[Call to Order]
[00:00:03]
>> GOOD AFTERNOON. I'D LIKE TO CALL THE ORDER THE JUNE 1, 2020 MEETING OF THE PONTE VEDRA ZONING AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD. WELCOME.
AS A PRELIMINARY MATTER, I'M BRAD SCOTT, CHAIR OF THE PONTE VEDRA ZONING AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD.
I NEED TO CONFIRM THAT ANY BOARD OR STAFF MEMBERS WHO ARE NOT PHYSICALLY PRESENT CAN HEAR ME. FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS, WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, PLEASE RESPOND IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
>> IS THAT THEM RESPONDING? >> TRY MR. LYNCH AGAIN.
>> OKAY. I GOT YOU THAT TIME, THANK YOU.
>> HARRY GRAHAM? >> YES, HERE.
>> OKAY, GOOD. WE HAVE EVERYBODY PRESENT.
STAFF IS ALL ON SITE. GOOD AFTERNOON, AND WELCOME TO THIS REGULAR MEETING OF THE PONTE VEDRA BOARD IN ORDER TO REDUCE RISK OF COVID-19 ILLNESS, THE GOVERNOR HAS SUSPENDED THE REQUIREMENT OF A PHYSICAL QUORUM AND THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS WILL CONDUCT MEETINGS THROUGH EMERGENCY PROCLAMATION 2020-3.
SO THAT THE PUBLIC HAS A MEANS TO COMMENT WITHOUT PHYSICALLY ATTENDING. ALONG WITH PRIOR COMMUNICATIONS, INCLUDING E-MAIL, THE PUBLIC WILL BE ABLE TO COMMENT BY TELEPHONE WHILE WATCHING THE MEETING VIA GTV OR STREAMING.
POSTED ON THE COUNTY'S WEBSITE. THE WEBSITE PROVIDES THE TELEPHONE NUMBER TO USE TO CALL INTO THE MEETING, EVEN IF MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC DO NOT PROVIDE COMMENT, PARTICIPANTS ARE ADVISED THAT PEOPLE MAY BE LISTENING WHO DO NOT PROVIDE COMMENT AND THOSE PERSONS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES. PLEASE NOTE THIS MEETING IS BEING RECORDED FOR THOSE OF YOU CALLING IN TO COMMENT.
IF YOU RECEIVE A BUSY SIGNAL, PLEASE CALL BACK.
IN ADDITION, POLICE SELF-TIME THREE MINUTES TIME LIMIT, ALTHOUGH THE THREE MINUTE COMMENT TIMER WILL BE VISIBLE TO YOU. BECAUSE OF THE DELAYED TRANSMISSION OF THE MEETING, YOUR TIMING WILL BE MORE ACCURATE. FINALLY, PLEASE MUTE YOUR PHONE WHILE YOU ARE WAITING TO COMMENT AND MUTE THE MEETING ON YOUR TELEVISION OR COMPUTER WHEN YOU'RE SPEAKING.
PLEASE BE AWARE THAT A FIVE TO NINE SECOND DELAY WILL ALSO APPLY TO VISUAL PRESENTATIONS. IF WE EXPERIENCE ANY TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES, WE WILL RECESS WHILE THEY ARE RESOLVED AND THEN RESUME THE MEETING. THERE ARE MATERIALS FOR THIS MEETING AVAILABLE ON THE COUNTY WEBSITE.
GO TO THE HOMEPAGE UNDER MEETINGS AND WORKSHOPS AND CLICK PONTE VEDRA ZONING AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD MEETING AND YOU'LL SEE A LINK TO THE AGENDA AND THE INDIVIDUAL AGENDA ITEMS IN ORDER TO ACCESS ALL THE SUPPORTING MATERIAL.
FINALLY, IF ANY MEMBER OF THE BOARD IS PARTICIPATING REMOTELY, EACH VOTE TAKEN IN THIS MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED BY A ROLL CALL VOTE. AND IF WE MAY HAVE THE READING OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE STATEMENT, PLEASE.
>> THIS IS A PROPERLY NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING, HELD IN CURCURRENCE WITH FLORIDA LAW. THE PUBLIC WILL BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT RELEVANT TO THE AGENCY'S JURISDICTION AND THE PUBLIC WILL BE ABLE TO OFFER COMMENT AT A DESIGNATED TIME DURING THE HEARING. ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC DESIRING TO SPEAK MUST INDICATE SO BY COMPLETING A SPEAKER CAR.
ANY ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS MAY BE HEARD ONLY AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIRMAN. SPEASPEAKER CARDS MAY BE TURNEDO SPEAK. THE PUBLIC SHALL SPEAK AT EACH MEETING AND AS A LENGTH OF TIME AS DESIGNATED BY THE CHAIRMAN.
SPEAKERS SHOULD IDENTIFY THEMSELVES, WHO THEY REPRESENT, AND STATE THEIR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
SPEAKERS MAY OFFER SWORN TESTIMONIES.
