[Call to Order]
[00:00:04]
>> CHAIRMAN: GOOD AFTERNOON. WOULD LIKE TO CALL TO ORDER THE FEBRUARY 3, 2020, MEETING OF THE PONTE VEDRA DESIGNING AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD. WELCOME. IF WE MAY HAVE THE READING OF THE
PUBLIC STATEMENT PLEASE. >> THIS IS A PROPERLY NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING HELD IN CONCURRENCE WITH REQUIREMENTS OF FLORIDA LAW. THE PUBLIC WILL BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON TOPICS RELEVANT TO THE BOARD'S AREA OF JURISDICTION EYEBOLT THE PUBLIC WILL BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO OFFER COMMENT AT A DESIGNATED TIME DURING THE HEARING AM ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC DESIRING TO SPEAK MUST INDICATE SO BY COMPLETING A SPEAKER CARD WHICH IS AVAILABLE IN THE FOYER. ANY ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS MAY BE HEARD ONLY AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIRMAN.
IF THEY DO NOT THE FACT THAT TESTIMONY IS NOT SWORN MAY BE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD IN DETERMINING THE WEIGHT OR TRUTHFUL NEXT OF THE TESTIMONY. IF A PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THE HEARING, SUCH PERSON WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING IS MADE. WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ANY PHYSICAL OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRESENTED DURING THE HEARING, SUCH AS DIE AWE GRAM ROSÉS CHARTS, PHOTOGRAPHS OR WRITTEN STATEMENTS, WILL BE RETAINED BY STAFF AS PART OF THE RECORD. THE RECORD WILL THEN BE AVAILABLE FOR OTHER BOARDS, AGENCIES OR COMMITTEES OR THE COUNTY IN ANY REVIEW OF THE APPEAL RELATING TO THE ITEM. BOARD MEMBERS ARE REMINDED AT THE BEGINNING OF EACH ITEM THEY SHOULD STATE WHETHER THEY HAD ANY COMMUNICATION WITH THE APPLICANT OR ANY OTHER PERSON REGARDING THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ITEM OUTSIDE THE FORMAL HEARING OF THE BOARD. IF SUCH COMMUNICATION HAS OCCURRED, THE BOARD MEMBER SHOULD THEN IDENTIFY THE PERSONS INVOLVED AND THE MATERIAL CONTENT OF THE COMMUNICATION. CIVILITY CLAUSE. WE WILL BE RESPECTFUL OF ONE ANOTHER EVEN WHEN WE DISAGREE. WE WILL DIRECT ALL COMMENTS TO THE
ISSUES. WE WILL AVOID PERSONAL ATTACKS. >> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU, MEGAN.
BECAUSE TWO OF THE BOARD MEMBERS AREN'T PRESENT TODAY, WE DECIDED IT'S RUDE TO POSTPONE THE ELECTION OF CHAIR, VOICE CHAIR TO THE NEXT MEETING. HOPEFULLY WE'LL HAVE A BETTER TURNOUT. THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS APPROVING THE MINUTES FROM NOVEMBER 4, 2019, AND JANUARY 6, 2020.
ANYBODY HAVE ANY COMMENTS OR CHANGING? >> BRAD, WHAT I WAS THINKING IS BECAUSE THE MINUTES HAVE REFERRED TO STATEMENTS THAT WERE MADE BY THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD
THAT AREN'T PRESENT, THAT MAYBE WE SHOULD DELAY APPROVING THEM. >> CHAIRMAN: I DON'T KNOW IF
THEY HAVE ANY CORRECTIONS THEY MAY WANT TO MAKE. >> CITY ATTORNEY: IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE A VERBATIM RECORD. JUST SUPPOSED TO ADDRESS THE OVERALL VOTE. WE ALWAYS RECORD THESE ANYWAY AND WE BROADCAST THEM SO ANY DISCREME ANTSY BETWEEN THE MINUTES AND THE ACTUAL RECORDING CAN ALWAYS BE CORRECTED AND CHALLENGED BY A CORRECTION OF THE LATTER MINUTES. I WILL SAY THAT THE BOARD'S PREVIOUS DECISION ON THE GATE PROPERTY HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 6TH MEETING ARE SUPPOSED TO BE A COMPONENT OF THAT APPLICATION. SO, IF THE BOARD DOESN'T APPROVE IT THIS TIME, WE'LL GO FORWARD WITH KIND OF DRAFT THE UNVERBALLYLY APPROVED MINUTES. SO THOSE ARE THE ONLY
CONSIDERATIONS? >> CHAIRMAN: ANY OTHER THOUGHTS? I'M OKAY ANY WAY.
>> BOARD MEMBER: I HAVE A CORRECTION. ON PAGE 4 OF THE JANUARY 6TH MINUTES OFF-MIKE MIKE MIC --
OKAY TO POSTPONE THE APPROVAL. >> BOARD MEMBER: THERE'S ONE TYPO THAT I NOTICED. AND IT WAS ON PAGE 4. IT SAYS D. FRACT ADDRESSED THE BOARDS, DISCUSSED THE MODIFICATION AND
CONFESSIONS. I THINK THEY MEANT TO SAY CONCESSIONS. >> CHAIRMAN: SO WE'LL ADD THAT
[00:05:09]
TO THE AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING IF THAT'S OKAY. OKAY. ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS TODAY OTHER[Public Comment]
THAN THE AGENDA ITEMS WE ALREADY HAVE? KITTY? >> PUBLIC SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON. KITTY SIT CUSS, 111 OCEAN FOREST DRIVE. I WANTED TO SPEAK BRIEFLY AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT. BUT AS OF NOW I THINK TOMORROW THE BOCC IS GOING TO BE HEARING THE AMENDED REGULATIONS THAT THIS BOARD HAS BEEN WORKING ON THE LAST COUPLE YEARS. I HAVE A QUESTION OF CONCERN ABOUT THE WORDING OF SEGMENT 8, SECTION S TO INCLUDE THAT 24-HOUR TIME LIMITATION. IF YOU LOOK DOWN BELOW THE WORDINGS THAT THE COUNTY STAFF -- THAT PUT IN THE PACKET THAT I READ STATES THAT THE REFUSE CONTAINERS WILL BE CONCEALED FROM VIEW OF ANY PERSON ON ANY STREET EXCEPT WITHIN 24 HOURS OF THE SCHEDULED DAY. I WOULD PREFER THAT WORD TO BE BEFORE. WITHIN HAS A LOT OF MEETINGS. THERE'S TIME WHERE IT COULD BE 24 HOURS BEFORE THE SCHEDULED DAY AND ALSO 24 HOURS AFTER. I KNOW IT'S JUST A TECHNICAL BUT WE ARE CHANGING IT AND I WANT TO GET IT RIGHT. SO, I DON'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT THE AGENDA ITEMS FOR TODAY BUT IF THIS IS GOING IN FRONT OF THE BOCC I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THIS WAS THE INTENT OF THE BOARD. BECAUSE IT COULD BE
INTERPRETED AS BEFORE AND AFTER. >> CHAIRMAN: DO YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION OF THE WORDING
YOU THAT PREFER TO SEE? >> SPEAKER: 24 HOURS BEFORE SCHEDULED DAY. THAT'S WHAT THE CONVERSATION WAS DURING THE MEETING. BEFORE. SO, I JUST -- WITHIN HAS A LOT OF MEETINGS. I LOOKED AT IT, AND SOME OF THEM -- I MEAN, I LOOKED AT SOME DEFINITIONS WERE TO APPLY TO BEFORE AND AFTER A SPECIFIC TIME. SO, I DON'T WANT IT TO BE INTERPRETED ANY WAY OTHER THAN HOW THE BOARD WANTED IT INTERRUPTED. AND I'VE BEEN TO ALL THESE MEETINGS AND I'M PRETTY CONFIDENT IT WAS JUST THE 24 HOURS BEFORE THE SCHEDULED DAY. SO THE DAY BEFORE AND THE
DAY OF. THAT'S JUST MY CONCERN. >> CHAIRMAN: OKAY. DO YOU NEED A COPY OF THAT?
>> CITY ATTORNEY: I'LL LET MIKE SPEAK TO THAT. I THINK THERE'S SOME THINGS IN MOTION.
>> SPEAKER: YES, SIR. WHETHER THESE ITEMS ARE NOT GOING TO -- HOW GOING TO BE HEARD I'M NOT SURE. IF THEY GET PULL FULLED THEY'LL GO TO THE COMMISSIONERS. IF YOU CHOOSE TO AGREE WITH THAT SENTIMENT I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE WE CAN UPDATE IT. I'LL LOOK TO MY STAFF TO MAKE SURE THAT MAKES SENSE FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE. WE DON'T SEE ANYTHING OFF HAND. WE WANT TO MAKE THE INTENT OF THE BOARD -- IF YOU ARE OKAY WITH THAT, WE CAN MAKE THAT CHANGE IN THAT
PACKET. >> CHAIRMAN: ANY COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT? OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY MOVE ON TO FIRST AGENDA ITEM TODAY WHICH IS EAGLE STAR BEACH HOUSE
[Item 1]
ADDITION TO ALLOW A REDUCED FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 33 FEET IN LIEU OF 40 FEET FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING GARAGE. START WITH JOHN. SITE VISITS ANYONE>> BOARD MEMBER: I HAVE VISITED THE SITE AND HAVE NOT SPOKEN WITH ANYBODY.
>> BOARD MEMBER: I'VE DONE A SITE VISIT BUT NOT SPOKEN TO ANYONE.
>> BOARD MEMBER: I DID A SITE VISIT AND DID NOT SPEAK WITH ANYONE.
>> BOARD MEMBER: SITE VISIT BUT DIDN'T SPEAK TO ANYBODY. >> BOARD MEMBER: I HAVE NOT DONE
A SITE VISIT AND HAVE NOT SPOKEN WITH ANYONE. >> SPEAKER: BEVERLY FRAZIER GROWTH MANAGEMENT. PONTE VEDRA ZONING VARIANCE 2019-07 OF THE EAGLE STAR ADDITION. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A ZONING VARIANCE TO SECTION 3B1 OF THE PONTE VEDRA ZONING REGULATIONS TO ALLOW A REDUCED FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 33 FEET IN LIEU OF THE 40 FEET FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE ADDITION.
THE PROPERTIED 1201 PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD. IT'S ABOUT A MILE SOUTH OF MICKLER ROAD ON OCEANFRONT ON THE EAST SIDE OF PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD. IT IS LOCATED IN THE R1A ZONING DISTRICT. SO THE REQUESTED ENCROACHMENT OF SEVEN FEET TO THE 40 FOOT REQUIRED FRONT YARD IS TO ACCOMMODATION CONSTRUCTION ADDITION TO A GARAGE AND GUEST HOUSE. THE ADDITION IS DEPICTED
[00:10:01]
AS 48 FEET IN WIDTH. THE EXISTING TWO STORY GUEST GARAGE IS CONSTRUCTED WITH AN ESTIMATED 57 FOOT SETBACK. THE ADDITION IS DESIGNED WITH A 348 SQUARE FOOT ENCROACHMENT FOR THE TOTAL OF 1152 SQUARE FOOT WESTERN EXPANSION. THE APPLICANT STATES THAT ADEQUATE SPACE CANNOT BE DESIGNED TO PROVIDE LIVING SPACE NEEDED FOR THE FAMILY GUESTS AND SECURITY DETAIL WITHOUT VARIANCE TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK. THIS IS A LOOK AT THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN. IT DOES SHOW THE HIG HIGHLIGHTED AREA FOR THE ADDITION THAT IS IN FRONT OF THE MAIN HOUSE STRUCTURE AS WELL AS A FLOOR PLAN WAS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT TO SHOW THE FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR PLANS AS SHOWING THE ADDITIONAL BEDROOM AREAS AS WELL AS THE ROOF DECK. SO THE PROPERTY IS DEVELOPED WITH A SINGLE ACCESS DRIVEWAY PROVIDING A CURVED KIND OF DRIVEWAY INTO THE PARKING COURT YARD AREA BETWEEN THE MAIN UE STRUCTURE AND THAT GARAGE GUEST HOME. A MATURE OAK CANOPY WAS RETAINED ON THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE LOT COMBINED WITH AN EXTENSIVE LANDSCAPING THAT DOES PROVIDE SIGNIFICANT SCREENING TO BUFFER THE VIEW FROM PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD AS WELL AS A PRIVACY WALL THERE AS WITH EL. BASED ON THE SITE PLAN, IN DISCUSSION WITH THE APPLICANT, THE PROPOSED ADDITION WOULD NOT REQUIRE REMOVAL OF THE MATURE OAK TREES AND EXISTING PALMS AND THE EXISTING LANDSCAPE PLANS ARE PLANNED FOR RELOCATION. WITH THE MINIMAL INCREASED COVERAGE AND SIGNIFICANT LANDS BEYOND THE CCCL THE PARCEL WOULD CONTINUE TO MEET THE 40% ISR LIMITATION.THIS IS A LOOK AT THE AERIAL. YOU CAN SEE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ALTHOUGH IMPROVEMENTS ARE [INAUDIBLE] OF THE CCCL. YOU CAN SEE A LARGE HOUSE AS WELL AS THE GUEST STRUCTURE RIGHT HERE IN FRONT. SO, SECTION 3B OF THE PONTE VEDRA ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS REQUIRES LOTS WITHIN R1A TO HAVE A MINIMUM LAW OF 22,500 SQUARE FEET. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY EXCEEDS THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH WITH A 200 FOOT FRONTAGE. OVER 45,000 WESTWARD OF THE CCCL AND DOES PROVIDE ABOUT 32,000 SQUARE FEET OF DEVELOPMENT AREA. THE RESIDENCE IS CONSTRUCTED WITH A COMPOUND TYPE DESIGN. IS ORIENTED TOWARD THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY WITH SHARED PARKING COURT YARD AND MORE PRIVATE ACCESSORY USINGS AND STRUCTURES AT THE REAR OF THE HOME. THAT DOES NOT HAVE VEHICULAR ACCESS.
