[1. PVZVAR 2026-03 Burch Residence. Request for a Zoning Variance to Sections III.B.1 and IIIV.D 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 nine (9) feet and a reduction in the required front yard setback from sixty-nine (69 feet) to fifty-four (54) feet in R-1-B zoning to accommodate construction of a single-family home, specifically located at 560 Ponte Vedra Blvd. This application was originally heard at the 4/6/2026 PVZAB meeting and was voted for a continuance to allow the applicant to make changes to the request.]

IF THERE IS ANYBODY WHO HAS ANYTHING TO SAY THAT IS NOT ON THE AGENDA? SEEING NONE, I'M GOING TO MOVE TO THE FIRST AGENCY ITEM. THAT WOULD BE PV ZBA ARE,

2026-03, BIRCH RESIDENTS. >> I VISITED THE SITE SEVERAL TIMES. I'VE NOT HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH ANYBODY SINCE SEPTEMBER. THANK YOU.

>> I HAVE DRIVEN AND WALKED THE SITE MANY TIMES.

I HAVE NOT SPOKEN TO THE APPLICANT SINCE THE LAST PRESENTATION. A COUPLE MONTHS AGO.

>> I HAVE BEEN BY THE SITE BUT HAD NO CONVERSATION WITH THE APPLICANT SINCE LAST MEETING HERE.

>> I HAVE BEEN BY THE SITE AND I SPOKE WITH THE APPLICANT ON FRIDAY. DO WE HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE?

COME ON UP. >> GOOD AFTERNOON.

DAVID BIRCH, NICE TO SEE YOU ALL AGAIN.

AND AS A MEMBER OF THE LST, I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. SOMETIMES IT'S NOT AS FUN AS IT SHOULD BE. I AM HERE AGAIN, AND HOPEFULLY YOU REMEMBER MY APPEARANCE LAST TIME, WHERE THERE WAS A ROBUST DISCUSSION ON SIGN SETBACKS, AND CONSEQUENTLY I'VE ADJUSTED MY REQUEST TO A MUCH SMALLER SIGN SETBACK AND ADDED A FRONT SETBACK REQUEST. AND I WISH I HAD DONE THIS MORE THE FIRST TIME. IN PREPARATION FOR THIS PRESENTATION, I JUST PAID ATTENTION TO THE ORDINANCE AND THE REQUIREMENT FOR VARIANCE, AND IN SHORT I THINK I MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS. AND I BELIEVE MY REQUEST FOR THE SPECIFIC VARIANCES ARE SPECIFIC WITH THE CODE.

[00:05:01]

AND CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER AND FABRIC OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO I WILL GO IN TO THE PRESENTATION. OKAY.

THESE ARE JUST SOME FACTS AND FIGURES.

THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE HERE, GENTLEMAN, IS THE WIDTH AND THE SIZE OF SITE, AS-- IN THE CONTEXT OF AN UNUSUAL FRONT SETBACK WITHIN THE CODE. SO OF COURSE THESE SITES NONCONFORMING, ESTABLISHED ROUGHLY 75 YEARS AGO.

IT IS ONE OF ONLY SIX LOTS-- ONE OF ONLY SIX OR SEVEN LOTS DEPENDING ON WHERE YOU COUNT IT WITHIN THE PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD AREA THAT IS ONLY 70 FEET WIDE. THAT ARE WITH IT IN THE R1 B ZONING DISTRICT. SO THERE WILL BE SOME ARGUMENTS BEHIND ME ABOUT THIS BEING A GENERAL CONDITION.

NOTHING PER CARRIER ABOUT THE LOT.

THIS IS ULTIMATELY 1 OF 6 LOTS WITHIN HUNDREDS SUBJECT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE. AND IT'S THE ONLY BLOCK IN THE ENTIRE DISTRICT THAT HAS A 69-FOOT FRONT SETBACK.

EVERY OTHER ARE 1B LOT WOULD HAVE A 40-FOOT SETBACK IS ESTABLISHED BY THE ORDINANCE. SO IT IS THE COMBINATION OF THE EXCEPTIONALLY NARROW LOT, WHICH MAKES IT SMALL IN THE CONTEXT OF THE CODES MINIMUM LOT SIZE, WITH THE FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE, AS AN ANOMALY WITHIN THE BROADER CONTEXT OF THE COMMUNITY AND THE CODE. THOSE EFFECTIVELY MAKE FOR A HARDSHIP WHERE I CANNOT BUILD AND MANAGE MY LOT THAT IS CAN-- CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THIS IS THE LATEST CONCEPT PLAN. AND UNFORTUNATELY IT IS BLACK AND WHITE, BUT I WILL WALK YOU THROUGH IT.

THE HASH LINES RUNNING TOP TO BOTTOM REPRESENT ON THE FAR RIGHT THE 40-FOOT SETBACK LINE OF R1B.

IF THIS WERE ANY OTHER LINE, ANY OTHER STREET IN R1B THAT WOULD REPRESENT 40 FEET OF A SETBACK LINE.

UCD REQUESTED VARIANCE SETBACK LINE, WHICH IS EFFECTIVELY 54 FEET. AND THE ESTABLISHED BY CODE LINE THE FARTHEST TO THE LEFT, ALMOST BY THE GARAGE, WHICH IS 69 FEET.

ON THE SIDE SETBACKS I AM REQUESTING 1 FOOT ON EACH SIDE.

AND I ASSUME YOU CAN SEE THAT. IT IS A VERY SMALL AREA ON EITHER SIDE OF THE HOUSE FOOTPRINT.

I THINK THAT DEPICTION OF IT IS SOMEWHAT OF AN-- THE ESSENCE OF PART OF MY ARGUMENT. SO, AGAIN, PVZVAR IS VERY CLEAR ON WHAT IS REQUIRED FOR A VARIANCE.

THE VARIANCE IS PERMITTED TO NOT BE CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST, AND WHERE BY REASON OF EXCEPTIONAL NARROWNESS SHALL RUN BY A SPECIFIC PIECE OF PROPERTY THE LITERAL ENFORCEMENT OF REQUIRED-- REQUIRED ZONING ORDINANCE WOULD CAUSE UNDUE HARDSHIP TO THE APPLICANT. I DO NOT BELIEVE THIS IS SCOTT-- CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST, GENTLEMEN.

THE CODE ESTABLISHED THE VARIANCES BY THEMSELVES, THOSE ARE NOT CONTRARY, WHICH IS WHY IN CASES THEY ARE PERMITTED.

IN THIS CASE I'M ASKING FOR A DIMINISHED SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE OF 1 FOOT, ALMOST IMPERCEPTIBLE TO THE NAKED EYE MAC WHEN YOU'RE OUTSIDE OF A LOT OR WALKING DOWN A SIDEWALK.

I DO NOT THINK THAT THAT IS CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST.

AND THE FRONT SETBACK IS CONSISTENT WITH OTHER ESTABLISHED FOOTPRINTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, INCLUDING EVERY HOUSE ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE ROAD, WHICH IS PULLED UP RIGHT AT THAT 40-FOOT SETBACK LINE FOR THE MOST PART.

SO THE WEST SIDE OF THE ROAD WHERE I AM LOCATED HAS A 69-FOOT SETBACK. THE EAST SIDE IS 40, AND I HAVE A PICTURE SHOWING WHERE MOST OF THE HOUSES, REALLY ALL OF THE ONES ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE SALON-- LOT, ARE RIGHT AT THAT 40-FOOT LINE. AND THE ENFORCEMENT CAUSING UNDUE HARDSHIP, I WILL GET INTO THIS.

EFFECTIVELY THE SETBACKS ARE NOT SCALED AT ALL TO BE PROPORTIONAL. SO WHEN APPLYING THE SETBACKS FOR A 100-FOOT WIDE LOT, THE 17,000 SQUARE-FOOT LOT, THE STANDARDS ESTABLISHED, WHEN APPLYING THOSE SETBACKS TO THIS LOT, YOU DON'T GET A 30% SMALLER FOOTPRINT.

WHICH IS PERHAPS WHAT YOU WOULD SAY IS PROPORTIONAL.

YOU GET ALMOST A 50% SMALLER FOOTPRINT.

YOU GET A FOOTPRINT THAT IS GOVERNED BY SETBACKS AND NOT IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIO. AND I DON'T THINK THAT IS THE INTENT OF THE CODE. SO THIS IS MORE ON THAT ARGUMENT. THIS IS NOT A PROPORTIONAL

[00:10:05]

IMPACT. AND THE CODE DOES HAVE A THEME OF PROPORTIONALITY WHEN YOU GET IN TO THE SIZE OF THE SETBACKS SCALING DOWN FOR NARROWER LOTS. AS I AM SURE YOU ARE AWARE, R1 C, R1 D1D ALLOW 60-FOOT MINIMUM LOTS.

AND THEY ALLOW SEVEN AND A HALF FOOT FRONT SETBACKS.

SIDE SETBACKS. I DO BELIEVE I HAVE A 40-FOOT FRONT SETBACK, BUT I'M ONLY REQUESTING 44 FEET.

ITSY ANOMALY OF THE 69-FOOT FRONT SETBACK ON THIS ONE BLOCK OF THE ENTIRE DISTRICT THAT MAKES ME EVEN NEED A FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE. IN TERMS OF MY REQUEST BEING CONSISTENT WITH THE CODE, I HAVE SPOKEN TO THIS BEFORE, BUT ALL RECESSED 40 FEET PER FRONT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ONE BLOCK OF THE ENTIRE AREA GOVERNED BY R1B. THE CODE HAS SAID AND ALL OTHER INSTANCES, 40 FEET IS ENOUGH. I AM REQUESTING 54.

THE 9 FEET, IT IS MORE CONSISTENT WITH A PROPORTIONAL SCALING OF THE SETBACKS TO THE SIZE OR WIDTH OF THE LOT.