IF THEY DO NOT, THE FACT THAT THE TESTIMONY IS NOT SWORN MAY BE CONSIDERED BY THE AGENCY IN DETERMINING THE WEIGHT OR TRUTHFULNESS OF THE TESTIMONY. IF A PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THE HEARING SUCH PERSON WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ANY PHYSICAL OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRESENTED DURING THE HEARING, SUCH AS DIAGRAMS, CHARTS, PHOTOGRAPHS, OR WRITTEN STATEMENTS WILL BE RET RETAINEDE
[00:05:01]
STAFF AS PART OF THE RECORD. THE RECORD WILL THEN BE AVAILABLE FOR OTHER AGENCY OR THE COUNTY IN ANY REVIEW OF THE APPEAL RELATED TO THE ITEM. BOARD MEMBERS ARE REMINDED AT THE BEGINNING OF EACH ITEM THEY SHOULD STATE WHETHER THEY HAVE HAD ANY COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE APPLICANT OR ANY OTHER PERSONS REGARDING THE SUBSTANCE OF THE ITEM OUTSIDE THE FORMAL HEARING OF THE BOARD. IF SUCH COMMUNICATIONS HAVE OCCURRED, THE MEMBERS SHOULD IDENTIFY THE PERSONS INVOLVED AND THE MATERIAL INTENT OF THE COMMUNICATIONS.CIVILITY CLAUSE. WE WILL BE RESPECTFUL TO ONE ANOTHER, EVEN WHEN WE DISAGREE. WE'LL DIRECT ALL COMMENTS TO THE ISSUE. WE WILL AVOID PERSONAL ATTACKS.
>> THANK YOU. WE'LL MOVE ON TO APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES FROM NOVEMBER 4TH, 19.
AND UP TO FEBRUARY 3RD. HAS ANYONE SEEN ANY MISTAKES -- WE'LL TAKE THEM ALL AS ONE VOTE UNLESS WE FIND DISCREPANCIES.
ANYONE HAS ANYTHING THEY SEE THAT AREN'T CORRECT ON THE MINUTES, IF THEY WILL PLEASE LET US KNOW.
>> ON THE NOVEMBER 4TH MEETING MINUTES DURING THE WORKSHOP ON CENSUS, ON PAGE 7, THERE IS A NOTE THAT YOU ASKED FOR A SHOW OF HANDS AND IT'S RECORDED AS IF IT WERE A VOTE.
AND I WOULD JUST SUGGEST SINCE WE WEREN'T VOTING WE SHOULD JUST NOT COUNT THE SHOW OF HANDS. BECAUSE IT SAYS 5-0, REALLY IT'S 5-1. AND I WAS THINKING SINCE IT'S NOT A VOTE WHY WAS THERE A SHOW OF HANDS PUT IN.
>> COUNSEL, IS ANYTHING WE SHOULD CHANGE ON THAT OR DOES
THAT LOOK APPROPRIATE? >> IF YOU WANT TO MAKE THAT CHANGE TO SHOW THE INTENT, IF IT WAS NOT AN ACTUAL VOTE, AND THAT CHANGE IS APPROPRIATE, THAT CAN BE MADE.
>> JUST A NOTATION THAT THIS WAS NOT A FORMAL VOTE, BUT JUST A --
>> UH-HUH. IF THAT WAS MORE OF A -- YOU'LL HAVE STOOD TO DESCRIBE WHAT IT , WAS IT A CONSENSUS RATHER THAN A
I WAS CURIOUS AFTER SO MUCH DISCUSSION TO GET KIND OF A FEEL WHAT THE BOARD WAS THINKING AT THE TIME.
>> I THINK YOU CAN FOLLOW THAT UP WITH THIS WAS NOT A FORMAL
VOTE. >> SO WILL STAFF MAKE THAT ADJUSTMENT OR DO WE MAKE THAT JUST VERBALLY NOW TO THE MEETING
NOTES? >> YOU CAN MAKE THAT VERBALLY NOW IN THE MEETING NOTES AND THEY WILL BE REFLECTED AT THE
NEXT MEETING. >> DO WE NEED TO TREAT THAT MEETING DATE AS A SEPARATE VOTE OR CAN IT STILL BE LUMPED IN
WITH ALL THE OTHER MINUTES? >> LET'S GO AHEAD AND DO THEM SEPARATELY NOW SINCE WE'VE HAD SOME DISCUSSION.
THAT WAY THERE WILL BE NO CONFUSION.
>> ANY OTHER CHANGES FROM THE BOARD YOU SAW IN ANY OF THE OTHER MINUTES? HEARING NO OTHER CHANGES, I'D LIKE SOMEONE TO INTRODUCE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 4TH MEETING. STATE WITH THE HAND VOTE ON PAGE 7 --
>> MEGAN? MS. MCKINLEY TO NOTATE THAT IT WAS A -- NOT A FORMAL VOTE, WHEN THE SHOW OF HANDS WAS USED TO
GATHER OPINIONS. >> AND A SECOND?
>> THE MEMBERS WHO ARE REMOTE CAN SECOND IF THEY LIKE.
>> SOMEBODY REMOTELY WANT TO SECOND THAT?
>> SECOND IT. >> SECOND, THANK YOU.
WE DON'T NEED TO VOTE ON THAT, DO WE? NO FORMAL VOTE. THE ADDITIONAL MINUTES.
ANY OR CHANGES OR WE'LL LOOK FOR A MOTION ON THE --
[00:10:03]
>> I WASN'T HERE ON FEBRUARY 3RD.
>> MR. CHAIR, IF YOU NORMALLY DO SOME SORT OF VOTE ON EACH MINUTE, JUST DO A ROLL CALL AND DO A VOICE.
