[1. PVZVAR 2025-07 Evanson Family Residence. Request for a Zoning Variance to Section III.B(1) of the Ponte Vedra Zoning District Regulations to allow for a Front Yard setback of 23.5 feet in lieu of the 25-foot requirement, and to allow for a Rear Yard setback of 14 feet in lieu of the 25-foot requirement in R-1-C Zoning to allow for proposed additions to the existing house.]

AND I WILL START WITH PVC VAR, 2025-07, EVANSON FAMILY RESIDENTS. WE WILL START WITH JOHN.

>> I DID VISIT THE SITE AND I HAVE NOT SPOKEN WITH ANYONE IN

RELATION TO THIS VARIANCE. >> I HAVE NOT SPOKEN TO ANYONE.

I DID NOT HAVE A CHANCE TO VISIT THE SITE.

>> I VISITED THE SITE AND I HAVE NOT SPOKEN WITH ANYBODY ABOUT

IT. >> I VISITED THE SITE AND DID

NOT SPEAK WITH ANYONE. >> AND MORNING MR. CHAIRMAN AND BOARD MEMBERS. JAMES WHITE HOUSE, HERE IN ST. AUGUSTINE FLORIDA. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE EVANSON FAMILY, ON BEHALF OF PVZVAR, 2025-07, WHICH IS FOR SOME RELIEF AND HOME ADDITIONS TO DO SOME SLIDING INCURSIONS IN TO THE SETBACK. AS YOU KNOW FROM THE STAFF REPORT, THIS IS LOCATED OFF OF A ONE A, IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD BETWEEN SOLANA AND CORONA. HERE YOU CAN SEE CLOSER UP, IT IS BEHIND THE WALL, YOU GUYS HAVE SEEN IT MANY TIMES WHEN YOU DRIVE THROUGH THERE. HERE YOU CAN SEE AN AERIAL OF THE PARTICULAR PROPERTY ITSELF. THIS IS 521 ROBLES LANE.

IT IS WITHIN A RESIDENTIAL SEAT FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY.

IT IS OUR ONE SEE IN OUR ZONING CODE FOR PONTEVEDRA.

YOU CAN SEE THE PLAT, A COPY OF THIS IS IN THE STAFF REPORT.

YOU SEE THERE IS A NUMBER OF REFERENCES ON THAT PLAT, IT BACKS UP TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. THERE IS A LARGE AREA OF RIGHT-OF-WAY AS YOU DRIVE DOWN THAT AREA.

AS YOU SEE FROM YOUR STAFF REPORT IN THE APPLICATION, THIS IS A REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FOR MINOR INCURSIONS INTO THE SETBACK TO ALLOW FOR A FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 23 AND A HALF FEET IN LIEU OF THE 25 FEET. WHEN THIS WAS APPROVED BY THE STAFF IT WAS APPROVED AT THE 15 FEET.

WHEN WE INITIALLY FILED THIS IT WAS REALLY FOR LIKE A 12-INCH INCURSION. WHEN THEY WENT BACK AND LOOKED

[00:05:01]

AND DETERMINED THAT IT WAS A 25-FOOT SETBACK, EVEN THOUGH IT HAD BEEN APPROVED TWICE BY THE COUNTY STAFF, THAT IS WHY THE ASK HAS TO BE FOR THE 23 —-DASH, ALTHOUGH THAT IS NOT WHAT IT IS.

-- I AM SORRY. THE ASK IS FOR THE 14 FEET IN THE BACK. AND IT IS ONLY 18 INCHES ON THE FRONT. I WILL SHOW YOU IN A MINUTE, WHERE IT IS. BUT ALL THE OTHER REQUIRED SETBACKS AS SHOWN ARE BEING MET, ALONG WITH THE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE ALLOWANCES MET ON THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY.

HERE YOU CAN SEE IT'S 12 INCHES IN THE BACK, 18 INCHES IN THE FRONT. HERE YOU CAN SEE THIS IS THE SURVEY, AS IT IS DRAWN IN YOUR STAFF REPORT ITSELF.

YOU CAN SEE IT IS 12 INCHES IN THE BACK AND 18 INCHES IN THE FRONT. YOU CAN SEE THAT WHEN IT WAS DEVELOPED IN THE FRONT, AND THIS WAS AN OWNER CONTRACTOR PROJECT, SO THAT IS PART OF THE CHALLENGE, AS FAR AS WHERE THE MISTAKE WAS MADE IN THE OVERAGE. YOU CAN SEE IN THE FRONT THEY LINED IT UP WITH THE PLANNER, AND THAT IS WHY THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE AT THE AMOUNT THAT THEY COULD DO, AND IT WAS CLEARLY BEYOND THAT WHEN WE WENT BACK AND DID THE SURVEY.

AS YOU CAN SEE FROM YOUR STAFF REPORT, IT CAME IN AS A COMPLAINT ON THE BACK END WHEN WE DID THIS SURVEY BUT THEY FOUND THE FRONT. SO THAT'S WHY WE ARE HERE TO ASK FOR BOTH OF THOSE, BECAUSE THEY NEED BOTH OF THOSE FOR THIS VARIANCE. LIKE I SAID IT MEETS THE LOT COVERAGE AS YOU SEE WITHIN YOUR STAFF REPORT.

THE FACT THAT THIS LOT COVERAGE IS A 32.8 PERCENT, BELOW THE 40% THAT IS ALLOWED, AS I SAID, IT MEETS ALL THE OTHER SETBACKS, IN FACT, ON SIZE, EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE A SEVEN —-DASH FOOT SETBACK THAT IS ALLOWED, 11-FOOT ON ONE SIDE, TEN ON THE OTHER, IF WE ARE WORRIED ABOUT LOT COVERAGE, THIS MEETS IT, AND THAT MAKES UP FOR THAT 1 FOOT IN THE BACK END 18 INCHES IN THE FRONT.

AS I SAID, THIS HAS BEEN-- THIS LOT WAS DEVELOPED, A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTS BUILT IN 1985, AND IT APPEARS TO HAVE MET ALL THE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS AT THE TIME OF IT'S CONSTRUCTION.

HOWEVER, IT WAS APPROVED AT THE 15-FOOT SETBACK.

THERE YOU CAN SEE YOUR CHART AGAIN FROM THE CODE ITSELF THAT WHEN YOU LOOKED AT IT FOR THIS PARTICULAR LOT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN 25 IN THE BACK. ALTHOUGH IT WAS APPROVED AT THE 15. AS I SAID, THIS IS A REQUEST FOR THE MINOR UNINTENTIONAL SETBACK INCURSION.

THIS APPLICATION WAS BROUGHT FORWARD AS A CODE ENFORCEMENT COMPLAINT FORM-- FROM ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHO HAD BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT THE DRAINAGE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR SEVERAL YEARS. AS YOU SEE FROM REFERENCES IN THE STAFF REPORT ITSELF, STAFF-- IN THE STAFF REPORT WE PROVIDED OUR NARRATIVE AS TO THE FACT THAT THIS FAMILY HAS BEEN WORKING ON THIS INITIAL IMPROVABLE-- APPROVAL FOR THIS BACK IN 2019. IT WAS OWNER CONTRACTED.

THEY WENT THROUGH COVID AND COULD NOT GET SUBCONTRACTORS TO DO THE WORK. SO IT TOOK LONGER TO GET THIS DONE AND IT WAS JUST COMPLETED ABOUT A YEAR AGO WHEN THE ISSUE CAME UP. AND THAT'S WHY WE ARE WORKING THROUGH THIS VARIANCE REQUEST. AND HERE YOU CAN SEE PICTURES OF THE PROPERTY ITSELF, AND YOU CAN'T REALLY TELL THAT THIS IS 18 INCHES OVER. AND IN THE BACK YOU CAN SEE THE BIG WALL THAT IS A LONG A-1 A IN THE BIG AREA OF RIGHT OF WAY, IN BETWEEN. AS YOU KNOW FROM OUR CODE, A VARIANCE THAT WILL NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST, BY REASON OF A PARTICULAR SITUATION NEEDS RELIEF, AND I WILL GO THROUGH EACH OF THE QUALIFICATIONS THAT THERE IS.

THE FIRST ONE TALKS ABOUT THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES IN CARRYING OUT THE STRICT REGULATION.

IT'S A FRONT SETBACK, WE ARE CLEARLY INADVERTENT.

THE SLIGHT INFRINGEMENTS WERE NOT DONE ON PURPOSE.

CLEARLY YOU DO NOT GAIN EXTRA SPACE BY 12 OR 18 INCHES, SO THEY DIDN'T DO IT ON PURPOSE TO GAIN EXTRA SPACE IN THE HOUSE.

IT WAS A MISTAKE. THEY TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR IT. BUT NOW THAT IT IS COMPLETE, THE WAY TO TRY TO RELIEVE THIS IS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE VARIANCE PROCEDURE. THE VARIANCE IS NOT THE-- VISIBLE TO THE NAKED EYE. IT WAS MEASURED AT 12 INCHES AFTER THIS WAS FILED BY THE SURVEYOR IN THE BACK END 18 INCHES IN THE FRONT. THERE IS NO CLEAR INTENT TO GAIN EXTRA SPACE. IT IS NOT BASED ON A DESIRE TO REDUCE THE COST OF DEVELOPING THE SITE.

THIS MATTER PRESENTS AN EXTRAORDINARY SITUATION THAT A VERY MINOR INCURSION INTO THE FRONT REAR SETBACKS WERE VERY INVERT END. NOTABLY TO THE CODE, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST, BECAUSE IT'S NOT EVEN NOTICEABLE AND CANNOT BE SEEN BY THE NAKED EYE.

NUMBER 3, IT DOESN'T SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE CONGESTION ON THE SURROUNDING PUBLIC STREETS.

NUMBER 4, IT WILL NOT SUBSTANTIALLY DIMINISHED PROPERTY VALUES, NOR ALTER THE ESSENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING SITE, A FOOT IN THE BACK END 18 INCHES IN THE FRONT.

AND FINALLY, THE REASON THAT WE DO THIS REQUEST IS THE UNUSUAL SITUATION CREATED BY THE OWNER CONTRACTOR IN IN AVERTED AREAS, AS WELL AS THE REAR EASEMENTS ON THIS PROPERTY.

[00:10:02]

IT PRESENTS AN EXTRAORDINARY SITUATION INTO THE-- IN IT'S ORDINARY SITUATION AND THAT THE MINOR INCURRENCE TO THE FRONT AND THE REAR WAS INADVERTENT. THE HOUSES-- AND THE INFRINGEMENTS WERE NOT DONE ON PURPOSE, AND BASED ON THESE FACTS, ESPECIALLY THE LACK OF VISIBILITY AND THE BUILT-IN HUGE BUFFER, THIS VARIANCE WILL NOT BE CONTRARY TO THIS PUBLIC INTEREST, AND THIS REASONABLE RELIEF IS WITHIN THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF OUR CODE. AS I SAID, IT'S EMIR 12 INCHES ON THE BACK AND 18 INCHES ON THE FRONT.