IN OUR 1C OR D, YOUR SIDE SETBACK REPRESENTS 45% OF THE SETBACK MINIMUM LOT WIDTH. IN R1 A AND B, IT REPRESENTS 10% OF YOUR TOTAL LOT WITH. THE APPLICATION OF THE CODE TO ME WOULD BE 14 HALF-- ■14.5%. AND I'M REQUESTING SOMETHING LESS THAN THAT. MUCH CLOSER TO THAT PROPORTIONAL THEME THAT THE CODE HAS ESTABLISHED AT A 9-FOOT SETBACK INSTEAD OF TEN. I HAVE ALREADY DEPICTED THIS.

I WILL NOT GO THROUGH THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF HOW WE GOT TO 69 FEET YOUR. THE EXIST-- BEHIND ME YOU WILL HEAR SOME COMPLAINTS, I AM SURE, ABOUT THIS POTENTIALLY DISRUPTING THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

ABOUT IT DISRUPTING LIGHT AND ESTABLISHED BUILD PATTERN WITHIN THE PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD AREA. THE TRUTH IS THAT WHAT I AM REQUESTING ON THE FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK CONDITION ALREADY EXISTS. IT EXISTS IN SPADES ON THE FRONT SETBACK. AT LEAST WITH RESPECT TO THE EAST SIDE. BECAUSE EVERY HOUSE WAS BUILT UP TO 40 FEET. NOT 54.

AND IT EXISTS IN THESE TWO INSTANCES ON THE WEST SIDE.

AND I HAVE PICTURES OF THESE. AND I SHOW THEM TO YOU NOT BECAUSE I'M POINTING A FINGER AT ANYBODY, BUT BECAUSE I THINK THESE ARE BEAUTIFUL HOUSES. [INDISCERNIBLE] SO THIS IS SIX LOTS FROM WHERE I AM REQUESTING.

A BEAUTIFUL HOUSE. WITH A FRONT GARAGE ENTIRELY WITHIN THE 69-FOOT SETBACK. THIS HOUSE WAS ALLOWED TO BUILD UP TO 40 FEET BECAUSE IT WAS NOT ON THE 1940 SOMETHING PLAN BYLINES. SO WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THAT SOMEWHAT ANOMALY OF A 69-FOOT SETBACK.

IT EXISTED ON THIS ONE BLOCK THE ENTIRE DISTRICT.

I DON'T THINK ANYONE WHO WALKS PASS THIS HOUSE THANKS ANYTHING OTHER THAN, HEY, THAT'S A BEAUTIFUL HOUSE.

THAT'S A NICE-LOOKING GARAGE. GOOD FOR THEM.

THE NEXT HOUSE. THIS, AGAIN, I DON'T THINK ANYONE WALKS PAST THIS HOUSE AND QUESTION HOW IT AFFECTS THE LIGHT OR SPACING OF THE AREA. I THINK IF YOU USE LANGUAGE LIKE THAT AND OBJECTION LETTERS, ARE NOT BEING REALISTIC.

THIS IS A SIDE VIEW GOING SOUTH. AND YOU SEE THIS WITHIN THE FRONT SETBACK. THIS IS ALSO INTENDED TO NOT BE HABITABLE, IS MIND WOULD NOT BE. MY REQUEST IS FOR A TWO CAR GARAGE. NOT A 35-FOOT TALL STRUCTURE.

[00:15:04]

SO, WHEN PEOPLE GIVE CONCERNS ABOUT MY REQUEST HAVING A DRAMATIC IMPACT TO THE EXISTING CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I DON'T THINK THEY HOLD WATER. THE EXISTING CONDITIONS EXIST AND ARE BEAUTIFUL. AND ANYONE WHO DROPS PAST THE HOUSE I INTEND TO BUILD IS GOING TO SAY SOMETHING SIMILAR, AND THEY DID A GOOD JOB WITH THAT HOUSE.

IT'S NICE HOW THEY SET THAT GARAGE OUT SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO HAVE THE FRONT FACADE EATEN UP WITH HALF A GARAGE.

AND I'M GLAD THE LOT WAS BUILT. BECAUSE IT'S A BEAUTIFUL LOT THAT WILL RAISE POP-- PROPERTY VALUES OF EVERYONE IN THE AREA.

I WOULD CHALLENGE THE FOLKS WHO ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THIS TO BRING FORWARD REAL EVIDENCE FOR HOW THIS IS GOING TO IMPACT THEIR HEALTH, SAFETY, THEIR WELFARE OR PROPERTY VALUE.

COMPLAINING A GENERIC TERMS ABOUT THE IMPACT TO THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS NOT EVIDENCE SHONE.

YOU KNOW THAT. AND THIS IS A QUASIJUDICIAL HEARING. SO I WOULD JUST ASK THEM TO COME UP WITH REAL EVIDENCE TO THAT TO SUPPORT THEIR CLAIMS. TO THE IMPERCEPTIBLY OF THE SIDE SETBACK, THIS IS DRAWN TO SCALE.

I REALLY STRUGGLE THAT SOMEONE STANDING ON THE SIDEWALK DRIVING DOWN PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD IS GOING TO NOTICE THE DIFFERENCE IN 12 INCHES ON EITHER SIDE OF THE HOUSE.

12 INCHES TO THE SCALE OF THE HUMAN EYE IN THAT CONTEXT IS ALMOST IMPERCEPTIBLE. BUT I GET 24 INCHES INSIDE THE HOUSE. I GET 24 INCHES IN THE GEOMETRY OF MY DRIVEWAY AND GARAGE PLANNING.

AND 24 INCHES IN BOTH THOSE CONTEXTS IS MEANINGFUL.

ON NOT AN ARCHITECT, I HAVE HIRED CLIFF DUKE WHO HAS DONE MORE HOUSES ON THE BOULEVARD THAN ANYONE I KNOW.

I AM FOLLOWING HIS LEAD. HE TELLS ME THAT NUMBER 1 YOU WANT A SIDE FACING GARAGE. MY WIFE AND I AGREED WITH HIM FROM THE BEGINNING. NUMBER 2, YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE A HOUSE THAT MIRRORS THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IF YOU DON'T GET SOME SORT OF VARIANCE.

THE GEOMETRY WILL NOT WORK. YOU'RE THERE TO WORK WITH THE SMALLER HOUSE IN THE BACK. IT'S NOT GOING TO FIT YOUR FAMILY. IT'S GOING TO BE SMALLER THAN THE AVERAGE HOME IN THE NEIGHBOHOOD OR YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A FRONT FACING GARAGE. IT'S JUST NOT GOING TO HAVE THE CHARACTER OF WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR.

AND THE INSIDE OF THE HOUSE, I WON'T GET INTO THE INTERIOR DESIGN BECAUSE IT MAKES MY EYES ROLL IN TO THE BACK OF MY HEAD.

BUT THE 24 INCHES INSIDE THE HOUSE IS A MEANINGFUL SPACE IMPACT PLAN. SO IN TERMS OF IMPACT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, VERSUS IMPACT TO WHAT I PLAN TO DO.

IN ONE CASE IS SIGNIFICANT AND IN THE OTHER IT'S ALMOST IMPERCEPTIBLE. OKAY.

FIVE REASONS TO APPROVE. THE ELEMENTS OF THE CODE PERMITTING VARIANCES ARE ALL MET.

THE CODE PRESCRIBES EXCEPTIONAL NARROWNESS AS ONE OF THE CONDITIONS WHICH 30% NARROWER THAN THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE, THAT SATISFIES. THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE CODE CREATES AN UNDUE HARDSHIP TO ME, IT PREVENTS ME FROM ENJOYING MY LOT THE WAY EVERYONE ELSE ENJOYS THEIR LOTS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

I KNOW THERE ARE EXISTING HO HOUSES-- IN THE SIX LOTS THAT ARE 70-FOOT WIDE ON THIS ONE BLOCK IN THE ENTIRE DISTRICT.

ONE OF WHOM IS BUILT RECENTLY. BUT THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES DON'T DICTATE WHETHER VARIANCES DO IN MY CASE.

IN THAT CASE WHAT THE HOMEOWNER WANTED TO DO WITH THEIR LOT, HOW THEY WANTED TO USE IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE CODE IN THIS CASE PREVENTS ME FROM BUILDING IN A MANNER THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN A MANNER THAT IS NOT-- IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE REST OF THE BOULEVARD.

I AM NOT-- A LOT OF TIMES ZONING-- VARIANCES AND REQUEST TO DRAINAGE, THIS IS A-- I'M NOT ENCROACHING OR GETTING CLOSE TO THE SURFACE RATIO HERE. BUT I AM WORK-- MY REQUEST WILL NOT IMPACT THAT SO THERE'LL BE NO IMPACT TO TRAINING VERSUS CODE. AND I'VE SAID THIS BEFORE, BUT I AM WELL WITHIN THE 40-FOOT STANDARD ESTABLISHED FOR R1 D AND EVER ELSE IN THE DISTRICT. IT'S ONLY IN THIS ONE BLOCK THAT I NEED A VARIANCE FOR THE FRONT SETBACK.

AND THE ACROSS THE STREET NEIGHBORS, WHO ARE THE ONES MOST IMPACTED BY A FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE, THEY ARE ALL 40 FEET.

AND I'M HAPPY TO SHOW THAT AS WELL.

>> MY LOT IS THE VACANT LOTS. THE RED LINES ON THE SIDE OF THE

[00:20:06]

STREET REPRESENT THE MEASURING TOOL ON ST JOHNS COUNTY, TAX PROPERTY APPRAISER WEBSITE. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE IS A FRACTION BELOW 40 FEET TO THE BUILDING WHICH TELLS ME THEY ARE BUILT TO 40. OKAY? AS A RELATES TO THE SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE, SINCE I'M HERE, I WON'T LEAVE HERE TILL I SHOW YOU THESE.

AGAIN THIS IS FROM THE PROPERTY APPRAISER WEBSITE.

I KNOW MEASURING TOOLS ONLINE KABILA TRICKY TRICKY SO I TRIED TO AIR IT OUT A LITTLE BIT TOWARDS THE GIVING SOME TOLERANCE. THIS IS 554.

