>> OKAY, I WILL CALL THE AUGUSTH MEETING THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS TO ORDER. THE FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS IS APPROVAL OF MINUTES. >> I GUESS I WILL SECOND. >> I WILL MOTION AND SECOND. >> TURN YOUR MIC ON JUST SO WE CAN. >> ALL IN FAVOR? >> AYE. >> OKAY, THE NEXT ORDER OF BUSINESS IS THE PUBLIC COMMENTS. THIS IS OPEN FOR ANY COMMENT FROM ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC. YOU GET A CHANCE AGAIN TO SPEAK ABOUT A SPECIFIC ISSUE THAT WILL BE COMING UP BUT THIS IS IS JUST IF ANYONE WANTS TO TALK ABOUT ANYTHING. YES, SIR? YES. AGAIN, I WILL CALL YOU AGAIN FOR THE PARTICULAR ITEM. >> I WANT TO TALK ABOUT -- >> GENERAL COMMENTS. >> STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS PLEASE. >> 417. I WANTED TO GET HERE BECAUSE IN EARLY JULY I STARTED COMING TO A LOT OF DIFFERENT COMMISSIONER MEETINGS, YEAR MEETINGS, AND EVERYTHING AND I WANTED TO TELL YOU THAT FROM A STUPID TAXPAYERS OPINION WHICH IS MINE, EVERY TIME I SEE THESE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS THAT COME OUT AND I LOOK AT THEM YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW HARD IT IS FOR ME TO READ THIS STUFF AND UNDERSTAND EVEN WHAT YOU'RE SAYING BECAUSE THEN YOU DON'T PUT ANY INFORMATION DOWN. YOU JUST SAY FLORIDA STATE. NOW I'M SUPPOSED TO GO SOMEWHERE AND GET SOME HELP SOMEWHERE TO KNOW WHAT THE HECK YOU PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT. TO ME IT'S LIKE YOU'RE THROWING LITTLE SPARKLERS IN THE AIR TO DISTRACT ME FROM WHAT THE REAL PURPOSE IS. WE DON'T REALLY WANT THEM TO UNDERSTAND IT BECAUSE THEY ARE JUST STUPID TAXPAYERS. THAT'S ALL WE ARE HERE FOR JUST TO COLLECT MONEY. NOW YOU GUYS AREN'T THE ONLY ONES THAT WILL HEAR THIS. I'LL TALK TO THE COMMISSIONERS AND WITH THE BUILDING AND STUFF STUFF AND SPENDING HOURS UPON HOURS UPON HOURS UPON HOURS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT YOU ARE TRULY TRYING TO DO, WHAT YOU ARE WANTING FOR US TO NOT TO UNDERSTAND. YOU MAKE IT YOUR SURVEY MAPS COME UP ALL THE TIME THEY NEVER PUT DOWN STREETS. THERE'S ONE ON PINE AVE. YOU DIDN'T PUT PINE AVE DOWN. YOU DON'T HAVE A CLUE WHERE IT IS. THERE'S ANOTHER ONE WHERE ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT AN EASEMENT YOU WANT TO CHANGE. DO YOU MARK THE EASEMENT AND CHANGE IT SO I CAN UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU ARE TALKING? YOU DO NOTHING OF THAT. YOU MAKE ME TRY TO FIGURE OUT LONGITUDE AND LATITUDE AND FIGURE OUT WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO DO. YOU CAN'T EVEN SEE SQUAT OF WHAT IT IS. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU GUYS -- YOU MUST NOT ACTUALLY EVER LOOK AT ANYTHING BECAUSE THE OTHER DAY I READ -- THE OTHER DAY I READ THE 8073 PAGE ON THE STORMWATER EASEMENT THING. I DOUBT THE COMMISSIONERS READ ANY OF IT. AND THEY BUILT THE HOLD STUDY AND EVERYTHING BASED ON GLOBAL WARMING, CLIMATE CHANGE, TORRENTIAL RAINS. IF THEY KNOW ALL THAT STUFF THEN THEY SHOULD GET ON CHANNEL FOUR AND START PREACHING THE NEWS AND WEATHER BECAUSE THE WEATHERMAN HERE CAN'T GET ANYTHING RIGHT. BUT I NEED YOU TO MAKE STUFF SIMPLER FOR JUST THE STUPID UNEDUCATED PEOPLE THAT ALMOST HAD A MASTER'S DEGREE STANDING IN FRONT OF YOU AND UNDERSTAND IT. BECAUSE I CAME FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR NOT THE PUBLIC SECTOR -- NOT FROM THE GOVERNMENT SECTOR AND THE GOVERNMENT SECTOR FROM WHAT I AM SEEING IS YOU PARTIAL INFORMATION OUT AND MAKE IT CHALLENGING WHERE THE PEOPLE JUST GIVE UP TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE HECK YOU GUYS ARE TALKING ABOUT. SO THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT IN PUBLIC COMMENTS. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. PUBLIC COMMENT IS CLOSED. WE WILL GO TO THE PUBLIC HEARINGS. THE FIRST HEARING IS BOA260009. CAN WE GET STAFF TO GIVE US SOME HISTORY? >> THANK YOU. THE ZONING DIRECTOR. THE FIRST ITEM HERE IS 269 THE APPLICANT IS ROBERT DAKOTA MATHEWS, CODY. AND THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY IS 5823 PINE AVENUE. THE REQUEST BY THE APPLICANT IS TO ALLOW FOR PLACEMENT OF THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN THE FRONT YARD OF THE PARCEL IN THE R
ZONING DISTRICT. SOME AERIAL IMAGES. THE MAP ON THE LEFT IS THE CURRENT SITUATION WHERE THE HOUSE IS LOCATED PARK ON THE MAP ON THE RIGHT IS SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE WETLANDS IN RELATION TO THE BACK PORTION OF THE PARCEL. SOME BACKGROUND ON THIS ITEM. THE AAS LOT EXEMPTION, THE DETERMINATION WAS DONE AT THE TIME OF THE PARCEL PRIOR TO IT BEING SPLIT. THIS DETERMINATION INDICATED THAT APPROXIMATELY 0.75 ACRES OF WETLAND ARE PRESENT WHICH BISECTED THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE ORIGINAL PARCEL IN THE AREA OF THE SUBJECT PARCEL. THE APPLICANT DESIRES TO PLACE AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN THEIR FRONT YARD DUE TO SETBACKS WITH THE LOCATION OF AN UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK IN WETLANDS ON THE PARCEL. THEY'RE NOT PERMITTED ON THE FRONT YARD AND THAT'S WHY THEY'RE REQUESTING THE FRONT YARD. THE CONDITION FOR THE VARIANCE HAS REVIEWED THE ITEM AND PRESENTS COMMENTS BASED ON THESE VARIOUS CONDITIONS. THE FIRST BEING SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO THE LAND STRUCTURE OR BUILDING INVOLVED IN WHICH ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER LAND STRUCTURES OR BUILDINGS IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT. STAFF FOUND WETLAND DELINEATION AS WELL AS COUNTY WETLAND DATA INDICATE PRESENCE OF WETLAND ON THE WESTERN PARCEL. IT LIMITS THE ABILITY TO PLACE THE DESIRED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON THE REAR END OF THE PROPERTY. THE NEXT CONDITION THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT RESULT FROM ACTIONS OF THE APPLICANT. STAFF FOUND IT'S CORRECT. IT'S NOT A RESULT OF ACTION BY THE APPLICANT. THE THIRD ONE IS IT WILL NOT CONFER ON THE APPLICANT ANY SPECIAL PRIV PRIVILEGES AND STAF FOUND THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WILL CONFER ON THE APPLICANT PRIVILEGE DENIED TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE RA ZONING DISTRICT. HOWEVER SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST WHICH RESTRICT THE ABILITY TO PLACE THE STRUCTURE THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN THE REAR YARD. THE NEXT ONE IS THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION, THE PROVISIONS OF THE ORDINANCE WHICH DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT'S OF RIGHTS COMMONLY ENJOYED BY OTHER IN THE ZONING DISTRICT. THE RA ZONING DISTRICT RESTRICTS IT TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. THE PRESENCE OF THE WETLANDS AND THE REAR PORTION OF THE PROPERTY INHIBITS THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. THEREBY THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE NO OPTION FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON THE PARCEL BAR CODE THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE PARCEL WOULD DENY THEM OF RIGHTS COMMONLY ENJOYED BY OTHERS IN THE DISTRICT. THE VARIANCE GRANTED IS A VARIANCE THAT WILL MAKE POSSIBLE THE BENEFICIAL USE OF THE LAND BUILDING OR STRUCTURE. THE REQUESTED VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON THE PARCEL DUE TO VARIOUS CONSTRAINTS INCLUDING THE WETLANDS. AND FINALLY THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL INTENT PURPOSES OF THE ORDINANCES AND SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE OR THE AREA AROUND. STAFF FOUND THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT BE IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL INTENT PURPOSE OF THE CODE AND ALL PARCELS IN THE RA HAVE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE OF 30%. GRANTING THE VARIANCE SHOULD NOT BE INJURIOUS OR OTHERWISE DETRIMENTAL TO PUBLIC WELFARE. HOWEVER THE OFFICIAL LOT PUBLIC -- MAY ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT PARCELS. STAFF HAS A RECOMMENDATION IN THIS CASE. IT BELIEVES THE PRESENCE OF WETLANDS IN THE SOUTHEASTERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY PRESENTS SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER PARCELS IN THE RA ZONING DISTRICT. ULTIMATELY GRANTING THE REQUESTED VARIANCE WILL NOT BE MEETING ALL REQUIRED SETBACKS FOR THE PARCELS. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? >> ARE THERE PHOTOS? >> I BELIEVE THEY ARE IN YOUR STAFF REPORT. DIDN'T INCLUDE THEM IN THIS. I'M SORRY. BUT I DO HAVE SOME HERE. I CAN SHARE SOME WITH YOU. >> WHAT'S THE PROPOSED SIZE OF THE STRUCTURE? >> I'M SORRY. >> WE WILL GET THE APPLICANT IN A SECOND.
>> OKAY, ANYTHING ELSE? >> THE APPLICANT WOULD STEP UP, PLEASE. NAME AND ADDRESS? >> CODY MATHEWS. >> YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH THE WHOLE TRUTH NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? >> YES, SIR. >> TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON. >> BUILT THE HOUSE THE PAST YEAR. I USED TO WORK FOR THE CLAY COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE FOR ABOUT SEVEN YEARS. I APOLOGIZE. SO CLAY COUNTY NATIVE. I BUILT THE HOUSE. WE MOVED IN MEMORIAL DAY WEEKEND AND WE PUT IT IN FRONT AND HAD A PLAN TO BUILD A THREE CAR ENCLOSED GARAGE AND REALIZED I DIDN'T WANT TO SPEND THE MONEY. WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY INTENTIONS OF NOT FOLLOWING THE PROTOCOL THAT WAS NEEDED. WE FOUND OUT DURING THE PROCESS OF THE BUILD WHEN MY CO WAS BEING HELD THERE WAS AN ISSUE SO I TRIED TO START BACK AND SEE WHAT WE HAD TO DO THERE. ALL MY UNDERGROUND DRAINAGE RAN TO THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY. THERE WASN'T GOING TO BE ANY KIND OF RUNOFF TO ANY PARCELS NEXT DOOR FOR THE NEIGHBORS. TO GET MY CO TO MOVE IN I WAS REQUESTED TO TAKE THE ROOF OFF. PUT THE ROOF BACK ON AND KEEP THE STRUCTURE THERE. MY VEHICLE EVERYTHING UNDERNEATH IT. >> SO THE STRUCTURE WAS STARTED. I MEAN HELP ME UNDERSTAND. I SEE THE PICTURES AND THE FRAME. >> IT'S THERE ON THE ROOF. >> THE STRUCTURE WAS DONE DURING THE COURSE OF THE STRUCTURE. ONCE THE HOUSE WAS DONE WE TRIED TO ISSUE A CODE TO GET IN. REQUEST THE CEO TO MOVE IN. WE FOUND OUT IT WAS NOT PERMANENT AND THE CEO WAS HELD. THEY SAID YOU CANNOT MOVE IN UNTIL IT'S TORN DOWN. IT WAS RECOMMENDED I TEAR THE ROOF OFF. >> SO THERE WAS NO PERMIT ISSUE. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. AND NOW IF AND I'M JUST SAYING IF, IF THIS WAS APPROVED YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND MAKE THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT HAPPY WITH WHATEVER ELSE YOU NEED TO DO PERMIT WISE TO FINISH -- >> THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING SIR. >> HAVE YOU TALKED TO BUILDING? ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL INSPECTIONS YOU HAVE TO DO? >> THERE'S NOT. THEY HAVE ENGINEERS ON COURSE, EVERYTHING I'M BEING TOLD. SATISFIED ON THE DEPARTMENT BUILDING SIDE AND FOR THE VARIANCE. >> DOESN'T LOOK HIGHER THAN YOUR HOUSE RIGHT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> LET ME ASK A PROCEDURAL QUESTION. I HAVE TWO SPEAKER CARDS FOR THIS ONE. DO WE COMPLETE TALKING WITH THE APPLICANT AND THEN WE GO TO THE SPEAKERS? OKAY, JUST CHECKING. OKAY, ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? >> DO YOU WANT TO HAVE A SEAT FOR A SECOND? MISS SOBERS? CAN YOU GIVE AN ADDRESS? >> MY NAME IS LINDA, 417 RIVER BIRCH LANE FLEMING ISLAND FLORIDA. WE LIVE RIGHT OFF PINE AVENUE. THE ONLY REASON I'M HERE IS BECAUSE WE WALK UP AND DOWN PINE AVENUE. WE DRIVE UP AND DOWN PINE AVENUE AND WE SEE THE ORANGE SIGN. BUT FOR THE PAST YEAR OR TWO WE HAVE WATCHED THIS HOUSE GO UP AND IT IS THIS BEAUTIFUL HOUSE. BEAUTIFUL LANDSCAPING COME A BEAUTIFUL FENCING. BEAUTIFUL GARAGE. I WAS SO DISAPPOINTED TO SEE THE ROOF COME OFF BECAUSE I THOUGHT MAYBE IT BLEW OFF. IT'S A LOVELY ADDITION TO PINE AVENUE. NO NEIGHBORS COME A REALLY CLOSE AROUND IT. IT LOOKS LIKE SOMEONE WHO THOUGHT OF A LOVELY HOUSE, A PLACE TO STORE ALL THE STUFF THAT'LL BE HIDDEN BY A BARN OFF TO THE SIDE. I'D LIKE FOR YOU TO CONSIDER APPROVING THAT JUST BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING OFFENSIVE ABOUT IT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE TO ADD?
