND OF LIMITED BY 1% OF WHAT WE ARE REMOVING IN THAT AREA.

SO THESE ARE JUST KIND OF IMAGES OF THE SITE.

THESE IMAGES RELAY DEMONSTRATES THE AMOUNT OF TREES IN THAT AREA, KIND OF CLEARING WHERE THE NATURAL BUILDING PAD IS.

THIS IS LOOKING LEFT AND RIGHT, THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY.

THIS IS LOCATING BACK DOWN IN THE CANOPY AREA.

ONCE YOU GET TO THIS SITE, IT'S CLEAR OF TREES.

IT'S NATURAL FOR THAT AREA. AND YOU SEE THE NICE DUNE RENOURISHMENT. TO SUM UP, WE ARE REQUESTING THAT THE BUILDING RESTRICTION LINES THE RELOCATED 40 FEET EAST OF THE CCCL. THIS IS EQUAL TO THE BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE APPROVED ON THIS PROPERTY BEFORE IN THE PREVIOUS VARIANCE AS WELL AS A PROPERTY AT 955 PONTE VEDRA.

IT WOULD LOCATE THE HOUSE ON EXISTING DISTURBED LAND LEFT OVER WHICH REQUIRES NO ADDITIONAL VARIANCES.

IT WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THIS SITE BY RETAINING ALL THAT 1% OF THE CANOPY TREES.

IT WOULD BE LOCATED WITHIN THE DP STANDARD FOR PROJECTS.

THE CCCL LINE DICTATED BY THE FACT THAT WE HAVE THE PERMIT FOR THIS PROJECT. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH GRADE OPENING UP FOR QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD. I WANT YOU TO REPEAT THE DELTA FOR ME ONE MORE TIME. IF IT WAS LOCATED BEHIND THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION LINE VERSUS NOW, THE PROPOSED VARIANCE, YOU REMOVE 1% OF CANOPY TREES. BUT IF IT IS PLACED BEHIND THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION LINE, THE TOTAL CANOPY TREES REMOVAL WAS?

>> 43%. >> IT'S A 42% REDUCTION IN

CANOPY TREE DESTRUCTION. >> CORRECT.

>> MR. GREENE.% >> YEAH, I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. I VOTED YES TO APPROVE THIS THE FIRST TIME BASED UPON THAT SPECIFIC FACT OF THE CANOPY TREES. I ACTUALLY WROTE TREES AND VEGETATION WHEN I FIRST GOT THIS REPORT SO I REMEMBER IT.

I WILL VOTE YES AGAIN. >> MR. PATTON.

>> EFFECTIVE, THIS IS THE SAME LOCATION AS YOU PROPOSED TO AND A HALF YEARS AGO? THE QUESTION FOR STAFF, REMIND US AS TO HOW THE COASTAL SETBACK LINE WAS ESTABLISHED.

IT'S KIND OF ARBITRARY IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY.

>> THREW THE CHAIR, I MAY NOT BE THE BEST PERSON TO SPEAK ON HOW THEY COASTAL CONSTRUCTION LINE WAS ESTABLISH BUT IT'S DONE BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION.

IT HAS TO DO WITH PRESERVING PROPERTY ON THE EASTERN SEABOARD. I DON'T HAVE MUCH MORE BACK STORY ABOUT IT BEING ARBITRARY. I SORT OF FEEL THAT THERE WAS PROBABLY SOME THOUGHT PUT INTO IT.

>> IT'S BEEN CHANGED A COUPLE TIMES.

QUESTION FOR THE COUNTY ATTORNEY.

WE HAVE ANY LIABILITY AT ALL BY APPROVING THIS AND THEY BIG HURRICANE COMES AND WASHES THE WHOLE BEACH AWAY? DO WE HAVE ANY LIABILITY, BOARD OR COUNTY?

[00:30:04]

>> WE DO NOT. >> THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT.

THANK YOU. I'M DONE.

>> DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER FURTHER COMMENT FROM THE BOARD?

>> MY QUESTION IS, TWO YEARS AGO, WE WERE ALL HERE.

THE PERMIT EXPIRED. IS THAT HOUSE READY TO BE BUILT

NOW? >> IT IS.

THIS IS A BIG PROJECT. IT'S A BIG HOME FOR THEM.

WE WENT THROUGH, THE LAST TWO YEARS OF DUE DILIGENCE ON GETTING THE RIGHT CONTRACTORS, GETTING THE RIGHT DESIGN TEAM, INTERIOR DESIGNERS. AND THEY DEP PERMIT TAKES SOME TIME IN THAT PROCESS. AND SO WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME GETTING THE TEAM TOGETHER. WE ARE READY TO GO.

WE HAVE ALREADY CEMENTED FOR THE CLEARANCE PERMIT TO GET THAT PROCESS MOVING. WE ARE READY.

THIS IS THE LAST HURDLE TO JUMP. >> SORRY.

ANNA WAS NEXT. >> I HAVE THE SAME QUESTION YOU DID EARLIER. I LOOKED UP THE COASTAL CONSTRUCTION CONTROL LINE AND IT SAYS THE CCCL IS NOT A LIMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF STRUCTURES AS A SETBACK LINE BUT IT'S A JURISDICTIONAL AREA WHERE SPECIAL SITTING IN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS ARE NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE BEACH, THE DUNE SYSTEM, AS WELL AS STRUCTURES AROUND IT.

IT'S CHANGED BASED ON THE 100 YEAR STORM EVENTS.

WHEN THEY REDO THAT, THE REDO IT.

IT'S NOT A CONSTRUCTION LIMIT OR SETBACK.

>> MARK? >> IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE AS FAR AS WANTING TO PRESERVE THE TREES.

WHAT HAPPENS IF, ONCE THE HOMEOWNERS PASS THE HOUSE ONTO ITS NEXT OWNER, THAT THEY WON'T FIND THOSE TREES TO BE AN OBSTACLE AND WANT TO CLEAR THEM OUT? WHAT CONTROLS DO WE HAVE OVER THAT HAPPENING?

>> MAY BE A JACOB QUESTION MIGHT BE THE RIGHT DIRECTION.

>> CAN YOU REPEAT THAT QUESTION? IF THIS PROPERTY IS SOLD IN THE FUTURE? WHEN THE BOARD GRANTS A VARIANCE, THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE PERMANENT STRUCTURE, THAT VARIANCE IS TRANSFERABLE AND FOLLOWS THE PROPERTY.

>> LET ME SEE IF I CAN RESTATE IT? IF THE NEXT HOMEOWNER CAME IN WITH A CHAINSAW AND CUT DOWN EVERY TREE ON THE PROPERTY, THAT WOULD BE NOTHING WE COULD DO ABOUT IT? WOULD THAT BE AN AFFIRMATIVE

STATEMENT? >> WITHIN REASON, I GUESS.

>> YOU HAVE DONE WELL ENOUGH TO CONFUSE ME ON THAT ONE.

I CAN READ DIRECTLY FROM THE FINAL ORDER THAT THIS VARIANCE WILL BE TRANSFERABLE AND APPLIED TO THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN

SUBMITTED FOR THIS VARIANCE. >> IT'S NOT ADDRESSED, IS IT?

>> I WILL GIVE YOU MY EXPE EXPERIENCE.

BECAUSE YOU CAN'T BE TOO RESTRICTIVE, NOT FROM THE SIDE OF THE HOMEOWNER. IF A TREE FALLS OR IF SOMETHING DIES, TYPICALLY WHEN GIVEN A VARIANCE FOR TREES, THEY ARE GOING TO INTEGRATE IT INTO THE LANDSCAPE.

THEY ARE STILL GOING TO DO SOME CLEARING AND THAT WILL BE ON THEIR SITE PLAN BUT THAT WILL BE BETWEEN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT AND THE CITY, EXCUSE ME, THE COUNTY. OUR ONLY JURISDICTION I GUESS IS PROBABLY THE RIGHT WORD FOR THIS, IS JUST THE HOUSE LOCATION. WE WOULD BE MAKING THIS RECOMMENDATION BASED ON THE TREES AND THEY WILL CERTAINLY BE SENSITIVE TO THAT. BUT THIS DOESN'T GIVE US ANY

CONTROL OR TIEBACK. >> BUT IN 50 YEARS WHEN THE QUESTION REALLY COMES UP OR WHENEVER, THIS GROUP MIGHT HAVE MORE OR LESS AUTHORITY, IS THAT POSSIBLE?

>> AGAIN, WE ARE GETTING A LITTLE HYPOTHETICAL I THINK.

THIS APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR SETBACK RELIEF FOR THEIR BEACHFRONT HOME. TO DECIDE ON.

IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT A FUTURE BOARD MAY DECIDE ON ON THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY, THAT WILL CERTAINLY BE UP TO THAT BOARD IF IT COMES IN FRONT OF THEM.

AND ALL THE DIFFERENT SIGHTINGS AND CONFIGURATIONS OF THE

PROPERTY AT THAT TIME. >> DO WE HAVE ANY FURTHER COMMENT FROM THE BOARD? SORRY, JOHN.

>> FROM A PRACTICAL POINT OF VIEW, I THINK ANY FUTURE HOMEOWNER WOULD WANT TO KEEP AS MUCH SEPARATION FROM THEMSELVES AND PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD AS POSSIBLE, SO IF ANYTHING THEY MIGHT ADD VEGETATION. I CAN'T WORRY ABOUT IT.

[00:35:07]

[INDISTINCT] >> IT DOES ANYBODY WANT TO MAKE A MOTION OR IS THERE FURTHER COMMENT? IS THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT, THANK YOU, PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS VARIANCE? HEARING NONE, I'M GOING TO CLOSER TO PUBLIC COMMENT AND ASKED FOR A MOTION.

>> MR. CHAIR, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE PVZVAR 2026-2.

REQUEST FOR ZONING VARIANCE OF THE ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS TO ALLOWED THE HOME TO BE CONSTRUCTED.

CCL LINE ON A LOT THAT DOES NOT HAVE A PLATTED BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE. FIVE CONDITIONS AS LISTED IN THE

STAFF REPORT. >> SECOND.

>> OPEN FOR VOTE. THE VOTE CARRIES.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> THANK YOU.

[3. PVZVAR 2026-03 Burch Residence. Request for a Zoning Variance to Section III.B.1 of the Ponte Vedra Zoning District Regulations (PVZDR) to allow for a reduction in both Side Yard setbacks from the required ten (10) feet to seven and a half (7.5) feet in R-1-B zoning to accommodate construction of a single-family home, specifically located at 560 Ponte Vedra Blvd.]

UP NEXT, THE THIRD ITEM ON THE LIST.

PVZVAR 2026-03, THE BIRCH RESIDENCE.

IF YOU HAVE VISITED THE SITE AND THEN CONTACTED BY ANYBODY.

>> APPLICANT. >> I HAVE VISITED THE SITE.

I DO IT DAILY. AND I HAVE SPOKEN TO THE

APPLICANT. >> I DID A SITE VISIT AND SPOKE

WITH THE APPLICANT. >> IN DECEMBER I SPOKE WITH THE APPLICANT AND VISITED THE SITE MANY TIMES.

I DRIVE PAST IT ALL THE TIME. >> I ALSO SPOKE WITH THE APPLICANT BACK IN DECEMBER AND HAVE VISITED THE SITE.

