Jul 13, 2020 Ponte Vedra Zoning and Adjustment Board

[Call to Order]

[00:00:06]

>>> GOOD AFTERNOON. I WOULD LIKE TO CALL TO ORDER THE JULY 13, 2020 MEETING OF THE ZONING ADJUSTMENT BOARD. AS A PRELIMINARY MATTER, I AM BRAD SCOTT, CHAIR OF THE ZONING ADJUSTMENT BORN. CONFIRMING ANY BOARD MEMBER AND STAFF MEMBERS NOT PHYSICALLY PRESENT CAN HEAR ME. FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS, WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME PLEASE RESPOND

AN AFFIRMATIVE EVERY AND JOHN LYNCH . >>JOHN LYNCH : AFFIRMATIVE.

>> JOHN PATTON IS PRESENT. MEGAN KCKINLEY SPEED NINE PRESENT.

>> THERE ARE FOUR OF US TODAY SO WE WILL PROCEED WITH THE FOUR.

>> THIS IS HARRY GRAHAM , I MADE IT BACK. >> THAT'S GOOD TO HEAR.

NOW WE HAVE FIVE. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON AND WELCOME TO THIS REGULAR MEETING OF THE PONTE VEDRA ZONING AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD.

IN ORDER TO MITIGATE THE TRANSMISSION OF CORONAVIRUS AND REDUCE THE RISK OF COVID-19 ILLNESS, THE GOVERNOR HAS SUSPENDED THE REQUIREMENT OF PHYSICAL QUORUM AND THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS HAS ADOPTED PROCEDURES TO CONDUCT MEETINGS USING REMOTE PARTICIPATION THROUGH EMERGENCY PROCLAMATION NUMBER 2020 Ã THREE.

SO THE PUBLIC AS A MEANS TO COMMENT WITHOUT PHYSICAL Ã PHYSICALLY ATTENDING TO READ ALONG WITH PRIOR COMMUNICATIONS INCLUDING EMAILS , THE PUBLIC WILL BEABLE TO COMMUNICATE ,, BY TELEPHONE WHILE WATCHING THE MEETING VIA T.V. OR BY STREAMING POSTED ON THE COUNTIES WEBSITE. WEBSITE ALSO PROVIDES THE TELEPHONE NUMBER TO USE TO CALL INTO THE MEETING. EVEN IF MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC DO NOT PROVIDE COMMENT, PARTICIPANTS ARE ADVISED PEOPLE MAY BE LISTENING WHO DO NOT PROVIDE COMMENT AND THOSE PERSONS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES. PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS MEETING IS BEING RECORDED. FOR THOSE OF YOU CALLING INTO,, IF YOU RECEIVE A BUSY SIGNAL, PLEASE CALL BACK. IN ADDITION, PLEASE OF TIME THREE MINUTES TIME LIMIT BECAUSE THE TIME LIMIT, TIME WILL BE VISIBLE TO YOU BECAUSE OF THE DELAY IN TRANSMISSION OF THE MEETING, YOUR TIME YOU WILL BE MORE ACCURATE. FINALLY, PLEASE MUTE YOUR PHONE WHILE YOU ARE AWAITING THE COMMENT AND MUTE THE MEETING ON YOUR TELEVISION OR COMPUTER WHEN YOU ARE SPEAKING. PLEASE BE AWARE 8529 SECOND DELAY WILL ALSO APPLY TO VISUAL PRESENTATIONS AND WE EXPERIENCE ANY TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES, WE WILL RECESS WHILE THEY ARE RESOLVED AND RESUME THE MEETING. THERE ARE MATERIALS FOR THIS MEETING AVAILABLE ON THE COUNTY WEBSITE. GO TO THE HOMEPAGE UNDER MEETINGS AND WORKSHOPS AND CLICK ON PONTE VEDRA ZONING ADJUSTMENT BOARD MEETING AND YOU WILL SEE LINKS TO THE AGENDA ON INDIVIDUAL AGENDA ITEMS IN ORDER TO ACCESS THE SUPPORTING MATERIALS. AND MAY WE HAVE THE READING OF THE PUBLIC NOTICE STATEMENT,

PLEASE? >> THIS IS A PROPERLY NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING CONCURRENCE WITH REQUIREMENTS OF FLORIDA LAW. THE PUBLIC WILL BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON TOPICS RELEVANT TO THE BOARDS AREA OF JURISDICTION AND THE PUBLIC WILL BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO OFFER COMMENT ON THE DESIGNATED TIME DURING THE HEARING TO READ ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC DESIRING TO SPEAK WITH INDICATE SO BY COMPLETING A SPEAKER CARD WHICH IS AVAILABLE IN THE FOYER. ANY ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS MAY BE HURT ONLY AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CHAIRMAN. SPEAKER CARDS TO BE TURNED INTO STAFF FOR THE PUBLIC SHALL SPEAK AT A TIME DURING THE MEETING ON EACH ITEM AND FOR A LENGTH OF TIME AS DESIGNATED BY THE CHAIRMAN, WHICH SALL BE THREE MINUTES. SPEAKER SHOULD IDENTIFY THEMSELVES, WHO THEY REPRESENT AND THEN STATE THE ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD YOUR SPEAKERS MAY OFFERSWORN TESTIMONY . IF THEY DO NOT, THE FACT THAT TESTIMONY IS NOT SWORN MAY BE CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD IN DETERMINING THE WEIGHT OR TRUTHFULNESS OF THE TESTIMONY.

IF A PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION 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 OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE. WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED HEARING ANY PHYSICAL OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRESENTED DURING THE HEARING, SUCH AS DIAGRAMS, CHARTS, PHOTOGRAPHS OR WRITTEN STATEMENTS WILL BE RETAINED BY STAFF AS PART OF THE RECORD.

THE RECORD WILL THEN BE AVAILABLE FOR OTHER FORWARD AGENCY COMMITTEES OR THE COUNTY AND ANY REVIEW OF APPEAL RELATED TO THE ITEM. BOARD MEMBERS ARE REMINDED THAT 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 IDENTIFY THE PERSONS INVOLVED IN THE MATERIAL CONTENT OF THE COMMUNICATION.

[00:05:06]

WE WILL DIRECT ALL COMMENTS TO THE ISSUE, WE WILL AVOID PERSONAL ATTACKS.

>> THANK YOU. MR. CHAIR, I WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO THE COMMENTS FOR ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT MAY BE ATTENDING VIA TELEPHONE, THEY DON'T NEED TO FILL OUT A SPEAKER CARD IN PERSON HERE, BUT THEY SHOULD PROVIDE THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS PRIOR TO ANY

PUBLIC COMMENTS. >> SPEAKING IN PUBLIC,, ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC, ITEMS OTHER THAN THE AGENDA ITEMS TODAY? WILL PAUSE FOR A MOMENT IN CASE WE HAVE ANY COLLINS.

SEEING OR HEARING NONE, WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE FIRST AGENDA ITEM.

[1. PVZVAR2020-02 Marsh Dunes II. Request for a Zoning Variance to Section III.B.1 of the PVZDR to allow a second front yard setback of 25 feet in lieu of the 40-foot requirement in R-1-B zoning, specifically located at 34 Marsh Dunes Place. Presenter - Jonathan and Susan Plumb, Applicant Staff - Jacob Smith, Planner]

TO THE FIRST AGENDA ITEM. >>JOHN LYNCH : YES, I DROVE BY THE LOCATION, BUT I DID NOT

MAKE ANY CONTACT WITH THEM. >> JOHN PATTON? HERE.DROVE BY THE LOCATION

BUT DISCUSSED WITH NO ONE. >> MEGAN? SPEED NINE I DID NOT DISCUSS IT

WITH ANYONE. >> HARRY? >>HARRY GRAHAM : YES, I HAVE

HAD NO DISCUSSIONS. I DID DRIVE-BY. >> I AM FAMILIAR WITH THE PROPERTY, I HAVE BEEN THERE BEFORE AND I'M FRIENDS WITH JAY.

JAY DID ACKNOWLEDGE THIS COMING UP, BUT WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY COMMUNICATIONS AS FAR AS ANY DETAILS ABOUT THE HEARING TODAY. SO IF WE COULD HAVE THE

PRESENTATION BY THE COUNTY. >> GOOD AFTERNOON MR. GERMAN PROJECT WAS SMITH WITH GROWTH MANAGEMENT. WOULD LIKE TO INFORM YOU THE PRESENTATION MYTHOLOGY HAS CHANGED AT THE REQUEST OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIOERS. SO WE WILL HAVE THE APPLICANTS PRESENT THEIR APPLICATION .F COURSE I WILL BE ABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS, BUT I DO NOT HAVE A

PRESENTATION FOR YOU ON THREE OF THESE AGENDA ITEMS. >> THANK YOU.

IF THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND PRESENT TO

US, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. >> GOOD AFTERNOON MEMBERS BUT I LIVE IN ON AMINO BEACH FLORIDA.

AND I AM HERE TODAY. >> STREET ADDRESS? >> 81 PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD.

I AM HERE TODAY TO REQUEST A VARIANCE FOR THE SIDE SETBACK OF LOT 1.

THE REQUEST IS THE RESULT OF CONVERSATIONS WE HAVE HAD WITH THE TWO NEIGHBORS WHO LIVE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF US AND THEIR HOUSES AND BACKYARDS ARE APPROXIMATELY, WILL BE APPROXIMATELY 15 FEET LOWER THAN THE FIRST FLOOR FOUNDATION OF THE HOUSE WE PROPOSED HUNLOCK ONE. AND THEREFORE THEY HAVE ASKED THE INCREASE IN NORTH SIDE SETBACK OF LOT 1 TO MITIGATE SOME OF THE DRAIN IS ITS USE THAT MAY COME OFFTHE ROOFS , AS WELL AS SIMPLY VISUALLY CREATING MORE DISTANCE FROM THEIR HOUSE IN THEIR BACKYARD.

THE ORIGINAL SETBACKS AS PRESCRIBED BY THE COUNTY WHEN THIS WAS CLOUDED OR 40 FEET IN THE FRONT, 40 FEET IN THE REAR AND 40 FEET ON ANY SIDE STREET SIDE.

THAT SETBACK ACTUALLY, THE GENESIS OF THAT LDR WILL SO THAT ON THE SIDE STREET, WE DEVELOPED THIS TEST WE DEVELOPED EXTENSIVELY IN ST. JOHN'S COUNTY FOR THE LAST 38

[00:10:02]

COUNTY ACKNOWLEDGED THAT ÃAM I OKAY? >> WAS JUST GOING TO POINT THIS

AND USE THIS. >> DOES THAT HELP? I WILL SEE HOW THIS WORKS.