THE OCEANFRONT LOT IS PARTICULAR IN SHAPE AND MAY BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE TOP AGRAPHIC CONDITIONS WITH GRADE ELEVATIONS RANGING FROM 14.9 AT THE FRONT LINE TO ABOUT 26.8 AT THE BUILDING PAD.
BUT IT DOES NOT APPEAR THE IMPACT PLACEMENT OF THE ADDITION. A CONDITION IS INCLUDED TO REQUIRE THE TECHNICAL COMPLIANCE WITH A GRAY ELEVATION, STRUCTURE HIGH AND FILL AMOUNTS BASED ON THE TOPOGRAPHY AND THE FLOOD ZONE PRIOR TO APPROVAL. THE STAFF NOTES THAT RETAINING WALL MAY BE REQUIRED TO ACCOMMODATE THE CHANGING GRADE WEST OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. THIS IS A LOOK TOOK FROM INSIDE THE WALL UP TOWARDS THE AREA WHERE THE ADDITION IS PROPOSED. AND YOU CAN SEE THIS VEGETATION WOULD NEED TO BE REMOVED ALTHOUGH YOU CAN SEE WHERE I'M STANDING. THE PALM TREES ARE OUTSIDE OF THAT. SO, THE PALM TREES AND ANYTHING OTHER THAN THAT WOULD REMAIN. LOOKING BACK ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PALM TREES YOU DO SEE THE PATH THAT'S IN THAT AREA AS WELL AS THOSE EXISTING OAK TREES THAT WOULD REMAIN. SO, STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY PHONE CALLS OR WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING THIS REQUEST. THE REQUEST DOES NOT APPEAR CONTRARY TO PUINTERE. THE ADDITION IS PROPOSED WITH A 33 SETBACK AND ENCROACHMENT OF 348 SQUARE FEET. THE MAJORITY OF THE TREES AND VEGETATION WILL BE PRESERVED AND THE PROPERTY HAS A PRIVACY WALL AND ALSO LIMITS VISUAL IMPACT. THE APPLICANT PROVIDES AN EXTRAORDINARY SITUATION OR CONDITION OF THE PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT PREVENTS FURTHER DEVELOPMENT SUCH AS LIMITED TO THE EXISTING IMPROVEMENT, SPACE ON THE DESIGN AND LOCATION. THE PROPERTY INTERCEDES TO INCREASE THE LIVING AREA TO ACCOMMODATE FAMILY MEMBERS AND STAFF. STAFF HAS PROVIDED SEVEN CONDITIONS AND FOUR FINDINGS TO SUPPORT A MOTION. I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE IS HERE AS WELL.
>> CHAIRMAN: JUST FOR THE RECORD, COULD YOU STATE WHAT THE HARDSHIP IS.
>> SPEAKER: THE APPLICANT PROVIDES THERE IS NOT ANY ADDITIONAL ROOM FOR CONSTRUCTION
OF THE ADDITION BASED ON THE EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS. >> CHAIRMAN: DO WE KNOW IF THE
[00:15:06]
FLAT DECK ABOVE THE ADDITION, IS THAT A DECK THAT PEOPLE CAN WALK OUT TO?>> SPEAKER: BASED ON THE SITE PLAN IT DOES SHOW THAT. THE EXISTING GARAGE AND GUEST HOUSE IS TWO STORIES. SO, YOU COULD HAVE ACCESS TO THAT SECOND STORY DECK FROM THE EXISTING
STRUCTURE. >> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU. IF THE APPLICANT COULD COME FORWARD AND PRESENT. IF YOU ALL HAVE A COMMENT, IT'S NOT PICKING UP ON MY SCREEN SO JUST LET ME KNOW IF
YOU WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT. >> SPEAKER: GOOD EVENING. ALAN ARENA. I LIVE AT 122 FRONT DOOR
LANE, ST. AUGUSTINE FLORIDA. >> CHAIRMAN: CAN YOU TELL US KIND OF WHAT YOU ARE WANTING TO
DO. >> SPEAKER: I'M THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN EER OF THE PROJECT FOR THE HOMEOWNER. I'VE DONE VARIOUS PROJECTS FOR THEM. THEY HAVE A LARGE FAMILY AND A LOT OF CHILDREN ARE GROWN, HAVING CHILDREN OF THEIR OWN. THEY RESIDE BOTH HERE AND OVERSEAS AND ALL TRAVEL BACK AND FORTH FREQUENTLY. AND THEY WOULD JUST LIKE TO HAVE SPACE FOR HOW EVERYBODY IN THE FAMILY HAS THEIR OWN SPACE. LEAVE THEIR FLORIDA CLOTHES IN FLORIDA AND RUSSIA CLOTHES IN RUSSIA. ALSO WIH HIS WORK, HE HAS A SMALL SECURITY DETAIL OF GENTLEMEN THAT TRAVEL WITH HIM. SO TO KEEP THE FAMILY SEPARATE FROM HIS SECURITY DETAIL HE NEEDS EXTRA SPACE. I CAN'T TELL YOU MUCH MORE BECAUSE I CAN'T CONVERSE WITH HIM DIRECTLY BUT I HAVE A GO BETWEEN THAT DIRECTS ME ON THE PROJECTS THAT WE'VE DONE TOGETHER FOR HIM. AND THEY LOVE THEIR FLORIDA HOME AND THEY WOULD JUST LIKE TO BE ABLE TO SPEND MORE TIME HERE COMFORTABLY. AND THE ORIGINAL HOME WAS DEVELOPED BY THE PREVIOUS GENTLEMAN THAT DEVELOPED THE HOME. SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINE THE SETBACK WAS MISINTERPRETED ON THE SITE PLAN THAT HAD BEEN USED LIKE FOR OVER DECADES NOW. IT SHOWED 25 FRONT YARD SETBACK. SO THEY ALWAYS THOUGHT THEY HAD MORE ROOM. AND TURNED OUT WHEN THEY WENT TO DO THIS PROJECT I RESEARCHED IT AND FOUND OUT WE HAD A 40 YARD FRONT YARD SETBACK AND THAT'S KIND OF WHAT CREATED THE PROBLEM FOR US.
BECAUSE THEY ALWAYS THOUGHT HEY HAD MORE ROOM TO EXPAND IN FRONT AND TURNED OUT THEY DIDN'T. I HAVE NO IDEA HOW THE SITE PLAN HAS BEEN USED OVER AND OVER FOR IMPROVEMENTS SINCE THE HOUSE WAS BUILT. I THINK IT MAYBE USED TO BE 25 FOOT SETBACK YEARS AGO AND NOW CHANGED BY THE COUNTY AT NO POINT. SO, WHEN THEY BUILT THE GUEST HOUSE I THINK THEY BUILT IT CLOSER TO THE FRONT THAN -- THEY DIDN'T KNOW THEY WERE GOING TO HAVE ANY ROOM IN THE FRONT TO EXPAND ON THAT.
>> CHAIRMAN: AND THERE'S NOT ANY OTHER AREAS ON THE PROPERTY THEY COULD USE?
>> SPEAKER: NO, IT'S PRETTY WIDE. THE REAR IS KIND OF DEVELOPED WITH THE POOL AREA AND THEY HAVE STRUCTURES FOR SHADE AND COUPLE OF GAZEBOS. THERE'S REALLY NOWHERE ELSE TO GO OTHER THAN MAYBE THE SECOND FLOOR. BUT TO EXPAND THAT, YOU KNOW, THE HOUSE ITSELF IS -- YOU KNOW YOU DON'T WANT TO MAKE SOMETHING THAT LOOKS LIKE AN ADDITION ON A HOUSE LIKE THIS. IF THERE'S ANY WAY TO ADD LIVING SPACE ACCESSIBLE PROBABLY FROM THE REST OF THE HOME WITHOUT MAKING IT LOOK OUT OF PLACE. AND THIS IS A VERY VISUALLY NOT IMPACTIVE ADDITION. IT'S PROBABLY NOT GOING TO LOOK ANY DIFFERENT FROM THE STREET WHATSOEVER. YOU MIGHT SEE A LITTLE BIT OF THE RAILING THAT WILL BE AROUND THE ROOF DECK WHETHER THAT ROOF DECK IS ACCESSIBLE OR NOT IS NEGOTIABLE.
IT WOULD BE NICE. LIKE THERE IS A SECOND FLOOR RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE ATTACHED TO THE GARAGE, AS YOU CAN SEE. SO THE IDEA WOULD BE IT WOULD BE NICE IF THEY COULD MAKE THAT ACCESSIBLE STRUCTURE. THERE'S A BEAUTIFUL SUNSET FROM THAT AREA. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE ANY WAY A DEAL BREAKER IF THE COUNTY DECIDED IT DID NOT WANT THAT SPACE ACCESSIBLE. WE JUST DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE THE ROOF CLIMB UP ABOVE THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND MAKE IT HUGE. THAT WAS JUST THE BEST ARCHITECTURAL WAY TO REACH THAT DESIRED LOOK WITHOUT IT OVERTAKING THE
GARAGE. >> CHAIRMAN: ALL RIGHT. THE THING WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL IS IN SPEAKING WITH COUNCIL IF IT CREATES A PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE HOMEOWNERS THAT IF WE DEEM THIS THEY WANT TO MOVE THEIR HOUSE OR GARAGE CLOSER TO THE STREET. DO WE SET A PRECEDENT THAT CREATES
[00:20:06]
THAT? >> SPEAKER: THERE ARE PROPERTIES FURTHER SOUTH THAT MAY BE IN A DIFFERENT ZONING DESIGNATION THAT ARE, I BELIEVE, CLOSER TO THE ROAD. SO IT'S NOT LIKE IT'S THE ONLY ONE ON THE BLOCK THAT WOULD BE CLOSER TO THE 40 FOOT LNE. I CAN'T TELL YOU THOSE PROPERTIES ARE ALSO SHIELDED FROM THE ROAD BY THE ELEVATION IN THE DUNE AND, YOU KNOW, LANDSCAPING. I REALLY HAVE NO IDEA WHO ELSE HAS DETACHED STRUCTURES AND THINGS THEY, YOU KNOW, MOST OF THE TIME THE SETBACKS ARE THE HOMES BECAUSE MOST OF THEM ARE RECENTLY BUILT HOMES IN THAT AREA. IT'S ONE THE OLDEST HOMES ON THAT STRETCH I BELIEVE. SO IT WAS, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK -- I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS EVER CONSIDERED WHEN THE HOME WAS LOCATED IN THE FIRST PLACE. I THINK MORE RECENT HOMES ARE PROBABLY USING A [INAUDIBLE] TO THE SETBACK
ALREADY. >> CHAIRMAN: I'M GETTING MESSAGES NOW. YOU CAN PRESS THE
BUTTON. >> BOARD MEMBER: HOW LONG HAS THE EXISTING HOMEOWNER OWNED THE
PROPERTY? >> SPEAKER: TO MY PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE AT LEAST 15 YEARS. I THINK THE HOME IS ABOUT 15-20 YEARS OLD. AND IT WAS BUILT FOR HIM.
>> BOARD MEMBER: SO IT WAS BUILT FOR THE CURRENT OWNER? >> SPEAKER: I BELIEVE SO, YES.