OKAY. I ASSUME YOU DON'T WANT TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS BACK? ALL RIGHT. SO I WILL CLOSE THE HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO US FOR DISCUSSION. COMMENTS, ANY DISCUSSION, ANY MOTIONS, ANYTHING? >> WE'VE GOT NO OTHER CONCERNS. WE HOPE THE NEIGHBORS ARE OKAY WITH IT. IT APPEARS STAFF THAT THERE'S NO OTHER PLACE TO PUT IT. THE ALTERNATIVE IS THE BACKFILL WETLANDS WHICH WE DON'T WANT TO DO. >> WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? >> MOTION TO APPROVE. >> I HAVE A MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE. GOOD TO GO. >> AND WE GO TO PUBLIC HEARING FOR BOA26-0010. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THE APPLICANT FOR THE ITEM IS ANDREW PETIT. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY IS IN LIGHTS COVE. AND THE REQUEST IN THIS CASE IS TO ALLOW FOR THE REDUCTION OF THE FRONT YARD SETBACK IN THE RA ZONING DISTRICT FROM 40-FOOT SETBACK TO 25 SETBACK. IT'S AN AERIAL IMAGE OF THE SITE. IT'S ALREADY BEEN CLEARED I THINK. THE ONE IN YOUR STAFF REPORT DID NOT SHOW IT STILL HAD TREES. I THOUGHT THIS MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO SEE THIS SITE A LITTLE BIT MORE. THE BACKGROUND IS THAT THIS PARCEL IS LOCATED IN THE LAKESIDE ESTATES SUBDIVISION ACCORDING TO THE PLAT BOOK THREE PAGE SIX. THE PARCELS IN THE ARE A ZONING DISTRICT AND SECTION 3.16 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE WITH A MINIMUM SETBACK OF 15 FEET. THE OWNER IS SEEKING A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK BY 15 FEET. THE REASON FOR THAT IS TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO MOVE THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE FORWARD WHICH WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SPACE FOR THE BACKYARD TO INCLUDE THE PROPOSED AND THERE'S OVERHEAD POWER POWER LINES RUNNING ACROSS THERE OF CONCERN. THE CONDITION FOR THE VARIANCE, STAFFERS REVIEWED THIS AND THE FIRST CONDITION BEING SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO THE LAND STRUCTURE OR BUILDING INVOLVED. STAFF FINDS THAT THE POWER LINES RUNNING ALONG THE REAR POWER LINE ARE NOT PECULIAR. WE NEED TO CHANGE THE WORD. OR UNIQUE TO THE PARCEL. THE OVERHEAD POWER LINES ARE PRESENT FOR MANY PARCELS IN THE RA ZONING DISTRICT INCLUDING ALL ADJACENT PARCELS. NEXT CONDITION SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT RESULT OF THE ACTIONS OF THE APPLICANT. THE DESIRED REDUCTION IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK IS DUE TO THE DESIRE BY THE APPLICANT TO INCREASE THE SEPARATION BETWEEN THE POST POOL AND THE OVERHEAD POWER LINES. THE NEXT CONDITION IS GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT CONFER ON THE APPLICANT ANY SPECIAL PRIVILEGE BY THE ORDINANCE TO LANDS BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES. THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WILL CONFER ON THE APPLICANT PRIVILEGE DENIED TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE RA ZONING DISTRICT BY REDUCING THE FRONT YARD SETBACK BY 15 FEET. NEXT CONDITION IS THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION, PROVISONS OF THE ORDINANCE WHICH DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT OF RIGHTS ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT. STAFF FINDS THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD NOT DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT OF RIGHTS COMMONLY ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE RA ZONING DISTRICT. ALL PROPERTIES IN THE RA ZONING DISTRICT REQUIRE 40-FOOT SETBACK. NEXT CONDITION THAT THE VARIANCE GRANTED IS A MINIMUM VARIANCE THAT WILL MAKE A BENEFICIAL USE OF THE LAND BUILDING OR STRUCTURE. STAFF FINDS THE PARCEL CAN BE UTILIZED FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND ALLOWED UNDER THE RA ZONING DISTRICT WITHOUT THE REQUESTED VARIANCE. THE PRESENCE OF THE OVERHEAD POWER LINES ALONG THE REAR PROPERTY DOES NOT INHIBIT UTILIZATION OF THE PARCEL FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. THE CONDITION OF SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT BEINJURID OR OTHERWISE DETRIMENTAL TO THE WELFARE. STAFF FINDS THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT BE IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL INTENT AND PURPOSES OF CODE. ALL PARCELS IN THE RA ZONING DISTRICT REQUIRE A 40-FOOT MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK. THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE SHOULD NOT BE INJURIOUS OR OTHERWISE DETRIMENTAL TO PUBLIC WELFARE.
WITH THAT THE FINAL STAFF RECOMMENDATION STAFF FINDS THE REQUESTED VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE FRONT SETBACK FROM 40 FEET TO 2E PARCEL AND THE RA ZONING DISTRICT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. STAFF BELIEVES GRANTING OF THE REQUESTED VARIOUS WOULD CONFER ON THE APPLICANT A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE DENIED TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE RA ZONING DISTRICT AND WITH THAT STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE REQUEST TO REDUCE THE SETBACK FROM 40 TO 25 FEET. >> DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? >> CAN WE PUT THE PICTURE BACK UP? MAYBE JUST LEAVE THAT UP FOR DISCUSSION. QUESTION FOR STAFF. I WILL MENTION FOR WHATEVER REASON I'VE KNOWN HIM SINCE HE WAS BORN. >> THERE IS NO BIAS THOUGH. I PROMISE YOU THAT. THANK YOU COME ABOARD, FOR ALLOWING ME TO COME IN AND SHARE THIS WITH YOU. >> CAN YOU HOLD ON A SECOND? NAME AND ADDRESS. >> ANDREW PETIT, 1732 HOWARD COURT. >> DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH THE WHOLE TRUTH? >> I DO. >> CAN I GIVE THIS TO YOU? I HAVE A LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM ALL NEIGHBORS HERE AND I ALSO HAVE A SURVEY I'M SORRY. HERE IT IS. WELL. IN THERE YOU HAVE A LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM ALL NEIGHBORS, ALMOST ALL NEIGHBORS ON THE ROAD. WE PURCHASED THIS LOT IT'S ADJACENT TO WHERE I ACTUALLY LIVE ON DR. LAKE DRIVE AND SHORELINE. YOU WILL SEE THAT THERE ARE SOME NAMES ON THERE FROM THE NEIGHBORS ACROSS THE STREET. THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, MISS CARSON, WE'VE BEEN IN CONTACT BEFORE ABOUT THIS BECAUSE WE GOT OUR BUILDING LETTER BACK AND THEY SAID IT'S NOT A BUILDABLE LOT ALTHOUGH SOLD AS ONE. INSTEAD OF PULLING OUT OF THE DEAL WE ARE LOOKING FOR A HOUSE FOR TWO YEARS AND TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO WITH MY EXPANDING FAMILY. I DECIDED TO TRY AND TALK TO THE COUNTY AND SEE WHAT WE CAN DO TO KEEP THE LOT. SO WE DID AND WE CAME IN AND SAT DOWN AND REVIEWED THE PLAT BOOK AND FOUND A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT. I WANT TO THANK THE COUNTY ORIGINALLY FOR THAT. I'M HERE TODAY FOR THE VARIANCE. YOU'LL SEE THERE ARE SOME PICTURES THERE. NOT AS GOOD AS I'D LIKE THEM TO BE BUT THERE'S A POWER LINE ON THE BACK WITH THE IDEA OF BUILDING THE HOUSE TO CONFORM TO THE FITTING MY ENTIRE FAMILY. WE ARE LOOKING AT 40-FOOT FRONT SETBACK, THE HOUSE IS 63.5 FEET WIDE AND A 25-FOOT SETBACK WHICH WOULD LEAVE ABOUT 5 FEET OF THE DEEPEST POINT OF THE HOUSE AND THE 25-FOOT SETBACK AFTER LIVING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ADJACENT OF THE LOT SINCE 2018 AND WITH THE STORMS THAT HAPPENED LAST TUESDAY. I LOST THREE 3-4-FOOT DIAMETER OAK TREES IN THE BACK WITH A 30 MINUTE RAINSTORM. IN THE PICTURES YOU CAN SEE SOME 120 -- MAYBE A LITTLE BIT TALLER, PINE TREES. THE IDEA OF HAVING MY HOUSE FINALLY NOT HAVING TREES OVER IT I'M EXCITED ABOUT BUT THE IDEA THAT I CANNOT TRIM UNTIL MY NEIGHBOR TAKES DOWN THE 120-FOOT 5000-6000 DOLLAR TREE. I'D LIKE TO HAVE THE HOUSE FURTHEST AWAY FROM THE LARGE TREES AND POWER LINES. I DO WANT TO PUT A POOL IN THE BACKYARD FOR MY THREE LITTLE CHILDREN BEING IN IT. AND 25 FEET WOULD BE THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE EDGE OF THE POOL AND THE POWER LINE. WHEN YOU STAND ON THE GROUND AND MEASURE OUT 25 FEET AND LOOK AT THE POWER LINE IT DOESN'T REALLY SEEM LIKE 25 FEET. IT SEEMS A LOT CLOSER. THE TRANSFORMER ON THE POLE ALSO IS KIND OF CONCERNING TO ME AS WELL BECAUSE IF THE POLE WERE TO FALL OR SNAP OFF THE GROUND WITH THE STORMS WE HAVE SEEN IN THE AREA WE GET A LOT OF BAD DOWNED TREES. I THINK THE TRANSFORMER COULD REACH THE HOUSE IF I DO NOT GET THE VARIANCE I'M LOOKING FOR. THOSE ARE A COUPLE OF CONCERNS THAT I HAVE. I'VE TALKED TO ALL THE NEIGHBORS. NO ONE'S CONCERNED ORIGINALLY WHEN I LOOKED AT THE LOT I WANTED TO TURN THE HOUSE SIDEWAYS AND FACE IT TO THE STREET. BY DOING THAT I THINK MY NEIGHBORS WOULD HAVE BEEN UNHAPPY BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE LOOKED TERRIBLE BECAUSE YOU CAN SEE IN THE PICTURES THE HOUSE BEHIND IT IS ACTUALLY TURNED SIDEWAYS ON THE LOT AND YOU CAN SEE THE WHOLE SIDE OF THE HOUSE. I THOUGHT THAT THEY WOULD BE BETTER TO POSITION THE HOUSE AWAY THAT IS SET -- THERE'S A SITE PLAN ON THERE. I'VE PUT THE BLUE DASHED LINES