ANYWAY, HERE WE GO. SO THIS IS ACTUALLY A 18. THIS IS THE FRONT SETBACKS.

THIS IS THE SIDE SETBACK SECONDARY STREETSIDE STREET. AND IN THIS LOT EXTENDS INTO THE SPEED OF THE STREET EXTENDS INTO ANOTHER LAW BACK HERE. THAT HAS ALSO AFRONT SETBACK OF AN ADDITIONAL 40 FEET . SO THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THIS LOT IN THIS HOUSE WILL BE 40 FEET TO THE RIGHT OF WAY. ANOTHER 23 FEET OF RIGHT AWAY AND AN ADDITIONAL 40 FEET.

SO OVER 100 FEET FROM HOUSE TO HOUSE. IN THIS HOUSE WILL NOT FRONT ON THE SIDE STREET.T'S A PRIVATE STREET CALLED MARCH NEWS PLAY SPIRIT AND THEREFORE, WE HAVE REQUESTED THE SETBACKS BE CHANGED ON THE NORTH SIDE TO RATHER THAN A 10 FOOT SETBACK, A 20 FOOT SETBACK AND MOVED TO 10 FEET TO THE NORTH. THAT WILL ALLOW THIS HOUSE TO BE MUCH MORE GENTLY CITED AND NOT BE 15 FEET ABOVE THE BACKYARDS OF THIS HOUSE OR THIS HOUSE. THE DISTANCE STILL BETWEEN THIS SIDE OF THE HOUSE AND THE RIGHT-OF-WAY REMAINS AT 25 FEET AND AND THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL 12 TO 13 FEET TO THE BACK OF THE CURVE. TO THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE WAS TO BE 37, 38 FEET FROM THE BACK OF THE CURB. SUBSTANTIALLY BACK IN THE STREET.SO OUR REQUEST IS TO MODIFY THESE AS SHOWN ON THE DIAGRAM. WE HAVE THE SUPPORT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD HERE. IN FACT, THAT IS WHAT STARTED THE GENESIS OF THIS WHOLE PROCESS. AND IF YOU AREN'T DIZZY FROM ME WIGGLING THIS AROUND, I

APOLOGIZE. ANY QUESTIONS? >>JOHN LYNCH : QUESTION.

MARSH DUNES PLACE. IS A PRIVATE STREET WILL THAT BE DEDICATED TO THE COUNTY?

>> SO IT WILL REMAIN PART OF THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION? >> CORRECT.

IS MAINTENANCE AND SPOTS ABILITY, ETC. >>JOHN LYNCH : IT COULD BE

CLASSIFIED AS A DRIVEWAY? >> WE DID A COMMUNITYPROBABLY 20 YEARS AGO , MR. PATTON .

JUST ON THE NORTH SIDE ÃON THE WEST SIDE OF POND DAVIDA BOULEVARD AND STEVE AUSTIN LIVES IN THE HOUSE. AND THERE IS A LITTLE PRIVATE DRIVEWAY IN AN UPLAND JUST LIKE THIS THAT WAS CLASSIFIED AS A PRIVATE DRIVEWAY. THE COUNTY IN THEIR ULTIMATE WISDOM, WE ORIGINALLY STARTED OUT AS BUILDING A PRIVATE DRIVEWAY HERE.

[00:15:01]

IT'S A PRIVATE STREET YOU ARE REQUIRED FOR RESPONSIBLE. >> THE OTHER QUESTION ÃSEEMS TO BE LOW AREA ON THE SITE AND I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW IT ENDS UP WITH HOUSE BEING 15

FEET HIGHER THAN THE HOUSE IS BEHIND. >> SOME OF THEM WILL HAVE TO GET FILLED IN. THERE IS WHAT IS CALLED SOMETHING AVERAGE.

WE CAN'T REALLY RUN MUCH DRAINAGE ONTO THE BACKYARD ON THE TWO ADJACENT LOTS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LOT 1. AND SO THAT WILL END UP BEING THE FILL IN.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> WE TRY REALLY HARD TO PRESERVE THE TREES AND THE TOPO IN ALL OUR COMMUNITIES THE LAST ALMOST 40 YEARS AND IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO DO THAT IN SOME CASES BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO MAKE DRAINAGE WORK, YOU WANT TO WORK WITH THE TOPO AND THEIR RLD OURS THAT REQUIRES CERTAIN THINGS THAT DON'T WORK WELL WITH THAT PROGRAM. SO WE PROBABLY WILL HAVE TO COME BACK FOR THE LAW ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE SOUTH OF THIS COLD LOT THREE ALSO. BECAUSE WE CAN HAVE THE SAME SITUATION. BUT CANDIDLY WE DON'T HAVE A HOUSE ON IT NEXT TO IT YET.

WERE DESIGNED THERE. WE ARE NOT HERE FOR THAT ISSUE. >> ANY OF THE NON-PRESENT BOARD

MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? >> I HAVE A QUESTION. THIS IS MEGAN KCKINLEY SPEAKING. I WOULD LIKE TO BE REFRESHED SLIGHTLY.

I REMEMBER IT BECAME BEFORE THE BOARD A COUPLE YEARS AGO WE WERE PLANNING THIS DEVELOPMENT AND I BELIEVE AT THAT TIME WE DISCUSSED THE DUAL DRIVEWAYS. M I REMEMBERING QUICKLY.

>> I COULDN'T HEAR VERY WELL ON THAT. >> COULD YOU REPEAT THAT, MEGAN? IT IS HARD TO HEAR A LITTLE BIT SPEED NINE OF THE BUT FROM

SPEAKER TO REGULAR. >> THAT IS BETTER. SPEED NINE I REMEMBER A COUPLE YEARS AGO THE PRESENTATION YOU HAVE MADE WITH RESPECT TO THIS DEVELOPMENT WE TALKED ABOUT THE

SHARED DRIVEWAY IN THIS PARTICULAR STREET. >> NOT DEDICATED.

IT IS A PRIVATE STREET. >>MEGAN MCKINLEY: PRIVATE STREET.

AM I CORRECT IN THAT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >>MEGAN MCKINLEY: AND WE ALSO DISCUSSED THE SIZE OF THE LOT YOU'RE PLANNING FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AT THAT TIME.

IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >>MEGAN MCKINLEY: OKAY.

>> TO THE ZONING ARE ONE THE. IS THAT RIGHT? >>MEGAN MCKINLEY: ALL RIGHT.

AND AT THAT TIME YOU ARE FINE WITH ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW.

AND NOW YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT TO NEIGHBORS AT THE ADJACENT BROKEN POTTERY DRIVE AND YOU HAVE LETTERS I BELIEVE FROM 10 , WHOSE HOUSE IS BEHIND A LOT AND 105, WHICH IS THE OTHER HOUSE. I DON'T SEE ANY DOCUMENTATION OF A LETTER FOR THEM.

AND 109 IS NOT BEHIND THIS PARTICULAR PLOT. >> OKAY SO I AM SLIGHTLY CONFUSED AS TO WHY ONLY A COUPLE YEARS AGO WHEN HE CAME TO US YOU WERE OKAY WITH THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE LAW AND NOW YOU HAVE A CHANGE OF HEART.

[00:20:03]

>> J, THINK I HEARD WHAT YOU SAID A FEW MINUTES AGO THAT YOU DIDN'T LIKE WHAT THEY SUGGESTED, YOU TRIED TO CHANGE IT AT THE TIME BUT THEY WOULDN'T CHANGE THAT FOR YOU.

>> THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. AND CANDIDLY WE DID NOT ASK FOR A WAIVER AT THAT POINT IN TIME BECAUSE THE FACT IS ADVERSE DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS CALLED Ã WHAT IS FIRST DEVELOPMENT OF

THEIR. WHAT IS IT? >> TIED ONE.

>> NO, IT'S JIMBO STOCKTON. IT IS CALLED ÃMAYBE THE STREET IS CALLED TIDEWATER.

ANYWAY, IT WAS STILL IN A LAWSUIT ABOUT ZONING ETC. WE WANTED TO AVOID THAT EVENTUALITY BECAUSE THIS IS A SIMPLE STREET ZONING. WE DIDN'T OBJECT AT THAT TIME.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE REALITY OF THE TOPOGRAPHY AND ONCE THE STREET IS IN, IT MAKES SENSE FOR GOOD PLANNING TO MOVE THE HOUSE SLIGHTLY TO THE SOUTH. IT IS NEIGHBORLY FRIENDLY.

WE ALL TRY TO DO THAT. WE HAVE BEEN BUILDING COMMUNITIES FOR THE LAST 39 YEARS NOW AND WE HAVE ALWAYS TRIED TO BE THERE. IN ADDITION, IT MAKES GOOD SENSE BECAUSE WE DON'T SEE ANY NEGATIVES WHATSOEVER TOWARD THIS.

SO THE HARDSHIP IS CLEARLY THAT THE TWO NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH WOULD BE MORE IMPACTED IF WE

DID NOT MOVE THE SETBACKS AS SHOWN. >>MEGAN MCKINLEY: MY QUESTION WAS TWO THINGS. ONE IS THAT ONLY ONE NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH PROPERTY THAT YOU

GOT A LETTER FROM IS ADJACENT TO THE SITE. >> THAT IS TRUE.

ONE OF MY STAFF PEOPLE DID THIS FOR US, ONE OF MY PARTNERS. BUT I BELIEVE THAT NEIGHBOR IS THE HEAD OF THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AND THAT IS WHY YOU ONLY SEE ONE LETTER.

AND I BELIEVE THAT IS WHAT MATT TOLD ME. WHO IS IN MY COMPANY.

>> MEGAN, BASED ON WHAT HE IS ASKING FOR THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE?TO ME THIS MAKES TOTAL LOGIC SENSE TO NOT INTRUDE ON THE NEIGHBORS. IS NOT GOING TO BE INTRUSION ON ANY NEIGHBORHOODS IN THIS CURRENT NEIGHBORHOOD PAST THIS HOUSE BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE CONTINUAL HOUSES THAT THIS WILL BE SET FORWARD FROM. TO ME IT MAKES GOOD SENSE.

IS THERE SOMETHING YOU ARE SAYING THAT DOESN'T HAVE A WIN-WIN FOR EVERYBODY HERE?