AT BEST, 7 FEET ON THE NORTHERN SIDE SIDE SETBACK.

548. I DIDN'T EVEN GO TO THE MOST-- TO THE WIDEST PORTION OF THE HOUSE.

I WENT TO THE MAJORITY OF THE HOUSE.

AND THAT IS EIGHT AND A HALF. AND AGAIN, THESE PEOPLE DID VARIANCES, THEIR CONDITIONS ARE DIFFERENT THAN MINE.

WHAT I'M ASKING FOR CONTRARY TO THE ORGANS OF OTHERS IS NOT GOING TO DISRUPT THE EXISTING CONDITION OR FOOTPRINT OR BUILD QUALITY, OR WHATEVER LANGUAGE THEY WANT TO USE TO DESCRIBE IT.

BECAUSE THESE CONDITIONS EXIST TODAY.

SO, IN ESSENCE,, I'VE GONE OVER THESE POINTS BEFORE.

BUT, IN ESSENCE, THIS VARIANT IS NOT ESTABLISHING BAD PRECEDENT.

IT'S NOT DISRUPTING AN ESTABLISHED FOOTPRINT.

IT'S GETTING CONSISTENT WITH IT. IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING USE OF MULTIPLE HOUSES IN THE 500 BLOCK.

AND CONSISTENT WITH THE CODE ZONE RESTRICTIONS IN THE SENSE OF A 40-FOOT SETBACK FOR EVERY LOT.

AND THE PROPORTIONALITY OF SIDE SETBACKS.

RELEVANT TO THE WIDTH OF THE LOT.

I WILL READ THIS REALLY QUICK. I DON'T WANT TO WASTE YOUR TIME.

I THINK YOU GOT THE GIST OF MY ARGUMENT.

I APPRECIATE YOU HEARING IT. I'D LOVE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS

YOU HAVE. >> THANK YOU.

WE WILL TAKE QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD FIRST.

PUBLIC COMMENTS BEFORE WE GO TO THE BOARD.

SO IF YOU HAVE A COMMENT ON PVC THEY ARE-- ON PVZVAR, PLEASE COME UP. AND PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND

ADDRESS. >> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN AND BOARD MEMBERS. I LIVE HERE IN ST JOHNS COUNTY FLORIDA. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF OF THE LANGSTON FAMILY. IN THE BOULEVARD DIRECTLY TO THE SOUTH OF THIS PARTICULAR APPLICANT'S REQUEST.

FAMILIES ON THIS RESIDENTS FOR DECADES.

THE-- IT WAS DONE BY PROMINENT LOCAL EDUCATOR AND COMMUNITY LEADER IN ST JOHNS COUNTY AND THEY MEANT-- MIDDLE SCHOOL IS NAMED AFTER HER. THE REVISED REQUEST ASKED FOR A VARIANCES ON BOTH SIDES OF THE HOUSE AS WELL AS THE FRONT.

'S FAMILY RESIDENCES AS I SAID LOCATED DIRECTLY TO THE SOUTH.

THIS UNREASONABLE REQUEST WILL UNDULY RIP-- AFFECT THE REQUIRED SPACING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST.

YOU CAN SEE PICTURES OF THEIR HOUSE HERE.

YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE REQUESTED VARIANCES ARE ON BOTH SIDES, AS WELL AS THE FRONT. THEY HAVE COME BACK AND ASKED FOR AND INCREASE. AREA OF THE HOUSE TO THE EAST.

THE APPLICANT CLAIMS EXCEPTIONAL NARROWNESS AND COMPRESSED DEPTH OF THIS LOT AND SAYS THESE DENY THE APPLICANT THE SAME THINGS TO BE ENJOYED BY THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.

THEY ALSO CLAIM AN EXTRA NERI RESTRICTED BUILDING ENVELOPE BASED ON THE 70-FOOT WITH AND THEY ARE BURDENED WITH A FRONT SETBACK DEEPER THAN THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS.

THEY SAY THESE PREVENT THE APPLICANT FROM BUILDING A HOME THAT IS OF LIGHT CHARACTER AND CONSISTENCY WITH THE NEIGHBORING HOUSES. AND THEY SAY THESE DESIGN DIFFICULTIES ARE UNIQUE TO THIS PARCEL, NOT GENERAL TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT YOU'RE ST JOHNS COUNTY PLANNING STAFF AS YOU SEE FROM YOUR STAFF REPORT FIND DIFFERENTLY.

THEY SHOW YOU OF COURSE THIS IS A LOT OF RECORDS, SO THEY CAN GO ON THIS LOT, BUT THEY HAVE TO MEET THE MINIMUM SIDE AND FRONT REQUIREMENTS. YOUR EXPERT STAFF FOUND THE PROPERTY IS ONE OF 11 ON THIS STRETCH THAT ARE THE SAME WIDTH AND DEPTH. AND ALL THE HOMES ARE CONTAINED WITHIN THE REQUIRED BOUNDARY. YOU CAN SEE THAT FROM THE MAPS WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT. FURTHER YOUR EXPERT STAFF FOUND

[00:25:04]

THERE IS NO RECORD OF ANY PAST VARIANCES IN THIS STRETCH OF THE 75-FOOT LOTS, AND ALL THE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES IN THIS STRETCH BE THE SIDE YARD AND FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.

YOU CAN SEE THAT FROM THE CHARTS PRODUCED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT ITSELF. THEY GIVE YOU THE DEFINITION OF VARIANCES WHICH ARE FURTHER LEFT.

FURTHER YOUR COUNTY ATTORNEY MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE APPLICANT BEARS THE BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING THAT THERE IS A SPECIAL CONDITION AND THAT SUCH SPECIAL CONDITION AND HARDSHIP IS NECESSARY TO GRANT THIS. YOU CAN SEE IN THE AREAS WHERE THEY ASK FOR THESE. THERE IS NO SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE. THIS IS A SELF-IMPOSED HARDSHIP THAT WILL UNDULY AFFECT MY NEIGHBORS DIRECTLY TO THE SOUTH WHERE YOU CAN SEE THERE ARE AREAS OF THEIR HOUSE WHERE THEY LOOK OUT. YOU CAN SEE THAT EVEN RESPECTFULLY, THE COMMENT SAY THAT THERE IS NO RESPECT ON THE-- AFFECT ON THE FRONT. BUT THERE IS VERY MUCH.

THAT STICKS OUT FURTHER THAN EVERY OTHER LOT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AS SHOWN BY YOUR STAFF.

AND IT UNDULY AFFECTS NEIGHBORHOODS.

PLEASE PROTECTS-- PROTECT NEIGHBORHOODS.

YOU WILL SEE THE FINDINGS WITHIN YOUR STAFF REPORT.

I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. >> THANK YOU, SIR.

DO WE HAVE ANY FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT?

>> ON JOCK-- DR. BOGGS. I PRESENTED TO YOU BEFORE.

I WANTED TO THROW UP-- BEFORE I START... AGAIN I LIVED AT 558 PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD SINCE 1978.

MY JOB HERE TODAY IS TO CONVINCE YOU THAT THESE REQUESTED VARIANCES ON 560 PONTE VEDRA PROPERTY SHOULD BE DENIED.

WIDE? ACCORDING TO THE PONTE VEDRA ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS, THE ZONING VARIANCES TO BE GRANTED MUST BE BASED ON A DEMONSTRATED EXCEPTIONAL HARDSHIP.

IS THE LOT SIZE THE HARDSHIP? THAT'S THE BIG ISSUE HERE.

THIS ONE IS 70 FEET IN WIDTH. THIS PICTURE RIGHT HERE SHOWS ALL 25 PROPERTIES IN THE SOUTH OF THE PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD.

WITH THESE LODGES RIGHT HERE. HERE IS A BLOWUP.

AND WE WILL TALK ABOUT THIS IN A MINUTE.

ALL OF THESE LOTS IN THE SPECIAL SECTION ARE 70 FEET.

BOTH ON THE OCEAN SIDE AND THE UNIT SIDE.

THE 560 PONTE VEDRA LOT IS THE SAME WIDTH AS ALL THE OTHER 24 PROPERTIES. THE DEPTH OF THE 560 PROPERTY IS IDENTICAL TO THE DEPTH OF 562, 564, 568.

YOU SEE THE DEPTH OF 558, THAT IS MY LOT.

SO THE DEPTH OF THE PROPERTY IS NOT HARDSHIP.

I WILL POINT OUT ONE MORE THING. THE PROPERTY CIRCLED IN BLACK SHARPIE ARE HOUSES UNDER CONSTRUCTION.

THIS PART OF PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD WAS ORIGINALLY PLANTED WITH THE STOCKTON COMMUNITY PLANT.

ALL 24 OF THESE HOMES ARE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE PLANET BUILDING CONSTRUCTION SETBACKS. NO VARIANCES HAVE BEEN GRANTED.

[00:30:04]

THEY FOLLOWED THE RULES. AND A LOT OF NEW HOME-- HOMES HAVE BEEN BUILT AND ARE BEING BUILT RIGHT THERE.

SO THE LOT SIZE WIDTH AND DEPTH IS NOT UNIQUE AND IT'S LIKE THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. PLOT SIZE IS NOT A HARDSHIP.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> AND I TAKE 15 SECONDS?

>> TWO SENTENCES. >> I JUST DISCUSSED POTENTIAL PROFIT LOSS. IF THESE ARE APPROVED, HE COULD BUILD A BIGGER HOUSE, AND THAT SALE WOULD MAKE MORE PROFIT.

I HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THIS LOT OWNED BY THE CORPORATION AND MR. MRS. BIRCH LAND TO BUILD A SPEC HOUSE.

YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS?

GUESS NOT. >> THANK YOU.

DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ELSE FROM PUBLIC COMMENT? I AM GOING TO HAVE MORE QUESTIONS FIRST.

WHICH SHOULD TAKE CARE OF A LOT OF STUFF.

LET'S TAKE BOARD QUESTIONS, AND THEN WE WILL BEGIN A CHANCE FOR REBUTTAL. WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO START?