>> BOARD MEMBER: WAS THE GARAGE AN ADDED FACTOR? >> SPEAKER: YES, SIR. A COMPANY
I WORKED FOR AT THE TIME DID THE GARAGE PLANS. IN ABIN 2005. >> BOARD MEMBER: SO THE OWNER
DOES NOT LIVE HERE FULL-TIME? >> SPEAKER: NO. BUT MORE AND MORE OFTEN. AGAIN, I'VE BEEN KIND OF INVOLVED WITH THE OWNER IN VARIOUS PROJECTS FOR ABOUT 15 YEARS AND THEY SEEM TO BE SPENDING MORE AND MORE TIME HERE. WHICH IS THE NEED FOR MORE SPACE BECAUSE THERE IS A LOT OF KIDS. IT IS A VERY LARGE FAMILY. THEY HAVE A HUGE DINING ROOM AND I'VE BEEN THERE FOR BREAKFAST WITH 18 TO 20 PEOPLE. IT SOUNDS ALMOST SILLY TO SAY THERE'S NOT SPACE WHEN IT IS A 12,000 SQUARE FOOT HOME BUT THE WAY IT IS CUT UP WITH BED RENALS AND THERE'S A LOT OF COMMON AREA. THEY ARE BUNKING TOGETHER WITH THE CHILDREN AND STUFF. IT WASN'T DESIGNED FOR THE WAY THEY'RE USING IT NOW. THEY MADE SOME MODIFICATIONS OVER THE YEARS TO TRY TO MAKE IT MORE COMFORTABLE.
>> CHAIRMAN: COUNSEL, WHAT KIND OF PRECEDENT ARE WE OPENING UP EXPOSING FORES REQUESTING THIS KIND OF SAME SITUATION? I KNOW IN THE PAST -- BUT IT SEEMS TO BE A VERY COMMON HOUSE AND LOT. IT'S NOT PECULIAR THAT WOULD MAKE IT DIFFERENT FROM MOST OF THE OTHER LOTS UP AND DOWN THAT SECTION. AND I THINK YOU HEARD ME BEFORE, ANY PRECEDENTIAL SETTING THAT YOU MAKE IS PARTICULAR TO THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S KIND OF CASE LAW. IT ALSO DEPENDS ON THE TYPE OF HARDSHIP OR SPECIAL CONDITION THAT NEGATIVELY AFFECTS THE PROPERTY.
THAT THIS BOARD IDENTIFIES AS JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUESTED RELIEF. SO IT'S THOSE TWO COMPONENTS. BECAUSE WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE PROPERTY AND WHAT IS THE RELIEF REQUESTED. AND IF THERE IS A LOT SURROUNDING THE AIR THAT HAS THE SAME WRONGNESS TO THE PROPERTY AND THE SAME REQUESTED RELIEF, THAT CREATES PRECEDENT SO THAT SPECIFIC RELIEF. SO, IF ONCE AGAIN IT'S WHAT THE BOARD IDENTIFIES AS THE HARDSHIP AND WHAT THE RELIEF THAT IS GRANTED BECAUSE OF THAT
HARDSHIP. SO THAT'S KIND OF THE PLAY. >> CHAIRMAN: AGAIN, I DIDN'T HEAR A HARDSHIP. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE REST OF THE BOARD. I HEARD THE REASON FOR THE HARDSHIP IS THEY NEED MORE SPACE AND THEY DON'T HAVE ANY PLACE TO PUT IT. BUT FOR THE DEFINITION OF WHAT WE TYPICALLY HANDLE UNLESS ANOTHER BOARD MEMBER HEARD SOMETHING I DIDN'T, I'M NOT HEARING A HARDSHIP. SO, WE'RE SAYING THAT FOR FUTURE VARIANCES THAT WANT IT FOR NO SAKE OF ANY BETTER REASON THEY JUST WANT A BIGGER HOUSE TO MOVE CLOSER TO THE STREET. SO, PRETTY MUCH ANYBODY CAN QUALIFY FOR THAT COMPARISON IF THEY WERE TO COME BEFORE THIS BOARD COULD THEY MAKE THAT ARGUMENT TO US IF THEY JUST MET THE SAME CRITERIA WHICH IS I WANT MORE SPACE AND
THAT'S THE ONLY PLACE I CAN PUT IT ON MY PROPERTY? >> CITY ATTORNEY: ONE OF THE THINGS IS THAT YOU CAN'T BE ARBITRARILY CAPRICIOUS. SO, IF THEY ARE TWO IDENTICAL PROPERTIES AND THEY'RE REQUESTING THE SAME RELIEF AND THEY'VE GOT THE SAME, YOU KNOW, REASONS, UNLESS THERE'S SOMETHING OBVIOUS THAT DIFFERENTIATES THE TWO, TO DENY
[00:25:05]
ONE AND GRANT THE OTHER. AND, YOU KNOW, REGARDLESS OF THE PRECEDENTIAL SAY SETTING THAT THIS BOARD WAS CONCERNED ABOUT, FUND AMMALLY YOUR TASK IS IS THERE AN IDENTIFIED HARDSHIP SUPPORTED BY COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THE APPLICANT OR STAFF OR MEMBERS OF THE BOARD HAVE, YOU KNOW, EVIDENCE ON AND HOW DOES THAT HARDSHIP REQUEST FOR RELIEF.DOES THAT JUSTIFY IN GRANTING THE REQUEST? >> CHAIRMAN: CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, IF SOMEBODY HAS A HARDSHIP THEY CAN EXPLAIN TO ME BETTER, PLEASE DO. JOHN?
>> BOARD MEMBER: I UNDERSTAND I'M HAVING A HARD TIME READING THE -- IT IS A 24 FOOT DEEP ADDITION. SO, IF THE ADDITION WERE 17 FEET AND 2 STORY YOU WOULDN'T BE BEFORE THE BOARD
RIGHT? >> SPEAKER: THAT'S TRUE. BUT TO MAKE IT TWO STORIES THE WIDTH OF THE EXISTING BUILDING WE'RE BUILDING ON TO IT WOULD NEED TO HAVE ALMOST NO ROOF PITCH OR A FLAT ROOF. IT WOULD JUST BECOME A MONSTROUS STRUCTURE. SPREAD OUT THE ONE STORY ADDITION WITH ALMOST FLAT ROOF WOULD LOOK SO MUCH BETTER THAN THE GIANT WHAT WOULD BE A 48 FOOT DEEP BY 44 FOOT WIDE STRUCTURE. I MEAN, IT WOULD JUST ARCHITECTURALLY AND AESTHETICALLY NOT LOOK AS GOOD.
>> BOARD MEMBER: BUT IT'S STILL A SOLUTION? >> SPEAKER: IT IS. IT COULD BE A SOLUTION. THE WAY THE SECOND FLOOR IS -- I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN PULL THAT UP. BUT WE HAVE EGRESS ISSUES WITH THE EXISTING BEDROOMS UP THERE RIGHT NOW. YOU KNOW, WE'D JUST HAVE TROUBLE GETTING WINDOWS ON ALL SIDES OF IT IF WE PUT A SECOND FLOOR UP THERE. THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT COULD BE ONE SOLUTION. WE JUST FELT AESTHETICALLY FROM THE PROPERTY IN THE AREA WE'D RATHER KEEP THE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT'S THERE. AGAIN, I THINK WHEN THAT ORIGINAL STRUCTURE WAS ADDED IT WAS ADDED WITH THE INTENT THAT WE SHOULD PUT SOMETHING ON THIS SIDE AND WE HAVE WHAT THEY THOUGHT WAS, YOU KNOW, 45 FEET OR MORE TO BUILD ON TO AND SO THAT STRUCTURE COULD HAVE EITHER BEEN PLACED AS FAR FRONT AS IT COULD AND MAYBE WE COULD HAVE LOOKED BACK TOWARDS THE COURT YARD. THE COURT YARD IS TIGHT AS IT IS. WHEN I'VE BEEN THERE ONE OF THE KIDS [INAUDILE] IT'S TIGHT. SO, THERE'S REALLY NOWHERE AROUND THE EXISTING STRUCTURE TO GO. I THINK HAD THAT INFORMATION BEEN AVAILABLE WHEN THE ORIGINAL DETACHED GARAGE WAS BUILT WE MAY HAVE -- IT MAY HAVE BEEN SITUATED BETTER AND AVOIDED THIS. BUT RIGHT NOW, YOU KNOW, I'VE LOOKED AT IT A MILLION TIMES AND, YOU KNOW, OF COURSE AS A DESIGNER I SUGGESTED LET'S JUST TRY TO AVOID A VARIANCE BECAUSE IT'S ALWAYS A DIFFICULT THING. BUT WE JUST REALLY COULDN'T MAKE IT WRK AND LOOK LIKE IT SHOULD LOOK IN THIS AREA OF THIS PROPERTY. SO WE DON'T WANT TO BUILD ANYTHING THAT IS AN EYESORE. I JUST THINK, YOU KNOW, YOU LOOK UP FROM PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD AT WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IT'S GOING TO FIT PARTICULARLY. THE OTHER BUILDINGS WILL BE BEYOND IT AND MATCH COMPLETELY. IF WE STICK TO WITHIN THE CODES, ONLY GO 17 OR 16 FEET OUT AND MAKE IT TWO STORIES WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THIS GIANT STRUCTURE REALLY LOOMING OVER THAT AREA OF PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD. WHICH IS ALL VERY NICELY LANDSCAPED AND THE DRIVEWAYS ALL KIND OF MEANDER UP. SO WE JUST REALLY DON'T WANT TO -- I THINK THE ISSUE IS TO NOT CHANGE THE BEAUTY OF THE AREA BY BUILDING SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE NOT ATTRACTIVE EVEN THOUGH IT WOULD FIT WITHIN THE CODE. SO, I GUESS, IN MY OWN POSITION, THAT'S THE ONLY HARDSHIP THAT I COME UP WITH. I DREW IT UP AND IT WAS JUST THIS GIANT THING. I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE FAIR -- EVEN THOUGH IT FITS WITHIN THE CODES AND WOULD GET APPROVED I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR TO THAT STRETCH OF LAND IN PONTE VEDRA. THE OWNER AGREED AND HE IS VERY PROUD OF HIS -- OF WHAT HE BUILDS AND THE HOMES HE HAS AND HE SAID I'LL GO THROUGH WHATEVER PROCESS WE NEED GO THROUGH TO TRY TO GET IT APPROVED. SO IT MEETS HIS NEEDS
AND LOOKS LIKE ON THE PROPERTY. >> CHAIRMAN: YOU'VE GOT SUCH A GREAT TREE CANOPY AND WHATEVER
YOU PUT IN IS NOT GOING TO BE SEEN. >> KIND OF. BUT IF YOU GO UP TWO STORIES THAT CLOSE TO THE -- IT WOULD BE VERY VISIBLE I THINK A TWO STORY STRUCTURE. THAT'S
[00:30:03]
WHAT YOU WOULD SEE AS YOU LOOK UP. AT THIS POINT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO REALLY JUST SEE THE LANDSCAPING AND THE TREES AND SEE A LITTLE BIT OF THAT PARAPET WALL THROUGH IT. BECAUSE THE REST OF THE STRUCTURE IS ANOTHER 24 FEET BACK. SO, YOU REALLY DON'T SEE THAT FROM THE ROAD NOWAT ALL. >> CHAIRMAN: NO OTHER QUESTION SDMZ
>> BOARD MEMBER: WE DON'T HAVE ONE PICTURE OF THE EXTERIOR DO WE? OF THE BUILDING?
>> SPEAKER: I DON'T HAVE ONE FROM THE ROAD. THAT'S FROM JUST INSIDE THE PRIVACY WALL. THAT'S RIGHT ON THE STREET. SO, WHEN YOU ARE DOWN IN FRONT OF THAT WALL YOU ARE ALSO DOWN ANOTHER TEN FEET I THINK TO THE STREET. SO, YOU ARE REALLY LOOKING UP. I'VE BEEN THERE MANY, MANY TIMES AND I STILL HAVE TO LOOK AT THE ADDRESS BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SEE ANYTHING FROM THE STREET OF THE HOME. MOST OF THOSE HOMES ALL YOU CAN SEE IS THE GATE WITH THE LITTLE PYTHONS WITH THE -- PYLONS WITH THE ADDRESS. IF YOU LOOK AT THAT WALL AND YOU GO TWO STORY IT IS GOING TO BE VERY
VISIBLE. >> BOARD MEMBER: BUT YOU WILL ONLY BE COMING 17 FEET BOARD.