>> I HAVE A PROBLEM BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ANYTHING ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR PLOT OF LAND CAUSING HARDSHIP, BUT YOU CAN CITE THE HOUSE TO COMPLY WITH THE BUILDING ZONING CODE.

IF HE DIDN'T WANT THIS PARTICULAR HOUSE SO CLOSE TO THOSE PROPERTIES ON THE ADJACENT ROAD, HE COULD'VE SHIFTED THE LOTS DIFFERENTLY. BECAUSE HE HAS COMPLETE CONTROL WHEN HE CITED ALL THESE BUILDING PLOTS AS TO WHERE THEY WOULD BE ON THE LAND.

SO THE FACT IT IS NOW TO CLOSE ON THE NORTH BOUNDARY WAS CREATED BY THE WAY HE DECIDED TO DEVELOP THAT LAND. IT IS NOTHING ABOUT THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE LAND, IT IS JUST THE WAY HE DIVIDE DECIDED TO DEVELOP IT. I'M LOOKING FOR A HARDSHIP AND

I DON'T SEE A HARDSHIP. >> ACTUALLY, THE HARDSHIP IS Ã I WILL TELL THE ONE, WHEN THIS GETS ZONED WE DON'T QUITE UNDERSTND ALL THE TOPOGRAPHY. SECOND WE, THE HARDSHIP IS WE WANT TO TRY TO MITIGATE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE FOR THE NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH.

[00:25:02]

WE HAVE DONE THE ELEVATIONS AND THAT IS THE CASE. >> COUNSEL, COULD WE DEFER TO YOU ON THIS ITEM? ASKING FOR HARDSHIP, DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE JUST FOR THE APPLICANT OR COULD THIS BE A HARDSHIP CAUSING SURROUNDING PROPERTIES TO HAVE A

CONSEQUENCE THAT IS NOT DESIRABLE. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

YOUR AGENDA DESCRIBES THE CRITERIA FOR ZONING AND INCLUDES ASPECT OF PARTICULAR PROPERTY. I CAN GO BACK AND READ IT ON MY MACHINE.

BASICALLY USE HER SITUATION OF THE ADJOINING PROPERTY. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A ONE

MINUTE SIDEBAR WITH STUFF TO ASK A QUESTION, IF I MAY. >> I WILL PAUSE FOR JUST A MINUTE. THANK YOU. FOR THE RECORD, IT WAS EVENTIDE

OF POVERTY. >> EVENTIDE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I COULDN'T GET THAT. >> RIGHT. FROM YOUR CODE AND IT IS SET OUT IN THE STAFF REPORT, BY REASON OF THE EXCEPTIONAL NEARNESS OR UNUSUAL SHAPE OF THE SPECIFIC PIECE OF PROPERTY OR BY EXCEPTIONAL GRAPHIC CONDITIONS OR OTHER EXTRAORDINARY SITUATIONS OR CONDITIONS OF SUCH PIECE OF PROPERTY OR BY REASON OF THE USE OR DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY ADJOINING THE PIECE OF PROPERTY REQUIREMENTS IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE WITH DO HARDSHIP. IF I MAY THROUGH THE CHAIR MAKE AN INQUIRY. AS I HAVE READ THE AGENDA, PART OF THE ÃI THINK THE CONCERN IS THE ELEVATION OF THE HOUSE. CANOE DESCRIBE A PARTICULAR REASON OF THE ELEVATION.

WHAT IS THE RATIONALE FOR THE ELEVATION, WHICH IS GOING TO CAUSE THE POTENTIAL IMPACT ON

ADJOINING PROPERTY. >> THE CURRENT HOUSES TO THE NORTH OUR EXISTING.

AND THEY ARE CITED AND BUILT AT A SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER ELEVATION THAN THIS PIECE OF UPLANDS ON WHICH THIS PRIVATE STREET IN LOT 1 EXISTS. AND SO YOU CAN'T CHANGE THE TOPOGRAPHY. FACT IS TODAY, SECONDLY LET'S SAY IN PRIVATE STREET STARTS AT AN ELEVATION WHERE A ONE A IS. BUT IT CLIMBS UP AN INCLINE OF APPROXIMATELY 12 FEET FROM A 1A BEGINNING ÃLET'S SEE IF THIS WORKS. OVER HERE AT A 1A, THE STREET CLIMBS UP TO THIS POINT RIGHT HERE I WOULD SAY ROUGHLY 12 TO 13 FEET.

SO THIS STREET FIRST OF ALL IS INCREASING IN HEIGHT FOR THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THIS LOT ONE IS CURRENTLY EXISTING. HAS SOME UPS AND DOWNS IN THE TOPOGRAPHY, BUT WE'VE GOT TO BE ABLE TO DRAIN TO SOME EXTENT TOWARD THE STREET AS WELL. FOR THE MOST PART OF THE DRAINAGE. SO WHEN YOU DO THAT, THE SITE OF ANY HOUSE, DOESN'T HAVE TO

[00:30:10]

THAT IS THE WAY THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE LAND IS. THAT IS HOW THIS STREET IS BUILT. IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE TOPOGRAPHY.

AND UNFORTUNATELY, IT COULDN'T BUILD THE STREET ANY LOWER AND MAINTAIN THE TOPOGRAPHY.

WE CUT IT INTO THE DUNE FAIRLY SIGNIFICANTLY ANYWAY. >> MR. CHAIR, IF I MAY.

FIRST OF ALL, I CONGRATULATE THE AGENCY NUMBER FOUR ÃI THINK REITERATING TO THE AGENC . THERE IS CRITERIA FOR A VARIANCE.

IS NOT JUST ONE IS GRANTED BECAUSE THE AGENCY FEELS LIKE IT, ETC. BUT THE CRITERIA ARE THERE, THEY ARE IN YOUR CODE, I HAVE READ THE PERTINENT PORTIONS MR. MCGARVEY HAS DESCRIBED WHAT HE FEELS IS THE SITUATION ON THE GROUND SO TO SPEAK.

AND I THINK IT'S FOR THE AGENCY MEMBERS TO PUT HIS APPLICATION AND DESCRIPTION HERE TODAY ON TOP OF OR TOGETHER WITH THE GROUNDS FOR VARIANCE I JUST READ.

THANK YOU. >> COUNSEL, YOU SAY THERE IS A LEGITIMACY FOR A DISADVANTAGE

TO THIS PROPERTY. >> IT IS FOR THE AGENCY TO FIND WHETHER THERE ARE GROUNDS, BUT THERE ARE OTHER CRITERIA THE MR. MCGARVEY HAS DESCRIBED THE SITUATION ON THE GROUNDS.

I THINK IT IS FOR THE AGENCIES JUDGMENT TO DETERMINE WHETHER HIS DESCRIPTION FALLS INTO THESE CRITERIA. AND FRANKLY, FOR SOME OF THESE THINGS, I WILL SAY BY REASON OF THE TOPOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS OR OTHER EXTRAORDINARY SITUATIONS OR CONDITIONS OF SUCH PIECE OF PROPERTY, NOT TO USE A LEGAL TERM BUT THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF BEAUTY IN THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER. COMING, YOU CAN TILL WAS SOME OF THOSE CRITERIA IS IT IS A JUDGMENT CALL AND THAT IS WHY THIS AGENCY IS APPOINTED TO MAKE THOSE JUDGMENTS.

>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD MEMBERS?

>> YES. QUESTION: THE HIGH POINT OF THE PROPERTY IS ABOUT WHERE THE PROPOSED GARAGE IS AND IT DOES IT END UP WITH A LOT HIGHER THAN THE HOUSES BEHIND.

ARE YOU GOING TO HANDLE THE SLOPE IN YOUR BACKYARD IF YOU HAVE A 15 FOOT DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN YOUR ELEVATION, DROP DOWN TO A FOOT TO GET TO YOUR PATIO AND THEN HAVE A 14 FOOT

DROP AND HAVE TO ACCOMMODATE DRAINAGE? >> WE WILL END UP WITH SOME RETAINING WALLS, FIRST OF ALL. SO THAT WILL TEAR US DOWN SOME. AND THEY WILL BE GUTTERING ON THE HOUSE AND THERE WILL BE YARD DRAINS WE INSTALL ALONG THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE TO CARRY THE WATER UP SO IT DOESN'T REALLY IMPACT THE HOUSES ON THE NORTH SIDE.

>> AND ARE THE NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH OF WHERE THEY WILL BE LOOKING AT A RETAINING WALL IN

THEIR BACKYARD? >> I DON'T KNOW THAT ANSWER. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS THE CASE OR NOT, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU. BUT FORTUNATELY OR UNFORTUNATELY, THE RETAINING WALL ARE GOING TO BE AT LEAST PRESCRIBED NOT EXCEED FOUR FEET

IN HEIGHT. WHICH IS NOMINAL. >> OKAY.

THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD?

HEARING NONE WOULD MOVE ON THE PUBLIC COMMENT. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> I WILL PAUSE FOR A MOMENT. > MR. MCGARVEY, THERE IS HAND GEL THERE.

NOT HEARING ANY PUBLIC COMMENT, I WOULD MOVE ON TO A MOTION. EXCEPT A MOTION FOR

RECOMMENDATION. >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE 2020 Ã02,

[00:35:05]

>> AND A SECOND? >> I WILL SECOND IT. >> THAT WAS JOHN LYNCH .

AND WE WILL TAKE A VOICE VOTE. I WILL BEGIN WITH YOU JOHN. IF YOU COULD VOTE A YES OR NO

ON THAT. >>JOHN LYNCH : YES. >> JOHN PATTON .

>>JOHN PATTON: YES. >> MAKING KCKINLEY. >>MEGAN MCKINLEY: NO.

>> HARRY GRAHAM . >>HARRY GRAHAM : YES. >> AND BRAD SCOTT, I WILL VOTE YES. THAT DOES PASS. CONGRATULATIONS.

[2. PVZVAR2020-03 Plumb Retaining Wall. Request for a Zoning Variance to Section VIII.N.2 of the PVZDR to allow a Retaining Wall to exceed the maximum allowed height of four (4) feet in R-3 Zoning, specifically located at 654 Ponte Vedra Blvd. Presenter - Gerald & Donna Sarvadi, Applicant Staff - Jacob Smith, Planner]

AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. >> JONATHAN PLUM, 654 BOULEVAR .