DO YOU NORMALLY DO A HAND RAISING OF -- TO APPROVE
MINUTES? >> NOT TECHNICALLY, THERE'S
NOTHING TO VOTE ON -- >> I WOULD SAY BECAUSE OF THESE DIFFERENT TIMES, LET'S GO AHEAD AND BE OVERCAUTIOUS AND LET'S JUST GO THROUGH EVERYBODY JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE --
>> ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO DO A ROLL CALL VOTE FOR THE MINUTES ON NOVEMBER 4TH.
>> JOHN LYNCH, YOU APPROVE? >> YES, APPROVE.
>> JOHN? >> I WAS ABSENT, APPROVED.
>> WE HAVE PASSED AND APPROVED THOSE MINUTES.
WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE JANUARY 6 AND FEBRUARY 3RD MINUTES.
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 6TH
AND FEBRUARY 3RD MINUTES. >> A SECOND?
>> JOHN LYNCH, YOU APPROVE? >> I APPROVE.
>> APPROVED JANUARY 6TH BUT I WAS ABSENT ON FEBRUARY 3RD.
>> I APPROVE. THOSE MINUTES ARE APPROVED, THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS OTHER THAN THE GENERAL ITEM TODAY?
[Public Comment]
>> WE DO HAVE ONE REQUEST FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS.
>> GOOD AFTERNOON, 111 OCEAN COURSE DRIVE.
I THOUGHT I'D COME SEE THE MEETING.
I DO WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT OVER THE PAST FEW MONTHS I'VE HAD SEVERAL RESIDENTS ASK ME ABOUT THE HEIGHT OF HEDGES, ESPECIALLY ON THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE.
I LOOKED IT UP IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE BECAUSE WE DON'T REALLY HAVE ANYTHING IN THE PONTE VEDRA ZONING REGULATIONS THAT SPECIFICALLY GIVES ANY GUIDANCE FOR THE HEIGHT OF ANY HEDGE ON A PROPERTY LINE OR ACTUALLY ANYWHERE. THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND IF I'M MISQUOTING, PLEASE CORRECT ME, INDICATES SIX FEET.
WHEN I TALKED TO CODE ENFORCEMENT ABOUT IT, THEY SAID THAT WE DON'T HAVE ONE, SO, THEREFORE, IT'S NOT ENFORCEABLE IN OUR AREA. I JUST WANT TO KNOW IF THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT THE BOARD WOULD WANT TO DISCUSS, WE'RE GETTING SOME HEDGES THAT ARE 10-12 PLUS FEET HIGH BETWEEN HOUSES.
IT'S A ONE STORY HOUSE ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTY.
IT'S PRETTY TOWERING, BLOCKS ALL THE SUN.
AND IT HAS REPERCUSSIONS TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY'S OWN GRASS AND THING THINGS LIKE THAT. I'M NOT SAYING IT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO DO, BUT IF IT'S IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND IT'S NOT IN THE PONTE VEDRA, IS IT SOMETHING THAT THE LAND DEVELOPMENT -- DOES THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TAKE OVER WHEN WE DON'T ADDRESS A CERTAIN TOPIC? I BASICALLY WANT GUIDANCE BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE ASKING ME HEIGHTS OF HEDGES ARE GETTING QUITE, QUITE TALL.
ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU'VE GOT TWO BUILDINGS THAT ONLY HAVE A TEN FOOT SETBACK AND THEN IT'S PLANTED CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE. IT GROWS UP BUT IT ALSO GROWS OUT. SO IT'S A LITTLE OVERWHELM FOR SOME ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. YAI'D LIKE SOME MAYBE FUTURE DISCUSSION ON THAT TOPIC. THANK YOU.
ANY COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD, WHETHER WE DISCUSS THAT NOW OR
MOVE IT TO A FUTURE MEETING? >> MEGAN MCKINLEY.
I'D LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT. >> GO AHEAD.
>> I'VE ALSO HAD SIMILAR COMMENTS MADE TO ME ABOUT THE HEDGES. AND IN ADDITION TO THE POINT THAT KITTY MADE, OTHER PEOPLE WERE SAYING THAT THEY HAD AN EXPENSE IN TERMS OF HAVING TO HIRE PEOPLE TO TRIM THESE VERY HIGH HEDGES THAT, YOU KNOW, ARE JUST GROWING WITHOUT ANY TRIMMING ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTY SIDE.
[00:15:04]
AND PEOPLE ARE RELUCTANT TO SOMETIMES HAVE CONVERSATION WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER BECAUSE THEY WANT TO KIND OF KEEP THE PEACE.SO IF WE COULD INCLUDE MAYBE THE LAND DEVELOPMENT LANGUAGE IN THE PONTE VEDRA ZONING CODE, IT MIGHT MAKE SENSE AND IT WOULD PROVIDE A MECHANISM FOR APPROPRIATE ITEMS, THE HEDGES.
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? >> AT THIS TIME, IF IT IS EXCELLENT IN THE PONTE VEDRA REGULATIONS, THE LAND -- IF IT'S NOT IN CONFLICT WITH IT, THEN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE DOES APPLY. BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU CANNOT, YOU KNOW, BE ADDED TO THE PONTE VEDRA REGULATIONS.
BUT THAT'S HOW IT WORKS, IS THAT THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WOULD
SPEAK TO THIS SUBJECT. >> IT'S A LITTLE CONFUSING TO ME, BECAUSE WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THESE FENCES NOW FOR SO LONG.