-- IT IS A MERE 12 INCHES ON THE BACK END 18 INCHES ON THE FRONT.

I PROVIDED PICTURES. PICTURES IN YOUR STAFF REPORT, AND EXPLANATIONS AS TO WHERE WE GOT TO WHERE WE ARE.

AND THEY ARE PREPARED TO TAKE ANY-- THIS HAS BEEN ROUTED TO ALL DEPARTMENTS, THE STAFF PROVIDES A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS. AND AGAIN, THEY ARE HERE PREPARED TO DO WHATEVER THEY NEED TO DO.

I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE IS ANY OBJECTION TO THE FRONT.

YOU MIGHT HEAR SOME OBJECTIONS TO THE BACK BY ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS, AND I HAVE TALKED TO HIM A FEW TIMES, HE HAS SOME ISSUES WITH THE DRAINAGE IN THE AREA.

THEY ARE WILLING TO TAKE ON ANY LIABILITY.

IF THEY DID BECAUSE ANY. THEY DON'T THINK THEY DID BECAUSE THEY HAD A COMPANY COME AND DO IT.

THEY DID NOT DO IT THEMSELVES. BUT THEY ARE WILLING TO TAKE ON ANY LIABILITY. IF YOU NEED TO MAKE THAT THAT A CONDITION OF THE ORDER. THEY ARE WILLING TO ACCEPT THAT.

AND NUMBER 2, LIKE I SAID, THERE HAVE BEEN COMPLAINTS ABOUT DRAINAGE IN THIS AREA, NOT ON THEIR LOT, PARTICULARLY, BUT ON THE AREA BEHIND IT. AND IF THERE IS ANY MAINTENANCE, I THINK YOU WILL HEAR THAT THIS PARTICULAR OWNER WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE WHOLE THING CHECKED OUT TO SEE ABOUT THIS PIPE.

I THINK IT MIGHT BE EASY ENOUGH TO PUT ANOTHER CONDITION IN A PARTICULAR ORDER, IF YOU GRANT THIS, TO SAY THAT YOU COULD PARTICIPATE IN ANY ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK, IF ANYTHING HAPPENS IN THAT AREA WITH THE SETBACK IN THE BACK.

I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, MR. CHAIRMAN, BOARD MEMBERS.

>> THANK YOU. WE WILL OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT FOR PVZVAR, 2026-07. STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS STEVE.

I LIVE AT 763 SANDY OAKS, WITHIN THE HOA.

I'M APPEARING THIS AFTERNOON ON BEHALF OF THE SANDY OAKS HOA.

I AM A STORMWATER MAINTENANCE VOLUNTEERED, I'D BEEN DOING IT FOR CLOSE TO THREE YEARS. AND I'M ASKING THE BOARD TO DENY THE REAR SETBACK VARIANCE. AND I WILL EXPLAIN WHY.

I MAY NEED A COUPLE EXTRA MINUTES.

MY POSITION IS BASED ON THREE POINTS, COST, POTENTIAL DRAINAGE FAILURE, AND THE ABILITY TO REPAIR AND REPLACE THE PIPE WITHIN SUCH A CONSTRAINED AREA. LIABILITY AND PRECEDENT, ACCORDING TO MY RESEARCH, THIS MAYBE THE ONLY PRECEDENT-SETTING CASE THAT ST JOHNS COUNTY HAS SEEN WITH A REAR ADDITION ENCROACHING AN EASEMENT. A CRITICAL STORMWATER UTILITY EASEMENT. HOPEFULLY YOU HAVE SEEN SOME OF THE SLIDES. IT'S A READ AHEAD.

SO I WILL HIT THE HIGHLIGHTS. IF WE ARE GOING ON THREE YEARS, I USED TO BE THE HOA PRESIDENT IN 2024.

I HAVE BEEN DOING THE MAINTENANCE FOR THE HOA SINCE THEN. AND YOU WILL SEE, DURING THE PRESENTATION, THAT THREE FIFTHS OF THE REAR SETBACK IS ACTUALLY THE EASEMENT. YOU HAVE A 25-FOOT VARIANCE, BUT YOU HAVE 15 FEET OF THE UTILITY EASEMENT THAT IS ALL PART OF THAT. YOU WILL SEE THAT IN THE UPPER RIGHT GRAPHIC. IN THE NOTES, YOU CAN LOOK AT THAT WHILE I TALK. STORMWATER SYSTEM HAS BEEN WORKING AS IT WAS DESIGNED FOR 45 YEARS AGO.

THE REAR ADDITION OF 521 ROBLES IS IN SUCH CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE CENTRELINE OF THE CMP, CORRUGATED METAL PIPE, THAT IT POSES A SIGNIFICANT HARDSHIP FOR THE HMA STORMWATER MAINTENANCE.

THIS WAS A COMPLETED ADDITION. THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS AWARE OF THE STORMWATER SYSTEM, AT LEAST THE KEY COMPONENTS, AS EARLY AS APRIL 2019, AFTER THE HOA HAD HIRED AN ENGINEER TO ASSESS OUR STORMWATER SYSTEM. WORST CASE SCENARIO, IF SOMETHING IS NOT RESOLVED WITHIN THE PROXIMITY OF REAR ADDITION FOUNDATION TO THE PIPE, WHICH I HAVE ANALYSED TO BE INCHES-- THIS IS NOT AN INCH IS ENCROACHMENT ON THE EASEMENT, THIS IS INCHES AWAY FROM THE PIPE.

STANDARD ENGINEER DESIGN WOULD ALLOW 5 FEET SEPARATION FROM 80 STORMWATER PIPE TO A BUILDING FOUNDATION.

WE ARE NOT THEY ARE. WE ARE WITHIN INCHES TO A FOOT.

AND I WILL SHOW YOU SOME OF THE SATELLITE IMAGERY THAT I

[00:15:02]

ANALYSED IN THE PAST WEEK TO ANALYSE THAT.

THERE IS NO UNIQUE TOPOGRAPHY OR TRAIN SITUATION THERE THAT WOULD WARRANT A VARIANCE. THIS IS SELF-IMPOSED, IN MY OPINION. THE ACTUAL SETBACK IS ABOUT 9.3 FEET. 9.3 FEET.

SO YOU HAVE A REAR SETBACK, YOU HAVE A CMP LINE AND AN EASEMENT LINE. THERE IS NO KNOWN PRECEDENT.

THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS HAD NO MAJOR ISSUES WITH STORMWATER SYSTEM FUNCTION SINCE 1982. WE HAD A CREEPING FAKE ISSUE THAT CLOGGED OUR SOUTH REAR EXIT POINT.

THAT HAS BEEN RECTIFIED AND THAT WILL NOT HAPPEN AGAIN.

LIKELY DURING THAT TIME FRAME WE HAD NO MAJOR STORMS. I HAD TO GET TO MY LIDE CLICKER.

THIS IS A PLAT RECORDED WITH ST JOHNS COUNTY AS EARLY AS THE EARLY 1980S. I HAVE OVERLAID THE KEYS STORMWATER NODES. YOU CAN READ THROUGH THEM.

YOU WILL SEE THAT 521 ROBLES SITS SMACK DAB IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CORRUGATED METAL PIPE CONNECTING TWO STORMWATER PONDS FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. ALL INFRASTRUCTURE, WATER CONTROL STRUCTURES, PIPES, THAT SORT OF THING, ASIDE FROM THE CMP, THEY WERE GREEN. WE HAVE BEEN DOING THAT MUCH MAINTENANCE ON THE SYSTEM FOR CLOSE TO THREE YEARS.

OKAY? BUT I AM NOW FACED WITH A PROBLEM. AND I NOTICED ON 12 SEPTEMBER, WHEN WE CLEANED OUT THE NORTH REAR CATCH BASIN, MORE TO FOLLOW ON THAT. I KNEW THIS WAS AN ISSUE BACK IN JULY, 24. I BROUGHT IT UP.

AND COUNCILWOMAN KEATING INVITED ME TO THE IGUANA FLORIDA RESILIENCY GRANTS PROGRAM MEETING, WHERE I BROUGHT THIS UP AS, HEY,, I SEE A POTENTIAL PROBLEM HERE.

BUT NOW THAT WE KNOW A BIT MORE, IT IS GOING TO BE A PROBLEM.

NEXT SLIDE. OKAY.

WHAT YOU WILL SEE HERE, I WILL WALK YOU THROUGH IT.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE SITE DIAGRAMS. HOA RB APPROVING THE 4.8 DISTANCE.

THE DISTANCE OF THE REAR ADDITION AS EARLY AS APRIL 19.

WE COULD'VE LIVED WITHOUT SETBACK.

PAST ARB WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A PROBLEM.

A YEAR LATER, IT WOULD HAVE INCREASED PARAGUAY THE ARB CHANGE? -- THE REPORT FROM THE STORMWATER... THE DISTANCE INCREASED TO 16.6.

AND ON THE SITE DIAGRAM THAT WAS SUBMITTED WITH ALL THESE REAR ADDITIONS, CLEARLY INSIDE THE 1. AND YOU WILL SEE ON SATELLITE IMAGERY, VERY CLOSE TO THE PIPE, AND INCREASED TO 22.6.

WHEN YOU DO ALL OF THOSE DISTANCES, IF YOU LOOK AT THE GRAPHIC, THAT IS USING SATELLITE IMAGERY FROM 2024, AND YOU CAN SEE THE DISTANCES ON THE REAR ADDITION, AND IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE CENTRELINE. OF THE CORRUGATED METAL PIPE.

NOT THE 15-FOOT EASEMENT. THE CENTRELINE OF THE CORRUGATED METAL PIPE IS EIGHT AND A HALF OFF THE INNER PART OF THE WALL.

YOU WILL SAY, HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT, STEVE? RIGHT HERE. I KNOW THAT FROM CONNECTING THREE DOTS. I WAS ABLE TO MEASURE THE DISTANCE AT THE REAR DROP BOX LOCATIONS AT THE SOUTH AND NORTH POND, EIGHT AND A HALF FEET. WHEN I WAS LOOKING FOR THE MANHOLE ACCESS AT THE TWO TOWARDS ACCESS POINT, ABOUT 400 FEET DOWN FROM THE THIRD METER, IN JULY OF 24, I FOUND OUT-- THE MANHOLE COVER THAT I FOUND 15 INCHES BELOW GRADE.

EIGHT AND A HALF FEET OFF THE INNER SIDE OF THE WALL.

SO CONNECT THOSE DOTS. THAT'S HOW I FOUND OUT IT'S EIGHT NOW HAVE FEET. IF YOU LOOK AT THE GRAPHIC ON THE LEFT, I OVERLAID THE 15-FOOT EASEMENT AND 25-FOOT REAR SETBACK, AND THAT IS THE ONLY THING, THAT REAR ADDITION OF 521, WHERE THAT ARROW IS, THAT CROSSES.

PEOPLE MAY SAY, WHAT ABOUT THE POULIN THE UPPER RIGHT CORNER.