>> LET ME RUN TO THE BOARD AND SEE IF ANYONE HAS MADE A SITE VISIT.

JOHN LYNCH , HAVE YOU SPOKEN TO ANYONE ABOUT THE. >>JOHN LYNCH : I MADE A SITE

VISIT MR. PLUM DID CALL ME BUT I HAVE NO COMMENTS. >> JOHN PATTON? P6 I DID MAKE A SITE VISIT AND RECEIVED A VOICEMAIL AND TODAY WAS VISITING THE SITE AND HIM ON A CONVERSATION WITH MRS. PLUM AND SHE WAS QUESTIONING WHY I WAS IN THE NEIGHBORS

YARD. >>BRAD SCOTT: MEGAN? >>MEGAN MCKINLEY: I VISITED AND

TALKED BRIEFLY ON THE PHONE WITH MR. PLUM. >>HARRY GRAHAM : I'M NOT VISITED THE SITE. I RECEIVED A VOICEMAIL WHICH I DID NOT RESPOND TO.

>>BRAD SCOTT: I RECEIVED A CALL FROM MR. PLUM BUT I EXPLAINED TO HIM THAT BECAUSE OF THE CENTURY LOSS WE COULD DISCUSS IT. BUT HE JUST MADE ME AWARE.

NO CONVERSATION REGARDING THAT. IF YOU COULD LET US KNOW WHAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO ACCOMPLISH.

> OKAY. WE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY IN 2012 AND IT NEEDED SOME JURISDICTION PERMITTING WITH ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS AND THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AS WELL AS ST. JOHN'S COUNTY AND EVERYTHING ELSE. UNTIL THE FIRST THING BASICALLY WE WERE GIVEN PERMISSION TO REESTABLISH THE JURISDICTIONAL LINE IN THE BACKYARD THAT IS WITH THE EXISTING RETAINING WALL IS NOW. SO WE BUILT UP SEVERAL YEARS AGO TO THE COUNTY, ST. JOHN'S COUNTY AND PONTE VEDRA GUIDELINES OF RETAINING WALL.

AND IT TOOK PROBABLY THREE YEARS TO GET ALL THE OTHER PERMITTING.

IN THE MEANTIME, THE FEMA DRAINAGE MAPS CHANGED IN THE FEMA LINE ENDED UP MOVING WEST A GOOD BIT. THAT RESULTED IN WITH OUR FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION OF THE HOUSE HAD TO BE AT A MINIMUM. IT'S ACTUALLY BLOAT THE STRUCTURE BY THE TIME YOU HAVE ACTUALLY PILING FOUNDATION SYSTEM AND EVERYTHING BUILT ON TOP THAT.

SO WHEN YOU GO DOWN TO THAT ELEVATION, YOUR FIRST FLOOR ENDS UP BEING ABOUT THE LEVEL OF PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD OUT FRONT. AND SO WHAT HAPPENS IS YOU COME INTO THE PROPERTY AND HAVE THE HOUSE. RIGHT BEHIND HOUSE THAT IS WHERE YOU HAVE IS YOUR FOR YOUR GREAT CHANGE BECAUSE THE ELEVATION OF THE FINISHED FLOOR HAD TO BE A CERTAIN ELEVATION, BUT WE WERE RESTRICTED IN ORDER TO BUILD A FOUR FEET HEIGHT RETAINING WALL, WHICH IS 20 FEET BEHIND WESTERLY PORTION OF THE HOUSE NOW, WHICH ALMOST MAKES IT UNUSABLE, DANGEROUS, POOR DRAINAGE. WE HAVEA ROSHAN , WE HAVE A COUPLE DOGS AND THEY HAVE ROLLED DOWN AND FALLEN OFF THOSE THINGS WOULD PUT A FENCE UP BASICALLY. SO WE COULD RESET RETAINING WALL TO ANOTHER FIVE FEET IN

[00:40:06]

WE HAVE ALSO AS A PRECEDENT, THERE ARE SEVERAL PROPERTIES SOUTH OF US AND I HAVE INCLUDED SOME PICTURES OF THOSE TOO THAT HAVE EXISTING RETAINING WALLS THAT ARE BASICALLY THE SAME ELEVATION . AND DEPENDING ON THE TOPOGRAPHY BEHIND THEM, THERE FROM 12, 13 OR 14 FEET HIGH BASICALLY IN THE LAND TO THE WEST OF THEM. IN FACT, THERE'S ONE AT 690 DO PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD THAT WAS JUST PUT IN PROBABLY ABOUT SIX MONTHS AGO AND THEY HAVEN'T BUILT A HOME THERE YET, BUT THEY PUT THIS NEW CONCRETE PATH.

WILL NICE RETAINING WALL ALONG THE WETLAND LINES. SO WE ARE NOT REALLY ASKING FOR ANYBODY ELSE THAT IT DOESN'T ALREADY HAVE YOUR THE PROPERTY GOES BACK ALMOST A THOUSAND FEET TO THE PONTE VEDRA BY THE SEA COMMUNITY. VISUALLY NOBODY IS EVER GOING TO KNOW SO THINGS. WE ARE NOT IMPACTING ANYTHING MORE THAN WE HAVE ALREADY DONE.

WE ARE JUST LITERALLY ADDING HEIGHT TO THE EXISTING RETAINING WALL TO EVEN OUT THE GRADE. JUST MAKE IT WORK A LOT BETTER. BUT THE HARDSHIP IS BECAUSE THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE PROPERTY IS VERY DRAMATIC AND FROM THAT POINT IN TIME WE BUILT THE EXISTINGRETAINING WALL , FEMA CHANGED THE FLOOD MAPS WERE THE LINE NOW GOES TO THE MIDDLE OF THE HOUSE BASICALLY. SOMEONE BUILT THE HOUSE WE HAD TO RAISE IT UP TO THE MINIMUM FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION. SO THAT'S WHY I AM HERE TO RESPECTFULLY REQUEST WE CAN

AUGMENT THE REAR YARD RETAINING WALL TO MAKE THE YARD USABLE. >> BOARD MEMBERS, COMMENTS OR

QUESTIONS? >>MEGAN MCKINLEY: I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE RETAINING WALL. WHEN I FIRST JOINED THE BOARD, THERE HAD BEEN SOME CONVERSATION ABOUT RETAINING WALLS PRIOR TO MY APPOINTMENT. AND THERE WAS A HISTORY OF ISSUES WITH PEOPLE BUILDING RETAINING WALL EITHER TO RAISE THEIR HOUSES AND THERE WERE ALSO SOME ISSUES WHERE THE FIELDHOUSE WAS RAISED TOO HIGH VIS-C-VIS THE NEIGHBORS.

AND THERE WAS ALSO SOME CONVERSATION ABOUT THE SAFETY OF THESE VERY HIGH RETAININ WALLS. AND OVER THE TIME I HAVE BEEN ON THE BOARD, AS MR. COLUMBUS MENTIONED, THERE HAD BEEN MANY HOMES ON THE WEST SIDE UPON DAVITA BOULEVARD THAT HAVE COME IN AND ASKED FOR THESE HIGHER RETAINING WALLS TO CREATE A LARGER BUILDING PAD FOR THE HOUSES. I WAS INTERESTED IN THIS APPLICATION BECAUSE IT IS POINTING TO THREE HOUSES THAT ARE A QUARTER-MILE SOUTH OF HIM BUT THERE ARE OTHER HOMES.

WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD READDRESS RETAINING WALLS AND THE FOUR FOOT RULE IN GENERAL SO MANY PEOPLE EXPRESS A NEED FOR HAVING A USABLE REAR YARD. WHEN I LOOKED AT THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY, I HAD ONE SPECIFIC QUESTION ABOUT IF THIS RETAINING WALL, IS IT GOING TO REPLACE THE FOUR FOOT RETAINING WALL WITH THE NEW STRUCTURAL WALL THAT IS 12 FEET.

BECAUSE OTHERWISE I THINK THERE IS SOME ISSUE WITH THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF PUTTING ANOTHER WALL ON TOP OF THE FOUR FOOT WALL. AND THEN WHAT EFFECT WILL THAT HIGHER WILL HAVE ONLY VACANT LOT TO THE SOUTH. IS THAT IS APPROXIMATELY THE

SAME ELEVATION AND ALSO THE PROPERTY TWO LOTS SOUTH. >> THOSE ARE GOOD POINTS.

[00:45:14]

WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A LEVEL BACKYARD IF I WERE THERE AS WELL.WE HAVE COMMONLY APPROVED THESE LAWS IN THE AST FOR THE SAME SITUATION. THE LAST ONE WE DID, SOMEONE CAME IN AND THEY WERE BUILDING A NEW HOUSE THEY HAD A SMALLER WALL AND THEY STARTED BUILDING A TALLER WALL WITHOUT APPROVAL AND NOT ONLY DID WE STOP THAT, BUT THEY HAD TO PRESENT ENGINEERING, PROFESSIONALLY ENGINEERING BECAUSE TO COME IN AND ADD FIVE FOOT TO THAT WALL IS AN UNSAFE THING TO DO AND WE WOULD NOT PERMIT THIS WITHOUT PROPER ENGINEERING.

I DON'T THINK THE BOARD WOULD. DIDN'T LAST TIME. AND THE FACT YOU ARE DOING TALLER WALLS, I UNDERSTAND. I'VE CLIMBED DOWN THE NORTH AND SOUTH ENDS OF YOUR PROPERTY WRITTEN ON THE SOUTH END, WHICH WOULD BE LEFT OF THE HOUSE, YOU ARE PRETTY MUCH AT THE SAME ELEVATION. IF YOU GO UP FIVE FEET, YOU HAVE CREATED A FIVE FOOT HIGHER ELEVATION THAN YOUR NEIGHBOR TO THE LEFT. I CLIMBED DOWN IN THE HOLE TO THE CONDOS IS YOUR NEIGHBOR TO THE RIGHT. AND YOU ARE ALREADY AT A GOOD SIX, SEVEN FOOT ABOVE THEIR ELEVATION AND YOUR WANTING TO ADD FIVE FEET MORE ON TOP OF THAT. WHAT IS GOING TO HOLD ALL THAT, HOWIS THAT GOING TO WORK?

>> ON THE SIDES WE ARE GOING TO ADD FOUR FEET ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH .

AND THAT IS TO TAPER IT BACK. AS WE HEAD EAST BACK TO THE STREET, IT'LL MATCH THE EXISTING ELEVATIONS ALREADY THERE THAT IS WITHIN PROBABLY 20 FEET OR SO.