>> SPEAKER: WE HAVE 17 FEET LEGALLY. >> BOARD MEMBER: TO AVOID A
VARIANCE YOU ONLY COME 17 FEET FORWARD AND THEN 2 STORIES TALL. >> EXACTLY.
>> PETER IS PULLING UP A GOOGLE STREET VIEW OF -- IS THAT THE RIGHT SIDE?
>> SPEAKER: YEP. >> CHAIRMAN: MEGAN, DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT?
>> BOARD MEMBER: I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT LIKE YOU, BRAD, I HAVE DIFFICULTY SEEING THAT THERE IS A HARDSHIP BY VIRTUE OF THE LAW ITSELF. AND THAT'S USUALLY WHERE WE GIVE AB APPLICANT RELIEF.
IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT THE HOUSE IS ALREADY BUILT AND AT THAT TIME OF BUILDING THEY WEREN'T ABLE TO HAVE THAT CRYSTAL BALL AND REALIZE THEY WOULD WANT ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE BEYOND
WHAT THEY BUILT. >> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU. I'D LIKE TO OPEN IT UP TO PUBLIC COMMENT.
NOT SEEING ANY PUBLIC COMMENT, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> BOARD MEMBER: I WOULD SAY SINCE WE DO NOT HAVE A HARDSHIP WHICH FITS THE DEFINITIONS OF OUR REGULATIONS THAT I WOULD
MOVE TO DENY THIS REQUEST. >> CITY ATTORNEY: MR. CHAIR, THAT'S ALSO -- THE MOTION IS
BASISED ON THE FOUR FINDINGS OF FACT OR DENIAL. >> BOARD MEMBER: I SECOND THE
MOTION. >> BOARD MEMBER: BEFORE THIS VOTE WE'RE HERE FOR NEIGHBORS, WE'RE TRYING TO HELP EVERYONE THAT COMES FOR A VARIANCE. BECAUSE THERE ARE NOT ALL MEMBERS PRESENT IT TAKES FOUR OUT OF THE FIVE OF US HERE TO APPROVE OR DENY. SO, I DO WANT TO GIVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY, IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE THIS TO ANOTHER MONTH WHEN THE FULL BOARD IS HERE, WHICH WOULD GIVE YOU TWO MORE VOTES THAT MAY OR MAY NOT SWAY EITHER WAY. IT MAY
NOT HELP BUT I'D AT LEAST LIKE TO GIVE THAT OFFER IF NEEDED. >> SPEAKER:
>> CITY ATTORNEY: WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THE NEXT AVAILABLE -- APRIL? DO WE HAVE A SPECIFIC DATE? FIRST MONDAY IN APRIL? APRIL 6TH. SO, IF THE BOARD SHOULD SO CHOOSE, HE CAN WITHDRAW HIS MOTION AND ANY MEMBER CAN TAKE UP ANY MOTION TO CONTINUE TO A DATE CERTAIN OR TO APRIL 6TH, THAT REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING, OR TO A DATE UNCERTAIN WHICH WOULD HAVE TO GO
[00:35:02]
BACK TO NOTICING. BUT RIGHT NOW THERE IS A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE FLOOR SO IT'S UP TO THECHAIR TO CONTINUE DISCUSSION OR MR. GRAHAM CAN WITHDRAW. >> CHAIRMAN: THE APPLICANT IS
SEEKING A CONTINUANCE I WILL WITHDRAW THE MOTION. >> BOARD MEMBER: THE ONLY COMMENT THAT I MADE IS JUST TO EDUCATE THE APPLICANT THAT WE NEED TO HAVE FOUR PEOPLE IN FAVOR FROM THE BOARD. AND THERE ARE ONLY TWO PEOPLE WHO AREN'T HERE TODAY.
>> BOARD MEMBER: ALSO MR. CHAIRMAN, IF WE DENY THE VARIANCE, ISN'T IT A FULL YEAR
BEFORE THEY CAN COME BACK TO US? >> CITY ATTORNEY: THAT'S CORRECT.
>> CHAIRMAN: IN MY OPINION, I SEE NO WAY FOR THIS TO PASS EVEN WITH THE TWO ADDITIONAL MEMBERS.
I COULD BE WRONG. BUT THAT'S WHY I LIKE TO GIVE YOU THE OPTION TO BE FAIR.
>> SPEAKER: MR. ALLEN COULD COME TO THE PODIUM SO THE COMMENTS ARE RECORDED FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.
>> SPEAKER: I APOLOGIZE. YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANYTHING WE COULD PRESENT THAT WOULD HELP THE CASE. MAYBE IF WE HAD SOME KIND OF ARTISTIC RENDERING DONE OF WHAT THE TWO STORY -- THE LEGAL OPTION WOULD BE TO GO WITH TWO STORIES AND HOW THAT WOULD IMPACT FROM THE STREET. YOU KNOW, DOING THE MATH LIKE YOU'VE DONE FOR ME, IF EVERYBODY'S A HARD NO THEN TWO PEEP AREN'T GOING TO HELP NO MATTER WHAT THEN I'LL ACCEPT THAT. I'VE BEEN IN THIS BUSINESS FOR 30 SOMETHING YEARS. I'VE BEEN IN THIS PART OF FLORIDA FOR 30 YEARS AND I UNDERSTAND THE
PROCESS VERY WELL. >> CHAIRMAN: YOU KNOW, WE'RE TRYING TO HELP YOU OUT.
>> SPEAKER: I APPRECIATE IT. I DON'T WANT TO WASTE ANYBODY'S TIME IF, YOU KNOW, THAT IS --
>> CHAIRMAN: IF IT WERE A CLOSE CALL. FIRST OF ALL WE NEED A HARDSHIP. BUT I THINK THIS BOARD IS PRETTY STRICT ABOUT -- AND SOMETIMES WE'LL EVEN GO WITH KIND OF A NOT VERY GOOD
HARDSHIP. >> SPEAKER: AND THAT WAS KIND OF MY ARGUMENT TOO WITH THE HOMEOWNER. I SAID, YOU KNOW, THE MAIN THING IS HARDSHIP. AND, YOU KNOW, THAT'S NOT REALLY TO THE LEVEL OF LAW THAT WE HAVE NECESSARILY A HARDSHIP LIKE YOU ARE LOOKING FOR. IT'S JUST KIND OF HARD LUCK HOW THINGS WERE PLACED WHEN THE HOME WAS ORIGINALLY BUILT YOU KNOW. I SAID THE ONLY EXTENUATING FACTOR IS THAT I DON'T KNOW THE HISTORY OF THE AREA IF IT ORIGINALLY WAS A 25 FOOT SETBACK AND THEN AT SOME POINT IT WAS CHANGED. BECAUSE A LOT OF THINGS WERE PLANNED AROUND THAT. I DON'T KNOW THAT CAME FROM A SURVEY DONE BEFORE THE HOME WAS EVEN BUILT. AND THAT KIND OF AFFECTED THE PLANNING OF THINGS. HAD THEY KNOWN WHEN THEY PUT THE GARAGE IN THEY HAD LESS ROOM THAN THEY THOUGHT I THINK THAT MAY HAVE BEEN DONE DIFFERENTLY OR MADE
BIGGER IN THE FIRST PLACE. >> CHAIRMAN: THAT'S WHY I THINK THE BOARD IS NOT GOING TO BE IN FAVOR OF THIS. BECAUSE YOU CAN GO WITH THE SMALLER BUILDING AND BE COMPLIANT AND BUILD WHATEVER YOU WANT. WITHOUT A HARDSHIP I THINK YOU ARE PROBABLY WASTING YOUR TIME TO WAIT ANOTHER MONTH.
BUT I LIKE TO AT LEAST GIVE YOU THE OPTION. >> SPEAKER: WELL I APPRECIATE THAT. AND I WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO GO BACK AND JUST SAY I DID EVERYTHING I COULD AND I KIND OF FEEL OUT OF THIS POINT SO I DON'T KNOW IF ADDING TWO MORE MEMBERS' OPINIONS, YOU KNOW, IF WE NEED TO LOSE 7-0. SO, I GUESS I'M OKAY WITH LETTING IT PASS AND TELL MY
CLIENT IT DID HAPPEN. >> BOARD MEMBER: WOULD IT HELP YOUR CASE WITH THE OWNER IF IT
WAS DENIED? THIS ARGUMENT. >> SPEAKER: UM, I DON'T KNOW. I MEAN, I JUST KNOW THIS WAS SOMETHING HE REALLY WANTED. BUT, YOU KNOW, WHICH IS WHY HE AGREED TO GO THROUGH WITH THE VARIANCE PROCESS. MOST HOMEOWNERS THAT I'VE DEALT WITH YOU GET TO THAT POINT AND THEY GO LET'S DO SOMETHING ELSE. AGAIN, WE DID EXPLORE IT DIFFERENTLY IN STAYING WITHIN THE -- YOU KNOW MY GOAL IS TO ALWAYS PROTECT MY CLIENTS FROM PROBLEMS WITH THE PROCEDURE. AND I SAID WELL IF WE STAY WITHIN WE CAN GO UP. AND IT JUST, LIKE I SAID, WE CAN LEGALLY BUILD AN EYESORE, YOU KNOW, BUT IN GOOD FAITH I CAN'T ADVISE A CLIENT TO BUILD SOMETHING I THINK WOULD LOOK TERRIBLE. IF HE WANTS TO, HE CAN. BUT I FIGURED IT WAS WORTH THE -- SINCE HE WAS WILLING TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS AND THE COSTS AND EVERYTHING I JUST FIGURED IT WAS
[00:40:02]
WORTH A SHOT BECAUSE THIS IS A BETTER SOLUTION VISUALLY FOR OUR SITUATION.>> CHAIRMAN: AGAIN, WE'VE BEEN AROUND THE BUSH ENOUGH. IF YOU WANT US TO DO A CONTINUANCE?
>> SPEAKER: NO I THINK I'LL EXCEPT THE DENIAL AND GO BACK TO MY CLIENT AND SEEK OTHER
OPTIONS. >> CHAIRMAN: WILL YOU THEN MAKE A MOTION AGAIN. THANK YOU. I HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND. FIND THE PROPER TERMINOLOGY HERE JUST A MOMENT.
>> BOARD MEMBER: I DO NOTE THE APPLICANT HAS OWNED THE PROPERTY SINCE 1999. OKAY. MOVE TO DENY PVZVAR2019-07. 1201PVB ADDITION REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO ALLOW A REDUCED FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 33 FEET INTO 40 FEET TO ACCOMMODATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN AN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING ATTACHED GARAGE SLASH GUEST HOUSE SPECIFICALLY LOCATED AT 1201 PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD WITH
THE FOUR SUGGESTED FINDINGS. >> BOARD MEMBER: SECOND. >> CHAIRMAN: IF WE CAN TAKE A VOTE. THAT WAS A UNANIMOUS YES TO THE DENIAL, UNFORTUNATELY. BUT HOPEFULLY YOU CAN DESIGN SOMETHING IN THAT SIZE AND SHAPE THAT FITS AND MAKES EVERYBODY HAPPY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
WE'LL MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 2. THE DODSON RESIDENTIAL FENCE TO ALLOW AN EXISTING FENCE
[Item 2]
TO REMAIN EXCEEDING THE 4 FOOT HEIGHT LIMITATION. AND IF JOHN WE COULD START HAVE YOU SPOKENTO ANYBODY AND BEEN AT THE SITE? >> BOARD MEMBER: I'VE TOURED THE SITE AND NOT SPOKEN WITH
ANYBODY. >> BOARD MEMBER: I MADE A SITE VISIT AND HAVE NOT SPOKEN TO
ANYBODY. >> BOARD MEMBER: I MADE A SITE VISIT. I HEART ABOUT THIS AT AN MSC MEETING AND WHEN I WAS AT THE SITE MAKING THE SITE VISIT I DID HAVE A BRIEF CONVERSATION WITH THE CONTRACTOR ON THE NORTHERN LOT REGARDING WHAT THE FINISHED ELEVATION OF THAT
PROPERTY WAS GOING TO BE. >> BOARD MEMBER: I MADE A SITE VISIT. I DID RUN INTO THE BUILDING NEXT DOOR AND HAD A BRIEF CONVERSATION BUT NOT SPECIFICALLY TO THIS VARIANCE.
>> BOARDMEMBER: I HAVE BEEN TO THE SITE. I'VE NOT HAD A CONVERSATION WITH ANYONE.