TO SHOW YOU WHERE THE POWER LINE IS. OVERALL I THINK IT'D MAKE THE HOUSE MUCH SAFER AND THE YARD MUCH SAFER AND THE PROPOSED POOL MUCH SAFER. FOR MY FAMILY AND I. THIS IS HOUSE I PLAN TO BUILD AND STAY IN FOR THE NEXT 25 AND 30 YEARS. I'D LIKE IT TO BE DONE BEST WAY POSSIBLE AND THE RIGHT TIME FIRST TIME I GET TO DO IT. >> I THINK THAT'S IT FOR ME. >> I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THEE IS R-B ZONING JUST ACROSS WHERE YOU CAN THROW A BASEBALL TO IT. RA ZONINGS RIGHT THERE OFF OF DOCTOR'S LAKE DRIVE AND RIGHT ONCE YOU GO OVER THE RED RIDGE TRACKS. OFF OF DOCTOR'S LAKE. THAT'S ALL R-V ZONING AS WELL. OUT OF BEING ESTHETICALLY PLEASING, YOU'RE PROBABLY NOT GOING TO SEE TOO MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE. THE HOUSE IS ACROSS THE STREET FROM WHERE I'M GOING TO BUILD. WHERE WE ARE LOOKING TO BUILD. THE LOT LINE EXTENDS ALL THE WAY OVER THE STREET AND GOES ABOUT 3-4 FEET ONTO WHAT YOU'D CONSIDER MY PROPERTY FROM THE ROAD BUT IT'S NOT MY PROPERTY. WE HAVE A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT SO NO PROBLEM GETTING OUT OF THE DRIVEWAY AND PUTTING UTILITIES BUT ESTHETICALLY PLEASING ALL THE OTHER HOUSES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ROAD LOOK IF YOU RAN THE SETBACK FROM THE FRONT STRUCTURE TO THE SIDE ROAD IT LOOKS MORE LIKE 20-25 FEET. I'VE MEASURED A COUPLE OF THEM UNDER 40 FEET LOOK BUT THE PROPERTY LINE GOES FURTHER THAN WHAT THE ROAD SHOWS. >> OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS? I. KNOW WHEN I LOOKED AT THE AERIALS BEFORE THE POSITION OF THIS HOUSE REALLY IS NOT MUCH DIFFERENT THAN THE POSITION OF THE HOUSES ACROSS THE STREET AS FAR AS HOW CLOSE THEY ARE. AS FAR AS THIS ONE IS. WHAT'S ON THE SIDE OF THE LEFT AND RIGHT SIDE OF THIS? >> OKAY, IF YOU'RE STANDING AT THE ROAD LOOKING AT THE HOUSE ON THE RIGHT SIDE THERE'S ANOTHER NEIGHBOR THERE BUT THERE'S A WOODED AREA ABOUT 3-4 ACRES. IT GOES ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE LAKE AND THEIR HOUSES ON THE LAKE. I ACTUALLY PURCHASED THIS LOT FROM THEM. TO THE LEFT IF YOU'RE STANDING LOOKING AT THE HOUSE TO THE LEFT IT'S A EMPTY VACANT LOT. AND THERE IS A NAME ON THERE SPENCER DRAPER. HE RECENTLY PURCHASED THE LOT ADJACENT TO ME AND IS LOOKING TO POSSIBLY BUILD A HOME IN THE NEXT COMING YEARS. HE HAS SIGNED OFF ON THE IDEA OF IT SO MY ADJACENT NEIGHBORS ON THE FRONT AND THE SIDE, THE ONE SIDE I WOULD HAVE ALL UNDERSTAND AND AGREE AND SIGNED THE LETTERS OF SUPPORT. EVERYBODY CONTACTED ME ONCE THE SIGN WENT UP AND I TALKED TO THEM BEFOREHAND ABOUT IT. GETTING THEIR IDEAS BECAUSE IT WAS GOING TO GET SHUT DOWN BEFORE SUBMITTING IT. I DIDN'T WANT TO DO IT BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHERE -- WHAT I WANTED TO DO. EVERYBODY ON THE STREET SEEMS TO BE IN SUPPORT OF IT AS WELL. >> QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY. I WILL CLOSE THAT. SIT DOWN, WE WILL DISCUSS AMONGST OURSELVES. DISCUSSION AMONGST OURSELVES. >> SO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY IS BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO EXPECT THE SAME CONSIDERATION IN THE FUTURE? >> WELL, THEN THEY WOULD ALL LOOK THE SAME AND BE CONSISTENT. IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY'RE CONSISTENT WITH THE ONES ACROSS THE STREET. >> THE OTHER ONES THAT SOLD THE PROPERTY SO HE'S ALREADY THERE. IT WOULD JUST BE THE ONE ON THE ONE SIDE. >> YOU HAVE 10 FEET FROM THE HOUSE TO THE POOL. >> COME ON BACK UP. >> THE SIDE PLANE YOU ARE SEEING IS THE PROPOSED LOOK AFTER THE VARIANCE. I WAS KIND OF BACK AND FORTH. WE SET IT UP WITH WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE OR AFTER. FOR $400 YOU CAN GET THE PICTURE FROM THE ENGINEERING WHICH IS WHAT I HAD TO PAY TO GET THAT LITTLE PICTURE RIGHT THERE. SO EVEN AFTER THEY DID MY HOUSE PLANS AND EVERYTHING. SO I GUESS THAT ASPECT IS WE WANTED TO SHOW WHAT IT WAS GOING TO LOOK LIKE INSTEAD OF IF YOU MOVE IT BACK 15 FEET. IT REALLY DOES NOT DO IT JUSTICE. THAT LOOKS REALLY NICE THERE. EVEN AFTER I SAW THIS AND I WENT OUT THERE WITH A ROLLER AND TAPED IT AND EVERYTHING. IT LOOKS A LOT CLOSER EVEN WITH THE VARIANCE IN THE BACKYARD IT LOOKS CLOSER. SO THAT'S WHY I'M LOOKING FOR
THE 15 FEET. IF I THOUGHT I COULD HAVE GOTTEN AWAY WITH FIVE OR TEN, THEN I WOULD HAVE GONE FOR THAT. BUT I'VE SPENT A LOT OF TIME WALKING AROUND THE LOT AND STAKING THE HOUSE OUT AND LOOKING AT DIFFERENT WAYS I COULD DO IT. THIS TO ME IS THE BEST OPTION AND I PROBABLY SPENT COUNTLESS HOURS OUT THERE. YES, MA'AM. I. KNOW YOU WERE QUESTIONING THE NEXT NEIGHBOR THINKING MAYBE GETTING THE SAME THING. I DON'T KNOW THAT. I KNOW SPENCER DRAPER. I PLAYED TEE BALL WITH HIM OF ALL THINGS. THE LOT THAT IS UP FROM THAT IS OWNED BY THE SUTTONS. I DO NOT BELIEVE THEY ARE GOING TO BUILD ON IT. THEY HAVE TO TAKE DOWN ABOUT 30 TREES. MR. DRAPER AND I ARE IN TALKS OF TRYING TO TALK WITH THEM TO PURCHASE THE OTHER HALF ACRE LOT UP THERE TO KEEP IT AS A BUFFER. WE HAVE THREE SMALL CHILDREN. HE HAS TWO SMALL CHILDREN. WE ARE LOOKING TO KEEP THE WOODED LOT UP FRONT WHICH IT HAS A VERY STEEP INCLINE ON IT BUT WE ARE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT A WAY WE CAN PURCHASE THAT AND THEY'RE AN OLDER COUPLE. THEY HAVE A HOUSE RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER AND THEY'RE IN THE DECISION OF DO WE WANT TO BUILD AND TAKE THIS ON OR DO WE WANT TO GO AHEAD AND SELL IT AND TRY TO PURCHASE THAT AT SOME POINT TO KEEP THE BUFFER BETWEEN US AND THE ROAD? OUR HOUSES ARE GOING TO BE THE TWO HOUSES. FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE I WOULD ASSUME. >> I THINK I HEARD SOME HESITATION ABOUT REDUCING IT. >> I MEAN I GUESS I WAS TRYING TO SEE IF I COULD KIND OF COMPACT THAT TO HELP WITH THE SETBACK A LITTLE BIT ON THE FRONT. >> YOU'RE PUSHING TO REDUCE THE FRONT SETBACK. >> THERE'S ALSO A 10-FOOT EASEMENT OR I GUESS I SHOULD SAY RIGHT OF WAY FOR THE ELECTRICAL COMPANY. THEY'VE HAD IT MOWED PREVIOUSLY. IT'S NOW GROWN BACK UP BUT IF YOU STAND AT THE TOP OF THE ROAD AND SEE WHERE THEY'D BE ABLE TO DRIVE A TRUCK DOWN WITH A BUCKET TRUCK IN THAT AREA. THE TREES COME DOWN. THE POWER LINE IS RECENTLY JUST STOOD BACK UP BECAUSE IT WAS LEANING AT ABOUT A 45-DEGREE ANGLE ON THE FRONT END WHICH IS KIND OF ADVANCES MY CONCERNS ABOUT EVERYTHING. THE TRUCKS WILL NEED TO BE ABLE TO DRIVE ON THE EASEMENT EACH SIDE OF THE POWER LINE. THEY CAN DRIVE A TRUCK DOWN THERE. EVEN IF IT WERE TO BUILD A POOL AND PLAN TO PUT THE POOL IN THERE MY PAPER DECK OR POOL DECK COULD ONLY GO SO FAR BECAUSE I HAVE TO STAY. FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND THE POOL DECK CAN GO INSIDE THE 25-FOOT SETBACK BUT I HAVE A 10-FOOT INSIDE THAT WHERE I CANNOT DO ANYTHING STRUCTURALLY AND I DON'T PLAN TO DO ANYTHING STRUCTURALLY. THE IDEA OF MAKING IT SO CLAY ELECTRIC CAN DRIVE A TRUCK THROUGH MY BACKYARD AND WORK ON THE POWER LINE AT ANY GIVEN TIME BECAUSE I'D LIKE TO HAVE AIR CONDITIONING AND POWER AND ALL THAT STUFF. SERIOUSLY, DOCTORS LAKE DRIVE WE HAVE STORMS AND IT'S LIKE THAT. THE 30 MINUTE RAIN THE OTHER DAY TOOK DOWN HALF OF THE TREES IN MY BACK YARD AND THEY WERE NOT SMALL AND I NEVER THOUGHT THEY WERE GOING TO GO AWAY. WE GET AFFECTED BY STORMS REALLY BAD. SO THE WHOLE THOUGHT PROCESS OF THIS. I WANT THEM TO TAKE THE LINE CREWS AND DRIVE ALL THE WAY DOWN THE BACK YARD AND KEEP IT OPEN FOR THEM. I DON'T WANT ANYTHING NEAR THAT IN THAT ASPECT EITHER. SO MOVING EVERYTHING FORWARD IS JUST KIND OF WORKING WITH AND KEEPING IT EASIER AND BETTER FOR THEM TO ACCESS THE POWER LINE. AND I'VE ASKED CLAY ELECTRIC. THERE'S NO INTENT TO PUT IT UNDERGROUND AT ANY GIVEN TIME. THAT'S NOT A HIGH PRIORITY. YEAH, THAT'S NOT HAPPENING. THEY PUT NEW POLES ACTUALLY SO IT'S FURTHER DOWN THE PRIORITY. >> DO YOU HAVE AN INTENT TO BUILD AN ENCLOSURE AROUND THIS? >> NO, SIR, I DO NOT. YEAH, IT'S TOUGH. IF HE HAS IT HIS WAY I WILL HAVE ONE. I HAVE NOT SPOKEN TO MY WIFE ABOUT THAT. IF I DO PUT UP AN ENCLOSURE I SHOULDN'T SAY THAT. IT HAS TO BE FOUND IN THE BUDGET, LET'S PUT IT THAT WAY. THIS IS ALREADY OUTSIDE THE BUDGET. >> I WAS THINKING ABOUT LONG METAL POLES WITH SKIMMERS ON IT TURNING PERPENDICULAR. HIGH VOLTAGE LINES. >> THREE SMALL CHILDREN IN THE POOL. >> I'M NOT A BIG FAN OF REDUCING SETBACKS, ESPECIALLY SETBACKS