STRUCTURALLY, YES. WE HAVE AN ENGINEER. WE HAVE THE FIRST INITIAL RETAINING WALL DESIGN BY STRUCTURAL ENGINEER AND ON A COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION I WOULD NOT DO SOMETHING WITHOUT CERTAIN. PLUS, THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT WOULD REQUIRE A CERTAIN DESIGN. WOULD BASICALLY BE ADDING MORE PILINGS.

IT WOULD NOT MOVE ANYTHING FROM THE PLANE OF THE WALL DURING BASICALLY EVERYTHING IS BUILT BEHIND THE PILING. AND SO WE WOULD ALMOST SISTER UP A NEW LONGER PILING AT THE SAME PLANE AS THE EXISTING RETAINING WALL, WHICH WOULD SUPPORT THE ADDITIONAL WEIGHT.

THE FILL BASICALLY.AND WE WOULD HAVE ADMIN AND EVERYTHING ELSE LIKE WE DO WITH THE RETAINING WALL. BUT IT WOULD BE DESIGNED PROPERLY IN A 10 FOOT RETAINING WALL IS AN EXTREME ÃWE ARE ALREADY PERTAINING FIVE FEET SO THE ADDITIONAL.

THAT AGAIN WOULD BE UP TO LOU. HE WORKED ON OUR FIRST WALL. WE WOULD CERTAINLY HAVE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER LOOK AT IT AND DESIGN IT. WE JUST DIDN'T WANT TO GO

THROUGH THAT WITHOUT FIRST GETTING APPROVAL. >> COUNSEL, HOW DO WE APPROVE POSSIBLY APPROVE A VARIANCE AND NOT KNOW WHAT ENGINEERING MAY OR MAY NOT BE DONE AFTER WE

HAVE EITHER APPROVED OR NOT APPROVED THIS VARIANCE. >> FIRST OF ALL, THIS IS THE PONTE VEDRA ZONING AGENCY. MR. PLUMB IS CORRECT. FOR RETAINING WALL, IT WOULD REQUIRE A BUILDING PERMIT. AND THEY IN TURN MAY REQUIRE SOME LEVEL OF ENGINEERING DEPENDING ON THE SIZE AND SCOPE OF THE RETAINING WALL. I DON'T THINK IT IS YOUR JURISDICTION FOR THE ENGINEER. I SUPPOSE YOU COULD ACQUIRE IT IS PROPERLY PERMITTED AND ENGINEERED. AND THINK THAT IS ANYWAY. BUT IF YOU WANTED TO HAVE THAT

AS AN EXPRESS CONDITION, THE AGENCY COULD DO THAT. >> AS WE SUBMITTED THE CLEARANCE SHEET WITH THE PROPOSED ÃIT WAS NOT THE DESIGN BUT IT IS BASICALLY WHAT WE WERE GOING TO DO. AND WE KNEW WE WOULD HAVE TO GET A VARIANCE BUT I WAS ALWAYS CONFUSED AND I THINK JACOB WOULD PROBABLY AGREE. I WASN'T SURE IF I WAS GOING WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT OR THE ZONING BOARD AND KIND OF A MIX BETWEEN THE TWO.

BUT KATHLEEN ALLEN WITH THE CLEARANCE SHEET SAID BEFORE WE CAN BRING THIS END, FIRST YOU

HAVE TO GET YOUR VARIANCE. >> I DO AGREE WITH YOU. WOULD NOT MAKE SENSE TO GO TO ALL THIS TROUBLE, ALL THE TROUBLE TO GET ENGINEERING AND SPEND THAT MONEY IF YOU COULDN'T GET THE VARIANCE. SO THAT IS LOGICAL. AND I DO AGREE IF YOU GO FOR A

[00:50:01]

I WOULDN'T MIND ENTERING IT FOR THE RECORD. >> IT'S KINDEST TO BILLETED AND ITEM NUMBER TWO. SAYS IT REQUIRES ALL PROPER AGENCIES APPROVALS.

IT IS ALMOST COVERED. >> YES. I WOULD ALMOST GUARANTEE ON THE BILL AT 692 JUST SOUTH OF US, SIX OR EIGHT MONTHS AGO, IT'S A BIG INTERLOCKING PVC.

IT'S THE BIG SHEET PILING. THAT IS A PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL WALL RIGHT THERE THAT THEY

WOULD HAVE SERIOUS ENGINEERING ON THE. >> LOU IS GOING TO REQUIRE IT BE WILL CORRECTLY AND REMOVE AND REPLACE OR ENCAPSULATE BEHIND. DON'T KNOW.

BUT I'M SURE THEY WILL DO PROPER ENGINEERING ON. >> AND WE WANT THAT TOO.

>> I'M ASSUMING YOU WOULD DO A FENCE AS WELL ON TOP SO YOU DON'T HAVE ANY DEATHS?

>> REMEMBER CORRECTLY, THE ISSUE ON THE LOT TOTHE CELL , THEY WERE PROCEEDING BEFORE YOU

GO TO THE EVEN APPLIED FOR A BUILDING PERMIT. >> THAT'S WHEN I WAS REFERRING

TO. >> IF EFFECTIVELY YOU ARE COMING IN, YOU'RE GOING TO END IT AT THE NINE FOOT. WE KEPT SAYING 12 FOOT. BUT IT IS ONLY NINEFOOT.

AND YOU COMEBACK IN WITH ADDITIONAL WOOD PILING , DRILL THEM DOWN , ADD THE LONG-RANGE BACK. SO YOU WILL HAVE A DOUBLE RETAINING WALL.

>> YES. IT WOULD ALL ACT AS ONE SYSTEM. BUT YES.

>> AND THE HOUSES ÃI FORGOT THE HOUSES ON PILING. >> IT IS.

47 CONCRETE WALKER CAST PILINGS JUST LIKE THEY DO WITH THE OCEAN.

WE WERE ACTUALLY TOLD WHEN WE WERE PERMITTING IT, AND FORGOT THE JUDGMENTS NAME IN THE COUNTY NOW, BUT IF YOU WERE IN THAT THE GOING TO REQUIRE THAT.

BUT IT IS NOT A STRAIGHT LINE. I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY FIGURE OUT WHERE THIS LINE GOES.

FROM US AT JOBS TO THE EAST. YOU ARE TO HAVE MOST OF ÃTHERE AREN'T MAYBE A COUPLE VACANT

LOTS LEFT ANYWAY. >> I WOULD LIKE TO APPLAUD YOU FOR SAVING THE ONE HILL IN

PONTE VEDRA. >> YES. WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO WORK

WITH THAT. WE ARE STILL WORKING. >> I'M GLAD TO SEE YOU SAVED

THAT BEAUTIFUL. >> I ALWAYS LOVED THAT. >> SO WORST CASE WE ARE TALKING ELEVATION ABOVE THE NEIGHBOR TO THE SELF. BUT THEY CAN ALSO COME IN FRONT OF THE BOARD IF THEY WANT TO BUMP UP A FEW FEET TO MATCH THAT WITH THE VARIANCE SURE

WOULD BE APPROVED. >> KINDA LIKE WHAT JAY WAS SAYING.

I THINK WHEN THEY FINALLY GET A BUILDING PERMIT AND THEY SEE THAT THE PUT THE HOUSEUP AT A CERTAIN ELEVATION, THEY ARE HAVE A GOOD THE SAME CONDITION .

WHEN YOU WALK OUT OF THE HOUSE, YOU ARE GOING TO BE GOING DOWNHILL.

IT WOULDN'T SURPRISE ME IF THEY COME BACK WHENEVER HEGETS READY .

>> NOBODY BEHIND YOU IN THAT AREA IS EVER GOING TO SEE THE BACK OF THE WALL.

>> WE WILL ACTUALLY BE ON OUR WAY BACK TO THE DEVELOPMENT BACK THERE.

IT IS ALL A JURISDICTION THAT IS WETLANDS, LOWLANDS. IT IS A LITTLE WET HERE AND

THERE. >> YOU SET ASIDE MY QUESTIONS. ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS? I WOULD LIKE TO FOLLOW-UP ON THE LOCATION OF THE WALL AND I CAN REMEMBER WE TALKED ABOUT THESE OTHER WALLS WHERE THE WETLAND PEOPLE HAVE A VOICE IN THE LOCATIONS. BECAUSE WHEN YOU CONSTRUCT WALL YOU'RE GOING TO PUT IT OUT OF THE EXISTING WALL STRUCTURALLY SO YOU HAVE ROOM TO WORK AND DO WHAT YOU NEED TO DO.

AND I AM JUST MENTIONING THAT TO SEE IF WE HAVE ANY ISSUES ABOUT THE RELATIVE PLACE OF THE WALL OR IF THAT IS ALL TO HELL FAR WEST OU CAN GO OR IF THAT IS ALL SUBJECT TO THE

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. >> THAT WILL BE ADDRESSED WHEN THEY PULL A PERMIT FOR THE LAW THEY WANT TO MEET ANY CRITERIA INVOLVED IN LOCATION AND SO FORTH FOR IT BUT I THINK THAT IS BOND OUR SCOPE OF JURISDICTION.

>> IT WOULD BE BEST TO PUT THE NEW WALL INSIDE THE OLD WALL TO THE OLD WALL HOLDS OF THE NEW

WALL. >> WE CANNOT GO ANY FURTHER WEST.

[00:55:01]

IF THERE IS A CAMERA I COULD SHOW YOU. IT WOULD BE WHERE THE 16

PILINGS ARE NOW. >> IF YOU SET THAT DOWN IN THE CENTER.

>> AND BY SUBMITTING THAT YOU WILL NEED TO LEAVE THAT FOR THE RECORD.

>> SO THIS IS THE EXISTING PYLON AND EVERYTHING BEHIND IT IS CALLED WHALERS AND EVERYTHING. IT IS ALL HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL.

>> YOU CAN MOVE THAT BASE SO IT IS WHAT IS CENTER. THERE YOU GO.

>> THIS IS THE PILING, THIS IS ALL THE LUMBER BEHIND IT, THIS IS THE FILL, HERE IS HOUSE APPEAR, THIS IS LOWER AREA DOWN HERE, THIS IS CALLED A TIEBACK. SO THE NEW PILINGS ÃWE ARE IN A RACE THIS WALL ANOTHER FIVE FEET. THE NEW PILINGS LITERALLY WOULD GO ADJACENT TO THIS ONE. JUST HIGHER. IN THE SAME PLANE AS HIS EXISTING WALL. IT IS NOT REALLY GOING BEHIND IT, IS NOT GOING IN FRONT OF IT. DESPITE LINKS ARE EVERY FIVE FEET ON THE CENTER.