I LOOKED AT THE POOL. IT IS WITHIN SETBACK SCREEN IN ENCLOSURES. BUT THOSE ARE USUALLY TAKEN DOWN IN CASE WE HAVE TO DO A REPLACEMENT ON THE PIPE.

OKAY. THIS IS WHAT WE FOUND ON 12 SEPTEMBER. CULMINATING ON 12 SEPTEMBER.

WE TRIED TO RUN A CAMERA THROUGH THE CMP BACK IN JULY 24, BUT WAS STOPPED BECAUSE WITHIN ABOUT 60 FEET, TO MANY SOLIDS INSIDE THE PIPE. SO WHAT DID WE DO AT THAT POINT? WE DID A 60,000-GALLON FLUSH TO THE PIPE.

TRIED TO RUN A CAMERA AGAIN. ONLY GOT THE SAME DISTANCE.

OKAY. WE OPENED THAT REAR CASH BASIN UP ON SEPTEMBER 2026, AND THAT IS HOW MANY SOLIDS ARE IN THE PIPE. THIS IS A 15-INCH PIPE, NOT

[00:20:03]

12-INCH, LIKE WE THOUGHT. WE TOOK A TAPE MEASURE AND CONFIRM THAT. OUR ISSUE IS THAT IT IS AN OLD PIPE. CMP USUALLY LASTS 50 YEARS.

WE ARE AT 45. THE DESIGN ENGINEER, THEY DESIGNED SANDY OAKES-- THE DESIGNER IS STILL ALIVE'S.

HE JUST RETIRED THIS YEAR. I AM ON SPEED WITH HIM.

HE WORKS FOR CONDI CONSULTANTS, I THINK.

HE DESIGNED SANDY OAKES. ALSO TALK TO THE HOME DEVELOPER.

STILL WORKING TODAY. THEY WERE ALL 25 BACK IN THE DAY. THE PARK GROUP.

TALKED WITH HIM THIS MORNING. HE SAID THE SOLIDS IN THE PIPE ARE A CONCERN. THEN YOU TALK TO THE COUNTY ENGINEER AND HE SAYS, STEVE, I CANNOT HELP YOU WITH COUNTY ASSETS. YOU HAVE RUST AND UNSUBSTANTIATED REPORTS OF HOLES IN THE PIPE.

HIGH PRESSURE-- A HIGH-PRESSURE HYDROGEL COULD BE PROBLEMATIC.

SO I AM NOT LEFT WITH A LOT OF OPTIONS HERE.

SO PRETTY GOOD NEWS ON 12 SEPTEMBER.

THEN WE GET THE VARIANCE LETTER THAT THIS MEETING WAS HAPPENING.

THE CMP WROTE AHEAD. WE HAVE DONE SOME PRELIMINARY WORK TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF SOLIDS AT THE NORTH REAR.

I LAID DOWN AN EROSION BLAKE IT ON THE CHALLENGE NEAR THE WE ARE. IT'S WORKING.

THERE IS NO NEW SOLIDS IN THE CASH BAIT-- CATCH BASIN.

WHICH MEANS NO NEW SOLIDS IN THE PIPE.

WE CHECKED THE SOUTH WHERE ROUTINELY TO SEE WHAT KIND OF FLOWS OF SEDIMENTS ARE GETTING OUT.

I'M EXCITED TO GET IN THERE A WEEK FROM NOW AFTER THIS FIVE OR 8 INCHES OF RAIN COMES THIS WEEK.

WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET SOME OF THE SOLIDS OUT.

BUT THE SOLIDS ARE NOT LEAKY AND DRIED ORGANICS ANYMORE.

IT'S DENSE AND COMPACTED SILT. AND IT'S HARD TO GET OUT OF THE PIPE. SO, I WILL LEAVE YOU WITH THIS.

WOEFULLY I AM ABOUT THE THREE AND A HALF, FOUR MINUTE MARK.

-- HOPEFULLY I AM AT ABOUT THE THREE AND A HALF, FOUR MINUTE MARK. I JUST DON'T WANT TO SEE THE BOARD, YOU, HAVE TO RECTIFY ISSUES WITHIN SETBACKS AND UTILITY EASEMENTS BECAUSE OF-- WHETHER BE INTENTIONAL, OR UNINTENTIONAL, BUILDING ADDITIONS.

THERE ARE EASEMENTS THEY ARE FILE A REASON.

AND MY RECOMMENDATION IS EITHER DENIED THE VARIANCE, OR POSTPONE THE DECISION. THE GOOD NEWS IS, ON THURSDAY, AT 1:30 P.M., WE HAVE A CONTRACTOR.

I WENT AND TALKED TO HIM LAST WEEK.

THEY WERE DOING WORK AT SUMMERFIELD HOA, TO THE SOUTH OF SANDY OAKS. ON BEHALF OF ST JOHNS COUNTY.

CAMERA INSPECTIONS. HYDRO JETTING.

LINING. DARK COMING THURSDAY AT ONE THURSDAY-- 1:30 P.M. TO LOOK AT OUR SYSTEM AND SEE WHAT WE HAVE GOING ON. I GAVE THEM A BRIEF.

AND SEE WHAT KIND OF COSTS WE ARE LOOKING AT.

CAN A PIPE BE RUN, IF WE HAVE TO REPLACE IT? YES. BUT IT WILL COST ANYWHERE FROM 30 TO $50,000 IN SHORT COST, AND HOMEOWNER TAKES FULL LIABILITY.

SO THAT IS ALL I HAVE. PUT IN YOUR QUESTION.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR YOU. MAYBE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS AS WELL. DO YOU KNOW THE DEPTH OF THE

PIPE. >> 15 INCHES BELOW GRADE.

>> 15 INCHES THERE. AND... YOU SAID YOU HAVE LOOKED AT-- WE LOOKED AT REPLACING, WOULD YOU REPLACE IT WITH

CORRUGATED METAL? >> ACTUALLY, THE PARK GROUP GUY THAT BUILT SOME OF SANDY OAKS, HE RECOMMENDED HDPE POLYURETHANE PIPE. I HAVE DONE THE COST BREAKDOWNS, HTP IS A LITTLE CHEAPER THAN CORRUGATED.

WE ARE IN THAT STAGE NOW, LOOKING AT WHAT THE OPTIONS ARE.

SO, YES. WE WOULD NOT DO A REPLACEMENT OF CORRUGATED METAL, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.

>> THANK YOU. DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS ON THE BOARD? THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT? PLEASE COME FORWARD.

IF YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

>> FRANK, 563 ROBLES LANE. OBVIOUSLY A RESIDENT.

I LIVE DOWNHILL AND SLIGHTLY TO THE WEST OF THE RESIDENTS.

I THINK WE ALL AGREE AT THE FRONT IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL.

IT'S JUST SLIGHTLY OVER. THE REAR IS WHERE I HAVE A CONCERN. A COUPLE YEARS AGO I HAD SOME-- THE LOWER POOL BACK UP, AND IT FLOODED IN TO MY YARD.

I LIVE TWO HOUSES OVER. THE ADDITION WAS NOT LIKE THAT WHEN I MOVED IN 2014. I AM JUST CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.

[00:25:06]

IF THE PIPE WAS CRUSHED, OR IF THERE IS SOME TYPE OF DIVERSION OF WATER, IT WILL CAUSE ME AN ISSUE.

IT COULD CAUSE-- IF IT GETS REALLY BAD AND GOES IN TO THE PATTON'S HOUSE OR THE WILLMAN'S HOUSE, OR MY HOUSE, FLOOD DAMAGE IS NOT COVERED ON OUR INSURANCE. IT'S JUST A REAL CONCERN THERE.

I REALIZE THAT THINGS HAPPEN. I WISH THEM NO ILL WILL, I'M JUST LOOKING VOLVO COVERAGE. I HAVE SPOKE WITH A LAWYER AND I AGREE WITH WHAT THEY SAY. MY CONCERN IS BEING HIT FINANCIALLY BECAUSE OF IT DOWN THE LINE.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, SIR.

DO WE HAVE ANY FURTHER COMMENT? I AM GOING TO CLOSE IT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS TIME. AND DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE PRESENTER FROM THE BOARD? OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A--

>> BRIEFLY IF I COULD, TO ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES, AS YOU SEE FROM YOUR STAFF REPORT, THE STAFF MAKES IT PRETTY CLEAR THAT WE ARE STILL GOING TO HAVE TO GO TO UTILITIES AND GET THIS DEALT WITH. BECAUSE THIS IS MERELY FOR THE SETBACK ISSUE FOR THE ALREADY DEVELOPED 12 INCHES IN TO THAT EASEMENT. I THINK THAT THAT WILL ALL BE COVERED IF THERE ARE ANY ISSUES. AS I SAID, THERE WAS A CONTRACTOR WHO DID THIS, AND THEY DUG DOWN AND SAID THE PIPE WAS 5 FEET FURTHER EAST OF WHERE THE-FOOTER IS.

AND THEY ALSO SAID IT'S NOT 17 INCHES DOWN.

IT'S APPROXIMATELY 5 FEET DOWN ON THAT AREA.

THEY WANTED TO FIND IT BEFORE THEY DUG THE FOOT THERE.

I HAVE KNOWN HERE TO TESTIFY TO THAT, BUT THAT INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED TO ME FROM THE OWNER CONTRACTOR.

>> IF I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, THE PIPE IS 5 FEET DOWN,

NOT 15 INCHES? >> THAT IS RIGHT.

AND IT'S 5-FOOT OFF OF WHERE THEY DUG THE 4-FOOTER.

SO IT IS NOT OVER IT, AS YOU MAY HAVE HEARD.

WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I DON'T THINK THAT ANYONE HERE IS A STORMWATER ENGINEER OR AN ENGINEER.

BUT THAT WAS THE TESTIMONY GIVEN TO ME, AND AS YOU SEE FROM THE STAFF REPORT, IT'S MADE CLEAR FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IN THEIR EVALUATION THAT THIS WILL HAVE TO BE EVALUATED BY THE UTILITY DEPARTMENT TO SIGN OFF ON THE FACT THAT THIS IS WITHIN THEIR UTILITIES. AND YOU ARE NOT GRANTING AN INCURSION ON UTILITIES WHEN YOU GRANT A SETBACK INCURSION FROM A BUILT STRUCTURE. SO IF YOU FELT THE NEED TO PUT A CONDITION WITHIN THE ORDER ITSELF IN APPROVING, I DON'T THINK THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THE FRONT, ALL CLEAR.

THAT WAS INADVERTENT. BUT IF THE MAJORITY OF THE BOARD FELT THAT YOU WOULD NEED A CONDITION IN THERE TO SAY ANY ISSUES WITH THE PIPE, THEY WOULD OBVIOUSLY ACCEPT LIABILITY FOR AND ALSO ASSUME ANY RISK. THEY ALSO SEE IN THESE SITE PLANS, THERE ARE PERMEABLE PAVERS IN THE BACK, AND THAT'S WHY THEY NEED THE SITE COVERAGE. SO AS I SAID BEFORE, ON LOT COVERAGE, OR ISR, FOR PARTICULAR LOTS, IT'S MORE OF AN ISSUE OF THIS BEING BUILT IN TO THE SETBACK.