HOWEVER I THINK THERE'S A VALUED SAFETY CONCERN. I DON'T HAVE A POSITION TO GAUGE THAT FROM HERE. >> IT'S A VERY LARGE HOUSE. >> THAT'S TRUE. I THINK IT'S 32, 3027. YES. LIKE I SAID OUTSIDE THE BUDGET ALREADY. WE LOSE A 2000 SQUARE HOUSE WITH THREE CHILDREN AND I'VE HAD A CHILD IN MY BEDROOM FOR THE PAST THREE YEARS. THIS IS A VERY BIG STEP FOR OUR FAMILY. IT'S SOMEWHERE I WANT TO LIVE FOR THE NEXT 20 YEARS SO I REALLY WANTED TO BE WHERE I WANT TO STAY FOR 20 YEARS. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> USUALLY IN MY PAST EXPERIENCE HERE AND THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS THE CHAIR DOES NOT MOTION. I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S A REASON WHY. >> I'M SORRY. OH, WE WILL CLOSE THIS AND BRING IT BACK -- WELL WE DID THIS, WE CLOSED IT AND BROUGHT IT BACK TO US AND WE HAD QUESTIONS FOR YOU. DO A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ONE. ANYBODY OUT THERE HAVE A COMMENT ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR -- YES, SIR? COME ON UP. YOU CAN GET YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. >> I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR I'VE NOT KNOWN HIM FROM BIRTH AND I HAVEN'T KNOWN YOU SO WE ARE CLEAN THERE. WHAT I WANT TO SAY IS THIS GROUP, YOUR COMMITTEE IS HERE TO LOOK AT EXCEPTIONS. NOT EVERY DAY OCCURRENCES. AND THAT MEANS EVERY DAY OCCURRENCES FOLLOW THE SAME LINE. WHEN EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES COME UP THEN THERE ARE VARIANCES THAT YOU NEED TO LOOK AT AND THAT'S WHAT THIS GENTLEMAN IS TRYING TO DO. I DON'T HAVE KIDS NOW. I DON'T WANT POWER LINES LIKE THAT NEXT TO A POOL PERIOD. AND I KNOW A LOT OF TIMES THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN CLAY COUNTY DON'T GET A CHOICE WHEN THE GOVERNMENT COMES THROUGH AND TAKES SOMETHING LIKE RUSSELL ROAD AND MAKES IT FOUR LANES. THEY DIDN'T HAVE MUCH OF A CHOICE IN THAT AND NOW THEIR SETBACKS ARE A LOT DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THEY USED TO BE. IN THIS INSTANCE I SEE NOTHING OF REAL NOT A REAL PROBLEM BECAUSE IT'S AN EXCEPTION TO A RULE. IT'S NOT A COMMON DAY OCCURRENCE. YOU DON'T COME ACROSS THESE EVERY DAY, EVERY MEETING. IF YOU DID THEN I WOULD BE COMING AT IT -- YOU'D BE COMING AT IT FROM A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE OF NO, NO, NO BECAUSE WE ARE SEEING TOO MANY OF THESE. FROM MY STANDPOINT I WOULD AGREE. IT'S NOT A BIG PROBLEM BECAUSE IT IS ONE AND HE HAS NUMEROUS ISSUES THAT SHOW THAT. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. >> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? FROM THE PUBLIC SEEING NONE, WE WILL CLOSE THAT. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? >> MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. >> I WILL SECOND. >> I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. YOU ARE APPROVED. AND WE GO ON TO -- [LAUGHTER] WE GO ON TO PUBLIC HEARING FOR BOA 26-0012. >> SORRY, THANK YOU. >> YOU ARE ALL WELCOME TO STAY BUT THE OTHERS, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO. IT IS UP TO YOU. >> OKAY, SO THIS PROPERTY THE APPLICANT IS KEYSTONE VILLAGE SQUARE. THE AGENT FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER IS MICHAEL HERZBERG. THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY IS 7380 ESTATE ROAD ONE KEYSTONE. THE REQUEST IS TO ELIMINATE THE PERIMETER BUFFER REQUIREMENTS AND ALLOW FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS AS THEY ARE NOW TO REMAIN. THERE'S AN AERIAL IMAGE OF THE PROPERTY. SOME BACKGROUND ON IT. THIS PARCEL THIS SITE HAS EXISTED AND BEEN IN PLACE SINCE THE LATE 1980S. THE FORMER SHOPPING CENTER WAS NOT OPERATIONAL MORE THAN SIX MONTHS. WITH THAT THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE REQUIRES NEW DEVELOPMENT UNDERGO REVIEW IF IT HAS NOT BEEN OPERATIONAL FOR A SIX MONTH PERIOD.
THIS NEW REVIEW IS REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE CURRENT STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS IN PLACE AT THE TIME OF THE NEW SUBMITTAL. THE LANDSCAPE BUFFERING REQUIREMENTS IN PLACE WITH THE COMMERCIAL USE DO NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF ARTICLE SIX SECTION 85B. WHICH WAS ADOPTED IN 2003. SIGNIFICANTLY LATER THAN WHEN THIS WAS DEVELOPED. THE NEW SHOPPING CENTER USAGE WILL NOT BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE STANDARDS IF THE FORMER SHOPPING CENTER HAD NOT CEASED OPERATIONS FOR OVER SIX MONTHS. THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTING TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR THE PERIMETER BUFFER AND NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CURRENT STANDARDS. WITH THAT, STAFF HAS REVIEWED REGARDING HARDSHIP. IN THIS CASE, THE CONDITION FOR VARIANCE FIRST IS SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES EXIST TOWARD THE PECULIAR LAND STRUCTURE OF THE BUILDING WHICH ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER LAND STRUCTURES OR BUILDINGS. THIS SITE AND STAFF FOUND THAT THIS SITE HAS BEEN THE LOCATION OF THE SHOPPING CENTER FOR SEVERAL YEARS ALONG WITH THE PRESENT PERIMETER BUFFER CONDITIONS. THERE IS NO OTHER SPECIAL CONDITIONS WHICH ARE PECULIAR TO THIS SITE WHICH ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO OTHER PROPERTIES WITHIN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT. THE NEXT CONDITION THAT THE SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT RESULT FROM THE ACTIONS OF THE APPLICANT. STAFF FOUND THE EXISTING PERIMETER BUFFER HAS BEEN IN PLACE SINCE THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE. THE NEXT CONDITION THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED WILL NOT CONFER ON THE APPLICANT ANY PRIVILEGES DENIED BY THESE ORDINANCES TO OTHER LANDS, BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES. STAFF FOUND THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WILL CONFER THE APPLICANT APPROVAL PRIVILEGE DENIED TO OTHER PROPERTIES BY ELIMINATING THE PERIMETER BUFFER REQUIREMENT. NEXT CONDITION THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT OF RIGHTS COMMONLY ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT. THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. ALL PROPERTIES IN THE ZONING DISTRICT REQUIRE A 20-FOOT TYPE B BUFFER. THE REQUIRED BUFFER DOES NOT DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT FROM OPERATING A NEW RETAIL ESTABLISHMENT ON THE SITE. NEXT CONDITION THAT THE VARIANCE GRANTED IS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE WILL MAKE POSSIBLE BENEFICIAL USE OF THE LAND PART OF THE PROPERTY STAFF FOUND THAT THE PROPERTY CAN BE UTILIZED AS A SHOPPING CENTER. CONSISTENT WITH THE PRESENCE ZONING DISTRICT REGARDLESS OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE. THE ELIMINATION OF THE TYPE B PERIMETER BUFFER HAS NO BEARING ON THE SITE FOR USE OF RETAIL. NEXT CONDITION, THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL INTENT AND PURPOSES OF THE ORDINANCE AND SUCH VARIANCE WILL NOT BE INJURIOUS TO THE AREA INVOLVED OR DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE. STAFF FOUND THAT GRANTING THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT BE IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE CODE. THE BUFFERING REQUIREMENT IS TO SEPARATE USES FROM EACH OTHER AND INTENDED TO MINIMIZE NOISE, LIGHTS AND SCREEN BUILDINGS. THE EXISTENT BUFFER HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR SEVERAL YEARS AND RESIDENTIAL USES HAVE GROWN ACCUSTOMED TO THE USES. THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE SHOULD NOT BE INJURIOUS OR OTHERWISE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC WELFARE. WITH THAT, STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE REQUEST TO ELIMINATE THE REQUIREMENT OF THE TYPE B PERIMETER BUFFER ALONG WITH PROPERTY BOUNDARIES FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES. >> I HAVE QUESTIONS. OKAY, SO THE WAY THE CODE READS THAT IF THE SHOPPING CENTER ITSELF IS CLOSED. LOOKING AT IT, THERE IS MORE THAN ONE TENANT THERE I AM SURE. DO THEY ALL HAVE TO BE NOBODY IN IT FOR THAT TO TAKE PLACE? >> IT'S BEEN APPLIED BASED ON THIS PORTION OF THE SHOPPING CENTER. IT WOULD APPLY FOR JUST THIS USE, JUST THIS ONE. EVEN THOUGH THERE HAVE BEEN OTHERS OPEN. WE'VE LOOKED AT IT BASED ON THE PARTICULAR SPACE THAT'S BEING LOOKED AT RIGHT NOW. >> OKAY. I GUESS WE CAN STAY AND TALK ABOUT THAT ONE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ALL RIGHT. MR. HERZBERG, IF YOU WOULD COME A NAME AND ADDRESS PLEASE. >> MIKE HERZBERG, 12483 ALADDIN ROAD IN JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA. 32223. >> YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH THE WHOLE TRUTH? >> I DO SO, SIR.