EVERY IN BETWEEN THAT WOULD BE A TALLER, LONGER, DEEPER PILING THAT WOULD SUPPORT THIS

ADDITIONAL FIVE FEET. >> MR. CHAIR, IF I COULD GO BACK TO MISS KCKINLEY QUESTION OR COMMENT, THE APPLICATION DOES INCLUDE ANY FIGURE OF ONE OF THE STAFF REPORT, THE SURVEY INDICATED A RETAINING WALL LOCATION. AND AS PART OF THAT , BASICALLY IT SAYS EXISTING RETAINING WALL AT FIVE FEET. IN OTHER WORDS, I THINK IT DOES LIMIT GEOGRAPHICALLY. YOU CAN'T PUT IT OUT ANOTHER EIGHT FOOT FEET WEST OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I THINK YOU ARE LIMITED BY WHAT IS IN THE APPLICATION AND

MATERIALS. >> AND I BELIEVE WE ALREADY SUBMITTED THAT WITH THIS LONG AGO SUBMITTED TO KATHLEEN IN THE COPY OF THE DEP AND ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT THAT ALLOWED WHEN HE FIRST BUILT IT AND IT IS EXACTLY ON THIS LOCATION.

I WOULD LOVE TO GO OUT AND THEY WILL NOT ALLOW US TO. IF I DID, THAT WOULD BE A BIG PROBLEM. WE ARE GOING EXACTLY WHERE IT IS.

>> I LIVE IN THE SAME SPOT. >> WE ARE JUST GOING VERTICALLY.

>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? >>MEGAN MCKINLEY: LAST COMMENT IS A POINT OF INFORMATION THAT TECHNICALLY YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO PUT THE FENCE ON TOP OF THE RETAINING WALL DUTY TO BE INBOUND OF THE RETAINING WALL.

>> IF NO FURTHER COMMENTS, I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN IT UP TO PUBLIC COMMENT.

SEEING NO PUBLIC COMMENT, I WOULD BE OPEN FOR A MOTION. >>JOHN LYNCH : MOTION TO APPROVE PVZVAR 2020 ÃTHREE RETAINING WALL REQUEST FOR ZONING VARIANCE FOR SECTION 810 TO OF THE PVZVAR TO ALLOW THE RETAINING WALL TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM PERMIT OF ZONING ARE THREE ZONING BASED UPON FOUR OR FIVE THINGS OF FACT AND SUBJECT TO FIVE CONDITIONS AT REPORT.

>> SECOND. >> WE WILL TAKE A VOICE VOTE FOR JOHN QUINN TO VOTE YES OR

NO? >>JOHN LYNCH : YES. >>BRAD SCOTT: JOHN.

>>JOHN PATTON: YES. >>BRAD SCOTT: MEGAN? >>MEGAN MCKINLEY: YES.

>>BRAD SCOTT: HARRY GRAHAM . >>HARRY GRAHAM : YES. >>BRAD SCOTT: AND BRAD SCOTT, YES. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.

WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE THIRD AGENDA ITEM, WHICH IS 536 LEMASTER REMODEL TO ALLOW 19.8

[3. PVZVAR2020-04 536 Le Master Remodel. Request for a Zoning Variance to Section III.B of the PVZDR to allow a 19.8 foot front yard setback for an existing garage, in lieu of the 25 foot requirement, and a 20 foot Side Yard setback for a Corner Lot in order to accommodate for a proposed addition in R-1-C zoning, specifically located at 536 Le Master Dr. Presenter - Alice Cline Morris, Assistant County Attorney]

[01:00:06]

ABOUT THIS. >>JOHN LYNCH : I DID MAKE A SITE VISIT.

I HAVE NOT SPOKEN TO ANYONE. >>BRAD SCOTT: JOHN PATTON? >>JOHN PATTON: SAME.

>>BRAD SCOTT: MEGAN? >>MEGAN MCKINLEY: SITE VISIT. I DID NOT SPEAK TO ANYONE.

>>BRAD SCOTT: HARRY? BEATEN SITE VISIT. HAVE NOT SPOKEN WITH ANYONE.

>>BRAD SCOTT: I MADE A SITE VISIT BUT HAVE NOT SPOKEN WITH ANYONE.

IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. >> NICK SANFORD, 3030 CIRCLE JACKSONVILLE FLORIDA. I AM HERE ON BEHALF OF JERRY AND DOHN SARVADI.

THEY HAD A VARIANCE APPROVED IN 2014 WE ACTUALLY APPLIED FOR A PERMIT THINKING THAT VARIANCE WAS STILL IN PLACE. IT HAS BEEN TOO LONG OF TIME. SO WE ARE REAPPLYING NOW FOR

THIS NEW VARIANCE. >>BRAD SCOTT: CAN YOU TELL US ABOUT THE ORIGINAL BOX BECAUSE

I DON'T REMEMBER. >> I HAVE PAPERWORK HERE. >> PETER, IF HE COULD PULL UP

FIGURE 1 ON THE STAFF REPORT, I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL. >> IT IS IN A REGULAR LOT, A CORNER LOT. SO THERE IS PRODUCED AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR BUILDING AND

THAT WAS THE REASON WHY THE INITIAL VARIANCE WAS APPROVED. >> IS ANY INFORMATION YOU MIGHT

BE ABLE TOSHARE WITH THE. >> HARDSHIP IS THE EXISTING GARAGE .

ON THE SIDE OR THE REAR BECAUSE THE RETENTION POND IN THE SIDE YARD SETBACK.

>> I WILL TRY TO HELP YOU OUT HERE BECAUSE I SEE THE SIMILAR TO JAY'S LOT WHERE THE WAY IT IS DESIGNED IF YOU COME IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ON THE LEFT BUT BELOW THIS DIAGRAMIF YOU WOULD COME IN, YOU DON'T WANT THIS HOUSE, THIS CORNER LOT HOUSE PROTRUDING FARTHER FROM THE STREET. AND IN THE NEXT HOUSE IS BEYON , WHICH HAS A 50 PERCENT BACKDOOR IN IT BUT IF YOU ACTUALLY DRIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ON THE LEFT PAST THIS HOUSE, THE NEXT HOUSE AT PROTRUDES 15 OR 18 FEET OUT PAST THIS.

THERE IS NO WAY THIS ISGOING TO INTERFERE WITH THE SETBACK LOOK OF THE NEXT HOUSE.

>> I HAD ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS. I MET HIM OVER THERE. HE WAS OFF WATER RIDGE PLACE AND I MET HIM IN FIVE OR SIX OTHER NEIGHBORS THEY WANTED TO SEE WHAT WE WOULD DO WITH THE PROJECT. IT WAS GOING TO BE OBTRUSIVE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

WE ARE NOT DOING ANY LANDSCAPING ON THE SIDE YARD. IN A SENSE THAT ADDITION IS GOING TO BE CONCEALED TO THEIR YARD AND I THINK ADDING TO THE VALUE OF THE NEIGHBORS HOUSES

AS WELL IS THIS ONE. >> TWO MEETINGS AGO WE HAD THE HOUSE ON THE CURVE ON THE

MASTER JUST TWO DOORS TO THE RIGHT OF THIS. >> IT WAS NORTH OF IT.

JUST BEYOND THE JA STATION. >> IT WAS THE HOUSE TO THE RIGHT AND IT WAS ON THE CURVE, WHICH CUT BACK ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE LOT AND CREATED HARDSHIP OF THE DIFFICULTY OF STAYING INSIDE THE BUILDING RESTRICTION. YES, THAT'S IT RIGHT THERE.

[01:05:08]

>> AND WE RECEIVED ANY COMMENTS FROM THE NEIGHBORS EITHER FOR OR AGAINST THIS QUICK.> WAS ONE COMMENT FROM THE NEIGHBOR IN WATER BRIDGE. HE EMAILED ME AND I MET HIM OUT AND SHOWED HIM THE PLANTS WHAT WE WERE DOING AND HE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE WEREN'T DOING

ANYTHING TO DO YOU RATE HIS HOME VALUE. >> BUT FROM THE COUNTY THERE HAS BEEN NO. OKAY. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD. I WOULD OPEN IT UP TO PUBLIC COMMENT.

YOU ARE WELCOME TO SIT BACK DOWN. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. HEARING NO PUBLIC COMMENT, I WILL OPEN IT UP FOR A MOTION.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE PVZVAR 2020 FOR 536 LEMASTER REMODEL. SECTION 3B OF THE PV ER TO ALLOW A 19 FOOT.

A 20 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR THE CORNER LOT. THE PROPOSED ADDITION IN THE ZONING BASED UPON FORTIFY IN THE FACT AND SUBJECT TO FIVE CONDITIONS AS LISTED.

>>BRAD SCOTT: DO I HEAR A SECOND? >>MEGAN MCKINLEY: SECOND.

>>BRAD SCOTT: GETTING WITH JOHN LYNCH . >>JOHN LYNCH : YES.

>>BRAD SCOTT: JOHN PATTON . >>JOHN PATTON: YES. >>BRAD SCOTT: MEGAN?

>>MEGAN MCKINLEY: YES. >>BRAD SCOTT: HARRY? >>HARRYGRAHAM : YES .

>>BRAD SCOTT: BRAD SCOTT, YE. THAT WOULD BE A UNANIMOUS APPROVAL.ONGRATULATIONS.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. MOVING ON TO AGENDA FOR, A RECOMMENDATION OF APPOINTMENT

[4. Recommendation of appointment of PVZAB member. This item is for the recommendation of appointment of a member for one (1) position on the Ponte Vedra Zoning and Adjustment Board (PVZAB). Member must be a qualified elector residing in the Ponte Vedra Zoning District. The term of Robert D. Becker II expired on February 16, 2020. A member whose term has expired shall be allowed to continue to serve until said member's successor has been appointed and has commenced service on the PVZAB (Ch. 2005-305, Section 8, Laws of Florida). Please find for recommendation by this Board and final appointment by the Board of County Commissioners one (1) application meeting the minimum requirements from Samuel Crozier.]

I KNOW THERE WAS ANOTHER PERSON INTERESTED IN SERVING ON THE BOARD.