>> SPEAKER: BEVERLY FRAZIER, GROWTH MANAGEMENT. THIS IS ITEM NUMBER 2 PONTE VEDRA ZONING VARIANCE 2019-08 FOR THE DODSON FENCE. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A ZONING VARIANCE TO SECTION 8N TO ALLOW EXISTING FENCE TO REMAIN EXCEEDING THE FOUR FOOT HEIGHT LIMITATION IN THE R-1-B ZONING DISTRICT. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 75 PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD. IT'S ABOUT A QUARTER MILE SOUTH OF THE BOUNDARY WITH JACKSONVILLE BEACH. IT'S LOCATED R-1-B ZONING DISTRICT.
THIS IS TO ALLOW THE FENCE TO REMAIN. IT IS INSTALLED ON A CONSTRUCTIONED RETAINING WALL.
THE OVERALL HEIGHT VARIES WITH A SHORTER WALL AT THE EASTERN LOT LINE AND TALLER WALL FENCE COMBINATION ALONG THE SOUTHERN AND NORTHERN BOUNDARIES. A REPORT WAS RECEIVED ON THE EXISTING FENCE IN JULY AFTER THE ADJACENT HOME WAS DEMOLISHED WOULD PROVIDE AN OPEN VIEW FROM THAT SIDE OF THE VIEW TO THE NORTH. CODE ENFORCEMENT JIB ISSUED A VIOLATION. BUT IT IS HELD PENDING THE OUTCOME OF THIS REQUEST. LOOK AT THE AERIAL MAP SHOWS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HOW IT'S CURRENTLY DEVELOPED. OF COURSE, THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH HAS BEEN DEMOLISHED AND IS CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION. SO THE HEIGHT OF THE RETAINING WALL IS GENERALLY ABOUT TWO FEET. IT DOES 53 ALONG EACH PROPERTY LINE BASED ON THE EXTERIOR SITE CONDITIONS OF THE ABUTTING LOTS. EROSION AND LANDSCAPING AND DEMOLITION OF THE SIDE YARD HARDSCAPE ITEMS HAVE CHANGED THE GRADES ALONG THE RETAINING WALL WITH SEGMENTS RANGING FROM 18 INCHES TO OVER 31 INCHES IN HEIGHT. A BLACK ALUMINUM DECORATIVE FENCE THAT RANGES FROM 23 INCHES HIGH ON THE MAIN AND 25 AT THE SUPPORT POST TO 50 INCHES HIGH AT THE MAIN FENCE AND 54 HIGH AT THE SUPPORT POSTS THERE. WITH THE FILL ALLOWANCE BASED ON THE INTEGRATED AVERAGE THE
[00:45:04]
ESTABLISHED GRADE OF THE PROPERTY IS ELEVATED AS COMPARED TO THE ADJACENT LOTS. THIS IS A SITE PLAN THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT THAT SHOWS THAT THE FENCE AND WALL COMBINATION EXCEEDING THE HEIGHT RUNS ON THE NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN PROPERTY BOUNDARIES. IT DOES NOT FALL INTO THE FRONT OF REQUIRED YARD BUT DOES GO ALL THE WAY TO THE REAR AREA OF THE DEVELOPMENT TO THE EAST. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A ZONING VARIANCE BRINGING PORTIONS OF THE FENCE INTO COMPLIANCE TO ALLOW CONTINUED USE BASED ON DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBJECT AND ADJACENT LOTS. THE HARDSHIP IS DESCRIBED DUE TO THE FACT THAT 75 PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 2006. FILL RETAINED BY WALLS ON THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE ABUTTING THE OLDER HOME. PADS BUILT IN THE '70S WHEN THE FLOODPLAIN AND ELEVATION REQUIREMENTS WERE DIFFERENT. PHOTOS WERE PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT TO DEMONSTRATE THE EXISTING RETAINING WALL. ON THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES AS THEY'VE REQUESTED FOR RELIEF AND THOSE WERE INCLUDED IN OUR PACKET. 3N PROVIDES A FOUR FOOT HEIGHT LIMITATION FOR FENCING AND WALLS WITHIN R1A WITH THE 'LANCE OF COLUMNS AND LIGHTS UP TO 6 FEET. THE PROPERTY WAS DEVELOPED WITH A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME AND LANDFILL AND RETAINING WALLS IN 2006. THE APPROVED CLEARANCE SHEET DEPICTS THE CONSTRUCTED HOME WITH ALLOWANCE OF IF ILL TO ACHIEVE AN ESTABLISHED GRADE OF 17 AND FOR A MAJORITY OF THE PARCEL AND 16NGVD ALONG THE NORTHERN PROPERTY BOUNDARY. THIS IS A LOOK AT THE APPROVED CLEARANCE SHEET FOR THE HOME WHEN IT WAS CONSTRUCTED. YOU CAN SEE THE REMAINING WALL IS HIGHLIGHTED HERE. IT DOES SHOW THE 16 GRADE ELEVATION AS WELL AS THE 17 GRADE ELEVATION. BASED ON STAFF RESEARCH DAITHING BACK TO 1999 THE SUBJECT PARCEL IS VACANT PRIOR TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS HOME AND APPEARS TO BE OWNED BY ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER TO THE SOUTH AT THAT TIME. THIS ADJACENT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 77 PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD WAS DEVELOPED IN 1973 AND HAS VERY LIMITED PERMITTING RECORDS. THAT ELEVATION LAYER PROVIDES A RANGE FROM 15.1 TO 15.6NAVG FOR THE EXISTING HOUSE PAD AND 14.6NAVD AT THE SIDE YARD ADJOINING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE PREVIOUS HOME ON THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH WAS DEMOLISHED LAST YEAR WITH AN ADDRESS OF 73 PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD IS CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION WITH A REPLACEMENT SINGLE-FAMILY HOME. THE APPROVED SCLEERNS SHEET FOR THAT HOME DEPICTS THE ESTABLISHED SIDE YARD WITH A LOT RANGING FROM 16.25 TO 16.5NAVD WITH A FINISHED ELEVATION OF 19.25 FOR THE HOUSE AND 17.75 FOR THE GARAGE. LANDFILL IS LIMITED ON PRE-DEVELOPED LOTS TO 6 INCHES FOR THE HOUSE ELEVATION TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM THE HOME. BASED ON TH PROPERTY AND ADJACENT PARCELS THE GRADE OF 75 PONTE VEDRA IS ABOUT 17NVGD APPEARS GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE APPROVED GRADE OF THE 73 PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD TO THE NORTH AT ABOUT 16NAVD. WHICH WILL SLIGHTLY REDUCE THE MEASURED FENCE HEIGHT ONCE THE LOT DEVELOP IS COMPLETED. THE EXISTING LOT DEVELOPMENT ON THE HOUSE TO THE SOUTH AT ABOUT 15NAVD ESTIMATED IS SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER TO THE ESTABLISHED GRADE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. STAFF NOTES THAT PORTION OF THE FENCE WITH THE INCREASED HEIGHT IS NOT NOTICEABLY VIEWABLE FROM PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD FROM THE SOUTH AND WILL BE DIFFICULT TO SEE FROM THE NORTH ONCE THE HOME IS COMPLETED. THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED TWO LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM THE AADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS AT 73 AND 77 PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD AND THOSE LETTERS ARE INCLUDED IN ATTACHMENT 1. THE REQUEST DOES NOT APPEAR CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. THE SUPPORT OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER AND THE INCREASED FENCE HEIGHT MAY LAD RELIEF OF LITTLE TO NO IMPACT. THE FENCE IS INSTALLED ON TOP OF THE RETAINING WALLS WHICH PLANE IN PLACE FOR 13 YEARS. DUE TO THE EXCEPTIONAL TOPOGRAPHIC CONDITION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTIES ADJOINING THE PIECE OF PROPERTY IS THE HARDSHIP STATED BY THE APPLICANT. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY INCLUDED LANDFILL THAT REQUIRED A TWO FOOT RETAINING WALL TO MAINTAIN THE SOIL. THE PLACEMENT OF THE FENCE ON TOP OF THE WALL CREATES INCREASED HEIGHT AS MEASURED FROM THE OUTSIDE ADJACENT GRADE AS COMPARED TO THE ESTABLISHED GRADE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. STAFF HAS PROVIDED FIVE CONDITIONS AND FOUR FINDINGS TO SUPPORT A MOTION. AND THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE ALSO[00:50:03]
HAS A PRESENTATION AND IS HERE. AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AS WELL.>> BOARD MEMBER: THE PROPERTY OF THE HOUSE AT 73, TRYING TO DO THE MATH ON THE ELEVATIONS, IT APPEARS TO BE ABOUT A FOOT AND A QUARTER HIGHER THAN THE ONE AT 75. IS THAT ABOUT RIGHT?
>> SPEAKER: IT VARIES THROUGHOUT BASED ON THE CONDITIONS OF THAT SITE PLAN THAT WAS PRIVATED.
THEY DID LOOK OVERALL IT WAS LOWER. IT WAS ALLOWED TO BRING UP A LITTLE MORE FILL MAYBE THAN IS TYPICALLY ALLOWED BECAUSE OF THE OVERALL ELEVATION OF THE SITE DID VARY A LITTLE BIT BASED
ON THE TOPOGRAPHIC. >> BOARD MEMBER: IT APPEARS TO BE -- WHEN THEY POURED THE SLAB IT WAS '73. ABOUT A FOOT AND QUARTER HIGHER THAN THAT 75. AND IF YOU GO DOWN ABOUT A FOOT THEN GRADE IT OFF LEVEL ALMOST THE RETAINING WALL IS GOING TO DISAPPEAR.
>> SPEAKER: IT WILL BECOME QUITE A BIT DIFFERENT. AND, OF COURSE, THE FINISHED FLOOR IS HIGHER AS
WELL. >> BOARD MEMBER: AND THEN ALSO 77 HAS BEEN SOLD AND I TALKED TO A REAL ESTATE AGENT WHO HAPPENS TO BE A GOOD FRIEND THE HOUSE WILL BE DEMOLISHED. WE DON'T
KNOW WHAT IS GOING TO BE BUILT THERE. >> SPEAKER: WE DON'T. WE DON'T HAVE ANY RECORDS ON THAT. BUT IT IS EXPECTED AS REPLACEMENT HOMES GO THIS ONE COULD BE
REPLACED AND ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL SIX INCHES OF FILL AS WELL. >> BOARD MEMBER: SO AGAIN ON THAT SIDE OF THE RETAINING WALL MIGHT ACTUALLY BE RETAINING THIS. IT'S SOMETHING TO THINK
ABOUT. >> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU. >> BOARD MEMBER: I HAD A SIMILAR TRAIN OF THOUGHT THAT'S WHY I ASKED THE CONTRACTOR 12340E WHAT'S GOING TO BE THE FINISHED ELEVATION NORTH OF 75 AND 73. AND HE SEEMED TO THINK IT WAS GOING TO NOT BE AS HIGH AS 75.
SO THE THOUGHT THAT WENT THROUGH MY MIND, I KNOW IS THAT IF WE JUST WAITED TO SEE WHAT HAPPENED AT 73, THIS ISSUE COULD VERY WELL BE MOOT. BECAUSE IF THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH IS AT THE SAME HEIGHT SO THAT RETAINING WALL DISAPPEARS AND THE FENCE IS BASICALLY JUST THE METAL FENCE IS FOUR FEET AND THEN THAT'S FINE. I KNOW IT WILL TAKE A WHILE FOR THAT HOUSE TO BE
BUILT. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S 12 MONTHS BUT -- >> SPEAKER: THAT'S CORRECT IT WILL BE CLOSE. I MEAN, THEY WON'T BE ALLOWED QUITE AS MUCH FILL AS THE HOUSE AT 75 BECAUSE THEY WERE ALLOWED TO DO MORE BASED ON THEIR INTEGRATED AVERAGE BECAUSE THEY HAD NOT BEEN DEVELOPED PREVIOUSLY. THIS HOUSE WAS MORE LIMITED. THE ONE TO THE NORTH WAS A LITTLE MORE LIMITED SO THERE WILL BE SOME DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN THE TWO BUT THEY WILL BE FAIRLY CLOSE
PROBABLY WITHIN A FOOT. >> CITY ATTORNEY: MR. CHAIR, IS THIS THE RESULT OF A [INAUDIBLE]
COMPLAINT WHY THERE'S A VARIANCE? >> SPEAKER: CORRECT.
>> CITY ATTORNEY: BECAUSE IF WE HAVE A PRIDE COMPLAINT WE FAST TRACK VARIANCES TO THE BOARD.