RECEIVED AN EMAIL EARLIER THIS WEEK.

GO AHEAD. >> THANK YOU, BOY.

MY NAME IS DAVID BURCH, I AM THE OWNER OF WHAT IS THE NEW ADDRESS OF 560 PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD. MY REQUEST IS A RELIEF FROM THE 10-FOOT SIDE YARD SET SETBACK VARIANCE.

WE WOULD CREATE A BUILDING ENVELOPE OR WITH FROM 50 TO 55 FEET. I'M HOPEFUL THIS IS A STRAIGHTFORWARD VARIANCE REQUEST.

THE SITUATION AT THE LOT IS ONE THAT CREATE AN UNDUE HARDSHIP WITH THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE CODE.

THIS LOT WAS PLATTED IN 1941 AND THE ORIGINAL PLAT OF THIS PART OF PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD, I AM NOT SURE WHO THE ORIGINAL OWNER WAS BUT I BELIEVE THAT THE TWO LOTS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN OWNED IN ONE OWNER. THE -- SOUTH, THE ADJACENT LOT WHICH HAS A SMALL CONCRETE BLOCK HOUSE ON IT, HAS BEEN THERE FOREVER. THE HOUSE, THEY LAUGHED THAT I PURCHASED, TO MY KNOWLEDGE HAS NEVER BEEN DEVELOPED OR IF IT HAS, IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME. THE 70-FOOT LOT IS NONCONFORMING TO THIS BASIC ZONING. IN FACT, THIS LOT IS THE FIRST, OR MAY BE THE SECOND FROM THE NORTH OF WHERE THE 70-FOOT LOTS WERE PLATTED ON PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD.

MAYBE ONE LOT NORTH, WHICH DR. BOB'S HOUSE WHICH WE SEE IN THE PICTURE HERE, I BELIEVE THAT MIGHT BE A 70-FOOT LOT WHICH HAS BEEN COMBINED FOR ANOTHER LOT TO BUILD A LARGER HOUSE.

EVERYTHING NORTH OF THAT IS 100 FEET, MINIMUM WIDTH ALLOWED IN R-1-B. IT'S A NONCONFORMING LOT.

IF I WERE TO TRY TO CREATE THIS TODAY I WOULD HAVE TO ASK FOR A LOT THAT IS 30-FOOT NARROWER, INCREASING DENSITY.

YOU DON'T WANT THAT. IT'S GRANDFATHERED INTO THE OLD BLACK. BUT BECAUSE OF THE LOTS NARROWNESS, EFFECTIVELY THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE TEMPLATE SENT BACK CREATES A DISPROPO DISPROPORTIONATE -- ARCHITECTURE L IT MAKES IT -- THE SIDE GARAGE, PROPER AREA FOR THE BOULEVARD AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN GENERAL.

I'M ASKING FOR WHAT I HOPE IS THE MINIMUM AMOUNT NEEDED.

I HAVE TALKED WITH MY ARCHITECT. THEY HAVE DONE A DOZEN OR MORE

[00:40:07]

HOUSES ON THE BOULEVARD. THEY ARE VERY EXPERIENCED.

THE HOUSE THAT WE ARE DESIGNING IS GOING TO BE BEAUTIFUL AND IT'S GOING TO SIT WELL WITH YOU IMMEDIATE VICINITY.

IT'S GOING TO RAISE THE PROPERTY VALUES, I BELIEVE.

BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE TASTEFUL.

IT'S GOING TO BE DESIGNED BY A WORLD-CLASS ARCHITECT.

IT'S GOING TO BE MINIMALLY INVASIVE INTO THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS. I RESPECT THE NEIGHBORS WHO WOULD PREFER PROBABLY NOTHING TO BE BUILT HERE.

IF I LIVED NEXT DOOR AND MY KIDS COULD PLAY OR GRANDKIDS CAN PLAY, I UNDERSTAND. OR I GUESS IN THE ABSTRACT IN A VACUUM IF YOU SAID SOMEONE'S GOING TO BUILD YOUR HOUSE TOO AND I HAVE FOOT CLOSER TO YOURS, DO YOU WANT THAT OR NOT, I WOULD PROBABLY SAY NO TOO. I UNDERSTAND THE FEELING THAT IT'S A MATTER OF PROPERTY RIGHTS FOR ME AND THE CODES REQUIREMENTS FOR WHAT HAPPENS IF THERE IS A HARDSHIP CAUSED BY THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE CODE.

LET ME CLICK THROUGH MY PRESENTATION HERE.

IN EFFECT, LOOKING AT IT NUMERICALLY, THE CODE RESTRICTS MY BUILDING AREA FROM NORTH TO SOUTH, RIGHT TO LEFT ON THE SITE, BY ABOUT 37% MORE THAN IS INTENDED BY R-1-B.

R-1-B HAS A 10-FOOT SETBACK AND 100-FOOT MINIMUM WIDTH.

ALLOWING AN 80-FOOT BUILDING ENVELOPE.

VERSUS MINE, 50 ON A 75-FOOT LOT.

YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT 37% MORE IMPACT, LESS BUILD AREA.

WHICH AGAIN, I CONSIDER A DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACT ON A HARDSHIP. THIS IS NOT A HARDSHIP I CREATED. THIS LOT WAS CREATED IN 1941.

I DID BUY THE LOT KNOWING THIS WAS THE CASE.

IT IS WHAT IT IS BUT I DID NOT CRAVE HIS HARDSHIP.

IT'S CERTAINLY NOT SOMETHING THAT I THINK IS GOING TO BE -- THE ULTIMATE VARIANCE IS NOT GOING TO BE BAD FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A TASTEFUL, BEAUTIFUL RESIDENCE ON A BEAUTIFUL STRAIGHTEN IF YOU LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN, YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE CURRENT BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE IS IN THE SIDE YARD ON THE MINIMAL AMOUNT EXTENDED WITH THE VARIANCE. I STRUGGLED TO BELIEVE SOMEONE DRIVING BY IS GOING TO BE FINE MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE IN THAT BUILDING ENVELOPE BUT IT'S GOING TO ALLOW ME TO DESIGN A MORE AESTHETICALLY PLEASING SIDE FACING GARAGE LIKELY RESIDENCE WHICH IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE BOULEVARD IN THIS MODERN ERA.

THESE EXPLAIN, THIS GOES FOR THE HARDSHIP REQUIREMENTS.

BY THE CODE. AGAIN, CERTAINLY NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST IN MY OPINION. THIS IS NOT A VARIANCE THAT'S GOING TO SET PRECEDENTS FOR LOTS AND LOTS OF OTHER LOTS.

I BELIEVE STAFF POINTED OUT THAT THERE ARE NO RY-C OR D LOTS ON THE BOULEVARD AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS THEY NEVER ANTICIPATED,R THAN 100 FEET, THEY DIDN'T BOTHER WHEN THE LETTER ARE-LETTER ONE PLOTS WERE APPLIED TO THE BOULEVARD.

THIS LOT AT THE TIME WAS A SINGLE PARCEL.

140 FEET. HE DIDN'T EVEN APPLY TO IT.

THE 1941 PLAT HAS 70-FOOT LOTS. AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOU'VE GOT LESS THAN 10% OF THE LOTS ON THE BOULEVARD WOULD HAVE THE SAME SITUATION OF NARROWNESS RELATED TO THE R-1-B ZONING.

SO IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN ALL OVER THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND EVEN IF IT DID, I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE A TREMENDOUS IMPACT IN A NEGATIVE WAY AT 2.5 FEET ON EACH SIDE.

I'VE EXPLAINED WHY THE HARDSHIP EXCLUSIONS DON'T APPLY.

I THINK THIS 30% NARROWER LOT IS AN EXCEPTIONALLY NARROW SITUATION WHICH IS THE LITERAL LANGUAGE FROM THE CODE.

I'M OTHERWISE GOING TO BE COMPLIANT WITH EVERYTHING IN THE FIELD, THEY DEVELOP AND PLAN THE ORDINANCE.

I HAVE GONE THROUGH THIS. THIS JUST GIVES YOU SOME MATH BEHIND IT. THE CODE OF COURSE ALREADY ADDRESSES NARROWER LOT IN SPEECC AND R-1-D.

MY REQUEST IS TO MATCH UP WITH THOSE.

IT'S PROPORTIONALLY MUCH CLOSER TO WHAT THE CODE HAS ALREADY ESTABLISHED. AS YOU CAN SEE, YOU CAN SEE THESE FIGURES, PERCENTAGE. R-1-B STANDARD IS 20%.

AS APPLIED WITH THE CODE LITERALLY IT'S 29% FOR THE LOT TODAY. I AM REQUESTING IT BE 21.4%.

AND THEN YOU SEE THE R-1-C SETBACK IS 25% OF THE LOT WITH.

IT'S MORE IN LINE. IT'S IN BETWEEN THE TWO GOALPOSTS THAT THE CODE HAS HAD FOR MINIMUM LOT WIDTH AND

[00:45:01]

SETBACK AMOUNT. SO I THINK IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE INTENT OF THE CODE. THIS JUST GIVES YOU AN IDEA GRAPHICALLY OF HOW IT IMPACTS -- THESE ARE ALL 165-FOT RECTANGULAR LOTS. THE SUBJECT LOT IS IN THE MIDDLE WITH THE 10-FOOT SETBACK. THE CODE COMPLIANT SPACEX LOT IS ON THE LEFT WITH 100-FOOT WITH AN 10-FOOT SETBACK.

AND THEN R-1-C, IF IT WAS R-1-C, YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE.

IT'S A SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION AND ABILITY TO BUILD ON THE LOT.

I'M THEN ADDRESSING THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS, LIKE I SAID, I RESPECT THEIR OPINION. THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO BELIEVE IT FOR THEIR SAKE, THEY WOULD PREFER NOT TO HAVE IT.

PRACTICALLY SPEAKING, I THINK THE LOT TO THE SOUTH, THE SMALL BLOCK HOUSE, I ASSUME IT'S GOING TO BE TORN DOWN AND THEY KNEW HOUSE BE BUILT THERE SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE.

SO TO SAY THAT HOWEVER THAT OWNER IS AND WHAT THEY DO WITH IT IS GOING TO IMPACT THEIR OPINION, I DON'T KNOW.

I WOULD ASSUME THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD SOMETHING NEW AND BEAUTIFUL AS WELL. THE DOCTOR TO THE NORTH, I UNDERSTAND HIS OPINION. I'M NOT INTENDING TO USE THE SIDE YARD IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM.

NOTHING ON MY HOUSE OTHER THAN MAYBE A WINDOW OR TWO ON THE SECOND FLOOR ARE GOING TO BE EVEN FACING HIS HOUSE.

WE CAN PUT UP, I INTEND TO PUT UP SIGNIFICANT LANDSCAPING ON BOTH SIDES OF THE YARD TO CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN A PROPER SEPARATION BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND THE NEIGHBORS.

AGAIN, I THINK AT THE END OF THE DAY THEY'LL FIND THAT WE ARE GOOD NEIGHBORS AND WE ARE GOING TO BUILD A BEAUTIFUL HOUSE NEXT TO THEIRS AND THEY ARE GOING TO BE HAPPY WITH IT.