THEIR APPLICATION WAS ONLY ADMITTED SUBMITTED LAST WEEK. WAS WONDERING IF WE SHOULD WAIT AND LOOK AT THIS AT OUR NEXT MEETING WHEN WE HAVE TWO APPLICANTS?

>>BRAD SCOTT: I WOULD DEFER TO THE COUNTY ON THAT. IF WE HAD DEADLINES AND THEY WERE MET AND WE HAVE ONE APPLICANT. WE WOULDN'T WANT TO PENALIZE THIS APPLICANT IF SOMEONE DIDN'T MAKE A DEADLINE WE DO NEED TO FILL THAT SPOT.

WE DO NOT HAVE A MEETING NEXT MONTH. SO WE ARE TALKING TWO MONTHS.

AND I KNOW THERE IS AN OPENING IN THE EARLY PART OF NEXT YEAR IF THAT APPLICANT IS STILL

INTERESTED. >> THIS IS ALICE. >> MISS MORRIS, GO AHEAD.

>> I WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT IS INDEED THE SITUATION THAT THE INTEREST OF THE PERSON IS FOR THENEXT OPENING . IT JUST HAPPENED TO BE AN INTERESTING TIMING OF SUBMISSION. BUT YOU ARE RIGHT. YOU ARE JUST WHEN LOOKING AT

THE ONE APPLICATION TODAY. >> I TRUST EVERYONE HAS INFORMATION ON THIS APPLICANT?

>> I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION. THIS PARTICULAR APPLICANT IS CURRENTLY INVOLVED IN LAND DEVELOPMENT. THAT IS HIS CURRENT PROFESSION. AND IS THAT A CONFLICT?

IT SEEMS TO ME AN ISSUE. >> THIS IS SAMUEL, THE 55 SELFISH DRIVE.

[01:10:31]

>> AGAIN MR. CHAIRMAN, THIS IS ALICE. I DON'T BELIEVE IN OUR RULES

THERE IS ANYTHING ABOUT THAT TYPE OF CONFLICT. >> IF I MAY, THANK YOU MISS MORRIS. MS. MCKINLEY IS CORRECT TO THE EXTENT THAT IF A PARTICULAR APPLICANT, FOR EXAMPLE, DID A LOT OF BUSINESS IN THE PONTE VEDRA ZONING DISTRICT, TO THE POINT WHERE THERE WOULD BE SORT OF THE CONTINUING NEED TO RECUSE BECAUSE OF THE VOTING CONFLICT REPRESENTING PARTICULAR PROPERTY OWNERS OR APPLICANTS, THEN THAT WOULD BE AN ISSUE. IF IT GOES TO THE MATTER OF JUST GENERAL DEVELOPMENT, NOT PRIMARILY OR NOT USUALLY OR I WOULD SAY IS UNUSUALLY IN THE PONTE VEDRA ZONING DISTRICT,

THAT WOULD NOT BE THE BASIS FOR RECOVERY. >> DO WE HAVE ANY WAY TO TELL HOW MUCH OF A CONFLICT OF INTEREST WE ARE RECUSING COULD BE POSSIBLE?

FOR THIS APPLICANT?>> IT ONLY HAS LISTED ON HIS APPLICATION TRANSIT PARCEL.

THERE ARE 3.8 ACRES AT 1338 PONTE VEDRA BOULEVARD. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS AND I

AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE GROUP. AND WHAT THEIR. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, QUICKLY LOOKING AT THEIR WEBSITE, THEY'RE NOT LISTED DEVELOPMENTS IN OUR JURISDICTION.

I GUESS NOTHING ABOUT THAT DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE PROJECT IS DEVELOPING TO RECLUSE

HIMSELF. >> RIGHT. SO PART OF THE APPLICATION, AND A PARTNER IN THE TOWERS GROUP, WHICH DOES REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT AT ST. JOHN'S AND CLAY COUNTIES THROUGH THE COURSE IS A COUNTY ATTORNEY I AMFAMILIAR WITH SOME OF THE TOWERS GROUP . AND DEVELOPMENT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, I CANNOT RECALL APPLICATIONS IN THE DISTRICT. I CAN'T SAY THERE HAVE NEVER BEEN ANY.

BUT THE ONES UNFAMILIAR WITH WORK SEEM TO RECALL OF THE ONCE MORE TOWARD THE CENTER IN WESTERN PORTION OF THE COUNTY. MR. SMITH, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE COMMENTS ON THIS.

SO I THINK AS PART OF THAT, IF YOU MAY HAVE A RECOLLECTION OF A NUMBER OF THESE APPLICATIONS FROM THE TOWERS GROUP OR THE TOWERS GROUP AS PART OF AN APPLICATION, I'M NOT SENTENCING THAT THEY DO A LOT IN THE DISTRICT. I WILL SAY IF THERE WAS AN OCCASIONAL ONE, THAT MAY BE GROUNDS FOR RECUSAL FOR THAT PARTICULAR MATTER.

IF IT WERE TO THE POINT WHERE THERE WAS A CONTINUING NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS COMING FORWARD CAUSING SOME CONTINUING NEED TO RECUSE, THAT WOULD BE AN ISSUE THAT WOULD BE A BASIS TO NOT

RECOMMEND FOR THE COMMISSIONERS NOT TO POINT. >> AND THIS COULD BE DUE NOTICE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC AND TO THE BOARD THAT IF THEY FIND THERE ARE REASONS FOR NOT APPROVAL IT CAN BE ADDRESSED WITH COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WHEN THEY DO FORMALLY APPROVE.

I SAY GO TO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THEY CAN PRESENT TO THE COUNTY

COMMISSIONERS. >> IN OTHER WORDS, THAT COULD BE PART OF THE RECOMMENDATION

[01:15:04]

COMMISSIONERS . >> MAY WE RECOMMEND THAT IN OUR APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE

APPLICANT? >> YES, YOU MAY. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE

BOARD? >> WOULD LIKE TO THANK THEM FOR THE EXPERIENCE.

>>BRAD SCOTT: I WOULD LOOK FOR A MOTION OF APPROVAL FOR THIS NOMINATION TO BE RECOMMENDED AS

A MEMBER OF THE ZONING BOARD TO THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND IT FOR THE APPOINTMENT TO THE PONTE VEDRA ZONING ADJUSTMENT BOARD.

>> AND WITH THAT AND INCLUDE AN REQUESTING STAFF REVIEW DEVELOPMENT THAT THEY HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS THE TO ASCERTAIN THERE WOULD NOT BE A BASIS FOR A

CONTINUING CONFLICT IN THE DISTRICT? >> AND MORE WORRIED ABOUT FUTURE CONFLICTS. TO ENSURE THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY FUTURE CONFLICTS OF

INTEREST. >>BRAD SCOTT: AND A SECOND? >>JOHN LYNCH : I WILL SECOND.

>>BRAD SCOTT: I WILL BEGIN WITH YOU. IF YOU COULDVOTE YES OR NO FOR

APPROVAL OF THIS APPLICANT . >>JOHN LYNCH : YES. >> JOHN PATTON .

>> YES. >> MEGAN MCKINLEY? >>MEGAN MCKINLEY: YES.

>> HARRY GRAHAM. >> YES. >> BRAD SCOTT YES.

CONGRATULATIONS ON APPROVAL IN YOUR NOMINATION TO THEBOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR APPROVAL . I AM ASSUMING THERE IS NO OTHER STAFF REPORTS OR BOARD

[Staff Report]

>> MR. CHAIR, BEFORE THE BOARD ÃARE THE BOARD MEMBERS GOING TO DO A REPORT? I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE BOARD VERY BRIEFLY AS A COUNTY ATTORNEY, IF I MAY.>

CERTAINLY. >> YES. FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD LIKE TO ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTIES OFFICE THANK EACH AND EVERYONE OF YOU FOR YOUR PUBLIC SERVICE PERTAINING TO THE PONTE VEDRA ZONING BOARD I NOTICED SOME HOMEWORK ON THESE APPLICATIONS IN YOUR TIME AT THE WELL NOTED COMPENSATION RATE. AT LEAST IT IS NOT TAXABLE.

BUT I WILL SAY I HAVE NOT MET I DON'T THINK EACH OF YOU. MR. GRAHAM AND I HAVE KNOWN EACH OTHER. HATE TO SAY, I THINK IT GOES INTO THE DECADES CATEGORY PROBABLY. I HAVE HEARD ON HERE, AND IF I MAY SAY JUST AS AN ATTORNEY WHO SITS IN FRONT OF SEVERAL BOARDS, SOME OF THEQUESTIONS AND CONCERNS EXPRESSED .

AND WILL BECOME EACH OF THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE BEEN VERY GOOD I DON'T THINK THE BOARD SHOULD HAVE A LIKE MIND ON EVERY TYPE THING THAT IS WHY THERE ARE BOARDS TO HAVE DIFFERENT VIEWPOINTS AND DIFFERENT POTENTIALLY DIFFERENT CONCERNS ON THINGS.

AND FOR DISCUSSION AND IT DECISION. THAT IS THE WAY THE SPORT OPERATES.I DID WANT TO GO TO EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS, IF I MAY.

IN RIGHT FOR YOUR JUDICIAL ITEMS, WHICH ARE MOST OF YOUR ITEMS BUT HONESTLY 133 TODAY.

WHAT THE RULE IS ALL THAT IS IF THERE IS AN X PARTAKE COMMUNICATION, IN OTHER WAYS SOMETHING FOR THE APPLICANT, IT MIGHT BE POTENTIAL OPPONENTS OF AN APPLICATION OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THE SUNSHINE LAW DOES NOT PREVENT A COMMUNICATION.

[01:20:05]

FOR THOSE TYPES OF THINGS, THOSE ARE NOT PROHIBITED. BUT THEY OCCUR, THEY HAVE TO BE DISCLOSED, WHICH IS WHAT YOU WERE DOING TODAY. I WILL SAY FOR DIFFERENT BOARD , EVEN THE COUNTY COMMISSION FOR SOME OF THEM THROUGH THE YEARS, THEY JUST MADE A PRACTICE NOT TO HAVE OR BASICALLY TO LIMIT OR TRY TO NOT HAVE EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS. AND THAT IS FINE TOO. AND IF THEY DO OCCUR AND SOMETIMES THEY MAY OCCUR INADVERTENTLY. AND WHAT THE REQUIREMENT IS TO DISCLOSE THOSE BEFORE THE VOTE, WHICH IS WHAT WE ARE DOING. AND IT SHOULD BE THE SUBSTANCE OF IT COULD BE. LIKE IF SOMEONE IS IN OPPOSITION BECAUSE THEY THINK IT WILL BE TOO NOISY OR THEY ARE IN A POSITION BECAUSE THEY THINK A DRAINAGE CONCERN OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT . THAT PART OF THE COMMUNICATION SHOULD BE DISCLOSED.