>> GOOD EVENING, MEMBERS COME AND THANK YOU AGAIN FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THIS PROJECT WITH YOU. I'D LIKE TO THANK KELLY HENRY OF THE STAFF HERE AT THE ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MANAGER AS WELL AS STEVE SCHAFF, THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. BOTH OF THEM HAVE WORKED ALONG WITH THE NEW TENANT FOR THE SPACE WINN-DIXIE. THEY IN THE EMAILS NOTE THE EXCITEMENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF THIS GROCER RETURNING TO THIS AREA. THE BUILDING OFFICIAL PUT IN HIS EMAIL THAT HE WAS ANXIOUS FOR THIS TO OPEN TOO BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T HAD A GROCER HERE WHICH HAS FORCED HIM TO DRIVE ALL THE WAY TO MIDDLEBURG FOR GROCERIES. OBVIOUSLY THE TENANT COMING INTO THIS SPACE IS REALLY PROVIDING A SERVICE TO ALL IN THE COMMUNITY. AS STEF STATED, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS ORIGINALLY DEVELOPED IN 1989 AS A SHOPPING CENTER. IT HAS CONTINUALLY OPERATED MR. CHAIRMAN COMING TO YOUR POINT, AS A SHOPPING CENTER. IT HAS NOW CEASED TO EXIST AS A SHOPPING CENTER BUT INDEED A TENANT DID VACATE THE SPACE. THE LARGEST SPACE WHICH IS THE GROCER. YOUR QUESTION WAS TO MY POINT EXACTLY. THE USE HAS NEVER VACATED HERE. IT'S BEEN A SHOPPING CENTER. TENANTS COME AND GO. THE ANCHOR TENANT IN THIS CASE. THE GOOD PEOPLE FROM WINN-DIXIE DECIDED TO RELOCATE IN THIS SPACE AND THE COUNTY HAS BEEN WORKING VERY, VERY WELL WITH THEM TO GET THIS IN AND WORK THROUGH SOME OF THE DEFICIENCIES ON THE PROPERTY. BUT IT'S IMPORTANT AND I DO WANT TO KEEP IN YOUR MIND AS WE GO THROUGH THIS THE PERIMETER BUFFER WILL BE REPLACED AND INSTALLED FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE LANDSCAPE MATERIAL. WHAT'S REALLY A QUESTION HERE AND WHAT THE VARIANCE IS ALL ABOUT IS A FENCE ALONG THE SOUTH END EASTERLY PROPERTIES. THERE WAS NO FENCING REQUIREMENT IN PLACE AT THE TIME OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SHOPPING CENTER. THERE HAS BEEN NONE SINCE. AS A MATTER OF FACT AS WE GO THROUGH THIS HANDOUT YOU WILL SEE THE VEGETATION HAS REALLY KIND OF GROWN IN TO SCREEN THE PROPERTY. IF I MIGHT TO THAT POINT, IF YOU LOOK AT PAGES 4 AND 5 A REALLY QUICK TIMELINE OF DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA TO DEMONSTRATE THE AREA. THERE YOU HAVE THE AERIAL IMAGE IN 1994. THE CENTER IS UP AND RUNNING AND THERE'S NO OUTPARCELS. THE DEVELOPMENT TO THE EAST WHICH IS A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION IS THERE PART OF THE DIRT ROAD IS THERE. THE DIRT ROAD CONTINUES EVEN FURTHER SOUTH THAN IT DOES TODAY. THE LATE 1990S, MCDONALD'S IS BUILT YOU CAN SEE THAT IN THE SECOND PHOTO POPPING UP AS A OUTPARCEL IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER. THAT'S AN AERIAL FROM 2002 WITH THE PERMIT DATA SHOWING MCDONALD'S COMING IN THE LATE '90S. IN 2006 THE CITY OF KEYSTOE BUILDS A WAREHOUSE ON THE PROPERTY IMMEDIATELY TO THE SOUTH. THEY ALSO IMPROVE THAT AREA BEHIND THE WAREHOUSE TO WHAT THEY CALL NOW SUNRISE PARK IN 2009. IN 2013 BACK TO THE SHOPPING CENTER AUTOZONE IS BUILT AND IN 2015 AS YOU NOTICE OVER THERE TO THE FAR RIGHT THE BLUE ROOF SPARKLED THE CLAY COUNTY COOPERATIVE SIGNIFICANTLY EXPANDS AND INTENSIFIES THEIR SITES. THEY HAVE NUMEROUS PROPERTIES OUT HERE, NUMEROUS AREAS WHERE THEY ARE STORING SOME OF THE GREEN BOXES THAT YOU SEE COME AT THE ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS. OTHER HEAVY EQUIPMENT AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE ARE STORED BACK ON THE PROPERTIES BACK THERE. WHILE THE PROPERTY OWNER DID REMOVE SOME VEGETATION, ALL PLANT MATERIAL AS REQUIRED HAS OR WILL BE REPLACED AS PER COUNTY DIRECTION. IT WOULD NOT BE AFFECTED BY THE TERMS OF THE VARIANCE. THE APPLICANT AGAIN AS I SAID HAD WORKED WITH STAFF BUT DID NOT SEE THE BENEFIT OR THE REAL NEED FOR IMPLEMENTING A SCREENING IN THIS CASE, A FENCING THAT HAS NOT BEEN THERE FOR ALMOST 40 YEARS AND REALLY IN OUR OPINION SHOULD NOT BE THERE OR REQUIRED TO BE THERE BASED ON THE FACT THE USE HAS NEVER CEASED JUST ONE OF THE TENANTS AS WE HAVE DISCUSSED. IF I CAN TAKE YOU TO PAGES SEVENTHTRAN AND 8 OF THE HANDOUT I JUST WANT TO SHOW THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES. SO THE PICTURE ON PAGE SEVEN IS LOOKING AT THE EASTERLY PROPERTY BOUNDARY WHERE THE FENCE WOULD HAVE TO GO. BELIEVE IT OR NOT THERE'S ABOUT FIVE LOTS, FOUR OR FIVE LOTS ALONG THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY. THERE IS A ROAD THAT GOES DOWN THERE AND YOU CAN SEE ON THE SITE PLAN IT'S A ROAD THAT BELONGS TO THE SHOPPING CENTER PARK OF THE RESIDENTS HAVE PUT GATES OUT TO AND USE THAT AS ACCESS TO THEIR HOMES. IF WE WERE FORCED TO PROVIDE THE SCREENING REQUIREMENTS, THE FENCE WOULD GO UP AND EFFECTIVELY BLOCK THEM FROM UTILIZING THE ACCESS POINTS. THEY'D BE FORCED TO GO BACK OUT TO THE DIRT ROAD THEIR COMMUNITY HAS BEEN SERVED ON FOR MANY YEARS. THE THREE SORT OF SILVER DASHES I PUT IN THERE ARE THE ACCESS POINTS THE RESIDENTS ARE USING TO GET ONTO THE PAVED ROADWAY. AGAIN THAT WOULD BE COMPLETELY SEALED OFF IF WE WERE FORCED TO INSTALL THE FENCING MATERIAL. ALSO I'D LIKE TO NOTE THE EXISTING VEGETATION. CLEARLY YOU ARE NOT SEEING RIGHT INTO THEIR HOMES. THERE WAS SCREENING AND THERE WILL BE MORE VEGETATION ADDED TO THE BOUNDARY. AS A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF VEGETATION THAT BLOCKS THEIR VIEWS INTO THE CENTER AT THIS POINT. I WOULD ASK YOU TO FINALLY LOOK AT THE NEXT PAGE WHICH IS ACTUALLY A VIEW FROM THE BACK OF THE SHOPPING CENTER TOWARD THE CITY PROPERTY.
THE CITY OF KEYSTONE'S PROPERTY. THAT IS THE WAREHOUSE YOU CAN SEE IN THE FOREGROUND. IT PROBABLY DID NOT SHOW UP TOO WELL IN THE COPIES. BUT THEY ARE STORING BUCKET TRUCKS, TRACTORS, BACKHOES, OTHER MATERIALS ALL BEING STORED JUST OFF THE SOUTH PROPERTY BOUNDARY. WE'D EFFECTIVELY BE REQUIRED TO SCREEN OURSELVES FROM WHAT THE CITY IS USING AS A STORAGE LOT. IT JUST DOES NOT SEEM TO MAKE SENSE IN THAT REGARD. I INCLUDED A PICTURE OF SUNRISE PARK WHICH EXISTS TO THE SOUTH OF THE COUNTY BUILDING RIGHT THERE, THE CITY BUILDING EXCUSE ME. THERE ARE NO VIEWS INTO THE SHOPPING CENTER FROM THE PARK. AS A MATTER OF FACT I'VE GOT AN AERIAL -- A. GRAPHIC IMAGE INCLUDING SHOWING THE PARK IS SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER. AS YOU ARE IN THE PARK YOU CANNOT SEE UP AND SEE THE SHOPPING CENTER AT ALL. YOU CAN SEE SOME OF THE STORIES ON THE CITY PROPERTY BUT NOT THE SHOPPING CENTER AND THAT'S THE PICTURE INTENDED AT THE BOTTOM OF THAT. I RECOGNIZE I HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL, SO IF YOU WILL ALLOW I'D LIKE TO GO THROUGH THOSE CRITERIA AND DEMONSTRATE HOW I BELIEVE WE ACTUALLY MEET THOSE. OBVIOUSLY THE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES. I BELIEVE THEY DO EXIST IN RELATION TO THE APPLICATION. SPECIFICALLY THE PROPERTY AGAIN BEING LONG DEVELOPED PRIOR TO THOSE STRINGENT LANDSCAPE STANDARDS. AGAIN IT'S MY POSITION THAT THEY SHOULD BENEFIT AND BE ABLE TO ENJOY THE BENEFIT OF THE LAWFUL NON-CONFORMING STATUS HAVING CONTINUED OPERATIONS. AND AGAIN PLEASE FOCUS ON FENCING THE ISSUE HERE BEING FENCING AS IT RELATES TO FENCING WE BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES. THE TOPOGRAPHY THAT I REFERENCED. IF YOU LOOK AT PAGE 6, YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE THE DIFFERENCE IN THE TOPOGRAPHY I HAVE CIRCLED IN RED UP THERE. THERE'S ABOUT A 6-FOOT DROP AS YOU ENTER THE PROPERTY ON THE PARCELS ADJACENT TO THE EAST WHERE THE HOUSING IS. IF I WAS TO PUT A 6-FOOT FENCE ON THAT SIDE OF THE ROAD IT WOULD BE DOWN IN THE DITCH. YOU WOULD NOT SEE THE FENCE. YOU'D BE LOOKING RIGHT OVER THE TOP OF THE FENCE. THERE'S MATURE VEGETATION IN THE AREA THAT BLOCKS OR SCREENS VIEWS INTO THAT BUT AGAIN THE SUDDEN CHANGE IN TOPOGRAPHY IN THE EXTENT OF THE CHANGE OF THE TOPOGRAPHY WOULD NEGATE THE BENEFIT OF EVERYTHING. AND THAT RUNS ABOUT MAYBE A THIRD OF THE DISTANCE INTO THE SITE AS IT IS CIRCLED THERE. I INCLUDED THE BUILDING LINE TO GIVE YOU AN AREA SO YOU UNDERSTAND THE BACK OF THE SHOPPING CENTER WOULD BE AND THAT'S WHERE THE RED LINE IS THERE. AS TO THE EXISTING CIRCUMSTANCES BEING RESULT OF THE ACTIONS OF THE APPLICANT, AGAIN THE APPLICANT HAS NOT CEASED OPERATION OF THE SHOPPING CENTER, ONLY A TENANT DID. THE CENTER HAS CONTINUED TO OPERATE FOR 37 YEARS BUT THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA CHANGING LITTLE AS YOU SAW THE AERIAL IMAGERY WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE CLAY COUNTY UTILITY AUTHORITY. THE APPLICANT DID NOT TEAR DOWN THE CENTER OR REDEVELOP THE PROPERTY WHICH WOULD CLEARLY CREATE REQUIREMENT FOR THE FENCING AND SCREENING BEING ASKED FOR. FINALLY THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED WILL NOT CONFER ON THE APPLICANT A SPECIAL PRIVILEGE. IT'S A VERY INTERESTING QUESTION. FIRST OF ALL THE CRITERIA RELATES TO STRUCTURES OR BUILDINGS IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT. THIS IS THE ONLY PROPERTY THAT ZONE B. SC IN THE AREA. EVERYTHING IS EITHER GOVERNMENT OR SINGLE FAMILY AROUND AS WE'VE SHOWN THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE. IT'S A LITTLE DIFFICULT TO COMPARE FOR THE ZONING DISTRICT. I WOULD ASK YOU TO INSTEAD CONSIDER OTHER USES AND ACTIVITIES IN THE VICINITY BEING FAR MORE INTENSIVE. THE CITY STORAGE AREA, THE CLAY COUNTY STORAGE. THE CLAY ELECTRIC STORAGE. OTHER EQUIPMENT