AND EVERYBODY'S -- JUST DO VEGETATION.
PUT HEDGES THERE IF YOU WANT THEM TALLER THAN SIX FEET.
TO ME, IT WOULD BE UNENFORCEABLE BECAUSE YOU'D HAVE TO CUT HALF THE BUSHES DOWN IN PONTE VEDRA. YOU KNOW, IF YOUR FENCE ISN'T SATISFYING YOUR BLOCKAGE WITH YOUR NEIGHBOR, THE HEDGES ARE.
SO I JUST THINK THAT WOULD BE A DARK TUNNEL TO GO DOWN TO TRY TO SOLVE. IN MY PERSONAL OPINION IT WOULD BE A USELESS CONVERSATION. BUT WE'RE CERTAINLY WELCOME TO BRING IT UP FOR COMMENT IN FUTURE MEETINGS.
IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, WHY DON'T WE MOVE ON
[Item 1]
TO THE NEXT ITEM, WHICH IS THE FIRST AGENDA ITEM.ROBLES LANE FENCE. AND IF THE COUNTY COULD PRESENT.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. GOOD AFTERNOON, BOARD MEMBERS, JACOB SMITH WITH GROWTH MANAGEMENT PRESENTING AGENDA ITEM 1 ZONING VARIANCE 101. REQUEST FOR A ZONING VARIANCE TO SECTION 8 PART AND ONE OF THE PONTE VEDRA ZONING REGULATIONS TO ALLOW FOR AN EXISTING FENCE TO REMAIN EXCEEDING THE HEIGHT LIMITATIONS IN THE R1C ZONING DISTRICT AND SPECIFICALLY
LOCATED AT 532 ROBLES LANE. >> EXCUSE ME, ONE MINUTE, PLEASE. I NEGLECTED TO ASK THE BOARD TO EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS. SO IF I COULD START WITH JOHN LYNCH. IF YOU'VE HAD ANY SIDE BUSINESS
OR SPOKEN TO ANYONE ABOUT THAT? >> NO, I HAVE NOT.
>> I HAVE NOT EITHER. I DID MAKE A SITE VISIT.
JOHN PATTON? >> I DID MAKE A SITE VISIT AND
HAVE SPOKEN WITH ANYONE. >> MEGAN MCKINLEY?
>> I MADE A SITE VISIT AND DID NOT SPEAK TO ANYONE.
>> HARRY GRAHAM? >> NO CONTACTS, NO VISIT.
>> THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT, SIR.
UP ON THE SCREEN I HAVE A MAP LOCATION, APPROXIMATELY HALF MILE SOUTH OF A1A IN THE SANDY OAKS NEIGHBORHOOD, WEST OF A1A.
IT WAS ZONED R1C WITHIN PONTE VEDRA.
LASTLY, AN AERIAL MAP OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
AGAIN, THE REQUEST IS TO ALLOW FOR RELIEF OF AN EXISTING INSTALLED ON THE TOP OF AN EXISTING SIX FOOT FENCE ON THE REAR PROPERTY LINE OF THE SUBJECT PARCEL.
THE OVERALL LATTICE FENCE HEIGHT IS APPROXIMATELY EIGHT FEET AND ALONG THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. ALL OTHER FENCING ON SITE COMPCOMPLIES WITH REGULATIONS. THTHE APPLICANT OFFERS IT WAS INSTALLED -- THE APPLICANT DID PROVIDE A SURVEY SITE PLAN, WHICH I HAVE HIGHLIGHTED IN BLUE, THE LOCATION OF THE OVER HEIGHT FENCE, AGAIN IN THE REAR YARD.
THE APPLICANT DID ALSO PROVIDE PARAGRAPHS.
THIS ONE LOOKING WEST TO THE NEIGHBOR'S REAR YARD.
PONTE VEDRA CODE PROVIDES FOR SIX FOOT HEIGHT FENCING LIMITATIONS FOR FENCING WALLS WITHIN BOTH R1C AND D ZONING DISTRICTS. THE APPLICANT POSITIVE NARRATIVE DOES PROVIDE THAT IT DOES SPEAK TO THE HISTORY, INCLUDING CORRESPONDENTS FROM THE ADJACENT NEIGHBOR TO THE WEST, AS WELL AS THE NEIGHBORHOOD HOA INDICATING THERE ARE NO LOCAL CONCERNS WITH THE FENCE OR LATTICE HEIGHT IN THE REAR YARD.
[00:20:03]
THE APPLICANT DESCRIBES THE HARDSHIP DUE TO THE FACT THE ADJACENT WESTERN NEIGHBOR RECEIVED A VARIANCE TO RECONSTRUCT AN OUTDOOR PATIO WHICH WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 2017 AND ULTIMATELY LED TO THE INSTALLATION OF THE LATTICE FENCING FOR PRIV PRIVACY REASON THE FENCE WAS BUILT APPROXIMATELY RELATIVELY RIGHT AFTER THE TIME THE ADJACENT PROPERTY'S PATIO WAS CONSTRUCTED.THERE IS A PRIDE CASE FOR THIS FENCE, WHICH IS WHY IT'S HERE BEFORE YOU TODAY. THE PRIDE CASE WAS CREATED MOSTLY IN PART DUE TO A NEIGHBORING VIOLATION THAT HAD SIMILAR LATTICE FENCING THAT OTHERWISE FACED THE ROADWAY.