SETTING A BAD PRECEDENT, I HAVE ADDRESSED THAT.

THERE IS SO IF YOU LOTS IN THE 70-FOOT CONDITION IN R-1-B PART OF THE ZONING DISTRICT THAT I DON'T THINK YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TOO MUCH TROUBLE WITH PRECEDENT. AND ERODING THE OPEN FEEL OF THE AS I SHOWED YOU ON THE GRAPHIC DEPICTION OF WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IN WIDTH IS, IT'S ARGUABLE ANYBODY WITHOUT AN ARCHITECT OR RULER WOULD KNOW THE DIFFERENCE WHEN THEY DRIVE BY AND I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO NOTICE A BEAUTIFUL NEW HOUSE AS OPPOSED TO A VACANT LOT. IT'S GOING TO FEEL MORE LIKE A NEIGHBORHOOD CONDITION. THIS GIVES TO SOME CONTEXT OF OTHER NONCONFORMING CONDITIONS ON THE BOULEVARD.

MOSTLY FRONT OR BACK SETBACKS. THE POINT BEING THAT THE BOULEVARD IS NOT 100% CONFORMING.

IT'S NOT SOMETHING WHERE THERE IS A SLIGHTLY WIDER BUILD ENVELOPE ON MY LOT IS GOING TO STAND OUT ANYONE IS BEING NONCONFORMING. IN SUMMARY, I BELIEVE THIS IS A MODEST AND REASONABLE REQUEST THAT'S COMPLIANT WITH THE CODE'S REQUIREMENTS FOR A VARIANCE AND I'M OPEN TO QUESTIONS AND IDEAS AS TO HOW TO MAKE A MINIMAL IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORS BUT I BELIEVE MY INTENT IS ALREADY TO DO THAT.

AS MUCH AS I INTEND TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR, I'M NOT INTENDING TO ENCROACH ON THEIR LIFESTYLE ANYMORE THAN THEY WOULD MIND.

I OPEN IT UP TO QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE PRESENTER. MR. PATTON.

>> ONE OF MY CONCERNS IS KIND OF A PRACTICAL CONCERN.

YOU'RE GOING TO BUILD A HOUSE OUT TO THE FULL LIMIT OF THE NEW PROPOSED SETBACK, 7.5 FEET. 7.52 BETWEEN YOUR HOUSE ON THE PROPERTY LINE. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE AIR CONDITIONING UNITS. YOUR HOUSE IS FAIRLY SIZABLE.

YOUR AIR CONDITIONING UNIT WILL BE PROBABLY A FOUR-TIME UNIT.

33 INCHES TO 40 INCHES IN WIDTH. YOU NEED TO HAVE IT OFF THE WALL BY AT LEAST A FOOT. MAYBE EVEN MORE.

IT SHULD BE SCREENED BY A VISIBLE SCREEN.

IF YOU HAD TO FOLLOW THE DIMENSIONS, THAT'S 5.5 FEET.

MAYBE EVEN MORE. MINIMUM VENTILATION IS 1 FOOT WHICH GIVES YOU TO FEED TO GET AROUND THE AIR-CONDITIONING UNIT WITHOUT GOING ONTO THE OTHER PERSON'S PROPERTY.

IT GIVES YOU 2 FEET. IF SOMEBODY BUILDS OF FENCE.

YOU CAN'T GO AROUND THE HOUSE, HOW DO YOU ADDRESS IT?

>> THAT'S A GREAT POINT IT IS SOMETHING I WILL HAVE TO ADDRESS AND PLANNING. WHAT WOULD YOU CONSIDER A MINIMUM, 3 FEET TO WALK THROUGH ON THE SIDE OF THE AIR-CONDITIONING UNIT? YOU HAVE BEEN IN CONSTRUCTION.

>> A LONGMORE IS 24 INCHES WIDE WITH WHEELS.

A LAWN MOWER IS 24 INCHES WIDE. YOU SHOULD HAVE A SCREENING OF THE AIR-CONDITIONING UNIT. IT IS SOMETHING THAT HAS TO BE

ADDRESSED. >> UNDERSTOOD.

THOSE SORTS OF CONDITIONS ARE, AGAIN, MY INTENT IS TO BE A GOOD

[00:50:08]

NEIGHBOR. I MET WITH THE DOCTOR BEFORE I BOUGHT THE LOT. WE HAD A RESPECTFUL CONVE CONVERSATION. NO MATTER HOW THIS MEETING GOES, I INTEND TO MEET WITH HIM AGAIN AND BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR THROUGH CONSTRUCTION AND MAKE SURE THEY ARE NOT CONSIDERING ANY CONDITION TO BE OVERLY BURDENSOME ON THEIR HOUSE.

OR MAKE IT WHERE IT'S IMPASSABLE ON EITHER SIDE.

>> YOU CAN'T EXPECT SOMEBODY TO WALK AROUND YOUR HOUSE AND HAVE TO WALK ON SOMEBODY ELSE'S PROPERTY.

>> UNDERSTOOD. >> OKAY.

>> CHIP? >> CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE TYPE OF HOUSE? TWO-STORY? HOW BIG? BECAUSE I'M SORRY.

I HAD SOME REPRESENTATIVE NATIONAL.

THESE ARE REPRESENTATIVE RENDERINGS.

IT'LL BE ROUGHLY, ROUGHLY 5000 SQUARE FEET.

TWO STORIES, A CENTER MOTOR COURTS, A POOL IN THE BACK.

A HIPPED ROOF ON EACH SIDE. THE TOP RENDERING, THAT'S A HIP STYLE ROOF ON THE FRONT OF, THE FRONT AND SIDES OF THE HOUSE.

IT'LL BE SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THIS.

RIGHT? THE ARCHITECT, THEY AND STAR SAND SEEMED TO DO ALL THE BEAUTIFUL HOUSES ON THE BOULEVARD. NATURAL MATERIALS, THE BOTTOM RIGHT PICTURE, DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION?

>> YES. ANY OTHER VARIANCE FOR YOUR CONVERSATIONS THAT YOU WILL BE COMING BACK FOR ON THE PROPERTY THAT YOU FIND IS GOING TO BE A PROBLEM IN THE FUTURE?

>> NOT INTENDED TO. AS MR. PATTON POINTED OUT I MAY NEED TO REDUCE IN SOME AREA THE WIDTH OF THE BUILD AREA TO ALLOW FOR THE HVAC UNIT, THE COMPRESSOR.

THE ANSWER IS NO. WE DESIGNED IT SO THE POOL IS WITHIN THE SETBACK FROM THE LAGOON.

WE ARE NOT ENCROACHING ON THE FRONT SETBACK.

WE ARE FINE WITH IMPERVIOUS. WE ARE NOT INTENDING TO GO HIGHER THAN 35 FEET, TWO STO STORIES.

>> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE PRESENTER FROM THE BOARD? I'M GOING TO OPEN IT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM.

IF YOU ARE HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, IF YOU WILL COME UP TO THE PODIUM AND GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS PLEASE.

>> SHOULD I SIT OR STAY TO ADDRESS, AND?

>> HAVE A SEAT. THERE WILL BE A THREE-MINUTE TIMER FOR EACH COMMENT. PLEASE BE AWARE OF THAT.

>> I AM DR. SCOTT BOGGS. 558 PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD.

IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE 560 PROPERTY IN QUESTION.

I HAVE LIVED ON PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD SINCE 1978.

ALL OF THE PLATTED LOTS FROM 554 PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD, ALL THE WAY TO THE LARGE, BOTH ON OCEANSIDE AND THE LAGOON SIDE, 70 FEET IN WIDTH. WITHOUT HARDSHIP, MANY EXTREMELY ATTRACTIVE HOMES HAVE BEEN AND ARE BEING BUILT WITHIN THE USUAL SIDE YARD SETBACKS. IN THIS PART OF PV BOULEVARD.

THESE BUILDING RESTRICTIONS HAVE A PURPOSE.

THEY ENSURE PROPER SPACING BETWEEN HOUSES AND MAINTAIN AN OPEN FEELING OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THE TRICK OUT NEIGHBORHOODS A 7-POINT-FOOT -- NEIGHBORHOODS WITH A 7.5 SIDE YARD SETBACK ARE TIGHT.

FROM ROOF TO ROOF IT'S ONLY ABOUT 11 FEET.

YOU CAN JUMP IT IF YOU WERE 18 YEARS OLD.

PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD HAS AVOIDED THIS LOOK AND FEEL BY VIGILANT MAINTENANCE TO THE SETBACK RESTRICTION CODES.

MY WIFE AND I ARE OPPOSED TO THE REQUESTED VARIANCE TO CHANGE THE SIDE YARD SETBACK TO 7.5 FEET ON THIS PROPERTY.

THE VARIANCE, IF APPROVED, WOULD SET A BAD PRECEDENT FOR OUR

[00:55:01]

NEIGHBORHOOD AND OPEN THE DOOR FOR FUTURE ENCROACHMENTS.

IF THE VARIANCE IS GRANTED, THEN THE SETBACK LINES WILL MEAN NOTHING. I THANK THE BOARD FOR YOUR

CONSIDERATION. >> THANK YOU, SIR.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

MY NAME IS ROY. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF MY FAMILY.

WE OWN 562 PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD, DIRECTLY SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. MY FAMILY HAS BEEN ON THE BOULEVARD SINCE AT LEAST THE 1930S.

WHEN MY GRANDPARENTS ROY AND ALICE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY.

FOR MANY YEARS, WE OWNED LOTS 7 AND 8, THEY WERE COMBINED LOTS. WE SPLIT THE LOTS TO SELL THE LOTS TO ADDRESS FAMILY ISSUES. WE SOLD LOT 8 TO THE APPLICANT EARLIER THIS YEAR IN JANUARY. BEFORE THE SALE, THE APPLICANT FULLY UNDERSTOOD THE SIZE OF THE LOT, THE ZONING, AND THE 10-FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. HE ASKED IF WE WOULD SUPPORT A VARIANCE REQUEST. WE TOLD HIM HE WOULD NOT.

DESPITE THAT, HE'S ASKING TO REDUCE THE SETBACKS TO 7.5 FEET.

RESPECTFULLY AFTER HEARING THE PRESENTATION TODAY, WE DON'T FEEL THE LEGAL STANDARD FOR A VARIANCE HAS BEEN MET.

THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY SHOWING OF HARDSHIP THAT'S UNIQUE TO THIS PROPERTY. NOT SELF-CREATED OR THAT COULDN'T BE ADDRESSED THROUGH A COMPLIANT DESIGN.

THIS LOT HAS BEEN IN THE SAME CONFIGURATION SINCE 1941.

OVER 80 YEARS. THE RULES AREN'T NEW.

THE APPLICANT CHOSE TO BUY THE PROPERTY KNOWING EXACTLY WHAT THOSE RULES WERE. UNDER YOUR REGULAR REGULATIONS HARDSHIP FROM THE OWNERS OWN ACTIONS DOESN'T QUALIFY.

WHAT WE ARE HEARING IS A DESIGN PREFERENCE.

LIKELY FOR A SIDE ENTRY GARAGE, NOT A TRUE HARDSHIP TIED TO THE LAND ITSELF. OUR HOME MEETS THE SETBACKS.

SO DO HOMES ON 554, 564, 566, 568, 570 PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD.