SO THAT'S KIND OF THE REASON WHY IT'S HERE. >> CHAIRMAN: WELL, IT'S UNFORTUNATE IT'S HERE, BUT IT IS. AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO DEAL WITH ON OUR FENCING ISSUES. AND IF WE APPROVE THE THINGS THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED ON THE FENCE ISSUES, THIS WOULDN'T BE HERE ANY WAY BECAUSE MOST WOULD COMPLY TO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO CHANGE THE
GUIDELINES TO. >> SPEAKER: CORRECT. I WANTED TO NOTE THAT AS WELL. THIS GOES MORE INTO THE REAR YARD THAT WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING JUST BETWEEN THE HOUSES. SO, THIS KIND OF GOES BEYOND THAT FOR THE FEAR PART OF THE HOUSE. AS WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT INCREASING
POSSIBLE THE HEIGHT JUST BETWEEN THE HOUSES. >> CHAIRMAN: RIGHT. THANK YOU.
>> BOARD MEMBER: MR. CHAIRMAN? I ALSO THINK IF THIS WAS A SOLID FENCE THAT YOU COULDN'T SEE THROUGH IT WOULD BE A BIGGER ISSUE. RIGHT NOW YOU BARELY SEE THE FENCE. IT'S NOT BLOCKING ANYBODY'S VIEW. THERE'S A LOT OF ISSUES ON THIS ONE. THIS IS FRUSTRATING TO HAVE TO HAVE THE APPLICANT TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH. BUT WE'RE HERE AND WE GROT TO DO IT.
>> BOARD MEMBER: I JUST WANT TO MAKE ONE -- BECAUSE IT'S AN ISSUE WE STILL HAVEN'T RESOLVED IN TERMS OF THE FENCES BETWEEN THE HOUSE. I OF COURSE BEING ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCES BETWEEN THE HOUSE THAN SOME PEOPLE ON THE BOARD. AND THE FACT THAT WE CAN'T MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON THE DESIGN OF THE FENCE. BECAUSE WE DID DISCUSS THAT AS IF THE FENCES WERE TRANSPARENT AND WE WERE ADVISED BY COUNSEL THAT WE WERE GOING ON THIN ICE WE COULD JUST TALK ABOUT DIMENSIONS AND COULDN'T TALK ABOUT MATERIALS. SO.
[00:55:05]
>> SPEAKER: GOOD AFTERNOON, BOARD. MY NAME IS BRAD WESTER. I AM AT 71 SAN JUAN DRIVE. I AM RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. BUT MY BUSINESS ADDRESS IS 1 INDEPENDENT DRIVE, SUITE 1,200, JACKSONVILLE. THAT'S DRIVER, MCAFEE, AWE THORN AND DEANON.
WE ARE HERE TODAY BECAUSE IT WAS A PRIDE COMPLIANT. THE PRIDE COMPLAINT WAS AS A RESULT OF THE DEMOLITION OF THE HOUSE AT 73 PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD. AND SO I THINK THE LASER POINTER IS THE RED BUTTON RIGHT? OKAY. GOOD. I DIDN'T WANT TO TURN THE POWER OFF. SO, THIS 73 YOU GUYS HAVE ALL BEEN OUT THERE AND DONE YOUR SITE VISITS BUT THIS WAS DEMOLISHED WHICH CLEARED THE WAY FOR DIRECT VISIBILITY TO THERE. AND THIS WAS A PRIDE COMPLAINT. I MET THE OFFICER ON SITE WHEN HE WAS OUT THERE RESPONDING TO THIS COMPLAINT AND DOING HIS ASSESSMENT. AND ESSENTIALLY HE SAID TO ME, HE WOULD NEVER HAVE DRIVEN BY AND CITED THIS HOUSE FOR BEING OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE FENCE RULE BECAUSE VISUALLY NOT ONLY WITH THE OPASSTY BUT THE HEIGHT IS NOT APPARENT TO THE EYE THAT IT EXCEEDS THE REQUIREMENT IN THE CODE. BUT NEVERTHELESS HE IS DOING HIS JOB AND HE IS COMING UP INTO THE TO ISSUE THE CITATION. THIS IS A PICTURE OF THE HOUSE PAD WITH THE FILL AND THE RETAINING WALL BEING CONSTRUCTED. AND THIS IS ROUGHLY 2005/2006 TIMEFRAME. YOU CAN SEE THE 2006 DATE AT THE TOP THERE. THIS IS ANOTHER IMAGE OF THE FILL AND THE RETAINING WALL FOR THAT SAME FILL. SAME 2006 TIMEFRAME FOR THE CONSTRUCTION. THIS IS JUST, AGAIN, AERIAL FOOTAGE OF THE RETAINING WALLS IN THEIR ENVIRONMENT. AND THEN THIS IS A 2008 AERIAL. THE HOUSE WAS COMPLETED BEFORE THAT. BUT THIS IS IN THE ENVIRONMENT. AND ESSENTIALLY WHERE IT EXISTED UNIL LITERALLY JUST LAST YEAR WHEN 73 PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD WAS DEMOLISHED TO MAKE WAY FOR A NEW HOME. YOU CAN SEE IT'S LUSH LANDSCAPING IN BETWEEN THE HOMES. THERE'S ALL KIND OF VINES GROWING ALONG THE FENCE. AND THEN VERY MATURE LANDSCAPEING THAT HAS BEEN IN EXISTENCE AT LEAST A DECADE WITH THE OWNER OF 75 PONTE VEDRA AND THEN THE LONG STANDING THREE DECADES WORTH OF TREES AT THE OTHER PROPERTIES. THIS IS AN IMAGE OF THE PROPERTY OBVIOUSLY LOOKING SOUTH ACROSS THE CLEARED LOT. THE REASONDY THIS IMAGE SPECIFICALLY IS TO SHOW THAT YOU CAN SEE THE FENCE THERE LISTED. IT MAY BE TEN PERCENT OPAQUE. YOU CAN SEE THROUGH IT. IT ALLOWS LIGHT, AIR. REALLY MEETING ALL THE CRITERIA OF WHY WE DON'T WANT SIX FOOT, 100% OPAQUE WALLS ON THE SIDE YARD LINES. WE DON'T WANT TO BLOCK VIEWS P. WE DON'T WANT TO BLOCK LIGHT OR AIR.
THOSE ARE THE FOUNDATION OF ZONING BACK IN THE EARLY 19 HUNDREDS FROM HOUSING IN NEW YORK. NOT BLOCKING LIGHT, AIR AND VISUAL. THIS CLEARLY MEETS THAT. REALLY NICE DECORATIVE FENCE. YES SLIGHTLY OVER FOUR FOOT TALL. BUT THIS WAS THE PREMISE OF SOMEBODY ISSUING A PRIDE COMPLAINT AND HERE WE ARE TODAY. HERE'S ANOTHER IMAGE OF IT. YOU CAN SEE IT IS A TIERED FENCE. SO, YOU'VE GOT THE FRONT PORTION ALONG THE FRONT YARD AND THEN IT RISES UP. AGAIN PREVIOUSLY IT WAS ADORNED BY A LOT OF PALM TREES, A LOT OF DENSE VEGETATION AT LEAST 30 YEARS OLD. AND HERE IT IS LOOKING ON THE OTHER PROPERTY. SO, THIS PROPERTY HERE IS 77 PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD. THEY HAD A FENCE THAT WAS THERE EXISTING BEFORE. THEN HERE IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY RETAINING WALL. THE DECORATIVE FENCE. THEN IT RISES UP IN THE BACKYARD. THIS IS THE CITATION. OBVIOUSLY IT SAYS THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU MUST BRING THIS IN TO COMPLIANCE BY A CERTAIN DATE OR FURTHER ACTION WILL BE FORTHCOMING. SO WE HAD TO APPLY FOR A VARIANCE TO GET THIS ROLLING. OBVIOUSLY, CONTINUE THIS PROCESS. THIS IMAGE WAS IN BEVERLY'S STAFF REPORT. THIS SHOWS THAT THE GENERAL CONFINES OF THE FENCE THAT IS JUST OVER
[01:00:02]
OR AVERAGING FOUR FOOT ON THE RETAINING WALL. THESE ARE THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR 73 PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD. SO, THIS IS THE NORTHERN CLEARED LOT. YOU CAN SEE THE SIDE YARD FENCE EXCEEDS THE HEIGHT. THE APPLICATION PICTURES FROM WHERE IT TELLS YOU CAN SEE THE LUSH LANDSCAPING THEY'RE PLANNING ALONG THIS. ITALIAN CYPRUS, ALL KINDS OF TREES VERY, VERY DENSE AND LUSH, IT WILL TAKE TIME TO MA THURE BUT ONCE THIS 8,000 SQUARE FOOT AREA HOUSE IS BUILT AND THE LANDSCAPE IS DONE YOU WON'T SEE THAT FENCE AGAIN. IT WILL BE HIDDEN LIKE IT WAS WHEN IT WAS FIRST BUILT IN 2005/6. THIS IS THE SURVEY FROM 77 PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD. SO, AGAIN LOOKING BACK NORTH. JUST GIVING YOU AN IDEA. THIS IS A FOUR FOOT MEASURING STICK HERE.AND THIS IS SHOWING THE FENCE WHERE IT IS LOWER. SO, YOU CAN SEE THERE'S ROUGHLY TWO FEET OF FENCE HERE AND TWO FEET OF RETAINING WALL HERE. THAT IS THE FRONT PORTION NOT ALONG THE BUILDING ENVELOPE. THIS IS IT AGAIN. SHOWING SOME OF THE CONSTRUCTION GOING ON NEXT DOOR.
IT'S ACTUALLY LOWER THAN FOUR FEET. THERE'S THE -- THAT IS A FOUR FOOT MEASURING STICK. YOU CAN SEE IT ON TOP OF THE RETAINING WALL. SO, FROM WHERE IT SITS SPECIFICALLY ON THE RETRAINING WALL ITSELF, THE FENCE IS ACTUALLY AT 52 INCHES RIGHT THERE AT THE TOP OF THE FENCE ITSELF. IF MEASURED FROM THE WALL. IF YOU ACTUALLY MEASURE FROM THE ACTUAL FENCE ITSELF NOT ACOUNTING THE SUPPORT POSTS IT'S 48 INCHES TALL. AND I'LL SHOW THAT IN A MINUTE. THIS IS ANOTHER DEPICTION. AGAIN I WANTED YOU -- I WANTED TO GIVE YOU A SENSE OF QUANTIFIABLE SCALE. THIS IS THE FOUR FOOT POST. SHOWING THE RETAINING WALL AND THE FENCE ON TOP OF IT. HERE IS THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. THIS IS ON THE 77 PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD. TAKING YOU THROUGH AGAIN. THIS IS SHOWING THE DIFFERENCE OF THE GRADE HERE. THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY'S FILL, THE PAD. AND THEN THIS IS THE STEP DOWN TO THE OLDER PROPERTIES. HERE AGAIN SHOWING THE EXISTING HOUSE PAD WITH THE BRICK PAVERS AROUND THE HOUSE THEN THE STEP DOWN TO THE OLDER PROPERTY NEXT DOOR. AGAIN SHOWING THIS IS THE FRONT YARD. AGAIN SHOWING THE SIZE OF THE RETAINING WALL. THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ITEM TO SHOW HERE. THIS IS ON THE INTERIOR PORTION OF THE LOT. HERE'S THE PAVERS. THE ROW TANING WALL LIP IS ONLY ABOUT SIX INCHES OFF THE EXISTING FILL OF THE PROPERTY. SO THE ESTABLISHED RATE OF THE PROPERTY, SIX INCH RETAINING WALL THEN YOU'VE GOT THE FOUR FOOT MARKER TO GIVE YOU MORE OF AN IDEA OF THE LOCATION. THIS IS THE OTHER SIDE SHOWING THE FOUR FOOT MEASURING STICK WITH THE FENCE. YOU CAN SEE IT'S JUST BARELY OVER FOUR FEET TALL AS IT SITS ON THE RETAINING WALL. THIS IS THE CURRENT DAY CONSTRUCTION.
AND MR. PATTON DESCRIBED THIS IS THE TOP OF THE FINISHED ELEVATION. THIS IS ONE OF THE GARAGE AREAS. I'M POINTING AT IS 73 PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD. SO, THIS IS 1925. THAT WOULD BE THE TOP OF THE THING. IF YOU DRAW THAT LINE OVER HERE IT CUTS THIS FENCE IN HALF ROUGHLY. LOOKING ACROSS YOU CAN SEE DRASTIC DIFFERENCE ALREADY WITH THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THAT PROPERTY WITH THE NEW HOME. AGAIN, THE FENCE IN ITS ENVIRONMENT. YOU CAN SEE THROUGH TO THE HOUSE.