WHEN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WAS THERE ENFORCING THE SECONDARY CASE I HAVE LISTED UP HERE, THEY DID SEE THIS PROPERTY AND THAT'S WHY IT BECAME A PRIDE CASE AND THE VARIANCE THAT WE'RE NOW TALKING ABOUT. OTHERWISE THERE HAVE BEEN NO LOCAL RESIDENTS COMPLAINING OR REACHING OUT TO THE COUNTY.
ANOTHER SHOT JUST SO WE CAN SEE THE LATTICE FENCE LOOKING TOWARDS THE EDGE OF THE PROPERTY.
STAFF FINES IT EXCEEDS THE HEIGHT RECOMMENDATION BUT ACKNOWLEDGES THE FENCE IS NOT IN GENERAL PUBLIC VIEW.
THE PONTE VEDRA ZONING REGULATIONS DO ALLOW FOR A ZONING VARIANCE TO BE MADE BY REASON OF THE USE OR DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY ADJOINING THE PIECE OF PROPERTY IN QUESTION. SUCH CONDITIONS EXIST FOR THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY, AS I DESCRIBED IN THE PREVIOUS ZONING VARIANCE FOR THE NEIGHBORING BACKYARD PATIO.
FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED FIVE LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS AND MEMBERS OF THE HOA BOARD. STAFF PUT IN A SITE VISIT AND NOTED THAT THE INCREASED HIGH FENCE IS NOT VIEWABLE FROM THE ADJACENT ROADWAYS. I'VE NOT RECEIVED PHONE CALLS OR LETTERS OF OBJECTION REGARDING REGARDINGTHIS VARIANCE.
STAFF FINDS THE REQUESTS MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND MEETS THE CRITERIA OUTLINED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS. REQUEST DOES NOT APPEAR CONTRARY TO PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE SUPPORT OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER AND THE LIMITED INCREASE OF THE HEIGHT MAY HAVE LITTLE IMPACT TO THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES.
FOR FINDINGS TO SUPPORT A MOTION FOR APPROVAL.
THAT CONCLUDES MY PRE PRESENTAT. I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS AND THE APPLICANT IS ALSO PRESENT.
>> THANK YOU. DOES THE BOARD HAVE ANY
QUESTIONS? >> I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR STAFF. THIS ISETHIN 2008 I BUILT A POOE BACKYARD, AND MY WIFE DID SOME RESEARCH, AND SHE WAS TOLD AT THE TIME THAT WE COULD -- THOUGHT ABOUT DOING LATTICEWORK.
LUCKILY WE N NEVER DID. HAS THE REGULATIONS CHANGED OR DID SHE
TALK TO THE WRONG PERSON? >> I HAVE NOT SEEN ANYTHING IN THE PONTE VEDRA CODE THAT WOULD INDICATE THAT LATTICEWORK OR OTHER DECORATIVE ITEMS CAN SEEMINGLY EXTEND THE HEIGHT OF A
FENCE. >> I LUCKED OUT BY BEING LAZY.
>> IT SOUNDS LIKE IT. >> YEAH.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> I HAVE ONE QUESTION ON CLARIFICATION OF THE HARDSHIP.
THE -- I TRIED TO SEE A PICTURE OF WHAT THE BACK DOOR -- OR YARD NEIGHBOR HAD BUILT THAT CREATED A HARDSHIP -- IT WASN'T CLEARLY VISIBLE FROM THE PHOTOGRAPH. AND I COULDN'T TELL BY USING GOOGLE EARTH WHAT EXACTLY HAPPENED IN THAT OTHER YARD THAT MADE IT A PROBLEM. CAN YOU EXPAND ON WHAT THE PROBLEM ACTUALLY IS THAT THE SIX FOOT FENCE DOESN'T PROVIDE THE
NECESSARY VISUALS PRIVACY? >> YEAH, I CAN SPEAK A LITTLE BIT TO IT. AGAIN, THE PROPERTIES TO THE WEST DID RECEIVE A ZONING VARIANCE TO RECONSTRUCT I SUPPOSE SOME SORT OF DELIPIDATED PATIO IN THE BACKYARD.
AFTER THE NEW ONE WAS CONSTRUCTED, BETWEEN BEING CLOSER AND POTENTIALLY A LITTLE BIT HIGHER IN ELEVATICANT EXPRED THAT IT CHANGED THEIR BACKYARD VIEW AND POTENTIALLY ALLOWED THEIR ADJACENT NEIGHBOR MORE VIEW THAN THEY PREVIOUSLY HAD
INTO THEIR BACKYARD. >> WE CAN ALSO ASK THE APPLICANT
[00:25:09]
FOR THAT INFORMATION WHEN THEY PRESENT.THANK YOU. IF THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD? STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR
THE RECORD, PLEASE. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, I'M KAREN CHARTIER, 532 ROBLES LANE, THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION.
I DO HAPPEN TO HAVE A PICTURE TO MEGAN'S QUESTION.
THIS IS ON THE SCREEN THAT SHOWS THE ADDITION THAT THE ADJACENT
HOMEOWNER PUT ON THEIR HOUSE. >> IF YOU WANT TO CENTER IT ON THAT AND JUST BE AWARE THAT YOU WILL NEED TO LEAVE THAT AS --
>> OKAY. >> -- INFORMATION FOR THE
HEARING. >> JUST TO RECAP WHAT THE GENTLEMAN ALREADY SAID, WE CHECKED WITH OUR BACK DOOR NEIGHBOR BEFORE WE PUT THE LATTICE UP.