THERE IS NOTHING ABOUT THIS LOT THAT MAKES COMPLIANCE IMPOSSIBLE. VARIANCES ARE MET FOR TRULY UNUSUAL SITUATIONS, NOT TO ALLOW SOMEONE TO REDESIGN A LONG-ESTABLISHED LOT AFTER BUYING IT WITH THE FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE RESTRICTIONS. APPROVING THIS WOULD SET A CONCERNING PRECEDENT. WE CAN THE REGULATIONS, AND NEGATIVELY IMPACTING OUR PROPERTIES FROM THE FINANCIAL STANDPOINT AND VALUATION AND CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

WE HAVE NO INTENT OF SELLING THIS PROPERTY.

AS FAR AS WE ARE IN TURN, IT'S GOING TO STAY IN THE FAMILY FOR THE NEXT 100 YEARS. LIKE I SAID, OUR FAMILY HAS BEEN ON THE BOULEVARD SINCE THE 1930S.

ON BEHALF OF MY FAMILY, WE RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU DENY THE APPLICATION. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. DO WE HAVE ANY FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? SEEING NO ONE I'M GOING TO CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND OPEN IT TO BOARD DISCUSSION.

>> AM I ALLOWED TO ADDRESS PUBLIC COMMENTS?

>> YES, SIR. >> OKAY, THANK YOU.

RESPECTFULLY, TO SAY THAT A HARDSHIP HERE IS NOT LEGALLY VALID, I JUST DISAGREE. THE FIRST THING THE CODE SAID ABOUT HARDSHIP POTENTIAL IS EXCEPTIONAL NARROWNESS.

THIS LOT IS AN EXCEPTION TO THE R-1-B.

IT'S A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF LOTS ON PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD THAT AREN'T 100 FEET OR MORE. BUYING A LOFT WITH KNOWN CONDITIONS DOES NOT CREATE A LIFE THAT IS NARROWER, 30% NARROWER THAN THE MINIMUM WIDTH IN THE ZONING DISTRICT.

I DIDN'T CREATE THIS. THIS IS A PRACTICAL MATTER.

I AM SURE THEIR RENTERS SEEM TO BE FINE.

I DON'T THINK ME BUILDING MY HOUSE 2.5 CLOSER TO THEIRS IS GOING TO IMPACT THE RENTAL VALUE.

I DON'T THINK IF THEY WANT TO SELL IT IT'S GOING TO AFFECT THEIR SALES VALUE. THERE WILL BE A BEAUTIFUL HOUSE NEXT DOOR. I DON'T THINK I AM DOING THEM TO SERVICE OR HARM AND I DO THINK THERE IS LEGAL STANDING.

TO SAY THIS IS SETTING A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT, IT'S JUST NOT TRUE. THIS IS AN EXCEPTIONAL LOT.

IT IS 30% NARROWER THAN THE MINIMUM WIDTH.

THERE ARE ONLY A HANDFUL OF THEM IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

IT'S NOT SOMETHING WHERE THE NEXT PERSON WHO COMES AND CAN JUST SAY WELL, MY LOT -- I WANT 7.5 FEET BECAUSE I WANT IT. THEY HAVE TO PROVE THAT IT MEETS THE VARIANCE STANDARDS AND I BELIEVE I HAVE DONE THAT.

[01:00:02]

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MR. GREENE. >> QUESTION FOR STAFF.

I BELIEVE THERE IS A HOUSE BEING BUILT TWO OR THREE DOORS DOWN.

I BELIEVE IT'S 568 I THINK. I WANT TO CONFIRM THE WIDTH OF THAT LOT. I BELIEVE IT'S 70 FEET.

>> THREW THE CHAIR, JUST ONE MOMENT.

I'LL CONFIRM THAT FOR YOU. >> I CAN TELL YOU THAT IT IS.

70 FEET. >> THERE'S A FEW HOUSES TO THE SOUTH SIDE AND THEY ARE 70-FOOT LOT.

>> I DON'T BELIEVE -- I HAVE SERVED ON THIS BOARD FOR FOUR YEARS. REQUESTS FOR THOSE HOUSES?

>> THERE HAVE NOT BEEN ANY SETBACK VARIANCE RELIEF FOR

THOSE HOUSES. >> QUESTION FOR THE COUNTY ATTORNEY. ON SETTING A PRECEDENT, WITH THIS SET A PRECEDENT THAT OTHER PEOPLE COULD EVENTUALLY USE AS REFERENCE TO GET ADDITIONAL SETBACK, REDUCTION IN SETBACKS?

>> AS YOUR AWARENESS WE HAVE DISCUSSED BEFORE, EACH CASE IS CASE-BY-CASE. THERE IS NO GLOBAL PRECEDENT SET FOR THIS CASE. EVERYBODY THAT COMES FOR A VARIANCE HAS TO INDEPENDENTLY DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY QUALIFY AND MEET THE CRITERIA FOR A VARIANCE.

>> MR. CHAIRMAN. >> SHOULD I EXPRESS MY OPINION

ON THIS? >> PLEASE.

>> I'VE BEEN ON THE BOARD FOR TEN YEARS.

OVER THAT TIME. BACK HOME I HAVE PROBABLY APPROVED SEVERAL CHANGES IN SETBACK BUT NEVER A SIDE SET SETBACK. I AM OPPOSED TO THIS VEHEMENTLY.

IT'S COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAN FRONT AND BACK.

THANK YOU. >> JACOB, I'VE GOT A FEW QUESTIONS FOR YOU. FOR THE SITE SETBACKS, IS THERE A SETBACK ON THE EVE? I KNOW YOU'VE GOT FIRE CODE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE HOUSES. DOES SIDE SETBACK AFFECT THE EVO OF THE HOUSE -- EAVE OF THE HOUSE?

>> IT AFFECTS THE EAVE PROJECTION.

ULTIMATELY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT HAS THE SAY WITH THE MINIMUM SEPARATION BETWEEN BUILDINGS. NONETHELESS, I BELIEVE THAT WOULD BE MET IF THAT'S THE CONCERN, THE MINIMUM SEPARATION.

THERE IS DIFFERENT STANDARDS FOR 10-FOOT VERSUS 7.5-FOOT FOYER

EAVES. >> ON THE EAST SIDE OF PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD, ALL OF THOSE LOTS LOOK LIKE THEY ARE 100 FEET. IS THAT CORRECT? MY QUESTION IS, HOW LONG IS THE BLOCK OF 70S?

>> THE PROPERTIES ON THE EAST SIDE, THE ATLANTIC SIDE OF THE BOULEVARD, STILL 70-FOOT LOTS IN THIS GENERAL VICINITY.

>> I WILL TAKE THE ANSWER TO MY SECOND QUESTION TOO.

SORRY. CHIP.

>> THROUGH YOUR DISCUSSIONS WITH YOUR ARCHITECT, HAVE YOU THOUGHT ABOUT, I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH DESIGN YOU'VE DONE ON THE HOUSE, BUT KEEPING THE 10 FEET AND MAKING THE HOUSE MORE NARROW,

LONGER VERSUS WIDER? >> MR. GREENE, THE ANSWER IS YES. THE LOT IS ALSO SOMEWHAT SHALLOWER THAN MOST OF THE L LOS ON THE BOULEVARD.

THAT'S AN IMPORTANT PART TO A CHAIR CROZIER'S QUESTION.

THE OCEANFRONT LOTS. THE 70-FOOT LOTS START AROUND THIS LOT AND GO SOUTH TO CORONA. THERE IS ONLY A HANDFUL OF THEM.

THE OCEANFRONT LOTS ARE DEEPER, ALLOWING, DEPENDING ON WHERE YOUR CCCL IS, ALLOWING FOR A NARROWER HOUSE.

IF THIS LOT WERE LONGER, TO YOUR POINT, I WOULDN'T GET A SIDE YARD SETBACK. IT WOULD PROTRUDE FURTHER INTO THE FRONT AND I WOULD TURN IT TO MY SIDE GARAGE, NO PROBLEM.

AS IT IS NOW, TO DO THAT, WITH A 50-FOOT LOT AND 24-FOOT WIDE GARAGE, EVEN IF YOU ARE NOTHING ON THE LEFT SIDE, YOUR FACADE IS NOW ALMOST HALF GARAGE. AGAIN, I DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE -- IT'S NOT AS STATICALLY PLEASING AND NOT AS CONSISTENT WITH THE IMMEDIATE SURROUNDINGS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE HOUSES THAT HAVE BEEN BUILT.

[01:05:02]

IT'S NOT AESTHETICALLY PLEASING. >> FURTHER BOARD COMMENT OR QUESTIONS? MR. PATTON, IS YOUR PRIMARY OBJECTION TO THE PROTRUSIONS AS WELL? OR JUST THE SIDE SETBACK ITSELF? IS THE HVAC MAKING THAT RELUCTANCE WORTH? OR IS IT THE SETBACK ITSELF?

>> IT'S A SETBACK ITSELF. I LIVED IN LAKEVIEW FOR A WHILE, A PATIO HOME. YOU LIVED RIGHT NEXT TO YOUR NEIGHBOR. I THINK RESTRICTION BETWEEN NEIGHBORS, I JUST DISAGREE. WE ESTABLISHED A 10-FOOT OF THE PROPERTY LINE. I THINK WE SHOULD HOLD TO IT.

IT'S SOMETHING I'M A FIRM BELIEVER IN.

I DON'T THINK IN THE 11 YEARS I'VE BEEN ON THE BOARD WE'VE NEVER HAD ANYONE REQUEST A SIDE SETBACK CHANGE.

I'M AGAINST IT. THE AIR-CONDITIONING UNIT OF THE ISSUES THAT ARE, THE NARROWNESS, ACTUALLY MAKES IT WORSE.

>> FAIR ENOUGH. I HAVE BUILT HOMES WITH A 5-FOOT SETBACK. 2.5 BETWEEN THIS EAVES.

YOU DIDN'T NEED TO BE 18 TO JUMP BETWEEN THE HOUSES.

YOU COULD HAND THE SUGAR. I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THAT, THE LOOK AND THE APPEARANCE. I ALSO, I AGREE WITH THE APPLICANT THAT A SIDE ENTRY GARAGE IS MASSIVELY MORE DESIRABLE THAN A FRONT ENTRY. STARING AT GARAGES ON A 50-FOOT WIDE LOT, 50-FOOT WIDE HOUSE AND HALF OF IT IS GARAGE, A 2.5 CAR GARAGE. BUT I THINK I'M INCLINED TO AGREE CERTAINLY WITH YOUR ARGUMENT.

DOES IT CROSS THE RUBICON? IS IT TRULY NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE HERE? CHIP.

>> JUST PLAYING DEVIL'S ADVOCATE FOR A SECOND.

YOU HAVE R-1-D AT 100 MINIMUM FOOT.

THIS IS R-1-D AND IT'S A 70-FOOT LOT.

IT IS WHAT IT IS. >> I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT. A10-FOOT SETBACK ON 100-FOOT LOT GIVES A DIFFERENT APPEARANCE. SCALE MATTERS.

AND I AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT. BUT I THINK --

>> IF YOU HAVE 10 FEET ON BOTH SIDES, WANTING TO GO TO 7.5.

IS THERE A WAY TO CONDITION, TO GIVE HIM.