SO THE STORMWATER CONCERN, ALTHOUGH VERY INTERESTING FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IT DOESN'T HAVE A LOT TO DO WITH THIS PROPERTY OTHER THAN THAT PIPE. AND I THINK THAT CONDITION WOULD SATISFY THAT. SO I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? JOHN?

HOW MANY QUESTIONS DO WE HAVE? >> I AM A LITTLE CONFUSED.

WE ARE REQUESTING A REAR SIDE SETBACK OF 14 FEET VERSUS 25 FEET. BUT WE ARE ALSO REQUESTING AN

ENCROACHMENT ON TO AN EASEMENT? >> RIGHT.

THE REQUEST FOR THE ENCROACHMENT IN TO THE IN EASEMENT-- IN TO THE EASEMENT, THAT IS STILL GOING TO HAVE TO BE DEALT WITH WITHIN THE UTILITY DEPARTMENT. SO IT IS THROUGH GRANTING THE INCURSION IN TO THE SETBACK ITSELF.

PART OF THE CONFUSION, AND WHY IT WAS APPROVED BEFORE, IF WE CAN GO BACK ON MY PRESENTATION HERE, WHEN THIS WAS PLATTED, THERE WAS A LOT OF REFERENCES ON THAT PLAT.

OKAY, HERE. THERE WAS A LOT OF REFERENCES ON THIS PLAT. ONE OF THEM, EVEN THOUGH IT IS CLEAR WHEN YOU ZOOM IN ON THE BACK, IT SAYS-- YOU HAVE THE 5'9" ACCESS, WHICH IS ON OCCURRED FOR THE WALL ITSELF.

BUT IT HAS ANOTHER 15-FOOT EASEMENT, AND WHEN THIS WAS APPROVED TWICE BY THE COUNTY, I DO NOT HAVE ANY PROOF OF THIS, BUT SOMETHING TELLS ME IT WAS BECAUSE THEY LOOKED AT THAT AND THOUGHT IT WAS A 15-FOOT SETBACK.

BECAUSE WITHIN THE PONTE VEDRA CODE, IT SAYS WITHIN R1C THAT BE 25 FEET, UNLESS THERE IS A SETBACK.

SO NOT CASTING DISPERSIONS, I THINK THAT IS WHY IT WAS APPROVED THAT WAY. AND WE ARE REALLY TALKING

[00:30:02]

ABOUT-- EVEN THOUGH I'M ASKING FOR AN INCURSION IN TO THE 25-FOOT SETBACK, IT'S REALLY AN INCURSION IN TO THE 15, BECAUSE IT WAS APPROVED TWICE AT THE 15 BY THE COUNTY.

IF THEY HAD NOT GONE OVER INADVERTENTLY, THE 12 INCHES, WE WOULD NOT EVEN BE HERE FOR THE BACK.

IF THEY TOOK OFF 12 INCHES ON THE BACK WE WOULD NOT BE HERE.

IT'S A BUILT STRUCTURE. AND THAT'S WHY WE ARE ASKING FOR IT. BUT IF THAT-- THAT IS SOMETHING THAT TURNS THE STOMACH OF THE MAJORITY OF THIS BOARD, THEN I GUESS THEY CAN TAKE OFF 12 INCHES ON THE BACK.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT FIXES ANY PROBLEM THAT YOU HEARD FROM THE PUBLIC SPEAKERS. BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION. KIND OF IN A ROUNDABOUT WAY.

>> IT KIND OF DOES. QUESTION FOR STAFF.

WHEN THIS WAS PERMITTED IN 2019, THE ADDITION, DO WE HAVE A COPY

OF THAT PERMIT? >> YES, SIR.

THROUGH THE CHAIR, WITH JACOB SMITH, TEN GROWTH MANAGEMENT TO MR. PATTON'S QUESTION, I AM FAMILIAR WITH THIS ONE.

I WAS THE PLANNER AT THE TIME WILL APPROVED THIS SITE, AND I WILL ECHO MR. WHITE HOUSE'S COMMENT THAT IT WAS APPROVED IN ERROR, AND I INCORRECTLY USED THE PLATTED EASEMENT LINE WHEN I WAS REVIEWING IT, OF COURSE THEY DID DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WHEN THEY WERE NOT OVER BY THE EXTRA FOOT OR PORTION OF A FOOT, BUT WE DO HAVE THAT AND I CAN PUT IT UP IF YOU'D LIKE.

IT IS GENERALLY VERY, VERY SIMILAR TO THIS, EXCEPT THE LAST LITTLE GREEN BUMP ACROSS THE LINE.

>> THE QUESTION FOR ME, IS WHAT WAS ACTUALLY BUILT REFLECTED IN THE PLANS? IT LOOKS LIKE THE HOUSE GREW.

>> IT TO GROW SLIGHTLY, ALBEIT ABOUT A FOOT OR SO.

>> SO THE FOOT WE WERE DEALING WITH IS NOT A PERMITTED FOOT.

>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> SO IF THEY BUILT IT ACCORDING TO THE PLANS--

>> IT WOULD STILL NECESSITATE A VARIANCE TO BE PROPER, BUT IT WOULD BE OUTSIDE THE EASEMENT, MOST CERTAINLY.

>> OKAY. I WILL RELINQUISH THE REST OF MY

TIME. >> TONY?

>> YOU SAY IT'S 5 FEET OFF OF WHERE THE HOA IS SHOWING IT.

AND THEY ARE SAYING IT IS WITHIN 8 INCHES OF THE LINE.

DO WE HAVE FACTUAL KNOWLEDGE? >> AS I SAID, ALL I HAVE IS-- I CAN HAVE FIRST-PERSON TESTIMONY COME UP, THE OWNER, HE CAN TESTIFY THAT'S WHERE HE FOUND IT AND WHERE HE SAW IT, AND THAT CAN HELP YOU PUT FACTS ON THE RECORD.

BUT I THINK THE TESTIMONY RECEIVED FROM MR. DANNER, AND HE IS NOT A STORMWATER ENGINEER PICKETS THAT HE LOOKED AT IT FROM AERIALS. AND HE USE THE MEASURING TOOLS ON IMAP. AND THE PROPERTY APPRAISER SITE AND SOME OTHER AERIALS, SATELLITE IMAGES, TO MEASURE WHERE IT WENT. THERE IS NO TESTIMONY THAT SAYS THAT HE KNOWS WHERE IT IS, BECAUSE HE TOLD ME HIMSELF THAT HE DID NOT GO ON THE PROPERTY. HE DID NOT TRESPASS ON THE PROPERTY TO FIND IT. I TALKED TO HIM TODAY AND HE TOLD ME THAT. SO HE DOES NOT KNOW WHERE IT IS, IF I HAVE THE OWNER COME UP AND TESTIFY THAT THAT'S WHERE HE FOUND IT, AND THAT IS WHERE IT WAS, THEN THAT'S THE ONLY TESTIMONY THAT MATTERS. MAYBE THAT'S WHAT I SHOULD DO, IF YOU WANT HIM TO COME UP. HE'S TOLD ME THAT SEVERAL TIMES.

>> DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND

NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? >> I DO.

ERIC EVANSON. I'M A RESIDENT AND OWNER.

WHEN WE WERE DOING THE BACKYARD, IF YOU LOOK AT THE PICTURE THAT IS UP, KIND OF ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER, YOU WILL SEE TWO PRETTY GOOD SIZE SQUARES AND THE LATTICE THAT GOES BETWEEN THOSE.

TOES ARE BOTH SUPPORTED BY SIX BY SIX POSTS THAT I SET IN THE GROUND. AND I WANTED TO SEE IF I COULD FIND THIS PIPE. SO I WENT DOWN AT THE CLOSEST TO THE WALL POST AND KEPT GOING DOWN UNTIL I WAS ABOUT FOUR AND A HALF FEET DOWN AND I FOUND THE TOP OF THE PIPE.

AND YOU CAN TELL IT WAS A LARGE PIPE.

SINCE THEN, WE HAVE ADDED PAPERS IN THE BACKYARD, SO WE ARE PROBABLY 5 FEET FROM SURFACE. AND JUST BECAUSE HE CAN LINE UP THREE POINTS AND SAY THAT IS WHERE THE PIPE IS SUPPOSED TO GO, I THINK WE KNOW THAT WHEN THEY START PLAYING PIPE IN THE GROUND, IT GOES WHERE IT GOES. SO WE ARE ABOUT 5 FEET FROM THE EDGE OF OUR ADDITION. THE PARK IN QUESTION TO THAT

PIPE. >> MR. WHITE HOUSE, I WANTED TO

[00:35:07]

ASK ABOUT-- I'M NOT IN THE CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS OR WATER LINE UTILITY BUSINESS. I AM IN THE RISK BUSINESS.

HAVING A CLIENT TELL YOU THEY ARE WILLING TO ASSUME ALL LIABILITIES IS A VERY BIG STATEMENT.

DOES YOUR CLIENT UNDERSTAND THE MAGNITUDE OF THAT STATEMENT?

>> YES. AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, AS TO WHAT I MEANT, IT WAS THAT THEY WOULD ASSUME ANY LIABILITY TO ANY DAMAGES THEY MAY HAVE CAUSED TO THE PIPE.

AS HE HEARD FROM THE OWNER, THE PIPE IS NOT EVEN NEAR WHERE IT IS. SO THE REASON THAT THEY ARE PREPARED TO SAY THAT IF THERE CONSTRUCTION ON THIS BACK ADDITION CAUSED ANY DAMAGE TO THE PIPE, THAT THEY WOULD ACCEPT LIABILITY, BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY DID NOT BECAUSE THEY DID NOT GO NEAR IT. IT'S FOUR AND A HALF FEET OFF OF

WHERE THEY BUILT. >> IF, I BELIEVE THERE IS A MEETING NEXT WEEK, OR THIS WEEK, ON THURSDAY WITH ANOTHER ENGINEER COMING TO REVIEW THE PIPE LOCATION, IF IT IS DETERMINED THAT IT IS CLOSE TO THAT BUILDING, IT HAS TO POSSIBLY BE-- SOMETHING HAPPENS TO THE PIPE, OR SOMETHING HAPPENS WHERE THEY ARE FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR

DAMAGES, THAT IS A BIG NUMBER. >> PART OF THE ISSUE, ONE OF THE STATEMENTS THEY ARE COMING TO FIND THE LOCATION OF THE PIPE, THAT'S NOT TRUE. THERE COMING TO SEE IF IT'S FILLED WITH SOLIDS. SO I THINK THEY WILL TRY TO SHOOT IT WITH A CAMERA THAT THEY PUT THROUGH THE PIPE.

SO THAT IS NOT NECESSARILY GOING TO TELL US WHERE THE PIPE IS IN RELATION TO THIS PARTICULAR ADDITION IN THE BACK.

AGAIN, IF THEY BUILT THIS, THAT BACK BUMP OUT, AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE SURVEY, THIS IS A CERTIFIED SURVEY.