HE WAS IN AGREEMENT THAT IT WOULD ACTUALLY ENHANCE THE PRIVACY FOR BOTH OF US. WHAT THEY ACTUALLY DID WAS PUT A SCREENED PORCH ON THE BACK, WHICH EXTENDED THE ROOF LINE CLOSER. AND IT DID CREATE A PRIVACY ISSUE BECAUSE WE COULD SEE RIGHT INTO THEIR HOUSE.
THEY COULD SEE INTO OUR HOUSE. YOU KNOW, AND IT'S JUST VERY DISTRACTING, ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE TRYING TO USE YOUR BACKYARD SPACE. SO WE HAD IT PROFESSIONALLY INSTALLED WITH HIS PERMISSION. IN FACT, HE WAS GLAD WE DID IT.
WITH THE INTENTION TO GROW VINES, JASMINE OR WHATNOT TO MAKE IT PRETTY AND MAKE IT A MORE SOLID BARRIER BETWEEN THE TWO HOUSEHOLDS. NOT ONLY NOT HAD ANY COMPLAINTS, WE'VE HAD SEVERAL NEIGHBORS TELL US, OH, MY GOSH, THAT'S GREAT.
IT'S NOT VISIBLE FROM THE STREET.
AND IN ADDITION TO THE NEIGHBOR THAT WE SHARE THE FENC FENCE LIE WITH, ALL THE NEIGHBORS AROUND US ARE IN AGREEMENT THAT THE FENCE IS FINE AND THEY'D LIKE TO SEE IT STAY.
ANY QUESTIONS THAT I CAN ANSWER? >> SEEING NO QUESTIONS, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'D LIKE TO OPEN IT TO PUBLIC
COMMENT. >> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. SINCE I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER
COMMENTS. >> LET'S MAKE SURE WE DON'T HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT FIRST. I'M TRYING TO BE POLITE BECAUSE
GOOD POINT. >> WHILE WE'RE WAITING ON THAT, I'LL MAKE THE COMMENT, AGAIN, THIS DISTURBS ME WHEN A PRIDE COMMENT COMES IN WHEN ONLY TWO NEIGHBORS CAN SEE THIS AND IT REALLY ONLY MATTERS TO THOSE TWO NEIGHBORS.
IT WAS HARD TO EVEN -- I HAD TO KIND OF TRESPASS YOUR NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR TO TRY TO LOOK BACK THERE TO EVEN SEE WHAT THIS LOOKED LIKE. IT'S NOT VISIBLE THAT I CAN TELL FROM ANYWHERE BETWEEN THE TWO OF YOU.
I WISH IT WAS JUST BETWEEN THE TWO OF YOU BUT THESE GET REPORTED TO PRIDE AND THEN SOMEBODY GETS MAD BECAUSE THEIR FENCE DIDN'T CONFORM AND THEY DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR THAT YOURS DOES. THE ONLY THING WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL OF IS DO WE SET PRECEDENT.
EVEN THOUGH YOU CAN'T SEE IT IN YOURS, IS YOUR NEIGHBOR TO THE SIDE OR NEIGHBOR TWO OR THREE DOORS DOWN GOING TO COME BACK TO THIS BOARD AND -- COUNSEL, ONE OF MY QUESTIONS TO YOU IS -- IT'S A DIFFERENT UNIQUE SITUATION, SO I GUESS I'M ASKING YOU HOW UNIQUE YOU WOULD COUNT THIS SITUATION? IT COULD BE PROBABLY REPRODUCED BY OTHER NEIGHBORS ON THE SAME STREET OR THE SAME ROW OF HOUSES.
MAYBE NOT IN THE SECTION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
>> POSSIBLY, YOU'RE RIGHT. THAT IS THE UNIQUE SITUATION.
AND THEN, ALSO, IT IS GENERALLY THE PRECEDENT WOULD BE, LIKE YOU SAID IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA. AND VERY SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, THAT WOULD BE THE PRECEDENT IF YOU DO FEEL LIKE THIS IS A REASON TO APPROVE THIS VARIANCE, THEN ACTUALLY YOU MAY FIND THAT THERE'S A REASON TO APPROVE IN THAT ONE.
IF SOMETHING IS DIFFERENT THAT MAKES YOU NOT WANT TO APPROVE THEN THERE'S OBVIOUSLY A DIFFERENCE.
SETTING PRECEDENT IS THERE. WHAT YE I'M TRYING TO SAY IT'S T
[00:30:02]
ALWAYS NEGATIVE IN SETTING PRECEDENT.>> BECAUSE IT'S JUST ON THE REAR WALL, SOMEONE COULDN'T COME IN AND PUT IT ON SIDE WALLS AND GET AWAY WITH IT?
>> THAT WOULD BE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
>> HOW ABOUT SOMEBODY ON THE OTHER SIDE OF A1A ON A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PART OF PONTE VEDRA, COULD THEY CLAIM THAT THEY WERE ABLE TO DO A TWO FOOT LATTICE ADDITION BECAUSE OF SOMEBODY ON ROBLES LANE? COULD IT HOP TO ANOTHER CONTINUOUS AREA OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAN THE ROBLES LANE AREA?
>> WE GENERALLY DON'T LOOK AT IT THAT WAY.