TRYING TO DO THE MATH IN MY HEAD.

60-FOOT LOT. 7.5-FOOT SETBACK, TEN MORE FEET ON THE LOT. IS THERE A WAY TO SPLIT THE

DIFFERENCE? >> COULD YOU ALLOW FOR A SIDE SETBACK FOR THE GARAGE, TO ALLOW THE GARAGE, WOULD THAT SATISFY THE APPLICANT? WOULD IT SATISFY JOHN'S

CONCERNS? >> I DON'T KNOW.

>> PLEASE COME UP. >> HEARING MR. PATTON'S OBJECTION AND MR. GREENE'S QUESTION, I'M HAPPY TO TAKE THIS BACK AND CONSIDER A FRONT SETBACK ENCROACHMENT AS OPPOSED TO A SIDE SETBAC. IF THAT WOULD PRESUMABLY BE LESS INRUSIVE TO THE NEIGHBORS. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHAT I WOULD ASK MR. PATTON ON THE BOARD TO CONSIDER, YOU'VE ESTABLISHED 7.5-FOOT SETBACKS FOR 60-FOOT LOTS, OKAY? IF 70 FEET -- WHAT'S THE RIGHT PROPORTION? IT'S NOT 10 FOR 70, YOU'VE ESTABLISHED THAT FOR 100-FOOT LOTS. IF IT NEEDS TO BE 8 FEET, I CAN LIVE WITH 8 FEET. TO MR. GREENE'S POINT, I'M HAPPY TO COMPROMISE. BUT I THINK THIS IS AN EXCEPTIONALLY NARROW SITUATION AND IT'S A LOT FOR NONE OF US CREATED. THE BOARD HAS ESTABLISHED 7.5 FEET OF AN ACCEPTABLE SETBACK IN 60-FOOT ZONED AREAS.

IF WE NEED TO GO PROPORTIONAL INTO 8, THAT'S PROBABLY VERY CLOSE TO THE NUMBER. IF YOU GET INTO INCHES, THAT'S PROBABLY ASKING FOR A PROBLEM ON SITE.

I WOULD SAY 8 FEET BUT I WOULD LEAVE IT TO THE BOARD TO

CONSIDER. >> I WILL TELL YOU THIS, JUST BASED ON THE COMMENTS, EVERY APPLICANT IS DIFFERENT.

I KNOW THIS BOARD HAS GRANTED FRONTAGE SETBACKS ON PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD IN THIS AREA. MAY BE SOMETHING TO LOOK AT.

[01:10:05]

>> SURE. THANK YOU.

>> I THINK VOTING ON THIS, GIVEN THE...

I THINK IT WOULD HURT HIM IF HE GETS DENIED THE MOTION.

>> CAN YOU, COULD YOU CHANGE THIS? OBVIOUSLY NOT RIGHT THIS SECOND. BUT WITHOUT HAVING TO GO ALL THE WAY BACK THROUGH, CAN YOU CHANGE IT FROM A SIDE SETBACK TO A FRONT SETBACK INSIDE OF THE SAME REQUEST? OR DOES THAT HAVE TO COME AS A NEW REQUEST?

>> IT WOULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT.

IT WOULD COME AS A NEW REQUEST BECAUSE OF NOTICING.

>> THANK YOU. I GUESS.

JOHN, WHAT A FRONT SETBACK ALLOWING FOR A TWO CAR GARAGE BE

MORE PALATABLE? >> YES.

>> DO I HAVE ANY MORE BOARD COMMENT?

>> OBVIOUSLY IT DEPENDS ON HOW MUCH HE WANTS FOR THE SETBACK.

>> IT'S NOT A LICENSE TO GO N NUTS.

MR. BURCH, I MIGHT LEAVE IT TO YOU.

I THINK I CAN TELL THE WIDTH OF THE BOARD IS LEANING ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE. WE CAN TABLE THIS, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO TAKE AND COME BACK TO THIS ISSUE.

OR WE CAN HAVE A VOTE NOW. OR YOU CAN COME BACK WITH A NEW

ONE. >> I THINK WHAT I SHOULD DO IS TABLE THIS AND THEN COME BACK WITH A NEW FRONT SETBACK REQUEST TO THE EXTENT I WANT TO READDRESS THIS REQUEST, I CAN DO THAT I PROBABLY WOULD DO IT. IF I DO, A SMALLER FOOTPRINT.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. WE ARE GOING TO MAKE A MOTION, KEALEY, HOLD THIS? TELL ME WHAT THE RIGHT MOTION IS IF WE ARE GOING TO TABLE THIS FOR THE APPLICANT?

>> SINCE YOU'VE ALREADY HAD YOUR HEARING, YOU CAN DO A MOTION TO

CONTINUE. >> THANK YOU.

I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE PVZVAR 2026-03.

DO I HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND.

>> MOTION ON THE CONTINUANCE. THE CONTINUANCE IS GRANTED.

6-0. SEE YOU AGAIN, MR. BURCH.

[4. Discussion Item: Potential Pool ISR Code Revisions and Boat and RV Parking. Discussion item on potential updates to ISR allowances for pools in R-1-D zoning, and a discussion and update on Boat and RV parking restrictions.]

UP NEXT, ITEM NUMBER 4. DISCUSSION ITEM FOR POTENTIAL POOL ISR COLD REVISIONS -- CODE REVISIONS.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. AGAIN, THIS IS ITEM NUMBER 4.

I AM BRINGING BACK TO YOU A DISCUSSION ITEM BASED ON PREVIOUS CONVERSATION WE'VE HAD WITH THE BOARD, SPECIFICALLY THIS IS ABOUT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIO, EVEN MORE SPECIFICALLY FOR POOL IMPERVOUS AREA, FOR SOME OF THE SMALLER LOTS TYPICALLY FOUND IN THE R-1-D ZONING DISTRICT.

LOTS ARE GENERALLY 7200 SQUARE FEET OR LESS.

WE HAD RECEIVED, STAFF HAD RECEIVED DIRECTION FROM THE BOARD TO DO A LITTLE BIT OF RESEARCH AND LOOK INTO THE BACK HISTORY OF THE AMOUNT AND TYPES OF RELIEF THAT HAVE BEEN PROVIDED FOR POOLS IN THE PONTE VEDRA ZONING DISTRICT.

AS PART OF THIS STAFF REPORT, WE DID A LITTLE BIT OF REVIEW HERE.

AS YOU SEE, THERE'S A COUPLE HANDFULS OR LESS OF ZONING DISTRICTS OVER THE PAST TEN YEARS OR SO THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED FOR POOL VARIANCES. TYPICALLY THEY ARE FOUND TO BE ABOUT A 4% VARIANCE RELIEF. AGAIN, I'VE GOT ALL THE INFORMATION AS PART OF THE STAFF REPORT FOR THE VARIOUS ADDRESSES AND SO FORTH. MY BIG TAKEAWAYS ON THIS, THE BOARD HASN'T DONE AN OVERWHELMING NUMBER OF POOL VARIANCE REQUESTS FOR THE SMALLER LOTS.

GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE LOTS ARE SLIGHTLY LARGER.

THEY ARE MORE IN THE 8400 SQUARE-FOOT SIZE AND THEN OCCASIONALLY THEY ARE MUCH LARGER.

OLY ONE PROPERTY HAS BEEN -- RECEIVED A VARIANCE FOR A LOT THAT WAS LESS THAN 7200 SQUARE FEET.

THAT WAS 500 MORNINGSIDE THAT THIS BOARD SAW IN THE PAST YEAR

[01:15:04]

AND A HALF OR SO. NONETHELESS, I'M HAPPY TO HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT IT AND SEE WHERE THE BOARD WANTS TO GO.

I HAVE PREVIOUSLY DRAFTED UP, I DIDN'T MAKE IT PART OF YOUR PACKET, BUT I HAVE SOME DRAFT IDEAS IF THE BOARD WAS WANTING TO GO FORWARD WITH CHANGES TO THE CODE AND WE CAN DISCUSS THAT BUT I WILL HAND IT BACK TO YOU, MR. CHAIR, TO LEAD THE

DISCUSSION. >> THANK YOU, JACOB.

HOW FAR BACK DID YOU GO IN THE VARIANCES? TEN YEARS OR ALL OF THE VARIANCES THAT HAVE EVER BEEN

GIVEN FOR ISR? >> GOES BACK TO 2013.

TREVOR, REVIEW CAN JUMP IN. DID YOU GO ANY FARTHER BACK THAN

THAT? >> WE DID THIS A WHILE AGO.

I WENT TO 2007, 2006. THE FURTHER BACK WE GO, THE LESS CLEAR OUR RECORDS ARE. MID 2000S.

>> WE COULD REASONABLY SAY AROUND 20 YEARS, THE LAST 20

YEARS WE'VE HAD SEVEN? >> THAT'S CORRECT, YES.

>> I GUESS, DOES ANYBODY -- COMMENTS FROM ANYBODY? JACOB, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT SET THIS OFF WAS THE LAST, I THINK IT WAS THE LAST MEETING, WASN'T IT? WE HAD THE POOL THAT WE DENIED. IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, IT WAS APPEALED TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.

CAN YOU TELL US WITH THE RESULT OF THAT WAS?

>> YASSER, THAT'S CORRECT. YOU HAVE A ZONING VARIANCE YES, SIR, THAT'S CORRECT. THEY WERE SEEKING A 4% RELIEF, VARIANCE RELIEF OR A POOL. THIS AGENCY DID DENY THEIR REQUEST. THEY WERE APPEALED TO THE OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. THE DECISION OF THIS BOARD WAS UPHELD. THEY DENIED THEIR ABILITY TO GET

A VARIANCE. >> I GUESS, COMMENTS, DISC DISCUSSION. JOHN, YOU FIRST.

>> OKAY. JACOB, DURING THE LAST TEN YEARS, HOW MANY HAVE WE TURNED DOWN? I KNOW WE'D TURNED DOWN ONE LAST WENT OVER.

I DON'T REMEMBER TURNING DOWN ANY OTHERS.

>> IN A COMPARABLE SITUATION.

[LAUGHTER] >> THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION, SIR.

I'M GOING TO LET TREVOR MAY BE TRYING TO GET AN ANSWER TO THAT OR IF HE CAN REMEMBER ANYTHING THAT HE SAW THROUGH THERE.

I WOULD AGREE OVER THE PAST HANDFUL OF YEARS, I DO NOT REMEMBER MANY. GENERALLY SPEAKING, THEY GET CONDITIONED IN VARIOUS WAYS TO WORK THROUGH AN APPROVAL BY COMING DOWN IN THE REQUEST PERCENTAGE OR OFFERING TO PUTTING GUTTERS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

I THINK YOUR RECOLLECTION OVER THE PAST HANDFUL OF YEARS IS CORRECT THAT THERE HAVE NOT BEEN VERY MANY DENIALS.

>> I THINK TWO IS THE ANSWER. I WILL BET ON TWO.

MR. CHAIRMAN, I AM PERSONALLY VERY EXCITED ABOUT THIS.

I THINK IT IS SOMETHING GOOD TO DO FOR SMALL LOTS.

IT FEELS GOOD, AND I KNOW THAT MY THEORY ON POOLS ARE RETENTION AREA IS NOT VALID BUT I THINK IT'S TRUE.