>> YES. THE APPLICANT MAY WANT TO COME BACK UP. OKAY.

I HAVE A BUNCH OF QUESTIONS. ONE, WHEN YOU BLOCK LOT, WERE YOU AWARE OF THE LOT SIZE AND RESTRICTIONS ON THE LOT?

>> I WAS. >> WHEN YOU BOUGHT THE LOT, DID ANYBODY, SALESPERSON OR AGENT, IMPLY TO YOU THAT THIS WOULD BE

AN EASY VARIANCE TO GET? >> I HAVE PRETTY HIGH CONFIDENCE I COULD GET A VARIANCE. YES.

>> OKAY. I'M A LITTLE SURPRISED IN YOUR REVISED VARIANCE THAT YOU INCLUDED A REDUCTION INSIDE YOUR SETBACKS SINCE YOU SHOULD HAVE FELT THAT A LOT OF THIS WASN'T OPPOSED TO CHANGING THE SIDE YARD SETBACK IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR MANNER. IN APRIL HE REQUESTED APPROXIMATELY 365 SQUARE FEET OF ADDITIONAL AREA FOR YOUR HOUSE.

73 FEET TIMES TWO AND A HALF TIMES TWO.

YOU ARE NOW REQUESTING 73 TIMES TWO AND 15 TIMES 52.

TOTALING 926 SQUARE FEET OF ADDITIONAL SPACE.

>> WELL, THE GARAGE I WOULD NOT CONSIDER HABITABLE SPACE.

>> IT IS SPACE. SO TWO AND A HALF TIMES OVER WHAT YOU REQUESTED BEFORE. WHICH TO ME IS A FAIRLY LARGE INCREASE. YOU MENTIONED THAT THE AREA WOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM, BUT IF YOU BUILD OUT THE ENTIRE AREA THAT WE POTENTIALLY APPROVED TODAY FOR BUILDABLE SPACE YOU WOULD BE AT 39% IF YOU AT ABOUT 1200 OR 1500 SQUARE FEET FOR POOL DRIVEWAY, ABOUT 51%. WITH THE APPROVAL OF THIS VARIANCE PACU WOULD BE ALLOWED TO BUILD THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE ON 400-- 4576 SQUARE FEET.

EVEN THOUGH YOUR DRAWING SHOWS A LOT SMALLER HOUSE, IS THAT

CORRECT? >> I DON'T THINK THAT IS CORRECT IN THE SENSE THAT I BELIEVE THE SITE PLAN WITH THE VARIANCE IS APPLIED TO MY BUILDING PERMIT. SO I'M NOT ALLOWED TO JUST BUILD ANYTHING I WANT WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT DOOR SETBACK.

IS NOT WHAT I'M UNDER THE IMPRESSION OF.

>> WE WILL CLARIFY THAT WAS STAFF.

AND I NOTICED YOU DID NOT CHANGE ANY SETBACK IN THE BACKYARD.

>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> OKAY.

SO YOU'RE TAKING ALL OF IT FROM THE FRONT YARD.

ARE YOU BUILDING THIS HOUSE TO LIVE IN?

>> YES. >> OKAY.

IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE FULLY AWARE OF ALL THE CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE NEIGHBORS. ARE ANY NEIGHBORS IN FAVOR OF

THIS VARIANCE? >> I HAVE THREE LETTERS OF SUPPORT INCLUDING ONE FROM ACROSS THE STREET.

THEY DID NOT SUBMIT IN TIME, TWO LETTERS WERE SUBMITTED WITH THE LAST VARIANCE AND I DID NOT BOTHER TO GET THOSE RIAT, BUT I'M HAPPY TO GET GENTLEMEN IN HERE TO TESTIFY AS NEEDED.

AND I HAVE A LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM NEIL RYDER.

WHO IS AT 560. >> OKAY.

MR. RYDER IS AT 567. HE'S BUILDING A HOUSE KITTY CORNER TO ME TO THE SOUTH. ONE OF THE CROSS THE STREET NEIGHBORS IMPACTED BY THE FRONT SETBACK AREAS.

>> AS ONE OF THE PEOPLE OPPOSING AND POINTED OUT, IF YOU LOOK AT

[00:35:04]

PAGE 6 OF THE APPLICATION THERE ABOUT 24, 25 LOTS THAT ARE ABOUT 70 FEET WIDE. YOURS IS NOT, YOU KEEP SAYING IT'S DIFFERENT, BUT IT SEEMS TO BE SIMILAR TO ALL THE OTHER LOTS IN IT'S WIDTH OF 70 FEET, CORRECT?

>> THAT'S CORRECT, BUT THERE IS A TOTALITY OF FACTORS COME INTO PLAY HERE. FOR EXAMPLE, 20 OF THOSE 24, 25, 15 OF THEM ARE ON THE EAST SIDE. SETBACK 40 FEET ON THE FRONT SIDE. SO THIS IS A COMBINATION OF CONSTRICTING THE BUILDING ENVELOPE.

AS A RESULT OF THE CODE. NARROWNESS IS NOT A HARDSHIP.

IT'S AN ELEMENT. SIZE OF LOT IS AN ELEMENT.

ANOMALY A FRONT SETBACK, THAT'S AN ELEMENT.

IF I HAD A 40-FOOT FRONT SETBACK IT WOULD BE IN FRONT OF YOU BUT I HAVE A 69 AND IT'S ONE BLOCK OF THE WHOLE DISTRICT.

SO THOSE THREE THINGS TOGETHER CONSTRICT THE BUILDING ENVELOPE AND THAT MAKES A HARDSHIP. IT'S NOT THE NARROWNESS IS A HARDSHIP, OR THE SMALL LOT, IS THE COMBINATION OF THOSE THREE.

>> OKAY. QUESTION FOR STAFF.

HE DID SUBMIT ON PAGE 5, A SITE PLAN.

BUT IT STIPULATED THAT THE FINAL DESIGN HAS BEEN COMPLETED.

'S HE RESTRICTED TO THIS LAYOUT OF THE HOUSE?

>> THROUGH THE CHAIR, JACOB SMITH WITH GROWTH MANAGEMENT FOR THE RECORD. YES, SIR.

SO IF THIS APPLICATION WAS TO BE APPROVED IT GETS GRANTED A ZONING VARIANCE APPROVAL AND IT'S PART OF THE FINAL ORDER.

I BELIEVE IT IS CONDITIONED-- NUMBER 1 HERE.

THAT THE VARIANCE WILL BE TRANSFERABLE AND APPLIED TO THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN IS SUBMITTED FOR THE VARIANCE.

SO IF THIS WAS TO BE BUILT THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE SUBSTANTIAL SIMILAR AND IS.

I RECOGNIZE IT AS A CONCEPT PLAN, BUT THEY HAD THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT AND GARAGE FOOTPRINT AND THEY WILL BE HELD TO THOSE

LOCATIONS. >> TO THAT POINT, I WONDER IF THAT CHANGES URINALYSIS ON THE THE TOTAL FOOTPRINT I AM REQUESTING? YOU SAID 900 SOMETHING AS OPPOSED TO 300, I BELIEVE I'M SMALLER IN TOTAL SETBACK REQUEST. IF YOU INCLUDE THE AREA SHOWN AS ENCROACHING ON SETBACKS, IN MY CONCEPT.

BUT I MAYBE WRONG. >> I DID NOT CALCULATE THAT AREA. I THINK IT WOULD BE CLOSE TO IMPERVIOUS AREA, AS THE CALCULATION, EVEN WITH THE REVISED FOOTPRINT. THAT'S IT FOR MY QUESTIONS NOW.

>> TO BE CLEAR I DON'T INTEND TO ASK FOR A VARIANCE ON THE SURFACE. I BELIEVE I'M PRETTY WELL

UNDERRATE. >> MY QUESTION, JACOB, I KNOW THAT EVERY VARIANCE APPLICATION SPEAKS FOR ITSELF.

HOWEVER I DO REMEMBER THIS BOARD HAVING AN APPLICANT NEAR THIS BLOCK OF LOTS ABOUT A YEAR AGO. OR MAYBE A BIT MORE.

TWO YEARS AGO? WAS THAT A 70-FOOT LOT INSIDE THIS BLOCK? OR WAS IT JUST NORTH?

>> YES, SO THE PROPERTY I BELIEVE IN QUESTION IS 524 BOULEVARD, AND IT DID-- IT SOUGHT AND RECEIVED A FRONT SETBACK. I'M NOT AWARE OF THE MEASUREMENT. SO LET ME GET THAT WITH REAL QUICK. IT IS NOT A 70-FOOT LOT.

IT APPEARS TO BE A 120-FOOT LOT. THE SETBACK RELIEF, WHILE A SIMILAR REQUEST CERTAINLY HAS DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES WITH THE SIZE OF THE YARD. THE REQUIRED SETBACK FOR 524 PROPERTY WAS NEARLY 100 FEET. 99 FEET.

AND THEY RECEIVED A SETBACK TO BE 84 FEET FOR THE GARAGE

SPECIFICALLY. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>> FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?

>> TONY DID YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING?

>> THAT FRONT SETBACK THAT YOU SHOWED...

>> BOTH OF THEM VERY GOOD. NO ISSUE WITH THE ESTHETICS OF IT. WE PUT SCREENING AND BUSHES IN OUR YARD AND AROUND THE GARAGE. WITHOUT A GARAGE, WE HAVE VEHICLES PARKED THERE AND WHAT HAVE YOU.

[00:40:01]

MY QUESTION IS NOT SO MUCH SITE SETBACKS, BUT ON THE FRONT SETBACK I DON'T VIEW THAT IS AN ISSUE.

IN MY MIND. >> THANK YOU.

SIR. MISS BURCH, NOW WOULD BE AN EXCELLENT TIME FOR YOUR THOUGHTS.