IT'S USUALLY IN THE SURROUNDING AREA AND VERY SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES. AND ONCE YOU'VE LEFT THIS ALMOST IMMEDIATE AREA, THEN YOU WOULD BE LOOKING AT DIFFERENT UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES AND THAT DECISION WOULD BE DIFFERENT UNTO ITSELF.
>> BASED ON THAT, IT WOULD SEEM THAT JUST THOSE HOUSES IN THAT ROW ON ROBLES LANE TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH ARE THE ONLY ONES THAT COULD POSSIBLY CLAIM PRECEDENT THAT THEY COULD ADD LATTICE AS
WELL? >> IF THEY HAVE CIRCUMSTANCES
THAT RISE TO THIS LEVEL. >> AND HOW ABOUT THE FACT THAT THERE WAS A VARIANCE ISSUED TO THE NEIGHBOR BEHIND THAT CREATED THE DIFFERENT SED SETBACK? THAT WOULD BE UNIQUE IN ITSELF,
WOULDN'T IT WE? >> I DON'T KNOW THE CIRCUMSTANCES. MR. SMITH, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE OTHER ONE?
>> WE GRANTED THE NEIGHBOR DIRECTLY BEHIND THE HOUSE FOR
HIS PORCH -- >> I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
>> IF I RECALL HIS PORCH WAS NON-CONFORMING AND HE WANTED TO KEEP IT AND IT DIDN'T -- WASN'T HURTING ANYTHING.
WE DID GRANT A VARIANCE. THE FACT THAT THAT WAS A NEIGHBOR BEHIND THAT HAD A VARIANCE WHERE IT ENCROACHED BACK FURTHER THAN THE OTHER NEIGHBORS, WOULD THAT MAKE THAT UNIQUE ENOUGH THAT THEY COULDN'T USE THAT SAME --
>> WELL, THAT IS YOUR DECISION. BUT THAT IS ONE OF THE FACTORS YOU'RE LOOKING AT. THE FACT IT WAS AN APPROVED VARIANCE, YOU KNOW, BY THIS BOARD THAT HAS CREATED THIS -- THE CLOSENESS. THAT IS ONE FACTOR YOU WOULD
TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION. >> SO IT SOUNDS LIKE IF A NEIGHBOR DID COME TO THIS BOARD WANTING TO DO THE SAME LATTICE, THERE ARE ENOUGH UNIQUE DETAILS IT WOULD PROBABLY GNARL IT UP, THEY COULD POSSIBLY NOT GET THE APPROVAL?
>> RIGHT, IT WOULD STILL BE A DIFFERENT CASE.
YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT. THERE'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE DETAILS THAT ARE DIFFERENT AND FACTORS THAT ARE DIFFERENT,
>> MR. CHAIRMAN, A QUESTION FOR YOU.
WHAT IS NICE ABOUT THIS IS THEY'VE DONE A VERY GOOD JOB OF THE LATTICE WORK. IT'S AN ATTRACTIVE ADDITION.
YOU CAN SEE THROUGH IT, SO IT DOESN'T REALLY FEEL LIKE AN EIGHT FOOT TALL FENC FENCE, IT S LIKE A SIX FOOT TALL FENCE WITH DECORATIONS ON THE TOP OF IT. MY QUESTION IS WOULD THE NEXT HOMEOWNER DO THE SAME QUALITY OF WORK AS FAR AS ANOTHER VARIANCE?
>> IT MAY BE TRUE. IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY MAY HAVE A HARD TIME GETTING IT THROUGH THE BOARD WAS OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS IF THAT WAS THE CASE. I THINK TWO NEIGHBORS HAVE SOMETHING MUTUAL BETWEEN THE TWO HOUSES AND IT'S NOT SEEN BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC. IF IT CREATED A PRECEDENT I'D HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT. SINCE I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO CREATE A PRECEDENT, I DON'T SEE A BIG PROBLEM WITH IT, PERSONALLY. THAT'S WHAT THE VOTE IS FOR.
ANY OTHER BOARD COMMENTS? NOT HAVING ANY CALL INS AT THIS POINT. I'M ASSUMING PUBLIC COMMENT,
WE'LL MOVE ON THEM TO A MOTION. >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE PBZB VARIANCE 2020-01, ROBLES LANE FENCE.
WHICH IS A REQUEST FOR A ZONING VARIANCE TO SECTION 8N1 OF THE PONTE VEDRA ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO ALLOW FOR THE EXISTING FENCE TO REMAIN EXCEEDING HEIGHT LIMITATIONS OF SIX FEET IN THE R1C ZONING DISTRICT SPECIFICALLY LOCATED AT 532 ROBLES LANE. SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT BASED ON THE FOUR FINDINGS AS WAS LISTED IN
WE'LL DO A ROLL CALL VOTE AND I'LL START WITH JOHN LYNCH.
>> APPROVED. >> YOU'RE APPROVING?
I ALSO WILL VOTE YES. JOHN PATTON.
[00:35:01]
>> YES. >> THAT WOULD BE A UNANIMOUS QUORUM AS APPROVED. THANK YOU, GOOD LUCK.
GLAD THAT WORKED OUT FOR YOU. >> MR. CHAIR, WOULD YOU CONFIRM
WHO SECONDED THE MOTION, PLEASE? >> THANK YOU, MR. GRAHAM.
TO BE CLEAR THAT WAS A 5-1? >> 5-1.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> UH-HUH.