IF IT IS APPLICANT, IF THEY SAY IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS IT'S NOT REALLY MUCH TO DISCLOSE.

AS HE DID TODAY, IF THERE WAS JUST LIKE A PHONE CALL OR SOMETHING THAT WAS MOST LIKELY WHAT IT WAS.SORRY, I'M GAGGING WITH THIS MASK ON. SO I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT AND IF THERE WERE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUTTHAT . NOW, WITH THE BOARD MEMBERS CANNOT DO IN A QUASIJUDICIAL IS TO MAKE UP YOUR MIND TO GET AN ESPECIALLY TELL SOMEBODY YOU HAVE MADE UP YOUR MIND BEFORE THE HEARING.YOUR MINDS ARE NOT MADE UP UNTIL THE HEARING, THE APPLICANT IS AN OPPORTUNITY IN THE OPPOSITION, PEOPLE, WHEN YOU DISCUSS IT.

AND THEN YOU ARE RIGHT FOR DECISION. THAT'S THE PART TO BE AVOIDED.

I WILL SUPPORT YOUR APPLICATION OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT BEFORE IT HAS ACTUALLY GONE THROUGH

THE HEARING PROCESS. ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME? >> NO, BUT I THINK WE ALL LEARNED OVER THE YEARS WE MIGHT HAVE AN IDEA IN OUR HEAD. BUT MANY TIMES I HAVE COME IN AND LISTENED TO OTHER SITES AND REALIZED THAT I DIDN'T CONSIDER ALL THE FACTS AND CHANGE MY

MIND. >> YOU GET A GOOD APPLICATION FROM YOUR PROFESSIONAL STAFF.

I SHOULD SAY, YOU GET AN APPLICATION.YOU GET A GOOD STAFF, BASICALLY TREATMENT OF THAT APPLICATION, INFORMATIVE. BUT IT IS NOT UNTIL YOU HAVE HEARD IT.

I HAVE CERTAINLY SEEN BOARD MEMBERS AND DECISION WERE I COULD TELL AT THE BEGINNING OF A PRESENTATION, I THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO GO ONE WAY AND IT COMPLETELY SWITCHED.

THAT IS THE IMPORTANCE OF THE BACK-AND-FORTH, IF THERE IS WITH THE APPLICANT AND POTENTIALLY PUBLIC COMMENT FOR OPPONENTS. BUT THE DISCUSSION AMONG YOURSELVES, THIS IS A COLLEGIAL BOARD. YOU MAY SITTING THERE THINK YOU ARE GOING TO BE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE AND SOMEBODY BRINGS A CONCERN.

AND YOU THINK I CAN GET OVER THAT CONCERN EITHER. THAT IS THE BEAUTY OF THE BOARD. BUT BACK TO MY ORIGINAL COMMENT, THANK YOU FOR YOUR PUBLIC SERVICE. YOU ARE ALL VERY SUCCESSFUL CONSTITUENTS AND CITIZENS OF THE COUNTY. I AM VERY SURE EACH OF YOU HAS MANY OTHER THINGS YOU COULD BE DOING, BUT YOU ARE DOING A SERVICE TO PONTE VEDRA AND ST. JOHN'S COUNTY AND I

APPRECIATED. >>BRAD SCOTT: THANK YOU FOR SAYING THAT VERY MUCH.

IT IS A PLEASURE TO SERVE AND BE PART OF IT AND WE ALL ENJOY IT.

IT DOES TAKE SOME TIME, BUT WHAT YOU PUT INTO SOMETHING WILL MORE OFTEN BE WHAT YOU GET

FROM IT. IT IS FULFILLING IN MANY WAYS. >> IF I MAY MAKE ONE LAST COMMENT, AND I APOLOGIZE. MR. GRAHAM PROBABLY KNOWS THIS BECAUSE HE HAS HAD QUITE A BIT OF EXPERIENCE. THERE ARE OTHER AREAS IN THE COUNTY THAT HAVE WANTED TO DO WITH THE PONTE VEDRA ZONING DISTRICT HAS DONE IN THE PONTE VEDRA ZONING BOARD DOES OVERLAY

[01:25:01]

BECAUSE THEY HAVE SEEN THE SUCCESS OF THE PONTE VEDRA ZONING DISTRICT AND ZONING BOARD. SO THAT HAS BEEN EMULATED IN SOME DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE COUNTY. I THINK IN PART BECAUSE THEY HAVE SEEN HOW IT PROTECTS THE COMMUNITY AND ADDS TO THE VALLEY. THAT IS MY LAST COMMENT.

>>BRAD SCOTT: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT, JOHN?

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, A QUESTION. TODAY STAFF DID NOT MAKE PRESENTATIONS.

IS THAT A PERMANENT THING OR JUST DUE TO THE COVID-19 ISSUE? I'M CURIOUS HISTORY OF THAT.

WHERE DID IT COME FROM? WHAT JAKE SMITH WITH GROWTH MANAGEMENT.

SORRY TO SPRING THAT ON YOU TODAY. THAT HAS BEEN SOMETHING THAT STARTED AT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETINGS TO BEGIN APPROXIMATELY A MONTH O GO.

MAYBE SIX WEEKS.ND HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED AT THE PLANNING AND ZONING AGENCY AND NOW AS HE FOUND OUT, AND HAS BEEN IMPLEMENTED AT THE PONTE VEDRA ZONING AND ADJUSTMENT BOARD.

TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THAT WILL CONTINUE UNTIL WE ARE OTHERWISE DIRECTED.>> OKAY.

I ENJOY YOUR PRESENTATIONS.I MISS THEM. >> IT KIND OF GOES BOTH WAYS, I THINK. AT SOME LEVEL IT IS TO SPEED THINGS UP AND PERHAPS REDUCE THE LEVEL OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND IT DOES GET TOUGH WHEN WE HAVE A MOM-AND-POP PRESENTATION BECAUSE IT IS TO MISS OUT ON THE HOLISTIC ASPEC .

THAT'S WHERE WE ARE AT THE MOMENT. >> I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO CONTINUE. I THINK IT IS VERY HELPFUL TO LAY OUT WHAT IS GOING ON EACH ISSUE. WHAT'S THE PUBLIC YEAR WHETHER THEY ARE PRESENT ARE WATCHING ON T.V. AND LETS US REHEAR YOUR PRESENTATION. I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO COME

BACK. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD USE THE LAST TWO PRESENTATIONS WE HAVE . JOHN DID A VERY GOOD JOB PRESENTING THE LAST

PRESENTATION BECAUSE IT WAS NOT THAT MY QUALITY. >> PRESENTERS OR APPLICANTS AREN'T ALWAYS COMFORTABLE GETTING UP AND SPEAKING. IT IS TO THEIR DEMISE SOMETIMES IF THEY ARE NOT GOOD PUBLIC SPEAKERS, IT WILL NOT SHOW WELL FOR THE PRESENTATION.

SO IT IS GOOD FOR THE COUNTY TO PRESENT PROFESSIONALLY FOR THEM AND THEY CAN BACK IT UP WITH QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS. IT IS TOUGH FOR SOMEBODY TO COME IN HERE AND FEEL

COMFORTABLE IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD AND PRESENTPROPERLY . >> MR. CHAIR, UNLESS THERE IS ANOTHER OBJECTION OR THOUGHT FROM THE BOARD AS A WHOLE, I WITH MR. SMITH WILL BRING THAT UP.HE BOTTOM LINE IS THE COUNTY IS VERY THANKFUL FOR YOUR SERVICE.

AND I THINK IT IS HELPFUL YOU PRESENTED THE INFORMATION TO THE MOST EFFICIENT WAY.

AND IT IS A PUBLIC BOARD. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WATCHING, ETC..

AND I CAN BRING ÃI CAN ADDRESS THAT CONCERN AS WELL. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS A PROHIBITION, BUT I THINK AT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, THEY HAVE FOUND THAT A LOT OF TIMES THERE, THE APPLICANTS HAVE A VERY WELL ÃTHEY MAY HAVE A 27 PAGE POWERPOINT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. AND I THINK THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WERE SEEN IN MANY CASES A LOT OF THE SAME PPLICANT.FROM STAFF AND THE SO I THINK IT KIND OF GOT IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION. I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS WOULD'VE MADE THAT MANDATORY.

BUT I CAN ASK ABOUT THAT. IF THAT WOULD BE BASICALLY THE REQUEST.

>> I DO AGREE WITH A LOT OF PRESENTATIONS HAVE AN ATTORNEY PRESENT AND VERY PROFESSIONAL.

I GUESS IT IS JUST THE INDIVIDUALCOMES IN A DOESN'T KNOW THE SYSTEM , LIKE ANY COURT SYSTEM, COULD GET EATEN ALIVE. THAT'S WHERE I WOULD FEEL SORRY FOR AN INDIVIDUAL WHO DOESN'T KNOW THE SYSTEM TO COME HERE AND GIVES IT THAT PUBLIC SPEAKER AND HOPEFULLY THE BOARD WILL CONTINUE AS WE DO LIKE WE DID TODAY, SUGGEST HARDSHIPS

THROUGHOUT SUGGESTIONS. >> MR. CHAIR, AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, FOR MOST APPLICATIONS, YOU WANT TO KNOW WHERE YOU ARE IN THE DISTRICT. ONE HAVE AN AERIAL SO YOU CAN

[01:30:02]

EVEN THE MINIMUM TYPE OF THING SHOULD BE PART OF EVERYONE. >> I WOULD THINK EVEN A COMPROMISE TO PINPOINT FOCUS POINTS WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE WHOLE DRAWN OUT EXPLANATION AND EXPLANATION. AT LEAST HIT THE HIGH POINTS AND AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHS AND GENERAL INFORMATION THAT COULD BE A FRACTION OF THE NORMAL TIME THEY SPENT PRESENTING.

IF NO OTHER COMMENTS, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN. >> I MOVED WE ADJOURN.

>> AND A SECOND? >>MEGAN MCKINLEY: SECOND. >>BRAD SCOTT: MOTION EXCEPTED.

MEETING ADJOURNED.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.