STORAGE. THOSE ARE THINGS THAT TYPICALLY ZONING CODE LOOKS TO SCREEN AND PROVIDE OR PROTECT FROM VIEWS INTO. FROM A PLANNING PERSPECTIVE IT'S APPROPRIATE TO INCENTIVIZE OR EVEN CONSIDER PROMOTING THE REUSE OF EXISTING SHOPPING CENTERS SUCH AS THIS. NOT TO BURDEN THEM WITH ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS. THE PROBLEM BEING THAT IF A DEVELOPER LOOKS AT THAT AND SAYS IF I HAVE TO DO ALL THAT I WILL BUILD A NEW SHOPPING CENTER DOWN THE ROAD AND LEAVE THIS IN YOUR COMMUNITY. FROM THE PLANNING PERSPECTIVE AND I BEING AN ACP AND AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PLANNERS, I RECOGNIZE THE NEED FOR CONFORMITY WITH REGULATIONS BUT I ALSO REALIZE THE BENEFIT OF WORKING WITH COMMUNITY PARTNERS TO REVITALIZE EXISTING COMMERCIAL SITES WHICH IS WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE. THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF SPECIFIC SCREENING STANDARDS WOULD IN FACT DEPRIVE THE APPLICANT OF RIGHTS CURRENTLY ENJOYED BY OTHER PROPERTIES, SPECIFICALLY THE CITY OF KEYSTONE'S PROPERTY BEHIND US WHERE STORAGE IS OCCURRING OUTDOORS WITHOUT ANY SCREENINGS. AGAIN THE CLAY COUNTY UTILITY AUTHORITY WHERE CONSIDERABLE AMOUNTS OF HEAVY MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT ARE STORED WITHOUT ANY FENCING. IT'S A UNDUE HARDSHIP UPON THE OWNER TO IMPOSE THE ADDITIONAL SCREENING STANDARDS WHEN CLEARLY THEY'RE NOT IMPOSED ON THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. I HAD ALREADY REFERENCED IT AND I'LL SAY IT ONE MORE TIME IN LIEU OF THE DEVELOPER JUMPING TO A NEW SITE. IT WOULD MAKE SENSE TO CONSIDER RELAXATION AT THIS STANDARD OF THIS SPECIFIC INSTANCE. THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS INDEED
THE MINIMUM NECESSARY TO MAKE BENEFICIAL USE OF THE PROPERTY. THE INTENDED LANDSCAPE PLAN ATTACHED IN YOUR PACKETS DEPICTS SIGNIFICANT REPLANTING WHICH COMBINED WITH THE EXISTING MATERIALS AND PLANT MATERIALS ALONG PROPERTY LINES AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS WE HAVE DISCUSSED IN RELATION TO ELEVATION CHANGES AND THE LIKE PROVIDES MORE THAN ADEQUATE BUFFERING. FOR THE NEIGHBORS AND THE ADJOINING PROPERTIES AS STAFF PUT COME TO EXPECT OR COME TO ACCEPT THE CONDITIONS AS THEY EXIST. SCREENING CAN BE ACHIEVED IN NUMEROUS WAYS AND SOMETIMES FENCES CAN BE MORE OF A PROBLEM THAN A BENEFIT. VEGETATION IS SOMETHING THAT IS SOFTER AND TRANSITIONS FROM PROPERTY TO PROPERTY. IT'S HARD SCAPE, IT IS NOT SOFT OR REALLY ENCOURAGING THE TRANSITION BETWEEN THE USES AS PLANT MATERIAL IS. WE BELIEVE THE PLANT MATERIAL CARRIES THAT. I WILL WRAP UP HERE WITH GRANTING THE VARIANCE WOULD BE IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL INTENT OF THE APPLICABLE ORDINANCES AND WOULD NOT BE INJURIOUS TO THE AREAS INVOLVD. UNDER SECTION 61 OF THE LOCAL CODE, THE INTENT OF THE LANDSCAPE REGULATIONS IS TO PROTECT THE GENERAL WELFARE ENHANCING THE APPEARANCE OF THE COMMUNITY RESULTING IN A DEVELOPED ENVIRONMENT THAT IS IN HARMONY WITH THE SURROUNDING NATURAL ENVIRONMENT. AGAIN, PLANT MATERIAL ITSELF DOES THAT. WALLS BECOME PROBLEMATIC AND BECOME INDUSTRIAL IN NATURE WHEN THEY'RE UP AGAINST SOMEONE'S PROPERTY LINE AS IT WOULD BE HERE. FURTHERMORE IN THIS CASE THE INSTALLATION OF THE FENCING WOULD CUT OFF THESE PEOPLE FROM THE USE OF THIS DRIVEWAY ACCESS THAT THEY'VE BECOME ACCUSTOMED TO. WITH THAT I WILL GLADLY STAND BY FOR ANY QUESTIONS. EXCUSE ME. >> [LAUGHS] >> I HAVE A QUESTION, MIKE, IF YOU GO TO PAGE 9. >> YES, SIR. >> THE YELLOW LINE, IS THAT WHERE THE VARIANCE IS REQUESTED THE YELLOW LINE? >> , THAT IS WHERE STAFF WAS RECOMMENDING THE FENCE TO BE LOCATED. OBVIOUSLY I THINK THE PROPERTY OWNER WOULD BE WELL GUIDED TO SAY IF THE FENCING WERE REQUIRED IT SHOULD BE ON THE OTHER SIDE. FROM THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT SIDE WHICH I DO AS MY DAY JOB, IT'S DIFFICULT TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON ON THE OTHER SIDE PART OF THE COMMERCIAL INSURANCE, COMMERCIAL LIABILITY IS EXTREMELY LITIGIOUS IN NATURE. THE SHOPPING CENTER ITSELF CAN'T SEE WHAT'S HAPPENING ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE ON PROPERTY THEY OWN THEY'RE STILL LIABLE FOR WHAT OCCURS IN THAT AREA. I WILL TELL YOU THAT THE LANDOWNER WOULD BE BEST SERVED BY EITHER MOVING IT TO THE OTHER SIDE AND UNFORTUNATELY THOSE PEOPLE NOT HAVING THE FENCE AT ALL. >> THIS IS THE SECTION OF THE PROPERTY WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. >> YES, SIR. >> I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT IT'S ON THIS SIDE AND THAT SIDE OF THE TREE IS. >> YES, SIR. >> THE AREA YOU ARE REQUESTING. >> THE YELLOW LINE IS THE AREA WE ARE REQUESTING NOT TO HAVE TO PUT THE FENCE. >> MR. CHAIR, CAN I ADDRESS THIS FOR A SECOND? >> SURE. >> BECAUSE I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR WHAT THE PERIMETER BUFFER WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE. IT'S BEING STATED THAT IT REQUIRES A FENCE, IT DOES NOT REQUIRE A FENCE. IT REQUIRES THAT THERE BE A 20-FOOT SPACE, A GAP WITH A 6-FOOT VISUAL BARRIER, THE 6-FOOT VISUAL BARRIER CAN BE A COMBINATION OF THINGS. IT CAN BE 6-FOOT SHRUBS AT THE TIME OF PLANTING OR EXISTING SHRUBS. IT COULD ALSO BE A FENCE OR A BERM OR IT COULD BE ANY COMBINATION OF THOSE. SO IT IS A 6-FOOT VISUAL BARRIER BUT IT DOES NOT REQUIRE IT TO BE A FENCE. I JUST WANT THAT TO BE CLEAR. THERE'S BEEN SOME CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE APPLICANT TO TRY TO DISCERN WHAT THE ACTUAL REQUEST WAS. BUT I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT. >> IT REQUIRED IN ALL ADJACENT LAND USES OR RESIDENTIAL. >> IT'S JUST ADJACENT TO THE RESIDENTIAL. THAT'S WHERE THE 20-FOOT BUFFER IS REQUIRED. >> OKAY. ANY COMMENTS FOR THE APPLICANT? >> I HAVE SEEN THIS AREA. HOW MUCH ACTUAL TRAFFIC HOW MUCH ACTUAL USE IS THERE FOR THE RESIDENCE? I'VE BEEN BY THIS PROPERTY AND IT LOOKS LIKE THOSE ARE ALL EITHER ABANDONED OR NOT USED FROM THAT SIDE. >> THROUGH THE CHAIR, THERE ACTUALLY LIVED IN. I'VE BEEN OUT HERE THREE TIMES TO THE PROPERTY AND FULL DISCLOSURE I WORK FOR A GROUP THAT'S ACTUALLY LOOKINGTHIS PROPERTY. BUT THE PROBLEM IS THEY DO USE THAT. UNFORTUNATELY YOU CAN'T SEE IT IN THE PHOTOS I'VE DONE THERE BUT I CAN ASSURE YOU IF YOU GO OUT THERE TODAY, THE OTHER DAY I WAS OUT THERE, THE GATE IN THE CENTER WAS WIDE OPEN. THE GATE AT THE END NORMALLY
STAYS CLOSED BUT I DO SEE TRAFFIC COMING IN AND OUT OF THOSE AT LEAST IT SEEMS TO BE THE TIMES I'VE GONE. >> ANY COMPLAINTS FROM THE NEIGHBORS? >> NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE. >> SO THE AREA -- THE PROPOSED WINN-DIXIE. I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CODE SAYS. AT THE FAR END. THAT IS THE ONE THAT HAS NOT BEEN USED. AND THE SHOPPING CENTER WHEN IT WAS BUILT MET THE LAWS AND THE RULES AT THE TIME. EVEN THOUGH THIS ONE AT THE FAR END, THE OTHER END IS GETTING A NEW ONE. NOW THE RULES MAKE IT SAY YOU'VE GOT TO GO AND BRING THIS UP TO CODE. WHETHER IT IS FENCE, OPAQUE SHRUBBERY, SO FORTH AND SO ON. PARKED OVER BY THE AUTOZONE WOULD BE A DITCH. THE OTHER PARTS COULD BE HARMFUL TO THE APPLICANT. NO, TO THE RESIDENTS. MAYBE IN AND OUT TO A POINT. >> I ALSO FEEL LIKE IF THERE'S GOING TO BE A MORE TRAFFIC COME OUT PROBABLY COMING DOWN THAT ROAD TO GET TO THE WINN-DIXIE. IF I WERE LIVING ON THAT SIDE I PROBABLY WOULDN'T WANT THAT BARRIER AND I WOULD WANT TO BE ABLE TO SEE. THEY'D PROBABLY HAVE CAMERAS AND STUFF SO I WOULD WANT THAT. IF I WERE ON THAT SIDE. >> I DON'T REMEMBER. WE HAVE NO COMMENTS FOR THE APPLICANT. I WILL CLOSE THAT -- HERE WE GO. COME ON. COME ON UP. WOULD YOU LIKE A COPY -- WE HAVE AN EXTRA. >> NO, NO, I THINK I TRIED TO UNDERSTAND BECAUSE HE TALKS SO FAST. AND THE INDUSTRY I CAME FROM I WAS IN THE CORPORATE OFFICES OF A COMPANY LIKE PUBLIX UP NORTH. HE TO ME IS A VENDOR. WHEN YOU TALK THAT FAST AND THAT MUCH, WHAT ARE YOU HIDING? AND THE THING I WOULD LIKE TO SAY. SOME OF THE QUESTIONS YOU NEED TO ASK IS IT'S NOT ABOUT THE FENCING SO MUCH AS -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S IN THE BUILDING BEFORE. BUT PLACES LIKE AUTOZONE, THEY DON'T GET DELIVERIES THAT OFTEN. I DO BELIEVE KEYSTONE HEIGHTS -- I DON'T LIVE THERE. BUT I DO KNOW THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE A GROCERY STORE. I'M IN FAVOR OF THE GROCERY STORE. BUT I'M REALLY WANTING THE VENDOR COMMUNITY OR THIS GENTLEMAN TO ACTUALLY MAKE THINGS CORRECT. I DON'T THINK THE PEOPLE DOWN THERE ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING TO CHANGE. THE VOLUME THAT'S GOING TO BE COMING IN THERE IS SEMI TRUCKS. COULD BE COMING IN MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT, 5:00 A.M. IN THE MORNING, 9:00 P.M. AT NIGHT AT ALL HOURS OF THE DAY. DURING THE DAY YOU GET TONS OF DSD VENDORS ON AN ONGOING BASIS IN THE BACK. WHICH DIRECTION ARE THE SEMIS COMING INTO? AND EVERY TIME A SEMI BACKS UP, I HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT NOISE THEY MAKE. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A LOT MORE ACTIVITY BACK THERE THAN HAS EVER BEEN THERE BEFORE OR IF ANYONE REMEMBERS. DO THEY DESERVE A. WINN-DIXIE? ABSOLUTELY. DO THEY NEED MORE PROTECTION? THESE ARE THE QUESTIONS YOU NEED TO START FINDING OUT ON WHAT HE AND WINN-DIXIE ARE REALLY GOING TO DO. IS SHRUBBERY GOING TO PROTECT THEM FROM ALL THAT NOISE THAT'S COMING FROM THAT AREA NOW? I DON'T THINK IT WILL. UNLESS THEY DO OTHER THINGS TO ABATE OR GET RID OF THAT NOISE. THOSE ARE THE QUESTIONS THAT REALLY NEED TO BE ADDRESSED TO WHERE YOU SAY WHAT CAN HE DO? WHAT ARE THEIR PLANS? AND HAVE THEM COME BACK TO DO THAT. I STILL THINK WINN-DIXIE NEEDS TO BE THERE BUT I DON'T THINK ANY DOWN THERE TRULY UNDERSTANDS THE TRAFFIC CHANGES THAT ARE GOING TO HAPPEN BEHIND THAT BUILDING. AGAIN, WHAT IS THERE NOW IS NOTHING COMPARED TO COKE SHOWING UP, PEPSI, BREAD COMPANIES COME A REGULAR DELIVERIES COME A FROZEN, DAIRY, MEAT PRODUCE COMING INTO THIS AT ALL HOURS OF THE DAY. YOU NEED TO WORK OUT A SCHEDULE IN ADVANCE WITH WINN-DIXIE TO SAY OKAY, BETWEEN THESE HOURS ARE THE ONLY TIMES -- THIS ALL NEEDS TO BE MADE UP BEFORE YOU SAY LET'S GO BECAUSE NOTHING IS