THE NINETY NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS N OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR.
[Item 2]
AND WE WILL START WITH THE CHAIR.AND HAVE COMMENTS BY THE BOARD AND THEN MOVE ON TO PUBLIC
COMMENTS. >> YOU'VE DONE A GREAT JOB.
CAN YOU STAY? >> THAT'S UP TO Y'ALL TO VOTE ON. I'M HAPPY EITHER WAY.
IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO STEP IN, PLEASE STEP IN.
I ENJOY DOING THIS EITHER WAY. >> MAKE A FORMAL NOMINATION TO
REAPPOINT YOU AS CHAIR? >> I NEED TO OPEN IT UP TO PUBLIC COMMENT, IF YOU'D LIKE TO DO THAT.
IF THERE'S NO OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE BOARD, I WOULD LIKE TO
OPEN IT UP TO PUBLIC COMMENT. >> NO PUBLIC COMMENT.
>> I WOULD TAKE A MOTION AS TO WHO YOU WOULD LIKE TO NOMINATE.
>> I'D LIKE TO NOMINATE YOU TO REMAIN AS CHAIRMAN.
>> SECOND. >> I'D LIKE TO OPEN UP THE CHAIR FOR A SECOND NOMINATION. ANY PUBLIC COMMENT FOR A SECOND NOMINATION? HEARING NO PUBLIC COMMENT WE'LL MOVE ON TO A VOICE VOTE TO APPROVE BRAD SCOTT AS REELECTED AS CHAIR. JOHN LYNCH?
>> YES. >> I'LL MOVE ON TO JOHN PATTON.
LET'S OPEN IT UP FOR VICE CHAIR. DISCUSSION ON VICE CHAIR?
>> MEGAN HAS DONE A WONDERFUL JOB, I'D LIKE HER TO REMAIN AS
VICE CHAIR. >> I AGREE, I'LL OPEN IT UP TO PUBLIC COMMENT FOR MEGAN MCKINLEY AS VICE CHAIR.
NOT HEARING ANY PUBLIC COMMENT, LOOKING FOR A SECOND.
ALL RIGHT. JOHN, I'LL START WITH YOU ON YES OR NO ON VOTING ON MEGAN HAS VICE CHAIR?
>> YES. >> I WILL VOTE YES AS WELL.
>> MEGAN, YOU ARE VICE CHAIR AGAIN REELECTED, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE AND BEING WILLING TO DO THAT AGAIN.
YOU DO A GREAT JOB. >> THANK YOU, EVERYONE, FOR
THEIR SUPPORT. >> AND I THANK YOU, TOO.
>> MR. CHAIR I'D LIKE TO CONFIRM BOTH YOU AND YOUR HUMBLENESS, THOSE WERE 6-0 VOTES IN FAVOR OF YOU AND MS. MCKINLEY.
>> YES, AND THANK YOU. >> UH-HUH.
>> ARE THERE ANY OTHER STAFF REPORTS THAT WE NEED UPDATES ON?
[Staff Report]
>> COULD I ASK A QUESTION? >> YES, GO AHEAD, MEGAN.
>> LAST AUGUST, THE PONTE VEDRA ZONING AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD APPROVED A SERIES OF CHANGES OF AMENDMENTS TO THE ACTUAL CODE AND THEY HAVE SORT OF LANGUISHED.
AND I KNOW THAT WE'VE HAD STAFF TURNOVER, SO I WAS WONDERING IF THAT PACKAGE COULD BE SENT TO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR APPROVAL. BECAUSE IT HAS SOME THINGS IN IT, LIKE STREET ORDINANCE THAT MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY ARE
[00:40:07]
INTERESTED IN HAVING IMPLEMENTED.EVERYBODY DID A LOT OF WORK ON IT.
SO I'M HOPING WE COULD GET IT PUT ON THE COMMISSIONERS'
>> THOSE CHANGES, WE HAD THEM SCHEDULED FOR THE NEXT MEETING IN JUNE, HOWEVER THAT'S BEEN DELAYED AS WELL.
I THINK WE HAVE THEM FOR EITHER THE FIRST OR SECOND MEETING IN
JULY. >> IS THIS MEETING THE NEXT
MEETING STILL FOR JULY 6TH? >> PONTE VEDRA ZONING AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD, YES, SIR, IT'S STILL ON.
>> AND DO WE HAVE A QUORUM? YEAH, I WILL NOT BE ATTENDING.
THIS WEEK AND JUST RECHECK WITH WHO IS AVAILABLE AND WHO IS NOT TO MAKE SURE WE DO HAVE A QUORUM?
>> YES, SIR, MOST CERTAINLY. >> THANK YOU.
I DO WANT TO ALSO RECOGNIZE THE SERVICE OF ROB BECKER, WHO WENT OFF THE BOARD AFTER A SECOND TERM AND DID A GREAT JOB OVER THE YEARS. WE WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE HIS SERVICE TO THIS BOARD AND THANK THEM VERY MUCH FOR THIS TIME.
DID A GREAT JOB AND APPRECIATE ALL HE DID.
ROB, FL THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVE ON THE ZONING BOARD AND WE APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I WOULD BE THEN LOOKING FOR A MOTION TO ADJOURN.
>> I MOVE WE ADJOURN. >> A SECOND?
>> SECOND. >> MEETING ADJOURNED, THANK YOU VERY M
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.