>> TO-- NOT TO BE PERSONAL. BUT THE ARGUMENT BEHIND THE ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THE LANGSTON SEEM TO REFER TO THIS AS A FAMILY HOME. AND I'M SURE THAT IT WAS AT ONE TIME. BUT NO ONE FROM THE FAMILY LIVES HERE TODAY. CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG.

>> CORRECT, NO ONE LIVES IN THE HOUSE TODAY.

IT IS RENTED. AND AT THE END OF THE DAY I THINK THEY ARE HERE FOR A FINANCIAL REASON.

THEY BELIEVE THIS WOULD IMPACT THE VALUE OF THEIR LOT, WHICH I THINK THEY ARE WRONG CANDIDLY, I THINK IT WILL NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE VALUE OF THEIR PROPERTY. THAT WHEN YOU SPEAK TO THE FAMILY HOMESTEAD AND THE IMPACT THIS COULD HAVE TO YOUR ENJOYMENT OF THAT HOMESTEAD IT RINGS HOLLOW WHEN YOU DON'T LIVE THERE. SO I WANT TO MAKE THAT POINT.

AND DR. BOB'S-- RESPECT DR. BOB'S, HE IS EXACTLY RIGHT IN THE SENSE OF THE ESTABLISHMENT, OR THE EXISTENCE OF THE 70-FOOT LOTS. AND GUESS WHAT HE DID.

HE BOUGHT TWO OF THEM AND BUILT A NICE BIG HOUSE WHEN HE COMBINED THE TWO LOTS. IF I COULD DO THAT I MIGHT CONSIDER IT. BUT THAT IS NOT AVAILABLE TO ME.

SO HIS INSISTENCE ON THE ABILITY TO BUILD ON 70-FOOT LOTS, THAT RINGS A LITTLE HOLLOW TO ME. BECAUSE HE BOUGHT TWO UPHAM AND BUILT ACROSS FROM THEM. SO TO THE EXTENT THEY NEIGHBORS DON'T SUPPORT IT, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT THEIR CRITICISMS RING A LITTLE HOLLOW IN THE CONTEXT OF REALITY.

SO, LET US SEE. THEY SPEAK TO THIS BEING A GENERAL CONDITION BECAUSE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE 70-FOOT LOTS.

AGAIN, THIS IS A COMBINATION OF FACTORS.

ALL OF THE LOTS ON THE EAST SIDE HAVE A 40-FOOT BUILDING RESTRICTION LINE, MOST OF WHICH THEY USE EVERY BIT OF.

EVERY BIT OF AVAILABLE AREA THEY USE.

THE LOTS ON THE WEST SIDE, THERE ARE 11, TEN, A SMALLER NUMBER AMONG THE HUNDREDS OF THE LOTS. SO I DON'T CONSIDER THAT TO BE A GENERAL CONDITION. I CONSIDER IT TO BE AN ANOMALY WITHIN A LARGER SUBSET UNCOMBINED WITH A 69-FOOT SETBACK. SO IT'S NOT A GENERAL CONDITION, IT'S A UNIQUE CONDITION TO THESE LOTS.

I HAVE DESCRIBED ALL THE OTHERS. ALL THE OTHER HOMES BEING CONTAINED WITHIN THE REQUIRED VERY-- REQUIRED VARIANCES, FILMS ON THE EAST SIDE ARE DIFFERENT BECAUSE THEY HAVE MORE DEPTH TO WORK WITH ON THE OCEANSIDE, HOMES HOMES ON THE WEST SIDE, THERE IS ONE THAT I'VE CONSTRUCTED WITH RECENTLY.

IT'S ADJACENT TO THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING.

THE FARTHER SOUTHERN END. I THINK AT THE END OF THE DAY IT'S NOT A HOME THAT-- THEY DID NOT DECIDE TO ASK.

THAT'S THEY ARE CHOICE. IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THIS CODE DOES NOT IMPOSE ANY HARDSHIP ON WHAT I WANT TO DO WITH MY LOT.

THEIR PREFERENCES, WHAT THEY WANT TO DO, EVERY LOT, EVERY CASE SHOULD BE JUDGED ON IT'S OWN INDIVIDUAL MERITS.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE. >> THANK YOU.

I WANT TO CLOSE A FOR BOARD DISCUSSION.

GENTLEMEN? >> WE HAVE A BOARD DISCUSSION NOW? I THINK YOU SAID FROM APRIL, I AM VERY MUCH OPPOSED TO ANY CHANGE IN THE SIDE YARD SETBACK.

EVEN 1 FOOT. THE 20 FEET WAS ESTABLISHED YEARS AGO. IT'S A REQUIREMENT FOR ACCESS, FOR SAFETY, FIRE. SO I WOULD BE OPPOSED TO THAT.

I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF ALLOWING THE APPLICANT TO ENCROACH ON THE FRONT SETBACK FOR MAYBE A 15 BY 20-FOOT GARAGE AREA.

NOT THE FULL WIDTH OF THE LOT. THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION.

YOU COULD SAY IT HELPS THEM OUT AS FAR AS HIS HOUSE GOES AND AS FAR AS THE SIDE SETBACK. BUT I WILL NOT VOTE FOR IT.

>> MR. GREEN? >> I AM TORN HERE-- MR. GREENE?

>> I UNDERSTAND JOHN'S STANCE ON THIS, I TRY TO SEE BOTH SIDES.

[00:45:04]

YOU WANT TO HAVE ENOUGH SPACE BETWEEN YOU AND YOUR FEEDER.

YOU ALSO HAVE A 70-FOOT LOT, A 100-FOOT LOT MINIMUM REQUI REQUIREMENT. I AM IN FAVOR OF THE FRONT SETBACK. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE SIDE.

AS FAR AS-- I JUST-- I'M NOT SURE YET.

>> THAT WAS AN EXCELLENT OPPORTUNITY THAT MARK JOINED US

IN THE MEETING. >> CAN YOU HEAR ME? IF I COULD SPEAK WITH THE APPLICANT I RECENTLY CONSIDERED REQUESTING A SIDE SETBACK MYSELF.

AND I KNOCKED ON MY NEIGHBOR'S DOORS, I GOT THEIR EMAIL ADDRESS SO I COULD PROPERLY EXPLAIN WHAT THIS GROUP REQUIRES.

AND I DID NOT BRING THEM MONEY OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

I'VE KNOWN THESE FOLKS FOR A WILD.

IT WAS IMPORTANT TO ME NOT SO MUCH THAT I FOLLOW A PROCESS WITH THE COUNTY, BUT IT WAS MORE IMPORTANT TO ME THAT I HAD THE HUNDRED% BUY IN WITH ALL OF MY NEIGHBORS.

AND THIS IS QUITE A GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO ARE OPPOSED TO YOUR PROJECT. AND WHAT I AM CONFUSED ABOUT IS NOT MUCH HAPPENED BETWEEN THESE MEETINGS AS FAR AS SUPPORT FROM PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY. AND THAT IS PROBABLY NOT IN OUR PACKET OF HOW WE MAKE DECISIONS, BUT PERSONALLY, I WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT THAT'S AN IMPORTANT THING TO ME.

AND YOU PROBABLY KNEW ALL OF THESE RULES AND REGULATIONS BEFORE YOU HIRED AN ARCHITECT. THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN NUMBER 1 IN MY OPINION, TO MAKE SURE YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE AND THAT IF YOU FELT LIKE THERE WAS A REALLY IMPORTANT REASON WHY YOU NEEDED THE ADDITIONAL LAND, YOU GO MEET FOR COFFEE, AND TWIST THEIR ARM.

PLEASE AND THANK YOU. OLD-SCHOOL STUFF.

AND IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE EITHER-- IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT FELL ON DEAF EARS OR JUST WAS NOT DONE.

>> APPRECIATE THAT. BEFORE I BOUGHT THE PROPERTY I SPOKE WITH DR. BOGGS, WE MET IN PERSON, I HAD A NICE CONVERSATION. AND I RESPECT HIS OPPOSITION.

I'M ASKING TO BUILD MY HOUSE 1 FOOT CLOSER TO HIS.

THAT'S 19 FEET INSTEAD OF 20 TO HIS EDGE OF POTENTIAL BUILD LINE. SO I ASKED FOR THAT AND HE SAID AT THE TIME WHEN I WAS ASKING FOR TWO AND A HALF, HE WAS NOT LIKELY TO SUPPORT THE TWO AND HALF FEET.

AGREE TO DISAGREE. I UNDERSTAND.

I BELIEVE I'M GOING TO BUILD SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BE GOOD FOR HIM. A BEAUTIFUL HOUSE.

IT'S GOING TO ADD CHARACTER TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

BUT TO YOUR POINT I MET WITH HIM RESPECTFULLY, HE WAS NOT GOING TO CHANGE HIS OPINION. SO I REDUCE IT TO 1 FOOT.

IS THAT CONCESSION, COMPROMISE, WITH RESPECT TO THE LANGSTON'S, THEY SOLD ME MY LOT. THIS WAS A TOPIC THAT CAME UP DURING THE LOT SALE. THIS WAS A TOPIC FOR WHICH DOLLARS WERE CONSIDERED BEING EXCHANGED FOR SUPPORT.

BUT AGREEMENT COULD NOT BE MET. BUT I AGREE WITH YOU.

YOU NEED TO MAKE SURE-- YOU NEED TO DO RIGHT BY THE COMMUNITY.

I'M ON THE MSD, I TALKED TO THE COMMUNITY ABOUT A LOT OF THINGS.

I HAVE THREE LETTERS OF SUPPORT FOR THIS VARIANCE.

WITH RESPECT TO THE LANGSTON'S, THEY LIVE-- THE MAJORITY OF THEM I BELIEVE LIVE ACROSS ONE A. OFF OF SOLANA ROAD.

WHAT DO SOLANA TURN INTO-- SORRY.

ROSCOE. RESPECTFULLY, THEIR OPINION ON HOW THIS IMPACTS THE 1 FOOT JUST RINGS HOLLOW TO ME.