SO I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THIS GO FORWARD.

THANK YOU. >> JACOB, CAN YOU SPEAK ANY TO WHAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS VOTE WAS? OR THOUGHT PROCESS? I AM WONDERING REALLY, COMPLAINTS ARE ALWAYS ABOUT DRAINAGE.

I DON'T EXPECT THAT TO GET BETTER.

EVER. WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION WITH THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS REGARDING DRAINAGE? YES, SIR. ABSOLUTELY.

YOU KIND OF HINTED AT IT A LITTLE BIT.

THIS WAS A SPLIT VOTE SO MAYBE IT'S WORTH POINTING THAT OUT.

IT WAS A 3-2 DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE BY THE BOARD.

THERE WAS SEVERAL ADJACENT NEIGHBORS WHO SPOKE IN OPPOSITION TO THE VARIANCE, SIMILAR TO WHAT THIS BOARD HEARD. SO YES, THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT DRAINAGE. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THE VARIANCE WERE DISCUSSING THE TWO OR THREE ADJACENT PROPERTIES ON THE REAR SIDE CAME AND GENERALLY SPEAKING INDICATED THAT THEY HAD MAJOR DRAINAGE ISSUES ALONG THAT REAR PROPERTY LINE AND THEY WERE NOT, THEY WERE NOT POSITIVE ABOUT FURTHER INCREASES IN IMPERVIOUS AREA BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT THE POTENTIAL RUNOFF.

I ABSOLUTELY THINK THAT HAD A FAIR BIT TO DO WITH THE BOARD'S

DECISION. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

[01:20:06]

SO, IF WE ARGUE THAT HAVE ONLY BEEN SEVEN OVER THE LAST 20 YEARS OR SO, WOULD BE A CORRECT STATEMENT EXCEPT THAT OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS, THERE HAVE BEEN FIVE.

SO I THINK THAT WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS AS WE GO FORWARD IN TIME, THIS IS, CLEARLY FROM AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 3, WE ARE GOING TO TRY TO GET ALL OF THE USABLE SPACE.

EVERY RESIDENT IS GOING TO TRY TO GET ALL THE USABLE SPACE THEY POSSIBLY CAN OUT OF THIS. MY THEORY BEHIND IT IS I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR FOR YOUR NEIGHBOR TO HAVE GOTTEN A POOL IN 1930 AND THEN YOU POP IN AND BUILD A NEW HOUSE AND YOU DON'T GET THE POOL BECAUSE THE RULES CHANGED.

SO YOUR NEIGHBOR HAS IT AND YOU DON'T.

SO FAIRNESS IS ALWAYS A TOUGH ARBITRARY THING.

WE HAVE RULES. WE NEED TO FOLLOW THE RULES.

BUT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, CAN IT BE SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DO DOUBT EVERYBODY, AND CAN WE SET DOWN A RULE, HERE IS THE RULE.

PLEASE DON'T COME BACK. BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE REQUESTS. [LAUGHTER] SO WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO TO FIX THIS KIND OF ON A PERMANENT -- AS WE ARE SEEING AN INCREASE. ANNA?

>> I THINK WE SEE A LOT OF THE COMPLAINTS ABOUT DRAINAGE.

HOWEVER TYPICALLY THAT DRAINAGE PROBLEM EXISTS PRIOR TO THE POOL EVER BEING PUT IN BECAUSE OF THE ELEVATION CHANGES IN THE LOT.

THE ISR BEING 4% DIFFERENT FOR A SMALLER LOT IS NOT GOING TO IMPROVE OR DRASTICALLY MAKE WORSE THE DRAINAGE PROBLEMS THAT

EXIST IN THAT AREA? >> CHIP?

>> QUESTION FOR JACOB. IS THE 4% ISR GOING FROM 40% TO 44%, JUST BRAINSTORMING HERE, THAT'S GOING TO BE SPECIFICALLY FOR POOLS ONLY, CORRECT? WE ARE NOT SEEING 40% TO 44% FOR

WHATEVER PERMIT SURFACE? >> THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.

I HAD DRAFTED THIS LANGUAGE. I DIDN'T WANT TO GO QUITE SO FORWARD AND PUT IT OUT AND PUBLISH IT.

WHAT I HAVE DRAFTED IS ESSENTIALLY AN ASTERISK TO THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIO. THE ASTERISK TELLS US FOR RESIDENTIAL LOTS WITH AN AREA OF 7200 SQUARE FEET OR LESS, AN ADDITIONAL 4% OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE IS ALLOWED EXCLUSIVELY

FOR SWIMMING POOLS. >> JACOB, IS THERE A WAY -- EVERY TIME WE'VE DONE THIS, I FEEL LIKE EVERY TIME I REMEMBER DOING THIS, WE HAVE REQUIRED DRAINAGE, BASICALLY REQUIRED TO GUTTER AND BRING THOSE GUTTERS OUT TO THE DISCHARGE POINT.

IS THERE A WAY TO PUT THAT IN THE ACTUAL AMENDMENT OR PROPOSED AMENDMENT THAT WE CAN RECOGNIZE DRAINAGE AS AN ISSUE?

>> YES, SIR. I THINK THERE IS CERTAINLY GOING TO BE SOME WAY TO WORK THAT IN THERE.

I'M NOT SURE THAT IT BELONGS EXACTLY IN THAT CODE SECTION BUT I WAS JUST THINKING OF BUT SURELY AS AN ADDENDUM TO THAT, SOMEWHERE IN THERE I THINK WE CAN WORK UP SOME LANGUAGE THAT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO ADDRESS THAT.

>> SORRY, JOHN. >> MY RECOLLECTION, IT'S ABOUT HALF THE TIME REQUIRED IT. WE ALWAYS REQUIRED TO MAKE SURE THE SITE HAD PROPER DRAINAGE TO THE FRONT.

I CAN ONLY REMEMBER TWO TIMES WERE WE REQUIRE THE DRAINAGE TO BE PIPED TO THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE.

>> AND HOPING YOU'VE GOT A BETTER MEMORY THAN ME.

DID WE REQUIRE THAT BECAUSE IT WAS A DRAIN LOT OR DISCHARGING

TO THE REAR? >> I DON'T RECALL.

I THINK BOTH TIMES, IT CAME UP IN DISCUSSION AS FAR AS THE HOUSE BEHIND IT WAS AT A LOWER ELEVATION.

NOT AT THE SAME ELEVATION. SO IT MADE SENSE TO PIPE IT FORWARD. EXAMPLE, THE HOUSE WE APPROVED A YEAR AGO WHERE THERE WAS A DROP OFF TO THE PROPERTY BEHIND.

THAT'S WHAT I REMEMBER AS THE STIPULATION.

IT WAS PROBABLY 50% OF THE TIME. >> DO WE HAVE ANY FURTHER COMMENT FROM THE BOARD ON THIS ISSUE?

[01:25:02]

>> MR. CHAIR, I WAS GOING TO TRY MEN A LITTLE BIT MORE ON THE GUTTERING. I HAVE TECHNICAL EMAILING ME THAT GENERALLY SPEAKING WHEN SOMEBODY COMES IN FOR A CLEARANCE SHEET TO BUILD THEIR POOL, THE ENGINEERS ARE LOOKING AT IT. THEY ARE ENSURING PROPER DRAINAGE IS THERE. IT MAY BE OVERKILL TO INCLUDE EXTRA LANGUAGE. ULTIMATELY THEY'RE GOING TO BE REVIEWING IT FOR COMPLIANCE AND MAKING SURE THE DRAINAGE IS DOING WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO DO. > OKAY.

THAT WOULD BE HANDLED AT THE BUILDING PERMIT STAGE.

WE DON'T NEED TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE NECESSARILY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I DON'T KNOW HOW TO ADDRESS THIS, JACOB OR KEALEY. WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO FROM HERE TO GO FORWARD? THIS LANGUAGE NEEDS TO BE

PUBLISHED OR NOTICED? >> YES, SIR.

AGAIN, THIS WAS MOSTLY A DISCUSSION ITEM TO MAKE SURE AS LONG AS THE BOARD IS IN AGREEMENT, IF WE GET A POSITIVE OUT OF THE BOARD THAT WE ARE HAPPY WITH THAT LANGUAGE THAT I READ OUT LOUD TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL 4% FOR THE SMALLEST 7200 SQUARE-FOOT LOTS, I WILL COME BACK THROUGH A FORMAL PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS WHERE WE ADVERTISE IT, IT COMES TO THIS BOARD. YOU MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, GOES TO THEM FOR A PUBLIC ACCEPTED, IT WILL BECOME PART OF THE PONTE VEDRA CODE.

>> DO WE NEED TO VOTE TO MOVE THAT FORWARD?

>> YOU CAN DO IT THROUGH CONSENSUS.

>> OKAY. JOHN, GO AHEAD.

>> DO WE NEED A MOTION? WHAT DO WE DO?

>> IF YOU CAN DO IT THROUGH CONSENSUS OR THROUGH A MOTION.

I MOVE THAT WE DIRECT THE STAFF TO GO FORWARD WITH THIS PRO

PROPOSAL. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION TO SECOND. VOICE?

WE'LL VOTE. >> THERE YOU GO.

THE MOTION CARRIES. WE WILL MOVE FORWARD.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR. CHAIR, THERE WAS A SECOND PART OF THIS REPORT, SINCE WE GOT THROUGH THE FIRST HALF.

THIS IS JUST COMING BACK TO DISCUSS, AGAIN, IT'S A DISCUSSION ITEM REGARDING RV AND BOAT STORAGE.

I DON'T WANT THIS TO BE CONFUSED WITH THE PREVIOUS CONVERSATION WE HAD ON RVS AND SPRINTER VANS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT THAT. THIS IS PREDOMINANTLY FOCUSED ON THE LONG-TERM STORAGE OR MORE THAN 24-HOUR STORAGE IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE. IT'S ABOUT BOATS.

BUT IT WOULD BE BOATS OR RVS BEING VISIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. THAT'S A PROHIBITION HERE.

I HAVE PROVIDED THAT LANGUAGE THAT EXCEPT DURING THE TIME NECESSARY FOR PICKUP AND DELIVERY SERVICE NOT TO EXCEED 24 HOURS. COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AND RECREATIONAL VEHICLES SHOULD NOT BE PART.

I WON'T READ THE REST OF IT. ORIGINALLY WE HAD DISCUSSED THIS AND I HAD DRAFTED SOME LANGUAGE THAT AMENDED THE 24 CONTINUOUS HOURS, SEEMINGLY TRYING TO ADDRESS THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ASPECT OF IT. I HAVE SINCE TALKED AT LENGTH WITH THE CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGER AND TRIED TO GET A BETTER HANDLE ABOUT IF THAT MAKES IT BETTER OR EASIER OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT FOR THEM TO ENFORCE THE CODE.

I'M NOT UNDER ANY IMPRESSION THAT CHANGING THAT LANGUAGE BY REMOVING THAT OR MODIFYING IT IN SOME WAY IS GOING TO MAKE THEIR JOB ANY EASIER OR MAKE THEM ANY MORE LIKELY TO BE GUNG HO ABOUT ENFORCING THIS PROVISION. AND SO I BRING THIS BACK FOR DISCUSSION. I'M HAPPY TO TALK ABOUT IT MORE OR ANY MORE IDEAS. I DO THINK BROADLY SPEAKING THIS IS NOT A MAJOR ISSUE. I'M NOT HEARING ABOUT PEOPLE PARKING BOATS WHERE THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE.