IN WRITING FROM THEM YET ON ANY OF THIS. YOU HAVE NOT APPROVED -- IS HE GOING TO PUT UP A FENCE? HE HASN'T SAID POSITIVELY A BARRIER HERE OR ANYTHING. HE'S JUST SUGGESTING THINGS THEY'LL DO. YOU APPROVE THIS, YOU'VE GIVEN HIM CARTE BLANCHE TO DO BASICALLY ANYTHING I CAN SEE. HE TALKS FAST SO I DON'T KNOW IF HE ACTUALLY DID COMMIT TO SOMETHING. BUT YOU REALLY NEED TO GET A MUCH FIRMER CONVERSATION WITH HIM AND HE'S ALREADY STANDING UP WAITING FOR ME TO LEAVE. [LAUGHTER] BECAUSE I'VE DEALT WITH VENDORS MY ENTIRE LIFE. AND IF YOU DON'T GET IT ON THE FRONT END YOU ARE IN DEEP, DEEP TROUBLE. AND THAT'S WHERE YOU GUYS ARE. YOU ARE TREADING WATER BECAUSE THEY DO NEED A STORY. THAT IS PERFECT. BUT I UNDERSTAND THE CHANGES THAT THESE PEOPLE HAVE NO CLUE THAT'S COMING. AND HE MAY OR MAY NOT KNOW. HE WORKS FOR WINN-DIXIE, HE HAS AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT'S COMING WITH DELIVERIES COMBAT TRAFFIC, EVERYTHING. WOULD YOU AGREE? SEE? THANK YOU. >> MIKE, JUST A SECOND BEFORE YOU TALK, I THINK IT WOULD HAVE BEEN HELPFUL FOR YOU TO HAVE REALLY SAVED THIS WINN-DIXIE AS UP HERE. THAT'S WHERE IT'S GOING. THE AREA AND THEN THERE IS ALL THE OTHER SHOPS THAT ARE ALREADY THERE. THIS WAS A OTHER GROCERY PREVIOUSLY. THEY CAN'T HEAR YOU. THEY ARE NOT CLOSE TO EACH OTHER. THE ENTRANCE TO WINN-DIXIE MOST PROBABLY WILL BE ALL OF THIS AREA. I WILL LET THE GROCERY ADDRESS SOME OTHER COMMENTS. >> PERSONALLY I'M NOT A VENDOR. I'M AN AMERICAN INSTITUTE EXCUSE ME, AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PLANNERS. THE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION. I'VE BEEN DOING ZONING WORK FOR ABOUT 35 YEARS. THE PROCEEDING WE'RE IN IS QUASI TRADITIONAL PROCEEDING WHICH MEANS WE ARE BASING EVERYTHING ON EVIDENCE. THE EVIDENCE THAT WE ARE PROVIDING IS FACTUAL, TESTIMONIAL, IT'S DOCUMENTARY OR. WE'VE PROVIDED ALL OF THAT TO SHOW YOU THAT THERE IS NO NEED FOR THE FENCING AT LEAST ALONG THE BOUNDARY THAT STAFF IS NOW SAYING BECAUSE WE WERE ORIGINALLY TOLD THAT STAFF WANTED IT ALONG THE SOUTH AND EASTERLY BOUNDARIES. I'M HEARING FROM STAFF THAT NO, IT SHOULD ONLY APPLY ON THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY AND I'D QUESTION FROM THE PHOTOS YOU HAVE SEEN THAT WE MAY ALREADY NMEET THAT IN WAY OF THE VEGETATION ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE. YOU CANNOT SEE THE HOUSES AND THE PHOTOS A LITTLE BIT DARK. AS TO THE TRUCK ROUTES, AGAIN, THERE WAS A GROCERY HERE ADDITIONALLY. HITCHCOCKS HAS BEEN HERE. THE TRAFFIC HAS COME IN AND OUT AS RECENTLY AS POSSIBLE AS SIX MONTHS AGO. THE REPORT WAS AS FAR AS THE CHANGE WHICH IS WHAT'S IMPOSING THE REGULATION. AGAIN AS I STATED EARLIER AND YOU PICKED UP MR. CHAIR, THE ENTIRE CENTER DID NOT CEASE TO OPERATE. ONE OF THE TENANTS DID. IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS THEY HAVE ADDITIONAL CRITERIA SUCH AS WHEN YOU ARE ADDRESSING MORE THAN 50% OF THE PROPERTY VALUE OR BUILDING VALUE, THEN THE REGULATIONS COME INTO PLAY. YOUR CODE DOES NOT HAVE THAT PERMISSION. THE CODE SIMPLY SAYS THE USE HAS TO CEASE FOR A. OF SIX MONTHS BEFORE THIS IS APPLICABLE. THE USE HAS NOT CEASED AND THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT ITS RELATION TO WHAT WE'VE PROVIDED. WITH THAT, I WILL STAND BY FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. >> MR. CHAIR, CAN I ASK ONE POINT OF CLARIFICATION. WHAT YEAR WAS THE ORIGINAL BUILDING BUILT? >> THE SHOPPING CENTER? 1989. >> THERE WERE STANDARDS IN 1985 AND IF I CAN READ THAT TO YOU, THEY ARE VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT THE STANDARDS ARE NOW. THE DIFFERENCE IS THE WIDTH OF THE BUFFER. THE BUFFER LINE AT LEAST AT 5 FEET IN WIDTH CONTAINING EITHER A BERM 2 FEET IN HEIGHT, A HEDGE, WOODEN FENCE, OR OTHER DURABLE SCREENING OR LANDSCAPING 6 FEET IN HEIGHT. IT GOES ON TO SAY IF THE BERMS UTILIZED ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING AND HEIGHT AT THE TIMING OF PLANTING WILL BE INSTALLED. THAT'S WHAT'S REQUIRED AT THE TIME IN '85. >> THE CITY ISSUED A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. DO YOU HAVE ANY COPIES OF THE CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY OR NOTICES OF VIOLATION BETWEEN 1985-1989 AND THIS PAST YEAR? >> I DON'T HAVE THAT. THE COUNTY CHOSE NOT TO IMPOSE THOSE REGULATIONS OR DID NOT SEE THE REGULATIONS -- THE VACATION HAS ONLY GOTTEN LARGER. YOU MIGHT NOT NEED THE FENCING. >> THE CODE AGAIN TODAY DOES NOT REQUIRE THE 6-FOOT FENCE. THAT'S ONE OF THE OPTIONS. IT CAN BE MET WITH VEGETATION OR A BERM OR A COMBINATION OF THE BERM, VEGETATION, OR A BERM AND FENCING OR A STRAIGHT FENCE. >> AND THEN WIDTH WOULD REALLY BE AN ISSUE. IT'S THE 20 FEET THAT CAN'T BE MET. I'M WORKING WITH THE LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT FOR THE PROJECT THAT PROVIDED ME THAT STAFF HAD SAID THERE HAD TO BE A 6-FOOT FENCE ALONG THE TWO BOUNDARY LINES AND WE HAD TO WAIVE THAT 6-FOOT FENCE. I'D FURTHER ALLEGE BASED UPON THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PROVIDED, YOU DO HAVE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SEE THEY'RE CURRENTLY MEETING THE SCREENING AREA ABOUT THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD NOT APPLY WOULD BE THE 20-FOOT WHICH CAN'T BE ACHIEVED BECAUSE THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY IS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO A DRIVEWAY THAT EXISTS WITH THE SHOPPING CENTER. >> OKAY. AS YOU KNOW I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THESE TYPE OF REGULATIONS. BUT I'M CONCERNED IF WE ARE MAYBE APPROVING OR DISAPPROVING SOMETHING THAT MAY NOT BE ACCURATE. IF YOU'RE UNDER THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE WAS A FENCE THAT'S REQUIRED IN THAT WHAT YOU WERE UNDER THE VARIANCE FOR. BUT THAT'S NOT REALLY THE CASE IT COULD BE A FENCE, IT COULD BE A LANDSCAPE. MAYBE YOU -- I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE, MAYBE YOU MEET IT ALREADY LOOKING AT THE VEGETATION. IN WHICH CASE WE ARE EARLY IN THE PROCESS WITH THIS. I DON'T WANT TO HOLD UP YOUR DEVELOPMENT. BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHATEVER HAPPENS, WE ARE PROCEEDING TO GET YOU OR AT LEAST TO ADDRESS THE CORRECT THING. >> AND I HAVE NOT ORIGINALLY SPOKEN WITH THE BUILDING OFFICIAL OR THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES MANAGER, THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR THE PROJECT WHICH WE WERE INSTRUCTED TO FILE THIS AT THIS SPECIFIC LANGUAGE FROM THE COUNTY WHICH IS WHY WE PROVIDED THAT. I GUESS I DEFER TO STAFF BUT I WILL ADVISE THAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL HAS GIVEN A 60 DAY TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR WINN-DIXIE. WE OBVIOUSLY HAVE TO ABIDE BY THAT AND GET THE REST OF THE PLANT MATERIAL IN. STAFF AGREES HERE TONIGHT, THE ISSUE BEING ORIGINALLY WAS SCREENING AND WE ARE ACHIEVING THAT SCREENING OR STAFF DOESN'T HAVE TO AGREE WE ARE ACHIEVING THIS SCREENING BUT WOULD STAFF CONCUR THAT SCREENING IS THE ISSUE IN THIS CASE AND IF THE DEVIATION OF THE VARIANCE WAS GRANTED WE'D BE MEETING THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT TO PROVIDE THE FINAL COE. >> I CAN'T VERIFY THE EXISTENCE OF WHAT'S OUT ON PROPERTY. BUT WHAT I CAN STATE IS THE 6-FOOT FENCE IS NOT A REQUIREMENT. THERE HAS TO BE SOME SORT OF 6-FOOT VISUAL BARRIER. IT CAN BE VEGETATION, YOU CAN UTILIZE EXISTING VEGETATION, YOU CAN SUPPLEMENT WITH PLANTING MATERIAL THAT IS 6-FOOT AT THE TIME OF PLANTING. THAT'S THE REQUIREMENT. IF THEY'D LIKE TO SUBMIT A LANDSCAPE PLAN THAT MEETS ALL OF THAT, WE CAN VERIFY IT IN THE FIELD, WE CAN DO A SITE VISIT AND VERIFY WHAT EXISTS MEETS THE 6-FOOT. BUT NONE OF THAT REQUIRES A VARIANCE BECAUSE THAT IS THE CODE. >> THROUGH THE CHAIR, IF I MIGHT THEN IF THE GROUP HERE TONIGHT DOES FIND THAT THERE IS NO NEED FOR ADDITIONAL SCREENING BASED UPON THE INFORMATION THEY HAVE SEEN AND THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE I'VE PROVIDED I BELIEVE WE WOULD IN FACT BE ABLE TO SUFFICE AND MOVE FORWARD AND OBTAIN THE FINAL COE. >> I'M CONCERNED THAT WE CAN'T -- WE CAN'T CONFIRM HERE THAT YOU ARE MEETING IT WITH SCREENING BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. THAT'S REALLY UP TO THE COUNTY TO SAY THAT MEETS IT OR THAT DOESN'T MEET IT. DOES A POSTPONEMENT OF THIS PROCEEDING HURT YOU? >> I THINK IT DOES IN THAT WE HAVE THIS 60 DAY TIMELINE BUT LET ME ACTUALLY IF I COULD ASK YOU COULD COME UP WITH WINN-DIXIE. YOU WORKED AT LENGTH WITH THE COUNTY STAFF. >> NAME AND ADDRESS PLEASE? >> HI, I'M KATHERINE, ST. JOHN'S FLORIDA. I AM WITH WINN-DIXIE. >> DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH? >> I DO. ABSOLUTELY. >> PLEASE. AS YOU CAN SEE, I AM CONCERNED THAT WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT WE ARE REALLY -- I'M PERPLEXED AS TO WHAT THE REQUEST IS. THERE'S A LOT OF MAYBES AND UNCLARITY HERE. I'D PREFER TO HAVE SOMETHING VERY DETAILED WITH WHAT WE ARE ACTUALLY DEVIATING FROM. GO AHEAD. >> THERE IS A LANDSCAPE PLAN. THE LANDSCAPE ENGINEER PROPOSES FOR A LOT OF TREES TO BE PLANTED. THAT'S WHAT THE LITTLE GREEN DOTS ARE ON THE MAP. AND THE INTENT IS TO GO AHEAD AND DO THAT. IT IS ONLY ADDING THE ADDITIONAL