I THINK THEY ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE LONG-TERM VALUE OF THEIR PROPERTY. WHICH IS FINE, BUT BRING AN APPRAISAL TO DEMONSTRATE WHAT I WILL DO TO IMPACT YOUR VALUE.

I RESPECT YOUR OPINION, AND I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT I DID AT LEAST TRY TO ENGAGE THE NEIGHBORS THAT WERE MOST IMPACTED. WHAT I ENDED UP DECIDING IS THAT I'D BE SETTING A PRECEDENT IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD.

WE LIVE WITHIN THE ZONING DISTRICT.

ON THE OTHER SIDE OF ONE A. AND I WAS GOING TO BE ASKING F FOR-- I COULD BUILD TWO AND A HALF FEET AND THEN GO ANOTHER

[00:50:04]

TWO AND A HALF FEET. AND THEN I WOULD NEGOTIATE IT DOWN TO A FOOT AND A HALF. SO THESE NUMBERS.

I DECIDED WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING, I ASKED PEOPLE FRONT, BACKSIDE, DOWN THE STREET, FOR THEIR FEEDBACK.

I DECIDED MAYBE IT WOULD BE BETTER FOR ME TO JUST TAKE SOME TIME, RECONSIDER THIS DOWN THE ROAD AFTER I DISCUSSED IT WITH MY NEIGHBORS FURTHER, AND LOOK INTO WHAT IT WOULD COST TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT, ACHIEVING THE SAME THING.

KIND OF SHIFTING AWAY MY HOUSE AS IT'S LAID OUT.

I DID NOT WANT TO WASTE THIS GROUP'S TIME, STAFF'S TIME IF I WAS GOING TO BE TURNED DOWN. BUT I DID NOT WANT TO DO ANYTHING WITHOUT EXERCISING. WITH THE ALTERNATIVES THAT I HAD. SO I JUST-- THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE THREE LETTERS THAT DID NOT MAKE IT TO OUR PACKET, BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THEY RELATE INCOMING. THAT CONCERNS ME.

THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SOMETHING THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE PUT THE TIME INTO TO GET IT INTO OUR PACKET, RATHER THAN HAVE IT TO HAND TO US AND SHOW TO US. SO I'M HAVING A TOUGH TIME.

>> I THINK TWO OF THE LETTERS WERE IN THE FIRST MEETING PACKET SO I DIDN'T THINK TO INCLUDE IT TODAY.

BUT I UNDERSTAND. I WOULD SUBMIT THIS, ALL NEIGHBORHOODS ARE DIFFERENT. AND I THINK THE BOULEVARD IN THE SECTION OF THIS BOULEVARD IS A UNIQUE PLACE.

I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF KNOCKING ON THE DOORS OF NEIGHBORS ON THE BEACH SIDE WOULD YOU TO MANY RING CAMERAS.

IT'S JUST A DIFFERENT PLACE. IF I LIVED IN A CUL-DE-SAC, I WOULD TAKE UP A SIMILAR CANVASSING APPROACH.

I DID IT MORE TARGETED BECAUSE I FELT IT WAS APPROPRIATE AND EXPANSIVE ENOUGH. AND TO YOUR POINT, I HIRED WHAT I FELT WAS A PREEMINENT ARCHITECT FOR THIS AREA ON THE BOULEVARD. HE'S A GREAT GUY, I WISH HE COULD BE HERE TO TALK TO YOU TO EXPLAIN WHY THESE CHANGES MAKE BIG IMPACTS. I WOULD TELL YOU WE SPENT HO HOURS-- DAYS TRYING TO CONFIGURE WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT.

AND THAT'S WHERE PART OF MY HARDSHIP ARGUMENT COMES FROM.

THE GEOMETRY WILL NOT ALLOW FOR EVERYTHING.

BUT I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT. >> TONY?

>> TO THE APPLICANT AS WELL. YOUR STATEMENT OF IT'S NOT REALLY NOTICEABLE, 1 FOOT ON EACH SIDE, I HAVE A TENDENCY TO AGREE WITH YOU. AND THE PROPERTY IS BEING RENTED. BUT MY BIG CONCERN WAS THE PRECEDENCE BEING SET. EVERYBODY WANTS TO HAVE SPACE BETWEEN THE HOUSES. AND WE SET A PRECEDENT AND WE START TO MOVE FORWARD. AND THEN YOU ENCROACH UPON THE NEIGHBORS AND THAT DOES TAKE AWAY FROM WHAT A LOT OF PEOPLE

ARE DOING HERE. >> I TOTALLY AGREE.

I TOTALLY AGREE. IN MY OPINION, IF THIS IS SETTING-- I BELIEVE STAFF AND COUNTY ATTORNEY WOULD TELL YOU THAT PRECEDENTS SHOULD NOT APPLY.

MR. TAYLOR, WOULD YOU ADVISE ON NOT?

>> EACH APPLICATION SHOULD BE JUDGED ON IT'S OWN MERITS.

EACH PIECE OF PROPERTY IS LEGALLY DISTINCT AND DIFFERENT.

NEVERTHELESS, YOU NEED TO FACTOR IN THE COMMUNITY STANDARDS.

YOU KNOW WHAT THE STANDARDS ARE. AND YOU HAVE TO DECIDE IF THEY MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR VARIANTS, OR THE HARDSHIP REQUIREMENT. THAT'S FOR THE BOARD TO DECIDE.

>> TO YOUR POINT, LET'S SAY PRECEDENCE AND TO THE EXTENT THE CONDITION EXISTS TODAY, IT DOES. IT DOES ON THE SIDE AND ON THE FRONT. BUT TO THE EXTENT THAT THE OTHER 11 LOTS, OF WHICH THERE IS ONLY SEVEN, DR. BARNES HAS ALREADY TAKEN CARE OF THE PROBLEM. THE HOUSE TO THE NORTH OF HIM, THEY ARE ENCROACHING A BIT, I BELIEVE.

SO YOU HAVE MY LOT, THE LANGSTON'S LOT, MAYBE FIVE OTHER LOTS. THE OTHER HOUSE THERE JUST GOT BUILT. YOU AND ASK FOR THE SAME BEFORE- VARIANCE. RANKLY, IF THEY ASK FOR IT, LET IS COME UP WITH CONDITIONS FOR SCREENING.

I AM HAPPY TO-- PROPER ENHANCED LANDSCAPING AT THE BUILDING

[00:55:01]

FOOTPRINT WHERE I DO ENCROACH. LET'S COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT MAKES SENSE. BUT FRANKLY, I BELIEVE IF THOSE SIX OR SEVEN LOTS THAT MAY COME IN FRONT OF YOU, THEY DESERVE IT. THEY ARE SIX OR 7 OUT OF HUNDREDS THAT HAVE THIS UNIQUE CONDITION.

AND THE BOULEVARD, ESPECIALLY THAT LOCATION, BUT THE ENTIRE BOULEVARD, IT IS A DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENT.

AND I THINK PEOPLE WHO WANT TO BUILD THEIR TODAY WANT TO BUILD CONSISTENT WITH THAT STATE TYPE FEEL.

THEY WANT TO MAXIMIZE THEIR LOT AND THEY CANNOT DO THAT WITH THE LACK OF PROPORTIONALITY AND THE SETBACKS OF 70 FEET.

>> I WOULD JUST MAKE ONE OTHER COMMENT, AS IT RELATES TO 1 FOOT ON THE SIDE SETBACK. AND THIS IS GOING TO GET A LITTLE WONKY. BUT THE CODE ALLOWS VARIANCES.

FICO DOES NOT PROHIBIT SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES.

SO THE CODE IS SAYING SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES IN SOME CASES ARE MERITED. I STRUGGLE TO THINK THAT 1 FOOT ON EITHER SIDE IS AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY, WHICH IS THE GROUNDS YOU HAVE TO STAND ON. TO SAY THAT I DO NOT MEET THE CODE REQUIREMENTS. I STRUGGLE WITH ONE-FOOT ON EITHER SIDE, 1 FOOT OF IMPACT. IF THAT IS NOT ALLOWED, THEN THE CODE SHOULD JUST NOT ALLOW SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES.

JUST PUT MINIMUMS OF SOME SORT. BUT YOU HAVE SEVEN AND A HALF FEET ESTABLISHED FOR ARE ONE SEE, ARE MAC ONE D.

I JUST WOULDN'T THINK THE CODE WOULD SUPPORT NOT GIVING IT

HERE. >> QUESTIONS?

>> SORRY, I'M PUSHING THE BUTTON.

>> I'M AFRAID YOU HAVE USED UP YOUR ALLOTTED TIME, PER THE TIMER IN THE BACK. I AM PUSHING YOUR BUTTON AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHY IT DOES NOT WORK.

THAT WOULD BE FINE. GO RIGHT AHEAD.

>> QUESTION FOR STAFF. I HAVE BEEN ON THE BOARD NOW TEN AND A HALF, 11 YEARS. I THINK THERE HAVE BEEN TWO OTHER, IF NOT THREE OTHER APPLICATIONS ON PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD FOR A REDUCTION IN FRONT YARD SETBACK.

I KNOW THE ONE THAT GOT APPROVED ABOUT THREE YEARS AGO FOR THE GARAGE IN ABOUT 13, 14 FEET? I THINK THERE ARE TWO OTHER SITE GOT DENIED FOR A FRONT PORCH TYPE OF THING.

AM I CORRECT IN THAT. >> I TRUST YOUR MEMORY, SIR.

I DON'T HAVE THOSE PARTICULAR VARIANCES PULLED UP.

WE CAN LOOK AS THE BOARD DISCUSSES.

THERE HAS NOT BEEN A HOST OR A LOT IN FRONT SETBACK VARIANCES.

>> I THINK TWO OF THE THREE DID NOT GET APPROVED.

BUT THE ONE TO GET APPROVED FOR THE GARAGE.

>> THAT WAS THE ZONING VARIANCE THAT INITIATED IN 2023 THAT I'D

>> IF I REMEMBER, PART OF YOUR CONCERN THE LAST TIME WAS THE APPLIANCES THAT NEED TO GO ON THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE.