4 FEET. IF WE BUILT THAT 3 FEET, WE WOULDN'T EVEN BE TALKING ABOUT THIS.

SO THEY COULD PUT THE-FOOTER THIS WAY.

HE IS SAYING IT'S 8 INCHES OFF OF WHERE THEY BUILT IT.

THEN IT WOULD BE 12-- 20 INCHES OFF OF WHERE THEY BUILT IT.

WHICH IS NOT TRUE. BECAUSE YOU HEARD WHERE THE PIPE IS ON THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY. BUT EVEN IF IT WAS AT THAT 8 INCHES, AND AGAIN, THE CLARIFICATION IS THAT THESE PEOPLE THAT ARE COMING, AND I DID NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THAT. TODAY I DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING UP-- I DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS WHOLE THING UNTIL A COUPLE WEEKS GO WHEN I GOT SOME LETTERS.

AND IF YOU LOOK IN THE PACKET, YOU'LL SEE LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM THIS PARTICULAR FAMILY. BUT THIS IS CLEARLY A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAS SOME DISSENSION.

BUT THE FACT IS THAT THEY DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUE.

THEY WANT APPROPRIATE STORMWATER DISSEMINATION IN THEIR PARTICULAR PROPERTY. THIS PIPE IS SUPPOSED TO GO IN BETWEEN THE TWO LAKES THAT YOU SEE ON THE AERIAL ON EITHER SIDE AND IT RUNS ON THE BACKSIDE OF THIS.

IT DOES NOT ABSORB WATER, WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THERE BEING STANDING WATER IN THIS AREA. IT IS ABOUT REGULATING THE HEIGHTS OF BOTH THE POND SO THEY STAY EVEN.

AND IF THEY GET A HOG IN THE MIDDLE, WHICH IS-- A COG-- A CLOG IN THE MIDDLE, WITH MR. DANNER THINGS THERE IS A CLOG IN THE MIDDLE-- MAYBE HE DIDN'T SAY THAT.

BUT IF THERE IS A CLOG IN THE MIDDLE IT CLOGS UP THE WHOLE THING, WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS ADDITION.

I THINK THAT'S WHY PUTTING IN SOME KIND OF CONDITION THAT SAYS IF IT'S FOUND THAT THEY DAMAGED THEIR AREA OF PIPE IN THE VICINITY OF WHERE THIS WAS, THEN THEY HAVE TO PAY TO REPAIR THAT PART OF THE PIPE. AND THE SECOND PART WAS, THEY WOULDN'T TAKE THE PIPE UP AND PUT ANOTHER ONE.

THEY WILL PUT ANOTHER ONE DOWN. I'M NOT A STORMWATER ENGINEER.

BUT IN MY WORK INLAND DEVELOPMENT I UNDERSTAND THAT'S HOW THEY WOULD DO IT. AND THEY WOULD PUT OUT THE PAPERS ANYWAY. SO THEY DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ACCEPTING ANY ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK TO HAVE TO DAMAGE THE BACK OF THEIR PROPERTY TO PUT IT IN A NEW PIPE IF IT HAS TO GO IN. SO THAT IS WHY WE WERE PREPARED TO OFFER THOSE. I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING ABOUT ACCEPTING LIABILITY. I'M NOT SAYING TO ACCEPT LIABILITY TO PUT A NEW PIPE IN. JUST ACCEPTING THAT IF THEY DAMAGE IT, WHICH IS THEIR TESTIMONY, IF THEY DID NOT, THEY WOULD BE PREPARED TO PAY FOR THE REPAIR IN THAT AREA.

THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING. >> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS?

>> CAN I BORROW YOU FOR A MINUTE, BEEN WE-- CANTERBURY FOR A MINUTE? YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING TO

SIT QUIETLY IN THE BACK. >> IT AFTERNOON.

TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT. >> TELL ME ABOUT TAKING AN EASEMENT. IF I HAVE TO GO 5 FEET DOWN IN THE SAND, AFTER OF TRENCH LOCKS, AS I CORRECTLY.

[00:40:02]

>> ARE WE TALKING SAFETY OR PRACTICALITY?

>> SAFETY WOULD BE THE PRIMARY CONCERN.

>> USUALLY YOU WOULD WANT TO BOX THAT OUT, UNLESS YOU HAVE THE SIDES A CERTAIN DISTANCE AWAY. BUT WITH THE HOUSE BEING THE LIMITING FACTOR ON THE ONE SIDE, YOU WILL PROBABLY NOT DO THAT.

THIS COULD BE TRICKY BECAUSE THE PIPE MAY NOT BE CENTERED IN THE EASEMENT. I THINK THAT IS A 15-FOOT EASEMENT. GENERAL PRACTICE THESE DAYS IS TO CENTER THE PIPE AND THE EASEMENT.

THIS COMMUNITY IS FROM THE EARLY 80S.

OUR FILESYSTEM WAS PROBABLY NOT THE BEST BACK THEN.

SO WE DON'T REALLY HAVE THE LOCATION ON WHERE THE PIPE IS.

IT COULD BE-- IT COULD BE WHERE THE APPLICANT IS SAYING.

IT COULD BE CLOSER. IT'S HARD TO SAY IT WITHOUT HAVING THE BENEFIT OF A MODERN DAY EVALUATION OF IT.

IT'S SOMETHING THE COUNTY STAFF IS UNABLE TO DO.

ON OUR PART WE WOULD TAKE THE INFO AND PRESENT WHAT THE APPLICANT SAYS, WITH THE HOA HAS SAID AND TRIED TO FIND A HEAVY MEDIUM. BUT THEY ARE PRETTY DIFFERENT NUMBERS ON THAT. WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL A BIT ABOUT USING IMAGERY. LIKE OUR GIS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT TO DO MEASUREMENTS. IT'S NOT FOR SURVEY PURPOSES.

THERE IS A DISCLAIMER ON THAT. BUT THAT IS SOME GOOD INFORMATION TO USE. BECAUSE WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF GLOW-- GOING DOWN, DIGGING DOWN TO FIND IT, THAT IS PROBABLY THE BEST AVAILABLE INFORMATION AT THE TIME FOR THE HOA.

SO IT'S HARD TO SEE. >> GIVEN THE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH-- IF THIS HOME IS EXACTLY SITUATED ON THE 15-FOOT, WOULDN'T THAT REQUIRE A TRENCH BOX?

WOULD THAT CHANGE IT? >> IT THE PIPE WAS CENTERED IN THE EASEMENT, WILL-- THEY WILL HAVE ROOM TO EXCAVATE.

SO IF THERE WAS A PROBLEM DURING EXCAVATION OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT YOU WOULD BE FINE. BUT WITHOUT THAT SAFETY ROOM YOU

HAVE TO SHORTEN IT UP. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> IN THIS EASEMENT WE HAVE THE CONCRETE WALL THAT SEPARATES A 1A. THAT APPEARS TO BE RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY LINE. SO YOU ONLY HAVE 15 FEET TOTAL TO DIG THIS PIPE UP IF IT IS AT 5 FEET DOWN.

IT'S NOT GOING TO BE AN EASY PROJECT TO DO.

>> CORRECT. 15 FEET IS TYPICALLY OUR EASEMENT MINIMUM FOR A PIPE SYSTEM.

THAT MEETS CODE, EVEN TODAY'S CODE.

BUT THEN AGAIN, THE PIPE MAY NOT BE CENTERED ON IT.

THERE IS SOME FLUCTUATION BUT THAT.

EVEN UNDER TODAY'S DESIGNS. WE DON'T ALWAYS SEE THE PIPES CENTERED IN EASEMENT. IT DOES MOVE SIDE TO SIDE OUT THE CENTRELINE BASED ON FIELD CONDITIONS AND CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS. THERE ARE A FEW THINGS THAT CAN FORCE IT TO MOVE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

THERE IS AN OBSTRUCTION IN THE EASEMENT THAT WE MIGHT NOT KNOW ABOUT, IF YOU ARE LAYING PIPE YOU WANT TO GET AROUND THAT.

YOU MIGHT NEED A LITTLE PIPE TO GET AROUND THAT.

>> AND THIS IS AN HOA PIPE? NOT A COUNTY PIPE?

>> IT IS A COMPLICATED SITUATION.

I THINK THE HOA MAINTAINS IT. BUT THERE IS SOME LANGUAGE IN THE PLAT THAT GIVES SOME SORT OF ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE COUNTY.

BUT I BELIEVE THE HOA MAINTAINS IT.

>> THANK YOU. >> DO WE HAVE ANY FURTHER

QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? >> IF THERE IS NOT, CAN I ADD

ONE THING? >> SURE.

>> IF WE GO BY THE TESTIMONY OF THE OWNER, HE SAID IT'S JUST OFF OF HIS BACK ADDITION, FROM THE CERTIFIED STAMP SURVEY, IT SAYS IT'S 14 FEET FROM THIS ADDITION TO THE PROPERTY LINE.

SO IT IS 14 FEET IF YOU ADD-- IF YOU TAKE AWAY FOUR AND A HALF OR 5 FEET. IT'S AROUND THE NINE AND A HALF, WHICH WOULD GO TO WHAT BEN SAID ABOUT THIS EASEMENT, SO THAT WOULD LEND TO THE FACT THAT IT SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE EASEMENT. I THINK IT JUST ADDS CREDENCE TO WHAT THE OWNERS SAID. ONE.

NUMBER 2, IF THERE IS SOME EASING AT-- UNEASINESS ABOUT THE 12-INCH INFRINGEMENT IN TO THAT, I THINK WE ARE JUST HERE TALKING ABOUT THAT. EVEN THOUGH, TECHNICALLY, IF YOU ARE GOING TO APPROVE IT, YOU HAVE TO APPROVE THE INCURSION IN TO THE 25-FOOT SETBACK. R1C.

HOWEVER, THEY ALREADY HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE AT THE 15 FEET.

BECAUSE I WAS APPROVED AND THEY BUILT IT AND THERE WAS DEATH--

[00:45:01]

ALLIANCE ON THAT. YOU CAN ASK YOUR ATTORNEY ABOUT THAT. BUT THEY WILL GET APPROVAL FOR UP TO 15 FEET. IF THIS TURNS YOUR STOMACH ABOUT THE FACT THAT THEY ARE AT THE 1D YOU DON'T APPROVE THAT AND THEY HAVE TO TAKE A FOOT OFF, ON THE BACK, I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANY ISSUE OR OBJECTION AT ALL TO THE FRONT.

BUT IF THAT IS WHAT THEY HAVE TO DO, THAT'S WHAT THEY HAVE TO DO IN THE BACK. BUT IT IS NOT REALLY DENYING THE VARIANCE. IT IS APPROVING IT AT THAT 15-FOOT INSTEAD OF THE 14-FOOT. BECAUSE THAT IS WHERE IT WAS APPROVED BY THE COUNTY. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

>> ALL RIGHT. I AM GOING TO CLOSE-- SORRY.

YOU HAVE ALREADY HAD YOUR COMMENT.