BUFFER WHETHER IT BE A 6-FOOT FENCE OR SPENDING MORE MONEY TO GET 6-FOOT TALL TREES IN THERE. I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THAT. WHAT I DO KNOW IS THAT WINN-DIXIE IS A GREAT ASSET TO THIS COMMUNITY. WE AR NOT JUST A GROCERY STORE. AND I'M SURE THE GENTLEMAN WITH PUBLIX WILL SAY THE SAME THING. A GROCER IS NOT JUST A BUSINESS. THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY DO. THEY ENHANCE THE COMMUNITY. WE ARE VERY INVOLVED. WE GIVE MONEY TO SCHOOLS. WHEN THERE'S HURRICANES, WE GIVE FREE WATER. WE PROMOTE THINGS WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. WE ARE YOUR NEIGHBOR. AND EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN DONE TO THE SHOPPING CENTER TO DATE COME A NEW PARKING LOT WHICH WAS $300,000 -- I'M SORRY, IT CAME UP 275. LED LIGHTING. THAT WAS DONE. YOU KNOW, WINN-DIXIE HELPED COORDINATE IT. BUT RIGHT NOW WE ARE BEING HELD HOSTAGE BECAUSE WE WERE ONLY GIVEN A. TCO. 60 DAYS. GET THE LANDSCAPING DONE. IF YOU NEED A FENCE, GET IT DONE OR WE CAN SHUT YOU DOWN. THAT'S HOW IT CAME ACROSS. I AM HERE REPRESENTING WINN-DIXIE BECAUSE I DON'T SEE HOW A TENANT CAN BE HELD HOSTAGE FOR WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THE SHOPPING CENTER. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY MY CO HAS TO BE HELD OVER MY HEAD AND I'M ONLY GIVEN 60 DAYS TO TRY TO CONVINCE A LANDLORD TO DO WHAT HASN'T BEEN DONE FOR 40 YEARS. >> THANK YOU. I'M LOOKING AT THIS AND I SEE THESE TREES. LOOKING AT THOSE, IF I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S BEHIND -- WHAT IS BACK HERE. LOWER THAN THAT. THAT PLANTING RIGHT THERE WOULD IN NO WAY MAKE A BUFFER. IT JUST WOULDN'T. I REALIZE LOOKING AT THE PICTURES THERE'S OTHER THINGS BEHIND THERE. LIKE I SAY, WE ARE NOT SAYING WINN-DIXIE IS A BAD GUY. WE ARE NOT SAYING YOU HAVEN'T DONE GREAT STUFF THERE. IT'S JUST THAT I DON'T THINK WE ARE POSTURED -- I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THE RIGHT QUESTION YOU'RE ASKING US IN THIS VARIANCE REQUEST FOR A FENCE REQUIREMENT. THERE IS NO FENCE REQUIREMENT. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, OR WAS IT THE REQUEST TO DELETE -- >> I GUESS THAT WOULD BE TO THEM DO THEY WANT TO REQUEST NO BUFFER BE PLANTED OR WOULD THEY BE -- >> DO YOU WANT TO RESTATE YOUR REQUEST MAYBE? TO ACCEPT THE BUFFER WITH THESE ADDITIONAL TREES AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN. TO MEET THE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS PARTICULAR SECTION OF THE PROPERTY. HOW DOES THAT SOUND? >> EXACTLY CORRECT. YES, SIR. >> DO YOU HAVE THE LANDSCAPE PLAN WITH YOU? >> I ACTUALLY INCLUDED. I INCLUDED A LANDSCAPE PLAN THAT WAS STAMPED OFF AND APPROVED IN THE LAST MAJOR DOCUMENT IN 2023. I NEED TO PUT MY GLASSES ON AGAIN NOW. YOU WILL SEE THE CITY STAMP FOR WHICH THERE WAS NOTHING ALONG THAT SIDE OF THE BOUNDARY OF THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE. AGAIN, THAT'S WHY I THINK THERE IS CONFUSION HERE IS AT ONE POINT IT WAS APPROVED WITHOUT ANYTHING IN THAT AREA AND NOW THEY ARE TOLD WELL, NO, YOU HAVE TO HAVE THIS. I DON'T KNOW IF THE STAFF PERSON HERE TONIGHT WAS INVOLVED DIRECTLY HERE IN THIS OR IF SHE'S HELPING WITH THE STAFF REPORTS. BUT I THINK THE POINT AS YOU HAVE SAID, SIR. IF WE CAN STATE THAT THE SITE PLAN THAT IS SHOWN WITH THE LANDSCAPE MATERIAL WOULD BE IN LIEU OF ANY REQUIREMENT FOR ADDITIONAL SCREENING BEYOND WHAT IS SHOWN THERE. THAT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE. >> I THINK THAT'S WHAT NEEDS TO BE SAID. HOW IT'S VOTED AND WHERE IT GOES. WE WILL SEE.
OKAY. I DON'T KNOW IF I'M ALLOWED TO LET YOU TALK AGAIN. AM I ALLOWED TO LET OTHER PEOPLE COME UP AGAIN? COME ON UP. LET ME JUST MENTION TO OURSELVES HERE. SO WE DO HAVE A LANDSCAPE PLAN SHOWING PLANTINGS ALL ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE THERE. AND THERE'S ALSO THIS WAS DONE PREVIOUSLY I GUESS. IT SHOWS ALONG THE ONE OUTPARCEL THERE ARE TREES PLANTED. >> THE PLAN IS FROM 2024 I BELIEVE WAS BECAUSE OF A CODE VIOLATION BECAUSE TREES WERE REMOVED IN THE ABSENCE OF A LANDSCAPE PLAN. I BELIEVE THIS LANDSCAPE PLAN WAS IN '24 WAS PROVIDED TO ADDRESS THAT. >> OKAY. >> MY NAME IS LINDA SOBERS, 417 RIVER RIDGE LANE. I CAN SAY I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE AREA, I DON'T KNOW A LOT ABOUT THIS OTHER THAN IF YOU CAN GET A GROCERY STORE, A BUSINESS FILLING AN EMPTY BUILDING. DO WHATEVER YOU CAN TO GET THAT WORK TOGETHER TO GET THAT DONE. PLANT MORE TREES, MORE FLOWERS. WHATEVER YOU CAN DO TO GET A BUSINESS IN A EMPTY BUILDING. >> BELIEVE ME. I THINK I SPEAK FOR ALL OF US. WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WHATEVER WE DO IS IN THE RIGHT POSTURE AND THAT DOESN'T CREATE CONFUSION. >> YEAH, THIS STARTED VERY PERPLEXING. >> ALL RIGHT. SO WE ARE IN -- WE CLOSED ALL THE HEARINGS AND ALL THE COMMENTS. WE ARE UP FOR DISCUSSION AMONGST OURSELVES. >> A TWO WAS USUALLY EXTENDABLE. USUALLY THE CIRCUMSTANCES IF YOU NEED MORE TIME WITH THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. YOU NEED AN EXTENSION ON THE TWO. I KNOW THE GUY IN THE CITY OF JACKSONVILLE WAS GOOD ABOUT T THAT. >> I KNOW STEVE. I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY ARE WITH THAT. >> I DO THINK WE KNOW WHAT THE REQUEST IS. THE REQUEST IS TO ALLOW THE LANDSCAPING PLAN SHOWN HERE. ALONG WITH THE ADDITIONAL -- WHATEVER THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPING OF THAT OTHER DRAWING. ASSUMING THAT IS IN. THE ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING PLAN SHOWN WILL MEET THE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS IN THAT AREA. THAT'S THE QUESTION. >> CAN WE HIGHLIGHT THAT? I WOULD NOT WANT A FENCE THERE. I FEEL LIKE THAT WOULD BE A SECURITY CONCERN FOR THE NEIGHBORS IF THERE WAS A FENCE UP SO I PERSONALLY LIKE THE TREE. >> I AGREE. >> LANDSCAPE BETTER. >> I DON'T LIKE FENCES BECAUSE THEY REQUIRE MAINTENANCE AND THEY FALL DOWN AND LOOKING WORSE THAN NO FENCE. SO COULD WE GET A MOTION? >> I'LL DO A MOTION TO APPROVE. >> A CONDITIONAL APPROVAL BASED ON -- >> YEAH. >> AS THE APPLICANT, IF YOU WERE -- ARE YOU IN AGREEMENT WITH THE WAY WE SAID THAT? HE SHAKES HIS HEAD. YES, SIR. OKAY. DO WE NEED TO RESTATE SOMETHING? >> MOTION TO APPROVE THE LANDSCAPING. >> MOTION TO APPROVE THE LANDSCAPE PLAN AS SHOWN IN -- WAS SUBMITTED. TO BE APPROVED AS THE BUFFER -- >> APPROVED THE BUFFER LINE. IN THAT AREA OF THE PROPERTY. >> WITHOUT INCLUDING THE FENCE AS SHOWN IN THE YELLOW LINE. >> YOU DON'T NEED A FENCE. YOU JUST NEED A BUFFER LINE. >> ARE WE OKAY? >> WHAT DO YOU THINK? >> IS IT GOING TO TRANSLATE WELL? TO PAPER IS THE ISSUE. >> I THINK AS LONG AS THE LANDSCAPE PLAN IS IN EFFECT I WOULD APPROVE.
YES. >> YOU MADE A MOTION? >> A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE LANDSCAPE PLAN THAT WE SUBMITTED TODAY. DO WE HAVE A SIXTH VOTE? >> TO MEET THE BUFFER REQUIREMENT ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. >> OKAY. >> I DON'T THINK WE ARE MISSING ANYTHING. >> THIS IS WHERE THE YELLOW LINE IS. >> OKAY, I'M SORRY, EAST SIDE. >> OKAY. I WILL SECOND THAT. >> MOTION TO SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. >> AYE. >> AYE. >> THANK YOU. BOA 26-0012 HAS BEEN APPROVED. OKAY, NOW WE HAVE ANOTHER SECTION OF PUBLIC COMMENT. IF ANYONE HAS ANYTHING ELSE THEY WOULD LIKE TO SAY. >> [LAUGHS] >> NAME AND ADDRESS? >> I'M GLAD THAT WINN-DIXIE, YOU DO NEED IT THERE. BUT SITTING HERE, I STILL AM CONFUSED AS TO WHAT WAS REALLY AGREED TO. I KNOW YOU ARE LOOKING AT PLANS OF WHAT THE TREES ARE GOING TO BE IN LITTLE DOTS. BUT WHAT IS IT REALLY -- WHAT ARE THEY REALLY COMMITTING TO? AND I STILL EVEN WHEN YOU GUYS VOTED, YOU WERE STILL LIKE BECAUSE I KNOW YOU NEED A. WINN-DIXIE AND I UNDERSTAND THAT. I WOULD HAVE BEEN HAPPY TO GIVE THEM ANOTHER 30 DAYS ON EXTENSION TO GET A BETTER IDEA. MAYBE IF YOU HAVE PEOPLE DOWN THERE AND THERE SEEMS TO BE CONFUSION IN TERMS OF WHAT THE FAST TALKER WAS DOING AND HE'S A VENDOR REGARDLESS OF WHAT HIS EDUCATION IS BECAUSE HE'S TRYING TO SELL YOU SOMETHING. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. AM I GLAD IT'S GOING? YES. DO I WISH THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A BETTER DIRECTION WITH IT OR YOU WOULD HAVE LOOKED AT THE NOISE ORDINANCES THAT ARE GOING TO BE COMING. IF A GROCERY STORE RECENTLY CLOSED THEIR, THEY CLOSED FOR A REASON. NO VOLUME, NO MONEY. YOU DON'T GET AS MUCH. THIS IS GOING TO BRING A LOT MORE COMING AND THIS IS WHERE YOU SHOULD HAVE ADDRESSED MORE WITH WINN-DIXIE TO FIND OUT ORDINANCES IN TERMS OF NOISE AND HOW THEY ARE PLANNING TO DO DELIVERANCES AND STUFF. I DON'T THINK PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHAT'S COMING. I DON'T CARE IT'S ON THE OTHER SIDE. YOU CAN HEAR IT ALL. I'VE BEEN IN THE INDUSTRY LONG ENOUGH TO KNOW THE SOUNDS OF SEMIS BACKING UP. ALL THE THINGS ASSOCIATED WITH IT. BUT I'M GLAD THEY ARE STILL APPROVED. >> THANK YOU. >> NO OTHER