THE AIR-CONDITIONING AND CONDENSERS AND WHATEVER ELSE IS OUT THERE. IS THAT PART OF YOUR CONCERN

WITH THE SETBACKS. >> MY CONCERN, THE 10-FOOT SETBACK WAS ESTABLISHED A LONG TIME AGO.

IF WE GIVE IT ONCE, WE WILL GIVE IT AGAIN.

EVEN THOUGH IT DOES NOT SET A PRECEDENT.

AND 1 FOOT IS NOT THAT MUCH. WHILE 2 FEET.

IT IS THAT MUCH. AND I THINK IT IS SOMETHING WE SHOULD HOLD TO. 20 FEET BETWEEN HOUSES IN THIS TYPE OF NEIGHBORHOOD IS SOMETHING WE SHOULD HAVE.

SO I CONSIDER SOMETHING FOR THE GARAGE.

BUT I'M NOT APPROVED FOR THE HOUSE.

PUTTING ONLY GET ONE VOTE. THERE ARE LOTS OF PEOPLE WE CAN VOTE FOR SETTING A PRECEDET. EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT A

PRECEDENT. >> I BUILT NEIGHBORHOODS, AND I'VE NEVER DONE A 100-FOOT LOT. BECAUSE WE DO NOT DO THEM ANYMORE. BECAUSE IT'S BIG, IT'S GREAT, IT'S GRAND. AND I'M GLAD WE HAVE THEM.

BUT I HAVE BUILT NEIGHBORHOODS 50, 60, 70-FOOT LOTS INSIDE THE

[01:00:05]

SAME NEIGHBORHOOD. THEY WILL HAVE THE SAME SIDE SETBACKS. BUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A 70 AND 100 IS SIGNIFICANT. THE SENSE OF SCALE THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. I TEND TO AGREE WITH THE APPLICANT'S POSITION THAT IN THIS PARTICULAR ZONING THAT 1 FOOT IS PROBABLY A REASONABLE REQUEST.

I AGREE WITH JOHN THAT WE ARE NOT-- NO PRESIDENT APPLIES UNTIL WE ASK EVERY SINGLE TIME, HAVE WE DONE IT BEFORE.

BECAUSE THEN I WANT TO GIVE IT TO THE NEXT GUY.

SO I GET WHERE EVERYONE IS CONFLICTED.

AND IT IS A VERY DIFFICULT POSITION TO TAKE.

I, ON SMALLER NEIGHBORHOODS, WHERE YOU HAVE SMALLER SETBACKS, IT IS DIFFICULT TO GET BETWEEN THE HOUSES TO GET BACK TO BACK IF YOU NEED A POND OR WHATEVER IS BACK THERE.

I WOULD CERTAINLY BE IN FAVOR OF NOT HAVING APPLIANCES ON THE SIDE AND GIVING SIDE SETBACK RELIEF.

THAT WOULD SATISFY MY NEED FOR ACCESS AND FOR USABILITY.

BUT, WHILE ALLOWING ACCESS. >> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. THE LAST TIME YOU WERE HERE, WE HEARD SOME CONSTRAINTS ABOUT SIDE SETBACKS AND WE ASK YOU TO REAPPLY POSSIBLY. AND YOU DID.

YOU ARE HEARING VERY SIMILAR COMMENTARY, AS YOU HEARD A COUPLE MONTHS AGO. I KNOW YOU MENTIONED THE 24 INCHES IS A LOT IN TERMS OF PLANING A HOUSE.

WOULD YOU BE AMENABLE TO DROPPING THE SIDE SETBACK AND REQUESTING THE FRONT SETBACK? OR IS IT ALL OR NOTHING? YOU HEAR, I HATE TO GO THROUGH THIS AGAIN, AND WE MADE CONDITIONS IN CHANGING THE VARIANCES IN THIS MEETING.

AND I HATE FOR IT TO GO TO A VOTE, AND YOUR HEARING THE CONSTERNATION WE ARE HAVING. AND, WOULD YOU BE OKAY TO CHANGE YOUR VARIANCE REQUEST TO DROP THE SIDE SETBACK TODAY?

>> BEFORE I ANSWER THAT, LET ME ASK STAFF A QUESTION.

AND MAYBE THIS IS FOR MR. TAYLOR AS WELL.

I ASSUME THE VOTE COULD BE TO APPROVE ONE OF THE VARIANCE, NOT THE OTHER. THERE ARE EFFECTIVELY TWO HERE.

>> LEX'S PROBABLY THE BEST. >> THERE IS NO PROBLEM APPROVING PARTIAL. BUT IF YOU TELL THEM THAT YOU NEED ALL THE VARIANCES TO MOVE FORWARD, THEN THEY CAN TAKE THAT AS A WHOLE. YOU CAN BARGAIN WITH THE BOARD AND GET SOME AND NOT OTHERS, YOU CAN BARGAIN WITH THE BOARD AND POTENTIALLY HAVE CONCESSIONS WHERE YOU WILL ADD SCREENING BUT NOT PUT APPLIANCES ON THE SIDE AND SETBACKS.

ALL THAT CAN BE HANDLED IN WHATEVER FASHION THE BOARD IS

COMFORTABLE WITH. >> I WILL STATE THE OBVIOUS, I WOULD MUCH RATHER LEAVE HERE TODAY WITH THAT FRONT ONLY THEN NOTHING. I WOULD HAVE TO TALK WITH CLIFF ABOUT THE IMPACT ON THE SITE PLAN.

WHAT I'M WORRIED ABOUT IS HE IS GOING TO SAY CAN YOU GET 17 FEET UPFRONT, IF WE DON'T GET 2 FEET ON THE SIDE? IT'S-- IT'S NOT DIRECTLY CORRELATED BITE-- LIKE THAT, BUT YOU GET MY POINT. I THINK MR. TAYLOR YOU ARE SAYING THE BOARD COULD VOTE TO STRIKE THE SIDE BUT APPROVE THE

FRONT? >> YES.

THERE IS NO ISSUE WITH THE BOARD.

GIVING ONE, BUT-- ULTIMATELY OUR ORDER WILL BE ONE ORDER WITH WHATEVER REFLECTS THE ULTIMATE DECISION OF THE BOARD.

>> AND I WOULD ALSO SPEAK TO THE CONCERN ABOUT PRECEDENT.

I GET IT. I GET IT.

SOMEONE WILL COME UPPER AND GIVE YOU THE SAME ARGUMENT I DID.

THERE ARE ONLY FIVE OR SIX LOTS THAT COULD POSSIBLY DO THAT.

IN REALITY. TWO WERE RECENTLY BUILT.

THE OTHERS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET.

[01:05:03]

YOU MAYBE 5 FEET, AND COME UP HERE AGAIN AND ASKED, I GET THAT. BUT IT'S A UNIQUE PRECEDENT.

IT'S A UNIQUE SITUATION. I WOULD FOUR ENHANCED LANDSCAPING, I WOULD PROFFERED TO PUT THE APPLIANCES AT THE BACK OF THE HOUSE OR THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE TO IMPEDE ACCESS.

I WOULD RATHER LEAVE IT TO THE BOARD TO VOTE IN THE WAY THEY SEE FIT KNOWING IT'S POSSIBLE THEY COULD STRIKE THE SIDE, OR REDUCE IT, OR IMPOSE CONDITIONS. BUT WITHOUT GETTING MORE FOR IT, I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER.

>> MY EXPERIENCE IS WITH WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO DO AFTER THIS, SHOULD YOU CHOOSE TO APPEAL ANYTHING THAT WE DO HERE.

MY EXPERIENCE IS THAT IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING IN HAND IT'S DIFFICULT TO MAKE A COMPROMISE HERE THAT UNDOING THAT

COMPROMISE IS POSSIBLE. >> ANOTHER WAY TO ANSWER MR. GREEN'S QUESTION. I WOULD NOT APPEAL THE SIDE SETBACKS THAT WERE SHOT DOWN BECAUSE IF I GOT THE FRONT I WOULD THINK I COULD WORK WITH IT, OR WHY-- OR I WOULD COME IN AND ASK FOR MORE FRONT. I'M WORRIED ABOUT COMING IN AND ASKING FOR MORE FRONT BUT I WOULD NOT APPEAL IT.

I WOULD ASK THE BOARD TO CONSIDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES.

YES, PRECEDENT IS POSSIBLE. BUT IT'S A SMALL PRECEDENT.

A NARROW SET OF POTENTIAL APPLICANTS COME BACK IN THE FUTURE. EVERYONE HAS TO SHOW THEY HAVEN'T AN ANOMALY FRONT SETBACK.

THEY HAVE A SMALL PLOT SIZE. THEY HAVE TO SHOW THOSE THINGS.

THERE IS ONLY THESE PLOTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT CAN DO THAT.

AND I WOULD FOUR ENHANCE LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING, MOVING THE APPLIANCES TO THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE.

AND OF COURSE THE GARAGE IS NOT HAVING IT.

SO THOSE ARE CONDITIONS I WOULD LIKE THE BOARD TO CONSIDER.

>> QUESTION FOR MR. TAYLOR. IF THERE IS A VOTE ON THE FULL VARIANCE REQUEST TODAY, AND IT DOES NOT PASS, OR IF IT DOES NOT PASS, CAN ANOTHER VOTE BE MADE IN A DIFFERENT MANNER FOR STRIKING ONE OF THE REQUESTS AGAIN? CAN THERE BE TWO VOTES IF ONE FAILS?

>> THAT IS THE DISCRETION OF THE BOARD.

IF YOU WANTED TO TAKE A VOTE ON THE FULL-MOTION THAT IS BEFORE YOU TODAY AND THE FULL REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT, IF THAT FAILS, THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS BOARD PROFFERING OTHER MOTIONS

REGARDING THIS PROPERTY. >> OKAY.

THANK YOU. >> I HAD YOU.

YOU JUST TURNED IT OFF. ARE YOU GOOD?

>> SHOULD WE MAKE A MOTION? AND SEE IF-- OKAY.