SO I'M GOING TO CLOSE IT TO BOARD DISCUSSION AT THE MOMENT.

DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY THOUGHTS? >> I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW THE PLAN IS GOING TO BE APPROVED OR PERMITTED FOR ONE SIZE BUILDING AND ANOTHER BUILDING. I HAVE MORE HEARTACHE OVER THAT THEN THE PERMITTED PLANTS NOT BEING FOLLOWED, AND THIS HAS GOT US IN TO THIS SITUATION. THE 1 FOOT INTO THE EASEMENT.

THAT IS KIND OF MY CONCERN RIGHT NOW.

>> ANY OTHER THOUGHTS FROM THE BOARD? MR. WHITE HOUSE, YOU DON'T HAVE A FULL BOARD TODAY.

WOULD YOU LIKE US TO CONTINUE THIS? YOU REQUIRE ALL FOUR PERMITTED VOTES?

>> TO ADDRESS MR. PATTON'S COMMENT, I THINK THAT OBVIOUSLY I COME BEFORE YOU GUYS A LOT AND I RESPECT ALL OF YOU, ESPECIALLY MR. PATTON. HE IS A SENIOR MEMBER.

AND PART OF IT WAS BECAUSE IT'S AN OWNER CONTRACTOR, I'M NOT MAKING EXCUSES, THEY DID A FOOT MORE ON THIS.

IT'S LIKE A CLOSET. LIKE A OWNERS CLOSET ON THE BACKSIDE. I KNOW THAT DOES NOT RESOLVE IT, BUT 12 INCHES ON THE BACK, IF THEY TAKEOUT THE 12 INCHES, THEY HAVE TO CHANGE THE ROOFLINE AND CHANGE EVERYTHING.

BUT THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT. IF THAT'S WHAT YOUR HEART ACHE IS THAT IT SHOULD BE THREE INSTEAD OF 4 FEET ON THAT BACK CLOSET, MAYBE WE CAN DO THAT. AT THE BOARD WOULD BE WILLING TO DO THAT, I THINK I CAN TELL THEM THAT THAT'S WHAT THEY HAVE TO DO. BUT I'M NOT TRYING TO MANEUVER ANYTHING AND GET MORE PEOPLE HERE.

I RESPECT THE FACT-- I RESPECT ALL OF YOUR OPINIONS.

I JUST THINK THAT IF THAT IS THE HEART ACHE, AND THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO DO, THEN TELL ME THAT. AND MAKE THAT THE APPROVAL AND THEY WILL HAVE TO DO IT. IF THAT'S WHAT IT IS.

IF THAT'S NOT, AND IT SOMETHING ELSE, TELL ME THAT AND WE CAN GO BACK AND YOU CAN BRING ME MORE-- AND BRING YOU MORE INFORMATION.

BUT LIKE I SAID, IF THE FOUR ARE AMENABLE TO THAT RESOLUTION, I CAN TELL THEM THAT THAT'S WHAT THEY HAVE TO DO.

>> QUESTION FOR STAFFER THE COUNTY ATTORNEY.

IF I AM A HOMEOWNER AND I HAVE PLANS TO BUILD A HOUSE AND I BUILD IT, AND BEFORE I GET A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, OR A FINAL REVIEW OF THE PLANS, WHAT IS OUR COUNTY POSITION ABOUT GIVING A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY TO SOMETHING THAT WAS

BUILT INCORRECTLY? >> GENERALLY SPEAKING REINFORCE THAT THROUGH CODE ENFORCEMENT, OR THROUGH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT BY NOT ISSUING THE BUILDING PERMIT IN THE FIRST PLACE. WHEN YOU GET SOMETHING LIKE T THIS, WE TRY TO BE FLEXIBLE. IT DEPENDS ON HOW CLOSE THEY ARE. AND THEY HAVE SOME ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF IF THE DISTANCES ARE REALLY SMALL.

BUT THIS IS OVER THAT, WHERE WE CAN GIVE ANY ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF. WE LIKE TO LOOK AT VARIANCES, POTENTIALLY FIND SOMETHING THAT WOULD SOLVE EVERYTHING, AND GIVE BACK. IF THIS CAUSES POTENTIAL DRAINAGE PROBLEMS, OF GUTTERS NEED TO BE ADDED TO, I DON'T KNOW. BUT AT SOME POINT THEY HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE STRUCTURE THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE BUILT.

SO WE CAN ENFORCE LEGALLY-- WE CAN'T ENFORCE LEGALLY.

WE JUST ADJUST FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE THINGS.

BUT I THINK WE HAVE TO RUN THROUGH THESE PROCESSES FIRST.

IF THAT MAKES SENSE. >> IT DOES.

I THINK EVERYBODY HAS SKIN IN THE GAME, SO TO SPEAK.

MR. WHITE HOUSE, REMIND ME WHEN THE HOUSE WAS BUILT.

>> THE INITIAL HOUSE WAS 1985. AND THESE ADDITIONS WERE STARTED

[00:50:04]

IN 2019. AND WE HAD OWNERS AND

CONTRACTORS. >> 2019 AND WE HAVE A COMPLAINT

OF 2025? >> THEY RECEIVED ALL OF THEIR APPROVALS. THEY WENT OUT THERE AND IT WAS EVALUATED. WHAT DO YOU CALL IT WHEN THEY CHECK OFF EACH THING. THE INSPECTIONS.

ALL OF THEM WERE CHECKED OFF AND THEY GOT AWAY TO THE END.

WHEN WE WERE AT THE END, THE REASON WHY WE ARE HERE IS BECAUSE CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS WENT AND MEASURED IT.

I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WENT ON THE PROPERTY.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY DID. THEY MEASURED IT AND THEY SAID IT WAS AT THE 14 FEET, NOT THE 15 FEET.

AND THAT'S WHY WE ARE BACK HERE. >> HOW LONG AGO WAS THAT?

>> I'M NOT SURE. [INDISCERNIBLE]

>> I AM JUST ASKING A QUESTION. PLEASE.

>> I THINK THAT THAT WAS ABOUT A YEAR AGO.

MAYBE. >> 2019 TO 2025.

SO TO SPEAK. >> IT WAS NOT FINISHED IN 2019.

>> WHERE WAS IT FINISHED? [INDISCERNIBLE]

>> IN 24. ABOUT A YEAR AFTER THAT.

I GUESS. >> OKAY.

THANK YOU. >> WE HAVE SPENT SO MUCH TIME, WE NEVER GOT AROUND TO ADDRESSING THE FRONT ENCROACHMENT. [INDISCERNIBLE]

>> WAS THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE BUILT IN ACCORDANCE TO THE

BUILDING PERMIT? >> THANK YOU MR. PATTON.

THROUGH THE CHAIR, NO, IT WAS NOT.

ON THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THAT PROPERTY WAS DRAWN RIGHT AT THE 25 FRONT BUILDING RESTRICTED-- RESTRICTION LINE AND IT OBVIOUSLY EXCEEDED SLIGHTLY.

>> SO WE KIND OF EXTENDED IT TO THE BACK AND THE FRONT.

>> YES, SIR. >> OKAY.

>> TONY. >> A RELATIVELY EASY SOLUTION, THERE ARE PRIVATE COMPANIES THAT DO SUBSURFACE TESTING.

YOU COULD CALL BIG SAFE, WHERE A COMPANY COULD GO OUT THERE AND GIVE YOU THE TESTING RESULTS AND YOU FIND OUT WHAT IT IS?

>> AND PART OF IT, THROUGH THE CHAIR, LIKE I SAID, I DIDN'T KNOW-- I DIDN'T KNOW I WAS GOING TO HAVE AN ISSUE BECAUSE I OVERBUILT WHERE THEY BUILT. BUT SOMETIMES WE DO THAT.

AND AFTER I FOUND OUT WHERE WE ARE SET, I FOUND OUT, LISTEN.

THAT'S PART OF THE ISSUE. BUT THERE IS THE HEART ACHE FROM SOME OF THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE WRITTEN IN THE LETTERS, IT'S NOT ABOUT THAT, IT'S ABOUT THE PIPES.

THAT WAS TWO WEEKS AGO AND I DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO DO THAT.

IF I'M TOLD THAT WE NEED SOMEBODY TO BE OKAY WITH THIS VARIANCE, I'LL GET PSALMODY TO COME BACK AND WE WILL DO THAT.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS THE STOMACH OF THE BOARD.

IF THAT'S NOT THE STOMACH OF THE BOARD THEY WILL TAKE THE FOOT OFF IN THE BACK AND WE WILL GO FORWARD.

>> I'D LIKE TO MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION.

WE ARE ALL GUESSING. THE HOMEOWNER SAYS IT'S FOUR AND A HALF FEET DOWN OFF THE BACK OF THE HOUSE.

BUT AS OF RIGHT NOW WITHOUT KNOWING WHERE THE PIPE AS IT WOULD BE HARD FOR ME TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE VARIANCE.

>> SO THROUGH THE CHAIR THERE ARE SORT OF TWO WAYS.

PART OF IT COULD BE, HEY,, LISTEN.

WE UNDERSTAND THE FRONT. LET'S GRANT THE FRONT AND COME BACK ON THE BACK. OR IF YOU WANT TO COME BACK ON THE WHOLE THING WE WILL FIND OUT WHERE THE PIPE IS.

I DON'T THINK THAT WILL AFFECT THINGS EITHER WAY.

BUT IF YOU DON'T FEEL LIKE DOING IT, TWO DIFFERENT MOTIONS, THAT'S FINE. ALL GO AND FIND OUT THE PIPE IN THE BACK. IT DOESN'T AFFECT WHAT'S GIVEN IN THE FRONT. I DON'T THINK.

>> QUESTION TO THE HOMEOWNERS, TEN HE CHOP OFF A FOOT OF THE HOUSE IN THE BACK? OR HE'LL JUST TAKE OFF THE

CLOSET IN THE BACK. >> CAN HE DO THAT?

>> HE TOLD ME HE WOULD IF HE HAS TO.

PERFECT TRANSPARENCY. THE FRONT THAT YOU CANNOT TAKE OFF, THAT'S UPSTAIRS AND EVERYTHING.

TAKEN OFF THE FRONT, THAT'S WHY IF POSSIBLE WE APPRECIATE A MOTION ON THE FRONT. AND THEN WE CAN COME BACK AND

[00:55:01]

SHOW YOU WHERE IT IS ON THE BACK.

I THINK IN A MONTH, HOPEFULLY HE WOULD GET THE FRONT EITHER WAY.

SO IF WE MAKE A MOTION TODAY THE FRONT IS OUT OF THE PICTURE, WE CAN COME BACK WITH THE BACK. GET THAT INFORMATION TO YOU AND IF NOT WE CAN BRING IT BACK THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD.

>> THANK YOU. BUCKS, TEN WE BIFURCATE--

>> YOU CAN, I WOULD PREFER YOU DO NOT.

BUT I WILL SAY THIS, OF THE BOARD HAS ANY ISSUES WITH THE FRONT, LET THEM KNOW NOW SO WE CAN DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT TO SPEND ANY MORE MONEY ON FINDING OUT WHERE THE BACK PIPE IS.