IT'S NOT COMING TO MY DESK VERY OFTEN.

I KNOW OF AT LEAST ONE INSTANCE OF IT BUT IT'S NOT AN EPIDEMIC IN PONTE VEDRA OF PEOPLE STORING THEIR BOATS OR RVS WHERE THEY

ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE. >> THANK YOU, SIR.

AND NOW. ANNA.

>> THIS IS ITEM 4? THERE IS A LETTER HERE FROM JEFFREY STAMM. IS THAT THE INSTANCE YOU'RE

TALKING ABOUT? >> YES.

THAT I DO NOT BELIEVE WAS PART OF MY PACKET.

[01:30:02]

I BELIEVE IT WAS PROVIDED BY ONE OF YOUR BOARD MEMBERS.

>> I ACTUALLY PROVIDED THAT BECAUSE THIS ISSUE, I HAVE NOT HEARD ANYBODY BRING THIS BEFORE THE BOARD EXCEPT FOR ONE PERSON.

WHEN THAT WAS BROUGHT TO THE BOARD, THIS GENTLEMAN WAS USED AS AN EXAMPLE. I WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT THE MINUTES FOR THAT MEETING AND FOUND THIS LETTER.

WHICH IF YOU READ IT IN ITS ENTIRETY CAN BE A LITTLE BIT CONCERNING IN THAT THERE WERE 13 COMPLAINTS MADE ON THIS GENTLEMAN'S HOUSE IN THE LAST DECADE, THREE OF WHICH WERE MADE FALSELY UNDER SOMEONE ELSE'S NAME AND THAT PERSON FILED A POLICE REPORT FOR IT. SO OUT OF THAT, THAT LEAVES TEN LEGITIMATE COMPLAINTS, ENFORCEMENT COMPLAINTS ABOUT THIS BOAT, SEVEN OF WHICH WERE MADE BY THE SAME PERSON, THE VERY PERSON WHO BROUGHT THIS IDEA TO CHANGE THE LANGUAGE OF THIS REGULATION TO THIS BORN. AND SO I WOULD BE VERY OPPOSED TO CHANGING THE LANGUAE AT THE BEHEST OF ONE PERSON.

VERSUS SOMETHING THAT IS OVERWHELMING COMMUNITY DESIRE.

>> THREW THE CHAIR, IF I COULD INTERJECT AND I COULD INTERJECT AREA WHEN YOU HAD YOUR CONVERSATION ABOUT YOUR ISR BECAUSE OF THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE GUTTERING AND MAKING MORE CONDITIONS ON THAT. I WANT TO BRING SOMETHING FORWARD. YOU MAY NOT HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN CONVERSATIONS. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, VERY INVOLVED IN THE 2025 LEGISLATION.

A SENATE BILL 180, IF YOU'RE NOT FAMILIAR, WOULD PUT A RESTRICTION ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS MOVE THAT WE CANNOT ENACT ANY TYPE OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT WERE VALID REGULATION THAT WERE MORE BURDENSOME OR RESTRICTIVE.

AND THAT'S A BIG HURDLE WE HAVE TO OVERCOME SO I WANT YOU TO KEEP THAT IN MIND AND THAT'S IN EFFECT UNTIL, SORRY.

JUNE 30TH OF 2028. THERE WAS HOPE THE LEGISLATION THIS YEAR GOING TO FILE TO ALLEVIATE SOME OF THAT.

WE STRUGGLED WITH OUR PLAN AMENDMENT.

WE HAD TO RETRANSMIT TWICE BECAUSE OUR FIRST TRANSMITTAL WAS CONSIDERED MORE BURGERS THAN --BURDENSOME.

IT IS SOMETHING WE ARE KEEPING AN EYE OUT FAR.

YOU FIXED YOURSELF WHEN YOU SAID TO HAVE MORE GUTTERS ARE MADE PEOPLE DO MORE THINGS, THAT'S CONSIDERED BURDENSOME OR RESTRICTIVE. WE COULDN'T DO THAT.

BUT YOU KIND OF SELF REGULATED. I WANTED TO PUT THAT OUT THERE SO YOU'RE AWARE OF IT AS WE LOOK AT CHANGES TO OUR CODES THAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT. JUST SOMETHING FOR YOU TO BE

AWARE OF. >> SO IF WE'RE MAKING SOMETHING MORE RESTRICTIVE BUT ALSO GIVING SOMETHING AT THE SAME TIME, DOES IT COUNTER THE RESTRICTIVE A LITTLE BIT? YOU ARE GIVING SOMETHING AND REQUESTING SOMETHING IN RETURN?

>> THE LETTER OF THE LAW. THAT'S ALL I'M TELLING YOU.

>> I'M NOT TRYING TO SELL BACK YET.

>> I WANT YOU TO BE AWARE OF THAT AS WE ARE LOOKING FORWARD.

THERE ARE SOME CHANGES TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

LIKE WE WANT TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES AND THEN WE ARE LIKE YEAH, BUT IT'S MORE BURDENSOME OR RESTRICTIVE, SO WE HAVE HELD OFF. IT'S A THING WE WERE LOOKING AT.

I WANTED TO MAKE YOU AWARE OF THAT AS YOU WERE HAVING YOUR DISCUSSIONS AND CONVERSATIONS ABOUT CHANGES TO YOUR CODE AS WELL. IT WOULD BE APPLICABLE.

>> THANK YOU. >> THIS IS A BOARD DISCUSSION.

CAN I INVITE A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK?

>> ABSOLUTELY. >> I FEEL LIKE THIS WOULD BE A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE US YOUR PERSPECTIVE AS AN MST

MEMBER. >> IS AN MST MEMBER, AS THE CHAIR RIGHT NOW, THIS WAS BROUGHT TO THE BOARD AND THEY AGREED WE COULD BRING IT TO THIS BOARD FOR DISCUSSION.

AS AN INDIVIDUAL, I DID MAKE A LOT OF REPORTS BECAUSE THE NEIGHBORS CALLED ME. THEY DIDN'T WANT TO GET INVOLVED. THIS HAS BEEN AN ONGOING SITUATION FOR OVER TEN YEARS. HE'S RUNNING A BUSINESS OUT OF HIS HOME. HIS BOAT IS THERE MOST OF THE TIME. IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO ENFORCE IT WITH A 24-HOUR CONTINUOUS, AND IF YOU READ THE REGULATION, IT SAYS "FOR PURPOSES OF DELIVERY AND PICKUP."

[01:35:02]

NOT TO EXCEED 24 HOURS. NOW, PICKUP AND DELIVERY DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN HAVE IT THERE ALL THE TIME.

TO ME, PICK UP IS YOU ACTUALLY PICK IT UP.

WITH SOMEONE DELIVERS IT. IF SOMEONE'S COMING TO PICK IT UP OR DELIVER THE ACTUAL ITEM. I THINK THAT WAS WHY WE DISCUSSED POSSIBLY REMOVING THE 24-HOUR CONTINUOUS.

BECAUSE THAT WOULD ALLOW CODE ENFORCEMENT SUPPOSEDLY TO ACT IMMEDIATELY THEN WAITING TO SEE IF IT'S STILL THERE 24 HOURS.

IF IT STILL AFTER 24 HOURS. THE ACTUAL NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR WAS THE ONE THAT CAME TO ME THE LAST TIME, PRIOR TO THAT YEARS BEFORE OTHER NEIGHBORS CAME. OBVIOUSLY PEOPLE ARE NOT HAPPY.

BECAUSE THEY SENT IN THE WRONG NAME, ASKED THE POLICE TO GET INVOLVED. THAT DID NOT COME FROM ME.

I ALWAYS SUBMIT MY NAME AND ADDRESS.

PRIOR TO, I DON'T REMEMBER WHEN IT HAPPENED, MAYBE THREE YEARS AGO. PRIOR TO THREE YEARS AGO, PRIDE COMPLAINTS COULD BE ANONYMOUS. IT WASN'T AN ISSUE.

NOW IT'S AN ISSUE. THE NEIGHBORS DON'T WANT THEIR NAME ON THAT PRIDE. IN FACT, I KNOW THAT IT CAUSES BAD BLOOD. THAT'S HOW I GOT INVOLVED.

A COUPLE NEIGHBORS CALLED ME AND ASKED ME WHAT I COULD DO.

IT GOT COMPLICATED BECAUSE THE SYSTEM, HE WAS PLAYING THE SYSTEM. HE KNEW EXACTLY WHEN HE COULD AND COULD NOT HAVE IT THERE. JACOB SAID HE SPOKE TO MR. POTTER. HE DOESN'T THINK OMITTING 24-HOUR CONTINUOUS WOULD HELP THE ENFORCEMENT.

I JUST THINK, I JUST THINK THAT OUR DISCO RVS AND BOATS ARE NOT ALLOWED. BUT AS THE ANNA SAID, YES, I WAS INVOLVED IN IT. I HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH MR. POTTER, CONVERSATIONS WITH THE NEIGHBORS.

THEY TYPICALLY SUBMITTED THE PICTURES TO ME BECAUSE THEY LIVE THERE AND I SENT THEM IN. THAT'S WHY THAT WAS -- ACTUALLY I WAS ACCUSED OF DOING FALSE AND I CANNOT DO ANYTHING FALSE AND I DO NOT MAKE A POLICE REPORT.

THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IT. YES, IT'S THE ONE PERSON BUT IT OPENS THE DOOR FOR OTHER PEOPLE TO LEAVE IT THERE.

TRYING TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT TO ACTUALLY ENFORCE THE REGULATION WITH RVS.

THIS IS A HUGE BOAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

AND A SMALL, VERY TIGHT R-1-D NEIGHBORHOOD.

ANYTHING ELSE? >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

JACOB, DID CODE ENFORCEMENT HAVE ANY REQUESTS AS FAR AS CHANGING? YOU SAID THE SUGGESTED LANGUAGE WASN'T GOING TO HELP THEM IN ANY WAY. DID THEY HAVE ANYTHING THAT WE

COULD DO THAT WOULD ASSIST THEM? >> NO, SIR, I DON'T BELIEVE THERE WAS ANYTHING SPECIFIC. I WANTED TO GIVE A LITTLE MORE CONTEXT TO THE ANGLE THAT I APPROACHED IT WITH WHEN I TALKED WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT ABOUT IT. AGAIN, ESSENTIALLY THE COMMON DIFFICULTY ENFORCEMENT IS CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER SHOWS UP, THEY SEE THE BOAT, THEY SAY HEY, YOU KNOW YOU CAN'T PARK YOUR BOAT HERE. YOU'VE GOT TO MOVE IT.

AND THEN THEY COME BACK A DAY LATER AND THERE'S NO BOAT.

THAT'S THE SHORT WAY. BUT I RECOGNIZE, AGAIN, HAVING LOOKED AT THIS PARTICULAR PRIDE CASE FOR THIS ADDRESS AND JUST DOING SOME RESEARCH BOTH ON GOOGLE STREET VIEW AND A HUGE NUMBER OF ANNUAL AERIAL IMAGES THAT THIS BOAT IS ALWAYS THERE.