NOT BLOCKING LIGHT, AIR AT ALL. BUT YOU CAN SEE THIS HOUSE WILL NOW BLOCK THAT HOUSE AND WITH THE ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING AS WELL. SO, I WANTED TO GIVE IT CONTEXT TO ITS ENVIRONMENT. HERE IS SOME OF THE FILL THAT HAS BEEN ADDED ON THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE AND/OR DISTURBED AND YOU CAN SEE THE AMOUNT OF FILL IS ACTUALLY GROWING UP THE RETAINING WALL AS MR. PATTON POINTED OUT. AS WE ALL KNOW, THIS REQUIRES A LOT OF PILES TO SUPPORT THE STRUCTURAL ELEVATIONS BUT HERE IS THE AVERAGE -- I'M SORRY THIS IS THE FINISHED GRADE OF THE PROPERTY HERE. YOU CAN SEE IT THERE. THAT IS 73. I WANTED TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF, AS I WOULD SAY MY OWN OPINION, THE IMPERFECT SCIENCE OF MEASURING THE EXTERIOR SIDE YARD FOR FENCE HEIGHTS. THIS IS A SELF-REPORTED VIOLATION AT 71 PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD. SO, YOU CAN SEE THIS IS 71 PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD'S FENCE. THIS IS THE MEASURING STICK, FOUR FOOT MEASURING STICK ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE PROPERTY LINE YOU CAN SEE IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME TWO TO FOUR INCHES HIGHER JUST LIKE MR. DAWSON'S FENCE. AGAIN, IT IS AN IMPERFECT SCIENCE BECAUSE YOU ARE MEASURING FROM THE EXTERIOR SIDE OF THE PROPERTY WHICH DEE DEE PENDING ITS LANDSCAPING, ERO EROSION, AMOUNT OF FILL. THIS IS ACTUALLY 73'S FENCE. SO, THIS IS 73 PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD. IT
[01:05:04]
TURNS BROWN THERE. THIS MEASURING STICK IS ON THE INSIDE OF THE PROPERTY. SORRY, THE EXTERIOR OF THE PROPERTY. AGAIN, IMPERFECT SCIENCE BECAUSE THAT FENCE IS ALSO NOT MEETING THE LETTER OF THE LAW OF THE CODE FOR A FOUR FOOT FENCE. ADDITIONALLY, BECAUSE THAT PROPERTY WAS CLEARED AT 73 PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD, IT ALLOWED ANOTHER COMPLAINT OF A TRASH BEING EXPOSED TO THE VIEW OF PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD WHICH IS A VIOLATION OF THE CODE. MIND YOU HERE IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE ON THE PVC FENCE AND THE BOTTLED BRUSH HERE'S WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE BECAUSE YOU CAN SEE THROUGH TO THE PROPERTY. BECAUSE THE PROPERTY IS THERE IT ALLOWED SOMEBODY TO CALL IN COMPLAINTS WHICH OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER HAD TO COME OUT AND CITE AND PROVIDE LETTERS ON THE, YOU KNOW, PROPERTY OWNER SAYING YOU ARE IN VIOLATION. SO, I DON'T THINK THAT'S IN VIOLATION WHATSOEVER BECAUSE THERE'S A FENCE MASKING AND SCREENING.BUT, AGAIN, NEVERTHELESS, YOU'VE GOT A CLEARED LOT WHICH ALLOWS PEOPLE TO THINK THEY CAN BE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS. I'LL GO THROUGH THIS QUICK. THIS IS PART OF THE JUSTIFICATIONS. THE REQUEST IS NOT CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST. IT DOES NOT MEET THE SPIRIT OF THE CODE. THE GRANT OF THIS -- I'M SORRY IT DOES MEET THE CODE. THE GRANTING OF THIS VARIANCE DOES NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT PUBLIC HEALTH, INTEREST OR THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC. IT'S LIVED IN THE ENVIRONMENT FOR 13 PLUS YEARS. THE SUPPORT OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS AND LIMITED EXTENT OF THE INCREASED FENCE HEIGHT BETWEEN THE HOMES ALLOWS FOR RELIEF WITH LITTLE OR NO IMPACT TO THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES OR VIEWS FROM PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD. THE FENCE IS AN AVERAGE OF FOUR FEET WHICH WAS INSTALLED ON A RETAINING WALL WHICH CREATES A FENCE HEIGHT MEASUREMENT THAT EXCEEDS THE HEIGHT ALLOWANCE IN THE CODE BUT HAS BEEN IN PLACE IN HARMONY WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR OVER 13 YEARS WITHOUT ANY PRIOR COMPLAINTS. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS WAY PROVED FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF FILL REQUIRED A TWO FOOT RETAINING LAW. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ELEVATION DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THIS PROPERTY WHEN IT WAS DEVELOPED IN 2004, 5, 6 TO THE OTHER PROPERTIES THAT HAVE BEEN THERE SINCE THE '70S AND BEYOND WITHOUT IMPROVEMENTS. THE PLACEMENT OF THIS FENCE ON TOP OF THE WALL CREATES AN INCREASED HEIGHT AS MEASURED FROM THE EXTERIOR ADJACENT LOWEST GRADE AS COMPARED TO THE ESTABLISHED GRADE OF THE SUSHT PROPERTY. THE OPINION OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, HE WOULD LIKELY NOT CITE THIS FENCE BECAUSE IT IS NOT BLATANTLY VISUAL TO THE NAKED EYE. HE WAS ONLY RESPONDING TO A PRIDE ENTRY. I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL OF THIS VARIANCE FOR MR. DODSON'S FENCE TO REMAINS A IS BASED ON THE TOPOGRAPHIC HARDSHIP OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND THEIR USE. ALTHOUGH THE FENCE DOES NOT MEET THE SPECIFIC MEASUREMENT CALCULATIONS, FOUR FEET FOR COMBINED WALL OR FENCE HEIGHT, IT DOES MEET THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE CODE TO ALLOW FOR UNOBSTRUCTED LIGHT, AIR MOVEMENT AND VIEWS AS WELL AS NOT BEING A DETRIMENT TO THE WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY. I THINK I'VE GOT SOME -- THESE ARE PICTURES I TOOK THIS MORNING BECAUSE I WANTED IT TO BE IN FRAME WITH, AGAIN, THE HEIGHTS. THIS IS SHOWING THE HEIGHT ITSELF AT THE BOTTOM OF THE FENCE BUT NOT ON THE POST ON THE WALL. THAT'S 48 INCHES. SO THE TOP OF THE FENCE THE BOTTOM OF THE FENCE IS 48. THE POST ITSELF GOES UP TO 54 INCHES. THERE'S AN IMAGE OF THAT. AGAIN, THIS MEASURING TAPE IS SITTING ON THE WALL ITSELF ON THE POST AND THAT'S 54 INCH MARK RIGHT THERE. AND, AGAIN, ANOTHER -- THIS IS THIS MORNING'S VIEW. BUT YOU CAN SEE THE AMOUNT OF FILL THAT IS CREEPING UP THAT WILL BE BACKFILLED ONCE THIS IS DONE. ONCE THE FOUNDATION IS POURED AND THE HOUSE IS STARTING TO GO IN AND THEY WILL BACKFILL THIS TO ACCOMMODATE THEIR LANDSCAPING, THEIR YARD, THEIR DRAINAGE AND YOU CAN SEE IT'S ALREADY STARTING TO INCREASE ON THE SIDE YARD WHICH IT HADN'T BEEN BEFORE. I'LL CLOSE WITH THIS. I REALLY FEEL THAT THE FENCE HEIGHT MEASUREMENT REQUIREMENTS IS AN IMPERFECT SCIENCE BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO MEASURE FROM THE EXTERIOR SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. WHY? BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT THAT PERSON IMPACTED BY THE FENCE TO BE VISUALLY OBSTRUCTED WITH A SOLID 100% OPAQUE WALL OR FENCE. I WOULDN'T WANT THAT. BUT YOU CAN SEE HERE THIS FENCE IS CLEARLY MAYBE TEN PERCENT OPAQUE AT THE MOST. IT ALLOWS LIGHT AND AIR, IT DOES NOT BLOCK VIEWS AND LIVED IN HARMONY FOR THE PAST 13 YEARS WITHOUT ANY COMPLAINTS WHATSOEVER. YOU DO HAVE ON FILE NO OBJECTION FROM THE PEOPLE BUILDING THIS HOME RIGHT THERE AT 73. AND NO OBJECTION FROM THE PREVIOUS OWNERS AT 77. 77 PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD WAS SOLD
[01:10:05]
AND IT CLOSED ON DECEMBER 13TH I THINK. AND THOSE NEW PROPERTY OWNERS ALSO DO NOT OBJECT WHATSOEVER TO THIS FENCE BEING THERE. AND SO I ASK FOR YOUR APPROVAL FOR THE FENCE TO REMAIN AT ITS CURRENT HEIGHT ON THAT EXISTING RETAINING WALL WHICH IF WE NEED A MEASUREMENT FOR THIS CONDITION IT WOULD BE TO REMAIN AT NO MORE THAN 52, 54 INCHES ON THAT RETAINING WALL AS IT SITSTODAY. >> CHAIRMAN: COMMENT? >> BOARD MEMBER: PERHAPS THE STAFF, REGULATIONS REQUIRE A FOUR FOOT FENCE WITH SELF-CLOSING GATES. POOL REGULATIONS. SINCE WE KNOW THAT THE FILL WAS GOING TO CAUSE A VARIANCE HERE, IF IN FACT THEY HAD THE RETAINING WALL AND ONLY THE TWO FOOT FENCE WAS IN THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY AND FILL REDUCED THE HEIGHT OF THE RETAINING WALL, DOES THAT PUT IT NOW IN COMPLAINS BECAUSE OF POOL
REGULATIONS? >> CITY ATTORNEY: THAT MAY -- I DO BELIEVE THAT'S A PROVISION IN THE BUILDING CODE IN STATE STATUTE. SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY. TECHNICALLY YOU WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH BOTH. THERE IS AN ISSUE, POTENTIALLY THEY HAVE TO CREATE A FOUR FOOT FENCE AROUND THE POOL TO KIND OF GET OUT OF THAT ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE PROVISION. SO THAT'S BEEN A LONG STANDING I THINK WITH EVEN BUILDING REQUIREMENT TO FENCE THAT POOL WHICH WOULD TRUMP OUR LAND DEVELOP REGULATIONS WHICH IS CONCERNED WITH FENCES ON THE -- TO BE WITHIN THE
SETBACKS. >> BOARD MEMBER: IT JUST SEEMS TO ME THAT WE COULD CREATE A
FURTHER PROBLEM BY DENYING THIS AT THIS POINT. >> CITY ATTORNEY: MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE FENCE HAS BEEN IN EXISTENCE. SO, IF THEY DID INSTALL A POOL AND IT IS NOT SURROUNDED BY A FOUR FOOT FENCE THAT CONDITION HAS BEEN AN EXISTENCE FOR 13, 14, 15 YEARS.
>> BOARD MEMBER: BUT THEY DO HAVE A FOUR FOOT FENCE. >> BOARD MEMBER: BUT THE OTHER FULL REQUIREMENT IS IF THE FOUR FOOT FENCE HAS TO BE A NON-CLIMBABLE FENCE. SO, IF THE RETAINING WALL IS REQUIRED DUE THE STRUCTURE OF THE BUILDING AND SEPARATION YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A FOUR FOOT FENCE ON TOP OF THAT THAT A CHILD COULD NOT CLIMB OVER. SO, YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A FOUR FOOTENCE FENCE TO KEEP KIDS FROM GOING INTO THE 77 POOL. SO THE DEFENSE MEETS THE
POOL REGULATIONS EVEN THOUGH IT DOESN'T MEET OUR REGULATIONS. >> CITY ATTORNEY: WHEN WE HAVE TWO CONFLICTING PROVISIONS THAT TARGET TWO SEPARATE CIRCUMSTANCES, OUR FENCE REGULATIONS ARE TARGETING TOWARDS THE AREA BETWEEN PROPERTIES. AND KEEPING PEOPLE OUT OF THE PROPERTY AS A WHOLE. WHEREAS THE POOL ITSELF GOES WITHIN THE SETBACKS AND, YOU KNOW, DO WHATEVER YOU HAVE TO REMAIN IN COMPLIANT WITH THOSE REGULATIONS.