AND IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING THAT YOU WANT THEM TO EXPLORE ABOUT CREATING A DIFFERENT CONDITION ON THE FRONT TO MAKE YOU HAPPY CAT GIVE THEM A LITTLE FEEDBACK NOW.

SO YOU CAN COME BACK IN THE NEXT MEETING AND THERE'S NO QUESTION ABOUT A THIRD MEETING AT THAT POINT.

IF THERE SOMETHING ELSE YOU GUYS NEED, TELL HIM.

>> THANK YOU. JOHN?

>> I'D BE WILLING TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ALLOW THE FRONT TO EXIST AS IT IS AND REALLOW A 15-FOOT SETBACK IN THE REAR.

WHICH MEANS THEY HAVE TO CHOP OFF 1 FOOT.

>> I WOULD ALSO AGREE WITH THAT. THAT LOOKED LIKE THERE WAS A MINOR ERROR. AND ONCE WE GET INTO THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT, I DO NOT THINK THAT 1 FOOT WILL MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE IN DEALING WITH THAT PIPE.

BUT IT IS UNDERGROUND AND YOU DO NOT KNOW.

SO BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW I HAVE TO SIGN THE EASEMENT BIT, BUT I WOULD ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH JOHN.

>> I WOULD AGREE ON THE FRONT, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHERE THAT PIPE IS GOING. WHETHER TO GIVE HIM A FOOT OR NOT. LIKE OUR PRESENTER SAID, THE PIPE IS 8 INCHES AWAY FROM-- THAT'S A BIG DIFFERENCE THAN

5 FEET. >> MY THOUGHT ON THAT IS EFFECTIVELY THE HOUSE, IF IT WERE BUILT ACCORDING TO THE PLANS IT WAS BUILT TO A 15-FOOT SETBACK.

AND APPROVED BY THE COUNTY. IN SOME WAYS THE 15-FOOT SETBACK HAS BEEN APPROVED. BY THE FACT THAT IT WAS PERMITTED. SO THE ISSUE IS THE EXTRA 1 FOOT THAT GOES IN TO THE EASEMENT. SO THAT'S WHY I WOULD DO THE 15-FOOT SETBACK AND APPROVED THAT SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO TEAR DOWN THE HOLDBACK. AND IT TIES IN WITH WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FOR THE PERMIT IN 2019.

AND NONE OF US HAVE HEARTACHE ABOUT THE 18 INCHES IN THE

FRONT. >> IF THEY WANT TO PERMIT OR THAT THEY HAVE TO REAPPLY FOR A VARIANCE FOR AN EXTRA FOOT?

>> THEY HAVE TO FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE BACK.

>> I'M OKAY WITH THAT. >> AND I TALKED WITH THE OWNER.

SO, THEY ARE GOOD WITH THAT, RIGHT? AND YOU NEED TO ASK YOUR STAFF, THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, I THINK YOU NEED TO APPROVE IT AT THE 15 FEET, BECAUSE OF THE FACT

THAT-- >> THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.

>> TONY, ANY THOUGHTS? >> WITH THAT, IS THE HOMEOWNER STILL TAKING ON LIABILITY IF THERE IS AN ISSUE ON THAT PIPE?

>> NO. >> NO.

THEY WILL PULL IT BACK TO WHERE THEY WERE APPROVED.

SO THEY HAVE PLUMMETED PLANS TO BE AT 15 FEET SO THEY WILL PULL IT BACK TO WHERE THE PERMITTED PLANS ARE ALLOWED AT 15 FEET.

>> I THINK WE ARE DONE WITH DISCUSSION.

>> IN MY EXPERIENCE, I HAVE DEALT WITH SIMILAR, AND WE HAD A 30-INCH RCP THAT COULD NOT BE MOVED AND THE LOT HAD TO BE PURCHASED. SO, FROM MY EXPERIENCE, I-- I HAVE NOT EVER GOTTEN TO INSTALL CMP.

AND THAT STUFF IS SO MUCH CHEAPER.

IT WOULD BE AMAZING. SO THERE IS A REASON WE DON'T USE IT ANYMORE. BUT, LIKELY, THE WAY I WOULD EXPECT IT TO GET REPLACED IS THAT THE NEW LINE COMES AND GETS LAID AND THEY LAID THE NEW, AND THEY PICK UP THE OLD WHILE THEY ARE LAYING THE NEW. SO IT WILL BE A MAJOR UNDERTAKING SO I DON'T THINK THE POSITION OF THE PIPE IS CRITICAL

[01:00:03]

BECAUSE HONESTLY I DON'T SEE IT LASTING MUCH LONGER.

THAT THING DOES NOT LOOK LIKE IT IS GOING TO LAST.

SO I EXPECT THEY WILL HAVE TO COME THROUGH AND DIG UP EVERYBODY'S BACKYARD IN THE NEAR FUTURE.

BUT HOPEFULLY NOT. I CAN IMAGINE THAT'S A FUN ASSESSMENT FOR THE HOA. BUT FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, AS LONG AS HE IS OUT OF THE EASEMENT, I CAN'T SEE THAT HE HAS DONE ANYTHING WRONG. CERTAINLY THEY RELY ON THE COUNTY FOR THE 15, AND WE CAN TAKE JACOB OUT AND FLOG HIM LATER. BUT I MAINTAIN THE FRONT SETBACK LOOKS LIKE A MISTAKE THAT WAS NONDIGITAL AND SIMPLY MADE.

I THINK I CAN MAKE A MOTION? JOHN?

DO YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION.

MOTION TO APPROVE PVZVAR, 20 2025-07, THE EVANSON FAMILY RESIDENTS TO ALLOW FOR A FRONT SETBACK OF 23.5 FEET IN LIEU OF 25 FEET. AND ALLOW FOR A RESET BACK AT 1N R1C ZONING. ALSO, WITH THE STIPULATION THAT THE-- THIS IS ONLY FOR THE RESIDENCY-- THE HOUSE AS IT EXISTS. NOT FOR ANY ADDITIONAL-- ANY

ADDITIONS. >> SECOND.

>> I WILL HOLD A VOTE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

[2. TUP 2026-05 506 Le Master Dr. Request for Temporary Use Permit to allow a six (6) foot fence in lieu of the required four (4) foot height for a period of twelve months during active construction.]

>> MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU GUYS, VERY MUCH.

WE WILL MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 2.

TONY, WITH EXPERT TAKE COMMUNICATION.

THIS IS TU P, 2026-05, 506, LE MASTER.

>> TONY? JOHN?

>> I VISITED THE SITE AND I HAVE NOT SPOKEN WITH ANYONE.

>> I VISITED THE SITE AND DID NOT SPEAK WITH ANYONE.

>> I VISITED THE SITE AND HAVE NOT SPOKEN WITH ANYONE.

>> AFTERNOON, MY NAME IS JAY MCFARLANE.

ADDRESS OF THE PROPERTY WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, I'M HERE SEEKING PERMISSION TO INSTALL A TEMPORARY CHAIN-LINK FENCE AT THIS SITE. THE MAIN REASON WE ARE HERE TODAY IS VERY SIMPLE. WE TRY TO BE AS NEIGHBORLY AS POSSIBLE THROUGHOUT OUR CONSTRUCTION PROCESS.

SO WHEN WE START A NEW HOME IN PONTE VEDRA, AND IN THESE TYPE PROPERTIES, I PUT A LETTER OUT TO THE NEIGHBORS STATING WE ARE GOING TO GET STARTED. HERE IS MY CONTACT INFORMATION.

OUR REPUTATIONS ARE STANDARD. AND WE TRY TO GO OUT OF OUR WAY TO BE AS NEIGHBORLY AS POSSIBLE. AND THROUGH THE LETTERS THAT WE SENT OUT TO THE NEIGHBORS, WE GOT TO SPEAK WITH THEM A LITTLE BIT AND WE BOTH EXPRESSED CONCERNS TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE PROTECTION FROM THE CONSTRUCTION FOR THEIR EXISTING CURRENT PROPERTIES. AS YOU ARE PROBABLY ALL FAMILIAR, THESE FENCES ARE USUALLY 36 INCHES, BUT BY THE TIME YOU BURIED IT SOMEWHERE IN THE 24 TO 36-INCH RANGE.

IT DOESN'T DO A GOOD JOB OF KEEPING DIRT AND DEBRIS OUT OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES. SO WE INCORRECTLY THOUGHT WE COULD INSTALL A TEMPORARY FENCE JUST BECAUSE IT IS A TEMPORARY BASIS. SO I DID START THAT PROCESS.

WE HAD THE COMPLAINT AND WE ARE HERE TODAY.

BUT I AM SEEKING THE ABILITY TO JUST SIMPLY USE A 6-FOOT TEMPORARY CHAIN-LINK FENCE AS A LARGER, BETTER SILT FENCE THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS. TO FURTHER THE POINT, THROUGH THIS PROCESS OF MEETING THE NEIGHBORS, MARINIZED HERE TO SPEAK ON THEIR BEHALF IN THE PUBLIC COMMENTS.

BUT WE LEARNED THAT MARINE HAS A COUPLE OF THE SPECIAL CHILDREN RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO US, AND WE WANT TO MAKE THE SITE AS SAFE AS POSSIBLE AND KEEP THEM AS SAFE AS POSSIBLE AND CREATE AS MUCH SEPARATION BETWEEN THEM AS POSSIBLE.

I DON'T HAVE A FORMAL PRESENTATION.

I DID INCLUDE OUR APPROVED THE LINE HERE ALONG THE PERMANENT-- PERIMETER. TO BE INSTALLED IN PLACE.

SO YOU CAN SEE ON THE AERIAL JOBSITE, THE TEMPORARY CHAIN

[01:05:03]

FENCE IS INSTALLED. WE HELD OFF ON THE WIND SCREEN.

AS THE APPROVAL FOR THIS PROCESS CAME UP.

YOU CAN SEE IN THESE PICTURES THE SILT FENCE IS BELOW THAT.

4 FEET LOWER. TO KEEP THE DEBRIS OUT OF THE NEIGHBORS PROPERTY. I THINK THIS HAS BECOME A NEIGHBORLY ISSUE AS FAR AS MAKING SURE THESE KIDS ARE SAFE.

AND MARINE CAN SPEAK MORE ON THE SPECIFICS OF THAT.

I WAS ORIGINALLY SEEKING PERMISSION TO DO IT ON THE SIDES TO KEEP OUR JOBSITE CONTAINED. BUT THE OTHERS THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED IF IT WOULD HELP THE DECISION, WE WOULD PUT THE FENCE ACROSS THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE TO MAKE THE JOBSITE AS SECURE AS POSSIBLE. I AM FAMILIAR WITH THE PONTE VEDRA ZONING CODE. I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE FOUR PUT PERMANENT FENCE RULES THAT I WAS UNAWARE OF.

SO I AM SEEKING TO DO THIS FOR ABOUT A 12 MONTH PERIOD.