I WILL MAKE A MOTION. MOTION TO APPROVE PVZVAR, 2026-3, BURCH RESIDENCE. REQUESTING ZONING JURISDICTIONS UNDER THE CODE TO ALLOW A REDUCTION OF THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM 69 FEET TO 54 FEET, IN ZONING R1B TO CONSTRUCT A GARAGE. BASED IN THE FACT AND SUBJECT TO THE FIVE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

>> I HAVE A MOTION, DO I HAVE A SECOND?

>> I WILL SECOND. >> WITH 3-2, THE MOTION FAILS.

YOU NEED FOUR TO GET THE VOTE. AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT MINE WAS A NO VOTE. BUT I AM NOT OPPOSED TO THE SIDE SETBACK, BUT WHERE WE HAVE A SIDE SETBACK I WOULD LIKE THE RELIEF FROM APPLIANCES. IN A DIRECT PROPORTION.

SO WOULD WE LIKE TO MAKE A NEW MOTION?

[01:10:02]

>> A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT MOVING THE APPLIANCES TO THE FRONT OR THE REAR. HAVING THAT LOCATED DIRECTLY NEXT TO YOUR POOL, AS YOU ENJOY THE-- IT BE PRETTY MISERABLE.

SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE CONSIDER THAT.

THE REASON I PUT APPLIANCES ON THE SIDE, AND A QUESTION FOR STAFF. IF WE REQUIRE THAT, WOULD THAT REQUIRE A CHANGE TO THE CODE? OR COULD WE JUST DO THAT?

>> THE BOARD COULD CONSIDER A CONDITION ASSOCIATED WITH ANY RELIEF THEY PROVIDED WITH THE VARIANCE.

I WILL TELL YOU FOR THE RECORD THAT THE RULE, THE STANDARD IS THAT THE EQUIPMENT CAN BE HALF OF THE SIDE YARD SETBACK.

SO IF YOU HAVE A 9-FOOT SIDE SETBACK, THE EQUIPMENT COULD BE LOCATED AS CLOSE TO FOUR —-DASH FEET.

THAT'S JUST INFORMATIONAL. BUT YOU ARE ABLE TO MAKE

CONDITIONS ASSOCIATED. >> DOES NOT INCLUDE SCREENING

FOR THE EQUIPMENT? >> THE EQUIPMENT IS TYPICALLY NOT VISIBLE FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE.

I'D HAVE TO DOUBLE CHECK IF THAT'S A STRAIGHT REQUIREMENT.

>> JUST FOR THE FRONT. OKAY, THANK YOU.

>> LET ME MAKE SURE MY MATH IS CORRECT.

A 10-FOOT SETBACK, THAT WOULD BE 5 FEET OF ALLOWABLE APPLIANCES,

IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES, AND I HAVE THAT CODE SECTION HERE. IF WE NEED TO REFERENCE IT.

BUT, YES. >> IF WE REDUCE THE ALLOWABLE SETBACK FOR THE APPLIANCES THAT FEELS LIKE THAT WOULD SATISFY WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR? IN TERMS OF EVERYTHING.

>> I HAD A QUESTION. MR. PATTON'S MOTION WAS TO APPROVE-- I WASN'T CLEAR ON WHAT HIS MOTION WAS TO PROVE.

>> THAT WAS A MOTION TO APPROVE. YES, SIR.

>> THE ENTIRE REQUEST? I COULD NOT TELL.

>> I WAS REQUESTING THAT MY MOTION WAS TO APPROVE THE FRONT YARD SETBACK TO BE REDUCED TO 6E GARAGE.

SO YOU COULD NOT LATER ON COME BACK AND SAY I CAN BUILD A WHOLE HOUSE. IT'S ONLY FOR THE GARAGE.

>> THEN I DEFTLY HAD THAT WRONG. THAT WAS EXCLUSIVE GARAGE, NO

SIDE SETBACK, CORRECT? >> IT DELETED THE SIDE YARD SETBACK. ONLY FOR THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, NOT THE SIDE YARD SETBACK. THE SIDE YARD SETBACK WOULD STAY

AT 10 FEET. >> I MESSED THAT UP.

WE CAN REVOTE ON THAT. THAT IS PERFECTLY OKAY WITH ME.

IF WE ARE JUST DOING GARAGE IS, THAT'S EASY FOR ME.

YES. FORGIVE ME.

IF YOU WANT TO MAKE THAT MOTION AGAIN.

MY FAULT. >> IT MAYBE EASIER FOR THE BOARD TO GO DOWN THE RABBIT HOLE YOU ARE DOING AND HAVE THAT BE A FALLBACK TO RECONSIDER THAT ORIGINAL MOTION IF...

>> OKAY. LET ME MAKE A MOTION THAT I'M GOING TO DO MY BEST ON THIS. FORGIVE ME.

I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE PVZVAR, 2026, BURCH RESIDENCE, REQUEST FOR ZONING VARIANCES IIIB, IIIB.ONE, AND THE PROCEDURES AND ZONING'S RESERVATIONS... TO ALLOW FOR A REDUCTION IN BOTH SIDE YARD SETBACKS FROM THE REQUIRED 10 FEET TO 9 FEET WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE APPLIANCE SETBACK BE REDUCED FROM 5-FOOT TO 4 FEET.

AND A REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM 69 FEET TO 54 FEET IN R1B ZONING TO ACCOMMODATE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME. BASED ON OUR FINDINGS AFFECTED SUBJECT TO FIVE CONDITIONS AS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

DO I HAVE A MOTION? DO I HAVE A SECOND?

SECONDARY FROM TONY. >> I WOULD ASK TO CLARIFY THE MOTION. IS IT SIMILAR TO THE PREVIOUS MOTION ON THE FRONT SETBACK, IT'S ONLY FOR THE GARAGE SPACE?

>> THANK YOU, YES, EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE GARAGE SPACE.

THANK YOU. >> 3-2, THE MOTION IS DENIED.

JOHN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A DIFFERENT MOTION?

[01:15:02]

>> SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT. >> MOTION TO APPROVE PVZVAR, 2026-3, SECTION 3B1, AND IIIB D-- IIIB D, TO ALLOW THE REDUCTION OF THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK FROM 69 FEET TO 54 FEET. IN R1B ZONING TO ACCOMMODATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME, OF A GARAGE BASED ON FIND IT-- FOUR FINDINGS OF FACT AND SUBJECT TO FIVE CONDITIONS

LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. >> SECOND.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. WITH 5-0, THE MOTION CARRIES.

[2. LDCA 2026-04 PVZDR Amendment – Lot Coverage Allowance for Swimming Pools. The Ponte Vedra Zoning and Adjustment Board (PVZAB) requested changes to the Ponte Vedra Zoning District (PVZDR) at their regularly scheduled meeting on April 6th, 2026, regarding an additional Lot Coverage allowance for properties 7,200 square feet or less in area, exclusively for the addition of residential swimming pools. The proposed lot coverage change would increase the pervious area on Lots 7200sqft or less from forty (40) percent to forty-four (44) percent, with the additional allowance only to be used for swimming pools.]

>> THANK YOU, ALL. MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER 2.

LDCA, 2024, LOT COVERAGE AMENDMENT ALLOWING FOR SWIMMING POOLS. I THINK MR. SMITH IS OUR

PRESENTER. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. CHAIR.

THIS IS ADDENDUM-- AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 2.

A CODE AMENDMENT FOR A MAJOR ZONING DISTRICT AMENDMENT REGARDING LOT COVERAGE FOR SWIMMING POOLS.

BEFORE I GET GOING, I'M GOING TO ASK THAT THE BOARD TABLE THIS ITEM. BUT I WANT TO DISCUSS IT.

AND I WILL EXPLAIN WHY I'M MAKING THAT REQUEST.

THIS IS THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

THIS IS ALL ABOUT LOT COVERAGE. THIS BOARD GAVE STAFF DIRECTION TO WORK ON A WAY FOR SOME OF THE SMALLER LOTS IN THE PONTE VEDRA ZONING DISTRICT TO MORE EASILY HAVE SWIMMING POOLS.

SO IT'S NOT PARTICULARLY APPARENT ON HERE, BUT THE ONLY CHANGE TO THIS CODE IS THE LITTLE TRICKS NEXT TO SINGLE-FAMILY AND DUPLEX RESIDENTIAL, WHICH TYPICALLY SAYS THERE IS A 40% LOT COVERAGE REGULATION.

AND SOME INSERTED LANGUAGE THAT SAYS FOR RESIDENTIAL LOTS WITH AN AREA OF 7200 SQUARE FEET OR LESS, AN ADDITIONAL 4% IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA IS ALLOWED EXCLUSIVELY FOR SWIMMING-- SWIMMING POOLS. SO THE PURPOSE OF THIS WAS TO TARGET. WHAT I HAVE APPEAR IS A MAP OF THE R1C AND R1B ZONING DISTRICTS.

THE PURPOSE OF THIS AMENDMENT WAS TO TARGET THE SMALL LOTS IN OUR ONCE HE AND R1B ZONING. AS YOU MAY RECALL, SOME PLOTS ON MORNINGSIDE RECENTLY ONE RECEIVED A VARIANCE AND ONE DID NOT RECEIVE A VARIANCE. SO I BELIEVE THE BOARD DIRECTION WAS TO FIGURE OUT A CODE REVISION THAT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE TO ALLOW SOME OF THE SMALL LOTS A REASONABLE SIZED POOL. WHAT I RAN INTO, AS I PULLED UP THIS INFORMATION, I HAD OUR GIS TEAM CREATE THIS MAP TO DEMONSTRATE HOW MANY LOTS WOULD BE AFFECTED BY THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT. WHAT IS SHOWN HERE IS ABOUT 100 LOTS. TURNS OUT THERE'S A-- THERE'S PROBABLY LESS THAN 60 LOTS. THAT WOULD ACTUALLY MEET THE STANDARD OF BEING 70-- 7200 SQUARE FEET OR LESS.