>> BOARD MEMBER: OUR REGULATIONS SAY YOU HAVE A HAVE A FENCE FOUR FEET OR HIGHER. SO IT'S HARD TO
BUILD A FENCE EXACTLY FOUR FEET. >> SPEAKER: IF I MAY. THE 73 PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD, THEY DO HAVE CHILDREN. I BELIEVE THEY'VE GOT FIVE KIDS THAT ARE MOVING IN THERE. SO, YOU KNOW, PETS, DOGS, THE LIKE, YOU KNOW, I ASK FOR YOUR INDULGENCE TO APPROVE THIS FENCE VARIANCE TO ALLOW IT TO REMAINS A IS AND LIVE IN HARMONY. ESPECIALLY SINCE THE PROPERTY OWNERS AREN'T COMPLAINING WHATSOEVER AND THEY WHOLE HEARTILY AGREE IT CAN AND SHOULD REMAIN.
>> BOARD MEMBER: THE RETAINING WALL DOESN'T SIT ON THE PROPERTY LINE FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND. IT SITS A FOOT INSIDE THE PROPERTY LINE. SO A HOMEOWNER COULD HAVE A FOOT OF FILL WHILE YOU ARE HAVING THEM MEASURE ON THE OUTSIDE VERSUS THE INSIDE I DON'T KNOW BUT YOU COULD ADD A FOOT OF FILL AND IT MAKES THE HEIGHT EVEN LOWER. WE KNOW IT'S GOING TO BE FILL WHEN THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR LANDSCAPES BECAUSE HE IS NOT GOING TO HAVE A FIVE FOOT DROP OFF ON HIS FOUNDATION.
THEY'RE GOING TO SOFTEN THAT WITH LANDSCAPING. >> SPEAKER: I AGREE. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, IN THE SPIRIT INTENT OF THE CODE, THE FOUR FOOT FENCE REGULATION I UNDERSTAND HAS MERIT IN PONTE VEDRA. WE UNDERSTAND WHY IT'S THERE. WE UNDERSTAND WHY STAFF IS NOW ENTERTAINING WORKSHOPS TO SEE IF IT NEEDS TO BE REVISED TO ALLOW A HIGHER FENCE ON THE BUILDING ENVELOPE AREA. THERE'S A LOT OF AESTHETIC
[01:15:09]
AND FUNCTIONAL ASPECTS TO IT. YOU DON'T WANT A SPIKED WALL OR FENCE. YOU DON'T WANT SOMETHING 100% OPAQUE. YOU WANT LIGHT, AIR, VIEWS, VISTAS TO REMAIN OPEN FOR ALL OF US TO ENJOY. WE DON'T WANT SOMETHING UNSIGHTLY THAT IS GOING TO RUIN OUR PROPERTY VALUES. THIS WITHOUT QUESTION DOES NOT. YOU CAN LITERALLY SEE THROUGH THE FENCE. I DON'T KNOW THE OPASS ATY. I'M JUST GUESSING IT'S MAYBE TEN PERCENT AT THE MOST. BUT IT IS A NICE FENCE. AND IT'S LIVED IN HARMONY FOR 13-PLUS YEARS AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO WITH THIS RECONSTRUCTION AT 73 PONTE VEDRA AND THEN THE PENDING CONSTRUCTION AT 77. I DON'T HAVE THE PLANS TO ARE THAT BUT WE KNOW -- WE'VE CONFIRMED WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS THEY INTEND TO TEAR DOWN AND REBUILD THERE.SO, THERE WILL BE A AVERAGE DIFFERENCE. IT'S TOUGH TO SAY THE CONDITION IS NOW WHAT DO WE WALL IT FROM THE EXTERIOR HEIGHT REGULATION RULE TO MEASURE. WE DON'T KNOW THAT. I WOULD JUST SAY LET IT REMAIN ON THE EXISTING RETAINING WALL AS IS. BUT AS YOU SHOWED YOU THIS IS AN IMPERFECT SCIENCE. YOU MEASURE ON EITHER SIDE AND IT DEPENDS ON HOW THICK THE GRASS IS, HOW MUCH RAIN WE GOT AND THE EROSION IS GOING ON. I UNDERSTAND WHY THE RULE IS FROM FOR HEIGHT.
>> CHAIRMAN: RIGHT NOW WE'VE ASKED CODE ENFORCEMENT AND SUPPORTED BY COUNSEL NOT TO ENFORCE THE PRIDE REPORTS ON SEVERAL PROPERTIES IN PONTE VEDRA BECAUSE WE ARE TRYING TO UPDATE THE CODE WHERE WE ARE ALLOWED TO BUILD A SIX FOOT FENCE JUST BETWEEN HOUSES FROM THE FRONT CORNER TO THE REAR CORNER. TO ME THIS SHOULDN'T -- IN MY OPINION -- SHOULDN'T BE IN FRONT OF US. THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUT WITH THE OTHER PRIDE ORTS A CONTINUANCE SO THAT YOU COULD DEAL WITH THIS ONCE WE REWRITE THE RULES. HOPING WE DO. THE ONLY PART OF YOUR FENCE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT COULD, IN MY OPINION, HAVE ANY PROBLEM IS FROM THE REAR OF THE HOUSE BACK TOWARDS THE OCEAN. NOW, AGAIN, I PERSONALLY DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT BECAUSE IT BOTHERS ME WHEN PEOPLE CALL IN PRIDE REPORTS BETWEEN TWO NEIGHBORS THAT ARE PERFECTLY HAPPY WITH WHAT THEY HAVE. I UNDERSTAND IT IS A TECHNICALITY AND THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THAT. BUT I WOULD EVEN BE OPEN TO THE FUTURE IF WE CHANGED THESE LAWS BECAUSE THEY ARE LAWS AND THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE CONSEQUENCES, THAT SOMEONE COULD COME TO US FOR A VARIANCE IF THERE'S A BARK PORTION THAT DON'T -- BACK PORTION THAT DOESN'T MEET THE SIX FOOT CHANGE. THEY COULD COME TO US AND THIS COULD BE A HARDSHIP THROUGH THE OPAQUENESS OF THE -- AND GRANT IT ON AN ITEM BY ITEM BASIS. ANYWAY, MEGAN, COMMENT?
>> BOARD MEMBER: JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON HARRY'S BRINGING THE VERY APPROPRIATE POOL FENCE FACTOR INTO THIS CONVERSATION. THIS FOUR FOOT FENCE GOES -- IS THE POOL FENCE THAT GOES ALL THE WAY A ROUND THE SIDES OF THE PROPERTY. SO, EVEN THOUGH PEOPLE WERE SAYING IN THE FEAR WHEN IT'S NOT BETWEEN HOUSES YOU THINK WOULD BE A CONCERN. BUT THAT IS WHERE IT'S PROVIDING THE PROTECTION BETWEEN ADJACENT YARDS AND GOES AROUND THE BACK ON THE OCEANSIDE AND ON THE OTHER SIDE. SO IT CHANGES THE WHOLE WHOLE STORY AND IT IS A POOL FENCE. AND THEY NEED THE RETAINING WALL. SO IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE IT'S PERFECTLY FINE AS A POOL FENCE. IT SHOULD BE ALLOWED
TO REMAIN. >> BOARD MEMBER: FROM A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT, IF YOU ARE STANDING HERE -- FOR INSTANCE, IF THIS FENCE WHICH IS TWO FEET IN FRONT -- AND THERE IS A REASON WHY IT'S TWO FEET. BECAUSE YOU KNOW MR. DODSON DOESN'T WANT THIS FENCE BEING UP HERE BLOCKING HIS BEAUTIFUL HOUSE THAT HE HAS BUILT. THERE'S A REASON WHY THE FRONT FACING OF A HOUSE IS THE WAY IT IS. IT'S TO THE STREET FOR A REASON. SO CLEARLY THE INTENT WAS NOT TO HAVE A TALL FENCE ALL THE WAY AT THE FRONT BUT IT'S STEPPED UP. ANOTHER REASON FUNCTIONAL AT WISE IT'S STEPPED UP IS BECAUSE IF THIS SAME FENCE EXTENDED ALL THE WAY OUT AND THE FILL HE'S GOT FROM 2004, 5, 6, YOU WOULD LITERALLY FALL OVER THE FENCE INTO THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY.
IT'S POTENTIALLY THAT -- IT'S AT YOUR KNEES OR BELOW. SO, YOU COULD IMAGINE WITH THE DOGS AND ANIMALS THERE, KIDS, YOU DON'T WANT THAT ABILITY TO CLIMB OVER. THERE'S EXPENSIVE POOL
[01:20:01]
EQUIPMENT, ALL KINDS OF HVAC STUFF ALONG THE HOUSE. SO, THERE'S A NUMBER OF REASONS FROM A SECURITY STANDPOINT, TO FUNCTIONALITIY TO SAFE. BUT WE THINK THE OVERALL SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE VISTAS, THE AESTHETICS WAS MET WITH THIS FENCE. EVEN BACK IN 2013, PUTTING IT IN THE MIDDLE OF OTHER LANDSCAPING THAT HAD BEEN THERE FOR 30-PLUS YEARS. BUT NOW THAT IT'S DONE IT'S AN ISSUE APPARENTLY. SO, I APPRECIATE THE CANDOR AND THE DISCUSSION. I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO TABLE THIS AND CONTINUE IT OR IF I GOT THE VOTES TODAY FOR AN APPROVAL?>> CHAIRMAN: WE'LL CONTINUE ON WITH THE MEETING. LET US GO ON TO PUBLIC COMMENT. BUT JOHN YOU
HAVE A COMMENT >> BOARD MEMBER: I WAS GOING TO BRING UP MEGAN'S POINT ABOUT THE FACT IT IS A POOL FENCE SO THE FOUR FOOT HAS TO CARRY OUT TO THE WRAP AROUND POINT. I AGREE
WITH MEGAN. >> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU. WE CAN OPEN IT UP TO PUBLIC COMMENT.
SEEING NO PUBLIC COMMENT, WE CAN HANDLE THIS IN ONE OF TWO WAYS. WE CAN JUST GO AHEAD AND VOTE THIS AND APPROVE IT AND SAVE THE APPLICANT ALL THE HASSLE FROM WAITING TO BE PUT ON THE
CONTI CONTINUANCE. >> BOARD MEMBER: I THINK IT'S -- THIS WAS ALSO A VERY INTERESTING CASE BECAUSE IT INFORMED US ABOUT ALL THE VARIOUS PERMTATIONS WITH FENCES PARTICULARLY FOR HOMES ON THE OCEAN WHERE THEY HAVE MORE IRREGULAR ELEVATIONS BETWEEN ADJACENT PROPERTIES BECAUSE OF FILL REQUIREMENTS. AND IT'S MORE COMPLICATED. SO, AS WE MOVE INTO THE FUTURE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SOMEHOW INCORPORATE THOSE DIFFICULTIES TO TRY TO MAKE SOME UNIFORM REGULATIONS OR MAKE REGULATIONS FOR THAT AREA
WHICH ARE SEPARATE FROM NON-OCEANFRONT PROPERTIES. >> CHAIRMAN: OR THEY DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH VARIANCES AND WE'LL TAKE THEM ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS. IF THERE'S
NO OTHER COMMENT I'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> BOARD MEMBER: A MOTION TO APPROVE PVZVAR2019-08 VARIANCE FOR SECTION 8N1 PONTE VEDRA ZONING REGULATIONS TO ALLOW EXISTING FENCE TO REMAIN EXCEEDING THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF FOUR FEET BASED ON FOUR FINDINGS OF FACT AND SUBJECT TO FIVE CONDITIONS AS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
>> BOARD MEMBER: SECOND. >> CHAIRMAN: TAKE A VOTE. THAT WOULD BE A UNANIMOUS APPROVAL.
CONGRATULATIONS. >> SPEAKER: THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR SERVICE TO THE COUNTY AND YOUR COMMONSENSE APPROACH IN HEARING ME OUT, IN THIS CASE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. HAVE A
GREAT DAY. >> CHAIRMAN: THANKS. OKAY. SO, WE'RE PUSHING THE VOTE OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR TO THE NEXT MEETING. ANY OTHER STAFF REPORTS, STAFF ISSUES? I WILL
[Staff Report]
LOOK FOR A MOTION TO ADJOURN. ATT>> CITY ATTORNEY: THE ONLY TG IS LIKE YOU MENTIONED BEFORE YOUR PREVIOUS BOARD GRANTING THOSE ZONING VARIANCES AND NON-ZONING VARIANCES HAS BEEN APPEALED TO THE COMMISSIONERS. WE ARE REVIEWING THE APPEAL REQUIREMENTS WHETHER OR NOT THEY'VE MET IT AND WILL SET IT AT THE NEXT REASONABLY AVAILABLE MEETING WHICH WE'LL NEED TO FIND
OUT WHAT THAT IS. >> CHAIRMAN: THANK YOU. >> BOARD MEMBER: I MOVE WE
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.