AN 18 MONTH CONSTRUCTION BUILD. WE ARE TWO MONSON, TWO AND HALF MONTHS IN. BY THE TIME I'M READY TO FINISH THE EXTERIOR OF THE HOUSE, I FORESEE THE FENCE BEING NEEDED

ABOUT 12 MONTHS FROM TODAY. >> IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, IF APPROVED, YOUR INTENT IS TO PUT UP THE SLATS, THE WINDSCREEN?

BOTH? >> A FABRIC WINDSCREEN ON THE EXISTING FENCE. YES.

AND IT'S E-TYPE OF CHAIN-LINK THAT DOESN'T HAVE A TOP RAIL TO MAKE IT LESS CLIMBABLE TO TRY TO KEEP THE PROPERTY SECURE.

>> DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? WHY DON'T I OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT ON TU P126-05. -- 2026-05.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS MARINE.

MY ADDRESS IS 508 LEMASTER DRIVE IN PONTE VEDRA BEACH.

I HAVE THREE BEAUTIFUL SONS. I HAVE LIVED MY HOUSE FOR 25 YEARS. THEY ARE BORN AND RAISED.

FOR TWO OF ARE PROFOUND SPECIAL NEEDS.

I HAVE KENNY WHO HAS DOWN SYNDROME AND AUTISM, HE IS 26.

HE IS A PISTOL. A LITTLE MISCHIEVOUS.

HE IS ON THE ST JOHNS COUNTY SAFE TRACK.

WE HAVE FOUND HIM IN PEOPLE SHOWERS IN HOMES AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD MANY TIMES. THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT IS FAMILIAR WITH KENNY. AND HIS BROTHER, MCLEAN, IS 24 WITH PROFOUND AUTISM. HE IS A BIG, TALL, HANDSOME BOY THAT CAN CLIMB ANYTHING. INCLUDING A 4-FOOT FENCE.

BOTH OF THEIR FAVORITE SHOWS ARE BOB THE BUILDER.

SO WE LISTEN TO THAT ALL THE TIME.

AND THEY ARE FASCINATED BY THE CONSTRUCTION.

AND I KNOW THE FAMILY THAT IS BUILDING THE HOUSE, SO THERE IS NO ANIMOSITY HERE. I AM JUST REALLY CONCERNED, AND I'VE HAD TO COME FIND KENNY ALREADY.

THEY ARE BOTH NONVERBAL. WE ARE CONSTANTLY LOOKING AT DOORS, I HAVE CHIMES AND ALARMS EVERYWHERE.

AND I FOUND KENNY MULTIPLE TIMES HEADING FOR THE CONSTRUCTION SITE. I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR SAFETY. AND I PUT HIGH HEDGES AROUND ALL MY 4-FOOT FENCES BECAUSE THEY WILL NOT CLIMB THEM.

SO I FEEL SECURE WITH A 6-FOOT FENCE.

IF WE COULD KEEP THAT UNTIL SOMETHING ELSE COMES IN.

THAT IS IT. >> ARE YOU ADVOCATING FOR PUTTING A FENCE ACROSS THE FRONT AS WELL?

DOES THAT MATTER? >> WELL,, I HAVE BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT IT, JUST BECAUSE THAT FENCE ENDS.

YOU CAN SEE MY LONG DRIVEWAY RIGHT THERE.

THE FENCE DOES END. BUT THERE IS A LOT OF EQUIPMENT IN THE FRONT. I HAVE TO BE SUPER DILIGENT.

I'M JUST WORRIED ABOUT WHEN WE START DIGGING POOLS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, WITH MY SONS. WHATEVER WE NEED TO KEEP IT SAFE. BETTER SAFE THAN SORRY.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU.

>> DO WE HAVE ANY FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT RELATING TO TUP, 2026-05? SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND OPENED UP FOR BOARD QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS.

MR. GREEN-- MR. GREENE? >> MY QUESTION WAS ABOUT THE FRONT. YOUR RECOMMENDATION, AND YOU PUT THAT PICTURE BACK UP, PLEASE? THE OVERHEAD? THAT FENCE IS GOING TO COME ALL THE WAY TO-- ARE YOU RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE STREET, ESSENTIALLY?

>> YES, WE WOULD HOLD THAT BACK OFF THE STREET.

ACROSS THE PROPERTY IT'S DIFFICULT TO SEE BUT THERE IS ROCK TO STABILIZE THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY.

THAT FENCE WOULD PROBABLY BE HELD IN JUST INSIDE THE RIGHT OF

WAY SO WE CAN PARK CARS. >> ON THE NORTH PART WHERE THAT TRAILER IS YOU WOULD NOT HAVE THE FENCE GOING TO THE NORTH SIDE OF THAT ALL THE WAY TO THE ROAD, CORRECTLY.

>> WE WOULD HAVE THE-- WE WOULD HAVE IT AROUND THE TRAILER.

[01:10:02]

I'D LIKE TO SEE THE FENCE GO BASICALLY RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE WHERE THAT YELLOW EQUIPMENT IS. YOU CAN SEE IT IN THE CENTER OF THE PROPERTY. ROUGHLY IN THAT AREA, SO WE CAN MAINTAIN SOME PARKING AND MATERIAL STAGING ON THE FRONT OF

THE PROPERTY. >> I AM 100% IN FAVOR OF THIS.

THANK YOU. >> I AM ALSO IN FAVOR OF IT, THE 4-FOOT FENCE WILL COST MORE THAN A 6-FOOT FENCE.

I'M NOT SURE WHAT A 4-FOOT FENCE WOULD DO.

BUT PROBABLY FIVE OR SIX YEARS AGO, MAYBE BE FOR YOUR TIME, JASON, WE TALKED ABOUT THIS, THAT WE SHOULD ALLOW TEMPORARY FENCING OF CHAIN-LINK FENCES, RECOMMENDING 6-FOOT HEIGHT.

DO YOU REMEMBER THAT? >> YES.

AND THROUGH THE CHAIR, THIS CONVERSATION HAS COME UP EVEN MORE RECENTLY THAN THAT. OFTEN TIMES IT'S ASSOCIATED WITH COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION, OR ALONG THE BOULEVARD.

THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE RUN INTO AN ISSUE OR A COMPLAINT FOR RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION. SO YOU ARE NOT USED TO SEEING THESE TEMPORARY USE PERMITS. IT'S AN ODD THING.

BUT I WAS TRYING TO FIND SOME MECHANISM FOR THEM TO SEEK RELIEF. ULTIMATELY IT COULD BE SOMETHING ADDED TO THE CODE IF THE BOARD THOUGHT THAT WAS AN APPROPRIATE

WAY,. >> I KNOW IN RECENT YEARS, I KNOW WE HAVE DONE ONE VARIANCE, AND I THINK WE DID ANOTHER RIGHT ACROSS THE LODGE. ALMOST EXACTLY THE SAME ISSUE.

>> THAT IS RIGHT. I DIDN'T WANT TO BRING THE VARIANCE BECAUSE OF THE TEMPORARY NATURE AND HOW LONG THIS CONSTRUCTION WAS ANTICIPATED TO LAST, BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT IS SORT OF SILENT IN THE PONTE VEDRA ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS. WE DON'T TALK ABOUT TEMPORARY FENCES OR WHAT THOSE ALLOWANCES WOULD BE.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> ON THAT NOTE, I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF THAT TEMPORARY FENCING FOR RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION.

NUMBER 1, IT IS IN THE PUBLIC SAFETY, THE INTEREST OF PUBLIC SAFETY, AND NUMBER 2 PACKETS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CONTRACTOR FROM A RISK-MANAGEMENT STANDPOINT.

SO I WILL BE ENCOURAGED TO MAKE THAT CHANGE.

>> I THINK WE ARE READY FOR A MOTION.

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE TUP 2026-05, LEMASTER DRIVE FOR A TEMPORARY USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A 6-FOOT FENCE IN LOUISVILLE A 2 MONTHS DURING A PERIOD OF ACTIVE CONSTRUCTION BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE

STAFF REPORT. >> AND ACROSS THE FRONT.

>> IS TWELVE-MONTH SUFFICIENT? DO YOU NEED MORE TIME THAN THAT SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO COME BACK WE.

>> I WOULD SAY-- >> I THINK WE KNOW THE CHANCES OF THINGS GOING SMOOTHLY. I WAS TRYING TO MINIMIZE THE REQUEST, BUT I WOULD BE A LOT MORE COMFORTABLE WITH MAYBE A 14 MONTH APPROVAL, ALONG THOSE LINES.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO MODIFY MY MOTION TO 14 MONTHS, DURING ACTIVE CONSTRUCTION FOR 14 MONTHS.

>> I WILL SECOND THAT. >> MOTION AND A SECOND.

THAT CARRIES. THANK YOU GUYS, VERY MUCH.

[3. PVZDR Tree Mitigation Discussion Item. At their regularly scheduled meeting on September 14, 2026, the Ponte Vedra Zoning and Adjustment Board requested that staff provide an update and analysis regarding tree mitigation regulations within the PVZDR.]

ALL RIGHT. WE ARE GOING TO MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 3. WE ARE GOING TO LEARN ABOUT

TREES. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

AT OUR LAST HEARING, WE HAD SOME CITIZENS FROM PONTE VEDRA COME AND TALK ABOUT SOME CONCERNS WITH THE WAY THAT THE PONTE VEDRA TREE ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN IN REGARDS TO TREE MITIGATION, AND WHAT TREES ARE QUALIFIED, AND ALL THAT SORTS OF STUFF. SO I VASTNESS ALLISON HARTNETT TO COME HERE AND SPEAK TO YOU ABOUT THE-- THOSE APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF CODE AND HOW SHE REVIEWS IT.

SO I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO ALLISON, AND WE WILL TALK ABOUT

IT. >> THANK YOU, JACOB.

GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYBODY. I AM ALLISON HARTNETT WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT.

AS JACOB SAID, I'M HERE TO DISCUSS SECTION YOU OF THE PONTE VEDRA ZONING ORDINANCE, PARTICULARLY THE TREE MITIGATION SECTION. I AM SURE YOU ARE ALL ALREADY EXPERTS ON THE ORDINANCE TEXT, BUT I WANTED TO BEGIN BY GOING OVER SOME BASIC DEFINITIONS AND ORDINANCE CITATIONS.

SECTION I DEFINES A PROTECTED TREE HAS ANY TREE HAVING A

[01:15:05]

DIAMETER BREAST HEIGHT OF 10 INCHES OR LARGER.

EXCLUDING EXEMPT TREES, WHICH ARE DEFINED AS ALL INVASIVE SPECIES, ALL PINETREE SPECIES, AND ALL PALM TREE SPECIES.

THE ORDINANCE CONTINUES TO STATE THAT A PERMIT IS REQUIRED TO REMOVE ANY PROTECTED TREE THAT EXISTS ON A RESIDENTIAL LOT WITHIN THE ZONING DISTRICT. AND THE PERMIT APPLICATION MUST INCLUDE A SITE PLAN SHOWING THE ITEMS LISTED HERE.