IT'S IN THE POSITION FOUR TIMES IN THE PAST SIX YEARS ON OUR COUNTY MAPPING SYSTEM. IT'S IN THE POSITION THREE OR FOUR YEARS IN THE PAST SIX YEARS ON THE PROPERTY APPRAISER'S AERIAL IMAGERY. IT'S VERY CLEAR IT'S BEING STORED THERE. SO THAT WAS THE POSITION THAT I TOOK WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT. I SAID STOP GIVING A PASS.

HE STORING HIS BOAT HERE. LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE.

AGAIN, I DON'T DO CODE ENFORCEMENT.

BUT IT IS A CODE ENFORCEMENT ISSUE.

I DO NOT THINK IT'S A LANGUAGE ISSUE.

[01:40:01]

THE CODE IS CLEAR. YOU CAN STORE BOATS HERE.

IT WOULD APPEAR SOMEBODY STORES A BOAT HERE.

THERE'S AMPLE VISUAL EVIDENCE OF IT.

SO AGAIN, I THINK IT'S DIFFICULT.

IT'S DIFFICULT FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT TO DO THEIR JOB.

I THINK IT'S DIFFICULT WHEN SOMEBODY MOVES THEM TO CITE IT BUT IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE I THOUGHT THIS CASE SHOULD BE MOVED FORWARD AND THEY SHOULD GO TO MAGISTRATE FOR IMPROPERLY PARKING THEIR VEHICLE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CURRENT

STATUS IS AS EVERY NOW TODAY. >> ANNA.

>> I JUST WANT TO ADDRESS A COUPLE THINGS.

I KNOW THAT, I BELIEVE THE GENTLEMAN STATED THAT HE HAS PUT UP SECURITY CAMERAS, PROVIDED FOOTAGE OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT.

HE DOESN'T KEEP IT THERE LONGER THAN -- HE RUNS A CHARTER BUSINESS AND ALSO DOES TOURNAMENT FISHING.

THAT'S HOW HE EARNS A LIVING, HOWIE RINSES -- PAYS HIS TAXES. WHEN IT SAYS DELIVERY, DOESN'T MEAN SALE AND PICKUP. IT HAS MORE TO DO, LIKE WITH AN RV, YOU COME HOME. YOU EMPTY YOUR BOAT, CLEAN IT, AND YOU GET IT PREPARED FOR THE NEXT MORNING AND USUALLY LEAVE BEFORE DAWN. TO ME, GOING AFTER CHANGING A LANGUAGE OF A REGULATION THAT'S BEEN IN EXISTENCE FOR 15 YEARS, THE 24 CONTINUOUS HOURS SOLELY BECAUSE ONE MAN IS PARKING HIS BOAT ARGUABLY NOT MORE THAN 24 HOURS AT A TIME BUT REPEATEDLY FOR DURATIONS EACH DAY, THAT'S AN INDIVIDUAL ISSUE ENFORCING THAT CODE. ALSO IT'S BEEN SAID THAT YOU HAD PLACED THE CODE VIOLATIONS AND COMPLAINTS ON BEHALF OF OTHER PEOPLE. BUT I BELIEVE THAT THE MSD BOARD MOVE TO MAKE SURE TRUSTEES DO NOT PLACE CODE COMPLAINTS ON BEHALF OF SOMEONE ELSE MUST IT'S BEEN BROUGHT BEFORE THE BOARD AND APPROVED. JUST CHANGE LAST MONTH, CORRECT?

>> THE BOARD VOTED THAT IF WE BRING ANYTHING TO CODE ENFORCEMENT, AS A MSD TRUSTEE, THEN THE BOARD HAS TO APPROVE IT. AS AN INDIVIDUAL, WE CAN DO, WE CAN REPORT PRIDES. THOSE WERE DONE BEFORE THE VOTE LAST WEEK BUT THEY'VE ALWAYS BEEN DONE INDIVIDUALLY IN MY NAME WITH NO AFFILIATION TO THE MSD.

>> I'M JUST MAKING SURE WE UNDERSTAND THAT YOU AS AN INDIVIDUAL HAVE REPORTED THOSE. YOU WEREN'T DOING IT ON BEHALF OF THE COMMUNITY AS A MSD TRUSTEE.

>> CORRECT. >> OKAY.

>> CHIP. >> I'LL JUST SAY, AS BEING THE SUBJECT OF AN ANONYMOUS PRIDE COMPLAINT PERSONALLY, OH, YEAH, DURING COVID. I WILL TELL YOU THAT IF I'M GOING TO GO, IF I HAVE A FAMILY, LIKE MANY FAMILIES IN OUR COMMUNITY, AND I HAVE A BOAT THAT'S BEING STORED AT A BOAT STORAGE FACILITY DURING THE WEEK AND I WANT TO TAKE A FAMILY ACTIVITY FOR THE WEEKEND, AND GO BOATING A COUPLE OF TIMES AND MY BOAT IS IN MY DRIVEWAY FOR 48 HOURS, THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO DO.

PUTTING A 24-HOUR RESTRICTION WORDING IN OUR CODE, WHETHER IT'S A BOAT, WHETHER IT'S -- IF I HAVE AN RV AND I WANT TO TAKE THE TAILGATES UNLOADED ON FRIDAY AND WE GO TO THE GAM ON SUNDAY, THAT RESTRICTIVE NATURE IS, IT'S SOMETHING OUR LEGISLATURE HAS PUT IN WRITING, IT'S NOT JUST ME.

I AM AGAINST IT. I'M VERY AGAINST PUTTING ANY MORE RESTRICTIVE WORDING IN OUR CODE FOR RVS AND BOATS.

REGARDING 24 HOURS. DO YOU WANT TO MAKE IT 72? NO PROBLEM. BUT 24 HOURS, IT'S NOTHING.

IT TAKES AWAY, IT ACTUALLY PROHIBITS FAMILIES FROM DOING WHAT FAMILIES DO. WE CAN'T TELL THEM WHAT THEY CAN AND CANNOT DO. WITH WHAT ACTIVITY THEY WANT TO DO. BY PUTTING MORE RESTRICTIVE WORDING IN OUR CODE, I AM AGAINST THAT FOR SURE.

>> TONY? >> YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT YOU MAY HAVE A GUY WHO'S GOT A BOAT THAT DOESN'T LIVE HERE.

HIS BOAT NEEDS TO GET REPAIRED SO HE'S GOING TO BRING IT TO HIS HOUSE, HAVE IT TAKEN FOR A PICKUP TO BRING IT BACK UP NORTH. IT MAY BE A WEEK BEFORE THE PICKUP COMES. WE'VE GOT SITUATIONS LIKE THAT

[01:45:01]

THAT ALSO COME UP. IF THERE'S ONE GUY HERE BEATING THE SYSTEM BECAUSE HE HAS IT DOCKED THERE AND HE MOVES OUT FOR AN HOUR AND THEN BRINGS IT BACK AND SAYS IT'S NOT 24 CONTINUOUS HOURS, THAT'S ANOTHER ISSUE.

IT'S A NEIGHBOR ISSUE. WE CALL IT A CODE ISSUE BUT AGAIN, TO CHIP'S POINT, 24 HOURS, SOMEBODY COMES IN AND IS WAITING FOR A DELIVERY OR PICK UP IT'S GOING TO BE OVER 24 HOURS, YOU CAN'T REALLY REGULATE THAT.

>> JOHN. >> AND ON THE OTHER SIDE, WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE BOATS ALWAYS STORED IN OUR DRIVEWAYS, RVS ALWAYS PARKED ON OUR ROADS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS.

I'VE GOT A PERSONAL EXPERIENCE OF A NEIGHBOR WHO DECIDED TO BUY A SCHOOL BUS AND IT WAS PARKED THERE FOR TWO WEEKS AND WE HAD TO CALL CODE ENFORCEMENT. WE TOLD THE NEIGHBOR, YOU CAN'T HAVE IT THERE. THEY SAID TOUGH LUCK.

SO WE HAD TO CALL CODE ENFORCEMENT AND IT STILL TOOK FIVE OR TEN DAYS, FIVE DAYS AFTER THAT BEFORE HE MOVED IT.

WE DON'T WANT THAT AS A FULL-TIME THING.

>> I GET THAT. >> I 100% AGREE WITH YOU.

TWO WEEKS IS TOO LONG. LONG PERIODS OF STRETCHES OF TIME, AGGRAVATING YOUR NEIGHBOR, BEING AN EYESORE IN THE COMMUNITY, I AGREE WITH YOU. BUT THE MAJORITY OF OUR COMMUNITY, I WOULD SAY -- WE HAVE A LOT OF FAMILIES, A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO DO LOTS OF RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES.

IF YOU'RE GOING TO LIMIT BY WORDING IN OUR CODE TO LIMIT THEIR ACTIVITIES, AND AGAINST IT.

TOTALLY. ON A 24-HOUR BASIS.

>> IT SEEMS LIKE THERE IS NO -- HAVING NO DIRECTION FROM CODE ENFORCEMENT THAT WE CAN DO ANYTHING TO FURTHER ASSIST THEM.

I DON'T HEAR THE WILL OF THE BOARD TO PURSUE TIGHTER RESTRICTIONS. I THINK THIS ISSUE IS DEAD UNLESS SOMEBODY COUNTERACTS ME. I THINK WE ARE GOING TO SHELF THAT FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE. I'M GOING TO MOVE ON TO NUM

[5. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair. The Ponte Vedra Zoning and Adjustment Board is required to annually elect a Chair and Vice-Chair. Please see the attached recommended Nomination and Voting procedures. Alternatively, after public comment, the simple suggested motions for the election may be made.]

NUMBER 5. ELECTION OF A CHAIR AND A VICE

CHAIR. >> YES, SIR.

ANNUALLY THE PONTE VEDRA ZONING BOARD NEEDS TO ELECT A CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR SO WE HAVE PROVIDED YOU THE PROCEDURES FOR THAT AS PART OF THIS ITEM AND I HANDED BACK TO YOU TO GET IT GOING.

>> BY THE WAY, I'M NOMINATING... >> WHO CAN I NOMINATE FIRST?

>> JOHN. >> QUESTION FOR STAFF.

SEVERAL OF THE BOARD MEMBERS ARE GOING TO BE TERMING OUT DURING THE NEXT YEAR. WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT THAT?

CAN THEY BE ELECTED? >> YES, SIR.

THIS BOARD CAN ELECT A CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR AT THEIR CHOOSING.

>> THANK YOU. >> MR. CHAIR, I JUST WANT TO GO ON THE RECORD SAYING THIS PAST YEAR COME OUT WHILE WE'VE MET MANY TIMES, LOTS OF BREAKS IN BETWEEN, YOU'VE DONE A FINE JOB CARRYING THIS BOARD AND I WOULD LIKE TO NOMINATE SAM CROZIER FOR

CHAIR FOR 2026-27. >> I SINCERELY APPRECIATE THOSE KIND WORDS. THE 20 BUCKS I PAID YOU TO SAY THAT WAS TOTALLY WORTH IT. I WOULD LOVE TO SEE IF ANYBODY ELSE WOULD LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY. [LAUGHS] IF ANYBODY ELSE WOULD LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHAIR THIS.

>> HEARING NONE. A SECOND.

>> SECOND. >> JUST REFUSED TO PUSH THE